Trade in Middle and Late Bronze Age Transition at Megiddo: A Study of Imported Cypriot Pottery Brigid A. Clark THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER’S DEGREE University of Haifa Faculty of Humanities Department of Maritime Civilizations December, 2018 Trade in Middle and Late Bronze Age Transition at Megiddo: A Study of Imported Cypriot Pottery By: Brigid A. Clark Supervised by: Prof. Assaf Yasur-Landau Prof. Ruth Shahack-Gross THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFLLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER’S DEGREE University of Haifa Faculty of Humanities Department of Maritime Civilizations December 2018 Approved by: ____________________________________________ (Supervisor) Date: _18.9.2018 Approved by: _____________________________________________ (Supervisor) Date:_18.9.2018 Approved by: ______________________________________ Date:_10.12.2018 (Chairperson of Master's studies Committee) i Acknowledgments My foremost thanks goes to my dedicated advisors, Prof. Assaf Yasur-Landau and Prof. Ruth Shahack-Gross, who have provided me with more help than I could ever hope for. Prof. Yasur-Landau has spent endless hours educating and inspiring me, helping me to produce a body of work I never could have dreamed of. Prof. Shahack-Gross‘ immense knowledge and valuable input in the realm of micro-archaeology has helped me to create a work that can produly stand in the scientific community. Without their commitment and guidance, none of this would have been possible. I would also like to give a sincere thanks to Dr. Paula Waiman- Barak for her tireless dedication to the craft of petrography. The wonders she works with a microscope is truly inspiring, and I so appreciate her time spend educating me and assiting me with the Megiddo slides. Of course, my entire thesis would be non-exsistent without the hard work of Tel Aviv’s Megiddo team, led by Israel Finkelstein and Mario Martin. Zach Dunseth has also helped me with intpretation of Megiddo’s recording system and editing. I would also like to wholeheartedly thank Mario Martin for his assitance from the very beginning with the Cypriot assemblage, and his gift of many hours spent helping me. I am extremely lucky to have many friends and colleagues support me thorughout the duration of this work. I would be nothing without the help of my colleagues in the Labortory for Coastal Archaeology and Underwater Survey, with special mention to Udi Arkin-Shalev, Nicole Constantine, and Roey Nickelsberg for their patience, kindness, and advice. My colleages in the Labortory for Sedimentary Archaeology, including Zach Dunseth, Don Butler, Amanda Holdeman and Issac Ogloblin have provided me a massive amount of support. I would also like to thank the faculty of the Dept. of Maritime Civilizations and the Leon Recanati Institue for Maritime Sciences, particularily J.J. Gottlieb, Dina Zvielli, Amir Yurman, Moshe Bachar, and of course Laura Cohen, the backbone of the department. I also am extremely grateful for all the oppurtunities I have been given to excavate Bronze Age contexts, both in Israel and Cyprus. I’ve immenselsy enjoyed the education experience allowed to me at Kabri, Dor, and Hala Sultan Tekke, and those who allowed me this unprecedented access: Assaf Yasur-Landau, Eric Cline, Ilan Sharon, Ayelet Gilboa, Peter Fischer and Teresa Bürge. ii I would like to convey my appreciation to the Dept of Maritime Civilizations for granting me the Sir Mauirce and Lady Irene Hatter Scholarship, and to the Moriah Rotary Club for their financial support of my work. Finally, the largest thank you goes to my family, who have supported me through everything despite the distance, foremost being my mother, Lizanne Hendershott. iii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x 1. Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. Cyprus and the Levant in the Transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age ...... 1 Megiddo in the Transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages........................... 2 Aim and Research Questions ........................................................................................... 4 Research Methods ............................................................................................................ 5 SECTION I: BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 8 2. Chapter 2: Cypriot Trade in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages .............................................. 8 3. Chapter 3: Cypriot Pottery Production and Trade ................................................................. 12 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. Changes in Cypriot Ceramic Production ........................................................................ 12 The Trade of Cypriot Pottery: the Evidence of Shipwrecks .......................................... 13 Patterns of Cypriot Imports in Selected South Levantine Sites ..................................... 15 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 3.3.4. 3.3.5. Akko......................................................................................................................... 16 Tel Abu Hawam....................................................................................................... 17 Tel Nami .................................................................................................................. 18 Dor .......................................................................................................................... 18 Tell el-Dabᶜa ........................................................................................................... 19 3.4. Conclusions: Phases in the Export of Cypriot Wares during the MB-LB Transition and into the LB................................................................................................................................. 22 4. Chapter 4: Megiddo in the MB/LB .................................................................................... 24 4.1 History of Excavation ...................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Written Sources Relevant to the MB-LB Transition .................................................. 24 4.3 The Transition from MB to LB .................................................................................. 31 4.4 Chronology ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.1 High and Low Chronology ......................................................................................... 43 4.4.2 5 Megiddo’s Chronology ........................................................................................... 46 Chapter 5: Introduction to a Provenance Study of Bichrome Ware ...................................... 51 5.1 5.2 Rationale......................................................................................................................... 51 Geological Background .................................................................................................. 56 SECTION 2: ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 59 6 Chapter: Catalog ................................................................................................................ 59 6.1 Catalog of Drawn Vessels, Catalog A ........................................................................ 59 6.2 Catalog of Smaller Sherds, Catalog B........................................................................ 68 6.3 Functional Groups ...................................................................................................... 71 6.3.1 Open Vessels ........................................................................................................... 71 6.3.2 Closed Vessels ........................................................................................................ 72 6.4 Ware Typology and Chronology .................................................................................... 72 iv 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5 6.4.6 6.4.7 7 Base Ring ................................................................................................................ 72 White Slip Wares .................................................................................................... 74 Monochrome ........................................................................................................... 77 Red Lustrous ........................................................................................................... 77 Black Lustrous ........................................................................................................ 78 White Painted .......................................................................................................... 79 White Shaved .......................................................................................................... 80 Chapter 7: FTIR and Petrography of Bichrome Wares, Materials and Methods............... 81 7.1 7.2 7.3 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................... 81 Preparation of Samples for Analysis .......................................................................... 82 Laboratory Procedures ................................................................................................ 83 SECTION 3: Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................... 86 8 Chapter 8: Results of the Petrographic and Infrared Analysis of the Bichrome Sherds .... 86 8.1 8.2 8.3 FT-IR .......................................................................................................................... 86 Petrography................................................................................................................. 90 Discussion: Synthesis based on the two methods ....................................................... 93 9. Chapter 9: Discussion and Conclusions; the typology and chronology of the Cypriot Pottery from Megiddo ............................................................................................................... 94 4.3.4.1.1. 4.3.4.1.2. 4.3.4.1.3. Typology and Diachronic changes in imported Cypriot wares ....................... 94 Provenance studies of selected wares ............................................................. 97 Chrono-Stratigraphic Analysis and the establishment of relative chronology 98 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 102 Appendixes ................................................................................................................................. 110 Appendix A: Photos and Plate of Catalog A ........................................................................... 110 Appendix B: Photos of Catalog B ........................................................................................... 119 v Abstract Trade in Middle and Late Bronze Age Transition at Megiddo: A Study of Imported Cypriot Pottery Brigid A. Clark The transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Cyprus and the Levant is characterized by political and economic changes, occurring in conjunction with increased international trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Following this period, the exportation of Cypriot wares increases significantly. Excavations by Tel Aviv University at Megiddo, unearthed in the 2010–2014 season a large assemblage of Cypriot pottery, including more than 300 diagnostic sherds and vessels belonging to this transitional period. The aim of this thesis has been to understand the chronology and the extent of the Mediterranean maritime trade between Cyprus and Canaan, and how this transition manifests itself at the commercial and political hub of Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age III to the Late Bronze Age I (in Cyprus: Middle Cypriot III-Late Cypriot IA, 17th-15th centuries BCE). To achieve this aim, a chrono-typological study of the pottery assemblage was conducted to observe diachronic changes in imported Cypriot wares, as well as provenance studies of Bichrome wares by petrography and FTIR spectroscopy to determine local versus imported wares. In the study of Bichrome pottery, petrography was used in order to understand different temper types and provenance, and FTIR in order to understand firing temperature and bulk mineralogical composition. The results of the Bichrome analysis suggest an interesting pattern of consumption of the ware at Megiddo: Tankards, one of the most common Cypriot Bichrome wares, are lacking in Levantine assemblages, likely because of the strong Canaanite tradition of jug production, but Canaanite traditions are not so strung for Kraters and large mixing vessels. Cypriot wares, and even their imitations, would have been a more accessible alternative that fulfills the same functional need. The MB II-LB I transition occurs at Megiddo within the lifetime of Levels K-10 and H15. This transition can be also correlated with the chronology of the phases excavated by the University of Chicago, strata IX and VIII. These are characterized by continuation of Bichrome wares, RLWM together with the appearance of RLWM, BRI, and WSI. The stratigraphic data vi from these phases shows that this transition was rather eventless, as there are no traces of disruption or significant discontinuity beyond minor house rebuilds. The Cypriot pottery may provide additional data regarding the question of a potential temporary abandonment at the site during the transition between MB and LB and into LB I. Indeed the large number of complete vessels in Levels K-10, K-9, and H-14 may indicate continuous habitation of the site rather than an abandonment phase. vii List of Abbreviations BCE MBA LBA MB LB MC LC WS PWS BR WhSh FTIR Ft Before Common Era Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Middle Bronze Late Bronze Middle Cypriot Late Cypriot White Slip Proto White Slip Base Ring White Shaved Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy foot viii List of Tables Table 1: The occurrence of Cypriot pottery at Tell el Dabᶜa, Tell el-Ajjul, Ashkelon, and Lachisch (taken from Maguire 2009: 40) ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 2: Megiddo chronology, transitions between levels in areas H and K (based on models H and K, 68r.2% probability) (taken from Toffolo et al 2014: 236). ....................................................................................................... 47 Table 3: A summary of the sherds by type (Full, drawn vessels outside brackets, smaller sherds within brackets) .. 71 Table 4: A summary of the approximate chronological spans of Cypriot wares, detailed in the following text. Compiled using information from Greener (2015), Oren (2001), Bergoffen (2001), Bergoffen (2014), Eriksson (2001), Maguire (2009), Eriksson (2007b). See text for detailed references. ............................................................. 81 Table 5: Bichrome assemblage ................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 6: Minerals identified and their characteristic peaks........................................................................................ 86 Table 7: Mineralogical groups identified using FTIR spectroscopy. .......................................................................... 86 Table 8 : Petrographic information............................................................................................................................. 93 Table 9: Late Bronze Cypriot pottery from Megiddo ................................................................................................ 100 Table 10: Megiddo’s chrono-stratigraphy with Egyptian political events (dates based on the relative chronological table of Eriksson 2007: 12 and Maguire 2009:40) .................................................................................................... 100 ix List of Figures Fig. 1.1: Comparative Chronology (Table from Van Wijngaarden 2010: 10) _______________________________ 4 Fig. 3.1: Connecting routes from the Carmel coastal anchorages and Megiddo (Taken from Artzy 2006:51) _____ 16 Fig. 3.3: Main Cypriot pottery exports in Stages 1-4 (the most common forms highlighted in grey) (MCIII-LBIIB) (Papadimitriou 2015: 427) _____________________________________________________________________ 23 Fig. 4.1: Idealized depiction of a dendritic trade system anchored in a port center (from Sugerman 2009:443) ___ 27 Canaanite Megiddo in the MBA was an urban centre and a royal city-state, that became, in the LBA, a Levantine cultural, economic, and material centre with strong connections with Egypt, possibly even as a vassal-city to the 20th dynasty. Stratum VIIA is the last phase of the Canaanite city associated with Egyptian rule and is thought to have collapsed in 1130 BCE. The nature of the LBA city is heavily debated following the military campaigns of Thutmosis III but determining the nature of Egyptian presence and its impacts during the 20 th dynasty is a difficult issue. Regardless if an Egyptian administration functioned here, Megiddo plays an important role in the regional government during this time (Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2008:113-115; Ussishkin 1995: 260). ________ 27 Megiddo’s role as a regional center is due mainly to its strategic position dominating the Via Maris, the main highway from Egypt to Syria. The Via Maris (alternatively the Great Trunk Road) is the modern terminology for a trade route linking Egypt to the northern empires of Syria, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, running parallel to the sea and following the coastal plain before crossing into the Jezreel and the Jordan valleys (Fig 4.2). In the Bronze Age, the route connected Megiddo, in addition to the aforementioned foreign empires, to regional powers such as Akko, Dor, Jaffa, Hazor, and Damascus. At the Mount Carmel Ridge, the highway diverts inland through the gorge of Nahal \ ‘ Iron (Wadi ‘Ara) to the valley of Jezreel, where it splits into several branches leading northwest, northeast, and east. (Ussishkin 1995: 261) (c.f. Fig 4.1). The side roads crossing Mount Carmel Ridge, include one to the east of Nahal ‘Iron opening onto Jezreel Valley near Tel Taanach, and another to the west of Nahal “Iron, opening onto Jezreel Valley near Tel Jokneam (Ussishkin 1995: 261). This passage is guarded by Megiddo, so whoever controls the city controls the highway, and therefore controls the fruits of the maritime and coastal trade travelling eastward. Megiddo’s strategic control over this highway is partially what gives it such unique historical and archaeological importance. _________________________________________________________________ 27 Fig. 4.2: Map of the deployment of forces for the battle of Megiddo (taken from Rainey and Notley, 2005:66) ____ 29 Fig. 4.3: Nami and its possible connections (Taken from Artzy 1994: 8) _________________________________ 31 Fig. 4.4: Stratum XI (from Herzog 1997: Fig 4.17) __________________________________________________ 35 Fig. 4.5: Stratum X (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.18) __________________________________________________ 36 Fig. 4.6: Stratum IX (Herzog 1997: Fig 4.23) ______________________________________________________ 39 Fig. 4.7: Stratum VIII (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.24) ________________________________________________ 40 Fig. 4.8: Stratum VIIB (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.25) _______________________________________________ 41 Fig. 4.10: Megiddo IX: plan and location of Cypriot imports (Oren 2001:131) ____________________________ 50 Fig. 5.1: Comparison of Megiddo Cypriot Bichrome Ware, non-Cypriote Bichrome Ware, and Megiddo nonBichrome Ware (Taken from Artzy et al. 1978: 103) _________________________________________________ 52 Fig. 5.2: Infrared spectra of a mudbrick sample heated in an oven for 4 hours to different temperatures, taken from Berna et al. 2007:364: “(a) Not heated; (b) Heated at 500ºC: the kaolinite absorption bands at 3695, 3650, 3620 cm-1 disappear due to the collapse of the structure due to the loss of hydroxyl groups. The strong Si-O-Si absorption peak at 1032 cm-1, typical of clay minerals, shifts to 1050 cm-1, the OH deformation band (Al-OH-Al) at 915 cm-1 disappears. The smectite-kaolinite Si-O-Al band at 520-530 cm-1 is substituted by the quartz Si-O band at 512 cm-1. As a consequence, the valley between the resulting 512 cm-1 peak and the clay Si-O band at 470 cm-1 is not as well defined as for the unburned material. At the same time the Si-O-Si absorption of quartz (1082 cm-1) as well as the doublet at 798 and 780 cm-1 (Si-O stretching) and 460 cm-1 peak (Si-O bending) become stronger and clearly distinguishable; (c) heated to 800ºC: the absorptions at 1040-1050 cm-1 disappear and the spectrum resembles that of quartz (1170, 1083, 797-780 doublet, 694, 460 cm-1); (d) Heated at 1100ºC. The 512 cm-1 absorption is very weak, the peaks of the 797-780 cm-1 doublet are elevated and equal in height, the major absorption peak at 1085 cm-1 is broad and has a distinct tailing towards lower wavenumbers; (e) Heated to 1300ºC: The main Si-O-Si absorption is shifted to 107=87 cm-1 and a band at 617 cm-1, characteristic of cristobalite, appeared; (f) spectrum of beach sand collected in proximity of Tel Dor”. (Berna et al. 2007: 364) __ 54 Fig. 5.3: The relationship between the position of the main clay absorbance band (X axis) and its width (Y axis), at different temperatures and firing atmospheres, as based on experimental heating of small clay bricks (from Forget et al. 2015: 90). _____________________________________________________________________________ 55 Fig. 5.4: Geological Map of Cyprus (Geological Survey Department, Cyprus, 1995) _______________________ 57 Fig. 5.5: Geological Map of the Jezreel Valley (Sneh et al., 1998). Megiddo is marked by an X. _______________ 58 x Fig. 7.1: FTIR spectrum and second-derivative of gehlenite typically found in archaeological ceramics (from Shoval and Paz 2015:220).___________________________________________________________________________ 84 Fig.8.1: FTIR spectrum of sherd 14K91-3, representative of mineralogical Group A (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue) _______________________________________________________________ 88 Fig. 8.2: FTIR spectrum of sherd 14K78-9, representative of mineralogical Group B (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue) _______________________________________________________________ 89 Fig. 8.3: FTIR spectrum of 10K53-6, representative of mineralogical Group C. Note the additional weak absorption at 955 cm-1 indicative of the high-temperature mineral gehlenite (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue; gehlenite peaks=purple) ____________________________________________________________ 90 Fig. 9.1: LB I Statistical Analysis (44 sherds and vessels) _____________________________________________ 95 Fig. 9.2: LB IIA Statistical Analysis (94 sherds and vessels) ___________________________________________ 96 Fig. 9.3: LB IIB Statistical Analysis (24 sherds and vessels total) _______________________________________ 97 xi 1. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Cyprus and the Levant in the Transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age The transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age, i.e. MB IIB (ca. 1750/1700 BCE) through LB I (ca. 1570/1540-1400 BCE), LB IIA (ca. 1400-1300 BCE) and LB IIB (ca. 1300-1180 BCE)1 sees an explosion in trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, with the rise of Cypriot vessels in the Levant being one of the more clear indicators (Bunimovitz 1990; Bietak and Höflmayer 2007). The beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) in the Levant has generally been attributed to the collapse of Middle Bronze Age (MBA) political and social frameworks, which many scholars previously attribute to the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt and following destructions and abandonments in the southern Levant. More recent theories suggest a collapse due to an internal instability rather than Egyptian military campaigns (Bunimovitz 1995: 32-322). These established demographic and settlement crisis which is supplemented by the gradual decline in certain aspects of local material culture (Albright 1960: 101; Bunimovitz 1995: 324-325; Knapp 1989: 136-42). Various theories attempt to reconcile this contrast: Bienkowski (1989) attributes the decline to the diversion of resources for Egyptian colonial purposes, and Knapp (1989b, 1992) suggests that the Egyptian military campaigns (particularly those of Thutmosis III) replaced the politically independent polities of the Middle Bronze Age with vassal city-states in the Late Bronze Age, leaving major urban functions to exist as caravan routes within a major international trade system but limiting the amount dendric distribution (Bunimovitz 1995: 325). In contrast to this perceived ‘collapse’ of the Southern Levant, the seacoast sees the founding of harbor sites and anchorage points, the remains of elite administrative/domestic structures, temples, and graves, and the rich assemblages of imported Cypriot and Mycenean pottery and other luxury items found within sub-elite contexts (Rainey and Notley 2005: 61-63; Bunimovitz 1995: 325). These tell a story of strong commercial connections and wide access to imported goods. 1 The typical start of this date begins with the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt, at ca. 1570 BCE. However cultural changes came to Canaan at different times, so this date vary from site to site (. e.g. Gittlen 1977: 515; Bunimovitz 1990: 45). Lower Egyptian chronologies place this start date as late as 1500 BCE (Martin 2011:19) 1 In Cyprus, the transition from Middle to Late Cypriot periods begins approximately 100 years before the Levantine Bronze Age transition, with the MC III occurring from 1750-1650 BCE, the LC IA2 taking place 1650-1550 BCE, the LC IB occurring 1550-1450 BCE, the LC IIA existing from 1450-1375 BCE, and the LC IIB lasting from 1375-1300 BCE (Knapp 2004: 77-94; Knapp 2013:21) (Fig 1.1). Culturally, Cyprus in the MC III- LC I period exhibits the rise of urban polities, coastal sites, and connection with the international powers (Knapp 2013: 28). Many have linked these sudden cultural transformations to the establishment of a centralized political frameworks related to control over basic productive resources (land, labor, and copper) (Knapp 2013: 28-29). In this transitional period, Cypriot exports are distributed extensively geographically, and are especially numerous in regions of the Levant from Anatolia to southern Phoenicia. Interestingly, the Annals’ of Thutmosis III imply Cyprus at this time is an independent, prosperous country (Karageorghis 1995: 75; Eriksson 1993: 154) suggesting that Cyprus does not operate as vassal of Egypt, the Mycenaeans, Ugarit, or any other major power. Instead, as an independent, prosperous polity or group of polities, it maintains good relations with the various international powers- Egypt, Mycenaeans, Hittites, Ugarit, and the Levantine coast. Indeed, the massive exportation of Cypriot goods hits a peak during the reign of Thutmosis III (Eriksson 2001: 51; Karageorghis 1995:74-75). The general concentration of Late Cypriot wares in coastal areas suggests strong maritime growth and international connections between Cyprus, the Levant, and possibly Egypt from the LC IB period onwards (the approximate campaigns of Thutmosis III) period and represents a transition in the consumption of Cypriot wares (Eriksson 2001:65-66; Knapp 2014: 9-11). 