A Chronology of 

Middle Missouri Plains 

Village Sites

By Craig M. Johnson

with contributions by

Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

smithsonian contributions to anthropology • number 50

The Smithsonian Institution 

Excavation at 

Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 

1970–1990

Edited by

David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek
SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was 

expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan 

for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included 

the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, 

giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes 

made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of 

basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of 

titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and 

continuing with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation 

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale 

monographs that report on the research and collections of its various 

museums and bureaus. The Smithsonian Contributions Series are 

distributed via mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. 

Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affiliation with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject 

to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation 

guidelines. General requirements for manuscript preparation are on the 

inside back cover of printed volumes. For detailed submissions requirements and to review the “Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for 

Authors,” visit the Submissions page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu.
smithsonian contributions to anthropology • number 50

The Smithsonian Institution 

Excavation at 

Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 

1970–1990

Edited by

David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek

WASHINGTON D.C.

2014
Ben-Shlomo, David, and Gus W. Van Beek. The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 

1970–1990. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, number 50, xxxiv + 1087 pages, 941 figures, 77 

tables, 2014.—This monograph describes the results of the archaeological excavation at the site of Tell Jemmeh, Israel, undertaken by the Smithsonian Institution and directed by Gus W. Van Beek during the years 

1970–1990. All the artifacts from the excavations were shipped from Israel to Washington, D.C., and have 

been restored, studied, and analyzed in the National Museum of Natural History for the past four decades. 

The site is a strategic and large mound located near Gaza and the Mediterranean coast. It was inhabited 

continuously for at least 1,400 years during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the Iron Age, and the Persian 

period. The highlights of this excavation are the findings of a large and affluent courtyard house from the 

Late Bronze Age, a sophisticated well-preserved pottery kiln from the early Iron Age, a complex of Assyrianrelated administrative buildings during the late Iron Age, and a complete granary of the Persian period. This 

is a detailed and final report on all of the excavation results, including the architectural remains, stratigraphy, 

pottery, and other finds. In addition, several more detailed and focused studies of certain aspects of the site’s 

material include (among others) chapters on imported, decorated, Philistine, Assyrian-style and Greek pottery 

and chapters on figurines, sealings, jewelry, amulets, scarabs, cylinder seals, flint, coins, ostraca, and fauna. 

The volume is richly illustrated with nearly 1,000 figures showing field photographs, plans, sections, and 

drawings and photographs of artifacts. The significance of the results is summarized and discussed in the 

final chapter.

Cover images, from left to right: Tell Jemmeh from the south; Figure 3.63; Figure 13.1.

Published by SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SCHOLARLY PRESS

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 957

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

www.scholarlypress.si.edu

Compilation copyright © 2014 Smithsonian Institution

Chapters 1–8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 25 and 34 are in the public domain. The rights to all other text and images 

in this publication, including cover and interior designs, are owned either by the Smithsonian Institution, 

by contributing authors, or by third parties. Fair use of materials is permitted for personal, educational, or 

noncommercial purposes. Users must cite author and source of content, must not alter or modify copyrighted 

content, and must comply with all other terms or restrictions that may be applicable. Users are responsible 

for securing permission from a rights holder for any other use.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Smithsonian Institution excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel,1970-1990 / edited by David Ben-Shlomo 

and Gus W. Van Beek.

 pages cm — (Smithsonian contributions to anthropology ; Number 50)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Jemmeh Site (Israel) 2. Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel. I. Ben-Shlomo, David, editor. II. Van 

Beek, Gus W. (Gus Willard), 1922– editor.

DS110.J366S65 2014

933’.49—dc23

2014000790

ISSN: 0081-0223 (print); 1943-6661 (online) 

Ó The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard 

for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992. 
Dedicated to the memory of 

Prof. Donald J. Ortner 

(1939–2012).

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF TABLES xxvii

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxix

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1 Introduction 1

David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek

2 Environmental Background of Tell Jemmeh 16

Gus W. Van Beek 

THE ARCHITECTURE, STRATIGRAPHY AND FINDS 

FROM THE DIFFERENT EXCAVATION FIELDS

3 Field III: The Southeastern Step Trench 21

David Ben-Shlomo

4 Field II: The Northwestern Stepped Trench 162

David Ben-Shlomo

5 The South Trench (ST1) 198

David Ben-Shlomo

6 Field I: The Late Bronze Age 209

David Ben-Shlomo

7 Field I Furnace (the Kiln), Square KB, and FUR 2–FUR 3 337

David Ben-Shlomo

8 Results from Field IV: The Iron II and Later Periods 403

David Ben-Shlomo

9 Bread Ovens and Related Installations 642

Alexander Zukerman
v i • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

POTTERY STUDIES

10 Decorated Canaanite Pottery 651

Gwanghyun Choi

11 Imported Cypriot and Mycenaean Wares and Derivative Wares 657

Celia J. Bergoffen

12 Decorated Philistine Pottery 721

David Ben-Shlomo

13 Assyrian-Style Pottery (Palace Ware) 732

David Ben-Shlomo

14 “East Greek” and Greek Imported Pottery of the First Millennium BCE 749

S. Rebecca Martin

15 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery: Chalcolithic to Persian Period 776

David Ben-Shlomo

16 Computerized Documentation and Analysis of Pottery Vessels 795

Avshalom Karasik

SMALL FINDS STUDIES

17 Ceramic Figurines and Figurative Terra-cottas 804

David Ben-Shlomo, Ron Gardiner, and Gus Van Beek 

18 Worked Sherds 828

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner

19 Ceramic Objects: Marked Pottery, Mud Objects, and Various 

Ceramic Artifacts 838

David Ben-Shlomo

20 Clay Sealings and Seal Impressions 857

David Ben-Shlomo and Othmar Keel

21 Nonjewelry Metal Objects 876

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner

22 Metallic and Nonmetallic Jewelry Objects 889

Amir Golani

23 Stone Artifact Assemblage from Tell Jemmeh 917

Yorke M. Rowan

24 Egyptian Amulets from Tell Jemmeh 970

Christian Herrmann

25 Various Finds: Faience, Glass, Bone, Ivory, and Pumice 977

David Ben-Shlomo

26 Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tell Jemmeh 987

Steven A. Rosen and Jakob Vardi

27 Scarabs and Stamp Seals 1004

Othmar Keel

28 Cylinder Seals: A Clay Cylinder with Cuneiform Signs 1017

Wayne Horowitz and Tallay Ornan

29 Cylinder Seals: A Mitannian Cylinder Seal with a Worshipper 

and Divine Images 1020

Tallay Ornan
NUMBER 50 • vii

30 Coins: Coins from the 1970–1990 Excavation Seasons at Tell Jemmeh 1023

Donald T. Ariel

31 Coins: The Crusader Purse from Tell Jemmeh 1026

Robert Kool

32 Ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1031

Haggai Misgav

SUBSISTENCE STUDIES

33 Temporal Trends in Animal Exploitation: Faunal Analysis 

from Tell Jemmeh 1038

Edward F. Maher 

CONCLUSIONS

34 Synthesis and Conclusions: The Significance of Tell Jemmeh 1054

David Ben-Shlomo

REFERENCES 1067

P.1 Season 1973 photo xxx

P.2 Season 1976 photo xxx

P.3 Season 1977 photo xxxi

P.4 Season 1978 photo xxxi

P.5 The pottery reconstruction volunteers xxxii

1.1 Map of Israel and location of Tell Jemmeh 1

1.2 Aerial photo of Tell Jemmeh 2

1.3 The dry Besor River 2

1.4 Tell Jemmeh during the early 20th century 2

1.5 Petrie Level J-K 5

1.6 Petrie Level G-H 6

1.7 Petrie Level E-F 7

1.8 Petrie Level C-D 8

1.9 Petrie Level A-B 9

1.10 Petrie granaries plan 10

1.11 The Tell and the Smithsonian excavations fields 12

1.12 Trench SS1 13

2.1 The Besor River 16

2.2 The Besor River flowing during Winter 17

3.1 Tell Jemmeh from the south 21

3.2 Plan of Field III 22

3.3 Field III and the extension of the 1982 season 22

3.4 Field III at the end of the 1982 season 22

3.5 Virgin soil in Square C3 22

3.6 Plan of Square C2, Phase 19 24

3.7 Square C2 with Features 22–24 and Test Trenches 1 and 2 24

3.8 Phase 19, Feature 22 and Feature 21, an oven 25

3.9 Feature 22 25

3.10 Feature 22 25

3.11 A V-shaped bowl 25

3.12 A churn 25

3.13 Chalcolithic pottery 26

3.14 Chalcolithic pottery 28

3.15 Square C3, western section 30

3.16 Plan of Phase 18 30

List of Figures
x • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3.17 Features 20 and 21 31

3.18 Square C2, looking north 31

3.19 South balk of Square C2 32

3.20 West balk of Square C2 32

3.21 West section of Square J2 33

3.22 Square F2, western section 33

3.23 Feature 18 in Square F2 34

3.24 Square F2, northern balk 34

3.25 Square F2, western balk 34

3.26 Pit 2 in Square F2 35

3.27 Pottery from Phase 18 36

3.28 Pottery and finds from Phase 18 38

3.29 Plan of Phase 17 39

3.30 Square F2, Phase 17 39

3.31 Square F2, Wall 11 and pebbled floor 40

3.32 Squares J1–J2, Floor Layer 17 40

3.33 Squares J1–J2, Layer 17 40

3.34 Layer 17 40

3.35 Squares J1–J2, Layer 17, after removal 40

3.36 Brick frame related to Feature 7(?) 41

3.37 Feature 8 in Square J2 41

3.38 Square J2, balk with sherd layer 41

3.39 Square J1 of the 1984 extension 41

3.40 South, west, and north sections of Square C2 42

3.41 South balk of Square C2 43

3.42 Walls 80–82 43

3.43 Walls 11 and 14 44

3.44 Floor with pebbles and sherds in Square F2 44

3.45 North, south, and west sections of Squares J1–J2 45

3.46 Pottery from Phase 17, Room H 46

3.47 Pottery from Phase 17 48

3.48 Storage jars from Squares J1–J2, Layer 17 50

3.49 Storage jars from Squares J1–J2, Layer 17 51

3.50 Cylinder seal 52

3.51 Pottery and finds from Phase 17 53

3.52 Plan of Phase 16 54

3.53 Square C2 with Feature 17 54

3.54 Brick tumble, Feature 16, in Square C1 in relation to Layer 81 55

3.55 Layer 81 in Square C1 55

3.56 Layer 81 in Square C1 56

3.57 Layer 80 56

3.58 Bowls from Square C1, Layer 81 57

3.59 Pottery from Square C1, Layer 81 58

3.60 Pottery from Square C1, Layer 81 60

3.61 Pottery from Square C1, Layer 81 62

3.62 Pottery vessels from Square C1, Layer 81 63

3.63 Zoomorphic vessel from near Square C1, Layer 81 64

3.64 Finds from Square C1, Layer 81 65

3.65 Tabun, Feature 5 66

3.66 Feature 7 in Square F1 66

3.67 Pit 1 in Square F1 66

3.68 Equid burial, Features 9–10, in Square F2 67

3.69 Feature 6 (posthole) in Square J2 67

3.70 Squares J2 and J1 67
NUMBER 50 • x i

3.71 Pottery from Phase 16 68

3.72 Pottery and finds from Phase 16 70

3.73 Plan of Phase 15 72

3.74 Wall 79 in Square C1 72

3.75 South balk of Square C1 73

3.76 Square F1, Wall 6, with Room G 73

3.77 Wall 3 of Room G in Square J1 74

3.78 Pottery from Phase 15, Room G 75

3.79 Pottery from Phase 15 76

3.80 Plan of Phase 14B 77

3.81 Plan of Phase 14A 78

3.82 Wall 77 in balk of Square C1 80

3.83 Phase 14, Square C1, Feature 13 81

3.84 Stones from the bin, Feature 13 81

3.85 Room F and Feature 14 82

3.86 Wall 1 and Feature 14 82

3.87 Room F, Phase 14A 83

3.88 West balk of Square F1 83

3.89 Tabun, Feature 1 in Square F1 84

3.90 Tabun, Feature 1 of Phase 14A 84

3.91 West section of Square F1 85

3.92 Pottery from Phase 14 86

3.93 Finds from Phase 14 87

3.94 Plan of Phase 13 88

3.95 Phase 13: Units 10 and 11 89

3.96 Wall 76 and Feature 9 89

3.97 Tabun, Feature 8 in Unit 10 90

3.98 Feature 9, paved area 90

3.99 Cobble feature, Feature 12 in Square C1 90

3.100 South, west, and north sections of Square C1 91

3.101 Pottery from Phase 13 92

3.102 Bricks with reed imprints 93

3.103 Plan of Phase 12B 94

3.104 Plan of Phase 12A 95

3.105 Phase 12B, looking southeast 96

3.106 Wall 66 in the north balk of Square B 96

3.107 Wall 75 97

3.108 Wall 71 97

3.109 Feature 6 (stone feature) 98

3.110 Unit 8 in Phase 12A 99

3.111 Tabun, Feature 5 99

3.112 Pottery from Phase 12 100

3.113 Pottery and finds from Phase 12 101

3.114 Two scarabs from Phase 12 102

3.115 Plan of Phase 11 102

3.116 South, west, and north sections of Square B 103

3.117 Room C in Phase 11 104

3.118 Walls 56, 63 of Room C 104

3.119 Tabun, Feature 1, with Wall 61 105

3.120 Stone foundation of the tabun, Feature 1 105

3.121 Phase 11, Rooms D, B 106

3.122 Floor level with pebbles 106

3.123 Mat imprint(?) in Square B, Phase 11(?) 107

3.124 Pottery from Phase 11, Room C 108
xii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3.125 Pottery from Phase 11 109

3.126 Plan of Phase 10 110

3.127 Room C in Phase 10 111

3.128 Room B in Phase 10 111

3.129 Room B 111

3.130 Hearth, Feature 3 111

3.131 Pottery from Phase 10 112

3.132 Pottery and finds from Phase 10 114

3.133 Amulets from Phase 10 115

3.134 Plan of Phase 9 116

3.135 Room A 117

3.136 Square B: cobbled floor level, Feature 1 117

3.137 Tabun, Feature 5 118

3.138 Phases 8 and 9 in Square A3 118

3.139 Phase 9, Square B 119

3.140 Phase 9, Square B 119

3.141 Tabun, Feature 5 120

3.142 Unit 1 in Square A3 in Phase 9 120

3.143 Pottery from Phase 9, Room A 121

3.144 Pottery from Phase 9 122

3.145 Pottery and finds from Phase 9 123

3.146 Plan of Phase 8 124

3.147 Phase 8 in Square A3 124

3.148 Pottery from Phase 8 125

3.149 Plan of Phase 7 126

3.150 Walls 2 and 3 in Square A3 126

3.151 North balk of Square A3 127

3.152 South, west, and north sections of Square A3 128

3.153 South balk of Square A3 129

3.154 West balk of Square A3 129

3.155 Pottery from Phase 7 130

3.156 Plan of Phase 6 131

3.157 South balk of SquareA2 132

3.158 South, west, and north balks of Square A2 133

3.159 Walls 10, 11, and 12 of Phase 6 134

3.160 Pottery from Phase 6 135

3.161 Pottery and finds from Phase 6 136

3.162 Philistine pottery from Phase 6 138

3.163 Plan of Phase 5 139

3.164 Walls 5 and 6 140

3.165 Pottery from Phase 5 140

3.166 Plan of Phase 4 141

3.167 A possible hard floor level of Phase 4 142

3.168 Pottery from Phase 4 143

3.169 Plan of Phase 3 144

3.170 Square A1: Wall 1 of Phase 3 145

3.171 Walls 1, 2, and 3 145

3.172 Pottery and finds from Phase 3 146

3.173 Plan of Phase 2 147

3.174 Granary Wall 4 148

3.175 Square A1: Walls 1 and 2 148

3.176 Section through fill inside granary 148

3.177 Pottery from lower Pit 3 149

3.178 Pottery and finds from Phase 2 149
NUMBER 50 • xiii

3.179 Plan of Phase 1 150

3.180 Grave, Feature 1 150

3.181 Pottery from Phase 1 151

3.182 Selected unstratified finds from Field III 151

4.1 General photo of Field II 162

4.2 Plan of Field II 163

4.3 East and north balks of Square A6 163

4.4 Square D4, east section 164

4.5 Plan of Phase 6 165

4.6 The stone paving/foundation 166

4.7 Close-up of the stone paving 166

4.8 The stones in Square A3 and a brick wall above it 167

4.9 East–west section through pavement 167

4.10 North section of Square A3 168

4.11 Possible continuations of stones, Feature 5 168

4.12 Pottery from fills under the stone surface (Phase 6/7) 170

4.13 Pottery and finds from fills under the stone surface (Phase 6/7) 172

4.14 Square C2, south and east sections 173

4.15 Wall 2 in section of Square A2 173

4.16 East section of Square A3 174

4.17 Squares D4–D5, south section 174

4.18 Square C3, the trench under the stone surface 175

4.19 Pottery from Phase 6 176

4.20 Pottery and finds from Phase 6 178

4.21 Phase 5: tabun, Feature 4 in Square A3 179

4.22 Square A3 balk 180

4.23 Finds from Phase 5 180

4.24 Plan of Phases 4 and 5 181

4.25 Rounded Pit 1 181

4.26 East section of Square A2 182

4.27 North section of Squares C1–C2 182

4.28 East section of Square C2 (lower part) 183

4.29 Pottery from Phase 4 184

4.30 Plan of Phase 3 185

4.31 Squares A2–C2, Wall 1 185

4.32 Features 12 and 13, Phase 3 186

4.33 Pottery and finds from Phase 3 186

4.34 The bronze bull head weight 187

4.35 Plan of Phase 2 187

4.36 Brick/mud bin, Feature 11, Square C1 187

4.37 Tabun, Feature 4 187

4.38 Squares C1–C2 in Phase 2 188

4.39 Feature 1, Stones and jar, Square C2 188

4.40 Finds from Phase 2 189

4.41 Finds from Phase 1 and unstratified finds 190

4.42 Unstratified finds from Field II 191

4.43 Massive wall in GM Wadi section 191

5.1 Location of the south trench 199

5.2 A view to the south from the trench 200

5.3 The trench during the excavation with the bulldozer 200

5.4 The trench’s interior 201

5.5 Close-up of the northern face of the trench 201

5.6 East balk section of 1987 202

5.7 West balk section of 1987 202
xiv • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

5.8 North balk section of 1987 203

5.9 The area excavated in 1990 203

5.10 Plan of square excavated in 1990 203

5.11 The northern balk section of the areas excavated in 1990 204

5.12 Close-up of the northern balk section 204

5.13 Trench ST1 at the end of the 1990 excavation 205

5.14 Combination of east, north, and west balk sections 205

5.15 Pottery from ST1 206

5.16 Pottery from ST1 207

6.1 General photo of Field I 209

6.2 General photo of Field I prior to excavation 210

6.3 Field I in the beginning of the excavations in 1972 210

6.4 Plan of Phase 9 in Square 3G 211

6.5 Brick floor(?), Feature 10 211

6.6 Tabun, Feature 9 212

6.7 Equid burial, Feature 11 212

6.8 Lower south balk of Square 3G 213

6.9 West balk of Square 3G trench 213

6.10 Pottery from Phase 9 214

6.11 South and west sections of Square 3G trench 215

6.12 North and east sections of Square 3G trench 216

6.13 Plan of Phase 8 217

6.14 Layer 21 and Walls 6 and 7 in Square 3G 217

6.15 Pottery from Phase 8 218

6.16 Plan of Phase 7 219

6.17 Tabun, Feature 7 219

6.18 Pottery from Phase 7 220

6.19 Finds from Phase 7 222

6.20 Plan of Phase 6 223

6.21 Square 3G, Wall 5 224

6.22 Wall 5 and Pit 5 224

6.23 Pottery from Phase 6 226

6.24 Pottery and finds from Phase 6 228

6.25 Plan of Phase 5 229

6.26 Lower pits and Walls 3 and 4 229

6.27 Finds from Phase 5 230

6.28 Plan of Phase 4 230

6.29 Trench in Square 3G 231

6.30 Pits 3 and 4 231

6.31 Pit 3 in Square 3G. 232

6.32 Pottery from Phase 4 233

6.33 Finds from Phase 4 234

6.34 Plan of Phase 3 235

6.35 Field I with Building I 236

6.36 Field I, looking west 236

6.37 Schematic plan of Building I 237

6.38 Access diagram of Building I 237

6.39 Possible threshold of eastern entrance to Building I 238

6.40 Possible threshold 238

6.41 The area under the threshold 239

6.42 Southern wall of Building I 239

6.43 Excavating the paved courtyard 240

6.44 East balk of Test Trench C 240

6.45 West balk of Test Trench A 241
NUMBER 50 • x v

6.46 Courtyard A during excavations. 241

6.47 Upper layer in northern Courtyard A 242

6.48 Section in Building I 242

6.49 Northwest corner of Courtyard A 243

6.50 Northern edge of Courtyard A 243

6.51 Pottery and other finds from Courtyard A 244

6.52 Upper level of Room B 245

6.53 Rounded wall of Room B 246

6.54 Tabun, Feature 5 in Room B 246

6.55 Tabun, Feature 5 in Room B 247

6.56 Finds from Room B 248

6.57 Stone paving in Room C 249

6.58 Plastered area in Room C 250

6.59 Plastered area in Room C 250

6.60 Upper phase of plastered Room C 251

6.61 Stone channel of the sump, Feature 2 251

6.62 Stone channel, drainage, and upper sump 252

6.63 The sump 252

6.64 The sump 253

6.65 The sump 253

6.66 Plaster fragments from the area of Room C 254

6.67 Finds from Room C 255

6.68 Pottery from Room D1–D3 256

6.69 Pottery from Room E 257

6.70 Pottery and finds from Room E 258

6.71 Unit D1 with paving 259

6.72 Plan of higher Phase 3A 259

6.73 The northern section of Building I 260

6.74 The northern section of Building I 260

6.75 Room D3 261

6.76 Debris in Room D3 261

6.77 Wooden beam in entrance to Unit L 262

6.78 Close-up of wooden beam 262

6.79 Eastern part of Unit L 263

6.80 Close-up of Tabun, Feature 2 263

6.81 Tabun, Feature 2 264

6.82 Bottom layer of tabun, Feature 2 264

6.83 Tabun, Feature 11 265

6.84 Western Unit L 265

6.85 Western Unit L 266

6.86 Pottery from Unit L 267

6.87 Pottery from Unit L 268

6.88 Pottery from Unit L 269

6.89 Finds from Unit L 270

6.90 Stone finds from Unit L 271

6.91 Corridor in northern Building I 271

6.92 Northern Building I 272

6.93 Close-up of wooden beam 272

6.94 Units M1 and M2 273

6.95 Paved area (Feature 8A) in Unit M2 273

6.96 Pottery and finds from Unit M1 274

6.97 Pottery and finds from Unit M2 275

6.98 Northern Building I 276

6.99 Room N 276
xvi • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

6.100 Plaster fragments from Room N 277

6.101 Pottery and finds from Rooms N and O 278

6.102 Room O 279

6.103 Reconstruction of Building I 280

6.104 Room F of Building II 281

6.105 Fill in Street J 282

6.106 Pottery from Street J 283

6.107 Pottery and finds from Street J 284

6.108 Pottery from Area K 286

6.109 Pottery and finds from Area K 287

6.110 Paving, Feature 2 in Area K 287

6.111 Sandstone blocks in Area K 288

6.112 Building II, Rooms G and F 288

6.113 Room G in Building II 289

6.114 Doorway in wall of Room G 289

6.115 Room G in Building II 290

6.116 Close-up of tabun (Feature 3) 290

6.117 Section through tabun (Feature 3) 291

6.118 Rooms G and H 291

6.119 Sump, Feature 1A in Area K 292

6.120 Sump, Feature 1A 292

6.121 Pottery from Room F 294

6.122 Pottery and small finds from Room F 296

6.123 Pottery and finds from Building II, Room G 297

6.124 Pottery and finds from Building II, Room H 298

6.125 Pottery from Phase 3, various contexts 299

6.126 Pottery and finds from Phase 3, various contexts 301

6.127 Pottery and finds from Phase 2 303

6.128 Upper layer of test trench in Square 4F 304

6.129 General plan of Phase 1 304

6.130 Plan of Phase 1 in Squares 4D–5D 305

6.131 Bin, Feature 1 in Room 1 306

6.132 Room 1, with the bin, Feature 1 306

6.133 Fill on the floor in Room 1 307

6.134 West section of Square 4D 307

6.135 West section of Square 5D 308

6.136 South balk of Square 4D 308

6.137 South section of Squares 4D–5D 309

6.138 Wall 3 in Square 4D 309

6.139 Section of Wall 8 310

6.140 Upper remains and ash layers 310

6.141 Plan of Phase 1A in Square 2E 311

6.142 Plan of Phase 1B in Square 2E 311

6.143 Walls 2 and 2A 312

6.144 West balk of Square 2E 312

6.145 Northern section of Square 2E 313

6.146 Plan of Square 1F in Phase 1 314

6.147 Square 1F, Wall 2 314

6.148 Square 1F, Wall 2 and Feature 1 315

6.149 Western balk of Square 1F 315

6.150 Lamp and bowl deposit 316

6.151 Lamp and bowl deposit 316

6.152 Unclear circular feature 316

6.153 Pottery and finds from Phase 1, Room 1 318
NUMBER 50 • xvii

6.154 Pottery and finds from Phases 1 320

6.155 Pottery and finds from Phases 1 and 2 322

6.156 Phase 1/3 and unstratified pottery from Field I 323

6.157 A complete krater 324

6.158 Unstratified pottery and small finds from Field I 325

7.1 Location of Field GMI FUR. 337

7.2 The kiln as discovered in 1975 338

7.3 The western face of the kiln 338

7.4 The southern face of the kiln 339

7.5 Plan of Phase 4 339

7.6 Walls D and F in eastern extension 340

7.7 Southern wall of the kiln 341

7.8 Phase 4 in eastern extension in Square FUR IB 341

7.9 Four sections of Square FUR IB 342

7.10 Pottery and small finds from Phase 4 344

7.11 Plan of Phase 3 345

7.12 Wall E from above 346

7.13 North balk of GMI FUR 346

7.14 Balk between western and eastern sections of Field I FUR 347

7.15 The kiln in the midst of excavation 347

7.16 Excavation in the kiln 348

7.17 The kiln after excavation 348

7.18 Plan of excavation in the kiln 349

7.19 Plan of kiln with fallen arches 350

7.20 Plan of kiln with fallen arches 350

7.21 The southern kiln wall 351

7.22 The southern kiln wall 351

7.23 Fallen Arches 2, 3, and 4 351

7.24 Fallen kiln arch bricks with sherds in the joins 352

7.25 Close-up on arches fallen in kiln 352

7.26 Brick Arches 2 and 3 in kiln 353

7.27 A perforated brick 353

7.28 Close-up of Flue A 354

7.29 Flue A 354

7.30 Close-up of Flue B 354

7.31 Kiln flues 354

7.32 Kiln flues 354

7.33 Northern balk and kiln wall 355

7.34 Section in eastern side of stoking hole 355

7.35 East–west section in kiln 356

7.36 Lining of the inner chamber of the kiln 356

7.37 Isometric reconstruction of the kiln 356

7.38 Reconstructed section of the kiln 357

7.39 Isometric inner space of the kiln 357

7.40 Reconstruction of the kiln in use and its vicinity 358

7.41 Cooking pot in possible burial, TT1 358

7.42 Gold foil found in kiln 358

7.43 Pottery and finds from within the kiln 360

7.44 Pottery and finds from Phase 3 362

7.45 Plan of Phase 2 363

7.46 The northern wall of the kiln 364

7.47 Wall 2 above the kiln 364

7.48 North balk of Square FUR 1 365

7.49 Wall 2 and Feature 2 365
xviii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7.50 Wall B and Pit 1 366

7.51 Stone foundation of Wall B 366

7.52 Pottery from Phase 2 368

7.53 Pottery from Phase 2 370

7.54 Philistine pottery from Phase 2 372

7.55 Philistine pottery from Phase 2 374

7.56 Pottery and small finds from Phase 2 375

7.57 Plan of Phase 1 376

7.58 Walls A and A1 376

7.59 Pottery and finds from Phase 1 378

7.60 Plan of GM I Square KB, Phase KB3 379

7.61 Square KB, lower phase 380

7.62 Square KB, lower level 380

7.63 Square KB, lower phase 381

7.64 Features 14 and 15 381

7.65 Close-up of Feature 14 382

7.66 Square KB, looking southwest 382

7.67 Pit 10 and west side of Wall 4 383

7.68 Northwest section of GMI Square KB 383

7.69 Southwestern balk of GMI Square KB 384

7.70 Pottery and finds from Phase KB3 384

7.71 Plan of GMI Square KB, Phase KB2 385

7.72 Pottery and finds from Phase KB2 386

7.73 Plan of GMI Square KB, Phase KB1 387

7.74 Square KB, Pits 5 and 6 387

7.75 Tabun (Feature 2) and jar (Feature 3) 388

7.76 Close-up of the tabun, Feature 2 389

7.77 Close-up of the jar, Feature 3 389

7.78 Pottery and finds from Phase KB1 390

7.79 Installations FUR 2 and FUR 3 391

7.80 Plan of GMI FUR 2 392

7.81 Plan and section of GMI FUR 2 392

7.82 Installation FUR 2 393

7.83 Sherd layer in GMI FUR 2 393

7.84 Pottery from installation FUR 2 394

7.85 Installation FUR 3 395

7.86 Installation FUR 3 395

7.87 Plan and section of GMI FUR 3 396

7.88 Installation FUR 3 396

7.89 Installation FUR 3 floor 397

7.90 Southern wall of GMI FUR 3 397

7.91 Pottery from installation FUR 3 398

8.1 Field IV at the beginning of excavation 403

8.2 General plan of Field IV excavation squares 404

8.3 Test trench in Square 2B 406

8.4 Phase 11, Test Trench 10 407

8.5 Pottery from Phase 11 408

8.6 Finds from Phase 11 409

8.7 Plan of Phase 10 409

8.8 Phase 10: Feature 57 and Walls 36, 38 410

8.9 Pit 35 410

8.10 West balk section of lower Square 2B 411

8.11 Pottery from Phase 10 412

8.12 Pottery from Phase 10 414
NUMBER 50 • xix

8.13 Plan of Phase 9 415

8.14 Wall 35 and the drainage channel, Feature 55 415

8.15 Close-up of the drainage channel, Feature 55 416

8.16 Square 2B with Room C* 416

8.17 Eastern part of foundation trench, Feature 47 416

8.18 Square 2B, section 417

8.19 Close-up of foundation trench (Feature 48) and Wall 28 417

8.20 Foundation trench, Feature 48 418

8.21 Squares 2B–2A, east section 419

8.22 Square 2B, north section 420

8.23 Square 2B, north section 421

8.24 Square 2B, west balk 422

8.25 Square 2B, south balk 422

8.26 Bowls from Phase 9 424

8.27 Pottery from Phase 9 426

8.28 Pottery from Phase 9 427

8.29 Finds from Phase 9 428

8.30 Plan of Phase 8 428

8.31 Pebbled floor and Feature 46 in 429

8.32 Pebbled floor, Feature 46 429

8.33 Pit 10 in Room A* 430

8.34 Fallen vaults (Feature 45) in Room A* 430

8.35 Close-up of fallen vaults in Room A* 431

8.36 Pebbles (Feature 51) in Room A* 431

8.37 Close-up of Wall 21 431

8.38 Phase 8: Room B* 432

8.39 Room B* 432

8.40 Chalky floor in Room B* 432

8.41 Pottery from Phase 8 433

8.42 Pottery from Phase 8 434

8.43 Pottery from Phase 8 435

8.44 Plan of Phase 7B 437

8.45 Plan of Phase 7A 438

8.46 Phase 7 with massive Wall 5 439

8.47 Upper part of Pit 10 439

8.48 Squares 2B–1C, Phase 7 439

8.49 Threshold/doorway in Square 2B, Wall 10 440

8.50 Square 2A from above 440

8.51 Floor level, Layer 30, in Square 2A 441

8.52 Square 2A, Phase 7, pebble layer, Layer 32 441

8.53 Square 2A, Phase 7A, Feature 20 442

8.54 Square 2A, foundation trench of Wall 5A 442

8.55 Square 2A, close-up of foundation trench 443

8.56 Square 2A, Wall 8 443

8.57 Square 2A, Phase 7A, Walls 9 and 10 444

8.58 Bricks lying on narrow side 444

8.59 Corner of Walls 9 and 10 445

8.60 Floor level, Locus 4, Layer 30 in Square 2A 445

8.61 Pottery from Phase 7 446

8.62 Pottery from Phase 7 447

8.63 Pottery from Phase 7 448

8.64 Finds from Phase 7 449

8.65 Pottery from Phase 7 450

8.66 Pottery from Phase 7 452
x x • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

8.67 Plan of Phase 6B 453

6.68 Plan of Phase 6A 454

8.69 Wall 7 in Square 2C 455

8.70 Building II, Room A 455

8.71 Wall 5 of Building II, Room A(?) 456

8.72 Wall 9A in Building II, Room A 456

8.73 Bricks (Feature 17) 456

8.74 Building II, Room B 457

8.75 Feature 27 (Square 2B) 457

8.76 Square 2B: Feature 27 458

8.77 Wall 14 in Square 2B 458

8.78 Square 2B, Layer 36, Locus 2A 459

8.79 Square 2B, Layer 36 459

8.80 Square 3B, Walls 12 and 13 of Phase 6 460

8.81 Square 3B, north section 461

8.82 Square 3B, Wall 5 462

8.83 Two juglets 462

8.84 Pottery and other finds from Phase 6, Building II, Room A 464

8.85 Pottery from Phase 6, Building II, Room B 466

8.86 Pottery from Phase 6, Building II, Room B(?) 467

8.87 Pottery and finds from Phase 6, Building II 468

8.88 Pottery and finds from Phase 6, Building III, Unit 2 469

8.89 Pottery from Phase 6 470

8.90 Plan of Phase 5 471

8.91 Schematic plan of Field IV, Buildings I–III 472

8.92 Room A, Building II, cobble floor (Feature 12) 473

8.93 Cobbles in Room A of Building II 473

8.94 Pottery from Building II, Room A (Phase 5) 474

8.95 Pottery and other finds from Building II, Room A (Phase 5) 475

8.96 Pottery from Building II, Room B (Phase 5) 476

8.97 Pottery and other finds from Building II, Room B (Phase 5) 477

8.98 Pottery from Building II (Phase 5) 478

8.99 Square 2A, Feature 18 478

8.100 Square 3B, Building III, Layer 10 479

8.101 Square 3B, Building III(?) 479

8.102 Square 3B, Pit 5A 480

8.103 Square 3B, Feature 3 480

8.104 Pottery from Building III, Unit 2 481

8.105 Pottery from Building III, Unit 2 482

8.106 Finds from Building III, Unit 2 483

8.107 Plan of Building I, showing vaults and rooms 484

8.108 Building I from above 485

8.109 Floor plan of Building I, showing lower floors 486

8.110 Eroded remains of Wall 1 487

8.111 Building I, Room A 487

8.112 Building I, Room A 488

8.113 Building I, Room A 488

8.114 Building I, Room A 489

8.115 Pottery from Building I, Room A 490

8.116 Finds from Building I, Room A 491

8.117 Assyrian-style pottery from above Building I, Room A 492

8.118 Assyrian-style pottery from above Building I, Room A 493

8.119 Passage between Building I, Rooms A and F 494

8.120 Section of doorway between Rooms A and F 494
NUMBER 50 • xxi

8.121 Building I, Room B 495

8.122 Building I, Room B 495

8.123 Debris in Building I, Room B 496

8.124 Doorway between Rooms E and B 496

8.125 Doorway in Square 1A 497

8.126 Inside doorway between Rooms B and E 497

8.127 Section of doorway between Rooms E and B 498

8.128 Finds from Building I, Room B 499

8.129 Building I, Room C 500

8.130 Building I, Room C 501

8.131 Building I, Room C 501

8.132 Vault in southwestern wall of Room C 501

8.133 Two storage jars on floor of Room C 502

8.134 Close-up of the two storage jars 502

8.135 Finds from Building I, Room C 503

8.136 Brick tumble in Building I, Room E 504

8.137 Close-up of vaults in Building I, Room E 504

8.138 Room E from the inside 505

8.139 Room E from the inside 505

8.140 Building I, Room E 506

8.141 Inside Room E 506

8.142 Close-up of tabun remains 507

8.143 Pottery from Building I, Room E 508

8.144 Finds from Building I, Room E 509

8.145 Floor of upper story and vaulting in Building I, Room F 509

8.146 Floor of Room F 510

8.147 Vault in Room F 510

8.148 Close-up on vaults in Room F 511

8.149 Fill in Room F 511

8.150 Pottery from Building I, Room F 512

8.151 Pottery from Building I, Room F 513

8.152 Pottery from Building I, Room F 514

8.153 Finds from Building I, Room F 515

8.154 Sections through rooms in Building I 515

8.155 Sections through rooms in Building I 516

8.156 Reconstruction and section of Buildings I and II 516

8.157 Suggested isometric reconstruction of Building I 517

8.158 Late Iron Age remains in Petrie’s and the Smithsonian’s 

excavations in Field IV 517

8.159 Foundation trench of Wall 1 519

8.160 Foundation trench of Wall 1 520

8.161 Square 00B: Features 4 and 5 520

8.162 Close-up of vaults in northwest wall of Building I, Room A 521

8.163 Reconstruction of vaulting supporting a floor in Building I 521

8.164 Mortar in between the bricks in vaults 522

8.165 Mortar between voussoirs 522

8.166 Mortar between grooved bricks in a vault 523

8.167 A grooved brick from the vaults 523

8.168 Square 2B east section, upper levels 524

8.169 Square 2B north section, upper levels 525

8.170 Square 2B south section, upper levels 525

8.171 Square 2B west section, upper levels 526

8.172 Square 2A south section 527

8.173 Pottery from Phase 5 528
xxii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

8.174 Pottery from Phase 5 530

8.175 Pottery from Phase 5 531

8.176 Typology plate 1 of Iron II pottery (open vessels) 532

8.177 Typology plate 2 of Iron II pottery (closed vessels) 533

8.178 Plan of Phase 4 545

8.179 Walls 2, 3, and 4, Locus 2 546

8.180 Silo Pit 5 546

8.181 Silo Wall 5P 547

8.182 The silo pit 547

8.183 Silo in section 548

8.184 Phase 4 silo standing to maximum height 548

8.185 Floor of silo 549

8.186 Brick floor of silo 549

8.187 Silo Pit 5 standing on top of Wall 4 550

8.188 Feature 7 with jar 551

8.189 Pottery and finds from Phase 4 552

8.190 Pottery from foundation trench of granary 553

8.191 The granary during excavations 555

8.192 Rounded external wall of granary 555

8.193 Wall of granary during excavations 556

8.194 The granary after excavations 556

8.195 Inner (pier) wall in the granary during excavations. 557

8.196 Granary wall from inside 557

8.197 Granary floor and inner pier wall in Square 2D 558

8.198 Close-up of bricks in granary floor 558

8.199 Granary Wall 1 and Wall 2 559

8.200 Pier wall in granary 560

8.201 Section through granary fill 560

8.202 Granary wall 561

8.203 Jagged bricks 561

8.204 Reconstruction of granary with flat roof 562

8.205 Granaries from Petrie’s excavations 563

8.206 Reconstruction of granary with domed roof 564

8.207 Square 1A, east section 565

8.208 Square 1A, south section 566

8.209 Square 1B, east section 567

8.210 Square 1B, north section 568

8.211 Square 1B, south section 569

8.212 Square 2A, north section 570

8.213 Square 2A, north section, lower levels 570

8.214 Square 2A, TT1, east section 571

8.215 Square 2A, west section 571

8.216 Square 1D, east section 572

8.217 Square 2C, east section 572

8.218 Plan of Phase 3 574

8.219 Square 0A: Wall 1 and Feature 3 575

8.220 Square 0A: Feature 3 575

8.221 Square 0B: Walls 1 and 5 576

8.222 Square 2B: Walls 4 and 5 576

8.223 Square 2A: Feature 6 and ash layer 577

8.224 Close-up of Feature 6 577

8.225 Animal skeleton near Feature 6 578

8.226 Square 2A, north balk, Feature 11 578

8.227 Square 1C: Wall 2 579
NUMBER 50 • xxiii

8.228 Square 1C: Wall 4 579

8.229 Pottery from Phase 3 580

8.230 Pottery from Phase 3 582

8.231 Pottery and other finds from Phase 3 583

8.232 Plan of Phase 2 584

8.233 Square 1A: Wall 1 over Wall 6 585

8.234 Square 2A: Wall 1/1A 585

8.235 Square 2A: Wall 1 586

8.236 Feature 3 near Wall 1 586

8.237 Feature 1 586

8.238 Feature 2 (drain?) 587

8.239 Floor I 587

8.240 Accumulation of pottery inside granary in Square 2D 587

8.241 Lamp in granary fill Square 2D 587

8.242 Pottery and finds from Phase 2 588

8.243 Plan of Phase 1 589

8.244 Square 2B: looking above Pit 2 590

8.245 East and south balks of Square 2B 590

8.246 Human burial in Square 1A 591

8.247 Human burial in Square 2D 591

8.248 Square 2C, skull in Pit 1, Layer 2 592

8.249 Pottery from Phase 1 592

8.250 Pottery from Phase 1 and Crusader-Mamluk pottery 594

8.251 Pottery from Phase 1 595

8.252 Reconstructed pottery vessels from the granary fills 595

8.253 Unstratified pottery and other finds from various periods 596

8.254 Unstratified bowls from Field IV (Persian period) 598

8.255 Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Persian period) 599

8.256 Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae) from Field IV 

(Persian period) 601

8.257 Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period) 602

8.258 Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period) 603

8.259 Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period) 604

8.260 Unstratified pottery (jugs and juglets; Persian period) 605

8.261 Unstratified pottery (jugs and juglets; Persian period) 606

8.262 Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Persian period) 607

8.263 Unstratified flasks and lamps (Persian period) 608

8.264 Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Hellenistic period) 609

9.1 Terra-cotta figurine showing a woman baking bread 646

9.2 A traditional Pakistani tandur (tannur) 646

9.3 A traditional Palestinian tabun 647

9.4 A cooking hearth from Tell Deir ‘Alla 647

10.1 Canaanite decorated pottery 652

10.2 Canaanite decorated pottery 654

11.1 White Painted wares 659

11.2 White Painted wares 660

11.3 White Painted wares 661

11.4 Red-on-Black/Red-on-Red, Black Slip, Monochrome Base 

Ring I, Bucchero, White Shaved, and Plain White wares 661

11.5 Black Slip, and Base Ring II 662

11.6 Base Ring II and derivative forms 663

11.7 Base Ring II 665

11.8 White Slip II, White Slip IIA, White Slip III, and derivative 

White Slip styles 666
xxiv • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

11.9 White Slip II, White Slip IIA, White Slip III, and derivative 

White Slip styles 667

11.10 Mycenaean wares 668

11.11 Mycenaean wares 669

11.12 Iron Age Black-on-Red and White Painted wares 670

11.A Appendix: Catalog images 692

12.1 Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped bowls 723

12.2 Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped kraters 724

12.3 Philistine Bichrome stirrup jars and closed vessels 725

12.4 Forms possibly related to Philistine pottery 726

12.5 Degenerated Philistine bowls, red-slipped Philistine bowls, 

and hybrid bowls 727

12.6 Red-slipped strainer-spouted jug fragments and spouts 728

12.7 Late Philistine decorated pottery 729

12.8 Late Philistine decorated pottery 730

13.1 Collective photo of Assyrian style pottery 732

13.2 Assyrian-style pottery from Petrie’s excavation 733

13.3 Assyrian-style pottery: globular bowls 735

13.4 Assyrian-style pottery: globular bowls 736

13.5 Assyrian-style pottery: open bowls 737

13.6 Assyrian-style pottery: bowls of various types 738

13.7 Assyrian-style pottery: beakers 739

14.1 East Greek imports and Ionian bowls 751

14.2 East Greek imports: banded bowls 753

14.3 East Greek imports: decorated vessels 753

14.4 East Greek amphorae 754

14.5 Attic ware 755

14.6 Attic ware 756

14.7 Attic ware and glazed ware 757

14.8 Attic ware and glazed ware 757

14.9 Various Greek wares 758

14.10 Lamps and Hellenistic wares 760

15.1 Map of loess soils in area of Tell Jemmeh 780

15.2 Tell Jemmeh from the air with soil section 781

15.3 Soil section made by Melson 782

15.4 Photographs of thin sections 787

15.5 Photographs of thin sections 789

15.6 Photographs of thin sections 791

15.7 Comparative grouping of local products 792

16.1 The 3-D scanning apparatus at the Hebrew University 796

16.2 The cluster tree for the 84 bowls 798

16.3 Drawings of Type 1 799

16.4 Drawings of Type 2 799

16.5 Drawings of Type 3 800

16.6 Drawings of Type 4 800

16.7 Drawings of Type 5 801

16.8 Drawings of Type 6 801

16.9 Drawings of Type 7 802

16.10 Drawings of Type 8 802

16.11 Cluster tree with symbols for the petrographic groups 

and the manual classification 803

17.1 Second millennium BCE female plaque figurines 806

17.2 First millennium BCE female plaque figurines 808

17.3 Various composite female figurines 810
NUMBER 50 • xxv

17.4 Various human figurines 812

17.5 Zoomorphic figurines 815

17.6 Zoomorphic figurines 817

17.7 Horse and rider and horse figurines 818

17.8 Various zoomorphic terra-cottas 820

17.9 Zoomorphic libation vessels 821

17.10 Various figurative terra-cottas 825

18.1 Rounded worked sherds 829

18.2 Diameter distribution of disks from all periods 831

18.3 Diameter distribution of MBII disks 831

18.4 Comparison of diameter distributions of MBII, LBII, 

and Iron I disks 832

18.5 Diameter distribution of Iron II disks 832

18.6 Diameter distribution of Persian period disks 832

18.7 Various shaped worked sherds and bases 833

18.8 Perforated worked sherds 834

18.9 Worked sherds with two perforations 836

18.10 Reconstruction of possible use of double-perforated sherd 837

19.1 Marked jar handles 840

19.2 Marked pottery 841

19.3 Marked sherds with possible letters 845

19.4 Marked sherds with various signs 846

19.5 Various ceramic objects 847

19.6 Mud weights 851

19.7 Mud weights 851

19.8 Mud weights, spindle whorls 852

19.9 Mud stoppers 853

19.10 Various mud and clay objects 854

19.11 Metallurgic clay objects 855

20.1 Sealings from MBII context 863

20.2 A selection of sealings with and without impressions 864

20.3 Sealings with impressions from various periods 865

20.4 Seal impressions on sealings 867

20.5 Seal impressions on sealings 869

20.6 Seal impressions on sealings 870

20.7 Seal impressions on sealings and impressions of seals on jars 873

21.1 Bronze spearheads and arrowheads 880

21.2 Iron spear and arrowheads 882

21.3 Various bronze tools 883

21.4 Bronze pins, needles, nails, and sheets 884

21.5 Iron blades and tools 885

21.6 Various iron items and iron bloom 886

21.7 Various metal items 887

22.1 Earrings and rings 901

22.2 Pendants 904

22.3 Metal and stone beads 907

22.4 Faience and glass beads 910

22.5 Clay, bone, and shell beads 913

22.6 Fibulae 915

22.7 Photographs of beads and necklaces 916

23.1 Handstones and pestles 920

23.2 Handstones, pestles, and hammerstones 922

23.3 Various stone artifacts 924

23.4 Spindle whorls and perforated items 926
xxvi • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

23.5 Scale weights 927

23.6 Mortar, pebble, and spindle whorls 928

23.7 Potter’s wheel pivot found on the site’s surface 930

23.8 Various stone artifacts 931

23.9 Stone vessels 934

23.10 Stone vessels 936

23.11 Incense burners 939

23.12 Incense burners 940

24.1 Amulets: Catalog Nos. 1–12 971

24.2 Amulets: Catalog Nos. 13–23 975

25.1 Faience and glass objects 978

25.2 Bone and ivory inlays 981

25.3 Bone inlays (bird-shaped box) 982

25.4 Bone spatulas 983

25.5 Various bone tools and objects 984

25.6 Pumice fragments 985

26.1 Sickle flakes 992

26.2 Sickle segments with medium to heavy gloss 993

26.3 Sickle segments with light gloss 994

26.4 Unused (nonglossy) large geometric sickle segments 995

26.5 Chalcolithic artifacts 996

26.6 Other tools 999

26.7 Sickles with remains of plaster 1000

27.1 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 130–134 1005

27.2 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 135–140 1007

27.3 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 141–145 1008

27.4 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 146–150 1010

27.5 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 151–154 1012

27.6 Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 155–160 1013

27.7 Stamp seals: Gamma Nos. 207–211 1015

28.1 The seal, Reg. No. 1234 1017

28.2 Drawing of the seal, Reg. No. 1234 1018

29.1 A limestone cylinder seal, Reg. No. 1233 1021

30.1 A stray silver coin 1023

30.2 Coin, Cat. No. 1 1024

30.3 Coin, Cat. No. 2 1024

30.4 Coin, Cat. No. 3 1024

30.5 Coin, Cat. No. 4 1024

31.1 The coins from the Crusader purse 1029

32.1 Hebrew ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1032

32.2 Aramaic ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1034

32.3 Aramaic ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1035

32.4 Various ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1037

33.1 LBII caprine mortality 1044

33.2 Iron IIC caprine mortality 1048

33.3 An inscribed bone fragment 1049

34.1 Map of Israel with sites mentioned in the text 1055

34.2 Building I and possibly similar Assyrian period buildings 1058

34.3 Map of Mesopotamia with sites mentioned in the text 1059
1.1 Suggested comparative phasing of the different fields 

of excavation 14

2.1 Average rainfall at the Tell Jemmeh area by decade 18

2.2 Estimated size of the tell for different periods 20

3.1 Occupation phases in Field III 23

3.A1 List of contexts of Field III 153

4.A1 List of contexts of Field II 192

5.A1 List of contexts from Trench ST1 208

6.A1 List of contexts of Field I 327

7.A1 List of contexts of Field I FUR 1–FUR 3 399

7.A2 List of contexts of Field I, Square KB 400

8.1 General phasing of remains uncovered in the squares of Field IV 405

8.2 Finds from the different rooms of Building I (Phase 5) 518

8.3 Iron II types and wares according to phases in Field IV 534

8.4 Iron II types and wares according to architectural elements 

in Phase 5 535

8.5 Measurements of granaries excavated at Tell Jemmeh 573

8.A1 List of contexts of Field IV 611

11.1 Field I: Distribution of stratified Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery 658

11.2 Field I: Distribution of Base Ring II forms by phase 658

11.3 Fields I–IV: Distribution of Base Ring II forms 658

11.4 Field I: Distribution of White Slip wares by level 658

13.1 Major and minor elemental concentrations of Assyrian-style 

vessels 740

13.2 List of Assyrian style pottery from Tell Jemmeh selected 

for this study 742

14.1 Basic distribution of imports arranged according to fabric group 749

14.2 Basic typology of the Attic imports according to technique 750

15.1 List of samples from Tell Jemmeh 777

15.2 Main characteristics of petrographic groups 783

15.3 Samples with petrographic grouping and suggested provenance 784

17.1 Female plaque figurines 805

17.2 Standing, pillar, and other human figurines 811

17.3 Zoomorphic figurines 813

17.4 Zoomorphic libation vessels 822

List of Tables
xxviii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

17.5 Fragments from zoomorphic figurines or vessels 824

17.6 Various figurative terra-cottas 826

18.1 Rounded worked sherds 830

18.2 Basic metrics of disks according to periods 831

18.3 Rounded sherds with two perforations 835

19.1 Marked handles 839

19.2 Sheds with marks 843

19.3 Selected clay and mud items 849

19.4 Crucibles and tuyères 854

20.1 List of clay sealings from Tell Jemmeh 858

21.1 Selected metal items 877

22.1 Jewelry and beads from Tell Jemmeh 890

23.1 Ground stone artifact lithology 918

23.2 Descriptive statistics for complete and incomplete handstones 923

23.3 Descriptive statistics for hammerstones 933

23.A1 Tell Jemmeh stone artifacts database 943

25.1 Selected glass objects 979

25.2 Selected bone and ivory objects 980

26.1 Raw material frequencies according to selected debitage 

and tool types 988

26.2 Raw material frequencies according to sickle type 989

26.3 Waste and debitage frequencies by period 989

26.4 Tool type frequencies by period 990

26.5 Summary of average sickle metrics 997

26.6 General retouch type frequencies 997

26.7 Summary of large geometric sickle shapes 997

26.8 Summary of loci with evidence for sickle manufacture 1001

26.9 Sickle frequencies relative to total tools, according to period 1001

26.10 Tool and waste frequencies 1002

31.1 Amaury billon type varieties 1027

32.1 Additional ostraca and possible ostraca from Tell Jemmeh 1036

33.1 Faunal distribution by time period and field of excavation 1039

33.2 Species distribution at Tell Jemmeh 1039

33.3 Faunal abundance by time period 1040

33.4 MBIIB-C animal skeletal parts 1042

33.5 LBII animal skeletal parts 1043

33.6 Late Bronze Age II caprine fusion data 1044

33.7 Late Bronze Age II burnt bones 1045

33.8 Spatial distribution of LBII fauna 1046

33.9 Species distribution, Iron IIB 1046

33.10 Iron IIC animal skeletal parts 1047

33.11 Iron Age IIC caprine fusion 1048

33.12 Faunal distribution, Iron IIC 1048

33.A1 List of shells with preliminary identification 1052

34.1 Main examples of Neo-Assyrian architectural elements 

in the Levant 1062
This volume is the final excavation report, presenting the results of the archaeological excavation at Tell Jemmeh, conducted on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution 

and directed by Gus W. Van Beek. 

Gus Willard Van Beek, born in Tulsa, Oklahoma, joined the Smithsonian Museum 

of Natural History as a curator of Old World Archaeology in 1959. Until then Gus had 

been a research associate at Johns Hopkins University, where he had previously studied 

archaeology and was mentored by William Foxwell Albright. Until 1969 he conducted 

research on pre-Islamic South Arabia, Yemen, and Ethiopia, but changing political conditions in the region during the 1960s made further archaeological work there impossible. 

During 1969 the region of Gaza drew his attention as an end terminus of the Arabian 

trade route; Gus also found parallels for pottery he studied in Arabia in W. M. F. Petrie’s 

publication of “Gerar.” The next step of choosing the site of Tell Jemmeh near Gaza as an 

excavation site seemed natural, and during the summer of the 1970 the first season began, 

and the first squares were opened just north of Petrie’s pit, roughly north of the center 

of the mound. The excavation continued for nine large-scale seasons every summer until 

1978. In fact, the field work was planned to end by 1978, but it was resumed in 1982 

and 1984 mainly to further investigate the earlier periods in the site in the step trenches 

on the slopes of the tell. Finally, a short season was initiated during 1990 to examine a 

southern trench (previously cut in 1987) possibly indicating Bronze Age fortifications. 

Thus, the original research design was modified extensively through the 12 field seasons of excavations, becoming far more ambitious and diverse. The modifications were 

made in response to the ever-increasing knowledge of the site and its artifacts, which 

sparked new questions often raised by chance finds, such as the Philistine ceramic kiln 

and the two fine Late Bronze II vessels from the east slope. Eventually, rather than dealing 

with pre-Islamic Arabian trade, the site and its culture proved to be an important source 

of Bronze and Iron Age remains, contributing much data, some of it unique and surprising, to the archaeology of the Levant. 

The expedition was housed during the entire period in the nearby Kibbutz Re’im; 

the kibbutz members were extremely helpful, and many participated in the excavations. 

In particular, we thank Greta Cymbalista, Amnon Gat, and Rami Sproukt from Kibbutz 

Re’im. During the course of the excavations hundreds of volunteers from the United 

States and other parts of the world worked in the field. It is impossible to list them all 

here, but we thank them all. Ora Van Beek and her three children, Amir, Dani, and 

Timna Pilch, also played an important part in the field work and afterward. We present 

here as many names of staff members who participated in the excavations as possible 

(with the assistance of Ron Gardiner; Figures P.1–P.4). They include dig architects Brian 

Preface and Acknowledgments
xxx • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE P.1. Season 1973 photo. In the front row, volunteer Art Bissell (in headdress), Gus Van Beek, 

Ora Van Beek, Amir Pilch, Dani Pilch, and Timna Pilch.

FIGURE P.2. Season 1976 photo. Standing in the back row, from left: Ron Gardiner, Jerry Schaeffer, unknown, unknown, Gary Rollefson; far right: Van Button. Sitting, from left: Diane Fenicle, Debbie Weinstein, Ora Van Beek, Gus Van Beek.
NUMBER 50 • xxxi

FIGURE P.3. Season 1977 photo. Standing in the back row, from left: Van Button, three unknown 

people, Jerry Schaeffer, and, one from the far right, Ron Gardiner. Second row from the back, 

second from right: Diane Fenicle. Sitting, from right: unknown, Brian Lalor (architect), Gus Van 

Beek, Roy Griffiths (photographer).

FIGURE P.4. Season 1978 photo (first half). Standing in the back row, from left: unknown, unknown, Ron Gardiner; far right: Egon Lass. Middle row, standing from left, middle: Jeannie Jasper 

(cook), unknown, Bonnie Magness, unknown, Brian Lalor. Front row, sitting, from left: Ted Sunderhaus, unknown, Ora Van Beek, Gus Van Beek, Gary Rollefson.
xxxii • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Lalor, David Sheehan, David Price Williams, and R. Seligman; 

photographers Victor Krantz and Roy Griffiths; and cook Jennie Jasper. Other staff members were Van Button, Diane Fenicle, 

Lucy Foley, Ron Gardiner, Alison Kraskey, Egon Lass, Linda B. 

Linsberg, Bonnie Magness (Gardiner), Lee Marfoe, W. S. Measday, John F. Merkel, W. Meyer, Wendy Nimer, W. T. Potts, Gary 

Rollefson, Ted Sunderhaus, Jerry Schaeffer, Jennifer Schmertz, 

Martin Shea, Roger Trick, David E. Weil, Deborah Weinstein, 

and Fran Weiss. The field photographs were taken by Victor 

Krantz, Roy Griffith, Gus Van Beek, and Donald Ortner. 

Financial support for the excavation was given by the Smithsonian Institution, the Smithsonian’s Bruce Hughes Endowment 

for the History of Religion, and the National Geographic Society. 

During the course of the field work and afterward all the finds 

from the excavation were transported to Washington, D.C. In 

the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) a dedicated 

team of volunteers worked for over 30 years on the reconstruction and the treatment of the pottery vessels and other artifacts 

(Figure P.5). They include Marnie Akins, Art Bissell, Lucinda 

Conger, Elizabeth Craft, Betty Hays, BeBe Katim, Rosemary 

Monagan, Priscilla Williams, and Pamela Rogers (art work). 

Names of other volunteers could not be retrieved at the time 

of the writing. Geological samples and soils were analyzed by 

Bill Melson, curator, Department of Mineral Science, and glass 

and metal finds were cleaned and analyzed by the Conservation 

Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution, now the 

Museum Conservation Institute. In the final stage further treatment and cleaning of metal artifacts were carried out in the Israel 

Antiquities Authority (IAA) metal laboratory.

A number of people participated in the treatment of the artifacts and the preparation of various parts of this volume. Artifact drawings were made by Marcia Bakry, Olga Dubovsky, Gina 

Tibbott, Leonardo Pajarola (glyptics), and Pamela Rogers. Photographs of artifacts were taken by the NMNH photographic 

unit, including (but not limited to) Donald Hurlbert and James 

Di Loreto, Clara Amit of the IAA, Gabi Laron of the Hebrew 

University, and David Ben-Shlomo. Digitization of photographs 

and plans and graphic work was done by Jeremy Rosenberg, 

Janet T. Beck, Agnes I. Stix, and Liese Meier.

The publication project was funded generously by the 

Shelby White–Leon Levy Program, the Scholarly Studies Program of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Smithsonian 

FIGURE P.5. The pottery reconstruction volunteers in the basement of the NMNH. From left to right: Elizabeth Craft, Rosemary Monagan, Betty Hays, Marnie Akins, Lee Hitchcock, BeBe Katim.
NUMBER 50 • xxxiii

Women’s Committee. The project was also supported financially 

by the NMNH Director’s Office (under Robert Fry, 2001–2003, 

and under Cristián Samper, 2003–2012), the Mediterranean Archaeological Trust, and anonymous donors. We thank in particular the former director of the museum, Cristián Samper, and 

the staff of the Department of Anthropology, Mary Jo Arnoldi, 

David Hunt, Laurie Burgess, Deborah Hull-Walski, Daniel Rogers, Bruno Frohlich, Melinda Zeder, Dennis Stanford, and Zaborian Payne, for their support and volunteers, including Janet T. 

Beck, Agnes I. Stix, and Pamela Rogers. The Israel Antiquities 

Authority (formerly Department of Antiquities) is also thanked 

for its full cooperation at all times and support of the excavation, 

analysis of the finds, and their publication. 

We thank all the contributors of chapters to this volume; some 

agreed to complete their contribution on relatively short notice. We 

also thank Amihai Mazar for carefully reviewing the manuscript 

and supplying numerous helpful comments, Joe Uziel for editing 

chapters 1–8 and his helpful comments, and the staff and editors 

of the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Deborah Stultz, 

Tshawna Byerly, Meredith McQuoid and Ginger Strader, for their 

advice and support and meticulous work on the manuscript.

The writing and concluding of this short preface come with 

mixed emotions. On the one hand, I have great satisfaction as 

this publication project of Tell Jemmeh is completed successfully, 

bringing this cycle of over 40 years, which started in the late 

1960s, to a close. On the other hand, I feel great sorrow that I 

have to write these lines instead of the person who should probably be thanked the most on this occasion and who intended to 

write this preface himself, Donald Ortner. 

Don, who was Gus’s colleague and best friend, initiated the 

final stage of the publication project of Tell Jemmeh during 2008 

and was the driving force behind this volume until his untimely 

and sudden passing on April 30, 2012. Several months afterward, Gus Van Beek passed away. Without Don’s persistence, 

enthusiasm, and great skills this book would not have existed. 

This may not be the place to list all of Don’s virtues as a person, 

a scientist, and a scholar, but they were many. I hope at least that 

this volume dedicated to him will serve his memory well.

1 Introduction

David Ben-Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek

LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE SITE 

AND HISTORICAL-TEXTUAL BACKGROUND

The archaeological site of Tell Jemmeh (Tel Re’im) is a 

prominent mound located in the region of the northwestern 

Negev and the southern coastal plain of Israel, about 12 km 

south of Gaza and 9 km west of the Mediterranean coast (Figure 1.1, map references: New Israel Grid, 147.588, Old Israel 

Grid, 097.088). The site is situated in a strategic location on 

the southern fringe of a sedentary settlement, close to the important maritime gateway of Gaza and on the crossroads of 

the major coastal highway connecting Egypt and Asia and the 

route from Arabia to the main coastal gateways on the Mediterranean coast. Even today, it stands prominently overlooking the modern roadway, giving the junction its modern name 

(the Gemma Junction). Throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages 

the sites of the western Negev presented a unique combination 

of the material cultures of the regions surrounding it. A case 

in point is the Iron Age II (10th–7th centuries BCE), when the 

region witnessed the intensive political, military, cultural, and 

commercial activity of Egypt and Assyria as well as settlement 

of Arabs, Phoenicians, and perhaps also Greeks. This region 

became pivotal in the administration of the spice trade network (“Sahar Arav”) that commenced at the Gaza, Ashkelon, 

and Ruqeish headquarters.

The site of Tell Jemmeh is a hill located on the southern 

bank of the Besor River (Wadi Ghazzeh, Figures 1.2–1.4). The 

natural hill is about 45 m high, with the accumulation of layers representing human activity, spanning from the Chalcolithic through the Persian periods, adding about 18 m to the 

height of the hill. Later periods are not represented on the 

tell, indicating that the location of the site (especially during 

the Byzantine and Mamluk period) likely shifted to the lower 

city south of the tell (see Schaefer, 1979, 1989, “site 1”). The 

tell suffers from continuous erosion due to the flooding of the 

Besor River located on the north side of the mound (see also 

Petrie, 1928:2, pls. II:2, III:2). This phenomenon is intensified 

because of the brittle character of the local loess soil. The area 

FIGURE 1.1. Map of southern Israel and location of Tell Jemmeh (31° 

23′ 15′′ N, 34° 26′ 41′′ E).
2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 1.2. Aerial photo of Tell Jemmeh.

FIGURE 1.3. The dry Besor River and eroded side of Tell Jemmeh. FIGURE 1.4. Tell Jemmeh during the early 20th century.
NUMBER 50 • 3

way to Egypt and that it was important to the Egyptians during 

the New Kingdom. 

During the late Iron Age the town of Arzâ (Arsca) is mentioned in various Neo-Assyrian texts (see, e.g., Bagg, 2007:29–

30). In the Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal texts (680–627 

BCE), several campaigns to Philistia are described (see Tadmor, 

1966:97). It seems Esarhaddon favored a more aggressive military policy as a means of maintaining economic and political 

control of Phoenicia and Philistia. In 679 BCE, approximately 

a year and a half after his accession, he undertook his first campaign to Philistia, plundered Arzâ, a hitherto unknown place on 

the Egyptian border, and took its king, Asuhili, captive. In the 

records of Esarhaddon there is a mention of Asuhili, the king 

of Arzâ, and his courtiers, who were taken in chains to Assyria 

(Oded, 1979:34).

Na’aman (1979) suggested in a detailed article that the Besor 

River is the “Brook of Egypt” mentioned in the Bible (“Nahal 

Mizraim,” מצרים נחל (and in various Assyrian texts (mostly royal 

inscriptions). The identification of the Brook of Egypt was often 

linked with Wadi El ‘Arish (e.g., Aharoni, 1987), yet Na’aman 

(1979:76) suggests this location is too remote and void of nearby 

settlements to fit the biblical descriptions. If the identification of 

the Brook of Egypt is correct, then “Yurza” of the Late Bronze 

Age and “Arza” of the Neo-Assyrian and later texts, lying on the 

Brook of Egypt, are likely to be the same town, both located at 

Tell Jemmeh. The town is mentioned in Esarhaddon texts (681–

669 BCE) as “[Ar]zani which is on the Brook of Egypt” (BM 

K8523, 13 obverse, Pritchard, 1969:292). This is in contrast to 

other sites, such as the mention of “Rapihu in the region adjacent

to the Brook of Egypt” [emphasis added in quotes]. Thus, if one 

links between [Ar]zani and Tell Jemmeh, which is actually on the 

Besor River, this strengthens the identification of the Besor River 

as the Brook of Egypt during this period, as Na’aman suggested. 

Therefore, it seems highly probable that Sargon’s campaign 

to the city of the Brook of Egypt in 716 BCE and Esarhaddon’s 

conquest of Arsa around 679 BCE (mentioned in several inscriptions: Oppenheim, 1969:290, 292; Tadmor, 1966:97–98) refer 

to Tell Jemmeh and that during the subsequent Assyrian occupation, the site played an important role in Esarhaddon’s and 

Ashurbanipal’s conquest of Egypt. Nevertheless, such an identification would suggest the appearance of a destruction level dated 

to the early 7th century BCE at the site (corresponding to the 679 

BCE campaign). Although this matter will be discussed following the presentation of the excavation results (see chapter 34), 

it is clear that the continued settlement of the site and its name 

further demonstrate the importance of this strategic town. The 

Egyptian expression “from Yurza to the outer ends of the earth” 

(see Maisler, 1952:50) vividly reflects its status as a border town.

Arzâ is also mentioned in two documents found at Nimrud, 

in possible relation to deportees that were possibly settled there 

by the Assyrians (Na’aman and Zadok, 1988; Bagg, 2007:29–

30). One of the fragmentary texts (ND 2767, reverse, Saggs, 

2001:163–164) mentions the anxiety of the writer (who is writing to the Assyrian king and may be an Assyrian official of a 

deportee aiding the Assyrians) from the raids of the local men of 

Ezai (a seemingly local west Semitic clan).1

of the hill originally consisted of 4.9 hectares (see below, according to the 48 m height contour estimation), yet during the late 

20th century only 3.3 hectares remained. Excavations indicate 

that during the Bronze and Iron Ages the entire area of the hill, 

or most of it, was probably settled.

W. J. Pythian-Adams (1923:146), who was the first to excavate the site, proposed to identify Tell Jemmeh with ancient 

Gerar, a town mentioned in the Bible in passages primarily 

dealing with the Patriarchs (Gen. 10:19, 20:1–2, 26:1–26; 2 

Chron. 14:13–14). The Byzantine site of Umm Gerar, some 3.6 

km down the Nahal Besor from Tell Jemmeh, helped support 

this claim, as according to Pythian-Adams, the name drifted 

there from the biblical town of Gerar, which must have been 

nearby. Petrie (1928:2) followed Pythian-Adams in also identifying Jemmeh with Gerar: “That the mound of Tell Gemmeh 

is the site of the ancient Gerar is indicated by the name of the 

district El Jura around it, and by the name of a daughter town 

Umm Jerar, entirely of Roman age, at a couple of miles downstream.” This identification was accepted by virtually all scholars and was assumed in most archeological publications from 

1929 until 1952.

In 1952, B. Maisler (Mazar) argued that Tell Jemmeh 

should be identified with Yurza (Yurtza), a Canaanite town 

mentioned in the annals of Thutmose III, in his cities list of the 

southern Levant, and in the Tell el Amarna correspondence 

(Maisler, 1952:48–51). Today, most scholars accept this identification. The association of Tell Jemmeh to Yurza is based on the 

site’s prominence and strategic positing, controlling the coastal 

route on the very southern edge of the Canaanite territory. This 

identification is further substantiated by the petrographic provenancing of two el Amarna letters written from Yurza’s governor 

Pû-Ba’lu (see below) to the king of Egypt to Tell Jemmeh (Goren 

et al., 2004:300).

As noted above, Yurza (or Yurs.a) is mentioned in several 

Late Bronze Age Egyptian sources (e.g., Pritchard, 1950:483–

490; Maisler, 1952; Aharoni, 1987:130,140). In the Thutmosis 

III conquest list it is mentioned together with Sharuhen on the 

southwest border of Canaan. This passage appears in the telling 

of the Pharaoh’s Asiatic Campaign (ca. 1468 BCE), in the justification of events that culminated in the battle of Megiddo: “but 

it happened in later times that the garrison which were there in 

the town of Sharuhen, while from Yurza to the outer ends of 

the earth had become rebellious against his majesty” (Pritchard, 

1969:235). Here, Yurza (Yurtza) clearly represents the southern 

border of Palestine. A similar location is also indicated by the 

geographical list of Thutmosis III, where Yurza (number 60 in 

the list, “Yrd”) follows three names: Ngb (presumably Negeb), 

Shshhn, and Rnm; Yurza is followed by a series of towns listed 

from south to north along the major north–south coastal route, 

the via maris, and its branches. In the el Amarna letters (Knudtzon, 1910:916–921, nos. 314–316, 1915:1350–1351) Yurza is 

mentioned in two letters from the governor of the town (“the 

man-ruler of Yurza,” Maisler, 1952:49). The governor, Pû-Ba’lu 

or Pû-Haddu, refers to an Egyptian official (Riapana) appointed 

over him. From these documents it seems that the town was the 

capital of the Canaanite kingdom on the southern coast on the 
4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

A more substantial excavation was conducted at the site 

by W. M. F. Petrie in an excavation season the lasted from December 17, l926, until May 15, l927 (with up to 380 Bedouin 

workers), and the findings were published in a final report (Petrie, 1928). With Petrie’s main interest in the site being Egyptian 

influence on Palestine (and creating a comparable seriation of 

the pottery vessels), Jemmeh provided him with a border site, 

exposed to both Egyptian culture and the Philistine culture of the 

early Iron Age. Petrie excavated about 2,300 m2

 in a single area 

on the top of the mound (Petrie, 1928: pl. IV). 

Six strata or “town” plans were defined by Petrie in his excavation, dating from the Late Bronze Age to the Persian period. 

The excavation reached a depth of about 4.5–9.0 m below the 

surface, and in the northwestern corner of the area, he excavated 

an additional probe 6 m deep, down to virgin soil. Of the latter, no plans or artifacts were published. As it is not the aim of 

this report to analyze the previous excavations at the site, these 

are represented only in a short descriptive manner. Nevertheless, 

the six plans published by Petrie are presented in this report for 

comparison and for the convenience of the readers (Figures 1.5–

1.10). Petrie’s dates for the individual levels is often problematic 

as a certain degree of mixing occurred between them and some 

of the structures shown on the same plans apparently belong to 

different phases. Moreover, finds allocated to specific units or 

rooms may not come from the floor levels but rather from previous or subsequent phases in the same location.3

Several MBIIB-C vessels are illustrated from Cemetery I 

(Petrie, 1928:22, pl. LXII, top left). The earliest level described 

in Petrie’s report is denoted “the town of the XVIIIth Dynasty” 

(Figure 1.5; Petrie, 1928:5–6, pl. VI), also termed the J-K layer 

following the names of the structures from this level. This level 

is dated to LBII–Iron IA (Petrie attributed it to Thutmose III) 

and includes at least two multiroom (courtyard?) houses. Several kilns, denoted by Petrie as “iron” or “sword furnaces,” 

were also associated with this level (Petrie, 1928:14, pl. VI, bottom), although they are isolated from each other and have various suggested datings. Above this level, the “town of the XXth 

Dynasty” (Figure 1.6; Petrie, 1928:6, pl. VII), or Level G-H, was 

uncovered, associated with Philistine Bichrome pottery (Petrie, 

1928: pls. XLIII–XLIV) and the Iron IB or 12th century BCE 

(related to the time of Ramesses III). The plan for this level, 

which apparently is a combination of several phases, included 

at least seven domestic structures, although all are fragmentary, 

and thus a coherent town plan from this period is difficult to 

reconstruct. 

The next level, “the XXIInd Dynasty town,” Level E-F 

(Figure 1.7; Petrie, 1928:6,7, pl. IX), is characterized by extensive rebuilding with deep brick wall foundations. The plan 

of this level illustrates several similar buildings or complexes 

that are composed of elongated parallel rooms; the walls are 

massive and well built of standardized bricks. Petrie dated this 

level to the day of Shoshenq, or Iron IIA (10th–9th centuries 

BCE); this level was cut by the rounded Persian period granaries (Figure 1.10). Some Assyrian-style pottery was associated 

with this level. The “town of the XXIIIrd Dynasty,” or Level 

C-D (Figure 1.8; Petrie 1928:7, pl. X), is also denoted as the 

Regarding later periods, B. Mazar suggested that Yurtza was 

pronounced “Yarda” in later times (possibly in earlier times as 

well). Thus, by the 1st century CE, Yurtza was apparently known 

as Yardan, a town mentioned by Josephus as being near the 

border of Arabia. Linguistically, the transition from Yardan to 

Ordon (Orda) in Greek is by no means difficult. Thus, we have 

the equation Yurtza (Yurza) = Yardan = Orda. The location of 

Orda, therefore, became a major part of the discussion. In 1954, 

Avi Yonah (1954:73, no. 105 and pl. 9) agreed with Maisler’s 

proposed identification and with his suggestion that Orda was to 

be sought in the vicinity of Tell Jemmeh. Schaefer’s (1979, 1989) 

research has shown that a large Byzantine town was located in 

a site adjacent to Tell Jemmeh to the south during the 4th–7th 

centuries CE, with an estimated size of no less than 25 hectares 

(61.78 acres). A Mamluk level was also found there. Of the town, 

only traces and scattered artifacts remain because of weathering, 

the robbing of building materials, and destruction by the plow 

and erosion. The town possibly contained a large pottery industry concentrating on the production of storage jars; one or more 

churches, as shown by a large piece of a marble chancel screen 

with a Greek inscription; a number of important buildings and 

dwellings, indicated by quantities of tesserae from mosaic floors 

seen and destroyed in our time; the torso of a draped marble 

statue; and, finally, a cemetery now partially cut by the Kissufim road; it also participated in international trade with Syria, 

Asia Minor, North Africa, and Cyprus. Thus, the derivation of 

the name “Orda” from “Yurza” and the proximity of this large 

Byzantine site to Tell Jemmeh suggest that this Byzantine town 

was, indeed, Orda. Other Byzantine and medieval sites were also 

recorded in the vicinity of Tell Jemmeh, as well as in the survey of 

the northwest Negev (Schaefer, 1989:52–54, fig. 13).

PREVIOUS EXCAVATIONS AT TELL JEMMEH

During the early 20th century CE, Tell Jemmeh was a wellknown site with ancient mud brick walls and structures standing several meters high (Figure 1.4; see Titolo).2

 The first short 

excavation of Jemmeh was undertaken from October 20 to 23, 

1922, by W. J. Pythian-Adams (l923:140–146). Initially, he selected an area labeled “Y” on the edge of the tell’s narrow section overlooking the southern eroded bay. Upon finding what 

he described as “a number of well built stone house walls,” he 

abandoned this area. The second area, designated “X” on his 

plan, was on the opposite side of the “waist” descending into the 

northern eroded bay, probably about 25–30 m north of “Base 

Point A” (Pythian-Adams, 1923: pl. II). There he excavated a 

narrow step trench, apparently no more than 1.0–1.5 m wide, to 

a depth of 11.2 m, leaving another 4 or 5 m of debris above virgin soil unexcavated. He identified 10 strata in the trench, which 

he dated between the Late Bronze II and Persian periods. The 

excavation came to an abrupt end as during the night, a battle 

broke out between salt-smuggling Bedouin and government police along the nearby route between Khan Yunis and Beer-Sheba. 

Pythian-Adams returned to Gaza the following day; he never 

came back to complete this initial probe. 
NUMBER 50 • 5

FIGURE 1.5. Petrie Level J-K (Petrie, 1928: pl. VI).
6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 1.6. Petrie Level G-H (Petrie, 1928: pl. VII).
NUMBER 50 • 7

FIGURE 1.7. Petrie Level E-F (Petrie, 1928: pl. IX).
8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 1.8. Petrie Level C-D (Petrie, 1928: pl. X).
NUMBER 50 • 9

FIGURE 1.9. Petrie Level A-B (Petrie, 1928: pl. XI).
1 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

he suggests it was destroyed only in the Persian period during the 5th century BCE (Petrie, 1928:7). Reich (1996) related 

these structures to the Neo-Assyrian period, especially because 

of their plan but also because of stratigraphical considerations 

(see also chapter 8). 

The latest occupation level excavated by Petrie is characterized by a series of rounded granaries dispersed all over the site 

and cutting previous layers (Figure 1.10; Petrie, 1928:8–10, pls. 

XIII–XIV, XV:1). This level is dated to the Persian period and 

also included some fragmentary structures composed of thinwalled storage rooms. The granaries are reconstructed by Petrie 

as having tall, domed roofs (Petrie, 1928: pl. XIV:2), and they 

were seemingly constructed in some cases on top of thick constructional fills leveling the area beneath them. Petrie interpreted 

these granaries as large storage facilities built by the Persian Empire to supply their army in relation to their campaigns in Egypt 

(Petrie, 1928:9).

Although in Petrie’s report only a representative fraction of 

the vessels and finds are illustrated, the reports still present a 

rich pottery assemblage mostly from the LBII, Iron I, I Iron II, 

and Persian periods, including Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery, 

Philistine Bichrome pottery, and cast quantities of Assyrian-style 

pottery, as well as a large number of small finds. Especially notable is the large collection of clay figurines and terra-cottas, 

“town of Amaziah” and thus was dated to the 9th century BCE. 

Generally, this plan somewhat resembles Level E-F in its general 

layout and structure type (showing the reuse of walls and similar building technique; Petrie, 1928: pl. XII), although those in 

Level C-D are more fragmentary. Most Assyrian-style pottery 

was associated with this level (Petrie, 1928:7, 22–24, pl. LXV), 

especially in grain pit DZ.

The most substantial and complete architectural exposure 

occurred in the uppermost level, denoted the “town of the XXVIth Dynasty,” Level A-B (Figure 1.9; Petrie, 1928:7–8, pls. XI, 

XII:4,5). The main structure is a large, nearly square fort measuring about 45 × 37 m; it is composed of parallel elongated 

and small square rooms, similar to the structures in Levels E-F 

and C-D, yet this structure is much larger with much thicker 

walls (2.5–3.0 m thick in some places). To the west another 

large complex is recorded, with a different orientation; it is 

composed of a series of elongated and square rooms, many 

of them surrounding a large courtyard. Despite the different 

orientations, Petrie dates this structure as a residency of the 

same level yet notes that its orientation is aligned with the 

structures of the previous levels. Petrie dates the construction 

of Level A-B to the late 7th century BCE (compared to the 

sites of Defenneh and Naukratis in Egypt), denoted also “the 

fort of Psamtek,” but as Attic pottery was also found here, 

FIGURE 1.10. Petrie granaries plan (Petrie, 1928: pl. XIII).
NUMBER 50 • 1 1

designation, square designation, test trench/feature/pit/wall, 

layer, and locus. Not all of these categories are necessarily used 

in every instance. For example, the squares in Field IV (“the 

roofed area”) never have a field. In some instances, in open areas 

where excavation involved the removal of successive defined layers, there may be no test trench/feature/pit/wall noted, and frequently, there is no locus noted. 

The following abbreviations and geometric symbols are employed throughout the marking of the contexts and finds in the 

excavation:

• GM indicates Tell Jemmeh Field IV (or general Tell 

Jemmeh).

• Roman numerals I–III indicate field designation.

• Cardinal number and capital letter indicate square 

designation.

• FUR indicates furnace and is used only for areas in 

Field I. When followed by Roman numeral II or III, this 

refers to remnants of Petrie’s iron furnaces. 

• TT indicates test trench (these test trenches, usually 1 m 

wide, were extensively used especially in the early seasons in every newly opened square). Trenches or smaller 

probes were routinely employed to ascertain depths of 

layers and features and to clarify specific relationships 

such as layers to walls, foundation trenches, building 

phases in walls, and other unknowns. 

• NBR indicates north balk removal.

• EBR indicates east balk removal.

• SBR indicated south balk removal.

• WBR indicated west balk removal.

• A square enclosing a number designates a wall number 

(replaced by a W before the number in this report).

• A triangle enclosing a number designates the number of 

a feature (replaced by an F before the number in this 

report). A feature is anything that is not immediately definable, which represents what appears to be a different, 

distinct unit, usually referring to installations.

• P indicates pit, followed by a number designating the 

number of the pit.

• FT indicates foundation trench and is always followed 

by a number designating the number of the foundation 

trench.

• A circle surrounding a number designates a layer number (replaced in this report by parentheses). An intrusive layer subsequently discovered while excavating is 

expressed by the layer number followed by a letter of the 

alphabet, such as a, b, c, or d (e.g., Layer 1b). Layer (0) 

is routinely used for the surface layer of a square, which 

almost always consists of topsoil mixed debris. 

• The symbol (+) (a plus sign surrounded by a circle) indicates unstratified material such as that recovered from 

balk cleaning, square cleanup, or the general surface of 

the tell; all such material was saved at Jemmeh and has 

proven to be useful on many occasions in reconstructing 

artifacts. 

• A cardinal number standing alone indicates a locus.

mostly zoomorphic (Petrie, 1928: pls. XXXV–XXXIX), including chariot models. Most of these probably date to the late Iron 

Age and Persian period. Also presented are a large collection of 

decorated limestone altars (Petrie, 1928: pls. XL–XLII), metal 

weapons and tools (Petrie, 1928: pls. XXIII, XXIV, XXVI–

XXXII), jewelry (Petrie, 1928: pls. XVII, XVIII, XX–XXII), and 

scarabs and seals (Petrie, 1928: pls. XIX, XX).

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

EXCAVATIONS AT TELL JEMMEH: 

METHODS AND OVERVIEW

This work is a final report on the results of the excavations 

at Tell Jemmeh carried out by Gus Van Beek on behalf of the 

National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution during the years 1970–1990. Altogether 12 excavation 

seasons took place, with the nine major seasons occurring between 1970 and 1978 and smaller problem-solving excavations 

undertaken during 1982, 1984, 1987, and 1990.

The Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh 

were conducted in two main excavation areas focused on a large 

horizontal exposure: Fields I and IV. In addition, two stepped 

trenches were located on the slopes of the Tell: Fields II and III 

(Figure 1.11). A general grid for the entire site was not used; 

rather, each area had its own local grid of 5 × 5 m squares, with 

1-m-thick balks, which were occasionally removed. Squares were 

usually labeled using a numeral and a letter (such as 1A, 1B, . . . , 

2A, 2B, . . . in Fields I and IV and A1, A2, . . . , B1, B2, . . . in 

the trench areas in Fields II and III). The first area excavated was 

Field IV, which was not given a field number during the excavation and was denoted as Field GM. Subsequently, Field I (GMI), 

Field II (step trench GMII), and Field III (GMIII) were excavated. 

Smaller trenches included the southern trench (ST1) and a narrow trench on the northern edge of the tell. Trench SS1 or SST 

(Figure 1.12) is a narrow trench that was dug in order to clarify 

the depth of the archaeological remains on the mound but did 

not yield any architectural remains.

Methods of excavation and recording in this project were 

somewhat different than customary in most excavations carried 

out in Israel. The layer of soil excavated in a certain excavation 

square of an architectural unit is the basic unit of excavation. 

However, rather than using a universal running numbering system to number each of these layers (basically equivalent to what 

is commonly called a locus), the layers are denoted on a “local” 

numbering system (reoccurring in each excavation square), 

which aims to readily supply their sequence of deposition. Thus, 

these context or layer names replace locus numbers. Nevertheless, the term locus is used as well, usually denoting a relatively 

well defined architectural unit, and thus, the layer number can 

reoccur within each locus as well.

The context label (or “provenience” code) is assembled 

from the field name, square, layer, or feature and locus (which 

denotes in this case a supposed architectural unit), with the latter numbers repeating in every square). The provenience code 

provides the following information in this order: site name, field 
1 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 1.11. The Tell and the Smithsonian excavations fields.
NUMBER 50 • 1 3

hearth and tabun deposits. Nevertheless, basket numbers were 

not used, and in the excavation there was no individual labeling 

of pottery or finds coming from the same layer or context from a 

certain day. At a later stage, all reconstructed vessels were given 

running numbers, pottery bags or boxes were given running 

numbers (bag or box numbers used in this report), and small 

finds were given running registration numbers. Some additional 

abbreviations that apply to labeling the pottery and other finds 

are as follows:

• RV indicates the number of a reconstructed vessel.

• SI Cat. No. indicates the number given to a vessel or other 

find in the Smithsonian Institution’s running catalog.

• Cat. No. without the abbreviation SI is used to refer to 

the catalog numbers appearing in individual chapters 

throughout this volume.

• Reg. No. indicates the number given to small finds in the 

Smithsonian Institution’s running catalog.

• SCI numbers denote scientific samples (soils, plaster, 

slag, etc.).

• FL numbers denote flint numbers.

A “maximum reconstruction” strategy was also employed, 

and each recovered sherd was examined for reconstruction, 

yielding several hundred reconstructed or partial vessels over the 

course of over three decades of work by a team of volunteers. 

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

This book presents the final excavation report and attempts 

to include the results of the excavation, their coherent description 

and classification, and, when possible, their interpretation. This 

report comprises six parts and 34 chapters. Part I includes the 

introduction and background studies. Part II is the major part of 

the report and includes the results of the excavations according to 

the different fields. The order of the presentation of the excavation fields deviates from the original numbering of the fields, as 

we attempt to discuss results from the earliest levels up to the later 

ones. Thus, Field III is presented first. Moreover, this field is a step 

trench representing almost all periods appearingttested to at the 

site and is therefore most suitable for opening the report. Then 

Fields II, ST1, and I are presented, representing LB and early Iron 

Age remains. Subsequently, Field IV is presented with the main 

Iron Age II, Persian period, and later remains. In this part, a complete architectural and stratigraphical presentation is included, 

as well as a discussion of the pottery and a basic discussion of 

small finds per excavation field. The finds are presented according to their stratigraphical and architectural context. The pottery 

is discussed according to periods and typology as well. However, 

because of the numerous periods appearing at the site and the 

paucity of material from certain periods, a formal typology (i.e., 

discrete type numbers) was only partially employed for the Iron 

II period and was not employed for the Chalcolithic, Middle and 

Late Bronze Ages, Iron Age I, and the later periods. 

Certain difficulties arose from the fact that most of this excavation was conducted 30 years ago or more. Furthermore, the 

The following examples illustrate the provenience code: 

• GM 1B TT2 (3) represents Tell Jemmeh, Field IV, Square 

1B, Test Trench 2, Layer 3. 

• GM 2C (6) 1 represents Tell Jemmeh, Field IV, Square 

2C, Layer 6, Locus 1. 

• GMI 4F P3 represents Tell Jemmeh, Field I, Square 4F, 

Pit 3. 

• GMII 2A W4 represents Tell Jemmeh, Field II, Square 

2A, Wall 4. 

• GMIII F1 F7 represents Tell Jemmeh, Field III, Square 

1F, Feature 7.

A “total retrieval” strategy was employed in this excavation, and thus, rather than discarding most nonindicative sherds, 

as is common practice in Bronze and Iron Age excavations, all 

sherds, even from the topsoil, were saved. All debris layers excavated, including brick debris, were dry sifted through a 0.5 cm 

mesh. This resulted in a high proportion of very small finds being 

retrieved. Wet sifting or floatation was carried out on select ashy 

FIGURE 1.12. Trench SS1.
1 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

report of the excavation, it was felt that any thread of information should be examined.

Altogether about 23 archaeological strata were identified in 

the four major excavation fields at Tell Jemmeh (Table 1.1). The 

site was continuously inhabited for at least 1,400 years, with 

the earliest remains from the Chalcolithic (only ceramic remains 

and possibly pits in Field III). Evidence from the Early Bronze 

Age and the Middle Bronze Age I and IIA is thus far missing in 

the archaeological sequence; Middle Bronze Age IIB-C remains 

were exposed in Fields I and III and the south trench, and Late 

Bronze Age II remains are evident in Fields I, II, and III (as well as 

in Petrie’s lowermost phase). In a small area near Field I, a wellpreserved pottery kiln dated to the Iron Age I was excavated. 

documentation of different areas and seasons of excavation vary 

greatly; some include marked plans, photos, sections, and detailed notebooks with elevations and a graphic diary, whereas 

others have only a few partially marked photographs and plans. 

One of the main problems facing the publication of such excavations is what information should be included and presented. 

Should only the analysis of the material for which optimal recording was at hand be presented, or should all the possible 

evidence that is available from any source be presented? In this 

report, emphasis is placed on more documented segments of the 

excavation, albeit with a maximalist view, noting any data on the 

excavations and cross-checking between different types of data 

(such as plans, sections, and photographs). As this is the final 

TABLE 1.1. Suggested comparative phasing of the different fields of excavation. Here c. = century; mill. = millennium.

 Field I, Petrie

Field III Field II Field I Field I Square excavations Period/

phase phase ST 1 phase FUR KB Field IV level relative date Absolute date

0 0 0 Modern 20th c. CE

1 1 Crusader-Mamluk 12th–14th c. CE

1? Byzantine? 4th–7th c. CE

2? 2? Hellenistic? 4th–3rd c. BCE

2 2 Granaries Persian 5th–4th c. BCE

 3 Granaries Persian 5th–4th c. BCE

1 4 Granaries Persian 5th–4th c. BCE

1? 4? A-B? Iron IIC/ Late 7th–6th c. BCE

 Ceramic Babylonian

 evidence

2 (1) 5 C-D/A-B Iron IIC Late 8th–early 7th c. BCE

3 2 1 6 C-D Iron IIB 8th c. BCE

3 3 2 7 E-F/C-D Iron IIB 8th c. BCE

3 2? 8 E-F Iron IIB 8th c. BCE

4 9 G-H/E-F Iron IIA 10th–9th c. BCE

4 4 1 3 10 G-H/E-F Iron IIA 10th–9th c. BCE

4 1 11? G-H Iron IB-IIA 11th–10th c. BCE

5 2 G-H Iron IB 12th–11th c. BCE

6 3 G-H Iron IB 12th–11th c. BCE

6 5? 4 G-H Iron IB 12th–11th c. BCE

7/7B 1A? 4? J-K Iron IA/LBII Late 13th–early 12th c. BCE

8 6–7 1(B?) J-K LBII 13th c. BCE

9 6–7 3(A?)/2? J-K LBII 13th c. BCE

10 3(B?) LBII 14th–13th c. BCE

11 4 LBII 14th–13th c. BCE

12 5 LBII 14th–13th c. BCE

13 6 LBII 14th c. BCE

14 7 LBII/MBII 15th c. BCE

15 2 8 MBIIC 17th–16th c. BCE

16 2 9 MBIIC 17th–16th c. BCE

17 MBIIC 17th–16th c. BCE

18 MBIIB 17th–16th c. BCE

19 Chalcolithic Early 4th mill. BCE
NUMBER 50 • 1 5

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Gus W. Van Beek (deceased), Department 

of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTES

1. I thank N. Na’aman for bringing this text to my attention.

2. L. Titolo, “Excavations. Tell Jemmeh (Gerar). Searching for Relics,” posted 

May 13, 2010, http://irapl.altervista.org/nit/viewpics.php. 

3. A number of scholars have contributed to the revision of Petrie’s strata assignments and chronology, especially Amiran (1939), Albright (l943:23, 24, 

144), and Kenyon (private notes made available to G. Van Beek in l970). A 

summary of these advances appeared in the in the encyclopedia entries by 

Amiran and Van Beek (1976:545–549) and by Van Beek (1993a).

No general strata were defined in this report, and the stratigraphy in each field is represented by a series of local phases. 

Table 1.1 presents a comparative stratigraphic and chronological 

sequencing of the various fields in the site, together with a suggested relative and absolute dating and comparison to Petrie’s 

levels. Absolute dates generally conform with the “traditional” 

high chronology (e.g., Stern et al., 1993). 

Part III of the report includes several pottery studies that 

focus on specific groups of pottery (usually culturally and/or 

chronologically defined), such as decorated Canaanite pottery, 

imported Cypriot pottery, Philistine pottery, or Assyrian-style 

pottery. This part also includes scientific studies of pottery: petrographic analysis and computational analysis of pottery forms. 

Part IV includes small-find studies, which are divided according to classes of finds: terra-cottas, metals, scarabs, stone, flint, 

etc. All the small finds, and samples taken from Tell Jemmeh are 

itemized and described in the registry lists. These list are available for the public on demand in the IAA archives. Part V includes subsistence studies of faunal remains and lists of shells. 

Finally, part VI includes a summary and synthesis of the results 

with a short discussion and conclusions.
SOILS AND ROCKS

This chapter will discuss the environmental background of Tell Jemmeh and the estimated settlement size in ancient times. It is well 

known that the setting of a site in terms of both location and land routes and environment (soil, water resources, climate, and vegetation) often dictates its cultural history throughout ages (see, e.g., Evans, 2003; Ackerman et al., 2005). 

The plains of the northwestern Negev are formed of unconsolidated sediments, specifically loess, which covers a broad band oriented 

west-northwest to east-southeast, reaching a maximum width of about 43 km from just north of Dorot to just south of Gevulot and extending almost to Arad on the east (see Melson and Van Beek, 1992:128–131). The site itself originally consisted of a flat-topped mesa 

rising about 12 m above the Besor River wadi, which only flows in the high-rainfall seasons of the winter and spring (Figures 2.1 and 

2.2; Melson and Van Beek, 1992:126). The loess soils erode easily, and this characteristic is responsible for the creation of badlands along 

most of the course of Nahal Besor, from southeast of Gevulot to the Gaza Strip. The major erosional processes seem to result from several 

reasons: (1) surface runoff water that easily cuts channels in low places, (2) flash flood waters that undercut the banks of the wadi, and (3) 

insect and small-animal burrowing activity, with the resulting tunnels becoming passages for water during rains, which dissolves soil along 

the passages. With the cessation of the rains, 

the soil dries and shrinks, opening vertical fissures that with repeated wetting drying cycles, 

widen, deepen, and eventually detach vertical 

sections. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than the north side of the tell, where 

the mound continues to collapse far above the 

upper reaches of even the highest flood waters 

(see Figures 1.1–1.3). Apart from the tumbled 

stones and gravel in the wadi bed, the only 

rock exposed in the vicinity is kurkar, a calcareous sandstone, with the nearest ridge being 

about 2.5 km east of Tell Jemmeh. 

According to a controlled sample count 

by Melson (unpublished manuscript, 1972), 

stones in the wadi bed consist of about 70% 

limestone and about 30% chert; those recovered during excavations on the tell yielded 

reverse percentages, i.e., 70% chert and 30% 

limestone, indicating selection of specific types 

of stones to meet certain needs. Chert, which 

is much harder and more workable than limestone, was primarily used for making blades 

and other tools, which were found in considerable numbers in all periods of occupation 

2 Environmental Background 

of Tell Jemmeh

Gus W. Van Beek

FIGURE 2.1. The Besor River during winter as seen from the tell.
NUMBER 50 • 1 7

Historical records obviously lack the precision of modern instrument measurements because (1) they are almost certainly skewed 

in reporting seismic activity, stressing the importance of the place 

rather than the strength of the activity itself, and (2) they are 

incomplete, with significant gaps. However, they are useful in 

roughly approximating the amount, frequency, and areas of activity. Amiran notes that an epicenter of medium frequency can 

be assumed from historical evidence in the Deir el-Balah/Gaza 

area. In his revised earthquake catalog, historical records specifically mention the Gaza area in the following years (CE): 362, 

672, 1032, 1033/1034, 1293+, 1546, 1834, 1870, 1903, 1940, 

1942, 1951. Although no records exist for earthquakes during 

the long historic and prehistoric periods before 362 CE, such 

activity can be assumed. Owing to the proximity of Tell Jemmeh 

to this area, it seems likely that earth tremors occurred spasmodically at Jemmeh with a minimum frequency of 300–400 years.

CLIMATE

The Jemmeh area falls in an Irano-Turanian Asiatic steppe 

environment, as defined by temperature, rainfall, plant geography, 

and other factors. The summer is hot and dry hot (18°C–24°C; 

at the site (see chapter 26), yet it was also used for large cobbled 

areas (as in Field I). Limestone cobbles were primarily used for 

flooring open areas, such as courtyards and entrance patios or 

walks, for lining dry wells or sumps, for drains, and, with mud, 

for filling the interstices of mud brick arches and vaults. 

MINERAL RESOURCES

The sole mineral of value in the Jemmeh vicinity is natural sulfur, which is found 2 km to the northeast in the fields of 

Kibbutz Be’eri. Commercially quarried in the British Mandate 

period, this sulfur deposit was exhausted during World War II; 

whether it was used in antiquity it is not known. 

SEISMIC ACTIVITY

David Amiran succinctly discussed the physical structure of 

the southern Levant as it relates to seismic activity and compiled an earthquake catalog based on historical evidence (Amiran, 1951:223–246, 1952:48–65). This provides a framework 

for inquiring about seismic activity in the vicinity of Jemmeh. 

FIGURE 2.2. The Besor River flowing during winter.
1 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Israel, a mean annual rainfall of 250 mm or more, although Kibbutz Re’im regards the minimum for wheat production to be 

200–250 mm, depending on the pattern of distribution.

Table 2.1 illustrates the variability in both the amount and 

distribution of rainfall at Re’im and the Tell Jemmeh vicinity 

over a 43 year period. Note that there is no measurable rainfall 

from late June through September. The average annual rainfall 

is 339.77 mm, ranging from a low of 87 mm in 1962–1963 to a 

high of 740 mm in 1991–1992. This contrasts with an average 

precipitation of 560 mm in Jerusalem (Rosenan, 1955:152) and 

of less than 100 mm at Avdat in the central Negev highlands, 

although neither measurement duplicates the time period of the 

Re’im measurements. During 10 of the 43 years, rainfall fell 

below 250 mm, about the minimum amount required for winter 

wheat, indicating drought years.

Another consideration is the number of rain days per year. 

To a certain extent, the number of rainy days is suggestive of the 

frequency and types of rains; the more rainy days there are and 

the greater the spread of these days is during the rainy seasons, 

the better the distribution is. For the 32 years for which there are 

data in Table 2.1, the average number of rain days, i.e., those 

with 1 mm or more per year, was 32.25 at Re’im, in contrast to 

12.1 days in the Negev highlands (Evenari et al., 1971:33). The 

rather wide swinging alternation between below-average rainfall per rain day during the 1950s and 1960s and above-average 

rainfall per rain day during the 1970s and 1980s illustrates the 

precarious history of dry farming in this marginal environment. 

The pattern of monthly distribution of rain is as crucial 

for the cultivation of the Tell Jemmeh fields as the amount of 

rainfall. The normal rainy season extends from October through 

May; the Tell Jemmeh area normally receives 25% of its annual 

total rainfall by December 5, 50% by January 15, and 75% by 

February 15 (Zohary, 1970: maps G, H, and I). The dry season lasts from June through September. Whether rainfall is slow 

and gentle or falls in torrents is also of major importance. Although loess soil has good water-retaining capacity, it absorbs 

water slowly. During brief heavy rains, water tends to remain 

on the surface or to run off, carrying particles of soil with it. 

This primarily accounts for the severe erosion of Tell Jemmeh, 

which has left it among the most heavily eroded major sites, if 

not the worst eroded site, in Israel. During rains and immediately 

after, the ground surface is very slippery because of the surface 

characteristics of wet loess. Heavy rains therefore tend to run off 

mean annual temperature of over 18°C). This environmental zone 

in southern Israel extends southeastward from the coast, reaching a maximum north–south width of about 43 km; it narrows 

eastward and then turns northward, forming a narrow strip along 

the “rain-shadowed” east slope of the mountains paralleling the 

Jordan Valley. As such, it is a marginal zone between the Mediterranean zone prevailing over most of Israel and the desert zone of 

the central Negev and the deeper areas of the Jordan Valley. The 

marginal character of the Jemmeh area and its influence on human 

settlement and land utilization will be discussed below. 

VEGETATION

The Nahal Besor drainage contains a number of habitats, 

many of which host particular and specific plant communities. 

Overall, the flora of this southernmost Irano-Turanian steppe region is chiefly characterized by the following: Artemisia monosperma, Ziziphus lotus, Tamarix articulata and Tamarix nilotica, 

Lycium europeum (attad), Haloxylon articulatum (jointed saltwood), and a number of grasses such as Aristida scoparia (poverty 

grass) and Lolium gaudini (ryegrass; Zohary, 1970; Evenari et al., 

1971:43–49). Also, a list for the region between Ein Besor and Tell 

Farah (S), 10 km upstream from Jemmeh, is given by Price-Williams 

(1973:201–205; 1975:132–133), much of which is relevant to the 

slightly wetter Tell Jemmeh area. It is important to note that the 

present-day vegetation is not the primary vegetation of these loessial plains (Evenari et al., 1971:49); agricultural practices in both 

antiquity and since 1948, together with the overgrazing of livestock 

and the collection of firewood by Bedouin, have destroyed some 

plant species and introduced others (Price-Williams, 1975:133). 

FAUNA

The position of Israel between Asia and Africa, together 

with its different environmental zones, results not only in a great 

diversity of animals but also in ever-changing populations as 

they respond to varying climatic conditions and human activities. The only source for ancient fauna and relic populations of 

the Tell Jemmeh vicinity will be the faunal remains from the site 

(Wapnish, in press; chapter 33). Although their effects may be 

difficult if not impossible to measure, insect plagues, disease vectors, and other faunal plagues surely played a significant role 

in the ancient subsistence economy of the area. When not controlled, locust outbreaks take place once every 13–15 years and 

must have frequently devastated the landscape in antiquity. 

WATER RESOURCES

Rainfall

The Tell Jemmeh vicinity falls within the 300 mm isohyet, 

which prevails over much of the Irano-Turanian zone. This is 

close to the aridity limit for dry farming of the main cereals in 

TABLE 2.1. Average rainfall at Tell Jemmeh area by decade.

Decade Average rainfall (mm)

1949/1950–1958/1959 315.4

1959/1960–1968/1969 283.1

1969/1970–1978/1979 338.3

1979/1980–1988/1989 377.4

1989/1990–1991/1992a 489.3a

a

Incomplete decade.
NUMBER 50 • 1 9

Wells

Before 1948, a number of locally dug, wide-mouth wells 

dotted the plains in the vicinity of Tell Jemmeh, in addition to 

more elaborate installations developed under the auspices of the 

British Mandate government. Prior to mechanized cultivation of 

the Byzantine field immediately south of the Tell, there was at 

least one such well on the south side of the site. The evidence for 

its existence is several large rocks at the base of the site near the 

asphalt parking area and adjacent to the main path to the top 

of the tell; these rocks once served as the curbing around a well 

mouth, each scarred with many deep rope cuts on the top edge. 

Apart from supplying domestic water requirements, well water 

was also drawn to irrigate garden plots containing such plants 

as could tolerate the salinity of the water (in modern times, local 

well water is quite saline, with chloride ranging from 1,200 to 

2,500 mg/L), as indicated by small catchment basins adjacent to 

some well mouths. The water table in the area ranges in depth 

from 30 to 40 m, as shown by several old Arab wells. A well recently drilled in the Re’im fields near Nahal Gerar reached water 

at a depth of 44 m below the surface. 

Is it possible to estimate the domestic water requirements 

of the Jemmeh inhabitants and their livestock in antiquity? If an 

average of 4 L/day for drinking and another liter for bathing, 

laundry, and cooking is assumed, we have a total domestic water 

requirement of 5 L per person per day, or 1.825 m3

 per person 

per year. A human population of, say, 1,000 would have consumed about 1,825 m3

 of water. Assuming such a town would 

have had 200 heavy animals, camels, asses, and cattle, each consuming an average of 3 L/day, or 2.2 m3

/year, for a total of 220 

m3

/year, and 500 sheep, goats, and dogs, each consuming about 

0.5 m3

/year, for a total of 250 m3/year, the total water requirements for such a settlement per year would be around 2,500 m3

. 

Note that such an estimate does not include irrigation at all.

Most of this water probably came from springs and wells. 

It is possible that there were one or more springs in Nahal Besor 

near the site that have subsequently dried up, although we have 

no direct evidence for this. However, even if a spring with a discharge equal to that of Ein Besor of 1,044.5 m3

 per year were 

close to the site, it would have met no more than about 40% 

of the annual water requirements. The burden, then, must have 

fallen on the wells and other modes of water collection. 

CLIMATE AND HUMAN 

SETTLEMENT HISTORY

Tell Jemmeh is located in a transitional environmental zone 

between the Mediterranean zone to the north and the desert zone 

to the south and east but is more proximate to the latter. At present, 

the Jemmeh area is marginal for rainfall agriculture, with nearby 

settlements suffering a crop failure rate of about one year in four. 

This situation may suggest that the region may have been more 

richly endowed with increased amounts and more consistent distribution of rainfall in the past. The fact that there are no remains 

of post-Byzantine towns in the vicinity probably indicates that a 

rapidly without being absorbed while contributing to erosion. 

Light rains falling at intervals spaced every few days are better 

absorbed and produce the best crops.

At Kibbutz Re’im, where wheat and fodder are the only dryfarmed crops (A. Gat, kibbutz resident, personal communication), a minimum of 200–250 mm of well-distributed rainfall 

per year yields from 400 to 500 kg of wheat per dunam (1000 

m2

). Thus, for example, during 1985–1986, 223 mm of rain 

with a very poor monthly distribution produced no grain, and 

not a single acre could be harvested. In 1984–1985, 259 mm 

of rain, with fewer rain days (12 versus 18) but with a much 

better monthly distribution than during 1985–1986, yielded between 480 and 720 kg per dunam. A heavy rainfall one year may 

leave a significant surplus of water stored in the soil for plant 

growth the following year. In 1983–1984, with only 228 mm 

of rainfall favorably distributed, the fields produced an average 

of 600 kg of wheat per dunam. This unusually high yield for so 

little rainfall was primarily due to the heavy rains of the previous 

year, 1982–1983, when 544 mm fell, yielding a harvest of 1,000–

1,400 kg per dunam. In spite of this abundant yield, enough surplus water remained in the soil to supplement the meager rainfall 

of the following year. Rainfall agriculture in this marginal region 

therefore depends on a combination of factors: the amount of 

rainfall, its characteristics such as fast or slow and heavy or light, 

its timed distribution throughout the months and year, and the 

influence of successive annual rainfall patterns. 

Groundwater

The Tell Jemmeh area is within the Nahal Besor catchment, 

the largest catchment in Israel, with an area of 3,390 km2

 (Stern 

and Goldschmidt, 1970: V/1); it slopes to the west and ultimately 

drains into the Mediterranean Sea some 7 km south of Gaza. The 

basin has considerable geological age, having been stabilized in the 

Neogene era. Nahal Besor is classified as a seasonal stream. It carries a large amount of runoff in the form of flash floods from the 

western slopes of the Judean hill country during the rainy season. 

The gradient of the bed of Nahal Besor is 0.5% over most of its 

course, with a few places upstream, i.e., to the southeast of Jemmeh, increasing to 0.5%–1.0%. Except for a few springs, it is dry 

throughout the remainder of the year. During some years, the wadi 

still contained a few small pools of water from the spring runoff 

at the beginning of fieldwork in mid-June. There is no evidence, 

however, that attempts were made in antiquity to utilize the runoff 

water in Besor River by means of diversion irrigation systems.

Springs

The nearest perennial spring to Tell Jemmeh is Ein Besor 

(Ein Shallala), located 10 km upstream from the mound. The 

total annual flow of this spring (average 1,044 m3

) fluctuates between 477 and 1,417 m3

 (during years 1969–1981; R. Hevron, 

personal communication). This fluctuation relates to natural 

replenishment, as the flow is considerably reduced in drought 

years. It also varies during the year, with a rise occurring during 

the rainy season and a decline thereafter. 
2 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

quite difficult to estimate densities of ancient sites, but a calculation based on a previous ethnographic study of the deserted 

tell town of Marib in northern Yemen was used (see Van Beek, 

1982) where 161 houses (mostly two-storied) were counted in 

an area of about 6.26 dunams. A census of northern Yemen conducted in 1975 gave a ratio of 5:1 inhabitants per house (Steffen, 

1979:63). The population at Tell Jemmeh is thus calculated according to an estimation of about 50% built area; thus, assuming each house was around 80 m2

 (larger and more dense houses 

are also possible), an estimation of five people per house is used. 

Regarding the Iron II and Persian periods, figures are not given 

(Table 2.2) because most structures excavated were either public 

or storage buildings, and thus, it is not reasonable to use a residential village population density model in these cases. In regard 

to the earlier periods, as noted above, such figures, if they reflect 

any reality, indicate diversified and rather sophisticated exploitation of water resources in this region (wells and reservoirs) or 

possibly a more favorable climate in ancient times. However, it is 

possible that a smaller percentage of the tell plateau was settled 

at any given time, which would result in quite smaller figures.

AUTHOR NOTE

Gus W. Van Beek (deceased), Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Correspondence: David Ben-Shlomo, davben187@yahoo.com. Manuscript 

received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

semisedentary nomadic lifestyle prevailed in the area throughout 

the Islamic period. Although this situation may be due in part to 

the fact that marginal areas were not settled when the regional 

population was considerably smaller and agricultural land in the 

Mediterranean zone was sufficient to meet food requirements, it is 

also possible that vagaries of climate played a role. 

When rainfall is marginal in the best of times, any decrease 

for an extended period in areas lacking highly developed irrigation systems would necessarily result in the collapse of agriculture, the onset of famine, and the abandonment of towns, such 

as the biblical tradition on the migrations to Lower Egypt by the 

Patriarchs (Gen. 12:10–20, 41:42–45, 47:13). 

Table 2.2 presents the tell area and estimated settlement 

area and estimated populations in the different periods. These 

figures are very schematic. The settlement area in each period 

is calculated according to the reconstructed tell area in relative 

elevation contours that fit roughly each period at the site, both 

according to the situation in the field in 1971 and according to 

a reconstructed completion of the contours on a map. This is an 

extremely rough estimate of the settlement area. As can be seen, 

erosion destroyed much of the later periods. The area excavated 

by Petrie and the Smithsonian Institution is a small percentage of 

the estimated settlement area. 

One would expect tell settlements to have a higher density 

of buildings than villages and towns situated in open country 

because the area for habitation is restricted to that of the plateau 

on which the site stands, yet as no clear fortification was identified in most periods, it is difficult to know whether the built 

area was limited to the tell area at any point. In any case it is 

TABLE 2.2. Estimated size of the tell, area excavated by Petrie and the Smithsonian Institution, and estimated settlement population for 

different periods. The settlement area has been estimated according to the situation in the field in 1971 and according to a reconstructed 

completion of the contours on a map.

Area as a

Tell area Area excavated percentage Estimated no. Estimated

Period (dunam) (m2

) of the tell of houses population

Persian

60 m (1971) 0.5 2,528 118%a

Reconstructed 6.88 9% Unknown Unknown

Iron II 

58 m (1971) 1.38 2,274 41%

Reconstructed 7.45 7.5% Unknown Unknown

Iron I 

55 m (1971) 3.53 1,076 7.6%

Reconstructed 8.78 3% 214 1,070

LBII 

50 m (1971) 5.91 400 1.7%

Reconstructed 9.75 1% 240 1,200

MBII 

48 m (1971) 6.87 130 0.04%

Reconstructed 10.92 0.03% 266 1,330

a

A value higher than 100% results because much of the Persian period remains were eroded between 1926 (Petrie’s excavations) and 1971.
INTRODUCTION

Field III is located in the southern part of the tell (Figure 1.2) and constituted the main step trench, in which the archaeological 

remains represent nearly all the occupation levels at the site. Initially, the area was opened in the 1977 season (Figure 3.1), when an 

elaborately decorated Late Bronze Age vessel was found on the surface (see Figure 10.1a), high along the slope. Thus, this area was 

selected as a stratigraphic trench as early levels could be reached with less excavation and an entire sequence of the site could be 

achieved in a single location. Subsequently, the area was further excavated during 1978, 1982, and the short 1984 season. The area 

was supervised by Ted Sunderhaus (Square [Sq.] A, 1978), Ron Gardiner (Sqs. B, 1977; C, 1978; and C, F, 1982), and Egon Lass (Sq. 

J, 1982); small-scale excavations were carried out in 1984 in Sqs. C1 and J1 (supervisor, Egon Lass). Brian Lalor and David Sheehan 

served as surveyors.

The main trench of Field III (GMIII) is oriented northwest-southeast and is 24.5 m long and 3 m wide in most locations (Figure 3.2): 

Sqs. A1, A2, A3, C1, C2, and C3 are 3 × 3 m, whereas Sq. B in the middle was expanded and was a 6 × 6 m square (Figures 3.3, 3.4). In 

1982, the area was expanded to the northeast according to the natural topography of the hill (but not in the same alignment as the Field 

III grid); the expansion included Sqs. F1, F2, J1, and J2 (about 2–3 × 2–3 m each; Figure 3.2). The aim of this season was to expand the 

exposure of the lower Middle Bronze Age (MBII) layers (i.e., from Phase 14 or 15 to lower phases). Altogether, a total area of about 

115 m2

 was excavated here. A difference 

in elevation of about 12 m separated the 

upper layer in Sq. A1 in the northwestern edge of the trench and the lower ones 

in Sq. C3 on the southeastern edge (and 

Sq. J2 in the east), with a range of 59.50–

47.50 m (throughout, all elevations are 

above sea level). Virgin soil was reached 

at approximately 47.50 m in Sqs. C3 and 

J2 (Figure 3.5).

Generally, almost all of the occupation phases evident in other areas of the 

site, as well as periods represented in the 

pottery collected from the site’s surface, 

are represented in Field III (Table 1.1). 

These include remains from the Chalcolithic and MBII through to the Persian periods. For this reason, Field III is presented 

at the beginning of this report. However, 

not all periods are represented to the same 

extent. Although the earliest Chalcolithic 

period is represented mostly by pottery 

and the Early Bronze Age is absent, the 

3 Field III: The Southeastern 

Step Trench

David Ben-Shlomo

FIGURE 3.1. Tell Jemmeh from the south, with Field III seen on the right.
2 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.5. Virgin soil in Sq. C3.

MBII is represented by four to five building phases (Table 3.1). 

The Late Bronze Age is represented by six to eight occupation or 

building phases. The Iron I is represented by two or three phases, 

whereas the Iron IIA, Iron IIB-C, and Persian periods are represented by only one phase each. 

Altogether, 19 occupation phases were identified in this 

area; the different phases and their finds will be presented and 

discussed from the earliest to the latest. Virgin soil was reached 

in Square C3 at elevations of 47.70–47.50 m in Test Trench 2, 

Layers 4 and 5 and Sq. J2 at elevations of 48.09–47.49 m in a 

probe in Layer 26 (Figure 3.5).

FIGURE 3.2. Plan of Field III.

FIGURE 3.3. Field III and the extension of the 1982 season under 

the tent on right.

FIGURE 3.4. Field III at the end of the 1982 season, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 2 3

pottery, including some large sherds, with no other periods represented (Figures. 3.13, 3.14). These include Layers 2 and 3 in 

Test Trench 2, Feature 23, and Pit 2 in Sq. C2; Test Trench 2, 

Layers 1–3, and Pits 2 and 3 (which are located in the lower part 

of Feature 22; Figure 3.15) in Sq. C3; Layer 22, Locus 1 in Sq. 

F2; and Layers 23–26 in Sq. J2. Some plaster fragments found in 

the lower part of Feature 22 (SCI 156) may indicate the pit had 

a plaster floor. Layers that have mixed Chalcolithic-MBII pottery 

include Layers 90 and 91 in Sq. C2, Pit 1 in Sq. C3, Layers 20 

and 21 and Wall 12 in Sq. F2, and Layers 11, Locus 2, 18, Locus 

1, and Pit 2 in Sq. J2 (an at least 0.7-m-deep pit filled with ashy 

material).

Chalcolithic Pottery from Field III

The Chalcolithic pottery from Field III includes a variety of 

forms: V-shaped bowls of various sizes, kraters, chalices, holemouth jars , other jars, and churns (Figures 3.13, 3.14); basalt 

chalice fragments also occur. Several items redeposited in later 

phases or from the topsoil that typologically can be dated to the 

Chalcolithic period were also included in this analysis. Most of 

the Chalcolithic pottery is made of coarse clay with large dark 

grits (usually of loess-type clay; see chapter 15); often, the surface is smoothed by wet clay, with the grits protruding from the 

surface, creating a distinct typical texture for this pottery. Thus, 

REMAINS OF PHASE 19

Phase 19 is mainly composed of the lower levels of the 

trench, rich in Chalcolithic sherds (Sqs. C2, C3, F2, and J2). The 

main feature seems to be a 2.3 × 2 m pit (Figures 3.6–3.10, Feature 22 in Sq. C2), which was possibly dug into mud brick debris 

or was lined with bricks (Feature 25 in Sq. C3, Figure 3.15; Feature 22A is the brick lining, and the respective layer is denoted 

as Feature 23). The bottom of the pit is plastered with fine white 

plaster, and the sides of the pit are dug into or lined with lumps 

of brick material. The pit, 1.3 m deep, was likely dug from a 

level of 48.35 m (and into virgin soil layers some 0.7 m lower; 

see Figure 3.15) and may represent activities of the Chalcolithic 

occupation (Figures 3.11, 3.12). It is not likely that the pit was 

used as a dwelling because of its small dimensions. It should be 

noted, moreover, that along with Chalcolithic material, the pit 

contained a considerable amount of MBII pottery. Thus, either 

the pit was dug during the Chalcolithic period and was disturbed 

by an MBII pit or debris, or the pit is an MBII feature of Phase 

18, which penetrates through the Chalcolithic levels.

In any case, it is clear that the Chalcolithic remains in this 

area are not sporadic but represent an in situ occupation layer, 

even though no architecture from this phase may have been 

identified in this small section. This assumption is based on the 

fact that several layers contained large amounts of Chalcolithic 

TABLE 3.1. Occupation phases in Field III.

 Approximate 

Phase Squares Remains elevation (m) Date Remarks

1 A1 Grave 59.10–59.00 Islamic/modern

2 A1, A3 Granary, pits 58.80–57.90 Persian

3 A1 Walls, pits 59.40–58.60 Iron Age IIB-C Subphases A, B

4 A1, A2 Walls?, pits? 58.00–57.60 Iron Age IIA

5 A1, A2 Walls 57.65–57.00 Iron Age I/II?

6 A2, A3 Unit 1?, plastered floor 56.20–55.80 Iron Age IB Destruction level?

7(A?) A2, A3 Unit 1, walls, pits 55.80–55.00 Iron Age IA? Subphases A, B?

7B A3 Tabun Unknown Iron Age IA?

8 A3, Units 1, 2 55.20–54.70 LBII

9 A3, B Room A, Units 1, 2 55.20–54.15 LBII

10 B Unit 6, Rooms B, C, D 54.20–53.50 LBII Same outline as Phase 11

11 B Unit 7, Rooms B, C, D 53.60–52.90 LBII Subphases A, B

12 B Units 8, 9, Room E 52.95–52.10 LBII Subphases A, B

13 B, C1 Units 10, 11, paving 52.50–51.90 LBII

14 C1, F1, J1, B(?) Units 12, 13, 14, Room F 51.80–50.70 LBI–II/MBII Subphases A, B (in Sq. F1)

15 C1, F1, J1 Room G, Unit 15 50.86–50.10 MBIIB-C

16 C1, C2, F1, F2, J1, J2 Open area, pits 50.59–50.05 MBIIB-C Complete vessels (in C1 (81), F1, 

Pit 1)

17 C1, C2, F2, J1, J2 Walls, floors, Unit 16, Rooms I, H 50.37–49.08 MBIIB-C Complete vessels (in J2 (17), Locus 1)

18 C2, C3, F2, J2 Pits, installations, tabuns 49.18–48.60 MBIIB-C

19 C2, C3, F2, J2 Layers with pottery, pits? 48.76(?)–47.12 Chalcolithic

C3, J2 Virgin soil 47.70–47.49 Virgin soil
2 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.7. Square C2 with Features 22–24 and Test Trenches 1 and 2.

FIGURE 3.6. Plan of Sq. C2, Phase 19.
NUMBER 50 • 2 5

FIGURE 3.10. Feature 22 after its excavation.

FIGURE 3.11. A V-shaped bowl in Sq. C2, Layer 90.

FIGURE 3.12. A churn in Feature 23, Sq. C2.

FIGURE 3.8. Phase 19, Feature 22 and Feature 21, an oven, above 

it (note animal bone at the pit’s base).

FIGURE 3.9. Feature 22 from the inside.
2 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 2 7

Garfinkel, 1999:226–231, figs. 138:6,7, 144:3–6, for parallels). 

Several kraters or jars with everted rims also appear (Figure 

3.13u,v,x): one example has a thumbed rim decoration (Figure 

3.13x). Figure 3.13v is a smaller, more delicate example, probably of a jar. Another smaller everted rim (Figure 3.13u) may be 

of a small krater or a jar (for similar forms, see Garfinkel, 1999: 

fig. 129:6–10 or fig. 147:1–3, for jars). Two or three examples 

of tall-necked jars occur (Figure 3.14a–c); they have a rounded, 

“swollen” profile, and a red band is decorated on the connection 

to the shoulder. This type of jar is rare during the late Chalcolithic and is more common in earlier periods (see, e.g., Garfinkel, 

1999: fig. 108, for the “Middle Chalcolithic” period). 

Churns are represented in several fragments of the body, 

handle, or neck, some of which are quite large, although no complete examples were found. They originate in Phase 19 or are 

redeposited from later phases (Figures 3.12, 3.14d–i). Churns 

can be identified by the tall swollen necks with thin everted rims 

(Figure 3.14d,e), thick triangular handles (Figure 3.14h,i,t), or 

flat sides (Figure 3.14f,g). Pottery churns imitate animal skin containers used for churning milk (Garfinkel, 1999:254–258, figs. 

158,159, and references therein). These are often decorated with 

wide red bands on the body, imitating the ropes holding the churn 

(see, e.g., Garfinkel, 1999: photo 143). A decorated body sherd 

(Figure 3.14p) is possibly an example of such a churn. In fact, the 

churns are the form that can date the assemblage from Field III 

more precisely within the Chalcolithic period to the Late (Ghassulian) Chalcolithic phase, as they do not appear in other periods.

in many cases Chalcolithic pottery at Tell Jemmeh can be readily 

identified by its fabric.

The most common form is the V-shaped bowl (Figures 

3.13a–p, 3.14q), which has straight or slightly rounded sides 

(Figure 3.13d–f,k,l), a simple rim, and a flat (Figure 3.13g,o,p) 

or slightly concave (Figure 3.13c) base. The bowls vary in size; 

smaller bowls have a diameter of 12–15 cm, whereas larger ones, 

which also have thicker walls (Figure 3.13l,n), can reach a diameter of 25–30 cm or more. Many of the smaller bowls have a thin, 

painted band on the exterior and/or interior of the rim (Figures 

3.13b,d,h, 3.14q), whereas larger bowls have a thicker rim band 

in red (Figure 3.13i,l,n). The bases often show mat or straw impressions. Similar bowls are common in Chalcolithic-Ghassulian 

levels in the southern Levant (see, e.g., Garfinkel, 1999:210–214, 

figs. 127,128, and many references therein). Note that, in principal, small rim sherds, especially of larger diameter, may also 

belong to chalices (see Garfinkel, 1999:222–224, fig. 134), yet 

this type is rare. One example (Figure 3.13m) has a thicker rim 

with thumbing on its exterior (these are also defined as basins; 

see Garfinkel, 1999: figs. 125:2, 131:1).

Hole-mouth shapes or jars have globular bodies and incurving rims (Figure 3.13q,r and Figure 3.14r,s from Phase 17) and 

are made of coarse, gritty clay with soot marks (see Garfinkel, 

1999:237–240, fig. 144); these include hole-mouth cooking vessels. Large hole-mouth kraters also appear (Figure 3.13s,t,w). 

The rim sherds are either thinner at the top or widening (as in 

Figure 3.13s), and all have outer rim bands in red paint (see 

FIGURE 3.13. Chalcolithic pottery from Phase 19. (opposite)

Part Description RV/Bag/Box No. Provenance

a Bowl 5249/4 GMIII J2 (25)

b Bowl 5249/5 GMIII J2 (25)

c Bowl RV 644 (SI Cat 971) GMIII C2 (90)

d Bowl 5314/3 GMIII J2 (26)

e Bowl 5249/6 GMIII J2 (25)

f Bowl 5314/2 GMIII J2 (26)

g Bowl 5300/1 GMIII J2 (24)

h Bowl #2 GMIII C2 F23

i Bowl #1 GMIII C2 F23

j Bowl 5314/5 GMIII J2 (26)

k Bowl 5289/2 GMIII J2 (26)

l Bowl; red decoration GMIII J2 (24)

m Bowl; red decoration GMIII C2 (90)

n Bowl; red decoration GMIII C2 TT2 (4)

o Bowl 5288/1 GMIII J2 (26)

p Bowl #2 GMIII J2 (26)

q Hole-mouth jar 5249/1 GMIII J2 (25)

r Hole-mouth jar 2138/1 GMIII C3 TT1 

s Hole-mouth jar; red decoration GMIII C3 TT2

t Krater; red decoration GMIII J2 (26)

u Krater(?); decoration 5314/4 GMIII J2 (26)

v Jar 5289/1 GMIII J2 (26)

w Hole-mouth jar/krater; red decoration GMIII J2 (26)

x Krater/jar; red decoration GMIII C2 F22A
2 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 2 9

the earliest MBIIB-C level in Field III. Apparently, at least in the 

area excavated at Tell Jemmeh, a long occupational gap exists 

during the entire Early Bronze Age, the Intermediate Bronze Age 

(or MBI), and the MBIIA (and probably the earlier part of the 

MBIIB), with a total duration of about 1,800–2,000 years. In Sq. 

C2 two winding, parallel, thin brick walls, 1.3 m long (Installation Feature 20, about 0.3 m apart, 48.95 m at base, Figure 

3.17), may be the remains of a drainage channel of a Phase 17 

structure (related to Wall 82; see below) or an installation of 

Phase 18. If these walls belong to Phase 18, they may be associated with Feature 21, a tabun or an oven (Figure 3.17, right), 

which abuts the tip of or possibly blocks Feature 20. This installation is 0.6 m in diameter and may be a tabun/bread oven 

or a furnace (see chapter 9, Cat. No. 1; for more details on the 

structure and history and a discussion on the function of these 

cooking installations or ovens, see chapter 9). A concentration of 

large flat stones surrounded by upright standing stones (Feature 

19, Figure 3.18: right center) at an elevation of 48.74 m may be 

a posthole. Several smaller holes were also found nearby (Sq. C2, 

Feature 18, although this may possibly be a later disturbance; 

Figures 3.19–3.22). Layer 86 is possibly a mud floor associated 

with the posthole. In Sq. F2 to the north two small pits lined with 

clay and filled with some stones belong to this phase (Features 

18, 18A, Figure 3.23); these can be seen in the western section 

of the square (Figure 3.22). The diameter of these pits (about 

0.3 m) and the fact they were filled or lined with stones may 

indicate these pits were also postholes. In between these pits, a 

patch of brick material was noticed, possibly a floor at a level 

of 48.95 m. In the north of Sq. F2, Pit 2 (Figure 3.26, top) was 

dug from Phase 16 or 17, possibly from an elevation of 49.53 m 

In addition, several sherds with attached, unpierced handles 

with a triangular section were found in Phase 19 (Figure 3.14j–

l,n,p). These handles are nonfunctional and probably fragments 

of decorated jars or kraters (see, e.g., Garfinkel, 1999: figs. 139, 

142:8,9, for examples). These handles are often attached to the 

body of the vessel with a very narrow opening, if any (see Figure 

3.14k,p) and thus are probably purely decorative in their function (for a decoration similar to the one shown in Figure 3.14j, 

see a krater from Abu Matar in Garfinkel, 1999: fig. 139:5). In 

addition, a fragment of a polished rim of a limestone vessel was 

found also in Phase 19 (see chapter 23, Figure 23.5j); a fragment 

of a basalt fenestrated chalice/stand from this period was found 

in Phase 6 (Figure 23.9i).

Notably, cornets (or horn-shaped goblets; see, e.g., Garfinkel, 1999:219–221, fig. 133:1–14) do not appear in this assemblage, although, in principle, small, thin rims attributed to 

bowls could belong to cornets. The typical pointed bases of these 

items do not appear at Tell Jemmeh. Decorated creamware (e.g., 

Amiran, 1955) is also absent or very rare. This absence possibly 

indicates that the assemblage may be of a later phase of the Late 

Chalcolithic period (see, e.g., Golden, 2010:85–86), or this may 

be a regional phenomenon, as these vessels are quite rare in some 

of the Beer-Sheba sites and are lacking in northern sites (see Garfinkel, 1999:219).

REMAINS OF PHASE 18

Only several pits and features were excavated from Phase 

18 in Sqs. C2, C3, F2, and J2 (Figure 3.16). This is probably 

FIGURE 3.14. Chalcolithic pottery from Phase 19 and later phases. (opposite)

Part Description RV/SI Cat./Bag/Box No. Provenance Phase

a Jar 5314/1 GMIII J2 (26) 19

b Jar 2131/1 GMIII C2 TT2 (2) 19

c Jar; red decoration #2 GMIII C1–C2 TT1 19

d Churn 1164/1 GMIII C1 (+) us

e Churn/jar 2148/1 GMIII C3 TT1 (3) 19

f Churn 1122/1 GMIII C2 F23 19

g Churn? 1122/2 GMIII C2 F23 19

h Churn 5288/2 GMIII J2 (26) 19

i Churn 5275/1 GMIII J2 (23) 19

j Jar handle; red decoration GMIII C1–C2 TT1 19

k Jar handle GMIII C3 TT1 19

l Jar handle; red decoration GMIII C3 TT2 (2) 19

m Handle; red decoration 5249/3 GMIII J2 (25) 19

n Handle; red decoration 5249/2 GMIII J2 (25) 19

o Sherd; red decoration 5314/6 GMIII J2 (26) 19

p Churn(?); red decoration 5314/7 GMIII J2 (26) 19

q Bowl 5594b/2 GMIII J2 (22) 17–18

r Hole-mouth jar 5594b/1 GMIII J2 (22) 17–18

s Hole-mouth jar 5281/1 GMIII J2 (21) 2 17

t Churn 5573/6 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15
3 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.16. Plan of Phase 18.

FIGURE 3.15. Square C3, western section.
NUMBER 50 • 3 1

FIGURE 3.17. Features 20 and 21 in Sq. C2, looking south.

FIGURE 3.18. Square C2, looking north: Feature 20 on the lower left, Feature 19 in right center, and the tabun, Feature 

17, on the far left.
3 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.20. West balk of Sq. C2.

FIGURE 3.19. South balk of Sq. C2.
NUMBER 50 • 3 3

FIGURE 3.21. West section of Sq. J2.

FIGURE 3.22. Square F2, western section.
3 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The pottery of this phase dates to the MBIIB (Figures 3.27, 

3.28) and includes a small assemblage of mainly typical MBIIB 

forms, such as platters or open bowls (Figure 3.27a–e), carinated 

bowls (Figure 3.27f–j), as well as a jar (Figure 3.27l), jugs/juglets 

(Figure 3.27m,r), Tell el-Yahudiyeh jugs/juglets (Figure 3.27n–q), 

and several examples of imported Cypriot White Painted (WP) 

pottery (Figure 3.28a-c; several fragments, including a base 

(Figure 3.24, north section), cutting the layers of Phase 18 in this 

area (down to an elevation of 48.33 m), as well as an ash layer 

(Feature 17), which may have been remnants of a tabun.In Sq. 

J2, Layers 22 and 23 of the probe probably belong to Phase 18, 

along with Layers 87–89 in Sq. C2 and Test Trench 1 in Sq. C3. 

According to the finds preserved, the section excavated in this 

phase was probably an open area (Figures 3.25 and 3.26).

FIGURE 3.23. Feature 18 in Sq. F2.

FIGURE 3.25. Square F2, western balk.

FIGURE 3.24. Square F2, northern balk.
NUMBER 50 • 3 5

3.32–3.35, 3.38–3.39). Remains come from Sqs. C1 and C2 as 

well as F2 and J2 excavated during 1982 (Figures 3.29–3.51). 

Remains of several walls were found in Sqs. C1 and C2. A brick 

wall was excavated in the SW corner of Sq. C2 (Wall 82) and 

probably makes a corner with a nearly 5-m-long east–west wall 

(Wall 81; see Figure 3.42) in Sqs. C1 and C2. The upper levels of 

this wall may indicate a natural slope declining from west to east 

at about 0.5 m, while its base in the east lies at a level of 49.29 m. 

In the eastern part of Wall 81, a doorway about 0.6 m wide can 

be clearly seen (Figure 3.42); the base of the doorway constitutes 

exactly two stretcher-oriented bricks at an elevation of 49.52 m; 

to the south a single laid brick might have been a step in front of 

the entrance. This feature was denoted as the entrance to Room 

I (Locus 1, Figure 3.29), oriented from the south and lying to the 

north of Wall 81 and east of Wall 82. Regarding Wall 82, only 

its eastern face was exposed, and it continues into the west and 

south balks; it is at least 0.8 m thick and 2 m long, and its base 

is at an elevation of 49.17 m. It is possible that below Feature 20 

a drainage channel was related to Wall 82 (see Figure 3.18). To 

the south of Wall 81 there seems to be an additional north–south 

wall (Wall 80) in alignment with Wall 82, continuing into the 

balk; this could have been a later addition, as seen in the south 

balk (Figures 3.19, 3.40), as Wall 80 seems to overlie Wall 82. 

The tabun in the northwestern corner of the square (Feature 17, 

Figure 3.53) has its base at a level of 49.55 m and is more likely 

to belong to the next level, Phase 16 (Figure 3.52).

possibly belong to one jug; see chapter 11 and discussion of the 

MBII pottery below).

A handle of a small jug or juglet (Figure 3.27s) was incised 

after firing, with a long vertical line crossing at least four short 

horizontal lines. Note also a “ledge” handle (Figure 3.27t), 

folded upright and attached to a body sherd of a closed vessel 

(it is made of grayish clay with white grits). Similar jar ledge 

handles are known from the MBI (or Early Bronze IV), and thus, 

this fragment may be residual (although this period is not represented elsewhere in the site). A worked sherd perforated in the 

center (Figure 3.27v), possibly used as a weight, is also illustrated. A decorated body sherd (Figure 3.27u) is probably a part 

of a Cypriot juglet (see chapter 11, Cat. No. 40).

Small finds from Phase 18 in Field III include a clay “plug” 

(Reg. No. 1667), a worked sherd (Reg. No. 3706), and a possible figurine horn (Reg. No. 4077; all of which are not illustrated). More significant is a nearly complete bronze spear butt 

(Figure 3.28d; see chapter 21) from Sq. C2, Pit 1; a bone tool 

fragment was also found (Figure 25.5h).

REMAINS OF PHASE 17

Phase 17 (Figures 3.29–3.31) is the lowermost MBIIB-C 

phase yielding any substantial remains, in terms of both architecture and finds (especially pottery in Sqs. J1–J2, Layer 17, Figures 

FIGURE 3.26. Pit 2 in Sq. F2.
3 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 3 7

wall, possibly blocked in a later stage by bricks, Feature 7, at 

an elevation of 49.89 m). A brick frame (30 cm thick), creating 

a sort of a box, may be related to Feature 7 (Figure 3.36). This 

area is eroded in the east. To the north of Walls 6, 7, and Feature 7, Locus 1 was defined. Here a floor level contained numerous smashed vessels (subsequently restored, Figures 3.32–3.35), 

mostly large jars (Figures 3.48, 3.49; Sq. J1, Layer 17, Locus 

1). The bottom of this floor level (defined as Unit 16?) was at 

an elevation of 49.49 m in Sq. J2, yet restored vessels from this 

floor were also restored from Layer 18 (and probably Layers 19 

and 20) below and Layers 16 and 16A above. Thus, the debris 

layer containing the pottery populated elevations between 49.66 

and 49.25 m. This floor continues to the west to Sq. J1 in Layers 

16–17 (this area was also expanded about 1.5 m to the north 

during the short 1984 season in order to complete the excavation 

of this floor level; Figures 3.3, 3.32).

Although the architectural remains of Phase 17 are somewhat fragmentary, it seems at least three rooms or units can 

be defined by several fragments of brick walls. The northern 

unit in Sqs. J1–J2 contained a floor level with scores of restorable vessels, mostly jars (Figures 3.48, 3.49), which compose a 

substantial component of the MBIIB assemblage from the site. 

Considering the vessels, it seems probable that this space was a 

storage room; some of the jars are adorned with plaster applications (see Figure 3.49a,f). In one case a nearly complete, large, 

single-handled jar (Figure 3.49a) had at least four perforations 

arranged in a triangles; these perforations were made after firing 

and were subsequently covered by a thick layer of white plaster (see also Figure 3.49f). Another option is that the jars were 

In Sq. F2 (Figures 3.30, 3.31), two fragmentary walls (Walls 

11 and 12 and Wall 14, Figure 3.43) create a right angle and define 

a space (Locus 2, Room H, Figures 3.29–3.31) to the east; here 

a floor level paved with pebbles was found (Layer 16, Locus 1 at 

49.39 m, Figures 3.30, 3.44); however, less than 1 m to the east, 

the area is already eroded in this square. To the south of Wall 12 

there were possibly remains of another parallel brick wall (Wall 

9), mostly in the southern balk of the square. To the west of Wall 

11 (Locus 1) or Feature 13 is a small (0.25 m in diameter) circular 

depressed clay-lined patch, possibly a posthole 1 m from the wall. 

North of Feature 13, a rectangular clay strip (Feature 14, Figure 

3.36) may be the remains of a brick wall connecting to Wall 11; to 

the north of it, Locus 3 was defined, where in the north balk the 

edge of a tabun (Feature 15, Figure 3.24) is visible; to the north 

this whole area is cut by Pit 2 (Figure 3.26). The unit denoted as 

Room H possibly continues to the north into Sq. J2. However, 

in the balk between Sqs. F2 and J2 remains of a possible eroded 

north–south brick wall were found (Sq. F2, Wall 10 and Sq. J2, 

Wall 8); the area to the north in Sq. J2 was either a continuation of 

Room H (2.9 m wide) or another unit (Locus 2, Unit 16?). 

Pottery from Room H (Figure 3.46) includes open and carinated bowls, cooking pots, jar fragments and handles (Figure 

3.46a–n), the string cut base of a miniature bowl (Figure 3.46i 

), a cylindrical clay tube or a spout (Figure 3.46q), and a juglet 

neck or spout (black burnished; Figure 3.46r).

About 1.5 m to the north, remains of wall fragments may 

belong to this phase or to Phase 16, as there seems to be a 0.7-

to 0.8-m-wide passage through this wall (Sq. J2, Walls 6 and 

7, Figure 3.29; these seem to be parts of the same north–south 

FIGURE 3.27. Pottery from Phase 18. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware. (opposite)

Part Description RV/SI Cat./Bag/Box No. Provenance

a Bowl (platter); red decoration, burnish 1130/2 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

b Bowl; red slip, burnish 1130/1 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

c Bowl (platter) 926/3 GMIII C2 F22

d Bowl (platter); red slip, burnish 1130/3 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

e Bowl (platter) 1372/2 GMIII C2 (86) 1

f Bowl; red slip 2245/1 GMIII F2 F18

g Bowl 1356/6 GMIII C2 (87)

h Bowl RV 648 GMIII C2 F22

i Bowl; red slip, burnish 1356/1 GMIII C2 (87)

j Bowl; red slip 1356/2 GMIII C2 (87)

k Bowl 1356/3 GMIII C2 (87)

l Jug/jar; dark slip 1130/5 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

m Jug/juglet; red slip 1130/4 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

n Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 797/1 GMIII C2 F22 2

o Juglet (TEY?); slip 1356/4 GMIII C2 (87)

p Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 795/2 GMIII C2 (87)

q Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 795/3 GMIII C2 (87)

r Jug/juglet 1130/6 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

s Jug/juglet 1356/5 GMIII C2 (87)

t Ledge handle? 1372/1 GMIII C2 (86) 1

u Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration 1141/1 GMIII C2 F22 (2)

v Worked sherd 1372/3 GMIII C2 (86) 1
3 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

chapter 11). Also notable is the rim of a rounded bowl with external perforations near the rim (Figure 3.47p) and a jar base 

with a perforation made after firing (Figure 3.47r). A thick body 

sherd with a horizontal applied ridge (Figure 3.47q) seems to be 

a fragment of a handmade cooking pot; a rim with a brown band 

(Figure 3.47t) is probably from a large jar.

Other finds from Phase 17 include an impressed jar handle 

(Figure 51n; see chapter 20), a group of worked sherds (e.g., Figure 3.51o, Reg. Nos. 3890–3892, 3908, and 1929 and 1929A, 

which are also perforated), a possible sealing (Figure 3.51p), a 

bronze tool (Figure 3.51q), a worked pebble (Figure 23.4l), and 

a basalt handstone (Figure 23.2n).

REMAINS OF PHASE 16

Hardly any architectural units were identified in Phase 16 

(Figure 3.52), and in fact, it can be seen as an intermediate level 

deliberately smashed and the large sherds were used as flooring 

in Sqs. J1–J2, Locus 1, Layer 17; however, this seems less probable because of the full reconstruction of many of the vessels. At 

least two clay sealings with impressions were found in Phase 17 

(Figure 3.51p, Reg. Nos. 1210, 1213). An important and rare 

find from Sq. J2, Locus 1, Layer 16 is a clay cylinder seal (Figure 

3.50) with cuneiform signs and a geometric pattern on it (see 

chapter 28). This object indicates this region may have had certain connections with Syria or Mesopotamia.

The pottery assemblage from Phase 17 (Figures 3.46–3.49) 

dates to MBII B-C when compared to other sites with similar 

pottery (see below). The assemblage includes platters, open 

bowls (Figure 3.46a,b), carinated bowls (Figure 3.47h–j; including a thin “eggshell” bowl in Figure 3.47h), cooking pots (Figure 

3.47n–q), a very large assemblage of storage jars and pithoi (Figures 3.48, 3.49), of which 20 are complete or nearly complete, 

jugs, juglets, fragments of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (e.g., Figure 

3.51a,b), and imported Cypriot WP ware (Figure 3.51c–m; see 

FIGURE 3.28. Pottery and finds from Phase 18. Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Jug (Cyp. WP); red/brown decoration Box 796/1 GMIII C2 F22 

b Jug (Cyp. WP); red decoration (two shades) Box 795/1 GMIII C2 (87)

c Bronze spear head/butt Reg. No. 1307 (SI Cat. 1001) GMIII C2 P1
NUMBER 50 • 3 9

FIGURE 3.30. Square F2, Phase 17, pebbled floor in Room H, looking south.

FIGURE 3.29. Plan of Phase 17.
4 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.35. Squares J1–J2, Layer 17, after removal.

FIGURE 3.34. Layer 17, close-up of vessels in Sqs. J2 and J1.

FIGURE 3.31. Square F2, Wall 11 and pebbled floor.

FIGURE 3.32. Squares J1–J2, Floor Layer 17, looking north.

FIGURE 3.33. Squares J1–J2, Layer 17 with broken vessels exposed.
NUMBER 50 • 4 1

FIGURE 3.36. Brick frame related to Feature 7(?) in Sq. J2, looking 

north.

FIGURE 3.37. Feature 8 in Sq. J2.

FIGURE 3.38. Square J2, balk with sherd layer.

FIGURE 3.39. Square J1 of the 1984 extension, 

looking south, with (ash filled) Pit 3 in the background.
4 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.40. South, west, and north sections of Sq. C2.
NUMBER 50 • 4 3

FIGURE 3.41. South balk of Square C2 with a close up on ash Layer 87.

an extent of 12 m2

 and is at least 60 cm thick. Within this layer 

a tumble of bricks was excavated (Feature 16, Figure 3.54); this 

tumble is oriented northeast-southwest and is probably the remains of a wall of this phase. Both the tumble and Layer 81 

slope to the east. It is possible that this represents remains of a 

structure not preserved, and the pottery assemblage of Layer 81 

may relate to. Layer 81 was very rich in restorable vessels, and 

Layers 80 and 81A probably represent the same context. In the 

northwest corner of Sq. C2 and into the balk adjoining with Sq. 

C1, a tabun, Feature 17, was excavated (Figure 3.53). Thus, in 

both Sqs. C1 and C2 the space excavated in Phase 16 seems to 

be an open area or at least part of a larger unit (its delimiting 

walls were not found). About 1 m to the south of Sq. C1 a nearly 

complete zoomorphic vessel of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (Figure 

3.63) was found at an elevation of 50.59 m; it was mended with 

a fragment from Layer 81 of Sq. C1 and thus belongs to the same 

level (see below). 

In Sq. F1, the remains from this phase consist of Pit 1 (49.99–

49.21 m), located in the NW corner of the square, about 1.3 m 

in diameter (its edges lie in balks), which seems to have been dug 

from Layer 7 (Figure 3.67). A possible wall (denoted as Wall 7 

but not further recorded) was excavated under Wall 6 of Phase 

15, Room G. In the same spot, fragmentary tabuns, Features 5 

and 7 (Figures 3.65–3.67), are cut by the Phase 15 wall and thus 

belong to Phase 16. The lower part of Pit 2 in Sq. F2 may also 

belong to Phase 16, as well as Layers 8–12. In Sq. F2, a pit with 

pebbles (Feature 8) and the Feature 9 pit (Figure 3.68) with an 

equid burial at its bottom (Feature 10, Figure 3.68, 0.5 × 0.5 m 

in size, with a donkey skull and leg preserved) may also belong 

to Phase 16 or Phase 17 (see Wapnish and Hesse, 1988; Van 

Beek, 1989a:25*; Wapnish, 1997:343–349, figs. 12.6–12.9; 

see chapter 33). This burial could belong to the type of donkey 

burials found beneath walls (Wapnish, 1997; Way, 2010:215), 

between Phases 17 and 15, both having discernible architectural 

units. Nevertheless, the ceramic assemblage from this phase is 

very rich, especially because of the finds of Layer 81 in Sq. C1 

(Figures 3.53–3.57). In Sq. C1 a thick ash layer rich with restorable pottery vessels, labeled Layer 81 (Figures 3.58–3.64), seems 

to cover Wall 81, as seen in the south balk (Figures 3.55, 3.100, 

elevation of 50.05–50.59 m); this layer also clearly lies beneath 

Wall 79 of Phase 15 (Figure 3.75); Layer 81 was excavated to 

FIGURE 3.42. Walls 80–82 with doorway in Sq. C2, looking east.
4 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

were not removed (Figures 3.69, 3.70). In the northern 1984 extension of Sq. J1, two wall fragments making a right corner were 

excavated (Walls 11 and 12, Figure 3.43). These two walls define 

a room or a space to the northeast, but no floor level seems to 

have been excavated here. Wall 12 underlies Feature 9, a tabun, 

and Wall 11 underlies Wall 10, both from Phase 15.

The rich pottery assemblage from Layer 81 in Sq. C1 is very 

diverse, including various open and closed bowls, jugs, juglets, 

jars, and other vessels (Figure 3.58–3.61; two plates of this pottery were previously published in Van Beek, 1989a:24*–29*, ills. 

11, 12). This seems to be a domestic assemblage (although it contains some luxury items), consisting of a large amount of tableware. It may have been excavated in situ, but its architectural 

context is not clear because of the small scale of the excavation 

interpreted by Wapnish as remains of a sacrificial offering, but 

it could represent a trash deposit (see Way, 2010:214). Several 

MBIIB-C donkey burials were uncovered at nearby Tell el-‘Ajjul 

(see Wapnish, 1997:349–352; Way, 2010:213–214, for further 

references), three in association with human burials, and others 

were found in Tel Haror (Oren, 1997: fig. 18.6; for a study and 

survey of Bronze Age donkey burials and their significance, see 

Wapnish, 1997; Way, 2010.) 

As noted above, fragmentary Walls 6, 7, and 8 and Features 

6 and 7 in Sq. J2 (see Figure 3.52) may belong to Phase 16 or 

may have continued to be in use in this phase. Feature 6 is a 

shallow pit paved with pebbles, about 0.4 m wide, probably a 

posthole. Layers 13–15 (see Figure 3.45) from Sq. J2 also belong 

to this phase. Note that the balks between Sqs. C2 and F2 and J2 

FIGURE 3.43. Walls 11 and 14 in Sq. F2, 

Phase 17, looking east.

FIGURE 3.44. Floor with pebbles and sherds 

in Sq. F2 (Layer 16, Locus 1) and Wall 11 behind, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 4 5

FIGURE 3.45. North, south, and west sections of Sqs. J1–J2.
4 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and a complete chalice or bowl on trumpet base (Figures 3.59m, 

3.62c). In this last vessel, the bowl is carinated (see parallels, e.g., 

at Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:53, Type Ch3] and Tel Nagila 

[Uziel, 2008: fig. 55: CL1]). A platter with handles (Figure 3.60c) 

was also found; one lamp is also illustrated (Figure 3.61n). A 

complete closed globular vessel with a high handle (Figure 3.59l) 

may be a cooking pot of uncommon form (see Batash, Stratum 

XI [Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 7:7] and Megiddo, Stratum X [Loud, 1948: pl. 46:9]). A miniature closed vessel was 

nearly completely preserved (Figure 3.61l). A heavy base (Figure 3.60f) may belong to a small jar. Also notable is the rim 

of a krater(?) with thumbing “rope” decoration (Figure 3.60b; 

see, e.g., Hazor, MBII, Yadin et al., 1958: pl. CXII:13, 1961: pl. 

area. This was possibly a courtyard (see Van Beek, 1989a:24*), 

with the vessels disposed of here from the nearby rooms. 

The assemblage from Layer 81 includes a large variety of 

open and rounded bowls (Figure 3.58a–g); carinated bowls in 

various sizes and forms are numerous too (Figures 3.58h–x, 

3.62a); some are finer and thinner, with higher ring bases (Figures 3.58t,w, 3.62b). Cooking pots are usually globular, with 

everted or ledge rims (Figure 3.59h–k). Several jar fragments appear, but not many are complete (Figure 3.60d–k); other common 

forms are large jugs and cylindrical and pyriform juglets (Figure 

3.61d,e). Several Red, White, and Blue ware (RWB) sherds also 

appear (Figure 3.60l–p). Other forms include a miniature open 

bowl (or a lamp; Figure 3.59b), a string-cut base (Figure 3.59e), 
NUMBER 50 • 4 7

REMAINS OF PHASE 15

Phase 15 includes few remains in Sq. C1, and most architectural remains come from Sqs. F1 and J1 (Figures 3.73–3.79). 

This phase was already eroded in Sqs. C2, F2, and J2 and thus 

was not represented there. In Sq. C1 a thin wall made of a single 

line of bricks (Wall 79, Figure 3.74) is in the same line as Wall 

77 from Phase 14 and can be seen clearly under it in the south 

balk (Figures 3.75, 3.100). Wall 79 extends to the south balk 

and in 1982 the excavation was extended to the south of Sq. C1 

about 1 m; the zoomorphic vessel from Phase 16 (Figure 3.63) 

was found under it. It also continues to the north (and to the 

unexcavated area to the west, under Sq. B remains) and might 

have made a right angle with Wall 6 in Sq. F1, but the balk was 

not removed. Generally, the elevations of Phase 15 in Sq. C1 

(e.g., Wall 79 at a 50.77 m lower level) are about 0.5 m higher 

than those in Sqs. F1–J1 (e.g., Wall 6 at a lower level of 50.22 

m); this could be explained by the sloping of the mound to the 

north, and thus, the same levels at Sq. F1 are 0.3–0.5 m lower 

than in Sq. C1. 

In Sqs. F1 and J1, a series of walls and other features were 

excavated in Phase 15 (Figure 3.73). Walls 4–6 in Sq. F1 and Wall 

3 of J1 comprise three walls of a room 4 m long and at least 2 m 

wide, denoted as Room G (Locus 5 in Sq. F1, Locus 2 in Sq. J1; 

Figure 3.73, possibly Figure 3.76; the floor is probably Sq. J1, 

Layer 9, Locus 2 at an elevation of 50.19 m). Wall 6 in Sq. F1 is 

the south wall of the room, showing evidence of plastering and 

mortar bedding; Wall 5 is the eastern wall (equal to Wall 4 of Sq. 

J1), completely excavated; only a small portion of the northern 

wall, Wall 3 in Sq. J1, was exposed (Figure 3.77). The western 

part of the room lay in the unexcavated area. The SE corner of 

Walls 5 and 6 in Sq. F1 has additional bricks and mortar filling 

and is probably disturbed from stones of Feature 3 from Phase 14 

CCXXXIX:16), and a ridged, white-slipped body sherd (Figure 

3.61m), possibly belonging to a pithos.

Other pottery from Phase 16 illustrates a similar repertoire 

(Figures 3.71, 3.72), including open and rounded bowls (Figure 

3.71a–i), carinated bowls (Figure 3.71j–n), hole-mouth-shaped 

rims (Figure 3.71q,r), cooking pots that might originate from 

an Egyptian tradition (see below), jars, jugs, and juglets (Figures 3.71s, 3.72a–d,g). Decorated Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware (Figure 

3.72h–m) and White Painted Cypriot imports also appear (Figure 3.72e,f,o–u). Unique items illustrated are a bowl(?) handle 

with perforations (Figure 3.72n; see, possibly, Hazor, LBII, Yadin 

et al., 1961: pl. CLIX:25) and a small bowl with inner decoration (Figure 3.72v). The assemblage from Phase 16 can be compared to MBIIB-C assemblages at Tell Nagila (see Uziel, 2008; 

Uziel et al., 2009), Ashkelon, “Calf Temple Phase” (e.g., Stager, 

2002: fig. 22, 2005), and other sites; it does not seem to indicate 

a different ceramic horizon than the assemblage of Phase 17.

Other finds from Phase 16 include at least nine clay sealings 

with scarab seal impressions also discovered in Sq. C1, Layer 81 

(Figure 3.64a–h; see chapter 20). Figure 3.72y is another sealing 

fragment without an impression. Other ceramic finds are at least 

three worked sherds of various shapes (Reg. Nos. 1728, 3909, 

3910; see chapter 18), a “gaming piece” (Reg. No. 2057; see 

chapter 19), and perforated clay or mud loom weights (Figure 

3.72w–x). A thin bronze sheet from Sq. C1, Layer 81 should also 

be noted (Reg. No. 2028) along with several flint sickle blades (FL 

608; see chapter 26). A worked pebble and a hammerstone were 

also found in the layer (Figure 23.3b). A large number of plaster 

fragments came from Layer 81 (SCI 147, SCI 198, SCI 273, SCI 

378); some may be related to the jars with drilled perforation 

and plaster attachments (see Figure 3.49a); about 100 tabun fragments were also recorded from Layer 81 (SCI 1177). Other small 

finds from Phase 16 include bone tools (Figure 25.5f). 

FIGURE 3.46. Pottery from Phase 17, Room H. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl 2260/1 GMIII F2 (17) 2

b Bowl 2241/1 GMIII F2 (17) 2

c Bowl 2241/2 GMIII F2 (17) 2

d Bowl; red slip, burnish 2247/2 GMIII F2 (16) 2

e Bowl, red slip 2260/3 GMIII F2 (17) 2

f Bowl; burnish 2260/2 GMIII F2 (17) 2

g Bowl 2247/1 GMIII F2 (16) 2

h Bowl 2260/4 GMIII F2 (17) 2

i Bowl (string cut) 2241/3 GMIII F2 (17) 2

j Cooking pot 2247/3 GMIII F2 (16) 2

k Jar/jug 2247/4 GMIII F2 (16) 2

l Jar 2260/5 GMIII F2 (17) 2

m Jug/juglet 2260/6 GMIII F2 (17) 2

n Jug(?) 2260/7 GMIII F2 (17) 2

o Jar 2247/5 GMIII F2 (16) 2

p Juglet 2247/6 GMIII F2 (16) 2

q Tube/spout(?) 2260/8 GMIII F2 (17) 2

r Spout/juglet(?) 2241/4 GMIII F2 (17) 2
4 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 4 9

carinated bowl with a deep rounded base, completely perforated 

with holes before firing; a handle springs from the inner part, possibly attached to the rim. Parallels are more common in LBII and 

early Iron Ages (Tell el-‘Ajjul [Ernest et al., 1952:67Z], Lachish, 

LBII Fosse Temple [Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. LIV:337], Megiddo, 

Stratum VIII [Loud, 1948: pl. 61:26; Arie, 2006: Type ST1], Beth 

Shean, Stratum S-3 [Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2009: pl. 63:8], 

and Tell es-Safi, Phase A5 [Zukerman, 2012:297, pl. 13.6:14], 

as well as Iron IIA, Safi Phase A3 [Shai and Maeir, 2012: pls. 

14.4:2, 14.7:2]); bronze strainers of somewhat similar form are 

also common (e.g., LBII Deir el-Balah [Dothan, 1979:20, fig.37] 

and Tell es-Saidiyeh [Pritchard, 1980: fig. 4:17]). 

A decorated sherd (Figure 3.79r) is probably of the RWB 

ware (see below); two bases of miniature/votive vessels (see Figure 19.5b,c) were found in contexts probably attributed to Phase 

15. This pottery assemblage could be dated to the end of the 

MBIIB-C period, similar to Phase 16. A miniature bull figurine 

(Figure 3.78t), a zoomorphic figurine head (Reg. No. 2138), and 

a curved horn (Figure 3.79s) from a zoomorphic figurine or vessel depicting a goat or a ram are also illustrated and are discussed 

in chapter 17. A worked pebble (Figure 23.4m), a perforated 

basalt item (Figure 23.4n; see chapter 23), a complete bone awl 

(Reg. No. 1368), and a fragment of an inlay (Figure 25.2c) were 

also found in this phase.

DISCUSSION OF THE MBIIB-C POTTERY 

OF PHASES 18–15

The pottery of Phases 18–15 does not seem to vary considerably and thus will be typologically discussed together as a single 

(Figures 3.80 and 3.81). In Sq. J1 in the northern part of the room 

a jar was sunk into the floor (Feature 3, Figure 3.79p, from Layer 

9 at 50.19 m to Layer 11); the jar is about 50 cm high, with its 

top part shaved and another jar base placed inside it. Note that 

the balk between Sqs. F1 and J1 in the middle of Room G was not 

removed. Nearby, three bricks were located under the west face 

of Wall 4 (Sq. J1, Feature 5), possibly a lower phase of the wall or 

a buttress (the wall might have been thinner at that phase). From 

the outside of the NE corner of Room G in Wall 4 a possible door 

jamb was visible in this area. A brick tumble (Feature 4) may 

be remains of steps, but it is difficult to substantiate this reconstruction. Pottery from Room G (Figure 3.78) includes open and 

carinated bowls (Figure 3.78a–g), various cooking pot fragments 

(Figure 3.78h–m), several jugs and Tell el-Yahudiyeh fragments 

(Figure 3.78n–q), and WP Cypriot sherds (Figure 3.78r,s). Three 

worked sherds (Figure 3.78s and Reg. Nos. 3693, 3694) and a 

figurine (Figure 3.78t) were also found in Room G.

The area to the south of Wall 6 of Room G was denoted as 

Unit 15; to the east a brick tumble continuing Wall 5 to the south 

was recorded, but it is not possible to reconstruct the architecture 

in this area in detail. Toward the north of Room G, in the 1984 

extension of Sq. J1, an additional wall fragment (Wall 10) and a 

tabun fragment (Feature 9, Figure 3.73) were excavated from Phase 

15; these belong to an additional architectural unit, unnumbered.

The pottery and finds from Phase 15 (Figures 3.78, 3.79) 

are not as rich as those from Phases 17–16. These include typical open, rounded and carinated bowls, including thin eggshell 

examples (Figure 3.79i), various cooking pots, jars, and jug and 

juglet fragments (Figure 3.79l–q; see discussion below); Figure 

3.79j is a lamp or a thick bowl. A complete strainer bowl was 

found in the phase in Sq. J1 (Figure 3.79k); this is a small, slightly 

FIGURE 3.47. Pottery from Phase 17. Cyp. = Cypriot; af = after firing. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; soot 905 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

b Bowl 5281/4 GMIII J2 (21) 2 17

c Bowl; stripe burnish 854/1 GMIII J1 (16) 1 17

d Bowl NA GMIII C2 P2 17?

e Bowl (fine) NA GMIII J1 (16) 1 17

f Bowl 854/2 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

g Base 2287/1 GMIII F2 (16) 1 17

h Bowl (fine/eggshell); burnish, soot 887 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

i Bowl; white slip 5290/1 GMIII J2 (19) 2 17

j Bowl/krater; white wash, burnish 898 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

k Bowl; wheel burnish 888/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

l Bowl 888/2 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

m Bowl (fine) 931 GMIII J1 (18) 1 17

n Cooking pot 854/4 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

o Krater/cooking pot 886 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

p Perforated sherd (bowl) 5281/2 GMIII J2 (21) 2 17

q Cooking pot(?); handmade 854/5 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

r Jar; perforated af 2285/1 GMIII F2 (15) 17

s Juglet; burnish 891 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17

t Juglet (Cyp.?); brown decoration 854/3 GMIII J1 (17) 1 17
5 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and wide rim diameters appear in Phases 17 (Figure 3.46a,b), 16 

(Figure 3.58a–e), and 15 (Figure 3.79a) and continue into the LB 

phases (see below). According to the more complete examples 

(such as from Phase 16 shown in Figure 3.58b,d,e), these bowls 

can be 25–35 cm in diameter and have a simple rim and a flat 

or a disk base (Figure 3.58d). See parallels, for example, in Beit 

Mirsim Tomb 2 (Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.75:1) and Nagila, Stratum X (Uziel, 2008: fig. 67:10). 

Open bowls with slightly rounded sides are also common 

in the MBIIB-C, appearing in Phases 18 (Figure 3.27a–c,e), 17 

(Figure 3.47a–c), 16 (Figures 3.58f, 3.71a–d,f), and 15 (Figure 

3.78a–c). These have a wide range of sizes, from 15 to 35 cm; 

very shallow bowls of this type can be termed platters (e.g., Figure 3.27d,e). These bowls have a simple (Figures 3.27a, 3.58f) 

or slightly thickened rim (such as in Figure 3.71b from Phase 

MBII assemblage. Emphasis will be given to the more common 

forms, which will refer to more exhaustive recent studies (such 

as those of Batash, Lachish, and Nagila), referencing previously 

published parallels; this discussion is complemented by selected 

parallels from more recently published relevant excavations. 

Comparative discussion and parallels are thus only selective and 

far from exhaustive; parallels are made mostly to MBIIB-C sites 

in southern Israel.

Bowls and Kraters

Bowls are very common in the MBII assemblage, including 

mostly open, rounded and carinated bowls. Open bowls include 

mainly bowls with a rounded or straight profile or platters, which 

are flatter (e.g., Figures 3.27d, 3.47b,c). Bowls with straight sides 

FIGURE 3.48. Storage jars from Sqs. J1–J2, Layer 17.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Jar/pithos RV 538 (SI Cat. 1045) GMIII J1 (17) 1

b Jar/pithos RV 1063 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

c Jar/jug RV 1056 GMIII J2 (18) 1

d Jar/pithos RV 1036 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

e Jar/pithos RV 1060 GMIII J2 (16–17) 1

f Jar/pithos RV 1037 GMIII J2 (27) 1
NUMBER 50 • 5 1

FIGURE 3.49. Storage jars from Sqs. J1–J2, Layer 17. af = after firing.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Jar/pithos; perforations (af), plaster RV 1050 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

b Jar RV 1070 GMIII J2 (17) 1

c Jar RV 1048 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

d Jar/pithos RV 1047 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

e Jar/pithos RV 1053 GMIII J1/J2 (17) 1

f Jar; drilled holes, plaster 909 GMIII J1 (17) 1
5 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.50. Cylinder seal, Reg. No. 1234 from Phase 17.

FIGURE 3.51. Pottery and finds from Phase 17. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware; NA = not applicable. 

(opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 825/1 GMIII J2 (16) 2

b Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 815/1 GMIII J1 (16) 1

c Jug (Cyp. WP); brown decoration Box 824/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1

d Sherd (Cyp. WP); red/decoration Box 824/2 GMIII J2 (17) 1

e Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration Box 824/3 GMIII J2 (17) 1

f Sherd (Cyp. WP); red decoration Box 824/4 GMIII J2 (17) 1

g Jug (Cyp. WP); brown decoration Box 807/1 GMIII F2 (13)

h Jug (Cyp. WP); brown decoration Box 809 /1 GMIII F2 (16) 1

i Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration Box 818/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1

j Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration Box 818/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1

k Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration Box 819/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1

l Decorated sherd (Cyp.?) 5285/1 GMIII J2 (16) 2

m Sherd (Cyp. WP); decoration 2285/2 GMIII F2 (15)

n Jar handle with impression Reg. No. 1231 GMIII F2 F12

o Perforated sherd/spindle Reg. No. 1929 GMIII J1 (17) 1

p Sealing(?) NA GMIII J1 (17) 1

q Bronze tool Reg. No. 2126 GMIII F2 (16)
NUMBER 50 • 5 3
5 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.52. Plan of Phase 16.

FIGURE 3.53. Square C2 with Feature 17, a tabun, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 5 5

FIGURE 3.54. Brick tumble, Feature 16 in Sq. C1, in relation to Layer 81, looking east.

FIGURE 3.55. Layer 81 in Sq. C1, as seen in seen in the western balk.
5 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.56. Layer 81 in Sq. C1 section, with complete bowl in situ. FIGURE 3.57. Layer 80 (and Layers 77–79 above in the balk) in Sq. 

C1 with animal bone in situ.

FIGURE 3.58. Bowls from Sq. C1, Layer 81. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No.

a Bowl SI Cat. No. 1026

b Bowl SI Cat. No. 1036

c Bowl 1166/2

d Bowl RV 665

e Bowl RV 666

f Bowl; soot 1166/1

g Bowl SI Cat. No. 1031

h Bowl SI Cat. No. 1041

i Bowl SI Cat. No. 1006

j Bowl RV 645 (SI Cat. 1029)

k Bowl SI Cat. No. 1033

l Bowl RV 655 (SI Cat. 1038)

m Bowl; red slip 1176/2

n Bowl SI Cat. No. 1018

o Bowl SI Cat. No. 1025

p Bowl SI Cat. No. 1028

q Bowl RV 652

r Bowl RV656 (SI Cat. 1037?)

s Bowl; red slip RV 657 (SI Cat. 1039)

t Bowl SI Cat. No. 1035

u Bowl RV 660

v Bowl RV 659

w Bowl SI Cat. No. 1030

x Bowl RV 650 (SI Cat. 1034)
NUMBER 50 • 5 7
5 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 5 9

17.8:6]); a somewhat similar form is also defined as frying bowl 

or pan (Ilan and Marcus, In press).

Rounded or hemispherical bowls are not as common as open 

bowls but appear in Phases 17 through 16 and possibly later (Figures 3.47a, 3.71a). These have a rounded or hemispherical (rarely, 

as in Figure 3.58c from Phase 16) profile and simple or slightly inverted rim; according to complete examples (such as from Phase 

17, Figure 3.47a), they have a low ring base or a disk base (Figure 

3.71a from Phase 16). They differ from the open bowls as their 

profile is more rounded and less open, sized mostly 20–35 cm in 

diameter. Basically, these rounded bowls are common throughout 

the MBII (e.g., Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.9:5,6], Aphek 

[Beck, 2000: fig. 10.4:8,9], and Batash [Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 

2006: pl. 38:3]) and continued to be even more popular during 

the LBII (see below and Uziel, 2008:139, Type BL2, fig. 53:7–9).

Carinated bowls and kraters of various types are probably 

the most common MBIIB-C bowls at Tell Jemmeh and appear 

in Phases 18 through 15 (e.g., Figures 3.27h, 3.46c–f, 3.47dl, 3.58h–x, 3.79e–h). They are considered the hallmark of the 

MBIIB-C and continue in the LBI and early LBII. The carinated 

bowls can be roughly be divided into high carinated bowls (e.g., 

Figures 3.27h, 3.47d,j, 3.58h,i), low carinated bowls (more 

globular; e.g., Figure 3.58w–x), and fine carinated bowls (or 

eggshell bowls; e.g., Figure 3.47h). The typical high carinated 

rim bowls appear already in Phase 18 (Figure 3.27h) and are 

15–20 cm in diameter in most cases. The rim is usually slightly 

everted (Figure 3.27h) or triangular (Figure 3.27j); sharply 

everted rims also appear (e.g., Phase 17, Figure 3.47i; Phase 

16, Figure 3.58q,s). The carination can be sharper (as Figure 

3.58l) or more rounded (many examples in Phase 16, as in Figure 3.58h,i); bases are either ring (e.g., Figure 3.58p,s) or concave disk bases (Figure 3.58h–j). Several examples have red slip 

and/or burnish outside and/or inside (mostly only partial slip, 

e.g., Phase 18, Figure 3.27j; Phase 17, Figure 3.46e; Phase 16, 

16) or, more common, a slightly inverted rim (such as examples 

from Phases 18–15 above). Generally, open bowls have a low 

ring base (e.g., Figure 3.58b,e). Several examples are red slipped 

and/or burnished, especially platter-like examples from Phase 18 

(Figure 3.27a,b). Radial burnish appears on a similar bowl from 

Phase 17 (Figure 3.47c), as well as an example from Phase 16/17 

(Figure 3.71g); radial burnish occurs on similar bowls at Batash, 

Stratum XI (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 6:10,11). An 

example from Phase 15 (Figure 3.79a) has white slip on its inner 

upper part (this may also be a chalice). Open bowls with inverted rims are very common in MBIIB-C strata of the southern 

Levant, e.g., Tel Haror (Oren et al., 1986b: fig. 13:1,4), Nagila 

(Uziel, 2008:139, fig. 53:4, BL1.4), Lachish (Singer-Avitz, 2004: 

fig. 16.4:7–9), Shechem (Cole, 1984: pl. 2i,j), Gezer (Dever et al., 

1974: pl. 17:21), Yavne-Yam (Uziel, 2008: fig. 17:11), Batash 

(Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:27, Types BL44, BL47), Beit Mirsim 

tombs (Ben-Arieh, 2004: figs. 2.1:1, 2.7:1–5), and Tell el-Dab’a 

(Aston, 2004: pl. 70:230). 

A simple rim from Phase 18 (Figure 3.27e) is of a very thickwalled open bowl or platter; possibly, this vessel is residual from 

the Chalcolithic, as these are not common in the MBII. A small 

example from Phase 16 (Figure 3.58f) has soot marks and might 

have been used as a lamp. A more complete example of an open, 

small, soot-covered bowl with a rounded base, probably used 

as a lamp, was also found in Phase 16 (Figure 3.59b; possibly 

similar to a simple lamp from Beit Mirsim Tomb 24; Ben-Arieh, 

2004: fig. 2.16:81). A more unusual example from Phase 16 is 

an open bowl or a platter that has a vertical handle and a cross 

incised on its interior (Figure 3.60c), which was made before firing; a good parallel comes from Tel Nagila, Stratum VIII (Uziel, 

2008: fig. 75:7). Similar bowls with handles, although somewhat 

deeper, come from Tel Nagila (Uziel, 2008:139, fig. 53:6, Type 

BL1.6) as well as from other MBIIB assemblages (e.g., Aphek 

[Beck, 2000: fig. 10.16:10] and Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 

FIGURE 3.59. Pottery from Sq. C1, Layer 81. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No.

a Bowl 1176/1

b Bowl/lamp; soot 2079/1

c Bowl 556/1

d Base 1158/1

e Bowl 1158/2

f Jar/chalice? 556/2

g Bowl 583

h Cooking pot 468

i Cooking pot 450

j Krater(?)/cooking pot 1175/1

k Cooking pot 459

l Cooking pot 460

m Chalice/bowl RV 642 (SI Cat. 1027)

n Bowl Box 211/1
6 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 6 1

FIGURE 3.60. Pottery from Sq. C1, Layer 81. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No.

a Bowl(?); red/white/blue decoration Box 211/2

b Krater 1152/1

c Bowl; incised decoration 2067/1 (SI Cat. 1042)

d Jar/pithos RV 639 (SI Cat. 1044)

e Jar/jug 566

f Jar 448

g Jar RV 651 (SI Cat. 1032)

h Jar, white band slip RV 664

i Jar 576/1

j Jar 576/2

k Jar 576/3

l Jar(?); red/white/blue decoration Box 211/3

m Sherd; red/white/blue decoration Box 211/4

n Sherd; red/white/blue decoration Box 211/5

o Sherd; red/white/blue decoration Box 211/6

p Jar; red/white/blue decoration Box 211/7

q Jar; red/white/blue decoration Box 211/8

is 10 cm. Other fragmentary examples come from Phases 16 

(Figure 3.71n) and 15 (Figure 3.79i). Thin eggshell bowls are 

typical of the final phase of the MBIIB-C and the LBI (see, e.g., 

Amiran, 1969:110, pl. 27; Cole, 1984: pls. 17, 18, and references therein).

 Votive or miniature bowls appear rarely; one fine complete 

example comes from Phase 15, Room G (Figure 3.78g). This 

open bowl is very thin walled (V-shaped profile), has a knifesharp rim(?) and a high disk base; it could possibly be described 

as a very low foot miniature chalice (see, e.g., Megiddo, Stratum 

X in Loud, 1948: pl. 129:14, but this example is thicker walled). 

As most of the rim is not preserved, it is possible this is the lower 

part of an eggshell carinated bowl.

Larger bowls with thickened rims are termed kraters; no 

complete example was found in the MBII, although some of the 

carinated bowls can be defined as carinated kraters with ring 

bases; Figure 3.78m from Phase 15 is a rim with two handles 

belonging either to a cooking pot or small krater.

Cooking Pots

Several types of cooking pots appear in MBII Phases 17–15 

(e.g., Figures 3.47n,o, 3.59h,i, 3.78h–l); none, however, are complete, and their quantity is small (none are illustrated in Phase 

18). The cooking pots are all wheel made, with a rounded to 

globular body shape (smaller rim sherds may have had either a 

globular or carinated body; thus, further typology is according 

to rim shape). It should be noted that no handmade straightsided cooking pots, typical of the MBIIA, appear (see Amiran, 

1969:126, pl. 30:1,3; Maeir, 2007:258–260), except a possible 

fragment from Phase 17 (Figure 3.47q). Also, apparently, no 

baking trays (see, e.g., Uziel, 2008:144, fig. 59) appear in the 

Figure 3.58m); Figure 3.47i has a thick white slip on the outside. 

Note that these bowls are less common in Phase 15 and become 

more open in their shape (Figures 3.78d,e, 3.79g, also termed 

S-shaped bowls), similar to LBII carinated bowls (see below). 

Similar bowls appear at Gezer (Dever et al., 1974: pls. 26:19, 

28:10) and Tel Nagila (Uziel, 2008: fig. 54:4, Type BL3.4, and 

references therein). 

Globular and/or low carinated rim bowls (Figure 3.58w,x) 

are more typical of MBIIB-C assemblages not continuing into 

LBII. They appear already in Phase 18 (Figure 3.27i). A large 

example (may be defined as a krater) comes from Phase 17 

(Figure 3.47j; this example also has white wash and burnish). 

These bowls are characteristically 25–40 cm tall, with a simple, 

closed body form, everted or thickened rim, a globular lower 

body, rounded, emphasized carination, and an everted or vertical 

“neck” above the carination (e.g., Figure 3.58x). Bases are either 

low (Figure 3.58s,t,w) or high ring base (Figures 3.59m, 3.62c; 

note these are sometimes termed goblets [see Uziel, 2008:141, 

fig. 55] or pedestal bowls [see Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.6:5,6]); 

red-slipped and burnished examples come from Phase 16 (Figure 3.71n). This is a typical MBIIB-C form with examples from 

many sites in the region (e.g., Aphek [Beck, 2000: fig. 18.6:2], 

Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008:139–140, Type BL3.1–3.2, fig. 54:1,2], 

Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.11:6], Gezer [Panitz-Cohen 

and Maeir, 2004: Pl. 3:1,3], Shechem [Cole, 1984: pl. 18f], 

Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: fig. 19:1], and Batash, Stratum X 

[Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL56, pl. 10:1]). 

As noted, a few examples of very thin and delicate bowls 

(eggshell) also appear, with the best example from Phase 17 (Figure 3.47h): the simple rim is very thin and sharply everted, and 

the low carination is very pronounced; there is a low ring base. 

This bowl also has burnish and soot marks, and its diameter 
6 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.61. Pottery from Sq. C1, Layer 81.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Jar 1176/4 GMIII C1 (81)

b Jar/jug 1176/3 GMIII C1 (81)

c Jug RV 661 GMIII C1 (81)

d Jug/juglet RV 654 GMIII C1 (81)

e Jug 447 GMIII C1 (81)

f Cooking pot(?) RV 824 (SI Cat. 1043) GMIII C1 (81)

g Juglet RV 653 (SI Cat. 1040) GMIII C1 (81A)

h Juglet; burnish 590 GMIII C1 (81)

i Juglet 1162/2 GMIII C1 (81)

j Juglet 1136/1 GMIII C1 (81)

k Jug/spout 477 GMIII C1 (81)

l Miniature vessel RV 658 GMIII C1 (81)

m Sherd 1162/1 GMIII C1 (81)

n Lamp 1176/5 GMIII C1 (81)
NUMBER 50 • 6 3

possible parallel from Batash, Stratum XI (Panitz-Cohen and 

Mazar, 2006: pl. 7:15).

Another type of cooking pot represented by several rims 

from Phases 17–15 (Figures 3.47n, possibly 3.47o, 3.78h,i) is a 

folded, inverted rim, possibly of a hole-mouth-type vessel. The 

sherds are made of coarse clay with large grits, and this type may 

be related to Egyptian-style hole-mouth cooking pots appearing 

in northern Egypt and the southern Levant during the MBIIB 

(see, e.g., Tell el-Maskhuta [Holladay, 1997: pl. 7.6], possibly 

Tell el-Dab’a [Aston, 2004: pls. 296-297], Aphek, Stratum X16 

[Gadot and Yadin, 2009: figs. 7.16:10,11, 7.18:7–9], possibly 

Megiddo, Strata XIII–X [Loud, 1948: pl. 30:3], and Ashkelon 

Phases 11–10, gate area, the sanctuary of the calf [Stager, 2002: 

fig. 22; Stager and Voss, 2011:123*, pl. 2:6–8]). Note that these 

are different from the hole-mouth pots with simple rims that can 

appear in the MBII as a continuance of the third millennium 

cooking ware tradition (see, e.g., Uziel, 2008:67, fig. 21:1–6).

Jars and Pithoi

Although in Phases 18, 16, and 15 storage jars are represented by only a few rims and some larger fragments, Phase 17 

yielded a large assemblage of reconstructed storage jars (mainly 

from Sqs. J1–J2, Layer 16–17, Locus 1; see Figures 3.32–3.35, 

3.48, 3.49). Only one example is entirely complete (Figure 3.48a); 

this one has no handles. Most of these large jars or small pithoi 

have a similar form characterized by a large ovoid (or pyriform) 

body, a height up to 90 cm, a very wide shoulder (up to 40–45 

MBII assemblage, and only a few come from LBII and unstratified contexts (possibly Figure 3.112s).

Cooking pots with thickened, out-turned rims appear in 

Phases 17 (Figure 3.46j), 16 (Figure 3.61f), and 15 (Figure 

3.78j). No complete examples were found, but the body is 

probably globular (Figure 3.47o); one example at least shows 

handles (Phase 16, Figure 3.61f, possibly also Figure 3.59l). 

This is a common MBIIB-C form (see, e.g., Batash [PanitzCohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 5:16], Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: 

fig. 16.25:5], and Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008:143 fig. 58:1–2, Type 

CP3.1]). Cooking pots with simple everted rims appear in 

Phase 16 (Figure 3.59i,j) and Phase 15 (Figure 3.79l). This is 

a common MBII type as well (see, e.g., Aphek [Beck, 2000: 

fig. 8.10:6], Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.31:1], Batash, 

Stratum XI [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: pl. 7:2, Type CP17], and Tel 

Nagila [Uziel, 2008: Type CP1.1]). 

A typical MBIIB-C rim type is the everted gutter rim, belonging to either a globular or slightly carinated body, appearing in Phases 16 (Figure 3.59h) and 15 (Figures 3.78l, 3.79m,o). 

Notably, this type does not appear in Phases 18–17 and is seemingly more common in Phase 15. This form is usually found 

in earlier MBIIB assemblages but also continues into the LBI 

and is possibly the most common MBIIB-C cooking pot type 

in this region (e.g., Aphek [Beck, 2000: pl. 8.10:8], Batash 

[Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 7:11], Tel Nagila [Uziel, 

2008:143, Type CP1.2, fig. 58:4], Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: fig. 

21:11, and references therein]). An example of a cooking pot 

from Phase 15 (Figure 3.79l) has a more vertical rim, with a 

FIGURE 3.62. Pottery vessels from Sq. C1, Layer 81: (a) SI Cat. No. 1018 (see Figure 3.58n), (b) SI Cat. No. 

1030 (see Figure 3.58w), and (c) SI Cat. No. 1027 (see Figure 3.59m).
6 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Beit Mirsim, Tomb 33 [Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig.25], Batash [PanitzCohen, 2006a:73–77, Type SJ1, “molded rim”], Nagila, Stratum IX [Uziel, 2008:144, Type SJ2, fig. 72:8], Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 

2008: fig. 23:1], and Tell el-Dab’a [Aston, 2004: pls. 164, 167, 

168, 173, 287]). Larger and thicker forms with no handles are 

often defined as pithoi (e.g., Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:88–

90] and Beth Shean [Maeir, 2007:269–270, Type PT23, photo 

4.44]). These may also be dated to earlier stages of the MBIIB 

(see Uziel, 2008:144, Type SJ1.1; also see, for the Late Bronze, 

Beth Shean, Mullins, 2007:428, fig. 5.10, Type PT1) but appear 

in the MBIIB-C as well. 

The storage jars or pithoi of this type at Tell Jemmeh carry 

a few additional characteristics: several examples have large 

areas with chalky white slip or wash (Figure 3.49a,f). This slip 

was smeared on the body as wide vertical bands (Figure 3.60h; 

see also Field I, Figure 6.24a). Possible parallels for this surface 

treatment on jars come from Batash, Stratum X (Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:75–76, pl. 12:5–7) and Megiddo, Stratum X (Loud, 1948: 

cm), a short, narrow neck, a flaring rim (folded or simple), and 

a slightly pointed to rounded (e.g., Figure 3.48a) or flat (Figure 

3.49e) base. In some cases the rims can be molded, folded, or 

profiled (Phase 17, Figures 3.46l, 3.48a; Phase 16, Figure 3.71s) 

or gutter shaped (Figure 3.60j). Some of the jars have no handles 

(Figure 3.48a,d), whereas others have one handle (Figures 3.48c, 

3.49a; technically, smaller jars, as in Figure 3.48c, with one handle can be defined as large jugs; see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: 

Types JG1–JG2; Maeir, 2007: Type SJ23; Uziel, 2008: Type J1.1) 

or two handles (e.g., Figure 3.48b). About 15 complete or nearly 

complete reconstructed jars come from Phase 17 (Figures 3.48, 

3.49; most were partially restored; note not all are illustrated), 

with similar forms appearing in Phase 16 as well (Figures 3.60d, 

61a, 3.71s), but they seem to be lacking in Phase 15. 

This generic jar type (sometimes defined as a pithos) is 

common throughout the MBIIB-C in the southern Levant (e.g., 

Gezer [Dever et al., 1974: pl. 23:1–3], Tel Haror [Oren et al., 

1986b: fig. 13:20,21], Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.14], 

FIGURE 3.63. Zoomorphic vessel from near Sq. C1, Layer 81.
NUMBER 50 • 6 5

that would release pressure and save the jar from cracking in case 

of pressure building up in the vessel. This could have happened 

if the jars were used, for example, for fermenting wine or beer. 

Parallels found for this treatment come from an MBIIB tomb 

at Akko (Tomb 601, an infant burial in a jar/pithos, where six 

holes were made on both sides of an apparent crack in the vessel and covered with a plaster layer; see Beeri, 2003:38, pl. 8:1; 

see also Artzy and Beeri, 2006: fig. 1, pl. 2, for the MBIIA) and 

Tell Farah (N) (Mallet, 1987: fig. 38:2, pl. LXXXIX:3). Drilled 

holes in similar MBII jars or pithoi were also found in City of 

David Stratum 17B (Eisenberg, 2012: fig. 7.14:1,3,5). The clay 

pl. 129:1). A nearly complete jar/pithos (Figure 3.48d) has a series of incisions made on the upper body part before firing. This 

group of marks may have a certain meaning or may derive simply 

from carelessness of the potter. Other examples from Phase 17 

(Figure 3.49a,f) have a series of two or more holes in the body, 

carefully drilled after firing; this area was subsequently covered 

by a thick layer of lime plaster. The reason for this phenomenon 

is not clear; it is possibly an effort to mend the jar (with ropes) 

after breakage or to attach the jar to another object, maybe one 

made of perishable material. Another option may be that the 

plaster-covered holes may have served as a kind of a safety valve 

FIGURE 3.64. Finds from Sq. C1, Layer 81.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. SI Cat. No.

a Sealing; impression Reg. No. 1203 953

b Sealing Reg. No. 1211 1010

c Sealing Reg. No. 1212 1024

d Sealing; impression Reg. No. 1214 1020

e Sealing Reg. No. 1221 1015

f Sealing Reg. No. 1225 1016

g Sealing Reg. No. 1225A

h Sealing Reg. No. 1226 1008

i Gaming piece(?) Reg. No. 2057

j Bronze sheet Reg. No. 2128
6 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.66. Feature 7 in Sq. F1, under Wall 6. FIGURE 3.67. Pit 1 in Sq. F1, looking NE.

FIGURE 3.65. Tabun, Feature 5, under 

Wall 6 in Sq. F1, Phase 16.
NUMBER 50 • 6 7

FIGURE 3.68. Equid burial, Features 9–10, in Sq. F2. FIGURE 3.69. Feature 6 (posthole) in Sq. J2, looking south, Layer 

13 in rear.

FIGURE 3.70. Squares J2 and J1, looking west.
6 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 6 9

FIGURE 3.71. Pottery from Phase 16. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl RV 687 GMIII C2 (84) 1 16

b Bowl 1368/1 GMIII C2 (85) 16

c Bowl; burnish 2292/1 GMIII F2 (12) 16

d Bowl 5594/1 GMIII J1 (13) 16

e Bowl RV 692 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

f Bowl 5298/2 GMIII J1 (13) 16

g Bowl; radial burnish 1020/1 GMIII F2 P2 16

h Bowl 5298/1 GMIII J1 (13) 16

i Bowl 2192/1 GMIII F1 (6) 5 16

j Bowl 5298/3 GMIII J1 (13) 16

k Bowl RV 671 GMIII F2 (11) 16?

l Bowl; red slip, burnish 5298/4 GMIII J1 (13) 16

m Bowl 2265/1 GMIII F2 (10) 16

n Bowl (fine); red slip, burnish 2265/2 GMIII F2 (10) 16

o Bowl 1026/2 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

p Krater/bowl 1026/1 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

q Hole-mouth cooking pot 1020/2 GMIII F2 P2 16

r Hole-mouth cooking pot 1020/3 GMIII F2 P2 16

s Jar/pithos RV 1051 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

Batash, Stratum XI, Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 8:10). A 

handle fragment from Phase 15 (Figure 3.78o) may also belong 

to a similar type. Trefoil rim jugs are common in the MBII and 

appear in various sizes (see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: 

Type JG1; Uziel, 2008: Types J3, J5, and J7, figs. 62:4,6, 63:3); 

some are described as larger versions of dipper juglets (see also 

Lachish, Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig.16.29:2), and biconical jugs with 

a shoulder handle also are known (e.g., Uziel, 2008: Type J4). 

From Phase 16, Figure 3.60e may be the lower part of a globular 

jug or a small jar; it is made of a fine whitish clay.

Several typical MBII dipper juglets were found, including 

examples from Phase 17 (Figures 3.46p, 3.47s), Phase 16 (Figures 3.61g,h, 3.72d; Figure 3.61k is probably also a neck of a 

large dipper juglet), and Phase 15 (Figure 3.79q ). These juglets 

have a long wasp-like body, tall neck, and spouted simple rim 

with a handle attached to it; the base is usually pointed (as in 

Figure 3.72d). This is a typical MBIIB-C form that continues, 

with some changes, into the LBII (see, e.g., Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 

2004: fig. 16.30:5], Ashdod [Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 

1:21], Shechem [Cole, 1984: pl. 27c], Gezer [Dever et al., 1974: 

pl. 14:31], Beit Mirsim tombs [Ben-Arieh, 2004: figs. 2.6:10, 

2.11:57–58], Batash, Stratum XI [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:110, 

Type JT1, pl. 8:12–13, and references therein], Tel Nagila, Tell 

es-Safi/Gath, and Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008:145, Type JL1, figs. 

24:1, 61:1, 70:8–10]).

Cylindrical jugs or juglets are rare and represented by a base 

fragment from Phase 16 (Figure 3.61d,e). Another, possibly similar, example is the complete upper part of a jug (Figure 3.72b) 

with a strap handle applied to the neck. Cylindrical juglets appear exclusively during the MBII (see, e.g., Amiran, 1969:137, 

sealings found in the same context as these jars in Phases 17 and, 

especially, 16 (see Figure 3.63 and chapter 20) may also relate to 

some of these jars.

Other jar types are represented by several rim and neck fragments; these include examples from Phase 18 (Figure 3.27l) and 

Phase 16 (Figure 3.61b) with a ridge under the rim; this rim can 

also belong to large jugs (see Uziel, 2008: fig. 62:5, Type J4). A 

somewhat similar rim, with more flaring, comes from Phase 17 

(Figure 3.46k). Several jar handles are also illustrated (Figure 

3.46m–o). A rim and neck from Phase 16 (Figure 3.61b) can 

belong to either a jar or a large jug (as in, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a: fig. 7, Type JG1). A smaller jar from Phase 16 (Figure 

3.60g) with two handles is almost complete and can be defined 

as a “jarlet” (possibly comparable to examples from Tel Nagila 

[Uziel, 2008: fig. 60:2, Type SJ1.2] and Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: 

fig. 23:1]). 

Jugs and Juglets

No entirely complete jugs or juglets were found in Field 

GMIII Phases 18–15, yet quite a few fragments are illustrated; 

most are typical MBIIB-C forms. A red-slipped body sherd from 

Phase 18 (Figure 3.27m) may belong to a small jug (possibly similar to an example from Beit Mirsim, Tomb 24, Ben-Arieh, 2004: 

fig. 2.10:49). A neck fragment from Phase 16 (Figure 3.61c) has 

a trefoil-spouted vertical rim and is made of light greenish clay. 

A juglet from Phase 16 (Figure 3.72c) has a gutter trefoil rim and 

biconical body; it is made of whitish clay. Two body fragments 

with double handles (Phase 16, Figure 3.61i,j) are of jugs/juglets 

with a carinated or biconical body (see a similar example from 
7 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 7 1

61:9, and an example from Lachish described by Singer-Avitz, 

2004: fig. 16.3:16–20; see further discussion on votive vessels 

in chapter 19).

Tell el-­Yahudiyeh Ware

Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware vessels (denoted TEY) are probably 

mostly pyriform juglets and appear in Phases 18 through 15 (Figures 3.27n,p,q, 3.51a,b, 3.72i–m, 3.78p,q). Most examples are 

body fragment with a dark black burnished surface, decorated by 

a delimited area of puncturing, filled with chalky whitish material. Examples from Phase 18 include three body fragments with 

parallel punctured lines (Figure 3.27p) or chevron/arrows design 

(Figure 3.27n). A similar design appears on two fragments from 

Phase 17 (Figure 3.51a,b). In Phase 16 several additional fragments include a grayish body fragment with a handle (Figure 

3.72i) and another four fragments (Figure 3.72j–m); one shows a 

zigzag punctured pattern (Figure 3.72l). Figure 3.78p from Phase 

15 is characterized by a very dark and shiny black polish. According to petrographic analysis of two examples (Samples Jemmeh 81 and Jemmeh 82, chapter 15), the vessels were produced 

from various clay sources either in the Jemmeh region or the 

Shephelah (similar results come from analysis of this ware from 

Tel Nagila and Tell es-Safi).

The Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware appears in the Levant and 

Egypt throughout the Middle Bronze Age (see, e.g., Amiran, 

pl. 34:17,18; Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.22:10], 

Shechem [Cole, 1984: pl. 28u], Beit Mirsim [Ben-Arieh, 2004: 

figs. 2.6:9, 2.11:52–56], Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008:145, Type JL2], 

Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: fig. 24:4], and Tell el-Dab’a [Aston, 

2004: pl. 145:573]).

Several fragments of pyriform juglets are illustrated, including a burnished base from Phase 18 (Figure 3.27o) and a 

larger black burnished base from Phase 16 (Figure 3.72h), which 

probably belongs to a Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglet (see below). 

These juglets have a pyriform-globular body, thick ring or “button” base, and one thick or two strand (applied) handles applied to the upper neck or rim. Several fragments of such double 

handles were found (e.g., Figure 3.78o). The fragment of a long 

neck with an attached handle from Phase 18 (Figure 3.27r) may 

belong to a pyriform juglet as well. Pyriform juglets are another 

typical MBII form, which also appears almost exclusively in the 

MBII (e.g., Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 17.8:10], Shechem 

[Cole, 1984: pl. 28h–k], Beit Mirsim, Tombs 7, 24 [Ben-Arieh, 

2004: figs. 2.1:10, 2.10:38–47], Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008:147, 

Type JL3, fig. 61:3,4], and Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: fig. 24:3]). 

Of special interest is a nearly complete miniature vessel, 

probably a juglet, from Phase 16 (Figure 3.61l); its height is 

merely 5 cm. The vessel is coarsely handmade and not smoothed 

from the outside; the base is roughly rounded. This was probably a votive vessel (see a similar vessel, but with a flat base, 

from Tel Nagila described by Uziel, 2008:146, Type JL8, fig. 

FIGURE 3.72. Pottery and finds from Phase 16. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Jar 2252/1 GMIII F2 F11 16

b Juglet/jug RV 691 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

c Juglet 2059/1 GMIII C1 (80) 16

d Juglet 2292/3 GMIII F2 (12) 16

e Sherd (Cyp.?); decorated 1358/1 GMIII C2 (82) 16

f Sherd (Cyp.?); decorated 1358/2 GMIII C2 (82) 16

g Jug(?); decorated 2281/1 GMIII F2 (12) 16

h Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 224/1 GMIII F1 P1 16

i Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 546/1 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

j Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 546/2 GMIII F2 P2 16–17

k Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 826/1 GMIII J2 P2 16–17

l Jug/juglet (TEY) Box 826/2 GMIII J2 P2 16–17

m Sherd (TEY?) 2290/1 GMIII F2 W11 16

n Perforated rim 2292/2 GMIII F2 (12) 16

o Sherd (Cyp. WP); brown decoration Box 803/1 GMIII F1 (6) 5 16

p Sherd (Cyp. WP); brown decoration Box 813/1 GMIII J1 (14) 16?

q Sherd (Cyp. WP); brown decoration 2058/1 GMIII F2 (11) 16

r Sherd (Cyp. WP?); brown decoration 2265/3 GMIII F2 (10) 16

s Sherd (Cyp. WP); brown decoration 2058/2 GMIII F2 (11) 16

t Sherd (Cyp. WP?); brown decoration 2236/1 GMIII F2 (9) 16

u Sherd (Cyp. WP?); brown decoration 2217/1 GMIII F1 (6) 5 16

v Rim sherd (Cyp. WP?); brown decoration 2281/2 GMIII F2 (12) 16

w Mud weight, perforated Reg. No. 1596 GMIII C2 (84) 1 16

x Mud weight, perforated Reg. No. 1597 GMIII C2 (84) 1 16

y Sealing; impression Bag 5262 GMIII J1 (11) 3 16
7 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.73. Plan of Phase 15.

FIGURE 3.74. Wall 79 in Sq. C1, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 7 3

FIGURE 3.75. South balk of Sq. C1.

FIGURE 3.76. Square F1, Wall 6, with Room G in front, from the north(?).
7 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.78. Pottery from Phase 15, Room G. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 5573/3 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

b Bowl 5322/3 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

c Bowl 5575/1 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

d Bowl 2177/2 GMIII F1 (7) 5 15

e Bowl 5274/1 GMIII J1 (9) 2 15

f Bowl 5573/1 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

g Bowl (fine) SI Cat. No. 1046 GMIII J1 (11) 1 15

h Krater/cooking pot 5322/2 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

i Cooking pot 2198/1 GMIII F1 W5 15

j Cooking pot 5573/5 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

k Cooking pot(?) 5573/4 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

l Cooking pot 2177/4 GMIII F1 (7) 5 15

m Krater/cooking pot 2198/2 GMIII F1 W5 15

n Jug 5322/1 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

o Jug handle 5573/2 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

p Black polished sherd (TEY/lischt) Box 804/1 GMIII F1 (7) 5 15

q Jug(?) (TEY) 5320/1 GMIII J1 (10) 2 15

r Jug (Cyp. WP) Box 801/1 GMIII F1 (5) 15?

s Worked sherd (Cyp. WP) Box 805/1 GMIII F1 W5 15

t Figurine Reg. No. 1273 (SI Cat. 1013) GMIII F1 (7) 5 15

FIGURE 3.77. Wall 3 of Room G in Sq. J1 and west balk, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 7 5

1989:15–16). This type has been found at Tel el-Daba from E1 

onward, dating to the later stages of the MBII (Bietak, 1989:20, 

1997:94, fig. 4.5; see also, e.g., Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:11, 

pl. 8:14–17] and Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008:147, Type JL7]).

Zoomorphic Vessel

A nearly complete cup or chalice in the form of a zoomorphic head (Figure 3.63) was reconstructed from fragments from 

the topsoil in the vicinity of Sq. C1 just outside the excavated 

area and from Sq. C1, Layers 80 and 81. It is thus quite safely 

attributed to Phase 16. The vessel is actually a cup or goblet 

composed of a high foot (its base is missing), a body, which is 

its widest and thickest part, shaped like a hollowed zoomorphic 

1969:144–147, pl. 36; Kaplan, 1980; Bietak, 1989; Zevulun, 

1990; Maeir, 2007:289–291) and includes various closed forms, 

mostly jugs, juglets, and figurative vessels. The earlier MBIIA examples are usually more elaborate in their decoration and have 

a dark brown surface color; the later examples, dated to the 

MBIIB-C, are made of gray or black burnished ware (see Bietak, 

1989; Maeir, 2007:289). Most, if not all, fragments from Tell 

Jemmeh are juglets; in addition, a nearly complete zoomorphic 

vessel of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware was found in Phase 16 (Figure 

3.63) and is discussed separately below. The Tell el-Yahudiyeh 

pyriform juglets (Kaplan’s Group 2a; Kaplan, 1980:21–22) are 

found in the later stages of the MBIIB in the southern Levant 

(see also the juglets from a workshop at Afula; Zevulun, 1990). 

This also coincides with Bietak’s Piriform 2 group (Bietak, 
7 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 7 7

FIGURE 3.79. Pottery from Phase 15. NA = not available. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl/chalice; white slip 1087/1 GMIII C1 (78) 15

b Bowl; incised 1085/1 GMIII C1 (79) 15

c Bowl 5589/1 GMIII J1 (8) 1 15

d Bowl RV 827/3 GMIII F1 (6) 4 15?

e Bowl 5318/2 GMIII J1 P3 15

f Krater 1085/3 GMIII C1 (79) 15

g Bowl RV 646 GMIII C1 (77) 15

h Bowl RV 827/4 GMIII F1 (6) 4 15?

i Bowl (eggshell) 1085/2 GMIII C1 (79) 15

j lamp/bowl; soot RV 670 GMIII C1 (77) 15

k Strainer bowl RV 689 (SI Cat. 1101) GMIII J1 P3 (8) 1 15

l Cooking pot 5592/1 GMIII J1 P3 15

m Cooking pot 1087/2 GMIII C1 (78) 15

n Cooking pot 1087/3 GMIII C1 (78) 15

o Cooking pot 5299/1 GMIII J1 (8) 1 15

p Jar RV 1068 GMIII J1 F3 15

q Juglet; burnish 934 GMIII J1 (11) 2 15

r Sherd; red/white/blue decoration NA GMIII C1 F15 15

s Horn (figurine) 5318 /3 GMIII J1 P3 15

FIGURE 3.80. Plan of Phase 14B.
7 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

yet its depiction is far from naturalistic (and may even be considered grotesque because of the emphasized eye lashes). According 

to petrographic analysis (chapter 15, Sample Jemmeh 11), this 

vessel was produced in the central coastal plain (thus not local 

to Tell Jemmeh).

Zoomorphic cups or vessels are well known from the Tell 

el-Yahudiyeh repertoire (see also Maeir, 2007:284–285, Beth 

Shean). The known examples come from Megiddo (duck shaped; 

Loud, 1948: pl. 247:1), Tel Poleg (shaped as a fish; Kaplan, 

1980:324, fig. 125b), Ashkelon (falcon/Egyptian Horus shaped; 

Stager, 2002: fig. 16), and Jericho (bird shaped; Garstang et al., 

1935:127, pls. 8.26, 44; see also, Amiran, 1969: pl. 36; Gershuny, 1991:13–17, figs. 1, 2, and references therein). These are 

often found in tombs (like the Ashkelon and Jericho examples). 

The aquatic and bird-shaped vessels have good Egyptian parallels (Gershuny, 1991:14–18), but bovine or other horned 

zoomorphic vessels in this style are rare. The vessel from Tell 

Jemmeh is made in a different iconographic style than the above 

vessels, and a parallel to it is still unknown.

Red, White, and Blue Ware

Few RWB sherds (see, e.g., Maeir, 2002), mostly from jars 

but occasionally on bowls, are included in the assemblage. Fragments of RWB appear especially in Phases 16–15 (Phase 16, Figure 3.60l–q; Phase 15, Figure 3.79r; examples out of context 

include a sherd redeposited in Phase 12, Figure 3.113c, and two 

(probably bull) head, and a high bulging neck with a simple rim. 

The preserved dimensions of the vessel are a height of 25 cm, a 

length of 15.5 cm, and a width of 9.5 cm. There is no aperture 

other than the upper one, and thus, this is not a rhyton or libation vessel. The neck and probably the base are wheel made, 

whereas the head itself, according to the wheel marks, was made 

as a juglet, then turned 90°, and the facial details were modeled 

on its surface; the three parts were probably made separately and 

then applied to each other. The vessel is made of a grayish ware 

that is burnished, especially around the body, and decorated (on 

top of the facial features) by puncturing and incising, filled with 

white chalk. This fabric and technique relates this vessel to the 

Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware. 

The head is roughly a squat pyriform shape. The facial attributes include a long protruding snout, a horizontally incised, 

wide mouth (its opening continues to the sides of the snout) 

with very deep punctured nostrils (although not penetrating the 

wall of the vessel), and two rows of puncturing emphasizing the 

lips; another row of puncturing and a ridge also emphasizing 

the nose. The eyes are two large discs, probably applied; eyelashes are illustrated by white-filled incisions below the eyes, and 

another unclear pattern is incised between the eyes, with white 

filling. The cheeks are decorated by at least five long, curving, 

white-filled parallel incisions (these continue also below, under 

the chin). A ridge and breakage marks are found on the top, 

indicating two ears and two horns in between them. This feature 

indicates that the vessel depicts a horned animal, probably a bull, 

FIGURE 3.81. Plan of Phase 14A.
NUMBER 50 • 7 9

differences between them: red slip seems to be more common in 

Phase 18 and is hardly found in Phases 15–16; gutter rim cooking pots and RWB ware appear only in Phases 16–15 and not 

earlier. There also seems to be a rise in TEY and Cypriot WP in 

Phases 16–15. Thus, it seems that Phase 18 and maybe Phase 17 

could represent a somewhat earlier ceramic horizon. As will be 

noted below, Phase 14 pottery already combines MBIIB-C and 

LBII pottery forms, whereas Phase 13 clearly belongs to the LBII 

horizon with new types, including Cypriot White Shaved and 

Base Ring wares (see below, e.g., Figure 3.101).

REMAINS OF PHASE 14

Remains of Phase 14, with its two subphases (14A and 14B), 

were exposed in Sqs. C1, F1, and J1, as well as possibly in the 

lower levels of Sq. B (Figures 3.80–3.93); however, the eastern 

1–1.5 m of these squares is already eroded in this phase (Figures 

3.80, 3.81). In Sq. B, Wall 76 may have been initially built in 

Phase 14, although it was revealed higher in levels of Phase 13; 

this could be true for several other features in the square, such as 

a stone pavement (Feature 9, Figure 3.98), a tabun (Feature 11, 

Figure 3.94), and an area with a cobblestone feature (Feature 12, 

Figure 3.99; see below).

In Square C1, Wall 77 overlies Wall 79 of Phase 15 (Figure 

3.82 and section in Figure 3.100); it is one brick wide, 0.7 m 

thick, and very well preserved, standing up to 10 courses high 

(see all three sections in Figure 3.100). A short east–west wall 

abuts Wall 77 from the east (Wall 78). It is cut off by erosion to 

the east, although it is possible that there was an entrance there. 

The southern corner of Walls 77 and 78 is covered with thick 

plaster (Figure 3.82); the small area, which continues into the 

unexcavated area to the south, is denoted as Unit 13 (Locus 2). 

The heavy plastering, not seen elsewhere in Field III, could indicate this was a more elaborate architectural unit. 

The area north of Wall 78 and east of Wall 77 was denoted 

as Unit 12 (Locus 1). Here a large oval/polygonal installation, 

probably a bin, made of bricks was excavated (Feature 13, Figures 3.83, 3.84); this installation continues northward to Sq. F1 

and is cut by erosion in the east. Feature 13 is 1.8 m wide and 

at least 2 m long (probably even 2.5–3 m long). The installation 

was probably built by first digging a shallow pit and then lining it with bricks. The lining wall, made of thin upright standing bricks, was preserved to a height of 0.5 m, two bricks high; 

the floor was made of stone slabs at a level of 50.87 m (Figure 

3.83). The ash-filled foundation trench of the bin (Feature 13A) 

penetrates Phase 15 below (Figure 3.84). A 1 × 0.5 m bench or 

shelf was constructed in between Wall 77 and Feature 13, abutting Wall 77 (Feature 14); at its northern edge, a conglomerate 

slab was placed.

Wall 77 continues to the northwest, unexcavated. To the 

north in Sq. F1 another unit was defined, possibly abutting Unit 

12. This was denoted as Room F (Locus 1 in Sq. F1, Locus 2 in 

Sq. J1), delineated by Sq. F1, Wall 1 (equals Wall 2 of Sq. J1) 

from the west (a wall combining bricks and stones, of which only 

the eastern face was exposed) and Wall 3 from the south. It is 

from topsoil, Figure 3.182b,c). A fragment of an open bowl with 

a thickened rim (the presence of decoration on the interior indicate this is an open vessel) has red bands over a white slip on 

the interior and exterior (Figure 3.60a). Other examples include 

jar body fragments with horizontal red and blue bands over a 

white slip (as Figure 3.60l,o); one example (Figure 3.60m) shows 

red bands and blue circles, and two examples show horizontal 

and vertical lines (Figures 3.60q, 3.79s). Petrographic analysis 

of three examples (see chapter 15, Samples Jemmeh 78, Jemmeh 

80) indicates these vessels are probably locally made in the Tell 

Jemmeh region.

The RWB ware on storage jars and amphorae is common 

in the MBIIA-B (e.g., Tel Haror [Oren et al., 1986b: figs. 13:24, 

14], Batash [Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 5:21], Aphek 

[Beck, 2000: fig. 10.20:10], Ashkelon [Stager, 2002:355, figs. 

4,5], Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.17:4], Tel Nagila [Uziel, 

2008:206, Type SJ3], and Yavne-Yam [Uziel, 2008: fig. 23:9]). 

The red, white, and blue decoration is unique to the MBII material culture in the Levant. This decoration appears in the early 

stages of the MBIIA (Stager, 2002:355) and continues into the 

MBIIB (until it is possibly replaced by the Chocolate-on-White 

ware in the terminal phases of the MBIIC). The blue paint is 

perhaps an indication of ties with Egypt during the period, where 

cobalt was used for blue designs (Maeir, 2002). 

Also to be noted is an open bowl with a herringbone-type 

incised decoration on the rim (Figure 3.59n); this decoration 

style appears on baking trays of the Bronze Age (see below; e.g., 

Dan, Stratum VII, Ben-Dov, 2011a:164, 235, fig. 134:17).

Cypriot Pottery

Imported MBII Cypriot pottery, especially decorated jugs, 

appears in relatively large numbers at Tell Jemmeh in Phases 

18–14 (e.g., Figures 3.27u, 3.28a,b, Phase 18; Figure 3.51c–m, 

Phase 17; Figure 3.72o–v, Phase 16; Figure 3.78r,s, Phase 15; and 

Figure 3.92r–u, Phase 14); some are even large fragments (Figure 3.28a,b). These include Cypriot Middle Bronze Age ware, 

such as WP (White-Painted) IV-WPV and Red-on-Red, and are 

discussed separately in chapter 11. A rim fragment of a jar from 

Phase 17 (Figure 3.47t) is also possibly imported. 

Summary

The pottery assemblage of Phases 18–15 in Field III can be 

dated according to ceramic parallels to the end of the MBII, as 

most forms belong to the MBIIB-C horizon; this assemblage is 

roughly similar to that of Ashkelon’s late MBIIB phases (Phases 

11–10, “the Calf Sanctuary”; Stager, 2002: fig. 22, 2005; Voss, 

2002; Stager et al., 2008; Stager and Voss, 2011), Batash Strata 

XI–X (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006), Tel Nagila, Strata IX–

VII (Uziel, 2008), and Tell es-Safi, Local Phases F8–7 (Uziel, 

2008). Generally, the pottery from Phases 18–15 seems quite 

similar, and most forms appear in all phases, indicating there was 

not a big time difference between them (maybe not more than a 

generation). Nevertheless, notwithstanding the small sample for 

some of the phases (especially 18 and 15), there may be some 
8 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

It is difficult to date Phase 14, which clearly overlies the 

MBIIB-C horizon and underlies an LBII horizon, because of the 

relatively small quantity of pottery from floor levels. Moreover, 

the pottery from Phase 14 includes not only MBIIB-C forms similar to those of Phases 18–15 but also some forms more related 

to the LBII; thus, it may be defined as a transition phase between 

the MBIIC and the LBII. It is notable, however, that no typical 

Late Bronze I forms appear (as Bichrome or Chocolate-on-White 

wares, which appear at the nearby site of Tell el-‘Ajjul, for example), and therefore, there could have been a certain occupational 

gap in this site (or at least in the excavated areas) during the LBI 

(the 16th and early 15th centuries BCE). 

Phase 14 pottery includes typical MBII forms, such as open 

bowls (Figure 3.92b–h) and carinated bowls (Figure 3.92i–m); 

these types were discussed above in the MBII assemblage. A complete open bowl with straight sides (Figure 3.92a) can also be 

dated to the MBII but appears in the LB as well (see below). A 

red-slipped handle of a large jug (Figure 3.92q) is also typical 

possible Wall 77 and Sq. F1, Wall 1 were bonded, forming a narrow space between them, or that these were two parallel walls 

of separate units. Here again the Sq. F1 walls are about 30–60 

cm lower in elevation than the Sq. C1 walls of the same phase. 

Two construction phases were identified in Room F in Sqs. F1–

J1 (Figures 3.80–3.81). In the lower phase (Phase 14B, Figure 

3.80), the room is 3.9 m wide (quite similar to Room G of Phase 

15), delimited by Wall 1 in Sq. J1. Only the western 0.5–1.0 

m of the room was preserved, as the eastern part was eroded 

(Figure 3.76). In the lower phase of Room F, a narrow 2-m-long 

partition wall made of thin brick abuts the western face of Wall 

1, creating a 0.3-m-wide niche (Wall 4A or Feature 14, Figures 

3.85, 3.86). In the upper phase of Room F (Phase 14A, Figure 

3.81), the room was considerably smaller, only 1.5 wide, delimited in the north by Wall 2. Half of this room is occupied in this 

phase by a complete tabun, Feature 1 (Figures 3.87– 3.91, 0.6 m 

in diameter). To the northeast everything has eroded away (the 

area was defined as Unit(?) 14).

FIGURE 3.82. Wall 77 in balk of Sq. C1, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 8 1

of the MBII (see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:89–90, JG2; Uziel, 

2008:147, Type J2, large globular jugs), as well as a fragment 

of WP and other Cypriot wares (Figure 3.92r–u). However, an 

everted triangular rim of a cooking pot (Figure 3.92p) typical of 

the LBII (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:65–66, Type CP1) but appearing 

already in the final stages of the MBII was also found in this 

phase. A high carinated bowl (Figure 3.92j) is also more typical 

of the LBII (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:40–42, Type BL56; see below). 

Also illustrated from Phase 14 is the ring base of a bowl (Figure 

3.92n) worked and perforated, possibly a sherd reused as a lid; 

a dark-colored, thick modeled base(?) with a pronounced ridge 

(Figure 3.92o), possibly of a krater, is illustrated as well. Other 

finds include a worked sherd (Reg. No. 3617) and a bronze point 

(Figure 3.92v). Small finds include a clay sealing (Figure 3.93a) 

and a bone inlay of a MBII style (Figure 3.93b; see chapter 25).

REMAINS OF PHASE 13

Phase 13 (Figures 3.94–3.102) was only exposed in Sq. B, 

eroded in Sq. C1 except possibly for Feature 12 (see Figure 3.99). 

However, this phase was exposed in the entire 6 × 6 m area of Sq. 

B (Figures 3.94–3.95), making it one of the largest exposures of a 

single phase in Field III. Even so, this layer is relatively very thin 

in its accumulation. The main walls are Walls 73 and 74, which 

are aligned at a right angle but do not meet (Figure 3.94). The 

two walls delineate two open areas: the area west of Wall 73 and 

north of Wall 74 is denoted Unit 10, whereas the area south of 

Wall 74 is denoted Unit 11 (Figure 3.95, right). Unit 10 is part of 

an elongated room, a courtyard or an open area at least 4 × 3.5 

m in size. Several large chunks of mud or brick with wide reed 

imprints were found in Unit 10 (SCI 407, SCI 408, Figure 3.102); 

these may represent evidence of roofing or possibly some type of 

floor (see similar fragments from Tel Qiri, Stratum VII–IX, the 

Iron I, Portugali, 1987:133–134, photo 61 and reconstruction 

in plan 60). East of Wall 74 there was possibly a passage into 

Unit 10 (Figure 3.95, left). A rectangular area paved by stones, 

Feature 9 (Figures 3.96, 3.98, see below), from Unit 11 extends 

to this area, and in the eastern corner a short 1.3 m wall (Wall 

76 Figure 3.96) could have defined the entrance. Wall 73 makes a 

corner with Wall 76 and seems to continue to the south of it, yet 

the paving seems to overlie the wall in certain places. In the center of this unit lies a tabun, Feature 8 (Figures 3.97, 3.95, front); 

it is well preserved, stands about 0.35 m high, and is 0.7 m in 

diameter. The tabun (oven) was lined with clay and possibly dug 

to some extent into the floor. No clear floor levels were detected 

in this area, however, and the debris is relatively thin; the walls 

are preserved to a mere height of 0.2 m.

In Unit 11, which was defined as the area outside of Unit 

10, several elements were exposed. A rectangular area paved by 

stones of various sizes (Feature 9, Figure 3.98) is at least 2 × 3 m 

in size, with the floor level at 52.35 m. This paving abuts Wall 76 

from the south; within the paving there was a tabun, partly preserved (Feature 11, Figure 3.95, rear; remains of another tabun 

lie near it, Feature 11A). The area of the tabun seems to have 

been surrounded by bricks. To the east in the western part of 

FIGURE 3.83. Phase 14, Sq. C1, Feature 13, a bin.

FIGURE 3.84. Stones from the bin, Feature 13, in the balk between 

Sqs. C1 and F1, with Wall 77 on the left, looking north.
8 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.86. Wall 1 and Feature 14/Wall 4 in Room F, Phase 14B, looking west.

FIGURE 3.85. Room F and Feature 14/Wall 4 in Phase 14B, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 8 3

FIGURE 3.88. West balk of Sq. F1 with Wall 1 and Walls 5 and 6 of Room G (Phase 15) below, looking west.

FIGURE 3.87. Room F, Phase 14A, Feature 1, a tabun.
8 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

building represented in two local subphases (Phases 12B and 

12A; Figures 3.103, 3.104). The architectural remains include a 

rectangular room in the east (Room E, Locus 11), a larger space, 

Unit 8, facing it to the west, and a segment of another space, 

Unit 9, to the north. The space defined as Room E (Figure 3.105, 

rear) is a rather narrow rectangular space, measuring 1.3 × 3.5 m 

(internally); it is delimited by Wall 70 in the east, Wall 66 in the 

north (lying in the northern balk; Figure 3.116), Wall 69 in the 

west, and Wall 75 in the south. Walls 69 and 70 are narrow walls 

defined by the length of a single brick and were only preserved to 

20 cm high; Wall 66, seen in the north balk (Figure 3.106), seems 

to be preserved to 0.6 m higher. Wall 75 (Figure 3.107) is thicker 

and built of stretcher bricks flanked by upright standing bricks. 

It possibly included a small bench/seat on its eastern face. The 

southeast corner of Room E (where Wall 75 should have abutted 

Wall 70) is probably eroded, but this area could have included 

an entrance as well. Thus, Room E is not a completely confined 

room: in the western part there is a 2-m-wide opening in Wall 69. 

This space, connecting Room E to Unit 8, is filled by an installation, Feature 7, in the lower phase (Figures 3.103, 3.105, front; 

Phase 12B) and a tabun, Feature 5, in the upper phase (Figures 

3.104, 3.110, 3.111; Phase 12A). Pottery from Room E includes 

open and carinated bowls (Figure 3.112a–c), a possible cooking 

pot (Figure 3.112d), a jar/jug neck (Figure 3.112e), and Cypriot 

Base Ring bowl and jug fragments (Figure 3.112f,g).

Unit 8 (Loci 8, 9) is defined by Wall 69 in the east (and 

Room E), Wall 68 in the north, Wall 71 in the west (seen in 

western balk under Wall 59; Figures 3.108, 3.110), and a stone 

feature, Feature 6 (Figure 3.109), in the south (which is possibly 

not a wall or possibly the stone foundation of a brick wall). According to the levels of the walls, there seems to be a downward 

slope of about 0.4–0.6 m to the east in the square, a similar 

inclination to that seen in Sqs. C1–C2 in the MBIIB-C levels 

(see above). In the southeast corner, a few larger flat slabs in the 

stone feature, Feature 6 (Figure 3.109), may be the threshold of 

Sq. C1 a patch of a similarly paved area was recorded (Sq. C1, 

Feature 12, Figure 3.99); it is slightly lower at 51.96–52.12 m 

but is most likely part of the same paving. Another part of the 

paving lies to the east of Wall 73, where another part of a tabun 

was preserved (Feature 10, Figure 3.94). 

Because of the thin accumulation of Phase 13 in Sq. B the 

pottery from this phase is quite meager (Figure 3.101). Nevertheless, it seems that most forms are forms typical of the MBIIB-C 

and LBII (such as open and rounded bowls, Figure 3.101a–e), 

but a few exclusive LBII types (such as Cypriot White Shaved 

and Base Ring fragments, Figure 3.101n–r) indicate this phase 

already belongs to the Late Bronze Age. Carinated kraters with 

handles (Figure 3.101e) are also more typical of the LBII (see 

below). Also illustrated is a carinated krater or cooking pot (Figure 3.101d). A ring base (Figure 3.101f) may be a local imitation 

of a Base Ring “bilbil” jug. Also illustrated are the gutter of a 

rim krater or cooking pot (Figure 3.101g), an everted-rim cooking pot (Figure 3.101i), a jar rim (Figure 3.101j), a pithos rim 

(Figure 3.101k; see, e.g., Batash, Stratum VI, Panitz-Cohen and 

Mazar, 2006: pl. 57:10), and a rim and handle of a dipper juglet 

(Figure 3.101i). Figure 3.101m is a rim of a small carinated bowl 

with at least two perforations under the rim made before firing; 

this may have been a strainer or a strainer bowl (see also Figure 

3.132o from Phase 10 below). Note that a scarab found in Phase 

13 is dated to the late 15th or early 14th century BCE (Figure 

27.5a, chapter 27, Gamma No. 151). The LBII pottery of Phases 

13–8 will be discussed together according to type below. A bone 

spatula was also found in Phase 13 (Unit 10, Figure 25.4j), the 

earliest example of this type of object at the site. 

REMAINS OF PHASE 12

Phase 12 remains (Figures 3.103–3.114) were exposed in 

most of Sq. B, and the remains may be a portion of a specific 

FIGURE 3.89. Tabun, Feature 1 in Sq. F1, during excavation, 

Phase 14A.

FIGURE 3.90. Tabun, Feature 1 of Phase 14A, after excavation, 

looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 8 5

FIGURE 3.91. West section of Sq. F1.

construction: the body of the tabun is made of thick, hard clay 

in two layers, it is mud plastered on the outer surface (this mud 

layer can be very thick, possibly because of continuous replastering), and the bottom is supported by a rounded line of stones 

from the inside (see chapter 9).

Phase 12 is probably the first substantial LBII phase that may 

include preserved fragments of a building with narrow rooms in 

the east and larger ones in the west (maybe casemate units); this 

plan continues in Phases 11 and 10 (see Figures 3.115, 3.126). 

Although most walls are only preserved to 0.2 m high, the debris in the rooms is about 0.4 m high and contains a significant 

amount of pottery and other finds (Figures 3.112, 3.113). The 

pottery of this phase includes open, rounded (Figure 3.112a,h–k) 

and carinated bowls (Figure 3.112b,l–p), a decorated carinated 

krater (Figure 3.113a), everted cooking pots (Figure 3.112q,r), 

a possible baking tray (Figure 3.112s), a decorated bowl (Figure 

an entrance. Wall 68 is a thin wall similar to Walls 69 and 70, 

whereas Wall 71 seems to have a stone foundation (or part of 

Wall 72). To the north of Wall 68 lies Unit 9 (Locus 10), which 

continues into the unexcavated area to the north and west. In 

the eastern part of Unit 8 lies an installation, Feature 7 (Figures 

3.105, 3.110). This is a fragmentary structure that is 1 m wide 

(and possibly about 1 m long). The structure is made of thin 

bricks standing upright and is probably a bin, similar to Feature 

13 from Phase 14 (Figures 3.83, 3.84), but smaller in size. Another suggestion is that these walls are part of the tabun, Feature 

5, located below (see chapter 9, Cat. No. 12). Feature 7 is cut 

by Feature 5 (Figures 3.110, 3.111), which reflects a later phase 

in the same architectural unit. This is a large complete tabun, or 

oven, that is 0.65 m in diameter, cutting Feature 7 and underlying Wall 61 of Phase 11 (Figure 3.119). The tabun was relatively 

well preserved, which allows an understanding of its method of 
8 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 8 7

3.113b), and Cypriot Base Ring and White Slip (WS) imports 

(Figures 3.112f,g, 3.113d–k); a fragment of an open bowl or a 

chalice (Figure 3.113c) is decorated with crisscrossing stripes of 

red and gray/blue over white slip and may be a redeposited RWB 

MBII sherd (see above). 

Other finds from Phase 12 include a fragment of a horned 

figurine (Figure 3.113l), a horn of a Base Ring II bovine vessel 

(Reg. No. 1252), and a bronze point (Reg. No. 159). Two scarabs from Phase 12 (Unit 8) are also illustrated; the first dated 

to the MBIIA (Figure 3.114a), and the second is a more typical MBIIC scarab (Figure 3.114b; see chapter 27, Figures 27.4e, 

27.6c). A large concentration of flint blades was also found in 

this phase and may represent a knapping area (FL 589, FL 591; 

see chapter 26).

REMAINS OF PHASE 11

Phase 11 was exposed in the western 4.5 m of Sq. B; it was 

probably eroded to the east of that line (Figures 3.115, 3.116). 

This phase includes two or three narrow spaces (denoted Rooms 

B, C, and D) that are quite similar in shape to Room E of Phase 

12 (Figure 3.104) but are better preserved and located several 

meters to the west. The plan of the next level, Phase 10 (Figure 

3.126; see below), is very similar and shows a high degree of 

FIGURE 3.93. Finds from Phase 14: (a) clay sealing, Bag 5296, 

GMIII J1 (5)1 and (b) bone inlay, Reg. No. 1387, GMIII C1 (75).

FIGURE 3.92. Pottery from Phase 14. Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl RV 668 GMIII C1 (72–74)

b Bowl 1093/1 GMIII C1 (72–74)

c Bowl 2121/2 GMIII C1 (3) 1 Unit 12

d Bowl 2200/1 GMIII C1 (3) 1 Unit 12

e Bowl 2056/1 GMIII F1 (2) 1 Room F

f Bowl 2121/1 GMIII C1 (3) 1 Unit 12

g Bowl 2209/1 GMIII F1 (2) 2 Unit 14

h Bowl(?) 2209/2 GMIII F1 (2) 2 Unit 14

i Bowl RV 669 GMIII C1 (72–74)

j Bowl 1098/1 GMIII C1 (67–70)

k Bowl 2121/4 GMIII C1 (3) 1 Unit 12

l Bowl 2099/1 GMIII C1 F13 (2) 1 Unit 12

m Bowl 2121/3 GMIII C1 (3) 1 Unit 12

n Worked base 1110/1 GMIII C1 (76)

o Base(?) 1093/2 GMIII C1 (72–74)

p Cooking pot 1098/2 GMIII C1 (67–70)

q Jar/jug handle; red slip 1109/1 GMIII C1 (72–74)

r Decorated sherd (Cyp.?) 2209/3 GMIII F1 (2) 2 Unit 14

s Jug (Cyp. WP); decorated Box 814/1 GMIII J1 (5) 1

t Jug (Cyp. WP); decorated Box 802/1 GMIII F1 (2) 2 Unit 14

u Jug (Cyp. WP); decorated Box 802/2 GMIII F1 (2) 2 Unit 14

v Bronze point; charcoal Reg. No. 2123 GMIII C1 (67)–(70)
8 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3.117; this gap is, in fact, higher than the Phase 11 walls, especially Wall 63). Note that as the bases of Walls 61 and 63 are 

lower than that of Wall 57, there could have been an earlier 

subphase, Phase 11B, in which the space was open to the west 

(as seen in the excavation in Figure 3.121; thus, Wall 57 would 

belong to subphase 11A).

The small and narrow dimensions of Room C (Figure 

3.118), the fact it may not have an entrance at floor level (at least 

in a certain stage), and the thin wall in the side facing the tell 

may indicate this was a storage room (with the thin wall possibly 

a temporary closing wall). Note also the inner contour of the 

room is more carefully rectilinear, whereas the outer contour has 

a more irregular shape, thus possibly indicating its use for bulk 

storage. Another possibility is it was part of a casemate structure together with Room D (see below). Pottery from Room C 

continuity. Room C was completely exposed, and its inner dimensions are 2.2 × 1.3 m (Figure 3.117); it is enclosed by Wall 

61 in the east, Wall 63 in the north (shared with Room E), Wall 

57 in the west, and Wall 62 in the south. Walls 61 and 63 are 

one lengthwise brick wide, about 0.5 m; Wall 63 was preserved 

to a height of five courses. Wall 62 is thicker and is two bricks 

wide (and preserved possibly seven courses high; see Figure 

3.116, south balk, possibly seen in Figure 3.122), whereas Wall 

57, preserved three courses high, is thinner as it is composed of 

a single row of lengthwise bricks, about 0.35 m thick (Figure 

3.117). The outer southeastern corner of Room C was heavily 

eroded (Figure 3.117, rear). No entrance to Room C was identified in Phase 11, but in the southern part of Wall 57 near Wall 

62 wide mortar joints were visible (although there is seemingly 

an opening in the northwestern corner that is visible in Figure 

FIGURE 3.94. Plan of Phase 13.
NUMBER 50 • 8 9

FIGURE 3.95. Phase 13: Units 10 and 11, looking east (after removal of Walls 73 and 74); tabun feature in the lower left with adjacent probe on the left.

FIGURE 3.96. Wall 76 and Feature 9, a rectangular area paved by stones, looking southeast.
9 0 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

includes open and rounded bowls (Figure 3.124h), kraters (Figure 3.124j,k), jars (Figure 3.124l,m), a scoop/strainer(?) handle 

(Figure 3.124n), and imported sherds (Figure 3.124o,p).

East of Wall 61 a nearly complete tabun was excavated 

(Feature 1, Figures 3.119, 3.120), with its western side leaning 

on Wall 61. The tabun or oven is 0.9 m in diameter, preserved 

to 0.3 m high, and has elevations of 52.68–52.96 m; this was 

possibly an earth oven buried in the ground with clay lining or 

a mud-plastered tabun supported by stones from below (Figure 

3.120); the curved top was preserved, covered with cobbles; its 

base is lined with a circle of stones and sherds with mud on them 

from the outside (Figures 3.119, 3.120). This area was defined as 

Unit 7 and was eroded in Phase 10.

Room D (Locus 7, Figures 3.121, 3.122), abutting Room 

C from the north, is defined by Wall 64 in the east, Wall 63 in 

the south, and Wall 65 in the west; the northern wall of the 

room lies in the unexcavated area to the north. Although it 

is not completely excavated, it seems that Room D was similar in size and shape (and maybe function) to Room C; it is 

1.2 m wide and at least 1.8 m long. However, in the north, 

in or above Room D, a floor level with pebbles and animal 

bones was excavated (Figure 3.122, Layer 62). Walls 64 and 

65 are the width of one lengthwise brick, whereas Wall 63 is 

somewhat thinner, built of smaller, more square bricks (Figure 

3.121, 3.123). Here, again, no entrance was detected. The pottery from Room D (Figure 3.124) includes open and carinated 

bowls (Figure 3.125a–e), kraters (Figure 3.125f,g), and a jug 

rim (Figure 3.125h).

In the western part of Sq. B, Room B is better defined in Phase 

10 above (Figures 3.126, 3.128; see below), yet this room possibly existed in Phase 11 as well (at an elevation of 53.14–53.34 

m; several sherds are attributed to this phase; Figure 3.124a–d), 

FIGURE 3.97. Tabun, Feature 8 in Unit 10.

FIGURE 3.98. Feature 9, paved area, looking northeast.

FIGURE 3.99. Cobble feature, Feature 12 in Sq. C1, looking southwest.
NUMBER 50 • 9 1

FIGURE 3.100. South, west, and north sections of Sq. C1.
9 2 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 9 3

FIGURE 3.101. Pottery from Phase 13. Cyp. BR = Cypriot Base Ring ware; Cyp. WSh = Cypriot White Shaved ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase Architectural unit

a Bowl 4491/1 GMIII B (1) 12 13 Unit 11

b Bowl 4477/1 GMIII B F8 13 Unit 10

c Bowl 4452/1 GMIII B (67) 13 Unit 10

d Krater/cooking pot 4491/2 GMIII B (1) 12 13 Unit 11

e Krater 4452/2 GMIII B (67) 13 Unit 10

f Ring base (Cyp. BR imitation?) 4452/4 GMIII B (67) 13 Unit 10

g Krater/chalice(?) 4477/3 GMIII B F8 13 Unit 10

h Cooking pot 4477/2 GMIII B F8 13 Unit 10

i Cooking pot 4477/4 GMIII B F8 13 Unit 10

j Jar/jug 4477/5 GMIII B F8 13 Unit 10

k Pithos 4456/1 GMIII B (65) 9 12–13

l Juglet 4452/3 GMIII B (67) 13 Unit 10

m Bowl; perforations 4518/1 GMIII B (3) 15 13 Unit 11

n Bowl (Cyp. BRII) Box 544/1 GMIII B (66) 14 13 Unit 11

o Base (Cyp. BRII) Box 544/2 GMIII B (66) 14 13 Unit 11

p Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) 4452/5 GMIII B (67) 13 Unit 10

q Juglet (Cyp. WSh) 4417/1 GMIII B F9 13 Unit 11

r Juglet (Cyp. WSh) 4680/2 GMIII B (2) 15 13 Unit 10

or this may have been an open area or a corridor. This space 

is defined by Wall 59 in the west (continuing into the western 

balk), which was preserved to over 1 m high and continued to 

be used in Phase 10; Wall 57 may have served as its eastern wall. 

Some plaster fragments found here (SCI 151, SCI 153) may indicate remains of a plaster floor. The pottery and other finds from 

Phase 11 can be dated to the LBII, with typical forms including 

various open and rounded bowls (Figure 3.124a,e,g,h), carinated 

kraters, everted cooking pots (Figure 3.124j,k), and jars (Figure 

3.124l,m), as well as Mycenaean and Cypriot imported pottery 

sherds (Figures 3.124o,p, 3.125i–k). A jar handle with an incised 

mark (see chapter 19.1f) was also found in this phase.

REMAINS OF PHASE 10

Phase 10, preserved only in the western 3.5 m of Sq. B, shows 

a very similar plan to that of Phase 11 (Figure 3.126); at least 

Rooms B and C, though heavily eroded, continued to be used with 

certain modifications (Figures 3.126–3.129), although several 

Phase 10 walls were built over Phase 11 ones (see Figure 3.116). 

Nevertheless, the differences between the wall and floor levels of 

the two phases are between 0.5 and 1.0 m; this is also due to 

the good preservation of the brick architecture here. Room C was 

widened slightly, as Wall 56 replaced Wall 63 to the north (Figure 

3.118). To the east, Wall 57A was built over and slightly to the 

east of Wall 57 (Figure 3.117); in the south part of Wall 57A there 

seems to be a passage connecting Rooms C and B (Figures 3.117, 

3.128). The upper eastern and southern walls of Room C were 

completely eroded in Phase 10. Note, however, that in the southern balk (Figure 3.116) an additional wall (Wall 60) can be seen, 

adjoining Wall 58 to the south, probably part of an additional 

FIGURE 3.102. Bricks with reed imprints.
9 4 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3.131d); also illustrated are a jar base and flask and lamp fragments (Figure 3.131i–k). A crude figurine (female?; Figure 17.4c) 

was also found here. Room C contained similar pottery forms, 

such as open, rounded and carinated bowls and a krater (Figure 

3.131l–o) and cooking pots and jar fragments (Figure 3.131p–r). 

The pottery from Phase 10 also includes decorated biconical kraters and jugs (Figure 3.132e–l), a ware introduced in this phase, 

appearing also in Phases 9–6 (see chapter 10), decorated and having thumbed handles (Figure 3.132m–n), a strainer bowl (Figure 

3.132o), and several lamps (Figure 3.132q). This pottery probably 

dates the phase to a later stage of the LBII (see below). 

Other finds from Phase 10 include a perforated worked 

sherd (Figure 3.132r, Room C), a bronze point (Figure 3.132s), 

two stone spindle whorls (Reg. Nos. 1040, 1041), a large stone 

vessel(?) leg (Reg. No. 1009), and a flint rubber and a limestone 

bifacial object (possibly a door socket; (Reg. Nos. 856, 1000; 

see chapter 23, Figures 23.4o, 23.8a). Two faience amulets from 

unexcavated unit. To the west Room B (Locus 3) is now well defined, measuring 2.9 × 1.5 m (inner dimensions). It is delimited by 

Wall 57A in the east (three courses high), Wall 56A in the north, 

Wall 59 in the west, and Wall 58 in the south (Figure 3.129). A clear 

entrance to the room from the north is present in Wall 56A (Figure 

3.128), about 0.7–0.8 m wide. To the north of Wall 56A and Wall 

56, Unit 6 (Locus 2) was defined; this may have been an open 

area. Here a 0.6-m-wide circular installation made of flat-lying 

pebbles (Feature 3, Figure 3.130) is possibly a hearth (elevation of 

53.60 m). Pottery from Unit 6 includes rounded bowls, cooking 

pots, and a jar neck (Figures 3.131s–v, 3.132); an unclear handmade ceramic fragment was found here as well (Figure 3.131w). 

It is box shaped and may be a redeposited Chalcolithic ossuary(?). 

Two faience amulets were also found in this unit (Figure 3.133). 

Pottery from Room B includes open and rounded bowls (Figure 

3.131a–c), carinated kraters (Figure 3.131e,f), everted-rim cooking pots (Figure 3.131g,h), and a bowl with one handle (Figure 

FIGURE 3.103. Plan of Phase 12B.
NUMBER 50 • 9 5

FIGURE 3.104. Plan of Phase 12A.

dimensions of 2.7 × 2.4 m. Room A is delineated by Wall 55 in 

the east, Wall 54 in the north (continued by Wall 6 in Sq. A3), 

Wall 50 in the west, and Wall 53 in the south. The western corner of the room lies in Sq. A3, although the eastern corner in Sq. 

B was eroded. All walls are about 0.5–0.6 m wide, the length of 

one brick. Wall 50, overlying Wall 59 (see Figure 3.108), was 

very well preserved up to a height of 1 m (54.19–55.16 m; Figure 3.116, on south and west balks). Wall 54 was also preserved 

to a similar height and stood seven courses high (elevations of 

54.15–55.10 m; Figure 3.139). In the northern part of Wall 54 

there are two bricks lying higher in the wall surrounded by gaps 

(mortar filled?) above the floor (Figure 3.140); this was possibly 

a blocking of an opening to the room, 1 m wide, at a level of 

54.27 m; otherwise, the entrance could have been from the east 

(which was eroded). Walls 53 and 55 were highly eroded. In the 

eastern part of Room A, a cobbled floor level was excavated 

(Feature 1 {77}, Figure 3.136) at a level of 54.22–54.08 m, which 

GMIII B (58) 2 (Unit 6) are also illustrated. The first (Figure 

3.133a; see chapter 24, Cat. No. 12) depicts a snake and is a 

unique find in the Levant with only parallels from Egypt; the 

other is a Bes amulet (Figure 3.133b; see chapter 24, Cat. No. 7).

REMAINS OF PHASE 9

Phase 9 (Figures 3.134–3.145) was exposed in the western 

2.5 m of Sqs. B and A3; three architectural units were defined 

(Figure 3.134). The preservation of the walls was good, sometimes as high as 1 m (see Figure 3.108, Wall 50, for example). 

Note that several walls here (such as Wall 50 in Sq. B and Walls 

6 and 7 in Sq. A3) that are built from header-lying bricks also 

combine upright standing bricks occasionally (see, e.g., Figures 

3.138, 3.142). In Sq. B a square room was nearly completely 

excavated (Room A, Locus 1, Figures 3.135, 3.136), with inner 
9 6 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.105. Phase 12B, looking southeast: in the rear, Room E, with Walls 70 (rear), 69 (front), and lower Wall 

73 of Phase 13 (in between); in front, Unit 8, with Wall 68 on the left, Feature 7 (a bin) in the center, and Wall 75 

on the right.

FIGURE 3.106. Wall 66 in the north balk of Sq. B.
NUMBER 50 • 9 7

FIGURE 3.107. Wall 75 lying on the paved area, Feature 9, from Phase 13, looking east.

FIGURE 3.108. Wall 71 under Wall 50 in the western balk of Sq. B.
9 8 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

mud from the outside (typical tabun or oven construction; see 

below). Near the northern balk, another tabun was identified 

(Feature 6), lying mostly within the northern unexcavated area. 

Adjacent to the Feature 5 tabun from the north, small bricks 

were set in the floor, creating a small brick floor about 0.7 m 

wide (Feature 7, Figure 3.138, to the left of the tabun); this 

floor seems to connect the tabuns in Features 5 and 6. The area 

around the tabun was very ashy and dark (Figures 3.138, 3.139), 

and a debris and floor level was defined here at an elevation of 

54.20–54.37 m (Layer 54 in Sq. B, Locus 3; Layer 4 in Sq. A3). 

It is suggested that these two installations comprise a hearth for 

cooking and heating (Feature 5) and a tabun or oven for bread 

baking (Feature 7; see chapter 9, Cat. Nos. 14, 15 and discussion 

on this phenomenon and parallels therein). 

In Sq. B the ash layer above the floor of Unit 2 was very 

thick, reaching an accumulation of 0.7 m, and was excavated 

in five separate levels (Features 1A–1E, Figure 3.140), each one 

12–14 cm thick, showing certain laminations (Figure 3.139; 

maybe indicating phases of use of the tabun). Unit 2 continued 

to be in use with modification in Phase 8. 

To the west of Wall 7, Unit 1 was defined. This space is 

defined in the south by Wall 5 (Figure 3.142; Wall 5 continued 

was embedded in an ash layer (Feature 1A {77}, Figures 3.139, 

3.140). The cobbles were of various sizes and not closely set. In 

the western part of the room a beaten earth floor (54.28–54.31 

m) and a debris level were excavated at an elevation of 54.28–

54.40 m (Layers 53 and 54, Locus 1).

Pottery from Room A includes open and rounded bowls 

(Figure 3.143a–e), a complete straight-sided open bowl (Figure 

3.143f), carinated bowls and kraters (Figure 3.143g–j), cooking 

pots (Figure 3.143k,l), jar and jug rims and fragments (Figure 

3.143m–o; Figure 3.143o is a handle with a horizontal incision 

under it that was made before firing), decorated biconical kraters 

(Figure 3.144a–c), a beer bottle (Figure 3.143q), a flask (Figure 

3.143p), and a lamp (Figure 3.143r). A Mycenaean sherd (Figure 

3.144e), a Cypriot milk bowl (Figure 3.144d), and two clay balls 

(see Figure 19.5k,l) were also found here.

To the north of Wall 54 in Sq. B and east of Wall 7 in Sq. A3, 

part of another space was excavated, defined as Unit 2 (Figure 

3.141, Locus 1 in Sq. A3). The western Wall 7 in Sq. A3 continues Wall 50 from Sq. B. Near the corner of Walls 6 and 7 in Sq. 

A3, a complete tabun was uncovered (Feature 5, Figures 3.137, 

3.141). It is a well-preserved tabun, 0.7 m in diameter, built on 

a circular stone foundation (Figure 3.137), and plastered with 

FIGURE 3.109. Feature 6 (stone feature) looking southwest.
NUMBER 50 • 9 9

FIGURE 3.111. Tabun, Feature 5 of Phase 12A.

FIGURE 3.110. Unit 8 in Phase 12A, Feature 5, a tabun, cutting Feature 7 in the center, looking southeast.
100 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.112. Pottery from Phase 12. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 4418/1 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

b Bowl 4418/2 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

c Bowl 4418/3 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

d Cooking pot? 4418/4 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

e Jar/jug 4418/5 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

f Bowl (Cyp. BRII) 4418/6 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

g Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) 4418/7 GMIII B (1) 11 Room E

h Bowl 4415/1 GMIII B (5) 6

i Bowl 4458/2 GMIII B (64) 5

j Bowl 4458/1 GMIII B (64) 5

k Bowl 4474/1 GMIII B (63A) 5

l Bowl 4415/2 GMIII B (5) 6

m Bowl 4474/2 GMIII B (63A) 5

n Bowl 4458/4 GMIII B (64) 5

o Bowl 4458/3 GMIII B (64) 5

p Bowl 4474/3 GMIII B (63A) 5

q Cooking pot 4415/3 GMIII B (5) 6

r Cooking pot 4458/5 GMIII B (64) 5

s Baking tray? 4403/1 GMIII B (66) 13
NUMBER 50 • 101

FIGURE 3.113. Pottery and finds from Phase 12. Cyp. BR = Cypriot Base Ring ware; Cyp. WS = Cypriot White Slip ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Phase Architectural unit

a Krater; decoration Box 203/1 GMIII B (64) 5 12

b Bowl(?); inner red, black 4457/1 GMIII B (64) 5 12

(and white?) decoration

c Chalice(?); white slip, 4447/1 GMIII B (63A) 5 12

red/black-blue decoration

d Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) 4683/1 GMIII B (3) 6 12

e Jug 4474/4 GMIII B (63A) 5 12

f Sherd (Cyp. BR) 4474/5 GMIII B (63A) 5 12

g Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 540/1 GMIII B (64) 5 12 Unit 8?

h Jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 24/1 GMIII B (66) 13 and (65) 9 12/13 Unit 10

i Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 24/2 GMIII B (66) 13 and (65) 9 12/13 Unit 10

j Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 24/3 GMIII B (66) 13 and (65) 9 12/13 Unit 10

k Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 24/4 GMIII B (66) 13 and (65) 9 12/13 Unit 10

l Figurine Reg. No. 1253 854 GMIII B (5) 6 12
102 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.114. Two scarabs from Phase 12 (GMIII B (64) 5): (a) Reg. No. 1170 

(length 2 cm) and (b) Reg. No. 1177 (length 1.6 cm).

FIGURE 3.115. Plan of Phase 11.
NUMBER 50

• 103

FIGURE 3.116. South, west, and north sections of Sq. B, showing Phase 13–10 (west section showing massive Wall 50).
104 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.118. Wall 56 (left, higher) and Wall 63 (right) of Room C, looking east.

FIGURE 3.117. Room C in Phase 11, looking east. Wall 56 of Phase 10 is on the left, with Wall 63 of Phase 11 below 

it; Wall 57A on Wall 57 is in front.
NUMBER 50 • 105

FIGURE 3.119. Tabun, Feature 1, with Wall 61 behind it, looking west.

FIGURE 3.120. Stone foundation of the tabun, Feature 1 in Unit 7, looking east.
106 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.122. Floor level with pebbles and animal bones in or above Room D, looking northeast.

FIGURE 3.121. Phase 11, Room D on the left and Room B on the right, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 107

FIGURE 3.123. Mat imprint(?) in Sq. B, Phase 11(?).

rounded, open, and hemispherical bowls (e.g., Figure 3.145a–

g), carinated bowls and kraters (Figure 3.145f–m), evertedtriangular-rim cooking pots (e.g., Figure 3.145n), jars rims 

(Figure 3.145o), lamps (Figure 3.145q,r), and a cup and saucer 

(Figure 3.145p). Several items may indicate Egyptian influence, 

such as the V-shaped bowls (Figure 3.143f,g) and a beer bottle 

(Figure 3.143q). Several Mycenaean and Cypriot imports appear 

as well (Figure 3.144d,e).

Small finds include a zoomorphic vessel fragment (Reg. No. 

3427, Unit 1), a marked jar handle (Figure 19.1a, Unit 2), a conical gaming piece made of burnt clay, 2.8 cm high (Figure 3.145s, 

Unit 2), and a stone/calcite bowl (Reg. No. 1048, Unit 2). A 

concentration of flint blades from this phase may represent an 

area of knapping (FL 567; see chapter 26).

REMAINS OF PHASE 8

Phase 8 shows much continuity from Phase 9 in terms of the 

plan in Sq. A3; however, it was completely eroded in Sq. B. Units 

1 and 2 continued to be in use (Figure 3.146). Although Wall 5 

continues from Phase 9 (Figure 3.147), Wall 7 is replaced by Wall 

4, which is thicker (about 1 m wide) and built differently from 

squarer bricks (Figure 3.147). A 0.85-m-deep foundation trench 

was also identified for this wall (Feature 3, Figure 3.150; see also 

Figure 3.151). In the western balk an additional wall was defined 

(Wall 7; see sections in Figures 3.152–3.154), which probably 

belongs to Phase 8. The wall replacing Wall 6 in the southeast 

was probably eroded, yet an unconnected wall fragment seen in 

the west balk of Sq. B, Wall 52 (Figure 3.152) may be this wall. 

Unit 1 includes debris and fills of Layers 6–15. The area in Unit 

1 was cut by Pit 3, probably from Phase 2 (the Persian period, 

cutting though Iron Age levels); thus, not much material was 

found here in situ. Nevertheless, some pottery below Pit 3 may 

belong to Phase 8 (Figure 3.148). The bases of the walls here are 

at an elevation of 54.54–54.70 m. A floor layer in Unit 2 (Locus 

3, Figure 3.152, north balk) was identified in Layer 3, Locus 3 at 

54.54 m, just covering the tabuns in Features 5 and 6 from Phase 

9 (Figure 3.141).

The few indicative forms appearing in Phase 8 suggest a 

late LBII date; these include open, rounded and carinated bowls 

(Figure 3.148a–f,h–j), kraters (Figure 3.148k,l), and decorated 

sherds and a lamp fragment (Figure 3.148n–p). A wide button 

base of a globular shape (Figure 3.148m) probably belongs to a 

jar (see, possibly, Deir el-Balah, Stratum VI, Dothan and Brandl, 

2010: pl. 53:9), but it has a wider base than the regular Canaanite jars. Two perforated worked sherds (Figure 3.148q and Reg. 

No. 1708) and a possible clay sealing (Bag 5038) were also attributed to this phase.

TYPOLOGICAL DISCUSSION OF 

THE LBII POTTERY FROM PHASES 13–8

The pottery of Phases 13–8 will be typologically discussed 

together as one Late Bronze II assemblage. Emphasis will be given 

to be used in Phase 8), continuing into the eastern balk and the 

unexcavated area to the south. Unit 1 continued to be in use with 

modifications in Phases 8 and 7A (Figures 3.146–3.149).

The fragmentary plan revealed from the exposure of Phase 9 

possibly reflects several square spaces or rooms, possibly lined up 

in a grid; the same plan was probably maintained in the subsequent phases, Phases 8 and 7. However, this layout is completely 

different from the one of the previous phases, Phases 10–13, indicating a significant break in the planning of the site. The question is, however, if this break coincides with a cultural break and 

a new “archaeological horizon,” which should be evident from 

the pottery and finds from this phase. Interestingly, the architecture shows a continuity between the final LBII phases (Phases 

8–9) and the seemingly early Iron I phase (Phase 7; see below). 

Phase 9 yielded a relatively rich pottery assemblage that 

is typologically quite similar to the Phase 10 pottery (Figures 

3.143–3.145). The pottery includes various typical LBIIB forms 

(probably dated to the 13th century BCE; see below), including 
108 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.124. Pottery from Phase 11, Room C. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 4525/1 GMIII B (61) 3 Room B

b Krater 1012/1 GMIII B (59) 3 Room B

c Jar; decoration 1012/2 GMIII B (59) 3 Room B

d Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) 1012/3 GMIII B (59) 3 Room B

e Bowl RV 688 GMIII B (62) 4 Room C

f Bowl (fine; MBII?) RV 693 GMIII B (61) 4 Room C

g Bowl 4479/2 GMIII B (61) 2 Room C

h Bowl 4479/1 GMIII B (61) 2 Room C

i Bowl 4482/1 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

j Krater 4482/2 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

k Krater/jug 1010/1 GMIII B (59) 4 Room C

l Jar 4482/4 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

m Jar 4482/5 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

n Scoop? 4482/6 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

o Sherd (imported?) 4482/8 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C

p Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) 4482/7 GMIII B (62) 5 Room C
NUMBER 50 • 109

FIGURE 3.125. Pottery from Phase 11. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WS = Cypriot White Slip ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase Architectural unit

a Bowl 4492/2 GMIII B (63) 2 11 Room D

b Bowl 1007/2 GMIII B (62) 2 11 Room D

c Bowl 1007/1 GMIII B (62) 2 11 Room D

d Bowl 1007/3 GMIII B (62) 2 11 Room D

e Bowl 4492/3 GMIII B (63) 2 11 Room D

f Krater(?); coarse 4492/4 GMIII B (63) 2 11 Room D

g Krater/jar(?) 1007/4 GMIII B (62) 2 11 Room D

h Jug(?) 4492/5 GMIII B (63) 2 11 Room D

i Sherd (Cyp. BRII) 4492/6 GMIII B (63) 2 11 Room D

j Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) Box 536/1 GMIII B (61) 3 11? Room B?

k Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) Box 535/1 GMIII B (60) 3 11 Room B?

l Jug(?): red slip, burnish, white decoration Box 195/1 GMIII B (61) 2 11

with straight (Figure 3.124e) or slightly rounded sides continue 

the tradition of the MBIIB-C and appear in large quantities in 

Phase 13 (Figure 3.101a–c), Phase 12 (Figure 3.112a,h–k), Phase 

11 (Figure 3.125a–d), Phase 10 (Figure 3.131a), Phase 9 (Figures 

3.143a,b, 145a), and Phase 8 (Figure 3.148a,c). The straightsided bowls are usually more shallow and open (e.g., Figures 

3.101c, 3.131a); the rims are either simple (e.g., Figure 3.101b), 

slightly inverted (e.g., Figure 3.112k), or thickened (e.g., Figure 3.112j); the bases are usually ring bases (see, e.g., Figure 

3.58a,b), but several disk bases may also belong to this type 

(e.g., Figures 3.131c, 3.143i) or to the type reflecting Egyptian 

influence described below. Although these open shallow simple 

bowls are common in the MBIIB-C (see above), they appear in 

on the more common forms, which will refer to more exhaustive 

recent studies (such as those of Batash and Aphek, referring there 

to all previously published parallels), complemented by selected 

parallels from more recently published relevant excavations. Because of the relatively small scale of this assemblage (especially 

if broken up into individual types per phase), no quantitative 

analysis was undertaken.

Bowls

Again, the bowls are the most common form in the LBII assemblage of Phases 13–8; main types include various open bowls, 

rounded, hemispherical bowls, and carinated bowls. Open bowls 
110 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

from Phase 14). These bowls continue to appear in Phase 6 of 

the Iron I (Figure 3.160a,b; see below). The bowls are similar to 

Type BO1 from Aphek (Gadot and Yadin, 2009:190–191, and 

references therein) and may be inspired by Egyptian-type bowls 

(such as those at Tel Mor [Martin and Barako, 2007:135, figs. 

4.4–4.6]; see also Type EgB1–EgB2 from Aphek [Martin et al., 

2009:362–363], Beth-Shean [Martin, 2009:444, and references 

therein], and Deir el-Balah [Gould, 2010:15–17, bowl type E]).

Rounded to hemispherical bowls start to appear in Phase 

11 and continue into the Iron Age I (see below). Examples come 

from Phase 11 (Figure 3.124a,h) and Phase 10 (Figure 3.131m,s); 

usually, this type has a simple rim and a concave disk or ring base 

(some examples have a red band painted on the rim, as in Figure 3.131s). Examples from Tell Jemmeh Field III are relatively 

small, 15–20 cm in diameter, yet this type can appear in larger 

sizes. Parallels are very common, for example, Batash, Strata 

the LBII as well (see, e.g., Batash, Strata VIII–VI [Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:29–35, especially Type BL53a], Aphek, Strata X14–X12 

[Gadot and Yadin, 2009:192–193, Type BO3, and references 

therein; also Type BO1, e.g., figs. 8.23–8.25, 8.29:1–3], and also 

Beit Mirsim, Tomb 1 [Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.67:1–14]). 

A group of the open bowls appearing from Phase 11 onward has wide, open, straight-sided, V-shaped walls, a flat or 

disk base, and straw inclusions indicated by a coarse porous 

fabric, especially on the base and outer surface (Figure 3.145b; 

petrographic analysis also shows laminated voids, indicating organic temper; see chapter 15, Samples Jemmeh 65, Jemmeh 68, 

Figure 3.143f). These include Figure 3.124e from Phase 11, Figure 3.131c,l from Phase 10 (Figure 3.131l with reddish clay; see 

petrographic analysis in chapter 15, Sample Jemmeh 68, indicating local production), a bowl from phase 9 (Figure 3.143f), and a 

flat base from Phase 8 (Figure 3.148e; also possibly Figure 3.92a 

FIGURE 3.126. Plan of Phase 10.
NUMBER 50 • 111

Phase 8 (Figure 3.148d,f,i–k). These bowls usually have simple everted rims (Figures 3.112n, 3.148f), vertical rims (Figure 

3.112p, Phase 12), or thickened rims (Figures 3.143e, 3.145h); 

a large example with an everted rim from Phase 13 (Figure 

3.101g) may belong to the same type or to a chalice (possibly 

like Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:53, Type CH3). Sizes of these bowls 

vary; some small examples have a diameter of 12–15 cm (Figure 

3.112o,p), whereas larger rims may reflect a 30–35 cm diameter (Figure 3.131n,o), although they may be defined as kraters 

because of their large size (see carinated kraters below, which 

are defined here also according to their distinguished rim shape 

and thickness and by the presence of handles). The carination 

is in the upper third of the bowl’s height and varies in its sharpness. Some examples are made of whitish clay (Figure 3.145d), 

although none were found with decoration. Most of these bowls 

VIII–VI (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:31–32, Type BL50, and references 

therein), Aphek, Stratum X12 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009:194, 

Type BH1, and many parallels therein; in addition, see examples 

from Beit Mirsim tombs [Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.67:15–19], Tel 

Mor, Strata XII–X [Barako, 2007: fig. 3.1:1,14,15], and Tell esSafi [Gadot et al., 2012:243, Type BL1.2]).

Another type of rounded bowl has an everted rim (Phase 10, 

Figure 3.131b; Phase 9, Figure 3.145d). Parallels can be found 

at Tell es-Safi (Gadot et al., 2012: pl. 12.2:6) and Batash (PanitzCohen, 2006a: Type BL46, although dated earlier). 

Carinated bowls appear in several examples in Phases 13–8; 

most are quite different from the MBIIB-C carinated bowls and 

seem to mark a different tradition. Examples come from Phase 

12 (Figure 3.112b,d,l–p), Phase 11 (Figure 3.124i), Phase 10 

(Figure 3.132b), Phase 9 (Figures 3.143e,g,h,j, 3.145e–h), and 

FIGURE 3.129. Room B, with Wall 58 on the right and the west 

balk of Sq. B on the left, with Wall 59 and Wall 50 above it, standing 

about 12 courses, looking southwest.

FIGURE 3.130. Hearth, Feature 3 of Phase 10, looking east, with 

Walls 56A and 57A behind it.

FIGURE 3.128. Room B in Phase 10, looking east. The entrance to 

the room is on the left, in Wall 56A; Wall 57A is on the right, with 

Wall 57 below it and slightly to the front.

FIGURE 3.127. Room C in Phase 10, looking southeast.
112 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 113

Kraters

A variety of krater types appears in the LBII phases. Carinated deep kraters with folded slanted rims seem to make their 

appearance in Phase 11 (Figure 3.124b,j,k), and several examples come from Phase 10 (Figure 3.131e,f,n,o) and Phase 

9 (Figure 3.145j,k). According to more complete examples 

from Field I, somewhat similar kraters can be quite large (see 

Figures 6.124b, 6.157), 35–40 cm in diameter at their widest point, and have two vertical loop handles attached to the 

rim and a ring base. A thick ring base from Phase 8 (Figure 

3.148l) may belong to such a krater and would represent a 

large and heavy example; see also a handle with a thumb 

impression (“thumbed”) attached to a thickened rim (Phase 

10, Figure 3.132n). The carinated kraters are common in the 

LBII in southern Israel, for example, at Lachish, Levels VII–VI 

(Clamer, 2004:1178; Yannai, 2004:1041, fig. 19.16:4, Krater 

K-1), Aphek, Stratum X12 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009:209, Type 

KR2, and references therein), and Deir el-Balah, Strata VIII–

VI (Killebrew, 2010: fig. 4.2:6; Dothan and Brandl, 2010: pls. 

19:4, 21:3, 26:4). This type continues into the Iron I (e.g., 

here, Phase 7, Figure 3.155d; see also Ashdod, Stratum XIII, 

Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.5:11). A hammerhead 

rim version of this krater also appears (Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a: Type KR1) and becomes more common in the Iron I 

(see below).

probably belong to variants of the family of carinated profile 

vessels common in the LBII and Iron I (developing into the 

S-shaped or cyma bowls in the Iron I; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type 

BL59). Note that these bowls are not as common in the LBII at 

Tell Jemmeh as they are in other sites in the southern Levant, 

where they are often decorated as well (see Batash, Strata XI–

VII [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:40–42, Type BL56, and more discussion and references therein], Aphek, Strata X13–X10 [Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009:203–204, Types BC3, BC4], Tel Mor [Barako, 

2007: fig. 3.3:1–6], and Deir el-Balah, Strata VI–IV [Dothan and 

Brandl, 2010: pl. 42:14–19]). Another subtype appears in Phase 

8 (Figure 3.148d), with slight carination, possibly similar to that 

at Batash (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL58). 

A small closed carinated bowl or krater from Phase 13 (Figure 3.101e) has a high handle attached to the simple rim; the 

handle is possibly thumb impressed. The vessel is made of clay 

darkened, possibly, by soot. 

A nearly complete large open bowl from Phase 10, Room 

B (Figure 3.131d) has a slightly thickened rim, round base, and 

at least one handle attached to the rim; the outer surface has 

prominent wheel marks and has some white slip. Somewhat similar bowls, although with a ring base, come from Beit Mirsim, 

Tomb 100 (Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.32:57–61; also, possibly, Tel 

Mor, Barako, 2007: fig. 3.1:18); however, the rounded base of 

the vessel may relate this form to scoops from the LBII (as Figure 

3.124n; see Zuckerman, 2007).

FIGURE 3.131. Pottery from Phase 10. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 4494/2 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

b Bowl 4494/1 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

c Bowl? 4494/5 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

d Bowl; white slip RV 685 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

e Krater 4494/3 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

f Krater 4437/1 GMIII B (57) 3 Room B

g Cooking pot 1009/1 GMIII B (58) 3 Room B

h Cooking pot 4494/4 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

i Jar 4494/6 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

j Flask/jug 4494/8 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

k Lamp 4494/7 GMIII B (56) 3 Room B

l Bowl 4496/1 GMIII B (58) 4 Room C

m Bowl 4508/1 GMIII B (56) 4 Room C

n Krater 1013/1 GMIII B (57) 4 Room C

o Krater 1013/2 GMIII B (57) 4 Room C

p Cooking pot 4508/2 GMIII B (56) 4 Room C

q Jar/jug 4508/4 GMIII B (56) 4 Room C

r Jar 4508/3 GMIII B (56) 4 Room C

s Bowl; red decoration 1006/1 GMIII B (58) 2 Unit 6

t Cooking pot 1014 GMIII B (59) 2 Unit 6

u Base 4429/2 GMIII B (57) 2 Unit 6

v Jar; white slip, red decoration 1006/2 GMIII B (58) 2 Unit 6

w Body sherd 1006/3 GMIII B (58) 2 Unit 6
114 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 115

A sherd with a carinated shape and slightly thickened rim 

(Phase 13, Figure 3.101d) may belong to a biconical krater. A 

thickened rim of a krater from Phase 12 (Figure 3.113a) is decorated by red stripes along the rim. Another thickened/hammerhead rim, probably from a carinated krater (Phase 11, Figure 

3.124j), has three grooves incised along the top of the rim. Several examples of coarse kraters include a wide, thickened gutter rim from Phase 13 (Figure 3.101h); another example with 

a “ledge rim” comes from Phase 11 (Figure 3.125f). Decorated 

biconical kraters are discussed separately in chapter 10.

Cooking Pots

Most of the cooking pots from Phases 13–8 have an everted 

neck and thickened rim (Phases 13, 12, Figures 3.101i, 3.112q; 

Phase 9, Figure 3.143l), a triangular rim (Phase 12, Figure 

3.112r; Phase 10, Figure 3.131g,h; Phase 9, Figures 3.132c, 

3.143k), or a wedge-shaped rim (Phase 10, Figure 3.131p,t; 

Phase 9, Figure 3.145n). No complete bodies of cooking pots 

were preserved, but according to parallels, the body is carinated 

with a lower globular part, a diameter of 30 cm, and a capacity 

of 6–12 L in most cases. This is a generic LBII cooking pot type 

(see, e.g., Deir el-Balah [Killebrew, 1999, 2010: Type C], Batash, 

Strata IX–VI [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:68–70, Type CP1, and references therein], Tel Mor [Barako, 2007: fig. 3.17], and Aphek 

[Gadot and Yadin, 2009:212–216, CP1]). Simple everted-rim 

cooking pots slowly replaced gutter rim cooking pots in the 

southern Levant already in the LBI or the 16th century BCE 

(Seger, 2011). Note that in Field III the everted and triangular 

rims appear throughout the LBII phases, whereas the wedgeshaped-rim cooking pots appear only in the later phases of the 

LBII, Phases 10–9; this subtype also appears in later phases of 

the LBII at other sites (such as Batash, Strata VI–V [PanitzCohen, 2006a: Type CP4a], Aphek [Gadot and Yadin, 2009: 

Type CP1b], and Deir el-Balah, Stratum VI [Dothan and Brandl, 

2010: pl. 32:3; Killebrew, 2010: fig. 4.2:16,17]) and continues 

in the early Iron Age I (see Killebrew, 1999).

FIGURE 3.132. Pottery and finds from Phase 10. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 4497/2 GMIII B (55)

b Bowl 4497/1 GMIII B (55)

c Cooking pot 4497/4 GMIII B (55)

d Jar (MBIIB?) RV 686 GMIII B (56) 4

e Krater/jug; decoration Box 192/1 GMIII B (55)

f Krater (3 sherds); decoration Box 193/1 GMIII B (56)

g Krater; decoration Box 193/2 GMIII B (56)

h Krater; decoration Box 193/3 GMIII B (56)

i Krater (2 sherds); decoration 4499/1 GMIII B (56)

j Krater/jug; decoration Box 192/2 GMIII B (55)

k Krater/jug; decoration Box 192/3 GMIII B (55)

l Sherd; red decoration Box 192/3A GMIII B (55)

m Decorated handle Box 192/4 GMIII B (55)

n Krater; impression 4497/3 GMIII B (55)

o Strainer bowl Box 241 /1 GMIII B (56)

p Pyxis/amphoriskos 4497/5 GMIII B (55) 1

q Lamp; soot 4497/6 GMIII B (55)

r Perforated sherd Reg. No. 1802 GMIII B (56) 4

s Bronze point Reg. No. 1323 (Cat. No. 852) GMIII B (57) 4 Room C

FIGURE 3.133. Amulets from Phase 10 (GMIII B (58) 2): (a) Reg. 

No. 1142 (length 1.9 cm) and (b) Reg. No. 1143 (length 1.2 cm).
116 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.134. Plan of Phase 9.
NUMBER 50 • 117

FIGURE 3.135. Room A at the beginning of excavation, Wall 54 in the rear, looking north.

FIGURE 3.136. Square B: cobbled floor level, Feature 1 in Room A, 

Phase 9, looking northeast.
118 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.137. Tabun, Feature 5 in Unit 2, after excavations, looking west; 

on the right edge of another tabun, Feature 6.

FIGURE 3.138. Phases 8 and 9 in Sq. A3, looking east. Wall 4 and the upper part of Wall 7 are in front, with a tabun 

(Feature 5; before excavation) below and a small brick floor (Feature 7) to the left of the tabun; to its right, note the 

ashy dark layer.
NUMBER 50 • 119

FIGURE 3.139. Phase 9, Sq. B: close up on ash layer, Features 1A–1E of Unit 2, in the balk in the rear, looking west.

FIGURE 3.140. Phase 9, Sq. B: ash layer, Features 1A–1E, in the balk in the rear after excavation of the complete 

sequence; note well-preserved Wall 54 to the left of the ashy layers, looking northwest.
120 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.141. Tabun, Feature 5, and ash 

layers in Sq. A3 from the section; Wall 4 in the 

rear (Phase 8).

FIGURE 3.142. Unit 1 in Sq. A3 in Phase 9, Walls 

6 (far left, cut), 7 (left), and 5 (rear), looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 121

FIGURE 3.143. Pottery from Phase 9, Room A.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl 4439/1 GMIII B (52) 

b Bowl 4439/3 GMIII B (52) 

c Bowl 4488/1 GMIII B (53) 1

d Bowl 4442/2 GMIII B (51A)

e Bowl 4488/2 GMIII B (53) 1

f Bowl 4442/1 GMIII B (51A)

g Bowl 4439/6 GMIII B (52) 

h Krater 4439/5 GMIII B (52) 

i Bowl? 4488/4 GMIII B (53) 1

j Bowl 4439/4 GMIII B (52) 

k Cooking pot 4439/7 GMIII B (52) 

l Cooking pot 4439/8 GMIII B (52) 

m Jar 4439/10 GMIII B (52) 

n Jar/jug 4488/5 GMIII B (53) 1

o Jar handle; incised 4439/9 GMIII B (52) 

p Flask/jug 4439/11 GMIII B (52) 

q Beer bottle 4478/1 GMIII B (54) 1

r Lamp; soot 4439/12 GMIII B (52)
122 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

base (see, e.g., Batash, Strata IX–VI [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:77–81, 

Type SJ2], Tel Mor, Strata VIII–VII [Barako, 2007: fig. 3.23:6–8], 

Aphek, Stratum X12 [Gadot and Yadin, 2009:229–231, Type 

SJ2], and Deir el-Balah [Killebrew, 2010:88–91, and references 

therein]). These jars are usually 50–80 cm high and have a capacity of 25–30 L (see Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: table 47). 

Some of these jars have painted decoration on the neck (e.g., Figure 3.124c, Phase 11, with a red band on the neck), handles, or 

body, but only a few examples of these were found in Field III, 

such as a handle decorated with a tree design from Phase 10 (Figure 3.132m). Also notable is a pithos rim from Phase 13 (Figure 

3.101k) with a thickened, slightly flaring rim (see e.g., Batash, 

Stratum VI, Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 57:10). A finely 

ridged body sherd from Phase 8 (Figure 3.148o) may also belong 

to a large closed vessel.

Jars

In contrast to the MBII not many storage jars come from 

the LBII levels, and no complete examples were found. Several 

rim and neck fragments include thickened or folded rims from 

Phase 13 (Figure 3.101j), Phase 12 (Figure 3.112e), Phase 11 (Figure 3.124m), Phase 10 (Figure 3.131v, white slipped), and Phase 

9 (Figure 3.143m). Everted rims come from Phase 11 (Figure 

3.124l), Phase 10 (Figure 3.131q, with a ridge under the rim), and 

Phase 9 (Figure 3.143n); jar bases from Phase 10 (Figure 3.131i) 

and a wide lower portion with a button base from Phase 8 (Figure 

3.148m) are illustrated, as well as several jar handles (Phase 10, 

Figure 3.131r; Phase 9, Figure 3.143o). All these examples most 

likely belong to the common LBII storage jar type with an ovoid 

body, slightly everted and/or thickened rim, and stump or button 

FIGURE 3.144. Pottery from Phase 9. Cyp. WS = Cypriot White Slip ware; Myc. = Mycenaean.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Closed vessel; white slip, red decoration Box 190/1 GMIII B (51A)

b Krater/jug; decoration Box 191/1 GMIII B (52) 

c Krater/jug; decoration 4498/1 GMIII B (51A)

d Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) Box 532/1 GMIII B (50)

e Bowl (Myc.); decoration Box 533/1 GMIII B (52)
NUMBER 50 • 123

FIGURE 3.145. Pottery and finds from Phase 9.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 1487/1 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

b Bowl; straw impression 5044/1 GMIII A3 (4) 3 Unit 2

c Bowl base? 4425/3 GMIII B F1 (1) Unit 2

d Bowl 4486/1 GMIII B (54) Unit 2

e Bowl 1487/2 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

f Bowl 4502/2 GMIII B (52) 2 Unit 2

g Bowl; red slip(?) 4416/1 GMIII B F1D Unit 2

h Krater 5044/2 GMIII A3 (4) 3 Unit 2

i Krater 1487/3 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

j Krater 4425/2 GMIII B F1 (1) Unit 2

k Krater 1487/4 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

l Bowl 4502/1 GMIII B (52) 2 Unit 2

m Krater 1568/1 GMIII A3 (4) 3

n Cooking pot 4502/3 GMIII B (52) 2 Unit 2

o Jar? 1487/5 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

p Cup and saucer 4502/4 GMIII B (52) 2 Unit 2

q Lamp; soot 1560/1 GMIII A3 (4) 3

r Lamp 1487/6 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Unit 1

s Gaming piece Reg. No. 3964 GMIII B F1B Unit 2
124 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.147. Phase 8 in Sq. A3: Wall 5 is on the left, and Wall 4 is in the center, with upper Phase 9 

behind it, looking east.

FIGURE 3.146. Plan of Phase 8.
NUMBER 50 • 125

FIGURE 3.148. Pottery from Phase 8.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 5066/1 GMIII A3 (13) Unit 1

b Bowl 4954/1 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

c Bowl 5030/1 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

d Bowl 5096/1 GMIII A3 (13) Unit 1

e Bowl 4954/4 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

f Bowl 4955/1 GMIII A3 12

g Cooking pot/bowl 5038/2 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

h Bowl 5096/2 GMIII A3 (13) Unit 1

i Bowl/krater 4954/2 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

j Bowl 1495/1 GMIII A3 (11)

k Krater/bowl 5066/2 GMIII A3 (13) Unit 1

l Krater 5038/1 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

m Jar 1492/1 GMIII A3 (11) Unit 1

n Decorated sherd 4954/3 GMIII A3 (2) 3 Unit 2

o Sherd 1495/3 GMIII A3 (11)

p Lamp 1495/2 GMIII A3 (11)

q Perforated sherd Reg. No. 1693 (SI Cat. 975) GMIII A3 (2) 3
126 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Phase 10, Room B (Figure 3.131j); another rim and neck from 

Phase 9 with two handles attached to it is also a flask (Figure 

3.143p). Similar vessels can be found at other sites in the region, 

such as Batash (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:115–116). One example 

of a possible pyxis or amphoriskos comes from Phase 10 (Figure 

3.132p). 

Several lamp fragments are illustrated, including in Phase 

10 (Figures 3.131k, 3.132q), Phase 9 (Figures 3.143r, 3.145q,r), 

and Phase 8 (Figure 3.148p). These fragments usually have a 

simple rim, rounded body, thin wall, and soot marks (for similar LBII lamps, see, e.g., Batash, Strata IX–VIII, Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:117–118, Type LP1); one example has an everted rim 

(Phase 9, Figure 3.145r) and indicates a different type (similar to 

Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:118–119, Type LP2, appearing there somewhat later, in Strata VIII–V).

One example of a handle (Figure 3.124n) may either belong 

to a scoop, which is an asymmetric open bowl or a fragment of 

a strainer bowl with one high thick handle attached from the rim 

to the body, found in Phase 11 (for further discussions on scoops, 

see Zuckerman, 2007, for LBII and Gitin, 1998, for the Iron II 

version). A fragment of a handmade flat object may be a baking 

tray (Phase 10, Figure 3.112s; see Uziel, 2008:144, fig. 59; Gadot 

Jugs and Juglets

Not many jugs or juglets were found in the LBII phases. A 

thin rim and neck with an attached handle from Phase 11 (Figure 

3.125h) probably belongs to a jug (see, e.g., Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:91–92, Type JG1). A dipper juglet is represented by a rim, 

neck, and handle from Phase 13 (Figure 3.101l; see Batash, Strata 

VIII–VII, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:111, Type JT3). A handle from 

Phase 11 decorated with red slip and burnish and white horizontal 

stripes (Figure 3.125l) belongs to a small jug or juglet.

Decorated Ware

A sherd (bowl?) from Phase 12 (Figure 3.113b) is decorated 

on the interior by red and black stripes over white slip. Biconical kraters and jugs decorated in Canaanite style start to appear 

in Phase 10 (Figure 3.132e–l) and continue through Phases 9–6 

(Figures 3.144a–c, 3.148n, 3.161h) into the Iron I; a collection 

of these also appear in Field I, including two complete vessels 

(one of these is a jug, Figure 10.1a, and was found on the surface 

near Field III). These vessels are usually decorated by white slip 

and red paint and include typical motifs, such as ibexes, netted 

areas, and trees (see chapter 10). 

Other Forms and Wares

Flasks, a common LBII–Iron I form, are not very common 

at Tell Jemmeh. One probable example is a neck fragment from 

FIGURE 3.149. Plan of Phase 7.

FIGURE 3.150. Walls 2 and 3 in Sq. A3, with Wall 4 of Phase 8 

below them and its deep foundation trench, Feature 3, to the left, 

looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 127

Cypriot imports appear in various quantities in all LBII 

levels; Mycenaean imports are found in smaller number. A Mycenaean bowl base is illustrated from Phase 9 (Figure 3.144e). 

Cypriot Base Ring jugs, or bilbils, come from Phase 13 (Figure 

3.101o,p), Phase 12 (Figure 3.113e–k), and Phase 11 (Figure 

3.125i); Base Ring bowls come from Phase 12 (Figure 3.112f; 

probably also Phase 13, Figure 3.101n). White-slipped milk 

bowls come from Phase 12 (e.g., Figure 3.113d), and White 

Shaved juglets come from Phase 13 (Figure 3.101q,r); for further 

discussion on Cypriot imports, see chapter 11.

Summary

Although there are at least six architectural phases attributed to the Late Bronze Age at the Tell Jemmeh Field III step 

trench, the pottery assemblages recovered from secure contexts 

in these phases is rather limited, probably because of the small 

area of exposure. Not all forms typical of this period are represented (see, e.g., Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:126–138, for a 

more complete repertoire), and some forms are represented by 

only a very few examples (underrepresented forms include jugs, 

and Yadin, 2009:236; Frankel, 2011:95–96, for more references). 

The rim fragment of a strainer bowl, with at least four rows of 

prefired perforations (Figure 3.132o), was found in Phase 10 

(for a possible parallel, see Lachish, Level P-1; Clamer, 2004: fig. 

2.16:13). One example of a cup and saucer comes from Phase 9 

(Figure 3.145p; this type appears also in Phase 6, Figure 3.161k); 

for discussion on cup and saucer vessels, see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen 

(2006a:119, pl. 55:11) and Uziel and Gadot (2010).

The only clear example of an Egyptian form from the LB 

levels at GMIII is a beer bottle from Phase 9, Room A (Figure 

3.143q). More than half of the vessel, made of coarse clay with 

added straw, was preserved; the lower part is roughly modeled 

with finger marks and seems to be perforated. This vessel type 

and its distribution in Canaan have recently been discussed in 

relation to the LBII assemblage of Tel Mor (Martin and Barako, 

2007:147–150, fig. 4.11, table 4.11). Beer bottles of the “BB 

4” type are found in various LBII sites in southern Israel but 

seem to be common only in Egyptian administrative centers 

(see, e.g., Deir el-Balah [Dothan, 1979; Gould, 2010:31–38, fig. 

2.5] and Tel Mor [Martin and Barako, 2007]; see also Martin, 

2009:447–448). 

FIGURE 3.151. North balk of Sq. A3.
128 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.152. South, west, and north sections of Sq. A3.
NUMBER 50 • 129

FIGURE 3.153. South balk of Sq. A3.

FIGURE 3.154. West balk of Sq. A3.
130 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

REMAINS OF PHASE 7

Phase 7 (Figure 3.149) is only represented in Sq. A3 by a few 

features, divided into two local subphases, 7B and 7A. Phase 7B 

is defined by a single element in Sq. A3: a tabun (Feature 4) was 

reported to cut into the eastern face of Wall 4 of Phase 8 and to be 

cut by Wall 3 of Phase 7A above it (visible in the northern section, 

Figures 3.151, 3.152, although not appearing on the plan). The 

tabun continues into the northern balk and was laid on a 10 cm fill 

layer that was defined between Walls 3 and 4 (Layer 6, Locus 5). 

