This article was downloaded by: [Aren Maeir]On: 18 February 2015, At: 09:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

An ivory bowl from Early Iron Age Tell es-Safi/Gath (Israel): manufacture, meaning andmemoryAren M. Maeira, Brent Davisb, Liora Kolska Horwitzc, Yotam Asscherd &Louise A. Hitchcockb

a Bar-Ilan Universityb University of Melbournec Hebrew University of Jerusalemd Weizmann Institute of SciencePublished online: 16 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Aren M. Maeir, Brent Davis, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Yotam Asscher & Louise A. Hitchcock(2015): An ivory bowl from Early Iron Age Tell es-Safi/Gath (Israel): manufacture, meaning and memory,World Archaeology, DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2015.1009154

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1009154

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An ivory bowl from Early Iron Age Telles-Safi/Gath (Israel): manufacture,meaning and memory

Aren M. Maeir, Brent Davis, Liora Kolska Horwitz,Yotam Asscher and Louise A. Hitchcock

Abstract

In 2013, an ivory bowl was discovered in a chalky matrix in the Early Iron Age (Philistine) levels in AreaA at Tell es-Safi/Gath. Conservation revealed it to be a shallow vessel with a single lug handle, decoratedin the interior and on the base with an incised twelve-petal lotus-rosette surrounded by five concentriccircles. Applying an object biography approach, we investigate the history and far-flung socio-culturalconnections of the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl, which is unique within Philistia. Specific reference is made toparallels in the ivory hoard from the Late Bronze/Iron Age transition (c. late twelfth century/early eleventhcentury BCE) palace at Megiddo, Stratum VIIA. It is proposed that the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl was one of aset manufactured somewhere in Canaan. The vessel became separated from the set, ending up as afoundation offering at this Philistine site.

Keywords

Philistine; elephant ivory; Canaanite; Aegean; Late Bronze/Iron Age transition; Levant.

Introduction

Object biography considers an object over the different periods of its life history with the goal ofunderstanding the relationship between it and people: procurement, production and style,consumption (which might involve a multiplicity of functions, movements, exchanges, recy-cling, curation, etc.), deposition and rediscovery (Appadurai 1986; Gosden and Marshall 1999;Meskell 2004; Joy 2009). This approach enables us to go beyond utilitarianism and function-ality and engages with the meaning imbued in an object, which may change in different contextsand in different periods, perhaps best illustrated by the ‘readymades’ of Marcel Duchamp(Morin 1969). Each of these aspects is considered in this study with respect to an almost

© 2015 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 onlinehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1009154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

complete ivory bowl that was found in the Early Iron Age Philistine levels (c. late twelfth/earlyeleventh century BCE) at Tell es-Safi/Gath, in central Israel.

Tell es-Safi/Gath is a large multi-period site (‘tell’) located in central Israel, about midwaybetween Jerusalem and Ashkelon, on the border between the southern coastal plain and theJudean foothills (Fig. 1). The site was inhabited from late prehistoric periods until the 1940s (themodern Palestinian village of Tell es-Safi), with particularly extensive remains dating to theBronze and Iron Ages (Maeir 2012, 2013). During the Iron Age, it was a large Philistine city –‘Gath of the Philistines’ – one of the five major cities of the Philistine ‘Pentapolis’. Richevidence of the various stages of the Philistine culture, from the early twelfth century BCE untilthe late ninth century BCE, has been found in several excavation areas. The Philistine culture,with which this ivory bowl was associated, appeared in the southern coastal plain of Israel(‘Philistia’) in the early twelfth century BCE and is an ‘entangled’ culture, that is, a combinationof various local and non-local cultural traditions and groups (e.g. Maeir, Hitchcock, and Horwitz2013; Hitchcock and Maeir 2013). The biography of the ivory bowl is similarly entangled, withstriking parallels with the ivory hoard from terminal Late Bronze Age Megiddo (Loud 1939).These parallels, and the dating and context of the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl, raise interestingquestions about its biography.

Deposition: stratigraphic context and related finds

In order to reconstruct a reasoned analysis of the history of the Tell es-Safi/Gath ivory bowl, thecontext in which it was found, as well as our first encounter with it, will be examined.

Figure 1 Map of the Southern Levant with sites and regions mentioned in the text.

2 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

The bowl was discovered in Area A, on the eastern side of the site, where a thick sequence ofIron Age remains was recovered, including levels dating from the early Iron I (c. early twelfthcentury BCE) until the Iron IIB (late eighth century BCE). The predominant level in this area isthe destruction level (Stratum A3), which is dated to the late Iron IIA (c. 830 BCE) (Maeir 2012),and, due to its excellent preservation, serves as a stratigraphic anchor for the levels below.

The context in which the bowl was found is part of a sequence of sediments that contain LateBronze and Iron I pottery. The Late Bronze layer (Stratum A7) is found below grey sediments,rich in phytoliths (10–44 million phytoliths per gram of sediment) that contain Iron IA pottery(Stratum A6). Overlying the phytolith-rich sediments was another layer (Stratum A5) containingIron IA pottery but low concentrations of phytoliths. Analyses of the composition of thesediments allowed us to differentiate the phytolith-rich sediments from the layer above it,although they contain similar pottery assemblages.

The ivory bowl (16A80B198) was uncovered in Square 80C, during the lowering of thenorthern baulk of Squares 80C and 80D. The deposits associated with the bowl were dividedinto two layers (Fig. 2).

Layer 1 This upper layer contained a thick, hard, chalky, plaster-like feature, in which the bowlwas embedded, that was confined, both horizontally and vertically, to the immediate surroundsof the bowl, but was amorphous in shape. The major component of this plaster-like material wascalcite. In contrast to anthropogenic plasters made of calcite, which usually have an atomicstructure characterized by a high degree of disorder (Regev et al. 2010), the atomic structure ofthis chalky material was ordered like that of calcite with a geogenic origin (i.e. chalk).Consequently, we refer to it as ‘plaster-like’. This plaster-like chalk was commonly used tocover walls, basins and other features throughout the site.

The plaster-like feature in which the bowl was embedded was surrounded by a brown depositcontaining ash and charred sediments. Based on its infrared spectrum, the clay component of thebrown deposit appears not to have been exposed to elevated temperatures (Eliyahu-Behar et al.2012), suggesting that the ash in the deposit originated from an activity that was not directlyassociated with the bowl. The brown deposit also contained faunal remains and ceramics –mainly undecorated Late Bronze/Iron Age I (N = 13) and Iron Age I (N = 13) sherds – as wellas a stone pestle. Unfortunately, these ceramics do not provide an unequivocal date for thebowl’s context. Since no securely datable organic materials (seeds, charcoal) were found, wecan date the bowl’s context only by stratigraphy (see below).

Rectangular patches of the plaster-like material also appear in sections directly to the northand to the east of the bowl. In addition, mud bricks are found in the sections to the southeast andto the west of the bowl. It is possible that the plaster-like matrix around the bowl, as well as themud bricks and rectangular patches of chalky material preserved in the adjacent sections,formed some sort of installation, now eroded (Figs 2 and 3).

Layer 2 This layer, lying below, contains another, larger plaster-like feature, also composed ofgeogenic calcite, which resembled a surface.

The sediments in both Layers 1 and 2 contained phytolith concentrations of 1–5 millionphytoliths per gram of sediment, but only Layer 1 contained anthropogenic ash.

Layer 1 lies at the same elevation as a thick grey deposit that runs immediately under Wall43508 (the latter attributed to Strata A5/A4), terminating about 45cm east of the bowl. This greylayer is distinguished by containing geogenic calcite as a major component, and being richer in

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

phytoliths than both Layers 1 and 2, with a content of 10–44 million phytoliths per gram ofsediment. Based on the low concentrations of phytoliths and presence of anthropogenic ash, weassociated the bowl context to post-Stratum A6, although the bowl is located in the same elevationas Stratum A6. Stratum A6, being the first layer containing Iron IA pottery after the Late Bronzelayers, is dated to the twelfth century BCE (Maeir, Hitchcock, and Horwitz 2013). The pottery ofStratum A5 and Stratum A6 are similar, and thus we date the context of the bowl to the sameperiod of time.

The find-spot of the bowl (Fig. 4d) lay about 20cm to the west of the western end of Wall43508 (Fig. 4c); the bowl was lying level when found, with its rim at approximately the sameelevation as the bottom of the wall. This wall probably once continued westward to connectwith Wall 52055 (Fig. 4a), a wall of similar construction, and with similar upper and lowerelevations. Both of these walls are depicted in the drawing of the north baulk of 80C/80D before

Figure 3 Stratigraphic section of the southern face of the north baulk of Squares 80C and 80D. Note thatLayers 1 and 2 and the ivory bowl were discovered only after this baulk was dismantled. Drawing by BrentDavis and Jay Rosenberg.