1.2. Megiddo in the Transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages The data set to be investigated in this thesis is a large collection of imported Cypriot pottery founds during the Tel Aviv University renewed expeditions to Megiddo, has uncovered during the 2010-2014 seasons. It includes more than 64 complete vessels and diagnostic sherds, and 147 smaller sherds. These sherds have been found in stratigraphically secure contexts, dated within the range of the MB II-LB I timeframe. The transition from the MC III into the LC I is poorly defined, with charcoal samples coming from long-lived contexts, providing only terminus post quem ranges (Knapp 2913: 27; Manning and Ramsey 2007) 2 2 From the Middle Bronze Age on, Megiddo takes the role of a city state of international importance, due to its position at the head of the ‘Iron Pass, approximately where the Jezreel Valley connects to the coastal trade networks (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2008: 1946-1947). Megiddo in the MB (Strata XII-X of the University of Chicago expeditions), in line with other sites of the Levant, demonstrates a large, prosperous site, complete with a thick city wall, parallel streets, palaces, and temples (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2008: 1946; Aharoni 1993:1009-1010; Kempinski 1989); However, the archaeological remains of LB I Megiddo (Strata IX (1550-1468) and VIII (1468-1350/1300) of the University of Chicago expeditions) do not demonstrate the demographical and socio-political fracturing one expects, with no major changes occurring in the city in the MB-LB transition (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2008: 1946; Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Cline 2013; Kempinski 1989: 58-59). Instead, the rise of Cypriot assemblages suggests an unusually close relationship between inland Megiddo and Cyprus, following the extensive urban development in Cyprus in the 15th century, coinciding with a massive increase in Cypriot goods to the Levant in the LB I and LB II. A watershed event at LBI Megiddo is the conquest of the city by Thutmose III. According to the annals of Thutmosis III, the ruler of Megiddo led a confederation of Canaanite cities in an attempt to overthrow Egyptian rule. The Gebel Barkal stele describes a seven-month siege in which Egypt supposedly exerted its dominance in the area and conquered the Canaanite coalition (Redford 2003: 206-208). Megiddo then becomes the major Egyptian garrison and base in the Jezreel Valley (Kempinski 1989: 67; Rainey and Notley 2005:65). In contrast to this stele, the archaeological record shows discrepancies regarding this narrative of Egyptian destruction and subsequent occupation. Excavations have attributed to this transitional siege and consequent rebuild of Thutmosis III in the LB IB to The University of Chicago’s Stratum VIII (Kempinski 1989: 67, to be further referenced in chapter 4). Given the conflicting evidence, the exact nature of this transition from the MBA to the LBA is still unclear: is it the result of internal conflict, a surrender to Egyptian hegemony following the ‘conquest’ of Thutmosis III, an abandonment, or a time of growth and international flourishing? 3 Fig. 1.1: Comparative Chronology (Table from Van Wijngaarden 2010: 10) 1.3. Aim and Research Questions The aim of this study is to use the Cypriot pottery found at the commercial and political hub of Megiddo to understand the ceramic trade between the Southern Levant and Cyprus during the MBA III to the LBA II (in Cyprus: MC III-LC IIB, 17th-15th centuries BCE) (Fig 1.1). The assemblage chosen for this study is the Cypriot pottery from Area K and H of the 2010-2014 excavation seasons of the Renewed Tel Aviv 4 University Excavation at Megiddo, to be published in the forthcoming Megiddo VI volume. This aim can be further divided to research questions: 1.Typology What types of imported Cypriot pottery are represented in the Megiddo assemblage? 2.Provenance studies of selected ware types Can we find evidence for local (southern Levantine) production of Cypriot Style pottery? 3.Diachronic changes in imported Cypriot wares What can diachronic changes in functional groups tell us about ware use and trade, and how do these groups compare to contemporary assemblages across Cyprus? 4.Chrono-Stratigraphic Analysis and the establishment of relative chronology Can the relative chronology provided by the Cypriot pottery from these phases be used for a reexamination of Megiddo’s relative chronology during the MB III/LB I transitional period? 1.4. Research Methods 1. Typology Typological analysis of the Megiddo assemblage used the groundwork of Cypriot typology of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition made by P. Åström (1972), as well as Popham (1972). Modifications to the typology were made using advances made since these works in the typology of Cypriot pottery (e. g. Fischer and Bürge 2017; Sharp and Artzy 2001). The ceramic catalog created for the Tel Aviv University Renewed Excavations’ assemblage includes categories documenting the vessel family, the Cypriot style, the type, the % of vessel found, the decoration, the surface treatment, the width/thickness, and colors (based on a 2008 GretagMacbeth edition of Munsell Soil Color Charts). Comparisons were drawn to well-known examples, using mainly the work by Louise Maguire on Cypriot wares at Tel el-Dabᶜa and the Levant (Maguire 2009), previous publications regarding Megiddo (Loud 1948), as well as a variety of more specialized texts regarding Cypriot wares in the LBA (Åström 1972; Bergoffen 5 2003; Bergoffen 2014; Eriksson 2001; Eriksson 2007b; Greener 2015; Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002; Oren 2001; and Papadimitriou 2015). The renewed excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke have provided additional new work on the sequence of Cypriot ceramics (Fischer and Burge 2017). 2.Provenance studies of selected ware types Analysis using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Thin Section Petrography was performed on selected coarse-ware, Bichrome sherds of unidentified origin within the Eastern Mediterranean region. The results of this study were used to determine the general origin of each sherd. Artzy et al. (1978) studied Bichrome ware samples from Megiddo using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and results showed chemical differences suggesting that some were Cypriot in origin and some were locally produced Syro-Palestinian ‘imitations’; while petrography has become an accessible tool for provenance study, this research analyzed if FTIR can be used as an analytical tool in the provenance study of Cyprus and Cypriot pottery. 3.Diachronic changes in imported Cypriot wares The typological study of the Cypriot pottery from Megiddo will be used understand diachronic changes in patterns of trade between Cyprus and the Levant. Cypriot pottery is extremely useful in establishing chronological synchronization between regions as well in acting as an indicator of maritime trade (see, among many others, Maguire 2009, Bietak and Hein 2001, Åström 1972, Artzy 2001). The end of the Second Intermediate Period (SIP) in Egypt, contemporary with the end of the MB III in the Levant, sees the introduction of new Cypriot wares exported abroad (Maguire 2009: 66-67). These include characteristic LC IA Cypriot wares, such as proto Base Ring (PBR), proto White Slip (PWS), and monochromes, which develop into White Slip I (WS I) and Base Ring I (BR I) in northwestern Cyprus (Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002: 101102). These wares have all been carefully deliberated, and there is much work detailing their chronological journey across Cyprus and to sites abroad; in particular WS I and BR I, act as markers of the arrival of the Late Bronze Age in the Levant (Åström 1972; Bergoffen 2003; Bergoffen 2014; Eriksson 2001; 6 Eriksson 2007b; Greener 2015; Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002; Oren 2001; and Papadimitriou 2015). 4. Chrono-Stratigraphic Analysis and the establishment of relative chronology Megiddo is one of only a handful of sites in Israel that provide a secure, continuous stratigraphic sequence, allowing a basis for the establishment of a relative chronological system. New work in high-resolution radiocarbon dating is attempting to create a Bayesian chronological model for the stratigraphic horizons at the site, but currently only covers some of the Late Bronze and Iron Age (Toffolo et. al 2014). Excavations at Megiddo have unearthed twenty-six stratigraphic horizons, four destruction layers, and seven ceramic typological phases, and thus the site is regarded as one of the foremost chronological models of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. By using the short-lived changes in Cypriot vessel types, the new Tel Aviv assemblage can be used to re-assess the chronological model of the MBA to the LBA transition at Megiddo. The presence of Cypriot pottery in large quantities and in different levels of preservation (including fully intact vessels) can act to determine the relative chronology of the site and its role in the international spectrum (Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002: 97-98). The succession of Middle and Late Cypriot wares, documented since Meyers (1897) and Gjerstad (1926), and analyzed upon over the years (Aström 1957, Astöm 1972, Maguire 2009, etc.) can be found in similar successions at Tel el Dabᶜa, Ashkelon, Tel el Ajjul, and, as this study finds, Megiddo (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007:17). Within Egypt, previous work has established the manufacture of specific Cypriot vessels (in particular BR I, Red Lustrous and WS) during the reign of Thutmosis III (Eriksson 2001: 51), and the relative chronology of Cypriot wares can help establish chronology that can connect Egypt of Thutmosis III and Megiddo, and try to answer weather the Egyptian military campaigns had influenced trade and connectivity at Megiddo. 7 SECTION I: BACKGROUND 2. Chapter 2: Cypriot Trade in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages In its simplest terms, trade can be described as the movement of goods from region to region, or from polity to polity, but this rudimentary definition does not cover the complexity or the mechanics through which goods are exchanged. Colin Renfrew’s 1969 definition improves upon this basis: “The reciprocal traffic, exchange or movement of materials or goods through peaceful human agency” (Cohen 2015: 70; Renfrew 1969:52). However, this description fails to consider the unequal and asymmetrical distribution of power and goods that is likely to occur between groups of people. Renfrew expanded upon his idea in 1977, defining trade as “[the] procurement of material from a distance, by whatever mechanism” (Cohen 2015: 70, Renfrew 1969: 52; Renfrew 1972). This definition reflects the social intricacies that trade often implies, including violent means such as military campaigns or tribute between rulers, as well as more peaceful, but equally imbalanced scenarios. Trade is never just the exchange of commodities but is a significant social factor in the development processes occurring in polities participating in the exchange. Power structures are created based on the availability, distribution, and acquisition of goods, and affect social and political organization (Cohen 2015: 70). With a unique access to raw materials, chiefly to copper, Cyprus is often referred to as the crossroad of civilizations during the Bronze Age (in Cyprus, this falls between 1750/1700-1100 BCE) (Karageorghis 2002; Hadjisavvas 2010; Knapp 2013: 21). It has a favorable position as a hub of trade. Prevalent winds are west or northwest, wind changes are regular, and coastal currents run in a south-north direction: fishermen or mariners could return safety to the coasts of Cyprus or the Levant, with Syrian and southern Anatolian coasts only 70 to 120 km away (12-21 hours of sailing in a straight sail of three knots). Against the winds and currents, a trip to Rhodes from eastern Cyprus would have taken 11 days, and a trip from Rhodes to Cyprus would have taken 4 days (Knapp 2014: 88, Tartaron 2013: 209-210). These conditions make Cyprus the ideal hub of maritime activity from early periods onwards. Cyprus’ role in the maritime trade in the eastern Mediterranean greatly increased at the first half of the second millennium BCE, with 8 textual references detailing contact between Alashiya, Mari, Alalakh and Babylon from the 18th centuries onwards (Steel 2013: 572; Knapp 2014:8-9). The place name Alashiya is typically ascribed to ancient Cyprus, alhtough it is unclear if it refers to the entire island or a specific polity (Knapp 2008: 300-303). While this identification has faced criticism in the past, since the petrographic work of Yuval Goren (2003, 2004), in which four Amarna letters, sent from Alashiya to the king of Ugarit, were identified as Cypriot clays the identification has been indisputable (Knapp 2008: 300-303). The Mit Rahina inscription (from Memphis) provides an important evidence for the maritime connections between Egypt, the Levantine coast and Cyprus during the 12th dynasty, to the reign of Amenemhet II, approximately 1876-42 (Marcus 2008: 138 )a time corresponding to the Cypriot MC I/II (Höflmayer and Cohen 2017: 3; Marcus 2007: 175-176). It may suggest that in the reign of Amenemhet, the Egyptian 12th Dynasty was characterized by both commercial and military maritime activities in the Levant and possibly Cyprus. Blocks M 16-18 of the inscription mentions the return of the Egyptian army by boats laden with goods from Iw3i (Lebanon) and “Alashia”, Bronze Age Cyprus (Marcus 2007: 146-147). Problems with this interpretation include the lack of MC finds in Egypt during this period, and the earliest fortifications on Cyprus date to the very end of the Middle/beginning of the Late Cypriot period (Marcus 2007: 147). However, there is evidence showing Cyprus has substantial contacts prior to the period of Amenemhet II; the toponym Alashiya appears in 13 texts from Mari, Babylon, and Alalakh, usually relating to the trade in copper (Marcus 2007: 148). By the end of the MC/MB, a century after the Mit Rahina inscription, MC pottery is common within the MB II Levant, and other evidence for a Cypriot identification including copper and bronze implements and/or weapons (Marcus 2007: 148). Considering Cyprus was a relatively small island civilization, much of the settlement activity that has been discovered archaeologically has been situated near the ancient coast (Steel 2013: 574). This suggests that Cyprus, with its coastal towns and urban centers, was oriented towards the seas and to overseas relationships as early as the LC I period (Knapp 2013; Knapp 2014). Evidence for seafaring is prolific in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and comes from various indirect sources of evidence, including boat models, shipwrecks, anchors, and coastal surveys. Evidence for maritime cultural 9 landscapes is threefold: 1) Maritime transport (fishing boats, merchantmen, warships) 2) Exploitation of marine resources (fishing gear, fish traps, salt collections) and 3) ancient seafaring (ship sheds, quays, stone anchors) (Knapp 2014: 81). While there is no material remains of built harbors in the Cypriot or Levantine Bronze Age (i.e. structures, artificial moles, breakwaters, ship sheds, etc.), there is sufficient evidence for MBA and LBA maritime trade, including imported and exported goods. The significant amount of goods, in elite, burial, domestic, and industrial contexts in Cypriot, Levantine, and Aegean sites make it safe to assume that harbor facilities existed, whether in the form of altered estuaries or coastal lagoons (Knapp 2014: 84). Recent excavations and surveys have begun to suggest that Cypriot harbors may be spatially separated from town centers, as exemplified by Maroni Tsarroukkas’s distance from Maroni site, Episkopi Kourioun from Alassa, Tochni Laksi from Kalavassos Agios Dhimitrios (Knapp 2014:79). Despite the differences of several kilometers between the settlement sites and suspected anchorages, historically the anchorages and harbors on Cyprus have been situated on the bays and inlets in the south and southeast coasts, likely at or near Enkomi, Kition, Hala Sultan Tekke, and Kourion/Episkopi (Knapp 2014: 80). Cyprus’ increased presence in the international stage from the LC I onwards, has been linked to Cypriot copper production (Steel 2013: 576). The primary written account of cultural interaction with Cyprus, or Bronze Age Alashiya, is the El-Amarna letters. There are a total of nine Amarna letters from Alashiya, and most suggest that merchants and messengers had an interchangeable role, and may have also acted as ambassadors to foreign nations, often involved in discussion of the procurement and distribution of raw material (Knapp 2014: 87). Letters #33-39 refer to the island nation as an independent entity who nonetheless pays tribute to Egypt: “And behold, I have sent by the hand of my ambas‹sador› to you one hundred talents of copper. Moreover, so now the vessels that your envoy should bring: One bed of ebony, gold overlaid and a chariot overlaid with gold and two horses and forty-two pieces of linen…[etc.]” (Rainey 2015: 337, EA 34 col. 1625). But what is the exact nature of Egypt’s interaction with Cyprus? The military campaigns of the 18th Dynasty never ventured that far over the sea, but Cyprus likely felt the pressure of political Egypt’s power in the Eastern Mediterranean region. In the elAmarna letters the Pharaoh treats the king of Cyprus as an equal, rather than a vassal: 10 “Furthermore, (may) my brother ships the silver which I requested of you, a very large amount, my brother, and the objects which I have requested of you, my brother, send” (Rainey 2015: 343. EA 35, col 43-45). In these letters, Egypt requests Cypriot silver and copper, in exchange for Egyptian timber. Obviously, this letter details a mutual trade among two leaders in good standing, rather than a forced tribute. Cypriot raw materials, and the allure of foreign goods, certainly provided an impetus for regional and interregional trade in the LC I and II. During the zenith of the Cypriot Bronze Age, in the 13th century BCE, Cyprus shows an increase in settlement density into previously unoccupied areas, with evidence for increasingly complex hierarchal settlement patterns, including the rise of urban centers along the southern coast (Steel 2013: 572). There is a concentration of sites on the coastal strip, including Alassa, Hala Sultan Tekke, Kalavassos Agios Dhimitrios, Maroni, Morphou Toumba tou Skoura, and Enkomi (Steel 2013: 573). These sites may have been influential in state formation on the island in the transitional MC III- LC I period. The growth and wealth of these sites, at exactly the time that Cyprus’ international trade and connections boom, is not coincidental: Cypriot ports and towns were never just stopovers within the eastern Mediterranean trade, but economic hubs and key emporia on maritime routes. 11 3. Chapter 3: Cypriot Pottery Production and Trade 3.1. Changes in Cypriot Ceramic Production Within Cyprus, the LC period sees a greater emphasis in the production and export patterns geared towards foreign consumption and markets (Steel 2013: 572). The MC tradition is characterized by wares such as Bichrome, Red on Black, Red on Red, and White Painted (Steel 2010: 108, Merrillees 1971). The LC IA is considered a new horizon of Cypriot pottery, with White Slip (WS), Base Ring (BR), Red Lustrous Wheel Made (RLWM) and Monochrome wares appearing across the island in cultural uniformity, as a standard assemblage, ending the previous MBA traditions of ceramic regionalism by the start of the LC IB period (Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002: 103106). The advent of these ceramic styles varies in different regions of the island, but, generally, the LC wares (especially WS, BR, monochrome) develop quickly and spread from the northeast of the island, while the MC tradition survives in the east with remarkable tenacity. The fundamental change from MC to LC Cypriot assemblage may occur for several potential reasons (Eriksson 2007a:135). The founding of several important sites in this MC to LC transitional period, including Enkomi and Morpou, at strategic locations provide a strong case for the creation of geopolitical entities, centered around the production, trade and control of copper (Steel 2013:517). The LC IA period becomes an important transitional period, with distinctive wares that, when compared to complex regional divisions, becomes difficult to isolate from MC III traditions (Manning, Sewell, Herscher 2002: 98-107). The distinctive regionalism in ceramic assemblages is not absolute, but sees, generally, the east/south-east producing wares in the existent MC traditions, while the northwestern regions begin production of the typical LC IA ware, which spread across the island at different rates. By LC IB, the northwestern LC wares are broadly distributed across the island, beginning an era of relative uniformity on the island (Knapp 2014, Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002: 98-107, Steel 2013:108). In the latter half of the LC IA and into the LC IB, international trade with Cyprus flourished, accompanied by the appearance of wares as BR II and WS II, corresponding with the extensive development of Cypriot pre-urban centers (Eriksson 2007a: 23). 12 It is important to note that the LC IA synchronizes with the final stages of the Levantine MBA, while the exportation of the LC wares in the LC IB correlates with the LB I, after the LC styles have become wide spread within Cyprus (Manning, Sewell and Herscher 2002: 104). In the Levant, the majority of WS II and BR II finds are dated to LB II, the reign of Amenhotep III or later (Eriksson 2007a: 135, Bunimovitz 2004: 1269). The export pattern emerging from finds of Cypriot wares abroad during the LBA demonstrates that the Bronze Age Cypriots have a significant amount of agency within the trade networks, and are consciously choosing wares based on Levantine consumption patterns, as evidenced in the presence of a limited type of forms in each ware type (i.e. WS bowls, bichrome kraters/ large jugs, monochrome bowls, and base ring jugs/juglets and bowls). In the MC III- LC IB period (the Levantine MB III/ LB I), Cypriot ceramics became widespread, with imports present at 35 Levantine sites (Maguire 2009: 40, Papadimitriou 2015: 425). These types include White Painted ware, BR I, Proto White Slip (PWS), WSI, Bichrome, and RLWM juglets. From the LB I onward, Cypriot liquid containers and juglets replaced non-Cypriot ones, monopolizing the regions’ ceramic niche (Maguire 2009: 50-62). There is a level of diversification and increase in specialization seen in Cypriot production as contact is made international markets, with a distinct ceramic assemblage explicitly created for export purposes (Papadimitriou 2015: 426). The LC IB- LC IIA period shows the peak of Cypriot ceramic trade, with thousands of vessels reaching more than 40 Levantine sites (Papadimitriou 2015: 427). It is clear that the Levant was the most successful market for Cypriot products from the MBA onwards. Towns along the Syro-Palestinian coast flourish in the LC II period due to connectivity and international trade. By the LB IIA, these assemblages are present are almost every Levantine coastal site and are different than the assemblages being used in Cyprus. These assemblages are also distinct from the Levantine Cypriot import assemblages of the MBA, which occurs on a much smaller scale, with varied ware forms and types, with homogenous assemblages of the classic LC wares (WS, BR, monochrome) being exported from Cyprus from the LC II onwards at a massive scale. 3.2. The Trade of Cypriot Pottery: the Evidence of Shipwrecks Much imported LC pottery have been found in towns along the Syro-Palestine coast, as well as inland sites. The prosperity of Levantine coastal sites may be attributed to 13 the trade in Cypriot copper, which was accompanied but the less costly Cypriot pottery (Maguire 2009:15). However, while Cypriot ceramics are prominent in the east Mediterranean, we still do not know who was carrying them, in what quantities, and for what purpose (i.e. import, export, gift exchange, small scale of mass distribution, private or royal enterprise) (Hirschfield 2011: 115). Some hints, however, are provided by the study of shipwrecks carrying Cypriot pottery. Eight MBA and LBA shipwreck and cargos have been uncovered, providing insight into the transportation of the plethora of Cypriot wares abroad. In Turkey, these wrecks include Cape Gelidonya (ca. 1220 BCE) (Bass 1967), Sheytan Deresi (ca. 1600 BCE) (Bass 1976), Uluburun (late 14th century BCE) (Pulak 2008); in Greece, they are Cape Iria (ca. 1200 BCE) (Lolos 1999), Modi (12th century BCE) (Agouridis 2011), Laconia (end of the LBA) (Spondylis 2012), Pseira island (1800-1700 BCE) (Hadjidaki and Betancourt 2006); in Israel, there are the metal cargo sites of Hirshuley Carmel, Kfar Samir Megadim and others, dating to the 14th-13th centuries BCE (Galili et al. 2011; 2013). Of these, the Uluburun, the Gelidoniya, and the Point Iria wrecks demonstrate the connection of Cyprus and maritime transport. The Gelidonya has been declared possibly Cypriot based on Cypriot pottery, especially a Cypro-Minoan mark on a handle, and analytical work on a ship’s anchor, oil lamp, stirrup jar, and two pithos bases have indicated Cypriot origin (Knapp 2014: 85). The Point Iria wreck has been declared possibly Cypriot based on the cargo of Cypriot pithoi, but there is little else to support this assumption (Knapp 2014:85). The origin of Ulburun has left scholars divided: it is indisputable that the ship stopped in the Levant, based on evidence including Canaanite jars from the Carmel (Hirschfeld 2011:115; Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 254-256). It also had strong connections to Cyprus, including 10 tons of copper ingots and stacks of Cypriot fine ware (Hirschfeld 2011:116-119). Levantine, Egyptian or Cypriot origins, with Aegean destinations have been considered (Pulak 1998; Cline and Yasur-Landau 2007). The cargo includes Cypriot bowls (WS and BR), jugs and juglets (white shaved and bucchero), lamps and wall brackets, and pithoi. The Cypriot fine ware ceramics were packed into three of the total ten pithoi for transport, but no pithos was completely filled with Cypriot pottery, with the Cypriot wares occupying less than half of each container. 14 One can assume that the remaining space of these pithoi would have been filled within something other than Cypriot pottery (Hirschfield 2011: 120). The contents of each of the three pithos were varied, and characterized by diversity, so that each pithoi had a mix of Cypriot types and other odd pieces, like Mycenaean wares. This makes it apparent that Cypriot ceramics were not the primary cargo of the ship, and, with sloppy patterns, dents, bumps, and cracks, were mass-produced and not the most valued cargo, likely for bulk trade, tonnage, or cabotage. Hirschfield interjects that this cargo was not comprised of large lots picked up at places of mass Cypriot production, and the variety of fabrics, shapes, decorations, and manufacturing techniques indicate the accumulation of goods from various sources (Hirschfield 2011: 120). While Hirschfield concludes the odd assortment of Cypriot pottery could have been picked up anywhere in the Levant, where it is prolific, Knapp is of the mind that the Cypriot cargo of 10 tons of copper was unlikely to be picked up elsewhere (Knapp 2014: 7-8). Wachsmann (1998: 330) reminds us that a ship’s ethnic identity is the single most difficult question in shipwreck archaeology. At the very least, the Bronze Age wrecks of the Mediterranean demonstrate the mixed nature of material assemblages aboard shipping vessels, the heavy involvement of Cypriots, and the consumers who created import markets for a high level of luxury goods. 