late philistine decorated ware ("ashdod ware"): typology, chronology, and production...

Late Philistine Decorated Ware ("Ashdod Ware"): Typology, Chronology, and ProductionCentersAuthor(s): David Ben-Shlomo, Itzhaq Shai and Aren M. MaeirSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 335 (Aug., 2004), pp. 1-35Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150067 .

Accessed: 30/09/2014 21:48

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.219.74.79 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:48:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150067?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Late Philistine Decorated Ware

("Ashdod Ware"): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers*

DAVID BEN-SHLOMO

Institute of Archaeology Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel davben @h2.hum.huji.ac.il

ITZHAQ SHAI

Institute of Archaeology Martin [Szusz] Department of Land of Israel Studies

and Archaeology Bar-Ilan University

Ramat Gan 52900, Israel deutchi @popeye.cc.biu.ac.il

AREN M. MAEIR

Institute of Archaeology Martin [Szusz] Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology

Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

maeira@ mail.biu.ac.il

Following the excavations at Tel Ashdod, a class of Iron Age II decorated pottery was identified that became known as 'Ashdod Ware." In the present study, this pottery is defined as Late Philistine Decorated Ware. Based on its typology, decoration, distribution, chronology, and provenience, it is suggested that this class of vessels, which first appears in Iron IIA and continues through at least the Iron IIB period, is typical of Phi- listia and was most probably produced at a limited number of Philistine sites (e.g., at Ashdod and Tell es-Sdfi/Gath). It is also demonstrated that the decorative style of this group represents a development of Iron I Philistine decorative traditions and the influence of late Iron I/early Iron IIA Phoenician decorated ceramics. Although the overall function and significance of this group cannot be definitively determined, it appears to have served as local "prestige ware" in Iron II Philistine culture.

INTRODUCTION

he material culture of the Iron I Philistines has been the focus of a substantial volume of research for more than a century (e.g., Macalis-

ter 1914; T. Dothan 1982; Noort 1994; Gitin, Mazar, and Stern 1998; Oren 2000). Until quite recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the later mani- festations of the Philistine culture (Gitin's "Late Philistine" Culture [1997]), the culture typical of Philistia from the end of the Iron I until the conquest

and destruction of the Philistine cities by Nebuchad- nezzar in the late seventh century B.C.E. Lately, the material culture of the Iron Age IIA in Philistia has been the focus of much discussion and debate, particularly within the context of the ongoing debate on Iron Age chronology (e.g., Finkelstein 1995; 1996; 2002a; Mazar 1997; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001). As part of this discourse, the definition of the material culture of this period has been of paramount importance, a definition that would allow for more accurate intersite comparisons and relative dating and assist in understanding the developmental trajectory of both the Philistine and neighboring contemporary cultures.

* This paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Moshe Do- than of Haifa University, excavator of Ashdod, who first recognized this unique group of pottery.

1



2 BEN-SHLOMO, SHAI, AND MAEIR BASOR 335

Among the many elements typical of the material culture of the geochronological framework of Iron Age IIA Philistia is a distinct group of decorated pottery, the so-called Ashdod Ware, that we suggest should be redefined as Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW). Although the existence of this pottery has been noted in the past, it has not yet been studied in depth. And despite the fact that it appears to be quite typical of Iron IIA Philistia, its typological definition and chronological range, as well as its cultural affiliation and provenience, are insufficiently known. We believe that a comprehensive definition, study, and analysis of this pottery group will be use- ful for understanding the cultural and chronological development of Iron II Philistia.

During the excavations at Tel Ashdod in the 1960s, M. Dothan and Freedman defined a then- unique type of decorated pottery as "Ashdod Ware" (1967: 130-31). Although its designation implies that the ware is unique to Ashdod, they did observe that it was found at other Iron II sites on the southern Coastal Plain, as well as that the decoration had a "resemblance to Cypro-Phoenician ware." However, based on the differences between the two wares, M. Dothan and Freedman defined "Ashdod Ware" as a distinct ceramic group (1967: 130-31). In subsequent reports on the excavations at Ashdod, the ware was sometimes defined as having a "black decoration on a red-burnished slip," and it was stated that it did not have parallels (M. Dothan 1971: 113).

Over the years, vessels decorated in the LPDW style have been found at several sites, in most cases in Iron IIA contexts. To the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to examine this pottery group as a distinct assemblage, i.e., to define its typology, chronology, distribution, and production centers.

As more than four decades have passed since its original identification, we believe that this unique decoration style and pottery ware can be systemati- cally defined and as such recognized as one of the most indicative decorative features of the Iron II pottery repertoire in the southern Levant, particularly in the Coastal Plain region.

CHRONOLOGICAL AND

TYPOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Throughout this discussion, the absolute chronological framework follows, broadly, that of the traditional "high" chronology (e.g., Mazar 1997), al-

though the overall conclusions and results are com- patible with the "low" chronology as well (e.g., Finkelstein 1995; 1996). Nevertheless, clarification of our definition of the Iron Age IIA is required. It is our opinion that regarding much of southern Pal- estine (especially the southern Coastal Plain and the Shephelah) but possibly in other regions of the southern Levant as well, the Iron Age IIA spans both the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. Although tra- ditionally the Iron Age IIA is dated to the tenth century (e.g., Mazar 1990: 368-402; Fritz 1994: 75; Stern 1994: 1529),1 the evidence from many of the sites in the Coastal Plain and the Shephelah (e.g., Ashdod, Tell es-Safi/Gath, Lachish, etc.) appears to exhibit a clear continuity between the two centuries, while exhibiting a more marked change during the eighth century B.C.E. This is particularly apparent in the pottery, where a major technological and typological development is seen only in the early eighth century B.C.E. By and large, this interpretation com- plements Aharoni and Amiran's (1958) suggestion from many years ago to place the transition between the "Iron II" and the "Iron III" at ca. 841, as well as Mazar's (1999: 37-42) more recent arguments for a continuity (particularly in the pottery traditions) between the tenth and ninth centuries in northern Palestine. Although clearly beyond the scope of the present study, defining the existence of an extended Iron Age IIA that terminates in the second half, or in some regions, at the end of the ninth century B.C.E.

(historically, possibly related to Hazael's activities), may have important ramifications within the context of the current debate on Iron Age chronology.

The predominant defining feature of LPDW pottery is the readily identifiable surface treatment and decoration technique. The typical surface treatment includes red slip and meticulous vertical hand burnishing on all or part of the vessel, or, in some cases, wheel burnishing. The painted decoration is applied over the red slip and usually includes horizontal black bands on various parts of the vessel, often with white bands in between the black bands.

The identification of LPDW is based, in our opinion, on four components: (1) Iron Age IIA coastal forms; (2) thick, dark red slip; (3) meticulous vertical hand burnish; and (4) painted black and/or white

1While, accordingly, the proponents of the "low" chronol-

ogy date the Iron Age IIA primarily to the ninth century B.C.E. (e.g., Finkelstein 1995; 1996).



2004 LATE PHILISTINE DECORATED WARE 3

TABLE 1. Chronological and Geographical Characteristics of the Various LPDW Form Classes (Extended Typology)

Included in Suggested Geographical Class Streamlined Typology Chronological Span Distribution

Bowl BL1 No Iron IIA Philistia

Bowls BL2-3 No Iron IIB Philistia

Kraters KR1-3 Yes Iron IIA Philistia

Other kraters No Iron IIA (early?) Philistia

Amphorae Yes Iron IIA Philistia and

Shephelah

Amphoriskoi No Iron IIA-B Southern Palestine

Bottle No Iron IIA? Ashdod

Jars Yes Iron IIA-B Philistia

Jugs JG1-3 Yes Iron IIA-B Philistia

Other jugs No Iron IIA-B Philistia

Juglets Yes Iron IIA Tell es-S.

fi/Gath

Zoomorphic vessels No Iron IIA-B Philistia

Kernoi No Iron IIA-B Philistia

Figurines No Iron IIA-B Philistia

decoration (usually bands). Although not all of these features must appear together, at least two should. Whereas other contemporary coastal ceramic groups may show similarities to LPDW, there are clear dis- tinctions. For example, the slightly earlier "Philistine Red Slip" style (see below, in the discussion of Tell Qasile, Stratum X) appears on Iron Age I Philistine forms and lacks the thick, dark slip and the meticulous vertical burnish. Likewise, the Cypro-Phoeni- cian pottery usually has a lustrous red slip and a meticulous horizontal wheel burnish, but it appears, in most cases, on a different range of pottery forms.

The appearance of the clay is relatively uniform, with a reddish-brown or orange color. However, several of the vessels seem to be made of finer clay, better levigated than the usual ware; these finer vessels also often have a more lustrous burnish.

Another significant characteristic of LPDW pottery is the specific vessel forms on which this decoration and surface treatment occurs, forms that can be classified as coastal types.2 Based on these two principal characteristics-decoration and form-two kinds of typology can be formulated: a streamlined typology which includes only "coastal" forms with the unique decoration, and an extended typology

which also includes vessels attributed to the LPDW group only on the basis of their decoration but whose morphology is not restricted to types characteristic solely of the Coastal Plain (table 1). Although the classification of vessels belonging to the extended typology group is less definitive (being based on decoration and not form), it was felt that it was nevertheless applicable for the recognition of this ware. The unique and readily identifiable decoration en- ables one to distinguish this ware, even when not appearing on a Coastal Plain vessel form.

"Classic" LPDW forms (Streamlined Typology)

The coastal forms most typical of LPDW pottery are closed kraters, amphorae, and jugs (table 1). The kraters include large kraters with a globular body, wide vertical neck, and two handles attached from the rim to the shoulder (KR1; fig. 1:4-6), in many cases with a pinched ring base.3 This type has at least three variants: one has a large body with a vertical

2For the definition of the coastal regional pottery assem-

blage, see Gitin 1998: 165-67; Shai 2000: 127-28, pl. 4.

3The base is created by pinching the lower part of the body of the vessel while it is still on the wheel, rather than applying a separately made ring on the base. This type of base is well known in the Phoenician ceramic repertoire. See, e.g., Chambon 1980: 165, fig. 44.




BL2 BL3

BL12 0 10cm

KR1B

KR1A

KR1C C

KR2 KR3

KR4MMR

9 o loocm 10

Fig. 1. LPDW forms: bowls and kraters. See table 2 for descriptions.




Table 2. LPDW Forms: Bowls and Kraters, Illustrated in Figure 1

No. Form Type Site Stratum Reference

1 Bowl BL1 Tell es-Safi 4

2 Bowl BL2 Ashdod VI M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.77:7

3 Bowl BL3 Ashdod VI M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.77:9

4 Krater KR1A Ashdod VIII M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 14:14

5 Krater KR1B Ashdod IX M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 36:13

6 Krater KR1C Ashdod Xb M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 3:1

7 Krater KR2 Ashdod VIIb M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 20:2

8 Krater KR3 Ashdod IX-VIII M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.63:10

9 Krater KR4 Tell es-Safi 4

10 Krater KR5 Gezer VIII Dever 1986: fig. 47:3

neck (KR1A; fig. 1:4); the second is smaller, is carinated, and has a short neck (KR1B; figs. 1:5; 4:11); and the third, which also has a high vertical neck, is characterized by handles that attached from the neck to the shoulder (KR1C; fig. 1:6).

The second krater type has a globular body, a short vertical neck, two slanting horizontal handles, and a rim typical of kraters from the Philistine Coastal Plain (KR2; fig. 1:7; e.g., M. Dothan 1971: fig. 40:7). General morphological parallels for krater types KR1 and KR2 come from Phoenician sites, such as Akhziv (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 118, fig. 5.4, K1), from cemeteries on the Lebanese coast (Saidah 1966: fig. 17; Chapman 1972: figs. 20, 32), and from Cyprus (Karageorghis 1970: pl. 204:5, 18-24).

Another krater type in the LPDW style is a hole- mouth krater with a globular body, rounded base, and triangular or ridged rim (KR3; fig. 1:8). Undecorated examples of this type are common in Philistia during the Iron Age IIA and the beginning of the Iron Age IIB (e.g., M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 7:11; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 65-66, Type KR20).

The ovoid jars typical of the coastal area in the Iron Age IIA-B appear in several cases with vertically burnished red slip and at times with black and white bands on the neck and/or shoulder (JR1; fig. 2:1). This type appears at Ashdod and Gezer (see below), Tel Miqne-Ekron (S. Gitin, personal communication), and Tel Gil'am (Stern 1970: fig. 6:6).

One of the most prominent LPDW forms is the globular amphora (AM1A; figs. 2:3; 4:4, 10). These vessels have a globular body, a wide, high, and vertically oriented neck, a ridged or triangular rim, a pinched ring base, and two loop handles attached from a ridge at the middle of the neck to the shoulder. The vertical burnish occurs on the neck. This type

occurs in a wide variety of sizes, from small to large. One variant of this form has a rounded base (AM1B; figs. 2:4; 4:12). Amphorae of this type that occur without red slip but with vertical burnish could also be associated with LPDW. It should be noted that a development of this form appears as late as the end of the Iron Age II at various sites (mostly coastal), but without decoration-for example, at Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 78 [Stratum III, Type AM7]), Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IB (Gitin 1998: fig. 4:14) and Tell el-Farlah (N) Stratum VIId (Chambon 1984: pl. 46:8). Although this amphora (AM1B) is quite large in comparison with the other LPDW types, nevertheless its red-slipped burnished decoration allows it to be defined as a typical LPDW form.

A form similar to the AM1A amphora is a globular jug with a handle from a ridge in the middle of the neck to the shoulder (JG4B; figs. 3:6; 4:1, 5). As with the amphorae, this type appears in a wide range of sizes. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between types AM1 and JG4B, especially when they are represented by small sherds. Jug type JG4B is also found at Phoenician sites, primarily in burial contexts (Saidah 1966: figs. 23-24; Chapman 1972: fig. 29:157).

Various jugs appear with LPDW decoration, although only a few of the forms can be considered as belonging exclusively to this group. Type JG1 is a common Iron Age IIA coastal type, with a globular body, wide neck, and ridged rim (JG1; fig. 3:1). It should be noted that although this jug occasionally occurs without surface treatment, the majority of the examples have a red slip and vertical burnish (for examples from Tel Batash, see Mazar and Panitz- Cohen 2001: 112-13, Type JG22). Another jug type




2

BT

1 j

JR1

AMIA AM1B

3 4

AMPS 1A

5 o lomr 6

Fig. 2. LPDW forms: jars and amphorae. See table 3 for descriptions.




