mortaria peq

8/3/2019 Mortaria PEQ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mortaria-peq 1/19

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2011 doi: 10.1179/003103211X12971861557197

Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 143, 2 (2011), 87–105

Address correspondence to Alexander Zukerman, Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem,Israel, email: [email protected]

MORTARIA AS A FOREIGN ELEMENT IN THEMATERIAL CULTURE OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

DURING THE 8TH –7TH CENTURIES BCE

Alexander Zukerman and David Ben-Shlomo

The article examines an Iron Age II B–C ceramic form, the mortarium bowl, which is usually acknowledged as an imported type, but is not yet fully integrated into the study of east Mediterranean trade during this period. Several mortaria are examined by Thin Section Petrographic Analysis, and the previous studies of Iron Age II and Persian period mortaria are reviewed in light of its results. It is argued that Cyprus was the main production centre of mortaria imported to the southern Levant and discusses the significance of these vessels within the framework of late Iron Age eastern Mediterranean international trade.

Keywords: Mortaria, Thin Section Petrographic Analysis; Iron Age ceramics; Eastern Mediterranean trade;

Cyprus; Southern Levant

1. introduction

Cypriote and Greek contacts with the southern Levant during the Iron Age IIB–C period(8th –7th centuries BCE) recently became a subject of renewed interest as a result of excava-tions at the sites of Ashkelon, Ekron, Mezad Hashavyahu, Dor, Kabri and others. Most of these sites not only yielded numerous Cypriote and Greek finds, but also provided a rarebut necessary condition for a systematic and well-based study of inter-cultural connections,namely well-stratified and closely dated archaeological contexts. The attempts to assess thesignificance of the Cypriote and Greek objects for the history of the Iron Age II southernLevant were connected with two research problems: their chronological value (Waldbaumand Magness 1997), and the identity of their users (Wenning 1991; Niemeier 2001; 2002;Waldbaum 1994; 1997; 2002a; 2002b; Fantalkin 2006). Although most of these studies dealtwith fine wares, other pottery classes were not overlooked. Thus, Greek cooking pots (chytrai )received close attention, as did Greek trade amphorae of various types.

Yet, one quite common ceramic type — the mortaria (or heavy bowls) — was notintegrated into this body of research (for one of the rare attempts to do so, see Salles 1985).Most scholars dealing with the late Iron Age material culture are, however, quite aware of its foreign origin (see below). In the southern Levant, mortaria emerged in the 8 th centuryBCE, and continued, with morphological variations, through the early Hellenistic period.1 In contrast to other Iron Age II imports to the region, the mortarium is a relatively frequent

vessel type (Fig. 1 and Table 1). It is attested even at small sites far removed from theMediterranean coast, such as Jericho, En-Gedi, Tel Masos, and Aroer. This wide distribu-tion and also the coarse ware of these vessels perhaps explain why in numerous recentpublications of late Iron Age ceramics from Israel, mortaria are discussed as part of the localpottery assemblage, regardless of their fabric (see below). This misconception led to the situ-ation in which a foreign item that was quite widespread, was seldom discussed, and as such,its significance was never assessed. This study intends to re-examine the existing evidence of



88 palestine exploration quarterly, 143, 2 , 2011

mortaria as well as to add some new primary data concerning their provenance, and tointegrate this vessel type into the picture of inter-cultural contacts of Philistia, Judah, and

neighbouring regions during the 8th –7

thcenturies BCE.

2. function, regional distribution, and dating

The typical Iron Age mortarium has a straight everted wall, a folded rim and a flat orconcave base (Fig. 2).2 The rim is always externally thickened, but the details of its profilecan vary: some are oval, while others are more elongated and triangular. The exterior sur-face of these vessels has prominent horizontal marks of wheel-finishing, while the interior is

very smooth (e.g. Yezerski 2007, 90). According to Blakely and Bennet, who examined thePersian period examples of this vessel type from Tell el-Hesi, mortaria were mould-made(1989, 196). Their fabric is very gritty and well-fired. Most of these vessels have very thickwalls (1.5–2.5 cm), but some examples have thinner walls (Fantalkin 2001, 80–82). The ver-

sions with thicker walls were most probably utilised for grinding, while those with thinnerwalls were perhaps used for serving (Sapin 1998). The majority of thick-walled mortaria haveabraded interiors (Fig. 2: 1, 3; see also Bennett and Blakely 1989, 196, 201; Sapin 1998;Villing 2006, 34–37), supporting their use for grinding.3 According to Bennett and Blakely(1989, 201–202), the coarse inclusions unique to mortaria, created a rough surface thatfacilitated grinding; they also list numerous examples of basalt upper grinding stones foundin association with mortaria.4 It is possible therefore that the extraordinary longevity of thisimported vessel type stems from their functionality rather than from cultural, political, orother reasons.5 Not surprisingly, late Iron Age mortaria are found in both domestic andindustrial contexts (e.g. at Tel Batash and En-Gedi; see also Sapin 1998, 93), as is the caseof numerous Persian period examples.6

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the sites mentioned in the text (Horvat Rogem and KadeshBarnea are not indicated).



89mortaria as a foreign element in the levant

Table 1. Iron Age II mortaria from the southern Levant (sites arranged alphabetically).

Site Stratum Date (century) Reference

Arad VI 7th Singer-Avitz 2002, fig. 48: 4 Aroer II 7th –early 6th Biran and Cohen 1981, fig. 6:1

Ashdod VIII–VI 8th

–7th

Dothan and Freedman 1967, figs. 40:10–11; 41:11; Dothan 1971, figs. 45: 15;50: 1; 53: 8; 59: 11; Dothan and Porath1982, fig. 19: 14; Ben-Shlomo 2005,fig. 3.98: 20

Ashkelon Grid 50 Phase 7 7 th Master 2003: fig. 7: 2–3Batash, Tel II 7th Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 20, 51,

table 7 (55 examples)Beirut “The level of

abandonment”late 8th Badre 2009, fig. 37: 8

Dan I 7th Pakman 1992, fig. 4: 1–2Dor Area A, Phase 9 7th Gilboa 1995, fig. 1.3: 9–10Ekron IB 7th Gitin 1997, fig. 12: 21Elissa shipwreck - 8th Ballard et al. 2002, fig. 9: 3En-Gedi V early 6th Yezerski 2007, pl. 3: 26–27Far‘ah (North), Tellel-

VIIe 7th Chambon 1984, pl. 54: 10

Gezer VA 7th Gitin 1990, pl. 28: 9–10Hesi, Tell el- VI 7th –6th Bennett and Blakely 1989, 198Horvat Rosh Zayit - 8th Gal and Alexandre 2000, fig. VII.11: 19Horvat Rogem II 7th –early 6th Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004, fig. 99:6 Jericho Stage

XXIII–XXIVin Trench II

7th Kenyon and Holland 1983, fig. 74:1

Kabri E2 7th Lehmann 2002, 196, fig. 5.78: 11–14

(“large numbers”)Keisan, Tell 5–4 8th-7th Briend and Humbert 1980, pls. 28: 1;31: 3-7; 45: 5; Sapin 1998

Khirbet Abu Tuwein - 7th –early 6th Mazar 1982, fig. 13: 14

Lachish II? 7th –early 6th (intrusive?)