Otherwise, all other elements in Sq. A3 belong to Phase 7A (Figures 3.149, 3.150). The walls of Phase 7A are rather fragmentary, 

but they seem to conserve the general plan of four perpendicular 

abutting units as seen in Phases 9 and 8. An area above Unit 1 of 

Phase 8 is delimited by Wall 3 (Figure 3.150), a north–south brick 

wall overlying Wall 4; it is built of one row of headers and is nearly 

4 m long. Wall 2 bonds with it, creating a right angle overlying 

Wall 5, preserved to three courses high. Wall 5 seems to thicken 

to the east of Wall 3. The wall immediately above it (elevation of 

55.65 m) has the same alignment but probably belongs to Phase 6 

(see Figure 3.156). Phase 7A, Unit 1 is also cut by Pit 3 of Phase 2. 

Pit 2 in Sq. A3 may also belong to Phase 7A.

flasks, pyxides, etc.). Egyptian-style pottery does not appear 

in large numbers, whereas imported Mycenaean and Cypriot 

wares appear in quantities that are typical for large southern 

Levantine sites. 

Quantitative analysis of pottery from good contexts from 

Fields III and I combined may produce more viable conclusions 

on subtle chronological aspects of the assemblage. The problem 

is that in Field III there are insufficient exposure and quantities 

of indicative forms from each type and phase for such an analysis 

(and many of the contexts from Field I are problematic; see chapter 6). Nevertheless, several forms might indicate some general 

trends. More MBII–LBI forms appear in Phases 13–11 (such as 

the simple everted-rim cooking pots; see Seger, 2011), although 

these forms disappear in Phases 10–8. For example, the MBIIB-C 

open bowls with an inverted rim do not appear in Phase 10 onward; moreover, several later LBII forms are introduced in Phase 

10 and usually continue up to Phase 6; these include the carinated kraters, wedge-shaped-rim cooking pots, Canaanite decorated biconical forms, and cups and saucers. Thus, tentatively, 

Phase 13 to Phase 11 can be dated to the LBIIA, i.e., roughly 

the 14th century BCE, whereas Phases 10–8 can be dated to the 

LBIIB, roughly the 13th century BCE. 

FIGURE 3.155. Pottery from Phase 7A.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Architectural unit

a Bowl 4948/1 GMIII A3 (1) 3 Unit 2

b Bowl RV 151 (SI Cat. 914) GMIII A3 (1) 3 Unit 2

c Krater 1485/1 GMIII A3 (8) Unit 1

d Cooking pot 5034/1 GMIII A3 (6) 1 Unit 1

e Jar 1485/3 GMIII A3 (8) Unit 1

f Jug(?) 5070/1 GMIII A3 W3

g Nozzle? 1485/4 GMIII A3 (8) Unit 1
NUMBER 50 • 131

This is probably the main “Philistine level” in Field III, yielding large amounts of Philistine Bichrome pottery. A partial unit 

excavated in Sqs. A2 and A3 includes Walls 10 and 11, which 

form an exact right angle (Figures 3.156, 3.159), defining a unit 

to the east that might roughly continue Unit 1 of Phases 7–9 or 

be defined as the new Unit 3 (Figures 3.142, 3.159). As noted 

above, Wall 1 of Sq. A3 may be a continuation of Wall 10 of 

Sq. A2, showing continuity between the Phase 7A and 6 plans. 

To the west, Wall 12 is parallel to Wall 11 and almost abuts 

it, although it is slightly higher; the gap of a few centimeters 

is filled with mortar (Figure 3.159). This is possibly part of a 

new unit continuing into the western balk or the widening of 

Unit 3 (as seems to be the case with Unit 1) in a later phase. In 

the northwest corner, Wall 12 is already cut by the foundation 

trench of the Phase 2 rounded Persian period granary wall (Wall 

2, Feature 1, Figures 3.173, 3.175; see also in A2 sections, Figure 3.158, Feature 1). A pinkish plaster floor was defined in Unit 

3(1?) at an elevation of 55.82 m (Feature 3, Layer 20), abutting 

the western face of Wall 11 (or Wall 12?) (Figure 3.158, Sq. A2, 

north balk). This plaster floor, although it is fragmentary, probably continued in Sq. A3 (Layer 5), where it reaches the base of 

Wall 1. In Sq. A2, the Phase 6 fill and debris levels include Layers 14–20, whereas in Sq. A3 these include Layers 2–5 (Figure 

3.158); all these layers contain Philistine Bichrome pottery (see 

Figure 3.162). This level is also cut by Sq. A3, Pit 3 and Feature 

1 of Phase 2. 

In the southwest corner of Sq. A2, particularly in the southern section (Figure 3.157), Wall 9 was defined, although its 

orientation is not clear. In the southern balk of Sq. A2 (Figures 

3.157, 3.158), the collapse of at least two mud brick walls can be 

The small amount of pottery found in Phase 7 (probably 

all from subphase 7A) seems to date it to the LBII–Iron IA horizon, as it includes typical LBIIB forms, such as the straight-sided 

open bowl (Figure 3.155a), carinated krater (Figure 3.155c), 

everted krater or cooking pot (Figure 3.155d), and button-based 

storage jar (Figure 3.155e). As the next phase, Phase 6, already 

contains Philistine Bichrome and other Iron IB forms, Phase 7 

is tentatively dated to the Iron IA, or to the beginning of the 

12th century BCE, similar to Lachish Level VI. Note that no 

Philistine Monochrome (or Philistine 1; see, e.g., Dothan and 

Zukerman, 2004; Dothan et al., 2006) dating to this period was 

found here. This is not surprising as this ware is restricted to 

the Philistine Pentapolis sites (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:82, 

2006–2007).

Phase 7 also yielded an intact, small, closed carinated bowl 

with an incurving simple rim (Figure 3.155b) and a disk base; 

possible parallels come from Tell Qasile, Stratum XI (Mazar, 

1985a: fig. 24:3). A triple handle with two ridges (Figure 3.155f) 

is probably a jug or juglet handle redeposited from the MBII 

levels (see a similar handle from Tel Nagila, Stratum IX, Uziel, 

2008: fig. 72:11). Another ceramic object illustrated (Figure 

3.155g) is a thick, hollow, tubular sherd, widening from one end 

to the other; this is a spout or a nozzle of some sort (possibly 

from a figurative vessel).

REMAINS OF PHASE 6

Phase 6 was primarily preserved in Sq. A2, with fragmentary remains in the western half of Sq. A3 as well (Figure 3.156). 

FIGURE 3.156. Plan of Phase 6.
132 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Egyptian style (see above); these are bowls made of straw-rich 

clay. Rounded, hemispherical bowls become more common in 

this phase (Figure 3.160e–i); these usually have simple or slightly 

inverted rims and a hemispherical body. Several complete examples were found, one with a concave disk base (Figure 3.160e, 

made of pinkish light clay) and one with a flat disk base (Figure 

3.160f); one example with an inner and outer red rim band is 

illustrated (Figure 3.160g); two examples have soot marks on 

the rim area (Figure 3.160h,i) and may have been used as lamps. 

The diameter is usually 14–18 cm, with one small example being 

10 cm (Figure 3.160g). This bowl type is a typical Iron I form 

continuing late LBII forms (see above). Early Iron I examples 

include bowls from Ashdod, Stratum XIIIb (Dothan and Porath, 1993:55, fig. 14:1–7) and Strata XII–XI (Dothan and BenShlomo, 2005:109, figs. 3.29:3–6, 3.57:1–6), and Lachish, Level 

VI (Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. XXXVIII:36,51,52); other Iron I examples come from Tell Qasile, Stratum XI (Mazar, 1985a:33–36, 

Type 1, fig. 28:5–12), Ashdod (Dothan, 1971: Fig. 84:5,6), Tel 

Miqne, Strata VII–VI (Dothan and Zukerman, forthcoming In 

press a), Batash (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:32, Type BL50b, and 

references therein), and Beit Mirsim (Greenberg, 1987: Figs. 

4:12,13, 5:10).

seen, probably Walls 9 and 12 (the latter denoted as Wall 8 in the 

southern balk, Figure 3.158). This destruction (Layers 17–19), 

indicated by the arched row of complete mud bricks, is clearly 

sealed by the Phase 5 levels. This may be evidence of destruction (by earthquake?) during the Iron I period (maybe similar to 

Ashdod, where a similar phenomenon is noted between Stratum 

XIb and Stratum XIa; see Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:34–37, 

plans 2.8, 2.9). The Phase 6 bricks are different from those of 

the earlier phases (especially those of the Bronze Age phases), as 

they are less elongated and more square. Another phenomenon 

to note is that the upper course of the walls (especially in Walls 

10 and 11, but also in Wall 12 to a lesser extent) shows cracking, at times with a very long fracture line (Figure 3.159). This 

could be additional evidence for the occurrence of an earthquake 

terminating Phase 6. Generally, Phase 6 shows a similar plan to 

Phase 7 but introduces a new technique of plaster flooring. 

The pottery of Phase 6 includes forms in the Canaanite tradition, continuing to some extent forms seen in Phases 9–7 (Figures 3.160, 3.161), and the newly appearing Philistine tradition 

(Figure 3.162). Open bowls with straight sides, made of lightcolored clay, continue to appear (Figure 3.160c,d). At least two 

examples (Figure 3.160a,b) are probably bowls influenced by the 

FIGURE 3.157. South balk of Sq. A2; note brick collapse.
NUMBER 50 • 133

FIGURE 3.158. South, west, and north balks of Sq. A2 (section).
134 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Bowl 8), Gezer (Dever et al., 1970: pl. 26:19), Lachish, Level 

VI (Tufnell et al., 1940: pls. XLIB:117,125, XLIIb:142; Tufnell, 

1958: pls. 68:125, 72:630; Yannai, 2004:1041, Bowl 300), Ashdod, Strata XIII–XI (Dothan and Freedman, 1967: fig. 27:1,2,7; 

Dothan, 1971: fig. 74:4,5; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 

3.15:12, 29:13, 57:9–14), Batash, Stratum V (Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:44–47, Bowl 59), Tel Mor (Barako, 2007: fig. 3.8:6–11), 

Carinated bowls (Figure 3.160j–l) usually have an S-shaped 

profile and a simple everted rim. Several examples have white 

slip (Figure 3.160j–l,o). Carinated bowls of this form are typical of the 13th century BCE (see above, Phases 10–7) and the 

Iron Age I in southern Israel and may have evolved from the 

cyma-shaped bowls (Mazar, 1985a:39; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:44, 

Bowl 59); see parallels also at Tell Qasile (Mazar, 1985a:39–41, 

FIGURE 3.159. Walls 10, 11, and 12 of Phase 6, looking east; note cracks.
NUMBER 50 • 135

FIGURE 3.160. Pottery from Phase 6.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl RV 49 GMIII A2 (20)

b Bowl RV 48 GMIII A2 (20)

c Bowl 1538/4 GMIII A2 (19)

d Bowl 1504/1 GMIII A2 (19)

e Bowl; soot 1515/1 GMIII A3 (3)

f Bowl SI Cat. No. 632.1 GMIII A2 (20)

g Bowl; red decoration 1504/2 GMIII A2 (19)

h Bowl; soot 1538/1 GMIII A2 (19)

i Bowl; soot 1538/2 GMIII A2 (19)

j Bowl 1538/3 GMIII A2 (19)

k Bowl; white slip 5 GMIII A2 (18)

l Bowl/chalice; white slip, red decoration 2 GMIII A3 (4) 

m Krater 1538/5 GMIII A2 (19)

n Krater 1501/2 GMIII A2 (20)

o Bowl 1505/1 GMIII A2 (20)
136 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

krater (Figure 3.160n) with a slightly thickened rim and loop 

handle (see, e.g., Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:57, Type KR4). 

It is made of whitish clay. A decorated biconical krater (or jug) 

with a netted pattern (Figure 3.161h) was also found in Phase 6.

Several jars from Phase 6, including one complete example 

(Figure 3.161a–c), are illustrated. The nearly complete jar (Figure 

3.161a) has an ovoid, long body, thickened rim, short neck, and 

pointed stump base; it is about 50 cm in height. Three other rim 

and neck fragments (Figure 3.161b,c) probably belong to the same 

and Aphek, Stratum X10 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009:203–206, 

Type BC4a). The bowl shown in Figure 3.160l has a triangular 

rim and may belong to a chalice. 

Carinated kraters with hammerhead rims (Figure 3.160m) 

are typical of the Iron I (see, e.g., Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:57–60, Type KR1], Tel Mor, Stratum VI [Barako, 2007: 

fig. 3.15:6], and Aphek, Strata X10–X9 [Gadot and Yadin, 

2009:211–212, Type KR3]), continuing the carinated kraters 

of the LBII (see above). Another type illustrated is a rounded 
NUMBER 50 • 137

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:137, Iron II). Two residual Cypriot WS sherds are also illustrated (Figure 3.161i).

The second group of pottery forms from Phase 6 includes 

Philistine Bichrome pottery (Figure 3.162). These include bellshaped bowls (Figure 3.162a–d,g,h), bell-shaped kraters (Figure 

3.162f,i–l,m,n), and several decorated body sherds from closed 

vessels (e.g., Figure 3.162o). These sherds are usually decorated 

with white slip and black and red painted decoration, with motifs including spirals (Figure 3.162a–e,m,n), lozenges (Figure 

3.162i,j), and a Maltese cross (Figure 3.162n). In addition, a 

string-cut fragment is the lower part of a false spout of a stirrup 

jug (Figure 3.162q), and a body sherd with a spout breakage 

mark (Figure 3.162p) is probably a fragment of a feeding bottle–

type jug. For further discussion on the Philistine pottery typology 

and decoration, see chapter 12.

Terra-cottas from Phase 6 include a clay disk or wheel (Figure 3.161m), a leg of a zoomorphic vessel or figurine (see chapter 

17, Reg. No. 1271), and a fragment of a snake(?) figurine (see 

chapter 17, Figure 17.8d); a mud jar sealing (Figure 3.161n), a 

bronze point (Reg. No. 1326), and a handstone (Figure 23.3e) 

from this phase should also be noted. 

REMAINS OF PHASE 5

Phase 5 (Figure 3.163), identified in Sq. A2, was not very 

well preserved and was destroyed both by erosion to the east and 

by pits and features of later phases in the western part of the 

square. In the south balk of Sq. A2, above the nearly 1 m of 

brick collapse of Phase 6, a leveling of the area in layers of Phase 

5 can be seen (Figures 3.157, 3.158). The architecture includes 

two walls defining Unit 4, which reflect a different plan than the 

one of Phases 9–6. Fragmentary Wall 6, severely cut by erosion 

in the east (Figure 3.164), seems to make a right angle with Wall 

type of storage jar, although the shape of the rim varies in thickness and angle. Similar jars come from other Iron I–IIA sites, e.g., 

Tell Qasile, Strata XI–IX (Mazar, 1985a:54–56, fig. 48, Type SJ1), 

Ashdod, Stratum X (Dothan and Porath, 1982: figs. 3:17, 5:9, 9:1), 

Batash (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:86, Type SJ3), Tel Mor (Barako, 

2007: fig. 3.23), and Aphek (Gadot and Yadin, 2009: Type SJ2).

Two jugs illustrated from Phase 6 (Figure 3.161d,f) are of a 

similar type with a globular body, concave disk base, and thickened or triangular rim. Soot marks appear on various areas of 

these jugs. These are probably cooking jugs, appearing in Philistia during the Iron Age (for Philistine cooking jugs, see Killebrew, 1999:93–94, 2000; Dothan and Zukerman, 2004:28–31, 

figs. 36, 37, Type P; Ben-Shlomo et al., 2008, and references 

therein; see also, for recent results from Tel Mor, Stratum 

III, Barako, 2007:72, fig. 3.32:18–20). The third jug (Figure 

3.161e) is also a rim and handle fragment, made from whitish 

clay; the rim is slightly inverted. This could also be a variant of 

a cooking jug. The presence of Iron Age I cooking jugs at Tell 

Jemmeh is characteristic of Philistine material culture during 

this period. 

Another nearly complete jug (Figure 3.161g) has a globular 

body, flat base, and long, narrow neck; it resembles red-slipped 

Iron I jugs in its shape (see, e.g., Tell Qasile, Stratum X [Mazar, 

1985a: figs. 41:7,8, 49:5–8] and Megiddo, Stratum VI [Loud, 

1948: pl. 75:6–10]) but is undecorated.

Other pottery forms illustrated include a complete lamp 

(Figure 3.161l) with a simple rim and somewhat flat base; soot 

marks are seen on the spout. Other than the flatter base, this 

is similar to typical Iron I lamps (e.g., Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:117, Type LP1). A base of a cup and saucer (Figure 

3.161k) was also found in Phase 6 (for this type, see above discussion of LBII pottery). A thick, slightly curved object with flaring edges (Figure 3.161m) may be a fragment of a stumpy, short 

stand (see, e.g., Aphek, Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8:14:4, LB; 

FIGURE 3.161. Pottery and finds from Phase 6. Cyp. WS = Cypriot White Slip ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Jar RV 51 GMIII A2 (20) 6

b Jar 1557A/1 GMIII A3 (2) 2 6

c Jar 1501/1 GMIII A2 (20) 6

d Cooking jug; soot 1512/1 GMIII A2 (18) 6

e Jug 5054/1 GMIII A2 (14) 1 6

f Jug SI Cat. No. 915 GMIII A3 (2) 2 6

g Cooking jug 1514/1 GMIII A3 (4) 6

h Krater; decoration 1 GMIII A3 (3) 6

i Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) Box 526/1 GMIII A2 (19) 6

j Cyp. WS? Box 530/1 GMIII A3 (1A) 1 6?

k Worked base 1538/7 GMIII A2 (19) 6

l Lamp RV 690 GMIII A2 (20) 6

m Stand(?) 1506/1 GMIII A3 (4) 6

n Perforated sherd Reg. No. 2426 GMIII A2 (20) 6

o Mud jar sealer Reg. No. 1668 GMIII A2 (20) 6
138 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 139

FIGURE 3.163. Plan of Phase 5.

bell-shaped bowl (Figure 3.165c). Another fragment of an open 

bowl (Figure 3.165a) is decorated with red bands on the interior 

and along the rim and may also relate to the influence of Philistine pottery. An everted rim of a carinated bowl (Figure 3.165d) 

and a hammerhead rim of a carinated krater (Figure 3.165e; see 

discussion on this form in Phase 6 above, Figure 3.160) were also 

found, as well as a residual Cypriot WS sherd (Figure 3.165f). 

This small pottery assemblage indicates a date of the late Iron 

IB for Phase 5.

5, although the base of Wall 6 is about 0.5 m higher than that of 

Wall 5. A wall seen in the western balk of Sq. A2 (Wall 7, Figure 

3.158) may also belong to the same phase. In the western part 

of Wall 5, several stones may be part of a threshold (Feature 2, 

Figure 3.164). No floor levels were detected here, and the finds 

are few. 

Pottery illustrated includes a bell-shaped Philistine bowl (Figure 3.165b) with a vertical profile, a degenerated Philistine form 

(see chapter 12), and the horizontal handle of an undecorated 

FIGURE 3.162. Philistine pottery from Phase 6. BSB = bell-shaped bowl; BS = bell-shaped; Phil. BC = Philistine Bichrome ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 1 GMIII A2 (18)

b Bowl (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 2 GMIII A2 (18)

c Bowl (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 1 GMIII A2 (19)

d Bowl (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 2 GMIII A2 (19)

e Krater/bowl (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 3 GMIII A2 (19)

f Krater (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 8 GMIII A2 (19)

g Krater (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 5 GMIII A2 (19)

h Bowl (BSB); white slip, red/black decoration 2 GMIII A3 (3)

i Krater (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 4 GMIII A2 (19)

j Krater(?); white slip, red/black decoration 3 GMIII A2 (18)

k Krater (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 4 GMIII A2 (18)

l Krater (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 6 GMIII A2 (18)

m Bowl (BSB); soot, white slip, red/black decoration 1 GMIII A3 (4)

n Krater (BS); white slip, red/black decoration 6 GMIII A2 (19)

o Sherd (Phil. BC); white slip, red/black decoration GMIII A2 (15) 1

p Feeding bottle; white slip 7 GMIII A2 (19)

q Stirrup jar 1538/6 GMIII A2 (19)
140 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.164. Walls 5 and 6 of Phase 5 in Sq. A2, looking northeast.

FIGURE 3.165. Pottery from Phase 5. BSB = bell-shaped bowl; Cyp. WS = Cypriot White Slip ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl; decoration 3 GMIII A2 (13) 1

b Bowl (degenerated BSB) 1 GMIII A2 (13) 1

c Bowl (BSB?) 2 GMIII A2 (13) 1

d Bowl 1498/1 GMIII A2 (13)

e Bowl/krater 1499/1 GMIII A2 (13)

f Milk bowl (Cyp. WS) Box 525/1 GMIII A2 (13)
NUMBER 50 • 141

associated with Wall 4 (Figure 3.167). In Sq. A1 the debris layers 

related to Wall 2 were completely eroded. 

The pottery from the Phase 4 levels (especially in Sq. A2) 

contains some typical red-slipped Iron IIA forms (Figure 3.168). 

These include carinated open bowls (Figure 3.168a,b) with a 

slightly thickened rim and vertical upper wall, appearing with 

hand-burnished red slip on the interior (Figure 3.168b) or on 

both the interior and upper exterior (Figure 3.168a). Parallels 

come, for example, from Tell Qasile, Stratum IX (Mazar, 1985a: 

fig. 52:6) and Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.17). 

The ledge rim of a carinated bowl (Figure 3.168c) also has parallels in Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.16.5). “Degenerated” or red-slipped bell-shaped bowls (Figure 3.168d–g; all 

examples are red slipped on the outside) are typical of the late 

Iron I or Iron IIA (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:30,42). They 

have the bell-shaped form and a degenerated horizontal handle 

completely touching the vessel body (for this type, see chapter 12, 

REMAINS OF PHASE 4

Phase 4 was only detected in Sqs. A1 and A2 (Figure 3.166). 

There is an about 1 m gap between the top of walls of Phase 

5 in Sq. A2 (57.63 m) and the base of Phase 4 walls in Sq. A1 

(58.66 m). This gap could be explained either by a leveling and 

constructional fill between the phases or by the existence of an 

abandonment phase or an additional Iron II constructional fill in 

between the two phases. Phase 4 was cut by Phases 2 and 3, and 

thus, it might be difficult at times to separate them, especially in 

relation to floor or debris levels. The lower wall in the east of 

Sq. A1, Wall 2, probably belongs to Phase 4. This wall is highly 

eroded on its eastern end, is cut by Wall 4 of the Phase 2 granary 

in the north, and continues into the south balk. A crumbly wall 

fragment from Sq. A2 (Wall 4; also possible Wall 3 in Sq. A2) 

may also belong to this phase. In Sq. A2, Layers 3–10 belong 

to Phase 4, with Layer 10 and/or Layer 7 being a floor level 

FIGURE 3.166. Plan of Phase 4.
142 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Qeiyafa, early 10th century BCE, Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a: 

fig. 6.24:4). 

Although the architecture of Phase 4 was hardly preserved, 

the pottery from the thick accumulation of this phase seems to 

indicate a clear and distinct horizon of the Iron I–IIA transition 

or early Iron IIA (probably contemporary with Field IV, Phases 

11–10). A body fragment of a Late Philistine Decorated Ware 

(LPDW) closed vessel is also illustrated (Figure 3.168h) and is 

also indicative of the Iron IIA (on this ware, see Field IV, Phases 

11–8 and chapter 12; see also Ben-Shlomo et al., 2004). The 

sherd is decorated by red burnishing and black paint; this ware 

is more common in Field IV. Other finds include an incised jar 

handle (Figure 19.1k) and a finger-impressed jar handle (Figure 

19.2g; see chapter 20). A stone club-shaped pendant (Figure 

Figure 12.5). Another Philistine form appearing with red slip and 

burnishing is strainer-spouted jugs (“beer jugs”; Figure 3.168j–

l). For other examples of red-slipped and degenerated strainerspouted jugs, see, Ashdod, Stratum X (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.72), and Tell Qasile, Stratum X (Mazar, 1985a: figs. 

35:2,3, 36:1, 50:2–3; see also Field IV, Phases 11–9 in chapter 8 

and chapter 12, Figure 12.6)(also Dothan 1982:191–194, Type 

17, and references therein). Philistine red-slipped, degenerated 

pottery, or “Philistine 3” (Dothan et al., 2006:20, 72) ware, is 

typical of the Iron I–IIA transition and early Iron IIA (see further 

discussion in chapter 12). 

The short neck of a jar (Figure 3.168i) is also illustrated, 

possibly similar to a type from Aphek, Stratum X-8 (Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8.11:10, Type SJ3; see also Khirbet 

FIGURE 3.167. A possible hard floor level of Phase 4 in Sq. A2 (Layer 7), looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 143

FIGURE 3.168. Pottery from Phase 4. BSB = bell-shaped bowl; LPDW = Late Philistine Decorated Ware.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 1494/1 GMIII A2 (7)

b Bowl; red slip, burnish 5025/2 GMIII A2 (9)

c Bowl 5019/3 GMIII A2 (8)

d Bowl; red slip, burnish 5019/1 GMIII A2 (8)

e Bowl; red slip, burnish 5025/1 GMIII A2 (9)

f Bowl (degenerate BSB); red slip, burnish 5019/2 GMIII A2 (8)

g Bowl (degenerate BSB); red slip, burnish 1489/1 GMIII A2 (3)

h Sherd (LPDW); red slip, burnish, black decoration 1489/2 GMIII A2 (3)

i Jar 5019/4 GMIII A2 (8)

j Spout (SSJ?); white slip, decoration 5025/4 GMIII A2 (9)

k SSJ spout; red slip 5025/3 GMIII A2 (9)

l SSJ spout (LPDW); red slip, burnish 1494/2 GMIII A2 (7)
144 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

whereas Locus 3 is to the north of Wall 1, and to the east of Wall 

3 Locus 1 was defined. Layers 1–3 in Sq. A1 belong to the phase 

associated with these walls. Pit 2 from Sq. A1 may also belong 

to this phase. The limited amount of pottery from these contexts 

can be dated to the Iron IIB-C (Figure 3.173). It is noteworthy 

that the Iron IIB-C period (contemporary with the “Assyrian levels” in Field IV, Phases 7–5) is meagerly represented in Field III, 

in contrast to the relatively rich finds from Field IV. This can 

be explained either by the fact that most of the Iron Age IIB-C 

remains were eroded in the squares excavated in Field III (thus, 

if more squares to the west would have been excavated, the situation would have changed) or by a lower intensity of occupation 

in this part of the site during this period. In any case, the few 

remains from this period still show massive and reinforced wall 

building, similar to finds from other fields at Tell Jemmeh.

The pottery from Phase 3 (Figure 3.172) includes only several typical Iron IIB forms, but as this is a small assemblage, a 

more exact dating cannot be made. A red-slipped bowl with a 

22.2g) was also found in Phase 4, typical of the Iron IIA (see 

chapter 22). 

REMAINS OF PHASE 3

Phase 3 is mainly represented by a thick brick wall in Sqs. 

A1 and A0 (Wall 1, Figures 3.169, 3.170). This wall is 1.1–1.2 

m thick and is built of two lines of bricks with mortar filling between them. This wall is only preserved to a height of 20 cm, has 

a wide foundation trench, and continues into the eastern balk. 

Wall 3 (Figures 3.170, 3.171) seems to make a right angle with 

Wall 1 and continues into the southern balk. However, Wall 3 is 

about 0.5 m lower than Wall 1 and thus could represent a lower 

level of Phase 3 (possibly subphase 3B?) or may even belong to 

Phase 4. Both walls are cut by granary Wall 4 of Phase 2. The top 

of Wall 1 is also cut by a Phase 1 grave (Feature 1, Figures 3.170, 

3.180; see below). To the south of Wall 1, Locus 2 was defined, 

FIGURE 3.169. Plan of Phase 3.
NUMBER 50 • 145

FIGURE 3.170. Square A1: Wall 1 of Phase 3 with a cavity from a 

grave (Feature 1), with Walls 2 and 3 in the rear right, looking east.

it seems that Phase 3 includes both Iron IIA forms and a few Iron 

IIB-C ones; either this represents an Iron IIA–IIB transitional 

period (possibly similar to Field IV, Phase 8), or the pottery is 

stratigraphically mixed. A complete iron arrowhead found in Sq. 

A1, Wall 1 (Figure 3.172j, see chapter 23) should also be noted.

REMAINS OF PHASE 2

The rounded granary wall (also denoted Granary 2) dated to 

the Persian period (Figures 3.173, 3.174) is the primary feature 

of Phase 2, delineated by Wall 4 in Sqs. A0 and A1 and Wall 2 in 

Sq. A2. The foundation trench of this wall was labeled Feature 1 

in Sq. A2 (Figures 3.175, 3.176). The wall is built of three concentric lines of rectangular bricks (Figure 3.174). The projected 

diameter of the granary, which continues north beyond the excavation area, is 4.75 m, similar to the granaries excavated in Field 

IV and previously by Petrie (see chapter 8). The wall (whose base 

was at an elevation of 56.83 m) was preserved to a height of 

2 m, although it was likely higher and had eroded away. The 

foundation trench cuts Phases 3–6, and the fill inside (Sq. A1, 

Feature 2, dug 1.6 m deep, Figure 3.173), excavated down to an 

elevation of 57.91 m, cuts into Phases 3–5 and yielded mainly 

Iron II pottery. Four to six Aramaic ostraca were found in this fill 

(see chapter 32, Figures 32.3c,d, 32.4a, Reg. Nos. 1960–1963, 

possibly also SI Cat. Nos. 985, 986). Several deep pits disturbing 

earlier phases in Sqs. A2 and A3 are also attributed to Phase 2. 

These include Pit 2 in Sq. A2 and Pits 1 and 3 in Sq. A3 (Figure 

3.177) Pit 3 is very large, at least 2 m in diameter and at least 

1.5 m deep (the level from which it was dug was eroded in Sq. 

A3), and is seen in the west, south, and north balks of the square 

(Figures 3.152–3.154, 3.158), cutting through all levels. These 

pits contained Persian period pottery as well as earlier pottery 

(Figures 3.177, 3.181).

Some reconstructed pottery originates from Sq. A1, Pit 1 

and Sq. A3, Feature 1 and Locus 2, Layer 2 (see Figure 3.177). 

horizontal handle (Figure 3.172a) is probably residual from the 

Iron IIA. More indicative of the late Iron IIA or Iron Age IIB are 

two hole-mouth jars (Figure 3.172f,g) with thickened or hammerhead rims (on this shape, see, e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:105–107); the rims, however, indicate an earlier date 

within the Iron II (see, e.g., Lachish, Level IV, Zimhoni, 1997a: 

fig. 3.33:6). Two jar rims (Figure 3.172d,e) are more typical of 

Iron Age IIB-C sack-shaped jar types (see, e.g., Lachish, Level II, 

Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.28; see further discussion on these types 

in Field IV in chapter 8). The body of a jar (Figure 3.172c) is 

more similar to Iron I–IIA types (see, e.g., Figure 3.161a). Another vessel is a flaring neck of a large, wide, closed globular 

vessel (Figure 3.172b), either an amphora, a storage jar, or a 

large krater; possible parallels come from Batash (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type KR11). This may also be considered 

an Iron IIA-B type. A fragment of the hollow part of a vessel, a 

chalice or a large funnel, is also illustrated (Figure 3.172i). Thus, 

FIGURE 3.171. Walls 1 (front), 2, and 3 (front left) in Sqs. A1 and 

A0; Pit 2 is seen in the rear balk, looking south.
146 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

mortaria, yet much of the pottery seems to be redeposited from 

Iron Age levels. 

REMAINS OF PHASE 1

Phase 1 is represented by a single burial (Feature 1, Figures 

3.179,3.180) cutting both the top of Wall 1 of Phase 3 (Figure 

3.180) and the face of Wall 4 of Phase 2. The simple pit grave 

contained one articulated skeleton with its head facing SSW; 

there were no finds associated with it. This is an apparent Islamic or modern grave, and its date could be any time from the 

Crusader-Mamluk to the modern period; the type and orientation of the burial is typical of Islamic and Bedouin graves (see, 

e.g., Toombs, 1985). A large pit dug from a level of 59.00 m in 

the northern part of Sq. A1 (Pit 1; see above) may also belong 

to Phase 1. This pit included large amounts of pottery and other 

These include a complete rounded bowl (Figure 3.178a, GMIII 

A3 (2)2; see Field IV, Persian material for similar forms) and a 

complete, small, deep carinated bowl with a thin, flaring rim and 

a concave base (Figure 3.178b). Parallels for the carinated bowl 

can be found at Megiddo, Tomb 64 (Guy and Engberg, 1938: 

pl. 74:8). These forms may be dated to the end of the Iron Age 

II or the Persian period. A complete lower part of a jar (Figure 

3.178c) with a button base and ovoid body was found in Sq. 

A3, Pit 3 or Feature 1 (Figure 3.177); this jar type may be of an 

earlier date and may belong to the Iron I–IIA (see above). An 

amphora or jug rim is also illustrated (Figure 3.178d), as well 

as a neck of a flask with two broken handles (Figure 3.178e). 

A lamp fragment (Figure 3.178f) was also found in Phase 2. In 

addition, a crudely handmade ceramic spout (Figure 3.178g) is 

possibly a spouted rim fragment of a crucible; it has red paint 

on its exterior. Several pottery vessels from this phase may be 

dated to the Persian period or earlier, including amphorae and 

FIGURE 3.172. Pottery and finds from Phase 3. BSB = bell-shaped bowl.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl (degenerate BSB); red slip, burnish 1557/2 GMIII A1 (2) 2

b Amphora? 1565/1 GMIII A1 (3) 2

c Jar 1565/2 GMIII A1 (3) 2

d Jar 5052A/1 GMIII A1 (3) 3

e Jar 5056/3 GMIII A1 (1) 1

f Hole-mouth jar 5056/1 GMIII A1 (1) 1

g Hole-mouth jar 5056/2 GMIII A1 (1) 1

h Jar/jug 5033/1 GMIII A1 (2) 3

i Chalice/funnel? 5033/2 GMIII A1 (2) 3

j Iron arrowhead Reg. No. 451 GMIII A1 W1
NUMBER 50 • 147

(Figure 3.182) as they may have special importance and/or represent an artifact type not appearing elsewhere. These include 

several RWB body sherds (Figure 3.182b,c; see section on MBII 

pottery above); three fragments of biconical jugs or kraters decorated with ibexes or other motifs (see above LBII discussion) are 

discussed in chapter 10. A fragment of a cup, knob, or a lid with 

red slip is illustrated (Figure 3.182d). This type is not identified and may belong to the LBII as it comes from Sq. B topsoil 

(see, e.g., a complex bowl from MBII from Megiddo, Stratum X 

[Loud, 1948: pl. 45:19] or LBII goblets from Hazor [Yadin et al., 

1958: pl. XC:5,13]). Another nearly complete item illustrated is 

a rattle (Figure 3.182a); this is a completely closed globular ceramic object, about 8–9 cm in diameter, with one loop handle attached to the top. It is filled with balls, creating the rattle sound. 

Rattles are common in the Iron Age but appear in other periods 

as well (for cylindrical or bird-shaped rattles, see, e.g., Ashdod 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:120, fig. 3.36:1], Beth Shemesh 

finds, some of which were typical to the Persian period, including Attic sherds mostly dating to the 5th century BCE (Figure 

3.181; see also chapter 14) and some earlier material as well. 

This material includes sherds from finely decorated open bowls 

or “plates” (Figure 3.181a,b), which may have been imported. 

Two jars are also illustrated (Figure 3.181c,d); the first has a 

thickened rim, whereas the second is a slightly inverted rim with 

incisions on the shoulder. Otherwise, no pottery can be clearly 

attributed to the uppermost phase. A reconstructed deep alabaster bowl was found in Sq. A3, Layer 2, Locus 2 (see chapter 23, 

Figure 23.10a).

UNSTRATIFIED FINDS

In addition to the above-mentioned remains, several objects originating in the topsoil of Field III are worth mentioning 

FIGURE 3.173. Plan of Phase 2.
148 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.176. Section through fill inside granary (Sq. A1, Feature 

2); note Pit 1 defined in the upper part.

FIGURE 3.174. Granary Wall 4 from above and 

looking north.

FIGURE 3.175. Square A1: Walls 1 and 2 (right and rear) cut by 

Granary Wall 4, looking east; note the deep fill excavated inside.
NUMBER 50 • 149

FIGURE 3.177. Pottery from lower Pit 3 in Sq. A3, Level 2, Locus 2, looking north.

FIGURE 3.178. Pottery and finds from Phase 2.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 1 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2?

b Bowl (votive?) RV 152 (SI Cat. 916) GMIII A3 (2) 2 2?

c Jar RV 52 GMIII A3 F1 2?

d Jug/amphora 5052/3 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2

e Flask 5052/1 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2

f Lamp; soot 5067/1 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2

g Crucible/spout(?); red paint 5052/2 GMIII A3 (2) 2
150 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 3.180. Grave, Feature 1, looking west.

FIGURE 3.179. Plan of Phase 1.
NUMBER 50 • 151

FIGURE 3.181. Pottery from Phase 1.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl; red slip SI Cat. No. 398/1 GMIII A1 P1

b Bowl; red slip SI Cat. No. 398/2 GMIII A1 P1

c Jar 1567/1 GMIII A1 P1

d Jar 1567/2 GMIII A1 P1

FIGURE 3.182. Selected unstratified finds from Field III.

Part Description Bag/Box/Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance

a Rattle RV 663 817 GMIII B (+)

b Sherd; red/white/blue decoration Box 230/1 GMIII J1 (1)

c Sherd; red/white/blue decoration Box 230/2 GMIII J1 (1)

d Cup(?); red slip 4438/1 GMIII B (0)
152 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

is represented by two Phases (6–5) with some fragmentary architectural remains and a collection of Philistine Bichrome pottery. 

From the brick collapses seen in the field, it seems that Phase 6 

was violently destroyed, possibly by an earthquake. 

The Iron II is rather poorly preserved, with two fragmentary phases (4–3), yielding small amounts of pottery; Phase 4 is 

tentatively dated to the Iron IIA and Phase 3 to the Iron IIB-C. 

The multiple building phases of the Iron IIB-C illustrated in Field 

IV are not represented in Field III (possibly these were eroded). 

A portion of a rounded brick granary was discovered above this 

(Phase 2) and can be dated to the Persian period, according to 

analogies from Field IV. An Islamic or modern grave and several 

pits cutting lower phases were defined as Phase 1, but hardly any 

datable pottery can be attributed to this phase.

In conclusion, the main contribution of Field III is that it includes the main or only stratified material remains for the Chalcolithic and MBIIB-C periods at the site, with a representative 

pottery assemblage. Furthermore, this is the only area in which 

virgin soil was clearly reached, indicating no pre-Ghassulian remains at the site, and it indicates the gap in occupation during 

the Early Bronze and MBI–IIA periods. Evidence for fortifications on the tell discovered in Trench ST1 (see chapter 5 and Van 

Beek, 1992) was not recovered in the Field III narrow trench, but 

possibly, these fortifications were located nearby. The strategic 

location and prominence of the site and the rich material culture, 

including many imported vessels, indicate this was an important 

settlement in the southern Levant during the MBIIB-C. Another 

important contribution is the long stratigraphic sequence of the 

LBII, with at least six phases; such a detailed sequence has rarely 

been uncovered (and even more rarely published) at any other 

site in the southern Levant. The good preservation of the brick 

walls and installation and the careful and detailed documentation of the section in the trench further contribute to the importance of this excavation field.

AUTHOR NOTE

Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural 

History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, 

D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

[Grant, 1934: pl. XXIV: bottom], Gezer [Macalister, 1912: pl. 

CLXXVI:18], and Tell en-Nasbeh [McCown, 1947: pl. 46:20]).

SUMMARY

The trench excavated in Field III provides an almost complete stratigraphic profile for Tell Jemmeh, particularly for the 

Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and early Iron Ages. 

The sequence included some 19 phases, with several of these 

further divided into two subphases. This is the only area in the 

site where Chalcolithic levels were unearthed. Although no clear 

architecture was exposed from this period, a representative assemblage of Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) pottery was found, 

indicating a settlement roughly contemporary with the sites of 

the Beer-Sheba culture in the northern Negev.

Middle Bronze Age II is represented by four or five rather 

well-preserved constructional phases (Phases 18–15). The remains indicate domestic architecture and installation along the 

edge of the tell. The large quantities of storage jars, especially in 

Sqs. J1–J2, Phase 17, may indicate that this was a storage area; 

the clay sealings with scarab impressions found in Phase 16 indicate administrative activity to a certain extent. The rich pottery 

assemblage dates Phases 17–15 to the latter part of the MBII or 

the MBIIC, probably the late 17th to 16th centuries BCE. Phase 

18 might be slightly earlier, dating to the MBIIB. The remains 

include a rich and representative pottery assemblage, including 

a large quantity of jars and impressed clay sealings, imported 

Cypriot pottery in relatively large quantities, and unique vessels, 

such as the Tell el-Yahudiyeh zoomorphic bovine vessel. 

Phase 14 may date to the LBII, but the finds securely retrieved from this phase represent a mixture of the MBIIC, LBII, 

and possibly LBI periods. Although no phase contains pottery of 

the LBI horizon, six or seven phases (13–8) are dated to the LBII. 

The remains show a series of overlying rooms, probably domestic structures, including grain storage and cooking installations. 

The pottery retrieved from these levels is not as rich as the previous MBII pottery but is rather typical of the LBII in the southern 

coastal plain (although not all types are represented). The pottery 

seems to suggest that Phases 13–11 date to the LBIIA (ca. 14th 

century BCE) and Phases 10–8 to the LBIIB (13th century BCE). 

Phase 7 is a poorly preserved (transitional?) phase, probably 

dating to the Iron Age IA, i.e., the 12th century BCE. The Iron IB 
NUMBER 50 • 153

TABLE 3.A1. List of contexts of Field III. The notation {xx} indicates the year of excavation when the layer number is repeated in various seasons. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower elevation was recorded, and in others it 

is questionable; the notation (xx) indicates estimated or recorded layer thickness.

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMIII A1 (0) Topsoil 59.56 None 

GMIII A1 (1) Fill 59.40 59.56 3–2? Above P2, mixed pottery

GMIII A1 (1) 1 Fill 59.00 59.10 3? 

GMIII A1 (2) 1 Fill 58.90 59.00 3? 

GMIII A1 (2) 2 Fill 59.20 59.40 3 

GMIII A1 (3) 2 Fill 59.10 59.20 3 

GMIII A1 (2) 3 Fill 59.10 59.20 3 

GMIII A1 (3) 3 Fill 58.69? 59.20? 3 Floor level of Wall 1?

GMIII A1 F1 Burial 1 Islamic/modern burial

GMIII A1 F2 Fill 57.91 59.50 2–4 Fill in granary; mostly Iron 

IIA pottery

GMIII A1 F2 (1) Fill 2 Fill in granary, under P1

GMIII A1 F2 (2) Fill 2 Fill in granary

GMIII A1 W1 Wall 59.19 59.36 3(A?) Brick wall

GMIII A1 W2 Wall 58.96 4 Brick wall

GMIII A1 W3 Wall 58.59 3(B?) Brick wall

GMIII A1 W4 Wall 57.91 58.80 2 Rounded granary brick wall

GMIII A1 P1 Pit 59.00 1? 

GMIII A1 P2 loc2 Pit 3? 

GMIII A2 (1) Fill 3–4? Equals A1 (2) 1

GMIII A2 (2) Fill (0.2) 3–4? 

GMIII A2 (3) Debris (0.35) 4 Debris on floor; Iron IIA 

pottery

GMIII A2 (4) Fill (0.12) 4 Debris on floor; Iron IIA 

pottery

GMIII A2 (5) Fill (0.18) 4 

GMIII A2 (6) Fill (0.2) 4 

GMIII A2 (7) Fill (0.06) 4 

GMIII A2 (8) Fill (0.08) 4 

GMIII A2 (9) Fill (0.25) 4 

GMIII A2 (10) Floor? 58.66? 4 Floor related to Wall 4?

GMIII A2 (11) Fill (0.11) 5? 

GMIII A2 (12) Fill (0.07) 4–5? 

GMIII A2 (13) 1 Fill 5 Unit 4?

GMIII A2 (14) 1 Fill (0.15) 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (15) 1 Fill 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (16) 1 Fill 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (17) Fill 6 

GMIII A2 (18) Fill 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (19) Fill 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (20) Floor? 6 Unit 1?/3

GMIII A2 (21) Fill 6–7A 

GMIII A2 F1 Foundation trench 2 Foundation 

trench for 

Wall 2

APPENDIX 3.1
154 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMIII A2 F2 Stones 5 

GMIII A2 F3 Floor 6 Unit 1?/3 Pinkish plaster floor runs 

to west face of Wall 12 like 

layer 20

GMIII A2 P1 Pit 2 Equals A3 P3

GMIII A2 W1 Canceled None Canceled

GMIII A2 W2 Wall 2 Equals A1 W4, granary wall

GMIII A2 W3 Wall 4? Eroded

GMIII A2 W4 Wall 4? Eroded

GMIII A2 W5 Wall 57.00 57.13 5 Unit 4 Brick wall

GMIII A2 W6 Wall 57.51 57.65 5 Unit 4 Brick wall

GMIII A2 W7 Wall 5–6? Brick wall

GMIII A2 W8 Bricks 6 Collapse of Wall 12 or upper 

Wall 9

GMIII A2 W9 Wall 6 Brick wall

GMIII A2 W10 Wall 55.82 56.00 6 Brick wall

GMIII A2 W11 Wall 55.85 56.06 6(B?) Brick wall

GMIII A2 W12 Wall 56.03 6(A?) Brick wall

GMIII A3 (0) Topsoil 56.89 None 

GMIII A3 (1) Wash layer 6 Equals A2 (17)

GMIII A3 (2) Fill (0.2) 6 Fill over Wall 1, equals A2 

(18)

GMIII A3 (3) Fill (0.2) 6 Fill over Wall 1, equals A2 

(18)

GMIII A3 (4) Fill (0.4) 6 Equals A2 (19)

GMIII A3 (5) Floor (0.02) 6 Equals A3 F2, A2 (20)

GMIII A3 (6) 1 Fill (0.18) 7A Unit 1

GMIII A3 (7) 1 Fill (0.15) 7A Unit 1

GMIII A3 (8) 1 Fill (0.06) 7A? Unit 1

GMIII A3 (9) 1 Fill 55.00 55.10 8? Unit 1

GMIII A3 (10) 1 Fill (0.07) 8 Unit 1 Runs to Wall 5, cut by P3

GMIII A3 (11) 1 Fill (0.06) 8 Unit 1 Runs to Wall 5, cut by P4

GMIII A3 (12) 1 Fill (0.04) 8 Unit 1 Runs to Wall 5, cut by P5

GMIII A3 (13) 1 Debris 54.54 54.70 8 Unit 1 Runs to Wall 5, cut by P6

GMIII A3 (14) 1 Fill (0.38) 9 Unit 1 Runs to Wall 5, cut by P7

GMIII A3 (15) 1 Fill (0.1) 8 Unit 1 TT in base of wall 5

GMIII A3 (2) 2 Fill/pit 2? Equals P3

GMIII A3 (1) 3 Fill 55.00 7A Unit 2

GMIII A3 (2) 3 Fill 8 Unit 2

GMIII A3 (3) 3 Debris 54.54 54.64 8 Unit 2

GMIII A3 (4) 3 Debris 54.70? 9 Unit 2 Debris/floor in Unit 2 

reaching F6; equals B F1

GMIII A3 (5) 3 Fill 9–10 Unit 2

GMIII A3 (1) 4 Fill (0.05) 9? Equals B (5)

GMIII A3 (2) 4 Fill (0.05) 9? 

GMIII A3 (3) 4 Fill 9 Unit 2? Equals B (51)

GMIII A3 (4) 4 Fill (0.2) 9 Unit 2 Equals B (51A)

GMIII A3 (6) 5 Fill (0.1) 7B Unit1?

GMIII A3 F1 Pit 2? Equals P3, (2) 2
NUMBER 50 • 155

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMIII A3 F2 Floor 55.82? 6? Unit 1? Plaster floor associated with 

Wall 1

GMIII A3 F3 Foundation trench (0.85) 8 Foundation trench of wall 4

GMIII A3 F4 Tabun 7B 

GMIII A3 F4A ? ? 

GMIII A3 F5 Tabun 9 Unit 2

GMIII A3 F6 Tabun 9 Unit 2

GMIII A3 F7 Bricks 9 Unit 2

GMIII A3 W1 Wall 55.65 6? Unit 1? Brick wall, possibly continues 

A2 W10

GMIII A3 W2 Wall 55.41 55.65 7A Unit 1 Brick wall

GMIII A3 W3 Wall 55.20 55.66 7A Unit 1 Brick wall

GMIII A3 W4 Wall 54.70 55.00 8 Unit 1 Brick wall

GMIII A3 W5 Wall 54.31 54.89 8-9 Unit 1 Brick wall; continuation of 

B W54

GMIII A3 W6 Wall 54.96 9 Unit 2 Brick wall

GMIII A3 W7 Wall 54.71 9 Unit 1 Brick wall; continuation of 

B W50

GMIII A3 W8 Wall 8–7A? Brick wall; continuation of 

B W52

GMIII A3 P1 Pit 2? 

GMIII A3 P2 Pit 7A? 

GMIII A3 P3 Pit (1.5) 2 Very large pit seen in W, S, N 

balks; cuts through all levels; 

equals A2 P1

GMIII B (0) Topsoil None 

GMIII B (50) Fill 54.74 55.32 9 Room A

GMIII B (51) Fill 54.73 54.88 9 Room A

GMIII B (51A) Fill 54.60 54.78 9 Room A

GMIII B (51B) Fill 54.45 54.60 9 Room A

GMIII B (52) Fill 54.35 54.55 9 Room A

GMIII B (53) Debris 54.30 54.40 9 Room A

GMIII B (54) Debris 54.20 54.37 9 Unit 2

GMIII B (54) 1 Floor 54.28 54.31 9 Room A Earth floor

GMIII B (55) Fill 53.96 54.20 10 

GMIII B (55) 1 Fill 54.08 54.28 10 Equals 55

GMIII B (56) Fill 53.67 54.04 10 

GMIII B (56) 2 Fill 53.67 54.04 10 Unit 6

GMIII B (56) 3 Fill 53.67 54.04 10 Room B

GMIII B (56) 4 Fill 53.67 54.04 10 Room C

GMIII B (57) 2 Fill 53.58 53.69 10 Unit 6

GMIII B (57) 3 Fill 53.57 53.65 10 Room B

GMIII B (57) 4 Fill 53.58 53.69 10 Room C

GMIII B (58) 2 Fill 53.50 53.58 10 Unit 6

GMIII B (58) 3 Fill 53.67 53.65 10 Room B

GMIII B (58) 4 Fill 53.47 53.58 10 Room C

GMIII B (59) 2 Fill 53.46 53.56 10–11 Unit 6

GMIII B TT1 (59) 3 Fill 53.46 53.58 11 Room B

GMIII B (59) 3 Fill 53.41 53.52 11 Room C
156 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMIII B (60) 2 Fill 53.33 53.5 10–11 Unit 6

GMIII B TT2 (6) 3 Fill 53.37 53.5 11 Room B?

GMIII B (60) 4 Fill 53.27 53.43 11 Room C

GMIII B (61) 2 Fill 53.21 53.52 11 Unit 6?

GMIII B TT3 (61) 3 Fill 53.14 53.34 11? Room B?

GMIII B (61) 4 Fill 53.14 53.34 11 Room C

GMIII B (61) 5 Fill 53.00 53.28 11 Room C

GMIII B (62) 2(=7) Floor/fill 53.12 53.22 11 Room D Ashy floor layer with bones 

and pebbles

GMIII B (62) 5 Floor/fill 53.00 53.28 11 Room C Ashy floor layer with bones 

and pebbles

GMIII B (1) 6 Fill 53.00 53.26 11 Unit 7

GMIII B (2) 6 Fill 52.92 53.00 11 Unit 7

GMIII B (2A) 6 Fill 52.92 53.00 11–12 Unit 7

GMIII B (3) 6 Fill 52.79 52.92 12 

GMIII B (4) 6 Fill 52.58 52.79 12 

GMIII B (5) 6 Fill 52.18 52.58 12 

GMIII B TT1(1) 5 Fill 52.98 53.02 11 Fill under Unit 6

GMIII B TT1 (2) 5 Fill 52.90 52.93 11 Unit 6?

GMIII B (63) 2(=7) Fill 52.89 53.18 11 Room D

GMIII B TT2 5 Fill 52.86 53.03 11 Unit 6?

GMIII B (63) 5 Fill 52.80 53.12 12? 

GMIII B (63A) 5 Fill/floor 52.70 52.85 12 Unit 8?

GMIII B (64) 5(=8) Fill 52.60 52.78 12 Unit 8?

GMIII B (65) 9 Fill 52.06 52.22 12–13 

GMIII B (65) 10 Fill 52.47 52.79 12 Unit 9

GMIII B (1) 11 Fill 52.44 52.80 12 Room E

GMIII B (1) 12 Fill 52.44 52.50 13 Unit 11

GMIII B (66) 13 Fill 52.42 52.67 12–13? Unit 10

GMIII B (66) 14 Fill 52.16? 13 Unit 11

GMIII B (67) Fill 52.35 13 Unit 10

GMIII B (1) 15 Fill 52.10 52.16 13 Unit 11

GMIII B (2) 15 Fill 51.96 52.10 13 Unit 11

GMIII B (3) 15 Fill 51.81 51.96 13 Unit 11

GMIII B TT3 Fill 51.90 52.31 13–14 Under Unit 10

GMIII B F1{77} Floor 54.08 54.22 9 Room A Cobble floor 

GMIII B F1A{77} Floor bedding 54.08 54.22 9 Room A Ash bedding for F1(77)

GMIII B F1 Ash layer 54.78 55.05 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1A Ash layer 54.70 54.85 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1B Ash layer 54.70 54.74 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1C Ash layer 54.45 54.58 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1D Ash layer 54.35 54.47 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1E Ash layer 54.30 54.38 9 Unit 2

GMIII B F1 6 Tabun 52.68 52.96 11 Unit 7

GMIII B F2 1 Bricks 54.03 54.11 9–10 

GMIII B F3 2 Hearth? 53.50 53.6 10 Unit 6

GMIII B F4 2 Bricks 53.19 53.35 11 Room D?

GMIII B F5 5 Tabun/oven 52.51 52.87 12A Unit 8

GMIII B F6 8 Stones 52.4 52.5 12 Unit 8
NUMBER 50 • 157

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMIII B F7 9 Installation (bin) 52.4 52.58 12B Unit 8

GMIII B F8 Oven/tabun 51.9 52.25 13 Unit 10

GMIII B F9 Paving 51.94 52.35 13–14 Unit 11 Stone paving 

GMIII B F10 Tabun 52.02 52.22 13 Unit 11

GMIII B F11 Tabun 51.94 13–14 Unit 11

GMIII B F11A Tabun 51.94 13–14 Unit 11

GMIII B W50 Wall 54.19 55.16 9 Room A Brick wall

GMIII B W51 Wall? 54.88 9 Room A

GMIII B W52 Wall 54.83 55.2 8? Room A?

GMIII B W53 Wall 54.25 9 Room A Brick wall

GMIII B W54 Wall 54.15 55.1 9 Room A Brick wall

GMIII B W55 Wall 54.35 9 Room A Brick wall

GMIII B W56 Wall 53.22-10 53.95 10 Room C–D Brick wall

GMIII B W56A Wall 53.52 53.95 10 Room B Brick wall

GMIII B W57 Wall 53.30 53.59 7a Room B–C Brick wall

GMIII B W57A Wall 53.66 54.01 10 Room B–C Brick wall

GMIII B W58 Wall 53.57 53.77 10 Room B Brick wall

GMIII B W59 Wall 53.00 54.19 10–11 Room B Brick wall

GMIII B W60 Wall 53.67 10 Unit to S Brick wall

GMIII B W61 Wall 53.12 53.46 11 Room C Brick wall

GMIII B W62 Wall 52.71? 53.36 11 Room C Brick wall

GMIII B W63 Wall 52.73 53.22 11 Room C–D Brick wall

GMIII B W64 Wall 53.00 53.38 11 Room D Brick wall

GMIII B W65 Wall 52.92 53.08 11 Room D Brick wall

GMIII B W66 Wall 52.66 53.42? 12 Room E Brick wall

GMIII B W67 Wall 52.93 11–12 Unit to south Brick wall

GMIII B W68 Wall 52.60 52.73 12 Unit 8 Brick wall

GMIII B W69 Wall 52.66 52.82 12 Room E Brick wall

GMIII B W70 Wall 52.45 52.63 12 Room E Brick wall

GMIII B W71 Wall 52.46 53.00 12 Unit 8 Brick wall

GMIII B W72 Wall 52.60? 52.95? 12 Unit 8 Stone foundation of W71

GMIII B W73 Wall 52.44 52.51 13 Unit 10 Brick wall

GMIII B W74 Wall 52.23 52.43 13 Unit 10 Brick wall

GMIII B W75 Wall 52.10 52.66 12 Room E Brick wall/bench

GMIII B W76 Wall 52.36 13 Unit 10 Brick wall

GMIII C1 (68) Fill 51.85 51.99 13–14 Unit 11

GMIII C1 (69) Fill 14 

GMIII C1 (1) 1 Fill 14 Unit 12

GMIII C1 (2) 1 Fill 14 Unit 12

GMIII C1 (1) 2 Fill 14 Unit 13

GMIII C1 (70) Fill 14 

GMIII C1 (71) Fill 14 

GMIII C1 (72) Fill 14 

GMIII C1 (73) Fill 14 

GMIII C1 (74) Debris/floor 14 

GMIII C1 (75) Fill 14–15 

GMIII C1 (76) Fill 14–15 

GMIII C1 (77) Fill 15 

GMIII C1 (78) Fill 15 
158 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMIII C1 (79) Fill 15 

GMIII C1 (80) Fill 16 Equals (81)

GMIII C1 (81) Fill 50.05(49.50?) 50.59 16 Fill and brick tumble

GMIII C1 (81A) Fill 16 Equals (81)

GMIII C1 TT1 (82) Fill 16 

GMIII C1 TT1 (83) Fill 16 

GMIII C1 F12 Cobbles 51.96 52.12 13–14 Unit 11

GMIII C1 F13 1 Installation (bin) 50.87 51.34 14 Unit 12

GMIII C1 F13A 1 Foundation trench 14 Unit 12 Foundation 

trench of F13

GMIII C1 F13 1 Fill 14 Unit 12 Fill in lower F13

GMIII C1 F13 (2) 1 Fill 14 Unit 12 Fill in lower F13

GMIII C1 F13 (3) 1 Fill 14 Unit 12 Fill in lower F13

GMIII C1 F14 Bricks/bench 51.30 51.40 14 Unit 12

GMIII C1 F15 15 Equals W79

GMIII C1 F16 Bricks 50.05 50.52 16 Brick tumble (81)

GMIII C1 F17 Tabun 49.55 16 

GMIII C2 F18 Loom weights? 48.95 18 

GMIII C2 F19 Pillar base/posthole 48.74 48.95 18 

GMIII C2 F20 Installation 49.00 49.10 17–18? 

GMIII C2 F21 Tabun 48.70 49.06 18 

GMIII C3 F22 Pit 47.45 48.70 18–19 

GMIII C3 F22A Brick layer 18–19 Lumps of bricks around F22

GMIII C3 TT2 F23 Fill 19 

GMIII C3 F24 18 

GMIII C3 F25 Brick layer 19 

GMIII C1 W77 Wall 51.07 51.80 14 Unit 12 Brick wall

GMIII C1 W78 Wall 51.10 51.14 14 Unit 12 Brick wall

GMIII C1 W79 Wall 50.58 50.86 15 Brick wall (=F15)

GMIII C2 W80 Wall 49.88 17 

GMIII C1-C2 W81 Wall 49.29 50.37 17 Brick wall

GMIII C2 W82 Wall 49.61 17 Brick wall

GMIII C2 (82) Fill 16 Fill and bricks

GMIII C2 (83) Fill 16 

GMIII C2 (84) Fill 16 

GMIII C2 (85) Ash layer 16 Relating to F17

GMIII C2 (86) Floor/fill (0.15) 18 

GMIII C2 (87) Ash layer 18 

GMIII C2 (87A) Ash layer 17–18 

GMIII C2 (88) Fill 18–19 

GMIII C2 (89) Fill 18–19 

GMIII C3 (90) Fill 19 

GMIII C3 (91) Fill 19 

GMIII C2-C3 P1 Pit 48.30 48.35 18 

GMIII C3 P2 Pit 47.12 47.45 19? Equals P3

GMIII C3 P3 Pit 46.46 19 

GMIII C3 TT1 (1-2) Fill 18 

GMIII C3 TT1 (3-4) Fill 19 

GMIII C3 TT2 (1) Fill 48.12 48.60 19 
NUMBER 50 • 159

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMIII C3 TT2 (2) Fill 47.80 48.12 19 

GMIII C3 TT2 (3) Fill 47.70 47.80 19 

GMIII C3 TT2 (4) Fill 47.60 47.70 19 

GMIII C3 TT2 (5) Virgin soil 47.50 47.60 None 

GMIII C3 TT3 (1-2) Trench 47.50 19? 

GMIII F1 (0) Topsoil None 

GMIII F1 (1) Fill 51.13 51.45 14? 

GMIII F1 (2) 1 Fill 50.83 51.17 14? Room F

GMIII F1 (2) 2 Fill 50.97 51.13 14 Unit 14

GMIII F1 (3) 1 Fill 50.70 50.97 14A Room F

GMIII F1 (4) Fill 50.57 50.87 15? 

GMIII F1F1 (4) Bricks 50.67 50.86 15? 

GMIII F1 (5) Fill 50.11 50.73 15? 

GMIII F1 (5) 4 Fill 49.77 50.19 15?–16? Unit 15

GMIII F1 (6) 4 Fill 15?–16? 

GMIII F1 (6) 5 Fill 49.65 49.83 16 Room G?

GMIII F1 (7) 5 Fill 49.92 50.19 15 Room G?

GMIII F1 F1 1 Tabun 50.70 51.06 14A Room F

GMIII F1 F2 1 Installation 50.75 50.95 14B? Brick installation

GMIII F1 F3 Stones/pit 50.19 50.40 14? 

GMIII F1 F4 Bricks 50.11 50.16 14B? 

GMIII F1 F5 Tabun 49.57 49.76 16 

GMIII F1 F6 Bricks 50.18 16 

GMIII F1 F7 Tabun 49.82 49.96 16 

GMIII F1 W1 Stones 51.22 51.33 14? Room F Stones; same as Wall 77?

GMIII F1 W2 Wall 50.85 51.24 14A Room F

GMIII F1 W3 Wall 50.87 51.18 14 Room F

GMIII F1 W4 Wall 50.7 50.95 14B? Room F

GMIII F1 W5 Wall 50.24 50.35 15 Room G? Brick wall

GMIII F1 W6 Wall 50.06 50.16 15 Room G? Brick wall

GMIII F1 W7 Wall 49.84 49.96 16? Brick wall

GMIII F1 P1 Pit 49.21 49.99 16 

GMIII F2 (8) 5 Fill 49.73 49.94 16? Fill under Room G

GMIII F2 (9) Fill 49.67 49.82 16? 

GMIII F2 (10) Fill 49.60 49.67 16? 

GMIII F2 (11) Fill 49.59 49.75 16? 

GMIII F2 (12) Fill 49.32 49.66 16? 

GMIII F2 TT1 (1) Fill 49.22 49.46 16–17? 

GMIII F2 TT1 (2) Fill 49.20 49.32 16–17? 

GMIII F2 (13) Fill 49.43 49.56 17? 

GMIII F2 (14) Fill 49.30 49.49 17? 

GMIII F2 (15) Fill/debris 49.11 49.41 17? 

GMIII F2 (16) 1 Floor 49.11 49.38 17 

GMIII F2 (16) 2 Floor 49.39 49.49 17 Room H

GMIII F2 (17) 1 Fill 49.26 49.35 17 

GMIII F2 (17) 2 Fill 49.31 49.39 17 Room H

GMIII F2 (17) 3 Fill 49.06 49.27 17 

GMIII F2 (18) 1 Fill 49.21 49.29 17 

GMIII F2 (18) 2 Fill 48.92 49.08 17–18 Room H?
160 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMIII F2 (19) 1 Fill 49.06 49.25 17–18 

GMIII F2 (19) 2 Fill 48.80 49.08 18? 

GMIII F2 (20) 1 Fill 48.80 49.13 18 

GMIII F2 (21) 1 Fill 48.76 49.06 18 

GMIII F2 (22) 1 Fill 48.76 49.07 19 

GMIII F2 (23) 1 Fill 48.76 48.93 19 

GMIII F2 F8 Pit? 49.66 49.87 16 

GMIII F2 F9 Pit/installation 49.60 49.70 16–17? 

GMIII F2 F10 Equid burial 49.16 49.34 16–17? 

GMIII F2 F11 Pit? 49.19 49.41 16–17? Pit of F10

GMIII F2 F12 Mortar layer 49.39 49.49 17 Bedding mortar of W8

GMIII F2 F13 Installation? 49.29 49.37 17? 

GMIII F2 F14 Clay strip 49.21 49.33 17? Wall?

GMIII F2 F15 Tabun 49.11 49.29 17? 

GMIII F2 F16 Fill 49.08 49.40 17? 

GMIII F2 F17 Ash 48.96 49.06 18 

GMIII F2 F18 Pit 48.62 49.05 18 

GMIII F2 F18A Pit 48.92 49.18 18 

GMIII F2 F19 Brick 48.95 49.06 18 Patch of bricky material

GMIII F2-J2 W8 Wall? 49.41 49.70 17 Unit 16?

GMIII F2 W9 Bricks/wall? 49.38 49.39 17?? 

GMIII F2 W10 Wall ? 49.08 49.55 17? 

GMIII F2 W11 Wall 49.08 49.47 17? Brick wall

GMIII F2 W12 Wall 49.08 49.47 17? Brick wall

GMIII F2 P2 Pit 48.23 49.53 16–17? 

GMIII F2 P2 (1) Pit 48.65 49.53 16–17? 

GMIII F2 P2 (2) Pit 48.33 48.65 16–17? 

GMIII J1 (1) Fill/topsoil 51.41 None 

GMIII J1 (2) Fill/topsoil 51.38 51.48 None 

GMIII J1 (3) Fill/debris 51.38 51.51 14? 

GMIII J1 (4) 1 Fill 51.25 14 

GMIII J1 (4) 2 Fill 51.03 51.14 14 Room F

GMIII J1 (5) 1 Fill 51.15 14 

GMIII J1 (5) 2 Fill 51.03 14 Room F

GMIII J1 (6) 2 Fill 50.91 14 Room F

GMIII J1 (7) Fill 50.95 51.11 15 

GMIII J1 (8) 1 Fill 50.69 50.75 15 

GMIII J1 (8) 2 Fill 50.24 50.4 15 Room G

GMIII J1 (9) 1 Fill 50.41 50.75 15 

GMIII J1 (9) 2 Fill 50.19 15 Room G

GMIII J1 (9) 3 Fill 50.25 50.34 16? 

GMIII J1 (10) 1 Fill 50.69 15? 

GMIII J1 (10) 2 Fill 50.2 15 Room G

GMIII J1 (10) 3 Fill 50.39 15 

GMIII J1 (11) 1 Fill 50.52 15? 

GMIII J1 (11) 2 Fill/floor 15 Room G

GMIII J1 (11) 3 Fill 50.21 50.31 16 Fill below W4

GMIII J1 (11){84} Fill 50.21 16? 

GMIII J1 (12) 1 Fill 50.18 50.26 16? 
NUMBER 50 • 161

TABLE 3.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMIII J1 (13){84} Fill 50.2 16? 

GMIII (14){84} Fill 50.11 50.21 16? 

GMIII J1 F1 (2) Pit? 51.38 51.47 14? 

GMIII J1 F2 1 Fill/FT 50.99 14? Ashy area north of W1 

possibly foundation trench

GMIII J1 F3 Jar 50.19 15? 

GMIII J1 F4 Bricks (steps?) 50.52 15? 

GMIII J1 F5 Bricks 50.42 15(B?) 

GMIII J1 W1 Wall 51.02 14(B?) Room F Brick wall

GMIII J1 W2 Wall 50.97 14(B?) Room F Brick wall

GMIII J1 W3 Wall 50.76 51.10 15 Room G Brick wall

GMIII J1 W4 Wall 50.79 50.73 15 Room G Brick wall

GMIII J1 W5 Wall 50.39 15–16? 

GMIII J2 W6 Wall? 49.91 16–17? Few bricks

GMIII J2 W7 Wall? 49.23 49.76 16–17? Few bricks

GMIII J2 W8 Wall? 49.55 49.82 16–17? Few bricks

GMIII J2 W9 Wall 49.32 17? Brick wall

GMIII J1 W10 Wall 50.33 50.63 15 Brick wall

GMIII J1 W11 Wall 50.30 16 Brick wall

GMIII J1 W12 Wall 50.24 50.31 16 Brick wall

GMIII J2 (13) Fill/floor 50.02 50.15 16 Ash layer with 2–3 (jar?) 

holes

GMIII J1 & J2 (14) Fill 49.78 50.08 16 

GMIII J1 & J2 (15) Fill 49.66 49.92 16 

GMIII J1 & J2 (16) 1 Fill 49.39 49.66 17 

GMIII J1 & J2 (16) 2 Fill 49.39 49.4 17 

GMIII J1 & J2 (16A) Fill 49.77 17? 

GMIII J1 & J2 (17) 1 Fill/debris 49.39 49.49 17 Fill north of W6

GMIII J1 & J2 (17) 2 Fill 49.21 17 

GMIII J2 (18) 1 Fill 49.20 49.31 17 

GMIII J2 (18) 2 Fill 49.12 17 

GMIII J2 (19) 2 Debris 49.25 49.25 17 

GMIII J2 (20) 2 Floor? 49.14 49.25 17 

GMIII J2 (21) 2 Fill 48.95 49.05 17 

GMIII J2 (22) Fill 48.62 48.90 17–18 

GMIII J2 (23) Fill 48.43 48.62 18–19 1 × 1 m probe

GMIII J2 (24) Fill 48.32 48.43 19 1 × 1 m probe

GMIII J2 (25) Fill 48.07 48.32 19 1 × 1 m probe

GMIII J2 (26) Fill/virgin soil 47.49 48.07 19 1 × 1 m probe

GMIII J2 F6 Pit 49.93 50.02 16 Pit lined with pebbles

GMIII J2 F7 Bricks 49.89 16 Possible blocked doorway

GMIII J2 F8 Bricks 48.98 49.33 17 Brick frame related to F7

GMIII J1 F9 Tabun 50.25 50.30 15 

GMIII J2 P1 Pit 49.52 16? 

GMIII J2 P2 Pit 47.66 48.32? 19? 

GMIII J1-J2 P3 Pit 50.38 50.65 15? 
INTRODUCTION

Field II, excavated during the 1972–1976 seasons, consisted of a stepped trench located along the northwestern slope of the tell 

(Figures 1.11, 4.1). The main trench, oriented northwest–southeast, was approximately 2 × 22 m (Step Trench B–C, Figure 4.2). The 

difference in elevation between the upper square (C1) and lower (A6) square was about 15.5 m (topsoil elevations measured were 

61.30–46.85 m; virgin soil was reached in Square A6 at elevations 45.80–47.60 m). The trench was excavated in several sections. Square 

C3 was added to the west of Square C2 in 1974, parallel to Square A3 to its north (to enlarge the exposure of the stone surface), whereas 

to the east of Square A3 and parallel to Square C2, Square A2 was added in the same season (Figure 4.2). Squares D4–D5 were opened 

about 7 m to the south of the main trench (separated by a naturally eroded gully, used as the excavation dump; see Figures 4.4, 4.18; 

see also Van Beek, 1992:4*), creating another 6 × 2 m trench with the same orientation (elevations were 48.05–53.40 m). Altogether, 

an area of about 46 m2

 was excavated, divided into nine small “squares” (which were, in fact, 2 × 3–4 m rectangles, denoted as C1, C2, 

B3, A3, A4, A5, A6, D4, and D5; Figure 4.2). Field II was supervised by Lee Marfoe and Michael Shea (1975); architects were Brian 

Lalor and David Sheehan.

The primary aims of the excavations in this field were to obtain a sequence of the different periods at the site and to examine evidence for fortifications, which were thought to have been visible in previously eroded slopes to the west of this area. A single probe on 

the west was opened in search of the cemetery, as an eroded shaft opening seemed 

to have been observed there. This probe 

apparently did not yield any finds. Virgin soil was reached in the lower square, 

Square A6, as high as 47.60 m (seen as 

a clear line in the eastern and northern 

balks, Figure 4.3). Six occupation phases 

were identified.

REMAINS OF PHASE 6 

AND BENEATH PHASE 6 

(PHASE 6/7)

The lowermost phase in Field II was 

sealed between virgin soil below and 

Square A3, Feature 5 (the stone pavement 

or foundation; see Figures 4.5–4.10), 

found in Sqs. A3 and A5–A6. This is not 

a well-defined architectural phase, but 

rather includes finds that seem to predate 

the Phase 6 stone pavement (thus denoted 

4 Field II: The Northwestern 

Stepped Trench

David Ben-Shlomo

FIGURE 4.1. General photo of Field II before excavation, from the east.
NUMBER 50 • 163

FIGURE 4.2. Plan of Field II.

FIGURE 4.3. East and north balks of Sq. A6 (looking east), showing darker virgin soil.
164 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3.143a–d for these forms) and carinated bowls (Figure 4.12e–

m; see Fields I and III for similar forms, e.g., Figures 3.125d, 

3.143e). Several forms are of less common types, such as a thickened rim of a krater or a cooking pot (Figure 4.12p), a krater, 

possibly carinated (Figure 4.12n), with a groove on the rim, and 

another large fragment of a bowl/krater (Figure 4.12e) with a 

more open shape and a thickened rim.

Other forms include a typical, everted-wedge-rim cooking 

pot (Figure 4.12o; see Field III, Phases 12–8 for this form) and 

two lamp fragments (Figure 4.12r,s). A decorated jar handle 

(Figure 4.12q) has red paint on the upper part the handle, with 

three converging lines forming a triangle, maybe a tree motif 

(see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XIII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:76, fig. 3.6:13–15). An imported Mycenaean sherd from 

a closed vessel (Figure 4.13a), a Cypriot Base Ring (BR) II bowl 

(Figure 4.13b) and a White Slip (WS) II bowl (Figure 4.13c) are 

also illustrated (see chapter 11 for further description of these 

wares). In addition, two marked jar handles (Figure 4.12e and 

Reg. No. 3355, not pictured) may also be attributed to this 

phase, as well as an elaborate plaque figurine (Figure 4.13d 

found in Sq. D4, Pit 1). 

The local and imported pottery dates generally to the LBII 

(parallel to Field III, Phases 12–9, and Field I, Phase 3; see parallels for these types therein), yet because of the small size of the 

assemblage, a more precise date cannot be suggested. 

REMAINS OF PHASE 6

The main finds from this phase include a surface covered 

with stones (Sqs. A3–B3, Feature 5, Figures 4.5–4.17) and a 

massive mud brick structure above it (Wall 1; Figures 4.10, 

4.14). This stone surface is composed of pebbles (mostly 10–30 

cm in size) laid very close to one another (Figure 4.6), creating 

a surface that may have served as a pavement (Figure 4.5, elevation of 53.13–53.19 m). This stone surface was exposed over an 

area of 2.8 × 2.2 m in Sqs. A3 and B3, although it can be seen in 

the western section of Sq. C3, in the eroded area (Figure 4.18), 

on the section from the south (Figure 4.11), continuing at least 

2–3 m to the south. To the north and south of the stones a brick 

structure at least 1.9 m high can be seen in the sections (Figure 

4.10). This feature was labeled Level 5 (later denoted Wall 1), 

and levels below it were labeled as Test Trench 2. In the south 

of Sq. B3 this feature was probably excavated in Layers 2–21. 

This seems to be a massive wall, about 2 m thick and at least 3 

m long. As the stone surface seems to separate these two walls 

and is at their base, this area was suggested to be a paved opening within the fortification of the site, or a small gate, about 2.5 

m wide (see Van Beek, 1992:4*). However, as noted, the stones 

continue about 2 m to the south, and thus, if the bricks in Sq. 

C3 fell from the wall, a wider entrance could be reconstructed. 

However, as the stones continue in this area under the bricks 

and as bricky material was also excavated in the levels above 

the stone surface in Sqs. A3–B3, this surface could be also interpreted as a foundation of the massive wall, running approximately north–south. Moreover, the fact that the stone surface 

Phase 6/7). This phase includes Square A3, Ashy Layer AB (or 

AB’), found beneath the stone pavement (the finds of which were 

assigned to Phase 6/7, Figures 4.12, 4.13), as well as possibly 

Pits 1 and 2 from Square (Sq.) A5 and Layer 4 from the latter 

square containing bricks. Square A6, Pit 1 may also belong to 

this phase, as well as a large pit in Sq. D4, which seems to belong 

to this phase according to its elevations (Figures 4.4, 4.17; Sq. 

D4, Pit 1, Feature 3, Layers 1a–1d), although it seems to cut 

Wall 1 of an unclear date. This pit, at least 1 m wide and very 

deep, contained much charcoal and ash and may have been dug 

from an elevation of 52.50 m down to 50.10 m. In this pit, a 

plaque figurine of a goddess holding two lotus flowers was found 

(Figure 4.13d; see chapter 17). Beneath this level, at a height of 

49.65 m in Sq. D4, virgin soil may already appear, yet this was 

not substantiated (Figure 4.17).

The pottery found in this phase (mostly from Sq. A3, Layer 

AB and Sq. C3, Layers AB and AB’, Figure 4.9) belongs to 

fills beneath the Phase 6 remains (denoted as Phase 6/7). The 

assemblage includes local Late Bronze Age pottery, such as 

open, rounded (Figure 4.12a–d; see Field III, Figures 3.112h–k, 

FIGURE 4.4. Square D4, east section.
NUMBER 50 • 165

itself is composed of unevenly surfaced pebbles, not creating 

a smooth pavement, may support the latter interpretation. In 

this case, although a massive city wall can be identified here, 

the stones do not represent a gateway or entrance through this 

wall. The walls of this phase (Wall 1 north and Wall 1 south) 

were also interpreted as a casemate or fortification wall in a 

previous publication (Van Beek, 1992:4*). Although a considerable amount of pottery, including large sherds (although no 

complete or restorable vessels), was found above the stone paving, the nature of this accumulation is still unclear, and whether 

a gateway existed in the wall at this spot or not is still an open 

question. 

The pottery from Phase 6 (Figures 4.19–4.20) includes medium to small open bowls with simple or everted rims (Figure 

FIGURE 4.5. Plan of Phase 6.

4.19c,d,h,j; see also Figure 4.12). These are also found, for example, in Field III, Phases 10 and 9 (Figures 3.131a, 3.143a–c). 

Rounded or hemispherical bowls with simple, straight rims are 

typical of the LBII (Figure 4.19b,e); for parallels, see, e.g., Field 

III (Figures 3.131m, 3.143d, Phase 11) or Field I (Phase 3, e.g., 

Figure 6.51f). Bowls with a rounded to slightly carinated body 

and everted or simple rims also appear (Figure 4.19g,i). Similar 

carinated bowls are found in LBII phases of Fields III, Phases 

11 and 9 (see parallels therein). A complete bowl with a ring 

base (Figure 4.19a) was also found; parallels for this form can 

be found at Batash, Stratum VII (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:35, pl. 

38:22) and Aphek, Stratum X12 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 

8.59:7,8). A small carinated bowl (Figure 4.19f) with an unusual 

shape (possibly a residual MBII sherd) is also illustrated. 
166 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.6. The stone paving/foundation, from 

above.

FIGURE 4.7. Close-up of the stone paving/foundation in Sq. A3.
NUMBER 50 • 167

FIGURE 4.8. The stones in Sq. A3 and a brick wall 

above it.

FIGURE 4.9. East–west section through pavement and Wall 1 in Sq. A3, Phase 6.
168 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.10. North section of Sq. A3.

FIGURE 4.11. Possible continuations of stones, Feature 5, from the south, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 169

also belong to Phase 4) and may be part of a fortification. The 

Phase 5 features lie above the foundation of TT2 Wall 1 (Phase 

6) but slightly below the level of the top of this wall; it is possible that this massive wall of Phase 6 still stood above ground 

in Phase 5.

It is difficult to date this phase because it has limited exposure, no floor levels were detected, and there are very few pottery 

sherds from secure contexts (Figure 4.23 from Sq. A3, Layer 15 

and Sq. C3, Layer 9). Several open bowls (Figure 4.23a–d) and 

rounded bowl rims (Figure 4.23e,f), a flat string-cut base (Figure 

4.23g), probably of an open bowl, and a jar neck (Figure 4.23h) 

are not very indicative and can be dated to the late LBII or early 

Iron I, similar to forms found in Phases 6 and 7 (see above). The 

jug/jar rim (Figure 4.23i) with an everted rim and a thick ridge 

on the neck under it seems similar to a fragment from Field III, 

Phase 10 (Figure 3.131q).

REMAINS PHASE 4

Phase 4 is composed of brick wall fragments in Sqs. C2, 

C1, and A2 (Figures 4.24–4.28). An east–west brick wall exposed to a length of about 3 m was excavated in Sq. C2 (elevations of 55.48–56.01 m). Several higher bricks (56.22 m) 

may represent a higher phase of the same wall (Wall 3, Phase 

4A?). The space north of Wall 2 was defined as Unit 4, and a 

floor level here may have been detected at a height of 55.47 m. 

The area to the south of Wall 2 (denoted Unit 5) was covered 

with ash layers (55.48–55.67 m). In the eastern balk of Sq. A2 

(Figure 4.26) a wall is seen under the massive Phase 3, Wall 1, 

denoted Wall 2 or Wall 2A. This wall seems to belong to Phase 

4, making a right angle with Wall 2 of Sq. C2. This area is cut 

by a perfectly rounded pit (1 m diameter, Sq. C2–A2, Pit 1, 

Figure 4.25). 

The pottery from this phase reflects a mixture of Iron IB 

and Iron IIA forms (Figure 4.29). Iron Age IB pottery includes a 

Philistine bell-shaped bowl with a spiral found in Sq. A2, Wall 2 

(Figure 4.29h; also plain bell-shaped bowl [BSB], Figure 4.29i). 

Rounded bowls (Figure 4.29e) and carinated bowls (Figure 

4.29f) also may date to the Iron IB. For a discussion of such 

forms from Field I FUR, see below, chapter 7, and chapter 12. 

Red-slipped and burnished carinated bowls (Figure 4.29a–d) are 

typical of the Iron IIA (see below and Field IV, chapter 8, Phases 

11–9). An open bowl with a ledge rim (Figure 4.29b) and interior 

slip and an open bowl with a bar handle and external slip (Figure 

4.29a) are typical of the Iron IIA (see, e.g., Lachish, Levels V–IV, 

Zimhoni, 1997a; fig. 3.11:1–3); similarly dated are red-slipped 

ring bases of large bowls/kraters (Figure 4.29j). The jar with a 

simple rim and straight neck (Figure 4.29l) is also typical of the 

Iron I–IIA (e.g., Qasile [Mazar, 1985a: type Jar 1] and Batash 

[Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type SJ21]), whereas another 

jar (Figure 4.29k) has a short “inserted” neck, more typical of 

the Iron IIB-C (see Field IV, chapter 8; see also Batash, Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type SJ7). A small flask (Figure 4.29m) 

may also belong to Phase 4; it has red concentric circles similar, 

for example, to Iron Age I flasks from Qasile and elsewhere (see 

Several thickened rims of carinated kraters or large bowls 

are illustrated (Figure 4.19m,n); for parallels, see, e.g., Field III, 

Phases 10–9 (e.g., Figures 3.131e. 3.143h) and Field I, Phase 3 

(chapter 6). Larger carinated kraters with handles also appear 

(Figure 4.19o,p); the latter example shown has a thickened ledge 

rim. For vessels similar to Figure 4.19o, see complete examples 

from Field I, Phase 3 (Figures 6.124b, 6.157). The other krater 

(Figure 4.19p), made of a grayish fabric, has a thickened rim and 

a handle attached below the rim, a somewhat unusual feature for 

this type (see Figure 6.154p,r from Field I, Phase 1). 

No cooking pots were identified from Phase 6. Several 

jar necks (Figure 4.20a–c) and the button base of a jar (Figure 

4.20d) were found in Phase 6; these are typical LBII jar forms 

(see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:77–81, Type SJ2; for further discussion, see Field III, e.g., Figure 3.131i, and also chapter 6, 

Field I, Phase 3), continuing into the early Iron I. The fragment 

of a jug handle attached to a simple rim (Figure 4.20e) is also 

illustrated. 

Several examples of fragments of biconical jugs and kraters 

decorated in red with ibexes and other motifs (Figure 4.20f–h) 

are also illustrated; these are discussed further in chapter 10 

(also see Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:102–107, for discussion of these 

LBII forms). Cypriot imported pottery includes a BRII bilbil jug 

(Figure 4.20i) and WSII milk bowls (Figure 4.20j–l, including a 

WSII derivative or WSIII example, Figure 4.20k; see chapter 11). 

A lamp fragment (Figure 4.20m) is also illustrated. Other finds 

from Phase 6 include a miniature vessel (see chapter 19, Figure 

19.5d), a worked sherd (Figure 4.20n), a sealing fragment (Reg. 

No. 2056), and a chert/flint rubber/hammer (Figure 4.20o). An 

iron nail (see Figure 21.5l) is probably intrusive.

It can be suggested that Phase 6, including the assumed fortification belonging to it, can be attributed to the LBII. This is 

according to the pottery found on and above the stone paving/

foundation that dates to the LBII, including imported Cypriot 

wares and local LBII forms, including decorated biconical kraters/jugs in the Canaanite pictorial tradition; the pottery is not 

different from that of layers under Phase 6 (i.e., Phase 6/7). It 

should be noted that many local Canaanite forms found in these 

levels continue into the early Iron I as well. 

REMAINS OF PHASE 5

Phase 5 was only defined in Sq. A3 and possibly in Sq. C3 

(Figures 4.21–4.24). The main feature of this phase is part of 

a tabun (Sq. A3, Feature 3, at an elevation of 54.09 m, Figure 

4.21) that is about 1 m wide, running into the northern balk of 

Test Trench 1 in Sq. A3. Pit 1B in Sq. A3, beneath Pit 1, may also 

belong to this phase. In addition, the bricky fill layers in Sq. C3 

(Layers 5–16; also Features 1 and 2, possibly wall remains, at 

54.55–54.85 m), which lie beneath Walls 2 and 3 in Sq. C2 and 

above the bricks of the massive wall of Phase 6, probably belong to this phase. Another feature that should be mentioned is a 

massive wall seen in the northern balk of Sq. A3 (Wall 2, Figure 

4.22), above the Phase 6 wall and below a later wall (denoted 

Wall 1*). This wall may be assigned to Phase 5 as well (but may 
170 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 171

Again, it is difficult to date Phase 3 because of the limited 

ceramic evidence (Figure 4.33), but an Iron Age IIB date is likely. 

The finds illustrated include a red-slipped and burnished bowl 

(Figure 4.33a) and a chalice fragment (Figure 4.33b) with soot 

marks. The cooking pots are better chronological indicators of 

the dating of this phase (Figure 4.33c,d), including a ridgedgutter-rim cooking pot (Figure 4.33d) typical of the Iron IIB-C, 

the 8th–7th centuries BCE (e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: 

Type CP10), as well as a narrow-necked ridged cooking pot (Figure 4.33c; possibly like Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type 

CP9). A thumbed handle from a large krater or a hole-mouth jar 

(Figure 4.33e) should also be similarly dated (see, e.g., Batash, 

Strata III–II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:69–70, Type KR35, 

for the generic krater type). 

A restorable jug body (Figure 4.33f) of the “decanter” 

jug type (see, e.g., Lachish, Levels III–II, Zimhoni, 1997b:254; 

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:118–119, Type JG 14) is common in Iron IIB Judah and appears less frequently on the coastal 

plains. A thick, shallow basin (Figure 4.33g) from Phase 3 is 

also illustrated; it is made of coarse clay, rich in organic inclusions (see, possibly, Ashdod, Stratum XIIIa, denoted as a 

threading vat, Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 23:13). It should 

be noted that it seems that much of the pottery from the nonstratified contexts is dated to the Iron IIA and IIB, including 

material washed to lower levels in Sqs. A5 and A6, suggesting 

that the occupation during this period in Field II was relatively 

extensive. Other finds from Phases 3, 3/4, and 2/3 include a zoomorphic figurine horn (Reg. No. 3107; see chapter 17) and a 

clay sealing (Figure 4.33h).

In Sq. C2, Layer 3, which belongs either to Phase 3 or 4, 

a bronze weight in the form of a bull’s head was found (Figure 

4.34). The object is complete, with a flat neck, and therefore, 

Mazar, 1985a: fig. 42:10–13). A ceramic item decorated in vegetative motifs may also be attributed to this phase (Figure 4.29n, 

possibly a snake-shaped or phallus-shaped object; see chapter 

17). A scarab dating to the Iron IB–IIA was also found in Phase 

4 (Figure 4.29o; see chapter 27) and supports an Iron IIA date 

for the end of this phase.

REMAINS OF PHASE 3

Phase 3 was discovered in Sqs. C2, C1, and A2 (Figures 

4.30–4.34). A relatively massive north–south brick wall, nearly 

2 m wide, was excavated to a length of up to 3.5 m in Sqs. A2 

and C2 (Figures 4.30, 4.31). This wall seems to have been built 

on top of a wall with a similar orientation from Phase 4 (Wall 

2, Sq. A2); the base of the wall seems to be at an elevation of 

56.92 m, as seen in the eastern section of Sq. A2 (Figure 4.26). 

Its outer courses are built of “header” bricks, whereas its inner 

courses are built of “stretcher” bricks (Figure 4.30; a line of narrow bricks and a mortar layer separate these two parts of the 

wall; see Figure 4.25). To the west in Sq. C2 this phase is disturbed by erosion and several deep pits of Phase 2 or later (Pits 

1 and 2). To the east, in Sq. C1, a thin brick wall (Wall 4) made 

of one line of bricks abuts Wall 1 at a right angle. To the south 

of Wall 4 and east of Wall 1 a room or a confined area was defined (Unit 3). Several bricks abutting Wall 4 at a peculiar angle 

(Figure 4.32, Features 12 and 13, elevation of 57.47–57.79 m) 

may be an installation within Unit 3 or fallout from Wall 4. An 

installation made of a mud wall creating a bin may be related to 

the same phase or to Phase 2 (Sq. C1, Feature 11, Figure 4.36). 

The walls of this phase were interpreted as a casemate wall in a 

previous publication (Van Beek, 1992:4*).

FIGURE 4.12. Pottery from fills under the stone surface (Phase 6/7). (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl RV 279/1 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

b Bowl 7454/1 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

c Bowl 6519/1 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

d Bowl 7441/1 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

e Bowl/krater RV 276/1 GMII D4 F3 6/7?

f Bowl RV 279/3 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

g Bowl RV 279/2 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

h Bowl 7481/5 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

i Bowl 7481/4 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

j Bowl 7441/2 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

k Bowl 7454/2 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

l Bowl 7481/1 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

m Bowl 7481/3 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

n Krater 7481/7 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

o Cooking pot 7441/3 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

p Cooking pot? 7481/6 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

q Jar; red decoration Box 167 GMII C3 (AB’) 6/7

r Lamp, soot 7481/9 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7

s Lamp, soot 7481/10 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7
172 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

58.68–58.83 m. (Layer 2B). To the east of Wall 1, Unit 2 was 

defined; here a poorly preserved tabun, 0.4 m in diameter, was 

excavated (Sq. C1, Feature 4, Figure 4.37). In lower Sq. C2 a 

layer of stones (0.8 × 0.6 m in size; Feature 1, Figures 4.38–4.39) 

was uncovered, somewhat lower at 57.84–58.04 m, but probably belonging to the same phase. Here a complete storage jar 

was excavated (Figures 4.39, 4.40k), which seems to have been 

embedded in the pebbles (Figure 4.39). Several pits in this area 

were not fully preserved but are very visible in the northern section (Figure 4.27) as a “conical” sectioned pit. These pits are 

quite deep and could have been dug from Phase 2 floors that 

were not preserved (Pits 1 and 2), with their lower levels at elevations of 56.50–57.60 m, probably cutting into Phase 3 and 

4 remains. There is an ash layer reported through the sections 

it was probably a scale weight (weight of 14.6 g). The date of 

this item, which has few good parallels, could be the Iron II; see 

chapter 21 for a detailed discussion.

REMAINS OF PHASE 2

Phase 2 includes several walls defining a space in Sq. C1 

and several deep pits in Sq. C2 cutting remains of Phase 3 that 

possibly belong to this phase (Figures 4.35–4.39). In Sq. C1 two 

brick walls (Walls 1A and 2) create a right angle and define Unit 

1 to the west of Wall 1A (Figure 4.35). Wall 1A, built about 0.5 

m above Wall 1, may be an upper phase of the same wall. In 

Unit 1, an area paved with pebbles was excavated at a level of 

FIGURE 4.13. Pottery and finds from fills under the stone surface (Phase 6/7). Myc. = Mycenaean; SUJ = stirrup jar; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base 

Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware; af = after firing.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Myc., SUJ? Box 520 GMII D4 F3 

b Bowl (Cyp. BRII) Box 517/1 GMII C3 (AB)

c Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 517/2 GMII C3 (AB)

d Plaque figurine Reg. No. 628 (SI Cat. No. 602) GMII D4 P1 (1)

e Incised jar handle, af Reg. No. 3798 GMII A5 (4)
NUMBER 50 • 173

FIGURE 4.14. Square C2, south and east sections.

FIGURE 4.15. Wall 2 in section of Sq. A2.
174 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.16 East section of Sq. A3.

FIGURE 4.17. Squares D4–D5, south section.
NUMBER 50 • 175

found in the same layer belongs to the same type (possibly even 

the same vessel). Also from this layer is a rim and body sherd of a 

vessel, likely a bowl (Figure 4.40f), with at least four perforations 

through the wall; this was possibly a type of strainer bowl that 

was typical mostly of the Iron IIB (see, e.g., Megiddo, Strata II–III 

and V, Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pls. 23:20–24, 31:146). A thick 

neck of a cooking pot or a jug (Figure 4.40g) has a prominent 

ridge under the rim (possibly similar to Batash, Stratum II, Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:86–87, Type CP10).

Closed shapes attributed to Phase 2 include jars, jugs, and 

juglets. A complete storage jar (Figure 4.40k) was part of Feature 

1 in Sq. C2 (see above); its capacity is 32.2 L. This is a typical 

Iron IIC jar with a short inserted neck, sack-shaped body, two 

thick loop handles, and a tapering base, very common in Field 

IV, Phase 5 (chapter 8, Type JR2, and discussion therein; see 

also, e.g., Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.28; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:101, Type SJ18). Another jar (Figure 4.40m) is somewhat 

different; it has a short, folded neck, is made of a lighter fabric, 

and may be more similar to Phoenician-style storage jars (see, 

e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type SJ15). A trefoil rim 

of a jug (Figure 4.40l) with an incision under the rim is less common for this period. Three juglets (Figure 4.40h–j) are also illustrated; Figure 4.40h is a nearly complete dipper juglet, typical of 

the Iron Age II; Figure 4.40i is a cylindrical lower part of a redslipped juglet with a flat base; Figure 4.40j has a decoration of 

two or three red horizontal bands under the handle (this could be 

a juglet or a small decorated jug). A nearly complete lamp with 

a rounded base and soot marks (Figure 4.40n) is also attributed 

to Phase 2 or 3 (see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum VIIIa, Dothan, 1971: 

fig. 50:21,22). A sealing fragment (Figure 4.40o) was also found 

in a Phase 2 or 3 context.

REMAINS OF PHASE 1

Phase 1 includes various pits or features cutting or above 

Phase 2 in Sq. C1, as well as several fill layers overlaying the 

walls (Sq. C1, Levels 2–7, down to an elevation of 59.30 m). 

This phase may be dated to the Persian period, as indicated by 

the presence of imported Greek pottery found in this level (see 

chapter 14). Several features may represent modern or CrusaderMamluk disturbances in this area, such as Pit 1 in Sq. C1 (see 

north section, large pit, Figure 4.27), similar to Field IV, Phase 

1, with numerous pits. As these features are difficult to attribute 

chronologically, a separate phase was not assigned. 

Only several pottery sherds can be securely attributed to 

Phase 1; of these, the later examples seem to indicate a Persian or 

Hellenistic date. These include an open bowl with a wide ledge 

rim (Figure 4.41b), a “basket-handle” amphora (Figure 4.41f; see 

Field IV, Figure 8.257j; e.g., Tel Mevorakh, Strata IV–VI, Stern, 

1978:35, fig. 8:12–16), an amphora handle (Figure 4.41d), and 

the button base of a juglet or amphoriskos (Figure 4.41e; see, possibly, Petrie, 1928: pl. LVIII:66d,66q). A wide bowl or basin (Figure 4.41a) and a shallow burnished basin or thick platter with red 

paint (Figure 4.41h) are less indicative; a jug or amphora body 

and ridged neck fragment (Figure 4.41g) with red slip and vertical 

of Sq. C1 at an elevation of 58.74–58.84 m, possibly marking a 

destruction level. 

The pottery from the area of the tabun in Unit 2 (Locus 1) 

seems to date to the Iron IIC, with fragments of Assyrian-style 

bowls and storage jars typical of the period (Figure 4.40); this 

phase may correlate to Field IV, Phase 6 or 5. The pottery includes 

several complete vessels or large profiles, such as a thick, slightly 

carinated, large open bowl (Figure 4.40a) that has an everted rim 

and a ridge under the outer rim, possibly similar to rounded bowls 

with folded rims common in the Iron Age IIB-C (e.g., Lachish, 

Level III, Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.4:17–21 or a krater in fig. 5.5:2, 

and Batash, Stratum III, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:39–40, 

Type BL13; it is also somewhat similar to Assyrian-style open 

bowls; see chapter 13). A complete carinated bowl (Figure 4.40b) 

is a type also found in Field IV, Phase 5 (e.g., Figure 8.173c). 

A red-slipped and burnished, slightly thickened rim of an open 

bowel (Figure 4.40c) is also illustrated (see, e.g., Lachish, Level 

III, Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.4:3,5). The upper part of a large bowl 

(Figure 4.40d) with a flaring, thickened rim and three wheel-made 

deep ridges may belong to the Assyrian-style bowl types (see chapter 8, Phase 5, and chapter 13); a ridged flat base (Figure 4.40e) 

FIGURE 4.18. Square C3, the trench under the stone surface (Level 

AB) and the gully, looking west.
176 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 177

FIGURE 4.19. Pottery from Phase 6. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Bowl SI Cat. No. 639 GMII B3 (19)

b Bowl 6791/1 GMII A3 (20)

c Bowl 7019/1 GMII B3 (21)

d Bowl 7019/2 GMII B3 (21)

e Bowl 6515/1 GMII A3 (16)

f Bowl 6791/2 GMII A3 (20)

g Bowl 7029/1 GMII C3 (21)

h Bowl 7029/2 GMII C3 (21)

i Bowl 6791/3 GMII A3 (20)

j Bowl RV 277 GMII A3 TT2 (20)

k Krater 6791/4 GMII A3 (20)

l Krater 6455/1 GMII A3 TT2 (20)

m Krater 7019/3 GMII B3 (21)

n Krater 6455/2 GMII A3 TT2 (20)

o Krater/cooking pot 6876/1 GMII A3 (11)

p Krater 6890/1 GMII A3 (20)

burnish may be residual from Iron II levels. A plano-convex ivory 

spindle whorl was also attributed to Phase 1 (Figure 4.41l).

UNSTRATIFIED FINDS

Several unstratified finds are presented as well (Figures 

4.41c,i–k, 4.42), as they represent types or periods not represented otherwise. These include an MBIIB White Painted Cypriot 

sherd (Figure 4.41i; see chapter 11) and a WS milk bowl (Figure 

4.41j), as well as a large fragment of an LBII decorated biconical 

jug or krater (Figure 4.41k; see chapter 10) with an ibex motif. 

Another interesting vessel is a complete, rather straight profile of 

a red-slipped small bowl or cup with black bands on the inside 

(Figure 4.41c); this is probably an Iron IIA form with possible 

parallels from Ashdod (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 

3.82:23, 3.115:8). A nearly complete globular cooking pot (not 

illustrated, RV 459, catalog number 279.4) may be dated to the 

Persian period (see Field IV, e.g., Figure 8.255e). Several noticeable unstratified small finds are illustrated from Field II and include a thick female plaque figurine with red slip (Figure 4.42a), 

a solid bird figurine (Figure 4.42b), a ceramic rectangular seal 

or lid (Figure 4.42c), an iron arrowhead with a square pointed 

section (Figure 4.42d), a broken hematite cylinder (Figure 4.42e) 

that might be a scale weight, and a complete ivory object (Figure 

4.42f). These objects are discussed in later chapters on the various small finds (chapters 17, 19, 21, and 23).

SUMMARY

Summarizing the results from Field II, it can be said that although the remains excavated here are very fragmentary because 

of both the limited exposure and conditions of the area, additional evidence for some of the main settlement periods at Tell 

Jemmeh was retrieved. Extensive LBII remains were unearthed, 

with an unclear feature that may be related to the fortification 

of the site. It should be noted that fortified sites are not common 

in the LBII southern Levant (see, e.g., Mazar, 1990:243–244). 

It might be suggested that the fortification at Field II, if present, 

may have been erected during the MBII period (see below and 

chapter 5). In addition, Iron IIC remains are also represented 

from this field, including Assyrian-style pottery.

A Note on GM WADI

A section of a massive brick wall was exposed near Field II 

in the wadi and was denoted as GM Wadi (Figure 4.43). A brick 

wall that is seven courses (1.1 m) high and at least 2.4 m long 

was exposed here. An ash layer was observed beneath it, where a 

bronze chisel was found (GM Wadi, Level 2). The pottery in this 

section is dated to the Iron Age II, and thus, this was interpreted 

as a massive “Assyrian” fortification wall showing a lower sand 

layer (Van Beek, 1996:6*, fig. 10), possibly created to absorb 

and thus reduce earthquake damage (Van Beek, 1996:7*–8*).

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.
178 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 179

FIGURE 4.20. Pottery and finds from Phase 6. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Jar 7106/1 GMII B3 (9)

b Jar 6791/5 GMII A3 (20)

c Jar 6791/6 GMII A3 (20)

d Jar 7019/4 GMII B3 (21)

e Jug 7030/2 GMII B3 (19)

f Krater; red decoration 6813/1 GMII B3 (19)

g Krater; red decoration 6813/2 GMII B3 (19)

h Krater; red decoration 7030/1 GMII B3 (19)

i Sherd (Cyp. BRII) Box 502 GMII A3 TT3 F5

j Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 495 (SI Cat. No. 328) GMII A3 TT1 (18)

k Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII, degenerated) Box 520A GMII A3 TT2 (19)

l Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 518 GMII B3 (21)

m Lamp, soot 6791/7 GMII A3 (20)

n Worked sherd Reg. No. 3364 GMII C3 (23)

o Chert/flint rubber/hammer Reg. No. 834 GMII A3 TT2 (20)

FIGURE 4.21. Phase 5: tabun, Feature 4 in Sq. A3, from SE.
180 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.22. Square A3 balk with two massive walls overlying each 

other.

FIGURE 4.23. Finds from Phase 5.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Bowl 6475/2 GMII A3 (15)

b Chalice/bowl 6475/3 GMII A3 (15)

c Bowl 7032/2 GMII C3 (9)

d Bowl, soot 7032/1 GMII C3 (9)

e Bowl 6475/1 GMII A3 (15)

f Krater/bowl 6475/4 GMII A3 (15)

g Bowl base, string cut 6475/5 GMII A3 (15)

h Jar 6475/6 GMII A3 (15)

i Jug(?) 7032/3 GMII C3 (9)
NUMBER 50 • 181

FIGURE 4.24. Plan of Phases 4 and 5.

FIGURE 4.25. Rounded Pit 1 cutting Wall 2, Phases 3 and 4.
182 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.26. East section of Sq. A2.

FIGURE 4.27. North section of Sqs. C1–C2.
NUMBER 50 • 183

FIGURE 4.28. East section of Sq. C2 (lower part).
184 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.29. Pottery from Phase 4. BSB = bell-shaped bowl; Phil. = Philistine.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; red slip RV 79 GMII C2 (6) 3 4 Fills on wall/or in unit 4

b Bowl; red slip RV 91 GMII C2 (6) 2 4

c Bowl; red slip, burnish II-1070/2 GMII C2 (7) 5 4 Unit 4

d Bowl; red slip, burnish II-1070/1 GMII C2 (7) 5 4 Unit 4

e Bowl 6500/1 GMII C1 TT2 (7) 2 4

f Krater/bowl II-1010/1 GMII C2 (4) 4 Unit 5

g Bowl (BSB?) red slip, burnish II-1031/2 GMII C2 W2 4B Unit 4

h BSB (Phil.), red and black decoration 7025/1 GMII A2 W2 4?

i Bowl (BSB?) II-1031/1 GMII C2 W2 4B Unit 4

j Bowl; red slip, burnish II-1043/1 GMII C2 (4) 1A 4 Unit 5

k Jar II-1010/3 GMII C2 (4) 4 Unit 5

l Jar, soot II-1043/2 GMII C2 (4) 1A 4 Unit 5

m Flask; red decoration RV 133 GMII A3 P1B 4?

n Clay item; incised decoration Reg. No. 2148 (Cat. 449) GMII C2 (7) 5 4

o Scarab Reg. No. 1161 GMII C2 (6) TT2 4
NUMBER 50 • 185

FIGURE 4.30. Plan of Phase 3.

FIGURE 4.31. Squares A2–C2, Wall 1.
186 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.32. Features 12 and 13, Phase 3.

FIGURE 4.33. Pottery and finds from Phase 3.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 6836/1 GMII A2 W1 3(?)

b Chalice, soot 6836/2 GMII A2 W1 3(?)

c Cooking pot II-1045/2 GMII C1 P2 (4) 3(?)

d Cooking pot; soot II-1045/1 GMII C1 P2 (4) 3(?)

e Krater/hole-mouth jar (thumbed handle) II-1045/3 GMII C1 P2 (4) 3(?)

f Decanter jug RV 1034 GMII C2 (3) 2 3 Fills on walls 

g Basin RV557 GMII C2 (3) 4 3 Fills on walls 

h Sealing Reg. No. 1229 GMII C1 (4) 2 3/4
NUMBER 50 • 187

FIGURE 4.34. The bronze bull head weight (Reg. No. 1944, GMII C2 (3)).

FIGURE 4.35. Plan of Phase 2.

FIGURE 4.36. Brick/mud bin, Feature 11, Sq. C1. FIGURE 4.37. Tabun, Feature 4 (Sq. C1), looking south.
188 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.38. Squares C1–C2 in Phase 2 with 

stones and jar, Feature 1, looking west.

FIGURE 4.39. Feature 1, stones and jar, Sq. C2.
NUMBER 50 • 189

FIGURE 4.40. Finds from Phase 2.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; red slip RV 59 GMII C1 (9) 2 Unit 1

b Bowl; red decoration RV 62 GMII C1 (8) 2 Unit 2

c Bowl; red slip, burnish 6488/1 GMII A2–C2 P6 2–4?

d Bowl (Assyrian style) RV 222/2 GMII C1 (8) 2

e Bowl (Assyrian style) II-1015/1 GMII C1 (8) 2 Unit 2

f Bowl/strainer RV 222/1 GMII C1 (8) 2

g Cooking pot/jug II-1013/1 GMII C1 (10) (or (3) 2) 2 Unit 1

h Juglet RV 155 (SI Cat. No. 384) GMII C1 (10) 2

i Juglet; red slip, burnish II-1013/3 GMII C1 (10) (or (3) 2) 2 Unit 1

j Jug/juglet; red decoration II-1013/2 GMII C1 (10) (or (3) 2) 2 Unit 1

k Jar RV 973 (SI Cat. No. 380) GMII C2 F1 2?

l Jug RV 268/1 GMII C2 (9) 2

m Jar RV 208/1 GMII C2 F1 (4) 2?

n Lamp; soot RV 202/1 GMII C1 TT2 F11 (2) 2/3

o Sealing Reg. No. 1228 GMII C1 P2 (2) 2/3?
190 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 4.41. Finds from Phase 1 and unstratified finds. Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware; Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware; us 

= unstratified.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl/basin II-1016/1 GMII C1 (4) 1

b Bowl; red slip, burnish (outside) II-1011/1 GMII C1 (5) 1

c Cup/bowl; red slip, black decoration RV 89 GMII C1 (+) us

d Amphora II-1016/2 GMII C1 (4) 1

e Juglet II-1011/3 GMII C1 (5) 1

f Amphora (basket handle) II-1011/2 GMII C1 (5) 1

g Amphora(?); red slip, vertical burnish II-1049/2 GMII C1 (6) 2 1?

h Basin/platter; burnished II-1049/1 GMII C1 (6) 2 1?

i Sherd (Cyp. WP) 7424/1 GMII A5 (6) ?

j Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 496 (SI Cat. No. 377) GM A5 (+) us

k Krater; red decoration Box 72 GMII C1 (+) us

l Spindle whorl (ivory) Reg. No. 1421 GMII C1 (5) 1
NUMBER 50 • 191

FIGURE 4.42. Unstratified finds from Field II.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Plaque figurine; red slip Reg. No. 1240 (SI Cat. No. 623) GMII A2 W1 (0)

b Bird figurine Reg. No. 640 (SI Cat. No. 336) GMII A5 (0)

c Ceramic object (seal?) Reg. No. 2196 (SI Cat. No. 339) GMII A5 (0)

d Iron arrowhead Reg. No. 1278 GMII C1 (3) 2

e Weight? (stone, hematite) Reg. No. 3553 G II A2–C2 balk (3)

f Ivory/bone object Reg. No. 1371 (SI Cat. No. 624) GMII A2 (0D)

FIGURE 4.43. Massive wall seen in section in GM Wadi.
192 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

APPENDIX 4.1

TABLE 4.A1. List of contexts of Field II. The notation {xx} indicates the year of excavation when the layer number is repeated in various seasons. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower elevation was recorded, and in others 

it is questionable.

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

GMII A2 (0–0a) Topsoil/fill 58.50 59.01 None 

GMII A2 (0b) Fill 57.90 58.50 None 

GMII A2 (0c) Fill 57.65 57.88 None 

GMII A2 (0d) Fill 56.85 57.65 None Wall 1

GMII A2 (0) lower Fill 4? 

GMII A2 (1) Fill 4? Equals P1

GMII A2 W1 Wall 57.92 58.55 3? 

GMII A2 W2 Wall 57.32 4? 

GMII A2 P1 Pit 57.12 57.32 4? 

GMII A3 TT1 (0) Topsoil 55.38 55.62 None 

GMII A3 TT1 (1) Fill 55.27 55.38 6? 

GMII A3 TT1 (1B) Fill 6? 

GMII A3 TT1 (1C–1H) Fill 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (2) Wash layer 55.46 None Wash layer

GMII A3 TT1 (3) Fill/wash 55.38 Unstratified? 

GMII A3 TT1 (4) Wash 55.25 None 

GMII A3 TT1 (5) Fill 55.22 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (6) Fill 55.19 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (7) Fill 54.78 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (8) Fill 54.53 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (9) Fill 54.85 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (10) Fill 54.15 6 

GMII A3 TT1 (11) Fill 54.06 6 

GMII A3 TT2? (12) Fill ? 

GMII A3 TT2? (13) Fill 54.09 5 

GMII A3 TT2? (14) Fill 54.09 5 

GMII A3 TT2? (15) Fill 5 

GMII A3 TT2? (16) Fill 6 

GMII A3 TT2? (17) Fill 6? 

GMII A3 TT2? (18) Fill 6 

GMII A3 TT2? (19) Fill 6 

GMII A3 TT2? (20) Fill 6 

GMII A3 TT3 (AB) Fill 6–7 

GMII A3 F1 Bricks 54.85 5 

GMII A3 F2 Bricks 54.55 5 

GMII A3 F3 Tabun 54.09 5 

GMII A3 F5 Stone paving/foundation 53.11 53.2 6 

GMII A3 F6 Clay installation 54.95? 5? Possibly basin; equals B3 (4)

GMII A3 W1 Wall 53.15 55.1 6 Massive brick wall lying on 

stones, F5

GMII A3 W1* Wall 4-5? Wall in north balk

GMII A3 W2 Wall 55.35 5? Wall in north balk under W1

GMII A3P1 Pit 54.94 55.26 4? 

GMII A3 P1B Pit 5 

GMII A3 P4 Pit 5 

GMII A3 P5 Pit 5 
NUMBER 50 • 193

TABLE 4.A1 (continued)

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

(continued)

GMII A5 (0) Topsoil None 

GMII A5 (1) Fill Unknown 

GMII A5 (2) Fill Unknown 

GMII A5 (3) Fill Unknown 

GMII A5 (4) Fill 51.88 6–7? 

GMII A5 (4a) Fill/ash ? 

GMII A5 (5) Fill/ash 49.25 ? 

GMII A5 (6) Fill/ash ? 

GMII A5 (7) Fill/virgin soil 47.58 49.21 ? 

GMII A5 (8) P1 Pit? 7? 

GMII A5 (9) P2 Pit 48.14 7? 

GMII A6 (0) Topsoil None 

GMII A6 (1) Topsoil/fill 47.94 None 

GMII A6 (1B) Pit? Unknown 

GMII A6 (2) Fill/virgin soil 47.61 None 

GMII A6 (3) Fill/virgin soil 47.13 None 

GMII A6 (4) Fill/virgin soil 46.53 None 

GMII A6 (4) probe Fill/virgin soil 45.80 None 

GMII B3 (1) Fill 6 Equals A3 (1)

GMII B3 (1B) Fill 6 Equals A3 (1B)

GMII B3 (2) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (3)

GMII B3 (3) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (3)

GMII B3 (4) Installation 54.95? 5? Equals A3 F6

GMII B3 (5) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (6)

GMII B3 (6) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (6)

GMII B3 (7) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (7)

GMII B3 (8) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (8)

GMII B3 (9) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (9)

GMII B3 (10) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (10)

GMII B3 (11) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (11)

GMII B3 (12) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (12)

GMII B3 (13) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (13)

GMII B3 (14) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (14)

GMII B3 (15a) Fill 6? 

GMII B3 (15b) Fill 6? 

GMII B3 (15c) Fill 6? 

GMII B3 (16) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (15)

GMII B3 (17) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (16)

GMII B3 (18) Fill 6? 

GMII B3 (19) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (19)

GMII B3 (20) Fill 6? 

GMII B3 (21) Fill/wall 6 Equals A3 (20)

GMII B3 (22) Fill 6-7 

GMII B3 (23) Fill 6-7 

GMII C1 (+) Topsoil None 

GMII C1 (0) Topsoil 60.25–59.30 61.30–59.30 None 

GMII C1 (1a) Fill 60.87 60.95 None 

GMII C1 (1b) Fill 60.87 60.95 None 

GMII C1 (2) Ash layer 60.87 1 
194 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 4.A1 (continued)

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

GMII C1 (3) Fill 60.69 60.87 1 

GMII C1 (4a) Fill 60.39-20 60.69-39 1 

GMII C1 (4b) Fill 59.95 60.20 1 

GMII C1 (5) Fill 59.86 59.95 1 

GMII C1 (6) Fill 59.97 60.27 1 

GMII C1 (7) Fill 59.70 59.97 1 

GMII C1 (8) 1 (1) Fill 58.84 59.02 2 Unit 2

GMII C1 (9) 2 (1) Fill 58.93 59.55 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 (10) 1 (2) Fill 2 Unit 2

GMII C1 (10) 2 (2A) Fill 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 (10) 2 (2B) Fill 58.68 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 (11) 2 (3) Fill 57.66? 59.59 3? Unit 1?

GMII C1 TT2 (2B) 2 Fill 58.75 58.83 2–3? 

GMII C1 (4){73} 2 Fill 58.6 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 TT2 (4) 2 Fill 57.82 3–4 

GMII C1 TT2 (5) 2 Fill 3–4 

GMII C1 TT2 (6) 2 Fill 4 

GMII C1 TT2 (7) 2 Fill 57.34 4 

GMII C1 F1 Pit?/trench 59.58 60.17? 1–2 

GMII C1 F2 Stones 59.3 59.57 1–2? 

GMII C1 F3 Bricks 59.45 60.00 1–2? 

GMII C1 F4 Tabun 58.92 58.92 2 Unit 2

GMII C1 F5 Stones 58.83 59.00 1–2? Unit 1 Stones lying on W1B

GMII C1 F6 Wall? 58.9 59.37 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 F7 Bricks 58.07 59.00 2 Unit 1

GMII C1 F8 Pebbles 58.83 2 Unit 1?

GMII C1 F9 Wall? 58.13 59.00 2–3? Unit 1??

GMII C1 TT2 F10 Ash layer 58.10 3? under Unit 1

GMII C1 TT2 F11 Bricks/bin 58.13 2–3 

GMII C1 TT2 F11 (1) Fill 57.98 58.13 2–3 Fill above Wall 4

GMII C1 TT2 F11 (2) Fill 58.04 2–3 Fill above Wall 4

GMII C1 TT2 F11 (3) Fill 57.96 2–3 Fill above Wall 4

GMII C1 TT2 F11 (4) Fill 57.93 2–3 Fill above Wall 4/ possibly bin

GMII C1 TT2 F12 Bricks 57.47 57.57 3 Bricks above Wall 4

GMII C1 TT2 F13 Bricks 57.79 3 Bricks above Feature 12, 

Wall 4

GMII C1 W1 Wall 58.85 59.45 2 (2A) Unit 1 Brick wall

GMII C1 W1A Wall 58.88 2 (2B) Unit 1 Brick wall

GMII C1 W2 Wall 58.68 58.78 2 Unit 1 Brick wall

GMII C1 W4 Wall 57.39 3 unit 3 Brick wall

GMII C1 P1 Pit 58.25 58.59 ? Mamluk pit?

GMII C1 TT2 P2 (1) Pit 58.72 58.73 3 

GMII C1 TT2 P2 (2) Pit 58.72 2–3? 

GMII C1 TT2 P2 (3) Pit 58.06 58.10 2–3? 

GMII C1 TT2 P2 (4) Pit? 58.02 58.10 3? 

GMII C1 P3 (1) Pit 58.05 58.15 2? 

GMII C1 TT2 P4 Pit? 58.02 58.70 3? 

GMII C2 (0) Topsoil None 

GMII C2 (1) Fill 2? Layer with pebbles
NUMBER 50 • 195

TABLE 4.A1 (continued)

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

(continued)

GMII C2 TT1 (1) Fill 3–4 Equals (4)

GMII C2 TT1 (2) Pit Unknown Equals P1

GMII C2 TT1 (3) Wall? 3–4? Equals F3

GMII C2 TT1 (1) 1 Wall? 3–4? Equals F3

GMII C2 TT1 (2) 1 Fill 4? Equals (5)

GMII C2 TT1 (3) 1 Fill Unknown 

GMII C2 TT1 (4) 1 Fill Unknown 

GMII C2 TT1 (5) 1 Fill Unknown 

GMII C2 (2) Fill 4? 

GMII C2 (3) Fill 4? 

GMII C2 (4) Fill 57.39 57.87 4 

GMII C2 (5) Wall? 57.39 4 

GMII C2 (1) 1 Fill Unexcavated 56.97 4? 

GMII C2 (2) 1 Fill 56.47 56.97 4? 

GMII C2 (3) 1 Fill Unexcavated 56.97 4? 

GMII C2 (4) 1 Fill 56.47 56.97 4? 

GMII C2 (5) 1 Fill Unexcavated 56.97 4? 

GMII C2 (1){73} Fill 4? 

GMII C2 (2){73} Fill 4? 

GMII C2 (3){73} Fill 57.66 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (3B){73} Fill 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (4){73} Fill 57.42 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (1) 1 {73} Fill 57.43 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2) 1 {73} Pit 57.04 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2B) 1 {73} Fill 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2C) 1 {73} Fill 57.05 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2D) 1 {73} Fill 56.91 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2E) 1 {73} Fill 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (3) 1 {73} Fill 56.65 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (1) 3 {73} Fill 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (2) 3 {73} Fill 56.62 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (3) 3 {73} Fill 56.06 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (4) 3 {73} Fill 56.05 56.06 3 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (5) 3 {73} Fill 56.01 56.10 4 Fill on wall or in Unit 4

GMII C2 (6) 3 {73} Fill 55.75 56.03 4 Fills on wall or in Unit 4

GMII C2 (4) 1 {73} Fill 56.49 4 Fills on walls

GMII C2 (3) 1A {73} Fill 55.77 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (4B) 1A {73} Fill 55.92 56.06 4 Fills on walls

GMII C2 (4) 1A {73} Fill 55.60 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (5) 1A {73} Fill 55.45 55.50 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (1) 4 Fill 55.48 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (2) 4 Fill 55.34 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (3) 4 Fill 55.56 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 (5) 1 {73} Ash layer 56.16 4 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (5) 3 {73} Fill 56.08 4 Fill on walls

GMII C2 (6) 1 {73} Fill 56.06 4(A) Unit 4

GMII C2 (7) 3 {73} Fill 55.83 4 Unit 4

GMII C2 (8) 3 {73} Fill 55.37 55.50 4 Unit 4

GMII C2 (7) 5 Fill 55.57 55.79 4 Unit 4
196 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 4.A1 (continued)

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

GMII C2 (1) 6 Fill 4(A) 

GMII C2 F1 Stones jar-57.87 58.04 2? Stone pavement with 

embedded jar

GMII C2 F2 Bricks 4 

GMII C2 F3 Wall? 56.97 57.39 3-4? 

GMII C2 F4 Ash layer 55.54 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 F5 Brick 55.48 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 F6 Bricks 55.67 4 Unit 5

GMII C2 F7 Bricks 56.51 3-4? Unit 4

GMII C2 F8 Bricks 55.42 4 

GMII C2-A2 W1 Wall 57.32? 3 

GMII C2 W1 (F3) Wall 57.42 57.51 3 Unit 4 Brick wall, F3

GMII C2 W2 Wall 55.81 55.91 4(B) Unit 4 Brick wall

GMII C2 W3 Wall 56.24 4(A) Unit 4 Brick wall

GMII C2–A2 P1 Pit? Post 4 

GMII C2 P2 Fill 3? 

GMII C2 P3 Fill Unknown 

GMII C2 P3 {73} Pit 2? 

GMII C2 P2/P4 Pit None 

GMII C2 P4 Pit 58.02 58.70 Post 3? 

GMII C2 P5 Pit 4? 

GMII C2 P6 Pit 2?-4? 

GMII C3 (5) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (6) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (7) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (8) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (9) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (10–13) Fill/wash 5 

GMII C3 (14) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (15) Fill 5 

GMII C3 (16) Fill 5-6 

GMII C3 (16a) Fill 5-6 

GMII C3 (17) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (18) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (19) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (20) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (21) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (22) Fill 6 

GMII C3 (23) Fill 53.32 6 

GMII C3 (AB) Lime deposit 53.32 6-7 

GMII C3 (AB’) Lime deposit 6-7 

GMII C3 (AC) Lime deposit 6-7 

GMII D4 (0) Topsoil 52.70 None 

GMII D4 (1) Fill 52.70 6? 

GMII D4 (1b) Pit 52.45 6? 

GMII D4 (2) Pit 6? 

GMII D4 (2a) Fill 6? 

GMII D4 (3) Fill 51.40 51.80 6–7? 

GMII D4 (3a) Fill 51.15 51.45 6–7? 
NUMBER 50 • 197

TABLE 4.A1 (continued)

 Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes/description

GMII D4 (4) Fill 51.20 51.40 6–7? 

GMII D4 (5) Fill 51.25 6–7? 

GMII D4 (5a) Fill 6–7? 

GMII D4 (6) 1 Fill 50.80 51.30 6–7? 

GMII D4 (7) 1 Fill 50.60 50.85 6–7? 

GMII D4 (6) 3 Fill/virgin soil 49.65 50.45 6–7? 

GMII D4 F1 ? Unknown 

GMII D4 F2 Furnace? Unknown 

GMII D4 F3 Wall? 51.40 52.20 6–7? 

GMII D4 F3 (a) Fill 51.13 51.38 6–7? 

GMII D4 F3 (b) Fill 50.55 51.11 6–7? 

GMII D4 F3 (c) Fill 50.50 50.55 6–7? 

GMII D4 F3 (d) Fill 50.10 50.65 6–7? 

GMII D4 F4 Fill 6–7? 

GMII D4 F5 Wall 6? Equals W2

GMII D4 W1 Wall 51.75 52.65 Unknown 

GMII D4 P1/F2 Pit 51.13 ~52.50 6–7? 

GMII D5 (0) Topsoil None 

GMII D5 (1) Fill None 

GMII D5 (1a) Ash layer Unknown 

GMII D5 P2 Pit Unknown 

GM Wadi W1 Wall 2–3? Brick wall

GM Wadi (1) Ash layer 3? Fill below Wall 1 (1 m trench)

GM Wadi (2) Ash layer 3? Fill below Wall 1

GM Wadi BC1 Object/ash 3? Bronze chisel (BC1)

GM Wadi BC2 Ash layer 3? Below Wall 1
DESCRIPTION

The south trench (ST1) is located on the southern edge of the tell (Figure 5.1), near the access road to the site (Figure 5.2, about 

50 m west of the paved parking strip). The south trench was opened in 1987, when a bulldozer opened a 2.5–3 m wide trench along 

a length of 13.35 m (Figures 5.3–5.8). It was opened at the 52.90 m contour line, with a depth of about 3.0–4.5 m and a roughly 

north–south orientation (see sections in Figures 5.6–5.8). The area was excavated later, however, in a short season during 1990 (Figures 

5.9–5.14; see also Van Beek, 1992). The aim of opening this field was to locate evidence for Middle Bronze Age or other fortifications or 

a city wall. This was the last effort to find evidence for such fortifications as in previous seasons the step trenches in the western (Field 

II) and eastern (Field III) slopes of the tell yielded no such remains and the northern slope was largely eroded anyway. An article on the 

results from the south trench was published in Eretz Israel (Van Beek, 1992), where the remains were dated to the MBII. Furthermore, 

it was suggested that Petrie’s fortifications dated to the Iron Age (earth revetments or glacis of Strata CD and GH of Petrie, 1928: pl. 

XXV:1, located in a southwestern part of the tell, near ST1) may have been originally constructed during the MBII and possibly reused 

in later periods (Van Beek, 1992:9*).

The 1987 bulldozer trench revealed a seemingly massive earthen feature in the north section, probably a glacis (Figure 5.4). The 

aim of the excavation of a 2.6 × 1.8 m area within the trench was to expose the glacis (built on a dark sediment layer) from the top and 

to date it according to debris on it; the different sections were recorded as well (Figures 5.6–5.8, 5.14). The square opened in 1990 was 

located just to the north of the bulldozer trench (Figures 5.9–5.13). The large massive wall (Wall 1, plastered?; Van Beek, 1992:7*) was 

seen in the northern, eastern, and southern balks of the trench (Figures 5.12, 5.14). It is aligned northwest–southeast and may have been 

positioned on top of the earth revetment.

This wall (denoted also “glacis wall” or Wall 1) is seen to be lying on virgin soil in some places (but not everywhere, as noted 

in Van Beek, 1992:5*, ill. 2) but is mostly lying on a dark layer; it is composed of a sandy layer on the upper part and an additional 

sandy layer with horizontal clay bands on the lower part; in the north section, mud bricks were defined as well (Figures 5.12–5.14). 

The lower layer is composed of a soil different from the common one used for bricks in the site (Van Beek, 1992:5*). Thus, it is 

suggested that Wall 1 was constructed of courses of pisé above and overlaying courses of mud brick (see section in Figure 5.14). It is 

aligned NNW–SSE and is plastered in some places. This glacis wall is seen in section to be about 2 m wide (assumed to be up to 6 m 

in width; Van Beek, 1992:5*), at least 1 m high, and, according to the south section, at least 5 m long (1.5 m high there). Nevertheless, it was exposed only in a small area from the top in the excavation square (Figure 5.10). In the excavated square an eroded top 

of the pisé de terre wall was exposed on the eastern side, in an area of 0.5 × 0.5 m (Figure 5.10); in the NE corner, Wall 1 is defined 

as well. A similar MBIIB glacis was excavated at Tel Haror, Area E (Oren et al., 1986b:67, 71, figs. 9, 10).

The excavation in ST1 yielded fill Layers 1 and 2 above the wall and fill Layers 3, 4A, and 4B alongside the wall (see Figure 5.14). 

Layer 3 close to the top of Wall 1 included hearth fragments and stones. Both Layers 2 and 3 contained many animal bones, including 

a significant number of pig bones (see chapter 33). The layers to the west of the wall were ashy (see Figures 5.11, 5.12). The bricks 

can be seen clearly in the northern section from 1990: the wall itself is wider at its base and narrows on top, with a rounded contour 

(Figure 5.12). Whether this was intentional or is due to weathering is not clear; in any case, the wall continues to the east. The ashy 

layers could be evidence of a glacis (as noted from the top), especially in the lower part, where the layers have more acute angles. This 

is seen also on the eastern balk (Figure 5.14). Note that the exposed width of Wall 1 can define it as a massive wall but not clearly as 

a fortification wall. Layers 5–8 are layers under the base of Wall 1, and they seal the earth revetment; Wall 1 is seen to lie on a thick, 

dark horizontal layer of the earth revetment. During the 1987 and 1990 recording of the balks, several pits were defined (Figures 

5 The South Trench (ST1)

David Ben-Shlomo
NUMBER 50 • 199

thus can date this feature to this period (Figures 5.15, 5.16). 

This includes several open bowls (Figure 5.15a,b) and the rim 

of a carinated bowl (Figure 5.15c; see Field III, Phases 18–15 

for further discussion on these forms, e.g., Figure 3.58). Also 

illustrated are a handled krater (Figure 5.15f ), two cooking pot 

rims (Figure 5.15d,e), probably from the common “gutter rim” 

type (see Field III, e.g., Figures 3.78l, 3.79m–o), an everted rim 

and neck fragment of a jug (Figure 5.15g), a wasp-body-shaped 

dipper juglet (Figure 5.15h; see Field III, Figures 3.47s, 3.79q), 

and a double-coil handle of a jug (Figure 5.15i). In addition, several Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet sherds (Figure 5.16q,r) and several 

5.6–5.7), Pits 1 and 2 in the western balk and Pits 3 and 4 in 

the eastern balk. They were filled with late pottery (Van Beek, 

1992:5*), as well as a layer with late Roman/Byzantine sherds 

in the upper part of the western part. Pit 1 was dug from the 

level of the wall and included MBII material.

THE FINDS FROM GM ST1

The fragmentary pottery from just above the wall and layers relating to it include only MBIIB-C pottery (Layers 1–8) and 

FIGURE 5.1. Location of the south trench in the tell.
200 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 5.2. A view to the south from the trench.

FIGURE 5.3. The trench during the excavation with the bulldozer.
NUMBER 50 • 201

FIGURE 5.4. The trench’s interior, looking north.

FIGURE 5.5. Close-up of the northern face of the trench.
202 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 5.6. East balk section of 1987 (Van Beek, 1992: fig. 1).

FIGURE 5.7. West balk section of 1987 (Van Beek, 1992: fig. 2).
NUMBER 50 • 203

contour and on the characteristics of the earth revetment that is 

seen in the sections, although it is not very well preserved and 

only very partially exposed.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

imported Cypriot White Painted (WP) sherds (Figure 5.16a–p, 

mostly classified as WPIV; see chapter 11) were also found in 

GM ST1 Layers 1, 2, 4, and 4B (most of these were previously 

published; see Van Beek, 1992: ill. 7). A jug handle decorated 

with red bands (Figure 5.16p) is also illustrated, probably of Cypriot WPIV or WPV ware (see chapter 11).

There was no pottery found inside the wall (thus, it was 

suggested the wall dates to the earliest MBII phase of the site, 

Van Beek, 1992:5*). It seems very likely that Wall 1 and the fills 

related to it can be dated to the MBIIB-C. The identification of 

the results from the south trench as a fortification wall seems 

plausible and is based on the location of the wall within the tell 

FIGURE 5.8. North balk section of 1987 (Van Beek, 1992: fig. 3).

FIGURE 5.9. The area excavated in 1990, looking east.

FIGURE 5.10. Plan of square excavated in 1990 (Van Beek, 1992: 

fig. 6).
204 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 5.11. The northern balk section of the areas excavated in 1990; note glacis Wall 1 on right and ashy layers 

on left side.

FIGURE 5.12. Close-up of the northern balk section of the areas excavated in 1990.
NUMBER 50 • 205

FIGURE 5.13. Trench ST1 at the end of the 1990 

excavation.

FIGURE 5.14. Combination of east, north, and west balk sections of the 1990 excavation (Van Beek, 1992: fig. 5)
206 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 5.15. Pottery from ST1.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Bowl 1983/1 GM ST1 (4)

b Bowl 1982/2 GM ST1 (4B)

c Bowl 1982/1 GM ST1 (4B)

d Cooking pot 1896/1 GM ST1 P10

e Cooking pot 1982/3 GM ST1 (4B)

f Krater(?) 1983/2 GM ST1 (4)

g Juglet/jug 1896/2 GM ST1 P10

h Juglet 1983/3 GM ST1 (4)

i Jug 1899/1 GM ST1 (5)
NUMBER 50 • 207

FIGURE 5.16. Pottery from ST1. Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware; TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware.

Part Description Bag/RV/Box No. Provenance

a Sherd (Cyp. WP) 1 GM ST1 (1)

b Sherd (Cyp. WP) 2 GM ST1 (1)

c Sherd (Cyp. WP) 3 GM ST1 (1)

d Sherd (Cyp. WP) 1 GM ST1 (2)

e Sherd (Cyp. WP) 2 GM ST1 (2)

f Sherd (Cyp. WP) 3 GM ST1 (2)

g Sherd (Cyp. WP) 4 GM ST1 (2)

h Sherd (Cyp. WP) 5 GM ST1 (2)

i Sherd (Cyp. WP) 6 GM ST1 (2)

j Sherd (Cyp. WP) 7 GM ST1 (2)

k Sherd (Cyp. WP) 1 GM ST1 (4)

l Sherd (Cyp. WP) 2 GM ST1 (4)

m Sherd (Cyp. WP) 3 GM ST1 (4)

n Sherd (Cyp. WP) 1 GM ST1 (4B)

o Jug (Cyp. WP) 8 GM ST1 (2)

p Jug (Cyp. WP) Box 780 GM ST1 (2)

q Sherd (TEY) 4 GM ST1 P10

r Sherd (TEY) 5 GM ST1 (4)
208 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

APPENDIX 5.1

TABLE 5.A1. List of contexts from Trench ST1.

Context Type Phase/period Notes

GM ST 1 (0) Topsoil None Mixed pottery LBII–Hellenistic

GM ST 1 (1) Fill MBII? Eroded brick

GM ST 1 (2) Fill MBII Slopes to south and west; MBII sherds, bone

GM ST 1 (3) Fill MBII Same as Layer 2, more bones

GM ST 1 (3A) Fill MBII Layer with top of Wall 1, hearth fragments; stones

GM ST 1 (4) Fill MBII Fill related with Wall 1

GM ST 1 (4A-B) Fill MBII Layer running to Wall 1

GM ST 1 (5) Fill MBII Fill under Wall 1

GM ST 1 (6) Fill MBII Fill under Wall 1

GM ST 1 (7) Fill MBII Fill under Wall 1

GM ST 1 (8) Fill MBII Fill under Wall 1

GM ST 1 TT1 Fill MBII 0.2 m wide trench dug down to Layer 3

GM ST 1 TT2 Fill MBII Same orientation as TT1 but more to the west, stones

GM ST 1 TT3 Fill MBII? East side of square down to Layer 5

GM ST 1 TT4 Fill MBII 0.5 m from west balk, from Layer 6

GM ST 1 P1 (P10) Pit Unknown Long pit along south of square (1987)

GM ST 1 P2 Pit Unknown Large pit(?) on west balk? (1987)

GM ST 1 P3 Pit Unknown Possibly large, deep pit on east balk (1987)

GM ST 1 P4 Pit Unknown See east balk, 0.8 m wide, 0.8 m deep (1987)

GM ST 1 P10 Pit Unknown Same as Pit 1?

GM ST 1 W1 Glacis MBII Glacis wall seen in section about 2 m wide, 1 m high (in south balk, 

5 m long, 1.5 m high), only in a small area on the top square
6 Field I: The Late Bronze Age

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION

Field I lies in a low area roughly in the center of the tell (Figures 6.1–6.3). This area was the main area excavated by W. M. F. 

Petrie, where one or two strata of architectural remains dated to the LBII were uncovered, under the Iron Age levels, and was denoted 

as the “town of the XVIIIth Dynasty” (Petrie, 1928:5, pl. VIII: top; see here Figure 1.5), with the “town of the XXth Dynasty” above it 

(Petrie, 1928:6, pl. VII). The area was therefore selected for excavation by the Smithsonian expedition in order to examine the structures 

under Petrie’s town of the XVIIIth Dynasty and “JK” building, which are probably dated to the Late Bronze Age II or somewhat later. 

The town of the XXth Dynasty above it, or the G-H level (Figure 1.6; Petrie, 1928:6, pl. VII), is the main Iron I Philistine level Petrie 

excavated but may also date to the end of the LBII (or at least some elements of it). In the Smithsonian Institution (SI) excavations in this 

area, the Late Bronze Age exposures were enlarged horizontally, and indeed, this field contributed the main Late Bronze Age exposure 

to the SI excavations. 

Field I was excavated in the 1971–1972 and 1975–1978 seasons (Figures 6.1, 6.3). The area was supervised by Lee Marfoe (1972: 

Square [Sq.] 4F, 1975: Sqs. 5D, 6E, 6F), W. S. Measday (1976: Sqs. 4D, 5D), Van Button, and Egon Lass; architects were Brian Lalor and 

David Sheehan. The total area excavated here includes twelve 5 × 5 m complete squares (2D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G; 

in most cases balks were eventually removed) as well as six partial squares (1F, 

2E, 4H, 5H, 6E, 6F), altogether totaling 

an area of about 270 m2

. 

The main feature uncovered in Field 

I is the large courtyard building (Building I) exposed quite close to the surface 

in many places; however, it was not recognized in the first season or two. The 

paved court was first discovered in Sq. 4F 

in 1971 and then in a few test trenches 

around it (TTA, Sq. 3F; TTB, Sq. 4E; 

TTC, Sq. 4E; TTD, Sq. 4G). In general, 

the aim of the excavation here was to expose a large horizontal area of the LBII 

and not to excavate earlier levels. Only 

in Sq. 3G was a deeper trench excavated 

into earlier LB and MBII layers (Figures 

6.4–6.31). The phase numbering in Field 

I is only to the SI excavations in this field 

and thus does not reflect the actual sequencing of layers at the site. Clearly, 

there were several later phases not documented here, dating at least to the LBII, 

FIGURE 6.1. General photo of Field I during the 1973 excavation.
210 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.2. General photo of Field I prior to excavation.

FIGURE 6.3. Field I in the beginning of the excavations in 1972, 

looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 211

FIGURE 6.5. Brick floor(?), Feature 10 in Sq. 3G, Phase 9, looking west.

FIGURE 6.4. Plan of Phase 9 in Sq. 3G.
212 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.7. Equid burial, Feature 11 under Wall 6 in north balk of Sq. 3G.

FIGURE 6.6. Tabun, Feature 9 in Sq. 3G, Phase 9, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 213

FIGURE 6.8. Lower south balk of Sq. 3G; note large Pit 4.

FIGURE 6.9. West balk of Sq. 3G trench with the tabun, Feature 9 (bottom); note Pit 5 above.
214 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The phases will be described from the earliest (excavated in 

Sq. 3G) to the latest; naturally, the main emphasis will be on the 

large exposure of Phase 3. Altogether nine phases were defined 

in Field I (Phases 1–9); Phases 4–9 were detected only in the 

trench in Sq. 3G; in the rest of the area, only Phases 1–3 were 

excavated.

PHASES 9–4: THE TRENCH IN SQUARE 3G

Only in limited locales were early remains, underlying the 

main Phase 3 remains, excavated. In Sq. 4F several test trenches, 

particularly Test Trenches 4 and 5 (see Figure 6.128), were excavated up to 1 m beneath the lower pavement of Courtyard 

A (Layers 10–12). These remains did not yield any architecture 

(only possible pits, such as Pit 1), although they may be attributed to Phase 4 fill and debris layers (see below). 

The main area in which lower phases were excavated 

in Field I was the test trench in Sq. 3G, which began as a 

trapezoid-shaped trench (2–3 × 5 m). The trench is located in 

and beneath Unit L of Building I (see below for the Phase 3 

remains in Building I, Unit L), just east of the western tabun, 

Feature 2 (Figure 6.29). 

Iron I, and Iron II. This is evidenced in Petrie’s excavations, as 

well as in Field I FUR, where the pottery kiln can be seen above 

the LBII remains (see Figure 7.1). 

The main LBII architectural phase in the SI excavations is 

denoted here as Phase 3, and although it includes several local 

constructional phases, they are presented together. As the excavations were conducted close to the surface, the area was 

disturbed from Petrie’s excavations. Furthermore, incomplete 

documentation in certain areas created difficulties in ascertaining 

the stratigraphical relationships between the main SI excavation 

building phase and the lower phase excavated by Petrie as well as 

several remains excavated by the SI along the edges of the area, 

which may be related to buildings excavated by Petrie (see below, 

Phase 1). Nevertheless, a tentative sequence is suggested for the 

LBII: above Phase 3, Phase 2 denoted a later construction phase 

(but may be considered a technical “buffer” between Phases 1 

and 3), whereas the end of Phase 1 probably dates to the Iron IA 

(early 12th century BCE). The latter is probably the lower phase 

excavated by Petrie in his XVIII Dynasty town, in which several 

separate architectural remains were recovered. “Phase 0” denoted activities from Petrie’s excavations and dumps (especially 

in Sq. 4F, possibly Feature 2, a trench from SW to NE, and some 

fills in Sq. 5D). 

FIGURE 6.10. Pottery from Phase 9. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 1696/3 GMI 3G (25) 1

b Bowl 1696/2 GMI 3G (25) 1

c Cooking pot 1696/4 GMI 3G (25) 1

d Cooking pot; soot 1696/5 GMI 3G (25) 1

e Jar? 1696/1 GMI 3G (25) 1

f Juglet 1713/1 GMI 3G F11

g Juglet 1673/1 GMI 3G (25) 1

h Juglet (TEY) Box 830 GMI 3G (25) 1
NUMBER 50 • 215

Only a small amount of pottery was retrieved from Phase 9 

(Layers 25–28; Figure 6.10). Most of these can be securely dated 

to the MBIIB-C. These include bowls (Figure 6.10a,b) similar to 

examples from Field III, Phases 17–15 (e.g., Figure 3.58a–e). The 

two cooking pots illustrated (Figure 6.10c,d) are also typical of 

the MBIIB-C. One cooking pot, with a gutter rim (Figure 6.10d) 

is similar to examples from Field III, Phases 15 and 16 (Figures 

3.59h, 3.78l; see also, e.g., Tel Nagila, Uziel, 2008:143, Type 

CP1.2, fig. 58:4). The other example has a thickened folded rim 

(Figure 6.10c), possibly a hole-mouth shape, similar to examples 

from Field III, Phase 17 (see also Aphek, Stratum X16, Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009: figs. 7.16:10,11, 7.18:7–9; possibly, Megiddo, 

Stratum XIII–X, Loud, 1948: pl. 30:3). Also illustrated from 

Phase 9 are two juglet fragments (Figure 6.10f,g); one is larger 

and represents a wasp-shaped juglet, typical of the MBIIB-C and 

LBI (Figure 6.10g; see Field III, Phases 17–15, and references 

therein, e.g., Lachish, Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 16.30:5). A body 

Phase 9

The earliest level in the Sq. 3G trench, denoted Phase 9 (Figure 6.4), includes a layer of bricky material, probably some sort 

of paving (Feature 10, Figure 6.5, at a level of 46.95–47.23 m) 

lying on virgin soil (or some natural sediment); it is at least 3 × 

2 m in size and has straight hatched lines on it, possibly indicating bricks. Overlying the paving, a 0.5 m large tabun was found 

(Feature 9, Figure 6.6; Figure 6.5, rear; also visible in the west 

balk, Figures 6.9, 6.11) at a level of 47.35 m. Also belonging 

to this phase is a small pit containing the skeleton of a newborn donkey (Feature 11, Figure 6.7; see Wapnish, 1997:337, 

figs. 12.1–5; see Field III for an additional donkey burial and 

see chapter 33), as well as another pit or posthole (Feature 12). 

Virgin soil was reached below this level and in pits, from an elevation of 46.70 m; this roughly matches the level of virgin soil 

in Field III. 

FIGURE 6.11. South and west sections of Sq. 3G trench.
216 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(Figure 6.15c). Such rounded bowls are also found in Field III in 

Phases 18–16 (Figure 3.58a–g, where complete examples have 

ring bases, e.g., Figure 3.58e) and are typical of the MBIIB-C. 

Another bowl (Figure 6.15d) has a high, sharp carination. Similar bowls comes from Field III, Phases 18–15 (such as Figure 

3.58w,x; see parallels in chapter 3, e.g., Beit Mirsim, Tomb 24, 

Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.28:7–11). A fragment of a larger bowl 

(Figure 6.15e) is similar in shape to fine eggshell bowls (see Field 

III, e.g., Figure 3.58t,w; Amiran, 1969:110, pl. 27) but is not 

as fine. It has an everted rim, high neck with vertical burnish, 

and globular profile under the carination (see parallels in Field 

III, such as Figure 3.58w,x; see, e.g., Tel Nagila [Uziel, 2008: 

Type BL3.1, 3.2, fig. 54:1, 2] and Lachish [Singer-Avitz, 2004: 

fig. 16.11:6]).

Several jar fragments from Phase 8 are illustrated (Figure 

6.15f–j). Most have everted or flaring, thickened (Figure 6.15f,g) 

or modeled rims (Figure 6.15h,i); one example (Figure 6.15g) has 

a ridge under the rim. These jar necks probably represent large 

storage jars, similar to those found in Field III, especially in Sqs. 

J1–J2, Layer 17 of Phase 17 (Figures 3.48, 3.49 and parallels 

sherd of a Tell el-Yahudiyeh juglet with black burnish and punctured decoration (Figure 6.10h) was also found in Phase 9.

Phase 8

Phase 8 denotes a building phase overlying the Phase 9 remains (Figure 6.13), including two wall fragments (Walls 6 and 

7, Figure 6.14) forming a right angle on the northwest side of the 

trench. Thus, the rest of the area could have been confined within 

a room. The walls were preserved at levels of 47.54–47.77 m. 

Part of a tabun, cut by Pit 7 (Feature 8; Figure 6.13), also belongs 

to Phase 8; here floor levels were reached at a height of 47.44 m 

(Layers 23–24). Pits 6 and 8, which are seen at the edges of the 

square, possibly belong to this phase too. 

Phase 8 also appears to date to the MBIIB-C (Layers 20–24, 

Figure 6.15), as indicated by the pottery found in this phase, 

including mostly bowls and jars (possibly correlating to Field 

III, Phase 16). The bowls include open bowls with slightly inverted rims (Figure 6.15a,b, the former is burnished; see above) 

about 20 cm in diameter and a rounded bowl with a simple rim 

FIGURE 6.12. North and east sections of Sq. 3G trench.
NUMBER 50 • 217

therein). A large body fragment (Figure 6.15j), probably of a 

jar, is worked: this could have been a similar storage vessel that 

had its neck cut and the breakage worked to a smooth edge for 

a different use. Two juglet fragments from Phase 8 are also illustrated. One (Figure 6.15k) is probably a typical dipper juglet 

with an elongated body (wasp shape; see above, Phase 9). The 

other is a thinner body sherd made of dark gray burnished clay 

with a handle (Figure 6.15l); this could be a Tell el-Yahudiyeh 

juglet fragment. Several sherds (Figure 6.15m–o) indicate the 

presence of two or three imported White Painted (WP) Cypriot 

vessels; one of the sherds is worked (Figure 6.15o).

Phase 7

Phase 7 includes fill layers under Wall 5 and a tabun in 

the SE corner of the trench (Feature 7, Figures 6.16, 6.17). The 

tabun, discovered at an elevation of 48.76 m, is 0.6 m in diameter. Pit 5 may belong to this phase (and possibly some of the 

lower pits [Pits 6–8 were dug from this level], especially Pit 7, 

which cuts the Phase 8, Feature 8 tabun). 

The pottery from Phase 7 (including pottery from Sq. 3G, 

Pit 7, which may date to Phase 7 or 8) continues to date to the 

MBIIC forms, with hardly any LB pottery forms appearing (Figures 6.18, 6.19). This includes open bowls with slightly inverted 

FIGURE 6.13. Plan of Phase 8 in Sq. 3G.

FIGURE 6.14. Layer 21 and Walls 6 and 7 in Sq. 3G, looking SE.
218 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.15. Pottery from Phase 8. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; burnished 1668/1 GMI 3G (20)

b Bowl 1692/1 GMI 3G (21)

c Bowl 1668A/1 GMI 3G (21)

d Bowl; burnish outside 1668/2 GMI 3G (20)

e Bowl; vertical burnish 1666/1 GMI 3G (20)

f Jar(?) 1668A GMI 3G (21)

g Jar 1668/3 GMI 3G (20)

h Jar 1668/4 GMI 3G (20)

i Jar 1668/5 GMI 3G (20)

j Jar; shaved/worked neck 1706/1 GMI 3G (20)

k Juglet 1692/2 GMI 3G (21)

l Juglet (TEY?); black burnish 1692/3 GMI 3G (21)

m Sherd (Cyp. WP) Box 776 GMI 3G (20)

n Sherd (Cyp. WP) Box 777 GMI 3G (21)

o Worked sherd (Cyp. WP) Reg. No. 1723 GMI 3G (20)
NUMBER 50 • 219

FIGURE 6.17. Tabun, Feature 7 of Sq. 3G, Phase 7, looking east.

FIGURE 6.16. Plan of Phase 7 in Sq. 3G.
220 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

is more similar to LBII S-shaped carinated bowls (see Field III, 

Phases 12–9 and discussion of Phase 3 below). Figure 6.18h is a 

bowl with a rounded body and high carination. A fine carinated 

bowl fragment (Figure 6.18i) is made of very whitish clay; it has 

a sharp carination under a flaring neck. This is an example of 

fine MBIIB-C eggshell ware, possibly a pedestal bowl, similar 

rims (Figure 6.18a,c) and rounded bowls (Figure 6.18b). Several types of carinated bowls appear as well (Figure 6.18d–g). 

These include carinated bowls with a simple rim (Figure 6.18d), 

a fine, small carinated bowl (Figure 6.18e), and a bowl with a 

high, sharp carination (Figure 6.18f, similar to Figure 6.15d 

from Phase 8 above). A larger carinated bowl (Figure 6.18g) 

FIGURE 6.18. Pottery from Phase 7.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 1784/1 GMI 3G (18) 7

b Bowl 1675/1 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

c Bowl 1674/1 GMI 3G (19) 7

d Bowl 1784/2 GMI 3G (18) 7

e Bowl 1675/2 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

f Bowl 1784/3 GMI 3G (18) 7

g Bowl 1674/3 GMI 3G (19) 7

h Bowl 1674/2 GMI 3G (19) 7

i Bowl 1675/3 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

j Krater 1667/1 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

k Base 1694/1 GMI 3G (19) 7

l Cooking pot/thick krater 1785/2 GMI 3G (17) 7

m Cooking pot 1785/1 GMI 3G (17) 7

n Cooking pot (hole-mouth) 1681/1 GMI 3G P7 7/8?
NUMBER 50 • 221

base, belonging to the eggshell ware (Figure 6.23q; see above for 

more on this ware). These are either residual from MBII phases 

or indicate a continuation into the early LBII. A complete, fine, 

high-foot pedestal bowl/chalice (Figure 6.23r) from Sq. 3G, Pit 5 

has a thin hemispherical bowl and high conical (trumpet-shaped) 

foot (see parallels at Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Ben-Arieh, 2004: 

fig. 2.33:65); this vessel is also possibly related to fine ware. 

Bowls with a low carination (Figure 6.23h,i, the latter complete 

with a flat base), more typical of the LBII, also appear (see Field 

III, Phases 12–8; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:40–42, Type BL56). An 

everted rim fragment of a carinated bowl with a vertical loop 

handle attached to the rim (Figure 6.23p) has a similar form to 

cyma-shaped LBII bowls, sometimes appearing with handles (see 

Tel Miqne, Stratum VIIB, Dothan et al., 2006: fig. 3.7:15,16). 

The worked ring base of a bowl (Figure 6.23t) and a thick perforated body fragment of what seems to be a large chalice (Figure 

6.23s) are also illustrated. Note that no typical LBII kraters were 

found in Phase 6, but this could be coincidental. 

The few cooking pots found in Phase 6 include the evertedtriangular-rim cooking pots (Figure 6.23v) typical of the LBII 

(see Field III, Phases 12–8, e.g., Figures 3.112r 3.143k,l; e.g., Killebrew, 1999; Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006:68–70, Type CP1, 

and references therein).

Closed shapes from Phase 6 include storage jar rims (Figure 6.24a–c) with an everted shape, which are more similar to 

MBIIC forms (see above); a jar handle (Figure 6.24d) and a flat 

thin jar base (Figure 6.24e) are also illustrated. The latter (Figure 6.24e) has thick white-slipped bands on it, similar to jars 

from Field III (see, e.g., Figure 3.60h). A similar surface treatment on jars was found at Batash, Stratum X (Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:75, pl. 12:4–7) and Megiddo, Stratum X (Loud, 1948: 

pl. 129:1). Figure 6.24g is a long vertical handle of a small jug 

or juglet; an everted juglet neck (Figure 6.24h) is also illustrated. 

Typical LBII Cypriot imports appear in Phase 6, including White 

Slip “milk bowls” (Figure 6.24l) and a Base Ring II jug (Figure 

6.24k). A complete Cypriot White Shaved juglet was found in 

Sq. 3G, Layer 12 (Figure 6.24j), whereas the lower part of a 

pointed white shaved juglet (Figure 6.24i) may be Cypriot product or a local imitation, as the upper indicative part with the 

handle was not preserved (see chapter 11 and below on these 

wares). It seems, therefore, that the pottery seems to date Phase 

6 to the early LBII, possibly similar to Field III, Phases 13–12. 

Another item found in Layer 16, Locus 2 (Phase 6 or 7) is a large 

fragment of a bronze axe (Figure 6.24m); a stone spindle whorl 

was also found in this phase (Figure 6.24n; see chapter 23). The 

complete horn of an antelope or hartebeest was found in Sq. 3G, 

Layer 12 (see chapter 33, Bone No. 1664).

Phases 5–4

Beneath Phase 3, two large pits (Figures 6.28, 6.30, 6.31, 

Pits 3 and 4) that were more than 2 m in diameter each and 

about 1.5–1.8 m deep (49.05–50.81 m) were attributed to Phase 

4; they are clearly seen in the north and south sections as well as 

photos (Figures 6.11, 6.12, 6.29–6.31). Few finds were found in 

the pits, which cut Walls 3 and 4 of Phase 5 (Figures 6.25, 6.26), 

to a more complete one from Field III, Phase 17 (Figure 3.47h; 

see, e.g., Amiran, 1969:110, pl. 27; Beit Mirsim, Tomb 24, BenArieh, 2004: fig. 2.9:28–32). A large disk base (Figure 6.18j) 

may belong to a large bowl or a krater; a small, flat base (Figure 

6.18k) is also illustrated. 

Several rim fragments from Phase 7 (Figure 6.18l–n) are of 

thick kraters or cooking pots. One has a thickened folded rim 

(Figure 6.18n); the other (Figure 6.18m) has a folded triangular rim with a slight inner gutter. The rim in Figure 6.18n may 

be similar to MBII hole-mouth cooking pots seen in Field III, 

Phase 16 (Figure 3.71q,r). A larger rim fragment (Figure 6.18m) 

is of a more typical gutter-shaped rim (possibly hole-mouth) and 

has soot marks (similar to cooking pots from Phase 9, Figure 

6.10c,d). 

Closed vessels from Phase 7 include jars, jugs, and juglets 

(Figure 6.19a–i). Two jar fragments include a smaller modeled 

rim (Figure 6.19a) and a more complete flaring neck and rim 

of a large storage jar (Figure 6.19.c; see Field III, Phase 17, Figures 3.48, 3.49). The base of a similar jar type (Figure 6.19d) 

was also found. In addition, several jar or pithoi sherds with 

drilled holes covered with plaster (Figure 6.19q) are very similar 

to those found in Field III Phases 17 and 16 (Figures 3.49a,f). 

Jugs include a neck and long handle of a small jug (Figure 6.19e) 

or large dipper juglet and a rim with a wide handle attached 

to it (Figure 6.19h). Juglet fragments include a large body fragment of a dipper juglet (Figure 6.19f), a narrow neck with an 

everted rim typical of MBIIB-C juglets (e.g., Beit Mirsim, Tomb 

24, Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.10:43–47), and a double handle 

(Figure 6.19g,i, possibly of a Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware juglet). A 

handmade ceramic fragment (Figure 6.19l) may belong to some 

type of ceramic box, house model, or stand. Several fragments 

of decorated WPV Cypriot jugs were also found in this phase 

(Figure 6.19j,k; see chapter 11). Four worked sherds come from 

Phase 7 layers as well (Figure 6.19m–p).

Phase 6

Under Walls 3 and 4, an ashy fill with brick-like material 

was discovered (Layer 10). These covered Wall 5 of Phase 6 (Figures 6.20, 6.22). This is an east–west brick wall, with 3 m of its 

length exposed, and is cut by Pits 3 and 4 of Phase 4. It stood 

0.7 m, or 7–9 courses high, at elevations of 49.07–49.80 (Figures 

6.21–6.22). Pit 5 in the northwest corner may also belong to 

Phase 6 or to Phase 7.

The pottery assemblage from Phase 6, the earliest Late 

Bronze phase in the Sq. 3G probe (Layers 9–16, with context 

denoted as Phase 6/7 included; Figures 6.23–6.24), is somewhat 

larger, including clear LBII forms (particularly cooking pots and 

imported Cypriot pottery, such as White Slip ware). Nevertheless, MBIIC(–LBI?) forms continue to appear, such as the open 

bowls with thickened or slightly inverted rims, which appear in 

various sizes (Figure 6.23a–e); small rounded bowls also appear 

(Figure 6.23j,k). Carinated bowls with simple rims appear in various sizes (Figure 6.23f–i,l–m, the latter has remains of white slip 

on the outside); one example (Figure 6.23n) has a sharp everted 

rim and high carination with whitish and pinkish clay and a ring 
222 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 223

cooking pot with an everted rim (Figure 6.27b). Another cooking pot (Figure 6.27c) has a folded inverted rim, less typical of 

the LBII (more typical of Iron I; see Aphek, Gadot and Yadin, 

2009: Types CP1d–CP1e). A Base Ring II (BRII) vessel and a 

White Slip (WS) milk bowl (Figure 6.27d–e) were also found in 

this phase. The pottery seems to fit an LBII date. 

The Phase 4 pottery from the probe and from levels under 

the main LBII Phase 3 remains can be combined together (Figure 

6.32); however, pottery from lower levels in Building I, Unit L 

and Area K, which may be allocated to Phase 4, is discussed 

below with the main LBII Phase 3 pottery. The pottery includes 

mostly open bowls with simple rims (Figure 6.32a–d), rounded 

bowls (Figure 6.32f–i), and a complete hemispherical bowl (Figure 6.32e) with a slightly inverted rim and a ring base (see Field 

III, Phases 11–7). Several carinated bowls also appear (Figure 

6.32j,k). A large carinated bowl or krater has an unusual thickened rim (Figure 6.32l). A rim and handle fragment (Figure 

6.32m) of a typical LBII large carinated krater is also illustrated; 

complete examples come from Phase 3 (see Figures 6.124b, 

6.157). These kraters are common in the LBII–Iron I in southern Israel (see, e.g., Lachish, Levels VII–VI [Yannai, 2004:1041], 

Qubur Walaydah, Iron I [Lehmann et al., 2009: fig. 7:3,4,9,10], 

and Aphek, Stratum X12 [Gadot and Yadin, 2009:209, Type 

KR2, and references therein]). A handle attached to a body 

fragment (Figure 6.32n) is probably the base of a large bowl or 

krater with a three-handled base. These vessels are known from 

Late Bronze parallels at Gezer (Macalister, 1912: pl. LXXXII:1), 

Tell Farah (S) (Duncan, 1930:image no. 28j5), and Tell Abu 

Hawam (Hamilton, 1935: pl. XIII:81), as well as the Iron I (e.g., 

Ashdod, Stratum XIII [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:74, fig. 

3.5:15] and Qasile [Mazar, 1985a:42, fig. 40:2]; see also handlebased closed vessels from Megiddo [Loud, 1948: pls. 79:5, 85:6; 

Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 71:2]).

as well as Phases 6–7. In addition, a debris level excavated at 

an elevation of 50.25–50.55 m can be attributed to this phase 

(Layers 7–8). 

Only a few sherds can be securely provenanced to Phase 

5 (Figure 6.27), including an open bowl (Figure 6.27a) and a 

FIGURE 6.19. Finds from Phase 7. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. WP = Cypriot White Painted ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jar 1674/5 GMI 3G (19) 7

b Jar 1674/4 GMI 3G (19) 7

c Jar 1679/1 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

d Jar base 1664/1 GMI 3G (19) 7

e Jug 1784/4 GMI 3G (18) 7

f Juglet 1670/1 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

g Juglet 1674/6 GMI 3G (19) 7

h Juglet 1674/7 GMI 3G (19) 7

i Jug/juglet (TEY?); black burnish 1675/4 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

j Sherd (Cyp. WP) Box 771/1 GMI 3G (19) 7

k Sherd (Cyp. WP) box 771/2 GMI 3G (19) 7

l Handmade vessel (box?) 1694/2 GMI 3G (19) 7

m Worked sherd (Cyp. WP) Reg. No. 1724 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

n Rounded sherd Reg. No. 3743a GMI 3G (19) 7

o Worked sherd Reg. No. 3743b GMI 3G (19) 7

p Thick worked sherd Reg. No. 3743c GMI 3G (19) 7

q Drilled jar sherd with plaster Bag 1663 GMI 3G P7 7/8?

FIGURE 6.20. Plan of Phase 6 in Sq. 3G.
224 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.21. Square 3G, Wall 5, looking SE.

FIGURE 6.22. Wall 5 (left) and Pit 5 

(right) in Sq. 3G, looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 225

those in the south, and there were no building remains identified 

on top of them, probably because of erosion), and the height difference, when relevant, may merely represent slopes in the field 

or, as previously suggested, a section of the house intentionally 

built lower. 

Building I is defined from the south by Wall 6 in Sq. 5E 

(continuing to the west about 12 m in Sqs. 4E and 3E), Wall 4 

in Sq. 5E (or Wall 7 in Sq. 5D, 6.5 m), and then Wall 3 of Sq. 

5F another 4 m to the north, the eastern wall of Unit D1 in the 

east, and Wall 3 of Sqs. 1F–2F in the west (of which only 3.5 m 

were uncovered). The outer walls of the building are not thick 

and are built of one row of header-laid bricks, one brick wide, 

about 0.5–0.7 m in most cases; the southern wall had some stone 

foundations at least along 5.5 m in Sqs. 3E–4E (Figure 6.48); the 

walls in the south and east were not preserved very high, about 

0.5 m at levels of 51.73–52.20 m (being higher in the south); in 

the west, the walls were lower at 51.09–51.27 m, probably representing walls of the lower 3B phase. In the north, the building 

is defined by a series of outer walls of Units D, N, and O (in Sqs. 

4G, 5G, 4H, 5H); it is also possible that the building included 

additional units in this northeastern area. In the northwest the 

outer wall of Building I was not excavated, probably lying in 

Sq. 3H in the northern part of Unit L. Two possibilities can be 

suggested for the entrance of Building I. The main entrance was 

most likely through Courtyard A in Sq. 5E (Figures 6.34, 6.39), 

where a wide cavity (about 1 m wide) was noted along the eastern wall of the courtyard, Wall 7 (Figures 6.39–6.41, Feature 5). 

Here a large stone slab and a flat hard plaster slab (SCI1390; 

also a plaster fragment shaped as a rounded protrusion could 

belong to the threshold of Building I’s main entrance) probably 

constituted the threshold at a height of 51.50 m (Sq. 5E, Feature 

5, Figure 6.42). Excavations beneath this feature indicated that 

in a lower phase, the wall continued under it (Figure 6.41). A 

secondary entrance may have been located in the northern part 

of the building, on the east side of Unit M2 into a paved area (Sq. 

5G, Feature 8A, Figure 6.95). This could be considered a side entrance serving mostly Units M and L, which are characterized by 

cooking facilities (see below). However, as this section was not 

excavated farther to the east, it is not certain that the paved area 

is indeed outside the building. Another entrance was also suggested from the east into the paved area in Unit D1 (Figure 6.71, 

which may be a sloped ramp at an elevation of 51.03–51.46 

m). It should be noted that all these suggestions for entrances to 

Building I are not completely clear and that an entrance to the 

courtyard from the long southern side (from Street J) cannot be 

ruled out. In the southern wall in Pit 1 of Sq. 5E, a foundation 

deposit of the lamp and bowl type is mentioned in the excavation notes (possibly seen in Figure 6.42), yet no further records 

of this were found. Another deposit of a lamp and two bowls 

was found in Pit 1 in Sq. 1F and is possibly attributed to Phase 1 

(see Figure 6.150–6.151). These foundation deposits, nevertheless, have good parallels in the southern Levant during the LBII, 

such as at Lachish (e.g., Bunimovitz and Zimhoni, 1993) and 

Beth Shean, Stratum S-4 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2009: photos 

4.49, 4.50), as well as other LBII–Iron IA sites (Bunimovitz and 

Zimhoni, 1993).

Several of the cooking pots illustrated have triangular 

everted rims (Figure 6.32o,p) or a simple everted rim (Figure 

6.32q). A flat jar base (Figure 6.32r) is of a relatively small storage jar. A handmade vessel (Figure 6.32t), possibly a crucible or a 

lamp(?), is also illustrated, as well as a Cypriot White Shaved juglet fragment (Figure 6.32s). Generally, the Phase 4 pottery does 

not seem to vary considerably from the main Phase 3 pottery (see 

below), and thus, the two phases should be closely dated. 

Other finds from Phase 4 include worked sherds (Figure 

6.33a,b) and a bronze spatula or other tool (Figure 21.3r); a 

complete bone needle (Figure 6.33c; see also chapter 25) also 

possibly comes from Phase 4.

PHASE 3 AND THE MAIN COURTYARD 

BUILDING (BUILDINGS I AND II)

General Remarks

The major remains excavated in Tell Jemmeh Field I, reflecting a horizontal exposure of over 250 m2

 in 18 squares, are denoted here as Phase 3 (Figure 6.34). The most important remains 

from this phase include a large courtyard building (Building I) 

that was nearly completely excavated (Figures 6.35–6.103). To 

the south of Building I a segment of an additional building was 

excavated (Building II, Figure 6.34), and a 1.5-m-wide passage 

way or street (Street J) separates the buildings, with another open 

area to the east of Building I (Area K). Building I is composed of 

a large paved courtyard (Courtyard A, Figures 6.43, 6.46) with 

a series of rooms surrounding it from the west (Rooms B and E), 

east (Room C), and mostly north (Rooms D1, D2, D3, N, and O 

and Units M1 and M2; Figure 6.37). Although all these remains 

belong to a single building, there are at two or three phases of 

construction and floor levels in various locations within it. The 

somewhat lower northern unit of the building also included open 

spaces; it may have been built somewhat lower intentionally as 

a flight of three steps down to this area was noted (Van Beek, 

1993a:669) but not recorded. However, this possibly represents 

an earlier phase of the building or a natural slope in the site. In 

any case, in certain locations at least two constructional phases 

of the building can be suggested (e.g., Figures 6.40, 6.41, 6.49): 

the lower phase (tentatively denoted 3B locally) includes the 

lower paving of Courtyard A, without Room B and the tabun 

(see below) and the lower stone paving in Room C. Also, in the 

southern wall of the building in Sq. 4E (Figures 6.41, 6.42) a 

lower phase at the level of the stone paving bulges 20–30 cm to 

the south. The floors below the stone paving, as well as the brick 

walls, can be seen clearly in a section in Sq. 3F (Figures 6.42, 

6.48). The upper phase (denoted locally 3A) includes the upper 

stone paving in Courtyard A, Room B with the tabun, and the 

upper earth floor in Room C. As noted, the same floor levels in 

the northern units (D1–D3, M, N, O, L) are about 30–35 cm 

lower than in the main courtyard; thus, these units could belong 

to the building in its lower phase, matching the lower phase of 

the paving in the courtyard. However, the northern units could 

have existed in the upper phase (some floor levels are similar to 
226 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

south are somewhat higher and may represent a later subphase 

(see below) or a natural inclination of the area.

Courtyard A

Of the 12 units composing Building I (Figure 6.37), the most 

dominant is Courtyard A. The paved courtyard was not identified as such in the first two seasons of 1971 and early 1972 when 

the excavation was only conducted in narrow trenches (Figures 

6.43, 6.46); the stones were thought to represent wall fragments 

(such as Wall 1 of Sq. 4F). As excavations continued, it was 

recognized as a large paved area of a large building, and the 

Thus, the dimensions of Building I would have reached at 

least 19 m (east–west) by 17 m (north–south), and its area covers 200 m2

 at a minimum. Of this, the main rectangular paved 

courtyard, Courtyard A, would measure about 15.0 × 6.5 m 

(Figures 6.34, 6.46), about 100 m2

 or half of the building’s area. 

The building plan is characterized by high “depth” in its access scheme, with three or four access levels (Figure 6.38). The 

building is probably entered from the main courtyard, although 

most rooms do not have access to the courtyard; the next level 

of access is Units D1–D2, moving from there to the more inner 

Units L and M and from there to the innermost Rooms O and N 

(see discussion below). Note that the rooms in Building II in the 
NUMBER 50 • 227

being relatively devoid of finds because of, for example, its paved 

surface, which was cleaned in antiquity from time to time. Such 

a large, well-built, “clean” courtyard may indicate a ceremonial, 

symbolic, or public use, rather than a domestic courtyard in 

which daily chores would usually take place (food processing, 

cooking, etc.). However, another reason for this could be that 

large areas of the excavated courtyard were poorly documented 

(especially in Sqs. 3E, 4E, and 5E), and thus, the remains from 

these locations cannot be presented here. Also, this area lies close 

to the site’s surface, and thus, the preservation of finds is poor. 

No complete or nearly complete vessels were recovered from 

here. From what was preserved, a small assemblage of open, 

rounded and carinated bowls, cooking pots, jar fragments, and 

a juglet are illustrated (Figure 6.51a–r) as well as three Cypriot 

WS “milk bowls” (Figure 6.51s–u); two worked and perforated 

sherds also come from Courtyard A (Figure 6.51v,w). Several 

sherds come from the building’s possible threshold (Figure 

6.51n–p) and include several vessel bases and a bowl.

Unit B

In the northwest of the courtyard, Room or Unit B was assigned to the upper phase, Phase 3A (Figures 6.48–6.50, 6.52–

6.55). This space is defined by a circular wall in the NW corner 

of the courtyard (Sqs. 2F–3F, Feature 4, Figures 6.34, 6.52–6.55) 

that measures about 2 m; the circular wall did not exist in the 

lower phase because under its bricks the paving of the courtyard 

continued in the lower phase (Figure 6.48). In the upper phase, 

the higher stone paving from outside of the rounded room can 

excavation was expanded in Test Trenches A, B, C, and D and 

was denoted as Feature 1; eventually, the pavement was uncovered over a length of 12 m and a width of up to 5.7 m (Figures 

6.36, 6.46; exposed in five squares, Sqs. 3E, 4E, 5E, 3F, 4F). 

The pavement was nearly completely exposed, with only a patch 

in the southwest, Sqs. 2E–3E, eroded or disturbed (see Figure 

6.35, center). An additional round disturbance was detected in 

the northern part in Sq. 4F, seemingly a structure or a pit (Figures 

6.46, 6.152, rear left) that destroyed a large area of the courtyard and southern part of Units D1–D2. 

Courtyard A has a nearly rectangular shape, with the exception of two rooms (Rooms B, C) in the NE and NW. It is delineated by Sq. 2F, Wall 2 in the west; Wall 5 in the north (and Sq. 

5F, Wall 4); Sq. 5E, Wall 4 in the east; and Wall 6 in the south. In 

Sqs. 3F–4F, there is 20–30 cm gap between the northern stones 

of Courtyard A and Wall 5; this could represent a feature not 

recognized in the excavations, such as a drainage channel (this 

is more clear in Sq. 4F, as seen in Figure 6.71) or a beam near 

the wall; alternatively, the wall may actually have been thicker, 

but the bricks were not preserved or recognized. The pavement 

is built of closely packed flat pebbles of sizes ranging 0.2–0.5 m, 

and it is relatively evenly surfaced at elevations of 51.40–51.70 

m; a lower level of the paving was recognized, especially along 

its northwestern side at elevations of 51.00–51.25 m (see Figure 

6.49). The pavement was discovered relatively close to the surface (Figure 6.2), with only about 0.3–0.4 m fill above it, and included few finds. Moreover, no installations were identified on it. 

Not much pottery is presented from Courtyard A, especially 

in relation to its large area. This lack could result from the area 

FIGURE 6.23. Pottery from Phase 6. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 1769/3 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

b Bowl 1769/2 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

c Bowl 1653/1 GMI 3G P5 6

d Bowl 1790/1 GMI 3G (15) 2 6/7

e Bowl 1757/1 GMI 3G (12) 6

f Bowl 1765/1 GMI 3G (10) 6

g Bowl 1769/4 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

h Bowl 1787/1 GMI 3G P5 6

i Bowl 1659/1 GMI 3G (9) 6

j Bowl 1789/2 GMI 3G P5 6

k Bowl 1769/1 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

l Bowl 1653/2 GMI 3G P5 6

m Bowl 1769/5 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

n Eggshell bowl 1789/1 GMI 3G P5 6

o Bowl; whitish clay 1786/1 GMI 3G (15) 2 6

p Bowl? 1653/3 GMI 3G P5 6

q Bowl 1788/1 GMI 3G P5 6

r Bowl/chalice SI Cat. No. 987 GMI 3G P5 6

s Perforated base/chalice? 1792/1 GMI 3G (15) 1 6

t Worked base 1765/2 GMI 3G (10) 6

u Cooking pot 1660/1 GMI 3G P5 6

v Cooking pot 1760/1 GMI 3G (9) 6
228 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.24. Pottery and finds from Phase 6. Cyp. WSh = Cypriot White Shaved ware; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = 

Cypriot White Slip II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jar 1794/1 GMI 3G (16) 2 6/7

b Jar 1794/2 GMI 3G (16) 2 6/7

c Jar 1765/3 GMI 3G (10) 6

d Jar 1757/2 GMI 3G (12) 6

e Jar; white paint 1650 GMI 3G P5 6

f Jug 1793/1 GMI 3G (14) 6

g Jug/juglet 1769/6 GMI 3G (16) 1 6/7

h Juglet/flask neck 1792/2 GMI 3G (15) 1 6/7

i Juglet (Cyp. WSh) 1787A/2 GMI 3G 13 6

j Juglet (Cyp. WSh) RV 65 GMI 3G (12) 6

k Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 716 GMI 3G (9) 6

l Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 631 GMI 3G (10) 6

m Bronze axe Reg. No. 1318 (SI Cat. No. 991) GMI 3G (16) 2 6-7

n Spindle whorl (stone) Reg. No. 1039 GMI 3G (9) 6
NUMBER 50 • 229

FIGURE 6.26. Lower pits and Walls 3 and 4 in Sq. 3G, looking south.

FIGURE 6.25. Plan of Phase 5.
230 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.27. Finds from Phase 5. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 1763/1 GMI 3G (8) 2

b Cooking pot 1763/2 GMI 3G (8) 2

c Cooking pot 1763/3 GMI 3G (8) 2

d Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 728 GMI 3G (8) 2

e Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 633 GMI 3G (7) 2

FIGURE 6.28. Plan of Phase 4 in Sq. 3G.
NUMBER 50 • 231

FIGURE 6.29. Trench in Sq. 3G and north balk, looking north; note Feature 2, a tabun, of western Unit L in the front left.

FIGURE 6.30. Pits 3 and 4 of Phase 4 in Sq. 3G, looking south; on the right, the tabun (Feature 2) of western Unit L, 

Phase 3; note stone foundation.
232 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.31. Pit 3 in Sq. 3G (bottom).

FIGURE 6.32. Pottery from Phase 4. Cyp. WSh = Cypriot White Shaved ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 4233A/2 GMI 3G (5) 1 4

b Bowl 2959/1 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

c Bowl 4233A/3 GMI 3G (5) 1 4

d Bowl 2959/4 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

e Bowl 4181/1 GMI 4F TT3 (8) 4?

f Bowl 2959/2 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

g Bowl/chalice 2959/3 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

h Bowl 4302/1 GMI 3G P4 4

i Bowl 4302/3 GMI 3G P4 4

j Bowl 4233A/1 GMI 3G (5) 1 4

k Bowl 4302/2 GMI 3G P4 4

l Bowl/krater? 4233A/4 GMI 3G (5) 1 4

m Krater 4302/4 GMI 3G P4 4

n Base handle 2962/1 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

o Cooking pot 2959/5 GMI 4F TT5 (2) 4?

p Cooking pot 4302/5 GMI 3G P4 4

q Cooking pot 4302/6 GMI 3G P4 4

r Jar 1649/1 GMI 3G (1) 5 4

s Juglet (Cyp. WSh) RV 286 GMI 3G (5) 4

t Handmade vessel (crucible/lamp?) 4303/1 GMI 3G (4) 1 4?
NUMBER 50 • 233

1F, Features 3–5 = Sq. 2F, Features 3–5; see discussion of Room 

E below) includes rounded and carinated bowls (Figure 6.56a–f), 

a decorated bowl (Figure 6.56h), cooking pots (Figure 6.56g,i,j), 

jars (Figure 6.56k), what seems to be a jug (Figure 6.56k), and 

a lamp (Figure 6.56n). Several Cypriot WS milk bowls are also 

illustrated (Figure 6.56p–q). A large body sherd (Figure 6.56m) 

with parallel ridges probably belongs to a large pithos; a similar 

body sherd was found in the same square in an unclear context 

(Figure 3.157j). These large pithoi with ridged relief decoration 

on their shoulder are typical of the LBII but are more common 

in northern Israel (e.g., Hazor, Stratum 1a, Area F [Yadin et al., 

1960: pl. CXLV] and Dan, Stratum VII [Ben-Dov, 2011a:256, 

fig. 152:9,10], local to Tel Dan according to petrography). A 

thick, handmade, hollow fragment (Figure 6.56o) may be a large 

be seen as rising up to the rounded wall (Figure 6.49). Most 

of the area of Room B is occupied by a large tabun, Feature 

5 (Feature 3 in 1975; Figures 6.52–6.55), at a level of 52.07 

m; it is possible that the circular wall was a low partition wall 

and Room B was not roofed. The tabun was nearly completely 

preserved (1 m in diameter) and had a stone foundation under 

the clay wall (Figure 6.49); the clay wall was also covered with 

sherds (Feature 2). In the corner of the room, between Wall 4 

in the north and Wall 2 in the west, there seems to be a narrow 

passage in the main wall, at least according to the photograph 

(Figures 6.52, left, 6.55). 

The pottery associated with fills in and above Room B (Figure 6.56; note that for some reason much of the material from 

Room B was listed with 1F layer numbers instead of 2F, i.e. Sq. 
234 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

several fragments show curved edges, indicating edge fragments, 

whereas others are more rounded (Figure 6.66a). Several thicker 

fragments, 3.5–6.0 cm in thickness, were also recovered (Figure 

6.66b); one side is carefully smoothly flattened, whereas the other 

is grooved (similar to the floor fragments in Room N; see Figure 

6.100). These have many small pebble inclusions. The thick plaster may have been applied on a stone foundation (see above). 

In the lower part of the eastern wall of Room C there is a 

plaster channel leading to the outside and connecting the plastered space to Feature 2, located adjacent to the outer wall of 

the building (Figures 6.61, 6.62). Feature 2 in Sqs. 5E–6E was 

first detected as a circle of stones 1.2 m in diameter. Eventually, 

it was realized this installation penetrates deeper and was built 

with stones down to a depth of about 2 m (Figures 6.63–6.65, 

elevations of 51.68–49.67 m), connected by a gap in the wall 

that is covered by a large, flat stone. The installation was probably constructed first by digging a pit (see the wide foundation 

trench in Figure 6.64) carefully dressed by courses of evenly laid 

stones up to a height of about 2 m and then filling the sides 

of the pit with earth (probably in several stages, similar to the 

building of stone wells; see Garfinkel et al., 2006). It seems that 

this installation, probably a sump or drainage of the plastered 

installation in Room C, was covered underground and was not 

seen when in use. 

Not much pottery was recovered from Room C. The assemblage includes several bowls (Figure 6.67a–e); of these, a 

complete hemispherical bowl with a disk base (Figure 6.67a), 

a large rounded bowl (Figure 6.67b), a thick krater with a flat 

rim (Figure 6.67f), a jar (Figure 6.67g), a decorated jug (Figure 

6.67i), and a vertical handle (Figure 6.67h) that may belong to 

a scoop (see Field III, Figure 3.124n) should be noted. The small 

number of finds may support the identification of the space as a 

bath or installation.

The plastered space in Room C can therefore be interpreted 

as a pool or reservoir of liquids that were drained from time 

spout (possibly of a jar, a transport stirrup jar imitation, or a 

figurative vessel).

As noted above, in Sq. 3F to the north of Courtyard A, there 

seems to be higher building remains with the same orientation 

(Figures 6.72, 6.128, Phase 2): this includes east–west Wall 2 

(above Wall 5 of Phase 3) and Wall 3 running to the north in a 

higher phase of Unit D2 (Figure 6.72, western side of Unit D), 

as well as possibly the tabun and Room B, Phase 3A in the NW 

corner of the courtyard, which continues into Phase 2.

Room C

In the northeast corner of Courtyard A, a rectangular unit 

(Room C, Figures 6.57–6.62 [“RM/Room A” in photographs]) 

seemed to have a special use. Room C is defined by Wall 5 (or 

Wall 1) in Sq. 5F in the south, Wall 4 in Sq. 5E in the east, Wall 

4 in Sq. 5F in the north, and Wall 7A in the west; it measures 

internally 3.1 × 1.5 m, and its entrance was from the courtyard 

along Wall 7A (Figure 6.58). In a lower layer (Figure 6.57), the 

western 1.5 m of Room C was paved with flat stones, at a height 

of 51.23–51.31 m, although in an upper layer, this area seems 

to have had a beaten earth floor (Figures 6.57, 6.58) with the 

entrance at a level of 51.67 m. The eastern 2 × 1.5 m portion of 

Room C was depressed by 0.3–0.5 m and was lined with thick 

plaster (Figures 6.58–6.60, elevations 51.30–51.58 m; see plaster fragments from this area in Figure 6.66, SCI 122, SCI 103), 

rising up on the western edge; a section through the unit seems 

to show that pebbles were used as a foundation for the plaster 

(Figure 6.57). There is a small wall reconstructed between the 

plastered sloped area and the western part of Room C. 

A large amount of this plaster was recovered from the room 

and the balk of Sqs. 4E–4F (Figure 6.66, SCI 90–93,SCI 103,SCI 

122; altogether, at least 630 fragments were counted). These fragments can attest to the technique of the construction of this feature. Most fragments are 1–1.5 cm thick and flattened on one side; 

FIGURE 6.33. Finds from Phase 4.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Perforated worked sherd Reg. No. 6002 GMI 3G (4) 1 4?

b Perforated worked base Reg. No. 1712 GMI 3G Pit 4 4

c Bone needle Reg. No. 1369 (SI Cat. No. 979) GMI 3G (4) 1 4?
NUMBER 50 • 235

FIGURE 6.34. Plan of Phase 3 (combining Phase 3A and 3B components).
236 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.36. Field I, looking west, with Building I; note upper ashy layers in far western balks.

FIGURE 6.35. Field I with Building I, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 237

FIGURE 6.37. Schematic plan of Building I.

FIGURE 6.38. Access diagram of Building I, Phase 3.
238 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.40. Possible threshold of eastern entrance to Building I (Sq. 5E, Feature 

5 in Wall 7), looking north.

FIGURE 6.39. Possible threshold of eastern entrance to Building I (Sq. 5E, Feature 5 in Wall 7), looking northwest.
NUMBER 50 • 239

FIGURE 6.41. The area under the threshold after the excavation of Sq. 5E, Feature 5, looking west.

FIGURE 6.42. Southern wall of Building I (Wall 6) with possible pit of foundation deposit, looking NW.
240 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.43. Excavating the paved courtyard in Test Trench D (lower level), looking east.

FIGURE 6.44. East balk of Test Trench C, showing fill levels above paved courtyard.
NUMBER 50 • 241

FIGURE 6.45. West balk of Test Trench A, showing fill levels above paved courtyard.

FIGURE 6.46. Courtyard A during excavations, looking east; note upper rounded feature on rear left.
242 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.48. Section in Building I showing two levels of stone paving and plastered Room C on right, looking west.

FIGURE 6.47. Upper layer in northern Courtyard A, looking south, with Wall 5 in front and Room B on right.
NUMBER 50 • 243

FIGURE 6.50. Northern edge of Courtyard A and paving of Unit 

D2 on the right, looking west, with Room B on the far left.

FIGURE 6.49. Northwest corner of Courtyard A (under Room B) in Sq. 3F; note the two levels of paving, with 

the lower paving under the rounded wall of Room B, looking east.
244 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 245

FIGURE 6.51. Pottery and other finds from Courtyard A and entrance to Building I. Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 2958/2 GMI TTA (2) 3 Courtyard A

b Bowl 2958/1 GMI TTA (2) 3 Courtyard A

c Bowl; soot 3006/1 GMI 4F (3a) 3 Courtyard A

d Bowl 3425/1 GMI 5E F5 (2) 3/4 Courtyard A, threshold?

e Bowl 2983/3 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

f Bowl 3006/2 GMI 4F (3a) 3 Courtyard A

g Bowl 4187/2 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

h Bowl 4187/3 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

i Bowl 2983/1 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

j Bowl 2983/2 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

k Bowl 4187/1 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

l Bowl 2955/1 GMI TTA (1) 3 Courtyard A

m Cooking pot 2983/4 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

n Cooking pot 3425/3 GMI 5E F5 (2) 3B/4 Courtyard A, threshold?

o Base 3425/2 GMI 5E F5 (2) 3B/4 Courtyard A, threshold?

p Base 3425/4 GMI 5E F5 (2) 3B/4 Courtyard A, threshold?

q Jar 2983/5 GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 3 Courtyard A

r Juglet 3425/5 GMI 5E F5 (2) 3B/4 Courtyard A, threshold?

s Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 617/1 GMI 4F (3A) 3 Courtyard A

t Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 617/2 GMI 4F (3A) 3 Courtyard A

u Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 620 GMI 4F (3A) 3 Courtyard A

v Perforated worked sherd Reg. No. 1692 (SI Cat. No. 337) GMI TTA1 (1) 3 Courtyard A

w Perforated worked sherd Reg. No. 1931 GMI TTA1 (1) 3 Courtyard A

FIGURE 6.52. Upper level of Room B of Building I, with tabun in balk, looking NW.
246 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.53. Rounded wall of Room B from above; note ashy debris above tabun.

FIGURE 6.54. Tabun, Feature 5 in Room B, Building I, Sq. 2F–3F, looking NW.
NUMBER 50 • 247

3.116). The floor of this installation has three steps, although 

a clear drainage channel was not identified (Mullins and Mazar 

suggested this, on the basis of the elevations, that the water was 

filled rather than drained through the existing channel). Other 

similar examples are from Palace II at Tell el-‘Ajjul (about 

2 × 2 m in size; Petrie, 1932: pls. XLIV, XLVI: Unit OH, dated to 

the Middle Bronze Age) and Alalakh, Level IV (Woolley, 1955: 

fig. 45; see also Mullins and Mazar, 2007:180).

In addition, examples of deep, stone-lined sumps with stone 

conduits leading to them appear at MBIIB Aphek (Stratum X16, 

Palace III, in a plastered hall as a part of a gutter system; Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009:27, fig. 2.34) and possibly LBII Hazor, Stratum 

IA, Area I (Yadin et al., 1961: pl. CXLI:2, Room 5013; also possibly in Area C, Stratum III, Yadin et al., 1960: fig. 4, Room 

6103 with a drainage channel); however, these are probably installations of a different function as they drain open areas rather 

than enclosed rooms. The plastered installations at Tell Jemmeh 

Field I may indicate the affluent nature of the residents of the 

LBII building or may attest to a special public or ritual use of 

these spaces, although there is no further evidence for such functions arising from the finds (see discussion below). 

Units D1–D3

The northern section or wing of Building I was excavated 

in Sqs. 3G–5G and the southern edge of Sqs. 4H and 5H and 

to time. This was either a bath for personal use or some kind 

of industrial, ritual, or agricultural installation. This type of 

installation of a rounded, hollow stone structure adjacent and 

connected to an outer wall and a room (with plastered walls) appears elsewhere in this area: in the north of Room H of Building 

II in Sq. 5D, just about 5 m to the south (Feature 1A in Sq. 5D; 

see Figures 6.119, 6.120). 

Parallels for such installations are rare in the Late Bronze 

Age. The best parallel seems to come from Strata XV and XIV in 

Area G at LBII Ashdod (Dothan and Porath, 1993:43, 47, Plan 

6, pls. 7:3, 8:2,3, Room 4165/Pool 4162 and Sump 4160). There, 

a small rectangular plastered room was uncovered (about 3 × 

1.4 m inner size); it was located in the corner of a building (denoted by the excavators as “Governor’s Residence”) and drained 

into a 2.5-m-deep stone-lined sump located seemingly outside 

the building in an open area. The installation from Ashdod is 

defined there as a pool for water collection, although further interpretation is not suggested. Although the location and shape of 

the Jemmeh installation are similar to that of Ashdod, the entire 

building is different in its plan, as the latter is not a courtyard 

building but is built in a typical governor’s residence plan (see 

below and Oren, 1992); notably, however, the Tell Jemmeh LBII 

example is probably contemporary with Ashdod Stratum XV. 

At Beth Shean (LBII, Stratum R-1) a 2.2 × 4.3 m installation in a corner of a building is also interpreted as a bathroom 

(Mullins and Mazar, 2007:178–180, fig. 3.26, photos 3.116, 

FIGURE 6.55. Tabun, Feature 5 in Room B, Building I, from above.
248 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 249

FIGURE 6.56. Finds from Room B. Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 4133/2 GMI 1F F3 (1)

b Bowl 4128/3 GMI 1F F5 (1)

c Bowl 4128/2 GMI 1F F5 (1)

d Bowl 4133/1 GMI 1F F3 (1)

e Bowl 4133/3 GMI 1F F3 (1)

f Bowl 4128/1 GMI 1F F5 (1)

g Krater 4133/4 GMI 1F F3 (1)

h Bowl/kylix; red decoration box 329 GMI F3 (1)

i Cooking pot; soot 4133/6 GMI 1F F3 (1)

j Cooking pot 4133/5 GMI 1F F3 (1)

k Jar/jug 4129/2 GMI 1F F5 (2)

l Jar 4129/1 GMI 1F F5 (2)

m Pithos; plastic decoration 4147/1 GMI 1F F5 (1)

n Lamp? 4128/4 GMI 1F F5 (1)

o Spout? 4128/5 GMI 1F F5 (1)

p Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 558/1 GMI 1F F2 (2)/4D (3)

q Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 598/1 GMI 1F F2

FIGURE 6.57. Stone paving in Room C, with plastered area 

in the rear (note stone foundation under plaster), looking east.
250 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.58. Plastered area in Room C, Building I (“Rm A” in picture), looking south; note drainage hole on 

the left.

FIGURE 6.59. Plastered area in Room C, Building I, with a close up on the drainage hole, looking SE.
NUMBER 50 • 251

FIGURE 6.60. Upper phase of plastered Room C (in front), 

looking west.

FIGURE 6.61. Stone channel of the sump, Feature 2 in Sq. 5E, prior to excavation.
252 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.63. The sump, Feature 2 in Sqs. 5E–6E, as excavated from the side.

FIGURE 6.62. Stone channel, drainage, and upper sump of Sq. 5E, Feature 2, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 253

FIGURE 6.64. The sump, Feature 2 in Sqs. 5E–6E, as excavated from the side; note plastered drainage.

FIGURE 6.65. The sump, Feature 2 in Sq. 5E, after excavation, from the inside, looking south.
254 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

this may well have been a continuation of the courtyard to the 

north. This area is lower in the east and slopes up gradually to 

the west (see Figure 6.71) from a height of 51.03 to 51.50 m; 

this creates a “step” between this paving and the Courtyard 

A paving. The exposed paving of Unit D1 likely represents a 

lower phase. Hardly any pottery was recorded from this area: 

possibly, as in Courtyard A, the paved surfaces were rather 

clean of finds.

Another paved area to the northwest of Courtyard A was 

excavated to an extent of 4.5 × 0.7 m in Sqs. 3F–4F and was 

denoted Unit D2 (Figure 6.75); as noted, it might have been connected to Unit D1. The eastern 1.5 m section is, however, paved 

in a different style of smaller pebbles (10–20 cm in size), and 

this may indicate a lower paving phase of this area (level 51.07–

51.24 m; denoted as Wall 5 of Sq. 4F); the fact that this paved 

patch ends in the west in a straight line may indicate there was a 

narrow separation wall between the two paved areas in Unit D2. 

Unit D3 is an unpaved area north of Unit D1, about 1.3 × 4 m 

in size in Sq. 5F, continuing to the north in Sq. 5G. Apparently, 

includes Units or Rooms D1–D3, L, M, N, and O (Figures 6.92, 

6.98; see below). This area was excavated mostly in the 1977 

season and includes a north–south corridor, 1 m wide, flanked by 

Units D3 and M to the east and Unit L to the west and leading to 

Rooms N and O in the north. An interesting phenomenon is the 

abundance of tabun installations and the use (and preservation) 

of wooden beams as thresholds (see below).

Units D1–D3 are three rectangular units or rooms located 

to the north of Courtyard A (Figures 6.34, 6.74–6.76): Unit D1 

to the east, Unit D2 to the west, and Unit D3 to the north of 

unit D1. Only Unit D1 was nearly completely excavated (Figures 6.50, 6.74) and is defined in Sqs. 4F and 5F by Wall 4 in 

the south and Wall 3 in the east; the western wall was not preserved (or the space continues into Unit D2 without a division), 

and its northern edge is defined by the line of stone paving. This 

is a 5.7 × 2.2 m space that is connected to Courtyard A through 

a passage in Wall 4 (Figures 6.71, 6.73); the entire area is paved 

with flat stones at levels of 51.23–51.35 m (Figures 6.50, 6.71, 

6.74), similar to the paving of the main courtyard, indicating 

FIGURE 6.66. Plaster fragments from the area of Room C: (a) SCI 103, GMI 4E (2), and (b) SCI 122, GMI 4E–4F.
NUMBER 50 • 255

body fragment of a quadruped zoomorphic vessel (see, e.g., BenShlomo, 2008b).

Room E

To the west of Courtyard A, Room E is delineated in Sq. 

2F by Wall 2 in the east, the western continuation of Wall 5 in 

the north, and Wall 3 in the west (the western wall of Building 

I). The southern wall of the room, probably eroded, was not 

excavated but can be assumed according to the position of the 

western continuation of the southern wall of Building I in Sq. 

2E. Room E was only partially excavated in a 3.5 m section of 

Sq. 2F as well as in Sq. 1F and the western Wall 3, seen in a 2 

m segment between Sqs. 2F and 1F; however, it can probably be 

reconstructed as a 5.5 × 3 m rectangular room. The floor of the 

room seems to have been a beaten earth one, yet some thin, flat 

this was a narrow room, 4.5 × 1.2 m (Figures 6.75, 6.76, 6.91), 

and was defined in Sq. 5G by Wall 7 in the south, Wall 8 in the 

east, Wall 4 in the north, and Feature 1 in the west. Note that 

the walls were poorly preserved, with only a few bricks defined, 

and thus, they are mostly outlined according to the contour of 

the bricky material. The floor reached was a beaten earth floor at 

a height of 51.09–51.19 m. The entrance to Room D3 was from 

the west through a corridor (Figure 6.75 on the left); the paved 

area to the southwest and west of Unit D3 indicated there was a 

paved passage between Courtyard A, the paved (courtyard) Unit 

D, and the northern section of the building (see below). 

Pottery sherds from Room D3 or from the corridor (Figure 

6.68) include several open and rounded bowls (Figure 6.68a–

g; Figure 6.68e is black burnished, possibly covered by soot), 

a possible flask (Figure 6.68h), and a zoomorphic fragment 

(Figure 6.68i); this fragment is a leg attached to a wheel-made 

FIGURE 6.67. Finds from Room C.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 2945/1 GMI TTC (3) 3

b Bowl 4180/1 GMI TTC (3) 3

c Bowl 2737/1 GMI TTC (3) 3

d Bowl 2946/2 GMI TTC (3) 3

e Bowl 2946/1 GMI TTC (3) 3

f Krater 2946/3 GMI TTC (3) 3

g Jar 2946/6 GMI TTC (3) 3

h Scoop? 2946/5 GMI TTC (3) 3

i Jug; decoration RV 281 GMI 4F TTC (5) 3?
256 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.69. Pottery from Room E. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; soot 4196/1 GMI 1F (11) 1

b Bowl 4193/1 GMI 1F (12) 1

c Bowl 4196/3 GMI 1F (11)

d Bowl 4195/3 GMI 1F (12)

e Bowl 4196/2 GMI 1F (11)

f Bowl 4195/1 GMI 1F (12)

g Bowl 4196/4 GMI 1F (11)

h Bowl 4198/1 GMI 1F (11) 1 

i Bowl 4193/3 GMI 1F (12) 1

j Bowl 4198/3 GMI 1F (11) 1 

k Bowl 4198/2 GMI 1F (11) 1 

l Bowl 4195/2 GMI 1F (12)

m Bowl/krater 4196/5 GMI 1F (11)

n Bowl/krater 4199/1 GMI 1F (11)

o Bowl (Cypriot Monochrome?) Box 145 GMI 1F (11)

p Krater 4146/1 GMI 1F (11)

q Krater 4198/4 GMI 1F (11) 1 

r Krater? 4193/4 GMI 1F (12) 1

s Krater/basin 4200/1 GMI 1F (10)

t Cooking pot 4195/5 GMI 1F (12)

u Cooking pot 4195/4 GMI 1F (12)

v Chalice(?); white slip 4197/1 GMI 1F (11) 1

FIGURE 6.68. Pottery from Rooms D1–D3.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl 4261/2 GMI 4G (3) 2 Corridor/D3?

b Bowl 3933/1 GMI 5G (1) 5 Room D3

c Bowl 3925/1 GMI 5G (2) 5 Room D3

d Bowl 3933/2 GMI 5G (1) 5 Room D3

e Bowl; black burnish 3925/2 GMI 5G (2) 5 Room D3

f Bowl 3925/3 GMI 5G (2) 5 Room D3

g Bowl 4261/1 GMI 4G (3) 2 Corridor/D3?

h Flask? 3933/3 GMI 5G (1) 5 Room D3

i Zoomorphic vessel 3925/4 GMI 5G (2) 5 Room D3
NUMBER 50 • 257

mostly in Sq. 2F, were registered as layers of Sq. 1F). This includes 

typical forms of rounded and carinated bowls (Figure 6.69a–l), 

kraters (Figure 6.69m–n,p–q), cooking pots (Figure 6.69t,u), a 

possible chalice fragment (Figure 6.69v), several jars fragments 

(Figure 6.70a–c,h), and a jug and a juglet (Figure 6.70d–g). A 

large, wide, flat, and thick base (Figure 6.69s) may belong to 

a basin or a large krater (see, possibly, Ashdod, Stratum XII 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.28:6] and Stratum XI 

[Dothan and Porath, 1993:107, fig. 41:5], yet this form is related 

to the Aegean lekane form there). Also found here are a fragment of a decorated Bichrome jug (Figure 6.70i; see a parallel 

fragments of plaster found in the room (SCI 174, GMI 1F, Layer 

12, Locus 1) may indicate plaster flooring (or wall coating); it 

may be that the actual floor was not reached in the excavation. 

In Sq. 1F, a section was made under the westernmost wall of the 

building (Wall 3) in Room E, seen in the south and north sections, with a “mortar” line on the outer face of the wall (see possibly Figure 6.149). A test trench excavated here in 1977 (Layers 

13, 14) seems to have yielded remains from Phase 4. 

A relatively larger assemblage of pottery was seemingly recovered from Room E and the fill above it (Figures 6.69, 6.70; 

for some reason most of the layers relating to Room E, located 
258 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.70. Pottery and finds from Room E. Cyp. WSh = Cypriot White Shaved ware; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = 

Cypriot White Slip II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar; gritty clay 4146/2 GMI 1F (11)

b Jar 4195/7 GMI 1F (12)

c Jug/jar 4196/6 GMI 1F (11)

d Jug/pyxis 4200/2 GMI 1F (10)

e Jug 4198/6 GMI 1F (11) 1 

f Juglet 4196/7 GMI 1F (11)

g Juglet; burnish RV 282 GMI 1F (12)

h Jar; white slip 1873/1 GMI 1F (12)

i Sherd; red and black decoration box 326 GMI 1F (12) 1

j Juglet (Cyp. WSh) 4198/1 GMI 1F (11) 1 

k Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 691 GMI 1F (11)

l Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 597 GMI 1F (12) 1

m Incised jar handle Reg. No. 2007 GMI 1F (12)
NUMBER 50 • 259

FIGURE 6.72. Plan of higher Phase 3A (or Phase 2) elements in area of Unit D2.

FIGURE 6.71. Unit D1 with paving, looking east; on far left Unit D3; note gap 

(drainage or beam?) on left.
260 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.73. The northern section of Building I during excavations, looking NE.

FIGURE 6.74. The northern section of Building I (Sqs. 4G, 4H, 5G, 5H), with Units L (front) and M (rear), Units D3 

and D1 (paved, right), and Rooms N–O (left), looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 261

FIGURE 6.75. Room D3, looking north, with paved Unit D2 in the front and Units M1, M2, and corridor in the rear.

FIGURE 6.76. Debris in Room D3 with jar base 

(Layer 1, Locus 5 in Sq. 5G).
262 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.78. Close-up of wooden beam in entrance to Unit L.

FIGURE 6.77. Wooden beam in entrance to Unit L, Sq. 4G, Feature 3, looking 

north.
NUMBER 50 • 263

FIGURE 6.79. Eastern part of Unit L, looking east, with the tabun, Feature 2, on the left and tabun remains, Feature 4, on the right and the entrance to the unit in between.

FIGURE 6.80. Close-up of the tabun, Feature 2, in eastern Unit 2, Sq. 4G, looking NE.
264 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.82. Bottom layer of the tabun, Feature 2 in eastern Unit 2, Sq. 4G, with shell and pottery, 

looking NE.

FIGURE 6.81. Tabun, Feature 2 in eastern Unit 2, Sq. 4G, after excavation.
NUMBER 50 • 265

6.84, 6.85) and a lower phase that has a slightly more southern 

orientation. The western wall was either eroded or lies in the 

unexcavated area (probably Sq. 2G, or this area could have been 

open from the west). Thus, the unit, which was probably an open 

area, measures internally at least 3.7 × 8.5 m. The entrance to the 

unit was from a corridor lying to the east in between Walls 2 and 

3. In the 1.1-m-wide entrance to the room, remains of a wooden 

beam were found (Feature 3, Figures 6.77, 6.78, elevation of 

51.31 m). In Unit L, there are at least four tabuns, three in the 

eastern side (Sq. 4G, Feature 2, and Sq. 4H, Features 4 and 11, 

Figure 6.79) and one on the western side (Figure 6.79, Feature 

2 of Sq. 3G). It is suggested that these two features comprised a 

pair of a bread oven (Sq. 4G, Feature 2; chapter 9, Cat. No. 20) 

and a cooking hearth (Sq. 4H, Feature 11; see chapter 9, Cat. 

No. 22). The tabuns, or ovens, may have been at least partially 

dug into ground; Features 4 and 11 may be late (belonging to an 

from Aphek, Stratum X14, Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8.33:1), 

fragments of a Cypriot White Shaved juglet (Figure 6.70j), a WS 

milk bowl (Figure 6.70l), and a BR jug (Figure 6.70k). A bowl 

with a broken handle may be a Cypriot Monochrome ware bowl 

(Figure 6.69o; see chapter 11). Also illustrated is a tristrand strap 

handle (Figure 6.70e) probably belonging to a jug that is residual 

from MBIIB-C levels (see Field III). An incised jar handle (Figure 

6.70m) also comes from Room E.

Unit L

Unit L in Sqs. 3G and 4G (Figures 6.77–6.90) is delineated 

by Wall 1 in the south, Walls 3 and 2 in the east, and Wall 12 

to the north (shared with Rooms N and O and not excavated in 

its western part). Wall 1 seems to have an upper phase related to 

a 1.15-m-long bench (Feature 5 in Sq. 3G, Figures 6.34, 6.79, 

FIGURE 6.83. Tabun, Feature 11 in Sq. 4H, Unit L, looking west.

FIGURE 6.84. Western Unit L in Sq. 3G with the brick installation 

(Feature 1) in front and the tabun (Feature 2) in the rear, looking 

west.
266 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.86. Pottery from Unit L. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 4259/1 GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L (entrance)

b Bowl 4394/2 GMI 4G F2 3(B) Unit L

c Bowl 4270/1 GMI 4G (3) 1 3 Unit L

d Bowl 4262/2 GMI 4G (2) 1 3 Unit L

e Bowl 4259/2 GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L entrance

f Bowl 4281/1 GMI 3G (1A) 3(A) Unit L

g Bowl 4279/1 GMI 3G (1) 3 Unit L

h Bowl 4279/2 GMI 3G (1) 3 Unit L

i Bowl; soot 4281/3 GMI 3G (1A) 3(A) Unit L

j Bowl 4394/1 GMI 4G F2 3(B) Unit L

k Bowl 4275/1 GMI 3G (2) 3 Unit L?

l Bowl 4393/1 GMI 4G (2) 1 3 Unit L

m Bowl 4279/3 GMI 3G (1) 3 Unit L

n Bowl 4305/1 GMI 3G (3) 1 3/4? Unit L

o Bowl 5084/2 GMI 3G F5 3? Unit L? (bench)

P Bowl 4259/3 GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L entrance

q Bowl 4281/2 GMI 3G (1A) 3(A) Unit L

r Bowl 4262/1 GMI 4G (2) 1 3 Unit L

s Bowl 4259/4 GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L entrance

t Bowl 3908/1 GMI 4G (2) 1 3 Unit L

u Bowl 4399/1 GMI 4G F4 3(A?) Unit L

v Bowl 4270/2 GMI 4G (3) 1 3 Unit L

FIGURE 6.85. Western Unit L in Sq. 3G with the brick installation (Feature 1) in the rear and the tabun (Feature 2) in the front, from above, 

looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 267

lower part is preserved at an elevation of 51.44–51.54 m, and it 

was possibly 0.7 m in diameter.

To the far west of Unit L in Sq. 3G, another large tabun was 

excavated (Figures 6.84, 6.85, bottom, Feature 2; just to the east 

of this tabun, the stratigraphic trench of Sq. 3G was excavated); 

this is a 0.9 m tabun that is almost completely preserved but lies 

higher (at 51.61–51.97 m) and possibly represents a local upper 

phase. It is lined with stones at its base and by sherds along its 

outer face (Figure 6.85; see also chapter 9). Just to the east of the 

tabun in the upper phase in Sq. 3G, Feature 1 was discovered. 

Feature 1 is an installation composed of bricks forming a half 

upper phase, 3A?) as their lower part is higher. In the northeast 

of Unit L, two tabuns are located side by side. In the NE corner, 

Feature 2 is a complete tabun/oven, 0.8 m in diameter, probably 

somewhat dug from the floor level (levels of 51.18–51.34 m); 

the fill inside it is rich in seeds and includes a conch shell and a 

bowl base (Figure 6.82), as well as several cooking pots (Figure 

6.87i–m) and a miniature vessel (Figure 6.88m). To the west, 

part of a smaller tabun, Feature 11 (Figure 6.83), is only 0.7 m 

in diameter and located near the entrance to Room O (Figures 

6.81, 6.98) at level 51.57 m. In the southeast corner of Unit L, 

there are probably remains of another tabun, Feature 4; only its 
268 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.87. Pottery from Unit L.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 5084/3 GMI 3G F5 3? Unit L? (bench)

b Bowl 5084/1 GMI 3G F5 3? Unit L? (bench)

c Bowl 4276/1 GMI 3G (2) 1 3(B?) Unit L

d Krater 4270/3 GMI 4G (3) 1 3 Unit L

e Krater 4396/1 GMI 4G (1) 1 3 Unit L?

f Krater 4396/3 GMI 4G (1) 1 3 Unit L?

g Basin/krater base? 4396/2 GMI 4G (1) 1 3 Unit L?

h Krater; soot 4252A/2 GMI 4G F11 3(A?) Unit L

i Cooking pot 3965/1 GMI 4G (1) 1 3 Unit L?

j Cooking pot 4305/2 GMI 3G (3) 1 3/4? Unit L

k Cooking pot 4394/4 GMI 4G F2 3(B) Unit L

l Cooking pot 4289/1 GMI 3G F2 (1) 3(A?) Unit L 

m Cooking pot 4281/4 GMI 3G (1A) 3A Unit L

n Cooking pot 4394/3 GMI 4G F2 3B Unit L
NUMBER 50 • 269

FIGURE 6.88. Pottery from Unit L.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jar 4270/4 GMI 4G (3) 1 3

b Jar 4399/2 GMI 4G F4 3(A?)

c Jar/jug 4394/5 GMI 4G F2 3B 

d Jar 1648/2 GMI 3G F2 3(A?)

e Jar 4252A/1 GMI 4G F11 3(A?)

f Jar 4252A/3 GMI 4G F11 3(A?)

g Jar 1648/1 GMI 3G F2 3(A?)

h Jar? 4305/5 GMI 3G (3) 1 3/4?

i Jar(?); red and white decoration 3962/1 GMI 4G F2 3(B) 

j Lamp; soot 4393/2 GMI 4G (2) 1 3

k Lamp; soot 4393/1a GMI 4G (2) 1 3

l Lamp 4289/2 GMI 3G F2 (1) 3(A?)

m Handmade miniature vessel RV 67 GMI 4G F2 3(B) 

n Decorated sherd (zoomorphic vessel?) 4281/5 GMI 3G (1A) 3(A)
270 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.89. Finds from Unit L. Cyp. WSh = Cypriot White Shaved ware; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII 

= Cypriot White Slip II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 719/1 GMI 3G (3) 1 3/4? Unit L

b Jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 719/2 GMI 3G (3) 1 3/4? Unit L

c Jug (Cypriot?) Box 732/1 GMI 4G (4) 1 3/4? Unit L?

d Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 731/1 GMI 4G (3) 1 3 Unit L

e Bowl (Cyp. BRII) Box 659/1 GMI 3G (2) 1 3(B?) Unit L

f Bowl base (Cyp. BRII) Box 732/2 GMI 4G (4) 1 3/4? Unit L?

g Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 626/1 GMI 3G (1A) 1 3(A) Unit L

h Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 625/1 GMI 3G (1) 1 3 Unit L

i Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 628/1 GMI 3G (2) 1 3(B?) Unit L

j Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 627/1 GMI 3G (2) 1 3(B?) Unit L

k Juglet (Cyp. WSh) 4393/3 GMI 4G (2) 1 3 Unit L

l Perforated worked sherd (base of jug) Reg. No. 1700 GMI 4G F2 3(B)(in tabun) Unit L

m Incised rim Reg. No. 2010 GMI 3G W1 3 Unit L
NUMBER 50 • 271

FIGURE 6.91. Corridor in northern Building I, Sq. 5G, looking south, with paving in Unit M2 on the left and Room D3 in the rear.

FIGURE 6.90. Stone finds from Unit L: (a) Reg. No. 

928, (b) Reg. No. 843, and (c) Reg. No. 999 (see 

chapter 23).
272 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.92. Northern Building I, Sq. 5G: Units M1 (rear) and M1 (front) with the threshold and wooden beam 

(Feature 7) separating them; on the left, Wall 6 and brick paving (Feature 9), looking east.

FIGURE 6.93. Close-up of wooden beam, Feature 7 in Unit M, Sq. 5G, 

looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 273

FIGURE 6.95. Paved area (Feature 8A) in Unit M2, Sq. 5G, looking west.

FIGURE 6.94. Units M1 (right) and M2 (left), looking south.
274 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 275

FIGURE 6.97. Pottery and finds from Unit M2. Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware; Myc. = Mycenaean.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl 3934/2 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

b Miniature bowl? 3934/1 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

c Bowl 3934/3 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

d Jar 3934/4 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

e Krater (Myc. IIIB) Box 765/1 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

f Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 651/1-2 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

g Lamp 3934/5 GMI 5G (1) 4 Unit M2

h Incised jar handle Reg. No. 3816 GMI 5G (2) 4 Unit M1/M2

FIGURE 6.96. Pottery and finds from Unit M1. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Myc. = Mycenaean. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 3923/2 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

b Bowl 3922/1 GMI 5G (3) 3 3 Unit M1

c Bowl 3927/1 GMI 5G (1) 3 3 Unit M1

d Bowl 4296/1 GMI 4G (2) 3 3(A?) Corridor/M1

e Bowl 3923/3 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

f Bowl 3922/2 GMI 5G (3) 3 3 Unit M1

g Bowl 3923/1 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

h Bowl 4263/1 GMI 3G (3) 1 3 Corridor/M1

i Bowl/krater 3923/4 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

j Krater/cooking pot 3927/2 GMI 5G (1) 3 3 Unit M1

k Chalice? 3923/5 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

l Jug/flask? 4263/2 GMI 3G (3) 1 3 Corridor/M1

m Jar 4296/2 GMI 4G (2) 3 3(A?) Corridor/M1

n Jug (Cyp. BRII) 3927/3 GMI 5G (1) 3 3 Unit M1

o Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 656/1 GMI 4G (3) 1 3 Corridor/M1

p Bowl; red decoration (imitation of Cyp. BRII?) Box 391/1 GMI 5G (2) 3 3 Unit M1

q Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 736/1 GMI 5G (1) 3 3 Unit M1

r Amphoriskos/pyriform jar (Myc. IIIA:2) Box 770/1 GMI 5D (7) 2 3 Corridor/M1
276 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.98. Northern Building I, Sq. 4H: Room O on the left with wooden beam (marked “W”; Feature 12) and 

Unit L with the tabuns, Features 11 (front) and 2 (rear), on the right, looking east.

FIGURE 6.99. Room N, looking south, with entrance in the rear and tabun (Sq. 4G, Feature 2) in the far right corner.
NUMBER 50 • 277

about 4 cm long, that looks like a small lamp (also found in the 

tabun in Sq. 4G, Feature 2). This may be a votive vessel. Other 

finds from Unit L include a leg or horn of a figurine (Reg. No. 

1269), an incised rim (Figure 6.89 m), and a worked sherd (Figure 6.89l) found in a tabun (Sq. 4G, Feature 2). Several groundstone items found in Unit L (Figure 6.90) could also indicate 

food preparation activities. These include a large basalt upper 

grinding stone (Figure 6.90a) and a flint rubber (Figure 6.90b); 

a limestone pivot stone may have been a door socket (of the 

entrance to Unit L?; Figure 6.90c; for further discussion on the 

stone objects, see chapter 23).

Unit M

Across the corridor to the east of Unit L, Unit M was defined (Figures 6.91–6.95) and is located between Room D3 in the 

south and Room N in the north, a 2.7 m wide space mostly in 

Sq. 5G. As noted, this area possibly served as a side entrance to 

the building. The western part, delineated by Wall 4 in the south, 

Wall 6 in the east, and Wall 5 in the north, was denoted as Unit 

M1. This is a 2.7 × 2.0 m space, probably an open area, with a 

layer of three rows of bricks in the north that probably served as 

a small brick paving (Feature 9, Figure 6.92) adjoining with Wall 

5 at a level of 51.43–51.53 m. In the east there is a 1.2-m-wide 

circle (about 1.2 m in diameter; Figure 6.85, center) attached 

to Wall 1. This may be a bin similar to that found in Room 1 

of Phase 1 (see Figure 6.132) but is smaller. Also in Sq. 3G are 

ashy debris and floor levels at levels of 51.16–51.52 m (Layers 

2–3, Locus 1).

A relatively large amount of pottery was found in Unit L 

(Figures 6.86–6.89). A large array of open, rounded and carinated bowls were found here (Figures 6.86, 6.87a–c, though 

none complete), as well as krater bases (Figure 6.87g,h), cooking 

pots (Figure 6.87i–m), jars (Figure 6.88a–h), and lamps (Figure 

6.88j–l); several vessels have soot marks (such as Figures 6.86i, 

6.87h) and were recovered from within or in the vicinity of the 

tabuns (e.g., cooking pots from Sq. 4G, Feature 2, Figure 6.87k, 

n). Several fragments of large kraters were also found (a rim with 

a handle, Figure 6.87d–g, including a coarse flat base [Figure 

6.87g] and a thick, rounded rim [Figure 6.87f]). Large body fragments of a closed vessel (Figure 6.88i), possibly a jar or an amphora, show white painted bands on its shoulder. Several sherds 

of imported Cypriot pottery include a White Shaved juglet (Figure 6.89k), WS milk bowls (Figure 6.89g–j), and BRII bowls 

and jugs (Figure 6.89a–f; see chapter 11). An irregularly shaped 

(handmade?) curved fragment (Figure 6.88n) is decorated by 

thick brown bands and may be a body fragment of a zoomorphic 

vessel. Also notable is a small handmade vessel (Figure 6.88m), 

FIGURE 6.100. Plaster fragments from Room N (SCI 266, two fragments; GM 5H (1) 6).
278 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 279

FIGURE 6.101. Pottery and finds from Rooms N and O. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware. 

(opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl 5959/2 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

b Bowl 5959/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

c Bowl 3913/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

d Bowl 3912/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

e Bowl/krater 3912/3 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

f Cooking pot 5954/1 GMI 5H (1) Room N

g Jar 3914/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

h Jar 3915/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

i Jar 5959/3 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

j Jug 3916/1 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

k Bilbil jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 559 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

l Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 657 GMI 5H (1) Room N

m Worked sherd (unfinished drilling) Reg. No. 6003 GMI 5H (2) 6 Room N

n Bronze tool Reg. No. 1329 GMI 5H (1) 6 Room N

o Bowl 3948/1 GMI 4H (1) 7 Room O

p Bowl 3948/2 GMI 4H (1) 7 Room O

q Perforated worked sherd Reg. No. 1926 GMI 4H (2) 7 Room O

FIGURE 6.102. Room O, looking south toward entrance 

and tabun, Feature 2 of Unit L (Layer 1, Locus 7).
280 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

a jar neck, a lamp (Figure 6.97d,g), and a Cypriot WS milk bowl 

(Figure 6.97f) were found, along with an incised jar handle (Figure 6.97h). 

Room N

The most northern unit of Building I excavated is Room N 

(Figures 6.98–6.101) in Sq. 5H. It is delineated by Wall 5 in the 

south, Wall 9 in the east, Wall 13 in the north, and Wall 10 in the 

west; in the SW corner, Wall 12 continues Wall 5. Wall 9 is thicker 

than the other 1-m-thick walls (Figure 6.99, left), although the 

northern faces of these walls were eroded. The entrance to the 

room was from the corridor to the south, a 0.7 m opening in Wall 

5 (with doorjamb noted). The inner dimensions of this completely 

excavated room are 3.3 × 2.2 m; the floor level was grayish and 

uneven and was lower in the center at 51.33–51.49 m (Locus 

6, Layer 2). On the floor and above it (Locus 6, Layer 1), large 

fragments of plaster were found, flat on one side and with depressions/dents or wide grooves on the other side (Figure 6.100, SCI 

266, SCI 344, SCI 8); the plaster is coarse, with small pebbles inside. This could have been the remains of some kind of floor paving or an installation lined with plaster (similar fragments were 

passage, paved with flat pebbles, and the threshold itself was 

preserved with a 1.15-m-long wooden beam at a height of 51.33 

m (Figure 6.93), occupying the entire gap between Walls 4 and 

6 (Figure 6.92). To the east of this threshold lies another space, 

defined as Unit M2 (Figure 6.94, left), that is at least 3.5 × 2.5 m 

in size; most of this area is paved by flat pebbles of various sizes 

(Feature 8A, Figure 6.95, 51.46 m). This area may actually be 

outside the building. In the north, a long bench or brick installation is attached to Wall 6 (Feature 5, level of 51.70 m); the feature, about 1.8 × 0.7 m in size, is built from flat lying and upright 

standing bricks and may be plastered from the outside (Figure 

6.94, lower left). In the south, between the paved area (Feature 

8A) and Wall 4, another small bench made of two bricks was 

excavated (Feature 8). 

Pottery from Unit M1 (Figure 6.96) includes rounded and 

carinated bowls (Figure 6.96a–h), kraters, a jar base, and a jug 

or flask (Figure 6.96l). A high base (Figure 6.96k) is made of 

whitish clay and may belong to a chalice or a redeposited pedestal bowl fragment(?) from the MBIIB-C. Sherds of a Mycenaean 

amphoriskos/pyriform jar (Figure 6.96r, dated in chapter 11 to 

the LHIIIA:2) and Cypriot imports (Figure 6.96n–q) were also 

found. In Unit M2, only a few bowl fragments (Figure 6.97a–c), 

FIGURE 6.103. Reconstruction of Building I (prepared by Brian Lalor).
NUMBER 50 • 281

as several unique finds that deserve special attention. The lower 

part of a wall bracket (Figure 6.107a), made of yellowish clay, 

includes the flat back wall and curved foot. Another fragment of 

a wall bracket was found in a Phase 3 context (Figure 6.126d). 

This is a handmade artifact of Cypriot origin, well known in the 

LBII southern Levant (see Panitz-Cohen, 2006b). It was possibly 

used as a lighting device and had certain cultic characteristics 

(Maran, 2004:12); these items are also found in the Mycenaean 

world, especially at Tiryns, providing evidence of contact with 

the Levant during the 13th century BCE. The two examples cited 

are the only ones known from Tell Jemmeh (but see another possible example in Petrie, 1928: pl. LXII: W173). 

Several items relating to metallurgical activities were also 

found in this area, including a tuyère nozzle fragment with a 

triangular section, which was used for inserting air into a copper furnace (Figure 6.107c; see further discussion in chapter 19). 

In addition, several crucible fragments were found with remains 

found near Room C, possibly in relation to the pool there; see 

Figure 6.66). This shaping of plaster may have been formed with 

thick protrusions in order to apply it to a certain foundation (of 

flat stones or bricks located on the underside), making the plaster 

fit in the crevices between the stones (for similar plaster fragments 

used for wall, ceiling, and floor construction, see Tel Dan, Iron I, 

Stratum V; Ilan, 2011:139, fig. 5a–c). 

On the floor of Room N, a complete rounded bowl (Figure 6.101d) and a complete large slightly carinated bowl (Figure 

6.101c) were found. The rest of the assemblage consist of sherds, 

although large portion of vessels were often reconstructed, such 

as rounded bowls (Figure 6.101a,b,e), jar bases (Figure 6.101g,h), 

and a jug (Figure 6.101j). A very shallow and open handmade 

vessel with straw inclusions (not illustrated; Bag 3913/2) may 

be a platter; Cypriot imports include a milk bowl and Base Ring 

jug (Figure 6.101k,l) as well as a worked sherd (Figure 6.101m) 

and a bronze tool (Figure 6.101n). The area to east of Room N 

included only brick tumble, and no floors were reached.

Room O

To the west of Room N a narrow room or closet was partly 

excavated (Room O, Figures 6.102, 6.101o–q). This is a 3 × 1.2 

space, unexcavated in the northwest, defined by Wall 11 in the 

west and Wall 10 in the east (the northern border is assumed 

according to the continuation of the line of Wall 13). The entrance is from the south side, 1.2 m into Unit L, and is partially 

blocked by a tabun (Feature 2). If this is a closet or storage unit, 

the blocking of the entrance may not have created a problem. 

In the entrance, three bricks were found at a level of 51.70 m, 

having either fallen or been laid as threshold. Inside, a sloping 

wooden beam was also found at a height of 51.62 m (Feature 

12, Figure 6.98; the wood was collected [sample SCI 1477] and 

measured 62 × 11 cm, but it did not survive afterward for further 

analysis), along with another brick; all of these may be fallout of 

shelves located above the floor. Only two bowl fragments and 

a worked sherd (Reg. No. 1926) were identified from Room O 

(Figure 6.101o–q).

The architectural and cultural features of Building I (Figure 

6.103) in its archaeological, chronological, and regional context 

will be discussed further below.

Street J and Area K

Building I and Building II are separated by Street J (Figures 

6.104–6.107), a 1.5-m-wide SE–NW-oriented passage way that 

is at least 6 m long but may well be at least 19 m long according 

to the southern outline of Building I. A large number of plaster 

fragments were found in this area (SCI 1544–SCI 1547); these 

are flat on at least one side, are 2.5–3 cm thick, and contain 

many small pebbles as temper. This indicates that at least at some 

stage the street area was paved with thick plaster. The passage 

way was excavated mostly in Test Trench 1 in Sq. 5D and was 

covered in brick collapse. 

The area of the street yielded various pottery vessels, such 

as bowls, kraters, cooking pots, and jars (Figure 6.106), as well 

FIGURE 6.104. Sq. 4D, Room F of Building II, looking north; Room 

G is on the right, with Street J behind Wall 7 and the courtyard of 

Building I behind it.
282 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.105. Fill in Street J in test trench between Building I (right) 

and Building II (left), looking west.

FIGURE 6.106. Pottery from Street J. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl 2407/1 GMI 5D (7A) 2 Street J

b Bowl 2566/2 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

c Bowl/chalice 2008/1 GMI 5D (8A) Street J

d Bowl 2472A/1 GMI 4D (4) 5 Street J

e Bowl 2407/2 GMI 5D (7A) 2 Street J

f Bowl 2472A/2 GMI 4D (4) 5 Street J

g Bowl 2566 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

h Bowl 2565/1 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

i Bowl 2472A/3 GMI 4D (4) 5 Street J

j Krater/bowl 2565/2 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

k Krater 2431/1 GMI 5D (7C) 2 Street J/Area K

l Krater?; greenish clay (sintered?) 3192/1 GMI 5D (7) Street J

m Cooking pot 2566/3 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

n Cooking pot 2409/1 GMI 5D (7B) 2 Street J

o Jar 2566/4 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J

p Jar/jug 2403/1 GMI 5D (6) 1 Street J

q Jar 2007/1 GMI 5D (8) 2 Street J

r Jar 2045/1 GMI 5D (8B) 3 Street J

s Juglet 2409/2 GMI 5D (7B) 2 Street J

t Jar 2403/2 GMI 5D (6) 1 Street J
NUMBER 50 • 283

(Figure 6.107g). Two additional zoomorphic figurines (Figure 

6.107e,f), found in Sq. 5D, Test Trench 3, Layer 1 may also be 

attributed to this area. Also in the area of Street J a bone (Reg. 

No. 799), a glass bead (Reg. No. 788, see chapter 22), and three 

or four flint sickle blades (FL 334) were found.

Although no area was excavated to the west of Building I, 

the area to the east of Building I was excavated and is denoted 

Area K (Figures 6.108–6.111). This is a large open area, at least 

10 × 5 m, spreading over Sqs. 6D, 6E, and 6F, most of which 

of copper in them (Figure 6.107b,d). Several metal objects were 

also found in the passage way, including a complete bronze arrowhead (Figure 6.107i), a bronze tool (Figure 6.107k), and a 

bronze point (Figure 6.107j). If the wall bracket and the tuyère 

and crucibles (as well as the bronze items) were found in their 

primary context, they may indicate certain special activities, 

such as metal smithing carried out in the passageway/street or 

in its near vicinity. Additional finds from Street J include worked 

sherds (Reg. Nos. 763, 1757) and a zoomorphic figurine leg 
284 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.107. Pottery and small finds from Street J.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Wall bracket RV 68 GMI 5D (7B) 2 3 Street J

b Crucible? (copper remains) 2403/3 GMI 5D (6) 1 3 Street J

c Tuyere Reg. No. 2020 GMI 4D (4) 4 3 Street J

d Crucible; copper remains Reg. No. 199 GMI 5D (7A) 2 3 Street J

e Zoomorphic figurine; soot Reg. No. 1257 (SI Cat. No. 772) GMI 5D TT3 (1) 3? Street J?

f Figurine (bull head?); dark clay Bag 2012 GMI 5D TT3 (1) 3? Street J?

g Figurine Reg. No. 4083 GMI 5D (7B) 2 3 street J

h Baked clay sealing/object Reg. No. 3920 GMI 5D (7C) 3 Street J/Area K

i Bronze arrowhead Reg. No. 1308 (SI Cat. No. 901) GMI 4D (4) 4 3 Street J

j Bronze point Reg. No. 187 GMI 5D (7B) 2 3 Street J

k Bronze tool Reg. No. 195 GMI 4D (4) 4 3 Street J

l Bronze point Reg. No. 174 GMI 5D (7C) 2 3 Street J/Area K
NUMBER 50 • 285

the latter has a finger imprint on the handle), and a flask (Figure 6.122c). The krater shown in Figure 6.121o has a prominent high ring base; a solid, thick, heavy base is also illustrated 

(Figure 6.121x), which may belong to a krater or a basin. Several decorated sherds include a rim sherd with bands (Figure 

6.121m) that probably belongs to a chalice; decorated body 

sherds, probably of biconical jugs (Figure 6.122a,b), show fragmentary motifs painted in red over a white slip. These belong 

to the group of Canaanite-style decorated vessels discussed in 

chapter 10. A rim fragment of a bowl with perforations made 

before firing (Figure 6.121q) may be a strainer (similar to a vessel from Field III, Phase 13; see possible parallel from Iron I 

Dan, Biran, 1992: fig. 117:4). An unusual find is a thick body 

sherd with deep straw(?) imprints made before firing (Figure 

6.122e). Small finds from Room F include a plaque figurine 

fragment (Figure 6.122f), a marked jar handle (Figure 6.122g), 

two clay sealings with scarab impressions (Figure 6.122h,i; both 

impressions were made by scarabs dated to the MBII; see chapter 20), a geometric basalt stone finger seal (Figure 6.122m; see 

also chapter 27, although there dated by Keel to the Iron I), 

and a stone spindle whorl (Figure 6.122l; see chapter 23). Two 

bronze points (Figure 6.122j,k), a bronze sheet (Reg. No. 202), 

and a limestone handstone (Figure 6.122n; chapter 23) were 

also found in Room F (for several beads [Reg. Nos. 766, 815, 

822], see chapter 22, although one seems typologically intrusive). In fact, some of the artifacts found in this room indicate 

administrative activities (i.e., the seal, impressed sealings, and 

marked jar handle). The lack of installations (ovens, pits, bins, 

etc.) in this room may further support such a special function 

for the room.

Room G

In Sq. 5D to the east, Room G is defined by Wall 6 to the 

west, Wall 8 to the north, and Wall 4 to the east; it measures 

at least 2.4 × 2.3 m. The entrance is from the street, through 

the east corner of Wall 8, where a doorjamb was located (Feature 4, at 51.39 m, which may include a burnt beam; Figure 

6.114). A tabun, Feature 3, is located in the northwestern corner 

of the room (Figures 6.113, 6.115–6.117 at a level of 51.98 m). 

The tabun, or oven, is about 0.9 m in diameter, is built into the 

ground, and has a related lined and plastered floor and a sherd 

lining (made from cooking pots and jar fragments) from the outside (see Figures 6.115, 6.116, a section of the oven in Figure 

6.117, and further discussion in chapter 9). 

Pottery from Room G (Figure 6.123) includes several fragmentary carinated and open bowls (Figure 6.123a–e) and several 

large fragments of storage jars (Figure 6.123i–l); a trefoil rim of 

a seemingly warped jug was also found here (Figure 6.123m). 

The relatively large quantity of jars in this room (especially in 

relation to other forms found in it) may indicate one of its functions was a storage room. A fragment of a crucible with copper 

remains (Figure 6.123n, found in Sq. 5D, Layer 6, Locus 1), used 

for melting copper, was also found in the room, as well as a perforated worked sherd (Figure 6.123o).

was not excavated to the floor levels of Phase 3 (although in 

Sq. 6F, lower levels beneath Phase 3 were excavated down to a 

level of 50.24 m). Area K includes two sump installations (Figures 6.63, 6.120; for Feature 1A in Sq. 5D of Building II, see 

below), as well as a patch of stone paving near Walls 3 and 4 

in Sqs. 6E–6F to the east of Unit D. The paving is composed of 

a layer of pebbles spread over an area of 2.2 × 1.5 m (Figure 

6.110) at a height of 51.51–51.65 m (denoted as Feature 2 in 

Sq. 6F and Feature 4 in Sq. 6E). The pottery in Area K (Figures 

6.108, 6.109) includes sherds from the debris on floor levels as 

well as lower levels in Sq. 6F that could be below floor levels 

(these are denoted as Phase 3/4). The pottery includes open and 

rounded bowls (Figure 6.108a–k), kraters and cooking pots (Figure 6.108m–s), and juglet fragments (Figure 6.109c,d); a nearly 

complete, very small black juglet (Figure 6.109b) and a bronze 

arrowhead (Figure 6.109g) were also possibly found in Area K. 

In addition, several finds from Sq. 6E, Layers 1 and 2 may possibly be attributed to Area K in Phase 3 (or 4?), yet no records on 

these contexts were found. These finds include what seems to be 

a jar rim with an unusual gritty fabric (Figure 6.109a; the fabric, 

with coarse reddish grits, somewhat resembles Minoan coarse 

fabrics), an unclear handmade fragment (Figure 6.109e), a Mycenaean zoomorphic figurine leg (Figure 6.109f), a bronze tool 

(Figure 6.109h), a bronze adze (Figure 6.109i), and two crucibles 

(Reg. Nos. 2022, 2023; see chapters 19 and 21).

BUILDING II

Building II, lying to the south of Building I in Sqs. 4D and 

5D (Figures 6.112–6.124), is the other building that can be securely assigned to Field I, Phase 3. Only the northern (or northwestern?) part of Building II was excavated and included three 

partial rooms: Rooms F, G, and H (Figures 6.112, 6.118).1

 It is 

delineated by Sq. 4D, Wall 7 and the Sq. 5D wall from the north, 

which are aligned with Street J, and Sq. 4D, Wall 8 in the west. 

There seems to be a an entrance, about 0.8 m wide, from the 

passage way (Street J) through Sq. 5D, Wall 8 in the northwest, 

leading into Room G. 

Room F

Room F, the western unit in Sq. 4, is defined by Wall 8 in the 

west, Wall 7 in the north, and Wall 6 in the east. This is probably 

a rectangular room (the southern part of which remains unexcavated), measuring at least 3 × 3 m. The walls are somewhat 

high for Phase 3 at 52.30 m, and the western Wall 8 seems to 

be wider in the inner face at floor level (Figure 6.112; see also 

Figure 6.139). The room was empty of installations and seems 

to have had an earth floor (level of 51.68 m?); this could have 

been a living room. 

A relatively rich assemblage of pottery is illustrated from 

Room F (Figures 6.121, 6.122), including mostly rounded and 

carinated bowls (Figure 6.121a–l), kraters (Figure 6.121n,o), 

cooking pots (Figure 6.121r–t), jar fragments (Figure 6.121u–w; 
286 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.108. Pottery from Area K.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 3734/1 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

b Bowl; soot 2396/1 GMI 5D F1A 3 Area K

c Bowl 3610/1 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

d Bowl 3610/2 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

e Bowl 3641/1 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K

f Bowl 3610/3 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

g Bowl; red decoration 3641/2 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K

h Bowl 3610/4 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

i Bowl 3655/1 GMI 6F (2) 3 Area K?

j Bowl 3601/1 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K

k Bowl 3585/1 GMI 6E F2 (4) 3 Area K

l Chalice/bowl; red decoration Box 290 GMI 5D F1A 3 Area K

m Krater 3641/3 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K

n Bowl/krater? 3601/2 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K

o Cooking pot 3734/4 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

p Cooking pot 3610/5 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

q Cooking pot 2396/2 GMI 5D F1A 3 Area K

r Cooking pot 3734/3 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

s Cooking pot/krater? 3641/4 GMI 6E F2 3 Area K
NUMBER 50 • 287

FIGURE 6.109. Pottery and finds from Area K. TEY = Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Myc. = Mycenaean.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jar(?); gritty clay 3616/1 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

b Miniature juglet; black RV 284 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

c Juglet (TEY?); black burnish 3968A/1 GMI 6F (2) 3 Area K?

d Base (Cyp. BRII?) 3734/2 GMI 6E (2) 3/4? Area K

e Handmade sherd 3734A/1 GMI 6E (1) 3? Area K

f Figurine (Myc. IIIB) Box 760/1 GMI 6F (2) 3 Area K?

g Bronze arrowhead Reg. No. 1320 GMI 6F (2) 3 Area K?

h Bronze tool Reg. No. 1310 GMI 6E (2) 3 Area K?

i Bronze adze Reg. No. 1317 GMI 6E (1) 3 Area K?

FIGURE 6.110. Paving, Feature 2 in Area K, Sqs. 5E, 6E, 6F.
288 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.112. Building II, Rooms G and F (front), looking west.

FIGURE 6.111. Sandstone blocks in Area K, Sq. 5D (Feature 1A).
NUMBER 50 • 289

FIGURE 6.113. Room G in Building II, Sq. 5D, looking south.

FIGURE 6.114. Doorway in wall of Room G (Feature 4) from section, Sq. 5D, looking south.
290 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.115. Room G in Building II and tabun (Feature 3) on the left, Sq. 5D, looking north.

FIGURE 6.116. Close-up of tabun (Feature 3) in Room G.
NUMBER 50 • 291

FIGURE 6.117. Section through tabun (Feature 3) in Room G.

FIGURE 6.118. Rooms G and H (right; note drainage hole) in Building II, Sq. 5D.
292 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.119. Sump, Feature 1A in Area K, Sq. 5D (related to Building 

I, Room H), looking south.

FIGURE 6.120. Sump, Feature 1, and channel in Area K, Sq. 5D from above, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 293

chalices, jugs, juglets, flasks, and lamps, appear in much smaller 

quantities.

Bowls

The main types of bowls appearing in Phase 3 include open, 

rounded; deep rounded/hemispherical; and carinated bowls; 

the latter are more diversified. Shallow open bowls (e.g., Figure 

6.108c) continue from the MBIIB-C ceramic tradition (Field III, 

e.g., Figure 3.101a–c; also, e.g., Aphek, Strata X13–X12, Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009:190–191, Type BO1, and references therein); 

their size varies between 15 and 25 cm in diameter, and no complete examples were found. The rim is either simple (e.g., Figure 

6.68a) or slightly inverted (e.g., Figure 6.108c); one example of 

a thickened rim (Figure 6.51d) also appears. Several flat bases 

(e.g., Figure 6.51o,p) may belong to this bowl type.

Rounded bowls are much more common in Phase 3 (e.g., 

Figures 6.51f, 6.67a, 6.68b,c); a complete example comes from 

Room C (Figure 6.67a), and a complete large example was found 

in Room N (Figure 6.101d). These bowls are usually small, ranging from about 15 to 20 cm in diameter, although larger examples with diameters of 30–35 cm, such as the complete bowl 

mentioned previously, do appear. The rims are almost always 

simple (e.g., Figure 6.68b) or very slightly inverted (e.g., Figure 

6.121a); the body is rounded, not more than 5–6 cm deep, and 

the base is a disk or slightly ringed (Figure 6.101d). This is a typical LBII bowl form that also continues from the MBIIB-C (see, 

e.g., Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:29–32, Types BL50a, BL50b), 

although it is not very chronologically indicative; often, this 

type is combined with the deep rounded or hemispherical bowl 

(see below; see also Aphek, Gadot and Yadin, 2009:194, Type 

BH1a). Deep rounded bowls or hemispherical bowls (e.g., Figure 

6.68c) have a more rounded profile and are deeper, 6–8 cm, with 

a diameter of 15–20 cm in most cases. These usually have simple 

rims and ring or concave bases, as seen in more complete parallels (e.g., Figure 6.67a). Similar bowls appear in Field III, Phases 

11 and 10 (e.g., Figure 3.124a,g) as well as later (Iron I, Phase 

6) and in other LBII levels in the southern Levant (e.g., Batash 

[Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:32, Types BL50c,d] and Aphek [Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009:194, Type BH1a, and references therein]). 

Of the two complete bowls found in Sq. 5D, Layer 2 (Figure 

6.125b,d), one is a typical hemispherical bowl (Figure 6.125b); 

the other is more open and has a flat or disk base. The context 

of the two bowls is not clear. This type is often used in “lamp 

and bowl deposits” during the LBII (see above and Figs. 6.150, 

6.151). Another variant is represented by a large rounded bowl 

with a simple rim, made of thicker, coarser clay (Figure 6.67b). 

Also common in Phase 3 is an open bowl with a thickened 

rim (e.g., Figures 6.51c, 6.101c). These bowls have a rounded 

open body and thickened inner rims; bases are concave or a ring. 

These bowls can be somewhat larger than other rounded bowls 

at 20–35 cm in diameter (see Figure 6.101c for a complete example). These bowls are very common in Phase 3, appearing in 

almost every architectural unit, although they are rare in Field 

III. This bowl type continues to appear throughout the second 

millennium BCE in the southern Levant during the MBIIB to the 

Room H

The eastern unit, Room H, was only partially excavated 

with its NW corner in Sq. 5D (Figures 6.118, 6.120). It is defined by Wall 4 to the west and Wall 11 to the north. This unit 

is very similar to Room C in Building I (see above). The walls 

and floor are thickly plastered from the inside (Feature 2, level 

of 51.15 m, Figure 6.118); the walls stand to a height of 0.6 m. 

A complete krater with vertical handles was found on this floor 

(Figure 6.124b). The vessel may have been related to the usage of 

the plastered unit or may indicate postusage. A channel (Feature 

1C, Figures 6.118–6.120) made of stones connects the plastered 

spaced under Wall 11 through to the outside into Area K and 

into a sump built into the ground; the sump (Feature 1A, Figures 

6.118–6.120) is 1.5 m in diameter and at least 0.65 m deep. It 

is also well built, with layers of stones laid into the ground. As 

opposed to the sump in Building I, this feature was not fully 

excavated. 

As mentioned above, a complete krater or large bowl was 

found in Room H (Figure 6.124b, from Feature 2); this krater is 

similar to one from an unclear context (Figure 6.157) and has a 

rounded body, thickened rim, loop handles attached to the rim, 

and a ring base (see discussion of this typical LBII form below). 

Also found in Room H are several fragments of bowls, kraters (one with a perforated base, Figure 6.124c), and jars (Figure 

6.124d,e). If this was used as a bath, these vessels possibly indicate the use of the room as a regular one after the bath went out 

of use.

Although the plan of Building II is unknown, it seems to 

have interesting similarities to Building I, with a plastered room 

or pool and adjacent sump in the open area near the main entrance. A paved area was not discovered, but it is possible that 

Room H could have led into a similar large paved courtyard 

located in the southeastern unexcavated area, and beyond Room 

F (which probably had a special function in the house according 

to the finds; see above), a series of rooms could have developed 

to the west (under Petrie’s excavations or disturbed by it).

DISCUSSION OF PHASE 3 LBII POTTERY

Although not many complete vessels were reconstructed 

from Buildings I and II, the pottery assemblage of Field I, Phase 

3 is relatively large and substantial. However, quantitative comparison of pottery between the different architectural units 

(buildings, rooms, etc.) may be problematic as the amount and 

reliability of the data from the different contexts varies to a great 

degree. Furthermore, floor levels were not reached in some units, 

whereas in others, several consecutive levels were excavated (see 

above). Therefore, typo-chronological aspects will be emphasized here, and the assemblage will be discussed according to 

these criteria, with the main aim of dating it in comparison to 

other archaeological levels in the site and elsewhere. 

Bowls compose the vast majority of the assemblage (about 

50% of the illustrated forms), whereas other main forms are 

kraters, cooking pots, and jars. Additional forms, such as 
294 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 295

Type BC2). One example of this type, decorated with inner red 

bands, comes from Building II, Room G (Figure 6.123e). Larger 

carinated bowls with flat or slanted thickened rims (as Figure 

6.106j) are defined as carinated kraters and are discussed below 

(see also Field III).

A rare type is a small carinated bowl (represented by a sherd) 

with a high loop handle attached to the rim (Figure 6.56h). It is 

decorated with a wide red band on the rim that has a vertical 

band connected to it. This could be either a small bowl, a onehandled cup (see Petrie, 1928: pl. LI:26j,k; also Ashdod, Stratum 

XII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.10:23), or possibly 

an imitation of a Mycenaean kylix. A carinated bowl or chalice 

(Figure 6.108l) has a similar inner decoration; other parallels are 

rare (possibly, Ashdod, Stratum XI, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:152, fig. 3.57:17).

Kraters

Two main kraters types appear in Phase 3: a large krater 

with handles (Figure 6.124b) and a smaller carinated krater (e.g., 

Figure 6.125f); both types have a generally similar shape. The 

handled krater (such as Figure 6.124b and a similar one from 

an unclear context, Figure 6.157) has a large rounded to slightly 

carinated body, thickened or slightly inverted rim, two vertical 

handles attached to the rim or just below it (see Figures 6.69p, 

6.87d), and a ring base; the diameter can reach about 40 cm. 

A complete example comes from Building II, Room H (Figure 

LBII (for a detailed discussion, see Batash, Strata IX–V [PanitzCohen, 2006a:33–35, Type BL53] and Aphek, Stratum X14 

[Gadot and Yadin, 2009:192–193, Type BO3, and many parallels therein]); it is suggested, however, that these bowls disappear 

during the Iron I (e.g., they are absent from Tel Miqne, Stratum 

VII; see Killebrew, 1998a:82; Gadot and Yadin, 2009:193). Less 

common are large, deep bowls with inverted and/or thickened 

rims, with a slight high carination (Figure 6.69m,n).

Carinated bowls, which are quite diverse, are not common 

in Field I, Phase 3 (e.g., Figures 6.69k, 6.87c, 6.121i). Shallow 

bowls with high carination (Figure 6.86q, similar to rounded 

bowls) have a simple everted rim, some more sharply everted. A 

deeper variant (Figure 6.96f) also appears. These bowls also appear in Field III, Phases 12–9 (e.g., Figures 3.124a, 3.131n from 

Phase 10; for other parallels, see, e.g., Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:39–42, Type BL56, pls. 20:18, 37:5, 38:18], Aphek [Gadot 

and Yadin, 2009:200–201, Type BC2], and Deir el-Balah, Stratum VI [Dothan and Brandl, 2010: pl. 34:4]). Another type of 

carinated bowl, appearing rarely (Figure 6.68f), has a slight high 

carination and a vertical thick rim (see, possibly, Batash, Stratum 

VII [Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 38:5] and Aphek, Strata 

X14–X12 [Gadot and Yadin, 2009: figs. 8.4:3, 8.37:13]). Later, 

during the LBIIB and Iron I these carinated bowls develop into 

the common cyma bowls (see Field III, e.g., Figure 3.112l, and 

Mazar, 1985a:39–41, Bowl 8; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:44, Type 

BL59). A small deep carinated bowl (Figure 6.51l) may be a variant of this type (see, e.g., Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8.4:3, 

FIGURE 6.121. Pottery from Room F. Note {77} indicates the excavation took place in 1977. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl, soot 2555/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

b Bowl 2555/2 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

c Bowl 2557/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

d Bowl 2557/4 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

e Bowl 2557/3 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

f Bowl 2557/2 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

g Bowl 2555/4 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

h Bowl 2557/5 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

i Bowl 2557/6 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

j Krater/bowl 2557/7 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

k Bowl 2555/3 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

l Krater/bowl 2557/9a GMI 4D (4) 3 3

m Chalice; red decoration Box 268/2 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

n Krater 2466/1 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

o Krater 2549/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

p Base 2557/8 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

q Strainer bowl(?) Box 268/4 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

r Cooking pot 2557/9 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

s Cooking pot 2548/8 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

t Cooking pot 2548/7 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

u Jar 2548/9 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

v Jar 2560A/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

w Thumbed jar handle 2560/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

x Base 2549/2 GMI 4D (4) 3 3
296 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.122. Pottery and small finds from Room F. Note {77} indicates the excavation took place in 1977. Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White 

Slip II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Decorated sherd Box 268/1 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

b Decorated sherd Box 268/3 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

c Flask 2560A/2 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

d Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 571/1 GMI 4D (4A) 3

e Sherd; plastic decoration/incised 2545/1 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

f Plaque figurine Reg. No. 1248 (SI Cat. No. 843) GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

g Incised jar handle Reg. No. 2200 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

h Sealing (with impression) Reg. No. 1223 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

i Sealing (with impression) Reg. No. 1230 GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

j Bronze point Reg. No. 196 GMI 4D (4) 3

k Bronze point Reg. No. 1324 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

l Spindle whorl (stone) Reg. No. 1112 GMI 4D (4) 3 3

m Stone (basalt) stamp seal Reg. No. 1238 (SI Cat. No. 836) GMI 4D (3) {77} 3?

n Handstone (limestone) Reg. No. 973 GMI 4D (4) 3 3
NUMBER 50 • 297

FIGURE 6.123. Pottery and finds from Building II, Room G.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 2028/1 GMI 5D F3

b Bowl 2402/1 GMI 5D (6A) 1

c Bowl 2047/1 GMI 5D F3C

d Bowl 2047/1a GMI 5D F3C

e Bowl; red decoration Box 292/1 GMI 5D F3C

f Krater 2047/2 GMI 5D F3C

g Jar 2028/2 GMI 5D F3

h Krater? 2046/1 GMI 5D F3

i Jar 2047/6 GMI 5D F3C

j Jar 2047/5 GMI 5D F3C

k Jar 2402/2 GMI 5D (6A) 1

l Jar 2047/3 GMI 5D F3C

m Jug 2402/3 GMI 5D (6A) 1

n Crucible; copper remains Reg. No. 2039 GMI 5D (6) 1

o Perforated worked base Reg. No. 1698 GMI 5D (6A) 1
298 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.125. Pottery from Phase 3, various contexts. Note {77?} indicates the excavation probably took place in 1977. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 4116/1 GMI 1F (9) 3?

b Bowl; straw imprint SI Cat. No. 632 GMI 5D (2) Unstratified/3

c Bowl; brown decoration 3659/1 GMI 6F (3) 3/4?

d Bowl SI Cat. No 667 GMI 5D (2) Unstratified/3

e Bowl 2457/1 GMI 5D (2) 3

f Krater/bowl 4252/1 GMI 4G (3) 3?

g Krater 4116/2 GMI 1F (9) 3?

h Krater; red, white decoration Box 255/1 GMI TTD (5) 3

i Krater; red, white decoration Box 279/1 GMI 5D (3) 3

j Krater; red, white decoration Box 267/2 GMI 4D (3) {77?} 3?

k Chalice/goblet 4202/1 GMI 1F (9) 3?

l Cooking pot 4203/2 GMI 1F (9) 3?

m Cooking pot 4203/1 GMI 1F (9) 3?

n Cooking pot 4203/3 GMI 1F (9) 3?

o Jar; red and white decoration Box 267/1 GMI 4D (3) {77?} 3?

p Jar; red decoration Box 277/1 GMI TTD (1) Unstratified/3?

q Jar 2475/1 GMI 5D (3) 3

r Pithos 2405/1 GMI 5D (3) 3

FIGURE 6.124. Pottery and finds from Building II, Room H. 

Part Description Bag/Reg. No. Provenance

a Bowl 2016/1 GMI 5D F2 (2)

b Krater RV 983 GMI 5D F2

c Krater 2019/2 GMI 5D F2 (4)

d Jar/jug 2014/1 GMI 5D F2 (1)

e Jar 2016/3 GMI 5D F2 (2)

f Jug? 2016/2 GMI 5D F2 (2)
NUMBER 50 • 299

6.121l, 6.125f). The vessels have a slightly thickened or inward slanting rim. These kraters are more common in Field III, 

Phases 11–9 (e.g., Figures 3.131e, 3.143g,h, 3.145j,k), as well 

as in other LBII sites in southern Israel (see, e.g., Lachish, Levels 

VII, VI [Yannai, 2004:1041, fig. 19.16:4, Krater K-1; Clamer, 

2004:1178] and Aphek, Stratum X12 [Gadot and Yadin, 

2009:209, Type KR2, and references therein]). This type continues into the Iron I (e.g., Field III, Phase 7, Figure 3.160m; Ashdod, Stratum XIII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.5:11). 

A hammerhead-rim version of this krater also appears (such as 

6.124b). The handled large kraters have a more rounded body 

than the smaller, more common carinated kraters (see below). 

Exact parallels to the complete kraters from Jemmeh are not 

common, with two examples found at Batash, Strata X and VIII 

(Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:61, Type KR4, pls. 11:7, 25:3; see also 

Deir el-Balah, Strata VII–V [Killebrew, 2010:76, Krater Bowl 

A:2; Dothan and Brandl, 2010: pls. 20:5, 28:5, 34:6] and Qubur 

Walaydah, Iron I [Lehmann et al., 2009: fig. 7:9,10]). 

Smaller carinated kraters (sometimes referred to as large 

bowls) appear also in Phase 3 (such as Figures 6.101e, 6.106j, 
300 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

jar handles, Figure 6.70b,h). Some of the handles are thumbed 

(Figure 6.121w) or incised (Figure 6.122g; see chapter 19 and 

Figures 19.1, 19.2 for further discussion of the various marks). 

Figure 6.125r is a thick everted rim, probably belonging to a 

pithos (see, possibly, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:88–89).

Another type of jar appearing in Phase 3 is the smaller decorated jar (Figures 6.88i, 6.125o–p). A decorated jar neck (Figure 

6.125o) with two parallel red bands on the rim comes from an 

unclear Phase 1 or 3 context. These jars appear in the LBII–Iron 

I in the southern Levant (see chapter 10; e.g., Amiran, 1969:174, 

pl. 44); for parallels, see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XIII (Dothan and 

Ben-Shlomo, 2005:76) and Batash, Strata X–VI (Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:81–86, Type SJ2c, with comprehensive discussion and 

many parallels therein). A well-known elaborate example comes 

from Megiddo Stratum VIIB (Loud, 1948: pl. 64:4).

Jugs

Only a few jug fragments were recovered from Phase 3. 

In Room N, a large portion of a jug with a globular body was 

found (Figure 6.101j); this may be a small jug with a trefoil rim 

(see, e.g., Batash, Stratum VIIA [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: pl. 53:7, 

Type JG1] and Deir el-Balah, Stratum IX [Dothan and Brandl, 

2010: pls. 5:4, 13:2]). A high neck with a long strap handle attached to the rim (Figure 6.126a) probably belongs to a typical LBII large jug form (see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:92, Type 

JG1), usually with a pyriform body (but sometimes globular; see 

example above). A rim fragment has a trefoil-shaped rim (Figure 

6.123m). The body of a small jug or pyxis is also illustrated (Figure 6.70d) and is made of whitish clay. Biconical decorated jugs 

are discussed in chapter 10; one example is a decorated sherd 

from Building II, Room F (Figure 6.122b; Figure 6.96l is possibly 

also a biconical jug).

Juglets

Several juglets found in Phase 3 include a nearly complete 

(rim is missing) miniature juglet (Figure 6.109b) with a black 

surface. It has a spherical body and slightly pointed base, possibly similar to a juglet from Batash, Stratum X (Panitz-Cohen and 

Mazar, 2006: pl. 14:8). Another lower part of a juglet (Figure 

6.70g) has a pointed base and ovoid body. Other fragments include a handle (Figure 6.106s) and a pointed base (Figure 6.51r). 

These probably belong to the common pyriform shouldered 

dipper juglet (see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:111, Type JGT3). 

The lower body of another juglet (Figure 6.109c) has a pyriform 

body and a pronounced button base. This resembles MBIIB Tell 

el-Yahudiyeh TEY juglets (see, e.g., Figure 3.72h) and may be 

redeposited from earlier levels.

Flasks

Flasks are rather rare and include a neck and handle fragment (Figures 6.122c, 6.126b) of a relatively small flask, a possible body fragment of the side a lentoid flask (Figure 6.96l, 

Figures 6.108m, 6.125g; see Batash, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type 

KR1) and becomes more common in the Iron I.

Another type of krater is the decorated biconical krater (Figure 6.125h,i), with several examples from Phase 3, although not 

originating in good contexts. This krater has a wide, thickened 

rim, high vertical neck, and biconical body. These vessels and 

their decorative Canaanite tradition are discussed in chapter 10. 

A thick, flat rim (Figure 6.108n) may belong to a large coarse 

krater (similar possibly to Field III, Phase 11, Figure 3.125f). 

Chalices

Chalices were quite rare in the assemblage. Decorated carinated bowls (Figures 6.108l, 6.121m) may belong to chalices; 

an everted rim may also belong to a small chalice (Figure 6.69v; 

possibly also Figure 6.106c, as well as two bases, Bags 4202/1 

and 2946/4, not illustrated). Figure 6.125k is a high chalice or 

goblet base.

Cooking Pots

Cooking pots from Field I, Phase 3 are only represented 

by rim fragments; three larger rim fragments come from Sq. 1F, 

Layer 9 (Figure 6.125l–n). It seems that most have everted rims 

and globular bodies (such as Figures 6.56j, 6.87i,j). The two main 

rim types are sharply everted and triangular rims (Figures 6.56j, 

6.87i, 6.106m, 6.108o, 6.121s) and pointed, wedge-shaped rims 

(e.g., Figures 6.51n, 6.56i, 6.87j, 6.121r; for further discussion, 

see Field III, Phases 13–8, e.g., Figures 3.143k, l, 3.145n; see 

also, e.g., Killebrew, 1999; Batash, Strata IX–VI, Panitz-Cohen, 

2006a:68–70, Type CP1, and references therein). The wedge 

rims may be indicative of a later stage in the LBII.

Jars

In contrast to Field III, only a few jars were found in Field 

I, and none from Phase 3 are complete. Several larger fragments 

of the lower parts of jars were reconstructed (not illustrated; RV 

72, Bag 1648/3), some of which were found in Building II, Room 

G. Generally, most examples probably belong to the common 

LBII ovoid storage jar (for the generic form, see, e.g., PanitzCohen and Mazar, 2006:77–86, Type SJ2). There is variability in 

the rim shape, with simple everted (Figure 6.97d, more similar 

to MBIIC jar types; see Figures 3.48, 3.49), thickened, slightly 

everted (e.g., Figures 6.56k, 6.106o,q, the most common), thickened (Figures 6.88c, 6.124f), and folded rims (Figure 6.124d). 

Bases are usually pointed or button shaped (e.g., Figures 6.70a, 

6.88g), although some flat examples do appear (such as Figure 

6.123k); an example of a wide button base also occurs (Figure 

6.88h). Generally, the pointed jars are more typical of one of the 

major forms of the LB Canaanite storage jar (see, e.g., PanitzCohen, 2006a:77, Type SJ2; Gadot and Yadin, 2009:229, Type 

SJ2), whereas the flatter-base jar can be smaller but of a similar 

shape (see Gadot and Yadin, 2009:231, Type SJ1). According to 

parallels, these jars can have up to four wide vertical handles (see 
NUMBER 50 • 301

Imported Pottery

Imported pottery, mostly Cypriot, appears in relatively 

large quantities (though mostly as sherds) in Field I, Phase 3; 

this pottery includes White Shaved juglets, white-slipped milk 

bowls, and BRII bowls and jugs (“bilbils”), which are all common forms in the southern Levant during the LBII (see chapter 

11). The wall brackets (Figures 6.107a, 6.126d) should probably 

be added to this group. Only a few Mycenaean sherds appear; 

further discussion on these types appears in chapter 11. 

Summary

Summarizing the pottery assemblage of Phase 3, it seems 

that bowls dominate the assemblage; other forms appear in small 

numbers, and some rarer forms (such as the cup and saucer) are 

absent. Several common LBII forms appear in relatively small 

although this may be a biconical jug), and another possibly body 

fragment (Figure 6.68h).

Lamps

Several complete and fragmentary lamps were found in 

or associated with Phase 3. These include two complete intact 

lamps (Figure 6.126f,g), both similarly shaped with a pinched 

mouth, slightly everted rim, and rounded bottom; these may 

come from lamp and bowl deposits, especially the former, which 

was found with rounded bowls (Figure 6.125b,d). This is the 

rather typical Bronze Age everted-rim saucer lamp (e.g., Batash, 

Strata VIII–VI, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:118–119, Type LP2). Other 

fragments (Figures 6.97h, 6.88j–l) are probably of the same type; 

some have soot marks, mostly in the area of the pinched mouth 

(e.g., Figure 6.97h). In addition, a complete crudely made miniature bowl may have functioned as a lamp (Figure 6.88m).

FIGURE 6.126. Pottery and finds from Phase 3, various contexts. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jug 2742/1 GMI TTA1 (3) 3

b Flask 4202 GMI 1F (9) 3?

c Sherd; rope decoration 3662 GMI 6F (3) 3/4?

d Wall bracket 3664 GMI 6F (3) 3/4?

e Jug neck (Cyp. BRII) Box 850 GM 4E/4F (1) 3?

f Lamp SI Cat. No. 630 GMI 5D (2) Unstratified/3

g Lamp SI Cat. No. 631 GMI 5D (2) Unstratified/3
302 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

3, such as rounded bowls (Figure 6.127a–f) and carinated bowls 

(Figure 6.127g). Figure 6.127d shows a complete bowl made of 

light-colored clay with remains of straw/trimming signs on the 

outer surface and a flat base. This is similar to Egyptian-style 

LBII open bowls (see below and Field III, e.g., Figure 3.160c,d). 

A bowl with a bar handle is also illustrated (Figure 6.127l). 

Several jar necks (Figure 6.127i–j), a decorated sherd (Figure 

6.127k), and a body fragment with a handle, possibly of a pyxis 

(Figure 6.127m), are also possibly attributed to Phase 2.

REMAINS OF PHASE 1

Remains of the uppermost architectural phase excavated by 

the SI in Field I (Phase 1), apart from the detached pottery kiln 

to the far northeast (which postdates these remains; see Figure 

7.1; because of the detachment of this area, a different phasing 

was used in Field I FUR), are scattered in various squares and do 

not create a coherent plan in most cases (Figures 6.128, 6.129). 

Most remains lie in Sqs. 4D and 5D (Figure 6.130) and 4F–2F. 

In this area, a high, massive wall was also noted in the section 

(the southern balk of Sq. 5D), possibly remains from Petrie’s 

excavations (this was denoted Wall JR accordingly but is not 

clear; see Figure 6.137, Wall 1). A few remains in Sq. 2E indicate 

building phases of Phases 1A and 1B (Figures 6.141, 6.142; see 

below). Also, in Sq. 1F fragmentary remains of a well-preserved 

wall (Wall 2, Figure 6.146, at elevations of 53.22–53.28 m) are 

possibly remains of Phase 1A. An unclear large circular feature 

appearing in some field photographs (see Figure 6.152) is clearly 

later than the Phase 3 architecture, but as it was not documented 

in any form (and apparently no material came from there), it 

cannot be further discussed.

In Sq. 4D, two rooms or units were assigned to Phase 1 (or 

possibly Phase 1B), denoted as Rooms 1 and 2 (Figures 6.130–

6.140, 6.153). The two parallel units are rectangular, abutting 

spaces, defined in the north, east, and south, whereas the western part was not preserved. These remains lie above the Phase 3 

southern portion of Building II. 

Room 1

Room 1 (Locus 1) in the north is delineated by Wall 4 to 

the east, Wall 5 in the south, and Wall 2 in the north, which is 

shared with Room 2 (Locus 2); its inner dimensions are 2.5 m 

by at least 5 m; the walls here were uncovered at levels of 52.24–

52.90 m. On the eastern side of Wall 4, several horizontal bricks 

“floating” within the wall may indicate a blocking of the doorway in the SW corner of the room. A semicircular brick installation that is 2 m wide (Sq. 4D, Feature 1, Figures 6.130–6.132) 

is attached to the southern wall; it descends from near the floor 

level at 51.08–52.59 m, is about 1.5 deep, and is mostly dug 

into the floor (Figure 6.130, section A–A1). The installation is 

built of narrow upright bricks and probably served as a storage 

bin; it is divided into two cells (Features 1A, 1B) and was completely excavated. Near this bin, a pebbled floor level was excavated (Feature 2, Figures 6.132, front, 6.133) at an approximate 

quantities: carinated kraters, wedge-rim cooking pots, flasks, 

decorated biconical kraters, and jugs. Egyptian forms are very 

rare to absent. Phase 3 is clearly not an early phase within the 

LB sequence of the site, as according to the Sq. 3G probe (see 

above), at least three phases below it (Phases 4–6) belong to the 

LBII. Moreover, it is clearly not the final LBII stage, as there is 

at least one significant LBII phase above it (see below, Phase 1; 

possibly two if Phase 2 is considered). Thus, this phase may be 

paralleled to Phases 11–10 in Field III (as Phase 3 illustrates several architectural subphases, it is probably of a longer duration, 

thus parallel to more than one phase in the Field III trench). The 

small quantities of wedge-rim cooking pots and Canaanite decorated forms may also support such a dating; a tentative absolute 

date for this phase would thus be the late 14th or early 13th 

century BCE.

REMAINS ABOVE THE 

COURTYARD BUILDING

As noted above, Petrie excavated at least two distinct and 

large-scale architectural phases above Phase 3 of the SI excavations (Petrie, 1928: pls. VI, VII, denoted as the town of the XXth 

and XVIII Dynasties). However, in the very fragmentary upper 

remains recorded in Field I of the SI excavations it is very difficult to define or distinguish between these two phases and other 

ones; tentatively, these were designated Phases 2, 1B, and 1A. 

Moreover, it is difficult to correlate these remains with the plans 

published by Petrie.

Phase 2

Phase 2 in Field I is not very well defined as a general architectural phase and is used here as a technical means to denote 

remains seemingly later than the main Building I, Phase 3. In 

several locations this phase is represented by architectural remains above the walls of the main Phase 3 courtyard building, 

mostly in a similar orientation (see Figure 6.72 for a limited 

area). Thus, Phase 2 may be considered either a later modification of the building of Phase 3 (equaling Phase 3A) or a separate 

construction phase. In Sq. 3F (Figure 6.72), an 8-m-long NW–SE 

brick wall (Wall 2) stands to a height of approximately 1 m, 

including a stone foundation (elevation of 51.70–52.68 m). This 

seems to be aligned with the northern wall of the main courtyard 

of Building I of Phase 3, yet it is higher, somewhat to the north, 

and built with different stones for the foundations. Wall 3 makes 

a right angle with Wall 2 and continues about 1.5 m north. Wall 

6 in the northern part of Sq. 3F (Figure 6.72) is parallel to Wall 

2 but lower and may have formed a corner with Wall 3 in the 

NW corner of Sq. 3F; alternatively, this wall and a lower wall 

below it (Wall 7) should be respectively allocated to Phase 2 (or 

3A) and Phase 3. 

It is thus difficult to date Phase 2, partially because of a lack 

of good floor contexts; it probably also dates to the late LBII. 

Some pottery that may come from units dated to this intermediate phase (Figure 6.127) includes pottery similar to that of Phase 
NUMBER 50 • 303

15:5,8] and Tell Fakhariyah [Kantor, 1958a: pl. 67a,b]), and a 

bronze spearhead/arrowhead with a bent/“killed” point (Figure 

6.153n). Pumice fragments were also found in Sq. 4D, Layer 

2C, Locus 1 (Figure 6.153q). Apparently, this room has a relatively high concentration of specials finds. Whether this indicates a special function for this room remains an open question, 

as most of the architecture around the room was not excavated 

in the SI excavations. It is still unclear if its residents were relatively affluent.

height of 52.24 m. Several fragments of open, rounded and carinated bowls (Figure 6.153a–i) were found in Room 1, as well 

as a jar neck (Figure 6.153k) and a worked krater base (Figure 

6.153j), a white-slipped milk bowl handle (Figure 6.153.l), and 

a Mycenaean pyxis/jar fragment (Figure 6.153m; see chapter 

11). Other special finds found in this room include two large 

bone inlays, a wing and a tail (Figure 6.153o,p; see detailed discussion in chapter 25; good parallels come from the LBII cache 

found in a jar at Tel Harassim, Stratum IV [Givon, 1998: fig. 

FIGURE 6.127. Pottery and finds from Phase 2 or of unclear stratigraphy.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 4123/1 GMI 1F (7) 1/2?

b Bowl 4241/1 GMI 3F (1) Unstratified/2?

c Bowl 2498/1 GMI 3D (3) 2/3?

d Bowl; mat imprint 2498/2 GMI 3D (3) 2/3?

e Bowl 4123/2 GMI 1F (7) 1/2?

f Bowl 4241/2 GMI 3F (1) Unstratified/2?

g Bowl 4241/3 GMI 3F (1) Unstratified/2?

h Krater? 4123/4 GMI 1F (7) 1/2?

i Jar/krater 4123/5 GMI 1F (7) 1/2?

j Jar 4241/4 GMI 3F (1) Unstratified/2?

k Sherd; red decoration Box 339/1 GMI 3F (1) Unstratified/2?

l Bowl 4123/3 GMI 1F (7) 1/2?

m Pyxis/jug 2498/3 GMI 3D (3) 2/3?
304 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.128. Upper layer of test trench in Sq. 4F and lower levels under Courtyard A, looking west.

FIGURE 6.129. General plan of Phase 1.
NUMBER 50 • 305

Petrie (Petrie, 1928: pl. VI). No pottery can be securely attributed to Room 2 of Phase 1.2

 A silver or lead earring may have 

been found here (see chapter 22, Figure 22.1b).

OTHER PHASE 1 AND LATE REMAINS

To the west Sq. 5D, Wall 1, or Wall JR (see Figure 6.137; this 

was an annotation relating to supposed remnants of walls from 

Petrie’s excavations), continues or abuts Wall 3 to the east, about 

another 2 m to the west in Sq. 3D. This massive 1.5-m-thick wall 

was reported to stand 1.5 m high in certain locations. The wall 

may be higher than the other Phase 1 walls and may indicate 

another upper phase (Phase 1A?).

Room 2

The northern unit, Room 2 (Figure 6.130) in Sq. 4D, extends slightly to the south (Sq. 4C) and to the east (Sq. 5D). It 

is bordered in the south by Wall 2, to the east by Wall 4, and to 

the north by Wall 3; the upper wall levels here are somewhat 

lower than to the south, at 52.28–52.52 m. The room internally 

measures 1.3 m by at least 4.5 m, and the floor level, although 

not identified clearly, may be at 52.05 m. An unclear semicircular 

area with bricks (Feature 3) may be remains of an installation 

similar to Feature 1 in Room 1. The two similar parallel Rooms 

1 and 2 of Phase 1 in Sq. 4D may have had a similar function 

for storage and were probably part of a larger building, maybe 

related to one of the early Iron Age I buildings excavated by 

FIGURE 6.130. Plan of Phase 1 in Sqs. 4D–5D and section through bin in Room 1.
306 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.132. Room 1, with the bin, Feature 1, looking north.

FIGURE 6.131. Bin, Feature 1 in Room 1, Phase 1, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 307

FIGURE 6.133. Fill on the floor in Room 1, Sq. 4D, Layer 2A, looking north.

FIGURE 6.134. West section of Sq. 4D.
308 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.135. West section of Sq. 5D.

FIGURE 6.136. South balk of Sq. 4D; note the Phase 1 well-preserved brick wall on top and ash layers below, looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 309

FIGURE 6.137. South section of Sqs. 4D–5D.

FIGURE 6.138. Wall 3 in Sq. 4D, looking west.
310 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

In Sq. 2E on the western edge of Field I, Wall 3 is about 5 m 

long and oriented east–west (Figures 6.141–6.145); its southern 

face was not excavated (52.58–53.04 m). Several bricks recorded 

as “Wall 4” may be a north–south connecting wall or merely a 

fallout from Wall 3. Less than 1 m to the north, Wall 5 (Figure 

6.142) meets Wall 15 at a 15° angle and seems to be of the same 

phase according to its elevations (52.66–52.93 m, sloping upward on its western side). There were possibly remains of plaster 

on these two wall fragments. In the western part of Sq. 2E, two 

Remains of an upper Phase 1 in other areas of Field I are 

less coherent and more fragmentary (Figures 6.140–6.150); the 

remains from Petrie’s excavations above the SI excavation levels 

were largely eroded and washed away. In Sq. 4F, test trench 2, 

ashy and bricky remains possibly belong to this phase (Features 

2A–2C, Figure 6.140). In Sq. 3F, fragmentary remains of a tall 

brick wall (Wall 1) lie above Walls 2 and 3 of Phase 2 or 3A (see 

Figure 6.72); it seems to be an east–west wall, at least 4 m long 

(eroded to the east); its upper levels were 52.19–52.54 m. 

FIGURE 6.139. East section of Wall 8 in Sq. 4D.

FIGURE 6.140. Upper remains and ash layers (Features 2A–2C) in the western balk of Test 

Trench 2 in Sq. 4F.
NUMBER 50 • 311

FIGURE 6.142. Plan of Phase 1B in Sq. 2E.

FIGURE 6.141. Plan of Phase 1A in Sq. 2E.
312 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.143. Walls 2 and 2A in Sq. 2E, Phase 1A, looking east.

FIGURE 6.144. West balk of Sq. 2E with ash layers.
NUMBER 50 • 313

a lamp (see Figure 6.151). Unfortunately, the context of this deposit in relation to other defined architectural features remains 

unclear. In Sq. 3G, Features 3 and Pits 1 and 2 cut the upper wall 

remains in the square and may be allocated to Phase 1.

The date of Phase 1, which may correlate to some of the 

remains excavated by Petrie (more likely the XVIII Dynasty 

town with Building Units J-K, Petrie, 1928: pl. VI), is difficult to determine (Figure 6.152), both according to the finds 

he published and by any stratigraphic relationships seen in the 

field. Although not many good contexts can be identified from 

this phase in the SI excavations, this is clearly a pre-Philistine 

Bichrome ceramic horizon (this pottery ware is actually completely absent from Field I), probably still within the Late 

Bronze Age yet somewhat later in date than Phase 3 (mostly 

because of absolute heights). 

upper walls (Figure 6.145, Walls 2 and 2A, at an elevation of 

53.80 m, and possibly Walls 1 and 1A to the east) have a similar 

angle between them but indicate a different orientation as the 

walls are oriented north–south (Figures 6.141, 6.142). These 

walls were assigned to the upper phase, denoted Phase 1A (see 

also Figure 6.144). 

In Sq. 1F to the west, an east–west wall fragment (Wall 1) 

forms a right angle with Wall 2 (Figures 6.146–6.148, although 

poorly documented). This may be additional evidence for the remains of Phase 1 in this area. Also probably belonging to Phase 1 

are Wall 1 in Sq. 2F (elevation of 53.08 m; note the wooden beam 

in the section under the wall, Figure 6.149) and Features 2 and 

2A–2C in Sq. 4F Test Trench 2. Pit 1 in Sq. 1F contained a lamp 

and bowl deposit (Figures 6.150, 6.151, 6.154a,d, 6.155p) consisting of a complete open bowl and a rounded bowl enfolding 

FIGURE 6.145. Northern section of Sq. 2E.
314 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.147. Square 1F, Wall 2, looking west.

FIGURE 6.146. Plan of Sq. 1F in Phase 1. 
NUMBER 50 • 315

FIGURE 6.148. Square 1F, Wall 2 and Feature 1, looking NE.

FIGURE 6.149. Western balk of Sq. 1F with Phase 1 wall and wooden beam in its foundation.
316 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.151. Lamp and bowl deposit.

FIGURE 6.150. Lamp and bowl deposit (Sq. 5E, Pit 1).

FIGURE 6.152. Unclear circular feature on northeastern side of Field I.
NUMBER 50 • 317

with a similar ring base (Figure 6.154t, also probably Figure 

6.153j) probably belongs to the same type of krater. These medium to large carinated kraters are very typical of the late LBII–

Iron I context (see, e.g., Aphek, Stratum X12, Gadot and Yadin, 

2009:209–211, Type KR2). Smaller carinated kraters (or large 

bowls) with thickened and/or slanting rims (Figure 6.154m–o) 

are more common in Phase 1 than in Phase 3. As noted above 

this is a typical LBII–Iron I form. Another type of krater that 

seems to be present in Phase 1 is the decorated biconical krater 

(Figure 6.156a–e; see also above). Cooking pots found in Phase 

1 (Figure 6.154u) have everted, wedge-shaped rims. These are 

dated to the late LBII or Iron Age I (see above, e.g., Killebrew, 

1999; Batash, Strata VII–V, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:68–71, Types 

CP1 and possibly CP4a). Figure 6.155b is either the large base of 

a vessel or a short stand fragment. 

Jar fragments, mostly necks and handles (Figures 6.153k, 

6.155c–g), indicate types similar to those discussed in Phase 3 

(e.g., Figure 6.88). Figure 6.155j is a wide, flat base, probably 

of a jar. A large shoulder fragment of a jar (Figure 6.155) has a 

decoration of white bands and a wavy red line delimited between 

two horizontal red lines in between the bands. This decoration 

pattern recalls Red, White, and Blue ware jars from the MBIIB-C 

(see Field III, e.g., Figure 3.60l–o) or could be a fragment of a 

large LBII decorated jar (as seen at Batash, although without the 

wavy line; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: photos 34, 35). A thick neck 

with a thickened everted rim and a prominent ridge under the 

rim (Figure 6.155d) may belong to a jar or a pithos, although 

parallels are rare (see, possibly, Batash, Stratum X, Panitz-Cohen 

and Mazar, 2006: pl. 13:6,7). A large body sherd of a large 

pithos with ridged relief (Figure 6.155h; see also Figure 6.56m) 

may belong to Phase 1 as well. 

Jugs are not numerous in Phase 1. One example of a large 

jug with a trefoil rim occurs (Figure 6.155n; see Phase 3 above 

for parallels). Two handle and body fragments (Figure 6.155k,l) 

may belong to small jugs or amphoriskoi (see, e.g., Iron I examples from Batash, Stratum V, Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:112–113, 

Type AM1). Several sherds of decorated biconical jugs also appear (Figure 6.156a–e; see chapter 10). One example of a small 

flask neck is illustrated (Figure 6.155o).

One complete intact lamp (see Figure 6.155p) is attributed 

to Phase 1. This lamp has no soot marks and was probably not 

used; this is in accordance with its context, as it was found in 

a lamp and bowl deposit (Figures 6.150, 6.151). The form is 

typical of the LBII, as seen in the examples from Phase 3 with 

an everted rim and rounded base (Figures 6.88k,l, 6.126g); three 

other lamp fragments (Figure 6.155q–s) are of the same type; 

that these were used is indicated by the soot marks on their 

mouths. Also illustrated is a peculiar handle or a figurine fragment (Figure 6.156h) and an unusual base (Figure 6.155m). Several examples of imported pottery were found in Phase 1. These 

include Mycenaean stirrup jar fragments (Figures 6.153m, 

6.156g), Cypriot WS milk bowls (Figure 6.153l) and a BRII jug 

(Figure 6.156f). It seems less likely that these examples are residual from Phase 3 as they are relatively large, and some are reconstructed from several fragments. Also illustrated from Phase 

1 are a zoomorphic figurine depicting a ram (Figure 6.156i; see 

POTTERY OF PHASE 1

The pottery of Phase 1 includes several complete vessels, 

such as bowls (Figure 6.154a,b,d,e), a krater (Figure 6.154q,t), 

and a lamp (Figure 6.155p). However, some of these were not 

found in well-recorded contexts.