Table 3. LPDW Forms: Jars and Amphorae, Illustrated in Figure 2


1 Jar JR1 Ashdod VIIIb M. Dothan 1971: fig. 43:5

2 Bottle BT Ashdod X-IX M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.53:6

3 Amphora AM1A Tell es-S&fi 4

4 Amphora AMIB Tell es-S.

fi 4

5 Amphoriskos AMPS1A Beersheba II Aharoni 1973: pl. 67:1

6 Amphoriskos AMPS B Tell es-S.afi

4

has a large globular body, a short narrow neck, and a pinched ring base (JG2; fig. 3:2). Type JG3 seems to represent a smaller version of JG 1, with a globular body, a wide, inward-slanting, vertical neck, and a ring base (JG3; fig. 3:3). This type appears at Tel Batash and Ashdod (see below). The juglet with burnished red slip and LPDW decoration (JGT1; fig. 3:7) is made of a finer clay. Although the neck and rim of the example from the Tell es-S•fi/Gath excavations has not survived (fig. 3:7), an unprovenanced juglet of this type (purportedly from Tell

es-Sa.fi/ Gath, currently located in the Israel Museum; Day- agi-Mendels 1999: 60, photo, lower left) has a trefoil rim and a long, conical neck. Clearly, this form is an imitation of a well-known Phoenician type (e.g., Bikai 1987: pl. 14: 355, 360).

Other Forms Decorated in the LPDW Style (Extended Typology)

The group of vessels decorated in the LPDW style that morphologically are not exclusively coastal types includes bowls, kraters, and several closed forms (table 1). Type BL1 is a large, rounded bowl with grooves below the rim and a ring base (fig. 1:1). Type BL2 is a carinated bowl with a wide, flattened or everted rim (fig. 1:2) that occurs at Ashdod (see below); similarly shaped bowls have been reported also from Tell Qasile Stratum VII (Mazar 1985: fig. 55:25) and Ramat Rahel (Aharoni 1962: fig. 25:1). Type BL3 is a shallow, open bowl (fig. 1:3). The last two types appear in Iron IIB; one might suggest some influence of the Assyrian pottery forms as well (e.g., possibly, Oates 1959: pl. 35:18 or 20; Gilboa 1996: fig. 3:14).

Two krater types occasionally occur with the LPDW decoration: a hemispherical krater (KR5; fig. 1:10 [see Dever 1986: pl. 47:3]) and a small carinated krater with a thickened rim, two loop handles, and a ring base (KR4; fig. 1:9). Type KR4 is similar

to typical Iron IIA red-slipped kraters (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 62, type KR14) and has a decoration reminiscent of BL1.

Amphoriskoi of various sizes with two handles on the shoulder and a pointed, rounded, or button base (Type AMPS1) are often decorated with vertically burnished red slip and horizontal black and white bands. The type is quite common in Iron IIB contexts at sites throughout Israel, such as Beersheba Stratum II (Aharoni 1973: pls. 67:1, 72:17), Arad Stratum XI (Singer-Avitz 2002: fig. 7:6), Tel Batash Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 22:12), Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum II (S. Gitin, personal communication), Khirbet el-Qom (R. Defonzo, personal communication), and Tell el-FarCah (N) Stratum VIIb (Chambon 1984: pl. 61:31). One variant of this type has a button base (AMPS 1A; fig. 2:5) and another a rounded base (AMPS1B; figs. 2:6; 3:3). A unique example of a drop- or date-shaped vessel appears at Ashdod (BT; fig. 2:2); this form, which may have Assyrian parallels (Gilboa 1995: 13, fig. 1.7:7), is a well-made, thin-walled vessel with a flaring neck, a "drop"- or "date-shaped" body, and rounded base. The vessel is red-slipped (on the exterior and partly on the interior) and wheel-burnished. The decoration is comprised of black horizontal bands: two near the rim with a white band between them, one on the shoulder, another two on the body with a white band between them, and one more black band below them. The black on the shoulder is decorated with droplets of white paint. On the base of the jar are eight concentric black circles with two or three white circles painted on top of them. This decoration may possibly be an attempt to imitate faience or glass vessels.

The shape of the LPDW "bottle" (BT) may either relate to Assyrian forms (see Lines 1954: pl. 38:3; Oates 1959: pl. 37:78) or imitate Egyptian jar forms (e.g., Nagel 1938: fig. 10:14-15). In any event, both the decoration technique and the colors used are in




JG2

JG1

-.12 JG4A

JG5

JG3

4 3

JG4B

JGTT Varia 1

6 7 8

ZV Kernos Figurine

9 10 11

0 10cm

Fig. 3. LPDW forms: jugs and varia. See table 4 for descriptions.




Table 4. LPDW forms: jugs, juglets, and varia, Illustrated in Figure 3


1 Jug JG1 Ashdod VIII M. Dothan 1971: fig. 41:26

2 Jug JG2 Ashdod X-IX M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo: pl. 3.60:4

3 Jug JG3 Tel Batash IV Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 1:20

4 Jug JG5 Tell es-Safi Temporary Stratum 4

5 Jug JG4A Tell es-S•fi Temporary Stratum 4

6 Jug JG4B Tell es-Safi Temporary Stratum 4

7 Juglet JGT1 Tell es-Safi Temporary Stratum 4

8 Cup VAl Tell es-Safi Temporary Stratum 4

9 Zoomorphic ZV Ashdod Unknown M. Dothan 1971: fig. 72:1 vessel

10 Zoomorphic ZV/K Ashdod VII M. Dothan 1971: fig. 68:6 vessel/kernos

11 Figurine FG1 Ashdod Disturbed M. Dothan 1971: fig. 62:1 context

the LPDW tradition. Thus, it would appear that this vessel illustrates a blend of local and foreign influences.

Globular jugs with either a mushroom, pinched, or simple rim are at times decorated in the LPDW style (JG4). Most of the jugs also have a "pinched ring base." The rim varies and may be trefoil (JG4A; figs. 3:5; 4:8-9), or plain with the handle connected between a ridge in the middle of the neck and the vessel shoulder (JG4B; figs. 3:6; 4:1, 5). In addition, fragments of a very similar jug with a globular body and, possibly, a mushroom-shaped rim (although actual examples of the rim did not survive) might exist (for an example of JG4C, see M. Dothan 1971: pl. 60:3; this type was not included in the typological plates due to its fragmentary nature). These jug forms are often considered Phoenician or Cypro- Phoenician (Bikai 1987: pl. 5), and their attribution to the LPDW group is based solely on the surface treatment and decoration. Similar globular jugs decorated in the LPDW style appear at Sarepta (Pritchard 1975: fig. 63:11) and Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: pl. 13:82).

Other types that occasionally occur with LPDW decoration are a small jug with a wide neck and a rounded base (JG5; figs. 3:4; 4:7), a cup-shaped vessel with a ring base (VAl; figs. 3:8; 4:6), and a pyxis (at Ashkelon; R. Voss, personal communication).

Another group that should be included in the LPDW corpus is zoomorphic vessels and kernoi (ZV/ K; fig. 3:9-10) and possibly figurines (FGl; fig. 3:11). Particularly common at Ashdod are bovine head-spouts with burnished red slip and various black-and-white decorations. A figurine of a man holding a lyre from Ashdod is also decorated in the LPDW style (fig. 3:11; M. Dothan 1971: fig. 62).

THE OCCURRENCE OF LPDW AT SOUTHERN SITES

In the following section, a survey of the LPDW pottery that has been reported from sites in the southern Coastal Plain (Philistia), the Judaean foothills (Shephelah), as well as the Negev and Sinai is presented (tables 5, 6). The survey commences with the finds from Ashdod (where the ware was first re-

ported, and the largest amount to date has been published), followed by the recent finds from Tell es-Safi/Gath, and finally LPDW from other sites.

Tel Ashdod

LPDW was first defined as "Ashdod Ware" in the

publication of Ashdod Area D, local Phase 4 (Stra- tum IX) (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: 132). The first type that was identified was the globular krater




TABLE 5. Iron Age Sites with LPDW

Philistine "Degenerated" and Red- Site/Pottery Bichrome Slipped Philistine Ware LPDW LPDW

Ashdod XI Xb X-IX VIII Tell es-Safi/Gath Temporary Stratum 7 Temporary Strata 6-5 Temporary Stratum 4 Tel Miqne VC-B VA-IV IVA-III III-II Tel Batash V V IV III Gezer IX VIII VII-VI V Beth-Shemesh III IIB? IIB IIA Tell Qasile XI-X X IX?

TABLE 6. Chronological Comparison of Late Iron Age I-Iron Age IIB Sites in Philistia

Iron Age I/IIA End of Iron Age I Transition Iron Age IIA Iron Age IIB

Site/Period (11th Century (11th-Early 10th (JOth-9th (8th Century (Date) B.C.E.) Centuries B.C.E.) Centuries B.C.E.) B.C.E.)

Ashdod XI Xb? X-IX VIII Tell es-Safi/Gath Temporary Temporary Temporary Temporary

Stratum 6 Stratum 5 Stratum 4 Stratum 3 Tel Miqne V IV III II Tel Batash V IV III Gezer IX VIII VII-VI V Beth Shemesh III IIB? IIB IIA Tell Qasile XI X IX VIII

with two loop handles (KR1; M. Dothan and Freed- man 1967: fig. 36:13; M. Dothan 1971: 21, 95). All told, the excavations at Tel Ashdod produced the largest number of LPDW vessels and the greatest variety of forms. However, the stratigraphic context of these vessels is not always sufficiently clear.

The earliest appearance of LPDW at Ashdod is in Stratum Xb in Area M, the first Iron IIA stratum (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: 10-11). Subsequent stratified examples were reported from Strata X through VII, to which several, possibly residual, sherds from Stratum VI can be added. The ware appears mainly in Areas D, G, H-K, and M. Although LPDW pottery occurs throughout the Iron Age strata, it seems to be especially common in Iron IIA (Strata X-IX). The main exception is the large assemblage found in Stratum VIIIb in Area D. The destruction of Stratum VIII in Area D is dated to Sargon II's cam-

paign in 712 B.C.E. (M. Dothan 1971: 21). Although most of the LPDW vessels derive from the earlier, local Phase 3b of this stratum, the dating of this phase is later than that of strata that yielded LPDW, both from other excavation areas at Ashdod and at other sites.

According to the excavators (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: 52), Stratum X denotes the very beginning of Iron IIA, although most of the material published from this stratum seems to represent a longer chronological span, since the forms are comparable to assemblages from contexts that have been dated to the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. It has recently been suggested that the earliest Iron Age IIA phase (the late 11th-early 10th century, equivalent to Tell Qasile Stratum X) is absent at Tel Ashdod (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001, who suggest an occupational gap in this period). However, this phe-




nomenon can be explained without assuming a gap in occupation during Iron IIA: since there is no destruction at the site at the end of the Iron I, the Iron IIA Stratum X has a long chronological range and represents all the Iron IIA phases. Accordingly, only a limited number of vessels from the lower fills of this stratum (e.g., in Area G, Phase 6) represent the earliest Iron IIA phase (equivalent to Tell Qasile Stratum X), while the majority of the Stratum X finds are from the final stage of this stratum (for a detailed discussion, see Ben-Shlomo 2003).

Another problem with the stratigraphy of. Ashdod is the definition of Stratum IX. This stratum is barely in evidence in Area D, appears to be somewhat arti- ficial in Area M (Ussishkin 1990: 78-82), and does not exist at all in other areas. Thus, as Stratum IX is not an architecturally independent stratum, Stra- tum X represents the primary Iron IIA level (in Areas G, H, and M). Stratum IX may be defined as a transitional phase of material culture representing the end of Iron IIA. In Area H, two loci (especially Locus 5117; see M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in

press: fig. 2.34-35), which postdate the Stratum X levels but predate the Stratum IX-VIII floors, represent this phase. The large pottery assemblage re- covered from these contexts (Pits 5117 and 6205, attributed to Stratum X-IX) includes several com-

plete LPDW vessels (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in

press: pls. 3.53, 111.57-61) and seems to parallel the

assemblage from Tell es-Safi Temporary Stratum 4 (see below). Apparently, LPDW pottery also occurs in the Iron IIB strata (VIII-VI), but to a lesser extent. Most of the forms that appear in this period differ from the "classical" LPDW forms and may reflect later "foreign" influences (such as Assyrian or Judaean).

In general, all the forms that could be defined as LPDW appear at Ashdod, and some in fact occur

exclusively at this site. For example, as noted above, bowls are rarely represented in LPDW pottery, but several bowls from Ashdod Stratum VI have the

typical black-and-white decoration on red slip and

may thus be attributed to LPDW (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.77:7, 9). These latter ex-

amples, however, might very well be residual from earlier layers. A single example of the large hemispherical bowl (type BL1) appears in Area G, Stra- tum X (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: fig. 45:9). Additional examples of bowls (albeit of different forms) that may be classified as LPDW are two bowls from Area H of types BL2 (M. Dothan and

Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.77:7) and BL3 (M. Do- than and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.77:9). These, however, are late forms-shallow, open bowls with a wide rim-that may exhibit Assyrian influences (Gilboa 1996: fig. 3:14).

Several types of kraters from Ashdod can be classified as LPDW, including hole-mouth kraters decorated in the LPDW style of type KR3 (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 36:6; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 20:1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.63:5-7), which appear in Strata IX and IX-VIII. A more typical and common form is the KR1 globular krater with two loop handles (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 36:13; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: figs. 3:1, 14:13-14; 1993: fig. 44:8). This type occurs in Strata Xb through VIII and includes variants that are quite large and/or have a long vertical neck. Another type of krater is usually smaller and has two slanted horizontal handles (for KR1A, see M. Dothan 1971: figs. 53:16-17, 54:1, 88:20; for KR2, see M. Dothan 1971: fig. 40:5; Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 20:2; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in

press: pl. 3.63:9). KR1A seems to be limited to Iron IIB.

The shape of type JR1 is quite similar to the sack-

shaped jars of the coastal region during Iron IIA. Two almost complete examples derive from Area D Stratum VIIIb (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 43:5) and Area H Stratum X (M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.52:7). It should be noted that these jars have four handles, a rare feature in "regular" (non-LPDW) sack-shaped jars.

The globular amphorae with a wide, long, verti-

cally oriented neck (AM1) represent one of the most

typical LPDW forms. All the examples from Ashdod have a pinched ring base (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 46:6; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 21:10; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.53:7; for neck fragments of possibly another such amphora, see M. Do- than and Freedman 1967: fig. 42:10). Based on the finds from Ashdod, the chronological range of these vessels extends beyond Iron IIA, possibly as late as Stratum VIII (second half of the eighth century B.C.E.).