Tufnell 1953, 279–280

Malhata, Tel - 7th –early 6th Kochavi 1970, 24Masos, Tel - 7th Fritz and Kempinski 1983, pl. 163: 1Megiddo III–II 7th Lamon and Shipton 1939, pl. 23: 13–17Mezad Hashavyahu - 7th Fantalkin 2001, table 16, fig. 29: 5–9

(20 examples)

Nasbeh, Tell en- Cistern 304 7th

–6th

Wampler 1941, fig. 18: 4Qasile, Tell VII 7th Mazar 1985, figs. 56: 5–6; 58: 3–4Qubur el-Walaydah Field II,

Stratum 1late 7th Lehmann et al. 2009, fig. 14: 5–6

Sa‘idiyeh, Tell es- IV 7th Pritchard 1985, fig. 15: 9

Sarepta 10 7th (?) Pritchard 1975, fig. 19: 14Sera‘, Tel IV late 7th Oren 1993, 1334Tyre III 8th Bikai 1978, pl. IX: 19Yoqneam XII–XI 8th –7th Zarzecki-Peleg et al. 2005, fig. II.5: 1–2

(6 examples)




The earliest mortaria appeared at the end of the 8 th century BCE. In the southernLevant, these early mortaria can be found at Beirut (Badre 2007, fig. 37: 8), Tyre StratumIII (Bikai 1978, pl. IX: 19), Tell Keisan (Briend and Humbert 1980, pl. 45: 5), Horvat RoshZayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000, fig. VII.11: 19), Yoqneam (Zarzecki-Peleg et al. 2005, 247),

Ashdod Stratum VIII (Dothan 1971, figs 45: 15; 50: 1),7 and the Phoenician shipwreck

of Elissa found off the Ashkelon/Gaza Strip coast (Ballard et al. 2002, fig. 9: 3). Mortariabecome more numerous in the 7th –early 6th centuries BCE, and are found along the south-ern Phoenician coast, as well as in the Galilee, Jezreel Valley, Central Hill Country, centraland southern Coastal Plain, Shephelah, northern Negev, and Transjordan (Fig. 1 andTable 1).8

The earliest mortaria known from the northern Levant come from problematic con-texts. One possibly intrusive mortarium fragment comes from Tell Arqa Level 10, dated tothe 8th –early 7th centuries BCE, and several others were found in poorly stratified contextsof Level 9 (7th –5th/4th centuries, see Thalmann 1978, 79–80, 89, fig. 47:12–13). An unknownnumber of mortaria was found in Al Mina Level 5 (unpublished, mentioned in Lehmann1996, 391, Form 165), dated to c. 650–580 BCE (Lehmann’s Assemblage 4, see also

Boardman 1999, 160).9

Although several Iron Age Syrian sites are known archaeologically,mortaria appear to be rare in this region, at least before the Persian period.10The date of the earliest mortaria from south-eastern Anatolia (Tarsus and Mersin) is

problematic. In the publication of the material from Tarsus, locally-produced and importedmortaria are given a chronological range between the 11th and 6th centuries (Hanfmann 1963,90). Villing (2006, 37 and n. 109) understandably considered this dating of the Tarsusmortaria “puzzling” (see also Stern 1982, 97). One mortarium was found in MersinLevel IV, dated by the excavators to the 8 th century (Barnett 1940, 98–99, 107, pl. 52: 1).This chronology of the earliest mortaria from Tarsus and Mersin is frequently cited in theliterature (e.g. Salles 1985, 204; Ballard et al. 2002, 162; Artzy and Lyon 2003, 187). How-ever, Iron Age levels at both sites were badly disturbed (Barnett 1940, 99; Hanfmann 1963,

Fig. 2. Iron Age II B–C mortaria. 1. from Ashdod, after Ben-Shlomo 2005, fig. 3.98: 20; 2. fromTell Keisan, after Briend and Humbert 1980, pl. 31: 5; 3. from Ekron, after Gitin 1997, fig. 12: 21;

4. from Horvat Rosh Zayit, after Gal and Alexandre 2000, fig. VII.11: 19.




18–19), and the chronological homogeneity of their ceramic assemblages must be questioned.In addition, their suggested absolute dates reflect the state of knowledge some 50–70 yearsago. Due to these problems, the mortaria from Tarsus and Mersin do not contribute muchto the dating of the earliest appearance of this vessel type in the eastern Mediterranean.11

The situation in Cyprus is somewhat clearer. The earliest significant appearance of

mortaria on the island (41 examples) is attested in Salamis Tomb 79 (Karageorghis 1973, 116)and attributed to the Cypro-Archaic I period. In the initial publication, Karageorghis (1973,121) suggested the absolute date of c. 700 BCE for this assemblage, but since the beginningof the Cypro-Archaic I is now usually dated to about the middle of the 8 th century(following Coldstream 1979, 266–267, see also Reyes 1994, xviii), a somewhat earlier date ispossible as well. Mortaria continued to appear on the island in large numbers during theCypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods, until c. 300 BCE (see references in Villing 2006,44, notes 112–114).

In Crete, in Corinth, and in the eastern Aegean (e.g. Miletos, Ephesos, Xanthos,Klazomenai, Rhodes and Samos), mortaria are known from the 7 th century onwards (Villing2006, 37–38, with references). Significantly, the quantity of East Greek fine and coarse wares

and of Corinthian pottery in the southern Levant (Waldbaum 1994, 58–61) seems to be muchmore limited than that of mortaria, and the same may be said for Egypt (Villing 2006, 37). According to what is presently known, it can be concluded that the earliest mortaria

came from Israel, southern and central Lebanon, and Cyprus and are dated to the 8th cen-tury BCE. During the following century, they are attested in numerous regions throughoutthe Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, and they became even more popular duringthe subsequent 6th –4th centuries.

The typological derivation of mortaria is unclear. Gal and Alexandre (2000, 192) sug-gested that these large bowls with straight everted walls developed out of a type of smallflat-based bowl with a similar shape. Such bowls are well-known in the southern Levantduring the Iron Age II period (e.g. Crowfoot et al. 1957, fig. 10: 1–3; Gal and Alexandre

2000, fig. VI.11: 24–25). However, as will be demonstrated below, the vast majority of mortaria from this period are imported, and the local derivation of this ceramic type isimprobable. Mortaria can possibly derive from straight-sided Cypriote bowls as well (e.g.Karageorghis 1999, pls. 114: 5501; 120: 2476; 127: 2754), but the scarcity of well-publishedCypro-Archaic I-II stratified ceramic sequences preclude a firm conclusion (cf. Salles 1985,74). It should be additionally noted that in his seminal study of first millennium BCE Cyprus,Gjerstad regarded mortaria as a local Cypriote ceramic type (Plain White V accordingto his terminology, see Gjerstad 1948, 88), and this assessment is still unchanged (e.g.Karageorghis 2003, 104).12

3. provenance

There are three types of evidence for the origin of mortaria found in the southern Levant:the chronology of their appearance in various regions, their regional distribution, and theresults of provenance studies. The above discussion of the first two types indicates that out-side of the southern Levant, the earliest examples of these vessels, dating to the 8th centuryBCE are known from Cyprus, and during the 7th century BCE mortaria are also attested inthe Aegean region and perhaps in Cilicia. In the northern Levant mortaria seem to be rarebefore the Persian period, and their emergence in that region probably occurred during the7th century BCE. Cyprus thus emerges as the strongest candidate for the exporter of this

vessel type. What follows is the examination of this assumption in light of the third type of evidence — the provenance studies.




3.1 Previous Studies

At least eight Iron Age mortaria from Ashkelon, Mezad Hashavyahu, and Kabri wereexamined by Thin Section Petrographic Analysis (TSPA). Four vessels from late 7th century

Ashkelon were analyzed by Master (2001, 72, 110–111, 114; 2003, 55). Two examples are madeof a clay rich in ophiolitic minerals that represents ‘the combination of limestones and

ultramafic rocks, characteristic of both the areas surrounding the Troodos formation inCyprus and coastal northern Lebanon and Syria’ (Master 2001, 134).13 The Iron Age IImortaria from Mezad Hashavyahu are made of the same raw material, and, according toFantalkin (2001, 80), probably come from Cyprus. The ware of the only examined Iron AgeII mortarium from Kabri is similarly described (Goren and Cohen-Weinberger 2002, table15.1: 44). Two additional examples from Ashkelon are made of other (non-ophiolitic) typesof fabric: one was classified as a non-local unidentified fabric (Master 2001, 137–138), whileanother, an ‘Aegean mortaria’, was classified as a highly micaceous clay fabric of a certainIonian provenance (Master 2001, 72, 142).