Figure 2 A) View of the stratigraphic context of the ivory bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath. The black linedemarcates the separation between Layers 1 and 2, which is roughly located at the elevation of the bottomof the plaster-like feature in which the bowl was found. The white lines are projection lines of the chalkymaterial that was found in the baulks in relation to the plaster-like material (in which the bowl was found).Scale bar is 25cm; B) Close up view of the bowl and its immediate environs during excavation. Note thebowl within a feature of plaster-like material (geogenic calcite) and below it is the layer of anthropogenicash (Layer 1). Scale bar is 5cm.

4 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

it was taken down (Fig. 3). This drawing also shows that in the baulk a cross-section of anancient pit (also Fig. 4b) lay between these two walls, of the sort that was dug by laterinhabitants to retrieve building-stone; examples of this practice are attested elsewhere at Telles-Safi/Gath. If Walls 43508 and 52055 once formed the same wall (Fig. 4a,4b and 4c, markedby a rectangle), then it would have run directly over the find-spot of the ivory bowl (Fig. 4d),suggesting that the bowl was a foundation deposit for this wall.

As Wall 43508 is attributed to Strata A5/A4 and lies directly above the Stratum A6 grey layersituated at the same elevation as the bowl (as described above), it would seem that the bowl and itsassociated plaster/mud-brick installations had been recessed into the Stratum A6 layer in prepara-tion for the construction of the wall (which would explain the absence of Stratum A6 materialaround the bowl itself). In this scenario, both the wall and the foundation deposit containing thebowl can be tentatively dated to the beginning of Stratum A5 (= early Iron IB; early eleventhcentury BCE). This dating is consistent with the pottery found around the bowl.The layout and nature of the building that once incorporated this early wall are unknown, but

it was probably part of a larger rectilinear structure. This wall appears to be the only survivingremnant of the building. The north-western end of the wall (Fig. 4a) terminates abruptly in thewestern baulk of 80A, while its south-eastern end (Fig. 4c) was cut by the foundation trench fora large A3 wall, now mostly removed (Fig. 4g), and does not continue beyond this trench. Thusthis building, like much of the Strata A5/A4 architecture in this area, was seriously disturbed bylater building phases, while the one remaining wall was reused, with the north-western portion(Fig. 4a) serving as part of the foundation for an extensive Stratum A3 (Iron IIA) pavement.

Most of the architecture near this wall is of a later period; for example, to the north, and at ahigher level, is a later Iron I room (Fig. 4f). The only nearby architecture that could beconsidered contemporary with the early wall is a short section of what is in fact the earliest

Figure 4 Aerial view of Squares 80A, B, C and D. Wall 52055 (a); Pit (b); Wall 43508 (c); Find spot ofbowl (d); Later Iron I room (f); St. A3 wall (g); Pivot stone (h).

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

known wall in this part of Area A (Fig. 4e). This latter wall, whose south-eastern end was alsocut by the foundation trench for the A3 wall (Fig. 4g), was reused in later building phases, whena stone return with a pivot stone was added to it (Fig. 4h). The two walls (Fig. 4a–c and Fig. 4e)are roughly parallel, but whether they once formed part of the same building is unknown.

During excavation, the rim of the bowl was first revealed, indicating the presence of a fragileand important find. A conservator (G. Beiner, HU) was called in to remove it still encased in ablock of its surrounding sediment to preserve its microclimate. Thus, all we knew on the firstday was the bowl’s approximate diameter, its likely composition (ivory) and its top elevation(175.744m AMSL). Despite our lack of knowledge about the bowl as we excavated it, theexcavation team felt a sense of enchantment based on the potential importance and mysterysurrounding the find. It was only a couple of months later following restoration and cleaningthat we saw its extraordinary state of preservation, and could begin investigating its biography.

Description of the bowl

Origin

Tell es-Safi/Gath; Area A; early Stratum A5 (= early Iron IB; early eleventh century BCE); Locus16A80B07; Basket B16A80B198.

Measurements

Diameter 12cm; height 2.1cm, width of rim 6.5mm.

Material

Elephant (Proboscidea: Elephantidae) ivory; cf. African bush (savannah) elephant (Loxodontaafricana africana) based on the size of the bowl.

Physical description

An almost complete, flat-based shallow bowl (see Fig. 5) with rounded sides and flattened rim(partially broken) and a single bar handle (length 1.4cm; height 0.7cm). Five drilled holes(average diameter 3mm) are preserved on the rim and a sixth can be confidently reconstructed inthe broken portion based on the spacing between the holes.

Decoration

On the bottom of the interior of the bowl is an incised decoration consisting of a lotus-rosette(e.g. Barnett 1975, 64, 157, S37) with twelve pointed petals (each petal defined by two incisedlines), surrounded by five concentric circles. On the rim is a wavy incised decoration. On theexterior (base) of the bowl is an incised decoration consisting of a lotus-rosette with twelvepetals (each petal defined by one incised line), surrounded by five concentric circles.

6 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Raw ivory and its procurement

The bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath was identified as made of elephant ivory based on a visualexamination (at 20x magnification under a microscope) of the morphology of the inner structure(Espinoza and Mann 1991), as well as the overall size of the finished item. Having beenmodelled from a single piece of ivory (with the exception of a lid, which was not found), thequantity of solid ivory required for its manufacture excluded a hippopotamus tusk. Visualexamination does not facilitate identification of the species of elephant. Some studies (e.g.

Figure 5 Photographs and drawings of the ivory bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Banerjee, Bortolaso and Dindorf 2008; Singh et al. 2006) have claimed success in differentiat-ing between African and Asian (Indian) elephant ivory. One common approach is based onfeatures (Schreger line angles) that are not always visible on worked objects; other methods ofspecies identification are invasive. DNA clearly separates Asian from African elephants(Fleischer et al. 2001; Rohland et al. 2010), but DNA sampling depends on the preservationof collagen. An FT-Raman analysis of a small chip from the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl hasdemonstrated that it contains no organic material, undoubtedly due to diagenesis, such that itis currently impossible to determine whether the raw material is from an Asian or Africanelephant.

In the Levantine Late Bronze and Iron Ages, raw elephant ivory or manufactured ivoryobjects may have been traded from either Africa or Asia, or both since there is evidence fortrade with both continents (e.g. Kantor 1956; Krzyszkowska and Morkot 2000; Namdar et al.2013). A further complication is the possible presence of elephant herds in the northern Levant(in the Orontes Valley-Euphrates River systems) up until the early first millennium BCE. Thispresence is based on finds, not just of ivory, but of elephant skeletal remains, as well as onancient written and iconographic records (Miller 1986; Moorey 1994; Becker 2005, 2008;Pfälzner 2013). Some researchers have contested this notion and interpret the elephant bonesand whole tusks as representing the remains of live animals and/or raw material that weretraded, or sent as tribute or aid in military campaigns, from India to the Levant (Deraniyagala1955; Winter 1973; Colon 1977; Caubet and Poplin 2010; Vila 2010). Thus, the ivory fromwhich the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl was fashioned may derive from either an African or an Asianelephant, and originated in Africa (i.e. Sudan via Egypt, since by pre-Dynastic times elephantswere probably extinct in Egypt: see Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004), the Near East (i.e.Syria, if indeed a local population of elephants persisted there: see Lister et al. 2013; Pfälzner2013) or Southeast Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent or Sri Lanka: see Sukumar 1991; Listeret al. 2013).

Feldman (2014) suggested that the acquisition of raw ivory in ancient times would perhaps havebeen an elite or royal prerogative due to the physical and organizational resources required tomobilize elephant hunts. Other researchers (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Helms 1993; Baines andYoffee 1998) have proposed that not only were unique skills needed to obtain specialized rawmaterials, but these skills were also needed to produce elite goods and trade them. This wouldhave concentrated privilege (i.e. elite production and consumption) in the hands of a few,presumably a ruling class. This holds true for the acquisition of elephant tusks as unworkedivory, such as those found in Aegean palaces (e.g. Kato Zakro: Platon 1985, 61), mentioned inEgyptian texts (e.g. the Amarna Letters: Moran 1992, 113), found in the Uluburun shipwreck(Pulak 2008) and depicted in Egyptian wall paintings (e.g. the well-known depiction of Nubianscarrying tusks in the Tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes, Dynasty 18, reigns of Thutmose III–Amenhotep II: Pulak 2008). The difficulty in understanding ancient procurement and exchangeroutes is illustrated by a painting from the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Menkheperesoneb inThebes, which depicts ‘Keftiu’ (Cretans) carrying elephant tusks, suggesting re-importation(Rehak and Younger 1998, 232, 243). The recent discovery of an ivory workshop in Iberiadated to the third millennium BC also challenges our assumptions with regard to where productioncentres should be located (Nocete et al. 2013).

