# Black-on-Red Pottery in the Levant
## A Petrographic Contribution from Tell Keisan

JACEK MICHNIEWICZ, ANDRZEJ SZYDŁO, MARIUSZ BURDAJEWICZ

**Abstract:** This article focuses on the problem of identifying the possible origin of the so-called Black-on-Red pottery of the Iron Age found at Tell Keisan, a site in southern Phoenicia/Lower Galilee. Sixteen samples were selected for petrographic, chemical, and micropaleontological analyses, representing the entire period of the pottery occurrence (late tenth-fifth century BC) at the site. The results allow the authors to conclude that most of the vessels from which the samples came should be considered imports from southern and western regions of Cyprus. This result aligns with similar studies undertaken on Black-on-Red pottery from other sites on the Levantine coast. Looking at it from a broader perspective, the currently dominant hypothesis of Cyprus as the main production centre of the Black-on-Red pottery in the Iron Age also gains a strong reinforcement from Tell Keisan.

**Keywords:** Tell Keisan, Black-on-Red pottery, Cyprus, Levant, Iron Age, petrography, micropaleontology

Jacek Michniewicz, Institute of Geology, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań; jacekm@amu.edu.pl; 0000-0002-1110-1494

Andrzej Szydło, Polish Geological Institute-National Research Institute, Carpathian Branch in Cracow, Kraków; aszy@pgi.gov.pl; 0000-0002-5193-1986

Mariusz Burdajewicz, Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw; mburdajewicz@uw.edu.pl; 0000-0001-8862-0105

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Black-on-Red (hereafter BoR) pottery is one of the most recognisable ceramic wares in the Levant during the Iron Age. Discovered at the vast majority of sites in Cyprus and along the Levant coast, it has been the subject of numerous studies since the pioneering research of Einar Gjerstad on Iron Age pottery from Cyprus.<fnref n="1" /> In recent decades, among

<footnote n="1">¹ Gjerstad 1948: 68–73, 242–270, 287–288, 295–296.</footnote>
several research questions, the origin of BoR pottery has been the most debated. This issue is still well reflected in BoR's other name, Cypriot-Phoenician pottery, which was alternatively used in the past.<fnref n="2" /> It is commonly expected that archaeometric and petrographic methods will play a decisive role in identifying potential centres of BoR production.<fnref n="3" />

Although there is a consensus on the Cypriot origin of the majority of BoR vessels discovered outside Cyprus, the question of possible production in mainland Phoenicia has not yet been conclusively resolved. This fact is significant for samples devoid of minerals or elements that are diagnostic of Cypriot ophiolite, especially minerals of the serpentine group or elevated chromium contents typical of rocks of the lithosphere. For example, in Tyre on the northern Levantine coast, among the predominant vessels with Cypriot raw material chemistry, two samples were described as having Syro-Palestinian characteristics.<fnref n="4" />

With regard to Cypriot pottery, the practice of using two primary varieties of raw material, ferruginous clay, based on *terra rossa* (probably levigated), and light-fired clays based on marl, is stressed. The areas of Palaepaphos, Kition, Amathus, and Salamis are indicated as the main centres of BoR production (see discussion below).

The authors of this paper decided to contribute to this discussion by taking the BoR pottery discovered at one of the Levantine sites, namely Tell Keisan, as a case study.<fnref n="5" /> The site is located in Lower Galilee, which constituted part of southern Phoenicia (Fig. 1a). Two series of excavations in 1971–1976 and 1979–1980 were carried out by the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem under the direction of Jacques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert, respectively.<fnref n="6" /> This is one of the key Levantine sites for understanding the transitional period from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age and beyond until the Hellenistic period. The sizable remains of the residential quarter have provided information about urbanism and its almost continuous development through the centuries, as well as the local material culture of the period in the southern Phoenician area. Extremely abundant ceramic finds from well-documented stratigraphic contexts have made it possible to establish the outlines of a typo-chronological ceramic sequence (levels 2–13), which has not lost its relevance despite the passage of years. Keisan’s unique geographical location, between the sea and the mountains, on the trade route from the Mediterranean coast via Megiddo inland and Bet-Shean to Transjordan, ensured a key role in foreign trade. The numerous finds of Cypriot and Aegean pottery from the Bronze and Iron Age are a telling example of this phenomenon.<fnref n="7" />

<footnote n="2">² An exhaustive discussion on the meaning and use of the term ‘Cypro-Phoenician’ pottery was presented by Schreiber 2003: xix–xxx, 1–4.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Bieber 1978; Matthers, Liddy, Newton 1983; Brodie, Steel 1996; Kleiman et al. 2019; Waiman-Barak, Georgiadou, Gilboa 2021; Waiman-Barak, Bürge, Fischer 2023.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Bieber 1978; Bikai 1978: 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ The authors contribute to the article as follows: Mariusz Burdajewicz – introduction and archaeological context; Jacek Michniewicz – methodology, petrography, chemical analyses and geological context; Andrzej Szydło – methods, micropaleontological analyses and geological interpretation.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Briend, Humbert (Eds) 1980; Humbert 1981; 1993.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Burdajewicz 2020a.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>1a. Map of Levant showing the location of Tell Keisan; b. a selected sample of BoR vessels from Tell Keisan (Drawing: M. Burdajewicz).</figcaption></figure>

A total of 204 BoR sherds were discovered in levels 3–8.<fnref n="8" /> The chronological range spans the late tenth down to the end of the fifth century BC. For the convenience of readers, the correlation of relative chronological systems for Tell Keisan, Levant and Cyprus is presented below:<fnref n="9" />

- level 3 – Babylonian and Persian period/Cypro-Classical I and Cypro-Archaic II;

- levels 4 and 5 – Iron Age IIB and C/Cypro-Archaic I;

<footnote n="8">⁸ Burdajewicz 2020b: 40–44, Pl. 2: 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Burdajewicz 2020b: Pl. 2: 1.</footnote>
– levels 6 and 7 – Iron Age IIB/Cypro-Geometric III;

– level 8 – Iron Age IIA/Cypro-Geometric I and II.

Regarding quantity, the apogee of BoR finds at Tell Keisan is in levels 5 and 4 (775–575 BC). The repertoire of vessel forms is minimal. Most are bowls; the rest are closed forms, like small jugs or juglets. Only a few fragments may come from large vessels such as amphorae or craters.

The presented petrographic project has two main stages. The first stage is to determine whether the sampled vessels originated from the coast of Phoenicia or from Cyprus. The second stage aims to identify the specific production centres of these vessels as precisely as possible. The samples come from an unpublished Iron Age pottery assemblage at Tell Keisan (1971–1976, 1979–1980).<fnref n="10" /> Of the samples selected for analyses (Table 1), ten represent bowls, and the other six samples are from small containers, mostly probably ridged-neck juglets. Typologically, the bowls form a relatively homogeneous group of vessels that differ primarily in size. They feature a rounded profile, a simple rounded or slightly tapered rim, two horizontal handles below the rim, and a base ring. A characteristic feature of the decoration is the combination of thin horizontal lines and/or broader bands on the outside and/or in the interior (Fig. 1b). Painted strokes underline the contour of the horizontal handles. The decoration is painted in shades of black on dark brown to brick-red engobe. The same decorative style is found on closed forms such as jugs and amphorae.

The BoR pottery from Keisan, in terms of typology, closely resembles the BoR assemblages found at numerous Levantine coastal sites. Both the forms and decorative methods mirror those observed elsewhere in this region. While the analogies are too numerous to list exhaustively, comparable pottery assemblages are found at sites including Akhziv, Kabri, Akko, Horbat Rosh Zayit, Tel Dor, Tel Qiri, and Megiddo, among others.<fnref n="11" />

Only a rough chronological framework can be proposed for the absolute dating of individual samples. In many cases, the excavators could not clearly distinguish between stratigraphic layers. Hence, terms such as, for example, level 4/5/6, 5/6, and so on. This obstacle automatically forced a sometimes rather broad chronological framework for specific finds, whether ceramic or other artefacts. For this article, however, this is not the primary issue. The important thing is that the samples selected for the present analysis generally represent almost the entire period of BoR occurrence at Tell Keisan.

## APPLIED METHODS

A set of sixteen samples from several different vessels was subjected to petrographic and chemical analysis to determine their possible origin.<fnref n="12" /> In addition, a thin-section micro-

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The final publication, including the BoR finds, is currently being prepared by Burdajewicz. No archaeological analyses have yet been conducted on Keisan’s BoR finds, except for an unpublished petrographic analysis of two bowls from level 8 by Charles Wilson (Wilson 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Burdajewicz 2020b: 40–44, with references.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Samples were taken from randomly chosen BoR fragments. The only criterion was that all stratigraphic/chronological levels with BoR finds were represented. Level 3 (580–380 BC) was excluded because the few BoR</footnote>
paleontological analysis was also carried out, something which has not previously been applied in scientific studies on the provenance of BoR pottery.