The TSPA examination of a large number of Persian-period mortaria by Gorzalczanyrevealed that their raw material belongs to the ophiolitic petrographic group (Gorzalczany

1999, 186–189, table 4.10; 2003, 121–124; 2006a, 60, n. 5; 2006b, 42*).14

According to him,although ophiolitic soils are characteristic of the eastern Aegean, Cyprus, southeasternTurkey, and north-western Syria, the closest comparisons to the specific mineralogicalfeatures of the Perisan-period mortaria come from the Troodos Mountains in Cyprus.

A recent TSPA study of a number of flat-based mortaria from Miletos and Xanthos in Asia Minor, Al Mina in northern Syria, and Naukratis in Egypt (Villing 2006, 70; Spataroand Villing 2009, 94–98), with fabric rich in igneous or ophiolitic-related minerals, estab-lished their petrographic and chemical similarity to Cypriote-style terracotta figurines aswell as a basket-handled amphora. However, other mortaria from Miletos, Naukratis, andpossibly also from Al Mina, made of different (non-ophiolitic) clay types, were apparentlyproduced locally at these sites. Unfortunately, the date of the mortaria from Al Mina that

were examined in these studies is unknown. This makes it difficult to assess them on thecrucial question of the existence of production centers of these vessels in the Iron Age IInorthern Syria.

At this point, a note on the relationship between the geographical distribution of ophiolitic soils and that of mortaria should be made. The clay rich in igneous or ophiolitic-related minerals can derive from soils that exist in both central and southern Cyprus (theTroodos Mountains), on the north Syrian coast, as well as on several islands in the eastern

Aegean (Whitechurch et al. 1984; Master 2001, 134; Gorzalczany 2003, 40–41; Goren, et al.2004, 57–60). However, while ophiolitic soils are present also north of Latakia in Syria (Brewet al. 2001), hardly any 8th –7th century mortaria are known from that region and, therefore,this provenance for the southern Levantine mortaria is much less probable. In certain sites

in western Turkey (such as Miletos), as well as, perhaps, in Mersin and Tarsus in Cilicia,mortaria do appear during the 7th century (see above), yet there are no ophiolitic outcropsin the near vicinity of the relevant sites; moreover, these vessels were never subjectedto provenance analysis, and it would appear that most (if not all) of them are imported(cf. Hanfmann 1963, 123, 138).

Cyprus is the only ophiolitic region that produced clear evidence for relatively largequantities of mortaria from the 8th century onwards, as mentioned above. It should addition-ally be noted that the fabric of the Iron Age mortaria found in the southern Levant doesnot fit any clay that derives from soils in Israel, Lebanon, or on the southern Syrian coast,as clays in these regions derive from Neogene formations (see, e.g. Elliott 1955; Bettles 2003,139–148; Gorzalczany 2003, 33–35). In other words, previous petrographic studies suggest




that the late Iron Age mortaria from the southern Levant were not imported from Phoeniciaor from the eastern Aegean islands and that Cyprus is the most probable source of these

vessels.15 Three mortaria bowls from the Persian period Ma‘agan Mikhael shipwreck were

examined by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) and shown to be of Cypriotemanufacture (Yellin and Artzy 2004, 223–227), most probably from its southern coast(region of Amathus, see Artzy and Lyon 2003, 197).16 Most of the mortaria from Naukratismentioned above, come from Cyprus (but used by Greeks), and none are East Greek (Villing2006, 39–40; Spataro and Villing 2009).17

In spite of the results which strongly suggest Cyprus as the main producer of the Iron Age II mortaria, some scholars prefer other possibilities. For example, according to Yezerski(2007, 90), these vessels come from the eastern Aegean islands or from western Anatolia,while in the opinion of Stern (1982, 96–98; 1995, 53) and Waldbaum (2002a, 58), the Iron

Age mortaria are East Greek imports. In his publication of Mezad Hashavyahu, Fantalkin(2001, 79–80), with reservations, denoted mortaria as ‘East Greek heavy bowls’ ( contra Niemeier 2002, 330) and, in the synthetic summary of his study of the material from

Ashkelon, Master (2003, 55) attributed mortaria to the North Syrian/Cypriote group of

imports. In other publications, mortaria are discussed as an integral part of the localceramic assemblage (e.g. Mazar and Panitz Cohen 2001, 51; Yezerski 2007, 90).18 We cannotbut agree with Villing (2006, 39), who summarised the results of provenance studies of mor-taria in the entire Mediterranean basin as follows: ‘Cyprus thus presents itself as a highlylikely major production centre for mortaria at least from the 7th century BCE onwards.’ Theresults of previous provenance studies do not support the north Syrian or east Anatolianorigin for these vessels, although, in this stage of research, the existence of production centresof mortaria in these regions during the late Iron Age II cannot be completely ruled out.

As far as Phoenicia is concerned, that region can safely be dismissed as the source of mortaria. As in the case of Cypriote Black-on-Red wares, if the term ‘Cypro-Phoenician’ isat all applicable to mortaria (cf. Villing 2006, 37), it should be used with reservation, sincethese vessels did not originate from Phoenicia, but, at most, were distributed by traders fromthe Phoenician centers. The trade network responsible for that is discussed below.

3.2 TSPA in this Study

In order to further examine the origin of the Iron Age mortaria from the southern Levant,ten vessels were analyzed by TSPA (see Table 2).19 The single samples from Horvat RoshZayit and Ashdod are dated to the 8th century, while the six samples from Ekron and thetwo from Gezer date to the 7th century BCE. Most of the mortaria sampled (all the samplesfrom Ekron, Ashdod, and Horvat Rosh Zayit) are made of a dark to opaque matrix of a‘milky’ texture (Fig. 3), indicating a high firing temperature of a calcareous clay. Because of the character of the matrix, it is often difficult to fully identify various calcareous inclusions

in the clay. Therefore, their assignment to a specific provenance is more complicated.However, the clay in these samples seems to be derived from an ophiolitic clay source, asevidenced mostly by reddish coarse silt-sand sized grains (e.g. Fig. 3) which consist of second-ary products derived from the serpentinization process (Wicks and Whittaker 1977).20 Manyferruginous inclusions, and few feldspar, mica and rare worn basalt fragments are alsopresent, as well as several larger olivine fragments and silty to sand-sized quartz inclusions(about 5–10% of slide area). One sample (MQ66, Fig. 4) has a more reddish matrix anda significant mica population, possibly indicating a somewhat different source.21 The mor-tarium bowl from Horvat Rosh Zayit is also made of an ophiolitic type of clay, but it is evenricher in larger sand-sized olivine inclusions (Fig. 5), indicating a source rich in igneousrocks.




Table 2. Mortaria analyzed by TSPA in this study.

Sample Site Details Date(century)

Petrographicanalysis

Suggestedprovenance

MQ61 Ekron Reg. no. IIISE.13.77/10,

Stratum IB

7th Ophiolithic soil Cyprus

MQ62 Ekron Reg. no. IIINE.7.19.23,Stratum IA

Late 7th Ophiolithic soil Cyprus





MQ65 Ekron Reg. no. INW.3.13/4,unstratified

7th (?) Ophiolithic soil Cyprus

MQ66 Ekron Reg. no. IVNW.47.7/4,Stratum I

7th Ophiolithic soil(reddish)

ProbablyCyprus

GZ1 Gezer Reg. no. VII.34.129/7,Stratum VA; see Gitin

1990, pl. 28: 9

7th –early 6th Brown soil Israel,Coastal

PlainGZ2 Gezer Reg. no. VII.44.178/9,

Stratum VA; see Gitin1990, pl. 28: 10

7th –early 6th Brown soil Israel,CoastalPlain

Ash1 Ashdod Reg. no. 4692/1,Stratum VIIIb

8th Ophiolithic soil Cyprus

RZ1 HorvatRosh Zayit

Locus 3060, Stratum III 8th Ophiolithic soil(high olivine)

Cyprus

Fig. 3. Thin sections of mortaria from Ekron: sample MQ62, PL horizontal field width 6.8 mm,note serpentinized grains in center left and lower right.




