more evidence for early bronze age glyptics from the southern levant

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Claire Epstein

Introduction

Ever since the excavations by Sellin and Watzinger(1913) at Jericho, evidence of glyptic production hasbeen appearing regularly in Early Bronze Age(henceforth EB) contexts in the southern Levant.Engberg and Shipton (1934a; 1934b) recognizedseal impressions from Late EB I (erroneously identi-fied as ‘Chalcolithic’) contexts in the MegiddoStages and identified them as of foreign (i.e.‘Sumerian’) origin. It was only with the work ofBeck (1967; 1975), followed by Ben-Tor (1978)that a genuine appreciation of the importance ofsouth Levantine glyptics within a greater sphere ofNear Eastern artistic endeavors came about. Sincethese scholars’ seminal works on the subject, anever-expanding corpus of EBA glyptic relatedobjects (e.g. Greenberg 1992; Ben-Tor 1993a;1994; Chesson et al. 1995, fig. 3: 17–18; deMiroschedji 1997; Stepansky 1999, pl. II: 4; Sass2000, fig. 12: 45) continues to increase our knowl-edge of parochial south Levantine artistic endeavors.The following is a small collection of additionalexamples, all derived from salvage and rescue exca-vations at EBA sites in Israel.

The sites

The sites that yielded these objects are, with oneexception, located in northern Israel (Fig. 1). Me'ona,

in Western Galilee, is known from a series of briefrescue and salvage projects (Braun 1996; 1999; inpress), to have EB I and EB II occupations. Area Aat Qiryat Ata in Western Galilee, an extensive sitesubjected to numerous small-scale salvage projects(e.g. Golani and Braun 1991; Fantalkin 2000) isknown to have had an EB I and an EB II settlement.Yokne'am, at the junction of Wady Milik and theJezreel Valley, is a tell site with more than a score ofsuperimposed occupations that probably includedseveral of the EBA (Ben-Tor 1993b). Horvat 'IllinTahtit, in south-central Israel, one kilometre east ofTel Beth Shemesh, is known from extensive excava-tion of two superimposed, late EB I villages (Braun1993; Braun and Milevski 1993; Braun and van denBrink 1998), Stratum III, above Stratum IV.

The catalogue

All objects in this paper were recovered in salvageand rescue excavations undertaken by the IsraelAntiquities Authority (henceforth IAA), or serendip-itously by its associates. Accordingly, each artifactwas assigned a unique ‘field registration’ number(not to be confused with a ‘final’ IAA museum orinventory no.) imparting the following information:number of IAA excavation license/number of Locus(i.e. generalized find spot)/number of basket (i.e.specific find spot)/number of object (unique, arbi-trary designation) or a fictitious attribution to anumber, designating uncertain provenience. Allobjects belong to the state collection, stored andadministered by the IAA. The catalogue, arranged

LEVANT 36 2004 Pp. 13–30

13

More Evidence for Early Bronze Age Glyptics from the Southern

Levant

Eliot Braun

Israel Antiquities Authority, PO Box 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel

During much of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant, cylinder seals were used, albeitsparingly, for impressing pottery prior to firing. Actual seals are quite rare for this chrono-culturalmilieu and most evidence derives from impressions on potsherds. This catalogue presents 14additions to a growing corpus of glyptic related objects, seal impressions and bone imitations ofcylinder seals from four sites in Israel. These objects are described in detail and their significancediscussed with reference to the archaeological record and in a context of social development in theEarly Bronze Age.

according to geographical (from north to south) andchronological (from earliest to latest) progressions,deals first with sealings and then with bone bead/seals.

Part A: EB I cylinder seal impressions

1. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 2: 1a-b; Fig. 3: 1). Field Registration No.: 1579/1/121/1 Motif: the motif is known only from a partial sealing,poorly preserved, and is so indistinct that severalinterpretations are possible. A four or five-leggedanimal, and what could be a fragment of anothersimilar representation are visible. The more com-plete figure is possibly horned, may have a triangularsign on its back, or perhaps has a long, coiled tail. Vessel type: Although the type of vessel may not bedetermined positively, to judge from its thickness, itis probably derived from a jar of not overly largedimensions. The outer surface of this sherd has anapplied slip or wash; its inner face is untreated, indi-cating it was a closed type.Details: the relatively soft fabric, consistent withlow-fired clays encountered in EB I types from thissite, is weatherworn and may have been furtherabraded during post-excavation washing. The sherdis dark buff, has a grey core and is red-washed orslipped externally. It has many coarse grits and a pit-

ted surface where vegetal inclusions oxidized anddisappeared during firing, leaving their impressionsin numerous shallow cavities. Two drawings (Fig. 2:1a-b) represent different artistic interpretations ofthe impression.Context: the object was recovered from fill in non-primary deposition (i.e. bulldozer backfill) derivedfrom somewhere within the area of the excavation.Its origin is believed to be in EB I occupationaldebris (Braun 1996, 8–9). Generic Parallels: (A) iconography and tête bêchearrangement: Megiddo Stage V (Beck, 1975, 2–7,figs 3–5); 'En Shadud (Braun 1985, fig. 32); (B)iconography: Megiddo (Beck 1975, 6); Tel Dan(Greenberg 1992, fig. 1); Megiddo (Sass 2000, fig.12: 45). The Tel Dan parallel is suggested despiteGreenberg’s contention that it is a naturalistic ren-dering of animals. In this writer’s opinion, the TelDan animals are equally schematic, especially whencompared to later EBA sealings from Jericho (e.g.Sellin and Watzinger 1913, Abb. 66) and Byblos(e.g. Dunand 1945, fig. 21, pl. 7).Comment: by analogy, the fabric of the sherd andthe impression are dated to EB I. Although it is notpossible to cite any close parallels to this particularimpression, a general grouping (that features animals,either in a tête bêche arrangement, as the Me'onaexample, or in a single file) to which it appears tobelong, is one well known in EB I contexts (Beck1967, 4–5; Braun 1985, 80–81). Animals in this cat-egory tend to be schematic in different degrees withthree, or sometimes four legs; a fifth leg (Teissier1987, 43) may also be interpreted as drooping heador tail (Ben-Tor 1978, 54). Often these animals havelong tails that curve up and over their backs, andhorns, all features that could be interpreted as pre-sent in this example from Me'ona. The triangle-shapedrepresentation on the Me'ona example may be anal-ogous to others on seal impressions: a) triangles(space fillers?) on a stamp seal impression from Tallal-Far'ah N (e.g. Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 8: 56); b) aschematic representation of a bird (cattle egret?) onan impression from Hazor (e.g. Ben-Tor 1978, fig.8: 54), or a space-filler (indistinct shape with a dot)on an impression from Beth Yerah (e.g. Ben-Tor1978, fig. 8: 49). The flat planes of this impressionsuggest it was made by a wooden cylinder (Ben-Tor1978, 101).

2. Site: Qiryat Ata (Fig. 2: 2a-b; Fig. 3: 2a-b).Field Registration No.: 1726/18/158/1.Motif: a continuous line of schematically rendereddouble-headed animals (protomes) with heads fac-ing backward is visible in this impression. Theanimals are attached and form a continuous frieze.

14 LEVANT 36 2004

Figure 1. Map indicating sites with catalogued objects.