3.3. Patterns of Cypriot Imports in Selected South Levantine Sites Imported ceramics attest to an explosion of international contacts in the LBA, including southwest and central Anatolia, Egypt, Syro-Palestinian, Cyprus, and the Eastern Aegean. Some sites act as major nodes of intercultural exchange and intense cultural interaction, among them Megiddo and coastal sites both in the Levant on the East/southeast coast of Cyprus. The Carmel coast micro-region maintained extensive trade relations with these sites, gaining privileged access to specially crafted imported goods. The coastal morphology allows several anchorages and harbors, but the interface of the Carmel ridge, the sea, and the swampy nature of the area creates a restricted agricultural area and necessitates secondary east-west routes crossing the Carmel ridge, leading to the rise of sites such as Megiddo, which are larger in nature and do not have the carrying capacity of the coastal sites (Artzy 2006: 50-56). All settlements along the Carmel coast are near feasible anchorage locations and show indisputable maritime connections to sites across the eastern and central Mediterranean Basins, from the MBA 15 onward. The coastal sites relevant to the discussion of Megiddo include Akko, Tel Abu Hawam, Tel Nami, and Dor. All four sites share a favorable position for terrestrial routes and contain a potential suitable anchorage/harbor for importation of goods (Artzy 2006: 45-46). The ceramics from these sites are a sign of a complex trade network indicating Cypriot economic expansion. These sites demonstrate that the Levantine interest was not exclusively invested in the Via Maris or in maritime routes but based on a much more complex economic interest with established routes leading to the hinterland, a source of specialized goods (Artzy 2006: 51). Fig. 3.1: Connecting routes from the Carmel coastal anchorages and Megiddo (Taken from Artzy 2006:51) 3.3.1. Akko Akko is significant to the understanding of LB trade routes as it is one of the sites mentioned in the Amarna texts, referenced as a site on the sailing route from Ugarit to the south (Morhange, Giaime, Marriner, et. al. 2016:71-73). While Tel Akko is occupied in the MB IIB, there is renewed habitation in the LBA in the 13th century. The finds from the associated necropolis in the Persian Garden indicate international connections and wealth of the local inhabitants (Artzy 2006: 51). The LB II period produces Cypriot pottery in domestic contexts, including WS II, BR, and WhSh. While exact ratios are not known, Cypriot wares are by far the majority of imported wares (Artzy 2006). Akko shows a level of destruction and abandonment in the first years of the 12th century contemporary to the destruction of Ugarit (Artzy 2006: 51). The findings of Morhange, 16 Giame, Marriner, et. al (2016) indicate that despite the strong archaeological evidence for maritime trade at Tel Akko, and for a suitable anchorage, no harbor facilities are known. The geological research suggests coastal changes and successive relocations of Tel Akko’s harbor from the Bronze Age southern bay to the western open harbor at the base of the tel (Morhange, Giaime, Marriner, et. al. 2016: 71-81). 3.3.2. Tel Abu Hawam Tel Abu Hawam lays at the mouth of the Kishon Stream, and was a natural harbor protected from the west and southwest winds by Mt. Carmel. Roads led inland to Megiddo, Bet Shean and the Jordan Valley, and from the finds it is evident that the site benefited from a favorable connection to Cyprus (Artzy 2006: 55-56). The tel was occupied beginning in the MB II, settled at the end of the 15th century or the first years of the 14th century. Excavations by R.W. Hamilton at Tel Abu Hawam in the 1930s uncovered massive amounts of Cypriot imports, numbering in the many thousands, coupled with a relatively small site, suggests that the site was function as a gateway, and that a huge network of importation existed for primary distribution at secondary sites (possibly including Megiddo). The collection of imported pottery from the 2001 salvage expedition led by Michal Artzy of the University of Haifa contain a considerable amount of imported wares from the eastern Mediterranean, with a Cypriot corpus of over 200 sherds ranging from the LC IA to the IIC (i.e. post Thutmosis III) and including ceramics, figurines, statuettes, and cylinder seals (Artzy 2006:47). In Stratum VI, the earliest strata, 50% of all ceramic finds are Cypriot imports, of which 2/3 are monochrome ware, and the rest is undecorated cookpots (Artzy 1993: 13). This stratum, representing the LC IB horizon, also contains WS II and BR II sherds. The site ceased to exist in the mid-13th century due to geopolitical or geomorphological causes, but during its lifetime provided a natural connection between the maritime trade to Cyprus and the terrestrial routes to Megiddo (Fig 3.3). It is clear that the imported Cypriot pottery of the Jezreel Valley (including Megiddo) may have arrived via the harbor of Tel Abu Hawam, as a port of trade to be further distributed (Wijngaarden 2010). 17 3.3.3. Tel Nami Tel Nami was a relatively small site, occupied only during the MB IIA and LB IIB periods, connecting the western coast of the Carmel Ridge to the Levantine hinterland, such as Tel Megiddo (Artzy 2006: 51). Cypriot wares include eight fragmentary sherds, all White Painted composite wares. Two major trade networks have been suggested in the Southern Levant, one consisting of Egypt, the Levantine coast, Cyprus, and the Aegean, and one consisting of Mesopotamia, Persia, the Syrian coast, Anatolia, and Cyprus (Marcus 1991: 203-4). The southern Levantine coast provides the linking these two networks, and the coastal sites likely serve the same role in the LB IIB as they do in the MB IIA (Marcus 1991: 48). Cypriot wares found in the LB IIB include WS II, BR II, and WhSh vessels (Artzy 2006). Unlike Tel Nami is a larger site with known fortifications, and a smaller proportion of Cypriot finds. Tel Nami did not have any agricultural hinterland, and was surrounded by a swampy region, suggesting it was completely dependent on trade. This, in addition to rich tomb finds and a cultic area, and a metal industry, may suggest that Tel Nami functioned as a wealthy harbor settlement and port of entry. After inital occupation in the MB IIA, the site was abandoned until renewed occupation in the 13th century, when it replaced Tel Abu Hawam as the main point of entry. (Artzy 2006: 50; Hesse 2008: 47-49). 3.3.4. Dor Dor is the most southern of the series of Mediterranean harbor sites relevent to this discussion, located only a few kilometers south of Tel Nami, and similarly unfortified. On the Tel, only Area G, and small-scale excavations at the Love Bay, havr produced Bronze Age finds. In area G Cypriot imports found included WS I and II, and BR sherds (Stern 1993:). The finds of Love Bay include MB II pottery, indicating the site was founded during this period, similar to Tel Nami. LB I ceramics including a monochrome bowl, a BR bowl, Bichrome jugs, WP V and VI (Raban 1982; Raban 1995: 286-290) Underwater surveys produced local and Cypriot pottery from the South Bay, the theorized favored anchorage point in the early periods (Stern 1993: 1695-1703). Recently, a three-hole anchor with close parallels to LB Cypriot anchors found in Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke was found in the Love Bay (personal communication, Ehud Arkin-Shalev). 18 This may offers evidence that the small sites of the Carmel coast may have been frequented by Cypriot ships. 3.3.5. Tell el-Dabᶜa Tell el-Dabᶜa., excavated since 1966, has provided the most complete assemblage of MC and Early LC pottery, providing corresponding cultural synchronisms and relative chronology for the MC II-LC I period (Maguire 2009:17). By the 13th dynasty, a strong Cypriot connection is evident at Tell el-Dabᶜa, cumulating in a boom in Cypriot MC pottery imports during the SIP and continuing with LC pottery in the Late Hyksos period. In the main tell area, stratigraphic sequences provide insights from the late 12th/early 13th dynasty (Str. H) until the late Hyksos in A/II and A/V (Str. D/2) (18). Wares in New Kingdom strata typify the LC IA:2 horizon in Cyprus, including BR I, WS I, RLWM, WP VI, and Bichrome and act in strong contrast to the Cypriot pottery of the MBA (A/II and A/V) in Tell el-Dabᶜa. A representation of thousands of Cypriot sherds, mostly jugs and juglets, some bowls and jars, are the common impoted goods from Cyprus in the MC IIILC IA periods (Maguire 2009: 86). This dichotomy in MBA and LBA Cypriot exports is evident at Tell el-Dabᶜa, as the pottery of the A/II and A/V strata produces assemblages characterized by WP, PWS, and Red Polished wares (Table 1). The circulation of Cypriot pottery in the Levant may be associated with the Hyksos hegemony at Tell el-Dabᶜa, and although the exact nature of Hyksos political activities in Palestine, Syria, and the rest of the Mediterranean is still unknown, Cypriot pottery does seem to provide a connection between various Egyptian SIP or Levantine MBA II-III assemblages (Maguire 2009: 1920). The relative chronology of Cypriot wares at Tel el-Dabᶜa can be found in Table 3, page 41 of Maguire (2009) (Table 1). 19 20 Table 1: The occurrence of Cypriot pottery at Tell el Dabᶜa, Tell el-Ajjul, Ashkelon, and Lachisch (taken from Maguire 2009: 40) 21 The early 18th Dynasty pharaohs (Amenhotep I, Thutmosis I, and Thutmosis III) inaugurate a golden age for Egypt in terms of military, political, and cultural dominance. The Tel el-Dabᶜa Cypriot pottery suggests a break between MC and LC assemblages, perhaps associated with general upheaval and reestablishment of control in the Eastern Mediterranean following the military campaigns of Thutmosis III. As the economy is revitalized, we see foreign objects like BR I and RLWM appearing in graves. During the reign of Thutmosis III and his many military campaigns, BR I and RLWM arrive in Egypt, parallel to their peak in LC IB Cyprus. Their presence in Egypt is not due to tribute- more likely, trade flourished along the established routes, possibly as the armies were supplied (Eriksson 2007b). 3.4. Conclusions: Phases in the Export of Cypriot Wares during the MB-LB Transition and into the LB Within the Levant, the LC IA wares first appear in the final phases of the MBA. The standardized assemblages of the LC II do not appear in force until the LB IB, after they are taken up by the eastern sites of Cyprus. As pottery production and transportation were standardized, with Cypriot small containers being manufactured in various styles, the number of open forms, especially bowls, increased. This increased specialization in production was the result of a more conscious interest in foreign markets (Greener 2015: 30). The LC IB/ LB IIA period was the height of LC imports to the Southern Levant, with a massive influx of BR I and II, WS II, and WhSh vessels. The combined settlement and shipwreck data can be used to divide the Cypriot ceramic exports into three distinctive phases (Papadimitriou 2015) (Fig 3.3): In stage 1 (approximately the MC II), Cypriot exports are rare, numbering less than 100 vessels from Ugarit and several South Levantine sites, and 20 sherds from Tel el Dabᶜa levels G and F, mostly of the White Painted types. There are no more than 150 Cypriot exports during this period of 200-250 years (Papadimitriou 2015: 425). In stage 2, approximately the MC III- LC IB, Cypriot ceramics take off, with more than 800 imports at Tel el Dabᶜa, and present at 35 Levantine sites (Maguire 2009; Papadimitriou 2015: 425). These types include WP, BR I, PWS, WS I, Bichrome, and RLWM juglets. Maguire notes that from the LB I onward, Cypriot liquid containers and juglets replaced non-Cypriot ones, monopolizing the ceramic niche (Maguire 2009: 5022 62). Within the Cypriot production, there is a level of diversification and increase in specialization as they make contact with additional international markets (Papadimitriou 2015: 426). This stage is the most relevant for discussions regarding the Megiddo assemblage. Stage 3, dated to the LC IB- LC IIA, shows the peak of Cypriot ceramic trade following the LB IIA period, with thousands of vessels reaching more than 40 Levantine sites, and more than 700 vessels reaching more than 35 Egyptian sites, with increased diversification (Merrillees 1968; Papadimitriou 2015: 427). Given this evidence, it is clear that the Levant was the most successful market for Cypriot products from the MBA onwards. Fig. 3.3: Main Cypriot pottery exports in Stages 1-4 (the most common forms highlighted in grey) (MCIIILBIIB) (Papadimitriou 2015: 427) 23 4. Chapter 4: Megiddo in the MB/LB 4.1 History of Excavation Excavations at Megiddo over the past one hundred years have unearthed twentysix strata, making it one of the longest, most continuously occupied sites within the Levant. From 1903-1905, Gottlieb Schumacher excavated on the behalf of German Society for the Study of Palestine. In 1925, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, led by Clarence S. Fisher, P.L.O Guy, Romber Lamon, and Gordon Loud, expanded excavation to include the whole tel, completing six layers from the Middle Bronze to Iron Age (Aharoni 1993: 1005; Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2008:1944. This excavation conducted between 1925 and 1939, was responsible for two massive cuts within the tel, Area AA and Area BB, and was one of the first excavations to consider stratigraphy (Aharoni 1993: 1005). The site was revisited in 1960, 1966, 1967, and 1971 by Yigael Yadin on behalf of the Hebrew University (Aharoni 1993: 1005). Megiddo has been excavated since 1994 by Tel Aviv University, co-directed by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin, and Eric Cline, focusing on the systematic excavation of in eight areas. Since 2016 it is co-directed by Israel Finkelstein, Matthew J. Adams, and Mario A. S. Martin (Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2008: 1944-1945). The Cypriot imports to be discussed in this thesis originate in levels K-10/K-9/K-8 and H-15/H-14/H-13 of the renewed Tel Aviv University excavations, dated approximately to the MB III through LB II periods, comparable to Strata X-VIIB of the University of Chicago expedition (Finkelstein, Marin, and Adams, forthcoming). 4.2 Written Sources Relevant to the MB-LB Transition Although archaeological evidence demonstrates a large fortified city at tel Megiddo initially in the Early Bronze Age, the site is not mentioned in historical sources until the early 15th century, during the days of Thutmosis III. However, the presence of Egyptian power is felt in the Jezreel Valley even earlier, as is attested in the Tanaach letters, a group of LB I texts (Rainey and Notley 2005: 75). Tanaach letter 2 specifically refers to representatives of the Egyptian administration requesting that local rulers fulfil their responsibility to produce crops for paying the Egyptian crown its annual dues (Rainey and Notley 2006:76). Two other letters are from Amenhotep, an official who scolds local leaders for not preparing properly for his visit: “your soldiers (? Ĥanakù) are 24 not in the garrison unit and you yourself don’t come to me and neither do you send your brother…I am in Gaza and you do not come before me…Send your brothers (colleagues) with th{eir} chariots and send the horse(s), your tribute and all the āširu-men that area with you…Send them tomorrow to Megiddo (Tanaach 6 and 5, in Rainey and Notley 2005: 76). The most conspicuous body of evidence for Megiddo in the earlier part of the LBA comes from the Egyptian records concerning the so-called Battle of Megiddo between Thutmosis III’s forces and a Canaanite coalition, the first evidence for a serious and large-scale involvement of military nature by the Egyptians in Western Asia (Redford 2006: 329; Rainey and Notley 2005:65-69). After the death of Hatshepsut in the 22nd year of Thutmosis III’s reign, Canaanite rulers see an opportunity to expand their power. Megiddo controls a significant agricultural hinterland, and connects multiple trade routes, including the Tanaach and Djefty (Redford 2003: 15). Megiddo is therefore a sensible rendezvous point for the Canaanite coalition: “[His Majesty] gave orders for a consultation with his victorious army, speaking as follows: ‘[that vile] doomed one of Kadesh is come, and has entered into Megiddo—he is [there] even at this moment!— having gathered unto himself the [chiefs of all] the for[eign lands who used to be] loyal to Egypt…it is rumored that he is saying: “I shall make a stand to [fight with His Majesty] in Megiddo” ( Regnal year 23, first month of shomu, day 16: at the town of Yehem, Redford 2003: 14). Year 40 of Thutmosis III’s reign marks the installment of an embellished account of this first campaign, known as the Annals of Thutmosis III, at Karnak. It lists commodities and notices of the king’s (i.e. the army’s) actions and movements. Two additional sources, an unspecified ledger tallying foodstuffs, and a leather role in a temple, offer support of this account, and detail the military operation calendrically, listing the date, number of expedition, and name of the campaign (Redford 2003: 19). The written sources of Thutmosis III’s military campaigns can be divided into four genres: a series of edited excerpts of the daybook of the kings’ house, royal encomia, and autobiographical reminiscences of veterans and administrations. The Annals describe the expeditions from the Egyptian outpost of Gaza northwards through the Sharon Plain and Taanach road, surprising the Canaanite coalition (Rainey and Notley 2005: 66-67). Thutmose III and the Egyptian forces then engaged in a seven month siege before 25 Megiddo finally surrendered and offered their submission, inaugurating the local rulers as vassals of Egypt: “Then the chiefs of this foreign land came and were on their bellies, doing proskynesis to the power of His Majesty, to beg breath for their nostrils, so great was his sword and so mi[ghty the power of Amun…]…the foreign land, while [every] chief came through the power of His Majesty bearing their benevolences of silver, gold, lapis and turquoise, and carrying grain, wine, beef and wild game to His Majesty’s army…while His Majesty [re]appointed 201 chiefs (96) [to every town…]….(Redford 2003:50). Both the Gebel Barkal stele and the Armant stele supplement the account in the Annals, celebrating the Egyptian victory at Megiddo (Rainey and Notley 2005: 67). It is important to note that historical sources do not mention a traumatic end to the sevenmonth siege in Megiddo. There is no recorded destruction, burning, or capture of the population, but rather, an ignominious surrender: “Then that enemy with the rulers who were with him sent all their children out to my majesty, bearing much tribute of gold and silver…behold they were standing on their walls giving…their oath of allegiance… ‘We will not do evil again against our lord, Menkherperre, may he live forever…’ Then my majesty permitted them to go to their cities. They all went on donkeys, so I could take their horses, after I had also made the townspeople captive for Egypt and their possessions as well” (Gerbel Barkal Stele 18b-25, in Rainey and Notley 2006:67). While the details of the campaign are worth studying, of a larger importance to this report is the impact these military operations had on Megiddo and the Levant. What was the exact nature of the Egyptian occupation at Megiddo? Did Egyptian kings formulate policies towards the outside worlds? Certainty Thutmosis III can be credited with a change of political atmosphere within the Jezreel Valley region, but how far does this extend? El-Amarna Letter 6, sent by King Biridiya of Megiddo to the Egyptian pharaoh shows Megiddo as the mightiest city in Jezreel valley and a rival of Shechem and Akko. Further historical sources including the Tanaach letters and the Description of Amenhotep confirm Thutmosis III as cultivating Megiddo into a major Egyptian base in the Jezreel Valley (Rainey and Notley 2005:67). Indeed, the wall at Karnak lists Thutmosis’ victories, headed by Megiddo and Qedesh, and a total of 17 other smaller, unfortified towns (such as Khirbet Qasyun and Kafr Ana). If this list contains all the known sites in Canaan, it can be assumed that Egyptian control in the area was comprehensive. (Rainey and Notley 2005: 26 67). The 18th Egyptian dynasty established and taxed administration centers with minimal military supervision, thus affecting the material culture of Canaan, as is evident in the contrast of MB IIB and LB I assemblages across the Levant (Bonfil 2012: 139). The effect the campaign had on Megiddo’s Stratum X is still debatable, as is its effect on the Canaanite trade networks. It is possible tensions were felt between the Canaanite citystates themselves, with their major trading partners (i.e. Cyprus), and with Egypt itself (Bonfil 2012: 139). Fig. 4.1: Idealized depiction of a dendritic trade system anchored in a port center (from Sugerman 2009:443) Canaanite Megiddo in the MBA was an urban centre and a royal city-state, that became, in the LBA, a Levantine cultural, economic, and material centre with strong connections with Egypt, possibly even as a vassal-city to the 20th dynasty. Stratum VIIA is the last phase of the Canaanite city associated with Egyptian rule and is thought to have collapsed in 1130 BCE. The nature of the LBA city is heavily debated following the military campaigns of Thutmosis III but determining the nature of Egyptian presence and its impacts during the 20th dynasty is a difficult issue. Regardless if an Egyptian administration functioned here, Megiddo plays an important role in the regional government during this time (Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2008:113-115; Ussishkin 1995: 260). Megiddo’s role as a regional center is due mainly to its strategic position dominating the Via Maris, the main highway from Egypt to Syria. The Via Maris 27 (alternatively the Great Trunk Road) is the modern terminology for a trade route linking Egypt to the northern empires of Syria, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, running parallel to the sea and following the coastal plain before crossing into the Jezreel and the Jordan valleys (Fig 4.2). In the Bronze Age, the route connected Megiddo, in addition to the aforementioned foreign empires, to regional powers such as Akko, Dor, Jaffa, Hazor, and Damascus. At the Mount Carmel Ridge, the highway diverts inland through the gorge of Nahal \ ‘ Iron (Wadi ‘Ara) to the valley of Jezreel, where it splits into several branches leading northwest, northeast, and east. (Ussishkin 1995: 261) (c.f. Fig 4.1). The side roads crossing Mount Carmel Ridge, include one to the east of Nahal ‘Iron opening onto Jezreel Valley near Tel Taanach, and another to the west of Nahal “Iron, opening onto Jezreel Valley near Tel Jokneam (Ussishkin 1995: 261). This passage is guarded by Megiddo, so whoever controls the city controls the highway, and therefore controls the fruits of the maritime and coastal trade travelling eastward. Megiddo’s strategic control over this highway is partially what gives it such unique historical and archaeological importance. The importance of this highway is best illustrated in the encounter between Thutmose III and the coalition of Syrian and Canaanite kings in 1475 BCE. Recorded in the Annals of Thutmosis III in his military campaigns, a narrative can be established from the army daybooks, which detail geography and logistics of army transportation. One particular section refers to the routes as the army travels north: “ ‘In order to speak thus, his majesty called for consultation, with his victorious army: “That [miserable] enemy of Qedesh (Qidsu) has come and has entered into Megiddo. He is {[there] at this moment, having gathered to himself the rulers of [all the] countries [that were] tributary to Egypt together with those from Nahrina, [Mittanians(?)], Hurrians and people of Qode, their chariotry, their infantry [and their service personnel], since he says (as follows), ‘[Here] in Megiddo will I take a stand to [fight with his majesty].’ Tell me [what is in your hearts]. They spoke in the presence of his majesty: “What is it like to go [on] this [ro]ad which becomes so narrow? It is [reported] that the enemy is there waiting [outside and that they] are becoming more numerous Will note horse have to go after [horse], and the infantry and the service personnel likewise? Is it not that when our vanguard will be fighting, our [rea]r guard will be standing here in ‘Aruna unable to fight? Inasmuch as there are two roads here-as for the one, it is [to our east] while it comes out] at Taanach and as for the other, it is to the north of Sifta (=Zepath) 28 while we come out north of Megiddo. Therefore, may our victorious lord set out on whichever of these latter seems best to him, but let us not go by way of this difficult road…’ “(Cols. 18-37; Sethe 1930:649, 4-650,14, in Rainey and Notley 2005:66). From these passages in Thutmose III’s Annals, we can tell that Megiddo was a central point along the interior highways of Canaan in this time, and that routes were available in variety of directions. The eastern route ran, in antiquity, from Yaham through Waddi Massin (Nahal Haiva). The western alternative likely went past Sifta, which must be otherwise be an unknown town with a name like Zepeath; it can mostly likely be identified with Khirbet Sitt Leila. This large tel has the requisite pottery sherds (Aharoni 1959:113-116) and on the Survey of the Western Palenstine map, the field south of it was called Dhaharet es-Safi. The road going past it could link up with Wadi Milh and near Tell Qaimun (Tel Yoqne’am), but it could also follow the road past Sabbarin and connect to Tell Abu Shusha (At Kibbutz Mishmar Ha’emeq). In either case, the Egyptians would enter the valley to the north of Megiddo (Rainey and Notley 2005: 66). Fig. 4.2: Map of the deployment of forces for the battle of Megiddo (taken from Rainey and Notley, 2005:66) 29 While there is evidence for use of the high way through Nahal ‘Iron in the LBA, no data confirms to the use of a coastal road around Mount Carmel during these periods. As it seems, this part of Via Maris was hardly in use at this time, and it seems to have gained preference from the Persian period onwards, when Phoenician settlements extended along the coastal plain (Ussishkin 1995: 262). It is more probable that goods were brought to the known Bronze Age anchorage sites, and then distributed inwards in the east to west roads, as suggested in the port-power and core-periphery models. Coastal gateways to interior urban sites seem like the most logical conclusion for Bronze Age distribution, as there must be some connection between an eastern overland supply route and coastal sites. Tel Nami, occupied in the MB IIA and LB II, would have little agricultural hinterland due to high ground water and swamping, and as likely dependent on maritime trade. However, Artzy (1994) argues that if Nami was a favored port within local, north-south coastal trade, competition with other sites would have been fierce, and this would not explain its rich material culture. If Nami served an additional role as an outlet for terrestrial trade and the eastern supply route, that would explain its success in the LB II (Fig 4.3) (Artzy 1994:7). 30 Fig. 4.3: Nami and its possible connections (Taken from Artzy 1994: 8) 4.3 The Transition from MB to LB 4.3.1 The Late Middle Bronze Age Levels: The Oriental Institute Excavations 4.3.1.1 Stratum XI (MB II or MB III) The excavations of the Oriental Excavations mainly focused on two areas, Area AA and Area BB. Area AA contains a flimsy city wall with a rubble foundation, never greater than three courses and with no remaining superstructure. Reuse of Stratum XII is seen in the southern street. Three well-constructed tombs (T4098, T3175, T4055) were found (Loud 1948: 15). In Area BB, two complexes are set apart by an assumed sacred area. The eastern complex is derived from Stratum XII, as is a nearby alley. The blocks 31 of buildings within the complex are small and numerous. Three tombs (T3070, T3075, T3085) were uncovered containing enormous amounts of pottery, course jewelry, metal implements, and incised bones (Loud 1948: 92). Kempinski (1989), provides more detail than Loud (1948), dubbing Megiddo’s Strata XI-X ‘a new epoch in urban planning and sociopolitical formation, crystallizing the character of the city (Kempinski 1989:57). Stratum XI see the enlargement of the city from 6.8 to 8.3 ha. Area BB domestic houses are modified to border the fill which as part of the glacis; this line of the city wall is preserved only in Area AA. Many structures from Strata XII are rebuilt or continue without modification, including the sacred building 4040c and its southern cult cell. West of this sacred building, behind a casemate temenos wall, a new palace, 5059, was constructed. Area AA also sees the construction of a new gate with an earthen rampart. Kempinski (1989) dates the beginning of Stratum XI to approximately 1730-1700 BCE (Kempinski 1989:59). All these dates need further scrutiny, in view of new radiocarbon data from Megiddo (Toffolo, Arie, Martin, Boaretto, Finkelstein 2014). Herzog (1997) agrees with Kempinski that Stratum XI is a new era of the city, citing the construction of a new 8m wide city wall and a new gate. While much of the cultic structures of Stratum XII are reused, an open temenos is a new addition. He agrees with Loud that the palatial structure being built on the same orientation but with a new plan. He also cites the residential areas becoming more orderly, with larger, rectangular units and streets (Herzog 1997: 150). 