For the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, there is evidence for ivory workshops in theAegean (first at Knossos and later at Mycenae and Thebes: Tournavitou 1995), Cyprus (Åström

8 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

1992), Anatolia (Barnett 1982, 32–3), and Phoenicia (Gachet-Bizollon 2007, 17–25). It has beensuggested (Feldman 2014; Dikaios 1969, 99–100; Åström 1992, 102) that ivory carving mighthave co-occurred with stone carving; thus it may not be coincidental that the Minoan palace atKato Zakro, where unworked ivory was found (as noted above), also housed a stone-vasemakers’ workshop (Platon 1985). Just as the practice of ivory carving might then be seen as aproduct of cross-craft interaction between stone and ivory production traditions (e.g. Brysbaert2007), perhaps there was a flow of information between pottery and ivory production traditionsin the Early Iron Age Levant as well – as manifested in the similar shapes and decorations seenon ceramic and ivory bowls, as is discussed below.

Consumption, circulation and memory

Objects accumulate biographies as they circulate and move between people (Gosden andMarshall 1999, 174). The narrative aspect of biography reminds us of the limits of our knowl-edge and emphasizes what we do not know (Joy 2009, 544). However, identity is also relationaland non-linear; thus, while we cannot presume to reconstruct the bowl’s entire life history, wecan examine its relationship to similar, possibly related, objects (Joy 2009) and attempt toelucidate its biography at certain key points. Here we address the question of how the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl ended up beneath a wall at this site.

The Tell es-Safi/Gath vessel has excellent parallels with ten ivory bowls that were found in acollection of some 300 ivory objects from the palace at Megiddo, Stratum VIIA (Loud 1939,16–17, pls 27–30; Catalogue numbers 147–56; Fig. 6). This collection has been interpretedeither as a multi-generational collection of valuable objets d’art (e.g. Loud 1939; Barnett 1982,

Figure 6 Ivory bowl from Megiddo, Stratum VIIA hoard (Loud 1939, pl. 29: 151; based on Dothan 1982,fig. 55; reproduced by permission of the Israel Exploration Society).

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

25; Herrmann and Millard 2003, 394–5), as a tomb (Hachmann 1996, 225–7), or as a hoard ofobjects that were intentionally broken and covered with an animal skeleton as part of atermination ritual (Feldman 2009). The context of the deposition of these objects relates tothe period of turmoil that marks the Bronze to Iron Age transition, and it has been suggested thatone of the functions of ritual deposits within buildings was to help the inhabitants cope withperiods of stress (Herva 2005, 223).

Overall, the Megiddo bowls (Fig. 6) closely resemble the Tell es-Safi/Gath find (Fig. 5) intheir general shape (flat-bottomed shallow bowls, with the exception of no, 153 which is a deepbowl), in the rim profiles, finish, layout, decorative motifs (rosettes, concentric rings, wavy-linerim decoration, drill holes) and overall aesthetic composition and grammar. One of us (AMM)recently examined the Megiddo ivory bowls in the collections of the Oriental Institute, Chicago,and at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, and this inspection verified the impression of aclose resemblance obtained from Loud’s publication.

Inter alia, this resemblance is seen in the rendering of details of the decorations on the rimsand the interior and exterior surfaces:

1. Virtually identical lotus-rosette and concentric ring decorations (between four to sevenincised concentric circles on the various bowls) on both the inside and the outside of fiveof the ten bowls. Two bowls (nos 147, 151) have this decoration on both surfaces; one isdecorated only on the inside; four bowls (nos 148, 150, 154, 156) have both motifs, orelements of them, only on the base; two bowls have no decoration at all.

2. In the identical incised wavy line decoration on the rims of five bowls (nos 147, 148, 149,151 and 156, with a v-shaped variant of this motif on bowl no. 155).

3. In the presence of evenly spaced and similarly produced drill holes (all of a uniform 3mmdiameter) on the rims of some of the bowls (nos 151, 156 and possibly no. 149),suggesting attachment of a lid.

4. In the presence and shape of a bar handle on some bowls (nos 147, 148, 156 and possiblyno. 151).

The partially preserved bowl no. 151 from this collection (Loud 1939, pl. 29: 151a–b), is closestin all parameters to that from Tell es-Safi/Gath.

However, the diameters vary from bowl to bowl (Table 1), such that one is tempted to argue thatthey represent ‘slices’ cut from the same tusk.1 This notion, as well as the general resemblance inworkmanship, form and decoration, leads us to tentatively suggest that they may all have been madein the sameworkshop, perhaps even by the same artisan (e.g.Winter 2005, 36–7; Feldman 2014, fig.2.3). As we show in Table 1, the diameters of the Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddo bowls correspondwell with known diameters of elephant tusks; those from Bronze and Iron Age Near Eastern sitesespecially, though larger, most closely resemble the tusks of the modern African bush (savannah)elephant (Loxodonta africana africana), implying an African source for the ivory used in bowlmanufacture.

Since their discovery and initial publication, the Megiddo bowls have received very littleindividual attention2 perhaps due to the fact that they were not a unique type of object, did notdisplay any particularly special iconography, were in some instances fragmentary and were notinscribed. Instead, their own biographies have been submerged under their overarching identity

10 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Table1Measurementsof

ivorybo

wlsfrom

Telles-Safi/GathandMegiddo

comparedto

measurementsof

mod

ernelephant

tusksandthosefrom

archaeolog

ical

sites.

Bow

lId/site

name

Reference

Speciesidentificatio

nTusk

base

diam

eter

(cm)*

Bow

lDiameter

(cm)

Circumference(cm)

Safi

bowl

Thispaper

12.7

39.8

Megiddo

A22

285

Lou

d(193

9),No.

147,

pl.27

13.9

43.6

Megiddo

A22

356

Lou

d(193

9),No.

151a–b

,pl.29

16.0

50.2

Megiddo

A22

357

Lou

d(193

9),No.

156a–b

,pl.30

11.9

37.3

Megiddo

A22

359

Lou

d(193

9),No.

150,

pl.28

10.5**

32.9

Ulubu

runwreck

Krzyszkow

skaandMorko

t(200

0)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

?15

.047

.1

Mycenae

Krzyszkow

skaandMorko

t(200

0)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

?18

.056

.5

Mod

ern

Welschet

al.(198

9)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

15.0

47.1

Mod

ern

EspinozaandMann(199

3)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

12.0

37.6

Mod

ern-Sud

an†

Parker(197

9)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

M:25

.8–2

7.2†F:

19.3–1

9.4

Mod

ern-Tanzania/

Kenya†

Parker(197

9)Loxod

onta

africana

africana

M:24

.8–2

8.6†F:

16.8–1

9.0

Mod

ern

Green

(198

6)Eleph

asmaximus

12.3

38.6

Mod

ern

Jaku

binek,

Sam

arasekeraandWhite

(200

6)Eleph

asmaximus

12.0

37.6

Notes

*Itshould

bebornein

mindthatthesearediam

eter

measurementstakenatthetusk

base

where

itjoinstheskull.Tuskcircum

ferencetapersslightly

atthebase

andagaintowards

the

tip.Moreover,closeto

⅓to

¼of

totaltusk

leng

thisho

llow

dueto

thepresence

ofthepu

lpcavity

(Parker19

79;Steenkampet

al.20

08),makingthispo

rtionof

limiteduseforthe

manufacture

ofbo

wls,which

arecarved

from

asing

lepieceof

ivory.

**Diameter

ofbotto

mof

bowl,such

that

thisisaminim

ummeasurement.

†Measurementtakenat

thelip

ofthetusk

which

isalmostmid-w

aydownthetusk

from

thebase,hencearesm

allerthan

circum

ferenceat

tusk

base.

