the american schools of oriental research is … use information technology and tools to increase...

The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic PerspectiveAuthor(s): Yuval GorenSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 303 (Aug., 1996), pp. 33-72Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357469 .Accessed: 17/08/2011 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357469?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze

Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective YUVAL GOREN

Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University

Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel E-mail: [email protected]

The results of comprehensive petrographic analyses of the pottery assemblages from the Early Bronze Age IV (also termed Middle Bronze Age I or Intermediate Bronze Age) sites in southern Israel are presented in detail. The ceramic assemblages of the central

Negev sites, excavated in the framework of the Negev Emergency Survey, indicate that most of the vessels were produced in Transjordan or Judaea and imported. Additional production sources include the northern Negev or the southern Shephela. Evidence for local production of pottery in the central Negev was discovered only at Har Yeruham site but the distribution of the products of this workshop was rather limited. The proportion of pottery from each production center varies from one assemblage to another. The petrographic study also revealed that a main production center for pottery was located in the Jerusalem area, most likely at the site of Nahal Refaim. The archaeological and socioeconomic implications of these results are discussed in detail.

he Early Bronze Age IV (EB IV) has long been considered a transitional phase in the

early history of the southern Levant. On the basis of current archaeological data, most scholars have interpreted the settlement patterns of this period as reflecting a nomadic or rather pastoral episode within the otherwise urban Bronze Ages of the Le- vant. (Cohen [1992] and Dever [1995] refer to the relevant literature.) This hypothesis has sparked an

on-going debate as to the possible sources of this culture and its developmental trends.

The first theory, put forward by Albright (1962), considered this time span as representing the col-

lapse of the preceding urban entity and the diffu- sion of an ethnic element that later established the Middle Bronze Age cultures. He therefore termed it the "Middle Bronze Age I." An alternative hypothesis, advocated by Kenyon (1969: 135-61), ascribed the material culture of this period to a tribal breed (the Amorites) who displaced the urban cultures of the

Early Bronze Age but disappeared later. A counter argument was first raised by Wright

(1971) and later reinforced by Dever (1973; 1980; 1985a), relating the new culture that appeared in the

region by the end of the third millennium B.C. more to the Early Bronze Age horizon than to the later Middle Bronze. Wright thus coined the term EB IV,

which was later adopted by Dever and his school. Dever (1973; 1980; 1985a) claimed that a group of nomads who migrated from Syria had mixed with the local remnants of the Early Bronze Age cultures. This hybrid population established its cultural traits in the Transjordan, then penetrated west. Dever's

early concept was also adopted at the time, with some modifications, by Richard (1980) and Prag (1974). Another scheme has been suggested by Cohen (1986; 215-309; 1992) in light of his discoveries at sites in the central Negev. This scheme correlates the EB IV culture with the seminomadic population that inhabited the Negev region throughout the EB II-III. In his

opinion, it was the Negev population that migrated to establish the Transjordanian EB IV centers, then

penetrated north through Judaea.

Beginning in the late 1980s, new approaches have

emerged. Recent discoveries at several sites, especially in Jordan, have transformed Dever's "pastoral nomadism" model to more sedentary interpretations. Current syntheses tend to relate the EB IV culture not to pastoralism but rather to "ruralism," a process that gradually developed from the EB II-III urbanism. (Dever [1992; 1995] reviews the new theories and the relevant literature in detail.) Yet even the most generalized syntheses of the period in question (e.g., Dever 1995) accept the pastoral-nomadism

33

34 YUVAL GOREN BASOR 303

model for the central Negev and the central moun- tain ridge of Israel. The sedentary models relate in the main to the Transjordanian sites which, in most views, depict an agricultural landscape of permanent villages. The relations between rural and pastoral societies are compared to those existing between inhabitants of the desert and "the sown" in the Near East during the last centuries (Richard 1987b; Dever 1992: 88-89; Finkelstein and Pervolotski 1990).

These hypotheses rely heavily on ceramic typological studies. Using this tool, several scholars have attempted to define the similarities between related pottery groups from different geographical zones. These were commonly accompanied by attempts to

place the different ware families in a chronological sequence within their geographical boundaries. Ever since the pioneering study of Amiran (1960; 1969) scholars have endeavored to settle the geochrono- logical arrangement of the ceramic repertoire. Dever (1973; 1980; 1985a) used some aspects of these studies to support his view that the EB IV cultures developed in Transjordan and penetrated westward. In the more recent literature, pottery is still being used to define regional groups or site clusters within the EB IV horizon (e.g., Palumbo and Peterman 1993).

Consequently, provenance studies of artifacts from

significant EB IV sites would seem indispensable for

interpreting their interrelations, development, and socioeconomic patterns. However, apart from some preliminary research performed on meager assemblages of finds from several unrelated regions (Porat 1989a: 180-82; Beynon et al. 1986; Glass n.d., cited by Lon- don 1985: 145-47), no systematic attempt has been made to examine the remains of the period's material culture in terms of production centers and artifact distribution. Yet even these preliminary studies have

provided some promising results, suggesting relations between some of the Negev sites and those in the eastern Aravah Valley (Porat 1989a; 180-82).

This article presents the results of petrographic examinations of EB IV ceramic assemblages from some of the major sites of central and southern Israel

(fig. 1); including Mashabei Sadeh, Har Tzayad, Har Yeruham Site, Har Dimon, Beer Resisim, and Ein Ziq in the Negev highlands (Cohen 1986; 1992; De- ver 1985b; Cohen and Dever 1978; 1979; 1981; Kochavi 1967; Nahlieli and Tahal 1993). These sites have been excavated systematically in the framework of the Negev Emergency Survey, underway since the mid-1970s, which has provided considerable data on the material culture of the Negev during the period under review. In addition, results of petrographic

studies of the ceramic assemblages from some sites in the more northern parts of Israel (Nahal Refaim, Jebel Qacaqir) and the Transjordan (Bab edh-DhraC, Feinan) were used for comparison. Based on the results of this study, a revised interpretation of the cultural origins and socioeconomic traits of the EB IV entities in the southern Levant will be suggested.

METHOD

Method Selection

Various techniques are employed for analyzing the composition of pottery. These can be divided into mineralogical methods, which identify the clay and temper minerals; and chemical methods based on chemical analyses of the paste's elements. Pe-

trography is the most frequently used mineralogical method, whereas neutron activation analysis (NAA) is the most frequent chemical one. Petrographic an-

alysis is particularly useful for examining coarse, poorly fired, locally made pottery since it permits large numbers of samples to be handled at low cost and provides valuable information relatively quickly. Moreover, our large collection of comparative material from many major sites in the southern Levant allows us to relate many fabrics to their geological context, thus facilitating provenance determinations. For these reasons, petrography has been chosen as the principal analytical method for this study.

To corroborate the petrographic interpretations, a complementary chemical study of a selection of the pottery samples was conducted by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP- AES). The sample was ground in an agate mortar and then 0.5 g of the powder was fused with 2 g of sodium peroxide at 5300 C for 45 min in a zirconium crucible. The flux was dissolved in water (-40 ml) and 25 ml concentrated hydrochloric acid. Two ml

(250 mg/ml) of Merck standard scandium solution was added as the internal standard and diluted to 100 ml. The standard reference materials were prepared in a similar way. These were used for checking the ac-

curacy of the procedure. The dissolved samples were analyzed using a simultaneous ICP spectrometer. Pre- cision for major elements was 0.005-0.34% and for trace elements 0.3-0.95%. Samples representing the main petrographic groups identified in this study were analyzed for their major, minor, and trace elements. The latter were computed for their average and standard deviation (table 1). The coefficient elements were plotted on scattergrams (fig. 2).

1996 THE PETROGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE 35

ierrantan _Nh

-- Ref a Sea

-

,

ILI

,i., Kh,.-ska-

de J"e QNahalqR 1im 1 4 * ' II

"" do

,• "Kh. Iskandelf'

I., ( N

,eS ""

I-.. , -- _

-

9.; "

,

r

.r it i

Mashabei Sadeh ,%Har imon

'~~ C; . ". '

f

42-f ,.

if "

Mash Sadeh ,amiHarn d

I .

~I •., ,,i

r Witt

r w

" "P

I

."" •• •1 5,,.

Beer Reslsl

A- ,

mw einan 0 "6 Aw

I_ "

" %,, r

i APO

Fig. 1. Location map of the sites mentioned in the text.

Sampling and Examination Procedures

Petrographic examination of the pottery assemblages was carried out in stages. In the preliminary stage, freshly broken sections of all the typologically

identified vessels from each assemblage were in-

spected with the aid of a stereomicroscope and broadly grouped according to the characteristics of the fabrics, as advocated by Stienstra (1986). In the second stage, samples for petrographic thin-section

TABLE 1. Trace elements, composition of the chemically examined samples (values are in PPM)

No. Sample type Zn Pb Co Ni Ba Mn Cr V Be Cu Ag Yb La Y Sr Ce

Moza+ dolomitic sand

MO1 Unfired vessel, Binianei Hauma 39 19 14 31 47 165 69 84 0.93 31 0 1 16 11 178 26

MO2 Clay, upper part, Moza section 53 19 12 27 66 182 70 81 1.12 18 0 2 15 13 109 27

MO3 Artificial mixture 20 18 15 20 33 126 44 44 0.65 24 0 2 10 12 164 41

MO4 Nahal Refaim, EB IV sherd 69 18 13 30 247 83 74 85 1.10 44 60 2 18 14 139 23







2/112 Mashabei Sadeh, EB IV sherd 45 27 13 30 443 260 74 110 1.40 31 0 2.3 19 19 448 40



432/1 Ein Ziq, EB IV sherd 97 29 15 38 123 252 76 109 1.60 32 0 2.5 18 19 449 44



154/2 Har Tzayad, EB IV sherd 48 25 16 31 362 270 78 121 1.50 31 0 2.6 19 19 443 51



Mean, Moza+dolomitic sand 55.4 24.6 15.2 32.3 - - 74.8 96.6 1.33 30.9 10.4 2.17 17.5 16.6 246 38

Standard Deviation 19.6 6.05 2.92 6.33 - 61.1 12.4 22.2 0.30 7.79 27.9 0.39 3.20 3.36 - 9.86

Taqiya+grog

TQ1 Clay, Negev Junction 123 29 13 104 4442 515 118 94 1.56 36 0 3 33 39 679 34

TQ2 Artificial sherd of Taqiya clay+grog 128 27 35 120 4605 690 117 93 1.51 35 0 3 30 35 564 34



Ein Ziq, EB IV sherd 145 34 18 129 1484 920 120 101 1.80 37 0 3.4 35 37 990 56


00/0 Har Yeruham, EB IV sherd 100 23 16 82 1569 357 102 99 1.40 31 0 3 29 30 731 57

316/25 Har Yeruham, EB IV sherd 142 27 13 103 2203 451 103 89 1.50 41 0 2.8 28 31 814 45


00/1 Har Yeruham, EB IV sherd 134 36 16 87 1304 371 109 97 1.40 36 0 3 30 30 658 58

Mean, Taqiya - 31.3 19 - - - 114 98.4 1.55 36.6 0 3.34 32.9 37.5 - 51

Standard Deviation 17.6 5.96 6.83 30.5 - - 8.99 8.92 0.14 3.86 0 0.79 4.86 12.2 - 10.8

Lower Cretaceous



460 Ein Ziq, EB IV sherd 120 30 13 80 2083 277 72 76 1.70 30 12 2.5 25 26 390 50

31/152 Har Tzayad, EB IV sherd 91 50 20 85 459 240 105 108 2.10 33 0 3 28 26 163 70




2/113 Mashabei Sadeh, EB IV sherd 125 44 16 87 1851 257 107 112 2.30 36 0 3 38 28 360 73

308/1 Mashabei Sadeh, EB IV sherd 349 37 15 77 1701 320 103 108 2.30 34 0 3 39 28 318 76


Mean, Lower Cretaceous - 39.4 15.8 70.8 - - 91.7 - 2.18 45.2 1.2 3.07 34.7 28.5 - 72.6

Standard Deviation 6.94 3.25 16.4 - 60.4 15.6 15.6 0.29 24.8 3.79 0.29 5.16 2.22 10.9

Arkose




Ein Ziq, EB IV sherd 236 46 21 48 325 605 110 131 2.40 39 0 3.8 35 29 183 72


341 Ein Ziq, EB IV sherd 448 41 22 54 335 620 112 90 2.50 60 0 3.7 43 32 471 97

Mean, Arkose - 47.6 19.3 49.1 456 517 96.1 - 2.35 64.5 23.3 3.68 37.3 30.8 - 81.1

Standard Deviation - 6.40 2.42 4.40 - - 15.5 15.6 0.13 30.7 57.1 0.11 4.67 2.13 12.0


100-

A A Lower Cretaceous 100

/ \+ Arkose groups A

Lower Cretaceous A\ I

\j+fe•gr•ups L LI L 80 / L I L L L

/ L A 80A I LL

A LA / A L

LLA LI / L

L/

/ Taqiya+Ogrog group I S60- - -

.-t -T-,iya6 I R\ t

-t " awa grog group Moza +

dolormitic t /

t

\ I sand, Negev sites t

\ \

mm

m

mI \t

/ \_

MM m MI 40 - R Mm

40 -

l I domizc sand

Moza + dobomitic sand IT Taqiyaawday I T) Taqya raw ay Jerusalem samples

20 - I I I I 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 40 80 120 160 200

Sr (ppm) Ni (ppm)

Fig. 2. Scattergrams displaying the concentrations of the petrographic groups (hand-drawn fields). Left: Ce and Sr, right: Ce and Ni. Legend to the datapoints: M: Moza clay samples from near Jerusalem. R: pottery from Nahal Refaim. m: pottery of the Moza clay-dolomitic sand group from the central Negev. T: Taqiya marl sample. t: pottery of the Taqiya marl + grog group from the central Negev. L: pottery of the Lower Cretaceous group. A: pottery of the Arkose group.

analysis were chosen on the basis of both the typology of the vessels and their raw materials and examined under a petrographic (polarizing) microscope (a detailed inventory of the thin sections is presented in table 2). We examined most of the typologically identified vessels (256 samples) to obtain a large sample size for the calculation of the relative proportion of each pottery source in every site (the sample sizes are specified in table 3).