4.3.1.2 Stratum X (MB III) In Area AA, there is partial continuity of plan existing successively in Strata XI- VIIA. Each strata has new structures, but there is always some reuse of old structure. This implies that at no point is there a wholesale destruction of the site. Mostly, Area AA is comprised of a continuous block are rooms and courts covering the area, limited in the north by a heavy wall and in the south by a reused street from Stratum XII and XI. Stratum X also represented the construction of a new “palace” with relatively grand architecture positioned within the city gate, containing finds of gold and ivory (Loud 1948: 16). In Area BB, there is extensive reuse of Stratum XI, with the alley growing into a cross street, and the block of buildings becoming more developed and 32 assuming greater importance. New construction includes heavy eastern walls, and new walls of lime plastered brick on stone foundations, a building technique found also in Stratum XIX, Strata XVII-XVI, and Stratum XIII (Loud 1948: 97). Kempinski (1989) sees more continuation between Strata XI and X than Loud (1948), believing the major architectural trends of Bronze Age Megiddo to begin in Stratum XI rather than Stratum X. However, both cite major changes in the sacred area and gate complex. Kempinski blames a potential partial destruction. The fortification continues to be based as an earthen rampart. The tower gate of Stratum XI is replaced by Building 4031, a new public building in the Syrian style. This phase in when the palace begins to be transferred from the eastern part of the sacred area to the gate area (Kempinski 1989: 58). In Area BB, temple 2048 is constructed. Strata X is dated by scarabs to the reign of M3-jb-RcSsj, one of the earlier kings of the 15th (Hyksos) dynasty, ruling from 1670-1650 (Kempinski 1989:59). Herzog (1997) interprets Stratum X as representing new construction projects at Megiddo, particularly the new temple (Temple 2048) and a general expansion of the temple area. This expansion includes the reshaping of new temples and starts a new tradition of shrines with long rooms and thick walls (Herzog 1997: 150). The city gate is also remodeled, using a belt of residential houses that circle the city and act as a defensive system (Herzog 1997: 150). Herzog also sites Building 4021 as an example of radical changes: there is a central courtyard with rooms of various sizes on all four sides, close to the gate, with finds of gold and ivory. The thick walls, symmetry, finds, and dimensions all point to a dwelling/palace of a city ruler. Residential buildings in Stratum X contain parallel streets, and rectangular buildings, building on the well-organized (common orientation) residential area of Stratum XI. The presence of circular bins and granaries within this area indicate a surplus of resources during this building (Herzog 1997: 153). The Stratum XI palace was replaced by a building whose sole purpose was to provide access to a temenos, and Herzog also references a new palatial system by the city gate. Herzog believes architectural changes in Stratum X may suggest a division of power within the ruling classes (Herzog 1997: 153). According to the excavators, part of this palace was constructed in Stratum X, dated to the MB II by ceramics found in the courtyard. However, there is some debate among scholars that this palatial structure 33 should be dated to Stratum IX, based on a meager (two vessel) assemblage and a pavement which would’ve preceded the construction of the palace, belonging to Stratum X. Therefore, according to some, the palace should be contributed to Stratum IX (Bonfil 2012: 134). While earlier stages of the MBA saw large palaces erected near traditional ceremonial/ cult centres, the new administrative centres near the gate indicate an elite faction with political and military institutions as their power base, rather than religious institutions. Other MB II cities see these separations occurring at the beginning of the MB IIA period, so the change at Megiddo appears rather later by comparison. 4.3.1.2 Stratum IX (MB III to LB I) The work done by University of Chicago in Stratum IX details the evolution of the palace of Stratum X, with the northern and eastern boundary walls and the central courtyard becoming more defined. In Area AA, Loud (1948) theorizes that there is a large amount of continuation from Stratum XII, and the existence of a city gate (Loud 1948: 16). In Area BB, there are wider streets and new walls within complexes. There are also three deep chambers with lime paved floors, likely storage pits (Loud 1948: 102). Kempinski’s (1989) interpretation also describes slight architectural change sin Stratum IX, stating that it also represents a consolidation of the physical and social character of the city (Kempinski 1989:57). Area AA basically remains the same as Stratum X, with palace 2134 continuing unchanged, and residence 4031 only be enlarged slightly. The Area BB palace falls into disuse, and domestic dwelling change slightly. The temple area is enclosed by private houses, and the temenos wall vanishes. Area CC remains the same as Stratum X, with two main complexes. The stratum begins between 1600/1650 BCE, based on the end of Stratum X (Kempinski 1989: 64). Tomb 2117 (including gold and silver jewelry, bichrome war with comparisons to Tel el Ajjul, and scarabs) provides the last period of occupation of the stratum, with a destruction occurring from 1530-1520 BCE, correlated with the campaigns of Thutmosis III, Kempinski theorizes because of Megiddo’s presence on the main highway to Mitanni (Kempinski 1989: 67). Herzog (1997), dates Stratum IX to LB I, and interprets changes to the temple area as the palace shifts to close to the city gate: palatial buildings of Stratum X are dismantled, and small domestic houses are built on their ruins (Herzog 1997: 165). Herzog generally 34 agrees with Kempinski’s interpretation of enlargement: palaces on both sides of the gate grew in size and complexity. The Area AA palace is extended and rebuilt with thicker walls (Herzog 1997: 165). . Fig. 4.4: Stratum XI (from Herzog 1997: Fig 4.17) 35 Fig. 4.5: Stratum X (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.18) 4.3.2 The Late Middle Bronze Age Levels: The Evidence from the Renewed Tel Aviv University excavations The MBA (specifically MB III) appears in the renewed excavations in area K only in K-10. Based on ceramic evidence of the Renewed Excavations, K-10 is correlated to Strata X-IX of the University of Chicago Expedition, and dated to the MB III-LB I. K-10 is a domestic area characterized by a sizeable courtyard house strewn with intramural burials. Significant archaeological finds of these strata include a courtyard house, with fieldstone foundations of up to 1m, covering an 36 entire area beyond excavations into the NE and NW. The rooms are strewn with intermural burials beneath their floors, mostly of simple pit and jar burials, but including also a brick lined grave, a shallow cist tomb, and a masonry-constructed family vault. Two orientations are evident in this phase, and both are retained in following levels. In chrono-typological terms, the ceramic assemblage of K-10 burials outlived the K-10 habitation levels. LBA types appear in some burials, and pottery of the habitation areas is almost exclusively MBA. This discrepancy may be due to the existence of an interim phase prior to the erection of the Level K-9 building, during which the abandoned K-10 building was used as a burial ground. Most of the K-10 ceramic assemblage is composed of complete and partially restorable vessels deriving from the burials. The ceramic collection retrieved in situ from floors is fragmentary and sparse, indicating an uneventful end. In terms of chrono-typological terms, the ceramic assemblage of the Level K-10 burials is characterized by typical LBA wares in the burials, contrasted with MBA types in the habitation layers, which further indicates an interim following K-10 before the construction of the K-9 building. Apart from several minor modifications to facilitate this change, there is a great deal of architectural continuity between Levels K-10 and K-9, in the use of sacred, domestic and fortification areas (Marin, forthcoming). The end of K-10 is certainly not violent but do include ashy layers as a byproduct of household activities. Earlier phases of the MBA, in Area H and elsewhere, have not yet been exposed by the Renewed Excavations of Tel Aviv University. In Area H, Levels H-15 and H-14 demonstrate similar architectural continuity, with minor alterations. The massive building 14/H/87 shows an accumulation of restorable pottery in Level H-15, suggesting a sudden abandonment in LB I, yet lacking in traces of destruction. H-15 is contemporary to Level K-10, and it is apparent that the MB III-LB I ceramic transition occurs within the lifetime of these levels and was rather eventless. 37 4.3.3 Late Bronze Age Levels IX-VIIIB (LB I-LN III) There are clear changes in urban structures between Strata IX (Fig. 4.6) and VIIB, Megiddo acts as a model of typical Late Bronze Age city. Stratum VIII (Fig. 4.7), excavated by the University of Chicago, has been dated to the LBIIA period. The Oriental Institute excavations in Stratum VIII documents the most complete phase of the city gate: a rubble paved structure supported by earth held by a retaining wall topped with boulders, and a two-chambered gate forming three sets of piers. A destruction in Area BB was found, suggested to make room for later buildings. Temple 2048 is new rectangular structure with a single niche and an asymmetrical façade (Loud 1948: 192). In Stratum VII B, Temple 2048 is in its second phase, generally unchanged but with minor alterations including heavy ashlar blocks, stone objects, flat flabs with cup-like depressions, basalt blocks, and drains (Loud 1948: 104). Stratum VII A is mostly incomplete, but shows major alterations in Temple 2048, including walls of half their former thickness and of poor ruble (Loud 1948: 105). Kempinski identifies Stratum VIII-VIIA as the last phases of the LBA in Megiddo, with few changes occurring in the town plan, as the main private and public buildings retain their former positions (Kempinski 1989:67). Within this time, the palace remained by the gates, indicating a strong relation between political and economic goals, as seen in Stratum X. The temple, located in Area BB, retained its basic plan without any major modifications, but the palatial buildings begun in Stratum X on the western and northern sides of the temenos which were dismantled and replaced with small domestic units. The residential quarter east of the temple show sign of enlargement, indicating occupation by wealthy families. The palaces/ administrative centres on both sides of the gate grew in size and complexity. Area AA, the palace west of the gate, was rebuilt with a thicker wall. Area DD, east of the city gate, was built and occupied from stratum XI onward. Stratum IX is significant as it is an indicator of the material culture of LB I (Bonfil 2012: 133). 38 Fig. 4.6: Stratum IX (Herzog 1997: Fig 4.23) 39 Fig. 4.7: Stratum VIII (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.24) Stratum VIIB (Fig. 4.9), dated to the LBIIB, is a phase difficult to differentiate from Stratum VIIA. There is also significant continuation from Stratum VIII, including use of the central courtyard and sanctuary. The most significant changes in the stratum include wall repairs, and the disappearance of massive walls (Aharoni 1993: 1012). Temenos walls were built to enclose the temples, but much of the residential dwellings in the east remain the same. The southern quarter, Area CC, shows thin-walled houses with no order, demonstrating the so-called decline of the Canaanite City begins at Megiddo 40 (Herzog 1997: 169). Similarly, the palatial citadel is rebuilt along the same lines, but the outer walls are now thinner (Herzog 1997: 169). Stratum VIIB certainly continues the bronze age trend of a wealthy city but shows the beginning of a decline when compared to Stratum VIII. Fig. 4.8: Stratum VIIB (From Herzog 1997: Fig 4.25) 41 4.3.4. The Late Bronze Age Phases: Evidence from the Renewed Excavation Within the Renewed Excavations of Tel Aviv University, Stratum VIII is associated with Levels K-9 (LB I-LB IIA), and H-15 (LB I). This correlation was established by Mario Martin (Finkelstein, Martin, and Adams, forthcoming). Just as in the University of Chicago stratum, K-9 demonstrates a great deal of architectural continuity following K-10. The main building of K-9 was constructed in the same layout and orientation, with the majority of the walls being reused, raised along the same outlines, or rebuilt with minor offset. Prominent features of this house include casemate-like rooms, a large olive oil installation, several storage pits, and pillar bases. The ceramic data conveys that K-9 was a long-lived phase, the end of this phase was not characterized by a violent destruction or disruption, indicated by a small collection of complete and near complete vessels. H-15, dated to the same time, reveals a similar phenomenon: complete vessels found on surfaces may indicate a sudden abandonment during the LB I. However, there is no accompanying evidence of fire or a large accumulation of debris, as one would find in a destruction. Prior to the end of the level, H-15 is known for a massive building, 14/H/87, which was not fully exposed by the end of the 2014 season. What was excavated in the 2010-2014 seasons include a rich accumulation of restorable pottery, including a large amount of Cypriot pottery. H-15 is a series of wealthy domestic structures whose inhabitants were of high economic and social status. This conclusion is based on the pottery, the quality of construction materials, small finds, and the location of the structure directly west of the monumental architecture in Area AA, the stratum IX gate. Further excavations are necessary to fully expose this phase and these structures. The renewed excavations correlated stratum VIIB to K-8, a phase investigated in the 2004 and 2006 seasons (Finkelstein, Martin, and Adams, forthcoming). The excavation focused on one large building rebuilt out of the K-9 domestic unit. Megiddo stratigraphy and finds both indicate continuity between the end of the Middle Bronze age, and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Levant, debunking the previously popular idea that the beginning of the Late Bronze Age is a time of poorly occupied, improvised urban sites. Major urban centres, such as Megiddo, continue to be a hub of international trade and flourish culturally. 42 4.4 Chronology 4.4.1 High and Low Chronology Interregional chronology, in regard to the second millennium BCE, has been a long-standing conundrum facing historians and archaeologists. Before the advent of radiocarbon, historical chronology provided an absolute timeframe for the Bronze and Iron ages, with archaeology establishing relative chronologies. Archaeological timeframes are established by material culture, especially chronologically indicative ceramic imports (like Cypriot imports) with direct links to Egyptian chronology. One of the forefront debates of current archaeological scholarship is finding a consensus between these three cornerstones of chronology, using a general framework of interregional chronologies (Kutschera and Bietka 2012; Bietak and Höflmayer 2007). ‘Low’ chronology, as it has been dubbed, relies on a combination of astrochronology, incomplete or corrupted king lists, incomplete regnal data, and genealogies of officials, often using a dead reckoning from an undisputed date. This information is also compared to Assyrian chronology. While the political history of the Nile Delta Valley is carefully documented, the material culture must be synchronized with this political chronology in order to derive an absolute calendrical date for the relative chronological phases (Höflmayer and Cohen 2017: 2). Much of this synchronization is done with the help of Levantine artifact-based chronology, which provides a relative date based on changing shape and decoration of pottery as documented in stratified sequences. A handful of sites, including Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel Aphek, and Tel Megiddo provide secure, continuous stratigraphic sequencing and allow a basis for the establishment of a relative chronological system (Höflmayer and Cohen 2017: 2). Tel el Dabᶜa, ancient Avaris, is one of the longest excavated Egyptian sites, with eleven successive strata from the 20th to the 15th centuries. The dates of the successive strata are anchored by two historical datum lines (1868 BCE, year 5 of Sesostris III, and 1530 BCE, the conquest and abandonment of Avaris) (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007:14). Besides this, cross referencing dates to other sites can be established using ceramic types and Egyptian seals, creating complete stratigraphic comparisons. Tel el Dabᶜa has uncovered over 500 Cypriot sherds. The succession of MC and LC wares, as observed in Cyprus, can be found in similar succession in stratification of Tel el Dabᶜa, Ashkelon, and Tel el Ajjul (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007: 17; Manning, Weninger, South et al. 2001: 75-88) (Table 1). This 43 succession can help synchronize interregional stratifications and contradicts a long delay between production and deposition in Egypt and the Levant (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007: 17). Recent investigations of Tel el Dabᶜa show an offset of 100 years or more between traditional (low/historical) chronology (Thera eruption around 1500 BCE) and the radiocarbon-based (high) chronology (Thera eruption middle to second half of the 17th century BCE). The leading proponents of low chronology, led by Manfred Bietak, reject the results of radiocarbon dating within the historical chronology of the 18th Dynasty, instead suggesting that, “under such auspices, one has to ask if it would not be worthwhile to investigate if a systematic failure in the Mediterranean 14C evaluation could be discovered, or if the absorption of 14C as, for environmental reasons, different from the 15th century BC backwards” (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007:27). ‘High’ chronology, as defined by Sturt Manning, Felix Höflmayer, and others, is based on methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, and similar techniques provide a direct link between an organic object and an absolute calendrical date expressed as a probability distribution on a timeline, dated to when a sample ceased exchanging carbon with the environment, either as a terminus post quem or terminus ad quem. This allows an additional method of independent chronological reconstructions and does not rely on the co-dependencies between chronological systems, as artifact based, and historical chronologies do. Arguably the most significant datum point in the chronological history of the LBA is the eruption of the volcano beneath Thera (modern Santorini). The eruption occurred closed to the height of the power and influence of the Minoan civilization, but the exact date remains one of the most contested debates between high and low chronological scholars. Thera pumice found in archaeological contexts across the Mediterranean allows progress, creating stratigraphic comparisons with major sites. Cypriot and Egyptian pottery found within the Theran destruction layer also help in this, but, at best, set a terminus ante quem for the Thera eruption (Cherubbini et al 2014: 267; Manning, Höflmayer, Moeller, et. al 2014: 31). A key piece of evidence supporting a “high” chronological date is a single olive branch found within Minoan pumice indicated a late 17th century BCE date (1626-1600) (Manning, Höflmayer, Moeller, et al. 2014: 1176). However, many dispute this as sound evidence, due to indistinct annual rings, and the uncertainty regarding the possible effects of carbon reservoirs on Thera (Cherubini et al 44 2014: 268-9). While the olive branch provides a reliable sequence of C14 dates, the sequence is floating, and is difficult to attach to any archaeological context. Since a robust radiocarbon sequence for the transition from the MBA to LBA in the Southern Levant is nonexistent, much of the research focuses on the date of the MB III. Evidence for a ‘high chronology’ includes the discovery of a seal of Khayan, the Hyksos king, at Tell Edfu in association with the Thirteenth Dynasty king Sobkehotep IV, indicating a date some 80 years earlier than originally suggested by “low chronology”. Khayan was originally dated to the Tell el Dabᶜa palace complex of late Stratum E/1 and early Stratum D/3, typically dated 1600-1800 BCE, and a cartouche of Khayan was found Knossos MM IIIB. The Tell Edfu sealings draw one of the arguments for Aegean “low” chronology into questioning (Manning and Höflmayer 2014 :1171-2). New 14C work from Höflmayer et al Tell el-Burak also presents a case for a higher chronology, with the MBIII occurring from approximately 1700-1600 (Höflmayer and Cohen 2017: 30). New evidence from Tel Kabri, Tell el Dabᶜa and Tell el Hayyat agrees with this, also consistently suggests a higher date than traditional “low” chronology, with the MB II-III transition occurring around 1700 BCE (Höflmayer 2017:24). The radiocarbon from Tel el Dabᶜa and Jericho favor a late 17th century BCE or a 1600 BCE transition to the LBA, although the dates from Tell el ‘Ajjul and Tel el-Hayyat could be somewhat earlier (sometime in the 17th century BCE). Based on this evidence, “high” chronology, led by Felix Höflmayer, suggests a start of 1600 BCE for the LBA, 100 years earlier than the traditional chronology of William Dever and 100 to 150 years earlier than the Low chronology of Manfred Bietak, equivalent to the late SIP in Egyptian historical chronology (Höflmayer and Cohen 2017:29). While Cypriot pottery cannot decide the debate between “low” and “high” chronologies, it can act as an important tool for correlation and relative chronology. The relative artifact-based chronology of Cypriot pottery allows temporal ordering of a given context in relation to other contexts, acting independently from historical and scientific chronologies. Therefore, the Cypriot sequences must be synchronized with the historical chronologies of Egypt, and the Mediterranean at large. 45 4.4.2 Megiddo’s Chronology 4.4.2.1 The Absolute Chronology for the Transition between MB and LB in Megiddo Megiddo is regarded as one of the foremost sites for the creation of a full chronological model of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Excavations were carefully and scientifically conducted and established a solid stratigraphic sequence. Between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, there are four “destruction” layers that provide large, diverse assemblages, acting as reliable synchronisms of material cultures. Due to Megiddo’s prominence as a cultural and economic hub with strong trade connections, ceramic assemblages include Egyptian, Aegean, and Cypriot forms, which can help to establish chronological links. Additionally, Megiddo is mentioned in many written sources in connection to major events. This facilitates links between archaeological and historical records, especially those of Egypt (Toffolo et. al 2014: 224-5). The topic of transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Megiddo have been closely connected to historical reconstructions connecting Egypt and the Levant, and especially two possible datum lines: that of the conquest of Canaan by Ahmose at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, ca. 1530 B.C., and the conquest of Megiddo by Thutmose III at the middle of the 15th century B.C. Kempinski (1989), for example, states that the beginning of Stratum IX it to be set sometime between 1600-1591, spanning 70 years at most, with a partial destruction occurring sometime around 1520, and correlating to Ahmose’ campaigns in the Levant (Kempinski 1989:67). He connected the campaign of Thutmose III to the later Stratum VIII, yet admitting that direct evidence are hard to come by, as the city was not destroyed by Thutmose III (Kempinski 1989:67-68). An opposing opinion was given by Bonfil (2012), who attributed the destruction of Megiddo X (not IX), Yoqne`am XXII and Taanach to the campaign of Thusmose III, due to the manifested changes in the plan of the city from stratum X to stratum IX (Bonfil 2012: 139). To her mind, the LBI begins late in the north of Israel, and postdates the beginning of the 18th dynasty in Egypt (Bonfil 2012: 140). A major development comes from a recent detailed 14C data for the Late Bronze and Iron ages at Megiddo, established by a study by M. Toffolo, E. Arie, M. Martin, E. Boaretto, and I. Finkelstein (2014), which used 78 samples to create three Bayesian chronological models (Area H, Area K, and a general model). In Area K, the MB III to LB IB transition occurs during Level K-10. In Area H, this transition was not yet dated. Table 46 2 represent the Megiddo chronology and transitions between ceramic phases, and places the relative chronology of LB I/IIA transition to the absolute dates of 1560-1505 BCE (Toffolo et. al 2014: 236). The model for Area K suggests that this transition occurs close to 1500 BCE, but the general model for the site, which is heavily influenced by Area F, places the LB I/IIA transition earlier and cannot eliminate either option for the MB/LB transition. The lack of agreement between the two models can possibly be traced to a brief occupational gap in Area K during the late LB I (K-10), or a possibility that K-9 started in the later LB I. Area K of Megiddo suggests a LB I/IIA transition in the later 16th century, which is impossible from the Egyptian historical perspective, where the earliest date for the beginning of the LB I is 1530 BCE, a problem that all chronological models in the Levant suffer from (Toffolo et. al 2014: 241). The study concludes that current Megiddo data cannot resolve the debate regarding the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age in Canaan. Weather it occurs in the beginning of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt (1530), because of Egyptian punitive campaigns following the expulsion of the Hyksos, or as a gradual process ending with the first military campaign of Thutmose III (1450), cannot be determined by these results (Toffolo et. al 2014: 241). General Model H Transition Absolute Dates Relative chronology K Transitions Absolute Dates 1180-1135 H-13/H-12 1125-1070 LB IIB/III K-7/K-6 1185-1135 Within LB II K-8/K-7 1245-1170 1290-1200 LB IIA/IIB K-9/K-8 1290-1210 1480-1475 (2.6%) 1435-1375 (65.6%) LB I/IIA K-10/K-9 1560-1505 Table 2: Megiddo chronology, transitions between levels in areas H and K (based on models H and K, 68r.2% probability) (taken from Toffolo et al 2014: 236). 