M=Male;

F=Fem

ale.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

as part of the ‘Megiddo ivories’. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss theheterogeneity of the Megiddo hoard, this hoard also famously contained pieces with strongAegean and Hittite connections, as well as many pieces with Egyptian links (as detailed inFeldman 2009). However, it should be noted that Megiddo Stratum VIIA, which yielded thehoard, is thought to have a Canaanite cultural orientation, the ‘swansong’ of the Canaanite cityof Megiddo (e.g. Mazar 2003; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2009).3 Thus, these close parallels forthe bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath derive from a different (Canaanite) cultural milieu and appar-ently from a slightly earlier phase in the Late Bronze/Iron I transitional period.4

Luxury items such as ivories may have been in circulation for hundreds of years as gifts, tradeitems and plunder, making it often difficult to determine their date of production (e.g. Rehak andYounger 1998). The status of ivory objects as heirlooms no doubt enhanced their status astransmitters of collective memory (e.g. Feldman 2014). For example, a large deposit buriedbeneath Temple E, the Archaic (seventh century BCE) temple at Delos, contained a hoard ofgold, bronze and ivories that included many objects of Mycenaean workmanship as well as twoobjects of Near Eastern character (Hunt 2006, 47–51). The Delos hoard is one of a number ofexamples that illustrate how objects made of valuable materials were selected as foundationdeposits and may have had heirloom status. It is clear that the various objects in the Megiddohoard can be dated to different phases of the Late Bronze Age (fourteenth to twelfth centuryBCE) (e.g. Feldman 2009, 190), even if it is most likely that they were all collected togetherduring the twelfth century BCE (Fischer 2007; Feldman 2009). Since we are currently unawareof any exact parallels to the ivory bowls from well-dated earlier contexts, if a late twelfth-century BCE dating for the Megiddo bowls, and hence for the original production date of the Telles-Safi/Gath ivory bowl, is preferred, its presence in an early eleventh century BCE Philistinecontext may render it an heirloom. If a slightly later dating of Megiddo VIIA is preferred (e.g.Toffolo et al. 2014) then one can suggest that the bowl was deposited at Tell es-Safi/Gath atmore or less the same time as the depositing of the ivories in the Megiddo VIIA cache.

Some of the stylistic and technical features found on the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl were incirculation on different types of ivory objects for quite some time. For example, although theydo not represent precise parallels, the twelve-petal rosette and drill holes appear with a guillocheon a pyxis lid from Tomb 11 at Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimetreos, which dates to the first half of thefourteenth century BCE (South 1997, 32, fig. 15). Among the numerous ivories in LH II-IIIAchamber tombs around Mycenae catalogued by Poursat (1977), there is a pyxis lid from Tomb520 with an eight-petalled rosette in the centre, encircled by a frieze of eight snails. The rim isencircled by drill holes, but their function is not discussed (Poursat 1977, 103, 327/6514, pl. 34).

Two additional ivory bowls were reported from terminal Late Bronze/early Iron I contexts atTell el-Farah (South), in Tomb 984 (Macdonald, Starkey, and Harding 1932, pl. 56, 984, pl. 57,387; on the dating of this tomb, see Laemmel 2003, 371) and at Beth Shean, NorthernCemetery, in Tomb 7 (Oren 1973, 122).5 While these bowls are not identical to the Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddo bowls, they might be seen as ‘slavish’ copies of similar high-qualityproducts. Although the Tell el-Farah (South) and Beth Shean bowls come from very differentcontexts (tombs), their overall form (shallow, rounded bowls), their incised decorations (wavylines, concentric circles) on rim and interior and the presence of a single bar handle (in the Tellel-Farah example), all seem to indicate that they (along with the Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddobowls) are representations of a generic type of bowl found in Late Bronze/early Iron I Canaan.Thus, these objects may represent a particular southern Levantine tradition in ivory production

12 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

dating to the very end of the Late Bronze Age and perhaps the beginning of the Iron Age (seeKantor 1956; Barnett 1982, 26, for discussions of the various regional/cultural productiontraditions during the LB, including that of Canaan).

The appearance in an early Philistine context (Tell es-Safi/Gath, early Stratum A5) of an ivorybowl whose closest parallels come from a late Canaanite context (Megiddo, Stratum VIIA) is tobe seen as an additional instance of the entangled nature of this culture. Not only did Canaanitefeatures appear in the earliest phases of the Philistine culture (e.g. Yasur-Landau 2012), theycontinued to influence the development of Philistine crafts during the Iron Age I. Ben-Shlomoand Dothan (2006, 2) observed that Philistine ivories from Tel Miqne-Ekron, a site very close toTell es-Safi/Gath, show a blend of Canaanite, Aegean and Egyptian influences.

Two key pieces of evidence for understanding the cultural context of the Tell es-Safi/Gath ivorybowl come from Philistia. On the one hand, Dothan (1967, 161–3, 1982, 185–8) noted years agothat a bar-handled, shallow ceramic bowl type attested in the ‘Bichrome’ (= Philistine 2) stage ofPhilistine pottery (Fig. 7) has very clear parallels with the ivory bowls from Megiddo (and thuswith our bowl as well). Although the Megiddo ivory bowls pre-date the appearance of PhilistineBichrome pottery at Megiddo, the presence of similar forms and decorations in both media (ivoryand ceramics) may denote a close interaction among the craftsmen preparing objects of thesedifferent materials. These similarities (such as the bar handle, whose basic shape is common inwood and ivory objects) may even indicate some level of cultural interface between Canaanite

Figure 7 Bar-handled Bichrome (Philistine 2) bowl from Azor (after Dothan 1982, fig. 54: 2; reproducedby permission of the Israel Exploration Society).

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

artisans producing the ivory bowls and the Philistine potters producing the Bichrome pottery,though it is possible that the Philistine potters simply saw such ivory bowls in circulation andcopied them.

A second piece of evidence for understanding the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl is a pair of Iron AgeIA (twelfth-century BCE) ivory covers (Dothan 2003). One of them is regarded by Ben-Shlomoand Dothan (2006, 28) as combining Aegean and Canaanite features. It is a large, thin lid withanimals encircling an eight-petal rosette and was identified as the cover of a pyxis (Ben-Shlomoand Dothan 2006, 17–18, fig. 11). The second cover is decorated with a similar motif to the Telles-Safi/Gath bowl – a twelve petal lotus-rosette surrounded by what look like five concentriccircles with two perforated square handles. In light of the holes on the rims of the Megiddo andTell es-Safi/Gath bowls, it might very well be that they were closed by similar covers.

The biography of the Tell es-Safi bowl

It is possible that the ivory bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath, and maybe also those from Megiddo,began as parts of a single elephant tusk traded from Africa to a royal or elite building in Cyprus,the Levant or Syria. In one of these locales, most probably somewhere in Canaan, the tusk wasprocessed in a workshop where an apprentice sawed it into sections, then passed them to amaster ivory carver who turned them into a set of similarly-shaped bowls of gradually decreas-ing size, but with similar decoration.

It can be assumed that the shape, design, raw material and rarity of the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowlmade it a special object. Feldman (2014) suggests that, in contemporary and neighbouringregions of the Mediterranean and Near East, luxury objects of ivory and metal were prized fortheir qualities, a notion that Gell (1999) calls ‘enchantment’ – that is, the viewers and users ofthese objects were captivated by their features, such as their design, their interactions with light,their feel against the skin and so on. Specifically, ivory was valued for its whiteness, allure,attractiveness, exotic origins, durability, tactile qualities, sheen, gloss and rarity (Rehak andYounger 1998, 241; Feldman 2014). In Homer, ivory serves as a metaphor for very white skin:Penelope becomes ‘whiter than sawn ivory’ (Carter 1985, 14). In the Bible (I Kings xxii, 39),the significant acts of the reign of Ahab include ‘the ivory house which he made’, a possiblereference to ivory-panelled cedar wood, which is thought to have decorated his palace inSamaria (Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938, 1).

The value of ivory is also indicated by the fact that ivory objects frequently changed hands,and might finish their lives being re-purposed in workshops as components of hoards or ritualdeposits hundreds of years after their initial manufacture. Because ivory was so valuable, we canassume that the finished Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddo bowls, upon being returned to their elitepatron, may have been displayed as examples of wealth and specialized knowledge, or they mayhave been traded, distributed as gifts or used in rituals. If the Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddobowls come from the same tusk (and thus from the same workshop), then most of them endedup in the Megiddo hoard soon after their production in the twelfth century BCE. The Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl may also have initially been intended for display, exchange, gift-giving or ritual, but,whatever its original purpose, it ended up in a ritual deposit.

Thus, at a certain point in its life, the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl was separated from the others inits set. The value placed on this single vessel may be reflected in the context in which it was

14 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

discovered, in that it was embedded in a specially manufactured plaster-like feature andintentionally interred below a wall, indicating that the bowl itself had a high intrinsic value.Several possible interpretations of the function of such a deposit can be suggested.