Fig. 4. Thin sections of mortaria from Ekron: sample MQ66, PL horizontal field width 1.7 mm.

Fig. 5. Thin section of a mortarium from Horvat Rosh Zayit (sample RZ1, PL horizontal fieldwidth 1.7 mm; note olivine on lower right corner).




The fabric of the mortaria sampled from Ekron, Ashdod, and Horvat Rosh Zayitclearly does not represent clays that are local to the southern Levant. Ophiolitic sources richin serpentinised grains can be traced to the Troodos Ophiolite Formation in central Cyprus,or to various alluvial soils found in western and southern Cyprus that are derived fromthis formation (for example, from the large outcrops about 10 km north and northwest of

Amathus; see Constantinou 1995).It should be noted that these fabrics are somewhat different than the above-mentionedCategory 09 to which most of the Ashkelon mortaria belong (Master 2001, 134). Fourmortaria bowls from Amathus are also somewhat different and are made of an ophioliticsoil rich in rounded coarse sand-sized calcareous inclusions (Fig. 6).22 It is possible thatthe source of thse clays is the Pakhna formation, located just to the east and northwest of

Amathus (Constantinou 1995; see also Gorzalczany 2003, 40, photo 11). Due to this miner-alogical and technological heterogeneity among the mortaria made of ophiolitic clays, it ispossible that the various ophiolitic-rich fabrics, represented by the mortaria from Ashkelon,Ekron, Ashdod, Horvat Rosh Zayit, and Amathus, derive from several locations in southernCyprus, or possibly from other locations in Cyprus where the Pakhna and ophiolitic outcropsare located (see Goren, et al. 2004, 57–60). The geology of the Amathus region fits severalof the clays from which the mortaria are made, and thus it might be a good candidate foran important production area of these vessels.

In contrast to the samples from Ekron, Ashdod, and Horvat Rosh Zayit, the twosamples from late Iron Age II Gezer are made of a clay fabric rich in silty angular quartz

Fig. 6. Thin section of a mortarium from Amathus, Cyprus (XPL, horizontal field width 6.8 mm).




and some limestone sand-sized fragments with no ophiolitic-related minerals (Fig. 7). This

clay is probably derived from brown soil common in the central and southern Coastal Plainand in parts of the Shephelah (e.g. Wieder and Gvirtzman 1999, 233–234). Thus, the twosamples from Gezer were locally made in the southern Levant. These vessels have asomewhat more reddish-brown fabric than the other mortaria bowls examined here, butotherwise they do not differ in their appearance from the rest of the samples. It is, therefore,possible that a number of other mortaria from the Iron Age sites in the southern Levantwere locally made as well.23 Yet, based on the cumulative evidence of provenance studiesmentioned above, it can be safely stated that most of the Iron Age mortaria were made of non-local clays.

4. discussion and conclusions

The significance of the Iron Age mortaria from the southern Levant has almost never beenexplicitly discussed. The starting point of the following discussion is the premise that duringthe Iron Age IIB–C most of these vessels were imported (primarily from Cyprus) and thatthe rest were made locally.

The appearance of relatively large quantities of imported mortaria in the southernLevant, and their wide regional distribution (Fig. 1), is unique for the entire Bronze and Iron

Ages. This is because these objects are related to everyday domestic activity of grindinggrain, in contrast to containers and tablewares that represent the much more common func-tional classes of imported pottery. The only other imported vessels used for food preparationare several North Syrian cooking pots from Ashkelon (Master 2003, 55, fig. 7:4) and early

Archaic Greek cooking jugs (chytrae ) from Ashkelon, Mesad Hashavyahu, Tel Batash, and

Fig. 7. Thin section of mortarium vessel from Gezer (sample GZ2, XPL, horizontal fieldwidth 1.7 mm).




Kabri (Waldbaum and Magness 1997, 31–32; Waldbaum 2002b). All these cooking pots dateto the 7th century BCE and come from a limited number of sites located on or near theMediterranean coast. Therefore, the chronological range, the origin, and the regional dis-tribution of these vessels are different from those of mortaria, and the two ceramic groupsrepresent different phenomena. While imported cooking pots may be related to cooking

traditions of immigrants or mercenaries, imported mortaria were clearly used by the localpopulation of the country. For example, there is no reason to assume that the late 7 th –early6th century BCE mortaria found in Philistia and Judah were used mainly by foreigners(by the Kittim of the Arad ostraca or by any others).24

The reason for importing these vessels from a relatively remote region (Cyprus) to various locations in the southern Levant seems to be functional and economic rather thanrelated to culture-specific traditions of food preparation. According to Hargis (2007, 42–43),mortaria were high-quality grinding implements and were lighter than stone vessels of com-parable size. It can be added that shipping heavy cargoes by sea was cheaper than movingthem by land. Therefore, imported mortaria could be marketed in regions where basaltgrinding stones were also sold and which were much closer to basalt outcrops in the Galilee,the Golan, and Jordan than to Cyprus. Both types of grinding implements were frequentlyused together, as mentioned above. The presence of igneous minerals in their ware con-tributed to their efficiency as grinding tools, but, for the same reason, their large-scaleproduction was possible only in areas where such rocks were present. Local imitations of mortaria were clearly less efficient as grinding implements, and it is doubtful if they werealways used in this capacity.

Mortaria were transported to the Levantine ports by sea. However, it is a little odd thatall the known shipwrecks, both from the Iron Age and later periods, did not containmortaria as cargo, and the only examples retrieved from them most probably belonged tocrews (see also Villing 2006, 39, n. 182). Most of these shipwrecks can be dated to the Persianperiod (e.g. Artzy and Lyon 2003, 183–187, fig. 3: 2–4; Greene, Lawall and Polzer 2008, 697,fig. 19), and only one, dated to the Iron Age, is directly relevant to the present study. The

8th

century Elissa shipwreck yielded one mortarium that was categorised as galley ware(Ballard et al. 2002, 162). The cargo of this ship comprised hundreds of torpedo-shapedamphorae that are known from Megiddo, Lachish, Beersheba, the Phoenician coast, easternCyprus, and Carthage (Bikai 1987, 49; Ballard et al. 2002, 158–160; Singer-Avitz 2010,188–190, with references).25 The ship was sailing from Phoenicia towards the African coastand thus probably did not belong to the trade network that distributed mortaria throughoutthe southern Levant. The mortarium from Elissa was indeed a galley ware and not a partof the cargo.

Late Iron Age II mortaria seem to have the same provenance as another somewhatneglected ceramic type of this period: basket-handled amphorae of early (biconical) type(Humbert 1991; Wolff 2009). This vessel, first attested on Cyprus in contexts dated to the

late 8th

century BCE, is attested at a number of 7th

century Levantine sites.26

According toINAA, the Iron Age II basket-handled amphorae from Tell Keisan originate from Cyprus(Gunneweg and Perlman 1991), while TSPA of these amphorae from Ashkelon and Kabriindicated a Cypriote or coastal Syrian provenance (Master 2003, 55; Goren and Cohen-Weinberger 2002, table 15.1: 43, but see a comment by Lehmann [2002, 198–199] in favourof their Cypriote provenance).27 In his seriation of the Iron Age pottery from Cyprus,Gjerstad included these amphorae in his Plain White V class (1948, fig. 57: 23). Note thatthere is no evidence that this form was produced in Phoenicia. It is quite possible, therefore,that basket-handled amphorae and mortaria were distributed by the same trade network.Significantly, no basket-handled amphorae were reported from the two 8th centuryPhoenician shipwrecks found off the Ashkelon/Gaza Strip coast (Ballard et al. 2002).