During the petrographic analysis, the samples were divided into "petrographic groups." A petrographic group encompasses vessels that share similar petrographic affinities in both clay and temper. This classification is determined according to the qualities of raw materials alone, regardless of variables such as typology, chronology, and geographic location of the site. Therefore, this classification is an independent technical criterion for a comparative assortment of ceramic assemblages. The application of this method for archaeological assemblages has been explained elsewhere (Goren 1991a; 1991b; 1992; 1995). In previous studies, based on a sample of about 5000 thin sections of ceramics from Israeli sites, we managed to define many petrographic groups and to correlate them with specific lithological environments (Porat 1984; 1986-1987; 1989a; 1989b; Goren 1987; 1991a; 1992; 1995; Gilead and Goren 1989). The "key petrographic groups" to be described are groups bearing typical attributes that permit the reasonable assess- ment of their geographic origin, and thus may be

used for provenance studies. Since only a limited number of petrographic groups were traced in the pottery assemblages in question, their provenance could have been determined on the basis of these comparisons and the typical lithological "fingerprint" of each one of them.

RESULTS

Summary of Results

The lithological and technological properties of the various petrographic groups are presented here in summary for the convenience of the reader.

"Lower Cretaceous" group (fig. 3) is characterized by the use of argillaceous, ferruginous, shale- rich clay, with high contents of silt, "mature" quartz sand, and typical ferruginous ooliths. It is identified as originating from the Nubian Sandstone series of the Lower Cretaceous section. In the case of the EB IV pottery assemblages, its most likely origin is central Transjordan (between Wadi Zarqa and Feinan).

"Moza clay-dolomitic sand" group (fig. 4) is characterized by a mixture of fine clay, somewhat calcareous and rich in iron oxides, and coarse dolomitic sand. It originates in the vicinity of the Judaean hills, especially around Jerusalem. The site of Nahal Re- faim (Eisenberg 1993; 1994) is probably its principal or only production center.

TABLE 2. Results of Petrographic examinations at seven sites

Catalog Site No. Find Detail Reference Petrographic group Provenance

Har 1Tzayad 154/1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 27:17 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 162/1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 29:4 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 159/2 Bowl Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 10/121-1 Cup Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 128/6 Jar Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 172/1 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:10 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 150/2 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:12 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 172/2 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:11 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 12/123-7 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 28:2 Taqiya+grog Central Negev 12/123-3 Pithos(?) Rope decorated Taqiya+grog Central Negev 42/173-2 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:9 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 172/3 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:13 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 120/5 Pithos Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 120 Jar base Rounded Nile silt Egypt 154/2 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 27:18 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 152/1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 29:1 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 152/2 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 29:2 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 136/21 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 120/2 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 169/2 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 29:5 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 9/138-13 Bowl Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 19/138A Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 27:11 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 138/10 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 27:11 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 172/4 Cup Cohen 1986: pl. 27:4 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 152/5 Cup Cohen 1986: pl. 27:2 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 120/7 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 41/164-1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 27:16 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 4/173-1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 28:6 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 155/2 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

150/1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 28:5 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 150/3 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 122/2 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 123/5 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 136/4 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 152/6 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 152/7 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 129/1 Jar/pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 28:14 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 17/137-5 Krater Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 137/15 Krater Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

TABLE 2.--continued


155/1 Pithos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 161/1 Teapot Cohen 1986: pl. 28:1 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 138/4 Holemouth jar Loess+calcareous sand Northern Negev/Shephela 138/6 Amphoriskos Arkose Southern Transjordan 138/8 Jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 11/120-5 Jar(?) Base Arkose Southern Transjordan 136/20 Jar(?) Arkose Southern Transjordan 152 Pithos Arkose Southern Transjordan

Ein Ziq 295/3 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 55:14 Loess+calcareous/ Northern Negev/ quartz sand Shephela

168 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 53:2 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 189/1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 55:2 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 428/1 (118) Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 54:9 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 474/3 Pithos Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 562/1 Cup Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 614 Pithos Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 116/455-1 Lamp-bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 57:7 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 120/467/1 Cup Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 179/609/1 Jug Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 202/1 Jug Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 279/1 Juglet Cohen 1986: pl. 53:11 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 316/1 Spouted holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 52:21 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 551/1 Pithos Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 67/318-1 Juglet Cohen 1986: pl. 52:10 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 80/423 Jug Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 83/427-1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 57:6 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 613/1 Teapot Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 180 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 56:9 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 299/5 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 54:16 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 429/1 Teapot Cohen 1986: pl. 57:24 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 432/1 Cup Cohen 1986: pl. 57:23 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 451/2 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 526/1-3 Jar Loess+calcareous/ Northern Negev/

quartz sand Shephela 116/460-1 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 58:10 Loess+quartz sand Northwestern Negev 346/5 Krater Loess+quartz sand Northwestern Negev 442/1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 58:1 Loess+quarts sand Northwestern Negev 472/1 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 59:2 Loess+quartz sand Northwestern Negev

100/350 Krater Cohen 1986: pl. 56:1 Ora Shales Southern Negev 460/4 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 59:4 Ora Shales Southern Negev 479/4 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 115/1 Jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 118/474-2 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 59:8 Arkose Southern Transjordan 118/474/1 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 59:10 Arkose Southern Transjordan 119/466-3 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 57:1 Arkose Southern Transjordan 153/559/1 Amphoriskos Arkose Southern Transjordan 22/194 Jug(?) Cohen 1986: pl. 52:19 Arkose Southern Transjordan 284/2 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 55:10 Arkose Southern Transjordan 29/182 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 52:17 Arkose Southern Transjordan 316 Holemouth jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 319 Holemouth jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 341 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 53:9 Arkose Southern Transjordan 431/1 Bowl Arkose Southern Transjordan 478/1 Jug Arkose Southern Transjordan 480/2 Krater Cohen 1986: pl. 58:9 Arkose Southern Transjordan 485/622/1-1 Bowl Arkose Southern Transjordan 558/1 Jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 615/1 Cup Arkose Southern Transjordan 63/311 Deep bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 52:2 Arkose Southern Transjordan 75/430-1 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 57:4 Arkose Southern Transjordan 84/411 Krater Arkose Southern Transjordan 99/408-1 Juglet Cohen 1986: pl. 52:16 Arkose Southern Transjordan 116/455-1 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 57:20 Clay+quartz sand Undetermined 99/402-1 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 52:1 Clay+quartz sand Undetermined

Mashabei Sadeh 210/10 Amphoriskos Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 308/1 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 41:11 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 210/6 Jar Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 118/6 Jar Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 212 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 41:15 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 308/6 Jar Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 103 Jar Taqiya+grog Central Negev 6-122/3 Jar Taqiya+grog Central Negev 2/103-2 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 41:6 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 33/305-2 Jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 2/112 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 41:8 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 7/121-19 Jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 24/212-3 Juglet Cohen 1986: pl. 41:5 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 6/122-1 Bodysherd Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 118/3 Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 308/4 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 41:17 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan

TABLE 2.-continued


5/118-7 Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 113/1 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 42:5 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 35/308 Pithos Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 103/8 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 308/9 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 112/1 Cup Cohen 1986: pl. 41:3 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 209 Cup Cohen 1986: pl. 41:4 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 210/7 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 121/1 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 114/1 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 118/4 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 308/5 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 41:18 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 115 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 41:16 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 26/210-9 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 110/1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 42:2 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 210/19 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 210/5 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 2/203-7 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 2/110 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 42:2 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 35/308 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 26/211 Oil lamp Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 103/7 Pithos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 33/305-4 Jar Loess +calcareous/ Northern Negev/

quartz sand Shephela 6/122 Jar Loess +calcareous/ Northern Negev/

quartz sand Shephela 212/2 Jar Loess+quartz sand Northern Negev/Shephela 103/9 Cooking pot Arkose Southern Transjordan 2/103 Jar Arkose Southern Transjordan 301/1 Krater Arkose Southern Transjordan 26/210-3 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 42:9 Ferruginous clay+wadi sand Undetermined

Har Dimon B-3004 Holemouth jar Taqiya+crushed calcite Central Negev 1111 Pithos Impressed decoration Taqiya+grog/wadi sand Central Negev 1014-3 Cup Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 1016-1 Jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 1048 Jar Rope decoration Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 1050 Pithos Pinched decoration Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 1041 Bowl Striated Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1078 Cup Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan

1014-2 Holemouth jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1062 Holemouth jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1146 Holemouth jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1144 Holemouth jar Combed decoration Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1020 Holemouth jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1010 Holemouth jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 3014 Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1792/C Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1119 Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1144-2 Jar With a knob, combed Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan NN-1 Jar Combed, spouted Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1035 Jar Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan B-3011 Krater Wavy rim Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1135 Lid Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1054-2 Pithos Rope decorated Lower Cretaceous Centrala Transjordan 1054 Pithos Rope decoration Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 1133 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1070 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1136 Amphoriskos Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1117 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1047 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1145 Cup With long spout Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1016-2 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

1118 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 1016-3 Jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

1078-2 Amphoriskos Loess +calcareous sand Northern Negev/Shephela 1014-1 Holemouth jar Loess +calcareous/ Northern Negev/Shephela

quartz sand

1045 Jar Black, rope decor. Arkose Southern Transjordan 1053 Jar Marl +grog Undetermined 42-196/6 Cup Taqiya+grog Central Negev

Har Yeruham 21-192/1 Bowl Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 47-216/6 Bowl Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 47-216/4 Bowl Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 30-183/1 Cup Kochavi 1967: pl. B:1 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 35-231/11 Cup Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 36-227/5 Flat bowl Kochavi 1967: pl. A:6 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 40-180/2 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E:18 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 47-216/2 Holemouth jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 47-216/9 Jar Kochavi 1967: pl. D:19 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 47-216/23 Jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev

TABLE 2.-continued


344/1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 36:20 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 35-165/7 Jar Kochavi 1967: pl. C:7 Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 343/9 Jar Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 101/1 Krater Spouted Taqiya+wadi sand Central Negev 190/1 Bowl Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 9-246/3 Bowl Kochavi 1967: pl. A: 13 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 30-160/5 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E: 14 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 341/9 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 36:23 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 113/3 Pithos Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 226/2 Pithos Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 323/6 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 36:16 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 35-224/9 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 336/9 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 23-119/12 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E:23 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 25-179/2 Holemouth jar Loess+calcareous/ Northern Negev/

quartz sand Shephela 25-179/3 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E:22 Loess+calcareous/ Northern Negev

quartz sand 50-219/3 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E: 10 Loess +calcareous/ Northern Negev

quartz sand 23-119/6 Holemouth jar Wavy rim Arkose Southern Transjordan 35-224/7 Holemouth jar Kochavi 1967: pl. E:6 Arkose Southern Transjordan

Beer Resisim 3/1-3-8 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 71:59 Marl+basaltic/calcar. sand Central Jordan Valley 360 Taqiya+calcareous sand Central Negev 3 Taqiya+grog +sand Central Negev 718/A Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 4/8 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 8/12 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 29/23 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 3/2 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 8/31 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 68:7 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 9/1 Jar Cohen 1986: pl. 69:23 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 718 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 68:19 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 5/2 Jug Cohen 1986: pl. 68:17 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 6/1/2 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 70:31 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 3/1-2 Teapot Cohen 1986: pl. 69:8 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 7019 Teapot Wavy combed decoration Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 707 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 69:12 Lower Cretaceous(?) Central Transjordan? 12/44 Pithos Cohen 1986: pl. 70:32 Lower Cretaceous(?) Central Transjordan? 314/2 Nile silt Egypt

6/10 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 69:6 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