The interpretation of the bowl favoured by us is as a ‘foundation deposit’ connected to theconstruction or repair of the wall or building underneath which it once lay. The bowl would thenrepresent a curated object that was used in a ritual act or used to maintain a symbolic relation-ship between the building and its inhabitants in periods of renewal through its deposition (onfoundation deposits in general, see, e.g., Ellis 1968; Weinstein 1973; Herva 2005). Suchdeposits in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite world (and in Iron I Philistia as well) usuallyconsisted of a ceramic bowl containing a lamp and covered by another bowl (e.g. Bunimovitzand Zimhoni 1993; for examples from Late Bronze Age Tell es-Safi/Gath, see Shai, Uziel, andMaeir 2012, 229; for an example from Iron I Philistine Ashkelon, see Stager et al. 2008, 272–4).

In the Aegean, the objects included in building deposits do not follow a pattern, but tend to beheterogeneous (Herva 2005, 216). Many building deposits in the Aegean included fragmentaryobjects. In fact, Herva (2005, 222) suggests that objects found in Minoan building deposits mayhave been made to be broken intentionally before deposition. In both Cyprus and the Aegean, suchdeposits might also be placed in walls to mark repairs to a room (Dikaios 1969, 295–6; Herva 2005,217; Hitchcock, Horwitz, and Maeir forthcoming). Herva (2005; also Hunt 2006, 190–7) furtherargues that the deposition of objects in buildings was the beginning of a new phase in the object’sbiography, rather than the end of its life – a phase in which it might serve to maintain positive relationswith ancestral and/or underworld spirits that resided in the site, or to create a positive relationshipbetween the building and its inhabitants, or to maintain continuity with the past. Joy’s (2009, 545; seealso Hunt 2006, 199) approach to object biography seeks to identify and articulate the relationshipbetween objects and people, suggesting that the act of deposition may have established a continuing,symbolic link between the building and the person/group who deposited the bowl. Although ivoryobjects and other precious materials characterized foundation deposits in Iron Age Greece (Hunt2006), we do not claim that our object follows an Aegean pattern, since there was none. Rather, thebowl, its context, the people who interred it and its possible function are all manifestations of theentangled nature of the Philistine culture.

Another possible interpretation of intentionally interred special objects is expressed by Hunt (2006,191–6; see also Levtow 2013) based on Mesopotamian, Hittite, Egyptian and Greek literature andrituals. She suggests that the burial of precious itemsmay have served as a gift to a deity or deities or asan act to purify the land. Thus, the ivory bowl deposited under the wall at Tell es-Safi/Gath may havebeen performing the same ritual function as suggested by Feldman (2009) for the Megiddo ivories,albeit on a smaller scale. Its value may have advertised the status of the giver at a time when rivalfactions were competing for prestige or status, as demonstrated by Mesopotamian and Egyptian kingswho sometimes reburied older foundation deposits with their own (Hunt 2006, 197). It is possible thatour bowl represents a variation on that theme: the depositor may have been referencing depositionalpractices, such as those at Megiddo, through demonstrating his/her specialized knowledge of thispractice.

A third, possibly related, interpretation relies on the fact that ivory bowls and pyxides, as wellas stone and ceramic ones, were frequently used as containers for unguents (scented lipids),which served multiple ritual roles: they were offered to deceased ancestors, consumed as aprelude to feasts, used to anoint cloth or as a mode of communication to attract a deity and werealso used in purification (Barnett 1975, 190; Brize 1992, 165; Fappas 2008; Gansell 2008, 219;

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Mazow 2014, 44). Although it was not possible to test the Tell es-Safi/Gath bowl for organicresidue, it is distinctly possible that it contained unguents at the time of its deposition. The bowland its contents may then have aided in maintaining positive relations with divine or ancestralspirits associated with the architecture in Area A.

Conclusions

Although different regional styles existed (Barnett 1982; Fitton 1992), many ivory objects fromthe Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in the Mediterranean region appear to have been‘entangled’ items from the very beginning of their production, and through the various stagesof their consumption and use (e.g. Feldman 2014; Stockhammer 2012; Hitchcock and Maeir2013; Rainbird 1999), in that they display stylistic elements from more than one region orculture (Rehak and Younger 1998). Such objects may be seen as promoting multi-regional eliteidentities (Feldman 2002, 6–7) as well as serving to bind disparate groups of elites together(Feldman 2006, 7). Although Ben-Shlomo and Dothan (2006, 28) regard many of the LateBronze Age II ivories in the southern Levant as gifts from Egyptian officials to their Canaanitecounterparts, the iconography and find-spots of the bowls place them within the southernLevantine tradition of ivory production that marked the very end of the Late Bronze AgeCanaanite culture.

As the parallels to the bowl in both ivory and ceramics are found only in terminal LateBronze Age/Early Iron Age Canaan and Philistia, the bowl was most likely produced in Canaan.Nevertheless, we cannot completely reject the possibility that it was manufactured elsewhere,such as in Cyprus, where ivory working seems to have been uninterrupted by the events thatended the Bronze Age, as there is strong evidence that the repertoires of images were freelyexchanged among all parts of the east Mediterranean (e.g. Rehak and Younger 1998, 230, 254).While a Cypriot production for the bowls is thus theoretically possible, we have no evidence tosupport this notion.

It is likely that the bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath was part of what was already an entangledtradition of production and consumption, as object biographies become increasingly complexthrough the process of circulation (Joy 2009, 541). Whether the bowl was curated for a fewdecades before deposition, or even if it was deposited at the same time as the sealing of theMegiddo ivory cache (as the lower dating of Megiddo VIIA suggests: Toffolo et al. 2014), thisindicates that such objects were of symbolic significance in the Philistine culture, and constituteyet another example of the incorporation of traditions and facets of broad significance from theinternationalized world of the preceding Late Bronze Age.

As noted in our discussion, most high-quality ivory objects in the Late Bronze and Early IronAges come from elite contexts, where they functioned as transnational Mediterranean artefactspar excellence (e.g. Ross 2012). Herrmann and Millard (2003) and Feldman (2006) note thatsuch objects were most probably used in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, as in other parts ofthe Mediterranean, in the context of elite exchange. The location of the bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath is thus of interest: either it is part of an elite building that was disturbed by laterconstruction or it is an example of how such objects could be appropriated for use in contextsthat were not specifically related to elite social strata.

16 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Perhaps this bowl may be seen as an example of spoil taken from a Canaanite context andcurated for some years at a Philistine site. Two of the authors have argued elsewhere (Hitchcockand Maeir 2014) that some of the Sea Peoples might be understood as pirate tribes whoplundered the great centres of the Bronze Age before settling in various parts of theMediterranean. Following this idea, we raise the possibility that the Tell es-Safi/Gath ivorybowl may have been part of the spoils of such activities, perhaps similar to the ivories that werestrewn across a courtyard and scattered about the palace at Ugarit following its looting in c.1185 BCE (Feldman 2009, with further references).

Another possibility is that the bowl from Tell es-Safi/Gath reached Philistia as part of thecultural interactions among various parts of the Southern Levant (e.g. Master 2009), which wereunder the influence of different cultural milieux – the cultural interactions in this case beingbetween largely Canaanite Megiddo VIIA and the entangled culture of Iron I Philistia.

Whatever the mechanism by which the ivory bowl arrived at Tell es-Safi/Gath, the stories thataccumulated through the curation and display of this bowl, or others like it, may have inspiredthe ceramic copies found in the Philistine 2 pottery period. Finally, the bowl may have been putto use as a ritual deposit during the construction or renewal of an early Philistine wall orbuilding at Tell es-Safi/Gath. But its life did not end there, as its rediscovery continues to elicitwonder, curiosity and pride.

Acknowledgements

AMM would like to thank Dr J. Green and the staff of the Oriental Institute Museum forassistance with the inspection of the Megiddo finds (conducted in April 2014), and Ms AlegreSaraviego, curator of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, for facilitating the examination ofone of the Megiddo bowls in the museum (Sept. 2014). The authors would also like to thank:Mr Ron Kehati for assistance in the field; Dr Marian Feldman for drawing our attention to theMegiddo parallels; Dr Ursula Wehrmeister and colleagues of the Institute of Geosciences –Centre of Gemstone Research – Biomineralisation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, forgeochemical analyses of the bowl; and the staff and team members of the Ackerman FamilyBar-Ilan University Expedition to Gath for their devoted work and assistance in the field andduring post-excavation processing. The ivory bowl was expertly conserved by Ms Gali Beinerof the National Natural History Collections, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Finally, wewould like to thank the editor of this issue, Paul Lane, and the anonymous reviewers, for varioussuggestions and comments which improved this paper substantially.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Funding

The excavations and research described in this article are funded by: the Australian ResearchCouncil [Discovery Project no. 1093713 to LAH], the Australian Archaeological Institute,Athens (to LAH) and the Israel Science Foundation Individual Research [under grant number100/13 to AMM].