The texture and mineral composition of each sample were examined using a polar-
ising optical microscope, Olympus AX 70 Provis, in both transmitted and reflected light.
The age of the raw material was studied by fossil content. The analysis was performed
using a ZEISS Stereo microscope V12.

The degree of sintering and chemical composition of the ceramics and selected non-plastic components were determined using a Hitachi 3700N scanning electron microscope coupled with a NoranSIX energy dispersive spectrometer (Institute of Geology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań). The analyses were conducted under low vacuum conditions (25Pa), with an accelerating voltage of 20kV and a constant working distance of 10.0mm.

RESULTS

The principal petrographic characteristics of the examined ceramics are outlined in **Table 2**.
The petrographic features allow for the distinction of three Petrographic Groups (PG).
The key to this classification was the mineral content and distribution, as well as other
petrographic data (**Figs 3–9, Tables 3–6**). Six samples are mutually distinct and have been
designated as ‘unassigned’.

At the macroscopic level, samples from individual groups show considerable similarity,
particularly in terms of engobe color. Light brown/brick red is characteristic of PG 1;
brown/light brown for PG 2; and brown/dark gray for PG 3. At the same time, the colour
of their interior varies significantly, from brick red through various shades of brown to light
gray. The unassigned samples are characterised by great diversity: the color of the engobe
ranges from light brick red to orange, brown, and dark grey.

Ceramic fragments contain calcareous (foraminifera) and siliceous (radiolaria) micro-
fossils. They are observed mainly in cross-sections, the taxonomy of which could some-
times be determined based on the number, shape and configuration of chambers (Fig. 10).
Their stratigraphic range and provenance allow for correlation with deposits of similar
mineralogical composition (Figs 11–12). This method has been proven and is widely used
in geological stratigraphic studies, also concerning Paleogene sediments; it is also effec-
tive in the study of ceramics, especially those fired at lower temperatures.<fnref n="13" /> The presented
results are based on similar studies conducted in the Mediterranean region, particularly
in its eastern part, including the Middle East and Cyprus.<fnref n="14" />

<footnote>finds there were likely residual. The number of samples was limited to 16 because of restrictions on the number
that could be used for petrographic analysis.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Pessagno 1960; Postuma 1971; Quinn, Alaimo, Montana 1998; Quinn 2000; 2007a; 2007b; Michniewicz 2009; Baliniak, Malata 2017; Shalem *et al.* 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Morgiel *et al.* 1980; Toumarkine *et al.* 1985; Kähler 1994; Olsson *et al.* (Eds) 1999; BouDagher-Fadel, Clark 2006; Sanfilippo, Kagan Tekin, Hakyemez 2015; Michniewicz, Młynarczyk 2017; Wade *et al.* (Eds) 2018.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

2. Representatives of PG 1. Sample 3.62.11: a. the surface; b. fresh fracture; c. thin section petrographic image (PPL); d. micromass in SEM-BSE mode, magnification x500; e. Mg-chlorite, SEM-BSE image. Sample 3.62.17: f. orange glassy fragment in SEM-BSE mode (Phot. J. Michniewicz).

## PETROGRAPHIC GROUP 1

This group (samples 3.62.11, 3.62.17, 6.73.25, 6.74.18, 6.79.11) could be macroscopically characterised as bright red, a fine ware-type pottery with smooth fracture. Grey and white carbonate grains are common, as are a few oval dark reddish-brown inclusions of red soil admixture or Fe-Mn pedogenic concentrations (Fig. 2a-b).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>3. Representatives of PG 1: a. sample 3.62.11, Mg-chlorite, EDS spectrum, cf. Fig. 2e; b. sample 3.62.17, EDS spectrum and chemical composition of orange glassy fragment, cf. Fig. 2f (Processing: J. Michniewicz).</figcaption></figure>

The micromass under a microscope in plane-polarised light (PPL) is reddish-brown (Fig. 2c), mottled red in cross-polarised light (CPL), partly anisotropic and rich in fragmentarily preserved foraminifers. Sparse oval centres of carbonates have been decomposed. Several textural concentration features (Tcf), such as iron-rich clay granules or Fe-pedogenic nodules have also been observed.

Silt-sized particles are less than 10% by volume (Fig. 2c, d), and are predominantly quartz. There are frequent isotropic orange fragments representing palagonite-like glasses (Figs 2c, f, 3b), polygonal orange biotite/glauconite, oxidised Mg-chlorite (Figs 2e, 3a), and amphibole fragments. Rare and very rare fresh plagioclase (An: 72-85), epidote (including zoisite and clinozoisite), K-feldspars (found in the sample 6.79.11), serpentinite (detected in sample 6.79.11).
Only single, fine sand-size grains are observed: chert, lithics, andesite (plagioclase-biotite overgrows), quartz-plagioclase, quartz-plagioclase epidote and quartz-epidote overgrows, quartzitic mudstone. A red algae fragment is present in sample 3.62.11.

The glassy fragments comprise magnesium and iron aluminosilicates, and their chemical composition is typical for all specimens of PG 1 (Table 3, Figs 2f, 3b).

MICROPALEONTOLOGY

The ceramic fragments belonging to this petrographic group contain the highest rate of foraminifers. Among them, early Paleogene (Paleocene-Eocene) forms similar to *Globigerina* predominate (samples: 6.73.25, 6.79.11). Most of them resemble species belonging to the genera *Parasubbotina/Subbotina* sp. (Fig. 10a, f, k). Some specimens are classified as: *Parasubbotina varianta*, *Parasubbotina* cf. *inaequispira* (Fig. 10d), *Parasubbotina pseudobulloides*, *Subbotina eoceana*, *Subbotina linaperta*, *Subbotina velascoensis* and also *Turborotalia* cf. *frontosa* (Fig. 10c) – which are known from the late Paleocene-early Eocene or Eocene.⁸ The taxa of the genera: *Chiloguembelina* (sample 6.79.11); *Chiloguembelina morsei/Chiloguembelina midwayensis* (Fig. 10b); *Chiloguembelina crinita*, *Dipsidripella* (sample 6.73.25); *Dipsidripella danvillensis*, *Globanomalina* (sample 6.73.25) have also been recorded. There are also rare cross-sections of specimens that probably belong to the genera *Acarinina* (sample 6.79.11) and *Morozovella* (sample 6.73.25), *Catapsydrax* (sample 6.73.25): *Catapsydrax* ex gr. *unicavus* (Fig. 10g). Some of the identified specimens resemble species that became extinct in the Eocene or survived into the early Oligocene (Fig. 12). Worth noting is the unusual co-occurrence with planktonic siliceous microorganisms belonging to radiolarians (samples 6.73.25, 4.05.79; Figs 10h, 12).

PETROGRAPHIC GROUP 2

Semi-fine ceramics (samples 3.82.01, 4.04.44, 5.66.06) covered with a slip of various colours: brown (3.82.01), black and red (4.04.44), black (5.66.06). Brownish and grey body, rough at the fracture (Fig. 4a-b).

Micromass is light brown and grey (PPL), partially isotropic (CPL).

Among fine inclusions fresh plagioclase and quartz silt, many amphibole and epidote group minerals, are common. The diagnostic is the presence of tiny brownish-red and orange mineral phases of different chemistry and origin (Fig. 4c), scattered brown oxyactinolite, automorphic approximately hexagonal biotite or glauconite. Similar coloured glass fragments are isotropic and often devitrify, being replaced by rosettes of aluminosilicates. Plagioclase composed of albite, bytovnite and andesine – mostly automorphic, fresh – post volcanic. In comparison to PG 1, the paste is more calcareous (15–19% CaO; see Table 6).

Fine sand-size inclusions contain a few monocrystalline quartz with sharp extinction, fresh plagioclase, lithics: plagioclase-biotite and plagioclase-amphibole-biotite aggregates (andesite/dioritoide), automorphic amphibole, epidote, lathwork volcanoclastics.

Sample 5.66.06 is somewhat different due to numerous foraminifera, including *Globigerina*-like forms, imbedded within grey mottled red (PPL) micromass.
The orange glassy fragments comprise magnesium and iron aluminosilicates, and their chemical composition is typical for all specimens of the PG 1 and 2.

## MICROPALEONTOLOGY

The planktonic foraminiferal fauna is preserved only in sample 4.04.44. It contains foraminifera species that are diagnostic for the Eocene: *Subbotina eoceana* and *Parasubbotina* cf. *hagni* (Figs 10e, j, 12). Unspecified forms of the genera *Parasubbotina/Subbotina* were also recorded from the Paleogene (Fig. 12).<fnref n="15" />

## PETROGRAPHIC GROUP 3

The group (samples 3.70.40, 4.05.79) is distinguished by the presence of serpentine-group minerals. Semi-fine, cream-coloured (3.70.40) and light red (4.05.79) ceramic body is covered with a dark and light brown glaze (Fig. 4e-f).