390 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

2/3 Holemouth jar Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 20/1 Loess+calcareous sand Northern Negev/Shephela 2/3 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 70:33 Loess+calcareous sand Northern Negev/Shephela 4/6 Loess +calcareous/ Northern Negev/Shephela

quartz sand

5/B 1 Loess +coastal sand Northwestern Negev 4/4 Loess+coastal sand Northwestern Negev 7/8/5 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 70:25 Loess+coastal sand Northwestern Negev 6/3/2 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 70:26 Loess+coastal sand Northwestern Negev 5/11 Holemouth jar Cohen 1986: pl. 70:38 Loess+coastal sand Northwestern Negev 27/23 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 12/10 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 8/29 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 3/9 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 1/1 Holemouth jar Ora Shales Southern Negev 7/1 Arkose Southern Transjordan 5/3 Arkose Southern Transjordan

T. 100 Amphoriskos Red painted Arkose Southern Transjordan 51/7 Amphoriskos Cohen 1986: pl. 70:27 Arkose Southern Transjordan 18/1 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 68:4 Arkose Southern Transjordan 605 Bowl Cohen 1986: pl. 69:7 Arkose Southern Transjordan 6/9 Krater Cohen 1986: pl. 68:14 Arkose Southern Transjordan 6/2 Varia Undetermined

12/10

Nahal Refaim 151 Jar Combed decoration Clayey +calcareous/ Central Coastal Plain coastal sand

468/2 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 487/3 Lower Cretaceous Central Transjordan 308 Jar Two "envelope" handles Foraminiferous marl+ Galilee(?)

calcareous sand

154/2 Moza+crushed calcite Judaean Mountains

229/2 Moza+crushed calcite Judaean Mountains

528 Holemouth jar Rope decoration Moza+crushed calcite Judaean Mountains 102/10 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

135/4 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains







TABLE 2.-continued


436/2 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 4/6 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 4/9 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 49/18 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 49/19 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 54/3 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 79/4 Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 104/1 Amphoris Very fat body and narrow Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

neck, combed decoration 198 Amphoris Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 215 Amphoris Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 40 Amphoris Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 143/1 Cup Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 149 Cup Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 151 Cup Small, no decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 203 Cup Huge (diameter: about 30 cm) Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 211 Cup Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 53 Cup Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 82 Cup Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 85 Cup Large size, oval rim Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 100/1 Jar With reletting Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 104/11 Jar Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 147/7 Jar Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 182/9 Jar Combed decoration and Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

a knob underneath the neck 186/2 Jar Combed decoration and Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

a knob underneath the neck 68 Jar Knob+combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 80 Jar Combed decoration and Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

a knob underneath the neck 87 Jar Combed decoration and Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

a knob underneath the neck 98/1 Jar Combed decoration Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains A-200/2 Jar Combed decoration and Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains

a knob underneath the neck 145/1 Jug Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 207 Jug Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 143/5 Lamp Four mouthed Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains 81 Pithos Rope decorations Moza+dolomitic sand Judaean Mountains


TABLE 3. Relative proportions of production sources in the EB IV ceramic assemblages of southern Israel

Lower Ora

Petrography Moza Cretaceous Arkose Taqiya Loess Shales Egypt Galilee Undeterm. Total site

Central Negev Har Tzayad 27 3 5 10 1 0 1 0 0 47

Ein Ziq 5 11 21 6 6 3 0 0 2 54

Mashabei Sadeh 19 7 3 12 3 0 0 0 1 45

Har Dimon 9 18 1 6 2 0 0 0 1 37

Har Yeruham 4 6 2 16 3 0 0 0 0 31

Beer Resisim 3 14 7 2 8 5 1 1 1 42

Total provenance 67 59 39 52 23 8 2 1 5 256

Har Tzayad 57.45 6.38 10.64 21.28 2.13 0.00 2.13 0.00 0.00 100.00 Ein Ziq 9.26 20.37 38.89 11.11 11.11 5.56 0.00 0.00 3.70 100.00

Mashabei Sadeh 42.22 15.56 6.67 26.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.22 100.00 Har Dimon 24.32 48.65 2.70 16.22 5.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 100.00

Har Yeruham 12.90 19.35 6.45 51.61 9.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Beer Resisim 7.14 33.33 16.67 4.76 19.05 11.90 2.38 2.38 2.38 100.00

% provenance 26.17 23.05 15.23 20.31 8.98 3.13 0.78 0.39 1.95 100.00

Judaea Jebel Qacaqira 8 3 0 57 17 0 0 0 4 89

Nahal Refaim 45 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 49

Jebel Qacaqir % 8.99 3.37 0.00 64.04 19.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 100.00

Nahal Refaim % 91.84 4.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 2.04 100.00

SModified after Glass n.d. in London 1985: 145-47.

'AO

Fig. 3. Har Dimon, sample nb. 3014, Lower Cretaceous group. Ferruginous shales with Nubian sandstone quartz grains. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarizers at 800, circularly polarized light.

"Arkose" group (fig. 5) is characterized by inclu- sions of large, angular grains of arkose, derived from granite or other related igneous rocks. The clay is either ferruginous and poor in silt, or silty and more calcareous. The lithology reflected in this group is

-l

IWO

41!

-IL

Fig. 4. Nahal Refaim, sample no. 186/2, Moza clay + dolomitic sand group. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarizers, circularly polarized light.

exposed only in the southeastern Aravah, in Eilat and the southern Sinai. Nevertheless, the archaeological data (below) suggest that, in this case, only the south Jordanian provenance (namely the Feinan area) should be favored.


i. x, ~ )? 1

: c ?.r ~" r -?PKeY4 EI' I~

." .i i .. ?.

Clx. r;r. ~

r t ~S~"j" ,? i ~_?7 ~3i ? Y

Fig. 5. Mashabei Sadeh, sample no. 2-103, Arkose group. Granitic arkose. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarized light.

I'%W- 140

• :,

"• • ,• ,I .•A.I4w

.. .. -

[

,, l

,.,' 'r, •

• •

fdip

AlF r r

ltw ] [ 1 = - •'. • ; t =

Fig. 6. Beer Resisim, sample no. 2/3. Loess + calcareous/ quartz sand group. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarizers at 800, circularly polarized light.

"Taqiya marl" group is characterized by a light, highly foraminiferal calcareous clay derived from the Taqiya formation. Outcrops of the Taqiya formation are widely distributed and therefore cannot be used to define particular provenance. The dominance of this group in the pottery from the workshop at the Har Yeruham site points to a source in the central Negev (probably at the Har Yeruham site itself). However, it also dominates the pottery assemblage of Jebel Qacaqir which was probably produced by similar methods.

"Loess-calcareous/quartzitic sand" group (fig. 6) is characterized by a silty, moderately calcareous clay loam (loess) and sand of either quartz or calcareous rock fragments as temper. Its main occurrence is in the ceramic assemblages of sites in the north-

I ..,... i

;,x ?~ ..-*. rs

~??? ?,e

f ,r ~Ej~. ?~h~r:":5t ~

~ff~c~ ??* " ~**~ *'

`*

Fig. 7. Beer Resisim, sample no. 27/23, Ora Shales group. Mollusk fossil shell fragments. White bar length: 200 microns. Plane polarized light.

ern/northwestern Negev and the southern Shephela, i.e., broadly speaking within the triangle formed by Lachish, Gaza, and Beer Sheva.

"Ora Shales" group (fig. 7) is characterized by light-pinkish to dark tan clay, rich in concentrations of iron oxides, with dense fossilized mollusk shell fragments as temper. It is identified as originating in the Ora Shales formation, which is only exposed in the southern Negev and central Sinai. The pottery of this group most probably originated from the Biq'at CUvda area and its surroundings.

A primary conclusion of the petrographic study is that the EB IV ceramic assemblages from the central Negev sites are diverse and demonstrate great in- trasite variability. As clearly seen in tables 2 and 3 and fig. 8, the composition of the assemblages varies both in the nature of the dominant petrographic groups and in their quantitative proportions. The provenance of most of the important petrographic groups is well known on the basis of their mineralogy and the results of previous studies. On these grounds it is evident that the pottery of the large EB IV sites in the central Negev originated from several workshop locations rather than one limited zone. Moreover, most of the petrographic groups represented in the central Negev sites are of foreign origin. These data are extremely significant for reconstructing the EB IV settlement pattern (below).

Petrographic Results

In the ceramic assemblages of the Negev EB IV sites, the following petrographic groups were observed:


Lower Cretaceous Group (fig. 3)

Characterization. This group is characterized by the use of either argillaceous, ferruginous, shale- rich clay or fine, noncalcareous, homogenous clay with clear optical orientation under the microscope. The first type usually has a relatively high content of

typical ferruginous ooliths (spherical to elliptical bodies, 0.25 to 2.00 mm in diameter, which have concentric or radial structures). Some ooliths devel-

oped around quartz grains while others have no internal structure. In most of the thin sections quartz sand is present, usually as subspherical grains. These include coarse, rounded quartz grains (derived from sand or weathered sandstone), sandstone grains (aggregates of spherical quartz grains cemented by carbonate or iron oxide matrix), siltstone, oolitic limestone, spheroids of iron oxide (sometimes with an internal concentric structure) and aggregates of such spheroids embedded in micritic limestone. Also present are grains of biogenetic or pellitic limestone. Other indicators of this group are diversified shale fragments, some of which are ferruginous while others tend to be more clayey. Pellets, tuff, and weathered basalt fragments, and typical rhombohedral limonitic pseudomorphs after dolomite occasionally occur in some of these samples. (Pseudomorphs are crystals or apparent crystals having the outward form proper to another species of mineral, which has been replaced by substitution or by chemical alteration.)

Interpretation. A large body of comparative data enables us to determine that in this case, the lower formations of the Lower Cretaceous lithological section were used as a source for both clay and

temper. These formations outcrop widely in the

Transjordan, between the southern Dead Sea and Wadi Zarqa, but also in the eastern upper Galilee and southern Lebanon. Smaller outcrops appear in Wadi Malikh and Wadi Farcah in eastern Samaria and in the northeastern Negev craters. Similar outcrops appear also in Jebel Mghacra in northern Sinai. The

petrology of the Lower Cretaceous formations of Wadi Farcah and Wadi Malikh has been described in detail by Mimran (1969) and Shaliv (1972), and in a profile of the Jordanian outcrops by Bender (1974). The Negev outcrops, exposed almost exclu- sively in the central Negev craters, were described by Zak (1954); Sagiv, Azmonand, and Nathan (1978); and Hirsch (1988). A typical "fingerprint" of the Lower Cretaceous shales (Hatira and Netofa formations) are the ferruginous ooliths which are not known

from any other part of the lithostratigraphic column of the southern Levant. Both ferruginous shales and quartzitic sandstones are very rare in other parts of that column.

The presence of tuff in the temper of some vessels suggests the utilization of the Tayasir formation shales (Mimran 1972), whereas the presence of diversified shales, siltstones, quartzitic sands, and ferruginous ooliths reflects the use of shales from the Hatira formation.

Reference. The use of Lower Cretaceous shales and highly ferruginous marl for pottery production has been recorded in several cases. This clay is usu-

ally considered to be of superior quality for pottery production since the fluxing properties inherent in its high iron content made it possible to achieve a

high degree of sintering at lower firing temperatures. Therefore, Lower Cretaceous ferruginous shales were often used to produce vessels that needed to be strong, especially liquid containers such as pithoi, jugs, and storage jars. At the Chalcolithic site of Teleilat Ghas- sul, for example, most of the locally made pottery is formed of this iron-rich clay (Goren 1987: 48-53; 1991a: Appendix 2), the typical pithoi being sintered to a surprisingly high quality (Edwards and Segnit 1982). Similar raw materials were used during EB II and III to produce the high quality Metallic Ware as well as other superior vessels (Porat 1989a: 71-74). Recent examination of Iron Age I collared-rim pithoi from several sites in the Galilee (as yet unpublished) demonstrated that such clays were preferred by the potters to produce high quality vessels. The adoption of this clay for the manufacture of such vessels obliged the potter to carefully select a shale layer rich in clay minerals and poor in carbonates, since the latter may cause mechanical damage to the highly fired

pottery due to the process of decalcination which occurs at 7000 C and above. Nevertheless, at sites near outcrops of these formations, these clays were used for producing most of the ceramic repertoire (Goren 1991a; 1991b).