Aren M. MaeirBar-Ilan University

arenmaeir@gmail.com

Brent DavisUniversity of Melbourne

Liora Kolska HorwitzHebrew University of Jerusalem

Yotam AsscherWeizmann Institute of Science

Louise A. HitchcockUniversity of Melbourne

Notes

1 In order to assess whether the ivory bowls from Tell es-Safi/Gath and Megiddo, couldpossibly derive from a single tusk, we used the following calculations: (a) the height of theivory bowl from Safi (2.2cm) was used as an estimated height for all the ivory bowls, so thattogether all ten bowls required an absolute minimum of 22cm of ivory for their manufacture;(b) using the circumference of the largest bowl Megiddo A22356 (50.2cm) we appliedcorrelations calculated by Parker (1979, Figs 44, 46) for circumference, age and tusk weight.Based on this, we estimate that such a tusk derives from a bull elephant aged at least 50years and from a tusk weighing at least 45kg, which falls in the top-most size class ofParker’s modern Loxodonta africana africana samples from East Africa, and is equivalent toa tusk length of at least 250cm (Pilgram and Western 1986, Fig. 1). Average tusk length formodern bulls of Loxodonta africana africana is given as 250cm (Parker 1979, 148). Thiswas probably a minimum length for bull tusks in antiquity as demonstrated by the greatersize of the finds from Uluburun and Mycenae (Table 1); (c) subtracting from total tusk length(250cm), the minimum amount of ivory needed for manufacture of ten bowls of 2.2cmheight (total 22cm), as well as 30cm, which is the estimated length of an average pulp cavity,the hollow portion of the tusk that cannot be used to manufacture a bowl, in Loxodontaafricana africana (Steenkamp et al. 2008) would still leave 198cm of tusk. These calcula-tions, although based on averaged size estimations, illustrate the feasibility of our claim thatall ten bowls could have been carved from a single, very large tusk.

2 They are mentioned very briefly by Barnett (1982, 26, n. 82), but are omitted in mostdescriptions of the finds from the hoard (e.g. Decamps de Mertzenfeld 1954; Kantor 1956;Fischer 2007; Feldman 2009; Novacek 2011).

18 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

3 Although Dothan (1982, 70–6) had suggested that Philistine Bichrome (Philistine 2) potteryderived from this stage, Mazar (1985) clearly demonstrated that this is not so, and thispottery belongs to the next level, Stratum VIB.

4 While Megiddo, Stratum VIIA, is usually dated to the late twelfth century BCE, Toffolo et al.(2014) have recently suggested a slightly later date – sometime in the early eleventh centuryBCE. However, this does not change the stylistic dating of the ivories.

5 Although it was assumed in the past that the extensive production of ivory objects ceased inthe twelfth century BCE and was substantially renewed only a century or two later (e.g.Barnett 1982, 46), the numerous examples from the late twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE

(e.g. Tell es-Safi/Gath, Megiddo [Loud 1939], Beth Shean, Tell el-Farah [South] [Fischer2011], Lachish [Barnett 1982], Tel Miqne-Ekron [Ben-Shlomo and Dothan 2006], Qasile[Mazar 1985, 10–14], Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke [Åström 1992, 101]) clearly demon-strate a continuity of ivory production between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Most likely,such production enabled the retention of Late Bronze Age traditions in later Iron Agecontexts (e.g. Feldman 2012, 2014; Caubet 2013).

References

Appadurai, A., ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Åström, P. 1992. “Ivories from Hala Sultan Tekke.” In Ivory in Greece and the Eastern Mediterraneanfrom the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period, edited by J. L. Fitton, 101–4. British Museum OccasionalPaper 85. London: British Museum Publications.

Baines, J., and N. Yoffee. 1998. “Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt.” In Archaic States,edited by G. Feinman and J. Marcus, 199–260. New Directions in Archaeology. Santa Fe: SAR Press.

Banerjee, A., G. Bortolaso, and W. Dindorf. 2008. “Distinction between African and Asian Ivory.”In Elfenbein Nd Artenschutz (Ivory and Species Conservation), edited by G. Bortolaso, 37–49. Bonn:INCENTIVS-Tagungsbeiträge (2004-2007), BfN-Skripten 228.

Barnett, R. D. 1975. A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories. London: The British Museum.

Barnett, R. D. 1982. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Becker, C. 2005. “Small Numbers, Large Potential—New Prehistoric Finds of Elephant and Beaver fromthe Khabur River/Syria.” Munibe 57: 445–56.

Becker, C. 2008. “Die tierknochenfunde aus Tall Seh Hamad/Dur-Katlimmu: eine zoogeographisch-haustierkundliche studie.” In Umwelt und Subsitenz der Assyrischen Stadt Dur-Katlimmu amUnteren Habur, edited by H. Kuhne, 61–132, BATSH 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Ben-Shlomo, D. and T. Dothan. 2006. “Ivories from Philistia: Filling the Iron Age I Gap.” IsraelExploration Journal 56 (1): 1–38.

Brize, P. 1992. “New Ivories from the Samian Heraion.” In Ivory in Greece and the EasternMediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period, edited by J. L. Fitton, 163–72.British Museum Occasional Paper 85. London: British Museum Publications.

Brysbaert, A. 2007. “Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions during the Aegean and EasternMediterranean Late Bronze Age.” In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by S. Antoniadou and A. Pace,32–59. Athens: Pierides Museum.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Bunimovitz, S. and O. Zimhoni. 1993. “Lamp and Bowl Foundation Deposits in Canaan.” IsraelExploration Journal 43 (2/3): 99–125.

Carter, J. B. 1985. Greek Ivory-Carving in the Orientalizing and Archaic Periods. New York: GarlandPublishing.

Caubet, A. 2013. “Working Ivory in Syria and Anatolia During the Late Bronze-Iron Age.” In Acrossthe Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia: Proceedsings of aSymposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, edited by K. A. Yener, KoçUniversity, Istanbul, May 31–June 1, 2010, 449–63. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42.Leuven: Peeters.

Caubet, A. and F. Poplin. 2010. “Réflexions sur la question de l’éléphant syrien.” In Dur-Katlimmu 2008and Beyond, Studia Chaburensia I, edited by H. Kühne, 1–9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Colon, D. 1977. “Ivory.” Iraq 39, 219–22.

Crowfoot, J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot. 1938. Early Ivories from Samaria. London: Palestine ExplorationFund.

Cutler, A. 1985. The Craft of Ivory: Sources, Techniques, and Uses in the, Mediterranean World, A.D.200–1400. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 8. Washington, DC: Dumbarton OaksResearch Library and Collection.

Decamps de Mertzenfeld, C. 1954. Inventaire commenté des ivoires phéniciens et apparentés découvertsdans le Proche-Orient. Paris: De Boccard.

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1955. Some Extinct Elephants, Their Relatives and the Two Living Species. Ceylon:Government Press.

Dikaios, P. 1969. Enkomi, Excavations 1948-58. Volume I: The Architectural Remains, The Tombs. Mainzam Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Dothan, T. 1967. The Philistines and Their Material Culture (In Hebrew with English Abstract). Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society.

Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Dothan, T. 2003. “A Decorated Ivory Lid from Tel Miqne-Ekron.” Eretz Israel 27: 83–90.

Eliyahu-Behar, A., N. Yahalom-Mack, S. Shilstein, A. Zukerman, C. Shafer-Elliott, A. M. Maeir, E.Boaretto, I. Finkelstein, and S. Weiner. 2012. “Iron and Bronze Production in Iron Age IIA Philistia:New Evidence from Tell Es-Safi/Gath, Israel.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 255–67.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.002.

Ellis, R. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. Yale Near Eastern Researches 2. NewHaven, CT: Yale University.

Espinoza, E. O. and M.-J. Mann. 1991. Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes. Washington,DC: World Wildlife Fund. http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory.php

Espinoza, E. O., and M.-J. Mann. 1993. “The History and Significance of the Schreger Pattern inProboscidean Ivory Characterization.” Jaic 32 (3): 241–48. Article 3. http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic32-03-003.html

Evely, D. 1992. “Towards an Elucidation of the Ivory-Worker’s Took Kit in Neopalatial Crete.” In Ivory inGreece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period, edited by J. L.Fitton, 7–16. British Museum Occasional Paper 85. London: British Museum Publications.