Sample 3.70.40 has grey micromass in PPL, highly sintered, isotropic, almost free of quartz silt and sand-size admixtures. Some scattered fine orange fragments are of magnesium-silicate composition diagnostic for serpentine group minerals (Figs 4g, 5). Very few fine alkaline feldspars, Na plagioclase (albite An 9%), Ca plagioclase (An 74%), K feldspar, amphibole and Mg-chlorite (identified by SEM-EDS).

Sample 4.05.79 has brownish grey matrix (in PPL), mostly anisotropic, rich in scattered golden secondary carbonates, almost devoid of silt-sized quartz, with single greywacke fragment. Very few fine silt-sized orange serpentine, epidote, lathwork volcanite, phyllosilicates with chemistry similar to Mg-chlorite.

Petrographically, both fragments are similar to PG 2: high inclusion of marl (18–23% CaO), with scattered small reddish and orange serpentine group minerals (Table 6).

## MICROPALEONTOLOGY

Sample 4.05.79 contains unspecified foraminifera. As in the case of the sample 6.73.25 assigned to PG 1, the co-occurrence of radiolarians is noteworthy.

## UNASSIGNED CERAMICS

### SAMPLE 8.74.10

Light orange, semi-fine ceramics rich in fine sand-sized inclusions and covered with red smooth slip (Fig. 6a-b). Micromass is orange in PPL, highly calcareous, foraminiferous (Fig. 6c), sporadically mottled with red iron oxides, especially concentrated around the centre of the Globigerina ooze. Silt-sized inclusions states less than 1% by volume, a little quartz and feldspars. Coarse inclusions are dominated by medium-size monocrystal-line quartz, usually subangular, angular clasts of micrite and biomicrite limestone, mollusk

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Toumarkine, Luterbacher 1985.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

a

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

b

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

c

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

d

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

e

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

f

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

g

<caption>4. Sample 5.66.06, representative of PG 2: a. the surface; b. fresh fracture; c-d. thin section (PPL) with diagnostic orange and brownish-glassy fragments. Sample 3.70.40, representative of PG 3: e. the surface; f. fresh fracture; g. thin section (PPL) with orange serpentine group mineral fragment (Phot. J. Michniewicz).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>5. Sample 5.66.06, EDS spectrum of the serpentine mineral marked with an arrow on Fig. 4g
(Processing: J. Michniewicz).</figcaption></figure>

and echinoid fragments. The presence of red algae is diagnostic. Isolated K-feldspars and calcareous sandstone (kurkar?) are also present. The sample contains *Pseudohastigerina wilcoxensis* (**Fig. 10i**) and *Subbotina eoceana*, unspecified species of genera *Parasubbotina/ Subbotina* (**Fig. 10k**) from the Eocene (**Fig. 12**).

### SAMPLE 6.73.15

Dark red, semi-fine ceramics with light red slip and black ornaments (**Fig. 6d-e**). The micromass is dark red, inactive – highly sintered, enriched in oval black, light grey in reflected, crossed polarised light fragments of tephra(?) or Fe concentration forms of pedogenic origin (**Fig. 6f**). Sand-sized inclusions cover about 10% of the thin section area. They include: subrounded quartz, mosaic chert, cloudy-kaolinised feldspar, angular quartz-epidote, quartz-feldspar-oxybiotite lithics, some colourless pyroxene and lathwork vulcanite. Chemically, the sample is characterised by an almost complete absence of carbonates (**Table 6**). Due to high sintering, no microorganisms were found.

### SAMPLE 6.74.08

Red slip with black ornamentation, black and dark brown fired body on section (**Fig. 6g-h**). Micromass is reddish-brown in PPL, black-brown in CPL, almost free of carbonates (<1 wt. % CaO), about 15% quartz silt. Coarse inclusions, about 25–30% by volume, are dominated by monocrystalline angular and sub-angular quartz with sharp extinction, oval cherts and quartzites in equal proportions. Diagnostic is the presence of black, sharp-edged chamotte clasts (**Fig. 7a**), which are fragments of sintered ferruginous clay. A few colourless Ca-pyroxenes (augite, Wo 43.4; En 36.2; Fs 20.4) are also observed. No microorganisms were detected.
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

a

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

b

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

c

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

d

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

e

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

f

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

g

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

h

<caption>6. Unassigned samples. Sample 8.74.10: a. the surface; b. fresh fracture; c. thin section PPL image. Sample 6.73.15: d. the surface; e. fresh fracture; f. thin section (reflected CPL), tephra(?) fragment. Sample 6.74.08: g. the surface; h. fresh fracture (Phot. J. Michniewicz).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>7. Unassigned samples. Sample 6.74.08: a. thin section (PPL) with dark red chamotte fragments. Sample 3.62.22: b. the surface; c. fresh fracture; d. thin section, image obtained in PPL, clinopyroxene (Cpx), quartz (Qz). Sample 6.72.01: e. the surface; f. fresh fracture; g. thin section, shale fragment CPL; h. as above, but in reflected PPL (Phot. J. Michniewicz).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>8. Unassigned sample 3.62.22, EDS spectrum and chemical composition of clinopyroxene marked with an arrow on Fig. 7d (Processing: J. Michniewicz).</figcaption></figure>

### SAMPLE 3.62.22

The fine, light red ceramic body is covered with a light brown smooth and lustrous slip (Fig. 7b-c). Matrix is pale brown, massive, optically inactive, and almost free of non-plastic components, including quartz silt. The ceramic is characterised by a low calcium carbonate content (CaO = 1.2%). The coarse admixture include single sand-size grain of colorless pyroxene, augite (Figs 7d, 8). No microorganisms were detected.

### SAMPLE 6.72.01

Sample red and smooth on the surface, red on the fracture with black lamellae – the effect of interrupted firing processes (Fig. 7e-f). The matrix is slightly active in CPL, generally highly sintered, bright red and mottled with milky discolouration due to carbonate components (CaO = 9 wt. %). Diagnostic is the presence of cherry red shale fragments characterised by the presence of rhomboid pseudomorphs of hematite after dolomite (Fig. 7g-h). Unspecified specimens of foraminifera were detected.

### SAMPLE 8.81.03

Semi-fine type ceramic, fired to creamy-white colour, covered with reddish-brown slip. Fine black and white sand grains are visible in the cross-section (Fig. 9a-b). Marl-type micromass, greenish-grey in PPL, goldish-green in CPL (lens x10), inactive, rich in thermally decomposed microorganisms, mainly foraminifers, currently replaced by secondary carbonates, almost devoid of silt-size quartz, highly porous (Fig. 9c). Sand-size admixture (20% of the volume): composed predominantly of monomineral clinopyroxene, mostly augite (cf. Table 4, Fig. 9d), minor gabroides (Fig. 9e), oxy-amphibole, oval micrite limestones (<5 %), some (10%) angular quartz with sharp extinction (volcanogenic), plagioclase
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

a

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

b

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

c

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

d

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

e

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

f

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

g

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

h

<caption>9. Unassigned sample 8.81.03: a. the surface; b. fresh fracture; c. thin section (CPL) image; d. micromass at magnification x500 in SEM-BSE mode; e. gabbro fragment composed of pyroxene and plagioclase; f. boninite fragment (natural glass with embedded phenocrysts) in CPL; g. chromite in transmitted PPL; h. chromite (Cr), image obtained in SEM-BSE mode (Phot. J. Michniewicz).</caption>
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>10. Microfossils from some sampled BoR vessels from Tell Keisan: a. sample 6.79.11, *Parasubbotina/Subbotina* sp. shells modified by temperature, x150; b. sample 6.73.25, *Chiloguembelina morsei/Ch. midwayensis*, x100; c. sample 6.79.11, *Turborotalia* cf. *frontosa*, x75; d. sample 6.73.25, *Parasubbotina* cf. *inaequispira*, x150; e. sample 4.04.44, *Subbotina eocaena* shell filled with dark material, x150; f. sample 6.73.25, *Parasubbotina*, x100; g. sample 6.73.25, *Catapsydrax ex gr. unicavus*, x150; h. sample 6.73.25, *Radiolaria* sp., x50; i. sample 8.74.10, *Pseudohastigerina wilcoxensis*, x80; j. sample 4.04.44, *Parasubbotina* cf. *hagni*, x80; k. sample 8.74.10, *Parasubbotina/Subbotina* sp. shells modified by temperature, x80 (Phot. A. Szydło, J. Michniewicz).</figcaption></figure>
of variable composition: An: (5–97%), lathwork volcanites, very few (2–5%) hyaloclastite, quartz-feldspar lithics, serpentine after olivines, boninite (Fig. 9f), ilmenite. Diagnostic is the presence and composition of red (PPL), isotropic Cr-spinels (chromites) (Fig. 9g-h, Table 5). Unspecified species of genera *Parasubbotina/Subbotina* were detected (Fig. 12).