The amphoriskoi from Ashdod are smaller and more elongated than those found at other sites and have a pointed or rounded base. These vessels seem to represent a late form, dating to the Iron Age IIB (AMPS 1), with one of these examples coming from Stratum VIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 14:9). This form may also be influenced by Assyrian pottery




traditions, which begin to appear at this time (see, e.g., Gilboa 1996; note that this type is also common at Judaean sites). It can be associated with LPDW because of its distinctive decoration.

A unique vessel found in Area H Stratum X-IX (Locus 6205) is a bottle or handleless drop- or date- shaped jar (BT; figs. 2:2; 5; M. Dothan and Ben- Shlomo in press: pl. 3.53:6).

LPDW jugs occur in a wide variety of forms at Ashdod, some of which are unique to LPDW, while others are coastal or Phoenician forms decorated in the LPDW style. A complete example of the latter is a globular jug with a narrow neck of type JG2 from Area H Stratum X-IX (figs. 3:2; 6; see also M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.60:4). Even more common are smaller globular jugs (JG4; Dothan 1971: fig. 41:27; M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 14:10), while globular jugs with a wide, slanted neck and a ridged rim of type JG1 appear occasionally (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 41:19; M. Dothan 1971: figs. 41:26, 89:1). All of the above examples derive from Strata IX-VIII contexts.

An additional jug type represented is the small jug with a long vertical neck of type JG3 (M. Do- than and Freedman 1967: fig. 42:13; M. Dothan and Porath 1993: fig. 44:9; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pl. 3.66:3). Fragments of a form resem- bling the Phoenician "mushroom-necked" jugs (Bi- kai 1987: pl. 11:195-96) also appear which, although we are not aware of a complete example, appeared to warrant a separate subtype (for type JG4C [which due to its fragmentary nature was not illustrated in our typological plates], see M. Dothan 1971: figs. 41:24, 46:5; for JG5, see M. Dothan and Porath 1982: fig. 3:8).

Most of the LPDW jugs have certain common characteristics, including pinched-ring bases, a vertical burnish (at least on the neck), and a decoration of horizontal black (and at times white) bands on various parts of the vessel.

Other LPDW vessels found at Ashdod include a lentoid flask decorated in the LPDW style that was found in Area G Stratum X (M. Dothan and Porath 1993: fig. 46:5). Another group of pottery objects decorated in the LPDW style are zoomorphic vessels and kernoi (ZV/K), which occur in relatively large quantities in Strata X-VIII with fragments in Strata VII-VI, especially in Areas D and H. Most are head- spouts or other spouts from kernoi (M. Dothan 1971: figs. 68:1, 6, 69:1-6, 70:1, 3, 71:8; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: pls. 3.61:3-4, 9-10, III.69:1).

Actual zoomorphic libation vessels, probably depict- ing bovines, also appear in this ware (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 72:1; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: fig. 3.25), comparable to a complete example found in an unstratified context at Tel Miqne-Ekron (Ben- Shlomo in press a: fig. 12). Several figurines (FG) are also decorated in the LPDW style, the most notable being the figurine of a lyre player (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 62: 1).

To sum up, the latest stratum in which LPDW is found at Ashdod is local Phases 1-2 in Area D (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 53:16-17), dated by the excavators to the seventh century B.C.E. (M. Dothan 1971: 113-15; see as well the recent discussion of the date by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001 and Ben-Shlomo 2003). Nevertheless, as noted above, most of the LPDW from Ashdod (and other sites) de- rives from pre-seventh-century contexts, so the later examples from Ashdod might be residual sherds from earlier strata. It therefore seems that the LPDW style can be considered the common, local painted decoration at Ashdod throughout most, if not all, of Iron II. It should be stressed that during this period, the traditional Iron I "Philistine" bichrome decoration (and its immediate derivatives) disappeared.

Since there is no statistical data on the Ashdod pottery assemblage, it is difficult to determine the relative frequency of the various LPDW types. From reviewing the plates, however, it appears that decorated kraters and jugs are the most predominant types. In addition, as noted above, most of the vessels decorated in the LPDW style are in fact forms that are typical of the Coastal Plain during Iron II.

Tell es-S.

fi/Gath

A considerable number of vessels classified as LPDW were uncovered in the recent excavations at Tell

es-S, fi/Gath (fig. 4).4 A preliminary study of the

finds shows that pottery with LPDW decoration was

4The excavations are conducted by the Tell es-Sa.fi/Gath

Ar-

chaeological Project, directed by Aren M. Maeir and affiliated with the Institute of Archaeology, the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Partial funding for the project has been provided by the Kush- itzky Foundation, the Ihel Foundation, the Krautheimer Chair in Archaeology, and the Moskowitz Chair for the Historic Land of Israel (all of Bar-Ilan University), as well as the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, the Cotsen Foundation, and the Yoav Regional Council.




found only in loci attributed to Temporary Stratum 4, a well-defined stratum dating to the late ninth/early eighth centuries B.C.E. This dating is quite secure, given the stratigraphic context of this stratum: on the one hand, it is sealed by Temporary Stratum 3, which is characterized by finds similar to the Lachish Stra- tum III cultural horizon (late eighth century B.C.E.; see, e.g., Zimhoni 1990); on the other hand, it over- lies Temporary Stratum 5, which is typified by finds dating to the early Iron II (paralleled at Tel Batash Stratum IV; see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 156). Temporary Stratum 4 itself yielded an extremely rich assemblage of finds, including over 400 complete or restorable ceramic vessels of all classes, as well as numerous other objects. On the whole, the pottery from this level is without doubt earlier than the typical mid- to late-eighth-century assemblages, exemplified at Lachish Stratum III (e.g., Zimhoni 1990). Several architectural units were excavated in this stratum, and at least two, if not three, architectural subphases were discerned (Maeir 2001; 2003; in press a; in press b).

LPDW vessels from this stratum at Tell es-Safi/ Gath account for approximately 10 percent of the entire pottery assemblage. Most of the LPDW vessels are closed forms, the most common being jugs. It should be stressed that, unlike LPDW from most other sites, its study here is based primarily on complete and/or restorable vessels, owing to the stratigraphic context of this assemblage (a well-defined destruction level). A comprehensive study of this material is currently being conducted by I. Shai that includes quantitative analyses, data that for the most part are unavailable for other sites.

The LPDW repertoire from Tell es-Safi/Gath includes examples of BL1 (fig. 1:1), which are large, rounded bowls with a unique rim with grooves below it. The interior and exterior of the bowl are red- slipped and burnished. On the flat top of the hammer- head rim there are several interspaced groups of painted black bands on a patch of white slip. Another bowl type, with two loop handles, is red-slipped and burnished and has the same decoration on the rim. The most common decorated type from Tell es-Safi/ Gath is the amphora with the ring base (AM1A; figs. 2:3, 4:4, 10). A distinctive amphora with a round body, a vertical burnish, and a rounded base (AMiB; figs. 2:4, 4:12) should be also mentioned, a parallel for which was found at Tell Qasile; the latter, however, is decorated with a schematic depiction of a galloping horse (Maisler [Mazar] 1950-1951: pl.

34C [see also discussion below]). A similar amphora was excavated at Beth-Shemesh (see Amiran 1969: photo 240), but this example has a ring base. Jugs of type JG2 also appear at Tell es-Safi (fig. 3:2). Sev- eral additional vessel types found at Tell es-S^fi/ Gath should be mentioned: an amphoriskos with a rounded body and two loop handles, with red slip, vertical burnish, and painted horizontal black and white bands (AMPS1B; figs. 2:6, 3:3); a krater with two loop handles, a straight neck, and painted black bands (KR1B); a jug of type JG5, which in general is a rare type that was decorated in the LPDW style (figs. 3:4, 4:7); and an unusual, small, cup-shaped jug (that is not slipped or burnished) decorated with painted black and white horizontal bands at mid- body, black bands on the rim, and a vertical black "fishbone" decoration on its handle (fig. 3:8). A Phoenician influence is evident in the juglet in fig. 3:7 which has parallels in the Phoenician ceramic repertoire (see Bikai 1987: pl. 14:370).

To sum up, the finds from Tell es-Safi/Gath expand the range of known types with LPDW decoration. All the LPDW vessels found at Tell es-Safi/Gath thus far derive solely from Temporary Stratum 4 dated to the end of the ninth/beginning of the eighth century B.C.E.

Tel Miqne-Ekron

LPDW ware was found in Tel Miqne-Ekron Stra- tum IV. The existence of this ware was reported by T. Dothan (1998). To date, though, the only detailed report on the Tel Miqne-Ekron excavations in which LPDW has been published is the study of the pottery assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV (Ortiz 2000). Although Ortiz presents only a brief discussion of an LPDW amphora (2000: 199), from an examination of the plates, it seems to us that additional LPDW vessels can be noted. All of these examples are closed vessels with a red slip and decorated with black and white bands (Ortiz 2000: figs. 14:12; 15:1, 5, 11-12). All told, however, only eight vessels are decorated in LPDW style, representing only 0.04 percent of the total assemblage from Stratum IV: four amphorae (Ortiz 2000: fig. 15:10-13), one jug (Ortiz 2000: fig. 15.1), and three jug fragments (Or- tiz 2000: fig. 15:8-9, 16).

Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV reflects the transitional period between Iron I and Iron II, which, according to the traditional chronology, should be dated to the end of the 11th-beginning of the 10th century B.C.E. (Ortiz 2000:210).




While the ceramic assemblages from Strata III- II have not yet been published, Gitin (personal com- muncation) has informed us that LPDW sherds have been found in Strata III-I contexts. Since no complete vessels of this class were found in these strata, it is hard to say whether these sherds are residual or not. Examples of the types found at Tel Miqne- Ekron are bowls (BL2), jars (JR1), amphoriskoi (AMPS), and zoomorphic vessels (S. Gitin, personal communication).

Ashkelon

While the Iron Age pottery assemblage has not yet been published, L. E. Stager (personal communication) has informed us that several LPDW vessels have been excavated at Ashkelon. Master has recently suggested that the LPDW from Ashkelon was imported from the Phoenician coast (2001: 35); this suggestion, however, was based on a petrographic analysis of a single, very small sherd, which may well belong to one of the Cypro-Phoenician ceramic groups (D. Master, personal communication). Other examples of LPDW include a krater fragment and a pyxis (R. Voss, personal communication).

Beth-Shemesh

An amphora of type AM1 was found at Beth- Shemesh (Grant 1931: pl. 12: upper [#1672]; Amiran 1969: photo 240) and was attributed to an "early Iron Age context" (Grant 1931: pl. 12). Another globular amphora decorated in the LPDW style comes from Stratum II (Grant 1934: pl. 21: lower).

Kuntillet 'Ajrud

Ayalon (1995) published two vessels decorated in the LPDW style from this site. One is a jug with a "body relatively wide in the centre, red-slipped and decorated with white and dark reddish-brown bands" (Ayalon 1995: 172, fig. 14:12). The other vessel, also a decorated jug, has "an oval body coated with a reddish-brown slip, vertically burnished, and decorated with horizontal black bands" (Ayalon 1995: 172, fig. 14:11).

It is clear that both these vessels can be defined as belonging to the LPDW group (JG 1), as both the decoration and shape fit our definition nicely. Petrographic analysis of these jugs indicated that they originated in the Shephelah (Ayalon 1995: 194). Ayalon dated

the cAjrud assemblage to somewhere between the end of the ninth century B.C.E. and the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E. (1995: 198), a conclusion that is supported by the 14C dating (Meshel, Carmi, and Se- gal 1995).

Tel Masos

Two vessels with burnished red slip and a black decoration were published from Tel Masos Stratum II: a juglet and a pyxis (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pl. 143:4-5). Since these vessels were found in Area H Stratum II, which the excavators correlate to Megiddo Stratum VI and Qasile Stratum XI, they should be dated to the end of the 11th century B.C.E. (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 87-88). However, L. Singer-Avitz (personal communication), who is presently analyz- ing the finds from Tel Masos, believes that Stratum II is paralleled by Lachish Stratum V and Beersheba Stratum VII. This dating for the LPDW samples from Tel Masos seems to us more likely.

Beersheba

Several LPDW vessels were found at Beersheba Stratum II, which is dated to the end of the eighth century B.C.E. (Singer-Avitz 1999: 10-12). These include three amphoriskoi of type AMPS 1A (Aharoni 1973: pls. 67:1, 72:17, 74:16), for which parallels are known, for example, from Ashdod (see discussion above).

In her recent discussion of the finds from Beer- sheba Stratum II, Singer-Avitz describes a krater that is "the only one that is slipped in white and decorated with reddish-brown stripes, drawn vertically on the neck and horizontally on the body" (1999: 22). Pet- rographic analysis determined that the clay of which this krater was made originated from the northern Negev or southern Shephelah (Singer-Avitz 1999: 24). In addition to its decoration, its shape (similar to our type KR2) is typical of the coastal region. In particular, the horizontal handles are commonly found in Coastal Plain assemblages, presumably continu- ing the earlier (Iron I) Philistine preference for this type of handle (Shai 2000: 143). It can thus be assumed that this is an additional LPDW vessel.

Arad

Two vessels that belong typologically to the LPDW group were found in Stratum XI (Singer-




Avitz 2002: fig. 7:4, 6). One is a jug with a rounded body, the upper part of which is missing, and the other an amphoriskos of type AMPS 1. Neither vessel is slipped, but both are vertically burnished and have a black decoration. Singer-Avitz considers the pottery assemblage from this stratum to be paralleled by those from Lachish Stratum IV and Beersheba Strata V-IV (2002: 113). The rarity of LPDW at Arad is noteworthy, as is its presence only in Stratum XI, and not later.

Tell Sera'

In his very brief summary of the excavations he directed at Tell Sera', Oren noted the presence of LPDW vessels, which he described as "Ashdod pottery painted with black and white bands on a red background" (1984: 163). These vessels were found in Stratum VIII, dated to Iron I (Oren 1988: 134), which would mean that this is one of the earliest appearances of LPDW. However, it should be noted that Oren mentions that there are three phases in this stratum (1988: 134), and it can be assumed that the LPDW is associated with its latest phase. Additional information on these vessels is as yet unavailable, and further analysis must await the publication of more detailed reports.

Tell Nagila

Despite the fact that very few finds dating to Iron II were found at Tell Nagila (Amiran and Eitan 1965), D. Ilan (personal communication) has informed us that the Iron IIA pottery that was found is quite similar to the assemblage from Tell

es-S.^fi/ Gath Temporary Stratum 4 and includes several fragments of LPDW vessels: a krater, jugs, and possibly an amphora.

Tell Zeitah

As at Tell es-S.•fi/Gath,

an extensive destruction level dated to Iron IIA was found at Tell Zeitah. The

pottery assemblage includes several LPDW vessels (R. Tappy, personal communication).