4.4.2.2. The Relative Chronology for the Transition between MB and LB in Megiddo While Cypriot pottery is of limited value in providing absolute chronology, it can be very useful in providing a tool for the relative chronology of Megiddo’s phases, The relative chronology of Bronze Age Megiddo is based on both imported as well as local pottery. As discussed in Chapter 3, Cypriot ceramics have been helpful in establishing relative chronology due to their predictable development and trends. This was clear even in the excavations of Gordon Loud in the second half of the 1930s, who carefully identified and 47 documented the Cypriot wares (including WP, bichrome, monochrome, PWS, BR, and WS). This Cypriot pottery from the Chicago excavations has since been studied by various scholars, including Louise Maguire (2009) and Eliezer Oren (2001). Oren’s work helped to establish Cypriot ceramics as a tool correlating between the relative chronology of Cyprus to the strata of Megiddo. According to Oren, the Cypriot ceramics of Stratum X are MB III include WP III-VI, and Cypriot and Bichrome (Fig. 4.5) (Oren 2001: 129). The imported Cypriot pottery of Stratum IX include early monochrome and WP V-VI vessel (Fig. 4.8) (Oren 2001: 131). Maguire notes the WP and Red on Black wares of Stratum XI, and the WP and PWS of Stratum X, correlating Stratum XI and Stratum X to the late MC (MC III) and early LC (Maguire 2009: 215-217). The absolute chronology of Cyprus in the end of the MC, the LC I and early LC II is still task in need of work, necissitating more radiocarbon samples from Cypriot sites. Considerable work has been done by Sturt Manning (et al. 2002, et al. 2013, et al. 2014, 2014). For the end of the MC some assumptions must be made since the best late MC samples are long-lived materials which can only set unclear terminus post quem ranges (Manning 2014: 208) A recent assessment places the MC III/LC I transition between 1690 BCE-1650 BCE supports Manning’s ideas of a high (middle) chronology (Manning 2014: 209). Further studies of the absolute chronology of the Cypriot early LBA may enable the use of Cypriot pottery as objects which assist the creation of absolute, rather than only relative chronology. 48 Fig 4.9: Megiddo X: plan and location of Cypriot imports (Oren 2001:130) 49 Fig. 4.10: Megiddo IX: plan and location of Cypriot imports (Oren 2001:131) 50 5 Chapter 5: Introduction to a Provenance Study of Bichrome Ware 5.1 Rationale The assemblage of Cypriot wares from Tel Aviv University’s Renewed Expedition at Tel Megiddo included nine sherds identified as Bichrome type. Bichrome wares are an important identifier for Bronze Age Mediterranean networks at the beginning of the LC I, as they are widely produced and distributed to the entire eastern Levant, from Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, the Canaanite coast, and Egypt. While they are a useful chronological marker for the LC I horizon, the origins and imitations of the type have been important topics since the 1930s (Tschegg et al. 2007: 1135). The large variety of vessel types and decorative motifs has brought suggestions for several different places of the origin of the ware: Northern Syria, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Tell el-Ajjul, and Hurrian (inland Syria) (Tschegg et al. 2007: 1135). A Cypriot origin was originally brought into the discussion by Hennessy (1963) and Trendall (2000), who proved the origin of Bichrome ware using analytical methods, especially Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). Artzy et al. (1978) studied Bichrome ware samples from Megiddo using NAA and results showed chemical differences suggesting that some were Cypriot in origin and some were locally produced Syro-Palestinian ‘imitations’ (Fig. 5.1). It is therefore highly important to distinguish Cypriot-produced Bichrome from imitations to allow for better archaeological interpretation. Artzy et al. (1978) also determined that the Cypriot and local Bichrome wares differ macroscopically, including a porous and gritty fabric of the Levantine family and a finer clay fabric of the Cypriot family (Artzy et al. 1978: 101-103), thus providing a simpler and quicker means to differentiating between imports and imitations. Yet, such macroscopic attributes may not always be accurate. 51 Fig. 5.1: Comparison of Megiddo Cypriot Bichrome Ware, non-Cypriote Bichrome Ware, and Megiddo non-Bichrome Ware (Taken from Artzy et al. 1978: 103) Tschegg et al. (2007) studied 205 Bichrome Wheelmade Ware sherds/vessels using optical microscopy, X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and electron probe micro-analyzer (EPMA) found in Tell el-Dabᶜa, Egypt. They identified Cypriot imports as well as local Egyptian imitations. Notably, they showed that a distinctive firing temperature correlated to region of production: Cypriot imports have been produced by firing temperatures of around 950-1000º C while Egyptian imitations were fired to 600-800 ºC (Tschegg et al. 2007: 1134). The difference in firing temperature is also evident petrographically, with Cypriot ware having a highly vitrified isotropic paste (Tschegg et al. 2007: 1143). In lieu of Tschegg et al.’s (2007) multi-analytical analysis, I decided to work with the methods of petrography and infrared spectroscopy to distinguish Cypriot imports from imitations that may be local to Megiddo. These methods were selected because of the following reasons: 52 1. Petrography is a method of identification of rocks and minerals based on their optical properties via a polarized light microscope. It permits the identification of minerals and rock fragments that form the coarse fraction of ceramic temper, which in turn are useful for the detection of ceramic production areas (Riederer 2004:143). Common temper inclusions in Cypriot ceramics include quartz, feldspars, accessory Fe- Ti-, and Cr- rich oxides (like magnetite, Cr-spinel, Ti-magnetite), micas, diopside, olivine, plagioclase and calcareous grains of sand, micritic and sparitic carbonate rock fragments and calcareous microfossils, gabbro and sandstone fragments, grog, and anorthite grains (Tschegg et al. 2007: 1109). In contrast to Cyprus, the temper in ceramics of the Southern Levant is characterized by the presence of sedimentary chalks, cherts and marl, as well as inclusions of basalt, quartz, and plagioclase (Levantine Ceramics Project). See more in the "Geological Background" section below. In addition to temper, based on Tchegg et al. (2007), Cypriot Bichrome ware should be composed of a highly fired isotropic paste which can be identified petrographically. 2. Infrared spectroscopy, used for bulk mineralogical identification, is a tool widely used in modern archaeology (Weiner 2010). Among other things, this method allows determining the temperature to which clay and calcite minerals have been exposed in the past (Weiner 2010). Berna et al. (2007) studied the effect of different firing temperatures in clay minerals and sediments at Tel Dor, showing a gradual change in the position of the main clay absorption band from 1032 cm-1 (unaltered clay) to 1092 cm-1 (clay fired at 1100 ºC). Generally, the position of the main clay absorption is between 1032 and 1045 cm-1 when heated in the range of 400 to 700 ºC and between 1080 and 1087 cm-1 when heated in a range of 800 to 900 ºC (Berna et. al. 2007:363-364). Fig 5.2 demonstrates how absorption bands shift as clay is heated, including how loss of hydroxyl (OH; absorbance bands at 3695, 3650 and 3620 cm-1) occurs at and above 500 ºC, and when quartz is mixed with clay the increasing growth and clarity of the Si-O 53 stretching doublet (795-780 cm-1) and the Si-O-Si (1082 cm-1) bands typical of quartz as the temperature increases (Fig 5.2; Berna et al. 2007: 364). Fig. 5.2: Infrared spectra of a mudbrick sample heated in an oven for 4 hours to different temperatures, taken from Berna et al. 2007:364: “(a) Not heated; (b) Heated at 500ºC: the kaolinite absorption bands at 3695, 3650, 3620 cm-1 disappear due to the collapse of the structure due to the loss of hydroxyl groups. The strong Si-O-Si absorption peak at 1032 cm-1, typical of clay minerals, shifts to 1050 cm-1, the OH deformation band (Al-OH-Al) at 915 cm-1 disappears. The smectite-kaolinite Si-O-Al band at 520-530 cm-1 is substituted by the quartz Si-O band at 512 cm-1. As a consequence, the valley between the resulting 512 cm-1 peak and the clay Si-O band at 470 cm-1 is not as well defined as for the unburned material. At the same time the Si-O-Si absorption of quartz (1082 cm-1) as well as the doublet at 798 and 780 cm-1 (Si-O stretching) and 460 cm-1 peak (Si-O bending) become stronger and clearly distinguishable; (c) heated to 800ºC: the absorptions at 1040-1050 cm-1 disappear and the spectrum resembles that of quartz (1170, 1083, 797-780 doublet, 694, 460 cm-1); (d) Heated at 1100ºC. The 512 cm-1 absorption is very weak, the peaks of the 797-780 cm-1 doublet are elevated and equal in height, the major absorption peak at 1085 cm-1 is broad and has a distinct tailing towards lower wavenumbers; (e) Heated to 1300ºC: The main Si-O-Si absorption is shifted to 107=87 cm-1 and a band at 617 cm-1, characteristic of cristobalite, appeared; (f) spectrum of beach sand collected in proximity of Tel Dor”. (Berna et al. 2007: 364) Additionally, Forget et al. (2015) noted that the clay main absorbance band becomes wider with increasing temperature, suggesting that it is possible to use both the 54 position of the main clay absorbance band and its width in order to more accurately determine firing temperatures (Fig 5.3). Fig. 5.3: The relationship between the position of the main clay absorbance band (X axis) and its width (Y axis), at different temperatures and firing atmospheres, as based on experimental heating of small clay bricks (from Forget et al. 2015: 90). Another feature in infrared spectroscopy affected by heat is the ratio of height of two distinctive absorbance bands of the mineral calcite. Regev et al. (2010) devised a method by which it is possible to determine whether calcite is geogenic (unheated as well as unaffected in temperatures as high as 700°C) or pyrogenic (transforms into lime, CaO, generally above 750°C and then reforms as disordered calcite). Looking at both clay and calcite using infrared spectroscopy can therefore help defining past firing temperatures. Within the Megiddo assemblage, nine Bichrome sherds were chosen for analysis. The goal of the research was to establish which of these were produced locally to Megiddo, and which are imported, most probably from Cyprus. The samples chosen come from Levels K-9 and K-10 as well as H-14 dated approximately between the MB III and LB IIA periods. This is a transitional time when trade in the Eastern Mediterranean becomes increasingly complex, with Cypriot wares being produced and distributed massively. Determining the origin of the Bichrome wares in Megiddo will contribute to understanding the complexity of Levantine import strategies. 55 The two methods chosen for analysis, petrography and infrared spectroscopy, will create a comprehensive picture of firing temperatures and provenance. Both are relatively non-destructive as require small sample sizes, and are rather fast and low-cost. 5.2 Geological Background The geology of Cyprus is composed of four provinces: Kyrenia Terrane, the Circum-Troodos sedimentary succession, the Troodos Ophiolite complex, and the Mamonia Complex (Geological Survey Department 1995) (see Fig 5.4). The Kyrenia Terrane is primarily composed of sedimentary (limestone) deposits with limited exposure of igneous and metamorphic rocks. The southern side of the Pentadakltylos range, within the Kyrenia Terrane, includes chalks and marls. The Circum-Troodos sedimentary succession consists of a range of marine deposits overlain by clastic deposits of gravels, sands and silts. The Troodos Ophiolite complex is an uplifted piece of oceanic crust with volcanic and hydrothermal intrusions. Copper is associated with the massive sulfide mineral deposits in this complex. The Mamonia Complex compromises of an assembly of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of two general geological units: a lower Jurassic/Triassic unit of mainly extrusive alkaline igneous rocks, reef limestones and hemi-pelagic sediments, and an upper group of thin-bedded cherts, siltstones, limestones and quartz sandstones (Grave et al. 2014: 1185-1186). The Jezreel Valley is a depression within the mountains inland stretch of Israel. Lithologically, this mountainous backbone is comprised of limestone, dolomite, and marls (Hall et al. 2005: 218). The Jezreel Valley is a prominent deep graben formed in the Early Pliocene. The sediment within it is predominantly alluvial and partially colluvial, and is described as a dark, heavy and organic-rich grumusol (Horowitz 1979: 17). Megiddo is built on Eocene chalks and a few basalt exposures are known in the area (Fig. 5.5). 56 Fig. 5.4: Geological Map of Cyprus (Geological Survey Department, Cyprus, 1995) 57 Fig. 5.5: Geological Map of the Jezreel Valley (Sneh et al., 1998). Megiddo is marked by an X. 58 SECTION 2: ANALYSIS 6 Chapter: Catalog Two catalogs were created to document and facilitate analysis of the Cypriot wares. One catalog, Catalog A (Appendix A), detailed the drawn, generally more complete vessels and sherds, and one catalog, Catalog B (Appendix B) documented the smaller sherds. The vessels and sherds of Catalog A will be fully published in the upcoming Megiddo VI volume (Yasur-Landau and Clark, forthcoming). The appendix presented in Appendix A provides only a small selection of the available photographs and plates. The sherds of Catalog B are included in a table with discussion within the Megiddo VI volume (Yasur-Landau and Clark, forthcoming). Difficulties arise when considering the size of the sherds of Catalog B. Since most of the sherds compromise less than 5% of any given vessel, they may travel between strata very easily. However, due to both the quality and quantity of these sherds at Megiddo, they can still provide stratigraphic and chronological conclusions, given that a homogenous picture emerges from the overall assemblage. The catalogs were created using established models for documenting Cypriot pottery, as seen at excavations at Megiddo and Tell es-Safi/Gath (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Ilan 2006; Yasur-Landau 2013; Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012). The catalogs document the style/family, the type, the % of vessel, the decoration, the surface treatment, the width measurement, and the Munsell color (of the inner, outer, and the fabric) of each sherd. Other notes were taken as necessary. Parallels were drawn to other sites as needed. Generally, the distinctive properties of each style in terms of decoration allow for easy recognition of Cypriot wares (Maguire 2009: 91). Reference works helpful in identifying Cypriot types include: Aström (1972), Bergoffen (2014), Bunimovitz (2004), Eriksson (2001), and Maguire (2009), among others. The catalogs were created as a descriptive base for the identifications of individual piece of imported Cypriot pottery. 6.1 Catalog of Drawn Vessels, Catalog A LEVEL K-8 White Slip II Ware 10/K/2/VS20: White Slip II Late bowl Bowl rim and handle. Average wall thickness: 5 mm. Ware: Inner 10YR 7/3; outer 10YR 6/4. Fabric: 5YR 6/3. Decoration: 4 parallel bands (2 59 thin framed by 2 broad) on rim, horizontal strokes on handle. Surface: Slipped, horizontal burnish. Base Ring Ware 08/K/129/VS1: Base Ring II jug Base and lower body sherd of large jug. Ware: inner 5YR 6/4; outer 5YR 5/4 and 5YR 4/2. Fabric: 7.5YR 6/2. Decoration: 10YR 8/1; horizontal, narrow white bands on lower 1/3 of body, groups of vertical white strokes. Surface: Brown/dark brown slip. White Shaved Ware 08/K/85/VS5: White-Shaved juglet (Pl. 1.1) Juglet. Average wall thickness: 4.5 mm. Ware: inner 2.5Y 8/2; outer 5Y 7/3 light cream colored. Fabric: 2.5Y 8/2. 08/K/129/VS2: White-Shaved juglet (Pl. 1.2) Juglet. Average wall thickness: 4 mm. Ware: inner 2.5 YR 8/2; outer 2.5 YR 8/2. Fabric: 2.5 YR 8/2. Decoration: Pierced socket handle. LEVEL K-9 White Slip II Ware 08/K/33a/VS9: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 2.1) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 6.5 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7/2; outer: 10YR 7/1. Fabric: 5YR 5/4. Decoration: 5YR 3/2; lattice ladder parallel to rim. Surface: White/gray slipped. 08/K/105/VS2: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 2.2) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 4.5 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7/2; outer 10YR 6/3. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/2. Decoration: 5YR 4/2; alternating lattice ladder with hooked chain. 08/K/33a/VS16: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 2.4) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 6.4 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 8/2; outer 10YR 6/2. Fabric: 5YR 5/4. Decoration: 5YR 4/2; lattice ladder of 3 inner bands parallel to rim. Surface: Pinkish/gray/brown slip, burnished with hard tool. 08/K/72/VS1: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 2.5) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness:4 mm. Ware: inner 2.5Y 7/2; outer: 7.5 8/1. Fabric: 5YR 4/1. Decoration: 5YR 4/1; horizontal lattice ladder below rim connected to vertical ladder. Surface: gray/tan slip. 10/K/43b/VS1: White Slip II Late bowl (Pl. 2.6) 60 Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 6 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7/3; outer: 10YR 7/3. Fabric: 10YR 5/3 and 5YR 5/4. Decoration: 5YR 2.5/1; 2 framed narrow bands parallel to rim, below 2 vertical bands. Surface: cream/tan slip. 08/K/126/VS2: White Slip bowl (Pl. 2.3) Bowl rim sherd. Average wall thickness: 6 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 8/2; outer 10YR 8/2. Fabric: GLEY 7/2. Decoration: 7/5YR 4/2; lattice ladder on rim, hooked chain and lattice ladder below rim. Surface: white slip, horizontal burnish inside and outside. 08/K/126/VS1: White Slip II Bowl (Pl. 4.1) Bowl rim, body, wishbone handle, and part of base. Average wall thickness: 4.5 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 6/1; outer 10YR 5/1. Fabric: 10YR 5/1. Decoration: 7.5YR 5/2; parallel narrow bands with alternating lattice latter bands on rim; horizontal stroke on bottom of handle; narrow bands framed by broad band with a dot on top on top of handle; alternating vertical lattice ladder and ladder bands. Surface: horizontal burnish inside and outside. 08/K/75/VS5: White Slip II Late Bowl (Pl. 4.2) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 7 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7.2; outer: 10YR 7/2; Fabric: 10YR 6/3; Decoration: 7.5YR 7/3;4 parallel vertical bands. Surface: horizontal burnish inside and outside. Base Ring Ware 10/K/29/VS17: Base Ring I jug (Pl. 3.1) Complete jug. Average wall thickness: 4.5 mm. Ware: inner 2.5Y 4/1; outer 2.5Y 4/1. Decoration: stepped rim, 2 plasticised bands below handle, 1 plasticised band at base of neck, 2 curved concentric relief lines on body. Surface: very dark gray slip with brown areas. 10/K/29/VS18: Base Ring I jug Handle, neck and base body sherds. Average wall thickness: 3.89 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 6/1; outer 5YR 2.5/1 and (beneath slip) 7.5YR 6/4. Fabric: 7.5 YR 8/1. Decoration: plasticized band at base of neck, pierced socket handle, top of curved relief line. Surface: black slip. 10/K/61/VS4: Base Ring II bowl 61 Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 3 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 4/1; outer 5YR 4/1. Fabric: 5Y 6/1. Decoration: none. Surface: horizontal burnish inside and outside of rim. 08/K/33a/VS18: Base Ring II jug (Pl. 3.2) Jug base. Average wall thickness: 3.5 mm. Ware: inner 5YR 5/4; outer: 7.5 YR 6/3. Fabric: 5YR 5/4 and 10 YR 5/1. Decoration: none. Surface: tan slip. 08/K/33a/VS17: Base Ring II jug (Pl. 3.3) Jug rim, neck, and shoulder. Average wall thickness: 6 mm. Ware: inner 5YR 5/2; outer 10YR 5/2. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/1. Decoration: 2.5Y 8/1; white bands, plasticized on shoulder, remains of vertical bands. Surface: dark brown slip, continues onto inner rim. 10/K/53/VS4: Base Ring II bowl (Pl. 4.3) Bowl rim with part of wishbone handle. Average wall thickness: 4 mm. Ware: inner10YR 5/3; outer 7.5YR 3/1. Fabric: 5Y 4/1. Decoration: 2.5Y 8/1; white paint on top of handle. Surface: slip and horizontal burnish. 08/K/89/VS7: Base Ring II juglet (Pl. 4.4) Juglet neck. Average wall thickness: 2.14 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 4/2; outer 7.5YR 4/2. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/1; white inclusions. Decoration: grooved plastic band. Surface: dark reddish-brownish slip outside. 08/K/75/VS6: Base Ring II bowl (Pl. 5.1) Bowl rim and handle. Average wall thickness: 3.5 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 4/1; outer 10YR 5/2. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/1. Decoration: none. Surface: very dark brown slip. White Shaved Ware 08/K/57/VS2: White-Shaved juglet (Pl. 5.2) Juglet base. Average wall thickness: 4 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7/4; outer 2.5 7/3. Fabric: 10YR 7/4, smooth outside, coarse inside. Decoration: none. 08/K/33a/VS15: White-Shaved juglet (Pl. 5.3) Juglet body sherd. Average wall thickness: 6.5 mm. Ware: inner 7.5 7/4; outer 5YR 6/6. Fabric: 7.5 7/4. Decoration: shaved but smoothed, coils visible on inside. Monochrome Ware 10/K/29/VS3: Monochrome bowl 62 Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 2.8 mm. Ware: inner 5YR 5/4; outer 5YR 6/4. Fabric: 5YR 6/4. Decoration: none. Surface: red slip, burnished. 10/K/29/VS4: Monochrome bowl Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 4.15 mm. Ware: inner 2.5YR 4/4; outer: 5YR 4/2. Fabric: 5YR 5/6. Decoration: none. Surface: brown/red slip, burnished. Miscellaneous Ware 12/K/38/VS1: Bichrome Wheel-Made krater (Pl. 5.4) Krater rim. Average wall thickness: 5 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 7/3; outer 10YR 7/3. Fabric: 10YR 7/3. Decoration: 10YR 5/2 and 10YR 4/1; black vertical strokes on top of rim; red and black band on body. 08/K/114/VS2: Bichrome krater or biconical jug (Pl. 4.5) Krater/jug shoulder. Average wall thickness 6 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 6/4; outer 10YR 6/4. Fabric: 10YR 6/3. Decoration and surface treatment: 7.5YR 3/1 and 5YR 3/4; 2 diagonal ladders in dark brown, beginning of vertical triglyph in dark brown and red; black horizontal line under the carination. Surface (slip): smoothed. LEVEL K-10 Base Ring Ware 10/K/102/VS42: Base Ring I Early juglet (Pl. 6.1) Complete mended juglet. Ware: inner 5YR 5/4; outer 5YR5/4. Decoration: grooved band on neck. Surface: slipped and burnished, vertical on neck. 10/K/102/VS1: Base Ring I juglet (Pl. 6.2) Complete Juglet. Ware: inner 5YR 2.5/1; outer 5YR 2.5/1. Decoration: grooved plastic band on neck. Surface: very dark brown slip. 10/K/73/VS6: Base Ring I bowl (possibly extra fine Monochrome) (Pl. 6.3) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 2.75 mm. Ware: inner 2.5YR 5/6; outer 5YR 6/4. Fabric: 5YR 6/4. Decoration: carination. Surface: reddish-brown slip, burnished. 08/K/88/VS8: Base Ring I bowl (Pl. 6.4) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 2.71 mm, diameter 22. Ware: inner 2.5YR 4/4; outer 5YR 4/6. Fabric: 5YR 6/4. Surface: reddish brown slip. 10/K/93/VS1: Base Ring I spindle bottle with conical base (Pl. 6.7) 63 Complete spindle bottle. Ware: inner: 7.5YR 6/3; outer 5YR 6/6 and 7.5YR 4/1. Decoration: plastic band on neck next to attachment of handle. Surface: brown/dark brown slip and burnish. Lustrous Ware 10/K/102/VS24: Black Lustrous juglet Complete mended juglet. Ware: inner 10YR 6/2; outer 10YR 4/2. Decoration: none. Surface: dark brown slip, horizontal and vertical burnish (horizontal burnishing with sharp implement, almost shaved). 10/K/120/VS1: Black Lustrous juglet Complete juglet. Ware: inner 6YR 2/3; outer 7.5YR 3/1. Decoration: none. Surface: very dark brown slip, horizontal and vertical burnishing. 10/K/102/VS13: Black Lustrous juglet Complete Juglet. Ware: inner 5YR 6/4; outer 2.5YR 4/4. Decoration: none. Surface: very dark brown slip. 10/K/112/VS3: Black Lustrous Wheel-Made or Anatolian Grey ware jug (Pl. 6.6) Bowl body sherd and lower handle. Average wall thickness: 5 mm. Decoration: grooves above and below handle, incised strap handle. Surface: black slip and burnished, handle does not pierce wall. 10/K/102/VS14: Red Lustrous spindle bottle Complete mended spindle bottle; Ware: inner 5YR 6/4; outer 2.5YR 4/4. Decoration: none. Surface: red slip, vertical burnishing. 16/K/25/VS1: Red Lustrous spindle bottle Spindle bottle rim, handle and body. Average wall thickness: 4.1 mm. Ware: inner: 2.5YR5/6; outer: 10R 5/6. Fabric: 2.5YR 6/6. Surface: red slipped and burnished. Monochrome Ware 14/K/66/VS4: Monochrome bowl Complete bowl. Ware: inner 5YR 5/6; outer 5YR 5/6. Decoration: rim cut and flared; inner gutter; omphalos base; wishbone handle. Surface: outside only, reddish brown/dark brown slip and horizontal burnish. White Painted Ware 08/K/116/VS1: White Painted jug (Pl. 6.5) 64 Jug handle/rim. Average wall thickness: 7 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 7/3; outer 7.5YR 7/3. Fabric: 2.5YR 6/4. Decoration: traces of black paint. Miscellaneous 14/K/66/VS1: Plain White Wheel-Made teapot (Pl. 6.8) Wheel-made teapot, atypical flaring rim, possible imitation of WP VI. Ware: inner 10YR 7/2; outer 10YR 7/2. Decoration: none. LEVEL H-13 (Plate 8) White Slip Ware 12/H/40b/VS3: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 8.3) Bowl rim, handle, and body. Ware: inner 7.5YR 8/2; outer 2.5Y 8/3. Fabric: 10YR 7/1. Decoration: 7.5YR 3/1; horizontal lattice ladder below wind; band encircling handle; alternating vertical lattice ladder lines, dots and ladder on body sherd. Surface: cream slip. Base Ring Ware 12/H/48/VS7: Base Ring II bowl (Pl. 8.1) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 2.73 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 4/1; outer 10YR 7/1. Fabric: 10YR 6/1. Decoration: curvature. Surface: dark red/brown slip. White Shaved Ware 12/H/40b/VS2: Shaved juglet (Pl. 8.3) Juglet rim and neck. Average wall thickness: 5.26 mm. Ware: inner 2.5Y 8/2; outer 2.5Y 7/3. Fabric: 2.5Y 7/3. Decoration: handmade; coil make marks; worn, no shave marks, smooth outside. Surface: cream slip with yellow undertones. LEVEL H-14 (Plate 7) White Slip II Ware 12/H/72/VS2: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 7.4) Bowl rim and handle. Average wall thickness: 4.46 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 8/2; outer 10YR 8/2. Fabric: 5YR 5/4. Decoration: 7.5YR 3/1; horizontal line on rim, above 3 horizontal lines; wishbone handle with alternating, perpendicular framed narrow bands, long horizontal line; vertical lines on body below handle. Surface: cream slip. Base Ring Ware 14/H/37/VS1: Base Ring II jug (Pl. 7.1) Jug base and handle. Ware: inner 5YR 5/3; outer 5YR 5/4 and 10YR 2/1. Fabric: 5YR 5/4. Decoration: 10YR 8/1; groove where neck and body 65 meet; white lines crosshatch in groups of 4. Surface: black/dark brown slip. 14/H/73/VS1: Base Ring II jug (Pl. 7.3) Jug rim. Average wall thickness: 4.35 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 4/1; outer: 7.5YR 4/1. Fabric: 2.5Y 4/1. Surface: very dark gray slip. 14/H/065: Base Ring II juglet (Pl. 7.2) Juglet base and body. Average wall thickness: 2.0 mm. Ware: inner: 7.5YR 5/1; outer: 5YR 5/6. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/1. Decoration: 10YR 8/1, 5–6 horizontal parallel strokes near the base, 2 vertical strokes by handle. Surface: red slip. LEVEL H-15 White Slip II Ware 14/H/42/VS2: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 9.1) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 4.08 mm. Ware: inner 2.5Y 8/3; outer 2.5Y 8/3. Fabric: 2.5Y 7/1. Decoration: vertical strokes on rim above horizontal lattice ladder; single pendant lozenge; alternating vertical rows of ladder and dots. Surface: cream slip. 14/H/42/VS3: White Slip II bowl (Pl. 9.2) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 3.36 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 8/2; outer 10YR 8/2. Fabric: 10YR 5/1. Decoration: 10YR 4/1; vertical strokes on rim, above horizontal lattice ladder, above alternating lattice ladder, ladder, and vertical dots, thin line. Surface: greyish-tan slip. White Shaved Ware 14/H/87/VS27: Shaved juglet (Pl. 9.5) Juglet rim and neck. Average wall thickness: 2.64 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 7/4; outer 7.5YR 7/4. Fabric: 10YR 4/1; handmade. Decoration: no shave marks. Surface: reddish-tan slip. 14/H/52/VS2: Shaved juglet Juglet pinched base. Average wall thickness: 3.30 mm. Ware: inner 10YR 8/2; outer 10YR 8/2. Fabric: 10YR 5/1, handmade. Decoration: 10YR 4/1; vertically shaved, possible coil-make marks inside. 