Uses in EB IV. This petrographic group is frequent at all the EB IV sites of the central Negev examined and at some (Har Dimon, Beer Resisim) constitutes a major part of the assemblage (table 3). The question of the origin of the pottery belonging to this group is therefore crucial. On typological grounds the provenance of the pottery formed from this clay can be limited either to Transjordan or the central Negev since these are the main areas of


Ii 71

'-,, Beer Shwela

ra

c,

, ,,-?- f

-r.,

,-,E-n ,r-

%., . wJ,,4~ C4I?-"

?--

N v. .rt--

'

%p ort 01f

o

,e Har Yeruham

16 ra

Ma•,hab~i ade >1 *

f tr tL E G E N D

/ " "C \

N. ard.... /

S,' ''ayyad

"

"4 //

x /i

\ ( i

,,,

I ,

I •

Beer ,•sisim -- \ ' ,--"

,," --*-, ,

C

.,-N egev

n -J

- " "' "- --'

-

E G

--' '"- - "'•-- "

_JS. Negev

__t ._,-_,,,.

___ M E T

." , "- ...... 'C. Jordan

,..2r , .. . ,

I

.--. .- . .. •S. Jordan

... ' '(0, Other

,' .' ', .- SMA LER IT ,/~

c

.... I,"M DE N T W

Fig. 8. Distribution of the petrographic groups in the pottery assemblages of the central Negev sites. Each pie chart represents the composition of the ceramic assemblage.


distribution of the Southern and Red Painted families. The northern sources can therefore be ignored. It seems that the Negbite source (from the Negev craters) should also be excluded on the grounds that no traces of pottery production were found in or around any of them; the only evidence of pottery manufacture in the Negev discovered so far is the kiln at the Har Yeruham site where the Taqiya marl was the raw material (below). Moreover, some of the vessels attributed to this group belong typologically to the Transjordanian sphere (Red Painted family; Cohen 1992: fig. 12) where pottery was undoubtedly produced during EB IV (Beynon et al. 1986). It is unlikely that any of these vessels were manufactured at the sites of Jebel Mghacra in northern Sinai in view of the extremely poor ceramic assemblage discovered in those excavated (Clamer and Sass 1977: 249-51). Thus, taken together with the clear evidence of the Arkose group (below), the most probable scenario is that the vessels of this group were imported from Transjordan.

In Transjordan Lower Cretaceous exposures include broad areas along the Rift Valley, from Wadi Zarqa to around Wadi Feinan (Bender 1974). This area encompasses several important EB IV sites of a clearly sedentary nature: Tell Iktanu, Khirbet Is- kander, Arocer, and Bab edh-Dhrac. At present only the results of the analytical study of the Bab edh- Dhrac ceramic assemblage are available for comparison (Beynon et al. 1986). While the characteristics of the clay are not given, it is mentioned that Nubian sandstone was used as temper. Our examination of the vessels from Bab edh-Dhrac (including the EB IV Tomb A-54 [Schaub 1973]), now stored in the Israel Antiquities Authority storerooms in Jerusa- lem, revealed that the use of this clay group was very common in the EB IV assemblage from this site.

Moza Clay-Dolomitic Sand Group (fig. 4)

Characterization. This group is readily identified even by the naked eye by its very typical fabric. The clay color is yellowish, changing through pink as the firing temperature increases, to dark gray at high temperatures. Its most characteristic feature is the temper, being homogenous, densely spread, well-sorted, fine sand of whitish particles that under a magnifying glass exhibit rhombic shapes. In thin section it is characterized by a fine clay, somewhat calcareous and rich in iron oxides, and sand-sized temper of idiomorphic dolomite crystals. The dolo-

mite particles exhibit a typical rhomboid shape, in-

dicating the use of an "immature" sand of dolomite crystals that was not subjected to any significant processes of translocation. This implies an in situ development of dolomitic sand due to the dissolution of the cementing matrix of coarse crystalline dolomite aggregates. Such phenomena are quite common in the Cenomanean section of the Judaean hills (Bentor 1945; Arkin, Braun, and Starinsky 1965).

Interpretation. Based on the extensive body of reference material (below), this petrographic group is identified as originating from clay of the upper member of the Moza formation and dolomitic sand that was quarried from the CAmminadav formation. The sand was probably sieved to isolate the desired grain size, since in nature it appears to be much less well sorted than in the pottery.

Our chemical analyses of raw Moza clay, pottery from Nahal Refaim, and a sample of the central Ne- gev pottery of this group (fig. 2) revealed that they all cluster well when their nickel and cesium contents are plotted on an X-Y graph. When the nickel is replaced by strontium a difference occurs, but still they seem to be close in Euclidean distance. This, together with the petrographic data (below), strongly supports the identification of this group as purely Judaean in origin.

Reference. This petrographic group is well known from pottery assemblages from sites of different periods spread throughout the Judaean-Samarian hills. In the Chalcolithic period it apparently typifies the southern Judaean sites (Goren 1987; 1991 a; 1995) but is very rare in other regions. It has been recorded from EB I sites in central Israel extending from the Beer Sheva Valley to Aphek (Porat 1989a; 47-48; Maeir, Yellin, and Goren 1992). This ware seems to have lost its popularity by the end of EB I, and has not yet been reported from any EB II or III sites (Porat 1989a: 48). In the Middle and Late Bronze ages it

again became one of the common raw materials of the Judaean ceramic assemblages (Glass et al. 1993). It is also known from the Iron Age I assemblages of Tell en-Nasbeh and Radana, as well as from the collared-rim pithoi from the site of Giloh (all unpublished) and the pottery assemblage of Shiloh (Glass et al. 1993: 78). This group was common in the Iron Age II assemblage from the City of David (Franken and Steiner 1990: 79-85) and the contemporary sites of Ramot 06 and Moza (unpublished).


Uses in EB IV. In EB IV this group dominates sites in the vicinity of Jerusalem. In several assemblages we examined, including the large habitation sites of Nahal Refaim (Eisenberg 1994), Min- hat, and Wadi Zimra (Meitlis 1991), it constituted a major part of the material (see table 3 for Nahal Refaim). Petrographic examination of the EB IV- MB II pottery collected in the Central Hill Country between Jerusalem and the Jezreel Valley (Finkel- stein 1991) revealed that this group dominates the ceramic assemblages of sites around Jerusalem. At the EB IV-MB II sites of Nahal Refaim, an ancient quarry of dolomitic sand was discovered (Eisenberg 1994: 86). The quarry is located in an outcrop of the lowermost unit of the cAmminadav formation, im- mediately above the uppermost member of the Moza clay. The use of this quarry during EB IV is confirmed by the discovery of EB IV burials within it, providing a terminus ante quem for its use. At Jebel Qacaqir (London 1985: 146) this group forms a minor component in the ceramic assemblage (7%; see table 3).

Mineralogical and chemical examinations were carried out on both the natural sediments and the pottery from Nahal Refaim, which was undoubtedly manufactured at the site as attested by the many con- temporaneous potter's wheels and wasters. To aug- ment this database we also took samples of raw Moza clay quarried from the Moza type-section of this formation. The examinations confirmed that the Na- hal Refaim pottery was formed of a mixture of the local Moza clay with this dolomitic sand. They also revealed the close mineralogical and technological similarity between the Nahal Refaim and the central Negev materials. Thus, the possible origin of the vessels belonging to this petrographic group is in the central or southern Judaean hills, where the Moza-

CAmminadav formations are exposed. In EB IV, the evidence suggests that the site of Nahal Refaim was the main, if not the only, production center for pottery of this petrographic group.

In the central Negev sites this petrographic group has the highest frequency (-26%; see table 3) al-

though it is less frequent than the two Transjorda- nian groups put together (e.g., Lower Cretaceous and Arkose, forming together -38%). At several sites it is dominant (for example, Har Tzayad: -57%, Mash- abei Sadeh: -42%). Although dolomite rocks and hence the dolomitic sand derived from them are found in other parts of the southern Levant, it seems that its use as temper was restricted to the Judaean

hills. This was confirmed by the results of our own chemical analyses as well as an INAA study that attributed pottery of this petrographic group to the Jerusalem area even when it was found in the Negev and Sinai (Gunneweg, Perlman, and Meshel 1985: 273).1 Summing up, the Moza Clay-Dolomitic Sand petrographic group may be related directly to the Judaean hill sites, and more specifically to the Jeru- salem area.

Taqiya Marl + Grog/Calcareous Sand Group

Characterization. This group is discernible to the naked eye because of its whitish or yellowish color, which turns greenish-gray at higher firing temperatures. The temper includes grog (crushed pottery) or variegated sand. Microscopically it is characterized by a light, highly calcareous marl containing foraminifera and iron oxides. The microfaunal assemblage within the matrix, when identified, is usually of Pliocene-Eocene age. When fired in an oxidiz- ing atmosphere, the clay takes on a light tan color in thin section. Fine, fibrous carbonate crystals that sometimes exhibit weak optical orientation (length fast) are abundant in the matrix. Well-sorted, sparsely distributed silty quartz appears in many cases.

In the EB IV ceramics the temper consists of two main categories: grog and wadi sand. The fragments of pottery in the grog often belong to other petrographic groups defined here, especially the Moza Clay-Dolomitic Sand group, and are mixed with limestone fragments and calcite flakes. The grog con- stituents are often isotropic due to double firing. The wadi sand temper is rather variable and contains calcareous rock fragments, chert, and quartz in differing proportions.

Interpretation. Based on its mineralogical and palaeontological affinities, this clay is identified as marl of the Taqiya formation of Palaeocene age (Bentor 1966: 72-73), exposed in the northern and central Negev and central Sinai. It also outcrops in the Judaean Desert and along the western slopes of the Judaea-Samaria anticline. This formation is almost constant in its stratigraphic position and even in details of its composition. Equivalent beds appear in Egypt (Esna shales) and even in Morocco and Turkey (Bentor 1966: 73). Consequently it cannot be used as an absolute indicator to define provenance.

In the chemical analyses (fig. 2), pottery of this petrographic group clustered well, demonstrating that


indeed it forms a homogenous group. However, it was not identical to the two samples of raw Taqiya marl, probably because of the admixture of grog in the fabric.

Reference. The use of Taqiya marl with the addition of various tempering materials was observed by Porat (1984: 63-73; 1989a: 177-78) in the EB II assemblages of the Negev, especially at Arad, for the production of jars and holemouth jars. Despite the widespread distribution of the Taqiya formation, it seems that in most periods its use as a ceramic raw material was restricted mainly to southern Israel. This may be explained by the absence of any other suitable clay formations over large areas of the central Negev, whereas in Judaea the Moza formation is readily available. The Moza clay and marl are apparently superior to the Taqiya marl for pottery production, since the latter may contain high quantities of montmorillonite (Bentor 1966: Porat 1984), which can cause severe problems of shrinkage and cracking during dehydration (Arnold 1985: 25).

Firing experiments were carried out on samples of the Taqiya marl collected from an outcrop near the Negev Junction on the Beer Sheva-Sde Boqer road (Israel ref. grid 134.052) and mixed with grog prepared from crushed EB IV pottery. They revealed that the Taqiya marl briquettes provided good quality ceramics even at 6000 C. Of the raw material selected from the section, the more marly units produced ceramics with qualities superior to those prepared from the greenish shales, since the latter are richer in gypsum and montmorillonite. The former were also petrographically closer to the archaeological ceramics.

Uses in EB IV. This group dominates the as-

semblage of the Har Yeruham site (-51.6%; table 3), the only site in the study area where it proved to be the primary group. At other sites it appears as a secondary group with its weight in the assemblage decreasing roughly in inverse relationship to the distance from the Har Yeruham site. Given the fact that this is the sole site in the central Negev where a potter's workshop was found (Kochavi 1967: 44- 46, photos V-3-5; Cohen 1992: 120), it may be regarded as being the locally produced fabric of this region although this may not be stated categorically on petrographic grounds alone. On the contrary, examinations carried out by Glass (London 1985: 145- 47) on the pottery from Jebel Qacaqir, revealed that

similar material (which he also identified as belonging to the Taqiya marl) forms 64% of the assemblage (table 3). The Taqiya formation also outcrops in the immediate neighborhood of Jebel Qacaqir so that although the dating of the pottery kiln discovered at that site is rather dubious (below), it is conceivable that pottery was produced there. Therefore the exact origin of this petrographic group is still uncertain.

Arkose Group (fig. 5)

Characterization. This group is easily identified even examined with the naked eye since it contains large, angular grains of arkose, derived from granitic or other related igneous rocks. The clay is usually dark, frequently black to dark reddish brown. Under the microscope the clay is usually ferruginous and rather poor in silt, very similar to the clay of many of the Lower Cretaceous group vessels. The temper includes fragments of granite or its component minerals (feldspar, quartz, biotite, hornblende). The feldspars often exhibit typical twinning or mi- croperthitic features. Fragments of intrusive rocks also appear in a few cases.

Interpretation. The lithology reflected in the temper of this group is absent from most of Israel, ex-

cept the Eilat region. Granites and related igneous rocks are exposed in the southeastern Aravah, Eilat, and southern Sinai (Weissbrod 1981). Since potters do not usually import their ceramic raw materials from distant areas, even in present-day traditional societies (Arnold 1985: 39-49), the vessels themselves must have been imported from one or more of these localities.

The clay used in this case was ferruginous clay of the Lower Cretaceous formations. This is admirably demonstrated by the chemical analyses (fig. 2), in which it clusters well with the latter to form a homo-

genous aggregate.