Bowls include open, rounded bowls (Figures 6.153a–g, 

6.154d; see above, Phase 3, open bowls) and shallow, open, Vshaped bowels (Figure 6.154a–c,f–h), which are typical of the 

LBII. The complete V-shaped bowl (Figure 6.154b; and probably another complete bowl, Figure 6.154a) has a flat string-cut 

base and a wide, flat, somewhat warped rim. The bowl, which 

was part of a lamp and bowl deposit (Sq. 1F, Pit 1), together 

with a rounded bowl (Figure 6.154e) and a lamp (Figures 6.151, 

6.155p), has a diameter of about 18 cm. In fact, this bowl type is 

typical of LBII lamp and bowl deposits (see Bunimovitz and Zimhoni, 1993; see also Beth Shean, Stratum S-4 [Panitz-Cohen and 

Mazar, 2009: photos 4.49, 4.50] and Deir el-Balah, Stratum VIII 

[Dothan and Nahmias-Lotan, 2010a]). This form is also considered to belong to the Egyptian tradition of pottery types (Field III, 

Figure 3.160a,b; see, e.g., Aphek [Gadot and Yadin, 2009:190–

191, Type BO1; Martin et al., 2009:362–363, Type EgB1–EgB2, 

and references therein], Tel Mor [Martin and Barako, 2007:135, 

figs. 4.4–4.6], Beth-Shean [Martin, 2009:444], and Deir elBalah, Stratum VI [Dothan and Brandl, 2010: pl. 24:8,9; Gould, 

2010:16]). The straw-rich clay the bowl is made of is also a wellknown feature of the Egyptian potter’s tradition. 

Otherwise, most other bowl types from Phase 1 appear 

also in Phase 3 and were discussed above. These include open, 

rounded bowls with thickened rims (Figures 6.153d–g, 6.154j) 

and rounded and open-rounded bowls with simple rims (Figures 

6.153b,c, 6.154d). The complete examples (Figure 6.154a,b,d,e) 

have a simple rim and a flat base and are 15 or 16 cm in diameter. Several examples of carinated bowls appear as well (Figures 

6.153h, 6.154k,l) and vary somewhat in size and body profile (see the generic types in Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL56; 

Aphek, Gadot and Yadin, 2009: Type BC2). Figure 6.154i is a 

nearly complete profile of a deep bowl with a flat base, yet the 

carination is somewhat different from the common form. Bowls 

or kraters with high carination and a ring base also appear (Figures 6.154l–o; the latter is a large example and can be defined as 

a krater). This is a type characteristic in the late LBII and Iron 

I, developing into the cyma bowls (see Field III, Figure 3.145d, 

and, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:44, Type BL59; see parallels also 

at Qasile, Mazar, 1985a:39–41). A rim and body of a rounded 

bowl with at least five rows of perforations made before firing 

(Figure 6.155a) are from a strainer bowl similar to those from 

MBII/LBII Field III (see Figure 3.132o).

Several examples of rounded to slightly carinated kraters 

with loop handles extending from the rim or below appear in 

Phase 1 (Figure 6.154q–t). These are relatively similar to the 

complete examples from Phase 3 (Figure 6.124b; see also PanitzCohen, 2006a:61, Type KR4). A complete large carinated krater 

(Figure 6.154q) was found in a Phase 1(?) context. It has a 

slightly thickened, inward-slanting rim, a loop handle attached 

to the rim, and a ring base. The large lower part of a krater 
318 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 319

remains from Field I are dated to the Late Bronze Age, most 

of these artifacts also are dated to the LB, although some items 

clearly date earlier or later. 

A large fragment of a decorated biconical krater that came 

from topsoil is illustrated (Figure 6.158d), showing decoration 

in white and red paint (this and other such decorated kraters are 

discussed in detail in chapter 10). A complete miniature bowl 

(Figure 6.158c) is only 5–6 cm in diameter and is rather similar 

in form to typical LBII carinated bowls. 

In addition, several other vessels are illustrated, including 

a complete deep bowl (Figure 6.158a) very similar to Figure 

6.101c from Phase 3, the lower part of a krater, probably of an 

LBII type (Figure 6.158b), and a large LB cooking pot fragment 

(Figure 6.158e). A large body fragment of a ridged pithos (Figure 

6.158j) was also found in an unclear context (see Figure 6.56m). 

A thick fragment of a flat open vessel (Figure 6.158m) is 

covered with shallow prefiring perforations on one side and is 

smooth on the other. This is probably a baking tray, known to 

be used in the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Levant (see, 

e.g., Gadot and Yadin, 2009:236–237, Type BT; Dothan and 

Brandl, 2010a:261–262, photo 23.3 [Deir el-Balah]; Frankel, 

2011:95–96, and references therein; see also Iron Age IIA Khirbet 

Qeiyafa, Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a:127, fig. 6.13:1,2). A conical vessel with a thick base (Figure 6.158f), a jug handle (Figure 

6.158k), and two body sherds with sharp-ridged decoration (Figure 6.158h–i) may date to the LBII but have no good parallels.

An item clearly not dating to the Late Bronze Age is a thick 

triangular handle (Figure 6.158n) belonging to a Chalcolithic 

churn (see, e.g., in Field III, Figure 3.14t). The Chalcolithic fabric 

is readily identifiable by the large dark grits in the clay. 

A bowl fragment (Figure 6.158g) is made of a highly fired 

dark red clay; it is of an open, rounded form, and the outer rim is 

chapter 17), a perforated worked sherd (Figure 6.156k), and 

pumice (Figure 6.156j).

To summarize, the pottery from Phase 1 seems to reflect a 

late LBII ceramic horizon, rather similar to that of Phase 3 but 

possibly with more types continuing into the Iron IA, such as the 

carinated kraters. This assemblage clearly includes Mycenaean 

IIIB and Cypriot LCIII imports (see chapter 11) and clearly predates the Philistine Bichrome horizon. Thus, a date for this phase 

would correlate to Phases 8–7 in Field III: LBII–Iron IA, or in 

absolute dating terms the late 13th to early 12th century BCE 

(maybe partly similar to Lachish, Level VI, e.g., Ussishkin, 2004; 

see Ben-Shlomo, 2003:232). According to Petrie’s excavation, 

there was another Iron I phase above the XVIII Dynasty town, 

denoted the XXth Dynasty town (Petrie, 1928: pls. VII, VIII, 

bottom), probably representing the Iron I and possibly contemporary with the pottery kiln, dating to the Iron IB. As noted, the 

occurrence of Cypriot and Mycenaean imported pottery in Phase 

1 could indicate either that the phase ended before the 12th century or that it had a long duration (beginning in the 13th century 

and ending in the 12th century) or that some imports occurred in 

the southern Levant during the early 12th century (the Lachish 

VI horizon; see chapter 11 on the dating of the imports).

FINDS FROM UNCLEAR OR 

UNSTRATIFIED CONTEXTS

Several complete vessels or items of special interest that 

come from unclear or unstratified contexts are also illustrated 

(Figures 6.157, 6.158). Some come from contexts that have no 

documentation but were probably LBII contexts in Phase 3, 

Building I, mainly in Sq. 5F. As the vast majority of the exposed 

FIGURE 6.153. Pottery and finds from Phase 1, Room 1. Cyp. WSII = Cypriot White Slip II ware; Myc. = Mycenaean. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

A Bowl 2470/1 GMI 4D F2 loc 2

B Bowl 2461/1 GMI 4D (2A)

C Bowl 2463/5 GMI 4D (2A)

D Bowl 2463/3 GMI 4D (2A)

e Bowl 2463/2 GMI 4D (2A)

f Bowl 2463/1 GMI 4D (2A)

g Bowl 2463/4 GMI 4D (2A)

h Bowl 2463/6 GMI 4D (2A)

i Bowl 2470/2 GMI 4D F2 loc 2

j Krater; worked? 2442/1 GMI 4D F1B loc 1

k Jar 2461/2 GMI 4D (2A)

l Milk bowl (Cyp. WSII) Box 572/1 GMI 4D F2 (1)

m Stirrup jar(?)(Myc. IIIB) box 842/1 GMI 4D F2 (2)

n Bronze spearhead/arrowhead Reg. No. 1306 GMI 4D W5

o Bone inlay Reg. No. 1378 (SI Cat. No. 824) GMI 4D (2A)

p Bone inlay Reg. No. 1379 (SI Cat. No. 825) GMI 4D (2A)

q Pumice SCI 482 GMI 4D (2C) 1
320 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 321

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The main contribution of Field I to the excavations at Tell 

Jemmeh is the large horizontal exposure of the LBII levels, especially Buildings I and II in Phase 3. Other contributions are further evidence for the multiphase LB sequence and the MBIIB-C 

sequence under it in the trench in Sq. 3G, as well as the remains 

of the final LBII or Iron IA phase above Phase 3 (continuing 

Petrie’s results).

Building I in Field I, Phase 3 at Tell Jemmeh (Figures 6.37, 

6.38, 6.103) is one of the best-known examples of a relatively 

well preserved Late Bronze Age II house, especially in southern 

Israel. Although this structure could be a large domestic habitation, it includes several rare and special elements. These include 

the large paved courtyard, the indirect entrance, the unit/room 

with the plastered installation connecting to an outer sump (in 

Room C), and some metallurgic remains from Street J. As very 

few parallels exist for all elements appearing in this structure 

(large stone-paved courtyard, side entrance, inner depth, and a 

special hydraulic installation), one may suggest that it had a special, possibly public, function or that it was an elite, high-class 

residence or even a governor’s residence.

The issue of determining the function and nature of an architectural unit in archaeological research is clearly complex 

and often very difficult or even impossible. Although certain 

palaces, temples, and private dwellings are easily identifiable 

in cultures according to their (often standard) plans and sizes, 

building types between these two extremes are harder to define 

pulled down on the outside. This may resemble LBII bowls in the 

Egyptian tradition known as large bowls with ledged rims (see, 

e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL55; Aphek, Martin et al., 

2009:367–369, Type EGB7, and references therein). However, 

the hard-fired metallic dark clay may indicate a much later date 

(maybe Byzantine or Islamic; see Schaefer, 1989: fig. 7:10). Also 

from the topsoil is a fragment of a miniature vessel attached to a 

perforated wheel-made body sherd (Figure 6.158o). This is a jar 

that is a spout of a zoomorphic vessel depicting a beast burdened 

with two jars on its sides (a well-known zoomorphic libation 

vessel of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Levant; see 

chapter 17). An oblong hematite stone scale weight (weight of 

12.1 g) from the topsoil is also illustrated (Figure 6.158p). This is 

probably a typically shaped LBII scale weight type that appears 

in various weight values, found, for example, at Megiddo, Strata 

IX–VIII (Loud, 1948: pl. 168:9) and Ashdod, Stratum XIX (Dothan and Porath, 1993:31, fig. 6:17, pl. 31:16; Eran, 1993:125; 

see also further discussion in chapter 23).

Several objects of interest were found in unclear contexts 

of Field I and are discussed in the small finds section in chapters 17–23. These include plaque figurines (see chapter 17, Reg. 

Nos. 618, 1243 and Bag 3578), a bronze item that might be a 

figurine (Reg. No. 1332), jar handles with incised marks (Reg. 

Nos. 1978, 1980, 3817), several clay sealings with scarab impressions (Reg. Nos. 1202, 1227, 2037, 2182; also Reg. Nos. 

2078, 3920, without impression), a bronze arrowhead (Reg. No. 

1331), a crucible fragment (Reg. Nos. 2055, 2021), and a tuyère 

fragment (Reg. No. 2035). 

FIGURE 6.154. Pottery and finds from Phases 1, 2. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 4154/1 GMI 1F P1 1?

b Bowl SI Cat. No. 913 GMI 1F P1 1?

c Bowl 2678/1 GMI 4E–4F (2) 1?

d Bowl NA GMI 2E (2) 1

e Bowl; string cut SI Cat. No. 911 GMI 1F P1 1?

f Bowl 4158/1 GMI 2F (1) 1

g Bowl 4154/2 GMI 1F P1 1?

h Bowl 3457/1 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

i Bowl 2571/1 GMI 4D (2) 1

j Bowl 4158/2 GMI 2F (1) 1

k Bowl? 2998/1 GMI 4F F2c 1

l Bowl 4174/1 GMI 2F (1) 1

m Krater/bowl 4126/1 GMI 1F (5) 1 1

n Bowl/krater 2542/1 GMI 4D (2) 1

o Bowl/krater 4154/3 GMI 1F P1 1?

p Krater 4179/1 GMI 1F (5) 1 1

q Krater RV 66 GMI 1F (4) 1 1?

r Krater 4176/1 GMI 1F (2) 1 1

s Krater 4126/3 GMI 1F (5) 1 1

t Krater RV 71 GMI 4D (1A) 1

u Cooking pot 2675/1 GMI 4E–4F (2) 1?
322 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.155. Pottery and finds from Phases 1 and 2.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Strainer bowl Box 297/1 GMI 2E W2 1A

b Base/stand 4126/2 GMI 1F (5) 1 1

c Jar 2542/2 GMI 4D (2) 1

d Jar/jug 4174/2 GMI 2F (1) 1

e Jar 3467/2 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

f Juglet/jug; incisions 3467/1 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

g Jar 4122/1 GMI 1F F2 (1) 1

h Pithos; plastic decoration 4147A/1 GMI 1F (8) 1B/3?

i Jar; red and white decoration Box 266B/1 GMI 4D (2) 1

j Jar 2542/3 GMI 4D (2) 1

k Amphoriskos 4172/1 GMI 2F (2) 1B/3?

l Handle 4172/2 GMI 2F (2) 1B/3?

m Base (closed vessel) 4136/1 GMI 1F (2) 1 1

n Jug 4182/1 GMI 2F (1) 1

o Flask 4131/1 GMI 1F (4) 1 1?

p Lamp SI Cat. No. 912 GMI 1F P1 1?

q Lamp, soot 2542/4 GMI 4D (2) 1

r Lamp 4154/4 GMI 1F P1 1?

s Lamp, soot 2998/2 GMI 4F F2c 1
NUMBER 50 • 323

Bunimovitz, 1995: fig. 4), is not always justified (see, e.g., Wason, 

1994:136–145). For example, a study of Iron Age II houses in 

the southern Levant (Faust, 1999a, 1999b) has suggested that the 

different sizes of domestic houses are related to family size and 

not to socioeconomic status, as houses are smaller in towns and 

larger in rural settings. Therefore, one should evaluate both the 

architectural aspects (i.e., size, quality of building, floor plan, syntax, etc.) and the human activities that took place in the building 

(see, e.g., Foucault-Forest, 1996, on MB–LB private houses; 

Gadot and Yasur-Landau, 2006; Shai et al., 2011b:111, and references therein). Therefore, in certain cases, terms such as “patrician houses” or “elite houses” (e.g., Albright, 1938; Wright, 

1985:274; Oren, 1992:115; Ben-Dov, 1992) are often used. 

However, the classification of elite versus nonelite according to 

certain criteria, such as scale and energy expenditure in architectural elements (e.g., Mazar, 1990:246–247; Oren, 1992:115; 

FIGURE 6.156. Phase 1/3 and unstratified pottery from Field I, Late Bronze Age. Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; Myc. = Mycenaean.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Sherd; red decoration Box 353/1 GMI 4F (5) 1/3?

b Sherd; red decoration Box 173/1 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

c Sherd; red decoration Box 266A/2 GMI 4D (1) 1

d Sherd; red decoration Box 266A/3 GMI 4D (1) 1

e Sherd; red decoration Box 266A/4 GMI 4D (1) 1

f Jug (Cyp. BRII) Box 686/1 GMI 1F (2) 1 1

g Stirrup jar? (Myc. III) Box 744/1 GMI 4D (1) 1

h Handle/figurine fragment 3439/1 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

i Zoomorphic vessel; white slip Reg. No. 1259 (SI Cat. No. 641) GMI 2F (1) 1

j Perforated sherd Reg. No. 1699 GMI 1F (5) 1

k Pumice SCI 484 GMI 4D (1A) 1
324 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

2011b:112–115, figs. 4, 10; see their table 1 for further parallels); the area of most of these houses is on the same scale as 

Jemmeh’s Building I, around 200–250 m2

. Certain Middle and 

Late Bronze Age houses from Tell el-’Ajjul (Petrie, 1934: pls. 

LXII–LXIII; Foucault-Forest, 1996:25–36, pls. 14–17) and Beit 

Mirsim, Stratum D (Albright, 1938: pls. 51, 55; Oren, 1992:116, 

fig. 14) may also show some similarities (the entrance through a 

large, although unpaved, courtyard from the street), although 

they are mostly fragmentary in their plans. In these houses 

there is also a side entrance into a large space or courtyard (although unpaved; in some cases this space is a pillared hall), but 

the rooms seem to flank it and do not constitute a high-depth 

structure as at Tell Jemmeh. Generally, it seems that Building I 

in Tell Jemmeh Field I is more of the patrician house type (Oren, 

1992:115–117; here Figure 6.103) of the second millennium BCE 

rather than the domestic dwellings of this period (e.g., Ben-Dov, 

and in its immediate surroundings together. Note also that architectural units could have functioned in a variety of ways, and a 

simplistic division between domestic, industrial, public, and cultic space is not always justified (see, e.g., Janes, 1983:105–109; 

Horne, 1994:176–184; David and Kramer, 2001:296). 

Shai et al. (2011b) raise several possible criteria for determining whether a structure is private/domestic or public, both in 

general and in the context of the Late Bronze Age Levant (Shai 

et al., 2011b:109–112, table 1). Such criteria include size, wall 

thickness, floor plan, space syntax, number of overlying floors 

(also reflecting the duration of usage of the structure), the finds, 

and relationship to other structures. Somewhat similar houses 

with the same general plan were excavated in LB Ashdod, Area 

B, Strata XVII–XV (Dothan and Freedman, 1967:74–79, plans 

4, 5), Batash (Mazar, 1997:58–72, Building 315, although much 

smaller), Gezer and Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum E4b (Shai et al., 

FIGURE 6.157. A complete krater from an unclear context (RV 977, GMI (3)).

FIGURE 6.158. Unstratified pottery and small finds from Field I. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; soot SI Cat. No. 614 GMI TTI (1) Unstratified?

b Krater RV 69 GMI 5F F3A Unknown

c Miniature bowl SI Cat. No. 412 GMI 4D–5D (0) Unstratified

d Krater; red and white decoration Box 305/1 GMI 5E (2) Unknown

e Cooking pot 2717/1 GMI 5E (2) Unknown

f Conical vessel 2694/1 GMI 5E (4) 2 Unknown

g Bowl; black 2516/1 GMI 4D (0) Unstratified

h Sherd with relief 3449/1 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

i Sherd with relief 3449/2 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

j Pithos; plastic decoration 2716/1 GMI 5E (6) Unknown

k Jug(?) Box 715/1 GM 3G (0) Unstratified

l Lamp; soot RV 285 GMI 5D (2) Unstratified/3

m Baking tray RV 287 GMI 5E (4) Unknown

n Churn (Chalcolithic) 2416/1 GMI 5D W4 1/3? 

o Zoomorphic vessel RV 283 GMI 4E/4F (2) Unknown

p Hematite weight Reg. No. 1042 (SI Cat. No. 803) GMI 1F (0) Unstratified
NUMBER 50 • 325

suggestion. The access syntax of Building I (Figure 6.38), similar 

to other LBII buildings mentioned above, does show control and 

restriction of access to some of the units, as passage through the 

courtyard is needed. However, the high depth in the northern 

section of Building I indicates a higher level of access restriction, which is usually associated with public structures, such 

as temples or palaces (see also Minoan villas; e.g., Preziosi and 

Hitchcock, 1999:111–114).

Regarding finds, Building I yielded a common LBII assemblage of pottery (including imported) and small finds (including figurines), and luxurious and cultic objects are not especially 

common. In fact, the fragmentary Building II yielded relatively 

1992; Foucault-Forest, 1996). Note also that these buildings are 

different from the so-called governors’ residences found in the 

LBII–Iron I southern Levant (Oren, 1992:117–120), such as at 

Aphek, Tel Sera’, and other sites (possibly also Tell Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: pl. VI, Building JF; see, e.g., Oren, 1992; Gadot, 2010; 

Shai et al., 2011b). For example, the latter have a larger size 

of over 400 m2

 and a typical square, rather symmetrical plan, 

and their inner courtyard is relatively small. The governors’ residences also usually have an outer court in front of the building’s 

entrance; at Tell Jemmeh, to the east of Building I, open Area K 

might have been part of such a court, but the limited exposure in 

this area is too close to the edge of the building to prove such a 
326 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(see more in chapter 34). This area possibly housed the elite 

of the Canaanite town of Yurza located on the border with 

Egypt. However, Egyptian influence in the material culture remains quite minimal. The buildings, which are basically largecourtyard buildings (on the very early tradition of courtyard 

buildings in the Near East, see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel, 

2009), show complexity in plan, a multitude of open and roofed 

units, and sophisticated installations. Some artifacts found in 

situ may reflect activities held in the different units, although 

the function of certain more unique installations still remains 

unclear to us.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTES

1. Room numbers in Field I were allocated consecutively in this case.

2. This is possibly also because the label “Layer 3” in Sq. 4D was used in both 

the 1976 and 1977 seasons. During the 1976 season it was used for the fill 

of Room 2 (denoted {76}) and later in the 1977 season (denoted {77}) for the 

debris below belonging to Phase 3, Building II, Room F.

more special finds, especially Room F, which included items that 

could reflect administrative activities (a stamp, sealings, and a 

marked jar handle). Notably, in the remains above this room (in 

Phase 1, Rooms 1 and 2), special finds include bone inlays, a silver or lead earring, a stamp seal, and other finds (see above), and 

there is a possibility some Phase 1 items should also be assigned 

to Phase 3, Room F). 

The occurrence of tabuns, or ovens, is also a domestic 

characteristic; however, the relatively large number of these 

installations, mostly located in one space (Unit L), may indicate a larger than domestic scale of food preparation, maybe 

even feasting. Other possibly “nondomestic” characteristics of 

Building I include, as noted, the plastered installation or bath 

and the metallurgic activities. Notably, at the Tell es-Safi building as well, a space near the entrance (Room and Installation 

84011, Shai et al., 2011b:128) was possibly used for metallurgical activity in a way similar to that in Street J near Building 

I. The occurrence of various internal architectural changes as 

well as floor raisings in the building may attest to a long usage 

period, perhaps also indicating a nondomestic character. Thus, 

considering all available data on Building I, it seems there is a 

high likelihood that this was not a domestic residence of the 

most common type in the southern Levant; whether this was an 

elite residence, patrician’s house, or some other sort of public 

building is still not clear.

In conclusion, the contribution of Field I is the exposure 

of one of the better and well-preserved examples of LBII southern Levantine or Canaanite elaborate residential architecture 
NUMBER 50 • 327

(continued)

TABLE 6.A1. List of contexts of Field I. The notation {xx} indicates the year of excavation when the layer number is repeated in various 

seasons. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower elevation was recorded, and in others it is 

questionable; the notation (xx) indicates estimated or recorded layer thickness.

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI 2D (1) Fill Unknown

GMI 2D (2) Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (0) Fill None

GMI 3D (1) Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (2) Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (3) Fill 2–3?

GMI 3D (4) Fill 3?

GMI 3D (5) Fill 3?

GMI 3D (6) Fill 3?

GMI 3D (2) 1 Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (2) 2 Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (2A) 2 Fill Unknown

GMI 3D (2B) 2 Fill Unknown

GMI 4D (0) Topsoil 51.91 None

GMI 4D (1) Fill 1 Equals 5D (1)

GMI 4D (1A) Fill 1

GMI 4D (2) Fill 52.50 52.86 1

GMI 4D (3) {76} Fill 1 Room 2

GMI 4D (3) {77} Fill 3 Room F

GMI 4D (3A) Fill 52.02 52.61 1 Room 1

GMI 4D (2A) Fill 1 Room 1

GMI 4D (2B) Fill 52.60 1 Room 1

GMI 4D T2 (1) Fill 1 Room 1

GMI 4D (2C) 1 Fill 1 Room 1

GMI 4D (2) 2 Fill 52.05 52.31 1 Room 2

GMI 4D (2A) 2 Fill 51.95 52.05 1 Room 2

GMI 4D (4) 3 Fill 51.01 51.68 3 Room F

GMI 4D (4A) 3 Fill 51.01 51.05 3 Room F

GMI 4D (4) 4 Fill 50.94 3 Street J

GMI 4D (4) 5 Fill 3 Street J

GMI 4D F1 Bin 51.08 52.24 1 Room 1

GMI 4D F1A (1) Bin 51.08 52.53 1 Room 1 East cell of bin F1

GMI 4D F1B (1) Bin 51.08 52.46 1 Room 1 West cell of bin F1

GMI 4D F2 (1) Stones 1 Room 1

GMI 4D F2 (2) Stones/floor 1 Room 1

GMI 4D F3 (1) Bricks 1 Room 2 Semicircular area with 

bricks (bin?)

GMI 4D F4 Bricks 1 Room 1 Possible blocked door in 

Wall 4

GMI 4D–5D W1 Wall 53.22 53.52 1 Petrie wall in southern part 

of square (equals 5D W5?)

GMI 4D W2 Wall 51.91 1 Petrie wall?

GMI 4D W3 Wall 52.28 52.52 1 Room 2 Petrie’s JR wall?

GMI 4D W4_1–W4_2 Wall 52.41 52.9 1 Rooms 1–2 Brick wall

GMI 4D W5 Wall 52.46 52.86 1 Room 1 Brick wall

APPENDIX 6.1
328 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI 4D W6 Wall 52.09 3 Room F Brick wall

GMI 4D W7 Wall 51.47 52.30 3 Room F Brick wall

GMI 4D W8 Wall 52.24 52.30 3 Room F Brick wall

GMI 5D (0) Topsoil 52.30 52.68 None

GMI 5D (1) Fill 52.01 52.41 None Under wall 1, over wall 4

GMI 5D (2) Fill 51.65 52.52 None/3 Bricks and ash

GMI 5D (3) Fill 51.65 51.85 3

GMI 5D (3) 2 Fill 51.65 51.85 3

GMI 5D (4) Fill/wash None

GMI 5D (4) 2 Fill 3

GMI 5D (3A) Fill None/3

GMI 5D (3B) Fill 3

GMI 5D (5) 1 Fill None

GMI 5D (4) Fill 3?

GMI 5D TT1 2 Fill (0.5) 3 Street J

GMI 5D (5) 2 Fill None/3 Street J

GMI 5D (6) 1 Fill 3 Room G

GMI 5D (6A) 1 Fill (0.1) 3 Room G

GMI 5D (6) 2 Fill 51.58 51.79 3 Street J

GMI 5D TT1 (7) 2 Fill 50.96 51.54 3 Street J

GMI 5D TT1 (7A) Fill 51.15 51.40 3 Street J

GMI 5D TT1/TT3 (7B) 2 Fill 50.90 51.15 3 Street J

GMI 5D TT1/TT3 (7C) 2 Fill 51.00 51.23 3 Street J/Area K

GMI 5D (8) 2 Fill 51.00 3 Street J

GMI 5D (8A) 2 Fill 51.00 3 Street J

GMI 5D (8B) 3 Fill 50.88 51.00 3 Street J

GMI 5D (8C) 3 Fill 50.76 50.88 3/4 Room H?

GMI 5D F1 Yellow wash/

sandstone 3 

GMI 5D F1A Sandstone blocks 3 Area K

GMI 5D F1A (2) Sump 50.96 51.23 3 Area K

GMI 5D F1A (3) Sump 50.60 50.96 3 Area K

GMI 5D F1B Fill 3 Area K

GMI 5D F1C Channel 3 Area K Channel leading from F1A

GMI 5D F2 (1) Floor 51.15 51.15 3 Room H Plastered floor

GMI 5D F2 (2) Floor 51.15 3 Room H Plastered floor

GMI 5D F2 (3) Floor 51.05 51.15 3 Room H Plastered floor

GMI 5D F2 (4) Floor 51.05 3 Room H Plastered floor

GMI 5D F3 Tabun lining 51.98 3 Room G

GMI 5D F3A Tabun 3 Room G Fill in F3

GMI 5D F3B (1) Tabun 3 Room G

GMI 5D F3B (2) Tabun 51.72 3 Room G

GMI 5D F3C Tabun 3 Room G

GMI 5D T3 F4 {75} Bone 51.25 3 Street J?

GMI 5D F4 Doorjamb/entrance 50.94 51.39 3 Room G

GMI 5D W1 Wall 51.81 53.41 1 Petrie wall?

GMI 5D W2 Wall 51.75 51.91 1 Petrie JR wall

GMI 5D W3 Wall 51.75 51.91 1 Petrie JR wall

GMI 5D W4 Wall 51.40 51.91 1–3? Brick wall (equals W9)
NUMBER 50 • 329

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMI 5D W5 Wall 51.64 52.00 1–3? Brick wall

GMI 5D W6 Wall 51.35 52.02 3 Courtyard A Brick wall

GMI 5D W7 Wall 51.35 51.56 3 Courtyard A Brick wall

GMI 5D W8 Wall 51.39 51.76 3 Room G Brick wall

GMI 5D W9 Wall 51.65 51.76 3 Room G Brick wall

GMI 5D W10 Wall 51.73 3 Rooms G–F Brick wall

GMI 5D W11 Wall 51.79 51.84 3 Room H Brick wall

GMI 5D W12 Wall 3B-4? Brick wall

GMI 5D–4D W1 Wall 53.32 1 Brick wall

GMI 2E (0) Topsoil None

GMI 2E (1A) Fill None/1

GMI 2E (1B) Fill 53.69 1

GMI 2E (1C) Fill 1

GMI 2E (1D) Fill 1

GMI 2E (2) Fill 53.50 53.70 1

GMI 2E (1) 3 Fill 1B

GMI 2E (3) Fill 1A

GMI 2E (4) Fill 53.35 1–3?

GMI 2E (4A) Fill 52.20 52.35 3?

GMI 2E (4B-XX)a Fill 51.85 52.35–52.15 3? 

GMI 2E (4-XX)a Fill 52.05 1–3? 

GMI 2E F1 Unknown 1?

GMI 2E F2 Unknown 1?

GMI 2E F3 Fill ?

GMI 2E F4 Bricks 53.69 1

GMI 2E F5 Ash 1?

GMI 2E W1 Wall 53.69 1A? Brick wall

GMI 2E W1A Wall 1A? Brick wall

GMI 2E W2 Wall 1A Brick wall

GMI 2E W2A Wall? 53.80 1A Brick wall

GMI 2E W2B Bricks 1A

GMI 2E W3 Wall 52.58 53.04 1B Brick wall

GMI 2E W4 Wall? 1B Brick wall

GMI 2E W5 Wall 52.62 52.86 1B Brick wall

GMI 4E (1) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 4E (2) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (0) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (1) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (2) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (3) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (4) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (5) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (6) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (+) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (0) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (1) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (2) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (3) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E (4) 2 Fill? Unknown No records
330 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI 5E TT1 (1) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E TT2 (1) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E TT3 (1) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E TT3 (2) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E TT3 (3) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5E F2 Unknown Unknown No records

GMI 1F (0) Topsoil None

GMI 1F (1) Fill None

GMI 1F (1) {77} Fill None/1

GMI 1F (2) Fill None/1

GMI 1F (2) {77} Fill 1

GMI 1F (3) Fill None/1

GMI 1F (3) 1 {77} Fill 1

GMI 1F (3A) {77} Fill None/1

GMI 1F (4) Fill/pit Unknown

GMI 1F (5) Fill 1

GMI 1F (6) Fill 1?

GMI 1F (7) Fill 1

GMI 1F (7) {77} Fill 1–2?

GMI 1F (8) Fill 1B?–3

GMI 1F (9) Fill (0.25) 3?

GMI 1F (10) Fill 3 Room E?

GMI 1F (11) Fill 3 Room E

GMI 1F (12) Fill 3 Room E

GMI 1F (12) 1 Fill 3 Room E

GMI 1F (13) Fill 3B–4?

GMI 1F (14) Fill 3B–4?

GMI 1F (0) 2 Topsoil None

GMI 1F (2) 2 Fill 1

GMI 1F F1 Fill? 1? Fill in W2

GMI 1F F2 Unknown Unknown Equals 2F F2?

GMI 1F F3 Unknown Unknown Equals 2F F3?

GMI 1F F4 Unknown Unknown Equals 2F F4?

GMI 1F F5 (1) Unknown Unknown Equals 2F F5?

GMI 1F F5 (2) Unknown Unknown Equals 2F F5?

GMI 1F P1 Pit 1? Lamp and bowl deposit?

GMI 1F W1 Wall 1 Brick wall

GMI 1F W2 Wall 53.22 53.28 1 Brick wall

GMI 1F W3 Wall 52.09 3 Room E Brick wall

GMI 1F W4 Wall Unknown

GMI 2F (0) Fill/topsoil None

GMI 2F (1) Fill 52.45 52.70 1

GMI 2F (2) Fill 52.25 52.45 1B–3?

GMI 2F (3) Fill 1B–3?

GMI 2F (4) Fill (0.05–0.1) 1B–3?

GMI 2F F1 Ash 52.72 52.82 1?

GMI 2F F2 Tabun? 3A Room B

GMI 2F F3 Foundation? 3

GMI 2F F3 {75} Tabun 3A Room B
NUMBER 50

• 331

TABLE 6.A1(continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMI 2F F4 Bricks 3? Room B?

GMI 2F F5 1 Tabun 52.07 3A Room B

GMI 2F F5 (1) 1 Tabun 3A Room B

GMI 2F F5 (2) 1 Tabun 3A Room B

GMI 2F W1 Wall 53.051 Petrie JK wall?

GMI 2F W2 Wall3 Room E Brick wall

GMI 2F W3 Unknown Unknown Unknown

GMI 2F W4 Unknown Unknown Unknown

GMI 2F W5 Wall3 Courtyard A Brick wall

GMI 3F (0) Topsoil None

GMI 3F (1) Fill None/2?

GMI 3F (2) Fill None

GMI 3F (3) Fill None

GMI 3F (4) Fill None

GMI 3F (5) Fill None/2?

GMI 3F (6) Fill 2–3

GMI 3F F1 (1) Bricks 3? Equals 2F F4

GMI 3F F2 Stones 2?–3A

GMI 3F W1 Wall 52.19 52.54 1?

GMI 3F W2 Wall 51.70 52.68 2?–3A Unit D2 Brick wall

GMI 3F W3 Wall 2?–3A Unit D2 Brick wall

GMI 3F W4 Wall 3(B?) Brick wall

GMI 3F W5 Wall 3(B?)? Equals 2F W5?

GMI 3F W6 Wall 51.53 51.75 2–3A?

GMI 3F W7 Wall 51.28 51.54 3(B?) Under W6

GMI 4F (1) Fill 51.82 52.50 1–3?

GMI 4F TT1 (2) 1 Fill 1?

GMI 4F TT1 (2) 2 Fill 1?

GMI 4F TT1 (3) 1 Fill 51.76 51.823 Courtyard A

GMI 4F TT2 (1-3) Fill 1–3

GMI 4F (3A) Fill3 Courtyard A

GMI 4F (3B) Fill3 Courtyard A

GMI 4F (3C) Fill3 Courtyard A

GMI 4F (3D) Fill3 Courtyard A

GMI 4F TT3 (3A) Fill 2?

GMI 4F TT3 (3B) Fill 2?

GMI 4F TT3 (3C) Fill 3?

GMI 4F TT3 (6) Fill 3? Equals (3)?

GMI 4F TT3 (7) Fill 3? Equals (6)

GMI 4F TT3 (8) Fill 4? Equals (7)

GMI 4F TT3 (9) Fill 4? Equals (4)

GMI 4F TT3 (10) Fill 3? Unit D Equals (8)

GMI 4F Probe A Fill Unknown

GMI 4F TT2 (4) Fill3 Unit D

GMI 4F (5) Fill1

GMI 4F TT4 (1) Fill 4? Equals 4F (10)

GMI 4F TT4 (2) Fill 4? Equals 4F (11)

GMI 4F TT4 (3) Fill 4? Equals 4F (12)

GMI 4F TT5 (1) Fill 4?
332 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI 4F TT5 (1D) Fill 4?

GMI 4F TT5 (2) Fill 4?

GMI 4F TT5 (3) Fill 49.51 4?

GMI 4F TT5 (4) Fill 4?

GMI 4F TT1 F1 (1) Wood remains 52.30 Unknown

GMI 4F TT1 F2 (2) Ashy layer None/1

GMI 4F F2 Ashy layer 51.94 52.06 1

GMI 4F F2A Bricks 1

GMI 4F F2B Ashy layer 1

GMI 4F F2C Brick 1

GMI 4F F3 Bricks 3 Courtyard A

GMI 4F F4 Bricks 51.31 51.41 3 Unit D?

GMI 4F F5 Bricks 51.95 3? Unit D

GMI 4F F6 Paving 51.90 52.03 2?

GMI 4F F7 Ash pit 2?

GMI 4F F8 Layers? 3B-4?

GMI 4F W1 Paving 51.64 51.76 3 Courtyard A Paving of Courtyard A

GMI 4F W2 Paving 51.23 51.42 3 Unit D1 Paving of Unit D

GMI 4F W3 Fill 51.72 3?

GMI 4F W4 Wall? 51.36 51.53 3? Unit D?

GMI 4F W5 Paving 3B? Unit D? Stone paving 

GMI 4F P1 Pit? 49.74 49.95 None Disturbance

GMI 5E P1 Pit? 3? Building I Lamp and bowl deposit?

GMI 5F (0) Topsoil None

GMI 5F (1) Fill Unknown

GMI 5F (2) Fill Unknown

GMI 5F (1) 1 Fill? None No records

GMI 5F (1) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F (3) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F (4) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F (5) 2 Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F (5) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F (6) Fill? Unknown No records

GMI 5F F2 Unknown Unknown No records

GMI 5F F3 Unknown Unknown No records

GMI 5F F3A Unknown Unknown No records

GMI 5F F5 Threshold 3B–4 

GMI 5F W7 Wall 51.20 52.04 3 Unit D3 

GMI 5F W8 Wall 3 Unit D3 

GMI 6F F2 F2 Pebbles 51.51 51.65 3 Area K

GMI 6F (1) Fill 51.19 51.47 3?

GMI 6F (2) Fill 50.94 51.19 3 Area K?

GMI 6F (3) Fill 50.64 50.94 3–4?

GMI 6E-6F (0) Topsoil 51.47 52.04 None

GMI 6E-6F (4) Fill 50.85 50.75 3–4?

GMI 6E-6F F1 Trench 51.15 52.00 None Excavation dump

GMI 6F P1 Pit None Modern pit

GMI 6E (1) Fill 50.71 51.11 3 Area K?

GMI 6E (2) Fill 50.24 50.71 3–4?
NUMBER 50 • 333

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMI 6E F2 Installation; sump? 49.67 51.68 3 Area K

GMI 6E F4 Pebbles 51.51 51.65 3 Area K

GMI 6E P2 Pit Unknown

GMI 3G (0) Topsoil 52.28 52.48 None

GMI 3G (1A) 1 Fill 51.72 51.91 3A Unit L

GMI 3G (1) 1 Fill 51.55 51.72 3 Unit L Level of tabun, F2 

(contains six postholes?)

GMI 3G (2) 1 Floor 51.38 51.52 3(B?) Unit L

GMI 3G (3) 1 Floor/fill 51.16 51.41 3–4? Unit L

GMI 3G (4) 1 Fill 50.95 51.16 4?

GMI 3G (5) 1 Fill 50.85 50.95 4

GMI 3G (6) 1 Fill 50.77 50.85 4–5

GMI 3G (1) 3 Fill 50.45 50.79 5

GMI 3G (2) 3 Fill 50.35 50.45 5

GMI 3G (7) 2 Fill 50.45 50.63 5

GMI 3G (8) 2 Fill 50.24 50.55 5

GMI 3G (9) Fill 50.01 50.22 6

GMI 3G (10) Fill 49.90 50.08 6

GMI 3G (11) Fill 49.82 49.90 6

GMI 3G (12) Fill 49.66 50.20 6

GMI 3G (13) Fill 49.42 49.75 6

GMI 3G (14) Fill 49.31 49.48 6

GMI 3G (15) 1 Fill 49.22 49.34 6

GMI 3G (15) 2 Fill 49.07 49.34 6

GMI 3G (16) 1 Fill 48.90 49.22 6–7

GMI 3G (16) 2 Fill 48.77 49.07 6–7

GMI 3G (17) Fill 48.58 48.88 7

GMI 3G (18) Fill 48.26 48.55 7

GMI 3G (19) Fill 47.86 48.26 7

GMI 3G (20) Fill 47.56 47.86 8

GMI 3G (21) Fill 47.39 47.71 8

GMI 3G (22) 1 Fill 47.57 47.75 8

GMI 3G (23) 1 Fill/floor? 47.44 47.57 8

GMI 3G (24) 1 Floor? 47.39 47.44 8

GMI 3G (24) 2 Fill 47.55 8

GMI 3G (25) 1 Fill 47.16 47.46 9

GMI 3G (25) 2 Fill 47.30 47.40 9

GMI 3G (26) Fill 47.02 47.40 9

GMI 3G F1 Installation 51.70 51.90 3A? Unit L?

GMI 3G F2 Tabun 51.61 51.97 3(A?) Unit L 

GMI 3G F3 Pit 1? Equals P1

GMI 3G F4 Pit 1? Equals P2

GMI 3G F5 Bench 51.15? 51.30 3? Unit L?

GMI 3G F6 Bricks 49.45 49.90 6

GMI 3G F7 Tabun 48.76 7

GMI 3G F8 Installation 8

GMI 3G F9 Tabun 47.35 9

GMI 3G F10 Brick floor? 46.95 47.23 9

GMI 3G F11 Pit 46.87 47.37 9 Pit with animal skeleton
334 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI 3G F12 Pit? 47.02 47.23 9

GMI 3G W1 Wall 51.57 51.67 3 Unit L Brick wall

GMI 3G W2 Wall 51.67? 52.42 3 Room D3 Brick wall

GMI 3G W3 Wall 50.36 50.77 5 Brick wall

GMI 3G W4 Wall 50.36? 50.96 5 Brick wall

GMI 3G W5 Wall 49.07 49.80 6 Brick wall

GMI 3G W6 Wall 47.44 47.77 8 Brick wall

GMI 3G W7 Wall 47.55 47.77 8 Brick wall

GMI 3G P1 Pit 1? Cuts W1

GMI 3G P2 Pit 1? Cuts W1

GMI 3G P3 Pit 49.05 50.55 4

GMI 3G P4 Pit 49.05 50.85 4

GMI 3G P5 Pit 48.27 48.70 6

GMI 3G P6 Pit 47.85 48.33 6–7?

GMI 3G P7 Pit 45.98 47.75 7–8?

GMI 3G P8 Pit 46.85 47.57 7–8?

GMI 3G P9 Pit 8?

GMI 4G (0) Topsoil 51.82 51.92 None

GMI 4G TT1 (1) Fill 51.80 51.95 None/3A?

GMI 4G TT1 (2) Fill 51.57 51.72 3 Unit L

GMI 4G (1) 2 Fill 51.65 51.79 3 Corridor/D3?

GMI 4G (2) 2 Fill 51.45 51.65 3 Corridor/D3?

GMI 4G (3) 2 Fill 51.31 51.45 3 Corridor/D3?

GMI 4G (4) 2 Fill 51.16 51.31 3 Corridor/D3?

GMI 4G (5) 2 Debris 51.05 51.12 3–4? Unit L entrance

GMI 4G (1) 1 Fill 51.51 51.86 3 Unit L?

GMI 4G (2) 1 Debris 51.33 51.86 3 Unit L Ashy

GMI 4G (3) 1 Debris/floor 51.18 51.33 3 Unit L Fill and floor in and under 

Unit L

GMI 4G (4) 1 Fill 50.94 51.18 3–4? Unit L? Fill in Unit L and below 

floor

GMI 4G (1) 3 Fill 51.65 51.77 3 Corridor/M1 Ashy fill in corridor/M1

GMI 4G (2) 3 Debris/floor 51.53 51.65 3(A?) Corridor/M1

GMI 4G (3) 3 Fill 51.31 51.53 3 Unit L entrance

GMI 4G F1 Bench? 3 Room D3?

GMI 4G F2 1 Tabun 51.18 51.34 3B Unit L

GMI 4G F3 Beam 51.31 51.57 3 Unit L entrance Wooden beam in entrance 

to Unit L 

GMI 4G F4 Tabun? 51.44 51.54 3(A?) Unit L

GMI 4G W1 Wall 51.57 51.64 3 Unit L Brick wall

GMI 4G W2 Wall 51.76 51.79 3 Unit L Brick wall

GMI 4G W3 Wall 51.38 51.64 3 Unit L Brick wall

GMI 4G W4 Wall 51.67 51.80 3 Room D3/M1 Brick wall

GMI 5G (0) Topsoil 51.01 52.05 None

GMI 5G (1) Fill 51.05 51.50 3

GMI 5G (1) 3 Fill 51.66 51.83 3 Unit M1

GMI 5G (2) 3 Fill/floor 51.39 51.65 3 Unit M1

GMI 5G (3) 3 Fill 51.35 51.46 3 Unit M1

GMI 5G (1) 4 Fill 51.69 51.89 3 Unit M2
NUMBER 50 • 335

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GMI 5G (2) 4 Fill/debris 51.57 51.68 3 Unit M1/M2

GMI 5G (3) 4 Fill 51.42 51.57 3 Unit M2

GMI 5G (1) 5 Fill 51.48 51.75 3 Room D3

GMI 5G (2) 5 Fill 51.19 51.48 3 Room D3

GMI 5G TT1 (1) Fill 51.50 51.73 3 Room D3?

GMI 5G F5 Bench/installation 51.70 51.75 3 Unit M2

GMI 5G F6 Bricks 51.74 3 Unit M2

GMI 5G F7 Wood beam 51.41 51.46 3 Unit M1/M2 Beam laid in the floor

GMI 5G F8 Bench/threshold 51.44 51.55 3 Unit M2

GMI 5G F8A Paving 51.35 51.49 3 Unit M2

GMI 5G F9 Brick paving 51.43 51.53 3 Unit M1

GMI 5G W5 Wall 51.52 51.84 3 Unit M1 Brick wall

GMI 5G W6 Wall 51.45 51.84 3 Unit M1/M2 Brick wall

GMI 5G W7 Wall 52.04 3 Room D3 Brick wall

GMI 5G W8 Wall 51.55 3 Room D3 Brick wall

GMI 4H-5H (0) Topsoil 51.62 None

GMI 4H (1) 7 Fill 51.45 51.61 3 Room O

GMI 4H (2) 7 Fill 51.12 51.45 3 Room O

GMI 4H (1) 8 Fill 51.71 51.73 3 East of Building I, 

 Room N

GMI 4H F10 Pit 51.66 51.80 1?

GMI 4H-4G F11 Tabun 51.57 51.89 3(A?) Unit L

GMI 4H F12 Wood beam 51.62 3 Room O

GMI 5H (1) Fill 51.62 3 Room N

GMI 5H (1) 6 Fill 51.44 51.74 3 Room N

GMI 5H (2) 6 Floor/floor makeup 51.33 51.44 3 Room N

GMI 5H W9 Wall 51.60 51.81 3 Room N Brick wall

GMI 5H W10 Wall 51.50 51.74 3 Room N Brick wall

GMI 5H W11 Wall 51.70 3 Room O Brick wall

GMI 5H W12 Wall 51.75 3 Room N Brick wall

GMI 5H W13 Wall 51.60 51.70 3 Room N Brick wall

GMI TTA (0) Topsoil (0.3) None

GMI TTA (1A) Fill 51.89 52.18 3? Courtyard A

GMI TTA (1B) Fill 52.01 52.27 3? Courtyard A

GMI TTA (2) Fill 51.51 51.89 3 Courtyard A

GMI TTA (3) Fill 51.98 Unknown

GMI TTA (4) Fill 51.68 3 Courtyard A Ashy

GMI TTA F1 Paving 51.66 51.82 3 Courtyard A Pavement of courtyard 

GMI TTB (0) Topsoil 52.50 52.80 None Includes Petrie large stone 

bench mark at 52.50 m

GMI TTB (1) Fill 51.84 51.96 3?

GMI TTB (2) Fill 51.93 52.03 3?

GMI TTB (3) Fill 51.76 51.90 3?

GMI TTB (4) Fill 51.64 51.78 3 Room C

GMI TTB (5) Fill 51.93 Unknown

GMI TTB (6) Fill 51.67 3 Room C

GMI TTB F1 Paving 51.43 3 Courtyard A

GMI TTB W1 Wall 51.44 51.77 3 Room C

GMI TTA1 (0) Topsoil None
336 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 6.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GMI TTA1 (1) Fill 3 Courtyard A

GMI TTA1 (2) Bricks 3 Unknown

GMI TTA1 (3) Bricks 3

GMI TTA1 W1 Wall? Unknown

GMI TTA1 W2-W3 Fill 3

GMI TTC (0) Topsoil None

GMI TTC (1) Fill 52.01 3?

GMI TTC (2) Fill 51.87 52.00 3?

GMI TTC (3) Fill 51.73 51.87 3 Room C

GMI TTC (4) Fill 51.62 3 Room C

GMI TTC (5) Fill 3? Room C?

GMI TTC F1 Paving 3 Courtyard A Courtyard paving

GMI TTC W2 Paving 3 Unit D2 Equals 4F W2

GMI TTD (0) Topsoil None

GMI TTD (1) Fill 52.00 52.17 None/3?

GMI TTD (2) Fill 51.87 51.95 3

GMI TTD (3) Fill 51.87 3

GMI TTD (4) Fill 3

GMI TTD (5) Fill 51.47 51.54 3

GMI TTD (6) Fill 51.61 3(B) Courtyard A

GMI TTD F1 Paving 3 Courtyard A Courtyard paving

GMI TTD W1 Wall? 3 Courtyard A

GMI TTD W2 Wall? 3 Courtyard A

GMI WSPI Unknown Unknown 1972 trench

a

Denotes something unclear in excavation notes. 
7 Field I Furnace (the Kiln), 

Square KB, and FUR 2–FUR 3

David Ben-Shlomo

F

ield I Furnace (FUR) lies is the same low area of the tell as Field I (see Figure 7.1, left side, for its location in relation to Field I 

and the LBII courtyard building). However, as it lies 20–25 m northeast of the eastern edge of Field I and is not connected to 

it and not combined in the same grid, it is treated separately in this report. Thus, unfortunately, the phases and layers in this 

area could not be physically linked to the Field I phases, with each area having its own phasing sequence. Also discussed in this 

chapter is another nearby small field denoted as Field I, Square (Sq.) KB and two installations or kilns located in the same general area 

of Petrie’s excavation, which were cleaned and reexcavated by the Smithsonian expedition (denoted FUR 2(II) and FUR 3(III)).

FIELD I FUR: THE IRON I KILN AREA

The excavation in this area started after the remains of a well-preserved pottery kiln were discovered on the surface at the end of 

the 1974 season (Figure 7.2). The western face of the kiln (Figure 7.3) was exposed because of the erosion of Petrie’s east balk, and it 

was noticed in late July 1974.

The kiln and Field I FUR (FUR 1) 

designated around it were excavated during the 1975–1978 seasons (Figure 7.4), 

beginning with an area of about 4.5 × 3 m 

just surrounding the kiln. This was subsequently expanded about 1 m to the north 

to complete the excavation of the northern side of the kiln (Figure 7.3). During 

1975, prior to the excavation of the kiln, 

a small area to the west of the kiln was 

also cleaned and excavated to a shallow 

level (Figure 7.3, front). In the 1978 season, the area was expanded some 3 m to 

the east (Figure 7.5); this was denoted also 

as Sq. FUR IB. The aim here was to continue the excavation of some architectural 

remains just above the kiln (see below). 

The total excavation area eventually measured about 8 × 3 m, and about 24 m2

were excavated. The area was supervised 

by Gus Van Beek (1975–1977), Deborah 

Weinstein (1975), Gary Rollefson (1976), 

and Bonnie Magness (1978); architects 

were Brian Lalor and David Sheehan.

FIGURE 7.1. Location of Field I FUR, on the left, above Field I (which is on the lower right), 

looking south.
338 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.2. The kiln as discovered in 1975.

FIGURE 7.3. The western face of the kiln as exposed, with a small area excavated west of the kiln, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 339

FIGURE 7.4. The southern face of the kiln before excavation, looking north. Note the visible flues.

FIGURE 7.5. Plan of Phase 4.
340 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Ashdod, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:118, fig. 3.34:8,9); it 

is decorated with short incisions. A stone spindle whorl (Figure 

7.10p) and a chalk mortar (Figure 7.10q; for these, see chapter 

23) as well as a faience amulet depicting Bes were also found in 

Phase 4 (Figure 7.10o; see chapter 24, Cat. No. 8). Two scarabs 

were found in Locus 4, Layer 9 (Figure 7.10r,s), one reading, 

“Ptah the lord of truth” (Figure 7.10r). Both date to the late LBII 

(see chapter 27, Gamma Nos. 148, 154).

Although the pottery from Phase 4 includes some typical 

Iron I forms and hardly any Philistine Bichrome pottery, it may 

be tentatively dated to the Iron IA, although not enough pottery 

was recovered for a definite dating. Therefore, it is possible that 

Phase 4 is contemporary with the uppermost phase in Field I 

(Phase 1; see above) or Petrie’s Level J-K. On the other hand, the 

pottery from Field I FUR, Phases 2 and 3 is quite similar, dating 

to the Iron IB, with most Philistine Bichrome pottery coming 

from Phase 2. 

Although the pottery kiln was the focus of the excavation, 

some earlier and later remains were exposed as well. The kiln 

was denoted Phase 3 (note that in 1975, Layer 2 was placed 

above Layer 1; thus, Layer 1 is Phase 3, and Phase 4 indicates remains below it), whereas the remains that predate it are assigned 

to Phase 4 (Figure 7.5), and the two construction phases that 

seem to postdate the kiln are denoted Phases 2 and 1 (Figures 

7.45, 7.57). 

The earliest walls in Field I FUR are quite similar in level 

and orientation to those of the higher walls (Phase 1A) in Field 

I above the courtyard of Building I (see chapter 6), but as noted, 

they could not be linked. It can be suggested, in principle, that 

this feature may belong to Petrie’s J-K level (the XVIIIth Dynasty town; Petrie, 1928: pl. VI), yet according to the pottery 

(mainly Philistine Bichrome pottery, which is completely lacking 

from Field I), we suggest that the kiln, or at least the end date 

of its usage, postdates the higher Field I architecture (chapter 6, 

Phase 1).

Phase 4

Phase 4 denotes the remains that underlie the kiln (Figures 

7.5–7.10); these are the earliest remains excavated in this area. 

This includes a long wall seen under the base of the southern part 

of the kiln (Wall E1, Figures 7.7, 7.8, levels of 53.04–53.10 m). 

The wall is not straight and was exposed to a length of at least 4 

m, continuing eastward into Sq. FUR IB. In the east, it lies parallel to and slightly under Wall E (Figure 7.12). Wall E abuts Wall 

E1 from the south and may connect to a lower phase of Wall D 

(Figure 7.6), standing 10 courses high. Walls D and E may have 

continued to be in use in Phase 3 together with the kiln (maybe 

also reflecting the early construction of the kiln). Phase 4 also 

includes Wall F1, a fragmentary east–west wall under and to the 

east of Wall F in Sq. FUR IB; the base of this wall is at 52.69 m 

or lower (Figure 7.6). About 1 m to the south and parallel to 

Wall F1 is Wall G, a fragmentary east–west wall of Phase 4 at 

levels of 52.32–52.88 m. Wall E1 seems to be aligned with Wall 

G (Figure 7.8), and these might have been the same wall with an 

entrance through it into a room or space that was 0.7 m wide. 

Fill layers under Wall B (Layers 9, 10) also belong to Phase 4 (see 

Figure 7.9). 

Little pottery can be attributed to Phase 4 (Figure 7.10), making the repertoire quite limited. However several interesting special finds were uncovered here. The pottery includes typical Iron 

I open bowls (Figure 7.10a,b), rounded bowls (Figure 7.10c,d), 

and carinated bowls (Figure 7.10e,f). All of these bowl types 

were found elsewhere on the tell and were previously discussed 

(see chapters 3 and 6). A typical Iron I triangular, straight-rim 

cooking pot is also illustrated (Figure 7.10h). A jar rim (Figure 

7.10i) and two button-shaped jar bases (Figure 7.10j,k) are typical of the late LBII–Iron I (see, e.g., Gadot and Yadin, 2009: Type 

SJ2). A decorated fragment (Figure 7.10l) belongs to a decorated 

biconical krater or jug (see chapter 10). A lamp (Figure 7.10n) 

was also found in Phase 4. A flat ceramic body fragment (Figure 7.10m) probably belongs to a fenestrated stand (see, e.g., 

FIGURE 7.6. Walls D and F in eastern extension, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 341

Wall or Feature F in Sq. FUR I is probably the stoking hole wall 

in the lower part of the kiln, discovered at an elevation of 53.02 

m. The kiln stoking hole was found blocked in the last phase of 

the kiln structure (Figures 7.34).

The kiln in Field I FUR is one of the best-preserved kilns 

in the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages (for a survey of 

kilns in the southern Levant during these periods, see, e.g., Killebrew, 1989, 1996a; Wood, 1990; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:92–117). 

Although it was not preserved to its full height, it is preserved in 

places to a height of over 1 m, reflecting several functional levels 

or stages within the kiln and a sophisticated technological design. Therefore, several plans and a rather large number of field 

photos and sections of the kiln in various stages of the excavation, which began in 1975 (and was completed during the 1977 

season), are presented here (Figures 7.15–7.36).

The final ground plan of the inner space of the pottery 

kiln indicates a symmetrical oval shape, with the western part 

rounded and the eastern part pointed (Figures 7.18, 7.39); it is 

3.9 m long and 2.4 m at its widest. This space is created by 

a brick construction of wall of thickness varying from 0.3 to 

0.7 m, with the eastern narrower end built of thinner walls. The 

walls are plastered from the interior, at least as seen on the betterpreserved southern side (Figures 7.15–7.17). Elements from the 

inner construction of the kiln were built of special small, narrow, 

flat bricks (see, e.g., Figures 7.24–7.26). These bricks are about 8 

cm thick, have a rounded exterior, and were joined by a carefully 

laid layer of about 2–3 cm of mud. Sherds also fill the space in 

some of the joints between the arch bricks (Figure 7.24). Most 

of the outer walls were built of regular larger bricks or from 

mud without discerned bricks (see, e.g., Figures 7.29, 7.47). The 

southern wall of the kiln (Wall 1), standing about 1.2 m high, 

was built of flat-lying narrow bricks (Figures 7.7, 7.22). Several 

Phase 3 and the Pottery Kiln

Phase 3 (Figure 7.11) includes the well-preserved pottery kiln 

that was found standing in situ at a height of up to 1.5 m (Figures 

7.7, 7.15, 7.22; for other Phase 3 remains, see Figures 7.11–7.14). 

The southern wall of the kiln (denoted Wall 1) stood 0.9 m high 

at 53.12–54.02 m (Figure 7.7). Wall 1 surrounds the kiln from 

the south; eight brick courses of the wall were preserved, with 

the arches built upon it (see Figures 7.18, 7.39). Layer 1 of the 

1975 excavations represents the fill within the kiln. The southeastern part of the kiln is better preserved, with an arch made of 

10-cm-thick bricks (Figures 7.15, 7.16, 7.18, 7.22); the northwestern arch (Feature 5, Figures 7.18, 7.19) is less preserved (running up to the balk and then exposed in the expanded excavations 

to the east). Other arches preserved include the SW arch (Feature 3), with 18 bricks, and Arches 2 and 3 (Feature 4; Figures 

7.23, 7.26; see also Figures 7.17–7.20, 7.35). Three flues were 

excavated in the east section (Figures 7.21, 7.28–7.33, Feature 1). 

FIGURE 7.7. Southern wall of the kiln and Wall E1 below it, looking east.

FIGURE 7.8. Phase 4 in eastern extension in Sq. FUR IB, looking 

south; Walls F (right) and F1 (left) are in front, Walls E and E1 are 

in the far rear on the right, Wall D is on the right, and Wall G is in 

the center. (below)
342 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.9. Four sections of Sq. FUR IB.
NUMBER 50 • 343

in order to enable regulating the air flow in the kiln, reducing it 

if one of the tubes was blocked. This partial blocking could have 

been done for a specific firing session or for part of it (for the use 

of flues in pottery kilns during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the 

Near East, see Bliss, 1894:45; Badè, 1928:28, pl. XII [Tell enNas.beh]; Rhodes, 1968:20; Swan, 1984:34–35; Wood, 1990:29, 

31; for Late Bronze Age Syria, see Tell Sabi Abyad [Duistermaat, 

2008:352,490] and Alalakh, Phase 1b [Yener and Bı∫ke Yaziciogblu, 2010:17, fig. 2.12:2, Installation 2]).

In the continuation of the excavation and under the collapse 

of the brick arches (Figure 7.20), the deeper part of the kiln, probably representing the firing chamber, was unearthed (Figure 7.36). 

This area, in between and under the arches, was probably at least 

0.8 m deeper than the floor; the lower part of this area was relatively flat (Figure 7.35, section), but it is possible that a more 

rounded bottom pit was used in the original kiln design. In the 

area of the pointed eastern side of the structure, the kiln wall is 

represented by upright standing bricks, whereas several horizontally lying bricks were piled up, blocking a narrow opening (about 

0.5 m wide). This is interpreted as the stoking hole or pit of the 

kiln (the place from which the firing and fueling was attended; Figure 7.34, in section), which was probably blocked in the last phase 

of the kiln’s usage. The bricks overlaid flat-lying thin bricks representing the threshold of the pit (Wall or Feature F, Figure 7.32).

According to the excavation in its various stages and according to other known kilns, a complete reconstruction of this 

relatively large and sophisticated updraft kiln may be suggested 

(Figures 7.37–7.40) The vessel floor (or firing chamber floor) is 

a flat surface made of 15–20 bricks that were perforated before 

drying (Figure 7.27) to facilitate heat circulation. The holes are 

reconstructed as two groups of two lines of six parallel holes 

located in between the supporting arches, which are about 0.4 

m apart on the chamber floor (Figure 7.37). The floor was supported by two brick arches, with the fire box located under the 

arches, totaling a depth of 1.3 m. Thus, this is clearly an updraft or “vertical” kiln (e.g., Olsen, 1973:68–69, fig. 3; Swan, 

1984:29–34). The fire box floor is also flat, with its entrance and 

stoking hole along the east side. This orientation was probably 

deliberate as it agrees with the direction of the winds, running 

into the fire box (see Figure 7.40), in the lower part of the kiln. 

The firing chamber above the floor is reconstructed to a height of 

2 m (inner height of 1.6 m); the brick roofing and outer walls of 

the chamber were supported by two additional brick arches (see 

above). Note that the height of the kiln is somewhat speculative 

since the roof of the kiln was not preserved (Figure 7.38). The 

inner maximal width is about 1.9 m. The eight double-tube flues 

(six were found) run along the outer lining of the upper fire box 

and firing chamber (Figure 7.36), ventilating the top of the kiln 

(see Figure 7.38). 

The lower part of the kiln and the fire box were probably 

built within a pit or natural cavity in the ground, whereas the 

outer walls of the kiln, appearing above ground from the level of 

the floor, were made of flat-lying bricks (Figure 7.7, see above). 

The northern side of the kiln seems to have been set into the 

existing sloping land contour (Figures 7.15, 7.18), and this could 

explain (rather than poor preservation) the fact that the northern 

arches built of narrow bricks were found in situ (on the northwest side), whereas others were found fallen inside the space of 

the kiln (Arches 2 and 3; Figures 7.23–7.26). The fallen arches 

also preserved their shape and indicate the method of construction of these vaults by narrow bricks with their narrow side up; 

Arch 1, probably complete, was built of 18 nearly intact bricks of 

these types. The “vessel floor” of the kiln (where the vessels were 

laid for firing) was not found intact during the excavation. However, fragments of perforated fired bricks (Figure 7.27), showing 

its substantial thickness, with holes about 8 cm in diameter, were 

found inside the kiln in various locations at the level of the fallen 

brick arches and are probably parts of this floor, which may have 

been built at an approximate height of 53.16 m (see reconstruction in Figures 7.37–7.39). Thus, it is assumed that most of these 

arches represent the supporting construction of the vessel floor 

of the kiln (Figure 7.37, reflecting an updraft kiln, but this is different from pillars supporting the floor in other kiln types; see, 

e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:112–113). Nevertheless, according to 

the shape of the edges of the side walls, it is probable that such 

arches supported the roof of the kiln as well (see reconstruction 

in Figures 7.37, 7.38). Altogether, remains of four arches were 

found (Figure 7.23), relatively equally spaced within the kiln; the 

two inner ones possibly represent arches supporting the vessel 

floor, whereas the two relatively outer ones (Arch 1 and possibly 

Arch 4; see Figure 7.35 in the section) represent arches supporting the roof (these are slightly higher and are bonded with the 

outer walling). 

An element from the Tell Jemmeh kiln that is very rarely 

found in other Bronze and Iron Age kilns are the ventilation flues 

(Figures 7.28–7.33). These are tubes evident from plastered recesses or cavities (sized about 0.4 × 0.2 m each) built in the side 

walls of the kiln (Figures 7.31–7.33); the southeastern flue (Figures 7.28, 7.29, Flue A) was built deeper inside the wall than 

the others. Three flues (southern and northern) were identified 

on each side of the kiln; they were symmetrically and equally 

spaced on both sides (Figures 7.18, 7.20, 7.35). Two additional 

unpreserved flues may have been located on the western side (see 

Figure 7.18). In each cavity there are two tubes with a roughly 

square section, each about 10–15 cm in width (Figures 7.28, 

7.30); they are separated by mud lining (flue dividing brick) and 

covered by small, thin bricks, which bulge into the inner part of 

the kiln and thus are protected from the inner space of the kiln. 

These tubes ran along the outer walls of the kilns, as clearly seen 

in the southern Wall 1 of the kiln (Figure 7.21), as well as on 

other fallen fragments of the kiln firing chamber walls (Figures 

7.31, 7.32) and from the inside in the northern balk (see Flues 

A and B, Figures 7.28–7.30, and prior to further excavation in 

Figure 7.33). They functioned as heat convectors, distributing 

and circulating the heat to the sides of the kiln, thus achieving 

better firing (in comparison to heat coming only from below). 

An additional function of these elements is better air circulation 

for burning, as vents or chimneys (assuming they connect the fire 

box with outer air in the top of the kiln; see Figure 7.38), thus 

achieving a higher temperature and more oxidized firing. A technological question that should be considered is why the flues are 

divided into double tubes (Figure 7.28). This was possibly done 
344 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 345

FIGURE 7.11. Plan of Phase 3.

FIGURE 7.10. Pottery and small finds from Phase 4. NA = not available. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context

a Bowl 5696/2 GMI FUR (10) 5

b Bowl; straw temper 1474/1 GMI FUR (9) 4

c Bowl 5696/1 GMI FUR (10) 5

d Bowl/chalice 1474/3 GMI FUR (9) 4

e Bowl/chalice 1474/2 GMI FUR (9) 4

f Bowl 5645/1 GMI FUR (10) 3

g Krater (warped) 5645/2 GMI FUR (10) 3

h Cooking pot 1474/4 GMI FUR (9) 4

i Jar 1474/5 GMI FUR (9) 4

j Jar 1474/7 GMI FUR (9) 4

k Jar 1474/6 GMI FUR (9) 4

l Sherd; red decoration #1 GMI FUR (10) 3

m Sherd (stand?) 1474/8 GMI FUR (9) 4

n Lamp; soot NA GMI FUR (9) 4

o Amulet (faience) Reg. No. 1139 GMI FUR (10) 5

p Spindle whorl (stone) Reg. No. 1113 GMI FUR (10) 5

q Mortar (stone) Reg. No. 2442 GMI FUR (10) 5

r Scarab Reg. No. 1168 (SI Cat. No. 948) GMI FUR (9) 4

s Scarab Reg. No. 1174 (SI Cat. No. 947) GMI FUR (9) 4
346 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.13. North balk of GMI FUR with Walls 2, E, and F above the kiln (lower left), looking north.

FIGURE 7.12. Wall E from above, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 347

wall was not free standing to a considerable height. Altogether, 

the height of the kiln structure is reconstructed at about 3.3 

m, about 2 m of which were above ground (Figure 7.40). The 

method of loading the kiln is not completely clear; it might have 

been from above, opening the kiln’s roof (as illustrated in Figure 7.40). Alternatively, an opening may have existed along the 

lesser-preserved northern side of the kiln. Interestingly, although 

slag was collected from all over the site (sometimes in large 

quantities), no substantial amounts of slag were found in the 

kiln or its vicinity, and no wasters were found either. This area 

was probably carefully cleaned at the time the kiln functioned.

The finds from inside the kiln and its surroundings include 

pottery (Figures 7.41, 7.43a–q) as well as gold foil found in the 

inner fill of the kiln (Figures 7.42, 7.43r, 1 cm long) and a scarab 

(Figure 7.43s) depicting a composition of a winged sun disc and 

two uraei, dated to the LBII (chapter 27, Gamma No. 146). 

Some animal bones were also found here (see chapter 33). Apparently, most of the finds from inside the kilns represent material disposed in it after it went out of use. 

Other than the almost unique state of preservation of this 

kiln, this installation is also rather distinctive in the Levantine 

Bronze and Iron Age record in its construction: the support of the 

floor and roof by brick arches and especially the existence of divided flues. The size of this kiln is also comparatively quite large. 

Square installations from Phases 1a–1b at Alalakh (Late Bronze 

Age, Yener and Bı∫ke Yaziciogblu, 2010:18–19, 31–32) that are 

probably pottery kilns also seem to have rounded flues in their 

external walls (Yener and Bı∫ke Yaziciogblu, 2010: figs. 2.11:1,2, 

2.12:1–3, Installations 1–3). These flues are wider in size and 

are not divided into two sections as at Tell Jemmeh. Parallels 

for perforated kiln brick floors come from various periods (see, 

e.g., Wood, 1990:27–29, fig. 6), such as at Tell Farah (N) (EB II, 

De Vaux, 1952: fig. 9:2), Sabi Abyad (LBII–Iron I, Duistermaat, 

2008:368–369, 489–493, figs. B.1–B.5, B.21–B.27, Kilns Q, J, 

FIGURE 7.15. The kiln in the midst of excavation, looking west.

FIGURE 7.14. Balk between western 

and eastern sections of Field I FUR, 

looking north, with Wall E on the left 

and Wall D on the right.
348 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Tell Sabi Abyad in Syria (Duistermaat, 2008:489–503, figs. B.3, 

B28–B.31) also have brick arches supporting the vessel floors 

and flues, showing sophistication similar to the Tell Jemmeh kiln 

of roughly the same date, and thus, the structure of the Tell Jemmeh kiln may not necessarily be related to Aegean influences. 

The position of the kiln in relation to the rest of the site remains unclear, as the horizontal exposure of contemporary Iron 

I levels around it was very minimal. It is doubtful that this kiln 

was part of a large pottery workshop because of both its location in the center of the site in Field I and the lack of associated 

surface finds, such as remains of other kilns, large quantities of 

wasters, tournettes, piles of clay, potter’s tools, etc. (although 

note the presence of a possibly unfinished pivot stone in Locus 2, 

Layer 0, Reg. No. 1030, as well as eight hammerstones found in 

Field I FUR; see chapter 23). The pivot of a potter’s wheel was 

found on the site’s surface (Figure 23.7). This sparse evidence 

may indicate that this was an isolated kiln serving a specific 

neighborhood or function.

In Sq. FUR IB to the east, Walls D and F probably also belong to Phase 3 (Figure 7.11). Wall D is a north–south brick wall 

K), and Sarepta (LBII, Pritchard, 1975: fig. 14). This was a common element in the architecture of ancient pottery kilns. 

Although the structure of the Jemmeh kiln shows relatively 

high levels of technology and sophistication, it does not differ in 

its general oval shape and size from other contemporary kilns 

(similar to Kiln 23 from Megiddo, Guy and Engberg, 1938: fig. 

89, although the Jemmeh kiln is somewhat larger). The square 

Iron I (Stratum VIIA) kiln at Tel Miqne (Killebrew, 1989: kiln 

4104, ills. 177–179; Meehl et al., 2006:34, Stratum VIIA) may 

also have flues in the corners. Iron I kilns from Tel Miqne (Killebrew, 1989; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:106–107, fig. 2.14) and Bronze 

Age kilns from the Aegean, such as at Gouves, Crete, and Miletus, 

are also quite sophisticated (see, e.g., Shaw et al., 1997; Shaw et 

al. 2001; Vallianou, 1997; Niemeier, 1998:31–32; Ben-Shlomo, 

2006a:116–117) but are different in their shape and structure. 

These parallels may indicate that this kiln would fit well within 

the Iron Age I Philistine culture. Conversely, very well preserved 

late second millennium BCE (Middle Assyrian) pottery kilns at 

FIGURE 7.16. Excavation in the kiln, looking west, with fallen brick 

arches inside.

FIGURE 7.17. The kiln after excavation of lower level, looking west; 

note Walls E and E1 in the front left.
NUMBER 50 • 349

kiln includes open/rounded (Figure 7.43b,c) and carinated 

bowls (Figure 7.43a,d), typical Iron Age I shapes discussed 

further below in Phase 2 (Figure 7.52m,n). One of the examples (Figure 7.43a) is a small bowl with a straight rim (which 

seems similar to Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type 58). Figure 7.43g 

is a small carinated krater or bowl with a thickened rim, of 

the common LBII–Iron I type (see discussion in chapters 3 and 

6); another krater rim (Figure 7.43h) has a thickened, slightly 

slanting ledge rim and is a larger example of the same generic 

type (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type KR1). Another similar bowl/

krater (Figure 7.43j) has two drilled holes near the rim. A carinated bowl decorated with red stripes on the inner everted rim 

(Figure 7.43f, which may have been white slipped) is probably a fragment of a large chalice. Carinated chalices are often 

decorated and are quite common in the Iron I (see, e.g., Beth 

Shemesh, Stratum III [Grant and Wright, 1938: pl. LIX:26], 

Qasile [Mazar, 1985a:48–49, Chalice 2], and Batash [PanitzCohen, 2006a: Type CH4, and references therein]). A slightly 

ridged rim fragment (Figure 7.43l) is decorated on the outside 

by two wide horizontal red bands and may belong to a krater 

or a jug/jar neck (see possibly, e.g., Qasile [Mazar, 1985a: figs. 

standing 0.8 high (52.53–53.38 m). As its base is quite low and 

it connects to Wall E (Figures 7.12, 7.13), it seems this wall was 

originally constructed in the previous phase, Phase 4. Wall F is 

an east–west brick wall adjoining Wall D and running into the 

eastern balk (Figure 7.14). 

Pottery (and other finds) from inside the kiln (Figure 7.43) 

probably does not include wasters and thus was possibly deposited when the kiln went out of use or comes from an adjacent 

level and was mixed with the debris of the kiln structure when 

it started to collapse. The fills to the east and just above the kiln 

(Locus 2, Layers 0–4) were very rich in pottery, including Philistine Bichrome and other Iron I forms (Figures 7.52–7.56), but 

were attributed to Phase 2.

Pottery and Small Finds from Phase 3

The Phase 3 pottery found within the kiln includes a nearly 

complete Philistine bell-shaped bowl (Figure 7.43e) with a red 

spiral decoration. Another Philistine Bichrome sherd from 

the kiln is a jug fragment (Figure 7.43m) with a fragmentary 

motif (see discussion in chapter 12). Other pottery from the 

FIGURE 7.18. Plan of excavation in the kiln with walls around it.
350 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.20. Plan of kiln with fallen arches, in the later stages of excavation.

FIGURE 7.19. Plan of kiln with fallen arches, in the earlier stages of excavation.
NUMBER 50 • 351

FIGURE 7.21. The southern kiln wall with flue on top, looking west.

FIGURE 7.23. Fallen Arches 2, 3, and 4 (Features 2 and 3), looking north.

FIGURE 7.22. The southern kiln wall with arch springing from it.
352 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.24. Fallen kiln arch bricks with sherds in the joins.

FIGURE 7.25. Close-up on arches fallen in kiln.
NUMBER 50 • 353

FIGURE 7.27. A perforated brick from the chamber vessel floor of the kiln.

FIGURE 7.26. Brick Arches 2 and 3 in kiln, looking north.
354 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.28. Close-up of Flue A from above; note division of flue 

into two.

FIGURE 7.31. Kiln flues from the side in the front part of kiln.

FIGURE 7.30. Close-up of Flue B.

FIGURE 7.29. Flue A, looking east.

FIGURE 7.32. Kiln flues and brick arches from the side in the eastern part of kiln.
NUMBER 50 • 355

FIGURE 7.33. Northern balk and kiln wall with flue interior.

FIGURE 7.34. Section in eastern side of stoking hole.
356 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

knob attached to is a fragment of a flat shallow basin or threading vat (see, e.g., Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:160); another 

such fragment was found outside the kiln (Figure 7.44r). Figure 

7.43q is probably the base of a large thick cylindrical stand 

22:24, 23:21] and Ashdod [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.59:5]). A typical Iron I cooking pot rim (Figure 7.43i) has a 

vertical rim that is triangular on the exterior (see, e.g., Qasile, 

Stratum XI [Mazar, 1985a: fig. 23:14; Killebrew, 1999:84] and 

Batash, Stratum V [Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:71–72, Type CP4b, 

and references therein]; also see below, Phase 2, Figure 7.52s). 

A jar/jug rim (Figure 7.43k), a small flask (Figure 7.43o), and a 

trefoil rim fragment of a jug (Figure 7.43n) were also found in 

the kiln. A very thick handmade fragment (Figure 7.43p) with a 

FIGURE 7.36. Lining of the inner chamber of the kiln (in the rear, 

note brick behind mud lining), looking east.

FIGURE 7.35. East–west section in kiln, showing arches and flues. 

FIGURE 7.37. Isometric reconstruction of the kiln.
NUMBER 50 • 357

FIGURE 7.38. Reconstructed section of the kiln.

FIGURE 7.39. Isometric inner space of the kiln.
358 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.40. Reconstruction of the kiln in use and its vicinity.

FIGURE 7.41. Cooking pot in possible burial, TT1. FIGURE 7.42. Gold foil found in kiln (Figure 7.43r, Reg. No. 1303).
NUMBER 50 • 359

reported wall that is believed to run east–west and is built above 

and northeast of the kiln. The wall continues into the balk and 

may connect to Wall B (see below; it may have also been labeled 

Wall C; see Figure 7.46). East of the kiln and above it, Locus 2 

was defined. In Sq. FUR I, Feature 2 was composed of stones 

and ash and may be remains of a hearth. In the eastern Sq. FUR 

IB, Wall B was found. This an east–west brick wall with stone 

foundations (Figures 7.9, 7.50); in its upper phase, it has the 

same alignment as Wall 2 in the west (but possibly above it). The 

stone foundations are made of natural pebbles of various sizes 

and were exposed for the complete length of the wall (Figure 

7.51); Wall B was exposed to a length of 3 m and continues into 

the eastern balk. The upper phase is at levels of 54.81–55.01 m, 

but a lower phase was excavated down to about 54.25 m (Layers 

1–3 in 1978, Sq. FUR IB, Figure 7.9, in the east balk). Pit 1 may 

by lined with bricks (Figure 7.50) and thus does not cut Wall B, 

which means it can be allocated to Phase 2. The connection between the remains of this phase in the various locations in Field 

I FUR is somewhat unclear. 

Phase 2 yielded a relatively rich assemblage of pottery 

(Figures 7.52–7.56), including large amounts of Philistine Bichrome pottery (Figures 7.54, 7.55), as well as local Levantine 

forms. Non-Philistine forms include open and rounded bowls 

with either simple rims (Figure 7.52d,e) or inverted rims (Figure 7.52b). A complete example has an unusual rounded base 

(Figure 7.52b). Open bowls with white slip and red bands on the 

interior (Figure 7.52g–j; see also Figure 7.56a,c) can be considered either Philistine, as indicated by their decoration (see Qasile, 

Stratum XI [Mazar, 1985a: fig. 18:9,10], Ashdod, Stratum XII 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:109, fig. 3.29:19], and Batash 

[Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type 58]), or Canaanite, according to 

their form. Rounded bowls include two complete examples (Figure 7.52a,c) with a simple rim, concave disk base, and a red 

band on the rim. Carinated bowls also appear, including a small 

complete example (Figure 7.52f) with an everted rim, red band 

on the inner rim, slight carination, and wide concave disk base. 

This bowl, as well as other fragments of carinated bowls (Figure 

7.52k,l,n), may belong to the typical Iron I carinated bowl type, 

evolving from LBII carinated bowls (see above, Phase 3, Figure 

7.44f–i). Carinated kraters with an inward-slanting rim (Figure 

7.52m,o,p) appear in this phase as well (see chapter 6, Phases 1 

and 3, for this type); one example was preserved with a handle 

attached to the rim (Figure 7.52o) and was decorated with white 

slip and red bands inside. An example of a chalice (Figure 7.52q) 

is also shown; only the connection between the bowl and leg was 

preserved. Another fragment (Figure 7.52r) is similar in shape, 

but the connection is hollow, indicating this was possibly a funnel of some sort. A typical Iron I cooking pot (Figure 7.52s) has 

a vertical rim that is triangular on the exterior.

Jar fragments include an everted, thickened rim (Figure 

7.53a) and a wide button base (Figure 7.53e). Several jugs appear in Phase 2. One common type is the cooking jug (Figure 

7.53b–d), with one nearly complete example (Figure 7.53b). 

It is characterized by an everted simple rim, a handle attached 

from the rim to the shoulder, a globular body, and a disk/ring 

(see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.34:7).

The pottery from Phase 3 found outside the kiln (Figure 

7.44) is generally similar to the assemblage from within the 

installation, with the exception of Philistine Bichrome pottery, 

which was hardly found here. Generally, bowl types are similar to those of Phases 2 and 1 discussed below and typical of 

the Iron I. These include open bowls with straight sides (Figure 7.44a–c), which continue LBII forms (see chapters 3 and 

6; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL50A; Gadot and Yadin, 2009: 

Type BO1). Rounded and hemispherical bowls (Figure 7.44d,e) 

also develop from LBII types (such as Field I, Figure 6.68d–k; 

see, e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: Type BL50b; Gadot and Yadin, 

2009: Type BH1). Carinated bowls (Figure 7.44f,i) are also typical of the same period (e.g., Qasile, Mazar, 1985a: fig. 11:7, 

8; Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:44–47, Type BL59). One example of 

a small, thin carinated bowl is possibly votive (Figure 7.44h), 

whereas another example (Figure 7.44i) is decorated by a rim 

band and two inner horizontal red bands. Carinated kraters 

with a slanting rim include an example with a handle (Figure 

7.44k). One Philistine bell-shaped krater is also illustrated (Figure 7.44j); it is decorated by a triglyph of vertical and wavy lines 

(see chapter 12). 

Several jar rims from Phase 3 are illustrated (Figure 7.44l–

n), the latter of which (Figure 7.44n) has a thickened rim and 

ridged neck (see, e.g., Ashdod, Strata XII–XI, Dothan and BenShlomo, 2005: figs. 3.31:5,6, 3.59:4,5). Another large rim fragment (Figure 7.44p) may belong to a large basin or a pithos 

(e.g., Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: Type KR5). The base of a 

closed vessel (Figure 7.44o) has a thickened, flat base and conical body, probably a jar but with an unusual shape; it may also 

be a bottle or amphora base (e.g., Tel Mor, Barako, 2007: fig. 

3.26:19). A body fragment with a perforation and the breakage 

mark of a spout on it (Figure 7.44q) is probably of a typical 

Philistine type jug known as a feeding bottle (see, e.g., Dothan, 1982:155–157, Type 7; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:42), which 

usually displays a long, slanted spout attached to the middle 

of the body. A wide, thick handle (Figure 7.44s) with a very 

pronounced grooved outer surface may belong to a large jug 

or krater. A thick, flat, handmade, smoothed fragment (Figure 

7.44t) seems to belong to a plaque, either from a plaque figurine 

or another type of object. 

Other finds from Phase 3 (or Phase 3/4) include a possible 

hematite stone scale weight (Figure 7.44w), a flint rubber (Figure 

7.44v), and a bronze arrowhead or spearhead with a bent shaft 

(Figure 7.44u). In addition to the scarab from the kiln (Figure 

7.43s), two scarabs, similar to each other, were found in Locus 3, 

Layer 8 and were attributed to Phase 3/4 (Figure 7.44x,y); they 

depict a scene with the god Ptah, and both date to the late LBII 

or 13th century BCE (see chapter 27, Gamma Nos. 152, 153). 

Phase 2

Phase 2 denotes remains just above the pottery kiln in Sqs. 

FUR I–IB (Figures 7.45–7.56). This includes Wall 2, a poorly 
360 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 361

kraters and jugs from the LBII–Iron I (see chapter 10). A decorated flask (Figure 7.53i, with two sides recovered) has a central 

spiral with groups of radial lines outspreading from it. The fabric 

is rather delicate and possibly not local. Similar pilgrim flasks are 

common in the Iron I southern Levant, with similar decorative 

patterns (see, e.g., Qasile, Stratum X, Mazar, 1985a: figs. 37:1, 

42:10). Another decorated sherd (Figure 7.53j) may belong to a 

decorated krater. 

Philistine Bichrome vessels include mostly bell-shaped 

bowls (Figure 7.54a–l); several examples are small bowls with 

degenerated horizontal handles (Figure 7.54i–l), including one 

nearly complete, undecorated example (Figure 7.54i). The bowls 

are mostly white slipped, and many are decorated with spirals 

in black or red as well as vertical wavy lines (e.g., Figure 7.54h). 

Figure 7.54m is either a bowl or a body fragment of a jug decorated with a spiral.

Other common Philistine Bichrome types are bell-shaped 

kraters (most are rim or body fragment; Figure 7.55a–d). These 

are similarly decorated with spirals (Figure 7.55a–c), hatched 

lozenges (Figure 7.55a), and possibly a bird motif (Figure 7.55d). 

Several body sherds of closed vessels, probably jugs, are also 

decorated in the Philistine Bichrome style (Figure 7.55g–i); a hollowed false spout of a stirrup jar (Figure 7.55m) and a decorated 

neck (Figure 7.55l), probably also of a stirrup jug, are also illustrated, as well as a jug handle (Figure 7.55n) decorated with 

Bichrome stripes. A neck and handle fragment (Figure 7.55j) is 

also decorated in Bichrome style (for further discussion of Philistine Bichrome pottery, see chapter 12). 

In addition, several decorated bowls (mostly red stripes 

over white slip; Figure 7.56a–c) may be included in the Philistine 

base. The examples have soot marks on various parts of the 

body, indicating the jug was used for cooking. Similar cooking 

jugs appearing in Iron I Philistia (see especially Killebrew, 1999; 

Yasur-Landau, 2005; Ben-Shlomo et al., 2008) indicate the influence of Aegean pottery forms and are especially important, 

as they attest to the Aegean/Cypriot character of the cooking 

habits of the Philistines; note that these also appear outside the 

main Philistine cities, such as at Tell Jemmeh and nearby Qubur 

Walaydah (see Lehmann et al., 2009: fig. 12:1–3). 

Another type of jug is represented by an intact lower part 

(Figure 7.52f), with distinct wheel marks on the inner lower and 

outer body). The vessel, made of greenish clay, has a delicate 

ring base and a globular body with a pinched upper part, creating a wavy profile. This form of jug or pyxis (the latter with two 

handles) with a pinched body appears in Iron I Philistia and may 

be related to Philistine pottery (see Dothan, 1982:157–159, a juglet with a pinched body, and Qasile, Mazar, 1985a: figs. 11:26, 

24:19). Two jug handles are also illustrated (Figure 7.53g,h); one 

(Figure 7.53g) is decorated with red bands over a white slip and 

is connected to a rim fragment; this probably belongs to a decorated Philistine jug (maybe a spouted strainer jug), with the pattern on the handle possibly part of a vegetative motif. Another 

handle has a perforation near its upper end, made before firing 

(Figure 7.53h).

Fragments of an elaborately decorated vessel (Figure 7.53k) 

are possibly of a biconical jug (or flask); it has radial straight 

lines with wavy lines in between them as well as “ladder” motifs. This pattern is not common on pilgrim flasks (see, however, Aphek, Stratum X12, Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8.10:3), 

yet it resembles patterns on Canaanite-style decorated biconical 

FIGURE 7.43. Pottery and finds from within the kiln. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context

a Bowl; white slip 1029/2 GMI FUR (1)

b Bowl 1029/1 GMI FUR (1)

c Bowl 1052/1 GMI FUR (1)

d Bowl 1052/2 GMI FUR (1)

e BSB; white slip, red and black decoration 5661/2 GMI FUR (1)

f Chalice/bowl; red decoration 5661/1 GMI FUR (1)

g Krater/bowl 1029/3 GMI FUR (1)

h Krater 1052/3 GMI FUR (1)

i Cooking pot 1052/4 GMI FUR (1)

j Krater; drilled holes 1435/1 GMI FUR F1

k Jar/jug 1029/5 GMI FUR (1)

l Krater/jug; red decoration 1029/4 GMI FUR (1)

m Jug; white slip, red and black decoration 5661/3 GMI FUR (1)

n Jug 1029/6 GMI FUR (1)

o Flask 1046/1 GMI FUR (1)

p Basin? 1040/1 GMI FUR (1)

q Stand 1471/1 GMI FUR F5

r Gold foil Reg. No. 1303 (SI Cat. No. 601) GMI FUR (1)

s Scarab Reg. No. 1166 (SI Cat. No. 610) GMI FUR (1)
362 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 363

FIGURE 7.44. Pottery and finds from Phase 3. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Bowl 5740/1 GMI FUR (8) 3 FUR 3/4

b Bowl 5647/1 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

c Bowl 5647/2 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

d Bowl; greenish clay 1427/2 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

e Bowl 5656/2 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

f Krater/bowl 5740/2 GMI FUR (8) 3 FUR 3/4

g Bowl 5647/4 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

h Bowl (votive?) 5647/3 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

i Bowl/chalice; red decoration #1 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

j BS Krater; white slip, red decoration 5691/1 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

k Krater 5648/1 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

l Jar 5655/2 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

m Jar 5637/1 GMI FUR (5) 1 FUR 3

n Jar/jug 5656/4 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

o Jar/bottle 5655/1 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

p Basin/pithos rim 5627/1 GMI FUR (7) 3 FUR 3/4

q Spouted jug (Philistine) 5691/2 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

r Shallow basin, handmade 5627/2 GMI FUR (7) 3 FUR 3/4

s Handle; plastic decoration 5691/3 GMI FUR (6) 2 FUR 3

t Handmade plaque(?) fragment 5644/2 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

u Bronze arrow/spear head; bent shaft Reg. No. 1309 (SI Cat. No. 981) GMI FUR (8) 3 FUR 3/4

v Flint rubber/hammer stone Reg. No. 847 GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

w Scale weight(?) (stone, hematite?) Reg. No. 1043 (SI Cat. No. 969) GMI FUR (7) 3 FUR 3/4

x Scarab Reg. No. 1172 (SI Cat. No. 946) GMI FUR (8) 3 FUR 3/4

y Scarab Reg. No. 1173 (SI Cat. No. 949) GMI FUR (8) 3 FUR 3/4

FIGURE 7.45. Plan of Phase 2. 
364 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.46. The northern wall of the kiln with Wall 2 above it and in balk, looking NE.

FIGURE 7.47. Wall 2 above the kiln (left), looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 365

FIGURE 7.48. North balk of Sq. FUR 1 during the excavation of the kiln.

FIGURE 7.49. Wall 2 and Feature 2 (stones and ash), looking north.
366 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.50. Wall B and Pit 1, looking west.

FIGURE 7.51. Stone foundation of Wall B, looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 367

1 still date to the Iron IB. However, if this phase is linked with 

the adjacent Sq. KB, Phase 3, an Iron IIA date is more probable 

(see below). A partial chalice from Field I FUR, Layer 2 should 

be noted (Figure 7.59b) as well; it is covered with white slip and 

has remains of red decoration, with at least several horizontal 

bands distinguishable on the leg and interior, yet it might have 

had more elaborate motifs as well. Its bowl is broken, but the 

breakage of the lower portion shows distinct signs of reworking; 

this vessel probably had a secondary use, where it may have been 

placed upside-down. 

Several other forms possibly from Phase 1 and unstratified 

contexts (mostly rarer ones) are illustrated (Figure 7.59), most 

of which can be dated to the Iron I. These include a long, narrow jug neck (Figure 7.59d) with white slip and a flaring open 

rim. These long-necked jugs are part of the Philistine Bichrome 

repertoire (the neck could resemble those of cylindrical bottles 

or gourd-shaped jugs as well; Dothan, 1982:172). Parallels can 

be found at Qasile, Strata XI–X (Mazar, 1985a:61, JG1, fig. 

36:3) and Azor (Tombs D55, D63; Ben-Shlomo, 2012a: fig. 

5.10:1–3). Another Philistine vessel is a fragment of a stirrup 

jar (Figure 7.59f), decorated in red over a white slip. A body 

sherd decorated in red (Figure 7.59e) is probably a fragment 

of a jug, also possibly Philistine; the decoration in red consists 

of a vertical wavy line between two straight lines under two 

horizontal lines. A handle and neck fragment (Figure 7.59h) 

may possibly belong to a flask or to a jug. It has fragmentary 

red decoration over a white slip and may belong to the Philistine Bichrome style. Another type of flask is represented by a 

spoon fragment (Figure 7.59i); it is a small, white-slipped, flat 

bowl with an attachment and perforation on one end. These 

vessels, composed of a flat, small bowl, are described as spoons 

and function as the mouth of a lentoid flask. Parallels, mostly 

Iron I, come, for example, from Qasile (e.g., Mazar, 1985a: fig. 

20:13), Ashdod (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.59:20), 

and Batash (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:116–117, Type FL3, pl. 65:9, 

and references therein). A red-slipped carinated fragment with a 

handle attached to it (Figure 7.59g) may be the neck of a jug or 

part of a small, unidentifiable vessel. Another handmade carinated body fragment (Figure 7.59j) is of irregular shape, has a 

handle attached to it, and is decorated with black stripes over 

white slip (also on the handle). This is possibly a fragment of a 

zoomorphic vessel, maybe in the Philistine Bichrome style (see 

possibly similar Bichrome bovine vessels from Tel Miqne Iron 

I, Ben-Shlomo, 2008a). Another zoomorphic item is a stumpy, 

short leg of a zoomorphic vessel or figurine (Figure 7.59k); the 

leg has a concave base. These fragments are relatively rare at 

Tell Jemmeh (see chapter 17).

Three mud objects that may be defined as spools (Figure 

7.59l–n) were found in between Walls A and 2 and in Layer 2 

in a Phase 1 or 2 context. These are cylindrical sun-dried objects 

(about 6.5 cm high in this case) with two flat edges and a somewhat squeezed area in the center. Such cylindrical clay objects are 

defined as loom weights, spools, or reels and are considered an 

Aegean-derived aspect of Philistine material culture (see further 

discussion in chapter 19, Figure 19.6a–e)

Bichrome style, although their form does not differ from Canaanite types (such as rounded or open bowls). A rim of an 

open bowl (Figure 7.56b) has a horizontal double handle; the 

rim is thickened and covered by white slip. This bowl may also 

be considered Philistine, with parallels found at Ashdod, Stratum XI–X (Dothan, 1971: fig. 85:4; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:168, fig. 3.68:8) and Qasile (Mazar, 1985a: fig. 23:26). 

The form is similar to strainer bowls; a similar handle from 

Tel Miqne was, however, defined as a Philistine Monochrome 

tray (Dothan and Zukerman, 2004: fig. 12:4). An unusual bowl 

fragment (Figure 7.56c) has an upper part and rim with prefiring perforations. It is decorated by white slip and red paint 

in the Philistine style; this may also have been some type of 

strainer bowl. 

A red-slipped body fragment (Figure 7.56e) with painted 

bands is probably a fragment of a residual MBIIB-C imported 

Cypriot “Red-on-Red” bowl (see chapter 11). An incised jar 

handle (Figure 7.56h) and worked sherds (Figure 7.56f,g) were 

also found in this phase. A strange rounded fragment with one 

side pointed (Figure 7.56d) may be the base of a closed vessel 

(a rattle?).

Remains of Phase 1

Phase 1 is the uppermost phase in the vicinity of the kiln, 

exposed mainly in the eastern extension, Sq. FUR IB (Figure 

7.57), mostly near the north balk; it is thus poorly documented. 

In the north balk of Sq. FUR IB, Wall A1 was discovered, an 

east–west brick wall connecting to Wall A’s northern extension, 

although it is somewhat above it (Figure 7.58, left). Wall A1 

has a deep sand foundation and was reported to be five courses 

high; the lower courses are wider. The sand foundations have 

been suggested as a method to reduce earthquake damage during the Iron II at Tell Jemmeh (see chapters 4 and 8, in Fields 

II and IV; Van Beek, 1996:7*–8*). Wall A seems to be a thick 

north–south brick wall, possibly also related to Wall 2 above 

the kiln (see above); it is 1.2 m thick in the small section excavated; its upper phase is at an elevation of 55.82 m. Otherwise, the architecture of this phase was mostly eroded above 

the kiln and seems to continue northward to the unexcavated 

area (possibly also in Sq. KB; see below). Fill layers at levels 

of 55.02–55.27 m (Locus 3) and Sq. FUR IB, Features 1 and 

2, which are bricky and ashy sediments, respectively, are also 

allocated to this phase. Pit 1 (also possibly termed Feature 2 in 

1978), which may cut Wall B of Phase 2, likely belongs to Phase 

1. This is a 1.6-m-wide pit at least 0.55 m deep, dug to a height 

of 54.95 m (Figure 7.50). 

Hardly any pottery came from clear Phase 1 contexts (Figure 7.59; an everted jar neck in Figure 7.59c, possibly residual, 

is not indicative), and thus, this phase cannot be directly dated 

according to pottery. It should be noted, however, that no Iron 

IIA pottery was found in the kiln area whatsoever, including topsoil and unstratified contexts, except for, possibly, a complete 

carinated red-slipped and burnished bowl (Figure 7.59a). This 

may indicate that even the uppermost remains in Field I FUR 
368 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 369

above); the maximal area opened was a 6 × 6 m square. The aim 

was to expand the exposure of Iron Age levels possibly related 

to the pottery kiln to the east. However, it became apparent that 

most of the area adjacent to the kiln (in the north part of Sq. 

KB) was covered over by Petrie’s excavation dumps. Therefore, 

most excavation efforts were focused on the southern part of the 

square. The remains of Petrie’s excavation dump were mostly 

found in the eastern 1.5–2 m of the square and are represented 

by Layers 20, 21, and 22, Locus 1, as well as Feature 1 (see 

Figure 7.67). They can be seen as thick, dark accumulations of 

sherds (Figures 7.61, 7.68, 7.69) in the eastern and northern 

balks and are reported from a level of 57.04 m down to level 

56.13 m or even deeper. The area was only excavated during the 

limited 1984 season and was supervised by R. Gardiner.1

 The remains here are almost all somewhat later than those of Sq. GMI 

FUR and belong to the Iron II; the phasing here was numbered 

differently than in Field GMI FUR, but most likely, Phase 1 in 

GMI FUR is equivalent to Phase KB3.

Phase KB3

The lower and best-preserved level defined in Sq. KB is denoted as Phase KB3 (Figures 7.60–7.70). The remains from this 

phase include several walls and installations in the central and 

western part of the square (Figure 7.60), many of which are not 

well defined. The eastern 2.5 m of the square is disturbed by 

dumps and various pits; Layers KB 27–35 belong to this phase, at 

heights of 55.08–55.77 m. A relatively massive northeast–southwest brick wall was uncovered in the western part of the square 

(Wall 4, Figures 7.62, 7.63, 7.64, left); this wall is up to 1.0–1.7 

Summary

Summarizing the results from Field I FUR, the kiln structure dates to the Iron IB together with some remains of an earlier constructional phase and one or two later phases above it. 

According to the finds it seems, however, that the four phases 

can be all roughly dated to the Iron IB. All the pottery found 

in the kiln area gives a rather narrow dating, as no early LBII 

or Iron II pottery appears. The kiln, however, might have been 

short-lived and not used for more than a generation or so (possibly less). Thus, although this was a sophisticated installation, it was not used for a very long time, possibly because of 

its maintenance, which was not simple, and therefore, it was 

abandoned after a short period. The Philistine Bichrome pottery from Field I FUR (as well as the assemblage from Field 

III, Phases 6–5 and the larger assemblage from Petrie’s excavation) and the use of cooking jugs in this period indicate that 

Tell Jemmeh was included in the Philistine territory during the 

Iron I, possibly a small Philistine town. Interestingly, Phases 4 

and 3 yielded five Egyptian scarabs, a very large number for a 

domestic/industrial context in such a small exposure. Whether 

this reflects a relation to the pottery workshop on the site or 

to the Philistine population in Jemmeh is indeed an interesting 

question.

REMAINS FROM FIELD I, SQUARE KB

Initially, the area denoted as GMI FUR Sq. KB was opened 

in continuation of Sq. FUR I to the east (see Figure 1.11 and 

FIGURE 7.52. Pottery from Phase 2. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Bowl 1070/1 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2/3

b Bowl 1070/2 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2/3

c Bowl 1071/1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

d Bowl 1414/1 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

e Bowl 5651/1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

f Bowl 1071/2 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

g Bowl; white slip, red decoration #1a GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

h Bowl; white slip, red decoration #1a GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

i Bowl; white slip, red decoration #9 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

j Bowl; white slip, red decoration #10 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

k Bowl 5651/2 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

l Bowl 1414/2 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

m Bowl/krater 1414/3 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

n Bowl 5651/3 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

o Krater; white slip, red decoration #1b GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

p Krater 5965/1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

q Chalice 1077/1 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

r Chalice/funnel? 1077/2 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

s Cooking pot 1430/1 GMI FUR (4) 2 FUR 2/3
370 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.53. Pottery from Phase 2.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Jar rim 1430/2 GMI FUR (4) 2 FUR 2/3

b Cooking jug; soot 1078/1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

c Cooking jug; soot 1455/1 GMI FUR Wall B FUR 2

d Cooking jug? 1421/1 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

e Jar 1071/3 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

f Jug/pyxis; greenish clay 1070A/1 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

g Jug; white slip, brown decoration 5665/3 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

h Perforated handle (before firing) 5965/2 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

i Flask; red decoration (imported?) A GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

j Sherd; red decoration B GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

k Jug(?); red decoration A GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3
NUMBER 50 • 371

stamp seals in Phase KB2 (see below), may indicate some administrative function or action carried out in the Iron Age II features 

exposed here. It is possible that this sealing could be related to 

those activities as well.

Phase KB2

Above Phase KB3, Phase KB2 (Figure 7.71) included pits 

with several possible wall fragments; Layers 24–26 were assigned to this phase. As noted, Walls 1 and 2 may belong to this 

phase as well. Most of the area in this phase is covered by pits 

of various sizes and shapes that also cut each other (see Figures 

7.68, 7.71). These pits were filled with many sherds (Figure 7.69) 

and were ashy at times; it is possible that some of these also 

represent dumps from Petrie’s excavations and thus should be 

defined as nonstratified accumulations (see Figure 7.67). Some 

of the pits seem to have been dug from levels of 56.00–56.32 m 

(Pits 1, 2, and 3), most reaching 55.55 m. Features 5, 6, 7, and 

9 seem to be pits filled with sherds. Feature 8 is a sandy layer, 

whereas Feature 9 has a bricky layer. Pits 6, 7, 8, and 9, which 

may belong to Phase KB3, are somewhat lower. Pit 6 cuts Pit 7. 

Pits 4 and 5 were filled with sherds, especially jar fragments, and 

may be remains of Petrie’s dump (Figure 7.74). Thus, it is not 

clear how much these remains indeed represent a living phase in 

the site or material in situ. 

The pottery from these deposits is, nevertheless, relatively 

rich, including Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW), which 

is red-slipped and burnished ware, and can be dated to the late 

Iron IIA and Iron IIB (Figure 7.72); only a small selection is illustrated. The pottery includes degenerated red-slipped bell-shaped 

bowls (Figure 7.72a–c), characterized by their attached handles 

(see further discussion in chapter 12); these were probably redeposited from earlier phases. Slightly carinated red-slipped (not 

burnished) bowls (Figure 7.72d–f) also appear; these are typical 

of the Iron IIA (e.g., Batash, Stratum IV [Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: Type BL24] and Ashdod, Stratum X [Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.69:14,17]; see also above, Phase 

KB3, Figure 7.70a). A cooking pot with a slightly inverted rim 

with an outer triangular shape and a handle attached to it was 

also found (Figure 7.72h). This appears to be a typical Iron IIA 

form as well (see, e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:81–84, 

Type CP15). A rim of a large multihandle krater (Figure 7.72g; 

see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type KR35, Iron IIB, and 

chapter 8, Phases 8–5) may also be an Iron IIA form. Also illustrated is a red-slipped spout (Figure 7.72j) that possibly belongs to a feeding-bottle-type jug; a red-slipped rim fragment 

(Figure 7.72i) belongs to a trefoil-rimmed jug and is decorated 

with black stripes. A body fragment of an imported “Black-onRed” juglet (Figure 7.72k) was also found in Phase KB2 (see 

chapter 11). Four to seven clay sealings were also found in Phase 

KB2. Of these, two have scarab impressions (Figure 7.72l,m), 

and up to five examples are more fragmentary and do not have 

evidence of an impression (Figure 7.72n and Reg. Nos. 2150, 

2152, 2153; see chapter 20 for discussion of the sealings and 

their impressions).

m thick and seems to have plastered eastern and southern sides 

(see Figure 7.63 on the lower part of the wall); it stood on the 

north side to a height of at least eight courses. It seems to have a 

2-m-long and 0.5-m-wide bench on its eastern face (Figure 7.63, 

center), although it may possibly be a large, wide entrance, possibly of a gate. The wall has a sand-filled foundation trench (Figure 7.66; see also Van Beek, 1996:3*, fig. 5, I KB Wall 4), which 

includes a trench filled with sand and capped with bricks on top. 

This method is presumed to have been used in the Iron II for 

reducing earthquake damage (see discussion in chapter 8). In the 

north, Wall 3 is a fragmentary wall forming a corner with Wall 4; 

this was possibly a continuation of the upper Wall A1 in Sq. FUR 

IB to the west (see above); thus, Phase KB3 may be linked with 

Phase FURI 1. Walls 4 and 3 may define a unit in the southwest, 

with a large entrance to this area. Here Locus 10 was defined, 

where Pit 10 (Figure 7.67) either may cut the western side of the 

wall or is somehow related to it. In the south, Walls 7 and 8 (Figure 7.60) form a corner of a structure continuing to the southwest. These walls are not thick, with Wall 7 exposed to a length 

of 5.5 m and standing three courses high; Wall 8 continues to 

the SW unexcavated area. To the northeast, Locus 7 was defined 

(Figure 7.64). Here Feature 11 at an elevation of 55.21–55.48 

m denotes ash layers, and Feature 12 (0.6 × 0.7 m; Figure 7.62, 

right) represents an apparently square-shaped installation made 

of stones lying near the outer corner of Walls 3 and 4 (the area is 

delimited by stones and has a depression in the center).

In the south, Locus 9 was defined. Here a fragmentary thin 

brick wall, Wall 5, delimits Feature 14 (Figures 7.63–7.65); 

brick remains may indicate that there could have been a parallel 

east–west wall 1.3 m to the south as well. These walls probably 

did not stand very high and were possibly separation walls in 

an open area. Feature 14 is a roughly rounded brick and stone 

construction, 1.2 m in diameter (Figure 7.65), which may have 

served as a large “fire pit” attached to Wall 6 from the north. 

Feature 14, at an elevation of 55.22 m, may be under the floor 

level of this phase and thus may belong to an earlier phase (Phase 

KB4?); alternatively, the installation was dug into the floor. To 

the SE lies Feature 15, a rectangular 0.8 × 0.5 m brick “box” installation (Figures 7.64, center, 7.65, rear) attached to the southern part of Wall 6 at levels of 54.99–55.44 m, probably also dug 

into the floor. The frame is built of upright standing bricks. This 

may also have been a fire pit (possibly used for cooking), as indicated by the ashes found inside. In the east, the area is disturbed 

by Pits 5 and 6 and Petrie’s dumps. Square KB, Phase KB3 seems 

to represent activities in an open area to the east and north of a 

possibly large structure.

Little pottery was recovered from clear contexts of Phase 

KB3 (Figure 7.70). A nearly complete red-slipped bowl has a 

slight carination (Figure 7.70a); good parallels come from Khirbet Qeiyafa of the early Iron IIA (Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a: 

fig. 6.3:24–26). Small finds from Phase KB3 include a large leg of 

a zoomorphic figurine (Figure 7.70d), a worked Philistine-style 

sherd, and a worked base (Figure 7.70b,c), as well as a sealing fragment with a scarab impression (Figure 7.70e). The relative abundance of clay sealings, including those impressed with 
372 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 373

A complete example (Figure 7.78f, from Feature 3) and 

several large fragments of storage jars are illustrated (Figure 

7.78g,h). These have a short vertical neck (although not extremely short as in Iron IIB hole-mouth jars) that is sometimes 

ridged (Figure 7.78g; this example also has a postfiring line incised on the handle), a simple or gutter rim (Figure 7.78h; see 

Field IV, Figure 8.177, Type HM for this type), a softly carinated shoulder, rounded base, and, usually, two vertical handles. 

Some of these types continue throughout the Iron Age II (for 

the generic type, see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type SJ7), 

although close parallels come from the Iron IIA, such as at Ashdod, Stratum X–IX (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.84:1) 

and Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a: fig. 6.23:1–3). 

Another completely intact vessel (Figure 7.78e) was also found in 

Phase KB1. This is a rather small vessel, about 40 cm high, with a 

simple, thickened, slightly everted rim and somewhat conic body 

with a pointed base; the shape resembles hole-mouth jars of the 

Iron IIB (see, e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:105–107; see 

also chapter 8), yet it is more conical in its shape, with a more 

pointed base and wider opening (see, possibly, Batash, Stratum 

II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 97:1). A decorated body 

sherd (Figure 7.78k) probably belongs to a LPDW decorated 

krater; it is red burnished and decorated with white bands (see 

further discussion in chapter 12). A vessel neck (Figure 7.78i) 

probably belongs to a globular jug (possibly similar to a jug from 

Batash, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type JG26, pl. 88:12). 

A red-slipped spout (Figure 7.78l) is probably part of a jug or 

flask. A bronze tool or spatula (Figure 7.78m) was also found 

(see chapter 21).

INSTALLATIONS FUR 2 AND FUR 3

In the eastern part of Field I two installations excavated by 

Petrie (interpreted as kilns or furnaces) were still standing on the 

Phase KB1

The uppermost phase, Phase KB1 (Figure 7.73), is not well 

preserved. It includes Layers 22–23 and a 0.7-m-wide tabun 

(Feature 2, Figures 7.74–7.76), which was nearly completely 

preserved at an upper level of 56.41 m; near it a jar (Feature 

3, at an upper elevation of 56.43 m; Figure 7.77 ) was possibly 

lying on the floor level. A complete storage jar (Figure 7.78f) was 

found here, and a complete hole-mouth jar was found nearby 

(Feature 6, Figure 7.78e). Feature 4, defining Locus 2 from the 

east (Figures 7.74, 7.72), may be a brick wall fragment, possibly 

belong to an earlier phase. Two walls (Walls 1 and 2) to the 

north and east of the tabun may belong to this phase (exposed at 

levels of 56.15–56.37 m) or to Phase KB2. Wall 1 is an east–west 

brick wall exposed to a length of about 2.6 m, whereas Wall 2 

is a fragmentary north–south wall forming a corner with Wall 1. 

The finds and pottery from Phase KB1 indicate an Iron 

IIA-B date, including LPDW and many red-slipped and wheelburnished forms (Figure 7.78).The pottery includes several complete vessels (Figure 7.78e,f; see below). Several red-slipped and 

burnished open bowls (Figure 7.78a–d) have a slightly carinated 

bowl with a thickened rim, most of which are grooved below the 

rim’s exterior. This is a typical Iron IIA coastal form (probably 

dating to the 9th century BCE) and is very common in Philistine 

and other sites (e.g., Lachish, Level V [Aharoni, 1975: pl. 41:14; 

Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.65:13], Batash, Stratum IV [Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:41–42, Types BL11, BL26], Ashdod, Stratum X–IX [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.82:9,12,14], 

and Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 [Shai and Maeir, 2012]). A 

large red-slipped and burnished bowl (Figure 7.78b) has a thickened hammerhead rim and small, pointed knobs applied beneath 

it (see parallels at, e.g., Batash, Stratum IV [Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: pl. 80:11] and Ashdod, Stratum X–IX [Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.83:2,4]). A rounded bowl (Figure 

7.78d) has black bands on the upper exterior.

FIGURE 7.54. Philistine pottery from Phase 2. BSB = bell-shaped bowl. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a BSB, red decoration 1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

b BSB; white slip, red decoration 2A GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

c BSB; black decoration 2 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

d BSB; red decoration 6 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

e BSB; red decoration 4 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

f BSB; white slip, red and black decoration 5665/1 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

h BSB; white slip, red and black decoration 3 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

i BSB (degenerated) 5665/2 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

j BSB; plain 1073/1 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

k BSB; plain 4 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

l BSB; white slip 2 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

m Jug(?) (Philistine); red decoration 5673/1 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2
374 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 375

FIGURE 7.55. Philistine pottery from Phase 2. BS = bell-shaped; us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a BS krater; white slip, red and black decoration 5 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

b BS krater; white slip, red and black decoration 6 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

c BS krater; white slip, red and black decoration 5 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

d BS krater; white slip, red and black decoration A GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

e Sherd; white slip, red and black decoration 7 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

f Jug; red and black decoration 6A GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

g Sherd; red decoration A GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

h Jug; red and black decoration 2A GMI FUR (0) 2 FUR 2/us

i Sherd; white slip, red and black decoration 8 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

j Stirrup jar(?); decoration 3 GMI FUR (0) 2 FUR 2/us

k Jug(?); red and black decoration 2 GMI FUR (0) 2 FUR 2/us

l Stirrup jar; red and black decoration 8 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

m Stirrup jar; red decoration 9 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

n Jug; red and black decoration 7 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

FIGURE 7.56. Pottery and small finds from Phase 2. Cyp. = Cypriot; af = after firing; us = unstratified.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Chalice?; red decoration 11 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

b Bowl; white slip 1 GMI FUR (0) 2 FUR 2/us

c Bowl(?); white slip, red decoration 12 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2

d Base? B GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/3

e Decorated sherd (Cyp. MB, Red-on-Red) Box 828 GMI FUR (3) 2 FUR 2/us

f Worked sherd Reg. No. 3604 GMI FUR F2 FUR 2

g Worked sherd Reg. No. 3842 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2

h Jar handle (incised af) Reg. No. 1979 GMI FUR F2 (2) FUR 2
376 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.57. Plan of Phase 1.

FIGURE 7.58. Walls A (right) and A1, looking SW.
NUMBER 50 • 377

Figure 7.43p). According to the pottery, only a general Iron IIB 

date can be given to installation GMI FUR 2.

Installation GMI FUR 3

The second installation examined was GMI FUR 3 (Figures 

7.85–7.91; Petrie, 1928: pl. XXV:5, also Furnace 192.0, dated 

by him to 870 BCE, Iron IIA), which is located north of installation FUR 2 (Figure 7.79). According to Petrie, the plan may 

relate to the “Assyrian” walls (Petrie, 1928: pl. IX, Furnace GB, 

pl. XXV:5, left). This is a larger installation, measuring 2.6 × 2 

m in size (Figures 7.85–7.87). Here the debris built up over a 

1.4 × 0.9 m platform was cleared; this platform is surrounded 

by walls, of which the western wall was newly exposed (Wall 

1, Figure 7.89). An ash layer with pottery and other finds was 

excavated in the southwest corner of FUR 3 directly above the 

platform (Layer 1, Locus 1, level of 55.85 m). Again, the finds 

and shape of the structure do not indicate this installation had 

clear metallurgical use, but it may also be a pottery kiln or another type of installation; the shape of the bricks may indicate a 

relationship to Assyrian architecture.

The pottery from this installation and its vicinity includes 

only a few indicative Iron IIB forms (Figure 7.91). The pottery 

includes open bowls with simple (Figure 7.91a) or triangular 

rims (Figure 7.91c, red burnished on the interior and exterior). 

The latter is a typical Iron II (especially Iron IIC) form (see chapter 8 and, e.g., Batash, Strata IV–II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:39–40, Type BL13, and references therein). A large, open, 

red-slipped, and burnished bowl or platter (Figure 7.91b) with 

a groove under the thickened rim is also illustrated (see, e.g., 

Batash, Strata IV–III, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type 

BL26, and references therein). A cooking pot with a short, 

straight neck and a handle (Figure 7.91d) is an Iron IIB-C form 

as well (see Batash, Strata III–II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: 

Type CP12, and references therein). Again, according to the pottery, only a general Iron IIB-C date can be given to installation 

GMI FUR 3.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. All the recorded elevations in the KB plan were relative, and the 0 level was 

fixed at 57.39 m; these numbers are to be added to the reported “benchmark” at 55.15 m to get absolute heights.

surface and were cleaned and reexcavated (Figures 7.79–7.91). 

These two features lie quite close to each other (Figure 7.79). 

The cleaning of these features, conducted during the 1976 season 

and supervised by John F. Merkel, was undertaken in order to 

collect some evidence for metallurgical studies. The assumption 

was that these installations might have been metal (bronze or 

iron) furnaces (as reported by Petrie, 1928:14, pls. VI, bottom, 

VII, XXV:3–6). They were dated by Petrie to the 12th–9th centuries BCE and were denoted as iron and sword furnaces, yet not 

much further evidence for metallurgic activity in these areas is 

given in the report.

Installation GMI FUR 2

The southern installation, GMI FUR 2 (Figure 7.80–7.84), 

is about 2 × 1.5 m in size (possibly Petrie’s Furnace 187.5 dated 

by him to 1100 BCE, the Iron I) and was excavated by removing 

the debris above the clay lining and brick floor of the kiln (Figure 

7.82). The southern wall of this kiln was uncovered (Figure 7.80, 

Wall 1), and a layer of horizontal sherds was reached (Layer 2, 

Locus 1, Figure 7.83). Another wall fragment (labeled Wall 2) 

was exposed about 1.5 m south of Wall 1, with the same orientation, and the debris between the wall was excavated (Loci 1 

and 2, Layers 1, 2). In this area, some vitrified pottery was recovered as well as some large slag fragments (samples SCI 1686, 

SCI 1688). A section through the kiln floor was cut here (Figure 

7.81). Both the finds and shape of the structure seem to indicate 

this installation was not for metallurgical use but may have been 

a pottery kiln, although the complete plan of the installation is 

not known. 

The pottery from here includes mostly a mixture of Iron IIA 

and IIB forms (Figure 7.84). This includes rounded (Figure 7.84a) 

and carinated bowls (Figure 7.84b,c), most of which are red 

slipped (Figure 7.84d,e, with hand burnishing on the interior); a 

large krater rim with a handle is illustrated as well (Figure 7.84f). 

Two cooking pots (Figure 7.84g,h) have everted rims with an 

outer gutter. This type is common in the Iron IIB, i.e., the 8th–7th 

centuries BCE (see chapter 8, Type CP2; e.g., Lachish, Level IV 

[Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.38:7], Ashdod, Strata VIII–VII [Dothan, 

1971: fig. 37:23; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.90:1], 

and Batash, Stratum II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:85–87, 

Type CP10, and references therein]). Other sherds include jar 

fragments (Figure 7.84i–j,n,o) of the Iron IIB-C, such as sackshaped jars (see below; see also chapter 8 and, e.g., Batash, 

Strata III–II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Types SJ7b, SJ7d). 

A larger jar fragment has a folded rim (Figure 7.84i), a type more 

common in the Iron I–IIA. Two large fragments of cylindrical 

hole-mouth jars with hammerhead rims were also found (Figure 

7.84l,m). Hole-mouth jars are typical of the Iron IIB (see Field 

IV, chapter 8; see also, e.g., Batash, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:105–107, Type SJ10a). A shallow, handmade, thick vessel 

fragment, possibly a basin fragment (Figure 7.84p), has a knob 

on its rim and is similar to one found in the pottery kiln (see 
378 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 379

FIGURE 7.59. Pottery and finds from Phase 1. us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 1463/1 GMI FUR (0) 3 FUR 1/2/us

b Chalice; white slip, base worked 1031/1 GMI FUR (2) FUR 1/2

c Jar 1055/1 GMI FUR (2) FUR 1/2

d Jug; white slip 5629/1 GMI FUR (+) FUR us

e Jug; red decoration 5666/1 GMI FUR (1) 3 FUR 1/2

f Stirrup jar; red decoration 5667/1 GMI FUR (7) 3 FUR 1–2/us

g Jug(?); red slip 5680/1 GMI FUR WA FUR 1?

h Flask(?); white slip, red decoration 5629/2 GMI FUR (+) FUR us

i Spoon flask; white slip 5735/1 GMI FUR (0) FUR us

j Zoomorphic vessel(?); red and black decoration 5667/2 GMI FUR (0) 3 FUR 1–2/us

k Zoomorphic leg 5792/1 GMI FUR (0) 2 FUR 2/us

l Loom weight (spool) Reg. No. 1677 GMI FUR between Wall A and W2 FUR 1/2

m Loom weight (spool) Reg. No. 1676 GMI FUR between Wall A and W2 FUR 1/2

n Loom weight (spool) Reg. No. 3063 GMI FUR (2) FUR 1/2

FIGURE 7.60. Plan of GMI Sq. KB, Phase KB3.
380 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.62. Square KB, lower level: Wall 4 (rear) and Feature 12 (lower left), looking south.

FIGURE 7.61. Square KB, lower phase, looking north: Wall 4 is on the left, with Feature 12 behind it, and Pits 5 and 

6 are on the right. Note the layers of Petrie’s dump on the right in the eastern balk.
NUMBER 50 • 381

FIGURE 7.63. Square KB, lower phase: brick box installation (Feature 15; front left), with Feature 14 behind it and 

Wall 4 (rear), looking west.

FIGURE 7.64. Features 14 (front left) and 15 (front right) of Sq. KB, lower phase, looking NE.
382 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.65. Close-up of Feature 14 (with Feature 15 behind it), looking east.

FIGURE 7.66. Square KB, looking southwest: Wall 4 is in the center, and to its right is its western side with the 

foundation trench and Pit 10; to the right (east) lies Field GMI FUR.
NUMBER 50 • 383

FIGURE 7.67. Pit 10 and west side of Wall 4, looking east; note the sand layer in section and Petrie’s dump in section on the far side.

FIGURE 7.68. Northwest section of GMI Sq. KB.
384 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.70. Pottery and finds from Phase KB3.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a Bowl; red slip 602/1 GMI KB F13 9 KB3

b Worked perforated base Reg. No. 3428 GMI KB F13 9 KB3

c Worked sherd (Philistine) Reg. No. 6001 GMI KB (28) KB3?

d Figurine leg Reg. No. 1250 GMI KB (35) 7 KB3

e Sealing; scarab impression Reg. No. 1220 (SI Cat. No. 1122) GMI KB (33) 7 KB3

FIGURE 7.69. Southwestern balk of GMI Sq. KB with sherd layers.
NUMBER 50 • 385

FIGURE 7.71. Plan of GMI Sq. KB, Phase KB2.
386 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.72. Pottery and finds from Phase KB 2. BSB = bell-shaped; BoR = Black on Red. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context Phase

a BSB, red slip 1320A/1 GMI KB (26) 5 KB2

b BSB (degenerated) 608/2 GMI KB P3 KB2

c BSB, red slip 1320A/2 GMI KB (26) 5 KB2

d Bowl; red slip, burnish RV 679 GMI KB F5 KB2?

e Bowl, red slip 608/3 GMI KB P3 KB2

f Bowl, red slip 608/1 GMI KB P3 KB2

g Krater 605/1 GMI KB (25) KB2

h Cooking pot 726/1 GMI KB P4 KB2?

i Jug; red slip 608/4 GMI KB P3 KB2

j Spout, red slip 746/1 GMI KB P4 KB2?

k Juglet (BoR) Box 546/1 GMI KB (25) KB2

l Sealing; scarab impression Reg. No. 1206 (SI Cat. No. 1114) GMI KB (26) 5 KB2

m Sealing Reg. No. 1207 (SI Cat. No. 1111) GMI KB P2 KB2?

n Sealing Reg. 2154 GMI KB (26) 5 KB2
NUMBER 50 • 387

FIGURE 7.73. Plan of GMI Sq. KB, Phase KB1.

FIGURE 7.74. Square KB, Pits 5 and 6, from above.
388 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.75. Tabun (Feature 2; rear) and jar (Feature 3; in front) in GMI Sq. KB, with Walls 1 and 2 on the right, looking NW.
NUMBER 50 • 389

FIGURE 7.76. Close-up of the tabun, Feature 2 in Sq. KB.

FIGURE 7.77. Close-up of the jar, Feature 3 in Sq. GMI KB, looking NW.
390 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.78. Pottery and finds from Phase KB 1. LPDW = Late Philistine Decorated Ware.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 709/1 GMI KB (23) 3

b Bowl/krater; red slip 713/1 GMI KB (23) 2

c Bowl/krater; red slip, white decoration 709/2 GMI KB (23) 3

d Bowl; red slip, burnish, black bands (LPDW?) RV 683 GMI KB (23) 2

e Jar (hole-mouth?) RV 1001 GMI KB F3 2

f Jar RV 1003 GMI KB F6 4

g Jar RV 684 GMI KB F6

h Jar 708/2 GMI KB (23) 3

i Jar/jug 708/3 GMI KB (23) 3

j Jar 708/1 GMI KB (23) 3

k Krater (?); red slip, burnish, white decoration (LPDW) 713/2 GMI KB (23) 2

l Spout(?); red decoration 709/3 GMI KB (23) 3

m Bronze tool/spatula Reg. No. 1311 (SI Cat. No. 1106) GMI KB (22) 2
NUMBER 50 • 391

FIGURE 7.79. Installations FUR 2 and FUR 3 (in front) in Field I.
392 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.81. Plan and section of GMI FUR 2 at the end of its 

excavation.

FIGURE 7.80. Plan of GMI FUR 2 during its excavation.
NUMBER 50 • 393

FIGURE 7.83. Sherd layer in GMI FUR 2, looking north.

FIGURE 7.82. Installation FUR 2, before its excavation, looking west.
394 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.84. Pottery from installation FUR 2.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context

a Bowl; red slip 1232/1 GMI FURII (2) 

b Bowl 1232A/1 GMI FURII (2) 

c Bowl, red slip 1232/1 GMI FURII (2) 

d Bowl; red slip, hand burnish 1038/1 GMI FURII (2) 

e Bowl; red slip, burnish 1233/1 GMI FURII W1

f Krater 1587/1 GMI FURII (2) 1

g Cooking pot 1036/3 GMI FURII (1) 1

h Cooking pot 1036/1 GMI FURII (1) 1

i Jar 1581/1 GMI FURII (2) 1

j Jar 1036/2 GMI FURII (1) 1

k Jar 1232/3 GMI FURII (2) 

l Hole-mouth jar 1588/1 GMI FURII (2) 2

m Hole-mouth jar 1580/1 GMI FURII (2) 2

n Jar 1582/1 GMI FURII (2) 2

o Jar 1036/5 GMI FURII (1) 1

p Threading platform/vat/basin 1587/2 GMI FURII (2) 1
NUMBER 50 • 395

FIGURE 7.85. Installation FUR 3, before its excavation, looking north.

FIGURE 7.86. Installation FUR 3, looking west.
396 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.87. Plan and section of GMI FUR 3.

FIGURE 7.88. Installation FUR 3 after cleaning, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 397

FIGURE 7.89. Installation FUR 3 floor on platform, looking north.

FIGURE 7.90. Southern wall of GMI FUR 3, looking south.
398 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 7.91. Pottery from installation FUR 3.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Context

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 1237/1 GMI FURIII (1)

b Bowl; red slip, burnish 1237/4 GMI FURIII (1)

c Bowl; red slip, burnish 1237/3 GMI FURIII (1)

d Cooking pot 1237/6 GMI FURIII (1)
NUMBER 50 • 399

APPENDIX 7.1

TABLE 7.A1. List of contexts of Field I FUR 1–FUR 3. The notation {xx} indicates the year of excavation when the layer number is 

repeated in various seasons. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower elevation was recorded, 

and in others it is questionable.

Lower Upper Phase/

Context Context type level (m) level (m) period Architecture Notes

GMI FUR TT1 (0) Fill/topsoil None

GMI FUR TT1 (1) Fill 3 Kiln

GMI FUR (0) Topsoil None/2

GMI FUR (0) 1 Topsoil None

GMI FUR (0) 2 Topsoil None

GMI FUR (0) 3 Topsoil None

GMI FUR (1) {75} Fill 3 Kiln

GMI FUR (2) {75} Fill 2/1

GMI FUR (0) {76} Topsoil None/2

GMI FUR (1) {76} Fill 3

GMI FUR (1A) {76} Fill 2

GMI FUR (2) {76} Fill 3

GMI FUR (0) 2 {77} Topsoil None/2

GMI FUR (1) 2 {77} Fill 2

GMI FUR (2) 2 {77} Fill 2–3

GMI FUR (3) 2 {77} Fill 2–3

GMI FUR (4) 2 {77} Fill 2–3?

GMI FUR (0) 2 {78} Topsoil 54.95 55.27 None/2

GMI FUR (1) 2 {78} Fill 54.55 54.95 2

GMI FUR (2) 2 {78} Fill 54.25 54.50 2

GMI FUR (3) 2 {78} Fill 53.79 54.25 2–3

GMI FUR (4) 2 {78} Fill 53.60 53.79 2–3?

GMI FUR (5) 2 {78} Fill 53.50 3

GMI FUR (6) 2 {78} Fill 53.35 53.45 3

GMI FUR (7) 3 {78} Fill 3–4

GMI FUR (8) 3 {78} Fill 3–4

GMI FUR (0) 3 {77} Fill 55.02 55.27 None/1–2

GMI FUR (1) 3 {77} Fill 1–2

GMI FUR (2) 3 {77} Fill 1–2

GMI FUR TTA (9) 4 Fill/floor 53.25 4

GMI FUR TTA (10) 4 Fill 4

GMI FUR TTA (9) 5 Fill 4

GMI FUR TTA (10) 5 Fill 4

GMI FUR F1 Kiln structure 3 Kiln

GMI FUR B F1 Bricks 1?

GMI FUR F2 Stones 2

GMI FUR B F2 Ashy layers 1?

GMI FUR F3 Kiln structure 3 Kiln

GMI FUR F4 Kiln structure 3 Kiln

GMI FUR F5 Kiln structure 3 Kiln

GMI FUR FF Wall 53.02 3 Kiln

GMI FUR W1 Wall 53.12? 54.02 3 Kiln Wall of stoke hole of kiln

GMI FUR W2 Wall 2 East of kiln Southern wall of kiln

GMI FUR WA Wall 55.82? 1? East of kiln Brick wall

GMI FUR WA1 Wall 1? East of kiln Brick wall

GMI FUR WB Wall 54.81 55.01 2 East of kiln Brick wall

GMI FUR WC Wall 54.95 2 East of kiln Brick wall
400 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 7.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper Phase/

Context Context type level (m) level (m) period Architecture Notes

GMI FUR WD Wall 52.53 53.38 3? East of kiln Brick wall

GMI FUR WE Wall 53.07 53.25 3–4? Brick wall

GMI FUR WE1 Wall 53.04 53.14 3–4? Brick wall

GMI FUR WF Wall 53.04 53.29 3? Brick wall

GMI FUR WF1 Wall 52.69 53.24 4 Brick wall

GMI FUR Wall G Wall 52.47 52.88 4 Brick wall

GMI FUR P1 Pit 54.95? 1?–2?

GMI FUR 2 

GMI FUR II (1) Fill 55.85 55.97 Iron II Above FUR II

GMI FUR II (1) 1 Fill 55.74 56.07 Iron II South of FUR II

GMI FUR II (2) Fill 55.60 55.74 Iron II South of FUR II

GMI FUR II (2) 1 Fill 55.60 55.71 Iron II South of FUR II

GMI FUR II (2) 2 Fill 55.60 Iron II South of FUR II

GMI FUR II W1 Wall 56.07 Iron II South wall of FUR II

GMI FUR II W2 Wall 55.71 Iron II South of FUR II

GMI FUR 3 

GMI FUR III (1) Fill 55.85 56.07 Iron II Above FUR III

GMI FUR III (1) 1 Fill 55.85 Iron II FUR III platform

GMI FUR III W1 Wall 55.89 56.17 Iron II West wall of FUR III

TABLE 7.A2. List of contexts of Field I, Square KB. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower 

elevation was recorded, and in others it is questionable.

Context Context type Lower level (m) Upper level (m) Phase Notes

GMI KB TT1 Petrie dump None

GMI KB (0) Topsoil None

GMI KB (20 Petrie dump 56.70 57.04 None

GMI KB (20) 1 Petrie dump 56.43 56.53 None

GMI KB (21) Fill 56.44 56.58 None

GMI KB (22) 2 Fill 56.29 56.44 KB1

GMI KB (22) 3 Fill 56.35 56.48 KB1

GMI KB (22) 4 Petrie dump 56.13 56.48 None

GMI KB (23) 2 Fill 56.18 56.29 KB1

GMI KB (23) 3 Fill 56.19 56.35 KB1

GMI KB (23) 4) Fill 56.32 56.32 KB1

GMI KB (23) Fill KB2

GMI KB (24) Fill 56.07 56.12 KB1–2

GMI KB (25) Fill 55.96 56.13 KB2

GMI KB (26) 5 Fill 55.77 56.12 KB2

GMI KB (26) 6 Fill 56.18 KB2–3?

GMI KB TT2 (27) Fill 55.62 55.77 KB3

GMI KB (28) Fill 55.48 55.62 KB3?

GMI KB (29) 7 Fill 55.45 55.48 KB3 Locus 7 is south of W3
NUMBER 50 • 401

(continued)

GMI KB (30) 7 Fill 55.41 55.45 KB3

GMI KB (31) 7 Fill 55.41 55.45 KB3

GMI KB (32) 7 Fill 55.26 55.41 KB3

GMI KB (33) 7 Fill 55.25 55.36 KB3

GMI KB (34) 7 Fill 55.19 55.34 KB3

GMI KB (35) 7 Fill 55.08 55.34 KB3

GMI KB (29) 8 Fill 55.39 55.43 KB3 Locus 8 is south of P9

GMI KB (30) 8 Fill 55.33 55.39 KB3

GMI KB (31) 8 Fill 55.28 55.33 KB3

GMI KB (32) 8 Fill 55.22 55.28 KB3

GMI KB (29) 9 Fill 55.33 55.43 KB3 Locus 9 is between W4 and 

F14–15

GMI KB (30) 9 Fill 55.28 55.33 KB3

GMI KB (32) 9 Fill 55.21 55.29 KB3

GMI KB TT3 Fill 55.24 55.43 KB3

GMI KB TT4 Fill 55.35 55.77 KB3?

GMI KB F1 Petrie dump 56.57 56.70 None

GMI KB F2 2 Tabun 56.11? 56.41 KB1

GMI KB F3 2 Jar 56.33 56.46 KB1

GMI KB F4 Bricks 56.29 56.55 KB1

GMI KB F5 4 Sherds/pit 56.03 56.32 KB2?

GMI KB F6 4 Pit/sherds 55.99 56.33 KB1

GMI KB F7 Pit? 56.01 56.07 KB2? Shallow depression, possibly 

plastered

GMI KB F8 Sandy area 56.01 56.14 KB2? compact sandy area

GMI KB F9 Pit? 55.67 56.05 KB2?

GMI KB F9 2 Pit? 55.67 56.00 KB2?

GMI KB F10 Bricky area 55.69 56.01 KB2?

GMI KB F11 7 Ashes 55.21 55.48 KB3

GMI KB F12 7 Installation 55.18 55.41 KB3

GMI KB F13 9 Installation 55.17 55.45 KB3

GMI KB F14 9 Installation 55.00 55.22 KB3–4?

GMI KB F15 9 Installation 54.99 55.44 KB3

GMI KB W1 Wall 56.15 56.37 KB1–2 Brick wall

GMI KB W2 Wall 56.18 56.3 KB1–2 Brick wall

GMI KB W3 Wall 55.84 55.94 Brick wall, probably 

continuation of FUR Wall A1

GMI KB W4 Wall 55.26 55.57 KB3 Brick wall

GMI KB W5 Wall 55.1? 55.43 KB3 Brick wall

GMI KB W6 Wall 55.10 55.43 KB3 Brick wall

GMI KB W7 Wall 54.80 55.08 KB3 Brick wall

GMI KB W8 Wall 55.25 KB3 Brick wall

GMI KB P1 Pit 56.00 56.25 KB2?

GMI KB P2 Pit 55.55 55.97 KB2?

GMI KB P3 Pit 55.89 55.98 KB2

GMI KB P4 Pit/dump 55.54 56.02 KB2?

GMI KB P5 Pit/dump 55.72 56.06 KB2

GMI KB P6 Pit 55.61 55.74 KB2

GMI KB P7 Pit 55.71 KB2?

TABLE 7.A2 (continued)

Context Context type Lower level (m) Upper level (m) Phase Notes
402 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 7.A2 (continued)

Context Context type Lower level (m) Upper level (m) Phase Notes

GMI KB P8 Pit 55.17 55.43 KB2–3?

GMI KB P9 Pit 55.34 55.43 KB2–3?

GMI KB P10 10 Pit 55.16 55.45 KB3?

GMI KB P11 10 Pit? 55.19 55.50 KB3?

GMI KB P12 10 Pit? 54.82 55.19 KB3?
8 Results from Field IV: 

The Iron II and Later Periods

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION

Field IV was the initial and main excavation field of the Smithsonian Institution Tell Jemmeh excavations. This was especially true 

in terms of the number of excavation days invested and finds recovered. As this was the only field of excavation during the first season 

(1970), the field was not assigned a separate field number and was denoted during the excavation and afterward as simply “GM.” In

this report the field is denoted Field IV. 

The field lies in the upper tell near one of the central northern slopes (Figure 8.1). To the northeast, the tell suffered severe erosion 

caused by the flooding of the Besor River, limiting the extent of the excavations in Field IV. Field IV was excavated a total of 10 seasons: during all the 1970–1978 seasons and in the 1984 season in Sq. 2B. However, most of the architecture, especially the “Assyrian” 

vaulted building and the granary, was uncovered already during the 1970–1972 seasons. During the 1972–1975 seasons, Squares (Sqs.; 

or partial squares) 00A, 0A, 00B, and 0B were opened to complement the excavation of several rooms in Building I (as these squares lie 

to the west of the “1X” line of squares, they were labeled 0X and 00X; Figure 8.2). During 1975–1978 and 1984, the main aim was to 

probe the earlier Iron Age levels lying below the main building phases. 

Many square supervisors participated in the excavations of Field IV and include (among others) Ron Gardiner, W. T. Potts, Linda 

B. Linsberg, Leon Marfoe, W. Meyer, David E. Weil, Y.L. (unknown; Sq. 2B, 1970), Lucy Foley, Jerry Schaefer, Egon Lass, Gary 

Rollefson, Alison Kraskey, Deborah Weinstein, Diane Fenicle, Roger Trick, Fran Weiss, 

Wendy Nimer, and Jennifer Schmertz. Architects were Brian Lalor, David Sheehan, and 

R. Seligman. Altogether, 14 squares were excavated here (Sqs. 0A, 00A, 0B, 00B, 1A, 2A, 

1B, 2B, 3B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D, 1E). Most balks 

were eventually removed to achieve a more 

complete exposure of the architecture. Some 

of the squares were only partially excavated 

(0A, 00A, 0B, 00B, and 1E). Altogether, an 

area about 300 m2

 or slightly larger was excavated in this field (Figure 8.2).

In an early stage of the excavation, the 

area was roughly divided into two subareas, 

according to the major remains: the post–Iron 

Age granary (including Sqs. 1C, 2C, 1D, and 

2D) and the Assyrian (vaulted) building, labeled Building I here (including mostly Sqs. 

0A, 00A, 0B, 00B, 1A, 1B, and 2A; see Figure 

8.2). These two architectural features were 

not dismantled, and therefore, levels below 

the main vaulted building (Building I) were 

FIGURE 8.1. Field IV at the beginning of excavation, 1970, showing location on the tell.
404 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

in Sq. 2B (Figure 8.3), whereas Phase 8–7 (dating to the Iron IIB) 

were also reached in Sq. 2A; the pottery of Phases 11–8 with be 

briefly discussed according to the phases. Phases 6–5 (the Iron 

IIB-C) had a much larger exposure and are discussed separately. 

One section discusses the unique architectural techniques found 

in the late Iron Age II in Field IV and their Neo-Assyrian counterparts. Another section will discuss the pottery of Phases 7–5 and 

summarize the Iron II pottery from Field IV according to its morphological typology. This will be followed by a discussion of the 

later remains from Phases 4–1 (Persian to Crusader-Mamluk), 

including separate discussions of the pottery of each period. 

only significantly reached in Sqs. 2A, 2B, and 3B. In this report, 

the entire area will be discussed as one integral unit. 

The phases appearing in the different squares of Field IV 

are summarized in Table 8.1.It should be noted that the surface 

of Field IV was somewhat sloped, sloping down to the east or 

northeast; there seems to be a height difference, where the upper 

level of Sq. 0A is 2.6 m higher than that of Sq. 3B (from 61.70 to 

59.10 m, steeper in the area of Sq. 3B). In any case, pre–Iron Age 

levels were not reached in any of the squares. 

The earlier phases (Phases 11–9 dated to the Iron IIA), 

which will be discussed first, were only reached in small trenches 

FIGURE 8.2. General plan of Field IV excavation squares.
NUMBER 50

• 405

TABLE 8.1. General phasing of remains uncovered in the squares of Field IV. Symbols and abbreviations are as follows: plus (+) = represented; minus (−) = not represented; question mark (?) = possibly represented; c. = century; Blds. = buildings.Square andcharacteristics Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Phase 8 Phase 9 Phase 10 Phase 1100A + − ? ? + − − − − − −

0A − − + + + − − − − − −00B + − + + + − − − − − −0B + − + + + − − − − − −1A + + + + + − − − − − −2A + + + + + + + + − − −1B + − + ? + + − − − − −

2B + + + + + + + + + + +3B + - + + + + + − − − −

1C + + + + + + ? − − − −

2C + ? + + + − − − − − −

1D + + + + + − − − − − −2D + − + + − − − − − − −1E − − − − + + − − − − −Main features Pits Wall Walls, Walls, Blds. I, II, Blds. I(?), Blds. II–III(?) Rooms Rooms Feature 57 Trenches

fragments granary granary? III(?) II, III A*–B* C*–D*

Suggested date Mamluk? Persian- Persian Iron IIC(?)/ Iron IIC Iron IIB-C Iron IIB-C Iron IIB Iron IIA Iron IIA Iron IIA

Hellenistic? Persian

Absolute date BCE 13th–14th c. 4th–3rd c. 5–4th c. Late 7th or Early 7th c. 8th–early 8th–early Early 8th c. 9th–8th c. 10th–9th c. 10th– 

CE? BCE? BCE 7th(?)–5th c. BCE 7th c. BCE 7th c. BCE BCE BCE BCE 9th c. BCE
406 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

carinated profile and a degenerated horizontal handle. The slip 

covers both inner and outer surfaces on the sherds, but there is 

no burnish. The only complete bowl (Figure 8.5d) may also be 

a degenerated bell-shaped Philistine-style bowl (see chapter 12). 

The bowl is red slipped and has a straight rim with two grooves 

under it, a degenerated horizontal handle attached to the upper 

rim, and a ring base. Similar bowls appear in Petrie’s excavations 

(Petrie, 1928: pl. XLIX:18d,18e) but are quite rare elsewhere. 

Other bowls that also indicate continuity (or are even residual) 

from the Iron IB are carinated bowls with an everted rim and 

sharp carination in the upper body (Figure 8.5h–i, possibly also 

Figure 8.5o). Similar bowls were found at, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:152, fig. 3.57:8–15, and 

more parallels therein). An open bowl with a simple rim (Figure 

8.5n) is not very indicative and could be residual from early Iron 

Age levels. A white-slipped krater fragment (Figure 8.5p) may 

belong to a degenerated form of a Philistine bell-shaped krater. 

Carinated kraters with thickened rims (Figure 8.5q,r), some with 

handles attached to the rim (Figure 8.5s), also belong to the Iron 

Age IB repertoire (see chapters 3 and 7, Figures 3.165e, 7.44f,g; 

THE EARLIER IRON AGE II PHASES IN 

SQS. 2A, 2B, AND 3B (PHASES 11–7)

Phase 11

The earliest phase in Field IV, Phase 11, was only reached 

in two small trenches in Sq. 2B, in Layers 64–66 and in Test 

Trench 10, Layers 1–5 (a 0.8 × 1.5 m trench on the west side of 

the square, elevations of about 54.10–54.90 m, excavated in the 

1984 season; Figures 8.3, 8.10). No architectural remains were 

uncovered in this small area (Figure 8.4); the relevant layers lie 

under the features of Phase 10 (mainly the “firebox,” Feature 

57; see below; a large slag fragment was found here, SCI 1648).

The pottery from this phase (Figures 8.5, 8.6) comprises a 

mixture of some residual Iron IB (as Figure 8.5a) and mostly 

Iron IIA pottery, which is largely red slipped (and sometimes burnished). It seems that the earlier sherds are more common at the 

lower levels of the trench. The assemblage from Sq. 2B TT10 

and Layers 64–65 includes degenerated Philistine pottery (Figure 8.5b–g), such as a red-slipped bowl fragment with a slightly 

FIGURE 8.3. Test trench in Sq. 2B.
NUMBER 50 • 407

second example is a different type and has a thickened/folded, 

slightly inverted rim (Figure 8.6b), seemingly of an Iron IIA type 

(see, e.g., Batash, Stratum IV, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: 

Type CP4). Two jar necks (Figure 8.6c,d) have a rather straight 

neck and simple to slightly thickened rim; these are common in 

both late Iron I and IIA (e.g., Qasile, Stratum X [Mazar, 1985a: 

fig. 48:11,14] and Ashdod, Stratum X [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.71:1]). A fragment of a red-slipped jar shoulder with 

an attached handle (Figure 8.6e) was also found in Phase 11; 

this type is known from Iron IIA Philistia (see Ashdod, Stratum 

X, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.71:7). Sealing or bulla 

fragments, one with a seal and textile impression, were also 

found in Phase 11 (Figure 8.6f and Reg. No. 2184).

Phase 10

Architecture

This phase (Figures 8.7–8.12) was uncovered in a roughly 

5 × 3 m trench in Sq. 2B during the 1984 season (Figures 8.3, 

for parallels see, e.g., Qasile, Stratum XII, Mazar, 1985a: figs 

15:26, 17:17). Another carinated bowl/krater (Figure 8.5j) has a 

more slanted rim, making it more similar to Iron IIA forms (see, 

e.g., Batash, Stratum IV, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type 

KR14c). A thinner carinated bowl (Figure 8.5k) appears as well. 

A krater rim with a thick ledge rim (Figure 8.5t) may have a parallel at Ashdod, Stratum XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.57:23). Several red-slipped bowls (Figure 8.5l,m) indicate later 

types as well. A bowl sherd with a groove under the rim (Figure 

8.5l) may represent a common Iron IIA type in Philistia (see, 

e.g., Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3 [Shai and Maeir, 2012: Type BL2.1] 

and Ashdod, Strata X–IX [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:188, 

fig. 3.82:5, and references therein]); similarly, a slightly carinated bowl (Figure 8.5m; see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum X, Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.69:14,17) also likely dates to this 

period.

The two cooking pots illustrated from Phase 11 (Figure 

8.6a,b) are both small rim fragments. One (Figure 8.6a) has a 

thin, relatively vertical rim, possibly similar to Batash, Stratum 

V, Type CP20 (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:81, pl. 79:5). The 

FIGURE 8.4. Plan of Phase 11, Test Trench 10 in Sq. 2B.
408 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.5. Pottery from Phase 11. BSB = bell-shaped bowl; BS = bell-shaped; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a BSB; white slip 2684/1 GM 2B TT10 

b BSB; rs 5217/3 GM 2B (64)

c BSB; rs 4983A/3 GM 2B (64)

d BSB; rsb NA GM 2B TT10

e BSB; rs 2684/3 GM 2B TT10 

f Bowl; rs 5217/6 GM 2B (64)

g BSB; rs 2684/2 GM 2B TT10 

h Bowl 5147/1 GM 2B TT10 (3)

i Bowl 5147/2 GM 2B TT10 (3)

j Bowl/krater 5211/1 GM 2B (64)

k Bowl 5175/2 GM 2B TT10 (2)

l Bowl; rs 5217/4 GM 2B (64)

m Bowl; rs 5217/5 GM 2B (64)

n Bowl 5175/1 GM 2B TT10 (2)

o Bowl? 5164/1 GM 2B (64)

p BS krater(?); white slip 2684/4 GM 2B TT10 

q Krater 5162/2 GM 2B (65)

r Krater 5211/2 GM 2B (64)

s Krater 5164/2 GM 2B (64)

t Krater 5162/1 GM 2B (65)
NUMBER 50 • 409

FIGURE 8.6. Finds from Phase 11.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Cooking pot 5175/4 GM 2B TT10 (2)

b Cooking pot 5175/3 GM 2B TT10 (2)

c Jar 5211/3 GM 2B (64)

d Jar 5162/3 GM 2B (65)

e Jar, red slip 5217/7 GM 2B (64)

f Sealing Reg. No. 2174 GM 2B (64)

FIGURE 8.7. Plan of Phase 10.
410 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.9. Pit 35 filled with pottery sherds.

FIGURE 8.8. Phase 10: Feature 57 and Walls 36, 38.
NUMBER 50 • 411

Several pits (Pits 35, 36, 37, Figure 8.9) to the west of Feature 57 cut each other, reaching levels of 55.20–54.80 m. Pit 36 

(Figure 8.10) is a 1.7-m-wide rounded pit filled with ash and 

brick fragments (possibly a fire pit); it seems to cut into Wall 

38, Pit 35 (Figure 8.9) and Layer 63, but it is not clear from 

which level the pits were dug. They may represent an intermediate phase between Phases 9 and 10 (Phases “10A” and “10B”).

Pottery and Finds

The pottery of Phase 10 (Figures 8.11–8.12) was collected 

from within the firebox installation, Layers 45–47 around it, 

and Pit 35 (Figure 8.9, which is possibly somewhat later and is 

thus denoted Phase 10A). Generally, these sherds reflect pottery 

similar to that of Phase 11, with some probably residual Iron 

IB sherds and several Iron IIA forms, mostly red slipped (Figure 

8.11k–s). A rounded bowl with a simple rim (Figure 8.11a) 

is also primarily an Iron I form (e.g., Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: 

Type BL50b); the soot remains on its rim indicate that it was 

possibly used also as a lamp (see, e.g., Beth Shemesh [Grant 

and Wright, 1938: pl. LIX:29–31] and Ashdod, Stratum XI 

8.7). The remains include a brick fire installation (Feature 57, 

Figure 8.8) confined between two brick walls (Walls 38 and 36). 

Feature 57 (Figure 8.8, elevations of 55.20–55.60 m) is a square 

built installation, seemingly the firebox of an oven (or possibly 

a kiln?), leaning on Wall 36 on the southeast and confined by 

Wall 38 in northwest. In the northeast, fragmentary Wall 37 is 

possibly also part of the installation; at the bottom of Wall 36, 

an unusually large 62 cm brick was laid. The installation (measuring about 1.8 × 0.8 m) is made of upright standing bricks, 

creating two cells measuring internally 0.6 × 0.8 m and 0.5 × 0.6 

m, respectively. Both cells were filled with ash and some slag and 

may have opened to the west where their wall is curved. A possible additional elongated cell lies behind them (Wall 37). A large 

fragment of a coarse clay basin was found here. Feature 57 was 

covered by a 0.3 m fill layer (Layer 60); Layers 61–63 also belong to this phase (55.00–55.60 m), along with Layers 45–48 in 

Locus 2. In a test trench under Walls 22 and 26 (see Figure 8.10; 

see also Figure 8.30, Section A–A1) ,Wall 30 was discovered lying 

beneath Wall 26 of Phase 9 and the fill layer that probably also 

belongs to that phase; it is a brick wall preserved to nearly 1 m 

in height (elevations of at least 54.75–55.55 m).

FIGURE 8.10. West balk section of lower Sq. 2B.
412 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.11. Pottery from Phase 10. Phil = Philistine; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; soot 2870/1 GM 2B (46) 2 10 

b BSB; white slip, red decoration 6436A/2 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

c Bowl; white slip, brown decoration (Phil?) 6436A/1 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

d BSB; rs 2354/2 GM 2B (45) 2 10 

e Bowl 2884/2 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

f Bowl 2884/1 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

g Bowl; red decoration, burnish 5226/1 GM 2B W37 10 Firebox room

h Bowl; rsb (brown slip) 2354/1 GM 2B (45) 2 10 

i Bowl 2870/2 GM 2B (46) 2 10 

j Bowl; rs, hand burnish 1861A/1 GM 2B F57 10 Firebox room

k Bowl; rs 2884/3 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

l Bowl; rsb 6436/1 GM 2B (46) 2 10 

m Bowl; rsb 6436/2 GM 2B (46) 2 10 

n Bowl; rs 5178/2 GM 2B P35 10B? 

o Bowl; rsb 5217B/1 GM 2B (62) 4 10 Firebox room

p Bowl; rsb 5217B/2 GM 2B (60) 10 

q Bowl; rs 5178/3 GM 2B P35 10B? 

r Bowl; rs 5178/1 GM 2B P35 10B? 

s Bowl; rs, hand burnish 5228/1 GM 2B (60) 10 
NUMBER 50 • 413

fig. 37:4, Stratum VIII), possibly Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 86:14, Type 17a), and the Yavneh Favissa (Panitz-Cohen, 2010: fig. 7.2:3); this bowl type is also common at Tell Farah (S) and Tel Sera’ (G. Lehmann, Ben-Gurion 

University, personal communication). It should be noted that the 

profile, especially the upper part, is also somewhat similar to 

contemporary red-slipped bowls with vertical handles (such as 

at Tel Masos, Stratum II, Fritz and Kempinski, 1983: pls. 160:2, 

162:1). It seems, however, that this type, with its “metallic” attributes, is a hybrid form (see chapter 12). Note that this type is 

also well defined in the mathematical analysis (chapter 16, Type 

5, Figure 16.7), as it clusters on a different branch from other 

bowl types (for more on this type, see chapters 12 and 16).

Only one krater is illustrated from Phase 10 (Figure 8.12a). 

It has a thickened rim and rather vertical profile, recalling Iron 

IIA shapes derived from bell-shaped kraters (such as at Batash, 

Stratum IV [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:59, Type KR3] 

and Ashdod, Stratum X [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.70:3–4]). A single cooking pot illustrated from Phase 10 (Figure 8.12b) has a vertical thickened/folded rim, which appears to 

be a typical Iron IIA type (e.g., Lachish, Levels IV–V [Zimhoni, 

1997a: fig. 3.41:4] and Batash, Stratum IV [Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:80, Type CP4]).

Two jars from Phase 10 are illustrated (Figure 8.12c,d). 

One example is a jar base (Figure 8.12d; also see Figure 8.177, 

Type JR4), apparently of a typical Iron IB–IIA type (e.g., Qasile, 

Stratum X [Mazar, 1985a: fig. 48:11,12], Lachish, Levels V–IV 

[Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.46:11], Ashdod, Stratum X [Dothan and 

Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 71:1,5,6], and Khirbet Qeiyafa [Kang 

and Garfinkel, 2009a:137, fig. 6.23]). Another jar (Figure 8.12c) 

is thicker, has a slightly inverted rim, and has a rib in the middle 

of the neck; it is made of a pinkish, well-fired clay. This type 

was described at Lachish, Levels V–IV as having the same fabric (Zimhoni, 1997a:138, fig. 3.53:3–6). A rim fragment with a 

thick vertical handle attached to it (Figure 8.12e) is probably of 

a large jug. 

Two examples of spout fragments of red-slipped strainerspouted jugs are illustrated (Figure 8.12f,g). Additional Iron II 

Philistine types include jug fragments (one a spouted jug, Figure 

8.12g) decorated in the Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW), 

or Ashdod ware, style (Figure 8.12g–i). These have thick red slip 

and vertical burnishing and, in one case, horizontal black bands 

(Figure 8.12h; this body sherd could also belong to an amphora 

in the LPDW style; see chapter 12 and Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004). 

A large and thick vessel fragment made of coarse clay (Figure 

8.12j) has a thickened rim and a nearly vertical profile; this is 

either part of a stand or the rim of a basin. 

A jar handle marked after firing (Figure 8.12k) is also illustrated. Other finds from Phase 10 illustrated elsewhere include a miniature wheel (Figure 19.8g), a clay item with textile 

impressions (Figure 19.10h, possibly a sealing), several clay 

sealings (Figures 20.2h, 20.3e), and a worked base from a redslipped bowl (Figure 18.2g), which may have been used as a 

lid (see, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.37:3).

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:151, fig. 3.57:4,6]). Residual 

sherds include a fragment of a Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped 

bowl with a spiral motif (Figure 8.11b), bowls with high, sharp 

carination (Figure 8.11e,f), and possibly another bowl (Figure 

8.11i) that is similar to Figure 8.5i from Phase 11. An open 

bowl with a thickened rim (Figure 8.11c) is white slipped and 

has a brown band on the rim; this is also probably an Iron Age 

IB sherd, decorated in Bichrome style (see, e.g., Qasile, Stratum XII [Mazar, 1985a: fig. 16:4,15] and Ashdod, Stratum XII 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.29:20]). Slightly carinated, degenerated bell-shaped bowls with red slip and burnish 

(Figure 8.11d,h) also appear, yet these could date to the early 

Iron IIA as well (see, for example, Masos, House 554, Fritz and 

Kempinski, 1983: pl. 157:1). A small, slightly carinated bowl 

(Figure 8.11g) is decorated vertical red bands and burnish; this 

may be an Iron I form as well.

Iron IIA forms include slightly carinated open bowls with a 

thickened rim and inner and outer red slip (Figure 8.11j–l); often 

these are hand burnished, usually on the interior (Figure 8.11j, 

roughly similar to the example from Phase 11, Figure 8.5m); parallels can be found at Lachish, Levels IV–V (Zimhoni, 1997a: 

fig. 3.14:204), Tel Masos, Stratum II (Fritz and Kempinski, 

1983: pl. 135:2), Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001: Type BL25), and Ashdod, Strata X–IX (Dothan and BenShlomo, 2005: figs. 3.69:14, 3.82:6). A somewhat similar type is 

small (12–18 cm in diameter), carinated bowls with simple rims 

and inner and outer red slip (Figure 8.11n–p); parallels comes, 

for example, from Batash (possibly Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001: Type BL24) and Ashdod, Strata X–IX (Dothan and Porath, 1982: figs. 1:3, 10:8); note that this form continues in the 

Iron IIB (e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type BL27). 

Another group of carinated bowls, including two nearly 

complete profiles, is characterized by a thicker red slip with 

mostly hand but also wheel burnish, at times creating a glossy 

appearance (Figure 8.11q–s). The rim is vertical and slightly 

thickened from both sides; the section of the rim and neck is 

vertical and grooved or ridged on its outer surface; the body of 

the bowl has a very sharp carination on the lower part with a 

rounded outer profile. One example (Figure 8.11s) has densely 

patterned hand burnishing covering the entire lower part; the 

inside is also burnished but without this pattern. Another example has a very small degenerated horizontal handle applied 

on the neck (Figure 8.11q), which occurs in other examples 

as well (Phase 9, Figure 8.26h–p). This type continues to appear with more numerous and complete examples in Phase 9 

(Figure 8.26h,k), where they appear with a rounded base; the 

diameter of these bowls is between 20 and 30 cm (see Figure 

8.176, Type BL5A). The globular lower body and the degenerated horizontal handle might recall Philistine bell-shaped bowls. 

The grooving and sharp carination, as well as the rounded base, 

recall later Assyrian-style bowls. Plain bowls from the Iron IIA 

have similar profiles (e.g., Yavneh Favissa, Panitz-Cohen, 2010: 

fig. 7.1:20,21, with either a rounded or ring base). Other parallels for these bowls come from Ashdod, Strata X–IX (Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.82:18, possibly also Dothan, 1971: 
414 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and were not excavated, their thickness is not certain, although 

they were likely relatively thick. Furthermore, they have wide 

and deep sand-filled foundation trenches (Features 48 and 47, 

Figures 8.14, 8.16–8.21; see below). Wall 29’s foundation trench 

(“sand bin”), labeled Feature 47 (Figures 8.17–8.21), was filled 

with sand to stabilize the wall, as can be seen in the section 

(Figures 8.10, 8.24); it cuts Layers 57–60. Wall 28’s foundation 

trench, Feature 48, was probably continued by Feature 56, relating to Wall 35, and was also filled with sand (Figures 8.10, 

8.18–8.21; Wall 28 was excavated in 1978, whereas its probable continuation, Wall 35, was excavated in 1984; see also Van 

Beek, 2007:489–492, figs. 14.27–14.30). These trenches are 0.3 

m thick on each side of the wall and were filled with sand and 

Remains of Phase 9

Architecture

Partial areas of two adjoining walled units, attributed to 

Phase 9, were exposed in Sq. 2B (Figures 8.13–8.16); the units 

were denoted Room C* and Room D* (Figure 8.13). It should 

be noted that because of the small exposure, the actual function 

of these spaces and the larger structures they belong to cannot be 

ascertained, and therefore, these titles are purely technical. Two 

northeast–southwest brick walls that are located on the edges 

of the excavated area confine this space (Walls 28 and 29, Figures 8.10, 8.13, 8.24); as their outer faces lie within the balks 

FIGURE 8.12. Pottery from Phase 10. SSJ = strainer-spouted jug; LPDW = Late Philistine Decorated Ware; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped 

and burnished; af = after firing. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Krater 5159/1 GM 2B (60) 10 

b Cooking pot 2884/4 GM 2B (47) 2 10 

c Jar 5159/4 GM 2B (60) 10 

d Jar 5159/3 GM 2B (60) 10 

e Jug 5159/2 GM 2B (60) 10 

f SSJ spout; rs 5178/4 GM 2B P35 10B? 

g SSJ spout; rs 5200/1 GM 2B (61) 3 10 Firebox room

h Jug/amphora; rsb, vertical burnish, black decoration, LPDW 5212A/1 GM 2B (60) 10 

i Jug; rsb, vertical burnish, LPDW 5216/1 GM 2B (60) 10 

j Stand/basin? 5206/1 GM 2B P35 10B? 

k Jar (incised af) Reg. No. 2181 GM 2B (60) 10 
NUMBER 50 • 415

FIGURE 8.13. Plan of Phase 9.

FIGURE 8.14. Wall 35 and the drainage channel, Feature 55, on upper left (on right, probably foundation 

trench, Feature 47, after cleaning).
416 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.16. Square 2B with Room C*, looking north.

FIGURE 8.15. Close-up of the drainage channel, Feature 55, from the south.

FIGURE 8.17. Eastern part of foundation trench, Feature 47.
NUMBER 50 • 417

FIGURE 8.18. Square 2B, section of lower south balk.

FIGURE 8.19. Close-up of foundation trench (Feature 48) and Wall 28.
418 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

approximately 2 m in width. Layer 57 represents the fill of Room 

D*, whereas Layers 58 and 58A are probably debris and floor 

levels at elevations of 55.80–56.25 m and are very rich in Iron II 

red-slipped and burnished pottery (Figures 8.26–8.28). The section (Figures 8.10, 8.21, 8.23) seems to indicate that these levels 

cover the sand fill in the foundation trenches (Features 47 and 

56), and in turn the fill layer below (Layer 60, Figure 8.10) is cut 

by these trenches. If Layers 58–59 are also cut by these trenches, 

then the foundations trenches (Features 47, 56, and 48) probably 

belong to Walls 23 and 25 of Phase 8 (Figure 8.30, Rooms A* 

and B*; see below), lying above Wall 28 (35) and Wall 29 (Figure 

8.24). Pit 17 (Figures 8.25, 8.26, unclear phase) also cuts these 

layers in the south. Layer 59, with an ashy lens and tabun fragments, may belong to the floor level. A relatively large amount of 

pottery and other finds (Figures 8.26–8.29), including eight clay 

sealings (Reg. Nos. 1219, 2166–2168, 2170–2173; see chapter 

20), was found in Room D*.

Pottery and Finds from Phase 9

The vast majority of the pottery illustrated from Phase 9 

(Figures 8.26–8.28) comes from Room D* (Figure 8.13), mostly 

Sq. 2B, Layers 57, 58, and 58A, which are probably debris on 

a floor. In some cases, pottery from debris levels where it was 

not clear whether they belonged to Phase 9 or 8 (such as Sq. 2B, 

brick fragments. They may have reflected a construction technique of the later phases (see below and Petrie, 1928:6, pl. XXV, 

top right; Van Beek, 1996). Wall 35 also has a mortar plaster, 

3–5 cm thick. On the northern excavated edge of Wall 35, a 

well-preserved drainage channel was excavated (Feature 55, Figures 8.8.14–8.15, 8.22, 8.23; see also Van Beek, 2007:494, fig. 

14.31). It was built of two or three rectangular (hued) sandstone 

slabs that cover it and was paved with limestone cobbles (for 

well-built drainages in Neo-Assyrian royal architecture, see, e.g., 

Tell Halaf, Oppenheim, 1950:127, figs. 63, 110). It is not completely clear, however, whether this drain relates to Wall 35 or 

to Wall 23 of Phase 8 above it. The drainage installation would 

have been fitted at the very base of the wall (level of 56.59 m).

Wall 26 (Figure 8.16) is a cross wall connecting Walls 28 

and 29 and dividing the space into a southwestern unit (Room 

C*) and a northeastern unit (Room D*, Figure 8.13). Interestingly, it seems that Wall 26 is cut by both foundation trenches 

of Walls 28 and 29 and Features 47 and 48, as if they were dug 

after it was constructed, possibly as a later reinforcement of these 

walls, although it may be possible that the wall was put out of 

use at this stage. Room C* is about 2.6 m wide and was only 

excavated to a length of 1 m; Layers 43 and 44 in Locus 2 are 

probably debris layers or fills in this room excavated to a height 

of approximately 55.50 m, yet no clear floor was defined here. 

To the northeast of Wall 26, Room D* was defined, spanning 

FIGURE 8.20. Foundation trench, Feature 48; Wall 27 and Feature 50 (Phase 8) are above, in the rear.
NUMBER 50 • 419 FIGURE 8.21. Squares 2B–2A, east section, lower levels.
420 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

2005:191, figs. 3.82:23–24, 3.88:11) and Lachish, Level IV 

(Zimhoni, 1997a: figs. 3.10:10, 3.57:3). Simple rounded bowls 

with red slip and burnish also appear (Figure 8.26g). Carinated 

bowls with thickened rims (Figure 8.26q,s) continue to appear 

(see Phases 11–10, Figures 8.5m, 8.11k, l), along with other carinated red-slipped bowls (Figure 8.26r). 

The metallic-style red-slipped and burnished carinated 

bowls, with a lower globular shape and grooves under the rim, 

appearing first in Phase 10 (see Figure 8.11q–s and chapter 12), 

appear in larger numbers and more complete examples in Phase 

9 (for complete examples, see Figure 8.26h,k; fragments include 

Figure 8.26i,j,l–p). One complete example (Figure 8.26k) shows 

a rounded thin base; the rim is more bulging inward. Two almost complete examples (Figure 8.26h,i) have degenerated/small 

horizontal handles attached to the lower part of the neck. Several red-slipped bowl bases are also illustrated: one example is 

of a delicate disk base (Figure 8.26w), and another is of a delicate ring base (Figure 8.26u). The third base illustrated (Figure 

8.26v) has three pronounced sharp ridges, probably wheel made, 

with only external slip. This fragment indicates a different shape 

and surface treatment; the ridges may recall later Assyrian-style 

ridged-base bowls (see Assyrian pottery, Figures 13.5a, 13.6l, m).

Feature 46) was also included, as these levels clearly belonged to 

the same space (Room D*). Generally, the pottery of Phase 9 is 

quite similar to that of Phases 11–10. However, Iron IB forms 

hardly appear (although note, for example, a degenerated bellshaped bowl rim [Figure 8.26a] and possibly a delicate everted 

rim of a red-slipped and burnished bowl [Figure 8.26b]). Several 

new forms of the late Iron IIA appear in this phase as well, some 

of which continue to appear in the Iron IIB (Phases 8–7).

Most of the assemblage is composed of bowls (Figure 8.26), 

including several nearly complete examples. The vast majority of 

the bowls are red slipped (with dark red to reddish brown slip) 

and burnished. The prominent style of burnishing is hand burnishing, combined with sections of wheel burnish. Small bowls 

with a slightly carinated to rounded profile, vertical rim, and 

grooves under the rim are common (Figure 8.26c–f); this is a 

typical Iron IIA form (e.g., Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.10:3–5,9,10; 

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:37, Type 26a). A complete, delicate, deep bowl with a rounded profile (Figure 8.26d) has a 13 

cm diameter, a glossy burnish covering the inner and outer surfaces, two fine grooves beneath the rim, and a seemingly delicate 

ring base. Possible parallels come from Ashdod, Strata X–IX 

(Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 13:7; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

FIGURE 8.22. Square 2B, north section.
NUMBER 50 • 421

in the Iron II (e.g., Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.33:1–4; Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:54, Type CH4; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.83:8, and references therein). 

Apparently, all three cooking pot rims illustrated from Phase 

9 (Figure 8.27i–k) seem to be of the same type: these have a flat, 

wide, thick rim that slants inward and are made of a cooking pot 

fabric rich in calcareous grits. Complete examples from other 

sites indicate that this type had two loop handles and a shallow 

rounded body. Parallels, for example, come from Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni, 1997a:126–128, CP6, CP7, figs. 3.42:5–8, 

3.43:1–2) and Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:81–82, Type CP15) and are well dated to the Iron IIA (see 

Figure 8.176, Type CP1). 

Several jar rims and necks are illustrated (Figure 8.28a–e), 

of which some (Figure 8.28a,b) are the typical jar form appearing previously in Phase 11 (e.g., Figure 8.6c,d), with slight variations in rim and neck shape. The ribbed neck type (Phase 10, 

Figure 8.12c) also appears (Figure 8.28c). Another thickened rim 

(Figure 8.28f) has a groove and seems to belong to a large jar 

or krater. One jar handle has a finger impression (Figure 8.28i) 

Several red-slipped and burnished large bowls or kraters are 

illustrated (Figure 8.27a–c). All three examples shown are red 

slipped and burnished on the interior and exterior and have thick 

ledge or hammerhead rims; there is a slight carination under the 

rim and a rounded carination in the lower part. This type is popular during the late Iron IIA (e.g., Batash, Strata IV–III [Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:63–64, Types 14a, 14b, 14d], Lachish, 

Levels V–IV [Zimhoni, 1997a:104, figs. 3.27–28], and Ashdod, 

Strata X–IX [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.69:19, 

3.83:3, and references therein]), continuing into the Iron IIB as 

well (e.g., Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 93.89:2). Carinated kraters or large bowls without 

slip are rare (Figure 8.26t; also possibly Figure 8.27d, which is 

made of a coarser cooking pot fabric; see below). A large vessel 

(krater?) with a very thick ledge rim (Figure 8.27g) is also illustrated; two other thick rims (Figure 8.27e,f) are possibly of large 

kraters with a more carinated body (possibly similar to examples 

from Batash, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type 14c).

Only one chalice from Phase 9 is illustrated (Figure 8.27h). 

It has a small carinated bowl with an everted rim, a type common 

FIGURE 8.23. Square 2B, north section, showing lower levels.
422 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.24. Square 2B, west balk.

FIGURE 8.25. Square 2B, south balk with ash layer Pit 17.
NUMBER 50 • 423

Remains of Phase 8

Architecture

Phase 8 was primarily exposed in Sq. 2B, with only a few 

wall fragments reached in Sq. 2A (Walls 2A and 13A and possibly Wall 11; Figures 8.30–8.43). Two units or rooms can be 

defined in this phase (Figure 8.30), although the walls of these 

units were only excavated from their inner faces in Sq. 2B (denoted Rooms A* and B*, Figures 8.30–8.43). The area is divided by Wall 22 into two rectangular units, possibly rooms; 

the southwestern one is Room A*, and the northeastern one 

is Room B*. Room A* is delineated by Walls 21, 22, 25, and 

27 and seems to be a complete room of this phase, measuring 

2.0 × 4.9 m (Figure 8.31–8.36). There may be evidence that the 

roof of this room was supported by vaults, as some remains of 

fallen vaults were found between Walls 21 and 22 (Figure 8.30, 

Section A–A1, Figures 8.34, 8.35, Feature 45, levels of 56.81–

56.95 m). These are characterized by fallen fragments of walls 

made of special bricks laid upright, with one narrower side 

(which is wedge shaped; these are called voussoirs; see below), 

and mortar filling in the gaps created between the bricks; the 

bricks are also plastered. This resembles a typical technique 

of vaulting that will be discussed further below in Phase 5. In 

some places, the arches are still visibly attached to Wall 21 (Figures 8.33, 8.37) and possibly to the northeastern wall of Room 

A* (Wall 25). On the sides of the pit, vaulting integrated into 

the walls can be seen clearly (Figure 8.34). Wall 22 was well 

preserved and built with one row of stretcher bricks, five to six 

courses, standing about 1 m high (see Figures 8.30, 8.38, level 

of 56.56–57.52 m). 

Under the fallen vaults in the northwestern part of Room 

A*, a patch of pebbled floor was excavated around a level of 

56.50 m (Feature 46, Figures 8.31, 8.32, 8.36). The floor is composed of a thin layer of small pebbles (1–7 cm) about 1 × 2 m in 

area (seemingly continues beneath Room B*, Figures 8.39, 8.40; 

Layer 55 is the bedding of this floor). The pebble surface, denoted Feature 51, is visible in the SW part of the room, beneath 

the fallen vaulting of Walls 21–22. Wall 27, lying mostly in the 

balk, is probably the northwestern wall of Room A*; a row of 

stones near the inner face of the wall (Feature 50, level of 56.89 

m, Figure 8.20) may be a foundation of the wall or an installation/wall related to it. The northern corner of Room A* was not 

excavated. A possible entrance or a passage to the room was 

located along the southern Wall 25.

Most of the pottery that can be attributed to Phase 8 does 

not originate from a clear architectural context. Several bowl, 

cooking pot, and jar fragments were found in Room A* (Figures 

8.41m, 8.42a); in addition, a complete LPDW amphora (Figure 

8.43a) was found in Layer 42, possibly belonging to Phase 8 as 

well. Remains of brick from an upper floor were possibly also 

found here (Feature 43, with square bricks); note also that Walls 

21 and 22 are not exactly parallel. The main problem in this unit 

is that it was disturbed, at least partially, by a large pit (Pit 10, 

Feature 44, Figures 8.33, 8.38) that is possibly more than 2 m 

wide and cuts both Walls 21 and 22; two other pits, Pits/Features 

made before firing, whereas another (Figure 8.28j) has two small 

perforations, probably drilled after firing. A significant assemblage of Iron IIA jar handles with prefired finger impressions 

was discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa (e.g., Kang and Garfinkel, 

2009a:137, fig. 6.24; for further discussion of marked jars handles, see chapter 19).

Two rim fragments made of well-fired clay (Figure 8.28g,h, 

the former is made of whitish fabric) probably belong to holemouth-like jars; these have a smooth, thickened rim slightly 

slanted outward. Cylindrical hole-mouth jars are very common 

in southern Israel in the Iron IIB (see, e.g., Amiran, 1969:241, 

and discussion in Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:105–107, 

Type SJ10), where most have ridged rims, but examples of more 

ovoid-type hole-mouth jars with smooth rims appear during the 

Iron IIA as well (see, e.g., Arad, Stratum XI [Herzog et al., 1984: 

fig. 9:14] and Lachish, Level IV [Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.33:6]).

As in Phase 10, several fragments of strainer-spouted jugs 

with red slip and burnish were found (Figure 8.28l,m). A handle 

with at least three red stripes on it (Figure 8.28k) probably belongs to a jug. An upper neck fragment of a jug (Figure 8.28n) 

has a ridge in its upper body; similar jugs were found at Batash, 

Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:101, pl. 81:15, Type 

JG30). A narrower jug neck with a slightly thickened rim (Figure 8.28o) is red slipped with vertical burnish. This may belong 

to the globular jugs with narrow necks, typical of the Iron IIA 

LPDW (e.g., Arad, Stratum XII [Herzog et al., 1984: fig. 5:8] and 

Ashdod, Strata X–IX [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:196, fig. 

3.86:9, and references therein]). A thick disk base with red slip 

and vertical burnish (Figure 8.28q) belongs to a jug as well. Only 

one example of a dipper juglet was found in Phase 9 (Figure 

8.28p); it has a simple rim and a handle attached to it (for this 

type, see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:124–125, Type JT7a). 

A thick cylindrical fragment (Figure 8.28r) may be the base of a 

vessel, possibly a jug. Also illustrated is a body sherd with a loop 

handle belonging to a closed vessel decorated in white slip, with 

red horizontal and vertical bands (Figure 8.28s); this is probably 

an amphoriskos (see parallels from, e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XII, 

Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.31:8), possibly residual 

from Iron I levels, which the decoration style seems to imply.

To summarize, it seems that the majority of Phase 9 pottery 

forms point to a late Iron IIA date (possibly 9th century BCE), 

as seen primarily in the cooking pots and the red-slipped and 

hand-burnished bowls and kraters. Generally, Phases 11, 10, and 

9 can be seen as representing an Iron IIA horizon in Field IV at 

Tell Jemmeh (contemporary, for example, with Lachish, Levels 

V–IV; Ashdod, Strata X–IX; Batash, Stratum IV; and Tell es-Safi, 

Phases A4–A3), with the majority of the pottery in these phases 

dating to the latter part of the period.

Small finds from Phase 9 include 10 small, rounded, worked 

sherds from Layer 58A (e.g., Figure 8.29a, Reg. Nos. 3331–

3340), a worked base of a jug (see Figure 18.2f), two seal impressions (Figure 8.29b,c), another sealing with an impression 

of a fine stamp seal depicting a caprid (Figure 8.29d; see chapter 20, Figure 20.3c), and an ivory/bone club pendant (Figure 

8.29e; other small finds include Figure 22.2g and possibly Figure 

25.5m).
424 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

55, Figures 8.14, 8.15, 8.23). The entrance to this space seems 

to have been through Wall 23 in the NW and/or Wall 24 in the 

northeast (Figure 8.39). Room B* had a white plaster, chalky 

floor, with patches of ash (Figures 8.39, 8.40, possibly Loci 3 and 

4, Layer 42, down to 56.55 m) that possibly represent a phytolith layer on a floor. In the southern portion, there was a patch 

of pebble floor (Feature 51, Figure 8.36). Only a few bowls and 

one jar base can be attributed to the Room B* floor (see Figures 

8.41b,i.j, 8.42i).

The remains from Phase 8 indicate that vaulted-type architecture may have existed in Field IV even three phases below the 

main Phase 5 of Buildings I and II (see below); they show a different orientation and may represent large structures lying below 

the upper phases.

14 and 15, also disturb the southeast part of the room. It is possible that this space/room was filled after usage. Nevertheless, it 

is likely that much of the material from this area, which is quite 

rich in pottery and finds, is probably from debris and floor levels 

of the original space (such as Layer 42, Locus 2; Layer 42; and 

Locus 6 north of the pit).

To the northeast of Wall 22, another rectangular space was 

defined, labeled Room B* (Figures 8.38–8.40), with inner dimensions of approximately 2.3 × 3.3 m. Wall 22 adjoins Wall 

25 in the south and Wall 23 in the north, which in turn adjoins 

Wall 24, a thin brick wall that may delineate a bin in the NE 

(Figure 8.21). This wall lies above Wall 28/35 of Phase 9, and 

the wide sand-filled foundation trench seen below (see Figure 

8.10, Feature 56) may relate to the drainage channel (Feature 
NUMBER 50 • 425

Levels V–IV [Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.21] and Ashdod, Strata 

X–VIII [Dothan, 1971: fig. 45:5–7, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.82:17,19]). 

Several examples of red-slipped and burnished, small, shallow, open bowls with a slightly thickened and slanting rim were 

found in this phase (and, in general, in Phase 7–8 contexts; see 

Figure 8.41f,g). These are more common in Iron IIB (e.g., Lachish, Level III [Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.4:7,10], ‘Eton, Stratum 

II [Zimhoni, 1997c: fig. 4.3:7], Arad, Strata IX–VIII [SingerAvitz, 2002:128, Type B3]; however, also see earlier examples 

from Ashdod, Strata X–IX, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.82:4). A large open bowl (30 cm in diameter) with a simple, 

slightly slanted rim (similar to a folded or wedge rim; Figure 

8.41h) has red slip and hand burnishing on the inside and upper 

exterior. This type is more common in the Iron IIB (see Figure 

8.176, Type BL4; e.g., Lachish, Level III [Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 

5.4:16–20, nonslipped], Tel ‘Eton, Stratum I [Zimhoni, 1997c: 

fig. 4.6:2], and Batash, Stratum III [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:39, Type BL13, and references therein]) but also appears 

in late Iron IIA. A small ledge rim (Figure 8.42a) may belong 

to a large krater (see, possibly, Lachish, Levels V–IV, Zimhoni, 

1997a: fig. 3.32:6–8) or a cooking pot. 

Two examples of large multihandled kraters were also 

found in Phase 8 (Figure 8.41o,p). These are large barrel-shaped 

vessels with four or more loop handles attached to the thickened 

grooved rim or beneath it. This is a common type in Iron IIA–B 

in southern Israel (see below, Phases 7–5, Figure 8.176, Type 

Pottery and Finds from Phase 8

The assemblage of pottery from Phase 8 (Figures 8.41–8.43) 

is somewhat smaller than that of Phase 9, with only a few sherds 

originating from clear architectural contexts, namely, the lower 

vaulted Room A* and Room B*. Most of the pottery, including 

three or four complete/nearly complete vessels (Figures 8.41h, 

8.42k, 8.43a,c), comes from fills not allocated to specific architectural units (some of these may represent mixed Phase 8 and 

7 material). Generally, few Iron IIA forms appearing in Phases 

11–9 continue to appear. A number of new forms, dating later 

(Iron IIB), appear in this phase. The amount of red burnish on 

bowls and other types decreases during this phase as well (see 

Table 8.3). 

One example of a red-slipped and burnished, deep, 

rounded bowl with a groove under the rim (Figure 8.41a) is 

a common Iron IIA type continuing into the Iron IIB (e.g., 

Batash, Strata IV and III, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:35, 

pl. 13:10, Type 37, and references therein). Also illustrated 

are a small, rounded, nonslipped bowl (Figure 8.41b), which 

may be a plain, thick, carinated bowl (Figure 8.41m), and a 

carinated bowl with grooves under the rim (Figure 8.41c; see 

Phases 11–9 for this type, Figure 8.26c–f). Another type of 

bowl common in both late Iron IIA and IIB is a carinated bowl 

with an everted rim (Figure 8.41e), often with red slip on the 

interior and the upper part of the exterior (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:41–2, Type 27, Strata IV–III; see also Lachish, 

FIGURE 8.26. Bowls from Phase 9. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a BSB; rs 5008/2 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

b Bowl; rsb 4983/1 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

c Bowl; rsb 4983/8 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

d Bowl; rsb 5227/1 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

e Bowl; rsb 5003/1 GM 2B (57) 9 Room D*

f Bowl; rs 4983/2 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

g Bowl; rsb 4983/4 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

h Bowl; rsb 5227/3 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

i Bowl; rsb 4975/1 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

j Bowl; rsb 5227/4 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

k Bowl; rsb 5227/2 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

l Bowl; rs 4983/6 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

m Bowl; rsb 4983/9 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

n Bowl; rsb 4983/4 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

o Bowl; rsb 5003/2 GM 2B (57) 9 Room D*

p Bowl; rsb 5209/2 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*

q Bowl; rsb 4983/7 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

r Bowl(?); rsb 5209/1 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*

s Bowl; rsb 4975/2 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

t Bowl/krater? 5008/1 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

u Bowl; rs 5003/3 GM 2B (57) 9 Room D*

v Bowl; rs 4975/6 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

w Bowl; rsb 4983/10 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*
426 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

CP1 below and Phase 9, Figure 8.27i–k); another fragment made 

of similar fabric (Figure 8.42b) has a folded, slightly ridged rim 

(also similar to Batash, Stratum IV, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001: Type CP15). Another fragment (Figure 8.42d) has a more 

vertical triangular rim somewhat similar to Type CP10 at Batash 

(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:86, photo 42), a type appearing 

in the Iron IIB but more common in the Iron IIC.

Several jar rims illustrated (Figure 8.42e–g) are all of different types. Figure 8.42e is a short, vertical neck (see Lachish, Level 

IV [Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.50:6] and Batash, Strata III–II [Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type SJ7b]). Another fragment (Figure 

8.42g) has a ribbed neck similar to examples from Phases 10–9 

(see Figures 8.12c, 8.177, Type JR4). A short, vertical, thick rim 

(Figure 8.42f) has a gutter along its upper rim; this type is very 

KR2, and, e.g., Batash, Stratum III [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:68–71, Type KR35] and Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 

[Shai and Maeir, 2012:322, Types KR2, KR3]). These kraters, 

reaching a height of 40–50 cm, were probably storage vessels 

rather than tableware. 

Several chalices from Phase 8 are illustrated; one example 

is the thick stem of a chalice foot (Figure 8.41n). Another is a 

rounded, carinated bowl with an everted rim and incisions on 

the lower part (Figure 8.41k). Another possible chalice (Figure 

8.41i) is represented by an everted rim fragment of a shallow 

open bowl. 

Several fragments of cooking pots were found in Phase 8 

(Figure 8.42b–d). One example (Figure 8.42c) belongs to the 

flat-rim (large in this case) type typical of the Iron IIA (see Type 

FIGURE 8.27. Pottery from Phase 9 (Room D*). rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Krater/bowl; rs 4975/5 GM 2B (58A)

b Krater/bowl; rsb 4975/4 GM 2B (58A)

c Krater/bowl; rsb 4975/3 GM 2B (58A)

d Krater/cooking pot? 5006/1 GM 2B (58)

e Krater? 5153/2 GM 2B (58)

f Krater? 5153/1 GM 2B (58)

g Krater? 5172/1 GM 2B (58A)

h Chalice 5166/1 GM 2B (59)

i Cooking pot 5003A/1 GM 2B (57)

j Cooking pot 5006/3 GM 2B (58)

k Cooking pot 5006/2 GM 2B (58)
NUMBER 50 • 427

FIGURE 8.28. Pottery from Phase 9. SSJ = strainer-spouted jug; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jar 5209/5 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*

b Jar/jug 5209/4 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*

c Jar 5209/3 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*

d Jar 5153/5 GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

e Jar 5153/4 GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

f Jar/krater 5153/3 GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

g Hole-mouth jar 5153/6 GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

h Hole-mouth jar 5153/6A GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

i Thumbed jar handle 5008/3 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

j Jar handle, two perforations 5003A/2 GM 2B (57) 9 Room D*

k Jug; red decoration 1861/1 GM 2B F56 9 Room D*

l SSJ; rsb 5003/4 GM 2B (57) 9 Room D*

m SSJ; rsb 4983/11 GM 2B (58)(58A) 9 Room D*

n Jug 5166/2 GM 2B (59) 9 Room D*

o Jug; rsb 4986/1 GM 2B (58) 9 Room D*

p Juglet 5166/4 GM 2B (59) 9 Room D*

q Jug; rsb 4975/7 GM 2B (58A) 9 Room D*

r Base? 5166/3 GM 2B (58) 7 9/10 Room D*

s Amphoriskos(?); white slip, red decoration 5209/6 GM 2B F46 9/8 Room A*
428 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.29. Finds from Phase 9 (Room D*).

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Worked sherd Reg. No. 3331 GM 2B (58A)

b Sealing Reg. No. 2168 GM 2B (58A)

c Sealing Reg. No. 2170 GM 2B (58)

d Sealing Reg. No. 1219 GM 2B (59)

e Ivory pendant Reg. No. 1117 GM 2B (58)

FIGURE 8.30. Plan of Phase 8.
NUMBER 50 • 429

FIGURE 8.31. Pebbled floor and Feature 46 in 

Sq. 2B, Room A*; Wall 22 in the rear.

FIGURE 8.32. Pebbled floor, Feature 46 in Sq. 

2B, Room A*, looking south.
430 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.34. Fallen vaults (Feature 45) in Room A*, looking south.

FIGURE 8.33. Pit 10 in Room A* and Wall 21 above it, looking west.
NUMBER 50 • 431

FIGURE 8.37. Close-up of Wall 21 in Sq. 2B, showing mortar.

FIGURE 8.35. Close-up of fallen vaults in Room A*.

FIGURE 8.36. Pebbles (Feature 51) in Room A*.
432 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.38. Phase 8: Room B* in front, with Wall 22 and Pit 10 behind it.

FIGURE 8.39. Room B*, looking northwest, with possible entrance 

in Wall 25 and chalky floor below.

FIGURE 8.40. Chalky floor in Room B*, Sq. 2B, Phase 8. (right)
NUMBER 50 • 433

FIGURE 8.41. Pottery from Phase 8. rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; rsb 2325/1 GM 2B P10 8

b Bowl 1816/2 GM 2B (42) 4 8 Room B*

c Bowl; rsb 1815/1 GM 2B (42) 5 8

d Bowl; rsb 2325/5 GM 2B P10 8

e Bowl; rs 2325/3 GM 2B P10 8

f Bowl; rs 2325/2 GM 2B P10 8

g Bowl; rsb 2325/4 GM 2B P10 8

h Bowl; rsb RV 1007 GM 2B (1) 6 8? Room A*?

i Bowl 1816/1 GM 2B (42) 4 8 Room B*

j Bowl?; white slip 6412/1 GM 2B (42) 3 8 Room B*

k Bowl/chalice 1214/1 GM 2B (1) 6 8? Room A*?

l Bowl/chalice 5168/1 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

m Bowl/jar? 1196/1 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

n Chalice 5168/2 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

o Krater (KR2) 4212/1 GM 2B (41) 3 8/7 Outside Rooms A*–B*

p Krater (KR2) RV 56 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?
434 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.42. Pottery from Phase 8. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Krater/cooking pot 1196/2 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

b Cooking pot 1815/2 GM 2B (42) 5 8

c Cooking pot 5208/1 GM 2B (42) 6 8

d Cooking pot 1827/1 GM 2B Room A 8

e Jar 1196/4 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

f Jar/jug 1196/3 GM 2B (42) 2 8 Room A*?

g Jar 1827/2 GM 2B Room A 8

h Jar 1214/2 GM 2B (1) 6 8? Room A*?

i Jar(?) base? 6412/3 GM 2B (42) 3 8 Room B*

j Jug/amphoriskos; rsb, vertical burnish, white decoration 1852/1 GM 2B ‘Room A’ 8

k Jug, rs 1848/1 GM 2B (42) 8? Room A*?

l Jug, rsb RV 47 GM 2B (42) 8?

the bottom; there are groups of incisions on the lower part as 

well, and parallel coil/wheel marks are visible on the surface 

of the vessel. This shape recalls a more elaborately decorated 

LPDW date-shaped vessel from Ashdod, Strata X–IX (Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:176–178, fig. 3.73:1). Another large 

body fragment (Figure 8.42j) has one complete vertical handle 

and a somewhat globular shape; it is red slipped and vertically 

burnished, and there are remnants of what seem to be white 

bands on it. This is probably a jug or an amphoriskos, possibly 

decorated in LPDW style (see chapter 12). Another fragment of 

common in the Iron IIB-C, Phases 7, 6, and 5, and will be discussed below (see Figure 8.177, Type JR3). The thick handle of 

a storage jar with two prominent ridges is also illustrated (Figure 

8.42h). A thick, coarse, angular pottery fragment (Figure 8.42i) 

may be the base of some sort of a jar or pithos.

Several other fragments of closed vessels were found in 

Phase 8 (Figures 8.42j–l, 8.43a–e). Figure 8.42k is the complete 

lower portion of a red-slipped and vertically burnished, thin, 

closed vessel, probably some sort of jug with a pyriform or dateshaped body. It has a rounded base with a pointed “nipple” at 
NUMBER 50 • 435

the LPDW style (similar to Figure 8.43a; for a detailed discussion of the form, see Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:53, fig. 1.29, especially 

Type AM1B, fig. 1.29:8, with the rounded base from Tell esSafi/Gath). Several examples of LPDW globular amphorae were 

excavated at Tell es-Safi, Stratum A3, including four or five 

complete vessels (Ornan, 1986:100–102, No. 49, top row; Shai 

and Maeir, 2012: Type JG8; another amphora was recovered in 

a survey conducted by Amiran and Aharoni; see Ben-Shlomo, 

2006a: fig. 1.29:4).

A nearly complete globular jug was found in Sq. 2B, Layer 

41, Locus 3 (Figure 8.43c). The jug has a narrow neck and 

ridged rim with a handle attached to it; the base is missing. 

Parallels come from Ashdod, Strata IX–VII (Dothan and Freedman, 1967: figs. 39:7, 40:17; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.85:9, in LPDW style) and Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:116–117, pl. 90:17, Type JG13); note that 

the example from Jemmeh is not slipped. Figure 8.43d is the 

neck of a red-slipped and burnished jug with a basket handle 

attached to the rim. This is possibly a strainer-spouted jug, a 

Philistine form (likely residual) that appears with red slip or 

a red-slipped jug is also illustrated (Figure 8.42l). A red-slipped 

basket handle attached to the neck of a strainer-spouted jug is 

also illustrated (Figure 8.43d); this is a Philistine form found in 

late Iron I and Iron IIA (see, e.g., Dothan, 1982: fig. 59; see also 

Qasile, Stratum X, Mazar, 1985a: fig. 35:3).

The only complete vessel from Phase 8 (Figure 8.43a), found 

in Sq. 2B, Layer 42 and Wall 11 (Phase 6), is a fully restored, 

red-slipped and vertically burnished LPDW amphora. The neck 

is cylindrical, with a thickened rim and two loop handles attached from a ridge in the middle of the neck to the shoulder; 

the body is globular, and the base is rounded to slightly pointed. 

The vessel is decorated with sets of horizontal, parallel black 

bands delimiting white bands on the neck and on the body. 

This is typical LPDW, or Ashdod ware, form, surface treatment, 

and decoration (see Ben-Shlomo et al., 2004, and chapter 12). 

An elongated cylindrical neck of an amphora (Figure 8.43b) is 

also red slipped and vertically burnished; the rim seems to be 

everted. The handle preserved was attached to a delicate ridge 

in the mid neck to the shoulder and is in itself ridged; the vessel has a wide neck diameter typical of amphorae decorated in 

FIGURE 8.43. Pottery from Phase 8. SSJ = strainer-spouted jug; LPDW = Late Philistine Decorated Ware; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped 

and burnished. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Amphora (LPDW) RonList 1 GM 2B (42) 8? Room A*?

b Amphora, rsb, vertical burnish 1843/1 GM 2B P10 8

c Jug RV 1028 GM 2B (41) 3 8–7? Rooms A*–B*?

d Jug (SSJ?), rsb RV 289/1 GM 2B (42) 8? Room A*?

e Jug/bottle, rs 1851/1 GM 2B Room A 8

f Baking tray? 6412/2 GM 2B (42) 3 8 Room B*
436 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

because of its high elevation (58.15 m) it may belong to the higher 

subphase of Phase 7 (designated Phase 7A in Sq. 2A). Pottery 

from Locus 4 (Figure 8.61f–q) includes fragments of bowls, kraters (including a rim of a large krater with a ridged rim, Figure 

8.61l), cooking pots, jars, and a jug or juglet (Figure 8.61i,j,p). 

Several loom weights (Figures 8.61q, 19.7h,j) and a nearly complete bronze fibula were also found here (Figure 8.61r).

Wall 19 is at least two courses wide, has square bricks, and 

underlies or is cut by the northeast massive back wall of Building I (Wall 5, Figure 8.48; see also Sq. 1C, Wall 8). The lower 

wall is aligned with Wall 5 of Building I, and thus, the possibility 

that the two walls were contemporary at some stage cannot be 

ruled out. To the northeast, a fragmentary wall (Wall 18) cut by 

Pit 10 (Figure 8.47) may be related to the same phase. Wall 18 

on the north end may adjoin unclear wall remains from Sq. 2C 

(denoted Wall 18A?); in turn, Feature 17 adjoins Sq. 2B, Wall 10 

in the east, which confines this entire space from the southeast 

(Figure 8.49). In this area, Layer 41, a thick fill layer 0.7–1.0 

m deep, is cut by Pit 17 (Figure 8.25) but is rich with pottery 

(along with Feature 39); this context may contain mixed finds 

from both Phases 7 and 8 (see Figure 8.25, Phase 8). A complete 

decorated jug (Figure 8.66a) was found here, among other pottery fragments illustrated (Figure 8.66).

More Phase 7 remains were uncovered in Sq. 2A. These 

include Walls 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 and a space denoted Building III. A somewhat condensed accumulation of walls was excavated here, creating a complicated stratigraphic scene (Figure 

8.50). A possible solution is a local finer subphasing of Phase 7 

in this area. In an upper phase (Phase 7A, Figure 8.45) Wall 8, 

which is parallel to Wall 10 in Sq. 2B but above it, is already cut 

by the massive rear wall (Wall 5A) of Building II (Figures 8.54, 

8.55). Fragmentary Wall 9 in Sq. 2A forms a corner with Wall 

8 and overlies Wall 11 of Phase 7B (Figures 8.44, 8.57); in the 

south it forms a corner with the fragmentary Wall 10 above it 

(Sq. 2A, Figure 8.57), which continues to exist in Phase 6. In this 

area, denoted as Building III, there were rich floor levels relating 

to both subphases. However, most of the pottery seems to come 

from an area outside of the building (see Sq. 2A, Layer 30, Figures 8.50, 8.51, 8.62–8.64), whereas only a few bowl sherds, a 

cooking pot, and a possible decanter jug (Figure 8.61a–e) come 

from within the building. Square 2A, Layer 29 represents the 

debris layer, and Layer 30 (57.37–57.70 m) is likely the floor 

level of the lower phase (7B, under Wall 8, Figure 8.51), lying 

between Wall 10 and Wall 6 of Building III and reaching Wall 13 

below Wall 8. This layer yielded many complete jars and other 

pottery (at least seven complete jars, Figure 8.63a–f, also RV 

8, RV 15 , RV 44, not illustrated), as well as a complete lamp 

(Figure 8.64c). Layers 31 and 31A, lying on cobble Layer 32 

(level 56.86–57.29 m), may in turn indicate a lower floor phase 

(Phase 7C?). In this area, there was an opening, possibly leading 

through to Building II, Room B, in the lower phases of Sq. 2B, 

Wall 10 (Figure 8.50) and Sq. 2A, Wall 8. In an upper phase (or 

possibly a lower stage of Phase 6), what seems to be a bin (2.2 

m long and running under Wall 10) was discovered in the southeast of Building II, outside Room A. The installation is built 

of a narrow wall of upright standing bricks (Sq. 2B, Feature 

LPDW decoration during the late Iron I and early Iron II (see, 

e.g., Qasile, Strata X and IX, Mazar, 1985a: figs. 35:3, 54:25; 

see chapter 12). The wheel-made base of a large closed vessel 

(Figure 8.43e) has its lower part shaped as a pointed button; the 

outer surface is red slipped. This is probably the base of a large 

jug or amphora (maybe a large bottle) that was not freestanding 

(parallels for this base shape are very rare, although see possibly Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.88:14] and Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 [Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007: fig. 11.121:22]).

The small fragment of a flat, thick plate, probably a baking tray (Figure 8.43f), was also found in Phase 8; it is made 

of gritty cooking ware fabric. Few baking trays were found in 

Tell Jemmeh (as Figure 6.157m) and are found in various Iron 

Age sites, mostly identified as Judean (such as Khirbet Qeiyafa, 

Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a:127, figs. 6.13:1–2, 6.14, 6.15, and 

more parallels therein), although they were also discovered in 

Ashdod, Stratum VII (Dothan, 1971: fig. 58:12–14) and Batash, 

Stratum V (Iron I, Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 72:16). 

Small finds from Phase 8 (not illustrated) include two rounded 

worked sherds (Reg. Nos. 1784a, 1784b) and a bronze piece 

(Reg. No. 84).

To summarize, it seems that most of the pottery assemblage 

belonging to Phase 8 can also be dated to the late Iron IIA, with 

several forms similar to Phase 9, especially bowls and kraters. 

However, there are enough forms that date later and are more 

common during the Iron IIB (such as some jar and jug types). 

The presence of LPDW in this phase is also more substantial 

than in previous phases. Therefore, Phase 8 may reflect the end 

of the Iron IIA and the Iron IIB period (8th century BCE).

Remains of Phase 7

Phase 7 (Figure 8.44–8.66) may represent the uppermost 

architectural phase predating and underlying Buildings I and II 

of Phase 5 (possibly already erected in Phase 6), yet the pottery 

from this phase highly resembles that of Phase 6. The remains of 

Phase 7 in Sq. 2B are much more fragmentary because of smaller 

exposure and some pit disturbance. Certain internal subphasing (two local phases were discerned, Phases 7B and 7A, Figures 

8.44, 8.45) also complicates the interpretation of the remains. 

Other remains of this phase were unearthed in Sq. 2A and possibly in Sq. 3B. Thus, the scattered remains and the abundance of 

minor local architectural changes create an uncertainty regarding the designation of specific layers and features either to upper 

phases of Phase 7 or to the lower phases of Phase 6, as will be 

seen below.

Beneath Rooms A and B of Building II, Phase 6 (see below), 

a series of fragmentary walls may have confined a space. In the 

west, fragmentary Walls 19 and 20 create a corner of what may 

be a room lying above Room A* (Figure 8.47). To the northwest 

of Wall 20, a row of stones (Feature 38, at a level of 57.99 m, 

Figure 8.48) was attached to the face of the wall, possibly as a 

reinforcement (similar to Sq. 2B, Feature 50 in Phase 8). In this 

area (Locus 4), near the wall, half of a tabun was excavated (Feature 37, Figures 8.45, 8.48), continuing into the balk; however, 
NUMBER 50 • 437

FIGURE 8.44. Plan of Phase 7B.
438 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.45. Plan of Phase 7A.
NUMBER 50 • 439

FIGURE 8.46. Phase 7, with massive Wall 5 of Building I on the right towering above it, looking south.

FIGURE 8.48. Squares 2B–1C, Phase 7: Feature 38 (the line of 

stones in the center) and a tabun (Feature 37) on the right in balk, 

with a wall of Building I in the rear, looking west. (right)

FIGURE 8.47. Upper part of Pit 10 in Sq. 2B.
440 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.49. Threshold/doorway in Sq. 2B, Wall 10 (and Sq. 2A, Wall 13 below and adjoining; Phase 7B).

FIGURE 8.50. Square 2A from above, showing remains of Phases 5–7; the north is to the right, and the floor layer, 

Layer 30, is on the lower left.
NUMBER 50 • 441

FIGURE 8.51. Floor level, Layer 30, in Sq. 2A under Wall 5, looking south, with complete jars on the floor.

FIGURE 8.52. Square 2A, Phase 7, pebble layer, Layer 32 between Wall 6 

(front) and Wall 13, looking northwest; this level was reached at the end of the 

1976 season.
442 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

of a later stage of Phase 7 or Phase 6. Wall 10 in Sq. 3B (see Figure 8.101) lies beneath Phase 6 remains around it and may also 

belong to Phase 7. This feature between Walls 7 and 8, creating a 

small box with Wall 9, may belong to Phase 6B or to Phase 7A. 

Pits 1 and 2 in Sq. 2A are probably Iron Age pits in this area and 

may also belong to Phase 6.

The pottery from this area (including Sq. 2A, Layers 29, 30, 

and 31, denoted outside of Building III, Figure 8.51) includes 

a rich assemblage, dating mostly to the Iron IIB (Figures 8.62–

8.64; see below), such as small open and carinated bowls (Figure 

8.62a–k, all red slipped and burnished), including several small 

carinated red-slipped and burnished bowls (Figure 8.62f–k), various bowls with thickened rims (Figure 8.62b,c), cooking pots 

with gutter rims (Figure 8.62o,p), storage jars (Figure 8.63a–f), 

and jugs and juglets (Figure 8.63h–k), including a “black juglet” 

(Figure 8.63j). Two complete doughnut-shaped loom weights 

20, Figure 8.53) and may connect to Sq. 2A, Wall 6. In turn, 

Wall 13, a northeast–southwest wall beneath Wall 10 of Sq. 

2B, is built in same orientation but somewhat to the southwest, 

representing a lower subphase. The wall is stepped by channels 

(possibly because of erosion), and this area seems to be a threshold in Wall 10 or below it, possibly an entrance to the area 

described above (under Building II). As noted above, Wall 13A 

of Phase 8 underlies Wall 13. To the south, Walls 6 and 7 create 

a right corner, possibly defining a possible room of Building III. 

The walls are plastered from the inside, and the floor, Layer 30, 

abuts it from the outside. In the confined southeastern area of 

Sq. 2A (Locus 3), Layers 29–30, at a level of up to 57.33 m, debris was discovered along with the floor level (Feature 1), which 

is made up of a line of three bricks with mortar. South of Wall 7, 

Locus 4 (including Layers 29A and 30), with a floor at Layer 30 

(elevation 57.30 m), yielded many pottery vessels, loom weights 

(a series of at least nine mostly complete doughnut-shaped loom 

weights made of unbaked mud, Reg. Nos. 1560–1568; see Figure 19.7a), and a possible hearth. 

Feature 20 (Figure 8.53, level of 57.70 m) is a narrow wall 

of upright bricks (probably a bin) that is 2.2 m long and runs 

under Wall 10 and possibly connects to Sq. 2A, Wall 6, seemingly 

FIGURE 8.53. Square 2A, Phase 7A, Feature 20 (line of bricks) and 

Wall 14 under it (Phase 7B), looking northeast.

FIGURE 8.54. Square 2A, foundation trench of Wall 5A of Building 

I cutting Wall 8.
NUMBER 50 • 443

to appear in Phase 6 (see Figures 8.64a,b, 8.66a,b,e,m,n, and 

chapter 12). 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LATE 

IRON AGE II (IRON IIB_C) 

REMAINS, PHASES 5–6

The remains of Phases 5 and 6 in Field IV dating to the late 

Iron IIB and Iron IIC have a similar architectural layout. Remains 

of at least two building (Buildings I and II), with another one or 

two additional buildings also possibly belonging to these phases 

(Buildings III and IV), were uncovered. None of the structures 

were completely excavated. The relationship between the buildings is not always very clear, although it will be argued here that 

they were contemporary. It thus seems that the area was rather 

densely built, with several remains that may carry the fingerprint 

from Sq. 2A, Layer 30, Locus 4 should also be noted (Figure 

19.7h,j; another similar object was found in a Phase 6–7 fill, 

Reg. No. 1486). A sealing with an impression of an Iron IIA seal 

was found (Figure 20.3a), as well as several stone items (Figure 

8.64e–g, a handstone, spindle whorl, and a weight; see chapter 23). Also from Layer 30, small finds include a worked base 

(see Figure 18.2e), a large pyramidical loom weight (see Figure 

19.6j), an iron knife preserved with its rivets (Figure 8.64d), and 

a large piece of slag (SCI 860).

The pottery assemblages of Phases 7, 6, and 5 are rather 

similar, and therefore, their typology will be discussed in more 

detail together below, after the description of the architecture 

of Phase 5. Notable types typical of Phase 7 (Figures 8.61–8.66) 

and dated to the Iron IIB include large kraters with ledge rims 

and multiple handles (Figures 8.61l, 8.65d,e), cooking pots with 

gutter rims (Figures 8.61i,j), hole-mouth jars (Figure 8.65l), jars 

with gutter rims (Figure 8.63d), and various juglets and bottles 

(Figure 8.63j,k). Other types include a closed krater or large 

bowl with three handles attached to its base (Figure 8.65n) decorated in LPDW style and a jar base with a perforation made after 

firing (Figure 8.65k). Generally, it should be noted that there is a 

rise in the number of LPDW vessels in Phase 7, which continue 

FIGURE 8.55. Square 2A, close-up of foundation trench of Wall 5A 

of Building I cutting Wall 8.

FIGURE 8.56. Square 2A, Wall 8 with plaster/mortar.
444 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.57. Square 2A, Phase 7A, Walls 9 and 10 making a corner, on right massive Wall 5A of Building I, 

looking south.

FIGURE 8.58. Bricks lying on narrow side, (“trimmed” or “stripped bricks”) in Sq. 2A, Wall 8; Wall 5A of 

Building I in the back.
NUMBER 50 • 445

FIGURE 8.60. Floor level, Locus 4, Layer 30 in Sq. 2A, under Wall 5, looking northwest.

FIGURE 8.59. Corner of Walls 9 and 10 in Sq. 2A from the side; Building I, Wall 5 is above, looking south.
446 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.61. Pottery from Phase 7, Building III and Locus 4. Bld = building; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl; rsb 3686/2 GM 2A (30) 3 Bld III

b Bowl; rs? 3689/1 GM 2A (29) 3 Bld III

c Bowl; rsb 3686/1 GM 2A (30) 3 Bld III

d Cooking pot 3689/2 GM 2A (29) 3 Bld III

e Decanter? 3689/3 GM 2A (29) 3 Bld III

f Bowl; rs 3677/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

g Bowl; rsb 3543/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

h Bowl/chalice; rsb 3677/2 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

i Cooking pot 3548/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

j Cooking pot 3548/4 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

k Krater/cooking pot 3531/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

l Krater (KR2) 3536/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

m Jar 3548/2 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

n Jar 3677/3 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

o Jar 3548/3 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

p Jug/juglet; rsb 3543/2 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

q Loom weight Reg. No. 1562 GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4

r Fibula pin (bronze) Reg. No. 1348 (SI Cat. No. 734) GM 2A (30) 4 Locus 4
NUMBER 50 • 447

subsequently, the main buildings will be described in more detail 

separately. Although Building I of Phase 5 was not dismantled, 

it seems probable that it existed without many changes (or at 

least its outer frame) in Phase 6 as well (as Phase 6 walls keep a 

generally compatible orientation with this outline). However, the 

areas to the north and east of this building, especially Building II, 

underwent a series of architectural changes between Phases 7, 6, 

and 5, with Phases 6 and 7 integrating several subphases or local 

changes, internal walls, floor raising, etc. (see Figures 8.44–8.45, 

8.67–8.68). The area beneath the granary, farther to the east, 

of Assyrian building techniques (see below). It was therefore assumed that this area, or at least portions of it, was part of an Assyrian administrative center (e.g., Van Beek, 1973, 1993a).

Remains of Phase 6

Phase 6 remains (Figures 8.67–8.89) were excavated in Sqs. 

2A, 1B, 2B, 3B, 1C, and 1E and may represent the lower phase 

of the main Assyrian Buildings I and II (Figures 8.90, 8.91). 

Therefore, Phases 6 and 5 will be described in general here, and 

FIGURE 8.62. Pottery from Phase 7, outside Building III. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; rsb 3768/2 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

b Bowl; rsb 3550/2 GM 2A (31) 7

c Bowl; rsb (inside) 3768/5 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

d Bowl; rsb 3768/6 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

e Bowl 3549/3 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

f Bowl; rsb 3768/1 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

g Bowl; rsb 3768/4 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

h Bowl; rsb (inside/outside) 3768/3 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

i Bowl; rs 3768/7 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

j Bowl; rs 3550/1 GM 2A (31) 7

k Bowl; rs inside, partly outside 3562/1 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

l Bowl 3541/1 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

m Bowl 3549/2 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

n Bowl? 3549/1 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

o Cooking pot 3562/2 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

p Cooking pot 3768/8 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)
448 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.63. Pottery from Phase 7 outside Building III.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jar RV 42 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

b Jar RV 10 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

c Jar RV 11 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

d Jar RV 1009 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

e Jar RV 40 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

f Jar RV 1025 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

g Jar Box 120 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

h Jug? 3549/4 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

i Juglet; red slip 3691/1 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

j Juglet; black RV 94 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

k Juglet; red slip, burnish RV 135 (SI Cat. No. 735) GM 2A (30) 7(B?)
NUMBER 50 • 449

FIGURE 8.64. Finds from Phase 7 outside Building III.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Sherd; red slip, burnish 3551/2 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

b Sherd; red slip 3551/1 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

c Lamp; soot SI Cat. No. 1125 GM 2A (29) 7(A?)

d Iron knife Reg. No. 1288 (SI Cat. No. 731) GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

e Handstone; sandstone NA GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

f Stone weight(?); steatite? Reg. No. 1020 GM 2A (30) 7(B?)

g Spindle whorl; stone Reg. No. 1046 GM 2A (31A) 7(B?)
450 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 451

same as Feature 25 in Sq. 2B, Figures 8.69, 8.70) relates to Wall 

11 of a lower phase (Phase 6B or 7), which was found under Wall 

5, although it is much narrower and cut by Wall E of Building I 

(Figure 8.69). Features 21, 25, and 26 in Sq. 2B are also various 

fragmentary brick walls/features in Room A, all of unclear designation. Although in the lower stage of Phase 6 in Room A (Building II) no clear floor level was defined in Sq. 2B (but note that 

Feature 12 may be such a floor), a partial cobble floor was preserved in Sq. 1B (Feature 25, Figure 8.70, levels of 58.05–58.66 

m). This feature is assigned to an upper stage (Layers 35 and 36 

in Sq. 2B, Locus 3) as the cobbles (Sq. 1B, Feature 25; there is 

no number for these cobbles in Sq. 2B) run over Wall 11 (Figure 

8.70), and at this stage Wall 9A (under Wall 9 of Phase 5) may 

have served as the northeast wall of the room. In Sq. 1C, Locus 

2, Layer 7 and Locus 4, Layers 24A and 25–29 are assigned 

to Phase VI, Building II, Room A in this phase (Figure 8.21); a 

foundation trench (Sq. 1C FT3) was also identified for Wall 7, 

the northwestern wall of the room (note that in 1976–1977, the 

areas excavated in Field IV, Sq. 1C were given Sq. 2B numbers). 

Only a few bowls, a krater, cooking pots, and jar fragments 

(Figure 8.84a–n), as well as a lamp fragment (Figure 8.84) and 

a more complete lamp (Figure 8.84t), can be securely attributed 

to Building II, Room A of Phase 6. In addition to the ceramic 

finds, a stone spindle or weight was found here (Figure 23.4h; 

see chapter 23). From the cobble floor, five grinders (Reg. Nos. 

2874–2878), two handstones (Reg. Nos. 2871–2872), and a 

pivot stone (Reg. No. 2213) were recovered (see chapter 23 for a 

discussion of these items). Whether they were in secondary use, 

were redeposited in the cobble pavement, or indicate artifact 

usage within this space is not clear.

The situation in Building II, Room B to the northeast is even 

more complex in this phase, mostly because it was very fragmentarily excavated and documented. It is difficult to reconstruct 

the size of Room B in this phase or even know if it was a closed 

space. A series of chalky floor levels was excavated in this area 

(probably including phytolith layers), including Sq. 2B, Locus 2, 

was not excavated. As noted above, it was difficult at times to 

determine whether a given local element belonged to an upper 

subphase of Phase 7 or a lower one of Phase 6.

Building II

Building II, lying mostly in Sqs. 1B, 2B, and 2C (Figures 

8.70–8.76), which is adjacent to Building I from the northeast, 

was partly excavated and is composed mainly of Room A (Figures 8.70, 8.92), a large rectangular unit 8 m long and 3.8 m 

wide (internally 6.5 × 2.4 m), at least in Phase 5. This room is 

very long, and it is uncertain whether there was any support for 

the roof in the form of pillars or vaulting or whether this was 

an open area or a small courtyard. If this was a courtyard, one 

could possibly relate it to the adjacent Building I, serving as its 

outer courtyard. On the other hand, the double walling existing 

between these two buildings and the lack of passage strengthen 

the possibility that these were two independent structures (see 

also Figures 8.156, 8.157).

To the northeast of Room A, another unit was denoted 

Room B (Figures 8.74–8.76), and to the east a partial unit was 

labeled Room C (Figure 8.91). In Phase 5, the southwestern 

wall of Building II (Wall 5A) perfectly abuts the external wall of 

Building I (Wall 5), indicating the contemporaneity of the two 

buildings. However, in earlier phases, a separate southwestern 

wall of Building II, Room A was not identified, meaning the 

room was probably smaller. 

In the lower phase of Room A (Phase 6B?), Wall 11 runs 

under Wall 9A, defining a 2.5-m-wide room; it is possible that 

Feature 18 (Figures 8.70–8.72), a thin wall parallel to wall Feature 17 (Figure 8.73), may be a 5.5-m-long partition wall, adjoining Wall 10 in the southwest but above it. Feature 17 (Figure 

8.73, level 58.47 m) is composed of a group of plastered bricks 

in the same area, cut by a pit (Feature 7), which may be an installation or remains of a plastered wall or a brick floor. The 

northwest brick wall of Building II, Room A (Sq. 1C, Wall 7, 

FIGURE 8.65. Pottery from Phase 7. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished; af = after firing. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; rs (outside), burnish 6360/1 GM 2B (40) 3 7?

b Bowl; rsb 6366/1 GM 2B (39) 3 7?

c Bowl 4999/1 GM 2B W10 7

d Krater 6366/2 GM 2B (39) 3 7?

e Krater 1210/2 GM 2B (40) 3 7

f Jar 1199/1 GM 2B (41) 3 8/7

g Jar 4999/2 GM 2B W10 7

h Jar 1195/1 GM 2B (40) 3 7

i Jar 1217/1 GM 2B (40) 3 7

j Jar 4220/1 GM 2B (41) 7?

k Jar, perforated base (af) 1210/4 GM 2B (40) 3 7

l Hole-mouth jar 1279/1 GM 2B (40) 3 7

m Hole-mouth jar 1210/1 GM 2B (40) 3 7

n Vessel/krater(?); rs, vertical burnish 1846B/1 GM 2B (40) 4 7?
452 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.66. Pottery from Phase 7. SSJ = strainer-spouted jug; LPDW = Late Philistine Decorated Ware; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and 

burnished; bf = before firing.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jug; rs, vertical burnish (LPDW?) RV 1013 (SI Cat. No. 981) GM 2B (41) 7?

b Amphora/jug; rs, vertical burnish 6366/4 GM 2B (39) 3 7?

c Jug; soot 6366/3 GM 2B (39) 3 7?

d Jug 1191/2 GM 2B (41) 7?

e Jug/amphoriskos; rs, vertical burnish 1846A/1 GM 2B (41) 7?

f Bottle/juglet? 1217/3 GM 2B (40) 3 7

g Bottle/juglet? (same vessel as f?) 1217/2 GM 2B (40) 3 7

h Juglet; rs 4976/1 GM 2B (60)/ GM 2B (4) 3 7?

i Juglet; rs 4999/3 GM 2B W10 7

j Jug; rs 6360/3 GM 2B (40) 3 7?

k Base 6360/2 GM 2B (40) 3 7?

l Perforated jar(?) base (bf) 1191/1 GM 2B (41) 7?

m Jar; rs, vertical burnish, black and cream decoration na GM 2B (42)&(40) 4 7?/8?

n SSJ; rs, vertical burnish 1850/1 GM 2B (41) 7?

o Stand? Box 126 GM 2A F19 7?
NUMBER 50 • 453

FIGURE 8.67. Plan of Phase 6B.
454 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 6.68. Plan of Phase 6A.
NUMBER 50 • 455

FIGURE 8.69. Wall 7 in Sq. 2C under Wall 5 of Phase 6 (with stones).

FIGURE 8.70. Building II, Room A, Phase 6A, cobble floor (Feature 

25) covering Wall 11 of Phase 6B, looking northwest.
456 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.73. Bricks (Feature 17) cut by Feature 7 in Sq. 2A, looking west.

FIGURE 8.71. Wall 5 of Building II, Room A(?) in Sq. 1C, looking southwest.

FIGURE 8.72. Wall 9A in Building II, Room A, looking north. (left)
NUMBER 50 • 457

FIGURE 8.74. Building II, Room B, Features 27, 28, and 29 (Sq. 2B), looking north.

FIGURE 8.75. Feature 27 (Sq. 2B), looking west.
458 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

some from fills of indecisive Phase 7 or Phase 6 allocation; these 

include various types of rounded and carinated bowls (Figure 

8.85a–k), both plain red slipped and burnished. Also found here 

are cooking pot rims of various types (Figure 8.85s–u), jar rims 

and necks (Figure 8.86a–h), a pithos rim (Figure 8.86i), jugs 

(Figure 8.86j–o), a juglet (Figure 8.86p), a lamp (Figure 8.87e), 

and several decorated sherds (Figure 8.87c,d). Two additional 

important pottery vessels may originate from Room B in either 

a Phase 7 or 6 context: large fragments of a LPDW jar (Figure 

8.87a) and a decorated large flask/jug (figure 8.87b). The ring 

base of a red-slipped and vertically burnished jug or amphora 

is also illustrated (Figure 8.86n). These vessels are characterized 

by a thick red slip, vertical burnishing, and linear decoration 

in black and white paint; these are discussed in further detail 

in chapter 12 (a similarly decorated flask/jug was found at Tel 

Masos, Stratum I, dated to the early Iron IIA; Fritz and Kempinski, 1983: pl. 145:1). 

Small finds from Building II include, e.g., three clay stoppers (Figure 8.87g and Reg. Nos. 1670–1671, two conical in 

shape and one disk shaped) and a tribladed complete bronze arrowhead (Figure 21.1o). A silver earring (Figure 8.84v) and an 

Layers 36, 36A, and 37–41 (Figure 8.74–8.76, possibly also Layers 43–44; see a shell layer in Figure 8.78 and a cooking vessel 

found in situ in Layer 36, Figure 8.79). These thin layers reach 

a level of 57.77 m, indicating that Layers 38–41 likely belong to 

the lower stage of Phase 6 (Phase 6B) or to Phase 7. Wall 12 (adjoining Wall 11), Feature 17A(?) and Feature 22 seem to be wall 

fragments in this area. Feature 27 (Figures 8.74–8.76) is a circular area of cobbles in Locus 2, Layer 37, up to 0.3 m deep, near a 

tabun. Feature 28 (Figures 8.74) is a patch of cobbles in Layer 38 

in Building II, Room B, and Feature 29 is a possible rectangular 

bin one brick thick; it is parallel to Wall 14, 1–1.5 m away from 

it (Figure 8.74). Wall 14 (Figure 8.77) is a brick wall made up 

of a single line of bricks, possibly adjoining Wall 11, and seems 

to relate to Locus 2, Layer 36; it only appears in the middle of 

the square. The documentation of this area was incomplete, and 

therefore, it does not appear on the plan. 

Quite a few pottery vessels, mostly fragmentary, may belong to the space denoted as Building II, Room B (Figure 8.85), 

FIGURE 8.77. Wall 14 in Sq. 2B, looking north.

FIGURE 8.76. Square 2B: Feature 27 in Building II, Room B.
NUMBER 50 • 459

FIGURE 8.78. Square 2B, Layer 36, Locus 2A, looking north; note layer with shells (lower left).

FIGURE 8.79. Square 2B, Layer 36, with a cooking vessel in situ.
460 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

unusual vessel with a thick wall and two small pierced handles 

attached to the rim (Figure 8.89k) were also found in Locus 1. 

Remains in Sq. 3B (Building III)

Several architectural remains from this phase were uncovered in Sq. 3B (Figures 8.80–8.83, 8.101). This area, which lies 

to the southeast of the long southeastern wall of Building II (denoted Wall 7 in Sq. 2B and then Wall 5 in Phase 6 and Wall 4 

in Phase 5 in Sq. 3B; see Wall 5 at the bottom of Pit 4, Figure 

8.82), was denoted as Building III (Figure 8.91), although there 

is no clear evidence this was an independent building (it could 

have been a part of Building II, for example). Abutting Walls 12 

and 13 (or possibly one thick wall) separate two units: Unit 1 to 

the southwest and Unit 2 to the northeast (Figure 8.80). There is 

little information about Unit 1 as the balk between Sqs. 2B and 

3B was not removed, and furthermore, Feature 7 (a large ashfilled pit/feature in Sq. 2A) cuts this area from a post–Iron Age 

level (probably Phase 4). Nevertheless, a 1 × 1 m area with large 

flat pebbles at an elevation of 58.53 m (Figure 8.81, Floor 2?) 

may be an installation or a floor of the unit in Phase 6. A thick, 

Egyptian blue bead (Figures 8.84u, 22.4r) were also found in 

Building II fill.

In the southern corner of Sq. 2C, Wall 8 (and possibly Wall 

11) may define an additional room of Building II (defined as 

Room C). Here Feature 23 is a layer of bricks under Sq. 2C, Wall 

8, possibly forming a brick floor or remains of vaulting (possibly 

related to Feature 5 in Sq. 2B, a brick floor or vaulting designated to Phase 5; see below). Related to this space in Phase 6 are 

Sq. 2C, Locus 5A, Layer 1 and Locus 4, Layers 2–5 (excavated in 

1977), as well as foundation trenches FT1 and FT2.

In Sq. 2A in the southeast of Building I, Wall 10 probably 

continued to be used in the subsequent phases. Locus 1, Layers 24–28 are fill and debris layers between levels of 58.22 and 

58.66 m in this area (note that, generally, levels in Sq. 2A are 

about 0.5 m lower than those in Sq. 2B because of the natural 

slope of the mound). Pottery found in Sq. 2A, Locus 1 includes 

rounded and carinated bowls with red slip and burnish (Figure 

8.89a,c,e–g), as well as red-slipped and plain open bowls (Figure 

8.89b,d). A strainer bowl or “burner” (Figure 8.89h; for Iron IIA 

strainer cups from Qeiyafa, see Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a:125, 

fig. 6.5:8–9), a large burnished flask (Figure 8.89j), and a small 

FIGURE 8.80. Square 3B, Walls 12 and 13 of Phase 6; Wall 12 is cut by Pit 5A, and Wall 4 is on the bottom right.
NUMBER 50 • 461

8.88). In the northern corner, Wall 10 (Figure 8.101; the wall is 

covered by the floor of Layer 11) probably belongs to an earlier 

phase (Phase 7; see above) together with Locus 2, Layers 12 and 

13. Two complete juglets were found in Locus 2, Layer 12 (Figure 8.83). 

The pottery found in Building III, Unit 2 includes the common rounded and carinated red-slipped and burnished bowls 

(Figure 8.88a–e), red-slipped and burnished kraters (Figure 

8.88f,g), a large krater (Figure 8.88i), a cooking pot (Figure 

8.88j), and jar and jug rims (Figure 8.88l–o). Of special interest 

are a bowl fragment with a rising handle (Figure 8.88k), possibly a scoop (for Iron IIA scoops from Qeiyafa, see Kang and 

coarse ceramic item found here (Figure 8.87l) may be a spout or 

funnel applied to some vessel.

The space denoted as Building III, Unit 2 includes a clearer 

floor level (Layer 11 and Locus 1, Layer 11, 58.41–58.62 m, 

Figures 8.80, 8.101). The southeastern wall of Unit 2 (Wall 8) 

runs to the balk and has a wide foundation trench, possibly serving as a more massive outer wall. Two lines of stretcher bricks 

(Walls 6 and 7) may be thin separation walls in this unit, which 

was divided into Loci 1 and 2. The floor level in Locus 1 yielded 

an ostracon (SI Cat. No. 507; see Figure 32.1a; Naveh, 1985:11, 

fig. 2:1, IAA No. 84–208, possibly a list of Semitic and Philistine 

names), as well as several red burnished and other vessels (Figure 

FIGURE 8.81. Square 3B, north section. 
462 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.83. Square 3B: two juglets in Locus 2, Layer 12.

FIGURE 8.82. Square 3B, Wall 5 at the bottom of Pit 4.
NUMBER 50 • 463

Figures 8.99–8.106) could represent fragments of such rooms 

in the northwestern wing of the building. Note that two ostraca 

were found in this area, one in Phase 6 (Figure 32.1a) and one 

(on bone) in Phase 5 (Figure 8.106h). Such structures are typical 

of Neo-Assyrian administrative architecture (as seen in examples 

from Assyria at Dur Sharrukin, Nimrud, Nineveh, and Arslan 

Tash and in the southern Levant at Ayelet Ha-Shahar, Megiddo, 

Stratum III, Tel Miqne, etc.; see below and Reich, 1992). However, because of the small area excavated in this phase this suggestion is rather speculative.

In fact, in Building II, only Room A was completely excavated (Figures 8.92); it measures 8.0 × 3.8 m externally and 6.5 

× 2.5 m internally, with a relatively well preserved floor made of 

large- and medium-sized relatively flat cobbles at 58.71–58.87 m 

(Sq. 2B, Feature 12, Figure 8.92). The walls around the paving in 

Sqs. 1B and 2B were preserved to a height of 0.8–1.2 m above the 

floor (Walls 5A, 7, and 6 is Sq. 2B and Wall 7 in Sq. 1B, Figures 

8.90, 8.92). Wall 9 in Sq. 2B was the northeastern wall of the 

room overlying Wall 9A directly under it (and Wall 11 below). It 

is not clear where the entrance to the room was, possibly in the 

northern corner in Sq. 1B; the wall was poorly preserved under 

the 1B–1C balk (possibly several stones here relate to the entrance). In Sq. 1B, only the lower cobble floor was identified (see 

Phase 6A, Sq. 1B, Feature 25 above), and Locus 1, Layers 16–17 

above it probably relate to Phase 5. Feature 16 is a brick-lined 

installation (quarter circle bin?) under a similarly oriented installation (Feature 11) in the southern corner of Building II, Room A 

(58.60–58.98 m, Figure 8.93). Feature 10 is two bricks standing 

with mortar in between them. Layers 30–35 in Loci 1A and 1B 

in Sq. 2B belong to this phase, at heights ranging from 59.73 m 

to at least 59.00 m. Pit 5, Layers 1–8 in Sq. 2B may represent 

debris layers in Building II, Room A rather than an ash-filled pit; 

such thick debris layers (with an accumulation of 1 m) probably 

represent several phases in this room. A line of bricks southwest 

of the middle of Wall 9 (Feature 8) may be a 0.6-m-high partition wall representing one of these later subphases. In the upper 

layer (Layer 30), there was not a clear distinction between Room 

A and Room B to the northeast of Wall 9, and the floor levels of 

these two units may have been mixed (Loci 1A and 2A, as the 

reconstruction of the jar in Figure 8.95b indicates). 

The pottery from Building II (see Table 8.4), Room A in 

Phase 5 (Figures 8.94, 8.95) includes red-slipped and plain 

bowls (Figure 8.94a–f, the last of which may be the upper bowl 

of a chalice), a nearly complete cooking pot (Type CP2, Figure 

8.94o), a chalice (Figure 8.94m), juglets (Figure 8.95f,g), and 

several storage jars (Figure 8.95a–e). An Assyrian-style bowl 

(Figure 8.94k) and a beaker (Figure 8.94n) were also found 

here; the bowl shown in Figure 8.94j, with white slip and brown 

bands, is related to this ware too. An iron ball (Figure 8.95i), an 

iron tool fragment (Figure 8.95h), and a bronze earring (Reg. 

No. 1332; see chapter 22) were also found here.

There was clearly a Phase 5 floor in Building II, Room B, 

but it was not very well defined. In Sq. 2B, Loci 2A and 2B were 

excavated in this room in Layers 31–35 (possibly also Layer 36 

in Locus 2B; see Figures 8.78, 8.79), down to a level of 58.73 

m. This area yielded two nearly complete jars (Figure 8.97a and 

Garfinkel, 2009a:125, fig. 6.6:10,11; these are more common at 

Iron IIB-C, Tel Miqne, Stratum IB-C, Gitin, 1993; see also Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:50, Type BL18), and a completely intact small bottle (Figure 8.88p). This vessel is characterized by a 

swollen neck, thickened everted rim, biconical body, and pointed 

base. Parallels are rare, with a somewhat similar bottle found at 

Iron I Ashdod, Stratum XIII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.7:2). Two pear-shaped terracotta beads were also found here 

(Figure 22.5f; see chapter 22), as well as a stone scale weight 

(weight of 31.1 g, Figure 8.88q; see chapter 23) and a scarab 

(Figure 8.88r; see chapter 27, Gamma No. 155, Figure 27.6a), 

which dates to the period between the LBII and Iron II.

Another possible remain of Phase 6 is in Sq. 1E, where Wall 

1B (and Feature 1) lies under Wall 1A of Phase 5 (Figure 8.90).

Generally, the pottery of Phase 6 (Figures 8.84–8.89) is largely 

similar to that of Phases 7 and 5 (discussed below). Nevertheless, 

no Assyrian-style or “palace ware” pottery, commonly found 

in Phase 5, was found in Phase 6. The quantity of red-slipped 

and burnished pottery is still high, especially bowls and jugs, 

but seems to be decreasing (about 45%; see Table 8.3 below). 

Several examples of LPDW or Ashdod ware vessels come from 

this phase as well. The vast majority of the forms can be dated 

to the Iron IIB.

Remains of Phase 5

Phase 5 (Figures 8.90, 8.91), which is probably the latest 

Iron Age phase in Field IV, is dominated by the vaulted Building I, which will be described separately in detail (Figures 8.90–

8.175). This phase, including Building I, Building II, and possibly 

upper layers of Building III, displays an array of well-built and 

planned structures. Buildings II and III will be described prior to 

Building I, as these were already defined in Phases 7–6.

Building II

There is a possibility that the area of Building II excavated 

is only a small part of the building, which extended to the north, 

south, and southeast. If that is the case, the areas denoted here 

as Building III could have been part of the same building (Figure 

8.91). In particular, in the southeast in Sqs. 1C, 2C, 1D, and 2D, 

the area occupied by the circular granary (see below), which was 

not dismantled, is unknown to us. It is possible that the post–Iron 

Age granary was built upon an open area within this building, 

a large inner courtyard, as it would have facilitated the building 

without the need to dismantle earlier walls.1

 Thus, Building II 

(Figures 8.92–8.98) may be reconstructed as a structure with a 

large open courtyard (empty of architectural features save for 

Sq. 2B, Feature 5 and Sq. 2C, fragmentary Walls 8 and 11) surrounded by elongated rooms, of which only Room A (and maybe 

fragmentary Room B) was excavated, as seen in Figure 8.91. 

Such a courtyard could have been up to 12.5 m wide (NW–SE) 

and possibly larger, but if Sq. 2C, Wall 8 is taken into account, it 

would have been smaller, at a width of 9 m. The space in Sq. 3B 

denoted as Building III, Unit 2 may have been another such elongated room, and the walls surviving in Sqs. 1C–1D, Phase 5 (see 
464 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The pottery from Building II, Room B in Phase 5 (Figures 

8.96, 8.97) includes open and carinated red-slipped and plain 

bowls (Figure 8.96a–f), kraters (Figure 8.96g,h), two nearly complete cooking pots (Figure 8.96i,j), several jars (Figure 8.97a–e, 

including a complete tapered-base jar, Type JR2, Figure 8.97a), a 

nearly complete jug (Figure 8.97f), a complete juglet (Figure 8.97i), 

a complete lamp (Figure 8.97j), a mortarium bowl (Figure 8.98b), 

and a group of Assyrian-style bowl fragments (Figure 8.96k–q). It 

should be noted that Assyrian-style pottery was found in Building 

II in both Rooms A and B, although generally in smaller quantities than in several contexts of Building I (see below). At least 10 

worked sherds were found in this area (Figure 8.98e andReg. Nos. 

3372–3378), as well as a complete clay pyramidical loom weight 

(Figure 8.97k), two complete iron arrowheads (Figure 8.97l,m r), 

an iron nail (Figure 8.97n), a bone/ivory disk (Figure 8.97o), a 

scarab (Figure 8.97p; see chapter 27, Gamma No. 145, Figure 

possibly Figure 8.98c) and other restorable vessels. Locus 2B, 

Layer 31 was also a floor level, as well as Layer 31 in the north 

balk. Feature 9 may be a 0.9-m-wide tabun in this area (Feature 14 may be another tabun in Room B). Two nearly complete 

cooking pots found in the room (Figure 8.96i,j) may relate to the 

tabun and indicate the function of the unit. An area of 3 × 1.8 

m between Wall 9 and Wall 8 in Sq. 2C is covered by vault-type 

bricks (Sq. 2B, Feature 5; Sq. 2C, Wall 7, top level 59.86 m). 

These are vertical standing bricks, probably representing a fallen 

vault or a brick floor fallen from a second story above. Note that 

Wall 8 in Sq. 2C, the northeastern wall of Building II, Room B, 

is cut by the foundation trench of Wall 3 of the granary (Figure 

8.217, Sq. 2C, east section, as well as the bricks, Sq. 2B, Feature 

5), one of the only places where the stratigraphic relationship 

between the granary and the Iron Age phases can be clearly seen 

in Field IV. 
NUMBER 50 • 465

as five pyramidical clay loom weights (e.g., Figure 8.106d and 

Reg. Nos. 1521, 1523, 1578, 1579), two of which were complete, a bronze nail fragment (Figure 21.4h), and an iron spear 

point (Figure 8.106e). A very interesting find from this area is a 

polished bone (Figure 8.106h from GM 3B (9), Reg. No. 4138, 

measurements of 2.8 × 1.7 × 0.2 cm) with a Hebrew inscription 

in ink on it: the letters ש) shin) and possibly א) aleph) seem to be 

written (see chapter 33, Figure 33.3).

In Sq. 0B, southwest of Building I, a cobbled area was located adjacent to the outer wall of the building (Figure 8.103, 

Locus 4). In Sqs. 1D and 1E, several walls of Phase 5 (possibly 

built already in Phase 6) were excavated, some sealed by Phase 

3–4 remains. These include Walls 3 and 6 in Sq. 1D, which create a T shape (Figure 8.90), and Wall 1 (also Wall 1A) in Sq. 1E, 

which is aligned with Wall 6 (Wall 6 was preserved to at least 1 

m high and was built with mortar between header and stretcher 

courses, a typical Assyrian technique; see below). Feature 22 is 

possibly the foundation trench of Wall 6, and Locus 2, Layers 

26–31 in Sq. 1D are attributed to Phase 5 fills (in a trench between the granary wall and Wall 6). A large quantity of worked 

sherds, mostly small rounded ones, were found in these fill layers (at least 83 items, e.g., GM 1D (31) 2, 16 items; Reg. Nos. 

2577–2592, 2487–2500, 1822–1831, 1838–1852, 3757–3787; 

see chapter 18). These walls may be remains of an additional 

building (Building IV?), possibly indicating a sort of casemate 

structure continuing into the west balk (the inner width between 

Sq. 1D, Wall 6 and Sq. 1E, Wall 1 is about 1 m), or, as suggested 

above, part of a western wing of a large courtyard building, 

27.3e; a date of LBII or Iron IIA is suggested), and an ostracon 

(Reg. No. 1956; see chapter 32, Figure 32.1c).

Possible Building II Remains 

and Building I Surroundings

To the southeast of Building I, in Sq. 2A, Feature 18 covered 

an area of 0.7 m (Figure 8.99, level of 58.72 m) filled with sherds 

and vessels, including a complete large hole-mouth multihandled 

krater (see Figure 8.174k), a cooking pot (Figure 8.174l), and 

some iron slag, sealed by Layer 22; this may be the remains of 

a hearth and a related floor in an open area. Near the cooking 

pot (Figures 8.99, 8.174l), the upper part of a chalice-like thick 

vessel was found, possibly a stand or a funnel (Figure 8.174p) 

that had a wide perforation in its center; both vessels had soot 

marks on their exterior and may have been used together (the 

pot could have been put on the stand for cooking over a fire). As 

noted above, in Sq. 3B to the east (Building III?), Walls 9 and 11 

overlie Walls 12 and 13, and rich floor levels of Layer 10 were 

excavated at elevations of 58.70–58.80 m (Figures 8.100–8.102, 

8.104–8.106), yielding several complete storage jars (Figure 

8.105a–c and RV 22) and other vessels (Figures 8.104, 8.105, 

including red-slipped and burnished bowls, kraters, a cooking 

pot, jugs, and flasks), as well as other artifacts (such as a bone 

spatula, Figure 8.106f). This area was generally rich in finds, 

including a horse and rider figurine (Figure 8.106a). At least 

11 rounded worked sherds (e.g., Figure 8.106b and Reg. Nos. 

1737–1743, 3092–3095) were found here in this phase, as well 

FIGURE 8.84. Pottery and other finds from Phase 6, Building II, Room A. Bld = building; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished. 

(opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 6367/1 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

b Bowl; rsb (inside/outside) 6367/2 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

c Bowl; rsb RV 255A/1 GM 2B (35) 3 6? Bld II, Room A

d Bowl; rim band RV 129 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

e Krater; rsb 6367/5 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

f Bowl; rsb 6367/4 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

g Bowl; rs 1627/1 GM 1C (2) 7 6 Bld II, Room A

h Bowl; rsb 6367/3 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

i Bowl 6356/1 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

j Bowl; rsb 3020/2 GM 1C (28) 4 6? Bld II, Room A?

k Cooking pot 6371/1 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

l Jar 6356/2 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

m Jar 6356/3 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

n Jar 6371/2 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

o Jug; rsb 1867A/1 GM 2B (38A) 3 6? Bld II, Room B?

p Juglet 1627/2 GM 1C (2) 7 6 Bld II, Room A

q Decanter 6356/4 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

r Juglet; rsb 6371/3 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

s Lamp 6367/6 GM 2B (36) 3 6/7? Bld II, Room A?

t Lamp; soot RV 200 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

u Faience bead Reg. No. 775 GM 2B (37) 3 6 Bld II, Room A

v Silver earring Reg. No. 1304 GM 2B (36) 3 6 Bld II, Room A
466 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.85. Pottery from Phase 6, Building II, Room B. Bld = building; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; rsb 6673/1 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

b Bowl; rsb 1250/1 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

c Bowl; rsb 1246/1 GM 2B (38) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

d Bowl; rsb 1840/1 GM 2B (41) 2, Room A 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

e Bowl; rs 1280/1 GM 2B (1) 5 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

f Bowl/krater 1250/2 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

g Bowl; rsb 2857/2 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

h Bowl; rsb 6673/2 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

i Bowl 6673/3 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

j Bowl 2857/1 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

k Bowl 1280/2 GM 2B (1) 5 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

l Bowl; rsb 2362/1 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

m Bowl; rsb 2362/1A GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

n Bowl 1218/1 GM 2B F29 6 Bld II, Room B

o Chalice; rsb 2314/1 GM 2B (36) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

p Bowl/chalice 6357/1 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

q Krater 4210/1 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

r Krater? 1198/1 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

s Cooking pot, soot 6357/2 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

t Cooking pot 1246/2 GM 2B (38) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

u Cooking pot 1289/1 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?
NUMBER 50 • 467

FIGURE 8.86. Pottery from Phase 6, Building II, Room B(?). Bld = building; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jar 4210/3 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

b Jar 4210/2 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

c Jar 1250/3 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

d Jar 2314/2 GM 2B (36) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

e Jar 1250/6 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

f Jar/krater 1250/4 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

g Jar 2857/3 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

h Jar/jug 1218/2 GM 2B F29 6 Bld II, Room B

i Pithos? 1198/2 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

j Jar/jug 2857/5 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

k Jar/jug 1246/3 GM 2B (38) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

l Jar/jug 2857/4 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

m Jug 6357/3 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

n Jug, rsb 1847/1 GM 2B (44) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

o Jug(?), rsb 1250/5 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

p Juglet, rs 2362/2 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?
468 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.87. Pottery and finds from Phase 6, Building II. Bld = building; rs = red slipped.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jar; rs, vertical burnish, white/black decoration 1867/1 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

b Flask/jug; rs, vertical burnish, white/black decoration 1853/1 GM 2B (41) 2, P10 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

c Sherd; rs, vertical burnish Box 94 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B

d Sherd; rs, white/black decoration 2362/3 GM 2B (41) 2 6/7? Bld II, Room B?

e Lamp; soot 2857/6 GM 2B (37) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

f Lamp 2314/3 GM 2B (36) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?

g Stopper Reg. No. 1669 GM 2B (36A) 2 6 Bld II, Room B?
NUMBER 50 • 469

FIGURE 8.88. Pottery and finds from Phase 6, Building III, Unit 2. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; rsb 3499/1 GM 3B (11) 2 

b Bowl; rsb 3509/1 GM 3B (11)

c Bowl; rsb 3509/2 GM 3B (11)

d Bowl; rsb 3499/2 GM 3B (11) 2 

e Bowl; rsb 3499/3 GM 3B (11) 2 

f Krater; rs 3499/5 GM 3B (11) 2 

g Bowl/krater; brown slip 3499/4 GM 3B (11) 2 

h Bowl 3500/1 GM 3B (11) 2

i Krater 3500/3 GM 3B (11) 2

j Cooking pot; soot 3500/2 GM 3B (11) 2

k Scoop? 3500/8 GM 3B (11) 2

l Jar 3500/6 GM 3B (11) 2

m Jar 3500/5 GM 3B (11) 2

n Jug(?); rs 3500/7 GM 3B (11) 2

o Jug/krater 3500/4 GM 3B (11) 2

p Bottle RV 164 (SI Cat. No. 519) GM 3B (11) 1

q Scale weight; stone Reg. No. 1019 GM 3B (11) 2

r Scarab Reg. No. 1175 (SI Cat. No. 511) GM 3B (11)
470 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

at Field IV (see, e.g., Van Beek, 1973, 1983, 1993a, 1993b), 

exposed in Sqs. 00A, 0A, 00B, 0B, 1A, 2A, and 1B. Nevertheless, the building was not excavated fully, and its complete 

plan is unknown to us. The exceptional nature of this building can particularly be noted in its spectacular preservation, allowing two stories to be exposed. Particularly impressive is the 

lower story, with its ceiling supported by vaults (Figures 8.107, 

8.108). Nevertheless, as noted, the building was not completely 

excavated: it seems that only about half of it was unearthed, 

with all its southern part eroded. The orientation of this rectangular building is northeast–southwest (with the short side on 

the northeast) and is likely to exist in both Phases 6 and 5; the 

Building II. Wall 6 in Sq. 1C is parallel to Wall 6 in Sq. 1D and 

may belong also to this structure as a wall segment seen in the 

western balk of Sq. 00B (Wall 3, Figure 8.161) some 10 m to the 

southwest. Two pieces of iron slag or bloom were found here (see 

Figure 21.6i, SCI 1569). It is possible that some iron working 

activity was conducted in the room or nearby, as these items are 

not found elsewhere at the site.

Building I

Building I (Figures 8.90, 8.91, 8.107–8.165) is the most 

well preserved and impressive building of the late Iron Age levels 

FIGURE 8.89. Pottery from Phase 6. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; rsb 3537/3 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

b Bowl 3533/1 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

c Bowl/krater; rsb (inside) 3561/1 GM 2A (27) 1 6 Locus 1

d Bowl 3537/1 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

e Bowl; rsb (inside) 3537/2 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

f Bowl/chalice; rs 3683/1 GM 2A F20 6/7A Unit 1

g Bowl; rsb 3537/4 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

h Strainer bowl Box 124 GM 2A (29) 4 6? Locus 4

i Jug(?) 3718/1 GM 2A P1A–1 6 Locus 1

j Flask; burnish RV 61 GM 2A (27) 1 6 Locus 1

k Bowl/pyxis 3537/5 GM 2A P2–1 6 Locus 1

l Handmade vessel (funnel?) 3705/1 GM 2A F20 6/7A Unit 1
NUMBER 50 • 471

upper phases, especially from large pits of Phase 1 (see Figure 

8.243, e.g., Sq. 1A, TT11, Pit 2; Sq. 1A, Pits 3–4; Sq. 0B, Pit 

4; Sq. 00A, Pits 3, 7, 8). These pits may indicate quarrying of 

building materials, such as clay bricks, from the Iron Age building in later periods.

The northeast wall of Building I (Sq. 1B, Wall 7; Sq. 

2A, Wall 5; Figures 8.111, 8.112) perfectly abuts the wall of 

Building II (Sq. 2B, Wall 5A, Room A) and possibly abuts the 

plan presented here is mainly of Phase 5 (Figures 8.90–8.91), the 

later of the phases preserved. Notably, there are no clear signs of 

destruction in most units of this building. Judging by the portion 

of the lower story that was exposed, the width of Building I was 

just above 10 m, and its length is at least 12.5 m. In the west, it 

is cut by erosion, whereas in the south the excavation borders 

the areas of Petrie’s trenches (see Figure 8.158). It should be 

noted that Building I also suffered significant disturbance from 

FIGURE 8.90. Plan of Phase 5.
472 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

short segment of 1.5 m of the southeast wall of Building I was 

exposed in Sq. 2A (which continues into the southern balk). The 

long northeast wall of Building I was exposed for a length of 

10 m (Figures 8.90, 8.108, 8.146, 8.159, 8.160; in Sq. 1B, Wall 

C; Sq. 0B, Wall 3; Sq. 00A, Wall 1; Sq. 00B, Wall 2). The wall 

was eroded in the western corner of the excavated area (thus, 

the southwestern wall of Building I is completely unknown to 

us). It is also about 0.8–1 m wide, built in most places by two 

header-placed bricks, yet stretcher bricks were also occasionally used. This irregularity in the construction may indicate repairs made in the wall over the course of its usage. In Sq. 0B the 

foundation trench of this wall was excavated (Feature 4, Figure 

8.161), preserved with a “capping” of three bricks (Feature 3) 

covering the top of the trench. Another similar section of the 

southeast the wall of Building III in its lower phase (Phase 6). 

The deep foundations of this well-built wall (although only 

0.8 m wide) can be seen in Sq. 2A, cutting Phase 6B–7A remains (see Figures 8.46, 8.54, 8.55, 8.58–8.60). It was built by 

combining a row of header bricks with a row of stretcher-laid 

bricks, with the gap filled by mortar. However, these are placed 

intermediately along the wall (in segments of about 2.5–3 m 

each); thus, the stretcher bricks are on the outer face of the wall 

in some places and on the inner face in others (this arrangement of bricks can be seen in the lower courses in the section 

of the wall as well, e.g., Figures 8.46, 8.54). In Sq. 2B (Wall 

5A), where lower remains of Phases 7–10 were excavated, this 

wall was exposed to a height of over 2 m preserved at least 20 

courses high (Figure 8.46; of these, 16 are full courses). Only a 

FIGURE 8.91. Schematic plan of Field IV, Buildings I–III.
NUMBER 50 • 473

FIGURE 8.92. Room A, Building II, cobble floor (Feature 12).

FIGURE 8.93. Cobbles in Room A of Building II and bin feature (Feature 11; equals Features 16?), Sq. 2B.
474 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

to the southwest. The location of the entrance to the building is 

not clear, but an entrance from the northwest near the northern 

corner of Room A through Wall C of Sq. 1B may be suggested. 

This entrance may be indicated by several flat stones recorded 

in Wall C of Sq. 1B (possibly Figures 8.110, 8.111), which may 

have served as a threshold or support for a door. It should be 

noted in this regard that the use of stones is very rare in Building I. However, if this is the basement level of the structure, an 

entrance from the outside to this space should not be expected. 

Moreover, remains of a staircase leading from the ground/first 

floor to the basement/lower floor were not detected.

brick-capped foundation trench of this wall was excavated in 

Sq. 00B (Features 4 and 5, Figure 8.161). 

It is suggested that the lower well-preserved story was the 

basement floor of the building, whereas the less well preserved 

story above it was the ground floor (Figure 8.109). Thus, the 

inner ground floor is less clear, and mainly the basement floor 

plan will be described. On this floor, six units or rooms were 

defined (Rooms A–F, Figures 8.107, 8.109); of these, three were 

completely excavated (Rooms A–C). Room D is only known in 

its northern corner, and Rooms E–F were partly excavated in 

the extension of the excavation in Sqs. 0A, 00A, 0B, and 00B 

FIGURE 8.94. Pottery from Building II, Room A (Phase 5). AS = Assyrian-style pottery; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; rsb 6615/1 GM 2B F11 1B

b Bowl; rsb 6646/1 GM 2B (33) 1A

c Bowl/krater; rs 6662/2A GM 2B (33) 1B

d Bowl; rsb 6615/2 GM 2B F11 1B

e Bowl; rs 3858/1 GM 1B EBR (16) 1

f Bowl/chalice 3858/2 GM 1B EBR (16) 1

g Bowl 3869/1 GM 1B EBR (17) 1

h Bowl/krater; burnish inside 6646/2 GM 2B (33) 1A

i Bowl; white slip, brown decoration 5908A/1 GM 1B NBR (16)

j Bowl 1617/1 GM 1B (16) 1

k Bowl; reddish clay (AS) Box 423A/1 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1

l Miniature bowl? 6646/3 GM 2B (33) 1A

m Chalice; red paint 1617/2 GM 1B (16) 1

n Beaker; whitish clay (AS) Box 411A/1 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1

o Cooking pot RV 181 GM 2B (34) 1A

p Krater/jar? 7140 GM 2B (31) 1A
NUMBER 50 • 475

(Feature 21). The fill and debris in the room were excavated in 

Sq. 1B in Layers 10–15, Locus 2 (Layer 11, TT2) and contained 

ash and many Assyrian-style vessels (see Figures 8.117, 8.118), 

most of which had probably fallen from the upper/ground floor. 

The lower floor is made of closely laid vertical bricks sized 30 × 

50 cm (Figure 8.112). In the southwest, through Wall G, the passage between Rooms A and F was completely preserved (Figures 

8.119, 8.120, Feature 23). This passage or doorway is about 1.5 

m high and about 0.45–0.7 m wide. The opening of an earlier 

stage was 0.7 m wide, whereas a later one was reduced to a 

width of 0.45 m (Figure 8.120). The upper part of the passage 

is created by two bricks lying diagonally or in an arch (Figure 

8.119); however, this is not a complete arch, and the arched 

bricks are not placed in a stable position. This instability may 

have caused the later reduction of the passage width. Feature 22 

denotes the vaulting of the walls above the floor (Figures 8.113, 

8.114), which is very well preserved and built of vertically laid 

bricks. 

Pottery from Room A (Figures 8.115–8.116) includes open 

and carinated red-slipped and plain bowls (Figure 8.115a–f), a 

red-slipped bowl imitating Assyrian-style bowls (Figure 8.115h), a 

bowl with a large bar handle (Figure 8.115i), a krater and cooking 

The six rooms, of which five were extensively excavated, 

are all rectangular and comprise three smaller rooms (Figure 

8.107, Rooms A–C) on the northeast side and three larger and 

longer rooms (Rooms D–F) placed to the northwest of them; 

each set of long and short rooms (A–F, B–E, C–D) is interconnected by a passageway, although no other connections between 

rooms were discerned. Some of the rooms contained a rather 

significant amount of pottery (see below), although it was usually not found on the floors (for pottery found in Building I, see 

also Table 8.4 below).

Room A

Room A (Figures 8.111–8.120) is about 2 × 3.4 m in its 

inner dimensions and was completely excavated in Sqs. 1B and 

0B. It is defined by outer Walls C (Sq. 1B) in the northwest and E 

in the northeast and inner Walls D in the southeast and G in the 

southwest. The inner walls are built of half bricks or of headerlaid bricks (different from the outer ones; see above). The tops 

of the walls of Room A (Figure 8.111) are preserved to a height 

of 2.3–2.7 m above the lower/basement floor (at 60.12–60.85 

m, Figure 8.112), which is made of bricks at a level of 58.10 m 

FIGURE 8.95. Pottery and other finds from Building II, Room A (Phase 5).

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar RV 5 GM 2B (30) 1B

b Jar RV 1021 GM 2B (30) 1A and 2A

c Jar 1976/1 GM 2B W9

d Jar 6662/3 GM 2B (33) 1B

e Jar 6662/4 GM 2B (33) 1B

f Juglet RV 154 (SI Cat. No. 360) GM 2B TT3 (2A) 

g Bottle/juglet? 3869/2 GM 1B EBR (17) 1

h Iron piece/tool Reg. No. 317 GM 2B (35) 1A

i Iron ball Reg. No. 315 GM 2B (32) 1A

j Spindle weight; stone Reg. No. 1047 GM 1B NBR (16) 1
476 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.96. Pottery from Building II, Room B (Phase 5). AS = Assyrian-style pottery; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; rsb 2808/1 GM 2B (35) 2A 5

b Bowl; rsb 6661/1 GM 2B (35) 2B 5 (6?)

c Bowl; rsb 2808/2 GM 2B (35) 2A 5

d Bowl; rsb 2808/3 GM 2B (35) 2A 5

e Bowl; rsb 6661/2 GM 2B (35) 2B 5 (6?)

f Bowl; rsb 6661/3 GM 2B (35) 2B 5 (6?)

g Krater? 2606/3 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5

h Krater/hole-mouth jar 7107/1 GM 2B (31) 2A 5

i Cooking pot; soot RV 3 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5

j Cooking pot; soot RV 1006 GM 2B (35) 2A 5

k Bowl; whitish (AS) Box 400A/1 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5

l Bowl; whitish clay (AS) Box 400A/2 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5

m Bowl; whitish (AS) Box 60/3 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5

n Bowl; whitish clay (AS) Box 60/5 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5

o Bowl; whitish (AS) Box 60/4 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5

p Bowl; reddish clay (AS) Box 60/1 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5

q Bowl; whitish clay (AS) Box 60/2 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5
NUMBER 50 • 477

FIGURE 8.97. Pottery and other finds from Building II, Room B (Phase 5). rs = red slipped.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar RV 1020 (SI Cat. No. 621) GM 2B NBR (31) 2A

b Jar 7130/1 GM 2B (31) 2A

c Jug/jar; red and white decoration, rs inside 2808/4 GM 2B (35) 2A

d Jar 2820/1 GM 2B (35) 2A

e Jar 2820/2 GM 2B (35) 2A

f Jug; soot RV 57 GM 2B (31) 2A

g Jug 2820/3 GM 2B (35) 2A

h Perforated sherd(?) 2820/4 GM 2B (35) 2A

i Juglet, soot RV 145 (SI Cat. No. 619) GM 2A NBR (31) 2A

j Lamp RV 157 GM 2B WBR (31) 2A

k Loom weight Reg. No. 3060 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A

l Iron arrowhead Reg. No. 1276 (SI Cat. No. 636) GM 2B NBR (31) 2A

m Bronze arrowhead Reg. No. 1330 (SI Cat. No. 637) GM 2B NBR (31) 2A

n Iron nail Reg. No. 321 GM 2B (35) 1A

o Disk (bone/ivory) Reg. No. 1422 GM 2B (32) 2A

p Scarab Reg. No. 1164 (SI Cat. No. 754) GM 2B (35) 2B
478 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.98. Pottery from Building II (Phase 5).

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl; red slip 1608/1 GM 2C W8 Room C?

b Mortarium bowl 7099/1 GM 2B (30) 2A Room A/B?

c Jar RV 26 GM 2B (30) 2A Room A/B?

d Sherd; red slip, burnish, black decoration 6584/1 GM 2B (36) 2B Room B?

e Worked sherd Reg. No. 1784 GM 2B (30) 2A Room A/B?

FIGURE 8.99. Square 2A, Feature 18, with possible stone hearth and complete vessels.
NUMBER 50 • 479

FIGURE 8.100. Square 3B, Building III, Layer 10 (floor level) with finds including loom weights (dark) and a 

figurine (on right), looking east.

FIGURE 8.101. Square 3B, Building III(?): with Wall 8 in the left front, Wall 5 on the right, and Wall 9 in the 

center, looking west (Wall 10 of Phase 7 is on the bottom; note reversal of direction arrow).
480 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.103. Square 3B, Feature 3 with sherds and rubble stones, looking west.

FIGURE 8.102. Square 3B, Pit 5A cutting Wall 9.
NUMBER 50 • 481

quite large amount of pottery found in these layers was denoted 

as “above Room A” and illustrated separately (Figures 8.117, 

8.118). These layers, although mixed, could have represented 

the upper or ground floor remains collapsing on the vaulted 

basement levels on Room A. Especially noteworthy is the large 

amount of Assyrian-style pottery coming from these contexts 

(Figures 8.117, 8.118); altogether, at least 40 fragments are illustrated, including several complete or nearly complete thin bowls 

pots (Figure 8.115r–t), jars rims (Figure 8.116a–d), and jugs and 

juglets (Figure 8.116e,f). Especially notable are the many examples 

of Assyrian-style pottery (Figure 8.115k–p), including four complete or nearly complete thin bowls (Figure 8.115k–n). The lower 

part of a dimpled beaker was also found here (Figure 8.115q). 

In Sqs. 1B and 1C, several fill layers possibly also reflect the 

fill in Room A, possibly of the upper floor deposit, especially Sq. 

1B, Layers 10–11, Locus 1 (Layer 10, however, also contains 

Persian period sherds and thus is mixed) and Test Trench 3. The 

FIGURE 8.104. Pottery from Building III, Unit 2. NA = not available; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 3512/1 GM 3B (9)

b Bowl NA GM 3B (10)

c Bowl; rs 3495/2 GM 3B (9)

d Bowl; rs 3495/1 GM 3B (9)

e Bowl; rsb 3327/1 GM 3B (10)

f Bowl; rsb 3495/4 GM 3B (9)

g Bowl; rsb 3495/3 GM 3B (9)

h Bowl; rsb 3327/2 GM 3B (10)

i Bowl 3512/2 GM 3B (9)

j Bowl 3512/4 GM 3B (9)

k Bowl? 3512/3 GM 3B (9)

l Cooking pot 3495/5 GM 3B (9)
482 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.105. Pottery from Building III, Unit 2.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar RV 7 GM 3B (10)

b Jar RV 1023 GM 3B (9)

c Jar RV 12 GM 3B (10)

d Jar/jug 3327/3 GM 3B (10)

e Jar/jug 3512/5 GM 3B (9)

f Jar; red slip 3318/1 GM 3B (10)

g Jar 3512/6 GM 3B (9)

h Jar 3516/1 GM 3B (10)

i Jug/small amphora RV 144 GM 3B (10) and (9)

j Jug 3327/4 GM 3B (10)

k Jug 3327/5 GM 3B (10)

l Jug; red slip, burnish 3495/8 GM 3B (9)

m Juglet 3512/7 GM 3B (9)

n Flask 3495/6 GM 3B (9)

o Flask? 3495/7 GM 3B (9)

p Lamp, soot RV 205 GM 3B (10)
NUMBER 50 • 483

Room B

Room B (Figures 8.121–8.128) measures internally about 

2.5 × 3.4 m and was completely excavated in Sqs. 1A, 2A, and 

1B (Figures 8.121, 8.122). It is defined by outer Wall 5 (Sq. 2A; 

Sq. 1A, Wall 7?) from the northeast and inner Wall D (Sq. 1B; 

Sq. 1A, Wall 8?) from the northwest, Wall 5 from the southwest, and Wall 8A from the southeast. The walls all show some 

signs of mud plastering and are preserved 1.4–2.25 m above the 

brick floor level (at 58.17–58.21 m, in one place down to 59.76 

m; Figure 8.121); the vaulting is well preserved as well (Figure 

8.122). The floor is built similarly to that in Room A, with the 

debris in Room B excavated in Sq. 1A, Locus 8, Layers 2–4 (see 

Figure 8.123). The vaulted ceiling of Room B was completely 

exposed and was supported by poles during excavation (Figure 

8.122). Between Rooms B and E, the doorway was well preserved (Figures 8.124–8.127, Locus 9, Layers 1–7, 58.22–60.39 

m). This doorway is about 2.2 m high and 0.7 m wide, with an 

arched upper part built with typical voussoirs (Figure 8.127, see 

section; this was also denoted as Wall 4); the bricks in the vaults 

(Figures 8.117c, 8.118a,b,d), thicker bowls (Figure 8.118e–j), 

and at least five dimpled beakers (Figure 8.118l–r). 

A large grinding stone (Figure 8.116o) was found in the 

northwestern side of Room A. This might indicate that domestic 

activities also took place here. Interestingly, this grinding stone, 

made of sandstone, seems to have been incompletely made (see 

chapter 23). Other small finds from Room A include a figurine 

head (Figure 8.116i), at least 12 small, rounded worked sherds 

(Figure 8.116j and Reg. Nos. 3656–3664, 3635–3636), two cylindrical clay objects, possibly perforated weights (Figure 8.116k,l), 

a clay plug/sealing with textile impression (Figure 8.116m), and 

two bone spatulas (Figures 8.116n, 25.4l). A concentration of 

126 faience disk beads were found in the room (Figure 8.116q) 

and were part of a necklace; an additional four faience beads 

were also possibly part of a necklace, as well as other beads 

found together, including five carnelian beads (Figure 8.116p; 

see chapter 22). A complete iron spear butt (Figure 21.2c) comes 

from the fill above the room. An ostracon was found in Building 

I, Room A (GM 1B (14) 2); it is written in Aramaic script (Figure 

32.4e, Reg. No. 1957, and Naveh, 1985:19, fig. 5, pl. 4D). 

FIGURE 8.106. Finds from Building III, Unit 2. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Figurine Reg. No. 1247 GM 3B (10)

b Worked sherd Reg. No. 1741 GM 3B (9)

c Jar (marked) Reg. No. 3109 GM 3B (9)

d Loom weight Reg. No. 1522 GM 3B (9)

e Iron spear point Reg. No. 1286 (SI Cat. No. 508) GM 3B (9)

f Spatula; bone Reg. No. 1456 GM 3B (10)

g Clay bead Reg. No. 825 GM 3B (10)

h Polished bone with inscription Reg. No. 4138 GM 3B (9)
484 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Room C

Room C (Figures 8.129–8.135) is about 1.6 × 3.3 m in its 

internal dimensions and was almost completely excavated in Sqs. 

1A and 2A (Figures 8.129–8.131). It seems that Rooms A and 

C create a certain symmetry on the long axis of Building I, being 

smaller rooms than Room B in between (a similar symmetry may 

exist between Rooms F and D, as Room E is wider than Room 

F). The room is defined by outer Wall 5 (Sq. 2A) in the northeast 

and Wall 5A in the southeast and inner Wall 8A (Sq. 1A) in the 

northwest and Wall 8B in the southeast (with only its corner 

excavated; Figure 8.129); the southern corner of Room C was 

not excavated and lies in the southern balk. The tops of the walls 

in this case are only 0.6–1.3 m above the floor level; Wall 4–4A 

represents the well-preserved vaulting in the northeast, standing 

about 1 m high (Figure 8.129; in the southeast wall the vaulted 

is very clear, Figure 8.132). Here again the floor is made of three 

rows of stretcher-laid 0.5-m-long bricks at levels of 58.28–58.42 

are grooved, possibly containing mortar (Figure 8.126). This 

doorway seems to be larger and better built than the one preserved between Rooms A and F (see Figures 8.119, 8.120) and is 

possibly similar to the early stage of the latter; therefore, this is a 

proper doorway, whereas the connection between Rooms A and 

F may be termed a passage. Note that both these passageways 

are floored by three header-laid bricks that are perpendicularly 

oriented to the main room flooring (Figures 8.109, 8.126). 

The debris and floor of Room B were relatively empty of 

finds compared to Rooms A and F (Figure 8.128). Pottery from 

Room B includes rounded, open and carinated red-slipped bowls 

(Figure 8.128a–g) as well as plain bowls and kraters (Figure 

8.128d,h–n), jar rims (Figure 8.128o–r), and a jug and juglet (Figure 8.128s,t). Small finds from Room B include worked sherds 

(Figure 8.128u,v; altogether 14 in a layer above the room, Reg. 

Nos. 3140–3153, and 11 in Room B, Reg. Nos. 3155–3165), an 

iron ring/bracelet (Reg. No. 437; see chapter 22 on jewelry), and 

an iron nail (Figure 8.128w).

FIGURE 8.107. Plan of Building I, showing vaults and rooms.
NUMBER 50 • 485

(Figure 8.135n) with its bowl perforated. An incised jar handle 

(Figure 8.135o) and a complete three-bladed bronze arrowhead came from Room C as well (Figure 8.135p). A scarab was 

probably also found in Room C (Figure 8.135q; see chapter 27, 

Gamma 140, Figure 27.2f); a 26th Dynasty date of 664–600 BCE 

is suggested for this scarab. If correct, this date could be a terminus post quem for the abandonment of Phase 5 and Building I.

Room D

Room D was not excavated and is reconstructed to be to 

the southwest of Room C, lying in the southern balk. Only its 

northern corner was partly defined in Sq. 1A. It is reconstructed 

to be similar to Room F (see below).

Room E

Room E (Figures 8.136–8.144) is a long, rectangular room, 

measuring internally at least 4.9 × 2.5 m, and was partially excavated in Sqs. 1A and 0A (Figure 8.137). This internal room is 

m (Figures 8.129, 8.130). The fill and debris of Room C were 

excavated in Sq. 2A, TT8, Layers 1–4 and Feature 14, Layers 

1–4 (also including parts of the vaulting; Figure 8.131). The floor 

level was also excavated in Feature 14, Layer 5, where two complete storage jars were found (Figures 8.133, 8.134, 8.135h; one 

of the jars was not recovered for illustration) in the center of the 

room. One of the jars lay horizontally on the floor, and the other, 

adjacent to it vertically, had its mouth upward, as if dug into 

the floor (Figure 8.134). One possibility is that these two similar sack-shaped storage jars, typical of the 7th century BCE (see 

below, Type JR1), were found in situ on the basement floor of 

the building. Another possibility is that they fell from the ground 

floor. The latter option seems to explain better their orientation 

and location on the floor. In the southwestern part of the room, 

possible remains of the passage from Room C to Room D were 

discerned (Sq. 1A, Locus 7, Layer 12, debris at 59.53 m and 

Feature 14, Locus 1, Layer 4). 

Pottery from Room C (Figure 8.135) includes several bowls, 

a krater, a cooking pot, jars, and juglet and jug fragments (Figure 8.135a–m), as well as a large white-slipped chalice fragment 

FIGURE 8.108. Building I from above, looking north.
486 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.109. Floor plan of Building I, showing lower floors.
NUMBER 50 • 487

FIGURE 8.111. Building I, Room A, upper and lower floors from above, Sq. 1B.

FIGURE 8.110. Eroded remains of Wall 1, Sq. 0A in west balk.
488 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.112. Building I, Room A, upper and lower floors from above, looking east, Sq. 1B.

FIGURE 8.113. Building I, Room A, northeast wall and vault.
NUMBER 50 • 489

room may not have been completely paved with bricks (see Figure 8.140), as the possible existence of the tabun testifies. As 

noted, a well-preserved doorway was excavated between this 

room and Room B (Figures 8.124–8.127). 

Pottery from Room E (Figure 8.143) includes a bowl (Figure 

8.143a), two large hole-mouth (multihandled?) kraters (Figure 

8.143b,c, the latter of which is a complete example), a cooking 

pot (Figure 8.143d), several nearly complete jars (Figure 8.143e–

k), and a juglet (Figure 8.143l). Also illustrated are a residual 

Philistine Bichrome sherd from the Iron I (Figure 8.143m) and 

a body sherd with a plastic rope decoration from a handmade 

vessel (Figure 8.143n). 

In Room E, an inscription (see chapter 32, Figure 32.1e, 

Reg. No. 1958, possibly mentioning almonds: šqd.bl.qb,דקש.

לב.בק ( was found on the large body fragment of a storage jar 

(denoted RV 33). Only body sherds from this jar were recovered, but it is probably a typical bag-shaped jar (Type JR1; see 

defined by Wall 2 in Sq. 0A in the northwest, Wall 5 of Sq. 1A 

in the northeast, and Wall 8A in the southeast. The tops of the 

walls are preserved to about 1.6–1.9 m above the brick floor, 

which was partly preserved (Figure 8.138). The floor is at levels 

of 58.25–57.95 m, and the debris was excavated in Sq. 0A, Layers 8–9 and Sq. 1A, Locus 10, Layers 1–4. Square 0A, Layer 9 

(59.40 m) includes the fill in Room E and its brick floor (with 

bricks measuring 0.46 × 0.21 m, laid as headers and stretchers). 

In the southwest, also possibly cut by Petrie’s excavations, Feature 2 in Sq. 0A is the tumbled vaulting of Rooms E and F. The 

bricks lay in a northeast–southwest orientation (Figures 8.139–

8.140), opposite the line of vaulting elsewhere in the building. 

Thus, this may be the remains of the brick ground floor above 

rather than the vaulting. Feature 1 in Locus 10 (excavated in 

1973) may be the remains of a 0.7-m-wide round tabun (comprising an ashy area and a thin mud wall) in the northern corner 

of the room (Feature 1, Figures 8.141, 8.142). The floor in this 

FIGURE 8.114. Building I, Room A, northwest wall and fallen(?) vault.
490 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.115. Pottery from Building I, Room A. AS = Assyrian-style pottery; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl 5920/1 GM 1B (14) 2

b Bowl; rsb (outside) 5880/1 GM 1B (15) 1

c Bowl;, rsb 5883/1 GM 1B (14) 2

d Bowl; rsb 5916/1 GM 1B (11) 2

e Bowl; rsb (outside) 5883/2 GM 1B (14) 2

f Bowl/krater; rsb 5883/3 GM 1B (14) 2

g Bowl; rsb SI Cat. No. 488 GM 1B (14) 2

h Bowl/bottle; rs RV 112 GM 1B (14a) 2

i Bowl; wheel burnish RV 134 GM 1B (11) 2

j Base 5883/5 GM 1B (14) 2

k Bowl; whitish clay (AS) SI Cat. No. 217.3 GM 1B (11) 2

l Bowl; reddish clay, burnish outside (AS) SI Cat. No. 217.1 GM 1B (11) 2

m Bowl; pinkish-whitish clay (AS) SI Cat. No. 217 (IAA 71-335, IMJ) GM 1B (11) 2

n Bowl; reddish clay (AS) Box 405A/1 GM 1B (11) 2

o Bowl; whitish (AS) Box 408A/1 GM 1B (11) 2

p Bowl; whitish (AS) Box 406A/1 GM 1B (11) 2

q Beaker; whitish (AS) SI Cat. No. 245.2 GM 1B F14

r Krater 5916/2 GM 1B (11) 2

s Cooking pot 5883/4 GM 1B (14) 2

t Cooking jug/pot 5893/1 GM 1B (15a) 1
NUMBER 50 • 491

FIGURE 8.116. Finds from Building I, Room A.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar 5920/3 GM 1B (14) 2

b Jar 5880/2 GM 1B (15) 1

c Jar 1592/2 GM 1B Wall F {F15}

d Jar 5920/4 GM 1B (14) 2

e Jug 5916/3 GM 1B (11) 2

f Juglet; rs RV 137 GM 0B–2B Room A

g Lamp; soot 5893/2 GM 1B (15a) 1

h Handmade vessel (jar?) 5920/5 GM 1B (14) 2

i Figurine Reg. No. 1245 GM 1B (14) 2

j Worked sherd Reg. No. 3655 GM 1B (14) 2

k Weight/loom weight Reg. No. 1650 GM 1B (11) 2

l Loom weight Reg. No. 1943 GM 1B (11) 2

m Clay plug/sealing Reg. No. 2143 GM 1B (15) 1

n Spatula; bone Reg. No. 1452 GM 1B (11) 2

o Grinding stone; sandstone Reg. No. 895 GM 1B F10

p Beads (carnelian, faience) Reg. No. 819a GM 1B (14)

q Beads (faience) Reg. No. 819 GM 1B (14)
492 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.117. Assyrian-style pottery from above Building I, Room A.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl; reddish clay Box 31/9 GM 1B (11) 1 5

b Bowl; reddish clay Box 404A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

c Bowl; whitish clay SI Cat. No. 458 GM 0B (8) 5 5?

d Bowl; whitish clay Box 401A/1 GM 1B TT2 5?

e Bowl; whitish clay Box 402A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

f Bowl; whitish clay Box 39/2 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5

g Bowl; whitish clay Box 39/1 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5

h Bowl; reddish clay, white outside Box 403A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

i Bowl/beaker; reddish clay Box 32/4 GM 1B (11) 1 5

j Bowl; coarse reddish clay Box 32/8 GM 1B (11) 1 5

k Bowl; reddish clay Box 300C/1 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5?

l Bowl; whitish clay Box 32/2 GM 1B (11) 1 5

m Bowl/beaker; whitish clay Box 31/3 GM 1B (11) 1 5

n Bowl/beaker; whitish clay Box 31/4 GM 1B (11) 1 5

o Bowl/beaker; whitish clay Box 31/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

p Bowl/beaker; whitish clay Box 31/5 GM 1B (11) 1 5

q Bowl/beaker; reddish clay Box 31/7 GM 1B (11) 1 5

r Bowl/beaker; whitish clay Box 31/2 GM 1B (11) 1 5

s Bowl; reddish clay Box 32/7 GM 1B (11) 1 5

t Bowl; reddish clay Box 32/3 GM 1B (11) 1 5

u Bowl; whitish clay Box 32/5 GM 1B (11) 1 5

v Bowl; reddish clay, white outside Box 407A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

w Beaker(?); whitish clay Box 301A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

x Bowl; whitish clay Box 408B/1 GM 1B (10) 1 5

y Bowl; reddish clay Box 32/1A GM 1B (11) 1 5

z Bowl/beaker; reddish clay Box 31/6 GM 1B (11) 1 5

aa Bowl; reddish clay Box 410A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

bb Bowl; whitish clay Box 38/1 GM 1B TT2 5
NUMBER 50 • 493

FIGURE 8.118. Assyrian-style pottery from above Building I, Room A. NA = not available. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl whitish clay NA GM 1B TT3 (1) 5

b Bowl, whitish clay SI Cat. No. 221 GM 1B TT2 5?

c Bowl/beaker, reddish clay Box 31/8 GM 1B (11) 1 5

d Bowl, burnish, reddish clay SI Cat. No. 217.2 GM 1B TT2 5?

e Bowl, reddish clay Box 32/6 GM 1B (11) 1 5

f Bowl, reddish clay Box 300C/2 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5?

g Bowl, reddish clay Box 141A/1 GM ‘Room A’ 5?

h Bowl, reddish clay Box 138/1 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5?

i Bowl Box 31/10 GM 1B (11) 1 5

j Bowl, whitish clay Box 39/3 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5

k Bowl, reddish clay Box 300A/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5

l Beaker, whitish clay SI Cat. No. 245 GM 1B TT2 5?

m Beaker, whitish clay Box 422A/1 GM 1B TT2 5?

n Beaker, whitish clay SI Cat. No. 245.1 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5

o Sherd, reddish clay Box 31/12 GM 1B (11) 1 5

p Sherd, reddish clay Box 31/11 GM 1B (11) 1 5

q Sherd, whitish clay Box 38/2 GM 1B TT2 5

r Sherd, reddish clay Box 38/3 GM 1B TT2 5
494 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

fully preserved along Wall G (Figures 8.119, 8.120). The walls 

in this room stand at least 2.2 m above the room’s brick floor (at 

58.12 m), and the vaulting is very well preserved (Figures 8.145, 

8.148: Sq. 0A, Feature 2; Sq. 00A, Feature 4; and Sq. 0B, Feature 5); this may be seen is Sq. 0A as well (Figure 8.137, Room 

E). The brick floor did not contain any installations and was 

built of three rows of 50 cm bricks (Figures 8.145, 8.146). The 

remains in Sq. 00A were heavily eroded in the west. Wall 3 in Sq. 

0B (60.87–59.14 m) is probably part of the vaulting as well as 

possibly the flooring of the ground floor above (Figures 8.147, 

8.148, such as Sq. 00A, Feature 4), as the bricks lie in a direction perpendicular to the voussoirs in the arches. The fill and 

debris in this room were excavated in Sq. 00A as one unit (Layer 

1, Locus 3, Figure 8.149), with an accumulation up to 2.65 m 

from 58.11 to 60.30 m. In Sq. 0B, the debris was excavated in 

below), similar to at least three other jars from the room (Figure 

8.143e,g). A large conical stopper made of unbaked clay (Figure 

8.144a) should also be noted, and it may have sealed such a jar.

Small finds from Room E (Figure 8.144) include a perforated 

cylindrical object, maybe a kernos fragment (Figure 8.144b), and 

quite a few metal objects, including three iron arrowheads (Figure 8.144c–e), an iron blade fragment (Figure 21.5e), an iron 

hook (Figure 8.144f), a bronze shallow bowl or spoon (Figure 

8.144g), and a stone pendant (Figure 8.144h) and beads (Reg. 

Nos. 733, 799, 810), as well as a bronze earring (Reg. No. 

1942A; see chapter 22).

Room F

Room F (Figures 8.145–8.155) is about 1.7 by at least 7.3 m 

in its internal measurements, and it was partly excavated in Sqs. 

0A, 00A, an 0B (Figures 8.90, 8.107); the western part in Sq. 

00A is heavily eroded (Figure 8.110). This long, narrow room is 

defined by outer Wall 1 of Sq. 00A in the northwest, inner Wall 

2 in the southeast (this wall is plastered in several segments), 

and Wall G of Sq. 1B in the northeast (also Sq. 0B, Wall 6); as 

noted, the passage between Rooms F and A was excavated and 

FIGURE 8.120. Section of doorway between Rooms A and F.

FIGURE 8.119. Passage between Building I, Rooms A and F from 

Room A (Sq. 1B).
NUMBER 50 • 495

FIGURE 8.121. Building I, Room B, Sq. 1A, Walls 4 and 5 and brick floor, looking east.

FIGURE 8.122. Building I, Room B, vaults supported by poles and brick floor, looking northeast.
496 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.123. Square 1A: Locus 8, Layer 2, debris in Building I, Room B.