Tel Batash

Among the published pottery from Tel Batash is a jug (which we classify as LPDW JG3) with two black horizontal bands bordered by white bands, painted

on red slip (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 1:20). The vessel, which is a typical Coastal Plain form, was found in Stratum IV, as were jug fragments with a similar decoration (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 117). Stratum IV is dated to the tenth century B.C.E. (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 154-56), and most of the limited number of vessels with LPDW decoration at Tel Batash derive from this stratum (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 158).

Gezer

The Stratum VIII assemblage from Gezer includes several vessels decorated in the LPDW style (see, e.g., Dever 1986: pl. 47:3). This stratum is dated to the second half of the tenth century B.C.E. Stratum VIA (dated by Dever et al. to the eighth century B.C.E. [1974: 73])5 yielded several additional LPDW decorated vessels, including a krater (Gitin 1990: pl. 21:3), an amphora with a high neck (Gitin 1990: pl. 19:4), and a jar (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 31:12).

Tel Hamid

Tel Hamid, a recently excavated site in the northern Shephelah, produced several sherds of LPDW pottery, most of which were found in Stratum VI, dated by the excavators to Iron IIA (Wolff and Shavit in press). Among these sherds is a fragment of a jug of our type JG1 (Wolff and Shavit in press: fig. 18:12).

El-Khirbe

In his brief discussion of the Iron II pottery assemblage from this Judaean fortress located east of Jerusalem, Hizmi mentions jugs that are decorated with red, white, and black bands (2002: 105). He does not relate these vessels to the LPDW group, but rather suggests that they were a local imitation of Cypriote pottery (2002: 105). However, both the description of the decoration and the published photo- graphs indicate that these vessels can be classified as LPDW.

5Finkelstein dates Gezer Strata X-IX (late Iron I) to the tenth century B.C.E. and the first Iron IIA stratum, Stratum VIII, to the ninth century B.C.E. (Finkelstein 2002b: 282-84), but see Dever's (2003: 266-70) response to this.




Ruqeish

Most of the pottery published from Ruqeish de- rives from tomb contexts (Culican 1973; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983). Among this pottery are vessels that are quite similar to LPDW (Culican 1973: fig. 2:R7; Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1983: 51-52, 54, nos. 8-9, 19), but with several noteworthy differences. First, the painted bands on the vessels are only in black (there are no white bands); second, many of the vessels lack the red slip, and the color of the clay is often lighter as well; and third, the most important difference in our opinion, there are morphological disparities. Overall, the vessels from Ruqeish are more closely affiliated with Phoenician than southern Coastal Plain pottery traditions.

According to Culican, this assemblage should be dated to the ninth century B.C.E. (1973: 99-100), while Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels date the tomb assemblages from Ruqeish to the last quarter of the eighth century B.C.E. (1983: 56). Although Oren et al. have dated the settlement at Ruqeish to the second half of the eighth century B.C.E. (1986: 89-90), this is of little relevance to our study since the pottery from the burials is quite different from that found in the settlement.

In any event, despite the differences noted above, it is clear that the Ruqeish assemblage is roughly contemporary with LPDW.

Tell Qasile

One of the vessels found at Tell Qasile Stratum VII is most probably related to the LPDW group (Maisler [Mazar] 1950-1951: 205, pl. 34C). The shape of the vessel is somewhat similar to LPDW amphorae of type AM I, although there are quite a few differences. It is larger and squatter than other type AM1 vessels, its ring base is applied and not pinched, and there are two knobs on top of each handle. The decoration is of particular interest. Al- though the vessel has a uniform burnished red slip (vertically on the neck) that is quite similar to the LPDW, the painted decoration includes black and white bands with a schematic depiction of a galloping horse, also in white, partly overlapping the bands.

An important question is the relationship between LPDW decoration, the late Iron I "degenera- tive" Philistine decoration, and the so-called Qasile X decoration (henceforth designated "Philistine Red Slip"). The last is characterized by black painted lines on a red slip background, usually with the well-

known Iron I Philistine decorative motifs applied in a rather haphazard manner. Although Mazar notes that this decoration first appears at Qasile Stratum XII (second half of the 12th century B.C.E.), he points out that it is most characteristic from Strata XI-X (1985: 83). The ceramic assemblage related to this decoration includes Philistine forms, such as bell- shaped bowls and kraters, and strainer-spouted and other jugs, all decorated with a red slip and black painted lines. Many of the forms also represent a degeneration of the Aegean antecedents of Philis- tine material culture, as exemplified by the Aegean bell-shaped bowls and the use of horizontal handles (T. Dothan 1982: 191-97). Mazar suggests a three-stage developmental trajectory of this pottery (1985: 83): In the first stage (Stratum XI), the red slip is mostly unburnished; the following stage (Stra- tum X) is distinguished by hand-burnishing; and in the final stage (Strata IX-VIII), only the red slip and hand-burnishing occurs, without the painted black decoration.

The "Philistine Red Slip" decoration appears primarily at sites in the Yarkon River basin or in northern Philistia. The earliest appearance of this pottery is in the 11 th century B.C.E. at Tell Qasile Stratum XI and especially Stratum X (Mazar 1985: 122-23), in several tombs in Area D of the cemetery at Azor (M. Dothan 1961), at Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV (S. Gitin, personal communication), and, to a lesser extent, at Ashdod Stratum X.

Although this type of decoration cannot be defined as being of the LPDW type, it is quite similar. The relationship between these two decorative styles is significant, since both appear at the end of Iron I/ beginning of Iron II and were found at coastal sites that are defined as Philistine.

The "Philistine Red Slip" decoration does not continue into the later stages of the Iron Age. Moreover, as Mazar has emphasized, while the black decoration becomes popular at Ashdod in Iron II, it is not found in the parallel strata at Tell Qasile (1985: 84).

This raises the question as to whether the LPDW decorative style developed from the late Iron I Phil- istine decoration and technique. It can be suggested that it developed at Tell Qasile and its environs (although further excavations may change this view) and gradually spread to become common throughout Philistia. Two stages can be defined: at first Philistine forms were retained and only the surface treatment changed; thereafter, the surface treatment acquired the specific characteristics of the LPDW, and the original Philistine forms were largely abandoned.



Fig. 4. Group of LPDW vessels from Tell es-Safi/Gath Temporary Stratum 4. 1: JG4B; 2: JGT (= fig. 3:7); 3: AMPS 1B (= fig. 2:6); 4: AM1A; 5: JG4B; 6: VA1 (= fig. 3:8); 7: JG5 (= fig. 3:4); 8: JG4A; 9: JG4A (= fig. 3:5); 10: AM1A; 11: KR1B; 12: AM1B (= fig. 2:4).




Fig. 5. LPDW bottle from Tel Ashdod (courtesy of the Is- rael Antiquities Authority).

Although this style became predominant in Philistia during the Iron II, it disappeared at Tell Qasile, possibly due to a change in the extent of Philistine cultural influence in the Yarkon River basin, which may be related to geopolitical events such as the campaign of Shishak/Sheshonq and/or the spread of Judaean influence in the region. Thus, while this area no longer came under the direct cultural influence of Philistia, in the more southern parts of the Coastal Plain (the "core" of Philistia), the original and gradually evolving Philistine culture continued to exist as a well-defined cultural entity (Stone 1995; Maeir in press a). It is within the latter cultural continuum that LPDW developed fully.

DISTRIBUTION

Although the presently available data on the distribution of LPDW is hardly complete, it is sufficient

Fig. 6. LPDW jug (Type JG2) from Tel Ashdod (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

for us to discern a relatively well-defined distribution pattern (tables 5, 6). LPDW pottery is concentrated primarily in Philistia, particularly at Tel Ashdod and Tell

es-•.afi/Gath (fig. 7). As will be discussed be-

low, these two sites apparently are the largest sites in Philistia during the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E. Fewer examples come from the other (at that time smaller) Philistine cities (Ashkelon and Tel Miqne- Ekron), as well as from other sites within or in the immediate vicinity of Philistia, such as Tel Batash, Tell Hamid, Tell Qasile, Beth-Shemesh, Gezer, and Ruqeish (see above for references). Further afield, several examples come from the inner Shephelah and Judaea-for example, from Khirbet el-Qom, Arad, Beersheba, Kuntillet 'Ajrud, and possibly Tel Masos (see above for references). Isolated examples (whether LPDW or vessels that are quite similar) have been found at northern sites, such as Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: pls. 19:1, 29:127-29;




HazorO

Abu Hawam

Mediterranean Sea

O Megiddo

OAmal Rehov O

y6Qasile

OAzor

OHamid OGezer

Mor

oAshdod oBatash Ashdod Miqne/Ekron

Kfar~ 0 Beth- Menahem 4 Shemesh

Safi/Gath Ashkelon

OZeita

O Lachish OKh. el-Qom

ONagila -

oBeit Mirsim Ruqeish OSera'

OArad

Beersheba O 0 Masos

* Philistine Red-Slipped Kuntillet o LPDW ("Ashdod Ware") ud 20km

Fig. 7. Map of the southern Levant showing sites with LPDW pottery.




Loud 1948: pl. 89:1-2), Tel Amal (Levy and Edel- stein 1972: figs. 11:6, 12;5, 7, 9, 15), Rehov (A. Mazar, personal communication), Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: pl. 13:82), and Hazor (Yadin et al. 1961: pl. 190:5).

CHRONOLOGY

The evidence for the earliest appearance of this decoration comes from Ashdod Stratum Xb (M. Do- than and Porath 1982: fig. 7:13-14), dated according to the excavators to the transition between Iron I and Iron II (tables 5, 6). This transitional stage, however, is generally more characterized by the "Philistine Red Slip" decoration that seems to be the link between the early Philistine bichrome decoration and LPDW. It should be noted as well that the early Phi- listine Iron I bichrome pottery still appears in this stratum at Ashdod (Dothan and Porath 1982: 52). A similar dating is apparent at Tel Miqne-Ekron Stra- tum IV, in which the LPDW decoration first appears together with the last (post-Bichrome) stage of the "traditional" Iron I Philistine decoration (T. Dothan 1998; S. Gitin, personal communication).

The principal occurrence of LPDW is in Iron IIA, although, as stated above, there are some finds dating to later phases of the Iron II at several sites in Phi- listia (e.g., Ashdod and Tel Miqne-Ekron); these latter examples, however, may be residual sherds. The latest stratified example of LPDW is from Beersheba Stratum II, dated to 701 B.C.E. (Singer-Avitz 1999: 10-12). Thus, LPDW continues to appear at least until the end of the eighth century B.C.E..

According to the excavators, LPDW decoration continues to appear at Ashdod even in Area D local Stratum 2, general Stratum VII (M. Dothan 1971: fig. 53:16, 17), dated by them either to the end of the eighth/early seventh century B.C.E. (M. Dothan 1971: 115) or to the end of the seventh/beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. (M. Dothan 1971: 21; Dothan and Porath 1982: 57). Recently, however, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz have claimed that Ashdod Stratum VII (and Stratum VI) should be dated to the eighth century B.C.E. (2001: 244-46). Although this is difficult to accept, particularly in light of the historical sources dating to the seventh-century B.C.E. that mention Ashdod (Ben-Shlomo 2003), one could argue that this might indicate that LPDW did in fact continue into the seventh century B.C.E., even if only at certain sites (Tel Ashdod and possibly Tel Miqne- Ekron). In more likelihood, the examples from these

late contexts are residual. The fact that in the large corpus of complete late seventh-century B.C.E. pottery both from Ashkelon (Stager 1996) and Tel Miqne- Ekron (e.g., Gitin 1998: figs. 3-6) LPDW was not reported makes a strong argument that this pottery was no longer in use during this stage (see tables 5, 6).

INFLUENCES

As noted above, the developmental sequence and dynamics of the LPDW decorative style and the influences reflected there is quite an interesting topic. On one hand, several attributes appear to indicate some continuity with the "traditional" Iron I Philistine decoration (such as the painted bichrome decoration and the horizontal handles). On the other hand, the decoration bears some resemblance to the decorative grammar of the Cypro-Phoenician pottery (as already suggested by M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: 130-31).

Several of the LPDW vessels (e.g., types KRIB- C and KR4) appear to be morphologically related to pottery forms common in the Iron I Philistine tradition. The bell-shaped krater (KR5) and the krater with horizontal handles (KR2) both indicate such a connection. Furthermore, BLi (fig. 1:1) and a krater from Tell es-Safi decorated on the rim with several groups of black bands on a white slip (KR4; fig. 1:9) also point to the Philistine tradition.

Another ceramic group that hints at the influence of Philistine traditions is made up of zoomorphic vessels, kernoi, and figurines (fig. 3:9-11), which to date have mostly been found at Ashdod. The shape of the animals and the vessel types are in the Philistine tradition, and the decoration is in the LPDW style.

On the other hand, attributes indicative of the influence of Cypro-Phoenician pottery are also present. For example, KRIA and KR2 are quite similar to Cypro-Phoenician types, as is the juglet from Tell

es-S•fi (JGT1; fig. 3:7). Although black decoration applied on a burnished red slip is usually considered to have been introduced by Phoenician potters, other earlier Phoenician assemblages should also be examined in an attempt to determine which pottery tradition influenced the other. Did the burnished red slip and painted decoration reach Philistia via Phoenicia or vice versa? Mazar states that burnished red-slip vessels do not appear in Phoenicia prior to the 11th century B.C.E. (1998: 377), more or less at the same time they appeared in Philistia, implying that the burnished red slip on LPDW vessels might originate




in Philistia. Similarly, at Dor, a site clearly within the Phoenician sphere, burnished red slip is virtually nonexistent into the Iron IIA (Gilboa 1998: 414). Moreover, the Cypro-Phoenician pottery usually has a more lustrous, wheel-made burnish as opposed to the vertical hand-burnish of the LPDW. Therefore, it may very well be that the LPDW decoration does not originate in the Cypro-Phoenician cultural realm, even if at later stages there may have been some influence on the LPDW.

It should be stressed that due to an insufficient amount of relevant, well-published material, the fine- tuned typological developments of the LPDW are yet difficult to identify. However, it seems that in the earlier Iron IIA, forms related to Philistine Iron I forms still appear; later on this ware appears on coastal, and some Phoenician-related forms, while during the Iron IIB (eighth century B.C.E.) it also appears on other forms, some possibly influenced from the As- syrian repertoire.

Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that both the LPDW decoration and forms are the outcome of influences from both the earlier Iron Age I Philis- tine ceramic traditions and contemporaneous Cypro- Phoenician decoration, as well as, to a limited extent, shapes (for other Phoenician influences in Iron IIA Philistia, see T. Dothan 1998). In her study of the Iron Age Cypro-Phoenician pottery, Schreiber (2003) suggests that the Philistine red slip (2003: figs. 7, 8:1-7) and LPDW (Ashdod Ware) (2003: fig. 8:8- 10) are localized phenomena in Philistia and probably evolved from each other (Schreiber 2003: 13). Interestingly, such a combination of influences continues in Iron IIB examples of LPDW, with some of the forms-such as bowl BL2 and bottle BT-possibly influenced by Assyrian shapes. The fact that LPDW decoration primarily occurs at Philistine sites may indicate that, to a certain extent, from both a functional and symbolical point of view, it replaced the traditional Iron Age I Philistine decorated pottery. There are, however, significant differences in the social and economic roles of early Philistine decorated pottery and LPDW, since, based on the currently available data, the latter is much less fre- quent in the respective assemblages-with LPDW representing less than 10 percent of the contemporary assemblages, and Iron I Philistine decorated pottery more than 30 percent (Stager 1995: 334-43; Bunimovitz 1990: 212; M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press: graph III.3). Thus, despite some similarities, this strongly suggests that the symbolic and func-

tional role of LPDW during Iron II was different from that of the Iron I Philistine decorated pottery.

In light of the development of the LPDW forms and decorations and their relationship both to the earlier, Iron I, Philistine pottery traditions as well as to foreign (mainly Phoenician) influences, it would appear then that this development might serve as an illustration of the developmental sequence and transformation process of Philistine culture in general. As has been argued in the past, a clear developmental trajectory involving the transformation of Philistine culture from a very alien, largely Aegean-oriented culture in Iron I to a predominantly Levantine culture in late Iron II can be discerned. This trajectory has been understood as a process of assimilation (e.g., Bunimovitz 1990), of acculturation (Stone 1995), or, as one of the present authors has suggested, "creolization" (Maeir in press a). The latter term, bor- rowed from sociolinguistics, describes processes in which a language (usually of a dominated culture), under the influence of another language (usually of a dominant culture), goes through a transformation, in which elements of both languages are combined to form a new "hybrid" langauge (e.g., Sebba 1997). Maeir (in press a) has suggested that viewing the transformation of the Philistine material culture through this lens affords a richer perspective to the understanding of this cultural trajectory (see, e.g., Webster 2001 for a similar perspective on material culture). The morphological and decorative characteristics of LPDW fit in well with this understanding: while they continue various technological and decorative traditions that were "at home" in Philistia during Iron I, new features and influences, some deriving from the Phoenician milieu, are evident. As seen in other aspects of its material culture, an ongoing process in which unique Philistine attributes were combined with local elements can be discerned until the very end of Philistine culture in the late seventh century B.C.E. It seems that the appearance and development of LPDW pottery is a good example of this pattern.

PRODUCTION CENTERS OF

LPDW POTTERY

As noted above, LPDW appears primarily in Phi- listia, particularly at Tel Ashdod and Tell

es-S.fi/ Gath (tables 1-5; fig. 7). A limited number of examples derive from other sites in Philistia, the inner Shephelah, and Judaea, and isolated examples come




from northern sites. This distribution pattern indicates that the LPDW pottery was produced in Philis- tia and was traded primarily within the southern part of the region. Accordingly, the most likely candi- dates for the production centers are Tel Ashdod and Tell es-S•fi/Gath. Although one might argue that, due to the stylistic affinities of the LPDW to Cypro- Phoenician pottery, the Philistine cities were the major consumers of this ware, and it was imported from outside of Philistia, this, as seen below, is not supported by the archaeometric results.

The most noticeable archaeological evidence of the production of LPDW pottery in Philistia comes from Tel Ashdod, where several of these vessels were found in pottery kilns.6 Although the evidence does seem to indicate that LPDW was produced at these kilns, one could in theory argue that this was not the case.7 In any case, provenience studies of several of the LPDW vessels that were found in the kilns, in two separate fields, could provide important data.

Thus, analytic provenience studies of the LPDW vessels were conducted in an attempt to determine their origin. Previous research on the pottery from Tel Ashdod included a provenience study (by means of instrumental neutron activation analysis, or INAA) of pottery from Area M (Perlman and Asaro 1982). Of the 85 vessels sampled, 17 were defined as "Black-on-Red" (Perlman and Asaro 1982: 73), apparently the equivalent of our LPDW group, rather

than representing Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware (see the discussion of the LPDW from Ashdod, above). All the samples came from Strata Xb-a.8 The "Black- on-Red" vessels were attributed to chemical Groups Ia, Ib, and Ic, with eight belonging to Group Ia. All three of these chemical groups were identified as being local to Ashdod, and they can be normalized to the major Group Ia. Perlman and Asaro also noted that within the Group Ia samples, the eight "Black-on- Red" examples are more compactly grouped (1982: 73). They interpreted this as resulting from their man- ufacture by a single potter.

Approximately 15 vessels and sherds of LPDW pottery were published from Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001), several of which were examined by thin-section petrography. Of these, seven were defined as Fabric Group 30, four of Fabric Group 31, and two of Fabric Group 32. Both Fabric Groups 30 and 32 are made of coastal loess clay (originating in the Ashdod area?), while Fabric Group 31 possibly originates in the Shephelah (from the Tel Miqne- Ekron area?) (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 20-21).

Thus, the archaeometric results indicating that the LPDW pottery was made at Ashdod is not surprising, since, as noted above, some of these vessels were found in pottery kilns at the site (proving that the vessels were made in those very kilns!). Even the vessels that displayed strong Cypro-Phoenician stylistic characteristics (as our type KR1) were local to Ashdod. Given the results from Ashdod and the recently excavated assemblages from other sites, especially at Tell es-Safi/Gath, we undertook further analysis to examine the provenience of this ware and to try to identify patterns of trade (see also Ben- Shlomo in press b).

In the preliminary stage of this ongoing research, 23 to 25 LPDW vessels were chemically analyzed. The vessels sampled derive from Tell es-Safi/Gath (17 examples, of which two are not clearly defined as LPDW), Tel Ashdod (7 examples), and a kiln site near Tell

es-Sa.fi/Gath (1 example). Additional com-

parative reference material included vessels from the Ashdod kilns and a group of common pottery types from Tell

es-S.fi/Gath. The latter group included

various open and closed vessel forms, excluding cooking pots (usually made of a different clay recipe)

6In Area M Strata Xb-Xa (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: pl. 2:3-4 [Loci 7027-7029, 7202, 7271, 7277, 7072, 7083]) and in Area D, Strata VIIIb-a (Dothan 1971: 89-92 [Loci 1167, 1169]). The kilns in Area M are relatively small and irregularly shaped (M. Dothan and Porath 1982: 7, 16, plans 3-5). Kiln 7083 in Stra- tum Xa has a rectangular shape, 1 m long, with several subdivi- sions (M. Dothan and Porath 1982:16, pl. 2:3-4), and yielded several complete LPDW vessels. In Area D, the kilns are more

regularly shaped, built within pits as rectangular brick structures with a single chamber measuring 3 by 1.5 m (M. Dothan 1971: 89-92). The group of kilns in Area D can be understood as a pottery workshop on the southwestern edges of the city. Although not many Iron II kilns have been published, the Ashdod examples seem to belong to a rather common type in this period (see Wood 1991: 26-33; Killebrew 1996: 153, table 1).

70n the one hand, other vessels representing common Iron II forms were also found in the Ashdod kilns, and some of the kilns did not contain any LPDW vessels at all. Since the vessels apparently were not kiln wasters, in principle it is possible that the sherds and vessels found within these kilns were not actually produced in these kilns-for example, they may have been stored in the kilns after they went out of use-and this pottery conse- quently cannot serve as incontrovertible evidence that LPDW was produced at Ashdod.

8As part of our study, we attempted to locate and examine all of the vessels that had previously been analyzed by INAA, but, unfortunately, not all of the vessels could be found.




and storage jars (which have a good probability of not being local, since they and their contents may have been exchange goods; see table 7).

The third group sampled, also serving as a com- parative reference group, comprised eight vessels from a kiln site near Tell es-Safi/Gath ("The Kfar Menahem Kiln Site"), excavated by Y. Israel of the Israel Antiquities Authority.9 The site includes five or six well-built rectangular kilns of uniform size and orientation and, based on a preliminary typological analysis of the pottery, it may be dated to the eighth century B.C.E., slightly later than Temporary Stratum 4 at Tell es-S•fi/Gath. Although the majority of the samples come from within the kilns or from the platforms in front of them, most of these vessels cannot be considered as kiln wasters (some of them were complete).

A total of 50 vessels were chemically analyzed at this stage of the research, using induced coupled plasma mass and atomic emission spectrometry (ICP- MS and ICP-AES).10 As this method is not yet commonly used for pottery fingerprinting, following is a brief description of the methodology of this analysis.

Sample Preparation and Analysis Procedure

A sample of 200-300 mg of powder was extracted from each vessel with a diamond drill. The powder was dried for 12 hours in an oven at a temperature of 110 degrees C and then weighed precisely to a 200 mg (or 100 mg if too small) sample. The samples were dissolved in an acid cocktail of 5 ml of HF 40%, 5 ml of HNO3 2.5%, and 1 ml of HC104. This mixture was left in covered beakers for at least 12 hours and then heated at 100 degrees C for two hours; the solution was then dried at 230 degrees C. Finally, the sample was leached in distilled water with 1% of HNO3. The solution was mixed with HNO3 and an internal standard (10 ppb in solution of

Bi, In, Re, and Ru, which are very rare elements in soils) in a glass flask, to 100 ml (a dilution of 1:500). Somewhat similar procedures were adopted in several other cases in which ICP was used for chemical fingerprinting of ceramics and other materials (Hart et al. 1987; Beith et al. 1988; Porat, Yellin, and Heller-Kallai 1991; Ponting and Segal 1998).

The analytic equipment of the Bristol University Geochemical Laboratory used for the analyses included an ICP-MS VG PQ2 turbo (Plasma Quad) and an ICP-AES YJ Ultima II (sequential) (Plasma temperature: 8000 degrees K; maximum vacuum: 1.7 X 10-7 mbar). Each run included 25 samples, five synthetic standards (standards 1-5, with graded 0%- 100% concentrations), a blank (only HNO3), a wash (in MS), several international rock standards (such as BE-N, BHVO3, JA2, JB 1, JB3, GA), and an in-house standard. If the values of internal standards change in the course of the run, the instrument automatically compensates accordingly.

The calibration in ICP-MS was made according to the five synthetic standards (the cocktail of elements prepared according to the elements and required concentrations) and in ICP-AES according to both synthetic and international rock standards. The rock standards are used in both cases also as quality controls. Elements obtained by ICP-MS are the especially heavy trace elements, including Sc, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Cs, Ba, Hf, Ta, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Th, and U (30 elements). For better precision and accuracy in the results, the heavier elements (La-Lu) and Th and U were run separately from the lighter ones. Elements obtained by ICP-AES were mostly major and minor lighter elements, including Na, Mg, Al, P, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, and Fe (9 elements).

The Formation of Chemical Groups

Several elements should be excluded or related to with caution in the statistical procedure for defining the chemical profile of the pottery, for a number of reasons. Some of the elements were obtained with a low precision or accuracy, and others were influenced by the potter's intervention (the use of temper, mostly calcareous or organic) or post-depositional processes. Also, a few elements are susceptible to contamination from drilling or other apparatus, and others behave erratically for unknown reasons. It is important to select elements with high-precision compositional values, as the elemental composition within a limited geographical zone does not vary

9The salvage excavations at the site were conducted in August 2001. We would like to thank Mr. Israel for the information on the site and for permission to analyze the material.

1'The analyses were conducted at the ICP laboratory of the Earth Sciences Department, Bristol University, England. These analyses was made possible by a research grant from the Euro- pean Commission Program for Access to Research Infrastruc- tures, contract HPRI-1999-CT-00008, granted to A. M. Maeir and D. Ben-Shlomo. We wish to thank the staff of the Bristol University laboratory: Drs. Tony Kemp, Chung Choi, and John Dalton.



TABLE 7. List of Samples Analyzed by ICP

Sample Chemical INAA No. Site Basket No. Publication Stratum Type Ware Group (ICP) Notes Group (P&A)

AS1 Ashdod K1479/1 Ashdod VI: pl. 53:6 X-IX BT LPDW 2

AS2 Ashdod H3341/1 Ashdod VI: pl. 53:7 X-IX AM1 LPDW 2

AS3 Ashdod H853/1 Ashdod VI: pl. 60:4 X-IX JG2 LPDW 2

AS4 Ashdod H3055/1 Ashdod VI: pl. 63:7 IX-VIII KR3 LPDW 2

AS5 Ashdod D4950/1 Ashdod II-III: fig. 41:7 VIIB JGT? 2A From kiln AS6 Ashdod D4891/1 Ashdod II-III: fig. 41:22 VIIB JG RS 2A From kiln AS7 Ashdod M785/3 Ashdod IV: fig. 3:1 XB KRlC LPDW 2 Ib (# 694) AS8 Ashdod M788/1 Ashdod IV: fig. 3:17 XB JR 2 Ib (# 700) AS9 Ashdod M987/1 Ashdod IV: fig. 4:3 XB JR RS 2 Ib (# 718)

AS10 Ashdod M827/10 Ashdod IV: fig. 7: 3 XA BL RS 2 From kiln Ib (# 709)

AS11 Ashdod M822/1 Ashdod IV: fig. 7:12 XA BL RS 2 From kiln Ib (# 713) AS12 Ashdod M827/9 Ashdod IV: fig. 7:13 XA KR1B LPDW 2 From kiln Ia (# 711) AS13 Ashdod M827/2 Ashdod IV: fig. 7:14 XA KR1B LPDW 2 From kiln Ib (# 714) AS14 Ashdod M827/3 Ashdod IV: fig. 8:2 XA JG 2 From kiln Ib (# 708) KM1 KM 181 JG Outlier From kiln 1, with slag KM2 KM 225 JG4 LPDW Outlier Kiln entrance KM3 KM 173 JGT 1 From kiln 1 KM4 KM 142 BL 3 From kiln 1 KM8 KM 158 JG1 3 From kiln 1 entrance KM9 KM 162 JGT 2 From kiln 4 entrance KM10 KM 302 JGT Outlier From kiln 3 entrance KM13 KM 187 BL 3 From kiln 1 SF1 Safi 450225 4 KRIB LPDW 2

SF2 Safi 450306 4 JR-KR 1 SF3 Safi 440175 4 KR1B LPDW 1

SF4 Safi 330111 Maeir 2001: fig. 6:13 4 KR4 LPDW 1

SF5 Safi 220331 Maeir 2001: fig. 6:14 4 KRIB LPDW Outlier SF6 Safi 220244 Maeir 2001: fig. 8:3 4 AM1 LPDW 3 SF7 Safi 320146 Maeir 2001: fg. 8:2 4 AM1 LPDW 3 SF8 Safi 220387 Maeir 2001: fig. 9:8 4 JGT LPDW 3

SF9 Safi 420141 4 JG LPDW? 3 SF10 Safi 450342 4 JG4 LPDW 3

SF11 Safi 420291 4 JG4 LPDW 1 No decoration

SF12 Safi 420142 4 AM1 LPDW 3 No decoration

SF13 Safi 230150 Maeir 2001: fig. 8:8 4 Flask LPDW 3

SF14 Safi 230285 4 AM1 LPDW? 2

SF15 Safi 440170 4 AMPS1 LPDW 1

SF16 Safi 290397 Maeir 2001: fig. 8:1 4 AM1A LPDW 2

SF17 Safi 220356 Maeir 2001: fig. 8:4 4 JG-CUP LPDW 3

SF18 Safi 220346 4 JG4C LPDW 1

SF19 Safi 450743 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 7:2 4 Pithos 3 Warped SF24 Safi 450163 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 10:9 4 JR 3 Warped SF25 Safi 510250/5 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 7:1 4 KR RS 1 SF26 Safi 540022/53 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 6:12 4 BL RS 1

SF28 Safi 510370/5 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 8:5 4 JG 1

SF33 Safi 320198 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 7:6 4 Lamp 1

SF34 Safi 220389 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 6:6 4 BL1 RS 3

SF37 Safi 510370/3 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 6:6 4 BL1 RS 3

SF39 Safi 490211 WS BL Cyp WS Outlier Cypriote origin SF40 Sai 210119/40 e.g., Maeir 2001: fig. 9:9 4 JGT BoR Outlier

Legend: KM = Kfar Menahem Kiln Site; Ashdod II-III = M. Dothan 1971; Ashdod IV = M. Dothan and Porath 1982; Ashdod VI = M. Dothan and Ben-Shlomo in press; RS = red-slipped; WS = White Slip; BoR = Black-on-Red; P&A = Perlman and Asaro 1982.