## DIFFERENCES IN THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CERAMIC PASTES

The EDS study of the chemical composition of the raw material was carried out excluding the admixture of the sand-size fraction, but with the presence of grains of the silt-size fraction, at 500x magnification. The results are presented in Table 6.

In particular, the differences in CaO content are pronounced, being extremely low (0.9–1.3 wt. %) in the unassigned samples 6.73.15, 6.74.08 and 3.62.22, moderate (10–12 wt. %) in samples belonging to PG 1 and in the unassigned sample 6.72.01, and high (15–21 wt. %) in samples obtained from marly raw material (15–27 wt. %), PG 2 and 3. Sample 8.74.10 is extremely calcareous (42 wt. %). The Al₂O₃ and SiO₂ contents vary with changes in the CaO content. The Fe₂O₃ content is similar. Noteworthy is the elevated magnesium content in PG 2 samples, which may be related to the presence of dispersed biotite lamellae. Surprisingly, the MgO content is low in PG 3 samples, which contain serpentinite fragments.

## DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the micropaleontological investigations indicate that the ceramics of petrographic groups PG 1, PG 2, and PG 3, as well as the three unassigned samples (8.74.10, 6.72.01, 8.81.03), were made from Paleogene (Paleocene-Eocene) clays and marls or soils formed on Paleogene bedrocks (Fig. 12). As the outcrops of Paleogene are found throughout the Levant, both in Israel, Lebanon, and Cyprus,<fnref n="16" /> micropaleontology does not allow us to prove where the BoR pottery studied here was made, whether it is a Cypriot import or a local Tell Keisan product, or more generally a continental Phoenician.

Regarding the further search for markers of provenance for the vessels studied, the presence of silt-sized orange glazes among the BoR samples studied deserves special attention. Their presence has not been recorded or discussed in detail, nor did it form the basis of the systematics of the vessels analysed.

The composition of the glass fragments from Tell Keisan BoR pottery shows SiO₂: 57–59 wt. %, Al₂O₃: 14–17, MgO about 6–10 wt. %, and a small amount of CaO (2 wt.%). The Fe₂O₃ content is high (10–14 wt. %), while the TiO₂ content is negligible (< 0.5 wt.%). While low CaO and high SiO₂ contents are typical of acid lavas, large amounts of MgO and iron oxide (Fe₂O₃) are characteristic of basaltic rocks. In the case of the PG 1 orange glass fragments, the high magnesium content is disproportionate to the low calcium content.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Hernández-Molina *et al.* 2022.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>11. Simplified geological sketch indicating the geological units mentioned in the text (Processing: M. Burdajewicz; based on: Pentazis 1979).</figcaption></figure>

Such a composition does not correspond to natural basalts<fnref n="17" /> and is closer to the composition of submarine volcanic glass alteration products – palagonite.<fnref n="18" />

Similar ‘orange fragments’ have been recorded by the Jacek Michniewicz and Jolanta Młynarczyk team<fnref n="19" /> in the Phoenician wine/oil jar ceramic pastes discovered at Sha’ar-Ha’Amakim (the easternmost fringe of the Akko plain) and in a (single) jar fragment from Tell Keisan (sample TK-221). Compared to the chemical composition of the BoR ceramics currently under analysis, the composition of the glass from the Galilee jars differs.

Also different from the BoR is the composition of volcanic glasses taken from natural outcrops in the northern Galilee, the Carmel region, and the Zevulun Plain.<fnref n="20" /> In Cyprus, the occurrence of volcanic glass can be attributed to the following units (cf. **Fig. 11**):

1) Lavas belonging to the upper pillow lava unit of the Troodos Ophiolite complex, comprising basaltic andesite (52–56% SiO₂), andesite (56–62% SiO₂), and dacite (62–66% SiO₂).<fnref n="21" />

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Cf. Thy, Brooks, Walsch 1985; Taylor *et al.* 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Cf. Fonseca *et al.* 2017: Table S2. When looking for analogies to the data on the composition of Cypriot glazes, it is essential to bear in mind the disparities due to transformations caused by the firing of the ceramics, in particular the dehydration of the glazes, and measurement errors due to the semi-quantitative nature of the analysis.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Michniewicz, Młynarczyk 2017.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Michniewicz, Młynarczyk 2017: 132, Table 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ As documented by Thy, Brooks, Walsch 1985; Cameron 1985; Rautenschlein *et al.* 1985; Fonesca *et al.* 2017.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Paleogene</th><th rowspan="3">Petrographic Group/Sample no.</th><th rowspan="3">Microfossils (Foraminifera/Radiolaria)</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Paleocene</th><th colspan="3">Eocene</th><th>Oligocene</th></tr><tr><th>late</th><th>late</th><th>early</th><th>mid.</th><th>late</th><th>early</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>P. pseudo-bulloides</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3/4.05.79</td><td>P. hagni</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>P. inaequispira</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>P. varianta</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25, 3/4.05.79, un./8.74.10</td><td>S. eocaena</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>S. linaperta</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>un./8.74.10</td><td>S. velascoensis</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>Ch. morsei/ Ch. midwayensis</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.74.18</td><td>Ch. crinita</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>T. frontosa</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>un./8.74.10</td><td>P. wilcoxensis</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>D. danvilensis</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>C. unicavus</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>Globanomalina</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.79.11</td><td>Acarinina</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25</td><td>Morozovella</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2/5.66.06, un./6.72.01, 8.74.10</td><td>Parasubbotina/Subbotina</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1/6.73.25, 3/4.05.79</td><td>Radiolarians</td></tr></tbody></table>

12. Foraminifer taxa and their temporal ranges identified in BoR ceramics from Tell Keisan (based on: Cohen *et al.* 2025; Toumarkine, Luterbacher 1985; Olsson *et al.* (Eds) 1999; Sanfilippo, Kagan Tekin, Hakyemez 2015).
2) Campanian-age volcanoclastic sediments of the Kannaviou Formation (Circum Troodos sedimentary succession), represented by an andesite-dacite-rhyolite (<69% SiO₂) assemblage.<fnref n="22" /> The Kannaviou Formation is exposed both in the western coastal region of Cyprus, particularly in the Paphos area, and in the zone of authigenic sedimentary rocks covering the Mesoaria area, including the southern coast.

3) Early Miocene tuffaceous deposits of the Kyrenia Range.<fnref n="23" />

4) The lower marls of the Lefkara Formation, representing deep-sea sediments composed of chalks, marly chalks, marls, radiolarian-rich calcilutites.<fnref n="24" /> According to Alastair H.F. Robertson the lowest parts of Lefkara Formation contains clasts (less than 0.5mm) of altered occasionally fresh volcanic glass.<fnref n="25" /> The lower Lefkara Formation unit commonly fills depressions along the volcaniclastic ophiolite palaeosurface of the Troodos Massif.<fnref n="26" /> It is noteworthy that the Paleogene age of the Lefkara Formation corresponds to the age of the raw material of the BoR ceramics analysed. Lefkara Formation outcrops both near Kition, Amathus, as well as on the west coast – near Palaepaphos.<fnref n="27" />

## PROVENIENCE OF POTTERY BELONGING TO PETROGRAPHIC GROUPS

The ceramics of PG 1 are similar to those of the Tel Dor BoR ceramics recognised by Paula Waiman-Barak as Salaminian,<fnref n="28" /> thus linking them to the Pliocene Nicosia Formation or *terra rossa* exposed in the area.<fnref n="29" /> From the perspective of the currently established Paleogene age of the raw material, it is more likely that the BoR fragments assigned to PG 1 are associated with marls of the Lefkara Formation (Lower Marl Unit?), which is better exposed to the south and east of the Troodos Massif, e.g. near Kition (Fig. 11).<fnref n="30" /> Therefore, the Kition/Ayia Napa(?) area is a more likely production region for the analysed BoR vessels than the Salamis region (Mesaoria Plain).

Analogous to PG 1, pottery assigned to PG 2 contains orange glazes, the main difference between PG 2 and PG 1 being the higher CaO content within the raw clay in PG 2. Thus, their provenance may be similar to that of PG 1 vessels.

In the case of PG 3, the presence of serpentine group minerals indicates a relationship with ophiolite rocks, most likely Cypriot Troodos Massive. The presence of foraminifera species *Parasubbotina hagni* and *Subottina eoceana* dates the raw material to the Eocene.