Vessel Type: this sherd is part of the internally gut-tered rim of a holemouth.Details: the sealing was made such that the animalsappear to be standing upside down when the vessel wasupright. The sherd has a thin yellow-buff layer on itsoutside and inside surfaces that cover thin orangelayers enveloping a thick grey core. A streaky coat ofreddish-brown paint or wash, applied with more or lesshorizontal brush strokes (reminiscent of the so-called‘grain-wash’ or ‘band-slip’ technique of decoration)covers the outside surface of the sherd. The narrowimpression represents the entire frieze and is notablefor its relatively deep indentations and flat planes. Context: This object was recovered in fill related toan advanced, but not very late EB I occupation,understood as perhaps a phase later than the EB Isettlement at 'En Shadud (Braun 1985, 100–101;1997, 105, especially note 5).Generic Parallels: Ben-Tor’s (1978, 52–57; passim)Class II sealings with animal representations.Parallels in level of workmanship: Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor 1993a, fig. 3; photo 2; Ben-Tor 1994, fig. 17).Possible Parallel: Tall al-Handaquq South (Chesson1998, fig. 12, right). This parallel is problematicbecause of its chronological attribution to EB III, butits simple animal motif and diminutive size wouldmake it unique for that period; by analogy it seemsmore at home in a corpus of known EB I types.Parallel Motifs: (A) a stamp seal from an énéolithique(i.e. = Chalcolithic and EB I) cemetery at Byblos(Dunand 1945, fig. 5a, pl. Vc); (B) a cylinder sealimpression from Byblos II/première civilisationurbaine (i.e. EB II; Dunand 1945, pl. VIIc).Comment: the clarity of the Qiryat Ata impression(partly made indistinct by later accretions that couldnot be removed without damaging the object) andits parallels, suggest they were impressed into nearlydry, leather-hard surfaces. That precludes anythingmore than minimal shrinking of fabrics during firing;a fact that emphasizes the diminutive size of theoriginal seals in this class, and skill in hands thatfashioned them. Artisans responsible for fashioningseals used to create these three impressions wereable to compose them so that when continuouslyrolled, they produced never-ending friezes.

As a group, these sealings form a class clearly a cutabove most other south Levantine, EB I specimenswith similar iconography (e.g. no. 1 from Me'ona,discussed above). While such skills seem to be some-what commonplace in Mesopotamian glyptictraditions, they are more rarely evidenced in thecontemporary southern Levant. Parallels emphasizea northerly origin for the iconography of the QiryatAta sealing and are additional evidence of long-known links between the glyptic traditions of Byblos

and those of contemporary cultures of the southernLevant (Beck 1967, 20–21) and beyond.

The protome motif remains, for the present,unique in the corpus of EBA glyptic-related artifactsfrom the southern Levant. Probably it is ultimatelyderived from Iran (Teissier 1987, 29–31), althoughit is obviously far removed from the source of itsinspiration. The closest site that has yielded parallelsfor protomes is Byblos, where the element is foundas part of complex motifs in the impressions cited.Notably, the énéolithique stamp seal impression fromByblos bears a more schematic rendering of an ani-mal incised into its sizable, flat surface. By contrast,the Qiryat Ata sealing required far greater skills forreproducing a minute design onto a radically curvingsurface of a diminutive cylinder. In turn, the pro-tome in the later sealing from Byblos (II), also madeby a cylinder, is only part of a complex motif withnotably naturalistic details depicting a lion attackingwhat Dunand describes as an “ensemble, monstre”. Ina sense, the Qiryat Ata example seems almost tobridge a stylistic and technological gap between thetwo examples of protome bearing sealings fromByblos. Whether such a ‘mid-position’ reflects somechronological reality is an intriguing possibility,albeit one that cannot be verified given our presentstate of knowledge. Orientation of the Qiryat Ataimpression suggests the motif was meant to be seenfrom a bird’s eye view; possibly when the vessel wasplaced closely together with others so only theirupper portions were visible.

3. Site: Qiryat Ata, Area A (Fig. 2: 3; Fig. 3: 3).Field Registration No.: 1726/18/158/2.Motif: this is a representation of a geometric, so-called ‘eye’ pattern formed by intersecting,undulating lines and a centrally placed horizontalbar.Vessel Type: presumably it was of some type of stor-age vessel of sizable proportions (see below). Close Parallels: Tel Megadim (Gophna 1974, pl. 1:6) and Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor 1994, fig. 7). A draw-ing of the Megadim sealing, reproduced in anunpublished work, is inaccurate. When carefullyperused with intense light at the proper angle, its‘eye’ design, obliquely impressed on the rim of abow-rim type pithos, may be discerned, albeit withdifficulty.Parallel Motif: on a stamp seal from Arad (Beck1984, fig. 1: 2, pl. 9: 2).Comment: this impression retains only one side ofthe cylinder’s imprint, and that only faintly. Themotif (understood as a schematic and degeneratedepiction of a running caprid, bovide, fish, scorpion,crabs or spiders; e.g seals from Khafaje, Frankfort

ELIOT BRAUN More Evidence for Early Bronze Age Glyptics from the Southern Levant 15

16 LEVANT 36 2004

Figure 2. Renderings of Early Bronze I cylinder seal impressions. 1a- b (Cat. No. 1) = Fig. 3:1 (1:1); 2a (Cat. No. 2) = Fig.3:2b (2:1); 2b (Cat. No. 2) = Fig. 3: 3 (1:1); 3 (Cat. No. 3) = Fig. 3: 3.

1a 1b

2a

2b

3


Figure 3. Photos of Early Bronze I cylinder seal impressions. 1 (Cat. No. 1(1:1); 2a (Cat. No. 2) (1:1); 2b (Cat. No. 2) (2:1);3 (Cat. No. 3) (1:1).

2a

3

2b

1

1955, pl. 5: 25, 26, pl. 18: 192; Tell Asmar,Frankfort 1955, pl. 44: 473, pl. 45: 475, pl. 57: 608;Amiet 1961, nos 346–360, 439–440, 503, 682–694,pl. 21 bis, c; Nineveh, Collon 1987, 18, fig. 32) is sofar removed from its original association as to havebecome a mere geometric pattern (e.g. seals fromKhafaje, Frankfort 1955, 18–21, pl. 1: 5, pl. 4: 14,pl. 8: 47). It is one not commonly encountered inthe southern Levant, but is, however, quite wellattested in numerous examples from Syria (e.g.cylinder seals from Tell Brak; Mathews 1997, pl. 31:431–433) and Mesopotamia (e.g. cylinder sealsfrom Tell Khafaje; Frankfort 1955, pl. 28: 298, pl.36: 376 and Tell Agrab; Frankfort 1955, pl. 72: 789,pl. 77: 833).

Unusually for an impressed sherd, this fragment iscompletely flat, suggesting that it may be the base ofa vessel; no other fragment of this size seems likelyto be similarly shaped. If this interpretation is cor-rect, then this is the sole instance of a cylinder sealimpressed on the base of a vessel in the southernLevant known to this writer. The likely date for thissealing relies on ascription of its gritty, low-fired fab-ric to EB I, and is in agreement with Ben-Tor’s(1993a, 18*) dating for a sealing with a parallelmotif from Tel Qashish.