Other Cypriote imports in Iron Age IIB–C contexts in Israel include Black-on-Red,White Painted III, IV, and V, and Plain White IV and V bowls, jugs, juglets, and amphorae(Sørensen 1997; Lehmann 2002; Schreiber 2003, 188 –219; see also a rare Plain White kraterfrom Mezad Hashavyahu in Fantalkin 2001, fig. 30: 5). None of these vessel types fits theEast Greek pottery assemblage as defined by Cook and Dupont (1998). In addition, some

of the ceramic types attributed to Phoenician assemblages might in fact be of Cyprioteprovenance.28 It can be concluded that the Iron Age mortaria are far from being the onlyCypriote ceramic type that was imported to the southern Levant during the 8th –7th centuries.Mortaria, however, are by far the most numerous Cypriote object in the late Iron Age IIassemblages, and their regional distribution is the widest.

What trade network distributed mortaria (and possibly other Cypriote vessels and goods)throughout the southern Levant? Although any answer to this question is necessarily some-what speculative, several observations can be made. Figure 1 shows that the distribution of the late Iron Age mortaria from the southern Levant crossed political and cultural boundar-ies, and that mortaria appear in many inland sites, suggesting that they reached their finaldestination through local middlemen who bought them in international markets in coastaltowns such as Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, Dor, Acco, and Sarepta. These middlemen sold themeven at such faraway settlements as En-Gedi, Jericho, and Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh. Since thequantitative data on the usage of different types of grinding tools is virtually absent,the regional patterns of their consumption are hard to elucidate. What is clear is that theIron Age mortaria were much more popular in coastal settlements than in the inland ones,no doubt due to the increasing cost of transportation by land. However, there is currentlyno positive evidence that mortaria tend to appear in affluent households.

Mortaria could have been supplied to the southern Levantine ports by merchants eitherfrom Cyprus or from the Phoenician coast. However, since mortaria seem to be associatedwith Cypriote basket-handled amphorae rather than with torpedo-shaped amphorae fromthe Phoenician mainland, Cypriote traders are better candidates for this role than the trad-ers from Tyre and Sidon. In addition, it does not seem probable that Cypriote merchants

would give away such a source of income and allow foreigners (from Arvad, Tyre, Sidon,Euboea, or any other commercial centre in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean) toenjoy the profits from goods produced on the island.29 To be sure, Ezekiel 27:6 can beinterpreted as an indication of Tyrian trade in Cypriote wood, but the text only says thatthe Cypriote wood was used in Tyre for the decks of their ships, and it is possible that thiscommodity was brought to Tyre by Cypriote merchants, either of Phoenician origin or not(cf. Diakonoff 1992, 175, n. 38).

The Cypriote traders in question were possibly coming from the Phoenician settlementson Cyprus, at least two of which are known (Demand 2004, 260–261; Lipiński 2004, 42–76).Kition was a Phoenician colony, established by Tyrians in the 9th century BCE. During the8th century, Phoenicians also settled in the already-existing town of Amathus. The toponym

Kartihadasht (the New City) on two Phoenician inscriptions from Cyprus and in Esarhad-don’s inscriptions from Nineveh might refer either to Kition or to Amathus (for the different views see Yon and Childs 1997, 11; Markoe 2000, 170–171; Lipiński 2004, 48–49, with refer-ences). Numerous archaeological and epigraphic finds suggest a Phoenician presence inother Cypriote settlements as well, such as Salamis and Idalion. In any case, the results of provenance studies indicate that several production centres of mortaria existed on the island,and, therefore, they were probably exported from more than one port. The native Cypriotes(the descendants of Etheocypriots and of the Aegean settlers) from these or other coastaltowns could also have taken part in this trade; an incised Cypro-cyllabic inscription on a7th century basket-handled amphora from Kabri (Lehmann 2002, fig. 5. 75) suggests that thelocal Phoenicians were not the only ones to sustain the overseas commerce of the island.




The fragmented political structure of Iron Age Cyprus, which was divided into severalkingdoms, suggests that each port conducted separate trading expeditions to the Levant andelsewhere.

In our view, the trade network (or networks) established by these Cypriote traders hasbeen clearly differentiated from the one maintained by Tyre, Sidon, and other mainland

Phoenician cities. Although Phoenician colonies maintained relations with their mothercities (in fact, the raison d’être for their foundation was to sustain the east-west trade routes),there is reason to believe that Phoenician establishments on Cyprus pursued independentcommercial policy. The submission of the Cypriote Kartihadasht to Tyrian, and laterto Sidonian, control during the 8th century (Lipiński 2004, 46–48) does not seem to be a

voluntary step. However, this control probably terminated at the end of that century orshortly afterwards, when the mainland Phoenician trade centres were repeatedly hit by the

Assyrians and lost their independence.30 Although formally the Cypriote kingdoms were Assyrian vassals as well, there is no evidence that their maritime trade was controlled by theempire (see also Iacovou 2008, 462). The recent reassessment of the Black-on-Red potteryfrom the 9th-8th century Dodecanese (Schreiber 2003, 299–306), connecting it to the Cypriote(rather than mainland Phoenician) commercial activity (contra Coldstream 1969), is another

case where the domination of the mainland Phoenician cities over the maritime trade shouldnot be taken for granted.

As far as the regional south-Levantine trade in mortaria is concerned, these vesselswere part of the overland trade between the coastal cities and the inland settlements of thesouthern Levant. The available information from central and southern Israel concerningthe non-elite goods that were moved eastwards is minimal, no doubt in part due to the factthat the traded materials were perishable, and that sacks, rather than jars, were used. Theexcavations in Jerusalem yielded a large quantity of fish bones that belong to species fromthe Mediterranean Sea and the Nile River, and remains of cedar of Lebanon were foundat sites in the Beersheba and Arad Valleys (see references in Faust and Weiss 2005, 75).31 Numerous examples of Phoenician torpedo-shaped amphorae found in Beersheba represent

another aspect of the eastward movement of staple commodities (Singer-Avitz 2010,fig. 1:1–5).In conclusion, we would like to stress that the problems discussed here clearly require

further research. One of the main problems in the study of mortaria is the rarity of publishedquantitative data on these vessels and on the accompanying assemblages of pottery andgrinding stones. This data is imperative for synchronic and diachronic analyses of usepatterns of the different types of grinding tools. Quantification is also necessary for assessingthe place of mortaria among the various imports to the southern Levant. Additionalprovenance studies, employing various chemical and mineralogical methods, are needed inorder to verify the proposed view that the imported Iron Age II mortaria, or at least their

vast majority, originate from Cyprus. According to the provenance studies presented here,

these mortaria were made of several types of clay, apparently reflecting a number of different production centres of these vessels, but the location of these workshops should bedefined in a more precise way and the regional aspects of local imitation of these vessels alsoneed clarification. These local imitations represent either grinding vessels of inferior qualityor, alternatively, serving vessels. The reasons for the local demand for Cypriote mortaria

vis-à-vis basalt and other types of grinding stones require additional exploration as well.

acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Yuval Goren from Tel Aviv University and Amir Gorzalczany from theIsrael Antiquities Authority for their advice and assistance with regard to the interpretation of the thinsections of mortaria from Israel and Cyprus and Seymour Gitin of the W. F. Albright Institute of




Archaeological Research in Jerusalem for kindly allowing us to study the unpublished materialfrom Tel Miqne-Ekron. We are grateful to Linda Meiberg from the University of Pennsylvania, to Andrea Berlin from Boston University, to Alexander Fantalkin from Tel Aviv University, and to theanonymous readers for their comments and suggestions.

notes

1 For studies of mortaria dating to the Persian andHellenistic periods, see Lapp 1970, 180, 184–185; Berlin1997, 124–25, n. 280; Tal 1999, 98; Bienkowski 2001,352. In fact, the mortaria discussed in the present studyrepresent the initial phase of the long-term phenome-non of import and local production of these vessels inthe southern Levant.