<footnote n="22">²² Robertson 1977; Chen, Robertson 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Chen, Robertson 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Kähler 1994; Kähler, Stow 1998; Sanfilippo, Kagan Tekin, Hakyemez 2015.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Robertson 1976: 1012.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Hernández-Molina *et al.* 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Cf. Pentazis 1979; see also *Levantine Ceramics Project (LCP)*: Petrographic sample HST 2_6; Robertson 1976; Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2020; Waiman-Barak, Bürge, Fischer 2023: Fig. 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Based on the work of Waiman-Barak, Bürge, Fischer 2023; a similar suggestion of a link between two BoR samples (nos 6.517, 6.864) from Tell Keisan, with the Salamis furnaces appears in Wilson's study (Wilson 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Waiman-Barak, Georgiadou, Gilboa 2021: Fig. 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Kähler 1994; Kähler, Stow 1998; Papadimitriou *et al.* 2018.</footnote>
The copresence of lathwork volcanic lithic grains suggests this group's association with the Paphian products.<fnref n="31" />

## PROVENIENCE OF UNASSIGNED SAMPLES

Sample 8.74.10 is similar to the Phoenician paste pottery produced mainly on the south coast of Lebanon. This similarity applies to the marly micromass, the globigerinid ooze, the presence of fragments of red algae and the medium-size quartz admixture.<fnref n="32" /> However, a Cypriot origin is equally likely, especially with the Miocene globigerinid marls of the Pakhna Formation (Terra Member).<fnref n="33" /> Cypriot coastal sands rich in limestone and red algal fragments are documented in the west – Mamonia Province,<fnref n="34" /> and in the south-east of Cyprus – Ayia Napa, Cape Greco,<fnref n="35" /> so the origin of this sample remains an open question.

The composition of the sand-size temper of sample 6.73.15 corresponds to the Troodos Massif,<fnref n="36" /> and the cooccurrence of epidote and cherts would indicate the Mamonia Province (western Cyprus), or the Morphou region.

The high proportion of chert and volcanogenic quartz, Ca-pyroxene, suggests that also in case of sample 6.74.08 the Mamonia Province is a likely source area.<fnref n="37" />

Sample 3.36.22 is characterised by low CaO content and lack of non-plastic admixtures (except for one grain of amphibole), making it impossible to determine provenance.

For sample 6.72.01 diagnostic are cherry-red shale fragments, which make the ceramics similar to Paphian(?) BoR bowl.<fnref n="38" />

In case of sample 8.81.03 the raw material is marl containing black sand composed of minerals of plutonic and volcanogenic rocks. The presence of Ca-pyroxenes, amphiboles, volcanic glazes, serpentinised olivines, and especially Cr spinel (chromite) is a diagnostic for the Cyprus ophiolite.<fnref n="39" /> The highest percentage of heavy transparent minerals in the sandy fraction is diagnostic for the sands of the beaches of southern Cyprus, especially Limassol/ Amathus (69%), as well as northern Cyprus, i.e. Morphou region (45%).<fnref n="40" />

To sum up, the studies carried out do not confirm the Phoenician provenance of the analysed fragments of black-on-red pottery discovered at Tell Keisan. However, the diverse origins of the analysed samples are clearly evident. The petrographic composition of the non-

<footnote n="31">³¹ Waiman-Barak, Georgiadou, Gilboa 2021: 246–247; Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2000: Table 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Cf. Bettles 2003: Fabric Class 1A; Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008; Michniewicz, Młynarczyk 2017: Petrographic Group 1A.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Cf. Follows 1992; Eaton, Robertson 1993; Goren, Bunimovitz, Finkelstein 2003.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Cf. Follows 1992; Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2000: 209.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Cf. Follows 1992; Nir 1993: 19–23, Appendix V; Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2000: 209; Waiman-Barak, Bürge, Fischer 2023: Fig. 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2020: 215.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Cf. Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2000: 209–210.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Documented by Weiman-Barak et al. 2021: Fig. 11.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Cameron 1985: 241–244, Table 5; Tschegg, Hein, Ntaflos 2008: 1141; Tschegg, Ntaflos, Hein 2009: 1109.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Cf. Garzanti, Andò, Scutellà 2000.</footnote>
plastic components, the proportions between them, the presence of minerals diagnostic of rocks associated with the ophiolite and the products of its weathering, in conjunction with the results of the micropaleontological analyses, point to a Cypriot origin. The differences found prove that they were made in different areas, especially southern and western Cyprus (cf. **Table 1**). A sampled bowl, 5.66.06, is exciting since it was found in level 8 (late tenth century BC), along with five other BoR vessels. These are the earliest examples of BoR pottery at Tell Keisan and in Palestine, alongside BoR finds from Megiddo.<fnref n="41" /> The petrography of two more bowls from the same level 8 also indicates Cypriot origin.<fnref n="42" /> Then, the fact that at least three BoR vessels from level 8 reveal Cypriot provenance is highly significant and reinforces the theory that BoR vessels found on the Levantine coast, especially in southern Phoenicia, were mainly Cypriot imports. The provenance of sample 8.74.10, whose petrography corresponds to Cypriot clays and Phoenician ceramics from southern Lebanon/northern Israel, is ambiguous.

## Acknowledgements

This article is part of a project funded by the National Science Centre, Poland (OPUS grant, no. 2016/23/B/HS3/01879), dedicated to the final publication of ceramics from Tell Keisan. The authors express their deep gratitude to Father Jean-Baptiste Humbert, director of the excavations at Tell Keisan, for making the ceramic material available and for his warm words of encouragement to undertake petrographic and other analyses. The Institute of Geology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, provided the necessary apparatus for the petrographic analyses. The Carpathian Branch of the Polish Geological Institute-National Research Institute in Kraków kindly provided micropaleontological research (Project no. 45.2916.2202.10.0). Words of gratitude go to Charles Henry Wilson (The University of Chicago) who kindly provided the preliminary results of his petrographic analyses of two BoR bowls from Tell Keisan.

## References

- Baliniak, W., Malata, E. 2017: Early Paleogene planktic foraminifera in thin-sections – an experiment on isolated specimens from the Fore-Magura Thrust Sheet (Polish Outer Carpathians), *Geological Quarterly* 61/3, 655–681

- Bettles, E.A. 2003: Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Coastal Levant: A multi-disciplinary investigation into carinated-shoulder amphorae of the Persian period (539–322 BC), *BAR-IS* 1183, Oxford

- Bieber, A.M. 1978: Appendix C: Neutron Activation Analysis, [*in*:] Bikai, P.M., Pottery of Tyre, Warminster, 88–90

- Bikai, P.M. 1978: The Pottery of Tyre, Warminster

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Kleiman *et al.* 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Nos 6.517 and 6.864, published in Briend, Humbert (Eds) 1980: Pl. 56: 1–2. For petrographic analysis, see Wilson 2021.</footnote>
BouDagher-Fadel, M., Clark, G.N. 2006: Stratigraphy, paleoenvironment and paleoge-
ography of Maritime Lebanon: A key to Eastern Mediterranean Cenozoic history,
*Stratigraphy* 3/2, 81–118

Briend, J., Humbert, J.-B. (Eds) 1980: Tell Keisan (1971–1976) : une cité phénicienne en
Galilée, *OBO Series Archaeologica* 1, Fribourg-Göttingen-Paris

Brodie, N.J., Steel, L. 1996: Cypriot Black-On-Red Ware: Towards A Characterisation,
*Archaeometry* 38/2, 263–278

Burdajewicz, M. 2020a: Cypriot Pottery from the Second Millennium BCE at Tell Keisan in the Lower Galilee (Israel), [in:] Gilboa, A., Yasur-Landau, A. (Eds), Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Studies in Honor of Michal Artzy, CHANE 112, Leiden-Boston, 81–104

Burdajewicz, M. 2020b: Preliminary remarks on the Iron Age Cypriot imports in Tell Keisan, a Phoenician city in Lower Galilee (Israel), *SAAC* 24, 33–58

Cameron, W.F. 1985: Petrology and origin of primitive lavas from the Troodos ophiolite,
Cyprus, *Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology* 89, 239–255

Chen, G., Robertson, A.H.F. 2019: Provenance and magmatic-tectonic setting of Campanian-aged volcaniclastic sandstones of the Kannaviou Formation in western Cyprus: Evidence for a South-Neotethyan continental margin volcanic arc, *Sedimentary Geology* 388, 114–138

Chen, G., Robertson, A.H.F. 2021: Early Miocene calc-alkaline felsic tuffs within deep-
marine turbidites in the Kyrenia Range, north Cyprus, with a possible post-collisional
eruptive centre in western Anatolia, *Geological Magazine* 158/8, 1358–1370

Cohen, K., Harper, D., Gibbard, P., Car, N. 2025: The ICS international chronostratigraphic chart this decade, *Episodes* 48, 105–115, https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2025/025001

Eaton, S., Robertson, A. 1993: The Miocene Pakhna Formation, southern Cyprus and relationship to the Neogene tectonic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean, *Sedimentary Geology* 86/3–4, 273–296

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, Y., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., Weiner, S. 2008: An integrated approach to reconstructing primary activities from pit deposits: iron smithing and other activities at Tel Dor under Neo-Assyrian domination, *JAS* 35/11, 2895–2908

Follows, E. 1992: Patterns of reef sedimentation and diagenesis in the Miocene of Cyprus,
*Sedimentary geology* 79/1–4, 225–253