Part B: EB II-III cylinder seal impressions

4. Site: Qiryat Ata, Area A (Fig. 4: 1, Fig. 5: 1).Field Registration No. 1726/16/166/1.Motif: a vertical register of chevrons is flanked bytwo concentric rectangles, all surrounded by addi-tional chevrons or triangles. It is apparently a variantof Ben-Tor’s Group IE, with rectangles replacingmore usual concentric circles. Vessel type: although virtually nothing of the origi-nal form of the vessel from which this sherd derivesis known, its dimensions suggest it is a small frag-ment of a storage jar or pithos.Details: the dark orange fabric with gunmetal greycore and orange-grey inside is typical of ‘metallicware’ (Fischer and Toivonen-Skage 1995;Greenberg and Porat 1996), a class of fabric thatderives its name from a distinctive sound reminis-cent of metal when struck. The impression wasapparently rolled over a patch of the vessel deliber-ately smoothed over, leaving prior made combedlines ever so faintly visible beneath the sealing. Theimpression has the typical flat planes associated withothers of this group. Context: this sherd was found in fill associated withan EB I curvilinear house that should be dated to anadvanced, but not too late phase (i.e. 'En Shadudphase; Braun 1985, 100) of this period, a time span

in which metallic ware was unknown. Accordingly, itis understood as intrusive from a superimposed stra-tum associated with the EB II-III cultural horizon.Close Parallels: Beth Ha-emeq (Beck 1976, fig. 1,pl. 6: 6); Tall al-'Oraima/Kinrot (Fritz 1990, p. 54,3); Ebla (Mazzoni 1992, Tav. VII, A23).Generic Parallels: Tel Dan (Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 3:21) and “the environs of Tel Hazor” (Stepansky1999, p. II: 4) with somewhat angular, concentric‘near circles’ or sub-rectangles and Tall al-SukhnaNorth (Chesson et al. 1995, fig. 3: 17,18) with con-centric circles rather than rectangles.Comment: sloppy execution of the motifs on thisimpression is the work (as are others in this group;e.g. impressions from Kh. 'En Hur and Tel Qashish;Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 5: 3; 1994, fig. 12 respectively)of a craftsperson of less than consummate skill. Theconcentric ‘circles’ are sub-rectangular, while its“chevrons or herringbone” designs are asymmetricaland actually more curving than sharply angled. Thislack of skill is emphasized if one considers that angu-lar lines are easier to incise in wood with its grain; afurther reason to appreciate the skilful hands thatsuccessfully fashioned accurate curving geometricshapes in that medium.

Although the sealing is far from complete, it isnoteworthy that the space between what seem to beprimary elements of the motif (chevrons and con-centric sub-rectangles) is completely filled withincisions, as is even the lowest portion of thechevron pattern. The carver appears to express hor-ror vacui. The juxtaposition of this sealing, on theshoulder of the vessel, indicates it too was impressedhorizontally at the juncture of shoulder and neck.

5. Site: Me'ona (Figs 4: 2, 5: 2).Field registration No.: 2496/surface.Motif: a crudely outlined, spiral or concentric circledesign with a small portion of a chevron or net pat-tern. Vessel type: this is obviously a fragment of a largestorage jar or pithos.Details: this sherd, dark orange outside with gun-metal grey core and grey and orange internal surfaceis another typical example of ‘metallic ware’ (seeabove: no. 4, Discussion). Although this is only abody sherd, the direction of the combing (assumedto be vertical) suggests the impression was rolledhorizontally. Close examination of it shows evidenceof wet clay residue left in segments of the impres-sion, probably resulting from the seal being appliedbefore the clay dried sufficiently for obtaining opti-mal results.Context: surface find by R. Klir on the EBA site ofMe'ona.

18 LEVANT 36 2004

Parallels: Tel Dan (Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 2: 14, fig. 3:20, 21); Hazor (Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 4: 22–23, 25);Tell Ta'anach (Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 4: 24); TelQashish (Ben-Tor 1994, figs 11, 12); Beth Yerah(Esse 1990, Ill. 2, 3, upper registers); Tel Na'ama(Greenberg et al. 1998, fig. 22: 14) and Tarsus(Mazzoni 1992, Tav. XXXVII: 136).Comment: this impression was made on a patch ofthe jar deliberately smoothed to erase combing on itssurface. Nevertheless, the lines left by the comb arevery faintly visible beneath the net pattern of theimpression. Its ‘metallic ware’ fabric clearly datesthis fragment to EB II-III.

The artisan had less than perfect control over thewooden medium in which the seal was probablycarved (cf. below: object 1579/214/1). The ‘circles’(two incomplete), are out of true and somewhat‘angular’, while the lines of the motif vary fromalmost even to very uneven. Similar lack of skill isevident in the manner in which the impression wasproduced. Combing, assumed vertical, indicates theseal was impressed horizontal to the upright vessel atthe juncture of shoulder and neck.

6. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 4: 3; Fig. 5: 3).Field Registration No. 1579/214/1/1 (surface find).Motif: this motif has concentric circles and a rhom-bus with horizontal lines within a grid of additionalrhombs or triangles, also composed of horizontal lines.Vessel type: the size of this sherd indicates it to be afragment of a pithos or large storage jar. Details: the characteristic orange-brown fabric, greycore and grey-brown interior are typical of ‘metallicware’, a fabric associated with the EB II-III horizon.This sherd is ‘combed’ on its outside surface; i.e. apattern of thin, shallow, vertical lines at unevenintervals was incised into the fabric before firing,apparently after application of the cylinder seal.Context: apparently derived from the northernprecinct of the excavation, this sherd was noted onthe dump of discarded pottery, located off site, sev-eral years after the excavation. It had escaped earliernotice because of a heavy encrustation that coveredmost of the impression. Prolonged exposure to theelements and the sharp eyes of R. Klir of MoshavMe'ona brought this artifact into the state collection.The remaining heavy encrustation was subsequentlyremoved by mechanical means in the laboratories ofthe IAA.Close Parallels: No. 6 (see below); Hazor (Ben-Tor1978, fig. 4: 25); Beth Yerah (Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 2:12, 13; Esse 1990, Ill.1, upper right, but with grid);Tell Ta'anach (Lapp 1999, fig. 3). Comment: thin vertical lines incised into the body ofthis vessel, common on jars of ‘metallic ware’, are

often identified simply as ‘combing’. A detailedexamination of this sherd suggests that ‘combing’ onthis vessel does not exhibit signs of rigid, fixed teethat regular intervals generally associated with combs(found in many instances on vessels of ‘metallicware’; some incidentally bearing cylinder sealimpressions; e.g. Ben-Tor 1992, 40–41, illustra-tions). Rather, these marks were made by a thinstylus or a small, bundled group of hand-held styli(bone or wood or porcupine quills?) that, whendrawn down the leather-hard surface of a vessel,would produce more or less parallel, narrow, shal-low, vertical lines at slightly uneven intervals. Astudy of such minute details may, at some time inthe future, allow detection of patterns in manufac-ture that point to the existence of specific ceramicproduction centers (e.g. Greenberg and Porat1996). Its fabric clearly dates it to EB II-III. Ben-Tor (1978, 44, 98, 109; 1994, 26) has consistentlyargued for a later, EB III date for seals of this style,but some parallels apparently derive from EB II con-texts (Greenberg 2001,190).

7. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 6: 1; Fig. 7: 1). Field Registration No.: 2496/113/44/1.Motif: two spirals or sets of concentric circles placedclosely together; a small, triangle fills the space nearwhere they diverge at the edge of the seal. Whatappears to be a margin is only partially indicated. Vessel Type: unknown, but probably a small tomedium sized, closed vessel.Details: this sherd is somewhat coarse, orange-brown, and appears to be of ‘non-metallic’ fabric(see also no. 10) with large grits. There are no signsof combing visible on the surface. Notably, thedesign seems to be fashioned with considerable skill.Its lines, precisely and truly curving are offset byraised portions with flat planes of relatively evenwidth.Context: it was recovered from mixed fill on thenorth-eastern slope of the site that yielded EB I andEB II-III material, and is assumed to have erodedfrom deposits higher up.Possible Parallel: Tell Ta'anach (Lapp 1999, fig. 5).Generic Parallels: the motif is paralleled in Group IE(Ben-Tor 1978, 6).Comment: this sealing was impressed on a vessel of‘non-metallic’ ware of a notably coarser fabric. Itsuggests the possibility that such seals were pro-duced independently of pottery production centres;alternately it could hint at an enhanced chronologi-cal range for this type of impression in which there isdegradation or upgrading in quality of fabrics. Thissealing was made by a cylinder that was the productof a skilled craftsperson, and impressed into the


20 LEVANT 36 2004

Figure 4. Renderings of Early Bronze II-III cylinder seal impressions. 1 (Cat. No. 4) = Fig. 4:1; 2 (Cat. No. 5) = Fig. 4:2; 3(Cat. No. 6) = Fig. 4:3); all at scale 1:1.

1

2

3


Figure 5. Photos of Early Bronze II-III cylinder seal impressions. 1 (Cat. No. 4); 2 (Cat. No. 5); 3 (Cat. No. 6); all at scale 1:1.

1

2

3

body of the vessel with equal skill. It is one of foursuch fine examples from Me'ona (see also nos 6, 8and 9). To date, parallel examples of such skill arenotable in only a limited numbers; by contrast,many published sealings with the same and similarmotifs exhibit relatively sloppy workmanship (e.g.no. 5; Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 3: 20, 21) and consider-ably less care in fashioning impressions.

8. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 6: 2; Fig. 7: 2). Field Registration No.: 3774/23/86.Motif: this incomplete impression has a set of con-

centric half circles cut by a straight margin. Vessel Type: unknown, but probably a medium-sized, closed vessel.Details: this sherd is rather well-levigated, grey-brown with orange-brown interior and core, typicalof ‘metallic ware’. The sealing with its preciselycurved lines offset by flat planes of even width wasimpressed over a combed surface.Context: this diminutive sherd was recovered frommixed fill on the south-eastern slope of the site thatyielded EB I and EB II-III material, and is assumedto have eroded from deposits higher up.

22 LEVANT 36 2004

Figure 6. Renderings of Early Bronze II-III cylinder seal impressions. 1 (Cat. No. 7) = Fig. 7: 1; 2 (Cat. No. 8) = Fig. 7:2;3 (Cat. No. 9) = Fig. 7: 3; 4 (Cat. No. 10) = Fig. 7:4; 5 (Cat. No. 11) = Fig. 7: 5; all at scale 1:1.

1

2

3

4 5

Generic Parallels: the motif is paralleled in manyvariations in Group IE (Ben-Tor 1978, 6).Possible Parallel: part of the motif on an impressedpithos rim from Ebla (Mazzoni 1992, Tav. XV: 24)and on raised bands on pithoi from Lerna in distantGreece (Pini 1975, 104, nos 132–133).Comment: this incomplete sealing was impressed ona vessel of ‘metallic ware’ and is one of the finestexamples of its type (see also nos 4, 5 and 6). Thesmooth curving lines and even width of the extantmotif indicate it was produced by a seal made by a

hand of consummate skill and impressed with equalexpertise.

9. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 6: 3; Fig. 7: 3). Field Registration No.: 3774/11/62.Motif: an impression with two spirals or sets of con-centric circles separated by concentric rhombs. Vessel Type: unknown, but probably a medium-sized, closed vessel.Details: the fabric is orange-brown with grey interiorand grey core and seems to be somewhat coarser and


Figure 7. Photos of Early Bronze II-III cylinder seal impressions. 1 (Cat. No. 7) ; 2 (Cat. No. 8); 3 (Cat. No. 9); 4 (Cat. No.10); 5 (Cat. No. 11); all at scale 1:1.

1

2

4

5

less hard than ‘metallic ware’. Its precisely cut andtruly curving lines, impressed into a combed surface,are offset by evenly raised portions with flat planes ofrelatively even width.Context: it was recovered from mixed fill on thesouth-eastern slope of the site that yielded EB I andEB II-III material and is assumed to have erodedfrom deposits higher up.Exact Parallel: one more complete sealing from BethYerah (Esse 1990, Ill. 1, upper left), also expertlyrolled, is so well made and close in details, it is sug-

gested that it may have been produced from thesame seal. Another very close parallel is a surfacefind at Mizpe Zevulun (Joffe 2001, fig. 19: 2, 3).Generic Parallels: same as for no. 5.Comment: this appears to be an additional exampleof a skillfully fashioned cylinder seal used to impressa vessel of ‘non-metallic’ ware.

10. Site: Qiryat Ata, Area A (Fig. 6: 4; Fig. 7: 4).Field Registration No.: 1726/5/111/1.Motif: concentric circles or ovals associated with a

3

3a

24 LEVANT 36 2004

Figure 8. Renderings of Early Bronze cylinder beads and a cylinder seal. 1a (Cat. No. 12) (1:1); 1b (Cat. No. 12) (1:1) =Fig. 9: 1; 2 (from Tell Ta'anach, after Lapp 1999, fig. 1) (no scale); 3a,b (Cat. No. 13) (1:1) = Fig. 9: 2a, 2b.

1a 1b

3b

2

vertical bar of chevrons.Vessel type: this diminutive sherd seems to be a frag-ment of a storage jar.Details: the fabric of this vessel is light brown-pinkwith a light grey core and light grey-pink interior andis reminiscent of ‘metallic ware’, but does not appearto have the true, namesake qualities of that class ofpottery. The sherd is of notably uneven thickness.The impression was made on a patch of the outersurface of a vessel, deliberately smoothed over,apparently after combing, leaving lines of the combvery faintly visible beneath the impression. Ifcombed lines were vertical, then the sealing wasrolled horizontally on the vessel.

Context: this sherd was recovered from fill displacedby bulldozing, prior to excavation. Parallels: a similar motif is found on a sherd fromYoqne'am (see no. 11), although the execution israther different. The motif of this impression is alsoloosely paralleled in a fragment of a cylinder sealimpression from the site of Mizpeh Zevulun, LowerGalilee (Joffe 2001, fig. 19: 2, 1) that also has a ver-tical bar of chevrons, but concentric rhombs ratherthan circles. A close parallel from a distant region,Tiryns in Greece is notable (Pini 1975, 438, fig.546).Comment: both the look of this sherd and the seal-ing imprinted on it suggest that while it is related to

Ben-Tor’s Group IE discussed above, it stands apartfrom the group. The fabric appears not to be ‘metal-lic ware’ and the incisions of the motifs are narrowerthan those on others of this group, giving it a spareraspect. In that feature, it resembles a cylinder sealimpression from Mizpeh Zevulun (see above: paral-lels), also found on a sherd of pinkish color, albeitidentified as ‘metallic ware’. Unlike some of theother examples (see above), this sherd from QiryatAta seems to have been textured by a comb withevenly spaced, flat teeth.