Factor 1 47.4%

5.00000 -

2.50000- o KM1

0.00000- O KM10 * SF40

•_

SF40

* SF5 -2.50000

-5.00000o * SF39

-5.00000 -2.50000 0.00000 2.50000 5.00000

Factor 2 20.8%

Fig. 8. Principal component analysis (PCA) scatter plot showing samples from Ashdod (AS), Tell es-SMfi/Gath (SF) and the Kfar Menahem Kiln Site (KM) according to the chemical composition reflected by the two major components.

considerably (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 43-45; Hein, Mommsen, and Maran 1999). The "problematic" elements include Na, Mg, P, K, Ca, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ba, Hf, Ta, and Gd. Rb, Sr, and Cs can sometimes be problematic, but are nevertheless used. Some of the rare earth elements are considered to be redundant in obtaining chemical fingerprinting, as each behaves in a similar way (Glascock 1992: 16).

The groups were computed by principal component factor analysis on all 27 "good" elements; all the elemental concentrations were logged. The results are illustrated according to two major components (Factors 1 and 2) that reflect 68.3 percent of the variance (figs. 8-9). Hierarchical cluster analysis (Euclidean distance) was also used (the SPSS version 11 and Excel programs), but did not prove effi- cient in terms of consistently discriminating between the main groups in this case, although the outliers were similarly recognized. The groups' mean concentrations are presented according to a selection of 26 elements. Several less-precise elements were added for comparison, as they are present in the previously published INAA results (see table 8: col. F).

According to the well-known "provenience postu- late" (e.g., Weigand, Harbottle, and Sayre 1977: 24), it is assumed that pottery from a limited geographical region will have a relatively similar chemical composition, although each production center will

Factor 1 47.4%

1.00000 Group Group 1 O

0.0000 Group 3

Group 2

-1.00000

SSF5 -2.00000 I I

-1.00000 -0.50000 0.00000 0.50000 1.00000

Factor 2 20.8%

Fig. 9. Close-up of the scatter plot in figure 8 (A = samples from Tel Ashdod; O = samples from Tell es-S&fi/ Gath; O = samples from Kfar Menahem Kiln Site; filled symbols designate LPDW vessels).

still have its own "chemical fingerprint." As seen in table 8, several of the elements within the composition have overlapping concentrations among the identified groups. The high variability of calcium content in all the groups is probably due to the addition of calcite temper to the clay. Nevertheless, by combining the data from all the "good" elements, three major groups were formed (fig. 9), as follows: Group 1, containing Tell es-S•fi/Gath LPDW vessels and undecorated "common" types (table 8: col. A); Group 2 (the "Tel Ashdod group"; table 8: col. B); and Group 3 (an intermediate Tell es-Safi/Gath-Ashdod group; possibly a 91 percent dilution of Group 1; table 8: col. D).

Table 8: col. C represents two Ashdod samples which may serve as a different reference group for Ashdod (and thus termed Group 2A); table 8: col. E represents Group 3 after compensation for a dilution factor.

Outliers (samples not falling within a group) com- prise one LPDW sample from Tell es-Safi/Gath (SF5), two samples from the Kfar Menahem Kiln Site, and a Black-on-Red sample from Tell es-Safi/Gath (SF40) (table 8: cols. G-J).

Group 1 should be viewed as representing a Tell es-S•fi provenience source, not because of its resemblance to the reference kiln material from the nearby kiln site, but due to its resemblance to the group of



TABLE 8. Elemental Compositions of the Chemical Groups Formed by PCA

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Col. E Col. F Col. G Col. H Col. I Col. J

Element Mean (11) Mean (16) Mean (2) Mean (15) Mean

(ppm)* Group 1 SD %CV Group 2 SD %CV Group 2A Group 3 SD %CV 3/0.91 Group Ia** KM2 + KMJI0 SF5 + SF40 +

Ca% 5.31 2.17 40.93 4.26 1.02 23.87 5.09 4.81 0.87 18.17 5.29 5.0 ?0.7 5.34 0.01 24.18 0.15 3.37 0.01 2.50 0.01

Fe% 4.77 0.30 6.32 4.10 0.21 5.22 4.64 4.30 0.30 7.07 4.73 4.05 ?0.15 5.51 0.06 3.10 0.01 3.60 0.03 4.58 0.02

Al% 6.29 0.27 4.35 5.48 0.26 4.72 5.96 5.73 0.33 5.69 6.29 5.52 ?0.2 11.09 0.24 4.20 0.03 4.86 0.04 6.98 0.11

Ti% 0.67 0.05 6.89 0.61 0.04 6.82 0.67 0.62 0.04 5.98 0.68 0.667 ?.033 0.54 0.002 0.27 0.002 0.48 0.002 0.43 0.01

K% 1.21 0.20 16.62 1.18 0.20 17.28 1.04 1.17 0.22 19.06 1.29 - 2.48 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.95 0.03 1.09 0.01

Na% 0.73 0.15 20.64 0.62 0.07 11.55 0.66 0.62 0.08 12.48 0.68 0.67 +0.058 0.27 0.002 0.30 0.002 0.49 0.01 0.31 0.002

Sc 12.87 1.33 10.38 11.66 0.79 6.79 13.35 11.74 1.20 10.26 12.91 13.38 ?0.6 21.63 0.39 8.95 0.41 10.65 0.38 11.65 0.63

Mn 762.50 67.37 8.84 706.41 76.48 10.83 780.37 737.51 61.30 8.31 810.45 809 +32 455.37 1.68 200.92 0.56 598.00 5.07 1082.52 13.13

Cr 93.62 6.04 6.45 80.15 5.16 6.44 93.62 84.77 6.39 7.54 93.15 116 +6 117.96 3.02 135.89 3.96 65.21 3.80 87.33 2.33

Co 18.97 1.82 9.59 18.33 2.58 14.06 19.51 17.75 1.03 5.78 19.51 18.70 ?0.91 20.55 0.53 9.09 0.21 14.90 0.41 23.88 0.88

Y 21.47 1.35 6.29 17.44 0.66 3.81 19.24 19.24 0.76 3.97 21.15 - 15.75 0.16 29.48 0.58 16.20 0.60 16.86 0.71

Cs 1.29 0.25 19.70 1.02 0.20 19.51 1.39 1.10 0.24 21.48 1.21 1.65 ?0.26 3.91 0.05 0.37 0.02 0.69 0.04 2.27 0.10

Hf 4.69 0.60 12.86 3.50 0.49 13.86 3.61 4.27 0.72 16.95 4.69 11.48 +1.02 2.58 0.12 1.97 0.11 3.62 0.15 3.78 0.13

La 31.73 1.23 3.89 26.47 1.08 4.07 29.46 29.43 1.46 4.97 32.35 30.4 +1.1 26.10 0.33 25.69 0.51 24.08 0.43 28.34 0.26

Ce 65.91 2.29 3.47 57.31 1.72 3.00 61.84 62.19 2.10 3.38 68.35 - 58.01 1.00 35.52 0.50 49.15 0.78 68.42 0.96

Pr 7.66 0.25 3.22 6.61 0.20 3.07 7.19 7.03 0.25 3.59 7.73 - 6.82 0.09 5.57 0.08 5.58 0.08 6.87 0.03

Nd 30.97 0.88 2.85 26.57 0.81 3.06 28.90 28.38 0.92 3.23 31.18 - 27.78 0.60 23.35 0.53 22.41 0.38 27.61 0.31

Eu 1.52 0.04 2.86 1.31 0.03 2.50 1.41 1.38 0.04 3.00 1.52 - 1.40 0.03 1.15 0.002 1.14 0.01 1.35 0.03

Sm 6.56 0.22 3.42 5.67 0.29 5.19 5.95 6.06 0.27 4.43 6.66 - 5.70 0.15 4.87 0.08 4.98 0.09 6.23 0.17

Tb 0.83 0.04 4.81 0.71 0.02 2.24 0.77 0.74 0.02 3.00 0.81 0.75 0.02 0.71 0.02 0.59 0.01 0.71 0.002

Ho 0.90 0.06 6.34 0.76 0.02 2.53 0.82 0.80 0.02 2.61 0.88 - 0.77 0.03 0.91 0.01 0.65 0.002 0.74 0.02

Er 2.48 0.19 7.61 2.12 0.06 3.04 2.25 2.20 0.05 2.40 2.42 - 2.15 0.03 2.66 0.08 1.77 0.02 1.92 0.04

Yb 2.23 0.15 6.85 1.87 0.05 2.89 1.98 1.96 0.04 2.13 2.15 - 1.81 0.06 2.29 0.04 1.62 0.01 1.73 0.13

Lu 0.33 0.02 7.47 0.28 0.01 2.99 0.28 0.29 0.01 3.91 0.32 0.433 +0.03 0.26 0.01 0.36 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.25 0.01

Th 8.53 0.35 4.16 7.10 0.42 5.97 7.42 7.94 0.55 6.88 8.72 7.78 +0.31 7.76 0.28 4.51 0.11 5.78 0.20 9.83 0.17

U 1.55 0.17 10.96 1.43 0.22 15.42 1.65 1.32 0.23 17.30 1.45 2.12 ?0.1 2.73 0.04 6.06 0.03 1.17 0.06 1.03 0.01

* Concentrations are in part per million (ppm) unless noted otherwise; SD = Standard deviation; %CV = SDxl00/Mean; ** Perlman and Asaro 1982: table 2 (27 samples)




common pottery from Tell es-S&fi/Gath itself. As mentioned above, the common pottery included various forms (among them warped vessels) used as reference material for the LPDW from Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Group 2 is clearly of Ashdod provenience, as it includes all the vessels found in the kilns at the site (similar to Perlman and Asaro's [1982] Group la, presented in table 8: col. F). Group 3 is intermediate in terms of its composition, positioned between Groups 1 and 2 (table 8: col. D). However, if a 91 percent dilution factor is used (table 8: col. E), the concentrations of elements become almost identical to those in Group 1. This dilution may have produced the higher silica concentration in Group 3 (possibly reflecting the addition of more quartz temper, not detected by ICP). Thus, the samples in Group 3, all of which were from Tell es-Safi/Gath or the nearby Kfar Menahem Kiln Site, were also probably manufactured in the vicinity of Tell es-Safi/Gath. Although two samples come from the kilns in Area D at Tel Ashdod (AS5-6) and are similar in elemental composition to Group 3, they may represent a slightly different clay recipe and were therefore designated Group 2A (table 8: col. C).

Petrographic Analysis

The vessels were also thin-sectioned for petrographic analysis. Preliminary examination shows that most are of loess or alluvial soil with 20-30 percent sand-and-silt-sized quartz inclusions. The inclusions vary somewhat in terms of sorting and roundness. A relatively small quantity of limestone and chalk inclusions also occurs; hardly any other inclusions are visible within the samples (fig. 10). The dark and iso- tropic appearance of many of the samples and the lack of calcite attest to a firing temperature above 800 degrees C.

The geological setting of Tell es-S•fi/Gath and its vicinity (Buchbinder 1969: Kfar Menahem sheet; Sneh, Bartov, and Rosensaft 1998: Sheet 2) includes the Pleshet formation (a kurkar conglomerate) present on the upper parts of the tell and other elements of conglomerate formations containing limestone, chalk, and chert appearing as nodules (the Adulam, Zor'a-Maresha, and Ahuzam formations). However, alluvium, including mainly loess soil, is abundant in the Ha'elah riverbed located immedi- ately to the north of the tell. It appears that most of the analyzed pottery was made from this type of soil. The variety of exposures of geological for-

mations in the vicinity of Tell es-Sa•fi/Gath could explain the occurrence of sand, hamra, limestone, chalk/nari, and chert in the pottery thin sections (see also Master 2003: 55).

By comparison, the geological setting of Tel Ash- dod is more uniform. Bakler noted four types of sed- iments in the vicinity-kurkar, hamra, more recent alluvium, and sand dunes, with hamra constituting the main outcrop on the tell and probably the principal raw material used for pottery making (Bakler 1982: 65-66). However, clay from the nearby alluvial bed of the Lachish River also could have been used. In certain cases, it is possible to distinguish between clay originating in the Shephelah (Tell es-S•fi/ Gath) and on the coast (Tel Ashdod) (Master 2003: 54-55, fig. 4). Most of the samples from Ashdod have a bimodal quartz texture: rounded sand-sized and angular silt-sized inclusions (see fig. 10B). This is most probably evidence that this is a clay originating from the coastal region.