Reference. Similar raw materials were identified by Glass (1978: 50) and Porat (1984: 21-22; 1989a: 172-74) in the EB II holemouth cooking pots of Arad, Biq'at CUvda, and southern Sinai. On the basis of both geological and archaeological data, these vessels were interpreted as originating in southern Sinai sites, though the possibility of Transjor- dan was not precluded. Another recently published example of arkose-tempered pottery (Goren 1991c: 109-10) is the Late Neolithic ceramic assemblage


from Feinan and Wadi Fidan in Jordan. In this case the lithology reflected in the pottery seems to be more heterogeneous than that of the EB II. Certainly this phenomenon per se is not a criterion for distin- guishing between pottery originating in these two localities, since several types of igneous rocks occur in both areas.

Uses in EB IV. This group invariably appears in the EB IV pottery from the central Negev, but usually in secondary amounts. Only in the Ein Ziq assemblage is it the most common (-39%) constituent. The archaeological data strongly favor a Jor- danian provenance for the EB IV material on two counts. First, there is an almost complete absence of pottery of the "Southern Family" from the meager pottery assemblages discovered so far in the Eilat region (U. Avner, unpublished); nor are there any EB IV sites in southern Sinai.2 Second, the rapidly growing body of data reveals large-scale occupation during the EB IV in the Feidan area (MacDonald 1992), an area that lithologically complies with the characteristics of this petrographic group. Recent excavations at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, as yet unpublished, disclosed clear evidence of well-established mining and smelting in this area during EB IV. Petro- graphic examination of the pottery assemblage, the bulk of which belongs to the "Red Painted" family (Dever's "Family TR"), has shown that it falls in this petrographic group as do the ceramic molds for cast- ing copper ingots discovered at the site (R. Adams, unpublished). In the light of this evidence, we are confident that this group should be attributed directly to the Feinan area.

Loess-Calcareous Sand and Loess-Coastal Sand Groups (fig. 6)

Characerization. These groups are characterized by a silty, moderately calcareous clay, with sand of either quartz or calcareous rock fragments as temper. The silty component contains mainly quartz but also a recognizable quantity of other minerals, including hornblende, zircon, epidote, minerals of the mica group, feldspar, and occasional tourmaline, au- gite, and rutile. Ore minerals, too, are abundant in this fraction. The silt is relatively well sorted and comprises about 10% to 20% of the matrix.

Interpretation. On the basis of published data (Porat 1987: 112-15; 1989a: 50-52; Goren 1987; 1988; 1991a: 101-4; Goren and Gilead 1987; Gilead

and Goren 1989: 7) this sediment is readily identified as the loess that occurs in Israel mainly in the northern Negev and the southern Shephela.

The temper used in this group is varied and contains spherical, sand-sized grains of quartz, limestone, chalk, chert, snail shell fragments, quartzitic sandstones cemented by a calcareous matrix ("kur- kar"), beach rock fragments, and voids of vegetal material.

Reference. Previous studies of ceramics assigned to this group demonstrated that in protohis- torical periods the composition of the temper used varied with the geographic location of the site in question and could be correlated with sands occur- ring naturally in its vicinity (Gilead and Goren 1989: fig. 2; Goren 1991a: 118-20, fig. 13; 1995: figs. 3-8). The use of loess with temper in which limestone is the dominant component is prevalent mainly at sites in the Beer Sheva Valley and the southern Shephela, whereas at northwestern Negev sites quartz is the major constituent (Gilead and Goren 1989: fig. 2). The overall distribution of pottery of loess-calcareous sand/quartzitic sand groups does not extend significantly beyond the limits of the northern Negev-southern Shephela zones (in the triangle formed between Lachish, Gaza, and Beer Sheva) in any of the periods we investigated.

When quartzitic sand is used as temper, it is usually accompanied by sand-sized grains of accessory minerals including hornblende, zircon, feldspar, and epidote. These hint at a littoral origin since the sandstone-derived quartzitic sands of the Lower Creta- ceous formations discussed above are devoid of all of these minerals. Sands of coastal origin, swept inland by eolian activity, appear as far inland as the central Beer Sheva Valley.

Firing experiments were performed on a sample of loess from the lower Nahal Besor, tempered with sieved sand from the wadi bed. This mixture proved to be a very good raw material for earthenware, producing well sintered briquettes at around 6000 C and above.

Ora Shales Group (fig. 7)

Characterization. This group is well defined by the presence of numerous mollusk fragments as the almost exclusive nonplastic component. To the naked eye these are perceived as elongated, laminated bodies with sharp edges, oriented parallel to the wall of the vessel. The clay matrix is usually light tan to


41b,* 44, At kip 40K?

an: 4e , .10 w

46- 0 4 Ai j, -P

r 4k 15,

46 1%

aL

Fig. 9. Beer Resisim, sample no. 314/2. Nile silt group. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarizers at 80'.

pinkish in color, but may change to dark tan under reducing firing conditions.

Interpretation. Porat (1984; 1989a) discussed this petrographic group in detail. Based on its chemistry, mineralogy, and palaeontology she assigned it to the Ora Shales formation of the Early Thronian, which outcrops in the southern Negev in the Ramon Crater and southward.

Reference. Vessels belonging to this petrographic group form a significant component in the pottery assemblages of the southern Negev sites, mainly around Biq'at CUvda (Porat 1984; 1989a). For technological reasons, this raw material has always been preferred for the production of holemouth jars, apparently used for cooking, due to the relatively high resistance of shell temper to impact and thermal shock (Bronitsky and Hamer 1986).

Uses in EB IV. At central Negev sites this group is represented only by a single vessel type: a spouted holemouth jar with a typical thickened, pointed rim ("duckbill" rim according to Oren and Yekutieli [1990: 10]). This shape undoubtedly follows EB II- III(?) traditions of such vessels found at Arad, Biq'at CUvda, and Sinai (Oren and Yekutieli 1990: 11) and may indicate continuity of local manufacture of this specific vessel type.

Nile Silt Group (fig. 9)

Characterization. This term refers to pottery manufactured in Egypt from local Nile sediments.

:NA -*

Fig. 10. Beer Resisim, sample no. 3/1-3-8. Group marl + basaltic/calcareous sand. White bar length: 200 microns. Crossed polarizers at 800, circularly polarized light.

Petrographically, Egyptian pottery can be readily identified by its characteristic pastes and distin- guished from Canaanite wares (Amiran and Glass 1979; Goldberg et al. 1986; Porat 1989b; Bourriau 1990; Goren 1991 a). The results of the detailed technological research of Egyptian pottery assemblages as well as the increasing data on Egyptian ceramic raw materials (cf. Tobia and Sayre 1974; Allen et al. 1982; Allen, Hamroush, and Hoffman 1989) facilitate identification of this raw material. The main features of the Nile silt group, examined under the petrographic microscope, are as follows: the contents of poorly sorted sand to silt-sized quartz, in varying quantities and size ranges; a high proportion of accessory and heavy minerals, including mainly minerals of the mica and the feldspar groups; straw and other vegetal matter (phytoliths) frequently vis- ible in the clay body; and a noncalcareous matrix with abundant mica minerals.

Marl + Basaltic/Calcareous Sand Group (fig. 10)

This group is represented in the pottery examined here in only one instance: jug no. 3/1-3-8 from Beer Resisim. It is characterized by marly clay rich in foraminifera and tempered with sand containing alkali-olivine basalt, limestone, and chalk. This petrographic group is known to dominate ceramic assemblages of the central Jordan Valley including Munhata (Goren 1992), Sha'ar Hagolan (Goren 1991a), and in the EB IV period the ceramic assemblage of Tel JAmal (Goren 1991d). Typologically the vessel from Beer Resisim is similar to the North- Central family of the Jezreel-Beth-Shan Valley (Feig


1991) and therefore it can be readily identified as originating in this rather limited region.

DISCUSSION

Pottery Production Centers and the Central Negev Sites

Petrographic examination of the EB IV pottery assemblages from the Negev indicates that at these sites there is significant evidence of transportation of

pottery. The two main pottery manufacturing areas are Transjordan, whose products make up approxi- mately 38% of the examined pottery from the central

Negev, and the Judaean hills (probably Nahal Re- faim), which form about 26%. Wares of Transjorda- nian origin are divided between central Transjordan, from Wadi Zarqa south (about 23%), and southern Transjordan, probably the Feinan area (15%). A sec-

ondary source is the locally produced pottery of the central Negev (about 20%), probably from the Har Yeruham site. Minor quantities of pottery were im-

ported from the northern Negev/southern Shephela or the northwestern Negev (about 9%), and rarely from the Biq'at CUvda vicinity (3%). Traces of pottery from Egypt (0.8%) and from the Beth Shan Val-

ley (0.4%) were also identified. Thus nearly 80% of the pottery from the central Negev sites originated from foreign sources. Since these assemblages are dominated by Transjordanian and Judaean wares, it

may be suggested that the EB IV Negev sites were

closely linked to these localities. A primary conclusion, therefore, is that the above

data indicate the presence of a mobile society, partly or fully dependent on production centers in neighboring areas and reflecting a socioeconomic system based on specialization. Some elements of this so-

ciety produced pottery while others engaged in pastoral activities. This model is on a par with the interrelations between pastoralists and sedentists in the modem Near East (cf. Johnson 1969; Marx 1992). Certain scholars advocate such a model for EB IV, especially in light of recent discoveries in central

Transjordan (Richard 1987a: 36-40; 1987b; Dever 1995. For an opposing view see Cohen 1992). More- over, comparison of the faunal assemblages from the sedentary sites of Malha and Nahal Refaim near Jeru- salem with those from contemporary Negev sites indicate differences in their subsistence strategies and degree of sedentism (Kolska Horwitz 1989). However, a closer look at the results of the present

petrographic study reveals that this view is over- simplified since it tends to group the central Negev sites under a single socioeconomic scheme. If pottery production and distribution indeed reflect broader modes of human behavior, the results of this study challenge such generalizations. As seen from the data in table 3 and fig. 8, each assemblage examined demonstrates a different pattern in terms of pottery provenance. A similar situation is also depicted by the

typological traits of these assemblages (Cohen 1986: 276-94; 1992), e.g., the Southern Family is sometimes accompanied by other families and sometimes not (below). Furthermore, petrographically each site is dominated by a different production center. This obvious intersite variability demands an interpretation other than that of a merely pastoral, egalitarian society that cut across the Negev to form a Bedouin- like community; to this end each site must be considered separately.

This study indicates that the proportions of pottery sources vary significantly from site to site (fig. 8). In some cases this variation can be explained on the grounds of the geographical location of the site and the distance from its dominant production center. For example, the significance of Transjorda- nian fabrics at Ein Ziq and Har Dimon may be related to the proximity of these sites to the routes

through the central Negev that connect the Aravah

Valley with the northwestern Negev and northern Sinai (Cohen 1986: 271-72; Oren and Yekutieli 1990: 18-19). The presence of Egyptian vessels at Har Tzayad and Beer Resisim may be explained on the same grounds, although no other evidence for contacts with Egypt has been recorded (Oren and Yekutieli 1990: 18-19). However, in other cases the relation between the location of a site and its main production center is less clear cut. For ex-

ample, the Beer Resisim assemblage is influenced far more by Transjordanian wares than is that of Har

Tzayad, although the latter is far closer to Transjor- dan and located near the above-mentioned routes. The picture becomes even more complicated when the repertoires of neighboring sites are compared. For example, despite the geographical proximity between Har Tzayad and Har Dimon, the latter is markedly influenced by Transjordanian production centers, whereas at the former the Transjordanian component is merely marginal. Moreover, in terms of geographical location, Har Tzayad is somewhat closer to Transjordan while Har Dimon lies further north and closer to Judaea. Yet the petrographic data


reveal that the contacts must have been quite the opposite.

The presence of a ceramic workshop at the Har Yeruham site (Kochavi 1967: 44-46) demonstrates that pottery was produced in the central Negev (below). The dominance of the local fabric at the Har Yeruham site and its significant presence at nearby Mashabei Sadeh are probably related to the existence of this workshop. Above all it implies that pottery could have been produced in other parts of the central Negev as well, since the raw materials in use (Taqiya marl and wadi sand or grog) can be found at many places within this district. The fact that pottery was only produced at a single location empha- sizes the intersite variability and social complexity reflected by the central Negev settlements. It also indicates that pottery importation to the central Negev was dictated by factors other than the lack of means or expertise for specialized pottery production. Above all, it runs counter to the view that the EB IV Negev sites belonged to a fully egalitarian pastoral society whose economy relied only on herding or

foraging. As a rule, specialized pottery production is not practiced by pastoral societies inhabiting an arid environment (Arnold 1985: 109-25). Consequently, this picture may reflect the different roles of these sites in a more complex, stratified, and specialized society.

To effectively interpret the heterogeneity depicted by the results of this study other aspects of the sites should be examined.