FIGURE 8.124. Doorway between Rooms E and 

B in Building I, from Room E (Sq. 1A).
NUMBER 50 • 497

FIGURE 8.125. Doorway in Sq. 1A, 

Locus 7, Layer 12, looking west.

FIGURE 8.126. Inside doorway between Rooms B and E (Sq. 1A, Locus 

9, Layer 1).
498 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Small finds from Room F (Figure 8.153) include a molded 

female figurine (Figure 8.153c), worked sherds (Figure 8.153d 

and Reg. Nos. 3172, 3178), several pyramidical clay weights, 

including two complete examples (Figure 8.153e,f and Reg. Nos. 

1583, 1599, 1674), a stone pyxis(?) (Figure 8.153k), a limestone 

mortar fragment (Figure 8.153j), two iron points/nails (Figure 

8.153g,h), a bronze piece with a textile attached to it (Reg. No. 

2026), a pillar-shaped terracotta bead (Reg. No. 824; see chapter 22), and a bone spatula (Figure 8.153i; see chapter 25); two 

worked astragali were also found here (see chapter 33). The 

faunal remains also indicate cooking and/or food consumption 

activities (or possibly food storage, as suggested in chapter 33) 

in Room F. Of the 193 bones studied from Building I, 174 were 

found in Room F, including four fish bones (see chapter 33, Table 

33.12); these were rarely found elsewhere. A total of 82 Cerastoderma glaucum shells (common sea shells) were identified in this 

room as well (see Appendix 33.1). 

THE ARCHITECTURE OF PHASE 5 AND 

ITS NEO-ASSYRIAN CHARACTERISTICS

In this section, the architectural characteristics of the structures at Tell Jemmeh Field IV, Phase 5 will be summarized and 

then compared to Neo-Assyrian architectural traditions. As 

noted, if the level of Building I, Rooms A–F is the basement 

floor of the building, the inner ground floor plan can hardly 

be reconstructed, as only patches of the brick floors were preserved. Nevertheless, if it is assumed that the ground floor follows the basement plan, a reconstruction may be suggested 

(Figures 8.109, 8.157); another option would be to reconstruct 

the ground floor like that of Building II (see Figure 8.156). The 

connection between Building I and the upper phase of Building 

II seems apparent as the two buildings perfectly abut each other; 

possibly, they complemented each other in an array of administrative structures. Note that the pebble floor of Room A (Phase 

5, Figure 8.92) in Building II is about 0.6–0.7 m higher than the 

floor levels of the rooms in Building I. Thus, if we assume that 

both buildings were contemporary, the lower floor in Building I 

is not a full story under the ground floor of Building II. It is possible, therefore, that the lower floor was a ground floor, and the 

floor above the vaulting in Building I was an upper floor. However, it is still possible that because of a natural slope (the area 

does slope up to 1.5 m to the east in this area; see above), the 

lower Building I floor was located underground as a basement 

floor (see Figures 8.156, 8.157). The nearby area was excavated 

by Petrie (1928: pl. IX), but the plan contemporary with Field 

IV, Phase 5 is difficult to reconstruct (see Figure 8.158). Level 

E-F of Petrie’s excavations shows certain similarities to Building I 

and II, although it is dated earlier (his XXIInd Dynasty town, or 

Stratum E-F). Similar architecture, both in plan, size, and brick 

laying technique, can probably be seen in Buildings ET-EW-EY 

and EB-EG (Petrie, 1928:6–7, pl. IX and possibly also pl. X, 

although there dated earlier, to the XXIInd Dynasty). Both these 

layers in Petrie’s excavation (Layers E-F and C-D, the XXIInd 

and XXIIIrd Dynasty towns) probably illustrate the massive use 

Locus 4, Layers 13A–16. This thick layer yielded many pottery 

vessels and small finds; some probably come from the ground/

upper floor, whereas others come from the basement/lower floor, 

but as the whole layer was excavated as one unit, it is impossible 

to separate the two.

The rich pottery assemblage from Room F mostly comes 

from the thick fill in Layer 1 in Locus 3 in Sq. 00A (Figures 

8.150–8.153) and includes mainly open and carinated redslipped and plain bowls (Figure 8.150a–n), rims of large holemouth kraters (Figure 8.150o–q), two chalice fragments (Figure 

8.151i,j), and several cooking pots fragments (Figure 8.150s–z). 

Several storage jars (Figure 8.152a–j) include one intact jar (Figure 8.152a), a bag-shaped jar (Figure 8.152b), and Phoenicianstyle storage jar fragments (Figure 8.152j). Several jugs and 

juglets (Figure 8.152k–p), a complete mortarium bowl with a 

flat base (Figure 8.151k), and a red-slipped spoon flask (Figure 

8.152q) were also retrieved. Several Assyrian-style vessels were 

also found in Room F (Figure 8.151a–h), including a complete 

thin-ribbed bowl (Figure 8.151a) and two complete open bowls 

(Figure 8.151g,h). Two unclear pottery objects (Figure 8.153a,b) 

are illustrated as well. An Ionian cup and an Attic sherd (Figures 14.1h, 14.3b; also Figure 14.2a) originating from this fill 

are probably intrusive.

FIGURE 8.127. Section of doorway between Rooms E and B in 

Building I.
NUMBER 50 • 499

FIGURE 8.128. Finds from Building I, Room B. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; rs (inside) 3063/1 GM 1A (2) 8

b Bowl; rsb 3050/3 GM 1A (3) 8

c Bowl; rs 3050/2 GM 1A (3) 8

d Bowl SI Cat. No. 77.7 GM 1A (3) 8

e Bowl; rsb 3063/3 GM 1A (2) 8

f Bowl; rsb (outside) 3063/4 GM 1A (2) 8

g Bowl; rs 3050/1 GM 1A (3) 8

h Bowl/cooking pot 3063/6 GM 1A (2) 8

i Bowl 3050/4 GM 1A (3) 8

j Krater/bowl 3063/5 GM 1A (2) 8

k Bowl; rs 3038/1 GM 1A (1) 9

l Krater/bowl 3063/2 GM 1A (2) 8

m Krater 3050/5 GM 1A (3) 8

n Krater? 3063/7 GM 1A (2) 8

o Jar 1390/1 GM 1A (2) 8

p Jar 3050/6 GM 1A (3) 8

q Jar; soot 3050/7 GM 1A (3) 8

r Jar 3038/2 GM 1A (1) 9

s Jug; rs 3063/8 GM 1A (2) 8

t Juglet 5618/1 GM 1A (1) 9

u Worked sherd Reg. No. 3155 GM 1A (2) 8

v Worked sherd Reg. No. 3156 GM 1A (2) 8

w Iron nail Reg. No. 274 GM 1A (3) 8
500 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

plan, which comprises a large courtyard and elongated rooms 

surrounding it (see Mattingly, 1980; Reich, 1996; see also further discussion in the synthesis in chapter 34).

Although Building I was not violently destroyed and the 

ground floor was barely preserved, there is a significant assemblage of pottery and small finds from the building. The finds 

from the different rooms are compared in Table 8.2. Rooms A 

and F (which are connected) show more intensive and diversified 

of Assyrian-style brick laying and Assyrian-style palace ware 

pottery (Petrie, 1928:6–7, pl. XII, top). Also, buildings denoted 

as dating to the 7th century BCE (Petrie, 1928: pl. XI; Reich, 

1996) that were probably also used during the Persian period 

(according to Attic pottery found in them) may have been at 

least partly erected during the period contemporary with Phase 

5. Petrie’s Building B, the “residence,” may particularly be dated 

to this period and may show certain Assyrian influences in its 

FIGURE 8.129. Building I, Room C, Sq. 2A, northwest wall, vaults, and brick floor, looking northeast.
NUMBER 50 • 501

FIGURE 8.132. Vault in southwestern wall of Room C.

FIGURE 8.131. Building I, Room C, close-up on Feature 14, Layer 

5, looking east.

FIGURE 8.130. Building I, Room C (Sq. 2A, vaults 

and brick floor).
502 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.133. Two storage jars on floor of Room C 

during excavation.

FIGURE 8.134. Close-up of the two storage jars.
NUMBER 50 • 503

FIGURE 8.135. Finds from Building I, Room C. Bld = building; AS = Assyrian-style pottery; rs = red slipped; af = after firing.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl; rs 2655/1 GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

b Bowl 2627/1 GM 2A F14 (2) 5 Bld I, Room C

c Jug? 2627/2 GM 2A F14 (2) 5 Bld I, Room C

d Bowl 2655/2 GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

e Bowl/beaker; reddish, white outside (AS) Box 247/1 GM 2A TT4 (6) 5? Bld I, Room C?

f Cooking pot? 2629/1 GM 2A F14 (1) 5 Bld I, Room C

g Krater/jar 2651/1 GM 2A F14 (2) 5 Bld I, Room C

h Jar SI Cat. No. 377 GM 2A F14 5 Bld I, Room C

i Jar 2627/3 GM 2A F14 (2) 5 Bld I, Room C

j Jar 2639/1 GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

k Jar 2639/2 GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

l Juglet/bottle 2639/3 GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

m Jug; vertical burnish 4096/1 GM 2A W4 FT 5 Bld I, Room C FT

n Chalice, perforated, thick white slip RV 143 (SI Cat. No. 366) GM 2A F14 (3) 5 Bld I, Room C

o Jar/jug handle + mark, af Reg. No. 1969 GM 2A F14 (2) 5 Bld I, Room C

p Bronze arrowhead Reg. No. 1010 (SI Cat. No. 169) GM 2A F14 1 5 Bld I, Room C

q Scarab Reg. No. 1159 (SI Cat. No. 235) GM 1A (12) 7 5 Bld I, Room C?
504 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.137. Close-up of vaults in Building I, Room E (Sq. 0A).

FIGURE 8.136. Square 1A, Locus10, Layer 1A, brick 

tumble in Building I, Room E.
NUMBER 50 • 505

FIGURE 8.138. Room E from the inside, showing vaults (doorway to 

Room B?).

FIGURE 8.139. Room E from the inside and 

Sq. 1A, Wall 4.
506 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.140. Square 1A: Building I, Room E, vaults supported by poles and brick floor, looking 

northeast.

FIGURE 8.141. Inside Room E (Sq. 1A, Locus 10, Layer 4), looking north; note tabun remains on the 

right.
NUMBER 50 • 507

(see Figure 34.2g; Stronach and Roaf, 2007: fig. 4.1). Also, in 

Syria, much earlier, in the Khabur valley at Tell Sheikh Hamad 

(see Figure 34.2f; Pfälzner, 1995; Pucci, 2008:55, figs. 2, 3), a 

structure with at least 12 rooms has a somewhat similar plan 

(but larger in size); it was dated to the 13th and 12th centuries 

BCE, the Middle Assyrian period. The lower floor had a brick 

paving and contained grain sacks and wooden beams, and an 

archive with hundreds of tablets was located in its upper story. 

The structure had arched doorways similar to those found at Tell 

Jemmeh. At 8th century BCE Zincirli, an auxiliary building next 

to the Upper Palace, used as a storeroom (where some wine jars 

were found), has a similar plan (von Luschan, 1893–1911: pl. 

22; Frankfort, 1970:283, fig. 330). Its full size (25 × 15 m) was 

completely uncovered. 

Examples for the more typical Neo-Assyrian palace architecture (see, e.g., Amiran and Dunayevsky, 1958) in the 

southern Levant include Ayelet Ha-Shahar, near Hazor (Reich, 

1975:234,236), and Ashdod-Ad Halom (Kogan-Zehavi, 2005:89; 

2007; see chapter 34). Such architecture does occur in various Assyrian royal or administrative centers in the Levant and has been 

discussed in research on several occasions (see Bloom, 1988:83–

86; Reich, 1992:214–220; Stern, 2003:222–224; Kogan-Zehavi, 

activities (storage, cooking, Assyrian-style pottery, jewelry). Two 

inscriptions were found, one in Room A and one in Room E; 

Room C yielded a scarab.

The subsequent question is how to characterize this building in terms of cultural significance and function according to its 

plan, building techniques, and finds. The affiliation of all these 

aspects with the Neo-Assyrian Empire of the late 8th century 

BCE has already been raised on several occasions in the past 

(e.g., Van Beek, 1973, 1993a) but should be reexamined here, as 

the data are now presented in full. Building I at Jemmeh, with its 

three elongated units, may resemble in its plan several auxiliary 

buildings (Figure 34.2), probably used for storage, found at NeoAssyrian palaces such as at Kalah/Nimrud (e.g., Mallowan, 1966: 

figs. 35, 42, NW palace, NE area) and Arslan Tash (Turner, 1968: 

pl. XVII, Rooms XXXII–XLII; these rooms are much larger than 

Jemmeh Building I and were interpreted as magazines by the excavator [Thureau-Dangin et al., 1931:30] and by Turner as a 

shrine). Another possibly similar structure was recorded from 

Palace F at Khorsabad (Loud and Altman, 1938: pl. 72: Rooms 

27–31). The fort at Nush-i Jan, a Median site in western central 

Iran (ca. 750–600 BCE), also has a roughly similar plan to Jemmeh Building I, yet the Iranian structure is much more massive 

FIGURE 8.142. Close-up of tabun remains, Sq. 1A, Feature 1 in Building I, Room E.
508 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.143. Pottery from Building I, Room E.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; red slip, burnish 4863/1 GM 0A (9)

b Krater 3072/1 GM 1A (1A) 10

c Krater (KR2) RV 992 (SI Cat. No. 456) GM 0A/1A 

d Cooking pot; soot RV 182 GM 0A (9)

e Jar RV 43 GM 0A (9)

f Jar RV 27 GM 1A (1) 10

g Jar 3036/2 GM 1A (1) 10

h Jar 3036/1 GM 1A (1) 10

i Jar 4863/2 GM 0A (9)

j Jar 4863/3 GM 0A (9)

k Jar 3072/2 GM 1A (1A) 10

l Juglet 1387/1 GM 1A (1) 10

m Sherd (Philistine) Box 81 GM 1A (1) 10

n Sherd 3034/1 GM 1A (1) 10
NUMBER 50 • 509

FIGURE 8.144. Finds from Building I, Room E.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Stopper Reg. No. 1942 GM 0A (9)

b Cylindrical object, kernos? Reg. No. 1661 GM 1A (1) 10

c Iron arrowhead Reg. No. 1281 (SI Cat. No. 465) GM 0A (9)

d Iron point Reg. No. 1282 (SI Cat. No. 468) GM 1A (1) 10

e Iron arrowhead Reg. No. 1292 (SI Cat. No. 440) GM 0A (9)

f Iron hook Reg. No. 249 GM 1A (1) 10

g Bronze spoon/bowl Reg. No. 1355 (SI Cat. No. 463) GM 0A (9)

h Pendant; stone Reg. No. 808 GM 1A (1) 10

FIGURE 8.145. Floor of upper 

story and vaulting in Building I, 

Room F (Sq. 00A, Feature 4), looking northwest.
510 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.146. Floor of upper story and vaulting in Room F (Sqs. 00A–00B), looking south.

FIGURE 8.147. Square 00A: vault in Room F, looking east.
NUMBER 50 • 511

FIGURE 8.148. Close-up on vaults in Room F (Feature 4).

FIGURE 8.149. Fill in Room F (Sq. 00A, Locus 3, Layer 1).
512 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.150. Pottery from Building I, Room F. NA = not available; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; rsb 4882/1 GM 00A (1) 3

b Bowl; rsb 4882/3 GM 00A (1) 3

c Bowl; rs 5332/3 GM 0B (14) Room F

d Bowl; rsb 4882/2 GM 00A (1) 3

e Bowl; rs 5332/1 GM 0B (14) Room F

f Bowl; rs 5332/4A GM 0B (14) Room F

g Bowl; rs 5332/2 GM 0B (14) Room F

h Bowl; rsb 4882/5 GM 00A (1) 3

i Bowl; rs 4882/6 GM 00A (1) 3

j Bowl; brown slip inside 4882/7 GM 00A (1) 3

k Bowl; rsb 4882/4 GM 00A (1) 3

l Bowl; soot RV 737A GM 00A (1) 3

m Bowl RV 737 GM 00A (1) 3

n Bowl/jug; white slip 4602/1 GM 0B (16) 4

o Krater 4853/1 GM 00A (1) 3

p Krater 4874/1 GM 00A F4

q Krater 4853/1 GM 00A (1) 3

r Bowl/krater; rs outside 4882/9 GM 00A (1) 3

s Cooking pot; soot RV 253/1 GM 00A (1) 3

t Cooking pot 4854/2 GM 00A (1) 3

u Cooking pot 4854/4 GM 00A (1) 3

v Cooking pot; soot RV 250 GM 00A (1) 3

w Cooking pot RV 250A GM 00A (1) 3

x Cooking pot 4854/3 GM 00A (1) 3

y Cooking pot NA GM 00A (1) 3

z Cooking pot 5332/8 GM 0B (14) Room F
NUMBER 50 • 513

Shipton, 1939:77–83, fig. 89; Bloom, 1988:94–99; Peersman, 

2000), Tell Farah (N), Level VIId (Chambon, 1984:44–46, pls. 

19–20, courtyard Palace 148), Balakhiyah in Gaza (Humbert 

and Sadeq, 2000:105–120), Tel Sera’ (Oren, 1993b), Tel Haror 

(Oren, 1993c), Tell Abu Salima (Petrie and Ellis, 1937; Reich, 

1992:221, fig. 17; Stern, 2003:223), and Busayrah (Bennet, 

1982). Possible examples include Tel Dothan (Free, 1959:24; 

Master et al., 2005:102–115, House 14, fig. 10.25, although 

there dated to earlier in the 9th century BCE), the ground plan of 

Tel Miqne Building 650 of Stratum IB, and the Stratum II–I complexes at Lachish (see Bloom, 1988:99–109). The actual building 

of garrisons or forts is also mentioned in various Neo-Assyrian 

texts (especially see Parker, 1997: Nimrud Letter 67). 

It should be noted, therefore, that so far, no architectural 

elements at Tell Jemmeh clearly indicate palatial Assyrian architecture, i.e., the classic plan of large courtyards and surrounding 

elongated rooms all built on a podium. Moreover, the basic plan 

of Building I with its elongated and square units could possibly 

also fit Levantine structures, such as Palace 6000 at Megiddo 

(e.g., Peersman, 2000; Lehmann and Killebrew, 2010) dated to 

the Iron IIA (for reservations regarding the Assyrian attributes of 

the Jemmeh vaulted building, see Bloom, 1988:109–114). However, the possible reconstruction of Building II in Phase 5 as a 

courtyard structure flanked by elongated rooms may relate to 

2007:60–78). One of the best examples is the more recently 

discovered structure north of Tel Ashdod, Ad Halom junction 

(Kogan-Zehavi, 2005, 2006, 2007), which was most probably an 

administrative palace or fortress built on an up to 2-m-high brick 

podium (Kogan-Zehavi, 2007:36–39, 79–80, table 3, fig. 8). At 

this site other Assyrian elements include a bathroom (KoganZehavi, 2007:41–42, 81–83, fig. 9), the use of the Sargonic cubit 

for the square bricks (Kogan-Zehavi, 2007:83; the same measurements used in Khorsabad, 40 × 40 × 10 cm), brick flooring, and 

the general reconstructed plan of a large courtyard surrounded by 

elongated rooms (Kogan-Zehavi, 2007:79–85, fig. 12). It should 

be noted, however, that only a small portion of the Assyrian 

structure north of Tel Ashdod has been excavated thus far. 

Other examples of Neo-Assyrian-style architecture in the 

southern Levant include the building of high rectilinear podiums and palaces or fortresses built on them (see, e.g., Reich, 

1992:208–210, 214–222) with certain architectural characteristics (such as the large courtyard surrounded by long rooms), 

which may have been found also at Megiddo, Stratum III 

(Lamon and Shipton, 1939:77–83, fig. 89), Rishon Le-Zion 

(Levy et al., 2004), and Ruqeish (Oren, 1993a: Phases II–III). 

Other examples show plans (or fragments) of a large courtyard 

surrounded by elongated rooms (see also Table 34.1): Hazor, 

Area B (Reich, 1993: fig. 12), Megiddo, Stratum III (Lamon and 

FIGURE 8.151. Pottery from Building I, Room F. AS = Assyrian-style pottery.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; whitish clay with grits (AS) SI Cat. No. 532 GM 00A (1) 3

b Bowl; burnish (AS) RV 120 GM 00A (1) 3

c Bowl (AS) RV 116 GM 00A (1) 3

d Bowl; reddish clay (AS) Box 114/2 GM 00A (1) 3

e Bowl; coarse reddish clay (AS) Box 114/1 GM 00A (1) 3

f Bowl; reddish clay (AS) SI Cat. No. 530 GM 00A Room F

g Bowl; burnished (AS) SI Cat. No. 531 GM 00A (1) 3

h Bowl; reddish clay (AS) SI Cat. No. 536 GM 00A (1) 3

i Chalice 4854/5 GM 00A (1) 3

j Chalice; white slip 4854/6 GM 00A (1) 3

k Mortarium bowl RV 708 (SI Cat. No. 482.23) GM 00A (1) 3
514 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.152. Pottery from Building I, Room F. NA = not available; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar RV 995 (SI Cat. No. 529) GM 00A (1) 3

b Jar 1405/1 GM 00A (1) 3

c Jar 4853/4 GM 00A (1) 3

d Jar/jug 4853/6 GM 00A (1) 3

e Jar 4853/7 GM 00A (1) 3

f Jar 4853/5 GM 00A (1) 3

g Jar 4854/7 GM 00A (1) 3

h Jar RV 253A GM 00A (1) 3

i Jar NA GM 0B (5a) 4

j Jar 5332/5 GM 0B (14) Room F

k Jug; soot 1409/1 GM 00A (1) 3

l Jug; soot 1410/1 GM 00A (1) 3

m Jug; soot 1408/1 GM 00A (1) 3

n Juglet; soot RV 153 (SI Cat. No. 517) GM 00A Room F

o Juglet 4854/8 GM 00A (1) 3

P Jug; rsb (white decoration?) RV 275A GM 00A (1) 3

q Spoon flask; rs 4882/10 GM 00A (1) 3
NUMBER 50 • 515

FIGURE 8.153. Finds from Building I, Room F.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Perforated ceramic object 4602/2 GM 0B (16) 4

b Spout? 5332/9 GM 0B (14) Room F

c Figurine Reg. No. 1244 GM 0B (15a) 4

d Worked sherd Reg. No. 1748 GM 00A Room F 

e Loom weight Reg. No. 1514 GM 0B (14) Room F

f Loom weight Reg. No. 1572 GM 0B (14) Room F

g Iron point Reg. No. 1283 (SI Cat. No. 466) GM 0B (14) Room F 

h Iron nail(?) Reg. No. 268 GM 00A (1) 3

i Spatula; bone Reg. No. 1472 GM 00A (1) 3

j Limestone bowl/mortar Reg. No. 680 (SI Cat. No. 541) GM 00A (1) 3

k Pyxis(?); stone Reg. No. 2197 GM 00A Room F 

FIGURE 8.154. Sections through rooms in Building I (Section A–A1, SE–NW).
516 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.155. Sections through rooms in Building I (SW–NE?).

FIGURE 8.156. Reconstruction and section of Buildings I and II.
NUMBER 50 • 517

FIGURE 8.158. Late Iron Age remains in Petrie’s and the Smithsonian’s excavations in Field IV (approximate orientations and locations).

FIGURE 8.157. Suggested isometric reconstruction of Building I (courtesy Brian Lalor).
518 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

each side of the wall (Figure 8.159). The trench was filled with 

sand, possibly up to the level of the floor at the time of construction. In several cases in Fields I (Sq. KB, Figure 7.66) and IV 

(Figure 8.161), a capping, or several flat-lying bricks, was used, 

probably to protect and stabilize the trench and sand in it. The 

function of the sand-filled foundation trench was probably to 

strengthen the walls, giving them a certain flexibility that could 

prevent collapsing as in the case of an earthquake or sliding of 

soil (see Van Beek, 1996). Notably, stone foundations for the 

brick walls were used, although rarely (see possibly Figure 8.48) 

and apparently not in major walls. It should be noted that the 

walls in Buildings I–III in Field IV are not very wide (rarely above 

1 m in thickness), including major outer walls. Possibly, at least 

in Building I, the stability of the building was based on the inner 

vaulting as well as on the fact that much of the building was built 

under ground, rather than on the thickness of the outer walls. 

Two types of bricks were commonly used at Tell Jemmeh 

(Figures 8.168–8.172): rectangular bricks used in most late 

Iron Age walls, which commonly measure 50 × 20 × 14 cm, 

and square bricks measuring 40 × 40 cm or larger, which were 

more often used for floors or for vaulting. (Square bricks are also 

more typical of Persian period architecture of Phases 2–4.) The 

rectangular late Iron Age bricks could also be distinguished by 

their clay, having a finer chocolate clay-like appearance, creating 

a shining look (in contrast to more sandy-grained bricks from 

earlier periods; see, e.g., Figures 8.17, 8.19, 8.37); these were 

also very standardized in shape and size. The appearance of the 

bricks as well as the manner in which the walls were constructed 

enabled the distinct identification of late Iron Age architecture 

in the field, differentiating it clearly from post–Iron Age (i.e., 

Persian period) architecture.

The bricks were laid in the walls in various fashions. One 

example is laying the bricks as headers; that is, the width of the 

wall is determined by the length of the brick: in narrow walls (especially in earlier periods; see also Field III, chapter 3), one row 

was laid (creating a 0.5-m-thick wall), whereas wider walls were 

created by two rows (Figures 8.59, 8.77), creating an ~1-m-wide 

wall. Bricks could also be laid as stretchers with the long side 

Neo-Assyrian palatial architecture. In fact, the main links between Tell Jemmeh and the Neo-Assyrian administrative architectural traditions lie in the building techniques reflected by the 

remains of Field IV at Tell Jemmeh. Therefore, this aspect will be 

discussed in more detail in the next section. 

SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING 

TECHNIQUES EVIDENCED IN FIELD IV

A more detailed discussion of building techniques found in 

the late Iron Age remains in Field IV (especially in Building I, 

Phase 5; see also Figures 8.154–8.155, 8.159–8.167) will be presented here. This discussion is warranted for two main reasons: 

(1) Certain building techniques discovered at Tell Jemmeh Field 

IV are highly uncommon for the Iron Age Levant. (2) Examining these techniques may help us both clarify the function of 

the structures under discussion and examine whether “alien” 

cultural and ethnic components could indicate an Assyrian administrative presence at the site (and possibly its nature). The 

techniques discussed include brick wall construction, vaulting, 

flooring, and roofing.

Brick Construction

The late Iron Age buildings are made exclusively of mud 

bricks, used for walling, flooring, and arch vaulting (and possibly roofing); different bricks and techniques were used for each 

of these functions. The strength of the late Iron Age basement 

walls and other structures at Tell Jemmeh can indeed be evidenced by their standing to almost full height in certain places 

until present day. Walls are built exclusively of mud brick and 

show several distinctive features. In many cases at Tell Jemmeh 

walls were preserved up to a height of 2 m or more, containing 

20 or more well-preserved courses (as Figure 8.46). Stone foundations are rarely used. In several cases, the foundation trenches 

were identified as well (as in Figures 8.17–8.20, 8.159–8.161). 

These were relatively wide, having a margin of 10–20 cm on 

TABLE 8.2. Finds from the different rooms of Building I (Phase 5).

Finds Room A Room B Room C Room E Room F

Installations Brick floor Brick floor Brick floor Tabun Brick floor

Pottery and Assyrian-style Worked sherds, Jars, arrowhead, Jars, metals, Jars, cooking pots, Assyriansmall finds figurine, mud metals scarab arrowhead style figurine, worked 

weights, ground sherds, mud weights, stone, 

stone, necklaces metals

Fauna Shell, fish bones

Inscriptions Ostracon, Reg. Inscribed jar, Reg. 

No. 1957 No. 1958
NUMBER 50 • 519

to several well-preserved examples, the typical size of these 

was either 20 cm square bricks (as in Room C, Figure 8.132) 

or 50-cm-long rectangular bricks (as in Room A, Figures 8.114, 

8.162, 8.166). The narrower side, placed on the bottom, was 21 

cm wide, whereas the upper part was 27 cm wide; the thickness 

was about 12–20 cm. In the doorways, more elongated bricks 

were used (Figures 8.120, 8.127, 8.166, 8.167; “ribbed bricks,” 

Van Beek, 1987, 2007:257–259, figs. 11.37, 11.46); they were 

42–52 cm long on their long curved side, 20 cm wide, and 12 cm 

thick (see Figure 8.166 and an individual brick in Figure 8.167). 

It should be noted that at Tell Jemmeh, this technique is evident 

as early as Phase 8 in Field IV (see Figures 8.30, 8.34, 8.35), a 

phase predating the Neo-Assyrian period at the site. 

Parallels for this type of vaulting are otherwise confined to 

Mesopotamia, Iran, and central Asia, where it appears at a number of sites, notably in structures at Nush-i Jan, in central western 

Iran, which dates to the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE (Stronach, 1969:13, fig. 2, pl. Vb; Stronach and Roaf, 2007:190–191, 

pls. 11–13; Van Beek, 2007:357–358, fig. 11.45). For doorways, 

see Nush-i Jan (Stronach and Roaf, 2007:184–185, pl. 43a,b), 

Nimrud (Mallowan, 1966: figs. 360, 380), Dur Sharrukin (Loud 

along the wall; in this case at least two rows of bricks were used 

(Figures 8.54, 8.58); commonly, a mixture of headers (mostly 

one, in the middle of the wall) and stretchers (either one or two 

on outer sides of the wall) was used in walls (e.g., Figures 8.46, 

8.57, 8.58). In order to strengthen the wall, the orientation was 

changed between courses (see, e.g., Sq. 2B, Wall 5, Figure 8.46), 

along with intermediate patterning within the same course (see, 

e.g., Figure 8.57); these methods were used until modern times in 

brick masonry (see, e.g., Wright, 1985: fig. 301, 2005: fig. 156; 

Van Beek, 2007:266–272).

Vaulting

The most outstanding building technique discovered in Field 

IV, especially in Building I, is the mud brick vaulting, or arch 

building. The basic function of the vaults is to carry the weight 

of the floor in a multistoried building. Special bricks, called voussoirs, were used for the vaulting; they have a narrower side and 

are wedge shaped (Figures 8.132, 8.162, 8.163, 8.165). The term 

is used in Medieval architecture, also called keystone-shaped 

bricks [see also claveau, e.g., Aurenche, 1977:57]. According 

FIGURE 8.159. Square 00A: foundation trench of Wall 1, Feature 6, looking east.
520 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.160. Square 00A: foundation trench of Wall 1, Feature 6.

FIGURE 8.161. Square 00B: Features 4 and 5 (foundation trench and capping), looking southeast.
NUMBER 50 • 521

FIGURE 8.162. Close-up of vaults in northwest wall of Building I, Room A.

FIGURE 8.163. Reconstruction of vaulting supporting a floor in Building I.
522 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.164. Mortar in between the bricks in vaults.

FIGURE 8.165. Mortar between voussoirs in Sq. 00A (Feature 4).
NUMBER 50 • 523

A (Figures 8.114, 8.154) are either a fallen vault made of square 

bricks or a different type of vault; here the floor of the upper 

story (ground floor?) can be clearly seen as being supported by 

the vault.

In the two cases of the arched doorways or passages laid 

within the inner walls of Building I (see Figures 8.119, 8.124, 

8.154), a somewhat different technique was used: arched bricked 

were laid horizontally, with a large key or gap at the top filled 

with mortar (Figure 8.124, Room B to Room E; see also Nimrud, Mallowan, 1966: fig. 360). In the passage between Rooms 

A and F, two rows of voussoirs measuring 33–38 cm were laid 

on top of each other (Figures 8.119, 8.120). These techniques are 

probably not as strong as the regular vaulting, yet as the element 

carries only the weight of the wall above it and not the entire 

floor, they may have been sufficient.

Flooring

The flooring of the rooms was either bricks, pebbles, or 

beaten earth. In Building I, the flooring is almost exclusively 

made of bricks. More commonly, rectangular bricks were used, 

laid in several parallel rows (e.g., Figures 8.56, 8.112, 8.129, 

8.134), seemingly underlying the walls above them (Figure 

8.129); square bricks were also used in floors, although rarely 

(see possibly Figures 8.56, 8.129, 8.185). The bricks were placed 

rather closely together on the floor; they were filled with mortar in various cases where cavities occurred (Figure 8.134). This 

brick flooring was used in the basement floor as well as in the 

ground floor in Building I, where they were supported completely 

by the brick vaults. It should be noted that when concentrations 

of clusters of fallen bricks were found (see Figure 8.136), it was 

difficult to ascertain whether they belonged to vaults or to floors, 

as vertically closely placed square bricks were used in both cases 

(as in Sq. 2B, Feature 5; see above). Pebble floors are used in 

Building II in addition to beaten earth floors, the most commonly 

used floor type in the Levant (see, e.g., Figure 8.92).

and Altman, 1938: pl. 40c), and Tell Hama, Period E (Building V, Fugmann, 1958: figs. 336–338).

The voussoirs were closely laid vertically in the vault with a 

mortar layer 2–3 cm thick in between bricks (Figure 8.166). Because of the arched structure, a gap between the bricks was filled 

with mortar, creating a “keying” pattern on the upper and lower 

faces of the bricks (as well as the upper keystone brick; see Figure 8.167, ~3 cm grooves). The lower layer was often plastered 

with a thick layer of mud mortar (Figures 8.114, 8.132, 8.164, 

8.165). To achieve greater strength in the vaults when several 

rows of voussoirs were used, the gaps between the bricks were 

not aligned between the rows (Figures 8.129, 8.132, Rooms A 

and C). In several cases, at least two courses of voussoirs were 

used in vaults (as in Room F, Sq. 0A, Figures 8.137, 8.154, 

8.155, 8.163, section showing two courses attached to each 

other). In Room E (Figure 8.137) it seems that the two courses 

observed may indicate an upper larger vault, possibly supported 

by a smaller undervault. 

In most cases, the arch can be seen springing from within 

the outer wall of the room (such as Figures 8.108, 8.121, 8.129; 

see also Phase 8, Figures 8.30, 8.33) and not from the floor; this 

technique would strengthen its stability. This technique is also 

referred to as the “pitched-brick” vaulting method (Van Beek, 

2007:345–357, figs. 11.36, 11.37; see also Oates, 1972), in 

which the vault bricks are set at an angle inclined to the room’s 

rear wall. This technique is known so far only from Assyrian 

sites and earlier Mesopotamia. 

In certain cases, if the room was large (such as possibly in 

Building II, Sq. 2B, Feature 5; see Figures 8.129, 8.155), additional walls within the room may have been used, but none were 

preserved. Generally, vaults may have been built in a way where 

they intersected in the upper space of the room in order to support the floor and ceiling (Figure 8.108, possibly Figure 8.111); 

however, often the vaults are clearly located parallel to the walls 

(as in Room A, Figure 8.112), and thus, this was possibly the 

general custom. The tilted flat bricks seen in the wall of Room 

FIGURE 8.166. Square 1A: mortar between grooved bricks in a 

vault.

FIGURE 8.167. A grooved brick from the vaults.
524 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

in the architecture of Khorsabad Dur-Sharrukin, Loud, 1936a, 

1936b; Loud and Altman, 1938: pl. 40c; Turner, 1970).

Three rooms of a vaulted mud brick complex were unearthed in a recent excavation at Nimrud (Hussein and Suleiman, 2000:154-6, Figs. 24–27; Hussein, 2002: figs. 18, 24–26, 

2008:83–90, fig. 12h–k); these rooms were narrow and rectangular, similar to those found at Jemmeh Building I. However, 

the Nimrud structure belonged to a burial complex and was 

probably somewhat earlier, with some inscribed finds dated to 

Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE). The same can be said of similar 

Neo-Assyrian vaulted tombs at Assur (Hausleiter, 1999a: fig. 4) 

and Humaidat near Mosul (Ibrahim, 2002). 

The use of large-scale brick flooring with square bricks is 

common at some sites, such as Assurnasirpal II’s palace at Nimrud (Mallowan, 1966: figs. 42, 137, 138, 186), Tell Halaf (e.g., 

Oppenheim, 1950: figs. 34, 58, 59,100, 101,109, pls. 23, 50–

52), Khorsabad (e.g., Loud and Altman, 1938: pls. 83, 84), and 

the Til Barsib palace (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand, 1936: Plan 

B). Also, the general aspects of brick work and arrangement of 

bricks in the walls has parallels at Tell Halaf (e.g., Oppenheim, 

1950:137–143). A large courtyard building from Tell Halaf also 

illustrates an example of a seemingly vaulted basement under 

the main floor (Oppenheim, 1950:203–208, fig. 103; a similar 

construction at the Nimrud “burnt palace” is discussed by Mallowan, 1966: fig. 187; see also Loud and Altman, 1938:32–33; 

Turner, 1970:183). Elaborate brick vaulting with voussoirs is 

also well known, although with a somewhat earlier date than 

at Jemmeh (dated possibly to the 9th century BCE, but see Jemmeh Phase 8 above), e.g., at Tell Halaf (Oppenheim, 1950: figs. 

50, 53, 54, pls. 22, 24, 28, bottom, 31, bottom) and Nimrud 

(e.g., Mallowan, 1966: fig. 187). Brick arches were also used 

as “drain doors” in Assyrian royal architecture (e.g., Nimrud, 

Mallowan, 1966: figs. 316–317, 365). Note also that at Nimrud, 

Roofing

Roofing is rarely seen, with only a few examples of fragments of bricks or clay lumps with large imprints of straw, which 

may be parts of roofing (see, e.g., Field III in the LBII Phase 11, 

Figure 3.102). Possibly, vaults were also used to carry the roof 

of the structure. 

Neo-­Assyrian Building Techniques

The question arises whether the rather unusual building 

techniques seen in Field IV as well as the ground plan of the structure could indicate the presence of Assyrian administration and/

or Assyrian architects at Tell Jemmeh. For this, the late Assyrian 

evidence from core Assyria should be examined. The examination of palatial late Assyrian architecture and building techniques 

from several important Assyrian centers of the 9th to 7th centuries BCE, such as Kalah Nimrud (Mallowan, 1966), Nineveh, 

Tell Halaf (Oppenheim, 1950), Khorsabad Dur-Sharrukin (Loud, 

1936a; Loud and Altman, 1938), and Arslan Tash (ThureauDangin et al., 1931), indicates certain similarities to the results 

from Tell Jemmeh. Brick arches and vaults (“true arches”; e.g., 

Wright, 1985: fig. 285D) are well known at Mesopotamian sites 

as well as in Early Dynastic Egypt from as early as the third millennium BCE (see, e.g., Oates, 1973; Gibson, 1980:19–28; Wright, 

1985:335, the Royal tombs at Ur; see Van Beek, 2007:316–366 

for techniques and the history of brick arches and vaulting). 

However, brick arches are also known in the Middle Bronze Age 

Levant such as from the MBII gates at Dan and Ashkelon (e.g., 

Biran, 1994: figs. 44–45; Stager et al., 2008:221–224, fig. 14.3). 

This building technique, however, was more intensely used during 

the late Assyrian period, appearing in a variety of building types 

and not only in public buildings or built tombs (for example, 

FIGURE 8.168. Square 2B east section, upper levels.
NUMBER 50 • 525

FIGURE 8.169. Square 2B north section, upper levels.

FIGURE 8.170. Square 2B south section, upper levels.
526 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the rarity of remnants of Iron IIA types (which are quite common 

in Phases 7–6), and the appearance of several late types, which 

are more typical of the Iron IIC (such as the tapering base jar, the 

decanter, and the mortarium bowl). Most notable is the emergence of Assyrian-style pottery, lacking in Phases 6 and 7 and 

appearing in significant quantities in Phase 5. A scarab found in 

Phase 5 (see Figure 8.135q and chapter 27, Gamma No. 140) is 

also dated to 664–600 BCE and may give the earliest possible 

date for this phase as well within the 7th century BCE.

POTTERY OF PHASES 7, 6, AND 5 

(THE LATE IRON AGE II): 

TYPOLOGICAL DISCUSSION

This section will describe the pottery from Phases 7–5 according to their morphological typology. This is not a comprehensive typological classification of the pottery from the site; 

rather, it is a representative discussion that will be used primarily 

to date these phases more accurately and examine the exact regional characteristics of the assemblage. Therefore, certain major 

and common morphological types were given “type numbers” 

(see Figures 8.176, 8.177) to facilitate the discussion and the 

quantitative assessment (see Tables 8.3, 8.4). Other pottery types 

were not given type numbers.

for example, brick flooring and vaulting also appears in private 

houses (e.g., Mallowan, 1954:139–140, pls. XXVIIII–XXIX, especially Room 18, lower left section, 1966:184–190, figs. 120, 

121); there several elongated rooms in private houses, quite similar to the vaulted rooms of Tell Jemmeh Building I, were vaulted 

by brick barrel vaults (see also Layard, 1853:4). See Loud and 

Altman (1938:14–33, pl. 87) for a discussion of Neo-Assyrian 

building techniques, such as a brick vaulted drain in Khorsabad.

These resemblances show strong connections with the NeoAssyrian culture and are combined with the appearance of large 

quantities of Assyrian-style pottery at Tell Jemmeh. The significance of these features will be further discussed in chapters 13 

and 34. 

POTTERY AND DATING OF PHASE 5

The pottery assemblage of Phase 5 (Figures 8.115, 8.128, 

8.135, 8.143, 8.144, 8.150–8.152, 8.173–8.175) is the largest 

and richest of Field IV, mainly because this phase was exposed 

in the largest area (as Building I was not dismantled). Generally, the Phase 5 pottery shows many resemblances to the pottery 

of Phases 7 and 6; most bowls and cooking pot types are similar. However, there are several notable differences (see below as 

well), particularly the decrease of red slip and burnish on bowls, 

FIGURE 8.171. Square 2B west section, upper levels.
NUMBER 50 • 527

FIGURE 8.172. Square 2A south section.
528 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.173. Pottery from Phase 5. Bld = building; AS = Assyrian-style pottery; rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Architecture

a Bowl; rsb 4897/2 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

b Bowl; rs inside and outside 4897/1 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

c Bowl; rsb 4897/4 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

d Bowl; rsb 4897/3 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

e Bowl; rsb 4897/7 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

f Bowl 4897/6 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

g Krater 4897/8 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

h Bowl; whitish clay (AS) Box 111/1 GM 00A (8) Outside Bld I 

i Bowl; whitish clay (AS) Box 111/2 GM 00A (8) Outside Bld I 

j Jar 4897/9 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

k Jar 4897/10 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I?

l Figurine Reg. No. 1241 GM 00A (7) 1 Outside Bld I 

m Bowl; rs 4594/1 GM 0B (15) 4 Locus 4

n Bowl; rs 4594/2 GM 0B (15) 4 Locus 4

o Bowl 4594/3 GM 0B (15) 4 Locus 4

p Jar 4594/4 GM 0B (15) 4 Locus 4

q Jar 4594/5 GM 0B (15) 4 Locus 4
NUMBER 50 • 529

burnish also in the Iron IIB-C (see, e.g., Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.84:1). Good 

parallels for Figure 8.85d (mostly Iron IIA) come, for example, 

from Tell Safi, Stratum A4 (Zukerman, 2012: pl. 13.16:8), Lachish, Level IV (Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.8:9), Ashdod, Strata X–VIII 

(Dothan, 1971: figs. 37:11, 39:16–18; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: figs. 3.82:7,9, 3.88:9,10) and Gezer, Stratum VIIA (Gitin, 

1990: pl. 10:2). This is therefore likely a late Iron IIA form (a 

rounded bowl but somewhat different from Type BL1). 

A complete thin, straight-sided bowl with a flat base (Figure 

8.84c) that is similar in profile to Type BL1 was found in Phase 

6. The bowl is irregularly hand burnished on the interior and 

exterior. This type of bowl, with a more rounded base, appears 

at Lachish, Levels IV–III (e.g., Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.61:1–8, 

1997b: fig. 5.4:5), Arad, Stratum VIII (Singer-Avitz, 2002:130, 

Type B17, fig. 37:2–5), Ashdod, Stratum VIII (Dothan, 1971: 

fig. 39:21–24), and Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level (Stager 

et al., 2011:78, Bowl 5, figs. 5.17, 5.18). These appear mostly 

during the Iron IIB-C; note, however, that these examples usually 

have no red slip on the interior.

Carinated Bowls (Type BL2)

A rather common carinated bowl type appearing in Phases 

7–5 is a small, thin carinated bowl with red slip and burnish 

(Type BL2A, Figure 8.176; the thicker version is Type BL2B). 

These appear in Phase 7 (Figures 8.61f, 8.62f,g, 8.65a,b), Phase 

6 (Figure 8.88d,e), and Phase 5 (Figures 8.96b, 8.104c,d, 8.115g, 

8.135a, 8.143a, 8.150a–d). No complete examples were found, 

but their diameter is probably 14–18 cm. According to fragments preserved, the body has a low carination, and the rims are 

simple and everted; according to more complete parallels, the 

bases are ring shaped. The surface treatment includes a dark red 

slip and delicate hand burnish on the inner side, mostly on the 

entire surface, whereas on the exterior, the red slip covers only 

the upper parts, typically above the carination line (e.g., Figure 

8.62k). Similar bowls appear already in Phase 8 (Figure 8.41d) 

and seem less common in Phase 5. 

Parallels for this type come, for example, from Lachish, 

Level IV (Zimhoni, 1997a:96, Type BL16, figs. 3.21:23, 3.24:1,2, 

3.61:14), ‘Eton, Stratum II (Zimhoni, 1997c: fig. 4.3:6), Ashdod, 

Strata X–IX and VIIIb (Dothan, 1971: fig. 45:5–7; Dothan and 

Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.82:17), Gezer, Stratum VB (Gitin, 1990: 

pl. 22:7,8), and Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:41–42, Type BL27, and references therein). Generally, the 

type is quite common during the Iron IIA but continues into the 

Iron IIB (seemingly not appearing in the Iron IIC; see Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:42). Some small rim fragments that have no 

carination (e.g., Phase 7, Figures 8.61a, 8.62g, 8.65a; Phase 5, 

Figures 8.94a, 8.128b, 8.150b,c) are assumed to belong to this 

type but could belong to a different type (e.g., straight-rimmed 

or straight-sided bowls). 

Another common carinated bowl type of the Iron II (Figure 

8.176, Type BL2B) is thicker than Type BL2A and has a midbody sharp carination. Many of these bowls are red slipped and 

burnished with examples from Phase 7 (Figure 8.62i–k), Phase 

Bowls

The most common bowls are small rounded red-slipped 

bowls (BL1), carinated red-slipped bowls with thickened or 

plain, thin rims (BL2, BL3), and bowls with ledge/hammerhead 

rims (BL4). Open bowls of various types also appear in small 

numbers (BL6, BL7). An Iron IIA bowl type, mostly from Phases 

9–8, was also included in this typology for purposes of quantitative analysis (BL5; see Figures 8.26, 8.41).

Type BL1

Small rounded bowls with red slip and burnish appear in 

Phase 7 (Type BL1, Figures 8.61b, 8.62a,b), Phase 6 (Figures 

8.84a–c,f, 8.85a,b, 8.88a–d [the former unslipped]), and Phase 

5 (Figures 8.104a–d, 8.115a [unslipped], 8.128a, 8.150a,b, 

8.173b); they seem to decrease in relative quantity in Phase 5 

(from 25% in Phase 6 to about 12% in Phase 5; see Table 8.3). 

Their diameter is usually 12–18 cm; few complete examples were 

found (although see Figure 8.84f), but according to parallels, 

these bowls have a delicate ring or disk base. The rim is usually simple and vertical, although in some cases it is slightly inverted (Figure 8.88a, 8.173b). A few cases have delicate grooves 

under the rim (Figure 8.85c, possibly Figure 8.85e). The body is 

rounded to hemispherical. The surface treatment of most of these 

bowls includes red slip and hand burnish (mostly delicate) on the 

outer and inner surfaces of the bowl (see, e.g., Figure 8.84b for 

inner burnish); some cases have no burnish (Figure 8.128a) or 

only red slip on the exterior (Figure 8.61b), whereas others have 

exterior red slip or interior red slip and burnish (Figure 8.84f) or 

are plain on both sides (Figures 8.84a, 8.104b). A deep rounded 

bowl with a simple rim and no slip (Figure 8.115a) was found 

in Phase 5. 

Red-slipped rounded bowls (Type BL1) may be more common during the Iron IIB (see also Iron IIA, Phases 11–8, Figures 

8.11a, 8.26d, with grooves under the rim) but continue to appear during the Iron IIC. Parallels for this common form come, 

for example, from Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni, 1997a:75, 

fig. 3.5:2–5,7–16), Ashdod, Stratum VIII (Dothan, 1971: figs. 

49:12,15,18; Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 13:9), Ashkelon, 

604 BCE destruction level (Stager et al., 2011:72–73, Bowl 1), 

and Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:25, 

Type BL25).

An almost complete red-slipped and burnished bowl (Figure 8.85d) comes from a Phase 6–7 fill layer of Building II. The 

bowl has a simple, slightly thickened, incurving rim, two delicate grooves under the rim, a rounded body, and a delicate flat 

disk base. Surface treatment includes red slip and burnish on the 

outer and inner surfaces; on the inside there is irregular hand 

burnish on the lower part and horizontal burnish on the upper 

part. Rounded bowls with inverted rims also appear in Phase 

5 (Figure 8.150f); these are red slipped and burnished on the 

interior and exterior. This form is common in the Iron IIA, usually with thin red slip and no burnish (see, e.g., Lachish, Level 

V [Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.5:3] and Batash, Stratum IV [Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:34, Type BL25]), yet appears with red 
530 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.174. Pottery from Phase 5. rs = red slipped; rsb = red slipped and burnished.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 2644/4 GM 2A (23B) 5?

b Bowl; brown slip 2644/3 GM 2A (23B) 5?

c Bowl; rsb 2644/1 GM 2A (23B) 5?

d Bowl; rsb 3972/2 GM 1D (31B) 2 5

e Bowl; rs 2644/2 GM 2A (23B) 5?

f Bowl/mortarium? 5360/1 GM 00B F5 5

g Bowl; rsb 1397/1 GM 2B (33) 2A 5?

h bowl; brown slip inside 2644/5 GM 2A (23B) 5?

i Bowl; rsb RV 115 GM 1B TT3 (1) 2 5 Building I?

j Mortarium SI Cat. No. 287.52 GM 1C (8) 1 5?

k Krater RV 1004 GM 2A F18 5 Unit 1

l Cooking pot; soot RV 53 GM 2A F18 5? Unit 1

m Cooking pot; soot 2665/1 GM 2A (24) 5?

n Cooking pot 6636/1 GM 2B (33) 2B 5

o Cooking pot? 5360/3 GM 00B F5 5

p Stand/funnel(?); soot RV 54 GM 2A F18 5? Unit 1
NUMBER 50 • 531

upper exterior being slipped (as Figure 8.115c). One example 

may have a knob attached under the rim (Phase 7, Figure 8.62b). 

Type BL3 bowls are somewhat similar to the typical late 

Iron IIA-B red-slipped and burnished carinated bowls with 

grooves under the rim (e.g., Ashdod [Dothan, 1971: fig. 45:12], 

Batash [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Types 26, 26a], and Tell 

es-Safi, Stratum A3 [Shai and Maeir, 2012:319, Type BL2.1]) 

but are smaller and rarely appear with grooves (possibly Figure 

8.61c). Better parallels come, for example, from Lachish, Levels V–IV (Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.17:1–8), Ashdod, Stratum VIII 

(Dothan, 1971: fig. 39:30), Gezer, Stratum VIA (Gitin, 1990: 

pl. 20:10,12), Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:40, Type 11), and ‘Eton, Strata II–I (Zimhoni, 1997c: figs. 

4.1:6, 4.4:9). This type is common in the Iron IIA and probably 

continues in the Iron IIB but disappears in the Iron IIC; it could 

be possible that some of the small examples from Phase 5 are 

residual.

Other Carinated Bowls

Examples of other various carinated bowls include unslipped bowls from Phase 7 (Figure 8.62l–m). Figure 8.62m, 

6 (Figure 8.89f,g), and Phase 5 (Figures 8.96e, 8.128e, 8.135a, 

8.150); see also an unslipped example from Phase 10 (Figure 

8.11e) and a red-slipped example from Phase 8 (Figure 8.41e). 

Parallels for this form (mainly Iron IIA–B) are very common, 

for example, at Lachish, Levels IV–V (Zimhoni, 1997a:96, 

fig. 3.21:15–24), Ashdod, Strata X–VII (e.g., Dothan, 1971: 

fig. 45:5–7; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:190, fig. 3.82:17), 

Batash, Strata IV–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:41–42, 

Type BL27, and references therein), and Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir, 2012:319–320, Types BL3.2, 3.3, 3.5).

Bowls with Thickened Rims (Type BL3)

Several bowls with thickened rims appear (Figure 8.176, 

Type BL3). These are often red slipped and burnished and, in 

most cases, carinated in their upper part, and their rim is relatively vertical (although several rims are too small to show any 

carination). Examples come from Phase 7 (Figures 8.61g, 8.62b), 

Phase 6 (Figures 8.84g, 8.85e,j,k, 8.89b, the latter three being 

unslipped), and Phase 5 (Figure 8.115c). In most cases both the 

outer and inner surfaces are covered by red slip and burnish. 

Some examples have an inner slip and burnish with only the 

FIGURE 8.175. Pottery from Phase 5. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jar RV 1022 GM 2B (31) 2B 5

b Juglet RV 158 (SI Cat. No. 941) GM 2B Room B 5? /8?

c Juglet RV 156 (SI Cat. No. 942) GM 2B Room B 5? /8?

d Juglet; soot 1388/1 GM 1A (4) 11 5?

e Date-shaped vessel; whitish clay, brown decoration NA GM 2B (30) 5?

f Juglet RV 159 GM 2B (30) 2B 5

g Jug/bottle? 1726/2 GM 1C (24) 4 5

h Jug base? 1726/1 GM 1C (24) 4 5

i Jar; “x” incised before firing 4731/1 GM 1C (22) 4 5?

j Bottle 3972/1 GM 1D (31B) 2 5

k Handle; white slip 3974/1 GM 1D (31C) 2 5

l Zoomorphic vessel 3409/1 GM 1D (19B) 5?
532 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.176. Typology of Iron II pottery (open vessels).
NUMBER 50 • 533

FIGURE 8.177. Typology of Iron II pottery (closed vessels).
534 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 8.3. Iron II types and wares according to phases in Field IV. HM = hole-mouth; RS = red slipped; RSB = red slipped and burnished; Phil = Philistine; BC = Bichrome; AS = Assyrian-style pottery. Types Wares Phase BL1 BL2 BL3 BL4 BL5a BL6 KR1 KR2 CP1 CP2 CP3 JR1b JR2b JR3 JR4 HM RS RSB Phil BC Phil RS AS Total Phase 5 90 29 8 21 2 10 5 14 1 12 12 69 33 20 0 2 26 142 0 0 35 766 (3.4%) (18.5%) (4.6%) Phase 6 81 11 7 7 3 3 4 3 1 6 3 11 3 26 0 0 18 127 0 1 0 323 (5.6%) (39.3%) Phase 7 43 14 7 2 1 0 2 6 2 9 1 11 3 9 0 1 9 (4%) 79 0 0 0 224 (35.3%) Phase 8 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 (2%) 11 0 0 0 49 (22.4%)

Phase 9 26 7 15 0 46 0 8 4 22 0 0 1 0 1 15 2 20 183 0 4 0 305

(6.6%) (60%)

Phase 10 2 7 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 24 1 2 0 92

(16.3%) (26.1%)

Phase 11 6 9 11 0 5 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 52 81 7 10 0 301

(17.3%) (26.9%)

Total 393 104 77 54 65 23 26 41 31 44 27 158 71 87 20 7 169 844 8 17 35 2,060

(8.2%) (40.1%) (1.7%)

aIn examples where the profile was not sufficiently preserved the nature of the handles is unknown.bThe rims of these jars are similar but are differentiated by their base; thus, some of the JR1 examples could be JR2.
NUMBER 50

• 535

TABLE 8.4. Iron II types and wares according to architectural elements in Phase 5. Bld = Building; HM = hole-mouth; RS = red slipped; RSB = red slipped and burnished; Phil = Philistine; BC = Bichrome; AS = Assyrian-style pottery.

Types Wares

Phil Phil 

Context Phase BL1 BL2 BL3 BL4 BL5 BL6 KR1 KR2 CP1 CP2 CP3 JR1 JR2 JR3 JR4 HM RS RSB BC RS AS Total

Bld I, Room A 5 22 7 8 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 1 18 4 3 0 2 7 27 0 0 6 192Bld I, Room B 5 9 2 3 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 8 11 4 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 97

Bld I, Room C 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11

Bld I, Room E 5 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 8 1 3 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 52

Bld I, Room F 5 12 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 4 4 2 2 0 0 3 23 0 0 11 61

Bld II 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 10

Bld II, Room A 5 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 6 3 5 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 63

Bld II, Room B 5 9 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 5 2 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 67

Bld III(?), Unit 2 5 14 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11 5 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 86

Bld II 6 6 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 47

Bld III(?), Unit 2 6 59 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 4 0 7 0 0 6 67 0 0 0 126
536 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

earlier examples are more commonly red slipped and burnished, 

whereas the later ones are unslipped, although sometimes they 

are still burnished. At Tell Jemmeh this type appears only from 

Phase 8 onward. Parallels come, for example, from Lachish, 

Levels V–III (Zimhoni, 1997a:154, figs. 3.16:1, 3.66, 1997b: 

fig. 5.4:16–19), Batash, mostly Strata III–II (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:39–40, Type BL13, and references therein), Arad, 

Strata X–VII (Singer-Avitz, 2002:132, Type B24), Ashkelon, 604 

BCE destruction level (Stager et al., 2011:75–76, Bowl 3; for 

larger examples, see Stager et al., 2011:81, Bowl 8), and Tell esSafi, Phase A2 (Avissar and Maeir, 2012: pls. 15.1:3, 15.3:1,3,4, 

Type BL 501). 

Open Shallow Bowls (Types BL6 and BL7)

Several shallow to flat, open bowls appear in Phases 6–5. 

These include examples with simple and slightly thickened rims 

(Type BL6) from Phase 6 (Figures 8.85n, 8.89c,d) and Phase 5 

(Figures 8.104h, 8.150j, both with red slip; also, possibly a base, 

Figure 8.135d). Examples with incurving rims with red slip and 

burnish come from Phase 6/7 (Figure 8.85l,m). One example is 

red slipped and burnished with a folded rim (Phase 5, Figure 

8.104h), and another has a hammerhead rim (Phase 6, Figure 

8.89e; see, e.g., Stager et al., 2011:74, Bowl 2). Figure 8.174g 

is a nearly complete profile of a shallow, open, red-slipped and 

burnished bowl with a wide, flat ledge rim (Figure 8.176, Type 

BL7), assigned to Phase 5 (Figure 8.85o from Phase 6 and Figure 

8.174h from Phase 5 with brown slip on top are also of this 

type). Parallels come, for example, from Lachish, Levels IV–III 

(Zimhoni, 1997a: figs. 3.4, 3.56:1–7, 1997b: fig. 5.4:7,8), ‘Eton, 

Stratum I (Zimhoni, 1997c: fig. 4.4:1,2,8,9), Batash, Strata III–II 

(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:48–49, Types BL14, BL15, and 

references therein), Arad, Strata X–VIII (Singer-Avitz, 2002:128, 

Types B1–B4), and Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level (Stager 

et al., 2011:82, Bowl 11). These bowls are more common in the 

Iron IIB-C (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:49). 

A thick open bowl with a V-shaped profile from Phase 5 

(Figure 8.174f,p) is also illustrated, possibly a mortarium-like 

bowl (see below). 

Other Bowl Types

Other bowl types include bowls with a short everted or 

flaring rim and globular body, somewhat similar to bell-shaped 

bowls (Figures 8.94d, 8.104e,f, 8.115e,g, 8.128f, 8.174b–d; all 

are from Phase 5). These bowls are rather variable in their profile and surface treatment (i.e., red slip and burnish on both 

sides or only on the interior or exterior). These may be residual 

from the Iron IIA (see Iron IIA parallels at Ashdod, Strata X–IX 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.69:13], Lachish, Locus 

4421 [Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.59:1], Batash, Stratum III [Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 87:11], and Arad [Singer-Avitz, 

2002: Type B28]). However, their relatively high quantity (see 

Table 8.3), especially in Phase 5, might indicate they are not residual; Iron IIB-C examples come from Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII 

with an everted rim, seems to be similar to earlier carinated types 

of the Iron I and IIA (see, e.g., Figure 8.5h) and may be residual; 

another example (Figure 8.62l, possibly also Figure 8.62e) has 

a simple straight rim and high carination, with parallels mostly 

in the Iron IIB-C (e.g., Lachish, Level III [Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 

5.4:14], Ashdod, Strata X–VII [Dothan, 1971: fig. 39:5,6; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.82:2, 3.98:6], and Batash, 

Strata III–II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:43-44, Type 

BL22]). An example from Phase 6 (Figure 8.88h) has a thickened 

rim, straight neck, and sharp carination; a similar type appears 

in Phases 9–8 (Figures 8.176, Type BL5, 8.26k–p; see also Gezer, 

Gitin, 1990: pl. 24:9) but without red slip. Another bowl from 

Phase 6 (Figure 8.84j) is of the type of bell-shaped bowls with 

grooves under the rim and red slip and burnish, as in Phases 9–8 

(Figures 8.176, Type BSB, 8.5e, 8.11d; see above). A carinated 

bowl from Phase 6 (Figure 8.84i) has a flaring rim and a body 

resembling chalices. 

One red-slipped example (Figure 8.115h, Phase 5) has a series of delicate grooves under the rim, possibly an imitation of 

an Assyrian-style bowl (see below and chapter 13; see also Ashkelon, Stager et al., 2011:76, fig. 5.14). An unslipped carinated 

bowl with a flaring rim (Phase 5, Figure 8.94f, possibly Figure 

8.173o) resembles Assyrian-style carinated bowls (although not 

as thin and made of a different fabric; see chapter 13) and appears in Philistia during the Iron IIB-C (e.g., Ashdod, Strata IX–

VI [Dothan, 1971: figs. 39:2–9, 52:7,8; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:202, figs. 3.88:2, 3.98:5,6, 3.105:5–10] and Batash, Strata 

III–II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:42–43, Type BL17, and 

references therein]). A carinated bowl from Phase 5 made of 

whitish clay and with white slip and brown horizontal bands 

on the outside (Figure 8.94i) is possibly similar to a bowl from 

Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, denoted as “Edomite” (Cohen and 

Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: fig. 11.125:22).

Unslipped carinated bowls or kraters with slanting, thickened rims from Phase 5 are also illustrated (Figures 8.104j,k, 

8.128n). 

Folded/Hammerhead Rim Bowls (Type BL4)

These are relatively open bowls (or small kraters; Type BL4) 

with a rounded body and a folded or hammerhead rim (protruding outward) that appear in Phase 8 (Figure 8.41g,h) and continue 

in Phase 7 (Figure 8.62c), Phase 6 (Figures 8.84e, 8.85f, 8.89c), 

and Phase 5 (Figures 8.94h, 8.96f, 8.104i, 8.115d,f, 8.128d,i,j, 

8.150l, 8.173e); note, however, that the quantities of this type 

are not large (Table 8.3, up to 2.7%). More complete examples 

indicate that some of these bowls have two handles extending 

from the rim (see Phase 5, Figure 8.94h). Surface treatment usually includes inner or inner and outer red slip and burnish (hand 

and horizontal wheel burnish on the upper part); some examples 

from Phase 5 are unslipped (as Figures 8.94h, 8.104i). 

This form begins to appear during the Iron IIA and becomes 

more popular, especially in Judah and the Shephelah, during the 

late Iron IIA and Iron IIB, i.e., the 8th century BCE (but continuing probably into the 7th century BCE); it seems that the 
NUMBER 50 • 537

Kraters

Only a few small- to medium-sized kraters were found in 

Phases 7–5. Two examples of small, red-slipped, and burnished 

kraters with thickened (hammerhead) slanting rims are illustrated (Figure 8.176, Type KR1; Figures 8.65c, 8.88f, 8.96f). 

This type appears mostly in the late Iron IIA and Iron IIB (e.g., 

Phase 9, Figure 8.27a–c; see, e.g., Lachish [Zimhoni, 1997a: 

fig. 3.30:7–14], Batash [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:63, 

Type KR14], and Nagila, Stratum IV [Shai et al., 2011a: fig. 

7:6–9]). 

Another possible krater or large jar (Figure 8.86f) has a 

thickened rim and rather straight sides; it is unslipped. Figure 

8.150o from Phase 5 is a thickened and ridged rim fragment of 

a krater with no slip (see, e.g., Lachish, Levels V–IV, Zimhoni, 

1997a: fig. 3.31). A disk base and lower part of a vessel (Phase 

5, Figure 8.150r) is red slipped on the outside and may belong to 

a krater as well. Figure 8.128n from Phase 5 is an everted ledge 

rim with an unusual shape, possibly of a globular bowl or krater 

(see, possibly, Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3, Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007: fig. 11.64:7).

Several large, deep vessels can also be defined as kraters (Figure 8.176, Type KR2), although they are sometimes published 

as jars. These are more common in the Iron IIB-C than Type 

KR1 but appear already in Phases 9–8. These vessels have a wide 

mouth, thick ledge rim (see, e.g., Figure 8.174k) that is either 

flat or slightly slanting, and several loop handles attached from 

the rim to the shoulder (Figure 8.143c). Examples come from 

Phase 9 (Figure 8.27e), Phase 8 (Figure 8.41o,p), Phase 7 (Figures 8.61l, 8.65d,e), Phase 6 (Figures 8.85q, 8.88i), and Phase 

5 (including two complete examples, Figures 8.96h, 8.143b,c, 

8.150p,q, 8.173g, 8.174k). One example from Phase 8 has a 

ledge rim with two delicate grooves (Figure 8.41p, possibly also 

Figure 8.150q; see, e.g., Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Cohen and 

Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.118:3,4). Complete examples 

of this type have two to four handles and a ring or disk base (see 

Figure 8.174k) and are about 50–70 high and 40–50 cm wide; 

Figure 8.143c has a capacity of 22.25 L. 

These deep hole-mouth-type containers start to appear during the Iron IIA and become more popular during the Iron IIB-C, 

especially in Judah (see discussion by Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:71). Iron IIB-C parallels for Type KR2 kraters come, for 

example, from Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni, 1997b:239–240, fig. 

5.20, Group IIIF), Ashdod, Strata X–VIII (Dothan, 1971: fig. 

47:1,2; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.70:7, 3.83:11, 

3.91:1–3; the latter is an example with six handles), Gezer, 

Stratum VIB (Gitin, 1990: pls. 11:7, 18:2), Batash, Strata III–II 

(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:69–71, Type KR35c-d, and references therein), Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level (Stager et 

al., 2011:85, fig. 5.47), and Arad, Strata X–VIII (Singer-Avitz, 

2002:145–146, Types SJ11, SJ12). 

A rim sherd with carination and a loop handle attached to 

it (Phase 5, Fig. 8.96g) has an everted flat rim and is probably 

some sort of krater, with parallels possibly found at Ashdod, 

Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:229, fig. 3.106:11). 

(Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.88:6) and Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pls. 

11.40:11, 11.48:3).

Small bowls, probably carinated, with grooves on the upper 

part (Figure 8.94j) appear in Phase 5. Somewhat similar is a 

red-slipped and burnished example (Bag 3020/1, unillustrated). 

Another example of a small bowl with brown slip and burnish 

(Figure 8.173f) has a groove under the rim and a small knob attached. A sherd from Phase 5 (Figure 8.128c) is red slipped on 

the inside and on the outside, except for a “reserve” unslipped 

band; this is possibly a carinated bowl. A carinated red-slipped 

and burnished bowl with large elongated bar handles (Phase 5, 

Figure 8.115i) that are attached vertically has a simple vertical 

rim and red slip and burnish on the upper part. Possible parallels come from ‘Eton, Stratum I (Zimhoni, 1997c: fig. 4.8:7) and 

from Beit Mirsim, Tomb 5 (Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.80:5, dated to 

the Iron IIB). Figure 8.94l from Phase 5 seems to be a miniature 

bowl with an open shape. Figure 8.115j from Phase 5 is a small 

concave base showing a spiral-shaped breakage mark from the 

bowl or small chalice it was connected to. A ring base with inner 

and outer red slip (Figure 8.128k) may belong to an open bowl.

Mortaria Bowls

Several examples of mortaria bowls with flat bases come 

from Phase 5 (Figures 8.98b, 8.151k, 8.174j), including a complete example from Room F (Figure 8.151k). These are straightsided thick bowls (25–30 cm in diameter) or small basins with 

simple rims and flat or ring bases. This type is more common 

during the Persian period but begins to appear in the Iron IIB (for 

further discussion, see Zukerman and Ben-Shlomo, 2011). Iron 

Age mortaria bowls are found at various sites in southern Israel, for example, Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:51, Type BL20) and Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level 

(Stager et al., 2011:112–113). It seems that most examples of 

this type, which continue to appear commonly in the Persian, 

Hellenistic, and early Roman periods in the Levant, are imported. Although several Iron IIB examples appear (Zukerman 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2011: table 1), this type becomes more common during the Iron IIC and the Persian period (continuing also 

into the Hellenistic and early Roman periods). The bowl probably had a function of a grinding vessel, as its fabric is very gritty 

and well fired. Most of these vessels have very thick walls (1.5–

2.5 cm), but some examples have thinner walls. The versions 

with thicker walls were most likely used for grinding, whereas 

those with thinner walls were perhaps used for serving (Sapin, 

1998). The majority of thick-walled mortaria have abraded interiors (see also Bennett and Blakely, 1989:196, 201; Sapin, 1998; 

Villing, 2006:34–37), supporting their use as grinding vessels. 

Most of the Greek mortaria had the same function (e.g., Weinberg, 1954:129–130); the coarse inclusions, unique to mortaria, 

created a rough surface that facilitated grinding. Late Iron Age 

examples (see Zukerman and Ben-Shlomo, 2011:91–97), as well 

as later examples (see, e.g., Gorzalczany, 1999, 2005), were most 

likely imported from Cyprus.
538 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 20:6; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.90), Gezer, Stratum VIA (Gitin, 1990: pl. 22:2–5), 

Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:83–84, 

Type CP7, and references therein), Nagila, Stratum III (Shai 

et al., 2011a: fig. 9:9), and Arad, Strata X–VIII (Singer-Avitz, 

2002:139, Types CP1–CP3). 

Other cooking pot types include examples with more triangular everted rims (Figure 8.176, Type CP3), found in Phase 

7 (Figure 8.61i, possibly Figure 8.62o) and Phase 5 (Figures 

8.96j, 8.150v,x, possibly 8.94p). Other possible examples 

(Phase 7, Figure 8.61k) have simple rims. A few examples have 

a high neck with an inverted and thickened rim (Phase 5, Figure 8.150z). These fragments may belong to deep globular pots 

with ridged necks, typical of the Iron IIC (e.g., Batash, Stratum 

II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:85–86, Type CP9). Note that 

this indicative 7th century BCE form rarely appears in Jemmeh, 

possibly because of regionality (similarly, it is missing from Ashdod, Strata VII–VI), as it is possibly more related to Judah and 

the Shephelah. Two examples from Phase 5 (Figures 8.135f, 

8.174o) represent a cooking pot with a pinched rim. This type 

is common in the Iron IIC at Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:86–87, Type CP10, and references therein; 

see the coastal type in Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level, 

Stager et al., 2011:86, Cooking Pot 1, figs. 5.48–5.49), indicating this type has a globular, swollen body and two loop handles. 

Another example has an everted rim (Phase 6, Figure 8.85u); 

for this type see, possibly, Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:87, Type CP11). Figure 8.115t from Phase 5 is a 

bow neck, covered with soot, likely a cooking pot or cooking 

jug fragment. 

Jars

Many storage jars were found in Phases 7–5 in Field IV, including a large number of complete or nearly complete examples 

(especially from Phases 7 and 5, in the area near Building III, 

e.g., Figures 8.63a–d, 8.98c, 8.105a–c, 8.135h, 8.152a). A number of jars were also found in Building I (Figures 8.134, 8.135h, 

8.152a). As will be seen, most of the jars are quite uniform in 

shape, although a certain variability is represented by rims and 

necks of jars. Type JR4, appearing in the Iron IIA, was added for 

counting purposes.

Type JR1

A very common jar type in Phases 7–5 is the bag-shaped 

coastal jar (Figure 8.177, Type JR1). Most of these jars have short, 

vertical necks attached to straight shoulders (neck usually not inserted, as opposed to Type JR2 below). This jar is bigger than the 

tapering-base jar (Type JR2 below), about 50–60 cm in height, 

and its base is less elongated and is rounded or slightly pointed, 

but generally, it has a similar shape to JR2 and can be used as a generic type for rim, neck, and shoulder fragments of similar shapes. 

Thus, most rim and neck fragments from Phases 7–5 are technically attributed to this type. Examples come from Phase 7 (Figures 

A hole-mouth-type rim from Phase 6 (Figure 8.85r) may belong 

to large krater or pithos(?).

Figure 8.135g is possibly a large krater with a thickened/

folded rim, straight, long neck, and carinated body (see, possibly, 

Ashdod, Strata VIII–VI [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 

3.89:3, 3.107.3] and Batash, Strata III–II [Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:71, Type KR8]).

Chalices

Chalices are often a chronologically nonindicative form 

and appear in most periods. A red-slipped and burnished chalice comes from Phase 7 (Figure 8.61h), with slip on the interior and exterior and external burnishing; the decoration also 

includes a white band on the outside. The bowl has a straight 

wide, open form with a flat ledge rim (for similar chalices, see 

Ashdod, Stratum VIIIb [Dothan, 1971: fig. 40:1] and Batash, 

Strata IV–II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:58, Type CH6]; see 

also similar bowls, e.g., Lachish, Level IV, Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 

3.65:8–15). A similar chalice without slip or burnish but with 

remains of red paint on the inside (Figure 8.94m) is illustrated 

from Phase 5. A large, thick chalice, possibly from Phase 5 or 

Phase 6 (Figure 8.174p), has a perforated bowl base and may 

have been used as a funnel or stand for a cooking pot (see Sq. 

2A, Feature 18). Another large example comes from Building I, 

Room C (Figure 8.135n); it has thick white slip, and the bowl 

is perforated. The perforation may represent secondary use for 

the vessel as a funnel. Two “stem” fragments of chalices (Figure 

8.151i,j one has white slip) were found in Building I, Room F. 

These chalices are of a type continuing from the Iron I to the Iron 

II (see, e.g., Batash, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:55–56, usually with carinated bowls). Another example of a chalice from 

Phase 6 (Figure 8.85o) has a similar open shape, flat rim, and 

inner red slip and burnish.

Cooking Pots

Of the several cooking pots illustrated from good contexts 

in Phases 7–5, three Phase 5 examples were complete or nearly 

complete (Figures 8.94o, 8.96i,j); two come from Building II, 

Room B. Iron IIA cooking pots, from Phases 11–9 (Type CP1, 

Figures 8.27i–k, 8.176), are also included in this typology for 

purposes of quantitative analysis. 

The most common Iron IIB-C cooking pot by far is a cooking pot with a gutter/stepped rim or a groove on the outer part 

of the rim, globular body, and two handles (Figure 8.176, Type 

CP2; see Figures 8.96i, 8.174l). Examples come from Phase 7 

(Figures 8.61d,j, 8.62p), Phase 6 (Figures 8.84k, 8.85s,t, 8.88j), 

and Phase 5 (Figures 8.94o, 8.96i, 8.104l, 8.143d, 8.150t,w,y, 

8.174l–n). More complete examples show this type has two loop 

handles. Most examples are made of a gritty cooking ware fabric 

and carry soot marks (see, e.g., Figure 8.96i). 

This type is typical of the Iron IIB, or 8th century BCE, in 

southern Israel, with examples from, for example, Lachish, Level 

III (Zimhoni, 1997b:221, fig. 5.6:1,2), Ashdod, Strata IX–VII 
NUMBER 50 • 539

Type SJ18, and references and discussion therein), Tel ‘Ira, Strata 

VII–VI (Freud, 1999: figs. 6.62:18, 6.75:5), Arad, Stratum VII 

(Singer-Avitz, 2002:145, Type SJ9), and Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:166, pls. 11.77:5,6, 

11.88:3, 11.105:3–5, Type SJ8b). It seems that this jar type is 

more common in sites in southern Israel somewhat distant 

from the coast (such as Arad, Tel ‘Ira, and Kadesh Barnea). The 

evidence from Lachish (Level II) and Batash (Stratum II) indicates that this jar is typical of the 7th century BCE. Zimhoni 

(1997b:247–250) suggested that during the 7th century BCE, 

these jars were produced in a common workshop in the southern coastal plain; in light of the evidence from Tell Jemmeh, it 

is possible that a production center was located in the vicinity 

of the site in the northern Negev. According to petrographic 

analysis at Ashkelon, this jar type was produced locally at Ashkelon or somewhat to the south in the Gaza region (Stager et 

al., 2011:90). This could fit the results from Jemmeh, as some of 

the jars that were analyzed belong to Petrographic Group 1b at 

Tell Jemmeh (see chapter 15), which is sourced to the southern 

coastal plain (possibly the Ashkelon region).

Types JR3–JR5 and Other Jar Types

Another jar type common in the Iron II levels at Tell Jemmeh (Figure 8.177, Type JR3) is represented by one complete 

example from Phase 7 (Figure 8.63d) and many rim or neck 

sherds. According to the complete example, the neck is short 

and vertical, the body is ovoid with two loop handles, and the 

base is wide and rounded; it is a small jar, 45 cm high and 30 

cm wide. According to several rim fragments, this type is characterized by a short, slightly incurving, thick neck, having a delicate ridge at its midpoint (possibly Figure 8.152h). The rim is 

thickened, with a wide inner gutter going through the top of it 

(the inner part of the rim is also pulled inward); this guttered 

rim shape is very distinctive, and the type is easily identified (as 

in Figures 8.61o, 8.86h, 8.88l). Examples come from Phase 8 

(Figure 8.42f), Phase 7 (Figures 8.61o, 8.63d), Phase 6 (Figures 

8.84m,n, 8.86g,h, 8.88l), and Phase 5 (Figures 8.95c–e, 8.116c, 

8.128r, 8.152e). Parallels are not common and include Kadesh 

Barnea, Stratum 3, dated to the Iron IIB (Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007:146, pls. 11.29:12, 11.40:6, 11.41:23, Type 

SJ3.2), and possibly Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: pl. 22:16). It seems that this is an Iron IIB-C type 

found in southern Israel and not appearing earlier. Ridged jar 

necks (Figures 8.177, Type JR4, 8.135k, 8.152d [possibly Phase 

6], 8.86k) are similar to a type described in Phases 10–8 (see 

Figures 8.12c, 8.28c,e). 

Two large jar fragments from Phase 7 (Figure 8.177, Type 

JR5, Figure 8.63d,e) have a different type of rim. The body is 

bag shaped with two small loop handles (like Type JR1), but 

the rim has a pulled-out wedge shape with a groove in the inner 

side and two grooves on the shoulder. Parallels may come from 

Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:232, fig. 

3.108:4) and Tell es-Safi, Stratum A2 (Avissar and Maeir, 2012: 

pl. 15.9:3). 

8.61n, 8.63b,c, 8.65f–i), Phase 6 (Figure 8.86e), and Phase 5 (Figures 8.95a, 8.105c, 8.128o–q, 8.143e–h, 8.152b, 8.175a). 

This jar form is common, especially in the southern coastal 

plains during the Iron IIB-C. Parallels come, for example, from 

Lachish, Levels III–II (Zimhoni, 1997b:244–245, fig. 5.26), 

Ashdod, Strata IX–VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 

3.92:1,2, 3.101:4, 3.108:1,2, with references to other such jars 

at the site therein), Miqne, Stratum IB (Gitin, 1998: fig. 5:4), 

Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level (Master, 2001: figs. 2.2:9–

12, 2.3:1–3; Stager et al., 2011:88, figs. 5.55, 5.56, Storage Jar 

1), Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:97–98, 

Type SJ7, and references and discussion therein), Gezer, Stratum 

VIA (Gitin, 1990: pl. 17), and Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen 

and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:166, pls. 11.77:3–4, 11.88:1,2, 

11.107, Type SJ8a). 

Type JR2

Possibly the most common jars appearing in complete examples, especially in Phase 5 in Field IV, are relatively small storage jars with a short neck and pointed, tapering base (Figure 

8.177, Type JR2). This type is characterized by a sack-shaped 

to pyriform body (like Type JR1), with a lower part that is almost conical. These jars have a height of 45–55 cm and, in most 

cases, a width of 33–35 cm. The neck is very short and has a 

varying shape but a rather regular opening that is 9.5–10 cm 

in diameter. The neck is vertical and often inserted into the jar 

body, thus protruding into the inner part of the jar. The base 

is pointed, elongated, and tapering and is usually hollow (the 

wheel-throwing marks are visible in its inner lower part). These 

jars have two short loop handles connecting the shoulder to the 

body; the handles are thick and usually have two coarse ridges 

along them (Figure 8.95b). In some cases, there is a delicate vertical burnish on the surface of the body (e.g., Figure 8.97a). The 

capacity of these jars would usually have been 30–35 L. Figure 

8.135h, for example, has a capacity of 31.2 L; however, Figure 

8.152a is larger at 40.6 L and is also 60 cm high and 39 cm wide. 

Apparently, the capacity was not completely uniform. 

This type appears mostly in Phase 5 with many examples, 

several of which are complete or nearly complete (Figures 8.95b, 

8.97a, 8.105a,b, 8.135h, 8.152a,g). Possible rims also come 

from Phase 7 (Figures 8.65f,g) and Phase 6 (Figure 8.84l). Several 

very short neck fragments, protruding inside the body, may also 

be allocated to the type (e.g., Phase 5, Figures 8.116b, 8.143i). 

A complete example also comes from Field II, Phase 2 (Figure 

4.40k) and is similarly dated. 

This storage jar type is common in southern Israel during the end of the Iron Age, the late 8th and especially the 7th 

centuries BCE (also nicknamed the butterfly jar; Stager et al., 

2011:90). Parallels come from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. LVI:47h), Lachish, Level II (Zimhoni, 1997b:247–250, figs. 

5.28, 5.29), Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.108:3), Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level (Master, 2001: fig. 2.3:4; Stager et al., 2011:90, fig. 5.58, Storage Jar 

3), Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:101–102, 
540 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

8.116e, Phase 5) may also belong to a jug or amphora (see also 

Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level, Stager et al., 2011:91, 

Amphora 1).

Jugs

Globular Jugs (Type JG1)

Several examples of globular jugs (Figure 8.177, Type JG1) 

are usually red slipped and burnished. A complete jug found in 

Sq. 2B, Layer 41 (possibly Phase 7, Figure 8.66a) has a globular 

body, a long neck with a ridge midway, a simple everted rim, 

and a ring base; the handle is attached to the ridge. Surface treatment includes red slip and vertical burnish of the neck and upper 

body and possibly decoration on the body (black circles?). A 

lower body fragment and ring base from Phase 6 with red slip 

and vertical burnish (Figure 8.86n) probably belongs to this type 

as well. Another large body fragment with a handle from Phase 

7 (Figure 8.66e) also has a thick red slip and vertical burnish 

(possibly a white horizontal band as well). The narrow neck of 

a red-slipped and burnished jug from Phase 7 (Figure 8.66j, possibly also Figure 8.61p, which has red slip and vertical burnish) 

may also belong to this type. Iron IIA-B jugs with narrow necks 

are often decorated by red vertically burnished slip and black 

(and/or white) decoration and could be included in the LPDW 

group (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:68, fig. 1.32:1–6, Type JG4; 

see also Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:115–116, Types JG26, 

JG30, which is a more apparent LPDW form, and further references therein). A narrow neck with a ridge and handle attached 

under it (Figure 8.128s) has red slip and no burnish, possibly also 

from a similar globular jug (perhaps like Type JG30 of Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001). Another jug neck with vertical red burnish 

(Phase 5, Figure 8.135m) has a different flaring rim that is more 

similar to Phoenician Bichrome jugs (see, e.g., Ashdod, Strata IX–

VII, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.94:8, 3.102:4).

Strainer-Spouted Jugs (SSJ)

Strainer-spouted jugs are a form appearing in Philistine 

Bichrome ware of the Iron IB and appear with red slip during 

the Iron IIA and possibly later. The large spout of a red-slipped 

strainer-spouted jug (Phase 7, Figure 8.66n) has meticulous vertical burnish; it is possibly residual from Iron IIA levels, but because of the size of the reconstructed fragment it is more likely 

to belong to Phase 7. The red-slipped rim and basket handle of a 

jug (Phase 5, Figure 8.152p) may also belong to a SSJ.

Globular Jugs with Narrow, Ridged Necks (Type JG2)

A complete jug with a short, narrow neck and a large globular body was found in Phase 5 Building II, Room B (Figures 

8.177, Type JG2, 8.97f). The jug has a simple rim with a handle 

attached to it and a narrow disk base; the globular body has soot 

marks. A similar nearly complete jug, albeit larger, was attributed 

to Phase 8 (Figure 8.43c). Parallels come from Batash, Stratum 

An example of a fragmentary jar with no neck and a flat 

folded rim from Phase 5 (Figure 8.152j) is probably a fragment 

of a Phoenician transport jar with a torpedo-shaped body, with 

two small thick loop handles and a pointed base. These jars are 

dated to the Iron IIB-C with many parallels in southern Israel 

(e.g., Batash, Strata III–II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:103–

105, Type SJ15, and references and discussion therein] and Ashdod, Strata VIII–VII [Dothan, 1971: figs. 57:8,9, 60:10, Dothan 

and Porath, 1982: figs. 22:1, 27:1; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:232, fig. 3.108:5]). Most of these jars were produced in 

Phoenicia or the northern Levantine coast (see petrographic analysis, e.g., Master, 2003; Aznar, 2005; Stager et al., 2011:58–59, 

100). A carinated jar shoulder with a short neck (Figure 8.128o) 

may also be similar to this type (or Type JR1); it is made of a very 

reddish clay. A jar with no neck and simple rim (Figure 8.128q) 

comes from Phase 5, possibly a Phoenician-like type (see above). 

Other jar rims from Phase 6 include a flaring rim (Figure 

8.86j) and the ridged rim of a jar or a jug (Figure 8.86l). A thick 

folded rim and neck (Phase 6, Figure 8.86i) probably belong to 

a pithos. 

Other types, found mostly in Phase 5, include a red-slipped, 

straight, thickened rim (Figure 8.105f) and a similar neck with 

red decoration (Figure 8.97c). Similar vessels were found at Ashdod, Stratum VIII (Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 14:8), and 

there are unslipped examples from Batash, Strata III–II (Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:93, Type SJ29). Also illustrated is a 

straight and vertical neck (Figure 8.105d) and the flat base of a 

jar from Phase 5 (Figure 8.175i). The rounded base of a closed 

vessel from Phase 7, possibly a jar-like vessel (Figure 8.66l), was 

perforated before firing; this item may have been used as a funnel.

A deeply incised thick handle from Phase 7 (Figure 8.63g) 

belongs to a jug or basket-handled jar. The upper part of a jar, 

richly decorated in LPDW style on the body and handle (Figure 

8.87a), was found in a Phase 6/7 fill in Building II and will be 

discussed with the Philistine pottery in chapter 12.

Hole-Mouth Jars

Cylindrical hole-mouth jars (Figure 8.177, Type HM) start 

to appear in Phase 9 (Figure 8.28g,h) and appear in a few examples in Phase 7 (Figure 8.65l,m). As noted, this very common 

Iron IIB form appears rarely at Tell Jemmeh Field IV (see also 

examples from Field III, Figure 3.172g; Field I, Sq. KB, Figure 

7.72e; Field I, FUR 2 and FUR 3, Figure 7.84m) and hardly appears in Phases 6 and 5. The examples from Phase 7 all have 

ridged ledge rims. For a detailed discussion, see Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen (2001:105–107, Type SJ10).

Amphorae

Some fragments could belong to jugs or amphorae, as it is 

not clear whether the vessel had one or two handles. One example is a red-slipped and vertically burnished LPDW body 

fragment with a handle and two parallel grooves from Phase 7 

(Figure 8.66b). A neck with a ridge and a thickened rim (Figure 
NUMBER 50 • 541

a similar shape (both may belong to Type JG1). A white-slipped 

rim fragment from Phase 5 (Figure 8.150n) is either a small carinated bowl or the rim of a jug. 

A nearly complete globular jug flask richly decorated in the 

LPDW style was found in a Phase 6–7 fill in Building II (Figure 8.87b). The shape resembles earlier (late Iron I–Iron IIA) 

Phoenician-type flasks or globular jug flasks, as seen in examples 

from Qasile, Stratum X (Mazar, 1985a:67–68, fig. 41:11,13; 

see also Batash, Stratum IV, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 

79:10, Type JG31), and will be discussed in chapter 12.

Juglets

Common dipper juglets are cylindrical or pyriform juglets with simple rims and are often red slipped (Figure 8.177, 

JGT1; Phase 7, red slipped, Figures 8.63i, 8.66h,i; Phase 6, Figure 8.84p,r; Phase 5, Figures 8.105m, 8.116f, 8.128t, 8.152n,o); 

one complete example (unslipped) comes from Building I, Room 

F (Figure 8.152n). Parallels come, for example, from Ashdod, 

Strata IX–VIII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.94:2, and 

references therein). A juglet from Phase 7 (Figure 8.63k) and an 

example from Phase 5 or 8 (Figure 8.175c) are short red-slipped 

juglets with a slightly pointed base; these have a more globular 

body than Type JGT1. Parallels originate from, e.g., Ashdod, 

Strata X–VIII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 3.85:14, 15, 

3.94:3, 4). Several body fragments of juglets from Phase 5 (Figures 8.95f, 8.143l, 8.175d) are unslipped with a rounded base; 

this is also a typical Iron II dipper juglet type (e.g., Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type JGT7; Ashkelon, 604 BCE destruction level, Stager et al., 2011:94, Juglet 2), similar to Type JGT1 

(see Batash, Strata III–II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:126, 

Type 7c, and references therein).

A nearly complete black juglet (with only the rim missing) is 

illustrated from Phase 7 (Figures 8.177, Type JGT2, Figure 8.63j; 

also SI Cat. No. 834, unillustrated). These juglets have a small 

swollen body, very narrow necks, and pointed bases and often 

have black surface. For a discussion of these juglets, appearing in 

the southern Levant during the Iron IIA-C (mostly in Judea and 

the Shephelah), see, e.g., Batash Strata III–II (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:127, Type JGT9). Another juglet from Phase 5 or 8 

(Figure 8.175b) has a similar shape, with a rounded base and a 

handle attached just below the rim.

A complete and intact juglet from Building II, Room B has 

a globular-pyriform body, ridged narrow neck, thin handle, and 

thin flaring rim (Figure 8.177, Type JGT3; Figure 8.97i; also, 

Figure 8.175f is probably the same form). This is an uncommon juglet form. Its shape resembles amphoriskoi (e.g., Kadesh 

Barnea, Stratum 3, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 

11.56:1; see also below, Phase 2, Figure 8.242h); a possible parallel comes from Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007: pl. 11.87:11). 

Neck and body fragments of small unslipped juglets or bottles also come from Phase 7 (Figure 8.66f,g) and Phase 5 (Figure 8.128t); the body fragment has a slight carination on the 

shoulder (see, e.g., Lachish, Level III [Zimhoni, 1997b: fig. 5.7:8] 

II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:115, Type JG21, and references therein). Ridged rims of jugs (Type JG2, Phase 7, Figures 

8.61e, 8.66d; Phase 5, Figure 8.97f) include at least one with a 

trefoil mouth (Figure 8.66d), probably from a large jug typical of 

the Iron IIB-C (see, e.g., Batash, Strata III–II, Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:116–117, Type JG13, and references therein). The 

other example (Figure 8.61e) may belong to a decanter-type jug. 

A decanter fragment comes from Phase 6 (Figure 8.84q), and a 

nearly complete example comes from Field II (Figure 4.33f). Decanter jugs are more common in Judah and are typical of the Iron 

IIB-C (for a discussion of this type, see, e.g., Batash, Stratum II, 

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:118–119, Type JG14). A body 

sherd of a red-slipped and burnished closed vessel, probably a 

jug (Figure 8.86o), has an application, maybe a knob, attached 

to it. Various red-slipped handles of jugs or juglets (Figures 8.84r, 

8.86p) are also illustrated from Phase 6.

Jugs with Wide Vertical Necks (JG3)

This jug form (Figure 8.177, Type JG3) has a long and wide 

vertical neck, sometimes slightly swollen (Figure 8.63h); the rim 

is simple or thickened, and the body is globular to pyriform, with 

a ring base (see almost complete example from Phase 5, Figure 

8.105i). Some examples have soot on the body or rim, indicating 

a possible use as a cooking jug (see Ben-Shlomo et al., 2008:229–

230). This type appears in Phase 7 (Figures 8.63h, 8.66c), Phase 6 

(Figures 8.86m, 8.89i), and Phase 5 (Figures 8.105i,j, 8.152k–m), 

including a nearly complete example (Figure 8.105i). Three similar 

jugs from Building I, Room F have soot marks (Figure 8.152k–m). 

Figure 8.152m has a ring base and globular body; Figure 8.152k 

is the lower part of a globular jug with a thick ring base made by 

“pinching” the clay and an upper part with an everted neck and 

handle attached to the rim; Figure 8.152l is the lower part of a 

very small jug, covered by soot, with a wide disk base. 

This is a well-known Iron II jug form appearing during the 

late Iron IIA and Iron IIB and continuing into the Iron IIC, and 

it is very common in the southern coastal plain. The capacity of 

these jugs ranges from 1.3 to 7.8 L, although most are 2–3 L in 

capacity. Parallels come, for example, from Lachish, Level IV 

(Zimhoni, 1997a: fig. 3.44:15–17), Ashdod, Strata X–VIII (e.g., 

Dothan and Porath, 1982: figs. 8:2, 15:1,2; Dothan and BenShlomo, 2005: figs. 3.74:1, 3.85:2,3, 3.93:5–8), Batash, Strata 

III–II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:11–2, Type JG11, and references therein), and Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Ben-Shlomo 

et al., 2008:227, fig. 3h–k; Shai and Maeir, 2012:334, Type JG1, 

and references and discussion therein). Note that this type is not 

very common at Tell Jemmeh. 

Various Jugs

A white-slipped double-handle jug (Figure 8.175k; with 

possible parallels from Batash, Stratum IV, Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: pl. 79:10) was found. A jug fragment from Phase 5 

(Figure 8.105k) has an everted short neck; a small red-slipped jug 

neck is illustrated from Phase 5 (Figure 8.105l) and is possibly of 
542 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

A bottle or date-shaped vessel (Phase 5, Figure 8.175e) may 

belong to the Assyrian-style pottery but has brown decoration 

(possibly similar in shape to a LPDW vessel from Strata X–IX at 

Ashdod, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:176, fig. 3.73:1). 

The decorated large neck of an amphora or jar (Figure 

8.66m) comes from an unclear context in Phase 7/8 (GM 2B 

(42) and (40) 4). It has red slip, with black and cream/white 

parallel horizontal bands. This style of decoration is similar to 

LPDW style (see chapter 12), yet the shape is unparalleled. It is 

possible that this vessel, which is unique to the site, was influenced by the Edomite or Midianite tradition of the late Iron II 

(see Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 

2007: pl. 11.80:5; possibly ‘Aroer, Statum IIb, Thareani, 2011: 

pl. 134:20).

Lamps

A complete lamp from Phase 7 (Figure 8.64c) has a rounded 

base and a slightly everted rim, typical of the Iron II (see, e.g., 

Kadesh Barnea, Strata 4–2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: 

figs. 11.24:12, 11.91:15); the spout has soot marks. Lamp fragments come from Phase 6 (Figures 8.84s,t, 8.87e,f) and Phase 5 

(Figures 8.97j, 8.105p). A complete lamp was found in Building 

II, Room B, Phase 5 (Figure 8.97j); it has a pinched spout and 

everted rim, similar to the type described above (Figure 8.64c). 

Notably, lamps with thick bases, typical of the Iron IIC, or the 

7th century BCE (see, e.g., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:133, 

Type LP3), are absent from the Jemmeh assemblage. This could 

be of chronological significance but could reflect a regional variation, as these lamps are typical of Judah and are rare in Philistia 

(see also Ben-Shlomo, 2003, contra Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, 

2001, on the absence of this type from Ashdod, Strata VII–VI).

Late Philistine Decorated Ware

In addition to several vessels noted above, body sherds of 

closed vessels decorated in the LPDW style were found in Phase 

7 (Figure 8.64a,b), Phase 6 (Figure 8.87c,d), and possibly Phase 

5 (Figure 8.98d). LPDW is discussed in detail in chapter 12.

Assyrian-­Style Pottery

Assyrian-style pottery (or Assyrian palace ware) appears 

only in Phase 5 (e.g., Figures 8.96k–q, 8.117, 8.118, 8.151a–g) 

and is probably dated to the late Iron IIB or Iron IIC. This pottery, and its related aspects (typology, technology, distribution, 

chronology, provenance, and cultural and historical significance), will be discussed in detail in a chapter specifically dedicated to this ware (chapter 13). Assyrian-style pottery includes 

mainly thin bowls in various shapes, mostly with a sharp carination and ribbed shoulder. Also appearing are open bowls, bowls 

with thick stepped bases, and beakers, some with very thin walls 

and a dimpled body. This ware appears mostly in a special welllevigated fabric that is either whitish or pinkish in color. Tell 

Jemmeh is the southernmost Levantine site yielding by far more 

Assyrian-style pottery than other sites. This pottery is found in 

and Ashdod Strata IX–VIII [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.94:30, although red slipped]). 

Bottles

Few bottles were found in Phases 7–5, despite this often 

being considered an Assyrian type (e.g., Stern, In press). Figure 

8.88p from Phase 6 is a complete intact bottle, only 7.5 cm high 

(see also Figure 8.135l). It has a slightly swollen neck, simple 

everted rim, carinated body, and pointed base. Parallels are rare. 

This form is possibly related to the tapering-base bottle type (see 

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:129, Type BT1; this is referred to 

there as an Assyrian type). A long narrow neck with no handles 

and simple rim (Phase 5, Figure 8.95g) may belong to a bottle 

as well. A short narrow neck from Phase 5 (Figure 8.175g) may 

belong to a different type of bottle with a globular body (see, 

e.g., Tel Miqne, Stratum I [Gitin, 1998: fig. 4:10] and Batash, 

Stratum II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:130, Type BT2, and 

references therein]). A thickened/flat, wide everted rim (Phase 5, 

Figure 8.175j, whitish fabric), indicating a very short neck, probably belongs to a bottle as well (maybe a globular bottle, e.g., 

Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: 

fig. 11.91:10).

Flasks

A nearly complete large flask comes from Phase 6 (Figure 

8.89j). It has a long neck, thick handles connected to a ridge, 

and a wide stepped rim; there is vertical burnish on the neck 

but no slip, and the body is lentoid, with concentric grooves. 

Another flask neck from Phase 5 (Figure 8.105n) may be of 

the same type. Good parallels come from Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:165 figs. 11.76, 

11.92:9, “grooved lentoid flasks”) and Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII 

(Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.94:7); this type usually 

dates to the Iron IIB-C. Another flask neck comes from Phase 

5 (Figure 8.105o). 

A red-slipped fragment of a spoon flask was found in 

Building I, Room F (Figure 8.152q; see Varia section below). 

This is usually considered an Iron I form (see chapter 7, Figure 

7.59i, with more references therein), although see a similar example from Iron IIB Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII (Dothan and BenShlomo, 2005:211, fig. 3.94:6). A peculiar fragment, possibly 

from a flask (or a spout) comes from the same context (Figure 

8.153b).

Other Closed Forms

A vessel with three handles attached to the base (probably 

a closed krater) is red slipped and vertically burnished on the 

outside (Figure 8.65n); one of the handles has soot remains. The 

surface treatment indicates an Iron IIA pottery tradition, possibly related to the LPDW (see chapter 12). Two red-slipped body 

sherds of closed vessels decorated with parallel grooves (Figure 

8.64a,b) come from Phase 7. A ridged base from Phase 7 (Figure 

8.66k) may belong to a jug or other closed vessel.
NUMBER 50 • 543

thinner red slip was applied, whereas later burnish was added, 

first by hand and later by wheel (Holladay, 1990:41–50; Zimhoni, 1997a:117–121; Mazar, 1998:374; Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:145–150). Red slip, appearing already in the Iron 

I (being up to 5%–10% of assemblages in southern Israel; see 

Mazar, 1998: table 3), becomes dominant, especially on open 

forms and with burnishing, in the Iron IIA. 

During Phases 10–8 (Iron IIA-B) there is also an appearance 

of an interesting hybrid type, a ridged, carinated, red-slipped 

bowl with very degenerated horizontal handles (Figure 8.176, 

Type BL5), echoing degenerated bell-shaped bowls of the Iron I 

(and early Iron IIA) and possibly recalling Assyrian-style characteristics as well. Such possible early Iron II Assyrian influences on 

pottery forms may be also be manifested in the “Samaria bowls” 

pottery class (e.g., Amiran, 1969:212, 207–212, pl. 66). Kraters appear rarely in all assemblages, yet red-slipped hammerhead 

kraters are more common in the early phases (10–8). Multihandled, large hole-mouth kraters (Type KR2) start to appear in 

Phase 9 but become more common in Phases 8–5, with several 

complete examples from Phase 5. Cooking pots are somewhat 

more indicative, as ledge rim cooking pots appear only in Phases 

10–8 and are replaced by gutter rim cooking pots (Type CP2 

and some other types) in Phases 7–5. Generally, various bowl 

types, kraters, and cooking pots appearing in Phases 11–9 indicate an Iron IIA date, possibly, in the later stage of this period. 

This ceramic horizon of Phases 11–9 can be paralleled roughly 

to regional layers, such as Lachish, Levels V–IV (more Level IV, 

Zimhoni, 1997a), Tell es-Safi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maeir, 

2012), Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001), 

Nagila, Stratum IV (Shai et al., 2011a), Arad, Strata XII–XI (e.g., 

Aharoni, 1981; Singer-Avitz, 2002), probably Ashdod, Strata X–

IX (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:185), and Tel Miqne, Stratum III (Gitin, 1998). 

Jars and some jug types may be more chronologically indicative for the later Phases 7–5. The ubiquitous bag-shaped jars 

(Type JR1), common in the coastal plains during the Iron IIB-C, 

are well represented in Jemmeh Field IV, Phases 7–5; more specifically, the small tapering-base jars (Type JR2) are very common 

in Phase 5 and are paralleled with regional Iron IIC levels. Holemouth jars are rare at Jemmeh, appearing mostly in Phases 8–7. 

Globular jug types are more common in Phases 7–5, with more 

examples in Phase 5. The LPDW style, or Ashdod ware, appears 

in very small quantities already in Phase 10 but becomes slightly 

more common later, in Phases 8–6, possibly similar to Ashdod, 

Stratum VIIIb (see chapter 12). Assyrian-style ware abruptly appears in Phase 5 with no predecessors in earlier phases. 

Therefore, although the pottery of Phases 7–5 is largely similar, this sequence can be tentatively subdivided into two units: 

Phases 7–6 and Phase 5. The ceramic horizon of Phases 7 and 6 

can be compared to Lachish, Level III (Zimhoni, 1997b), ‘Eton, 

Stratum II (Zimhoni, 1997c), Batash, Stratum III, Gezer, Stratum 

VI (e.g., Gitin, 1990), Nagila, Stratum III (Shai et al., 2011a), 

Arad, Strata IX–VIII (Singer-Avitz, 2002), ‘Aroer, Stratum III 

(Thareani, 2011), and Ashdod, Stratum VIII. The ceramic horizon of Phase 5 can be compared (at least partly) to Lachish, 

Level II (Zimhoni, 1997b), ‘Eton, Stratum I (Zimhoni, 1997c), 

relatively large quantities (several hundreds of sherds) in both 

Building I and Building II.

Varia

Figure 8.116h is a handmade vessel with dented applied 

rope decoration. The leg and body fragment of a quadruped zoomorphic vessel from Phase 5 is also illustrated (Figure 8.175l). 

A small very flat spout or an opening of a vessel (zoomorphic?) 

from Phase 5 is illustrated (Figure 8.153a; see chapter 17 for 

further discussion on zoomorphic vessels). 

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF 

THE IRON II POTTERY SEQUENCE 

(PHASES 11–5)

The Iron Age remains in Field IV were sequenced into seven 

stratigraphical phases (11–5); however, the lower two or three 

phases are very limited in their exposure, and thus, their pottery assemblage is small. Phases 9–8 are somewhat larger in their 

representation, but only Phases 7–5 had significant architectural 

complexes that were excavated and yielded pottery from primary 

contexts. Particularly, Phase 5 yielded a significant assemblage of 

pottery from Buildings I–III, including many complete vessels. 

Therefore, the dating of all these phases according to the pottery 

found in good contexts is not easy in this case, especially for the 

earlier phases. Nevertheless, such a dating should be attempted, 

possibly using some more indicative pottery forms. 

As described above, the Iron II pottery in Field IV seems 

to span 200–300 years (ca. 950/900 to ca. 700/650 BCE), although, as noted, not all periods are equally represented in this 

assemblage. This dating is suggested by typological parallels 

with regional sites, especially, in relation to certain types, forms 

or wares, which might be more indicative chronologically. A 

summary of the occurrence of these main forms in the different 

phases is presented in Tables 8.3 and 8.4. The complete pottery 

vessels and vessel rims from a group of well-defined contexts 

were counted according to several main types and wares (e.g., 

red slipped, Assyrian style); the results are presented in Tables 

8.3 and 8.4. A total of 2,060 vessels and rims were counted according to phases and in Phases 6 and 5 also according to welldefined architectural units.

One of the developments that can be observed between the 

phases is the gradual decrease of red slip and burnish (both hand 

and wheel) during the later phases, especially in Phases 7, 6, and 

5. This is especially apparent on bowls, where in Phase 5 several 

bowl types appear without red slip (such as the folded rim and 

open/ledge rim bowls) and only 18.5% of rims are red slipped. 

The peak of the red-slipped tradition is clearly in Phases 10–9 

(reaching over 60%). 

The appearance of red slip itself in the Iron Age southern 

Levant can be interpreted in several ways. Its initial dominant 

appearance, used as a surface treatment for most forms, notably bowls, probably occurred in southern Israel, rather than in 

Phoenicia (Mazar, 1998:377). Generally, in the first stages, only 
544 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

is crucial for this issue. It would be expected that Tell Jemmeh 

would resemble Ashkelon more than the other Philistine cities 

because of their geographical proximity. From the material published so far (Master, 2001, 2003; Stager et al., 2008, 2011:71–

121) it seems that there are some resemblances, although maybe 

not more than to Ashdod. The assemblage from Iron IIC Ashkelon (the 604 BCE destruction level, Stager at al., 2011; Waldbaum, 2011) includes much more imported pottery from the 

Aegean region and Cyprus. Moreover, several late 7th century 

BCE forms found in the Ashkelon 7th century destruction level 

are missing from Tell Jemmeh, Phase 5, including mainly Cypriot Iron Age White Painted IV and Bichrome IV (Stager et al., 

2011:103–109), the basket-handled jar (Stager et al., 2011:114–

115, fig. 5.57), and all the assemblages of Greek decorated pottery and wild goat style (Waldbaum, 2011). This pottery does 

appear, although in smaller quantities, in contexts of Phases 4, 

3, and 2 and in unstratified contexts (Figures 8.187i–k, 8.257j; 

chapter 14, Figure 14.1a–c). On the other hand, Ashkelon 7th 

century BCE assemblages lack certain Iron IIB forms common 

in the Jemmeh Phase 5 assemblage, such as red-slipped and burnished carinated bowls (Types BL1–BL4). Therefore, Phase 5 of 

Tell Jemmeh probably ends before the end of the 7th century 

BCE, dating to the early to mid-7th century BCE, whereas the 

material of the later phases in Field IV, appearing in Phases 4–3 

and unstratified contexts, partly reflects the final Iron IIC, the 

late 7th and 6th centuries BCE.

THE GRANARY AND POST–IRON 

AGE REMAINS

The phases above Phase 5 were not well preserved in Field 

IV; these include the post–Iron Age building Phases 2–4 and the 

upper Phase 1, consisting of various pits scattered in the area. In 

many cases, only fragments of walls were unearthed in Phases 

2–4, very few floors were detected, and it was difficult to connect the phasing between the squares. In several locations there 

were apparently two or three construction phases postdating the 

Iron Age, yet in other squares there was only one. Therefore, it 

seems that to a large extent, Phases 2–4 should be seen as local 

construction phases rather than general strata of archaeological 

horizons; although in some squares Phases 3 and 4 are separable, 

in others a “Phase 3–4” was defined. Consequently, a very large 

group of contexts in these layers is stratigraphically indecisive, 

being either between Phase 5 and 4 or Phases 2 through 4 or 

completely unclear (see Appendix 8.1). A single well-preserved 

component is the complete granary excavated in Sqs. 1C, 1D, 

2C, and 2D; the granary probably postdates the late Iron Age 

structures of Phase 5, yet its stratigraphic definition is still not 

completely certain and will be discussed separately below. 

Remains of Phase 4

Phase 4 (Figures 8.178–8.190) is defined as the lowermost 

late phase overlying the late Iron Age buildings; such a stratigraphical relationship was seen in only a few places in Field IV, 

Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001), Gezer, Stratum V (e.g., Gitin, 1990:119–228), Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 

(Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007), Arad, Strata VII–VI, and 

possibly Ashdod, Strata VII–VI. 

In absolute chronological terms (although there are no 

chronological anchors here to aid this dating), a very tentative 

sequence may be suggested: Phases 11–10, 950–900 BCE; Phase 

10–9, 900–800 BCE; Phase 8, 800–750 BCE; Phases 7–6, 750–

700 BCE; Phase 5, 700–650 BCE. 

This sequence does not reach the end of the Iron Age at ca. 

600 BCE and leaves a gap at least during part of the 7th century 

BCE. It is possible that during this period, the area was sparsely 

settled, with no ceramic horizon defined because of a lack of any 

floor levels above the main Assyrian buildings of Phase 5. The 

imported pottery during the Iron Age is not very rich or indicative at Tell Jemmeh. It includes mainly Black-on-Red ware, mortaria bowls, a few “Wild Goat” vessels, Ionian cups, and East 

Greek examples (see chapter 14, Figure 14.1). Note that two or 

three imported items, such as the Ionian cups (chapter 14, Figure 

14.1h), come from Phase 5 fills, but these are probably intrusive.

Regional perspectives during the Iron II are of equal if not 

greater importance compared to the chronological ones when 

considering the variability of ceramic assemblages. This is true 

not only on a wider geographical aspect, as seen in the differences 

between northern Israel, southern Israel, Judah, and Philistia, but 

also on a smaller scale, as seen in differences between coastal Philistia, the Shephelah, southern Philistia, and the northern Negev. 

This regionalism is reflected during the Iron IIA-B by the appearance of LPDW and several types, such as bag-shaped jars and 

globular jugs. This regionalism could also explain the absence or 

near absence of various forms, like decanter jugs, common in Iron 

IIB-C Judah; lmlk or lmlk-like jars of the Iron IIB, common in the 

Shephelah; or ridged-neck cooking pots and thick-based lamps, 

common in Iron IIC Judah and the Shephelah. Moreover, a more 

fine-tuned regionalism seems to occur as well, as seen through the 

comparison of the Jemmeh assemblages to assemblages at, for 

example, Ashdod and Tell Miqne in Philistia proper, with some 

types still missing or rare. These include the hole-mouth kraters (see Ashdod, Strata VIII–VII; Miqne, Strata III–IC; Batash, 

Strata III–II), globular jugs with vertical necks (see above, Type 

JG2), and small jugs with ridged rims (e.g., Batash, Stratum II; Tel 

Miqne, Stratum IB; Ashdod, Strata VII–VI; see, e.g., Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:113, Type JG16). On the other hand, several types are more common at Tell Jemmeh than at other sites, 

such as the jars with gutter rims (Type JR3), the abundance of 

tapering-base jars (Type JR2). and the high quantity of Assyrianstyle pottery. These differences may reflect a subregional distinction between coastal and northern Philistia and southern Philistia 

and the northern Negev to which Jemmeh is related. This may 

be supported by the many ceramic and other parallels between 

the material cultures of Kadesh Barnea (Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007), Tel ‘Aroer, Stratum II (Thareani, 2011), Tel 

Malhata (L. Freud, Tel Aviv University, personal communication), Tell Jemmeh, and possibly Nagila (Shai et al., 2011a). 

The Iron II assemblage of the nearby city of Ashkelon may 

have close parallels with Tell Jemmeh (Stager et al., 2011:72) and 
NUMBER 50 • 545

BCE], the Level I “residency” of Lachish [Tufnell, 1953:131–

135, pl. 119], and Ashdod, Stratum V [Dothan, 1971:171–178]; 

see also Fantalkin and Tal, 2006, on the Achmaenid administration in the southern coastal plains of Israel). It should be noted, 

however, that in Petrie’s excavation, this architecture underlies 

the granary phase (see also Reich, 1996, who predates this phase 

to the Assyrian or Iron IIB-C period).

Nevertheless, in Sq. 0B, Wall 2 is possibly located under 

Wall 1 of Phase 3 (and the fills related to it, Locus 2, Layers 

5–6); also Wall 4 is a row of bricks perpendicular to Wall 2 and is 

possibly related to it and may belong to Phase 4 (Figures 8.178, 

8.179). Units 1 and 2 were defined in this area (see below). Pit 4 

in Sq. 0B is an ashy pit cutting Wall 3 and may belong to Phase 

4 as well. In Sq. 1A, fragmentary Walls 1A and 1B may belong 

to Phase 4; some are only single rows of bricks. These fragments 

such as in Sqs. 1A–2A. In Sqs. 1B–2B hardly any architectural 

elements of this phase were detected, whereas in Sqs. 1C, 1D, 

2C, and 2D some wall remains and possibly the lower stage of 

the granary belong to this phase (Figure 8.178). Most other elements that are not clearly overlying the Phase 5 remains were 

denoted either Phase 3 or Phase 3–4 (such as the group of higher 

walls in Sqs. 0A, 0B, 1B, 2B, and 1C; Figure 8.179) and will be 

discussed below. 

This lower post–Iron Age phase may also be correlated to 

Petrie’s XXVIth Dynasty city (Petrie, 1928:7–8, pls. XI, XII, bottom). Petrie’s remains indicate a large public building or large 

“residency” (Building AF-AJ), showing an architectural plan 

typical of the Persian period in the southern Levant (see Stern, 

1982:54–60; parallels come from a building from Tel Michal 

[e.g., Herzog et al., 1989:165, fig. 7.11, dated to the 5th century 

FIGURE 8.178. Plan of Phase 4.
546 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.179. Square 0B: Walls 2, 3, and 4, Locus 2, 

looking northeast.

FIGURE 8.180. Silo Pit 5 from 

above Sq. 1A.
NUMBER 50 • 547

FIGURE 8.181. Square 1A: silo Wall 5P from the side.

FIGURE 8.182. The silo pit in Sq. 1A after 

excavation.
548 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.183. Square 2A: silo in section. FIGURE 8.184. Square 2A: Phase 4 silo standing to maximum 

height.

hardly create clear architecture; Walls 2 and 6 may continue as 

Wall A in Sq. 1B but seem to belong to a higher phase (2 or 3). 

Similarly, Wall 1A in Sq. 2A may have existed in Phase 4 as well, 

yet it is allocated primarily to the higher Phase 2. 

The main feature of Phase 4 in this area is a well-preserved 

rounded brick silo (Figures 8.180–8.187, 8.207; denoted as Pit 

5 in Sq. 1A and Pit 12 in west balk of Sq. 2A). The silo is 1.5 m 

in its outer diameter and is built of rectangular mud bricks (sized 

35 × 15 × 15 cm), laid at slight angles, thus creating a rounded 

0.3-m-thick wall (denoted as Wall 5P is the west balk of Sqs. 1A 

and 2A, preserved 11 courses high; Figures 8.181, 8.182). It is 

plastered by mud inside and out (Figure 8.181); Feature 13 in 

Sq. 2A may be the foundation trench of this wall (Figure 8.184). 

The silo was preserved up to a height of 1.6–1.8 m (levels 59.61–

61.36 m, Figure 8.207); this was probably near its full height as 

both the floor and part of the domed roof are preserved (Figures 

8.183, 8.184). It mostly was filled with ashy sediment (Figure 

8.180; the many charred seeds in Locus 8, Layer 1 possibly belong to this silo [data available from the author on request]). The 

lower part of the dome roof of the silo was identified when the 

west balk of Sq. 2A was removed and was also built of similar 

mud-plastered bricks (Figure 8.181). The floor was built of one 

layer of square bricks (Figures 8.184–8.186, in section; Sq. 2A, 

WBR, Layer 11, floor). The stratigraphic designation of silo Pit 5 

is rather clear as the silo’s floor overlies Sq. 1A, Feature 4, which 

is the upper vaulting and brick floor of Room B of Building I of 

Phase 5 (Figure 8.187; see above). The floor does not cut into the 

Phase 5 bricks and is a separate entity because the edges of the 

outer bricks were intentionally rounded to fit the inner surface of 

the silo’s outer wall (Figure 8.185). Fill and debris layers related 

to the silo and Phase 4 include Sq. 1A, Locus 7, Layers 4–11 and 

Loci 7A–7B, Layers 6–11 and Sq. 2A, WBR, Pit 12, Layers 1–11. 

Locus 7, Layers 8A–8C (and possibly Layers 6–12 of Locus 6) 

may be floor levels of this phase at 60.32 m. A relatively large 

number of charred seeds were found in this area (SCI Nos. 423, 

596, 607, 1393–1400, 1475, 1476, Sq. 1A, Loci 7–7A, Layers 

6–11). Some slag was found here, especially in the lower levels 

(e.g., SCI 808, SCI 819, possibly iron slag). It thus seems that the 
NUMBER 50 • 549

FIGURE 8.186. Square 2A, west balk: brick floor of silo.

FIGURE 8.185. Floor of silo (Sq. 1A, Pit 5).
550 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.187. Square 2A: silo Pit 5 standing on top of Wall 4 with vaulting of Building I, looking NE.
NUMBER 50 • 551

Pottery and Finds from Phase 4

Generally, only a limited pottery assemblage can be allocated to clear Phase 4 contexts (Figure 8.189). The pottery seems 

to be a mixture of terminal Iron II and early Persian period 

forms. Several sherds are illustrated from the well-preserved silo 

in Sq. 2A (Figure 8.189c,g). Material from the wall of the silo 

probably dates to before the construction, but the sediment from 

inside it represents the stage of the postusage filling of the silo 

rather than its usage. 

The pottery includes open bowls with a simple (Figure 

8.189a) or ledge rim (Figure 8.189b, possibly a chalice); these 

types can be dated to the Iron IIC, or 7th–6th centuries BCE (see 

Type BL7). Similarly, several jar necks (e.g., Figure 8.189d) are 

similar to Iron IIC jars (bag shaped or tapering base; see Figure 

8.177, Type JR1). On the other hand, several items can be dated 

later, to the early Persian period (6th–5th centuries BCE), such as 

a cooking pot with a ledge rim and straight neck (Figure 8.189c; 

see below and, e.g., Tel Michal, Stratum XI, Singer-Avitz, 1989a: 

fig. 9.1:4). Several fragments belong to Persian period amphorae (e.g., Figure 8.189e–g, possibly also the handle in Figure 

8.189h); these include cylindrical button bases (Figure 8.189f,g), 

possibly of Samian amphorae (see Grace, 1971: fig. 3), originating from the wall of the silo itself, indicating a later date for the 

construction of the silo and the related Phase 4. Two examples of 

thick basket handles of jars (Figure 8.189i,j) are also illustrated; 

basket-handle jars are usually dated to the 7th–5th centuries 

BCE (see below). 

Several examples of jugs, bottles, and juglets come from 

Phase 4 (Figure 8.189l–q). Some are not indicative, yet a thickened rim neck (Figure 8.189o) may belong to a Persian period 

type (see, e.g., Tel Mevorakh, Stern, 1978: fig. 9:8). These examples include two neck fragments (figure 8.189l, m) and two 

bases (Figure 8.189p,r). The complete lower part of a juglet 

or a bottle (Figure 8.189q) has an omphalos concave base and 

very thick body wall; it is covered by red slip. Possible parallels come from Tell el-Hesi, Stratum Va (Bennett and Blakely, 

1989: fig. 162:28), Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler, 1947: pl. 43:875), 

and City of David, Area E, Stratum 9 (Zuckerman, 2012:48, fig. 

3.7:6). Figure 8.189n is probably the neck of a carrot-shaped 

bottle (see, e.g., Batash, Stratum II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:131, Type BT3, dated to the Iron IIC and Persian period; 

see Stern, 1973:130, bottle type D). A dipper juglet with a high 

loop handle (Figure 8.189s) can be dated to the Persian period 

as well (Stern, 1973:120, jug type J). Also illustrated from Phase 

4 are a lamp fragment (Figure 8.189t) and a handmade ceramic 

object (Figure 8.189v). This ceramic object probably represents 

the rim of a shallow handmade basin or platter with a perforated 

(before firing) large knob. The tip of the knob is dented. 

Small finds from Phase 4 include a worked sherd (Reg. No. 

3139) and two bronze sheets (Figure 21.4m,n), as well as a possible piece of iron slag/bloom (SCI 808).

Although the latest pottery from Phase 4 dates to the Persian period (5th century BCE), the earliest pottery found at 

the site postdating Phase 5, of which the indicative forms are 

mostly imported wares, such as basket-handle jars, Ionian cups, 

silo’s floor was somewhat dug into the floor level of Phase 4 (possibly about 0.7 m according to floor levels around it). Pit 6, Layers 7A–9 may also belong to Phase 4 (lower levels of a later pit).

The structure of this silo conforms with universal silo building techniques, including the cylindrical shape, plastered wall, 

brick floor under the floor level, and domed roof (see below and, 

e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2009); these features are used to protect the 

crops in the silo from rodents and weather, as well as to stabilize 

its structure; the capacity of the silo can be estimated as 1.1–1.4 

m3

 according to the inner diameter of 0.9 m, height of 1.8–2 m, 

and cylindrical shape. 

In Sq. 2A, Feature 7 (Layers 1–4), an ashy pit cutting Phase 

5 walls was discovered (Figure 8.21, upper east section, and Figure 8.212) and is possibly remains of an oven belonging to Phase 

4. In Sq. 2B, Walls 4 and 7 and possibly Wall 2 (as well as wall 

fragments 7A and 8) may relate to Phase 4. Wall 4 lies under Pit 

2 and Wall 5 and is possibly related to Wall 7; a wall fragment 

under Wall 3, possibly with the same orientation, includes one 

course of bricks: it is composed of three layers of bricks (Figure 

8.171). Feature 3 may be a brick floor at 60.17 m related to Wall 

7. In Sq. 3B, Wall 1 is a northeast–southwest wall fragment on 

the north side of the square, above the late Iron Age wall (Figure 

8.171, levels of 60.82–60.95 m), possibly belonging to Phase 4. 

In Sq. 1C, fill layers under Wall 4 of Phase 3 may belong to 

Phase 4 (Locus 4, Layers 9–12). In Sq. 1D, Wall 3A and Feature 

3 adjacent to it are unclear elements just above the late Iron Age 

walls of Building V (Figure 8.90) and thus may belong to Phase 

4. Wall 3A is a thick wall or installation of bricks, possibly at a 

right angle to Wall 1, made of long bricks laid as headers; Feature 7 (Figure 8.188) is a complete jar lying on its side, southeast 

of Wall 3A (maybe from a pit, Pit 2, or a separate installation). 

As will be noted, the lower stage of the large granary in Sqs. 1C, 

1D, 2C, and 2D (Figure 8.201) may belong to Phase 4 as well.

FIGURE 8.188. Square 1D: Feature 7 with jar.
552 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.189. Pottery and finds from Phase 4. rs = red slipped. 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Bowl 2637/1 GM 2A F7 (4) 4/5?

b Bowl/chalice 7253/1 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (3) 4 Silo

c Cooking pot 7231/1 GM 2A W5P 4 Silo

d Jar 119/1 GM 2C (11) 4 Granary 

e Amphora 119/2 GM 2C (11) 4 Granary 

f Amphora 2637/3 GM 2A F7 (4) 4/5?

g Amphora 7231/2 GM 2A WBR W5P 4 Silo

h Jar 7257/1 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (5) 4 Silo

i Basket handle 7257/2 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (5) 4 Silo

j Basket handle 119/3 GM 2C (11) 4 Granary 

k Handle 3072A/1 GM 1A TT8 (1) 4?

l Jug; rs 7245/1 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (6) 4 Silo

m Jug; rs? 7245/2 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (7) 4 Silo

n Bottle 4037A/1 GM 2A NBR F7 4?

o Jug 6609/1 GM 2B (21) 4

p Juglet 4534A/1 GM 0B (7) 2 4 Unit 2

q Juglet; rs 5754/1 GM 2A TT4 (5) 1 4/5?

r Jug 2637/2 GM 2A F7 (4) 4/5?

s Handle 4552/1 GM 0B P4 (8) 4?

t Lamp 7253/2 GM 2A WBR Pit 12 (3) 4 Silo

u Sherd 4844/1 GM 0A (7) 4/5

v Leg/handle of basin (?); burnish inside Box 134 GM 2B SBR (27) 4/5?
NUMBER 50 • 553

4. Although a large quantity of restorable pottery and other 

finds were found inside the granary as well as on its floor 

(most of the pottery in Figures 8.252, 8.254–8.263), these 

finds probably cannot be used to date or to indicate the function of the granary at the time of its construction and main 

usage phase. As this structure was apparently a granary used 

for bulk storage of grain, it is not conceivable that any storage vessels or other vessels or artifacts found in it are in situ. 

Thus, these artifacts date at best to the final use of the granary 

structure or generally postdate the usage of the granary. A 

dating of postuse or back fill of the granary is also probable 

for these finds because the excavation did not go through layers of brick tumble from the upper wall and roof as would be 

expected if the structure collapsed over the vessels inside it.

A possible dating of the granary itself can only be achieved 

according to finds from its foundation trench (Sq. 1D, Feature 

22, Figures 8.216, 8.190a–c) or from the latest finds recovered 

from inside the bricks used for the structure (Figures 8.207–

8.217). Thus, a tentative allocation of the granary to Phase 3 

(or Phase 3 and 4) was made. The pottery from the foundations 

of the granary includes only a few sherds (Figure 8.190) and is 

not indicative (a jar rim and a jug handle, Figure 8.190a,b, are 

illustrated), including various Iron II sherds (e.g., a shoulder or a 

red-slipped and burnished closed vessel, Figure 8.190c). As two 

floors were identified, the lower floor may be attributed to Phase 

4 and the upper to Phase 3. As noted, the material from inside 

the granary technically postdates it and can be tentatively associated with Phase 2 or later.

The granary itself is a rounded brick structure with an outer 

diameter of about 7.7 m (inner diameter of 6 m), covering most 

and wild-goat-style pottery (see chapter 14), dates to the late 

7th through the 6th and possibly the early 5th centuries BCE. 

Thus, the beginning of Phase 4 may be dated prior to the Persian 

period.

The Granary (Phases 4 and 3)

Although the large rounded brick structure interpreted as a 

granary in Sqs. 1C–2D is the most prominent and well-preserved 

architectural feature in the upper phases of Field IV, its stratigraphic position within the Field IV sequence is not absolutely 

clear. The structure (Figures 8.191–8.206) probably postdates 

Phase 5; for example, Wall 9 of the granary in Sq. 2C cuts Wall 

4, which seemingly belongs to a unit in Building II, Phase 5. The 

foundations of the granary cut deep into Iron Age levels. Thus, 

the granary structure probably postdates the late Iron Age but 

may have still been built in the final stages of the Iron Age (late 

7th–6th centuries BCE). This creates a situation in which the 

granary is virtually stratigraphically “floating” in the Field IV 

sequence; subsequently, this structure will be discussed mainly 

descriptively in a separate section. The analysis of the granary 

and finds related to it is thus limited for several reasons:

1. The granary was not dismantled, and thus, the architecture 

underlying it is unclear. 

2. Hardly any walls or floors relate securely to the granary from 

the outside; it is largely an isolated feature according to the 

excavation notes. 

3. The granary walls were identified close to the surface of the 

tell; its upper part was eroded, and very few architectural elements were identified overlying it.

FIGURE 8.190. Pottery from foundation trench of granary.

Part Description Bag/RV No.

a Jar 4036/1

b Jug(?) 4036/3

c Jug; red slip 4036/2
554 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

from above. The capacity of the granary is estimated to be 73 m3

if an average inner diameter of 6.1 m is assumed along with a 

height of 2.5 m with a cylindrical shape. A cylindrical shape with 

a flat roof made of long wooden beams and supported by arched 

piers is shown in the reconstruction in Figure 8.204.

The fill inside the granary was excavated in Sq. 2C as Locus 

2 (Layers 2–9; Layer 10 lies on the floor; Pit 2 in GM 1C NBR 

P2 (7)) and contained several iron tools (including a sickle(?), 

Reg. Nos. 4061, 489, 493), and in Sq. 2D it was denoted as 

Locus 1 (Figure 8.201); the upper 1–1.5 m are strongly sloping down inward and are relatively ashy (Figure 8.201, center). 

This fill contained many restorable vessels, including mostly 

storage jars, amphorae, and cooking pots (see Figures 8.252, 

8.254–8.263; Van Beek, 1989a), which are dated mostly to the 

Persian period, or 5th–4th centuries BCE (Figure 8.252; as noted 

this assemblage postdates the granary and is discussed below, 

Figures 8.254–8.263). As noted, hardly any walls, features, or 

floors outside the granary could be stratigraphically related to 

it; seemingly, Wall 4 in Sq. 2C (possibly of Phase 5) is cut by the 

granary wall (possibly seen in Figure 8.216). 

In the southwest corner of Sq. 1D in the balks, a massive 

brick structure can be seen (Features 24, 25, Figure 8.202, 

8.203): various levels of bricks stick out of the balk under Wall 

1 (Figure 8.203). It is not clear whether these are lower levels of 

Wall 1 going down very deep (denoted Walls 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D) or 

are related somehow to another feature, a structure that seems 

to be constructed of flat-lying square bricks like the granary. It 

is possible that this represents the edge of another granary; the 

outer face of bricks laid in the rounded wall would look similarly 

jagged in various directions (see Figure 8.199). If this assumption 

is true, we have two closely located large rounded granaries (just 

about 2 m apart) in Field IV.

Other similar large rounded brick granaries, postdating the 

Iron Age, include 1 found in Field III, Sq. A1 (Figures 3.173–

3.174; this granary is slightly smaller, only partly exposed, and 

the floor was not reached) and at least 10 from Petrie’s excavations of his latest occupation level (Figure 8.205; Petrie, 1928: 

pls. XIII, XXV:2). Petrie’s granaries north to south include BN, 

BFF, BCC, BHH, AA, AW, AZ, WB, WG, and WH (see Table 

8.5 for details); their external diameter (eight have a complete 

rounded wall) ranges between 5.8 and 11.6 m, with a wall 

thickness of 0.8–1.2 m, roughly rising according to the size of 

structure. These granaries are built of similar square-shaped 

bricks and similar techniques, yet floors were not recovered; one 

seems to have had a domed roof (BFF, Petrie, 1928: pl. XIVB:2; 

reconstruction by Petrie in Figure 8.206). Note, however, that 

the granaries from Petrie’s excavations are only published in a 

plan and one photo from afar (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXV:2), and 

therefore, we do not have many details on their construction 

technique. 

Of the total 12 granaries, 11 were located on the west side 

of the tell, extending almost from the northern edge to the southern slope, and one was situated on the east side. All of the granaries also either are isolated or cut earlier features; hardly any 

architectural features relate to them or overlie them. The granaries are dated by Petrie to the Persian period (Petrie, 1928:8–9).

of Sqs. 2C–2D and the eastern part of Sqs. 1C–1D (Figures 

8.178, 8.191, 8.218). It is probably that during the construction 

of the granary a large pit was dug to accommodate the structure; this pit is at least 2.1 m below surface level and is 8.1 m 

in diameter in the upper part and about 6.8 m in the lower part 

(see Figure 8.201; this was denoted as Layer 1.O; however, its 

depth is below the floor it was dug from). The granary comprises 

a rounded wall (Figure 8.192; Sq. 2C, Walls 3, 9, Feature 1A; 

Sq. 1D, Walls 2, 4, 5, Figure 8.193; Sq. 2D, Wall 1) that was 

gradually built and back filled within the pit; it was preserved to 

a height of up to 23 courses of bricks, 2.10–2.35 m high, yet in 

certain places, only 14 courses survived or even only 1 course in 

the outer part of the wall (Figures 8.196, 8.199). The thickness 

of the wall is two square bricks laid horizontally and one rectangular brick or one upright standing brick, thus about 0.7–0.8 

m thick. The wall has a high degree of roundness, varying to a 

maximum of only 3% in its inner diameter; the upper courses 

are slightly tilted outward, about 0.18 m from the lower ones 

(Figures 8.196, 8.201). This offset possibly results from the outer 

wall being laid outside the foundation pit in the upper courses 

(above ground level); this could stabilize the outer face of the 

upper part of the wall and increase the capacity of the granary 

in its upper part. In their inner face, the square bricks were carefully laid, creating a smooth, rounded surface (Figure 8.196), 

whereas its outer face shows jagged, disordered edges of bricks 

(Figures 8.199, 8.202, 8.203). 

The lower brick floor (Figure 8.178, Sq. 2C, denoted also 

Wall 10, 58.65–58.74 m) adjoins the lower course, whereas the 

upper floor (Figure 8.218, Sq. 2C, Floor 1 or Locus 1, Layer 13; 

also Figures 8.197, 8.198 in Sq. 2D) is some 0.2–0.35 m higher 

(58.80–59.15 m), with a possible thin debris layer in between. 

These two floors are tentatively assigned to two construction 

phases (Phases 4 and 3); the upper floor was completely cleared 

in the excavations (Figures 8.197, 8.198), whereas the lower one 

was exposed to about 70% of its area. Two piers, wall fragments or supports of a middle partition wall, about 1.2 m each, 

lie in the Sq. 1D–2D balk in the south (Wall 8, Figures 8.200, 

8.201) and in Sq. 2C in the north (Figure 8.200). These overlie 

the upper floor and rise 1.8 m, 15 courses high. This wall was 

possibly used to support a flat roof of the granary (see Figure 

8.204; however, Petrie reconstructed a domed roof for his similar 

granaries, Figure 8.206; Petrie, 1928:8–9, figs. XIII, XIV:2,3). 

These walls are also embedded in the circular granary wall (Figure 8.195), probably to increase their strength.

The walls of the granary as well as its floor were built mostly 

of square bricks (with a size, on average, of 30 × 30 × 12 cm); 

note the bricks are relatively rich with finds and thus were made 

from debris and fill layers from within the tell. Mortar made of 

clay and straw was used to join and level the courses of bricks 

(see granary wall section, Figure 8.201). The floors are made of 

closely laid square bricks with the margin bricks cut or rounded; 

however, although in some areas they are organized in parallel 

rows, in others they are more randomly scattered (Figure 8.202). 

An attempt seems to have been made to lay the bricks in a circular pattern, and the gaps were filled with mud mortar. No lower 

entrance to the granary was detected; it was probably accessed 
NUMBER 50 • 555

FIGURE 8.192. Rounded external wall of granary, Sq. 2C, Locus 1, Layer 13.

FIGURE 8.191. The granary during excavations.
556 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.193. Square 1D: wall of granary 

during excavations.

FIGURE 8.194. The granary after excavations, looking northeast.
NUMBER 50 • 557

FIGURE 8.195. Inner (pier) wall in the granary during excavations.

FIGURE 8.196. Granary wall from inside.
558 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

years or different crops separately. In the case of spoilage by 

fire, humidity, rodents, or insects, not all the stored material 

will be affected. 

4. Organization in rows, adjacent to each other, optimizes their 

arrangement within a confined space.

Of these characteristics, at least traits 1 and 2 clearly appear 

at Tell Jemmeh, although if one considers Petrie’s results (Figure 

8.205), traits 3 and 4 are present as well.

According to ethnographic parallels (e.g., Aurenche, 1981: 

fig. 207; Pfälzner, 2002), as well as depictions on somewhat 

later cylinder seals that show such structures accessed by ladders 

(Amiet, 1972:652, 658–663, pl. 16), a total height of around 2 m 

is estimated; at Tell Jemmeh, the granaries were probably higher 

(based on their large diameter), probably at least 2.5–3 m high 

but maybe up to 5–6 m high.

The scale of the grain storage at Jemmeh was thus very large, 

evidencing large-scale community- or state-level (Bourdier and 

Minh-Ha, 1985:64–67), or even imperial-level, storage. Persian 

The function of the rounded structures can be rather securely 

assumed to be storage of grain. This determination is due to both 

their building technique and shape, which conform to universal 

principles of silo and granary construction, and the occasional 

find of carburized grains inside (such as in one of Petrie’s granaries; Petrie, 1928:9). In the past as well as today, several universal 

principles have guided the construction of silos worldwide (e.g., 

Currid, 1985:104–109; Beedle, 2001; Garfinkel et al., 2009):

1. A cylindrical shape better withstands the pressure of the 

grain, distributed evenly onto the sides of the silo, and does 

not create stress on the base or corners of a rectilinear shape. 

A rounded wall requires less building material than rectilinear 

walls confining an equal space. 

2. A thickly built (brick) floor protects the grains from rodents 

and weather. 

3. A number of silos are built in close proximity. It is easier to 

handle storage in a number of smaller silos than in one large 

installation, making it possible to store grain of different 

FIGURE 8.198. Close-up of bricks in granary floor, looking east, 

FIGURE 8.197. Granary floor and inner pier wall in Sq. 2D. in Sq. 2D.
NUMBER 50 • 559

these walls or some of them are contemporary with the granary, 

but this cannot be proved. As noted, the granary was assigned to 

this phase as a default option. There are many contexts that are 

undecided between Phases 3 and 4 or between Phases 3 and 2.

In Sq. 0A, Wall 1 is a southwest–northeast brick wall 

(60.97–61.22 m) made of three rows of bricks and continuing 

as upper Wall 5 in Sq. 0B (Figure 8.221). Altogether this wall is 

7.5 m long and connects to Wall 1 in Sq. 0B (a thinner NW–SE 

wall) and to Wall A in Sq. 1B, creating a T form (Figure 8.211). 

This could be part of a building with at least three units. Square 

0A, Feature 3 (Figure 8.220) is a brick construction (0.7 × 1 m) 

attached to the southeast face of Wall 1 (Figure 8.219), possibly representing a bench or installation (or possibly this was an 

eroded wall fragment). Thus, to the west of Sq. 0A, Wall 1, Unit 

1 (Sq. 0B, Locus 1) was defined; to the north is Unit 2 (Sq. 0B, 

Locus 2), and to the east is Unit 3 (Figure 8.218). In Unit 3, a 

small area paved with pebbles was excavated as Feature 4 and 

Sq. 1A, Test Trench 11, Feature 2. Units 1 and 3 may be rooms 

in a building, whereas Unit 2 could be part of the same structure 

as a passageway or open area between buildings. Wall 6 is the 

fragment of a wall in Sq. 1A that is possibly parallel to Wall 1 in 

Sq. 0A and may belong to the same structure, largely destroyed 

by Phase 1 pits. About 3 m to the NE, a series of wall fragments 

(Sq. 1C, Walls 1, 2; Sq. 1B, Wall B; and Sq. 2B, Walls 1 and 5; 

Figure 8.227) may create an at least 10-m-long wall parallel to 

period parallels from the Levant for rounded granaries made of 

bricks come from Tel Sera’ (Oren, 1993c:1333–1334), Ruqeish, 

and northern Sinai (Oren et al., 1986a; Oren, 1993a:1294, 

1993b). Petrie suggested that the grain that could be accumulated in the large excavated and unexcavated granaries could 

feed around 70,000 for two months, thus linking this storage 

to a barracks of a Persian army intended to attack Egypt (Petrie, 

1928:9). Although these numbers may be slightly fantastic, this 

function for the granaries cannot be ruled out in light of the geographical location of the site (and the parallels from other sites 

on the way to Egypt). Another option could relate the storage to 

commercial interests and relate it to the major port of Gaza (see 

also chapter 34 for discussion).

Remains of Phase 3

Architecture

This section will describe other remains of the building phase 

either stratigraphically above Phase 4 or in some squares combining Phases 3 and 4 (the lower post–Phase 5 remains) (Figures 

8.218–8.231). These remains include a series of interconnecting 

walls and features mainly in Sqs. 0A, 00A, 0B, 1A, 1B, 1C, and 

2B that may be part of one or two buildings, possibly existing 

in both Phases 3 and 4 (Figure 8.218). There is a possibility that 

FIGURE 8.199. Square 2D: granary Wall 1 and Wall 2, looking west.
560 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.200. Square 2C: pier wall in granary, looking east.

FIGURE 8.201. Section through granary fill: Sqs. 2C–2D, west balk.
NUMBER 50 • 561

FIGURE 8.203. Jagged bricks in the southern balk of Sq. 1D, Walls 3 and 6 in front.

FIGURE 8.202. Square 1D: granary wall in front, brick structure in 

balk (rear), looking west.
562 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Pottery and Finds from Phase 3

The pottery presented here in relation to Phase 3 (Figures 

8.229–8.231) does not come from well-defined floor surfaces. 

Most of the pottery comes from fills of Phases 3 and 4 and unclear (possibly Phase 3) contexts. Moreover, many of the Phase 

3 fills are from balk removals, and thus, their stratigraphy is not 

certain. This assemblage includes a few bowls, mortaria bowls, 

cooking pots, jars, amphorae, jugs, and juglets, including several 

nearly complete vessels, mostly jugs and juglets (Figure 8.230a–

e). The latest indicative forms seem to date to the early Persian 

period (although some forms can date also to the 7th–6th centuries BCE).

Few bowls were found in Phase 3 contexts (several are probably residual Iron Age sherds, which are common). A complete 

miniature bowl was also found here (Figure 8.229a); it is just 

9 cm in diameter and 2 cm in height, and the form is open and 

Wall 1 of Sq. 0B; this could be all part of one large structure (destroyed by erosion and late pits in the south and southeast, Sqs. 

1A–2A), or the eastern wall may be part of another building. In 

Sq. 2B, Wall 6 may be perpendicular to Wall 5 and thus to the 

long eastern wall; this area in highly disturbed by Phase 1 pits 

(see Figure 8.243, especially Pits 1 and 2); Floor 2 was defined 

here at 61.20–61.49 m. In Sq. 1C a single row of bricks (Wall 

4, Figure 8.228) may connect to Wall 1 (or more clearly to Wall 

2 below it), the outer wall of the granary; this area was defined 

as Unit 4.

In Sq. 2A, Feature 6 (Figures 8.223–8.225) is an area 

paved with flat pebbles (1 × 0.6 m) in the southern part of the 

square that contains ash, and there is possibly an animal skeleton nearby (Figure 8.225) in levels 60.82–60.96 m; it could 

relate to Phase 3. Feature 11 inside the north balk of Sq. 2A 

(Figure 8.226) is a concentration of bricks and stones, possibly 

a fire pit of Phase 3.

FIGURE 8.204. Reconstruction of granary with flat roof.
NUMBER 50 • 563

FIGURE 8.205. Granaries from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. XIII).
564 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

globular cooking pot typical of the Persian form (see, e.g., Stern, 

1973:103, cooking pot type B; Tel Michal, Stratum VIII, SingerAvitz, 1989a: fig. 9.7:3). Several rim fragments may belong to 

closed kraters or amphorae (Figure 8.229i,j). Of these, Figure 

8.229i has a folded, ridged rim with a possible mark of a broken 

handle; its surface is whitish. 

Several jar rims are illustrated, including an Iron IIC jar type 

(Figure 8.229k,l; see above, Phases 7–5, Types JR1, JR2) and a 

rim with no neck and flat shoulder (Figure 8.229m), possibly belonging to a Phoenician-type storage jar (see Figure 8.152k). A 

small jar rim (Figure 8.230o) has a short everted rim, no neck, 

shallow with a wide, flat base. This form is not chronologically 

indicative.

A relatively large group of mortaria bowls was found, including complete examples (Figure 8.229b) and rim fragments 

(Figure 8.229c–g). The mortaria bowls have a thickened, folded 

rim and somewhat ribbed upper body and are often made of 

light yellowish clay. Most of these are probably imports from 

Cyprus. Although most bases are flat (as Figure 8.229b), highringed bases also occur (Figure 8.229f,g; on this type, see Figure 

8.151k). One example of a thin cooking pot with a slightly thickened rim, everted neck, and flattened handle (Figure 8.229h) is a 

FIGURE 8.206. Reconstruction of granary with domed roof (after Petrie, 1928: pl. XIV:2,3).
NUMBER 50 • 565

complete except for the base and has a short, vertical neck, 

slightly thickened rim, loop handle to the shoulder, and bagshaped body. This is a Persian period type, which is also 

discussed below (Figure 8.260h). Another similar complete 

example (Figure 8.230b) has a lower-positioned handle and a 

concave, flat base; in this example the vertical neck is slanting, probably because of vessel contact pressure inside the kiln 

(for this type, see, e.g., Stern, 1973:119, jug type F). Another 

small jug or juglet type with a complete example (Figures 

8.230c, 8.231a–c) has a narrow neck with widening gutter rim, 

shoulder loop handle, globular body, and flat base. The juglet 

in Figure 8.230d is probably a related form (see also Figure 

8.231f,g). This is a Persian period type, discussed also below 

(Figure 8.262f–h; see, e.g., Stern, 1973:120,125,jug type I, 

and a carinated shoulder, and the upper part is red slipped; Persian period parallels come, e.g., from Tel Michal, Stratum IX 

(Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.3:7). Another rim of a small jar or jug 

(Figure 8.229n) is flaring and folded. A nearly complete jar with 

an ovoid body, vertical neck, and two shoulder handles (Figure 

8.229q) resembles Iron Age forms (see, e.g., Qasile, Strata X–

IX, Mazar, 1985a: figs. 48, 52:9), but this form appears later as 

well (e.g., Tell el-Hesi, Stratum Vd, Bennett and Blakely, 1989: 

fig. 146:5). Figure 8.229r,s shows amphorae with two handles 

attached to the rim; for this form, see below (Figure 8.256a–d). 

A thick handle (Figure 8.229p) belongs to a basket-handle jar. A 

strap handle (Figure 8.229o), probably of a jug, is also illustrated. 

Several complete jugs were assigned possibly to Phase 3 

(Figures 8.230a–c, 8.231a–c). One form (Figure 8.230a) is 

FIGURE 8.207. Square 1A, east section.
566 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

A group of jars and transport amphorae also comes from 

Phase 3 (Figure 8.230h–o). These include several neck fragments 

with thickened or folded rims (Figure 8.230h–j); some of these 

may be imported (for example, from the east Aegean region such 

as Samos or Miletus; see e.g., Grace, 1971; Whitbread, 1995). 

The upper part of an amphora (Figure 8.230k) has a swollen 

neck and two long, high, vertical handles. This shape is known 

to be of Chian origin (see, e.g., Whitbread, 1995:134–139; Cook 

and Dupont, 1998:146–151, fig. 23.2; see also chapter 14, Figure 14.4g). Another amphora neck with a similar shape is red 

slipped (Figure 8.230l); this is uncommon in Chian amphorae. 

Figure 8.230n has a larger everted rim, possibly on an imported 

amphora from Samos or Miletus (possibly as in Cook and Dupont, 1998: fig. 23.7e; for parallels, see Tel Michal, Stratum XI, 

Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.1:13). A thickened base of an amphora is also illustrated (Figure 8.230m). All these examples 

are relatively well dated to the Persian period, or the 5th–4th 

also juglet types 4, 5; see also Shiqmona [Elgavish, 1968: pl. 

XXXIII:15,16], Tel Michal [Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.13:11], 

Tel Mevorakh [Stern, 1978: fig. 9:15], Ashdod, Stratum V 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.111:10], and ‘Ein Gedi 

[Stern, 2007:204, photo 5.2.11, jug type 3]). Another similar 

yet larger juglet (Figure 8.230e) is a dipper juglet with a pyriform shape and rounded base. This form continues Iron II types 

into the Persian period (e.g., Stern, 1973:121, juglet type 1; 

Berlin and Frankel, 2012:38–39, fig. 19:1–3, defined there as 

“Phoenician semi-fine ware”). 

A nipple base illustrated (Figure 8.230f ) may belong to a 

juglet as well or to a small amphora (e.g., Shiqmona [Elgavish, 

1968: pls. XXXV:30, LIX:141], Tel Michal [Singer-Avitz, 1989a: 

fig. 9.1:15], and Kadesh Barnea [Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 

2007: fig. 11.134:12]). Two other jug or jarlet body fragments 

(Figure 8.231d,e) are also illustrated, maybe from the type discussed in Figure 8.260h below.

FIGURE 8.208. Square 1A, south section.
NUMBER 50 • 567

(Figure 8.231n), and an iron tool (Figure 8.231o). A limestone 

inscribed pym scale weight (weight of 8 g) was found in Sq. 2B, 

Layer 14 (Figure 8.231p); this context is possibly dated to Phase 

3, yet the inscribed weight is possibly residual from the Iron IIC 

(see chapter 23). A scarab was also attributed to Phase 3 (Figure 

8.231q; see chapter 27, Figure 27.3a), and an ostracon was found 

on the granary floor (Reg. No. 1955, chapter 32, Figure 32.4b). 

Remains of Phase 2

Architecture

Phase 2 remains (Figures 8.232–8.242) were very difficult to identify in Field IV. However, this phase is essential as 

it defines the postgranary fills that clearly postdate the granary, 

tentatively assigned to Phase 3, and predate the Middle Ages 

centuries BCE. A large flask (Figure 8.230g) with a rather wide 

neck and everted rim is somewhat similar to Iron IIC flasks (see 

Tel Michal, Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.5:15). 

Several body sherds from closed vessels are made of whitish clay with a metallic quality and are decorated with a dotted 

pattern of unclear nature (Figure 8.231l). This vessel is probably 

imported, maybe of earlier periods (LBII Mycenaean?). Also illustrated from Phase 3 is a lamp (Figure 8.231h) with a thin, flat 

base. A handmade coarse rim and base belongs to a large shallow basin (Figure 8.231k). Another handmade perforated small 

cup-shaped vessel (Figure 8.231i) was attached to some sort of 

vessel; possibly this is a kernos vessel. 

The few metal finds from Phase 3 or within the granary 

include a complete small four-legged stand of bronze (Figure 21.7d), a complete three-bladed bronze arrowhead (Figure 

8.231m), a complete bronze nail (Figure 21.4f), an iron chisel 

FIGURE 8.209. Square 1B, east section.
568 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

it seems to be connected to Feature 1 (Figure 8.237). To the north 

of Wall 1 in the east, Feature 3 is an area with pebbles attached 

to the wall (Figure 8.236), at 61.43 m, also possibly Feature 4 

relates to Phase 2; Locus 2 was defined here with Layers 2–7, as 

well as Floor I (Figure 8.239). In Sq. 1C, the upper bricks of Wall 

1 may belong to Phase 2; in Sq. 2C, Wall 1 and possibly Wall 2 

are high wall fragments not connected to any other features, possibly assigned to Phase 2, as is possibly Wall 6 of Sqs. 2C–2B. In 

Sq. 3B, Pit 4 may be assigned to Phase 2.

As noted, most of the fills inside the granary (some are ashy 

and filled with pottery; see Figures 8.240, 8.241) in Sqs. 1C, 1D, 

and 2C are postgranary and thus can be tentatively or technically 

assigned to Phase 2. The finds from this area include a large, rich, 

and diversified pottery assemblage including storage jars, amphorae, jugs, cooking pots, lamps, and other vessels, as well as 

(Crusader-Mamluk) pits defined as Phase 1. Otherwise, only a 

few very fragmentary walls, mainly in Sqs. 1A–2A, and possibly 

some fills and pits could be assigned to this phase (Figure 8.232).

In Sq. 1A, Wall 1 is several bricks above Wall 6 (five courses 

high in some places; Figure 8.233), possibly a wall fragment of 

Phase 2 (it is cut by Pit 5); two possible postholes and Locus 2, 

Layers 3–9 (Layer 5 is rich with pottery) may belong to Phase 2. 

In the southeast corner of Sq. 1A, Feature 1 is part of a rounded 

mud feature (1.2 m in diameter at 61.12 m), a tabun or, more 

probably, a brick bin. In Sq. 2A, Wall 1 is an east–west eroded 

wall (Figures 8.234, 8.235); it has some stones inside and is 0.8 

m thick and at least 3.5 m long and one course high; Wall 1A is 

possibly part of it. Fills to the south of Wall 1 include Pits/Layers 4–8 and Locus 3, Layers 4–9. Feature 2 is a lined depression 

filled with pebbles, cut by Pit 3, possibly a drain (Figure 8.238); 

FIGURE 8.210. Square 1B, north section.
NUMBER 50 • 569

Pottery from Phase 2

Only a limited amount of pottery can be attributed to Phase 

2 contexts (Figures 8.242), and none is from floor levels. This 

pottery seems to reflect mostly Persian period forms, yet some 

forms can possibly be dated to the early Hellenistic period. Two 

open vessels with a thick ledge rim (Figure 8.242b,c) may be 

imported decorated pottery from Greece (see chapter 14). However, as most of this pottery was mended from several squares, 

it should technically be considered as unstratified; thus, most 

of it will be discussed below with other unstratified finds in a 

typological manner and chronological sequence (Figures 8.252, 

8.254–8.263). As will be seen, most pottery from here dates to 

the Persian period.

FIGURE 8.211. Square 1B, south section.
570 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.212. Square 2A, north section.

FIGURE 8.213. Square 2A, north section, lower levels.
NUMBER 50 • 571

FIGURE 8.214. Square 2A, TT1, east section.

FIGURE 8.215. Square 2A, west section.
572 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.217. Square 2C, east section.

FIGURE 8.216. Square 1D, east section.
NUMBER 50 • 573

1 regarding the ware, Figure 8.250); these seem to represent a 

stratigraphic intrusion.

Remains of Phase 1

Phase 1 defines a series of pits, some of which are very 

large, scattered throughout Field IV (Figures 8.243–8.251). No 

floor levels relating to these pits or any other architectural feature were found in this phase. Although, in principal, these pits 

could date to several periods according to both their character 

and finds (dating often to the Middle Ages, possibly the 12th–

13th centuries CE), they are seen here as one assemblage. There 

over 30 relatively well defined pits of this sort (Figure 8.243), 

cutting all features below them, including most of the wellpreserved rooms of Building I of Phase 5 (Figures 8.108, 8.243). 

Some are rounded and up to 3–4 m in diameter, but many are 

irregular. Their function and purpose is unclear; possibly some 

of them were dug in order to quarry building material, such as 

large well-preserved mud bricks abundant in the late Iron Age 

buildings. 

The concentration of these pits is dense, especially in Sqs. 

00A–0A, 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C, and 3B. Some of the larger pits are 1.5 

m deep or more and include Pits 2, 3, and 7–9 in Sq. 00A; Pit 2 

in Sq. 0B; Pit 2 in Sqs. 0A–1A Test Trench 11; Pits 3, 4, and 6 in 

Sq. 1A; Pits 2 and 3 in Sq. 2A; Pits 1 and 2 (Figure 8.244) and 

Pit 3 (Figure 8.245) in Sq. 2B (at a certain stage most of Sq. 2B 

was occupied by these pits; Figure 8.244); Features 1 and 2 and 

Pits 1A and 3 in Sq. 3B; Pit 1 in Sqs. 1C–1D; Pits 1 and 1A in Sq. 

2C; and Pits 1–2 in Sq. 2D. All the defined pits allocated to Phase 

1 are shown in Figure 8.243. There are also numerous pits and 

other features that may be modern or cannot be dated or defined; 

these have unclear stratigraphy and are not mentioned or shown 

bowls or chalices, although the former has soot on the rim and 

was thus possibly a lamp. Two moratoria bowls are shown, 

one with a flat base (SI Cat. No. 289.15, unillustrated) and the 

other with a ring base and a hole in the center made after firing (Figure 8.242a), probably indicating a secondary use of the 

vessel. Another jar fragment (Figure 8.242d) has an everted rim 

and a ridge on the shoulder; this is a typical Persian period jar 

type (see below and, e.g., Tel Michal, Stratum IX, Singer-Avitz, 

1989a: fig. 9.3:1–5). An amphora neck (Figure 8.242e) has a 

thick folded rim and is possibly a Samian (see Grace, 1971) or 

other East Greek amphora (possibly as in Whitbread, 1995:122). 

A nearly complete jug (Figure 8.242f) has a thickened rim and 

globular body; this shape is not indicative. The lower part of 

an oval body jug with a ring base (Figure 8.242g) has some 

slip and may be an Attic import. A juglet with a thick, flat base 

(Figure 8.242i) is of a Persian period type (see Mizpe Yammim, 

Berlin and Frankel, 2012: fig. 25:4,5; possibly Stern, 1973:126, 

juglet type 7). The neck of a flask or a miniature vessel (Figure 

8.242h) has two short, thick handles attached to the neck that 

is decorated with a white band. Also illustrated is a ridged flat 

handle (Figure 8.242j), probably of a jug or juglet. A complete 

small closed lamp (Figure 8.242k) has a groove along the rim 

and is covered with dark red/black slip. This is a type appearing 

in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods (see, e.g., Tel 

Michal, Strata VII–VI [Singer-Avitz, 1989a:130, figs. 9.9:6,7, 

9.10:11,12, 9.11:3–8] and Gezer [Gitin, 1990: pl. 47A:14]). 

These lamps are imitations of glazed Attic lamps, which are 

dated in Greece to the 5th–3rd centuries BCE (see, e.g., Perlzweig, 1963: figs. 83–86). Similar unstratified lamps are illustrated below (Figure 8.263e–g). Two handmade vessels from 

Sq. 1A, Layer 9, Locus 2 (Figure 8.242l,m) are decorated in 

brown and probably have a Crusader-Mamluk date (see Phase 

TABLE 8.5. Measurements of granaries excavated at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XIII, and Smithsonian Institution).

Estimated volume according

Granary Exterior diameter (m) Wall thickness (m) to 2.5 m height (m3

)

Petrie

WG 11.58 1.2 166

WH 10.36 1.2 126

AZ 7.6 0.6 80

AW 7.46 0.6 77

BCC 7.46 0.9 63

BFF 7.77 0.75 77

BHH 7.16 0.9 56

WB 6.63 0.9 46

BN 6.25 0.3 63

AA 5.79 0.24 55.5

Smithsonian Institution 

Field IV granary 7.4 0.6 73

Field III granary 5.75 0.5 45
574 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

human burial with its head pointed to the south (possibly this is 

a female). In Sq. 2D, Pit 3 contains a partial articulated human 

burial (Figure 8.247) with its head to the north; the elongated pit 

starts in the south balk and is at least 1.5 m long. In the same 

square, Feature 3 is another human burial. In Sq. 2C, Pit 1, Layer 

2 contained a skull (Figure 8.248). 

Pottery and Finds from Phase 1 

and Other Crusader-­Mamluk Pottery

The pottery discussed here either comes from Phase 1 pits 

in Field IV or is unstratified and typologically attributed to the 

Crusader-Mamluk period (Figure 8.249–8.251). At least three 

well-defined groups of pottery can be suggested: coarse handmade 

on the plan (features or pits clearly modern according to finds or 

those related to Petrie’s dump are denoted as “no phase”). 

The pottery from the Phase 1 pits includes, on top of Persian 

and Iron Age pottery, a rather well defined assemblage of Crusader and early Mamluk pottery (Figures 8.249–8.251). These 

include coarse handmade pottery such as bowls and jars (Figure 

8.249), various cooking pots, and a few decorated jars, glazed 

bowls, and storage jars (Figure 8.251; see also Schaefer, 1989, on 

this period in Tell Jemmeh and its vicinity, and see the Crusader 

coin hoard discussed chapter 31).

In addition, up to three or four late burials may be associated with Phase 1 (they were found without finds and thus 

are difficult to date; they could be modern as well). In Sq. 1A, 

Locus 1, Layer 1 at 61.31 m (Figure 8.246) is an articulated 

FIGURE 8.218. Plan of Phase 3.
NUMBER 50 • 575

FIGURE 8.220. Square 0A: Feature 3, looking north.

FIGURE 8.219. Square 0A: Wall 1 and Feature 3, looking east.
576 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.222. Square 2B: Walls 4 and 5, looking east.

FIGURE 8.221. Square 0B: Walls 1 and 5, looking south.
NUMBER 50 • 577

FIGURE 8.223. Square 2A: Feature 6 and ash layer (possibly Phase 3), looking SE.

FIGURE 8.224. Close-up of Feature 6 in Sq. 2A.
578 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.226. Square 2A, north balk, Feature 11.

FIGURE 8.225. Animal skeleton near Feature 6 

in Sq. 2A.
NUMBER 50 • 579

FIGURE 8.228. Square 1C: Wall 4, looking NW.

FIGURE 8.227. Square 1C: Wall 2, looking NW.
580 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and have a cup-shaped application in the inside (an idea similar 

to LBII cups and saucers; see a Mamluk lid from H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a, 

Stern and Tatcher, 2009:130, fig. 3.19:4). A large bowl with lug 

handles and applied rope decoration (Figure 8.249q) may be 

similar to Mamluk basins from H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a (Stern and Tatcher, 

2009:130, fig. 3.19:5,6). 

Handmade jars or cooking pots usually have a globular 

body (Figure 8.249h–n; Figure 8.249m is made of very whitish clay). Cooking pots have an everted rim and often a shelf 

or elephant-ear handles on the body (Figure 8.250h–l): these 

are horseshoe-shaped handles applied on the body. This is a 

pottery, including bowls kraters, jars, and cooking pots (Figures 

8.249, 8.250h–l); decorated (also handmade), mostly closed vessels (Figure 8.250a–e,m,n); and glazed vessels (Figure 8.251a–f).

Several handmade rounded and shallow bowls (Figure 

8.249a–f) are made of coarse, brittle, and badly fired clay; one 

example (Figure 8.249f) has a high carination, possibly a cooking 

pot (see, H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a, Stern and Tatcher, 2009: fig. 3.23:12,13). 

Parallels for the rounded bowls come, for example, from H ̆orbat 

‘Uz≥a (Stern and Tatcher, 2009:129, fig. 3.19:1). Several small 

shallow bowls (Figure 8.249c–e) are possibly related, and two 

bases of handmade bowls (Figure 8.249c,d) are similarly made 
NUMBER 50 • 581

Jerusalem, Tushingham, 1985: fig. 38:21). Another jar handle 

with a square section (Figure 8.250e) is decorated with a winding line (for a similar handle, see, e.g., Nahal Haggit, Stratum 

III, Seligman, 2010: fig. 3.16:2). A body sherd of a closed vessel 

(Figure 8.250m) has a design of interchanging horizontal bands 

and triangles; a parallel may come from H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a (Stern and 

Tatcher, 2009: fig. 3.20:6). A body fragment with a fragmentary 

design (Figure 8.250d) is also illustrated. A nearly complete profile (Figure 8.250n) of a small vessel has a globular body and 

vertical neck. The decoration includes a plastic band, with vertical incisions all around, and a hatched pattern in red paint on 

the neck, under which is a wavy pattern; below the application 

a decorative pattern of “hooks” is painted. Note the intrusive 

sherds from Phase 2 (Figure 2.242l,m) have almost exactly the 

same patterns and may belong to the same vessel. A possible 

parallel comes from H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a (Stern and Tatcher, 2009: fig. 

3.20:8). Generally, handmade decorated pottery is well known 

from the southern Levant and other areas in the Near East during the 12th–15th centuries CE (see, e.g., Johns, 1998; Van der 

Steen, 1998; Milwright, 2010).

Glazed pottery fragments include a sherd from a spouted 

vessel (Figure 8.251a) with patterns in green and red glaze and 

an open bowl with yellow glaze (Figure 8.251c; see a possible 

parallel from Beth Shean, Avissar and Stern, 2005:37, fig. 13:3, 

there denoted as an Egyptian import). A body fragment, probably a bowl (Figure 8.251b), has a floral design in red and yellow glaze (parallels possibly come from H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a, Stern and 

Tatcher, 2009: fig. 3.29:7,8); a very small spout (Figure 8.251e, 

intrusive in Phase 3?) has green glaze and a hatched lozenge in 

brown glaze, and a disk base (Figure 8.251d, possibly worked) 

has a metallic green glaze. For glazed Mamluk pottery, see also 

well-known Mamluk type (see, e.g., Avissar and Stern, 2005:94–

95, fig. 40:5, Type II.2.2; Nahal Haggit, Stratum III, Seligman, 

2010: fig. 3.15:17). Several thin hole-mouth or globular cooking 

pots with everted rims are illustrated (Figure 8.249h–j). Mamluk parallels come, for example, from the 13th century CE monastery on Mount Carmel (Pringle, 1984: fig. 5:24), Yoqne’am 

(Avissar, 1996:132–133; Avissar and Stern, 2005:91, fig. 39:1–

3), and H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a (Stern and Tatcher, 2009:123, figs. 3.16:8,9, 

23:2,3). Thin-walled hole-mouth shapes, possibly cooking pots 

(Figure 8.249h–j), seem to be handmade, yet they are highly 

fired, often metallic, and usually carry brown-reddish glaze; 

see Avissar and Stern (2005:94, fig. 40:1–3) for the Crusader 

period. A body fragment with thumbed rope decoration (Figure 

8.249f) is probably also of a cooking pot (see Yoqneam [Avissar, 1996:138–139, fig. XIII.98:1, and references therein] and 

Nahal Haggit, Stratum III [Seligman, 2010: fig. 3.15:8]). Small 

handmade jars or jugs with a globular body and perforated knob 

handles also appear (Figure 8.249o,p); this is an early Mamluk 

form (see, e.g., Avissar and Stern, 2005:102, fig. 42:5,6).

Decorated handmade pottery includes mostly jars and jugs 

(Figure 8.250a–e,m,n; from Phase 2, Figure 8.242l, m). The 

shapes are usually of a high vertical neck with a simple rim, 

globular body, and rounded base. The upper part of a jar (Figure 8.250a) is elaborately decorated in geometric designs. These 

include crisscross, zigzag, and spiral motifs on the neck and 

shoulder painted in red. Another complete, although smaller, jar 

(Figure 8.250b) is decorated on the neck and shoulder with a 

dense hatched lozenge and triangle design (see, e.g., Jerusalem, 

Tushingham, 1985: fig. 42:17). Another jar combining several 

nonjoining fragments (Figure 8.250c) is decorated with a similar 

red design delineated as chevrons and rows of squares (see, e.g., 

FIGURE 8.229. Pottery from Phase 3 (3/4?). NA = not available; BR= balk removal. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Miniature bowl RV 212 GM 1B BR Wall B 3

b Mortarium bowl SI Cat. No. 287 GM 2D TT3 (3) 3

c Mortarium bowl SI Cat. No. 287.5 GM 2D (5) 3

d Mortarium bowl 7088/1 GM 1B (4) 1 3?

e Mortarium bowl SI Cat. No. 482.13a GM 1B (8) 1 3?

f Mortarium bowl; red decoration? RV 892 (SI Cat. No. 287.40) GM 0A F4 3/4 Unit 3

g Mortarium bowl 7087/6 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

h Cooking pot; soot 4650/1 GM 0B (4) 1 3/4? Unit 1

i Krater/amphora 6336/1 GM 1B (5) 1 3?

j Krater? 7087/1 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

k Jar 6153/1 GM 2D (10) 3 Granary 

l Jar 7087/4 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

m Jar 7087/3 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

n Jar/jug 3849/1 GM 2B WBR W2 3/4?

o Jar 4650/2 GM 0B (4) 1 3/4? Unit 1

p Basket handle 4675/1 GM 0B (1) 1 3 Unit 1

q Jar NA GM 2D TT3 (2) 3?

r Amphora RV 1026 GM 0A F4 3/4 Unit 3

s Jug/amphora; marked handle? 4642/1 GM 0B (2) 1 3/4? Unit 1
582 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.230. Pottery from Phase 3 (3/4?). rs = red slipped.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jug RV 479 (SI Cat. No. 197) GM 2D TT2–TT3 (4) 3?

b Jug; soot SI Cat. No. 261 GM 2D TT2–TT3 (3–4) 3?

c Jug/juglet SI Cat. No. 276 GM 2D (3) 3?

d Juglet SI Cat. No. 208 GM 2D TT3 (4) 3?

e Juglet; greenish fabric SI Cat. No. 264 GM 2D (2) 3??

f Base? 3771/1 GM 1B EBR (8B) 3

g Flask RV 471 (SI Cat. No. 290.1) GM 2D TT3 (3) 3 Granary 

h Amphora 7087/2 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

i Amphora 3816/1 GM 1B NBR (5) 3?

j Jar/jug; white clay 4648/1 GM 0B (1) 2 3 Unit 2

k Amphora (Chios?) RV 563 (SI Cat. No. 191.50) GM 3B (2) 3?

l Amphora; rs (Chios?) 4079/1 GM 2B SBR W5 3

m Amphora 3849/2 GM 2B WBR W2 3/4?

n Amphora 3871/1 GM 1B EBR (8) 3

o Jar; rs, orange clay 4642/2 GM 0B (2) 1 3/4? Unit 1
NUMBER 50 • 583

FIGURE 8.231. Pottery and other finds from Phase 3 (3/4?). 

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Jug; pinkish clay 7061/2 GM 1B (5) 1 3?

b Juglet 6336/2 GM 1B (5) 1 3?

c Juglet 7087/5 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

d Jarlet/jugs 4793/1 GM 1C (6) 3?

e Jug? 7047/1 GM 1B (9) 1 3?

f Juglet 7087/7 GM 1B (8) 1 3?

g Juglet 7061/1 GM 1B (5) 1 3?

h Lamp; soot 3871/2 GM 1B EBR (8) 3

i Kernos? 6216/1 GM 2D F1 (3) 3?

j Kernos(?) 4335/2 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3

k Basin; handmade 5131/5 GM 0A (6) 3/4 Unit 3

l Sherd Box 410 GM 2D (10) 3

m Bronze arrowhead Reg. No. 608 (SI Cat. No. 206.B) GM 0B (1) 1 3 Unit 1

n Iron chisel Reg. No. 472 (SI Cat. No. 3015?) GM 2D (9) 3 Granary

o Iron tool/hoe Reg. No. 469 (SI Cat. No. 3016?) GM 2D (5) 3 Granary

p Scale weight; pym (limestone) Reg. No. 1305 (SI Cat. No. 117) GM 2B (14) 3?

q Scarab Reg. No. 1160 GM 2A (13) 3
584 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.232. Plan of Phase 2.
NUMBER 50 • 585

FIGURE 8.234. Square 2A: Wall 1/1A, looking south (front).

FIGURE 8.233. Square 1A: Wall 1 over Wall 6, looking SE.
586 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.236. Feature 3 near Wall 1 in Sq. 2A.

FIGURE 8.237. Square 2A: Feature 1, looking east (Feature 2 on 

left).

FIGURE 8.235. Square 2A: Wall 1, looking north.
NUMBER 50 • 587

POTTERY FROM UNSTRATIFIED CONTEXTS: 

A TYPOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

This section discusses pottery that was found in various unstratified or unclear contexts (Figure 8.252) and is presented here 

for several reasons. Some of the examples represent unique or 

special types or types or periods not represented in the stratified 

pottery discussed above. In addition, a large assemblage of complete vessels was reconstructed from the accumulations in the 

granary area, especially Sqs. 1C, 2C, 1D, and 2D. The extensive 

reconstruction work yielded scores of complete vessels, typologically dating mostly to the Persian period. This pottery will be 

discussed according to periods and types.

H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a (Stern and Tatcher, 2009:143–148, figs. 3.24–3.31). 

A large, thin, open bowl (Figure 8.251f) has a ledge handle and is 

glazed in red on the upper inside. This is probably a baking dish 

common in the 12th–14th centuries CE Mamluk period (see, 

e.g., H ̆orbat ‘Uz≥a, Strata 5–4, Stern and Tatcher, 2009:124,142, 

figs. 3.16:12, 3.23:17).

Other forms from Phase 1 are a bowl or krater with perforations (Figure 8.251h), a jar rim made of whitish clay (Figure 8.251g; see Nahal Haggit, Stratum III, Seligman, 2010: fig. 

3.17:1), and a cylindrical object, possibly part of a drainage pipe 

(Figure 8.251h). Small finds that may be dated to Phase 1 include a 

complete crooked bronze nail (Figure 21.4c), a complete iron nail 

(Figure 21.5k), and possibly several glass items (Figure 25.1n–q).

FIGURE 8.239. Square 2A, Floor I.

FIGURE 8.240. Accumulation of pottery inside granary in Sq. 2D.

FIGURE 8.241. Lamp in granary fill, Sq. 2D.

FIGURE 8.238. Square 2A: Feature 2 (drain?), looking SE. 
588 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

of birds. Three other decorated fragments show an “axe” register motif, and another body fragment (Bag 4335, unillustrated) 

shows the leg of a quadruped, probably from a typical Canaanite 

scene (see chapter 10 for these).

Iron I

The Iron Age I is represented by several Philistine Bichrome 

sherds found in Iron II contexts (as Figure 8.143l). A fragment of 

a hollow, possibly circular, tube (see Figure 8.231j) may belong 

to an Iron Age kernos.

Middle Bronze Age

A trefoil rim jug with bichrome decoration (Figure 8.253a) 

belongs to a White Painted V-VI ware vessel and is a Cypriot 

import from the MBIIB-C (see chapter 11).

Late Bronze Age

Representation of the Late Bronze Age II includes a BRII 

ware jug fragment (Figure 8.253b) with dark slip. A fragment of 

a biconical krater (Figure 10.2c) shows a unique design of a row 

FIGURE 8.242. Pottery and finds from Phase 2. af = after firing.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Mortarium, perforated af 6809/5 GM 1A (3b) 2 2

b Bowl/lamp 6809/1 GM 1A (3b) 2 2

c Bowl 6809/2 GM 1A (3b) 2 2

d Jar 6809/3 GM 1A (3b) 2 2

e Amphora 6809/4 GM 1A (3b) 2 2

f Jug RV 480 (SI Cat. No. 261.1) GM 2C NBR (6) 2

g Jug na GM 2C (7) 2 2

h Flask/miniature vessel 3269/1 GM 1D TT2 (4A) 2?

i Juglet SI Cat. No. 318 GM 2C NBR (3) 2

j Jug 3277/1 GM 1D TT2 (5) 2?

k Lamp RV 432 (SI Cat. No. 271) GM 2C NBR (6) 2

l Jug 6781/1 GM 1A (9) 2 2

m Jug(?), brown decoration 6781/2 GM 1A (9) 2 2
NUMBER 50 • 589

8.5a–g). A red-slipped and burnished sherd with black decoration (Figure 8.253k) may also date to this period. 

Iron IIB-C (Late 8th and 7th–6th Centuries BCE) 

and Persian Period

The upper part of a bottle (Figure 8.253l) has a thickened, 

ridged rim and wide, vertical, ridged neck; this type is probably 

Iron IIA

Two Iron Age Cypriot imports are also illustrated: a complete Black-on-Red juglet (Figure 8.253d) and a jug fragment 

with black decoration probably of Bichrome or White Painted 

ware (Figure 8.253c; see chapter 11). The fragment of a degenerated, red-slipped, bell-shaped bowl (Bag 4383, unillustrated) 

dates to the late Iron I/Iron IIA (see Phase 11 above, Figure 

FIGURE 8.243. Plan of Phase 1.
590 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.244. Square 2B: looking above Pit 2 (lower right).

FIGURE 8.245. East and south balks of Sq. 2B with Pit 3 visible in the corner.
NUMBER 50 • 591

FIGURE 8.246. Human burial in Sq. 1A, Locus 1, Layer 1, looking west.

FIGURE 8.247. Human burial in Sq. 2D, Pit 3, looking north.
592 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.248. Square 2C, skull in Pit 1, Layer 2.
NUMBER 50 • 593

8.253e) with plastic decoration may also date to the Iron Age. A 

button base of what seems to be a jug (Figure 8.253i) is of unclear date; it is perforated on its lower side. A handmade coarse 

base of whitish clay (Figure 8.253u) may belong to a votive or 

figurative vessel of unclear date.

Persian Period Pottery from the Granary Area

Squares 1C, 1D, 2C, and 2D, within the round granary and 

around it, yielded, after careful and lengthy restoration, about 

80 complete vessels (Figure 8.252). Most of the pottery is indicative of the Persian periods and is described below (Figures 

8.254–8.263).

Bowls

Much of the pottery found in the granary area is residual 

and can be dated to the late Iron Age. However, it should be 

noted that some pottery forms continue without much change 

from the Iron IIC to the 6th century BCE and the early Persian 

period; this is generally true for a series of 16 complete bowls 

mentioned below. Several plain rounded bowls with thickened, 

flat rims and disk bases are illustrated (Figure 8.254a–e) and 

may also be dated to the Iron IIB-C (Persian parallels come, e.g., 

from ‘Ein Gedi, Stern, 2007: fig. 5.2.1:12,13). Bowls with an 

everted rim, globular body, and rounded base appear in various 

forms in the reconstructed assemblage (Figure 8.254g–i). These 

somewhat resemble Assyrian-style imitation bowls of the Iron 

IIB-C (see above) yet continue into the Persian period as well 

(see, e.g., Stern, 1973:98, bowl A5; see also Tel Mevorakh, Strata 

IV–VI [Stern, 1978: fig. 5:1] and Tell el-Hesi, Stratum Vd [Bennett and Blakely, 1989: fig. 141:20]). Unslipped globular bowls 

with slightly everted simple rims and disk bases (Figure 8.254j–

p) may be dated to the late Iron Age (see Tel ‘Ira, Stratum VI 

related to the Assyrian- type bottles of the Iron IIC (see, e.g., 

Batash, Stratum II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:129, Type 

BT1, and references therein). A large basket handle (Figure 

8.253f) belongs to a basket-handle amphora dated to the Iron 

IIC or Persian period (see Figure 8.257j). The button base of an 

amphora (Figure 8.253h) probably dates to the Persian period 

(see below). A nearly complete globular juglet (Figure 8.253j) 

has a flat base and thick body wall and also may date to the Persian period (see, e.g., Stern, 2007: photo 5.2.12). 

Other pottery that may be dated to the late Iron Age and is 

illustrated below (Figure 8.262) includes several closed vessels. 

A flat jar rim with no neck and flat shoulder (Figure 8.262a) 

is somewhat similar to Phoenician storage jars but is made of 

an unusual orange well-levigated clay. This vessel was probably 

imported. Another vertical jar neck is illustrated (Figure 8.262c). 

The hollow base of an Iron II pillar figurine was also found in the 

topsoil of Field IV (Figure 17.3f). An upper part of an amphora 

(Figure 8.262d) has a ridge in the upper neck, a globular body, 

and a band and tree design on the handle. For a similar shape in 

the Persian period see, e.g., Tell el-Hesi, Stratum Vd (Bennett and 

Blakely, 1989:143:4); this could be an imported East Greek decorated table amphora (e.g., Figure 8.262e), although the shape 

is also somewhat similar to spouted amphorae, a typical Iron IIB 

form (as Tell en-Nasbeh, Wampler, 1947: pl. 30). 

Several items may not be chronologically indicative, such 

as a complete stand found in a possibly Phase 5 context (Figure 

8.262m). This is a high stand with a simple rim and a triangular 

cut window at the base; it possibly dates to the Iron II (see, e.g., 

Ashdod, Stratum VII, Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 24:5). A 

complete stand (Figure 8.262n) is possibly attributed to Phase 

2. It has a dented decoration on the rim on both ends. Parallels 

come from Hellenistic Maresha (Regev, 2003:183, form 97). A 

simple short stand (Figure 8.262o) is complete and has a biconical shape. A rim fragment of a bowl, chalice, or stand (Figure 

FIGURE 8.249. Pottery from Phase 1. NA= not available; us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Bowl 3308/1 GM 3B P2 us/1

b Bowl 3308/2 GM 3B P2 us/1

c Bowl/lamp? RV 306 GM 1A (5) 4 1

d Bowl/lamp? RV 302 GM 3B F1 1

e Bowl NA GM 2B P8 1

f Bowl? 5449/2 GM 1A NBR (5) 2 1/3?

g Sherd 5449/4 GM 1A NBR (5) 2 1/3?

h Krater(?); red slip 5449/1 GM 1A NBR (5) 2 1/3?

i Cooking pot; soot 6564/1 GM 1A (5A) 2 1

j Glazed pot/jar RV 360 GM 2C WBR PA 1

k Glazed pot/jar NA GM 2B TT1 (2) 1

l Glazed pot/jar NA GM 2B (8) us

m Krater(?) 3042/1 GM 1A (6) 2 1?

n Jar? 3308/5 GM 3B P2 us/1

o Handmade jar? 3308/3 GM 3B P2 us/1

p Handmade jar? 3308/4 GM 3B P2 us/1

q Bowl 6785/1 GM 1A (1) 2 Us
594 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.250. Pottery from Phase 1 and Crusader-Mamluk pottery. NA = not available; us = unstratified.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Decorated jar RV 305 GM 1A TT1 (1) 1 1

b Decorated jar NA GM 2A (0) us

c Jar; red decoration Box 11 GM 2B (0) us

d Decorated sherd Box 19/1 GM 3B P2B Unknown

e Decorated handle Box 330 GM 2D P2D? 1

f Handmade vessel RV 323 GM 2B SBR (5) 1

g Handmade vessel NA GM 0B (0) us

h Handmade vessel NA GM 1A NBR (4) 2 Unknown

i Handmade vessel NA GM 1A TT4 (4) 1

j Jug; handmade RV 308 GM 2A P2 1

k Handmade vessel NA GM 2B P2 1

l Jug(?) 3042/2 GM 1A (6) 2 1?

m Sherd; decorated 6564/3 GM 1A (5A) 2 1

n Jug; decorated 6785/2 GM 1A (1) 2 us
NUMBER 50 • 595

FIGURE 8.251. Pottery from Phase 1. us = unstratified.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Sherd; brown, green glaze 6902/1 GM 1A (0a) Us

b Bowl; glazed (in) Box 5/1 GM 2A (0) Us

c Bowl; brown, yellow glaze Box 5/2 GM 2A (0) Us

d Worked base; green glaze Box 19/2 GM 3B Pit 2B Unknown

e Glazed spout? Box 10/1 GM 2B (11) 3?

f Plate; glaze 6795/1 GM 2B (5A) 2 Unknown

g Jar/jug; whitish light clay 6190/1 GM 1D EBR (1) 1

h Pipe? SI Cat. No. 478 GM 2C P1 (4) 1

i Krater; perforated before firing 7125/2 GM 2A pit 3 1

FIGURE 8.252. Reconstructed pottery vessels from the granary fills.
596 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

have a globular to sack-shaped body, rounded base, short neck, 

simple rim, and two somewhat flattened handles. Several of the 

pots have clear soot marks on the body (e.g., Figure 8.255d). 

Parallels come, e.g., from Tel Michal, Stratum VIII (Singer-Avitz, 

1989a: fig. 9.5:11) and ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 2007:202, photos 5.2.7, 

Type 1; see Stern, 1973:102, cooking pot type A). One example 

(Figure 8.255a) has a higher neck and a capacity of 12 L; parallels 

come, e.g., from ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 2007:202, photo 5.2.8, Type 2). 

Table Amphorae

Five complete or nearly complete table amphorae were reconstructed (Figure 8.256a–e). Of these, three or four (Figure 

[Freud, 1999: figs. 6.91:2, 6.92:2–9], Batash, Stratum II [Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: Type BL12], and Ashdod, Stratum VI 

[Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.105:1–4]). A deep, plain 

bowl with grooves under the rim and a concave base (Figure 

8.254f) may recall Iron II bowls (see, e.g., Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: Types BL26a, BL37) but has parallels in the Persian period as well (see, e.g., Stern, 1973:97, bowl type A4; Tel 

Mevorakh, Strata IV–VI, Stern, 1978: fig. 5:3).

Cooking Pots

Five complete cooking pots, reconstructed from this area, are 

illustrated (Figure 8.255a–e). Generally, these are thin walled and 
NUMBER 50 • 597

(Figures 8.256j,k, 8.257a–h) has many complete examples and is 

somewhat similar; it is taller (50–70 cm high in most cases) and 

has a rounded to slightly pointed base. This form may be seen as a 

continuation of the late Iron II bag-shaped jar (see Type JR1) and 

is a common jar type in the Persian period in the southern Levant 

(see, e.g., Stern, 1973:107, jar type F; see also Tel Michal, Strata 

IX–VIII [Singer-Avitz, 1989a: figs. 9.3:1,2, 9.4, 9.5:1–8] and Horvat Rogem [Cohen and Cohen-Amin, 2004: fig. 102:4,6]).

A few more complete examples show a thickened rim, short 

or no neck, carinated shoulder, and pointed lower part and base 

(Figure 8.257b,c). This form resembles the late Iron Age and Persian period Phoenician transport amphora (see above and Stern, 

1973:111–112, jar types H6, H9; see also Tel Michal, Stratum 

VI [Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.10:5,6] and Tel Keisan, Level 4 

[Salles, 1980:143, fig. 41]). However, its shoulder is not as carinated as the Phoenician jars, and the body widens in the middle 

of the body; parallels come, for example, from Shiqmona, Stratum B (Elgavish, 1968: pl. LI:51), Tel Mevorakh, Strata IV–VI 

(Stern, 1978: fig. 6:8), Tel Keisan, Level 3 (Briend and Humbert, 

1980: pl. 18:11), and Tel Michal, Stratum VIII (Singer-Avitz, 

1989a: figs. 9.5:9, 9.14:10).

Possibly, the most common jar type reconstructed from the 

granary area is the type with a vertical neck, folded rim, sausageshape body, vertical handles on the shoulder, and elongated, tapering, hollow base (with eight complete examples, Figures 8.258, 

8.259). One of the complete examples has a script mark incised 

after firing (Figure 8.259a; see Van Beek, 1989a; here see Figure 

32.4f; also, Figure 8.259b is recorded to have such a sign). The capacity of complete examples is 29–43 L. The hollow tapering base 

8.256c–e, possibly Figure 8.256a) have a vertical neck, slightly 

thickened, everted rim, two handles connected mid neck, a 

slightly carinated body, and a high ring base; in some cases soot 

marks are seen (Figure 8.256d,e). The fifth amphora (Figure 

8.256b) has higher handles, a globular body, and a delicate ring 

base. These amphorae are somewhat similar to Iron IIC ridgedneck amphorae (see, e.g., Batash, Stratum II, Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:79–80, Type AM5). Persian period parallels come 

from Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 1 (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 

2007: fig. 11.134:1–4).

A cylindrical-bodied vessel (amphora or krater?) with high 

vertical basket handles and a ring base (Figure 8.255f) is nearly 

complete, with only the rim missing. Although the general shape 

of the upper part and basket handles resemble basket-handle amphorae from the same period, this vessel is clearly different (as 

the body and handles are much thinner and the vessel has a wide 

ring base); no parallels were found. 

Jars

A large number of reconstructed complete storage jars of 

various types were found in the granary area (Figures 8.256f–k, 

8.257a–h, 8.258, 8.259a–c). Sack-shaped jars (Figure 8.256f–

i) are relatively short (40–60 cm high) and wide, have a short 

everted neck, thick handles on the shoulder, and a wide, slightly 

rounded base. This type can be found in Persian period sites, e.g., 

at ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 1973:105, jar type A), Tel Michal (SingerAvitz, 1989a: figs. 9.12:9, 14:5), and Horvat Rogem in the Negev 

(Cohen and Cohen-Amin, 2004: fig. 102:1). A narrower jar type 

FIGURE 8.253. Unstratified pottery and other finds from various periods. BOR = Black on Red ware; Cyp. WPVI = Cypriot White Painted VI 

ware; Cyp. BRII = Cypriot Base Ring II ware; us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance Phase

a Jug, bichrome decoration (Cyp. WPVI) Box 867 GM 1B EBR (8) 3

b Jug, black decoration (Cyp. BRII) RV 204 GM 2C W2 2?/3?

c Jug, black decoration (Iron Age Cyp. WP/Bichrome) Box 240 GM 2B TT3 (20) 4?

d Juglet (BOR) Box 868 GM 2B P17 Unknown

e Bowl/chalice/stand RV 721 GM 0B (1) 1 3

f Basket handle 7053/1 GM 2B (9) 1 Unknown

g Jar; white clay 6168/1 GM 1D EBR (3) Post 3

h Amphora 7053/1 GM 2B (9) 1 Unknown

i Base; perforated 4889/1 GM 00A F3 Unknown

j Juglet; white slip 4109/1 GM 1E (1) us

k Decorated sherd 337/1 GM 2D (10) 1 Unknown

l Bottle 4530/1 GM 0B P8 (1) Unknown

m Krater 998/1 GM 2C NBR (4) Post 3

n Sherd 5449/3 GM 1A NBR (5) 2 1/3?

o Jar 6308/1 GM 1B F5 I 3/1?

p Sherd 7317/1 GM 2A F1 2?/us

q Jug 7337/1 GM 3B (2) 3?/us

r Jug 7106/1 GM 2A (0) us

s Flask? 7131/1 GM 2A (0) us

t Handle 7131/2 GM 2A (0) us

u Base; white clay 4889/2 GM 00A F3 Unknown
598 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.254. Unstratified bowls from Field IV (Persian period). NA = not available.

Part Description SI Cat. No./RV No. Provenance

a Bowl SI Cat. No. 255 GM 2C (0)

b Bowl SI Cat. No. 265 GM 2C TT1 (1)

c Bowl SI Cat. No. 250 GM 1C–2C

d Bowl SI Cat. No. 250.2 NA

e Bowl SI Cat. No. 250.1 NA

f Bowl RV 482 GM 2A NBR (3)

g Bowl SI Cat. No. 285 GM 2D TT2 (1)

h Bowl SI Cat. No. 292.1 NA

i Bowl RV 513 (SI Cat. No. 292.2) GM 2C

j Bowl SI Cat. No. 254 GM 2D (+)

k Bowl SI Cat. No. 253 GM 2D TT2 (1)

l Bowl SI Cat. No. 286 GM 2C TT1 

m Bowl RV 512 (SI Cat. No. 292.3) GM 1C P2 (7)

n Bowl SI Cat. No. 292 GM 2C (0)

o Bowl SI Cat. No. 248 GM 2C (+)

p Bowl SI Cat. No. 289 GM 2D
NUMBER 50 • 599

FIGURE 8.255. Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Persian period).

Part Description SI Cat. No./RV No. Provenance

a Cooking pot 281 GM 1-2-C-D

b Cooking pot; soot 279.2 NA

c Cooking pot; soot 279.1 NA

d Cooking pot 256 GM 1C–2C

e Cooking pot 279 GM 2C–2D

f Amphora/krater 195 GM 2C
600 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

IV and is discussed in chapter 14. Several examples are illustrated 

here as well, including a complete lekythos (Figure 8.262l); many 

other fragments are discussed in chapter 14 (Figures 14.5–14.7).

One nearly complete basket-handle jar/amphora is illustrated (Figure 8.257j). The jar has no neck, an ovoid body with 

a very thick pointed base (not preserved in this example), and 

two high, vertical basket handles. Many of these vessels appear 

already in the 7th century BCE (see above various handle fragments), are usually made of light-buff clay, and are probably imported from Phoenicia or Cyprus. They appear throughout the 

southern Levant as well as Cyprus, Egypt, and Syria (see, e.g., 

Elgavish, 1968: pl. LVIII, Stern, 1973:11–14, basket jar type I; 

Briend and Humbert, 1980: pls. 23,24; Salles, 1980:138–139, 

fig. 40b; Singer-Avitz, 1989a:122, figs. 9.3:9, 9.13:18,19). 

Jugs and Juglets

A number of jugs and juglets were reconstructed from the 

squares of the granary area (Figures 8.260e–h, 8.261, 8.262f–i). 

A large jug type (Figure 8.260e–g) has an ovoid body and a vertical neck (shorter in Figure 8.262f, with a more globular body 

and rounded base; for parallels, see, probably, Stern, 1973:119, 

fig. 171, jug type E). Figure 8.260g has a more unusual concave 

base (see, possibly, Tel Keisan, Level 4, Briend and Humbert, 1980: 

pl. 28:8). Jugs in Figure 8.261a,c,e are probably of the same type 

(for this type, see, possibly, Tel Michal, Stratum VI, Singer-Avitz, 

1989a: fig. 9.10:9). Figure 8.261b is somewhat similar but has a 

wider neck and thicker disk base. Smaller jugs have a sack-shaped 

body (Figure 8.260h) with an everted rim and rounded base, and 

the handle is attached to the middle of the body; see Stern’s jug 

type F (Stern, 1973:119, fig. 172) and Tel Mevorakh, Strata IV–VI 

(Stern, 1978: fig. 9:1). A common jug type has a globular body, narrow neck, and flat base (Figure 8.261f–h). This type was discussed 

in Phase 3 above (Figures 8.230c, 8.231a–c; see recent parallels at 

the Mizpe Yammim sanctuary, Berlin and Frankel, 2012:38, fig. 

19). Figure 8.261k is similar but is narrower and has a thicker base 

(see, e.g., Shiqmona, Stratum B [Elgavish, 1968: pl. VII:134] and 

Mizpe Yammim [Berlin and Frankel, 2012: fig. 25:4]). 

is cup shaped and often has a ridge on its upper part (e.g., Figure 

8.258d). This type is somewhat similar to Stern’s jar type G (Stern, 

1973:109, fig.146). Better parallels, although usually fragmentary, come from Petrie’s excavations at Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. 

LVI:47K), Tel Mevorakh (Stern, 1978: fig. 7:5), Horvat Rogem, 

Stratum I, Horvat Haro’eh in the Negev (Cohen and Cohen-Amin, 

2004: figs. 102:5, 112), and possibly ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 2007: fig. 

5.2.5:8). As noted, a sherd from one of the jars of this type (Figure 8.259a) carried a monogram reading ‘bm (‘Abum in south 

Arabian languages), a name known in both Sabean and Minean 

inscriptions (Van Beek, 1993a:673; see Figure 32.4f).

Transport Amphorae

Amphorae have two handles attached to the rim or neck (distinguishing them from jars with handles attached to the shoulder or body). A complete amphora (Figure 8.257i) has a slightly 

swollen neck, two handles attached to the neck, an ovoid/pyriform 

body, and a short tapering base (see, e.g., Stern, 1973:115). This 

type might be imported or an imitation of an East Greek transport 

amphora (somewhat similar to Samian or Milesian amphorae; see, 

e.g., Cook and Dupont, 1998:170–177; Whitbread, 1995:122). 

Another complete amphora (Figure 8.259d) has a similar shape 

but a regular neck and higher shoulder. Other larger transport 

amphorae illustrated include several examples with ovoid bodies and thickened, bulbous, tapering bases (Figure 8.260a–c; see 

Petrie, 1928: pls. LIV: C196,A196, LVI: BC200). These forms are 

related to East Greek amphorae or their imitations (see, e.g., Stern, 

1973:114–115; Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 15:17,22) and 

continue to appear in the early Hellenistic period. Vessels with a 

similar base type may belong to various types of Greek amphorae, 

such as Corinthian, Knidian, Chian, or Rhodian (see, e.g., Cook 

and Dupont, 1998:142–190; Whitbread, 1995).

Imported amphorae include several examples of East Greek 

decorated table amphorae (Figures 14.3–14.4) and a long, large 

double handle of a transport amphora (Figure 8.260d), probably 

of a Koan amphora (see, e.g., Whitbread, 1995:81–83, and references therein). A large quantity of Attic ware was found in Field 

FIGURE 8.256. Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae) from Field IV (Persian period). NA = not available. (opposite)

Part Description SI Cat./RV No. Provenance

a Amphora SI Cat. No. 296.2 NA

b Amphora SI Cat. No. 296 GM 2C–2D

c Amphora SI Cat. No. 296.1 NA

d Amphora SI Cat. No. 278 GM 1C–2C

e Amphora SI Cat. No. 278.1 GM 1C–1D

f Jar RV 998 (SI Cat. No. 397) GM 2D

g Jar RV 972 (SI Cat. No. 395) GM 1-2-C-D

h Jar RV 967 (SI Cat. No. 395.1)

i Jar RV 990 (SI Cat. No. 395.2)

j Jar RV 368 (SI Cat. No. 291.2) GM 1C P2 NBR (6–7)

k Jar SI Cat. No. 194.1
NUMBER 50 • 601
602 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.257. Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period). 

Part Description RV/Cat. No. Provenance

a Jar RV 994 (SI Cat. No. 194) GM 1C–1D

b Jar RV 987 (SI Cat. No. 298)

c Jar RV 568 (SI Cat. No. 298.1) GM 2C

d Jar RV 969 (SI Cat. No. 291.1)

e Jar RV 369 (SI Cat. No. 291.3) GM 2C–2D

f Jar SI Cat. No. 291 GM 1-2-C-D

g Jar RV 672 (SI Cat. 194.2) GM 1C–1D

h Jar RV 618 (SI Cat. 273.2) GM 1C–1D

i Amphora RV 989 (SI Cat. No. 297) GM 1-2-C-D

j Amphora SI Cat. No. 196 GM 2D TT2 (1)
NUMBER 50 • 603

FIGURE 8.258. Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period). NA= not available.

Part RV No. Provenance

a RV 966 (SI Cat. No. 299) GM 1-2-C-D

b RV 978 (SI Cat. No. 292.2) NA

c RV 672A (SI Cat. No. 273) NA

d RV 968 (SI Cat. No. 273.1) NA
604 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 8.259. Unstratified pottery (jars and amphorae; Persian period).

Part Description SI Cat./RV No. Provenance

a Amphora; incised sign on body RV 673 (SI Cat. No. 313.1)

b Amphora; incised sign on body? SI Cat. No. 394 GM 1C–1D

c Amphora SI Cat. No. 274

d Amphora RV 988 (SI Cat. No. 297.1)

e Amphora RV 637 (SI Cat. No. 299.1) GM 2C–2D
NUMBER 50 • 605

FIGURE 8.260. Unstratified pottery (jugs and juglets; Persian period). BR= balk removal. 

Part Description RV/Cat. No. Provenance

a Amphora RV 574 (SI Cat. No. 398) GM 1D–2D

b Amphora RV 595 (SI Cat. No. 193.9) GM 2C

c Amphora RV 597 (SI Cat. No. 193) GM 2C–2D

d Amphora handle (Kos?) RV 567 (SI Cat. No. 199) GM 2D (1)

e Jug; soot SI Cat. No. 262 GM 2C BR (1)

f Jug RV 971 (SI Cat. No. 293) GM 1D–2D

g Jug RV 985 (SI Cat. No. 259) GM 2C–2D

h Jug; soot SI Cat. 263 GM 2C TT1 (0)
606 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

dipper juglet type 2; Berlin and Frankel, 2012:41, fig. 22). Figure 

8.262j,k shows possibly necks or juglets with a thickened rim 

(see Berlin and Frankel, 2012: figs. 24, 25).

Flasks

Several complete flasks reconstructed from the granary area 

include a large flask (Figure 8.263a) that has a lentoid shape and 

burnish on the body; the capacity is 5 L. Parallels can be found 

at, e.g., Tel Michal (Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.13:16) and ‘Ein 

A complete dipper juglet with a high handle is illustrated 

(Figure 8.261d); it has a wide vertical neck and globular body. 

Similar juglets with high handles but narrower necks are known 

from the Persian period (e.g., Stern, 1973:120, fig. 177, jug type 

J), yet this form may be more related to the cup types (see, e.g., 

Shiqmona [Stern, 1973:127, fig, 193] and Tel Michal, Stratum 

XI [Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.1:21]). Several complete or nearly 

complete dipper juglets (Figure 8.262f–i) have a pyriform body, 

everted neck, and flat base. As noted above, this could be either 

a late Iron II or a Persian period type (Stern, 1973:121–132, 

FIGURE 8.261. Unstratified pottery (jugs and juglets; Persian period). NA = not available. 

Part Description SI Cat./RV No. Provenance

A Jug SI Cat. No. 277 GM 2C–2D

B Jug SI Cat. No. 393 GM 2C

C Jug; soot SI Cat. No. 280 GM 2C–2D

D Jug/juglet SI Cat. No. 391 GM 2C

E Jug RV 490 (SI Cat. No. 393.1) GM 2C NBR (1-3)

F Jug/juglet SI Cat. No. 258 GM 1D-2D

G Juglet SI Cat. No. 359.1 NA

H Jug/juglet SI Cat. No. 359 GM 2C (0)

I Jug/juglet SI Cat. No. 309 GM 2C NBR (3)

J Juglet SI Cat. No. 258.1 NA

K Juglet SI Cat. No. 318.1 NA
NUMBER 50 • 607

FIGURE 8.262. Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Persian period). NA = not available.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Jar; fine orange clay (imported?) 6175/1 GM 2C (8)

b Amphora 6224/1 GM 2C (10) 2

c Jar/jug; whitish light clay 6160/1 GM 2C BR (9)

d Jug/flask; decorated NA GM 2D (2)

e Decorated amphora; East Greek NA GM 2A (20)

f Juglet SI Cat. No. 257 GM 2D (2)

g Juglet SI Cat. No. 260 GM 2C (1)

h Juglet SI Cat. No. 257.1

i Juglet RV 163 (SI Cat. No. 331) GM 2A WBR (0)

j Jug? NA GM 2C (10a)

k Jug? SI Cat. No. 318.4 GM 2D SBR (+)

l Jug/lekithos? SI Cat. No. 198 GM 1C–1D

m Stand RV 1008 GM 1C (19) 4

n Stand SI Cat. No. 283 GM 2C (5) 2

o Stand RV 991 (SI Cat. No. 249) GM 1D EBR (2)

p Lamp SI Cat. No. 396 GM 2C NBR (9)
608 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

periods, and was discussed above in Phase 3 (Figure 8.242k). A 

complete lamp with two spouts (Figure 14.10a) from Sq. 0B, Pit 

4 is an unusual type; it is covered with glossy red slip and is dated 

to the early 5th century BCE (see chapter 14, Cat. Nos. 383–391 

and Figure 14.10b–e).

Hellenistic Period Pottery

Several vessels typical of the Hellenistic period were found 

in unstratified contexts and in Phase 1 contexts (Figure 8.264). 

These attest to the existence of this period at the site, yet no 

architecture can be clearly associated with this period. These 

Gedi (Stern, 2007:207, photo 5.2.20, fig. 5.2.8). Smaller flasks 

have a similar shape (Figure 8.263b–d), although they have a 

slightly flatter body. 

Lamps

A lamp with a thin, flat base (Figure 8.262p) is also probably a local Persian type (see, e.g., Tel Michal, Stratum VIII, 

Singer-Avitz, 1989a: fig. 9.7:6,7). At least three complete closed 

lamps were also found in the granary area (Figure 8.263e–g). 

This type of lamp covered with red or dark slip is an imitation 

of an Attic type, appears during the Persian and early Hellenistic 

FIGURE 8.263. Unstratified flasks and lamps (Persian period). NA = not available.

Part Description SI Cat./RV No. Provenance

a Flask; burnish SI Cat. No. 290 GM 2C–2D

b Flask SI Cat. No. 282 GM 2C (2–3)

c Flask SI Cat. No. 269 GM 1C P2 EBR (5)

d Flask SI Cat. No. 269.1 NA

e Lamp RV 409 (SI Cat. No. 272) GM 3B (1)

f Lamp SI Cat. No. 267 GM 2C (0)

g Lamp SI Cat. No. 216 GM 2D (2) 8
NUMBER 50 • 609

for this type, see, e.g., Anderson-Stojanovic, 1987; Rotroff, 

2006); examples come, e.g., from Ashdod (Dothan, 1971: figs. 

18:4–10, 79:10–16, 99:19–26; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.113:11), and Maresha (Regev, 2003:171–172, forms 41–

48), as well as practically every other Hellenistic site in the Levant. A coiled handle (Figure 8.253t) is possibly also Persian/

Hellenistic in date (see Gezer [Gitin, 1990: pl. 47:4] and Maresha [Levine, 2003: fig. 6.12:116, an imported lagynos]).

Byzantine and Islamic Pottery

Notably, no late Hellenistic, Roman, or early Byzantine pottery was found at the site, leaving a gap of about 600–700 years. 

The Byzantine and early Islamic period is not well represented 

at the site, yet remains come from the southern trench (ST1; see 

chapter 5) and a nearby site published by Schaefer (1989). Late 

Byzantine or early Islamic sherds may include sherds with combing decoration (Figure 8.253m,n; see Magness, 1993:206–211; 

Avissar and Stern, 2005: fig. 36:1–3) and ribbed body fragments 

include small bowls with inverted rims, ring bases, and inner 

and outer glossy black slip (Figure 8.264a,b; see also chapter 

14, Figure 14.9h–k, Cat. Nos. 371–381). This is a form known 

from the Persian and mostly Hellenistic periods (e.g., Ashdod 

[Dothan, 1971: fig. 15:11,12], Apollonia-Arsuf [Tal, 1999: fig. 

4.42], and Maresha [Levine, 2003: fig. 6.2:37]). A molded bowl 

(Figure 8.264c) can also be dated to the Hellenistic period. It has 

a vegetative motif on its inner part and is probably an Attic import (see chapter 14). Several amphorae fragments may be dated 

to the Hellenistic period as well (Figure 8.264d–h), especially 

those with a triangular, thick rim and long, vertical handles (Figure 8.264g,h), which are possibly Knidian or Rhodian amphorae (see, e.g., Grace, 1979; Finkielsztejn, 2001) dated to the 4th 

century BCE. A stamped amphora handle fragment found in the 

Sq. 2C west balk (Figure 20.7i) comes from Knidos on the east 

Aegean coast. The impression reads ΠΑΘ and is dated by Monakhov (1999) to the mid-4th century BCE. No Rhodian stamped 

handles were identified at Tell Jemmeh. Another hallmark of the 

Hellenistic periods is the fusiform unguentaria (Figure 8.264i–m; 

FIGURE 8.264. Unstratified pottery from Field IV (Hellenistic period). EGR= East Greek; NA = not available.

Part Description Bag/RV No. Provenance

a Bowl; black slip SI Cat No.. 251 GM 2C N2 

b Bowl; black slip SI Cat. No. 252 GM 2D (+)

c Bowl; black slip, molded decoration NA GM 2C (3) 2

d Amphora; Rhodian? RV 562 (SI Cat. No. 191) GM 2C (8)

e Amphora; EGR? RV 794 (SI Cat. No. 192.5) GM 1C P2 EBR (5)

f Amphora, Rhodian? RV 771 (SI Cat. No. 191.1) GM 2C TT1 (8)

g Amphora, Rhodian? RV 793 (SI Cat. No. 192.4) GM 1D EBR (2)

h Amphora, EGR? Cat. 292 (SI Cat. No. 192) GM 2C NBR (3)

i Juglet/unguentarium? 3213/2 GM 1D P1 (1)

j Unguentarium 3213/1 GM 1D P1 (1)

k Unguentarium RV 770 (SI Cat. No. 318.3) GM 2C NBR (3)

l Unguentarium; red decoration RV 539 GM 2C NBR (4)

m Unguentarium 7125/1 GM 2A P3
610 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and surface treatment indicate an Iron IIC date (possibly early 

7th century BCE). 

Above the Phase 5 remains, the rounded granary was 

found. It is difficult to date this structure, which is allocated to 

either Phase 4 and/or Phase 3. The structure seems to be after 

the vaulted buildings, but it could also date to the late 7th century BCE, the 6th century, or to the early Persian period (the 5th 

century BCE). Otherwise, only scanty remains from Phases 4–2 

were unearthed. The pottery assemblage from these contexts, in 

addition to reconstructed vessels from unstratified contexts in 

the vicinity of, inside, or above the granary, indicates a Persian 

period date, mostly the 5th and 4th centuries BCE; a few late 

Persian-Hellenistic vessels (4th–3rd centuries BCE) were also 

found. Notably, all five coins identified at the site, which were 

found in unstratified contexts (see chapter 30), are dated to Alexander the Great’s days or slightly later, i.e., the late 4th and 

possibly early 3rd centuries BCE. Phase 1 includes several large 

pits, which contains Crusader-Mamluk-dated pottery and probably represent quarrying activities from this period.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: ben-shlomod@si.edu. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. I thank Elena Kogan-Zehavi for suggesting this idea to me.

of jars (Figure 8.253o,p). A jug/flask neck (Figure 8.253s), possibly a jug with swollen neck, has a Mamluk date (e.g., Avissar and 

Stern, 2005:108, fig. 45:4–6). Other pottery fragments of unclear 

dating are a jar handle made of whitish clay (Figure 8.253g), a 

jug with a handle with a grooved section (Figure 8.253r), and a 

jug with a thin, dented handle (Figure 8.253q).

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM FIELD IV

Field IV represents the largest exposure at the Smithsonian excavation at Tell Jemmeh. Nevertheless, only two periods 

are represented by significant architectural remains: the Iron II 

(Phases 7–5) and post–Iron Age remains, probably dated mostly 

to the Persian period (Phases 4–3). The Iron IIA is represented in 

very limited exposures by Phases 11–9. This exposure indicates 

mud brick structures and installations. Most of the pottery from 

these phases indicates the later part of the Iron IIA (ca. 9th century BCE). The earlier Iron IIA (10th century BCE) and the Iron 

IB are represented only by some residual sherds. The large exposure of the Iron IIB-C, Phases 7–5, includes massive mud brick 

structures, probably at least three different buildings, although 

they are related to each other. These buildings attest to sophisticated masonry techniques, including vaulted arches. The pottery 

from Phases 7–6 indicates an Iron IIB date, with a mixture of 

coastal (late Philistine) and southern affinities. 

In particular, large structures with two preserved stories 

were unearthed in the upper Iron Age Phase 5. Building I illustrates the brick and vaulting building techniques that have Assyrian affinities. In this phase, a large assemblage of Assyrian-style 

pottery was found as well. The pottery assemblage of Phase 5 is 

similar in many ways to that of Phases 6 and 7, but the appearance of a few new types and the decrease in typical Iron IIB types 
NUMBER 50 • 611

APPENDIX 8.1

TABLE 8.A1. List of contexts of Field IV. The notation {xx} indicates the year of excavation when the layer number is repeated in various seasons. Recording of elevations was not systematic. In some cases only the upper or lower elevation was recorded, and in others 

it is questionable. Bld = building.

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 0A (0) Topsoil None

GM 0A (1) Fill None

GM 0A (2) Fill None

GM 0A (3) Fill 3–4

GM 0A (4–4A) Fill 3–4

GM 0A (5) Fill 60.68 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A (6) Fill 60.68 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A (6A) Fill 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A (6C) Fill 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A (7) Wash 4–5

GM 0A (7A) Fill Unknown

GM 0A (8) Fill ~59.40 ~59.95 5 Bld I, Room E Fallen vaults

GM 0A (9) Fill ~59.40 5 Bld I, Room E 

GM 0A F1 Bricks 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A F2 Vaulting 60.50? 5 Bld I, Room F/E 

GM 0A F3 Wall? 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A F4 Pebbles 60.92? 3–4 Unit 3 

GM 0A W1 Wall 61.08 3–4 Unit 3 Brick wall

GM 0A W2 Wall Unknown Bld I? Brick wall

GM 0A P1 Pit Unknown

GM 00A (0) Topsoil 60.84 61.13 None

GM 00A (1) Fill None

GM 00A (2) Fill None

GM 00A (3) Fill None

GM 00A (4) Fill 60.16 None

GM 00A (4A) Fill None

GM 00A (5) Fill 61.04 None

GM 00A (6) Fill 5?

GM 00A (7) Fill 60.13 5 Outside Bld I 

GM 00A (7A) Fill 5 Outside Bld I 

GM 00A (7B) Fill 5 Outside Bld I 

GM 00A (7C) Fill 5 Outside Bld I 

GM 00A (8) Fill 5 Outside Bld I 

GM 00A (5) 2 Fill 5?

GM 00A (6) 2 Fill 5?

GM 00A (1) 3 Debris and fill 58.11 ~60.30 5 Bld I, Room F 

GM 00A F1 Tin can None Tin can in Layer 4

GM 00A F2 Bricks Unknown In P1

GM 00A F3 Pit Unknown

GM 00A F4 Vaulting 5 Bld I, Room F 

GM 00A F5 Bricks 60.26 5 Bld I Bricks capping FT F6

GM 00A F6 Foundation trench 5 Bld I FT of W1 

GM 00A F7 Unknown Unknown

GM 00A W1 Wall ~58.12 60.28 5 Bld I Brick wall

GM 00A W2 Wall ~58.12 59.83 5 Bld I Room F Brick wall

GM 00A P1 Pit 60.32 Unknown

(continued)
612 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 00A P2 Pit 60.19 1?

GM 00A P3 Pit 60.16 Unknown

GM 00A P3A Pit 60.07 Unknown

GM 00A P4 Pit 60.23 60.42 Unknown

GM 00A P5 Pit 60.02 Post 5

GM 00A P6 Pit 60.16 Unknown

GM 00A P7 Pit 60.33 1?

GM 00A P8 Pit 60.13 60.68 1?

GM 00A P9 Pit 59.96 1?

GM 00A P10 Pit 59.71 60.32 Unknown

GM 0B (0) Topsoil None

GM 0B TT1 (1) Fill None?

GM 0B (1) 1 Fill 3 Unit 1 

GM 0B (2) 1 Fill 3 Unit 1 

GM 0B (1) 2 Fill 3 Unit 2 

GM 0B (1A) 2 Fill 3 Unit 2 

GM 0B (2) 2 Fill/floor 3–4? Unit 2 

GM 0B (2) 1 Fill 60.59 60.78 3–4 Unit 1 

GM 0B (1B) Fill 3–4?

GM 0B (3) 1 Fill 4 Unit 1 

GM 0B (4) 1 Fill 3–4? Unit 1 

GM 0B (5) 1 Fill 4–5 Unit 1 

GM 0B (5) 2 Fill 4 Unit 2 

GM 0B (5) 1 Ash 4–5 Unit 1 

GM 0B (6) 2 Fill 4 Unit 2 

GM 0B (7) 2 Fill 4 Unit 2 

GM 0B (1) 3 Fill 4 Unit 2 (Locus 3) 

GM 0B TT2 (1) Fill 4? Unit 1? 

GM 0B TT2 (1B) Fill 4? Unit 1? 

GM 0B TT2 (2) Fill 4? Unit 1? 

GM 0B TT2 (2B) Ash 4?

GM 0B (8) 4 Fill ~60.55 5? Locus 4 

GM 0B (9) 4 Fill 5? Locus 4 

GM 0B (10) 4 Fill 60.13 5? Locus 4 

GM 0B (6) 5 Fill 60.63 60.65 5? Bld I? 

GM 0B (7) 5 Fill 4–5? Bld I? 

GM 0B (8) 5 Fill 5? Bld I? 

GM 0B (9) 5 Fill 60.32 5? Bld I? 

GM 0B (10) 5 Fill 59.47 5? Bld I? 

GM 0B TT3 (11) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 Trench along outer side of 

Wall 3 to clarify it; wash 

layers

GM 0B TT3 (12) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (13) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (14) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (15) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (16) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (17) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (18) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 
NUMBER 50 • 613

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 0B TT3 (19) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (20) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B TT3 (21) 4 Fill 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B (13A) 4 Fill 5 Bld I, Room F? 

GM 0B (14A) 4 Fill 5 Bld I, Room F 

GM 0B (15A) 4 Fill 5 Bld I, Room F? 

GM 0B (16A) 4 Fill 5 Bld I, Room F? 

GM 0B (6) 2 {73) Fill 5 Under Unit 2 

GM 0B (7) 2 {73) Fill 5 Under Unit 2 

GM 0B F1 Wall 60.59 61.20 3–4 Unit 1 Wall 5?

GM 0B F2 Wall 60.58 60.62 5? Locus 4? 

GM 0B F3 Bricks 5 Locus 4 

GM 0B F4 Foundation trench 5 Locus 4 FT of W3

GM 0B F5 Vaulting 5 Bld I, Room F 

GM 0B P1 Pit ?

GM 0B P2 Pit 4? Unit 2? 

GM 0B P3 Pit 4? Unit 2? 

GM 0B P4 (1) Pit ~60.50 4/1?

GM 0B P4 (2) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (3) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (4) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (5) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (6) Pit 60.10 4?

GM 0B P4 (6A) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (6B) Pit 4?

GM 0B P4 (7) Pit 60.10 4?

GM 0B P4 (8) Pit 4?

GM 0B P5 Pit Post 5

GM 0B P6 Pit 58.86 59.13 4?

GM 0B P7 (1) Pit? 5?

GM 0B P8 (1) Pit Unknown

GM 0B P8 (2) Pit Unknown

GM 0B P8 (3) Pit Unknown

GM 0B P8 (4) Pit 5?

GM 0B W1 Wall 60.78 61.16 3 Brick wall

GM 0B W2 2 Wall 60.79 60.93 4/3 Brick wall

GM 0B W3 2 Wall 59.14 60.87 5 Bld I, Room F Brick wall

GM 0B W4 Wall 60.93 4/3 Unit 2 Partition wall

GM 0B W5 Wall 60.59? 60.88 Unknown Brick wall

GM 0B W5A Wall 5 Bld I, Room F Brick wall

GM 0B W6 Wall 58.06 58.81 5 Bld I, Room F Brick wall

GM 00B (0) Topsoil 61.23 None

GM 00B TT1 (1) Fill 61.23 None?

GM 00B TT1 (1A) Fill Unknown

GM 00B TT1 (2) Fill Unknown

GM 00B TT1 (3) Wash 60.92 Unknown

GM 00B TT1 (4) Fill 60.92 2–3?

GM 00B (1) 1 Fill 60.97 3 Unknown 

GM 00B (2) 1 Fill 60.97 3 Unknown 
614 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 00B (2) 2 Fill 3 Unit 1? 

GM 00B (3) 1 Fill 60.54 3–4?

GM 00B (3) 2 Fill 4?

GM 00B (4) Wash 60.35 4?

GM 00B (5) Fill 4–5?

GM 00B (6) Fill Unknown

GM 00B (6A) Fill 60.42 5?

GM 00B (6B) Fill 5?

GM 00B (7) Fill 3–4?

GM 00B (7A) Fill 59.99 60.23 3–4?

GM 00B (8) Fill Unknown

GM 00B (9) Fill 60.12 Unknown

GM 00B F1 Stones 60.52 4?

GM 00B F2 Tabun 60.3 4?

GM 00B F3 Surface layer 60.24 60.38 Unknown

GM 00B F4 Bricks 60.39 5 Capping of FT F5

GM 00B F5 Foundation trench 60.13 60.21 5 FT of W2

GM 00B F6 Foundation trench 5 FT W7?

GM 00B F7 Bricks Unknown

GM 00B W1 Wall 60.95 3 Unit 1? Brick wall

GM 00B W2 Wall 60.53 5 Bld I Equals 00A W1

GM 00B W3 Wall 60.77 5? Bld IV? Brick wall

GM 00B P1 Pit 60.93 1?

GM 00B P2 Pit 60.55 1?

GM 00B P3 Pit 60.37 60.78 1?

GM 00B P4 Pit 60.35 Unknown

GM 00B P5 Pit 60.78 60.92 Unknown

GM 00B P6 Pit Unknown

GM 00B P7 Pit Unknown

GM 00B P8 Pit 1?

GM 00B P9 Pit Unknown

GM 00B P10 Pit Unknown

GM 00B P11 Pit Unknown

GM 1A TT1 (0) Topsoil 61.35 None

GM 1A TT1 (1) Fill 61.16 61.35 2

GM 1A (1) 1 Burial 61.31 1?

GM 1A P1 (1) 2 Pit 0?

GM 1A P2? (2) 2 Pit/fill 0?

GM 1A TT1 (2) Fill 2

GM 1A TT1 (3) Fill 2

GM 1A Posthole 1 Fill 2

GM 1A Posthole 2 Fill 2

GM 1A (2A) 2 Pit 1

GM 1A TT1 (0A) Topsoil None

GM 1A (3) 2 Fill 1–2?

GM 1A (3A) 2 Fill 2

GM 1A (3B) 2 Fill 2

GM 1A (3C) 2 Fill 2

GM 1A (4) 2 Fill 1?
NUMBER 50

• 615

TABLE 8.A1(continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1A (5) 2 Fill 1?

GM 1A (5A) 2 Fill 1?

GM 1A (5B) 2 Fill 1?

GM 1A (6) 2 Pit 1?

GM 1A (7) 2 Pit 2?

GM 1A (8) 2 Fill2

GM 1A (9) 2 Fill2

GM 1A (10) 2 Fill 2?

GM 1A (11) 2 Fill 61.20 61.40 2? Equals (5B)

GM 1A (12) 2 Fill 2?

GM 1A (12A) 2 Fill 2?

GM 1A (13) 2 Fill 2?

GM 1A (14) 2 Fill 1?

GM 1A (0B) Fill None

GM 1A (0C) Topsoil None

GM 1A P3 (1) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P3 (2) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P3 (3) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P3 (4) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P3 (4A) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P3 (5) 3 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (1) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (1A) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (1B) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (2) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (3) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (3A) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (4) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (5) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (5A) 4 Pit1

GM 1A P4 (6) 4 Pit1

GM 1A W5P (P5) Silo 59.61 61.224 Silo Silo rounded brick wall

GM 1A (1) 5 Installation 60.70 61.70 3–4? Ash

GM 1A (2) 5 Ash 3–4?

GM 1A (2A) 5 Ash 3–4?

GM 1A (3,3A,3B) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (4) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (5) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (6) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (7) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (7A) 5 Fill 3–4?

GM 1A (8) 5 Ash 3–4?

GM 1A (9) 5 Ash 3–4?

GM 1A TT2 (1) Fill2

GM 1A TT2 (2) Fill3

GM 1A TT2 (3) Fill3

GM 1A TT2 (4) Fill 60.72 2?

GM 1A TT3 (1) Fill 4?

GM 1A TT3 (2) Fill 4?
616 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1A TT3 (3) Fill 4?

GM 1A TT3 (4) Fill 60.50 4?

GM 1A TT4 (1,1A) Fill 61.15 61.20 3

GM 1A TT4 (2) Fill 3

GM 1A TT4 (3) Fill 3

GM 1A TT4 (4) Fill 3

GM 1A TT4 (5) Fill 3

GM 1A TT4 (5A) Fill 3

GM 1A TT4 (6,6A,6B) Fill 4/1?

GM 1A TT4 (7,7A,7B) Fill 60.66 60.96 4/1?

GM 1A TT4 (8,8A,8B) Fill 4/1?

GM 1A TT4 (9,9A) Fill 4/1?

GM 1A TT4 (10) Fill 4/1?

GM 1A P1 2 Pit 62.04 0 Petrie trench?

GM 1A P2 2 Pit 60.94 1

GM 1A P2 3 Pit 60.03 1

GM 1A P2 4 Pit 60.45 60.62 1

GM 1A P5 Silo 59.61 61.36 4

GM 1A P6 (1) Pit 60.68 60.96 1

GM 1A P6 (2) Pit 60.29 60.68 1

GM 1A P6 (3) Pit 60.01 60.29 1

GM 1A P6 (4,4A) Pit 59390 60.01 1

GM 1A P6 (5,5A) Pit 59.88 59.93 1

GM 1A P6 (6) Pit 59.88 1

GM 1A P6 (7) Pit 1

GM 1A P6 (7A) Fill 4?

GM 1A P6 (7B) Fill 4?

GM 1A P6 (7C) Fill 4?

GM 1A P6 (7D) Fill 4?

GM 1A P6 (8,8A) Fill 59.13 59.35 4?

GM 1A P6 (9) Fill 59.01 59.16 4?

GM 1A P6 (9A) Fill 4?

GM 1A P6 (10) Fill 58.85 59.01 4?

GM 1A P6 (11) Fill 58.85 59.01 4?

GM 1A P7 Pit Unknown

GM 1A P8 (1) Pit 60.53 60.61 Unknown

GM 1A P8 (1A) Pit Unknown

GM 1A P8 (2) Pit 60.24 60.53 Unknown

GM 1A (1) 6 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (2) 6 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (3) 6 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (3A) 6 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (4,4A) 6 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (5) 6 Fill 60.54 Unknown

GM 1A (6) 6 Fill 60.60 4? Equals (6A) 7

GM 1A (7) 6 Fill 4? Equals (7) 7

GM 1A (8,8A) 6 Fill 4?

GM 1A (9) 6 Fill 60.27 4? Equals (9) 

GM 1A (10,10A) 6 Fill 4?
NUMBER 50 • 617

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1A (11) 6 Fill 4?

GM 1A (12) 6 Fill 4?

GM 1A (1,1A) 7 Fill 3?

GM 1A (1B) 7 Fill Unknown

GM 1A (2) 7 Fill 3?–4?

GM 1A (3) 7 Fill 3?–4?

GM 1A (4,4A,4B) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (5,5A) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (6) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (7) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (8,8A) 7 Fill 60.38 60.45 4

GM 1A (8B) 7 Fill/floor? 60.32 60.40 4

GM 1A (8C) 7 Fill/floor? 60.32 4

GM 1A (9) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (10,10A) 7 Fill 4

GM 1A (11) 7 Fill 4 Equals (7B) 8

GM 1A (12) 7 Fill 59.53 5? Bld I, Room C? 

GM 1A (6,6A) 7A Fill 60.08 4

GM 1A (7) 7A Fill 59.99 4

GM 1A (8) 7A Fill 4

GM 1A (9) 7A Fill 4

GM 1A (10) 7A Fill 4

GM 1A (10) 7A Fill 4

GM 1A (7) 7B Fill 60.20 4

GM 1A (8) 7B Fill 4

GM 1A (9) 7B Fill 4

GM 1A TT5 (1) Fill 59.94 60.24 4

GM 1A TT5 (2) Fill 59.64 4

GM 1A TT5 (2A) Fill 59.64 60.17 4

GM 1A TT5 (3) Fill 4–5

GM 1A F1/P9 7 Pit 59.89 60.83 Unknown

GM 1A F2 7 Ash pocket 59.55 59.68 Unknown

GM 1A TT6 (1) Fill 59.70 4?

GM 1A TT6 (2) Fill 59.05 59.63 4?

GM 1A TT7 (1) Fill 60.05 4?

GM 1A TT8 (1) Fill 60.09 4?

GM 1A (1,1A) 8 Fill 59.15 59.60 4–5

GM 1A (2) 8 Fill 58.38 59.60 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A (3) 8 Debris 59.22 59.50 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A (4) 8 Debris/floor 59.15 59.32 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A TT9 (1) Fill 5 Fill under Silo 5

GM 1A F1 (2) 8 Bricks 5

GM 1A F2 (2) 8 Ash pocket 59.82 5?

GM 1A F3 (2) 8 Bricks 59.90 5

GM 1A F4 (2) 8 Pit/hole None? Disturbance

GM 1A TT10 (1) Fill 58.50 58.90 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A TT10 (2) Debris 58.22 58.47 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A (1) 9 Doorway 60.39 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A (2) 9 Doorway (debris) 58.22 60.39 5 Bld I, Room B Debris in doorway Room B
618 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1A (3) 9 Doorway (debris) 58.22 5 Bld I, Room B Debris in doorway Room B

GM 1A (4) 9 Doorway (fill) 5 Bld I, Room B Fill in doorway

GM 1A (5) 9 Doorway (fill) 5 Bld I, Room B Fill in doorway

GM 1A (6) 9 Doorway (fill) 5 Bld I, Room B Fill in doorway

GM 1A (7) 9 Doorway (fill) 5 Bld I, Room B Fill in doorway

GM 1A (1) 10 Fill 5 Bld I, Room E Fill under Room E vault?

GM 1A (1A) 10 Fill 5 Bld I, Room E? 

GM 1A (2) 10 Fill 5 Bld I, Room E? 

GM 1A (3) 10 Fill 5 Bld I, Room E? 

GM 1A (4) 10 Fill 5 Bld I, Room E? 

GM 1A F1 10 {73} Tabun? 5 Bld I, Room E 

GM 1A W1 Wall 61.74 61.82 2 Brick wall

GM 1A W1A Wall 62.04 3? Brick wall

GM 1A W1B Wall 61.49 3 Brick wall

GM 1A W1C Wall 3 Brick wall

GM 1A W2 Wall 60.70 61.50 2–3? Brick wall

GM 1A W3 Wall 60.99 3 Brick wall

GM 1A W4 Wall 59.00 60.90 5 Bld I, Room B Brick wall

GM 1A W5 Wall 58.20 60.46 5 Bld I, Room B Brick wall

GM 1A W6 Wall 60.91 61.28 3 Brick wall

GM 1A W7 Wall 60.05 5 Bld I, Room B Brick wall

GM 1A W8 Wall 58.87 5 Bld I, Room B/E ? Brick wall

GM 1A W8A Wall 58.21 59.67 5 Bld I, Room B/C Brick wall

GM 1A W8B Wall 58.85 5 Bld I, Room C Brick wall

GM 1A–0A TT11 (0) Topsoil None

GM 1A–0A TT11 (1) Fill None?

GM 1A–0A TT11 F1 (1) Pit None? Pit 1

GM 1A–0A TT11 (2) Pit None? Pit 2

GM 1A–0A TT11 P2(1) Pit None? Pit 3

GM 1A–0A TT11 F2 (1) Stones 60.92 3?

GM 1A–0A TT11 F3 (1) Bricks 59.91 5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 F4 (1) Bricks 58.11? 5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (2) Fill 60.72 Unknown

GM 1A–0A TT11 (3) Fill 60.62 60.72 3?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (4) Fill 60.90? 3?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (5) Fill 3?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (6) Fill 60.78 61.09 3?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (6A) Fill 60.63 60.93 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (7) Fill 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (7A) Wash Unknown

GM 1A–0A TT11 (8) Ash 60.53 60.76 3–4? Thick ash

GM 1A–0A TT11 (9) Fill 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (10) Fill 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (11) Fill 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (12) Fill 3–4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (13) Fill 5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (14) Fill 60.64 5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (15) Fill 5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (16) Fill 5?
NUMBER 50

• 619

TABLE 8.A1(continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1A–0A TT11 (12) 7 Fill 4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 (13) 7 Fill 4?

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (1) Pit 58.91 60.851

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (2) Pit 1

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (3) Pit 1

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (4) Pit 1

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (5) Pit 1

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (6) Pit 1/5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (7) Pit 1/5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 P3 (8) Pit 1/5?

GM 1A–0A TT11 W1 Wall 61.41 61.51 3/5? Brick wall 

GM 1A–0A TT11 W9 Wall 58.83 58.855 Brick wall 

GM 1A NBR (0) Topsoil None

GM 1A NBR (1) Fill Unknown

GM 1A NBR P2 (1) Pit1

GM 1A NBR (1A) Fill3

GM 1A NBR (2) Fill3

GM 1A NBR (3) Fill3

GM 1A NBR (2) 1 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (1) 2 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (1A,1B) 2 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (2) 2 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (3) 1 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (4) 1 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (5) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (6) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (7) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (7A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (2) 2 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (2A) 2 Fill Unknown

GM 1A NBR (2B) 2 Wall 2–3?

GM 1A NBR (2C) 2 Fill3

GM 1A NBR (2D) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (E2) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (2F) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (2G) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (3) 2 Wash1

GM 1A NBR (3A) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (3B) 2 Wash1

GM 1A NBR (3C) 2 Wash1

GM 1A NBR (3D) 2 Wash 60.70 60.921

GM 1A NBR (4) 2 Fill1

GM 1A NBR (5) 2 Fill 1/3?

GM 1A NBR (6) 2 Wash 1/3?

GM 1A NBR (7) 2 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (8) 2 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (9) 2 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (10) 2 Fill 3?

GM 1A NBR (11) 2 Fill 3?
620 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1A NBR (12) 2 Fill Unknown

GM 1A NBR (1) 8 Debris 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A NBR (2) 8 Debris 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A NBR (3) 8 Debris 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A NBR P6 (1) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (2) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (2A) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (3) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (4) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (5,5A) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (6) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (7) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (8) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR P6 (9) Pit 1?

GM 1A NBR W1 Wall 60.80 61.62 3 Brick wall

GM 1A NBR W1 (1) Wall 61..01 61.22 3

GM 1A NBR W2 Wall 5 Bld I, Room B/E? Brick wall

GM 1A NBR W3 Wall 60.43 60.50 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 1A NBR W7 Wall 60.16 5 Bld I, Room B 

GM 2A TT (0) Topsoil None

GM 2A TT (0A) Topsoil None

GM 2A TT (1) Topsoil None

GM 2A TT (2) Fill 1 Equals P1

GM 2A TT (3) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (4) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (5) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (6) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (6) Floor I Floor 61.23 2?

GM 2A TT (7) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (8) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (9) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (10) Fill 2?

GM 2A TT (11) Fill 2?

GM 2A (1) Fill 2?

GM 2A (2) Fill 2?

GM 2A (3) Fill 2?

GM 2A (3A,3B,3C) Fill 2?

GM 2A (3D) Fill Unknown

GM 2A TT3 Fill 2?–3

GM 2A (4) 2 Fill 2?

GM 2A (4) 3 Fill 2?

GM 2A (5) 2 Fill 2?

GM 2A (5) 3 Fill 2?

GM 2A (6) 2 Fill 2?

GM 2A (7) 2 Fill 2?

GM 2A (8) 2 Fill 2?–3

GM 2A (6) 3 Fill 2?

GM 2A (6A) 3 Fill 2?

GM 2A (7) 3 Fill 2?
NUMBER 50 • 621

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2A TT2 Fill 3?

GM 2A (9) Fill 60.88 61.30 3?

GM 2A (10) Fill 60.71 60.92 3?

GM 2A (10A) Ash 3?

GM 2A (11) Ash 60.67 60.73 3?

GM 2A (12) Fill 60.78 3?

GM 2A (12A) Fill 60.86 3?

GM 2A (12B) Fill 3?

GM 2A (13) Fill 60.40 60.65 3?

GM 2A (14) Fill 60.38 60.48 3–4?

GM 2A (15) Fill 60.33 60.41 4? Equals TT4 (4)

GM 2A (15A) Wash 60.33 4?

GM 2A (16) Fill 60.15 60.21 4 (5??) Equals F10

GM 2A TT4 (1) Fill 60.89 3? Equals (10)

GM 2A TT4 (2) Fill 60.89 3? Equals (12)

GM 2A TT4 (3) Fill 60.53 60.63 3? Equals (13)

GM 2A TT4 (4) Fill 60.22 60.53 4 (5??) Equals (14–16)

GM 2A TT4 (5) Fill 59.87 4 (5??)

GM 2A TT4 (6) Fill 59.75 60.20 5? Bld I, Room C? 

GM 2A TT4 (7) Fill 59.75 60.20 5? Bld I, Room C? 

GM 2A (19) Fill 60.19 4?

GM 2A (20) Fill 59.49 59.81 4?

GM 2A (20A,20C) Fill 59.38 4–5?

GM 2A (20B) Fill 59.49 4–5?

GM 2A (21) Fill 59.48 4–5?

GM 2A (22) Fill 59.45 59.89 5? Unit 1 

GM 2A (23) Fill 58.97 5?

GM 2A (23A) Fill 5?

GM 2A (23B) Fill 58.83 5?

GM 2A (24) Fill 58.56 58.82 5?

GM 2A (25) Fill 5?

GM 2A (26) Fill 58.47 58.56 5?

GM 2A (26A) Fill 5?

GM 2A (26B) Fill 5?

GM 2A TT5 Fill 4–5?

GM 2A TT6 Fill 4–5??

GM 2A TT7 (1) Fill 59.99 5?

GM 2A TT7 F7 (1) Stones 59.36 4?–5??

GM 2A TT7 F7 (1A,1B) Fill 4?–5??

GM 2A TT7 F7 (2) Fill 58.74 4?–5??

GM 2A TT7 (1’) Fill 4?–5??

GM 2A TT8 (1) Fill 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A TT8 (2) Fill 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A TT8 (3) Fill 58.28 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A TT8 (4) Fill 58.28 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A (28) Fill Unknown

GM 2A (28A) Fill 58.47 58.80 5?–6?

GM 2A (29) Fill 57.65 58.47 7(A?) Outside Bld III 

GM 2A (30) Floor 57.35 57.70 7(B?) Outside Bld III 
622 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2A (31) Fill 57.04 57.45 7 Outside Bld III 

GM 2A (31A) Fill 57.20 7B(C?) Outside Bld III 

GM 2A (32) Fill 56.86 57.05 7B(C?)

GM 2A (24) 1 Fill 58.54 58.66 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (25) 1 Fill 58.50 58.54 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (25A) 1 Fill 58.55 58.64 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (26) 1 Fill 58.37 58.50 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (26A) 1 Fill 58.45 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (27) 1 Fill 58.22 58.40 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A (28) 1 Fill 58.22 6–7 Locus 1 

GM 2A (1) 2 {76} Fill 57.39 7? Locus 2 

GM 2A (29) 3 Fill 57.50 58.10 7 Bld III 

GM 2A (30) 3 Fill 57.50 7 Bld III 

GM 2A F1 3 Bricks 57.33 57.47 7 Bld III 

GM 2A (29) 4 Fill 58.29 6? Locus 4 

GM 2A (29A) 4 Fill 57.54 57.65 7 Locus 4 

GM 2A (30) 4 Floor 57.30 57.54 7 Locus 4 

GM 2A F1 1 Installation 61.16 2?

GM 2A F1A Bricks 2?

GM 2A F2 Drain? 2?

GM 2A F3 2 Pebbles 61.43 2?

GM 2A F4 2 Pebbles 61.41 2?

GM 2A F5 Bricks 60.90 61.15 2?

GM 2A F6 Stones 60.82 60.96 3?

GM 2A F7 Ash/pit 60.67 60.90 4?

GM 2A F7 (1) Ashy fill 59.39 60.45 4?

GM 2A F7 (2) Ashy fill 58.82 59.39 4?

GM 2A F7 (3) Ashy fill 58.37 58.82 4?–5??

GM 2A F7 (4) Fill 58.03 58.37 4–5??

GM 2A F8 Bricks 59.49 59.86 4?–5? Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F9 Bricks 60.17 60.29 4?–5?

GM 2A F9A Fill 60.17 60.29 4?–5?

GM 2A F10 Bricks/mortar 4?–5?

GM 2A F11 Brick 4?–5?

GM 2A F12 Wall 60.48 4

GM 2A F13 Foundation 4

GM 2A F14 (1) Fill/vaults 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F14 (2) Fill 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F14 (3) Fill 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F14 (4) Fill 58.21 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F14 (5) Floor 58.27 58.35 5 Bld I, Room C Floor under vaults

GM 2A F14 (4) 1 Doorway fill 58.64 5 Bld I, Room C 

GM 2A F15 (1A) Ash 58.55 4–5?

GM 2A F15 (1B) Ash 58.55 4–5?

GM 2A F16 (1B) Wall? 6

GM 2A F17 Installation 58.47 6? Unit 1 Plastered bricks

GM 2A F18 Hearth? 58.72 58.94 5? Unit 1 

GM 2A F18 (1) Hearth? 58.72 58.94 5? Unit 1 

GM 2A F19 Bricks 58.80 59.00 7?
NUMBER 50 • 623

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2A F20 Bricks 57.70 57.95 7 Unit 1? 

GM 2A F21 Pit 58.05 58.60 Unknown

GM 2A F22 Pit 57.53 57.70 Unknown

GM 2A F23 Stones 57.18 57.40 Unknown

GM 2A F23 (1) Stones 57.05 57.18 6–7?

GM 2A F24 Bricks Unknown

GM 2A F25 Fill 58.12 58.66 6

GM 2A W1 Wall 61.34 61.65 2 Brick wall

GM 2A W1A Bricks 61.34 61.49 2 Brick wall

GM 2A W2 Wall 61.15 2?

GM 2A W3 Wall 61.10 61.32 3? Brick wall

GM 2A W3A Wall 60.57 60.96 4? Brick wall

GM 2A W4 Wall 59.21 60.21 5 Bld II, Room C Vaulting, wall

GM 2A W4A Wall 59.79 59.97 5? Bld II, Room C 

GM 2A W5 Wall 57.xxa 60.16 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2A W5A Wall 57.94 60.07 5 Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2A W6 Wall 57.22 58.12 7 Bld III Brick wall

GM 2A W7 Wall 58.12 7 Bld III Brick wall

GM 2A W8 Wall 58.12 58.79 7A Bld II? Brick wall

GM 2A W9 Wall 58.60 7A Locus 1 Brick wall

GM 2A W10 Wall 58.61 6–7A Locus 1 Brick wall

GM 2A W11 Wall 57.39 57.66 7B Bld III? Brick wall

GM 2A W12 Wall 57.44 57.94 7B? Bld III? Brick wall

GM 2A W13 Wall 57.26 57.67 7B Brick wall

GM 2A W13A Wall 8 Brick wall

GM 2A P1 (0) Pit 1

GM 2A P1 1 Pit 58.35 58.53 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A P2 1 Pit 57.20 58.10 6 Locus 1 

GM 2A P2 Pit 2?

GM 2A P2 (1) Pit 61.45 1

GM 2A P3 (1) Pit 1

GM 2A P3 Pit 2?

GM 2A P4 3 Pit 2?

GM 2A P5 (6) 3 Pit/fill 2?

GM 2A P6 (6) 3 Pit/fill 2?

GM 2A P7 (6) 3 Pit/fill 2?

GM 2A P8 (6) 3 Pit/fill 2?

GM 2A P1A Pit? Unknown

GM 2A P1B Pit? Unknown

GM 2A P1C Pit? Unknown

GM 2A P14 Pit 58.90 59.08 Unknown Unit 1 

GM 2A P14 (1) Pit 58.90 59.08 5? Unit 1 

GM 2A P15 Pit 57.53 57.70 7?

GM 2A P15 (1) Pit 57.53 57.70 7?

GM 2A WBR (0) Topsoil None

GM 2A WBR (1) Pit 1A’ Pit 1

GM 2A WBR (2) Pit 1A’ Pit 1

GM 2A WBR (3) Pit 1A’ Pit 1

GM 2A P11 (17) 1 Pit 59.97 60.33? 3–4?
624 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2A P11 (18) 2 Pit 59.87 59.97 3–4?

GM 2A P11A (18) Pit 59.90 3–4?

GM 2A WBR P12 (1) Silo 4?

GM 2A WBR P12 (2) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (3) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (4) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (5) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (6) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (7) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (8) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (9) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (10) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (11) Silo fill 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR P12 (11) Silo floor 4 Silo

floor

GM 2A WBR (2) Pit 61.15 1 Equals 1A P4

GM 2A WBR (3) Pit 61.15 1 Equals 1A P4

GM 2A WBR (4) Pit 61.15 1 Equals 1A P4

GM 2A WBR F12 Wall 60.48 4

GM 2A WBR F13 Foundation 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR W5P Wall 61.36 4 Silo

GM 2A WBR (10) 3 Fill 2?–3?

GM 2A WBR (11) 3 Fill 2?–3?

GM 2A WBR (12) 3 Fill 2?–3?

GM 2A WBR (12A) 3 Fill 2?–3?

GM 2A WBR (13) 3 Fill 4?

GM 2A WBR (13A) 3 Fill 4?

GM 2A WBR (15) 3 Fill 4?

GM 2A WBR (15A) 3 Fill 60.64 4?

GM 2A WBR (19) 3 Fill 5?

GM 2A NBR P1 Pit 1

GM 2A NBR P1B Pit 1

GM 2A NBR P1C Pit 1

GM 2A NBR P2 Pit 1

GM 2A NBR P3 Pit 1

GM 2A NBR W1 Wall 3?

GM 2A NBR (1) 6 Fill 2?

GM 2A NBR F11 Fire pit? 3?

GM 2A NBR F11 (1) Fill 3?

GM 2A NBR F16 Stones 59.82 5? Outer room? 

GM 2A SBR W3 Wall? 3?

GM 2A SBR (5) Fill 2?

GM 1B (0) Topsoil None

GM 1B TT1 (1) Topsoil None

GM 1B TT1 (2) Fill 3?

GM 1B TT1 (2A) Fill 3?

GM 1B TT1 (3) Fill 3?

GM 1B TT1 (4) Fill 3?

GM 1B (4A) Fill 3?
NUMBER 50

• 625

TABLE 8.A1(continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1B (4B) Fill 3?

GM 1B (5) Fill 3?

GM 1B (6) Fill 3?

GM 1B (0) 1 Topsoil None

GM 1B (1) 1 Topsoil None

GM 1B (1A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (1B) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (1C) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (2) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (3) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (4) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (5) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (5A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (7) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (8) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (8A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (8B) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (9) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (9A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (9B) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (9C) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B (10) 1 Fill 5?–4?

GM 1B (10A) 1 Fill5

GM 1B (10B) 1 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (10C) 1 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (11) 1 Fill5 Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B TT2 (11) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B TT2 (12) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B TT2 (13) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B TT2 (14) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (14) Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B TT2 (14A) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B TT2 (14B) 2 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (15) 1 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (15A) 1 Fill5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B (16) 1 Fill5 Bld. II, Room A 

GM 1B (17) 1 Fill5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 1B (17) 3 Fill5

GM 1B (18) 1 Fill?

GM 1B (19) 1 Fill?

GM 1B TT3 (1) Fill5 Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B TT3 (2) Fill5 Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B TT3 (3) Fill5 Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B F1 (Wall A) Wall3

GM 1B F2 Surface3

GM 1B F3 Pit1

GM 1B F4 (Wall B) Wall3

GM 1B F5 (A) Pit?

GM 1B F5 (B) Pit 61.37 3/1?
626 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1B F5 (C) Pit 3/1?

GM 1B F5 (D) Pit 60.55 3/1?

GM 1B F5 (E) Pit 3/1?

GM 1B F5 (E) Pit 3/1?

GM 1B F6 Pit Unknown

GM 1B F7 Pit Unknown

GM 1B F8 Fill 3?

GM 1B F9 Pit? 2–3?

GM 1B F10 (Wall C) Wall 60.85 5 Bld I, Room A Brick wall

GM 1B F11 Wall? 60.03 5?

GM 1B F12 Ashy fill 60.07 5

GM 1B F13 (Wall D) Wall 58.28? 60.50 5 Bld I, Room A Brick wall

GM 1B F14 (Wall E) Wall 60.07 5 Bld I, Room A Brick wall

GM 1B F15 (Wall F) Wall 60.09 5 Bld I, Room A Brick wall

GM 1B F16 P16 Pit 16 59.63 3?

GM 1B F17 P17 Pit 17 57.35 3?

GM 1B F18 Pit 3?

GM 1B F19 Fill 5? Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B F20 Fill 58.42 58.51 5? Bld I, Room A? 

GM 1B F21 (Floor 1) Floor 5 Bld I, Room A Brick floor

GM 1B F22 Vaulting 5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B F23 Doorway 5 Bld I, Room A –F 

GM 1B F24 Fill 5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B F25 Cobbles 58.05 58.66 6A Bld II, Room A 

GM 1B WG Wall 58.08 5 Bld I, Room A 

GM 1B Floor 2 Floor 5 Bld I, Room A –F Brick floor in doorway F23

GM 1B EBR (0) Topsoil None

GM 1B EBR (0/1) Fill Unknown Unknown

GM 1B EBR (1) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B EBR (1A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B EBR (4A) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1B EBR (5) Fill 3?

GM 1B EBR (6) Fill 61.54 3

GM 1B EBR (7) Fill 3

GM 1B EBR (8) Fill 3

GM 1B EBR FT1 Foundation trench 3 FT Wall B

GM 1B EBR Floor_A Stones 61.54 61.72 3?

GM 1B EBR Floor_B Pit Unknown

GM 1B EBR F1/W7 Wall 7 60.83 60.92 Unknown

GM 2B TT1 (0) Topsoil None

GM 2B TT1 (1) Topsoil None

GM 2B TT1 (2) Pit 1

GM 2B TT1 (3) Fill 61.75 Unknown

GM 2B TT1 (4) Fill Unknown

GM 2B TT1 (5) 1 Fill 1

GM 2B TT1 (6) Fill 61.48 61.55 2?

GM 2B TT1 (7) 1 Fill 1

GM 2B (8) Fill 3/none?

GM 2B (9) Fill 3?
NUMBER 50 • 627

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2B (10) Fill 3?

GM 2B Tabun 1 (4) Tabun 61.78 61.89 3?

GM 2B Tabun 2 (5) Tabun Unknown

GM 2B (11) Fill 61.83 61.95 3?

GM 2B (12) Fill/floor 61.78 3?

GM 2B (13) Fill 61.50 3?

GM 2B (14) Fill 61.40 3?

GM 2B (15) Fill Unknown

GM 2B (16) Fill 61.20? Unknown

GM 2B TT2 (17) Fill 60.61 60.84 3?

GM 2B TT3 (17A) Fill 60.75 4?

GM 2B TT3 (18) Fill 60.41 4?

GM 2B TT3 (19) Fill Unknown

GM 2B TT3 (20) Fill 60.02 60.76 4?

GM 2B (21) Fill 61.08 4

GM 2B (22) Fill 4?

GM 2B (23) Fill 60.35 60.67 4?

GM 2B (24) Fill 4?

GM 2B (25) Fill 60.36 4B?

GM 2B (26) Fill 60.19 60.35 4–5?

GM 2B (26A) Fill 60.19 4–5?

GM 2B (26B) Fill 60.19 4–5?

GM 2B (27) Fill 60.08 60.19 4–5?

GM 2B (28) Fill 5?

GM 2B (29) Fill 60.62 4?

GM 2B (30) 2 Fill 60.10 60.15 4–5? Outside room 

GM 2B (30) 1A Fill 5 Bld II, Room A? 

GM 2B (30) 1B Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (30) 2A Fill 5 Bld I, Room A?/B? 

GM 2B (31) 1A Fill 59.64 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (31) 1B Fill 59.86 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (31) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B (31) 2B Fill 59.73 5

GM 2B (32) 1A Fill 59.66 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (32) 1B Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (32) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B (33) 1A Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (33) 1B Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (33) 2A Fill 5?

GM 2B (33) 2B Fill 59.19 59.36 5

GM 2B (34) 1A Fill 59.08 59.17 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (34) 1B Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (34) 2A Fill 58.95 59.01 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B (34) 2B Fill 58.73 59.19 5

GM 2B (35) 1A Fill 59.03 59.05 5 Bld II, Room A White organic material

GM 2B (35) 1B Fill 5 Bld II, Room A White organic material

GM 2B (35) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B (35) 2B Fill 58.73 5 (6?) Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B (35) 3 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A 
628 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2B (36) 2B Fill 58.73 59.08 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B TT5 (35) Fill 6?

GM 2B TT5 (36) 2 Fill 6 Bld II 

GM 2B (36A) 2/2A Fill 6 Bld II (Room B?) 

GM 2B (36B) 2 Fill 6 Bld II (Room B?) 

GM 2B (37) 2 Fill 57.91 58.3 6 Bld II (Room B?) 

GM 2B (38) 2 Fill 57.91 57.93 6–7? Bld II, Room B? 

GM 2B (39) 2 Layer 57.85 57.88 6–7? Bld II, Room B? Phytolith layer

GM 2B (40) 2 Layer 57.85 57.85 6–7? Bld II, Room B? Phytolith layer

GM 2B (41) 2 Layer 57.85 57.85 6–7? Bld II, Room B? Chalky layer

GM 2B (42) 2 Fill 8 Room A*? 

GM 2B (43) 2 Layer 57.87 57.87 6–7? Bld II, Room B? Chalky layer

GM 2B (44) 2 Layer 57.77 57.85 6–7? Bld II, Room B? Chalky layer

GM 2B (1) 5 {76} Fill 6–7? Bld II, Room B? 

GM 2B (36) 3 {76-77} Fill 58.09 58.43 6–7? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 2B (37) 3 {76-77} Fill 57.85 58.09 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B (38) 3 {76-77} Fill 57.85 6–7

GM 2B (38A) 3 {76-77} Fill 6?

GM 2B (39) 3 {76-77} Fill 57.54 57.64 7?

GM 2B (40) 3 {76-77} Fill 57.42 57.54 7?

GM 2B F1 3 {76} Hearth 58.00 6 Bld II, Room A? 

GM 2B ?4 {76} Fill 57.91 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (1) 4 {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (1) 5A {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B TT3 (1) Fill 59.99 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT3 (2) Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT3 (2A) Fill 59.72 59.76 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT3 Fill 5

GM 2B TT3? (2) 2A Fill 5

GM 2B TT3? (2) 2B Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B TT3 (3) 2 Fill 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT3 (4) 4 Fill 59.48 59.59 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT3 (5) 2 Fill 59.48 5 Bld II Room A 

GM 2B TT4 (1) Fill 59.40 5?

GM 2B TT4 (2) Fill 59.30 5?

GM 2B TT4 (3) Fill 59.25 5?

GM 2B TT4 (4) Fill 59.15 5

GM 2B TT4 (5) Fill 58.98 5

GM 2B (1) 6 {77} Fill 8? Lower vaulted room? 

GM 2B (2) 6 {77} Fill 8? Lower vaulted room? 

GM 2B (3) 6 {77} Fill 8? Lower vaulted room? 

GM 2B (2) 4 {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (3) 4 {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (4) 4 {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (5) 4 {77} Fill 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B (1) 7 {77} Fill Unknown

GM 2B (2) 7 {77} Fill Unknown

GM 2B (40) 4) {78} Fill 7?
NUMBER 50 • 629

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2B (41) 3 {78,84} Fill 56.83 57.42 7–8? Outside Rooms 

 A*–B* 

GM 2B (41) {78} Fill 7? East of Room A*? 

GM 2B (42) {78} Fill 8? Lower vaulted 

room A*? 

GM 2B (42) 4 {84} Fill 56.58 56.70 8 Room B* 

GM 2B (42) 3 {78} Fill 56.55 56.70 8 Room B* 

GM 2B (42) 5 {84} Fill 56.68 56.80 8

GM 2B (42) 6 {84} Fill 56.59 56.62 8

GM 2B (43) 6 {84} Fill/floor 55.05 8–9

GM 2B (44) 6 {84} Fill 8–9

GM 2B TT3 (42) 2 {78} Fill ~56.50 8 Room A* 

GM 2B TT3 (43) 2 {78} Fill 56.25 9 Room C*? 

GM 2B TT3 (44) 2 {78} Fill ~55.50 ~56.00 9–10? Room C*? 

GM 2B TT3 (45) 2 {78} Fill ~55.00 ~55.50 10

GM 2B TT3 (45) 6 {84} Fill 55.05 9

GM 2B TT3 (46) 2 {78} Fill 54.75? ~55.00 10

GM 2B TT3 (47) 2 {78} Fill ~54.30 10

GM 2B TT3 (48) 2 {78} Fill ~53.75 ~54.20 10–11?

GM 2B (55) Fill 56.34 56.51 8–9 Room C* 

GM 2B (56) Fill 56.18 56.33 8–9 Room D*? 

GM 2B (57) Fill 56.21 56.33 9 Room D*? 

GM 2B (58) Fill 55.75 56.25 9 Room D* 

GM 2B (58A) Fill 55.87 56.25 9 Room D* 

GM 2B (59) Fill 55.82 55.90 9 Room D* 

GM 2B (60) Fill 55.52 55.82 10

GM 2B (61) 1 Ash 55.41 55.61 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 2 Ash 55.56 55.70 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 3 Ash 55.5 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 4 Ash 55.39 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 5 Fill 55.65 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 6 Fill 55.46 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (61) 7 Fill 55.60 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (62) 2 Fill 55.19 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (62) 3 Fill 55.26 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (62) 4 Fill 55.20 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (63) Fill 55.20 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B (64) Fill 54.90 11

GM 2B (65) Fill 54.88 11

GM 2B (66) Fill 54.82 11

GM 2B TT10 (1) Fill 54.69 54.82 11

GM 2B TT10 (2) Fill 54.49 54.69 11

GM 2B TT10 (3) Fill 54.43 54.49 11

GM 2B TT10 (4) Fill 54.30 54.39 11

GM 2B TT10 (5) Fill 54.10 54.30 11

GM 2B Floor 1 Floor 61.47 61.52 2–3?

GM 2B Floor 2 Floor 61.20 61.49 3

GM 2B F1 Bricks 60.65 4?

GM 2B F2 Stones 60.46 60.50 4?
630 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2B F3 Bricks 60.17 60.19 4(B?)?

GM 2B F4 Tabun? 5?

GM 2B F5 Vaulting? 59.86 59.90 5 Bld II, Room B? 

GM 2B TT4 F6 Bricks 58.92 58.99 5?

GM 2B F7 Wall 59.55 59.97 5 Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2B F8 1 Wall? 58.97 59.57 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F9 Oven? 58.96 59.28 5?

GM 2B F10 1A Bricks 59.68 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F11 1B Installation (bin?) 58.60 60.05 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F12 1 Cobbles 58.71 58.87 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B TT5 F13 Pit 8 6?

GM 2B F14 Tabun 58.82 5? Bld II, Room B? 

GM 2B F15 Bricks 58.16 58.27 6?

GM 2B F16 Bin? 58.60 58.98 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F17 Wall/floor? 58.47 58.56 6B Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F18 Wall 58.63 6 (7A?) Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2B F19 Bricks 58.78 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F20 Bricks 58.15 7 (7A?) Bld III 

GM 2B F21 Bricks 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F22 Wall 58.93 6 Bld II, Room B Brick wall

GM 2B F23 Bricks 6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B F24 Bricks 6 Equals W17A

GM 2B F25 Wall 58.82 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F26 Bricks 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F27 Cobbles 6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B F27A Door? 6–7 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B F28 Cobbles 6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B F29 Bin? 6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B F30 Pit Unknown

GM 2B F31 Pit 6 Bld II, Room C? 

GM 2B F32 Unknown Unknown

GM 2B F33 Unknown Unknown

GM 2B F34 Unknown Unknown

GM 2B F35 Brick 8?

GM 2B F36 Vaults 7?–8?

GM 2B F37 Tabun 57.87 58.13 7 Locus 4 In 1C

GM 2B F38 Stones 57.99 7 Locus 4 In 1B

GM 2B F39 Fill Unknown

GM 2B F40 Fill Unknown

GM 2B F41 Bricks 7–8?

GM 2B F42 Bricks Unknown

GM 2B F43 Bricks Unknown

GM 2B TT2 F44 Fill 8 Room A*? 

GM 2B F45 Vaulting? 8?

GM 2B F46 Pebbles ~56.50 8 (9?) Room A* 

GM 2B F47 Trench 55.94 56.52 9 FT W29

GM 2B F48 Trench 55.78 56.35 9 FT W28

GM 2B F49 Installation? 56.46 56.58 8? Room A* 

GM 2B F50 Stones 56.69 56.89 8 Room A* 
NUMBER 50 • 631

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2B F51 Pebbles 8 Room B* 

GM 2B F55 Drain 56.59? 8–9? Room B*? 

GM 2B F56 Trench 56.09 9 Room D* FT W35

GM 2B F57 Installation 55.26 55.61 10 Firebox room 

GM 2B W1 Wall 61.2 61.71 3 Brick wall

GM 2B W2 Wall 61.27 61.90 3–4 Brick wall

GM 2B W3 Wall 61.49 3 Brick wall

GM 2B W4 Wall 60.51 61.08 4 Brick wall

GM 2B W5 Wall 61.08? 61.66? 3 Brick wall

GM 2B W6 Wall 60.9 61.96 2–3? Brick wall

GM 2B W7 Wall 60.63 4? Brick wall

GM 2B W7A Wall 60.63 4? Brick wall

GM 2B W8 Wall? 60.67 60.77 4? Brick wall

GM 2B W9 Wall 58.73 60.03 5 Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2B W9A Wall 58.84 59.28 5 Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2B W10 Wall 57.65 58.78 7 Bld III/II Brick wall

GM 2B W11 Wall 58.84 6 Bld II, Room A Brick wall

GM 2B W12 Wall 58.58 6–7 Brick wall

GM 2B W13 Wall 8? Brick wall

GM 2B W14 Wall 7 Brick wall

GM 2B W15 Wall 58.63 7–8? Equals F18

GM 2B W16 Wall Unknown

GM 2B W17 Wall? Unknown

GM 2B W17A Wall 6 Brick wall

GM 2B W18 Wall 57.86 7? Under Bld II Brick wall

GM 2B W19 Wall 57.76 57.80 7 Under Bld II Brick wall

GM 2B W20 Wall 57.80 57.99 7 Under Bld II Brick wall

GM 2B W21 Wall 56.03 57.62 8 Room A* Brick wall

GM 2B W21A Wall Unknown Room A*? Brick wall

GM 2B W22 Wall 56.56 57.52 8 Room A* Brick wall

GM 2B W23 Wall 56.68 56.83 8 Room B* Brick wall

GM 2B W24 Wall 56.49 57.17 8 Room B* Brick wall

GM 2B W25 Wall 56.50 56.82 8 Rooms A and B* Brick wall

GM 2B W26 Wall 55.86 56.37 9 Room C* Brick wall

GM 2B W27 Wall 57.04 8 Room A* Brick wall

GM 2B W28 Wall 55.78 56.28 9 Room C* Brick wall

GM 2B W29 Wall 55.94 56.52 9 Room C*–D* Brick wall

GM 2B W30 Wall 54.75# 55.55 10 Unknown Brick wall

GM 2B W35 Wall 55.63 56.08 9 Room D* Brick wall

GM 2B W36 Wall 55.65 10 Firebox room Brick wall

GM 2B W37 Wall 55.40 55.64 10 Firebox room Brick wall

GM 2B W38 Wall 55.14 55.46 10 Firebox room Brick wall

GM 2B FT1 Foundation trench 6? Bld II FT 2C Wall 8?

GM 2B FT2 Foundation trench 6? Bld II FT 2C Wall 11?

GM 2B FT3 Foundation trench 5 Bld I? FT 2A Wall 5

GM 2B P1 (1) Pit 61.08 61.66 1

GM 2B P2 (2) Pit 60.10 61.80 1

GM 2B P3 (3) Pit 60.59 61.86 1

GM 2B TT3 P4 Pit 59.51 60.32 Unknown
632 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2B P5 (1) Pit/debris? 59.47 60.05 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (2) Pit/debris? 59.95 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (3) Pit/debris? 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (4) Pit/debris? 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (5) Pit/debris? 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (6) Pit/debris? 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (7) Pit/debris? 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P5 (8) Pit/debris? 59.47 5 Bld II, Room A 

GM 2B P6 Pit 57.73 58.31 6?

GM 2B P7 Pit ?

GM 2B P8 Pit 6?

GM 2B P9 Pit 5–6 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B P10 Pit 7?–8?

GM 2B P12 2 Pit Unknown

GM 2B P14 7 Pit Unknown Unknown 

GM 2B P15 7 Pit 56.98 Unknown Unknown 

GM 2B P16 7 Pit Iron IIB Unknown 

GM 2B P17 7 Pit Iron IIB Unknown 

GM 2B P18 Pit 7?

GM 2B P19 Pit 6?

GM 2B P20 Pit Unknown Room B* 

GM 2B P35 Pit 54.82 10B?

GM 2B P36 Pit 55.09 10A?

GM 2B P37 Pit Unknown

GM 2B “RA” Fill 8?

GM 2B “RB” Fill 8?

GM 2B SBR F2 Hearth? Unknown

GM 2B SBR W7A Wall 5? Brick wall

GM 2B NBR P_Bas Pit Unknown

GM 2B NBR (31) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B NBR (32) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 2B NBR (33) 2A Fill 5 Bld II, Room B 

GM 3B (0) Topsoil None

GM 3B TT1 (1) Topsoil 59.07 None

GM 3B (1A) Ashy fill 60.85 61.01 1

GM 3B (2) Fill 59.87 60.90 3?

GM 3B (2A) Fill 60.97 61.42 3?–4?

GM 3B (3) Fill Unknown

GM 3B (4) Fill 59.89 59.93 5?

GM 3B (5) Fill 58.45 60.05 4/5 Equals 2B (30)

GM 3B (5) 1 Fill 5 Bld IV? (Room A?) 

GM 3B (6) Fill 59.55 5?

GM 3B (5A) Fill 58.95 59.35 5?

GM 3B (7) 2 Fill 5–6

GM 3B (8) Fill 59.53 59.75 Unknown

GM 3B (9) Debris/floor 58.79 59.49 5 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B (10) Debris/floor 58.70 58.83 5 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B (10) 1 Fill 5? Unit 2, Bld III? 

GM 3B (10) 2 Fill 5? Unit 2, Bld III? 
NUMBER 50 • 633

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 3B (10) 3 Fill 5?

GM 3B (11) Fill 58.19 58.62 6 Unit 2, Bld III? 

GM 3B (11) 1 Fill 58.45 58.62 6 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B (11) 2 Fill 58.41 58.62 6 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B (12) Fill 57.86 58.15 7

GM 3B (12) 1 Fill 7?

GM 3B (13) Fill 58.46 58.48 6?

GM 3B (12) 2 Fill 7?

GM 3B (13) 2 Fill 7?

GM 3B F1 Pit 60.62 61.22 1

GM 3B F2 Pit 60.09 60.46 1

GM 3B F3 Debris/pit 59.97 60.10 Unknown

GM 3B W1 Wall 60.82 60.95 4? Brick wall

GM 3B W2 Wall 60.42 60.81 3? Brick wall

GM 3B W3 Wall 59.35 60.10 3?–4? Brick wall

GM 3B W4 Wall 59.55 59.81 5 Bld II Brick wall

GM 3B W5 Wall 58.88 ~59.05 6? Bld II–IV Brick wall

GM 3B W6 Wall 58.68 6 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B W7 Wall 6 Unit 2, Bld III 

GM 3B W8 Wall 58.95 5–6 Unit 2, Bld III Brick wall

GM 3B W9 Wall 59.37 5 Unit 2, Bld III Brick wall

GM 3B W10 Wall 58.35 7 Bld III? Brick wall

GM 3B W11 Wall 5? Brick wall

GM 3B W12 Wall 59.05 6 Unit 2, Bld III Brick wall

GM 3B W13 Wall 59.07 6 Unit 1, Bld III Brick wall

GM 3B P1 Pit 60.64 61.14 1 Pit in W part of sq.

GM 3B P2 Pit 59.74 60.14 None Petrie dump?

GM 3B P2A Pit None Petrie dump?

GM 3B P2B Pit 59.45 59.79 Unknown

GM 3B P2C Pit 59.99 60.27 1

GM 3B P3 Pit Unknown

GM 3B P4 Pit 58.88 59.78 2?

GM 3B P5 Pit 59.59 59.89 1?

GM 3B P6 Pit 55.00 59.55 Unknown

GM 3B P7 Pit 59.80 60.02 Unknown

GM 3B P8 Pit 58.60 59.75 5?

GM 1C (0) Topsoil None

GM 1C (1) Fill 2?

GM 1C (1) 2 Fill 2?

GM 1C (2) 1 Fill 2?

GM 1C (2A) Fill 2?

GM 1C (3) Fill 2?

GM 1C (4) Fill 3

GM 1C (5) Fill 3

GM 1C (5A) Fill 3

GM 1C (3) 4 Fill 3?

GM 1C (6) 4 Fill 3

GM 1C (7) 4 Fill 3

GM 1C (8) 4 Fill 3
634 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1C (6) 3 Fill 3

GM 1C TT5 4 Fill Unknown

GM 1C TT2 P2 (1) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (2) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (3) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (4) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (5) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (6) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (7) Pit? 1?

GM 1C TT2 P2 (8) Pit? Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 1C TT2 P2 (9) Pit? 59.95 Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 1C P2 (10) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 1C P2 (11) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 1C P2 (12) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 1C P2 (13) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

GM 1C P2 (14) Fill 3? Granary 

GM 1C (9) 4 Fill 4 Unit 4 

GM 1C TT6 (10) 4 Fill 4–5 Unit 4 

GM 1C TT6 (11) 4 Fill 4–5 Unit 4? 

GM 1C TT6 (12) 4 Fill 4–5

GM 1C TT6 (13) 4 Fill 4–5 Unit 4 

GM 1C (13A) 4 Fill 4–5 Unit 4 

GM 1C (10) 5 Fill 3–4? Unit 4? 

GM 1C (14) 4 Fill 5? Unknown 

GM 1C (15) 4 Fill 5? Unknown 

GM 1C (16) 4 Fill 5? Unknown 

GM 1C (74) 4 Fill 5? Unknown 

GM 1C (18) 4 Fill 5? Unknown 

GM 1C (18A) 4 Fill 60.00 5?

GM 1C (19,19A) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1C (20,20A) 4 Fill 60.40 5?

GM 1C (21) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1C (21A) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1C (22) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1C (23) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1C TT7 (1) 3 Fill Unknown

GM 1C TT7 (2) 3 Fill Unknown

GM 1C TT7 (14) 3 Fill 4–5? Unit 4? 

GM 1C TT7 (14A) 3 Fill 4–5?

GM 1C TT7 (13) 3 Fill 4–5?

GM 1C (9A) 3 Fill 4–5?

GM 1C (12A) 3 Fill 4–5?

GM 1C TT7 (13A) 3 Fill 60.32 4–5?

GM 1C (15) 3 Fill 4–5?

GM 1C (16) 3 Fill 5?

GM 1C (17) 3 Fill 5?

GM 1C (18) 3 Fill 5?

GM 1C (14) 6 Fill 5

GM 1C (15) 6 Fill 5
NUMBER 50 • 635

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1C TT8 (1) Fill

GM 1C (1) 7 {76} Fill 59.08 5

GM 1C (2) 7 {76} Fill 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 1C (24) 4 Fill 5

GM 1C (24A) 4 Fill 6 Bld II, Room A 

GM 1C (1) 8 Fill 6B–7 Bld II, Room A 

GM 1C (25) 4 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 1C (26) 4 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 1C (27) 4 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 1C (28) 4 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 1C (29) 4 Fill 6? Bld II, Room A? 

GM 1C F1 {70} Stones 2?–3?

GM 1C F1 (1) {72} Ashy layer Unknown Granary? 

GM 1C F1 (2) {72} Ashy Unknown Granary? 

GM 1C F2 Wall? Unknown

GM 1C F3 (1) {72} Ashy layer 60.97 Unknown

GM 1C F3 (2) {72} Ashy layer 60.61 Unknown

GM 1C F3 (3) {72} Ashy layer Unknown

GM 1C F3 Pit Unknown

GM 1C W1 Wall 61.26 61.34 2–3? Brick wall

GM 1C W2 Wall 60.78 61.29 3 Brick wall

GM 1C W3 Wall 3 Equals 4

GM 1C W4 Wall 60.86 3 Unit 4 Brick wall

GM 1C W5 Wall 60.50 5 Bld II, Room A Brick wall 

GM 1C W6 Wall 59.87 60.28 5? Bld IV? Brick wall 

GM 1C W7 Wall 59.07 6 Bld II, Room A Brick wall 

GM 1C W8 Wall 6B–7 Bld II, Room A Brick wall 

GM 1C FT3 Foundation trench 6 Bld II, Room A FT of Wall 7

GM 1C P1 Pit Unknown

GM 1C P2 Fill 2? Granary? 

GM 1C P3 Pit 1?

GM 1C P4 Pit 59.52 60.34 Unknown

GM 1C P5 Pit Unknown

GM 1C P6 Pit Unknown

GM 1C–1D NBR (2) Fill Unknown

GM 1C–1D NBR (3) Fill Unknown

GM 1C–1D NBR (4) Fill Unknown

GM 1C–1D NBR (4A) Fill Unknown

GM 1C–1D NBR (6B) Fill Unknown

GM 2C (0) Topsoil None

GM 2C (1) Fill None

GM 2C (2) Fill None

GM 2C (3) Fill None/1

GM 2C (1) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (2) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (2A) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (3) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (4) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (5) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 
636 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2C (6) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (7) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (7A) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (8) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (7) 2 {72} Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (8) 2 {72} Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C (0) 1 Fill None

GM 2C (1) 1 Fill Unknown

GM 2C (2) 1 Fill Unknown

GM 2C TT7 (1) Fill Unknown

GM 2C (9) 2 Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

GM 2C (10) 2 Granary fill and floor 58.92 Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

GM 2C (11) 2 Granary fill 2–3? Granary 

GM 2C (10) Fill and floor 3 Granary 

GM 2C (11) Fill 4 Granary 

GM 2C TT9 (1) Fill Unknown

GM 2C TT9 (2) Fill Unknown

GM 2C TT9 (3) Fill Unknown

GM 2C TT10 (12) Fill ~58.60 Unknown Unknown 

GM 2C TT10 (13) Fill 58.67 Unknown Unknown 

GM 2C TT10 (14) Fill 58.44 Unknown Unknown 

GM 2C F1 Unknown Unknown

GM 2C F1A (3) Bricks 3? Granary 

GM 2C F1A (4) Bricks 3? Granary 

GM 2C F2 Unknown

GM 2C F3 Unknown

GM 2C F4 Bricks 3 Granary 

GM 2C F5 Fill Unknown

GM 2C F6 Bones Unknown

GM 2C F7 Mortar 3–4 Granary Mortar around outer 

granary wall

GM 2C Floor 1 (2) Floor 3 Granary Brick floor of granary

GM 2C Floor 1 locus 1 Floor 3 Granary Upper floor of granary

GM 2C W1 Wall 2? Brick wall

GM 2C W2 Wall 2?–3? Brick wall

GM 2C W3 Wall 3/4 Granary Granary rounded inner wall

GM 2C W3 (1) Fill 3 Granary Outer granary bricks

GM 2C W4 Wall 5? Brick wall

GM 2C W5 Wall Unknown Brick wall

GM 2C W6 Wall 3? Brick wall

GM 2C W7 Vaulting? 59.86 60.00 5 Bld II, Room B(?) Equals 2B F5

GM 2C W8 Wall 59.64 5 Bld II, (Room C?) Brick wall

GM 2C W9 Wall 3–4 Granary Granary wall

GM 2C W10 Brick floor 58.65 58.68 4 Granary 

GM 2C W11 Wall 59.66 5 Bld II (Room C?) 

GM 2C SBR W6 Wall 2? Brick wall, equals 2B W6

GM 2C SBR W4 Wall Unknown Brick wall

GM 2C SBR Pit A Pit 1?

GM 2C SBR Pit B Pit Unknown
NUMBER 50 • 637

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 2C P1 Pit 61.11 61.90 1

GM 2C P1A (1) Pit 61.28 61.72 1

GM 2C P1A (2) Pit 60.85 61.28 1

GM 2C P1A (3) Pit 1

GM 2C P1A (4) Pit 1

GM 2C P1A (5) Pit 1

GM 2C P1A (6) Pit 1

GM 2C P1A (7) Pit 1

GM 2C P2 Pit Unknown

GM 2C P3 Pit 61.75 1

GM 2C P4 91) Pit Unknown

GM 2C P5 Pit Unknown

GM 2C P6 Pit Unknown

GM 2C NBR (0) Topsoil None

GM 2C NBR (1) Fill 61.00 Unknown

GM 2C NBR (2) Fill 60.10 61.00 Unknown

GM 2C NBR (3) Granary fill 60.10 Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (3A) Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (4) Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (5) Granary fill 59.50 Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (6) Granary fill 59.50 Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (6A) Granary fill Post 3 (= 2?) 

GM 2C NBR (7) Granary fill 3? Granary? 

GM 2C NBR (8) Granary fill 58.90 3?

GM 2C NBR (9) Fill 58.90 Unknown

GM 2C SBR (4) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (5) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (6) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (7A) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (7B) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (8) Fill Unknown Equals 2C (9–10)

GM 2C SBR (8A) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (9) Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (10) Fill 3

GM 2C SBR (10) 1 Fill Unknown

GM 2C SBR (11) Fill 3

GM 1D (0) Topsoil 60.90 61.48 None

GM 1D TT1–TT3 (1) Fill None

GM 1D TT1–TT3 (2) Fill None

GM TT2 (2A) Fill Unknown

GM 1D TT1–TT3 (3) Fill 60.51 2–3?

GM 1D TT2 (4) Ashy layer 2?

GM 1D TT2 (4A) Ashy layer 2?

GM 1D TT2 (5) Fill 60.55 2?

GM 1D TT2–TT3 Fill 2?

(5A–5C)

GM 1D TT3 (5D) Fill Unknown

GM 1D TT2 (6) Ashy layer Unknown Ashy layer

GM 1D TT2 (6A,6B) Ashy layer Unknown Ashy layer
638 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1D (7) Fill 60.13 3?

GM 1D (0) 1 Fill None

GM 1D (1) 1 Fill None

GM 1D (2) 1 Fill None

GM 1D (2B) 1 Fill None

GM 1D (3) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1D (7) 1 Fill 3?

GM 1D (8) Fill Post 3

GM 1D (8) 1 Fill Post 3

GM 1D (9,9A) Fill 59.56? 3?

GM 1D (10) Fill 3?

GM 1D (8) 3 Fill 3?

GM 1D (11) Fill Unknown

GM 1D (12) Fill Unknown

GM 1D (13) Fill Unknown

GM 1D (14) Fill Unknown

GM 1D (15) Fill Unknown

GM 1D (16) 2 Fill Unknown

GM 1D (17) Fill 3?

GM 1D (18) Fill 3?

GM 1D (19) Fill 5?

GM 1D (1A,19B) Fill 5?

GM 1D (20) 4 Fill Unknown

GM 1D (21) 2 Fill 59.01 4–5

GM 1D (21A) 2 Fill 3–5

GM 1D (21B) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (22) 2 Fill Unknown

GM 1D (23) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (23A) 2 Fill 59.28 5 Fill between Wall 6 and 

granary wall

GM 1D (23B) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (23C) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (24) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (25) 4 Fill Unknown

GM 1D (26) 4 Fill 5?

GM 1D TT4 (25) Fill 5

GM 1D TT4 (26) Fill 59.4? 5

GM 1D (27) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (28) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (29) 2 Fill 59.66 5

GM 1D (29A,29B) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (29C,29D) 2 Fill 59.61 5 Fill between Wall 6 and 

granary wall

GM 1D (30) 1 Fill 59.20 3?

GM 1D (31) 2 Fill 59.53 5

GM 1D (31A) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (32) 3 Fill 59.00 5

GM 1D (32A) 3 Fill 5900 5

GM 1D (31A) 2 Fill 5
NUMBER 50 • 639

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

(continued)

GM 1D (31B) 2 Fill 59.45 5

GM 1D (31C) 2 Fill 59.18 5

GM 1D (31D) 2 Fill 59.35 5

GM 1D (31E) 2 Fill 59.26 5

GM 1D (31F) 2 Fill 5

GM 1D (32) 2 Fill 59.18? 5?

GM 1D F1 Bricks Unknown

GM 1D F2 Bricks Unknown

GM 1D F3 Tabun Unknown

GM 1D F4 Fill Unknown

GM 1D F5 Bricks Unknown

GM 1D F6 Jar 60.73? 2?–3

GM 1D F7 Jar 60.05 60.70 4?

GM 1D F8 Fill Unknown

GM 1D F9 Basin Unknown

GM 1D F10 Tabun frag 60.48 Unknown

GM 1D F11 Jar Unknown

GM 1D F12 Tabun? 59.56 Unknown

GM 1D F13 Bricks/tabun? 59.45? 5?

GM 1D F14 Stones 59.57 5?

GM 1D F15 Pebbles? 5?

GM 1D F16 4 Bricky 5?

GM 1D F17 2 Vessel 59.30 Unknown

GM 1D F18 Pit? Unknown

GM 1D F19 P19 Pit ~59.10? Unknown

GM 1D F19A Unknown Unknown

GM 1D F20 4 Unknown Unknown

GM 1D F21 2 Bricks/fill 59.28 Unknown

GM 1D F22 Foundation trench 3–4 Granary FT of granary wall

GM 1D F23 Foundation trench 5 FT of Wall 6

GM 1D F24 Foundation trench Unknown Unknown FT Wall 1?/granary wall?

GM 1D F25 Bricks in balk Unknown

GM 1D F26 Charcoal Unknown

GM 1D F28 Pit Unknown

GM 1D W1 Wall 60.55 ~61.15 2–3?

GM 1D W1B Wall 3?

GM 1D W1C Wall ?

GM 1D W1D Wall ?

GM 1D W2 Wall 60.75 3 Granary Brick wall

GM 1D W3 Wall 58.57 59.64 5 Bld V? Brick wall

GM 1D W3A Wall? 60.14 60.54 4? Brick wall

GM 1D W4 Wall 3 Granary Granary wall

GM 1D W5 Wall 60.48 3 Granary Granary wall

GM 1D W6 Wall 58.96 59.92 5 Bld IV? Brick wall

GM 1D W7 Wall 5? Brick wall

GM 1D W8 Wall 3 Granary Wall inside granary

GM 1D P1 Pit 60.73? 61.61 1

GM 1D P2 Pit 60.05 60.65 Unknown

GM 1D–2D EBR (0) Topsoil None
640 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 1D–2D EBR (1) Fill None

GM 1D–2D EBR P1 (1) Pit 1

GM 1D–2D EBR (2) Fill 3?