11. Cylinder seal impression: (Fig. 6: 5; Fig. 7: 5). Field Registration No.: 2014/11017/11435A and11026/11211ASite: Yoqne'am Motif: two alternating bands of chevrons inter-spersed with a large spiral are visible. The renderingof this object was done from a photograph.Vessel Type: these two joined sherds are apparentlypart of a pithos.Details: this object was unavailable for first-handstudy, but details provided by the excavator indicateit was of a high-fired, brown fabric with grey core, aclassic description of ‘metallic ware’. Probably theimpression was made horizontally on the shoulder of

the vessel.Context: two sherds making up this object wererecovered in fills dated to post-EBA levels on thetell, and were obviously residual. They are likely toderive from EB II-III occupations in Ben-Tor’s(1993b) ‘Strata’ XXVI and/or XXV, postulatedfrom quantities of material encountered in his exca-vations.Parallels: No. 10 and its parallels.Comment: this sealing is notable for the clean-cutlines of the impression and the rather straight andparallel lines of the chevrons. Notably the spiral issomewhat less regular in its depiction, but that is anobvious function of incising curved lines into wood,the medium from which this type of seal was obvi-ously produced (Ben-Tor 1978, 101). This is thesecond of two geometric seal impressions recoveredfrom Yokne'am (Ben-Tor 1993a, 811). Its style sug-gests it derives from an EB II or EB III occupationof the site (Greenberg 2001, 190).

Part C: Bone beads that imitate cylinder seals

Decorations on these objects imitate margins andmotifs of cylinder seals, but incisions are noticeablynarrow and too shallow to produce clear impressionson clay that, when fired, shrinks considerably (Rice1987, 67, 87–93). Significantly, no impressions ofsuch seals are known, and thus, it seems reasonablycertain that whatever intrinsic or symbolic valuethese beads may have once had, they were notintended to function as seals.

12. Site: Me'ona (Fig. 8: 1a-b; Fig. 9: 1).Field Registration No. 3774/11/67Motif: this is a simple herringbone pattern withintwo margins. Details: this short segment of a bone was cleanly cutat both ends and then incised to give it the aspect ofa cylinder seal. The natural marrow cavity is unal-tered.Context: it was recovered from mixed fill on thesouth-eastern slope of the site that yielded EB I andEB II-III material and is assumed to have erodedfrom deposits higher up.Close Parallel: a similarly blackened bone cylinder beadfrom Megiddo “ca XVI” (Loud 1948, pl. 160, 1).Comment: neither the find-spot of this object, norits parallel from Megiddo, indicates precise dating.Generic parallels suggest either of these objects mayderive from any phase within the EBA. Presumably,the bone was carved before being subjected to heat,when it was less brittle. It is uncertain whether heattreatment was deliberate, but the parallel suggestssuch a possibility.


Figure 9. Photos of Early Bronze cylinder beads. 1 (Cat. No.12); 2a, b, c (Cat. No. 13); at scale 1:1.

1

2a 2b

2c

13. Bone Cylinder/bead: (Fig. 8: 3a-b; Fig. 9: 2a-c).Field Registration No. 1779/1960/282.Site: Horvat 'Illin Tahtit.Motif: this is a simple net pattern of roughly parallelslanted lines between two parallel borders. The pat-tern is intersected by almost vertical lines to form anirregular grid of elongated, asymmetrical shapes,near parallelograms.Details: this segment of a bone was cleanly cut atboth ends and then incised to produce the effect ofa cylinder seal. The natural marrow cavity is unal-tered.Context: fill of a courtyard of Stratum IV, dated tolate EB I.Suggested Related Motif: on a cylinder seal fromTell Ta'anach (Lapp 1999, fig. 1 of “blue stone”).Parallels-Cylinder Seal Impressions with Relatedmotifs: Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor 1994, fig. 8); TallKhafaja and Tall Agrab (Frankfort 1955, pl. 26: 260,pl. 74: 805); Tel Halif/Nahal Tillah (Levy et al.1997, fig. 16a, fig. 17: 1).Generic Parallels-Bone Bead Seals: Tel Gezer(Macalister 1912, 110, pl. 28: 21); 'En Shadud(Braun 1985, 78); Tel H. alif (Seger et al. 1990, fig.6b); Tall Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 1993, fig. 12: 11;Fischer 1996, fig. 6: 11); Tel Dalit (Sadeh 1996, figs69: 5, 70: 2). Comment: the find spot, in ashy destruction debrisof a violent conflagration (Stratum IV), suggests thecylinder was inadvertently treated to prolongedheating and therefore, is likely to have originated inthat level. The object, now shades of light grey, hasacquired a distinctive, shiny surface patina peculiar tobones subjected to heat and then buried. However,the possibility that the cylinder originated in StratumIII and that the heating process was one deliberatelycontrolled, cannot be entirely ruled out (e.g. no. 11above and its parallel), although heat treatment doesnot seem to be the rule for such objects (e.g. a bonebead from 'En Shadud; Braun 1985, 77 and its par-allels). In any event, it is clear this object ultimatelyderived from either Stratum III or IV, and shouldtherefore be dated to a late phase of EB I (Braun andvan den Brink 1998; Braun 2001).

Incisions in this object appear to have been madesomewhat carelessly by a fabricator working in a dif-ficult medium over which imperfect control wasexercised. The motif is simple, but the resultant pat-tern with overlapping and criss-crossing lines, lacksuniformity, an ultimate effect presumably desired.Choice of material, bone, obviously influenced theoutcome of the final product.

This rather simple motif, somewhat unusualbecause of the oblique line that transects the net pat-tern, may be ultimately derived from Mesopotamian

motifs. This singular feature breaks up a regular gridpattern and may be a deliberate attempt to createsome particular motif or convey an idea. An excel-lent parallel motif on a cylinder from the Diyalaregion of Mesopotamia (where schematization anddeterioration of motifs is common and has been doc-umented) suggests such a likelihood. Several similarmotifs are known from distant regions; e.g. TellBrak (Mathews 1997, pl. XXXIII: 423, 426) andChagar Bazar (Mathews 1997, pl. XXXIII: 428) inSyria, and Tell Khafaje (Frankfort 1955, pl. 21:217) and Tell Agrab (Frankfort 1955, pl. 74: 805) inMesopotamia. Although scholars describe them sim-ply as geometric patterns, their deliberate intricaciessuggest artisans may well have meant to convey(albeit in highly schematized forms and perhapseven, inadvertently) less abstract forms. Such a pos-sibility may also be considered for the Horvat 'IllinTahtit object. It may be the ultimate schematizationof a more complex motif, possibly similar to onefound on a cylinder seal from an unclear chrono-stratigraphic context at Tell Ta'anach (Lapp 1999,fig. 1).