14/H/42/VS1: Shaved juglet (Pl. 9.3) Shaved juglet sherd, pinched bottom. Average wall thickness: 5.56 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 6/4; outer 10YR 7/3. Fabric: 5.5YR 7/4. Decoration: worn, vertically shaved, coil make marks on interior. Surface: pinkish slip. 66 Monochrome Ware 14/H/57/VS7: Monochrome bowl (Pl. 9.7) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 3.57 mm. Ware: inner 2.5YR 5/6; outer 2.5YR 5/6. Fabric: 2.5YR 5/4. Surface: red-orange slip, burnished. 14/H/57/VS8: Monochrome bowl (Pl. 9.4) Bowl rim. Average wall thickness: 3.84 mm. Ware: inner 2.5YR 5/6; outer 2.5YR 5/6. Fabric: 2.5YR 5/3. Surface: reddish slip. White Painted Ware 14/H/92b/VS 11: White Painted VI teapot (Pl. 9.6) Teapot spout. Average wall thickness: 4.74 mm. Ware: inner 7.5YR 7/4; outer 5YR 6/4. Fabric: 7.5YR 7/2. Decoration: 7.5YR 3/1; two strokes on top of spout, one stroke beneath spout. Surface: slip and horizontal burnish. 14/H/87/VS6: White Painted V askot (Pl. 9.8) Askot rim and handle. Average wall thickness: 4.84 mm. Ware: inner 5YR 7/4; outer 7.5YR 8/3. Fabric: 5YR 7/4; handmade. Decoration: 2.5YR 5/4; zoomorphic, trefoil mouth; basket handle with piercing socket; brown horizontal and vertical bands dividing body into rectangular zones; horizontal strokes on handle. Surface: cream slip. 67 6.2 Catalog of Smaller Sherds, Catalog B K-8 a. White Slip 08/K/85-6: white slip II bowl (Pl. 1.1) 08/K/133-1: white slip II bowl (Pl. 1.2) b. Base Ring 10/K/002-15: base ring II jug (Pl. 1.4) 10/K/002-4: base ring juglet (Pl. 1.3) 10/K/002-16: base ring II juglet (Pl. 1.5) 08/K/133-0: base ring jug (Pl. 2.4) 10/K/10-1: BR bowl (Pl. 2.2) 08/K/120-2: base ring bowl (Pl. 2.5) c. White Shaved Ware 08/K/85-1: white shaved juglet (Pl. 2.1) d. Monochrome 08/K/120-4: monochrome bowl (Pl. 2.3) K-9 e. White Slip 08/K/33-12: white slip II bowl (Pl. 3.1) 08/K/33-6: white slip II bowl (Pl. 3.3) 08/K/33-12.3: white slip II bowl (Pl. 3.5) 08/K/57-2: white slip juglet (Pl. 3.6) 10/K/60-2: white slip bowl (Pl. 3.7) 08/K/75-2: white slip II late bowl (Pl. 3.4) 10/K/53-4: white slip II bowl (Pl. 3.2) 08/K/107-3: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.1) 08/K/75-18: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.2) 10/K/24-1: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.3) 10/K/61-3: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.4) 10/K/61-3: white slip II bowl Pl. 4.5) 08/K/89-10:white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.6) 08/K/89-10: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.7) 08/K/89-5: white slip II bowl (Pl. 4.8) f. Base Ring 08/K/33-8: base ring II juglet (Pl. 5.2) 08/K/81-4: base ring bowl (Pl. 5.3) 08/K/81-3: base ring bowl (Pl. 5.4) 08/K/81-4: base ring juglet (Pl. 6.1) 08/K/81-1: base ring II jug (Pl. 5.5) 08/K/81-1: base ring II jug (Pl. 5.5) 08/K/81-4: base ring II juglet 08/K/57-5: base ring II juglet (Pl. 6.2) 08/K/57-3: base ring II jug (Pl. 6.3) 08/K/57-2: base ring II juglet (Pl. 6.4) 10/K/3-3: base ring I jug (Pl. 6.5) 08/K/75-9: base ring bowl (Pl. 6.6) 68 10/K/27-1: base ring bowl (Pl. 6.7) 08/K/114-5: base ring juglet (Pl. 6.8) 08/K/75-9: base ring juglet (Pl. 7.1) 10/K/26-5: base II juglet (Pl. 7.2) 08/K/37-10: base ring bowl (Pl. 7.3) 08/K/37-10: base ring bowl (Pl. 7.4) 08/K/37-9: base ring juglet (Pl. 7.6) 08/K/37-6: base ring jug (Pl. 7.5) 08/K/37-9: base ring ? (Pl. 7.6) 08/K/37-4: base ring ? (Pl. 7.7) 08/K/37-6: base ring II jug (Pl. 8.1) 08/K/37-6: base ring jug (Pl. 8.2) 08/K/37-6: base ring jug (Pl. 8.3) 08/K/37-1: base ring II jug (Pl. 8.4) 08/K/72-3: base ring I jug (Pl. 8.6) 10/K/40b-4: base ring II jug (Pl. 8.7) 10/K/24-1: base ring II juglet (Pl. 8.5) 10/K/24-1: base ring bowl (Pl. 8.8) 08/K/67-4: base ring bowl (Pl. 8.9) 08/K/114-7: base ring juglet/jug (Pl. 9.1) 08/K/114-8: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.2) 08/K/114-8: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.3) 10/K/29-10: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.4) 10/K/29-2: base ring juglet (Pl. 9.6) 10/K/61-3: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.5) 10/K/61-4: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.7) 06/K/5-3: base ring bowl (Pl. 9.8) 08/K/132-1: base ring jug (Pl. 9.9) g. White Shaved Ware 08/K/57-4: white shaved juglet (Pl. 10.1) 08/K/75-23: white shaved juglet (Pl. 10.2) 08/K/75-5: white shaved juglet (Pl. 10. 3) 10/K/40b-6: white shaved juglet (Pl. 10.4) 06/K/5-3: white-shaved juglet (Pl. 10.5) 08/K/89-7: white shaved juglet (Pl. 10.6) h. Monochrome 08/K/75-23: monochrome bowl (Pl. 11.2) 10/K/40b-4: monochrome bowl (Pl. 11.3) i. Bichrome 08/K/33-2: bichrome (local) jug (Pl. 11.7) 10/K/60-6: bichrome (imported) jug (Pl. 11.6) j. White Painted 10/K/40b-4: WP teapot (Pl. 11.4) 08/K/89-10: WP teapot (Pl. 11.5) K-10 i. Base Ring 69 i. i. i. i. 10/K/62-1: base ring (?) juglet [base] (Pl. 12.1) 08/K/125-2: base ring bowl (Pl. 12.2) 14/K/119-2: base ring jug/juglet (Pl. 12.3) White Shaved 08/K/117-6: white shaved juglet (Pl. 12.4) Monochrome 10/K/62-1: monochrome bowl [rim] (Pl. 12.5) 14/K/64-1: monochrome bowl Bichrome 14/K/78-9: bichrome (imported) jug (Pl. 12.7) 10/K/73-3: bichrome (local) jug (Pl. 12.8) 10/K/73-3: bichrome (imported) jug (Pl. 12.9) 14/K/33-6: bichrome (imported) jug (Pl. 12.10) 14/K/91-3: bichrome (local) jug (Pl. 12.11) BonR/RonB 10/K/30-10: BonR bowl H-13 i. i. White Slip 12/H/48-11: white slip II bowl (Pl. 13.1) 12/H/48-11: white slip II bowl (Pl. 13.2) 12/H/62-7: white slip II bowl (Pl. 13.3) 12/H/62-2: white slip II bowl (Pl. 13.4) Base Ring 12/H/66b-2: base ring juglet (Pl. 13.7) 12/H/49-3: base ring bowl (Pl. 13.5) 12/H/48-8: base ring II jug (Pl. 13.6) H-14 i. i. i. i. White Slip 14/H/11-4: proto white slip bowl (Pl. 14.1) Base Ring 14/H/23-1: base ring bowl (Pl. 14.2) Monochrome 14/H/75-1: monochrome bowl (Pl. 14.4) 14/H/23-2: monochrome bowl (Pl. 14.3) Bichrome 14/H/76-3: bichrome (imported) bowl (Pl. 14.5) 14/H/17-1: bichrome (imported) juglet (Pl. 14.6) H-15 i. i. i. White Slip 14/H/48-2: white slip II bowl (Pl. 15.1) 14/H/52-2: white slip II bowl (Pl. 15.2) Base Ring 14/H/42-2: base ring bowl (Pl. 15.3) 14/H/42-1: base ring juglet (Pl. 15.4) 14/H/52-4: base ring II (?) bowl White Shaved 70 i. i. i. Type/Phase WS PWS WS I WS II WS II Late BR BR I BR II BLWM RLWM White Shaved Monochrome White Painted Plain White Bichrome (imported) RonR BonR K-8 2 K-9 2 (1)* 14/H/52-5: white shaved juglet (Pl. 15.5-7) Monochrome 14/H/42-3: monochrome bowl White Painted 14/H/42-3: white painted jug (Pl. 15.8) BonR/RonB/RonR 14/H/62-3: red-on-red bowl (Pl. 15.9) K-10 H-13 H-14 H-15 1 (1) 4 2 (1) 1 (2) 1 12 (6) 1 (1) 26 2 (2) 12 (6) 2 6 (2) 2 (2) 2 1 (2) 3 (5) (4) (2) 1 2 (1) (1) (1) 3 4 (1) (1) 2 (2) 2 1 2 1 (1) (2) 1 (1) (1) 2 1 (3) 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 1 1 Total 8 (1) 1 0 18 (10) 1 (2) 38 2 (7) 16 (10) 2 (4) (2) 9 (8) 8 (5) 3 (3) (1) 6 (2) 1 1 * Numbers in parentheses refer to the more complete items (mostly illustrated). Table 3: A summary of the sherds by type (Full, drawn vessels outside brackets, smaller sherds within brackets) 6.3 Functional Groups 6.3.1 Open Vessels In the LC IIA (or LB IB), the quantity, variety, and geographic distribution of LC imports increased. Pottery vessel production and transportation were standardized, and small Cypriot containers were being manufactured in various styles, while the number of open forms especially bowls, increased (Greener 2015:30). In Levantine Late Bronze Age contexts, the dominate Cypriot open vessel are WSII and BR bowls of medium size. WS bowls and other open vessels fulfill a need in the local assemblage and were likely used for domestic use while serving and entertaining (Singer-Avitz and Levy 1992: 23, Greener 2015: 109). Other open vessels decrease within settlements in the LB IIA and LB 71 IIB, yet WS II bows, and BR bowls, jug and juglets, and WhSh juglets remain common. Cypriot export patterns follow this trend. Open vessels may also have been stacked as ballast in the shipwrecks of the Eastern Mediterranean or exported as sailor’s trade (Artzy 2001: 112). 6.3.2 Closed Vessels After the Hyksos expulsion, the established repertoire of containers is replaced by a Cypriot monopoly within small closed vessels, replacing Tel el Yehudiya jugs. Diversification occurs in the face of a lack of competition and produces new forms within Cypriot wares- double handles, flasks, monochrome, WP VI, etc., as well as new wares: Bichrome, BR, WS. Within the LBA, the circulation of diverse containers present in the MBA is replaced by a monopoly of Cypriot small narrow necked containers (Maguire 2009: 62). In funerary contexts, the ratios of open and closed vessels remain stable throughout the LBA dominated in the LB II by BR jugs and juglets and other Cypriot closed vessels (Maguire 2009:59). The popular jugs and juglets are primarily BR I and II, and were possibly used as containers for liquid goods/ precious commodities, possibly associated with funerary practices. Theories suggest that these vessels were imported for their contents, and once the contents were used, interred into tombs (Greener 2015:70). 6.4 Ware Typology and Chronology 6.4.1 Base Ring 6.4.1.1 Base Ring I Base Ring I (BR I) ware first appears in MB III–LB I Level K-10 and continues into LB IIA Level K-9 (see Table 1). The assemblage consists of jugs, juglets, bowls and a spindle bottle. The Level K-10 items precede chronologically the examples of BR I found at Megiddo in the University of Chicago excavations, which first appear in Stratum VIII (Loud 1948: Pls. 58: 18-20; Oren 2001: 131). In Cyprus, BR I first appears in Late Cypriot IA (LC IA) contexts, peaking in the LC IB (Herscher 2011:11; Eriksson 2001: 65–66). In contexts in Egypt, BR I first appears as early as the 18th Dynasty, with no evidence of a date before the late 72 Hyksos period (Eriksson 2001: 65). BR I reaches its peak as an export in the LC IB period (Eriksson 2001: 65). Thus, in some sites, such as Tell el Ajjul, few examples of BR I are present already in pre-Tuthmosis III contexts alongside LB IA types, such as White Painted VI and Monochrome ware, but is still more characteristic of the LB IB phase in the 15th century BCE (Oren 2001:133–139). BR wares have been found in MB III to LB IA contexts at Tel el ‘Ajjul, alongside LB IA diagnostic types (WP VI trefoil mouth juglets, cylindrical juglets) (Bergoffen 2001: 35-49). However, large quantities of BR I ware arrived in Egypt and in the Levant only in the days of Tuthmosis III, corresponding also with LC IB and LB IB, and related to the massive increase in trade with the eastern Mediterranean during this time (Bergoffen 2001: 32; Eriksson 2007a: 65. Accordingly, the first appearance of BR I in Tell el-Dabᶜa is in levels from the mid-18th Dynasty (Stratum C/3), dating, approximately, to the beginning of Tuthmosis III’s reign (Table 1; Maguire 2009: 172-3; Eriksson 2001: 54–58). 6.4.1.2 Base Ring II The renewed excavations at Megiddo also yielded examples of Base Ring II (BR II), found as early as LB IIA in Levels K-9 and H-14. They continue into LB IIB Levels K-8 and H-13. This repertoire includes jugs, bowls and juglets. BR II found in the University of Chicago excavations was associated with Strata VIIB–VIIA, dating to the LB IIB and LB III, respectively (Loud 1948: Pl. 65: 24; Pl 123:2; P. 136: 4,5). BR II did not arrive in Egypt until the days of Amenhotep II and possibly as late as the days of Tuthmosis IV. The arrival of BR II in Tell el-Dabᶜa occurred later in the 18th Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep II (Stratum C/2) (Maguire 2009: 40, Table 2). Most BR II wares, however, are found in contexts dating to the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten (Eriksson 2001: 65). BR II can therefore be securely defined as a ware beginning in LB IIA. At the same time, BR I continued to appear in contexts dated to the days of Amenhotep II and possibly Tuthmosis IV, 73 concurrent with the debut of BR II in Egypt (Eriksson 2001: 54–56). The chronological range of BR II wares is broad, and its latest appearance may be as late as mid-12th century BCE (Eriksson 2007b: 153)—much later than other traditional Late Cypriot fabrics. Accordingly, this ware is represented also in the LB IIB phases of the renewed excavations (K-8, K7, H-13) and (as residual sherds?) in the LB III phases (K-6, H-12). 6.4.2 White Slip Wares Across the Levant, Aegean, and entire Eastern Mediterranean, the vast majority of LBA sites contain at least one White Slip sherd, usually numbering in the hundreds. Due to their vast life span of approximately 400 years with minor but distinct variations, both WS and BR act as chronological and cultural indicators (Karageorghis 2001:9). Late Cypriot potters were apparently attracted to these fabrics, and they kept their appeal to foreign clientele for this period. Their continuous production may suggest a stable political conditions or even island-wide society/unification in the LC IA:2 period. 6.4.2.1 Proto White Slip The earliest representatives of the White Slip family are PWS bowls found in Stratum X of the University of Chicago excavations (Loud 1948: Pl 45: 21; Oren 2001: 130, Fig 2). In the renewed excavations they were found in less secure contexts (cat. nos. 12/K/40/VS1, 14/K/141/VS1). The renewed excavations also yielded one well-stratified example of White Slip I (WS I) in Area F Level F-10b, which correlates with the University of Chicago Stratum X-IX (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Ilan 2006:188). The evidence from Megiddo generally supports a MBA horizon for PWS (Oren 2001:130). PWS, found both inside and outside Cyprus in the LC phase, may represent the development of a new phase of international relations based on Hyksos connections (Oren 2001:32). Within Cyprus, the start of the LBA sees the creation of monochrome surfaces, derived from local regional MC styles, which will become stereotypical of the LC wares, including WS and BR. This tradition begins in the northwest to the centre of the island, and becomes characteristic of LC styles, including proto-BR, monochrome, and PWS. The northwest region is the first to display the new LC styles, with the 74 bulk of the evidence coming from Morphou. PWS and proto-BR quickly develop into early WS I and BR I styles (Manning, Sewell, Herscher, 2002:99). The recent Renewed Excavations at Megiddo have produced only one sherd of PWS (14/H/11), with its context, H-14, dated to LB IIAB. 6.4.2.2 White Slip II The transition from WS I to WS II occurs sometime after the death of Thutmosis III, with the first WS II appearing in Egypt in the reign of Amenhotep III (Tell el-Dabᶜa, Amarna, Memphis) (Eriksson 2007b:135). The arrival of WS II acts as a chronological signpost in the development of Cyprus and its economic endeavors, as the LC IIA brings dramatic changes to Cypriot relations with the Hittites, Egyptians and Canaanites. This period falls during the reign of Amenhotep III, when conflicts between Egypt and the Hittite Empire occur over control for SyroPalestine. The popularity of WS II was created by an external rise in demand for this distinctive product. But what fundamental changed allowed the WS II to dominate Eastern Mediterranean markets over WS I? Four theories are popular. The economy of production may have facilitated the growth of the WS II ware, as the WS wares, unlike many other ceramics, is slipped with a clay different than that used to produce the ware. The ware of WS I is lower in magnesium, iron potassium, and calcium than the WS II family. In the majority of WS II wares that dominate the Levantine cost, the slip is thinner and therefore easier to use, so economic considerations may have dictated which type was exported from Cyprus (Eriksson 2007b:135). Secondly, WS II has a strong slip but not the bright white color of the WS I production; the WS II slip is a thin, golden beige micaceous slip. The WS white material was a by-product of the mining industry, extracted simultaneously with cooper ore, and the quality of the mineral likely declines as the miners went deeper, resulting in the mediocre slip of WS II. Thirdly, WS II is found near coastal areas, supporting the view that the vast majority of trade was done by sailors 75 involved in the exportation of other island resources. WS wares were not part of palace economy, and the rise of WS II wares correlates with the 13th century as Cyprus joins the economic giants and expands its interest in maritime trade. Finally, and most obviously, WS II appears almost exclusively in bowl shapes, which would have been easiest to pack and ship (Eriksson 2007b: 136). The renewed excavations in Megiddo place the arrival of WS II bowls in Levels K-9 and H-14. These bowls, consisting of typical WS II examples, decorated chiefly with ladder lattice and ladder patterns (e.g., Popham 1972: Fig. 83: 6-8), appear at Megiddo in LB IIA phases, probably later than their first appearance on Cyprus as well as in Alalakh (Bergoffen 2003: 405, n. 77, Fig. 6). In Level K-9, WS II bowls comprise almost 40% of all Cypriot imports. The WS examples from Levels K-8 and K-9 contain Late WS II specimens (cat. nos. 10/K/2/VS20, 08/K/75/VS5). WS II Late—the last development of the WS—is a distinctive ware of white slip distinguished by their coarser fabric and decoration, including three instead of the usual four ladder lattices in a light red/brown paint over a very pale brown slip. It is believed this degraded variation is a response to the potter’s familiarity with the product due to increased consumption, and not related to scarcity of resources. WS II Late wares are typically visible in LB II–III (cf. Popham 1972: Fig. 863: 2-4, 3; Bergoffen 2014: 666, Fig 11.8; Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 254 from Tell es-Safi and other sites). Late WS II wares are typical imports of the second half of LC IIC, and appear in Canaan in contexts dateable to the late 13th century BCE (Bergoffen 2014: 664). There is only one bowl from Level K-7 decorated with the ladder lattice pattern (Yasur-Landau 2013: Fig. 11.1: 5). Its crude execution may indicate that it belongs to the later part of the WS II range (cf. Popham 1972: Fig. 87:857: 1).WS II late/ WS III is a more degenerate style that appears in the LC IIC, mostly in southwest and northwest Cyprus, and 76 found in Canaan in contexts dateable to the late 13th century BCE. The style is often lopsided or poorly formed, as well as less elaborately decorated (thin uneven slips, fading paint on ladder lattice, etc.) (Bergoffen 2014:664). 6.4.3 Monochrome The renewed excavations revealed Monochrome wares, all bowls, in Levels H-15 (LB I), K-10 (MB III–LB I) and K-9 (LB IIA; Table 1). This corresponds well with the first occurrence of Monochrome wares in Strata IX–VIII of the University of Chicago excavations, dated to LB IA–LB IIA (Loud 1948: Pl. 136: .11, 16; Oren 2001: 131). In general, Monochrome bowls are characteristic of MB III–LB I contexts in the Levant, but may continue into the LB II (Bergoffen 2014: 659; Bergoffen 2014: Fig. 11.4–660). Monochrome wares first appear in Tell el-Dabᶜa contexts beginning in Stratum D/1.1, dating to the reign of Amenhotep I (Table 1; Maguire 2009: 173). Given the appearance of Monochrome wares in K-9, K-10, and H-14, the range of those strata should start in LB I, and end in LB IIA-B. 6.4.4 Red Lustrous Along with the WS and BR, RLWM is a tradition that remains relatively stable for the major part of the LBA. RLWM was manufactured and produced between LC IA:2 and LC IIIA:1 (Eriksson 2007a:51). While it is agreed upon that RLWM comes from manufacturing centres located in northern Cyprus, near Kazaphani, the chronology of distribution is a point of contention. Two contexts within Egypt, the Aniba Cemetery SA Tomb 29 and Gurob Point Q Tomb 27 provide evidence for the appearance of RLWM in the reign of Amenhotep I, but both of these contexts are insecure. Therefore, while it is possible that RLWM begins before the reign of TIII, RLWM begins in earnest in the LCIA:2. It becomes more popular in LCIIA:2, with slender bodied spindle bottles (Type VIA1b) being joined by a diverse range of shapes These include tall spindle bottles with a high ring base (Type VIA1b), bowls (Type IAa), tall spindle jars with 1 handle (IVB2a), and arm shaped vessels (VIIIb), all making their first appearances in LCIIA:2 (Eriksson 2007a: 52). RLWM remains relatively rare in Canaan, but excavations at Lachish confirm that it was used in Israel between LBIA and LBII. The assemblage from the renewed excavations contains only two Red Lustrous Wheel-Made (RLWM) vessels from Level K-10 (cat. Nos. 10/K/102/VS14, 16/K/25/VS1). RLWM are not present in the 77 assemblage from University of Chicago’s excavations (or at least not identified as Cypriot wares). The first appearance of RLWM in Cyprus can be dated to LC IA:2, i.e. unsecure contexts at Enkomi (Crewe 2007: 43), most likely towards the end of the period, but the ware has a stronger associated with the LC IB (Eriksson 2007a: 53). It is possible, but unlikely, that ware appears in Egypt before the reign of Thutmosis III, but certainly there is a large increase of RLWM during Thutmosis III’s reign (Eriksson 2007a: 54). The most productive period of the ware’s history is the LB IIA/LC IIA:2 period (Eriksson 2007a:59), and productions ceases by the LC IIB (Eriksson 2007a:52). RLWM finds in the excavations at Lachish confirmed that it was in use in the southern Levant between LB IA and LB II (Bunimovitz 2004: 1265–1266). Similarly, in Tell el-Dabᶜa, RLWM begins in Stratum C/3, dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III, and continues until the end of the LB habitation at the site (Maguire 2009: 40, Table 2). 6.4.5 Black Lustrous The length of BLWM appears to be relatively short, and it is unknown when exact; production ceased. Black Lustrous Wheel-Made (BLWM) wares appear solely in the form of juglets in Level K-10 (MB III–LB I). This corresponds with the appearance of this ware in Stratum IX (LB I) (Loud 1948: Pls. 51: 3; 51: 4; 59: 5; c.f. Yannai 2007), which marks the later portion of Level K-10. In Tell el-Dab’a contexts, BLWM begins in Stratum D/1, during to the reign of Amenhotep I (Maguire 2009: 40; Table 1). Commonly accepted as a LB IA diagnostic ware, BLWM rarely overlaps with BR II wares, and nearly disappears by the reign of Tuthmosis III (Oren 2001: 139; Bergoffen 2001: 34). K-10, therefore, is likely dated to LBIA-LCIB. BLWM is thought to be a ware indicative of the LB IA, and therefore rarely overlaps with BR II wares, and has nearly disappeared by the reign of Thutmosis III (Bergoffen 2001: 34). Within Cyprus, it is recognized mainly in the eastern, central and northwest parts of the island, and is found in conjuncture with WP V–VI during the LC 1A IA period (Åström 2007: 19-21). The ware seems to have been produced for a short period of time, and it is unknown when production ceased. A tomb excavated by Dikaios at Enkomi contains BR I and II and WS I and II vessels, dating it to LC IB and IIA; but they were found along with BLWM (Åström 2007: 19). Åström places BLWM in LC IA to LC IBA: 1, IA: 2, and IB: 1, but doubts its production in LC IB: 2. It is more likely that it was made during a short time 78 span and continued to be in use later (Åström 2007: 19). According to Yannai’s typology, the wares found by the University of Chicago’s expedition belong to Type 1— manufactured and distributed beginning at the end of thein MC III, and ending in LC IB (Megiddo Tomb 5040A, Tomb 1100A, and Tomb 251) (Yannai 2007: 298-300), and to Type 2a—manufactured and distributed beginning mostly in the LB IAin LB IA and ending in LB IB (Megiddo Tomb 251, Tomb 2009, Tomb 2106, Tomb 3004) Tomb258, Tomb 1100A, Tomb 77, Tomb 1141, Tomb 3018Cm and Tomb 2031) (Yannai 2007: 3018). The renewed excavation types are composed mostly of Type 2A BLWM. While Type 2A vessels appear at the end of the MB III, contemporarily with Type 1 juglets, they can be more firmly dated to LB IA, before the importation of BR I (Yannai 2007: 308). 6.4.6 White Painted The WP ware family represents a longstanding tradition of Cypriot imports in the M/LBA. WP wares are among the earliest Cypriot imports to Canaan, beginning in MB IIA, the earliest WP Cypriot imports to Canaan begin in small quantities, largely at coastal sites. Throughout the LB IIA, they are mainly found in small numbers at coastal sites. Imports occur mostly in closed forms, and all decoration types (PLS, CLS, TLS, WPV, composite) appear simultaneously during this earliest import horizon in Canaan (Bergoffen 2014: 657). In the transition from MB to LB, WP V and VI supersede these wares as the most common WP types in Canaan (Bergoffen 2014: 657). WP VI juglets are found primarily in funerary contexts, are diagnostic as LB IA wares (Maguire 2009:47). During the renewed excavations WP wares were recorded in Levels K-10 (MB III–LB I) and H-15 (LB I). These belong to the WP V–VI style. This corresponds to a general trend in the Levant, when WP V–VI becomes the most common WP type in the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze (Bergoffen 2014: 657). A particularly diagnostic piece is the WP teapot (cat. no. 14/H/92b/VS11) found in Level H-15. Also noteworthy is a Plain White Wheel-Made teapot (cat. no. 14/K/66/VS1) from Level K10. In the Levant, WP teapots have been found in MB II late or MB III B contexts at Tel Qashish (Maguire 2009: 31; Bergoffen 2014: 657; Yannai, Gophna, Liphshitz and Liphshitz 2013: 48). The University of Chicago excavations also yielded WP V–VI 79 wares, found in Strata IX and VIII (Loud 1948: Pls. 51: 5, 59: 10; Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 24: 9). This chronological range corresponds to that of Levels H-15 and K-10. 6.4.7 White Shaved A less common LBA ware, WhSh ware, are characteristic of LB II Canaanite contexts (Bergoffen 2014: 660), and appear in almost every LB IIA and LB IIB context in Canaan, alongside BR II, WS II, and Monochrome wares (Yannai, Gophna, Liphshitz and Liphshitz 2013: 49; Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 257; Bergoffen 2014: 660). In the renewed excavations, WhSh wares were found in Levels H-15 (LB I), H-13 (LB IIB), K9 (LB IIA) and K-8 (LB IIB). Previously, WhSh wares were found also in Area F and were dated to the 16th–13th centuries BCE (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Ilan 2006: 186). The forms found in the renewed excavation belong to Type 1A with pointed bases (Seger 1988: 79; Bergoffen 2014: 660). The first appearance of WhSh in the Levant is during the LB IB (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 248; Greener 2015: 97), but is more common in the LB II (Bergoffen 2014: 660; Bunimovitz 2004:1265). WhSh wares appear in almost every LB IIA and LB IIB context in Canaan alongside BR II, WS II, Monochrome ware and WP V1I (Yannai, Gophnam Liphshitz and Liphshitz 2013: 49; Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012: 257; Bergoffen 2014: 660). At Megiddo, the earliest example of White Shaved wares occurs in Stratum VIII of the University of Chicago excavations, dated to LB IIA (Loud 1948: Pls. 58: 8–10, 136: 2; Oren 2001: 131). The first appearance of WhSh in the Levant is during the LB IB (Greener 2015:97) The types found in the Renewed Excavations belong to Type 1A, with indicatively pointed bases (Bergoffen 2014: 660). They are found among what is considered a chronologically homogenous assemblage, consisting of White Shaved, BRII, WSII, and Monochrome. WARE TYPE BR I BR II PWS FIRST FIRST PEAK IN University Renewed APPERANCE APPERANCE WARE of Excavation IN CYPRUS IN LEVANT APPERANCE Chicago Strata Strata LC IA LB IA LB IIA VIII K-10; K-9 (possibly MB IIC/MB III) LB IIA LB IIA, VIIBK-9; H-14 replacing BR I VIIA in LB IIB MC (rare) MB III X-IX 80 WS I WS II Monochrome LC IIA LC I RLWM LC IA:2 BLWM WP WhSh MC III MB IIA LB I LB IB LB I/ MB-LB transitional contexts LB IA MB IIB LB IB LB I LB IIA LB I H-14 X LB IIA IX-VIII LB IA/ LC IB LB IIA LB IIA IX K-9; H-14 H-15; K10; K-9 K-10 K-10; H-15 Table 4: A summary of the approximate chronological spans of Cypriot wares, detailed in the following text. Compiled using information from Greener (2015), Oren (2001), Bergoffen (2001), Bergoffen (2014), Eriksson (2001), Maguire (2009), Eriksson (2007b). See text for detailed references. 