Interpretation of the Results

Based on the chemical groups resulting from the preliminary analysis, most of the LPDW vessels found at Tell es-Safi/Gath were made at the site or in its vicinity (Group 1), while three of the vessels seem to have been made at or near Tel Ashdod. The vessels from Tell es-Safi/Gath that match the Tel Ashdod composition (Group 2) are an intact type AM1A amphora (SF16) (Maeir 2001: fig. 8:1), another amphora fragment (SF14), and a krater of type KRIB (SF1). All the other LPDW vessels fit into the common pottery reference group or the diluted composition of this group. One of the LPDW vessels from Tell es-Safi/ Gath, a type KR1B krater (SF5), is possibly a compositional outlier. It should be stressed that this research is still in progress, and some changes in the composition and forming of the groups may be made in the future, especially concerning the reference material of Tell es-S•fi/Gath. Further analyses will also include clay samples from the area of Tell es-S^fi/ Gath and a more comprehensive petrographic analysis of the Iron Age pottery from the site.

All of the LPDW vessels sampled from Tel Ash- dod were made at the site (Group 2), although the composition varies between those from the kilns of Area D and those in Area M. Bearing in mind that we do not have a group of kiln wasters from Ashdod and that the documentation of the kilns themselves is not comprehensive, according to both the present




A

VIP

MilillilililMM0.3 mm

B

030mm

Fig. 10. Petrographic thin sections of LPDW vessels (Crossed. Polarizers [XPL]). A: A jug from Tell es-Scfi (SF10) showing mostly angular quartz grains (white inclusions) and few limestone fragments (center left); note a single feldspar grain (top center). B: A krater from Ashdod (AS13) showing rounded sand-sized (large white) and angular, fine, silt-sized quartz inclusions (small white).




analysis and the INAA results, it is clear that most, if not all, the LPDW found at Tel Ashdod was produced at the site and has a rather uniform composition. This also applies to the finer LPDW vessels. In other words, none of the LPDW vessels we analyzed seems to have been imported from Phoenicia, Cyprus, or elsewhere (compare the composition of a Cypro- Phoenician Black-on-Red juglet [SF40]; table 8: col. J), even if some of the decorative and morphological features are foreign.

The presently available results indicate quite clearly that LPDW is a local ware in Philistia, produced primarily at Tell es-Safi/Gath and Tel Ashdod. Provenience studies have shown that some intra- regional trade in LPDW did occur-for example, between Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath. Further research and analysis of vessels from sites within and outside of Philistia (at Tel Batash, Gezer, Beth-Shemesh, Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ashkelon, Tell Hamid, Ruqeish, and possibly, Beersheba, Tel Masos, Khirbet el Qom, and others) will determine whether this pottery was also exported to other sites and regions or whether it was locally imitated at these sites.

Interestingly, the eight samples taken from the kilns of the Kfar Menahem Kiln Site are divided among the three main groups and also include two or three outliers, one of them an LPDW jug (KM2) and another a juglet (KM10) that, according to both the thin sections and chemical compositions, may be imported from another site. Another jug (KM1) is also a chemical outlier, while a juglet (KM9) has a composition fitting Group 2 from Ashdod.

These results seem to contradict the accepted view that kiln material readily serves as a uniform reference material. The discrepancies may possibly occur because a number of clay recipes using different soils (such as loess, hamra, etc.) are used in the workshop, with the wasters representing faulty or additional clay recipes. It should be stated, though, that if one would expect different clay recipes for different types of vessels, the analysis of the samples from the kiln site does not seem to show any com- patibility between the forms of the vessels and their composition. A similar phenomenon was recently reported for pottery kilns at Late Minoan Kommos, Crete (Buxeda I Garrig6s, Kilikoglou, and Day 2001: 366-69) and in modern workshops in northwestern Spain (Buxeda I Garrig6s, Cau Ontiveros, and Kili- koglou 2003: 15-16). Further analysis of the material from the Kfar Menahem Kiln Site may aid in resolving this issue.

CONCLUSIONS

This study attempts to define the typological, chronological, and geographical framework of the LPDW pottery group. The ware had previously been defined primarily by its unique surface treatment and decoration. While certain vessel forms are commonly found in this group, they are for the most part not unique to it. These include a number of closed kraters and amphorae and several types of jugs. In general, these forms are typical of the Iron II Coastal Plain pottery assemblage. Some of the forms do have parallels or origins in Phoenicia or Cyprus, but they do not occur there with the LPDW style of decoration. As mentioned above, due to the limited amount of stratified Iron IIA material from these regions, it is not yet possible to determine conclusively where these forms initially appeared.

The same type of decoration appears on additional vessel forms in the eighth century B.C.E., some of which may be considered to reflect the influence of Assyrian (carinated bowls and bottles) or Judaean (amphoriskoi and decanters) shapes. This phenomenon of combining a unique decorative technique with various forms deriving from different ceramic traditions can be viewed, on the one hand, as a continuation of the eclectic nature of Iron I Philistine Bichrome pottery-with vessel forms of Aegean, Cypriote, Egyptian, and Canaanite deriva- tion all decorated in Philistine Bichrome style (T. Dothan 1982: 217-18), and, on the other, as an ex- pression of the cultural transformation of Philistine culture, which gradually incorporated local Levan- tine aspects, reflecting what has been seen as a process of assimilation, acculturation, or (as we prefer) "creolization."

The chronological setting of the LPDW pottery is primarily within the Iron IIA period, i.e., the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. (tables 5, 6). Although the stratigraphical data from Ashdod is inconclusive, the large assemblage from Tell es-Safi/Gath Temporary Stratum 4 is firmly dated to the latter part of Iron IIA. This is corroborated by the finds from other sites in the region (such as Miqne-Ekron and Tel Batash). Thus, although LPDW pottery begins to appear in early Iron IIA, it seems to peak later in this period, i.e., in the ninth century B.C.E. (possibly contemporary with Lachish Stratum IV). Moreover, it may be possible to define a pottery group dated to the Iron I/Iron IIA transitional period that serves as a link between the late Iron I red-slipped "degenerate" Phil-




istine pottery and the subsequent "full-blown" LPDW. LPDW forms decorated with red slip without bur-

nishing characterize this intermediate group. The transitional assemblage appears only at a few sites- for example, Tell Qasile Stratum X, Azor, and Tel

Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV, primarily located in the Yarkon River basin. Therefore, the "Qasile X" assem-

blage can be viewed as both a chronological and cultural link between the Iron I Philistine Bichrome

pottery and the Iron IIA LPDW. Subsequently, in Iron IIB, the LPDW pottery continues to appear, at times even on vessels that reflect a Judaean or Assyrian influence. Thus, the tradition of specialized decorated

pottery in Philistia is maintained from the beginning of the Iron Age until the eighth century B.C.E.

The geographical distribution and chemical fin-

gerprinting of the LPDW pottery demonstrate that this pottery is local to Philistia. There probably was some trade in these vessels between Tel Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath (and to a limited extent with other sites within and outside of the region as well). Both the archaeological data and the historical sources

appear to indicate that during Iron IIA, Ashdod and Tell es-S•fi/Gath were the primary cities in Philistia (for Tell es-Safi/Gath, see Maeir in press b). During the eighth century Tell es-Safi/Gath apparently loses its prominent place, while Ashdod reaches its peak in terms of settlement size. The opposite pattern is seen at Ekron and Ashkelon, which appear to have declined during Iron IIA and substantially increased in size during Iron IIB (Stager 1996; Gitin 1998; Master 2003). Thus, it is not surprising that one of the most typical elements of Iron IIA Philistine material culture, the LPDW pottery, was produced at, and most likely distributed from, Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath.

A comparison between the roles and significance of the Iron I Philistine decorated pottery and the Iron II LPDW may yield interesting results (despite the

very different relative percentages of decorated and undecorated wares in Iron I and Iron II noted above). If in fact the LPDW does not continue into the seventh century B.C.E. (and the evidence does seem to indicate this), this can be seen as additional evidence of an almost complete lack of local, decorated wares in Philistia during the final stages of the Iron Age. Save for a limited amount of red-slipped wares (Gitin 1998: fig. 3:5-7) and an occasional painted vessel of special character (such as chalices, e.g., Gitin 1998: fig. 3:20), the long-standing tradition of Philistine painted pottery does not continue.

Recently, Faust (2002) has suggested that the

appearance of burnished pottery in early Iron II Is- raelite society should be seen as an indication of the

development of a more complex and engendered society in which, in his opinion, burnished pottery symbolized male control over the public consump- tion of food (perceived as a "male activity," as opposed to "female-oriented" food preparation). Since burnished decoration appears in Philistia on LPDW at approximately the same time as in the Israelite

highlands, a comparison is warranted. While during this period, the Israelites seem to be going through a process of social and political development, culmi-

nating in the appearance of the Israelite kingdoms, this is not the case at all at the Philistine sites. At Tel

Miqne-Ekron, for example, there is evidence of substantial downsizing during Iron IIA (e.g., Gitin 1998: 167), while Ashdod (e.g., M. Dothan 1993: 98) and Tell es-Safi/Gath (Maeir in press a; Uziel 2002) ex-

pand beyond the size of their Iron I settlements. Thus, the appearance of burnished pottery in Philis- tia occurred at a time when some of the Philistine

sites/polities (e.g., Miqne-Ekron) were downsizing, while others (e.g., Ashdod and Tell

es-Sa.fi/Gath) were expanding (for discussions on the political structure in Philistia during the Iron I-II transition, see, e.g., Ehrlich 1997; Shai in press). While this

may indicate that the underlying mechanisms behind the appearance of burnished pottery in Philistia are not necessarily related solely to the rise of social

complexity among the Philistines (the other possible causes being an emulation of Phoenician cultural norms or alternative social and/or ideological devel-

opments), it is noteworthy that there is evidence of

expansion (and most likely a rise in social complexity) at the two sites that appear to be the producers of LPDW (Ashdod and Tell es-Safi/Gath). If in fact the LPDW does not continue into the Iron III, this fits in well with the virtual nonexistence of decorated local wares in seventh century B.C.E. Philistia. This lack of decorated wares is most likely connected to issues other than those related to the appearance of red slip, but once again, may possibly be comparable to the relative lack of decorated pottery in contem-

porary Judah. Another interesting question that requires addi-

tional research is the socioeconomic function and

symbolic significance of LPDW within Iron II Phil- istine society. It would appear that the effort required to produce this decoration indicates that these vessels fulfilled a specific function(s), very possibly




of distinct symbolic significance. More so, it seems logical to assume that LPDW served as a "prestige," "fine," or "luxury" ware in the tenth-eighth centuries B.C.E. in Philistia, alongside the as yet relatively un- common imported Phoenician wares.

The suggestion that the LPDW served as a "fine" ware is supported by several lines of reasoning. To begin with, there are few, if any, other ceramic classes in the repertoire of Iron IIA Philistia that meet the definition of a "fine" ware, i.e., that appear to have been manufactured in a time- and/or energy- consuming manner (as opposed to mundane, common pottery types). In fact, until the end of the Iron Age there are few pottery groups in Philistia that can be defined as being of "higher quality." The only pottery groups that do fit into this class would be the Phoenician and the Assyrian wares. While the former begins to appear during the Iron IIA, it is only during the Iron IIB-III that significant amounts are seen in Philistia. The Assyrian pottery in fact appears even later. Thus, during the Iron IIA, there simply are hardly any special, decorated and/or fine types of pottery in Philistia, aside from the LPDW. And conversely, it is precisely during the Iron IIB- III, when the imported fine wares become more common in Philistia, that the LPDW begins to fade. One might argue that the LPDW is solely influenced by Levantine traditions, which completely overshad- owed the earlier Philistine (and ultimately Aegean- related) traditions. This is hard to accept since in the earlier examples of LPDW there are forms deriving from the earlier Philistine tradition, which are only

gradually replaced by other forms. Likewise, the chronological continuity (and possible overlap) between the latest stage of the Iron I Philistine decorated pottery and the LDPW argues against such an interpretation.

It would appear that the gradual disappearance of this local "fine" ware (the LDPW) and the preference of imported "fine" wares, can serve as a gauge for economic and cultural forces that were in action during the Iron IIB-III, forces that brought Philistia into close contact with the late Iron Age Mediterranean koine. While during the early Iron IIA Philistia is only partially involved in the in- traregional contact and exchange (e.g., T. Dothan 1998), from the later Iron IIA and especially Iron IIB-III, Philistia is an active and dynamic partner in these contacts (e.g., Gitin 1998: 175-79; Master 2003: 56-61).

POSTSCRIPT

Since this study went to press, we have been informed that a limited amount of LPDW (all of closed vessels) was found in poorly defined contexts of Stratum III at Tel Mor (M. Dothan excavations). T. Barako, who is preparing this excavation for publication, has informed us that the destruction of Stratum III dates to the early tenth centruy B.C.E. If so, this would be one of the earliest appearances of LPDW. We would like to thank T. Barako for provid- ing us with this information.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is partly based on Ph.D. dissertation research conducted by D. Ben-Shlomo (at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, supervised by A. M. Maeir and I. Sharon) and by I. Shai (at Bar-Ilan University, supervised by A. M. Maeir). The impetus for the present study is the large corpus of "Late Philistine Decorated Ware" found in the excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath, directed by A. M. Maeir. We wish to thank various institutions and individuals for granting us permission to use published and unpublished illustrations and information in this study, including the Israel Antiquities Authority (Tel Ashdod), R. Defonzo (Kh. el-Qom), T. Dothan (Tel Ashdod and Tel Miqne-Ek-

ron), S. Gitin (Gezer and Tel Miqne-Ekron), D. Ilan (Tell Nagila), Y. Israel (Kfar Menahem), A. Mazar (Tel Batash and Tell Qasile), L. Singer-Avitz (Beersheba and Tel Ma- sos), L. E. Stager and R. Voss (Ashkelon), R. Tappy (Tel Zayit), and S. Wolff (Tel Hamid). We are grateful to T. Do- than, S. Gitin, A. Zukerman, J. Weinstein, and two anon- ymous reviewers for reading and suggesting various improvements to an earlier version of this paper. Needless to say, any mistakes and/or omissions are the responsibil- ity of the authors alone. Finally, we would like to thank E. Sachar for her, as always, excellent copyediting.




REFERENCES

Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1993 Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study

of Local Trade. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Aharoni, Y.

1962 Excavations at Ramat Rahel: Seasons 1959 and 1960. Serie Archeologica 2. Rome: Universita'

degli studi, Centro di studi semitici. Aharoni, Y., ed.

1973 Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969-1971 Seasons. Publications of the Insti- tute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of

Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Aharoni, Y., and Amiran, R.

1958 A New Scheme for the Sub-Division of the Iron

Age of Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 171-84.

Amiran, R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem:

Masada. Amiran, R., and Eitan, A.

1965 A Canaanite-Hyksos City at Tell Nagila. Ar-

chaeology 18: 113-23.

Ayalon, E. 1995 The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblage from

Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet CAjrud). Tel Aviv 22: 141-205.