GM 1D–2D EBR (3) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

GM 1D–2D EBR (5) Fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

GM 1D–2D EBR Fill 3 Granary 

(6,6A)

GM 1D–2D EBR (8) Fill Post 3(= 2?) Granary 

GM 1D–2D EBR Fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

(9,9A,9B)

GM 1D–2D EBR Fill Post 3 (= 2?) Granary 

(9C,9D)

GM 1D–2D EBR (10) Floor 3 Granary Upper floor of granary

GM 1D–2D EBR (11) Floor 3 Granary Upper floor of granary

GM 1D–2D EBR (12) Fill 3 Granary Upper floor of granary?

GM 1D–2D EBR (13) Fill 4? Granary Fill between granary floors

GM 1D–2D EBR (14) Floor 4? Granary Lower floor of granary?

GM 2D (0) Topsoil 61.48 None

GM 2D TT2 (1) Fill None

GM 2D TT2 (2) Fill 61.23 3?

GM 2D TT2 (3) Fill 3? Granary? 

GM 2D TT2 (4) Fill 3? Granary? 

GM 2D TT3 (1) Fill 3? Granary? 

GM 2D TT3 (2) Fill 3? Granary? 

GM 2D TT3 (3) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D TT3 (4) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (5) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (6) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (6A) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (6B) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (7) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (8) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (9) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (10) Fill 3 Granary 

GM 2D (11) Fill/floor 3 Granary 

GM 2D F1 (1) Fill 3? Outside granary 

GM 2D F1 (2) Fill 3? Outside granary 

GM 2D F1 (3) Fill 3? Outside granary 

GM 2D F2 Unknown Unknown

GM 2D F3 Burial Unknown Pit 3 burial

GM 2D F4 Fill Unknown

GM 2D F5 Bricks 3 Granary 

GM 2D F6 Unknown Unknown

GM 2D W1 Wall 60.84 3–4 Granary Granary wall

GM 2D W2 Wall 60.59 3? Brick wall

GM 2D P1 (1) Pit 60.79 61.35 1

GM 2D P1 (2) Pit 1

GM 2D P1 (3) Pit 60.79 1

GM 2D P2 Pit 1
NUMBER 50 • 641

TABLE 8.A1 (continued)

Lower Upper

Context Context type level (m) level (m) Phase Architecture Notes

GM 2D P3 Burial 61.00? 1?

GM 1E (0) Topsoil None

GM 1E (0A) Topsoil None

GM 1E (0B) Topsoil None

GM 1E (0C) Topsoil None

GM 1E (1) Fill 59.80 None

GM 1E (2) Fill 59.64 None

GM 1E (2A) Fill 5

GM 1E (3) Fill 59.49 5

GM 1E (4,4A) Fill 5

GM 1E (5) Fill 59.03 59.40 5

GM 1E (5A) Fill 5

GM 1E TT1 (6) Fill 5

GM 1E TT1 (7) Fill 59.23? 5

GM 1E TT1 F1 Fill 5

GM 1E F1 Bricks 58.74 6?

GM 1E F2 Vessel 5

GM 1E F3 Stones 5

GM 1E W1/W1A Wall 58.76 60.00 5

GM 1E W1B Wall 58.74 6?

GM 1E W2 Wall 59.89 5

GM 1E P1 Pit 59.35 59.85 Unknown

a

Denotes something unclear in excavation notes.
9 Bread Ovens 

and Related Installations

Alexander Zukerman

INTRODUCTION

The Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh yielded a large number of food preparation installations, usually denoted 

as tabuns or ovens, as well as other types of heating/cooking installations (see Ben-Shlomo, 2011a:274, for a preliminary summary). 

Thirty-nine of these installations are cataloged below, and their functional, chronological, and other aspects are discussed. All these 

installations are denoted in the field description chapters 3–8 as tabuns as a general term, yet in this discussion the term bread ovens 

is more commonly used. Five installations (catalog numbers [Cat. Nos.] 28, 36–39) are represented only by fragments, which, in fact, 

might belong to clay basins rather than to ovens. Because of the incomplete excavation documentation, the data available on ovens are 

uneven: slightly less than a half (19 installations, mainly from the Middle and Late Bronze Age) have detailed descriptions, whereas less 

information is available on others (20 installations, mainly from the Iron Age and later periods), particularly on those that are poorly 

preserved. Some of the latter could, in fact, be installations of other types. No data are available on five installations (Cat. Nos. 21, 

31–33, 35). Catalog number 1 may be either an oven or a smelting furnace, although no clear evidence for the latter function is available; Cat. No. 3 is either an oven or a storage bin, and Cat. Nos. 4 and 29 are probably simple fire pits. The function of Cat. Nos. 10, 11, 

and 26 is unclear as well (apparently, they are not typical ovens). Among the better-documented ovens, of particular importance are six 

installations (Cat. Nos. 19–24) found in well-preserved LBII structures discovered in Field I (Phase 3). As will be shown below, the ovens 

from Tell Jemmeh represent an important addition to our knowledge of food preparation technologies in the second millennium BCE.

Oven is defined here as a circular or oval stationary fire installation with clay sidewalls, designed primarily (but not exclusively) 

for bread baking. The problem of identifying various types of ovens (tannurs and tabuns), as well as cooking hearths (fire installations 

designed to accommodate a cooking pot), which are sometimes indistinguishable from ovens in the archaeological record, is treated in 

the Discussion section. 

CATALOG

1. GMIII C2 Feature 21; context: Field III, Phase 18; date: MBIIB-C. This installation is approximately rounded and completely 

exposed, with sidewalls reinforced from the outside by earth and possibly by some potsherds and small stones. It was possibly constructed on a foundation of small stones. The maximum external diameter is ~60 cm, with a maximum wall thickness of ~15 cm and 

maximum vertical preservation of 36 cm. According to the architectural plan, the northeastern portion of the circumference is missing, 

but on the photo the wall seems to be complete, albeit less well preserved in that spot. A possible collapse was identified immediately 

to the south, as can be seen on the photo. On the drawing of the western section of Square C2 it can be seen that a massive brick wall 

(82) was constructed directly on top of Feature 21. It is thus probable that most of the superstructure of the installation was removed 

by this later construction.

Two parallel brick/pisé de terre walls (Feature 22) approach the installation from the south/southeast. Both walls are ~25 cm thick, 

and the channel-like space between them is 20–30 cm wide. On the drawing of the southern and western sections of Square C2 (Figure 

3.40) these walls (drawn as one thick wall) are described as being earlier than Feature 21, but on the architectural plan of Phase 18 (Figure 3.16) these features appear as contemporaneous, and the eastern wall is drawn as abutting Feature 21 from the southeast. Ash Layer 

87 extends to the east and south of the installation and includes an ~50 cm deep pit (seen in the southern section of the square). This 

pit was apparently used for dumping the ashes from the installation. On the photo (Figure 3.17), similar gray ash is seen in the space 
NUMBER 50 • 643

installation is also filled with ash, but the top level of these ashes 

is lower than that of the ash outside the installation. This clearly 

indicates that the installation was periodically cleaned, and the 

ash was dumped outside. It is possible that Pit 1, located ~50 cm 

to the east of the installation, contained this refuse ash. The location of this installation in relation to buildings is unclear. 

6. GMIII J1–J2 Feature 9; context: Field III, Phase 15; date: 

MBIIB-C. This installation is documented only on the architectural plan of Phase 15 (Figure 3.73). It seems to be roughly 

oval in shape, ~50 cm in maximal diameter, and delimited by a 

~10-cm-thick wall. It is located outside the building exposed to 

its west, in what appears to be an open space (unless Wall 10 is 

an outer wall of another building). 

7. GMIII F1 Feature 1, Locus 1; context: Field III, Phase 

14A, Room F; date: MBIIC–LB. This is a circular installation, 

~80 cm in diameter, delimited by a 5–10 cm thick wall. The 

upper part of the installation is apparently missing; numerous 

collapsed fragments of its walls were found inside and outside 

the installation. The bottom of the installation was covered with 

dark-gray ash. A rounded (~20 cm in diameter) stocking/ventilation hole was found near the bottom of the installation, possibly 

indicating that the installation was fully freestanding. This installation is located in the upper phase of Room F (Phase 14A), 

occupying half of the room. Thus, it seems that this oven was located in a closed roofed space, standing next to a mud brick wall.

8. GMIII B Feature 8; context: Field III, Phase 13, Unit 

10; date: LBII. This is a roughly circular installation, ~80 cm in 

maximal diameter, preserved to a height of at least 45 cm. It is 

located in what appears to be a roofed space. 

9. GMIII B Feature 10; context: Field III, Phase 13, Unit 

11; date: LBII. This installation is located near the southern balk 

of the square and was only partially exposed. It is circular, its 

diameter is probably ~80 cm, and it is surrounded by what can 

be assumed to be a clay sidewall. On the basis of the elevations 

that appear on the plan of Phase 13 (Figure 3.94), this wall was 

preserved to a maximum height of 47 cm. The installation is located in the corner between Walls 73 and 76, in what appears to 

be a room. A stone pavement is situated next to it.

10–11. GMIII B Features 11 and 11A; context: Field III, 

Phase 13, Unit 11; date: LBII. This is a poorly preserved installation, a circular area, ~60 cm in diameter, covered with low-fired 

clay, apparently the bottom of a fire installation. No sidewalls 

were preserved. The difference between Features 11 and 11A is 

unclear. The installation is surrounded by a well-preserved rectangular stone pavement (Feature 9) that reached Walls 74 and 76. 

12. GMIII B Feature 5, Locus 8; context: Field III, Phase 

12A, Unit 8; date: LBII. This is a circular installation, ~1 m in 

diameter. It was delimited by a wall that in several places was 

repaired and reinforced by additional flat segments of low-fired 

clay. The diameter becomes narrower toward the top; the approximate maximum height of preservation is 50 cm. The wall 

was built on a foundation of small stones. The interior was filled 

with gray and black ash. The remains of thin and curving brick 

walls found around the installation, interpreted as a possible bin 

(Feature 7, attributed to Phase 12B, supposedly predating the 

installation), might have been the remains of inner partition wall 

between the two walls of Feature 22, reinforcing the impression 

that Features 22 and 21 were use related. These features stood 

in the open space, as far as can be learned from the limited area 

exposed. An industrial function (a smelting furnace?) is possible 

but is far from definite. Because of the many common features 

between this installation and regular bread ovens, it is discussed 

in this chapter.

2. GMIII F2 Feature 15; context: Field III, Phase 17; date: 

MBIIB-C. This installation, documented only in the architectural plan of Phase 17 (Figure 3.29) and on the section drawing 

(Figure 3.22), was only very partially exposed (most of it is in 

the northwestern balk of Square F2). It is apparently circular or 

oval, with a diameter of at least 40 cm. According to the section 

drawing (Figure 3.22), it is extremely poorly preserved. 

3. GMIII F1 Feature 5; context: Field III, Phase 16; date: 

MBIIB-C. This installation was partially exposed underneath 

Wall 6 of Phase 15. It is circular, about 60 cm in diameter, and 

delimited by an ~5 cm thick wall (note that on the architectural 

plan (Figure 3.52) this wall is drawn both incompletely and with 

a different shape from how it appears on a photo (Figure 3.53). 

Inside the installation a complete loaf-shaped upper grinding 

stone was found, lying on what seems to be a layer of gray ash. 

This layer seems to represent the bottom of the installation since 

as can be seen in the section below it, it overlies a thick homogeneous layer of brown sediment that apparently belongs to a 

previous layer. This installation could be an oven or a storage bin 

(perhaps for grain or flour if a grinding stone is any indication).

4. GMIII F1 Feature 7; context: Field III, Phase 16; date: 

MBIIB-C. On the photo (Figure 3.66) this installation appears 

to be an oval pit-like feature, ~50 cm in maximum diameter and 

~10 cm deep, without a clear lining. In the section several layers of whitish, yellowish, and gray sediments can be seen, which 

perhaps sealed this pit. If these sediments are ash, then this might 

have been a hearth. The exact location of this installation is 

unclear; it is cut by Wall 6, which is located east of Wall 7. It 

is possible that this is, in fact, the same as Feature 5, although 

on photographs (Figure 3.65) they look very different from one 

another. 

5. GMIII C2 Feature 17; context: Field III, Phase 16; date: 

MBIIB-C. This installation is located in the northern corner of 

Square C2. It is roughly circular, ~80 cm in diameter; about onethird of its circumference is exposed. It is well preserved (max. 

height of preservation is ~40 cm), but the upper part is missing. Its sidewall is made of two to three layers of low-fired clay, 

evidently rebuilt or repaired several times. The walls are slightly 

incurving, so the top of the installation was somewhat narrower 

than the bottom. A narrow (~10 cm wide) opening through the 

entire exposed height of the southern wall of the installation apparently served as a ventilation hole. 

Thick (30–40 cm in thickness) laminated layers of gray, 

whitish, and yellowish ash reached the exterior of the installation from east and south, up to the top level of the installation’s 

preservation. These ash accumulations are certainly related to 

the use of the installation and indicate that at least during the initial phase of its use the installation was freestanding, and subsequently, it was buried in the pile of refuse ash. The interior of the 
644 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the foundation of small stones. At least three superimposed oven 

floors, made of fired clay, can be seen, indicating that during the 

rebuildings the oven floor was reconstructed on a higher level.

This oven is situated near the opening of Unit L in Building 

I, in the corner between Walls 2 and 12, the northeastern corner 

of the room. Near the oven, to its west, another (possibly contemporary) oven (Feature 11, Cat. No. 22) was found. 

21. GMI 4G Feature 4; context: Field I, Phase 3(A?), Building I, Unit L; date: LBII. This installation has no graphic documentation. It is situated in the southeastern corner of Unit L in 

Building I, to the south of the entrance. 

22. GMI 4G–4H Feature 11; context: Field I, Phase 3(A?), 

Building I, Unit L; date: LBII. This is a poorly preserved circular 

installation, ~80 cm in diameter. The southern part of its sidewall is missing; either it was not preserved, or the gap is, in fact, 

an opening. The installation is situated near Wall 12, to the west 

of another oven (Cat. No. 20). 

23. GMI 2F Feature 5 (and Feature 3); context: Field I, 

Phase 3(A), Building I, Unit B; date: LBII. This is a circular 

installation, ~70 cm in diameter. The small circular hole in the 

bottom of the southeastern wall of the oven is most likely a ventilation hole. The interior of the oven was filled with numerous 

thin layers of yellowish and gray ash, representing episodes of 

the installation’s use. The installation was built on the cobble 

pavement that extended over most of Room A of Building I. This 

oven is situated in the northwestern corner of that room, in a 

small enclosure (Unit B) created by a curved brick wall. This 

wall, built on the above-mentioned cobble pavement, was perhaps constructed to keep the ash from the oven from spreading 

all over Room A. Layers of use-related ash from the oven were 

found in the enclosure. 

24. GMI 5D Feature 3; context: Field I, Phase 3, Building 

II, Room G; date: LBII.

This installation is an exceptionally well preserved circular 

oven, ~80 cm in diameter at the base and ~40 cm in diameter 

at the preserved top (which is probably the original rim of the 

installation with a dome-shaped upper part). It is preserved to a 

height of 60 cm. Its sidewalls are built on a foundation of small 

stones and are reinforced from the outside with large jar fragments. The lower part of its interior was filled with brownishyellow ash; thick deposits of ash surrounded this installation, 

from its top to bottom, so the installation was at least partially 

buried in this ash. The floor of the oven was made of fired clay. 

Part of the southwestern sidewall of the oven was missing, and 

it is possible that a stocking hole was situated in this area. This 

oven is situated in the northwestern corner of a small room 

(Room G) in the partially excavated Building II.

25. GMI KB Feature 2, Locus 2; context: Field I KB, Phase 

KB1; date: Iron IIB-C.

This is a circular installation, ~80 cm in diameter. Its walls 

are preserved to a height of ~20 cm. A complete jar was found 

nearby. No other information is available. 

26. GMII A3 Feature 3; context: Field II, Phase 5; date: 

Iron I? This feature is documented only on the architectural plan 

(Figure 4.24), where a half circle of stones(?), ~100 cm in diameter, can be seen. No other data on this installation are available. 

that created an enclosure around the oven. The installation is 

located in what appears to be an opening (between Walls 62 and 

69), near a small niche-like space (between Walls 69 and 70). 

13. GMIII B Feature 1, Locus 6; context: Field III, Phase 

11, Unit 7; date: LBII. This is an oval installation, 100 × 80 cm 

in diameter. Its sidewall is built on a foundation of small stones 

and is preserved to a maximum height of 28 cm. The installation 

is partially destroyed by slope erosion and is located in the open 

space.

14. GMIII A3 Feature 5; context: Field III, Phase 9, Unit 

2; date: LBII. This installation is rounded, ~110 cm in diameter, 

with sidewalls built on a foundation of small stones. The maximum preservation of the sidewalls is ~50 cm; the upper edge 

of the walls is straight and apparently is the original top of the 

installation. There is an ~20 cm wide opening in the northern 

wall, facing the partially excavated stone pavement (Feature 7) 

and what seems to be another oven (Feature 6, Cat. No. 15). 

The installation is situated in the corner between Walls 6 and 7, 

probably in the open space. 

15. GMIII A3 Feature 6; context: Field III, Phase 9, Unit 

2; date: LBII. This installation is recorded only on the section 

drawing (Figure 3.152) of the northern balk of Square A3. This 

is a circular or oval installation, ~60 cm in diameter; sidewalls 

are preserved to a height of ~50 cm and are slightly tilted to the 

east. The installation has a floor of small stones. It is located 

near Wall 4. 

16. GMIII A3 Feature 4; context: Field III, Phase 7B; date: 

Iron IA. This poorly preserved installation is recorded only on 

the section drawing (Figure 3.152) of the northern balk of Square 

A3. It appears to be located near Wall 3. 

17. GMI 3G Feature 9; context: Field I, Phase 9 (probe); 

date: MBIIB-C. This installation is recorded only on the architectural plan of Phase 9 (Figure 3.134). It is rounded, ~50 cm in 

diameter. It is situated on top of brick paving, Feature 10. 

18. GMI 3G Feature 7; context: Field I, Phase 7 (probe); 

date: MBIIC–LB. This is a rounded installation, ~80 cm in diameter. No other information is available.

19. GMI 3G Feature 2; context: Field I, Phase 3(A?), Building I, Unit L; date: LBII. This is a well-preserved circular installation, ~100 cm in diameter. Its sidewalls, built on a foundation 

of small stones, are constructed of at least two layers of fired 

clay and are preserved to a height of 36 cm. The oven is located 

next to Wall 1, in the western part of Unit L of Building I. Near 

the oven, to its east, a rounded bin with brick walls was found 

(Feature 1). This bin can be functionally related to the oven; it 

might have been used for storage of grain or as a container for 

refuse ash from the oven. 

20. GMI 4G Feature 2; context: Field I, Phase 3(B?), Building I, Unit L; date: LBII.

This is a circular installation, ~90 cm in diameter. Its sidewalls, reinforced with large potsherds, were apparently repaired 

three to four times, creating a corresponding number of concentric circumferences. In its final state, the total thickness of 

the wall was ~20 cm. Since a space was left between the walls, 

the interior of the installation in its final state was well insulated. The inner (perhaps the earliest) wall was constructed on 
NUMBER 50 • 645

the southern Levant, see, for example, Gunneweg, 1983; McQuitty, 1984, 1993–1994; Van der Steen, 1991; Mazar, 1997; 

Campbell, 2002; Mazar and Ben-Shlomo, 2005; Frankel, 2011; 

Mazar, 2011). Their sidewalls, constructed of low-fired coarse 

clay mixed with straw and other organic materials, frequently 

have a stone foundation and are reinforced with large potsherds 

(see, for example, Dever et al., 1970:50, pl. 22B, from Gezer; 

Campbell, 2002:40, fig. 31, from Shechem/Tel Balatah; Leibowitz, 2003:65, 71, photo 3:12, from Tel Yin’am). The examination 

of walls of many bread ovens reveals that they have horizontal 

ridges and break into horizontal segments, indicating that they 

were built of coils (e.g., Gunneweg, 1983:106; Van der Steen, 

1991:138–139; Folk and Leibowitz, 2003:238). The diameter of 

ovens from Tell Jemmeh is usually 60–80 cm (at the base), which 

is the average size of contemporaneous ovens from other Levantine sites. Some examples are slightly larger, up to 110 cm in base 

diameter (Cat. Nos. 12, 14, 19–20, 30), whereas one example 

(Cat. No. 17) is only 50 cm wide. Oval ovens (Cat. Nos. 6 and 

13) are rare both at Tell Jemmeh and elsewhere; the functional 

significance of this shape is unclear (for examples of oval ovens, 

see Campbell, 2002:40, 58, 117, figs. 30, 50, 103, from Shechem/

Tel Balatah, and Mazar and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:13–14, plan 2.2, 

from Ashdod). Most ovens have a simple earthen floor; floors of 

two installations (Cat. Nos. 20 and 24) are made of fired clay, and 

another example (Cat. No. 15) has a floor made of small stones. 

Only four ovens (Cat. Nos. 5, 12, 24, and 34) are sufficiently well 

preserved to enable the examination of their upper part, which is 

dome shaped. Catalog number 24 has the original rim still preserved; the diameter of its upper opening is 40 cm, and the height 

of this oven is 60 cm. Such a shape, cylindrical lower part and 

dome-shaped upper part with the centrally placed upper opening, 

is predominant among sufficiently preserved Bronze and Iron Age 

ovens from the Levant (see references above). The rim of Cat No. 

14 is preserved as well, but as argued below, this is probably not 

an oven but, rather, a cooking hearth. 

Function

One of the crucial elements that help to elucidate the function of fire installations is the existence of small (10–20 wide) 

holes at their base, just above the level of the floor. Several ovens 

with such holes are known at Tell Jemmeh (Cat. Nos. 5, 7, and 

possibly also 22–24). Because of their small size and location, 

it can be assumed that these holes were designed to allow the 

intake of air to maintain the fire inside the installation, as well 

as, in some cases, perhaps to allow for stocking the oven with 

fuel (wood, coals, or dry animal dung mixed with straw) and 

for removal of ashes. Ethnographic data indicate that these holes 

faced the work area, and thus, their location indicates where 

the front of the installation was (Parker, 2011:619). Because 

of extremely poor documentation of ovens in most excavation 

reports, the phenomenon of ventilation/stocking holes is insufficiently known. It is quite possible that such holes at the base 

of ovens were much more frequent than what is indicated by the 

available data from other sites (for examples of such holes, see 

Smith et al., 1983: fig. 19, left, from Pella; Fischer, 2006:99, figs. 

27. GMII C1 Feature 4; context: Field II, Phase 2, Unit 2; 

date: unknown. This installation is documented only on the photograph (Figure 4.37), and it is not on the architectural plan of 

Phase 2 (Figure 4.35). This is a circular installation, ~60 cm in 

diameter, with walls preserved to a height of ~40 cm. It is situated 

near a brick wall, and a basalt grinding stone was found nearby.

28. GM 00B Feature 2; context: Field IV, Phase 4?; date: 

Persian period? Fragments of low-fired clay. No other data are 

available.

29. GM 1B Feature 1, Locus 10; context: Field IV, Phase 

5, Building I, Room E; date: Iron IIC. This is an ashy circle; no 

data are available.

30. GM 2B Oven 1, Locus 4; context: Field IV, Phase 3?; 

date: Persian period? This circular (~100 cm in diameter) installation was only half excavated. It is preserved to a height of ~40 

cm. Layers of white and black ash abut its exterior from the 

west. A thin stone wall to its south could be a windbreak. It does 

not appear on architectural plans. 

31. GM 2B Oven 2, Locus 5; context: Field IV, unknown 

phase; date: unknown. No data are available; this feature is 

known only from notes. 

32. GM 2B Feature 4; context: Field IV, Phase 5?; date: 

Iron IIC? No data are available; this feature is known only from 

notes. 

33. GM 2B Feature 9; context: Field IV, Phase 5?; date: 

Iron IIC? No data are available; this feature is known only from 

notes. 

34. GM 2B Feature 14; context: Field IV, Phase 5?, Building II, Room B?; date: Iron IIC? This is a circular oven, ~80 cm 

in diameter at the base, with a dome-shaped upper part, with 

~10 cm thick sidewalls reinforced with large fragments of storage jars. Its interior is filled with blackish and gray ash. It does 

not appear on architectural plans. 

35. GM 2B Feature 37; context: Field IV, Phase 7, Locus 4; 

date: Iron IIB. No data are available. 

36. GM 1D Feature 3; context: Field IV, unknown phase; 

date: unknown. This feature is fragments of low-fired clay. No 

other data are available.

37. GM 1D Feature 10; context: Field IV, unknown phase; 

date: unknown. This feature is fragments of low-fired clay. No 

other data are available.

38. GM 1D Feature 12; context: Field IV, unknown phase; 

date: unknown. This feature is fragments of low-fired clay. No 

other data are available.

39. GM 1D Feature 13; context: Field IV, Phase 5?; date: 

unknown. This feature is fragments of low-fired clay. No other 

data are available.

DISCUSSION

Construction Technique and Shape

In terms of their construction, the ovens from Tell Jemmeh do not seem to differ from contemporary installations of 

this type known from other sites (for assemblages of ovens from 
646 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Carthage (Hoyos, 2010:110, ill. 15). Bread ovens of the tannur type are also depicted in Egyptian tomb paintings (Curtis, 

2001:127; Frankel, 2011, and references therein).

In contrast to tannurs, tabuns were heated by burning fuel 

(usually dung) against the exterior walls of the installation, and 

the bread was baked on the stone, pebble, or ceramic floor inside 

it. Some modern tannurs have a special internal fire chamber 

(sanur), and after use, the burning dung is piled against its exterior to preserve the heat (McQuitty, 1984:261). This technique 

admittedly blurs the archaeological distinctiveness of the two 

types of bread ovens as outlined here. Clear examples of tannurs were found in Tel Masos (Gunneweg, 1983:110, Oven 1, 

with a pile of charcoal still remaining outside it), in Tell Balatah/

Shechem (Campbell, 2002:241, Oven 1175, with traces of fire 

on its outer face), and in Gezer (Gitin, 1990:305, Locus 14010). 

In Tell Jemmeh, it can be tentatively suggested that ovens with 

ceramic or stone floors (Cat. Nos. 15, 20, 24) can be defined 

as tabuns, although it is possible that some tannurs had such 

floors as well. For example, as discussed below, there are some 

indications that oven 24 was in fact of the tannur type (because 

it was buried in ash that was apparently scooped out of it). Tannur structures were much lower than tabuns (e.g., McQuitty, 

1984:261), but this criterion is usually useless for the identification of archaeological examples of bread ovens, which are normally found with their upper part missing. 

Both tabuns and tannurs are still in use in the Near East 

and neighboring regions (Figures 9.2–9.4; see, e.g., Avitsur, 

1976:109–113; McQuitty 1984, 1993–1994; Amiry and Tamari, 

1989:20–25; Frankel, 2011; Parker, 2011). Over the course of 

time, some elaborations, such as a grill-like separation between 

the bread and the embers inside the tannur, were introduced. 

However, apart from these and other elaborations, the basic 

form of bread ovens did not change until present time. Most 

bread ovens found in archaeological excavations cannot easily be 

108, 109, from Tell Abu al-Kharaz; Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 

2009:144, photo 4.64; Mazar, 2011, from Tel Rehov). 

Whatever the exact function of these holes (ventilation, 

stocking, or both) was, they clearly indicate that the installations with such ovens were heated from the interior. The way 

an oven was heated determines its definition as either a tannur

or a tabun (Avitsur, 1976:109–113; Gunneweg, 1983:110–111; 

Van der Steen, 1991:135; King and Stager, 2001:67, 138, n. 75).

Tannurs were heated by coals burning on the floor, and flat bread 

was then baked on the concave interior surface of their sidewalls 

(Figures 9.2, 9.3), which is typically very smooth. In modern Anatolia, central Asia, and some other regions the term used for this 

type of installation is tandir or tandur (e.g., Parker, 2011), and 

in India it is tandoori (Figure 9.2). Bread ovens of this type are 

characteristic of numerous sites, such as the Iron I Tell Deir ‘Alla 

(Franken and Kalsbeek, 1969:29–30). It can be suggested that 

most ovens with an earthen floor at Tell Jemmeh and elsewhere, 

as well as all ovens with ventilation/stocking holes in their sidewalls, are tannurs. Starch granules, discovered on the interior of a 

tannur-type oven from the Amarna workmen’s village (mid-14th 

century BCE), confirm its use as a bread-baking facility (Samuel, 

1999:131). A famous Cypriot terra-cotta from the Metropolitan 

Museum of Art in New York depicts an oven of the tannur type 

(Figure 9.1). It shows a tall circular installation with a slightly 

inverted upper wall and wide opening. A woman is attaching a 

piece of dough to the upper interior of the installation, and another four flat pitas are shown as already baking inside. A circular 

stoking hole is depicted at the base of the oven. Other, more schematic representations of bread ovens in terra-cotta come from 

Cyprus (Gjerstad et al., 1937:315, pl. 55:1; Vandenabeele, 1986; 

Karageorghis, 2006:124, cat no. 95; see also Frankel, 2011) and 

FIGURE 9.1. Terra-cotta figurine showing a woman baking bread, 

from Cyprus, Cypro-Archaic II period, ca. 600–480 BCE (Karageorghis, 2000:160–161, cat. no. 260). FIGURE 9.2. A traditional Pakistani tandur (tannur).
NUMBER 50 • 647

in ancient cultures (as well as in traditional contemporary ones) 

tended to be multifunctional (for example, crushing basins of Iron 

II olive oil presses were perhaps also used for soaking linen and 

wool in textile production; see Eitam, 1996:174–175). Tabuns 

and tannurs could have been used for roasting meat (Gunneweg, 

1983:111, n. 3), a method that is also attested in Ur III texts (Ellison, 1984:93, n. 29). When located indoors, tannur-type ovens 

could have been used for heating as well. In Jewish communities 

ovens were even used to preserve the heat of cooked food during 

the Sabbath when no work was allowed (Avitsur, 1976:113), and 

in many traditional societies bread ovens are covered by lids or 

other devices in order to prevent the quick loss of heat (Lyons 

and D’Andrea, 2003:517, and references therein). Clearly, such 

well-insulated ovens were not intended to heat the surrounding 

space, but this very quality allowed for other important uses. It 

should additionally be mentioned that, in some cases, it is difficult to distinguish between archaeological examples of bread 

ovens and metal-smelting kilns. Such oven-like kilns are attested, 

for example, in Tel Dan (Biran, 1989:120–125, fig. 7) and Tell 

es-Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard, 1985:23).

In spite of ovens’ versatility, it is important to stress that the 

size and building technique of these installations did not allow 

for carrying a full cooking pot on their top, and they could not 

be used for cooking in this fashion (see also Ben-Shlomo et al., 

2008:235, n. 60). An alternative view suggests that ovens with a 

dome-shaped upper part were used for cooking in a pot placed 

on top of them (see Vilders, 1993:153; Edelstein et al., 1998:35, 

plan 3.8; Killebrew, 1999:106–108). In my view, since ovens were 

attributed to one of these types, either because of their poor preservation or because of their insufficiently detailed publication.

The main function of ovens, both tabuns and tannurs, was 

bread baking. However, additional functions of ovens in households should not be overlooked. In general, most installations 

FIGURE 9.4. A cooking hearth from Tell Deir ‘Alla. Image by Van der Steen (1991: fig. 1a), used with permission.

FIGURE 9.3. A traditional Palestinian tabun. Note the ashes covering the installation.
648 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

a large opening in their front (giving them a horseshoe-shaped 

ground plan) with internal space used as a combustion chamber. 

Cooking pots, frying pans, or baking trays were placed on their 

open top and heated either on open fire or on hot coals. Complete 

examples of these installations had a level and horizontal rim, 

suitable to support these vessels. The documented examples of 

this type of installation from the southern Levant are dated from 

the Middle Bronze Age through the Iron II and later. See Figure 

9.4 from Tell Deir ‘Alla as well as examples in Barkay and Ussishkin (2004: fig. 8.44, from Lachish), Herzog (1984:33, pl. 11:2, 

Locus 2101, from Tel Beersheba), Gal and Alexandre (2000:10, 

fig. II.1, plan 2, from Horbat Rosh Zayit, with an in situ globular 

cooking pot discovered in it), Ayalon (1999:43, fig. 3.27, from 

Tel ‛Ira, made of stone and plaster), and Yadin (2009:11, 14, figs. 

2.5, 2.7, 2.9, from Aphek, built of mud brick on stone base).

Badre (2011:150) is one of the very few scholars who recognized cooking hearths as a distinct type of installation that is 

different from bread ovens (see also Frankel, 2011:81–84). The 

same problem apparently exists in the archaeology of first millennium BCE Greece (see Sparkes, 1981, with the telling title 

“Not Cooking, but Baking”). Because of their resemblance to 

bread ovens, these installations are frequently misinterpreted 

and have certainly received insufficient scholarly attention.

The excavations of Tell Jemmeh revealed what seems to be 

an example of such a cooking hearth: Cat. No. 14, dated to the 

Late Bronze Age II. This identification is based on assumptions 

that its level at the upper edge is the original top of the installation and that the missing section of its front wall is a hearth’s side 

opening. A possible bread oven (Cat. No. 15) was found next to 

this installation. In quite a few Bronze and Iron Age southern 

Levantine sites, cooking hearths and bread ovens were found in 

close proximity, as cooking and baking were apparently carried 

out in the same space, using two different types of installations. 

See, for example, Herzog (1984:33, fig. 15, Loci 2301 and 2609, 

from Tell Beersheba, found in a small room apparently used as 

a kitchen), Leibowitz (2003:66, 89, plan 3.3, photos 3:14, 3:29, 

two stone cooking hearths from Tel Yin’am, found in courtyards 

in proximity to bread ovens and grain-grinding installations), 

and the above-mentioned cooking hearth from Tel ‛Ira (Ayalon, 

1999:43, fig. 3.27) that was found near two ovens in what appears to be a kitchen (for examples from later periods, see Frankel, 2011:85). Two circular installations from the Late Bronze 

Age Building I at Tell Jemmeh (Cat. Nos. 20 and 22) might possibly represent another such pair of installations. However, although the identification of Cat. No. 20 as a bread oven is quite 

clear, the functional interpretation of Cat. No. 22 is problematic 

because of its poor preservation. Although Cat. No. 22 has an 

open front, which is a feature of cooking hearths, this opening 

could also be the result of later damage to installation’s wall. In 

any case, the existence of pairs of “ovens” in close proximity 

to each other may suggest that one of them is, in fact, a cooking hearth rather than a bread oven. This is particularly true of 

the cases when one of the installations is significantly smaller 

than the other (e.g., Pritchard, 1985:10, 28, figs. 94, 179, three 

such “pairs” of installations from Tell es-Sa’idiyeh). Spatial association between bread ovens and cooking hearths is known 

constructed from relatively fragile low-fired crude clay, their inverted dome-shaped walls were clearly unsuitable for withstanding the weight of a full average-size cooking pot with a wide 

opening, which can be estimated to weigh between 6 and 9 kg 

(this estimate is based on the volumes of the Late Bronze Age 

cooking pots from Tel Batash [Panitz-Cohen, 2006b:69, table 24] 

and of the Iron IIB cooking pots from Tel Beth Shean [Mazar, 

2006:344]). Even for the cooking pots of the Iron IIB-C (8th–

early 6th centuries BCE), which are usually quite small, such a 

function is untenable. This is because ovens of this period had to 

have a sharply incurving (and therefore very unstable) upper wall 

in order to create an upper opening small enough to accommodate such a pot. This conclusion is supported by the ethnographic 

study of contemporary ovens in the Upper Tigris region (Parker, 

2011:620–621), according to which tandir-type (tannur-type) 

ovens are used almost exclusively for baking unleavened bread, 

whereas other installations are used for cooking, roasting, etc.

Oven-like installations with a dome-shaped top, reinforced 

by hard kiln-fired bricks, are attested in the fifth–third millennia BCE (and perhaps also later) northern Mesopotamia (Curtis, 

2001:207). Such installations allowed for placing a cooking pot 

on their open top, but to the best of my knowledge, they are 

unknown in the Levant. North Mesopotamian installations with 

a reinforced top should probably be identified with tinûru, on 

top of which cooking pots were placed according to Akkadian 

culinary documents (e.g., Bottéro, 1987:14, 17). However, in 

spite of linguistic connection between the two terms, the functional relationship between tinûru and Levantine tannur is problematic and requires much further study. At most, Levantine 

ovens (tannurs and tabuns) could have been used for cooking 

in round-based cooking pots only after the upper part of their 

superstructure had collapsed or was intentionally removed (see 

also Badre, 2011:150). In this case, cooking pots could have been 

placed either inside them, directly on hot ash or coals, or on the 

vertical stubs of oven’s sidewalls. This “secondary” use of bread 

ovens can account for a number of cases when apparently in 

situ cooking pots were found inside what seems to be the lower 

part of ovens (e.g., Yadin et al., 1958: pl. 6:3, from Hazor; BeitArieh, 1973:33, from Beer-Sheba; Van der Steen, 1991:149, pl. 

1:2, from Tell Deir ‘Alla; Steiner, 2001:60, from Jerusalem). In 

Tell Jemmeh, no complete cooking pots were recorded in proximity to ovens, although large fragments of cooking vessels come 

from Field I, Building I, Unit L. 

At this point, it is necessary to briefly consider another 

problem related to archaeological identification of ancient cooking and baking facilities and their function: the recognition of 

cooking hearths as a distinct type of installation. Some circular 

installations with clay sidewalls, identified in excavation reports 

as ovens or tabuns, are clearly too small (less than 50 cm in diameter and some as small as 30–35 cm) to be suitable for such use 

(e.g., Aharoni, 1973: pl. 94, in Locus 94; Herzog, 1984: fig. 10, 

in Locus 2086, from Tel Beersheba; Van der Steen, 1991: table 

1, from Tell Deir ‘Alla; Alexandre, 2007:24, plan 1, from Sulam, 

with a cooking pot found inside). It can be suggested that many 

of these small “ovens,” as well as some of the larger ones, are, in 

fact, cooking hearths. These are low, stationary installations, with 
NUMBER 50 • 649

Nos. 7–9, 12, 19–24, all dated to the Middle–Late Bronze Age). 

Some ovens from Tell Jemmeh were, with varying degrees of 

probability, located in open spaces (Cat. Nos. 1, 6, 13–15), but 

the nature of these spaces (street? internal courtyard?) is unclear. 

Although, as explained above, the excavation data from Tell Jemmeh are sometimes incomplete, it seems that most ovens from 

Middle–Late Bronze Age levels at the site were located indoors. 

This (admittedly tentative) conclusion conforms to the picture 

obtained from other sites from these periods (Daviau, 1993:451). 

It should be noted that although Daviau’s general conclusion concerning the predominance of outdoor locations for Middle and 

Late Bronze Age ovens is correct, the percentage of all those located outside the house given by her (3.2%) seems to be too low. 

A number of recent publications on Middle and Late Bronze Age 

sites feature ovens that were found in courtyards (e.g., Mazar, 

1997:67–69; Ben-Tor and Bonfil, 2003:257, plan 36; Leibowitz, 

2003: plans 3.3, 3.7; Mullins and Mazar, 2007:78–79; PanitzCohen and Mazar, 2009:111–112, photo 4.22; Mazar, 2011). 

The location of cooking hearths and bread ovens was also 

dictated by seasonal changes of weather, as indicated by ethnographic studies conducted in the Near and Middle East: food 

was prepared indoors during colder and rainy winter months 

and outdoors during hotter summer months (Kramer, 1979:156; 

Watson, 1979:159; Delaney, 1991:240–243). During these seasonal shifts of food preparation activity, areas with old bread 

ovens were frequently dismantled (or left to decay), and new 

ones were built or reconstructed in a new place. However, such 

seasonal shifts of kitchen location fail to account for the predominantly indoor location of these installations during the Middle 

and Late Bronze Age (unless some such ovens were located in 

inner courtyards that are erroneously reconstructed as roofed 

spaces). The only possible evidence for such seasonal shifts at 

Tell Jemmeh comes from the Late Bronze Age Building I, where 

ovens were found both in the courtyard (Rooms A and B) and in 

one of the inner rooms (Unit L).

The additional factor that determined the location of ovens 

inside or outside the building was the availability of open space 

between houses. For example, ovens in the relatively sparsely 

built-up Iron Age I village of Tell Deir ‘Alla were located in open 

courtyards (Franken and Kalsbeek, 1969:29). In contrast, no 

courtyards were found adjacent to the residential buildings discovered in the Iron Age I town of Tell Qasile (Mazar, 2009a: 

fig. 3). Mazar (2009a:332) described these structures as “built 

in dense blocks, with common walls and no place for courtyard 

in front of the houses or between them.” Streets that separated 

the blocks were apparently considered public space and had no 

ovens. Although it is hard to establish how densely built the settlement at Tell Jemmeh was during the Middle and Late Bronze 

Ages, this factor might have had a decisive influence on the location of ovens at the site. 

Maintenance and Repair

According to archaeological and ethnographical data, the 

interior of tabuns and tannurs was periodically cleaned, and 

the ashes were scooped out and dumped elsewhere. Cleaning 

in contemporary traditional Near Eastern societies as well (e.g., 

Parker, 2011:620–621). Frequent finds of simple hearths (apparently used for cooking) near ovens (e.g., Gadot and YasurLandau, 2006:587) point in the same direction. 

Location

Bread ovens are frequently associated with brick- or stonelined bins used to contain grain (e.g., Campbell, 2002:58; Leibowitz, 2003:65). In Tell Jemmeh, Cat. No. 19, found in the 

Late Bronze Age Building I, was located near a rounded bin with 

brick walls (Feature 1) that, as mentioned above, might have 

been used for storage of grain. Another installation (Cat. No. 

3), although listed in the catalog of ovens, might possibly be another such grain bin if the basalt grinding stone found inside it 

is an indication of its function. A grinding stone was also found 

near a possible oven of unknown date (Cat. No. 27). Grinding 

stones, as well as basins and flat stone tables, are frequently associated with cooking installations in general and with bread 

ovens in particular, as production of flour, preparation of dough, 

and baking of bread were usually carried out in the same space 

(Daviau, 1993:451; for selected archaeological examples of this 

association, see Yadin et al., 1961: pl. 61:1; Stern, 1984:48–

49; Pritchard, 1985:12, fig. 48; Mazar, 1997:241; Campbell, 

2002:58, figs. 52, 53; Leibowitz, 2003:66, 89). 

Since the cooking area near ovens was an important working 

space where people (primarily women) were almost constantly 

present, it was frequently paved. At Tell Jemmeh, examples of the 

association between ovens and pavements are Cat. Nos. 9–11 (if 

Cat. Nos. 10–11 are indeed related to food preparation), 14, and 

23. Some ovens were separated from the surrounding space by 

thin walls that created a kind of small enclosure around it (Cat. 

Nos. 12, 23, and possibly also 30). These enclosure walls possibly 

served several purposes: to keep the ash from spreading all over 

the adjacent area and to isolate the area where women were predominantly active (for the role of women in ancient bread baking, 

see Nelson, 1997:104–106; Meyers, 2007). Such oven shelters 

are extremely common in modern-day traditional communities in 

Turkey, the Near East, and elsewhere (Parker, 2011:619). 

Another important aspect of ovens’ use is their location visà-vis roofed spaces. In general, bread ovens located outside buildings (that is, outside roofed structures and associated courtyards) 

can be considered as installations for communal use, whereas the 

access to ovens located indoors was limited to members of the 

household. 

In general, the evidence for communal bread baking in the 

Middle and Late Bronze Age southern Levant is meager. This 

is in contrast to the data from the following period (that is, the 

Iron Age) and to the profusion of ethnographic examples of 

such communal installations from various traditional Near Eastern communities (e.g., Avitsur, 1976:113; Amiry and Tamari, 

1989:20, 25). In Turkish and Near Eastern villages, the domed 

structures that housed communal tabuns also serve as meeting 

places, primarily for women. 

In Tell Jemmeh, several ovens were clearly located inside 

buildings, either in roofed spaces or in enclosed courtyards (Cat. 
650 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

configuration of concentric or overlapping circles of oven walls 

or of several superimposed ovens (e.g., Maisler, 1950–1951:12; 

Pritchard, 1985: fig. 152; Dever, 1986: pl. 72B; Mazar, 1999: fig. 

12, as well as examples cited by Van der Steen, 1991:139, some 

of which might have had intentionally constructed “sandwich 

wall”). However, the number of repairs evident in archaeological 

sites would still attest to a longer than 3- to 4-year life span for 

the ovens. In some cases, however, an oven was rebuilt on a spot 

just next to an old obsolete one. Three ovens that were apparently used consecutively were found at the Late Bronze Age Beth 

Shean (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2009:111–112, photo 4.22, fig. 

4.17). Each of these ovens was related to one of the superimposed layers of striated debris that gradually accumulated in a 

courtyard. At Tell Jemmeh, an oven (Cat. No. 20) found in Unit 

L of Building I was tentatively attributed to Phase 3B, whereas 

another oven in the same room (Cat. No. 19) was (also tentatively) attributed to Phase 3A. If these stratigraphic attributions 

are correct, then these two installations represent an example of 

an oven that went out of use and was rebuilt on another spot in 

the same room. 

Several ovens from Tell Jemmeh (Cat. Nos. 5, 12, 19, and 

20) exhibit signs of repair: some were reinforced from the outside with curving segments of fired clay, whereas in other cases 

complete rings of fired clay were added. The latter type of repair 

created series of concentric clay walls with empty space in between that also improved the insulation of the ovens’ internal 

space (for example, Cat. No. 20, where the clay floors were rebuilt as well). It seems not to be an accident that two ovens from 

Tell Jemmeh with deposits of ash inside (Cat. Nos. 5 and 12, 

both probably of the tannur type) were also repaired or rebuilt 

several times. These two cases suggest that such rebuildings were 

apparently a quite simple undertaking that could be quickly accomplished by unskilled persons and were sometimes preferred 

over thorough cleaning of existing installations. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Alexander Zukerman, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, 

P.O. Box 19096, 91100 Jerusalem, Israel. Correspondence: sashat9@yahoo.

com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

the accumulated ash from the tabun floor was necessary for the 

normal functioning of this installation because even a thin layer 

of ash on heated stones would insulate them from the interior 

space (Lyons and D’Andrea, 2003:520). Ash dumps near bread 

ovens were discovered, for example, in the Middle Bronze Age 

Gezer (Dever et al., 1970:59) and Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer, 

2006:47–48), in the Iron I Tell Deir ‘Alla (Franken and Kalsbeek, 

1969:30), and in the Iron II Tell es-Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard, 1985:8) 

and Tel Rehov (Mazar, 2011:112). In Tell Jemmeh, large deposits 

of ash were discovered around Cat. Nos. 1, 5, 23–24, and 30. In 

the first two cases, pits filled with ash were found in proximity to 

ovens. These pits were probably intentionally excavated to serve 

as ash bins (for possible ash bins near bread ovens from third 

millennium BCE Mesopotamia, see Delougaz et al., 1967:154). 

The only possible (but by no means certain) evidence for a similar installation at Tell Jemmeh is a circular brick bin (Feature 1) 

found near a Late Bronze Age oven (Cat. No. 19). Ovens 5 and 

24 were at least partially buried in layers of ash that accumulated 

against their exterior. If these ash layers indeed represent refuse 

scooped out from the inside of these ovens (and not the in situ remains of burned fuel), these installations were of the tannur type 

(as mentioned above, in the case of Cat. No. 5 this definition is 

supported by the existence of a ventilation hole). Such piles of 

refuse ash contributed to the insulation of tannurs, which was 

particularly important during winter months.

In some cases, archaeological examples of tannurs were apparently allowed to accumulate layers of ash, gradually reducing 

the inner space of the installation. Probably as a result of this, 

the upper part of the tannurs was frequently rebuilt, and when 

excavated, they sometimes have the appearance of wide clay cylinders filled with numerous layers of soft ash in different colors, 

without any clear bottom surface. In Tell Jemmeh, several ovens 

had such deposits of ash inside them (Cat. Nos. 5, 12, 23, 34); as 

expected, none of them had solid (stone or clay) floors. 

Judging from traditional Near Eastern examples, the life 

span of clay bread ovens was relatively short, about 3–4 years 

(Daviau, 2003:172, n. 57; see McQuitty, 1984:265 for a somewhat longer estimate). This would explain the fact that walls 

and floors of many Bronze and Iron Age Levantine ovens 

show signs of repair, and in numerous other cases new ovens 

were built inside or on the spot of old ones, creating a typical 
10 Decorated Canaanite Pottery

Gwanghyun Choi

INTRODUCTION

W. F. Albright (1932:46) stated some 80 years ago that the Late Bronze Age in Palestine was “the most flourishing age of painted 

pottery in the entire pre-Islamic history of Palestine,” a period when the tradition of Canaanite painted pottery fully developed. This 

chapter will discuss a selection of Canaanite painted pottery from the Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh. The painted 

Canaanite pottery assemblage of Van Beek’s excavations at Tell Jemmeh includes two complete vessels and a number of sherds that date 

to the LBII or Iron I. This assemblage shows that the local Canaanite pottery painters who produced these followed the Canaanite pottery painting tradition of the Late Bronze Age. The pottery painters decorated the vessels with natural motifs such as trees, quadrupeds, 

and birds and with various geometric motifs, which were popular in Canaanite pottery paintings during the LBII and Iron I. Like most 

of other decorated Canaanite pottery in the Levant, these vessels were painted mostly in red, yet black (or a dark color) was also used. 

They are often covered by white slip as well. The decorated vessels and sherds can be divided into the following five groups according 

to the decorative designs painted on them (Figures 10.1 and 10.2).

TREE OF LIFE SCENES

It is not by accident that both complete vessels are decorated with depictions of what is known as the “tree of life,” a motif representing a tree flanked by attribute animals (May, 1935:36) since it is the most popular motif in Canaanite pottery paintings during the 

LB and Iron I ages. 

A Decorated Biconical Jug

In the repertoire of Canaanite pottery, the biconical jug is one of the most beautifully decorated vessel types. This type of pottery 

is characterized by the marked carination on which the maximum diameter is found. The carination divides the biconical body into 

two parts, each of which tapers toward its end. The main decoration is always seen on the upper body, and the same applies to this 

Tell Jemmeh jug. Biconical jugs decorated with natural motifs commonly occur in the north and south of Israel during the Late Bronze 

Age and Iron Age I. Parallels are found at sites such as Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor et al., 2003: fig. 100:13), the village of Zawata (Eisenstadt 

et al., 2004: pl. 5:2), Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 134; Loud, 1948: pls. 49:18, 58:1–3, 63:3), Batash (Panitz-Cohen and 

Mazar, 2006: pls. 37:12, 54:1), Hazor (Yadin et al., 1960: pl. 152:5; Ben-Tor, 1997: fig. III.17:10), Tel Sera’ (Oren, 1985: fig. 6:1), 

Lachish (Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. 49:260; Tufnell, 1958: pl. 84:963), Tell el-Far’ah (S) (Starkey and Harding, 1932: pls. 58:920,972,978, 

84:37J,37J3,372J2), Tel Yin’am (Leibowitz, 2003: fig. 34:1,3), Tell Rumeideh, Hebron (Peleg and Eisenstadt, 2004: pl. 3:11), Tell Deir 

‘Alla (Franken,1992: figs. 4:11; 5.14:19), and Tell es-Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard, 1980: fig. 11:2).

The painted decoration on this biconical jug shows a variation of the well-known Canaanite tree of life motif, a typical example 

that consists of a tree (mostly a date palm) accompanied by two attribute animals on either side or one side only. The attribute animals 

are usually quadrupeds or birds. 

The tree depicted in the lower frieze of the decorative design on the Tell Jemmeh biconical jug is unmistakably identified as a date 

palm on the basis of the drooping-downward lower branches, separated from the upper branches stretching upward. The separation 
652 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 653

A Decorated Krater

Another tree of life scene is found on a partly broken krater 

found on the site’s surface. The shape of the krater is somewhat biconic, or deep; notably this krater has a wide, coarsely made base 

with two “knob handles” attached to it. Possibly, this unusual 

forming of the base was intended to give the vessel higher stability. 

The upper area of this vessel’s outer wall shows a tree of life scene 

consisting of a tree flanked by a quadruped, which can be identified as an ibex on the basis of its long horns curving backward. It 

is impossible to reconstruct precisely the whole design painted on 

this vessel since a large part of its upper area is missing. Nevertheless, the depiction of another ibex indicates that a series of identical tree of life scenes were originally painted on the upper frieze. 

The lower frieze shows a geometric metope design consisting of the net pattern and the double-triangle motif, which occur 

alternatively. In this design, the net pattern as a frame motif 

creates the metopes, in which the double triangles are placed. 

The double-triangle motif occurs in two variations, the vertical 

double triangle (“hourglass”) and the horizontal double triangle 

(“butterfly”). 

Trees, Quadrupeds, and Birds

The painted Canaanite pottery assemblage from Tell Jemmeh also includes many sherds from pottery vessels that were 

originally decorated with natural motifs such as trees, quadrupeds, and birds. These motifs survived only fragmentarily on the 

sherds, and the main parts of the original decorative designs that 

might have been included are entirely missing. 

A date palm tree that is almost identical to those found in 

the tree of life scene painted on the biconical jug (Figure 10.1a) 

is depicted on a sherd (Figure 10.2g). A broken handle (Figure 10.1f) apparently bears a schematized depiction of a date 

palm; this motif is like what Petrie coined “Union Jack” (Petrie, 

1928:22) and occurs very commonly on handles of Canaanite 

pottery vessels. 

A quadruped, whose body is in the form of a horizontal 

double triangle, is shown on a sherd in Figure 10.1g. At least 

of the upper and lower branches of a date palm is commonly 

observed on living date palms. The dark dots painted along the 

branches represent the palm fronds. Such a representation of a 

date palm is most popular during the LBII and Iron I period. An 

example almost identical to this date palm is also found on a 

sherd from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. LXIII:33). 

The fully developed style of such a date palm representation is particularly observed on many painted vessels from Lachish, which date to the 13th–12th centuries BCE (Tufnell et al., 

1940: pls. 41B:117,125, 60:1,2, 61:7, 64:7,8, 65:6, 1958: fig. 

2:2,17, pls. 72:630, 86:999; Aharoni, 1975: pls. 39:11, 40:1,3; 

Clamer, 2004: figs. 19.30:10, 19.31:9, 19.34:4, 19.40:1, 19.48:4, 

20.31:1,8, 20.33:14, 20.43:17, left, 21.4:10, 21.12:18). Parallels 

can also be found at many other sites. 

Several birds are also depicted in the lower frieze. Apparently, 

these birds are not ostriches since they have a long, S-shaped neck, 

rather than an upright one. These birds probably represent cranes. 

Almost identical birds are also depicted on some painted vessels 

from Lachish and Tel Mor, dating to the 13th–12th centuries BCE 

(Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. 60:1,2; Aharoni, 1975: pl. 40:1; Barako, 

2007: fig. 3.16:7). 

A series of tree of life scenes are shown in the upper frieze 

of the vessel (Figure 10.1a). Each of these scenes consists of a 

tree and three birds. In each scene, two birds are flanking the 

tree on either side, and the third bird is sitting on top of the tree. 

The trees painted in the upper frieze of the design lack the lower 

branches. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that they also represent 

the same date palm species as the one shown in the lower frieze, 

given the facts that both of them have identical upper branches 

and fronds and that they are painted in the same style. The lower 

branches of these trees seem to have been omitted on purpose 

because of the birds’ heads, which are located exactly where the 

lower branches are supposed to be. In the upper frieze, the tree 

of life scene is placed in a metope made by the pattern of running 

X shapes between two parallel lines. In the lower frieze, a zigzag 

band consisting of the zigzag running stroke between two parallel lines separates the trees from the birds. Both of these metope 

and zigzag designs including natural motifs are common in Canaanite pottery paintings during the LBII and Iron I. 

FIGURE 10.1. Canaanite decorated pottery. (opposite)

Part Description Box/Bag/RV Provenance Phase Architecture

a Complete jug RV 1018 GM (+) Unstratified

b Complete krater RV 1015 GM (+) Unstratified

c Biconical krater Box 99 (SI Cat. No. 934) GM 0A (+) Unstratified

d Biconical krater Box 188 GMIII B (0) Unstratified

e Biconical krater, two fragments Bag 6813/1–2 GMII B3 (19) 6

f Biconical krater, three fragments Box 192/1–3 GMIII B (55) 10

g Biconical krater Box 185 GMIII A3 F1 Unstratified

h Decorated sherd Bag 7030/1 GMII B3 (19) 6

i Biconical krater Box 191 GMIII B (52) 9 Room A
654 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 655

1928: pl. LXIII:28; see also his pl. LXIII:33). The two legs shown 

above the animal on Figure 10.1d indicate the presence of another antelope. Thus, these decorative elements seem to be part 

of a tree of life scene. Another sherd shows the partly preserved 

depiction of a quadruped that seems to be an herbivore (Figure 

10.2b). Only the rear body and very blurred head of this animal 

are discernible. 

Similarly, the rear body of another quadruped is shown on 

a sherd (Figure 10.1h). This animal seems to be surrounded by 

a series of dots, which are difficult to clarify. Such an enigmatic 

group of dots appearing around an animal are also found in 

some Canaanite pottery paintings (Starkey and Harding, 1932: 

pl. 58:978; James and McGovern, 1993: fig. 17:14; PanitzCohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 31:1). Dots often occur with trees 

(Macalister, 1912: pls. 159:13, 168:7; Grant, 1929:193, no. 415, 

drawing 1; FitzGerald, 1930: pl. 49:27; Ziffer, 1990:11 [in English text]; James and McGovern, 1993: fig. 21:4; Ben-Tor et 

al., 2003: fig. 125). When dots appear around a tree, they might 

represent seeds or fruits. The quadruped and dots depicted on 

the sherd in Figure 10.1h might have originally been part of a 

tree of life scene. In addition, the presence of a quadruped is 

indicated by the two legs painted on the sherd in Figure 10.1i; 

the sherd in Figure 10.2c seems to show the tail of a quadruped. 

The smaller sherd in Figure 10.1e apparently bears the depiction 

of a bird, the head of which is missing in the present state. A 

group of birds lining up in profile is rendered on a sherd found 

on the surface (Figure 10.1c). In shape and depicting style, these 

birds are almost identical to those rendered on the biconical jug 

(Figure 10.1a), although their arrangements in the designs are 

very different from each other: the birds lining up in profile are 

arranged within a narrow frieze in the sherd in Figure 10.1c, 

giving the feeling of a pattern, whereas the birds in Figure 10.1a 

are part of the tree of life scenes. A group of animals lining up 

in profile is not a commonly occurring motif in the Canaanite 

pottery painting tradition. Perhaps the groups of quadrupeds 

painted on a sherd from Beth Shean (Rowe, 1940: pl. 71A:2) 

and on a biconical vessel from a burial cave at Tell Rumeideh 

three sherds, two from the Van Beek’s excavations (Figures 

10.1f, 10.2a) and one from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. LXIII:36), bear the depictions of a horned animal with such 

a body in the form of a horizontal double triangle. The horned 

animal from Figure 10.1f seems to represent an ibex. However, 

it is hardly possible to identify safely the animals shown on the 

other two sherds (Figures 10.1g, 10.2a) as any species since their 

heads are missing in the present state. 

The style in which a quadruped is drawn by adding a horned 

head, four legs, and a tail to a horizontal double triangle is commonly observed in Canaanite pottery paintings from the LBII and 

Iron I contexts at many sites, such as Tell el-Far’ah (S) (Starkey 

and Harding, 1932: pl. 58:972), Beth Shean (Yadin and Geva, 

1986: figs. 24, 26:4), Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pls. 58:1,2, 64:4, 

72:3), Gezer (Macalister, 1912: pl. 173:13; Seger and Lance, 1988: 

pl. 10:7), Tell el-Harbaj (Garstang, 1922: pl. 4:1), Tell Deir ‘Alla 

(Franken, 1992: fig. 7-2:17a), Tel Sera’ (Oren, 1985: fig. 6:1,4), 

Lachish (Tufnell et al., 1940: pls. 46:216, 59:3, 60:3, 61:10, 

65:1,3,4), Hazor (Yadin et al., 1958: pls. 99:13, 108:1, 1960: pl. 

121:9–11), Beth Shemesh (Grant, 1932: pls. 19, top, 46:12; Grant 

and Wright, 1938: pl. 34:2, 34, top), Ta’anach (Sellin, 1905: fig. 

23, top left), Tel Miqne-Ekron (Killebrew, 1996b: pl. 7:1), and 

Batash (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pls. 25:4, 39:10). This 

style seems to find its origin in Near Eastern pottery painting traditions (see Thompson and Hamilton, 1932: pl. 59:25; Woolley, 

1955: pl. 93:a; Mattews, 2003: fig. 7.30:2a). In these parallels, the 

species represented by the quadrupeds are predominantly an ibex, 

which is characterized by a pair of long horns curving backward, 

an antelope, which has a pair of long and upright horns, and a 

gazelle, which has a pair of S-shaped horns. 

The sherd in Figure 10.1d bears the depiction of an antelope 

approaching what looks like the branch of a tree, probably a 

date palm branch with palm fronds (cf. May, 1935: pl. 41:L; 

Loud, 1948: pl. 72:3; Dothan, 1955: fig. 20:14; James, 1966: fig. 

22:26; Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 23:8; Ben-Tor et al., 2005: 

fig. I.22:17). A tree with a very similar branch is also found on 

a sherd that was retrieved during Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 

FIGURE 10.2. Canaanite decorated pottery. (opposite)

Part Description Box/Bag No. Provenance Phase Architecture

a Decorated krater, three fragments Box 266A/1–3 GMI 4D (1) 1

b Biconical krater Box 72 GMII C1 (+) Unstratified

c Decorated closed vessel; white, red decoration Box 190 GMIII B (51A) 9 Room A

d Decorated krater Box 353 GMI 4F (5) 1?

e Decorated sherd Box 279 GMI 5D (3) 3

f Decorated sherd Box 173 GMI 2E (4) 1/3?

g Biconic krater Box 259 GMI 3D (0) Unstratified

h Biconical krater, two fragments Box 193/1–2 GMIII B (56) 10

i Biconical krater Box 193/3 GMIII B (56) 10

j Decorated sherd Box 339 GMI 3F (1) 2?

k Decorated biconic krater Box 275 GMI 5D (0) Unstratified

l Decorated sherd; white slip Box 309 GMI 5E TT3 Unknown
656 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

connected to each other at one vertex. A wavy line between two 

parallel lines is one of the most commonly occurring motifs in 

Canaanite pottery paintings. 

Double triangles occur in two forms: vertical and horizontal. 

The former is often called hourglass (Figure 10.2e,h,i,k,l), and 

the latter is usually called butterfly (Figure 10.1c). Sometimes 

they appear together in the same design (Figures 10.1b, 10.2j). In 

the case of the double triangle found on the sherd in Figure 10.2l, 

the lower half is painted in red, whereas the upper half is filled 

with white. It seems that the sherd in Figure 10.2e also bears 

such a double triangle. A very similar example occurs on a decorated vessel found at Lachish (Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. 84:963; see 

also Herzog et al., 1989: fig. 5.9:5). Half-colored double triangles occur on some vessels found at other sites (Garstang, 1934: 

pl. 34:1; Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 54:1).

Both the vertical and the horizontal double triangles are 

very common not only on Canaanite pottery but also on pottery from Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iran. They have a long history in these regions. For example, the earliest appearance of the 

double-triangle motif painted on pottery in Iran goes back to the 

Neolithic period (Bernbeck, 1989: figs. 22: pattern C1-c, 23: pattern E2, 24: motif F3-c, 56c).

It is not possible to discuss here the types of design structures observed on the decorated Canaanite pottery from Tell 

Jemmeh in detail since most of the existing examples are sherds. 

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the general tendency of the 

design structures is well in agreement with the Canaanite pottery painting tradition during the LBII and Iron I, as attested by 

the common use of various metopic structures (Figures 10.1a,b,i, 

10.2c,e,g,j,k). 

CONCLUSION

The painted decoration on the Canaanite pottery from Tell 

Jemmeh shows a typical example of the Canaanite pottery painting tradition not only in its repertoire of decorative elements but 

also in style of representations. Particularly, some of the decorative motifs and styles of depiction indicate its close connection 

with those from Lachish. Although the LBII and Iron I in Canaan 

were a period of certain Egyptian domination over the region, 

Egyptian influence or elements on the painted Canaanite pottery 

is meager. As far as the Tell Jemmeh assemblage is concerned, 

Egyptian elements are nearly nonexistent. Rather, many features 

of the iconography observed on the painted Canaanite pottery, 

such as the popularity of the tree of life theme, the common use 

of metope design, the animals depicted in the form of a horizontal double triangle, etc., indicate its Near Eastern origin.

AUTHOR NOTE

Gwanghyun Choi, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel. Correspondence: 

msgchoi@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 

23 September 2013.

(Peleg and Eisenstadt, 2004: pl. 3:11) would be good examples 

for comparison. 

SUCKLING SCENE

One of the painted sherds from Tell Jemmeh seems to bear 

a scene depicting a quadruped suckling its kid, which is rendered 

standing just below the mother’s belly, between her legs (Figure 

10.2d). This motif is also found on some Canaanite vessels from 

Gezer and Beth-Shemesh (Bliss and Macalister, 1902: frontispiece: 132, pl. 41:132; Macalister, 1912: pl. 167:1; Grant and 

Wright, 1938: pl. 34:2). The suckling animal is an age-old motif 

in the ancient Near East that has been known from the end of the 

fourth millennium BCE onward (Ornan, 2005:160). 

HUNTING SCENE

The scene found on another sherd (Figure 10.2f) seems to 

depict a predator pursuing a quadruped, probably an ibex. The 

predator is smaller than the ibex in size. The torso of the quadruped followed by the predator is missing. Nevertheless, this quadruped’s identification as an ibex may be inferred from the pair of 

long horns curving backward, which are shown just below the 

animals. The depiction of an herbivore pursued by a predator is 

also found in the interior of a handled chalice from a burial cave 

at Tel Gedor. The scene painted on that vessel shows a predator, 

probably a lioness, attacking an herbivore approaching a tree 

(Ben-Arieh, 1981: fig. 2:4). 

A HUMAN FIGURE (WARRIOR?)

A broken vessel with two handles bears the depiction of a 

figure that is unmistakably identified as a human (Figure 10.1e). 

This human figure with a globular head is characterized by an 

upper body in the shape of a reverse triangle. 

A very similar human figure is depicted on a goblet from 

Structure III of the Fosse Temple at Lachish (Tufnell et al., 1940: 

pl. 61:10). An unidentified object is hanging on this human figure’s waist or right leg. Likewise, the Tell Jemmeh figure also 

seems to have a similar object hanging on his waist or right leg. 

Both of these objects look like some sort of weapon. Moreover, it 

seems that the Tell Jemmeh figure is holding an oval object with 

his right hand, which looks like a shield. If this interpretation is 

correct, both the Tell Jemmeh and Lachish figures can be identified as warriors. 

GEOMETRIC MOTIFS

The geometric motifs observed on the vessels and sherds 

include simple straight lines and bands, a net pattern, a wavy 

line between two parallel lines, a ladder shape running in zigzag, and a double triangle consisting of two triangles, which are 
11 Imported Cypriot 

and Mycenaean Wares 

and Derivative Wares

Celia J. Bergoffen

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the imported Cypriot and Mycenaean wares and some derivative wares based on White Slip II from the 

Bronze and Iron Ages found at the Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh (Tables 11.1–11.4). The main concentration 

of Cypriot and Mycenaean imports, approximately 340 vessels, was in Field I, where they were primarily associated with the cobbled 

building’s main phase, Phase 3, dated to LBII. 

The 130 catalog entries for Field III include up to 84 White Painted vessels (WP; 65%), the majority ascribed to Phases 14 through 

18 and dated to MBIIB-C. A few WP sherds in the LBII and Iron I phases are no doubt residual, or the records were corrupted. The 

LBII Phases 8 through 13 yielded small amounts of Base Ring II (BRII), White Slip II (WSII), White Shaved, and Mycenaean sherds. A 

further 6 WP sherds were recovered from the unstratified trench SS1, and 14 WP sherds came either from the MBIIB-C layer in ST1 or 

the topsoil above it. 

The Iron Age and later phases in Field IV included 21 Iron Age Cypriot sherds, but the remaining 24 Cypriot and Mycenaean sherds 

from Field IV were no doubt all residual. Similarly, more than half of the 21 Cypriot and Mycenaean sherds from Field II were also either 

residual or unstratified, whereas a handful of BRII, WSII, and Mycenaean sherds came from LBII contexts.

WHITE PAINTED WARES

The earliest Cypriot imports to Canaan, consisting exclusively of WP wares, are found in small numbers in later MBIIA contexts, 

largely at coastal sites (Wolff and Bergoffen, 2012). Imports to Canaan were mostly closed forms, jugs and juglets, made of light pinkish clay with a light brown slip and dark brown or red decoration. White Painted ware may be classified by the style of decoration as 

WP Pendent Line Style (PLS; Figs. 11.2d, f, g), WP Cross Line Style (CLS), WP Tangent Line Style (TLS; Figures 11.1a, d, 11.2i), WPV 

(Figure 11.3a–d), and Composite style (this last not found at Tell Jemmeh). All these styles appear simultaneously, although in very 

small quantities, in this earliest import horizon in Canaan (Artzy and Marcus, 1992; Gershuny, 2002:187, fig. 3; Wolff and Bergoffen, 

2012). White Painted V and VI, the most common WP styles in Canaan, supersede WP CLS and WP PLS in MC IIC (Johnson, 1982:84; 

Maguire, 2009:26, 30, fig. 9, table 2, 40). The WPVI juglets are diagnostic for LBIA (Oren, 1969) but are primarily found in funerary 

contexts. Following Merrillees (1978:20–21) and Maguire (2009:70–73), the numerical portion of the classifications WP PLS III–IV and 

WP CLS IV–VI are not used here since they do not correspond to these styles’ chronological position or take into account differences in 

regional distribution. There is a great variety in fabrics. Generally, the PLS and CLS juglets are fine grained, with few or no grits, and 

medium to hard fired. The paint is usually lustrous. 

The main concentration of WP wares at Tell Jemmeh, 84 entries, was in Field III, where most of the MBII/MBII–LB levels were 

excavated. Field I yielded over 30 WP sherds (27 entries). Three WPV, one WPV–VI, one WPVI trefoil-mouthed juglet (Figure 11.3g), 

and one WP sherd of indeterminate style were found in Field IV, all residual or unstratified material. Field II yielded an unstratified 

WPVI sherd and a WP sherd of indeterminate style. The total from all areas, including unstratified material, is 138 entries, representing 

perhaps approximately 100 vessels, all closed forms, either jugs or juglets. 
658 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 11.1. Field I: Distribution of stratified Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery by phase.

Petrie LBII Phases 

trench, 3(B), 3(B?), LB/MBIIC,

Type Phase 0 1 2 2/3 3 3? 3/3A? 3/4? 4 4? 5 6 6/7? 7 7/8? Phase 8

White Painted 0–1 1 3 1 1 9 1 9

Base Ring 1 4 24 15 2 5 6 10 4 4 

White Slip II 7 1 1 23 15 5 1 4 1 2 2 

White Slip IIA 2 

White Slip III 2 2 1 1 1 

White Shaved 2

Bucchero 1 

Mycenaean 3 1 7 4 2 6 

Iron Age 1 1 1 1

TABLE 11.4. Field I: Distribution of White Slip (WS) wares by level.

Phase

 3(B?),

Type 1/1? 2 2/3 3 3? 3/3A? 3/4? 4 4? 5 6 Unknown

WSII 7 1 23 16 5 1 4 1 2 2 37

WSIIA 2 7

WSIII 2 2 1 1 1 5

WSII derivative 4 2 1 4

TABLE 11.2. Field I: Distribution of Base Ring II forms by phase.

Phase

Type 0 1 3 3? 4 4? 5 6 Topsoil/unstratified Indeterminate

Bowls/open 1 7 6 1 1 2 5 5

Jugs 2 1 13 5 2–3 2 3 5 11

Juglets 2 2 2 1 3 3

Jug/juglet 1 2 1

Closed 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 5

Other 1 1

TABLE 11.3. Fields I–IV: Distribution of Base Ring II forms.

Bowls/ Jug/

Field open Jugs Juglets juglet Closed Other

Field I 28 44–45 13 4 17 2

(26%) (43%) (10%) (3%) (17%) (2%)

Field III 4 8 8

Field IV 2 1 2

Field II 1 2

Totals 33 55 14 4 29 2
NUMBER 50 • 659

found in both LBI and LBII contexts. The ware is usually very 

pale yellow or gray, slightly sandy in texture, and of medium 

hardness, with a matte black slip liable to cracking and flaking. 

A handle from a BSII jug and two small BS body sherds, one possibly from an open vessel, were identified from Field I (Figures 

11.4h,i, 11.5b). The last came from Phase 3; the others were 

from indeterminate or unstratified contexts. Black Slip is not a 

commonly imported Cypriot ware. 

Monochrome bowls are characteristic of MBIIC–LBI contexts in the Levant (Oren, 1969) but continue into LBII. The 

fabric found in Canaan is usually red and of metallic hardness 

or, infrequently, very dark gray, like Base Ring ware, in either 

case with a matte, smeary red slip. One Monochrome sherd was 

found in Field I in each of Phases 3 and 4 (Figure 11.4a,b). This 

material is probably residual. 

One Red-on-Black/Red-on-Red (ROB/ROR) sherd was identified from Field II, in topsoil, and one was identified from Field 

I, Phases 1–2 (Figure 11.4g). This ware, represented largely by 

bowls in settlement contexts, ranges in the Levant from MBIIB 

through LBI. It was very well represented in the western Negev at 

Tell el-‘Ajjul and Tell el-Farah (S), and its virtual absence from the 

MBIIB-C levels at Tell Jemmeh is somewhat surprising (Bergoffen, 

All the identifiable WPIII–IV and WPV styles were represented in the earliest of Field III’s MBIIB-C phases, Phases 17 and 

18. This includes six WP PLS sherds, one WP CLS sherd, three 

of the five WP TLS sherds, and three of the eight WPV Alternating Broad Band and Pendent Line Style sherds (ABBWL; Figures 

11.1c, 11.2p). Whited Painted V was the most common ware, 

with 50 sherds in the MBIIB-C Phases 18 through 14. The one 

sherd identified as WPVI was ascribed to the MBIIC–LB Phase 

13/14. Six WPV–VI sherds came from Field I in MBIIB-C to LBI 

Phases17 and 16/17, and one was in a LBII context, probably 

residual, as were the WP sherds from Field IV. The remaining WP 

sherds from Field I are mostly residual. They include three WP 

PLS sherds, three WP ABBWL, 17 WPV sherds, two WPV–VI 

sherds, and four WPVI.

BLACK SLIP II, RED-ON-BLACK/RED-ON-RED, 

MONOCHROME, AND WHITE PAINTED 

WHEEL-MADE WARES

In Cyprus, Black Slip (BS) II is characteristic of LCIA (ca. 

1650–1500 BCE; Åström, 1972c:700). In the Levant, it has been 

FIGURE 11.1. White Painted wares.
660 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

however, is generally whiter and finer grained than the Canaanite 

dipper juglets, with pinprick-sized black grits. 

There are two White Painted Wheel-made ware I rim sherds 

from Field III, one possibly from a krater, the other from a closed 

vessel (Figure 11.2m). This fabric is contemporary with Bichrome ware both in Cyprus and abroad (Åström, 1972c:748). 

The few sherds known from Canaan are hard, very light gray 

or white in color, sometimes with a greenish cast but also sometimes pale pink. The fabric is speckled with minute grits and has 

a slightly sandy texture. Surfaces may be slipped or unslipped. 

The paint is matte dark brown. The krater sherd from Field III 

was ascribed to Phase 16, dated MBIIB-C, making it one of the 

earliest occurrences of this ware outside of Cyprus. One plain 

white pithos sherd was identified from an indeterminate context 

in Field I (Figure 11.4k). 

1989:106–109). Although several different fabrics exist in Cyprus, in Canaan, the medium hard, usually very pale yellow, very 

fine grained type is virtually the only one found. The surface is 

slipped and highly burnished red or black or both, depending on 

oxidation in the kiln with matte red-painted linear decoration. 

Because both slip colors may be present on the same vessel, these 

wares are grouped together as ROB/ROR rather than as two distinct classifications (Åström, 1972a:108, 118). 

White Shaved ware is represented by two sherds from 

Field I, from Phase 3 or 4 (Figure 11.4j), and one sherd is from 

Field III, Phase 13. This ware was commonly imported in LBII 

Canaan. In sherd form it may be difficult to distinguish from Canaanite juglets. For instance, Goren (1992:24*, 175) has shown 

that even the characteristic Cypriot pierced handles may not 

always be present on the imported vessels. The Cypriot fabric, 

FIGURE 11.2. White Painted wares.
NUMBER 50 • 661

belonging here. There were 40 BRII sherds from Field I whose 

provenance was indeterminate or that were unstratified. 

The BRII assemblage from Field I comprises approximately 

25% open and 75% closed forms. There was one leg fragment 

of a zoomorphic vessel, probably a bull, as well as two horns 

(including one example from Field III, Phase 12, Figure 17.9j,k). 

Of the 61 closed vessels of identifiable form, 44, or 72%, are 

jugs. In the Levant, BR and WS bowls normally predominate in 

BASE RING WARES

The bulk of the material comes from Field I. One poorly 

preserved BRI bottle neck was identified (Figure 11.4d), and one 

jug handle was classified as BRI–II (Figure 11.4e). The remaining 

112 entries in the Field I catalog are BRII (Figures 11.5, 11.6). 

The majority of the 69 stratified vessels, 23, came from the main 

phase of the courtyard building, with another 15 possibly also 

FIGURE 11.3. White Painted wares.

FIGURE 11.4. Red-on-Black/Red-on-Red, Black Slip, Monochrome, Base Ring I, Bucchero, White Shaved, and Plain White wares.
662 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 11.5. Black Slip and Base Ring II.
NUMBER 50 • 663

FIGURE 11.6. Base Ring II and derivative forms.
664 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and the dark brown or dark gray slip is highly burnished. The 

ribs or ridges on the earlier, less commonly found style, are applied, whereas on the later style, like the two fragments from 

Field I, the ridges are pinched. One of the two Bucchero jug 

sherds was unstratified, and the other was ascribed to Phase 4 

(Figure 11.4c,f)

WHITE SLIP (WS) AND 

DERIVATIVE STYLES

Field I yielded a minimum of 109 WSII, 9 WSIIA, 12 WSIII, 

and 11 derivative style bowl fragments. Forty-one of the WSII 

sherds consisted of surface finds or sherds whose provenance was 

indeterminate or unknown. At least four were decorated in Ladder Lattice Pattern Style (Figure 11.9f), one in Dotted Row Style 

(Figure 11.9m), and two in Parallel Line Style (Figure 11.8j,n). 

The rest are too small to permit classification by style. Almost 

two-thirds of the stratified vessels probably came from Phase 3, 

which yielded a minimum of 23 vessels, with a further 16 also 

tentatively ascribed to this phase.

Field III yielded 12 WSII sherds, 6 of which were either residual material or unstratified. A further 6 WSII sherds, all residual, came from Field IV, and 4 from Field II, bringing the total 

number to 159 WSII sherds. One WSIII and one WSII derivative 

sherd, neither stratified, also came from Field II.

There are nine WSIIA sherds from Field I, two of which 

could be ascribed to Phase 3. Three are decorated in Framed Lozenge Style (Figures 11.8m, 11.9a,c). Petrie published two WSIIA 

bowls from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. LXIII:9,28); WSIIA 

is considered a later, regional WSII style made in southwestern 

Cyprus (Popham, 1972:446; Todd and Pilides, 2001:40).

White Slip II late or WSIII (the terms are interchangeable) 

is represented by 12 sherds (Figure 11.8c,d,j,k,n). At least one 

vessel from Field I was associated with the main phase of Building I. The term WSIII is used here because this degenerate style 

appears later in the WSII sequence than WSII normal style both 

in Cyprus and in the Levant. Often lopsided or poorly formed, 

these less elaborately decorated bowls are painted in Ladder 

Lattice or Parallel Line Style over brown, micaceous slips that 

are thinly and unevenly applied (Popham, 1972:456, fig. 57). 

These may be “subject to flaking” (Todd and Pilides, 2001:38). 

At Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, WSIII was characteristic of the 

latter half of LCIIC (South and Steel, 2001:68). It appears to 

have been more common in eastern than in western Cyprus and 

is not represented in southwest or northwest Cyprus, where 

WSIIA continued to be popular until the end of the Late Bronze 

Age (Todd and Pilides, 2001:40). White Slip III is still found in 

Canaan in contexts datable to the late 13th century BCE (Beck 

and Kochavi, 1985:36, figs. 2, 6 [from the Aphek Residency, 

Stratum X12]; Bergoffen, 1989:216–218 [no. 1664, from Tomb 

3, and nos. 1667 and 1668 from tomb 6, erroneously recorded 

as from Tomb 2, from Tell er-Ridan, and no. 1333, from Tell 

Farah (S), Tomb 949, University College, Institute of Archaeology, London, EVI 23/3]; Petrie, 1930: pl. XII:152 [from Tell 

Farah (S), Tomb 902]). 

settlement contexts over Cypriot closed vessels, whereas the latter, especially BR juglets, greatly outnumber Cypriot open forms 

in graves (Gittlen, 1977:89, 91). It should, however, be noted 

that Base Ring jugs are better represented in settlement contexts 

than earlier quantitative studies indicated (Bergoffen, 1991:65, 

2005:26). This suggests that the jugs were not merely transport 

containers but were also used as serving vessels, particularly the 

more elaborately decorated BRI varieties.

The BRII bowl/sherds from Fields I, III, and II (Figures 

11.5a, 11.6a–d,f) are probably all from the widely distributed 

Y-shaped form. One sherd from an unidentified open vessel is 

probably also a bowl. Seven of the 18 stratified bowls from Field 

I could be assigned to Phase 3. 

More than half of the 45 jugs (56%) from Field I preserve 

some painted decoration, as do 4 of the 8 jugs from Field III. 

Matte slips, uneven surfaces, and spalling indicate that most 

of the vessels belong to Vaughn’s “mat slip ware,” having a 

rougher, less fine-grained surface than her “metallic slip” wares, 

which may be highly burnished (Vaughan, 1987:54–55, 94, 

1991a:124, 1991b:349, 363). The chronological range of these 

wares in Cyprus is very broad: the metallic slip wares continue 

until the end of the 13th century BCE, and matte slip continues 

into the late 12th century BCE (Vaughan, 1991a: fig. 12.2). In 

Canaan, the coarser variety of BRII is characteristic of LBII, although the first occurrence of this ware is in LBIA (Bergoffen, 

2001:35–38, fig. 1B).

The jugs are largely represented by body and rim sherds 

(Figure 11.7); one rim fragment and two bases measuring 10 

cm in diameter came from the tall form, Åström’s types IXB1c 

and IXB1d, whereas from 9 to 11 jugs from Field I and 1 from 

Field III belong to Åström’s smaller variety, type IXB1e (Figures 

11.6e, 11.7a,b,d,f; Åström, 1972b:184–186). These vessels have 

a shorter neck in proportion to the vessel height and are dark 

gray slipped and painted. The latest of the small BRII jugs have a 

slightly bulbous neck, range from 16.5 to 20.6 cm in height, and 

have base diameters of ~6.5 to 7 cm and rims of ~5 to 7 cm, both 

smaller than the usual rim and base diameter of 9 cm. This form 

is assimilated into the Canaanite ceramic repertoire, continuing 

into the early Iron Age.

The small jug with a handle from the rim to the shoulder, 

Åström’s type XIA1, is uncommon in Canaan. It is attested in this 

assemblage by two rim fragments from Field I (Figure 11.7c,e), 

one 5.0 cm in diameter, the other from a juglet-sized vessel with a 

rim diameter of 3.7 cm. The classification as a jug is based on the 

width of the neck and the form of the rim. Jugs most often have 

cylindrical necks close in diameter to their everted rims, whereas 

juglets have funnel-shaped mouths and narrow necks. 

Juglets are represented by 13 fragments from Field I and 

possibly 1 from Field IV, 6 of which preserve some painted 

decoration.

BUCCHERO

This ware first appears in Canaan in LBIB but is most often 

found in LBIIA-B contexts. The fabric is identical to Base Ring, 
NUMBER 50 • 665

FIGURE 11.7. Base Ring II.
666 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

MYCENAEAN POTTERY

The secondary source of imported pottery during the Bronze 

Age after Cyprus is the Argolid in Greece from which a variety 

of Mycenaean wares were imported to Canaan. There are 34 

entries for Mycenaean pottery from an indeterminate number of 

LHIIIA/LHIIIB vessels. The main concentration was in Phase 3 

and possibly Phase 4, with three sherds from the latest LB phase, 

Phase 1. Four sherds were found in Field II, all residual or unstratified. All but one of the seven Mycenaean sherds from Field 

IV were residual, coming from Iron IIA and later contexts. Three 

sherds from Field III were ascribed to LBII phases, and another 

three or four were not stratified.

Four sherds from Field I preserve parts of cuttlefish, a motif 

very rarely found on imported Mycenaean vessels in the Levant (Figure 11.11d,e,i,j). Leonard (1994) cites instances of this 

motif on vessels from Minet el Beida, Tell Atchana, Tell Abu 

Hawam, Ashdod, Gezer, and possibly Megiddo. On the Tell Jemmeh sherds, where preserved, the tentacles are of varying width, 

Although they would normally be classified as local imitations, the WSII derivative bowl sherds have been included here 

because the type is rare and is close to the imported bowls in size, 

shape, wall thickness, and slip application (Figures 11.8e,f–h, 

11.9b,d,g). They are distinguished from WSII by their coarser 

fabric and decoration, the latter consisting of loosely constructed 

ladder lattices with three instead of four bands painted in a 

purplish-red matte paint over a very pale brown slip, similar to 

WSIII. As in WSII Ladder Lattice Pattern Style, a ladder lattice 

runs around the top of the vessel below an undotted rim with 

other ladder lattices pendent from it. Like the WSII from Field I, 

the derivative bowls were also concentrated in Phase 3, demonstrating once again the direct relationship between the frequencies of the standard, well-integrated product and the derivative 

one, which is created to be similar enough to the “original” for 

users to associate the two and accept them as equivalent (Bergoffen, 2006). The introduction of stylistic variations is a response 

to users’ familiarity with the product due to increased consumption, not as substitutes to compensate for scarcity.

FIGURE 11.8. White Slip II, White Slip IIA, White Slip III, and derivative White Slip styles.
NUMBER 50 • 667

FIGURE 11.9. White Slip II, White Slip IIA, White Slip III, and derivative White Slip styles.
668 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Three stirrup jar fragments were identified from Field I, including a complete false spout (Figure 11.10a), a handle (Figure 

11.10b), and a sherd with a hole for a false spout, which is hollow (Figure 11.11g). The stirrup jar was by far the most commonly exported shape (Leonard, 1994:45–79), and it is likely 

that many of the sherds from closed vessels of indeterminate 

form were of this type.

The rim and shoulder sherds of a LHIIIA:2 small alabastron from Field I include the base of an arm of one of its horizontal handles. The vessel was decorated with a foliate band on 

the shoulder (Figure 11.10g). A rim sherd from Field I (Figure 

11.11c) is from a piriform jar, which may also be the case for 

the other two rim sherds in Figure 11.11a, b. But these could 

also have belonged to straight-sided alabastra, which have the 

which introduces movement and creates a more naturalistic effect, but the treatment of suckers is stylized, consisting of neatly 

painted rows of pale brown dots. The style suggests a date in 

LHIIIA:2 early for all four sherds. According to Robert Koehl, 

the unstratified sherd (Figure 11.11j), possibly from a krater, belongs to the beginning of the LHIIIA:2 pictorial style of the later 

15th century BCE/time of Amenophis II, and its “black crackled 

paint is typically Argolid ... of this fairly early stage.”1

 Figure 

11.11i, ascribed to Phase 3A, also with crackled paint, preserves 

parts of the creature’s head and two tentacles. A rim sherd from 

an amphoroid krater was found in the same locus in Phase 1 

with another LHIIIA:2 early body sherd decorated with a cuttlefish, possibly from the same vessel (Figure 11.11d); it is clearly 

older than its context.

FIGURE 11.10. Mycenaean wares.
NUMBER 50 • 669

to other assemblages in Canaan, except for those from sites on 

the northern coast and others around the Akko plain, where 

BOR was concentrated (Schreiber, 2003:315–325). Normally, 

these small containers are found in burials, but the sherds and 

vessels from Tell Jemmeh were all from settlement contexts (Petrie, 1928: pls. LX:82g,82e,82k,82F, LXII: WE 184; Schreiber, 

2003:54). 

The juglet is the most common and widely distributed BOR 

form in Canaan (Schreiber, 2003:29, Map 5, 326). In Iron IIB, 

the assemblage is largely restricted to small containers. The vessels are wheel made, thin walled, and of metallic hardness, with 

highly lustrous red slips and black paint. On the juglets, the 

designs typically consist of a broad band and multiple narrow 

bands encircling the center of the body, with concentric circles 

on the shoulder (Figure 11.12a–c). Both juglets and flasks have 

funnel mouths (Figure 11.11a). 

Bowls, which appear predominantly in Iron IIA, are the 

second most frequently imported BOR form, found predominantly in the north, with concentrations at Megiddo, Tell Dor, 

Kabri, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Mevorakh, Tell Kazel, and Tell Keisan. They are rare in the south, the single bowl sherd from Tell 

same profile and diameter. The LHIIIA:2–III:B1 piriform jars and 

alabastra are the second and third most commonly found Mycenaean imports in the Levant (Leonard, 1982:12–22, 36–39).

There was one leg of a zoomorphic vessel, probably a bull 

(Figure 11.11h). 

IRON AGE: BLACK-ON-RED

Two fragments of Black-on-Red (BOR) were identified from 

Field I. One was found in an Iron II/Iron IIB context in Field I, 

Square KB. The other, from an LBII context, must be intrusive or 

reflect an error in recording, as is also the case for a bowl sherd 

from Field III, recorded from an MBII context (Figure 11.12f). 

A second BOR vessel from Field III was a surface find. Three 

vessels from Field II were either surface finds or residual. Field 

IV yielded nine sherds, including one largely preserved juglet. 

Four came from Iron IIB contexts, three were unstratified, and 

two were residual. All except one bowl sherd (Figure 11.12f) 

were from small closed vessels, probably either juglets or flasks. 

This collection of 16 vessels, mostly unstratified, is comparable 

FIGURE 11.11. Mycenaean wares.
670 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(Figure 11.12h,l; Gjerstad, 1948: fig. III:11–17). White Painted 

and Bichrome barrel-shaped jugs had already been found at Tell 

Jemmeh by Petrie, who recovered several complete or largely 

preserved vessels (Petrie, 1928: pl. LX:85d,85q,86,87d). Figure 

11.12l is decorated in matte brown paint with narrow, concentric bands possibly around a solid painted circle in the center. 

Two other jug sherds from Field IV were bichrome painted in 

matte red and matte dark brown (Figure 11.12h).

Field III yielded one unstratified jug neck fragment and a 

bowl base ascribed to Phase 9, which is no doubt either intrusive 

or a mistaken record, as is the out-of-context rim sherd from 

Field I, possibly from an amphora, ascribed to Phase 8. A handle 

fragment from Field I and a body sherd probably both came 

from Phase 1. One WP sherd from Field II ascribed to Phase 6 

or 7 was probably out of context, whereas a second WP or Bichrome sherd was unstratified.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cypriot import assemblage from Field III is typical of 

MBIIB and especially MBIIB-C contexts in Canaan, by which 

Jemmeh being the southernmost recorded occurrence of a BOR 

bowl (Schreiber, 2003:33, Map 7, 34). 

IRON AGE WHITE PAINTED 

OR BICHROME WARE

The fabric of these wheel-made vessels is off-white shading 

to pink, gray, or yellow, often with a slightly sandy texture, fine 

to medium grained, and very hard. Only portions of horizontal 

bands in matte brown paint are preserved. 

One ledge rim and neck sherd from Field IV is probably 

from an amphora (Figure 11.12g). This, together with four 

nondescript body sherds, comes from Iron Age IIB contexts. 

An everted rim sherd ascribed to the Persian period may also be 

from an amphora but has a smaller mouth. 

All but one of the stratified WP or Bichrome sherds from 

Field IV may be ascribed to the Persian or Persian/Hellenistic periods. Only matte brown paint is preserved on nine closed vessel 

body sherds from Field IV, but these could have been originally 

bichrome painted. The collection includes two neck and rim 

fragments, probably either from lenticular or barrel-shaped jugs 

FIGURE 11.12. Iron Age Black-on-Red and White Painted wares.
NUMBER 50 • 671

grain, hard, 0.7 cm thick; pale brown slip; red to dark red paint, 

burnished over both slip and paint.

3. Box 800R (#6952, left), GMIII F, topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; brownish-gray fabric, very hard, compact, no visible grits, medium to fine fabric, 0.4–0.5 cm thick; dark red paint, 

highly burnished over both surface and paint.

4. Box 796 (Figure 11.2d, #6946), GMIII C2 F22, Phase 

18; globular juglet, five body sherds; white to very pale brown or 

pink fabric, few visible grits, hard, very fine, 0.3–0.4 cm thick; 

surface as fabric but very worn; flaking black paint.

5–6. Box 795R (#6914, bottom left and center), GMIII C2 

(87), Phase 17/18; body sherds, closed vessel; pink fabric, very 

fine, few minute white but one 0.2 cm piece of calcite, traces of 

mica, 0.4–0.5 cm thick; pale brown slip; brown and red paint, 

burnished over both.

7. Box 795R (#6914, bottom right), GMIII C2 (87), Phase 

17/18; body sherd, closed vessel; pink, medium to hard, few 

minute black grits, fine, slightly porous fabric, 0.6 cm thick; 

very pale brown burnished slip; lustrous black paint, mostly 

flaked off.

8. Box 795R (#6914, top right), GMIII C2 (87), Phase 

17/18; body sherd, closed vessel; white, slightly greenish, powdery fine fabric, soft to medium hardness, 0.5 cm thick; slip as 

fabric, burnished; negative of dark brown painted bands, flaked 

off, not burnished over the paint.

WP CLS

9. Bag 5285 (Figure 11.3b, #2422), GMIII J2 (16) 2, Phase 

17; body sherd, probably a juglet; pink fabric, few minute white 

grits, fine grained, compact, hard, 0.5–0.7 cm thick; surface is 

worn, very dark reddish-brown crisscrossing bands, mostly 

worn off.

WPIII–IV Indeterminate

10. Bag 2058 (Figure 11.2a, #2421), GMIII F2 (11), Phase 

16?; two body sherds, same vessel(?) juglet; yellowish red to reddish yellow fabric, many minute black and white grits, fine to 

medium grained, very hard, 0.5–0.7 cm thick; pink lightly burnished slip; dark red to reddish-brown burnished paint.

11. Bag 2281 (#2407), GMIII F2 (12), Phase 16?; two jug 

rim sherds; pink fabric, few minute black grits, traces of mica, 

fine grain, hard, 0.5–0.6 cm thick; reddish-yellow lightly burnished surface; lustrous red painted band along the top and inside of the rim, two horizontal bands on the neck.

12. Box 817R, GMIII J1 (11) 2, Phase 15?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; red fabric, many minute white grits, micaceous, 

fine grained, 0.3 cm thick; light red burnished slip; red paint, 

burnished over both slip and paint.

13. Box 795/3 (Figure 11.2k, #6916), GMIII C2 (82), Phase 

16; jug, rim sherd; diameter (diam.) 6.0 cm, pink to light brown 

fabric, minute and small white grits including calcite and possibly mica, very hard, compact; light brown slip, traces of burnishing lines interior and exterior; dark brown paint inside the rim, 

reddish-brown paint on the exterior.

time WPV was overtaking WP PLS and WP CLS. The assemblage of 85 WP sherds adds significantly to a growing corpus 

that includes assemblages of comparable size from Tell el-‘Ajjul, 

Ashkelon, and Tell Megadim, each numbering between 50 and 

100 sherds (Bergoffen, In press; Wolff and Bergoffen, 2012). 

Unlike these sites, however, Tell Jemmeh was not on the coast, 

and its Middle Bronze Age Cypriot corpus must be interpreted 

in the context of a redistributive system with Tell el-‘Ajjul, the 

principal port of entry for imports to the western Negev, as its 

central site. 

Absent or underrepresented from Tell Jemmeh’s Cypriot 

assemblages is the import horizon of MBIIC–LBI (roughly the 

second half of the 16th to early 15th centuries BCE), represented by WPVI, Red-on-Black/Red-on-Red, Monochrome, 

Black Lustrous Wheel-made ware, Bichrome ware, Proto White 

Slip, and White Slip I. Similarly, the typical later LBI import 

repertoire, which is dominated by BRI, along with Monochrome and some WSII, is also not represented. This absence 

may reflect an occupational gap, at least in the areas excavated 

at the site. 

The typological distribution of the wares and forms from 

Field I are consistent with import assemblages in Canaan dating to the middle to late 14th through 13th centuries BCE. This 

comprises predominantly BRII jugs, bowls, and juglets; WSII 

and WSIII bowls; and Mycenaean IIIA and IIIB transport vessels, predominantly stirrup jars. 

The most interesting features of the assemblage are the Mycenaean sherds decorated with cuttlefish, a motif rarely attested 

abroad, and the WSII corpus, including a small number of WSIII 

sherds, and derivative WSII styles, possibly local, although their 

origin remains to be verified. Although most of the WSIII and derivative WSII style bowl sherds were not stratified, the degenerate style of the latter, comparable to WSIII, and the chronological 

range of the other wares and forms in the Field I Cypriot assemblage suggest that the two were roughly contemporary, probably 

belonging in the 13th century BCE.

CATALOG

Note: Numbers preceded by a ‘#’ sign refer to photo numbers in Appendix 11.1; the description following indicates the 

location of the sherd within the photo if more than one sherd is 

displayed.

Field III

WP PLS

1. Box 821R (Figure 11.2g, #6972), GMIII J2 (14), Phase 

16; Pendent Line Style, body sherd, juglet?; light brown fabric, 

fine grained, few small pieces of calcite, 0.3 cm thick; very hard 

lustrous red slip; dark red paint, burnishing lines.

2. Box 824R/2 (Figure 11.2f, #6998, middle row, fourth 

from left), GMIII J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel; 

pink fabric, many minute white and black grits, medium to fine 
672 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

white grits; smoothed surface; red shading to dark brown paint, 

some burnishing lines visible over the surface and paint.

25. Box 795R (Figure 11.1c, #6913), GMIII C2 (87), Phase 

17/18; closed vessel(s), five body sherds; pink to greenish-white 

fabric, signs of burning on one sherd, few minute black grits, 

very hard, compact, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed surfaces; dark 

brown to black paint, flaked. 

26. Box 810R (#6986, top center), GMIII F2 P2, Phase 16/17; 

body sherd, closed vessel; very pale pink fabric, minute black and 

white grits, fine, compact, very hard, 0.2–0.5 cm thick; pale brown 

slip; cracked black paint, was burnished over slip and paint.

WPV Indeterminate

27. Box 796, GMIII C2 F22, Phase 18; body sherd, closed 

vessel; very pale white to very pale brown fabric, 0.4 cm thick; 

lightly burnished surface; dark brown lustrous paint.

28. Box 792R (#6931), GMIII B (+), topsoil; jug handle 

sherd; light pink, sandy fabric, many minute black grits; matte 

slip as fabric; matte dark brown paint, slightly cracked.

29. Box 793R (#6933), GMIII B (4) 6, Phase 12; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink, hard fabric, many minute black grits, 

0.4 cm thick; surface as paste; dark red paint, highly burnished 

over slip and paint.

30. Box 799R, GMIII F (+), topsoil; body sherd, closed vessel.

31. Box 801R (#6953, bottom center), GMIII F1 (5), Phase 

15?; body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, minute black and 

white grits, slightly micaceous, hard, medium to fine grain, 0.3 

cm thick; smoothed surface; dark red lustrous paint.

32. Box 810R (#6986, bottom right), GMIII F2 P2, Phase 

16/17; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, many minute black 

and white grits, sandy, small voids and cracks in fabric, medium 

to fine grain, compact, very hard, 0.6–1.0 cm thick; pale brown 

burnished slip, very dark reddish-brown paint, burnished over 

both slip and paint.

33. Box 801R (#6953, top right), GMIII F1 (5), Phase 15?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pinkish-brown fabric with gray core, 

0.6 cm thick; highly burnished; dark brown paint.

34. Box 810R (#6986, top row, third from left), GMIII 

F2 P2, Phase 16/17; body sherd, closed vessel; red fabric, few 

minute white grits, fine, compact, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; very 

pale brown slip, burnishing not preserved; dark red to very dark 

brown lustrous paint.

35. Box 820R (#6970), GMIII J1 W4, Phase 15; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very light red to pink fabric, many minute white 

grits, medium to fine grain, hard, 0.4 cm thick; very pale brown 

slip, burnished; dark red lustrous paint.

36. Box 826R (#0231), GMIII J2 P2, Phase 18; body sherd, 

closed vessel; gray fabric, minute black and white grits, medium 

hard, fine to medium grain, compact, 0.5 cm thick; lustrous very 

dark brown paint.

37. Box 834R (#7233), GMIII B (65) 9, Phase 12/13; body 

sherd, closed vessel.

38. Box 835R (#7234), GMIII B (67), Phase 13; body sherd, 

closed vessel; dark gray fabric, 0.3 cm thick; gray matte slip; 

dark brown matte paint.

WPV TLS

14. Box 824R/4 (Figure 11.1g, #6998, bottom left), GMIII 

J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel; pink, medium to 

fine fabric, 6.0 cm thick, minute black and white grits, few small 

calcite, traces of mica, very hard; pale brown burnished slip, 

very dark brown paint, burnished over both, lines faint, paint 

cracked.

15. Box 801R (#6953, top left), GMIII F1 (5), Phase 15?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pinkish-brown, light gray core, very 

hard, compact, medium coarse fabric, minute black and white 

grits; surface as fabric, smoothed, possibly self-slipped; reddishbrown lustrous paint.

16. Box 824R (#6998, bottom row, third from left), GMIII 

J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel; red fabric, many 

minute black and white grits, sandy, micaceous, medium grain, 

0.6 cm thick; pink burnished slip; very dark red lustrous paint, 

slightly cracked.

17. Box 824R (Figure 11.2i, #6998, middle row, third 

from left), GMIII J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel; 

yellowish-red fabric, many minute black grits, medium to fine, 

0.7 cm thick; very light red slip; dark red to dark reddish-brown 

paint, burnished over slip and paint.

18. Box 789R (#6936), GMIII A3 (1), Phase 5; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink, very hard, compact fabric, minute black and 

white grits, 0.4–0.5 cm thick; white to very pale brown matte 

slip; very dark brown matte, cracked paint.

WPV ABBWL

19. Box 796 (Figure 11.1a, #6942, #6944), GMIII C2 F22, 

Phase 18; body sherds, closed vessel; one or two vessels; pink 

fabric, few minute and small calcite grits, hard, compact, 0.3–0.4 

cm thick; surface as fabric, smoothed; deep red paint shading 

to dark brown, burnished lightly all over, including the slightly 

cracked paint.

20. Box 801R (Figure 11.3i, #6953, bottom left and right), 

GMIII F1 (5), Phase 15?; body sherds, closed vessel; pink fabric, 

many minute black and white grits, medium to fine grain, compact, hard, 0.6 cm thick; surface smoothed; very dark brown, 

cracked paint, burnished over slip and paint, worn.

21. Box 790R (Figure 11.2p, #6935), GMIII A3 W3, Phase 

7A; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, slightly porous, minute black grits, traces of mica, 0.6 cm thick; slip as fabric, burnished; matte dark brown paint.

22. Box 805R/1 (Figure 11.2n, #6974), GMIII F1 W5, Phase 

15; body sherd, closed vessel, shaped into rectangular gaming 

piece?; pink fabric, minute black, white and a few small calcite 

grits, fine grain, dense and hard, 0.5–0.6 cm thick; very pale 

brown slip; dark brown paint, burnished over slip and paint, 

burnishing lines visible.

23. Box 801R (#6953, top middle), GMIII F1 (5), Phase 15?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pinkish-brown fabric with gray core, 

0.7 cm thick; highly burnished surface; very dark brown paint.

24. Box 795R, GMIII C2 (87), Phase 17/18; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, very fine and compact, very few minute 
NUMBER 50 • 673

51. Box 806R (Figure 11.3a, #6976, left), GMIII F2 (12), 

Phase 16?; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, medium to fine 

grain, hard, 0.5 cm thick; pale brown slip; dark red paint, burnished over slip and paint.

52. Box 808R (#6990), GMIII F2 (14), Phase 17; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very pale pink, minute white grits, traces 

of mica, fine grain, 0.5 cm thick; very light gray burnished slip, 

worn and cracked; very dark brown paint.

53. Box 809R (#6992), GMIII F2 (16) 1, Phase 17; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, many minute black and white 

grits, fine grain, hard, 0.4–0.8 cm thick; worn, very pale brown 

slip, traces of mica; worn, dark reddish-brown, faintly lustrous 

paint.

54. Box 810R (#6986, bottom left), GMIII F2 P2, Phase 

16/17; body sherd, closed vessel; pink, minute black and white 

grits, traces of mica, fine grain, 0.5 cm thick; very light gray slip; 

very dark brown paint, burnished over slip and paint.

55. Box 529 (#0297), GMIII A3 (12), Phase 8; body sherd, 

closed vessel; dark gray fabric, dark brown to the surface, 0.3 

cm thick, medium coarse; highly burnished very pale brown slip; 

very dark brown paint.

56. Box 812R (#6968, bottom left), GMIII J1 (13), Phase 

16; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black, white 

and a few small (0.01 cm) black grits, traces of mica, medium 

to fine grain, hard, compact, 0.6 cm thick; very pale brown slip, 

lightly burnished; worn and cracked dark brown paint, was 

lustrous.

57. Box 812R (#6968, bottom right), GMIII J1 (13), Phase 

16; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, many minute black 

and white grits, sandy, very hard, compact, medium to fine grain, 

0.6 cm thick; very pale brown lightly burnished slip; dark red to 

reddish-brown lustrous paint.

58. Box 813R (#6964), GMIII J1 (14), Phase 16; two body 

sherds, closed vessel; light pink fabric, minute black and white 

grits, slightly micaceous, medium to fine grain, very hard, compact, 0.5–0.6 cm thick; pink slip, lightly burnished; dark red to 

very dark reddish-brown lustrous paint, cracked.

59. Box 814R (Figure 11.1b, #6978), GMIII J1 (5) 1, Phase 

14?; pierced jug handle; pink fabric, many minute black and 

white grits, sandy, medium to fine grain, 0.6 cm thick; surface as 

fabric, worn; traces of very dark brown paint.

60. Box 815R (#6982), GMIII J1 (16) 1, Phase 17; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very light pink fabric, many minute black 

and white grits, medium to fine fabric; very light gray lightly 

burnished slip; very dark brown matte paint.

61. Box 816R (#6962), GMIII J1 (9) 2, Phase 15?; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black and white grits, 

sandy, compact, medium to fine grained, hard, 0.7 cm thick; selfslipped, smoothed and burnished; dark brown lustrous paint.

62. Box 818R (Figure 11.3f, #6980, right), GMIII J2 (16–

17) 1, Phase 15?; body sherd, closed vessel; red fabric, many 

minute black and white grits, medium to fine grain, sandy, very 

hard, 0.7 cm thick; light reddish-yellow to red micaceous slip; 

dark red cracked paint, burnished over slip and paint.

63. Box 819R (#6996, top left), GMIII J1 (17) 1, Phase 15?; 

everted rim sherd, jug; diam. 6.0 cm; very pale yellow to very 

39. Bag 2217 (#2406), GMIII F1 (6) 5, Phase 16; body 

sherd, jug?; pink fabric, minute black and white grits, medium 

grained, very hard, 0.6 cm thick; lightly burnished very pale 

brown slip; lustrous dark reddish-brown paint.

40. Bag 1141 (#2414), GMIII C2 (2), Phase 18; juglet, 

shoulder sherd with hole for handle insertion; pink fabric, minute 

white grits, fine grained, metallic, 0.4 cm thick; lightly burnished 

surface; lustrous dark brown paint, mostly worn and flaked off.

41. Box 804 (#6984), GMIII F1 (7) 5, Phase 15; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, many minute black and white grits, 

sandy, medium to fine grain, hard; very pale brown slip; dark red 

paint shading to very dark reddish-brown, burnished over both 

slip and paint.

42. Bag 2236 (#2420), GMIII F2 (9), Phase 16?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very pale yellow to light gray fabric, few minute 

gray grits, fine grained, 0.4–0.7 cm thick; gray burnished surface; 

very dark reddish-brown lustrous paint, three bands.

43. Box 795R (#6914, top center), GMIII C2 (87), Phase 

17/18; neck sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, fine and compact, very hard, few minute white grits, traces of mica on the 

surface, 0.3–0.4 cm thick; slip as fabric, vertically burnished; 

brownish-red paint, not burnished over the paint .

44. Box 795R (#6914, top left), GMIII C2 (87), Phase 

17/18; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, very hard, compact, one small calcite grit only, 0.4 cm thick; smoothed surface 

with traces of burnishing lines; dark red matte paint, cracked.

45. Box 798R (#6932), GMIII C3 (+), topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink, hard fabric, many minute black grits, 0.4 cm 

thick; surface as paste; dark red paint, highly burnished over slip 

and paint.

46. Box 800R (#6952, right), GMIII F, topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink to very pale brown fabric, many minute and 

small white calcite grits, minute black grits, porous, medium 

hardness, 0.5 cm thick; was slipped or smoothed inside, now 

worn off, exterior is wet smoothed, traces of burnish, worn; dark 

brown, cracked matte paint.

47. Box 807R (Figure 11.1f, #6994, bottom left), GMIII F2 

(13), Phase 17?; body sherd, jug?; very pale pink, few minute 

white grits, sandy, medium to fine grain, 0.4 cm thick; very worn 

surface, possibly slipped very light gray and burnished; very dark 

brown paint.

48. Box 802R (Figure 11.1h, #6956), GMIII F1 (2) 2, Phase 

14; 2 painted and 11 unpainted sherds, probably from the same 

closed vessel; pink fabric, many minute black and white grits, 

slightly micaceous; light slip, as fabric; dark reddish-brown to 

dark brown paint; matte surface but traces of burnishing marks.

49. Box 803R (#6960, bottom right), GMIII F1 (6) 5, Phase 

16; body sherd, closed vessel; very light pink fabric, fine grained, 

no visible grits, hard, 0.4 cm thick; self-slipped and burnished; 

very dark brown slightly lustrous, cracked paint, not burnished 

over the paint.

50. Box 806R (Figure 11.3d, #6976, right), GMIII F2 (12), 

Phase 16?; body sherd, closed vessel; pale pink fabric, many minute white grits, medium to fine grain, hard, 0.5 cm thick; very 

pale brown slip; very dark brown paint, burnished over slip and 

paint.
674 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

fabric, many minute black grits, 1.5 cm thick; white to very pale 

brown matte slip; dark brown cracked paint.

75. Box 807R (#6994, three in middle and one on lower 

right), GMIII F2 (13), Phase 17; four body sherds, probably 

from the same closed vessel; very light gray fabric, greenish cast, black and white grits, medium to fine sandy fabric, 

0.4–0.5 cm thick; slip as fabric and black cracked paint, both 

burnished.

76. Box 807R (#6994, top right), GMIII F2 (13), Phase 

17; body sherd, closed vessel; pink, many minute white grits, 

sandy, medium to fine grain, 0.6 cm thick; pale brown slip; black 

cracked paint, was lustrous.

77. Box 810R (#6986, top left), GMIII F2 P2, Phase 16/17; 

body sherd, closed vessel; very light pink fabric, many minute 

black and white grits, very fine grain, hard, 0.3–0.4 cm thick; 

very light gray slip; negative of paint only, traces of very dark 

brown paint.

78. Box 818R (Figure 11.3e, #6980, left), GMIII J2 (16–17) 

1, Phase 16/17; body sherd, closed vessel near the handle; red 

fabric, many minute black and white grits, slightly micaceous, 

hard, 0.6 cm thick; light brown slip; dark brown cracked paint, 

was lustrous.

79. Box 819R (#6996, right), GMIII J1 (17) 1, Phase 16/17; 

two body sherds, closed vessel; very light gray on the interior, 

shading to very pale yellow with a greenish cast, many minute 

black and white grits, medium to fine grain fabric; greenishwhite burnished slip; dark brown faded and cracked matte 

paint.

80. Box 823R (#6966, bottom left), GMIII J2 (16), Phase 

17; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute grits, sandy, 

medium to fine grain, 0.6 cm thick; desurfaced, traces of very 

dark brown slightly lustrous surface and paint.

WPVI

81. Bag 4417 (Figure 11.2c, #2418), GMIII B F9, Phase 

13–14; juglet handle and part of shoulder; very pale gray, minute 

black and white grits, medium-grained fabric, 0.4–0.6 cm thick; 

surface is very worn, traces of discolored and flaked paint.

WP Indeterminate

82. Box 786R, GMIII A2 (19), Phase 6; body sherd, bowl; 

white to very pale pink fabric, 0.4–0.5 cm thick, very fine and 

compact, no visible grits; silky smooth slip on the exterior, selfslipped on the interior; very dark brown paint.

83. Box 807R (#6994, top left), GMIII F2 (13), Phase 17?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; brown fabric, many minute black and 

white grits, medium grain, very hard and compact, 0.6–0.7 cm 

thick; white smeary slip; dark reddish-brown paint, burnished 

over both slip and paint.

84. Bag 2209 (#2423), GMIII F1 (2), Phase 14; body sherd, 

closed vessel; medium grained to sandy pink fabric, many minute 

white grits, light and porous, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; matte or 

lightly burnished very pale brown slip, two matte dark reddishbrown unevenly painted bands.

light gray fabric, many minute black and white grits, sandy, medium grain; very light gray slip, mostly worn off; dark brown 

cracked paint, band along the inside of the rim.

64. Box 823R (#6966, top left), GMIII J2 (16) 1, Phase 

17; body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, minute black and 

white grits, medium to fine fabric, compact, hard, 0.5 cm thick; 

slip as fabric, burnished; red lustrous paint.

65. Box 823R (#6966, right), GMIII J2 (16) 1, Phase 17; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pink, minute black and white grits, 

one small calcite grit, medium to fine grain, slightly sandy, 

0.5 cm thick; thin, light red slip; dark red paint, faint burnishing 

marks over slip and paint.

66. Box 824R/1 (Figure 11.1e, #6998, top left), GMIII J2 

(17) 1, Phase 17; rim sherd, jug; diam. 10.5 cm; pink fabric, many 

minute black, white, and brown grits, 0.7–0.9 cm thick; very pale 

brown lightly burnished slip; very dark brown paint, was lustrous.

67. Box 824R (#6998, top row, third from left), GMIII J2 

(17) 1, Phase 17; rim sherd, jug; diam. ~10.0 cm; very pale brown 

to white fabric, many minute black and white grits, sandy, medium to fine grain, very hard, 0.6–0.7 cm thick; cracked greenishwhite slip and flaked dark brown paint.

68. Box 824R (#6998, top row, fourth from left), GMIII J2 

(17) 1, Phase 17; rim sherd, jug; pink fabric, many minute white 

and black grits, medium to fine grain, sandy, cracks in wall, 0.5 

cm thick; light gray and dark brown cracked and worn paint, 

burnished over slip and paint.

69. Box 824R/3 (Figure 11.2b, #6998, top row, second from 

left), GMIII J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; rim sherd, jug; diam. 11.0 cm; 

light red fabric, many minute black and white grits, medium to 

fine grain, very hard, 0.7–0.8 cm thick; light red slip; red paint, 

burnished over slip and paint.

70. Bag 1308 (Figure 11.2o, #2408, right), GMIII C2 (82), 

Phase 16; body sherd, closed vessel; 0.5 cm thick, medium 

grained to sandy white to light pink fabric, minute white grits, 

worn very pale gray, smooth slip, possibly once burnished; worn, 

partly flaked black paint.

71. Bag 2265 (#2410, right), GMIII F2 (10), Phase 16?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; gray fabric, many minute black and 

white grits, medium grained, very hard, 0.8 cm thick; lightly burnished over the gray surface and dark reddish-brown paint.

72. Box 824R (#6998, bottom row, fourth from left), GMIII 

J2 (17) 1, Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel; light pink fabric, 

many minute black and white grits, medium to fine grain, 0.6 cm 

thick; lustrous pale brown slip; lustrous dark brown paint, partly 

cracked and flaked.

73. Box 824R (Figure 11.2h, #6998, bottom row, second 

from left), GMIII J2 (17), Phase 17; body sherd, closed vessel, 

probably goes with Cat. No. 17 above; pink fabric, many minute 

black and white grits, few small black grits, mica, medium to fine 

grain, 0.7–0.8 cm thick; very pale brown, slightly lustrous slip; 

very dark brown paint, now matte, but burnishing lines visible. 

WPV–VI

74. Box 791R (Figure 11.3c, #6927), GMIII A3 W4, Phase 

8; body sherd, closed vessel; light pink to very pale brown, sandy 
NUMBER 50 • 675

light red to the surfaces, few minute white grits; dark gray burnished slip.

102. Bag 4418 (#2419, right), GMIII B(1) 11, Phase 12; 

jug base sherd; 0.3–0.5 cm thick, metallic dark gray fabric, very 

compact, few minute white grits; dark gray burnished slip; matte 

white painted bands.

103. Bag 4452/5 (#2404), GMIII B(67), Phase 13; jug, base 

of neck sherd with a ridge; 0.3–0.5 cm thick; dark gray fabric, 

few minute white grits; traces of dark gray burnished slip.

104. Bags 4482/7 and 8 (#2409), GMIII B(62) 5, Phase 11; 

jug rim sherd; dark gray core, reddish brown to the surfaces, 

minute white grits, fine grain, metallic, 0.3 cm thick; dark gray 

slip; faintly burnished on the interior.

105. Box 540 (#0227, bottom left), GMIII B(64) 5, Phase 

12; jug base sherd; diam. 8.0 cm; very dark gray fabric, many 

minute white grits, 3.0 cm thick; slightly lustrous very dark gray 

slip interior and exterior.

White Shaved

106. Bag 4680 (#2403) GMIII B(2) 15, Phase 13; juglet, base 

of handle; diam. ~22.0 cm; gray fabric, minute black grits, very 

hard, medium grain, compact, 0.5 cm thick; knife-shaved surface.

White Painted Wheel Made

107. Box 854/3 (Figure 11.2m, #2415, top left), GMIII J2 

(17) 1, Phase 17?; rim sherd with slight gutter, closed vessel; very 

light gray fabric, minute black grits, 0.5–0.6 cm thick; surface 

was smoothed and faintly burnished; cracked and flaked off 

black paint, band on the exterior below the rim and on top of 

and along the inside of the rim.

108. Bag 1308 (Figure 11.2j, #2408, left), GMIII C2 (82), 

Phase 16; krater? rim sherd with triangular profile, goes with 

Cat. No. 66 above; 0.6 cm thick, very pale gray medium-grain 

fabric, very hard, minute black grits, compact; faintly lustrous, 

dark grayish-brown painted band along the top and sides of 

the rim.

Mycenaean

109. Box 528 (#0311), GMIII A3(11) 15, Phase 8; closed 

vessel, body sherd; light red, very hard, compact fabric, no visible grits, 0.5 cm thick; pale yellow lightly burnished slip; lustrous 

red to dark red paint.

110. Box 537 (#0308, right), GMIII B (+), topsoil; closed 

vessel, two body sherds, one or two vessels; very light red, very 

fine fabric, 0.2 cm thick; very light yellow, lightly burnished slip; 

lustrous dark red paint.

111. Box 541 (#0307), GMIII B(59) TT1 3, Phase 11; 

closed vessel, body sherd; pink, hard, dense fabric, no visible 

grits, 0.3 cm thick; smoothed and burnished surface; lustrous 

red paint.

112. Box 542 (#0313, left), GMIII B(65) 9, Phase 12/13; 

base, closed vessel; pink, very fine, very hard, compact fabric, no 

visible grits, 0.7 cm; lustrous dark red paint.

BRII

85. Box 534 (#0309), GMIII B (54) 1, Phase 9; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very dark gray fabric, minute white grits, 0.2 cm 

thick; very dark gray matte slip; matte white paint.

86. Box 538 (#0312), GMIII B (61A), Phase 11; body 

sherds, closed vessel; three sherds; very dark gray fabric, minute 

white grits, 0.2–0.3 cm thick; very dark gray matte slip; matte 

white paint.

87. Box 540 (#0227, bottom right), GMIII B (64) 5, Phase 

12; body sherd, closed vessel; dark gray fabric, dark red to surfaces, minute white grits, 0.2–0.3 cm thick; dark gray matte slip; 

traces of pale brown paint.

88. Box 540 (#0226, left), GMIII B (64) 5, Phase 12; jug 

base; diam. ~10.2 cm; gray fabric, red to the surfaces, few minute white grits, 0.6 cm thick; dark gray burnished slip on the 

exterior, interior burnish worn.

89. Box 542 (#0313, right), GMIII B (65) 9, Phase 12/13; 

body sherd, closed vessel; dark gray fabric, red to the surface, 0.2 

cm thick; burnished red surface; matte white paint.

90. Box 544 (Figure 11.6c, #0227, top right), GMIII B (66) 

14, Phase 13; bowl handle tip; very dark gray fabric, many minute white grits, 0.6 cm thick; matte very dark gray slip.

91. Box 544 (#0227, top left), GMIII B (66) 14, Phase 13; 

jug rim sherd with handle base; very dark gray fabric, many minute white grits; matte very dark gray slip; matte very pale brown 

paint, bands at the base of handle.

92. Box 545 (#7214), GMIII B (67), Phase 13; body sherd, 

closed vessel; dark gray fabric; dark gray faintly burnished slip; 

matte white paint.

93. Box 545 (#7106), GMIII B (67), Phase 13; body sherd, 

closed vessel; gray fabric; lightly burnished dark gray slip; matte 

white paint.

94. Bag 4452 (#2424), GMIII B (63) 2, Phase 17; bowl body 

sherd; very dark gray fabric, minute white grits, metallic, 0.3 cm 

thick; very dark gray, lightly burnished slip.

95. Bag 4474 (#2416), GMIII B (63A) 5, Phase 12; body 

sherd, closed vessel; dark gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surface, metallic, 0.5 cm thick; dark grayish-brown lightly burnished slip; matte white painted band.

96. Box 24R (#7090), GMIII B (66) 13, Phase 12/13; small 

jug rim, neck, and shoulder sherds; rim diam. 9 cm; dark gray 

fabric, red to the surfaces, dark gray matte slip; matte white paint.

97. Box 794R (#6934), GMIII B (5) 6, Phase 12; bowl handle; dark gray fabric; dark gray, slightly lustrous slip, cracked.

98. Box 799R (#6951, right), GMIII F (+) topsoil; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very dark gray fabric, few small white grits, 

some spalling, 0.3 cm thick; lightly burnished dark gray slip.

99. Box 799R, GMIII F (+) topsoil; body sherd, closed vessel. 

100. Bag 1012/2 (#2413), GMIII B (59) 3, Phase 11; jug 

rim sherd; 0.5–0.6 cm thick, medium-grained red fabric, many 

minute black and white grits, very hard; matte, smeary dark gray 

slip; matte white paint, horizontal bands below the rim and on 

the outside of the neck.

101. Bag 4418 (#2419, left), GMIII B(1) 11, Phase 12; bowl 

rim sherd; 0.1–0.3 cm thick, very fine, metallic dark gray fabric, 
676 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

surface, 0.4 cm thick; very lightly burnished, very pale brown 

micaceous slip, very dark brown paint, rim not dotted

Iron Age Imports (Residual or Intrusive)

BOR

127. Box 822R (Figure 11.12f, #6958, 6959), GMIII J2 

(16), Phase 17; bowl body sherd; red fabric, fine, compact, no 

visible grits, metallic, 0.5 cm thick; highly burnished brownishred slipped interior, light red slip exterior; lustrous very dark red 

paint.

128. Box 785R (Figure 11.12g, #6950), GMIII A2 (+), topsoil; jug rim and part of neck; diam. ~9.0 cm; light red fabric, 

many minute black and white grits, traces of mica, medium to 

hard; matte dark red and very dark brown worn paint.

Iron Age WP

129. Box 533 (#0224, #0225), GMIII B (52), Phase 9; bowl 

disk base with a thickened edge for a ring; diam. 0.6 cm; very 

pale brown to white fabric, very fine grained and compact, no 

visible grits, 0.2–0.5 cm thick; very smooth, fine surface, same 

color as fabric; very dark brown matte paint.

Iron Age WP or Bichrome

130. Box 787R (#6937), GMIII A3 (2), topsoil; jug neck 

sherd with ridge; pink, very hard, compact fabric, minute black 

and white grits, traces of mica, medium to hard, 0.3 cm thick; 

matte dark red and very dark brown paint, both worn.

Field I

WP PLS

131. Box 771R (Figure 11.3h, #7080, bottom left), GMI 3G 

(19), Phase 7; closed vessel, body sherd; pink fabric, fine to medium 

grain, many minute black and white grits, 0.4–0.5 cm; pale pink 

micaceous slip; burnished, lustrous brown to very dark brown paint.

132. Box 773R (Figure 11.2e, #7082), GMI 3G P6, Phase 

6/7?; three body sherds, closed vessels; center sherd: gray core, 

red to the surfaces, medium fine, many minute black and white 

grits, 0.4–0.5 cm thick, very pale brown to white burnished slip 

and dark brown lustrous paint; other two sherds: pink, medium 

to fine fabric, many minute black and white grits, pink micaceous burnished slip, dark brown lustrous paint.

133. Box 777R (#6890, center), GMI 3G (21), Phase 8; 

closed vessel body sherd; pink, medium hard fabric, very fine, 

few minute white grits, traces of mica, 0.5 cm thick; lightly burnished over the smoothed surface and red paint.

WPIII–IV Indeterminate

134. Box 776R (#6885, top row, right), GMI 3G (20), Phase 

8; closed vessel, body sherd; light red fabric, many minute black 

113. Box 788R (#6928), GMIII A3(4) 3, Phase 9; closed 

vessel body sherd; brownish-gray, very hard compact fabric, 0.3 

cm thick; dark brown highly lustrous paint.

114. Box 799R (#6951, left), GMIII F (+), topsoil; closed 

vessel, body sherd; pink, compact fabric, no visible grits, 0.7 cm 

thick; light red lustrous surface and paint.

WSII

115. Box 525 (#0222), GMIII A2(13), Phase 5; bowl, body 

sherd; dark gray fabric, minute white grits, 0.3–0.4 cm thick; 

white slip on the interior, white to very pale brown slip exterior, 

burnished; very dark brown matte paint.

116. Box 526 (Figure 11.9i, #0218, left), GMIII A2 (19), 

Phase 6; bowl rim sherd; Parallel Line Style; diam. ~16.0 cm; 

brownish-red fabric, many minute white grits, 0.3 cm thick; pink 

micaceous slip interior and exterior; faded brown paint.

117. Box 527 (#0306), GMIII A3 (2), Phase 6; bowl rim 

sherd; Parallel Line Style; diam. 18.0 cm; gray fabric, red to the 

surface, medium to coarse, sandy fabric, many minute black 

and white grits, 0.4–0.6 cm thick; chalky white slip; matte dark 

brown paint.

118. Box 530 (Figure 11.8i, #0223), GMIII A3 (1A) 1, phase 

unknown; bowl body sherd; brown fabric interior, reddishbrown exterior, minute black and white grits, 0.4 cm thick; micaceous pink slip, lightly burnished; very dark brown paint.

119. Box 532 (#0219), GMIII B (50), Phase 9; bowl body 

sherd; Parallel Line Style; dark gray fabric, 0.4 cm thick; dark 

reddish brown to the surfaces; light brown burnished slip; dark 

brown paint.

120. Box 535 (Figure 11.9q, #0220), GMIII B TT2 (60) 3, 

Phase 11; bowl rim sherd; diam. 20.0 cm; gray fabric, red to the 

surfaces, many minute and small black and white grits, 0.6–0.7 

cm thick; chalky white slip, burnished; dark brown paint, rim 

not dotted. 

121. Box 536 (#0221), GMIII B TT3 (61) 3, Phase 11?; 

bowl body sherd; dark gray fabric; reddish brown to the surfaces, minute black and white grits, 0.4 cm thick; light brown, 

lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint.

122. Box 537 (#0308, left), GMIII B (+), topsoil; bowl body 

sherd; dark gray fabric, minute black and white grits, 0.5 cm 

thick; gray lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint.

123. Box 539 (#0315), GMIII B (62) 5, Phase 12; bowl rim 

sherd; Parallel Line Style; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces, medium coarse, sandy, many minute and small black and 

white grits, 0.5 cm thick; very pale brown, lightly burnished slip; 

very dark brown paint.

124. Box 540 (#0226, right), GMIII B (64) 5, Phase 12; 

bowl rim sherd; gray fabric, red to the surfaces, few minute 

white grits, very pale gray slip on the exterior; lightly burnished, 

very pale pink slip on the interior; lightly burnished, dark brown 

paint, rim not dotted.

125. Box 831R (#7231), GMIII B (11), Phase 12; bowl rim 

sherd. 

126. Bag 5331 (#0310), GMIII B (+), topsoil; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. ~22.0 cm; gray fabric, light reddish brown to the 
NUMBER 50 • 677

black and white grits, very hard and compact, some spalling; 

dark red lustrous paint; slightly lighter red slip.

147. Box 753/5R (#7063, right), GMI 6E (+), topsoil; 

handle sherd, closed vessel; fine, compact, light gray fabric, few 

small grits, traces of mica, hard; surface as fabric.

148. Box 771R (#7078), GMI 3G (19), Phase 7; jug base 

sherd, slightly convex; ~12.0 cm diam.; pink fabric, very hard 

and compact, many minute white and black grits; brown to dark 

brown matte paint, some on the base.

149. Box 771R (#7080, bottom center), GMI 3G (19), 

Phase 7; closed vessel body sherd; light red fabric, medium fine, 

many minute black and white grits, very hard, compact, 0.4 cm 

thick; burnished pink slip and dark red paint.

150. Box 775R (#7085), GMI 3G (17), Phase 7; closed vessel, body sherd.

151. Box 853R (#7253), GMI 1F (11) 1, Phase 3; closed 

vessel body sherd. 

152. Box 856R (#7255), GMI 4F (+), topsoil; closed vessel, 

body sherd.

153. Box 862R (#7264, right), GMI 3G (20), Phase 8; 

closed vessel, body sherd. 

154. Box 862R (#7264, center), GMI 3G (20), Phase 8; 

closed vessel body sherd.

WPV–VI

155. Box 772R (#7081), GMI 5D W1, Phase 1; closed vessel, body sherd; very light gray, medium to fine fabric, many minute black and white grits; burnished surface; very dark brown 

lustrous paint, very worn.

156. Bag 2617, GMI 1F (1), Phase 1?; juglet, pierced handle; pink fabric, minute black, white, and brown grits; shaving 

marks, desurfaced.

WPVI

157. Box 865R (#7266), GMI 5H (1) 6, Phase 3; juglet neck. 

BS

158. Box 715R(?) (Figure 11.5b, #4515, top right), GMI 3G 

(0), topsoil; jug, handle from the rim, two ridges on back; sandy 

texture, light brown-buff fabric; matte black slip with some red 

mottling, rough surface.

159. Box 864R (Figure 11.4h, #7259), GMI 4G (3) 1, Phase 

3; open vessel?, body sherd; pink, very hard and compact, few 

minute white grits, 0.5 cm thick; matte, flaking black paint, 

shading to very dark brown; interior smoothed, surface as paste.

160. Box 848R (Figure 11.4i, #7247), GMI 2E (2) 1, phase 

unknown; body sherd, closed vessel. 

Monochrome

161. Box 724/725R (Figure 11.4b, #7214, top right), GMI 

3G P4, Phase 4; open body sherd; red fabric; matte, smeary red 

slip interior and exterior.

and white grits, compact, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed and 

burnished surface, traces of mica; lustrous red paint.

WPV ABBWLS

135. Box 776R (#6885, top row, left), GMI 3G (20), Phase 

8; closed vessel, body sherd; light pink fabric, minute black and 

white grits, compact, hard, 0.4 cm thick; smoothed matte surface; matte red to very dark brown paint.

136. Box 776R (Figure 11.1d, #6885, far left), GMI 3G (20), 

Phase 8; closed vessel, body sherd; light red fabric, many minute 

black and white grits, compact, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed 

and burnished surface, traces of mica; lustrous red paint.

137. Box 771R (Figure 11.2l, #7080, bottom right), GMI 

3G (19), Phase 7; closed vessel, body sherd; pink fabric; light red 

burnished slip and dark red paint.

WPV

138. Box 774R (#7083), GMI 3G P7, Phase 7/8?; closed 

vessel, body sherd; medium to fine pale brown fabric, minute 

white grits, very hard, very compact, burnt?, 0.5 cm thick; pale 

brown slip, discolored; very dark brown cracked paint, burnished over both.

139. Box 771R (#7080, top left), GMI 3G (19), Phase 

7; closed vessel, body sherd; dark gray, medium fabric, many 

minute black and white grits, very hard, 0.5 cm thick, possibly burnt; light gray burnished surface; very dark brown paint, 

traces of burnishing.

140. Box 771R (#7080, top, second from left), GMI 3G 

(19), Phase 7; closed vessel, body sherd; light red interior, gray 

exterior, medium to coarse fabric, many minute black and white 

grits, very hard, 0.7 cm; light brown slip, traces of mica; very 

dark brown slightly cracked paint, both faintly burnished.

141. Box 771R (#7080, top, third from left), GMI 3G (19), 

Phase 7; closed vessel, body sherd; very pale pink, medium fabric, 

many minute black and white grits, very hard, 0.5 cm; light brown 

surface; dark brown cracked paint, burnishing traces on both.

142. Box 771R (#7080, top right), GMI 3G (19), Phase 7; 

closed vessel, body sherd; medium to fine, very pale brown fabric, minute black grits, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; very pale brown 

silky slip; faded and worn dark brown paint.

143. Box 776R (#6885, bottom row, left), GMI 3G (20), 

Phase 8; closed vessel, body sherd; white to very pale pink fabric, many minute black and white grits, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed, 

lightly burnished surface; very dark brown cracked paint.

144. Box 777R (#6890, left), GMI 3G (21), Phase 8; closed 

vessel, body sherd; very light red fabric, many minute red, black, 

and white grits, 0.5 cm thick; burnishing lines over the smoothed 

surface and slightly cracked dark red paint.

145. Box 777R (#6890, right), GMI 3G (21), Phase 8; 

closed vessel, body sherd; very hard, compact, light red fabric, 

many minute white grits, 0.5 cm thick; lightly burnished over the 

smoothed surface and red paint

146. Box 747R (#7053), GMI 4D (3) 4, Phase 3?; closed 

vessel, body sherd; light gray fabric, many minute and small 
678 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

176. Box 731 (Figure 11.7d, #4531), GMI 4G (3) 1, Phase 

3; small jug, rim with neck and five body sherds; rim diam. 8.0 

cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; dark gray medium burnished slip; matte white paint.

177–178. Box 656R (Figure 11.7a, #7089, 7090), GMI 

3–4G (3), Phase 3/4?; small jug, shoulder and base of neck; max. 

diam. ~13.0 cm; very fine walled, 0.3 cm thick; Box 581R, GMI 

5F(3), no phase; small jug, shoulder sherd; Box 658R (Figure 

11.7a bottom, #7093), GMI 5–6F(3), Phase 3/4?; small jug, 

shoulder sherd, squashed body; dark gray fabric, few minute 

white grits; dark gray matte slip; matte white paint.

179. Box 696–697 (#7196, top left), GMI 2F (4), Phase 

1B/3?; juglet neck, upward tapering, with the top of the handle 

attachment; dark gray fabric, red brown to the surface; very dark 

gray slightly burnished slip; matte white painted bands.

180. Box 657R (Figure 11.7b, #4506), GMI 4H (1), Phase 

3/3A?; small jug, bulbous neck rim; diam. ~7.0 cm; dark gray 

core, dark red to the surfaces, few minute white grits, some spalling; dark gray matte slip; matte white faded paint; may go with 

BRII 581R, 656R, and 658R.

181. Box 659R (#7091), GMI 3G (2) 1, Phase 3B?; bowl 

rim sherd; diam. ~16 cm; dark gray fabric; dark gray, faintly 

burnished slip.

182. Box 660R (#7092), GMI 3G (1) 2, Phase 3; jug neck 

base with ridge; dark gray core, red to the surfaces; dark gray 

matte slip; matte white paint.

183. Box 662–665 (#7176, bottom left), GMI TTC/TTD, 

topsoil; juglet base; diam. 5.0 cm; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; 

black-slipped base, very worn.

184. Box 662-665 (#7176, top left and bottom right), GMI 

TTC/TTD, unstratified; jug body sherd and shoulder with base 

of pierced handle, back incised with two incised lines continuing 

on shoulder; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; dark gray matte 

slip; matte white painted band.

185. Box 662-665 (#7176, top center), GMI TTB (+), topsoil; juglet neck; gray fabric; dark gray matte slip; matte white 

painted bands, neck and body. 

186. Box 662-665 (#7176, top right), GMI TTA, topsoil; 

juglet handle fragment; oval profile; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; very dark gray medium burnished slip.

187. Box 666R (Figure 11.7f, #4502), GMI 3D (1), unknown; small jug, everted rim sherd; diam. 6.0 cm; dark gray 

fabric, brown to the surface, many minute white grits; matte 

dark gray slip outside and inside; matte white paint, horizontal 

bands on the neck.

188. Box 667R (#7181), GMI 3D, phase unknown; bowl 

base sherd; diam. 6 cm; dark gray fabric, brown to the surfaces; 

dark gray lightly burnished slip.

189. Box 671R (Figure 11.6f, #7180), GMI 4D (3), Phase 

3?; bowl body, rim, and base sherds; rim diam. 16.0 cm, base 

diam. 6.0 cm; very dark gray and light red mottled surfaces; light 

to medium burnish.

190. Box 671R (#7180, middle far right), GMI 4D (3), 

Phase 3?; closed vessel, two body sherds, one painted.

191. Box 671R (Figure 11.5c, #7180, top row, third sherd; 

second row, third sherd), GMI 4D (3), Phase 3?; jug base and rim 

162. Box 847R (Figure 11.4a, #7246, top right), GMI 5D 

(3), Phase 3; bowl body sherd. 

Derivative/Imitation Monochrome/BR Bowl

163. Box 391 (Figure 11.6h, #0216), GMI 5G (3) 2, Phase 

3; bowl, everted rim and complete wishbone handle; very dark 

gray core, red brown to the surfaces, many calcite lumps, small 

black grits, possibly chaff temper; very pale pink matte, smeary 

slip, thinly applied exterior, smoothed interior; faded matte dark 

red painted band along the interior edge of the rim.

BRI

164. Box 861R (#7263) GMI 3G (1), Phase 4; juglet body 

sherd; light gray fabric, metallic, 0.2 cm thick; light brown highly 

burnished slip, very worn.

BRI–II and Monochrome

165. Box 661 (Figure 11.4d, #7175), GMI (+), topsoil; six 

small Monochrome bowl fragments; four closed BRII vessel 

fragments, two painted; one BRI bottle(?) neck and rim with 

top of handle; one Monochrome bowl rim sherd; probably all 

residual.

166. Box 860R (Figure 11.4e, #7261), GMI 3G (1), Phase 

4?; BRI–II jug handle; dark gray core, red to the surfaces; red 

and dark gray slip exterior, dark gray interior; traces of matte 

white paint(?).

BRII

167. Box 483 (#0287, left), GMI 5D (7) 2, Phase 3; jug base 

sherd, dark gray, red to the surfaces; matte dark gray mottled 

slip, pitted.

168. Box 485 (#0289), GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; closed vessel, body sherd; very dark gray fabric, 0.3 cm thick; very dark 

gray matte surface.

169. Box 589 (#7042, right), GMI 4H (1) 7, Phase 3; jug 

handle fragment, oval section; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; 

lightly burnished dark gray slip.

170. Box 668 (#7177), GMI 3D (4), Phase 3?; closed vessel, jug(?) body sherd; gray fabric, dark gray slip; painted line 

groups.

171. Box 669 (Figure 11.6d, #7178), GMI 3D (7B), Phase 

3; bowl rim; diam. ~14.0 cm; very dark gray, medium burnished 

slip.

172. Box 674 (#7184), GMI 5D (+), topsoil; bowl, three 

body sherds. 

173. Box 684 (#7189), GMI 6E (1), Phase 3; juglet?, body 

sherd; dark gray, fine fabric; dark gray matte slip.

174. Bag 3615, GMI 6E (2), Phase 3/4?; body sherd, closed 

vessel; gray fabric; dark gray matte slip; matte white paint.

175. Box 723 (#7213, top center and sherd below), GMI 3G 

(8) 2, Phase 5; bowl, two body sherds; fine dark gray fabric; dark 

gray highly burnished slip exterior; red or gray interiors.
NUMBER 50 • 679

211. Box 688/9 (#7192, right), GMI 1F (9), Phase unstratified/1; body sherd, closed vessel; reddish-brown fabric, friable; 

weak red to light gray smeary slip; matte white paint.

212. Box 690R (#7193, bottom), GMI 1F (9), Phase 3?; 

jug?, two body sherds; gray fabric; dark gray, lightly burnished 

slip; white painted bands.

213. Box 690R (#7193, top left), GMI 1F (9), Phase 3?; 

bowl body sherd; dark gray fabric, red to the surfaces, few minute white grits; medium burnished gray slip interior and exterior, 

red shows through.

214. Box 690R (#7193, top right), GMI 1F W2, Phase 3?; 

small jug(?) handle; dark gray fabric; medium burnished brown slip.

215. Box 691/692R (Figure 11.5e, #7194, left), GMI 1F 

(11), Phase 3; pierced jug handle, sharp edges, two incised lines 

on back; gray fabric, red brown to the inside; traces of medium 

to highly burnished dark gray slip.

216. Box 693/5 (#7195, bottom right), GMI 1F W2, Phase 

1; jug/juglet body sherd; gray fabric, red to inner surface, 0.3 cm 

thick; gray matte slip; white painted bands.

217. Box 693/5 (#7195, left), GMI 1F (5) 2, phase unknown; bowl rim; diam. ~18.0 cm; dark gray fabric, brown to 

the surfaces, many minute black and white grits; thin gray slip, 

lightly burnished.

218. Box 693/5 (#7195, top right), GMI 1F (10), Phase 3?; 

juglet(?) body sherd; gray fabric, red to the surfaces, thin walls; 

medium burnished gray slip.

219. Box 696-697 (#7196, bottom), GMI 2F (3), Phase 

1B/3?; jug, three body sherds; red or gray fabric, very thin walled; 

dark gray matte slip, very worn; matte white painted bands. 

220. Box 696-697 (#7196, top right), GMI 2F (3), Phase 

1B/3?; bowl rim sherd; dark gray fabric, light red to the surfaces; 

smeary gray slip.

221. Box 700/701/702 (#7197, bottom left), GMI 3F (2), 

phase unstratified; jug, rounded base sherd with slight trough; 

diam. ~9 cm; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; thin gray slip, 

lightly burnished.

222. Box 700/701/702 (#7197, bottom right), GMI 3F (2), 

phase unstratified; bowl body sherd; gray fabric; dark gray slip, 

lightly burnished.

223. Box 700/701/702 (#7197, top left), GMI 3F (0), phase 

unstratified; bowl rim sherd; diam. ~18.0 cm; gray fabric; thin 

dark gray matte slip.

224. Box 700/701/702 (#7197, top right), GMI 3F (1), 

phase unstratified; jug/juglet handle; gray fabric, light red to the 

surfaces; thin gray matte slip.

225. Box 703/705 (#7198, top center), GMI 4F TT5 (1), 

Phase 4?; bowl rim sherd; diam. ~16.0–18.0 cm; dark gray very 

fine fabric; dark gray highly burnished slip.

226. Box 703/705 (#7198, top left), GMI 4F TT5 (2), Phase 

4?; body sherd, closed vessel; gray fabric, red to the surface; dark 

gray lightly burnished slip.

227. Box 703/705 (#7198, top right), GMI 4F TT5 (8), 

Phase 3?; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, brown to the surfaces; 

dark gray thinly applied matte slip; white paint exterior?

228. Box 703/705 (#7198, second row, third sherd; bottom 

row, third sherd), GMI 4F TT5 (1), Phase 4?; two body sherds, 

sherds from one or two vessels; base edge has a trough; diam. 9.0 

cm; delicate finish, dark gray lightly burnished slip.

192. Box 672R (Figure 11.6a, #7182), GMI 4D (3) 4, Phase 

3; bowl rim and body sherd; dark gray slip.

193. Box 673R (#7183, bottom left and center), GMI 4D 

(4), Phase 3?; two body sherds, closed vessel; white paint.

194. Box 673R (#7183, bottom right), GMI 4D (4), Phase 

3?; small jug, rim with handle from rim; gray slip.

195. Box 673R (#7183, top), GMI 4D (4), Phase 3?; body 

sherds from one to four bowls. 

196. Box 675/676 (#7186, top), GMI 5D (4), Phase 3?; 

bowl body and rim sherds (four). 

197. Box 677R, GMI 5D (6), Phase 3; bowl body and rim 

sherds (three). 

198. Box 678-680, GMI 5D (3,7) 3, Phase 3; bowl body and 

rim sherd; gray fabric, mottled gray and red surfaces.

199. Box 678-680, GMI 5D (7B) 3, Phase 3; jug base and 

body sherd; dark gray slip, matte white paint.

200. Box 681/692R (#7194, bottom right), GMI 1F (11), 

Phase 3; bowl base, beveled edge; diam. 6.0 cm; gray fabric, few 

minute grits; gray and red exterior, red interior, medium burnish.

201. Box 681/692R (#7194, top right), GMI 1F (11), Phase 

3; body sherd, closed vessel; red friable fabric, thin walled; worn 

gray matte slip; white matte paint, crisscross bands.

202. Box 681R (#7188, bottom), GMI 5E (2), phase unknown; jug, two base sherds, edge of foot almost rounded; diam. 

~8.0 cm; dark gray fabric; dark matte slip.

203. Box 681R (#7188, top right), GMI 5E (3), phase unknown; body sherd, open vessel; dark gray fabric, red brown to 

the surfaces, few small calcite grits; exterior not slipped, traces of 

brown burnished slip interior.

204. Box 681R (#7188, top left and center), GMI 5E (4,2), 

phase unknown; jug, two body sherds; very light red/pink fabric, 

thin walled; uneven, gray matte slip; white matte painted bands.

205. Box 685R (#7190, bottom), GMI 1F (1) 1, phase unstratified; jug base with beveled edge and neck sherd near rim; 

base diam. ~6.3–6.5 cm; dark gray fabric, red to the surfaces; 

dark gray matte slip also on underside of base.

206. Box 685R (#7190, top left), GMI 1F (1) 1, phase unstratified; jug sherd near rim; dark gray fabric, red to the surface; 

dark gray smeary slip interior and exterior.

207. Box 685R (#7190, top right), GMI 1F (1) 1, phase unstratified; bowl body sherd; dark gray fabric, red to the surface, 

fine and metallic; dark gray smeary slip interior and exterior.

208. Box 686R (Figure 11.7e, #4516), GMI 1F (2) 1, Phase 

1; jug, everted and beveled rim and neck sherd with handle from 

rim to pierced shoulder; rim diam. ~6.0 cm; dark gray fabric, 

medium amount of minute white grits; dark gray, lightly burnished slip also on the inside of the rim; matte white painted 

vertical band on the neck.

209. Box 687R, GMI 1F (5) 1, Phase 5; bowl rim sherd; 

dark gray fabric, light red to the surfaces; smeary gray slip.

210. Box 688/9 (#7192, left), GMI 1F (8), Phase 1B?/3; 

bowl body sherd; dark gray fabric, red brown to the surfaces, 

few minute white grits; medium burnished gray slip interior and 

exterior, red shows through.
680 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

244. Box 719R (#7207), GMI 3G (3) 1, Phase 3/4?; jug, 

three thin-walled body sherds; red fabric; dark gray lightly burnished slip; matte white paint.

245. Box 720R (#7209, bottom), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4?; 

juglet shoulder sherd; gray fabric, light red to the surfaces, fine 

walls; dark gray lightly burnished slip.

246. Box 720R (#7209, center), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4?; 

juglet(?) body sherd; gray fabric, light red/brown to the surface; 

lightly burnished gray slip.

247. Box 720R (#7209, left), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4?; jug 

or juglet handle fragment, square section; gray fabric, light red 

to the surfaces; dark gray slip mottled with red brown, medium 

burnished.

248. Box 720R (#7209, right), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4?; 

bull leg with foot; gray fabric, light red to the surfaces; thin gray 

slightly burnished slip; matte white paint.

249. Box 720R (#7209, top right), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4?; 

jug or juglet neck sherd; gray fabric; dark gray matte slip; matte 

white painted bands.

250. Box 721R (#7210, left), GMI 3G (5) 1, Phase 4; small 

jug neck sherd; diam. ~6.0 cm; dark gray fabric; worn surface; 

minute white grits.

251. Box 722–723 (#7213, top left and bottom right), GMI 

3G (7) 2, Phase 5; jug, two body sherds; fine fabric, gray interior, 

red to the surface; gray matte slip mottled with red; matte white 

painted bands.

252. Box 722–723 (Figure 11.7a top, #7213, top right, 

bottom left and center, center), GMI 3G (8), Phase 5; jug, base 

of neck with sharp ridge and four body sherds; gray fabric, 

light red/pinkish to the interior; dark gray lightly burnished 

slip; matte white paint, horizontal band on the neck, bands on 

the body.

253. Box 724–725 (#7214, bottom center), GMI 3G P4, 

Phase 4; closed vessel (lid?); fine dark gray fabric, light red 

to the surface; dark gray medium burnished slip; matte white 

paint.

254. Box 724–725 (#7214, bottom left), GMI 3G P4, Phase 

4; jug, base fragment, rounded edge with slight trough; diam. 10 

cm; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; dark gray lightly burnished 

slip.

255. Box 724–725 (#7214, bottom right), GMI 3G P4, 

Phase 4; jug(?) body sherd; dark gray fabric, brown to the interior, very fine walled; dark gray slightly burnished slip.

256. Box 724–725 (#7214, top center), GMI 3G P3, Phase 4; 

bowl body sherd; very fine gray fabric, brown to light red to the 

surfaces; thin gray slip traces on the interior, lightly burnished.

257. Box 726/728R (#7211, bottom), GMI 4G (+), topsoil; closed vessel body sherds; thin-walled red fabric; dark gray 

matte slip; white matte painted bands.

258. Box 726/728R (#7211, top left), GMI 4G (0), topsoil; 

closed body sherd; gray core, red to the surfaces, friable fabric, 

thin walled; worn gray matte slip; white matte painted bands.

259. Box 726/728R (#7211, top right), GMI 4G (0), topsoil; jug neck?; gray fabric; gray matte slip; traces of matte white 

paint.

closed vessel; dark gray fabric; one worn, the other with dark 

gray lightly burnished slip and matte white painted bands.

229. Box 703/705 (#7198, second row, first and second 

sherds; bottom row, first and second sherds), GMI 4F TT5 

(1), Phase 4?; four body sherds, closed vessel; gray fabric, red 

or brown to the inner surface; dark gray slip, one mottled with 

brown; matte white painted bands on two.

230. Box 706/707 (#7199, bottom right), GMI 4F (3) 3, 

Phase 3; jug(?) body sherd; fine light brown fabric; dark gray 

lightly burnished slip; matte white paint.

231. Box 706/707 (#7199, left), GMI 4F (3), Phase 3; bowl 

rim sherd with handle base; gray fabric, brown to the surface; 

worn dark gray slip, traces of high burnish.

232. Box 706/707 (#7199, top right), GMI 4F (3), phase unstratified; jug(?) body sherd; dark gray fabric; lightly burnished 

dark gray slip; white matte bands.

233. Box 708/710 (#7200), GMI 5F (2) 2, phase unknown; 

jug, three body sherds; gray fabric; dark gray matte or lightly 

burnished slip; matte white paint.

234. Box 711R (Figure 11.5a, #7203), GMI 6F (1), Phase 

3?; bowl rim and body sherds from two bowls; rim diams. 16.0 

and 17.0 cm; very fine walled, dark gray fabric, reddish brown 

or red to the surfaces; mottled matte dark gray and red surface; 

the other with a dark gray matte, smeary slip.

235. Box 712/3R (#7201, bottom right), GMI 6F (6), phase 

unknown; small jug(?) body sherd; red fabric; dark gray lightly 

burnished slip.

236. Box 712/3R (#7201, top, bottom left), GMI 6F (3) 2, 

Phase 3; small jug(?), three body sherds; gray fabric; dark gray 

matte or lightly burnished slip; matte white paint.

237. Box 714R (#7202), GMI 2G (1), phase unknown; 

body sherd, closed vessel; dark gray fabric, red brown to the 

surface; dark gray lightly burnished slip; matte white paint, thin 

bands.

238. Box 716R (#7205, right), GMI 3G (9), Phase 6; juglet 

handle fragment; dark gray fabric, red to the surfaces; dark gray 

lightly burnished slip.

239. Box 715R, GMI 3G (0); body sherd, closed vessel; 

dark gray fabric, red to the surface; lightly burnished dark gray 

slip; transparent painted white matte bands.

240. Box 716R (#7205, left and center), GMI 3G (9), 

Phase 6; jug base and rim fragments, both with beveled edges 

and troughs; diams. 10.0 cm; dark gray fabric, red to the surfaces; lightly burnished gray to brown slip, thinly applied inside 

the neck. 

241. Box 717/718R (#7206 left), GMI 3G (10), Phase 6; 

jug base; diam. 10.0 cm; gray fabric, brown to the surfaces; dark 

gray lightly burnished slip.

242. Box 717/718R (#7206, right), GMI 3G (13), Phase 6; 

jug(?) body sherd; dark gray fabric, light red to the surface; dark 

gray medium burnished slip.

243. Box 719R (Figure 11.5d), GMI 3G (3) 1, Phase 3/4?; 

juglet neck and body; gray fabric, light red to the surface; dark 

gray lightly burnished slip; matte white paint; handle has highly 

burnished light red and dark gray mottled surface.
NUMBER 50 • 681

White Shaved

279. Box 829R (Figure 11.4j, #7230), GMI 6E (3), Phase 

3/4?; juglet body sherd. 

280. Box 706R, GMI 6F (2–3), Phase 3/4?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very pale brown to very pale pink fabric; white 

surface, very worn.

Plain White, Pithos

281. Box 859R (Figure 11.4k, #7258), GMI 5E W3, phase 

unknown; body sherd, relief band with incised chevrons.

Mycenaean

282. Box 483 (#0287, right), GMI 5D (7) 2, Phase 3; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink, very fine fabric, very hard, no grits, 0.4 

cm thick; very pale brown slip; dark brown to very dark brown 

lustrous paint.

283. Box 751/2R (Figure 11.11c, #7060, right), GMI 5E 

(1–2), phase unknown; LHIIIA–IIIB1 rim sherd, probably from 

a piriform or straight-sided jar; diam. ~8.5 cm; white and very 

light pink fabric; highly burnished exterior; brown to dark 

brown paint.

284–285. Box 748 (#7055), GMI 4D (4) 4, Phase 3; two 

body sherds, closed vessels, one possibly a flask; one with dark 

red paint, rough interior; other sherd with smooth, unfinished 

interior, red painted band exterior; both with highly burnished 

exteriors.

286. Box 740R (Figure 11.11i, #4505, right), GMI 2F (3), 

Phase 3A; body sherd, closed vessel; very pale yellow fabric, no 

grits, 0.6-cm-thick walls; dark brown painted cuttlefish, white 

painted suckers on parts of two tentacles and the base of the head.

287. Box 743R (#7047), GMI 4D (+), unstratified/topsoil; 

body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric; red paint, burnished.

288. Box 744R (Figure 11.10f, #7048), GMI 4D (1), Phase 

1; three body sherds, closed vessel; red or dark brown paint, 

exteriors highly burnished.

289. Box 746R (Figure 11.10e, #7052, bottom left), GMI 

4D (3), Phase 3?; body sherd, closed vessel; globular shape; very 

light pink fabric; red lustrous paint.

290. Box 746R (Figure 11.10c, #7052, bottom right), GMI 

4D (3), Phase 3?; body sherd, closed vessel; strongly depressed 

shape; light red fabric; red lustrous paint, very worn.

291. Box 746R (#7052, top), GMI 4D (3), Phase 3?; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very light gray fabric; dark brown paint.

292. Box 749R (#7056), GMI 5D (3B) 2, Phase 3; two body 

sherds, closed vessel; pink fabric; highly burnished exterior, 

smoothed interior; brown to reddish-brown paint.

293. Box 751R (#7062), GMI 3E–F (2), phase unknown; 

body sherd, closed vessel, globular shape; pink to very light red 

fabric; pink slip; red lustrous paint.

294. Box 753/5R (#7063, center), GMI 6E (1), Phase 3; 

body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric; very pale brown slip; 

reddish-brown lustrous paint.

260. Box 729–730 (#7212, right), GMI 4G (1) 1, Phase 

3; jug body sherd; dark gray fabric, red to the surface, bubbles 

in the wall; matte, dark gray, smeary slip; finely painted matte 

white bands, thinly applied paint.

261. Box 729R–730 (#7212, left), GMI 4G (2) 1, Phase 3; 

jug(?) body sherd; dark gray fabric, light red to the surface; dark 

gray lightly burnished, smeary slip.

262. Box 731R, GMI 4G (3) 1, Phase 3; small jug, rim 

and body sherd; diam. 8.0 cm; very fine walled, gray fabric, red 

brown to the surfaces; spalling, dark gray slip, was burnished, 

very uneven surface; white matte paint.

263. Box 732R (Figure 11.6g), GMI 4G (1) 4, Phase 3/4?; 

jug, base and handle sherds; diam. 9.0 cm; dark gray fabric, red 

to the surfaces; dark gray matte slip.

264. Box 733R (#7039), GMI 4G W4, Phase 3; juglet body 

sherd; dark gray fabric, red to surface; dark gray matte slip; 

white paint.

265. Box 734R + 735R (#7040; right), GMI 5G (0), topsoil; 

bowl, rim, handle, base, and body sherds (four); dark gray fabric; dark gray matte slip.

266. Box 734R + 735R (#7040; left), GMI 5G (0), topsoil; 

squat jug?, base of neck, shoulder, and handle; dark gray fabric, 

handle is red to the surface, neck fragment has a dark gray matte 

surface and white paint.

267. Box 736R (Figure 11.6e, #7041), GMI 5G (3) 1, Phase 

3; small jug base sherd; diam. 7.0 cm; dark gray fabric, red on 

the interior; dark gray matte slip exterior and underneath.

268. Box 737R (#7042, left), GMI 4H (1) 7, Phase 3; bowl 

base sherd; gray fabric; brown to gray matte slip exterior, dark 

red burnished slip.

269. Box 840R (#7241), GMI TTB (+), topsoil; bowl base 

sherd; gray fabric, reddish-brown slip; matte white paint.

270. Box 841R (#7237, right), GMI 4D (1) 1, Phase 1; body 

sherd, closed vessel. 

271. Box 845R (#7244, left and center), GMI 4D (4) 4, 

Phase 3; two jug base sherds. 

272. Box 850R (Figure 11.7c, #7249), GMI 4E/4F (1) 4, phase 

unknown; small jug rim and neck sherd with a handle from the rim; 

diam. 3.7 cm; dark gray fabric, red to the surfaces; dark gray matte 

slip, also inside the rim, surface is very worn; possibly paint.

273. Box 852R (#7252), GMI 1F (5) 1, Phase 1; body sherd, 

closed vessel; gray fabric; dark gray, smeary gray slip; white paint.

274. Box 863R (#7265), GMI 4H (2) 7, Phase 3; juglet neck 

sherd; traces of matte white paint.

275. Bag 2396, GMI 5D (1A), Phase 3; base of a jug neck 

with ridge; gray fabric, brown to the interior; dark gray matte 

slip; matte white paint.

276. Bag 3427, GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; small jug(?) handle 

sherd; dark gray fabric; dark gray matte slip; matte white paint, 

worn surface.

277. Bag 3431, GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; body sherd, closed 

vessel; gray fabric; dark gray matte slip; matte white paint.

278. No bag number (#7088), GMI 5F (2), phase unknown; 

jug handle, two grooves on the back; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; matte dark gray slip; matte white paint.
682 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

very dark brown with applied white dots, second fragment with 

gray fabric; dark brown paint, mostly worn.

312. Box 770 (Figure 11.10g, #4508), GMI 6E (1), Phase 

3; LHIIIA:2 early alabastron, shoulder and body sherds; diam. 

~12.0 cm; very light gray fine fabric; slipped and painted inside 

the neck and on the exterior; brown and very dark brown paint, 

very worn, foliate band on the shoulder.

313. Box 751/2R (Figure 11.11b, #7060, left), GMI 5E 

(1–2), phase unknown; LHIIIA–IIIB1 rim sherd, probably from 

a pyriform or straight-sided jar; diam. ~7.5 cm; white and very 

light pink fabrics; highly burnished exterior; brown to dark 

brown paint.

314. Box 765/6L (Figure 11.11f, #7072, center), GMI 5G 

(1) 4, Phase 3, Unit M2; LHIIIB rim sherd; diam. 8 cm; very pale 

gray core, very light brown to the surfaces; very pale brown slip; 

brown lustrous paint.

315. Box 760R (Figure 11.11a, #7072, left), GMI 5G (0) 

topsoil, rim sherd; diam. 12.0 cm; very pale brown to very pale 

pink fabric; worn, very dark brown lustrous paint, possibly with 

oval profile handle; gray fabric, light red to the surface; dark 

gray lightly burnished slip; matte white paint; handle has highly 

burnished light red and dark gray mottled surface.

Bucchero

316. Box 670R (Figure 11.4f, #7179), GMI 4D (0), topsoil; 

jug?, four ridges on shoulder, hole for handle; gray fabric, light 

red to the surfaces, minute white grits, fine walled; originally 

burnished.

317. Box 724/725R (Figure 11.4c, #7214, top left), GMI 

3G P3, Phase 4; body sherd, closed vessel, three rounded, parallel ridges; gray fabric, fine walled, light red to the surface; gray 

medium burnished slip.

WSII

318. Box 563 (#7103), GMI 3G P3, Phase 4; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 18.0 cm; dark gray fabric; light gray lightly burnished or matte slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at rim, 

dotted rim, pendent ladder.

319. Box 590 (#7133), GMI 6E (+), topsoil; bowl rim and 

body sherds; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; very pale 

brown lightly burnished slip; very dark brown paint, rim with 

ladder lattice, rim not dotted.

320. Box 592 (#7134), GMI 1F (0), topsoil; bowl body sherd; 

dark brown fabric, dark reddish brown to the surfaces; pale brown 

slip, slightly burnished; dark brown paint, ladder lattice.

321. Box 596 (#7137), GMI 1F (9), Phase 3?; bowl body 

sherd; very pale brown lightly burnished micaceous slip; brown 

matte paint, ladder lattice.

322. Box 615 (#7145), GMI 4F TT5 (1), Phase 4?; bowl, 

seven body sherds; Normal style; micaceous matte to lightly burnished surfaces; light brown and very dark brown paint, ladder 

lattices.

323. Box 627 (Figure 11.9k, #7155), GMI 3G (2) 1, Phase 

3(B)?; bowl handle and body sherds; gray burnished slip; very 

295. Box 753/5R (#7063, left), GMI 6E (2), Phase 3/4?; 

body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric; light red to dark 

brownish-red lustrous paint.

296. Box 758R (Figure 11.10a, #7065), GMI 2F (2), Phase 

1B/3?; stirrup jar, false spout; light red fabric; very pale brown 

slip; reddish-brown lustrous paint.

297. Box 759R (#7067), GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; seven body 

sherds, closed vessel. 

298. Box 760R (Figure 11.11h, #7068, bottom left), GMI 

6F (2), Phase 3/4?; zoomorphic vessel, leg; light red fabric; light 

red slip; red lustrous paint.

299. Box 760R (#7068, bottom right), GMI 6F (2–3), Phase 

3/4?; body sherd, closed vessel; light pink fabric; very pale brown 

slip; dark reddish-brown paint.

300. Box 760R (#7068, top center), GMI 6F (2–3), Phase 

3/4?; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric; very pale brownishyellow slip; brown to very dark brown lustrous paint.

301. Box 760R (#7068, top left), GMI 6F (2–3), Phase 3/4?; 

shoulder sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, pink to interior; 

very pale brown slip; light to dark red paint, lustrous.

302. Box 760R (#7068, top right), GMI 6F (2–3), Phase 

3/4?; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric; very pale brown lustrous slip; very light reddish-brown to dark brown paint.

303. Box 762/3R (Figure 11.10b, #7070), GMI 3G (2), 

Phase 3(B?); pyriform(?) stirrup jar, body and handle sherds; 

light red fabric, pale brown slip; red lustrous paint; handle has 

pink core, gray to the surfaces; gray surface; reddish-brown lustrous paint.

304. Box 764R (#7071), GMI 4G (0), unstratified/topsoil; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric; very pale brown slip; red 

to dark red lustrous paint.

305. Box 765/6L (Figure 11.11g, #7072 right), GMI 5G (0), 

topsoil; stirrup jar?, body sherd with opening for false spout attachment; very pale pink fabric; very pale brown slip; very dark 

brown lustrous paint.

306. Box 767R (#7075), GMI 5H (0), topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; brown, slightly micaceous, sandy fabric, very 

dense, medium fine, very hard, 0.4 cm thick; light brown surface, 

dark grayish-brown paint, both lustrous.

307. Box 842R (#7242), GMI 4D (2) 2, Phase 1; body 

sherd, probably from a stirrup jar; 0.4 cm thick; very pale pink 

or reddish-yellow fabric, no inclusions; lustrous surface; red to 

dark red lustrous paint.

308. Box 858R (#7257), GMI 4F (6), Phase 2/3?; body 

sherd, closed vessel.

309. Box 750R (Figure 11.11e, #7058), GMI 2E (4), Phase 

1/3?; LHIIIA:2 body sherd, closed vessel; pinkish-brown fabric; 

very pale brown surface; very dark brown paint, cuttlefish, very 

pale brown suckers on parts of two tentacles.

310. Box 628 (Figure 11.11j, #7105), GMI 3F (2), unstratified; LHIIIA:2 early body sherd, closed vessel; very pale yellow 

fabric, 0.6 cm thick; dark brown paint, cuttlefish, white painted 

suckers on the end of a tentacle and part of a second tentacle.

311. Box 745 (Figure 11.11d, #7050), GMI 4D (2), Phase 

1; LHIII:2 body and rim sherd, closed vessel; very pale brown 

highly burnished surface; end of a cuttlefish tentacle in red and 
NUMBER 50 • 683

338. Box 565R (#7108, bottom right), GMI 3D (2); unstratified; bowl body sherd; gray fabric; very pale brown, lightly 

burnished slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice.

339. Box 567R (7110, bottom right), GMI 4D (1), Phase 1; 

bowl body sherd; gray fabric; very pale brown lightly burnished 

slip; brown paint, end of a ladder lattice.

340. Box 570R, GMI 4D (3) 4, Phase 3; bowl body sherd; 

gray fabric, reddish brown to the interior; very pale brown slip, 

traces of burnish; dark reddish-brown paint.

341. Box 572R, GMI 4D (4A), Phase 3; bowl rim sherd; 

diam. 18.0 cm; gray fabric to the interior, reddish-brown exterior; very pale brown, lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, 

ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted, pendent ladder.

342. Box 573R (#7100), GMI 5D (1A), Phase 1; bowl 

body sherd; dark gray fabric, brown to the surfaces, many minute white grits; light brown, micaceous, lightly burnished slip; 

brown matte paint.

343. Box 574R, GMI 5D (2), unstratified/Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 18 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; 

very pale brown burnished slip; dark reddish brown at rim, ladder lattice, rim not dotted, partial pendent ornament.

344. Box 576R (#7119), GMI 5D (7A), Phase 3; four bowl 

body sherds, two bowls?; gray fabric, some red to the surface; 

very pale brown or white lightly burnished slip; brown or very 

dark brown paint, pendent ladder lattice and dots.

345. Box 581R (#7126), GMI 2E (+), phase unknown; 

bowl body sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; 

pale brown micaceous lightly burnished brown paint, pendent 

ladder lattice.

346. Box 582R (#7128, bottom row), GMI 2E (4), Phase 

1/3?; four bowl body sherds, one to four bowls; white, very pale 

brown, and very pale gray slips; light brown, brown, and very 

dark brown paint.

347. Box 587R (#7131, bottom row), GMI 5E (5), phase 

unknown; bowl body sherd near rim; dark gray fabric; white 

to very pale brown lightly burnished micaceous slip; very dark 

brown paint.

348. Box 588R, GMI 4F (1), Phase 1?; bowl body sherd; 

gray fabric red to the surfaces; white slip; very dark brown paint.

349. Box 594R (#7135), GMI 1F (4), phase unknown; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 16 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surface; very pale brown lightly burnished micaceous slip; dark 

brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted.

350. Box 594R (#7136), GMI 1F (4) 1, phase unknown; two 

bowl body sherds; light brown micaceous slip, lightly burnished; 

one with brown painted ladder lattice, the other with ladder.

351. Box 597R (Figure 11.9m, #4523), GMI 1F (12) 1, 

Phase 3; bowl rim sherd; Dotted Row Style; diam. 16.0 cm; gray 

fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; very pale brown burnished 

micaceous slip; brown paint, rim not dotted.

352. Box 598R (Figure 11.9n, #7138), GMI 1F (2), phase 

unknown; bowl base sherd; dark gray fabric, brown to the surfaces, burnt?; brown slightly burnished surface; dark brown pendent ladder lattices and ladders, alternating.

353. Box 599R (#7139), GMI 1F (3A), phase unknown; 

two bowl body sherds; dark gray fabric; pale brown burnished 

dark brown paint, line groups on top of the handle, very pale 

brown slip on body sherd.

324. Box 628 (Figure 11.9h, #7156, right), GMI 3G (2) 1, 

Phase 3(B)?; bowl rim sherd; diam. 18.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; very pale brown, lightly burnished 

sip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, pendent ladder, 

rim not dotted.

325. Box 639 (#7163), GMI 4G (7), phase unknown; bowl 

body sherd; light brown micaceous slip, brown paint, pendent 

ladder lattice.

326. Box 639 (#7164), GMI 4G (3), Phase 3; bowl body 

and base sherds; gray fabric, reddish brown to the interior; 

lightly burnished gray slip; very dark brown matte paint, ladder 

lattices.

327. Box 772R, GMI 4G (3) 3, Phase 3; bowl body sherd 

and shoulder with base of handle; dark gray fabric, reddish 

brown to the surfaces; pale brown to pink lightly burnished micaceous slip; brown paint; body sherd with gray fabric, reddish 

brown to the surface; white lightly burnished slip; dark brown 

paint, ladder.

328. Box 646 (#7166), GMI 4G (2), Phase 3B; bowl body 

sherd; gray lightly burnished slip; very dark reddish-brown paint.

329. Box 647 (#7167), GMI 5G TT1 (1), Phase 3, Room 

D3?; bowl rim and body sherds; white or pinkish slip; brown 

and dark brown paint; rim with ladder lattice, not dotted.

330. Box 434?, GMI 3F (1), topsoil; bowl body sherd, near 

base; gray fabric; pale brown lightly burnished slip; ladder lattices and parallel lines.

331. Box 509L, GMI 1F (3A); unstratified/Phase 1; bowl 

body sherds; dark gray fabric; very pale brown lightly burnished 

micaceous slip; dotted row; other sherd with red fabric, part of a 

very dark brown painted band.

332. Box 558R (#7097), GMI 4D (93), Phase 3?; bowl rim 

and body sherd; Ladder Lattice Pattern Style; diam. 18–20 cm; 

dark gray fabric, medium coarse; light brown to light gray slip, 

burnish worn; dark brown paint, rim not dotted.

333. Box 559R (Figure 11.9r, #7098), GMI 5H-F (1) 6, 

Phase 3a?; bowl rim and body sherd; Ladder Lattice Pattern 

Style, small deep shape; diam. 18.0–20.0 cm; gray fabric, red 

to the surfaces; light brown lightly burnished micaceous slip; 

brown paint, rim not dotted, pendent ladder and ladder.

334. Box 560R (#7099), GMI 3F (+), unstratified; bowl 

rim sherd; diam. ~20–22 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surfaces, many minute white, brown, and black grits, medium 

fabric; very pale brown, chalky, cracking slip; brown paint, rim 

not dotted.

335. Box 561R (#7101), GMI 2E (4), Phase 3?; bowl body 

sherd; dark gray medium fabric, brown to the surfaces; very pale 

brown cracking slip; dark brown paint.

336. Box 562R (#7102), GMI 3F (3), unstratified; bowl 

body sherd; gray medium fabric; very pale brown lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint.

337. Box 565R (#7108, bottom center), GMI 3D (2); unstratified; bowl rim sherd; gray fabric; light gray, lightly burnished slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim 

not dotted.
684 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

burnished slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice, rim not 

dotted, pendent ladder, ladder lattice, dotted rows.

368. Box 628R (#7156, left), GMI 3G (2) 1, Phase 3, Unit 

L; bowl handle; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; very 

pale brown, lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint.

369. Box 629–630 (#7157), GMI 3G (4) 1, Phase 4; bowl 

rim and body sherds; body sherd with pinkish-brown micaceous 

lightly burnished slip, brown paint, ladder lattice.

370. Box 631–632 (#7158, left), GMI 3G (10), Phase 6; 

bowl handle; white slip; dark brown paint.

371. Box 631–632 (#7158, right), GMI 3G (10), Phase 6; 

bowl body sherd near base; dark gray fabric; lightly burnished gray 

slip; very dark brown paint, ends of ladder lattices and ladders.

372. Box 633–634 (#7160, top center and right, bottom 

center and right), GMI 3G (8) 5, Phase 5; bowl rim and four 

body sherds; white to light gray slip; light gray paint, dotted rim 

has ladder lattice; one body sherd very dark gray medium brown 

interior, possibly burnt; black painted ladder lattice.

373. Box 633–634 (#7160, top left), GMI 3G (7) 2, Phase 

5; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; 

pink lightly burnished slip; ladder lattice with pendent ladder 

and dotted row.

374. Box 635–636R (#7161), GMI 3G P3, Phase 4; bowl 

body, two rim and handle sherds; rim sherds with gray fabric, 

many minute white grits; very pale brown and very pale gray 

slip, both with ladder lattices and dotted rims; body sherd with 

gray fabric; very light gray slip; end of a ladder lattice; handle 

with gray fabric, gray and light brown slip, worn surface.

375. Box 637–638 (#7162, left), GMI 3G (5), Phase 3?; 

bowl body sherd; gray fabric; white to very pale brown lightly 

burnished slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice and pendent 

ladder lattice.

376. Box 637–638 (#7162, right), GMI 3G W1, Phase 3; 

bowl body sherd. 

377. Box 641–643 (#7165, right), GMI 4G (1–3) 1, Phase 

3; bowl, four body and handle sherds; light brown slip, brown 

paint.

378. Box 645R (#4503), GMI 4G (8) 2, phase unknown; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 16–18 cm; reddish-brown fabric, sandy 

texture; not slipped; weak red paint, one band below the rim, 

vertical widely spaced bands from the rim.

379. Box 650R (#7169), GMI 5G (1) 4, Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 20.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; 

pink micaceous, lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, ladder 

lattice at the rim, pendent ladder lattice and dotted row, rim not 

dotted.

380. Box 651B (#7170), GMI 5G (1) 5, Phase 3; bowl, four 

body sherds; gray or white slip; brown paint, ladder lattice and 

ladder.

381. Box 652/653 (#7171), GMI 5G (1), Phase 3; bowl rim 

and body sherd; brownish-gray fabric; pink slip; rim sherd with 

ladder lattice but no rungs, rim not dotted.

382. Box 654R (#7172), GMI 5G (1) 6, Phase 3; bowl body 

sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; pink micaceous 

lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice.

slip; dark brown paint, dots; other with reddish-brown fabric; 

light brown burnished slip; traces dark brown paint.

354. Box 600–602R (#7140, bottom left, top right), GMI 

2F (2), Phase 1B/3?; two bowl body sherds; dark gray fabric; 

very pale brown lightly burnished slip; reddish-brown paint, 

pendent ladder lattices, possible ladder. 

355. Box 600–602R (#7140, top center, bottom right), GMI 

2F (1), Phase 1; bowl rim and body sherd, two bowls?; dark gray 

fabric; very pale brown lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, 

ladder lattice, tip of frontal ornament; rim sherd with reddishbrown paint.

356. Box 600–602R (#7140, top left), GMI 2F (1), Phase 

1; bowl rim, base of one arm of the handle; Parallel Line Style; 

diam. 16 cm; grayish-brown fabric; pale brown lightly burnished 

micaceous slip; brown to dark brown paint.

357. Box 606–609R (#7143, bottom right), GMI 3F (6), 

Phase 2/3; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, fine walled; white to 

very pale brown lightly burnished micaceous slip; brown paint, 

pendent parallel lines.

358. Box 606–609R (#7143, bottom row, first and second 

from left), GMI 3F (1), topsoil; two bowl body sherds; pale 

brown slip, pendent ladder and ladder lattice.

359. Box 606–609R (#7143, top left), GMI 3F (1), topsoil; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 20 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surface; white to very pale brown medium burnished slip; dark 

brown paint, rim not dotted, ladder lattice at the rim, pendent 

ladder, pendent dotted row.

360. Box 606–609R (#7143, top right), GMI 3F (2), topsoil; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; 

pale brown micaceous lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, 

pendent ladder lattice and pendent dotted row.

361. Box 610–611R (#7144, left), GMI 4F (1), Phase 1/3?; 

bowl rim sherd; gray fabric; very pale brown lightly burnished 

micaceous slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim.

362. Box 612–613 (#7148), GMI 4F TT2 (2), Phase 3?; two 

bowl body sherds; white micaceous lightly burnished slip; dark 

brown to very dark brown paint, ladder lattices on both sherds.

363. Box 616R (#7146), GMI 4F (+), topsoil; bowl body 

sherd; very light gray slip; very dark brown paint; bottom of the 

frieze near the handle.

364. Box 617–618R (#7149), GMI 4F (3A), Phase 3; bowl 

body sherd; dark gray fabric; lightly burnished gray slip; dark 

brown paint, ladder.

365. Box 620R (#7147, bottom right), GMI 4F TT1 (3), 

Phase 3; bowl body sherd near base; dark gray fabric; very pale 

brown and gray mottled lightly burnished micaceous slip; dark 

brown paint, pendent ladder lattice and ladder with dots in 

between.

366. Box 623–624 (#7154), GMI 5F (3) 2, phase unknown; 

two bowl body sherds; gray matte or light brown lightly burnished slip; very dark brown ladder lattice and motif at right 

angles to it, pendent ladder and dotted row.

367. Box 626R (Figure 11.9f, #7152), GMI 3G (1–1A), 

Phase 3A/3; bowl rim sherds; Ladder Lattice Pattern Style; diam. 

18.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; light gray 
NUMBER 50 • 685

slip; dark brown paint, pendent ladder lattice and ladder, cursory 

painting.

397. Box 771R (#7150, second row, first and third sherds), 

GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; bowl, two body sherds; dark gray fabric; micaceous, lightly burnished white and very light gray slip; 

brown and very dark brown paint, probably ladder lattice at 

the rim.

398. Box 771R (#7150, top left), GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 20 cm; dark gray fabric, reddish brown to 

the inner surface and mixed; very pale brown to very pale gray 

medium burnished slip; brown paint, ladder lattices at the rim 

and pendent, rim not dotted.

399. Box 771R (#7150, top right), GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; 

bowl rim sherd with base of handle; diam. 18.0 cm; dark gray 

fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; pink medium burnished 

slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at rim, dots continue the 

ladder lattice rungs.

400. Box 845R (#7244, right), GMI 4D (4) 4, Phase 3?; 

bowl body sherd 

401. Box 849R (#7248, left), GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; bowl 

body sherd. 

402. Bag 3628 (#7248, left), GMI 6E (1), Phase 3; bowl 

body sherd; gray fabric; matte white slip interior, very pale 

brown exterior, no burnish; reddish-brown paint.

403. Bag 3628, GMI 6E (1), Phase 3; bowl body sherd; gray 

fabric; matte white slip interior, very pale brown exterior, no 

burnish; reddish-brown paint.

404. Bag 3628, GMI 5E (2) 1, phase unknown; bowl rim 

and body sherd; white lightly burnished micaceous slip; brown 

paint, ladder at the rim, rim not dotted, pendent dotted row; 

very pale brown lightly burnished micaceous slip, traces of very 

dark brown paint.

405. Bag 3628, GMI 1F F2, Phase 1; bowl rim sherd; diam. 

20.0 cm; Ladder Lattice Pattern style; dark gray fabric, dark 

brown to the surface; brown and gray mottled matte or lightly 

burnished slip; brown paint, rim not dotted, pendent ladder lattice and ladder, dotted rows in between.

406. Box 580 (#7125), GMI 2E (0), topsoil; bowl rim and 

body sherds; rim with ladder lattice, probably not dotted.

407. Box 564R, GMI 5D (0), topsoil; bowl body sherd; gray 

fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; micaceous very pale brown 

slip, lightly burnished; dark brown paint, ladder lattice with two 

middle posts lightly painted.

408. Box 566R (#7109), GMI 4D (0), topsoil; bowl body 

sherd; gray fabric; gray micaceous slip, lightly burnished; brown 

paint, ladder lattice.

409. Box 571R (#7116), GMI 4D (4A), Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the inner surface; very pale 

brown lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at 

the rim, pendent ladder, rim probably not dotted.

410. Box 572R (Figure 11.9o, #7117), GMI 4D (2) 2, Phase 

1; bowl handle; reddish-brown fabric; micaceous pale brown 

slip; brown paint.

411. Box 574R (#7117), GMI 5D (2), unstratified/Phase 

3; bowl, two body sherds; red to reddish-gray fabric, very fine 

383. Box 655R (#7174), GMI (+), topsoil; bowl body and 

two rim sherds from multiple vessels; one rim sherd with ladder 

lattice, rim not dotted.

384. Box 655R (#7174, top left), GMI (+), topsoil; bowl 

handle; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; white slip; very dark 

brown paint.

385. Box 708/710 (#7114, bottom right), GMI 4D (4), 

Phase 3?; bowl body sherd; gray fabric; white to very pale brown 

slip.

386. Box 711R (#7114, top row, bottom left), GMI 4D (4), 

Phase 3?; bowl rim and body sherds; diam. 16.0 cm; gray fabric, light reddish brown to the surface, sandy texture; white to 

very pale brown lightly burnished slip; dark brown to very dark 

brown matte paint, ladder lattice at rim, rim not dotted, pendent 

ladder lattice and ladder, pendent ladder on body sherd.

387. Box 716R (#7128, top right), GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 16.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surface; lightly burnished pale brown to pink slip; dark brown 

paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted, pendent ladder.

388. Box 716R (#7128, top left), GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; 

bowl rim sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surfaces; very 

pale brown slip; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, 

rim not dotted.

389. Box 721R (#7210, right), GMI 3G (5), Phase 4; bowl 

rim sherd; gray fabric; gray medium burnished surface; ladder 

lattice at the rim, very worn, rim probably not dotted.

390. Box 729, 730, or 771R (#7150, second row, middle), 

GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, red to the 

surfaces; very lightly burnished pale brown slip; reddish-brown 

paint, ladder lattice.

391. Box 741R (#7112 second row, second and third sherds; 

bottom row, first, third, and fourth sherds), GMI 4D (3), Phase 

3?; bowl, five body sherds; gray fabric, red to the surfaces; very 

pale brown lightly burnished slip, brown paint, ladders, ladder 

lattices, and dots.

392. Box 741R (#7112, top row, first and fourth sherds), 

GMI 4D (3), Phase 3?; bowl rim and handle; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; lightly burnished white slip; very dark 

brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted, pendent 

ladder.

393. Box 741R (#7112, top row, second sherd; second row, 

first and fourth sherds; bottom row, second sherd), GMI 4D 

(3), Phase 3?; bowl rim and three body sherds; gray fabric; gray 

lightly burnished slip; brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim 

not dotted.

394. Box 764R (#7144, right), GMI 4F (+), topsoil; bowl 

handle; gray core, reddish brown to the surfaces; light brown 

lightly burnished micaceous slip; dark brown paint, bands.

395. Box 767R (Figure 11.9e, #7147, left), GMI 4F (3A), 

Phase 3; bowl rim sherd; diam. 18.0 cm; gray fabric, brown to 

the surface, minute white grits; pale brown lightly burnished slip; 

dark brown paint, rim not dotted, ladder lattice at rim, pendent 

ladder lattice, pendent dotted row.

396. Box 771R (#7147, right), GMI 4F (3A), Phase 3?; 

bowl, two body sherds; dark gray fabric; gray lightly burnished 
686 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

425. Box 648/649R (Figure 11.8g, #7168, top left), GMI 

5G (+), topsoil; bowl body sherd; gray fabric; smoothed, not 

slipped, matte, micaceous surface; purplish-brown matte paint.

426. Box 655R (#7174, bottom left), GMI (+), topsoil; bowl 

body sherd; pink micaceous slip.

427. Box 856R (#7150, bottom), GMI 6F (1), Phase 3?; 

bowl, two body sherds; grayish-brown compact fabric, few minute grits; pink very lightly burnished or smoothed light brown 

slip; thinly applied paint, ladder lattice of three bands.

428. Bag 3442, GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; bowl rim sherd; 

gray fabric, many small black, white, and red grits; light brown 

matte slip; reddish-brown paint.

WSIIA

429. Box 574R (Figure 11.9a, #4496), GMI 5D (2), unstratified/Phase 3; bowl rim and body; Framed Lozenge Style; about 

a quarter of the bowl, diam. 18.0 cm, height 7.0 cm; gray fabric, 

brownish red toward the rim; white slip interior, pink exterior, 

chalky and mat; matte very dark brown paint, pendent ladder 

lattice has three posts, pendent group of three lines, crisscross 

frontal ornament, dotted rim. 

430. Box 583R (Figure 11.9c, #4519), GMI 2E (4), Phase 

1/3?; bowl rim sherd; Framed Lozenge Style; diam. 18.0 cm; gray 

fabric, reddish brown to the surface; very worn, matte white to 

very pale brown slip; brown paint, dotted rim.

431. Box 583R (#4520), GMI 2E (4), Phase 1/3?; bowl 

body sherd; gray sandy textured fabric; gray matte smeary slip; 

brown paint, isolated cross-hatched lozenge, two bands at the 

edge.

432. Box 583R (#4521), GMI 5D (93), Phase 3; bowl body 

sherd; red fabric; white chalky slip; very dark brown matte paint; 

four narrow bands between wider horizontal bands.

433. Box 586R (Figure 11.8l, #7130), GMI 5E (0), phase 

unknown; bowl (body); reddish-brown fabric; white very lightly 

burnished slip; black paint, two horizontal bands, four thin pendent bands.

434. Box 595R (Figure 11.8m, #4512), GMI 1F (4) 1, phase 

unknown; bowl rim sherd; diam. ~18–20 cm; red fabric, reddish 

gray to the surfaces; pale brown micaceous lightly burnished or 

matte slip; dark brown matte painted parallel-line-framed lozenges, double cross-hatched, two lozenges pendent below the 

lower border of frieze, dotted rim.

435. Box 741R (#7112, top row, 3rd from left), GMI 4D (3), 

phase unknown; bowl body sherd; reddish-brown fabric, white 

matte slip; black paint, two bands at right angles and a dot.

436. Box 863R (#7128, top center), GMI 2E (4), Phase 

1/3?; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, reddish tinge; pink micaceous lightly burnished slip; very dark brown paint, hatched 

lozenge and parallel lines; could also be a regional WSII 

variant.

437. Box 589 (Figure 11.8b, #7132, top center), GMI 5E 

(4) 2, phase unknown; bowl rim sherd; diam. 18.0–20.0 cm; 

gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; pale brown micaceous 

lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, rim not dotted, ladder 

lattice at the rim, pendent ladder lattice, dotted row.

walled; pink micaceous lightly burnished slip; dark brown 

painted line groups.

412. Box 575R (#7118), GMI 5D (5); unstratified; bowl 

body sherd; gray fabric; light gray lightly burnished slip; thinly 

applied brown paint, ladder lattice.

413. Box 577R (#7121), GMI 5D (7B), Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface; white to very 

pale brown slip; dark brown paint, rim not dotted, ladder lattice 

at the rim, pendent ornament.

414. Box 579R (#7124), GMI 5D W9, Phase 3; bowl body 

sherd; gray fabric; pale brown micaceous matte slip; dark brown 

paint, ladder lattice.

415. Box 582R (#7127), GMI 2E (2), Phase 1; bowl rim 

and body sherd; diam. 16–18 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to 

the surface; pink lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, dotted 

rim, ladder lattice at the rim, part of a pendent ornament, two 

pendent parallel lines, body sherd.

416. Box 585R (#7129), GMI 5E (0), topsoil; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 16.0–18.0 cm; dark gray fabric; dark gray slip, 

lightly burnished; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, 

rim not dotted, pendent motif.

417. Bag 3601 (#7129), GMI 6E (2), Phase 3/4?; bowl body 

sherd; gray fabric, red to the surface; pink slip interior and exterior; worn brown paint.

WSII Derivative (Handmade)

418. Box 604 (Figure 11.9g, #4509), GMI 2F (2), Phase 

3A; bowl rim sherd; dark grayish brown fabric, light red to the 

surfaces, compact, minute grits; unslipped or wet smoothed exterior, very thin pinkish slip interior; purplish-brown, weak red 

matte paint, ladder at the rim framed only on the lower side, 

pendent ladder lattice with three vertical bands, pendent ladder.

419. Box 568R (Figure 11.8e, #7113), GMI 4D (3), Phase 

3?; bowl body sherd; gray fabric, brown to the surfaces, sandy 

texture, compact; smoothed and lightly burnished; purplishbrown paint, widely spaced ladder lattice.

420. Box 569R (#7115), GMI 4D (4) 4, Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; gray fabric; unslipped, buff surface; very faded dark red to 

weak red paint, line along the rim, two pendent from it.

421. Box 576R (Figure 11.8h, #7120), GMI 5D (7A), Phase 

3; bowl, two body sherds; light grayish-brown to light purplishbrown fabric; unslipped; faded purplish-brown paint.

422. Box 578R (Figure 11.8f, #7122), GMI 5D (7B), Phase 

3; bowl rim sherd; diam. ~16.0–18.0 cm; gray to greenish-white 

fabric like white painted ware; faded weak red paint, ladder lattice with widely spaced rungs.

423. Box 584R (Figure 11.9b, #4518), GMI 4E–F (2), 

phase unknown; bowl, two rim sherds; 0.5 cm thick, brownishgray core, light red to the surfaces, sandy texture, few minute 

grits; surface smoothed, not slipped, slightly micaceous; red to 

purplish-red paint, sloppily applied; ladder lattice at the rim.

424. Box 640R (Figure 11.9d, #4500), GMI 4G (3), Phase 3; 

bowl(s) rim and base sherds; diam. 20.0 cm; gray, pink to the surfaces, smoothed, not slipped, matte, micaceous surface; purplishbrown matte paint, ladder lattice at the rim, loosely painted.
NUMBER 50 • 687

451. Box 857R (Figure 11.12k, #7256), GMI 4F TT1 (1), 

Phase 1; handle fragment, closed vessel. 

452. Box 862R (#7264, left), GMI 3G (20), Phase 8; amphora?, rim sherd; diam. 12.0 cm; wheel made.

BOR (Intrusive)

453. Box 484 (#0288), GMI 5D (2) 7B, Phase 3; juglet 

spout fragment; diam. 4.0 cm, 0.4 cm thick; pink, very fine, clean 

fabric, very hard; red surface, lightly burnished inside, matte exterior; matte very dark brown paint.

Field I FUR

ROB/ROR

454. Box 828R (Figure 11.4g, #7086), GMI FUR (3) 2, 

Phases 1–2; bowl body sherd; buff fabric, black highly burnished 

slip inside and out; matte dark red bands inside and out.

BRII

455. Box 477 (#0286), GMI FUR (0), topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; fabric dark brown to the interior, dark gray to the 

exterior, minute white grits, very hard and dense; very dark gray 

matte slip; white matte paint.

Mycenaean

456. Box 480 (#0280, left), GMI FUR W1, Phase 3; body 

sherd, closed vessel; red fabric; very fine, light red slip; light red 

paint, highly burnished.

457. Box 478/1 (#0283, left), GMI FUR (2), Phase 2; shoulder sherd, closed vessel; light pink, very fine grained fabric, very 

hard; smoothed, lightly burnished surface; dark red lustrous paint.

458. Box 480 (#0280, top right), GMI FUR W1, Phase 3; 

body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric; very fine, pink surface; 

very dark brown paint, highly burnished.

459. Box 480 (#0280, bottom right), GMI FUR W1, Phase 

3; body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric; very fine, pink surface; 

dark red lustrous paint.

Greek Archaic?

460. Box 478/2 (Figure 11.12j, #0283, right), GMI FUR (2), 

Phase 2; shoulder sherd, closed vessel; pink to light red fabric, 

few minute white and black grits, very hard and dense; matte 

surface as paste; red matte paint.

Field I KB

Mycenaean

461. Box 489 (#0290), GMI KB F11 7; shoulder sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, very fine grained, hard, compact, 0.5 

cm thick; surface smoothed, lightly burnished; lustrous red paint.

WSIII

438. Box 619 (#7153), GMI 4F (5) 2, Phase 3?; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 16.0 cm; dark gray, reddish brown to the surface; 

brown micaceous lightly burnished slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the lightly dotted rim, pendent ladder lattice, pendent dots.

439. Box 565R (Figure 11.8k, #7108, top and bottom left), 

GMI 3D (2), phase unknown; bowl rim and body sherds; Ladder 

Lattice Pattern Style; diam. ~18.0 cm; gray fabric, one coarser, 

with many minute black and white grits; light brown micaceous 

slip, body sherds with white or light gray slips, all lightly burnished; very dark brown paint, ladder lattices at the rims, rims 

not dotted, body sherd with a ladder lattice.

440. Box 591R (#4524), GMI 6E(2), Phase 3/4?; bowl rim 

sherd; dark gray fabric, burnt; micaceous gray slip below the ladder lattice frieze is lightly burnished, light brown above it; dotted 

rim, part of a pendent ornament.

441. Box 596 (Figure 11.8a, #4511), GMI 1F (2) 1, Phase 1; 

bowl rim sherd; diam. 18.0 cm; dark gray fabric, dark brown to 

the surface; worn pale brown micaceous matte slip; dark brown 

paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted, pendent ladder, 

ladder lattice under one arm of the handle.

442. Box 603R (#7141), GMI 2F (4), Phase 1B/3?; bowl 

rim sherd; diam. 16.0 cm; reddish-brown fabric, coarser than 

usual, sandy texture; very worn, very pale brown(?) slip, lightly 

burnished, burnt?; very dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the 

rim, rim not dotted, pendent ladder.

443. Box 625R (#4525), GMI 3G (1) 1, Phase 3; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. 14.0 cm; dark gray fabric, reddish brown to the 

surfaces, few minute white grits; brown micaceous slip, lightly 

burnished; brown paint, rim not dotted, ladder lattice at the rim, 

pendent ladder.

444. Box 648/649R (Figure 11.8j, #7168, bottom), GMI 5G 

(0), unstratified/topsoil; bowl, two rim sherds, from one or two 

bowls, base of one arm of the handle; Parallel Line Style; diam. 

16.0–18.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface(s); very 

pale brown slip; dark brown paint; second sherd with light 

brown and light gray slip.

445. Box 648/649R (#7168, top right), GMI 5G (0), unstratified/topsoil; bowl rim sherd; gray fabric, reddish brown to 

the surface; very pale brown slip; dark brown paint, ladder lattice at the rim, rim not dotted.

446. Box 843R (#7243, top right), GMI 4D (2A), Phase 1; 

bowl (rim and body sherds from one or two vessels). 

447. Box 846R (Figure 11.8d, #7245, top right), GMI 4D 

(9), phase unknown; bowl rim sherd. 

448. Box 850R (# 7249, top right), GMI 5E (2), Phase 2; 

bowl handle and body sherds. 

449. Box 851R (Figure 11.8c, #7251, top right), GMI 5E 

(2), Phase 2; bowl handle and body sherd.

Iron Age WP or Bichrome (Intrusive)

450. Box 849R (Figure 11.12i, #7248, right), GMI 2E (4), 

Phase 1/3?; body sherd, closed vessel; brown matte paint, line group.
688 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

grits, 0.2 cm thick; brown lightly burnished slip; reddish-brown 

matte paint.

474. Box 518, GMII B3 (21), Phase 6; bowl rim sherd; Ladder Lattice Pattern Style(?). 

475. Box 517/2 (Figure 11.9l), GMII C3 (AB), Phase 6/7; 

bowl rim sherd, not dotted; very pale brown lightly burnished 

slip; dark reddish-brown matte paint.

476. Bag 4683 (#2417), GMII B3 TT3 (6), Phase 6; bowl 

rim sherd; dark gray fabric, very hard, 0.4 cm thick; light gray 

lightly burnished slip; dark reddish-brown paint, dotted rim, ladder lattice at the rim.

WSIII

477. Box 520A (Figure 11.8n), GMII A3 TT2 (19), Phase 6; 

bowl rim sherd; Parallel Line Style.

WSII Derivative

478. Box 496 (Figure 11.9j), GMII A5 (+), topsoil; bowl rim 

sherd; pale brown slip; matte dusky red paint.

BOR

479. Box 22R (Figure 11.12b, #7095), GMII C1 (2, 6) 2, 

Phase 1; body sherd, closed vessel; very pale brown fabric, few 

minute black and white grits, very fine grained, 0.4 cm thick; 

dark red highly burnished slip; dark red brown paint, burnished 

over the paint.

480. Box 506 (#0298), GMII C1 (2), Phase 1; body sherd, 

closed vessel. 

481. Box 512 (#0299), GMII C2 (1), Phase 2?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, very fine grained, 0.4 cm thick; worn 

matte red slip; weak red matte paint.

Iron Age WP

482. Box 521, GMII D5 W1, Phase 6/7?; body sherd, closed 

vessel; very pale brown to light pink fabric, few visible grits, fine 

to medium grain, very hard and compact, 0.4 cm thick; self-slip, 

lightly burnished; matte, thin purplish-black paint.

Iron Age WP or Bichrome

483. Box 501 (#0294, right), GMII C1 TTC, topsoil; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, few minute to small white grits, 

fine to medium grain, 0.3–0.4 cm thick; very faded dark brown 

matte paint.

Field IV

WPV

484. Box 340 (#0257), GM 2B W6, Phase 2/3?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; light pink fabric, minute black and white grits, medium to fine grain, 0.4 cm thick; smoothed, lightly burnished 

BOR

462. Bag 1320 (#0248), GMI KB (6), Phase KB1; flask body 

sherd; red fabric, 0.2–0.3 cm thick; red burnished surface; black 

paint.

Field II

WPVI

463. No box number (#0239), GMII A3 (+), topsoil; juglet 

handle fragment; pink fabric, soft, very fine grained, width 1.7 

cm thick; desurfaced.

WP Indeterminate

464. Box 513 (#0301), GMII C2 (4B), Phase 4; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very pale yellow, many minute black and white 

grits, slightly sandy, medium grain, 0.6 cm thick; wet smoothed 

surface, traces of light burnish; very dark reddish-gray paint.

ROB/ROR

465. Box 501 (#0294, left), GMII C1 TTC, topsoil; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very light red fabric, very fine grained, very 

hard, 0.7 cm thick; dark reddish gray slip interior and lightly 

burnished exterior worn.

BRII

466. Box 738 (#0299), GMII D (9), phase unknown; body 

sherd, closed vessel; dark gray fabric; lightly burnished dark gray 

slip; white paint.

467. Box 502, GMII A3 TT3, Phase 6; body sherd, closed 

vessel; gray slip; matte white painted pendent bands.

468. Box 517/1 (Figure 11.6b), GMII C3 (AB), Phase 6/7; 

bowl handle fragment.

Mycenaean

469. Box 496 (#0291), GMII A5 (+), topsoil; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink, very fine, hard, 0.3 cm thick; burnished pink 

surface; red lustrous paint.

470. Box 509 (#0304), GMII C1 W1, Phase 2 (2A); body 

sherd, closed vessel; very light red fabric, very hard and compact, 

0.3 cm thick; highly lustrous red slip.

471. Box 502, GMII C1 (1), Phase 0; closed body sherd; 

pink fabric, very fine grain, hard, 0.3 cm thick; burnished pink 

surface; red lustrous paint.

472. Box 520 (Figure 11.10d), GMII D4 F3, Phase 7?; two 

body sherds, closed vessel(s); light red, fine fabric; lustrous red 

painted bands.

WSII

473. Box 493 (Figure 11.9p), GMII A3 TT1 (18), Phase 6; 

body sherd, open vessel; very dark gray fabric, few minute white 
NUMBER 50 • 689

Mycenaean

495. Box 64 (#0266), GM 1A (1A) 8, Phase 3/4; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very light red fabric, fine grained, no visible grits, 

0.3 cm thick; red lustrous paint.

496. Box 214 (#0268), GM 1B (10B) 8, Phase 5; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, very fine, 0.5–0.6 cm thick; red 

to dark red lustrous paint.

497. Box 217, GM 1B (5) 8, Phase 3?; body sherd, closed 

vessel; very pale brown fabric, very fine, 0.5 cm thick; slip as 

paste; dark brown faded matte paint.

498. Box 416 (0320–0321), GM 0A (6), Phase 3/4; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, very clean, hard, and compact, 0.3 cm thick; highly burnished surface; lustrous light red 

paint.

499. Box 466 (#0273), GM 00B TT1 (2), phase unknown; 

closed body sherd; brownish-pink fabric, very hard and dense, 

0.4 cm thick; darker, burnished surface; very dark brown lustrous, worn paint.

500. Box 470 (#0280, top left), GM 00B (3), Phase 2; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black grits, very fine and 

dense, 0.4 cm thick; matte red paint.

501. Bag 5209 (#0234), GM 2B P35, Phase 10b?; body 

sherd, closed vessel; light yellowish-red clean fabric, compact, 

0.4 cm thick; burnished surface; light red and red paint.

WSII

502. Box 248 (#0249), GM 2B (14), Phase 3?; bowl rim 

sherd; diam. ~16.0 cm; gray fabric, reddish brown to the surface, 

minute black and white grits, 0.5–0.6 thick; lightly burnished 

pink slip; dark brown paint, rim not dotted.

503. Box 255 (#0250), GM 2B (46) 2, Phase 10; bowl rim 

sherd; Parallel Line Style; diam. ~16.0 cm; gray fabric, minute 

black and white grits, 0.4–0.7 cm thick; lightly burnished gray 

slip; dark brown paint, rim not dotted.

504. No box number (#0254), GM 2B NBR (+), topsoil; 

body sherd, open vessel; light gray fabric, 0.3 cm thick; very pale 

brown slip; dark brown paint.

505. Box 267 (#0255), GM 2B W1, Phase 3; bowl body 

sherd; light gray fabric, 0.3 cm thick; lightly burnished white 

slip; dark brown paint.

506. Box 320 (#0260), GM 1C (13) 3, Phase 4/5?; bowl 

body sherd; red fabric, minute black and white grits, medium to 

fine grained, 0.4 cm thick; lightly burnished pink slip; very dark 

brown faded matte paint, ladder lattice at the rim.

507. Bag 6392 (#0236), GM 2B W17, phase unknown; 

bowl rim sherd; Parallel Line Style; diam. 14.0 cm; gray fabric, brown to the surfaces, minute black and white grits, 0.5 cm 

thick; chalky white highly micaceous slip; dark brown paint.

BOR

508. Box 868 (Figure 11.12a, #7034), GM 2B P17, phase 

unknown; juglet or flask, restored; rim diam. 3.3 cm, maximum 

diam. ~7.0 cm; red highly burnished slip; black paint.

surface; cracked very dark brown paint, pendent/other motifs 

largely flaked off.

485. Box 257 (#0251), GM 2B (35) 2A, Phase 5; body 

sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black and white grits, 

very hard, compact, medium to fine grain, 0.4–0.6 cm thick; 

very pale brown slip; lustrous very dark brown paint, lightly 

burnished over both slip and paint.

486. Box 273 (#0258), GM 2B W7, Phase 4?; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, few minute black and white grits, medium to fine grain, 0.5 cm thick; very pale brown slip; matte, 

very dark brown paint.

WPV/VI

487. Bag 3766 (#0238), GM 2A (29), Phase 7(A?); neck 

sherd; pink fabric, many minute black and white grits, 0.7 cm 

thick; thin slip, color as paste, lightly burnished(?); cracked very 

dark brown paint.

WPVI

488. Box 867R (Figure 11.3g, #7267), GM 1B EBR (8), 

Phase 3; trefoil-mouth jug, mouth and neck fragment; height 4.7 

cm, mouth ~5 cm long; pink fabric, very hard, minute black and 

white grits, 0.5 cm; matte surface; bichrome dark red and very 

dark reddish-brown paint, four bands on the neck, bichrome 

strap on the front of the vessel.

WP Indeterminate

489. Box 838R (#7238), GM 1A TT1 (6), phase unknown; 

body sherd, closed vessel. 

BRII

490. Box 259 (#0252), GM 2B (12), Phase 3?; three body 

sherds, juglet?; red fabric, few minute white grits, very fine and 

compact, very hard, 0.2–0.3 cm thick; dark gray matte slip; 

matte white paint.

491. Box 262 (#0253), GM 2B (8), Phase 5; body sherds, 

closed vessel; dark gray fabric, few minute white grits, 0.4–0.6 

cm thick; matte dark gray slip, white paint.

492. Box 324 (#0261, right), GM 1C (4), Phase 3; jug handle; two deep grooves down the back; gray fabric, red to the surfaces, minute black and white grits, 2.3 cm wide, 0.8 cm thick; 

very dark gray lightly burnished slip.

493. Box 442 (#0326), GM 0B (6) 2, Phase 3; body sherd, 

closed vessel; very dark gray fabric, few minute white grits, 

metallic, 0.2 cm thick; very dark gray matte slip; matte white 

paint.

494. No box number (0244–0247), GM 2C W2, Phase 

2/3?; jug rim, neck, and handle; one incision down the back of 

the handle, plain everted rim; gray fabric, red to the surface, minute black and white grits, 0.2–0.5 cm thick; bumpy and worn 

surface; gray matte slip; very pale brown paint, traces of line 

groups pendent from the base of the neck.
690 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the handle, one at the base of the neck, concentric circles with a 

wider outer band on the body.

521. Box 269 (#0256), GM 2B W5, Phase 3; body sherd, 

closed vessel; gray fabric, many minute and small black and 

white grits, medium grained, 0.3–0.5 cm thick; smoothed matte 

surface; dark brown matte paint wider outer band on the body.

522. Box 385, GM 1D (3) 1, Phase 3?; jug neck and rim; 

diam. ~8.0 cm, height 3.5 cm, short, flaring mouth; white to 

very light pink fabric, few minute black and white grits, medium 

hard, 0.4–0.7 cm thick; matte surface; matte very dark brown 

paint.

523. Box 426, GMIV 0B (+), topsoil; closed vessel, handle 

fragment, 2.0 wide, 1.3 cm thick, oval section; very pale yellow 

fabric, minute black grits, fine to medium grain, medium hardness; very dark brown cracked paint.

524. Box 441 (Figure 11.12l, #0329), GM 0B (2) 2, Phase 

3/4?; jug body sherd; pale pink fabric, few minute and small 

white grits, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; matte surface; worn dark 

purplish-gray paint.

525. Box 467 (0271–0272), GM 00B TT3 (1), Phase 2; 

everted rim sherd, amphora?; diam. 14.0 cm; light brown fabric, 

medium sandy, many minute black, few small white calcite grits, 

0.4–0.5 cm; smoothed surface; very dark brown paint, lightly 

burnished over both slip and paint, rim exterior edged in dark 

brown, broad band inside top of rim.

526. Box 470 (#0280, top right), GM 00B (3), Phase 2; 

body sherd, closed vessel; light brown fabric, many minute and 

small black and white grits, slightly sandy, medium grain, 0.5 

cm thick; smoothed surface, as fabric; faded very dark brown 

paint.

527. Box 470 (#0280, bottom left), GM 00B (3), Phase 2; 

body sherd, closed vessel; light brown fabric, many minute and 

small black and white grits, slightly sandy, medium grain, ~0.3 

cm thick; smoothed surface as fabric; faded very dark brown 

paint.

528. Box 470 (#0280, lower right), GM 00B (3), Phase 2; 

neck sherd, closed vessel; pink to pinkish-brown fabric, minute 

white grits, slightly sandy, medium grain, very hard and dense, 

0.5 cm thick; very pale brown matte slip; weak red matte paint.

Field ST1

WP TLS

529. Box 776R (#6885, extreme left), GM ST1 (20); body 

sherd, jug?; light red fabric, many minute black and white grits, 

compact, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed and burnished surface, traces of mica; lustrous red paint.

WP ABBWL

530. Box 776R (#6885, top row), GM ST1 (20); body 

sherd, jug?; light pink fabric, minute black and white grits, compact, hard, 0.4 cm thick; smoothed surface; matte red to very 

dark brown paint.

509. Box 50 (Figure 11.12c, #0265), GM 1A (1B) 6, Phase 

2; body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, clean and fine 

grained, 0.2 cm thick; burnished red slip; matte weak red paint.

510. Box 287 (Figure 11.12d, #0259), GM 2B P17; Iron 

IIB; four body sherds, closed vessel; very pale brown and light 

red fabrics, fine grained, no visible grits, 0.2–0.4 cm thick; light 

red, red, and dark, weak red highly burnished surfaces; matte 

black paint.

511. Box 366, GM 2C W4, phase unknown; body sherd, 

closed vessel; light red fabric, clean and very fine grained, 0.2 cm 

thick; burnished red slip; matte weak red paint.

512. Box 426 (Figure 11.12e, #0327), GM 0B (+), topsoil; 

body sherd, closed vessel; red fabric, clean, very fine, compact 

and hard, 0.3 cm thick; highly burnished red surface; black 

paint, burnished over the paint.

513. Bag 3695 (#0235), GM 2A (2), Phase 7; body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, few minute white grits, 0.2 cm thick; 

worn red slip; dark red paint, burnished over both slip and paint.

514. Bag 6381 (#0237), GM 1C W8, Phase 6B/7; body 

sherd, closed vessel; very pale brown clean fabric, fine grained, 

0.3 cm thick; dark red slip; faded black paint, burnished over 

both slip and paint.

515. Box 554R, GM 1C (28), Phase 6?; juglet or flask spout; 

rim diam. 4.2 cm; light red fabric; dark red matte slip, mostly 

worn; dark reddish-brown paint.

516. Box 553E, GM 1C (8), Phase 1; juglet or flask spout; 

rim diam. 3.2 cm; red fabric; dark red slip; very dark reddishbrown paint, surface is worn and chipped.

Iron Age Bichrome

517. Box 4, GM 1A TT11 (15), Phase 3/4? Jug body sherd; 

pink fabric, many minute and small white grits, minute black 

grits, very hard, 0.4–0.5 cm thick; very pale brownish-white 

matte slip; very dark red and faded black matte paint.

518. Box 451 (Figure 11.12h, #0330), GM 0B (1) 1, Phase 

3; jug body sherd; pink fabric, many minute and small white 

calcite grits, very hard, 0.5 cm thick; matte surface, not well 

smoothed; bichrome weak red and very dark brown paint.

Iron Age WP

519. Bag 1859A (#0241), GM 2B P10, Phase 7 or 8?; amphora rim sherd; diam. 22.0 cm; flat/ledge rim; pink fabric, few 

small black and white grits, very dense and hard, fine to medium 

grained, 0.6 cm thick; very dark brown, matte smeary paint, 

wide band at the rim, band on top of the shoulder.

Iron Age WP or Bichrome

520. Box 240 (#0241), GM 2B TT3 (20), Phase 4?; jug, 

base of neck with handle stump; neck diam. ~3.4 cm; very pale 

brown fabric, few small white and black grits, medium to fine 

grained and compact, 0.5–0.7 cm thick; surface smoothed; faded 

very dark brown matte paint, one thin band on the neck below 
NUMBER 50 • 691

541. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, bottom, second from 

left), GM ST1 (4); body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, 

minute white grits, hard and compact, 0.5 cm thick; smoothed 

surface; red paint, burnished.

542. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, bottom, third from 

left), GM ST1 (4); body sherd, closed vessel; light red fabric, 

minute white grits, traces of mica, hard and compact, 0.4 cm 

thick; smoothed surface; red paint, burnished.

543. Box 780R+781R+782R, GM ST1 (2); body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, light red to the surface, minute white 

grits, traces of mica, hard and compact, 0.6 cm thick; smoothed 

surface; red paint, burnished, slightly cracked.

544. Box 779R (#6888, left), GM ST1 TT2 (1); body sherd, 

closed vessel; very pale brown to very pale pink fabric, many 

minute black grits, porous, medium hardness, 0.4 cm thick; 

smoothed surface, very dark brown paint, cracked and worn.

545. Box 837R (#7236, bottom left), GM ST1 TT1 (8); 

body sherd, closed vessel; probably Broad Band Style.

546. Box 837R (#7236, bottom right), GM ST1 TT1 (8); 

body sherd, closed vessel.

547. Box 837R (#7236, top left), GM ST1 TT1 (8); body 

sherd, closed vessel.

WPVI

548. Box 780R–782R, GMST1 (2); body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black grits, hard, porous, 0.5–0.6 cm 

thick; smoothed surface, very worn; brown cracked and flaking 

paint.

AUTHOR NOTE

Celia J. Bergoffen, Fashion Institute of Technology, State University of New 

York, 227 W. 27th St., New York, New York 10001-5992, USA. Correspondence: celia_bergoffen@fitnyc.edu. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; 

accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. Robert Koehl, e-mail message to author, August 3, 2011. I thank Professor 

Koehl for sharing his expertise in evaluating the Mycenaean material.

531. Box 779R (#6888, center), GM ST1 TT2 (1); body 

sherd, closed vessel; very pale brown to white fabric, few minute 

white grits, very fine and compact, 0.5 cm thick; burnished over 

the smoothed surface; very dark brown paint.

532. Box 779R (#6888, right), GM ST1 (1); body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black grits, traces of mica, very 

fine grain, 0.6 cm; burnished over the smoothed, worn surface 

and very dark brown paint.

WPV

533. Box 780R+781R+782R, GM ST1 (4B); body sherd, 

closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black grits, 0.7 cm thick; 

smoothed surface; very dark brown cracked paint, lightly burnished over surface and paint.

534. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, second row, left), GM 

ST1 (3); body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute white 

grits, 0.4 cm thick; lightly burnished self-slip; very dark brown 

lightly burnished paint, burnished over slip and paint.

535. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, top left), GM ST1 

(2); body sherd, closed vessel; very pale pink fabric, many minute black grits, hard, 0.6 cm thick; self-slipped, smoothed; dark 

brown cracked and worn paint.

536. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, top right corner), GM 

ST1 (2); sherd near rim, jug?; pink fabric, many minute black 

grits, hard, compact, 0.7 cm thick; very dark brown cracked 

paint.

537. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, top, second from 

left), GM ST1 (2); jug, fragment, rectangular section handle, 

plain rim; very pale pink to greenish-white fabric, minute black 

grits, 1.3 cm thick; self-slipped; dark brown paint, flaking and 

worn, horizontal bands on the back of the handle and down its 

sides, broad horizontal band inside the rim.

538. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, top, third from left), 

GM ST1 (3); body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, few minute 

black grits, some mica, medium fired, compact, 0.5 cm thick; 

self-slipped and lightly burnished; lustrous reddish-brown paint.

539. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, second row, right), 

GM ST1 (2); body sherd, closed vessel; pink fabric, minute black 

grits, compact, 0.5 cm thick; self-slipped and lightly burnished; 

very dark brown cracked paint.

540. Box 780R+781R+782R (#6901, second row, right), 

GM ST1 (2); body sherd, jug?; very pale brown to pinkish-white 

fabric, minute black grits, hard, 0.5 cm; surface smoothed; very 

dark brown paint, almost completely cracked off.
692 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

APPENDIX 11.1

BOX 493

BOX 517 1

BOX 502

BOX 517 2

BOX 518

0216

BOX 520A

BOX 520

0218

0219

0220

0221
NUMBER 50 • 693

0222

0223

0224

0225

0226

0227

0231

0234

0235

0236

0237

0238
694 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

0239

0241

0245

0248

0249

0250

0251

0252

0253

0254

0255

0256
NUMBER 50 • 695

0257

0258

0259

0260

0261

0263

0265

0266

0268

0271

0272

0273
696 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

0274

0280

0283

0286

0287

0288

0289

0290

0291

0294

0297

0298
NUMBER 50 • 697

0299

0301

0304

0306

0307

0308

0309

0310

0311

0312

0313

0315
698 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

0320

0324

0326

0327

0329

0330

2403

2404

2406

2407

2408

2409
NUMBER 50 • 699

2410

2413

2414

2415

2416

2417

2418

2419

2420

2421

2422

2423
700 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

2424

4496

4500

4502

4503

4505

4506

4508

4509

4511

4512

4515
NUMBER 50 • 701

4516

4518

4519

4520

4521

4523

4524

4525

4531

6885

6890

6901
702 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

6913

6914

6916

6927

6928

6931

6932

6933

6934

6935

6936

6937
NUMBER 50 • 703

6942

6944

6946

6950

6951

6952

6953

6956

6958

6959

6960
704 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

6964

6966

6968

6970

6972

6974

6976

6978

6980

6982 6984

6986

6962
NUMBER 50 • 705

6988

6990

6992

6994

6996

6998

7034

7039

7040

7041

7042
706 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7047

7048

7050

7052

7053

7055

7056

7058

7060

7062

7063

7065
NUMBER 50 • 707

7067

7068

7069

7070

7071

7072

7075

7078

7080

7081

7082

7083
708 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7085

7086

7088

7089

7090

7091

7092

7093

7095

7097

7098
NUMBER 50 • 709

7099

7100

7101

7102

7105

7106

7108

7109

7110

7112

7113

7103
710 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7114

7115

7116

7117

7118

7119

7120

7121

7122

7124

7125

7126
NUMBER 50 • 711

7127

7128

7129

7130

7131

7132

7133

7134

7135

7136

7137

7138
712 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7139

7140

7141

7143

7144

7145

7146

7147

7148

7149

7150
NUMBER 50 • 713

7151

7152

7153

7154

7155

7156

7157

7158

7160

7161

7162

7163
714 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7164

7165

7166

7167

7168

7169

7170

7171

7172

7174

7175

7176
NUMBER 50 • 715

7177

7178

7179

7180

7181

7182

7183

7184

7186

7188

7189

7190
716 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7192

7193

7194

7195

7196

7197

7198

7199

7200

7201

7202

7203
NUMBER 50 • 717

7205

7206

7209

7210

7211

7212

7213

7214

7230

7231

7233

7234
718 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7236

7237

7238

7241

7242

7243

7244

7245

7246

7247

7248

7249
NUMBER 50 • 719

7251

7252

7253

7255

7256

7257

7258

7259

7261

7263

7264

7265
720 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

7266

7267
12 Decorated Philistine Pottery

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This chapter discusses Decorated Philistine Iron Age pottery recovered from the Tell Jemmeh excavations, combining all fields 

of excavation as well as relevant finds from poorly defined contexts. Tell Jemmeh’s location several kilometers from the city of Gaza 

puts it well within the region of the Philistine material culture. Philistine pottery is the better known, more abundant and most distinct 

component of the Philistine material culture. Philistine Bichrome pottery was recognized as such for the first time in the beginning of 

the 20th century CE by F. B. Welch (1900) and then by D. Mackenzie in his excavation of tombs at Beth Shemesh (Mackenzie, 1913). 

R. A. S. Macalister after his excavations at Gezer published much Philistine Bichrome pottery (Macalister, 1912) and integrated it in 

the concept of the Philistine culture (Macalister, 1914; see review by Dothan, 1982:94; Sharon, 2001:560–576). Philistine Bichrome 

pottery, initially defined according to its decoration, is a distinct ware with black and red decoration over white slip depicting various 

imaginative decorative motifs. The excavations at Tell Qasile inspired T. Dothan, and later M. Dothan, to study the Philistine material culture, especially the pottery, in a more systematic way. This resulted in The Philistines and Their Material Culture by T. Dothan 

(1967, 1982), creating the typological framework for the Philistine Bichrome pottery and other aspects of Philistine material culture 

and focusing on its Aegean origins. Philistine Iron I pottery has received more attention since T. Dothan’s (1967, 1982) seminal works, 

particularly when the new finds, mainly from the four excavated Philistine pentapolis city sites, were discussed (mostly Ashdod, Tel 

Miqne-Ekron, and Ashkelon; see, e.g., Mazar 1985b; Dothan and Dothan, 1992; Killebrew, 1998a, 1998b; Dothan and Zukerman, 

2004; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a). 

In general, Philistine pottery forms and decoration are related in various degrees to Mycenaean pottery prototypes in the Aegean 

region and Cyprus (see, e.g., Dothan, 1982; Dothan and Zuckerman, 2004, for an overview). The earlier Philistine decorated pottery 

can be subdivided according to style of form and decoration into three stages. 

1. Philistine Monochrome pottery (also termed Mycenaean IIIC:1b; see, e.g., Killebrew, 2000; Dothan and Zukerman, 2004; also 

termed Philistine 1 by Dothan et al., 2006), which does not appear at Tell Jemmeh, is characterized by forms and decorative motifs more 

faithful to the Mycenaean prototypes, finer clay, and decoration with one color and no white slip. This pottery is found almost exclusively in the main Philistine cities and probably dates to the early and mid-12th century BCE, or the Iron IA (Ashdod, Strata XIIIb–XIII; 

Tel Miqne, Stratum VII; Ashkelon, Grid 38, Phase 19). 

2. Philistine Bichrome pottery (also termed Philistine 2; Dothan et al., 2006) is characterized by black and red decoration on chalky 

white slip in most cases. This pottery dates probably to the late 12th century and the 11th century BCE, or the Iron IB (possibly also 

early 10th century; Ashdod, Strata XIIIa–XI; Miqne, Strata VI–V). 

3. Philistine “degenerated/debased” pottery and/or red slipped (also termed Philistine 3; Dothan et al., 2006) has the Philistine 

form appearing in a degenerated form and/or is covered by red slip and lacks the red and black decoration (Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:30–31, 

45; Zukerman, 2012:285–286). It should be noted that this pottery is often decorated by one color, yet it is distinct from the earlier 

Philistine Monochrome ware. This Philistine pottery is probably dated to the late 11th century and 10th century BCE (e.g., Tel Miqne, 

Stratum IV). There is a certain overlap between each of these chronological phases; that is, at Ashdod, Stratum XII; Ashkelon, Phase 18; 

and Miqne, Stratum VI both Monochrome and Bichrome Philistine pottery appear. 

More recently, Iron II decorated pottery appearing in Philistia was also included in this category and was defined as Late Philistine Decorated Ware (LPDW; see Ben-Shlomo et al., 2004; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a; Kang and Garfinkel, 2009b). This pottery is characterized by “coastal” forms, mostly kraters, amphorae, jugs, and jars, and decoration or red slip, vertical hand burnish, and black and 
722 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

PHILISTINE BICHROME POTTERY

Typology

Bell-Shaped Bowls

Bell-shaped bowls (Figure 12.1) are the most common 

Philistine type at Tell Jemmeh as at other sites in Philistia. The 

Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped bowls (BSB) have a deep hemispherical body, with the rim usually everted and a ring or concave base and two horizontal handles with a rounded section. 

There are variations in size and shape, especially of the body profile (for example, Figure 12.1b has a more carinated body); sizes 

vary from small (diameter of 8–12 cm) to medium (diameter of 

12–18 cm). The decoration includes white slip or wash with red 

and black decoration. Several nearly complete examples were 

found (Figure 12.1a,b). The rims are usually simple and everted; 

one example (Figure 12.1f) has a more thickened rim. Although 

some of the bowls have the typical black and red decoration over 

white slip (see below), several examples have decoration only in 

red or brown (e.g., Figure 12.1d,e) over white slip. Most of the 

larger examples show a decorative composition of spirals stemming from the rim area (Figure 12.1h) and reaching the lower 

body, where they are delimited by horizontal lines. The handles 

are sometimes decorated by red vertical stripes (Figure 12.1c).

The parallels for Philistine Bichrome BSB are numerous (see, 

e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a, 2012a). Many examples come from 

Miqne, Strata VI–V (Dothan and Zukerman, In press b: pls. 40, 

57), Ashdod, Strata XII–XI (e.g., Dothan, 1982:98–106; Dothan 

and Porath, 1993: figs. 26, 40:1,2; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.46), Batash, Stratum V (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a:47–49, Type 

BL8), and Tell es-Safi (Bliss and Macalister, 1902: pl. 35; Maeir, 

2006: fig. 2:4; Zukerman, 2012: pls. 13.2–13.5). Other examples 

come from Azor (Ben-Shlomo, 2012a: fig. 5.3:1–4), Aphek, Strata 

X10–X9 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009: figs. 8.68:7,8, 8.73:11), and Tel 

Yarmut, Strata IV–IIIA (Jasmin, 1999: pls. 82, 84).

Bell-Shaped Kraters

Also common are bell-shaped kraters (Figure 12.2), although no complete example was found. Philistine bell-shaped 

kraters have a similar profile to the bell-shaped bowls and also 

have two horizontal handles but are larger and usually have a 

thickened rim. The Philistine Bichrome kraters can reach a diameter and depth of 40–45 cm. Their shape becomes less rounded 

with a slight body carination (see Dothan, 1982:106–115; 

Mazar, 1985a:90–92, Type 2; also from Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: 

pl. LXIV:42). Rims are thickened or flattened, either horizontal 

or slightly oblique, sometimes inward bulging (Types 2a and 2b at 

Qasile, Mazar, 1985a:90). Several rim sherds from Jemmeh show 

thickened (Figure 12.2d), inward slanting (Figure 12.2a), or even 

ledge rims (Figure 12.2b). Bell-shaped kraters are more elaborately decorated with spirals and other motifs (Figure 12.2e–j), 

which in our case are represented only in a fragmentary form. 

The top of the rim is often decorated by a red or black (Figure 

white painted decoration. Although the forms are not derived 

from the Aegean world, this ware seems to function as a typical decorated tableware like the Philistine pottery and is rather 

unique to Philistia (although the relative quantities are smaller). 

Chemical and petrographic analysis shows that this pottery was 

made in production centers at Ashdod and Gath (Ben-Shlomo 

et al., 2004; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a).

The absence of Philistine Monochrome pottery at Jemmeh is not surprising, as it is not one of the pentapolis sites 

and was probably only a secondary site in relation to Philistine culture, although it is located well within Philistia. The 

period of the appearance of Philistine Monochrome pottery 

during the early 12th century BCE is represented only by Phase 

7 in Field III and possibly the later part of Phase 1 in Field 

I (also possibly the town of the XVIII Dynasty excavated by 

Petrie, 1928: pl. VI). In these contexts the pottery includes LBII 

forms. 

A substantial amount of Philistine Bichrome pottery from 

Tell Jemmeh was published by Petrie (1928:23, pls. LXIII, 

LXIV), yet it is not possible to estimate the percentage of this 

pottery from the entire pottery assemblage of the Iron I. In the 

plates, most of the Philistine pottery, which is all Bichrome or 

degenerated, seems to comes from H, G, and later units, dated 

to the XXth Dynasty town (Petrie, 1928: pl. VII, the Iron IA); 

a minority of the fragments comes from Units J and K, dated 

to the XVIII Dynasty town (Petrie, 1928: pl. VI, roughly dating to the late LBII and Iron IA). These could have come from 

an intermediate floor level not detected by Petrie between the 

two “towns,” especially in the open areas as in Units JA, JB, JP, 

JS, and KA. Therefore, it might be assumed that the Philistine 

pottery at Tell Jemmeh comes from the XXth Dynasty town 

in Petrie’s excavations and in the Smithsonian Institution’s excavations from the Iron IB levels mainly in the nearby Field 

I FUR, above Phase 1 (FUR Phases 4–2), and in Field III in 

Phases 6 and 5. The morphological and decorative repertoire at 

Tell Jemmeh is nevertheless quite limited (see below); the relative quantity of this ware does not seem to be as high as at Philistine main city sites (see, e.g., Dothan and Zukerman, 2004; 

Ashdod, Stratum XI, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:132, fig. 

3.42); clearly, it comprises less than the 50% of the Iron I assemblages in Field III and Field I FUR, but exact numbers are 

not available. This is, again, not surprising, as the site was a 

secondary Philistine site, and, moreover, the Iron IB levels were 

exposed in very limited areas, especially in the Smithsonian 

Institution’s excavations (practically only in the small Field I 

FUR and the Field II and III trenches). Later, more degenerated 

Philistine decorated pottery (group 3 above) and late Philistine 

pottery were exposed, as the lower phases of Field IV (Phases 

11–9, dated to the Iron IIA) also included this pottery. In this 

period further types may reflect hybrid forms (especially one 

bowl type, Type BL5; Figure 12.5j–n) related to both Philistine 

and local pottery traditions.

The pottery will be discussed below according to morphological typology and the different groups as well as according to 

the decorative motifs that appear.
NUMBER 50 • 723

the spout and “false handle” (see also, from old excavations, Petrie, 1928: pl. LXIV:82–84). These are decorated by red bands on 

the hollow spout or the top of the false spout (Figure 12.3a,b). 

This very well known Aegean form, common in the LBII imports 

found at Levantine sites, is quite rare in the Philistine Monochrome pottery. The stirrup jars have a globular body and a ring 

base, two loop handles, a false spout and a vertical cylindrical 

spout rising to the same height as the false one (Furumark, 1941: 

type nos. FS170–171/173–177).

Other closed vessels are represented only by body fragments 

(Figure 12.3f–o, Field III, Phase 6), which represent strainer-spouted 

jugs or other types of jugs. One body fragment of a Philistine 

12.2d) or a double band (Figure 12.2b). Philistine Bichrome kraters are the second most common Philistine form after bell-shaped 

bowls, both in number and in geographical distribution, and they 

appear at Tel Miqne, Strata VIA–V; Ashdod, Strata XIIIA–XI; 

Tell es-Safi; and Ashkelon (see, e.g., Dothan, 1982:106–115; BenShlomo, 2006a:30–31, and references therein). 

Closed Vessels

Other types of Philistine Bichrome pottery are closed vessels, although they are rare at Tell Jemmeh. These include a couple of examples of stirrup jars (Figure 12.3a–d) represented by 

FIGURE 12.1. Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped bowls: (a) GMI FUR (1) 2, (b) GMIII A2 (18), (c) GMI FUR (1) 2, (d) GMI FUR (1), (e) GMI 

FUR (2) 2, (f) GMIII A2 (18), (g) GMIII A2 (13), (h) GMI FUR (1) 2, and (i) GMI FUR F2, Bag 5665.
724 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

any known Philistine Bichrome form (Figure 12.4). These include 

a large carinated bowl decorated by white slip and red stripes 

on the rim (Figure 12.4a) and several smaller open bowls with 

a rounded profile, decorated by white slip and inner red bands 

(Figure 12.4b,c). An open shallow bowl with a double horizontal 

handle (Figure 12.4d) is also decorated in white slip and may be 

similar to bowls with bar handles from Ashdod (Strata XII–XI, 

Dothan and Porath, 1993: figs. 26:9, 39:6; Stratum X, Dothan 

Bichrome closed vessel (Figure 12.3e) has perforations, indicating 

it was a strainer-spouted jug. Examples of spouts of strainer jugs 

appear more commonly later in red slip (see Figure 12.6). 

Types Related to Philistine Pottery

Several vessels may be related to Philistine Bichrome pottery because of their decoration style, but they do not conform to 

FIGURE 12.2. Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped kraters: (a) GMI FUR (2) 2, (b) GMI FUR (1) 2, (c) GMIII A2 (19), (d) GMI FUR (2) 2, (e) GMIII 

A3 (4), (f) GMI FUR (3) 2, (g–i) GMIII A2 (18), and (j) GMIII A2 (19).
NUMBER 50 • 725

Azor (Ben-Shlomo, 2012a: fig. 5.4:11). A neck of a jug(?) (Figure 

12.4f) is decorated by black over white slip and may be related 

to Philistine style.

Decorative Motifs

Generally, the decorative motifs on Philistine Bichrome 

pottery are placed in horizontal registers: one on open vessels 

and two on closed ones (belly and shoulder). The most common 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.68:1) and Tomb D56 at Azor (BenShlomo, 2012a: fig. 4.36:12,13). Dothan (1982:185–188, Type 

13, figs. 54, 55, and references therein) described this form as 

a hybrid of Canaanite and Egyptian forms, possibly imitating 

wooden bowls from Egypt (Dothan, 1982:188). The example 

from Jemmeh could also be a rim of a kylix (see Ben-Shlomo, 

2006a:31, for this type in Philistine pottery), but that is less likely. 

A tall vertical neck of a jug (Figure 12.4h) with a flaring 

rim may also be related to Philistine forms, with parallels from 

FIGURE 12.3. Philistine Bichrome stirrup jars and closed vessels: (a) GMI FUR (0) 3, Bag 5667; (b, c) GMI FUR (2) 2; (d) GMIII A2 (19), Bag 

1538/6; (e, f) GMIII A2 (19); (g) GMI FUR (0) 2; (h) GMI FUR (1), Bag 5661; (i) GM 1A (1) 10, Box 81; (j) GMI FUR (2) 2; (k) GMI FUR (1) 

2; (l) GM 2B (47) 2, Bag 6436A; (m) GMIII A2 (15) 1; (n) GMI FUR (0) 2; and (o) GMI FUR (1) 2.
726 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

spiral is filled, either in red (Figure 12.2f, body fragment) or in 

a pattern resembling a Maltese cross (Figure 12.2j; see Dothan, 

1982:204, fig. 66:18–20 for this motif). Spirals are combined 

with hatched lozenges (see below) on several krater fragments 

(Figure 12.2b). Another fragment (Figure 12.2c) shows the 

upper arm of a spiral filled with a ladder design; parallels come 

from Ashdod, Strata XII–XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

figs. 3.18:2, 3.20:10,11, 3.44:4).

Triglyphs

Triglyphs are the vertical element separating the decorative 

zones on the vessel’s body and are very common on Philistine 

pottery. These can comprise two vertical lines with a wavy line 

or zigzag in between (Figure 12.1g). Also appearing on body 

fragments of closed vessels are series of vertical lines in black 

(Figure 12.3i, may be part of a more complex motif; also possibly on a krater, Figure 12.2g). To these vertical rows of dotted semicircles are applied in a few cases (Figure 12.3g,i). For 

this design, see, e.g., Dothan (1982:214–215) and Ben-Shlomo 

(2006a:45). Horizontal registers are delimited by horizontal 

bands, usually in red (Figure 12.3h,k), appearing sometimes 

near the rims and usually below the motifs (two or three parallel 

lines, Figure 12.3j). Another example from a shoulder of a jug 

(Figure 12.3h) shows a vertical chevron design (see also Petrie, 

1928: pl. LXIV:50).

motifs include horizontal lines; single, antithetic (separated by a 

vertical wavy line), and stemmed spirals; antithetic and stemmed 

tongues (separated by various motifs); quirks; suspended semicircles; circles and half circles; birds; fish; checkerboards; lozenges; and triglyphs. Only some of these motifs appear in our 

assemblage.

Spirals

Spirals are the most common motif appearing both on bellshaped bowls and kraters (e.g., Figures 12.1, 12.2b,e,f). In most 

cases the spirals, drawn in red (as in Figure 12.2e) or black (as in 

Figure 12.2f), stem from the top of the vessel, create a loop sideways (Figure 12.1e), and spiral into their center (Figure 12.2j). 

Commonly, on bowls at least two symmetric spirals are drawn 

on each side (see Dothan, 1982:204), whereas on kraters more 

spirals can appear. In some cases the spirals are carelessly drawn 

and the loop is omitted (Figure 12.1i), or they are not perfectly 

rounded or symmetrical (Figure 12.1b). In a few cases a vertical wavy line is drawn between the spirals (Figure 12.1b,h, 

mostly in bowls; see also Petrie, 1928: pl. LXIV:66–68). Another variant of this motif has a wavy line delimited between 

two straight lines (Figure 12.1e). Parallels for such spirals and 

wavy lines are common on Philistine BSB and bell-shaped kraters (e.g., Dothan, 1982: fig. 66:2–6; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.15:5,7,10,11). In a few examples the “eye” of the 

FIGURE 12.4. Forms possibly related to Philistine pottery: (a) GMI FUR (1), Bag 5661; (b) GMI FUR (2) 2; (c) GMI FUR (3) 2; (d) GMI FUR 

(0) 2; (e) GM 2B W37, Bag 5225; (f) GMI FUR (0) 2; (g) GMI FUR (0) 3, Bag 5667; and (h) GMI FUR (+), Bag 5629.
NUMBER 50 • 727

tail on the left side; similarly, partial bird motifs may appear on 

smaller body fragments in Figures 12.3j,k and 7.55d. 

PHILISTINE DEGENERATED 

AND RED-SLIPPED POTTERY

Degenerated Philistine pottery is represented by degenerated 

and/or red-slipped bell-shaped bowls (Figure 12.5; see also Petrie, 1928: pls. XLVII:10, L:23u–y,24o,q). These appear alongside 

the Philistine Bichrome pottery in later Iron IB phases such as 

in Field I FUR, Phases 1 and 2 and Field III, Phase 5. Furthermore, these bowls appear also in Field III, Phases 5–4 (Figures 

3.165c, 3.168d–g) and Field II, Phases 4–3 (Figure 4.29h) as 

well as Field IV, Phases 11–9 (Figure 12.5f–h), dated to the Iron 

IIA. The nonslipped degenerated bell-shaped bowls could have a 

regular rounded profile, but the horizontal handle would be fully 

attached to the body of the vessel (Figure 12.5b) and thus degenerated (see, e.g., Dothan, 1982:197; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:30, 

fig. 1.17:10–12). One example has four parallel bands under 

the handle (Figure 12.5a), but otherwise, these do not show 

Lozenges

 Lozenges appear on several examples of kraters, usually 

associated with spirals (Figure 12.2b). These are drawn in black 

and are hatched and usually lie in between two spirals (Figure 

12.3f; see also Petrie, 1928: pls. LXIII:19,21, LXIV:62,71). Lozenges are common in Philistine Bichrome pottery (e.g., Dothan, 

1982:212, fig. 70); for this specific composition on kraters, see, 

e.g., Ashdod, Stratum XII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.19:1,2).

Other Motifs

Other motifs do not appear clearly, yet the following motifs 

were found in Petrie’s excavations: double axe (Petrie, 1928: pls. 

LXIII:30, LXIV:75), filled semicircles or scales (Petrie, 1928: pl. 

LXIV:63), and a Maltese cross (Petrie, 1928: pl. LXIV:47). One 

of the best-known Philistine motifs is the bird, yet it does not appear fully on any of the Philistine fragments from Tell Jemmeh, 

although fragments of this motif may appear on a few sherds. 

For example, Figure 12.2f may show the lower edge of a bird’s 

FIGURE 12.5. Degenerated Philistine bowls, red-slipped Philistine bowls, and hybrid bowls: (a) GMI FUR (1), Bag 5661; (b) GMI FUR F2, Bag 

1073; (c) GMI FUR (2) 2; (d) GMI FUR (3) 2; (e) GM 2B TT10; (f) GM 2C (7) 1, Bag 4383; (g) GMI KB (26) 5, Bag 1320A; (h) GM 2B (64), 

Bag 4983A; (i) GM 1C (28) 4, Bag 3020; (j–l) GM 2B (58), Bag 5227; (m) GM 2B (58A), Bag 4975; and (n) GM 2B P35, Bag 5178.
728 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

at Khirbet Qeiyafa (Kang and Garfinkel, 2009b:154–155, fig. 

7.4) in the early Iron IIA. For other examples of red-slipped and 

degenerated SSJ, see Dothan (1982:191–194, Type 17, and references therein), Ashdod, Stratum X (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: fig. 3.72), and Qasile, Stratum X (Mazar, 1985a: figs. 

35:2,3, 36:1, 50:2,3). A spout of strainer-spouted jug from Field 

I, Square KB (Figure 12.6h) has black and white stripes on the 

top of the red-slipped rim. It is therefore decorated in the LPDW 

tradition (see below). 

Another long conical spout from a similar context at GMI 

KB (Figure 12.6i) is red slipped and burnished and may belong 

to a jug of the feeding bottle type. This type of vessel also has 

sources in Mycenaean pottery and has a globular or ovoid body, 

ring base, short cylindrical spout applied on the shoulder, elongated neck, everted rim, and a basket handle (Furumark, 1941: 

type no. FS162). It appears in the Philistine Monochrome and 

Bichrome styles (Dothan and Zukerman, 2004:24, Type J, fig. 

30:6, and Aegean parallels therein), whereas Iron IIA examples 

are covered with red slip and can be related to the late Philistine 

degenerated pottery like that at Ashdod, Stratum X (Dothan, 

1971: fig. 74:12; Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 45:1; BenShlomo, 2003:93, fig. 4:7, 2006a: fig. 1.19:13).

LATE PHILISTINE DECORATED POTTERY

The pottery ware defined as Late Philistine Decorated Ware 

(LPDW, or Ashdod ware) appears in Philistia in the periods immediately after the disappearance of “classical” Philistine pottery of 

the Iron I (Ben-Shlomo et al., 2004; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:46–88). 

Although the forms characterizing the Iron I Philistine pottery, 

with roots in the Aegean world, disappear in this stage, a certain 

type of decorated pottery can be defined that is unique to Philistia. The quantities of this pottery are nevertheless lower than 

the Iron I Philistine pottery. At Tell Jemmeh only a few examples 

decorative motifs. Parallels for these bowls come from Qasile, 

Strata XI–X (Mazar, 1985a: figs. 19:1,2, 24:12,13, 34:6), Ashdod, Strata XI–X (e.g., Dothan, 1971: Fig. 74:3), Tel Miqne, 

Stratum IV (e.g., Ortiz, 2000:162–163, fig. 7:1–5), Aphek, 

Strata X10–X9 (Gadot and Yadin, 2009:208, fig. 8.15:1), and 

Azor (Ben-Shlomo, 2008a:43, 2012a: Type BSB2; see also BenShlomo, 2006a: fig. 1.17:10–12).

Red-slipped (and burnished) BSBs with degenerated horizontal handles appear in Iron IIA and IIB-C levels of Fields II, 

III, and IV (Figure 12.5e–h) and have an almost straight profile 

near the rim (Figure 12.5f,g), which is often thickened (Figure 

12.5e). The handle can be very small and is totally merged with 

the body. One example (Figure 12.5i) from Field IV, Phase 6 has 

a carination under the vertical rim. Another complete example 

from Phase 11 (Figure 12.5e) has a more rounded body but two 

grooves under the rim, similar to coastal Iron IIA bowl types (see 

Figures 8.26c–f, 8.11o–p from Field IV). Parallels for red-slipped 

bell-shaped bowls come, for example, from Tel Miqne (Ortiz, 

2000: fig. 7:6), Qasile (Mazar, 1985a: figs. 25:11, 29:14–15, 

34:9), Aphek (Gadot and Yadin, 2009: fig. 8.83:10), Ashdod 

(Dothan, 1971: fig. 74:2; Dothan and Porath, 1993: figs. 45:1, 

47:10), and Azor (Ben-Shlomo, 2012a: fig. 5.3:4).

Fragments of red-slipped and sometimes burnished strainerspouted jugs (SSJ; Figure 12.6a–g) also appear; these usually 

occur in the form of spout fragments attached to the perforated 

body part (Figure 12.6a,b); a number of these were collected from 

Field III, Phase 4 and Field IV, Phases 10–7 (Figure 12.6c–g). A 

red-slipped and burnished basket handle from Field IV, Phase 8 

(Figure 8.43d) possibly also belongs to a strainer-spouted jug. 

Another variant of this type is red-slipped strainer-spouted jugs 

with long spouts (Figure 8.28l,m, Field IV; see also Petrie, 1928: 

pls. XLVII:6, LVIII:67s; these could also belong to the LPDW 

group as we do not know the style of decoration on the body). 

This type also appears at Azor cemetery (Ben-Shlomo, 2012a: 

fig. 5.4:3,4, Type SSJ2) dated to the late Iron IB and Iron IIA and 

FIGURE 12.6. Red-slipped strainer-spouted jug fragments and spouts: (a) GM 2B (41), Bag 1850/1; (b) GMIII A2 (9), Bag 5025/4;(c) GMIII 

A2 (9), Bag 5024/3; (d) GM 2B (61) 3, Bag 5200; (e) GMIII A2 (7), Bag 1494/2; (f) GM 2B (57), Bag 5003/4; (g) GM 2B P35, Bag 5178/4; (h) 

GMI KB P3, Bag 608; and (i) GMI KB P4, Bag 746.
NUMBER 50 • 729

(Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:176, fig. 3.72:4; see also Dothan and Freedman, 1967: fig. 36:16), yet this design is different. 

The base of a vessel, possibly a closed krater (Figure 8.65n), is 

red slipped and vertically burnished; the base has three handles 

attached to it, a known Iron II form (see, e.g., Kadesh Barnea, 

Stratum 2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: fig. 11.98:17), 

but the decoration seems LPDW style.

Complete examples of LPDW appear in Field IV, Square 2B 

and include an amphora from Phase 8 (Figure 12.7c; see also 

Phase 10, Figure 8.12i). The neck is cylindrical with a thickened rim, and two loop handles are attached from a ridge in the 

of LPDW appear (Figures 12.7, 12.8); however, they are distinct 

and include several complete items (Figures 12.7b,c, 12.8a,b).

A good example of LPDW is shown by a jar fragment (Figure 12.7a). The fragment includes the shoulder and upper body 

of a jar that seems to be of a typical Iron II storage jar (see, 

e.g., Figure 8.63b). The decoration includes red slip and vertical 

burnish on the body; on the shoulder there are interchanging 

black and white horizontal bands (at least three sets). The handle 

is decorated by vertical and horizontal black bands creating a 

netted pattern, similar to the handle of Figure 12.7a. A similar 

jar type with LPDW decoration appears at Ashdod, Stratum X 

FIGURE 12.7. Late Philistine decorated pottery (LPDW): (a) GM 2B (41), Bag 1867/1; (b) GM 2B (41) 2, Bag 1853; and (c) GM 2B (42), “Ron 

Gardiner’s List” l.
730 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

in its center, with the axis perpendicular to the neck, and more 

globular on its sides. The sides are closed by a spherical thrown 

shape showing a “nipple” from the outside, similar to flasks. 

Thus, the vessel’s base was probably rounded. The decoration is 

rather complex: the vessel is red slipped and burnished. On the 

neck there are black and white horizontal bands; the handle has 

vertical and horizontal black bands creating a net pattern. On 

the body there seems to be a net design (lozenges?; see Petrie, 

1928: pl. LX:86) painted in black and white, and the nippled 

sides have spirals or concentric circles on them. 

This shape resembles earlier (late Iron I–early Iron IIA) 

Phoenician-type flasks or globular jugs/flasks, for example, from 

Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. LX:86), Qasile, Stratum X 

(Mazar, 1985a:67–68, fig. 41:11,13), Batash, Stratum IV (Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 79:10, Type JG31), and Tel Dor 

(Gilboa and Sharon, 2003: fig. 11:11), and also smaller Cypriot 

vessels (Tel Dor, Iron Age 1/2 horizon, Gilboa and Sharon, 2003: 

fig. 11:18). Similarly decorated flasks or jugs were found at Tel 

middle of the neck to the shoulder; the body is globular, and the 

base is rounded to slightly pointed. The vessel is decorated in sets 

of horizontal parallel black bands delimiting white bands on the 

neck and on the body. Another elongated cylindrical neck may 

belong to a jug or an amphora (Figure 8.43b) and has the same 

surface treatment, and one preserved handle was attached to a 

delicate ridge in the mid neck; thus, this vessel is probably an 

amphora similar to Figure 12.7c. For this form, see Ben-Shlomo 

(2006a:53, fig. 1.29, especially Type AM1B, fig. 1.29:8). A fragment of a closed vessel decorated by vertical burnish on red lip 

may be an amphoriskos or a jug (Figure 8.42j; see Ben-Shlomo, 

2006a:62, fig. 1.33:9; Shai and Maeir, 2012:338, Type JG8). 

A fine example of a nearly complete LPDW vessel is a jug 

or flask richly decorated in the LPDW style (Figure 12.7b). The 

vessel, which was not restored, although many fragments of it 

were found, has a tall neck with a wide, flaring, vertical rim. 

One handle is attached from a ridge in the middle of the neck 

to the shoulder. The body of the vessel seems to be cylindrical 

FIGURE 12.8. Late Philistine decorated pottery (LPDW): (a) GM 2B (41) 3, RV 1028; (b) GM 2B (41), RV 1013; (c) GM 2B (37) 2, Box 94; 

(d) GM 2B (60); (e) GM 2B (36) 2B, Bag 6584; (f) GM 2B (41) 2, Bag 2362; (g, h) GM 2A (30), Bag 3551; (i) GM 2B (42, 40) 4.
NUMBER 50 • 731

and possibly Assyrian attributes (regarding the Assyrian issue, it 

should be noted that Assyrian-style pottery appears quite later 

during the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE).

DISCUSSION

The Philistine decorated pottery at Tell Jemmeh can be seen 

as a reflection of a second level of distribution of this pottery in 

the Philistine core area. The first level would be the five Philistine 

city sites (see Ben-Shlomo, 2006a). The appearance of this pottery during the Iron IB and its later derivatives during the Iron 

IIA indicate that Tell Jemmeh was a site with Philistine material 

culture. In addition, several Aegean-style cooking jugs appear at 

the site (Figure 7.53b–d) and further display the Philistine influence there (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al., 2008, on these vessels 

and their significance). 

According to petrographic analysis, almost all the Philistine 

pottery analyzed was produced locally at the site or in its vicinity 

(possibly some came from the Ashkelon area; see chapter 15), 

and therefore, this pottery was produced and consumed at the 

site on a regular basis. Nevertheless, several elements of the Philistine material culture, such as Aegean-style figurines (see BenShlomo and Press, 2009) are missing, except for a single example 

from Petrie’s excavations of a female with upraised arms, possibly mourning (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVI:2; Dothan, 1982:246, 

fig. 12:1), but this lack could be due to the limited exposure. 

An interesting phenomenon is the more intensive hybridization occurring on pottery forms during the Iron IIA and possibly later. At least one bowl type (Figure 12.5; chapter 8, Type 

BL5) shows a mixture of Philistine traits such as the degenerated 

horizontal handle, local traits and elements such as the shape 

and the red burnished slip, and possibly Assyrian-related influences that are possibly evident in the highly carinated shape 

and metallic appearance. These bowls come mostly from Field 

IV, Phases 10–8, with a few examples from later phases. Thus, 

their chronological context makes the association with Assyrian 

types problematic. Nevertheless, there might have been earlier 

influences in this region from Neo-Assyrian-style pottery, resulting in this hybrid type, but only further research may prove this 

suggestion. It has been suggested that Assyrian-style pottery of 

the Iron IIC (see chapter 13) may have even replaced to certain extent the social and cultural role of Philistine decorated 

pottery, which was produced during the Iron I and Iron IIA-B 

(Zukerman, 2011:468).

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

Masos, Stratum I, House 314, Room 311 (Fritz and Kempinski, 

1983: pl. 145:1) and Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor and Bonfil, 2003: fig. 

146:6). Parallels for the LPDW decoration are rare (see Tell Keisan, Level 9, Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 62:6; also a similar 

design from Megiddo on a three-handled-base vessel, Schumacher, 1908:88, fig. 123).

Two nearly complete globular jugs with ridged rims from 

Phases 8–7 (Figure 12.a,b) may also be related to the LPDW 

because of their surface treatment (vertical red burnish; see a 

similar shape from Ashdod, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.85:9, in LPDW style). A complete jug found possibly in Phase 

7 (Figure 12.8b) has a globular body, long neck, and a ring base; 

the handle is attached to the ridge in the neck; its surface treatment includes red slip and vertical burnish on the neck and upper 

body and possibly decoration on the body (black circles?), and 

thus it may relate to the LPDW group.

In addition to these examples, several body fragments from 

closed vessels carry LPDW-style decoration of vertical red burnish and black and white decoration of horizontal bands (Figure 

12.8c–f). The neck of a large jar or bottle (or a stand; Figures 

12.8i, 8.66m, Phase 7/8?) is also decorated by red slip (no burnish) and interchanging black- and cream-colored horizontal 

bands. However, this vessel may not be related to the LPDW and 

may be linked to southern groups of Iron IIB-C pottery such as 

the Edomite or Midianite wares (see, e.g., Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.80:5).

Hybrid Red-­Slipped Bowls

A group of carinated bowls (Figure 12.5j–n, denoted Type 

BL5 in chapter 8) from Field IV, mostly Phases 10–8, may also 

be related to late Philistine pottery of the Iron IIA-B and possibly 

later. These include two nearly complete profiles (Figure 12.5j,k) 

and are characterized by a thick red slip with mostly hand but 

also wheel burnish, creating sometimes a glossy appearance 

(Figure 12.5n; see also Petrie, 1928: pl. XLIX:18d,e). The rim 

is vertical, slightly thickened on both sides; the section under 

the rim is vertical, creating a neck appearance, and is grooved 

or ridged, and the body of the bowl has a very sharp carination 

on the lower part, with a rounded outer profile. The connection 

to Philistine pottery is reflected by the very small degenerated 

horizontal handle applied on the neck region (e.g., Figure 12.5n, 

Bag 5178/3). As noted, the shape of these bowls may recall to a 

certain extent later Assyrian-style bowls, especially the grooving 

and sharp carination, as well as the rounded base, probably with 

some relation to metal bowls. However, the globular lower part 

and the degenerated horizontal handle might recall Philistine 

bell-shaped bowls. On the other hand, some plain bowls from 

the Iron IIA have similar profiles (e.g., Ashdod, Strata X–IX, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.82:18; see more parallels in 

chapter 8, Figure 8.26h–p), with either a rounded or ring base. It 

seems, however, that this type, with its metallic attributes, is an 

Iron II hybrid type, maybe combining local Canaanite, Philistine, 
13 Assyrian-Style Pottery 

(Palace Ware)

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION

One of the more distinct phenomena at Tell Jemmeh is the large amount of what is often termed Assyrian palace ware, or palace 

ware, and is termed here Assyrian-style pottery (Figure 13.1). This pottery ware was already identified by Petrie (1928:23–24, pl. LXV; 

Figure 13.2), making Tell Jemmeh the first place in the Levant where this pottery was recognized. In fact, this site is probably the most 

important site in the Levant for studying this pottery because, to date, it has produced more Assyrian-style pottery than all Levantine 

sites put together. 

Assyrian palace ware is a term used for the luxury ware of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (e.g., Lines, 1954; Oates, 1959; see also 

Anastasio, 2010:32; Hausleiter, 2010), but it is also used in the Levant. This is a wheel-made (thrown?) ware produced in forms such 

as bowls, beakers, and miniature jars and bottles as well as goblets, all with everted or flaring rims. These vessels also illustrate an 

extreme thinness of the body walls and fine levigation of the clay and possibly were fired at a high temperature (Rawson, 1954; Oates, 

1959:135–136; Hausleiter, 1999a, 1999b; Oates and Oates, 2002). 

FIGURE 13.1. Collective photo of Assyrian-style pottery.
NUMBER 50 • 733

FIGURE 13.2. Assyrian-style pottery from Petrie’s excavation (Petrie, 1928: pl. LXV).
734 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TYPOLOGY OF ASSYRIAN-STYLE 

POTTERY AT TELL JEMMEH

Assyrian-style pottery at Tell Jemmeh was already identified and separated within the excavation in the field. These 

pottery sherds were picked out according to both fabric and 

shape characteristics (Figure 13.1). These come from Iron IIC 

or later contexts almost exclusively from Field IV. The vessels 

and sherds (sometimes very small) included in the group are 

mostly made of light-colored highly levigated clay (but other 

clays also appear; see below) and/or illustrate several restricted 

forms (basically bowls and beakers) that are often characterized by a thin, eggshell body, globular shape, sharp carination, 

and sharp ridges on the vessel body, usually in the area of the 

shoulder. Thus, every single sherd with these traits was picked 

up and separated in the excavation. Of the 2,157 sherds picked 

out, 5 beakers and 176 bowls were reconstructed to complete 

or partial form (from which three beakers and eight bowls were 

complete). A selection of 134 items is illustrated and discussed 

here (see Table 13.2). 

The typology of the Assyrian-style pottery in the Levant was 

recently studied by Stern (2001:36–41, In press).1

 Basically, two 

classes of vessels appear in this group: bowls and beakers (or 

goblets/bottles), both characterized by an everted flaring rim and 

relatively wide opening and prominent ridges on the body. The 

bowls can generally be divided into two groups: carinated, globular, usually thin-walled bowls (Figures 13.3, 13.4) and thicker, 

shallow, open bowls (Figure 13.5), with flatter bases. However, 

as this is a large (the largest in the Levant) and somewhat diversified assemblage of Assyrian-style pottery, a finer and more 

detailed typology is also attempted. In addition, a large group of 

the Assyrian-style pottery was subjected to mathematical analysis on the basis of 3-D scanning (chapter 16), and a comparison 

between the visual typology and the mathematical analysis is referred in the two chapters.

For a complete typology of this ware, see Anastasio 

(2010:34–59) for the entire Near East and Stern (in press) for 

the southern Levant. These studies indicate that the forms found 

at Tell Jemmeh are only a small portion of the Neo-Assyrian 

pottery assemblage. Neo-Assyrian pottery also includes glazed 

pottery (see, e.g., Green, 1999:109; Anastasio, 2010:32, pl. 60), 

which is not represented in the Levant (apart from a possible 

fragment from ‘Aroer; Barag, 2011).

Bowls

Globular Bowls

Globular bowls are the most common Assyrian-style pottery 

type. They have a flaring rim, usually thin or very thin, and sharp 

carination, often with one or two prominent ridges (e.g., Figure 

13.3a,g,i,j) modeled and smoothed on the outer surface of the 

bowl and located just above the carination (e.g., Figure 13.3e, 

16.5 cm diameter). In smaller and thinner bowls the ridges are 

either very thin (as Figure 13.3h,m,o) or do not appear (Figures 

The appearance and morphology of some of these vessels 

indicate they are most likely imitations of metal vessels (see, 

e.g., Nimrud, a silver beaker [Mallowan, 1966: fig. 356], a silver carinated bowl [Hussein, 2008: fig. 12f], golden carinated 

bowls [Curtis, 2008: fig. 29e], and bronze bowls [Curtis, 2008: 

fig. 29g]). As already noted by Petrie (1928:24), the Assyrianstyle pottery, or at least some forms of it, brings to mind late 

Assyrian metal and ceramic vessels: “The ware has always a 

matt surface, though the paste is very fine. The thin brown varieties are of a 1/12 to 1/16th inch thick; the pale drab are 

only 1/20 inch; the thinnest pottery that I have ever seen. The 

thinness of this resembles Assyrian dishes, and forms 1 to 3 

are like an Assyrian silver bowl (Brit. Mus.).” A globular carinated bronze bowl in this form was recently published from an 

Assyrian burial at Tel Rehov (Mazar and Ah>ituv, 2011:274, 

fig. 8:6). 

Bowls resembling palace ware bowls, especially globular 

carinated ones, probably made of precious metals, are often depicted in Assyrian iconography. Some examples are in the scene 

of Ashurbanipal poring libation over dead lions (a wall relief 

from Nineveh, Kuyunjik [Pritchard, 1954:324–325, no. 626]; 

also a king holding a globular bowl, Ashurnasirpal II [Ataç, 

2010:18–19, figs. 13, 14, 74, 75, 96:H-29, a fluted bowl]) 

and possibly also on a funerary stela from Zinjirli in northern Syria (Pritchard, 1954:325, no. 630, here a deeper bowl, 

possibly a beaker, is depicted). These depictions probably reflect the importance these vessels had in the Assyrian court and 

culture.

Although palace ware pottery from the Levant can show 

morphological technological affinities to the Assyrian palace 

ware, it cannot be assumed, however, that the assemblage from 

Tell Jemmeh, as well as most other vessels in the Levant termed 

palace ware, was actually produced in Assyria. In fact, most evidence so far indicates that these vessels or at least some of them 

were locally made in the Levant (see Engström, 2004; Stager et 

al., 2011:117–121; see also below and chapter 15), and so far 

no clear evidence has been found for any single vessel termed as 

palace ware found outside Assyria to have been imported from 

Assyria proper. In addition, only a fraction of the Assyrian palace ware types appearing in Assyria (e.g., Oates, 1959; Anastasio, 2010) appear in Levantine sites. A recent study has shown 

that the palace ware from Assyria proper (and the adjacent territories) shows a higher firing technique (about 1,050°C) and a 

more finely levigated clay than vessels known in the Levant; the 

vessels in Assyria are also more standardized in form and capacity (Hunt, 2012a, 2012b). 

Therefore, in discussion of the Assyrian-style pottery from 

Tell Jemmeh a “phenomenological” approach will be used, not 

immediately creating a strong link with the Assyrian center a 

priori. The assemblage from Tell Jemmeh will be defined and 

described according to its morphological typology and its technological and fabric characteristics; the context where these vessels were found will also be discussed. Similar vessels from the 

southern Levant will be surveyed, and only then will a comparison with pottery from Assyria be made.
NUMBER 50 • 735

13.3m,p). Several rounded base fragments, probably of globular bowls, are illustrated (Figure 13.6l,m); these have delicate 

concentric grooving on their lower part. Some of the fragments 

of the flaring rim and ridged body sherds may belong to either 

globular bowls or beakers (Figure 13.7f–j; see below). This type 

of globular carinated bowl is also well defined according to 

mathematical analysis and clustering (see chapter 16, Types 1 

and 2, Figure 16.4).

A few bowls (two or three complete examples at Figure 

13.3k,n,p) have a carination somewhat lower (denoted low 

carination globular bowls). One example has three ridges and 

an almost flat base (Figure 13.3n, from Building I, Room F; 

denoted by Van Beek as an “imitation”); another example (Figure 13.3p) has a sharp carination with now ridges. The third 

example (Figure 13.3k) has a very low and sharp carination 

but no ridges above it; instead, there are three lines that were 

incised before firing horizontally under the rim and above the 

carination. Possibly, this decoration was intended to replace the 

ridges.

Several examples of globular bowls clearly have evidence of 

higher carination (Figure 13.4a–e, possibly also Figure 13.4f,g). 

13.3p, 13.4m,o). The base, when preserved, is rounded (Figures 

13.3d,k, 13.6l,m) or almost flat (Figure 13.3a,n,p). The bowls 

vary in size and thickness; some have the thickness of an eggshell 

throughout (about 1 mm, Figure 13.3g), and some are very thin 

only near the rim (Figure 13.4n,o). The diameter ranges between 

12 and 18 cm, with some very small examples at 8.5–10 cm 

(Figure 13.3o,p); height, when preserved, is between 6 and 8 cm. 

Examples come from Petrie’s (1928: pl. LXV:1–3) excavations 

as well.

The profiles of the globular bowls can be tentatively further 

subdivided according to their location of carination: high, middle, or low on the body’s profile. The most common are bowls 

with middle-height carination (Figure 13.3a–d,g). Several complete or nearly complete examples include Figure 13.3a–g,k–p. 

Many fragments are of thin, everted rims, probably belonging to 

this type, often with a diameter of 12–14 cm (Figure 13.4h–r); 

many body fragments preserving the midbody outer ridges were 

also found. The proportions of the bowls also vary, as many 

flaring rim fragments indicate a wide opening (the bowl having its widest diameter on the rim, as in Figure 13.3a,g); other 

examples have their widest part in the carination area (Figure 

FIGURE 13.3. Assyrian-style pottery: globular bowls.
736 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Open Bowls

The second category of bowls in the Assyrian-style pottery, 

less common than the globular bowls (at least from this assemblage), is open bowls (Figures 13.5, 13.6a–c; Stern, In press: pl. 

14.4.2:1). These bowls usually have rather thick walls and flat 

bases but also show some variation in profile; they are generally 

made of coarser clay than the globular bowls. The most common 

form has a thick, flaring, almost horizontal rim, slightly rounded 

open body with one or two thick outer ridges (Figure 13.5a,b), 

and a flat disk base with a thick ridge creating a “step” above 

it (denoted stepped-base bowls). Often the disk base has a wide 

circular groove roughly in the middle (Figure 13.5a), creating 

a thick ring. Complete examples show a diameter of 18–26 cm 

and a height of 6–8 cm (e.g., Figure 13.5a, 22.5 cm in diameter). 

Several variants on this bowl were published by Petrie (1928: pl. 

LXV:11–12, 19–23; see also Figure 13.2 herein), and those complete examples have a diameter of up to 30 cm. In fact, according 

to him, this type, referred to as plates, was the most common 

type in the large pit deposit of Assyrian-style pottery excavated 

by him (see below and Petrie, 1928:24).

This type of bowl is possibly not as well defined or standardized as the globular carinated bowls; according to the mathematical analysis, most of these bowls are split between Types 

4 and 8 (Figures 16.6, 16.10). A small carinated bowl (11.5 

cm diameter) with a delicate ring base (Figure 8.117c) recalls 

In a nearly complete large example (Figure 13.4a) with a diameter of 20 cm, the carination is just under the thick, slightly 

everted rim and has the thick ridge and a thinner ridge under it. 

These vessels (Figure 13.4c,d) were also clustered together on 

the mathematical analysis (chapter 16, Type 3, Figure 16.5, although Figure 13.4e was grouped with Type 7, Figure 16.10). 

Another small bowl (Figure 13.4b, diameter of about 10 cm) 

with a rounded base has a somewhat inverted rim (very unusual 

for this ware) and a delicate ridge above the high carination. It 

seems that, in general, the high carination globular bowls have a 

less flaring rim than the more common globular bowls. 

Mathematical analysis of the profiles of these bowls shows 

that, in general, this typological division is also created using 

mathematical procedures (see chapter 16, Figures 16.2–16.10), 

with a certain group being more well defined morphologically.

Globular Assyrian-style bowls are possibly the most common 

Assyrian-style type in the Levant, and parallels will be discussed 

below (in the distribution section). For this type in Assyria, see 

Oates (1959:132, 142, Type 59, pl. XXXVII:59) and Anastasio 

(2010:41–42, Type BW_30, pl. 15:1–10); this type is defined as a 

“carinated bowl with simple round base and accentuated everted 

lip” (Stern, In press: pl. 14.4.1:1–5,7). It should be noted that 

although this type is probably the most common one in Assyrianstyle pottery at Tell Jemmeh, it is considered very rare in the Assyrian Fort Shalmaneser and is found more commonly in Nimrud 

(Lines, 1954:165, pl. XXXVII:7,8; Oates, 1959:132). 

FIGURE 13.4. Assyrian-style pottery: globular bowls.
NUMBER 50 • 737

Hrouda, 1962: pl. 62:172; Amiran, 1969:212, photos 225, 226, 

pl. 99), Nimrud (Gilboa, 1996: fig. 3:14,15), possibly Qasrij 

(Curtis, 1989: fig. 23:8,10), Fort Shalmaneser (Oates, 1959, pl. 

XXXVI:33), Tell Ahmar (Jamieson, 2012: figs. 3.3, 3.5; see also, 

probably, Anastasio, 2010:39, pl. 12:1, Type BW.06), and Tille 

Höyük, Level VIII (Blaylock, 1999: fig. 5:14,15,19). However, 

this type is not included in the palace ware pottery, and its fabric 

is coarser. Note that this type resembles that in Oates (1959: pl. 

XXXV:5), but the grooved flat base does not appear in Fort Shalmaneser or Nimrud (Lines, 1954). Actually, most open bowls in 

Oates’s typology have a folded rim (Oates, 1959:132, pl. XXXV; 

see also, e.g., Tell Ahmar, Jamieson, 2012:56, fig. 3.3:9–18, and 

references therein), although some ring-based bowls have everted 

rims with ridges under them (Oates, 1959: pl. XXXVI:34; see 

also, Tell Ahmar, Jamieson, 2012:59, fig. 3.5:4,5). In fact, the 

flat-based bowls are more similar in their profile to Assyrian tripods (e.g., Lines, 1954: pl. XLI:2; see Figure 34.3 for location 

of the sites). 

A complete example from Building I, Room F (Figure 13.5g) 

has a rather thin, flaring rim, flat ring base, carination under 

it, no ridges, and a delicate ring base (see also Petrie, 1928: pl. 

LXV:13,15; also similar are bowls in Figure 13.5k–m). This 

shape is somewhat similar to the globular bowls (the upper part; 

see Fort Shalmaneser, Oates, 1959: pl. XXXV:20), but the flat 

ring base shows a different concept. Two other examples (Figure 13.6a,b) have a wide open V-shaped profile, are shallow, 

Assyrian-style globular bowls but may be considered a hybrid or 

a derivative form because of the ring base.

Similar bowls appear in the southern Levant in several places, 

such as at Hazor (Yadin et al., 1960: pl. CLVI:6), Ashkelon, 7th 

century BCE (Stager et al., 2011:77, bowl 4 with red slip), Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.105:14), 

‘Arad, Stratum VII (Singer-Avitz, 2002: fig. 43:7,8, both are burnished, one is red slipped), and Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:52, Type BL21, pl. 60:1). Note that this form 

may echo Phoenician open bowl forms with flat bases and everted 

rims from the same period (see, e.g., Tel Keisan, Level 5, Briend 

and Humbert, 1980: pl. 38) and also that the rim and body resemble local Iron IIC bowls such as at Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 

(Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: Types B4.1, B18, e.g., pl. 

11.108:2,3). Other examples come from Tell Kheleifeh (Pratico, 

1993:157, pl. 36:1) and Busayra (Bienkowski, 2002:252, fig. 

9.9:6) in Edom and in the Ammonite tombs at Sahab (Hadidi, 

1987:103, fig. 2, beneath top left item). Note that at Ashkelon a 

locally produced red-slipped version of this bowl is common, although other types of Assyrian-style pottery are not (Stager et al., 

2011:76–77, bowl 4, figs. 5.14–5.16). Possibly, this was a sort of 

hybrid Canaanite/Philistine and Assyrian type produced by local 

potters at Ashkelon (carinated globular bowls produced at Tell 

Jemmeh, Figure 12.5j–n, may indicate a similar phenomenon).

Assyrian-style open bowls with flat bases appear in Assyria, 

e.g., Tell Halaf (Oppenheim, 1931: pl. 55; Albright, 1956:75; 

FIGURE 13.5. Assyrian-style pottery: open bowls.
738 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(possibly as in Oates, 1959:140, pl. XXXVI:27) may also be 

such an imitation.

Beakers

The other main class of Assyrian-style pottery is beakers 

(Figure 13.7; Petrie, 1928: pl. LXV:4–9), also termed goblets or bottles (see Lines, 1954:166, pls. XVIII:2, XL, XLI:1; 

Oates, 1959:133–134, 142–143, pl. XXXVII:60–67; Anastasio, 2010:48–52, Type BT_02, pl. 28:1–5; Stern, In press: pl. 

14.4.5:1–13). These are oval vessels with a flaring rim, tall neck, 

and ovoid to globular body. The shoulder (between neck and 

body) can be slightly carinated (Figure 13.7a) or rounded (Figure 13.7c) and may have one or two outer ridges on it (Figure 

13.7b,d). The base is either rounded or slightly pointed (Figure 

13.7c; see Tel Dothan, Assyrian burial, Master et al., 2005: fig. 

10.89:17) or has a delicate ring base (Figure 13.7n). In some 

cases there is a sharp ridge under the rim (Figure 13.7b; see also 

Petrie, 1928: pl. LXV:4–6). 

The height of these vessels is between 10 and 12 cm, and the 

rim diameter is 8–9 cm. The shoulder is usually slightly wider 

than the rim, similar to the globular bowls. Generally, beakers 

have many similarities to globular bowls (and, as noted, their 

rim and some of their body sherds look similar to globular 

bowls); this form may be seen possibly as an elongated version 

of the globular bowl. 

The beakers may be subdivided into two types: thicker and 

slightly larger ones with a smooth neck and body (Figure 13.7c) 

and thinner, slightly smaller ones with sharp flaring rims and an 

eggshell-thin, “dimpled” body (Figure 13.7a,b,e). The dimples 

are rounded areas in the body (up to 1 cm in diameter) that 

were depressed when the clay was wet or leather hard, creating 

dents; this also creates a metallic-like look for the vessels, which 

are usually very thin. These finger-made indentations in the thin 

and have a slight disk base. A variant of the open bowl has a 

horizontal thick rim and shallow body (Figure 13.5i,j; see also 

Petrie, 1928: pl. LXV:12; possibly Stern, In press: pl. 14.4.2:9). 

These bowls do not have ridges on their body and are generally 

somewhat less thick and heavy. Other open bowls have a flaring 

to horizontal rim and a more V-shaped body (Figure 13.5e–h); 

they usually have a delicate ridge under the rim. Mathematical 

analysis of the profiles of these bowls shows that they cluster 

well together (chapter 16, Figure 16.6). Two examples of open 

bowls (Figure 13.6a,b, one complete) are 7 cm in diameter and 

somewhat wider. A larger complete example (Figure 13.5n) has 

a disk base and a delicate ridge under the rim, more similar to 

Figure 13.5a,b. According to the petrographic analysis, one of 

these bowls (Figure 13.6a) is made of a nonlocal clay (chapter 

15, Group ASS3, Sample 137); possibly, this bowl was imported 

from Syria or elsewhere. Similar bowls come from Nimrud (see 

Gilboa, 1996: fig. 3:14).

Another variant of the open bowls (Figure 13.6d–g) has a 

rather horizontal folded (turned down) rim with ridges, with 

its outer edge lowered; the body is slightly carinated. Parallels 

come from Dor (Gilboa, 1996) and Kabri (Lehmann, 2002:200, 

figs. 5.76:15, 5.77:7,8); for parallels from Assyria, see, e.g., 

Fort Shalmaneser (Oates, 1959:132, pl. XXXV:12–14) and Tell 

Ahmar (Jamieson, 2012:60, fig. 3.5:8–10). This is a quite common form in Neo-Assyrian pottery, although often not in palace 

ware fabric; it appears commonly at Dor and Kabri but rarely 

at Tell Jemmeh. A sherd found in the topsoil made in the whitish fabric is a bowl with a thin vertical knob (Figure 13.6i); this 

vessel may be related to Assyrian-style pottery, and although 

it has no parallels in the Levant, it is noted from the palace 

ware assemblage of Fort Shalmaneser (Oates, 1959:140, pl. 

XXXVI:29) as an imitation of a metal vessel (there a complete 

example has six knobs and a ridged, rounded base). A carinated 

open bowl (Figure 13.6h, Box 256) with ridges at the carination 

FIGURE 13.6. Assyrian-style pottery: bowls of various types.
NUMBER 50 • 739

424A), whereas a substantial amount (of the items selected here, 

55 are reddish clay and 72 are whitish clay) is made of a reddish 

clay (Munsell 2.5YR 6/6–2.5YR 6/4, light red). Usually this clay 

is also quite well levigated with no large visible inclusion, similar 

to the white clay. In several cases, however, a coarser clay was 

used with some larger visible inclusions, especially in larger open 

bowls (Figure 13.5d,h,k). This variability was already noticed by 

Petrie (1928:24). It seems that, in general, there is no relationship between the color and fineness of the clay and specific forms 

or types: all types appear in both whitish and reddish clay. Moreover, in many cases only the surfaces (outer and/or inner) of the 

vessel are whitish while the inner section (the main body of the 

clay) is reddish (for example, Figure 13.4r). In more thin-walled 

examples the entire section is often whitish. Thus, it seems that 

the whitish color effect of these vessels is a combination of both 

clay selection (probably highly calcareous) and firing effects (see 

Courtois and Doray, 1983; Anastasio, 2010:31–32). In addition, 

several of the vessels have soot marks on the body. This could be 

attributed either to the firing of the vessels or to fire occurring in 

the rooms where this pottery was found (especially in Room A 

of Building I and its vicinity).

Rawson (1954) describes the palace ware in Assyria as a 

fine ware made in the area around Nimrud from two different 

kinds of clay. The first has a clay paste low in iron but rich in 

aluminum, with a coarse siliceous component. This ware was 

vessel wall is a typical Assyrian characteristic that is intended to 

imitate metal vessels (see, e.g., Lines, 1954:166, pl. XXXVIII:2; 

Rawson, 1954:168, pl. XL; Oates, 1959:143, XXXVII:60–67, 

sometimes with applied decoration as well). For examples from 

the Levant, see the distribution section below.

There are quite a few Assyrian-style or Assyrian-influenced 

pottery forms that are known from the southern Levant (Stern, 

In press) that do not appear at Tell Jemmeh. These include, for 

example, loop-handled bowls, tripod bowls, and various types of 

larger bottles, carrot-shaped bottles, and amphorae (more typical to northern Israel) and, rarer, lamp types. These forms will 

not be discussed here.

FABRIC AND TECHNOLOGY

In the Levant in general and at Tell Jemmeh in particular 

the properties and appearance of the fabric are also important 

components of the identification of this class as Assyrian-style 

pottery. As noted, it is often mentioned that the Assyrian-style or 

palace ware pottery is made of a light whitish clay (Figure 13.1). 

In fact, only some of the vessels of this group are made from this 

clay (color: Munsell 5Y 8/2, white, to 5Y 8/3, pale yellow, gray), 

which is often well-levigated; a few other examples are made of 

a pinkish well-levigated clay (5YR 7/3 pink; Figure 13.7e, Box 

FIGURE 13.7. Assyrian-style pottery: beakers.
740 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

calcareous clay was selected (the local loess, for example), the 

actual whitish effect may be more related to the firing process 

(as noted regarding the proper Assyrian pottery above). Furthermore, according to this study, the composition of the Jemmeh 

sherds was different from the Nineveh sherds and seemed to indicate they were made of local clay at Tell Jemmeh. 

More recently, Engström (2004) petrographically analyzed 

17 so-called imitation palace ware sherds from Tell el-Hesi, a 

site located some 30 km northeast of Tell Jemmeh. The vessels 

were made of well-levigated clay but not fired above 850°C. 

They were defined as imitations because they were locally made, 

and this definition could be compatible with our definition of 

Assyrian-style pottery. Most of the samples analyzed from Tell 

el-Hesi were made of alluvial loess or Negev loess (Engström, 

2004: table 2; see more discussion of this in chapter 15). Engström (2004:77–79) suggests the origin of these groups is from 

the region of Tell Jemmeh.

Courtois and Doray (1983:129, 131, 135) suggested that 

Assyrian-style pottery in the Levant was produced locally by Assyrian potters; on the other hand, according to a study of Late 

Iron Age pottery at Kinet Höyük (Hodos et al., 2005:81), there 

seems to be no evidence in technological changes in the later 

Neo-Assyrian-influenced pottery at the site compared with earlier Iron Age wares.

In this report a study of an additional 24 Assyrian-style vessels was made using thin-section petrographic analysis (chapter 15). An attempt was made to analyze examples from all 

types and visual fabric groups. The results indicate that about 

half were made of clays identical to local clays used for regular pottery at Tell Jemmeh, whereas roughly the other half were 

made of clays that were treated somewhat differently and thus 

have a different appearance but probably are still of the same 

provenance. Several examples were made of other clays. Again, 

there was no apparent correlation between the color of the clay 

and the petrographic group. The differences indicate that even 

though most Assyrian-style pottery was locally produced, there 

might have been more than one workshop producing them (see 

more in chapter 15). 

fired in an oxidizing environment that turned the body surface 

a pale pink (Rawson, 1954:169). The second type, more commonly associated with the term Assyrian palace ware, was manufactured from hyperlevigated clay, either naturally levigated by 

the river or artificially levigated in vats. This second ware also 

contained a high amount of aluminous clay minerals. When 

fired, the ware body turned a light green to pale cream with a 

distinctive waxy sheen to the vessel surface. This unusual color 

and surface grain was consistently produced for over a century 

(Rawson, 1954:169; Engström, 2004). Oates (1959:131, 136) 

suggests that it is not clear whether the two types are truly different clays or whether the differences in color and texture are due 

to differences in the firing temperature and kiln treatment. She 

describes the first type as a pinkish buff, with a surface so pale as 

to be almost white and a salmon-colored core. The second type 

is a buff yellow to pale green, with the surface color matching 

that of the core.