The Ta'anach specimen may well be a key tounderstanding the motif on the Horvat 'Illin Tahtitbead. The Ta'anach seal preserve hints of an ulti-mate Mesopotamian derivation of its motif. Lapp’s(1999, 152) interpretation of it is noteworthy: “Onone side is a small section of the net motif; inanother there are diagonal lines that probably weremeant to be developed into the net motif, but verti-cal lines indicate other trial endeavors, and even adrill hole may indicate an effort to undertake a moredifficult composition”. This writer sees in that samemotif (Fig. 8: 2) a schematic stick figure with armsraised, and what may be a representation of a ‘sacredtree’ beside it. To its right is a ‘net motif’ that itselfmay be a highly schematized representation of ananimal with large, curving horns. Similar abstrusemotifs, highly schematized and rather dissimilar tomotifs from which they ultimately derive (and per-haps devoid of their original meanings), are foundon Mesopotamian seals, as at Tell Khafaje(Frankfort 1955, 179, 217, 284, 301), Tell Brak(Amiet 1961, pl. 21b, E; Mathews 1997, 426–429,529–531) and even on a seal from Susiana (Amiet1961, pl. 21b, B). In the southern Levant one simi-lar scene is found on a rare, baked clay cylinder sealfrom Tall al-Handaquq (Chesson 1998, fig. 11),dated by the excavator to EB III. Its motif, that ofthe Ta'anach and Horvat 'Illin Tahtit seals, allappear to ultimately derive from the same tradition,although the last specimen is so far removed fromthe source that it has become entirely schematic andlikely to have lost all sense of the original motif. An

26 LEVANT 36 2004

alternative, albeit less likely possibility, is that theoblique line on the Horvat 'Illin Tahtit cylinder rep-resents a false start incorporated into a final, simplegeometric design. A geometric parallel is found inanother baked clay cylinder from the H. alif Terrace(Levy et al. 1997, fig. 16a).

Discussion

Part A: EB I cylinder seal impressions

Although generally considered a single archaeologi-cally recognized period, in this writer’s opinion, EBI should be understood as two distinct, successiveand disparate chrono-cultural phases, each worthyof being identified, by archaeologists as a ‘period’.Earlier EB I is distinguished by its less sophisticatedlifestyle with people living in hamlets and villagesthat exhibit essentially egalitarian social structures;accordingly, it is best described as pre-urban. Inter-site associations in the period seem to be somewhatlimited and less than in Later EB I.

Notably, only a single example of a cylinder sealimpression (the earliest known), from Yiftah'el II(Braun 1997, 90–91) derives from this Early EB Ichrono-cultural milieu, and perhaps not coinciden-tally, its motif is a simple grid of cross-hatching.Although the practice of impressing pottery withcylinder seals in the southern Levant began as earlyas this pre-urban phase (early in the third quarter ofthe fourth millennium BCE; contra de Miroschedji1997, 190), the technique was apparently very rarelyemployed. For the present, the Yiftah'el objectremains in splendid cultural isolation in the southernLevant, and its importance lies less in its appearancethere than in its function as harbinger of Later EB Idevelopments, when glyptic usage and style appar-ently reflect progression towards increasing socialcomplexity.

By contrast, Later EB I, a period notable for con-siderably increased social complexity in its ultimatedevelopment, is more aptly designated proto-urban1,in the sense of incipient or first urban. By then, largeaggregations of populations were organized intohierarchical, complex societies. This change in socialpatterns is construed from the enormous size of afew sites, and massive and public architecture (forti-fications, temples and other outsized or monumentalstructures) known from the archaeological record.In the north, Megiddo (Loud 1948, figs 143:154–155; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000, 25–74)and Beth Yerah (Getzov 1998) are extremely largeagglomerations of populations exibiting truly monu-mental structures, while Tel Shalem (Eisenberg

1996), also sizable, is noteworthy for its massivedouble fortification system. Several more southernJordan Valley sites, albeit smaller, have yielded evi-dence for fortifications. They are Pella (Bourke et al.1994, 85, figs 2–3), Tall Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer2001, 202), Tall al-Sa'idiyah (Tubb, Dorrell andCobbing 1997, 65) and Jericho (Holland 1986; Parr2000). Sites further south include Tel Apheq in theSharon (Gal and Kochavi 2000, 62–65, figs 7: 4–7:6) and Tall al-Sakan (de Miroschedji and Sadek2000a; 2000b).

This increased social complexity seems to bereflected in an increase in the use of cylinder seals.The known pattern of distribution of these objectsincludes particularly large sites (e.g. Megiddo) andsites of lesser size (e.g. Qiryat Ata and Me'ona),mostly located in the northern region. They suggestaugmented, inter-site relationships of a more sophis-ticated nature than are known from Earlier EB I.The northern locale apparently reflects the ultimateorigin of the idea of using cylinders for sealing, andsome motifs, including the ‘eye pattern’ and animalsubjects, often in highly stylized such as the tête bêchearrangement. From them, we may assume borrowedas well as shared symbolic associations and ideology.The degree of sophistication of at least some of theseobjects is notable in the skill of the Qiryat Ataimpression; it contrasts with the more primitiveworkmanship evinced in the sealing from Me'ona.

A certain degree of repetition in motifs at differentsites raises some interesting questions as to theirpossible functions. Most appear to have been associ-ated with containers, but whether seals were used todenote contents, volume, ownership, symbolicattributes such as social status or ritual associations,or any combination of functions thereof, remainsunclear. Too little is known about them and theirtrue archaeological contexts for more than specula-tion in these matters. The importance of the Me'onaand Qiryat Ata impressions is found in the hints theyoffer at the developing complexity of society in LaterEB I, interrelations between sites, and perhaps inthrowing light on some of the sources for inspirationfrom which they drew.

Part B: EB II-III cylinder seal impressions

Use of cylinders for sealing continued into EB II andEB III. The seals could be employed repeatedly andoften, but the practice was carefully husbanded andapparently they were used somewhat sparingly.Geometric motifs of the kind represented in this col-lection were applied primarily to vessels withsignificant storage capability. Clearly, these broad,horizontal bands were intended to be fully viewed


by, and make an impact upon, the beholder.Unfortunately, however, whatever coded informa-tion they were intended to impart to contemporarybeholders (mark of producer, indication of owner-ship, origin of contents, designation of quality,standardization of volume, ritual significance orsome unknown meaning or meanings), remainsobscure.

Discovery of geometric sealings with repeatedmotifs at far-flung sites, even without understandingtheir symbolism, implies some administrative func-tion (de Miroschedji 1997,192) associated withcenters of production postulated by Greenberg andPorat (1996; Greenberg 2001). They indicate arather widespread sphere of interaction that, byvirtue of the finds in this collection, includesMe'ona, Qiryat Ata and Yoqne'am.

Ben-Tor has suggested that EBA impressionsfrom the southern Levant are more than mere deco-ration (Ben-Tor 1978, 103–104), although he heldtheir . . . “ultimate use was esthetic” (Ben-Tor1978, 1). While that may be true of several of thefinest examples in this collection, that observationdoes not seem valid in light of a number of sealingshe published (especially in his Group IF), as well asadditional examples which have since come to light.These last show little skill in carving of motifs, orthey were so carelessly impressed they yieldedsloppy results. In this writer’s opinion, ‘aesthetics’were often non-primary (and hence unimportant)aspects of sealing vessels. The disparate levels ofskills in the collection discussed above emphasizethis aspect and suggest an additional interpretation.They may indicate degradation of the carver’s craftrelating to time and/or place. Such a paradigm mightexplain several sealings in the collection that appearnot to have been impressed on vessels of ‘metallicware’.