2 As shown by Salles (1983, 203), the ring-based type,previously thought to be limited to the Persian period,emerged as early as the 7th century BCE.

3 Similarly, most of the Greek mortaria were grinding vessels (Weinberg 1954, 129–130; Matteucci 1986).

4 Salles’ and Oren’s suggestion that these vessels wereutilised for measuring grain or flour is tenuous since

their heavy and cumbersome nature would not readilyfacilitate measuring (Salles 1983, 208–209; 1985, 207;Oren 1984, 17).

5 During the Persian period, they became moremorphologically varied than in the preceding period(e.g. Tal 1999, 98–99). It is interesting that some of these Persian period variants are made of a less grittyware (Tal 1999, 98), hinting at a different use for these

vessels.6 In the Persian period Sanctuary of Apollo at

Naukratis, numerous mortaria were used as votiveofferings or in the preparation of sacrificial meals, andmany of them had dedicatory inscriptions in Greek(Villing 2006, who lists numerous other instances of mortaria found in ritual contexts). In Cyprus they

appear in large quantities in tombs (e.g. at the Necrop-olis of Salamis, see Karageorghis 1973, pls. 47: 233,255; 51: 209, 227, 802, 994, etc.), possibly in relation tofunerary meals.

7 Note the opinion of Gitin (1990, 211) that theseexamples are intrusive.

8 Only a few archaeological reports on mortariainclude the quantifiable data. To the best ourknowledge, we have listed every published exampleof mortaria, or mentioned the overall number of thepublished or cited vessels. When no such informationwas available, we assessed the quantities of mortaria interms of ‘few’, ‘several’, etc., on the basis of the relevantpublications.

9 For problems in the working methods of Sir

L. Woolley, the excavator of Al Mina, see Boardman1999, 138.10 The late Iron Age Syrian sites where mortaria seem

to be missing include Bassit, Tell Abu Danne, Tell Afis,Qatna, Tell Nebi Mend, Ain Dara, Hama, Tell Kazel,Tell Sukas, Tell Judeideh, and Tell Tayinat; see alsoLehmann 1996, 389–391, Forms 161–163, 165.11 For the view that the earliest mortaria from Cilicia

date to the 8th –6th centuries, see Lehmann 1996,389–391; 1998, 19, fig. 6: 17–18.12 Gjerstad assigned the Plain White V family to the

Cypro-Archaic II period (600–480 BCE). Following thediscovery of mortaria in the Salamis tombs mentionedabove, Karageorghis extended the chronological span

of this family to include the Cypro-Archaic I period aswell.13 This paste is also characterised by igneous inclu-

sions that were probably intentionally added in order tocreate the rough texture of the vessel for the facilitationof grinding (Master 2001, 176, 220). Master suggestedthat the lack of igneous inclusions in locally producedmortaria would easily distinguish them as lower qualitygrinding vessels (2001, 220).14 The samples in question come from Apollonia-

Arsuf, Tel Michal, Yavne-Yam, Tel Ya‘oz, Jerusalem,Beer-Sheba, and Khirbet Malta.15 The above-mentioned Ionian example from

Ashkelon, if indeed imported from western Anatolia,can be regarded as an exception. Moreover, since the

trade in these non-elite objects was driven by purelycommercial reasons (see also below), importation of mortaria from Cyprus was economically more viablethan shipping them from the significantly more distanteastern Aegean.16 Sixteen Persian period mortaria from Tell el-Hesi

were analyzed by INAA (Bennet and Blakely 1989,198), but the results were published in a sketchy andunclear fashion, and it is difficult to evaluate them. Therange of clay sources reported in that study includes theregion of Dura-Europos in eastern Syria, Cyprus, andLebanon. According to the TSPA of (possibly) thesame vessels, most of the samples are characterised byophiolitic-rich clay, discussed above (see Bennet andBlakely 1989, 198–200; Blakely and Bennet 1989, 56).17

Studies of much later (Roman period) mortariahave led to a possible production center at Ras al-Bassitin Syria where Roman period “stamped kiln wasters”were found (Blakely, Brinkman and Vitaliano 1992,204). Clearly, INAA studies of Cypriote and Cilicianmortaria would be of much value.18 In fact, Yezerski (2007, 50) is aware of the foreign

origin of these vessels from En-Gedi, as is Goren in hispetrographic comments on the pottery from Tel Batash(in Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 18–21, fabric group13).19 These samples were analyzed by one of the authors

(D. B-S) at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Anattempt was made to include a variety of visuallyidentifiable fabrics in the selection of vessels to beexamined.20 In this alteration, minerals derived from ultramafic

rocks and metamorphic mafic rocks (as olivine andpyroxene) become richer in magnetite and change theirtexture due to various conditions of temperature andpressure (Wicks and Whittaker 1977, 459–61).21 This fabric is somewhat more similar to Master’s

(2001, 138–141) Category 13 (“Highly MicaceousSamples with Reddish Brown Fabric”). The provenancesuggested by Whitbread for this fabric is Rhodes orother Dodecanesean Islands (1995, 129–130), yet highlymicaceous fabrics can originate from Cyprus as well(Whitbread 1995, 130).22 We wish to thank Prof. Yuval Goren from Tel Aviv

University for providing us with these samples. Note




that the sampled examples from Amathus are not datedstratigraphically and could be later than the Levantinemortaria discussed here.23 In the examination of the 7th century BCE mortaria

from Israel, some scholars succeeded in distinguishingbetween several fabrics within this type (e.g. Gitin 1990,211; Fantalkin 2001, 82). These potentially important

observations were not linked to results of provenancestudies (TSPA or INAA), and the significance of thisphenomenon was, therefore, left unexplained.24 For the various views on the presence of foreign

mercenaries employed by Egypt and Judah in thesouthern part of the country during this period seeDion 1992; Waldbaum 1994; 1997; 2002b; Fantalkin2001; 2006; Niemeier 2002.25 Note that a variant of these amphorae, with an

elongated ridged rim, known from Hazor, Megiddo,Gezer, and Ashdod, was produced locally (Singer-Avitz2010, 188–190) and apparently was not used inmaritime trade.

26 For example, at Tel Dan (Pakman 1992, fig. 6: 7,see also mortaria in fig. 4: 1–2), Kabri (Lehmann 2002,fig. 5.84: 1–2, and see an amphora handle inscribedin Cypro-syllabic on fig. 3.75), Tell Keisan (Briendand Humbert 1980, pls. 23–24), Mezad Hashavyahu(Fantalkin 2001, 96), and Ashkelon (Master 2003,fig. 7: 1).27

These conclusions contradict the view of Stern(1995, 63) who considers the earliest examples of thistype as coming from Rhodes and thus belonging to EastGreek wares.28 See, for instance, various types of bowls, jugs,

juglets, and jars from Kabri Strata E4–E2 (Lehmann2002, 181–199).29 The role of Euboean cities in the eastern Mediter-

ranean trade during the Assyrian period was minimalin any case. See Fantalkin 2006, 201.30 For a different view see Katzenstein 1973.31 To the best of our knowledge, no Iron Age mor-

taria have been found in Jerusalem.

bibliography

Artzy, M., and Lyon, J., 2003. ‘The ceramics’ in Y. Kahanov and E. Linder (eds), The Ma‘agan Mikhael Ship: The Recovery of a 2400-Year-Old Merchantman. Final Report , Vol. 1, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 83–202.

Badre, L., 2007. ‘Bey 003 preliminary report: excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum1993–1996’, BAAL, 2, 6–166.

Ballard, R. D., Stager, L. E., Master, D., Yoerger, D., Mindell, D., Whitcomb, L. L., Singh, H., and Piechota, D.,2002. ‘Iron Age shipwrecks in deep water off Ashkelon, Israel’, AJA, 106:2, 1–19.