Clearly, the issue of defining and characterizing the Assyrianstyle pottery fabric should be studied by mineralogical and 

chemical analysis. Previously, Van Beek, Melson, and Stronach 

(unpublished data) compared eight sherds from Jemmeh (see 

Table 13.1) to five Assyrian palace ware sherds from Nineveh, 

employing X-ray fluorescence, yielding major and minor element 

composition.2

 Two examples (Figures 13.4b, 13.7a) were also 

scanned by electron microscope probe scan, showing the fineness 

of the clay. Their study indicated that the Assyrian-style vessels 

were made of local highly calcareous clay: “The Tell Jemmeh 

and Nineveh wares are similar in that both are very high in CaO 

yet lack calcite or other carbonates. This suggests firing temperatures in excess of about 840°C to 900°C, that is, above the stability of calcite. In both wares, Melson found by X-ray diffraction 

that gehlenite and/or plagioclase, high-temperature calcium aluminum silicates, have formed by complex de-carbonation reactions mainly between calcite, quartz and clay minerals during 

the firing.” Interestingly, although all sherds had somewhat high 

calcium levels (9%–20% in oxide), within this range there is 

no compatibility between the more whitish examples and those 

with higher calcium content. This may indicate that although a 

TABLE 13.1. Major and minor elemental concentrations of eight Assyrian-style vessels from Tell Jemmeh as measured by X-ray fluorescence (after W. Melson, unpublished data).

Oxide (%)

Vessel (SI Cat. No., Figure No.) SiO2 Al2O FeO* MgO CaO K2O Na2O TiO2 MaO P2O5

A (SI Cat. No. 245.1, 13.7b) 56.49 13.99 6.34 3.03 14.47 2.83 1.26 1.15 0.11 0.34

B (SI Cat. No. 613, 13.3a) 53.52 14.77 6.75 3.24 16.15 2.83 1.16 1.14 0.12 0.31

C (SI Cat. No. 221, 13.4a) 59.97 13.09 6.11 3.01 12.69 1.99 1.47 1.29 0.11 0.27

D (SI Cat. No. 217.2, 13.4b) 53.03 16.69 6.92 3.10 15.61 2.20 1.48 0.89 0.08 0.00

E (SI Cat. No. 217.3, 13.3g) 59.59 13.30 6.14 2.75 12.01 3.35 1.35 1.12 0.12 0.26

F (SI Cat. No. 612, 13.7c) 57.32 17.47 7.00 2.84 9.72 3.05 1.57 0.90 0.12 0.00

G (SI Cat. No. 245, 13.7a) 51.30 15.92 5.10 2.10 20.88 3.05 0.70 0.94 0.10 0.00

H (SI Cat. No. 245.2, 13.7n) 57.98 14.14 6.58 2.84 12.03 3.48 1.40 1.17 0.13 0.27
NUMBER 50 • 741

of Neo-Assyrian pottery forms (for this see, e.g., Hausleiter, 1999b; 

Anastasio, 2010). The primary distribution of Neo-Assyrian palace ware lies naturally in Assyria in the main centers of Assyrian 

palaces and administration (see Figure 34.3; see Hausleiter, 2010, 

for a recent retrospective). A good example comes from Room S 

in the Nimrud governor’s palace (Mallowan, 1966: fig. 13), where 

a set of nearly 100 palace ware vessels were found in situ. Various 

quantities of palace ware were also found in other locations, such 

as in Nimrud (Hausleiter, 1999b:28–32, figs. 2, 10, 2008), Fort 

Shalmaneser (e.g., Oates, 1959), Nineveh (e.g., Lumsden, 1999:5, 

fig. 8), Dur Sharrukin/Khorsaban (Loud, 1936a; Loud and Altman, 1938), Tell Halaf (Hrouda, 1962: pls. 59:85–90, 60:136, 

61:168–170, 62:171,172), and Assur (Hausleiter, 1999a: fig. 9:8; 

for more locations, see Anastasio, 2010:8–14). At Khirbet Qasrij and Qasrij Cliff, on the Tigris near Mosul, a local production 

of Neo-Assyrian pottery was possibly identified with a pottery 

kiln (Curtis, 1989:21–23; see Freestone and Hughes, 1989, for 

chemical and petrographic analysis; the Qasrij Cliff site might 

date somewhat later, however). Some of the pottery from these 

two sites is palace ware (Curtis, 1989: fig. 31) with beakers and 

globular bowls; various bottles types, (Curtis, 1989: fig. 40), with 

shapes copied in the Levant, were also found there. 

In the upper Euphrates and northern Syrian sites, which 

may represent Assyrian “colonies” or Assyrian administrative 

centers, palace ware Assyrian-style pottery was also found, such 

as at Tell Ahmar on the western Euphrates (Jamieson, 1999: 

fig. 6:1,4,6,9,13), Sheikh Ramad (Pucci, 2008), Tell Jurn Kabir 

(Eidem and Ackermann, 1999: fig. 8:1–4), Tell Sheikh Hassan 

(Schneider, 1999: fig. 7), Kinet Höyük in Cilicia (Hodos et al., 

2005:66), and Tille Höyük (Blaylock, 1999: figs. 4:8–12, 5:13–

21, 10:1–10) and at sites of the Khabur valley (e.g., Anastasio, 

2007: fig. 8:1; for distribution, see also Anastasio, 2010). Certain quantities of Assyrian-style or Assyrian-inspired pottery 

were also found in the northern Levant at Tell Kazel (Capet and 

Gubel, 2000), Tell Tayinat (Harrison, 2005:23–32), and Tell Qarqur (carinated bowls; Dorrnmann, 2000: fig. 15:13–24). For a 

recent study and an account of the distribution of Late Assyrian pottery in the entire Near East, including palace ware types, 

see Anastasio (2010:15–25; see also Bloom, 1988:149–178; 

Stern, 2003:225–226; Hausleiter, 2008:222–224); for distribution in northern Mesopotamia, see Hausleiter (2008:221–224, 

figs 26c,d,e), as well as Anastasio (2010:28) for several sites in 

western Iran.

Southern Levant Sites: North to South

At Hazor, Stratum IV a globular bowl was found (made 

of light brown well-levigated clay; Yadin et al., 1960: pl. XCVIII:44), as well as a large globular bottle(?) (Yadin et al., 1960: 

pl. XCVII:11). Assyrian-style carrot-shaped bottles and a globular carinated bronze bowl were found at the Assyrian tomb at Tel 

Rehov (Mazar and Ah>ituv, 2011). A dimpled beaker was found 

at Megiddo, Stratum III (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 9:2). 

At Kabri several Assyrian-style forms have been noted 

(Lehmann, 2002:200–201), including folded-rim bowls, bottles, 

and lamps. At Dor an assemblage of open bowls with folded, 

CONTEXT OF ASSYRIAN-STYLE 

POTTERY AT TELL JEMMEH

The context distribution of the Assyrian-style pottery at Tell 

Jemmeh is highly restricted and might be, in fact, more distinctive than its fabric appearance. All items except four unstratified 

sherds that come from Field I, Square KB (Figure 13.4i,m) and 

two or three bowls from Phase 2 in Field II (Figure 4.40b,d,e) 

are from Field IV. Not a single sherd comes from a context dated 

earlier than Phase 5 (the Iron IIC). Of the 134 items presented 

here (Table 13.2), 57 come from Phase 5, 66 come from unclear 

or unstratified contexts, and three come from Phase 3. Moreover, 

of this group, 54 come from Building I (many from Room A or 

areas related to it; Figures 8.117, 8.118), and an additional 15 

are from the fills directly above Building I; eight examples come 

from the nearby Building II. Thus, the phenomenon of Assyrianstyle pottery at Tell Jemmeh is restricted to Phase 5, dated to 

around 700 BCE (or the late 8th–early 7th centuries BCE), and 

a single occupation level and is concentrated in the “Assyrian” 

building, Building I. Petrie also notes that all of the Assyrianstyle pottery at the site (or at least the complete forms discussed 

by him, Figure 13.2; Petrie, 1928:23–24, pls. XLVII:13, LXV) 

was found in one grain pit dated to around 700 BCE, Pit DZ194 

in the town of the XXIIIrd Dynasty (Petrie, 1928: pl. X, lower 

left, DZ). Although the Assyrian period in the Levant lies in the 

8th century and first half of the 7th century BCE, a later date for 

the Assyrian-style or Assyrian imitation pottery throughout the 

Levant (mostly Judah) was also suggested by Thareani-Sussely 

and Na’aman (2006).

As noted, many examples of Assyrian-style pottery were 

found in Field IV, Phase 5, Building I, Room A, including four 

complete or nearly complete thin bowls (Figures 13.3d,f,g, 

13.4a,b, thick stepped-base bowl; see Figures 8.117, 8.118); 

the lower part of dimpled beaker was also found here (Figure 

13.7n). A large amount of Assyrian-style pottery was found in 

Square 1B, Layers 10–11, Locus 1 (Layer 10, however, contains 

also Persian period sherds and thus is mixed) and Test Trench 3. 

These layers, although mixed, could have represented the upper 

or ground floor remains collapsing on the vaulted basement levels of Room A (see chapter 8; altogether, at least 40 fragments 

are illustrated, including several complete or nearly complete 

thin bowls, Figures 8.117, 8.118). Several complete examples 

come also from Room F in Building I (Figures 8.151a–h, 13.3n, 

13.5g,n, 13.6b). 

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSYRIAN-STYLE 

AND PALACE WARE IN THE LEVANT 

AND THE NEAR EAST

Assyria and its Near Eastern Colonies

The distribution of Assyrian pottery in other sites in the Levant and the Near East will be discussed below (see also Figures 

34.1, 34.3). Note that palace ware indicates only the fine, welllevigated, thin pottery in most cases and not the entire assemblage 
742 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 13.2. List of Assyrian-style pottery from Tell Jemmeh selected for this study. Abbreviations: Bld = building; NA = not available; 

Rm = room; bl/br = bowl/beaker; diam. = diameter; gb =globular bowl; hc = high carination; hgt. = height; IAA = Israel Antiquities 

Authority number; IMJ = Israel Museum, Jerusalem number; lc = low carination; mc = mid carination; ob = open bowl; sb = stepped 

base; us = unstratified.

Box/SI Clay

Cat. No. Provenance Phase Architecture Type Subtype color Size (cm) Figure

84/1 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3 gb White 13.4q

84/2 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3 gb mc White 13.3o

84/3 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3 gb White 13.4d

84/4 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3 gb hc White 13.4k

84/5 GM 2C (10) 1 Post 3 gb hc White 13.4j

99 GM 1D W4 3 Granary gb mc Red 13.4n

39/1 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 8.117g

39/2 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 8.117f

39/3 GM 1B TT3 (1) 5 Bld I, Rm A? ob White 8.118f

32/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 8.117y

32/2 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A gb mc White 8.117l

32/3 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 8.117t

32/4 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br Red 8.117i

32/5 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb White 8.117u

32/6 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 

32/7 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 8.117s

32/8 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 8.117j

31/1 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117o

31/2 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117r

31/3 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117m

31/4 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117n

31/5 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117p

31/6 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117z

31/7 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br White 8.117q

31/8 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bowl White 8.118c

31/9 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 8.117a

31/10 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? ob sb 8.118i

31/11 GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? Beaker Dimpled Red 13.7k,l, 

8.118o,p

64/1 GM 3B P4 2? ob sb Red 13.5i

60/1 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm B gb mc Red 8.96p

60/2 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm B gb mc White 8.96q

60/3 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm B gb White 8.96m

60/4 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm B gb White 8.96o

60/4 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm B gb White 8.96n

61/1 GM 3B (2) 3? gb mc White 13.3h

38/1 GM 1B TT2 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 

38/2 GM 1B TT2 5 Bld I, Rm A? Beaker Dimpled White 8.118q

38/3 GM 1B TT2 5 Bld I, Rm A? Beaker Dimpled Red 8.118r

65/1 GM 3B Pit 7 Unknown gb mc White 13.6f

65/2 GM 3B Pit 7 Unknown gb mc White 13.4l

72/1 GM 1C (7) 4 3 gb White 13.4e

111/1 GM 00A (8) 5 Outside Bld I gb White 8.173h

111/2 GM 00A (8) 5 Outside Bld I gb White 8.173i

113/1 GM 00A (+) us Varia White 13.6i

114/1 GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F gb mc Red 8.151e

114/2 GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F gb Red 8.151d
NUMBER 50 • 743

TABLE 13.2. (continued)

Box/SI Clay

Cat. No. Provenance Phase Architecture Type Subtype color Size (cm) Figure

119/1 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? gb White 13.4h

119/2 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? bl/br White 13.7i

119/3 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? ob sb White 13.6j

119/4 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? bl/br White 13.7j

119/5 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? gb White 

119/6 GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? gb Red 13.3m

124/1 GM 00B (8) Unknown gb mc Red 13.4c

137/1 GM 1B TT1 (4) Unknown gb White 13.6c

138/1 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5? Above Bld I, ob sb Red 8.118h

Rm A

138/2 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5? Above Bld I, ob Red 13.6e

Rm A

139 GM 1B Wall B 3 ob White 13.5l

141A GM Room A 5? Bld I, Rm A? ob Red 8.118g, 

13.5f

156 GM 1C (14) 4 5? bl/br Red 13.4p

157 GM 1C (9A) 3 4/5? ob White 13.5m

161 GM 1C (12) 3 4/5? ob Red 13.5k

192 GM 0B Pit 4 (6) 4? Beaker White 13.7h

207 GM 2A WBR (19) 3 5? Beaker White 13.7g

219 GM 1B NBR (8) Unknown ob Red 13.5j

224/1 GM 1B NBR P16 (3) 3? ob Red 13.5c

224/2 GM 1B NBR P16 (3) 3? ob Red 13.5d

224/3 GM 1B NBR P16 (3) 3? ob Red 13.5h

206 GM 2A WBR (15a) 3 4? ob White 13.6a

245 GM 2A TT4 (+) us ob White 13.6d

247 GM 2A TT4 (6) 5? Bld I, Rm C? bl/br Red 8.135e

GM 1B (12) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? bl/br Red 

250/1 GMI KB (0) us gb mc White 13.4i

250/2 GMI KB (0) us Bowl White 13.6g

251 GM 2A (20) 5/4? gb White 13.4r

252 GM 1B (12a) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A?? ob Red 

SI Cat. GM 2A TT1 F7 (1) 4?/5? gb mc Red 13.3b

No. 253

255/1 GMI KB (+) us gb hc White 13.4g

255/2 GMI KB (+) us gb lc White 13.4m

259 GM 2B (30) 4/5? gb mc Red 13.4f

300A GM 1B (11) 1 4/5? Bld I, Rm A? Bowl White 8.118k

300B/1 GM 1B (9) 5 4?/5? Bowl Red 13.6k

300B/2 GM 1B (9) 5 4?/5? Bowl Red 13.6l

300B/3 GM 1B (9) 5 4?/5? Bowl Red 

300C/1 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5? Above Bld I, gb Red 8.117k

Rm A

300C/2 GM 1B (10) 1 4/5? Above Bld I, ob Red 8.118f

Rm A

300D GM 1B (16) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A? Beaker Dimpled White 

301A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 8.117w

301B GM 0B (9) 5 4–5? Bld I? gb Red 13.4o

302A GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? Beaker Red 13.7m

(continued)
744 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 13.2. (continued)

Box/SI Clay

Cat. No. Provenance Phase Architecture Type Subtype color Size (cm) Figure

302B GM 3B P7 Unknown Beaker White 

305A GM 0B (7) 5 4–5? Bld I? Beaker White 13.7f

305B GM 1D (9) 3? Base White 13.6m

401A GM 1B TT2 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White 8.117d

402A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb Red 8.117e

403A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc Red 8.117h

404A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A gb Red 8.117b

405A GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A ob White 8.115n

406A GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A ob sb White 8.115p

407A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc Red (white 8.117v

outside)

400A/1 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5 Bld II, Rm B gb White 8.96k

400A/2 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A 5 Bld II, Rm B gb White 8.96l

408A GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A gb mc White diam. 12 8.115o

408B GM 1B (10) 1 5? gb mc White body diam. 11 13.3j

423A GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm A gb mc Red diam. 16 8.94m, 

13.3l

410A GM 1B (11) 1 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb mc White diam. ~16 8.117aa

411A GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 5 Bld II, Rm A Beaker Red 8.94n

426A GM 0B (9) 5 5? Bld I? gb mc White 13.3e

420A GM 0B (9) 5 5? Bld I? Bowl Red 

SI Cat. GM 1B F18 3? ob sb Red diam. 17–18 13.5b

No. 219

425A GM 1B TT3 (1) 5 Bld I, Rm A? gb hc Red (white diam. 16–17

outside)

253A GM 0B (7) 5 ? gb mc Red diam. neck 6–7

427A GM 3B P7 ? Bowl Red 13.3c

422A GM 1B TT2 5? Bld I, Rm A? Beaker 8.118m, 

13.7d

424A GM 0B (7) 5 4/5? Bld I? Beaker Dimpled Pink diam. 16 13.7e

421A GM 0B (7) 5 4/5? Bld I? gb lc Red (white diam. 16.5 13.3i

outside)

430A GM 2A F7 (4) 4/5? gb lc Red diam. 15.5 13.3k

SI Cat. GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F ob Red diam. 17, 8.151h, 

No. 536 base 8 13.6b

SI Cat. GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F ob Red diam. 8.5 8.151f, 

No. 530 13.5g

NA GM 2B (30) 4/5? Beaker? Imitation? Red diam. 9 8.175e

 (brown

decoration)

SI Cat. GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F ob Burnish 8.151g, 

No. 531 13.5n

SI Cat. GM 1B TT2 5? Bld I, Rm A? Beaker Dimpled White diam. 11 8.118l, 

No. 245 13.7a

SI Cat. GM 0B (8) 5 5? Bld I, Rm A? Bowl White diam. 11 8.117c

No. 458

SI Cat. GM 3B (3)? Unknown gb lc Red diam. 8.5, 13.3p

No. 533 hgt. 6

SI Cat. GM 1B TT3 (1) 5 Bld I, Rm A? Beaker White diam. 22 8.118n, 

No. 245.1 13.7b
NUMBER 50 • 745

(Chambon, 1984: pl. 61:17) may also belong to the Assyrian-style 

pottery (see Jemmeh [Petrie, 1928: pl. XLIX:13d] and Ruqeish 

[Amiran, 1969: photos 219, 221, although possibly of an Iron 

Age IIA-B date]). The contexts of most of the Assyrian-style pottery at Tell Farah (N) come from a large courtyard building in 

Levels VIId–VIIe (Chambon, 1984: Palace 148, fig. 19, Plans 

IV–V) that may show Neo-Assyrian characteristics in its plan 

as well. At Tell en-Nasbeh a ridged bowl with low carination 

was found (Wampler, 1947: pl. 54:1197). A possible fragment 

of a dimpled beaker was found at Tel ‘Ira, Strata VII–VI (Freud, 

1999: fig. 6.68:19); a complete elongated Assyrian-style bottle/

jar was also found at Stratum VI of the site (Freud, 1999:223, 

fig. 93:6). At Tel Dothan two globular bowls (one red slipped 

and burnished) and two to three beakers (“Assyrian burials,” 

Master et al., 2005:112, fig. 10.59:3,5,10,11,17) of Assyrianstyle pottery were found. At Ramat Rachel two complete dimpled beakers were found (Aharoni, 1964: fig. 18:22,23, pl. 33:1). 

At ‘Ein Gedi Assyrian-style vessels from Stratum V include a 

fragment of a carinated bowl and a dimpled body sherd of a beaker (Stern, 2007:130–131, photo 4.3.1). At Batash, Strata III–

II, Assyrian-inspired or Assyrian-style vessels include carinated 

bowls (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:42–44, Types BL17a and 

BL22, pls. 14:6, 60:2), two open flat-based bowls (Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:52, Type BL21, pl. 60:1, although these 

have a black fabric with black slip and thus are related to Samarian bowls), and Assyrian-style wide-necked bottles (Mazar 

ridged, or incised rims has been studied (Gilboa, 1996:122–123, 

fig. 1; this type appears in Nimrud, Oates, 1959: pl. XXXV:12, 

also see Gilboa, 1996: fig. 3:1–9). These have both flat grooved 

bases and ring bases; they are made of a more metallic fabric 

but do not have the whitish-buff appearance. Several shapes of 

carinated globular bowls also appear at Dor (Gilboa, 1996:125, 

fig. 2:1–10). Basically, the Dor pottery is Assyrian-inspired rather 

than Assyrian-style pottery (also because of the fabric). Note that 

two imitations of Assyrian seals were also found at Dor (Ornan 

and Sass, 1992; Keel, 2010a: 462, Dor No. 3). At Tel Keisan, 

Assyrian-style or “Syriennes” pottery from Level 5 includes 

several carinated globular bowls (Briend and Humbert, 1980: 

pl. 37:11a–e), as well as several wide-necked bottles or beakers 

(but not dimpled; Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 37:7–10); high 

bottles (also termed Syrian by Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 

36) may also be considered Assyrian types (see Gilboa, 1996). 

At Samaria, Period VII, a more variable assemblage includes Assyrian-style globular bowls with ridges (Crowfoot et 

al., 1957:128, figs. 11:22, 32:3–5, many fragments in buff and 

reddish ware) and Assyrian-inspired elongated bottles (Samaria, 

Period I, Crowfoot et al., 1957, 288, fig. 163). At Tell el-Farah 

(N) (Chambon, 1984:69–71, pls. 61, 83) at least 11 carinated 

globular bowls were published from Levels VIIe–VIId (Chambon, 1984: pl. 61:1–11); most are of a reddish-pinkish fabric. Although several bottles were found as well (Chambon, 1984: pl. 

61:12–16), these are not dimpled beakers; another conical goblet 

TABLE 13.2. (continued)

Box/SI Clay

Cat. No. Provenance Phase Architecture Type Subtype color Size (cm) Figure

SI Cat. GM 0B (7) 5 4-5? Bld I? ob sb White diam. 18 13.5a

No. 332

SI Cat. GM 1B TT2 5? Bld I, Rm A? gb hc White 8.118b, 

No. 221 13.4a

SI Cat. GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A gb mc White 8.115k, 

No. 217.3 13.3g

SI Cat. GM 1B NBR P16 (3) 5? Bld I, Rm A? gb hc White 8.118d, 

No. 217 .2 13.4b

SI Cat. GM 1B F14 5 Bld I, Rm A Beaker Dimpled White 8.115q, 

No. 245.2 13.7n

SI Cat. GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A gb Pink hgt. 8.8, 8.115l,

No. 217.1 diam. 14 13.3d

SI Cat. GM 1B (11) 2 5 Bld I, Rm A gb IAA 71-335, 8.115m, 

No. 217 IMJ 13.3f

SI Cat. GM 3B P7 Unknown Beaker White diam. 13.6 13.7c

No. 612

SI Cat. GM 00A (1) 3 5 Bld I, Rm F gb lc White diam. 14, 8.152a,

No. 532 hgt. 7 13.3n

SI Cat. GM 1B P16 3? gb 13.3a

No. 613
746 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Na’aman, 2006: fig. 4:4; Thareani, 2011:147, fig. 3.66). Some of 

these vessels were analyzed by petrography (Iserlis and Thareani, 

2011) and were found to be made of either local loess-type clay 

or terra rossa soil clay (indicating a Shephelah origin). However, 

an Assyrian(?) decorated bottle (Thareani, 2011: pl. 127:5) is apparently imported and made of unprovenanced micaceous clay 

(Iserlis and Thareani, 2011: sample no. 20). 

Fluted bowls (such as at ‘Aroer, Biran and Cohen, 1981: fig. 

15.13, made of buff clay; see also Stern, In press: pl. 14.4:12–16) 

or bowls with petaled decoration (such as examples from Samaria, Tell Kheleifeh, and Tel Rekhesh) are often considered to 

be Assyrian style, imitating metal vessels, but may have Phoenician origins as well (see, e.g., Hestrin and Stern, 1973; Alexandre, 2002). 

At Beer-Sheba, Stratum II, vessels with Assyrian characteristics include carinated bowls, globular bowls, and conical ridged 

bowls (Aharoni, 1973: pl. 41:1; Singer-Avitz, 1999:30–34, figs. 

9:1–10,20–22; see also Singer-Avitz, 2004: fig. 1:1) as well as 

globular bottles (Singer-Avitz, 1999: fig. 10:28–32). The vessels 

that were analyzed by petrography indicate Levantine production 

with several sources (loess- and terra rossa–type clays are noted). 

At Arad, Strata X–VIII (Singer-Avitz, 2002:124, 192), Assyrianstyle pottery includes globular carinated bowls (Singer-Avitz, 

2002:130, fig. 10:B15, possibly fig. 11:B29–B39), open bowls 

with ridges and a grooved, flat base (Singer-Avitz, 2002:130, 

figs. 10: B13, 43:7,8), and a wide-necked bottle (Singer-Avitz, 

2002:156, fig. 41:10).

At Kadesh Barnea, Strata 3–2, several sherds are possibly from Assyrian-style globular bowls (Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007:159, Type BL19, pls. 11.48, 11.67:6,7, 

11.73:103, the latter with fluted/petaled relief decoration, also 

pls. 11.98:8, 11.125:17–20, also possibly pl. 11.122:1); these 

bowls usually have a red fabric with gray core and are not well 

levigated. 

A relatively large group of Assyrian-style globular bowls appears at Tell Kheleifeh (Glueck, 1967:35, fig. 4:2; Pratico, 1993: 

pls. 26:7–18, 27:1–11, also pl. 28:1–9 are inspired by this type). 

At the Edomite shrine of Horvat Qitmit, a relatively large number of globular carinated bowls resembling Assyrian-style pottery were published (at least 12 examples from the plates, Freud 

and Beit-Arieh, 1995:211, figs. 4.1:33,36–40, 4.5:3,4, 4.6:1,2, 

4.18:3); some were mentioned as being made of fine, thin-walled 

clay of buff color. 

Southern Levant: Jordan

In Jordan several sites, mostly those associated with the 

Edomite, yielded some Assyrian-style pottery. At Busayra globular carinated bowls and bottles (see Bennet, 1974: figs. 15:2, 

16:6; possibly Bennet, 1975: fig. 6:17,18, in buff ware; Bienkowski, 2002: figs. 6.9:20–22, 9.23:10–18, 9.26:13,17–19, 

20,21 [as beakers], figs. 9.24, 9.26:14,17,22, 9.28, 9.29, 9.30 

[with Edomite decoration]), as well as open bowls with thick, 

flat bases and also with examples on tripods (Bienkowski, 2002: 

fig. 9.5:8, 9.18:7–9), may reflect Assyrian-style pottery. Note 

that Assyrian-style architecture was also evidenced at this site 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:129, Type BT1, pl. 49:8,9). At Gezer 

Assyrian-inspired or Assyrian-style carinated bowls were found 

in Stratum VA (Gitin, 1990: pl. 27:19–21). 

Southern Levant: Philistia

In the southern Levant Assyrian-style pottery is usually 

found in relatively small quantities in various sites in levels dating to the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE (Bloom, 1988; Anastasio, 2010:25–27; Stern, In press). A somewhat larger distribution 

is of Assyrian-inspired pottery forms, which include mostly 

sharply carinated bowls and various bottle types that come 

from Philistia and southern Israel (see, e.g., Thareani-Sussely 

and Na’aman, 2006; see, e.g., Batash [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:42–44], Ashdod, Strata IX–VI [Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:202, figs. 3.88:1,2, 3.98:1–4, 3.105:7–10], and Ashkelon, 

late 7th century BCE destruction level [Stager et al., 2011:78, 

figs. 5.19–5.20]). Proper Assyrian-style pottery was found in 

various quantities (usually small) in several sites in this region 

(i.e., Philistia, most prominently Tell Jemmeh and also at Tell 

el-Hesi and Tel Sera’; see also Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman, 

2006). At the Ashkelon 7th BCE century destruction only a small 

quantity of Assyrian-style pottery was found, including several 

carinated globular bowls, two of eggshell thickness (Stager et al., 

2011:119–120, figs. 8.9–8.12), and carrot-shaped bottles (Stager 

et al., 2011:121, figs. 8.14, 8.15). According to petrography, 

these vessels made of buff fabric were made in a location southeast of Ashkelon, possibly in the region of Tell Jemmeh. 

In addition, a group of locally made red-slipped open bowls 

with grooved bases was also found at Ashkelon (Stager et al., 

2011:76–77, figs. 5.14–5.16). At the Assyrian structure north of 

Tel Ashdod (Kogan-Zehavi, 2007) only a handful of Assyrianstyle pottery sherds were found (Kogan-Zehavi and Nahshoni, 

Israel Antiquities Authority, personal communication); it should 

be noted, however, that only a small portion of this structure has 

been excavated so far.

At Tell el-Hesi, about 30 km north of Jemmeh, over 50 

Assyrian-style pottery sherds were found (Engström, 2004:70), 

mostly beakers and small carinated bowls. The fabric of these 

sherds was gray brown to orange red, differing from the wellknown whitish buff fabric of palace ware. As noted, a group of 

these sherds was analyzed by petrography, indicating a southern Levantine source (possibly in the region of Tell Jemmeh). 

At Tel Miqne at least several globular bowls (Gitin, 1998:164, 

fig. 3:10,13,14, the latter two red slipped), two Assyrian-inspired 

goblets (Gitin, 1998: fig. 3.11,12), and Assyrian-style bottles 

(Gitin, 1998: fig. 4:9,13) were found.

Southern Levant: The Negev

In the Negev at ‘Aroer, Stratum IIb-a, several globular bowls 

defined as palace ware imitations were found (Biran and Cohen, 

1981: fig. 15.12–20; Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman, 2006:69–

71, figs. 3:2,3, 4:1–3; Thareani, 2011:129, Types BL3, BL29, fig. 

3.19, pls. 107:2, 108:1, 172:1, 176:4) as well as a glazed decorated bottle (Barag, 2011) and beakers (Thareani-Sussely and 
NUMBER 50 • 747

influenced by it, mostly in its morphology. This pottery is more 

widespread in northern and southern Levantine sites during the 

8th and 7th centuries BCE. The local potters may have been influenced by the Assyrian pottery, possibly after seeing some original pieces and/or because of demand for similarly styled pottery. 

The forms produced are sometimes hybrid, combining local and 

Assyrian characteristics. This pottery includes mostly sharply 

carinated bowls, globular carinated bowls, wide-necked bottles 

and other bottle shapes (see, e.g., Gilboa, 1996; for Batash, see 

Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:41–44, 158,162, where this type 

rises from 1% in Stratum III to 6% in Stratum II as a percentage 

of all the pottery).

2. Assyrian-style pottery is produced locally by local potters 

and is bearing a stronger resemblance to Assyrian palace ware 

and can also be denoted palace ware imitation (of various degrees of quality). This is due to both the form of the vessels (the 

use of sharp ridges, the method of production, highly thin walls, 

and decorated by denting) and the fabric of the vessels (often 

greenish, whitish buff, or pinkish, attesting to a well-levigated 

clay of special selection and possibly special firing techniques). 

This pottery has a much more limited appearance and is probably limited to sites with stronger Assyrian influence such as Tell 

Jemmeh, Tell el-Hesi, Tell Farah (N), ‘Aroer, and Busayra, although it appears in smaller quantities in other regional sites as 

well. The forms appearing include mostly globular, sharply carinated bowls with ridges and thin walls, open bowls with grooved 

flat bases, and beakers.

3. Another possibility is pottery produced locally (as in category 2) but by Assyrian potters that highly resembles or is identical to Assyrian palace ware.

4. Palace ware pottery could have been imported from 

Assyria proper or from various Assyrian provincial centers in 

neighboring Assyria.

It should be noted, however, that there is no archaeological 

way to distinguish between categories 2 and 3, which differ only 

by the ethnicity of the potters, and thus, this distinction is hypothetical. Therefore, there is no way to determine, so far, whether 

the Assyrian-style pottery at Tell Jemmeh, or elsewhere in the 

Levant, was produced by potters brought from Assyria or by the 

same local potters producing other types of pottery. 

There is also no direct evidence for the employment of Assyrian potters in the Neo-Assyrian Empire provinces, even though 

potters of various nationalities, who were deportees away from 

their homeland, are mentioned in Assyrian texts. Thus, for example, one text deals with providing deported carpenters and 

potters from Samaria with work in Dur Sharrukin (Fuchs and 

Parpola, 2001:176–177, no. 280). Although producing this pottery requires a high degree of skill and possibly special clay mixing, any expert potter could learn to make such pottery within a 

few years if there was a demand for it. It is likely, however, that if 

this pottery was made by local potters, they had access to at least 

a few imported examples to copy from.

Clearly, Tell Jemmeh was a major center of production of 

Assyrian-style pottery for a short period during the late 8th and 

early 7th centuries BCE. This is evident from both the distribution of this pottery and petrographic analysis. This pottery was 

(Bennet, 1975:6, fig. 4; Reich, 1992; Bienkowski, 2002:479). At 

Tawilan, Levels II–III, globular carinated and fluted bowls were 

found (Bennet, 1984: fig. 3:872,841,803,885,860, note most of 

these are decorated with horizontal black lines). On the relationships between Edomite and Assyrian pottery forms, see ThareaniSussely and Na’aman (2006) and Singer-Avitz (1999:33, 2007).

Assyrian-style or Assyrian-inspired pottery may have also 

been found at Jawa (Daviau, 1997:26–27), Amman (tomb of 

Adoni Nur, Harding Lankester, 1953), and Sahab and Tell el 

Mazar (see Anastasio, 2010:27). At Cemetery A of Tell Mazar, 

dated to the late Iron Age and Persian period (Yassine, 1984), 

several Assyrian-style globular bowls and beakers were found 

(Yassine, 1984:66–69, figs. 3:3,6,7, 7:3–5) as well as widenecked bottles (Yassine, 1984: fig. 5) and metallic globular/

carinated bowls (Yassine, 1984: fig. 7:1,2). Globular carinated bowls were also found in a tomb at Mount Nebo (Saller, 

1966:268, fig. 31:13). For other elements of material culture in 

Palestine and Transjordan related to the Neo-Assyrians such as 

seals, sealings, burials, and epigraphic evidence, see, e.g., Bloom 

(1988:190–283).

It should be noted that several types of Edomite bowls have 

a form similar to the carinated globular Assyrian-style bowls 

(e.g., Bennet, 1975: fig. 5:9,13,18; Bienkowski, 2002: figs. 9.24–

9.30; Mazar, 1985:261, figs. 6:1–3; Singer-Avitz, 2004, 2007; 

Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman, 2006; Cohen and BernickGreenberg, 2007: pls. 11.79:5–7, 11.125:22,24; Thareani, 2011: 

figs. 3, 5:6); this phenomenon is especially noticeable at the site 

of Busayra (see above). Although the surface treatment of the 

Edomite pottery is different (white and black decoration over 

red slip), there probably was a substantial Assyrian influence on 

Edomite pottery, whereas Assyrian-style pottery in southern Israel may have been influenced from Edomite pottery as well.

DISCUSSION

The issue of Assyrian-style pottery in the Levant along with 

the issue of the Assyrian presence and influence in this area during the late Iron Age is clearly not a simple one. One of the problems is distinguishing between various forms of local pottery that 

may resemble Assyrian forms by chance or because of influence 

and those of actual Assyrian style. The resemblances between the 

Edomite pottery form and Assyrian-style ones, for example, complicates this issue even further. Although the Assyrian-style pottery has been dealt with in the past (e.g., Bloom, 1988:149–178; 

Gilboa, 1996; Engström, 2004; Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman, 

2006; Hunt, 2009, 2010, 2012a, 2012b), until recently, there has 

been no clear definition of this pottery, and various terms, such 

as palace ware, Assyrian-style pottery, Assyrian pottery, palace 

ware imitation, and Assyrian-influenced or Assyrian-inspired 

pottery, have been used in various cases. 

Basically, pottery related to Neo-Assyrian pottery in the Levant could have various levels of relationships with the pottery 

from Assyria proper. 

1. Assyrian-inspired pottery is produced by Levantine local 

potters and shows certain similarities to Assyrian pottery or is 
748 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Assyrian-style pottery may be another case of “pots and people,” 

thus identifying an actual Assyrian presence in the Levant, at least 

at Tell Jemmeh where this pottery was also found in large quantities and in a structure reflecting Neo-Assyrian architectural tradition. On the other hand, this pottery may have also had other 

meanings and functions, possibly as a local status symbol.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTES

1. I thank Ephraim Stern for making this as yet unpublished manuscript available to me.

2. I thank Bill Melson of the National Museum of Natural History for allowing 

us to consult his studies on the Tell Jemmeh Assyrian-style pottery.

probably exported from Jemmeh to other sites in the southern 

Levant. As a copy of the luxurious imperial Assyrian palace ware 

made of precious metals, these vessels probably carried a certain 

prestige more for the local elites, rather than appealing to any 

Neo-Assyrian administrators that happened to be around.

Although the Neo-Assyrian Empire may have brought significant changes to the Levant during the 8th–7th centuries BCE 

(see, e.g. Bloom, 1988; Stern, 2001, 2003; see chapter 34), all 

in all, actual imitations of Assyrian palace ware and other Assyrian elements of material culture were not very common or 

widespread in the Levant (see Thareani-Sussely and Na’aman, 

2006). Moreover, Neo-Assyrian influences were also stronger in 

the 7th century BCE and are less evident in the 8th century BCE. 

It should be noted that the distribution pattern of Assyrian-style 

pottery in the Levant does not fit a “down-the-line” trade pattern 

from the Mesopotamian centers; it is rather more concentrated 

in a few sites near the southern coastal plains and in other administrative sites with fewer examples in northern Israel. In the 

northern Levant (such as at Qasrij and Tille Höyük; see above), 

secondary late Assyrian centers illustrate this pottery, but it could 

have been locally produced there as well. On the one hand, the 
14 “East Greek” and Greek 

Imported Pottery of the 

First Millennium BCE

S. Rebecca Martin

INTRODUCTION

The catalog that follows presents 396 fragments and complete vessels of East Greek and Greek manufacture imported to Tell Jemmeh from the 7th–2nd centuries BCE. Nearly all of these came from Field IV. The majority are either fine wares for drinking, eating, and 

storing perfume or lamps. The catalog that follows is not exhaustive. Body sherds, especially those from open Attic vessels whose precise 

forms could not be identified, were omitted. (The frequency of such small sherds results in part from the excavation’s “total retrieval” 

saving practices [Van Beek, 1989a]; pottery identified or suspected as being imported was separated in the field and stored separately.) 

These imports were not found generally in good contexts, limiting their ability to clarify the archaeological interpretation. As is so often 

the case in the Persian era, at least, the imports best date themselves, not the stratigraphy. No attempt was made to refine the dates of 

the Attic pots (namely, to down-date them). The Agora volumes were used to establish types and to suggest date ranges; their relative 

chronology remains good. What follows focuses on what the assemblage can do: point to trade networks, establish dates of occupation, 

and shed light on everyday activity. 

The general chronology of the assemblage can be commented upon at the outset. In the 7th–6th century Jemmeh imported a handful of East Greek oinochoai and over 40 so-called Ionian cups. By comparison, Ashkelon has yielded a far larger number of fragments: 

239 from oinochoai (and jugs), 845 from Ionian cups, and 187 from transport amphorae, as well as a variety of other closed and open 

informs, including, significantly, 185 from cooking pots datable to the 7th century (Waldbaum, 2011:127, n. 2, 130, tables 10.2, 10.4; 

see pp. 135–138 on the occurrence and meaning of cooking pots in the southern Levant). Jemmeh imports suggest that the major trading 

activity at the site was Persian, especially in the 5th century. At this time the site imported the later so-called East Greek products, closed 

table vessels, banded bowls, and the contents of a very few transport amphorae, and Attic table wares (Table 14.1). 

Although several of the East Greek vessels may date to the early 6th century BCE, none of them must do so. The site seems to 

lack Corinthian imports (although see Cat. No. 397); the kotyle and aryballos in the Rockefeller collection identified by Clairmont 

(1955:101) as Corinthian may, in fact, be Attic according to Waldbaum (2011:144). No contemporary Attic fragments were found. 

TABLE 14.1. Basic distribution of imports arranged according to fabric group.

Fabric Field I Field II Field III GMa Date range (century BCE)

East Greek <1% <1% 0% >98% 7th–6th

Attic 1% 4% 2% 93% Late 6th?–2nd?

Other 0% 0% 0% 100% 5th–2nd

a

Sherds from Box 547, “general site,” were included in the main field, Field IV.
750 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

assemblage, rouletting on open forms, lamps, and fish plates, 

but the quantities are considerably reduced (see Agora 12:30–31 

[rouletting], 147–148 [fish plate]). It is not unusual to see a sharp 

decline in Attic imports by the end of the 4th to early 3rd century 

BCE, but Jemmeh drops off earlier (compare, for example, Tel 

Dor: Stewart and Martin, 2005, especially pp. 90–91). Moreover, the assemblage lacks much (or, in some cases, any) representation of ubiquitous 4th century BCE and Hellenistic types 

such as the bowl with an incurved rim (fewer than 20 examples), 

stamped amphora handles (none), eastern terra sigillata (none), 

and so-called Megarian bowls (none) and West Slope pottery 

(one). The very limited quantities of this material suggest that 

trade activity at Jemmeh was intermittent by the 4th or even later 

5th century BCE and minimal from the later 4th century BCE. It 

should be pointed out that this general picture does not fit W. M. 

F. Petrie’s discussion of Jemmeh’s Persian period stratigraphy (or 

Stern’s reevaluation of it; Petrie, 1928; Stern, 1982).

Neither fact is surprising in the southern Levant (see Waldbaum 

and Magness, 1997; Stewart and Martin, 2005). A very few of 

the Attic imports may date to the end of the 6th century. Regardless, the imports cannot be used to establish continuous occupation from the 7th–early 6th centuries BCE into the Persian era. 

If the imports correctly signal a break in occupation at Jemmeh, 

one familiar from so many tell sites, the best evidence of reoccupation comes from the tight chronology offered by Attic imports 

(Table 14.2). The paucity of painted and securely datable pottery 

makes this task difficult but not impossible. There are examples 

of Archaic black figure of the Haimonian type as well as forms 

that date to ca. 500 BCE or the two decades thereafter (see Martin, 2007, especially no. 134; Stewart and Martin, 2005:83). 

The great majority of dateable pots come from the 5th century BCE, generally. That only a few fragments may be assigned 

to the end of the 5th century BCE suggests that trade was less 

frequent then. There are 4th and 3rd century BCE types in the 

TABLE 14.2. Basic typology of the Attic imports according to technique. Total retrieval accounts for the collection of some small fragments, but as a general rule, imported fine wares in occupational debris are very small sherds, particularly when they are in secondary or 

tertiary deposition. An exhaustive catalog is neither possible nor desirable. Included here are the most legible and particular fragments 

to give the reader concrete evidence of what data inform the general discussion. Specific type, iconography, attribution, and date are 

provided when reasonably secure. A dash (—) indicates the characteristic is not present.

Shape Black figure Red figure Black glaze Over-painted Total

Skyphos, Type A — 7 (likely Type A) 21 — 28

Skyphos, Type B — 1 — — 1

Skyphos, Corinthian Type — — 1 — 1

Cup-skyphos — — 5 — 5

Stemless cup — — 14 — 14

Stemmed cup — — 19 — 19

Cup of uncertain type 5 — 10 — 15

Bolsal — — 3 — 3

Kantharos/cup-kantharos — 1 2 2 5

Phiale — — 1 — 1

Krater — 2 2 — 4

Bowl with incurved rim — — 8 — 8

Bowl with outturned rim — — 5 — 5

Convex- concave bowl — — 1 — 1

Small bowl — — 4 — 4

Bowl of uncertain type — — 7 — 7

One-handler — — 1 — 1

Plate — — 1 — 1

Fish plate — — 3 — 3

Dish, stemmed — — 2 — 2

Lekythos 30 2 20 — 52

Perfume pot — — 1? — 1?

Feeder — — 1? — 1?

Lamp — — 12 — 12

Open 4 — 20 2 26

Closed 2 — 3 — 5

Total 41 13 167 4 225
NUMBER 50 • 751

Fikellura oinochoai (Cat. Nos. 1–6) and 41 of Ionian cups (Cat. 

Nos. 7–47, Figure 14.1). To the latter group we might add a few 

of the cups that could not be typed with certainty (Cat. Nos. 

48–58). The small number of Wild Goat fragments represents at 

least three vessels (Cat. Nos. 2, 4, 5). Each of these appears to 

belong to Robert M. Cook’s Middle II period according to decorative schemes (Cook, 1962; Cook and Dupont, 1998:39–45; 

Wild Goat forms and decorative programs have recently been 

reevaluated by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer, 2005). One shows 

a sphinx in profile within a field of geometric motifs (Cat. No. 

2) that can be assigned to Kerschner and Schlotzhauer’s South 

Ionian Archaic Id (= SiA Id, 610–580/570 BCE; for the date, 

see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer, 2005:8). The other two preserve 

vegetal (lotus, rosette) and geometric motifs (Cat. Nos. 4, 5) also 

at home in the South Ionian MWGII repertoire. Catalog No. 

4’s (Figure 14.1c) rosette and lotus are sufficiently legible to assign the vessel with some confidence to SiA Ic (630–610 BCE). 

One strap handle may belong to SiA Ia-b (Cat. No. 1), which 

would place it early in the assemblage (670–650 BCE), although 

it is more likely to date later, to SiA Ic-d (i.e., after 630 BCE; cf. 

Waldbaum, 2011:271, no. 380). The small assemblage then falls 

within an absolute maximum range of 670–570 BCE, although 

630–570 BCE is probably more accurate, suggesting rather irregular trade.

The number of Ionian cup fragments, or Knickrandschalen fragments, as Schlotzhauer would have them described, is 

EAST GREEK POTTERY

Early East Greek pottery is rare in the southern Levant. 

Fewer than 10 sites have certainly produced imports dating to 

the early 7th century BCE (Waldbaum, 1994; Waldbaum and 

Magness, 1997; Waldbaum, 2002a, 2002b; Martin, 2007, especially pp. 125–129; Waldbaum, 2011). The bird bowls from 

Ashkelon (and probably other sites as well) date to the later 7th 

century BCE (Waldbaum, 2011:152). Most early East Greek is 

concentrated in the last quarter of the 7th to early 6th centuries 

BCE. Its distribution is relatively wide, and the range of types 

expands beyond that of any other class of early Greek imports 

to include lamps; so-called Ionian cups; Wild Goat style vessels, 

particularly oinochoai (see Jones, 1986:664–667, 670); chytrai 

(at Mescad Hashavyahu, Tel Batash, Ashkelon, and Kabri); and 

transport amphorae originating possibly from Miletus and Samos 

(at Ashkelon, Batash, Dor, Kabri, and Mescad Hashavyahu) and 

Chios (at Ashkelon and Dor) and maybe one or two examples 

from Lesbos (at Mescad Hashavyahu). Very few sites have produced Geometric, Corinthian, and East Greek pottery. Only 

Tel Dor certainly has all three, albeit in exiguous quantities (for 

Miqne, see Gitin, 1989). With over 1,500 cataloged fragments 

Ashkelon has yielded the largest number of 7th century BCE imports (Waldbaum, 2011). 

The earliest of these imports found at Tell Jemmeh falls into 

the East Greek category, including 6 fragments of Wild Goat/

FIGURE 14.1. East Greek imports and Ionian bowls.
752 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

noted by Roll and Tal, 1999:107). Their diameters (up to 24 cm, 

according to Mook and Coulson, 1995:93) and sturdy ring base 

suggest they were used for individual dining and serving.

Jemmeh produced 32 fragments of banded bowls (Cat. 

Nos. 59–88, Figure 14.2), a number which may approach that 

of whole vessels thanks to the type’s characteristic (and therefore 

easily comparable) band schemes. Clays are fine and often micaceous, with colors ranging from red to light gray (sample Munsell readings: 2.5YR 6/6 very light red; 10YR 5/3 brown; 5YR 

6/6 reddish yellow). Decoration includes bands, especially in red 

and brown (5YR 4/2–4/6; 7.5YR 4/2 dark brown; 5YR 3/1 very 

dark gray). The measurable rims had an average diameter of 20 

cm. The few “open” and “open decorated” vessels (Cat. Nos. 

89–99) are considered East Greek because of their generally micaceous clay. When decorated, they use the same palette as the 

banded bowls. Many of these may also be bowls.

The closed vessels assigned to this group are characterized by the same fine micaceous clay and streaked glaze of the 

banded bowls (5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; 7.5YR 7/4 tan; 10YR 

7/4 very pale brown). At Jemmeh are nearly 20 fragments of 

typical table vessels: oinochoe, table amphora, or jug (Cat. Nos. 

99–116, Figure 14.3a–j). Distinguishing between these forms is 

very often impossible (when dealing with their ring bases) or difficult (when considering small rim pieces). All preserved walls 

are fairly vertical, which eliminates the biconical shape of the 

amphoriskos or the more ovoid shape of the askos. There are 

many fragments of closed decorated vessels (Cat. Nos. 117–133, 

Figure 14.3k–r), which are cataloged to emphasize the range of 

decorative schemes. 

By comparison, Tel Michal has only around nine closed vessels of East Greek and Cypriot manufacture, including several 

jugs, table amphorae, and an askos. Five are from Michal’s Stratum XI (dated by excavators to ca. 525–490 BCE; one is even 

earlier) and seem to be the earliest imports from the site. The 

rest are apparently redeposited in Strata VII–VI (ca. 400–300 

BCE; see Marchese, 1989:145–147, fig. 10.1). Apollonia’s Area 

H, Stratum Persian 2 (late 6th century to ca. 445 BCE) has seven 

closed vessels, all jugs and table amphorae, in addition to several 

unidentifiable body fragments. Stratum Persian 1 (ca. 445–335 

BCE) has three East Greek closed body sherds and one example 

of Cypriot White Painted ware (V or VI); clearly most or all of 

these are in redeposition. The refuse pit from Apollonia’s Area 

D produced only one possible East Greek jug and six fragments 

of decorated closed vessels, of which three are Cypriot White 

Painted ware (V or VI; see Roll and Tal, 1999:107, 133, 161: 

table 4.9, 164, 165, figs. 4.16:9, 4.29:9–12, 4.45:9, 4.46:1–6). 

The published areas of Tel Dor have produced around 50 closed 

East Greek vessels, including amphoriskoi, trefoil-mouth oinochoai, and small pouring jugs.

Rounding out the East Greek assemblage are 11 fragments 

of transport amphorae (Cat. Nos. 134–144, Figure 14.4). These 

were very difficult to type owing to their fragmentary state. 

Only the distinctive Chian types with a bulbous neck could be 

identified securely; the type is common. The range of fabrics is 

wide (red to brown), and most are micaceous (sample Munsell 

readings: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; 7.5YR 

impressive (Cat. Nos. 7–47), but the small size of the pieces 

makes approximating a total number of vessels impossible (see 

Schlotzhauer, 2000, 2001; Waldbaum, 2011:160–230, which 

were not, unfortunately, available at the time of study; cf. 

Schlotzhauer, 2006). The bulk of the cataloged fragments are 

portions of the characteristically offset rim, although there are 

also handles and feet identifiable because of their form and micaceous fabric. Clays are otherwise varied in terms of color (e.g., 

Munsell 7.5YR light brown) and represent several as yet unidentified production sites. Decoration is primarily in red and matte 

black brown (e.g., 2.5YR 5/8 red). Measurable rims average 

around 18 cm. Few feet were identified clearly. Some of the ring 

feet attributed to banded bowls might belong instead to these 

cups. Although their characteristics are clear, there is remarkable 

variety in Jemmeh’s Ionian cups in terms of fabrics (gray, brown, 

red; small to very large mica inclusions), scale, weight, and decorative schemes (compare to Ashkelon: Waldbaum, 2011:160–

230). Several favor a more reserved body scheme (such as Cat. 

No. 10, Figure 14.1g). A few are quite large and heavy (such as 

Cat. No. 30). 

Jemmeh’s Persian era pottery commonly called East Greek is 

composed of two main groups: bowls with characteristic bands 

inside and out and a variety of closed table shapes (oinochoe, 

table amphora, and jug). The unsatisfactory name given to these 

vessels stems from the assumption that they were produced in 

East Greece in direct succession to the Iron Age pots described 

above. East Greek closed types have limited overlap with the 

contemporary Attic assemblage (e.g., askoi, although Jemmeh 

lacks them) and may sometimes offer a more complete fine table 

service. It is worth noting how their readily available counterparts in the Attic repertoire are almost ignored. 

According to limited evidence, the closed shapes and banded 

bowls may appear in the southern Levant as early as the 6th 

century BCE (summarized by Mook and Coulson, 1995:95). 

The closed shapes do not penetrate beyond the mid-5th century 

BCE in any quantity (Risser and Blakely, 1989:71). Most published banded bowls date to 5th century BCE contexts, mainly 

in the latter half (Johns, 1933; Elgavish, 1968; Porath, 1974; 

Marchese, 1989:146–147, fig. 10.1.7). At Tel Mevorakh banded 

bowls were found in 4th century BCE contexts (Stern, 1978:41). 

The plentiful banded bowls from Apollonia are found in both 

Persian strata (late 6th to mid-4th centuries BCE) but are more 

common in Apollonia’s Stratum 2 (that is, down to ca. 445 BCE; 

Roll and Tal, 1999:107–108, 132, 164, figs.15:1–2, 29:1–3, 

4.45:1–4). Likewise, at Tel Dor they are found throughout the 

Persian period, although they concentrate, as do other East 

Greek imports, in the 5th century BCE. Unlike their presumed 

East Greek predecessors, the banded bowls at least are concentrated in the Levant, particularly in northern Syria (Lehmann, 

2000, especially p. 100 and figs. 2–6). Their distribution lends 

some support to the idea that they are products of various eastern centers (Mook and Coulson, 1995:94, n. 4, which deals with 

the supposed imitations of these bowls in Cyprus). Banded bowls 

and their variations are extremely rare in Greece (Agora 12:357, 

see no. 1721 from the last quarter of the 5th century BCE; their 

resemblance to some decorated Attic one-handlers has been 
NUMBER 50 • 753

FIGURE 14.2. East Greek imports: banded bowls.

FIGURE 14.3. East Greek imports: decorated vessels.
754 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

began in the 7th century BCE (Wild Goat oinochoai) with a gap 

starting no later than the first quarter of the 6th century BCE. 

Trade resumes probably no earlier than the 5th century BCE 

with banded bowls, closed table vessels, and a handful of transport amphorae. Although the stream of imports was certainly 

only occasional, we should note the continuity in preferred function: drinking vessels dominate, from cups to table vessels used 

in wine drinking, with a preponderance of the former. As will be 

seen, this general trend continues into the Attic assemblage. 

ATTIC POTTERY

Sometime in the first quarter of the 5th century BCE, Greek 

imports become a regular trade item at Jemmeh. This fact is most 

clearly signaled by the Attic imports (sample Munsell readings: 

7.5YR 5/4 brown to 7.5YR 7/4 pink) thanks to our superior understanding of their chronology in comparison to the later East 

Greek banded bowls and closed table wares. At several coastal 

sites in the southern Levant, Attic imports appear to mark the 

return of large-scale occupation (although not necessarily urban 

activity) after a gap of a century or more (see Shalev and Martin, 2012; see also Waldbaum, 2003, for a comparison of the 

imports to Dor, Tell el-Hesi, and Mikhmoret). So the presence 

of these imports is significant. They certainly signal trade and 

conspicuous consumption. The extent to which they point also 

to conscious emulation of or direct contact with Greeks is altogether unclear. The small numbers of painted fragments at Jemmeh make discussion of painters and iconographic themes all 

but impossible. What follows emphasizes type and chronology 

arranged according to technique: black figure, red figure, black 

glaze, and, finally, black glaze with overpainting.

Only a limited number of black-figure fragments were identified, 41 in all: 5 cups (Cat. Nos. 145–149) to which should probably be added the 4 open shapes (Cat. Nos. 150–153), 30 lekythoi 

(Cat. Nos. 154–183), and two closed forms (Cat. Nos. 184–185). 

Among the earliest datable vessels are the Haimonian cups (Cat. 

Nos. 145, 147, 148, and the open shape, Cat. No. 152), which 

may be as early as 480 BCE. Catalog No. 146 also looks early 

according to its fabric and decoration, but little more can be said. 

None of the scenes are legible, but two (Cat. Nos. 147, 153) may 

6/6 reddish yellow). Petrographic analysis of four fragments (including a clear Chian type, Cat. No. 168) was inconclusive (see 

chapter 15). Decoration includes brown, red, and black stripes, 

especially on the handles (sample Munsell readings: 2.5YR 5/8 

red; 5YR 6/5 light reddish brown; 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow). One 

Chian rim fragment (Figure 14.4g, Cat. No. 141) preserves a 

decorative scheme that might have an early date (end of 6th 

century BCE?). The almost total lack of body sherds in the collection suggests that some of these fragments remain with the 

context pottery. Regardless, the total number of vessels was 

certainly small. There is vigorous debate about the meaning of 

early imports, particularly whether they are sufficient evidence 

of direct trade between the Levant and Greece or whether they 

sometimes attest to the existence of Greek settlements, mercenaries, or other settlers (especially in the north). At both Al Mina 

and Tell Sukas, early Greek imported pottery has provided the 

basis for the argument of Greek settlement; both interpretations 

are highly problematic considering the extent of excavation, the 

methods used to quantify and record finds, and the methods used 

to determine settlement versus trade (that is, the relative importance of imported ceramics versus other evidence from the site; 

see, recently, Lund, 1986; Boardman, 2002; Luke, 2003; on the 

relative importance of pottery as an ethnic indicator, see Papadopoulos, 1997; Waldbaum, 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2011). In the 

southern Levant, later 7th century BCE Mescad Hashavyahu may 

provide the only legitimate case of Greek settlement, although 

the precise character of the settlement (mercenary or mercantile) is disputed (Naveh, 1962a, 1962b; Reich, 1989; Fantalkin, 

2001; Waldbaum, 2002b, 2011). At this time, the prospect of 

regular direct trade between the southern Levant and Greece 

in the 7th-6th centuries BCE seems unlikely owing to the very 

limited quantities of imports spread out over time and space. 

Rather, the pottery can be seen as a secondary commodity (as a 

small part of, for example, the trade in timber) or could perhaps 

be indicative of a more personal level of exchange (Waldbaum, 

2002a:61; Gilboa, 1989:217; but see Papadopoulos, 1997:200).

Jemmeh contributes to this discussion because we can be 

fairly certain that all relevant pottery from excavated areas was 

indeed kept for analysis. The site’s East Greek imports offer evidence of irregular trading activity but cannot comment otherwise on the manner of exchange or extent of contact. Trade 

FIGURE 14.4. East Greek amphorae.
NUMBER 50 • 755

and black bands. At least one vessel had a human figure (Cat. No. 

175, possibly also Cat. No. 177, Figure 14.5k,l). Two closed fragments could not be typed: one is decorated with net pattern and is 

generally round or ovoid (Cat. No. 184, Figure 14.6a). The other 

has an incision that resembles hair (Cat. No. 185, Figure 14.6b).

Jemmeh produced still fewer fragments of red figure, totaling 

only 13: 8 skyphoi (Cat. Nos. 186–193), 1 kantharos (Cat. No. 

194), 2 kraters (Cat. Nos. 195–196), and 2 lekythoi (Cat. Nos. 

197–198, Figure 14.6k,l). Three are dateable to the 5th century 

BCE according to class or style. None appear to be Archaic. The 

Type B glaux (Cat. No. 186) belongs to the middle quarters of the 

century, making it the earliest—and only—securely datable piece 

(Agora 12:86–87; Agora 30:63–64 with extensive references; 

Johnson, 1955). A small scrap of drapery preserved from a Type 

A skyphos (Cat. No. 187, Figure 14.6c) belongs to the early or 

high Classical, as does the filleted female from a cylinder lekythos 

(Cat. No. 198, Figure 14.6l). The white-ground kantharos (Cat. 

No. 194, Figure 14.6h) may date to the 4th century BCE.

The number of black glaze is much more robust, with 167 

diagnostic fragments: 22 skyphoi (Cat. Nos. 199–220), 48 cups 

of various classes (Cat. Nos. 221–268), 3 bolsals (Cat. Nos. 

269–271), 2 kantharoi (Cat. Nos. 272–273), 1 phiale (Cat. No. 

274), merely 2 kraters (Cat. Nos. 275–276), 25 bowls (Cat. Nos. 

show human figures. Figure 14.5a (Cat. No. 147) may be attributable to the Painter of Elaios I according to the use of purple and 

refined painting of the accompanying vine. Although this identification is provisional, cups by the Painter of Elaios I have been 

identified elsewhere (at Tel Dor: Stewart and Martin, 2005: figs. 

2:8, 3; an unpublished example from Dor Area D5).

The relatively high number of lekythos fragments is very interesting. Seventeen come from pattern lekythoi, which are, by 

reputation more than hard evidence, popular at inland sites (see 

Shefton, 2000). These are decorated with a wide repertoire of 

vegetal and geometric motifs, including rosettes, palmettes, ivy, 

net pattern, and bands. Pattern lekythoi are dated to the 5th century BCE. As the only datable vessels among the lekythoi, they 

may appear to skew the chronology of the Attic assemblage. It 

is clear, however, that Jemmeh’s Attic assemblage is concentrated 

in the 5th century BCE. Of the dateable Attic fragments, around 

75 were made in the 5th century BCE (approximately 13 in the 

first quarter, 11 in the middle quarters, 3 in the last quarter, and 

48 generally 5th century BCE), whereas 22 were made in the 4th 

century BCE or later; if the lamps are excluded, the latter number drops to 15. Other black-figure lekythos fragments show the 

usual motifs: palmettes (when on the shoulder, as in Cat. No. 

176, maybe from red-figure vessels), rays, running dog pattern, 

FIGURE 14.5. Attic ware.
756 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The high number of Vicups at Jemmeh is remarkable, as, to my 

knowledge, none has been identified securely elsewhere in the 

southern Levant. The sturdy Type C cup is known from four to 

five fragments (Cat. Nos. 224, 249, 251, 268, and possibly 238). 

Dateable examples come from early in the 5th century BCE, perhaps ca. 480 BCE. The fillet and rising foot of another stemmed 

cup rare in the region was identified, the Acrocup; it dates probably to 475–450 BCE (Cat. No. 240). One earlier (500–480 BCE) 

spreading foot of a Type B cup (Cat. No. 241, Figure 14.7e) was 

found. It, too, is rare. The latter has a Greek(?) graffito on the 

underside of the foot, perhaps a Μ with a cross bar. Five cupskyphoi were identified, albeit tentatively (Cat. Nos. 239, 250, 

263, and 266). 

Two of the three bolsals date approximately to the last quarter of the 5th century BCE (Cat. Nos. 269, 270, Figure 14.8a). 

The sole dateable kantharos is similar to one from the Agora 

dated to 450–425 BCE (Cat. No. 272). Rounding out the drinking vessels is a fragment of particular interest, a small portion 

of a phiale decorated in intentional red. Its horizontal ribbing 

hints at its Persian metal prototype (see Agora 12:105–106). The 

phiale may be the earliest securely datable vessel in the Attic (indeed, in the Persian) assemblage at ca. 500 BCE. It is difficult to 

know how accurate this date is, however, since the type is rare 

in ceramic.

With so many drinking vessels in every decorative technique, 

one misses the kraters. The two fragments in black glaze bring 

Jemmeh’s total to a maximum of only five, which may belong to 

as few as two vessels. The slightly concave wall of Cat. No. 275 

may belong to a calyx krater. Figure 14.8c (Cat. No. 276) is a 

nice foot with a concave exterior and flat top that rises toward 

the fillet. It could belong to a calyx krater as well, although precise identification is impossible.

More in keeping with the general pattern in the southern 

Levant is the relatively large quantity of bowls. These include approximately eight bowls with incurved rim and five bowls with 

277–301), 1 one-handler (Cat. No. 302), 4 plates (Cat. Nos. 

303–306), 2 dishes (Cat. Nos. 307–308), 20 open forms (many 

of which are decorated, Cat. Nos. 309–328), 20 lekythoi (Cat. 

Nos. 329–348), possibly 1 perfume pot (Cat. No. 349), 1 spout 

that may belong to a so-called feeder (Cat. No. 350), 12 lamps 

(Cat. Nos. 351–362), and 3 closed forms of uncertain type (Cat. 

Nos. 363–365). The total number of vessels here is impossible to 

ascertain; some pieces certainly may belong to painted or overpainted pots. Nearly all of the skyphoi are Type A and belong 

to the 5th century BCE according to their plain rim, vertical and 

gently sloping wall, and torus ring foot. Exceptions include an 

outturned rim of a possibly 4th century BCE skyphos (Cat. No. 

203), an uncommon Corinthian-type skyphos (Cat. No. 204; see 

Agora 30:64–65), and one torus ring foot belonging to a skyphos 

of uncertain type (Cat. No. 219).

The cups are plentiful and varied. There are 14 stemless 

fragments in total. In the Athenian Agora they are very popular 

after 480 BCE through the end of the century (before yielding 

in popularity to kantharoi; see Agora 12:98–105). The earliest 

of these at Jemmeh in any concentration date to ca. 480 BCE 

and belong to the class of Agora P 10359, identifiable especially 

from the characteristic use of intentional red (Cat. Nos. 225, 

232, 255; see Agora 12:99–100). Other stemless cups include 

several large classes (such as the light-walled Cat. No. 228, Figure 14.7b, second half of the 5th century BCE, and the delicate 

Cat. No. 231, ca. 450 BCE) and one small Rhenia cup (Cat. No. 

229, Figure 14.7c, second half of the 5th century BCE). Only 

one, a large stemless cup with an inset lip, could date as late as 

the 4th century BCE (the first quarter, Cat. No. 267).

Stemmed cups are especially plentiful, with 19 fragments 

(see, generally, Agora 12:88–97). Especially impressive are the 

11 Vicups identifiable according to the profile of the foot, which 

is flat on top and often concave on its exterior face (e.g., Cat. 

No. 223). Vicup fragments with parallels in the Agora excavations point to a date to the second quarter of the fifth century. 

FIGURE 14.6. Attic ware.
NUMBER 50 • 757

One bowl has both in addition to an incised circle (Cat. No. 297, 

Figure 14.8i). On its underside is a Greek graffito, a Φ. Rouletting is traditionally ascribed to the 4th century BCE, affirming 

that the bowls would stretch, however thinly, over two centuries. 

The one-handler is from ca. 400 BCE (Cat. No. 302).

Finishing out the table wares are the four plate fragments, 

three of which come from the fish plates known in the later 5th 

century BCE but so characteristic of the 4th (Cat. Nos. 303–

305; see Agora 12:147–148). These can be contrasted to the 

two stemmed dishes that must date to the type’s short life span, 

an outturned rim. Examples of both types seem to date to the 5th 

and 4th centuries BCE (5th century BCE: Cat. Nos. 278 and 283, 

Figure 14.8e). There are four small bowls, one with a broad rim 

(second quarter of the 5th century BCE, Cat. No. 284), probably 

two with a projecting rim (400–380 BCE, Cat. No. 287; Cat. 

No. 298), and probably one with an outturned rim (No. 299). 

The sole convex-concave bowl has a parallel in the Agora dating 

to 425–400 BCE (Cat. No. 285; see Agora 12:130–131). Decoration is limited to rouletting (Cat. Nos. 277, 279, and 286) and 

stamped palmettes (Cat. Nos. 288 and 291 [they are linked]). 

FIGURE 14.7. Attic ware and glazed ware.

FIGURE 14.8. Attic ware and glazed ware.
758 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

fragments also seem to belong to Type 25 (Cat. Nos. 354, 355, 

356, and 358; for Type 25 and its variants, see Agora 4:67–82). 

Their maximum date range is from the second quarter of the 4th 

century to the second quarter of the 3rd century BCE, suggesting 

that the lamps were imported at a time when other Attic imports 

were rare or nonexistent at Jemmeh. The others belong generally to the wheel-made round shoulder type having a disk base. 

They may have handles. One rim may be an Agora Type 19B 

(Cat. No. 352; see Agora 4:40–41), an Attic version of a Persian 

lamp form also known in the Jemmeh assemblage (see Cat. Nos. 

382–383). The type dates to the 5th century BCE. All preserved 

spouts show traces of burning.

There are seven overpainted Attic fragments (Cat. Nos. 

366–370, Figure 14.9e,f). At least two of these belong to a kantharos of the St. Valentin class (Cat. No. 366), which is easily 

recognized thanks to its black-figure diamond pattern and added 

white. Two nonjoining cull fragments with white dots and blackfigure geometric decoration may come from another St. Valentin kantharos (Cat. No. 367; Howard and Johnson, 1954). The 

class dates to the middle quarters of the 5th century BCE and is 

one of the few Attic painted types found often in the southern 

Levant. Also from the 5th century BCE is an overpainted body 

fragment of an open shape with bands and dot rosettes or berries 

from the late 6th to second quarter of the 5th century BCE. The 

unidentified open forms contribute another decorative device, 

ovules (Cat. Nos. 312, 322, 327). Rouletting on other open vessels adds to the 4th century BCE count (Cat. Nos. 317, 323), as 

might the rising central cone of the floor of another fragment 

(Cat. No. 320).

As in black figure, closed shapes are relatively numerous. 

Six fragments are clearly from cylindrical types. Most of these 

were small; some might be fragments of pattern lekythoi (such as 

Cat. Nos. 332 and 337), and one is probably black bodied (Cat. 

No. 336). No squat lekythos was certainly identified, but there 

might be one or two examples (Cat. No. 329 and possibly Cat. 

No. 348). Three fragments were from large, possibly red-figure, 

vessels (Cat. Nos. 334, 346, and 347). The black-glaze mouth 

possibly belonging to a perfume pot would provide another example of a 4th century BCE shape (Cat. No. 349). A curious 

small spout is similar to the feeder, a shape of uncertain function 

(Cat. No. 350).

Three of the lamps preserved a complete profile or were 

whole (Cat. Nos. 351, 357, and 361, Figure 14.9a,c,d). These 

appear to belong to Agora Type 25A and A Prime (unglazed), 

although they may fall elsewhere in this long-lived and conservative class (Agora 4:67–68, 70–71, pls. 9, 10, 23, 38). Four 

FIGURE 14.9. Various Greek wares.
NUMBER 50 • 759

1975:131). Their distribution is uneven. Tel Michal apparently 

has no pattern lekythoi; Akko, only 1; Apollonia, at least 2; Ashkelon, 5; Dor, 4 or 5; Gezer, 3; and Tell el-Hesi, 9 or 10 (Apollonia: Roll and Tal, 1999:106, 161–163, figs. 4.14:12 [possibly a 

pattern lekythos that is attributed on very limited evidence to the 

Beldam Workshop], 4.44:3–4 [possibly No. 3, certainly No. 4], 

4.48:8–9 [possibly No. 8, certainly No. 9]; Gezer: Gitin, 1990: 

no. 131, pls. 31:17, 46:18 [the latter is certainly a pattern lekythos, not an oinochoe]; Tell el-Hesi: Risser and Blakely, 1989: 

nos. 74–83). Jemmeh appears to have at minimum 15 examples, 

which is truly impressive compared to sites such as Dor that have 

vastly larger quantities of Attic imports (over 1,500 fragments 

were studied in Stewart and Martin, 2005: fig. 1) and not even 

half the number of pattern lekythoi. Brian Shefton has suggested 

that pattern lekythoi were the successors in both form and function to locally produced oil bottles that appear to have been used 

ritually, at least in Jerusalem (Shefton, 2000:78, n. 14). No pattern lekythoi are known from strictly ritual contexts, and Jemmeh will not change that picture. Nonetheless, the preference 

for the pattern lekythos is as worthy of comment as the lack of 

interest in red-figure cups. 

Possibly these preferences are attributable to the site’s location. Although Jemmeh is in the southern coastal plain, the site 

itself is neither coastal (like Ashkelon, Apollonia, Tel Michal, 

Dor, and Akko) nor inland (like Tell el-Hesi and Gezer). What we 

may see at Jemmeh is a third scenario in which the opportunity 

to purchase and awareness of Attic imports is balanced by different social criteria. With the lekythoi we can imagine that the 

packaging, the consistently recognizable white ground covered 

with geometric motifs, signaled desirable contents, namely, perfume. Imported drinking and dining vessels, on the other hand, 

did not fully set many (if any) tables, even if Attic pots were used 

in concert with East Greek ones. The “missing” kraters remind 

us that the Attic symposion set is almost nowhere complete in the 

southern Levant, thanks to the infrequency of decanting vessels 

(cf. Berlin and Lynch, 2002). Why some sites, such as Dor with 

its 175 fragments (Stewart and Martin, 2005), would prefer the 

krater and others not is unclear. We might suppose that at Jemmeh the preferred medium of the krater was metal (cf. Rotroff, 

1996), but this would not be in keeping with the site’s other, 

relatively modest finds. It may be more appropriate to conclude 

that very few people were interested in mixing their wine with 

water in the Greek manner and could not see a use for the krater 

otherwise. 

OTHER GREEK FABRICS

The pottery here is imported from an unknown number of 

probably Greek sources that cannot be grouped with the clearly 

East Greek and Attic material discussed above. There are 11 

bowls, likely all with incurved rims (Cat. Nos. 371–381, Figure 

14.9g–k). Most have the characteristic matte red-brown slip one 

associates with the 4th century BCE and Hellenistic version of 

this familiar form, although a few pieces have a metallic black 

glaze (and are therefore earlier?), such as Cat. No. 375 (Figure 

(Cat. No. 369). Another open fragment cannot be dated (Cat. 

No. 370). There is one true piece of so-called West Slope pottery, an open shape decorated with an added white olive wreath 

and berry. It may be another kantharos and could date as late as 

the first half of the 2nd century BCE, making it one of the latest 

items in the Jemmeh import assemblage.

Virtually every site in Israel occupied in the Persian period 

has turned up at least one or two sherds of Attic pottery. The 

quantity of Attic imports at coastal sites is dramatically larger 

than at sites even slightly inland, contrary to the fairly even distribution seen in the later Iron Age, or so has been thought (see 

Martin, 2007:133). One factor complicating our understanding 

of distribution and quantity of Attic imports is the limited publication of the pottery in final (that is, stratigraphic) publication. 

Jemmeh makes a significant contribution to this discussion even 

though caution must be taken when such small fragments obscure the total number of vessels. 

As is typical, the assemblage skews toward drinking vessels, and closed shapes are dominated by lekythoi (compare, 

conveniently, Waldbaum, 2003: figs. 19.10,11). Atypical is the 

frequency of cups (stemmed, especially) relative to skyphoi 

(otherwise ubiquitous). Also unusual in an assemblage producing so many cups is the tiny quantity of kraters. The number 

of lekythoi appears to be very large. Shapes lacking at Jemmeh 

but known elsewhere in the southern Levant include the lekanis 

(used as a casserole or perhaps a personal item), the askos (also 

for dining or private use), and other table wares (such as the salt 

cellar and table amphora). The three fish plates, a form that has 

uneven distribution (nearly 70 at Dor, possibly only 1 at Ashkelon), are noteworthy (Martin, 2007:318–319).

The extent to which Jemmeh enriches and complicates our 

surely too simplistic understanding of general trends in Attic 

imports can be highlighted by focusing on two examples: the 

stemmed cups and the pattern lekythoi. One of the commoner 

red-figure artists known in the southern Levant, the Pithos 

Painter, favored the stemmed cup, specifically Type C. Nearby 

Ashkelon has at least six examples, including one possibly by 

the Heraion Painter (in the Pithos Painter’s circle; all as yet unpublished: see Martin, 2007:312). Dor has at least three, one of 

which is also attributable to the Heraion Painter (see Stewart and 

Martin, 2005:83, fig. 2:7). At both sites, these painted examples 

represent the majority of Type C cups in the assemblage, and 

Type C is the most common stemmed cup. The absence of this 

artist at Jemmeh must be balanced by the apparent predilection 

for the stemmed cup, which extends to rare stemmed types, such 

as the Acrocup and Vicup. The infrequency of Type C cups may 

suggest that these were purchased specifically for their painted 

scenes, scenes for which, for unknown reasons, the people of 

Jemmeh lacked interest.

The greatest concentration of white-ground pattern lekythoi, which are not, apparently, found in the Athenian Agora, 

in the eastern Mediterranean is in the southern Levant (the most 

complete study is Kurtz, 1975:131–155; for a related lekythos 

from the Agora, see Rotroff and Oakley, 1992: no. 135, pl. 42). 

These were “cheap, mass-produced oil pots” with a long duration that spanned the entire life of the cylinder lekythos (Kurtz, 
760 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

measurement is taken from the wall of the vessel rather than 

the lip, foot, or handle. Diameters are usually estimated, as indicated by use of the approximate sign (~). MPH and MPL should 

be taken as an indication of the size of the fragment only, not 

the size of the vessel. Maximum preserved length means that the 

vessel’s orientation was ignored when taking the measurement, 

whereas MPH was taken according to preserved wheel marks 

and so on. Again, these measurements are included to give the 

reader a general indication of the fragment’s size, which may 

prove helpful when trying to understand the relationship between the complete vessels published in, for example, Agora 12, 

and the very small fragments preserved in occupational debris in 

the Levant. All dates are BCE.

East Greek

Wild Goat/Fikellura

1. SiA Ia–Id? Handle. Figure 14.1a. T: 1.4 cm, MPL: 7.85 

cm. Box 42, GM 1A (5) 2. Coarse red clay with many black and 

white inclusions. Handle and wall slipped red. Thick strap handle with three ridges. Oinochoe of the type associated with the 

Wild Goat style. See Kerschner and Schlotzhauer (2005:9–25, 

characteristic handle at 18). 670–570, probably after 630. 

2. SiA Id. Body fragment. Figure 14.1b. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 

5.7 cm. Box 73, GM 1A TT6 (2). Reddish clay with gray core 

and mica inclusions. Outside with thick white slip and brown 

paint. Portion of a sphinx facing right and geometric filling motifs. Surface very worn. South Ionian oinochoe. For decorative 

scheme, see Karlsruhe 72.133, which dates to ca. 615–600 (Cook 

and Dupont, 1998: fig. 8.8), upper register as in Kerschner and 

Schlotzhauer (2005: no. 67, fig. 33). Compare Kerschner and 

Schlotzhauer (2005: SiA Id, 33–45). 610–580/570.

3. Rotelle. T: 0.9 cm, D: 3.4 cm. Box 131, GM 2A (20). 

Red clay with white inclusions. Disk from the handle/lip zone of 

oinochoe of unclear origin.

4. SiA Ic? Body fragment. Figure 14.1c. T: 1.85 cm, MPH: 

3.45 cm. Box 171, GM 2A P1A (1). Reddish-brown clay with 

mica inclusions. Outside with thick white slip and brown paint. 

Rosette and lotus flower. Oinochoe, probably South Ionian. 

14.9h). One worn bowl(?) (Figure 14.9g, Cat. No. 374) has a 

Greek graffito on its underside: ΚΡΑ. 

Two open disk lamps of unclear Greek origin and Persian type 

are cataloged here (Cat. Nos. 382, 383). One of these is a complete 

profile preserving two antithetical spouts and an unglazed central 

tube (No. 383, Figure 14.10a). These features are characteristic 

of the Agora Type 19A lamp, dated to the last quarter of the 6th 

century to 480 BCE (Agora 4:39–40, pls. 5, 33). A second central 

tube of the same form and possibly the same lamp type was identified (Cat. No. 382). Eleven other lamps are cataloged here (Cat. 

Nos. 384–393, Figure 14.10b–d). They are wheel-made shoulder 

lamps inspired, it seems, by Attic types and generally unslipped on 

their exteriors. They can be dated to the 4th–2nd centuries BCE 

on the basis of general parallels from the Agora and Dor (such 

as Type 25B Prime, which dates to the third quarter of the 4th to 

second quarter of the 3rd centuries BCE [Agora 4:74–77], or Dor 

Type 6, which are dated to the 4th–2nd centuries BCE [RosenthalHeginbottom, 1995:235, nos. 1, 2, fig. 5.15:1,2]).

Closing the catalog are three fragments possibly of Greek 

fabric but unclear type: one may be a skyphos, although the 

rim appears to curve inward (Cat. No. 394); another may be a 

spouted jug with two strap handles (Cat. No. 395), and the last 

is an ovoid closed form with traces of what might be black-figure 

rosettes (Cat. No. 396).

THE CATALOG

The following abbreviations are used in the catalog: 

B-F black figure

c. century

D diameter 

MPH maximum preserved height 

MPL maximum preserved length

R-F red figure 

SiA South Ionian Archaic 

T thickness

As most fragments are very small, the thickness represents 

the maximum preserved as deemed appropriate. Generally, this 

FIGURE 14.10. Lamps and Hellenistic wares.
NUMBER 50 • 761

14. Rim (two nonjoining fragments). T (of rim): 0.45 cm, 

MPH: 2.2 cm. Box 131, GM 2A (20). Reddish-brown micaceous 

clay. Metallic red on lip inside and outside. Reserved band at 

inside projecting rim. Body fragment is reserved outside with metallic red inside. 

15. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, D: 18.0 cm. Box 154, 

GM 2A TT4 (+). Reddish-brown micaceous clay. Black (metallic 

and gray in parts) on lip inside and outside, continues inside until 

break. Reserve band at top of lip inside. Rim near Cook and 

Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1e).

16. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D: ~6.0 cm. Box 156, 

GM 2A TT4 5. Light brown micaceous clay. Matte black below 

lip outside. Inside has thin black band at lip. Small Ionian cup?

17. Handle. Figure 14.1i. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.3 cm. Box 167, 

GM 2A TT4 (5). Red clay with white and mica inclusions. Matte 

red to black inside and outside. Worn. Handle panel and small 

band below lip reserved. Lip offset on outside. Bell-shaped handle.

18. Handle. T (of handle): 1.25 cm, MPL: 4.3 cm. Box 222, 

GM 1B WBR 1. Red micaceous clay. Outside buff with red above 

horizontal handle and reddish brown on top of handle. Inside red. 

19. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: incomplete. Box 229, 

GM 1B P17 EBR. Reddish clay with white and mica inclusions. 

Metallic streaky red inside and outside with reserve band inside.

20. Handle. T (of wall): 0.5 cm, MPL: 3.45 cm. Box 234, 

GM 2B (0). Red clay with small white inclusions. Outside and 

top of horizontal handle matte black. Black line runs under handle and down wall. Inside matte black. 

21. Handle. Figure 14.1j. T (of handle): 1.2 cm, MPL: 6.85 

cm. Box 241, GM 2B TT4 (1). Brown micaceous clay. Outside 

matte brown on face of horizontal handle with trace of more 

matte brown below. Handle panel reserved. Inside brownish red. 

22. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm, D: incomplete. Box 251, 

GM 2B (17A). Brown clay with white inclusions. Lip reserved 

outside with thick matte black and brown bands outside. Inside 

matte black.

23. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.15 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 253, GM 2B (23A). Brown clay with black inclusions. 

Matte black inside and outside. Compare rim of Cook and Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1e), although the Jemmeh example lacks the 

stripes characteristic of this variant.

24. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.6 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 282, GM 2B P4. Reddish-brown clay with mica inclusions. 

Lip streaky reddish brown inside and outside with reserve band 

inside. 

25. Rim and handle. Figure 14.1k. T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 4.6 

cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 299, GM 3B P4. Reddish-yellow clay with 

mica inclusions. Red on lip inside and outside with reserve band 

at top. Handle panel reserved with red band below. Matte brown 

on handle. Strongly projecting rim. A similar decorative scheme 

for this and other cups from Box 299 (Cat. Nos. 26, 27) can be 

found on cups from Salamis, such as Calvet and Yon in Gjerstad 

(1977:17, nos. 88–89, pl. IX). These are dated to the late 7th–

early 6th c. 

26. Rim and handle. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. 

Box 299, GM 3B P4. Clay, decoration as Cat. No. 25, although 

lip band descends farther and lip projects more sharply. 

Decorative scheme suggests this oinochoe is early in the Middle 

II/SiA Ic. A close parallel is in the lotus flower motif on the upper 

register of Louvre A312, which dates to 625–605 BCE (Cook and 

Dupont, 1998: fig. 8.7, which equals Kerschner and Schlotzhauer, 

2005: no. 51). Compare Kerschner and Schlotzhauer (2005: SiA 

Ic, 25–33). 630–610.

5. SiA I. Body fragment. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 3.9 cm. Box 316, 

GM 1C (9) 3. Reddish-yellow clay with mica inclusions. Exterior 

white slipped with brown paint. Very worn, making design all 

but illegible. Perhaps a lotus and triangle. Oinochoe, probably 

South Ionian. 

6. Double handle. Figure 14.1d. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 5.7 cm. 

Box 440, GM 0B (1A) 2. Brown clay with black and mica inclusions. Brown paint on top of handle. Reddish-brown paint on 

outside of wall. Oinochoe, probably South Italian Middle Wild 

Goat or Fikellura. 

Ionian Cups

7. Rim (six joining and one nonjoining fragments). Figure 

14.1e. T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 4.5 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 2, GM 0B? 

1A? P6? (1? 7A?) 3? Reddish clay with white inclusions. Sloppy 

matte brown on outside of lip and in a band below the handles. 

Underside of handles apparently painted. Inside of lip reserved 

with matte black below, perhaps for entire inside. 

8. Rim (three joining fragments). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm, 

D: ~20.0 cm. Box 15, GM 1D (1) 1 and TT1 (+). Brown clay 

with mica inclusions. Matte brown on lip inside and outside. 

Reserve band at top inside of lip.

9. Rim (three joining fragments). Figure 14.1f. T: 0.5 cm, 

MPH: 3.9 cm, D: ~22.0 cm. Box 16, GM 1B (+), 1B EBR (9), 

and 1B (14) 2 and Box 207, GM 1B (14) 2 and 1B TT2. Fine 

buff clay with fine micaceous inclusions. Outside with red band. 

Inside red. 

10. Rim (five joining fragments). Figure 14.1g. T: 0.4 cm, 

MPH: 7.8 cm, D: 22.0 cm. Box 20, GM 1C (5A/6), 1C (14) 3, 

1C P4 (1), and 1C EBR (4). Reddish clay with black and mica 

inclusions. Streaky matte black on lip inside and outside; appears 

to cover entire inside. Reserve band just below lip inside. Thinner brown band below handle zone outside. Handles appear to 

have been painted black, at least on top. Ionian cup similar to 

Cook and Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1b).

11. Rim (18 fragments, of which 10 join). Figure 14.1h. T: 

0.3 cm, MPH: 5.2 cm, D: ~20.0 cm. Box 21, GM 00A (1) 3. 

Brown clay. Very top of lip with matte black band outside. Black 

band below lip zone and thick band (perhaps to bottom of the 

bowl) as bowl angles back to foot. Outside and top of handles 

painted. Top of lip reserved inside; rest of bowl apparently matte 

black. Ionian cup. Similar to Cook and Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1e).

12. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 41, 

GM 1A NBR (3A) 2. Brown clay with white inclusions. Black on 

top of pointed lip. Outside reserved below lip, then two brown 

bands, the first thinner than the second. Inside top of lip reserved, 

then brown band. 

13. Rim. T: 3.5 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: ~20.0 cm. Box 111, 

GM 2A (0). Red clay. Brown band below lip inside and outside. 
762 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

42. Rim. T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 1.1 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 422, GM 0A (7). Light brown clay. Red on lip inside and 

outside with reserve band inside. Small Ionian cup.

43. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.9 cm, D: ~22.0 cm. Box 428, 

GM 0B (0). Light brown clay with mica inclusions. Matte black 

on lip inside and outside with reserve band inside. 

44. Rim. Figure 14.1m. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 4.3 cm, D: too 

small to measure. Box 445, GM 0B (7) 5. Brown clay with mica 

inclusions. Red on lip inside and outside with reserved band inside, red below. 

45. Rim. Figure 14.1n. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D: too 

small to measure. Box 445, GM 0B (7) 5. Reddish clay with 

white and mica inclusions. On outside, a thin red line around the 

lip, the rest of which is reserved; red below lip. Inside appears to 

repeat this pattern.

46. Fragmentary rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 4.2 cm, D: incomplete. Box 451, GM 0B F1A (1) 1. Brown clay with black and 

mica inclusions. Matte black on lip inside and outside.

47. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. No box 

number. Reddish-brown clay with white inclusions. Streaky red 

on lip inside and outside with reserve band inside.

Other Cups

48. Foot. T (of floor): 0.3 cm, MPH: 1.1 cm, D (of foot): 

~8.0 cm. Box 32, GM 1A (0A). Reddish brown clay with white 

inclusions. Red inside and outside, including resting surface of 

foot. Inside of foot with buff band, then red. Torus ring foot. 

Cup or bowl.

49. Foot. Figure 14.1o. T (of floor): 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, 

D (of foot): 3.6 cm. Box 156, GM 2A TT4 5. Gray(?) clay. Matte 

black slip. Underside of flaring ring foot reserved. Foot of the 

type seen on Vroulian and some Ionian cups. See Cook and Dupont (1998: pls. 14.1a, 18.1a).

50. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.0 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 282, GM 2B P4. Brown clay with mica inclusions. Red on 

lip inside and outside with reserve band inside. Lip pointed and 

outturned. Cup. 

51. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 2.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 324, GM 1C SBR (4). Brown clay with mica inclusions. Red 

on lip inside and outside. Matte black band inside. Plain, pointed 

rim. Cup.

52. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 353, 

GM 2C WBR (10) 1. Reddish clay with mica inclusions. Brown 

on offset, thickened and slightly inturned lip with reserve band 

inside. Matte black inside. Cup.

53. Rim. T: 2.5 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 428, GM 0B (0). Red clay. Metallic black on lip inside and 

outside. Traces of dilute B-F palmette(?) in field. Lip gently offset 

and outturned. Cup. 

54. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.6 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 428, GM 0B (0). Brown clay with white and mica inclusions. 

Red on lip inside and outside. Plain rim pointed at top. Cup.

55. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 429, GM 0B (1). Brown clay with mica inclusions. Reddish 

brown on lip inside and outside. Plain rim. Cup.

27. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 4.3 cm, D: ~14.0 cm. Box 299, 

GM 3B P4. Clay, decoration as Cat. No. 25. 

28. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 2.15 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 300, GM 3B P6. Brown clay with black inclusions. 

Two brown bands below lip outside. Inside brown. Flaring rim. 

See Cook and Dupont (1998:129–131, fig. 18.1). 7th–6th c. 

29. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 304, GM 1C TT1 (2). Brown clay with mica inclusions. Red 

lip inside and outside. Flaring, rounded rim. 

30. Rim. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 4.0 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 318, GM 1C (11) 3. Brown clay. Outside reserved with thin, 

dilute red bands on lip; brown band below. Inside matte brown 

below reserved lip. Large Ionian cup. For decorative scheme, see 

Calvet and Yon in Gjerstad (1977:17, nos. 88, 89, pl. IX). These 

are dated to the late 7th–early 6th c. 

31. Foot. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.9 cm, D (of foot): ~8.0 cm. Box 

338, GM 2C (+) 1. Brown clay with mica inclusions. Matte black 

inside and outside. Resting surface of low ring foot and underside of floor reserved. See Cook and Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1b).

32. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm, D: ~15.0 cm. Box 350, 

GM 2C (9) 1. Reddish-brown clay with mica inclusions. Matte 

black outside. Inside of lip reserved with thin black band. Black 

below. Very worn. 

33. Body fragments (three joining). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 5.1 cm. 

Box 350, GM 2C (9) 1. Reddish-yellow clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Thick matte black band outside. Inside streaky brown.

34. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 5.0 cm, D (of foot): ~8.0 cm. 

Box 350, GM 2C (9) 1. Brown clay with mica inclusions. All 

preserved areas matte black. Flaring ring foot, probably of an 

Ionian cup. See Cook and Dupont (1998: pl. 18.1c).

35. Handle. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 3.0 cm. Box 352, GM 2C (10) 

1. Brown clay with white and mica inclusions. Red below lip 

outside and on horizontal handle face. Inside brown.

36. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 352, GM 2C (10) 1. Brown clay with mica inclusions. Metallic reddish brown inside and outside with reserve band inside.

37. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.4 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 352, GM 2C (10) 1. Light brown clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Matte brown outside. Brown band inside with a thin 

reserve band.

38. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.9 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 355, 

GM 2C (3) 2. Brown clay with mica inclusions. Metallic brown 

inside and outside except with thin reserve inside. 

39. Foot. Figure 14.1l. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.0 cm. Box 378, 

GM 1D TT2 (2, 4). Reddish-yellow clay with mica inclusions. 

Reddish brown paint inside and out. Resting surface and underside of floor reserved. Groove at junction of wall and low ring 

foot. Profile of foot similar to the simple cup type seen in Cook 

and Dupont (1998: fig. 18.1b), which dates to the last quarter of 

the 7th–early 6th c.

40. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 408, GM 2D (8). Red clay with white and mica inclusions. 

Three brown bands outside. Reddish-brown band below lip inside. 

41. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.05 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 409, GM 2D (9). Brown clay with black and mica inclusions. Red on lip inside and outside with reserve band inside. 
NUMBER 50 • 763

band(?) with drips(?). Inside matte black. Very worn. Exterior of 

foot, resting surface, and underside of floor reserved. Ring foot. 

Banded bowl?

69. Rim. Figure 14.2g. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 4.2 cm, D: 20 cm. 

Box 118, GM 2A (6). Red clay with white inclusions. Red band 

on lip inside and outside. Rim flattened on top. Banded bowl of 

Dor Type E. 

70. Rim. T: 0.75 cm, MPH: 3.0 cm, D: ~22.0 cm. Box 119, 

GM 2A NBR (6). Gray fabric. Brown inside and outside. Outturned pointed rim. Banded bowl of Dor Type E. 

71. Rim. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm, D: too small to measure 

(over 20.0 cm?). Box 119, GM 2A NBR (6). Light gray fabric. 

Brown band inside and outside. Exterior shows end of band. 

Banded bowl?

72. Rim. T: 0.85 cm, 3.5 cm, D: 24.0 cm. Box 130, GM 2A 

(12). Red clay with white inclusions. Red band on lip inside and 

outside with reserve band inside, then red band below. Lower 

portion of rim thickened on inside. Banded bowl of Dor Type C. 

73. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.65 cm. D: ~ 22 cm. Box 179, 

GM 1B (+). Reddish brown clay with white inclusions. Brownish 

black on lip inside and outside. Outside below lip is a gray band, 

then matte black. Banded bowl of Dor Type A. See Mook and 

Coulson (1995:93–94, fig. 3.1). 

74. Rim (three joining fragments). T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 3.0 

cm, D: 13.0 cm. Box 194, GM 1B (5) 1. Brown, very micaceous clay. Red band on lip inside and outside. Thin band outside where body tapers from rim. Pointed lip of a banded bowl 

of Dor Type A1 or B1. Mook and Coulson (1995:93–94, figs. 

3.1.11–18, 3.2.5–11).

75. Rim (two nonjoining fragments). T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.7 

cm, D: ~12.0 cm. Box 194, GM 1B (5) 1. Reddish clay with 

white inclusions. Matte black on outside of lip; red below and 

inside. Plain, pointed rim. Banded bowl? 

76. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 199, GM 1B (10) 1. Reddish-yellow clay with small black 

inclusions. Red band on lip inside and outside. Outside matte 

brown. Pointed plain rim, presumably of a banded bowl.

77. Rim (three fragments, two joining). T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 

3.25 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 251, GM 2B (17A). Brown clay with 

black and white inclusions. Brown on lip inside and outside, 

forming a thick band inside. Banded bowl of Dor Type E. See 

Mook and Coulson (1995:94, fig. 3.5).

78. Foot. Figure 14.2h. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 6.75 cm, D (of foot): 

~6 cm. Box 279, GM 2B P2 WBR. Brown clay. Inside center has 

brown dot with two bands above. Flaring ring foot. Banded bowl 

foot of Dor Type F. See Mook and Coulson (1995:94, fig. 3.6).

79. Rim. T: 1.0 cm, MPH: 6.5 cm, D: 24 cm. Box 298, GM 

3B P2. Reddish clay with white inclusions. Top and inside of rim 

in matte brown. White inside and outside. Rim offset inside and 

pointed. Banded bowl of Dor Type C. See Mook and Coulson 

(1995: cat. no. 219, fig. 3.3.8).

80. Foot. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 1.50 cm. Box 300, GM 3B P6. 

Reddish-brown clay with mica inclusions. Resting surface and 

underside of foot reserved. Matte black outside. Red inside. Ring 

foot of the type associated with the shallow banded bowl, probably of Dor Type C or E. 

56. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: ~20.0 cm. Box 451, 

GM 0B F1A (1) 1. Brown clay with black and mica inclusions. 

Matte reddish brown on lip inside and outside with sloppy reserve band(?) outside. Lip thickened and outturned. Cup?

57. Rim (two joining and two nonjoining fragments). Figure 

14.2a. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.3 cm, D: 7.0 cm. Box 459, GM 00A 

(1) 3. Reddish clay with black, white and mica inclusions. Outside slipped white with sloppy, streaky brown bands. Red band 

on lip inside. Rim appears to be straight and plain. Cup.

58. Rim and handle. T: 0.5 cm, MPL: 4.3 cm, D: ~10 cm. 

Box 464, GM 00A F8. Reddish-brown clay with white and black 

inclusions. Brown outside. Handle panel reserved. Inside reddish 

brown with reserve band below lip. Handle set into lip. Cup.

Banded Bowls

59. Body and foot fragments (five joining and one nonjoining). Figure 14.2b. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 6.5 cm. Box 6, GM 0B (6), 

1B (+), and 1B (9) 1. Gray clay with some large white inclusions. 

One brown band outside. Black metallic bands inside. 

60. Complete profile (two joining fragments). Figure 14.2c. 

T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 7.9 cm, D: 24.0 cm. Box 18, GM 1A TT4 (6). 

Red clay with white inclusions, some large. Reddish brown on 

lip inside and outside with reserve band inside. Center of bowl 

has two or more reddish-brown concentric circles. Lower rim 

thickened on inside. Spreading ring foot. Banded bowl of Dor 

Type C. For the type and its distinctive rim, see Mook and Coulson (1995:94, fig. 3.3.1–9). 

61. Rim. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D: ~20.0 cm. Box 31, GM 

1A (0). Light red clay. Brown band outside. Reddish-brown band 

inside of lip. Outturned pointed rim. Probably a banded bowl. 

62. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.9 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 54, GM 1A (5A) 7. Red clay. Red band on lip inside and 

outside. Flattened rim. 

63. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D (of foot): ~8 cm. Box 

67, GM 1A TT1 (0). Buff clay? Matte black inside and outside. 

Ring foot with grooved resting surface of the type associated 

with the banded bowl. 

64. Rim. Figure 14.2d. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm, D: 16.0 cm. 

Box 89, GM 1A P6 TT4 (8). Red clay. Outside has black band on 

lip and gray and brown bands below. Inside black. Thickened, 

pointed rim. Banded bowl of Dor Type A.

65. Rim. Figure 14.2e. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm, D: ~22.0 

cm. Box 91, GM 1A, P6 (2A). Red clay with white inclusions. 

Red on lip inside and outside with reserve band inside. Banded 

bowl of Dor Type C.

66. Rim (two joining fragments). T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, 

D: 20 cm. Box 111, GM 2A (0). Light reddish-brown clay. Matte 

black glaze outside. Reddish-brown inside, scraped at top of rim. 

Incurving rim. Banded bowl?

67. Foot. Figure 14.2f. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 9.0 cm. Box 113, 

GM 2A WBR (0). Red clay. Brown band inside around center 

with two (or more) red bands above. Ring foot. Wide (and shallow?) banded bowl. 

68. Foot and body fragments (two nonjoining). T: 0.4–0.5 

cm, MPH: 1.1 cm. Box 114, GM 2A (1). Outside matte black 
764 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

93. Rim (two joining fragments). Figure 14.2k. T: 6.5 cm, 

MPH: 5 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 188, GM 1B (1) 1. 

Brown clay with many small black inclusions. Matte red-brown 

glaze inside and outside with lighter, thick band below rim on 

outside. Outturned rim. 

94. Body fragments (three joining). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 7.5 cm. 

Box 237, GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1. Red micaceous clay with white 

inclusions. Outside gray. Inside brown with visible air bubble. 

Bowl shaped. 

95. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 245, GM 2B (8). Red clay. Matte black inside and outside. 

Rim offset inside. Shallow with curved wall. East Greek?

96. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 3.0 cm. Box 300, GM 

3B P6. Reddish-yellow clay with white inclusions. Matte black 

outside on and below carination. Trace of brown and drip line 

above carination. Brown inside.

97. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D: ~20.0 cm. Box 344, 

GM 2C NBR (3). Brown clay with black and mica inclusions. 

Flat, thickened rim projects inside and outside. 

98. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D (of foot): 10.0 cm. Box 

361, GM 2C (10) 2. Metallic black. Resting surface of high ring 

foot reserved and grooved. Scraped groove at join of wall and 

foot. Bowl? East Greek?

Oinochoe/Table Amphora/Jug

99. Decorated body fragments (two joining and one nonjoining). Figure 14.3a. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 6.1 cm. Box 3, GM 

0B TT1 (0), 1B (2) 1, and 1B TT (2) 1. Brown micaceous clay. 

Brown horizontal band. Body of a jug or table amphora. See 

Mook and Coulson (1995: cat. no. 15, fig. 3.10.13).

100. Body and foot fragments (five joining). Figure 14.3b. 

T (at foot): 0.9 cm, MPH: 6.8 cm, D (of foot): 3.95 cm. Box 7, 

GM 00A (1) 3. Buff micaceous clay. Two horizontal reddishbrown bands. Jug with flat bottom. For body shape and decorative scheme, see Mook and Coulson (1995:97, 122, no. 15, fig. 

3.10.13). 

101. Body and handle fragments (12 joining). Figure 14.3c. 

Measurements not available. Box 8, GM 00B (2). Light buff clay 

with white and small mica inclusions. Reddish-brown decoration outside: bands at belly and ribbon around and below stub of 

vertical handle whose ends extend on top of belly bands. Beside 

handle is beginning of typical scallop decoration. Table amphora.

102. Body and shoulder (10 fragments, some joining). T: 0.6 

cm, MPH: 4.6 cm. Box 10, GM 1A TT11 (4, 5, 9). Buff clay with 

white inclusions. Brown horizontal bands. Closed vessel with a 

narrowed neck (table amphora?). 

103. Body fragments (two joining and two nonjoining). T: 

0.6 cm, MPH: 5.0 cm. Box 13, GM 2A (13, 15). Buff clay with 

brown horizontal band(s). Table amphora or jug. 

104. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 56, GM 1A (9) 7. Light brown clay with white inclusions. 

Brown band on lip inside and outside, extending farther inside. 

105. Body fragment. Figure 14.3d. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 7.2 

cm. Box 69, GM 1A TT1 (3). Red clay with fine white and mica 

inclusions. Outside buff with red band. Table amphora or jug.

81. Foot. T: 0.45 cm, MPL: 6.1 cm, D (of foot): ~7 cm. Box 

311, GM 1C (5A). Brown clay with white and many mica inclusions. Matte black inside. Ring foot of the type belonging to a 

shallow banded bowl, probably Dor Type C or E. 

82. Foot (two joining fragments). T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.85 cm, 

D (of foot): ~8.0 cm. Box 336, GM 2C (+). Brown clay. Traces 

of matte black band inside. Outside matte brown. Resting surface and underside reserved. High, beveled ring foot with a deep 

groove on its face of the type associated with the banded bowl. 

83. Foot. T (of foot): 0.8 cm, MPL: 4.4 cm. Box 401, GM 

2D (2). Brown(?) clay. Matte black outside. Resting surface of 

foot reserved, as is apparently the underside except for some 

drips. Ring foot of the type associated with the banded bowl.

84. Rim. T: 0.35, MPH: 1.3 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 406, GM 2D (6). Reddish clay with white inclusions. Matte 

red on lip inside and outside. Inside below lip matte black. Thickened, flattened on top rim projects inside. Possibly a banded 

bowl of Dor Type C, although it seems more on the scale of a 

cup. See Mook and Coulson (1995: fig. 3.3).

85. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D (of foot): ~8.0 cm. 

Box 433, GM 0B (1B) 1. Brown clay with mica inclusions. Matte 

black inside. Reddish brown outside. Reserved: resting surface 

and inside of foot, underside of floor. Spreading ring foot with 

beveled face of the type associated with the banded bowl of Dor 

Type F. Near Mook and Coulson (1995:94–95, cat. no. 202, fig. 

3.6.14).

86. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.6 cm, D (of foot): 5.4 cm. Box 

547, general site. Brown clay with black, white, and mica inclusions. Flaring ring foot with central nipple. Resting surface and 

underside of floor reserved. Reddish brown inside and outside. 

Ring foot of the type associated with the banded bowl. 

87. Partial foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.6 cm, D: incomplete. 

Box 547, general site. Brown clay with white inclusions. Outside 

matte black. Inside matte brown. Inside of foot and underside of 

floor reserved. Banded bowl?

Open Forms

88. Body fragment. Figure 14.2i. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 4.4 cm. 

Box 282, GM 2B P4. Brown clay with white inclusions. Outside 

decorated with brown paint, perhaps an ivy leaf. Inside red with 

reserve band. Probably a banded bowl. 

89. Body fragment. T: 0.85, MPH: 5.6 cm. Box 79, GM 

1A P2 (4). Red clay with black and mica inclusions. Red inside. 

Outside with red band. Heavy open vessel.

90. Rim. Figure 14.2j. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 3.95 cm, D: ~23.0 

cm. Box 81, GM 1A P2 (5A). Gray clay. Inside matte black. Outside lip matte black with a matte black band below. Incurved rim 

of a shallow bowl? Lid? 

91. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 7.4 cm. Box 81, GM 

1A P2 (5A). Red clay with mica and white inclusions. Outside 

has one small and one wide red band. Burned? Ovoid?

92. Handle (two joining fragments). T: 1.5 cm, MPL: 5.8 

cm. Box 131, GM 2A (20). Reddish-brown micaceous clay. 

Brown paint outside. Probably half of a double handle from a 

pouring vessel.
NUMBER 50 • 765

118. Body fragment. Figure 14.3j. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm. 

Box 32, GM 1A (0A). Red clay. Outside cream with three bands: 

dilute black, red, and dilute black. 

119. Body fragment. Figure 14.3k. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.0 cm. 

Box 15, GM 1A W1 NBR. Gray clay with tiny mica inclusions. 

Outside has reserve band then black band, on top of which are 

added white-red/purple-white bands at top and bottom(?) (sherd 

breaks off). The use of white (and lack of incision) precludes 

a Vroulian identification (Cook and Dupont, 1998:114–115). 

Decorative scheme is like the Ionian cup (Cook and Dupont, 

1998:129–131; fig. 18.1a,b). Such banding is used also on bird 

and rosette bowls (Cook and Dupont, 1998:26–28). There is no 

mention of the scheme on closed shapes. 

120. Body fragment. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 86, GM 

1A P5 (5A). Red clay with white, black, and mica inclusions. 

Cream with three red bands. 

121. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 6.2 cm. Box 70, GM 

1A TT2 (3). Red clay with white inclusions. Outside has one thin 

and one thick reddish-brown band. 

122. Body fragment. Figure 14.3l. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.5 cm. 

Box 123, GM 2A (11). Brown clay with white inclusions. Two 

matte black bands outside. 

123. Body fragment. Figure 14.3m. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.7 

cm. Box 123, GM 2A (11). Reddish-brown clay with white inclusions. Outside has two matte black bands.

124. Body fragment. Figure 14.3n. T: 0.4 cm, 3.2 cm. Box 

123, GM 2A (11). Light buff clay. Outside has two brown bands. 

125. Body fragment. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 6.0 cm. Box 125, 

GM 2A (13). Buff clay with white inclusions. Brown band outside. Deep interior wheel marks. 

126. Body fragment. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.4 cm. Box 125, GM 

2A (13). Fine brown clay with white and mica inclusions. Thin 

brown band outside.

127. Body fragment. Figure 14.3o. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.9 cm. 

Box 128, GM 2A (18). Gray clay with white inclusions. Brown 

leaves? 

128. Body fragments (four joining). Figure 14.3p. T: 0.7 cm, 

MPH: 6.3 cm. Box 135, GM 2A TT4 (10). Cream clay with 

white inclusions. Two brown bands outside. 

129. Body fragment. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 5.6 cm. Box 179, 

GM 1B (+). Reddish-brown clay with very fine mica inclusions. 

Outside three brown and red bands as vessel narrows toward its 

foot. Globular or rounded closed vessel. Appears burnt.

130. Body fragments (four joining). T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 9.9 

cm. Box 199, GM 1B (10) 1. Reddish-yellow clay with gray core 

and white inclusions. Two matte brown bands outside. From 

lower portion of a closed vessel with rounded body.

131. Body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 2.2 cm. Box 274, GM 

2B W2 NBR. Brown clay with white inclusions. Thin reddishbrown bands outside. 

132. Body fragment. Figure 14.3q. T: 0.8 cm, MPL: 6.6 cm. Box 

507, GMII C1 (2B) 2 + Box 510, GMII C1 P2 (2). Reddish-brown 

clay with white inclusions. Concentric circles outside in brown and 

red. Rounded bottom of a circular or closed ovoid vessel. 

133. Shoulder and neck fragment. Figure 14.3r. T: 0.7 cm, 

MPH: 4.75 cm. Box 547, general site. Brown fabric with white 

106. Shoulder fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 6 cm. Box 81, GM 

1A P2 (5A). Cream clay. Outside matte black. Rounded shoulder 

that is flat on top favors the table amphora.

107. Rim (three nonjoining fragments). Figure 14.3e. T: 

0.45 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, D: incomplete. Box 82, GM 1A P2 

(1). Brown clay with white inclusions. Top and below lip matte 

black. Another matte black band on a body fragment that probably belongs to the same vessel. Thickened rim, pointed at the 

top. Probably a table amphora or jug.

108. Shoulder fragment (two joining). Figure 14.3f. T: 0.6 

cm, MPL: 6.1 cm. Box 131, GM 2A (20). Reddish-brown clay 

with small white inclusions. Red band near bottom of neck. On 

shoulder a red wavy line (and trace of other decoration). Just 

below shoulder, double red lines. Probably a table amphora.

109. Rim. Figure 14.3g. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 4.3 cm, D: too 

small to measure. Box 173, GM 2A P12 WBR (9). Brown clay 

with black inclusions. White-slipped inside and outside. Matte 

reddish-brown band on lip inside and outside. Thickened, flattopped, outturned rim of a table amphora.

110. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm, D (of foot): ~7.0 cm. 

Box 190, GM 1B (2) 1. Reddish-brown clay with small white 

and mica inclusions. String-cut base.

111. Neck. Figure 14.3h. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 5.35 cm. Box 

298, GM 3B P2. Light reddish clay with white and mica inclusions. Outside buff with brown horizontal lines. Groove at junction of neck and shoulder. Probably a table amphora. 

112. Double handle (four joining fragments). Figure 14.3i. 

T (width of handle): 2.9 cm, MPL: 8.55 cm. Box 318, GM 1C 

(11) 3. Reddish-yellow clay with white and mica inclusions. 

Outside buff with reddish-brown decoration: bands on handle’s 

sides and irregular horizontal stripes across the face. Form and 

decorative scheme similar to an oinochoe from Cyprus dated 

to the 6th c. BCE (Gjerstad in Gjerstad, 1977: cat. no. 165, pl. 

XIX:6).

113. Foot. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 7.4 cm, D (of foot): ~18.0 cm. 

Box 377, GM 1D TT1 (3). Brown clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Matte black outside. Foot and underside of floor reserved. Squared, projecting ring foot of a table amphora.

114. Body fragment. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 4.1 cm. Box 428, 

GM 0B (0). Reddish clay with white, black, and mica inclusions 

and a gray core. Outside white with thick matte black bands of 

a pattern similar to the amphora from Cyprus in Gjerstad (1977: 

no. 182, pl. XXI.4). Closed.

115. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D (of foot): 10.0 cm. 

Box 461, GM 00A P3. Light brown clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Torus ring foot of a closed vessel. Table amphora?

116. Shoulder fragments (two joining). T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 

2.6 cm. Box 470, GM 00B (3). Brown clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Brown band at shoulder. Oinochoe or table amphora.

Closed Forms

117. Body fragments (five, several joining). T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 

12.2 cm. Box 19, GM 2B (4). Red clay with white, black, and 

mica inclusions. Decoration outside: buff slip and reddish-brown 

bands. Very worn. Belly of a closed vessel. 
766 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the small handle, which is very likely from the same vessel, this 

is a cup. 5th c.

146. B-F body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 1.7 cm. Box 111, 

GM 2A (0). Illegible B-F decoration. Cup. Early 5th c.? 

147. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5a. T: 0.2 cm, 1.8 cm. 

Box 199, GM 1B (10) 1. Horizontal vine in brownish purple 

with black dots and blob (probably a human figure). Very fine 

fabric of a delicate cup. Probably Painter of Elaios I, who was 

part of the Haimon Group, as suggested by the delicacy and use 

of brownish purple. Circa 480.

148. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5b. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 

3.7 cm. Box 266, GM 2B NBR (16). Portions of dot vine and 

palmette above double black bands. Haimonian drinking vessel. 

A carefully painted example. Circa 480. 

149. Rim. Figure 14.5c. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.4 cm, D: 16.0 

cm. Box 547, general site. Exterior of lip offset but vertical with 

brownish-red glaze. Below reserved with blobby B-F decoration. 

Attic? Cup?

Black Figure: Open Forms

150. B-F body fragment. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2 cm. Box 120, 

GM 2A (7). Illegible B-F decoration. 

151. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5d. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 

1.85 cm. Box 409, GM 2D (9). Ivy(?) chain with dots in the 

loops. Fragment is very flat and could be from a ledge rim of a 

calyx krater.

152. B-F body fragment. T: 0.5 cm, MPL: 1.8 cm. Box 419, 

GM 0A (5). Thin B-F bowl bands and a bit of a blob palmette. 

Haimonian drinking vessel. 

153. B-F body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 421, 

GM 0A (6A). B-F drapery(?) with incision. 

Black Figure: Lekythos

154. B-F shoulder and neck fragments (four joining). Figure 

14.5e. T (of neck): 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm. Box 14, GM 2A (4) 

and 2A (6). B-F palmettes and trace of thin band near base of 

neck. Cylinder lekythos. 5th c.

155. B-F body fragments (four joining). Figure 14.5f. T: 

0.35 cm, MPH: 3.9 cm. Box 27, GM 2A (15) and 2A NBR (15). 

White ground with B-F checkerboard above portions of three 

palmettes. Glaze reddish brown and abraded. Pattern lekythos. 

5th c.

156. B-F body fragment. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 

61, GM 1A (12) 7. White ground. Traces of B-F bands, almost 

completely worn off. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

157. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5g. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 

4.05 cm. Box 784, GM, no square (+). White ground. B-F meander within double thin bands. In field below: palmettes in circles(?), probably oriented toward center. Pattern lekythos. 5th c. 

158. B-F body fragments (two nonjoining). T: 0.3 cm, MPL: 

3.0 cm. Box 118, GM 2A (6). B-F palmette and illegible B-F 

decoration (circle?) from area below neck of a lekythos.

159. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5h. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 6 

cm. Box 127, GM 2A (15). White ground. B-F decoration: five 

inclusions. Exterior has brown paint with ivy(?) leaves. Globular 

vessel.

Transport Amphora

134. Body fragment. Figure 14.4a. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 10.9 

cm. Box 59, GM 1A (10) 7. Dark red clay with white and mica 

inclusions. Outside buff with two thin red bands.

135. Rim. Figure 14.4b. T: 1.1 cm, MPH: 4.7 cm, D: ~8.0 

cm. Box 93, GM 1A P6 (4). Reddish-brown clay with white inclusions. Inset rim with thickened, outturned lip. 

136. Rim. Figure 14.4c. T (of rim): 2.2 cm, MPH: 4.0 cm, D 

(of exterior of rim): ~14.0 cm. Box 131, GM 2A (20). Reddishbrown clay with white and mica inclusions and gray core. Red 

on exterior of lip. Thick, rounded projecting rim. 

137. Handle. Figure 14.4d. T: 3.5 cm, MPH: 5.4 cm. Box 

131, GM 2A (20). Reddish-brown clay with white inclusions. 

Trace of brown vertical line and four brown horizontal lines outside. Short, thick curving handle. Probably Chian.

138. Handle. Figure 14.4e. T: 3.5 cm, MPL: 6.15 cm. Box 

168, GM 2A TT4 (6). Reddish brown clay with white, black, 

and mica inclusions. Matte black paint over handle and in a thin 

stripe down its length. Probably Chian.

139. Shoulder. Figure 14.4f. T: 1.0 cm, MPL: 7.0 cm. Box 

389, GM 1D (9) 1. Reddish-yellow clay with white inclusions. 

Brown band at transition to neck.

140. Rim. T: 1.0 cm, MPH: 3.7 cm, D: ~10.0 cm. Box 432, 

GM 0B (+) 1. Light brown clay with white and black inclusions. 

Red band on outside of lip.

141. Rim. Figure 14.4g. T: 1.3 cm, MPH: 7.4 cm, D: ~13.0 

cm. Box 435, GM 0B (4) 1. Brown clay with white, black, and 

mica inclusions. Brown paint on top and outside of lip. Brown 

circle(?) on neck. Thickened, outturned rim, bulbous neck, and 

start of handle just below the lip. A “swollen-necked” Chian 

amphora. See Cook and Dupont (1998:149, fig. 23.2d–f). The 

painting scheme suggests this example dates early in the development of the type, which begins in the end of the 6th c. May be 

the same amphora as Cat. No. 142. 

142. Handle. T: 3.3 cm, MPH: 12.2 cm. Box 450, GM 0B 

P4 (8). Reddish-brown clay with white and mica inclusions. Thin 

brown line down length of handle. Chian? May be the same amphora as Cat. No. 141.

143. Body fragment. T: 0.8 cm, MPL: 10.0 cm. Box 476, 

GM 00B F5. Reddish clay with white and mica inclusions. One 

red and one white band outside. 

144. Body fragment. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 4.3 cm. Box 854, 

GMI 1F F4 (1). Reddish clay with white inclusions and a few 

very fine mica inclusions. Red vertical band outside.

Attic Pottery

Black Figure: Cup (Skyphos)

145. Body and handle (two nonjoining fragments). T: 0.4 

cm, MPH: 1.1 cm. Box 37, GM 1A (3). Body fragment with B-F 

decoration, probably a crude Haimonian palmette. Judging from 
NUMBER 50 • 767

176. B-F(?) shoulder. T: 0.3 cm, MPL: 2.4 cm. Box 376, GM 

1D TT1 (2). B-F palmette, dot and circle(?) from shoulder of a 

lekythos. Could be red figure.

177. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5l. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 

2.1 cm. Box 385, GM 1D (3) 1. B-F incised drapery? Lekythos? 

Fragmentary and burnt.

178. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5m. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 

3.75 cm. Box 418, GM 0A (4). B-F drapery? May once have had 

added white. Cylinder lekythos.

179. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5n. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 4.2 

cm. Box 420, GM 0A (6). White ground. Illegible B-F decoration, 

something loose and looping. Below: thin black lines, dots, black 

bands. Pattern lekythos. 5th c. Might go with Cat. No. 180.

180. B-F shoulder. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 4.5 cm. Box 420, GM 

0A (6). Shoulder decorated with B-F rays. Lekythos. Might go 

with Cat. No. 179. 

181. B-F Shoulder. Figure 145.5o. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm. 

Box 439, GM 0B (1) 2. Reserve band below shoulder with B-F 

running dog pattern. Black line above and below. Squat patterned lekythos. The running dog pattern here is unusual and 

approaches a degenerate meander that is unlinked. Sometimes 

careless approaches to meander are seen on pattern lekythoi, 

such as the example from Petrie’s excavations at Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928:29, cat. no. 45, pl. XLVI:2). But the shape and approach to decoration here are of the squat lekythos. See Agora 

12 (no. 1123, fig. 11, pl. 38; the shape is discussed on p. 154). 

5th c. 

182. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5p. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.6 

cm. Box 516, GMII C3 (+). White ground. B-F net pattern and 

bands. Pattern lekythos?

183. B-F body fragment. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 3.9 cm. Box 519, 

GMII D4 (0). White ground. Traces of B-F lines. Below: thick 

black band with incised lines. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

Black Figure: Closed Forms

184. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.6a. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.5 

cm. Box 355, GM 2C (3) 2. Net pattern. Closed round or ovoid 

vessel.

185. B-F(?) body fragment. Figure 14.6b. T: 0.65 cm, MPL: 

2.5 cm. Box 364, GM 1A (1A) 8. Squiggly incised lines, as with 

hair. Closed vessel with uneven surface and roughly slipped inside (as with askoi).

Red Figure: Skyphos

186. R-F rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.2 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 186, GM 1B TT1 (1). Plain rim with trace of R-F owl 

head. Glaux, Attic Type B. 475–425.

187. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6c. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.9 

cm. Box 197, GM 1B (8) 1. Fragmentary draped figure(?) with 

an extended hand. Vertical wall and thickness suggest this comes 

from a skyphos. Drapery points to a date in the 5th c.

188. R-F body fragment. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm. Box 244, 

GM 2B (4). B-F meander and trace of a field. The decorative 

scheme and vertical wall suggest this is a skyphos.

thin bands; below, in the field, palmettes in circles oriented toward 

center to create a petal or similar motif. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

160. B-F? foot. T: 1.0 cm, D (of foot): 3.5 cm. Box 127, GM 

2A (15). Face of foot concave. Glaze streaky. Underside reserved. 

Foot of a small cylindrical lekythos. Might go with Cat. No. 159. 

161. B-F shoulder and neck (three joining fragments). Figure 14.5i. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm. Box 145, GM 2A (6A) 3. B-F 

line(s) around neck (fragmentary) and palmettes with varying 

orientation connected by fine line. Cylinder lekythos.

162. B-F(?) body fragment. T: 2 cm, MPH: 3.95 cm, D: 

~4.45 cm. Box 152, GM 2A TT2 (4). Probably white ground. 

Dilute black-brown bands. Four incised lines, three in a group 

around body’s widest point. Metallic glaze. Lower body of a cylindrical, probably pattern, lekythos.

163. B-F shoulder. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm. Box 183, GM 

1B TT1 (5). Rays on top of shoulder. Body with very worn white 

field and traces of black decoration. Pattern lekythos.

164. B-F neck and shoulder (two nearly joining fragments). 

T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 4.4 cm. Box 194, GM 1B (5) 1. Neck reserved. 

B-F rays on shoulder. Large lekythos.

165. B-F body fragment. T: 5.5 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 194, 

GM 1B (5) 1. White ground. Black bands. Pattern lekythos. Possibly from same vessel as black-glaze spout, Cat. No. 337. 5th c. 

166. B-F body fragment. T (not complete): 1.0 cm, MPL: 

3.7 cm. Box 197, GM 1B (8) 1. White ground. Below are alternating black bands. Small pattern lekythos. Might be from same 

vessel as Cat. Nos. 338 and 339.

167. B-F body fragment. T: 1 cm, MPH: 4.45 cm, D (maximum, of body): ~8.0 cm. Box 199, GM 1B (10) 1. White ground. 

Field once decorated with rosettes above thin dilute black band 

and thick black band. Very worn. Pattern lekythos.

168. B-F body fragment. T: 1.2 cm, MPH: 2.95 cm. Box 

212, GM 1B EBR (8B). White ground. Three B-F bands in field. 

Pattern lekythos. 5th c. Might be same vessel as Cat. No. 169.

169. B-F body fragment. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 3.0 cm. Box 

218, GM 1B NBR (8). White ground. B-F band and illegible decoration. Surface worn. Pattern lekythos. 5th c. Might be same 

vessel as Cat. No. 168.

170. B-F body fragment. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm. Box 

265, GM 2B NBR (13). White ground. Dilute black bands. Very 

worn. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

171. B-F body fragment. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 4.95 cm. Box 

277, GM 2B FA/F1 NBR. Field has trace of B-F decoration (a 

blob). Below are black bands. Small cylinder lekythos. 

172. B-F body fragment. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 3.5 cm. Box 

279, GM 2B P2 WBR. White ground. Trace of black band overpainted with thin white band. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

173. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5j. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 5 

cm. Box 290, GM 3B TT1 (2). White ground. Ivy above reserve 

band and black band. Pattern lekythos. 5th c.

174. B-F shoulder. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm. Box 291, GM 

3B (1). Rays on shoulder, black on handle exterior, body (as preserved) reserved. Very worn. Small cylindrical lekythos.

175. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.5k. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.5 

cm. Box 372, GM 2C P4 (1). B-F incised drapery and vertical 

line. Not too fine. Probably a cylinder lekythos. 
768 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

202. Foot. T (of floor): 0.95 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, D (of foot): 

~10.0 cm. Box 118, GM 2A (6). Torus ring foot. Black glaze outside, some peeled. Red glaze inside. Scraped groove at junction 

of wall and foot. Resting surface and extant underside of floor 

reserved. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c. 

203. Rim. T: 0.7 cm, 1.4 cm. Box 118, GM 2A (6). Thickened 

outturned rim. Possibly an Attic Type A skyphos of the 4th c. 

204. B-F body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.1 cm. Box 120, 

GM 2A (7). B-F rays or lines. Probably from the lower wall of a 

Corinthian-type skyphos. 

205. Foot (two joining fragments). T (of floor): 0.5 cm, 

MPH: 1.4 cm, D (of foot): ~9.0 cm. Box 123, GM 2A (11). Torus 

ring foot. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

206. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 130, 

GM 2A (12). Plain rim. Glaze fired red in parts. Attic Type A 

skyphos. 5th c. 

207. Foot. T (of floor): 1.05 cm, MPH: 2.85 cm, D (of 

foot): ~10.5 cm. Box 163, GM 2A F7 2. Torus ring foot. Scraped 

groove at junction of wall and foot. Resting surface and underside of foot reserved. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

208. Handle and rim. T (of rim): 0.5 cm, MPL: 4.3 cm. Box 

195, GM 1B (6) 1. Plain rim and horseshoe handle of a skyphos, 

probably Attic Type A. Glaze peeled. 5th c. 

209. Rim (two nonjoining fragments). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 4.1 

cm. Box 298, GM 3B P2. Plain rim. Attic Type A skyphos close 

to Agora 12 (no. 342, fig. 4, pl. 16). Circa 470–460. 

210. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 3.15 cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 308, 

GM 1C (4). Plain rim. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

211. Handle. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 5.3 cm, D: ~14 cm. Box 311, 

GM 1C (5A). Plain rim and horseshoe handle. Smaller Attic Type 

A skyphos. 5th c.

212. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D (of foot): ~9 cm. Box 

344, GM 2C NBR (3). Torus ring foot. Resting surface reserved. 

Groove at junction of wall and foot. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c. 

213. Rim and handle. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm, D: too small 

to measure. Box 349, GM 2C (7) 1. Plain rim and horseshoe 

handle. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

214. Foot. T: 1.3 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm, D (of foot): ~12.0 cm. 

Box 383, GM 1D EBR (3). Torus ring foot. Scraped groove at 

junction of wall and foot. Resting surface and underside of foot 

reserved. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c. 

215. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 2.8 cm, D (of foot): ~10.0 cm. 

Box 411, GM 2D P2 (1). Torus ring foot. Scraped groove at 

junction of wall and foot. Resting surface and underside of floor 

reserved. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

216. Rim (three joining fragments; four additional wall and 

one floor fragments). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 4.2 cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 

422, GM 0A (7). Plain rim. Underside of floor has two circles 

and a dot. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

217. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D (of foot): ~9.0 cm. 

Box 428, GM 0B (0). Torus ring foot. Resting surface and underside of floor reserved. Scraped groove at junction of wall and 

foot. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

218. Foot. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, D (of foot): ~10 cm. Box 

456, GM 00A (4). Torus ring foot. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

189. R-F body fragments (two joining). Figure 14.6d. T: 0.5 

cm, MPH: 3.7 cm. Box 330, GM 1C P2 (6, 7). Draped figure? 

Skyphos?

190. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6e. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 5.3 

cm. Box 394, GM 1D P1 (1). R-F palmette. Probably an Attic 

Type A skyphos filling ornament.

191. R-F body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 4.6 cm. Box 

399, GM 2D TT3 (4). Very small portion of meander, likely the 

ground line of a R-F scene. Attic Type A skyphos.

192. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6f. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.4 

cm. Box 404, GM 2D (4). Meander and checker (some open 

boxes have an added dot) between reserve lines set off by high 

relief lines. Likely from a R-F scene on an Attic Type A skyphos.

193. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6g. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 4.3 

cm. Box 409, GM 2D (9). Fragment of drapery. Probably from 

a skyphos.

Red Figure: (Cup) Kantharos

194. Attic (?) R-F(?) body fragments (two nonjoining). Figure 14.6h. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.4 cm. Box 115, GM 2A (3) and 

2A (12A). One fragment has white ground with alternating red 

and black petals above a red band. The other has white ground 

with alternating red and black petals. Below are three bands, red, 

reserve, and black. Below black band are dilute squiggly lines. 

Apparently a kantharos. 4th c.?

195. B-F body fragment. Figure 14.6i. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 3.0 

cm. Box 298, GM 3B P2. B-F tongue pattern, probably from a 

R-F krater. 

196. R-F body fragments (two joining). Figure 14.6j. T: 0.6 

cm, MPH: 6.7 cm. Box 371, GM 2C P3 (0). Knee of draped figure and palmette above reserved ground line with one (perhaps 

two) thin black line(s). Pretty sloppy. Krater?

Red Figure: Lekythos

197. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6k. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 

2.5. Box 424, GM 0A W1. Drapery(?), thin horizontal bands, 

and meander. Cylinder lekythos.

198. R-F body fragment. Figure 14.6l. T: 0.25 cm, MPH: 

3.6 cm. Box 547, general site. Meander band above a draped 

female figure facing left, wearing fillet. The continuous line from 

top of forehead to tip of nose and forward pupil suggests a date 

in the early or high Classical era. See, for example, Boardman 

(1989:13, 61). Cylinder lekythos. 5th c.

Black Glaze: Skyphos

199. Rim (three joining and one nonjoining fragments). T: 

0.6 cm, MPH: 4.5 cm, D: 16 cm. Box 9, GM 1A P6 (7B). Plain 

rim. Attic Type A skyphos. Metallic glaze. 5th c.

200. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.3 cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 57, GM 

1A (6A) 7 and 1A (7) 7. Plain rim. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

201. Rim. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 7.0 cm, D: 12.0 cm. Box 89, 

GM 1A P6 TT4 (8). Plain rim. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.
NUMBER 50 • 769

ring foot, lipped. Glaze red inside and outside. Resting surface 

reserved with central dot underneath. Surface worn and encrusted. Heavy. Profile of foot similar to a large stemless cup 

(delicate class) from the Agora of 450 (Agora 12: no. 483, fig. 

5, pls. 23, 50). 

232. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.75 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 123, GM 2A (11). Inset lip. Bowl in intentional red 

inside and outside. Glaze metallic and dilute. Class of Agora P 

10359. Circa 480.

233. Rim and body fragments (six joining and two nonjoining). Figure 14.7d. T (of rim): 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm, D: 14 cm. 

Box 127, GM 2A (15) and Box 128, GM 2A (18). Inset rim. 

Glaze matte or greenish in parts. Reserve area on portions of 

lower rim and below (for B-F decoration?). Profile of rim similar 

to the stemless Rheneia cup, although other possibilities remain, 

such as the Type C cup with concave lip or the Vicup (Agora 12: 

nos. 398–414, fig. 4; nos. 434–438, fig. 5; 456–463, fig. 5). Probably from the same cup as Cat. No. 234. 5th c. 

234. Rim and body fragments (19, about half of which are 

joining). T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, D: 15 cm. Box 127, GM 2A 

(15) and Box 128, GM 2A (18). Inset lip from a cup. Probably 

from same cup as Cat. No. 233. 5th c.

235. Body fragment. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 130, 

GM 2A (12). Lower part of rim from a large stemless cup with 

lip inset on outside and offset inside. Heavy. Extant rim similar to 

that of a cup from ca. 470–450 (Agora 12: no. 471, fig. 5). 5th c. 

236. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPL: 3.3 cm. Box 140, GM 2A (1) 3. 

Flat-topped foot with concave face and light ridges. Outside of 

foot and resting surface reserved. Vicup.

237. Foot. T: 0.75 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm, D (of foot): ~10 cm. 

Box 153, GM 2A TT3 (5). Spreading ring foot. Outside concave and reserved. Groove at junction of wall and foot. Probably 

from a cup-skyphos similar to Agora 12 (nos. 573, 575, 576, fig. 

20, pl. 25), dated to 490–480.

238. Rim (six fragments, half of which are joining). T: 0.7 

cm, MPH: 2.75 cm, D: 16 cm. Box 156, GM 2A TT4 5. Glaze 

greenish in parts. Inset rim with thickened lip slightly pointed at 

top. Strong incurve of rim similar to, for example, the Type C 

cup (Agora 12: no. 413, fig. 3, pl. 19), although it is similar also 

to some stemless cups.

239. Foot. T: 1.05 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D (of foot): 8 cm. Box 

161, GM 2A F7. Spreading foot. Concave face in intentional 

red (or reserved?). Glaze peeled. Resting surface reserved. Very 

worn. Foot slopes up toward stem. Stemmed vessel, perhaps a 

pinch-based cup-skyphos.

240. Stem. T: 2.4 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm. Box 172, GM 2A P2. 

Fillet at join of stem and bowl with grooves at top and bottom. 

Glaze very worn. Probably from an Acrocup with rising foot. 

See Agora 12 (nos. 442–445, fig. 5, pl. 20). Probably 475–450.

241. Foot (two joining fragments). Figure 14.7e. T: 0.7 cm, 

D (of foot): ~9 cm. Box 178, GM 2A WBR (15) 3. Spreading 

foot. Exterior, resting surface, and under stem reserved. Type B 

cup with foot profile similar to Agora 12 (no. 432, fig. 4), which 

is dated to 500–480. Graffito on underside: perhaps a Μ with a 

cross bar at top.

219. Foot. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 4.35 cm, D (of foot): ~9 cm. Box 

499, GMII A6 (+). Torus ring foot. Resting surface of foot and 

underside of floor reserved. Specific type uncertain.

220. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 3.7 cm, D: ~13.0 cm. Box 505, 

GMII C1 (6). Glaze peeled and fired red inside and out. Plain 

rim. Attic Type A skyphos. 5th c.

Black Glaze: Cup (Skyphos)

221. Foot (two joining fragments). T: 1.0 cm, MPL: 4.0 

cm. Box 1, 0B (7) 5. Small central fragment of flat-topped foot. 

Scraped groove on top of foot. Center of cone reserved. Stemmed 

cup, probably a Vicup.

222. Body fragments (two joining). T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.75 

cm. Box 17, GM 2B W6. Lower wall of probably a stemless cup.

223. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 3.2 cm, D (of foot): ~5.0 cm. 

Box 42, GM 1A (5) 2. Flat-topped foot. Scraped groove on top. 

Concave outer face. Outside of foot and band on part of resting 

surface reserved. Vicup. See Agora 12 (nos. 434–438, fig. 5, pl. 

20). Second quarter of the 5th c.

224. Foot. T: 1.0 cm, MPL: 4.3 cm, D (of foot): ~8 cm. Box 

65, GM 1A W1 NBR. Torus foot. Face and underside probably reserved. Very worn. Type C cup. See Agora 12 (nos. 398–431, fig. 4). 

225. Foot. Figure 14.7a. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 3.75 cm, D (of 

foot): ~7 cm. Box 73, GM 1A TT6 (2). Inside intentional red 

with black circle around center. Outside wall intentional red. 

Top of foot’s face reserved then black. Underside reserved. Very 

fine. The profile of the foot and decorative scheme (including 

intentional red) point to the class of Agora P 10359, in particular 

Agora 12 (nos. 453–454, fig. 5, pl. 21). Circa 480.

226. Handle. T (of handle): 0.8 cm, MPL: 4.3 cm. Box 96, 

GM 1A P6 TT4 (10). Horizontal cup handle.

227. Handle. T (of handle): 1.3 cm, MPL: 5.7 cm. Box 101, 

GM 1A P3 TT11 (1). Squared horizontal handle that rises up to 

or over the rim (too fragmentary to determine). Handle panel 

apparently reserved. Glaze peeled in parts. Cup.

228. Foot. Figure 14.7b. T: 1.1 cm, MPH: 1.65 cm, D (of 

foot): 11–12 cm. Box 110, GM 2A WBR (+). Molded foot. Side 

and resting surface reserved. Groove at junction of foot and wall. 

Profile of foot similar to a large and light-walled stemless cup from 

the Agora dating to 440–430 (Agora 12: no. 581, fig. 6, pl. 26, 

frontispiece). Diameter and profile of foot suggest further it is a 

stemless cup that dates to the 5th c., probably the second half.

229. Handle stub. Figure 14.7c. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm. 

Box 115, GM 2A (3). Handle at rim. Below handle wall turns 

in sharply like the small stemless Rheneia cup. Both of these features, the handle on the rim and the angular wall, place this shallow cup in the second half of the 5th c. Compare Agora 12 (no. 

460, fig. 5, dated to ca. 425). 

230. Rim (four joining fragments). T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, 

D: too small to measure. Box 120, GM 2A (7). Inset lip. Profile 

similar to stemless cups and cup-skyphoi of the 5th c. Compare 

Agora 12 (no. 456, fig. 5, pl. 21). 5th c.

231. Foot (two joining fragments). T (of floor): 1 cm, MPH: 

2.0 cm, D (of foot): ~9.0 cm. Box 123, GM 2A (11). Spreading 
770 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

resting surface, and center of stem reserved. Vicup. Between nos. 

434 and 437 of Agora 12 (fig. 5).

258. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPL: 5 cm, D (of foot): ~10 cm. Box 

451, GM 0B F1A (1) 1. Flat-topped foot. Exterior concave. Exterior of foot and resting surface reserved. Bands of intentional red 

underneath. Vicup. Foot close to Agora 12 (no. 437, fig. 5, pl. 20).

259. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 3.1 cm, D (of foot): ~8 cm. Box 

456, GM 00A (4). Flat-topped foot. Exterior slightly concave. 

Four fine and one standard scraped groove on top of foot. Exterior of foot, resting surface, and center of stem reserved. Vicup.

260. Foot. T: 1.05 cm, MPL: 2.3 cm. Box 469, GM 00B (2). 

Exterior concave. Resting surface and exterior of foot reserved. 

Vicup. Foot profile similar to Agora 12 (no. 434, fig. 5, pl. 20). 

261. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 3.7 cm. Box 470, GM 00B (3). 

Low disk foot, rising slightly in center. Spreading wall. Glaze 

fired red inside and out. Stemless cup.

262. Foot. T: 0.5 cm, MPL: 2.3 cm, D (of foot): ~9 cm. Box 488, 

GMI 3G (0). Resting surface reserved. Cup foot of uncertain type.

263. Rim. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 3.4 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 500, GMII A6 (0). Lip outturned and offset inside and 

out. Glaze very worn. Probably a cup-skyphos (a bit heavy for 

a stemless cup).

264. Rim. T: 2.5 cm, MPH: 0.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 508, GMII C1 F2. Offset, concave lip. Cup.

265. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 522, GMIII A1 P1. Rim offset inside (outside fragmentary). 

Worn. Stemless cup?

266. Foot. T: 0.8 cm, MPL: 5.1 cm, D (of foot): 13 cm. Box 

523, GMIII A1 F2 (1). Spreading ring foot. Resting surface, underside of floor, and area above the groove at the join of foot and 

wall reserved. Cup-skyphos? 

267. Rim and handle. T: 0.8 cm, MPH: 3.75 cm, D: ~17 cm. 

Box 547, general site. Lip offset, inside and outside. Handle at 

lip and handle panel reserved. Large stemless cup with inset lip. 

Compare to lip of Agora 12 (no. 471, fig. 5). Type dates from the 

second quarter of the 5th c. to first quarter of the 4th c.

268. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.6 cm, D: ~14.0 cm. Box 547, 

general site. Lip gently offset inside and outside. Lip concave and 

thickened at end. Greenish glaze on outside. Probably a Type C 

concave lip cup, likely from toward the end of its development. 

See Agora 12 (no. 413, fig. 5, pl. 19). Circa 480?

Black Glaze: Bolsal

269. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, D (of foot): ~8.0 cm. 

Box 97, GM 1A P6 (7). Flared ring foot. Glaze fired red inside. 

Foot comes to a point, similar to that of bolsals dated from ca. 

430 to 400 (Agora 12: nos. 541–554, fig. 6, pl. 53).

270. Foot. Figure 14.8a. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D (of 

foot): ~10 cm. Box 247, GM 2B (13). Flaring ring foot. Groove 

at join of wall and foot. Underside of floor reserved with black 

band. Very fine. Bolsal. Foot as Agora 12 (no. 541, fig. 6, pl. 22), 

which is dated to 420.

271. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 266, GM 2B NBR (16). Very fine plain rim, perhaps from 

a bolsal.

242. Foot. T: 0.8 cm, D: ~9 cm. Box 181, GM 1B TT1 (3). 

Stemmed foot with scraped groove on exterior. Trace of scraped 

groove closer to stem. Resting surface reserved. Glaze on top of 

foot brownish and peeled. Vicup? 

243. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 183, GM 1B TT1 (5). Lip offset inside and out. Large stemless cup with inset lip. See Agora 12 (469–473, fig. 5, pl. 22). 

244. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.5 cm, D ~18.0 cm. Box 186, 

GM 1B TT1 (1). Plain rim of shallow vessel. Stemless cup?

245. Foot. T: 0.75 cm, D (of foot): 7 cm. Box 198, GM 

1B (9) 1. Resting surface, center of cone, and exterior of foot 

reserved. Vicup. Second quarter of the 5th c.

246. Incised body fragment. Figure 14.7f. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 

1.9 cm. Box 258, GM 2B SBR (5). Small fragment from bottom 

of floor showing a tongue pattern within a circle. Delicacy, quality, and flatness of fragment, along with its restrained decoration, 

suggest it is from a stemless cup.

247. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 2.4 cm. Box 290, GM 3B TT1 

(2). Scraped groove at junction of foot and wall. Very worn. 

Short-stemmed cup foot.

248. Foot. Figure 14.7g. T: 1.75 cm, MPH: 2.4 cm, D (of 

foot): 6.5 cm. Box 292, GM 3B (2). Resting surface, high inside 

stem, and exterior of foot reserved. Scraped groove on top of 

foot. Foot rises toward stem. Exterior of foot very slightly concave. Vicup. Between nos. 434 and 437 of Agora 12. 

249. Foot. T: 0.8 cm, MPL: 5.3 cm, D (of foot): ~9 cm. Box 

292, GM 3B (2). Exterior and resting surface of foot reserved. Type 

C cup foot. See Agora 12 (no. 420, fig. 4, pl. 20). Circa 500–480.

250. Foot. T: 0.55 cm, MPL: 8.05 cm, D (of foot): ~10.0 cm. 

Box 297, GM 3B P1. Ring foot. Resting surface of foot and underside of floor reserved, the latter with circle (and presumably a 

dot). Foot sharply offset from wall. Perhaps from a cup-skyphos.

251. Foot. T: 0.85 cm, MPL: 4.4 cm, D (of foot): ~9 cm. 

Box 325, GM 1C SBR (10) 4. Foot very flat and exterior slightly 

convex. Top of foot scraped. Exterior and resting surface of foot 

reserved. Type C cup, probably from early in the 5th c.

252. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.3 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 414, GM 1E TT1 (1). Gently outturned rim. Thin reserve 

band just inside lip. Cup?

253. Foot. T: 0.5 cm, MPL: 2.8 cm. Box 436, GM 0B (5) 1. 

Disk foot. Glaze almost completely peeled from inside. Underside of foot reserved. Probably a stemless cup.

254. Foot. T: 0.8 cm, MPL: 4.9 cm, D (of foot): ~7 cm. Box 

445, GM 0B (7) 5. Foot rises gently toward stem. Exterior very 

slightly concave. Scraped groove on top. Resting surface and face 

of foot reserved. Vicup. Between nos. 434 and 437 of Agora 12 

(fig. 5, pl. 20). Circa 475–460.

255. Rim (two joining and one nonjoining fragments). T: 

0.3 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D: ~16.0 cm. Box 449, GM 0B P4 (6A). 

Rim inset and outturned. Bowl intentional red inside and out. 

Stemless cup, class of Agora P 10359. Circa 480–470.

256. Rim (two joining and one nonjoining fragments). T: 

0.4 cm, MPH: 3 cm, D: ~21.0 cm. Box 450, GM 0B P4 (8). Lip 

inset and outturned. Cup or cup-skyphos.

257. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 2.8 cm, D (of foot): ~10.0 cm(?) 

(very small). Box 450, GM 0B P4 (8). Flat-topped foot. Exterior, 
NUMBER 50 • 771

283. Rim (two joining and one nonjoining fragments). T: 

0.6 cm, 1.6 cm, D: ~18 cm. Box 127, GM 2A (15) and Box 128, 

GM 2A (18). Thickened outturned rim, rounded at top. Probably from a bowl with outturned rim from the 5th c. 

284. Rim. Figure 14.8f. T: 1 cm, MPH: 2.25 cm, D: too 

small to measure. Box 261, GM 2B WBR (29). Thickened rim 

projects inside. Small bowl with broad rim. Compare to Agora 

12 (no. 849, fig. 9). Second quarter of the 5th c.

285. Rim. Figure 14.8g. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: too 

small to measure. Box 263, GM 2B W2 WBR. Shallow-walled, 

convex-concave bowl. Rim as Agora 12 (no. 821, fig.8), which 

dates to 425–400. 

286. Foot. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm. Box 314, GM 1C (5) 

2. Ring foot. Scraped groove at bottom of foot and at junction 

with wall. Glaze matte or fired red in parts. Approximately seven 

rows of rouletting, applied sloppily. Probably a bowl with outturned rim. 4th c.

287. Rim. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 330, GM 1C P2 (6–7). Flat, projecting ledge rim. Small 

bowl with projecting rim. See Agora 12 (no. 880, fig. 9), which 

dates from 400 to 380.

288. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.25 cm, D (of foot): 10 cm. Box 

334, GM 2C TT5. Ring foot. Stamped palmettes. Resting surface 

grooved and reserved. Scraped groove at junction of wall and foot. 

Matte and streaked glaze. Very worn. Bowl. 4th c. or later.

289. Rim. T: 1 cm, MPH: 3.4 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 339, GM 2C (0). Glaze peeled on outside. Bowl with incurved rim similar to Agora 12 (no. 828, fig. 8, pl. 33). 

290. Rim (three joining and one nonjoining fragments). T: 

0.75 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 339, GM 

2C (0). Glaze peeled inside and outside. Bowl with incurved rim. 

291. Foot. Figure 14.8h. T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 2.05 cm, D (of 

foot): ~7 cm. Box 355, GM 2C (3) 2. High ring foot with grooved 

resting surface. Linked palmettes. Scraped groove at junction of 

foot and wall. Resting surface of foot reserved. Underside completely glazed with central nipple. Bowl. 4th c. 

292. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: ~13 cm. Box 358, 

GM 2C (7) 2. Bowl with incurved rim. 

293. Rim (two joining fragments). T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 5.6 

cm, D: ~14 cm. Box 359, GM 2C (8) 2. Bowl with incurved rim.

294. Rim (five joining fragments). T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.6 cm, 

D: ~15 cm. Box 367, GM 2C F1A. Metallic glaze. Bowl with incurved rim similar to Agora 12 (no. 828, fig. 8, pl. 33). Probably 

from same bowl as Cat. No. 323. If so, 4th c.

295. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 2.45 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 373, GM 2C P5 TT1 (4). Bowl with outturned rim?

296. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.4 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 379, GM 1D TT2 (5). Scraped groove outside at junction of 

lip and wall. Bowl with outturned rim.

297. Foot. Figure 14.8i. T (of floor): 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, 

D (of foot): ~7 cm. Box 382, GM 1D EBR (0), Reg. No. 4072. 

Ring foot. Rouletting surrounding stamped palmettes with small 

incised circle apparently at center. Grooved resting surface reserved. Scraped groove at junction of foot and wall. Underside 

graffito of a Φ. Probably a bowl. For decorative scheme, see 

Agora 12 (nos. 752, 799, pls. 56, 58). 4th c.

Black Glaze: (Cup) Kantharos

272. Rim and handle. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 3.35 cm, D: ~16.0 

cm. Box 298, GM 3B P2. Vertical strap handle set below outturned lip. Black glaze peeled inside and outside. A variant on 

the kantharos similar to Agora 12 (no. 646, fig. 7), which dates 

to 450–425. 

273. Body fragment (two joining). T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, 

D (of wall): ~14.0 cm. Box 339, GM 2C (0) and Box 396, GM 

2D TT2 (1). Appears to be the convex lower wall of a kantharos 

or cup-kantharos.

Black Glaze: Phiale

274. Body fragment. Figure 14.8b. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.35 cm. 

Box 249, GM 2B (15). Outside with horizontal ribbing. Intentional red inside and outside. The ribbing, profile, and intentional 

red on the bowl identify this as a phiale (Agora 12: no. 520, fig. 6; 

a similar example, although larger and lacking the intentional red, 

is no. 521, fig. 6, pl. 23). For the Attic phiale, which is a shape not 

common in ceramic, see Agora 12 (105–106). Circa 500.

Black Glaze: Krater

275. Body fragments (two joining). T: 1.0 cm, MPH: 8.55 

cm. Box 90, GM 1A P6 (1). Flaring, slightly concave wall from a 

large open vessel. Glaze greenish on outside. Calyx krater?

276. Foot. Figure 14.8c. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 4.1 cm, D (of 

foot): ~14 cm. Box 402, GM 2D (3). Elaborate foot with concave exterior and flat top rising toward fillet. Resting surface, 

underside, and exterior of foot reserved. Scraped groove below 

the now-lost fillet. Krater. 

Black Glaze: Bowls

277. Foot (two joining fragments). Figure 14.8d. T: 6.5 cm, 

MPH: 2.5 cm, D (of foot): ~10 cm. Box 25, GM 2C (7) 2. Ring 

foot. Double row of rouletting. Grooved resting surface reserved. 

Scraped groove at junction of wall and foot. Bowl. 4th c.

278. Rim. Figure 14.8e. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: too 

fragmentary to measure. Box 110, GM 2A WBR (+). Rounded 

rim. Outside below rim are a groove, ridge, and second groove. 

Trace of white band below lowest ridge. Bowl with incurving rim 

of the type similar to Agora 12 (no. 783, fig. 8, pls. 32, 57). 5th c.

279. Foot. T (of floor): 0.65 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D (of foot) 

~10 cm. Box 111, GM 2A (0). Ring foot. Grooved resting surface reserved. Double row of rouletting. Bowl? 4th c.

280. Foot. T (of floor): 0.35 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D (of foot): 

~9 cm. Box 120, GM 2A (7). Ring foot. Completely glazed. Bowl?

281. Rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 125, GM 2A (13). Incurved rim with light ridge at top. Glaze 

red inside and outside, peeled in parts. Bowl with incurved rim? 

282. Rim (two joining fragments). T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.05 

cm, D: ~18 cm. Box 127, GM 2A (15). Groove below rim on 

outside. Bowl with incurved rim similar to Agora 12 (no. 828, 

fig. 8, pl. 33), although Jemmeh bowl is rather larger. 4th c.
772 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

311. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.6 cm, D: 12 cm. Box 109, GM 

2A (+). Outturned rim from a drinking vessel. 

312. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 3.5 cm. Box 111, 

GM 2A (0). Stamped palmette around double groove containing 

ovules. Light-walled drinking vessel.

313. Handle. T: 1.3 cm, MPL: 4.75 cm. Box 121, GM 2A 

NBR (7). Horseshoe handle. Metallic glaze peeled in parts. 

314. Handle. T (of handle): 1.1 cm, MPL: 5.1 cm. Box 195, 

GM 1B (6) 1. Bell-shaped handle of a skyphos or cup. Glaze 

greenish and peeled.

315. Body fragments (three joining). T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 3.2 

cm. Box 198, GM 1B (9) 1. Bottom of bowl. Two thin reserve 

bands above a groove. Drinking vessel.

316. Rim. T: 0.35 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 263, GM 2B W2 WBR. Plain rim. Drinking vessel.

317. Body fragment. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 3.8 cm. Box 299, GM 

3B P4. Sloppy palmette stamp and rouletting. 4th c. 

318. Rim. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.5 cm, D: ~22 cm. Box 327, 

GM 1C P2. Thickened, projecting, flat-topped rim. Scraped 

groove at junction of lip and wall.

319. Body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 3.7 cm. Box 328, GM 

1C P2 (2). Two rows of rouletting. Very fine. 4th c.

320. Body fragment. T: 0.3 cm, MPL: 4.4 cm. Box 343, GM 2C 

(2). Traces of four stamped palmettes around rather sloppy small circle at center of floor. Underside is all black and has the rising central 

cone so characteristic of many 4th c. shapes, such as the bolsal (especially from ca. 350). See Agora 12 (p. 107). Drinking vessel. 4th c. 

321. Body fragment. T: 0.25 cm, MPL: 2.1 cm. Box 345, 

GM 2C (7). Linked palmettes from the center of the floor. 4th c.

322. Body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 3.1 cm. Box 359, GM 

2C (8) 2. Ovules around incised circle, the latter enclosing probably stamped palmettes. 

323. Body fragment. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 3.95 cm. Box 367, 

GM 2C F1A. Metallic glaze. Two rows of rouletting. Probably 

from same bowl as Cat. No. 294. 4th c.

324. Foot? T: 0.7 cm, MPL 2.6 cm, D: ~14.0 cm. Box 371, GM 

2C P3 (0). Flaring ring foot? Black glaze peeled almost completely off. 

325. Shoulder. T: 0.5 cm, MPL: 2.3 cm. Box 378, GM 1D 

TT2 (2, 4). Black glaze inside and outside. Lid?

326. Rim. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 1.4 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 419, GM 0A (5). Thickened, slightly outturned rim. 

327. Body fragment. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: ~10 cm. 

Box 522, GMIII A1 P1. Linked palmette around incised lines 

containing slanted ovules. Bowl with outturned rim? 

328. Rim? T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 522, GMIII A1 P1. Large scraped groove at junction 

of lip and wall. Incurved rim.

Black Glaze: Lekythos

329. Body fragment (two joining). T: 4.5 cm, MPH: 5.8 cm. 

Box 11, GM 1A TT1 (1A) and GM 1A TT4 (3). Vertical wall 

from a (squat?) lekythos. Glaze chipped. 

330. Foot (three or more joining fragments). T: 1.75 cm, D: 

7 cm. Box 23, GMII C1 (+). Broad foot. Groove at top of foot’s 

exterior. Exterior and underside reserved. Cylinder lekythos. 

298. Partial rim. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.5 cm, D: too fragmentary to measure. Box 383, GM 1D EBR (3). Probably a small 

bowl with projecting rim. See Agora 12 (no. 880, fig. 9).

299. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm, D: too small to measure. 

Box 403, GM 2D (1). Probably a small bowl with outturned rim.

300. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPL: 4.0 cm, D (of foot): ~14.0 cm. 

Box 497, GMII A5 (0). High ring foot. Resting surface grooved 

and reserved. Bowl.

301. Rim. T: 0.3 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm, D: ~18.0 cm. Box 522, 

GMIII A1 P1. Bowl with outturned rim.

Black Glaze: One-Handler

302. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.4 cm, D: ~14.0 cm. Box 515, 

GMII C2 P3. Flat-topped rim slopes inward. Similar to the onehandler in Agora 12 (no. 755, fig. 8), which dates to ca. 400.

Black Glaze: Plate

303. Foot. Figure 14.8j. T: 0.95 cm, MPH: 2.3 cm, D (of 

foot): ~8 cm. Box 111, GM 2A (0). Ring foot. Glaze very worn 

and chipped. Grooved resting surface reserved. Scraped groove 

at junction of wall and foot. Fish plate similar to Agora 12 (no. 

1075, fig. 10), which dates to 325–310. 

304. Body fragment. T: 1 cm, MPL: 5.3 cm. Box 359, GM 

2C (8) 2. Completely glazed except for deep scraped groove 

around central depression. Fish plate. 4th c.

305. Foot. T: 0.9 cm, MPL: 5.85 cm. Box 383, GM 1D EBR 

(3). High ring foot. Scraped groove around central depression. 

Resting surface grooved and reserved. Fish plate. 4th c.

306. Foot. T: 1.4 cm, MPL: 6.6 cm. Box 398, GM 2D TT3 

(2). Ring foot? Damaged. Wall seems to rise out of ring foot. 

Underside of floor reserved. Plate?

Black Glaze: Dish

307. Foot (two nonjoining fragments). T: 0.9 cm, MPL: 3.1 

cm. Box 55, GM 1A (8B) 7. Underside reserved except in cone 

(a band?). Broad foot of the type seen in the convex and small 

stemmed dish (cf. Agora 12: nos. 974–978, fig. 9, pl. 35). These 

dishes have a short life span, from the late 6th to second quarter 

of the 5th c. Those with a broad foot are dated to ca. 525–480.

308. Rim. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 3.3 cm, D: ~24.0 cm. Box 522, 

GMIII A1 P1. Reserved on outside below lip. Lip sharply undercut. Rim similar to the stemmed dish (Agora 12: no. 958, fig. 8, 

pl. 35). For date, see Cat. No. 307.

Black Glaze: Open Forms

309. Body fragments (two joining). T: 0.9 cm, MPH: 3.9 

cm. Box 5, GM 00B (1) and 0A (5). Lower wall of a drinking 

vessel. Trace of scraped groove at junction of wall and stem/foot. 

Glaze outside dilute in parts.

310. Rim. T: 0.25 cm, MPH: 1.3 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 56, GM 1A (9) 7. Reserve band inside lip. Outturned, 

flaring rim. 
NUMBER 50 • 773

which is dated 375–350. On the perfume pot, see Agora 12 (pp. 

162–164).

Black Glaze: Feeder

350. Spout. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 1.2 cm. Box 88, GM 1A 

P4 (2). Small spout of the type seen on a feeder, a vessel of uncertain function. For the form of the spout, see Agora 12 (nos. 

1197–1199, fig. 11, pl. 39).

Black Glaze: Lamp

351. Complete profile. Figure 14.9a. T (of wall): 0.6 cm, 

MPH: 4.2 cm, D (of extant vessel): 5.5 cm. Box 674, GMI 5D 

(+). Ridge rises high above rim and steps down to shoulder. 

Between is a scraped groove. Rounded shoulder. Underside of 

concave disk foot reserved. Inside slipped. Thick floor rises to 

a cone. Small portion of handle preserved. Agora 4 (Type 25A, 

67–68, pls. 9, 23, 38). Middle of the second quarter of the 4th to 

first quarter of the 3rd c.

352. Attic(?) rim. Figure 14.9b. T: 0.35 cm, MPL: 3.5 cm, D: 

~8.0 cm. Box 106, GM 1A TT11 (8). Fine rim with large central 

tube and a second small hole. Buff clay and black matte slip on 

lip of both openings and inside. This may be Agora Type 19B, the 

Attic example of Cat. Nos. 382–383 (Agora 4: Type 19B, 40–41, 

pls. 5, 33), which dates to the last quarter of the 6th c. to 480.

353. Shoulder. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 1.0 cm, D: ~7 cm. Box 

131, GM 2A (20). Glazed fired red in places and peeled. Sharp 

shoulder.

354. Nozzle and top half of body (two joining fragments). 

MPH: 3.2 cm, MPL: 3.6 cm. SI Cat. No. 270.1, GM 1C P2. 

Wheel-made round shoulder lamp. Lower wall angles in sharply 

toward foot. Rounded lip surrounded by groove. Two light 

grooves at top of shoulder. Trace of lug handle on one side. Short 

spout with burning. Encrusted. Interior slipped. Agora 4 (Type 

25A Prime, 70–71, pls. 12, 23, 38), late in the second quarter of 

the 4th to second quarter of the 3rd c.

355. Rim and spout. MPH: 3.3 cm, D: 5.65 cm. SI Cat. No. 

270.3. Type as Cat. No. 351, although rim not well articulated. 

Deep spout with traces of burning on nozzle. Inside slipped red.

356. Rim and shoulder. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.75 cm. SI Cat. 

No. 270.4 (no box number), GM 2C TT 3 (2). Same variation 

on Cat. No. 351 as is above, Cat. No. 355. Trace of lug handle.

357. Complete vessel. Figure 14.9c. MPH: 3.3 cm, MPL 

(back wall to end of nozzle): 8.2 cm. SI Cat. No. 267, GM 2C 

(0). Same type as Cat. No. 351. Nozzle rounded at end with 

signs of burning. Inside at least partially slipped. Outside may 

have been slipped, in which case it is a Type 25A. Concave disk 

base. Thick floor above foot rising to a point. Agora 4 (Type 25A 

or A Prime, 67–68, 70–71, pls. 9, 10, 23, 38). Publication: Van 

Beek (1989a). 

358. Rim and shoulder. T: 0.45 cm, MPH: 2.5 cm. SI Cat. 

No. 268 (no box number). Same type as Cat. No. 151 with a 

more sloping rim. Not slipped in or out.

359. Foot. T: 0.65 cm, MPH: 1.85 cm. Box 344, GM 2C 

NBR (3). Disk foot of a lamp. 

331. Foot. T: 0.7 cm, MPL: 2.1 cm, D (of foot): ~5 cm. Box 

66, GM 1A W4. Exterior and resting surface reserved. 

332. Body fragment. T: 1.5 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm. Box 109, 

GM 2A (+). Lower body of small cylinder (pattern?) lekythos. 

Metallic glaze.

333. Body fragment. T (of floor): 1.1 cm, MPH: 1.5 cm. Box 

109, GM 2A (+). Floor and stub of disk foot. Completely glazed 

as preserved. 

334. Spout. T: 1.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm, D: ~6 cm. Box 109, 

GM 2A (+). Top of lip reserved. Large lekythos.

335. Spout (two joining fragments). T (of bowl rim): 0.5 

cm, MPH: 1.5 cm. Box 129, GM 2A (17). Streaky black glaze. 

Small lekythos.

336. Body fragment. T: 1.7 cm, MPD: 3.1 cm. Box 193, GM 1B 

(4A) 1. Glaze red at bottom, metallic at top, and very worn. Lower 

body of small cylinder lekythos, probably a black-bodied type.

337. Spout. T: 1.15 cm, MPH: 1.7 cm. Box 194, GM 1B (5) 

1. Top of spout apparently reserved. Otherwise, black glaze inside and outside. Possibly from same vessel the pattern lekythos, 

Cat. No. 165.

338. Foot. T: 1.1 cm, D (of foot): 4.5 cm. Box 197, GM 1B 

(8) 1. Disk foot. Exterior has scraped groove at top; below is a 

band. Underside of foot reserved. Small cylinder lekythos. Might 

be from same vessel as Cat. Nos. 166 and 339.

339. Handle. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 2.7 cm. Box 197, GM 1B (8) 

1. Strap handle. Glaze peeled on exterior. Probably from a small 

lekythos. Might be from same vessel as Cat. Nos. 166 and 338.

340. Body fragment. T: 2.05 cm, MPD: 3.6 cm. MPH: 2 cm. 

Box 292, GM 3B (2). Exterior glazed. Lower part of body of a 

small cylinder lekythos.

341. Attic(?) spout. T: 0.2 cm, MPH: 1.8 cm, D: ~4 cm. Box 

335, GM 2C TT7. Metallic black glaze on lip. Neck appears to 

be reserved. Small lekythos spout. Maybe Attic.

342. Spout. T: 0.65, MPH: 1.6 cm, D: ~3 cm. Box 394, GM 

1D P1 (1). Metallic glaze. Small lekythos spout. 

343. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.0 cm. Box 419, GM 

0A (5). Two reserve bands. Small cylinder lekythos.

344. Foot. T/MPH: 1 cm, D (of foot): 3.9 cm. Box 422, GM 

0A (7). Disk foot with flat top and concave exterior. Exterior and 

underside of foot reserved. From a small lekythos.

345. Shoulder. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 4.8 cm. Box 462, GM 

00A P3A. Trace of shoulder and body. Outside worn. Cylinder 

lekythos. 

346. Spout. T: 1.4 cm, MPH: 2.05 cm, D: 6 cm. Box 487, 

GMI 2F (0). Top of flat lip reserved. Large lekythos.

347. Spout. T: 1.3 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D: 6 cm. Box 504, 

GMII C1 (5). Top of flat lip reserved. Large lekythos.

348. Shoulder and spout. T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 2.2 cm. Box 549, 

GM 2A (2) 1. Rounded shoulder. Groove at neck of shoulder 

and spout. Lekythos of uncertain type (squat?).

Black Glaze: Perfume Pot

349. Mouth fragment? Figure 14.8k. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 3.6 

cm. Box 339, GM 2C (0). Identical to the fragmentary hollow 

mouth of a perfume pot as in Agora 12 (no. 1204, fig. 11), 
774 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

berries. Added white of the type seen in the 5th c. See Agora 12 

(p. 19), Stewart and Martin (2005:85), and Rotroff and Oakley 

(1992:97–98, no. 142, fig. 8, pl. 43). 

370. Open body fragment. T: 0.35 cm, MPL: 1.3 cm. Box 

298, GM 3B P2. Two added white blobs and a thin white line. 

Could be B-F, R-F, or just overpainted.

Other Greek Fabrics

Bowls

371. Rim. T: 0.75 cm, MPH: 3.0 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 63, GM 1A (1) 8. Matte black. Large bowl with 

incurved rim. Profile similar to Guz-Zilberstein (1995: no. 9, 

fig. 6.1). 

372. Foot. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 1.85 cm, D (of foot): 8 cm. 

Box 85, GM 1A P4 (5). Ring foot. Cream fabric with matte redbrown slip inside and outside. Drip lines. Bowl? 

373. Rim. T: 0.55 cm, MPH: 3.3 cm, D: ~12.0 cm. Box 305, 

GM 1C (0) and Box 329, GM 1C P2 (3). Glaze fired red and 

peeling inside and out. Bowl with incurved rim. 

374. Foot. Figure 14.9g. T: 0.95 cm, MPH: 2.1 cm, D (of 

foot): ~7 cm. Box 328, GM 1C P2 (2). Ring foot. Red clay with 

white inclusions and what appear to be air bubbles. Outside red 

brown and sloppy, inside brown. Resting surface and underside 

of foot reserved. Worn. Graffito on underside: ΚΡΑ. Bowl.

375. Complete profile. Figure 14.9h. T (of rim): 0.5 cm, 

MPH: 4 cm, D: 11.6 cm. SI Cat. No. 251. High, grooved ring 

foot. Sloppily applied black glaze, metallic in places, peeled. 

Resting surface and underside reserved. Bottom of bowl is depressed. Bowl with incurved rim.

376. Rim. T: 0.85 cm, MPL: 7 cm, D: ~20 cm. Box 369, 

GM 2C P1A (1). Glaze brown in parts and peeled on outside. 

Bowl with incurved rim. Hellenistic? Could be from earlier in 

the 4th c. 

377. Rim. T: 0.65 cm, MPL: 6.5 cm, D: ~16 cm. Box 381, 

GM 1D (0). Matte black glaze inside and out. Very worn. Bowl 

with incurved rim. Hellenistic, possibly 3rd c.

378. Rim. T: 0.75 cm, MPH: 3.2 cm, D: ~16 cm. Box 391, 

GM 1D (23A) 2. Matte black-brown glaze. Bowl with incurved 

rim. Hellenistic. 

379. Complete profile. Figure 14.9i. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.7 

cm, D: 10 cm. Box 393, GM 1D P1. Spreading ring foot. Glaze 

fired red in parts. Central nipple underneath. Small bowl with 

incurved rim.

380. Complete profile (restored from 11 fragments). Figure 

14.9j. MPH: 4.5 cm, D: 15 cm. SI Cat. No. 252 (no context). 

Completely slipped in matte black. Peeled and fired red in parts, 

except perhaps resting surface and underside of foot. Bowl with 

incurved rim. Similar to Guz-Zilberstein (1995: no. 6, fig. 6.1.6). 

Publication: Van Beek (1989a).

381. Complete profile (restored from three fragments). Figure 14.9k. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 5.6 cm, D: 22.0 cm. Box 400, GM 

2D (+). High ring foot is grooved. Matte black slip does not 

quite cover foot or underside of floor. Bowl with incurved rim. 

Hellenistic.

360. Foot. T: 1.1 cm, MPL: 5.2 cm. Box 347, GM 2C (11). 

Disk foot of a lamp. Black slipped inside and outside, although 

bottom of foot is streaky. Encrusted and worn.

361. Complete profile (three joining fragments). Figure 14.9d. 

MPH: 4.0 cm, MPL (back wall to end of spout, as preserved): 7.8 

cm. SI Cat. No. 271, GM 2C NBR (6). Same general type as Cat. 

Nos. 351, 357, although rim and wall more articulated, disk base 

higher, spout shorter, two stubs of a wide strap handle at back, 

slipped black inside, and outside fired red in places. Bottom of foot 

reserved. Middle of the second quarter of the 4th to first quarter of 

the 3rd c. Publication: Van Beek (1989a). 

362. Spout. T: 0.85 cm, MPH: 1.1.8 cm. Box 358, GM 2C 

(7) 2. Round shoulder lamp with deep groove on shoulder and 

thick spout. Worn. Metallic glaze. 

Black Glaze: Closed Forms

363. Body fragment. T: 0.6 cm, MPH: 2.7 cm. Box 118, GM 

2A (6). Wall fragment?

364. Spout or neck. T (only partially preserved): 0.5 cm, 

MPH: 1.35 cm, D (of rim): ~4 cm. Box 216, GM 1B NBR (0). 

Preserved areas fully glazed. On shoulder(?) is one stamped 

ovule. Closed. 

365. Neck? T: 0.7 cm, MPH: 3.1 cm. Box 403, GM 2D (1). 

Narrow, concave body fragment, probably from the neck of a 

closed vessel.

Overpainted

366. B-F rim and body fragments (two nonjoining). Figure 

14.9e. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 2.9 cm, D: too small to measure. Box 

26, GM 1B (0). B-F vertical lines and dots below rim, double 

horizontal bands, diamond pattern with added white. Traces 

of dilute brown glaze. The slightly outturned rim favors a kantharos over a skyphos. St. Valentin class. See Agora 12 (pp. 85, 

113) and Howard and Johnson (1954). Middle quarters of the 

5th c.

367. B-F body fragments (two nonjoining). T: 0.45 cm, 

MPL: 1.7 cm. Box 547, general site. Both fragments have B-F 

decoration with added white dots. High gloss. One is a cull 

fragment. Above the cull are portions of white dots; the cull 

has B-F geometric decoration, perhaps vertical lines or meander. The other fragment is convex, so from the area above the 

cull, with undecipherable B-F geometric(?) decoration. Possibly 

a kantharos of the St. Valentin class; see Agora 12 (85, no. 22). 

Compare profile, generally, to Agora 12 (nos. 624–639, fig. 7, 

pl. 27). Probably 475–400. 

368. Open body fragment. Figure 14.9f. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 

2.9 cm. Box 161, GM 2A F7. Added white olive wreath and 

berry set off by reserve bands and trace of another scheme 

above with white and reserve areas. Vertical wall, as on a kantharos. True West Slope of the 3rd to early 2nd c.? See, generally, Rotroff (1991).

369. Open body fragment. T: 0.5 cm, MPH: 2.95 cm. 

Box 275, GM 2B W4 NBR. Glaze fired red in parts inside and 

outside. Outside has two thin white bands and dot rosettes or 
NUMBER 50 • 775

391. Complete vessel. Figure 14.10e. MPH: 4.3 cm, MPL 

(wall to end of nozzle): 8.2 cm. SI Cat. No. 268, GM 1D EBR 

(2). Reddish-brown clay with white inclusions. Although its rim 

is fairly well articulated, it is heavy with a short spout and has a 

rounder transition from wall to foot. Rim slopes down. Burning 

on end of nozzle, which is partly broken off. Encrusted. Otherwise similar to Cat. No. 384.

392. Shoulder. T: 0.6 cm, MPL: 3.1 cm. Box 397, GM 2D 

TT3 (1). Dark brown (burnt?) clay. Fill hole and shoulder of a 

wheel-made rounded-shoulder lamp. Two grooves at shoulder. 

Unglazed.

393. Foot. T: 1.4 cm, MPL: 5.2 cm. Box 401, GM 2D (2). 

Disk foot. Inside has metallic glaze. Outside unglazed.

Skyphos

394. Rim. T: 0.4 cm, MPH: 3.45 cm, D: ~14.0 cm. Box 303, 

GM 1C TT1 (1). Gently incurving rim. Reddish-brown clay with 

white inclusions. Matte black slip inside and outside. Drinking 

vessel, perhaps a skyphos.

Jug

395. Spout and handle stubs. Box 347, GM 2C (11). T: 0.5 

cm, MPH: 5.3 cm, D: 4.6 cm. Reddish clay with mica inclusions. 

Outside slipped red. Irregular lip offset and concave. Two strap 

handles attach to neck lower down. They would have curved up 

toward spout. Jug of uncertain type.

Closed Form

396. B-F(?) body fragment. Box 418, GM 0A (4). T: 0.3 

cm, MPL: 3.2 cm. Fine buff clay. Traces of what might be B-F 

rosettes on outside. Very worn. Aryballos? (Too thin for a Corinthian Orientalizing aryballos.)

AUTHOR NOTE

S. Rebecca Martin, Department of History of Art and Architecture, Boston 

University, 725 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 215C, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA. Correspondence: srmartin@bu.edu. Manuscript received 

4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

Lamps

382. Spout. T (of spout rim): 0.4 cm, MPH: 1.75 cm, MPL 

(of spout): 1.4 cm, D: 2 cm. Box 209, GM 1B EBR (1) 1. Red 

clay with small micaceous inclusions. Outside matte black. 

Short wheel-made spout with fine, plain rim. Inside of spout not 

glazed. Central tube of an open disk lamp, possibly with double 

spouts. See Cat. No. 383. 

383. Complete vessel (five or more joining fragments, now 

restored). Figure 14.10a. MPH: 2.0 cm, MPL: 12.2 cm. SI Cat. 

No. 420, GM 0B P4 (8). Open disk lamp with double spouts and 

central tube. Glaze fired red in parts. Agora 4 (Type 19A, no. 

131, pls. 5, 33). Early 5th c. to 480.

384. Rim to lower wall. Figure 14.10b. T: 0.7 cm, MPL 3.2 

cm. Box 43, GM 1A NBR (5) 2. Rounded wheel-made shoulder 

lamp. Rim set off from shoulder with a pronounced groove. Very 

encrusted. No traces of glaze inside or outside. Extant profile 

resembles Dor Type 6 lamps, thought to be of “local” manufacture in imitation of Attic types. See Rosenthal-Heginbottom 

(1995:235, nos. 1–2, fig. 5.14.2). 4th–2nd c. 

385. Complete vessel. Figure 14.10c. MPH: 3.8 cm, MPL 

(back wall to end of nozzle): 8.25 cm. SI Cat. No. 216, GM 2D 

(2) 8. No trace of handle. Short spout. Nozzle damaged with 

signs of burning. Sloppy black line extends from spout to wall 

on one side. Trace of slip on rim. Interior encrusted but appears 

slipped. Publication: Van Beek (1989a). 

386. Complete profile (restored). MPH: 3.8 cm, MPL: 7.1 

cm. SI Cat. No. 270.2A, GM 2D (+) and GM 2C (7) 2. Type as 

Cat. No. 384. Short spout, nozzle broken off with signs of burning. Interior slipped red. 4th–2nd c.

387. Body and foot fragment. MPH: 3.6 cm, D: 6.2 cm. SI 

Cat. No. 270.2B, GM 2D (1). Fine brown fabric. Slipped red inside. Trace of lug handle. Extant portions otherwise as Cat. No. 

389. Publication: Van Beek (1989a). 

388. Complete profile. Figure 14.10d. MPH: 3.85 cm, MPL: 

7.2 cm. SI Cat. No. 272, GM 3B (no layer). Brown clay. Heavier 

example of Cat. No. 389 with a less well articulated rim and 

rounder transition from wall to foot. Stub of handle. Most of nozzle missing with traces of burning. Publication: Van Beek (1989a). 

389. Shoulder. T: 0.4 cm, MPL: 4.15 cm. Box 339, GM 2C 

(0). Unglazed round-shouldered lamp. Groove around opening 

surrounded by double concentric circles. Similar to Cat. No. 

384. 4th–2nd c.

390. Foot. T: 1.2 cm, MPL: 5.2 cm. Box 347, GM 2C (11). 

Disk foot. Traces of slip inside. Outside reserved. 
15 Petrographic Analysis 

of Pottery: Chalcolithic 

to Persian Period

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of an initial petrographic study of the Tell Jemmeh pottery. Carrying out thin-section petrographic 

analysis (TSPA) on the Tell Jemmeh pottery had several goals. The major goal was to investigate the development of pottery production 

throughout periods attested in the site, i.e., to compare the MBIIB-C, LBII, and Iron Age pottery assemblages. This issue includes several 

topics: trade patterns of pottery (whether most vessels are locally made or imported), clay selection patterns within the site catchment 

area, and the change in clay and temper selection in different periods, the homogeneity of the pottery, and the estimated firing temperature. A pottery kiln dated to the Iron I was discovered at the site, yet the pottery assemblage from this period is small because of limited 

exposure; moreover, no kiln wasters could be identified in the kiln and its vicinity. Therefore, the study of pottery production related to 

the kiln is restricted.

Other aims were to examine several groups or wares of pottery that may have specific cultural or other importance. These include

the Philistine Bichrome ware and the Assyrian-style pottery; the provenance of these vessels could have important implications. In the 

case of the Philistine Bichrome a more intraregional question is at hand: whether these vessels were produced at Tell Jemmeh or were 

imported from one of the main Philistine cities. In regard to the Assyrian-style pottery, the question was whether these vessels or some 

of them were imported from Assyria or other distant Assyrian centers or were made in the Levant or even locally at the site. Moreover, 

several fabrics were attested in these group according to visual appearance, and their provenance according to petrography was examined. In addition, more pinpointed questions were also addressed such as the analysis of special items such as the Tell el-Yahudiyeh 

zoomorphic cup, several “white-slip imitation” milk bowls (examining whether they were locally made or imported), several marked 

handles from the LBII, and several so-called East Greek vessels from the Persian period.

To accomplish these goals, 145 samples were selected for analysis (Table 15.1), mostly from Fields III and IV, including 5 samples 

from the Chalcolithic period, 29 from the MBIIB-C, 41 from the LBII, 14 from the Iron I (all Philistine Bichrome), 13 from the Iron IIA, 

39 from the Iron IIB-C (of these, 24 are Assyrian style), and 4 from the Persian period. In the major periods analyzed (i.e., the MBII, 

LBII, and Iron II) an attempt was made to collect samples from the main pottery types and classes appearing, such as open vessels (various bowls and kraters), cooking pots, jars, and closed vessels (jugs, juglets) as well as decorated wares when relevant; this selection 

dictated the size of the sample from each period. It should be noted that considering the wide chronological scope of this assemblage, the 

sample is not very large or representative, and thus, this study should be considered more as a preliminary pilot study carried out with 

regard to the limitations of the publication of the final report on the site. Further studies on these topics may be carried out in the future.

METHODOLOGY

Thin-section petrography was carried out by the author at the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 

Samples were obtained by standard thin sectioning of the pottery sherds to a thickness of about 30 μm, at which most of the minerals are transparent. The slides were then examined through a petrographic polarizing microscope (in this study Nikon and Zeiss [for 
NUMBER 50 • 777

TABLE 15.1. List of samples from Tell Jemmeh. Abbreviations are as follows: NA = not available; WS = White Slip ware; TEY = Tell 

el-Yahudiyeh ware; RWB = Red, White, and Blue ware; WP = White Painted ware; BSB = bell-shaped bowl; BC = Philistine Bichrome 

ware; AS = Assyrian-style pottery; Phil. = Philistine; deg = degenerated; rs= red slip; rsb = red slip and burnish.

RV/Box/ Notes/

Sample No. Bag No. Provenance Description Figure Period Phase ware

Jemmeh 1 Box 568 GMI 4D (3) WS imitation milk bowl 11.8e LBII 3

Jemmeh 2 Box 578 GMI 5D (7B) 2 WS imitation milk bowl 11.8f LBII 3

Jemmeh 3 Box 569 GMI 4D (4) WS imitation milk bowl LBII 3?

Jemmeh 4 Box 576 GMI 5D (7A) WS imitation milk bowl 11.8h LBII 3

Jemmeh 5 Box 648/649 GMI 5G (+) WS imitation milk bowl 11.8g LBII NA

Jemmeh 6 Box 655 GMI (+) WS imitation milk bowl 11.8j LBII NA

Jemmeh 7 Box 131 GM 2A (20) Decorated amphora 14.4c EGR 4?

Jemmeh 8 Box 164 GM 2A NBR F11 1 Decorated amphora EGR 4?

Jemmeh 9 Box 168 GM 2A TT4 (6) Decorated amphora 14.4e EGR 4?

Jemmeh 10 Box 435 GM 0B (4) 1 Decorated amphora 14.4g EGR 3/4? Chian 

Jemmeh 11 Cat. 1003 GMIII C1 (81), (+) TEY zoomorphic vessel 3.63 MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 12 RV 1050 GMIII J2 (17) 1 Storage jar 3.49a MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 13 RV 1036 GMIII J2 (17) 1 Storage jar 3.48d MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 14 RV 1047 GMIII J1 (17) 1 Storage jar 3.49d MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 15 Cat. 217.3 GM 1B (11) 2 Globular bowl; white clay 8.115k Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 16 Cat. 245 GM 1B TT2 Dimpled beaker; white clay 13.7d Iron IIC 5? AS

Jemmeh 17 Cat. 245.2 GM (+) Dimpled beaker; white clay 8.115q Iron IIC NA AS

Jemmeh 18 Cat. 221 GM 1B TT2 Globular bowl; white clay 8.118b Iron IIC 5? AS

Jemmeh 19 Box 421A GM 0B (7) 5 Globular bowl; white clay 13.3i Iron IIC 5? AS

Jemmeh 20 Box 426A GM 0B (9) 5 Globular bowl; white clay 13.3e Iron IIC 5? AS

Jemmeh 21 Box 427A GM 3B P7 Globular bowl; white clay 13.3c Iron IIC Unknown AS

Jemmeh 22 Box 300A GM 1B (11) 1 Open bowl; red clay 8.118k Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 23 SI Cat. No. 219 GM 1B F18 Open bowl; coarse red clay 13.5b Iron IIC 3? AS

Jemmeh 24 Reg. No. 2200 GMI 4D (3) 1 Incised jar handle 6.122g LBII 3

Jemmeh 25 Reg. No. 2007 GMI 1F (12) Incised jar handle 19.1g LBII 3

Jemmeh 26 Reg. No. 3819 GMI 4D (3) Incised jar handle 19.1i LBII 3

Jemmeh 27 Reg. No. 3816 GMI 5G (2) 4 Incised jar handle 6.97h LBII 3

Jemmeh 28 Bag 5289/2 GMIII J2 (26) V-shaped bowl 3.13k Chalcolithic 19

Jemmeh 29 Bag 5289/1 GMIII J2 (26) Krater/jar 3.13v Chalcolithic 19

Jemmeh 30 Bag 5300/1 GMIII J2 (24) V-shaped bowl 3.13g Chalcolithic 19

Jemmeh 31 NA GMIII C2 TT2 (4) V-shaped bowl 3.13n Chalcolithic 19

Number 1

Jemmeh 32 NA GMIII C2 TT2 (4) Large krater Chalcolithic 19

Number 2

Jemmeh 33 Bag 2260/1 GMIII F2 (17) 2 Carinated bowl; burnish 3.46a MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 34 Bag 2260/2 GMIII F2 (17) 2 Carinated bowl; burnish 3.46f MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 35 bag 2260/5 GMIII F2 (17) 2 Jar rim, thick 3.46l MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 36 Bag 854/1 GMIII J1 (17) 1 Carinated bowl 3.47c MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 37 Bag 854/4 GMIII J1 (17) 1 Cooking pot 3.47n MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 38 Bag 2241/1 GMIII F2 (17) 2 Bowl 3.46b MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 39 Bag 2241/2 GMIII F2 (17) 2 Bowl 3.46c MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 40 Bag 1020/1 GMIII F2 P2 Open bowl 3.71g MBIIB-C 16–17

Jemmeh 41 Bag 1020/2 GMIII F2 P2 Cooking pot 3.71q MBIIB-C 16–17

Jemmeh 42 Bag 1020/3 GMIII F2 P2 Cooking pot 3.71r MBIIB-C 16–17

Jemmeh 43 Bag 1166/1 GMIII C1 (81) Bowl 3.58f MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 44 Bag 1166/2 GMIII C1 (81) Bowl 3.58c MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 45 Bag 1166/5 GMIII C1 (81) Jar MBIIB-C 16

(continued)
778 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Jemmeh 46 Bag 468/1 GMIII C1 (81) Cooking pot 3.59h MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 47 Bag 2177/1 GMIII F1 (7) 5 Open bowl MBIIB-C 15

Jemmeh 48 Bag 2177/2 GMIII F1 (7) 5 Carinated bowl; thin 3.78d MBIIB-C 15

Jemmeh 49 Bag 2177/4 GMIII F1 (7) 5 Cooking pot 3.78l MBIIB-C 15

Jemmeh 50 Bag 5318/1 GMIII J1 P3 Carinated bowl MBIIB-C 15

Jemmeh 51 Bag 5589/1 GMIII J1 (8) 1 Open bowl 3.79c MBIIB-C 15

Jemmeh 52 Bag 4477/1 GMIII B F8 Rounded bowl 3.101b LBII 13

Jemmeh 53 Bag 4477/4 GMIII B F8 Krater/cooking pot 3.101i LBII 13

Jemmeh 54 Bag 4477/2 GMIII B F8 Cooking pot 3.101h LBII 13

Jemmeh 55 Bag 4458/1 GMIII B (64) 5 Open bowl 3.112j LBII 12

Jemmeh 56 Bag 4458/2 GMIII B (64) 5 Rounded bowl 3.112i LBII 12

Jemmeh 57 Bag 4458/4 GMIII B (64) 5 Carinated bowl 3.112n LBII 12

Jemmeh 58 Bag 4458/5 GMIII B (64) 5 Cooking pot 3.112r LBII 12

Jemmeh 59 Bag 1012/1 GMIII B (59) 3 Carinated krater 3.124b LBII 11

Jemmeh 60 Bag 4415/1 GMIII B (5) 6 Straight sided bowl 3.112h LBII 12

Jemmeh 61 Bag 4415/2 GMIII B (5) 6 Carinated bowl 3.112l LBII 12

Jemmeh 62 Bag 4482/4 GMIII B (62) 5 Jar 3.124l LBII 11

Jemmeh 63 Bag 4525/1 GMIII B (61) 3 Rounded bowl 3.124a LBII 11

Jemmeh 64 Bag 4437/1 GMIII B (57) 3 Carinated krater 3.131f LBII 10

Jemmeh 65 Bag 4442/1 GMIII B (51A) Straight sided bowl 3.143f LBII 9

Jemmeh 66 Bag 4429/2 GMIII B (53) 2 Krater base 3.131u LBII 9

Jemmeh 67 Bag 4486/1 GMIII B (54) Carinated bowl 3.145d LBII 9 Greenish 

clay

Jemmeh 68 Bag 4496/1 GMIII B (58) 4 Straight-sided bowl 3.131l LBII 10 Reddish 

clay

Jemmeh 69 Bag 4502/1 GMIII B (57) 2 Carinated bowl; small 3.145l LBII 10

Jemmeh 70 Bag 4502/3 GMIII B (57) 2 Cooking pot 3.145m LBII 10

Jemmeh 71 Bag 4439/1 GMIII B (52) Rounded bowl 3.143a LBII 9

Jemmeh 72 Bag 4439/4 GMIII B (52) Carinated bowl 3.143j LBII 9

Jemmeh 73 Bag 4439/5 GMIII B (52) Carinated krater 3.143h LBII 9

Jemmeh 74 Bag 4439/6 GMIII B (52) Carinated bowl/krater 3.143g LBII 9

Jemmeh 75 Bag 4439/8 GMIII B (52) Cooking pot 3.143l LBII 9

Jemmeh 76 Bag 4439/7 GMIII B (52) Cooking pot 3.143k LBII 9

Jemmeh 77 Bag 4439/10 GMIII B (52) Jar/jug 3.143m LBII 9

Jemmeh 78 Box 230/1 GMIII J1 (1) RWB sherd 3.182b MBIIB-C Unknown

Jemmeh 79 Box 211/1 GMIII C1 (81) RWB sherd 3.59n MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 80 Box 211/2 GMIII C1 (81) RWB sherd 3.59l MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 81 Box 825 GMIII J2 (16) 2 TEY juglet 3.51a MBIIB-C 17

Jemmeh 82 Box 546 GMIII F2 P2 TEY juglet 3.72i MBIIB-C 16–17

Jemmeh 83 Bag 1308 GMIII C2 (82) Cypriot WP sherd 11.2o MBIIB-C 16

Jemmeh 84 Box 191 GMIII B (52) Decorated krater/jug 3.144b LBII 9

Jemmeh 85 Box 190 GMIII B (51A) Decorated krater/jug 3.144a LBII 9

Jemmeh 86 Box 192/1 GMIII B (55) Decorated krater/jug 3.132e LBII 10

Jemmeh 87 Box 193/1 GMIII B (56) Decorated krater/jug 3.132f LBII 10

Jemmeh 88 Bag 4482/6 GMIII B (62) 5 Scoop 3.124n LBII 11

Jemmeh 89 NA GMIII A3 (4) BSB, BC 3.162m Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 90 NA GMIII A2 (14) 1 BS krater, BC Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 91 NA GMIII A2 (13) BSB 3.165c Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 92 NA GMIII A2 (13) deg BSB? 3.165b Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 93 NA GMIII A2 (19) BSB, BC 3.162c Iron I, Phil. 6

TABLE 15.1. (continued)

RV/Box/ Notes/

Sample No. Bag No. Provenance Description Figure Period Phase ware
NUMBER 50 • 779

(continued)

Jemmeh 94 NA GMIII A2 (19) BSB, BC 3.162d Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 95 NA GMIII A2 (19) BS krater, BC 3.162e Iron I, Phil. 6

Jemmeh 96 NA GMI FUR (1) 2 BSB; no slip 7.54a Iron I, Phil. FUR 2

Jemmeh 97 NA GMI FUR (1) 2 BSB; no slip 7.54c Iron I, Phil. FUR 2

Jemmeh 98 NA GMI FUR (2) 2 BS krater, BC Iron I, Phil. FUR 2/3

Jemmeh 99 NA GMI FUR (2) 2 BSB; no slip Iron I, Phil. FUR 2/3

Jemmeh 100 NA GMI FUR (2) 2 BS krater, BC 7.54k Iron I, Phil. FUR 2/3

Jemmeh 101 NA GMI FUR (2) 2 deg BSB 7.54h Iron I, Phil. FUR 2/3

Jemmeh 102 NA GMI FUR (2) 2 Stirrup jar, BC 7.55l Iron I, Phil. FUR 2/3

Jemmeh 103 Bag 5227/1 GM 2B (58) Carinated deg rs BSB 8.26d Iron IIA 9

Jemmeh 104 Bag 5178/1A GM 2B P35 Carinated deg rs BSB Iron IIA 10

Jemmeh 105 Bag 4975/1 GM 2B (58A) Carinated deg rs BSB 8.26i Iron IIA 9

Jemmeh 106 Bag 1861A/1 GM 2B F57 Open carinated rsb bowl 8.11j Iron IIA 10

Jemmeh 107 Bag 5003/4 GM 2B (57) Cooking pot 8.27i Iron IIA 9

Jemmeh 108 Bag 5003A/4 GM 2B (57) LPDW SSJ 8.28l Iron IIA 9

Jemmeh 109 Bag 5212A/1 GM 2B (60) LPDW sherd 8.12h Iron IIA 10

Jemmeh 110 Bag 5217/1 GM 2B (64) Carinated bowl, rsb Iron IIA 11

Jemmeh 111 Bag 5003/1 GM 2B (57) Carinated deg rs BSB 8.26e Iron IIA 9

Jemmeh 112 Bag 5178/1 GM 2B P35 Carinated deg rs BSB 8.11r Iron IIA 10

Jemmeh 113 Bag 3536/1 GM 2A (30) 4 Large krater 8.61l Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 114 Bag 3536/2 GM 2A (30) 4 Grooved-rim jar (JR3) Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 115 Bag 1976 GM 2B W9 Grooved-rim jar (JR3) 8.95c Iron IIB-C 5

Jemmeh 116 Bag 3689/3 GM 2A (29) 3 Rounded bowl; rs Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 117 Bag 3689/2 GM 2A (29) 3 Cooking pot 8.61d Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 118 Bag 3768/3 GM 2A (30) Rounded bowl; rs 8.62h Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 119 Bag 3768/4 GM 2A (30) Rounded bowl; rs 8.62g Iron IIB-C 7

Jemmeh 120 Bag 1250/1 GM 2B (37) 2 Rounded bowl; rs 8.85b Iron IIB-C 6

Jemmeh 121 Bag 1246/2 GM 2B (38) 2 Cooking pot 8.85t Iron IIB-C 6

Jemmeh 122 Bag 5880/2 GM 1B (15) 1 Jar (JR2) 8.116t Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 123 Bag 5920/3 GM 1B (14) 2 Jar (JR2) Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 124 Bag 5920/4 GM 1B (14) 2 Jar (JR3) 8.116d Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 125 Bag 5883/4 GM 1B (14) 2 Cooking pot 8.115s Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 126 Bag 4594/1 GM 0B (15) 4 Carinated bowl/chalice 8.173m Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 127 Bag 4594/4 GM 0B (15) 4 Jar (JR2) 8.173p Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 128 Bag 4853/4 GM 00A (1) 3 Jar (JR2?) 8.152c Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 129 Bag 4584/7 GM 00A (1) 3 Jar (JR2) Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 130 Bag 3050/7 GM 1A (3) 8 Jar (JR2?) 8.128q Iron IIC 5

Jemmeh 131 Box 39/1 GM 1B TT3 (1) Globular bowl; white clay 8.117g Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 132 Box 61 GM 3B (2) Globular bowl; white clay 13.3h Iron IIC 3? AS

Jemmeh 133 Box 84/1 GM 2C (10) Globular bowl; white clay 13.4q Iron IIC AS

Jemmeh 134 Box 32/6 GM 1B (11) 2 Globular bowl; reddish clay Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 135 Box 32/8 GM 1B (11) 2 Globular bowl; red-white 8.117j Iron IIC 5 AS

clay

Jemmeh 136 Box 404A GM 1B (11) 1 Globular bowl; reddish clay 8.117b Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 137 Box 206 GM 2A WBR (15a) 3 Open bowl; pinkish clay 13.6a Iron IIC 4? AS

Jemmeh 138 Box 138/1 GM 1B (10) 1 Open bowl; red-white clay 8.118h Iron IIC 5? AS

Jemmeh 139 Box 141A GM Room A Open bowl; reddish clay 13.5f Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 140 Box 139 GM 1B Wall B Open/large bowl; red-white 13.5l Iron IIC 3 AS

clay

TABLE 15.1. (continued)

RV/Box/ Notes/

Sample No. Bag No. Provenance Description Figure Period Phase ware
780 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

profile is dominated by loess-derived grains of silt-sized quartz, 

microcline, and plagioclase (Engström, 2004:3). The paste is typically red, silty, and carbonitic, but in areas of the sample where 

the trace iron is less oxidized, the optically active (birefringent), 

carbonate-rich paste appears tan to light brown. The grain fraction often includes land snail fragments and other biocarbonitic 

material; this description agrees more or less with Melson and 

Van Beek’s (1992) descriptions (see also Master, 2003, on loessial fabric pottery from Ashkelon).

Other than the loess outcrops the geology of this region includes some kurkar and sand dunes on the beach to the west 

(an about 5-km-wide strip). Small outcrops of Pleshet Formation (marl, conglomerate, sandstone) lie about 20 km or more 

to southeast; the closest Hamra outcrops are 12–15 km to 

photography] models were used, with magnifications of ×25 to 

×400). The fabric description of the slides includes general characteristics of the matrix, optical activity, spacing, and voids. A 

definition of the type of local soil may be given when applicable 

(in most cases according to maps and descriptions in Dan et al., 

1972, 1975; Shahar, 1995; Goren et al., 2004; Goren and Halperin, 2004; Shapiro, 2006). Nonplastic inclusions are identified 

and characterized according to distribution, frequency, sorting, 

size ranges, and texture; the frequency of elements is according 

to the percentage of the entire slide view (see detailed description in Ben-Shlomo, 2006a, 2009). The samples are divided into 

petrographic groups (their numbering is arbitrary) according to 

the characteristics of the matrix (clay background, plastic inclusions) and inclusions (temper and nonplastic components). The 

geographic provenancing was made according to geological and 

pedological (soil) considerations and according to comparison to 

various previous petrographic studies (see below).

GEOLOGICAL AND PEDOLOGICAL 

SETTING AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

A short survey of the geology and pedology (soil distribution) 

of the region of Tell Jemmeh will be presented as a background 

for the geographical provenancing of the pottery samples according to their petrographic grouping and their relationship to soils 

and sediments occurring in this region and elsewhere. The site of 

Tell Jemmeh and its vicinity are dominated by loessial soils typical of the northern and northeastern Negev and southern coast 

of Israel (Figure 15.1; see, e.g., Horowitz, 1979; Goldberg, 1986; 

Melson and Van Beek, 1992).1

 This is a late Quaternary deposit 

comprising wind-blown (aeolian) silt to clay-sized particles. Its 

composition is characterized by high calcium carbonate, and the 

clay derived from it is generally a calcareous one (see more in 

Melson and Van Beek, 1992:129–130). The alluvium beds of the 

Besor River to the north of the tell, which also contain soils from 

more eastern deposits, may also contribute sediments suitable 

for pottery production (as well as bricks). Loess deposition often 

occurs in flooding events (pluvial deposits) when the sediments 

are deposited in larger areas and by wind in between such events. 

According to analysis of pottery from Tell el-Hesi, the loessial 

Jemmeh 141 Box 119/4 GM 0B (7) 5 Bowl/beaker; whitish clay 13.7j Iron IIC 4–5 AS

Jemmeh 142 Box 99 GM 1D W4 Globular bowl; reddish clay 13.4n Iron IIC 3 AS

Jemmeh 143 Box 407A GM 1B (11) 1 Globular bowl; red-white 8.117v Iron IIC 5 AS

clay

Jemmeh 144 Box 60/1 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 Globular bowl; pinkish clay 8.96p Iron IIC 5 AS

Jemmeh 145 Box 60/2 GM 2B TT3 (2A) 1 Globular bowl; white clay 8.96q Iron IIC 5 AS

TABLE 15.1. (continued)

RV/Box/ Notes/

Sample No. Bag No. Provenance Description Figure Period Phase ware

FIGURE 15.1. Map of loess soils in the area of Tell Jemmeh (after 

Goren et al., 2004: fig. 14.1).
NUMBER 50 • 781

In the eastern cut (Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig. 4) several 

loessial soil type deposits can be seen having various colors and 

textures; some of these loess soils may have been modified by 

natural processes.

In the course of the study by Melson 13 soil samples were 

collected and analyzed by thin-section petrography, X-Ray diffraction (XRD), and X-Ray fluorescence (XRF; Melson and Van 

Beek, 1992:132–142, table 1). Petrographic analysis of the soil 

samples indicated a silty fabric with calcareous particles usually 

of clay size (thus, levigation, reducing the quartzic silt element, 

would result in a more calcareous clay). All samples have bimodal grain sizes (mostly quartz) with well-sorted silty angular (mostly quartz and some plagioclase and auxiliary minerals) 

and fine clay-sized grains (Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig. 5). 

A component of larger sand-sized rounded quartz also appears 

but is more variable within the samples (Melson and Van Beek, 

1992: fig. 6). As will be seen, this clay type can be well identified 

in many petrographic samples. Mineralogical analysis by XRD 

showed quartz and calcite are the major minerals, yet a small 

amount of micas and clay minerals occurs and probably derives 

north-northeast (Sneh et al., 1998). In regard to soils, as noted, 

Tell Jemmeh lies on alluvial loess soil in the northwestern Negev 

(loessial arid brown soils); adjacent to the site are regosols, 

which are also located along the wadi bed of Nahal Besor (Dan 

et al., 1975). In addition small pararendzinas outcrops lie in the 

5 km region around the site; 10–15 km to the north dark brown 

soils appear, 6–9 km to the south sandy regosols and arid brown 

soils can be found, and 10–12 km to the east loessial serozems

are defined.

Melson and Van Beek (1992) have carried out a previous 

study on the geological background of the area of Tell Jemmeh 

and the characteristics of the soils appearing in this area and on 

the tell. Two trenches were examined on the slopes of the tell 

(Figure 15.2; Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig. 1); one of these 

is a section created by the collapse of the tell soil due to a river 

flood (Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig. 3). In this trench section (Figure 15.3) the original soil (denoted the paleosoil “A” 

horizon) can be seen as a dark horizontal band with an overbank 

flood deposit above it and the anthropogenic habitation debris 

above that (denoted “PHL”), mostly the collapsed mud brick. 

FIGURE 15.2. Tell Jemmeh from the air with the soil section made by Melson marked (Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig.1).
782 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Persian period, the large majority of the samples can be described 

as belonging to two main petrographic groups, Groups 1 and 2 

(about 110 of the 145 samples), although these groups have a 

variety of subgroups. In addition, two to five other petrofabrics can be defined as “imported” fabrics (denoted IMP1–IMP4). 

The Assyrian-style pottery was classified tentatively in a separate 

grouping (Petrographic Groups ASS1–ASS3), and subsequently, 

these fabrics were compared to the general groups. Individual 

petrographic grouping is shown in Table 15.3.

Petrographic Groups

Group 1

Group 1 is characterized by a usually dark matrix (under 

cross-polarized light), with 10%–20% of voids from the slide 

area; the clay matrix is not calcareous or have high birefringence in most cases (Figure 15.4a,b). Nonplastic inclusions are 

mainly quartz, which can comprise 25%–40%. In most cases 

the texture of the quartz appearance is “bimodal” (denoted as 

from aeolian dust coming from the Sinai and as far as the Sahara 

region (Melson and Van Beek, 1992:132, figs. 7, 8). Chemical 

analysis of the soil samples by XRF examining major elements 

showed that the clay is rich in iron, the silica component is 

roughly constant, and the calcium percentage is more variable. 

The soils from the overbank deposits (“mud flakes”), however, 

had a different composition than the loess soils from the east cut; 

thus, these alluvial clays could be seen as a source for a different 

clay fabric (Melson and Van Beek, 1992:140, fig. 11). In conclusion, it seems that many of the loess and reworked loess deposits 

in the area of the tell are suitable for raw ceramic clays (even at 

present Gaza potters are using loessial clays; see also, e.g., Goren 

et al., 2004:112–113).

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

To start, the various petrographic groups, or petrofabrics appearing in this assemblage, will be defined and described (Table 

15.2). Of the 145 vessels ranging in date from the Chalcolithic to 

FIGURE 15.3. Soil section made by Melson (Melson and Van Beek, 1992: fig. 3).
NUMBER 50 • 783

from this fabric ranges between 45:45:10 and 55:35:10. Fabric 

1c, appearing in an LBII cooking pot (Sample Jemmeh 70), is 

characterized by a reddish matrix and a well-sorted rounded 

quartz sand probably added intentionally as temper. Fabric 1d 

has very well sorted silty quartz with no sand particles as well 

as some calcareous inclusions. Other inclusions are limestone 

fragments and calcareous concentrations, usually medium to 

coarse sand sized; their frequency is higher in Group 1b and 

Group 1b), as the grains are divided into a silty angular population and a smaller subangular to rounded sand-sized population 

(this quartz texture was also noted in Melson and Van Beek, 

1992, in clay samples from the site; see above). Otherwise, samples were defined as Fabric 1a (Figure 15.4a); altogether 26–32 

samples belong to this group, and 13–19 belong samples to 

Group 1b (Figure 15.4b). The coarse:fine:voids ratio (c:f:v20μm, 

with a limit between coarse and fine set at 20 μm) of the slides 

TABLE 15.2. Main characteristics of petrographic groups.

Petrofabric Matrix Main inclusions Related soil Suggested provenance Notes

1a Dark, porous Silty quartz Brown Jemmeh/south coastal Philistia

1b Dark, porous Bimodal quartz Brown Jemmeh/south coastal Philistia

1c Dark, porous Sand quartz Brown Jemmeh/south coastal Philistia Added temper

2a Birefringent, reddish, Silty quartz, some sand, Loess Jemmeh, north Negev

silty opaque, limestone, 

feldspar

2b Dark Silty quartz, some sand/ Loess? Jemmeh, NW Negev

bimodal, opaque, 

limestone, feldspar

2c Dark, reddish, silty Silty, sand quartz Loess Jemmeh, NW Negev

2d Birefringent, reddish, Silty quartz, sand Loess Jemmeh, western Negev

silty limestone

2e Birefringent, Silty quartz, calcareous, Loess? Jemmeh, western Negev

ferruginous, reddish, opaque, pellets

silty

2f Birefringent, reddish, Silty quartz, mica Loess Jemmeh, western Negev

silty

2g Birefringent, reddish, Crushed calcite, quartz Loess Jemmeh, western Negev Cooking pot

silty fabric

2h Birefringent, reddish, Sand quartz Loess Jemmeh, western Negev

silty

3 Birefringent, silty Chalk, foraminifera, Rendzina Shephelah

quartz

4 Dark/reddish Bimodal quartz Loess/brown? Jemmeh region?

5 Brown, silty Calcareous sand, Brown/ alluvial Central coast Zoomorphic 

quartz sand Tell elYahudiyeh ware

6 Calcareous Bimodal quartz, feldspar Unknown Imported?

7 Birefringent, silty Foraminifera, quartz Marl North coast?

8 Reddish Silty quartz, opaque, shale Unknown Unknown

ASS1 Milky, fine, dark Quartz, opaque, Brown? Jemmeh, NW Negev? Assyrian style

feldspar, mica

ASS2 Dark/red, silty Silty quartz, limestone, Loess? Jemmeh, NW Negev? Assyrian style

opaque

ASS3 Milky, fine Serpentine Unknown Imported (Syria?) Assyrian style

IMP1 Dark, milky Serpentine, opaque Unknown Imported (East Greek/Cyprus?)

IMP(?)2 Dark Quartz, limestone, Unknown Imported?

feldspar, mica

IMP3 Birefringent Quartz, serpentine, Unknown Imported (Cyprus/north Syria)

polycrystalline quartz

IMP4 Opaque Quartz, mica, chert Unknown Imported, north Syria
784 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 15.3. Samples with petrographic grouping and suggested provenance.

Sample Petrogroup Suggested provenance

Jemmeh 1 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 2 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 3 IMP2? Imported/Jemmeh?

Jemmeh 4 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 5 1b/2b Southern coast

Jemmeh 6 IMP2? Imported/Jemmeh?

Jemmeh 7 IMP3 Imported 

Jemmeh 8 IMP4 Imported

Jemmeh 9 IMP4 Imported

Jemmeh 10 IMP1? Imported

Jemmeh 11 5 Central coast

Jemmeh 12 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 13 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 14 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 15 ASS1 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 16 ASS1? Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 17 ASS1? Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 18 1b Jemmeh, NW Negev/coastal plains

Jemmeh 19 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 20 2e/ASS2? Western Negev?

Jemmeh 21 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 22 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 23 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 24 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 25 2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 26 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 27 2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 28 2d/2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 29 3/2g Shephelah?

Jemmeh 30 2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 31 1a/2b? Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 32 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 33 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 34 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 35 6 Imported?

Jemmeh 36 1b? Southern coast

Jemmeh 37 2c Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 38 2f/2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 39 2e? Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 40 1b Southern coast

Jemmeh 41 7 North coast?

Jemmeh 42 7 North coast?

Jemmeh 43 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 44 8 Unknown

Jemmeh 45 2e Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 46 8? Unknown

Jemmeh 47 1a Jemmeh/south coastal Philistia

Jemmeh 48 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 49 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 50 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 51 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev
NUMBER 50

• 785

TABLE 15.3.(continued)

Sample Petrogroup Suggested provenance

Jemmeh 52 1a Southern coast

Jemmeh 53 1a Southern coast

Jemmeh 54 2c Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 55 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 56 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 57 2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 58 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 59 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 60 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 61 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 62 2f? Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 63 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 64 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 65 1a/2a Southern coast

Jemmeh 66 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 67 1b? Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 68 2d Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 69 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 70 1c Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 71 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 72 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 73 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 74 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 75 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 76 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 77 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 78 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 79 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 80 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 81 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 823 Shephelah

Jemmeh 83 IMP1 Imported

Jemmeh 84 1b/2a? Southern coast

Jemmeh 85 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 86 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 87 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 88 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 89 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 90 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 91 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 92 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 93 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 94 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 95 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 96 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 97 1a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 98 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 99 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 100 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 101 1a Jemmeh, NW Negev

(continued)
786 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Generally, Group 1 may reflect a clay derived from brown 

soils (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:165–167; Ben-Shlomo et al., 

2009:2267–2268, Group 1) or an alluvial/quartzic dark brown 

soil (Wieder and Gvirtzman, 1999:233–234). Similar clays 

were found to be commonly used in the 7th century pottery of 

can reach 15%, as in Sample Jemmeh 71. Minor inclusions that 

also appear in most of the slides in small quantities are opaque 

minerals, brown and greenish mica and feldspar; rare to several 

polycrystalline quartz, chalk, and shell particles also appear in 

a few samples. 

TABLE 15.3. (continued)

Sample Petrogroup Suggested provenance

Jemmeh 102 3? Shephelah?

Jemmeh 103 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 104 2e Western Negev?

Jemmeh 105 2e/2a Western Negev?

Jemmeh 106 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 107 3 Shephelah

Jemmeh 108 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 109 2c Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 110 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 111 4a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 112 4a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 113 4a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 114 2h Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 115 4a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 116 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 117 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 118 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 119 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 120 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 121 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 122 2b Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 123 1b Southern coast

Jemmeh 124 2h? Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 125 2g Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 126 1d/2e Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 127 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 128 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 129 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 130 1b Southern coastal plains

Jemmeh 131 ASS1 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 132 1a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 133 ASS1 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 134 2a Jemmeh, NW Negev

Jemmeh 135 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 136 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 137 ASS3 Syria?

Jemmeh 138 1d/2e Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 139 2e? Western Negev?

Jemmeh 140 1d? Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 141 1a? Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 142 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 143 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 144 ASS2 Jemmeh, NW Negev?

Jemmeh 145 ASS1 Jemmeh, NW Negev?
NUMBER 50 • 787

FIGURE 15.4. Photographs of thin sections (all under cross-polarized light) for Groups 1 and 2. The 

sample number is given below each plot, with TSPA group in parentheses.
788 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

subgroup defined in the loess-derived fabrics includes Fabric 2c, 

which is highly fired and characterized by more rounded coarsesand quartz grains, often cracked, possibly beach sand added as 

temper. Interestingly, an Iron II Late Philistine Decorated Ware 

vessel belongs to this group. In a few samples laminated voids indicate the use of vegetative organic temper such as straw (Figure 

15.4f, such as open bowls from the MBII and LBII; this may be 

considered an Egyptian pottery characteristic; see, e.g., Martin et 

al., 2009:376). Also, shell inclusions appear (such as in an Iron II 

bowl, Sample Jemmeh 119).

Fabric 2e (Figure15.4h), with 6–11 examples, is characterized by a more reddish ferruginous matrix and more calcareous 

inclusions (limestone, nari, and calcareous concentration, 2%–

7%). Quartz is still high, up to 25%–30%, and usually highly 

silty; c:f:v20μm ranges between 50:42:8 and 55:45:5. This fabric 

could reflect clay of a different (as yet unlocated) source (possibly from the northern or western Negev rather than the coastal 

plains), which may be indicated by the appearance of more clay 

pellets (see Figure 15.4h). On the other hand, such clay may 

be derived from an area in the vicinity of Tell Jemmeh because 

the main loessial silty quartz component is still dominant. This 

group includes mainly Philistine or Philistine-related vessels.

Fabric 2f includes only two possible examples and is characterized by more well-sorted silty angular quartz than other 

examples and some more mica. Fabric 2g (Figure 15.5a), represented by six samples (all cooking pots dated to the MBIIB 

through the Iron II), is characterized by a substantial amount of 

silty to coarse-sand-sized angular calcareous inclusions reaching 

15%, including limestone, calcite, and a calcareous concentration often in very angular to rhombic shapes; consequently, the 

abundance of quartz decreases to 10%–20% of the slide area 

(c:f:v20μm ranges between 30:50:20 and 40:45:15). These grains 

were probably intentionally crushed and added to the clay by the 

potter, creating a typical cooking pot fabric (see, e.g., Shoval et 

al., 1993:271–272; Miére and Picon, 2003; Ben-Shlomo et al., 

2008, 2009:2270, fig. 10, top). The addition of crushed calcite to 

cooking vessels was probably related to their function, improving their thermal shock resistance (Shoval et al., 1993:271–272). 

This recipe was used for cooking pots throughout the Bronze and 

Iron Ages in the Levant (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al., 2009:2271, 

for Tell es-Safi/Gath). Finally, Fabric 2h (Figure 15.5b), which 

includes two samples of Iron IIB-C jars of Type JR3, has a reddish matrix with more beach sand quartz that is often optically 

“zoned” (showing wavy extinction under cross-polarized light) 

and some nari grains.

Group 2 clay (especially Fabrics 2a and 2b) is similar 

to general loess-type clays (see, for example, Master, 2003; 

Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:169–171; Cohen-Weinberger, 2006; 

Ben-Shlomo et al., 2009:2268–2269), although more similar to northern Negev “classic” loess (see Melson and Van 

Beek, 1992, and references therein) than to the coastal variations. The petrographic analysis of two LBII el-Amarna letters from Yurza (as well as chemical analysis) also show this 

composition, pointing to Tell Jemmeh as an origin (Goren et 

al., 2004:299–301). Petrofabrics derived from loess soils were 

widely reported from petrographic studies of pottery from the 

Ashkelon (Master, 2003:54, Stager et al., 2011:55–56, fig. 4.1, 

where it is similarly described, related to the “dark brown grumusol”) as well as for MBIIB and Iron Age Tell Nagila (Uziel 

et al., 2009) and Iron IIA Khirbet Qeiyafa (Ben-Shlomo, 2009) 

pottery at other sites. The source of this clay could derive from 

the Besor River beds and also from the Ashkelon-Ashdod region 

(especially Group 1b with more coastal quartz sand). It should 

be noted, however, that the difference between this soil and the 

coastal loess soil (see below, Group 2) can often be vague as the 

former is derived from the latter (Goren et al., 2004:295–298; 

see also the note in Stager et al., 2011:56, suggesting this is a 

high-firing-temperature variant of the loess fabric); therefore, in 

many cases the allocation of samples to Group 1 or 2 was not 

definitive (see Table 15.2).

Group 2

This group, which is the most common in the Jemmeh 

samples (68–78 examples; Figures 15.4c–g, 15.5a,b), generally 

reflects clay derived from loessial or loessial-derived soils. Although a large portion of this group is quite homogenous (Subgroups 2a, 2b, and 2d), some samples deviate from this, and 

thus, a large number of subgroups were defined; although some 

of these may have the same provenance as the main subgroups, 

others (such as Fabrics 2e and 2h) may reflect different sources. 

This fabric is characterized by a silty, slightly birefringent 

calcareous matrix, usually reddish in regular polarized light. 

The matrix of the fabric is slightly more compact than petrofabric 1 with 5%–10% voids; the inclusions are, however, more 

widely spaced; c:f:v20μm ranges between 40:50:10 and 50:45:5. 

Quartz is again the dominant element with 25%–35% (rising 

rarely to 40%). Fabric 2a (Figure 15.4c,d, with 30–34 examples) has a quartz texture of moderately sorted to bimodal, usually with most grains silt sized angular to subangular. Rounded 

sand quartz appears in small quantities in most cases. Fabric 2b 

(Figure 15.4e, 10–18 examples) has a bimodal to poorly sorted 

quartz texture, with somewhat more rounded sand-sized grains, 

yet its main difference from Fabric 2a is in its dark matrix (under 

cross-polarized light) and numerous cracked quartz grains, probably indicating a higher firing temperature of the same clay (it is 

distinguished from Group 1b by the more numerous appearance 

of feldspar grains; however, in the high-fired samples it is often 

difficult to distinguish between loess and brown-soil-type clays). 

Group 2 has a larger proportion of opaque (reddish or dark) 

minerals than Group 1, usually 1%–2% of the slide area; clay 

pellets appear in some slides too. Otherwise, this clay is characterized by a more common appearance of silty feldspar and 

some heavy minerals, such as hornblende (also olivine appears 

rarely), compared to Group 1. On the other hand, calcareous 

inclusions (limestone and calcareous concentrations) are less 

common, rarely reaching 5%; only a few samples have a higher 

component of calcareous sand, and these were defined as Fabric 

2d (Figure 15.4g), with up to 10% calcareous sand. The c:f:v20μm

ratio of Fabric 2d ranges between 30:55:15 and 40:50:10. This 

fabric possibly resembles cooking ware fabric as it has crushed 

angular calcareous fragments (see below, Fabric 2g). Another 
NUMBER 50 • 789

FIGURE 15.5. Photographs of thin sections (all under cross-polarized light) for Groups 2–4, 7, and ASS1. The sample number is given below 

each plot, with TSPA group in parentheses.
790 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Group 7 has two examples, both MBIIB-C cooking pots 

(Figure 15.5e, Samples Jemmeh 41, 42), and is a calcareous 

marl-like fabric with coarse-sand-sized chalk and shell (possibly 

also Amphiroa algae), as well as limestone and silty quartz. This 

clay may be sourced to the northern Levantine coast (see, e.g., 

Goren and Halperin, 2004:2558), but that is unclear. 

Finally, Group 8 (Figure 15.6a), with a single MBIIB-C bowl 

(Sample Jemmeh 44 and possibly cooking pot Jemmeh 46), has 

a reddish matrix with a few fine quartz, opaque, and feldspar 

inclusions as well as shale. The provenance of this fine fabric is 

unknown. 

In addition, as noted, several Assyrian-style petrofabrics and 

imported petrofabrics were defined separately. Of the Assyrianstyle pottery Group ASS1 (Figure 15.5f,g, four to six examples) 

is a fabric with a yellowish compact matrix and is somewhat 

milky (regular polarized light), which indicates a high firing temperature, possibly of a calcareous clay. The c:f:v20μm ranges between 35:55:10 and 40:55:5. Nonplastics are well-sorted silty 

angular quartz (15%–20%) with 1%–2% opaque minerals and 

some mica laths and feldspar laths; no calcareous inclusions or 

other elements appear. Thus, the matrix does not seem like that 

of a loess-type clay as seen in the other pottery samples. This 

could have been, however, a well-levigated clay deriving from 

the same source as or possibly a well-fired variation of Group 1 

(brown soil?). 

Other samples defined as Group ASS2 (Figure 15.6b, four to 

seven examples) have a dark to reddish-brown matrix; c:f:v20μm

ratio is 50:40:10–55:35:10, and nonplastics include silty quartz 

(no sand), 1%–5% coarse-silt to fine-sand limestone fragments, 

and 1%–2% opaque minerals, as well as substantial amounts of 

clay pellets and/or mud stone in a few of the samples in addition 

to mica and feldspar. Sample Jemmeh 135 has a high feldspar 

component, mostly elongated laths, whereas Sample Jemmeh 

136 has about 3% mica, mostly laths. This fabric seems somewhat similar to Group ASS1. These two fabrics, although different from local fabrics represented by Groups 1 and 2, do not 

seem to be imported from a different region, as the main component is similar to the loess or loessial-derived soils of the region. 

Group ASS1 could, for example, reflect a more well-levigated 

and fired clay of the same source as the local clay. 

In contrast, one Assyrian-style vessel defined as Group 

ASS3 (a bowl, Sample Jemmeh 137, Figure 15.6c) is clearly imported. The sample is of a fine fabric, with a dark milky matrix, 

and contains a high proportion of silty to fine-sand serpentine 

(10%) and very low quartz (about 3%). The high quantity of 

serpentine may indicate that it may possibly be provenanced to 

northern Syria. 

Other fabrics that are clearly imported include a Cypriot 

White Painted ware (WP) MBIIB-C vessel (Sample Jemmeh 83), 

defined as Fabric IMP1 (Figure 15.6d). The matrix is dark and 

milky, and it contains mostly silty serpentine, opaque minerals, 

and quartz. Sample Jemmeh 10 is an East Greek amphora neck 

and is made of a similar ophiolitic fabric but with more polycrystalline quartz. Fabric IMP2 represents two White Slip/imitation 

milk bowls (reddish paint; Figure 15.6e, Samples Jemmeh 3, 6); 

these are slightly micaceous and contain mostly silty quartz and 

northern Negev, southern coast, inner plains, and the Shephelah 

(Figure 15.1; e.g., Goren, 1996:54; Master, 2003:55; Goren et 

al., 2004:9,112; Goren and Halperin, 2004:2554–2555; BenShlomo et al., 2009; Stager et al., 2011:56). Master (2003:55, 

fig. 4) points to the difference between the Shephelah, Negev, 

and coastal loess soils (see also Stager et al., 2011:56). The 

coastal loess is characterized by silty bimodal quartz and 

low quantities of sand or silt-sized calcite (on such loess soil 

from Tell Jemmeh, see Melson and van Beek, 1992:132–136), 

whereas the Shephelah loess is much richer in calcareous inclusions and has less sand-sized rounded quartz. In the region 

of the southern Shephelah there are soils indicating a mixture 

(probably natural) of loess and rendzina (see Goren and Halperin, 2004:2554–2555; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:171–175). In the 

Tell Jemmeh assemblage we have a more typical and “clean” or 

classic loess-type clay with the dominant silty quartz and reddish matrix; some mixtures with other Negev soils or possibly 

terra rossa (Fabrics 2e and 2h?) may also occur. Generally, the 

source of the clay of most examples of Group 2 comes from the 

typical loess soils of Tell Jemmeh and its vicinity (as described, 

for example, in Melson and Van Beek, 1992).

Other Groups

The remainder of petrographic groups represents by far 

fewer samples. Group 3 (Figure 15.5c), with three to four examples, has a highly birefringent calcareous matrix that is rather 

compact (5% voids). The nonplastic inclusions are dominated 

by calcareous components, mostly chalk, shell, and microfossils (foraminifera), and calcareous concentrations (altogether 

5%–15%) and silty quartz (up to 20%–30%); a few silty grains 

of feldspar and mica appear as well. This fabric seems to represent clay derived from rendzina soil, which is typified by the 

high proportion of microfossils deriving from chalk, and may 

be sourced to the southern Shephelah region or eastern coastal 

plains. Similar clay types were used (although not very commonly) for the production of Bronze and Iron Age pottery from 

Tel Miqne-Ekron (Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:171–175), Tell es-Safi/

Gath (Ben-Shlomo et al., 2009:2269), Tell Nagila (Uziel et al., 

2009), and Khirbet Qeiyafa (Ben-Shlomo, 2009:163).

Group 4 is characterized by a dark to brown matrix (c:f:v20μm: 

50:45:5–60:35:10) with 30%–35% quartz with a bimodal texture, 5%–10% limestone/calcareous inclusions/chalk, coarse silt 

to fine sand, and some opaque minerals; feldspar, polycrystalline 

quartz, and mica also occur (Figure 15.5d). This is a fabric resembling Groups 1 and 2 and may reflect a natural(?) mixture of 

the loess and brown-type soils. 

Group 5 includes only the MBIIB-C Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware 

zoomorphic cup (Sample Jemmeh 11). It is probably made of 

an alluvial (coastal?) clay with equal proportions of quartz and 

limestone sand (as well as foraminifera and chalk) and thus may 

be sourced to the central coast of Israel. 

Group 6 also comprises only one possible example (Sample 

Jemmeh 35), a thickened jar rim of the MBIIB-C. It is similar 

roughly to Fabric 2b with bimodal quartz but has more feldspar 

(microcline?) and thus may be imported. 
NUMBER 50 • 791

FIGURE 15.6. Photographs of thin sections (all under cross-polarized light) for Groups 8, ASS2, ASS3, and IMP1–

IMP4. The sample number is given below each plot, with TSPA group in parentheses.
792 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

fabrics of Group 2; these include bowls, cooking pots, and one 

TEY sherd and one RWB sherd. Two of the TEY vessels are not 

local to the site; a juglet (Sample Jemmeh 32) belongs to Group 

3 fabric, and the zoomorphic cup belongs to Group 5 (possibly 

central coast). Two of the cooking pots, Samples Jemmeh 41–42, 

were made of a different clay, rich in microfossils, possibly imported from the north Levant coast (Group 7). Notably, typologically, these reflect a nonlocal type (hole-mouth shape), and 

sometimes this type is associated with Egyptian form. Possibly, 

there was a northern source for hole-mouth globular cooking 

pots in the MBIIB-C as well. A carinated red-slipped bowl (Sample Jemmeh 44) and a cooking pot (Sample Jemmeh 46; gutter 

rim) were also made of an unusual fabric (Group 8); these might 

be imported, yet their typology is local. 

Late Bronze Age II

The analysis of the 41 LBII vessels showed a rather homogeneous picture, in sharp contrast to the MBIIB assemblage (see 

Figure 15.7). The LBII sample includes 35 local or Canaanite-style 

pottery: 13 bowls (three are straight-sided open bowls of a possibly 

Egyptian tradition, Samples Jemmeh 60, 65, 68), six kraters, four 

decorated biconic kraters, five cooking pots, one scoop, and six 

jars (of these, four are marked or incised transport jar handles). In 

addition, six milk bowls were analyzed; these had a more reddish 

clay and a more careless reddish decoration than the Cypriot White 

Slipped milk bowls (see chapter 11) and were analyzed in order 

to examined whether they are Cypriot imports of local imitations.

Of this sample up to 11 vessels belong to Petrographic 

Group 1, and 28 belong to Group 2 (mostly Fabrics 2a and 2b, 

except for several cooking pots made of Fabric 2g); only two milk 

bowls are different, possibly imported. There are no examples 

some feldspar and limestone. This fabric maybe imported. The 

exact provenancing of these fine fabrics by petrography alone is 

currently not possible. 

Results According to Period and Ware

Chalcolithic Period

Only five Chalcolithic sherds from Field III were analyzed, 

three V-shaped bowls and two kraters. Two or three were made of 

loess-type clay, of the subgroups richer in coarser calcareous inclusions; one is inconclusively Group 1 or 2, and one is possibly of 

rendzina-type soil, Group 3, or a highly calcareous group variant.

Middle Bronze Age IIB-C

Altogether 29 samples from the MBIIB-C (Field III) were 

analyzed; 22 are common undecorated forms: four open bowls, 

one rounded bowl, seven carinated bowls, five cooking pots and 

five storage jars. In addition three Red, White, and Blue ware 

(RWB) sherds were sampled as well as three Tell el-Yahudiyeh 

ware (TEY) and one Cypriot WP (Figure 15.6d).

The petrographic results show a relatively highly variable 

picture as far as clay source selection is concerned, as almost all 

petrographic groups are represented. About six samples belong 

to Group 1; these are all carinated bowls or RWB ware (two of 

three sherds sampled). A similar phenomenon was encountered in 

the analysis of the MBIIB-C pottery from the nearby Tell Nagila 

(concerning the bowls, see Uziel et al., 2009). Possibly, this result 

reflects a certain regional production center of these bowls during 

this period. Note that the RWB sherds analyzed from Nagila were 

made of loess-type clay. Eleven samples were made of various 

FIGURE 15.7. Comparative grouping of local products (Groups 1 and 2 only) according to archaeological periods.
NUMBER 50 • 793

five bowls (four simple rounded bowls of Type BL1), one large 

krater (Type KR2), three cooking pots (all three of the typical 8th 

century BCE Type CP2), six jars that are most likely of the tapering base type (JR2), although only one is a clear base fragment, 

and three grooved-rim jars (Type JR3). In addition, 24 Assyrianstyle pottery vessels from Phase 5 (or unstratified) were analyzed; 

thus, in total, 42 vessels from the Iron IIB-C were analyzed. 

Five vessels were made of Group 1 clay, 11 were made from 

Group 2 clay, and 2 were from Group 4 clay, a result similar to 

the LBII–Iron I-IIA, indicating the dominance of Group 2 and no 

long- or short-distance imports. Most Group 1 examples (Fabric 

1b) are jars, probably with tapering bases (Type JR2). This may 

indicate a somewhat different production center for these jars, as 

suggested by Zimhoni (1997b:247–250; she suggested a source 

in southern Israel) and later Bernick-Greenberg (2007:166), although one still local to the region. The grooved-rim jars, Type 

JR3, are not homogeneous in their clay. 

All three cooking pots analyzed were made of the typical 

loess cooking fabric, Group 2g, similar to LBII cooking pots. 

A similar result, showing consistency in production of cooking 

pots throughout periods, may come from the analysis of cooking 

pots at Tell es-Safi, where LBII cooking pots (Ben-Shlomo et al., 

2008), although somewhat different from Iron I-IIA pots, are 

similar to the Iron IIB pots (analyzed later; similar results were 

found at Tel ‘Eton; Ben-Shlomo, unpublished data). In contrast, 

at Ashkelon, the LBII and Iron I cooking pots are locally made 

and calcite tempered (Master, 2011: tables 3,4), whereas both the 

MBII and the Iron IIC pots are different and largely imported. 

Assyrian-Style Pottery

Twenty-four Assyrian-style vessels were analyzed; of these, 

14 are globular-carinated bowls, 6 are open or “stepped-base” 

bowls, and 3 or 4 are beakers. In addition an attempt was made 

to sample the different visual fabrics of this pottery. Thus, 10 

samples are of the whitish clay, 4 are of a fabric that is white on 

the outside and red on the inside, 2 are of a fine pinkish fabric, 

and 8 are of a reddish fabric (see Tables 13.2, 15.1). As noted, the 

petrofabrics appearing in this ware were denoted ASS1–ASS3, 

with six to seven examples of ASS1, five to seven examples of 

ASS2, and one of ASS3; in addition, four or five samples were of 

Group 1 clay, and four Assyrian-style samples were of Group 2. 

Apparently, similar to previous studies made on similar pottery 

from Tell Jemmeh (XRF; Hunt, 2012a, 2012b; Melson and Van 

Beek, unpublished data), Tell el-Hesi (petrography; Engström, 

2004), and Ashkelon (petrography; Stager et al., 2011:57, 76–

77, 119–121, figs. 4.6–4.8), the source of this pottery is probably 

in the southern Levant, most likely in the region of Tell Jemmeh. 

The provenance of most of these vessels is in the southern coastal 

plains or western Negev because of their general resemblance 

to the brown and loess clay fabrics. The results from Tell Jemmeh show a relatively high degree of variability in the sources 

of this pottery (possibly similar results come from Tell el-Hesi; 

Engström, 2004). Most of the pottery is made of clay not identical to that used for other vessels, and this is a different clay recipe 

or treatment, creating a different look for this pottery, which 

of other groups. The assemblage shows a strong dominance of 

the loess group clay type, similar to LBII pottery at Tell es-Safi 

(Ben-Shlomo et al., 2009); at Tell Jemmeh this phenomenon is 

even stronger. The decorated ware (Samples Jemmeh 84–87) is 

made of the same clay as the nondecorated ware, as are the jars, 

including most of the incised ones. The straight-sided bowls are 

also made of Group 2 clay, yet they show laminated voids, indicating straw temper (Sample Jemmeh 68 had a somewhat reddish 

appearance, maybe similar to Nilotic marl; the analysis showed it 

was made of Fabric 2d, but with more clay pellets and feldspar). 

Most cooking pots are made of loess clay cooking pot fabric tempered with either calcite (Group 2g) or quartz temper (Group 2c; 

one cooking pot, Sample Jemmeh 70, is made of brown soil fabric 

with quartz temper; see Ben-Shlomo et al., 2008).

The analysis of the White Slip II derivative (carelessly decorated) milk bowls (Samples Jemmeh 1–6; see chapter 11) indicated that at least four were probably locally made, whereas 

two are somewhat different, probably imported, but are still not 

similar petrographically to other Cypriot White Slip II fabrics.

Iron I

Fourteen vessels were sampled from the Iron I (from Fields 

III and I FUR); all were Philistine Bichrome ware (nine bellshaped bowls, some of “degenerated” form, four more typical 

Philistine Bichrome bell-shaped kraters, and one stirrup jar), and 

thus, this group may not well represent the Iron I pottery at the 

site. In any case, their distribution among petrographic groups 

is quite similar to that of the LBII: 3 belong to Group 1 (all degenerated bell-shaped bowls), 10 belong to Group 2 (mostly to 

Fabrics 2b and 2e), and 1, the single stirrup jar fragment (Sample 

Jemmeh 102), belongs to Group 3 (possibly imported from inner 

Philistia, Tel Miqne area?). It seems that Philistine Bichrome was 

made locally at the site, and we have the production workshop, 

or part of it, in Field I FUR kiln. Possibly a few vessels came from 

the nearby Ashkelon area, and more elaborate forms (possibly 

earlier?) were imported from Philistine cities. 

Iron IIA

Ten vessels from the Iron IIA in Field IV (Phases 11–9) were 

analyzed (seven bowls, one cooking pot, and two Late Philistine 

Decorated Ware sherds); of these, none belong to Group 1, seven 

belong to Group 2, two belong to Group 4, and one belongs to 

Group 3 (the cooking pot, possibly imported from the Shephelah; 

the sample has some dolomite as well). Of the five carinated degenerated red-slip bell-shaped bowls (a possible Philistine-Assyrian 

hybrid form), three were made of Fabric 2e (similar to some of the 

iron I Philistine sherds), and two were from Group 4 (a possibly 

clay mixture resembling Groups 1 and 2). The absence of vessels 

made of Group 1 clay in this period may be incidental. 

Iron IIB-C (Local Style)

Eighteen local-style pottery vessels were analyzed from the 

Iron Age IIB-C (Phases 7–5 in Field IV), including typical forms: 
794 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

period, which were not included in the petrographic sample. 

This variability is especially emphasized in comparison to the 

homogeneous nature of the local LBII pottery, both plain and 

decorated, which was largely made of loess-type soil. It should 

be noted, however, that Cypriot and Mycenaean wares (not analyzed) appear during these periods as well. This trend probably 

continues during the Iron I and IIA, and although the samples 

of these periods are not large, the trend is corroborated by the 

typology of the pottery. Unfortunately, no ceramic wasters or 

raw clay deposits could be identified from the Iron I kiln (although some slag was found), and therefore, the raw materials 

used in the kiln could not be checked directly. During the LBII 

a similar pattern occurs at Tell es-Safi/Gath (Ben-Shlomo et al., 

2009), yet the sites diverge in their pottery production trends in 

other periods. 

Especially noteworthy is the restricted nature of the pottery 

sources during the Iron IIB-C, where very few imports occur according to typology. Local manufacture includes the Assyrianstyle pottery, which is made of various locally sourced clay 

recipes. The sample shows hardly any imports from the central 

hills, the northern coast, Phoenicia, or other areas. This lack of 

imports is a substantial difference from the situation in late 7th 

century BCE Ashkelon, where imports from these regions occur 

commonly (Master, 2003; Stager et al., 2011). Possibly, the site 

of Tell Jemmeh had stronger relations during this period with 

the western Negev on the Arabia route (where mostly loess soils 

also prevail). However, only a more comprehensive petrographic 

study of a larger sample from the Iron Age can clarify this issue.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. 

Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. I thank Bill Melson of the National Museum of Natural History for allowing 

me to consult his studies on the Tell Jemmeh area soils and pottery.

highly resembles Neo-Assyrian palace ware from Mesopotamia. 

The clay probably is both highly levigated and fired. 

It seems that different workshops or different clay recipes 

of this pottery reflect different degrees of imitation of “quality” 

in the production of this ware. The completely whitish fabric is 

a truer imitation of palace ware; indeed, all members of Petrographic Group ASS1 are of the whitish fabric. Most members 

of the ASS2 group are either vessels with a whitish exterior and 

reddish core or those with reddish fabric. Notably, all vessels 

from this petrographic group (ASS2) that were subjected to computerized typological analysis (chapter 16, Figure 16.11) were 

grouped on the same tree in the cluster analysis. Other examples 

are made of more regular Group 1 or 2 clays; most are reddish 

fabrics, but some are whitish (such as Sample Jemmeh 19, a bowl 

of Group 2a fabric, and Samples Jemmeh 132 and 141, a bowl 

and beaker/bowl of Group 1b fabric). On the other hand, there 

is no compatibility between typological forms and the different 

petrofabrics of the Assyrian-style pottery; all forms appear in all 

fabrics. The one vessel clearly imported (possibly from Syria), 

Sample Jemmeh 137, a thick open bowl, defined as Group ASS3, 

is of a fine pinkish fabric. Notably, this bowl form is rare in Mesopotamia and appears more commonly in Syria and the Levant.

Persian Period

Four samples of so-called East Greek pottery from the Persian period include three decorated amphorae fragments and one 

neck of a Chian amphora (Figure 15.6f,g). As noted, all these 

vessels are clearly imported, yet their confidently determining 

their provenance according to petrography alone is difficult.

DISCUSSION

The results of this diachronic study of Tell Jemmeh pottery 

production shows some interesting differences between periods 

(Figure 15.7, showing production of local styles only, Groups 

1, 2). There is a high variability in the production centers of the 

MBIIB pottery in both decorated and plain pottery, even though 

most are probably locally made (see also a similar result for MBII 

cooking pots from Ashkelon; Master, 2011:258, table 1). This 

picture also arises from the variety of Cypriot imports in this 
16 Computerized Documentation 

and Analysis of Pottery Vessels

Avshalom Karasik

INTRODUCTION

When the time came to work on the completion of the final report on the Smithsonian Institution Tell Jemmeh excavation within a 

strict time and budget frame, it was clear from the onset that the drawing of the large quantity of sherds that was needed for the report 

would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, within these constraints. Therefore, the choice of maximal employment of computerized 

recording methods (henceforth, 3-D scanning), which are at least twice as efficient and cheap as manual drawing, was very natural. 

Furthermore, semiautomatic recording or drawing of pottery vessels had been advanced and attempted by Gus Van Beek already several 

decades ago with the usage of a “profilograph” (Dolmazon, http://www.dolmazon.de/profilograph_e.htm). It is thus very fitting that 

this final report of Tell Jemmeh is one of the first final excavation reports to include a massive employment of computerized pottery 

recording as a standard archaeological tool. This method was described in detail in previous publications (e.g., Karasik and Smilansky, 

2008; Karasik, 2010); a short and simplified description of the method is presented here. In addition, another section will discuss the 

mathematical analysis of profiles of one very important group of pottery vessels presented in the report, the Assyrian-style pottery.

In this report only nondecorated, fairly large rim fragments or base fragments were selected for 3-D scanning. Decorated pottery, 

body sherds, very small rims, handmade vessels, and completely or nearly completely reconstructed vessels were drawn manually. 

Rim sherds with handles were scanned in some cases. Altogether, about 950 pottery sherds from Tell Jemmeh were scanned by 3-D 

modeling, and a computerized drawing was produced for each sherd; the vast majority of these appear in this volume. The total number 

of pottery sherds and vessels presented in graphic form is about 2,400. Of these, about 400 items were either previously drawn, only 

photographed, or technically unmovable to the Hebrew University at the relevant time. Thus, in this case, computerized recording was 

used to produce nearly 50% of the vessels, whereas the remainder were drawn manually. The output of the 3-D scanning procedure 

also includes a series of gray-scale images, but these were seldom used alongside the line drawing. Red slip or red horizontal bands were 

digitally added to the computerized drawings upon request.

THE EMPLOYMENT OF 3-D SCANNING FOR DOCUMENTATION OF POTTERY VESSELS

One of the most time-consuming yet unavoidable tasks in archaeology is the study of ceramic potsherds. These findings provide a 

considerable part of the archaeological information, and yet it is exactly the abundance of potsherds (typically, thousands of indicative 

fragments per excavation season) that obstructs their detailed analysis. When the original vessels were axially symmetric, the potsherds 

can be completely characterized by their profiles. Extraction of the profile thus becomes the unavoidable first step in the analysis. 

Traditional methods for studying pottery, based on the slow and often inaccurate manual drawings, simply cannot handle the volume 

of information within a reasonable time and cost (e.g., Gilboa et al., 2004, and references therein). Various attempts to overcome these 

difficulties were proposed in the past (see details in Karasik and Smilansky, 2008). However, the application of computerized 3-D 

scanning for pottery analysis as a practical tool to accompany and serve archaeological projects did not reach beyond its embryonic 

stage. One of the main obstacles is the lack of a reliable and efficient algorithm for the extraction of the axis of symmetry and the 

subsequent drawing of a representative profile. This task is not trivial because several hurdles must be overcome:

1. The fragments usually cover a rather small part of the full perimeter of the original vessel. The smaller the fragment is, the harder 

it is to establish its correct positioning.
796 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The system at the Hebrew University, including the cameras, 

the rotating table, and the software, can capture various types 

of archaeological artifacts with high precision (Figure 16.1). 

The 3-D scanning is based on the principle of structured light 

projected on the object and a 3-D image recorded by two digital 

cameras. After identifying the rotation axis, the overlapping 

cross sections assure that the extracted profile is accurate. 

The Computerized Archaeology Laboratory has developed an 

algorithm that overcomes all of these difficulties and finds the 

optimal alignment of even small fragments out of its 3-D model 

(Karasik and Smilansky, 2008). This algorithm was integrated 

into a user-friendly program that does all of the needed 

computations in the background of the software and produces 

print-quality drawings (Karasik, 2010). The average production 

rate of the complete procedure, from fragments stored in 

2. The original vessels are usually not perfectly symmetric. On 

the macroscopic scale, they might be slightly deformed or have 

interior and exterior faces that are not exactly concentric. 

On the microscopic scale, the surfaces of ancient ceramics 

are rough either because of the production techniques and 

materials or because of weathering and breakage during the 

long period of time that elapsed between their production 

and the present. These irregularities suffice to destabilize 

positioning algorithms that work perfectly well for smooth 

surfaces.

3. The 3-D surface obtained from the scanner includes points 

that are not a part of the original surface of the vessel (rather, 

they may belong to the fracture surface, which was generated 

when the original vessel was broken, or to surface defects, 

and these have to be systematically removed).

FIGURE 16.1. The 3-D scanning apparatus in the Hebrew University: a) the camera; b) pottery sherd standing on the 

rotating wheel; c) a 3-D model of a well-positioned ceramic sherd; d) initial positioning in a reference coordinate system.
NUMBER 50 • 797

rest of the assemblage. The similarity relationships in the data 

set are stored in the distance matrix, whose row and column 

indices denote the ceramic profiles in the assemblage. Clearly, 

this matrix is symmetric, and its main diagonal consists of the 

value zero, which corresponds to the self-difference of each 

profile. There are several statistical tools that can manipulate 

distance matrices and reveal inner structures and grouping. 

First of all, to avoid redundancies and to reduce the number of 

variables, we employ principal component analysis (PCA). This 

method transfers the original information from the correlation 

matrix into a new matrix, with no loss of information and with 

independent new columns that have a descending magnitude of 

variability. Only a few columns now suffice to represent most 

of the variability that exists in the assemblage. Second, in order 

to comprehensively reveal the full structure of the similarities 

within the assemblage, the PCA parameters have to be further 

manipulated. The most common and useful method is cluster 

analysis (CA). This technique is a way to investigate grouping 

in the data, simultaneously over various scales, by creating a 

cluster tree (Figure 16.2). The cluster tree is a very convenient 

mode to explore and illustrate connections that are based on 

resemblance. In this tree, similar objects are placed on one 

branch (cluster), and each branch represents a segregated group; 

clusters at one level of correlation are joined at the next higher 

level. The various leaves are connected to a branch that is itself 

also connected to a higher branch and so on until the top of the 

tree is reached (Karasik and Smilansky, 2011).

We base the typology on the structure of the cluster tree: A 

branch on the tree corresponds to a similarity criterion, and as 

more bifurcations exist on the branch, the similarity criterion 

is more distinctive, and the classification it induces is more 

refined. Moreover, at each step, we tune the weights by which 

the next branch is classified and consider more the fine details 

as represented by the distance function of the tangent and the 

curvature functions and less the radius function. When the 

assemblage is relatively uniform, as is the case with the Assyrianstyle pottery, the focus of the weights should be mainly on the fine 

details. The following section shows the results of the automatic 

classification for that group.

Results

A total of 84 rim fragments were included in this analysis. 

Their corresponding cross-section profiles and the representative 

functions were computed and compared by the computer without 

any preassumptions. The only information that was decided in 

advance was the weights that set the relative portion of each 

representative function in the analysis. Several different sets of 

weights were tested, and since in most of them the global picture 

was similar (except for outliers that move between the groups), 

only one example is shown (for a detailed example of the effect 

of the weights see, Karasik and Smilansky, 2011). After the 

computerized analysis was done and the cluster tree was drawn 

(Figure 16.2), the various branches (Figures 16.3–16.10) were 

also compared to the typological classification and petrographic 

groups (Figures 16.3–16.11).

boxes to their digital final drawings, is about five fragments 

per hour. Furthermore, an analytical that mathematically and 

automatically classifies pottery vessels according to their profiles 

can be employed (see below). 

MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS 

OF ASSYRIAN-STYLE POTTERY

A selection of about 84 Assyrian-style pottery sherds (see 

chapter 13), mostly bowl rims that were scanned and documented 

using the computerized method mentioned above, were selected 

for a more in-depth mathematical analysis. Two common bowl 

forms also from the Iron II at Tell Jemmeh were used as a 

comparative reference (see Figure 8.176, Types BL3 and BL5). 

The typological analysis is based on morphological parameters 

of the profiles of the vessels. The basic ideas of the method are 

described below, and its comprehensive description can be found 

in the original publication (Karasik and Smilansky, 2011).

Statistical Method

This analytical method, which automatically classifies a 

given set of ceramic profiles, is based on accurate mathematical 

representations of the profiles and has shown very promising 

results so far. It was tested in several cases and proved to be 

archaeologically meaningful and relevant (Gilboa et al., 2004; 

Karasik et al., 2005; Karasik and Smilansky, 2008; AdanBayewitz et al., 2009; Karasik, 2010; Karasik and Smilansky, 

2011). The concept at the heart of this method is to consider 

the cross-section profiles as planar curves. Each curve is further 

represented by three mathematical functions: radius, tangent, 

and curvature. Mathematically speaking, each of the three 

representations of the profile stores the entire morphological 

information of the curve. They have one-to-one correspondence, 

and each can be fully reconstructed from the other without any 

loss of information. They differ, however, in the sort of features to 

which they are most sensitive. The radius primarily displays the 

gross features of the profile, such as its size and mean inclination. 

The tangent focuses on the stance of the sherd and is sensitive to 

local variations and details, whereas the curvature emphasizes in 

the most conspicuous way the finer features of the profile, e.g., 

rim treatment, carination, grooving, etc. 

We measure the distance between profiles in terms of the 

Euclidean distance between their corresponding representations 

(Karasik and Smilansky, 2011). Moreover, we attach weights for 

each representation (radius, tangent, and curvature), which one 

can adjust in the various steps of the classification. The distance 

function compares the matching sections along the two profiles 

and summarizes their similarity with one positive number. The 

distance value is zero if and only if the two profiles are identical; 

the higher it is, the lower the correlation is between the profiles. 

The distance value is the data unit that summarizes the 

similarity information between any pair of profiles. However, 

knowing that two profiles have a distance value X has a meaning 

only when it is compared relatively to the distances within the 
798 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

globular-carinated bowl form (see Figure 13.3) with thin walls 

and a rim pointed diagonally outward. The two types are very 

similar, and in many of the different sets of weights that we tried, 

the inner groupings were different. Indeed, the “wrong” classification of the DA for the periphery of Branch 1 was always into 

Branch (Type) 2, except for B31_7 (bottom left in Figure 16.3), 

which was closer to Type 6 (Figure 16.8). In addition, one fragment of the periphery of Branch 2 is similar to Type 7 (see Figure 

16.9). Type 3 (Figure 16.5) is very small and can be defined as 

the outliers of the left branch (Types 1–3, Figure 16.2). Still, its 

periphery (B124) was always classified together with Branch 2. 

Further examination of their shapes shows that they are very similar, but the radius of B124 is larger; this was defined as a subtype 

in the typological discussion as well (chapter 13). 

The middle branch (with Types 4–7, Figures 16.6–16.9) 

represents a different style of the Assyrian-style pottery, as 

well as other versions of bowls. As will be discussed below, 

the manual classification has defined as two groups, which we 

named “local” and “hybrid.” Their almost perfect correlation 

with the automatic classification (Branches 5 and 6) serves as a 

validation of the computerized method.

Type 4 (Figure 16.6) has thicker walls and a larger opening, 

and its rim part is more horizontal. This group has two fragments in its periphery: B139 has a similar shape but a larger radius, and therefore, it is not part of the core of the type; B156 is 

very different and was classified together with Type 1 in most of 

the DA analysis. Most of the members of this branch belong to 

Figure 16.2 shows the cluster tree of the complete assemblage. Every line at the bottom of the tree corresponds to one 

vessel. The method is designed so that similar vessels end up 

being on the same branch. On the basis of the morphology of 

the tree eight subtypes were defined. Each of them was colored 

separately, and they are numbered from left to right (see Figure 

16.2). Figures 16.3–16.10 illustrate the drawings of vessels that 

were clustered on each branch as pottery plates. 

It is important to note that the results of the cluster analysis 

are dependent on the assemblage. Adding or removing objects 

affects the final classification. However, very similar vessels will 

always appear on the same branch even when the complete 

assemblage was modified. On the other hand, objects that have 

a low level of similarities may “jump” between the various 

branches whenever the assemblage is altered. The best method 

to test the stability of each object within its final branch is called 

discriminant analysis (DA; Karasik and Smilansky, 2011). On 

the basis of the results of this method we have defined the core 

of each group as the vessels that will always cluster together 

(appearing on the top of the pottery plate) and the periphery as 

the vessels that are less confident in this group (a threshold value 

of 70% confidence was used). 

Figures 16.3–16.10 show the core and periphery drawings of 

each subtype that was defined on the basis of the different branches 

cluster tree in Figure 16.2. The morphological differences between 

the subtypes (denoted as types) are seen in the figures. Types 1 

and 2 (Figure 16.3, 16.4) represent the classic Assyrian-style 

FIGURE 16.2. The cluster tree for the 84 bowls that were included in the analysis. Eight subtypes were defined on the basis of the morphology 

of the tree and its branches.
NUMBER 50 • 799

FIGURE 16.3. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 1: Type 1.

FIGURE 16.4. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 2: Type 2.
800 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 16.5. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 3: Type 3.

FIGURE 16.6. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 4: Type 4.
NUMBER 50 • 801

is represented by a shorter neck leaning outward. In its periphery there are two pieces, one that was found to be similar to 

Type 4 (B224_2) and another that has morphological similarities 

to Type 6 (B4594_3). Interestingly, the DA results for the latter 

match the manual classification, which has defined it together 

with the local type of Type 6 (Figure 16.8). 

The rightmost branch of the tree is represented by only one 

type (Type 8, Figure 16.10). This group has no periphery, and it 

includes all of the unusual shapes that have no clear similarities 

the Assyrian-style type of thick open bowls (Figures 13.5, 13.6). 

Type 5 (Figure 16.7) shows a different form of vessel with strait 

walls and, in most cases, a rim with inner projection.Most of 

the group was defined independently as belonging to the hybrid 

type by the manual classification (see discussion). The walls of 

the fragments that belong to Type 6 (Figure 16.8) are relatively 

similar to the ones in Type 5, but their rims are different. As was 

already mentioned, this group includes 7 out of 10 pieces that 

were classified as local style. The core of Type 7 (Figure 16.9) 

FIGURE 16.8. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 6: Type 6.

FIGURE 16.7. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 5: Type 5.
802 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

following discussion. We have compared the automatic results 

with two independent methods: manual classification and petrography. As was already mentioned, two types were defined 

by the regular manual pottery classification as the local type (see 

Figure 8.176, Type BL3, here mostly Type 6, Figure 16.8) and a 

hybrid (combining Assyrian, local, and Philistine characteristics; 

see Figure 8.177, Type BL5, here mostly Type 5, Figure 16.7); 

both types somewhat resemble many of the Assyrian-style bowls 

as they have a carination and are of a similar size. 

in this assemblage (most were classified as such in the typological 

discussion as well, Figure 13.5).

DISCUSSION

The morphological groups that were defined by the cluster 

analysis and were validated and sharpened by the DA analysis 

(with the core and periphery definitions) are the basis for the 

FIGURE 16.9. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 7: Type 7.

FIGURE 16.10. Drawings of the fragments that were clustered on Branch 8: Type 8.
NUMBER 50 • 803

To conclude we can say that the pottery of Tel Jemmeh is 

one of the first excavation reports that included such a large 

proportion of 3-D documented ceramics. The automatic procedure produces more accurate drawings in print-quality format 

that were also proved to be cheaper, faster, and easier to handle 

for the archaeological needs. Moreover, the computerized classification method that was tested here on a small scale for the 

Assyrian-style group of bowls is a great contribution to archaeological research. First, it saves time in the typological analysis 

and classification of the assemblage, and second, it opens new 

opportunities for quantitative and objective studies. Here we 

have demonstrated its potential for a comparative study of subtype morphology versus provenience of production.

AUTHOR NOTE

Avshalom Karasik, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Correspondence: 

avshalom.karasik@mail.huji.ac.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

Figure 16.11 shows where the objects of each group were 

clustered on the tree with black and red circles for the hybrid 

and local groups, respectively. Both groups that were identified 

manually have a very good matching with the automatic procedure. All of the hybrid fragments are clustered on Type 5, and 7 

out of 10 local pieces were classified into Type 6. It is worth noting that both groups are different from the classic Assyrian-style 

pottery and have clustered closely together.

The second aspect that is demonstrated in Figure 16.11 is 

the petrographic groups that were identified (see chapter 15). 

Two interesting observations should be made. One is that all of 

the objects that belong to Petrographic Group ASS2 (chapter 

15) are clustered on the left branch in Types 1 and 2, which 

are very closely related (see above). Second, the two samples of 

Petrographic Group 2 belong to Type 4. This good agreement 

between morphological types and provenience emphasizes, 

once again, the potential of the automatic and the independent 

classification of pottery analysis. Although there are not enough 

petrographic samples and the statistics is not significant, one 

may conclude that different production centers or “production 

lines” also produced slightly different shapes of vessels. 

FIGURE 16.11. Another plot of the cluster tree of the assemblage together with symbols for the petrographic groups (colored crosses) and the 

manual classification definitions (colored circles).
17 Ceramic Figurines and 

Figurative Terra-cottas

David Ben-Shlomo, Ron Gardiner, 

and Gus W. Van Beek

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the ceramic figurines and figurative terra-cottas from Tell Jemmeh. A total of 127 items are included; of these, 

27 are anthropomorphic (mostly female) figurines, and 53 are clearly zoomorphic figurines. Twenty-two additional items are fragments 

of zoomorphic figurines or vessels, and the other 24 items are other types of figurative terra-cottas, including anthropomorphic (one 

example) and zoomorphic vessels (13), masks (three examples), and other figurative items (nine items). Other ceramic objects with 

possible symbolic significance such as votive vessels, wheel models, and stands are discussed in chapter 19. The Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware 

zoomorphic cup is discussed in chapter 3 (Figure 3.63). 

Apparently, the figurative assemblage from Tell Jemmeh is quite rich, as can also be seen from the publication of Petrie’s excavation 

(e.g., Petrie, 1928: pls. XXXV–XXXIX, with 132 illustrated items), especially during the late Iron Age and Persian period. The main 

general typological groups are female plaque figurines of the Bronze and Iron Age as well as the Persian-Hellenistic periods and 

handmade zoomorphic figurines; zoomorphic libation vessels appear in smaller quantities. These objects are further subdivided into 

specific identifiable types according to style and theme, which will be discussed, with the individual items being listed in Tables 17.1–

17.6; the different stylistic influences of the iconography of the terra-cottas will also be discussed when relevant.

CONTEXT

Most of the figurines and terra-cottas found at Tell Jemmeh come from unstratified contexts or are surface finds, although about 

35 come from more significant architectural contexts. Several figurines come from MBIIB and LBII contexts in Fields I, II, and III; the 

only possible clusters notable are two items in Field III, Phase 15, Room G and three items in Field I, Phase 3, Street J. The largest 

group comes from Field IV (84 items); many items, however, are from topsoil or unclear contexts (at least 33 items). Otherwise, 1 item 

comes from Phase 10, 3–4 come from Phase 7, 4–5 are from Phase 6, and 10–14 items are from Phase 5. About 18 items come from 

Phases 3–4, and the rest are from Phases 1 and 2 or unclear contexts. Fourteen figurative terra-cottas were found in Field III, and they 

are sporadically distributed in the different phases. Eleven items were found in Field I, and 2 were found in Field I, Square KB. Six items 

were found in Field II, one was found in Trench SS1, and eight come from the tell’s surface (GM (+)).

Generally, according to context, most well-stratified items were found in Iron IIB-C contexts, especially in Field IV, Phase 5, 

where in Building I three to seven items were found in Room A and two items were found in Room F. In Building II three or four 

items were found in Room A. In Building III, Phases 5–7, three to five items were found. No figurative terra-cottas were found in 

architecturally significant contexts of the Persian period phases. From the LBII three or four figurines were found in Phase 3 of Field 

I. It should be noted that fragmentary items are likely to be redeposited in fills and bricks and thus often date earlier than their find 

spot. All in all, the vast majority of the figurines and figurative terra-cottas discussed here are dated according to their typology and 

not by context.
NUMBER 50 • 805

breasts”), Qedesh figurines (Pritchard, 1943:32–42, Type I), and 

hollow and pillar figurines. An exception is the horse and rider 

figurines, which are male; these will be discussed, however, with 

the zoomorphic figurines, as riders do not appear alone.

Plaque Figurines

A group of 15 nude female plaque figurines was found in 

the excavations (Table 17.1, Figures 17.1, 17.2). These can be 

subdivided into earlier examples mostly from the LBII (Fields I, 

II, and III, seven to eight examples, Figure 17.1) and examples 

dating stylistically to the late Iron Age or later (Figure 17.2); 

most of the latter come from Field IV. All plaque figurines are 

TYPOLOGY

The figurines and other figurative terra-cottas will be 

described and discussed below according to their general thematic 

typology.

Female Figurines

All anthropomorphic figurines that can be identified by 

gender are female figurines, although the existence of fragmentary 

male figurines cannot be ruled out. Moreover, most items can be 

classified with relatively well known types such as plaque Astarte 

figurines (e.g., Pritchard, 1943:42–49, Type II, “hands holding 

TABLE 17.1. Female plaque figurines. Bld = Building; us = unstratified.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Context Dimensions (cm) Figure

618 314 GMI (+) Plaque figurine us 7.5 × 5 × 3.8 17.2g

619 919 GM (+) Plaque figurine; us 4.8 × 3.4 × 2 17.2b

possibly same mold

as Reg. No. 1244

621 399 GM (+) Plaque figurine, us 6.2 × 4 × 1 17.1e

delicate, anklets

624 94 GM 2B (19) Head of plaque Unknown 5.5 × 4.4 × 2.8 17.2c

figurine

626 209 GM SS1 (+) Plaque figurine? us 9 × 4.8 × 1.4 17.1f

627 375 GM 1D (31B) 2 Plaque figurine, IV-5 6 × 4.6 × 3 17.2f

pointed lower part

628 602 GMII D4 P1 (1) Plaque figurine II-7? (LBII) 6 × 4.2 × 1.2 17.1a

depicting goddess

holding two lotus

flowers

1240 623 GMII A2 W1 (0) Thick plaque II-us 5.8 × 4.4 × 3.3 17.2h

figurine; red slip

1243 773 GMI 1F (9) Plaque figurine; I-3? (LBII) 3.6 × 5 × 2.7 17.1d

white slip

1244 447 GM 0B (15A) 4 Plaque figurine, IV-5 Bld I, Room F? 3.8 × 2.1 × 5.2 17.2a

broken arms; 

possibly same mold

as Reg. No. 619

1245 227 GM 1B (14) 2 Plaque female IV-5 Bld I, Room A 4.8 × 4.1 × 2.7 17.2d

figurine; Egyptian

style hair; rear is

smoothed

1248 843 GMI 4D (3) Plaque figurine; I-3 (LBII) Room F (Field I) 4 × 3.3 × 1.6 17.1b

lower part of hands

2788 GM 0B P8 (+) Shoulder of female IV-us 1.5 × 1.2 × 3 17.1g

figurine; white slip

Bag 3578 GMI 2E (4) Plaque figurine, I-1/3/us? 4.5 × 3.6 × 1.6 17.1c

slender body (LBII)

4131 GM (+) Plaque figurine; us 4.7 × 3.6 × 1.2 17.2e

red slip (Persian?)
806 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

with some traces of fingerprints. The sex of the figure is not emphasized, and the breasts are very low; however, this is probably 

a female figure, as no penis is depicted and also according to 

parallels (see, e.g., Pritchard, 1943: nos. 1, 4). This could also 

depict an androgynous or a “nonsexed” figure. 

This figurine has the typical attributes of a Qedesh Astarte 

or ‘Anat goddess, usually depicted as standing on a crouching 

lion (see, e.g., Pritchard, 1943:32–42, nos. 1–4; Tadmor, 

1982:140; Cornelius, 1994, 2004). These figures usually have 

either a long Hathor headdress or a feather headdress (see, e.g., 

Pritchard, 1943:38–40). Figure 17.1a does not have long hair 

and possibly had a feather headdress that has worn away. Qedesh 

was introduced into Egypt along with the cults of other Asiatic 

divinities during the 18th Dynasty. In Egypt, Qedesh, whose full 

frontal nudity suggests sexuality and fertility, stands on the back 

of a lion, usually holding snakes and lotuses in her bent and 

extended arms (Ziffer et al., 2009:334–337; see also Negbi, 1976, 

for metal figurines of Qedesh). Good parallels in clay and metal 

come, for example, from Tel Beit Mirsim (Albright, 1938:43, pls. 

25.1,2, 26.1, 27.7, 28.1), Aphek, Stratum X9 (Guzowska and 

Yasur-Landau, 2009:390, fig. 11.6), Batash, Stratum VII (PanitzCohen and Mazar, 2006:251–252, pl. 51:17), Lachish (Tufnell 

et al., 1940: pl. XXVIII:6; Tufnell, 1958: pl. 49:4; Clamer, 1980: 

fig. 1, in gold), Akko, Persian Garden (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein, 

1977: pl. VI:1, in metal), Tel Harasim (Givon, 2002: fig. 2:1), 

and Minet el-Beida (Negbi, 1976: fig. 119; see Ziffer et al., 2009, 

and references and discussion therein, regarding a similar skirted 

male LBII figure from Beth Shemesh). 

made by applying the clay to a mold (which was usually made of 

fired clay or stone). The nude female is depicted standing, with 

her hands at her sides (see Pritchard, 1943:49–52, Type III, the 

lying on bed figurine) or one or two hands on the belly or on the 

breasts; other hand postures also occur (Figure 17.1a). Usually, 

these postures and the modeling of the figurines seem to allude to 

pregnancy and fertility (see Albright, 1938:118–119; Pritchard, 

1943; Tadmor, 1982; Keel and Uehlinger, 1998:97–105; Moorey, 

2003:35–46). The back side is thickened, slightly convex, and 

smoothed. Plaque figurines appear in the southern Levant continuously from the Late Bronze Age through to the Persian period 

(see, e.g., Pritchard, 1943; Stern, 2010:11–14), conserving their 

basic concept. The details of the face and head and other body 

details, as well as the thickness of the figure and its proportions, 

vary, however, according to period and stylistic influences. 

Canaanite Plaque Figurines

No complete examples were found; the most complete is 

Figure 17.1a. This nearly complete, rather small plaque figurine 

comes from Field II, probably from Phase 7 (Figure 17.1a). This 

is a solid, mold-made plaque, broken just above the knees. It 

is an en face depiction of a nude figure with raised arms, with 

each hand holding a long-stemmed floral object, probably a 

lotus blossom. The head is large for the body, with short hair, a 

bulging forehead (possibly remains of a feathered headdress; see 

below), and prominent ears. The rest of the features are worn 

but were possibly never well defined. The back is very uneven, 

FIGURE 17.1. Second millennium BCE female plaque figurines.
NUMBER 50 • 807

A shoulder fragment of a female figurine (Figure 17.1g) is 

white slipped; the modeling style of the shoulder and arm might 

suggest this is an LBII or Iron I example, but this is not a molded 

plaque figurine as the shoulder and hand are also modeled on the 

reverse side. Found on the topsoil, this may resemble Philistine 

Iron I Ashdoda figurines depicting a seated female (see, e.g., BenShlomo and Press, 2009:49–54, possibly like fig. 5:6).

A figurine fragment (Figure 17.1h) was probably redeposited 

in the granary fill in Field IV. This is a fragment of a braided hair 

application including three parallel attached coils (the two inner 

ones are longer and the outer one is only partial) and a pellet 

(eye) applied on the inner coil. The style of the hair (long and 

curving) and the manner of application indicate this is a fragment 

of a female figurine of a type known from Bronze Age Syria 

and Cyprus, showing a standing or reclined nude female, who 

sometimes holds an infant (see, e.g., Pritchard, 1943: no. 13); for 

parallels for Bronze Age Syrian female figurine heads with this 

specific hair-style, see Tell Bi’a/Tuttul, Stratum VIII (Strommenger 

and Miglus, 2010:15–16, pls. 6–10, especially pls. 9:6, 10:1). 

Late Iron Age hair application fragments from the shrine at 

Qitmit were also published (Beck, 1995:89, figs. 3.58, 3.59), yet 

these are of a different style. The whitish color of the clay could 

indicate a Cypriote origin, and the date is probably LBII.

First Millennium BCE Plaque Figurines

At least eight examples of late plaque female figurines were 

found, mostly in Field IV; again, no complete example was 

found, but most items include head and upper body fragments 

from Iron II, Persian, and unstratified contexts. Two items, one 

from Building I (Figure 17.2a, possibly from Room F) and one 

from the topsoil (Figure 17.2b), are very similar head fragments 

of plaque figurines that were possibly made from the same mold. 

The larger item (Figure 17.2a) shows more detail. The face is 

rather triangular with schematic eyes and eyebrows (four horizontal ridges) and the two ears, nose, and mouth also depicted as 

ridges; three strokes like a downward-pointing arrow are located 

between the eyebrows, possibly depicting a jewelry item on the 

forehead. The hair is in a fringe with two braids on each side 

(depicted by oblique ridges) to just below the chin line. Under the 

chin an object comprising four vertical curly ridges (see Petrie, 

1928: pl. XXXV:8,10) probably depicts an amulet or necklace; 

the beginning of the arms can be seen. The back is thumb shaped, 

roughly hand finished, and pinched in near the bottom. As noted, 

Figure 17.2b is very similar but more fragmentary, including a 

head fragment broken under the chin. Three or four additional 

plaque figurine fragments that are very similar, showing the same 

facial details, including jewelry, were published by Petrie (1928: 

pl. XXXV:8–10,16); possibly all six figurines were made with the 

same mold, a rather rare phenomenon in one site. The lower part 

of some of the examples from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXV:9,16) may indicate only the head was depicted while 

the lower part of the figurine was blank. A rather similar figurine with the same pendant and forehead decoration was fond 

in Khirbet Hoga (Kletter, 1996: fig. 7:1). A similar phenomenon 

occurs at Iron IIC Ashkelon, where some of the molded figurine 

Three fragments of plaque figurines come from various LBII 

contexts in Field I (Figure 17.1b–d). The fragments in Figure 

17.1b,c are both torso parts showing the thighs, hips, and belly; 

the body is relatively naturalistic but not very full. Figure 17.1b 

is a fragment of a female solid plaque figurine, poorly made (the 

surface is cracked because of poor drying). The item is preserved 

from waist to knees, en face, hands are at the sides, and the 

pubic triangle is defined by a delicate incision. The sides are 

knife trimmed, and the back is slightly convex, roughly finished 

(see, e.g., Ashdod, Dothan and Porath, 1982: pl. 34:1). The third 

example (Figure 17.1d), a fragment including only the middle 

part of the legs, is somewhat different, as the figure is somewhat 

higher in its relief (probably indicating a tighter pressure in 

the mold) and the figurine is covered with thick white slip. 

Similar Astarte-type plaque figurines come from many sites (see, 

e.g., Ashdod, Dothan and Freedman, 1967: figs. 26:1,2, 35:4; 

Dothan, 1971: fig. 35:9; recently, from an LBII building at Tell 

es-Safi, Shai et al., 2011b: fig.11).

Figure 17.1e shows the entire lower part of the nude body, 

with legs, hips, genitalia, and both feet turned to the right 

schematically depicted; the figure is rather slender, and three 

ankle bracelets are depicted on the lower part of each leg. The 

figure is framed by a raised frame, and as the hands are not seen, 

they were probably either raised or on the breast or belly. This is 

an Astarte-type figurine. LBII parallels come, e.g., from Lachish 

(Tufnell, 1958: pl. 49:1); for the ankle bracelets, see Aphek 

(Guzowska and Yasur-Landau, 2009:390, fig. 11.5) and Hazor, 

Area G, Stratum V (Yadin et al., 1961: pl. CCLIII:11).

A molded, rather flat female figurine from Trench SS1 (Figure 

17.1f) is untypical in its form. This item illustrates a standing 

female figure; it is the lower half of a crude, handmade, solid 

plaque, from just above a high prominent navel, of a female en 

face, who is probably pregnant. The arms hang at the sides; the 

right hand is missing, and the left hand is represented possibly 

by three oversized fingers (or this represents something else). The 

figure has a narrow waist and wide hips, with a raised, enlarged 

pubic triangle, with the genitalia triangle and naval depicted. 

The legs are crude, with immensely long feet; both are shown 

turned to her left, one above the other, as if the figure were 

standing on a platform or connected to something (for a similar 

leg posture on a plaque figurine, see Hazor, Ben-Tor, 1997: fig. 

II.62:3). The plaque has rounded lower corners: the back is 

broken longitudinally, and the surface is missing. This figurine 

seems to be a crude attempt to copy similarly posed mold-made 

figurines (see Megiddo, Loud, 1948: pl. 242:15, for a similarly 

exaggerated pubic triangle and prominent navel, but with arms 

upraised). Another possibility is that the strange ending of the 

legs toward the right is part of a scene from a larger application. 

Possibly, the piece was broken from a stand or a shrine model(?) 

(see, e.g., the Iron IIA house models/stands from the Yavneh 

Favissa, e.g., Kletter et al., 2010: pl. 129) where this figure faces 

another figure or object to its left (viewer’s right), and thus it may 

not be an independent figurine. The fact that the rear part of the 

object is broken relatively flat and does not show the smoothed 

surface all plaque figurines have could strengthen the possibility 

that the figurine was part of a stand. 
808 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

nose and lips are also naturalistically depicted but worn. The 

back is slightly convex and has traces of white paint; the neck 

is broken. Parallels come from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. 

XXXV:31), Tel Sera’ (Oren, 1993c:1333, right-hand figure, 7th 

c. BCE), Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII (Dothan and Freedman, 1967: 

fig. 43:4; Dothan, 1971: fig. 64; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: 

fig. 3.96:5), and Tel Dor (Stern, 2010: fig. 14:3). Figurines of 

women holding a rounded object (tambourine?) also have 

heads indicate they were made in one mold, probably local to 

Ashkelon (Press, 2007:216–232, 2012:166–180, 209–214). 

Four additional plaque figurines (Figure 17.2c,d,g,h) were 

made in a higher molded relief and are somewhat more naturalistic. A female head (Figure 17.2c) has its head fully modeled 

to a line behind the ears. The hair is a fringe low on the forehead, with long strands tucked behind prominent ears, extending 

at least to chin level, below which the figurine is broken. The 

eyes are wide and naturalistically modeled with eyebrows; the 

FIGURE 17.2. First millennium BCE female plaque figurines.
NUMBER 50 • 809

are probably of pillar or standing figurines. In this case the head 

was inserted with a plug or attached to a hollow conical body 

(see Ashkelon, Press, 2007:241–243, 2012: cat. nos. 41, 42, 44). 

Some of these resemble Judean pillar figurines (JPFs; see Kletter, 

1996:29–30). A large fragment of a molded head figurine (Figure 

17.3a) has a thumb-shaped back that appears to have been knife 

trimmed. The head, tilted slightly back and to her left, is of a 

smiling woman. The features are worn, and the nose tip broken, 

but prominent cheeks and full lips in a rather exaggerated smile 

are easily discernable. The hair is parted in the middle, with a 

head covering leaving a single strand of curls exposed on each 

side of her face, following the jaw line and ending just below 

chin level. There are no shoulders, and the fragment converges 

into a pluglike lower part. The head covering ends 1.5 cm below 

the chin, below which the clay is irregular, roughly cylindrical, 

and broken at the bottom (see Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVI:10). 

Parallels come from Ashkelon from the 7th century BCE (Press, 

2007:94, 99, figs. 6:2,3, 7:1,4, 2012:172–179, cat. nos. 41, 42, 

49), Ashdod (Dothan, 1971: fig. 65:1), and Batash, Stratum I 

(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:208, pl. 99:1, photo 137).

The molded head of a female figurine (Figure 17.3c) shows 

breakage of a hollow neck (here the head was applied to the 

hollow body rather than plugged in); the head is somewhat 

tilted backward. The face is rather worn, with details of braided 

hair or a wig and the upper part of the eyes discernable. A lessworn molded head (Figure 17.3d) is also probably of a hollow 

standing figurine. The head is pressed in a half mold, and the face 

is tilted back, looking up, wearing an Egyptian braided hairstyle 

or wig, with the ears exposed. The features are somewhat worn, 

especially the mouth, and there are no details below chin level. 

At the point of breakage below the head the figurine is hollow. 

The back is roughly finished, with traces of white paint (see 

Megiddo, Stratum I, May, 1935: pl. XXII:M2925). 

An unusual solid figurine (Figure 17.3b) is a mold-made 

plaque-type female bust showing the head and neck; apparently, 

this is a complete specimen as there was no body. The features 

are distinguishable, although the nose and the right side are 

badly worn. The hair, parted in the middle, is chin length. The 

back of the plaque is rounded and thins toward the top; it is 

roughly finished, facetted lengthwise by knife trimming. The 

lower end of the plaque, from about 1 cm below the figure, is 

missing its surface and appears to have been pared down into a 

short near-cylinder stem, about 2.5 cm at the bottom, suggesting 

possible reuse (conversion to a bottle stopper?); another option 

is that this was the upper part of a composite standing figurine. 

Such a freestanding bust plaque figurine is rare.

A different type of head, belonging to a pillar-type female 

figurine (Figure 17.3e) was found in Phase 5, Building II, Room 

A. The head is schematically depicted in a bird-style face with a 

prominent pinched nose and deep dented eyes. A clay coil applied on and around the head probably depicts a headdress (this 

component I sometimes refer to as a veil, scarf, or turban; the 

back or the head is somewhat pointed, possibly showing the 

headdress covered by the scarf; possibly, a somewhat similar 

figurine was published by Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVI:14). This is 

the Judean pillar figurine type with a schematic head common in 

similarly styled headdress (see, e.g., Megiddo, Stratum IV, May, 

1935: pl. XXVII:M4495).

The upper part of a plaque figurine (Figure 17.2g) was 

found in Field I topsoil; its style and coarser texture more closely 

resemble the first millennium figurines than the LBII ones. The 

head is rather worn, with detailed ears and small eyes, and two 

long braids of long hair can be discerned. On the chest the breasts 

are not depicted, but possibly, these are covered by the long 

hair. Less likely, this could be a male depiction. The hands are 

probably set to the sides of the body. Somewhat similar figurines 

come from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVI:36,38) and 

Batash, Stratum III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:203–205, 

photo 134, from a mold). Other parallels come from Persian 

period Dor (Stern, 2010:11–14, figs. 10, 11, and more discussion 

and parallels therein).

Another female head (Figure 17.2d) comes from Building I, 

Room A. The plaque is broken at the bottom, and some of the 

features are worn, with the mouth and part of the chin gone. 

However, the eyes are well defined; the ears are prominent, with 

the braids of an Egyptian-style wig tucked behind. The rounded 

back is hand finished, thinning sharply to the top. As the molded 

front is incomplete, continuing to the break, this is possibly a 

depiction of a reclining female (cf. Tadmor, 1982; Dothan and 

Nahmias-Lotan, 2010b:195–203); parallels also come from Tell 

Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXV:29). 

Another example from Field II topsoil (Figure 17.2h) is the 

upper half of a female solid plaque, which goes to just below the 

breasts and is rather crudely made. The face is very worn and has 

Hathor locks (reaching to the top of the breasts) and a necklace. 

The rounded back is unevenly hand finished, and the figurine is 

red slipped all over. Similar examples probably come from Tell 

Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVI:34).

The lower part of a female plaque figurine (Figure 17.2f) 

illustrates heavy thighs and belly. The belly is rounded, with a 

lightly defined public triangle, possibly depicting pregnancy. The 

thighs are heavy, and the surface of the lower legs and forwardfacing feet is missing; the arms hang at the sides. The back is 

roughly finished, semicircular in section at the waist, curving 

forward and thinning to meet the feet in a thin, flat edge, thus 

making it impossible for the figure to stand, but it was probably 

intended to lie supine (possibly a depiction of a woman in bed; 

Tadmor, 1982; see also Hazor, Yadin et al., 1960: pl. CXCV:7). 

A rather large fragment of a red-slipped female figurine 

from the topsoil (Figure 17.2e) is made in a different style. The 

completely preserved head is freestanding, with naturalistic eyes, 

mouth, and nose; thick hair and/or possibly headgear is depicted. 

Hands (broken) are probably raised to hold the breasts. The back 

side is smoothed and also red slipped. This style is different from 

Iron II figurines, and this might be a Persian period example; 

possibly parallels come from Megiddo, Strata I–II (May, 1935: 

pls. XXIV:M2213, XXVI:M4551).

Hollow and Pillar Standing Figurines

Three or four female heads (Figure 17.3a–d) are similarly 

made (by mold) and stylized as the Iron II plaque figurines but 
810 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Tell Jemmeh probably because of its greater distance from Judah 

compared to Ekron and Gath (Kletter, 2001:185–188).

Another type of Iron II standing female figurine has large 

hollow bodies with hands on the breast (Figure 17.3g). The large, 

conical, hollow body (maximal diameter of 7.2 cm) is wheel made 

and white slipped. The upper neck and head are broken; two 

pointed pellet breasts are applied on the upper body; the arms are 

broken, but both the hands were preserved (which are applied 

clay coils), depicted under the breasts, cupping them. These 

Iron IIB-C figurines are suggested to be of Phoenician influence 

and appear in Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXV:19,20) and 

elsewhere in Philistia in several examples (see, e.g., Culican, 

1969; Kletter, 1996:31, Type Be, or 35–36, fig. 4:5; Ben-Shlomo, 

2010:76–78, fig. 3.35:2; for Tel Miqne, see Gitin, 2003:287, fig. 

4, and parallels therein; for Ashkelon, see Press, 2007:99, 104, 

216–232, fig. 8:1,4, 2012:166–173, cat. nos. 33–63, “composite 

the southern Levant, especially in Jerusalem and the Shephelah 

(Kletter, 1996: Type A, “pinched” JPFs, 2001; see also City of 

David [Gilbert-Peretz, 1996: fig. 10:20] and Ashkelon [Press, 

2012:167]). A hollow handmade pillar base of a Judean pillar 

figurine was also found in Field IV topsoil (Figure 17.3f). 

Judean pillar figurines (Kletter, 1996, 2001), probably related to some “Asherah cult” (Hadley, 2000, and references 

therein), were also found only in small numbers in eastern Philistia such as at Ekron (Gitin, 2012: pl. 51a; S. Gitin, Albright 

Institute, personal communication, objects 6159, 6559) and Tel 

es-Safi/Gath (Ben-Shlomo, 2010: fig. 3.36; A.M. Maeir, Bal Ilan 

University, personal communication), as well as at other sites in 

Philistia (such as at Batash, Beth Shemesh, and Gezer; see Kletter, 

1996, 2001). Few of these types of figurines were found at Iron 

II Ashdod (see, possibly, Dothan, 1971: fig. 65:4,5, but these 

can come from Persian levels too). This type is rather rare at 

FIGURE 17.3. Various composite female figurines.
NUMBER 50 • 811

above). This figurine is especially important as it was found in the 

7th century BCE Temple-Palace Complex 650.

Other Anthropomorphic Figurines

Other examples of anthropomorphic figurines (Table 17.2) 

include Figure 17.4c, which comes from an LBII context (Field 

figurines”). These are sometimes defined as composite figurines, 

with mold-made heads of various styles and hands cupping the 

breasts or holding a drum; they are usually treated as a LevantoPhoenician artifact (Pritchard, 1943:23–27, 56–57; Moorey, 

2003:47–50; Press 2012:171–173, and references therein). Such 

hollow standing figurines from Ekron include an example with 

the molded head type and a Phoenician-style headdress (see 

TABLE 17.2. Standing, pillar, and other human figurines. Bld = Building; us = unstratified.