Foreign associations evident in EB II-III geomet-ric impressions seem particularly valid, as in the caseof Syrian parallels cited above, and on jars at othersites such as Hama (Ravn 1960, fig. 132) andJerablus-Tahtani (Peltenberg et al. 1997, fig. 3),because of relative physical proximity. They providea link with Tarsus (Prausnitz 1958, fig. 4), furtherafield, that in turn suggests more distant associationswith Greek sites (Ben-Tor 1985, 17, 19 and paral-lels cited above). Similarities between regions asdistant and separated by a large body of water or avery long and circuitous overland routes such as thesouthern Levant and Greece, seem more in thenature of a ripple effect of cultural diffusion, origi-nating from a central source, than evidence fordirect contacts. Notably, to date no additional evi-dence for any direct association between these

regions has been forthcoming. More likely culturallinks with the southern Levant are parallels in geo-metric seals from Syria and Early Dynastic Levels(VI-IV; roughly contemporary with EB II) at TellGubba in the Hamrin Basin of the Diyala (Esse1990, 31*–32*).

Part C: Bone beads that imitate cylinder seals

Bone cylinder beads were probably not normallyintended for use as seals. Although naturally tubu-lar, the segments used for these beads are moretriangular than cylindrical in section, and rollingthem into malleable clay would, under most condi-tions, result in uneven impressions (e.g. Fig 9: 2c),making them less than ideal for sealing. In any eventthey do not seem to have been used for sealingobjects in clay or other material that has been pre-served. Presumably, these beads were created tosatisfy a need for an object with symbolic and/orintrinsic value; perhaps they implied or impartedsome special status to the owner. Notably, distribu-tion of these beads seems to be widespread from EBI, even into southern areas where cylinder seals wereextremely rare.

Note

1 This term should not be confused with Kenyon’s (1979)‘Proto-Urban’, used to mean what this writer would assignto ‘pre-urban’.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the Director of the IAA, YehoshuaDorfman, for permission to publish this material. Specialthanks are due Ronny Klir of Moshav Me'ona for bringinghis finds to my attention and for ensuring their depositionin the state collections. Additional thanks are due my col-leagues at the IAA for their help. Carmen Hersch drew allthe artifacts except for Fig. 2b, rendered by Noga Zeevi.Tsila Sagiv and Marianne Salzberger photographed theobjects. Michal Druk (formerly of the IAA) curated theseobjects and Sylvia Krapiwko was helpful in preparing theirillustrations. Edwin C. M. van den Brink and Sam Wolffkindly read and commented on earlier drafts. I am alsograteful to anonymous readers of an earlier version of thispaper for their constructive criticism and to Kay Prag forher great patience and help in assisting this manuscript topress.

Bibliography

Amiet, P. (1961) La glyptique Mesopotamienne archaïche.CNRS: Paris.

Beck, P. (1967) Problems in the Glyptic Art of Palestine.PhD thesis, Columbia University. University

28 LEVANT 36 2004

Microfilms: Ann Arbor.—— (1975) The Cylinder Seal Impressions from

Megiddo, Stage V, and Related Problems. Op Ath 22,1–16.

—— (1976) The Cylinder Seal Impressions from BethHaèmeq. Tel Aviv 3, 120–125.

—— (1984) The Seals and Stamps of Early Arad. Tel Aviv11, 97–114.

Ben-Tor, A. (1978) Cylinder Seals of Third-MillenniumPalestine. BASOR, Supplement Series 22. ASOR:Cambridge Mass.

—— (1985) Glyptic Art of Early Bronze Age Palestineand its Foreign Relations. Pp. 1–25 in E. Lipinski (ed.)The Land of Israel: Crossroads of Civilization. OrientaliaLovaniensia Analecta 19. Leuven.

—— (1992) New Light on Cultic Cylindrical SealImpressions from the Early Bronze Age in Eretz Israel.Eretz Israel 23, 38–44, 146* (Hebrew with English sum-mary).

—— (1993a) Stamp Seal and Cylinder Seal Impressionsof the Early Bronze Age I found at Tel Qashish. Pp.47–56, 18* in M. Heltzer, A. Segal and D. Kaufman(eds) Studies in the Archaeology and History of AncientIsrael, in Honor of Moshe Dothan. U. of Haifa Press:Haifa (Hebrew with English Summary).

—— (1993b). Jokneam. Pp. 805–811 in NEAEHL.—— (1994) Early Bronze Age Cylinder Seal Impressions

and a Stamp Seal from Tel Qashish. BASOR 295, 15–30.Bourke, S.J., Sparks, R.T., Sowada, K.N. and Mairs, L.D.

(1994) Preliminary Report on the University ofSydney’s Fourteenth Season of Excavation at Pella(Tabaqat Fahl) in 1992. ADAJ 38, 81–126.

Braun, E. (1985) En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at aFarming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. BARInternational Series 249. Oxford.

—— (1993) Lower H. orvat cIllin. ESI 12, 79.—— (1996) Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Site of

Me'ona, Northern Israel: Final Report. 'Atiqot 28, 1–29.—— (1997) Yiftah el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a

Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. IAA Reports 2.Jerusalem.

—— (1999) Me'ona. ESI 19, 5*.—— (2001) Proto and Early Dynastic Egypt and Early

Bronze I-II of the Southern Levant: Uneasy 14CCorrelations. Radiocarbon 43, 1202–1218.

—— (2002) Chapter 11: Egypt’s First Sojourn in Canaan.Pp. 173–189 in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy(eds) Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th

through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. LeicesterUniversity Press: London/New York.

—— (in press) Additional Excavations at the Early BronzeSite of Me'ona. 'Atiqot.

Braun, E. and Milevski, I. (1993) Baja Khorvat Ìllin: Unaaldea del Bronce Antiguo cerca de Beth Shemesh.Revista de arqueologia 142, 8–15.

Braun, E. and van den Brink, E.C.M. (1998) SomeComments on the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j atUmm el Gaàb and Graves 330 and 787 from MinshatAbu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt andCanaan. Egypt and the Levant 7, 71–94.

Chesson, M. (1998) Preliminary Results of Excavations atTell el-Handaquq South (1993–1996). PEQ 130, 1–15.

Chesson, M.S., Flender, M., Genz, H., Hourani, F.,Kuijt, I. and Palumbo, G. (1995) Tell es-SukhneNorth: An Early Bronze Age II Site in Jordan. Paléorient21/1, 113–123.

Collon, D. (1987) First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in theAncient Near East. British Museum: London.

Dunand, M. (1945) Byblia Grammata. 2. Republiquelibanaise, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale et desbeaux-arts: Beirut.

Eisenberg, E. (1996) Tel Shalem: Soundings in a FortifiedSite of the Early Bronze Age IB. 'Atiqot 30,1–24.

Engberg, R. and Shipton, G. (1934a). Notes on theChalcolithic and Early Bronze Pottery of Megiddo. Studiesin Ancient Oriental Civilizations 10. The OrientalInstitute: Chicago.

—— (1934b) Another Sumerian Seal Impression fromMegiddo. PEFQS 1934, 90–93.

Esse, D.L. (1990) Early Bronze Age Cylinder SealImpressions from Beth Yerah. Eretz Israel 21, 28*–34*.

Fantalkin, A. (2000) A Salvage Excavation at an EarlyBronze Age Settlement on Ha-Shophtim Street, QiryatAta. Tel Aviv 27, 28–56.

Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. (2000) Chapter 3: AreaJ. Pp. 25–74 in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B.Halpern (eds) Megiddo. III. The 1992–1996 Seasons.Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University: Tel Aviv.

Fischer, P.M. (1993) Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The SwedishJordan Expedition 1991, Second Season PreliminaryExcavation Report. ADAJ 37, 279–303.