Fonesca, R.O.C., Kirchenbaur, M., Ballhaus, Ch., Münker, C., Zirner, A., Gerdes, A., Heuser, A., Botcharnikov, R., Lenting, Ch. 2017: Fingerprinting fluid sources in Troodos ophiolite complex orbicular glasses using high spatial resolution isotope and trace element geochemistry, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta* 200, 145–166

Garzanti, E., Andò, S., Scutellà, M. 2000: Actualistic Ophiolite Provenance: The Cyprus Case, *The Journal of Geology* 108/2, 199–218

Gjerstad, E. 1948: The Swedish-Cyprus Expedition IV/2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods, Stockholm
Goren, Y., Bunimovitz, S., Finkelstein, I., Na'Aman, N. 2023: The Location of Alashiya: New Evidence from Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Tablets from El-Amarna and Ugarit, *AJA* 107/2, 233–255

Hernández-Molina, F.J., Hüneke, H., Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J., Ng, Z.L., Llave, E., Mena, A., Gibb, A., Chiarella, D., Sammartino, S., de la Vara, A. 2022: Eocene to middle Miocene contourite deposits in Cyprus: A record of Indian Gateway evolution, *Global and Planetary Change* 219, 1–48

Humbert, J.-B. 1981: Récents travaux à Tell Keisan (1979–1980), *RevBibl* 88/3, 374–398

Humbert, J.-B. 1993: Keisan, Tell, [in:] Stern, E. (Ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, Jerusalem, 862–867

Kahler, G. 1994: Stratigraphy and sedimentology of the Paleogene Lefkara Formation, Cyprus, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton

Kahler, G., Stow, D.A.V. 1998: Turbidites and contourites of the Palaeogene Lefkara Formation, southern Cyprus, *Sedimentary Geology* 115, 215–231

Kleiman, A., Fantalkin, A., Mommsen, H., Hinkelstein, I. 2019: The Date and Origin of Black-on-Red Ware: The View from Megiddo, *AJA* 123/4, 531–555

*Levantine Ceramics Project (LCP)*: https://www.levantineceramics.org/ (accessed March 15, 2025)

Matthers, J., Liddy, D.J., Newton, G.W.A. 1983: Black-on-red ware in the Levant: A neutron activation analysis study, *JAS* 10/4, 369–382

Michniewicz, J. 2009: Qumran and Jericho Pottery: A Petrographic and Chemical Provenance Studies, *Seria Geologia* 20, Poznań

Michniewicz, J., Młynarczyk, J. 2017: Archaeometry and Archaeology of Levantine jars used in Western Galilee/Southern Phoenicia (Sha'ar-Ha'Amakim, Tell Keisan) between the Persian and the Late Roman period, Poznań

Morgiel, J., Olszewska, B., Sikora, W.J., Wdowiarz, S. 1980: Associations de foraminifères aréncés dans le profil des flysch du Rif (note préliminaire), *Mines, Géologie et Énergie* 48, 25–28

Nir, Y. 1993: The Coasts of Cyprus, unpublished report, Geological Survey of Israel and the Geological Survey Department of Cyprus, s.l.

Olsson, R.K., Hemleben, C., Berggren, W.A., Huber, B.T. (Eds) 1999: Atlas of Paleocene planktonic Foraminifera, *Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology* 85, Washington, DC

Papadimitriou, N., Deschamps, R., Symeou, V., Souque, Ch., Gorini, Ch., Nader, F.H., Blanpied, Ch. 2018: The tectonostratigraphic evolution of Cenozoic basin of the Northern Tethys: The Northern margin of the Levant Basin, *Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Rev. IFP Energies Nouvelles* 73, 77, https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2018085

Pentazis, Th. 1979: Geological Map of Cyprus, Geological Survey Department of Cyprus, s.l.

Pessagno, E.A. Jr. 1960. Thin-Sectioning and Photographing Smaller Foraminifera, *Micropaleontology* 6/4, 419–423

Postuma, J.A. 1971: Manual of Planktonic Foraminifera, Amsterdam
Quinn, P.S. 2000: Ceramic micropalaentology: the analysis of microfossils in archaeo-logical ceramics with special reference to its application in the southern Aegean, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield

Quinn, P.S., Alaimo, R., Montana, G. 1998: Calcareous nannofossil analysis of ceramics and probable raw materials from an ancient Punic kiln site on the Island of Mozia, western Sicily, *Journal of Nannoplankton Research* 20/2, 85-87

Quinn, P.S., Day, P.M. 2007a: Calcareous microfossils in Bronze Age Aegean ceramics: illuminating technology and provenance, *Archaeometry* 49/4, 775-793

Quinn, P.S., Day, P.M. 2007b: Ceramic micropalaeontology: The analysis of microfossils in ancient ceramics, *Journal of Micropalaeontology* 26, 159-168

Rautenschlein, M., Jenner, G.A., Hertogen, J., Hofmann, A.W., Kerrich, R., Schmincke, H.U., White, M.W. 1985: Isotopic and trace element composition of volcanic glasses from the Akaki Canyon, Cyprus: implications for the origin of the Troodos ophiolite, *Earth and Planetary Science Letters* 75, 369-383

Robertson, A.H.F. 1976: Pelagic chalcks and calciturbidites from the Lower Tertiary of the Troodos Massif, Cyprus, *Journal of Sedimentary Petrology* 46/4, 1007-1016

Robertson, A.H.F. 1977: The Kannaviou Formation, Cyprus: volcanoclastic sedimentation of probable late Cretaceous volcanic arc, *Journal of the Geological Society* 134, 269-292

Sanfilippo, A., Kagan Tekin, U.T., Hakyemez A. 2015: Biostratigraphy of late Paleocene - Middle Eocene radiolarians and foraminifera from Cyprus, *Micropaleontology* 49/1, 47-64

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

Shalem, D., Cohen-Weinberger, A., Gandulla, B., Milevski, I. 2019: Ceramic Connections and Regional Entities: The Petrography of Late Chalcolithic Pottery from Sites in the Galilee (Israel), [*in*:] Goldfus, H., Gruber, M.I., Yona, S., Fabian, P. (Eds), 'Isaac went out to the field': Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead, Oxford, 262-277

Taylor, R.N., Ishizuka, O., Hessey, I., Michalik, A., Stillwell, L., White, S. 2022: Isotopes track Tethyan seamount subduction beneath the Troodos spreading centre, Cyprus, *Earth and Planetary Science Letters* 584, 117509

Thy, P., Brooks, C.K., Walsch, J.N. 1985: Tectonic and petrogenic implications of major and rare earth element chemistry of Troodos glasses, Cyprus, *Lithos* 18, 165-178

Toumarkine, M., Luterbacher, H. 1985: Paleocene and Eocene Planktic Foraminifera, [*in*:] Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., Perch-Nielsen, K. (Eds), Plankton Stratigraphy, Cambridge-London-New York, 87-154

Tschegg, C., Hein, I., Ntaflos, Th. 2008: State of the art multi-analytical geoscientific approach to identify Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade Ware reproduction in the Eastern Nile delta (Egypt), *JAS* 35/5, 1134-1147

Tschegg, C., Ntaflos, Th., Hein, I. 2009: Integrated geological, petrologic and geochemical approach to establish source material and technology of Late Cypriot Bronze Age Plain White ware ceramics, *JAS* 36/5, 1103-1114
Wade, B., Olsson, R.K., Pearson, P.N., Huber, B.T., Berggren, W.A. (Eds) 2018: Atlas of Oligocene Planktonic Foraminifera, *Cushman Foundation Special Publication* 46, Washington, DC

Waiman-Barak, P., Bürge, T., Fischer, P.M. 2023: Petrographic studies of Late Bronze Age pottery from Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus, *JAS Reports* 49, 1040-268

Waiman-Barak, P., Georgiadou, A., Gilboa, A. 2021: Regional mineralogical and technological characterization of Cypriot Iron Age pottery: a view from Tel Dor, *Levant* 53, 236-261