Fappas, I. 2008. “The Use of Perfumed Oils during Feasting Activities: A Comparison of Mycenaean andNear Eastern Written Sources”. In DAIS: The Aegean Feast, Proceedings of the 12th International AegeanConference University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, March 25–29, edited by L. A.Hitchcock, R. Laffineur, and J. Crowley, 367–76. Aegaeum 29. Liège: University of Liège.

20 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Feldman, M. H. 2002. “Luxurious Forms: Redefining a Mediterranean “International Style,“ 1400–1200 B.C.E.” The Art Bulletin 84 (1): 6–27. doi:10.2307/3177251.

Feldman, M. H. 2006. Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an “International Style” in the Ancient NearEast, 1400–1200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feldman, M. H. 2009. “Hoarded Treasures: The Megiddo Ivories and the End of the Bronze Age.” Levant41 (2): 175–94. doi:10.1179/007589109X12484491671130.

Feldman, M. H. 2012. “The Practical Logic of Style and Memory in Early First Millennium LevantineIvories.” In Materiality and Social Practice: Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, editedby J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer, 198–212. Oxford: Oxbow.

Feldman, M. H. 2014. Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity and Collective Memory in theIron Age Levant. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Finkelstein, I. and E. Piasetzky. 2009. “Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A Skeleton for Iron AgeChronology in the Levant.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28: 255–74. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2009.00328.x.

Fischer, E. 2007. Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus Megiddo und Lachisch: Inschriftenfunde,Flaschen, Löffel. OAT 47. Münster: Ugarit-verlag.

Fischer, E. 2011. Tell el-Far’ah (Süd): Ägyptisch-levantinische Beziehungen im späten 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 247. Friburg: Academic Press Friburg.

Fitton, J. L., ed. 1992. Ivory in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to theHellenistic Period. British Museum Occasional Paper 85. London: The British Museum.

Fleischer, R., E. Perry, K. Muralidharan, E. Stevens, and C. Wemmer. 2001. “Phylogeography of the AsianElephant (Elephas Maximus) Based on Mitochondrial DNA.” Evolution 55: 1882–92. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00837.x.

Gachet-Bizollon, J. 2007. Les ivoires d’Ougarit et l’art des ivoiriers du Levant au Bronze Récent. RasShamra-Ougarit 16. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Gansell, A. R. 2008. “Women of Ivory as Embodiments of Ideal Feminine Beauty in the ancient Near Eastduring the First Millennium BCE.” PhD diss., Harvard University.

Gell, A. 1999. “The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology.” In The Art ofAnthropology: Essays and Diagrams, edited by E. Hirsch, 159–86. London School of EconomicsMonographs on Social Anthropology 67. Oxford: Berg.

Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall. 1999. “The Cultural Biography of Objects.” World Archaeology 31 (2):169–78.

Green, J. N. 1986. “The Survey of the VOC fluit Risdam (1727), Malaysia.” International Journal ofNautical Archaeology 15 (2): 93–104. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.1986.tb00558.x.

Hachmann, R., ed. 1996. “Das Königsgrab von Kâmid el-Lôz und die Königsbräber der mittleren undspäten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit im Küstengebeit östlich des Mittelmeeres und in Mesopotamien.” InKamid el-Loz 16: ‘Schatzhaus’-Studien, 203–88. Saarbrücker Beitrhge zur Altertemskunde 59. Bonn:Rudolph Habelt Verlag.

Helms, M. W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Herrmann, G. and A. Millard. 2003. “Who Used Ivories in the First Millennium BC?” In Culture ThroughObjects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey, edited by T. Potts, M. Roaf, and D.Stein, 377–402. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Herva, V. P. 2005. “The Life of Buildings: Minoan Building Deposits in an Ecological Perspective.”Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24: 215–27. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2005.00233.x.

Hitchcock, L. A., L. K. Horwitz, and A. M. Maeir. forthcoming. “One Philistines Trash is anArchaeologist’s Treasure.” Paper under Review in Near Eastern Archaeology.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Hitchcock, L. A. and A. M. Maeir. 2013. Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entangled and TransculturalIdentities in Philistia.” Archaeological Review From Cambridge 28 (1): 51–72.

Hitchcock, L. A. and A. M. Maeir. 2014. “Yo Ho, Yo Ho: A Seren’s Life for Me!” World Archaeology 46(4): 624–40.

Hunt, G. R. 2006. “Foundation Rituals and the Culture of Building in Ancient Greece.” PhD diss.,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Jakubinek, M. B., C. J. Samarasekera, and M. A. White. 2006. “Elephant Ivory: A Low ThermalConductivity, High Strength Nanocomposite.” Journal of Materials Research 21 (1): 287–92.doi:10.1557/jmr.2006.0029.

Joy, J. 2009. “Reinvigorating Object Biography: Reproducing the Drama of Object Lives.” WorldArchaeology 41 (4): 540–56. doi:10.1080/00438240903345530.

Kantor, H. J. 1956. “Syro‐Palestinian Ivories.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15: 153–74.

Krzyszkowska, O. and R. Morkot. 2000. “Ivory and Related Materials.” In Ancient Egyptian Materials andTechnology, edited by P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, 320–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laemmel, S. 2003. “A Case Study of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Cemeteries of Tell el-Fara’ah(South).” Unpublished PhD diss., University of Oxford, Oxford.

Levtow, N. 2013. “Artifact Burial in the Ancient Near East.” In: The One Who Sows Bountifully: Essays inHonor of Stanley K. Stowers, C. J. Hodge, S. M. Olyan, D. Ullucci, and E. Wasserman edited by, BrownJudaic Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Lister, A. M., W. Dirks, A. Assaf, M. Chazan, P. Goldberg, Y. H. Applbaum, N. Greenbaum, and L. K.Horwitz. 2013. “New Fossil Remains of Elephas from the Southern Levant: Implications for theEvolutionary History of the Asian Elephant.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 386:119–30. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.05.013.

Loud, G. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. Oriental Institute Publications 52. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute.

Macdonald, E., J. Starkey, and L. Harding. 1932. Beth-Pelet II: Prehistoric Fara, Beth-Pelet Cemetery.London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Maeir, A. M. 2005. ““Philister-Keramik“.” In Reallexikon Der Assyriologie Und VorderasiatischenArchäologie, Band 14, edited by G. Frantz-Szabo and U. Hellwag, 528–36. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Maeir, A. M., ed. 2012. Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Ägypten und AltesTestament 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Maeir, A. M. 2013. “Gath.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology, edited by D. M.Master, 443–51. New York: Oxford.

Maeir, A. M., L. A. Hitchcock, and L. K. Horwitz. 2013. “On the Constitution and Transformation ofPhilistine Identity.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32 (1): 1–38.

Master, D. 2009. “The Renewal of Trade at Iron Age I Ashkelon.” Eretz Israel (Ephraim Stern Volume) 28:111–122.

Mazar, A. 1985. “The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture.” Israel Exploration Journal 35:95–107.

Mazar, A. 2003. Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: From Canaanite Town to EgyptianStronghold. Pp. 323–39 in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in theSecond Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May-7thof May 2001, edited by M. Bietak. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften derGesamtakademie, Band XXIX. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Mazow, L. B. 2014. “The Root of the Problem: On the Relationship between Wool Processing and LanolinProduction.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27 (1): 33–50.

22 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies in Past and Present. London: Berg.

Miller, R. 1986. “Elephants, Ivory, and Charcoal: An Ecological Perspective.” Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 264: 29–43.

Moorey, P. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford:Clarendon.

Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. London: Johns Hopkins Press.

Morin, V. 1969. “L’objet Biographique.” Communications 13: 131–39. doi:10.3406/comm.1969.1189.

Namdar, D., A. Gilboa, R. Neumann, I. Finkelstein, and S. Weiner. 2013. “Cinnamaldehyde in Early IronAge Phoenician Flasks Raises the Possibility of Levantine Trade with South East Asia.” MediterraneanArchaeology and Archaeometry 12 (3): 1–19.

Nocete, F., J. M. Vargas, T. X. Schuhmacher, A. Banerjee, and W. Dindorf. 2013. “The Ivory Workshop ofValencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) and the Identification of Ivory from Asian Elephant on theIberian Peninsula in the First Half of the 3rd Millennium BC.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40:1579–92. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.028.

Novacek, G. 2011. Ancient Israel: Highlights from the Collections of the Oriental Institute of theUniversity of Chicago. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 31. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of theUniversity of Chicago.