Barnett, R. D., 1940. ‘Explorations at Mersin: 1938–1939: the Greek pottery’, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of Liverpool, 26:3–4, 89–158.

Bennett, W. J., Jr., and Blakely, J. A., 1989. Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V), Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns.

Ben-Shlomo, D., 2005. ‘Material culture’ in M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969) (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 24), Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 63–246.

Berlin, A., 1997. ‘The plain wares’ in S. C. Herbet (ed.), Tell Anafa II, i. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Ann Arbor,MI: The Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 1–211.

Bettles, E. A., 2003. Phoenician Amphora: Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant (BAR International Series 1183),Oxford: Archaeopress.Bienkowski, P., 2001. ‘The Persian period’, in B. Macdonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds.), The Archaeology

of Jordan, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 347–365.Bikai, P. M., 1978. The Pottery of Tyre , Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Bikai, P. M., 1987. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation.Biran, A., and Cohen, R., 1981. ‘Aroer in the Negev’, EI 15, 251–272 (Hebrew with English summary).Blakely, J. A., and Bennett, W. J., 1989. ‘Levantine mortaria of the Persian period’ in J. A. Blakely and W. J.

Bennett (eds.), Analysis and Publication of Ceramics: The Computer Data-Base in Archaeology (BAR International Series551), Oxford: BAR, 45–65.

Blakely, J. A., Brinkmann, R., and Vitaliano, C. J., 1992. ‘Roman mortaria and basins from a sequence atCaesarea: fabrics and sources’, in R. L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Romanand Byzantine Caesarea, Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 194–213.

Boardman, J., 1999. ‘The excavated history of Al Mina’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks: West and East (Mnemosyne Supplementum 196), Leiden: Brill, 135–162.

Brew, G. E., Barazangi, M., Al-Maleh, A. K., and Sawaf, T., 2001. ‘Tectonic and geologic evolution of Syria’,GeoArabia, 6, 573–616.Briend, J., and Humbert, J.-B., 1980. Tell Keisan (1971 –1976), une citè phènicienne en Galilèe, Paris: Editions

Universitaires Fribourg Suisse.Chambon, A., 1984. Tell el-Far’ah I. L’Âge du Fer (Memoire 31), Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Cohen, R., and Cohen-Amin, R., 2004. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands , Vol. 2: The Iron Age and Persian Period

(Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 20), Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew with Englishsummary).

Coldstream, J. N., 1969. ‘The Phoenicians of Ialysos’, BICS, 16, 1–8.Coldstream, J. N., 1979. ‘Geometric skyphoi in Cyprus’, RDAC, 255–269.Constandintou, G., 1995. Geological Map of Cyprus, Nicosia: Geological Survey Department.Cook, R. M., and Dupont, P., 1998. East Greek Pottery, London: Routledge.Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M., and Kenyon, K. M. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects, London: Palestine

Exploration Fund.




Demand, N., 2004. ‘Iron Age Cyprus: recent finds and interpretative strategies’, in R. Rollinger and C. Ulf (eds.),Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Innsbruck, October 3 rd –8 th 2002 (Melammu Symposia 5), Stuttgart: Steiner, 257–269.

Diakonoff, I. M., 1992. ‘The naval power and trade of Tyre’, IEJ, 42, 168–193.Dion, P.-E., 1992. ‘Les KTYM de Tel Arad: Grecs ou Phéniciens?’ RB, 99, 70–97.Dothan, M., 1971. Ashdod II –III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavation 1963, 1965 (‘Atiqot 9–10), Jerusalem:

Department of Antiquities and Museums.Dothan, M., and Freedman, D. N., 1967. Ashdod I. The First Season of Excavations 1962 (‘Atiqot 7), Jerusalem:Department of Antiquities and Museums.

Dothan, M., and Porath, Y., 1982. Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. The Fortifications of the Lower City (‘Atiqot 15), Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Elliott, G. F., 1955. ‘Fossil calcareous algae from the Middle East’, Micropaleontology, 1:2, 125–31.Fantalkin, A., 2001. ‘Mezad Hashavyahu: Its material culture and historical background’, TA 28, 3–165.Fantalkin, A., 2006. ‘Identity in the making: Greeks in the eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age’, in

A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, London: Trustees of the British Museum, 199–208.

Faust, A., and Weiss, E., 2005. ‘Judah, Philistia and the Mediterranean world: reconstructing the economic systemof the seventh century B.C.E.’, BASOR, 338, 71–92.

Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A., 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Mšaš (T ē l M āśōś ) 1972 –1975,Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y., 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Israel Antiquities Authority

Reports 8), Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Gitin, S., 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods , Jerusalem: Annual of theHebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem.

Gitin, S., 1997. ‘The Neo-Assyrian empire and its western periphery: the Levant, with a focus on Philistine Ekron’,in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds.), ASSYRIA, 1995, 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 77–104.

Gjerstad, E., 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. 4, No. 2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods, Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

Goren, Y., and Cohen-Weinberger, A., 2002. ‘Petrographic analyses of selected wares’, in A. Kempinski, Tel Kabri: The 1986 –1993 Excavation Seasons , Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 435–442.

Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N., 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts , Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Gorzalczany, A., 1999. ‘Petrographic analysis of Persian period pottery — a preliminary report’, in I. Roll andO. Tal (eds.), Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations . Vol. 1: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods , Tel Aviv:Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 185–189.

Gorzalczany, A., 2003. Ceramic Industry and Foreign Relations of Selected Persian Period Sites in Israel — Petrographic Research ,unpublished M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Gorzalczany, A., 2006a. ‘Petrographic analysis of the Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal) pottery’, ‘Atiqot, 52, 57–65.Gorzalczany, A., 2006b. ‘Petrographic analysis of the Persian-period ceramic assemblage from Tel Ya‘oz’, ‘Atiqot,

52, 39*–44* (Hebrew with English summary).Greene, E. S., Lawall, M. L., and Polzer, M. E., 2008. ‘Inconspicious consumption: the sixth-century B.C.E.

shipwreck ay Pabuç Burnu, Turkey’, AJA, 112, 685–711.Gunneweg, J., and Perlman, I., 1991. ‘The origin of “loop-handle jars” from Tell Keisan’, RB, 98, 591–599.Hanfmann, G. M. A., 1963. ‘The Iron Age pottery of Tarsus’, in H. Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Kule,

Tarsus , Vol. III: The Iron Age. Princeton: Princeton University, 18–332.Hargis, M. B., 2007. A Mortarium at Cetamura del Chianti in Context , unpublished M.A. thesis, Florida State

University.Humbert, J.-B., 1991. ‘Essai de classification des amphores dites “à anses de panier”’, RB 98, 574–590.Iacovou, M., 2008. ‘Cultural and political configurations in Iron Age Cyprus: the sequel to a protohistoric episode’,

AJA, 112, 625–657.Karageorghis, V., 1973. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III , Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.Karageorghis, V., 1999. Excavations at Kition VI. The Phoenician and Later Levels (Plates), Nicosia: Department of

Antiquities.Karageorghis, V., 2003. Excavations at Kition VI. The Phoenician and Later Levels, Part 2, Text , Nicosia: Department of

Antiquities.Katzenstein, H. J., 1973. The History of Tyre , Jerusalem: Shocken Institute for Jewish Research.Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T.A., 1983. Excavations at Jericho. Vol. V, The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds,

Jerusalem: British School of Archaeology.Kochavi, M., 1970. ‘The first season of excavations at Tell Malhata’, Qadmoniot III: 1, 22–24 (Hebrew).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 Press.Lapp, P. W., 1970. ‘The Pottery of Palestine in the Persian period’, in A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (eds.),

Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling , Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 181–197.




Lehmann, G., 1996. Untersuchungen zur spaten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca.720 bis 300 v. Chr . (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Lehmann, G., 1998. ‘Trends in local pottery development of the late Iron Age and Persian period in Syria andLebanon, ca. 700–300 BC.’, BASOR 311, 7–37.