Wilson, Ch. 2021: Petrography of two Black-on-Red bowls from Tell Keisan, level 8, unpublished manuscript, École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem, s.l.
<table><caption>Table 1. Black-on-Red pottery samples from Tell Keisan</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample no.</th><th>Level</th><th>Form</th><th>State of preservation</th><th>PG</th><th>Provenance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.62.11</td><td>5</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>1</td><td rowspan="5">Cyprus, Kition/Ayia Napa</td></tr><tr><td>3.62.17</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>6.73.25</td><td>5</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>6.79.11</td><td>4</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>6.74.18</td><td>5/6</td><td>juglet</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3.82.01</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>2</td><td rowspan="3">Cyprus, Kition/Ayia Napa</td></tr><tr><td>4.04.44</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>5.66.06</td><td>8b</td><td>bowl</td><td>rim</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3.70.40</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>closed form</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>3</td><td rowspan="2">Cyprus, Paphos region</td></tr><tr><td>4.05.79</td><td>5</td><td>juglet?/jug?</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>8.74.10</td><td>5</td><td>bowl</td><td>rim</td><td>unassigned</td><td>Lebanon/Cyprus, Mamonia Province/Ayia Napa/Cape Greco</td></tr><tr><td>6.73.15</td><td>4</td><td>bowl</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>unassigned</td><td>Cyprus, Mamonia Province, Morphou region</td></tr><tr><td>6.74.08</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>juglet</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>unassigned</td><td>Cyprus, Mamonia Province</td></tr><tr><td>3.62.22</td><td>4/5/6</td><td>juglet</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>unassigned</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>6.72.01</td><td>4</td><td>juglet</td><td>body-sherd</td><td>unassigned</td><td>Cyprus, Paphos region</td></tr><tr><td>8.81.03</td><td>4</td><td>bowl</td><td>rim</td><td>unassigned</td><td>Cyprus, Limasol/Amatus/Morphou region</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 2. The petrographic data of the BoR pottery from Tell Keisan</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample no.</th><th>Qtz silt (%)</th><th>CaCo<sub>3</sub> silt</th><th>Foraminifera</th><th>Terra rosa</th><th>Sand (%)</th><th>Limestone</th><th>Orange glass</th><th>Brownish glass</th><th>Quartz</th><th>Chert</th><th>Bioclasts</th><th>Feldspars</th><th>px/amf+pl±ep</th><th>Amphibole</th><th>Sandstone</th><th>Mudstone</th><th>Serpentinite</th><th>Pyroxene</th><th>Epidote</th><th>Cr-spinel</th><th>Mica/Chlorire</th><th>Kf+Qtz</th><th>Dolomite</th><th>Plagioclase</th><th>Kf</th><th>Volcanites</th><th>Fd+Biotite</th><th>Red algae</th><th>Chamotte</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.62.11</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>&lt;5%</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3.62.17</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>&lt;5%</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.73.25</td><td>&lt;5%</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.74.18</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;5%</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.79.11</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3.82.01</td><td>0</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>40.04.44</td><td>0</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>5.66.06</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;5%</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0.2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1?</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3.70.40</td><td>&lt;1%</td><td>2!</td><td>?</td><td>0.2</td><td>&lt;1%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>4.05.79</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0?</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1?</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>8.74.10</td><td>&lt;1%</td><td>2!</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.73.15</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.74.08</td><td>5-7%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3.62.22</td><td>&lt;1%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>6.72.01</td><td>&lt;1%</td><td>?</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>8.81.03</td><td>&lt;2%</td><td>2!</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.2</td><td>1</td><td>2!</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. Major element composition (wt. %) of the orange glazes of Petrographic Groups 1 and 2</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Oxide<br>Compound</th><th colspan="10">PG 1</th><th colspan="5">PG 2</th></tr><tr><th colspan="10">Sample no.</th><th colspan="5"></th></tr><tr><th>3.62.11</th><th>SD</th><th>3.62.17</th><th>SD</th><th>6.73.25</th><th>SD</th><th>6.74.18</th><th>SD</th><th>6.79.11</th><th>SD</th><th>3.82.01</th><th>SD</th><th>40.04.44</th><th>SD</th><th>5.66.06</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.48</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.25</td><td>1.43</td><td>0.30</td><td>2.09</td><td>0.69</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.53</td><td>1.64</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>MgO</td><td>7.65</td><td>1.58</td><td>6.12</td><td>1.00</td><td>6.73</td><td>1.01</td><td>6.00</td><td>0.68</td><td>9.68</td><td>3.23</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.98</td><td>9.10</td><td>5.84</td><td>8.96</td><td>3.14</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>13.98</td><td>2.39</td><td>17.22</td><td>1.38</td><td>14.60</td><td>1.95</td><td>14.33</td><td>0.37</td><td>15.87</td><td>2.54</td><td>14.11</td><td>2.60</td><td>12.49</td><td>1.73</td><td>14.40</td><td>2.07</td></tr><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>57.65</td><td>0.55</td><td>59.15</td><td>2.62</td><td>58.35</td><td>0.92</td><td>58.18</td><td>1.65</td><td>58.17</td><td>3.32</td><td>51.48</td><td>1.97</td><td>59.23</td><td>4.55</td><td>56.38</td><td>1.72</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>3.40</td><td>0.89</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.91</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.47</td><td>3.41</td><td>0.84</td><td>1.95</td><td>0.85</td><td>3.34</td><td>0.94</td><td>3.19</td><td>0.87</td><td>2.65</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>2.66</td><td>0.43</td><td>2.26</td><td>0.28</td><td>2.71</td><td>0.27</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.23</td><td>2.61</td><td>0.17</td><td>2.10</td><td>0.27</td><td>2.50</td><td>0.36</td><td>2.86</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.28</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>13.18</td><td>2.44</td><td>10.33</td><td>2.54</td><td>13.00</td><td>1.47</td><td>14.04</td><td>1.23</td><td>10.05</td><td>2.82</td><td>10.09</td><td>1.86</td><td>11.88</td><td>0.87</td><td>13.12</td><td>3.23</td></tr><tr><td>Number<br>of analyses</td><td>n=4</td><td></td><td>n=6</td><td></td><td>n=6</td><td></td><td>n=4</td><td></td><td>n=10</td><td></td><td>n=8</td><td></td><td>n=4</td><td></td><td>n=6</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4. Sample 8.81.03: chemical composition (wt. %) and mineral group name of pyroxenes</caption><thead><tr><th>Pyro-xene</th><th>SiO<sub>2</sub></th><th>TiO<sub>2</sub></th><th>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></th><th>Cr<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></th><th>FeO</th><th>MnO</th><th>MgO</th><th>CaO</th><th>Na<sub>2</sub>O</th><th>Mg#</th><th>En</th><th>Wo</th><th>Fs</th><th>Px mineral group</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>px1</td><td>54.28</td><td>0.41</td><td>2.41</td><td>&lt;</td><td>6.07</td><td>&lt;</td><td>17.14</td><td>19.69</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.68</td><td>49.4</td><td>40.8</td><td>9.8</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px2</td><td>56.37</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.96</td><td>&lt;</td><td>11.06</td><td>0.54</td><td>19.55</td><td>7.53</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.57</td><td>62.7</td><td>17.4</td><td>19.9</td><td>pigeonite</td></tr><tr><td>px3</td><td>54.36</td><td>&lt;</td><td>2.20</td><td>0.40</td><td>4.90</td><td>&lt;</td><td>19.00</td><td>19.14</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.75</td><td>53.5</td><td>38.7</td><td>7.7</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px4</td><td>55.16</td><td>&lt;</td><td>1.58</td><td>&lt;</td><td>5.48</td><td>&lt;</td><td>16.23</td><td>21.55</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.69</td><td>46.7</td><td>44.5</td><td>8.8</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px5</td><td>53.29</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.52</td><td>0.56</td><td>7.12</td><td>&lt;</td><td>16.65</td><td>18.85</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.70</td><td>48.7</td><td>39.6</td><td>11.7</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px6</td><td>56.46</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.24</td><td>&lt;</td><td>9.19</td><td>&lt;</td><td>19.68</td><td>10.61</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.62</td><td>60.6</td><td>23.5</td><td>15.6</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px8</td><td>53.44</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.55</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.73</td><td>&lt;</td><td>18.25</td><td>21.02</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.79</td><td>51.5</td><td>42.6</td><td>5.9</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px9</td><td>55.65</td><td>&lt;</td><td>3.18</td><td>&lt;</td><td>4.80</td><td>&lt;</td><td>18.11</td><td>17.98</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.74</td><td>53.7</td><td>38.3</td><td>8.0</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px10</td><td>54.12</td><td>&lt;</td><td>2.45</td><td>&lt;</td><td>6.74</td><td>&lt;</td><td>16.58</td><td>20.12</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.65</td><td>47.6</td><td>41.5</td><td>10.9</td><td>augite</td></tr><tr><td>px11</td><td>54.67</td><td>&lt;</td><td>1.84</td><td>0.71</td><td>3.54</td><td>&lt;</td><td>19.84</td><td>19.40</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.81</td><td>55.5</td><td>39.0</td><td>5.6</td><td>augite</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 5. Sample 8.81.03: chemical composition (wt. %), chromium and magnesium number (#) of chromites</caption><thead><tr><th>Oxide Compound</th><th>Cr1</th><th>Cr2</th><th>Cr3</th><th>Cr4</th><th>Cr5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MgO</td><td>11.09</td><td>12.00</td><td>11.35</td><td>11.73</td><td>10.76</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>16.08</td><td>13.40</td><td>19.31</td><td>19.86</td><td>12.57</td></tr><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>3.12</td><td>2.76</td><td>3.82</td><td>5.96</td><td>4.29</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.23</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.67</td><td>&lt;</td><td>&lt;</td></tr><tr><td>Cr<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>48.94</td><td>50.82</td><td>39.17</td><td>42.62</td><td>48.49</td></tr><tr><td>MnO</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.37</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>FeO</td><td>20.02</td><td>20.64</td><td>24.16</td><td>15.13</td><td>19.41</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>&lt;</td><td>&lt;</td><td>1.02</td><td>2.36</td><td>1.67</td></tr><tr><td>V<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>&lt;</td><td>0.49</td><td>&lt;</td><td>&lt;</td></tr><tr><td>Cr#</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>Mg#</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.35</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 6. Semi-quantitative EDS composition (wt. %) of the ceramic pastes of the BoR pottery, excluding grains of the sand-size fraction</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Oxide<br>Com-<br>pound</th><th colspan="3">PG 1</th><th colspan="3">PG 2</th><th colspan="3">PG 3</th><th colspan="3">Unassigned</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Sample no.</th><th colspan="3">Sample no.</th><th colspan="3">Sample no.</th><th colspan="3">Sample no.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>3.62.11</td><td>3.62.17</td><td>6.73.25</td><td>6.79.11</td><td>6.74.18</td><td>3.82.01</td><td>4.04.44</td><td>5.66.06</td><td>3.70.40</td><td>4.05.79</td><td>8.74.10</td><td>6.73.15</td><td>6.74.08</td><td>3.62.22</td><td>6.72.01</td><td>8.81.03</td></tr><tr><td>MgO</td><td>1.75</td><td>1.21</td><td>1.93</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.14</td><td>1.99</td><td>1.67</td><td>1.34</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.30</td></tr><tr><td>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>5.63</td><td>3.18</td><td>4.91</td><td>4.16</td><td>3.15</td><td>5.17</td><td>7.06</td><td>5.45</td><td>2.76</td><td>3.05</td><td>1.43</td><td>1.59</td><td>0.56</td><td>1.68</td><td>2.62</td><td>3.93</td></tr><tr><td>SiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>14.52</td><td>16.92</td><td>14.43</td><td>12.94</td><td>15.78</td><td>13.43</td><td>13.08</td><td>13.47</td><td>12.93</td><td>12.76</td><td>12.02</td><td>15.45</td><td>24.17</td><td>14.57</td><td>19.28</td><td>13.23</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>56.49</td><td>58.61</td><td>57.15</td><td>58.72</td><td>58.56</td><td>50.96</td><td>50.20</td><td>54.08</td><td>56.06</td><td>50.71</td><td>33.71</td><td>70.28</td><td>61.05</td><td>73.14</td><td>54.24</td><td>49.76</td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>1.77</td><td>1.82</td><td>1.81</td><td>1.64</td><td>1.76</td><td>1.05</td><td>1.71</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.75</td><td>1.66</td><td>1.30</td><td>1.85</td><td>5.87</td><td>2.19</td></tr><tr><td>TiO<sub>2</sub></td><td>10.83</td><td>10.56</td><td>11.11</td><td>12.25</td><td>11.12</td><td>19.26</td><td>15.99</td><td>15.14</td><td>18.81</td><td>23.23</td><td>42.17</td><td>1.29</td><td>0.90</td><td>1.20</td><td>9.74</td><td>21.74</td></tr><tr><td>Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></td><td>0.72</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.50</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.92</td><td>1.76</td><td>0.84</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub></td><td>8.29</td><td>7.17</td><td>8.65</td><td>7.64</td><td>7.58</td><td>8.13</td><td>9.80</td><td>8.97</td><td>6.41</td><td>7.35</td><td>6.09</td><td>7.73</td><td>9.69</td><td>6.06</td><td>7.03</td><td>6.79</td></tr><tr><td>MnO</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>
ÉTUDES et TRAVAUX
XXXVIII / 2025