Bakler, N. 1982 The Geology of Tel Ashdod. Pp. 65-69 in Ash-

dod IV: Excavation of Area M, by M. Dothan and Y. Porath. 'Atiqot 15. Jerusalem: Depart- ment of Antiquities and Museums.

Beith, M.; Shirav, M.; Halicz, L.; and Bogosh, R. 1988 The Procedure: Geochemical Orientation Sur-

vey. Geological Survey of Israel Report GSI/ 15/88. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.

Ben-Shlomo, D. 2003 The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Re-

joinder to "Ashdod Revisited" by I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz. Tel Aviv 30: 83-107.

In press a Zoomorphic Terracottas from Tel Miqne-Ekron: Religious and Secular Aspects. In The Proceed-

ings of the 3rd International Conference on the

Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, Paris, 2002, eds. P. de Miroschedji, J. C. Mar-

gueron, and J. P. Thalmann. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

In press b Regional Production Centers of Iron Age Pot-

tery Wares in Philistia. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Archaeometry of the Hellenic Society of Archaeometry Held in Ath- ens, May 2003. BAR International Series. Ox- ford: Archaeopress.

Bikai, P. M. 1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia:

Leventis Foundation. Buchbinder, B.

1969 Geological Map of Hashephela Region, Israel. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel.

Bunimovitz, S. 1990 Problems in the "Ethnic" Identification of the

Philistine Material Culture. Tel Aviv 17: 210-22. Bunimovitz, S., and Faust, A.

2001 Chronological Separation, Geographical Segre- gation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322: 1-10.

Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 2001 The Iron Age Fortifications of Tel Beth

Shemesh: A 1990-2000 Perspective. Israel Ex-

ploration Journal 51: 121-47. Buxeda I Garrig6s, J.; Cau Ontiveros, M. A.; and Kiliko-

glou, V. 2003 Chemical Variability in Clays and Pottery from

a Traditional Cooking Pot Production Village: Testing Assumptions in Pereruela. Archaeome-

try 45: 1-17. Buxeda I Garrig6s, J.; Kilikoglou, V.; and Day, P. M.

2001 Chemical and Mineralogical Alteration of Ce- ramics from a Late Bronze Age Kiln at Kom- mos, Crete: The Effect on the Formation of a Reference Group. Archaeometry 43: 349-71.

Chambon, A. 1980 Le Niveau 5. Pp. 157-79 in Tell Keisan (1971-

1976): Une cite ph"nicienne en Galilee, eds. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg.

1984 Tell el-Fdr'ah I: L'Age du Fer. Mdmoire 31. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Chapman, S. V. 1972 A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cem-

eteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qray6 and Qas- mieh of South Lebanon. Berytus 21: 55-194.

Culican, W. 1973 The Graves at Tell er-Reqeish. Australian

Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2: 66-105.

Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1999 Drink and Be Merry: Wine and Beer in Ancient

Times. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. 2002 The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Exca-

vations, 1941-1944. Israel Antiquities Author- ity Reports 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.




Dever, W. G. 2003 Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel

Finkelstein. Tel Aviv 30: 259-82. Dever, W. G., ed.

1986 Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, "The Acropolis." Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 4. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; Bullard, R. G.; Cole, D. P.; and Seger, J. D.

1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and H. Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Ar- chaeology 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/ Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dothan, M. 1961 Excavations at Azor, 1960. Israel Exploration

Journal 11: 171-75. 1971 Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons

of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. 'Atiqot 9-10. Jerusalem: Department of Antiq- uities and Museums.

1993 Ashdod. Pp. 93-102 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D. In press Ashdod VI: Excavations of Areas H and K:

The Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavation. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. Jerusa- lem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dothan, M., and Freedman, D. N. 1967 Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavation,

1962. 'Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: Department of An- tiquities and Museums.

Dothan, M., and Porath, Y. 1982 Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. 'Atiqot 15.

Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums.

1993 Ashdod V: Excavation of Area G. CAtiqot 23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture.

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1998 An Early Phoenician Cache from Ekron. Pp.

259-72 in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. J. Magness and S. Gitin. Brown Judaic Studies 320. Atlanta: Scholars.

Ehrlich, C. S. 1997 "How the Mighty Are Fallen": The Philistines

in Their Tenth Century Context. Pp. 179-201 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L. K. Handy. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11. Leiden: Brill.

Faust, A. 2002 Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in

Iron Age Israelite Society. Journal of Mediter- ranean Archaeology 15: 53-73.

Finkelstein, I. 1995 The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in

Canaan. Tel Aviv 22: 213-39. 1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An

Alternative View. Levant 28: 177-87. 2002a Chronology Rejoinders. Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 134: 118-29. 2002b Gezer Revisited and Revised. Tel Aviv 29:

262-96. Finkelstein, I., and Singer-Avitz, L.

2001 Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv 28: 231-59. Fritz, V.

1994 An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology. Jour- nal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supple- ment Series 172. Sheffield: JSOT.

Fritz, V., and Kempinski A. 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der H[irbet

el-Miis' (Tel-Mdi]s`5), 1972-1975. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Gilboa, A. 1995 The Typology and Chronology of the Iron

Age Pottery and the Chronology of Iron Age Assemblages. Pp. 1-49 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Vol. IB: Areas A and C: The Finds, by E. Stern, J. Berg, A. Gilboa, B. Guz- Zilberstein, A. Raban, R. Rosenthal-Hegin- bottom, and I. Sharon. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1996 Assyrian-type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the Town during the Assyrian Occupation Period. Eretz-Israel 25 (Joseph Aviram volume): 116-35 (Hebrew), 92* (English summary).

1998 Iron I-IIA Pottery Evolution at Dor-Regional Contexts and the Cypriot Connection. Pp. 413- 25 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Ex- ploration Society.

Gitin, S. 1990 Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron

II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods at Tel Gezer. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Bibli- cal Archaeology 3. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

1997 Late Philistines. Pp. 311-13 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 4, ed. E. Meyers. New York: Oxford University.




1998 Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century B.C.E. and Beyond. Pp. 162-83 in Mediterra- nean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Gitin, S.; Mazar, A.; and Stern E., eds. 1998 Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thir-

teenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Glascock, M. D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics

at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. Pp. 11-26 in Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archae- ology, ed. H. Neff. Monographs in World Ar- chaeology 7. Madison, WI: Prehistory.

Grant, E. 1931 'Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine) L Biblical

and Kindred Studies 3. Haverford, PA: Haver- ford College.

1934 Rumeileh, Being Ain Shems Excavations (Pal- estine) III. Biblical and Kindred Studies 5. Haverford, PA: Haverford College.

Hamilton, R. W. 1935 Excavations at Tell Abu-Hawim. Quarterly of

the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4: 1-69.

Hart, E A.; Storey, J. M. V.; Adams, S. J.; Symonds, R. P.; and Walsh, J. N.

1987 An Analytical Study, Using Inductively Cou- pled Plasma (ICP) Spectrometry, of Samian and Colour-Coated Wares from the Roman Town at Colchester together with Related Con- tinental Samian Wares. Journal of Archaeolog- ical Science 14: 577-98.

Hein, A.; Mommsen, H.; and Maran, J. 1999 Element Concentration Distributions and Most

Discriminating Elements for Provenancing by Neutron Activation Analyses of Ceramics from Bronze Age Sites in Greece. Journal of Archae- ological Science 26: 1053-58.

Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels, M. 1983 Another Pottery Group from Abu Ruqeish.

Israel Museum Journal 2: 49-57. Hizmi, H.

2002 El-Khirbe--An Iron Age Fortress East of Jeru- salem at the Edge of the Desert. Qadmoniot 124: 102-7 (Hebrew).

Karageorghis, V. 1970 Salamis H. 3 vols. Nicosia: Department of An-

tiquities, Cyprus. Killebrew, A. E.

1996 Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel Miqne-Ekron. Pp. 135-62 in Retrieving the

Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Lamon R. S., and Shipton G. M. 1939 Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I-V

Oriental Institute Publications 42. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Levy, S., and Edelstein, G. 1972 Cinq ann6es de fouilles ' Tel cAmal (Nir Da-

vid). Revue Biblique 79: 325-67. Lines, J.

1954 Late Assyrian Pottery from Nimrud. Iraq 16: 164-67.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. 2 vols. Ori-

ental Institute Publications 62. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago.

Macalister, R. A. S. 1914 The Philistines: Their History and Civilization.

London: British Academy. Maeir, A. M.

2001 The Philistine Culture in Transformation: A Current Perspective Based on the Results of the First Seasons of Excavations at Tell es-Safi/ Gath. Pp. 111-29 in Settlement, Civilization and Culture: Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon, eds. A. M. Maeir and E. Baruch. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew).

2003 Notes and News: Tell es-Safi/Gath, 1996-2002. Israel Exploration Journal 53: 237-46.

In press a Philistia Transforming: Fresh Evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath on the Transformation Tra- jectory of the Philistine Culture. In The Phi- listines and Other Sea Peoples, eds. A. Killebrew, G. Lehmann, and M. Artzy. Leiden: Brill.

In press b Canaanites and Philistines: Recent Excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel (1996-2001). In The Proceedings of the 3rd International Confer- ence on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, May, Paris, 2002, eds. P. de Miroschedji, J. C. Margueron, and J. P. Thalmann. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Maisler (Mazar), B. 1950- The Excavations at Tell Qas^le. Preliminary 1951 Report. Israel Exploration Journal 1: 61-76,

125-40, 194-218. Master, D. M.

2001 The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Cen- tury BCE: A Petrographic Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

2003 Trade and Politics: Ashkelon's Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 330: 47-64.




Mazar, A. 1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. The Phil-

istine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusa- lem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer- sity of Jerusalem.

1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000- 586 BCE. New York: Doubleday.

1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkel- stein. Levant 29: 157-67.

1998 On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron

Age I Period in Israel. Pp. 368-78 in Mediter- ranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Pro- fessor Trude Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stem. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1999 The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Pre- liminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 49: 1-42.

Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the

First Millennium BCE. 2 vols. Qedem 42. Jeru- salem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Uni- versity of Jerusalem.

Meshel, Z.; Carmi, I.; and Segal, D. 1995 14C Dating of an Israelite Biblical Site at Kun-

tillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman). Radiocarbon 37: 205-12.

Nagel, G. 1938 La ceramique du Nouvel Empire at Deir el-

MWdineh I. Documents de fouilles 10. Cairo: Institut franqais d'archdologie orientale.

Noort, E. 1994 Die Seevilker in Paldistina. Palaestina Antiqua

8. Kampen: Pharos. Oates, J.

1959 Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Iraq 21: 130-46.

Oren, E. D. 1984 Ziklag-A Biblical City on the Edge of the

Negev. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 155-66. 1988 Ziklag-A Biblical City in the Southern

Shefelah. Pp. 130-38 in Man and Envi- ronment in the Southern Shefelah, eds. D. Urman and E. Stern. Tel Aviv: Masada (Hebrew).

Oren, E. D., ed. 2000 The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassess-

ment. University Museum Monograph 108; University Museum Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Oren, E. D.; Fleming, N.; Kornberg, S.; Feinstein, R.; and Nahshoni, P.

1986 A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt. Qadmoniot 19: 83-91 (Hebrew).

Ortiz, S. M. 2000 The 1 lth/10th Century B.C.E. Transition in the

Aijalon Valley Region: New Evidence from Tel

Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

Perlman, I., and Asaro, E 1982 Provenience Studies on Pottery of Strata 11 and

10. Pp. 70-90 in Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M, by M. Dothan and Y. Porath. cAtiqot 15. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums.

Ponting, M., and Segal, I. 1998 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission

Spectroscopy Analyses of Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artifacts from the Excavations at Masada, Israel. Archaeometry 40: 109-22.

Porat, N.; Yellin, J.; and Heller-Kallai, L. 1991 Correlation between Petrography, NAA, and

ICP Analyses: Application to Early Bronze Egyptian Pottery from Canaan. Geoarchaeol- ogy 6: 133-49.

Pritchard, J. B. 1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron

Age. Philadelphia: University Museum, Uni- versity of Pennsylvania.

Saidah, R. 1966 Fouilles de Khald6: Rapport prdliminaire sur

la premiere et deuxieme campagnes (1961- 1962). Bulletin du Musede de Beyrouth 19: 51-90.

Schreiber, N. 2003 The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age.

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13. Leiden: Brill.

Sebba, M. 1997 Contact Languages: Pidgins and Creoles. New

York: St. Martin's. Shai, I.

2000 Philistia and the Judean Shephelah between the Campaign of Shishaq and the First Assyrian Campaigns to the Land of Israel: An Archaeo- logical and Historical Overview. M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University (Hebrew).

In press The Political Organization of the Philistines. In "I will speak the riddles of ancient times" (Ps 78:2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Singer-Avitz, L. 1999 Beersheba-A Gateway Community in South-

ern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 3-74.

2002 Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29: 110-214.




Sneh, A.; Bartov, Y.; and Rosensaft, M. 1998 Geological Map of Israel 1:200,000. Jerusa-

lem: Geological Survey of Israel. Stager, L. E.

1995 The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185- 1050 B.C.E.). Pp. 332-48 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File.

1996 Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE. Eretz-Israel 25 (Joseph Avi- ram volume): 61*-74*.

Stern, E. 1970 Excavations at Gil'am (Kh. Er-Rujm). 'Atiqot 6

(Hebrew series): 31-54. Stern, E., ed.

1994 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Ex- cavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Stone, B. J. 1995 The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture

Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 298: 7-32.

Ussishkin, D. 1990 Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel

Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries Bc. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 71-91.

Uziel, J. 2002 The Tell es-S•fi Archaeological Survey. M.A.

thesis, Bar-Ilan University.

Webster, J. 2001 Creolizing the Roman Provinces. American

Journal of Archaeology 105: 209-25. Weigand, P. C.; Harbottle, G.; and Sayre, E. V.

1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Me- soamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. Pp. 15-34 in Exchange Systems in Prehistory, eds. T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson. New York: Academic.

Wolff, S. R., and Shavit, A. In press Tel Hamid. A Biblical Site in the Inner

Coastal Plain of Israel. Israel Antiquities Au- thority Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Wood, B. J. 1990 The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine:

The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ce- ramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages. JSOT/ ASOR Monograph Series 4. Sheffield: Shef- field Academic.

Yadin, Y.; Aharoni, Y.; Amiran, R.; Ben-Tor, A.; Dothan, M.; Dothan, T.; Dunayevsky, I.; Geva, S.; and Stern, E.

1961 Hazor III-IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation 1957-58 (Plates). Jerusalem: Magnes.

Zimhoni, O. 1990 Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Lev-

els III and II. Tel Aviv 17: 3-52.