7 Chapter 7: FTIR and Petrography of Bichrome Wares, Materials and Methods 7.1 Materials and Methods 7.1.1 Acquisition of Materials for this Study The assemblage studied here originates from the collections of the Tel Aviv University excavations at Tel Megiddo, from seasons 2010-2014, still awaiting publication. This assemblage was collected over the course of three excavation seasons, from Area H and Area K. 7.1.2 Ceramic Sample Table 7.1. lists the nine sherds used in this study along with context information as obtained from the Megiddo Expedition. Item Number Locus Square Level Top/bottom Context elevations 81 08K33-2 08/K/33a O10 K-9 163.68/163.16 Surface striations 14K33-6 12/K/15 010/011 K-10 163.22/162.85 Occupational accumulation 10K73- 10/K/73 P9 K-10 3.1 163.01/162.71 Accumulation on surface 10K78-9 10/K/78 N9 K-10 163.19/162.83 Brick Material 14H17-1 2014/H/017 E9 H-14 155.73/155.67 Patchy habitation surface 14H076- 2014/H/076 F8 H-14 3 155.62/154.84 Corner of room, brick material 14K91-3 10/K/112 N9/O9 K-10 162.86/162.50 Surface Package 10K73- 10/K/73 P9 K-10 3.2 163.01/162.71 Accumulation on surface 10K63-6 10/K/63 P9/Q9 Unstratified 163.91/163.60 Earth debris Table 5: Bichrome assemblage 7.2 Preparation of Samples for Analysis 7.2.1 Typology The typological analysis began with the identification and separation of Bichrome sherds from the rest of the assemblage. Bichrome ware is typically identified by the most common decoration, black and red geometric lines. Refer to catalog on page 76, chapter 6 for further typological notes. 7.2.2 Sample Selection Nine sherds of Bichrome ware were identified in the Megiddo assemblage studied here. The sherds were originally sampled for FTIR analysis in multiple areas, based on the presence of multiple colors of fabric within the section of the sherd. For example, three FTIR analyses were carried out on Sample 08K33-2 82 from the interior, middle, and exterior surfaces of the sherds, based on color variation. The resulting spectra from these sherd portions showed no major mineralogical differences between them. Because of that, subsequent analyses used the middle part from each sherd to ensure consistency and to avoid minor changes that may arise from surface contamination (e.g., adherence of unheated clay on sherd surfaces). Samples for FTIR analysis were always taken from fresh breaks of the sherds, and from areas that avoided the inclusion of paint. Thin sections for petrographic analysis were prepared from each sherd. 7.3 Laboratory Procedures 7.3.1 FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR spectroscopy) is a tool used to characterize organic and inorganic materials based on the molecular structure of materials (Wiener 2010: 71). The technique employs shining light of multiple wavelengths in the infrared region (4000 and 400 cm-1) at a sample, and measuring the absorption of each wavelength by the sample. Elevated absorption amounts of light for each wavelength are shown as “peaks” in the spectra produced, and specific sets of peaks characterize different materials. This method is unique in its ability to identify both crystalline and amorphous minerals, and both types are expected when looking at archaeological materials (Weiner 2010). I prepared the samples using the KBr (potassium bromide) pellet method. Prior to FTIR analysis, each ceramic sherd was given ceramic registrar numbers by the Tel Aviv University excavation at Megiddo. These sample numbers were kept consistent throughout the laboratory analysis. A sample (from the middle part of a sherd's fresh break) was placed in an agate mortar and ground with an agate pestle. KBr was added in so the sample concentration was ca. 1-2%. The mixture was again ground for homogeneity, and placed into a holder and pressed using a hydraulic pellet press under two tons until a clear pellet was formed. The pellet was analyzed using a Thermo Scientific Nicolet iS5 FTIR spectrometer, and the software used for spectroscopy analysis was Omnic 9. Spectra were collected between 4000 and 400 cm-1. Interpretation of spectra was aided by published relevant studies (Berna et al., 2007; Forget et al. 2015; Regev et al. 2010) and an internal library of reference materials. Of use to this study were 83 indicators of firing temperatures, including movement in the main clay peak. The presence of gehlenite, a high temperature calcium silicate mineral (Fig 7.2) was identified based on bands in the region of 900-1000 cm-1. Fig. 7.1: FTIR spectrum and second-derivative of gehlenite typically found in archaeological ceramics (from Shoval and Paz 2015:220). 7.3.2 Petrography Petrography is a method of identifying rocks and minerals based on their optical properties, using a polarized light microscope. Within ceramics, this method is used to identify the mineralogical composition of the coarse fraction in ceramic sherds, specifically rock fragments, rock forming minerals, microscopic organisms that may be included in the paste as well as organic materials used as temper (e.g., straw). Thin sections, defined as finely sliced specimens mounted on glass slides having a uniform thickness of ca.30 µm, which allows light to pass through the specimen in order to interact with the components (Weiner 2010:70), were prepare by J.J. Gottlieb at the Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa. Samples were analyzed using a Nikon polarized light microscope Eclipse 50i POL equipped with a DS Camera Control Unit DSL2. The provenance of samples was determined by Dr. Paula Waiman-Barak (Laboratory for Sedimentary Archaeology, Dept. of Maritime Civilizations) while I added basic data on temper and paste isotropy/anisotropy. 84 Lastly, I compared the data obtained from both methods with the provenance determination. 85 SECTION 3: Discussion and Conclusions 8 Chapter 8: Results of the Petrographic and Infrared Analysis of the Bichrome Sherds 8.1 FT-IR All sherds analyzed are composed of heat-altered clay. Other minerals identified include calcite, quartz and gehlenite (Table 7). Identified Mineral Characteristic Peaks (cm-1) Unaltered Clay 1032 Clay fired at relatively low temperatures 1050 Clay fired at relatively high temperatures 1083 Calcite 1438, 876, and 714 Quartz 1087 and a doublet at 796 and 778 Gehlenite Around 900-1000 Table 6: Minerals identified and their characteristic peaks. Three distinct groupings were identified: the first showing a composition dominated by calcite, the second showing a dominance of clay, and the third containing gehlenite (Table 8). Group Mineralogical Samples Composition A B C Example Main Clay Peak Spectrum Mostly calcite, also clay 08K33-2 Fig 6.7 and quartz 10K73-3.1 1044 14K91-3 1047 14H17-1 1044 Mostly clay, also calcite 14K78-9 and quartz 10K73-3.2 1051 14K33-6 1039 Mostly clay, also calcite 14H076-3 and gehlenite 10K53-6 Fig 6.8 1047 Fig 6.9 1032 1059 1055 Table 7: Mineralogical groups identified using FTIR spectroscopy. In group A, the location of the main clay peak at wavenumbers in the 1040s region suggests firing temperatures in the range of 600-700 ºC (using guidelines from Berna et al. 86 2007 and Forget et al. 2015). Spectral attributes of calcite in this group show it is geogenic, supporting a firing temperature below 700°C (using guidelines from Regev et al. 2010). In group B the position of the main clay peak is highly variable; the sample having its main peak at 1032 cm-1 may appear unheated yet the absence of hydroxyl bands indicates it was fired in at least 500°C, the other two samples with wavenumbers at 1039 and 1051 cm-1 suggest firing in the range of 600-700°C. This again is supported by presence of geogenic calcite. In group C, the presence of gehlenite indicates firing at temperatures above 850°C. This goes along with the main clay peak located at wavenumbers in the 1050s region. Calcite peaks in these samples were too small to conduct accurate testing of geogenic vs. pyrogenic origin. 87 Fig.8.1: FTIR spectrum of sherd 14K91-3, representative of mineralogical Group A (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue) 88 Fig. 8.2: FTIR spectrum of sherd 14K78-9, representative of mineralogical Group B (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue) 89 Fig. 8.3: FTIR spectrum of 10K53-6, representative of mineralogical Group C. Note the additional weak absorption at 955 cm-1 indicative of the high-temperature mineral gehlenite (Clay peaks=red; Calcite peaks=green; quartz peaks=blue; gehlenite peaks=purple) 8.2 Petrography Microscopic observations are summarized in Table 9, organized according to the mineralogical groups identified using FTIR spectroscopy. The 4 sherds from mineralogical group A are composed of many coarse temper grains; three of them are dominated by chalk and occasional basalt and shell fragments, and one includes temper of iron oxides, chalk and flint. The former three were identified to be local to Megiddo and a latter one originating from the southern coastal plain (P. Waiman-Barak, personal communcation). All of Group A sherds are therefore local to the southern Levant. Their paste is mostly anisotropic, with one isotropic sample. The three sherds forming mineralogical group B are fine-grained and include temper composed mostly of basalt and magmatic minerals such as biotite. Their paste is consistently isotropic. The first two have been identified by P. Waiman-Barak to originate from Cyprus and the third to originate from either Cyprus or northern Syria. 90 The two sherds forming mineralogical group C are the finer-grained of all samples studied here. Rare temper inclusions include quartz and basalt. Their paste is isotropic though calcite is present and its appearance resembles that of lime plaster (see thin sections of lime plaster from Tel Kabri's floors in Goshen et al. 2017). According to P. Waiman-Barak these are Cypriot imports. Sample Fabric Significant Description Inclusions Origin Image Isotropic or anisotropic Mineralogical Group A 08K33-2 Gray-brown Quartz, Megiddo chalk, region anisotropic basalt, Grog, Grass 10K73- Light brown 3.1 Megiddo Quartz anisotropic region chalk, basalt, grass, shell 14K91-3 Light brown Quartz Megiddo chalk, region isotropic basalt 14H17-1 Red/orange Iron Megiddo oxides, region anisotropic calcite fossil forums grog chert 91 Mineralogical Group B 14K78-9 Brown-red Quartz, Import partially basalt, (Cyprus) isotropic Import isotropic mica, calcite, biotite, 10K73- Very dark red 3.2 Quartz, (Cyprus) calcite, weathered basalt (?), grass 14K33-6 Dark brown Quartz, Import (NW calcite, coast of iron oxides Syria/Cyprus) isotropic basalt, grog Mineralogical Group C 14H076- Very dark Quartz, Import Isotropic 3 brown, almost Weathered (Cyprus) (groundmass gray/black basalt (?), includes calcite, calcite grass resembling appearance of lime plaster) 10K53-6 Light reddish Quartz, Import Isotropic brown Iron oxides (Cyprus) (groundmass includes calcite resembling 92 appearance of lime plaster ) Table 8 : Petrographic information. 8.3 Discussion: Synthesis based on the two methods Despite the small sample size, the combination of petrography and FT-IR is useful for identifying locally made wares versus imported wares. While petrography can provide insight into temper types and isotropy/anisotropy of the clay paste, FT-IR spectroscopy suggests firing temperatures and bulk mineralogical identification. This petrography-FTIR combination demonstrates that sherds local to Megiddo contain a higher portion of calcite (originating from chalk fragments typical to the region) and have been fired at relatively low temperatures (600-700°C). The imported sherds studied here are characterized by a higher portion of clay. While petrographically all these 5 sherds were grouped as non-local, adding information from FT-IR analysis allowed distinguishing two groups: one fired at variably low temperatures (500-700°C) and another fired at high temperature (>850°C). The latter sub-group includes the high-temperature mineral gehlenite and its groundmass shows highly-fired calcite with an appearance resembling that of lime plaster. Interestingly, the groundmass in one of the five imported sherds is not isotropic (the sherd fired at the lowest temperature, slightly over 500°C), implying that determining firing temperature petrographically may not be accurate. In addition, on the macroscopic level of observation, the material local to Megiddo is more porous and contains more coarse inclusions while the imported sherds are finergrained and less porous. FT-IR and petrography work in unison. This has been also demonstrated recently in studies of ballast stones (Holdeman, under review) and submerged Roman-Byzantine pottery (Ogloblin 2017). 93 9. Chapter 9: Discussion and Conclusions; the typology and chronology of the Cypriot Pottery from Megiddo The aim of this thesis has been to understand the chronology and the extent of the Mediterranean maritime trade between Cyprus and Southern Levant, and how the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition manifests itself at the commercial and political hub of Megiddo (in Cyprus: MC III-LC IA, 17 -15 centuries BCE). The analysis of the extensive, th th stratified Cypriot assemblage from Megiddo has allowed the assesment of diachronic changes in the maritime connections with Cyprus during this transitional period in both Cyprus and the Levant. 4.3.4.1.1. Typology and Diachronic changes in imported Cypriot wares The Megiddo assemblage is consistent with trends seen throughout the Levant regarding prevalent imported Cypriot wares. From the MC III/ LC IA (Levantine MB III to LB I) onward, there are hundreds of Cypriot vessels found in the Levant (Maguire 2009; Papadimitriou 2015: 425). This is a time of experimentation and diversification in Cypriot production, when Cypriots are exporting a wide variety of forms and beginning to specialize in the production intended for foreign markets. The repertoire of shapes is fairly diverse, and the majority of exports are WP, BR I, PWS, WS I, Bichrome, and RLWM juglets, deposited mostly in graves with other imported small transport containers (Manning, Sewell, and Herscher 2002: 99-106; Papadimitriou 2015: 426, Gittlen 1981: 5253; Maguire 2009: 64-66). Within settlement contexts, common forms emphasize small, serving vessels, such as WS II and BR bowls, and WhSh, and BR jugs and juglets. By the Levantine LB IIA period (Cypriot LC IIA), Cypriot trade reaches its peak, with thousands of vessels reaching the southern Levantine coast, with a massive influx of BR I and II jugs and juglets, WS II bowl, and WhSh vessels juglets. By the 14th century, 70% of all Cypriot imports occur in LB IIA strata (Greener 2015: 109). This transitions into the production of less complex, more select assemblages in the LB IIA and B, with only three to four common types and forms. This change in Cypriot production may be linked to international preferences, and the preferences of their largest importer, the Levantine markets (Papadimitriou 2015: 426). While shapes continue to diversify, the ware types being imported (WS, BR, Bichrome, Lustrous wares) remain steady (Papadimitriou 2015: 428). Furthermore, the uniform assemblages found in the Levant are not present in Cypriot 94 contexts. Some forms, such as WhSh juglets are found almost exclusively in foreign contexts, suggesting that many LB Cypriot vessels were produced for international consumptions, and that the choice of type intended for trade was a carefully selective process. In Megiddo, within the MB III-LB I levels (K-10 and H-15), displayed in Fig 9.1, there is a variety of both Cypriot types and vessel forms, some. Such as Bichrome wares, continue MB imports patterns while others, such as BRI and WSI show new types of imports. Combined sherds from these strata account for 36 sherds, a total of 23% of the total assemblage. It is dominated by closed forms which constitute 61% of the LBI imported assemblage with open shapes, as bowls, constitute 39% of this assemblage. Fig. 9.1: LB I Statistical Analysis (44 sherds and vessels) Within the LB IIA (K-9 and H-14) assemblage at Megiddo, the classic standardization of Late Bronze Age Cypriot import wares is fully attested (Fig 9.2). Whereas the LB I assemblage contains eleven Cypriot types (WS, BR, Lustrous, WhSh, Monochrome, WP, and Plain White), and a variety of forms (Juglets, jugs, bowls, spindle bottles, teapots, and 1 askos), the LB IIA assemblage narrows to five common Cypriot types (WS, BR, WhSh, and Monochrome), and three common forms (juglets, jugs, bowls and 1 tankard). This analysis does not include ceramics determined to be intrusive, including PWS, RonB/BonR, etc, which are included in 95 the pie charts. Within this, the majority (56%) of vessels are WS II bowls and BR I and II jugs and juglets. However, in contrast to the LB I imports, there is a rise in bowls which now constitute 50% of the LB IIA imported assemblage while closed shapes, mostly juglets and jugs, constitute 50% of this assemblage. In terms of quantity, the LB IIA is the peak of Cypriot imports at Megiddo, containing 94 sherds and consisting of 61% of the total assemblage. Fig. 9.2: LB IIA Statistical Analysis (94 sherds and vessels) The LB IIB (K-8 and H-13) assemblage, shown in Fig 9.3, continues the trend of standardization, containing only four Cypriot types (WS, BR, WhSh, and monochrome)and three common forms (juglet, jugs and bowls). This is the smallest percentage of sherds found, with a total of 24 sherds accounting for 15% of the assemblage. It is dominated by closed forms which constitute 54% of the LB IIB imported assemblage with open shapes, as bowls, constitute 46% of this assemblage. 96 Fig. 9.3: LB IIB Statistical Analysis (24 sherds and vessels total) The Cypriot finds from Areas K and H of the renewed Megiddo excavations are typical of everyday use, indicating that Cypriot vessels were valued goods on one hand while being easily accessible on the other hand, appearing in domestic contexts. The appearance on BRI and II in non-elite tombs is consistent with their use in funerary contexts elsewhere in the southern Levant (Bunimovitz 2004:1271). As for serving versus storage vessels, one can see a pattern of change. Within the renewed excavations, K-10 and H-15, the MB III/LB I and LB I strata, are dominated by closed vessels, i.e. jugs and juglets. As we progress towards LB IIA-B phases, K-9 and H-14, we see the rise of open form vessels, i.e. bowls, perhaps connected to rising interest in a use of Cypriot serving vessels in domestic contexts. 4.3.4.1.2. Provenance studies of selected wares While we were unable to distinguish if the imported Cypriot pottery was produced in different regions of Cyprus, the petrographic and infrared results allowed us to differentiate between locally produced Bichrome wares, and Bichrome vessels imported from Cyprus. Therefore, this is proof of a concept- we can theorize that FTIR may be used in order to perform provenance studies. While the study of Tscegg et al. (2007), stating that Cypriot Bichrome has been fired at temperatures of around 950-1000ºC and imitations were fired at temperatures below 800ºC was proven to not be true in this case, it was shown that, as previously demonstrated in the studies of ballast stones (Holdeman, under review) 97 and submerged Roman-Byzantine pottery (Ogloblin 2017), that FTIR and petrography work in unison. Petrography can establish different temper types and provenance, while FTIR provide additional information establishing a more accurate firing temperature and bulk mineralogical identification. The results of the Bichrome analysis suggest an interesting pattern of consumption of the ware at Megiddo. Of the nine sherds tested, five are imported, likely from Cyprus, and four are local. While it is difficult to identify a pattern based on such a small sample size, there seems to be no preference for imported versus imitation wares in terms of consumption. Within the distribution of Bichrome wares, there is a preference towards imported kraters, and, in the Megiddo assemblage, large jugs. It has been proposed by Artzy (2013 et al.) that these ceremonial banquet vessels were the banquet ware of the subelites, whereas the elites on the level of the Pharaohs of the Amarna texts, used metal vessels (Artzy 2013et al.: 181). Tankards, one of the most common Cypriot Bichrome wares, are lacking in Levantine assemblages, likely because of the strong Canaanite tradition of jug production (Artzy 2013 et al.: 178), but the Canaanite traditions are not so strong for Kraters and other large mixing vessels. Cypriot wares, and even their imitations, would have been a more accessible alternative that fulfills the same functional need, while still symbolically suggesting the foreign connections of the elite and the wealthy (Bergoffen 2007: 33). While tankards were likely replaced by vessels of local potters, kraters, and assumingly, large jugs, may have been imported due to their utilitarian superiority. Liquid is better held than within the local porous products, a longer lifespan of the thicker ware may have minimized overall costs, and the ware were likely sturdy and traveled well (Artzy 2013 et al.:182). The Levantine market had a niche for large, subelite, ceremonial banquet ceramics, and the Cypriot producers, eager to participate in the growing trade networks, fulfilled. 4.3.4.1.3. Chrono-Stratigraphic Analysis and the establishment of relative chronology The relative chronology of the Cypriot wares provides further strengthening of the existing relative chronology of Megiddo (Table 10). The relative chronology and sequence of appearance of types of imported Cypriot pottery from Levels K-8, K-9, K-10, and H-13, H-14, H-15 is consistent with the sequence of appearance of Cypriot types in the University 98 of Chicago’s Strata XI-VIIB, reflecting an uninterrupted habitation sequence of MB III to LB IIB horizons at Megiddo, The MB III-LB I transition occurs within the lifetime of K-10 and H-15. This transition can be also correlated with the chronology of the phases excavated by the University of Chicago, strata IX and VIII. These are characterized by continuation of Bichrome wares, RLWM together with the appearance of RLWM, BRI, and WSI. The stratigraphic data from these phases shows that this transition was rather eventless, as there are no traces of disruption or significant discontinuity beyond minor house rebuilds (Finkelstein, Martin, Adams, forthcoming). The Cypriot pottery may provide additional data regarding the question of a potential temporary abonnement at the site during the transition between MB and LB and into LBI. Indeed the large number of complete vessels in K-10, K-9, and H-14 may indicate continuous habitation of the site rather than an abandonment phase. The standardization of the Cypriot imports in LB IIA is clearly evident in phases H-14 and K-9, dominated by BRI, II, WS II and Monochrome, and corresponding to similar finds in Chicago Stratum VIII. The LB IIB phase continues this trend of standardized imports with the finds from H-13, K-8 and K-7, containing mainly WSII and BRII imports and corresponding to similar finds in Chicago Stratum VIIB. It appears that phases K-6 and H-12 of the LB III contain mostly residual imports, as is the case for Chicago Stratum VIIA. H K Other Areas University of Chicago Stratum XI: WPV, WP (CL, Eyelet, TL, PL styles), Red on Black X: (X–IX) PWS, K-10: RLWM, Bichrome (early?), BLWM, Monochrome WP PLS, WP V BR I, WP VI? Plain F-10b WS I, IX: Monochrome, white (wheel made?) H-15: White Bichrome BR I, Bichrome Shaved, F-10a: (figurative), WP Monochrome, WS Bichrome VI(?), BLWM II (intrusive) (figurative) H-14: WS II, BR II K-9: WS II, BR I, II VIII: BR I, WP V, Monochrome Period MB II MB III LB I LB IIA 99 White Shaved, Monochrome, Bichrome (residual?) H-13: WS II, BR II, K-8: WS II, BR II, White Shaved White Shaved, plain white wheel made, WS II Late/WS III K-7: WS II, WS II Late/III, White Shaved H-12 K-6: WS II, BR II (residual) VIIB: WS II, BR II, LB BR I IIB VIIA: BR I, WS II LB III Table 9: Late Bronze Cypriot pottery from Megiddo Table 10: Megiddo’s chrono-stratigraphy with Egyptian political events (dates based on the relative chronological table of Eriksson 2007: 12 and Maguire 2009:40) The standardization of Cypriot imports to the Levant seen in the LBIIA assemblages in Megiddo occurs later than both the conquest of Canaan by Ahmose as well as the Battle of Megiddo of Thutmose III (Eriksson 2007; 12, Rainey and Notley 2005). It seems that both conquest as well as the establishment of Canaan as an Egyptian province in the early part of the Egyptian 18th dynasty had little impact on the maritime relations with Cyprus as well as the types of pottery traded (Table 11). At Megiddo, the transition in Cypriot ceramic consumption occurs at the beginning of the LB IIA, equivalent to Chicago‘s Stratum VIII, 100 within the el-Amarna period (Rainey and Notley 2005), The transitions in trade is thus possibly linked to events in the 14th century and the globalization in Mediterranean trade as well as in trade with Cyprus seen in the Amarna letters (EA #33-39) (Rainey 2015: 337). The direct links between Cypriot coastal towns, Levantine coastal settlements, and inland Megiddo seem to exist independently of Egyptian political control and may perhaps be connected to processes of urbanization and the rise of complex societies in Cyprus. It is for future research to examine the relationships, both chronologically and politically, between Cyprus, Egypt, and the Levant. The largest piece of information missing from this discussion is C14 dates, especially from Cyprus and Israel. A more secure absolute dating model would obviously help to confirm the relative dating, both of stratigraphic analysis, political events, and Cypriot pottery. Further information must also come from Cypriot archaeology: so far, there has been little research regarding the areas of production/kiln sites of the LBA. Locating these would contribute greatly to theories regarding Cypriot production and export. Tied to this discussion is the need for further research at the large coastal sites of Bronze Age Cyprus, exploring further signs of international contacts, and, of course, evidence for anchorages and activities within them. 101 Bibliography Agouridis, C. (2011). “The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck of the Islet of Modi (Poros) “Skyllis :25-34. Aharoni, Y. (1959). The Province-List of Judah. Vetus Testamentum, 9: 225-246. Aharoni, Y et al., (1993). The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan. Albright, W. F. (1960). The Archaeology of Palestine. London: Penguin. Arie, E. (2013). “The Late Bronze III and Iron I Pottery: Levels K-6, M-6, M-5 M-4 and H-9” In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Cline, E.H., (eds.) Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University (31): 475-667. Artzy, M. (1994). “Incense, camels and collared rim jars: desert trade routes and maritime outlets in the second millennium" Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 13(2): 121-147. Artzy, M. (2001). “White Slip Ware for Export? " In: Karageorghis, V (ed.) The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastoasios G. Leventis Foundation: Nicosia: 171-192. Artzy, M. (2006). “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: 45-64. Artzy, M., Perlman, I., Asaro, F. (1978). “Imported and Local Bichrome Ware in Megiddo." Levant: 99-111. Artzy, M., Ragna S., and Salmon, Y. (2013) "Market strategy-‐Cypriot Bichrome Wheel-‐made ware for export." In: Knapp, A.B.; Webb, J.; McCarthy, A (eds.) JRB Stewart, An Archaeological Legacy. Uppsala: Paul Åströms förlag: 175-84. Artzy, Michal, Isadore Perlman, and F. Asaro. (1978). "Imported and local bichrome ware in Megiddo." Levant 10 (1): 99-111. Åström, P. (1957). The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age (Vol. 4). Lund: H. Ohlssons boktryckeri. Åström, P. (1972). The Swedish-Cyprus Expedition, Vol IV Part 1B: The Middle Cypriot Bronze Age. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet. Åström, P. (2007). “Black Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware on Cyprus." In: Hein, I., (ed.) The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 32-374. Bass, G. F. (1976). “Sheytan Deresi: preliminary report." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 5(4): 293-303. Bass, George F., et al. (1967). "Cape Gelidonya: a bronze age shipwreck." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society: 1-177. Bergoffen, C. (2001). “The Base Ring Pottery from Tell el->Ajjul." In: Åström, P (ed.). The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell Internat: 31–50. Bergoffen, C. (2003). “The Cypriot Pottery from Alalakh: Chronological Considerations." In: Bietak, M. and Hunger, H. (eds.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd Millennium B.C. II, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 102 Euroconference, Haindorf, May 2001. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften:395–410. Bergoffen, C. (2007). “Reflections on two Lustrous Base Ring I Kraters from Alalakh." In: I., Hein (ed.) The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 25-36. Bergoffen, C. (2014). “Imported Cypriot and Mycenaean Wares and Derivative Wares." In: BenShlomo, D. and Van Beek, G.W., (eds.) The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute: 657–720. Berna, F., Behar, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Berg, J., Boaretto, E., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Shalev, I., Shilstein, S., Yahalom-Mack, N., Zorn, J.R., Weiner, S., 2007. “Sediments exposed to high temperatures: reconstructing pyrotechnological processes in Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata at Tel Dor (Israel)." Journal of Archaeological Science (32): 358-373. Bienkowski, P. (1989). “Prosperity and decline in LBA Canaan: A reply to Liebowitz and Knapp." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (275): 59-63. Bietak, M. and Hein, I. (2001). “The Context of White Slip Wares in the Stratigraphy of Tell ElDab’a And Some Conclusions of Aegean Chronology." In: Karageorghis, V. (ed.) The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastoasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia; in Honour of Malcom Wiener. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 171-192. Bietak, M., and F. Höflmayer. (2007). “Introduction: High and Low Chronology.” In Bietak, M. And Czern, E. (eds.) The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften:13-23. Bonfil, R. (2012). “Did Thutmose III’s Troops Encounter Megiddo X?" In: S. Ahituv, M. Gruber, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshir (eds.). All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen:129-155. Bunimovitz, S. (1995). “On the Edge of Empires: Late Bronze Age (1500-1200BCE). " In: Levy, T (ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: Cassell: 320-331. Bunimovitz, S. (2004). “The Late Cypriot Pottery." In: Ussishkin, D. (ed.) The New Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University: 1262–1272. Cherubinin, P., Humbel, T., Beeckman, H., et al. (2014). “The olive-branch dating of the Santorini eruption” Antinquity 88: 267-273. Cline, E. H., & Yasur-Landau, A. (2007). “Poetry in motion: Canaanite rulership and Aegean narrative at Kabri. Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age". Archaeology: 157-65. Cohen, S. (2015). “Cores, Peripheries and Ports of Power: Theories of Canaanite Development in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E. ” In: J. Mynarova, P. Onderka, and P. Pavuk (eds.) There and Back Again-the Crossroads II: Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014. Prague: Charles University: 69-75. Crewe, L. (2007). “Contextualising the Lustrous Wares at Enkomi: Settlement and Mortuary Deposition During Late Cypriot I-II. ” In: Hein, I., (ed.) The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Contributions to the Chronology of 103 the Eastern Mediterranean 13. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 44-50. Eriksson, K. (2001). “Cypriot Ceramics in Egypt during the Reign of Thutmosis III: The Evidence for Synchronizing the Late Cypriot Cultural Sequence with Egypt at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age.” In: Åström, P., (ed.) The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell Internat:51–68. Eriksson, K. (2007a). “Using Cypriot Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware to Establish Cultural and Chronological Synchronisms during the Late Bronze Age.” In: Hein, I., (ed.) The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften:51–60. Eriksson, K. (2007b). The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Account of the Archaeological Importance of White Slip Ware. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., & Lederman, Z. (1993). Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Instute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein, I; Ussishkin, D.; Halpern, B. (2008). “Megiddo.” In: Stern, E. (eds.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations n the Holy Land V: Supplementary Volume. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: 1944-1949. Fischer P. (2009). “The chronology of Tell el-Ajjul, Gaza: stratigraphy, Thera, pumice and radiocarbon dating. ” In: Warburton, D.A. (ed), Time's Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg, November 2007. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press:245-256. Fischer, P, & Bürge, T. (2017). “Tombs and Offering Pits at the Late Bronze Age Metropolis of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, (377), 161-218. Forget, M., Regev, L., Friesem, D., Shahack-Gross, R., (2015). “Physical and mineralogical properties of experimentally heated chaff-tempered mud bricks: Implications for reconstruction of environmental factors influencing the appearance of mud bricks in archaeological conflagration events.” Journal of Archaeological Science 2: 80-93. Gadot, Y., Yasur-Landau, A. and Ilan, D. (2006). “The Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I Pottery from Areas F and N. ” In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., (eds.) Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University (24): 171–190. Gadot, Y., Yasur-Landau, A. and Uziel, J. (2012). “The Late Bronze Age Pottery. ” In: Maeir, A., (ed.), Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und Altes Testament (69): Wiesbaden: 241–264. Galili, E., Noel G., and Rosen, B. (2013). "A Late Bronze Age shipwreck with a metal cargo from Hishuley Carmel, Israel." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 42 (1): 223. Gittlen, B. M. (1981). “The cultural and chronological implications of the Cypro-Palestinian trade during the Late Bronze Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (241): 49-59. Gjerstad, E. (1926). Studies in Prehistoric Cyprus.Upsala: Uppsala universitets arsskrift. 104 Goshen, N., Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E.H. and Shahack-Gross, R. (2017). “Palatial architecture under the microscope: production, maintenance, and spatiotemporal changes gleaned from plastered surfaces at a Canaanite palace complex, Tel Kabri, Israel. ” Journal of Archaeological Science: 189-199. Goren, Y., S. Bunimovitz, I. Finkelstein, and N. Na’aman (2003), “The location of Alashiya: new evidence from petrographic investigation of Alashiyan tablets from el-Amarna and Ugarit. ” American Journal of Archaeology 107: 233–55. Goren, Y., I. Finkelstein, and N. Na’aman (2004). Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv University. Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., Schoop, U., Seeher, J., Bennet, J., and Stopic, A., (2014). “Ceramics, trade, and provenience and geology: Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. ” Antiquity 88: 1180-1200. Greener, A. (2015). Late Bronze Age Imported Pottery in the Land of Israel: Between Economy, Society and Symbolism. (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University) Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. GSD – Geological Survey Department, Cyprus, (1995). Geological Map of Cyprus, 1:25000. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Nicosia. Guy, P. L. O., and Engberg, R.M. (1938). "Megiddo Tombs (OIP 33)." Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hadjidaki, E., and P. Betancourt. (2006). “A Minoan Shipwreck Off Pseira Island, East Crete: Preliminary Report.” Eulimene: 6-7. Ceng, L. C., Hadjisavvas, N., & Wong, N. C. (2010). “Strong convergence theorem by a hybrid extragradient-like approximation method for variational inequalities and fixed point problems. ” Journal of Global Optimization, 46(4), 635-646. Hall, J., Krasheninnikov, V., Hirsch, F., Benjamini, C., Flexer, A. (2005). Geological Framework of the Levant, Volume II: The Levantine Basin and Israel. Jerusalem: Historical Productions Hall. Hennessy, J.B., (1963). Stephania: A Middle and Late Bronze-Age Cemetery in Cyprus. London: Bermard Quaritch Ltd. Herscher, E. (2001). “Early Base Ring Ware from Phaneromeni and Maroni.” In: Åström, P., (ed.) The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell Internat: 11-22. Herzog, Z. (1997). “Archaeology of the city: urban planning in ancient Israel and its social implications. ” Tel aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeology Press. Hesse, K.J. (2008). Late Bronze Age Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: An Inland Levantine Perspective (Master’s thesis, Uppsala University). Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Hirschfeld, N. (2011). “The Cypriot ceramic cargo of the Ulu Burun shipwreck.” In: W. Gauss, W.; Lindblom, M.; Smith, R.A.K.; Wright,J.C. (eds), Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Oxford: Archaeopress: 115-120. Höflmayer, F., and Cohen, S. (2017). "Chronological Conundrums: Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant." Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13: 1-6. Holdeman, A., under review. Provenance Studies of the Ballast Stones found in the North Bay of Tel Dor. (MA thesis) University of Haifa. 105 Horowitz, A. (1979). The Quaternary of Israel. New York: Academic. Karageorghis, V. (1995). “Relations between Cyprus and Egypt Second Intermediate Period and XVIII th Dynasty.” Ägypten Und Levante 5, 73-79. Karageorghis, V. (2001). White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Vienna: Austrian Academy Of Sciene. Karageorghis, V. (2002). Early Cyprus: crossroads of the Mediterranean. Los Angelas: J Paul Getty Museum Publications. Kempinski, A. (1989). Megiddo: a city-state and royal centre in north Israel. Munich: Kommission fur Allgemeine und Verfleichended Archaologie des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts. Knapp, A. B. (1989). “Complexity and collapse in the north Jordan Valley: archaeometry and society in the Middle-Late Bronze Ages. ” Israel Exploration Journal: 129-148. Knapp, A. B. (Ed.). (1992). Archaeology, annales, and ethnohistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knapp, A. B., & Given, M. (2004). Social landscapes and social space: The Sydney Cyprus survey project. Archaeological Field Survey in Cyprus: Past History, Future Potentials. British School at Athens: London: 77-94. Knapp, A.B. (2008). Prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus: identity, insularity and connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knapp, A. B. (2013). The archaeology of Cyprus: From earliest prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knapp, B. (2014). “Seafaring and seafarers: the case for Late Bronze Age Cyprus.” In: Webb, J.M. (ed.) Structure, Measurement and MeaningL Insights into the Prehistory of Cyprus. Studies in Honor of David Frankel. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 143. Uppsala: Åström Editions: 79-93. Knapp, A. B. and Demesticha, D. Mediterranean connections: Maritime transport containers and seaborne trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Abingdon: Routledge. Kutschera, W. and Bietak, M., et al. (2012). “The Chronology of Tell el-Daba: A Crucial Meeting Point of 14C Dating, Archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd Millennium BC.” In Boaretto, E. And Franco, N.R (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Internatioanl Radiocarbon and Archaeology Symposium. Radiocarbon 54: 407-422. Lolos, Y. G. (1999). "The cargo of pottery from the point Iria Wreck: Character and Implications." In: Phelps, W., Lolos, Y., and Vichos, Y. (eds) The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC. Athens: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology: 43-58. Loud, G. (1948). Megiddo II, Seasons of 1935-1939. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press. Manning, S. W., Weninger, B., South, A. K., Kling, B., Kuniholm, P. I., Muhly, J. D., and Cadogan, G. (2001). “Absolute age range of the Late Cypriot IIC period on Cyprus.”Antiquity 75(288): 328-340. Manning, S. W. (2014). A Test of Time and a Test of Time Revisited: The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-second Millennium BC. Oxbow: Oxbow Books. Manning, S., Höflmayer, F., Moeller, N. et. al. (2014). “Dating the Thera (Santorini) eruption: archaeological and scientific evidence supporting a high chronology. " Antinquity 88:1164-1179. 106 Manning, S.; Sewell, D.A.; Herscher, E. (2002). “Late Cypriot IA Maritime Trade in Action: Underwater Survey at Maroni Tsaroukkas and the Contemporary East Mediterranean Trading System. ” The Annual of the British School at Athens 97 (1): 97-162. Marcus, E. (1991). Tel Nami: A Study of a Middle Bronze IIA Period Coastal Settlement: Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the MA Degree. Diss. University of Haifa. Marcus, E. S. (2007). “Amenemhet II and the sea: maritime aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) inscription.” Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant: 137-190. Martin, M.A.S. (2011). “Egyptian-Type Pottery at Late Bronze Age Megiddo.” In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., (eds.) The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 245–264. Finkelstein, I., Martin, M.A.S., Adams, M. (forthcoming). Megiddo VI: the 2010-2014 seasons. Winona Lake: Eisenbrans. Maguire, L.C. (2009). Tell el-Daba XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and the Circulation in the Levant. Vienna: öterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Merrillees, R. S. (1968). “The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt.” Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18. Lund: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Meyers, C. (1987). “A Terracotta at the Harvard Semitic Museum and Disc-holding Female Figures Reconsidered. ” Israel Exploration Journal: 116-122. Morhange, C., Giaime, M., Marriner, N., abu Hamid, A., Bruneton, H., Honnorat, A., and Zviely, D. (2016). “Geoarchaeological evolution of Tel Akko's ancient harbour” (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science 7: 71-81. Negev, A. and Gibson, S. (2001).. Archaeological Encyclopaedia of the Holy Land, volume III. Israel Exploration Society and Masada Press: Jerusalem. Ogloblin, I., (2017). Chemical and mineralogical changes in ceramics found underwater: case study of Roman/Byzantine remains from Dor's north bay. (MA thesis) University of Haifa. Oren, Eliezer D. (2001). “Early White Slip in Canaan: Spatial and Chronological perspectives.” In: Karageorghis, V. (ed.) The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastoasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia; in Honour of Malcom Wiener. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 127-154. Papadimitriou, N. (2015). “Aegean and Cypriot Ceramic Trade Overseas During The 2nd Millennium BCE. ” In Mynarova, J., Onderka, P., and Pavuk, P. (ed.) There and Back Again-The Crossroads II: Proceedings of an Internataional Conference Held in Prague, Septemer 15-18, 2014. Prague: Charles University in Prague. Popham M, (1972). “White Slip Ware.” In: Åström, P (ed.) The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet. Pulak, C. (2008). "The Uluburun shipwreck and late bronze age trade." In: Aruz, J.; Benzel, K, and Evans, J. (eds.) Babylon: Art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millennium BC. New York City: The Metopolitan Museum of Art: 289-375. Raban, A. (1982). “Archaeological Survey of Israel: Nahalal Map (28). " Archeological Survey of Israel: 16-23. Raban, A. (1995). “Dor-Yam: maritime and coastal installations at Dor in their geomorphological and stratigraphic context.” In: Stern, E., et al., (eds) Areas A and C: 107 Introduction and Stratigraphy. Vol 1A of Excavations At Dor, Final Report (Qedem Reports 1). Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Cooperation with the Israeli Exploration Society: 286-354. Rainey, A. F., and Notley, R. S. (2005). The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta. Rainey, AF. (2015). The El-Amarna Correspondence. Leiden: Brill. Redford, D. (2003). The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden: Brill. Redford, D. (2006). "The northern wars of Thutmose III." In : Cline, E. And O’Connor, D. (ed.) Thutmose III: A New Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 325-43. Regev, L., Poduska, K. Addadi, L., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E. (2010). “Distinguishing between calcites formed by different mechanism using infrared spectrometry: archaeological applications. ” Journal of Archaeological Science 37(12): 3022-3029. Reimer, PJ., et al. (2013). "IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP." Radiocarbon 55.4: 1869-1887. Renfrew, C. (1969). Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory. Current Anthropology 10: 151-69. Renfrew, C. (1977). “Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution.” In: Earle, T., and Ericson, J. (eds.) Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Los Angelas: Academic Press: 71-90. Riederer, J. (2004). "Thin section microscopy applied to the study of archaeological ceramics." Hyperfine Interactions 154.1-4: 143-158. Seger, J. D. (1988). Gezer V: The Field I Caves. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Sharp, C., & Artzy, M. (2017). “Nami's Middle Bronze Age Suburb: The Coastal Settlement at Site 104–106. ” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 149(4): 254-273. Shoval, S. and Paz, Y., (2015). “Analyzing the fired-clay ceramic of EBA Canaanite pottery using FT-IR spectroscopy and LA-ICP-MS.” Periodico di Mineralogia 81(1): 213-221. Singer-Avitz, L., & Levy, Y. (1992). “Two Late Bronze Age Tombs at Palmaḥim.” 'Atiqot/‫עתיקות‬: 174-175. Sneh, A., Bartov, Y., Weissbrod, T. and Rosensaft, M., (1998). Geological Map of Israel, 1:200,000. Isr. Geol. Surv. (4 sheets). Spondylis, E. (2012). "A Minoan Shipwreck off Laconia." Enalia 11: 6-7. Stager, L. E. (2001). "Port power in the early and the Middle Bronze Age: The organization of maritime trade and hinterland production." Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse: 625-38. Steel, L. (2013). “Cyprus During the Late Bronze Age.” In: Steel, L. (ed.) Materiality and consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. In: London: Routledge:571-586. Stern, E. (1993). “Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land.” The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, The Israel Map & Publishing Company. Limited: Jerusalem. Stern, E., & Sharon, I. (1995). “Tel Dor, 1993: Preliminary Report.” Israel Exploration Journal: 26-36. Sugerman, M. (2009). “Trade and Power in Late Bronze Age Canaan.” In: Schloen, D. (ed.) Exploring the Longue duree, Essays in honor of Lawrence Stager. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 439-448. Tartaron, T.F. (2013). Maritime networks in the Mycenaean world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trendall, A.D., (2000). Handbook to the Nicholson Museum, second ed. Sydney: University of Sydney. 108 Tschegg, C., Hein, I., Ntaflos, Th., (2007). “State of the art multi-analytical geoscientific approach to identify Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade Ware reproduction in the Eastern Nile delta (Egypt).” Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1134–1147. Ussishkin, D. (1995). “The destruction of Megiddo at the end of the Late Bronze Age and its historical significance.” Tel Aviv 22(2): 240-267. Wachsmann, S. (1998). Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bonze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Weiner, S. (2010). Microarchaeology: Beyond the visible archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wijngaarden, G. J. V. (2010). Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy:(ca. 1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Yannai, E. (2007). “New Typology of the Grey Lustrous Wheel Made Ware in Israel.” Egypt and the Levant 17: 219–295. Yannai, E., Gophna, R., Liphshitz, S. and Liphshitz, Y. (2013). “A Late Bronze Age Cemetery on the Coast of Palmahim.” Atiqot 74: 9–57. Yasur-Landau, A. (2013). “Cypriot, Mycenaean, and Derivative Forms From Levels K-8 and K7. ” In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D., and Cline, E.H. (eds. ) Megiddo V: The 2004-2008 Seasons, Volume II. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University: 458-474. 109 Appendixes Appendix A: Photos and Plate of Catalog A3 Plate 1 No. 1 2 Area K-8 K-8 Item 08K85VS5 08K129VS2 Description White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet Plate 2 3 To be published in more detail in Megiddo VI (Yasur-Landau and Clark, forthcoming). The appendix presented in provides only a small selection based on the photographs and plates available at the time of submission. 110 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Item 08K33aVS9 08K105VS2 08K126VS2 08K33aVS16 08K72VS1 10K43bVS1 Description WS II bowl WS II bowl WS bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl late Plate 3 111 112 No. 1 2 3 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 Item 10K29VS17 08K33aVS18 08K33aVS17 Description BR I jug BR II jug BR II jug 1 2 3 4 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Item 08K126 VS1 08K75VS5 10K53VS4 08K89VS7 Description WS II bowl WS II bowl (late) BR II bowl BR II juglet Plate 4 No. 113 5 K-9 08K114VS2 1 2 3 Area K-10 K-10 K-10 Item 08K75VS6 08K57VS2 08K33aVS15 4 K-10 12K38VS1 Bichrome krater or biconical jug Plate 5 No. Description BR II bowl White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet Bichrome wheelmade krater 114 Plate 6 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Area K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 Item 10K102VS42 10K102VS1 10K73VS6 08K88VS8 08K116VS1 10K112VS3 7 K-10 10K93VS1 Description BR I juglet (early) BR I juglet BR I bowl BR I bowl WP jug BLWM jug BR I spindle bottle with conical base 8 K-10 14K66VS1 Plain White wheelmade teapot Plate 7 115 No. 1 2 3 4 Area H-14 H-14 H-14 H-14 Item 14H37VS1 14H065 14H73VS1 12H72VS2 Description BR II jug BR II juglet BR II jug WS II bowl Plate 8 116 No. 1 2 3 Area H-13 H-13 H-13 Item 12H48VS7 12H40bVS2 12H40bVS3 Description BR II bowl White Shaved juglet WS II bowl Plate 9 117 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 Item 14H42VS2 14H42VS3 14H42VS1 14H57VS8 14H87VS27 14H92bVS11 14H57VS7 14H87VS6 Description WS II bowl WS II bowl White Shaved juglet Monochrome bowl White Shaved juglet WP VI teapot Monochrome bowl WP V askot 118 Appendix B: Photos of Catalog B Plate 1 No. Area Locus Item Description 1 K-8 08/K/85 0/K/85-6 WS II bowl 2 K-8 08/K/133 08/K/133-1 WS II bowl 3 K-8 10/K/002 10/K/002-4 BR juglet 4 K-8 10/K/002 10/K/002-15 BR II juglet 5 K-8 10/K/002 10/K/002-16 BR II juglet 1 2 3 4 5 Area K-8 K-8 K-8 K-8 K-8 Locus 08/K/85 08/K/10 08/K/120 08/K/133 08/K/120 Plate 2 No. Item 08/K/85-1 08/K/10-1 08/K/120-4 08/K133-0 08/K/120-2 Description White Shaved juglet BR bowl Monochrome bowl BR jug BR bowl Plate 3 119 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/133 10/K/53 08/K/33 08/K/75 08/K/33 08/K/57 10/K/60 Item 08/K/133-12 08/K/53-4 08/K/33-6 08/K/75-2 08/K/33-12 8/K/57-2 10/K/60-2 Description WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl (late) WS II bowl WS juglet WS bowl 1 Area K-9 Locus 08/K/107 Item 08/K/107-3 Description WS II bowl Plate 4 No. 120 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 08/K/75 10/K/24 10/K/61 10/K/61 08/K/89 08/K/89 08/K/89 08/K/75-18 10/K/24-1 10/K/61-3 10/K/61-3 08/K/89-10 08/K/89-10 08/K/89-5 WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl 1 2 3 4 5 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 10/K/46 08/K/33 08/K/81 08/K/81 08/K/81 Item 10/K/46-4 08/K/33-8 08/K/81-4 08/K/81-3 08/K/81-1 Description BR II juglet BR II juglet BR bowl BR bowl BR II jug Plate 5 No. Plate 6 121 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/81 08/K/57 08/K/57 08/K/57 10/K/3 08/K/75 10/K/27 08/K/114 Item 08/K/81-4 08/K/57-5 08/K/57-3 08/K/57-2 10/K/3-3 08/K/75-9 10/K/27-1 08/K/114-5 Description BR II juglet BR II juglet BR II juglet BR II juglet BR I jug BR bowl BR bowl BE juglet Plate 7 122 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/75 10/K/26 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 Item 08/K/75-9 10/K/26-5 08/K/37-10 08/K/37-10 08/K/37-9 08/K/37-6 08/K/37-4 08/K/37-6 Description BR juglet BR II juglet BR bowl BR bowl BR juglet BR jug BR BR II jug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 08/K/37 10/K/24 08/K/72 10/K/40 10/K/24 08/K/67 Item 08/K/37-6 08/K/37-6 08/K/37-6 08/K/37-1 10/K/24-1 08/K/72-3 10/K/40b-4 10/K/24-1 08/K/67-4 Description BR II jug BR jug BR jug BR II jug BR II juglet BR I jug BR II juglet BR bowl BR bowl Plate 8 No. Plate 9 123 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/114 08/K/114 08/K/114 10/K/29 10/K/61 10/K/29 10/K/61 06/K/5 08/K/132 Item 08/K/114-7 08/K/114-8 08/K/114-8 10/K/29-10 10/K/61-3 10/K/29-2 10/K/61-4 06/K/5-3 08/K/132-1 Description BR juglet/jug BR bowl BR bowl BR bowl BR bowl BR juglet BR bowl BR bowl BR jug Plate 10 124 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/57 08/K/75 10/K/75 10/K/40b 06/K/5 08/K/89 Item 08/K/57-4 08/K/75-23 10/K/75-5 10/K/40b-6 06/K/5-3 08/K/89-7 Description White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet Plate 11 125 No. 1 2 3 4 5 Area K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 K-9 Locus 08/K/33 08/K/75 10/K/40b 10/K/40b 08/K/89 Item 08/K/33-14 08/K/75-23 10/K/40b-4 10/K/40b-4 08/K/89-10 6 7 K-9 K-9 10/K/60 08/K/33 10/K/60-6 08/K/33-2 Description Monochrome bowl Monochrome bowl Monochrome bowl WP teapot Wp teapot Bichrome (imported) jug Bichrome (local) jug Plate 12 126 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Area K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 K-10 Locus 10/K/62 08/K/125 14/K/119 08/K/117 10/K/62 10/K/30 Item 10/K/62-1 08/K/125-2 14/K/119-2 08/K/117-6 10/K/62-1 10/K/30-10 7 8 K-10 K-10 14/K/78 10/K/73 14/K/78-9 10/K/73-3 9 K-10 10/K/73 10/K/73-3 10 11 K-10 K-10 14/K/33 14/K/91 14/K/33-6 14/K/91-3 Description BR juglet BR bowl BR jug/juglet White Shaved juglet Monochrome Bowl BonR bowl Bichrome (imported) jug Bichrome (local) jug Bichrome (imported) jug Bichrome (imported) jug Bichrome (local) jug Plate 13 127 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Area H-13 H-13 H-13 H-13 H-13 H-13 H-13 H-13 Locus 12/H/48 12/H/48 12/H/62 12/H/62 12/H/49 12/H/48 12/H/66 12/H/55 Item 12/H/48-11 12/H/48-11 12/H/62-7 12/H/62-2 12/H/49-3 12/H/48-8 12/H/66-2 12/H/55-4 Description WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl WS II bowl BR bowl BR II jug Monochrome juglet RonR jug Plate 14 128 No. Area Locus Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 H-14 H-14 H-14 H-14 H-14 H-14 14/H/11 14/H/23 14/H/23 14/H/75 14/H/76 14/H/17 14/H/11-4 14/H/23-1 14/H/23-2 14/H/75-1 14/H/76-3 14/H/17-1 Description PWS wishbone handle BR bowl Monochrome bowl Monochrome bowl Bichrome bowl (X) Bichrome bowl (x) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Area H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 H-15 Locus 14/H/48 14/H/52 14/H/42 14/H/42 14/H/52 14/H/52 14/H/52 14/H/42 14/H/62 Item 14/H/48-2 14/H/52-2 14/H/42-2 14/H/42-1 14/H/52-3 14/H/52-3 14/H/52-3 14/H/42-3 14/H/62-3 Description WS II jug WS bowl BR juglet BR juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet White Shaved juglet WP jug BonR bowl Plate 15 No. 129