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Context Dimensions (cm) Figure

620 920 GM (+) Molded head, us 6 × 3.9 × 2.6 17.3d

hollow body

(pillar?) figurine

623 215 GM 1D (+) Pillar figurine, plug IV-us 6.5 × 3.5 × 2 17.3a

molded head

1241 523 GM 00A (7) 1 Molded head IV-5 Outside Bld I 3.8 × 3 × 7.2 17.3b

figurine, plugged 

to a body or plaque 

with no body

1242 207 GM 1B TT2 Molded head, IV-5? Bld I, Room A? 3.8 × 4 × 6.3 17.3c

pillar figurine 

(hollow body), 

worn

1246 714 GM 1B (17) 1 Pinched bird head IV-5 Bld II, Room A 4 × 3.75 × 3.5 17.3e

with hat/headdress, 

pillar figurine

2922 GM 1B EBR (17) 1 Female standing IV-5? Bld II, Room A? 9.8 × 7.2 17.3g

figurine, hollow 

wheel-made body, 

Phoenician style(?), 

white slip

Bag 7131/4 GM 2A (0) Base of Judean IV-us 4.7 × 4.3 17.3f

pillar figurine

625 450 GM (+) Persian molded us 5.7 × 2.4 × 2 17.4a

figurine with high 

polos hat

629 47 GM 1B (5) 1 Lower part of IV-3? 2.2 × 3.8 × 3 17.4b

statue, legs of 

seated figure, 

Persian; white slip

642 3026 GM 2D (5) Hair of figurine, IV-3 Granary 3 × 1.7 × 0.4 17.1h

applied on head, 

probably from 

Syrian- or Cypriotstyle female 

figurine, whitish clay

1275 827 GMIII B (59) 2 Crude figurine, III-10–11 Unit 6 3.3 × 3 × 1.7 17.4c

female?

3804 GM 2A (20) Very crude IV-4/5? 3.5 × 4.4 

figurine(?)

4079 GMIII (+) Very crude III-us 4.9 × 2.2

figurine(?)
812 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

figurines come from late Iron Age Ashkelon (Press, 2007:104, 

fig. 8:5, 2012: cat. no. 61) and Tell Keisan (Briend and Humbert, 

1980: pl. 102:5,7).

Zoomorphic Figurines

A larger group of terra-cottas from Tell Jemmeh contains 

zoomorphic figurines. At least 54 items are zoomorphic figurines 

or figurine fragments (Table 17.3), and some additional smaller 

fragments (Table 17.5) may also belong to figurines but could 

also belong to zoomorphic libation vessels. Generally, many of 

the zoomorphic figurines are not chronologically indicative, as 

these are crude, handmade, nondecorated, and mostly simplistic 

figurines, not varying in their style from the Neolithic through 

to at least the first millennium BCE (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 

2010:117–118). Although most examples come from Field 

IV and probably date to the late Iron Age or Persian period, 

several examples come from Field III MBIIB, LBII, and Iron I 

levels (see Table 17.3). Several types (such as the horse and rider 

figurines) are more culturally and chronologically indicative. 

Iconographically, most items depict quadrupeds, either horned 

(bovines, rams, ibexes, etc.) or unhorned (equine and other); a 

few items depict other animals such as birds, snakes, etc.

From an MBIIB context (Field III, Phase 15, Room G) a 

nearly complete horned figurine was found (Figure 17.5a). This 

example is rather small but carries some detail; two horns (broken) were attached to the top of the head, the snout is depicted 

by a slight pinching, and a delicate protrusion was possibly applied to the back of the head. The body is somewhat ovoid in 

section, and four legs were applied to it; only the front two were 

preserved and are pointed in their edges. A long side-turning tail, 

reaching almost to the ground, was applied to the back of the 

body. This is probably a bovine figurine because of the horns, 

body, and possible neck protrusion, as well as the tail (although 

it is unusually long). Another figurine from Phase 15, Room G 

(Figure 17.5b) is a head fragment of a horned figurine. The item 

is worn and heavily fractured, and therefore, hardly any details 

III, Unit 6, Phase 11–10). This is a crude handmade lower body 

of a figure with two legs and possible depiction of human genitalia. This figurine might resemble a small group of figurines from 

Iron I Philistia (Ben-Shlomo, 2010:72) depicted naked, probably 

females with emphasized genitalia, appearing in Iron I Ashdod, 

Stratum XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:161, fig. 3.62:5) 

and Ashkelon (Press, 2007:111, 147, 248–251, fig. 10:3,5, 

2012:182–183, cat. no. 77). These are made of coarse clay and 

are very crude in their style, which does not seem to recall any 

cultural tradition noted thus far; however, they may indicate a 

certain hybrid type that might have parallels from Cyprus (such 

as at Enkomi, Dikaios, 1969–1971: pls. 137.5,6,8, 147.40,41). 

Two additional coarse, badly fired handmade fragments (Reg. 

Nos. 3804, 4079, unillustrated) may be crude anthropomorphic 

figurine fragments of unclear nature. 

Two items come from late or unclear contexts (Figure 

17.4a,b) and may be stylistically dated to the Persian period. 

One example (Figure 17.4a) is a complete figurine head probably 

of a female wearing a very tall cylindrical hat or tiara. The head 

was made in mold and is hollow inside; the facial details are 

very fine with delicate eyes, nose, and mouth. The headgear 

is probably a high Aegean style polos (see, e.g., Müller, 1915; 

Holland, 1929:184) and includes the hair around the face and 

a cylindrical high (3.5 cm) hat above it. It is broken under chin 

level. This type of figurine, possibly of Hellenistic or late Persian 

date, is rare (see Higgins et al., 1954: pls. 13, 14.69, 68, 70, 

71.3); figurine heads from Persian period Tel Halif (Lahav) may 

be similar (http://www.cobb.msstate.edu/dignew, items 70820, 

1856). A figurine head from Apollonia (Roll and Tal, 1999:190, 

fig. 4.51:1; for other possible Persian period examples, see Stern, 

1982:165) has a similar hat but is clearly male.

A lower fragment of a figurine of small stature shows two 

legs covered by a dress on a platform (Figure 17.4b). This is a 

hollow figure combining molding and hand manipulation, probably of a seated male or female (also see standing and seated 

female Persian period figurines from Dor, Stern, 2010: figs. 11:1–

4, figs. 12:1, 22, 23, 25:4); the item is white slipped. Similar 

FIGURE 17.4. Various human figurines.
NUMBER 50 • 813

TABLE 17.3. Zoomorphic figurines. Bld = Building; us = unstratified.

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Dimensions (cm) Figure

630 95 GM 1C (1) 2 Horned figurine IV-2? 5 × 2.2 17.5i

(ram?), front

631 452 GM (+) Head of bull figurine us 5 × 5 × 2.8 17.5j

633 238 GM 2C (7) 1 Cylindrical body IV-Post 3 7 × 5 × 4.5 17.7d

and rear of figurine; 

Iron II horse figurine?

634 338 GM 0B (10A) Zoomorphic figurine IV-5? Locus 4? 6.3 × 3.8 × 2.5 17.5m

body, upright tail, 

some soot

635 50 GM 1B (9) 1 Cylinder body; Iron II IV-3? 4.3 × 5.8 × 4 17.7f

horse figurine?

636 451 GM 3B Pit 2 Zoomorphic figurine IV-us 3.5 × 6 × 5 17.7e

with cylinder body

637 539 GM 00A (+) Zoomorphic figurine IV-us 4 × 5.5 × 3.2 17.7l

with cylinder body

640 336 GMII A5 (0) Solid bird figurine, II-us 7 × 4.7 17.8b

wings attached to 

back, tail, three legs

641 3022 GM 1C (5A) Hand of human or IV-3 4.4 × 1.8 × 1.3

wing of bird figurine

1247 513 GM 3B (10) Human figure from IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 3.8 × 1.5 × 7.5 17.7a

horse and rider 

figurine

1250 1124 GMI KB (35) 7 Solid large leg of KB3 6.6 × 4.2 17.8e

animal(?) with 

incised paw

1251 663 GM 00B P10 Head of zoomorphic Unknown 3.3 × 3.4 × 4.3

figurine, ovoid body

1253 854 GMIII B (5) 6 Neck and head of III-12 4 × 2.7 × 3.5 17.5f

horned figurine

1254 540 GM 00A P7 Cylinder body, IV-1? 7.5 × 5 × 4.5 17.7i

hump or rider, 

applied mane

1255 211 GM 1B TT3 (1) Horse figurine, mane IV-5 Bld II, Room A? 4.2 × 2 17.5k

1256 3024 GM 1B (10) 1 Front of bovine IV-4/5? Bld I, Room A? 6 × 5.5 × 7 17.5l

figurine

1257 772 GMI 5D TT3 (1) Small figurine of I-3? Street J? 5.5 × 2.5 × 1.5 17.5d

crouching(?) animal, 

pointed tail, soot

1258 381 GM 2C (10) 1 Figurine leg IV-Post 3 2.5 × 1.4

1260 510 GM 3B (11) 1 Cylindrical horse IV-6 Bld III, Unit 2 3.5 × 2 × 3 17.7c

head, whitish surface, 

Iron II horse

1261 401 GM 2B P6 (2) Horned figurine (ram, IV-6 4.8 × 4.4 × 3.5 17.5h

curved-head goat)

1262 842 GM 2B (40) 3 Long cylindrical IV-7? 5.5 × 3.7 × 2.6 17.7h

body, Iron II horse 

figurine?

1263 323 GM 2B TT4 (1) Zoomorphic figurine IV-5? 6 × 4 × 6.9 17.6e

with cylinder body, 

long neck, and hump, 

probably camel; 

dark clay

1264 747 GM 2A F18 Zoomorphic figurine, IV-5? 3.5 × 4.4 × 5.9 17.6f

cylinder body, hump, 

possibly camel

1267 231 GM 1D (31) 2 Cylindrical body; IV-5 4.8 × 4.7 × 2.6 17.7g

Iron II horse figurine?

1268 376 GM 0B (8) 4 Head of bovine IV-5? Locus 4 2.5 × 3 17.5g

figurine

(continued)
814 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 17.3. (continued)

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Dimensions (cm) Figure

1270 806 GMIII B (51A) Miniature III-9 Room A 3.5 × 1.7 × 1.2 17.5c

zoomorphic figurine, 

long neck, 

smoothed rear

1272 993 GM 2B (+) Front figurine IV-us 3 × 2.8 × 2

fragment

1273 1013 GMIII F1 (7) 5 Miniature horned III-15–16 Room G 2.5 × 1.2 × 1.9 17.5a

(bull?) figurine, 

long tail

1274 239 GM 1B (11) 2 Schematic figurine, IV-5 Bld I, Room A 4 × 4.7 × 2.2 17.7b

probably horse rider; 

white slip

2031 GM 2A (15) Horned head of IV-4? 5.2 × 4

figurine

2138 GMIII J1 (9) 2 Figurine head (horned) III-15 Room G 1.8 × 2.5 × 2.6 17.5b

2180 1103 GM 2A (29) Horse/horned IV-7 Outside Bld III 7.5 × 3 × 6 17.5e

figurine, ovoid body

2680 GM 00A (4) Zoomorphic figurine IV-3/4 5 × 2.5 17.6b

body

2711 GM 0A (7) Leg/horn of figurine IV-4–5 4 × 2.5

2720 GM 0B (+) Leg of figurine? IV-us 1.9 × 1.3 

2730 GM 0B (0) Stumpy leg of figurine IV-us 1.9 × 1.3 × 2.1

2747 GM 00B P8 Stumpy (bovine?) IV-1? 7 × 3.8 × 3

figurine body

2748/2448 GM 00B P8 Complete bovine IV-1? 8.7 × 5.6 × 3.5 17.6a

figurine body, 

zebu hump

2781 GM 00B P8 Bovine figurine head? Unknown 3.2 × 3.5 × 4

2787 GM 0B (+) Leg of figurine IV-us 2 × 1.4 × 1.8

2964 GM 1B NBR (10) Leg of figurine? Unknown 1.6 × 1.2

2971 GM 2B NBR W6 Zoomorphic figurine, Unknown 5.5 × 2.8 17.6d

side tail

3066 GMII C1 F1 Possibly a large horn? II-1/2 5 × 2.1 × 1.3

3107 GMII C2 (1) 3 Horn of figurine II-3 3 × 0.8

3432 GM 2B (33) 2B Leg of zoomorphic IV-5 3.2 × 2

figurine

3452 GMI KB (0) Cylindrical body of KB-us 8 × 3 17.7k

zoomorphic figurine, 

thick tail

3797 GM 1B (10) 1 Figurine torso IV-4/5? Bld I, Room A? 4.5 × 2.5

3809 GM 2A (29) Cylindrical body IV-7 Outside Bld III 5 × 3 17.7j

of zoomorphic 

figurine

3932 GM 2B P6 (2) Broken bovine(?) IV-6? 3.5 × 4.5 

figurine head; white slip

4083 GMI 5D (7B) 2 Leg of zoomorphic I-3 Street J 3.1 × 1.7

figurine

4084 GMIII A3 (3) Front fragment of III-6–7 3.3 × 2.4 × 0.4 17.8d

snake (cobra?) 

figurine?

4077 GMIII C2 (89) Horn of figurine? III-18–19 2.6 × 0.5

Bag 1832 GM 2B Pit 36 Bird on pillar IV-10(A) 4.1 × 3.8 × 1.6 17.8c

figurine, red slip on 

top; small stem 

broken below, wings, 

tail, and neck broken

Bag 2012 GMI 5D T3 (1) Possibly large head I-3? Street J? 4.1 × 3.3 17.5n

of figurine (bull?), 

snout and lips (

dark clay)
NUMBER 50 • 815

FIGURE 17.5. Zoomorphic figurines.
816 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

curving down toward the mouth, pinched ears, and applied 

pellet eyes. The posture of the snout may indicate a goat or 

ram was depicted (see, possibly, Ashkelon, Press, 2007: fig. 

13:6, 2012:187, cat. no. 170). Figure 17.5i is the frontal part 

of a figurine with a seemingly horned head, pellet eyes, short 

snout with incised or punctured lips and nostrils, and two front 

legs, which are broken. The direction of the horns (somewhat 

downward) and short snout might indicate a ram goat. Other 

horned heads of figurines (including Reg. No. 2031, as well as 

possibly Reg. No. 2781, both unillustrated) are probably bovine.

Several stumpy quadruped bodies or torsos with ovoid 

section might belong to bovine figurines. These include Figure 

17.5m, which has a stumpy body, pointed frontal legs, and 

broken upturning tail (somewhat similar to Figure 17.5a); 

Figure 17.6a and Reg. No. 2748 are bodies of a humped animal, 

probably a zebu-type bull (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 2010:115–118, 

and references therein; see also from Tell Jemmeh, e.g., Petrie, 

1928: pl. XXXVII:21–23) that appears in various periods. Two 

torso fragments (Figure 17.6c,d) are also similar. Figure 17.5l 

is the frontal part of a figurine with two nearly complete legs, 

a heavy, stumpy body with ovoid section, and a ridge applied 

on the fore neck, probably a dewlap, which is also typical of 

bovines (see, e.g., Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVII:2,21; Ben-Shlomo, 

2010:105, 116, figs. 3.61:1–3,6, 3.62:7, on this feature in bovine 

figurines and libation vessels; note, however, that in most cases 

dewlaps are pinched from the clay’s body whereas here it is 

applied). Another small quadruped figurine body (Figure 17.6b) 

has an ovoid section and might belong to a bovine. 

The frontal part of a figurine from Phase 7 (Figure 17.5e) 

has a long neck and head with two ears or horns applied. The 

snout and the two frontal legs are broken, and the rear part 

is missing. This is more likely to be a horse figurine with ears 

depicted on the head because of the form of the neck. The head 

of a horse figurine was found in Phase 5 (Figure 17.5k). The head 

is forward leaning, with a long, thick neck, which is broken at 

the base. The muzzle is also broken. A mane is represented by a 

prominent ridge, with short incisions across it, extending in front 

of the forehead and curving down. The eyes are small applied 

clay disks, with small, broken ears above. Possible parallels come 

from Ashkelon (Press, 2007: fig. 11:2, 2012: cat. no. 97). 

Late Iron Age Horse Figurines

Probably the largest group of figurines from one type are 

schematic horse and horse and rider figurines (Figure 17.7) 

typical of the Iron IIB-C and possibly later also during the 

Persian period (from Petrie’s excavations, see also Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXVIII:3–7,9–33). Altogether up to 12 items can be 

identified (although most are fragmentary and are identified 

as such according to body shape), including two riders (Figure 

17.7a,b, both from good Phase 5 architectural contexts). All of 

these examples come from Field IV and are not earlier than Phase 

7 (four are from unstratified contexts or Phase 1, two from Phase 

3, three from Phase 5, one from Phase 6, and two from Phase 7).

A schematic human figurine found in Phase 5, Building III, 

Unit 2 (Figure 17.7a) is probably a rider from a horse and rider 

can be identified (maybe only the neck and broken horns). Another example from an MBIIB context is a figurine horn fragment (Reg. No. 4077, unillustrated). 

The front part of an animal figurine (Figure 17.5f) was 

found in Field III, Phase 12. The item includes a head, neck, and 

upper body (hollow?). It is broken at the base of the forwardstretching neck but has the start of a wide body present on one 

side. The head is small, with outlying heavy, short, upturned 

horns. The snout is broken underneath but is otherwise complete 

and slightly pointed upward, and the eyes are shallow punctures. 

This could be a bovine or goat figurine.

A very small, nearly complete figurine (Figure 17.5c) was 

found in Field III, Phase 9. The stumpy body is very short (1.7 

cm), and attached to it is a long, diagonal neck; the head is 

fragmentary and unclear. Four short legs are applied to the body, 

and the hind part is unusually flattened, but possibly, remains 

of an upturning tail can be discerned. Possibly, this object was 

attached to a larger object or a vessel. It is difficult to identify 

the animal depicted; it may be a schematic horse (see Tel Miqne, 

Ben-Shlomo, 2010:122, fig. 3.66:1). 

Two or three items were found in Field I, Street J (Figure 

17.5d,n and Reg. No. 4083). The most complete item (Figure 

17.5d) is of a seemingly crouching quadruped. The two front 

legs are taller and straight, whereas the two hind legs are spread 

wider apart, and thus, the rear part is reclined. A thick, strait, 

pointed tail is attached to the rear, but the neck and head are 

broken. The figurine is made of coarse, badly fired clay, stained 

by soot marks. It is impossible to identify the animal with any 

certainty, but the crouched posture could allude to a dog or a 

lion. See similar hind fragments from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXIX:7,8) and naturalistic crouching lions (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXVIII:1,2). Another item from Street J (Figure 17.5n) is 

possibly a fragment of the large head of a figurine (possibly a 

bull?). The fragment is of the frontal cylindrical snout with deep 

parting of the lips in front; it is made of dark clay. Somewhat 

similar solid bovine heads are known from later periods such as 

the Iron Age IIC Qitmit shrine (Beck, 1995:185, fig. 3.82) and 

Tel Miqne (see Ben-Shlomo, 2010:120, fig. 3.62:7; see also Tell 

Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXVII:2). A figurine leg (Reg. No. 

4083) was also found in Street J (Figure 6.107g).

A horned figurine head, probably bovine, found in Field IV 

(Figure 17.5g) is possibly of an earlier date. The horns are high 

and wide curving, the snout is pointed, and the neck is narrow. 

It is made of fine whitish clay and is possibly either the head 

of a LHIIIB Mycenaean bovine figurine (see, e.g., French, 1971, 

1985) or an imitation of it.

Other quadruped zoomorphic figurines are probably dated 

to the Iron IIB-C, mostly from Field IV (although many come 

from unclear context or may be residual), as Petrie’s excavations 

also unearthed a large group of zoomorphic figurines from this 

period (Petrie, 1928: pls. XXXVII–XXXI). Several identifiable 

fragments are of various horned animals (Figure 17.5h–j). Of 

these, Figure 17.5j has long, side-turning horns, a triangular 

snout, and applied pellet eyes, probably depicting a bovine. The 

other two (Figure 17.5h,i) more likely depict rams or goats. 

Figure 17.5h has two broken large horns, a triangular snout, 
NUMBER 50 • 817

where the figure was attached to the horse/saddle. The back side 

(smoothed) was possibly white slipped. Parallels come from Lachish, Level III (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 27:1,3). The southern variant 

of this type is more schematic (e.g., Im, 2006:79–183, and references therein), whereas the northern and Phoenician variants are 

more detailed.

Examples of horse figurine fragments include one head and 

nine possible body fragments. The head fragment (Figure 17.7c) 

comes from Phase 6 and has a smooth cylindrical shape (with 

no eyes or other details), is at a slight angle from the neck, and 

has two pointed, prominent ears. This shaping of the head is 

typical of Iron IIB-C horse figurines (see, e.g., Petrie, 1928: pl. 

XXXVIII:17,26). The curved-head horse figurines, common at 

Ashkelon (Press, 2007: fig. 11:7, 2012:183–186, cat. nos. 91–

104), do not appear at Tell Jemmeh (possibly only Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXIX:2). Generally, the Iron IIB-C horse figurines have a 

long, smooth body with either a nearly rectangular section or 

a cylindrical section; a thick, upturning tail is also common. 

According to these traits several body fragments (all cylindrical) 

of quadruped zoomorphic figurines (Figure 17.7d–l) were 

tentatively allocated to the same type of horse figurine. Only one 

body fragment from Jemmeh (Figure 17.7i) may have evidence 

of a rider applied on its back, although most other fragments are 

too small to be indicative. 

figurine. This is a solid handmade figurine, broken at the bottom. The head is long, pointed, and beak-faced with no features 

defined and has a long, thick neck. The body is this and flat, with 

arms broken off flush with the chest, indicating that the arms 

had been extended forward. The body curves backward at the 

waist, at which point it is broken. Although the central lower 

part is smoothed on the side, two breakage marks may indicate 

the location of legs (that were attached to the horse); above the 

waist another faint breakage mark indicates an application in 

the frontal center of the body (possibly also to the horse and/

or saddle). This posture of the figurine suggests that the figure 

is a horse rider, leaning back. Parallels come, for example, from 

Beth Shemesh, Tomb 8 (Mackenzie, 1913: pls. 53, 55), Lachish, 

Level III (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 29:17,18; see also Gjerstad, 1948: 

pl. XIV.67), and Kadesh Barnea (Gera, 2007:213, fig. 13.1:1, although mentioned as a pillar figurine there). Another fragment of 

a flat schematic figurine from Building I, Room A (Figure 17.7b) 

is rather similar and also depicts a rider. The figurine is broken at 

the chest, and the arms are broken just below the shoulders. The 

crudely stylized, beak-type head is damaged in several places. 

The shoulders are hunched forward, suggesting that the arms 

were stretched to the front (probably holding the harness). A 

large clean break is located centrally on the chest (higher than 

in the previous example, Figure 17.7a) and could thus have been 

FIGURE 17.6. Zoomorphic figurines.
818 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

attachment of the rider or some depiction of the mane. The two 

front legs are missing, and the two rear legs are broken stumps; 

a wide breakage mark indicates the thick tail. Two more rear 

parts of figurines include one (Figure 17.7h) that has a long, thin, 

smoothed cylindrical body; the rear is flattened and indicates a 

broken thick tail. The other (Figure 17.7g) shows a smooth cylindrical body, two conical legs aligned backward, and a broken upturning tail. Another similar cylindrical body comes from 

Phase 7 (Figure 17.7j). Registration No. 2747 (unillustrated) is 

a torso with a long cylindrical body that also may belong to the 

same type. A complete figurine body (Figure 17.7k) has a more 

stumpy body (more typical of bovines), yet the thick upturning 

Figure 17.7d is a long, smooth cylindrical body with two 

rear legs, which are broken, and an upturning tail (also possibly typical for horse figurines, whereas bovine ones often have 

side-turning tails). Figure 17.7f is another rear part of a figurine 

with a cylindrical, smooth body, two complete legs, which are 

flattened at the bottom, and a breakage mark of a thick, upturning tail. The figurine in Figure 17.7e has two complete conical 

legs attached to a smooth cylindrical body, and Figure 17.7l is 

another rear part of a figurine with a smooth cylindrical body 

and thick upturning broken tail. Figure 17.7i is a more complete 

body of a figurine; it has a rather short cylindrical body, and 

an application and ridge near the neck could reflect either the 

FIGURE 17.7. Horse and rider and horse figurines.
NUMBER 50 • 819

stem may be evidence of a pillar on which the figurine stood or 

was applied to another vessel, maybe a tree. A very similar “bird 

on pillar” figurine, also red slipped, was found in Stratum VIB 

at Tell Miqne, dated to the Iron I (Ben-Shlomo, 2010:140, fig. 

3.78:3). Small bird figurines were published by Petrie (1928: pl. 

XXXIX:11) and from Ashdod, Stratum XB (Iron IIA; Dothan 

and Porath, 1982: fig. 6:4), Lachish Fosse Temple (Tufnell et al., 

1940: pl. XXVIII:3), and Lachish, Level III (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 

28:12). Similar bird figurines were also found in the Ramesses 

II temple at Beth Shean (Rowe, 1940: pls. 20:7–9, 64A:1), and 

several other examples come from Nahariyah (MBII; Ben-Dor, 

1950: pls. 11:21,22,25,26, 12:10–12), Megiddo, Stratum X (LB; 

Loud, 1948, pl. 245:18,19), Tell Beit Mirsim (Iron Age; Albright, 

1943: fig. 32.3), and Jerusalem (Iron II; Holland, 1995:186, fig. 

8:8–12; Gilbert-Peretz, 1996: fig. 15:4–10).

A nearly complete bird figurine was found in Field II topsoil 

(Figure 17.8b). The body is ovoid and solid (thus, this is not 

a rattle), flattening into a small, fan-shaped tail; the head is 

missing. The wings (broken) loop away from the sides of the 

body, although the wingtips reattach to the rear of the body just 

in front of the tail. The three attached legs are arranged with a 

single leg in the front, with the two rear legs placed far back, just 

in front of the tail. The third leg is, obviously, simply so that the 

bird could stand. The arrangement of three legs is typical of bird 

figurines and various in various periods (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo, 

2010:139, fig. 3.78:1, for a bird-shaped vessel and also, from 

Tell Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: pl. XV:4). Similar bird-shaped terracottas from Iron Age Philistia and elsewhere are usually hollow 

and were sometimes used as rattles (see Ben-Shlomo, 2010:136, 

fig. 3.77:1–3, and references therein); thus, the solid example 

from Jemmeh is somewhat unusual. Registration No. 641 from 

Field IV (unillustrated) is possibly a wing fragment, perhaps also 

from a bird figurine. A handmade votive vessel from Field IV, 

Phase 1 (see Figure 19.5e) might also depict a bird; however, this 

item may be from a later date (Middle Ages?).

A flat piece of clay from Field III, Phase 7/6 (Figure 17.8d) 

may also be a zoomorphic figurine, possibly depicting a cobra 

snake. One side is rather smooth, whereas the front side is 

covered by punctured holes, and in the center is a raised ridge 

possibly continuing as a neck (broken). The grayish clay is 

covered by soot marks. This fragment could be interpreted as 

the body of a cobra snake, with the puncturing aiming to depict 

its skin surface or color. Cobra snake figurines were identified 

at the Beth Shean Temple dated to the LBII–Iron I, Levels VIII–

VI (James and McGovern, 1993:171–172, figs. 83–85; David, 

2009:556–559, fig. 9.20, photo 9.17), Kamid el-Loz (Echt, 

1982: pls. 9.3,10, 12.1), and elsewhere only in New Kingdom 

Egypt (David, 2009:558–559, and references therein). If, indeed, 

the item from Jemmeh is a cobra figurine, this could be evidence 

of Egyptian cultic tradition in LBII Tell Jemmeh.

LIBATION VESSELS

A relatively small group of figurative libation vessels were 

identified at Tell Jemmeh (Figure 17.9, Table 17.4); most are 

tail may indicate its relation to the horse figurine type; no rider 

was attached.

The typical Iron IIB-C horse and horse and rider are 

very common in Judah and the Shephelah figurines (see, e.g., 

Jerusalem, especially Cave 1, Holland, 1995:183, Type D.I.a, 

and Gilbert-Peretz, 1996:29, Types B.2C–B.2C1, pl. 6.13,6.14; 

Keel and Uehlinger, 1998:392–394, figs. 333–336; Im, 2006:79–

183). These figurines are quite rare in most parts of Philistia (see 

Ben-Shlomo, 2010:124–125, fig. 3.67, with a few examples from 

Tel Miqne and Ashdod). These schematic depictions of horses 

usually have cylindrical heads, no facial details except two 

vertical schematic ears, high legs, and flat bodies, with or without 

riders, and are very common during the Iron II and the Persian 

periods, especially abundant at Judean sites (see Holland, 1995). 

Interestingly, at Ashkelon, of the 150 Iron IIB figurines from the 

7th century BCE levels, over 70 are horse figurines, including 

horse and riders (Press, 2007:112–139, 252–260, figs. 11–12, 

13:1–3, cat. nos. 76–157, 2012:183–186, cat. nos. 79–159). 

A similar picture arises from the Tell Jemmeh figurines, a site 

that may be linked with the Iron II material culture of Ashkelon 

because of its proximity.

Camel Figurines

One or two examples are possibly camel figurines (Figure 

17.6e,f). Figure 17.6e is the front half of a figurine with a 

cylindrical body with a thick, cylindrical vertical neck (2 cm 

long). The head is missing, and the front legs are broken close 

to the body. A small (1.5 × 1 cm) but prominently pointed hump 

is applied just behind the neck. Although figurines with humped 

backs are often identified as zebu-type bovines, this case is 

different, and an identification as a camel seems more likely. This 

is due to the long, cylindrical, vertical neck and the shape, size, 

and location of the hump (toward the center of the body). Other 

figurines that can be similarly identified as camels were published 

by Petrie (1928: pl. XXXVII:10–18,24,26; no. 24 is particularly 

similar to Figure 17.6e), and camel figurines were identified 

elsewhere in the Iron II at Busayra, Jordan (‘Amr, 1980:217, fig. 

176) and in later periods at Medinet Habu (Teeter, 2010:130, cat. 

no. 138). Another figurine (Figure 17.6f) is more fragmentary, 

and only the body part (probably cylindrical) with the applied 

pointed hump is preserved (possibly remains of the vertical neck 

could also be identified); this could also be a camel figurine. 

Apparently, camels were important at Tell Jemmeh during 

the late Iron Age and probably later because of its role as an 

important stop on the trade route to Arabia. On camel bones at 

Tell Jemmeh and their significance; see chapter 33 and Hesse and 

Wapnish (1984a).

Other Zoomorphic Figurines

Only a few nonquadruped figurines were found. A small 

figurine, probably depicting a bird (Figure 17.8c), was found in 

Field IV, Phase 10; the figurine is red slipped. Only the body is 

preserved, but the rising neck, two broken wings on the sides, and 

downward wide tail can be identified. On the lower part a broken 
820 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(for similar Iron Age head spouts, see, e.g., Ashdod, various Iron 

Age strata [Dothan, 1971: figs. 70:4,5, 75:4,5; Dothan and Porath, 1982: figs. 18:1, 34:5], and Tel Miqne, Stratum IC [BenShlomo, 2010:111–114, fig. 3.60:3]). The other horned head 

spout (Figure 17.9d) comes from Field I, Phase 1; the object is 

white slipped. The head is thrust forward on a long neck, the 

snout is cylindrical, with the mouth indicated by a deep puncture, and the eyes are indicated by shallow punctures. The horns 

lie against the face, curving forward below the eyes. An applied 

clay lump below the chin represents a dewlap. The shape of the 

horns and dewlap indicates this is a depiction of a ram; a somewhat similar head spout comes from Ashdod (Dothan and Porath, 1982: fig. 34:4, pl. 28:4). 

Another head spout (Figure 17.9c) has breakage marks on 

the top of the head, either of horns and/or ears; two applied pellet eyes have dented pupils. The spout was clearly part of a small 

libation vessel, yet the animal depicted cannot be ascertained 

clearly zoomorphic. Basically, zoomorphic libations vessels are 

composed of a hollow body and two spouts, one for filling (a 

“filling spout,” usually on the body) and one for pouring (usually 

shaped as the animal’s head, a “head spout”; see Ben-Shlomo, 

2008b, 2010:105–107). No complete examples were found. 

However, the MBIIB-C Tell el-Yahudiyeh style bovine-shaped cup 

is nearly complete; it is discussed in chapter 3 (Figure 3.63). 

Four zoomorphic head spouts are illustrated (some may 

also belong to kernoi) as well as several body or leg and hollow body fragments (Figure 17.9e–k). A horn-shaped rhyton was 

also found (Figure 17.9a) and will be discussed below. All animal depictions seem to be quadrupeds. At least two of the four 

head spouts are horned; of these, Figure 17.9b clearly depicts 

a bovine with high pointed horns (one broken), applied pellet 

eyes, pinched ears, and a snout serving as the outlet. In addition a thickly applied dewlap can be seen on lower neck. This 

could be the head spout of a bovine libation vessel or a kernos 

FIGURE 17.8. Various zoomorphic terra-cottas.
NUMBER 50 • 821

The fourth head spout belongs to an equine libation vessel 

(Figure 17.9a) and is more elaborately detailed and decorated. 

The head spout with part of the neck is from a zoomorphic vessel; a pouring hole of 1 cm diameter extends through the neck 

and head, which are otherwise all solid, to the mouth. The 

(probably either a bull or a horse). In addition, at least two fragments of Cypriot Base Ring II bovine vessels were found in Field 

I (Figure 17.9j, a horn, and Figure 17.9k, a leg or horn fragment; 

see also chapter 11); both are decorated by dark brown slip and 

white stripes along the piece.

FIGURE 17.9. Zoomorphic libation vessels.
822 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 17.4. Zoomorphic libation vessels. us = unstratified.

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Dimensions (cm) Figure

1003a GMIII C1 (81) Tell el-Yahudiyeh style III-16 3.63

cup in the shape of a 

horned head

622 918 GM (+) Zoomorphic (equine) us 3.7 × 5.8 17.9a

vessel, harness, black 

and white decoration

632 635 GM 00B P8 Large head of large IV-1? 8.5 × 5.5 × 8 17.9b

bovine vessel, dewlap

638 3025 GM 2D TT2 (2) Front of zoomorphic IV-3? 4.8 × 6 17.9f

vessel, thick (spout) 

red slip

1252 855 GMIII B (64) 5 Horn of Cypriot III-12 Unit 8? 2.8 × 1.2 17.9j

Base Ring II bovine 

vessel, brown slip, 

white decoration

1259 641 GMI 2F (1) Ram neck, nozzle I-1 3.5 × 3 × 2.3 17.9d

hole, white slip

1265 748 GM 1C F3 (F7?) Head with flat nozzle, Unknown 5.5 × 3.2 × 5.5 17.9c

possibly horned

2253 GM 1A 1(7) Fragment of Unknown 5 × 4.7 × 2

zoomorphic vessel?

2259 GMI TTD (1) Front of zoomorphic I-us/3? 3.4 × 3.6 × 5.1 17.9g

(bovine?) vessel, 

dewlap, red 

decoration

2998 GM 2C WBR W5 Leg of zoomorphic Unknown 3.8 × 2.4 

vessel

3262 GM 2A (13) Hind of zoomorphic IV-3? 2.5 × 5 17.9h

vessel, red slip, black 

decoration

3427 GMIII A3 (14) 1 Leg and body of III-9 Unit 1 2 × 1.5 × 2.2

zoomorphic vessel, 

white clay

4076 GMI 5E (2) Leg/horn of Cypriot Unknown 3.6 × 2.5 17.9k

Base Ring II bovine 

vessel, brown slip, 

white decoration

RV283 GMI 4E/ 4F (2) Beast with jars vessel Unknown 17.9e

fragment

Bag 3409/1 GM 1D (19B) Zoomorphic vessel leg IV-5? 8.175l

Bag 3925/4 GMI 5G (2) 5 Leg and body fragment I-3 Room D3 

of zoomorphic vessel

2414 419 GM 3B F3 Base of zoomorphic Unknown Pit 10 × 5.5 17.8a

rhyton, horn shaped; 

serrated horns, three 

broken stumps of 

handles(?); red slip

a

This item is discussed in Chapter 3.
NUMBER 50 • 823

identification of the depiction as an ibex (or an Oryx antelope), 

which is an important Canaanite motif, relies mainly on the 

long coiled horns. 

Parallels are few, although one or two similar objects from 

Tell Jemmeh were published by Petrie (see Petrie, 1928: pl. XV:5, 

possibly also 3). Other parallels, although not exact, may come 

from the Persian period (Stern, 1982:131–132; Hizmi, 1998: 

pl. 1:3 [Khirbet Nimra]). Palace ware ram’s head ceramic rhyta 

from Nimrud (Mallowan, 1966:191, fig. 124) and Khirbet 

Khattuniyah (Curtis and Green, 1997:15–17, fig. 18; Anastasio, 

2010: pl. 40:7) should also be mentioned as a possible prototype 

(for other examples of ram-shaped vessels made of metal from 

the Neo-Assyrian and Persian periods, see, e.g., Wilkinson, 

1956, 1967; note the somewhat similar depiction of the horns in 

Wilkinson, 1956:10, 11). The red slip and the ware of this vessel 

may indicate an Iron II date, but as noted, horn rhyta are well 

known from the Persian period (mostly in metal). The modeling 

of the vessel does carry certain similarities to horse-shaped 

rhyta (e.g., Maresha, dated to the Hellenistic period, Erlich and 

Kloner, 2008:73–75, pl. 44, no. 232), but horse rhyta carry a 

single coiled application, not two.

Legs and Horns of Zoomorphic Figurines or Vessels

Figure 17.8e is a thick, heavy cylindrical leg with five 

deep incisions representing the paw; the base is flattened. This 

leg belonged to a large zoomorphic figure (maybe of a lion?) 

or libation vessel (see similar legs from Hazor, MBII–LBII 

[Yadin et al., 1961: pls. CCXLIV:8, CCLXXVII:5] and Beth 

Shean, Stratum S-1a [Mazar, 2009b:540, fig. 9.7]; see also 

possibly similar legs from the 7th century BCE shrine at Qitmit 

interpreted as human legs [Beck, 1995:97, fig. 3.64]). Otherwise, 

some 23 items are listed in Table 17.5 (unillustrated) and are legs 

or horns belonging to zoomorphic vessels or figurines. Of these, 

14 are legs, 4 are horns, and 5 are indefinite. Several items are 

decorated by paint, either white or red (Reg. Nos. 1269, 2252). 

The curving horn of a ram from Field III, Phase 15 (Bag 5318/3, 

Figure 3.79s) should be noted. A thick white-slipped fragment 

(Reg. No. 2384) may belong to a zoomorphic vessel or hollow 

figurine as well (depicting a leg and body fragment), but this is 

unclear.

Other Figurative Terra-cottas

In this section various figurative terra-cottas that do not fall 

in the main categories mentioned above will be described. 

Anthropomorphic Vessel?

A fragment from Field IV may be identified as an 

anthropomorphic vessel (Reg. No. 1249, unillustrated); this 

is a vessel fragment with a small application, punctured in the 

middle, possibly depicting the breast from an anthropomorphic 

female-shaped vessel or hollow figure (see, e.g., Qasile [Mazar, 

1980:78–80, fig. 18] and Ashdod [Dothan, 1971: fig. 7:16]).

muzzle is wide and flat, with bulging eyes that are pierced. The 

nostrils are two slits pierced through to the mouth. Only the 

stubs of backward-pointing ears remain. A harness is represented by a thin applied coil that circles the forehead at the base 

of the ears, extending down each side of the face, encircling the 

muzzle just above the nostrils. The face is painted with four horizontal black lines with traces of white lines in between, creating 

a frame around the eyes as part of the harness. There are further 

black lines along the harness. The clay is fine and high fired. 

For similar head detail, see Hazor, Stratum IXb (Yadin et al., 

1961: pl. CLXXVI:24) and possibly Cyprus (Gjerstad, 1948: pl. 

XXXIX:20.2, Black-on-Red II (VI), Cypro-Archaic, an animalhead spout, although not a horse, on an askos). This decoration 

may also recall Philistine Bichrome style and Iron II decorated 

head spouts (see, e.g., Dothan, 1971: fig. 69:1–4).

A vessel fragment from Field I (Figure 17.9e) depicts a jar and 

is the spout of a zoomorphic vessel depicting an animal burdened 

with two jars on its sides. This is a well-known zoomorphic 

libation vessel type (“the beast of burden”) during the Bronze 

and Iron Ages in the southern Levant (see, e.g., Beit Mirsim 

[Albright, 1943: pl. 27e], Beth Shemesh [Grant, 1929:167, fig. 

196:503], Gezer [Macalister, 1912: pls. 125:18, 126:7,20], 

Hazor [Yadin et al., 1961: pl. 277:3,4], Lachish [Tufnell, 1953: 

pl. 30:23,27,29,30], and Tel Miqne, Stratum V [Ben-Shlomo, 

2008b:36, fig. 9:2]; see Ben-Shlomo, 2010:121–122, for more 

references).

Other fragments of zoomorphic libation vessels are body 

fragments (usually wheel made). These include a thick redslipped body fragment (Figure 17.9f), probably from the front 

part, with breakage marks of legs and spout. The front leg 

with a wheel-made body fragment (Figure 17.9g) has a pinched 

dewlap, probably a depiction of a bovine; there are traces of red 

decoration. Another fragment is of the rear part (Figure 17.9h); 

the wheel-made body is thick and is decorated by red slip and 

black decoration, and there are breakage marks of two legs and 

a tail. Several other fragments are noted in Table 17.4. 

Horn-Shaped Zoomorphic Rhyton/Drinking Vessel

A rare object is the red-slipped horn-shaped vessel in the 

shape of an animal (Figure 17.8a). This could also be considered 

a libation vessel or, more specifically, a rhyton, i.e., a ceremonial 

horn-shaped libation vessel. 

The object was found in an unclear context, a pit in Field 

IV, Square 3B, and its iconography is not very clear either, as 

it is fragmentary. It is interpreted here as an ibex head-shaped 

drinking vessel. The depiction of the animal head seems 

to be located on the lower part of the vessel, with two long 

coiled applications depicting the ibex horns; near the lower 

breakage two applied pellet eyes were preserved. The mouth, 

which was the lower spout of the rhyton, was not preserved 

(or it was closed, thus serving as a cup). On the upper part 

are three breakage marks; one in the front and one behind 

create a triangle. These are probably the remains of some 

sort of handles and are not part of the animal depiction. The 
824 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the nostrils. A curving ridge extends from either side of the nostrils at the base of the cheeks. The upper lip is a thin, raised rim; 

the underside is flat, with rough parallel incisions across it that 

probably depict the teeth. The mouth was obviously an opening 

cut through the mask. Another fragment from Field IV (Figure 

17.10b) comprises only the nose, which is again life-size, and 

the lower part is naturalistically modeled with deep perforated 

Masks

Two or three fragments of clay masks were found (Figure 

17.10a,b and Reg. No. 2973), albeit in poor contexts. One fragment was found in Field III topsoil (Figure 17.10a). This fragment 

includes the complete nose and the upper lip. The nose is almost 

life-size and hooked, with two small punctured holes representing 

TABLE 17.5. Fragments from zoomorphic figurines or vessels. Bld = Building; us = unstratified.

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Dimensions (cm) Figure

639 3023 GM 2C (6) Horn of figurine/vessel IV-Post 3 1.8 × 1.3

1269 994 GMI 3G (1A) 1 Leg/horn of figurine(?); IV-3A Unit L 2.2 × 1.2

red paint

1271 995 GMIII A2 (20) Leg of zoomorphic III-5–6 3.9 × 1.5

figurine/vessel

2252 GM 1A (0C) Leg of figurine/vessel; IV-us 2.3 × 1

white slip, red decoration

2255 GM 1A TT2 (3) Horn of zoomorphic IV-3 3.5 × 1.5 

vessel/figurine

2385 GM 2B TT2 (17A) Large curved leg? IV-3/4? 3.5 × 2.7

2413 GM 3B P4 Horn of figurine IV-2? 4 × 1

2461 GM 1C (18) 3 Leg of zoomorphic IV-5? 3 × 1.8

vessel/figurine

2919 GM 2B SBR (33) Leg of zoomorphic IV-5? 3 × 2.3 

vessel/figurine

2970 GM 2B SBR W4 Horn/leg of zoomorphic IV-4? 4 × 1.5

vessel/figurine

3169 GM 1A (7–8) 6 Leg of zoomorphic IV-4? 2.5 × 2.2 × 3.6

vessel/figurine

3184 GM 00A (1) 3 Leg of zoomorphic IV-5 Bld I, Room F 3 × 2.4

vessel/figurine

3278 GM 1A F1 (1) 7 Leg of figurine? Unknown 1.7 × 1 × 1.4

3283 GM 2A (12) Leg of zoomorphic IV-3? 2.5 × 1.9

vessel/figurine

3298 GM 2A (20) Leg of zoomorphic IV-4/5? 3.7 × 2.4

vessel/figurine?

3406 GM 2B (36) 3 Leg of zoomorphic IV-6/7 Bld II, Room A 2.5 × 1.7

vessel/figurine

3435 GM 2A (30) 2A? Leg of zoomorphic IV-7? Outside Bld III? 4.2 × 2.8

vessel/figurine

3481 GM 2B W7 Leg of zoomorphic IV-4? 3.2 2

figurine/vessel

3803 GM 1B (10) 1 Leg of zoomorphic IV-4/5? Bld I, Room A? 1.7 × 3

figurine/vessel

3805 GMII A6 (0) Leg of zoomorphic II-us 2.8 × 2

figurine/vessel

3936 GMIII J1 (15) Leg/horn of zoomorphic III-16? 2.5 × 1.4

figurine/vessel

Bag 5318/3 GMIII J1 P3 Curved horn of figurine/ III-15 

vessel

Bag 5792/1 GMI FUR (0) 2 Leg/horn of figurine 7.59k

or vessel
NUMBER 50 • 825

FIGURE 17.10. Various figurative terra-cottas.
826 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

to its neck. The flask has a short, vertical, cylindrical neck, flaring 

slightly to a plain rounded rim and lentoid body. The vessel’s 

shoulders slope at 45°: one is broken, and the other has a pierced 

vertical lug handle at the outer end, with the hole following the 

slope of the shoulder. A solid human head (2.2 cm high) projects 

from one side of the neck, with the neck stretched, looking 

upward. The face was probably made by mold and resembles 

some of the late Iron Age/Persian period female plaque and 

composite figurines (see above). It carries well-defined features: 

eyes, nose, and mouth, but no ears; also, hair braids are depicted 

on the forehead. Vessels with human depictions on their necks 

are known mostly from the Iron Age, with several examples 

in Philistia (a ring flask with face on the neck from Tel Miqne, 

Stratum VI, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, In press, object 5011) and 

nostrils. A fragment with part of two curved openings with raised 

rims (Reg. No. 2973) is possibly the upper curve of eye openings 

from an anthropomorphic mask. These masks may be similar 

to various items found in LBII contexts at Hazor (Yadin et al., 

1958:138, pl. CLXIII, 1960: pl. CLXXXIII) and Tel Burna (L. 

Uziel and R. Shai, Bar Ilan University, personal communication; 

see also, for example, Iron I Qasile [Mazar, 1980:84–86, fig. 21] 

and Persian period Dor [Stern, 2010: figs. 29, 30, 32] and Tell 

Keisan [Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 103:25]). 

Vessels with Figurative Elements

A fragment of a red-slipped and burnished vessel (Figure 

17.10c, Table 17.6), probably a flask, has a human head applied 

TABLE 17.6. Various figurative terra-cottas. Bld = Building; us = unstratified.

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Dimensions (cm) Figure

1249 664 GM 2C (8) 1 Possibly part of an Unknown 2.5 × 3 × 1.2

anthropomorphic 

vessel, breast

Bag 2373 GM 2B (40) 3 A red-slipped bowl IV-7? 6.5 × 2.7 × 0.6 17.10d

with a figure (two legs 

seen) attached to it 

from the outside

1266 917 GM (+) Flask with applied us 7 × 4.5 × 6 17.10c

head on the neck; 

red slipped

2148 449 GMII C2 (7) 5 Unclear solid object II-4 Unit 4 5.5 × 3 × 2.5 17.10g

decorated with 

vegetative motifs

2853 GM 2A WBR P12 Lower figurine part? IV-4 5.2 × 2.4 × 5 17.10f

(female?), flat, 

smoothed back, 

applied to a vessel/

stand?; red slipped

2416 GM 3B (0) Flat object (tile?/ IV-us 5.5 × 4.2 × 0.9 17.10h

house model?) made 

in mold, column/

tree motif?

2672 GM 00A (3) 1 Hollow, pointed IV-5 Bld I, Room F 2.1 × 2.3

fragment, red slipped, 

part of figurative 

vessel?

4078 GM 1B (15) 1 Vessel rim with IV-5 Bld I, Room A 6.7 × 5.5 17.10e

applied figure?

617 922 GMIII A2 (+) Mask, incised teeth, III-us 5.5 × 5 × 4 17.10a

nostrils

2290 GM 2A F1 Nose fragment of Unknown 3.4 × 3 × 5 17.10b

mask, with perforated 

nostrils

2973 GM 2B NBR W7 Mask fragment? (eye?) IV-4? 4.3 × 0.9 × 2.6
NUMBER 50 • 827

DISCUSSION

The relatively large figurative assemblage from Tell Jemmeh 

is composed mostly of Canaanite-style figurines from the LBII 

(and possibly earlier) and Iron IIB-C to Persian period objects. 

It is quite diversified, with human and zoomorphic depiction in 

mostly local styles. The few female figurines from the LBII are 

fine examples of Canaanite material culture. Egyptian influences 

are not common at Tell Jemmeh. A possible exception is the 

fragment possibly identified as a cobra figurine. As at other sites 

in the southern Levant human figurines are rare during the MBII 

and become much more common during the LBII, probably as 

part of mostly domestic popular cultic practices. It was suggested 

that the scarcity of figurines in domestic MBII contexts in the 

Levant is related to a more centralized, controlled, and uniform 

cultic (and general cultural) atmosphere during this period in 

contrast to a more diversified and pluralistic one during the LBII 

(Uziel, 2008:260–266). 

Notably, there are no Aegean-style figurines at Tell Jemmeh 

(those appear in the main Philistine cities during the Iron I; see 

Ben-Shlomo and Press, 2009), neither female nor bovine. One 

exception is a very schematic “mourning” figurine published 

by Petrie (1928: pl. XXXVI:2; Dothan, 1982:237, fig. 12:1). 

Generally, the first millennium BCE female figurines resemble 

those of late Iron Age Ashkelon (Press, 2012:221–223). Certain 

late Philistine influences can be identified in the decoration of 

the figurative items, especially zoomorphic items; Phoenician 

influences can be identified in some of the female figurines. There 

are many more zoomorphic figurines than libation vessels, and 

depictions of bovines and horses appear possibly in roughly the 

same quantities. This ratio generally appears at other southern 

Levantine sites (see Holland, 1975, 1995:167) and is in contrast 

to the late Iron Age assemblage of Tel Miqne (Ben-Shlomo, 2008a, 

2010:169–170, table 2), where zoomorphic vessels are much 

more numerous and the main theme is the bovine. In contrast to 

some Philistine cities, at Tell Jemmeh, similar to Ashkelon, horse/

horse and rider figurines are quite common during the Iron IIB-C.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner, Department of Anthropology, 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. 

Box 37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Gus W. 

Van Beek (deceased), Department of Anthropology, National Museum 

of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Correspondence: davben187@yahoo.com. Manuscript received 4 April 

2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

several examples from late Iron II levels at Ashdod (Dothan, 

1971: fig. 65:6–9), LBII Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 48:7–9), and 

Iron I Tell Qasile (Mazar, 1980: fig. 19). Although the vessel was 

found in the topsoil, a probable date would be in the late Iron 

Age or Persian period because of the known parallels, surface 

treatment, and modeling of the face.

A red-slipped and burnished pottery vessel from Field IV, 

Phase 7, probably a bowl or a krater (Figure 17.10d), has an 

application of two human legs on its outer surface; the legs are 

two clay coils with feet schematically modeled by pinching. This 

is the lower part of a human figure, perhaps “seated” on the 

vessel’s rim. Applied human figures appear, for example, on an 

MBII bowl from Megiddo, Strata XIII–XII (Loud, 1948: pls. 

22:9, 119:4,10; pl. 22:11 there shows a bovine head and a snake 

applied on an open vessel) and an Iron II jarlet from Stratum V 

(Loud, 1948: pl. 90:10). Registration No. 2672 is a red-slipped 

conical perforated piece that was possibly a figurative application 

of some sort (a nipple?); it was found in Field IV, Building I, 

Room F. From Room A of the same building, Figure 17.10e is 

a vessel rim fragment with two vertical parallel applications, 

possibly also of some figurative nature. 

A red-slipped terra-cotta (Figure 17.10f) is clearly a 

figurative element but might have been part of a stand rather 

than a figurine. The items comprises two curving legs(?) and a 

body fragment above them with at least one dented perforation; 

this is possibly a depiction of a female (human?). The back side 

is completely flat and thus was applied to some wall. 

A roughly cylindrical clay object decorated with incisions 

was found in Field II, Phase 4, Unit 4 (Figure 17.10g); this is an 

unusual, unique object that may depict a phallic or vegetative 

motif. The solid object is complete and modeled three-quarters 

in the round with one flat, roughly finished side. At the head 

end is a large, oval, rough depression, with a central pierced 

hole with two smaller holes both above and below within the 

depression. There are three more drilled holes on one side of 

the head. There is another drilled centrally in the base end. 

These holes are only 2–3 mm deep, and none are linked. The 

whole rounded surface down to 1 cm from the flattish base 

end is covered with crudely incised patterns, some of which 

resemble long leaves or wheat with veins, with the rest being 

cross-hatching and chevron patterns. No parallels are known 

for this object.

A flat thin item made of well-levigated and fired clay 

(Figure 17.10h) is seemingly made by mold, with the frontal 

side depicting a column capital and some other architectural 

motif above it. This could be either a modeled tile or part of an 

architectural model. The fabric and appearance of this object 

might indicate it dates to a late period (Islamic?).
18 Worked Sherds

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner

INTRODUCTION

A large assemblage of about 1,700 items from Tell Jemmeh includes sherds of pottery vessels that were subsequently worked, 

especially on their edges, by various tools to create various shapes. Various perforated sherds (after firing) are also included in this 

group. Usually, these items are not treated in detail in archaeological reports and sometimes are not even separated from the other body 

sherds, which are often discarded. Only a few comprehensive studies on these worked sherds were published (e.g., Arbino, 2004; Brandl, 

2010a). As all these items were retrieved and recorded from the Smithsonian Institution’s Tell Jemmeh excavations, this is a good chance 

to examine this category of material culture in more detail; thus, we dedicate a complete chapter to this category.

The main types of worked sherds are disks (rounded sherds), other worked shapes, worked bases, sherds with one or two 

perforations, and “burnishers,” or potter’s tools. Sherds were worked to various shapes: rounded (Figure 18.1), rectangular (Figure 

18.7a), lozenge (Figure 18.7b,c), and triangular. In addition, some worked sherds were probably potter’s tools (Figure 18.7d) or used 

as lids or stoppers, weights, or spindle whorls or had other functions (Figures 18.7e–g, 18.8, 18.9). These will be discussed separately 

according to shape and proposed function below. 

ROUNDED WORKED SHERDS (DISKS)

The most common item in the assemblage of worked pottery sherds is sherds worked to a roughly rounded shape; these can be 

called disks. Altogether, at least 1,515 items of this type were retrieved from the excavation. Only 40 of these were perforated. Although 

only a small set of items of this type is illustrated (Figure 18.1), the basic contextual and metric data on all these items were recorded 

and are presented (Figures 18.2–18.6). However, these objects are treated as a group rather than as individual objects (a more individual 

presentation of some of these from better contexts is given in the various field chapters, chapters 3–8). The vast majority of the disks 

comes from Field IV (1,113 items); 122 items come from Field I (the majority from the trench in Square 3G; of these, 25 are from Field 

I FUR, and 44 are from Field I KB), 51 come from Field II, and 223 come from Field III (most are from Squares J1–J2; of these, 15 were 

found in Room G of Phase 15, dated to the MBII). 

A number (904 of the 1,515; nearly 60%) come from contexts with various degrees of stratigraphic certainty. However, only 198 

come from well-defined architectural contexts (only 13%). A relatively large number were retrieved from the late Iron Age and the 

Persian period; 55 items come from Field IV, Phase 5, Building I (24 from Room A, 16 from Room B, 5 from Room C, 3 from Room E, 

and 8 from Room F), 46 come from Building II, Phase 6 (9 from Room A and 9 from Room B) and Phase 5 (10 from Room A, 16 from 

Room B, and 1 from Room C), and 13 come from Building III, Unit 2. Also, 14 items were found in Locus 4, 10 were found outside 

Building I in Phase 5, and 7 were found outside Building III in Phase 7; a large number come from Square 0B (74 items). In Phase 9 of 

the Iron Age IIA, 14 were found in the space denoted as Room D*.

According to the phased material (Table 18.1), one can see that a large quantity, about a third, is well dated to the Iron IIB-C (301 

items); most come from Phase 5 in Field IV. Of the items found in Field IV, Phases 4–1, many also likely date to the Iron IIB-C. There 

is a remarkably small number from the LBII levels, only 26 items (this is partially due to a lower degree of retrieval and documentation 

of Field I). 

Sixty of the items have ground rims with varying degrees of smoothing. Most of these are of small dimensions, in the 1.2–2 cm 

diameter range. The rest have been classified as fairly well rounded, roughly rounded, or very roughly rounded. Some are very crudely 
NUMBER 50 • 829

uniform, with a lower standard deviation of the diameter (decreasing to a quarter of the average value). Distribution graphs 

using 0.5 cm intervals of diameter also show the same picture 

(Figure 18.2). During the MBII (Figure 18.3) there seem to be 

two popular sizes of disks, ~2.5–3 and ~4.5 cm; the data from 

the LBII and Iron I are too small to draw any conclusions (Figure 

18.4). During the Iron II and Persian periods (Figures 18.5–18.6) 

the distribution of diameters is quite low, and hardly any items 

are larger than 3.5 cm.

Although the thickness of the worked sherds is dictated 

by the thickness of the original pottery vessel and is thus constant, the shape and diameter were chosen by those creating 

the worked sherd. Thus, the dominance of rounded sherds 

rounded or even oval; nevertheless, they stand out among other 

sherds as having undergone some modification.

Two metric parameters of the rounded worked sherds were 

examined: thickness of sherds and their diameter (Table 18.2, 

Figures 18.2–18.6). Averaging all disks and only those with 

phasing resulted in the same thickness of 0.8 cm and a diameter 

of about 2.8 cm. The standard deviation is about one-third of the 

average. Comparing the metrics according to periods, it seems 

that although the thickness of the sherds does not change and its 

average is between 0.7 and 0.8 cm, the diameter of the second 

millennium BCE disks (of the MBII, LBII, and Iron I) is somewhat larger at 3.5–4 cm, whereas Iron II disks are only 2.5 cm 

on average (Figures 18.2–18.5). The latter also are much more 

FIGURE 18.1. Rounded worked sherds (disks): (a) Reg. No. 3891, (b) Reg. No. 3892, GMIII J1 (17) 1, (c, d) Reg. Nos. 3909–3910, GMIII C1 

(81), (e) Reg. No. 1757, GMI 4D (4) 4, (f) Reg. No. 1888, GMIII J1 (14), (g) Reg. No. 3607, GMIII C2 F22, (h) Reg. No. 3738, GMI 3G P7, 

(i, j) Reg. No. 3743a,c, GMI 3G (19), (k) Reg. No. 1741, GM 3B (9), (l) Reg. No. 1784, GM 2B (30) 2A, (m) Reg. No. 1784a, GM 2B (41), 

(n, o) Reg. Nos. 1865–1866, GM 0B (2) 2, (p, q) Reg. Nos. 3155–3156, GM 1A (2) 8, (r) Reg. No. 3173, GM 1A (3) 8, (s) Reg. No. 3172, 

GM 2B Room A.
830 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

OTHER SHAPES OF WORKED SHERDS

Fourteen sherds are cut into rectangular or nearly square 

shapes (Figure 18.7a), and eight more are rather oblong (Figure 

18.7b,c). Two of the square ones have round edges. One roughly 

square thick bowl rim sherd is pierced with a nearly central hole 

(Figure 18.7c). A further six sherds are cut into diamond shapes 

with a specific diameter reflects a conscious act with certain 

functional and/or cultural reasons. These reasons are unknown 

to us and may change in various contexts and periods, but it 

seems that at least during the Iron II it was important for these 

items to be somewhat more uniform. Therefore, their interpretation as some kind of token may be strengthened (see discussion below).

TABLE 18.1. Rounded worked sherds (disks) according to phases and periods (numbers in parentheses are with uncertain phasing).

Period 

Phase Chalcolithic MBII LBII Iron I Iron IIA Iron IIB-C Persiana Total

GMIII 19 2 

GMIII 18 12 

GMIII 17 41 

GMIII 16 61 (+11) 

GMIII 15 23 

GMIII 14 1 

GMIII 13 1 

GMIII 12 3 

GMIII 11 2 

GMIII 10 1 

GMIII 9 1 

GMIII 6 10 

GMIII 5 6

GMIII 4 6

GMIII 2 4

GMII 6 2 

GMII 4 1

GMII 2 5

GMII 1 7

GMI 8 4 

GMI 7 22 

GMI 6 1 

GMI 4 1 

GMI 3 9 

GMI 1 5 

GM FUR 3 8

GM FUR 2 5

GMI KB2 9

GMI KB1 15

GM IV 10 2

GM IV 9 14

GM IV 8 4

GM IV 7 10 (+20)

GM IV 6 22

GM IV 5 228 (+61)

GM IV 4 24 (+60)

GM IV 3 34 (+119)

GM IV 2 1 (+17)

Total 2 164 (+11) 26 29 22 301 (+81) 63 (+196) 607 (+288) = 895

a

Many of the items dated to Persian or late phases may be residual.
NUMBER 50 • 831

TABLE 18.2. Basic metrics of disks according to periods.

Average Thickness standard deviation Average Diameter standard deviation

Period thickness (cm) (Percentage of average) diameter (cm) (Percentage of average)

All items 0.79 0.24 (30%) 2.82 0.94 (33%) 

All phased items 0.78 0.26 (33%) 2.82 0.92 (33%)

MBII (n = 175) 0.83 0.21 (25%) 3.59 1.19 (33%)

LBII (n = 26) 0.81 0.29 (36%) 4.06 1.3 (32%)

Iron I (n = 29) 0.78 0.23 (29%) 3.45 0.7 (20%)

Iron II (n = 519) 0.74 0.14 (19%) 2.53 0.6 (24%)

FIGURE 18.2. Diameter distribution of disks from all periods (measured in cm).

FIGURE 18.3. Diameter distribution of MBII disks (measured in cm).
832 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

OTHER TYPES OF WORKED SHERDS

Worked Bases

Worked bases of pottery vessels are usually larger, thicker, 

and heavier. About 15 large worked sherds or worked bases of 

pottery vessels (Figure 18.7e–g) were mostly from bowls, kraters, or jugs; these were disk or low ring bases. One example is 

an Iron IIA red-slipped and burnished base (Figure 18.7g). Several items are worked bases with perforations in their center 

(Figure 18.8f,g). These bases and several other larger worked 

sherds probably had a different function than the disks and other 

(Figure 18.7b). One of them is pierced at one end, and was perhaps an amulet (Figure 18.7c). Another had a rounded rim and 

points and may have been a tool. Of the three triangular sherds, 

one is pierced near the center. Triangular worked sherds come, 

for example, from Tel Miqne (Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:107). Sherds 

with triangular or hexagonal shapes may have been used as potter’s tools, or burnishers (see Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:107). Five 

other sherds are of various square forms, including a hexagon 

(see Tel Miqne, Ben-Shlomo, 2006a:107, fig. 2.12, right) and an 

octagon. One large, roughly keystone-shaped sherd is pierced at 

the narrow end. In general, the function (or functions) of these 

worked sherds is unclear. 

FIGURE 18.4. Comparison of diameter distributions of MBII, LBII, and Iron I disks (measured in cm).

FIGURE 18.5. Diameter distribution of Iron II disks (measured 

in cm).

FIGURE 18.6. Diameter distribution of Persian period disks 

(measured in cm).
NUMBER 50 • 833

taper would not work well. The spindle may only wedge on the 

narrowest diameter of the hole, and be loose at top and bottom.” 

Barber (1991), in contrast, suggests that “a double-splayed hole 

is not out the question, if well-centered, since with some padding 

it can still be jammed on the spindle,” quoting Liu’s (1978) observation that unspun fibers, wax, or resin are sometimes used to 

wedge the whorl tightly on the spindle. 

Four items, all made from base sherds, are heavy enough 

to have served as loom weights. However, only the largest of 

these, Figure 18.8c, has a central hole that exceeds the 3–10 mm 

range for spindle diameters suggested by Barber (1991). The remaining three are either drilled far enough off center that will 

cause them to wobble when spinning, or are drilled diagonally 

or are too fragmentary for identification. Five other disk sherds 

have unfinished holes started from both sides. One possible use 

is as weights for textile covers for bowls and jars to keep out 

dust, insects, etc. Similar perforated sherds, often interpreted 

as spindles or weights, were found at various Bronze and Iron 

Age sites, such as Tel Batash (Yahalom-Mack, 2006a:258–259, 

photos 117, 118), Beth Shean (Yahalom-Mack, 2007a:661–664, 

figs. 12.1, 12.2), and Tel ‘Ira (Goldsmith et al., 1999:445, figs. 

14.3, 14.4).

About 23 worked sherds have two holes in the center drilled 

after firing (Figures 18.9, 18.10, Table 18.3); all have a rounded 

shape. These items are in various sizes, 2.5–4.5 cm in diameter; 

the centers of the holes are usually 1–2 cm apart. Although most 

come from Field IV from Persian and unstratified contexts, several examples come from LBII and Iron I contexts in Fields III 

and I (as Figure 18.9); none come from good Iron IIB-C contexts. 

Van Beek (1989b) interpreted this object as a toy, called “buzz” 

in modern times and appearing in many cultures.The toy was 

worked body sherds. They may have served as lids or covers of 

vessels such as jars. Parallels for these items are from various 

periods (these are not rare but are rarely published) and come, 

for example, from Ashdod (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:123, 

fig. 3.37:3), Lachish (Sass, 2004b: fig. 28.2:16–19), and Deir 

el-Balah (Brandl, 2010a:239–246, figs. 22.1, 22.2:1–9, denoted 

lids) but are usually discussed in pottery chapters, if at all. 

Perforated Sherds

Another group of worked sherds has a single drilled hole, 

made after firing (Figure 18.8). Forty-one sherds, mostly worked 

into disks of varying states of finish, which have a single drilled 

hole, were recovered. The hole was drilled with a sharp instrument and usually has a biconical section; its location is almost always roughly in the center. These objects may have been weights 

or spindle whorls. Twenty-eight of these sherds are balanced 

enough, with a central or nearly central hole, to be considered 

possible spindle whorls (see, e.g., Beth Shean, Yahalom-Mack, 

2007a), although this identification should be treated with some 

reservation because of the nature of the hole. All but two of 

the disks (Figure 18.8b,e) have been drilled from both sides, resulting in holes variously described as double splayed (Barber, 

1991:52), chamfered or double cone (e.g., City of David, Shamir, 

1996:150), and double conical (Liu, 1978:97), which we have 

referred to as “beveled” in the registry list descriptions.1

 This 

means that the contact between the spindle and whorl would be 

on only a virtual knife edge. 

Liu (1978:97) argues that “since the spindle whorl has to be 

wedged or seated firmly in the perforation in order not to work 

loose during spinning, biconical perforations with too much 

FIGURE 18.7. Various shaped worked sherds and bases: (a) Reg. No. 3308, GM 2A (7) 2, (b) Reg. No. 2712, GM 0A (7), (c) Reg. No. 2890, 

GM 1B EBR (5), (d) Reg. No. 2415, GM 3B P7, (e) WB1, GM 2A (29), (f) WB2, GM 2B (60), (g) WB3, GM 2B (60).
834 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

sherds usually having one side rounded and the other pointed. 

One complete example from Field IV, Square 3B, Pit 7 (Figure 

18.7d; 10 × 5 cm in size) has four sides and one pointed corner. 

This could have been a potter’s tool used for burnishing or scraping of leather-hard pottery. Similar tools were found in the potter’s workshop at Lachish, Cave 4034 (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 49:15; 

Magrill and Middleton, 1997: fig. 1; these include pointed tools, 

polished pebbles and shells, worked sherds for burnishing and 

scraping, and a polished sherd with remains of red paint), Tel 

Miqne, Stratum IB (Ben-Shlomo, 2006a: fig. 2.12, left, center, 

one with a hole for a finger), and Deir el-Balah (“scrapers,” 

Brandl, 2010a:248–252, fig. 22.3:1–5). 

Notably, although a complete potter’s kiln was found in 

Field I FUR (chapter 7), hardly any potter’s items were found 

(one pivot from a stone tournette came from the topsoil, Figure 23.7). Maybe the potter’s workshop was located somewhere 

near the kiln but was not excavated.

used by inserting two strings into the holes (Figure 18.10) and 

moving the disk back and forth by separating the two strings, 

creating a buzzing sound. These items, which are usually larger 

than average rounded worked sherds (see above), could also have 

been buttons of some sort, weights, or covers or had other uses.

For such perforated sherds during the Bronze and Iron Age, 

see, e.g., Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIX:24,25), Megiddo 

(Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 102:14,16–18), Tell Farah (N), 

Stratum VIIIc-d (Chambon, 1984: pl. 77:1,2), Ashdod, Stratum XII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:123, fig. 3.37:5), and 

Miqne, Stratum VIII, LBII (Ben-Shlomo, 2006c:191, fig. 5.1:7); 

for other parallels, see Van Beek (1989b).

Potter’s Tools

Only a few items may be defined as potter’s tools, scrapers or burnishers. Such items are oblong or semicircular worked 

FIGURE 18.8. Perforated worked sherds (one or two perforations): (a) Reg. No. 1929, GMIII J2 (17) 1, (b) Reg. No. 2426, GMIII A2 (20), (c) 

Reg. No. 3428, (d) Reg. 6002, GMI 3G (4) 1, (e) Reg. No. 6003, GMI 5H (2) 6, (f) Reg. No. 1698, GMI 5D (6A) 1, (g) Reg. No. 2356, GM 

2B TT1 (3), (h) Reg. No. 1687, GM 1B EBR (10) 1, (i) Reg. No. 1690, GMI 3F F4, (j) Reg. No. 1692, GMI TTA1 (1).
NUMBER 50 • 835

TABLE 18.3. Rounded sherds with two perforations.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Phase Period Thickness (cm) Diameter (cm)

1680 764 GMI 1F (4) 1 Unknown 0.7 ~3.8

1684 766 GMI 2E (4) 1/3? LBII 0.6 ~3.2

1681 769 GMI 2E F3 Unknown 0.5 3.3

1690 765 GMI 3F F4 Unknown 1 ~5.5

1692 337 GMI TTA (1) 3 LBII (courtyard A) 0.6 ~3.2

1697 GMI 5E (2) Unknown 0.5 ~3.6

1695 644 GMI FUR (1) 2 FUR 2 Iron I 0.5 0.35

1696 643 GMI FUR (2) 2 FUR 2 Iron I 0.6 4.3

1718 GMIII A2 (19) 6 Iron I 0.7

1694 974 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2? Persian? 0.5 3

1693 975 GMIII A3 (2) 3 8 LB II (Unit 2) 0.55 5.05

1685 976 GMIII A3 F1 2? Persian? 0.5 ~3.2

1706 GMIII A3 W4 8 LB II (Unit 2) 0.55 3.2

2258 GM 1A P2 (5) 1 Crusader-Mamluk 0.7 2.9

1682 302C GM 1A TT1 (9) 2 Persian? 0.55 3.1

2254 GM 1A TT2 (3) 3 Persian 1 4.5

1691 71 GM 1B (9) 1 3? Persian? 0.7 ~3.2

1687 770 GM 1B EBR (10) 1 3? Persian? 0.6 ~2.8

2340 GM 1B TT1 (1) Unstratified 0.45 ~4.5

1689 58 GM 1B TT1 (5) 3? Persian? 0.6

1683 37 GM 2A (1) Unstratified 0.6 3.2

1688 60 GM 2C (4) Post 3 0.9 ~3

1686 455 GM 3B (1) Unstratified 0.8 4.6

and disks also in LBII–Iron I Deir el-Balah, Brandl, 2010a:239–

248). Twenty-five of the Ashdod sherds are Philistine Bichrome 

sherds, whereas the others are undecorated sherds. Most of the 

sherds have a diameter of 1.5–3 cm, and some are almost perfectly rounded. Of these, 11 were found in Pit 5303 (mostly 

undecorated), and 9 were found in Locus 5305, an ash layer. A 

large group of several thousand rounded worked sherds from Tel 

Miqne-Ekron were studied by Arbino (2004); see also Iron Age I 

in Fields I (Ben-Shlomo, 2006c:191–192, fig. 5.1:8) and IV Lower 

(Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, In press). 

Although often term stoppers, the rounded worked sherds 

might have had other uses, such as tokens, weights, gaming 

pieces, etc. Thus, at Ashdod one may ponder that undecorated 

and decorated sherds and sherds with images (as birds) had 

different token values or meanings. Similar sherds are often 

found in excavations, although they are rarely treated in detail. 

Examples may be brought from MBIIB Manahat (Edelstein et 

al., 1998:57, fig. 4:13), and similar worked sherds from Iron 

Age Sarepta were also interpreted as gaming pieces (Pritchard, 

1988:121, fig. 36:7,8); see also Megiddo, Strata V–III (Lamon 

and Shipton, 1939: pl. 103).

The evidence from Tell Jemmeh indicates a continuity of 

the use in these objects during the MBII, LBII, and Iron Ages 

at least. The shape and size did not vary considerably, although 

DISCUSSION

Worked pottery sherds of various kinds but with reoccurring 

features appear in the southern Levant in many periods and at 

many sites. Thus, they are not particularly indicative from the 

chronological or cultural aspects. However, their function can be 

examined according to their appearance, anthropological parallels, and recent reconstructions. This function may shed light on 

the contexts in which they were found in large quantities. The most 

dominant group within this assemblage is the rounded worked 

sherds or disks. Rounded worked sherds are not always published 

in excavation reports yet were probably a common find in the 

Bronze and Iron Age Levant. Although they stand out in pottery 

sorting, they are often not separated or recorded by excavators. 

Rarely, these objects are discussed in detail; occasionally, they are 

interpreted as stoppers or lids for vessels (see, e.g., Arbino, 2004; 

Sass, 2004a:1450, fig. 23.2:1–20; Sass and Cinamon, 2006:371, 

fig. 18.14). At Ashdod about 50 items were published from Phase 

XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:164, figs. 3.64, 3.65). These 

rounded worked sherds are often identified as stoppers (see, e.g., 

Dothan and Porath, 1993:79, fig. 29:6, pl. 44:8,10–13; Arbino, 

2004), although we have no confidence they were used as such. 

Reworked vessel bases are better candidates for stoppers, as they 

fit vessel mouths and are heavier (see this distinction between lids 
836 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 837

FIGURE 18.10. Reconstruction of possible use of double-perforated 

sherd as buzz toy (Van Beek, 1989b).

functions within these public buildings. They could have been 

used as tokens in daily life as well. Otherwise, if these are some 

sort of weights or game pieces, their appearance has a more domestic interpretation. The usage of the disks (or some of them) 

as gaming pieces may also explain their concentrations in several 

room in numbers of around 10–15 at a time (as in Buildings I 

and II in Field IV as well as in Room G in Field III dated to the 

MBII) as game sets kept together. 

Other types of worked sherds, appearing in smaller quantities in various periods, probably had other functions. Perforated 

disks may have been weights, spindles, buttons, or toys; worked 

bases may have been lids. A few worked sherds of a more specific 

shape may have been potter’s tools, such as burnishers, among 

other functions.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner, Department of Anthropology, 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 

37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Correspondence: 

davben187@yahoo.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 

23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. All the small finds from Tell Jemmeh are itemized and described in the registry lists. These lists are available for the public on demand in the IAA archives.

during the Iron IIB-C these disks seem to be more uniform in 

diameter and smaller. Possibly, the concentrations of these rather 

uniform disks in various rooms in Building I, Phase 5 and Building II, Phases 6–5 in Field IV may have some significance. If these 

were tokens, their appearance may reflect some administrative 

FIGURE 18.9. Worked sherds with two perforations (Van Beek, 1989): (a) SI Cat. No. 71, GM 1B (9) 1, (b) SI Cat. No. 455, GM 3B (1), (c) 

SI Cat. No. 765, GMI 3F F4, (d) SI Cat. No. 643, GMI FUR (2) 2, (e) SI Cat. No. 975, GM A3 (2) 3, (f) SI Cat. No. 38, GM 2A (1), (g) SI Cat. 

No. 60, GM 2C (4), (h) SI Cat. No. 302.3, GM 1A TT11 (9), (i) SI Cat. No. 337, GMI TTA1 (1), (j) SI Cat. No. 764, GMI 1F (1) 1, (k) SI Cat. 

No. 766, GMI 2E (4), (l) SI Cat. No. 770, GM 1B EBR (10) 1, (m) SI Cat. No. 976, GMIII A3 F1, (n) SI Cat. No. 974, GMIII A3 (2), (o) SI Cat. 

No. 969, GMI 2E F3, (p) unknown, (q) SI Cat. No. 58, GM 1B (5). (opposite)
19 Ceramic Objects: Marked 

Pottery, Mud Objects, and 

Various Ceramic Artifacts

David Ben-Shlomo

INTRODUCTION

This chapter incorporates various classes of finds all made from fired or unfired clay. These include marked pottery items (mostly 

by incised marks on vessels or sherds) and various ceramic objects or terra-cottas that do not fit other categories that were discussed 

separately in Chapter 17. Another category is various clay objects that are either unfired, sun dried, or partly baked (“mud” objects) 

such as loom weights, spindles, wheels, jar stoppers, and gaming pieces. Another category of finds mentioned here (although discussed 

in other chapters as well) is metallurgic artifacts made of clay, including crucible and tuyère fragments. 

Many of the objects discussed in this chapter are not chronologically or culturally indicative as they appear without changes in 

various periods, regions, and cultures. Thus, they are discussed in a more general and descriptive way. Items that could have chronological 

or cultural significance are, for example, some marked pottery fragments, several types of loom weights, and possibly jar stoppers of a 

certain type (see below).

MARKED POTTERY

A relatively large group of marked pottery fragments was found in Tell Jemmeh (Figures 19.1–19.4, Tables 19.1, 19.2); these include 

marked handles (mostly jars, Table 19.1, Figures 19.1–19.2) and other marked pottery sherds (Table 19.2, Figures 19.3–19.4). The 

markings are, in most cases, incisions made before or after firing and may represent various meaningful signs or even fragmentary script.

Marked Handles

Altogether, 18 handles with marks on them are presented here (Table 19.1, Figures 19.1–19.2); 17 are jar handles, and 1 is a cooking 

pot handle (Figure 19.2h). These marks are mostly incisions made after firing (three were made before firing); finger impressions also 

appear (Figure 19.2g). Handles or other sherds stamped before firing by stamp seals are discussed elsewhere (chapter 20). This group has 

been separated from the other marked pottery as the custom of marking storage or commercial jar handles has a long tradition in the 

eastern Mediterranean, and thus, this phenomenon is discussed independently. Several of these were also analyzed by petrography (see 

chapter 15, which shows that practically all are local to the region of Tell Jemmeh). Of these, seven or eight come from LBII contexts, 

one is Iron I, three are Iron IIA, two are Iron IIB, one is Iron IIC, and one is from a Persian context. The relatively large quantity of items 

coming from LBII contexts is remarkable, especially because most other marked pottery items come from Iron II–Persian contexts (see 

below). Notably, these other marked sherds are incised before firing in most cases, in contrast to the jar handles, almost all of which are 

incised after firing. This early appearance of marked jar handles may also strengthen the special nature of this phenomenon of marked 

jar handles (see below).

The most common marks are plus signs (+; orientation is according to handle orientation) and crosses (×; Figure 19.1a–h,) made 

after firing. The plus sign is the most common one incised on second millennium BCE jar handles at other sites of the southern Levant 
NUMBER 50 • 839

TABLE 19.1. Marked handles. Abbreviations are as follows: Bld = building; af = after firing; bf = before firing.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Sample, figure Phase Architecture Context date

1968 354 GM 2A F7 TT7 (1A) Cooking pot handle, 19.2h Unknown 

incised bf, × sign

1969 GM 2A F14 (2) Jar handle, incised 19.1d IV-5 Bld I, Room C Iron IIC

after firing, + sign

1978 344 GMI TTD (1) Jar handle, incised 19.1c I-3? LBII?

af , + sign and I

1979 GMI FUR F2 Jar handle, incised 19.1b I FUR 2 Iron I

af, + sign

1981 GMIII B F1B Jar handle, incised 19.1a III-9 Unit 2 LBII

af, × sign

1989 GM 1B (+) Jar handle, incised 19.1j Topsoil 

bf, three horizontal 

lines

2007 GMI 1F (12) Jar handle with Jemmeh 25, 19.1g I-3 Room E LBII

incised + and line 

(trident-like 

sign?), af

2181 GM 2B (60) Jar handle, incised 19.1l IV-10 Iron IIA

af, horizontal V

2200 GMI 4D (3) Jar handle, incised Jemmeh 24, 19.2c I-3 Room F LBII

af, complex sign

2706 GM 0A (6A) Jar handle, incised 19.2e IV-3/4 Unit 3 Persian

bf, two deep diagonal 

lines in a V

2910 GM 2B (37) 2 Jar handle, incised 19.2b IV-6 Bld II Iron IIB

af, square(?) sign

2911 GM 2B (37) 2 Jar handle, incised 19.1e IV-6 Bld II Iron IIB

af, + sign

3413 GMIII A2 (8) Jar handle with two 19.2g III-4 Iron IIA

finger impressions

3414 GMIII A2 (6) Jar handle, incised 19.1k III-4 Iron IIA

af, two horizontal 

lines on lower 

handle

3798 GMII A5 (4) Jar handle, incised 19.2f II-7? LBII

cross and diagonal 

af; after that a drilled 

3 mm hole was made 

in the top of the cross

3799 GMIII B F4 Jar handle, incised 19.1f III-11 LBII

af, + sign

3816 GMI 5G (2) 4 Jar handle, incised Jemmeh 27, 19.2d I-3 Unit M1/M2 LBII

af, + sign and 

horizontal line 

above it

3817 GM 1F (0) Jar handle, incised 19.2a Topsoil 

af, + sign inside a 

circle

3819 GMI 4D (3) Jar handle, incised Jemmeh 26, 19.1i I-3 Room F LBII

af, horizontal line
840 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Stratum X (Mazar, 1985a: figs. 48:9, 50:14) in the Iron I; and 

Batash, Strata IVB–III (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pls. 

1:22, 93:18, 95:3) and Tel Mor (Hirschfeld, 2007: fig. 6.1:6–12) 

in the Iron II. 

The cross is also common, appearing, for example, at LBII 

Batash, Stratum VIII (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 36:1,2), 

Iron I Ashdod, Stratum XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 

3.60:4, with a cross and a finger impression; also Dothan and 

as well, especially in Philistia. Some examples include Ashdod, 

Area B, Stratum XIV (Dothan, 1971: pl. 33:7) and Batash, 

Stratum IX (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 18:10) in the 

LBII; Ashdod, Strata XIV–XIII (Dothan and Freedman, 1967: 

fig. 25:7), Stratum XII (Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 35:9,12), 

Stratum XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.60:5,6), and 

Stratum VIIIB (Dothan, 1971: fig. 48:7), Tel Miqne, Iron I strata 

(Field IV Lower, Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, In press), and Qasile, 

FIGURE 19.1. Marked jar handles.
NUMBER 50 • 841

orientation (Figure 19.1l) with parallels from Megiddo, Stratum 

V (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 42:55,59), Kadesh Barnea, 

Strata 2–4 (Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.144:1–9), and Tel 

Miqne, Stratum VIIB (Ben-Shlomo, In press, object 6486). Another similar sign was made before firing (Figure 19.2e, possibly 

a jug handle), showing two diagonal lines. 

More complex signs include a possible square (Figure 

19.2b, possibly similar is Figure 19.2c) and a combination of 

vertical and short horizontal lines (Figure 19.1g), possibly a 

“trident” sign. See parallels from Ashkelon (Cross and Stager, 

2006:136, figs. 6, 22) and also possibly Kition (Karageorghis 

and Demas, 1985: pl. CCX:5314). For the square or hatched 

Freedman, 1967: fig. 35:7), and Tel Mor (Hirschfeld, 2007: fig. 

6.1:3–5).

Variations of these signs include a plus sign with a drilled 

hole above it (Figure 19.2f) and a plus sign within a circle (Figure 

19.2a from the topsoil); such a symbol from Tell Jemmeh was 

also published by Petrie (1928: pl. XLIII:12). Also appearing is 

a plus sign and a horizontal line (Figure 19.2d). Other signs appearing are horizontal lines: one line (Figure 19.1i), two lines 

(Figure 19.1k), and three lines (Figure 19.j). For parallels see, e.g., 

Ashdod, Strata XIII–XI (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: figs. 

3.6:17, 3.31:17, 3.60:1, also with finger impression) and Tel Mor 

(Hirschfeld, 2007: fig. 6.1:8). The V sign appears in a horizontal 

FIGURE 19.2. Marked pottery.
842 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

see Maeir, 2010; Shai et al., 2012) or rims of Iron II cooking pots 

(such as at Ashdod, Stratum VIIIB, Dothan, 1971: fig. 46:8); for 

this practice of marking cooking pot handles, see, e.g., Sharon 

et al. (1987), Yoqneam, (Ben-Tor et al., 2005:283–293, figs. 

I.39:6, I.44:10, I.46:1–3,12,13, I.58:3, I.61:11, with detailed 

discussion). As these marks are not made on storage vessels, they 

probably reflect other functions than the ones on the marked 

storage jar handles do; moreover, they are not very common 

during the LBII and Iron I in Philistia. 

Although the jar handle marks clearly seem to be some 

sort of administrative marking system, the connection between 

most of the signs and Cypro-Minoan (or other) script signs 

is far from clear (Hirschfeld, 2002). Practically all the signs 

appearing on the published handles from Ashkelon have been 

interpreted by Cross and Stager (2006) as representing CyproMinoan signs. Although five or six of the more complex signs 

come from Bronze Age levels, only one or two of these are from 

Iron I levels. Nevertheless, simple signs such as the plus, cross, 

V, or horizontal/vertical/diagonal lines appear in various sites 

and periods in the southern Levant and elsewhere (see above). 

Thus, it seems that the evidence from Ashkelon, so far, for the 

usage of Cypro-Minoan signs by the Philistines according to the 

marks incised on jar handles is still quite limited and indefinite. 

A similar conclusion was made by Hirschfeld (2007) for 12 

marked handles found at Tel Mor (there, mostly from the Late 

Bronze Age). 

Thus, the more complex signs, possibly relating to the 

Cypro-Minoan system, are more likely to represent marking 

practices used during the LBII period in Cyprus and possibly in 

the southern Levant, as was suggested for a marked handle from 

13th century BCE Aphek (Yasur-Landau and Goren, 2004). 

Nevertheless, the very similar signs appearing in Philistia and 

other Levantine sites and Cyprus on the same type of vessels 

(the Canaanite commercial jars or linked types) are not likely 

to be completely incidental at every site. Moreover, so far, 

seemingly larger assemblages of such incised handles were found 

in Philistia than in other regions in Israel, especially during the 

Iron I (note also that the four examples analyzed here by thinsection petrographic analysis were locally made; see chapter 

15). Therefore, the Cypriot connection for this marking system 

in Iron Age Philistia can be suggested at least on circumstantial 

grounds.

Other Marked Sherds

About 50 pottery items with markings are also presented 

(Table 19.2, Figures 19.3–19.4), and notably, more than half (at 

least 26 items) are marks incised before firing. These are sometimes termed “potter’s marks.” While most marks are on small 

body sherds for which the vessel type cannot be identified, larger 

fragments apparently belong to storage jars (e.g., Figures 19.1h, 

19.3i, 19.4d,e,p). Most signs seem to be incised on the shoulder of the jar or near it (as Figure 19.4m,p); however, in one 

case the mark was incised in between the handle and the body 

(Figure 19.1h). One example has three stripes incised after firing on the rim (Figure 19.2j; see parallels from Kadesh Barnea, 

square, see Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: 

pl. 11.142:12,15–17) and Kition (Karageorghis and Demas, 

1985: pl. CCXIV:5452). 

One example (Figure 19.2g) has two small finger impressions 

on the upper handle; it is dated to the Iron IIA. Jar handles with 

finger impression appear in Late Bronze, Iron I, and II levels 

(such as at Tel Miqne-Ekron, Ben-Shlomo, 2006c:190, cat. no. 

4, In press). Especially note the large assemblage from Khirbet 

Qeiyafa, Iron IIA, with more than 70 examples up to the 2008 

season (Kang and Garfinkel, 2009a:137, figs. 6.24:16–20, 6.36–

6.39). Several of the examples have two or three impressions 

on the handle; see, for example, Ashdod, Stratum XI (Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.60:2, double finger impressed) and 

Megiddo, Strata III–V, Iron II (Lamon and Shipton, 1939, two or 

three impressions: pls. 41:26,27, 42:31–34,36–41,44–48).

This artifact group of incised and impressed marks on 

pottery vessels, especially on storage jar handles, has not 

received much attention in research but may shed light on the 

issue of administration in ancient times. During the second half 

of the second millennium BCE, jar handles and other pottery 

vessels with marks or various signs appear in several centers in 

the eastern Mediterranean (Hirschfeld, 1993, 2000, 2002). In 

particular, the marks on commercial storage jars or amphorae 

(the Canaanite jars or other jar types derived from this form) 

are quite common. These marks may relate to various aspects 

of administration, especially in connection to commodity 

distribution and redistribution. The marks themselves are often 

quite simple, but in certain cases they are more complex and may 

even be evidence of the use of more formal script. The marks 

may have indicated the quantity or nature of the vessel’s contents 

or its origin, ownership, or destination or may have had other 

unknown meanings. In any case, these marks probably reflect a 

certain type of administration and/or recording system. 

If, indeed, actual script was used, it may be possible also 

to asses ethnic aspects of the people marking and using the 

storage vessels. Indeed, a study of several marked jar handles 

from Philistine Ashkelon has suggested that they bear CyproMinoan script signs (Cross and Stager, 2006). A few early Iron 

Age handles with various types of incised marks found at Tel 

Miqne-Ekron, Ashdod, Qasile, Batash, and other sites in the 

southern Levant have also been published (see below). A large 

assemblage of handles with such incised marks (including 213 

marked handles mostly dated to the LBII and Iron Age) come 

from Iron Age Philistine Tel Miqne-Ekron (Ben-Shlomo, 2006c: 

cat. nos. 2–4, In press). These marks seem to be less common 

in LBII contexts and at sites outside Philistia than during the 

Iron I. However, this impression has to be substantiated by more 

comprehensive research. Hirschfeld (1993, 2002) has studied 

such incised marks (mostly made after firing) in several locations 

in the eastern Mediterranean and has suggested they relate in 

most cases to a system of tracking vessels and their contents.

The cooking pot handle with a cross incised before firing 

(Figure 19.2h) does not belong to this group; see, e.g., an Iron 

II cooking pot from Batash, Stratum II (Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001: pl. 65:9). This probably represents a different 

phenomenon (for stamped handles of Iron IIB-C cooking pots, 
NUMBER 50 • 843

TABLE 19.2. Sheds with marks. Abbreviations are as follows: Bld = building; af = after firing; bf = before firing.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description, figure Mark type Phase Architecture Context date

1966 GM 2D (9) Sherd incised before(?) IV-3 None Persian

firing, worked(?), 19.4fj

1970 GM 2A TT7 F7 2 Body fragment, incised × Unknown Persian?

af, 19.3a

1972 365 GM 1A P3 TT11 (5) Jar fragment with complex Complex IV-1 Pit Islamic

sign incised bf, 19.4p

1973 361 GM 2C SBR (7) Sherd (pithos?) with Unknown None Unknown

shallow incision bf, 19.4c

1974 330 GM 2C WBR (8) 2 Sherd incised af, 19.3e Trident IV-3 None Persian

1975 319 GM 2A F7 TT7 2 Sherd incised af, 19.3n Letter, aleph IV-4? None Persian

1976 357 GM 1C (14) 6 Sherd incised bf Letter, part of IV-5 None Iron IIC

W/shin or 

sundial

1977 315 GM 0B (0) Jar sherd incised af, 19.4n Sign, line with Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

two triangles

1984 750 GM 2A F18 1 Sherd incised bf, 19.3j Sign, trident IV-5? Unit 1 Iron IIC?

1985 109 GM 1C (5A) Sherd incised bf, 19.3k Sign, trident IV-3 None Persian

1986 GM 2C W1 1 Sherd incised bf Sign, trident? IV-2? None Persian

1987 735 GM 1C (24) 4 Sherd incised bf Sign, W? IV-5 Unknown Iron IIC

1991 GMIII B (+) Sherd incised af , 19.3q Letter? Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

1993 GMII TT A6 (+) Sherd, incised bf, 19.3h Sign Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

1995 GM 2B (42) Jar sherd with sign, Sign, trident IV-8? Lower Iron IIB

incised bf, 19.3i Room A*

1996 GM 2A F18 Jar fragment with sign Sign/letter IV-5? Unit 1 Iron IIC?

incised bf, 19.4f

1998 GMII D4 (0) Jar fragment incised Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

bf, 19.4l

2000 GM (+) Jar sherd incised af, 19.4m Two letters? Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

2002 GM 2B F42 Sherd incised with two Letters/signs? IV-8? Lower Iron IIB

columns of signs bf, 19.3m Room A*

2004 GMIII A1 (+) Worked sherd incised Sign? Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

inside af, 19.4h

2005 GM 1C NBR P2 (12) Sherd incised af, 19.4a Letter? IV-2/3? None Persian

2008 GMIII B (63) 5 Sherd incised af , 19.3c Sign/letter? III-12? None LBII

2009 GM 2B P3 Sherd incised with sign Crown? IV-1 Pit Islamic

bf, 19.4i

2012 GM 2D P3 (1) Sherd with sign incised Complex IV-1? Burial Islamic

after(?) firing, 19.4d (trident on 

circle?)

2010 GMI 3G W1 Incised rim af, 19.2i I-3 Unit L LBII

2016 374 GM1D EBR (9A) Sherd incised af, 19.3p Triangle IV-3 None Persian

2017 383 GM 0B (5) Sherd incised af Letter, aleph IV-4 Unit 2 Persian

2018 GM 1D (31) 2 Jar sherd incised bf, 19.3g Sign, trident IV-5 None Iron IIC

2289 GM 2A Pit 1 Sherd incised af Letter? IV-1 Islamic

2308 GM 1B (1) 1 Sherd incised with sign Letter? Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

bf, 19.3l

2528 GM 2C (8) 1 Sherd with inked marks Letters? IV-3? Persian?

(ostracon?)

2743 GM 0B P8 (3) Sherd with letters incised Letters, aleph Unknown Pit Unknown

bf, 19.3o

2792 GM 0B W2 Sherd incised bf?, 19.3f Sign, trident IV-4 Wall Persian

2830 GM 1A NBR (5) 1 Sherd incised bf Sign IV-3? None Persian

2837 GM 1A NBR (11) 2 Closed vessel sherd Sign, zigzag IV-3? None Persian

incised af

(continued)
844 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Kadesh Barnea, Strata 3–1 (Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:181, fig. 

11.97, pl. 11.139:1–9), Tel ‘Ira (on a complete jar, Freud, 1999: 

fig. 75:6), and Jerusalem (Vainstub, 2012:6, fig. 5, interpreted 

as an archaic Hebrew kaph). At ‘Aroer, Thareani (2011:228, 

pls. IV, 231:1) interpreted similarly incised signs on sherds as 

southern Arabian signs.

Other marks appearing on body sherds of various sizes, 

probably storage jars, are crosses (Figures 19.1h, 19.4e) and 

“sundial” marks (Figure 19.4f, possibly 19.4g); see Kadesh 

Barnea, Stratum 2 (Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:180, figs. 11.106, 

11.107, pl. 11.137:19–22, “hourglass designs”) and Jerusalem, 

Iron IIB-C (Vainstub, 2012: fig. 8:18). More complex signs also 

appear; one sign is composed of two triangles abutting a straight 

line (Figure 19.4n); see possibly Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3a 

(Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.146:5). A fragmentary sign on 

a body sherd resembles a crown (Figure 19.4i), yet the actual 

meaning of this symbol is not known to us. In Figure 19.4d a 

trident sign is incised on top of a circle; rotating the figure so that 

the circle is on top could result in a schematic figure. 

The largest design (Figure 19.4p) found on the large body 

sherd of a jar (the five sherds that join were found in a MamlukCrusader pit in Field IV) is composed of two (probably originally 

three) parallel vertical lines; these attach on one side to a horizontal line. The line in the center continues through the horizontal line; on the other side the vertical lines end with a zigzag or 

triangular lines. The orientation of the design is not certain; if the 

Bernick-Greenberg, 2007: pl. 11.140:5–12), and in Figure 19.4o 

two letters are incised near the neck. 

This group can also be divided according to the nature of 

the marks; at least 12 items (Figure 19.3a–o) probably carry alphabetic signs, mostly the letter aleph or shin or one or more 

fragmentary letters. These come from Iron IIB-C, Persian, and 

unstratified contexts. Similar shin marks appear on many examples from Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Bernick-Greenberg, 

2007:179–180, figs. 11.102–11.105, pl. 11.137:1–18). Tav 

signs also appear (e.g., Figure 19.3a; see, e.g., Jerusalem, Vainstub, 2012:8, fig. 7). Note, however, that fragmentary signs seen 

as alephs may also be part of star designs (five pointed as at 

Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2, Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:180, pl. 

11.138:1–8).

At least seven illustrated sherds have a similar sign marked 

on them, always before firing (Figure 19.3e–k): this is a vertical 

line ending with a fork of three (Figure 19.3j) or four (Figure 

19.3g) stripes (such as a Y sign). Similar marks from Tell Jemmeh were also published by Petrie (1928: pl. XLII:17–20). This 

sign is similar to a trident or “quadrudent” and possibly represented a depiction symbolizing cereal or barley. Therefore, if 

these marks were incised on storage jars before firing, i.e., in the 

workshop, it is possible that the jars were intended for the storage of cereals and the marks reflect an administrative practice 

relating to these commodities. Similar signs on sherds including 

mostly jar fragments and rims of bowls and jars were found in 

2926 GM 2A NBR F7 2 Sherd incised af Letter? IV-4? None Persian

3026 GM 2C WBR (2) Jar sherd with signs Complex, Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

incised af, 19.4b

3028 GM 2B NBR (32) 2A Jar with sign under × IV-5 Bld II, Iron IIC

handle made bf, 19.1h Room B

3029 GM 2B NBR (32) 2A Sherd incised af Letter? IV-5 Bld II, Iron IIC

Room B

3109 GM 3B (9) Jar sherd incised bf, 19.4k Letter, W/shin IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

3111 GMII C2 (3) 2 Sherd incised bf letter, aleph? II-3? None Iron IIB-C

3168 GM 1A TT10 (1) Jar rim, incised af, 19.2j Three stripes IV-5 Bld I, Room B Iron IIC

3266 GM 1A (1) 10 Sherd incised af Letter/sign? IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC

3266A GM 2B (4-1) 5 Jar sherd incised af × Unknown Unknown Unknown

3282 GM 2A (12) Sherd incised bf ×?, ת ?IV-3? None Persian

3439 GM 2B (35) 1B Jar sherd with incision IV-5 Bld II, Iron IIC

bf, 19.4g Room A

3507 GM 1B (5) 1 Sherd incised af IV-3? None Persian

3802 GM 2A F7 TT7 (1A) Jar fragment with sign Sundial IV-4? None Persian

incised bf, 19.4e

4054 GM 1C P2 EBR (5) Jar fragment with sign Letter, aleph IV-1? Pit Islamic?

incised af below handle, 

19.3b

4071 GM (+) Jar incised af, 19.4o Two letters(?) Topsoil Topsoil Unknown

4085 GMI 4D (1) Sherd incised af?, 19.3d I-1 None LBIIB

bag 4737 GM 1C TT8 (1) Sherd incised bf Trident Unknown None Unknown

TABLE 19.2. (continued)

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description, figure Mark type Phase Architecture Context date
NUMBER 50 • 845

2007:179–185, pls. 11.135–11.145). The marked pottery from 

Kadesh Barnea is very similar to that of Tell Jemmeh in terms of 

technique and signs appearing, especially the shin, trident, and 

other signs (see also Beer-Sheba, Stratum VII, Herzog, 1984: fig. 

25:15). This similarity corresponds to the similarity between the 

Field IV, Phase 5 pottery and that of Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 

(see chapter 8). This practice may have been more typical in the 

northern Negev region during the 8th–5th centuries BCE than in 

other regions of the southern Levant.

Apparently, the two main groups of marked pottery items, 

the marked jar handles and the storage jars with marks on their 

body, constitute two distinct chronocultural groups. The marked 

triangular lines are on top, possibly the design resembles a very 

stylized shin or a structure (see possibly an example from Kadesh 

Barnea, Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:179, fig. 11.104, made on a 

bowl after firing). This could have been a symbolic or script sign; 

its shape bears some resemblance to the sign from an ostracon 

(see chapter 32, Figure 32.4f, and Figure 8.259a) interpreted as 

a southern Arabian script monogram; however, its meaning is 

unknown to us.

As noted, a large group of marked pottery sherds from 

various vessel types (on jars and other vessels), with marks 

made both before and after firing and dating mostly to the Iron 

IIC, was published from Kadesh Barnea (Bernick-Greenberg, 

FIGURE 19.3. Marked sherds with possible letters.
846 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

specific commodities relating to a central administration. The 

sign may represent cereals in image (the trident/barley sign) or 

in script (the letter shin [ש [for barley, הרועש(. Those from the 

Persian period were probably related to the many granaries 

found at the site and may reflect certain redistribution or storage 

documentation practices (see also evidence from the ostraca in 

chapter 32).

jar handles are mostly dated to the second millennium BCE 

and are usually made after firing. As noted, these objects reflect 

commodity redistribution or control in a secondary usage of the 

storage jars. The body sherds of jars marked with various signs 

or letters mostly before firing all date to the first millennium BCE, 

probably mostly to the 8th–5th centuries BCE. These marks may 

have represented an allocation of specific jars to accommodate 

FIGURE 19.4. Marked sherds with various signs.
NUMBER 50 • 847

Layer 33, Phase 5 (Figure 19.5a) is almost complete and has 

soot marks. It has two perforated handles and a flattened, 

pointed base. Parallels come from Akhziv, Tomb ZR IX (DayagiMendels, 2002: fig. 4.7:23) and Beit Mirsim, Tomb 500 (Iron 

IIB, somewhat larger; Ben-Arieh, 2004: fig. 2.55). A cylindrical, 

coarsely made, miniature vessel body (Figure 19.5d) is the lower 

part of an elongated vessel; the bottom is rounded. This vessel 

comes from an LBII phase in Field II (yet it somewhat recalls 

coarse Negebite pottery; e.g., Bernick-Greenberg, 2007:188–

196, pls. 11.49:9, 12.4:30–33). Parallels come possibly from 

Deir el-Balah, Stratum VI (Dothan and Brandl, 2010: pl. 25:19). 

A miniature open vessel, coarsely handmade (Figure 19.5e), 

VARIOUS CLAY OBJECTS AND TERRA-COTTAS

Votive Vessels, Stands, and Various Terra-cottas

Several miniature or votive vessels were found (Figure 

19.5a–e). These objects, which are usually handmade, include 

two miniature jars or juglets (Figure 19.5b,c) from Field III, 

Phase 15; they have a flat base worked by finger. MBII and LBII 

parallels come from Megiddo, Strata XIII and X (Loud, 1948: 

pl. 256:8,11) and Beth Shean, Level VII (James and McGovern, 

1993: fig. 102:7). A miniature jar from Field IV, Square 2B, 

FIGURE 19.5. Various ceramic objects.
848 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

complete items) were treated with resin: mud items were often 

covered by two layers of dilute PVA emulsion, then coated with 

several layers of rubber latex solution and gauze; therefore, most 

of these unbaked objects are rather stable in their mechanical 

preservation, which hardened the surface of the object and 

enabled its intact preservation but changed the original texture 

of the object. On the technological aspects of the production 

of these loom weights, especially during the Iron Age II in the 

Levant (clay selection, clay preparation, forming, perforating, 

and drying), see a recent study by Boertien (2009).

Weights

A large group of mud objects are probably weights. They 

are classified by shape: cylindrical (spools, Figure 19.6a–e), 

conical/pyramid shaped (Figures 19.6g–m, 19.7a–g), spherical 

(or doughnut-shaped Figure 19.7h), and biconical (Figure 19.8). 

Several have rather irregular shapes. The first three groups are 

often interpreted as loom weights (see, e.g., Boertien, 2009).

A small group of mud objects dating to the Iron I may be 

defined as cylindrical weights or spools (Figure 19.6a–e). These 

objects are rather stumpy cylinders with flat bases, typically 

6.5–7 cm high and 6–6.5 cm wide. In some cases the middle part 

is slightly narrow (Figure 19.6c,e), as if squeezed or pinched; one 

example has a deep finger impression in the center of one of the 

bases (Figure 19.6e); these items weigh 280–400 g. They are not 

perforated, in contrast to other loom weights. If they were indeed 

used as such, the string was probably tied to the middle narrower 

part (see Rahmstorf, 2005:155, pl. 22:2). Three objects (Figure 

19.6a,c,e) were found in Field I FUR, probably dating to the Iron 

I. Another similar, although smaller object (Figure 19.6d), comes 

from a Phase 15/16 (MBIIB-C) context in Field III. A complete 

small spool (Figure 19.6b, 3.1 cm in diameter and 4 cm in height, 

only 49 g in weight) was found in Building I, Room A in Field 

IV. A nearly cylindrical weight that is perforated on top (Figure 

19.6l) probably should not be included in this group but rather 

in the conical/pyramid-shaped weights (see below), which are 

almost always perforated. 

The cylindrical loom weights or spools are usually considered 

a component of the Philistine material culture of the Iron I (see, 

e.g., Yasur-Landau, 2003; Ben-Shlomo, 2011b; Mazow, 2005) 

and are regarded as a representation of new types of weaving 

techniques brought by the immigrants from the west. This 

class of artifacts in the Mediterranean, dated to the late second 

millennium BCE, was studied in detail by Rahmstorf (2003, 

2005). Their size varies from 5 to 10 cm in length and 3 to 6 

cm in width. They are either perfectly cylindrical or cylindrical 

with a pinched-in center and are either unfired or poorly fired. At 

Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashkelon they appear in large quantities 

(Shamir, 1991, 2007; Stager, 1995:346; Bierling, 1998: pl. 7:b); 

during the early Iron Age spools appear, for example, at Ashdod 

in Stratum XIIIa (Dothan and Porath, 1993:64, fig. 24:3–5, pl. 

39:4), Ashkelon (Stager, 1995:346; 2006:11), and Tell es-Safi 

(Cassuto, 2012: pl. 19.3:10). Note also the recent publication 

of these objects from the Philistine village near Tell Jemmeh at 

Qubur el Walaydeh (Lehmann, 2011:294, figs. 14–15).

comes from a Phase 1 pit in Field IV. It includes a hemispherical 

bowl-like body and four applications; these could depict the 

head, two wings, and tail of a bird, although they are very 

schematic. However, this could be a nonfigurative vessel as well, 

possibly belonging to Negebite pottery ware (see, e.g., BernickGreenberg, 2007: pls. 11.61–11.63, 12.4:25). 

A fragment of a circular slab (Figure 19.5i) may be the 

base of a rounded stand or hollow footed goblet, chalice, or 

stand, as found in the Iron Age at Tell es-Safi (Shai and Maeir, 

2012:327, pl. 14.18:6) and Nahal Patish (P. Nahshoni, Israel 

Antiquities Authority, personal communication). Another thick 

fragment (Figure 19.5g) may be a stand fragment application. 

Figure 19.5f may be the neck on a votive vessel. A perforated 

cylindrical object (Figure 19.5h) may be a fragment of a kernos 

or a miniature vessel. A pointed solid item (Figure 19.5m) may 

be a Chalcolithic cornet base. Two clay balls (Figure 19.5k,l) 

were found together in Field III, Square B, Layer 50; a rounded 

item (Figure 19.5j) may also be of similar nature. Parallels come 

from Lachish, Level VI (denoted “globules,” Sass, 2004: fig. 

23.23:20–22, table 23.42). 

A complete clay wheel, maybe from a chariot, was also 

found (Figure 19.5o); it has a perforation through the center, 

and one side protrudes while the other is relatively flat. Wheel 

models were found at Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pls. 

XXXIX:190, LXI:99F,99h,99k,99p), Ashdod, Strata XIII–XI 

(Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 18:4; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005: figs. 3.37:1,2, 3.63:2; also Dothan and Freedman, 

1967:83, fig. 26:9), and other LB–Iron Age sites (e.g., Lachish, 

Level VI [Tufnell et al., 1940: pl. XXVIII:1], Beth Shean 

[Yahalom-Mack and Mazar, 2007:672, fig. 13.1:1–4], Kamid 

el-Loz [Hachmann, 1989: pl. 18], and Cyprus [Crouwel, 1985: 

pl. XXXI:6]). At these sites the objects are interpreted as parts 

of model carts or chariots used as toys or in cult (see chariot 

models from Tell Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIX:12–14). On 

chariot wheels during the Iron Age, see also Im (2006:215–221, 

with more parallels therein).

A complete terra-cotta object (Figure 19.5n) was found in 

Field II topsoil. The object is composed of a thick, rectangular, 

well-smoothed slab (1.5 cm thick) and a large, somewhat 

trapezoid handle attached to it, which has two perforated holes 

at its ends; its dimensions are 5.5 × 3.8 (base) × 2.5 (height) 

cm. This seems to be either a stamp (with a blank impression) 

or a lid of some sort (in that case the holes could have been 

used to tie it to a box). Parallels come from Megiddo, Stratum 

VII (Loud, 1948: pl. 255:10,11; Sass and Cinamon, 2006: fig. 

18.13:242,244), although with a more rounded base.

Unbaked Clay/Mud Objects

Mud objects are objects made of coarse unlevigated and 

untreated clay and are either unfired, sun dried, or fired at a 

low temperature. This group includes mostly various types of 

weights (many interpreted also as loom weights), jar stoppers, 

various plugs, and spindles (Table 19.3). Notably, these items 

are very fragile and brittle and are often not preserved in 

excavations. At Tell Jemmeh many of these (especially more 
NUMBER 50 • 849

TABLE 19.3. Selected clay and mud items.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description, figure Phase Architecture Context date

643 GM 2B (28) 1 Stand/chalice?, 19.5i IV-5? Iron IIC?

644 30 GM 1B (8) 1 Clay wheel, 19.5o IV-3? Persian?

827 GMIII C1 (+) Clay spindle/wheel, 19.8i Topsoil 

1114 831 GMI 4D (3) Biconical spindle/weight, 19.8c I-3 Room F LBII

1479 242 GM 1B F_XIX Mud plug, complete, 19.9g IV-5? Bld I, Room A? Iron IIC?

1485 GM 2B (36) Spherical clay perforated loom weight, IV-5 Iron IIC

19.8b

1486 GM 2B (38–39) Spherical clay perforated loom weight, IV-6/7? Iron IIB-C

19.8a

1487 21 GM 2B (9) Spherical shaped weight, 19.8l IV-3? Persian?

1497 GM 2C NBR (4) Complete mud spindle/weight, 19.8d Post IV-3 Persian

1509 GM 2C NBR (3) Biconical spindle/weight, 19.8h Post IV-3 Persian

1511 184 GM 1D (2B) 1 Conical loom weight, perforated, Unknown 

complete, 19.7e

1514 GM 0B (14) Room F Conical loom weight, complete, 19.7c IV-5 Bld. I, Room F Iron IIC

1521 GM 3B (9) Small conical loom weight, 19.7i IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

1522 GM 3B (9) Conical loom weight, complete, 19.7f IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

1523 GM 3B (9) Conical loom weight, perforated, IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

complete, 19.7d

1536 123 GM 2C (3) 2 Clay spindle/weight, 19.8j Post IV-3 Persian

1555 42 GM 1C P2 Clay bead/weight, perforated cylindrical IV-1? Crusaderdisk, 19.8m Mamluk?

1559 333 GM 2C NBR (8) Conical gaming piece/weight, complete, IV-3? Persian?

19.10c

1562 GM 2A (30) 4 Spherical clay loom weight, complete, IV-7 Locus 4 Iron IIB-C

19.7j

1563 GM 2A (30) 4 Spherical clay loom weight, complete, IV-7 Locus 4 Iron IIB-C

19.7h

1569 GM 2A (30) Large conical loom weight, 19.7a IV-7(B?) Outside Bld III Iron IIB-C

1572 GM 0B (14) Room F Conical perforated loom weight, IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC

complete, 19.7b

1578 GM 3B (9) Conical loom weight, 19.6f IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

1579 GM 3B (9) Conical loom weight, perforated, 19.6m IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC

1583 GM 00A (1) 3 Perforated weight, 19.7g IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC

1596 GMIII C2 (84) 1 Mud weight, perforation, 19.6j III-16 MBII

1597 GMIII C2 (84) 1 Mud weight, perforation, 19.7k III-16 MBII

1599 GM 00A (1) 3 Small conical loom weight, 19.6g IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC

1639 GM 0A (5) Biconical spindle/weight, 19.8e IV-3/4 Unit 3 Persian

1640 GM 0A (5) Biconical spindle/weight, 19.8f IV-3/4 Unit 3 Persian

1650 GM 1B (11) 2 Complete small cylindrical weight/ IV-5 Bld I, Room A Iron IIC

loom, 19.6b

1655 GMIII B (50) Clay ball, 19.5k III-9 Room A LBII

1656 GMIII B (50) Clay ball, 19.5l III-9 Room A LBII

1659 GM 1C SBR (10) 4 Long conical gaming piece/token, IV-4/5 Unit 4 Iron IIC?

19.10e

1660 GM 1D W8 (2) Cornet(?), 19.5m Unknown 

1661 GM 1A (1) 10 Perforated cylindrical object, kernos/ IV-5 Bld. I, Room E Iron IIC

vessel?, 19.5h

1667 GMIII C3 P1 Clay plug, 19.9f III-18 MBII–

Chalcolithic 

(continued)
850 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

1668 GMIII A2 (20) Mud jar stopper/sealer, 19.9e III-6 Iron I 

1669 GM 2B (36A) 2 Disk-shaped unbaked stopper, 19.9a IV-6 Bld II (Room B?) Iron IIB-C

1670 GM 2B (36A) 2 Large conical stopper, unbaked, 19.9b IV-6 Bld II (Room B?) Iron IIB-C

1671 502? GM 3B (11) Large conical stopper, unbaked, 19.9c IV-6 Bld III, Unit 2? Iron IIB-C

1674 GM 00A (1) 3 Small conical loom weight, 19.6h IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC

1675 GM 00A (1) 3 Small conical loom weight, 19.6i IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC

1676 GMI FUR between Mud spool, 19.6c I FUR 1? Iron I?

Wall A and W2

1677 GMI FUR between Mud spool, squeezed in middle, finger I FUR 1? Iron I?

Wall A and W2 impression on top, height 6.5 cm, 19.6e

1942 GM 0A (9) Large conical stopper, unbaked, 19.9d IV-5 Room E Iron IIC

1943 GM 1B (11) 2 Cylindrical perforated loom weight, IV-5 Bld I, Room A Iron IIC

19.6l

2057 GMIII C1 81 Cylindrical clay gaming piece(?), III-16 MBII

4.4 cm height, 19.10f

2143 GM 1B (15) 1 Clay plug/sealing with textile IV-5 Bld I, Room A Iron IIC

impression, 19.10j

2178 GM 2B (60) Clay object/sealing with textile IV-10 Iron IIA

impression, 19.10h

2184 GM 2B (64) Object/sealing/bulla with textile IV-11 Iron IIA

impression, 19.10i

2186 GM 2B (62) 3 Miniature wheel(?), 19.8g IV-10 Firebox room Iron IIA

2193 GM 3B F1 Crude votive vessel, 19.5e IV-1 

2194 370 GM 1E (2) Small complete plug, 19.9h IV-5? Iron IIC?

2196 339 GMII A5 (0) Ceramic rectangular seal (blank)/lid Topsoil 

with handle, 19.5n

2384 GM 2B (18) Ceramic object, 19.5g IV-3? Persian?

2789 GM 0B P8 Ceramic object, 19.5f Unknown 

3019 GMII D4 (2A) Miniature vessel, 19.5d II-6? LBII?

3060 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A Conical loom weight, perforated?, IV-5 Bld II, Room B Iron IIC

complete, 19.6k

3063 GMI FUR (2) Complete ceramic spool, height 6.5 cm, I FUR 2 Iron I

diameter 6.5 cm, 19.6a

3920 GMI 5D (7C) Baked clay object, 19.10g I-3 Street J/Area K LBII

3951 GMIII F1 (5) 4 Ceramic spool(?) (height 6 cm, III-15/16 Unit 15 MBII

diameter 7.5 cm), 19.5d

3964 GMIII B F1B Conical gaming piece, 2.8 cm high, III-9 Unit 2 LBII

burnt clay, 19.10d

4057 GM 2B (33) 2A Votive vessel, 19.5a IV-5? Iron IIC?

4058 GM 2A TT7 F7 (2) Perforated disk (weight), 19.7l IV-4?/5? Iron IIC?

4080 GMIII F1 (4) Miniature vessel, 19.5b III-15 MBIIB-C

4081 GMIII F1 (5) Miniature vessel, 19.5c III-15 MBIIB-C

4082 GMIII A3 (3) Rounded object, 19.5j III-6 Iron I

GM 1C W2A Clay spindle/weight, 19.8k IV-3? Persian?

332 GM 2C (7) 2 Conical object, gaming piece?, 19.10b Unknown 

GM 2D SBR (8) Conical object, gaming piece?, 19.10a Unknown 

TABLE 19.3. (continued)

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description, figure Phase Architecture Context date
NUMBER 50 • 851

a loom weight or for other uses, may not have been limited to 

the Philistine culture in this area of the southern Levant. Possibly, 

their appearance near the Tell Jemmeh kiln may be related to 

their function as kiln spacers.

Another type of mud weight or object is roughly spherical 

and is widely perforated in the center (as Figures 19.7h,j, 

19.8a,b,l). Their radius is about 7–9 cm and is usually slightly 

narrower on the axial dimension and thus not perfectly 

spherical. The perforation is wide at 1.3–1.7 cm but does not 

go through in some examples (Figure 19.7h,j; it goes through in 

Figure 19.8a,b), and their weight varies between 400 and 700 

g. These objects could have been used as loom weights, with 

The function of these objects is not entirely clear, but it 

seems that according to their find spots (in large concentrated 

groups, sometimes in straight lines), their Cypro-Geometric 

iconographic representations, and their general shape and size, 

they were used as loom weights (Rahmstorf, 2005:155, pl. 22:2). 

However, in certain contexts they could also have had other uses 

such as kiln spacers. At the Iron Age IIB site of Kfar Menahem 

these appear in large quantities in a possible kiln site (see BenShlomo, 2006a:105–106, fig. 2.11; Dagan, 2011). The examples 

from Tell Jemmeh are few, and although three of five cluster in 

the Iron I, there is one example each from good MBIIB and Iron 

IIC contexts as well. Apparently, the use of this object, either as 

FIGURE 19.6. Mud weights.

FIGURE 19.7. Mud weights.
852 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

51:4) and Tell es-Safi (Cassuto, 2012: pl. 19.5:4); note, however, 

that roughly similar loom weights appear also during the Iron I 

and Bronze Age (e.g., Yahalom-Mack, 2007:666–669, fig. 12.5; 

Cassuto, 2012:469, pl. 19.3).

The sample of mud objects that may be considered loom 

weights from Tel Jemmeh, although small, may indicate a 

chronological trend, at least for this site. Although spherical 

weights are known during the Iron I, these weights were more 

common during the Iron IIB, whereas during the Iron IIC conical 

weights were predominant. Possibly, under Assyrian influence a 

more extensive wool production at the site was initiated (see also 

possible faunal evidence, chapter 33; Wapnish, 1981a), resulting 

in a larger number of loom weights and a higher standardization 

of this object. It should be noted that no loom weights were 

retrieved from the LBII phases at Jemmeh; the lack of mud 

loom weights from the LBII was also noted at Beth Shean and 

other sites in the Levant (see Panitz-Cohen and Yahalom-Mack, 

2009:737).

Other types of mud weights also appear. A small, perforated, 

disk-shaped object (Figure 19.7l) could have been a weight. It is 

6 cm in diameter and 2 cm high, weighing 86 g, and it is more 

smoothly finished than other weights (this could have been a 

loom weight of the “wheel” type; see Boertien, 2009: fig. 7). A 

similar smaller item may be a bead or a spindle (Figure 19.8m). 

Two perforated mud weights from an MBIIB-C context in Field 

III, Phase 16 (Figure 19.7j,k) are close to the conical or pyramid 

shape. Figure 19.7g, from Room F in Building I, is also an 

irregularly shaped mud weight. 

Mud or clay objects with a biconical shape and a perforation through the center (Figure 19.8c–l) are either small weights 

or spindle whorls. They are made from finer clay and are more 

smoothly finished than the loom weights; their firing varies, and 

they are smaller, with a diameter between 2 and 4.5 cm and a 

height between 1.5 and 3.5 cm, weighing mostly between 22 and 

35 g (Figure 19.8d is larger at 113 g). Smaller examples weigh 

4–6 g and are 1.2 × 2 cm in dimension (Figure 19.8d,g). This 

weight range could fit a use as spindle whorls. The larger example (as Figure 19.8l) may have been a weight. Figure 19.8i 

is more crudely finished and may also have been a wheel (see 

the suspending string tied through the hole; the interpretation 

of the examples where the hole does not go through is more 

problematic. Their shape and the large width of the hole 

may suggest other functions as well. At Rosh Zayit (Gal and 

Alexandre, 2000:125, figs. III.81:13–18, III.99) similar objects 

were suggested to be jar stoppers, deliberately perforated to use 

for fermenting liquids, especially beer (Homan, 2010:51,54). 

These weights are found sometimes in large quantities in many 

Iron II sites in the southern Levant (Motza [Shamir, 2009:158, 

fig. 7.1, and references therein], Tel Miqne, Stratum IB-C [Shamir, 

1991; Ben-Shlomo, 2006c; S. Gitin, Albright Institute, personal 

communication], Batash, Stratum II [Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 

2001:248–258, photo 186, pl. 39:11–15, Type DON, doughnut 

shaped], and Tell es-Safi [Cassuto, 2012: pls. 19.4,19.6]).

The largest group of mud weights can be defined as conical or pyramidical weights (Figures 19.6f–m, 19.7a–k), but they 

are rather irregular in their shape and size. Their base is usually 

rounded, and thus, the term conical would be more appropriate. 

The upper part is pointed and rounded (as Figure 19.6g,h) in 

some cases, but in others it is rather wide (Figure 19.6i,l), making the shape either almost cylindrical or rather irregular. They 

thus vary in shape, and in size, the height ranges between 6 and 

10 cm, and the base diameter ranges between 5 and 8 cm (Figure 

19.6h is a typical small example, and Figure 19.6j is a typical 

large example); however, the proportions of the height and diameter are roughly maintained at a 1.2–1.3 ratio. Their weight also 

varies considerably and ranges between 140 and 825 g. In most 

cases the upper narrower or pointed part is perforated, usually 

the whole way through; the width of the holes varies, and the 

hole is sometimes clogged. If interpreted as a weight, specifically 

a loom weight, then this hole was used to attach the suspending 

string. At least 15 items of this type are presented here (Figures 

19.6, 19.7). All conical weights come from Iron IIB-C contexts; 

most come from Phase 5 in Field IV. Several of these objects were 

found together, such as three items in Building I, Room F (Figures 19.6h,i, 19.7c) and three items in Building III, Unit 2 (Figure 

19.7d,f,). Parallels for this type of weight during the Iron IIB-C 

come, for example, from Batash, Stratum II (Browning, 2001: 

Type CNC, conical; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pls. 39:16, 

FIGURE 19.8. Mud weights, spindle whorls.
NUMBER 50 • 853

Stratum II, Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 95:16), Lachish, 

Level VII (Sass, 2004a: fig. 23.1:7; also Iron II, Aharoni, 1975: 

pl. 34:11,12), and Beth Shean, Stratum S-3b? (Panitz-Cohen et 

al., 2009:742, fig. 16.1:2). Two smaller stoppers or plugs (Figure 

19.9f,h) are crudely made and may have been used to seal the 

mouth of small juglets (see also Batash, Stratum II [Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001: pl. 75:10] and Beth Shean, Stratum S-3-2 

[Panitz-Cohen et al., 2009:742, fig. 16.1:5]). One example from 

Phase 18 in Field III (Figure 19.9f, MBII or Chalcolithic date) has 

a roughly domed top and pointed conical lower part. Another 

example (Figure 19.9h) is complete and is symmetrical, with the 

upper and lower parts being conical; the vessel rim impression 

on the lower part is about 2 cm in diameter.

A roughly cylindrical fragmentary object (Figure 19.9a) 

found together with Figure 19.9b in Field IV, Building II, Phase 

6 is more likely a stopper than a weight (see above). The object 

is unbaked and has where to attach a string. A mud object of 

unclear purpose (Figure 19.10g), possibly a sealing, should also 

be mentioned. Three other clay items bear textile impressions 

(Figure 19.10h–j) and could have been some sort of sealings or 

stoppers.

Other Mud Objects

Several small conical objects, usually made of unbaked or sundried clay, were also found (Figure 19.10a–f). These objects differ 

from the conical loom weights mentioned above: they are smaller, 

about 4–4.5 cm in height, with a base diameter of 2–3.3 cm; they 

are made of finer clay, and their surface is smoothed. Furthermore, 

they are unperforated. These objects come from contexts of various dates. The objects could be interpreted as gaming pieces or 

tokens according to the appearance, but there is no proof for this 

function; they appear in various periods in the Levant and other 

regions of the Near East (dating back to the Neolithic period, e.g., 

Schmandt-Besserat, 1992, 1994). Another fragmentary example 

with a more cylindrical shape comes from an MBIIB context (Figure 19.10f) and may also be similarly interpreted.

Figure 19.5o). Most items appear in Persian period or unstratified contexts, yet this class is not chronologically indicative. For 

similar spindles during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, see, e.g., 

Tell Keisan (Briend and Humbert, 1980: pl. 97).

Stoppers

Another class of mud object with an evident function is 

large jar stoppers (Figure 19.9c–e). These are complete enough 

to be seen as perfectly fitting the mouths of typical Iron Age 

storage jars at Tell Jemmeh, with the rim impression clearly seen. 

The shape of these objects (none found complete) was conical 

or mushroom shaped: the upper part was domed or conical, 

about 14–16 cm in diameter, and the lower part, which was 

applied when wet to the jar rim, is narrower. On the lower part 

the rounded impression on the rim can be clearly seen (Figure 

19.9d,e), with a diameter of 10 cm (a typical jar mouth diameter) 

and a thickness of about 1 cm. The three examples were found 

in Iron I–IIB-C contexts, and this type of jar stopper is probably 

not chronologically indicative. Another fragmentary unbaked 

object (Figure 19.9b) may be the upper part of a similar jar 

stopper. Similar jar stoppers were found, for example, at Batash, 

Strata IX–VII (Yahalom-Mack, 2006a:255–256, pl. 46:5, photos 

109–113) in the LBII Building 315 (Panitz-Cohen, 2006a: photo 

84) as well as at LBII Beth Shean, Strata S-4–S-2 (Panitz-Cohen 

et al., 2009:742–744, fig. 16.1:4,7, photo 16.1) and Iron IIA 

Horbat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIA (Gal and Alexandre, 2000:125–

126, figs. III.81:12, III.85:1, III.100, III.101), Lachish, Level III 

(Tufnell, 1953: pl. 52:2; Zimhoni, 1997b:215–216, figs. 5.2:1–

7, 5.3), and Ashkelon, late 7th century BCE destruction level 

(Stager et al., 2011:494, fig. 18.3).

A complete object probably from an Iron IIC context 

(Figure 19.9g) is probably also a stopper but is much smaller 

(4.9 × 6.2 cm); it may have been used to seal a small jar or a jug. 

The upper part is smoothly domed, and the thick lower part is 

conical, similar to a plug. Possible parallels come from Batash, 

Stratum IX (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, 2006: pl. 20:2; also Iron II, 

FIGURE 19.9. Mud stoppers.
854 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

seven come from Field I and date to the LBII. These include four 

rather small crucible fragments with some remains of copper inside (Figure 19.11a–d). These are probably from lamp-shaped or 

bowl crucibles (see Yahalom-Mack, 2009:78, fig. II.32:1–5), as 

they are rather thin walled. Four examples of tuyère or furnace 

bellows nozzles were also found (Figure 19.11f–i). The tuyères 

have a thick conical body with a narrow passage; one example 

(Figure 19.11h, the only post-LBII example) shows slag remains 

on the tip (a slag beard); another example (Figure 19.11g) has 

straw imprints on the lower part. It seems that most of the tuyères are of the bent type with a continuous hole near the end. 

These tuyères are common in the LBI–II and early Iron Age 

(Yahalom-Mack, 2009:90, fig. II.40:7–16). Three have an inner 

rounded section (Figure 19.11h) that is more common for bronze 

production tuyères (see Yahalom-Mack, 2009:88–92, fig. II.40), 

and the fourth has a triangular inner section (Figure 19.11f); all 

have exterior rounded sections. Tuyères used for iron production 

often have a square or rectangular exterior section and sometimes have square interior sections (Behar et al., 2012:265, fig. 

6:1–5; see also an iron smithy with such tuyères from Tel Sera’, 

This type of ceramic object is rarely published or discussed 

in excavation reports. Conical objects made of bone, ivory, faience, or terra-cotta that are interpreted as gaming pieces have 

been published, for example, from Megiddo, Stratum V (Loud, 

1948: pls. 191:9–15 [faience], 288:9 [ceramic]), Lachish, Level 

III (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 56:2 [faience], 1958: pl. 54:6 [ceramic], the 

latter from an LBII context), Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 3 (Gera, 

2007: pl. 13.2:18,19, ceramic), and Ashdod, Stratum XII (Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 38:3, bone). In some cases, such as at 

Ziyaret Tepe in eastern Turkey (ancient Tušhan), similar objects 

were related to the Neo-Assyrian administration (Matney et al., 

2003:188–189, fig. 12, found together with cuneiform tablets; 

see also, e.g., Matney and Rainville, 2005:34, fig. 13d; MacGinnes and Matney, 2009). At Tell Jemmeh, however, no such 

items were found in Field IV, Phase 5 contexts.

Metallurgical Objects

A small group of clay items used in metallurgic activities 

was also found (Figure 19.11, Table 19.4). Of the nine items, 

FIGURE 19.10. Various mud and clay objects.

TABLE 19.4. Crucibles and tuyères.

Reg. No. Provenance Description, figure Phase Architecture Period

199 GMI 5D (7A) 2 Crucible fragment, copper remains, 19.11a I-3 Street J LBII

2024 GMI 5F (3) 2 Crucible fragment, copper remains, 19.11b ?

2039 GMI 5D (6) 1 Crucible fragment, copper remains, 19.11c I-3 Room G LBII

2055 GMI 5E (1) 2 Crucible fragment, copper remains, 19.11d ?

2035 GMI 3D (6) Tuyère, inner section quite round, straw imprint, 19.11g I-3? LBII

2020 GMI 4D (4) 4 Tuyère, inner section triangular, 19.11f I-3 Street J LBII

2937 GM 3B (1) Large tuyère fragment, 19.11i topsoil 

2019 GM 2D F1 (5) Tuyère, slag on tip, rounded section, 19.11h IV-3 outside granary Persian

2025 GMI 5F (3) 2 Jar (?) rim with slag, 19.11e ?
NUMBER 50 • 855

FIGURE 19.11. Metallurgic clay objects.
856 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

associated with the Assyrian citadel, Rothenberg and Tylecote, 

1991: fig. 4), but tuyères of this type were not found at Tell Jemmeh, although iron slag was (see Figure 21.6h–j). A small rim 

fragment of a vessel (jar?) rim with copper slag on it (Figure 

19.11e) was also included in this group.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo

.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.
20 Clay Sealings 

and Seal Impressions

David Ben-Shlomo and Othmar Keel

INTRODUCTION

A group of up to 82 items may be defined as clay sealings and is discussed in this chapter. Sealings are defined as clay objects that 

were used to seal vessels or other items (this includes both sealings and bullae, see below). These objects are usually not deliberately or 

completely fired but are often hard dried or baked. Sealings can be identified by their shape, the finger marks indicating handling and 

pressing, and string, cord, papyrus, or vessel impressions on the underside (the underside is defined as the side attached to the sealed 

object) and impressions of stamp seals on the upper side. Usually, only one or two of these characteristics appear on a single item. Of 

the 82 items, 72 are almost clearly identified as clay sealings, whereas an additional 10 items are possibly sealings or could have been 

clay lumps of some other function (Table 20.1).

It seems that these objects are quite common at the site, and several impressed sealings from Tell Jemmeh were also published by 

Petrie (1928: pls. XIX:4,5,36, XX:2,14–16). It should be noted, however, that identification of these artifacts during the excavation 

is not easy, especially when they do not carry any impression. Forty-five examples show evidence of an impression on the upper side, 

mostly of a scarab seal; of these, 15 have a very fragmentary or worn impression, whereas 30 have a more complete impression; of those, 

28 can be dated stylistically according to the iconographic elements of the impression (see catalog below and Table 20.1). Twenty-seven 

sealing fragments (and an additional 10 possible items) have no impressions, but as they are fragmentary we do not know if the sealing 

was impressed or not. Five jar handles with seal impressions are also described in this chapter.

In this report the terminology of Krzyszkowska (2005; see also Ben-Shlomo, 2006b) is followed as we discuss several types of 

sealings (often termed bullae). The distinction between “real bullae” and other types of clay sealings is not always made in publications, 

and therefore, sometimes bulla is used as a general term for sealings. Clay sealings may be a better general term describing a clay object 

sealing a sack, vessel, box, papyrus, parcel, or other container. In this case a string or rope was used to close the object, but possibly, the 

clay itself was also used as a sealant. The latter can be also defined as “direct sealings” (Krzyszkowska, 2005:99–101), as opposed to 

“clay nodules” or “roundels,” which were hung independently on a string (Krzyszkowska, 2005:21, 55–161, 280–282). On the other 

hand, real bullae, or hanging clay sealings, were used to seal papyri (or other small parcels), and were tied by a string, and usually have a 

small, rounded button shape (see Krzyszkowska, 2005:n26). However, larger sealings were also used to seal rolled papyri more directly 

(see, e.g., Arie et al., 2011). 

Most of the hanging clay bullae appear in large quantities in the southern Levant only during the Iron II (especially during the Iron 

IIB-C, with epigraphic inscriptions; e.g., Avigad, 1997), whereas in the Aegean, for example, these hanging stamped sealings appear 

considerably earlier (from the Late Bronze Age to the Late Minoan I at least; Krzyszkowska, 2005:155–161, 280–282). A recent study 

shows how real bullae were formed and attached to the rolled and tied papyri (Arie et al., 2011: fig. 2). Apparently, they were made of 

two separately prepared pieces of clay, one attached to the papyrus and one above the string; only the top one was stamped. Only two 

or three items from our assemblage can be clearly defined as bullae in this sense (Figure 20.3g and possibly Figures 20.2d, 20.7f and Reg. 

No. 2167), but other objects both from the MBIIB and Iron II may also have been used similarly (see below). 

CONTEXT

A relatively large number of the sealings come from contexts that can be dated, 52 of the 72 clear examples (60 of the 82 total items; 

see Table 20.1); 20 items come from the topsoil or from unclear contexts. The distribution of the sealings is clearly uneven between the 
858 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 20.1. List of clay sealings from Tell Jemmeh. Measurements are in centimeters: L = length; W = width; T = thickness. NA = not 

available; us = unstratified.

SI Date and Impression

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture style date Figure L W T

Sealings

1182 966 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us MBII 1.6 1.2 0.8

worn

1183 959 GM (+) Sealing, raised us Unclear 20.4a 2.5 2.2 1.2

impressing area, 

string impression

1184 961 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us Unclear 20.4b 2.4 2 1.5

raised impressing 

area

1185 710 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us 14th c 20.4c 2.3 2 0.9

string impression

1186 909 GM (+) Sealing, string us MBIIB 20.4d 2.6 3.1 1.3

impression, 

finger prints

1187 960 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us MBIIB 20.4e 4.3 2.9 1.2

thick string 

impression

1188 964 GM (+) Broken sealing us None 20.4f 1.7 1 0.7

fragment

1189 965 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us Unclear 20.4g 2.6 1.5 0.8

very deep 

impression, string 

impression

1190 963 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us Iron IIA 20.4h 1.5 1.5 0.5

string impression

1191 958 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us Iron IIB-C 20.3d 1.8 2.2 1.2

string, seal 

impression

1192 962 GM (+) Hanging sealing/ us None 20.7f 1 1.5 0.4

bulla fragment?

1196 761 GM (+) Large lump/ us Bead 20.5a 3.5 3 1.8

sealing, rope 

impression

1197 379 GM 1A Lump with seal us Unclear 2 2 1.8

NBR (1) impression, worn

1198 GM 1B Sealing fragment, Unknown Unknown None 20.2g, 2.3 1.5 1.7

(11) 3 one side 20.5b

straightened, 

string impression

1200 GM 2B F1 3 Sealing fragment 2/3? Persian? None 2.5 2.5 1.6

1202 432 GMI 5E (2) Edge of large Unknown MBIIB? 20.2d 4.3 2.8 1.7

sealing

1203 953 GMIII C1 (81) Part of rounded 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 20.1d 3.3 2 1.2

sealing, two 

impressions, 

edge folded 

after impression

1204 1009 GMIII C1 (81) Sealing fragment 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 20.5c 1.9 1.2 0.9
NUMBER 50 • 859

TABLE 20.1. (continued)

SI Date and Impression

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture style date Figure L W T

1205 1112 GMI KB F10 Sealing fragment, KB2? Iron IIA? Iron IIA 20.5d 2.1 2 0.8

string impression

1206 1114 GMI KB Sealing fragment, KB2? Iron IIA? Unclear 20.3f 2 1.5 0.9

(26) 5 impression

1207 1111 GMI KB P2 Sealing fragment, KB2? Iron IIA? LBII–Iron I 20.5e 2 1.7 1

raised impressing 

area, string 

impression

1208 1017 GMIII C1 Sealing fragment, 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 2.2 1.4 0.7

(81) raised impressing 

area

1209 1119 GM 2B (64) Sealing fragment, 11 LBII MBIIB? 20.5f 2.8 0.9 1.1

string impression

1210 1019 GMIII F2 Relatively oval 17 MBIIB-C Unclear 20.1h, 20.5g 2.4 2.8 1

(13) sealing fragment, 

textile impression 

on bottom

1211 1010 GMIII C1 Sealing fragment, 16 MBIIB-C Unclear 20.5h 2.2 1.9 0.7

(81) on back string 

impression and 

rounded surface

1212 1024 GMIII C1 Sealing fragment, 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 20.6a 1.7 1.6 0.9

(81) string impression

1213 1108 GMI KB F8 Sealing fragment, KB2? Iron IIA? Iron IIA 20.6b 1.7 1.5 0.6

string impression

1214a,b,c 1020 GMIII C1 Cube-like sealing 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 20.1a–c 2.2 2 1.8

(81) with three 

impressions

1215 1118 GM 2B (63) Broken sealing 10 Iron IIA, Unclear 20.3e 1.6 1.4 0.9

fragment firebox

1216 1123 GM 2B TT10 Sealing/lump 11 Iron IIA None 2.5 2.5 1.2

1217 1121 GM 2B (64) Sealing fragment, 11 Iron IIA None 20.6c 1.7 1.3 0.8

string impression

1218 1113 GMI KB) Sealing fragment, KB2? Iron IIA? LBII 20.6d 1.7 0.9 0.8

F9 (2 rounded surface 

on back

1219 1110 GM 2B (59) Sealing fragment 9 Iron IIA, Iron IIA 20.3c 1.5 1.4 1

Room D*

1220 1122 GMI KB Sealing fragment, KB3 Iron IIA? Iron I-IIA 20.6e 2.2 1.2 0.9

(33) 7 string impression

1221 1015 GMIII C1 Sealing fragment, 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB? 20.1i 2.5 2.1 0.7

(81) textile impression?

1222 1104 GM 2A (29) Sealing fragment, 7 Iron IIB, Iron IIA 20.3a 2.6 1.9 0.9

raised impressing outside

area, very clear Building III

string impression

1223 GMI 4D (4) 3 Sealing fragment, 3 LBII, Room F MBIIB 20.2a 2.6 1.5 0.5

string impression

(continued)
860 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 20.1. (continued)

SI Date and Impression

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture style date Figure L W T

1224 717 GM 1B Hanging sealing/ 3? Persian? Persian- 20.3g 2.7 1.3 1

WBR (9) 1 bulla? Hellenistic

1225 1016 GMIII C1 Rounded sealing, 16 MBIIB-C Unclear 20.1f, 20.6f 2.4 2.2 1.2

(81) string impression

1226 1008 GMIII C1 Rounded sealing, 16 MBIIB-C MBIIB 20.1e 4.2 3 1.7

(81) string impression, 

textile impression, 

pinkish clay

1227 GMI 2E (4) Sealing fragment 1/3? LBII LB 20.6g 2 1.5 1

1228 GMII C1 Sealing fragment, 2/3? Iron IIB-C? Unclear 20.6h 2.2 1.3 0.8

P2 (2) fingerprint, string 

impression

1229 GMII C1 Sealing fragment, 2 Iron IIB-C, Unit 1Unclear

(4) 2 string impression, 

possible edge of 

seal impression

1230 GMI 4D Sealing fragment, 3 LBII, Room F MBIIB 20.2b 2 1.8 1.4

(3) {77} raised impressing 

area, string and 

textile impression

1225A GMIII C1 Sealing fragment, 16 MBIIB-C None 20.1g

(81) thick string 

impression

2037 GMI 2F (2) Sealing fragment 1/3? LBII LB 20.7a 2.2 1.7

2056 GMII D4 (3) Sealing fragment, 6? LBII? None

rounded surface 

impression on 

back (rod?)

2078 GMI 5E (1) Sealing, no Unclear Unknown None

impression, 

possibly hanging 

or of small vessel

2150 GMI KB F9 2 Sealing fragment KB2? Iron IIA? None

2152 GMI KB Pit 5 Small sealing KB2 Iron IIA? None

fragment

2153 GMI KB Pit 5 Sealing broken KB2 Iron IIA? None

around thick 

string

2154 GMI KB Sealing fragment KB2? Iron IIA? None

(26) 5

2162 GM 2B TT10 Sealing fragment? 11 Iron IIA None

2163 GM 2B TT10 Sealing fragment 11 Iron IIA None

2164 GM 2B Sealing, complete 10 Iron IIA, None 20.2h

(62) 3 long lump of clay firebox

with string going 

through it

2165 GM 2B (58) Vessel sealing? 9 Iron IIA, None

Room D*

2166 GM 2B (58) Sealing fragment 9 Iron IIA, None

of small vessel? Room D*
NUMBER 50 • 861

TABLE 20.1. (continued)

SI Date and Impression

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture style date Figure L W T

2167 GM 2A (30) Hanging sealing? 7 Iron IIB, None

outside 

Building III

2168 GM 2B (58A) Small rounded 9 Iron IIA, Iron I-II? 20.3b

sealing, string Room D*

impression on 

top, textile 

impression on 

bottom

2169 GM 2B (64) Sealing fragment? 11 Iron IIA None

2170 GM 2B (58) Sealing fragment, 9 Iron IIA, Unclear 20.7b 3 2 1.3

raised impressing Room D*

area, string 

impression

2171 GM 2B (58A) Sealing fragment 9 Iron IIA, None 2.5 2 0.8

Room D*

2172 GM 2B (58A) Sealing fragment? 9 Iron IIA, None 2.5 2 1.2

Room D*

2173 GM 2B (58A) Sealing fragment 9 Iron IIA, Unclear 2 1.5 1

with possibly Room D*

seal impression 

remains

2174 GM 2B (64) Sealing fragment, 11 Iron IIA Unclear 20.7c 2.5 1.5 1

fingerprint, surface 

impression

2182 GMI 5D (2) Rounded sealing 3?/us LBII? None 20.7d 3 1.3 1.3

fragment, string 

impression

2183 GM 2B (63) Sealing fragment? 10 Iron IIA, None

firebox

2198 GM (+) Sealing fragment us Iron I 20.7e 2 2.7 0.8

2235 GM (+) Sealing fragment, us None 20.2f

string impression, 

crude seal 

impression

2446 GM 2C (8) 1 Sealing fragment, Unclear Unknown None

string impression

2595 GM 1D (1) 1 Sealing fragment us None 1.8 1.5 0.8

with string and 

papyrus 

impression

3118 GMII C2 (+) Sealing fragment? us None

3952 GMIII C1 Several sealing 16 MBIIB-C None

(81) fragments

Bag 5038 GMIII A3 Sealing/lump 8 LBII, Unit 2 None

(2) 3 of clay?

Bag 5262 GMIII J1 Sealing, edge of 16 MBIIB-C Unclear 20.2c

(11) 3 seal impression

(continued)
862 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

because of the small exposure in Square 2B). Interestingly, during 

the LBII, of the few examples from Field I, two come from Room 

F in Building II. It is clear that the MBIIB is well represented 

in this assemblage, probably in relation to the many jars and 

other closed vessels found in Field III, Phases 17–16. There is a 

decrease in the appearance of sealings during the LBII, especially 

in light of the large exposure and many phases of occupation. 

Thence, the most numerous examples come from the Iron IIA 

in two locations: Square KB in Field I and a trench Square 2B in 

Field IV. This number is especially striking in light of the small 

exposure of this period (although appearing in three phases at 

the site). Possibly similarly striking is the lack of clay sealings 

from the Iron IIB-C levels in Field IV (Phases 8–5), including the 

vaulted Building I and other buildings adjacent to it. The possible implications of this phenomenon will be discussed below.

Clay sealings are a rather fragmentary item; for that reason 

it is more likely that most items found within a certain phase 

were used or discarded during the period of the phase rather than 

redeposited in mud brick, for example (although this cannot be 

ruled out). On the other hand, the stamp seal used to make the 

different fields and different periods attested in the site. Nineteen 

come from Field III, 7 come from Field I, 9 from Field I KB, 4 from 

Field II, and 28 from Field IV (15 are general surface finds). Those 

from Field III are dated mostly to the MBIIB-C; 14 are from this 

period (and two possible sealings as well), and of these, 11 come 

from GMIII C1 (81), Phase 16. Only seven or eight date to the 

LBII, and none date to the Iron I (although two impressions are 

possibly dated to this period). Then another cluster comes during 

the Iron IIA, with at least 14 examples from Field IV, Phases 11–9 

(with an additional five unclear fragments; note, however, that 

more than half do not have impressions preserved). An additional 

nine sealings come from Field I, Square KB, Phase 2, which may 

be dated to the Iron IIA or may reflect a mixed Iron IIA-B phase. 

Only three examples come from good Iron IIB-C contexts, and 

five examples may be dated to the Persian period or later. 

Nevertheless, not many examples come from well-defined 

architectural contexts or complexes. This is not surprising because most sealings come from Field III, Phase 16 and Field IV, 

Phases 11–9 (six to eight examples come from a unit denoted 

as Room D* in Phase 9, but the nature of the space is not clear 

TABLE 20.1. (continued)

SI Date and Impression

Reg. No. Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture style date Figure L W T

Bag 5296 GMIII J1 Sealing fragment, 14 MBIIB-C /LB Unclear 20.2e

(5) 1 square object 

impression

NA GM 2B (8) Clay with textile 3? Persian None

impression

NA GMIII A3 Sealing fragment, 9 LBII, Unit 1 None

(14) textile impression

NA GMIII C1 Sealing/lump of 16 MBIIB-C None

(80) clay?

NA GMIII F2 (0) Sealing fragment, us None

flat back

NA GMIII J2 Rounded 17 MBIIB-C None

(17) 1 sealing?, flat

Jar handles

1193 113 GM (0) Jar handle with us Unclear 5.5 4

double-scarab 

impression

1201 GM 1C P2 Persian amphora 1? Unknown Unclear 10 7.5 6.6

EBR (6) with small 

impression 

on handle

1231 1021 GMIII F2 Jar handle with 17 MBIIB-C MBIIB 6.5 6.5

F12 impression

1232 312 GM 2C Persian amphora Unclear Unknown Unclear 10 5.1 3.5

WBR (2) with impression

2855 GM 2A Impression on 4 Persian Unclear

WBR P12 (5) amphora
NUMBER 50 • 863

hard and seems to have encountered some heat, baking or at 

least sun drying. Some examples have a dark soot color (Figures 

20.1f, 20.2b). Several examples seem to be actually fired (as in 

Figures 20.1e, 20.2a, reddish in color, and Figure 20.4f, brown) 

and are very hard. It is difficult to imagine how these objects 

were fired when attached to the vessels or objects they sealed, 

unless the firing was after discard because of a fire at the site or 

as a postdepositional effect. 

Generally, the description of the morphological characteristics of the sealings, their mode of application to the vessels, and 

the nature of other bonding materials such as strings, thread, 

and textiles should be attempted according to the more complete 

examples (actually, no entirely complete examples were found 

at Tell Jemmeh). It is, however, difficult to reconstruct the way 

these items were sealing the sealants even if they are complete as 

they are found detached from the sealant and the additional organic sealing materials (see various suggestions in Brandl, 1993a, 

impressions could have been much older. Indeed, this is evidenced 

by some of the stylistic dating of the seal impressions. This phenomenon is well known, especially the use of MBIIB scarab seals 

during the Iron Age (e.g., Brandl, 1993a:130–131, no. 2; Avigad, 

1997:31–40). At Tell Jemmeh, for example, of the 15 impressions 

dated to the MBIIB-C, 8 come from MBIIB-C contexts, 2 from 

LBII, and 1 from an Iron IIA context; of the LBII dated impressions, 2 come from LBII contexts and 2 from Iron IIA contexts. 

Nevertheless, it seems that during both the MBIIB and the Iron 

IIA most impressions were not made by very old seals. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEALINGS 

AND THEIR SUGGESTED FUNCTIONS

Sealings are made of clay, usually of a type that seems 

similar to that of pottery vessels. In most cases the clay is rather 

FIGURE 20.1. Sealings from MBII contexts (GMIII C1 (81)).
864 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Another type of sealing is a flatter one (Figures 20.1h,i, 

20.2a,e, possibly Figure 20.3b), showing also the clay enveloping the string and some textile imprints on the underside (see 

Figure 20.1i); most examples are from the MBIIB-C. Possibly, 

these were fragments of larger sealing type, or they sealed flat 

objects such as boxes (as the section of Figure 20.1i seems to 

imply); a direct imprint of a box is seen possibly on Reg. No. 

2183 on the edge only. Some fragments are flattened on their 

perimeter (as Figure 20.6a), but it is not clear what vessel they 

were attached to. 

An object from Field III, Square C1, Layer 81 (Figure 

20.1a–c) has straighter sides, and its shape is more like a box; 

about half of it preserved. The three sides (two side faces and 

the upper face) are impressed by the same scarab seal and in the 

same orientation (see below). Another sealing fragment from the 

same context (Figure 20.1d) has an impression of the same seal, 

and although the objects do not combine, they could be still part 

of the same box-shaped sealing, which may have been impressed 

on all of its faces (in fact, the box may have been created to facilitate the impressing). Another sealing (Figure 20.6a) has a similar 

shape and an impression of a different seal, but one carrying a 

similar motif. Figure 20.3g (from a Persian context impression 

style date) also has a box shape; possibly, this was a hanging 

sealing or a bulla.

2006, 2009, 2010b; Arie et al., 2011; see also Marcus, 1996:12–

16). It is not yet clear whether the morphological characteristics 

of these objects are chronologically or culturally indicative during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant. 

According to the shape of the sealing fragments, several 

sealing types can be suggested. The rounded sealing is possibly the 

most common (e.g., Figures 20.1d–f, 20.2c and Reg. Nos. 1191, 

2170, 2172, 2174, 2182). Complete, they would measure at least 

5 cm in diameter and have a lower rounded side, which was 

attached to the sealed object (see, e.g., Tel Miqne, Ben-Shlomo, 

2006b:137). This side often shows impressions of string, textile, 

or other materials (see Figure 20.1d). As the clay enveloped the 

string on some fragments, one can see string imprints going from 

the sides (Figure 20.1e) and in several directions (see, e.g., Figures 

20.2g, 20.3b). The upper part, worked with the fingertips (see 

fingerprints, e.g., in Figure 20.1d,g,i), was stamped when wet, 

often several times. In some cases the center of the clay lump was 

pushed upward to facilitate the impression on the seal on top 

(Figure 20.3a). This seems to be a common type of sealing at Tel 

Miqne as well (Ben-Shlomo, 2006b). A somewhat similar sealing 

was published from Batash, Stratum IXA (Brandl, 2006:216–

217, fig. 20), dated to the LBI. This type of sealing may have been 

used to seal boxes, chests, or sacks (see, e.g., Beth Shean, Brandl, 

2009: figs. 12.25, 12.26, 12.29). 

FIGURE 20.2. A selection of sealings with and without impressions.
NUMBER 50 • 865

seen, at least partly (e.g., Figure 20.1i). It seems that larger clay 

items, crudely shaped with the fingertips, similar to most of the 

sealings described above, could have sealed tied papyri as well, 

as indicated by an example from Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, Stratum XII 

(Tubb, 1990:28, fig. 11). Also, as the upper part of the sealing, 

which was impressed, may have not touched the papyrus (see 

Arie et al., 2011: fig. 2), some impressed fragments of sealings 

could have, in fact, sealed papyri (see also the so-called combination sealings from Knossos and other sites, attesting both 

hanging bulla and direct sealing characteristics; Krzyszkowska, 

2005:220, ills. 430–435).

The use of clay sealings for direct sealing of sacks by string 

was introduced already in Syria, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia 

during the Neolithic period (e.g., Collon, 1990:11–30; 

Krzyszkowska, 2005:24–28). The earliest important assemblage 

probably comes from sixth millennium BCE Tell Sabi Abyad 

(Duistermaat, 1996:339–401). The function of the sealings can 

be generally reconstructed according to some of these earlier 

finds (Stein, 1997a: fig. 108; Brandl, 2001:268–269, fig. 17; see 

also Powell, 2002:237). For sealing of regular pottery vessels 

(not pithoi) one would probably use finer string and smaller 

sealings (Stein, 1997a:107; see a reconstruction on a Base 

Ring juglet, Brandl, 2006: fig. 21). The sealing of a wooden 

box could be made with a string (Stein, 1997a:107, fig. 110) 

or directly with the clay itself. Ceramic or other vessels could 

also be sealed by a clay lid or stopper, formed specifically for 

Other types of objects are more freestanding. These are 

lumps of clay with a string going through them (Figure 20.2h, 

with a cord thickness of 5 mm; the object is unstamped) or other 

lumps either impressed or not with some cord impressions on the 

sides (Figure 20.2e–g). Figure 20.2d is a complete lump that might 

have been slightly attached to a vessel or was a free-hanging sealing (like a bulla). Other items are of a plano-convex (or domed) 

shape, without an impression, but with some cord remains (Figure 20.3b and Reg. No. 1200). These may be similar to stoppertype sealings (possibly also Figure 20.1h) that were probably used 

for plugging a vessel’s mouth (see, e.g., Tel Miqne, Ben-Shlomo, 

2006b:136, 141, figs. 8, 9). As noted, the hanging sealings or bullae, which are small, rounded, flattened clay lumps attached on a 

hanging cord, may be represented by a few examples (e.g., Figure 

20.2h); it is difficult to state whether these appear only in later 

contexts, but the examples from Iron II Field I, Square KB, seem 

to represent rather small sealings, maybe bullae.

As noted, the undersides of the sealings show various imprints of organic material, most commonly string (e.g., Figure 

20.1f,h; a wide cord in Figure 20.1g), textiles (e.g., Figures 

20.1e,h, 20.2b), or possibly wood. At least in one case, a papyrus imprint is evident (Figure 20.2i) and comes from an unclear late context. (For such imprints, see, e.g., Stein, 1997a; 

Ben-Shlomo, 2006b:140 [Miqne]; Brandl, 2010b:209–210, fig. 

18.1:1, photo 18.1:1 [Deir el-Balah, the Amarna period].) In 

other cases the imprint of a vessel, made of clay or stone, can be 

FIGURE 20.3. Sealings with impressions from various periods.
866 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Place-name + number, for example, Afek (Aphek) no. 45, refers 

to the corresponding entry in Keel (1997) for sites beginning with 

A, Keel (2010a) for sites from B to E, or Keel (2010b) for sites 

beginning with F. The place-names are written in German since 

these are quotations. Letter + number, for example, M16, refers 

to the “List of Hieroglyphic Signs” in Gardiner (1957:438–548).

Sealings

Reg. No. 1183 (SI Cat. No. 959, Figure 20.4a). Context: GM 

(+). Sealing with an almost complete impression (§292–298) of a 

scarab, the two small sides are missing, linear engraving, baked 

light brown clay, 25 × 22 × 12 mm, the impression is 19 × 12 mm 

(Keel corpus: Gamma 161). Impression: Three double lines form 

two registers; each one contains a row of schematic z “protection” signs (§445.465) in mirror arrangement; at the top and the 

bottom one more z in mirror arrangement, each framed by two 

double right angels qnbt (§460); the design is very typical of the 

late Middle Kingdom; see Kahun (Petrie, 1891: pl. 10,185) and 

Kerma (Reisner, 1955: figs. 9:220, 10:224f; cf. Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 

13:25,30,34f,51, Egyptian import). Date: End of the 12th–13th 

Dynasties (ca. 1820–1630 BCE).

Reg. No. 1184 (SI Cat. No. 961, Figure 20.4b). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary stopper of a vessel with impression (§317f) of 

an oval seal, most likely a scarab, the design is heavily disturbed 

by fingerprints, hollowed-out engraving, clay, the stopper is 24 

× 20 × 15 mm, the impression is 14 × 11* mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 162). Impression: Above and below a nb (§458) in 

mirror arrangement(?). Date: 1291–1070 BCE.

Reg. No. 1185 (SI Cat. No. 710, Figure 20.4c). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary stopper of a vessel with impression (§317f) of 

a probably rectangular seal (§218, 220–224), the engraving is 

hollowed out, clay, stopper 23 × 20 × 9 mm, the impression 12 

× 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 163). Impression: Horizontally 

arranged design; to the left (on the original to the right) is a 

cartouche (§462) with Nb-mt-r, the throne name of Amenhotep III (§634, 663); to the right (on the original to the left) is 

mry Jmn-r, “beloved by Amun-Re”; for a rectangular plaque 

with the throne name of Amenhotep III and mry Jmn, see Hall 

(1913: no. 1803); for the same but with mry Pth ̆ instead of mry 

Jmn-r, see Keel (1995:90, fig. 153). Date: Time of Amenhotep 

III (1390–1353 BCE) or a little later. 

Reg. No. 1186 (SI Cat. No. 909, Figure 20.4d). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary sealing (§292–298), an oval seal, most likely 

a scarab, about two-thirds of the impression are preserved, the 

engraving is linear with hatching, gray clay, the sealing is 35 × 26 

× 13 mm, the impression is 18* × 16 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 

164). Impression: Human figure striding to the left on a nb (§458); 

the figure has a short apron; the arm in front holds a branch; the 

figure is flanked by trees or large branches; for striding figures 

holding a branch, see Keel (1995: §561) and Eggler and Keel 

(2006: Tall al-Umeiri no. 48); for a branch behind the figure, see 

Nahal Tavor (Keel, 1995:204 fig. 390); there is no exact parallel 

this function. The shape of such stoppers would be rounded, 

fitting the mouth of the vessel (applied to the vessel when wet 

or after drying/firing), or like a plug (when applied to the vessel 

when wet). Such objects were also found in Tell Jemmeh and 

are discussed in chapter 19 (see Figure 19.9; see also in situ 

examples of sealed stirrup jars from the oil merchant’s house 

at Mycenae, Krzyszkowska, 2005:282–284, 288, ills. 564–

568). Sealings could also be used to seal doors, a very ancient 

tradition in the Near East (see, e.g., Marcus, 1996:12–13, figs. 

5, 6; Stein, 1997a:112–114, fig. 118); the clay could be attached 

to the door knob/lock, the door itself, or a string attached to 

the door (Stein, 1997a: fig. 111). 

Generally, the sealings and the seal impressions on them 

were meant to identify, authenticate, and/or protect the contents 

on the sealed objects; in the case of door sealings, the impressions 

could also indicate the occasion on which the door was previously sealed (i.e., delivery or distribution of goods and by whom). 

Thus, the functions of the sealings were basically to seal containers with various contents or objects (such as letters) either for 

technical reasons (e.g., better preservation) or for administrative 

reasons (i.e., to achieve a certain control over their use and distribution). The recording representing the administrative aspect 

of these items is evidenced by the seal impressions on the sealings 

(see below). In many cases two or three (or more) identical impressions can be seen on the sealing (Figures 20.1a–d, 20.2b). For 

this practice, see also Tel Miqne, Ashdod, and Gath (Ben-Shlomo, 

2006b:144–145, figs. 1–4, 8) and Tell Fakhariyah during the Late 

Bronze Age (Kantor, 1958b:74, 84–85, pl. 74:I, 1958c:46). Possibly, this practice, which occurs quite often in other periods and 

sites as well, indicates a specific administrative procedure or tradition or, alternatively, is an attempt to cover more area of the 

sealing with impressions (see Krzyszkowska, 2005:49). The iconographic aspect of the seal impressions will be elaborated below. 

ICONOGRAPHY: CATALOG OF SEALINGS 

AND OTHER ITEMS WITH SCARAB 

SEAL IMPRESSIONS

In this catalog 48 items with seal impressions are described 

focusing on the iconographic elements appearing in them; 44 are 

sealings or bullae and four are impressed jar handles. Of these, 

in at least 35 examples the impression has recognizable motifs, 

and in most of these cases, the seal impressing the object can be 

dated stylistically. Note that in many cases the date of the seals is 

several hundred years before the date of the context of the sealing and its probable usage. The items are ordered according to 

registration numbers.

These items are also listed in the Corpus der StempelsiegelAmulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit 

(Keel, 2013:70–91, Gamma 161–Gamma 206). The system of references is as follows: The description of the features of the scarab, 

head, back, and side, for example, B2/0/e9, follows the classification system of Tufnell (1984:31–38), Keel (1995:74–114), 

and Eggler and Keel (2006: XVI). The symbol § + number, for 

example, §128, refers to the relevant paragraph in Keel (1995). 
NUMBER 50 • 867

design is extremely difficult to decipher and as a result is open 

to interpretation. The drawing is not entirely convincing; in the 

center probably a uraeus (§511, 529) directed to the left; its tail 

frames a circle; behind the uraeus is an wd≥t, “eye” (§464), beneath it a small bar and a second circle; in front of the uraeus 

rectangular elements and beneath them an inverted z (§465); at 

its left an nhR(§449); some of these elements are found on scarabs of the so-called Neo-hyksos group described by Keel (2003); 

for the uraeus, see, for example, Tell el-Fara (S) no. 313, Gaza 

no. 6, Geser no. 17, Tyrus (Gamer-Wallert, 2004:406f, fig. 268); 

for the wd≥t, “eye,” see Tell el-Fara-(S) no. 315. Date: Probably 

Iron IIB (830–700 BCE).

Reg. No. 1189 (SI Cat. No. 965, Figure 20.4g). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary sealing (§292–298) with an impression of an 

oval seal, about half of the impression is preserved, linear engraving as far as it is visible, gray clay, sealing 26 × 15 × 8 mm, 

the preserved impression is 10 × 5 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 

167). Impression: The only clearly visible elements of the design 

are three parallel lines.

Reg. No. 1190 (SI Cat. No. 963, Figure 20.4h). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary sealing (§292–298) with an impression of an 

for all the elements of the design; local production; twisted strand 

(Tufnell, 1984: pl. 34). Date: MBIIB (ca. 1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1187 (SI Cat. No. 960, Figure 20.4e). Context: GM (+). 

Fragmentary sealing (§292–298) with an impression of an oval 

seal, most likely a scarab, about one-half of the impression is 

preserved, linear engraving with hatching, gray clay, the sealing 

is 42 × 31 × 13 mm, the impression is 11 × 11 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 165). Impression: Horizontally arranged design; a nbw, 

“gold,” sign (§458) and a bee (§450) above it; to the left of the bee 

was probably a swt, “plant” (§462), forming with the bee the title 

nswt-byty, “king of Upper and Lower Egypt” (§468); to the right 

nh,R “life” (§449); to the left was probably a second n; if the proposed complements are correct, the design has an exact parallel in 

Tell el-‘Aghul (‘Ajjul) no. 753, Tell el-Farah-South no. 63, Gezer 

(Giveon, 1985:112, no. 6), and Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pls. 30:65, 

32:79); see, however, Afek (Aphek) no. 20 with a nfr instead of a 

second nh; local production. Date: MBIIB (ca. 1650–1500 BCE). R

Reg. No. 1188 (SI Cat. No. 964, Figure 20.4f). Context: GM (+). 

Almost complete sealing (§292–298) with a complete impression 

of an oval seal, linear engraving, gray clay, impression 18 × 14 

mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 166). Impression: The legibility of the 

FIGURE 20.4. Seal impressions on sealings.
868 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Reg. No. 1198 (Figures 20.2g, 20.5b). Context: GM 1B (11) 3, 

unclear. Fragmentary sealing with an impression (§292–298) of 

an oval seal, one-third of the impression is preserved, gray clay, 

sealing 23 × 15 × 17 mm, impression 6 × 9 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 172). Impression: Two parallel slightly bent lines, an 

oval, remains of a further sign; there is a slight possibility that it 

was the composition of hRprr, “scarab” (§428.454.516), flanked 

by two uraei (§524); compare to Bet-Shean no. 178, Tell el-FaraSouth no. 693, and Gezer no. 4. Date: If the scarab-uraei motif 

is assumed, probably 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE).

Reg. No. 1202 (SI Cat. No. 432, Figure 20.2d). Context: GMI 

5E (2), unclear. Almost complete sealing with complete impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, most likely a scarab, the design 

is very faintly impressed, the engraving looks linear, gray, partly 

reddish clay, sealing 43 × 28 × 17 mm, impression 16 × 11 mm 

(Keel corpus: Gamma 173). Impression: The only clearly recognizable element is a loop that could be a schematic z, “protection,” sign (§445, 465). Date: Probably MBIIB (ca. 1650–1500 

BCE).

Reg. No. 1203 (SI Cat. No. 953, Figure 20.1d). Context: GMIII 

C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with almost 

complete impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, most likely 

a scarab, at the top right a smear, hollowed-out engraving, 

gray-greenish clay, sealing 19 × 12 × 9 mm, impression 15 × 

11 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 174). Impression: Striding 

anthropomorphic figure with falcon head facing left, wearing a 

knee-length apron, the arm behind hangs down along the body; 

the arm in front is bent and holds a lotus flower with a long stem/

stalk with some leaves. The figure stands on a nb sign (§458). 

The three impressions (Figure 20.1a–c, Reg. Nos. 1214a–c) 

are most likely made with the same seal; for parallels, see §587 

and, particularly, Aphek no. 52, Tell el-Aghul (‘Ajjul) nos. 278, 

1058, Bet-Shean no. 220 (with additional nfr), Tell el-FaraSouth no. 440, Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 32/33:130; with additional nfr), and Shechem (Rowe, 1936: no. 293; without nb). 

Date: MBIIB (ca. 1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1204 (SI Cat. No. 1009, Figure 20.5c). Context: GMIII 

C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with impression of an oval seal (§292–298), most likely a scarab, about half 

of the impression is preserved, hollowed-out engraving, clay, 

sealing 19 × 12 × 9 mm, impression 15 × 9 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 175). Impression: Probably kneeling anthropomorphic 

figure with falcon head facing left; the arm behind the body 

seems to be bent at hip height; the arm in front is bent and holds 

a lotus flower; behind the falcon head is a cobra (§522). According to the parallels (Tell el-Aghul [‘Ajjul] nos. 48, 512, 953 

and Megiddo [Loud, 1948: pls. 152, 206 = Keel, 1995:228, fig. 

523]), the falcon head was flanked by two cobras (§619; see also 

§525). Date: MBIIB (ca. 1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1205 (SI Cat. No. 1112, Figure 20.5d). Context: GMI 

KB F10, Phase KB2, Iron IIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, the impression 

oval seal, the impression is almost complete, to the right is missing part of the small side, hollowed-out engraving with hatching, 

gray clay, sealing 15 × 15 × 5, impression 13 × 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 168). Impression: The impression was most likely 

made with a bone seal (§139–142); a figure directed to the left 

is in a worshipping posture: one hand raised in adoration, one 

hanging down behind the body. In front of the figure is a vertical line; the figure is worshipping a cartouche; for the meaning 

of the signs within the cartouche, see Dan no. 30 (for the figure 

worshipping a cartouche, see Beth Shemesh no. 215 with parallels from Gezer and Kinneret; Tell el-Fara-South nos. 231, 347; 

two cartouches, one beside the other, are on Akko no. 164; Tell 

el-Fara-South no. 884; Jerusalem: Keel, 2007:343f, fig. 241). A 

worshipping figure between two cartouches as on the present 

seal is unusual; for the political significance of this group, see 

Keel (2007:341–344); Avigad and Sass (1997: no. 256) show a 

worshipper in bone seal style in front of a private name (mtn). 

Date: Iron IIA (ca. 920–830 BCE).

Reg. No. 1191 (SI Cat. No. 958, Figure 20.3d). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary sealing (§292–298) with an impression of an 

oval seal, the impression is almost complete, just a small part on 

right is missing, hollowed-out engraving, brown clay, sealing 22 

× 18 × 12 mm, impression 13 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 

169). Impression: To the left a striding schematic human figure, 

the right arm hangs down along the body, the left arm in front 

is bent and holds a staff with an oval ending. To the right is a 

coitus à tergo group: the woman is bending down, one hand 

placed on the earth, the other raised. The figure behind with his 

phallus penetrating seems to be an animal standing on its hind 

legs; the front paws rest on the woman. A similar scene with a 

donkey on a woman is from Jerusalem, Israel Museum inventory 

no. 76.31.4382. Texts noting the obscene curse “may the donkey 

copulate with him” are well known in the Third Intermediate 

period or even the New Kingdom (cf. Te-Velde, 1967:56; Janssen, 1968:167, 171). For two human beings in the same position, see Dor no. 28 with parallels therein; on Naukratis, see 

Gardner and Griffith (1888: pl. 18:47), the female partner seems 

to be an animal; the coitus à tergo group is found already in 

the MBIIB; see Keel (1995: §601). Date: Probably Iron IIB-C 

(830–600 BCE).

Reg. No. 1192 (SI Cat. No. 836, Figure 20.7f). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary bulla with an impression (§292–298) of a 

most likely oval seal, about one-third of the impression seems 

to be preserved, hollowed-out engraving, clay, dimensions of the 

bulla 15 × 10 × 4 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 212). Impression: 

A disk (§461), a kind of flower (§429), and a straight line. Date: 

Uncertain.

Reg. No. 1196 (SI Cat. No. 761, Figure 20.5a). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary sealing (§292–298) with an impression; gray 

clay; sealing 35 × 30 × 18, impression 15 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 171). Impression: Impression of a barrel-shaped bead 

with a segmented “pineapple” decoration; see bead in Figure 

22.4u (Reg. No. 817), which fits the impression.
NUMBER 50 • 869

cone-shaped sealing with impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, 

about two-thirds of the impression preserved, hollowed-out engraving, unfired gray clay, sealing 20 × 17 × 10 mm, impression 

13 × 8 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 177). Impression: Lying sphinx 

facing left with shmty, r “double crown” (§461), and ceremonial 

beard; the face of the sphinx is somewhat unusual; in front of 

the sphinx a crouching, probably falcon-headed figure; behind 

the sphinx remains of a wing, belonging to a winged uraeus. For 

similar sphinxes, see Ashdod no. 34, Beth Shemesh no. 115, Tell 

el-Fara-South nos. 492, 494f, 571f, Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pl. 

152:175); for a similar sphinx without other elements except a nb, 

see Ekron no. 58. Date: 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE). 

Reg. No. 1209 (SI Cat. No. 1119, Figure 20.5f). Context: GM 

2B (64), Phase 11, Iron IIA. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, most likely a 

scarab, about one-third of the impression is preserved, linear 

engraving, dark gray clay, sealing 28 × 9 × 11 mm, impression 

20 × 6 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 178). Impression: Scroll border of oblong, hooked scrolls (§508). For the way the scrolls 

are joined at the top and the bottom, see Jericho (Kirkbride, 

1965:616, fig. 290:13), Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 34:143); the 

is faint, the clay is dark gray; sealing 21 × 20 × 8 mm, impression 12 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 176). Impression: The 

only clearly recognizable element is an almost square rectangle; 

a similarly rudimentary design is found at Tel Halif (Borowski, 

1991:91f = Borowski, 1994:50); see also Beth-Shean nos. 60, 

171, Tell el-Fara-South no. 402, Eggler and Keel (2006: Wadi 

al-Feidan no. 2 = Münger, 2005:470, fig. 37A). Date: Probably 

Iron IIA (980–830 BCE).

Reg. No. 1206 (SI Cat. No. 1114, Figure 20.3f). Context: GMI 

KB (26) 5, Phase KB2, Iron IIB (830–700 BCE). Fragmentary 

bulla with an impression (§292–298) of a seal of indistinct 

shape, engraving linear, clay, dimensions of the bulla 20 × 15 × 9 

mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 213). Impression: One is tempted to 

interpret the lower part as an anthropomorphic figure with calflength cloth striding to the left; in front of the figure the lower 

part of a staff. However, this is not a preferred interpretation: 

see, for example, the straight line parallel to the left foot. Date: 

Uncertain.

Reg. No. 1207 (SI Cat. No. 1111, Figure 20.5e). Context: GMI 

KB P2, Phase KB2?, Iron IIB-C? (800–600 BCE). A truncated 

FIGURE 20.5. Seal impressions on sealings.
870 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

12 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 181). Impression: Falconheaded figure facing left, wearing a knee-length apron, the left 

arm hangs along behind the body, the right arm in front is bent 

and holds a branch; the figure may have been striding (§586) 

or more probably kneeling (§618). For the striding version, see 

Tell el-Aghul (‘Ajjul) no. 1050; for the kneeling version, see Tell 

el-Aghul no. 156, Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pl. 164:6). Date: MBIIB 

(1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1213 (SI Cat. No. 1108, Figure 20.6b). Context: GMI 

KB F8, Phase KB2?, Iron IIB-C? Sealing with impression (§292–

298) of a nearly circular seal, probably a scaraboid, the impression is nearly complete, hollowed-out engraving with hatching, 

light gray clay, sealing 17 × 15 × 6 mm, impression 9 × 8 mm 

(Keel corpus: Gamma 182). Impression: Two schematic human 

figures; the figure to the right has one arm hanging down along the 

body, the “inner” arms join each other, the figure to the right has 

one arm raised. Two similar figures are found on Beth Shemesh 

no. 31, Ekron nos. 59 and 65, Tell el-Fara-South no. 119 and at 

Gezer (Macalister, 1912: pl. 206:5) and Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: 

pl. 44:68–69). Mazar (2003:126–132) interprets this and similar 

groups with three persons as representing ritual dancing. Date: 

Iron IIA (980–830 BCE). Bibliography: Van Beek (1986:55). 

Reg. Nos. 1214a,b,c (SI Cat. No. 1020, Figure 20.1a–c). Context: GMIII C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. A roughly square 

only recognizable element beside the scroll border is a h ̆ (§453) 

at the bottom; see Jericho (Kirkbride, 1965:626, 650, figs. 294:8, 

302:14). Date: MBII (1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1210 (SI Cat. No. 1019, Figures 20.1h, 20.5g). Context: GMIII F2 (13), Phase 17, MBIIB. Fragmentary sealing with 

fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an unusual seal that left 

traces of two ovals, hollowed out engraving, gray-greenish clay, 

sealing 28 × 24 × 10 mm, impression 9 × 7 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 179). Impression: Clearly recognizable is a nb (§458) 

at the bottom of one of the ovals and above it a fish-like design. 

Date: Unclear.

Reg. No. 1211 (SI Cat. No. 1010, Figure 20.5h). Context: GMIII 

C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Fragmentary stopper of a vessel 

with impression (§317f) of a seal of unclear shape, just part of 

the impression is preserved, gray clay, stopper 22 × 19 × 7 mm, 

impression 11 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 180). Impression: 

Between two parallel double lines the legs of a striding figure. 

Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1212 (SI Cat. No. 1024, Figure 20.6a). Context: GMIII 

C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Sealing from a box with fragmentary impression (§317f) of an oval seal, most likely of a scarab, 

about half of the impression is preserved, hollowed-out engraving with hatching, gray clay, sealing 17 × 16 × 9 mm, impression 

FIGURE 20.6. Seal impressions on sealings.
NUMBER 50 • 871

a goatlike animal (§518–521); to its left a disk, maybe a sun disk 

(§461); above the back of the animal an unclear motif, possibly a 

scorpion. A caprid with a disk in front appears in Beth Shemesh 

no. 51; all three elements (goatlike animal, disk, and scorpion) 

are found on Beth Shemesh no. 161, although in a different arrangement; for a different interpretation of the element above the 

back of the animal, see Dor No. 2; for the style of the engraving, see Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 43A/44:96). The impression 

indicates an engraving technique with a drill typical of “rock 

crystal” or hard stone stamp seals such as a crystal quartz seal 

from Tell Jemmeh (see Figure 27.7d, Gamma No. 210, Reg. No. 

1237). Date: Iron IIA (980–800 BCE). Bibliography: Van Beek 

(1986:55, fig. 24, to the right).

Reg. No. 1220 (SI Cat. No. 1122, Figure 20.6e). Context: 

GMI KB (33) 7, Phase KB3, Iron IIA. Fragmentary sealing with 

fragmentary impression (§292–298) of a probably oval seal, 

hollowed-out engraving, sealing 22 × 12 × 9 mm, impression 

15 × 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 190). Impression: Schematic 

human figure with arms and legs spread downward; a very close 

parallel is Eggler and Keel (2006: Umm al-Bayyara no. 2); a 

figure in this position flanking a tree was found at Tel Rehov 

(Keel and Mazar, 2009: figs. 1, 2, 19). Date: Late Iron IB–IIA 

(1100–830 BCE).

Reg. No. 1221 (SI Cat. No. 1015, Figure 20.1i). Context: GMIII 

C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of a probably oval seal, the impression is faintly impressed and only about one-third preserved(?), 

smeared on one side, engraving linear, gray-greenish clay, sealing 

25 × 21 × 7 mm, impression 12 × 5 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 

191). Impression: The impression seems to have some similarity 

to the lower part of the “convoluted coils” design (§495–499; 

Tufnell, 1984: pls. 24, 25:2055–2132) with an almond-shaped 

element at the upper and lower ends; inside the almond-shaped 

element there are four double curves/arcs/bows based on the contour line of the almond-shaped element; compare Tell el-Aghul 

(‘Ajjul) nos. 116, 693, 1179 (Ben-Tor, 2007; pl. 89:11,13,14); 

local. Date: MBIIB (1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1222 (SI Cat. No. 1004, Figure 20.3a). Context: GM 

2A (29), Phase 7, Iron IIB, outside Building III. Sealing with impression (§292–298) of a nearly circular although somewhat 

square seal, partly hollowed-out, partly linear engraving, graygreenish clay, sealing 26 × 19 × 9, impression 13 × 12 mm (Keel 

corpus: Gamma 192). Impression: Cross pattern (§494); the 

“cross” is formed by two ladders flanked by simple lines; for 

these, see Akko no. 164 with parallels and Jerusalem, Gihon excavations directed by R. Reich and E. Shukron, registration nos. 

18673 and 18692. The actual impression shows one ladder put 

on the other; compare to the backs of the private name bone seals 

in Avigad and Sass (1997: nos. 283 and 322); in the four gussets 

formed by the cross are four leaflike elements; an example from 

Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 44:116) has a “ladder cross” without 

the flanking lines and with spirals in the gussets; the present composition is rather unusual. Date: Iron IIA (920–760 BCE).

clay lump, like part of a hollow cube broken diagonally, with 

a scarab impression (of the same scarab) on each of the three 

preserved faces, each partially missing, hollowed-out engraving 

with hatching, sealing 22 × 20 × 18 mm, complete impression 15 

× 11 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 183–185). Impression: Striding 

anthropomorphic figure with falcon head facing left, wearing a 

knee-length apron, the left arm behind hangs down along the 

body, the arm in front is bent and holds a lotus flower with a 

long stem/stalk with some leaves (compare Tell el-Aghul no. 278); 

the figure stands on a nb sign (§458); the impression in Reg. No. 

1203 was most likely made with the same seal, although as the 

stamp seal impressed the clay at different angles and different 

pressure was applied for each impression, the three impressions 

do not look identical; for parallels, see Reg. 1203 (Figure 20.1d). 

Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1215 (SI Cat. No. 1118, Figure 20.3e). Context: GM 

2B (63), Phase 10, Iron Age IIA. Sealing with impression (§292–

298) of an oval seal, about one-third of the impression is preserved, dark gray clay, sealing 16 × 14 × 9 mm, impression 8 × 5 

mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 186). Impression: Five parallel vertical lines meet in a right angle, a horizontal line with a bend on 

the right; compare Reg. No. 1196 (Figure 20.5a) with parallels 

therein. Date: Uncertain; probably late Early Iron IIA to beginning of Iron IIB (900–800 BCE).

Reg. No. 1217 (SI Cat. No. 1121, Figure 20.6c). Context: GM 

2B (64), Phase 11, Iron Age IIA. Fragmentary sealing with 

fragmentary impression (§292–298) of a seal whose shape 

remains unclear and whose impression is very poorly preserved, 

clay, sealing 17 × 13 × 8 mm, impression 12 × 11 mm (Keel 

corpus: Gamma 187). Impression: Besides three circles, one 

with a line, and a snakelike line, nothing is recognizable; 

approximately similar are Tell el-Fara-South nos. 367, 629 

and Jerusalem, Gihon excavations directed by R. Reich und 

E. Shukron, registration numbers 18706, 26095, 26099. Date: 

Uncertain, probably between the end of the LBIIB and the Iron 

IIA (1200–830 BCE). 

Reg. No. 1218 (SI Cat. No. 1113, Figure 20.6d). Context: GMI 

KB F9 (2), Phase KB2; Iron Age IIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with 

fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, probably 

a scarab (Keel corpus: Gamma 188). Impression: Recognizable 

is an arm and below it a hRpr (§454, 516); to the right of both a 

straight vertical line; an arm with a scarab below are found in the 

throne name of Haremhab, Dnsr-hRprw r (§634, 663); see Lachish (Hall, 1913: nos. 1975–1977, 1981–1985; Tufnell, 1958: pls. 

39, 357). Date: Time of Haremhab (1319–1292 BCE).

Reg. No. 1219 (SI Cat. No. 1110, Figure 20.3c). Context: GM 

2B (59), Phase 9, Iron IIA. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of a nearly round seal, probably a 

conoid or scaraboid, hollowed-out engraving with drill holes, 

light gray clay, sealing 15 × 14 × 10 mm, impression 11 × 9* 

mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 189). Impression: Standing quadruped facing left with short, straight horns and short tail, possibly 
872 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

its tail is raised and bent forward above its back; above the back 

a uraeus facing left (§522); compare Tell el-Aghul no. 1017, Dan 

no. 3, although the lion is crouching, Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 

35:216). Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1227 (Figure 20.6g). Context: GMI 2E (4), Phase 3?, 

LBII. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–

298) of an oval seal, probably a scarab, about half of the diagonally broken impression is preserved, hollowed-out engraving, 

gray clay, sealing 20 × 15 × 10 mm, impression 9 × 7 mm (Keel 

corpus: Gamma 197). Impression: Visible elements are a mn 

(§457) and below it a complementary n (§458) as part of the 

name of the god <J>mn, “Amun.” Just Jmn is exceedingly rare; 

usually the name is combined with R, “Re,” but Re is often 

written in a very rudimentary way; see, for example, Tell el-Aghul 

(‘Ajjul) no. 233, Tell el-Fara-(S) no. 528, and, particularly, Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 36:248); since on the impression the 

mn + n are to the left, on the original they had to be on the right, 

which occurs, although rarely; see Tell el-Fara-(S) no. 701 and 

Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 39:348). Date: 18th–19th Dynasties 

(ca. 1400–1190 BCE).

Reg. No. 1228 (Figure 20.6h). Context: GMII C1 P2 (2), Phases 

2–3, Iron IIB-C. Fragmentary stopper of a vessel with impression (§317f) of an oval seal, most likely a scarab, approximately 

one-half of the impression is preserved, the engraving is partly 

linear, partly hollowed out, gray clay, stopper 22 × 13 × 8 mm, 

impression 11 × 8 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 198). Impression: 

Remains of a standing figure facing left with a turned up collar 

typical of the god Ptah; compare Beth Shean no. 83, Tell el-FaraSouth no. 456; behind the god nfr (§459) and four small horizontal signs below it, possibly nb twy, “Lord of the Two Lands,” 

a title usually attributed to the king but sometimes also to gods, 

for example, to Amun (Tel Eton no. 10, Tell el-Fara-South no. 

228) or to the falcon-headed god, possibly Re-Harachte (Tell elFara-South no. 133 with parallels). For the combination of Ptah 

and nfr, see Tell el-Aghul no. 847, Der el-Balah no. 29. Date: 19th 

Dynasty (1292–1190 BCE). 

Reg. No. 1230 (Figure 20.2b). Context: GMI 4D (3) {77}, Phase 

3, Room F, LBII. Fragmentary stopper of a vessel with impression (§317f) of an oval seal, most likely a scarab, approximately 

three-quarters of the impression are preserved, linear engraving, 

dark gray clay, stopper 20 × 18 × 14 mm, impression 14 × 12 mm 

(Keel corpus: Gamma 199). Impression: Convoluted knot-like 

pattern with central vertical bar (§499); the present piece has 

comparisons in early series items from Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pl. 

149:40) and Rishon Leziyyon (Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 60:21,22) and 

also a late series item from Tell el-Aghul (‘Ajjul) no. 705; local. 

Date: MBIIB (1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 2037 (Figure 20.7a). Context: GMI 2F (2), Phase 

1B/3?, LBII. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oblong oval seal, probably a cowroid 

(§184–195), both small ends of the impression are broken, 

engraving hollowed out, light gray clay, sealing 22 × 20 mm, 

Reg. No. 1223 (Figure 20.2a). Context: GMI 4D (4) 3, Phase 3, 

Room F, LBII. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression 

(§292–298) of an oval seal, the impression is almost complete, 

but faint, part of it made “unreadable” by a crust, on one side 

slightly damaged by a “piecrust” border, engraving hollowed 

out, gray-greenish clay, sealing 26 × 15 × 5 mm, impression 19 

× 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 193). Impression: Convoluted 

knot-like pattern with central vertical bar (§499); a particularly 

close parallel is Tell el-Aghul (‘Ajjul) no. 1176; see also Reg. No. 

1230 (Figure 20.2b). Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE). 

Reg. No. 1224 (SI Cat. No. 717, Figure 20.3g). Context: GMI B 

WBR (9) 1, Phase 3?, Persian? Bulla or sealing with impression 

(§292–298) of an oblong oval seal, the impression is faint and 

blurred at the right end, hollowed-out engraving, light brown 

clay, sealing 27 × 13 × 10 mm, impression 21 × 9 mm (Keel 

corpus: Gamma 194). Impression: Within a rope border in the 

form of a barred strand (§513) the following elements are recognizable: a striding male figure facing left with a short apron, the 

arms hanging down along the body, p (Q3), forearm with hand 

holding conical loaf (D37 with X8), meaning rdy, “give,” or dy, 

“given.” The two signs are typical as an element of late period 

personal names, “the one who is given by” (Ranke, 1935:121–

126). The two following signs are most likely nhR, “life” (§449; 

S34), and the column with a tenon at the top (O28), meaning 

ywn, “column,” or ywnw ,“On, Heliopolis”; since p dy is usually followed by the designation of a deity, nhR<y> ywnw has to 

be understood as such, a known name is p dy n t, “given by the 

living one” (Ranke, 1935:122, no. 20); “the living one” means 

Hathor-Isis (Erman and Grapow, 1971:201); the name of the 

deity is often combined with a place-name (Ranke, 1935:122, 

no. 16; 123, no. 3; 125, nos. 7–9). Re of Heliopolis has the epithet nhR<y> (Erman and Grapow, 1971:201); p dy nhR<y> ywnw 

possibly means “given by the living one from On, Heliopolis.” 

Date: Late period (664–30 BCE).

Reg. No. 1225 (SI Cat. No. 1016, Figures 20.1f, 20.6f). Context: 

GMIII C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. A hollow domed fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298), it remains 

unclear what kind of seal was used; gray clay, sealing 24 × 22 

× 12 mm, impression 12 × 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 195). 

Impression: A hRprr, “scarab” (§428, 454, 516), flanked by the 

long tails of two uraei directed inward (§522, 527); compare 

Tell el-Aghul nos. 102, 322, Tell el-Fara-South no. 609, Lachish 

(Tufnell, 1958: pl. 32:73), Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pl. 151:114), 

Koptos (Petrie, 1896: pl. 25:82); for the kneeling falcon-headed 

deity between the same kind of uraei, see Dotan no. 18 with 

parallels; local. Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1226 (SI Cat. No. 1008, Figure 20.1e). Context: 

GMIII C1 (81), Phase 16, MBIIB-C. Fragmentary sealing with 

fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, probably a 

scarab, broken into four pieces, about half of the impression is 

preserved, hollowed-out engraving, brown-reddish clay (fired?), 

sealing 42 × 30 × 17 mm, impression 17 × 13 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 196). Impression: Back part of a striding lion facing left; 
NUMBER 50 • 873

design in general, see Keel et al. (1989:139–197). Date: Probably 18th Dynasty from Thutmose III onward until the 19th 

dynasty (1479–1190 BCE).

Reg. No. 2168 (Figure 20.3b). Context: GM 2B (58A), Phase 

9, Iron IIA. Fragmentary domed sealing with fragmentary impression (§292–298) of a nearly circular seal, most likely a 

conoid, approximately two-thirds of the design are preserved, 

impression 13 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 201). Impression: 

Hathor fetish (§577–579); the neck is flanked by uraei turned 

outward (§523); each has a sun disk above its head; compare 

Tell el-Fara-South no. 709, Gezer no. 289 (Macalister, 1912: 

III, pl. 206:2); see also Tell Abu Hawam no. 24, Akko nos. 

146, 212, Ashkelon no. 65, Dan no. 23, Gezer no. 229 (Macalister, 1912: pl. 204a:12), Gezer no. 272 (Macalister, 1912: 

pl. 205a:10), Hornung and Staehelin (1976: no. 675). For the 

FIGURE 20.7. Seal impressions on sealings and impressions of seals on jar and amphora handles.
874 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

facing outward; for these elements, see the green jasper scarab 

group such as En-Naschav no. 1 (Keel, 2010a:572). Date: MBIIB 

(1700–1500 BCE).

Reg. No. 1193 (SI Cat. No. 113, Figure 20.7h). Context: GM 

(+). Fragmentary jar handle with two impressions, one beside the 

other, at the top of the handle, 10 mm from the body (§299–312), 

of an oval seal or two seals, respectively; the design is very faintly 

impressed, gray-greenish clay, handle 55 × 40 mm, impressions 

9 × 5 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 170). Impression: Unclear.

Reg. No. 1232 (SI Cat. No. 312, Figure 20.7i). Context: GM 2C 

WBR (2), unclear. A large amphora handle with a square seal 

impression. This handle belongs to an East Greek amphora from 

Knidos, dated to the mid-4th century BCE (e.g., Whitbread, 

1995:68). These amphorae were used for wine. The seal 

impression shows a monogram that includes three Greek letters 

(the reading is ΠΑΘ) and is typical of Knidian amphorae (see, 

e.g., Monakhov, 1999) and possibly marks the identity of the 

wine producer.1

Reg. No. 1201. Context: GM 1C EBR P2 (6), Phase 1?, Islamic? 

A large amphora handle with a fragmentary square seal impression. This is a Persian period amphora, possibly of an East Greek 

type.

DISCUSSION

The assemblage of clay sealings and seal impressions from 

Tell Jemmeh raises several interesting questions. One of them 

is the uneven appearance of these objects in different periods. 

Although during the MBII and Iron IIA there are many examples, 

there is a certain gap during the LBII. Possibly, this phenomenon, 

partly related to the low documentation at Field I, may also 

relate to the relatively low level of literacy in the southern Levant 

during the Late Bronze Age (see Shai and Uziel, 2010:74–78, for 

a mechanism of “resistance to foreign culture,” which, according 

to them, explains this lack of literacy). This situation changes 

during the Iron IIA when many sealings appear. As seen at other 

sits in southern Israel, during the Iron Age there seems to be a 

rise in the usage of seals for stamping clay sealings and later 

clay bullae (see discussion in Ben-Shlomo, 2006b). Thus, scarabs 

were used in this period as stamping objects and not primarily 

as amuletic objects as in the Late Bronze Age (and therefore the 

latter were found often in graves). From the examples preserved 

at the site it seems that the sealing types used in the MBIIB, LBII, 

and Iron II were similar, and fragments indicate both direct 

sealings of various types and sealings not attached directly to 

vessels, possibly bullae.

In relation to the material culture of Philistia, to which Tell 

Jemmeh belongs, it is noteworthy that on the stamped sealings 

uncovered so far from Iron Age Philistia, no Aegean-affiliated 

motifs appear, only Canaanite or Egyptian ones. Because the 

sealings reflect some sort of administration, either on a small 

hollowed-out engraving, gray clay, sealing 20 × 12 mm, impression 12 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 202). Impression: Schematic human figure facing right and holding a branch or a tree 

with the hand that remains; see Ekron no. 51 with parallels, although the worshipper of Ekron no. 51 is much more detailed; 

for MBIIB forerunners of the motif, see §561. Date: Iron IIB 

(830–700 BCE)?

Reg. No. 2170 (Figure 20.7b). Context: GM 2B (58), Phase 

9, Iron IIA. Fragmentary sealing with fragmentary impression 

(§292–298) of a seal, which was probably mounted in metal, 

about half the impression is preserved, fire-blackened clay, sealing 30 × 20 × 13, impression 16 × 10 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 

203). Impression: The design is illegible; it may have consisted 

just of drill holes; see Avigad and Sass, 1997, no. 1144 with parallels). Date: Iron IIB (830–700 BCE)?

Reg. No. 2174 (Figure 20.7c). Context: GM 2B (64), Phase 11, 

Iron IIA. Very fragmentary sealing with a very fragmentary impression (§292–298) of an oval seal, brown-reddish baked clay, 

sealing 25 × 15 × 10 mm, impression 10 × 4 mm (Keel corpus: 

Gamma 204). Impression: The only thing clearly visible is part 

of the framing line. Date: Unclear.

Reg. No. 2182 (Figure 20.7d). Context: GMI 5D (2), Phase 3, 

LBII. Fragmentary stopper of a vessel with impression (§317f) of 

an oval seal, more than half of it is preserved, but the impression 

is very faint, gray, fire-blackened clay, stopper 30 × 13 × 13 mm, 

impression 19 × 9 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 205). Impression: 

Illegible. Date: Unclear.

Reg. No. 2198 (Figure 20.7e). Context: GM (+). Fragmentary 

sealing with a nearly complete impression (§292–298) of an oval 

seal, most likely a scarab, just one small end of the impression 

is missing, hollowed-out engraving, light gray clay, sealing 27 × 

20 × 8 mm, impression 11 × 8 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 206). 

Impression: In a horizontal arrangement the name of the god 

<J>mn-r, “Amun-Re” (§642f), flanked by two vertical lines; the 

outer lines form together with the framing line a nb (§458). A 

comparable design is from Tell el-Fara-South no. 617; a similar 

design is found on Akko no. 228, Deir el-Balah no. 40, Tell elFara-South no. 594, although these parallels have two j instead 

of nb. Date: 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE) or somewhat later. 

Stamped Jar Handles

Reg. No. 1231 (SI Cat. No. 1021, Figure 20.7g). Context: GMIII 

F2 F12, Phase 17, MBIIB. Jar handle with impression (§299–

301) of an oval seal, probably a scarab, the impression is complete but faint, light brown clay, handle 65 × 65 mm, impression 

18 × 12 mm (Keel corpus: Gamma 200). Impression: Numerous closely spaced signs; the surface seems to be structured by 

a panel shrine design (§487) flanked at the bottom by two uraei 
NUMBER 50 • 875

belief system or were used merely as technical symbols for identifying, for example, different household or officials. 

Another noteworthy phenomenon at Tell Jemmeh is the 

lack of sealings and impressions in the Iron IIB-C administrative 

buildings built in the Assyrian technique and style. Although the 

buildings and their surroundings contained many storage vessels 

and several large clay jar stoppers, no sealings were found. Possibly, this indicates that a different recording system was used 

in this case. However, one may ask what the different, possibly 

Neo-Assyrian, sealing and marking methods evidenced at the 

site are. A few scale weights may represent such an administration (see chapter 23, Figure 23.5). Another possibility is that all 

seals and sealings related to recording and redistribution were 

carefully concentrated in another area that was not excavated.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA; Othmar Keel, Department of Biblical Studies, University of Fribourg, Bureau 4219B, Avenue de l’Europe 

20, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. Correspondence: davben187@yahoo

.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. We thank Yftah Shalev for providing us information on this type.

or large scale, this may indicate that the persons dealing with 

the administration and responsible for impressing sealings in 

Philistia were of a non-Philistine origin, maybe of Canaanite 

origin, or that the Philistines themselves abided the Canaanite 

traditions regarding the motifs used for impressions of sealings 

(Ben-Shlomo, 2008c). In any case, this phenomenon indicates 

commercial and other contacts between the Philistine and Canaanite populations in Philistia, as this local iconographic syntax 

was understood by both groups.

The iconographic representations of several of the sealings 

can be sorted into stylistic groups, as an earlier style is MBII 

Hyksos-style scarabs (e.g., Figures 20.2a,b, 20.4a, 20.5f), which 

were also used on later LB–Iron Age sealings. A later style of the 

later second and early first millennium BCE may be defined as 

the Canaanite style (e.g., Figures 20.3b, 20.6b,e, Reg. Nos. 1213, 

1220, 2168; possibly related to the mass-produced scarab group; 

see Keel, 1994b:1–54, 1995b:128–129; Münger, 2003, 2005). In 

this style schematic figures, animals, and daily scenes often appear. Otherwise, the motifs are usually of an Egyptian nature 

(e.g., Figures 20.1a–d, 20.3g, 20.4b–f, 20.5c–e, 20.6a,d,f–h) or 

are influenced by such motifs (e.g., Figure 20.4f,h) and are depicted in a way imitating Egyptian motifs. Nevertheless, on only 

two occasions do pharaoh names appear (Figures 20.4c, 20.6d). 

Other interesting and unusual motifs that appear are, for example, a scene showing an animal (possibly a donkey) copulating 

with a woman (Figure 20.3d), dated probably to the Iron IIB-C 

and maybe indicating a more humorous approach to the issues 

of impressions on clay sealings. It is difficult to know how the 

local population treated these images appearing on the sealings, 

whether they were understood as conveying a certain language or 
21 Nonjewelry Metal Objects

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with a selection of metal artifacts such as weapons (spears and arrowheads), tools (points, spatulas, adzes, axes, 

hoes), blades, and other items (such as pins, nails, hooks, vessels, weights), whereas items that can be worn are discussed in chapter 22 

(these include rings, earrings, bracelets, fibulae, and other jewelry). 

Altogether, 721 pieces of metal were recovered from the excavation: 438 of bronze or copper alloy (henceforth, the term “bronze” 

is used for any copper alloy), 276 of iron, 4 of lead, 2 of gold, and several beads and earrings made of silver (discussed in chapter 22). 

Of these, 444 were recognizable artifacts or fragments of artifacts. The rest were lumps and fragments for the most part too heavily 

corroded to ascertain if any were also from artifacts. Laboratory tests on various pieces revealed that in most cases, little or no metal 

survived beneath the corrosion. Thus, it should be noted that this report is somewhat lacking, as most of the objects were not cleaned 

or treated over the years. In particular, iron items are heavily corroded and often can be classified only in their general morphology, as 

more detail is unavailable. Therefore, most metal artifacts that came from questionable stratigraphic contexts are not discussed in the 

report as they are usually not indicative chronologically and culturally.

A selection of 101 items is illustrated and discussed in this chapter (Table 21.1). This material can be divided according to metal 

or according to type. A combination of these classifications is used here. All items are either copper alloy/bronze or iron except for one 

gold item and one lead item. In addition, several clay artifacts related to a metal industry were found, including crucible fragments and 

tuyères, which are discussed with the ceramic finds (Figure 19.11), and a limestone jeweler’s mold, which is discussed with the stone 

objects (Figure 23.8e). Large quantities of slag were found throughout the site, yet only some of it relates to metal industry; several iron 

slags are illustrated as well.

TYPOLOGY

Weapons

Bronze Spears

Three or four bronze spearheads were found, all from Field I, thus probably dating to the LBII; only one of these is complete 

(Figure 21.1a). This weapon is 12.5 cm long and has a long, narrow, leaf-shaped blade, with a 6-cm-wide flat rib, from which the 

blade thins slightly concavely to very sharp edges. The tip is bent as if from impact or from deliberate bending or “killing” of the spear, 

after it went out of use. The tang is straight, tapered, and square in section and is 3.5 cm long. LBII parallels come from Batash, Strata 

VII–VI (Yahalom-Mack, 2006b:199, photo 87) and Deir el-Balah (Dothan and Nahmias-Lotan, 2010c:186, fig. 15.2:1–3). Other large 

arrowheads or small spears measuring 8–9 cm long include Figure 21.1b–d. Figure 21.1b is almost complete, with a leaf-shaped blade 

that is mostly only 1 mm thick and tapers symmetrically to a fine, sharp point and to the base. The blade thickens to a faint central 

ridge on both sides and into a slight bulge at the base, beyond which is a diamond-sectioned, straight, tapered tang (2.5 cm long). 

The other two (Figure 21.1c,d) are quite similar in their type but less preserved; Figure 21.1c has also a bent blade. Parallels come, 

for example, from Batash, Strata VI–V (Yahalom-Mack, 2006b: photo 85e,f) and the Dan Mycenaean Tomb (Ben-Dov, 2002:124, fig. 

2.91:143).
NUMBER 50 • 877

TABLE 21.1. Selected metal items (sorted according to registry number). Bld = building.

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Period Figure

25 GM 1A (10) 7 Bronze sheet IV-4 Persian 21.4m

30 GM 1A (10) 7 Bronze sheet IV-4 Persian 21.4n

84 GM 2B (42) 2 Bronze piece IV-8 Room A*? Iron IIB 21.4o

97 GM 3B (9) Bronze piece/nail? IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC 21.4h

159 GMIII B F7 9 Bronze point III-12B Unit 8 LBII 21.3a

174 GMI 5D (7C) 2 Bronze point I-3 Street J LBII 21.3b

187 GMI 5D (7B) 2 Bronze point I-3 Street J LBII 21.3c

195 GMI 4D (4) 4 Bronze tool I-3 Street J LBII 21.3o

196 GMI 4D (4) Bronze point I-3 Room F? LBII 21.3d

202 GMI 4D (3) Folded bronze sheet I-3 Room F LBII 21.4j

249 GM 1A (1) 10 Iron hook IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.6d

268 GM 00A (1) 3 Iron nail(?) IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC 21.5n

274 GM 1A (3) 8 Iron nail, 8 cm IV-5 Bld I, Room B Iron IIC 21.5m

315 GM 2B (32) 1A Iron ball IV-5 Bld II, Room A Iron IIC 21.6g

317 GM 2B (35) 1A Iron piece/tool IV-5 Bld II, Room A Iron IIC 21.5i

321 GM 2B (35) 1A Iron nail IV-5 Bld II, Room B Iron IIC 21.5j

344 GM 3B (5) Iron slag IV-5 Iron IIC 21.6i

427 GMII A3 (5) Large iron nail(?) II-6 LBII 21.5l

rod?

451 943 GMIII A1 W1 Large complete iron III-3 Iron IIB-C 21.2b

arrowhead

459 183 GM 2B (12) Iron thick point IV-3? Persian? 21.5g

466 505 GM 00B TT1 (1A) Iron blade fragment Unknown 21.5d

467 83 GM 2C TT1 (1) 2 Iron hook IV-1? Crusader-Mamluk? 21.6e

468 715 GM 2C SBR P1 Iron sheet/point IV-1? Crusader-Mamluk? 21.6f

469 3016? GM 2D (5) Iron tool/hoe, handle IV-3 Granary Persian 21.5f

area

472 3015? GM 2D (9) Iron chisel IV-3 Granary Persian 21.5h

479 81 GM 2A (3) Iron sickle blade IV-2? Persian? 21.5a

481 18 GM 2B TT1 (2) Iron forked object IV-1 Mamluk 21.6b

482 178 GM 2B (7) Iron nail, complete, IV-1 Mamluk 21.5k

3.7 cm, head 1.7 cm

493 45 GM 1C P2 (6) Iron ring/fitting Unknown 21.6c

498 223 GM 2D TT3 (4) Bronze, small stand/ IV-3 Granary Persian 21.7d

buckle, cleaned, 

complete

500 327 GM 2A TT4 Bronze scale weight, IV-3? Persian? 21.7e

complete, cleaned, 

9.289 g

502 40 GM 2B TT1 (10) Bronze rivet with IV-3? Persian 21.4l

two holes

515 17? GM 1B (1) 1 Bronze narrow Topsoil 21.3s

spatula, complete

517 91 GM 2C TT1 (4) 2 Bronze spatula, Post IV-3 Persian 21.3t

complete

521 648 GM 1B NBR (8) Bronze spatula IV-3? Persian? 21.3q

522 84 GM 2C TT1 (4) 2 Bronze thick nail, IV-Post 3 Persian?

complete, 8.2 cm

528 65 GM 2B (13) Bronze pin with hook, IV-3? Persian? 21.4a

complete, cleaned

(continued)
878 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 21.1. (continued)

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Period Figure

547 39 GM 2C P3 (0) Bronze nail Topsoil 21.4e

548 116 GM 1D P1 (1) Bronze thick nail, IV-1 Crusader-Mamluk 21.4c

complete, crooked, 

13.5 cm

549 41 GM 1C P2 Bronze nail Unknown 21.4g

550 230A GM 2D (4) Bronze nail IV-3 Granary Persian 21.4d

551 945 GMIII A1 P1 Bronze nail III-1 Persian? 21.3v

553 330 GM 2D TT3 (3) Bronze small nail, IV-3 Granary Persian 21.4f

complete, cleaned, 

3.7 cm

555 44 GM 1C P2 (4) Bronze nail IV-1? Crusader-Mamluk 21.4i

597 120 GM 1B (10) 1 Bronze three-bladed IV-4?/5? Persian? 21.1f

arrowhead, complete, 

3.6 cm

601 206 GM 1B TT2 Bronze three-bladed Unknown 21.1g

arrowhead, complete, 

4.3 cm

602 206A GM 2B (26) Bronze three-bladed IV-4/5? Persian? 21.1l

arrowhead, complete, 

3.9 cm

603 102 GM 1C (3) Bronze three-bladed IV-2? Persian? 21.1h

arrowhead, complete, 

4.5 cm

605 46 GM 1B F3 Bronze three-bladed IV-1 Mamluk 21.1i

arrowhead, complete, 

3.4 cm, cleaned

607 16 GM 2C (3) Bronze three-bladed Unknown Unknown 21.1k

arrowhead, complete, 

4.1 cm

608 206B GM 0B (1) 1 Bronze three-bladed IV-3 Unit 1 Persian 21.1m

arrowhead, complete, 

3.2 cm

610 944 GMIII A1 P1 Bronze arrowhead, III-1? Persian? 21.1j

triangle section

610 944 GMIII A1 P1 Bronze three-bladed III-1 Persian?

arrowhead, complete

616 19 GM 1C (2) Lead vessel/lamp, IV-2? Persian? 21.7i

complete (inscribed?)

1010 169 GM 2A F14 1 Bronze three-bladed IV-5 Bld I, Room C Iron IIC 21.1n

arrowhead, complete, 

3.5 cm, cleaned, 

back points

1276 636 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A Iron elongated IV-5 Bld II, Room B Iron IIC 21.2k

arrowhead, complete

1278 GMII C1 (3) 2 Iron arrowhead, II-3? Iron IIB? 21.2d

square pointed section

1281 465 GM 0A (9) Iron elongated IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.2e

arrowhead

1282 468 GM 1A (1) 10 Iron long point IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.2f

1283 466 GM 0B (14) Room F Iron arrow/spearhead IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC 21.2g
NUMBER 50 • 879

1286 508 GM 3B (9) Iron spear point IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC 21.2h

1287/1284 660 GM 1B NBR (15a) Iron spear butt, IV-5 Bld I, Room A? Iron IIC 21.2c

complete

1288 731 GM 2A (30) Iron knife, rivets IV-7(B?) Outside Bld III Iron IIB 21.5b

1289 358 GM 1A TT11 (4) Iron fragment blade, IV-3? Persian? 21.5c

rivets

1292 440 GM 0A (9) Iron arrowhead, IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.2i

complete

1293 440 GM 0A (9) Iron blade fragment IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.5e

1296? 469? GM 1A (1) 10 Bronze object IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.7c

1303 661 GMI FIR (1) Gold foil, FUR 3 Kiln Iron IB 21.7h

1.3 × 0.3 × 00.3

1306 819 GM I 4D W5 Bronze spearhead/ I-1/3? LBII 21.1a

arrowhead with bent/

killed point

1307 1001 GMIII C2 P1 Bronze, complete III-18 MBII 21.1e

spear/spear butt

1308 901 GMI 4D (4) 4 Complete bronze I-3 Street J LBII 21.1b

arrowhead

1309 981 GMI FUR (8) 3 Bronze arrowhead/ FUR 3–4 Iron I 21.1c

spearhead, bent shaft

1310 654 GMI 6E (2) Bronze tool I-3/4? LBII 21.3e

1311 1106 GMI KB (22) 2 Bronze tool/spatula KB1 Iron IIB-C 21.3u

1312 651 GMI 6F (3) Bronze spatula/tool I-3/4? LBII 21.3r

1313 721 GM 2A F7 (4) Bronze pin with hook, IV-4?/5? Persian? 21.4b

complete, 4.6 cm

1316 653 GMI 6F (3) Complete bronze adze, I-3/4? LBII 21.3k

rectangular section, 

90° edge

1317 GMI 6E (1) Bronze adze edge, I-3 Area K? LBII 21.3l

square section

1318 991 GMI 3G (16) 2 Bronze axe I-6–7 LBII 21.3m

1320 652 GMI 6F (2) Bronze arrowhead I-3 Area K? LBII 21.1d

1322 751 GMI 5D (5) 1 Bronze point Topsoil 

1323 852 GMIII B (57) 4 Bronze point III-10 Room C LBII 21.3f

1324 GMI 4D (4) 3 Bronze point I-3 Room F LBII 21.3g

1326 GMIII A2 (18) Bronze point III-6 Iron I 21.3h

1327 GMI 5F (1) Bronze point Unknown 21.3i

1329 850 GMI 5H (1) 6 Bronze tool I-3 Room N LBII 21.3n

1330 637 GM 2B NBR (31) 2A Bronze three-bladed IV-5 Bld II, Room B Iron IIC 21.1o

arrowhead, complete

1331 204 GMI 4F (1) Complete bronze I-1? LBII? 21.1p

arrowhead (intrusive?)

1332 429 GMI 5F (3) Bronze lump, possibly Unknown 21.7g

corroded figurine

1355 463 GM 0A (9) Bronze spoon/small IV-5 Bld I, Room E Iron IIC 21.7b

shallow bowl

1944 709 GMII A2-C2 BR (3) Bronze bull’s-head II-3? Iron IIB? 21.7f

weight

TABLE 21.1. (continued)

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Period Figure

(continued)
880 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

1945 GM 3B south side Bronze bowl with ladle Topsoil 21.7a

of saddle handle(?), 14 cm 

diameter

2026 GM 00A (1) 3 Bronze piece, textile IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC 21.4k

remains

2097 GM 2A (11) Iron arrowhead IV-3? Persian? 21.2j

2123 GMIII C1 (67)-(70) Bronze point with III-14 LBI/MBII 21.3j

attached charcoal

2126 GMIII F2 (16) Bronze tool/cosmetic III-17 MBII 21.3p

spatula, 4.7 cm 

rounded section

2128 GMIII C1 (81) Thin bronze sheet III-16 MBII 21.4p

2287 GM (+) Iron large spearhead, Topsoil 21.2a

complete

SCI 833 GM 1B NBR F16 Iron slag (bloom?) Unknown 21.6h

SCI 1569 GM 3B (5) 1 Iron slag (bloom?) IV-5 Iron IIC 21.6i

SCI 1611 GM 2B (1) 7 Iron slag (bloom?) Unknown 21.6j

TABLE 21.1. (continued)

Reg. No. SI Cat. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Period Figure

FIGURE 21.1. Bronze spearheads and arrowheads.
NUMBER 50 • 881

Rice, 1957:75; Tel Michal, Muhly and Muhly, 1989:269), or 

three-winged I ratio Scythian (e.g., Stern, 1982:154, Types 1B1 

and II). Many examples come from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 

1928: pl. XXIX:13–22). Other parallels come, for example, 

from Samaria (Crowfoot et al., 1957: fig. 111:19, made of iron), 

‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1932: pl. XVI:111,112), Megiddo, Stratum III 

(Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 80:27), Tell el-Hesi (Rose and 

Toombs, 1976: pl. V:Al, Persian period), Tel Michal (Muhly and 

Muhly, 1989: fig. 25.1:1–19), ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 2007:179, fig. 

4.10.3.1, right), Kadesh Barnea, mixed contexts (Gera, 2007: 

fig. 13.6:25,26,30, pl. 16.6:25,36), and Batash topsoil (Mazar 

and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:223, photo 152, and reference therein). 

Muhly and Muhly (1989:269–271) discuss those from the 

Persian level at Tel Michal, with chemical analyses indicating 

they contain a high amount of lead, up to 50% or more, and 

Stronach (1978:180–183,218–219) relates their history in Iran, 

citing the earliest well-stratified examples as being from the late 

7th century BCE and their continued use until the beginning 

of the 2nd century BCE (and as late as Middle Ages in Iran). 

He mentions the finding of 3,500 arrowheads of this type at 

Persepolis. The abundance of these arrowheads, probably most 

coming from the Persian period phases, may reflect the presence 

or influence of Persian troops at Tell Jemmeh, as Petrie (1928:8–

9) suggested that the site was a garrison on the road to Egypt.

Iron Spears and Arrowheads

Arrowheads

Quite a few examples of iron arrowheads/spearheads come 

from the Iron IIC buildings in Field IV. Possibly, this may indicate 

further the administrative nature of these buildings. A complete 

very large iron spearhead comes from the topsoil (Figure 21.2a). 

It is 26.5 cm long and 5.5 cm wide, with a sharp point, a central 

rib, and an 8-cm-long socket with an approximately 3 cm 

maximum diameter. One side of the socket is missing; otherwise, 

the spearhead is complete (see similar LBII socketed spearheads 

made of bronze from Batash, Stratum VII, Yahalom-Mack, 

2006b:199, photo 86). A very similar example from the Iron 

Age comes from late Iron Age Kabri (Shalev, 2002: fig. 8.5:9; see 

also Tell Jemmeh, Petrie, 1928: pl. XXVIII, lower left). 

In addition, several large arrowhead or spearheads from iron 

are illustrated (Figure 21.2b,d–k). Altogether, 23 whole or partial 

iron arrowheads were recovered. Several items come from good 

Iron IIC contexts in Field IV, Buildings I and II (e.g., Figure 21.2g 

from Building I, Room F and Figure 21.2e,i from Room E). These 

are mostly of elongated forms, 7.1–8.7 cm in length (Figure 21.2k 

is especially elongated; Figure 21.2b is almost complete and is 10.8 

cm long), with leaf-shaped blades and solid and square-sectioned 

blades and tangs; this was a spear or javelin head, although light 

in weight. Several smaller examples (Figure 21.2d,j) are also illustrated. A nearly complete arrowhead (Figure 21.2h) is 7.1 cm 

long and has a small leaf-shaped blade with a sharp point; at the 

base end it thickens into a round-sectioned tapering tang that is 3 

cm long, with traces of wood attached. Similar leaf-shaped arrowheads were published by Petrie (1928: pls. XXVIII [spears with 

Spear Butt(?)

One complete blade with a socket (Figure 21.1e) was also 

found: it is either a single-point spear butt (the lower part of 

the spear pointed to be stuck on the ground) or a different type 

of spearhead. The object was found in Field III in the lowest 

MBII phase, Phase 18 (in Pit 1 of Square C2; there might have 

been some mixture with later phases). It is 8.8 cm long and 

has a 4.1-cm-long flat triangular blade, with a central rib and 

rounded point, extending from a long, tapered, tubular socket, 

open for about half its length on one side. Near the base end 

are small holes for nailing the object to a shaft. A somewhat 

similar bronze spear butt was found in Tel Miqne, Stratum VB 

(Ben-Shlomo, 2006c:193, fig. 5.2:4) and possibly from Petrie’s 

excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIII:14). Similar spear butts 

made of iron were found in Iron II contexts at Tell Jemmeh (see 

Figure 21.2c; Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXII:25) and Tell el-Far’ah (N), 

Stratum VIIb (Chambon, 1984: pl. 69:1). Such single-pointed 

conical spear butts fit the biblical description of Abner killing 

‘Asael by striking him with the back of a spear in 2 Samuel 2:23 

(see also Dothan, 1976, on forked spear butts). Ben-Dov (2011b: 

fig. 8:10,11) defines somewhat similar points from LBII–Iron I 

Dan as plough points.

Three-Bladed Bronze Arrowheads

A large group of bronze arrowheads, many complete (Figure 

21.1f–p), were found in the late phases of the Iron II and Persian 

period: 20 complete or nearly complete bronze arrowheads and 

3 fragments were recovered. Of these, 17 complete arrowheads 

and 1 fragment are of the three-bladed type, consisting of three 

leaf or triangular-shaped blades around a tapering, tubular 

socket, into which the wooden arrow shaft would fit (Figure 

21.1f–p). These arrowheads are identified by their three blades, 

which are at about 120° angles. Their size and proportions vary 

slightly; generally, they are 3.2–4.5 cm long altogether. Almost 

all items come from the Iron IIC, Persian period, or unstratified 

contexts (Field III, Phases 3–1 and Field IV, Phases 2–5); two 

come from Field IV, Phase 5 (the Iron IIC): one from Room C in 

Building I (Figure 21.1n) and one (Figure 21.1o) from Room B 

in Building II. Another item (Figure 21.1p), which comes from 

Field I with a possible Phase 1 context, is probably an intrusive 

object.

As noted, the proportions vary, and possibly, two main 

subtypes can be defined: (1) short, with broad blades and the 

socket terminating at the base of the blades, and (2) longer, 

usually more slender, with the socket extending beyond the 

base of the blades. There are variations within these types as 

to size and blade shape and, in type 2, the length of the socket. 

There is a single example (Figure 21.1n) that has curving blades 

ending in barbs, i.e., backward-projecting points, with the socket 

extending beyond the blades.

The design of these arrowheads, common during the final 

Iron IIB-C and the Persian period, is generally identified as being 

of Scythian origin (Tufnell, 1953:386) and is also described as 

trilobate (Stronach, 1978:180, from Pasargadae), trefoil (Talbot 
882 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

consist of a pointed folded sheet of clay and may be spear butts 

or points of tools or weapons; they are conical but appear in different sizes, from 5.3 to 11 cm in length. 

Tools

Bronze Tools

The general category of tools includes nonweaponry objects 

such as points, working tools, blades, spatulas, nails, pins, 

needles, and other objects.

Bronze Points

Ten bronze points are illustrated (Figure 21.3a–j,n); about 

six come from LBII contexts (Fields I, III), and two are from 

Street J (Figure 21.3b,c), where other metallurgical artifacts were 

found. Generally, these items are 2–6 cm long (Figure 21.3h is 

somewhat larger; Figure 21.3v is possibly a nail) and are thinner 

square-sectioned blade], XXIX:24–41 [smaller arrowheads]) and 

were also found at Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:221), 

Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre, 2000:129, fig. III.108), and Ashdod, Strata IX–VIII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:215, fig. 

3.97:5,6). Figure 21.2i might have been of a different type, a hollow two-bladed arrowhead (see, e.g., Petrie, 1928: pl. XXIX:1–

10), but is too corroded to be certain.

Spear Butts

One complete iron spear butt (Figure 21.2c) comes from 

the fill above Room A in Building I (Iron IIC). It is quite long, 

13.8 cm, and parts of the wooden shaft were preserved in the 

socket. See above for this type of object made of bronze. Iron 

spear butts, or “spikes,” come also, for example, from Hazor, 

Stratum IV (Yadin et al., 1960: pl. CVI:3) and Tel Michal, Strata 

IX–VII (Muhly and Muhly, 1989:272, fig. 25.2:42–44). Otherwise, there are at least four complete objects of iron from poor 

contexts (Reg. Nos. 460, 461, 462, 463, not illustrated), which 

FIGURE 21.2. Iron spear and arrowheads.
NUMBER 50 • 883

a small spoon or flat piece attached to one end; they could have 

been used to mix up or measure small quantities of powders or 

liquids. These could be defined also as cosmetic sticks for application of makeup to the face. Most are from Persian period 

contexts or are unstratified. Two examples are more complete 

(Figure 21.3s,t; 13.2–14.8 cm long) and only remains of the 

spoon were preserved. For similar bronze spatulas or cosmetic 

sticks, see, e.g., Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXIX:4–6), Tel 

‘Ira (Goldsmith et al., 1999: fig. 14.16:1–4), Megiddo, Strata 

I–III (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 85:14–18), and Tel Michal, Persian period levels (Muhly and Muhly, 1989:290, fig. 

25.14:283–299). Another wider item (Figure 21.3u; 7.5 cm long 

and 2.1 cm wide) is possibly a long spoon (the object is highly 

corroded), perhaps from a spatula, or a small blade.

Bronze Pins and Needles

Several bronze pins or needles are illustrated (Figure 

21.2a,b), most of which are short. A complete example (Figure 

21.2a, Persian period context?) has a length of 5.2 cm, one 

crooked end (the end is bent to a small hook shape but not 

a closed loop like typical sewing needles), and one pointed 

end; another complete, yet corroded, example (Figure 21.5b) 

has a length of 4.6 cm. Similar pin or needles, with one side 

partly crooked, were published by Petrie (1928: pl. XXIV:11–

36) as well as from Aphek (Yahalom-Mack and Shalev, 2009: 

fig. 13.8). These needles appear at Tell Jemmeh mostly in 

Persian period contexts but generally are not chronologically 

indicative.

Bronze Nails

Several bronze nails are illustrated (Figure 21.4c–i) and are 

of various shapes and sizes. Several examples are rather short, 

3.4–4.3 cm, and have a relatively wide cap head (Figure 21.4c–f; 

than arrowheads. Thus, they are defined as points, probably attached to a small wooden shaft or handle, and were used as tools 

for various purposes (for bronze drill points, see, e.g., YahalomMack and Shalev, 2009:431, fig. 13.9). 

Adzes

Two bronze adzes are illustrated (Figure 21.3k,l), both from 

LBII contexts in Field I. The more complete example (Figure 

21.3k), which is 8.8 cm long, has a rectangular section and an edge 

tilted 90°; one square end is slightly bent and battered from use 

and is possibly wider than the other end. The sides curve in gently 

to a point. For similar adzes or chisels, see Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 

1928: pl. XXIII:3–5; see also Petrie, 1917:19, “bare chisels,” and 

pl. XXI:15), Tel Michal, Stratum VI (Muhly and Muhly, 1989: fig. 

25.4:79), Deir el-Balah (Dothan and Nahmias-Lotan, 2010c:188, 

fig. 15.2:9–13), Batash, Stratum VII (Yahalom-Mack, 2006b:200, 

photo 88), and Tel Miqne, Stratum VIII (Ben-Shlomo, 2006c:194, 

fig. 5.3:2). Figure 21.3o is possibly also a fragment of a similar 

tool as it has a similar rectangular cross section.

Axe

A corroded axe fragment was also found in the LBII Field 

I, Square 3G probe (Figure 21.3m, a 3.5 × 5 cm fragment); it 

is thickest at the wider end, tapering to a slightly curved, blunt 

blade. On one side, at the wider end, another piece of bronze 

that is 3.4 cm wide and 2.8 cm long, lying obliquely across the 

wedge, was joined to it by corrosion. This was probably a small 

axe (see, e.g., Megiddo, Stratum VIIA, Loud, 1948: pl. 182:12).

Spatulas

Six spatulas are illustrated (Figure 21.3p–t, possibly Figure 

21.3u). These are thin bronze rods with a rounded section and 

FIGURE 21.3. Various bronze tools.
884 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Iron Tools

The iron tools found are somewhat different from the 

bronze ones as different types predominate. There are no pins, 

spatulas, or delicate points and few nails but knife blades and 

hooks appear; adzes also appear.

Iron Blades

At least four iron knife blades are of the slightly curved 

type (Figure 21.5b–e).<FIG21.5> One nearly complete knife (in 

several fragments, however) comes from the Iron IIB-C, Field 

IV, Building III, Phase 7 (Figure 21.5b), would have been at 

least 20 cm long, and is slightly curved, with the tip of the blade 

truncated (straightening). The other examples are fragmentary 

but are probably of the same type. This is a typical Iron Age knife 

type, appearing sometimes with bronze rivets (“bimetallic”), and 

during the Iron I some examples have pommel-shaped ivory 

handles (see Ben-Shlomo and Dothan, 2006); several examples 

from Tell Jemmeh were published by Petrie (1928: pls. XXX:18, 

XXXI:45,56). Other parallels come, e.g., from Tell Far’ah (S) 

(Petrie, 1930: pls. XXI:96, XXIV:T.562) and Hazor (Yadin et al., 

1961: pl. CLXXIV:28). A similar bimetallic knife comes from a 

burial at Ashdod, Area H, Stratum X (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 

2005:187, fig. 3.81:1) as well as from an Iron IIA burial at Azor 

(Ben-Shlomo, 2008a:47, fig. 21:2, 2012a: Tomb D79). This type 

of knife was connected to the Philistines during the Iron I (e.g., 

Dothan, 1989), whereas during the Iron II it becomes a generally 

common knife type in the Levant. 

especially, Figure 21.4f has a wide domed head). Any items from 

stratified contexts are from the Persian period or later. A large 

complete example (Figure 21.4c) is 13.5 cm long and was bent 

90° in its lower part; the top cap part was well preserved. Possibly, this nail dates to the Crusader-Mamluk period (it was found 

in a Field IV, Phase 1 pit; see Persian period parallels for bronze 

nails at Tel Michal, Muhly and Muhly, 1989: figs. 25.5, 25.6). 

Another nearly complete nail from the topsoil (Figure 21.4e) is 

curved and quite long at 9 cm.

Bronze Sheets

Several flat pieces of bronze were defined as bronze sheets 

(Figure 21.4j–p), but their shape is often difficult to ascertain 

because of corrosion and fragmentary preservation, and thus 

their function usually remains unclear. One fragmentary item 

from Field I (LBII, Figure 21.4j) has a triangular shape, which was 

created by folding the sheet, maybe like a tail of a bird; two other 

examples (dated to Field IV, Phase 4, Persian period) are more 

square (Figure 21.4m,n), whereas three others (Figure 21.4k,o,p; 

Figure 21.4k from Building I, Room F, Iron IIC, has remains of 

textile on it) are rather amorphous. Figure 21.4l (Persian period 

context) is possibly of a different nature; this roughly rectangular 

sheet is 3.5 cm long, flattened, and has two holes in the middle of 

each side. This could have been a rivet or armor scale attached 

to a garment through the holes. See, possibly, Petrie (1928: pl. 

XXIX:69) and other sites such as Hazor, Stratum VI (Yadin et 

al., 1961: pl. CLXXXVIII:23) and Aphek (Yahalom-Mack and 

Shalev, 2009: fig. 13.4).

FIGURE 21.4. Bronze pins, needles, nails, and sheets.
NUMBER 50 • 885

Thick Point

A thick heavy point (Figure 21.5g, Persian period?) that is 

8.3 cm long with a rounded point and large tang is also illustrated. This item seems too heavy for an arrowhead and thus was 

possibly a point of an agricultural tool such as a hoe.

Iron Nails

Several iron nails are illustrated (Figure 21.5j–n); they are 

of various shapes and sizes, but most are heavily corroded. One 

example (Figure 21.5k, from a Crusader-Mamluk pit context) is 

nearly complete, 3.6 cm long, with a square section, short shaft, 

tapering to a point (missing), and a large, round, flat head (see 

similar bronze nails above and also Byzantine Jemmeh, Schaefer, 

1989: fig. 12:8); other similar iron nails and points from the 

Byzantine-Islamic period were also found near Tell Jemmeh 

(Schaefer, 1989: fig. 12:3–17).

Other Iron Objects

A group of large iron objects (denoted as CAL4805, Figure 

21.6a) from an unclear context is probably agricultural tools 

from a late period. A large iron object in two parts (Figure 21.6b) 

has a solid round to oval shaft (1.9 cm wide, 1.3 cm thick) that 

tapers slightly and is broken at the upper end and forks at the 

lower end. The other part (6 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, and 0.5 cm 

thick) is twisted. This item, found in a Crusader-Mamluk context, 

may have been an “elbow key” (see, e.g., Tal Anafa, dated to 

A different type of blade (Figure 21.5a) is more curved, 

crescent shaped, and 14.2 cm long; this is probably a sickle 

blade, and it comes from possibly a Persian period context. 

Similar iron sickles were found at Ashdod, Stratum VI (Dothan 

and Ben-Shlomo, 2005:224, fig. 3.105:1), Tel Michal, Stratum 

XIII (Muhly and Muhly, 1989:274, fig. 25.4:64), Batash, Stratum I (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:214, 219, photo 147, 

and more discussion and references therein), Lachish (Aharoni, 

1975:82, pl. 38:1, 2), Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre, 2000: fig. 

III.118:1–5), Beer-Sheba, Stratum VI (Herzog, 1984: fig. 31:1,2) 

and Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 82).

Another thicker example of a thick curved tang and the 

beginning of a blade (Figure 21.5f, found in Field IV, Phase 3, 

granary) may also belong to a large sickle blade or another type 

agricultural tool (see Batash, Stratum II, Mazar and PanitzCohen, 2001:216, photo 150; possibly Jemmeh, Byzantine 

period, Schaefer, 1989: fig. 12:2).

Adzes

Two adzes or chisels made of iron are illustrated (Figure 

21.5h,i). The more complete one (Figure 21.5h, Persian 

period?) is 9 cm long, with a rectangular section, flattened 

at one end into a wider, square-ended blade. The shaft tapers 

slightly near the upper end, which is bent and flattened by 

use (maybe from striking by hammer or mallet). See Tell 

Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXII:34) and Batash, Stratum III 

(Mazar and Panitz-Cohen, 2001:213, 220, photo 145) for iron 

chisels.

FIGURE 21.5. Iron blades and tools.
886 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

fig. 5.10.1.1, 7th century BCE, with more references for Persian 

Period metals bowls therein; see also Tel Michal, Stratum XI/VI, 

Muhly and Muhly, 1989:282, fig. 25.9:162, handle in no. 163). 

Miniature Stand/Buckle(?)

A complete bronze object (Figure 21.7d, Persian period 

context) is a miniature four-legged stand measuring 2.9 cm in 

diameter and 1.3 cm high; the object was cleaned. Three of the 

pointed legs were preserved, and the upper part is a round, narrow, 

flat ring (inner diameter 1.9 cm). Maybe it supported a very small 

vessel or tool. Somewhat similar items from Tel Anafa (PersianHellenistic, Merker, 2012:262–263, pl. 42:M205) and Tel Michal 

(unstratified, Muhly and Muhly, 1989:294, fig. 25.16:327) were 

identified as fragments of a horse buckle or cheekpiece. 

Scale Weight(?)

A complete object made of bronze (Figure 21.7e; weight 

[cleaned] of 9.29 g; Persian period?) seems to be a scale weight; 

it was found in a possible Phase 3 context. The lower part is 

completely flat and the upper part is domed. There are visible 

signs on the surface, but their meaning is not clear. Similar scale 

weights made of stone or hematite were used in the Iron Age 

Levant (see chapter 23, Figure 23.5), but such bronze weights 

are not common. 

Bull-Head Bronze Weight

Of the few exceptional metal items from Tell Jemmeh, the 

finest is probably the bronze bull weight from Field II (Figure 

the Roman period, Merker, 2012:237, pl. 16:M82,M82a, with 

more parallels therein) or may have possibly been used for branding camels. Other selected iron objects illustrated include a ball 

(Figure 21.6g), a fragment of a hook (Figure 21.6e), a thick ring 

(Figure 21.6c), a fragmentary thinner ring (Figure 21.6d), and a 

sheet (Figure 21.6f), which was possibly modeled to a point. 

Several iron slags or blooms are illustrated (Figure 21.6h–j). 

In fact, these are chunks of iron ore after they were heated until 

the siliceous materials were melted out, and only the iron is left. 

However, these were not found in large quantities or in relation to other metallurgic elements, and thus, their significance 

is limited, but they indicate certain iron metallurgy took place 

at the site. One comes from Phase 5 and two are from unclear 

(Persian?) contexts in Field IV.

Various Bronze Objects

Bowls

Bronze bowls include two fragmentary examples (Figure 

21.7b–c) of rather small (5–7 cm in diameter), open, thin-walled 

bowls with simple rims and probably with a flat or slightly 

rounded base. The smaller one (Figure 21.7c) may be a balance 

pan/bowl. In Square 3B topsoil (Figure 21.7a) several fragments 

of a larger bronze bowl were found. Its shape was probably 

narrower on the bottom and wide in the upper part (14 cm 

maximum diameter), maybe similar to that of strainer bowls; 

a hooked handle found together with the bowl could have been 

a ladle handle of the bowl. Possible parallels come from LB–

Iron I Megiddo, Stratum VI (a strainer bowl with a high handle; 

Loud, 1948: pl. 190:15) and ‘Ein Gedi (Stern, 2007:264–265, 

FIGURE 21.6. Various iron items and iron bloom.
NUMBER 50 • 887

This is a well-executed naturalistic depiction of a bull head 

that was clearly used as a scale weight. This weight probably 

weighs a “Philistine shekel” (weighing 14.32 grams on average; 

see Tal, 2007:24, table 1) or a “Phoenician shekel” (see, e.g., 

Kletter, 1994). Weights in the shape of bull’s heads are known 

mostly from collections (see, e.g., Hendin, 2007: no. 155 [17.78 

gr], no. 161 [9.4 gr], no. 163 [8.6 gr], no. 168 [8.04 gr], no. 

180 [3.36]gr; Deutsch, 2004:16, no. 42) and are dated usually 

to the 14th–12th centuries BCE in Egypt, the Aegean, and the 

Levant (e.g., Petrie, 1926:6, pl. IX, fourth row, right; Meshorer, 

1998:23, no. 13, weighing 17.85 g, or two shekels). Some of 

these are Egyptian qedet weights weighing about 9.2–9.3 g (see 

also Levine et al., 2011:154–156). However, these objects are 

very rarely found in archaeological excavations. Somewhat differently styled bull’s-head weights come from Kalavassos AyiosDimitrios (Todd, 1985:42, top left figure, bottom left; South, 

21.7f; Van Beek, 1993a:670). The weight found in a Field II, 

Iron II context is a whole solid bull’s head, with well-preserved 

molded features and details. The horns curl up and forward, 

then curl back to the tips. The ears and eyes are prominent. 

The facial details are naturalistically and carefully depicted. The 

horns are high, pointed and slightly curved, and there is a ridge 

on the forehead between the horns. The eyes and outstretched 

ears are rather detailed, with incisions marking the eye lids and 

inner ear. The snout shows the nostrils and mouth. A tine bundle of fiber that was attached under the left horn was examined 

(CAL Nos. 1981, 3424, National Museum of Natural History 

conservation report) and may have been flax. As part of a flax 

string survived, positioned around the forehead and below the 

horns, the head could have been worn or carried with a string. 

The underside is flat and well polished. Cleaned and conserved, 

its weight is 14.60 g. 

FIGURE 21.7. Various metal items.
888 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

lead objects are rare in the periods attested at the site (another 

lead item is a lead earring; see chapter 22, Figure 22.1b). 

Other than that, only a few gold foils from the Field I FUR 

Iron I kiln were found (Figure 21.7h, a tiny irregular folded gold 

strip that would be approximately 3.4 cm long if unfolded); 

also, Reg. No. 615 from Field IV, Square 1A, Layer 10, Locus 

7 is a slightly curved fragment of fold wire, tapering to a point 

at one end. 

DISCUSSION

The metal assemblage from Tell Jemmeh is predominantly 

bronze and iron, roughly of similar quantities. Nonjewelry items 

include many weapons, especially arrowheads and a few spears 

appearing mostly during the late Iron Age and Persian periods. 

This could be related to the administrative nature of the Phase 

5 structures in Field IV or, more likely, to the Persian period 

activities. Only a few items date to the MBII. Otherwise, bronze 

and iron tools are common finds in Bronze and Iron Age Levantine 

sites, with iron appearing mostly during the Iron IIA and onward. 

Bronze continued to be used during the Iron Age and the Persian 

period for certain objects such as spatulas and bowls. Several 

classes of objects are more typical of specific periods such as the 

bronze spears and cutting tools from the LBII (points, adzes, 

axes) and the bronze three-bladed arrowheads and spatulas from 

the Persian period. Some special items, mostly Iron Age or later, 

include a bowl, a scale weight, and a bull’s-head weight. 

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo and Ron Gardiner, Department of Anthropology, 

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 

37012, MRC 112, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: 

davben187@yahoo.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 

September 2013.

2012:38, fig. 5.2); see also Tell el-Amarna (Petrie, 1894: pl. 

XIII:6) and Hala Sultan Tekke (Fischer, 2011: fig 16). These 

weights are dated to the late second millennium BCE. 

Bronze weights in the shape of full-bodied bulls are known 

in the LBII at Megiddo, depicting a standing or crouching bull 

(May, 1935: pl. XXXIV:M3070,M2326,M3032; possibly Strata 

VII and VI, Loud, 1948: pl. 240:3,5, a bull or a lion crouching), 

Akko, the Persian Garden (Eran and Edelstein, 1977:57–58, fig. 

25:24, pl. XX:38), Kalavassos Ayios-Dimitrios (Todd, 1985:42), 

and the Uluburun shipwreck (together with other zoomorphic 

bronze weights, Pulak, 1988:30–31, fig. 37); see also Petrie 

(1926: pl. IX: fourth row). Recently, an example of a bronze 

weight in the shape of a crouching zebu bull was published from 

Beth Shemesh (Levine et al., 2011; see pp. 152–154 for parallels); 

it was dated there to the LBII or Iron Age I. It is a hollow weight 

weighing 48.45 g. Later examples from Ashkelon are dated to the 

7th century BCE (Stager, 1996:69*) and the Persian-Hellenistic 

period (Iliffe, 1936:68, pl. 34:4–14; Kletter, 1994; Tal, 2007:21). 

The weight in the shape of a bull’s head possibly represents 

a later Iron II version of the same concept of the bull-shaped 

weight, also fitting its weight according to the Philistia shekel 

during the Late Iron Age and Persian period (see Tal, 2007). The 

depiction of a bull and a bull’s head on scale or balance weights 

is probably also related to the cultural, economic, and religious 

value of bulls in the ancient Near East; possibly, the bull’s head 

symbolically represented the value of a bull (in silver?).

Another piece (Figure 21.7g) is possibly the head of a bronze 

figurine but is very corroded and difficult to identify.

Lead and Gold Items

A complete object made of lead (Figure 21.7i, Persian 

period?) is a sheet with its outer part pinched and raised, similar 

to the shape of a lamp. There might be incised marks on the 

inside of the object (possibly these are Hebrew letters, possibly a 

ו and then a ה or aי and possibly a third letter). The nature of this 

object, possibly from Field IV, Phase 2, is not clear. Generally, 
22 Metallic and Nonmetallic 

Jewelry Objects

Amir Golani

A total of 322 jewelry objects were recovered from during the 1970–1990 excavation seasons. The jewelry objects include earrings 

(22), small and large rings (22), pendants (11), and beads (267). In addition, 12 fibulae and fibulae fragments are also included in 

this report. Previous excavations of the site conducted by Petrie (1928) have also uncovered a large number of jewelry objects. Where 

relevant, those are also referred to in this report.

METHODOLOGY

Table 22.1 presents the basic information for all the objects and is arranged according to their type. The typological framework 

employed in this report is based on that developed by the author (Golani, 1996a, 2009) and has been used in jewelry studies of the 

same periods found at Tell Jemmeh (see Golani, 2004; Golani and Ben-Shlomo, 2005). As this scheme is being continuously refined 

and updated (cf. Golani, 2009), the present report includes some typological designations not found in previous publications. Although 

referred to in this report, Beck’s (1928) commonly used apparatus for the classification of beads and pendants has not been employed 

here as it is based entirely on form. The present typology distinguishes beads and pendants initially by material and subsequently by 

form. Figures 22.1–22.5 illustrate at least one exemplar of each type. 

Identification of the materials used in the manufacture of the jewelry was based on the naked eye alone. Measurements are 

presented as height × length × width; the first measurement in beads is that of the stringing axis; in pendants it is that of the suspension 

length. If more than one object of the same type was recorded as originating in the same basket during excavation, the number of such 

items (usually beads) is given in parentheses after the designation of condition. In such cases, the measurements given represent the size 

of an average item from the group of that type.

CONTEXT

In the archaeological record, jewelry will always be represented in an incomplete manner as its survival is dependent on the 

materials from which it was made and the degree to which these materials deteriorate within their depositional environment. In addition, 

its representation in the archaeological record is also dependent on the excavation methods themselves (i.e., sieving) and the context 

in which it was found, i.e., closed contexts versus open contexts that are chance finds. Closed contexts such as tombs, hoards, and 

foundation deposits are one of the richest sources, whereas jewelry items from open contexts within occupational strata of settlements 

are more sporadic. 

Jewelry items are small and mobile and may be found in a wide variety of archaeological contexts. At an archaeological mound 

such as Tell Jemmeh, jewelry may originate from topsoil, fills, debris buildup, destruction debris, pits, foundation trenches, robber 

trenches, walls, and floors. The reasons why small objects find their way into such contexts are because they were either accidentally 

lost in the past or were detached from their original context by postdepositional processes. In contrast to closed-context assemblages 

that reflect a purposeful selection of items, the random variety of isolated finds may be the best, although rather vague, reflection of the 

kinds of jewelry worn on a day-to-day basis in the past.

The precise stratigraphic attribution of small objects such as jewelry is often difficult, as small objects tend to be more “mobile” 

than larger artifacts and therefore are more likely to be displaced from their original context by natural phenomena or man-made 
890 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 22.1. Jewelry and beads from Tell Jemmeh. Architectural Reg. Subtype Dimensions context/ Area No. Object Type definition Fig. Material Condition (cm) Provenance locus type Phase Period Comments 1361 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 1.0 × 2.0 × 0.5 GM (+) Topsoil Corroded solid lunate 1360 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 1.1 × 1.9 × 0.4 GM (+) Topsoil Corroded solid lunate 1344 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Whole 2.4 × 2.1 × 0.3 GMIII B (+) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 848 solid lunate 1363 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 2.1 × 1.6 × 0.2 GMIII A2 (12) Fill III-4–5 Mixed SI Cat. No. 988 solid lunate 1340 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.9 × 1.7 × 0.4 GM 0A 10 (+) Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 527 solid lunate 582 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Whole 1.6 × 1.4 × 0.3 GM 2C) Unclear Unknown Unclear Corroded solid lunate NBR (6 1337 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.8 × 1.7 × 0.4 GMII C TT1 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 378 solid lunate 106 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.9 × 1.4 × 0.4 GM 0B P2 (2) Pit IV-4? Persian? Corroded solid lunate 15 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.7 × 1.6 × 0.5 GM 1A TT7 (1) Unclear IV-4? Persian? Corroded solid lunate 578 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 1.6 × 1.3 × 0.5 GM 1D TT2(4) Unclear IV-2? Persian? Corroded solid lunate 577 Earring, I.1 Small, plain 22.1a Copper alloy Partial 1.3 × 1.3 × 0.5 GM 1C (8) 4 Fill IV-3 Persian SI Cat. No. 126, solid lunate corroded 

1338 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.8 × 1.1 × 0.3 GM 2A F12 (4) Wall IV-4 Persian SI Cat. No. 410, 

solid lunate corroded

1343 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 0.8 × 1.4 × 0.4 GM 1A (1) 10 Possibly IV-5 Iron IIC? Corroded

solid lunate Building I, 

Room A

1342 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 1.1 × 1.5 × 0.4 GM 1A (2) 10 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC SI Cat. No. 464,

solid lunate Room E corroded

1339 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Whole 1.3 × 1.1 × 0.4 GM 2B Building II, IV-5 Iron IIC SI Cat. No. 325,

solid lunate TT3 (5) 2 Room A corroded

169 Earring, I.1 Small, plain Copper alloy Partial 1.6 × 1.4 × 0.4 GMIII A2 Fill III-6 Iron IB Corroded

solid lunate (16) 1

1946 Earring, I.1 Small, plain 22.1b Silver? Lead? Whole 1.7 × 1.3 × 0.2 GMI 4D Room 2 I-1 LBII SI Cat. No. 744, 

solid lunate (3)(‘76) corroded 

583 Earring, I.1a Small, plain 22.1c Copper alloy Whole 2.5 × 1.5 × 0.4 GM 1B (8) 1 Fill IV-3? Persian SI Cat. No. 143,

solid lunate with elongated corroded

hoop

1304 Earring, I.3a Small, plain 22.1d Silver Partial 1.5 × 1.2 × 0.3 GM 2B (36) 3 Building II IV-6 Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 704,

solid lunate with short hoop with wound wire

and decorated on lunate and 

on both sides of hoop

580 Earring, I.6a Multiple 22.1e Copper alloy Partial 1.0 × 1.5 × 0.5 GM 1A Topsoil SI Cat. No. 40,

solid lunate lobed sling TT11 (0) corroded
NUMBER 50 • 891

579 Earring, II.2 With solid 22.1f Copper alloy Whole 1.3 × 1.1 × 0.4 GM 1C TT1 (1) Unclear IV-2? Persian? SI Cat. No. 142,

solid lunate or hollow corrodedwith fixed globularattachment attachment

1336 Earring, II.2 With solid 22.1g Silver? Partial 1.6 × 1.7 × 1.1 GM + Topsoil Corroded

solid lunate or hollowwith fixed globular attachment attachment

581 Ring, small I.1 Open-ended 22.1h Copper alloy Whole 1.6 × 1.5 × 0.5 GM 2C WBR Unclear Unknown Unclear Very corroded

annular, plain (4) 2

592 Ring, small I.1 Open-ended Copper alloy Whole 1.8 × 1.5 × 0.5 GM 2A (+) Topsoil Corroded

annular, plain

593 Ring, small I.1 Open-ended Copper alloy Whole 1.9 × 1.7 × 0.5 GM 1D (1) 1 Topsoil SI Cat. No. 127,

annular, plain corroded 

596 Ring, small I.1 Open-ended 22.1i Copper alloy Whole 1.3 × 1.3 × 0.2 GM 2C P3 Pit IV-1 Crusader- Corroded 

annular, plain Mamluk

1334 Ring, small I.1 Open-ended Copper alloy Whole 2.1 × 2.1 × 0.3 GMIII A1 F2 (2) Fill III-2 Persian Corroded 

annular, plain

590 Ring, small II.1 Plain spiral Copper alloy Whole 1.7 × 1.6 × 0.3 GM 1D (7) Unclear IV-3? Persian? SI Cat. No. 240 591 Ring, small II.1 Plain spiral Copper alloy Whole 2.4 × 2.5 × 0.6 GM 2D TT3 (4) Granary IV-3 Persian SI Cat. No. 240, 

corroded 

1335 Ring, small II.1 Plain spiral 22.1j Copper alloy Whole 2.3 × 1.8 × 0.3 GMIII A2 (13) Fill III-5 Iron IB Corroded 1333 Ring, small II.1 Plain spiral 22.1k Copper alloy Whole 2.5 × 2.2 × 0.8 GM 2B (10) 2 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 438, 

corroded 

589 Ring, small, III.2a Flattened, open- 22.1l Copper alloy Whole 2.1 × 2.1 × 0.6 GM 2A P3 Pit IV-1 Crusader- Corroded

finger ring ended annular Mamluk

135 Ring, small, III.8a With flattened 22.1m Copper alloy Partial 1.6 × 1.0 × 0.5 GM 2C Unclear Unknown Unclear Corroded, bezel

finger-ring oval-shaped bezel NBR (7) only

594 Ring, small, III.9a With rectangular- 22.1n Copper alloy Whole 2.2 × 2.3 × 0.6 GM 2C P1A (5) Pit IV-1 Crusader- Corroded, 

finger ring shaped bezel Mamluk flattened shank

made by folding thin plate and flattening, small rectangular bezel

1477 Ring, small III.10 Closed shell ring 22.1o Shell Whole 2.3 × 2.2 × 0.2 GMIII C1 (81) Fill 16 MBIIBC Flat shel ring, 

SI Cat. No. 923 

1350 Ring, large, I.1 With tapered Copper alloy Partial 5.0 × 4.7 × 0.3 GM 0B (+) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 462,

open terminals and corroded. 

semicircular section

584 Ring, large, I.1 With tapered 22.1p Copper alloy Whole 4.6 × 3.9 × 0.6 GM 2C (5) 2 Unclear Post IV-3 Unclear SI Cat. No.

open terminals and 3000, corroded

semicircular section

12 Ring, large, I.2 With tapered Copper alloy Partial 3.7 × 1.5 × 0.4 GM 1C F3 2 Unclear Unknown Unclear Corroded 

open terminals and 

round section

558 Ring, large I.2 With tapered 22.1q Copper alloy Partial 5.2 × 3.2 × 0.6 GM 2C P2 (1) Pit Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 148,

terminals and corroded round section 

(continued)
892 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 557 Ring, large, I.2 With tapered Copper alloy Partial 5.5 × 3.8 × 0.5 GM 1A TT1 (3) Fill IV-2 Persian Corroded open terminals and round section 4065 Ring, large, I.2 With tapered Iron Partial 6.6 × 6.2 × 0.5 GM 1A (8) 2 Fill IV-2 Persian Corroded open terminals and round section 437 Ring, large, I.2 With tapered Iron Partial 6.5 × 4.5 × 0.7 GM 1A (3) 8 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Corroded open terminals and Room B round section 562 Ring, large I.7 Open ring with Copper alloy Partial 5.3 × 0.6 × 0.3 GM 1D (3) Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 156, flat section corroded 560 Ring, large I.8 Open ring with 22.1r Copper alloy Partial 6.1 × 2.5 × 0.8 GM 2A (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 124 round section and flattened, flaring terminals 2101 Pendant II.1 Elongated drop Flint Partial 1.6 × 1.2 × 0.4 GM 1B (11) Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Room A? 792 Pendant II.1 Elongated drop 22.2a Rock crystal Whole 0.9 × 0.6 × 0.5 GMI 2E (2) Unclear Unclear LBII 2134 Pendant II.1 Elongated drop 22.2b Limestone Whole 1.9 × 1.4 × 0.6 GMIII F2 (14) Fill III-17 MBIIBC 808 Pendant II.1 Elongated drop 22.2c Unidentified Whole 1.7 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 1A (1) 10 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC dark stone Room E 763 Pendant II.4 Lotus seed vessel 22.2d Carnelian Partial 1.2 × 0.8 × 0.3 GMI 1F P1 Pit I-1? LBII Flat backed, 

stem broken off 

746 Pendant II.5 Axe or celt Unidentified Whole 1.5 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1A 1B (6) Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 108

shaped gray stone

761 Pendant II.5 Axe or celt 22.2e Carnelian Whole 2.1 × 1.2 × 0.7 GMI FUR (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 916

shaped

728 Pendant II.6 Rectangular 22.2f Carnelian Partial 1.7 × 1.5 × 0.5 GM 1A P6 (5) Pit IV-4? Persian? SI Cat. No. 55 1115 Pendant III.1 Club 22.2g Ivory Whole 4.4 × 1.1 × 0.9 GMIII A2 (8) Fill III-4 Iron IIA SI Cat. No. 978, 

undecorated

1117 Pendant III.1 Club 22.2h Ivory Partial 3.0 × 0.9 × 0.7 GM 2B (58) Room D* IV-9 Iron IIA SI Cat. No. 

1107, with incised circles, dots and lines 

715 Pendant IV.8 Bulbous sack 22.2i Glass (light Whole 0.8 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2C P3 Pit IV-1 Crusader- SI Cat. No. 57

beige) Mamluk

18 Bead I.5 Plain spherical 22.3a Silver Whole 0.5 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1A TT5 (1) Fill IV-4 Persian Corroded 

or squat (corroded)globular hollow

585 Bead I.10 Cylindrical 22.3b Copper alloy Whole 0.8 × 0.3 × 0.3 GM 1A P6 (7) Pit IV-4? Persian? Two beads stuck

(corroded) together, 

corroded, SI Cat. No. 152

586 Bead I.10 Cylindrical 22.3c Copper alloy Whole 0.7 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 2C (11) Fill IV-4 Persian Corroded, 

(corroded) SI Cat No. 342.

TABLE 22.1. (continued)

Architectural

Reg. Subtype Dimensions context/ AreaNo. Object Type definition Fig. Material Condition (cm) Provenance locus type Phase Period Comments
NUMBER 50 • 893

760 Bead II.2 Short oblate Carnelian Whole 0.7 × 0.8 × 0.8 GM 2B P14 Pit Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 841

circular

2157 Bead II.2 Short oblate Carnelian Partial 0.5 × 0.6 × 0.3 GMI KB (+) Topsoil

circular

819 Bead II.2 Short oblate 22.7d Carnelian Whole (5) 0.4 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1B (14) Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Found together,

circular Room A part of necklace 

or bracelet

757 Bead II.2 Short oblate 22.3d Carnelian Whole 0.6 × 0.8 × 0.8 GMII C1 Bricks II-2/3 Iron IIB

circular F11 (3)

756 Bead II.2 Short oblate 22.3e Carnelian Whole 0.7 × 0.9 × 0.9 GMIII B F19 Fill III-18 MBIIBC

circular

725 Bead II.3 Short convex 22.3f Carnelian Whole 0.5 × 1.0 × 1.0 GM 1B (10) 1 Fill IV-4/5 Iron II?

bicone

809 Bead II.4 Short truncated bicone Limestone Whole 1.2 × 1.5 × 1.5 GMII A2 (3) Fill Unknown Unclear SI 

Cat. No. 713 

762 Bead II.4 Short truncated Carnelian Whole 0.4 × 0.7 × 0.7 GMI 1F (3) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 740

bicone

716 Bead II.4 Short truncated 22.3g Carnelian Whole 0.7 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2A (3) Fill IV-2? Persian?

bicone

717 Bead II.4 Short truncated Carnelian Partial 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.6 GM 1A P6 (5) Pit IV-4? Persian?

bicone

722 Bead II.4 Short truncated Limestone? Whole 0.4 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1A P6 (7) Pit IV-4? Persian?

bicone

804 Bead II.4 Short truncated Light brown Partial 0.2 × 0.4 × 0.4 GMI 5D (6) 1 Room G I-3 LBII SI Cat. No. 705 

bicone pink stone

2117 Bead II.5 Long barrel 22.3h Hematite? Whole 1.0 × 0.8 × 0.8 GM 1D (32B) Fill IV-5 Iron IIC802 Bead II.5 Long barrel Hematite? Whole 1.1 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 2B (34) Fill IV-5 Iron IIC Cat. No. 345 718 Bead II.6 Long truncated Carnelian Partial 0.9 × 1.0 × 0.5 GM 2A (6) 3 Fill IV-2? Persian

convex bicone

813 Bead II.6 Long truncated Chalcedony Whole 0.8 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 3B (9) Building III, IV-5 Iron IIC

convex bicone Unit 2

765 Bead II.6 Long truncated 22.3i Carnelian Whole 1.7 × 1.0 × 1.0 GMI 3G (4) 1 Unclear I-4? LBII SI Cat. No. 927 

convex bicone

812 Bead II.6a Long truncated 22.3j Unidentified Whole 2.4 × 1.8 × 1.0 GMI 3F (1) Unclear Unknown Unclear

convex bicone, dark stoneflattened

766 Bead II.6a Long truncated 22.3k Carnelian Whole 1.7 × 1.2 × 0.6 GMI 4D (3)(?) Unknown I-3? LBII

convex bicone, flattened and faceted

764 Bead II.7 Long truncated 22.3l Carnelian Whole 1.5 × 0.8 × 0.8 GMI FUR (0) Topsoil

bicone

726 Bead II.7 Long truncated Carnelian Partial 2.8 × 1.1 × 1.1 GM 1A P3 Pit IV-1 Crusaderbicone TT11 (3) Mamluk818 Bead II.7 Long truncated 22.3m Unidentified Whole 2.1 × 0.9 × 0.7 GMI FUR (2) 2 Fill FUR 2–3 Iron IB Slightly flattened

bicone black stone

710 Bead II.9 Short (disk) 22.3n Gray stone Whole 0.3 × 0.5 × 0.5 GM 2C P1 (3) Pit IV-1 Crusadercylinder Mamluk729 Bead II.9 Short (disk) Carnelian Whole 0.2 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 1A (2) 7 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 103 

cylinder

(continued)
894 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 708 Bead II.9 Short (disk) Hematite? Whole 0.5 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2A F1 Brick IV-2? Persian SI Cat. No. 51 cylinder 705 Bead II.10 Cylindrical White quartz Whole 1.8 × 1.1 × 0.8 GM 2C (+) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 413, slightly flattened, possibly gypsum or alabaster 719 Bead II.10 Cylindrical Carnelian Partial 0.6 × 0.5 × 0.3 GM + Topsoil 814 Bead II.10 Cylindrical Unidentified Whole 1.7 × 0.6 × 0.6 GMI 3G (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 904 dark gray stone 758 Bead II.10 Cylindrical 22.3o Bright red Whole 0.7 × 0.3 × 0.3 GMI 3G (0) Topsoil Modern? stone 781 Bead II.10 Cylindrical 22.3p Carnelian? Whole 2.0 × 1.6 × 1.6 GMI 4F Unclear Unknown Unclear Modern? Sard? TT1 (2) 2 724 Bead II.10 Cylindrical Carnelian Whole 0.7 × 0.8 × 0.8 GM 2C P1 (3) Pit IV-1 Crusader- Mamluk 790 Bead II.10 Cylindrical Unidentified Whole 0.9 × 0.5 × 0.5 GM 1A (1) 10 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC dark gray Room E stone 810 Bead II.10 Cylindrical Unidentified Whole 1.4 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 0A (9) Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC light brown Room E stone

801 Bead II.12 Scaraboid 22.3q Amethyst Whole 1.2 × 0.9 × 0.6 GMIII C1 (+) Topsoil Well worked, 

blank.

1181 Bead II.12 Scaraboid 22.3r Limestone Whole 2.0 × 1.7 × 1.0 GMI 3F (3) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 821 707 Bead II.12 Scaraboid Amethyst Whole 1.2 × 0.8 × 0.6 GM 1A (6a) 7 Fill IV-4 Persian SI Cat. No. 205 711 Bead II.12 Scaraboid 22.3s Diorite? Whole 2.0 × 1.6 × 1.0 GM 0A F4 Unit 3 IV-3/4 Persian706 Bead II.15 Flattened 22.3t Agate? Whole 2.0 × 1.5 × 0.6 GM 1C (0)+ Topsoil Well worked

multitubular spacer

721 Bead II.15 Flattened 22.3u Carnelian? Whole 0.4 × 0.9 × 0.2 GM 2C P1A (6) Pit IV-1 Crusader- SI Cat. No. 97 

multitubular Mamlukspacer

2135 Bead II.22 Doughnut Gypsum? Whole 0.5 × 0.9 × 0.9 GMIII F1 (5) Fill III-15 MBIIBC

shaped

2137 Bead II.22 Doughnut Rock crystal Partial 0.4 × 0.8 × 0.8 GMIII C1 (81) Fill III-16 MBIIBC

shaped

759 Bead II.22 Doughnut 22.3v Carnelian Whole 0.3 × 0.7 × 0.7 GMI 4D (2) I-1 LBII SI Cat. No. 422

shaped

727 Bead II.24 Flattened 22.3w Carnelian Whole 1.2 × 1.3 × 0.3 GM 2A (5) 3 Fill IV-2? Persian? SI Cat. No. 89

lozenge or diamond shaped

777 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience Whole 0.1 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI TTD (+) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 346 

(gray blue)

TABLE 22.1. (continued)

Architectural

Reg. Subtype Dimensions context/ AreaNo. Object Type definition Fig. Material Condition (cm) Provenance locus type Phase Period Comments
NUMBER 50 • 895

(continued)

778 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience Whole 0.1 × 0.4 × 0.4 GMI 6F F2 Unclear Unknown Unclear

(light blue)

779 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience Whole 0.2 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 00B P10 Pit Unknown Unclear

(light blue)

737 Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.4a Faience Whole 0.2 × 0.3 × 0.3 GM 1A (1) 8 Fill IV-4/5 Iron II?

(light blue)

733 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience Whole 0.1 × 0.2 × 0.2 GM 1A (1) 10 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC

(light green) Room E

816 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience) Whole 0.1 × 0.3 × 0.3 GM 1B (16A) 1 Building II, IV-5 Iron IIC

(dark brown Room A?

819a Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.7e Faience Whole 0.1 × 0.2x0.2 GM 1B (14) Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Found together, 

(burnt black) (126) Room A part of necklace 

or bracelet

819b Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.7e Faience Whole and 0.2 × 0.3 × 0.3 GM 1B (14) Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Found together, 

(off white) partial (4) Room A part of necklace 

or bracelet

770 Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.4b Faience Whole 0.1 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI KB P9 Pit KB2? Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 1120 

(white)

807 Bead III.1 Small flat disk Faience Whole 0.2 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI KB F8 Unclear KB2? Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 1105 

(light gray)

2133 Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.4d Faience Whole 0.5 × 0.7 × 0.7 GMIII C1 (72) Fill III-14 LB/MB

(off white)

769 Bead III.1 Small flat disk 22.4c Faience Whole 0.3 × 1.0 × 1.0 GMIII C2 (83) Fill III-16 MBIIBC SI Cat. No. 939 

(white)

723 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 0.4 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 1A (3) 6 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 110 

globular (brown red)

736 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4e Faience (light Whole 0.6x0.7 × 0.7 GM 2B W6 Wall Unknown Unclear

globular blue green) NBR

739 Bead III.2 Short oblate Faience (light Whole 0.5 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1A TT2 (0) Topsoil

globular blue green)

768 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass (light Whole 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI 1F (4) 1 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 808

globular blue green)

773 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4f Glass Whole 0.7 × 0.6 × 0.6 GMI 3D (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 423, 

globular (off white) made by trail 

technique

783 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4g Glass (light Whole 0.4 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI 5D (6) Topsoil

globular gray blue)

784 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4h Glass Whole 0.5 × 0.8 × 0.8 GMI 4D (+) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 902 

globular (off white)

798 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 1.0 × 1.1 × 1.1 GMI FUR (0) Topsoil

globular (off white)

794 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 1.0 × 1.2 × 1.3 GMI FUR (0) 3 Topsoil

globular (off white)

805 Bead III.2 Short oblate Faience Whole 1.4 × 1.5 × 1.5 GM 2B F39 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 905 

globular (deep purple)

Unclear Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Partial 1.1 × 1.2 × 1.1 GM 1A (0) Topsoil

globular (light gray)

730 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4i Faience (light Whole 0.9 × 1.0 × 1.0 GM 2C P3 Pit IV-1 Crusader- SI Cat. No. 25 

globular gray green) Mamluk
896 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY Unclear Bead III.2 Short oblate Faience (light Whole 0.6 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 1A P6 Pit IV-4? Persian? globular grey green) 2067 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 0.3 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 1A (9) 5 Fill IV-3/4 Persian globular (off white) 734 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass (light Whole 0.4 × 0.5 × 0.5 GM 2A (30) 4 Fill IV-7 Iron IIB globular blue green) 755 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4j Glass Whole 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI KB F9 Unclear KB2? Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 1115 globular (dark brown) 774 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass (dull Partial 0.6 × 0.7 × 0.5 GMI KB (26) 5 Fill KB2 Iron IIB globular light yellow) 789 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 0.5 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2B (43) Fill IV-6–7? Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 925 circular (dark blue) 795 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Partial 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 GMII A3 P1 Pit II-4? Iron IIA? With white trails globular (off white) 782 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMIII A2 (18) Fill III-6 Iron IB globular (off white) 793 Bead III.2 Short oblate 22.4k Glass Whole 1.2 × 1.9 × 1.9 GMIII A2 (13) Fill III-5 Iron IB SI Cat. No. 954 globular (off white) 787 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Whole 0.6 × 0.9 × 0.9 GMI 4D (4) 4 Street J I-3 LBII SI Cat. No. 906 globular (off white) 788 Bead III.2 Short oblate Glass Partial 0.7 × 1.0 × 1.0 GMIII B (55) Fill 10 LBII globular (off white)

731 Bead III.3a Short truncated Faience Whole 0.3 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 1C (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 79

bicone (light gray)

735 Bead III.3a Short truncated 22.4l Faience (light Whole 0.6 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 1B TT2 Unclear Unknown Unclear

bicone green gray)

743 Bead III.3a Short truncated 22.4m Glass Partial 0.6 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM 2A Topsoil

bicone (dark blue) TT1 (0)

714 Bead III.4 Long truncated Faience Partial 2.3 × 0.8 × 0.8 GM 2C (5) 2 Fill Post 3 Unclear

convex bicone (off white)

732 Bead III.4 Long truncated 22.4n Faience (light Whole 1.1 × 0.5 × 0.5 GM 2A Fill Unknown Unclear

convex bicone brown yellow) TT4 (5)

2116 Bead III.4 Long truncated 22.4o Glass Partial 3.4 × 1.4 × 1.4 GM 2B Fill IV-3? Persian With negatives 

convex bicone (dark green) TT1 (10) of trails and 

scalloped decoration

747 Bead III.4 Long truncated 22.4p Glass Whole 2.9 × 1.1 × 0.7 GM 1B (10) 1 Fill IV-4/5 Iron II? Slightly flattened 

convex bicone (off white)

786 Bead III.4 Long truncated 22.4q Glass Whole 1.5 × 0.8 × 0.8 GMI 3D (6) Fill I-3? LBII SI Cat. No. 426, 

convex bicone (off white) made with trail 

technique

780 Bead III.5 Long thin Faience? Partial 0.8 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 1B (11) 1 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC

cylinder (light green) Room A?

775 Bead III.5 Long thin 22.4r Egyptian blue Whole 1.4 × 0.4 × 0.4 GM 2B (37) 3 Building II IV-6 Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 846 

cylinder

TABLE 22.1. (continued)

Architectural

Reg. Subtype Dimensions context/ AreaNo. Object Type definition Fig. Material Condition (cm) Provenance locus type Phase Period Comments
NUMBER 50 • 897

(continued)

744 Bead III.6a Long thick 22.4s Glass (black Partial 0.8 × 0.7 × 0.4 GM 2B (13) Fill IV-3? Persian SI Cat. No. 28

cylinder with with whitespiral decoration trails)

791 Bead III.6a Long thick 22.4t Glass (off Whole 1.2 × 0.6 × 0.6 GMI FUR (2) 2 Fill FUR 2–3 Iron IB

cylinder with white withspiral decoration dark red(?) 

trails)

829 Bead III.8 Granulated bead 22.4u Faience (light Whole 1.5 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2B (1) 7 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 839 

gray brown)

817 Bead III.8 Granulated bead 22.4v Faience Whole 1.7 × 0.9 × 0.9 GM 2B (41) Fill IV-6–7? Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 907 

(light gray)

771 Bead III.10 Scaraboid 22.4w Faience Whole 1.3 × 0.8 × 0.5 GM 2A (31) Fill outside IV-7 Iron IIB

(light brown) Building III

785 Bead III.12c Barrel-shaped eye 22.4 x Glass (light Partial 1.9 × 1.4 × 0.8 GMIII A2 P1 Pit III-2 Persian SI Cat. No. 936, 

gray green with white circles) crowded eye 

bead 

Unclear Bead III.12d Short oblate 22.4y Glass (brown partial 1.1 × 1.4 × 0.7 GM 1B TT1 Fill IV-3? Persian

circular eye green and (4A)

white trails)

709 Bead III.12e Plano-convex 22.4z Glass (light Whole 1.0 × 0.5 × 1.0 GM 2C P3 Pit IV-1 Crusader- SI Cat. No. 77 

circular eye gray and Mamluk

white trails

738 Bead III.16c Fluted cylinder Faience Partial 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.5 GM 1D (7) Wall? IV-3? Persian?

(off white)

767 Bead III.16c Fluted cylinder 22.4aa Faience Whole 0.7 × 0.7 × 0.7 GM 2B Room A*? IV-8? Iron IIA-B? SI Cat. No. 939 

(off white) Room A

720 Bead III.16d Fluted round Faience Whole 0.2 × 0.8 × 0.8 GM ( +) Topsoil

plano-convex (glazed 

burgundy)

776 Bead III.16d Fluted round 22.4bb Faience Whole 0.2 × 0.9 × 0.9 GMI 1F (4) 1 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 845

plano-convex (blue gray)

772 Bead III.20 Rectangular 22.4cc Faience (off Whole 1.0 × 0.7 × 0.5 GM 2A NBR Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 605

white with (13)gray blobs)

745 Bead III.26 Flat lozenge or 22.4dd Glass Partial 1.3 × 0.3 × 0.6 GM 00A (0) Topsoil SI Cat. No. 4 

diamond shaped (dark blue)

741 Bead IV.3 Cylindrical 22.5a, Terra-cotta Whole 3.3 × 1.7 × 1.9 GM 1D (13) Unclear Unknown Unclear

22.7a

1679 Bead IV.5 Doughnut Terra-cotta Whole 0.9 × 1.9 × 1.9 GMI 4D (1) Fill I-1 LBII SI Cat. No. 454

shaped

1938 Bead IV.5 Doughnut 22.5c Terra-cotta Whole 0.7 × 1.7 × 1.7 GM 1B (18) 1 Building II, IV-5 Iron IIC

shaped Room A?

827 Bead IV.7 Truncated 22.5b Terra-cotta Whole 1.2 × 1.7 × 1.6 GMIII C1 (+) Topsoil

biconical

1239 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 1.5 × 1.2 × 1.2 GM 1B EBR Pit Unknown Unclear

P17

3062 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped 22.5e, Terra-cotta Whole 2.1 × 1.1 × 1.1 GM 1B P16 Unclear Unknown Unclear

22.7b NBR

820 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 2.2 × 1.0 × 1.0 GM 3B (5a) Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 515713 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 1.7 × 1.2 × 1.2 GM 2A (14) Fill IV-3/4 Persian
898 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 740 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Partial 1.6 × 1.2 × 1.2 GM 0A (7) 4 Fill IV-4/5 Iron II? 823 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 2.1 × 1.2 × 1.2 GM 2B F9 Oven? IV-5? Iron IIC? SI Cat. No. 712 824 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 1.8 × 1.2 × 1.3 GM 00A (3) 1 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Room F 825 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped 22.5f, Terra-cotta Whole 1.4 × 1.2 × 1.1 GM 3B (10) Building III, IV-5 Iron IIC SI Cat. No. 20 22.7c Unit 2 826 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 1.8 × 1.0 × 1.0 GM 3B (10) Building III, IV-5 Iron IIC Unit 2 821 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped Terra-cotta Whole 2.1 × 1.3 × 1.3 GM 1B (11) 1 Building I, IV-5 Iron IIC Room A? 822 Bead IV.8 Pear shaped 22.5d Terra-cotta Whole 2.1 × 1.4 × 1.4 GMI 4D (3) Room F I-3 LBII (‘77) 712 Bead V.3 Cylindrical Bone Partial 0.4 × 0.4 × 0.2 GM 1A Unclear Unknown Unclear TT6 (2) 748 Bead V.3 Cylindrical Bone Partial 1.0 × 0.8 × 0.5 GM + Topsoil Burnt and worn 751 Bead V.3 Cylindrical Bone Partial 1.1 × 1.0 × 0.7 GMIII A1 P1 Unclear III-1? Persian? Worn and smoothed 796 Bead V.3 Cylindrical Bone Whole 1.3 × 0.8 × 0.7 GMIII B (56) 4 Room C III-10 LBII Worn and smoothed 797 Bead V.3 Cylindrical 22.5g Bone Whole 1.0 × 0.4 × 0.3 GMI 2E (4) Unclear I-1–3? LBII Worn and smoothed 799 Bead V.3 Cylindrical 22.5i Bone Whole 1.8 × 0.7 × 0.6 GMI 5D (7) 2 Street J I-3 LBII Burnt, SI Cat. 

No. 736 

800 Bead V.3 Cylindrical 22.5h Bone Whole 1.2 × 0.7 × 0.6 GMI 3G (3) 1 Unit L I-3–4? LBII Worn and 

smoothed, SI Cat. No. 926 

815 Bead V.3 Cylindrical Bone Whole 1.3 × 0.5 × 0.5 GMI 4D (4) 3 Room F I-3 LBII Burnt 749 Bead V.5 Lentoid 22.5j Bone Whole 0.6 × 2.1 × 2.1 GM 1D (9) 1 Fill IV-3? Persian? Worn and 

smoothed 

750 Bead V.6 Flat disk Bone Whole 0.2 × 0.6 × 0.6 GM + Topsoil Roughly worked806 Bead V.6 Flat disk 22.5k Bone Whole 0.2 × 0.9 × 0.9 GMI KB (28) Fill KB3? Iron IIA? Possibly ivory 1180 Bead V.13 Scaraboid 22.5l Bone Whole 1.5 × 1.3 × 0.7 GMI TTB (5) Unclear Unknown Unclear Possibly ivory, 

SI Cat. No. 307

1475 Bead VI.1 Flat disk Shell Whole 0.1 × 1.3 × 1.3 GM 1B (10) Fill IV-4/5 Iron II? Actually a blank, 

no perforation, mother of pearl 

1476 Bead VI.2 Circular Conus 22.5m Shell Whole 0.3 × 1.4 × 1.3 GM 1C (3) Unclear Unknown Unclear Circular

whorl

811 Bead VI.9 Cylindrical 22.5n Shell Whole 2.0 × 1.3 × 1.2 GMI 5G (0) Topsoil Made from 

very thick shell, polished. 

564 Fibula I.1 Arched bow Copper alloy Partial 5.4 × 2.6 × 0.7 GM 1B Unclear Unknown Unclear Pin missing, 

NBR (6) corroded 

574 Fibula I.1 Arched bow 22.6a Copper alloy Partial 8.6 × 3.0 × 0.5 GMIII A1 F2 Unclear III-2? Persian Partial pin 1347 Fibula I.1 Arched bow Copper alloy Partial 6.0 × 2.5 × 3.0 GM 0A (6) Unit 3 IV-3/4 Persian SI Cat. No. 436 TABLE 22.1. (continued)

Architectural

Reg. Subtype Dimensions context/ AreaNo. Object Type definition Fig. Material Condition (cm) Provenance locus type Phase Period Comments
NUMBER 50

• 899

563 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow 22.6b Copper alloy Partial 4.0 × 1.8 × 0.5 GM 1A (3) 2 Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 167, 

with ribbed and pin missingbeaded moldings

567 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow 22.6c Copper alloy Partial 4.1 × 1.6 × 0.6 GM 1B (1) 1 Topsoil SI Cat. No. 20A 

with ribbed and beaded moldings

569 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow 22.6d Copper alloy Partial 7.9 × 2.8 × 0.7 GM 2C Unclear Unknown Unclear SI Cat. No. 608 

with ribbed and SBR (4)beaded moldings

571 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow Copper alloy Partial 6.6 × 2.5 × 0.7 GM 1A Topsoil SI Cat. No. 322 

with ribbed and TT11 (+)beaded moldings

566 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow Copper alloy Partial 2.6 × 6.5 × 0.8 GM 1B F3 (1) Pebbles IV-1 Crusader- Pin missing 

with ribbed and Mamlukbeaded moldings

568 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow Copper alloy Partial 4.1 × 1.6 × 0.6 GM 1B TT1 Fill IV-3? Persian SI Cat. No. 20b 

with ribbed and (4A)beaded moldings

570 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow Copper alloy Partial 5.5 × 2.0 × 0.7 GM 1C (5A) Fill IV-3 Persian SI Cat. No. 121, 

with ribbed and pin missing. beaded moldings

573 Fibula I.2a Triangular bow 22.6e Copper alloy Whole 6.7 × 3.3 × 0.7 GM 2A (3) Fill IV-2? Persian SI Cat. No. 53 

with ribbed and beaded moldings

1348 Fibula I.2b Triangular bow 22.6f, Copper alloy Partial 4.1 × 2.0 × 0.8 GM 2A (30) 4 Fill IV-7 Iron IIB SI Cat. No. 734, 

with varied 8.61r pin missingribbed, indented, and plain moldings
900 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

This form is very common throughout the ancient world. 

It is first attested in Sumer in the middle of the third millennium 

BCE (Woolley, 1934:241, pl. 138), from where it spread westward throughout the Levant, being locally introduced during the 

Middle Bronze Age, for example, at Tell el-‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1934: 

pl. 18:85) and in Assyria at the same time (Maxwell-Hyslop, 

1971:240) and passing out of fashion by the Hellenistic period 

(Kraay and Moorey, 1968:196; see Gjerstad, 1948:385 for a 

broad survey of the development of this earring type). In Egypt, 

this earring style became fashionable during the New Kingdom 

and may have been an Asiatic form imported into Egypt (Aldred, 

1971:198), although its appearance there is rare. 

Type I.1a: Small Plain with Elongated Hoop

A variant of the Type I.1 earring described above (Figure 

22.1c), this form features an elongated hoop that closes at the 

side. The present singular example is made of copper alloy and is 

associated to the Persian period.

This form first appears during the Iron Age I, e.g., at Baq’ah 

Cave A4 (McGovern, 1986: fig. 85:21), and continues through 

the Iron Age II and into the Persian period, such as at Ashkelon 

(Golani, 1996b: fig. 4:2). Most examples are of copper alloy; a 

few are of silver and gold (cf. Golani, 2009:242–243). Several 

examples of this type have also been found in Petrie’s former 

excavations at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pls. I:3; XXIX:276) 

and are probably to be dated to the 12th–10th centuries BCE. 

Type I.3a: Small Plain with Short

Hoop and Decorated

This type is a variant of the Type I.1 solid lunate earring, 

decorated by wire (Figure 22.1d). In the present case, this singular earring is made of silver and is decorated by wound silver 

wire on both sides of the crescent and upon the hoop. 

Such decorated earrings are locally found during the Late 

Bronze to the Iron I and II periods (cf. Golani, 2009:244–246), 

although they are never very common among the repertoire of 

earring forms. As they are more elaborate variants on the simple lunate form (see above Type I.1), the present type is nearly 

always found made of more expensive metals such as silver or 

gold. The present example is associated to the Iron IIB and finds 

a close parallel in gold at Megiddo, Stratum VIIA, dated to the 

12th century BCE (Loud, 1948: pl. 225:18).

Type I.6a: Multiple-­Lobed Sling

This earring is made of copper alloy and consists of two 

solid double wires, tapered at both ends as in a Type I.1 solid 

lunate earring and arranged together side by side, producing a 

form reminiscent of a broad sling or hammock (Figure 22.1e). 

The present example is of unclear context but is identical 

in form and distinctive technique to examples from the Persian 

period at Kamid el-Loz, Graves 2, 5, 12, 13 (Hachmann and 

Penner, 1999: fig. 16:6) and Strata XI–VI at Tel Michal (Muhly 

and Muhly, 1989: fig. 25.10:182).

disturbances (Adkins and Perry, 1989). Therefore, a critical examination of the specific context of each item is necessary to 

determine its stratigraphical assignment and date. In most publications, the data are insufficient. This highlights the importance 

of sites from which the available documentation enables a rigorous examination of stratigraphic detail. In the present report, 

insufficient data or unclear documentation have often caused 

the stratigraphical context of many items to remain vague and 

unclear.