—— (1996) Tall Abu al-Kharaz: The Swedish JordanExpedition 1994, Fifth Season Preliminary ExcavationReport. ADAJ 40, 101–110.

—— (2001) Chapter 12—The Early Bronze Age at TellAbu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: A Study of PotteryTypology and Provenance, Radiocarbon Dates, and theSynchronization of Palestine and Egypt during Dynasty0–2. Pp. 201–232 in G. Philip and D. Baird (eds)Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of theSouthern Levant. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield.

Fischer, P.M. and Toivonen-Skage, E. (1995) MetallicBurnished Early Bronze Age Ware from Tall Abu al-Kharaz. Pp. 587–596 in Kh.'Amr, F. Zayadine and M.Zaghloul (eds) Studies in the History and Archaeology ofJordan 5. Department of Antiquities: Amman.

Frankfort, H. (1955) Stratified Cylinder Seals from theDiyala Region. The University of Chicago OrientalInstitute Publications 72. Chicago.

Fritz, V. (1990) Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen aufdem Tell el-'Oreme am See Gennesaret, 1982–1985. OttoHarrassowitz: Wiesbaden.

Gal, Z. and Kochavi, M. (2000) Chapter 7 – Area B:Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. Pp. 59–88 in M.Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds) Aphek – Antipatris.I. Excavation of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons.Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University: Tel Aviv.

Getzov, N. (1998) Tel Bet Yerah. ESI 18, 20–21.Golani, A. and Braun, E. (1991) Qiryat Ata. ESI 10,

99–100.

c


Gophna, R. (1974) The Settlement of the Coastal Plain ofEretz Israel During the Early Bronze Age. PhD thesis, TelAviv University (Hebrew).

Greenberg, R. (1992) Two Early Bronze Age CylinderSeal Impressions from Tel Dan. Eretz Israel 23, 48–50,147*. (Hebrew with English summary).

—— (2001) Chapter 11: Early Bronze Age II-IIIPalestinian Cylinder Seal Impressions and the NorthCanaanite Metallic Ware Jar. Pp. 176–189 in S. Wolff(ed.) in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel andNeighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studiesin Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 5/ASOR BookSeries No. 5. Chicago and Atlanta.

Greenberg, R., Horwitz L.K., Lernau, O., Mienis, H.K.,Khalaily, H. and Marder, O. (1998) A Sounding at TelNa ama in the Hula Valley. 'Atiqot 35, 9–35.

Greenberg, R. and Porat, N. (1996) A Third MillenniumPottery Production Center: Typology, Petrography, andProvenance of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel andAdjacent Regions. BASOR 301, 5–24.

Herr, L.G., Geraty, L.T. and La Bianca, Ø.S. (1997)Madaba Plains Project: The 1989 Season at Tell el-Umeiriand Vicinity and Subsequent Studies 3. AndrewsUniversity Press: Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Holland, T.A. (1986) Jericho and the Proto-UrbanPeriod. Alesco 2, 17–25. Studies in the History andArchaeology of Palestine; Palestine ArchaeologicalCentre: Aleppo University: Aleppo.

Joffe, A.H. (2001) Early Bronze Age Seal Impressionsfrom the Jezreel Valley and the Problem of Sealing inthe Southern Levant. Pp. 355–375 in S. Wolff (ed.)Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Landsin Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in AncientOriental Civilization No. 59/ASOR Book Series No. 5.Chicago and Atlanta.

Kenyon, K.M. (1979) Archaeology in the Holy Land.(Fourth Edition). Ernest Benn: London.

Lapp, N. (1999) Early Bronze Age Seals and SealImpressions from Taanach. Pp. 151–163 in T. Kapitan(ed.) Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and theNear East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock. ASOR:Atlanta.

Levy, T.E., Alon, D., Smith, P., Yekutieli, Y., Rowan, Y.,Goldberg, P., Porat, N., Brink, E.C.M. van den,Witten, A.J., Golden, J., Grigson, C., Dawson, L., Holl,A., Moreno, J. and Kersel, M. (1997) Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca.4500–3000 BCE): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995Excavations. BASOR 307, 1–52.

Loud, G. (1948) Megiddo. II. Seasons of 1935–1939.University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Macalister, R.A.S. (1912) The Excavation of Gezer. III.John Murray: London.

Mathews, D.M. (1997) The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak.Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 15. University Press:Fribourg Switzerland.

Mazzoni, S. (1992) Materiali e Studi Archeologici de Ebla I.Universita degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”: Rome.

de Miroschedji, P. (1997) La glyptique palestinienne duBronze ancien. Pp. 190–227, 291–316 in A. Caubet(ed.) De Chypre à la Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche-Orientancien. Actes du colloque international organizé aumusée du Louvre par le Service culturel le 18 mars1995. La documentation française: Paris.

Miroschedji, P. de and Sadek, M. (2000a) Travauxarchéologiques à Tell Sakan (Bande de Gaza) en 1999.Orient Express 2000/2, 30–32.

—— (2000b) Tell es-Sakan 2000. Orient Express 2000/2,30–32.

Parr, P.J. (2000) Proto-Urban Jericho: The Need forReappraisal. Pp. 389–398 in L.E. Stager, J.A. Greeneand M.D. Coogan (eds) The Archaeology of Jordan andBeyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Eisenbraun:Winona Lake, Indiana.

Peltenburg, E., Campbell, S., Carter, S., Stephen, F.M.K.and Tipping, R. (1997). Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1996:Preliminary Report. Levant 29, 1–18.

Pini, I. (1975a) Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen. (Corpusder Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel). Band V, Teilen1–2. Gebr. Mann Verlag: Berlin.

Prausnitz, M. (1958) Cylinder Seal Impressions in theEastern Mediterranean at the End of the ThirdMillennium BC. Eretz Israel 5, 31–35, 84* (Hebrew withEnglish summary).

Ravn, O.E. (1960) A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Sealsand Impressions in the Danish National Museum.Nationalmuseet: København.

Rice, P. (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. TheUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Sadeh, S. (1996) Chapter 6: Small Finds. Pp. 143–152 inR. Gophna, Excavations at Tel Dalit: An Early BronzeAge Walled Town in Central Israel. Ramot: Tel Aviv.

Sass, B. (2000) Chapter 12: The Small Finds. Pp.349–423 in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern(eds) Megiddo. III. The 1992–1996 Seasons. TheInstitute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv.

Seger, J.D., Baum, B., Borowski O., Cole, D.P., Forshey,H., Futato, E., Jacobs, P.F., Laustrup, P., O’Conner-Seger, P. and Zeder, M. (1990) The Bronze AgeSettlements at Tell H. alif: Phase II Excavations,1983–1987. Pp.1–32 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations. BASOR Supplement No. 26.Baltimore.

Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. (1913) Jericho: Die Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungen. Hinrichs: Leipzig.

Stepansky, Y. (1999) The Periphery of Hazor during theBronze Age, the Iron Age and the Persian Period: ARegional Archaeological Study. M.A. thesis, Tel AvivUniversity (Hebrew with English summary).

Teissier, B. (1987) Glyptic Evidence for a Connectionbetween Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourthand Third Millennia. Iran 25, 27–54.

Tubb, J.N., Dorrell, G. and Cobbing, F.J. (1997) InterimReport on the Ninth Season (1996) of Excavations atTell es-Sa'idiyeh, Jordan. PEQ 129, 54–77.

c

30 LEVANT 36 2004

more evidence for early bronze age glyptics from the southern levant

Documents