Har Yeruham Site Workshop

The pottery workshop at the Har Yeruham site (Kochavi 1967: 44-46) is the only instance known to date from any of the pre-Classical central Negev sites. Judging from the petrographic data, this is also the sole EB IV site at which the local petrographic group of the Taqiya marl dominates the ceramic repertoire. Therefore it seems certain that this was the only ceramic workshop in the central Negev, albeit rather insignificant compared to the Judaean or

Transjordanian production centers (table 3). The archaeological evidence associated with this

workshop includes three related structures: the kiln (Locus 30), a stone structure encompassing the kiln (Locus 35), and the kiln debris (Locus 34). The second feature contained ash and fragments of pottery in quantities exceeding those of any other locus at the site. A room nearby (Locus 60) contained a lump

of clay that the excavator considered similar to that coating the pottery kiln (Kochavi 1967: 43). A complete cup found inside the kiln seems to have been left there when the kiln was last used (Kochavi 1967: 45). This cup, covered with ash and clay, was slightly deformed and it is therefore possible that it was not removed from the kiln after an unsuccessful firing.

Analysis of the pottery from the workshop debris (Locus 35) revealed that much of it was of foreign origin (table 3). This may be due to one of the following reasons: The debris around the kiln may have contained refuse of domestic origin dumped by the inhabitants after the kiln went out of use. Or, the presence of grog in most of the locally produced vessels suggests that the potter collected broken vessels for the preparation of temper to be used in pottery production. This seems logical since the thin sections show that the grog in the finished pots often contains fragments of pottery belonging to other petrographic groups. A third possible expla- nation may be that, as in recent times, sherds were used for covering the contents of the firing chamber of the kiln, then removed and discarded with the ash debris after firing to remove the vessels. However, the cup mentioned above, which was found inside the kiln, was of the locally made group (table 3, no. 30/ 183-1) and thus supports the excavator's hypothesis that it was simply left in the kiln.

To date there is only one more recorded example of a pottery kiln at any of the sites that exhibit pure Southern Family ceramic affinities-the one at Jebel Qacaqir (Dever 1972: 233). To this can be added the site of Nahal Refaim which, although it has so far produced only indirect evidence for pottery production (Eisenberg 1994: 86), almost certainly was one of the major production centers of the region. An- other kiln that may be attributed to this period is the EB I pottery kiln (Locus 1525) in the northwest settlement of Lachish (Tufnell 1958: 263, pl. 2:6). This kiln is similar in plan and construction to that from the Har Yeruham site, comprising a fuel chamber with two central columns supporting the floor of the upper firing chamber. The stone construction and mudplaster inner lining of the fuel chamber are also similar in both cases. Moreover, a current study of the finds has disclosed that most of the pottery in and around it is from EB IV (P. Magrill, personal communication).

The kiln of Jebel Qacaqir has a very unusual plan, consisting of an oval chamber with hollow terracotta


side walls connected to an external firing chamber on each end. This plan is probably unique in the history of southern Levantine ceramic technology. From a ceramological point of view it is not very practical since there is no direct contact between the fuel box and the firing chamber. All other examples belong to the updraft kiln category, among which the kilns from Har Yeruham site (Tufnell 1958), Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), the newly found kiln at Tell Megadim (S. Wolff, unpublished) and the earlier (EB III) specimen from Tell el-FarCah North (de Vaux 1955: 557-63) can be mentioned. In any event, the dating of the Jebel Qacaqir kiln to EB IV rather than to the Iron Age II or the Byzantine period is dubious (London 1985: 174-76).

In conclusion, the picture drawn by this study is of a ranking order of ceramic production: a rather limited industry at the Har Yeruham site on the one hand and large-scale, mass-production centers in the Transjordan and the Judaean hills on the other. The latter must have influenced the central Negev sites to a great extent. The nature of this influence, as judged by the distribution of pottery wares, will be investigated below.

Typological Aspects and Reconsideration of Families S and TR

The results of the present study raise several typological issues concerning the origins of the Southern Family (henceforth "Family S," after Dever 1980) and its intragrouping. They provoke serious questions as to the nature of the commonly suggested regionalism of the EB IV entities in terms of their material culture. Although some indications for exchange of ceramic forms were noted by several scholars (e.g., Helms 1987; Falconer 1987), the existence of regionality in pottery wares has been agreed ever since Amiran's pioneering framework (1960). In his articles on EB IV, Dever (1973; 1980) assigned this regionalism to a developmental sequence of pottery forms starting from earlier EB II- III shapes. The so-called Family S was traditionally attributed to the area that broadly extended west of the Rift Valley, from the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem line south. Dever (1980: 48) considered it to be the latest in the EB IV sequence and the Transjordanian Red Painted ware (his "Family TR") to be the earliest since it portrays typological continuity with earlier

EB III traditions. In the present research area, Family TR coexists with the dominant Family S at Ein Ziq and Beer Resisim (Cohen 1986: pls. 52, 57:1-7, 75b; 1992: fig. 12), and in lesser amounts at the Har Yeruham site. Traces also were found at Mashabei Sadeh. As in the case of several Transjordanian sites (below), this indicates some overlap between these two groups.

The petrographic results strongly show correla- tion between many forms of the Family S, so common at the central Negev sites, and distant production centers located predominantly in Transjordan and Judaea. On the one hand, this does not conflict with the typology of the assemblages of sites in Judaea, such as Nahal Refaim (Eisenberg 1993: 1279; 1994: 85-86), where equivalent pottery shapes dominate. On the other hand, designation of a large segment of Family S to a Transjordanian origin is rather problematic since, at least in the district between the Zarqa River and the Dead Sea, other ceramic families are common (Richard 1990; Palumbo and Peterman 1993). However, the data collected in central Trans- jordan (especially during the last decade) indicate that the Family S appears increasingly from Wadi Moujib (the Arnon River) south. A key role is assigned to the ceramic assemblage from the fortified settlement at Khirbet Iskander, which presents a picture similar to that of Ein Ziq and Beer Resisim. Workers there found a storeroom containing some 50 whole or restorable pottery vessels, including numerous items of Family S. This is the largest corpus of intact domestic vessels found at an EB IV habitation site. It includes a mixture of types where "red-slipped and burnished pottery occurs alongside pottery normally considered to be the latest and characteristic of Dever's Family S (Amiran's Family A"'; Richard and Boraas 1988: 124), the latter being extremely common. Family S vessels are also common in the ceramic assemblage of CAroCer near Wadi Moujib (Olivari 1969). In addition, an increasing body of data indicates that in the more southern parts of Jordan there are many sites where Family S turns out to be the dominant ware (MacDonald et al. 1987: 406-7; MacDonald 1992: 66-69, pls. 14- 16). Regrettably the lack of fully published ceramic assemblages from Judaea and Transjordan precludes any further attempt to perform a detailed seriation of the subtypes of this family.

The petrographic results suggest that designation of the core area of this family only to the west of the


Rift Valley is more a matter of the state of research than a reflection of actual archaeological reality. Had the area of Moab and Edom been surveyed with the same intensity as the area of the Negev Emer- gency Survey, the picture might very well be different. We may predict that the distribution limits of Family S will expand eastward concurrently with the progress of the research in the central and southern parts of Jordan. Should this be the case, it will

undoubtedly have crucial implications on the role of regionality in the EB IV ceramic repertoire. If the distribution areas of Family S and Family TR overlap, then indeed their differences can be explained on chronological grounds. Since no full ceramic repertoire from any of the sites has yet been published, we suggest that sites where both families were discovered represent a specific stage within the EB IV sequence. The new data presented here support the claim that Family S should be regarded as the latest in the sequence of EB IV pottery groups. Therefore its geographical distribution could be the result of socioeconomic developments in the southern Levant at the end of the third millennium B.C. rather than migration of a separate "tribe" car- rying unique cultural traits. However, at other sites where Transjordanian ware is absent, a considerable part of Family S still appears petrographically to be of Transjordanian origin. This clearly indicates that while development of Transjordanian ware was more or less continuous, a sequential gap appeared in Judaea between the end of EB III and the emer-

gence of Family S at a later stage of the EB IV. It also suggests that the central Negev sites where only Family S pottery is found should be considered the latest.

Careful scrutiny of table 3 reveals that even with the information at our disposal some seriation of the pottery from the central Negev sites is possible. When arranged according to provenance (figs. 4-6, 9), the pottery shapes display an interesting picture that may be summarized as follows:

Pottery Produced in Judaea (fig. 11). This cate-

gory encompasses only shapes of pure Family S affinities. These include many, if not all, of the known vessel types of this family.

Pottery Produced in Central Transjordan (fig. 12). These include most of the Family TR vessels and many shapes of Family S. A distinctive type within

the latter is the rope-decorated pithos, the majority of which belong to this category.

Pottery Produced in Southern Transjordan (fig. 13). This pottery is generally similar to that from central Transjordan. Notable is the jar decorated with a zig-zag white line painting (fig. 13, top left) which appears here in several examples.

Pottery Produced in the Central Negev (fig. 14). Here an eclectic collection of forms is dis- cerned combining shapes with Judaean and Trans- jordanian characteristics. The majority are purely Family S shapes, including rope-decorated pithoi. Zig-zag decorated jars, also typical of the southern Transjordanian group, are also represented (fig. 14, center).

Pottery Produced in the Northern Negev/South- ern Shephela (fig. 15). This includes several Fam- ily S shapes (amphoriskoi and jars only) and a distinctive flat-rimmed holemouth jar (fig. 16, bottom of the upper part). The second vessel type seems to belong invariably only to this provenance.

Pottery Produced in the Southern Negev (fig. 15, bottom). Vessels produced from the Ora Shales consist of only one vessel type: a rounded-rimmed, spouted holemouth jar. This type is typologically distinctive from other holemouth jars of the EB IV. In its shape and raw materials, it clearly preserves earlier EB II-III concepts (Oren and Yekutieli 1990: 11).

These data evoke many intriguing questions. First, the possibility that a small part of Family TR was produced in the central Negev is surprising, even confusing. The fact that the Har Yeruham site workshop had acted as a "melting pot" where several wares previously considered as local were produced together is hard to accept. However, since the same raw material (Taqiya marl) is widespread also on the Moab-Edom plateau, we cannot categorically determine whether these distinctive vessels were ac-

tually manufactured at the Har Yeruham site. This

point awaits further investigation. The data need to be considered from a broad, three-dimensional perspective where the two main factors of time and space act concurrently to provide a logical picture.

To suggest a tentative model for the time-space variables as reflected in the assemblages in question, a simple seriation was performed using our


i~~ ii /\ /

4

2

5

7

6

\ ==== 8 9 3

II

,1 1. . . . . .. .... .. .

"" III

10

•

IIi1...

. . II _112 ii 14- -

Ii 13

15

15161 Fig. 11. Pottery of Judaean origin.


technological data and the typological information supplied by Cohen (1986: 276-95). The seriograph (fig. 16) was plotted using several categories, some of which clearly indicate chronological differences while others may reflect functional or geographical variabilities. The first criterion chosen (fig. 16: A) was the presence or absence of Negbite holemouth jars. These vessels represent, in my opinion, the single continuity from earlier EB II-III forms within this geographical district. Therefore, it should be considered the earliest ware appearing in this area. The second category (B) is Family TR or the Red Painted ware, representing a development from earlier EB II-III forms but in a foreign location (Transjordan). It also may be considered an early phenomenon within the EB IV sequence; but since it appears at the central Negev sites only in EB IV contexts, it should be placed at a later stage than category A.

The following three categories (C-E) relate more to the provenance of Family S: Transjordanian (C), Judaean (D) and local (E). The small quantities of

Transjordanian fabrics at Judaean sites (Nahal Re- faim and Jebel Qacaqir, also plotted for comparison) in fig. 11, and their typological continuity with earlier Family TR Transjordanian imports, indicate that the penetration of this pottery should be regarded the earliest of these. Nevertheless, categories D and E may have existed concurrently. In summary, fig. 16 may tentatively reflect some stages within the EB IV sequence of the central Negev, albeit their time span and synchronism are as yet unknown.

The "battleship patterns" depicted by the site assemblages vary in their succession and distribution. This suggests that the sites under review portray

different patterns reflecting different functions or different time spans within the tentative sequence suggested here. A closer look at the seriograph betrays similarities between the patterns depicted by the assemblages of certain sites. One good example is the almost complete correspondence between Ein Ziq and Beer Resisim, which runs through the whole sequence. There is also agreement between the Har Yeruham site and Mashabei Sadeh. Although the latter can be explained by the geographical proximity between the sites, the former should be explained on other grounds. This seriation is very preliminary and is presented here only as a suggestion for further research which publication of additional pottery assemblages will make possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The data derived from this study have important ramifications in the debate on the origin of the EB IV populations, their modes of subsistence, the interre- lation between different site clusters, and the more general settlement patterns. However, interpretation of the technological results of this study is not an easy task. The processes that control ceramic production and mobility are not always fully understood. Ethnoarchaeological observations, which are of ne- cessity based on observations of present-day pottery- producing communities, tend to take into account only currently prevailing social and economic factors and often ignore considerations that may have existed in past realities. The production of earthenware for domestic daily use is practiced nowadays mostly by "traditional" societies that are influenced to a great extent by modern industrial economy.