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

IKSiO

PAN

Institut des Cultures Méditerranéennes et Orientales
de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences
EDITORIAL BOARD

Maciej Makowski – Editor-in-chief

Maria Carmela Gatto – Subject editor of the volume

Michele Degli Esposti – Editor

Jadwiga Iwaszczuk – Editor

Katarzyna Kapiec – Editor

Marcin M. Romaniuk – Editorial assistant

SCIENTIFIC BOARD OF THE JOURNAL

Ewa Laskowska-Kusztal (IMOC PAS, Warsaw)

Demetrios Michaelides (University of Cyprus, Nicosia)

Jean-Charles Moretti (IRAA-MOM, Université de Lyon 2/CNRS)

Dietrich Raue (DAI, Cairo/Ägyptisches Museum der Universität Leipzig)

Paul Reynolds (ICREA, Barcelona)

BOARD OF INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS

the list of the members of the board is available at

http://www.etudesettravaux.iksiopan.pl

BIBLIOGRAPHY, FOOTNOTES AND TECHNICAL EDITING

Piotr Sójka

PROOF-READING

Jo B. Harper
ÉTUDES et TRAVAUX

XXXVIII
INSTYTUT KULTUR ŚRÓDZIEMNOMORSKICH I ORIENTALNYCH
POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK

STUDIA i PRACE

XXXVIII

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

WARSZAWA
2025
INSTITUT DES CULTURES MÉDITERRANÉENNES ET ORIENTALES
DE L'ACADÉMIE POLONAISE DES SCIENCES

ÉTUDES et TRAVAUX

XXXVIII

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

IKŚiO
PAN

VARSOVIE
2025
<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

The project entitled "Internationalisation, enhancement and popularisation of the research conducted by the IMOC PAS on ancient Egypt, classical Mediterranean cultures, Nubia, the reception of antiquity and the Silk Road" (No. MNiSW/2025/DAP/723) was financed by the Minister of Science and Higher Education.

© Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures,
Polish Academy of Sciences (IMOC PAS)
and the Authors (unless otherwise stated)
Warsaw 2025

Contact address concerning product safety (GPSR):
Fabryka Druku sp. z o.o.
6, Zgrupowania AK "Kampinos" st., 01-943 Warszawa
fabrykadruku@fabrykadruku.pl

ISSN 2084-6762
(until 2010: 0079-3566)
e-ISSN 2449-9579

The printed version of the journal is the primary one.
Online version available at http://www.etudesettravaux.iksiopan.pl

Layout, typesetting and graphic edition: Dariusz Górski – Usługi Wydawniczo-Edytorskie

General cover design: Jadwiga Iwaszczuk

Cover photo: The Nile at the First Cataract (AKAP Archive) and an artistic rendering of a pottery ledged vase from Faras (inv. no. 238045 MNW; based on a drawing by K. de Lellis-Danys).
Table of contents

<table><tr><td>EDITORIAL</td><td>7</td></tr></table>

SPECIAL SECTION: ANCIENT BORDERSCAPES

<table><tr><td>OREN SIEGEL<br>An Appraisal of Pharaonic Egyptian Boundary Studies</td><td>11</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>JADE BAJEOT<br>Technical Traditions and Social Boundaries. The Case of Predynastic Egypt</td><td>35</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>AUDREY ELLER<br>Borders and Frontiers of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. The Case of Lower Nubia</td><td>61</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>KATARZYNA DE LELLIS-DANYS<br>Tracing Tangible Borderscapes Between the First and the Second Nile Cataracts<br>Ceramics in the Ninth–Tenth Centuries CE</td><td>85</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>SAMANTHA SINK<br>A Mathematical Borderscape in Eratosthenes’ Geographika:<br>North-South Distances of the Oikoumene</td><td>113</td></tr></table>

REGULAR PAPERS

<table><tr><td>KRZYSZTOF DOMŻALSKI, MONIKA MIZIOŁEK<br>Late Roman Fine Pottery from North-Western Asia Minor Found in Nea Paphos:<br>The Evidence from Maloutena</td><td>137</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>KACPER LAUBE<br>The Collection of Ancient Art at the National Museum in Warsaw during<br>the Second World War (1939–1945)</td><td>163</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>JACEK MICHNIEWICZ, ANDRZEJ SZYDŁO, MARIUSZ BURDAJEWICZ<br>Black-on-Red Pottery in the Levant: A Petrographic Contribution from Tell Keisan</td><td>187</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>MAŁGORZATA RADOMSKA<br>Covering the Deceased’s Heads with Pottery Vessels: Insight from Late<br>and Ptolemaic Period Necropolis in Saqqara West</td><td>219</td></tr></table>
MARCIN M. ROMANIUK

<table><tr><td>Evolution of Water Management in the <i>Maloutena</i> Residential Quarter of Nea Paphos. The Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods</td><td>243</td></tr></table>

PIOTR SÓJKA

<table><tr><td>Clay Tobacco Smoking Pipes from Tell el-Retaba: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Examination within the Context of Ottoman Egypt</td><td>281</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>ABBREVIATIONS</td><td>311</td></tr></table>