Oren, E. D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shean. Philadelphia, PA: University Museum.

Parker, I. S. C. 1979. The Ivory Trade. Unpublished Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Serviceof the Department of the Interior, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources. Morge: University of Florida digital collections. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00020117/00002

Pfälzner, P. 2013. “The Elephant Hunters of Bronze Age Syria.” In Cultures in Contact from Mesopotamiato the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C, edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff, and Y. Rakic, 112–31.New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Pilgram, T. and D. Western. 1986. “Inferring the Sex and Age of African Elephants from TuskMeasurements.” Biological Conservation 36: 39–52. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(86)90100-X.

Platon, N. 1985. Zakros: The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

Poursat, J.-C. 1977. Catalogue des Ivoires Mycéniens du Musée National d’athènes. Athènes: ÉcoleFrançaise d’Athèns.

Pulak, C. 2008. “The Uluburun Shipwreck and the Late Bronze Age Trade.” In Beyond Babylon: Art,Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C, edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel, and J. M. Evans, 288–305. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Rainbird, P. 1999. “Entangled Biographies: Western Pacific Ceramics and the Tombs of Pohnpei.” WorldArchaeology 31 (2): 214–24.

Regev, L., K. M. Poduska, L. Addadi, S. Weiner, and E. Boaretto. 2010. “Distinguishing between CalcitesFormed by Different Mechanisms Using Infrared Spectrometry: Archaeological Applications.” Journal ofArchaeological Science 37 (12): 3022–29. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.027.

Rehak, P. and J. Younger. 1998. “International Styles in the Ivory Carving in the Bronze Age.” In TheAegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary SymposiumCincinnati, April 18–20, 1997, edited by E. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, 229–56. Aegaeum 18. Liège:University of Liège.

Rohland, N., D. Reich, S. Mallick, M. Meyer, R. E. Green, N. J. Georgiadis, A. L. Roca, and M. Hofreiter.2010. “Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forestand Savanna Elephants.” PLoS Biol 8 (12): e1000564. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000564.

Ross, D. E. 2012. “Transnational Artifacts: Grappling with Fluid Material Origins and Identities inArchaeological Interpretations of Culture Change.” Journal of American Archaeology 31: 38–48.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Shai, I., J. Uziel, and A. M. Maeir. 2012. “The Architecture and Stratigraphy of Area E: Strata E1-E5.” InTell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons, edited by A. Maeir. Ägypten und Altes Testament69, 221–33. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Sherratt, A., and S. Sherratt. 1991. “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean BronzeAge Trading Systems.” In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. Gale, 351–86. Studies inMediterranean Archaeology. Jonsered: P. Åstrom.

Singh, R. R., S. P. Goyal, P. P. Khanna, P. K. Mukherjee, and R. Sukumar. 2006. “Using Morphometric andAnalytical Techniques to Characterize Elephant Ivory.” Forensic Science International 162 (1–3): 144–51.doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.028.

South, A. 1997. “Late Bronze Age Society in Cyprus.” Minerva 8 (2): 28–33.

Stager, L. E., J. D. Schloen, D. M. Master, M. D. Press, and A. Aja. 2008. “Part Four: Stratigraphic Overview.”In Ashkelon I, edited by L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D.M.Master, 215–326.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Steenkamp, G., W. H. Ferguson, S. C. Boy, S. M. Ferreira, and M. N. Bester. 2008. “Estimating ExposedPulp Lengths of Tusks in the African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana Africana) : Article.” Journal of theSouth African Veterinary Association 79 (1): 25–30. doi:10.4102/jsava.v79i1.236.

Stockhammer, P. W., ed. 2012. “Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization in Archaeology.” InConceptualizing Cultural Hybridization: A Transdisciplinary Approach, 43–58. Berlin: TransculturalResearch - Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context.

Sukumar, R. 1991. The Asian Elephant. Ecology and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toffolo, M. B., E. Arie, M. A. S. Martin, E. Boaretto, and I. Finkelstein. 2014. “Absolute Chronology ofMegiddo, Israel in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating.” Radiocarbon 56(1): 221–44. doi:10.2458/56.16899.

Tournavitou, I. 1995. The “Ivory Houses” at Mycenae. London: BSA.

Van Neer, W., V. Linseele, and R. Friedman. 2004. “Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the EliteCemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis.” In Egypt at Its Origins, edited by S. Hendrickx, R. Friedman, K.Cialowicz, and M. Chlodnicki, 67–130. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters Publishing.

Vila, E. 2010. “The Elephant in Syria: An importation from the Middle Asia? Some Considerations about aFinding of Elephant Bones at Mishrife/Qatna in Late Bronze Age Syria.” Abstract of paper presented at the11th ICAZ Meeting, Paris, August 23–28. http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/items/show/1632

Weinstein, J. M. 1973. “Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt.” Unpublished PhD diss., University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Welsch, B., E. R. Jacobson, G. V. Kollias, L. Kramer, H. Gardner, and C. D. Page. 1989. “Tusk Extractionin the African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana).” Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 20 (4): 446–53.

Winter, I. 1973. “North Syria in the Early First Millennium B.C., with Special Reference to IvoryCarving.” Doctoral diss., Columbia University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Winter, I. J. 2005. “Establishing Group Boundaries: Toward Methodological Refinement in theDetermination of Sets as a Prior Condition to the Analysis of Culture Contact and/or Innovation in FirstMillennium BCE Ivory Carving.” In Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Artof the First Millennium BCE, edited by C. Suter and C. Uehlinger, 23–42. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 210.Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press.

Yasur-Landau, A. 2012. “The Role of the Canaanite Population in the Aegean Migration to the SouthernLevant in the Late Second Millennium BCE.” In Materiality and Social Practice: TransformativeCapacities of Intercultural Encounters, edited by J. Maran and P. W. Stockhammer, 191–7. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

24 A. M. Maeir et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Yotam Asscher is a PhD candidate in archaeological sciences at the Weizmann Institute ofScience. His work focuses on the absolute chronology of the Bronze to Iron Age transitionunder the supervision of Dr Elisabetta Boaretto and Professor Steve Weiner. He graduated fromTel Aviv University with a BSc in chemistry in 2006, an MS in archaeology in 2014 and anMSc in chemistry from the Weizmann Institute in 2011. Some of his more recent works explorebone-like material structures and applications to assess their preservation state in archaeology.He has been awarded the 2012 ADAR Foundation Scholarship and the 2012 Salim and RachelBenin Foundation Scholarship.

Brent Davis completed his PhD in 2011 at the University of Melbourne on Minoan ritualvessels and Linear A, the undeciphered script of the Minoans, published in 2014 as Aegaeum36. With a background in both archaeology and linguistics, his interests include the ancientcultures of the eastern Mediterranean and their languages and scripts. He is an adjunct lecturerin archaeology and ancient Egyptian at the University of Melbourne. He has undertaken severalyears of fieldwork at Tell-es Safi/Gath (Israel), where he is an assistant area supervisor.

Louise Hitchcock is Associate Professor of Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology in the Classicsand Archaeology Program at the University of Melbourne. She is the author of MinoanArchitecture: A Contextual Analysis, Theory for Classics, and Aegean Art and Architecture(with Donald Preziosi), numerous articles dealing with Aegean archaeology, architecture andtheory; and is the co-editor of DAIS: The Aegean Feast, Aegeum 29. Her current research dealswith Aegean, Cypriot and Philistine connections, and she is an area supervisor at Tell es-Safi/Gath.

Liora Kolska Horwitz is a freelance zooarchaeologist affiliated with the Hebrew University ofJerusalem, and holds degrees from University of Cape Town (BA and BA Hons), the HebrewUniversity (MA) and the University of Tel Aviv (PhD). She has published extensively on thearchaeozoology of Israel and has wide-ranging field experience on both Israeli and SouthAfrican archaeological sites. She is responsible for archaeozoology of the Late Bronze-IronAge strata at Tell es-Safi, and co-directs the Wonderwerk Cave and Kathu Pan projects(Northern Cape Province, South Africa).

Aren Maeir is Professor of Archaeology in the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of IsraelStudies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel. Since 1996, he hasdirected the Tell es-Safi/Gath archaeological project in Israel. He is the author of ‘In theMidst of the Jordan’: The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1500BCE): Archaeological and Historical Correlates (Vienna, 2010 and has edited several volumes,including Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons (Wiesbaden, 2012.

An early Iron Age ivory bowl 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Are

n M

aeir

] at

09:

43 1

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015