Fig. 11.

Plate:No. Plate:No. No. Site Type (from Cohen 1986) No. Site Type (from Cohen 1986)

1 Mashabei Sadeh Jar 42:1 10 Har Tzayad Kettle 28:1 2 Mashabei Sadeh Jar 42:2 11 Beer Resisim Kettle 69:9 3 Mashabei Sadeh Jar 42:3 12 Ein Ziq Kettle 57:24 4 Har Tzayad Jar 28:6 13 Har Tzayad Bowl 27:11 5 Har Tzayad Jar 28:5 14 Har Tzayad Cup 27:4 6 Ein Ziq Amphoriskos 54:16 15 Mashabei Sadeh Cup 41:4 7 Har Tzayad Jar 28:14 16 Mashabei Sadeh Cup 41:3 8 Har Yeruham Amphoriskos 36:16 17 Ein Ziq Cup 57:23 9 Har Tzayad Amphoriskos 27:18


I

I\

2 / II ,

/~

-"( ---- V1- i II( II

4 Ii 4 3 - -

7 5 6

8

110

11 i\si~si~O tU

12 16

15 16 13 14

718 19

117 1

Fig. 12. Pottery from central Transjordan.


Therefore, their input does not fully reflect the reality of ancient pottery production. As a consequence, analytical data concerning pottery production for the reconstruction of the social structure of a given ancient society should be used with great caution. This

applies primarily to the very complex processes of

population change, immigration, and socioeconomic patterns.

The petrographic data support the assumption that the EB IV communities of the Transjordanian and Judaean hills such as Khirbet Iskander, Bab edh- Dhrac, cArocer, Tell Niaj, and Tell Iktanu in Trans-

jordan, and Nahal Refaim in Judaea, must have

played a pivotal role in the subsistence strategies of the central Negev community. If so, it seems that the main colonization of the central Negev occurred at a relatively late stage within the EB IV, when the

Transjordanian and Judaean sites were already well established. The Negev may have acted as a prov- ince inhabited by groups that maintained permanent contact with their sedentary parent communities in those regions. Through this reciprocal network pottery was purchased or supplied to the Negev communities in exchange for other commodities. The

question naturally arises as to what the inhabitants of the central Negev could have supplied.

It is true that the architectural similarities between most EB IV sites of the central Negev and the earlier EB II-III sites (Cohen 1992) seem to reflect some ethnic or even tribal continuity between these periods within this region. Yet the fact that at the majority of the later settlements pottery was not produced lo-

cally but imported from other regions argues against any continuity with the wares produced in the preceding periods. Apart from the very specific case of

the "duckbill" holemouth jars, the development from earlier Early Bronze Age shapes occurred in the production centers of Transjordan. However, there is a great continuity in terms of economy and relations with the more fertile parts of the country. As in EB II, copper was still mined and traded during EB IV

by the Negev inhabitants, although not from Sinai but from the CAravah Valley. The new results from Khir- bet Hamra Ifdan in Wadi Fidan, as yet unpublished, clearly demonstrate direct contacts with the central Negev sites in terms of copper ingots and pottery. The undeniable relations between the central Negev and Transjordanian sites revealed in this study, as well as the discovery of considerable amounts of copper ingots at central Negev sites (Cohen 1986: 274, 295- 96), are critical for interpreting the archaeological evidence and in this the long tradition of metalwork-

ing plays a main role. The strong Transjordanian influence raises the pos-

sibility that the settlers of the central Negev acted as intermediaries between the mining centers of Feinan and Timna and the main markers for copper. In light of the discovery of EB IV sites in northern Sinai where Canaanite wares formed the bulk of the assem-

blage (Oren and Yekutieli 1990), it may be suggested that this copper was traded, by way of the overland route, with Egypt, which during the First Intermedi- ate Period had lost control over the mining centers in southern Sinai and the CAravah Valley. Consequently, the settlement pattern of the central Negev sites may be interpreted as reflecting the existence of a clan of mobile specialists, such as the biblical Kenites (De- ver and Tadmor 1976), who manufactured metal artifacts at their base camps or simply smelted the ores into ingots and traded them with Egypt. This class

Fig. 12.


1 Mashabei Sadeh Pithos 42:5 11 Ein Ziq Spouted holem. jar 52:21 2 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 70:32 12 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 69:12 3 Beer Resisim Jar 69:23 13 Ein Ziq Juglet 53:11 4 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 70:31 14 Ein Ziq Juglet 52:10 5 Beer Resisim Kettle 69:8 15 Ein Ziq Jug 57:20 6 Har Yeruham Site Pithos 36:23 16 Ein Ziq Juglet 52:17 7 Har Tzayad Pithos 28:13 17 Ein Ziq Lamp 57:7 8 Beer Resisim Jug 68:17 18 Ein Ziq Bowl 52:1 9 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 68:24 19 Beer Resisim Bowl 68:8

10 Ein Ziq Amphoriskos 53:13


1 2

S5

6

7 8 9 10

11

Fig. 13. Pottery from southern Transjordan.


1 Ein Ziq Jar 59:10 7 Ein Ziq Bowl 52:2 2 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 70:27 8 Ein Ziq Jug 57:4 3 Ein Ziq Jar 59:8 9 Ein Ziq Juglet 52:16 4 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 55:10 10 Ein Ziq Jug 52:19 5 Ein Ziq Krater 58:9 11 Beer Resisim Bowl 69:7 6 Beer Resisim Bowl 68:4 12 Beer Resisim Bowl 68:7

of specialists relied on the economic support of the sedentary sites in the more fertile parts of the country, namely central Transjordan and Judaea. They practiced their craft at the large, permanent sites while other, less important ad hoc subsistence activities such as herding and foraging could explain the

existence of the numerous short-lived, small sites discovered in this region. This process may have ended with renewal of the neighboring superpowers' interest in the southern Levant, together with the es- tablishment of fortified town in Canaan. The estab- lishment of maritime trade with richer copper sources


1

2 3

4

6 1 j ,r

I

//

9A

11

10

Fig. 14. Locally produced pottery from the Central Negev.


1 Mashabei Sadeh Jar 41:8 7 Har Tzayad Pithos 28:11 2 Ein Ziq Jar 54:9 8 Har Tzayad Pithos 28:12 3 Ein Ziq Jar 55:2 9 Mashabei Sadeh Amphoriskos 41:6 4 Mashabei Sadeh Jar 41:13 10 Har Yeruham Jar 36:20 5 Har Tzayad Amphoriskos 27:17 11 Har Tzayad Pithos 28:10 6 Har Tzayad Jar 28:2

such as Cyprus brought about the collapse of the economic basis of the central Negev-southern Trans- jordan settlements and apparent desertion of this area for almost a millennium. This hiatus in copper mining is best represented in the Feinan area where

copper smelting activities are recorded from the Chal- colithic through EB IV, and then only from the Iron Age and Classical periods (Hauptmann and Weisger- ber 1987; 1992). The cessation of copper exploitation had a startling effect on the Negev population


N 3 2

1

5

4••

6 7

8 9

/

10

12

11

Fig. 15. Top: Pottery from the northern Negev or the southern Shephela. Bottom: Pottery from the southern Negev.


E

D

C

B

A

BEER HAR HAR MASHABE I EIN HAR I JEBEL I NAHAL I RESISIM YERUHAM DIMON SADEH ZIQ TZAYAD QGAAQIR REFAIM

Fig. 16. Seriograph representing the values of combined typological and technological categories in southern and central Israel, and the suggested sequence of each assemblage. A) Holemouth jars of the Negbite EB II-I11 tradition (Ora Shales group). B) Red Painted pottery. C) Transjordanian import. D) Judaean import. E) Local production at the central Negev.

and, while not creating a vacuum in the settlement of the area, caused a shift to subsistence strategies like pastoralism which leave few enduring signs in the archaeological record. The shift to herding was sup- ported by the development of the urban centers in the north, so essential for maintaining a pastoral economy (Finkelstein and Pervolotsky 1990: 77).

In conclusion, the new data presented here enable us to conceive the EB IV cultures of the southern Levant as being a more complex and diverse society

than previously thought. Instead of defining it in very generalized and problematic terms such as "pastoral," "nomadic," or "seminomadic," etc., the time has come to investigate the special traits of this culture more closely. It is clear that the sedentary settlements of central Transjordan and Judaea played a cardinal role in this period. Yet their interrelations with the desert sites were far more complicated than seasonal

migrations intended for herding, as suggested by Dever (1973; 1980). The coexistence of populations

Fig. 15.


1 Ein Ziq Amphoriskos 58:1 7 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 58:10 2 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 70:26 8 Beer Resisim Holemouth jar 68:13 3 Beer Resisim Amphoriskos 70:25 9 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 55:14 4 Beer Resisim Holemouth jar 70:33 10 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 59:4 5 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 59:2 11 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 56:1 6 Har Yeruham Holemouth jar 36:25 12 Ein Ziq Holemouth jar 56:2


with different subsistence strategies may explain the discrepancies between the results of ethnoarchaeological studies of the burial practices in the Jericho

cemetery (Shay 1986; Palumbo 1987). To end on a more general note, Dever (1995:295)

sums up the situation admirably: "Perhaps the 'dark- ness' (of the EB IV) was less an aspect of reality than of archaeological myopia. If so, it may be dispelled by more focused, sophisticated, and disciplined field- work and research in the generation to come." At

present, it seems that a sufficient degree of field work

has been done already. However, the interdisciplinary contributions so widely called upon by archae- ologists in the field of prehistory form a sad lacuna in many of the later periods. Analytical methods are not a magic box into which the archaeological data are inserted from one side and emerge from the other as explicit conclusions. Yet they manage to direct the archaeological interpretations into a narrower range of options. Further research will supply the still con- cealed evidence that will assist the understanding of these hotly debated topics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted in the Interdisciplinary Research Division of the Israel Antiquities Authority. I thank Rudolph Cohen of the Israel Antiquities Authority, for allowing me to examine the pottery from Ein Ziq, Har Tzayad, Mashabei Sadeh, the Har Yeruham site, and Beer Resisim. Thanks also to Dov Nahlieli and Gil Tahal for allowing me to examine the Har Dimon pottery, and to Rivka Cohen-Amin who supplied the typological data and the technical help. I also thank Emanuel Eisenberg of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who kindly allowed me to study the pottery from Nahal Refaim; Russel Adams

from the University of Sheffield for allowing me to refer to the as yet unpublished data from his excava-tions at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan; and Pamela Magrill from the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities in the British Museum for supplying the information about the Lachish workshop pottery. The ICP-AES examination was conducted by Irena Segal in the laboratories of the Geological Survey of Israel. Shirley Gassner, Russell Adams, Mor- dechai Haiman, and two anonymous reviewers read the manuscript and made useful comments.

NOTES

11 performed petrographic examinations of many of the vessels from Kuntillet CAjrud, Beer Sheva, and Giloh mentioned in this article; they proved to belong to this petrographic group.

2The EB IV site mentioned by Meshel (1976: 52) is insignificant for this issue due to its very poor ceramic assemblage.

REFERENCES

Albright, W. E 1962 The Chronology of the Middle Bronze I (Early

Bronze-Middle Bronze). Bulletin of the Ameri- can Schools of Oriental Research 168: 36-42.

Allen, R.O.; Rogers, M. S.; Mitchell, R. S.; and Hoffman, M. A.

1982 A Geochemical Approach to the Understanding of Ceramic Technology in Predynastic Egypt. Archaeometry 24: 199-212.

Allen, R.O.; Hamroush, H.; and Hoffman, M. A. 1989 Archaeological Implications of Differences in

the Composition of Nile Sediments. Pp. 33-56 in Archaeological Chemistry IV, ed. R. O. Allen.

Washington: American Chemical Society. Amiran, R.

1960 The Pottery of the Middle Bronze I in Pales- tine. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 204-25.

1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. New Bruns- wick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Amiran, R., and Glass, J. 1979 An Archaeological-Petrographical Study of 15

W-Ware Pots in the Ashmolean Museum. Tel Aviv 6: 54-59.

Arkin, Y.; Braun, M.; and Starinsky, A. 1965 Type Sections of Cretaceous Formations in the

Jerusalem-Beit Shemesh Area. Israel Geolog- ical Survey Stratigraphic Section 1: 1-59.

Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. New

York: Cambridge University. Bender, E

1974 Geology of Jordan. Trans. M. K. Khdeir, from German. Beitrage zur regionalen Geologie der Erde 7. Berlin: Borntraeger.


Bentor, Y. K. 1945 Petrographic Investigations of the Upper Al-

bian-Lower Cenomanian near Jerusalem and Contribution to the Problem of Dolomitization and Quartzification. Unpublished Ph.D. Disser- tation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1966 The Clays of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.

Benyon, D. E.; Donahue, J.; Schaub, R. T.; and Johnston, R. A.