Lehmann, G., 2002. ‘Pottery: Iron Age’, in A. Kempinski, Tel Kabri: The 1986 –1993 Excavation Seasons , Tel Aviv:Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 178–222.

Lehmann, G., Rosen, S. A., Berlejung, A., and Niemann, H. M., 2009. ‘Ausgrabungen in Qubūr el-Walē yide,

Israel, 2007–2008’, ZDPV 125:1, 1–32.Lipiński, E., 2004. Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia 18), Leuven: Peeters.Markoe, G. E., 2000. Phoenicians, London: British Museum.Master, D. M., 2001. The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: a Petrographic Study, unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Master, D. M., 2003. ‘Trade and politics: Ashkelon’s balancing act in the seventh century B.C.E.’, BASOR, 330,

47–64.Matteucci, P., 1986. ‘L’uso dei mortai di terracotta nell’alimentazione antica’, Studi Classici e Orientali, 36,

239–277.Mazar, A., 1982. ‘Iron Age fortresses in the Judean Hills’, PEQ 114, 87–109.Mazar, A., 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two. The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions,

Appendices (Qedem 20), Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N., 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE (Qedem 42),

Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Niemeier, W.-D., 2001. ‘Archaic Greeks in the Orient: textual and archaeological evidence’, BASOR, 322, 11–32.

Niemeier, W.-D., 2002. ‘Greek mercenaries at Tel Kabri and other sites in the Levant’, TA, 29, 328–331.Oren, E. D., 1984. ‘Migdol: A new fortress on the edge of the eastern Nile Delta’, BASOR, 256, 7–44.Oren, E. D., 1993. ‘Sera‘, Tel’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land ,

Vol. 4, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1329–1335.Pakman, D., 1992. ‘Late Iron Age pottery vessels at Tel Dan’, EI 23 (Avraham Biran Volume), 230–240 (Hebrew

with English summary).Pritchard, J. P., 1975. Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Pritchard, J. P., 1985. Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964 –1966 , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Reyes, A. T., 1994. Archaic Cyprus: A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence , Oxford: Clarendon.Salles, J. F., 1983. Kition-Bamboula II: Les égouts de la ville classique , Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Salles, J. F., 1985. ‘Cuvettes et ‘mortiers’ du Levant au 1er millenaire avant J.C.’, in J. L. Huot, M. Yon and

Y. Calvet (eds.), De l’Indus aux Balkans: Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes , Paris: Éditions Recherche sur lesCivilisations, 199–212.

Sapin, J., 1998. ‘Mortaria: Un lot inedit de Tell Keisan. Essai d’interpretation fonctionnelle’, Transeuphratène, 16,87–120.

Schreiber, N., 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age , Leiden: Brill.Singer-Avitz, L., 2002. ‘Arad: The Iron Age pottery assemblages’, TA 29:1, 110– 214.Singer-Avitz, L., 2010. ‘A group of Phoenician vessels from Tel Beersheba,’ TA, 37:2, 188–199.Sørensen, L. W., 1997. ‘Travelling pottery connections between Cyprus, the Levant, and the Greek world in

the Iron Age’, in S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny (eds.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium “Cities of the Sea”, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 18 –22, 1994. Atlanta, GE: Scholars, 285–299.

Spataro, S., and Villing, A., 2009. ‘Scientific investigation of pottery grinding bowls from the Archaic andClassical eastern Mediterranean’, The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, 3, 89–100.

Stern, E., 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538 – 332 BC , Warminster: Aris andPhilips.

Stern, E., 1995. ‘Local pottery of the Persian period’, in E. Stern, Excavations at Dor, Final Report , Vol. 1B, Areas Aand C: The Finds (Qedem 2), Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 51–92.

Tal, O., 1999. ‘The Persian period’, in I. Roll and O. Tal (eds.), Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations ,Vol. 1: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods , Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology,

83–222.Thalmann, J.-P., 1978. ‘Tell ‘Arqa (Liban nord) campagnes I–III (1972–1974), chantier I: rapport préliminaire’,Syria 55:1–2, 1–151.

Tufnell, O., 1953. Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir): The Iron Age , London: Oxford University.Villing, A., 2006. ‘‘Drab bowls’ for Apollo: the mortaria of Naukratis and exchange in Archaic eastern

Mediterranean’, in A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. London: British Museum, 31–46.

Waldbaum, J. C., 1994. ‘Early Greek contacts with the southern Levant ca. 1000–600 B.C.: the easternperspective’, BASOR, 293, 53–66.

Waldbaum, J. C., 1997. ‘Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the definition and recognition of presence’, BASOR, 305, 1–17.

Waldbaum, J. C., 2002a. ‘Seventh century BC Greek pottery from Ashkelon, Israel: an entrepôt in the southernLevant’, in M. Faudot, A. Fraysse and E. Geny (eds.), Pont-Euxin et Commerce: la Genèse de la ‘Route de la Soie’.

Actes du IXe Symposium de Vani (Colchide) 1999, Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises, 57–75.




Waldbaum, J. C., 2002b. ‘Trade items or soldiers’ gear? Cooking pots from Ashkelon, Israel’, in D. Kacharava,M. Faudot and E. Geny (eds), Autour de la mer Noire: Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé , Besançon: PressesUniversitaires Franc-Comtoises, 133–140.

Waldbaum, J. C., and Magness, J., 1997. ‘The chronology of early Greek pottery: new evidence from seventhcentury BC destruction levels in Israel’, AJA, 101, 23–40.

Wampler, J. C., 1941. ‘Three cistern groups from Tell En-Nasbeh’, BASOR, 82, 25–43.Weinberg, S. S., 1954. ‘Corinthina relief ware: pre-Hellenistic period’, Hesperia, 23, 109–137.

Wenning, R., 1991. ‘Nachrichten über Griechen in Palästina in der Eisenzeit’, in J. M. Fossey (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic Diaspora from Antiquity to Modern Times. Vol. 1: From Antiquity to 1453, Amsterdam: Gieben, 207–219.

Whitbread, I. K., 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study, Exeter: The British School at Athens.

Whitechurch, H., Juteau, T. and Montigny, R., 1984. ‘Role of eastern Mediterranean ophiolites (Turkey, Syria,Cyprus) in the history of the Neo-Tethy’, in J. E. Dixon and A. H. F. Robertson (eds.), The Geological Evolutionof the Eastern Mediterranean, London: The Geological Society, 301–317.

Wicks, F. J. and Whittaker, E. J. W., 1977. ‘Serpentine textures and serpentinization’, Canadian Mineralogist, 15,459–488.

Wieder, M., and Gvirtzman, G., 1999. ‘Micromorphological indications on the nature of the late QuaternaryPaleosols in the southern Coastal Plain of Israel’, Catena, 35, 219–237.

Wolff, S. R., 2009. ‘Some notes on basket-handled amphorae’, EI 29 (Stern volume), 137–146 (Hebrew withEnglish summary).

Yellin, J., and Artzy, M., 2004. ‘Ceramic provenance: NAA’, in Y. Kahanov and E. Linder (ed.), The Ma‘agan

Mikhael Ship: The Recovery of a 2400-Year-Old Merchantman. Final Report , Vol. 2, Jerusalem: Israel ExplorationSociety, 221–238.Yezerski, I., 2007. ‘Pottery of stratum V’, in E. Stern, En-Gedi Excavations I , Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,

86–129.Yon, M. and Childs, W. A. P., 1997. ‘Kition in the tenth to fourth centuries B.C.’, BASOR, 308, 9–17.Zarzecki-Peleg, A., Cohen-Anidjar, S., and Ben-Tor, A., 2005. ‘Pottery analysis’, in A. Ben-Tor, A. Zarzecki-Peleg

and S. Cohen-Anidjar (eds), Yoqne‘am II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977 –1988) (Qedem 6), Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 235–344.

mortaria peq

Documents