1986 Tempering Types and Sources for Early Bronze

Age Ceramics from Bab edh-DhraC and Nu- meira, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 297-305.

Bourriau, J. 1990 Canaanite Jars from New Kingdom Deposits at

Memphis, Kom Rabi'a. Eretz-Israel 21 (Ruth Amiran volume): 18*"-26*.

Bronitsky, G., and Hamer, R. 1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Ef-

fects of Various Tempering Materials on Im-

pact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American

Antiquity 51: 89-101. Clamer, C., and Sass, B.

1977 Middle Bronze Age I. Pp. 245-54 in Prehis- toric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, North- ern Sinai, eds. 0. Bar-Yosef and J. L. Phillips. Qedem 7. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Cohen, R. 1986 The Settlement of the Central Negev in the

Light of Archaeological and Literary Sources

during the 4th-1st Millennia B.C.E. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

1992 The Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze

Age I Settlements in the Central Negev. Pp. 105-31 in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archae-

ological Materials in Anthropological Per-

spectives, eds. 0. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov.

Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madi- son, WI: Prehistory.

Cohen, R., and Dever, W. G. 1978 Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the

"Central Negev Highlands Project." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232: 29-45.

1979 Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the "Central Negev Highlands Project." Bulle- tin of the American Schools of Oriental Re- search 236: 41-60.

1981 Preliminary Report of the Third and Final Sea- son of the "Central Negev Highlands Project." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 243: 57-77.

de Vaux, R. 1955 Les fouilles de Tell el-FarCah, pres Naplouse.

Revue Biblique 62: 541-89. Dever, W. G.

1972 A Middle Bronze I Site on the West Bank of the Jordan. Archaeology 25: 231-33.

1973 The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210: 37-63.

1980 New Vistas on the EB IV ("MB I") Horizon in Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 35-64.

1985a From the End of the Early Bronze Age to the Beginning of the Middle Bronze. Pp. 113-35 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Pro-

ceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. J. Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1985b Village Planning at Be'er Resisim and Socio- Economic Structure in Early Bronze Age IV Palestine. Eretz-Israel 18 (Nahman Avigad volume): 18*-28*.

1992 Pastoralism and the End of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine. Pp. 83-92 in Pas- toralism in the Levant: Archaeological Ma- terials in Anthropological Perspectives, eds.

O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madison, WI:

Prehistory. 1995 Social Structure in the Early Bronze IV Period

in Palestine. Pp. 282-96 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File.

Dever, W. G., and Tadmor, M. 1976 A Copper Hoard of the Middle Bronze Age I.

Israel Exploration Journal 26: 163-69. Edwards, W. I., and Segnit, E. R.

1984 Pottery Technology at the Chalcolithic Site of Teleilat Ghassul (Jordan). Archaeometry 26: 69-77.

Eisenberg, E. 1993 Rephaim, Nahal. Pp. 1277-80 in The New

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster.

1994 Nalhal Rephaim-A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 26: 82- 95 (Hebrew).

Falconer, S. E. 1987 Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A

Jordan Valley Perspective. Pp. 251-59 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jor- dan III, ed. A. Hadidi. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


Falconer, S. E., and Magness-Gardiner, B. 1984 Preliminary Report of the First Season of

the Tell el-Hayyat Project. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255: 49-74.

Feig, N. 1991 Burial Caves of the Early Bronze Age VI at Tel

CAmal. CAtiqot 20: 119-28. Finkelstein, I.

1991 The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 41: 19-45.

Finkelstein, I., and Pervolotsky, A. 1990 Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadiza-

tion in the History of Sinai and the Negev. Bul- letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279: 67-88.

Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. L. 1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume

II: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. Oxford: Oxford University.

Gilead, I., and Goren, Y. 1989 Petrographic Analyses of Fourth Millennium

B.C. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the North- ern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5-14.

Glass, J. 1978 Petrographical and Technological Analyses of

Pottery of Strata III-I. P 50 in Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City, by R. Amiran. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Glass, J.; Goren, Y.; Bunimovitz, S.; and Finkelstein, I. 1993 Petrographic Analyses of Middle Bronze III,

Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Pottery As-

semblages. Pp. 271-86 in Shiloh: The Archae-

ology of a Biblical Site, eds. I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 10. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv

University. Goldberg, P.; Gould, B.; Killebrew, A.; and Yellin, J.

1986 Comparison of Neutron Activation and Thin- Section Analyses on Late Bronze Age Ce- ramics from Deir el-Balah. Pp. 341-51 in

Proceedings of the 24th International Ar-

chaeometry Symposium, eds. J. S. Olin and M. J. Blackman. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Goren, Y. 1987 Petrography of Chalcolithic Period Pottery As-

semblages from Southern Israel. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusa- lem (Hebrew).

1988 A Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Sites P14 and DII. Mitekufat Haeven/Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21: 131"-37".

1991a The Beginnings of Pottery Production in Is- rael: Technology and Typology of Proto-His- toric Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th-4th Millennia B.C.E.). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

1991b Pottery from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze

Age I Cemeteries in Israel: Some New Aspects of the Development of Ceramic Technology. Eretz-Israel 21 (Ruth Amiran volume): 119-26 (Hebrew), 105* (English summary).

1991c The "Qatifian Culture" in Southern Israel and

Transjordan: Additional Aspects for Its Defini- tion. Mitekufat Haeven/Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 100-12.

1991d Petrographic Examination of the Ceramic As-

semblage from Tel CAmal. CAtiqot 20: 129-30. 1992 Petrographic Study of the Pottery Assemblage

from Munhata. Pp. 329-60 in The Pottery Assemblage of the Sha'ar Hagolan and Rabah

Stages of Munhata (Israel), by Y. Garfinkel. Paris: Association Pal6orient.

1995 Shrines and Ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: The View through the Petrographic Micro-

scope. Archaeometry 37: 287-305. Goren, Y., and Gilead, I.

1987 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Shiq- mim: A Preliminary Report. Pp. 411-18 in

Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the northern Negev Desert, Israel

(1982-1984), ed. T. E. Levy. BAR International Series 356(i). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Greenberg, M. 1968 Type Section of the Lower Cretaceous Hatira

Formation in Hamakhtesh Hagadol, Northern

Negev. Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey. Gunneweg, J.; Perlman, I.; and Meshel, Z.

1985 The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet CAjrud. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 270-83.

Hauptmann, A., and Weisgerber, G. 1987 Archaeometallurgical and Mining-Archaeo-

logical Investigations in the Area of Feinan, Wadi CArabah (Jordan). Annual of the Depart- ment of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 419-37.

1992 Periods of Ore Exploitation and Metal Pro- duction in the Area of Feinan, Wadi CArabah, Jordan. Pp. 61-66 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

IV, eds. M. Zagh-

loul, K. CAmr, E Zayadine, and R. Nabeel. Am- man: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

Helms, S. 1987 A Question of Economic Control during the

Proto-Historical Era of Palestine/Transjordan. Pp. 41-51 in Studies in the History and Ar- chaeology of Jordan III, ed. A. Hadidi. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


Hirsch, E 1988 Geology of the Northern Plunge of the Hazera

Anticline, NE Negev, Israel. Israel Geological Survey Current Researches 6: 41-46.

Johnson, D. L. 1969 The Nature of Nomadism: A Comparative

Study of Pastoral Migrations in Southwestern Asia and Northern Africa. Department of Ge-

ography Research Paper 118. Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago. Kenyon, K.

1969 Archaeology in the Holy Land. Rev. ed. Lon- don: Benn.

Kochavi, M. 1967 The Settlement of the Negev in the Middle

Bronze (Canaanite) I Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Kolska Horwitz, L. 1989 Sedentism in the Early Bronze IV: A Faunal

Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 275: 15-25. London, G. A.

1985 Decoding Designs: The Late Third Millennium B.C. Pottery from Jebel Qacaqir. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.

Marx, E. 1992 Are There Pastoral Nomads in the Middle

East? Pp. 255-60 in Pastoralism in the Levant:

Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, eds. 0. Bar-Yosef and A. Khaza- nov. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madison, WI: Prehistory.

MacDonald, B. 1992 The Southern Ghors and Northeast CArabah

Archaeological Survey. Sheffield Archaeologi- cal Monographs 5. Sheffield: Collis.

MacDonald, B.; Clark, G. A.; Neeley, M.; Adams, R.; and Gregory, M.

1987 Southern Ghors and Northeast CArabah Archae-

ological Survey 1986, Jordan: A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiqui- ties of Jordan 31: 391-413.

Maeir, A. M.; Yellin, J.; and Goren, Y. 1992 A Re-evaluation of the Red and Black Bowl

from Parker's Excavations in Jerusalem. Ox-

ford Journal of Archaeology 11: 39-53. Meitlis, I.

1991 Jerusalem, Wadi Zimra. Excavations and Sur- veys in Israel 10: 125-27.

Meshel, Z. 1976 South Sinai, Landscape and Journeys. Tel Aviv:

Hakibbutz Hammeukhad (Hebrew). Mimran, I.

1969 The Geology of the Wadi Malikh Area. Unpub- lished Master's Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Mimran, Y. 1972 The Tayasir Volcanics, A Lower Cretaceous

Formation in the Shomeron, Central Israel. Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin 52: 1-9.

Nahlieli, D., and Tahal, G. 1993 Har Dimon. Excavations and Surveys in Israel

12: 99-101. Olivari, E.

1969 Fouilles 'a CAroCer sur l'Arnon. Revue Biblique 76: 230-59.

Oren, E. D., and Yekutieli, Y. 1990 North Sinai during the MB I Period-Pastoral

Nomadism and Sedentary Settlement. Eretz- Israel 21 (Ruth Amiran volume): 6-22 (He- brew), 101* (English summary).

Palumbo, G. 1987 "Egalitarian" or "Stratified" Society? Some

Notes on Mortuary Practices and Social Struc- ture in EB IV. Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 267: 43-59. Palumbo, G., and Peterman, G.

1993 Early Bronze Age IV Ceramic Regionalism in Central Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289: 23-32.

Porat, N. 1984 Petrography and Mineralogy of Pottery from

Archaeological Sites from Southern Israel.

Unpublished Master's Thesis, Hebrew Univer-

sity of Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1986/ Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in South- 1987 ern Palestine During the Early Bronze I Pe-

riod. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8: 109-29.

1989a Petrography of Pottery from Southern Israel and Sinai. Pp. 169-88 in L'Urbanisation de la Palestine a l'd1ge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles I, ed. P. de Miroschedji. BAR International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

1989b Composition of Pottery-Application to the

Study of the Interrelations between Canaan and

Egypt during the 3rd Millennium B.C. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Prag, K. 1974 The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze

Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Levant 6: 69-116.

Richard, S. 1980 Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of

the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 5-34.

1987a The Early Bronze Age in Palestine: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism. Biblical Archaeol- ogist 50: 22-43.


1987b Questions of Nomadic Incursions at the End of the 3rd Millennium B.C. Pp. 241-46 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, ed. A. Hadidi. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

1990 The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity: Fourth Preliminary Report. Pp. 33- 58 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations, 1983-87, ed. W. E. Rast. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplement 26. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Richard, S., and Boraas, R. 1988 The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet

Iskander, Jordan: Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season. Pp. 107-30 in Preliminary Re-

ports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations, 1982- 85, ed. W. E. Rast. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Supplement 25. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Sagiv, B.; Azmonand, E.; and Nathan, Y. 1978 Lower Cretaceous Clays, Makhtesh Gadol. Is-

rael Geological Survey Report No. GD/1/78. Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey (Hebrew).

Schaub, R. T. 1973 An Early Bronze IV Tomb from Bab edh-

Dhric. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 210: 2-19.

Shaliv, G. 1972 The Geology of the Wadi Farcah Area (Part I:

Geology). Unpublished Master's Thesis, He- brew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Shay, T. 1983 Burial Customs at Jericho in the Intermediate

Bronze Age: A Componential Analysis. Tel Aviv 10: 26-37.

Stienstra, P. 1986 Systematic Macroscopic Description of the

Texture and Composition of Ancient Pottery- Some Basic Methods. Newsletter of the De- partment of Pottery Technology 4: 29-48.

Tobia, S. K., and Sayre, E. V. 1974 An Analytical Comparison of Various Egyp-

tian Soils, Clays, Shales and Some Ancient Pottery by Neutron Activation Analysis. Pp. 99-128 in Recent Advances in Science and Technology of Materials, ed. A. Bishay. New York: Plenum.

Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV. The Bronze Age. London: Oxford

University. Weissbrod, T.

1981 The Paleozoic of Israel and Adjacent Coun- tries. (Lithostratigraphic Study). Israel Geolog- ical Survey Report No. MP/600/81. Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey (Hebrew).

Wright, G. E. 1971 The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neo-

lithic through the Middle Bronze Age. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91: 276-93.

Zak, I. 1954 Survey of Lower Cretaceous Sediments from

Makhtesh Qatan. Jerusalem: Israel Geological Survey (Hebrew).

the american schools of oriental research is … use information technology and tools to increase...

Documents