The objects discussed in the present report were recovered 

from a broad range of stratified occupational contexts that are 

often generally associated to the MBIIB-C, LBII, Iron IB, Iron 

II, Persian, and Crusader-Mamluk periods of settlement at the 

site. The lack of clear documentation has often precluded a definite stratigraphical association for many objects; in such cases, 

the attribution is listed as “unclear.” Of special interest are the 

six objects associated to the Iron Age IB because the finding of 

a ceramic kiln possibly producing Philistine pottery during this 

period makes the association of this period with the Philistines 

themselves, as the geographic location of the site also suggests. 

The following section presents a discussion of each jewelry 

type found among the objects recovered from the Iron Age II 

strata. As many of the more common jewelry objects such as 

beads are not culturally or chronologically instructive, parallels 

and the dating of each type are discussed only when relevant.

EARRINGS

A total of 22 earrings were recovered. The vast majority of 

these (19) were made of copper alloy, two were made of silver, 

and one was made of lead. Seven of the earrings are probably attributable to the Persian period, three to the Iron IIC, one to the 

Iron IIB, one to the Iron IB, and 10 to unclear contexts.

Type I.1: Small Plain

These earrings have a solid crescentic body and a tapered, 

bent-over hoop, with the ends usually meeting at one side (Figure 

22.1a,b). A total of 17 earrings of this type were recovered, all of 

which were found in a very corroded state. The majority (16) are 

made of copper alloy, and one is made of lead.1

 The lead earring 

is associated to the LBII, whereas all the rest are made of copper 

alloy. One is associated to the Iron Age IB, three to the Iron Age 

IIC, and six to the Persian period, and the rest are of unclear 

stratigraphical context. 

Also described in the literature as boat, leech, lunate, or 

crescent shaped, these earrings occur in a wide range of sizes. 

The hoop is generally short and thinner than the body, which is 

usually wider and thicker. Most commonly found made of copper alloy, this type is also found in gold, silver, and electrum, and 

gold or silver foil may also occur over a copper alloy core. Such 

earrings may be manufactured by casting or also by hammering 

a thick wire into shape, then rolling the ends of a thick wire between two flat surfaces in order to taper the ends. Subsequently, 

the wire could be bent into the desired shape. 
NUMBER 50 • 901

FIGURE 22.1. Earrings and rings.
902 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

terminals (Figure 22.1h,i). The stratigraphical attribution of 

three rings is uncertain. 

Such rings are a very simple and basic form that begins to 

appear in the Early Bronze Age (Ben-Tor, 1975: fig. 12:12). They 

may have functioned as finger rings, earrings, nose rings, or hair 

rings and are most commonly found made of copper alloy, although gold, silver, and iron examples are also present. The use 

of iron in the production of small rings, although not common, is 

found during the beginning of the Iron I, such as at Tell el-Far’ah 

(S) (Petrie, 1930: pl. 30:11), and numerous examples have been 

found in Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya (Livingston, 2002: fig. 8), 

dated to the 12th–10th centuries BCE . 

Type II.1: Plain Spiral

Four rings were made of copper alloy wire, rounded or 

plano-convex in section, with tapering ends, wound one and a 

half times around in a spiral (Figure 22.1j,k). Spiral rings were 

found in the excavation of graves at Ur on skulls with earrings 

and sometimes on the upper shoulder, suggesting their threading 

over a long lock of hair (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1971:5). A very 

common form, spiral wire rings first appear in the Early Dynastic 

period at Ur and at Mari (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1971:5, 12, 20, pls. 

5, 15a). In the southern Levant, they begin to appear in the Early 

Bronze Age I in gold and silver at Azor, where they are identified 

as earrings (Ben-Tor, 1975:24, fig. 12:10–12, pl. 22:6). They 

are found throughout the Iron I–II as well, as in a copper alloy 

example from a dolmen in the Golan (Epstein, 1985: fig. 2:1) 

and silver examples from Tel Miqne-Ekron (Golani and Sass, 

1998: fig. 13:3). 

Type III.2a: Flattened, Open-­Ended, Annular Rings

This type is a ring made of a flattened, hammered copper 

alloy in the form of a ribbon with rounded, tapering ends that 

are found overlapping (Figure 22.1l). The present example is associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period. Simple examples of 

copper alloy occur as early as the Early Bronze Age, such as at 

Qiryat Ata (Golani, 2003: fig. 7.6:6; see also Golani, 2009:309–

311). These rings probably functioned as finger rings, although 

their use as hair rings is also possible. 

Type III.8a: Rings with Flattened, 

Oval-­Shaped Bezel—Metal

This type is a copper alloy finger-ring made of a simple metal 

hoop with an oval-shaped bezel. The ring is partial, and only the 

bezel remains (Figure 22.1m). This type begins during the end of 

the Late Bronze Age in silver, gold, and copper alloy but becomes 

more common in the Persian period (Golani, 2009:322–324). 

Iron examples are found during the Iron Age II but appear more 

often during the Late Iron Age II and into the Persian period, 

when some are made of iron with silver plating. The bezel of the 

ring may bear an incised decoration, although in most examples 

the metal is so corroded that after cleaning, most of the bezels 

appear blank.

The general form of this type, although of slightly different 

technique, goes far north and far back in time (Golani, 2009:248–

249). Three- and even up to seven-lobed examples in gold and 

silver are commonly found in southwestern Anatolia during the 

Early Bronze Age III, such as at Troy, where they are identified as 

hair rings (Antonova et al., 1996:53–74, cat nos. 17–67; see pp. 

203–206 for a comprehensive discussion). Such earrings reach 

Tarsus during the same period (Maxwell-Hyslop, 1971:61–62, 

fig. 42c) and the southern Levant by the Late Bronze Age and 

even earlier during the Middle Bronze Age (17th century BCE) as 

is apparent from four hollow examples from a burial at Tel Beth 

Shean (Yahalom-Mack, 2007b:618, pl. 9.6:1–4). 

The examples from the Persian period feature a distinctive 

constructional technique that creates the same effect as a doublelobed sling earring but with less effort. A short section of a thick 

wire was added parallel to the bottom part of an earring; the 

ends of this addition are then wound around the hoop of the earring itself to fasten it on. The advantage of this technique is that 

no soldering is needed, the form being made by hand with only 

two pieces of tapering wire. 

Type II.2: With Solid, Globular Attachment

Figure 22.1f depicts a solid lunate earring with the remains 

of an attachment soldered onto the bottom of the lunate. Figure 

22.1g depicts an earring bearing a plain solid hoop, with a solid 

globular attachment soldered onto the lower, outer side of the 

crescent. Although much of the exterior is covered with cuprous 

oxides, the inner core of this earring appears to indicate its 

manufacture in silver or a silver alloy.

This type is a local form, beginning during the Middle 

Bronze Age and continuing throughout the Late Bronze to the 

Persian periods, found made of gold, silver, and copper alloy 

(Golani, 2009:257–258). The present example is of unclear context and could have originated from any one of the periods mentioned above. Four silver examples of this form are known from 

previous excavations at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928:10, pl. I:4) 

and are probably dated to the 12th–10th centuries BCE.

SMALL RINGS

A total of 13 small rings were recovered. Any ring up to 3 

cm in diameter is here designated as small. The vast majority 

of these (12) were made of copper alloy, and one was made of 

shell. Stratigraphically, three of the small rings are probably 

attributable to the Crusader-Mamluk period, three to the 

Persian period, one to the Iron IB, one to the MBIIB-C, and five 

to unclear contexts. Most of these rings are plain simple forms 

that could have functioned as earrings, nose rings, hair rings, or 

finger rings. 

Type I.1: Plain

Five small plain rings were made of copper alloy wire, 

usually round in section, with tapering or squared-off (cut) 
NUMBER 50 • 903

associated to the Persian period. Of the other rings made of copper alloy, one is associated to the Persian period; the others are 

of unclear context.

Made of simple thick wire with tapering ends, this form 

is the simplest and most common of all the large rings. They 

are common in copper alloy and iron examples and begin to 

appear at the very end of the Late Bronze and beginning of the 

Iron Age I, such as at Tomb C1 at Tell ‘Eitun (Edelstein and Aurant, 1992: fig. 13:18–22) and Tomb 219B at Beth Shean (Oren, 

1973: fig. 49:2).

Type I.7: Open, with Flat Section

One partial example of an open, ribbonlike large ring made 

of copper alloy, heavily corroded, was found. The ring is of 

unclear context.

Type I.8: Open, with Round Section

and Flattened, Flaring Terminals

One partial example of an open large ring of corroded copper 

alloy with round cross section and flattened, flaring terminals 

(Figure 22.1r) was found. The ring is of unclear context.

PENDANTS

Eleven pendants of various materials were recovered in 

the excavations. Although pendants may have a function very 

similar to that of beads, they are here defined as any jewelry 

object in which the stringing hole is found near one of the ends, 

enabling their suspension from a cord or thong so that they may 

be worn around the neck, arm, or hand. A pendant should be 

light enough to be worn comfortably, although our judgment on 

comfort may be different from that used in the past.

Pendants can take on almost any shape and can be made of 

metal, stone, bone/ivory, shell, siliceous materials, or terra-cotta, 

not to mention perishable items such as wood that are obviously 

invisible in the archaeological record. Pendants can also be used 

with beads as a part of an elaborate necklace.

Type II.1: Elongated Drop

Four roughly oval or drop-shaped stone pendants were 

made of flint, rock crystal, limestone, and an unidentified dark 

stone. The limestone pendant (Figure 22.2b) is associated to the 

MBIIB-C, the rock crystal pendant (Figure 22.2a) to the LBII, 

and the pendant of unidentified dark stone (Figure 22.2c) to the 

Iron IIC.

Elongated drop pendants are a very common form that 

may appear in many varieties differing in material, workmanship, and stylistic features. Such pendants may be crudely made, 

exhibiting no more than a perforation on a naturally occurring 

drop-shaped object, or a naturally occurring stone may be reshaped and smoothed into an elongated drop shape (McGovern, 1985:73, Type VI.F.2). These pendants have a time span and 

The present example is of unclear stratigraphical association. 

A similar copper alloy example has also been discovered in the 

past at Tell Jemmeh, dated to the 9th century BCE (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XX:58).

Type III.9a: Ring with Rectangular-­Shaped Bezel

This type is a finger ring of copper alloy with a round shank, 

upon which a flat bezel of rectangular form is soldered (Figure 

22.1n). The present ring is heavily corroded and was found in a 

pit associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period.

Type III.10: Closed Shell Ring

This is a flat ring cut out of a shell. A wide variety of shells 

may be used to create such a ring, either those with enough flat 

expanses to cut out a ring or large Conus shells with a thick 

apex, which could have been cut out and polished to produce a 

ring (Figure 22.1o).

The use of shells for small rings is uncommon and dates 

from the Middle Bronze Age, as does the present example. 

Parallels for this form are known from Shiloh (Sass, 1993:268, 

fig. 10.1:7) and Tel el-‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1931:8, pl. 23:2). Larger 

shell rings are often found much earlier (Bar-Yosef et al., 1986). 

LARGE RINGS

A total of nine large rings were recovered. Large rings are 

differentiated from small rings on the basis of size and probable 

function. Although their use as earrings or hair rings is possible, 

most large rings were more likely bracelets, armlets, or anklets. 

Except in child burials, a diameter of over 7.5 cm has been 

suggested as the dividing point between anklets and bracelets, 

which are expected to be smaller (Moorey, 1980:74). 

Type I.1: Open Rings with Tapered Terminals

and Semicircular or Square Section

Two examples of thickened wire rings were made of copper 

alloy with semicircular cross section and open, tapering ends 

(Figure 22.1p). None of the rings have a clear stratigraphical 

attribution. Such rings may have been cast or hammered into 

shape and are usually made of copper alloy. The semicircular 

section may have been a result of casting in an open or closed 

mold or hammering a thick wire into an open mold with a 

semicircular channel, then removing the flattened wire and 

bending into shape. 

Type I.2: Open Rings with Tapered

Terminals and Round Section

Five large rings have a round section and open tapering ends 

(Figure 22.1q). These rings were cast or hammered into shape. 

Three of the large rings were made of copper alloy and two of 

iron. One ring of iron is associated to the Iron IIC; the other is 
904 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

These pendants may be categorized into two main varieties: 

flat backed (McGovern, 1985: Type IV.F.5.a) and a more common, fully rounded type (McGovern, 1985: Type IV.F.5.b; Beck, 

1928:29, Type XXVI.B.3.d). Both types are contemporary from 

the Late Bronze Age to the Iron II periods. 

Lotus bud pendants are of Egyptian inspiration and are very 

common during the LBII period at the time of increased Egyptian 

involvement in Canaan (McGovern, 1985:47–48). McGovern 

(1985:47–48) sees this type as a Late Bronze Age phenomenon, 

yet use of this pendant continues through the Iron I and II periods as well (Golani, 2009:375–376). 

Type II.5: Axe or Celt Shaped

Two axe- or celt-shaped pendants are made of carnelian 

stone (Figure 22.2e) and an unidentified gray stone. These 

distribution from prehistoric to modern times (see McGovern, 

1985:74, n. 43) and may be made from almost any kind of stone. 

Type II.4: Lotus Bud

A carnelian pendant was sculpted in the form of a lotus seed 

bud (Figure 22.2d). The upper portion of the pendant that represents the stem of the bud and that bore the stringing hole is 

broken off. The back of this pendant is flat. The pendant is associated to the LBII period. 

These pendants are usually made of carnelian stone, although the use of other kinds of stone in addition to faience, glass, 

gold, bone, ivory, and terra-cotta is also known (see McGovern, 

1985:47–48; Herrmann, 2006:231–233, cat. nos. 452–464). 

This pendant type is found in variety of forms, ranging from naturalistic depictions of lotus buds to schematic representations. 

FIGURE 22.2. Pendants.
NUMBER 50 • 905

as “Israelite jewelry” (Platt, 1972:158–206, 1978) as the bulk 

of these pendants appear to have been centered in the region of 

ancient Israel and Judah during the Iron Age II, suggesting this 

region as the source for this type. 

The ubiquity of these distinctive pendants during the Iron II 

has been long been noted (Macalister, 1912:452–453; MacKenzie, 1913:62–63; McCown, 1947:272; Tufnell, 1953:382–383). 

The fact that they were found in tombs as well as in habitational contexts shows that they were also worn in everyday life. 

Platt (1972:198) suggested that the fact they are not found in 

pairs or groups in habitational contexts suggests that each was 

the possession of one individual or family, possibly indicating 

the number of individuals or families within one tomb. She also 

noted that at sites where quantities of fine gold and silver jewelry 

were found, such as at Tell el-Far’ah (S), there are relatively few 

such pendants, the latter being more common at sites in Judah, 

where the number of such luxury items is far less. This may reflect a less ostentatious, possibly “poorer” reality of the local 

Judean and Israelite population, leading Platt to suggest that 

that these pendants should be seen as “poor people’s” jewelry 

(Platt, 1972:89, 1978). At Beit Mirsim, where at least 10 such 

pendants have been recovered, Albright (1943:80–81) noted 

the general lack of jewelry, which he interpreted as evidence of 

the poverty or simplicity of life in an Iron II provincial town. 

More examples of such pendants have been found in previous 

excavations at Tell Jemmeh, Levels 186, 190–195 (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXIII:2,7,8,11,12,18,22), where they are generally dated 

throughout the Iron II.

IV.8: Bulbous Sack

A small sack-shaped pendant is made of light beige-colored 

glass (Figure 22.2i). This item is associated to the CrusaderMamluk period. Simple sack- or drop-shaped pendants are common from the LB period, continuing into the much later Islamic 

periods as well.

BEADS

A total of 267 beads were recovered in the excavations. 

Three beads were made of metal such as copper alloy or silver. 

Forty-seven beads were made of stone. Of these, the majority 

were of carnelian (25), whereas the others were made of a variety of stones that included limestone (3), hematite (3), amethyst, 

chalcedony, agate, rock crystal, diorite, gypsum, and various unidentified stones of different colors. A total of 183 beads were 

made of siliceous materials that included faience (154) and glass 

(28) beads of different colors. One bead was made of Egyptian 

blue. Fifteen beads were made of terra-cotta, 12 beads were 

made of bone, and 3 beads were made of shell. 

Beads are one of the simplest and most ancient forms of 

jewelry. A bead is defined as any object used for adornment that 

has a stringing hole pierced through a central axis. Necklaces are 

usually made of beads, but they can also be used as singular items 

for adornment and as items of cultic or symbolic significance. 

pendants have one broad and tapering end; the other end is tapered and bears a perforation for stringing. The stratigraphic 

association of both these examples is unclear.

Such pendants are common throughout the Late Bronze and 

Iron Ages, continuing to be found through the Persian and Hellenistic periods as well (Golani, 2009:377). Most examples are 

usually made of semiprecious stone, such as carnelian or hematite, and are well fashioned and smoothed, suggesting that the 

form was highly valued. 

Type II.6: Rectangular

A fragment of a flat, rectangular-shaped carnelian pendant 

was found (Figure 22.2f). The end bearing the stringing hole is 

missing. Made of carnelian, this pendant is possibly associated 

to the Persian period. Such pendants are common from the Late 

Bronze to the Persian periods and are made from a wide variety 

of stones (Golani, 2009:377–378).

Type III.1: Club

Two ivory pendants are in the form of an elongated club or 

stick, perforated at one end. One of the pendants is plain (Figure 

22.2g); the other is decorated with incised lines, rings, and dots 

and is missing its lower half (Figure 22.2h). Both pendants are 

associated to the Iron IIA. 

This type of pendant, usually made of bone or ivory, is 

typical of the Iron II in the southern Levant, with a distribution 

from Byblos in the north to Tell el-Far’ah (S) and Tell Jemmeh in the south (see Platt, 1972:158–206, 1978), although 

most examples appear within the region of Iron Age Israel and 

Judah (Golani, 2009:381–386). Although some Type III.1 club 

pendants are plain, most are decorated with incised bands or 

transverse rings below the eyelet and/or near the lower end in 

addition to cross-hatching or “lattice work” incisions in the 

middle portion. Many decorated examples feature a succession 

of ring-and-dot incisions, usually arranged in columns along 

the sides. The ring-and-dot motif was widely used in decoration of bone/ivory and small stone objects already during the 

Middle Bronze Age and may represent a schematic depiction of 

an “eye” (Platt, 1978).

This pendant form appears to have been typical of the 

10th–7th/6th centuries BCE. At Samaria, Crowfoot et al. noted 

that this pendant is found during the 10th–9th centuries BCE 

(1957:462). At Tell Beit Mirsim, Albright (1943:80) dated them 

to the 9th–7th centuries BCE, although a more recent dating for 

Tel Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, from where numerous examples 

have been recovered, posits an 8th century BCE date (Zimhoni, 

1997b). Examples from 12th–11th century BCE contexts such 

as from Tel Masos (Fritz and Kempinski, 1983: pl. 105:5,6) and 

Tel Batash (Yahalom-Mack, 2006a:262–263, photo 129, pl. 

57:14) may push the range of this pendant type further back 

into the Iron I. 

The distinctive design and decorative modes of this pendant, alongside its restricted geographical and chronological 

range in the southern Levant, have led some to define this type 
906 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Type I.10: Cylindrical

Three cylindrical beads (Beck Type I.D.2.b) are made of 

copper alloy sheet metal rolled into a tube, with the two ends 

then soldered or fused together by heat and pressure. Two of 

the beads (Figure 22.3b) are fused together, indicating that these 

beads were strung together. Although most such beads are plain, 

some are equipped with wire collars at their ends or otherwise 

decorated with granular decoration. The present examples are 

associated to the Persian period. This is a simple form that begins 

during the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age in copper alloy, silver, 

and gold (Golani, 2009:425). 

Stone Beads

Stone beads are generally simple geometric shapes with little 

or no decoration. Although the types of stone included nonprecious limestone and gypsum, most stone beads are made of a 

variety of colorful semiprecious stones such as carnelian, agate, 

and rock crystal. As they have a limited range of geometrical 

forms, each form is classified as a separate subtype of stone 

beads. Although many variations occur, this general scheme simplifies their classification. 

Stone beads are relatively common in most jewelry assemblages. Before the widespread use of faience and glass in the latter half of the second millennium BCE, semiprecious stone was 

usually the most common raw material used to manufacture 

beads. The pleasing colors make them attractive, and the ancients imparted them with symbolic qualities and prophylactic 

powers. Typologically, stone beads are very poor chronological 

indicators. 

Type II.2: Short Oblate Globular

Five examples are of globular beads, all made of carnelian 

and slightly oblate in general form (Beck Type I.B.1.a; Figure 

22.3d,e). This generalized form is rounded; the stringing axis is 

usually slightly less than the diameter.

Commonly made of semiprecious stone such as carnelian, 

such beads are very common throughout most of the archaeological periods. Two of the present examples are associated to 

the Iron II, one is associated to the MBII, and the other two are 

of unclear stratigraphical association.

Type II.3: Short Convex Bicone (Lentoid Shaped)

One example is of a short carnelian bead with rounded 

shoulders and a sharp carination (Beck Type I.B.1.e; Figure 

22.3f). The bead is associated to the Iron II period.

Type II.4: Short Truncated Bicone

Six short biconical beads have carinated sides and truncated ends (Beck Type I.B.2.f; Figure 22.3g). Three of the beads 

are made of carnelian, two of limestone, and another of light 

brownish-pink stone. Three of these beads are associated to the 

Beads are common among jewelry because they may repeatedly occur as parts of an existing creation such as a necklace, girdle, headdress or armlet or be sewn on the fringes of garments. 

Most beads certainly were used on necklaces and bracelets, although they may also function in a similar manner to pendants, 

seals, amulets, spindle whorls, tools, net weights, burnishers, and 

touchstones (Francis, 1988; Hughes-Brock, 1999:279–280). 

The classification of beads in a logical scheme is a complicated task. Beck’s (1928) research provides a classification 

system and a helpful nomenclature. In the present study, Beck’s 

classification has been noted where possible. However, in Beck’s 

system, form is the only consideration, so that his typology includes a very large number of types, but many of the same forms 

may be unrelated. As beads may be made of a wide range of 

materials, they have a great diversity in form, but the use of 

different materials usually dictates different types of form and 

decoration, e.g., what may be achieved in metal is often not possible in stone. Thus, beads of different materials by their nature 

lend themselves to certain forms, and some forms occur only in 

a specific type of material.

Metal Beads

Metal beads (Type I) are not as common as those of stone 

(Type II) and siliceous materials (Type III). As Type I beads are 

usually made of precious metal, they are small and often hollow, 

thus using a smaller amount of material. Whereas fabrication in 

metal enabled the use of forms and decorative techniques that 

were not possible in other materials, it involved several intricate 

manufacturing stages and was thus labor intensive. Most of the 

metal beads identified at Tell Jemmeh have a long pedigree and 

were made of other materials as well. 

Type I.5: Plain Spherical or Squat Globular Hollow

A hollow metal bead of spherical or squat globular form 

(Beck Type I.B.1.a) was found. The bead bears much cuprous 

corrosion on its exterior, but the inner core appears to have been 

silver (Figure 22.3a). The present example is associated to the 

Persian period.

These beads are usually made in two halves formed in a 

doming block with a perforation punched through their apex 

and are then soldered together. Filing and polishing are often 

used to conceal the seam between the two halves. 

Hollow beads of precious metal are known already during the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia and from Troy 

in the middle of the third millennium BCE (Maxwell-Hyslop, 

1971:7–10, 53, pl. 6c). The technique of forming such beads in 

two halves on a doming block and then soldering the two together also appears locally during the Early Bronze Age, as found 

in the form of three drop-shaped, hollow gold pendant beads 

from ‘Ein Ha-Me’ara in the western Negev of Israel (Haiman, 

1989:180). However, rounded hollow beads appear primarily 

during the end of the Middle Bronze Age, such as at Tell el-‘Ajjul 

(Maxwell-Hyslop, 1971:126), and continue to the end of the 

Iron II (Golani, 2009:418–419).
NUMBER 50 • 907

FIGURE 22.3. Metal and stone beads.
908 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and is associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period, and the other 

five are made of unidentified dark gray stone and reddish stones, 

probably carnelian or sard, and are of unclear stratigraphical association. This is a common form that begins already during the 

prehistoric periods.

Type II.12: Scaraboid

Four beads have a scaraboid shape; all are blank on their 

flat bottom (Beck Type XVI.C.4.f.b; Figure 22.3q,r). Two of the 

beads, made of amethyst and diorite, are associated to the Persian period; the other two, made of limestone and amethyst, are 

of unclear stratigraphical association.

Scaraboid-shaped beads come into use along with the appearance of the scarab, which was usually used as an official seal 

beginning in the Middle Bronze Age. This indicates that the form 

of the scarab itself was held in esteem, probably because of the 

Egyptian belief that the scarab, or sacred dung beetle, moved the 

sun through the sky (Watterson, 1996:51–53). 

Type II.15: Flattened Multitubular Spacer

Two flat spacer beads were formed by drilling two or more 

parallel perforations through the thin side of a flattened rectangular stone piece, then carving deep or shallow parallel grooves 

between these perforations in order to produce a multitubular 

form (Beck Type XVII.A.2.a). This type is also often made of siliceous materials. One of these beads, made of carnelian, is associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period (Figure 22.3t), whereas the 

other, made of agate (Figure 22.3u), is of unclear stratigraphical 

association. 

Type II.15 beads usually bear between two and four perforations. Macalister (1912:108–109) saw these as being beads 

of Egyptian inspiration that were locally introduced during the 

“Second Semitic Period” (Middle Bronze Age), although none of 

the dated examples of this bead type predate the 13th century 

BCE (Golani, 2009:433–434). This bead type is also not found 

in the Persian period or later, so the present examples, retrieved 

from the Crusader-Mamluk strata and from an unclear context, 

probably originated from the Late Bronze or Iron Age occupations at the site. 

Although spacers are commonly considered to have 

functioned as beads, they could also have been used as pendants 

incorporated in a necklace. A reconstruction of a rich necklace 

of beads and pendants from Grave 45 at Assur, dated to the Iron 

II, shows spacers used in this fashion (Wartke, 1999: figs. 2, 10). 

Type II.22: Doughnut Shaped

Three small disk-shaped beads have rounded sides (Beck, 

1928: Type I.A.4.f.b), producing a “doughnut” shape (Figure 

22.3v). Two of the beads, made of gypsum and rock crystal, are 

associated to the MBII occupation, whereas the third, made of 

carnelian, is associated to the LBII. Such beads are common from 

the Early Bronze Age onward.

Persian period, one is associated to the LBII, and the remainder 

are of unclear stratigraphical association. 

Type II.5: Long Barrel

Two elongated beads are made of hematite with slightly 

bulging rounded sides (Beck Type I.D.1.b; Figure 22.3h). Both 

beads are associated to the Iron Age IIC period. 

Type II.6: Long Truncated Convex Bicone

Three elongated beads have a bulging rounded carination 

(Beck Type I.D.1.f; Figure 22.3i). Two of the beads are made of 

carnelian; one is made of chalcedony. The beads are associated 

to the LBII, the Iron IIC, and the Persian periods. 

Type II.6a: Long Truncated Convex Bicone 

(Flattened or Faceted)

Of similar shape to Type II.6, this bead bears two opposing 

sides that were ground down, producing a flattened form (Beck 

Type XVI.D.1.f). Two beads of this type were recovered, one of 

which, made of carnelian (Figure 22.3j), is associated to the LBII; 

the other (Figure 22.3k), of unidentified dark stone, is of unclear 

stratigraphical association.

Type II.7: Long Truncated Bicone

Three elongated beads have a pronounced carination (Beck 

TypeI.D.2.f). Two of the beads are made of carnelian (Figure 

22.3l) and one of an unidentified black stone (Figure 22.3m). 

One of the beads is associated to the Iron IB, one is associated to 

the Crusader-Mamluk period, and the third is of unclear stratigraphical association.

Type II.9: Short (Disk) Cylinder

Three short beads have straight sides and a wide doublecone perforation executed from both sides (Beck Type I.A.2.b). 

One of the beads (Figure 22.3n) is made of gray stone and is associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period; the others are made of 

hematite and carnelian and are associated to the Persian period 

or are of unclear stratigraphical association.

Although these beads have an extended chronological range, 

they appear to have been more common during the EB–MB periods, probably because of their short length, which facilitated the 

drilling of the perforation from both sides. All these beads bear a 

wide double-cone perforation. 

Type II.10: Cylindrical

Eight are elongated straight-sided beads of cylindrical shape 

(Beck, 1928: type I.D.2.b; Figure 23.3o,p). Two of these beads 

are made of unidentified dark gray and light brown stone and 

are associated to the Iron IIC, one bead is made of carnelian 
NUMBER 50 • 909

state around a stick or wire and then firing or by impressing the 

material within a mold. Most of the glass beads were made using 

a “trail” technique of winding a molten glass trail around a stick 

or wire.

Two glass beads were found associated to the LBII, two glass 

beads to the Iron Age IB, five glass beads to the Iron II, one glass 

bead and one faience bead to the Persian period, and one faience 

bead to the Crusader-Mamluk period, and eight glass and three 

faience examples originate from unclear stratigraphical contexts. 

This form is very common from the Middle Bronze Age onward. 

Type III.3a: Short Truncated Bicone

Three short biconical beads of faience and glass have carinated sides and are truncated at both ends (Beck Type I.C.1.f; 

Figure 22.4l,m). The faience beads were made by molding faience around a stick or wire or by impressing within a mold. The 

glass examples were made by impressing into a mold or by handtooling a lump of viscous glass while it was on a stick or wire. All 

three beads originated from unclear stratigraphical contexts. This 

type is common from the Middle Bronze Age onward, although 

in glass this form is found primarily from the LB period onward. 

Type III.4: Long Truncated Convex Bicone

Five elongated beads with pronounced rounded sides (Beck 

Type I.D.1.f) were made by molding faience around a stick or 

wire or by impressing within a mold. Examples in glass (Figure 

22.4o–q) are free-formed on a rod and frequently feature trail 

decoration, wherein a molten glass strand of contrasting color 

is wound around the bead when it is still in a viscous state; the 

strand is then impressed into the bead. The bead in Figure 24.4o 

was further decorated by scalloping, whereby the molten glass 

strands were partially drawn across the surface of the bead. As 

the strands are often of slightly different material than the underlying bead, weathering of these objects often causes the decorative 

strands to disintegrate, leaving the bead with a “ribbed” effect. 

One of these beads originates from the LBII occupation, one 

from the Iron Age II, and one from the Persian, and the remainder are of unclear stratigraphical context. This type is extremely 

common, found in use from the Early Bronze Age onward. 

Type III.5: Long Thin Cylinder

Two thin, tubular beads (Beck Type I.D.2.b) were found, one 

made of faience and the other of Egyptian blue (Figure 22.4r). 

The beads were made by molding faience paste around a stick or 

wire and then firing. Both these beads are associated to the Iron 

II. This form is common from the Middle Bronze Age onward. 

Type III.6a: Long Thick Cylinder 

with Spiral Decoration—Glass

Two cylindrical glass beads were made by molding molten 

glass around a wire core, then impressing drawn glass strands in 

Type II.24: Flattened Lozenge or Diamond Shaped

A flat and square-shaped carnelian bead was found; the perforation was executed between two corners on a diagonal axis 

(Beck Type XVI.C.2.e; Figure 22.3w). This bead is associated to 

the Persian period.

Beginning in the 12th century BCE, this type is relatively 

rare. Examples from the Persian period, such as at Tel Shor (Golani, In press), are generally smaller and more finely crafted than 

earlier specimens from the Iron I and II periods, such as at Tombs 

532 and 201 at Tell el-Farah (S) (Starkey, 1930: pl. H:40).

Siliceous Beads

Siliceous beads made of glass, faience, and Egyptian blue are 

grouped together because the basic raw ingredient for all these 

materials is silica, whose plastic nature enabled a larger variety 

of forms and decorations than metal, stone, bone, or shell. Beads 

of faience and Egyptian blue are unichrome and were often made 

in a mold, enabling mass production of standard forms. Glass 

beads, on the other hand, are less common as they were individually made and varied in form and decoration, although for the 

most part they continued the same forms found in faience.

Siliceous beads were the most common type found throughout all the occupational levels at Tel Jemmeh. The majority of 

the types reflect common local traditions that began during the 

Middle Bronze Age (primarily in faience) and continued into 

the Late Bronze Age, Iron I–II, and Persian periods. Like stone 

beads, most siliceous beads have simple forms that are not culturally or chronologically instructive. 

Type III.1: Small Flat Disk

One hundred and forty small flat disk beads (Beck Type 

I.A.2.b) were made by cutting slices off of a tubular bead of faience formed around a thin wire or stick when still in a plastic 

state and then firing them (Figures 22.4a–d, 22.7e). Such beads 

are often mass produced and may be strung in the hundreds to 

form a necklace or a more complex beadwork decoration (BosseGriffiths, 1975). They are common in faience of all colors and 

are usually unglazed. Some 126 such beads were found together 

in Room A of Building I and appear to have made up a necklace.

One such bead is associated to the MBII, 1 to the MB–LB 

transition, 2 to the Iron IIB, and 132 to the Iron IIC; 1 is generally assigned to the Iron II, and the remaining 3 are of unclear 

stratigraphical association. These beads occur from the Early 

Bronze Age onward and are very common. 

Type III.2: Short Oblate Globular

Twenty-three beads have a round, slightly oblate form and 

are made of faience or glass (Figure 22.4e–k). Although many 

of these beads are somewhat asymmetrical or squat, the general 

tendency is toward a globular shape (Beck Type I.B.1.a). The 

faience examples were made by shaping the bead in a plastic 
910 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 22.4. Faience and glass beads.
NUMBER 50 • 911

During the second and well into the first millennium BCE, 

the eye decoration on glass beads is usually made by the “stratified” technique, whereby successively smaller and concentric 

globs, or “spots,” are laid upon or impressed into a glass bead, 

with the “ring” around the spot of the eye being formed by 

the underlying matrix. These beads are generally flat or planoconvex in shape, bearing only one eye (see Figure 22.4z). In a 

later variation of this technique that first appears in the Iron 

Age II, the spot of the eye is outlined by contrasting glass trail 

rings impressed into the bead (Figure 22.4x,y). Glass beads with 

multiple eyes using both techniques occur primarily during the 

late Iron Age II and Persian period, when the technique of making ever-smaller eyes on one bead (crowding) became more and 

more developed (Spaer, 2001:81). The stratified eye technique 

was common throughout the eastern Mediterranean until it was 

replaced by the “cut-cane” technique in the 3rd century BCE. 

Although the bulk of the Mediterranean stratified eye beads appear during the Persian period, similar eye beads in other regions 

appear slightly later. New fashions and techniques appear to frequently have had their origins in the eastern Mediterranean, later 

reaching other regions, where they stayed in fashion longer than 

in the area of their inception (Spaer, 1985:3).

The symbol of the eye has always played a prominent role in 

superstitious belief and practice. The symbol, even if rendered in 

schematic form on a bead, is commonly regarded as protective, 

guarding against the “evil eye” (see Elsworthy, 1895; Eisen, 

1916; Spaer, 2001:77). 

The simplicity and expressiveness of the symbol, most 

often executed in glass, lends itself to many variations. Three 

varieties of eye beads were found. One is a barrel-shaped eye 

bead (Type III.12c, Beck, 1928: Type XLVII.C.4.f.b, fig. 4:24) 

associated to the Persian period; a short, oblate, circular eye 

bead (Type III.12d, Beck Type XLVII.C.1.a.; Figure 22.4y) is 

also associated to the Persian period, and the third is a planoconvex circular eye bead (Type III.12e, Beck Type XLVII.A.2.d; 

Figure 22.4z) associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period, although this latter item probably originated from earlier occupational strata. 

Type III.16: Fluted Beads

Two faience beads of cylindrical form (Type III.16c, Beck 

Type XXIII.D.2.b) and two faience beads of round plano-convex 

shape (Type III.16d, Beck Type XXIII.B.1.d) all bear a fluted decoration (Figure 22.4aa,bb). Such beads are also found in metal 

and stone, although they are more commonly made of siliceous 

materials such as faience. One of the beads is associated to the 

Iron II, one is associated to the Persian period, and the remainder 

are of unclear stratigraphical context. 

Fluted siliceous beads (Type III.16) are found in a variety 

of forms that first appear during the MBII period when the use 

of faience becomes common in the southern Levant. However, 

most varieties begin during the Late Bronze period, where they 

are common among bead assemblages. These forms often continue through the Iron Age I and into the Iron II, although in 

smaller amounts, and by the Persian period, most bead types 

a spiral fashion into the body of the bead (Beck Type XLVII.A.7; 

Figure 22.4s,t). One of these beads is associated to the Iron I, 

the other is associated to the Persian period. Such beads become 

common with the major onset of glass production during the 

Late Bronze Age, continuing into the Persian period as well. 

Type III.8: Granulated Bead

Two beads feature a geometric grid decoration in relief 

around the circumference of the bead. Also termed “grape cluster” or “pineapple” beads (Beck, 1928:27, Type XXV.A.5), these 

beads may have been made in a mold or may have been handtooled while still in a plastic state (Figure 22.4u,v). One of the 

beads is associated to the Iron Age II; the other is of unclear 

stratigraphical association. 

Commonly made in faience or Egyptian blue, this distinctive 

form appears at the end of the Late Bronze Age such as at Tell 

es-Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard, 1980: figs. 19:26, 42, 56:1), continuing 

into the Iron I and the Iron II, such as at Lachish Burial Cave 

1002 and Tombs 107, 116, 120, 218, and 224 (Tufnell, 1953: 

pls. 38:2, 66:41–43), but it apparently passed out of fashion during the late Iron II (Golani, 2009:442). No examples are known 

after the 8th–7th centuries BCE. 

Type III.10: Scaraboid

A blank scaraboid bead (Beck Type XXXVI.D.4.f.b) was 

made of faience (Figure 22.4w). The bead is associated to the 

Iron II. Scaraboids are probably the most numerous and longlived of all the Egyptian-style amulets, and in simplified blank 

form, they were often used as beads (see Petrie, 1914:23–25; 

Andrews, 1994:50). Pierced blank scarabs have been employed 

as beads ever since the common appearance of scarabs in the 

second millennium BCE, suggesting that the form itself was of 

symbolic importance even when no seal inscription is found 

on the underside. Although the scarab depicts the lowly dung 

beetle, it was interpreted as representing life, creation, and resurrection (Watterson, 1996:51–53). Most often made in steatite 

and faience, scaraboids are also made from other types of stone 

as well as glass (see above stone bead Type II.12). In a study of 

97 scaraboids of various materials originating from selected sites 

of the 8th–6th centuries BCE in the southern Levant, Limmer 

(2007:344) observed that 24% were made of siliceous materials, 

such as faience or glass. 

Type III.12: Eye Beads

Glass beads with various circular designs symbolizing 

“eyes” are common throughout the Mediterranean from the latter half of the second millennium BCE, where they have been 

found in a variety of styles, colors, and techniques (see Eisen, 

1916; Spaer, 1985; Figure 22.4x–z). Eye beads were common in 

Egypt during the Late Bronze Age and appear in Mesopotamia 

and the southern Levant at the same time, but the fashions adopted locally appear to be closer to those of Mesopotamia than 

to those of Egypt (Spaer, 1985). 
912 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Type IV.7: Truncated Biconical

A short truncated biconical bead (Beck Type I.B.2.f; Figure 

22.5c) was retrieved from an unclear context. This form is rare 

and may appear throughout most archaeological periods.

Type IV.8: Pear Shaped

Eleven short or elongated pear-shaped beads were found 

(Beck Type I.D.1.g; Figures 22.5d,e, 22.7b,c). The perforation 

was not produced through the central axis but was rather placed 

obliquely, made by a thin wire or stick that was punctured 

through the clay when it was still in a plastic state. The perforation is usually found in the center of the broad end, protruding 

out from the side on the curving shoulder.

One such bead is associated to the LBII, six to the Iron IIC, 

and one to the Persian period, and the remaining three are from 

unclear stratigraphical contexts.

Although these beads are simple and crudely made, their form 

and perforation are distinctive. All known examples originate from 

southern sites such as Stratum IIA at Tel ‘Aroer, dated to the 7th 

century BCE (Thareani, 2011: figs. 125:17, 3.111). The sole example from an LBII context at Tell Jemmeh suggests that it may have 

been intrusive from the late Iron II occupation at the site. 

Bone Beads

Bone beads are not very common, although bone was 

a readily accessible and inexpensive material. Their lack of 

popularity was probably because bone does not possess the color 

range of semiprecious stones and siliceous materials.

Type V.3: Cylindrical

Eight cylindrical beads were made of a cut and hollowedout bone segment (Beck Type I.D.2.b; Figure 22.5g–i). Five of the 

beads are associated to the LBII and one to the Persian period, 

and the remaining two are of unclear stratigraphical context.

Bird bones are especially suited to the production of such 

beads as they are hollow and may therefore be cut into segments. 

One of the beads indeed shows evidence of such cut marks that 

testify to its production method.

Type V.5: Lentoid

A bone bead has a lentoid shape (Beck Type I.A.1.e; Figure 

22.5j). The bead is associated to the Persian period. Although 

these objects are often described as spindle whorls, the small size 

of the present object precludes its identification as anything other 

than a bead. Such objects are known from the Middle Bronze 

Age until modern times.

Type V.6: Flat Disk

Two bone beads have flat disk shape (Beck Type I.A.1.b; Figure 22.5k). One bead is associated to the Iron II; the other is of 

with fluted decoration cease to be found. Faience varieties of 

these beads were probably formed in a mold or may have been 

hand formed. 

Type III.20: Rectangular

A flat rectangular-shaped faience bead was found (Beck 

Type X.C.2.b; Figure 22.4cc). Two deep wedges are found cut 

into the opposing narrow sides. One of the broad sides is decorated by two gray blobs of siliceous material. The bead was retrieved from an unclear context.

Although generally uncommon, rectangular beads are so 

far known primarily from the end of the Iron Age I, such as at 

Azor, Stratum IV (Golani, 2012), and through the Persian periods, such as at Tel Shor (Golani, In press). The decoration of cut 

wedges and spots in relief is unique. 

Type III.26: Flat Lozenge or Diamond Shaped

A flat and square-shaped dark blue glass bead was found 

(Figure 22.4dd); the perforation was executed between two corners on a diagonal axis (Beck Type XVI.C.2.e). This bead is of 

unclear stratigraphical context. This is a relatively rare form (see 

above Type II.24). 

Terra-cotta Beads

Terra-cotta beads were fashioned around a stick or wire and 

then dried or fired. Beads of fired or sun-dried clay are made 

of an inexpensive, readily available material that can be easily 

formed into any desired shape. However, beads of this material were generally unpopular. A general disdain for terra-cotta 

beads may explain why so few are described in scholarly publications, wherein attractive, colorful, and decorated beads of 

stone, siliceous materials, or metal are much more prevalent. 

As terra-cotta beads were not necessarily fired, they are not as 

well preserved as other more durable materials such as siliceous 

materials, stone, and metal. Aside from the fact that clay ornaments were less aesthetically pleasing than those made of other 

materials, terra-cotta itself apparently did not possess the same 

significance for the wearer as the symbolic and colorful semiprecious stones, glass, and faience.

Type IV.3: Cylindrical

A cylindrical-shaped bead (Beck Type I.D.2.b) is made of 

clay, slightly restricted at its middle (Figures 22.5a, 22.7a). The 

bead was retrieved from an unclear context. This is a very simple 

form that may appear throughout most archaeological periods.

Type IV.5: Doughnut Shaped

Two short doughnut-shaped beads were found (Beck Type 

A.4.d.b; Figure 22.5b). One bead is associated to the Iron II, and 

the other is associated to the LBII period. This is a very simple 

form that may appear throughout most archaeological periods.
NUMBER 50 • 913

from an unclear stratigraphical context. Scaraboid beads of bone 

are cheaper imitations of those made of stone or siliceous materials (see above Types II.12 and III.10).

Shell Beads

Although shells are an inexpensive and readily available 

material, their use as ornaments is always limited by the size 

unclear stratigraphical context. The flat surfaces of scapulae and 

pelvic bones are well suited to the production of such beads. These 

beads are very common from the prehistoric to modern times.

Type V.13: Scaraboid

A bone bead of scaraboid shape is blank on its flat bottom 

(Beck Type XVI.C.4.f.b; Figure 22.5l). The bead was recovered 

FIGURE 22.5. Clay, bone, and shell beads.
914 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Type I.2: Fibulae with Triangular Bow

Usually refered to as “knee” or “elbow” fibulae, Stronach 

saw the triangular bow shape of fibulae as common throughout 

the Near East in various forms from the 8th century BCE to 

the 1st century CE (Figure 22.6b–f). Angular fibulae with a 

bead on each arm are locally found in tomb groups of the 8th 

century BCE and appear to be a local development of the arched 

form with a similar decoration (see above). By the end of the 

8th century BCE, angular fibulae had already spread westward 

to Egypt and eastward to Mesopotamia, where they underwent 

a rapid evolution during the 7th century BCE and remained a 

standard form during the Achaemenian period until Roman 

times (Stronach, 1959:193–194). Mazzoni (1992:244–246) sees 

the local introduction of these forms as no earlier than the end 

of the 8th century BCE but, on the basis of the Syrian examples, 

pinpoints the height of their popularity to the Persian or late Iron 

periods. Two subtypes were identified.

Type I.2.a: Triangular Bow with Ribbed 

and Beaded Moldings

This type includes cast angular fibulae with a molded bead 

and ribbed decoration (Stronach Type III.7; Mazzoni Type 5c; 

Moorey Type f). Eight examples of this type were recovered 

(Figure 22.6b–e); three are associated to the Persian period, one 

is associated to the Crusader-Mamluk period and is probably 

intrusive, and the remaining four are of unclear stratigraphical 

association. 

This type may be compared with the vast majority of the 

triangular fibulae from the Near East. The present forms are 

typical local types commonly found in the Late Iron Age and 

Persian periods. Mazzoni sees this form as typical of the Persian 

period, to which she dates nearly all the Syrian examples (Mazzoni, 1992:244; Pedde, 2000). 

Type I.2.b: Triangular Bow with Varied Ribbed, 

Indented, and Plain Moldings

This type is a cast angular fibula with a more rounded 

angle and a decoration of ribbed, indented, and plain moldings 

(Stronach Type III.8). The singular example of this type (Figure 22.6f) is associated with the Iron IIB. Similar fibulae come 

from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XVIII:1) and Byblos (Pedde, 

2000:175–181, pl. 26:369, Type C1.2). A variant of Type I.2, 

this type also appears in the 8th–5th centuries BCE throughout 

most of the Near East, with a few examples appearing in the 

Greek isles to the west (cf. Stronach, 1959:200–201). 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The present assemblage of jewelry items from Tel Jemmeh 

represents 322 jewelry objects and 12 fibulae and fibulae fragments from a multiperiod site (Figure 22.7). Unfortunately, many 

of the objects originate from unclear or problematic contexts 

and structure of the raw material. The origin of the shells is an 

indicator of trade connections.

Type VI.2: Circular Conus Whorl

A flat bead is made of the apical or body whorl of a large Conus

shell, produced by sawing or abrading to produce a circular shape 

(Figure 22.5m). The perforation was drilled through the center of 

the broad side or may have been a natural opening in the shell (Beck 

Type IX.A.2.b). The bead is of unclear stratigraphical context.

Such beads, in square and rectangular form, often found 

polished, have been termed “Conus whorl beads” and are found 

throughout the ancient Near East as early as the Chalcolithic 

period (Reese, 1986:324–326). The size of the present object indicates that it could have been made of a Mediterranean species 

(Conus mediterraneus). 

Type VI.9: Cylindrical

A cylindrical-shaped bead (Beck Type I.D.2.b) is made of a 

thick portion of shell, sculpted in the form of a cylinder, then perforated (Figure 22.5n). The bead was retrieved from an unclear 

stratigraphical context. 

FIBULAE

Twelve fibulae that could be identified as to type were recovered from the excavations. All were made of copper alloy. 

Numerous more fragments of fibulae and fibulae pins were also 

found, but these were too fragmented or corroded to be identified as to type. 

Type I.1: With Arched Bow and Plain

or Collared Bead on Each Arm

Three cast fibulae have a wide, curving bow and a decoration of plain or collared molded beads on each arm (Stronach 

Near Eastern Type II.4; Mazzoni Type 3; Figure 22.6a). The pin 

is missing in most of these examples. One of these fibulae was 

found in an unclear context; the other two are associated to the 

Persian period.

This is one of the most common and distinctive local fibula 

types that may be generally dated to the Iron II. The origin of 

the wide-arched form with a decorative bead on each arm may 

be found in mainland Greece during the Iron I period (Stronach, 1959:191–192). According to Stronach, this form is locally 

found from the beginning of the 9th century BCE, where it underwent a local development toward an increasingly angular 

bow (see Type I.2 below). Mazzoni (1992:236–238) has lowered 

the date of this form, concluding that in Syria it appears no earlier than the end of the 8th century BCE and is primarily to be 

regarded as a late Iron Age form, whereas all examples of this 

form found in Persian period context are seen as “out of fashion survivals” (p. 237). The present examples from Tel Jemmeh 

could have originated from the Iron Age II strata at the site. 
NUMBER 50 • 915

the site. Jewelry associated to the MBIIB-C period includes six 

objects, yet only one type, an example of a Type III.10 shell ring, 

although generally uncommon, may be seen as being indicative 

of this period. 

The jewelry associated to the LBII period includes 17 objects; the majority are beads that are of little or no chronological or cultural significance. However, the presence of a Type II.4 

lotus bud pendant is very typical of this period, reflecting a period of increased contact with the Egyptian cultural sphere. 

Jewelry associated to the Iron IB period includes six objects, 

none of which are exclusive to this period or may be associated 

specifically to a Philistine occupation at the site. 

Some 177 objects are associated to the Iron II period, yet 

of these, the association of 10 objects is questionable. Of the 

and are thus of limited chronological value. Small objects such 

as jewelry are especially prone to be more mobile and are thus 

easily displaced from their original stratigraphic context. This is 

not unusual; in a study of small objects from a multiperiod site 

such as the City of David excavations in Jerusalem, only 25% 

of the small finds were considered to have originated in a good 

stratigraphic context, whereas the remainder was of questionable context (Zuckerman, 1996:276–278). In addition, because 

of the conservative nature of many jewelry types, their chronological and cultural association may span many centuries and 

geographical regions. 

The assemblage originates from several archaeological periods, yet 88 of the objects are of unclear stratigraphical association and may not be linked to any archaeological period at 

FIGURE 22.6. Fibulae. 
916 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

rings, pendants, and beads, the majority of which are not necessarily indicative of this period. A notable exception is the finding 

of a Type I.6a earring of distinctive constructional technique that 

finds parallels only at Persian burial sites in the southern Levant. 

At Tell Jemmeh, this earring was not found in a stratified occupational context. The small size of a Type II.24 bead found at 

Tell Jemmeh is typical of the Persian period, although the general 

form is known from earlier periods as well. 

Eleven objects are associated to the Crusader-Mamluk 

period, although none are indicative of this period. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Amir Golani, Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum, Building 

POB 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel. Correspondence: golani@israntique

.org.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

NOTE

1. The earring was made of 98% lead. This determination was given by 

S. Shalev of Haifa University (personal communication), who examined the 

object using an X-Ray fluorescence hand-held spectrometer.

remaining 167 objects, 2 are associated with certainty to the Iron 

IIA, 12 to the Iron IIB, and 153 to the Iron IIC. The objects associated to the Iron IIA are two Type II.1 bone/ivory club pendants 

that are typical and indicative of the Iron II period. The objects 

associated to the Iron IIB include primarily beads but also include 

a fragment of a Type I.3a decorated silver earring and a Type I.2b 

fibula, both typical of this period. The large number of objects 

associated to the Iron IIC include primarily beads; a collection of 

5 Type II.2 carnelian beads were found together with 130 Type 

III.1 beads within Room A of Building I, associated to the end of 

the Iron II (Iron IIC) and may have made up part of a necklace. 

A collection of 11 distinctive Type IV.8 terra-cotta pear-shaped 

beads found at Tell Jemmeh are probably exclusive to the late 

Iron II. Although only four such beads are associated to the Iron 

IIC at this site and seven more identical beads are associated to 

various other occupations or are of unclear context, the distinctiveness of this form and its manufacturing technique, along with 

the fact that other exact parallels are known from the Iron IIC at 

Tel ‘Aroer, posit this particular type as indicative of this period.

A total of 39 objects are associated to the Persian period, yet 

of these, 15 are of questionable association. The Persian period 

objects compose a varied selection of earrings, small and large 

FIGURE 22.7. Photographs of beads and necklaces: (a) see Figure 22.5a, (b) see Figure 22.5e, (c) see Figure 22.5f, 

(d) Reg. No. 819, carnelian beads, part of a necklace, and (e) Reg. No. 819, faience beads, part of a necklace.
23 Stone Artifact Assemblage 

from Tell Jemmeh

Yorke M. Rowan

INTRODUCTION

In contrast to studies of other material culture assemblages, analyses of ground stone artifacts remain at an analytical disadvantage. 

The scarcity of published comparative material hinders ground stone studies despite their ubiquitous presence at ancient sites. Published 

reports from large tell excavations typically include what we must assume, for lack of quantification, are samples of the ground stone 

assemblage, typically represented by the finer forms (stone bowls and footed mortars) or distinctive and unusual artifacts. Yet most archaeologists are well aware that excavators probably excavated many more artifacts of a quotidian nature, such as handstones, grinding 

slabs, hammerstones, and other working implements. Although a few such artifacts may be selected for publication, there are few site 

reports that provide the complete, quantified ground stone assemblage. This seems to be equally true whether a site is primarily dated 

to prehistoric or historic periods. Admittedly, this pattern is beginning to change, with publications such as Ras Shamra (Elliott, 1991), 

Tell Michal (Singer-Avitz, 1989b), the renewed excavations at Megiddo (Sass, 2000), and a few others, but one may still visit large tell 

excavations where ground stone artifacts are collected in a large pile without provenience. 

The term “ground stone” is something of a misnomer, as ground stone artifacts include a variety of tools, vessels, and decorative 

objects created through a variety of modification techniques, including flaking, pounding, abrasion, pecking, and grinding. These artifacts are both modified to create the initial tool and, in many cases, further modified through continual use. 

The ground artifacts included in this discussion (N = 579; see Appendix 23.1) were recovered during excavations conducted from 

1970–1984 and temporarily housed at the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. In addition, this chapter includes 

the description and brief discussion of other stone artifacts from the excavation such as weights, spindle whorls, stone vessels, incense 

burners, and other types. These artifacts are described, and comparisons are drawn on the basis of ground stone assemblages recovered 

from other prehistoric and historic sites in the southern Levant. The artifacts are discussed according to their morphology and not according to their period or dating. It should be noted that the majority of these objects are not chronologically indicative. For construction of a typology, functional attributes are considered crucial criteria, but classification is generally based on morphological attributes 

when functional indicators are ambiguous (Wright, 1992a, 1992b, 1993). 

Despite the importance of understanding stone artifact functions (Kraybill, 1977), our limited understanding of tool function necessitates some classification scheme for comparative purposes between sites. In the absence of a comprehensive functional understanding, 

we are left with morphological criteria, in turn modified by other information where available, such as use-wear traces, lithographic 

groups (Table 23.1), and ethnographic analogies. For some artifact classes, such as spindle whorls, vessels, or decorative objects, the 

function is relatively clear. Other artifact classes remain functionally obscure, and thus, morphological and use-wear indicators are 

important criteria for classification and comparison, just as they are from prehistoric sites. Finally, some artifact types, whether historic 

or prehistoric, remain frustrating to classify with confidence. For instance, identification of the upper and lower grinding stones is 

sometimes indefinite because of the fragmentary nature of the artifacts, as well as the frequently ambiguous nature of the wear patterns. 

Typically, many fragments of coarse rock types (basalt, sandstones) are found ground exclusively on one face. Although the general 

shapes of handstones and the lower grinding slabs are sometimes similar, size and wear patterns typically allow distinctions between 

the functionally different tool types. Nevertheless, a typical assemblage includes artifacts that could belong to either grinding slabs or 

handstones, particularly when the artifact is a fragment. Although general morphology of fragmentary artifacts that might be the upper 

or lower grinding implement may not provide an indication to function, examination of the utilized surface (use face) may supply some 

clues. For instance, concave use-wear surfaces are apparent on grinding slabs, indicative of the repeated back and forth motion against 
918 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

ubiquitous from prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic sites. 

Similar grinding slabs are illustrated from early prehistoric sites 

such as Beisamoun (Lechevellier, 1978: figs. 33:1–4, 106:3), 

Munhata (Gopher and Orelle, 1995:65–66, pls. VII–IX), and 

Jericho (Dorrell, 1983: fig. 227.1); protohistoric sites such as En 

Shadud (Braun, 1985: fig. 39:3; 40:1–9), Jawa (Helms, 1991: 

fig. 194.696–697), and Jericho (Dorrell, 1983: fig. 230.11); and 

historic sites such as Tel Beth Shean (Yahalom-Mack and Mazar, 

2006: table 13.5, fig. 13.6:5,6), where some indicate heavy, intensive use such as examples from Megiddo (Sass, 2000: figs. 

12.4:7, 12.7:1,2), Tel Qashish (Ben-Tor and Bonfil, 2003: fig. 

128:8), and Tel Yoqne’am (Ben-Ami, 2005: fig. V.6:1–3). 

Although using slightly different terminology, Hovers 

(1996:178–179, fig. 29) also distinguishes between upper grinding stones and manos, noting that the latter is by definition a 

subtype of the former. 

Grinding Slabs

Grinding slabs, sometimes also referred to as querns or 

meule dormante, are the lower grinding implement on the surface of which materials were placed and subsequently ground 

using an upper stone (for Tell Jemmeh, N = 90; 2 complete, 6 

incomplete, and 82 fragments). Only two complete grinding 

slabs were recovered from Jemmeh (Reg. Nos. 2206, 2215, both 

come from poorly stratified contexts), with an additional six incomplete examples, all of them manufactured from coquinoidal 

sandstone. The remaining examples are fragments. The preferred 

the artifact known from ancient sources as well as by modern 

analogy. However, upper grinding stones may appear concave in 

profile because the central section of the implement endures the 

greatest pressure. Nevertheless, when looked at in cross section, 

the convexity of these use faces is manifest because the leading 

lateral margin endures the greatest wear, indicating their use as 

the upper stone in the pair of grinding implements. 

The descriptive terms used for this analysis (Appendix 23.1) 

are generally direct and require little additional clarification. All 

artifacts are separated according to their state of preservation, 

that is, whether they are complete (little or no damage), incomplete (some small portion missing), or a fragment. Smaller artifacts were measured using a pair of Helios steel calipers; larger 

artifacts were measured using either a small metric ruler or a 

hand tape. 

ARTIFACT DESCRIPTIONS

Grinding Stones

Upper and lower elements in a grinding pair are well known 

from ancient sites around the world. This combination is also 

well documented ethnographically (e.g., Roux, 1985) as well as 

historically, such as the depiction of a grinding slab and upper 

grinding stone known from Old Kingdom Egypt (Pritchard, 

1954: fig. 149). Although infrequently illustrated and until recently rarely discussed, grinding slabs and querns are presumably 

TABLE 23.1. Ground stone artifact lithology, excluding incense burners, weights, and tesserae. CqS = coquinoidal sandstone.

 Gypsum/ Gabbro/ Percentage

Type CqS Limestone Basalt Flint calcite Sandstone Diorite Steatite Others Total of total

Grinding slabs 43 1 40 6 90 16.45

Handstones 55 6 24 2 1 1 1 90 16.45

Handstone/grinders 16 47 63 11.52

Grooved stones 1 1 2 0.37

Mortars 4 13 4 2 23 4.20

Pebbles with 9 9 1.65

concavities

Modified 14 5 2 1 22 4.02

cobbles/pebbles

Spindle whorls 8 2 10 2 22 4.02

Perforated stones 3 15 2 1 1 10 32 5.85

Pivot/door sockets 4 1 5 0.91

Varia 7 3 2 4 2 2 6 26 4.75

Hammerstones 1 47 1 49 8.96

Ground stone 11 22 5 1 4 6 49 8.96

fragments

Stone vessels 1 5 18 30 3 3 5 65 11.88

Total 134 105 140 59 35 16 3 15 40 547

Percentage of total 24.50 19.20 25.59 10.79 6.40 2.93 0.55 2.74 7.31 99.99
NUMBER 50 • 919

are large, elongate or loaf-shaped stones utilized on only one 

side. In profile, the ends of these upper stones project upward 

significantly, creating the impression that the use face is concave when viewed from the side, in profile (see Figure 23.1d,e). 

Viewed in lateral cross section (from side to side), the use face 

is convex (as shown in Figure 23.1b,c). This convexity, typically 

very slight but unmistakable, apparently results from being used 

as the upper stone in a back-and-forth motion. In some examples, this also created an upward projection on the ends, in some 

cases almost at a 90° angle, a result of either end of the upper 

stone overhanging the lateral sides of the lower grinding slab 

rather than engaging in the grinding motion (Figure 23.1d–e). 

This may have even been preferred or intentional to facilitate 

holding the upper stone in pace while pulling and pushing the 

upper stone. At least five examples of our handstones are of this 

type, with a “tail” on one end.

Type B

Another type of handstone is smaller, typically rectangular to square, and frequently show signs of bifacial use (Figures 

23.1a, 23.2c,l,n). Whereas Type A is often large enough to necessitate two-handed use, Type B handstones are generally smaller, 

generally half the size or less. Various attributes suggest different 

functions may have resulted in the morphology of Types A and 

B. The smaller size, bifacial use patterns, and more regular shape 

all suggest that these probably did not serve in the same capacity 

as the larger, rough, and heavy two-handed examples of Type A.

Type C

A third subtype of handstone is the cuboid abrader/rubber 

(Figure 23.2d,g,h). These are smaller and vary in shape from 

cuboid to multifaceted. Facets creating the cuboid or angular morphology are generally created through abrasion, which 

leaves smooth or polished faces. The distinction between these 

and hammerstones, the latter sometimes also including smoothed 

faces, is based on the predominant forms of wear rather than 

morphology. 

The larger forms of handstones are only occasionally illustrated in archaeological reports. From Hazor, large basalt handstones were illustrated (Yadin et al., 1960: pl. CIV:14–18).

Handstones or Grinding Slabs

Artifacts that could not be confidently classified as either 

the upper handstone or lower grinding slab implement were included in this separate category (N = 63). These are all clearly 

ground, but their fragmentary nature precludes determining the 

profile or cross section of the use face or the general implement 

with any degree of confidence. As discussed above, both upper 

and lower stones in the grinding pair may have plano-convex or 

flat cross sections and profiles, so this cannot be taken as categorically indicative of tool type. Without these attributes, some 

artifacts cannot be assigned to a type. All but one are fragmentary; the majority (N = 47, 75%) are made of basalt, whereas 

material for grinding slabs was the locally available coquinoidal 

sandstone (commonly referred to as beach rock; N = 43, 47.8%; 

see Table 23.1) followed closely by basalt (N = 40, 44.4%). The 

remaining approximately 8% are made of fossiliferous silicate 

calcarenite (N = 3), limestone (N = 1), and granite (N = 1), with 

two that may also be coquinoidal sandstone. Virtually all grinding slabs were used unifacially; only three exhibit clear evidence 

for bifacial use. 

Although a large number of grinding slab fragments are typically found at habitation sites, the very low number of complete 

grinding slabs found at Tell Jemmeh is striking. During excavation, all cultural material was collected and saved, and thus, we 

know that the low number of grinding slabs does not reflect selective collection. Instead, the low number of complete grinding 

slabs probably reflects the nondomestic nature of many deposits 

excavated to date at Tell Jemmeh. However, the low number of 

complete grinding slabs may also reflect the elite character or 

specialized nature (e.g., granaries, Assyrian vaulted building) of 

the western side of the site and the limited excavation exposures 

on the eastern side of the site. In addition, the larger number 

of fragments that cannot be categorized between handstones 

and grinding slabs (see “Handstones or Grinding Slabs” section 

below) probably includes some grinding slab fragments.

Grinding slab fragments are infrequently illustrated in reports and are virtually never presented in any quantified form. 

Basalt grinding slabs with a typical plano-convex profile and 

cross section are illustrated from Jericho (Dorrell, 1983: figs. 

232.15; 233.3), as are the less common forms that are relatively 

flat in both cross section and profile (Dorrell, 1983: fig. 233.1). 

Basalt grinding slabs are also illustrated from Tell el-Far’ah (N) 

(Mallet, 1988: figs. 5:1, 28:2,5). 

Handstones

Probably one of the most poorly understood and confusing 

array of ground stone implements are those rocks with clearly 

ground faces, generally the size of an adult hand or smaller (Figures 23.1, 23.2c–j, n, Table 23.2). Known by a variety of terms 

(e.g., upper grinder, manos, meule active), handstones are distinguished from other large grinding implements by their general 

and surface morphology, wear traces, and size. Similar artifacts 

are referred to not only as handstones but also abraders, rubbers, manos, polishers, burnishers, rubbing stones, and pecking 

stones. This array of terms is symptomatic of the lack of consensus in the field and underscores the need for greater rigor in 

the attributes we select for creating types. In this collection (N = 

91), roughly one-third (N = 27) are complete, 14 are incomplete, 

and the remainder are fragments. A separate category was created for the many artifacts, usually fragments, that are not easily 

distinguished from the lower grinding implements (discussed in 

the “Handstone or Grinding Slabs” section). 

Type A

A few examples of the Jemmeh handstones would probably 

be classed as the lower grinding slab by some researchers. These 
920 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 23.1. Handstones and pestles. Bld = building; us = unstratified.

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 928 Basalt, handstone, incomplete GMI 4G F4 3 Unit L

b 3349 Coquinoidal sandstone, handstone, complete GMII A3 (+) us

c 873 Coquinoidal sandstone, handstone, complete GMIII A3 (6) 7?

d 895 Coquinoidal sandstone, incomplete GM 1B F10 5 Bld I, Room A

e 914 Coquinoidal sandstone, fragment GM 1A (12) 7 5? Bld I, Room C?
NUMBER 50 • 921

square artifacts exhibit shallow aspects and small intentionally 

cut channels or drains and thus are classified separately. 

A complete sandstone shallow mortar found in the topsoil is 

also illustrated (Figure 23.9k).

Type B: Cobbles with Pecked Depressions 

or Shallow Concavities

A variety of cobbles, ranging from unmodified in shape to 

those roughly shaped on the exterior, are found with depressions 

or concavities (N = 12; Figure 23.3b). Many of these appear to 

be relatively expedient tools, without a great deal of attention 

to final form. Although classed under mortars, some may have 

served in some other capacity, such as a hammer (creating a 

pounded depression area).

Type C: Bowl/Mortars

A few vessels (N = 5) are similar to a bowl, but with thicker 

walls and less attention to the exterior finish of the vessel than 

typically associated with stone bowls. The thickness of wall and 

base fragments leaves their function open to interpretation.

Type D: Deep Mortars

This is the “classic” form of a mortar, although not as common as other types, such as the small, shallow, “cupped” stones 

(Type B, Figure 23.6a). All examples (N = 3) are made of limestone, and two are fragments, whereas the third is incomplete. 

One example (Reg. No. 990) has a rounded base reflecting the 

original blank’s exterior contour, with a convex wall profile. 

Another (Reg. No. 991) has a flat base, with upright walls and 

only a slight convex profile. Both interior and exteriors are well 

ground and finished. The third example (Reg. No. 3974) is missing a corner and was originally a roughly square shaped artifact 

with a deep concavity relative to the original blank. 

Type E: Indeterminate

Two fragments are unclear as to how they should be typed. 

One appears to be a roughly shaped blank.

Like the grinding slabs and handstones, mortars seem to 

be virtually ubiquitous at prehistoric domestic settlements (e.g., 

Mallaha, Perrot, 1968: fig. 838), some of which are deeply incised with elaborate, geometric patterns (Perrot, 1968: fig. 839). 

Mortars continue to be found in low numbers at historic sites, 

although relative frequencies remain difficult to estimate because 

of the lack of published, quantified results (for the prehistoric 

periods, see Wright, 1992a; Rowan, 1998). 

Shallow mortars on irregular or otherwise unmodified pebbles (similar to our Type B) are documented from Jericho (Dorrell, 1983: figs. 232.1–3), Tel Michal (Singer-Avitz, 1989b: fig. 

31.1:7), the City of David (Hovers, 1996:281–283, fig. 26.4), 

Shikmona (Elgavish, 1968: fig. 36:35,36), and Hazor (Yadin et 

al., 1960: pl. LXXVIII:1,2). Deeper mortars from Tel Michal are 

the remainder are manufactured from coquinoidal sandstone. 

Only six, including the complete basalt artifact, exhibit bifacial 

use wear. The single complete example of a basalt artifact was 

bifacially ground but appeared concave on one face and clearly 

convex on the other, suggesting that the artifact had served in 

both capacities. 

Grooved Stones

Two grooved stone fragments were found, one of coquinoidal sandstone and the other calcareous sandstone. The first 

(Reg. No. 2896) is a flat fragment with a longitudinal faint 

groove, possibly of natural origin. The second (Reg. No. 2285) 

is an ovoid “knob” created by pecking wear around an end 

section; a similar second groove may have created a second 

knob. Although the first may have served as a whetstone for 

chipped or ground stone implements, the function of the second 

is unclear. 

Mortars

Mortars are defined simply as those cobbles or pebbles with 

a concavity pounded or ground into the original blank (N = 23 

for Tell Jemmeh). The earliest deep mortars are found during the 

Kebaran (ca. 20,000–15,000 years BP), typically made of limestone, basalt, or phosphorite, generally reflecting locally available rock (Wright, 1992a:292; Goring-Morris, 1995:146–156). 

By the Natufian (ca. 12,500–10,200 BP), mortars and pestles 

were first decorated or otherwise modified stylistically and began 

to dominate some assemblages (Wright, 1992a:299).

The depth of a mortar’s concavity varies greatly relative to 

the overall blank size, but most found at Tell Jemmeh are shallow. Wright (1992b:626–627) also discovered great variability in 

the class of artifacts she termed mortars such that she recognized 

nine subtypes within the class of prehistoric mortars.

Six mortars are complete, one is incomplete (Figures 23.3g, 

23.9k), and the remainder are fragments. Most are manufactured 

from limestone or chalk (N = 10, Figures 23.6a, 23.3g), followed 

by basalt (N = 6), coquinoidal sandstone (N = 3), one of sandstone, and one an unidentified lithology. Heights of the complete 

examples range from 33 to 64 mm, but by including fragments 

with a complete rim to base profile, heights range from 31 to 118 

mm. Interior depths range from 8 to 65 mm, and well diameters 

range from approximately 60 to 110 mm. 

A diverse range of artifacts, all with some form of hollowed 

interior or vessel feature, is included within this category. At least 

four subtypes of mortars are distinguished, with a fifth category 

for those of indeterminate type. 

Type A: Basin/Mortars

This is a shallow, basin-like artifact (Reg. No. 3083), somewhat similar to a grinding slab in the shallowness of the concavity. However, unlike a grinding slab, the interior concavity does 

not follow the contours of the opposite surface. Two additional 
922 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 923

intensive use that modified the pebble’s side. Whether that was 

the intent or simply a by-product of use is unclear. There is a 

wide range of possible functions that many of these pebbles 

might have fulfilled, perhaps serving as game markers, tokens, 

burnishers for pottery vessels, or weights. The flattened aspect 

on a few (Reg. Nos. 986, 1044) that would prevent rolling once 

placed in a balance pan supports their possible use as weights. 

However, that evidence is not entirely convincing because such 

polished pebbles are clearly present in large numbers early during the Chalcolithic, such as at Gilat (Rowan et al., 2006), and 

the flattened aspect could simply reflect use wear (see Valado, 

2008). 

Pebbles with Shallow Concavities

These are limestone or chalk pebbles of highly variable morphology with shallow hollows pecked on one face or both (Figures 23.3b). All examples (N = 9) are relatively small (the largest 

measuring 105 × 45 × 32 mm), typically oval-shaped blanks 

primarily made of limestone (Singer-Avitz, 1989b: figs. 31.1:1–

6), but basalt seems to have been preferred in general at most 

sites. Basalt mortars were recovered from MBII tombs and settlement at Tell el-Far’ah (N), Stratum II (Mallet, 1988: figs. 8:9, 

28:1, pl. 28.9). In addition to the wide variety of tripod mortars, 

cruder forms of basalt mortars were also recovered from Hazor 

(Yadin et al., 1958: pl. LIX:1,3,12, 1960: pl. CXXVI:11,26), and 

mortars of limestone, trachyte, and basalt were found at Jericho 

(Dorrell, 1983: figs. 231.11,12, 232.1–3).

Small Pebbles

Small pebbles (N = 22) are commonly recovered from prehistoric and historic sites, although they are often not reported 

or relegated to only passing mention. All but four of the pebbles 

are complete, and the range in size is relatively limited. A number of the pebbles from Tell Jemmeh are polished (N = 5), but 

even of these, a few may be natural polish. However, approximately seven pebbles have at least one flattened face, suggesting 

FIGURE 23.2. Handstones, pestles, and hammerstones. Bld = building; us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 1020 Steatite, carefully worked, token or weight? GM 2A (30) 7 Outside Bld III

Cat 707

b 969 Vesicular basalt, pestle, found w/ shallow sandstone mortar GM (+) us

c 913 Coquinoidal sandstone, handstone? GM 2B (41) 8/7

d 852 Flint handstone, “rubber” (or weight?) GMI FUR (0) 2 us

e Coquinoidal sandstone, handstone GM 2B (39) 3 7?

f 973 Limestone, handstone, complete GMI 4D (4) 3 3 Unit L

g 839 Flint, handstone (or weight?) GMIII C1 (81) 16

h 2110 Basalt, handstone, “rubber” (or weight?) GM 2C TT1 (2) us

i 972 Limestone, handstone, complete GMIII A3 (4) 6

j 942 Basalt, handstone, 3 use faces GMI 4F TT5 (+) us

k 968 Basalt, pestle/handstone? GM 2B (44) 6?

l NA Coquinoidal sandstone, handstone, bifacial, carefully worked GM 2A (30) 7 Outside Bld III

m 843 Flint, handstone/rubber, heavily battered GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L

n 936 Basalt, handstone, complete GMIII J2 (17) 1 17

TABLE 23.2. Descriptive statistics for complete and incomplete handstones.

Complete and incomplete (N = 55) Complete only (N = 40) Incomplete only (N = 15)

Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness

Statistic (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Mean 143.27 85.67 49.89 122.63 77.05 46.15 198.33 108.67 59.87

Standard error 11.16 3.88 2.20 11.91 4.13 2.08 20.34 5.94 5.16

Median 105.00 75.00 47.00 89.50 72.50 45.00 198.000 110.00 57.00

Standard deviation 83.49 29.05 16.43 76.29 26.44 13.35 78.77 23.00 19.97

Range 337.00 148.00 91.00 337.00 145.00 87.00 271.00 80.00 66.00

Minimum 37.00 30.00 15.00 37.00 30.00 15.00 65.00 68.00 25.00

Maximum 337.00 148.00 91.00 337.00 145.00 87.00 336.00 148.00 91.00
924 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 23.3. Various stone artifacts. us = unstratified. 

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 1116, SI Cat. No. 634 Polished pendant (axe?), complete (jasper?) GM 2C NBR (27) 4?

b 1002 Limestone pebble, bifacial pecked GMIII C1 (81) 16

concavities complete

c 653 Alabaster vessel, rim fragment GM 2C P1 (3) 1

d 655 Alabaster vessel, rim fragment GM 1C P2 2?

e 1005 Limestone mace head fragment, bipolar GMIII B F9 13/14 Unit 11

drilling, perforation incomplete

f 678, SI Cat. No. 2015 Limestone, spindle whorl, incised decor, GM (+) us

half fragment

g 2442 Chalk, shallow mortar GMI FUR (10) 5 FUR 4

h 999 Limestone, pivot stone, door socket? GMI 4G (3) 3 3 Unit L
NUMBER 50 • 925

Weights

Eight artifacts may represent scale weights, mostly of the 

late Iron Age (Figures 23.4k, 23.5). Two are certain; Reg. No. 

1305 (Figure 23.5c) is a pym weight (7.98 g) with an inscription 

on the convex top of the dome from a mixed context. The other, 

Reg. No. 1042 (Figure 23.5a), is a polished lenticular-shaped 

hematite nodule (12.05 g), flattened on one long side and both 

ends, very similar in shape and size to one found at the City of 

David (Eran, 1996: fig. 32.10), only slightly heavier than standard inscribed weights thought to represent one shekel (Kletter, 

1991: table 1; at 11.86 g). Eran (1996:221) considers the parallel example from the City of David to be on the Phoenician 

standard, dating it to the 10th century BCE. Nevertheless, similar weights were recovered from LBII contexts, such as a tomb 

at Tell Jerishe (Ory, 1944:57, pl. XIII:2,3), Megiddo (Stratum 

IX or VIII, Loud, 1948: pl. 168:9), Ashdod (Stratum XIX, Dothan and Porath, 1993:31, fig. 6:17, pl. 31:16; Eran, 1993:125), 

Beth Shean (Yahalom-Mack and Mazar, 2007:676–677, photo 

13.4b–d), and Kalavassos in Cyprus (South, 2012:38, fig. 5.2, 

lower right).

Dome-shaped and flattened on one aspect, the pym weight 

(Figure 23.5c), is made of limestone, the typical material used 

for the standardized pym weights (Naveh, 1962b:32; Kletter, 

1991:121, table 1). The inscription is found on the top of the 

dome, where it would be visible in the course of weighing. On 

the basis of a relatively small sample (N = 178) of weights of 

known origin, Kletter (1991:127, table 3, fig. 2) established that 

these types of weights are found predominantly in the central to 

southern areas of Palestine, specifically the Land of Benjamin, 

the Judean hills and desert, the Shephelah, and the Arad and 

Beer-Sheba valleys (see his appendix for a catalog of inscribed 

weights; his Table 7 catalogs the pym weights, including the earlier forms recovered during Petrie’s excavations at Tell Jemmeh). 

He further suggests that the weights are part of a single system 

based on one standard with the shekel as the basic unit in Judah, 

contrary to the views of many other scholars (e.g., Ben-David, 

1979; Eran, 1982, 1996; see Kletter, 1991:131 for others), who 

suggest that a number of different standards were in use at the 

same time. Noting that a lack of precision for the weights has 

a number of other possible causes (e.g., inexactness, cheating, 

wear), Kletter (1991:131) contends that rather than representing 

different standards, a deviation of at least 3%, and more likely 

5%, should be expected. He further suggests that the inscribed 

weights came into use during the 8th century BCE, with a terminus ante quem of 587 BCE, disappearing when Judah lost its 

independence (Kletter, 1991:126). At about this time, coinage 

was introduced to the region, and the economy shifted to a monetary basis. 

A third complete artifact made of limestone (Figure 23.4k) 

is also possibly a scale weight, despite its morphological similarity to a small pestle; it weighs 93.1 g. Like some smaller pestles, it 

is a truncated cone shape, with a flattened wide end and a convex 

narrower end. The flat end, which is smoother than the other surfaces, has an incised square. Although relatively smooth all over, 

there is no convincing evidence for use wear. Close parallels are 

varying from flat to slightly biconvex in profile. Most (N = 6) 

exhibit bifacial concavities, indicating that there may be some 

similarity in function. Two examples (Figure 23.3b and Reg. No. 

1006) are only roughly pecked concavities on both sides of a 

limestone pebble, similar to the bifacially pecked examples of the 

galet percuteur found at Tell Keisan (Briend, 1980: pl. 83:1,2). 

Neither indicates the heavy drilling, concentric striae, or other 

attributes typical of stones that might have served as pivots or 

door sockets. Although rarely mentioned or illustrated, similar 

artifacts are probably frequently encountered at other sites. An 

additional example (Reg. No. 2149) is a drilled chalk nodule 

but is far too small (~35 × 35 mm) to serve as a pivot stone, 

tournette, or other heavy use item. A similar fragment of a flat, 

drilled disk was found in the Middle Bronze levels of Jericho 

(Dorrell, 1983: fig. 232.18), and a relatively flat pebble with a 

shallow, pecked indentation was found at Shikmona (Elgavish, 

1968: figs. 36, 38). 

Pestles

Elongate stone artifacts that possibly served as pestles are 

rare at Tell Jemmeh (N = 2), but this is not an unusual observation compared to many other ground stone assemblages from 

prehistoric and historic sites (Figures 23.2b). Although pestles 

are frequently found at other prehistoric to historic sites, their 

frequency seems to be generally quite low relative to the overall 

assemblage. Here again, quantified reports are necessary to ascertain if this observation is accurate and to establish a basis to 

understand why low frequencies of pestles are a common trait of 

many ground stone assemblages. Both pestles from Jemmeh are 

complete, are made of basalt, and exhibit a concave, well-ground 

to polished working face. The small vesicular example (Figure 

23.2b) was found with a shallow sandstone mortar. Smaller 

and narrowing to form a convenient handle, the other example 

(Figure 23.2k) was used in similar fashion as many other handstones, primarily for grinding and polishing. 

Worked Stones

Artifacts that reflect the original, unmodified shape of a natural cobble or smaller pebble with some evidence for use wear are 

distinguished from other artifact types primarily by their lack of 

clear function or morphological parallels to other stone artifact 

types (N = 22; Figures 23.4l–o). Half are complete, whereas the 

others are fragments. Eight of the complete artifacts range from 

113 × 56 × 30 mm to 46 × 38 × 39 mm in maximum dimensions, 

mostly cobbles of hard limestone. The majority are roughly oval 

to elliptical in shape, although one is elongate and another is a 

flat squarish slab. Evidence for wear on the complete artifacts 

is primarily limited to probable slight grinding wear, although 

three also exhibit pecking wear. A few are roughly disk shaped, 

with bifacial concavities (Figure 23.4l,m,n), but their function is 

unknown. Whether or not these were unfinished perforations or 

were simply the by-products of some other tool is unclear. The 

majority of the fragments have grinding wear, typically limited 

in extent. 
926 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 927

FIGURE 23.4. Spindle whorls and perforated items. us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 671 Limestone spindle whorl, unfinished GM 1C (+) us

perforation

b 670 Spindle whorl, unfinished perforation, GM 1B (2B) 1 3?

quartzite

c 1113 Limestone spindle whorl, dome shaped GMI FUR (10) 5 Cat. 950 FUR 4

d 1039 Steatite spindle whorl, dome shaped GMI 3G (9) 6

e 1110 Steatite spindle whorl, conical GM 2A (1) Cat. No. 33 us

f 1046 Hard limestone spindle whorl, dome GM 2A (31A) 7 Outside 

shaped Building III

g 672, SI Cat. No. 10 Chalk, unfinished perforation, fragment GM 1B TT1 (5) 3?

h 1047 Spindle whorl?, chalk, bifacially perforated GM 1B NBR (16) 1 5 Building II 

Room A

i 1033, SI Cat. No. 453 Limestone, bifacially perforated, weight? GMI 5E (4) Unknown

j 2109 Limestone, spindle whorl fragment, GM 1B (10) 1 4–5? Above Building I

polished Room A

k 2096 Limestone, weight(?), incised rectangle, GM 2C W1 2 Unknown

complete (93.1 g)

l 3921 Flat limestone pebble, bifacially drilled, GMIII J2 (16) 1 17

incomplete perforation

m 2142 Limestone pebble, slight bifacially pecked GMIII C1 (78) 15

concavities

n 1031, SI Cat. No. 1014 Basalt, bifacially perforated, complete GMIII F1 (7) 5 15 Room G

o 1000 Limestone, roughly chipped, bifacially GMIII B (56) 4 10 Room C

drilled, incomplete perforation

FIGURE 23.5. Scale weights. us = unstratified. 

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 1042 Hematite scale weight (12.1 g) GMI 1F (0) Us

b 1019 Dark stone (limestone?) scale weight (38.1 g) GM 3B (11) 2 6 Building III, Unit 2

c 1305, SI Cat. No. 1945 Limestone scale weight, pym (7.98 g) GM 2B (14) 3?

d 3968 Hematite scale weight (24.0g) GM 2B TT3 (1) 5?

e 1043 Jasper chert(?)/hematite scale weight/spindle (14.2 g) GMI FUR (7) 3 FUR 3/4

f 2030 Hematite scale weight(?) (5.7 g) GM 1C EBR (9) Unknown

g 2068 Hematite scale weight(?) (14.5 g) GM 2B (5) 4 6 Building II 

(Room C?)

h 3553 Hematite scale weight(?) GMII A2–C2 (3) balk Us
928 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

contexts with a faceted aspect are also common, and thus, the interpretation that this is a weight remains open for debate. From 

Tell Jemmeh, there are a number of other spheroids and rubbers 

that might have been classified by other scholars as weights (see 

below, hammerstones and handstones). 

Spindle Whorls

The majority of spindle whorls recovered from Tell Jemmeh 

are made of stone, but a few were made of bone (Figures 23.3f, 

23.4a–j, 23.6c–f). The corpus (N = 21) spans a range of periods, 

from simple flat disks with parallels as early as the Late Neolithic 

and Chalcolithic (but possibly much later) to later cylindrical 

forms with incised decorative motifs similar to Hellenistic examples. The spindle whorls are divided into seven basic types on 

the basis of morphology and size. 

Type 1

This type is circular, dome shaped to plano-convex in profile, with convex sides; it is also termed “hemispherical” in some 

reports (e.g., Tell Keisan, Nodet, 1980:315–316). These are represented by Figure 23.4c and Reg. Nos. 676 and 674. Others 

(Figure 23.4d,f) are similar, but with a less pronounced dome 

and closer to plano-convex in profile. Similar forms are known 

from a variety of sites, including two of serpentine from the 

Megiddo tombs, one dated to the MBII (Guy and Engberg, 1938: 

fig. 175:7, pl. 84:15) and the other to the LBII (Guy and Engberg, 1938: fig. 175:22, pl. 166:14), where plano-convex forms 

made of bone (Guy and Engberg, 1938: fig. 175.8, pl. 84.4) and 

slate (Guy and Engberg, 1938: fig. 175.1, pl. 171.1) are also 

found. Other examples are known to be made of bone from 

illustrated from excavations at the City of David, where one in 

particular is the same size and similar morphology (Eran, 1996: 

fig. 35.6), although it weighs much less than the example from 

Jemmeh. The weight from Jemmeh (Figure 23.4k) was found in 

a late, mixed debris of Square 2C. 

Four other stones are hematite nodules with at least one 

flat side. Two are spherical (Figure 23.5d,f), except for the flattened side, and otherwise show no evidence for use wear. At 5.7 

g, Figure 23.5f is close in weight to the bek‘a weights (Kletter, 

1991: table 8). The other hematite artifact (Figure 23.5g) is heavily worked and polished into a flat rectangular shape. A larger 

spherical worked stone (Figure 23.5b) made of dark stone (limestone) may also be a scale weight (38.1 g). Another artifact of interest is a polished hemispherical piece of jasper or chert (Figure 

23.5e) that has barely perceptible initial points of drilling, but 

with little depth. The similarity in shape and size to the steatite 

spindle whorls could indicate an intended function as a spindle 

whorl (see below), but more likely it served as a weight. In addition, there are several spherical or flattened nodules with iron 

oxides that we might tentatively call weights (Figure 23.5h and 

Reg. No. 3009, not illustrated). The final possible examples are 

the least convincing example. Like other objects considered possible weights (Brandl, 1993b; Eran, 1996), the Jemmeh example 

(Figure 23.5h) is a spherical nodule with one intentionally modified and flattened side. There is no other clear evidence for use 

wear. However, as Eran points out, these types of artifacts are 

know from prehistoric contexts, where they are typically considered hammerstones, pounders, rubbers, or abraders, depending upon the individual scholar’s preferred nomenclature. The 

fact that only one small area was faceted, preventing the sphere 

from rolling, lends credence to the idea that this was intended to 

serve as a weight. Nevertheless, stone spheroids from prehistoric 

FIGURE 23.6. Mortar, pebble, and spindle whorls.

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 680 Limestone mortar GM 00A (1) 3 5 Building I, Room F

b 668, SI Cat. No. 506 Worked pebble (limestone) GM 00B P2 (5) 1?

c 1112 Steatite spindle whorl GMI 4D (4) 3 3 Room F

d 1040 Steatite spindle whorl GMIII B (50) 4 10 Room B

e 1041 Limestone(?) spindle whorl GMIII B (56) 3 9

f 675 Steatite spindle whorl GM 1C (4) 3
NUMBER 50 • 929

are also fairly common, and similar examples of serpentine were 

recovered from Iron Age tombs at Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 

1938: fig. 175:24, pl. 166:17) and of limestone and serpentine at 

Tel Keisan (Nodet, 1980: pl. 96:27, 29–31), although the latter 

are more convex in profile than our examples. More similar is 

the limestone example from Beth Shean, Level XIII (FitzGerald, 

1935: pl. VI.20) and a fragment from the City of David excavations (Shamir, 1996: fig. 22:17). 

Type 4

These are flat, disk-shaped spindle whorls. Only one example comes from Tell Jemmeh (Figure 23.4j), a limestone fragment, bifacially drilled and smooth, nearly polished. 

Type 5

These are cylindrically shaped spindle whorls, represented 

by two artifacts, one of chalk (Figure 23.4h) and the other possibly of limestone (Figure 23.3f). The complete example of chalk 

(Figure 23.4h) is chipped and fractured, is relatively flat in cross 

section and profile, and has vertical edges where striae are still 

visible. This was found in a 7th century BCE context. A similar 

type was found in the City of David (Shamir, 1996: fig. 22.26). 

The other fragment, a surface find, is carefully worked hard 

limestone, with a drilled, highly polished interior hole found on 

the ground surface. One very similar in morphology was found 

at Samaria (Kenyon, 1957: fig. 117.4). Decoration is formed 

by light parallel lines in an X pattern along the exterior (Figure 

23.3f), somewhat similar to the zigzag pattern lightly incised on 

a spindle whorl found at the City of David (Shamir, 1996: fig. 

22:20). Other similar forms, but with slightly different incised 

patterns, were found by Petrie at Jemmeh (1928: pl. XLIV:47, 

48; see also Figure 23.6f). 

Type 6: Truncated Cone Shape

One complete example (Figure 23.6e) of this morphological form was found, made of hard gypsum. A few artifacts may 

have been intended as spindle whorls but were never completed. 

One, a round limestone fragment (Reg. No. 2861), was bifacially 

pecked, and this pecking probably caused the piece to break. 

There is evidence of drilling, however, so this may have been intended for some other use when complete. Another item, a small 

chalk disk fragment (Figure 23.4g), was drilled from one side, 

perforating the disk and also probably the cause of breakage 

during manufacture. 

Nine spindle whorls are very similar. All are made of steatite, are relatively small (ranging from 7 to 12 mm in height 

and from 22 to 26 mm in diameter), and vary from hemispherical to a squat, truncated cone in profile (Types 1 and 2). Most 

are complete. A few have a fine, incised line around the circumference, in one case etched precisely (i.e., Figure 23.4d and Reg. 

No. 673, both Type 1), similar to one from Megiddo (Loud, 

1948: pl. 172:19,41). Another (Figure 23.4e, Type 2) has numerous incised concentric lines around the surface, suggesting it was 

Shiloh (Brandl, 1993b: fig. 9.9:6; 9.14:3), Shikmona (Elgavish, 1968: fig. LXIII:168), Hazor (Yadin et al., 1958: pls. 82:9, 

89:17), and Tel Keisan (Nodet, 1980: pl. 96:1,10,11,16–26), of 

serpentine at Tell el-Hesi (Bennett and Blakely, 1989: fig.220.2), 

and of basalt at City of David (Shamir, 1996: fig. 22:13, 14). 

Finally, there are those made of limestone from Iron Age levels at 

Tel ‘Ira (Goldsmith et al., 1999: figs. 14.4:3–6) and late Iron Age 

contexts at Megiddo (Sass, 2000: fig. 12.17:17). Additional Iron 

Age examples are known from Beit Mirsim (Albright, 1938:56, 

pl. 38.21, 1943:84, pl. 63.3) and Samaria (Crowfoot, 1957: fig. 

92a.1,2,5,6). An array of spindle whorls was illustrated from 

Beit Mirsim (Albright, 1938: pl. 38:1–36), but their morphology 

is unclear. Another example from Jemmeh (Figure 23.6f; Reg. 

No. 675) has incised lines radiating from the hole to the edge, 

virtually identical to one from Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton, 

1935: pl. 37.2:337). 

One spindle whorl fragment (Reg. No. 677) from the granary is classified as subtype I(a). Dome-shaped, but with a flattened top, this is essentially an intermediary form between Type 

1 and Type 7 (truncated, conical). Similar to other examples of 

Type 1, this subtype is flat on one side and convex on the other. 

Unlike the profile of most Type 1 spindle whorls, however, the 

convex profile of Type I(a) is truncated by a flat aspect around 

the drilling of the hole. Similar examples are known from Samaria (Crowfoot, 1957: fig. 92a.6), Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton, 

1935: pl. 37.2:186), and Shikmona (Elgavish, 1968:169–171). 

On the basis of parallels at other sites and the range of dates, it 

seems this type dates from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age and 

probably continues later.

Type 2: Circular, Conical in Profile

Conical forms may vary from a nearly equilateral triangular in profile to very low, wide triangles with a slightly flattened 

area at the top. Like Type 1, the conical shape is a very popular 

form found at a variety of sites (Figures 23.4e, 23.6c). Similar 

to other sites, our examples of Type 2 are made of steatite, like 

those from the Megiddo tombs and perhaps Sebaste, where an 

example is referred to as a “grayish green stone” (Crowfoot, 

1957: fig. 92a.11) exhibiting the familiar concentric etched line 

following the outer circumference of the whorl and along the 

top of the perforation. Ivory, serpentine, and diorite types were 

found at Tell Keisan (Nodet, 1980: pl. 96:5–7), bone and steatite types were found at the tombs at Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: figs. 175:11, 12), and probably steatite ones were 

found at Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton, 1935: pl. 37.1:109). Of 

our three examples, two appear in Late Bronze Age strata (Figures 23.4e, 23.6c).

Type 3

These are spindle whorls with a slightly biconvex profile 

and are represented by two examples (Figure 23.4a and Reg. No. 

1037), both of which are made of limestone, but only the first is 

complete. The first was found on the site’s surface, whereas the 

second is from a Late Bronze Age level. Biconvex spindle whorls 
930 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

as a door socket (Figure 23.3h). Some examples are similar to 

what other scholars refer to as “cupmarks on cobbles,” “cupped 

stones” (Elliott, 1991:28, fig. 7.2), or perforated stones (Wright, 

1992a:637). Ranging in size from 210 × 185 × 61 mm to 130 × 

114 × 40 mm, none of these are particularly large cobbles. 

Wheel Pivot

A complete potters’ wheel pivot made of limestone was 

found on the site’s surface as well (Figure 23.7). It is impossible 

to stylistically date this artifact, although it might have been connected to the potter’s kiln in Field I FUR (chapter 7).

Varia

This broad category (N = 26) is for those stone artifacts that 

occur singly or those without clear function. 

Chariot Knob

A spindle-shaped object made of limestone probably represents a chariot knob (Figure 23.8f ). The artifact has a contracted 

medial area, a rounded section, and is larger on one end than 

the other. The ends are flat and chipped from manufacture and 

secondary deposition. Drilled through the center (~12 mm diameter), the circular hole was fashioned into a square shape on the 

larger end. 

turned on a mechanical device (e.g., Loud, 1948: pl. 172:24,26). 

A steatite domed spindle whorl (Type 1, Figure 23.6f) with a 

single incised line is not precisely etched and has additional vertical lines etched on the domed exterior for decor. The only fragment (Reg. No. 677, Type 1) is from a polished domed example 

but is larger than the others. Another slightly flatter example 

is made of hard reddish limestone (Figure 23.4f) but is otherwise also similar to the seven steatite examples discussed above. 

Finally, it is interesting to note that none of the spindle whorls 

found at Tell Jemmeh resemble the “wide-brimmed hat” type 

found at many sites, such as Tel Dan (Biran and Ben-Dov, 2002: 

fig. 2.123). 

Perforated Stones

For a variety of reasons, other stone artifacts (N = 23) drilled 

through the center seem unlikely to be spindle whorls (Appendix 

23.1; Figures 23.4i,n, 23.6b). Smaller examples may have served 

as loom weights, although loom weights are generally made of 

unbaked clay and are much larger. For example, little attention 

was dedicated to the exterior finish of a bifacially drilled chalk 

nodule (Figure 23.4i), which probably would not spin evenly. 

Other drilled and perforated artifacts are disk shaped and bifacially drilled in the center but appear to be too large and made 

of poor material for spinning, such as the perforated disk made 

of coquinoidal sandstone (SI Cat. No. 387, Reg. No. 669) or 

the heavy and large perforated basalt example (Figure 23.4n). 

A chalk disk fragment bifacially perforated through the center 

(Figure 23.6b) may represent the wheel from a chariot model or 

a toy. One side is smooth and slightly convex in profile; the other 

side was intentionally manufactured to be concave, and light incisions from tool marks are visible over the surface. Included in 

this category are stones with apparently natural holes through 

a natural nodule (N = 6), which may have been collected by the 

inhabitants. 

Pivot Stones

Pivot stones are cobbles with small (relative to the pebble 

blank) concavities on one or both faces that do not perforate the 

blank (Figures 23.3h, 23.4o). Sometimes called “door sockets,” 

some of the present examples (N = 5) may be small to serve as 

the stone for a door socket. Some scholars distinguish between 

cobbles with pecked concavities on one or both faces and those 

with heavy wear marks leaving traces of concentric wear and 

polish. This has been followed for the present study.

Three of these are bifacially drilled, and the others have a 

concavity or drill mark on only one face. The bifacial drilling 

suggests that perhaps some are unfinished perforated stones; 

however, when the blank is so close to perforation (Figure 23.4o, 

originating in Room G, Field III, dated to MBIIB-C, Phase 15), 

the alternate possibility, that the piece is expended, appears just 

as convincing. Two are fragments, and the rest are complete 

examples. Most are made of limestone or chalk; only one is 

made of basalt. One limestone example has multiple overlapping concentric incised impressions, suggesting repeated use 

FIGURE 23.7. Potter’s wheel pivot found on the site’s surface.
NUMBER 50 • 931

Cosmetic Palette

Made of limestone, this is a flat fragment with four round, 

slightly rimmed cup depressions (~35 mm in diameter). Originally square in outline, the four cups surround a small rosette 

pattern in the center (Figure 23.8d). Similar artifacts from Tel 

Michal (Singer-Avitz, 1989b: fig. 31.4:16), Deve Huyuk (Moorey, 1980: fig. 8.146), and Lachish (Tufnell, 1953:397, pl. 64:10) 

suggest a Persian dating; although the context for the Jemmeh example is unclear, a great deal of Persian material was associated. 

Jeweler’s Mold(?)

An incomplete artifact of chalk appears to be one half of a 

mold for metallurgy (Figure 23.8e). The piece is roughly rectangular, with vertical sides. The ventral side has parallel, light 

incisions. The opposite face has deeper incisions consisting of a 

straight rectangular stem, rounded at one end, connecting to two 

short slightly raised “arms” or stems. A single channel to the 

side of the mold may have directed overflow of the smelted material. Vaguely parallel artifacts are known from Megiddo (Loud, 

1948: pl. 269:4, Stratum XIII, MBI), and more closely analogous 

The knobs from excavations at Beth Shean (James, 1978) 

are divided into four major types, and the Jemmeh example, 

flat on both ends and lacking the grooves and ridges found 

on the other types, most closely parallels Type A-2 (James, 

1978: figs. 2:8,10, 3:4). Similar forms are also known from 

Ras Shamra (Caubet, 1991: fig. 1a,b). The majority of chariot 

knobs appear to be found in deposits dated to the LB, including 

similar forms from Hazor of limestone and alabaster (Yadin et 

al., 1960: pls. CXCVI:6,7, CL:9). The example from Jemmeh 

is a surface find.

Stopper?

A small round incomplete gypsum piece (Reg. No. 658), 

poorly preserved, may represent a stopper or button. One side is 

convex, with a shallow incision that could have held twine or a 

thong, possibly originally a perforation for the attachment. The 

other side is flat, with a small circular central area in relief to fit 

a jar opening. Similar artifacts from Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 

65:11, Iron II) and Petrie’s excavations at Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XLV:12, also of gypsum, LBII–Iron) would date this type of 

artifact to either the LBII or Iron Age.

FIGURE 23.8. Various stone artifacts. us = unstratified.

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 856 Hammerstone (chert) GMIII B (55) 1 10

b 834 Hammerstone (chert) GMII A3 TT2 (20) 6

c 847 Hammerstone (chert) GMI FUR (5) 2 FUR 3

d 695, SI Cat. No. 115 Cosmetic palette (limestone) GM 1C–1D P1 (1) Unknown

e 694, SI Cat. No. 61 Mold (limestone) GM 2B (18) Unknown

f 659, SI Cat. No. 957 Chariot knob (limestone) GM (+) us

g 1009 Statue/leg(?) (diorite?) GMIII B (56) 2 10 Unit 6

h 661, SI Cat. No. 2017 Slab/palette? (greenish stone) GM 2C TT1 (0A) 2 Unknown
932 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

barreled in shape with flattened ends, the exterior is polished 

but scratched and speckled from slight battering. Both ends were 

drilled, but it appears the piece broke before the perforation was 

complete. Mace heads are found throughout the Near East, from 

Egypt to Mesopotamia, dating from as early as the Neolithic 

up to historic periods (Cialowicz, 1987, 1989; Rosenberg, 2010; 

Rowan and Levy, 2011). Given the absence of distinctive morphological features and wide regional and chronological distribution, this fragment is difficult to link with a particular period 

or area (it was found in an LB context in Field III). Although 

probably later than the Chalcolithic period, the barrel-shaped 

form and nonexotic material makes it difficult to define chronologically. Mace heads are only rarely reported from historic tell 

sites, with other prestige objects apparently replacing the status 

that mace heads seem to have held during late prehistoric and 

protohistoric periods. 

Hammerstones

The class of tools typically called hammerstones is probably 

one of the more problematic tool types in terms of matching 

implied functionality with evidence supporting that function(s) 

(Figure 23.8a–c). These tools range from spherical cobbles to 

very angular spheroids and cobbles that range between a sphere 

and a cube (listed in Appendix 23.1, also termed cuboid/spheroid). Many of these have two or three faceted aspects, which 

appear to be the result of grinding and abrasion. Others are battered, with chipping and fragmentation evident on a few. Classification as a hammerstone rather than a handstone (particularly 

Type C, see above) is based on a greater degree of battering, 

chipping, and fragmentation relative to smoothing and polish 

from abrasion. 

All of the examples classified as hammerstones (N = 60) are 

apparently manufactured from flint (Figure 23.8a–c), although a 

few remain covered with a limestone cortex preventing inspection of the interior. Most are complete, with only four incomplete 

examples and two fragments. Despite the variability evident in 

use, the overall assemblage creates an impression of very limited 

size ranges. In Table 23.3, descriptive statistics indicate the low 

level of variability in the range of sizes, where the mean length, 

width, and thickness of the complete and incomplete examples 

are less than 1 cm, with a very low standard deviation for the 

length and width. The uniformity of these tools lends support 

to the idea that some of these may have served as weights; at 

the same time, such uniformity may result from a functional requirement for size in proportion to the human hand. Certainly, 

the ubiquity of similar tools of great uniformity from prehistoric 

contexts contradicts their interpretation as weights without further corroborating evidence. 

Pendants

Five stone pendants were recovered, four of them complete 

and one fragmentary. Two are limestone; one example (Reg. No. 

1023) is a roughly triangular or heart-shaped, small, flat natural 

pebble with a natural hole that may have been drilled. The other 

artifacts are known from the City of David (Hovers, 1996: fig. 

30.13, with two holes piercing the object). Alternatively, this 

might be a stamp. Stratigraphically, this is probably from Phase 

4 of Field IV, a Persian context.

Other Varia

One item (Reg. No. 1014) is a rectangular fragment, broken on both ends, which is well ground on both faces and 

with vertical carefully finished lateral sides. Made of fossiliferous limestone, this type of artifact is commonly referred to as 

a whetstone, although the deliberate care of fine grinding over 

the entire surface suggests that it was not used for sharpening. 

There is no clear evidence of use wear, and both faces are very 

slightly convex, rather than concave as we might expect from use 

as a whetstone. Another object made of polished hard gray and 

green limestone (Figure 23.8h), trapezoidally shaped but with 

both ends broken, also lacks any use wear suggestive of use as 

a whetstone. Like the previous example, it is bifacially slightly 

convex, but with naviform edges. 

Other objects include a small rectangular piece of steatite 

with rounded corners, possibly a token, weight, or game piece 

(Figure 23.2a); a small smoothed chunk of alabaster (Reg. No. 

663) is irregular in shape, highly polished on one face as if used 

as a fine abrader or handstone. The polished face is very slightly 

concave, whereas the opposite face is smoothed from use, similar 

to an artifact of diorite from a Hellenistic stratum at Tel Keisan 

(Briend, 1980: pl. 16.8). Another fragment of ferruginous limestone (Reg. No. 662) is in the shape of a tongue depressor. The 

piece is thin, polished, with lateral sides that are relatively parallel and smooth. The unbroken end is rounded and polished, suggesting that this might have served as a weaving shuttle, although 

it could also be a broken fragment of a decorative object such as 

a pendant or, less likely, a figurine. Another polished cylindrical 

piece (Figure 23.8g, made of diabase or diorite) has a trapezoid 

section, one end broken and the other rough; this could be either 

a pestle or a leg of a large vessel or a statue. A small fragment 

of steatite (Reg. No. 1021) appears to be the detritus from the 

manufacture of a spindle whorl. Although similar to what an unfinished conical steatite spindle whorl might look like, including 

the heavy striae covering it, a shallow incised circle delineating 

the circumference, and a shallow point in the center from drilling, the piece is much too small in size and weight to be intended 

for use as a spindle whorl. It seems likely that this was a small 

fragment from a steatite spindle whorl possibly intended as a 

bead (or button) before being discarded. A final interesting piece 

(Reg. No. 2189) is a disk fragment made of white, slightly metamorphic limestone or marble. Finely ground, one side is flat, and 

the other is just slightly convex; this may have served as a lid and 

is perhaps somewhat similar to those found of alabaster at Ras 

Shamra (Caubet, 1991: pl. X.11).

Mace Head

A fragment of a hard limestone mace head (Figure 23.3e) 

may have been broken during the drilling process. Roughly 
NUMBER 50 • 933

originating in Egypt. Only three fragments are made of gypsum, 

a locally available rock. 

The calcite alabaster forms are clearly crafted with greater skill 

and attention to detail, and parallels to other forms suggest that 

they are imports, possibly Egyptian in origin or inspiration. The 

most complete example (Figure 23.10a), which was reconstructed, 

is a highly polished deep circular bowl with slightly convex upright 

walls and rounded base. Two finely executed small vertical pierced 

lug handles on either side, in the form of stylized duck heads, extend from the rim downward approximately 45 mm. 

A slightly rounded, everted rim fragment (Figure 23.9a) with 

a beveled top and concave wall profile is similar to a number 

of different vessel types, including vessels such as a high-necked 

globular pot from Ras Shamra (Caubet, 1991: pl. III;13,14) as 

well as other forms from that site (Caubet, 1991: pl. II:4,9), but 

with parallels far to the south as well (Nubia, Steindorff, 1937: pl. 

94:6,7). Similar rims are evident on a variety of vessels, including 

those from Beth Shean (Oren, 1973:114, figs. 45.26, 76.13, “high 

footed cup”), Jericho (Dorrell, 1983: fig. 232.23, Middle Bronze), 

and Lachish (Tufnell et al., 1940: pls. XXIV:78, XXV:13). 

The remaining alabaster bowl fragments fall within the 

narrow repertoire of the small bowls and the alabastron, which 

achieved popularity across the Near East (Roosevelt, 2008). A 

number of vessel rim to base fragments provide profiles of shallow, finely worked bowls. Two (Figures 23.9b,c, 23.10e) represent similar forms of shallow bowls with flat, finely ground rims 

and convex wall profiles. A similar form in the Dayan Collection 

was termed a “miniature cosmetic bowl” (Clamer, 1986: pl. 1:5). 

The third fragment (Reg. No. 649) is a flat, finely ground rim, 

probably similar to the other two but wider at the rim. Also 

roughly similar is one from Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 64:2,3). 

A similar rim found at Samaria is dated to Late Roman (Kenyon, 

1957: fig. 119.5), but this is an unlikely date for the Tell Jemmeh 

rim fragment and is probably a ubiquitous rim type. One final 

rim fragment (Reg. No. 648) also appears to be a similar shallow 

dish with a wide, flat horizontal rim.

Other fragments of alabastra are several small, narrow neck 

fragments, all of them finely worked. One item (Figure 23.3c) 

has a plain, upright rim and straight tubular neck, with a narrow horizontal ridge (~6 mm wide) approximately 5 mm below 

limestone pendant (Reg. No. 1115) is elongate, carefully ground, 

and bifacially flattened, with a round cross section. Another pendant (Reg. No. 808; see Table 22.1), made of finely ground and 

polished steatite, is an angular teardrop shape bifacially drilled 

on the narrow end. The only fragmentary pendant (Reg. No. 

660), probably made of tremolite, is finely ground with a bifacially drilled hole. Near one side of the perforation is a shallow point where a drilled point was begun and then abandoned. 

Found in an Iron I stratum, a thin, axe-shaped pendant (Figure 23.3a) made of polished jasper has a very small perforation 

on the narrow end, similar to those made of serpentine from 

Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 101:2,3). 

Stone Vessels

The class of artifacts called vessels (N = 61) is conceived 

broadly for the present study. As such, it includes those artifacts 

ranging from finely ground bowls, often made of nonlocal rock, 

to roughly fashioned bowls (Figures 23.9, 23.10). Rather than 

calling all artifacts with a concavity a bowl, that term is reserved 

here only for those with clearly defined rims, with attention to 

the exterior, and usually interior finishing, of the wall and often 

the base (cf. Wright, 1992). Vessels thus include a broad class 

inclusive of many functional and stylistically different types: 

bowls, basins, mortars, crucibles, and perhaps even other stone 

objects with shallow concavities, i.e., cupmarks. Mortars and 

cruder implements with shallow concavities are treated separately in the present analysis.

The majority of bowls from Jemmeh are manufactured of 

two materials, basalt (N = 18) and alabaster (N = 24), the latter 

primarily calcite (see Table 23.1). The remainder are made of 

limestone (N = 5) or chalk (N = 1), sandstone (N = 3), steatite (N

= 3), soapstone (N = 2), marble (N = 1), and fossiliferous silicified calcarenite (N = 1). Three were made of unidentified rock. 

Alabaster Vessels

The lithology of these vessels (N = 24) includes those made of 

gypsum and of calcite (Figures 23.3c,d, 23.9a–c, 23.10a,e). Most 

are made of calcite alabaster (N = 21), the material presumably 

TABLE 23.3. Descriptive statistics for hammerstones.

Statistic Length (N = 41) (mm) Width (N = 41) (mm) Thickness (N = 38) (mm)

Mean 63.66 59.85 56.05

Standard error 1.84 1.73 1.46

Median 64 59 56.5

Standard deviation 11.78 11.11 9.35

Variance 138.83 123.43 87.40

Range 67 67 72

Minimum 40 35 30

Maximum 107 102 72
934 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY
NUMBER 50 • 935

Tripod Vessels

One complete example of a shallow tripod limestone bowl 

comes from Field IV (Figure 23.10f), and another possible fragment is made of basalt (Figure 23.9e). Shallow, well-ground 

vessels with three short feet, “tripod mortars” (N = 3 for Tell 

Jemmeh), are found covering a wide span of geography and 

time. Such tripod mortars are known from the north, such as 

Ras Shamra (Elliott, 1991:28–30), Hama (Fugmann, 1958: figs. 

143: fig. 2B: 247,149, Period G), Hazor (Yadin et al., 1960: pls. 

LXXVII:2,3–6, CIV:13, CXXVI:12, CXLIX:9), Megiddo (Guy 

and Engberg, 1938: pls. 141:30, 153:7; Loud, 1948: pls. 262:9, 

263:18; Sass, 2000: fig.12.2:12), City of David (Hovers, 1996: 

fig. 27.1,2,4,5), and Samaria (Reisner et al., 1924: fig. 211.2a), 

to name but a few. Chronologically, they may occur as early as 

the Early Bronze Age (e.g., Hama, Fugmann, 1958: fig. 46a), 

although according to Sparks (1998), they do not become common until the Middle Bronze Age, particularly by the MBIIB. 

Sparks finds no reason to support the earlier study by Buchholz 

(1963), who suggested a decline in tripod mortars for the Levant; 

instead, she suggests that 25% of the sample in her catalog i s 

dated to the LBII (Sparks, 1999). Concentrations of tripod bowls 

are found at Hama, Hazor, Ras Shamra, and Tell el-‘Ajjul according to Sparks (2007:130–132). Closer in proximity to Jemmeh, basalt tripod mortars are also known from Tell el-Farah (S) 

(Starkey and Harding, 1932: pls. XLII, XLIV:73), Lachish, and 

Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown, 1947: fig. 63.4,5). 

A close parallel to the limestone example from Tell Jemmeh 

(Figure 23.10f) was found at Samaria (Reisner et al., 1924: fig. 

209.8a). There is also a similar example from Hazor, but made 

the rim. Another (Reg. No. 657) probable neck fragment also 

appears to have a ridge, albeit less pronounced. A third (Figure 

23.3d) may be a body fragment of an alabastron with a gently 

curved shoulder to the beginning of a neck defined by a shallow groove. Approximately 23 mm below that groove is a small, 

vertical knob handle. A few other nondiagnostic fragments are 

probably also alabastra (Reg. Nos. 656, 2231, and 2188). 

A narrow, tapering base fragment is made of gypsum and 

probably represents a locally produced “alabaster” vessel (Reg. 

No. 651). The base is relatively convex, with interior drill marks 

still evident. This may have been a conical rhyton originally, perhaps similar to the example from Ras Shamra made of chlorite 

(Caubet, 1991: pls. XII.9, VII.5). Other less similar examples 

have flat bases, such as those from Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 

1938: Fig. 184.9; Loud, 1948: pl. 259.15).

Two types of alabastra discussed by Clamer (1989) are probably both represented by fragments from Tell Jemmeh (Figure 23.10d 

and Reg. No. 2052). The small fragment of a wide, flat-topped 

ledge rim, as well as other body fragments from small cylindrical 

vessels, is similar to her Type A (see Clamer, 1989: fig. 30.1:11–13), 

whereas the ridged-neck fragments are similar to that from a Persian period tomb at Tel Michal (Clamer, 1989: fig. 30.1:14). 

A thin, flat fragment of finely worked homogenous creamcolored alabaster appears to be disk shaped, with a fine, narrow opening (Reg. No. 2107). This is probably a fragment of a 

wide, flat-topped ledge rim from an alabastron, similar to those 

from Tel Michal (Clamer, 1989: fig. 30.1:11–12), Deve Huyuk 

(Moorey, 1980: fig. 8.124), Ras Shamra (Caubet, 1991: pl. 

V:9), Samaria (Reisner et al., 1924:333, fig. 204.3a), and Nubia 

(Steindorff, 1937: pls. 94.3, 95.12).

FIGURE 23.9. Stone vessels. us = unstratified. (opposite)

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 652, SI Cat. No. 811 Alabaster bowl rim fragment GMIII B (+) Us

b 646, SI Cat. No. 4000 Alabaster shallow bowl rim GM 2C NBR (+) Us

c 645, SI Cat. No. 214 Alabaster, shallow bowl GM 2D (1) Us

d 1054 Basalt, shallow bowl, ring base, polished GMI FUR (4) FUR 2/3

interior

e 4011 Basalt, footed shallow vessel, highly GM 2D TT2 (4) 3?

ground interior

f 2976 Limestone, shallow vessel, finely GM 2B NBR (33) 2A 5?

worked, exterior tool marks, ledge just 

below rim

g 3978 Basalt, convex profile, rounded rim GM (+) Us

h 3980/3966 Basalt, convex profile, traces of foot GM 2D TT2 (2) 3?

i 1053 Basalt, pedestaled, fenestrated stand GMIII A2 (20) 6

medial fragment (Chalcolithic period)

j 1022 Limestone, rim fragment polished GMIII C3 TT2 (2) 19

k 994 Shallow mortar, complete, sandstone GM (+) Us

l 2197 Limestone, pyxis(?), perforated handle GM 00A Room F 5 Building I Room F

m 2824 Limestone, vessel fragment GM 1A NBR (5) 3 1/3?
936 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 23.10.Stone vessels. us = unstratified.

Part Reg. No. Description Provenance Phase Architecture

a 1055, SI Cat. No. 921 Alabaster vessel, complete GMIII A3 (2) 2 2?

b 682, SI Cat. No. 131 Basalt shallow bowl GM 1C EBR P2 (9) Unknown

c 647, SI Cat. No. 130 Limestone/alabaster bowl GM 2C NBR (1) us

d 1048, SI Cat. No. 947 Vessel (albastron?; gypsum?) GMIII A3 (4) 3 9 Unit 2

e 645 Alabaster bowl (see Figure 23.9c) GM 2D (1) us

f 679, SI Cat. No. 121 Limestone three-legged bowl or tripod GM 1C EBR P2 (9) Unknown

g 683, SI Cat. No. 23 Steatite vessel(?) GM 2B (11) 3?
NUMBER 50 • 937

the broken underside of the bowl suggest that there was some 

form of ring base, pedestal, or some other form of raised base. 

Tool marks from bowl manufacture and finishing are evident on 

the interior, exterior, and rim, as seen in Figure 23.10c.

Three other fragments, all basalt, represent cruder bowls 

with convex wall profiles. Figure 23.9g is a relatively coarsely 

finished round basalt bowl, with a continually curving convex 

profile from rim to base. Little of the base is preserved, and thus, 

it is unclear whether the base would be rounded, as the profile would suggest, or whether the base may have been flat. The 

other two rims (Reg. Nos. 2835, 2272) are small fragments with 

slight curvature in the rim profile, suggesting relatively shallow, 

open-form vessels with convex wall profiles. 

Fenestrated, Pedestaled Vessels

All three basalt fragments (Figure 23.9i) are from bowls 

atop a fenestrated, pedestaled stand, a well-known type dated to 

the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500–3600 BCE; Amiran and Porat, 

1984; Rowan, 1998). Two (Figure 23.9i and Reg. No. 3527) are 

the medial sections from the smaller form of fenestrated stand 

(see Rowan, 1998: Type 4Cii, for details) with the typical single 

band en relief. The other basalt fragment (Reg. No. 2643) is the 

leg and base ring fragment from a fenestrated, pedestaled bowl, 

with an estimated ring base exterior diameter of 200 mm. Such 

a ring base diameter falls between the means of Types 4Cii and 

4Ci, and thus, it is not possible to classify this fragment more 

precisely than Type 4C (fenestrated, pedestaled stand). 

Vessel Wall Fragments

Seven bowl wall fragments have no rim, base, or other diagnostic attributes. Two (Reg. Nos. 4003, 2810) are well-ground 

basalt bowl fragments, but with no distinguishing features. A 

very small highly polished black rock (Reg. No. 2237, marble?) 

fragment also provides no clues as to the original form. Three 

wall fragments (Figure 23.10g and Reg. Nos. 703, 2277) are steatite; Reg. Nos. 703 and 2277 are both thin and exhibit traces of 

parallel tool marks on the exterior. The other larger steatite fragment (Figure 23.10g) has parallel traces of tool marks across the 

exterior face, which also has a raised band oriented horizontally 

to the vessel. The raised (~2 mm) band also has intentional nicks 

or gaps filed into this raised band, although not evenly spaced. 

The final fragment (Reg. No. 2276) is actually two conjoining 

pieces of a soapstone vessel found together. On the edge of the 

break where the two fragments join, a drilled hole is clearly part 

of an earlier attempt to mend the vessel; the other end also has a 

drilled hole for mending. A raised band (~10 mm wide, 8 mm in 

height) may have once had similar nicks incised, similar to those 

found on Figure 23.10g. Below this raised band, faint vertical 

facets decorated the bowl exterior. 

Other Vessels

A number of bowl fragments are dissimilar to other vessels from Tell Jemmeh, and close parallels at other sites are also 

from basalt (Yadin et al., 1958: pl. LXXXII:19). According to 

Sparks (2007:132), tripod bowls are commonly found in a variety of contexts, including palaces, tombs, cultic contexts, and, 

presumably, domestic contexts. 

Shallow Basalt Vessel, with Ring Base

This is a wide, shallow basalt platter with a low ring base, 

well ground and symmetrical, with only a faintly delineated rim 

(Figure 23.9d). Ring base shallow vessels such as this seem to be 

well documented from most sites, particularly from LB contexts. 

The closest parallels are found in LB strata at Jericho (Dorrell, 

1983: fig. 233.4) and the LBII tomb context at Dan (Ben-Dov, 

2002: fig. 2.97:240; Ben-Dov and Rowan, 2011), although other 

similar examples are known from Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton, 

1935:56. no.341a), Stratum VIIA at Megiddo (Loud, 1948: 

fig.262:16), and Hazor (Yadin et al., 1960: pl. CXXVII:17[?]). 

Plates/Platter

One very shallow basalt vessel (Reg. No. 682, Figure 

23.10b) may be considered a plate by some (Sparks, 1998) but 

a platter by others (Wright, 1992a:141); it is round in plan, very 

shallow, with virtually no rim delineated from the body of the 

platter and little incline toward the vessel’s center. The rim is 

rounded, flaring in a slightly convex manner, and may be the 

broken base fragment from a vessel that was reground to rejuvenate the vessel. The base is flat, with a slight dip or depression in 

the center, very similar to one found at Hazor (Yadin et al., 1960: 

pls. LXXXVII:23, CLIX:25). 

Flat-Based Bowl Fragments

Registration No. 684 has a relatively flat base, with walls that 

were upright originally but have been chipped and removed down 

to the base, removing any possibility to determine the original wall 

profile. The exterior of the base is very slightly convex, with deep 

striae of tool marks, and blackened from burning. The interior of 

the base retains very faint traces of tool marks, and no evidence 

of burning. Three more base fragments (Reg. Nos. 2282, 4002, 

2226) are from bowls with relatively flat bases. A thin, small basalt 

bowl (Reg. No. 4002) probably had outwardly flaring walls and 

possibly some faintly incised exterior decoration. A larger, thicker 

bowl base fragment (Reg. No. 2282) may be made of sandstone 

and has very low walls that may have been reground to rejuvenate 

the vessel after breakage. The third base fragment of a basalt bowl 

(Reg. No. 2226) has a steeply sloping interior and may have had 

some outwardly flaring base to wall juncture. Like Reg. No. 2282, 

this vessel also has very low walls, suggesting that the original vessel broke, and the break was then reground into a new rim.

Convex Bowls

Almost one-half of a carefully worked, highly polished limestone bowl (Figure 23.10c) was reconstructed from fragments. 

Although the base is missing, very slight traces of a ridge along 
938 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

blackened. Morphologically, the burner is not well balanced and 

is rather crudely made, and the decor was executed freehand. 

The context roughly dates to the Persian period.

2. Found on the site surface, Figure 23.11b is an incomplete chalk example, missing one leg and corner. The depth of 

the basin is approximately 12 mm, with a rounded rim 10 mm in 

width. The two preserved sides are decorated with crude figurative incisions, possibly a horned altar with a bird or fish on either 

side, larger on one side than the other. Underneath the burned 

area within the basin, some traces of geometric pattern are still 

visible. 

3. Figure 23.11c illustrates two conjoining fragments of a 

limestone cuboid burner with rounded corners. The basin shape 

conforms to the general morphology of the burner. The rim is 

decorated with a single row of drilled holes along the top (Figure 

23.11c, left). The feet (50 × 50 mm, 10 mm in height) are created 

by two deep rounded grooves crossing one another, cut into the 

base. On each side there is a slightly recessed panel with some 

faint traces of geometric incised decor. This is from a context 

possibly dated to the Persian period (Phase 3?).

4. Figure 23.12a is approximately half of a limestone burner. 

The legs are broken off; each is about 35 mm. Incised geometric 

patterns on the sides are executed with care; the outer lines of the 

bands appear to have been drawn with a straight edge, whereas 

the interior decor was freehand but regular. The context is dated 

to the Persian period.

5. Figure 23.12b shows a rim and corner fragment made of 

soft limestone. The rim is approximately 14 mm wide, and the 

basin in recessed about 9 mm. The top of the rim is decorated 

with geometric incisions that are ruled, but decor on the sides 

was executed freehand. The context dates to the Persian period. 

6. Figure 23.12c illustrates a rim and corner fragment. The 

rim is about 15 mm high and 15 mm wide, with freehand geometric decor of diamond patterns filled with horizontal lines on 

the top and side. 

7. Figure 23.12d is a limestone leg fragment, about 30 mm 

in width, with a 5-mm-high bevel at the bottom. Decoration is 

an incised geometric pattern executed freehand. The context 

dates to the Persian period.

8. Figure 23.12e is a limestone rim fragment, 15 mm wide 

and about 12 mm high. The top of the rim has a ruled, incised 

border, with freehand incisions on the inside. Incised geometric 

decor on the sides is also freehand. The context dates possibly to 

the Persian period. 

9. Figure 23.12f is manufactured from chalk; the complete 

basin is approximately 10 mm deep, with a sloping interior up the 

sides to the rim. This is basically an undecorated incense burner, 

although one side does have some freehand incisions that are not 

accidental. The incisions are shallow and do not appear and are 

no more than eight horizontal (but not especially parallel) shallow lines. The context dates to the Iron IIC, 7th century BCE.

Stern suggests that the incense burners recovered during 

Petrie’s excavations at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pls. XLI, 

XLII:5,6) are attributed to the 6th and first half of the 5th century BCE (Stern, 1982:192). In agreement with Tufnell (1953), 

who had proposed that the Lachish incense burners should be 

unknown. For instance, Figure 23.9m is a soft limestone or 

chalk vessel with hollow pedestal, or “trumpet base” (Cahill, 

1992:190–194), with a flat, ledged edge to the pedestal base. 

Only the pedestal section was found, and thus, the upper vessel 

section is unclear; however, the upper vessel section was probably quite shallow. Very similar chalk trumpet base forms are 

dated to the Persian/Hellenistic period from the City of David, 

with our example most similar to Cahill’s (1992: fig. 14:20) Type 

2a. Although made of diorite, a very similar form was also found 

at Tel Michal (Singer-Avitz, 1989b: fig. 31.4).

Another vessel fragment made of limestone (Figure 23.9f) 

may be of a deep bowl or other vessel type. An additional chalk 

vessel (Reg. No. 2277, see above) retains traces of fluting or the 

vertical shaving of the vessel exterior typical of later period vessels, in particular Roman period vessels (see Cahill, 1992). However, this is a shallow bowl with a convex wall profile and a ledge 

just below the rim, a form probably dating to the Hellenistic/

Persian period. Nevertheless, the ledge of the example from Jemmeh is slightly (~10 mm) below the flat, well-formed rim, unlike 

the forms from the City of David (Cahill, 1992: fig. 14:7–18) 

that are otherwise generally similar. 

The remaining vessel fragments are either difficult to classify 

because of their fragmentary state or are so small that they are 

not readily classified. For instance, one fragment (Reg. No. 2811) 

appears to be from a narrow drilled chalk fragment, possibly the 

neck of a vessel, but this is uncertain. Others (Figure 23.9f,j and 

Reg. Nos. 2860, 702) are rim fragments with insufficient profiles 

to interpret the vessel type or rim form (e.g., Figure 23.9j). One 

vesicular basalt fragment (Reg. No. 3997) is not clearly a vessel; 

the concave aspect on one side may be the pedestal section of a 

vessel, the interior well of a crude mortar, or some other object. 

Another object (Figure 23.9l) from Building I, Room F is a complete deep limestone vessel with two perforated lug handles; this 

could be possibly defined as a pyxis.

Incense Burners

The incense burners (N = 9) are all made of soft limestone, and 

most are decorated (Figure 23.11, 23.12a–e). Those that are decorated have incised geometric decor without any traces of paint. 

On the basis of comparative material and provenience, the Tell 

Jemmeh incense burners range from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE. 

Stylistic decor and morphology are suggested by Stern (1982), 

Shea (1983), and Tufnell (1953) to be significant to understanding 

chronology and regional affinities of these objects. For this reason, 

the specific attributes of the examples from Tell Jemmeh are described below; most come from unclear or late contexts.

1. Figure 23.11a shows two conjoining fragments forming 

nearly one half of a cuboidal limestone incense burner with legs. 

The legs (25–30 mm) are square in cross section and nearly cubical in shape. The basic rim is 15 mm high by 15 mm wide. 

There are incised horizontal bands with diamonds and a triangle 

pattern in between. These geometric decorations cover the sides 

as well as the top of the flattened rim, which is burned and polished. The feet also are blackened from burning or intentional 

smoking, as if the entire artifact sat in a fire. One side is also 
NUMBER 50 • 939

FIGURE 23.11. Incense burners: (a) Reg. No. 685, SI Cat. No. 119, GM 1A TT4 (6), Phase 4?/1?; (b) Reg. No. 686, SI Cat. No. 133, GM 2A 

(+), unstratified; (c) Reg. No. 687, SI Cat. No. 201, GM 1C–1D, (6) 3, Phase 3.
940 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Of the Tell Jemmeh incense burner assemblage found at the 

site, most were recovered from unsecure contexts or from contexts dated to the Persian period. Two examples (Figures 23.11c, 

23.12e) lack the incised geometric decor, although Figure 23.11c 

does have recessed panels on each side. In one of those panels, 

faint traces of decor are present, but it is unclear what the design 

would have been. In addition, a series of drilled holes on the 

rim are found on Figure 23.11c. Both of these relatively plain 

burners are relatively squat (wider than high), with rudimentary 

feet formed through the deeply incised perpendicular lines on the 

underside. 

Tesserae

These are small, angular cubes of stone, typically hard limestone (N = 11; Appendix 23.1). Most appear to be complete and 

are usually struck rather than ground. One (Reg. No. 2080) has 

a green tint, possibly indicating some copper mineral content, 

but the others bear no visible traces of paint or coloration.

dated later than those from Tell Jemmeh or Gezer, Stern further 

argues that on stylistic grounds, the more precisely decorated 

forms are earlier. Moreover, he contends that the South Arabian 

assemblage of altars belongs to a later period, 4th–1st centuries 

BCE, and that the source of the altars should be traced to Mesopotamia, as originally proposed by Petrie (Stern, 1982:194). 

He suggests that a Phoenician origin should be considered as 

an alternative on the basis of their discovery in the Phoenician 

temple at Makmish (Tel Michal) and from those found at Shikmona, where store jars with Phoenician inscriptions were found 

(Stern, 1982:194). 

Shea (1983), who synthesized a broad collection of cuboid 

incense burners, does not entirely agree with Stern’s assessment. 

Rather than base a typology on the precision of the designs, Shea 

suggests that the general form of the burners is a stronger indicator, with the short, squat forms earlier than the taller, more slender types. Dating of the incense burners is difficult for a number 

of reasons; in particular, the lack of strong comparative dates for 

burners found in site impedes it. 

FIGURE 23.12. Incense burners: (a) Reg. No. 688, SI Cat. No. 118, GM 1B (5A), Phase 3?; (b) Reg. No. 689, SI Cat. No. 441, GM 0A (6), 

Phases 3–4, Unit 3; (c) Reg. No. 690, SI Cat. No. 234, GM 2C W2, Phase 2?–3?; (d) Reg. No. 691, SI Cat. No. 364, GM 0B (1) 2, Phase 3, Unit 

2; (e) Reg. No. 692, SI Cat. No. 607, GM 1B NBR (6), Phase 3?; (f) Reg. No. 1052, SI Cat. No. 622, GM 1B EBR (17) 1, Phase 5?, Building 

II, Room A?.
NUMBER 50 • 941

bowls are a hallmark of the Chalcolithic period, underscoring 

their role in late prehistoric prestige goods economies.

When the effort involved with transportation of heavy materials such as basalt sufficiently decreased to warrant the labor 

expenditure, perhaps with the increased use of the donkey during 

the Early Bronze Age, desirable materials for nonluxury goods 

may have been transported to sites increasingly distant from 

their original sources. This is apparent not only at Jemmeh, but 

at other sites with Late Bronze and Iron Age occupation as well, 

although the true extent is difficult to ascertain given the uneven 

nature of ground stone assemblage publications. At sites where 

publication is more complete, such as Megiddo, Hazor, Beth 

Shean, or Deir ‘Alla, the common presence of basalt in ground 

stone assemblages at sites close in proximity to potential sources 

of basalt is unsurprising. However, other sites more distant from 

basalt flows, such as Lachish, also recover basalt ground stone 

artifacts. Unfortunately, few ground stone assemblages are published from sites where basalt must come from a distance. 

Major components of the identifiable ground stone from 

Tell Jemmeh are those artifacts for basic grinding needs, such 

as the grinding slabs, handstones, and fragments that cannot be 

distinguished between handstones or grinding slabs. Together, 

those three categories constitute nearly one-half (44.4%) of the 

total ground stone tool assemblage. Stone vessels are the fourth 

largest component (11.88%) of the total assemblage and largely 

represent imported and probably prestige items. Many of the 

stone bowls are made from either calcite or gypsum alabaster, 

primarily the former. Many others are made of desirable rock 

types, such as basalt, steatite, and other less common materials, 

such as a few examples made of soapstone.

Both hammerstones and the unidentifiable ground stone 

fragments constitute nearly 9% of the total assemblage. Hammerstones are notable because all appear to be manufactured 

from flint; the lack of fragmentation makes it difficult to be certain in some cases. No other category of artifact exhibits such a 

clear preference by the users for flint. 

The ground stone assemblage from Tell Jemmeh represents 

a number of different substantial occupations, and thus, discussion must focus on those that may be grouped by chronological 

relationships, based on stratigraphic associations. Nevertheless, 

preliminary observations may be suggested on the basis of the 

context or established dating of some artifact types. Clearly, tripod bowls and mortars may be established as early as the Middle 

Bronze Age and continue into at least the Persian period. Presumably, because morphology and size changes so little through 

time, at least on the basis of our limited understanding thus far, 

other artifact types, such as grinding slab fragments, handstones, 

mortars, and hammerstones are of limited utility as chronological markers. We may hope for greater chronological precision in 

the future based on the spindle whorls, although our chronological precision seems to remain inadequate. Spindle whorls from 

late prehistoric periods are typically made of limestone or ceramic, whereas steatite seems to become the preferred material 

for Late Bronze and Iron Age artisans. 

In addition, the limited comprehension of tool function for 

many of the grinding and pounding implements found in profusion 

Ground Stone Fragments

Like at most ancient sites, a number of ground stone fragments (N = 20) are uncategorized because of their ambiguous 

morphological and functional attributes (Appendix 23.1). Those 

from Tell Jemmeh are all fragments; the majority are made of 

limestone (N = 9), followed by coquinoidal sandstone (N = 7) 

and one each of basalt, scoria, and sandstone. Although some 

examples are probably ground on at least one face and a few 

were ground carefully on two faces, a few exhibit little evidence 

for use wear or intentional modification. Their presence at the 

site is the result of human agency, and thus, they probably represent artifacts despite the ambiguity of their wear or morphology.

DISCUSSION

Broad synthetic statements about the ground stone assemblage from Tell Jemmeh are difficult to make, but a few observations are possible. For instance, as one might expect, the relative 

frequencies of rock types generally reflect the available resources 

in the immediate vicinity (Table 23.1). Thus, limestone predominates some artifact types (e.g., mortars, modified pebbles, and 

cobbles) but not all (Table 23.1). Examination of the relative 

frequencies of the basic grinding and production process indicates that basalt was an important choice of rock for some artifact types. For example, substantial numbers of grinding slabs 

(N = 40, 44%), handstones (N = 24, 27%), and stone vessels 

(N = 18, 28%) were manufactured from basalt. The category 

of fragments that may have been handstones or grinding slab 

fragments was predominantly made of basalt (N = 47, 75%). 

Basalt is not a local material to the region of Jemmeh, although 

small outcrops are exposed in the Maktesh Ramon crater in the 

central Negev. More likely sources of larger boulders of less friable basalt are found in the northern regions, such as in the 

eastern Galilee and the extensive multiple flows of the Golan. 

Flows that also could have contributed to the production of basaltic artifacts are also found just to the east of the Dead Sea, on 

the Kerak plateau and exposed in the beds of the wadi systems, 

such as the Wadi el-Hasa, Wadi el-Mujib, and Wadi edh-Dana 

in modern day Jordan. 

Other classes of artifacts, such as perforated stones, include 

a few made of basalt, whereas others (modified pebbles and cobbles, spindle whorls, hammerstones, and pivot or door sockets) 

have no examples manufactured of basalt. This is interesting for 

several reasons and contrasts with results obtained from other 

sites in the vicinity from earlier periods. For instance, of the hundreds of grinding slab fragments recovered in just three seasons 

of excavation at the nearby Chalcolithic site of Gilat, only one 

was made of basalt (Rowan et al., 2006). This holds true for 

the northern Negev Chalcolithic site of Shiqmim as well, where, 

despite a much more extensive excavation exposure than Gilat, 

there is a notable lack of basalt for basic grinding implements. 

Low frequencies of basalt in prehistoric ground stone assemblages recovered from sites distant from basalt flows are probably a direct result of the transport costs. Nevertheless, basalt 
942 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Bonnie Gardiner-Magness, for her work establishing the database. In addition, Theodore Gold was instrumental in the final 

completion of this chapter. This research was conducted while 

the author was a Smithsonian Institution Postdoctoral Research 

Fellow and Smithsonian Institution Visiting Scholar; the author 

particularly thanks the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, for 

their encouragement and support. Additional support was provided through a Shelby White-Leon Levy grant, for which the 

author would like to express his appreciation. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Yorke M. Rowan, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1155 

East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. Correspondence: ymrowan

@uchicago.edu. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 

2013.

at most sites hampers the interpretive potential ground stone artifacts contribute to our reconstruction of ancient production. Analytical studies such as use-wear and residue analyses of ground 

stone artifacts are in their infancy, and applications to assemblages 

from eastern Mediterranean sites are rare. Nevertheless, residue 

studies (Hyland et al., 1990; Loy, 1997; Evershed et al., 1992; 

Piperno and Holst, 1998; Quigg et al., 2001) are now applied to 

ground stone assemblages and show promise in application to 

southern Levantine assemblages, such as Ohalo II (Piperno et al., 

2004). Likewise, use-wear and technical studies of ground stone 

assemblages are showing results (Adams, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 

1993a, 1993b; Dubreuil, 2004) but remain untested on later 

ground stone artifacts from southern Levantine contexts. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author takes this opportunity to thank Ron Gardiner 

for his dedication to this project through many decades and 
NUMBER 50

• 943(continued)

APPENDIX 23.1

TABLE 23.A1. Tell Jemmeh stone artifacts database. Abbreviations: AL = alabaster; AM = amethyst; B = basalt; biconv = biconvex; BR = beach rock; C = complete; Car = carnelian; Ch = chalk; Chal = chalcedony; Cob. = cobble; conc = concave; conv = convex; CqS = coquinoidal sandstone; CS = calcareous sandstone; ctr = center; dia = diameter; Dorso = dorsal (top); long. = elongate; Est = estimate; ext. = exterior; F = flint; FeL = ferruginous limestone; frag. = fragment; FosL = fossiliferous limestone; FSC = fossiliferous silicified calcarenite; G = gypsum; Geo = geometric; H = hematite; Horiz = horizontal; Inc = incomplete; int. = interior; irreg. = irregular; J = jasper; L = limestone; lat. = lateral; longit. = longitudinal; M = marble; mano = handstone; mod. = modified; nat. = natural; p-c = plano-convex; peb. = pebble; perf. = perforated; Pol = 

polished; poss. = possible; prob. = probable; Q = quartz; Qte = quartzite; rect.= rectangular; S = sandstone; Sc = scoria; SL = siliceous limestone; SMV = siliceous metavolcanic; St = steatite; T = tremolite; triang. = triangular; trapez = trapezoidal; ventro = ventral (underside); vesic = vesicular; w/ = with; x-sect = cross section. 

Grinders

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description891 GMI 4F F1 CqS frag. 227 133 81 p-c p-c rect. w/ rounded corners, unifacial use, concave working 

face

893 GM 1B F10 CqS frag. 265 142 65 p-c conc-flat rect. w/ rounded ends, parallel sides, unifacially deeply 

ground, curving steeply up at sides, forming ridges

894 GM 1B F10 CqS frag. 230 130 100 triang. conc-conv rect. w/ rounded end, pronounced unifacial grinding 

surface convex laterally; grinder or handstone?

896 GMIII B (56) 3 CqS frag. 205 164 65 irreg. irreg. unifacially concave working face, other areas rough and 

irregular

897 GMI 4G (0) CqS frag. 223 160 51 flat flat irreg. shape, unifacially well ground, opposite side 

naturally smoothed

898 GMI FUR (10) 5 CqS frag. 155 230 105 p-c unifacially concave, large and thick frag.899 GM 2B (1) 7 CqS frag. 130 120 37 flat flat unifacially slightly concave working face901 GMIII A1 (0) CqS frag. 205 190 22 98 triang. unifacial, deeply concave and ground; heavily worn, thins 

toward center

902 GMI 4D (17) CqS frag. 125 190 60 60 conc-conv p-c unifacial, heavily ground, concave face, corner fragment903 GM 1C (+) CqS frag. 207 140 55 55 p-c conc-conv unifacial, well-ground, elongate-oval shape, shaped and 

ground ventral side

905 GM 2B Room B CqS frag. 230 140 63 63 triang. conc-conv unifacial, elongate-oval, parallel sides906 GM 1C (1) 8 CqS frag. 205 140 52 77 flat/rec irreg. shape, concave unifacially915 GM 2B TT2 (2) 2 CqS frag. 156 130 52 52 flat p-c primarily unifacial use, bifacially pecked concavities, 

poss. for reuse as weight?

920 GMIII B (4) CqS? frag. 135 155 45 45 p-c p-c unifacial use, other side flat and smooth, rounded end 

frag., grinder?

921 GMIII B (2) 15 CqS? frag. 92 125 45 45 p-c conc-conv unifacial, concave working surface, end frag. rounded, 

ventro smooth and rounded

922 GMIII B F1 6 CqS? frag. 125 100 32 32 p-c conc-conv unifacial, concave working surface, end frag., ventro 

smooth and rounded

924 GMI 4D (3) granite frag. 90 85 50 50 rec rect. unifacial, slightly concave and well ground926 GMI 3G F3 W1 Unknown C 118 182 53 53 rec conc-conv unifacial, trapez shape, well-ground, slightly concave 

working face, poss. reworked frag.
944 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Grinders Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 927 GMI 3G W1 FSC frag. 210 120 73 73 p-c p-c very ground unifacially, irreg. shape, w/ ochre staining highly polished area, cortical ventro 940 GMIII B (1) 15 B frag. 103 85 31 31 p-c unifacially highly ground, slightly concave, thin, flattish frag. 947 GMI 3G (1A) 1 B frag. 225 165 45 45 conc-conv conc-conv unifacially well ground, ventro shaped 948 GMIII B (65) 9 B frag. 175 170 42 42 p-c unifacially ground, relatively flat 950 GM 00A (1) 3 B frag. 110 90 33 33 flat unifacially well ground 952 GMII A3 (1) 3 B frag. 129 65 28 28 conc-conv unifacially well ground, thin and flat 953 GMI 3F (6) B frag. 115 40 45 45 flat flat unifacially well ground 954 GMI 4D (4) 7 B frag. 100 65 31 31 flat flat unifacially highly ground and polished, ventro rough 956 GMI FUR II (2) B frag. 100 80 35 35 flat flat unifacial, flat, ventro rough 957 GM 2A WBR (0) B frag. 130 80 32 32 flat flat bifacial, both faces well ground 960 GM 0B (2) 2 B frag. 155 87 45 45 p-c unifacially well ground, ventro has groove (possibly natural) 961 GMI 1F (6) B frag. 70 57 25 25 flat flat primarily unifacial use, well ground 962 GM (+) B frag. 125 115 36 36 p-c p-c unifacially well ground, ventro roughly shaped 964 GMIII A1 (+) B frag. 110 125 51 51 p-c unifacially highly ground, face slightly concave 965 GMIII A1 (2) 3 B frag. 105 85 39 40 p-c unifacially highly ground, face slightly concave, rounded smooth edge

966 GMIII B (56) B frag. 165 115 32 32 conc-conv unifacially highly ground, possibly basin1008 GM 2B F24 BR frag. 170 160 111 p-c p-c unifacially ground slightly, very coarse2034 GMI 5E (+) B frag. 35 31 29 flat flat unifacially highly ground, prob. grinding slab frag2050 GM 1B (14) 2 CqS frag. 135 78 64 p-c unifacially ground, prob. end frag. of grinder2051 GMIII A3 (4) CqS frag. 75 100 35 p-c p-c unifacially ground2108 GMI 1F (4) 1 B frag. 38 35 20 flat unifacially well ground, prob. grind slab2145 GMI 5G (0) B frag. 175 145 38 unifacially very ground, edge rounded, concave toward 

one edge, shallow concavity near center of artifact ~160–180 mm dia

2204 GMIII J1 (12) 1 B frag. 180 150 360 unifacially well ground, thin, end frag of grinder, not 

shaped?

2205 GMII A3 TT1 (1B) CqS frag. 270 175 70 flat, unifacial, slightly concave toward broken edge, edges 

roughly chipped, prob. grinding slab

2206 GMII C2 (0) CqS Inc 300 220 90 unifacial, concave, nearly complete, underside unshaped, 

irreg. shape

2207 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 220 250 120 120 very large grinder, deeply concave, unifacial use only, very 

ground

2210 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 160 60 unifacially ground, int. frag., slight convex face2215 GM 2B (3) CqS

C 285 230 110 rectangular, squared, shaped, unifacial use w/ circular 

depression (160–170 mm dia)
NUMBER 50 • 945

(continued)

2216 GMIII J1 (3) FSC frag. 160 90 45 flat flat unifacial, well ground, other side naturally smoothed 

cortex

2217 GMIII J1 (4) 2 L frag. 110 155 41 flat flat bifacially smooth, possible unifacial use only w/ slight 

concavity

2218 GMIII J1 (9) 2 FSC frag. 210 90 62 flat flat medial frag., unifacially ground2220 GMIII 5D (0) B frag. 115 100 45 p-c small edge frag., unifacial2222 GMIII J1 (6) 2 B frag. 94 75 33 roughly shaped, unifacially used, concave and very well 

ground

2225 GMI 5D W7 B frag. 95 55 18 flat flat unifacial, very ground.2271 GM 1A P2 (5A) B frag. 75 67 44 flat flat bifacial, flat2274 GM 1A P6 (8) B frag. 165 90 32 unifacial grinder, very flat, one side roughly shaped, other 

ground

2275 GM 1A (5B) 7 B frag. 50 39 36 four basalt chunks, two conjoin, prob. all from one 

unifacial grinder of very vesicular basalt.

2281 GM 2A F2 B frag. 105 80 44 44 very flat, prob. unifacial use only, roughly shaped on 

opposite side

2283 GM 2A (+) CS frag. 130 88 27 slab frag., poss. bifacial, one face more highly ground2284 GMI 5D (+) B frag. 145 82 33 flat thin grinding slab frag., unifacially highly ground, ventro 

roughly shaped

2285 GMI 5D (+) CqS frag. 160 145 80 convex lateral grinding face; body curves up from end w/ 

shallow groove across width

2334 GM 1B (7) 1 B frag. 100 70 45 vesic., unifacial, corner frag of grounder, roughly shaped 

ventro and edges

2441 GMI FUR (10) 5 CqS Inc 280 150 60 oval, end broken, unifacial w/ deep cup concavity 60 mm 

dia × 15 mm depth

2746 GM 00B P2 (1) B frag. 95 35 50 p-c p-c unifacial, highly ground, prob. mano2749 GM 2B (39) 3 CqS Inc 125 90 40 biconv biconv fairly rect., unifacially highly polished, broken at one end2750 GM 00B P8 CqS frag. 125 105 40 trapez flat unifacial, broken grinding slab2864 GM 2A (30) CqS frag. 180 165 72 p-c p-c oval shaped?, unifacially highly ground, smooth, very flat 

use face

2868 GM 2B (1) 5 CqS frag. 150 130 55 conc-conv conc-conv unifacially highly ground and concave, other side rough 

and unmodified

2874 GM 1B F25 CqS frag. 115 125 56 flat conc-flat unifacial use, concave face, end frag.2875 GM 1B F25 CqS frag. 120 165 45 flat conc-conv irreg. shape?, unifacial use, slightly concave face2876 GM 1B F25 CqS frag. 110 180 44 flat flat unifacial use, slightly concave well-ground face, rounded 

end frag.

2877 GM 1B F25 CqS frag. 150 200 67 conc-conv p-c unifacial use, concave and well-ground use face w/ deeper 

concavity surrounded by flatter “rim” area

2878 GM 1B F25 CqS frag. 210 165 70 p-c rec unifacially well-ground flat face w/ parallel lat. margins; 

flat and thick

2879 GM 2B WBR (26) CqS Inc 265 145 70 p-c conc-conv unifacially well ground, elongate-elliptical shape, shaped 

ext.

3006 GMII B3 (15) CqS frag. 148 100 49 edge of grinder; highly ground, edge/working face frag.3008 GM 2A NBR P1B B frag. 120 94 29 flat flat unifacially smooth, very smooth and vesic, central frag. 

of thin grinder

3011 GM 2B NBR (2) CqS frag. 126 109 46 flat flat unifacially smooth, slightly concave working surface
946 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Grinders Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 3017 GMII C2 (5) 3 CqS frag. 160 155 61 p-c p-c unifacially smooth, ventro rough, ends broken 3082 GM 3B (12) 1 CqS frag. 175 200 80 conc-conv irreg. unifacial, well-worn and concave use face 3546 GMII A3 (0) CqS Inc 178 143 31 flat flat small grinder, flat and thin, unifacial, irregular shape 3555 GM 2B (63) B frag. 99 97 43 edge frag., unifacially well ground 3562 GMIII C3 TT3 (1) CqS frag. 132 140 55 edge frag., unifacially worked 3564 GMII D4 B frag. 95 80 39 flat flat edge frag., unifacially well ground 3810 GMIII A3 (4) B frag. 68 34 43 unifacially well ground 3973 GM 1D (1) 1 B frag. 165 166 37 flat flat 3983 GM (+) B frag. 170 145 45 very vesic, unifacial 3984 GM (+) B frag. 110 75 53 flat flat bifacial edge frag. 3985 GM (+) B frag. 107 102 32 flat flat unifacial edge frag. 3987 GM (+) B frag. 79 51 68 edge frag., very vesic, unifacial 4020 GM (+) B frag. 86 68 55 unifacial, vesic, central frag. 4022 GM (+) B frag. 66 81 46 central chunk, unifacial Handstones Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description

663 (382) GM 1A NBR W1 AL

C 83 66 30 trapez, w/ corner missing; unifacially flat and highly 

polished; smooth and shaped, w/ striae

867 GM 2B (11) 11 CqS

C 285 122 65

A unifacial, well-ground, plano-convex x-sect; asymmetric 

p-c profile

868 GM 2E (3) CqS

C 240 115 44 B elongate-oval, unifacial surface use laterally convex

869 GMI 3G W1 CqS frag. 215 154 62 B rectangular, unifacial use, handstone?870 GM (+) CqS Inc 230 120 68

A rectangular, unifacial use

871 GM 2C (37) 3 CqS Inc 230 110 90 90

A rect. in shape, thick and heavy, end broken, well ground

872 GMI FUR (10) 5 CqS Inc 200 137 45

A ovoid, bifacially ground, primary use on one face

873 GMIII A3 (6) CqS

C 285 134 54

A rounded rect.

875 GM 1B (+) CqS Inc 320 148 91

A elongate ovoid, unifacial, slight convex working face

876 GM 2B balk CqS Inc 280 118 62

A elongate rect., 

removal (0) unifacially slightly convex, underside shaped and smooth

877 GMIII A3 W4 (3) CqS Inc 198 120 47 B unifacial working surface, very slight convex878 GM 1A (1) 8 CqS frag. 60 135 51

A unifacial, very slightly convex working surface

879 GM 00B P8 CqS frag. 84 104 39 B unifacial, very slightly convex working surface880 GM 2B P10 CqS frag. 145 130 49 B unifacial, very slightly convex working surface881 GMI 1F (7) CqS

C 254 139 37

A ovoid, primarily unifacial, but both faces well ground; 

primary face slightly convex, very well ground

882 GMIII A1 P1 CqS frag. 88 90 29

A square, unifacial only, well-ground flat face
NUMBER 50 • 947

(continued)

883 GM 2B F34 CqS

C 77 70 48 B round shape, unifacially flat working face, small, single 

hand size

884 GM A3 (2) 2 CqS frag. 120 56 38 edge fragment, prob. unifacial, convex face885 GMI FURII (2) CqS Inc 163 78 50 B long wedge, bifacial use, one face more ground slightly 

convex

886 GM 1B (14) 2 CqS frag. 85 153 54

A medial frag., unifacial, working face slightly convex, 

other face smooth

887 GMI 5D (3A) CqS Inc 125 101 38

A flat use face, other face w/ concavity in center; handstone 

is secondary use

888 GMI FUR (9) 4 CqS frag. 80 164 49 B convex unifacial grinding surface, end fragment889 GM 0A (4) CqS frag. 115 76 37

A unifacial, slightly convex use surface

890 GM 2B F29 CqS frag. 125 109 55 unifacial, slightly convex use surface892 GMI 3G F3 W1 CqS frag. 190 155 70 bifacially ground, irreg. shape, possibly used as grinding 

slab and handstone

895 GM 1B F10 CqS Inc 336 135 73 A-1 elongate shape, unifacial grinding face slightly convex; 

p-c x-sect, flat profile; rim/foot protrudes at end

900 GMI 5G (1) 5 CqS frag. 135 110 33 B used bifacially, one face slightly concave, other slightly 

convex, handstone?

904 GMI 4G (1) 2 CqS frag. 175 85 32 32 B bifacial, one face slightly convex, other face slightly 

concave, handstone?

907 GM 1B W17 CqS frag. 85 120 57 57 B unifacial, end fragment908 GMIII A2 (9) CqS frag. 118 88 43 43 B flat corner frag., unifacial, shaped edges909 GMI 2E (8) CqS

C 92 72 45 45

C possible bifacial use; small, one-handed

910 GM 2A F18 (1) CqS frag. 75 63 47 47

C unifacial, end frag., sides rounded, one-handed

911 GMI 4G (+) CqS frag. 110 115 52 52 B unifacial, rounded end fragment912 GM 2B P17 CqS

C 88 52 32 32

C bifacial, small, one-handed, well ground

913 GM 2B (41) CqS

C 68 44 32 32

C bifacial, small, one-handed, well ground, ends smooth 

and slightly convex

914 GM 1A (12) 7 CqS frag. 105 105 46 84 A-1 unifacial, rect., rounded end frag. w/ end curving up 

vertically, handstone?

916 GM 2B (37) 3 CqS frag. 135 120 47 47 B primarily unifacial use, slightly convex on oppose side; 

smoothed and shaped

917 GM 2B (1) 6 CqS frag. 95 101 35 35 B primarily unifacial use, small, prob. one-handed; 

smoothed and shaped

918 GM 2B P10 CqS? frag. 100 137 40 B probable bifacial use, flaked to shape925 GMI 4G F4 F frag. 90 70 62 62

C unifacial, slightly convex face, well ground

928 GMI 4G F4 B C 195 93 42 42 B unifacially, highly ground elong. shape, parallel sides929 GMIII B W61 B C 136 80 52 52 B unifacially, highly ground, rounded rect. shape, onehanded930 GMIII B F11 B frag. 170 117 117 45

A unifacially highly ground, flat face, p-c x-sect and profile

931 GMI 3F (2) B frag. 88 110 46 46 B unifacially highly ground, flat face932 GMI 4D (2B) B frag. 80 84 42 42

C unifacial, well-ground, slightly convex working face, 

prob. one-handed

933 GMIII B (3) 15 B frag. 60 93 38 38 unifacially highly ground, small and narrow, handstone?934 GM 1C (2A) B frag. 70 83 39 39 unifacial, highly ground
948 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Handstones Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 935 GM 2C SBR (7) B frag. 125 68 49 49 prob. bifacial, irreg. shape, one face highly ground, other somewhat ground, handstone? 936 GMIII J2 (17) 1 B C 105 75 32 32 B bifacially highly ground, rounded rect. shape, edges rough and vertical, handstone? 937 GM 2A (11) B C 97 85 45 45 B bifacially highly ground, rounded rect. shape, each face slightly concave 938 GMI 6F 1 B frag. 70 62 33 33 B unifacially highly ground, pointed end frag. 942 GMI 4F TT5 (+) B C 105 57 44 44 B trifacial use, all highly ground, rect. shape, two faces flat, third convex 944 GMIII B F1 B F 62 110 38 38 unifacially well ground, handstone? 945 GMI 4G F4 B C 88 70 53 53

C unifacially highly ground and polished, rounded rect. 

shape, one-handed

946 GMIII A3 (2) 2 B Inc 195 100 57 57 B unifacially highly ground, elliptical shape, slightly 

concave

967 GMIII C2 (82) B frag. 80 76 41

C unifacially highly ground, small, one-handed, central 

concavity

968 GM 2B (44) B C 87 98 bell shaped, well ground on working face, one-handed, 

irregular cross section

969 GM (+) B C 37 30 54 54

C oval x-sect, truncated cone profile, well ground, wide use 

face polished

970 GMII A3 (14) S?

C 75 66 46 299

C well-ground face, one-handed

971 GMI 3G (1A) 1 L?

C 61 56 50

C dome shaped, well ground, wide working face

972 GMIII A3 (4) L?

C 79 73 47

C dome shaped, well-ground working face, exterior top is 

polished and battered

973 GMI 4D (4) 3 L?

C 97 73 44

C ovoid, highly ground w/ striae oriented laterally; ends are 

lightly pecked

989 GM 1B (+) CqS frag. 185 130 93 58 A-1 unifacial, well ground, concave working face, curved up 

end, handstone?

1011 GMI 4D (5) B frag. 100 73 35 C? bifacially heavily ground1015 GMI KB (22) 4 Sc frag. 68 30 22 one face highly ground, handstone frag?2091 GMI FUR (8) 3 B C? 80 72 65

C unifacially prob. ground, amorphous lump, highly 

scoriaceous

2110 GM 2C TT1 (2) B frag. 52 52 49

C cuboid abrader/rubber, six polished faces, one w/ striae

2209 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 160 110 55 A-1 curved end, unifacially ground, narrow parallel sides, 

slightly convex face (laterally)

2211 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 150 115 40 B concave lengthwise, convex laterally, unifacially well 

ground (joins w/ Reg. No. 2212)

2212 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 90 115 40 B concave lengthwise, convex laterally, unifacially well 

ground (joins w/ Reg. No. 2211)
NUMBER 50 • 949

(continued)

2214 GM 2A F23 CqS frag. 195 140 75

A ext. shaped, base is flat; face is slightly convex laterally, 

unifacial use

2219 GMIII C1 (81) B frag. 120 100 37 B unifacially well ground, tapers at end, handstone?2227 GM 1C (5A) CqS frag. 60 55 35

C unifacial, very slightly convex working face

2228 GM 2A (30) CqS

C 102 68 41

C rectangular, bifacially slightly convex; lat. margins also 

convex

2229 GM 1C (6) L C 53 75 23

C bifacially smooth, one more than the other, edges 

rounded, slightly convex laterally, handstone?

2273 GM 1A (10) B C 70 65 42 408.3

C cuboid abrader/rubber, two flat and parallel faces, convex 

side and rounded corners

2444 GMI FUR (10) 4 flint

C 71 53 51

C ovoid cobble, slightly flattened and polished on two sides

2707 GM 00A (7) L?

C 53 53 15

C oval disk, flat, bifacially ground lightly; lid? abrader?

2826 GM 2B (38) CqS frag. 95 95 54 B unifacial, well ground2827 GM 2B (38) CqS frag. 81 58 34

C unifacial, well ground, slightly convex working face

2862 GM 2A F23 CqS

C 158 75 43

C rect. shape, bifacially smooth, lat. sides smooth, ends 

rough

2863 GM 2A 31 L Inc 115 68 42

C bifacially smooth cobble, lateral motion, bifacial striae 

are lateral

2865 GM 2A F25A (1) CqS frag. 86 87 45

C primarily unifacial use, very well ground

2866 GM 2B (36) 3 CqS frag. 80 74 47 unifacially ground, handstone?2871 GM 1B EBR (9) 1 CqS frag. 120 120 65 B unifacially well ground, p-c x-sect, flat profile

2872 GM 1B F25 CqS Inc 255 110 65

A elongate-rect., bifacial wedge use, wedge shaped, one face 

slightly convex

2873 GM 1B F25 CqS Inc 110 105 55 B well ground, primarily unifacial, end broken, convex face2897 GM 2B SBR (33) CqS Inc 65 73 25

C prob. was oval, unifacially ground, handstone?

3003 GMII D4 (27) B frag. 127 97 48 B unifacially highly smoothed, w/ slight convexity laterally 

on face

3004 GM 2B SBR (5) FSC

C 162 82 71 B roughly rect. shape, one end flat, other convex, one use 

face well ground

3012 GM 2B SBR (2) CqS frag. 182 113 78

A unifacially smooth, slightly convex surface side-to-side in 

x-sect

3018 GMII C2 93) 1 CqS frag. 113 131 56 B unifacially highly smoothed, w/ slight convexity laterally 

on face

3070 GMII C1 CqS frag. 225 112 44 B shaped exterior, unifacially ground, slightly convex, 

rounded end, elongate, p-c x-sect, flat profile

3073 GM 3B (2) L frag. 91 60 31

C bifacially ground, one face flat and more highly ground; 

handstone/rubber; rect. x-sect, flat profile

3074 GM 3B (2) L frag. 64 75 25

C prob. bifacially smooth, one side highly ground, edge 

beveled, handstone/rubber

3075 GM 3B (10) CqS C? 106 74 48 358.5

C rounded rect. shape, x-sect, profile, prob. bifacial use

3079 GM 3B (10) Unknown

C 88 73 61

C rectangular shape, prob. bifacially smoothed, trapez xsect, rect. profile

3080 GM 3B (10) gabbro/

C 77 61 49 362.5

C highly polished, black, bifacially highly ground to polish, 

diorite? also one side, irreg. x-sect and profile

3171 GM 2B (65) CqS frag. 165 110 63

A unifacial, use face is slightly convex, shaped exterior, 

trapez x-sect, flat profile
950 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Handstones Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 3187 GM 2A (10) L frag. 44 29 30 unifacial ground smooth and flat 3349 GMII A3 CqS

C 337 145 69

A elongate shape, unifacial, slightly convex surface laterally, 

p-c x-sect, conc-conv profile

3350 GM 2B (36) 3 CqS

C 206 96 49 B slightly convex surface laterally, long thin type, unifacial, 

triang. x-sect

3351 GMII A2-C2 CqS frag. 95 86 51

C long, thin type, end frag., unifacial, p-c x-sect

balk 3

3532 GM 2A F7 4 scoria

C 91 52 48

C rounded rect. shape, sides ground, square x-sect, rect. 

profile

3533 GM 2A F7 4 CqS frag. 135 120 45 A-1 elong. type w/ overhang, sides parallel, slightly convex 

laterally

3535 GM 2A (31A) CqS frag. 93 85 41

C bifacially ground; biconv rect. x-sect and profile

3537 GMIII B (52) CqS frag. 112 111 49 B convex grinding surface, flat x-sect, triang. profile

3543 GM 2A (30) CqS frag. 205 126 59 B unifacial, slightly convex lateral surface, p-c x-sect

3552 GMIII (50) CqS frag. 64 72 32

C unifacially well ground, p-c x-sect

3563 GMIII J2 (26) CqS frag. 98 87 30 B unifacial, well ground, flat x-sect and profile

3811 GMIII A3 (4) CqS frag. 100 81 42 unifacially well ground, flat x-sect and profile

3812 GMI 2E (2) diorite? Inc 153 107 90 B ovoid, unifacially polished3813 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 114 102 56 B elongate, unifacial3972 GM 1A (7) 1 BR frag. 75 57 42

C irreg. shape, unifacial

3975 GM 2C TT5 L C 80 55 42 331.3

C rect., smooth all over, trapez x-sect and profile

3977 GM 1D TT1 (2) L C 88 75 35 409.5

C square, unifacially polished, square x-sect and profile

3981 GM 2C (10) 1 BR frag. 185 134 40 B slightly convex working surface; p-c x-sect, conc-conv 

profile

3986 GM (+) B frag. 84 77 32 B very vesic, unifacial; p-c x-sect, conc-conv profile3991 GM 2A P2 L C 69 56 36 287.5

C rect. shape, x-sect, and profile, well ground, poss. weight?

3994 GM 2B TT2 (17) BR frag. 135 107 42 B unifacial, p-c x-sect, flat profile3996 GM 1C F14 (6) BR

C 280 131 87 A? elongate, unifacial, rounded rect. x-sect, p-c profile

4012 GM 2C (+) S C 76 71 36 417.3

C square, bifacially worn, rect. x-sect and profile

4015 GM (+) B frag. 101 88 34

C unifacial, sampled by Bill Melson, dense

4016 GM 2C TT1 (3) B frag. 88 68 51 very vesic, sampled by W.M., rect. x-sect and profile4017 GM (+) BR frag. 172 121 56

A unifacial, surface slightly convex, p-c x-sect, flat profile

4018 GM (+) B C 111 78 39 B oval-rect., dense, bifacial?, flat x-sect and profile4048 GMIII C3 TT3 (2) CqS frag. 174 118 37 unifacially well ground
NUMBER 50

• 951(continued)

Handstones or grinding stones

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description939 GMI 3F (3) B frag. 52 44 22 22 flat flat unifacially highly ground, small edge frag.941 GM 2A WBR (0) B frag. 100 100 27 27 flat flat unifacially highly ground, thin, flat frag.943 GMIII B (5) 5 B frag. 52 50 30 unifacially well ground949 GMIII A3 (3) B frag. 100 58 25 25 flat flat bifacially ground951 GM 00A (1) 3 B frag. 80 64 42 42 p-c unifacially highly ground, small frag.955 GMI 5F (5) B frag. 62 49 16 16 flat flat unifacially ground, flat, ventro rough958 GMI 4D (4) 3 B frag. 118 42 17 17 flat flat unifacially highly ground, thin and flat959 GM (+) B frag. 62 40 28 28 unifacially highly ground961 GMI 1F (6) B frag. 70 57 25 25 flat flat primarily unifacial use, well ground963 GM 2A F20 B C 355 150 51 51 p-c flat one face highly ground slightly convex (mano); other face 

w/ diagonal elongate concavity

2041 GMIII C1 (81) B frag. 75 35 22 unifacially well ground2042 GMIII A2 (20) B frag. 45 45 29 flat flat unifacially ground, probably handstone2043 GMIII B (61) 3 B frag. 75 30 25 flat flat unifacially well ground2045 GM 1C P2 (8) B frag. 40 33 26 unifacially well ground2046 GMI 5E (4) B frag. 50 45 29 flat flat unifacially well ground2047 GMI 5D (7B) 2 B frag. 37 37 25 unifacially well ground2048 GM 2D TT3 (5) B frag. 75 43 40 flat flat unifacially ground, edge fragment2049 GM 1C W1 B frag. 50 25 15 flat flat unifacially ground2077 GM 1A TT11 (0) B frag. 37 28 31 small fragment2086 GM 1A (1) 8 CqS frag. 70 75 40 p-c unifacially, highly ground2089 GMI 6E-F (2) B frag. 75 37 33 unifacially ground, slightly convex working face2090 GMI 4F TT4 (2) B frag. 40 48 33 bifacially highly ground, two conjoined frags2093 GM 1D (5) CqS frag. 70 43 30 unifacially ground, other side rough2095 GMIII C1 (81) B frag. 33 32 22 flat flat unifacially very ground, other side rough2208 GM 2B F12 CqS frag. 200 130 70 flat flat possibly broken rough out of unused grinding slab; no 

evidence for use wear

2223 GMI 5D (7B) 2 B frag. 65 50 18 bifacially very ground, edge frag2224 GMI 3D (5) B frag. 85 57 23 flat thin, flat unifacially used2278 GM 2A (1) B frag. 61 37 28 flat flat prob. unifacially ground, other face prob. just shaped2279 GM 2A TT2 (4) B frag. 50 32 50 small frag., unifacially ground2751 GM 0B (15) 4 CqS frag. 70 70 40 flat unifacial grinding slab frag.2889 GM 2A NBR F7 CqS frag. 76 67 42 unifacially well ground, edge frag.

(1)

3007 GMII B3 (19) CqS frag. 149 53 35 edge of grinder; highly ground to faceted; two conjoining 

frags

3013 GM 2B NBR (2) CqS frag. 132 113 61 plano- planar unifacially smooth, 

irreg. ventro nat. smooth, ends broken

3352 GMII A3 (13) CqS frag. 135 75 44 p-c unifacially well-ground3516 GMIII J2 (26) CqS frag. 84 76 30 unifacially well ground3536 GMIII B (66) 14 B frag. 70 33 24 flat flat grinder frag., probably unifacial3548 GMII A2 (0C) B frag. 63 47 25 flat flat small fragment, unifacial, vesicular
952 

• SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Handstones or grinding stones Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 3550 GMI KB (23) 3 B frag. 63 60 34 p-c unifacially well ground 3557 GM 1B (5) 1 B frag. 83 51 26 unifacial, center frag., well ground 3558 GM 1B (5) 1 B frag. 98 95 26 unifacial, center frag., well ground 3814 GM I 2E (4) B frag. 43 41 16 flat flat unifacial 3814 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 54 37 26 flat flat unifacial 3814 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 60 47 24 flat flat unifacial 3814 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 79 56 45 flat flat unifacial 3814 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 41 30 27 flat flat unifacial 3814 GMI 2E (4) B frag. 121 92 20 flat flat unifacial 3988 GM (+) B frag. 82 71 26 flat flat very vesic, unifacial, well ground 3992 GM (+) BR frag. 74 49 39 unifacial, poss. edge frag. 3999 GM 2A TT1 (9) B frag. 88 47 36 flat flat bifacially well ground, low vesic basalt 4000 GM 2D TT1 BR frag. 103 69 48 flat flat unifacial 4004 GM (+) B frag. 68 57 56 4006 GM (+) B frag. 83 66 51 flat flat unifacial 4007 GMI 4F (2) B frag. 57 44 28 flat flat bifacial, heavily worn both sides, very vesic

4008 GM (+) B frag. 92 70 46 flat flat unifacial?, very vesic4009 GM (+) B frag. 95 101 48 p-c unifacial, very vesic4010 GM 2C TT3 (0) BR frag. flat flat unifacial use4021 GM (+) B frag. 95 85 43 p-c p-c vesic, unifacial4025 GMIII A3 (0) B frag. 32 29 36 unifacially well ground, central frag.4028 GMI KB P11 10 CqS frag. 87 45 24 small edge frag4034 GMI TT (0) CqS frag. 78 53 47 unifacially ground, center frag.4037 GMI KB (6) 4 CqS frag. 82 68 29 unifacially ground, center frag.4040 GMI 5G (1) 3 B frag. 42 35 22 unifacially ground, three frags.4043 GMIII A3 (8) CqS frag. 42 49 34 flat flat unifacially ground

Mortars

Reg. No. Wall Base Rim Well

(SI Cat. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross thickness thickness diameter Diameter depth

No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

2092 GM 1D (5) B 85 30 27 |int. highly 

ground, ext. only moderately ground
NUMBER 50 • 953

(continued)

992 GM 00A (0) CqS

C 120 98 47 p-c plano-conc rect. w/ 

rounded corners, 80 × 60 mm shallow pecked concavity; 25 mm dia depression on other side

995 GM 2C) L C 138 98 47 biconv biconv shallow 10

TT10 (13 pecked 

depression on nat. ovoid smooth pebble, concavity = 66 × 58mm

996 GM 00A (7) 1 L C 121 108 62 biconv irreg. roughly oval 15

cobble w/ concavity ground (dia = 65 mm), opposite face is smooth and polished

2357 GM 1B TT1 (5) L?

C 80 64 64 64 squared on 

three sides, fourth side extends in uneven shape, depth = 60 × 20 mm, crucible?

994 GM (+) S C 117 90 33 rect. shape, 

well also rect., shallow, base well ground, slightly convex; found w/ basalt pestle (Reg. No. 969) 12
954 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Mortars Reg. No. Wall Base Rim Well (SI Cat. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross thickness thickness diameter Diameter depth No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 2442 GMI FUR Ch

C 175 135 55 60 deep, cup- 30

(10) 5 shaped 

depression cut in one face, 115 × 100 × 30 mm; one end has rim w/ striae

2226 GMI 5D (8A) B frag. 80 70 58 flat, polished 18-16

rim, base wall section broken, originally flared outward

1054 GMI FUR (4) B frag. 60 highly 36 380

ground surface, convex ext. wall/base profile, little raised rim

2594 GM 1D (1) 1 B frag. 64 45 21 plain rounded 30

rim frag., ground up to rim int., shallow basin, w/ ochre traces?

682 (131) GM 1C B frag. 22 31 poss. reused 170

EBR P2 (9) bowl base 

frag., int. highly ground, ext. rough, base dia = 105 mm dia

2880 GM 2B CqS frag. 155 155 83 flat wide rim; 26 65

WBR (26) rounded base 

ext, smoothed finish, ground int.
NUMBER 50 • 955

(continued)

2880 GM 2B CqS frag. 155 155 83 flat wide rim, 26 108

WBR (26) concavity 

depth = 65 mm, rounded base ext., smooth finish, well ground int.

990 GMII C1 (+) L frag. 140 129 118 rounded base, 50 27 180

convex wall profile, deep mortar on cobble

991 GMIII (+) L frag. deep mortar, 37 180

flat base, upright walls w/ only slightly convex profile, ext. and int. well ground

993 GM 0B (8) L frag. 111 flat base, 21 105 165

deeply ground and prob. drilled (on lathe?) w/ concentric int. grooves

3005 GM 2B L? frag. 101 94 33 conc-conv flat miniature 8

SBR P3 basin; rect. 

shape, shallow well, w/ faint ridge around edge; intentional “drain” cut thru this ridge

997 GM 1A L Inc 123 123 106 ovoid conc-conv rounded cobble 32

TT11 (15) w/ concavity 

(dia = 85 mm), depth = 32 mm, int. smooth, ext. natural

681 (2016) GM 1C Unknown rim 142 24 43 rim frag., 200

P2 (2) prob. deep bowl, 

w/ flat rim and traces of crenellation
956 

• SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY 680 (541) GM 00A (1) 3 L rim 145 pecked ext., 160 convex wall profile, prob. shallow 2280 GM 2A TT1 (0)B tripod 50 44 37 triang. faces well ground, end is rounded tripod mortar leg frag. Pebbles with cavities Well Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross diameter Reg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) 1002 GMIII C1 (81) L C 105 45 32 biconv biconv elongate ovoid shape, w/ bifacially pecked depressions in ctr, 20–10 another on opposite face (length = 20 mm diameter; 2 = 20 mm)

1006 GMIII B (0) L C 70 55 20 flat flat roughly oval, roughly chipped w/ bifacially pecked concavity 30

2149 GMI KB (20) Ch 35 35 17.5 nodule chunk w/ drill mark and striae; drilled aspect is flat

Modified cobbles

Fragment Length Width Thickness Cross

Reg. No. Provenance Material Name type (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description974 GM 1A TT5 (2A) L mod. cob. frag. 136 39 45 handstone?, rounded edge of natural cobble, possibly ground976 GMIII B F1 (6) S mod. cob. frag. 128 75 31 biconv biconv handstone?, slightly ground on one face, rounded natural edges979 GM 1D W4 L mod. cob. frag. 91 77 27 flat flat flat w/ rounded edges, natural cobble, prob. used as handstone 

unifacially

983 GMIII B F1 (6) S mod. cob. frag. 115 90 31 biconv flat unifacially slightly ground2087 GM 1A (8) 6 L mod. cob. frag. 110 105 54 smoothed cortical ext. of cobble, no clear wear2142 GMIII C1 (78) SL mod. cob. C 51 44 22 biconv biconv bifacially pecked, smooth oval pebble982 GMI 5F (3) L? mod. peb. C 113 56 30 biconv conc-conv elliptical shape, bipolar pecking, unifacial wear w/ slight 

concavity, other face prob. also ground

987 GMI 4D (4) 5 Qte? mod. peb. C 60 57 43 ovoid, naturally smooth pebble, one face highly ground and 

polished w/ striae

988 GMI 3G (2) 1 hard L. mod. peb. C 111 39 23 round triang. flat elongate w/ rounded ends, natural smooth pebble, one face 

highly ground, polished w/striae

TABLE 23.A1 (continued)

Mortars

Reg. No. Wall Base Rim Well

(SI Cat. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross thickness thickness diameter Diameter depth

No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
NUMBER 50

• 957(continued)

1025 GM 00B (+) Qte? mod. peb. C 76 63 42.5 natural pebble, smoothed w/ natural holes bifacially, prob. 

pecked

3010 GM 1B EBR (8) CqS mod. peb. frag. 54 45 20 flat flat smoothed pebble, prob. natural, but w/ slight concavity on one 

face

700 GM 1D TT2 F mod. cob? C 67 67 17 flat, squarish slab, smoothing may be natural1045 GMIII C1 (+) F? slingstone? C 46 38 39 ovoid, pecked pebble, no clear wear980 GMI FUR (0) 2 CS pebble frag. 52 28 18 small pebble frag., no wear evident1024 GM 2C (6A) 2 L mod. cob. frag. 63 38 31 natural pebble frag. w/ shallow concavity; natural? edges may 

be pecked

1035 GMIII C2 F22 L mod. cob. C 90 70 22 flat roughly oval, bifacially pecked, clear wear striae on one face

Weights

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross Diameter Weight

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) (g)

1305 (117) GM 2B (14) L C? 12 inscription on convex top 19 7.98

2096 GM 2C W1 (2) L C 44 bell-shaped; prob. weight, no use wear, 43

lightly incised rect. on slightly convex face

2068 GM 2B (5) 4 H C 25 20 10 rect. rect. highly polished, roughly rect. shape, weight? 14.6

1019 GM 3B (11) 2 H? C 24 almost spherical, smoothed pebble, one side 28 31

flat and polished; burnisher? weight?

1042 (803) GMI 1F (0) H C 28 13 11 irreg. lenticular lenticular shape, highly ground, weight? 12.05

2030 GM 1C EBR (9) H C natural hematite nodule, clearly worked and 14

faceted, weight?

3009 GMII B3 (10-13) F C 75 74 72 round round spheroid, w/ flattened and polished face, 

no other clear wear, weight?

Spindle whorls

Fragment Thickness Height Diameter Weight Cross Hole diameter

Reg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) section Profile Description max/min (mm)

671 GM 1C (+) L C 12 38 flat round, natural peb., unfinished bifacially drilling, 

unfinished spindle whorl?

1043 GMI FUR (7) 3 J C 16 25 19.2 unfinished spindle whorl?, highly polished, dome 

shaped, slight biconical drilling, beveled edge along base

2109 GM 1B (10) 1 L frag. 10.5 49 bifacially drilled, smooth, almost polished 10/6

2861 GM 2B (2) 7 L frag. 19 50 biconv bifacially drilled, not perforated 201037 GMI 4D W5 L frag. 20 51 bifacially perforated, edge rounded, grooves on 21/8

ext. intentional?

673 GM 1C TT1 (0) St C 11 22 7.5 truncated cone shape, single line etched around 6/5

circumference of base slightly convex

674 GM 2B TT3 St C 1.2 2.6 p-c carefully finished, striae all over 6/5

675 GM 1C (4) St C 11 25 10.7 truncated cone, polished, incised lines radiating 

from hole to groove 20 mm from edge; lower side slightly concave and irreg. w/ groove around
958 

• SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 23.A1 (continued)

Spindle whorls

Fragment Thickness Height Diameter Weight Cross Hole diameter

Reg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) section Profile Description max/min (mm)

676 GM 1A P6 (4) St C 12 23 10.2 bifacially drilled, hemispherical, polished, one side 

flat w/ striae, groove around edge

677 GM 2C P1 (3) St frag. 11 33 p-c polished 6

1039 GMI 3G (9) St C 7 22 43 unifacially drilled dome, parallel striae covering 

flat face, incised circle along edge

1040 GMIII B (50) 4 St C 10 24 conical, polished, heavily random striae on flat side; 

unifacially drilled

1041 GMIII B (56) 3 G frag. 6 20 dome shaped, moderately ground 5/3

1041 GMIII B (56) 3 G C 14 29 flat flat conical, sides well ground, rough top, flat side 4/3

w/ striae; flat profile

1046 GM 2A (31A) hard L C 8 31 10.2 flat unifacially drilled, flat conical shape, well ground 6/5

1047 GM 1B NBR Unknown C 21 46 39.5 prob. bifacially drilled, vertical edges, well ground 14/11

(16) 1 w/ striae

1111 GMI 4D (3) St C 11 244 conical, w/ concentric incised striae, flat side 3/2

w/ random striae, beveled edge

1112 GMI 4D (4) 3 St? C 10 22 5.9 conical, smooth plain top, flat bottom w/ parallel 2

striae; unifacially drilled

1113 GMI FUR (10) 5 L C 13 28 11.3 p-c unifacially drilled, carefully ground, striae all over 4

678 GM (+) Unknown C 21 30 14.9 bifacially drilled, half cylinder, flattened bifacially, 10

ext. crosshatch incisions

670 GM 1B (2B) 1 marble C 5 25 flat, circular smooth disk, bifacially drilled, 

not perforated, unfinished bead?

Perforated stones

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross Diameter Hole diameter(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (m) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) max/min (mm) Name664 (7) GM 1B TT1 F1 (2) Qte? C 57 47 35 irreg. irreg. nat. hole in nat. pebble, nat. peb. 

smooth, irreg. shape, w/ hole

hole near edge on diagonal

665 GM 1B EBR (8) L C 35 33 12 irreg. irreg. nat. pebble w/ nat. 3.5 8/5 nat. peb.

hole, off-center and w/ hole

diagonal, smoothpeb., irreg. shape 

666 (386) GM 2D SBR (8) hard L C 45 43 17 nat. hole widened 12/7 nat. peb. 

slightly in nat. pebble, w/ hole

polished, hole diagonal through pebble
NUMBER 50 • 959

(continued)

667 (2025) GM 1D TT1 (2)

Q

C 33 25 16 biconv biconv ovoid, natural 7/4 nat. peb. 

peb. w/ nat. hole, w/ hole

prob. polished and nat. smoothed

668 (506) GM 00B P2 (5) Ch frag. 24 bifacially drilled 81 17/10 disk

disk, one side slightly concave w/ deep striae, other flat

1027 GMIII C2 F22 Ch frag. 53 33 biconv bifacially drilled hole 55 9 loom 

in biconvex chalk weight

nodule w/ shaped ext. spindle whorl? weight?

1036 GMI 3G P7 Ch

C 81 30 irreg. shape, bifacially 35/12 loom 

perforated, soft weight

1026 GMIII C2 F22 L C 70 62 24 ovoid, flat pebble 7 30/8 loom 

w/ bifacially pecked weight

hole in ctr

2100 GMIII C2 F22 L frag. 24 biconv biconv one-third of bifacially 70 loom 

perforated slightly weight

biconvex blank

1939 GM 1C W5 L? frag. 37 40 18 natural hole prob. perf.

worked also, possible loom weight frag.?

669 (387) GM 1C P2 (6) BR Inc 22 flat, vertical edges, 67 10/6 perf.

centered hole drilled bifacially; loom weight?

1033 (453) GMI 5E (4) Ch

C 60 54 31 flat biconv chalk pebble, bifacially 14/7 perf.

drilled, ovoid, edges rough but rounded, weight = 92.7 g

2888 GM 2A NBR F7 F? frag. 21 19 11 irreg. irreg. pebble w/ poss. nat. 3 perf.

hole and modified, irreg. shape, hole on diagonal

3015 GM 2A (3) 14 L C 175 150 67 irreg. biconv two holes, both natural, perf.

cobble is water rolled and smooth

1003 GMIII C1 P3 L frag. 110 105 40 biconv irreg. bifacially perf. frag., 56/38 perf. 

hole dia = 38–56 mm stone

1004 GM1A NBR (8) L frag. 112 76 46 prob. perforated perf. stone

bifacially, small frag.

2044 GMI 5D (6) 2 B frag. 88 56 21 unifacially ground, perf. 

possible tournette stone?

or millstone
960 

• SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Perforated stones Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross Diameter Hole diameter (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (m) (mm) section Profile Description (mm) max/min (mm) Name 672 (10) GM 1B TT1 (5) Ch frag. 6 bifacially drilled, 21 perforated barely perforated, perf. prob. caused breakage, striae all over bead? 2647 GM 0A (5) BR? frag. 45 30 9 smoothed ext., perforated traces of hole, no dia estimate possible 1032 GMIII C2 F23 L C 132 118 50 biconv roughly oval wad 47/22 weight i pebble, bifacially drilled, one side polished 1034 GMIII C1 (81) L? C 62 45 23 biconv irreg. roughly ovoid, prob. 13/10 perf. natural hole, weight? 1031 (1014) GMIII F1 (7) 4 B C 55 well made, round, 145 55/35 perf. relatively flat w/ rounded sides, 

bifacially drilled in center

Pivot stones

Well Well Hole

. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height Cross depth diameter diameterReg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description Object (mm) (mm) max/min (mm)998 GMI 4D (3) Ch C 210 185 61 flat flat irreg. shaped door socket 10 70

cobble w/ shallow concavity (dia = 70mm), w/ concentric striae

999 GMI 4G (3) 3 L C 135 120 115 trapez trapez roughly chipped door socket 25 85

and pecked, multiple overlapping concavities w/ concentric striae
NUMBER 50

• 961(continued)

1000 GMIII B (56) 4 L C 130 114 40 flat flat roughly flaked door socket

disk, bifacially drilled in center, almost perforated; 1 = 32 mm dia; 2 = 25 mm dia

1030 GMI FUR (0) 2 SL frag. 142 70 45 flat flat one-half polished pivot stone?

wadi cobble, bifacial concavities, one side is polished w/ concentric striae, other is pecked only

2213 GM 2B F12 L frag. 140 120 80 irreg. irreg. deep pecked pivot stone 70

concavity on pebble, ext. roughly rounded prob. natural

Varia

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Diameter Cross Weight

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description Object (g)

659 (957) GM (+) L C 41 53 drilled bifacially, spool shaped, hole chariot knob

squared on larger end

1029 GMII A3 W1 (1A) F frag. 18 11 4 flint chip?, does not appear worked chip

695 (115) GM 1D P1 (1) L frag. 93 71 14 at least four round, slightly rimmed cup cosmetic palette

depressions (35 mm dia), w/ rosette decoration at center

694 (61) GM 2B (18) Ch Inc 45 28 16 mold for metallurgy? straight rect. stem, jeweler’s mold

round at end, two short slightly raised arms; back of mold has parallel incisions (comb)

1012 GMII A2 (0) F frag. 60 32 conical piece, frag. of ground ext., tool? sculpture

sculptural frag?

1009 GMIII B 956) 3 diabase? frag. 140 77 67 trapez cylinder finely ground, end rough, use as pestle?; sculpture?

poss. reuse of sculptural frag.?

658 (666) GM 1B EBR (9) G Inc 15 32 dome shape w/ 4 mm groove in center stopper

1020 (107) GM 2A (30) St C 41 30 16 flat flat rect., flat, well ground, vertical edges token? 41.3

weight?

661 (2017) GM 2C TT1 (0A) 2 hard L frag. 80 73 18 biconv flat palette frag.?; both ends broken, edges varia

rounded; “whetstone”

662 (63) GM 1B (10) 1 FeL frag. 32 15 4 flat thin, highly polished frag., rounded varia

end w/ fairly parallel sides like weaving shuttle
962 

• SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 23.A1 (continued)

Varia

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Diameter Cross Weight

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description Object (g)

697 GM 1B (15A) 1 CS frag. 80 61 30 flat chunk; three sides broken, bifacially whetstone

smoothed, smoother side w/ central groove

981 GMI 4G F4 S frag. 88 59 37 primarily unifacial use, clear striae on whetstone

one face at angle to edge; palette/ whetstone?

1014 GMII C2 (+) FosL frag. 83 43 19 highly ground w/ parallel sides and whetstone

broken ends; edges vertical w/ longit. striae

2744 GM 0B P8 L frag. 140 40 85 corner frag. looks like vessel base frag., worked

but unclear, fairly flat base, smooth

2779 GM 00B (10) Ch C 23 20 24 trapez rect. trapezoidal shape, finely ground, ground worked

and faceted on two faces and bipolar; like token or game piece

1001 GM 2B (35) 2A S C 141 108 20 flat flat ovoid, bifacially ground, each side unidentified

w/ slight depression; palette-like use?

696 GM 2B (11) CS? frag. 68 58 19 triangular, flat; one smooth and round palette/

edge, others broken whetstone?

1021 GMI 4D (4) 5 St C 4.5 14.5 roughly circular, one side faceted, bead/button?

w/ striae and incised circle around shallow drill point; unfinished?

Hammerstones

Fragment Length Width Thickness Diameter Cross

Reg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description

830 GM 2B (33) 13 F C 68 58 57 heavily chipped and battered; 40% cortex removed, spheroid831 GMII A3 W1 (+) F C 57 54 54 two to three facets; cuboid/spheroid; primarily grinding wear832 GMII A3 P1 F C 70 70 65 angular spheroid, heavily battered, some fragmenting833 GM 3B (9) F C 75 66 55 two facets, roughly globular, heavily battered834 GMII A3 TT2 (20) F C 67 51 55 flattened oblong, one facet, almost square in cross section835 GM 1A W5 F C 59 57 57 5.7 two facets, spheroid/cuboid836 GMII A3 P4 W1 F Inc 68 65 probably was spheroid, primarily battered837 GMII A3 P4 W1 F Inc 70 66 heavily battered and fragmented, prob. was spheroid838 GMIII C2 (83) 1 F C 66 66 62 two facets, spheroidal, one battered face, primarily ground839 GMIII C1 (81) F C 58 55 55 cuboid/spheroid, three facets, mainly ground840 GMIII B (+) F C 55 53 52 one flat face, spheroidal841 GMIII B (0) F C 56 56 57 two facets, primarily ground over surface, spheroidal842 GMI FUR (1) 2 F C 60 59 58 cuboid/spheroid, two to three facets, primarily from grinding843 GMI 4G (3) 3 F C 63 61 52 globular, bipolar facets, primarily battered all over
NUMBER 50

• 963(continued)

844 GMIII B (56) 4 F C 70 65 59 irregular/angular shape, smoothed and battered all over, no clear 

grinding wear

845 GMI 5D (2) F C 67 64 62 spheroid, smoothed and battered, one facet846 GM 3B (2) F C 54 53 53 cuboid/spheroid, six vaguely defined facets from grinding, very little 

battering

847 GMI FUR (5) 2 F C 61 60 54 globular, one ground and pecked facet, others primarily battered848 GM 2B P9 F C 57 57 50 spheroid/cuboid, one facet, smoothed and pounded849 GM 2B P9 F? C 75 70 70 spheroidal, three facets ground, primarily smoothed with some pecking850 GMI FUR (7) 2 F C 59 58 cuboid, three clearly ground facets851 GMI FUR (7) 3 F C 65 65 62 slightly angular sphere, with at least one ground facet852 GMI FUR (0) 2 F C 61 61 60 cuboid, five facets, sixth facet heavily battered; battered and smoothed853 GMI 3G (3) 1 F C 66 62 58 two opposing facets, one battered side855 GMI 3G (16) 1 F C 71 67 72 two opposing facets smooth and flat; heavily battered857 GMI 3F W4 F C 65 60 51 globular, bipolar battered flat858 GMIII B1 F1 (1) F Inc 75 67 62 angular spheroid, primarily battered859 GMI 5E (4) 2 F C 64 50 47 four facets, roughly rectangular, w/ rounded edges, bipolar pecking860 GMIII B (1) 15 F C 107 102 71 ovoid cobble, biconvex x-sect/profile, one face very polished, ends 

battered

862 GM 0B (0) L C 72 57 61 roughly ovoid natural cobble, possibly some pecking863 GMI 3G (16) 2 F? C 55 56 46 spheroid, heavily battered on one end, other end smooth864 GM 1A TT2 P3 (4) F? C 40 36 34 spheroid, small, smooth all over, no clear wear865 GMIII J1 W3 F? C 43 35 30 ovoid, no clear wear984 GMI 4D (4) 3 F C 54 51 50 faceted spheroid, small, battered all over, one face prob. also ground2121 GM 1B (13) 2 F? C 57 56 55 cuboid, six ground faces, primarily ground, very little evidence for 

pounding wear

2122 GM 1B (13) 2 F C 70 65 61 65 ground and battered; two ends flat2147 GMI 5G (0) F C 85 73 71 primarily spherical and heavily battered2203 GMIII J2 P1A (2) F C 75 77 68 spherical w/ some facets; ground on at least one face; primarily battered2366 GM 2B (8) F C 52 51 51 fairly round, w/ some initial faceting2443 GMI FUR (9) 4 F Inc 58 59 56 near spherical, two faces broken, also pecked and ground866 GM 1C (20) F? C 40 40 37 spheroid, no clear wear856 GMIII B 955) 1 F frag. 83 81 one round face very smooth; otherwise battered2445 GMI FUR (10) 4 F frag. 5 78 broken, one face finely ground

854 GMI FUR (6) 2 F? frag. 56 55 one facet highly ground and smooth; sides battered and pecked

Pendants

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Diameter Cross Hole diameter

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description max/min (mm)

1115 GMIII A2 (8) L? C 44 10 9 round pendant, elongate, single hole at one end, 1.5

carefully ground, bifacially flattened

1116 (634) GM 2B NBR (27) J? C 36 29 9 flat lentic axe-like pendant, small perf., well ground, 

polished

660 (11) GM 2A (1) T frag. 29 13 9.5 square flat pendant frag?, single hole prob. drilled 1

bifacially, start of drill mark on opposite face
964 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Pendants Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Diameter Cross Hole diameter (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description max/min (mm) 808 GM1A (1) 10 St

C 17 0.7 angular/teardrop shape; bifacially drilled on 3/2

narrow end, finely ground and polished, pendant/bead?

1023 GMII A2 (+) L C 26 25 7 natural hole possibly drilled also, small edge 

section missing, heart/triangular-shaped pebble, pendant?

Stone vessels

Wall Base Rim

Reg. No. Fragment Length Widths Thickness thickness thickness Height diameter Diameter

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Description (mm) (mm)

2824 GM 1A NBR (5) 2 Unknown rim 12 18 46 open form vessel w/ wide flat rim, 90

base unclear

2237 GMI 5D (7) 2 Unknown wall 22 17 6 highly polished int. and ext.

2081 GMIII A1 P1 AL frag. 8 38 heavily eroded, int. groove 70

2389 GM 2B (20) B frag. 50 40 15 rim frag., carinated bowl, rim 

vertical w/ flat top, well-ground int., 

coarse ext., prob. shallow

2272 GM 1A P2 (3) B frag. 60 44 20 shallow basin/mortar, rim polished 

and almost flat, open form, convex profile

1053 GMIII A2 (20) B frag. 72 50 15 10 wall base frag. w/ single raised band, 

prob. Chalcolithic fenestrated stand (Type 4Cii)

2835 GM 2A WBR P1A (1) B rim 40 45 25 rim frag., shallow, open-form bowl, 

convex wall profile, well-ground int. 

and ext.

2643 GM 1E (1) B ring/leg 70 65 22 fenestrated stand frag.; leg width = 

39 mm; leg thickness = 22 mm; ring height = 29 mm; ring thickness = 22 mm 200

2810 GM 1A TT11 (14) B wall 53 32 13 wall frag., well-ground int. and ext.

702 GM 1D (+) BR? rim? 65 50 25 unexamined?

3016 GM 2B (46) FSC rim 48 32 22 22 rounded rim, well-ground int. and 

ext., open form

1022 GMIII C3 TT2 (2) L frag. 135 26 26 83 rim frag., vertical sides, rounded rim; 

int. highly polished. 220 240

2823 GM 2D (12) L rim 36 32 14 tapered edge, bifacially very smooth, 

poss. rim frag?
NUMBER 50 • 965

(continued)

1050 GMI 4F W3 L? frag. 63 22 56 poss. vessel rim frag., very little 

curvature; unifacially used whetstone/grinder?

2360 GM 1B (10) 1 L? handle? 35 10 3 lug handle, vertical hole through 

handle, handle juts upward

2860 GM 2A NBR P1C S? rim 33 30 20 rim frag.?, int. and ext. smooth, 

rounded edge

1055 (921) GMIII A3 (2) 2 AL Unknown 14 deep bowl w/ rounded base, walls 155

nearly vertical, two small vertical lughandles extend from rim level in form of stylized duck heads; highly polished ext. Philistine period, Egyptian style

704 GM 2C (7) 2 AL frag. 30 24 16 polished, flat, w/ curving 100

vertical edge

650 (3028) GM 2D (6) AL base 55 37 6 shallow dish/platter base frag., 80

translucent

648 (430 GM 1D (1) 1 AL base/wall 44 28 13 6 shallow, 25–30 mm deep, flat

everted rim

656 (383) GM 2C NBR (6) AL body 39 41 7 tapers slightly, w/ raised keystone 40

shaped decor (handle?), polished ext.

657 (384) GM 2C NBR (3) AL neck 23 27 6 neck/body frag., prob. alabastron, 35

cylinder body w/ groove at top, thinning wall toward neck, polished ext.

653 (98) GM 2C P1 (3) AL neck 20 3 neck frag., poss. from alabastron, 16

plain rim rounded on ext., 3 mm wide collar around neck, 8 mm below rim

646 (4000) GM 2C NBR (+) AL rim/base 5 9 19 rim to base frag. of shallow bowl 9

w/ flat base, sinuous sides to wide flat rim, finely polished

645 (214) GM 2D (1) AL rim/base 80 80 28 convex wall profile, flat broad rim, 110

flat base, shallow dish, polished

652 (811) GMIII B (+) AL rim/neck 55 8 8 40 rim/neck frag. from jar/vase; neck 80

flares to flat topped rim, w/ rounded ext.

2141 GMIII A3 (2) 2 AL wall 35 30 12 14 ext. well ground, interior rough

2188 GMI 4D (3) AL wall 28 15 5 ext. finely ground, int. rough

701 GM 1C P2 AL wall 34 9 2 small sliver, polished exterior, 

rough int. 

654 (2020) GM 1B (9) 1 AL frag. 3 at least two different sets of joins; 40

all are same thin, fine vessel, no diagnostic frags.
966 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Stone vessels Wall Base Rim Reg. No. Fragment Length Widths Thickness thickness thickness Height diameter Diameter (SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Description (mm) (mm) 1049 GM 1B F18 (1) AL frag. 51 20 7 ext. very smooth, int. rough, faint remnant of rim or neck remains on broken edge 649 (2019) GM 1C (3) AL rim 30 27 6 6 open form, highly finished, flat-topped 120 120 rim, shallow vessel, int. rim dia = 100 mm 2107 GM 1B P1 (1B) 1 AL frag. 45 16 7 flat, horizontal rim w/ rounded edge, prob. from alabastron 655 (2022) GM 1C P2 AL frag. 7 body frag., alabastron?, gently 40 curved shoulder to start of straight neck w/ groove; knob handle below neck, finely polished exterior, coarse int. 2231 GM (+) AL neck? 20 4 juglet or small bottle neck frag. 26-18 2232 GM 2D (6) AL neck? 17 17 7 polished ext., smooth int., poss. body frag. or neck of small vessel 699 GM 1C (5) ceramic? frag. 100 18 many frags., all from same vessel 220 2811 GM 1A TT11 (0) Ch? frag. 34 25 14 slight curvature int. and ext., int. 

w/ horizon. striae from drilling, poss. cylindrical vessel

2052 GM 1D P1 (1)

G frag. 32 18 8.5 small body frag., int. striae visible

651 (122) GM 1C P2 (0)

G base 7–10 42 narrow jar, jug, or alabastron base 38

frag., w/ slightly convex base; int. striae

1048 (937) GMIII A3 (4) 3

G base/wall 58 54 5 8 22 shallow vessel frag., base and wall, 100

unclear whether rim still preserved; rough

698 GM 3B (1) L rim? 85 50 32 not clear rim frag.; possibly some 

other tool type

647 (130) GM 2C NBR (1) L frag. 12 52 one-third of shallow basin w/ plain 210

flat rim, poss. ring/disk base; ext. and int. polished w/ striae

2189 GMI 5D (8B) 3

M frag. 53 32 8 flat disk edge frag., very smooth, 

poss. lid or shallow platter

2282 GM 2A P4 S? frag. 120 100 5 40 rim ground, possibly reground wall 

after breakage, ext. has striae; poss. decor?
NUMBER 50

• 967(continued)

2201 GM 1C (5A) 6 S? frag. 96 75 18 37 rounded corner of shallow vessel 

w/ walls incurving to flat int.; ext. walls curve into base, all w/ fairly finely ground finish; well depth = 19 mm

2277 GM 1A P2 (5) soapstone frag. 40 30 6 finely ground int. and ext., 

w/ small trace of rounded rim; upright profile, ext. striae

2276 GM 1A P2 (5) soapstone frag. 125 55 10 two joining frags., w/ 100-mm- 220

long narrow horizontal lug handle, w/ hole (~7 mm dia) in complete end; exterior, below lug, has slanting grooves or fluting

703 GM 1A (1) 10 St frag. 43 35 6 polished ext., w/ single groove 240

near broken edge

684 (2024) GM 2C P1 (2) St base 175 130 120 int. and ext. striae from 300

manufacture, base thins toward center; burned

683 (23) GM 2B (11) St body 80 72 10 deep bowl w/ vertical walls, 300

horizontal int. and ext. striae, notched ridge en relief = 6 mm wide 

Incense burners

Reg. No. Fragment Length Width Thickness Height

(SI Cat. No.) Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Description

685 (119) GM 1A TT4 (6)

686 (133) GM 2A (+) Ch Inc 89 91 55 cuboidal687 (201) GM 1D (3) Ch Inc 123 120 73 7th century BCE; cuboidal, one corner missing; square w/ rounded 

corners; rim decorated on top w/ single row of small drilled holes; feet are formed by deep and rounded groove in base

688 (118) GM 1B (5A) 1 L frag. 85 25 4th century BCE; one-half cuboidal, w/ two vestigial square legs 

remaining; no rim; broken at base, decor is ruled, incised bands bordering freehand geometric patterns

689 (4410 GM 0A (6) L frag. 49 20 cuboidal edge/corner frag., w/ incised decor on top edge (ruled?) and 

side w/ geometric patterns (freehand)

690 (234) GM 2C W2 L frag. 53 13 4th century BCE, cuboidal, rim/corner frag., freehand geometric pattern 

on top of rim; two horizontal bands of freehand geometric patterns on sides

691 (364) GM 0B (1) 2 L leg 34 30 45 cuboidal, leg frag., two ext. faces w/ incised geometric decor freehand 692 (607) GM 1B NBR (6) L rim 65 14 cuboidal, rim frag., incised decor on side and top of rim w/ freehand 

geometric patterns between ruled lines

693 (2023) GM 1D TT3 (0) L frag. 44 30 8 cuboidal corner frag., faint geometric incisions w/in frame, prob. burned1052 (622) GM 1B EBR (17) 1 L C 93 84 43 cuboidal, rect. basin w/ beveled sides, four feet formed by U-section 

groove in base; crude freehand incisions (stylized bird?)
968 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 23.A1 (continued) Tesserae Fragment Length Width Thickness Cross Reg. No. Provenance Material type (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description 1016 GMI FURIII (1) L?

C 26 20 16 rectangular, primarily chipped, w/ trace of plaster

1017 GMI FURIII (1) L?

C 23 22 18 angular, not ground

1018 GM 2B (7) L?

C 15 14 13 rectangular cube, cleaved, not ground

2080 GM 2A (36) 3 malachite?

C 10 10 9 green, flat and ground single side

2104 GM 3B (1A) L C 22 18 15 rect. rect. roughly cut, trapezoidal shape

2105 GM 2A (0) L C 22 18 16 roughly cut, rect.

2251 GM 1A P2 (3) stone 2.5 2 2 unexamined?

2269 GM 2A (0) stone 2 2 1.5 unexamined?

2365 GM 2B (0) L C 18 14 14 roughly rect.

2396 GM 3B (1) L C 23 15 20 rect. trapez roughly rect.

2106 GM 3B (1) L Inc 27 22 12 roughly cut, rect., corner missing

Ground stone fragments

Length Width Thickness Cross

Reg. No. Provenance Material (mm) (mm) (mm) section Profile Description696 GM 2B (11) CS? 68 58 19 triangular, flat; one smooth and round edge, others broken698 GM 3B (1) L 85 50 32 not clear rim frag.; possibly some other tool type919 GMIII B (5) 6 CqS? 107 56 21 small, thin trapezoidal frag., bifacial use, very smooth, handstone?923 GMIII B (2) 6 L 62 62 28 flat flat prob. unifacial, slightly concave working surface941 GM 2A WBR (0) B 100 100 27 flat flat unifacially highly ground, thin flat frag975 GMIII C2 TT2 (2) CqS 120 70 19 fragment of ground face977 GMI 5D (2) hard L 101 81 32 flat flat flat slab, very smooth bifacially, no clear striae, one face slightly concave981 GMI 4G F4 S 88 59 37 primarily unifacial use, clear striae on one face at angle to edge; palette/whetstone frag?1013 GMIII TT2 (3) CqS 53 37 17 flat triangular frag., unbroken edge is straight, rounded, shallowly scalloped1050 GMI 4F W3 L? 63 56 22 poss. vessel rim frag., very little curvature; unifacially used whetstone/grinder?1051 GM 1C SBR (20) L? S? 35 30 28 small, angular, w/ two parallel and prob. ground faces; whetstone? grinder?2084 GM 1A TT4 (2) CqS 45 18 14 square flat irreg. shape, angular and ground 2087 GM 1A (8) 6 L 110 105 54 smoothed cortical ext. of cobble, no clear wear2094 GMIII C1 (81) B 50 48 20 flat flat unifacially ground, other side rough2118 GM 2C balk removal (1) Sc 47 44 49 grooved, ~10 mm deep2388 GM 2B TT3 (18) L 32 21 15 smooth, rounded edge, prob. bifacially ground; handstone or lid?2678 GM 0A (6) CqS 101 60 25 ground on one face, possibly bifacial, hole may be natural2744 GM 0B P8 L 140 40 85 corner frag. looks like vessel base frag., but unclear, fairly flat base, smooth2822 GM 1A NBR (3B) 2 L 34 23 13 tapers to edge, no curvature, well ground bifacially2823 GM 2D (12) L 36 32 14 tapered edge, bifacially very smooth, poss. rim frag?2825 GM 1A TT11 P3 (3) S 25 20 14 smooth ext., small squarish frag2828 GM 2B (36) 3 CqS 94 73 28 bifacially slightly concave and well ground; prob. grinder2829 GM 2B P14 CqS 80 117 50 p-c p-c poss. rough out, no clear evidence of wear2859 GM 2A NBR P1B L 55 40 17 poss. nat. hole, both sides smooth
NUMBER 50

• 969

2867 GM 2A NBR (25) L 43 22 14 tapering edge frag. of pebble, bifacially smooth, poss. natural2869 GM 2B WBR (26) L 80 66 40 flat flat unifacially very smooth, rounded edge frag.2870 GM 2B WBR (26) L? 70 38 34 unifacially flat, well-ground face on small cobble2893 GM 2A NBR F7 (1) L 85 75 25 flat (base?), ext. very smooth, int. concave and shallow2894 GM 2B SBR (7A) L 37 34 12 small flat pebble, poss. ground, bifacially smooth, rounded edge2895 GM 2B SBR (7A) L 38 15 16 curving smoothed ext. w/ multiple undulating and faint lines; poss. in shape of eye?2921 GM 1B EBR CqS? 31 35 11 flat flat smoothed bifacially, prob. ground3084 GM 3B (12) 1 CqS 78 38 43 fragment converging to thin edge, both faces well ground3518 GM 1B (15) 1 L 35 32 18 flat flat smoothed bifacially, no clear wear or artifact type3520 GM 1B (14) 2 CS 54 46 37 slight ridge, uncertain if ground3534 GM 1B (10) 1 S F 47 23 unclear if artifact3538 GMIII B (52) CqS 95 78 30 one face ground, artifact type unclear3544 GM 2B (768) L 72 33 31 possibly one face ground3559 GM 1B (5) 1 Unknown 33 26 12 both sides smooth, flat, no clear use wear3565 GMI KB (8) FSC 117 49 48 trapez elongate-rect. shape, unifacially ground

3989 GM (+) B very vesic3990 GM (+) B very vesic3993 GM 2C TT1 (0) CqS

4001 GM 1A (4) 3 litho-L 89 87 32 flat flat polished, flat piece, paving stone?

4023 GM (+) Scoria 59 49 41 no clear wear4024 GM (+) B 62 54 32 dense, no clear wear4036 GMI 2E (4A) F 120 88 77 chipped flint, large, thick chunk w/ one flat possibly ground face4038 GMIII C2 F22 (2) L 74 63 19 flat flat smooth faces, one w/ striae4041 GMII C3 (AB) 3 L 76 45 37 flat flat unifacially groundUnknown GMI 4D (3) L 74 60 20 flat flat bifacially smooth, unifacial grinding
24 Egyptian Amulets 

from Tell Jemmeh

Christian Herrmann

INTRODUCTION

Twenty-three faience amulets or amulet fragments from the Smithsonian excavations at Tell Jemmeh are presented here. All the 

amulets presented here are made of Egyptian faience, whose production requires a rather complicated technical procedure. Initially, 

with the help of a positive, a clay mold was prepared; the moistened composite material was squeezed into the mold, which then had 

to be fired at a high temperature (for details on the production technology and different methods employed, see Herrmann, 1985: IV, 

1994:27ff).

Although many amulets have been found in Israel and Palestine (1,873 pieces), it cannot be assumed that they are local products

because until now in the geographical area of Israel and Palestine, no workshop or large quantities of molds for the production of amulets have been found (see Herrmann, 1994:35ff). Until today, only four amulet molds have been found in archaeological contexts: one 

comes from Gezer (surface find), one from Tell el-‘Ajjul, one from Beth Shean (area of the temple), and one from Tel Rehov (surface 

find). A workshop such as in Tell el-Amarna (Petrie, 1894) or Qantir (Herrmann, 1985) has so far not been found. This is probably 

because the technology for the production of high-quality Egyptian faience was very complicated, requiring long experience and the 

necessary know-how (Kaczmarczyc and Hedges, 1983), which in antiquity was reserved mainly for the Egyptian faience manufactures.

The great similarities in type, style, and material with Egyptian amulets in the cities inhabited by Phoenicians in the Mediterranean 

(Sardinia, Carthage, ancient Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, etc.) can only be considered as an indication that regarding Egyptian amulets 

in the entire Mediterranean area, there are influences between cultures reflected in the content and the form of the artifacts. This relation, however, in my opinion, is influenced not by the Phoenicians but by the Egyptians: what was available in Egypt as an amulet was 

also found in all the other cities in the Mediterranean, which were inhabited by the Phoenicians. Thus, it seems to me that the Egyptian 

amulets that were used in Israel and Palestine were exclusively imported from Egypt and arrived through the commercial relations into 

Israel and Palestine (Herrmann, 2006:49).

CATALOG

Dating

The date of each object, according to the author (for the dating criteria, see Herrmann, 1994:31ff), indicates the time span in which 

the amulet was most probably produced but not necessarily the date it was exported to Israel or Palestine. This date is listed in the 

catalog as “Author’s Date.” The dating of the excavator is based on the criteria of context and is listed in the catalog as “Find Spot.” 

Differences between the date according to its find spot and that of the author exist because many of the amulets were used over a number 

of centuries (see Herrmann, 1994:31), and thus, the production date and the date of the find context do not coincide.

Anthropomorphic Figures

Cat. No. 1, Reg. No. 1129, SI Cat. No. 222 (Figure 24.1a). Isis or Isis-Hathor with the Horus child (Isis lactans). Find Spot: Field IV, 

GM 1D TT4 (19), Phase IV-5? (Iron IIC?). Year Excavated: 1971. Dimensions: 14 × 21 × 9 mm. Material: gray composite material with 
NUMBER 50 • 971

FIGURE 24.1. Amulets: Catalog Nos. 1–12.
972 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

nose of Re.” According to the myth, he emerged from the primeval waters of an island. As a god, beauty ointments and perfumes 

were associated to him. Iconographically, Nefertem is displayed 

as a head flanked by two “menits,” or as an unsegmented, human 

body with a lion’s head, a lotus flower, and towering feathers. 

It can sometimes be found sitting together with the lion-headed 

Sekhmet on the double throne. Nefertem amulets appear in various color glazes: black to brown for the hair style, sometimes for 

the men’s kilt, and green to blue for the body.

Cat. No. 4, Reg. No. 1133, SI Cat. No. 6 (Figure 24.1d). Fragment of a god. Find Spot: Field IV, GM 1B TT1 (2), Phase IV-3 

(Persian). Year Excavated: 1970. Dimensions: 18 × 11 × 5 mm. 

Material: gray composite material with white-green glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: part of body and head broken 

(missing). Description: plastic. Ventral: the fragment shows a 

walking male deity figure with a short kilt. Dorsal: supporting 

ridge. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Persian. 

Cat. No. 5, Reg. No. 1137, SI Cat. No. 711 (Figure 24.1e). Aegis. 

Find Spot: Field IV, GM 2B Wall 9, Phase IV-5 (Iron IIB-C). Year 

Excavated: 1976. Dimensions: 30 × 20 × 5 mm. Material: gray 

composite material with remains of red glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: part of neck collar broken (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: aegis (neck collar) with woman’s 

head, cow horns, and sun disk. Dorsal: flat; a hole was perforated through the solar disk. Author’s Date: Iron IIA-B. 

Cat. No. 6, Reg. No. 1144, SI Cat. No. 112 (Figure 24.1f). Fragment of Aegis. Find Spot: Field IV, GM 1A Pit 6 (5A), Phase IV-1 

(Crusader-Mamluk). Year Excavated: unknown. Dimensions: 14 

× 20 × 4 mm. Material: gray composite material with rests of 

red glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: head and half 

of neck collar broken (missing). Description: front view, Ventral: 

Fragment from an Aegis; Dorsal: flat. Author’s Date: Iron IIA-B. 

In ancient Egypt the collar, or the so-called aegis, was adornment as well as a reward and a token of distinction for officials, 

landed proprietors, or other subjects of the king. At the same 

time it also carried protective functions, be it as a large throat 

collar that was placed around the neck of the dead on the day of 

their funeral or as a small molded feature in the form of an amulet with a woman’s head (mostly the head of Mut) or the head 

of a holy animal (falcon, uraeus, vulture, cat, or lion). Through 

the deity, which the corresponding animal represents, the collar 

amulet receives additional protective and regenerative functions 

on top of its function in the domain of the death cult, which is 

supposed to manifest through the respective animal head (Bonnet, 1952:8–9; Helck and Westendorf, 1977:2,933). For distribution of aegises with a woman’s head, cow horns, and sun disk, 

see Herrmann (2003: cat. no. 216).

Cat. No. 7, Reg. No. 1143, SI Cat. No. 805 (Figure 24.1g). 

Bes. Find Spot: Field III, GMIII B (58) 2, Phase III-10 (LBII). 

Year Excavated: 1977. Dimensions: 12 × 7 × 1.5 mm. Material: white composite material with white-blue glaze. Production: 

white glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: body and head 

broken (missing). Description: Isis with Horus child (fragment). 

Ventral: fragment of a goddess in long female dress sitting upon 

the throne of gods. Dorsal: inscription. Author’s Date: Iron IIB-C. 

A very popular and widely distributed amulet is the suckling 

Horus child on the lap of 

Isis, sitting on the godly throne, where Isis merges with Hathor (cow horns and sun disk on the head) or with Mut (double 

crown on the head). In her function as the mother goddess and 

nursing mother of the Horus child, Isis’s main task was the care 

and preservation of life, which one thousand years later would 

live on in the Christian Madonna lactans. The Isis–Horus child 

amulets were mainly for protection from danger. According 

to the Osiris myth, Isis raised the Horus child secretly in the 

swamps of the Nile delta, and protected it from evil forces. In the 

“Ritual of the Seventh Hour,” she is mentioned among the gods 

that protect Ra on his journey in the sun bark: “Isis, the Great, 

powerful in magic with her saying, effective (?) with her magic” 

(Hymn 7B, 5–6; Assmann, 1999:83).

As such, the mother goddess with the Horus child became 

the protective object, which was supposed to protect children 

from sickness and evil. These amulets often bear inscriptions that 

underline the life-giving and protecting function and, moreover, 

reinforce them with their own effect.

With 49 amulets found in excavations of ancient Israel and 

Palestine, from the LB to the Hellenistic period, Isis with the child 

Horus is very well represented (see Herrmann, 1994, 2006).

Cat. No. 2, Reg. No. 1136, SI Cat. No. 762 (Figure 24.1b). Fragment of god (Thoth, Anubis, or Khnum). Find Spot: Field IV, 

GM (+), unstratified. Year Excavated: 1976. Dimensions: 27 × 

7 × 10 mm. Material: gray composite material with red glaze. 

Production: moldmade. Preservation: part of body and head broken (missing). Description: plastic. Ventral: the fragment shows 

a walking male deity figure with a short kilt. Dorsal: supporting ridge. Author’s Date: Persian-Hellenistic. Remarks: This is a 

fragment of Thoth, Anubis, or Khnum in their typical posture. 

For Thoth, see Herrmann (1994: cat. nos. 4–58, 2006: cat. nos. 

20–27), for Anubis, Herrmann (1994: cat. nos. 59, 60, 2006: 

cat. nos. 28–35), and for Khnum, Herrmann (1994: cat. nos. 64, 

65, 2006: cat. nos. 37, 38).

Cat. No. 3, Reg. No. 1132, SI Cat. No. 626 (Figure 24.1c). Stylized Nefertem. Find Spot: Field IV, GM 2C SBR (7), Phase IV-3 

(Persian). Year Excavated: 1975. Dimensions: 17 × 7 × 11 mm. 

Material: gray composite material with red glaze. Production: 

moldmade. Preservation: head broken along the locket (missing). 

Description: plastic. Ventral: the fragment shows a walking male 

deity figure with a short kilt . Dorsal: supporting ridge. Author’s 

Date: Persian-Hellenistic. Remarks: A portion of the characteristic Nefertem god’s beard is still clearly visible. For similar Nefertem figures, see Herrmann (1994: cat. no. 213, 214).

The name Nefertem can mean “Atum is good” or “the totally Beautiful.” In the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom he is 

attested to as a primordial god, who is the “lotus flower on the 
NUMBER 50 • 973

A stylized Bes with a feather crown appears also at Beth 

Shean (Herrmann, 2003: cat. no. 109/III).

Cat. No. 9, Reg. No. 1131, SI Cat. No. 405 (Figure 24.1i). 

Brocken-off Patecus head with scarab (fragment). Find Spot: 

Field IV, GM 2B P5 TT5, Phase IV-5 (Iron IIB-C). Year Excavated: 1973. Dimensions: 14 × 14 × 10 mm. Material: white 

composite material with green and black glaze. Production: 

moldmade. Preservation: body broken (missing). Description: 

plastic. Ventral: broken-off Patecus head. On the head a rudimentary scarab can be recognized, which is lined with black 

glaze. Dorsal: supporting ridge. Author’s Date: Iron IIA-B. 

Like Bes, Patecus did not belong to the official cult but belonged to the popular piety. He is the lifelike reproduction of 

a dwarfish person and is attested almost exclusively in amulet 

form. Herodotus mentions the custom of the Phoenicians to 

put up Patecus as a protective divinity on their ships (Bonnet, 

1952:584). Already during the Amarna period he had gained 

consideration in Egypt and during the Ramesside period came 

to life again. Innumerable amulet forms for the production of 

these dwarfish figures have been found in the faience workshops 

of Tell el-Amarna and Qantir (see Herrmann, 1994:404, with 

the following references: Petrie, 1894: pl. XVIII:275; Khawam, 

1971: pls. XXXIV:23, XXXVII:10,11, XXXVIII:11,12; Samson, 

1978:94, fig. 49; Herrmann, 1985: cat. nos. 129–134, 1989:29, 

fig. 1, 1994: cat. nos. 30–37).

The fascination that these lilliputian people aroused among 

normal-sized people led to the fact that important functions related to ladies’ toiletries or to artisans were attributed to Patecus. He was seen as a small Ptah provided with the power of 

creativity. The name Patecus is derived from Ptah (it is merely 

the Greek diminutive form of Ptah), and thus, he can also bear 

a scarab on his head (Herrmann, 1994: cat. nos. 616–623, 629, 

634, 639, 2003: cat. nos. 512–516, 2005: cat. nos. 170–172, 

174–178), which, on one hand, underlines his creative spirit 

and, on the other hand, establishes the relation to the sun god. 

A magic formula from the XIX–XXth Dynasties suggests the 

custom to wear this small popular divinity against evil as an 

amulet around the neck (Herrmann, 1994:404, with reference 

to Bonnet, 1952:584). For the different variants of Patecus and 

their distribution in Ancient Israel and Palestine, see Herrmann 

(1994:405–406, 2003:20–22, 2006:18).

Cat. No. 10, Reg. No. 1130, SI Cat. No. 2 (Figure 24.1j). Stylized Patecus (fragment). Find Spot: Field IV, GM 1A TT1 (0), 

unstratified. Year Excavated: 1970. Dimensions: 18 × 18 × 15 

mm. Material: white composite material with blue-green glaze. 

Production: moldmade. Preservation: body broken (missing). 

Description: plastic. Ventral: fragment off Patecus. On the head 

the cap of Ptah can be recognized. Dorsal: behind the neck, the 

four-banded hanging arrangement protrudes. Author’s Date: 

Iron IIC–Persian. 

Stylized Patecus amulets were found, for example, in Akhzib, 

Atlit, Dor, and Ashkelon, mostly in tombs, all dated to the Iron II 

or Persian periods (Herrmann, 2003: Cat. Nos. 520–522).

moldmade. Preservation: suspension broken (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: Bes figure standing, with broad phallus 

extending between the twisted, bulging legs down to the rim of 

the base. Both hands of the slightly bent forearms are clenched 

and partly resting on the corpulent belly, with a prominent belly 

button. The head with beard, large nose, inflated/bloated cheeks, 

large eyes, and protruding ears is directly attached to the chest. 

Dorsal: flat. Author’s Date: LBIIB–Iron IA 

Bes was, like other specific protective divinities, not a lord 

of a temple or a main recipient of a cult. Nevertheless, he was 

very popular not only in the common peoples’ faith but also in 

the circles of high regal official and at the Egyptian court. He is 

attested since the Old Kingdom. Beginning in the New Kingdom, 

he steadily gained favor in the whole Mediterranean area, only 

to disappear slowly during Roman rule (Bonnet, 1952:101–189; 

Helck and Westendorf, 1977:720). The typical characteristic of 

the Bes figure is the grotesque face with beard, wide nose, blownup cheeks, stuck-out tongue, and wide ears. Commonly, he was 

represented naked, with either a long or short penis, rarely with 

a short fur apron. The feather crown later became his characteristic (cf. Herrmann, 1994:316).

His entity is multilayered. Possibly Bes was, similar to Aha, 

a popular form of the sun god. As a protective god he adorned 

bedroom furniture. Together with Hathor he was present during 

birth, where he also had creative powers. With knives and protective signs he would watch over the newborn child. In the myths 

about Hathor this popular god also became a musician and dancer 

(Herrmann, 1994: cat. nos. 424, 425). An additional characteristic is Bes pantheos (Herrmann, 2003: cat. no. 493), who can 

be found beginning in the late periods on stelae and in the form 

of amulets. The main characteristics of this figure are the large, 

spread-out wings and the bearded head from which at least eight 

different animal heads come out (for more, see Kakosy, 1981:45). 

Assmann (1993:42) sees in him the only world god of an esoteric 

cosmotheism. The similarity to Patecus is noteworthy; beginning 

in the late periods Patecus can be found in a similar complex form 

as an amulet (cf. Herrmann, 2003: cat. nos. 532, 533).

These characteristics were important in the field of amulets. Also, the apotropaic effect as protection against all evil 

and hostile powers was very important (Hornung and Staehelin, 1976:94). The frequent combination with Wedjet eyes (Herrmann, 2003: cat. no. 493) and with the baboon underlines his 

solar characteristic (see the remarks in Herrmann, 1994: cat. 

nos. 338, 339, 463, 355). For the different variants of Bes and 

their distribution in ancient Israel and Palestine, see Herrmann 

(1994: cat. nos. 317, 318, 2006: cat. nos. 109–144).

Cat. No. 8, Reg. No. 1139, SI Cat. No. 956 (Figure 24.1h). Stylized Bes with feather crown. Find Spot: Field I FUR, GMI FUR 

(10) 5, Phase FUR 4 (Iron I). Year Excavated: 1978. Dimensions: 

13 × 8.5 × 4 mm. Material: gray composite material with white 

glaze. Production: handmade. Preservation: Suspension broken 

(missing). Description: front view. Ventral: stylized Bes figure 

standing. The head with large mouth and a wide nose is directly 

attached to the chest. Dorsal: flat. Author’s Date: LBIIB–Iron IA. 
974 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Phase I-1? (LBII?). Year Excavated: 1976. Dimensions: 6 × 12.5 

× 3 mm. Material: red composite material with red glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: upper half broken along the 

hanging arrangement (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: 

fragment of Wedjet eye. The surface is slightly curved; the spiral 

bow and the two-part projection are undecorated. Dorsal: flat. 

The hanging arrangement goes horizontally through the central 

axis. Author’s Date: LBIIB–Iron IA. 

Cat. No. 14, Reg. No. 1140, SI Cat. No. 832 (Figure 24.2b). 

Wedjet eye. Find Spot: Field III, GMIII B (63) 5, Phase III-12? 

(LBII). Year Excavated: 1977. Dimensions: 10 × 14.5 × 2 mm. 

Material: white composite material with white-blue glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: suspension broken (missing). 

Description: front view. Ventral: Wedjet eye. The surface is 

slightly curved. The spiral bow and the two-part projection are 

undecorated. Dorsal: flat. Author’s Date: LBIIB–Iron IA. 

The name Wedjet eye signifies “safe” eye. The Wedjet eye was 

the favorite Egyptian amulet in Israel and Palestine. It belongs to 

the class of the human body parts but differs from it because it 

has to be assigned to the divine sphere, and as such, it does not 

represent a human eye, but a divine eye. As such, it has apotropaic 

functions (Müller-Winkler, 1987:93–94). It has primarily regenerative characteristics but was also used very often as an amulet with 

an apotropaic effect. It has a close relationship with the Horus 

eye, which, like the moon, always regenerates itself anew (Bonnet, 

1952:854–856; Helck and Westendorf, 1977:824).

Iconographically, the Wedjet eye is represented with a smooth 

or decorated eyebrow, eyelid, lid edges, eyeball, pupil, smooth 

or decorated makeup line, spiral bow, wedge area, and smooth 

or decorated vertical projection. The projection suggests the relation with the falcon-headed heavens god (for the terminology, 

see Müller-Winkler, 1987:94). The Wedjet eye is the most common amulet type in Israel and Palestine and is represented by 536 

examples (Herrmann, 2006); it reaches its peak, similar to Bes 

and Patecus amulets, in the Iron IIA-B. According to the typology 

and the material, one can also note a stylistic evolution for this 

very common amulet (for this, see Herrmann, 1994:612–613). 

For the period of the LBIIB–Iron IB there is evidence of objects 

with smaller dimensions and raised relief. Occasionally, carnelian 

is used as a production material rather than Egyptian faience.

In the Iron II the Wedjet eye is often decorated with a twocolored glaze, and the upper side is almost always curved and 

still shaped in raised relief. The dimensions are normally much 

larger than during the LBIIB–Iron IB period, and the colors are 

dominated by shades from green to blue. Completely new criteria appear in the Iron IIC: The surface is mostly flat, and the 

edges are angular. Often, the decoration is applied to the flat 

surface with a thick composite material. Sometimes, the eyes are 

represented in very large dimensions. The fine reliefs are almost 

always sunk. The production materials used alongside Egyptian 

faience are also granite. Rarely, one can find Wedjet eyes made 

of carnelian or mother-of-pearl. Their production date has to 

be put most likely already in the LBIIB–Iron IB period. For the 

distribution of this most common form of Wedjet amulets in the 

Levant and elsewhere, see, e.g., Herrmann (1994:611–773).

Animals

Cat. No. 11, Reg. No. 1138, SI Cat. No. 301 (Figure 24.1k). 

Sitting cat. Find Spot: Field IV, GM 0B (2) 2, Phase IV-3/4? (Persian). Year Excavated: 1972. Dimensions: 12 × 10 × 5 mm. Material: gray composite material with gray-green glaze. Production: 

moldmade. Preservation: head broken (missing). Description: 

plastic. Ventral: sitting cat. Dorsal: behind the neck, the hanging 

arrangement protrudes. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Persian. 

The cat is attested in Egypt until the Middle Kingdom in the 

form of pictures or inscriptions. In tombs of the New Kingdom 

it was the favorite animal under the chair of the grave lord. The 

height of the cat cult, however, reached only into the late period. 

Notably, the cat Bastet was considered the animal that was the 

antithesis to mad Sekhmet. For the distribution of this amulet 

type in the Levant and the Mediterranean, see Herrmann (2003: 

cat. nos. 585–612).

Cat. No. 12, Reg. No. 1142, SI Cat. No. 804 (Figure 24.1l). Uraeus 

or Renenutet. Find Spot: Field III, GMIII B (58) 2, Phase III-10 

(LBII). Year Excavated: 1977. Dimensions: 19 × 7.5 × 2 mm. Material: white composite material with white-blue glaze. Production: 

moldmade. Preservation: broken (missing). Description: plastic; 

front view. Ventral: on a small basis uraeus or Renenutet with double feather crown. Dorsal: flat. Suspension on the double feather 

crown. Author’s Date: LBIIB–Iron IA. Bibliography: Herrmann and 

Staubli (2010:fig. 63:18, S.112). Comments: This uraeus or Renenutet amulet has not yet been verified in Israel and Palestine.

The uraeus snake is often an apotropaic head decoration 

on the headdress of the king of the gods. This was also a symbol of strength and regeneration; the uraeus was identified with 

both the moon and the sun’s eye. The body of the snake can be 

coiled once, twice, or thrice and is often depicted wearing the 

sun disk on his head, indicating the solar aspects of its nature. 

In the Ramesside period the so-called Uräenknoten were in the 

form of small plates popular as rings. The two curved uraeus 

was between two flowers or a ring under the winged sun disk 

usage. Snake heads, mostly made of faience, were input into 

larger uraeus compositions, where the body was made of wood 

or other materials. The rampant cobra with a tortuous tail in 

a figure eight (as in Cat. No. 12) probably shows the goddess 

Renenutet (Nährschlange, or “breadwinner”). Further, the rampant snake could also be displayed with monkeys, lions, or a 

falcon’s head, which has solar properties. All of these aspects, the 

apotropaic protective forces, the connection to the Nile flood, 

the ability to regenerate, and the nutritive power contributed to 

the great popularity of the various snake amulets. 

This is actually the first example of such an amulet from 

Israel (for occurrences in Egypt, see Herrmann, 1985: cat. no. 

337, for a mold; see Schoske and Wildung, 1992: cat. no. 66; 

Herrmann, 2003, cat. no. 920, for a positive).

Object Amulets

Cat. No. 13, Reg. No. 1147, SI Cat. No. 702 (Figure 24.2a). 

Wedjet eye: small, rectangular. Find Spot: Field I, GMI 2E (1) 2, 
NUMBER 50 • 975

Excavated: unknown. Dimensions: 13 × 17 × 5 mm. Material: 

yellow composite material with red glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: broken along the hanging arrangement. Description: front view. Ventral: Wedjet eye. The surface is flat; fine 

lines mark the brow, edges of lids, eyeliner line, pupil, and the 

two-part projection. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes 

horizontally through the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–

Hellenistic. For the distribution of flat Wedjet eyes with relief 

drawing see, e.g., Herrmann (1994:620–629).

Cat. No. 17, Reg. No. 1061 (Figure 2.24e). Wedjet eyes: flat and 

partially decorated with black faience paste. Find Spot: Field IV, 

Cat. No. 15, Reg. No. 2891 (Figure 24.2c). Wedjet eyes: flat with 

relief drawing. Find Spot: Field IV, GM 2A F7, north balk (2), 

unstratified. Year Excavated: unknown. Dimensions: 14 × 22 × 4 

mm. Material: gray composite material. Production: moldmade. 

Preservation: two-part projection broken (missing). Description: 

front view. Ventral: Wedjet eye. The surface is flat; fine lines mark 

the brow, edges of lids, eyeliner line, pupil, and the two-part projection. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes horizontally 

through the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Hellenistic. 

Cat. No. 16, Reg. No. 3358 (Figure 24.2d). Wedjet eye. Find 

Spot: Field IV, GM 2B (37) 2, Phase IV-6 (Iron IIB-C). Year 

FIGURE 24.2. Amulets: Catalog Nos. 13–23.
976 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Excavated: 1976. Dimensions: 5 × 3 × 3 mm. Material: blue 

composite material (Egyptian blue). Production: mold- and 

handmade. Preservation: upper half broken along the hanging 

arrangement (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: fragment of Wedjet eye. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes 

horizontally through the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIB. 

Another example of Wedjet eyes in raised relief comes from Lachish (Herrmann, 2003: cat. no. 1113/I).

Cat. No. 22, Reg. No. 1148, SI Cat. No. 823 (Figure 24.2j). 

Finger ring. Find Spot: Field III, GMIII B (63) 5, Phase III-12? 

(LBII). Year Excavated: unknown. Dimensions: 15 × 12 × 2 mm. 

Material: white composite material with white-blue glaze. Production: mold- and handmade. Preservation: ring broken (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: surface slightly curved, but 

the ring plate cannot be identified clearly. Dorsal: flat. Author’s 

Date: LBIIB–Iron IA. 

In the Ramesside period finger rings were made of earthenware, and their popularity in Israel and Palestine is well 

documented archaeologically. Although this ring was not well 

preserved, it is possible that the ring originally showed the prince 

ramessidian sun, as in Qantir it was a model for finger rings 

(Herrmann, 2007:340). Another possibility is that the ring plate 

shows a uraeus between two flowers, a popular motive in the 

Ramesside period . 

Cat. No. 23, Reg. No. 1134, SI Cat. No. 114 (Figure 24.2k). A 

fragment not assigned to any particular amulet. Type: undefined. 

Find Spot: Field IV, GM 1B TT1 (5), Phase IV-3? (Persian?). Year 

Excavated: 1970. Dimensions: 12 × 17 × 5 mm. Material: white 

composite material with white-blue glaze. Production: moldand handmade. Preservation: other part broken. Description: 

front view.

AUTHOR NOTE

Christian Herrmann, Department of Biblical Studies, University of Fribourg, 

Miséricorde, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. Correspondence: pfarramt

@ref-gachnang.ch. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 

2013.

GM 0B P4 (8), Phase IV-4? (Persian?). Year Excavated: 1972. 

Dimensions: 6 × 7 × 3.5 mm. Material: white composite material 

with green glaze. Production: mold- and handmade. Preservation: fragment. Description: front view. Ventral: Wedjet eye. The 

surface is flat; the pupil is decorated with black faience paste. 

Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes horizontally through 

the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Persian. 

Cat. No. 18, Reg. No. 1062 (Figure 24.2f). Wedjet eye. Find 

Spot: Field IV, GM 1A (0), topsoil. Year Excavated: 1970. Dimensions: 9 × 7 × 3 mm. Material: white composite material 

with green glaze. Production: mold- and handmade. Preservation: upper half broken along the hanging arrangement (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: Wedjet eye. The surface 

is flat. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes horizontally 

through the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Persian. 

Cat. No. 19, Reg. No. 1135, SI Cat. No. 611 (Figure 24.2g). 

Wedjet eyes: flat and fully decorated with black faience paste. 

Find Spot: Field IV, GM 2A F7, north balk, unstratified. Year 

Excavated: unknown. Dimensions: 9 × 12 × 3 mm. Material: 

white composite material with green glaze. Production: moldand handmade. Preservation: fragment. Description: front view. 

Ventral: Wedjet eye. The surface is flat; black faience paste marks 

the brow, edges of lids, eyeliner line, pupil, and the two-part projection. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes horizontally 

through the central axis. Author’s Date: Iron IIC–Persian. 

Flat Wedjet eyes fully decorated with black faience paste 

come, for example, from Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XLV), 

Ashkelon, and Achzsiv (see Herrmann, 2003). 

Cat. No. 20, Reg. No. 1145 (Figure 24.2h). Wedjet eye in raised 

relief. Find Spot: Field I, GMI 2E (2), Phase I-1? (LBII–Iron IA?). 

Year Excavated: 1976. Dimensions: 6 × 17 × 4 mm. Material: 

gray composite material with gray glaze. Production: moldmade. Preservation: upper half broken along the hanging arrangement (missing). Description: front view. Ventral: fragment 

of Wedjet eye in raised relief. Dorsal: flat. The hanging arrangement goes horizontally through the central axis. Author’s Date: 

LBIIB–Iron IA. 

Cat. No. 21, Reg. No. 2066 (Figure 24.2i). Wedjet eye. Find 

Spot: Field IV, GM 2B (35) 2A, Phase IV-5 (Iron IIB-C). Year 
25 Various Finds: Faience, Glass 

Bone, Ivory, and Pumice

David Ben-Shlomo

This section covers finds not included in other chapters, mostly those of siliceous materials, faience, and glass (not beads, scarabs, 

or amulets); bone and ivory objects are also discussed in this chapter (excluding beads discussed in chapter 22) as well as pumice, botanical, and other finds.

FAIENCE

Very few faience objects were recovered apart from beads (see chapter 22), Egyptian amulets (see chapter 24), and scarabs (chapter 

27). A rim fragment of an open, thick bowl (Figure 25.1a, Reg. No. 343, GM 2C NBR (4)) is made of light colored faience and has a 

wide ledge rim. Another small fragment (Figure 25.1b, Reg. No. 3122, GM 1A (8) 6) has decoration of bands and stripes between them, 

possibly a fragment of a closed vessel. Both items come from Persian period contexts in Field IV.

GLASS

A small assemblage of decorated glass fragments, probably dating to the final Iron Age and Persian period, was found in Field IV

(Figure 25.1c–s, Table 25.1). Most of the examples are small fragments of closed vessels, probably bottles or juglets. One example (Figure 25.1m) shows a cylindrical narrow body, like an alabastron. It has a matte white color and black decoration on the upper part; the 

inside is also dark. For parallels see the Dobkin Collection (Barag, 2003:53–54, no. 30), dated to the 6th–5th centuries BCE. Another 

example (Figure 25.1i) seems to be a fragment of a bottle with a square profile. The glass is black with a white decoration of wavy bands. 

A decoration of wavy or zigzag bands of light color appears on several fragments (Figure 25.1c,e,g,h); one of these shows decoration in 

cream and yellow on black glass (Figure 25.1h). Figure 25.1e,k shows cream/white-colored glass with yellow decoration; Figure 25.1d 

is also light colored, bluish green; another fragment has a very strong orange-yellow color (Figure 25.1l), also decorated with a wavy 

band. These fragments may belong to amphoriskoi or aryballoses, usually dated by style to the 6th–5th centuries BCE (see, e.g., Tell 

el-Hesi, Bennett and Blakely, 1989:274–275, fig. 206; Barag, 2003: nos. 39, 40, 43). 

Although decorated glass already appears in Late Bronze Age Egypt (e.g., Barag 2003:38, nos. 3–5), this style of decorated glass 

in these forms is typical of the “Mediterranean Series” class, found in the Levant and other regions during the late 7th through the 4th 

centuries BCE at least (Barag, 2003:51–52, nos. 29–60). However, most fragments from Jemmeh are stylistically dated to the 6th–5th 

centuries BCE, to the Persian period. These miniature vessels are usually in Greek shapes like alabastra, amphoriskoi, and aryballoses, 

as well as juglets, and were produced mostly in Rhodes and Cyprus and possibly on the Phoenician coast. 

Two large decorated glass beads (Figure 25.1r,s) are also illustrated (see chapter 22; see also Petrie, 1928: pl. XXII).

Other glass fragments are not similarly decorated, belong to larger vessels (Figure 25.1o–q), and are made of dark lustrous glass. 

They may be dated to the Crusader or Mamluk period. A handle of a vessel (Figure 25.1q) is made of a greenish transparent glass, 

possibly dating to the Crusader-Mamluk period (see, e.g., a glass jug from the Dobkin Collection, Brosh, 2003:357, no. 481, dated 

to the 11th–12th centuries BCE). Another fragment (Figure 25.1n) is a small colored fragment of a handle made of turquoise-colored 

glass. 
978 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The back side is unworked, flattened, and shows signs of sawing and delicate incisions. In many cases holes are found on the 

edges of the inlays; these were used to attach it to the surface of 

the larger object, usually by means of bone or ivory pegs. Flat 

rectangular inlays are also termed panels. The small group of inlays discussed (Figures 25.2, 25.3), about a dozen, can nevertheless be dated to several periods according to both style and find 

context.

Several bone inlay fragments, probably rectangular panels, 

show incised decoration of dotted circles (Figure 25.2b,c) or two 

concentric circles with a centered dot (Figure 25.2a, made on 

lustrous whitish bone). These examples come from MBII or unstratified contexts. This style is well dated to the MBII (although 

some similar inlays continue into the LBA), with parallels, for 

example, at Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXIII:43), 

BONE AND IVORY

A relatively large collection of bone objects was found at 

Tell Jemmeh (over 120 items, Table 25.2); selected and more 

complete objects from various contexts will be discussed. Ivory 

is not always distinguished from bone by the naked eye, especially in small items; furthermore, some classes of objects such as 

inlays and spindles are similarly made from both materials; for 

these reasons bone and ivory objects will be discussed together.

Bone and Ivory Inlays

Inlays are thin, flat bone or ivory objects with one side 

smoothed and often decorated by incision or relief that decorated the surface of wooden objects (such as boxes) or furniture. 

FIGURE 25.1. Faience and glass objects.
NUMBER 50 • 979

The wing (Figure 25.3a) has two perforations aligned with 

its straight side near the edge; these were probably used to attach 

the wing to the surface of a box or furniture or whatever other 

object it was part of. The inner part is decorated by dotted circles 

depicting the body feathers. The outer part widens and is decorated by wavy lines separated by radial bands, naturalistically 

depicting the wing feathers. These two zones are separated by 

a diagonal double frame. The tail (Figure 25.3b) shows exactly 

the same design as the wing feathers; it ends in a roughly straight 

line. A series of four equidistant holes is aligned along this separation frame. The perforations on the wing probably indicate it 

was indeed an inlay, although it is not completely flat; the tail 

lacks any perforations. 

These bone inlays reflect a typical Canaanite style of the 

LBII–Iron I period (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo and Dothan, 2006:18–

20) and fit well in their find context. An almost identical set of 

ivory wing and tail inlays were found at Tel Harasim, Stratum 

IV, Locus 9113, dated to the LBII, and were included in a cache 

within a jar (Giveon, 1998:11*, fig. 15:5,8); here also the lower 

body of a bird-shaped cosmetic box was found (Giveon, 1998: 

figs. 15:7,16), and thus, the cosmetic box can be completely reconstructed. See also a similar wing from LBII Tell Fakhariyah 

(Kantor, 1958a: pl. 67a,b). Other parallels for the wing inlay 

come from Tel Dan (Biran and Ben-Dov, 2002:141–144, figs. 

‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1931: pl. XXIII, 1933: pl. XXIX, 1934: pl. XXXVII:60–101), Hazor (Yadin et al., 1958: pl. CXLII:18), Megiddo 

(Guy and Engberg, 1939: pl. 108), and Batash (Yahalom-Mack, 

2006a:262, photo 127; see also, e.g., Megiddo, Strata XII–XI, 

for the dotted circles pattern, Loud, 1948: pls. 192:1, 193:9,10). 

Another rectangular bone inlay fragment (Figure 25.2f) with two 

diagonal lines is probably also of the same group. A panel fragment with one side cut (Figure 25.2e) is 1.3 cm wide, has only 

one peroration near one of the edges, and shows no decoration. 

It comes from a possibly transitional MBII–LB phase in Field I. 

A slightly wider panel (1.8 cm, Figure 25.2d) has a decoration 

of an X design in a frame of a double lines. This panel comes 

from an LBII context in Field I. Parallels come from ‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1933: pl. XXIX:46,47, 1934: pl. XXXVII:76,77). 

The most complete and impressive bone items come from 

Room 1 of Phase 1 in Field I (Figure 25.3), dated to the LBII. 

These are large bone inlays or components of a larger object, the 

first depicting a wing (Figure 25.3a), sized 15.2 × 6.2 cm, and the 

second probably is a tail of a bird (Figure 25.3b), sized 8.5 × 6.5 

cm. These are very likely to be parts of the same object, maybe a 

bird-shaped cosmetic box or a furniture piece with a bird depiction on it. This assumption is based on both the find spot and 

the similarity of style and technique for both these objects. Both 

back sides are undecorated (Figure 25.3). 

TABLE 25.1. Selected glass objects. wgm = a label added to some glass objects that did not have a registry number.

Reg. No./ SI Cat. 

wgm No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture Period Figure

wgm 613 GM 2C (3) Decorated glass fragment IV-2? Persian? 25.1c

wgm 614 GM 1D (19) Decorated glass fragment IV-5? Iron IIC? 25.1e

wgm 621 GM 2B (2) 2 Decorated glass fragment, IV-5? Iron IIC? 25.1i

square profile vessel

wgm 625 GM 1A (2) 2 Decorated glass handle IV-1? Crusader- 25.1n

Mamluk?

wgm 611 GM 1A (5A) 2 Greenish glass jug neck IV-1/2 Unknown 25.1p

wgm 68 GM 2B (7) 1 Decorated glass base IV-1 Crusader- 25.1o

Mamluk

wgm 628 GM 1A (5A) 7 Decorated glass fragment IV-4 Persian 25.1l

wgm 619 GM 2A (1) Decorated glass fragment Topsoil Unknown 25.1j

wgm 61 GM 2C P1 (3) Decorated glass handle IV-1 CrusaderMamluk

1089 GM 0A (6) Decorated glass fragments IV-3/4 Unit 3 Persian 25.1h

1093 GM 2D P2 (1) Decorated glass handle IV-1 Crusader- 25.1q

Mamluk

1094 GM 2A NBR P1B Decorated glass fragment IV-1 Crusader- 25.1l

Mamluk

1104 GM 1A P6 (10) Decorated glass vessel IV-4? Persian? 25.1m

(alabastron?)

1107 324 GM 0B F1 (1) Decorated glass fragment IV-3/4 Unit 1 Persian 25.1k

1108 224 GM 2D (2) Decorated glass fragment IV-3? Persian? 25.1d
980 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 25.2. Selected bone and ivory objects. Bld = building.

Reg. SI Cat. Period

No. No. Provenance Description Phase Architecture (context) Fig.

1373 1005 GMIII F1 (4) Bone inlay 15 MBII 25.2c

1374 1007 GMIII C1 (3) 3 Bone inlay Unknown MBII 25.2b

1371 624 GMII A2 (0D) Bone/ivory inlay or knob? Topsoil Unknown 25.2j

1377 202 GM 2C (8) 2 Ivory inlay depicting a Post IV-3 Persian? 25.2i

palmette, back side cut

1372 801 GMI 4G (4) 1 Rectangular bone inlay, I-3 Corridor/ LBII 25.2d

X design Unit M1

1376 977 GM 3G P5 Rectangular bone inlay, I-6/7 LBII/MBII 25.2e

perforated

1375 509 GMII C1 WBR (+) Bone inlay, decorated Topsoil 25.2a

1380, 1381 212 GM 2D TT2 (4), F1 2 Handle/kohl tube IV-3? Persian? 25.5a

1382 GM 1A (0) Rectangular bone inlay, Topsoil Unknown

5.1 × 1.4–1.5 × 0.4 cm

1383 GM 1C (3) Bone inlay, burnt IV-3 Persian 25.2g

1386 GM 2B (37) 3 Ivory rectangular inlay, IV-6 Iron IIB 25.2h

1.9 × 5.9 × 0.2–0.3 cm

1387 GMIII C1 (75) Bone inlay III-14/15 LBII/MBII 25.2f

1392 GMI 3G P5 Bone tool I-6/7 LBII/MBII? 25.5g

1393 GMIII C2 F22 Bone tool (socket) III-18 MBII/ 25.5h

Chalcolithic

1399 GM 1C F3 2 Bone awl, 4.2 cm long Unknown Unknown 25.5e

1401 GMIII C2 (82) Bone awl?, 6.3 cm long III-16 MBII 25.5f

1368 1012 GMIII F1 (6) 4 Bone tool, complete III-15/16? MBII 25.5d

1369 979 GMI 3G (4) 1 Complete bone needle I-4? LBII 25.5l

1413 768 GM 1C P2 (1) Bone handle IV-1? Crusader- 25.5b

Mamluk?

1435 442 GM 0A (6) Bone spatula IV-3/4 Unit 1 Persian 25.4a

1415 GM 1C P2 Tube? Unknown 25.5c

1436 140 GM 1A TT11 (0) Bone spatula Topsoil Unknown 25.4i

1437 139 GM 1C p2 Bone spatula Unknown 25.4b

1438 213 GM 2D P3 (1) Bone spatula IV-1? Burial? Crusader- 25.4c

Mamluk?

1440 980 GMIII A1 P1 Bone spatula III-1? Persian? 25.4d

1441 935 GMIII A1 P1 Bone spatula III-1? Persian? 25.4e

1447 52 GM 1D P1 (1) Bone spatula IV-1 Crusader- 25.4f

Mamluk

1460 76 GM 1D TT1 (2) Bone spatula Topsoil Unknown

1469 236 GM 2D TT3 F18 Bone spatula Unknown Unknown 25.4h

1473 GM 2C (7A) 2 Bone spatula Post IV-3 Persian 25.4g

1443 GMIII B (67) Bone spatula III-13 Unit 10 LB II 25.4j

1452 GM 1B (11) 2 Bone spatula IV-5 Bld I, Room A Iron IIC 25.4k

1453 GM 1B (11) 2 Bone spatula IV-5 Bld I, Room A Iron IIC 25.4l

1456 GM 3B (10) Bone spatula IV-5 Bld III, Unit 2 Iron IIC 25.4m

1472 GM 00A (1) 3 Bone spatula IV-5 Bld I, Room F Iron IIC 25.4n

1421 GMII C1 (5) Bone/ivory spindle, II-1 Persian? 25.5i

complete, 2.7 cm diameter

1422 GM 2B (32) 2A Bone bead/spindle, IV-5 Bld II, Room B Iron IIC 25.5k

2.1 cm diameter

1424 GMI FUR (3) 2 Bone/ivory spindle, FUR 2/3 Iron I 25.5j

complete, 1.4 cm diameter

3186 GM 2B (58) Bone pendant IV-9 Room D* Iron IIA 25.5m

1941 GM 2A NBR (15-15A) Complete bone die IV-4? Persian? 25.5n

1378 824 GMI 4D (2A) Wing inlay, bone I-1 Room 1 LBII 25.3a

1379 825 GMI 4D (2A) Tail inlay, bone I-1 Room 1 LBII 25.3b
NUMBER 50 • 981

been an inlay related to a pyxis or a furniture piece or maybe part 

of a rounded object related to netting or sowing, as suggested by 

Petrie in relation to a complete bone item from Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIV:4), or a cosmetic palette (see also Megiddo 

[Schumacher, 1908: fig. 150], Tell Fara’h (S) [Starkey and Harding, 1932: pl. LXXIV:116], and Batash, Stratum III [Mazar and 

Panitz-Cohen, 2001:263–254, photo 195, pl. 27:9, a bone piece, 

with discussion and many parallels relating to similar cosmetic 

plaques/palettes]). See also similar decoration on handles from 

Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIII:29) and Iron II Motza 

(Greenhut and De Groot, 2009:193, fig. 9.1:2). 

Another item made of ivory (from topsoil, Figure 25.2j) is a 

hollow knob with a domed head (2.1 cm long, 1 cm in diameter). 

This is either a part of a tool or an inlay.

Bone Tools

The term bone tools encompasses various categories, such 

as spatulas, points, awls, etc., which are proper tools, as well as 

tool components, such as handles and spindles. Other accessories or objects are also included in this category.

Spatulas

At least 50 bone spatulas were found at the site, and this is 

by far the most common bone artifact (Figure 25.4). These are 

bone plaques worked to a thin, elongated to oval piece, with one 

end usually rounded or concave and the other one triangular, 

converging, or pointed (Figure 25.4, with 14 items illustrated; 

see also Van Beek and Van Beek, 1990). They vary in size, and 

complete items probably were anywhere between 6 cm (see Figure 25.4d,i) and 10 cm (see Figure 25.4g; some up to 18 cm, Van 

Beek and Van Beek, 1990:206) long and 2–3 cm wide; they are 

2.101:202, 2.102:207, for the tail see fig. 2.101:203), Ugarit 

(Gachet-Bizollon, 2007: pl. 34:337), and Kition (Karageorghis, 

1976: pl. 35), the Louvre collection (Fischer, 2007: pl. 107: L.35, 

L.36), and possibly Beth Shean, Stratum S-3b (also bone, PanitzCohen et al., 2009:757, fig. 16.11:2). 

Three ivory inlays all come from later contexts of the Iron II 

or Persian period (Figure 25.2g–i). The most elaborate is an inlay 

depicting a vegetative motif (Figure 25.2i); this item is probably 

redeposited in the Persian level from an Iron Age phase. The 

piece (3.2 × 2.4 cm) was cut in the shape of the motif, which is a 

high palmette depiction showing the volutes on the bottom and 

at least five leaves springing high above them. The details are 

made in the incision technique. 

This motif appears in Canaanite ivories, such as at Megiddo 

(Loud, 1939: pl. 34:165,166) and Ugarit (Gachet-Bizollon, 

2007: pl. 32:276), both of the LBII, but is a more typical Phoenician motif popular during the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. The 

motif appears, for example, in the Samaria ivories (Crowfoot 

and Crowfoot, 1938:35–42, pls. XVII:10,14, XXI) and the 

Nimrud ivories (e.g., Herrmann, 1986: pls. 49, 145:611–613, 

152, 204–207, 306; Herrmann and Laidlow, 2008:75–78, pls. 

28:199a). Maybe this motif recalls the proto-aeolic capitals as 

well, or the motif should be turned upside down. These examples 

above differ, however, from the Tell Jemmeh inlay as they are 

carved in high relief and are not an independent motif but part 

of a composition (usually on top of the scene); the depiction of 

the leaves is also different, shorted and more rounded, in the Assyrian examples. 

Another Iron II inlay, probably of ivory, from Field IV, Phase 

6 (Figure 25.2h) has no decoration; it is a 1.9 cm panel. Figure 

25.2g is a partly flat, rounded ivory fragment showing signs of 

burning to a light gray color. It is decorated along the edge by 

deep-cut rings or thick circles (at least seven). This could have 

FIGURE 25.2. Bone and ivory inlays. 
982 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

and Van Beek, 1990:209, and parallels therein). Additional parallels come from the City of David, Iron II (Ariel, 1990: fig. 14, later 

contexts, fig. 15), Tel ‘Ira, Stratum VI (Goldsmith et al., 1999: fig. 

14.5:4–11), Kadesh Barnea, Strata 4–1 (Gera, 2007:226, pl. 13.5

:6,19,22,30,31,36,37,48,49,52) ,and Tell el-Hesi, Stratum V (Persian period, Bennet and Blakely, 1989: fig. 211). 

The function of these objects has been not been resolved, 

and many suggestions have been made. Macalister (1912:274) 

suggested they were styli for ink writing, and Petrie referred to 

them as netting tools (Petrie, 1928:17) and possibly also as a 

delicate awl for fine leather working; at Megiddo and elsewhere 

it has been suggested they were used for applying cosmetics 

(Lamon and Shipton, 1939:95–96), hence the name spatula. The 

Van Beeks suggested spatulas were an ophthalmic utensil (Van 

1–2 mm in thickness. One side is well smoothed and polished, 

whereas the back side is roughly smoothed (as Figure 25.4j). A 

number of similar bone spatulas were also published from Petrie’s excavations (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIV:5–34).

These objects are not chronologically indicative and appear 

in many periods. Most of the items come from Iron II, Persian, 

and unstratified contexts. However, at least one example comes 

from the LBII (Figure 25.4j). Three examples were found in Field 

IV, Building I, two were found in Room A (Figure 25.4k,l), and 

one was found in Room F (Figure 25.4n). Bone spatulas appear in 

many Levantine and Near Eastern sites from the at least the Bronze 

Age onward but become more popular from the late Iron Age 

onward (appearing, for example, in large numbers at Megiddo, 

Strata III–I, Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 95:39–62; see Van Beek 

FIGURE 25.3. Bone inlays (bird-shaped box). 
NUMBER 50 • 983

tapers from the top. The rim is plain with a decoration of seven 

parallel grooves (six ridges) below it, then a plain band (1.1 cm 

wide), and below it an area with crisscross incision decoration. 

This could be either a hollow container or a large handle. Several Persian-Hellenistic and late Iron Age parallels include, for 

example, Lachish (Tufnell, 1953: pl. 63:14), Tell Abu Hawam 

(Hamilton, 1935: pl. XXXII:31), Hazor, Stratum II (Yadin et al., 

1961: pl. CXCI:23,24), Beth El (Kelso, 1968: pl. 45:2), Megiddo 

(Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 99:3; Loud, 1948: pl. 197:7; Guy 

and Engberg, 1938: fig. 175:16), Shikmona (Elgavish, 1968: pl. 

LXII:50), and Ashdod (Dothan and Freedman, 1967: fig. 1:7).

Beek and Van Beek, 1990:208–209) used to extract foreign matter from the eye. 

Other Tools or Handles

Bone objects include tools (Figure 25.5d–h), various handles (Figure 25.5a), spindles (Figure 25.5i–k), and pendants/rods 

(Figure 25.5m). A large handle or kohl tube or container (Figure 25.5a, Persian period?) was restored from several fragments, 

measuring 8.7 cm altogether. This is the upper end of a carved 

hollow bone and is oval with one flat side in section, which 

FIGURE 25.4. Bone spatulas.
984 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

come from Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIII:30–35). A complete awl point with an elongated shaft (Figure 25.5e, unclear 

context) is 4.2 cm long and may have had a nonbone handle. It 

has a 1.5-cm-long roughly pared handle or knob, thinning to a 

roughly round-section shaft (again pared) that tapered at the end 

to a blunt point (Fauna Lot No. 297, see chapter 33). 

A complete bone needle (Figure 25.5l) was in a probable 

LBII context and is 8.2 cm long. The rounded drilled needle eye 

was fully preserved. Later parallels come, e.g., from Kadesh Barnea, Stratum 2 (Gera, 2007: pl. 13.5:47,53; see also Petrie, 1928: 

pl. XXXIII:50 for a different bone needle).

Spindle Whorls

Other bone objects include several spindle whorls. Two 

of these (Figure 25.5i,j) are complete and may be from ivory. 

The larger one (Figure 25.5i, Persian period?) is 2.7 cm in diameter and has a plano-convex or bell-shaped section; the back side 

shows prominent signs of cutting. Parallels come from Ashdod, 

Stratum XII (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo, 2005: fig. 3.37:15–17, 

from stone and bone; Dothan and Porath, 1993: fig. 36:4,10,11), 

Dan (Biran and Ben-Dov, 2002: fig. 2.123:343), and Megiddo, 

LBII (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pls. 95:45–46, 132:2,3). Similar 

objects from stone were also found at Tell Jemmeh (see chapter 

23), Lachish, Levels VII–VI (Sass, 2004a: fig. 23.12:11–13), and 

elsewhere. The smaller spindle (Figure 25.5j, Iron I context) is 

only 1.4 cm in diameter and is almost conical in section. Parallels 

come from Lachish, Levels VII–VI (Sass, 2004a: fig. 23.12:24) 

and Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 95:43). A bone disk, 

An unusual object may also be a handle (Figure 25.5b, 

Crusader-Mamluk context, 6.7 cm long). It is about one-third of 

the circumference of a bone tube, broken on two sides and one 

end. The complete end is carved into two points with a V opening between them at the end of a 2.2-cm-long plain area with 

random striations, which are probably file marks; a series of at 

least seven delicate shallow perforations was carved in this area. 

A long bone carved into a square-sectioned and hollowed object 

(Figure 25.5c) may also be a handle or a tool or a knife; possibly 

remains on the shaft are within the amalgam (see chapter 33).

Proper tools include pointed objects made of a long bone 

from a sheep or goat, with one edge pointed and the other serving 

as the handle (Figure 25.5d–g). This tool could be defined as an 

awl or a borer. A complete example (Figure 25.5d, 14.5 cm long) 

comes from Field III, Phase 15 or 16, dated to the MBIIB-C. This 

object is formed from the immature (unfused) distal tibia of a 

sheep or possibly a goat. A length of 7 cm is worked into a sharp, 

polished point (Fauna Lot No. 3545, see chapter 33). A similar 

tool was found at Megiddo, Stratum XIV, also dated to the MBII 

(Loud, 1948: pl. 198:12). Several other points coming from various contexts (Figure 25.5f,g) may have belonged to similar tools. 

Figure 25.5h may be a similar tool but is hollowed and polished 

and thus possibly was the handle for a shaft, maybe metal. It was 

probably made from a leg bone. Similar bone tools come, for 

example, from Bronze Age Megiddo, Strata XVIII–XIII (Loud, 

1948: pls. 198:2–9, 199:21–24), Tell el-Hesi, Stratum V (Persian 

period, Bennett and Blakely, 1989: fig. 213), Hazor, Stratum X 

(Yadin et al., 1961: pl. CCVII:30), and Iron Age Megiddo, Strata 

IV–III (Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 96:1–4); other bone points 

FIGURE 25.5. Various bone tools and objects.
NUMBER 50 • 985

Lot no. 1658, GMI 3G (14)) and from the late Iron Age found 

in Field IV, Phase 5 (Reg. No. 1429, Bone No. 844, GM 2B (35) 

2A). The complete horn of an antelope or hartebeest (Alcelaphus horn core) was found in Phase 6 of Field I, dating to the 

early LBII (Fauna Lot No. 1664, see chapter 33); although not 

worked, this rare find could have held significance at its time. An 

ostracon written in ink on a polished bone fragment from the 

Iron IIC levels (Phase 5, Building III) in Field IV should also be 

mentioned (Figures 8.106h, 33.3).

PUMICE

A few pieces of pumice were excavated, mostly in Field I, 

Square 4D (Figure 25.6, Layers 1A and 2C in Locus 1), and belong to Phase 1 (some in Room 1, also TTC Layer 3). According 

to their context, these cannot be dated later than the end of the 

LBII. Other examples were found in Iron I, GMI FUR (4), the 

Iron IIC (GM 2B W11, GM 2B (35) 2A, in Room B of Building 

II), and the Persian period (Field IV, Phase 3, GM 2A TT7 F7, 

Layer 2), and there are some unstratified examples (Melson and 

Van Beek, 1983: table 1). 

Although they are not worked and there is no evidence for 

any usage of these objects, they may carry significance as evidence of volcanic eruptions in the eastern Mediterranean and 

bead, or spindle (Figure 25.5k) has a diameter of 2.1 cm; similar 

objects were published by Petrie (Petrie, 1928: pl. XXXIII:47,48); 

see also Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 152:8–10). 

Other Bone Finds

An elongated object decorated with dotted circles (Figure 

25.5m, Iron IIA) was also found; this could have been a fragment of a pendant (see chapter 22 and, e.g., Petrie, 1928: pl. 

XXXIII:7,8; Lamon and Shipton, 1939: pl. 97:8–19 [Iron 

Age Megiddo]; Tufnell, 1953: pl. 37:19–23,26,27 [Lachish]; 

Yahalom-Mack, 2006a:262, photo 129, pl. 83:6–8 [Batash, 

Stratum V]) or of a bone rod or needle (such as from Tel ‘Ira, 

Goldsmith et al., 1999: fig. 14.5:14,15).

A bone die (Figure 25.5n) was found in Field IV, Phase 4(?), 

the Persian period. Some parallels include Bronze Age bone dies 

from ‘Ajjul (Petrie, 1931: pl. XXIII:13, 1934: pl. XXXVI:21–27) 

and unstratified Hazor (Yadin et al., 1961: pl. CCCXXXVI:15; 

also from later periods, e.g., Beth Shean, Ayalon, 2006:672–

673). Many astragali (mostly of sheep or goat) were found at the 

site; some of these were worked or perforated (see chapter 33). 

Astragali with their sides flattened include, for example, items 

from the Middle and Late Bronze Age found in Field III, Phase 

16 (Reg. Nos. 1433, 1434, Fauna Lot No. 1625, from GMIII C1 

(81), unillustrated) and Field I, Phase 6 (Reg. No. 1431, Fauna 

FIGURE 25.6. Pumice fragments.
986 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the older pumices were collected from the nearby beach and arrived there from some Bronze Age eruption, maybe the Santorini 

one. The late group could have been brought by trade for some 

reason, yet the source was not identified.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: ben-shlomod@

si.edu. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

because of the nature of their transport to the site. Ten examples 

were analyzed by petrography and by electron microprobe for 

provenance. The petrographic analysis indicates that seven of the 

samples have a matrix of 95% glass and 5% phenocrysts (Melson and Van Beek, 1983: table 2, group 2, fig. 1); four of these 

samples date to the LBII or Iron I, and three are unstratified. 

Three showed a higher than 99% glass matrix, and all date to 

the late periods (Melson and Van Beek, 1983: group 1). Chemical 

analysis supported this grouping (Melson and Van Beek, 1983: 

table 3) and further showed that Group 1 is very homogenous, 

attesting to a single source, whereas Group 2 is less homogenous 

but also may belong to the same source. It is thus suggested that 
26 Chipped Stone Assemblage 

from Tell Jemmeh

Steven A. Rosen and Jacob Vardi

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of chipped stone tools from the early historic periods is reasonably well established within Levantine archaeology. It 

has provided information on economic systems and trade, ancient technology and agricultural systems, and even ethnicity. In special 

circumstances it has even provided important chronological information. 

Beyond a standard description of the lithic materials recovered, the chipped stone assemblage from Tell Jemmeh is special for two 

reasons. First, unlike most sites from the second and first millennia BCE for which we have lithic data, Jemmeh shows no underlying 

Early Bronze Age strata and only a minimal Chalcolithic presence. Thus, the problem of the intrusion of Early Bronze nondiagnostic 

lithic materials into Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, and Iron Age assemblages does not pertain, allowing far better control of the basic configuration of the lithic assemblages from these periods (cf. Rosen, 1996b, 1997:34–38). Second, in addition to the “natural advantage” 

of a reduced intrusion problem, the total recovery system instituted at Jemmeh ensured that all lithic artifacts, including waste, were 

collected. This is reflected, for example, in the reasonably high proportion of waste (80.8%) in the assemblage. Thus, the collection is 

one of the largest (N = 7,658) and best of its kind, incorporating a complete range of both tools and manufacturing waste. 

These factors are of particular importance in more precisely defining the slow decline in the use of chipped stone in the historic periods (Rosen, 1996b, 1997:151–166). Needless to say, they also provide better data for general economic reconstruction based on lithic 

evidence, as well as a good database for typological and technological description. In this context, it may be noted that since there is no 

chronologically sensitive lithic typological change in the periods under study here, the basic technological and typological descriptions 

from the different strata are presented as a unit, and culture-period analysis is conducted separately. It would be superfluous to describe 

the same types repeatedly. Similarly, for the nonlithic specialist, there are rarely idiosyncratic or special pieces, and description focuses 

on the assemblages and subassemblages and not individual items. 

RAW MATERIALS

Classification of the different flint types at historic sites in Israel (e.g., Hammond, 1977) is difficult because of great inherent variability within single-flint sources, as well as that caused by differential weathering processes, such as patination, which mask original 

flint color, and by postdepositional effects, such as burning, which cause discoloration. In general, three basic features have been used 

to distinguish flint types, color, graininess or coarseness and matrix (including the presence of impurities), and cortex. Cortex is the least 

useful of these features since it is not present on most pieces.

The following raw material types were defined (cf. Hammond, 1977; Rosen, 1997:32–33):

1. A dark brown, fine grained, high-quality flint is probably Eocene or late Cretaceous in origin, with sources in the Shephelah and the 

central Negev (e.g., Amiran et al., 1985: sections II, III). Sickle blades are commonly produced on this material.

2. Brown and light brown flints of medium and fine grain are variable and may be variants of the above type. Sources are probably in

the hilly regions or from nodules collected from wadis in the case of smaller artifacts.

3. Gray flints come in either medium- or fine-grained versions. The fine-grained gray flint is translucent or shiny. These are commonly 

used for bladelets and bladelet tools and seem to derive from small wadi cobbles found in many of the stream beds in the Negev.
988 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

sickles. Similarly, the waste blade category may also be related 

to the sickle reduction sequence and also shows a greater use of 

dark brown flint. The advantages of the dark brown flint for the 

production of sickles are probably to be found both in the large 

size of the flakes that could be knapped, a necessity for the production of the large geometric sickles, and in the high quality of 

the raw material for working.

Neither are the different types of sickle blades themselves 

uniformly manufactured on dark brown flint. Whereas the large 

geometric sickles are almost exclusively on dark brown flint, only 

somewhat less than half of the backed blade sickles and plain 

blade sickles were manufactured from this material (Table 26.2). 

Five clear Canaanean sickle segments were manufactured from 

the dark brown flint, as is typical of the type (Rosen, 1997:46). 

Since many of the backed blade and plain blade sickles are probably Chalcolithic in date, this difference in raw material exploitation probably reflects differences in the organization of sickle 

production as well as exploitation of different flint sources.

In marked contrast to the clear selection for a special raw 

material for the production of sickles, other tools show considerably more variability in the type of flint used. This is most especially evident in the flake waste and core categories. The use of 

limestone, as reflected in both the flakes and a few tools, should 

be noted (cf. Gilead, 1989, for the Chalcolithic). Retouched bladelets, probably all Chalcolithic or intrusive epipaleolithic, are 

dominated by gray and translucent flint. 

Given that the dark brown flint is not available in the environs of Tell Jemmeh and must be imported from either the 

western Shephelah 30 km east or the hilly areas of the western 

Negev 20 km to the south, these differences in raw material exploitation suggest fundamental differences in the organization of 

production of different tool types (Rosen, 1997:103–116). Basically, the raw material analysis suggests a two-tiered system, 

the sickles reflecting a form of economic specialization requiring 

special imported raw materials and the other tools reflecting a 

more ad hoc system with little specialization, either in production or exploitation. 

4. Striped flint is medium grained and occurs in medium-sized 

cobbles in the streambeds of the northern Negev. It is a flint 

whose original source lies in Transjordan and that was transported prior to the development of the Rift Valley. It is the 

most common material used in the manufacture of Chalcolithic sickles in the Beer-Sheba region.

5. Mottled flint is finely grained but full of cracks and fissures 

and shows numerous color changes. It derives from the Mishash Formation, and the closest source is in the southern 

hilly region (Hammond, 1977), although it too is found as 

wadi cobbles in most streambeds.

6. Hard limestone is occasionally used as well as flint (e.g., Gilead, 1989). It is common all over.

7. Other flints, relatively rare, include white, yellow, red, black, 

and orange pieces. Some of the orange pieces may be longdistance imports (e.g., Rosen, 1988). The others are probably 

variants of the materials noted above, modified by burning or 

exposure of one kind or another. A few patinated pieces are 

also included. 

8. A final category, burnt flints (e.g., Figures 26.3f, 26.5e), includes those pieces not identifiable because of burning and 

discoloration.

Table 26.1 shows clearly that raw materials were exploited 

differentially in the manufacture of different tool types. In particular, it is clear that the dark brown fine-grained flint was deliberately selected for the manufacture of sickles. Specifically, 

more than 80% of both sickles (including retouched but unused 

blanks) and sickle flakes (the unretouched flakes used in making 

sickles) are of this dark brown flint. Adding the other shades 

of brown flint, which may be related, the proportions rise to 

85%. The selection for this dark brown flint is also reflected in 

the relatively high proportions used for producing miscellaneous 

retouched pieces and retouched blades. The miscellaneous retouched pieces included trimmed sickle flakes in the stage before they are classified as sickle blanks (unused sickles). The 

retouched blades are also in many cases probably preliminary 

TABLE 26.1. Raw material frequencies according to selected debitage and tool types. All percentages are based on samples. 

Sickle Retouch Retouch Retouch 

Flake Blade Bladelet flake Core blade bladelet pieces Sickles

Flint type (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Dark brown 22.0 35.3 22.2 82.4 14.5 40.8 15.4 34.5 80.1

Brown 22.2 25.0 29.6 9.1 17.1 26.5 38.5 18.7 4.8

Gray 18.8 11.0 27.8 4.5 39.3 14.3 46.2 23.0 5.4

Striped 6.1 12.5 3.7 0.6 10.3 4.1 0 2.9 1.4

Mottled 8.8 3.8 0 0.6 11.1 12.2 0 7.2 0.8

Limestone 5.9 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0

Other 14.2 5.1 5.6 0 2.6 0 0 7.2 1.7

Burnt 2.0 6.6 11.1 2.8 5.1 2.0 0 3.6 5.8

Total (N) 409 136 54 176 117 49 13 139 1044
NUMBER 50 • 989

of the overall assemblage renders description according to each 

period redundant. Discussion of tentative chronological trends 

is incorporated into the analysis presented later (also see Tables 

26.3, 26.4).

Waste Assemblage

The waste assemblage is dominated by two fundamentally 

different flake technologies, an ad hoc flake technology and a 

large geometric sickle flake technology. The ad hoc technology, 

constituting the numerically largest component in the debitage 

assemblage, is composed of small flakes, rarely exceeding 3 or 

TECHNOLOGICAL AND 

TYPOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

The lithic assemblage from Tell Jemmeh is composed of 

7,658 artifacts, of which, 6,192 (80.8%) are waste products and 

1,466 (19.2%) are classified as tools, that is, pieces with retouch 

(Tables 26.3, 26.4). The following descriptions are based on the 

typological and technological frameworks outlined in Rosen 

(1997:39–102). 

Although the materials from Jemmeh are divisible stratigraphically according to period, and indeed to subperiod, as indicated above, the basic technological and typological homogeneity 

TABLE 26.2. Raw material frequencies according to sickle type.

Flint type Backed blade (%) Plain blade (%) Canaanean (%) Large geometric (%)

Dark brown 44.2 36.2 100 86.5

Brown 15.1 24.1 0 3.7

Gray 12.8 12.1 0 4.2

Striped 10.5 6.9 0 0.1

Mottled 4.7 5.2 0 0.1

Limestone 0 0 0 0

Other 3.5 8.6 0 0.9

Burnt 9.3 6.9 0 4.5

Total (N) 91 53 5 894

TABLE 26.3. Waste and debitage frequencies by period. Note that the dating is based on preliminary excavation notes and not on the 

final phasing used in this report.

Period or Sickle Core 

century BCE Chips Chunks Flakes Primary Blades Bladelets flakes trimming Cores Total

4th–3rd? 21 45 29 16 5 0 1 0 3 120

4th? 153 150 31 12 1 0 4 1 0 352

5th–4th 6 11 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 26

5th 61 16 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 92

5th–6th 83 19 11 7 0 1 1 0 0 122

7th–6th 9 13 1 8 1 0 2 0 1 35

7th 49 47 18 22 3 0 3 1 1 144

8th–9th 21 16 7 6 3 2 2 0 2 59

10th–11th 47 51 18 13 3 0 21 0 0 153

12th 68 72 59 27 6 2 30 0 1 265

13th 90 3 72 23 7 4 41 1 0 241

14th–15th 344 30 25 5 18 1 44 2 0 469

16th–17th 261 278 1243 403 50 41 2 18 73 2369

Chalcolithic 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 6

17th/Chalcolithic 4 5 27 17 1 3 0 0 1 58

Not attributable 329 318 691 228 25 8 21 24 37 1681

Total 1546 1075 2248 794 128 62 173 47 119 6192
990 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE 26.4. Tool type frequencies by period. Note that the dating is based on preliminary excavation notes and not on the final phasing used in this report. The values in parentheses give the percentage of the total frequency for each type. Period or Sickle Retouched Retouched Retouched Notches and Tabular century BCE Sickles blanks blades bladelets Borers pieces denticulates Choppers Scrapers Adze Scraper Total 4th–3rd? 10 (66.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (20.0) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (6.7) 0 (0.0) 15 (100.0) 4th? 31 (73.8) 5 (11.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.8) 2 (4.8) 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 42 (100.0) 5th–4th 6 (54.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (9.1) 3 (27.3) 1 (9.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 11 (100.0) 5th 2 (66.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (100.0) 5th–6th 5 (55.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 2 (22.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 9 (100.0) 7th–6th 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (100.0) 7th 7 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.1) 2 (14.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (14.3) 1 (7.1) 1 (7.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 14 (100.0) 8th–9th 25 (80.6) 1 (3.2) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 1 (3.2) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 31 (100.0)

10th–11th 74 (75.5) 10 (10.2) 3 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 8 (8.2) 3 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 98 (100.0)12th 217 (77.8) 38 (13.6) 4 (1.4) 1 (0.4) 4 (1.4) 8 (2.9) 5 (1.8) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 279 (100.0)13th 166 (77.2) 28 (13.0) 5 (2.3) 1 (0.5) 6 (2.8) 7 (3.3) 2 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 215 (100.0)14th–15th 113 (70.6) 25 (15.6) 3 (1.9) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.3) 13 (8.1) 3 (1.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 160 (100.0)16th–17th 59 (29.1) 4 (2.0) 11 (5.4) 5 (2.5) 12 (5.9) 48 (23.6) 49 (24.1) 0 (0.0) 13 (6.4) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 203 (100.0)Chalcolithic 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0)17th/Chalcolithic 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (25.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (75.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (100.0)Not attributable 193 23 13 5 14 63 55 0 11 1 0 378Total 910 (62.1) 134 (9.1) 41 (2.8) 15 (1.0) 43 (2.9) 161 (11.0) 127 (8.7) 3 (0.2) 27 (1.8) 3 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 1466 (100.0)
NUMBER 50 • 991

Blades and bladelets constitute two secondary technologies 

represented on the site. Blades are medium to small, resembling 

those known from the Chalcolithic period of the northern Negev 

(cf. Gilead et al., 1995; Levy and Rosen, 1987; Rosen, 1997:65–

67). Although some may have been intended for the production 

of the smaller elements in composite large geometric sickles, 

many should probably be associated with the Chalcolithic occupation of the site. The relatively small size of the blades (average 

breadth = 1.97 ± 0.5 cm) matches Chalcolithic dimensions. The 

relatively high proportion of striped flints (Table 26.1), common 

in the Chalcolithic Negev, supports this conclusion. The near 

absence of cores associated with the production of blades suggests a general pattern of import of blades, although numbers are 

quite low. No unretouched Canaanean blades were recovered. 

Of the bladelets (by convention, blades less than 14 mm 

in width), five are twisted, a feature typical of Chalcolithic and 

Early Bronze Age I assemblages (e.g., Roshwalb, 1981; Gilead, 

1984; Rosen, 1988). As with the blades, for the most part these 

should probably be associated with the Chalcolithic occupation 

of the site, although some may be intrusive from the epipaleolithic. The relatively high proportion of gray and translucent bladelets (30%) is typical of the Chalcolithic.

The debris category, chips, chunks, and cobbles and pebbles, represents the unusable amorphous waste, either before 

significant reduction or as a result of shatter during the production process. Some of these materials show heat fracture and are 

probably the result of burning. 

Tool Assemblage

The tool assemblage from the post-Chalcolithic layers at 

Tell Jemmeh can be divided into two basic components, a standardized and typologically formal sickle industry and a range 

of other ad hoc or expedient tools. Exceptions are in intrusive 

elements such as bladelet tools, the single adze, and the tabular 

scraper. 

Sickle Blade Segments and Blanks

Sickle segments (N = 1,044, 71.4%) are generally identifiable by the presence of luster or gloss along the working edge 

of the piece (Figures 26.2, 26.3). Although it is generally agreed 

that the harvesting of cereals results in the formation of this 

gloss (e.g., Anderson, 1980; Witthoft, 1967) and that the formation of gloss does not require especially intense use of the blade 

(Unger-Hamilton, 1984), there is disagreement on the precise 

mechanism responsible for the formation of the gloss (Meeks 

et al., 1982) and on whether other actions, such as the cutting 

of cane, can also result in the formation of gloss (e.g., Curwen, 

1930; Unger-Hamilton, 1984). Microwear analyses have also 

suggested the possibility that some gloss may result from the 

threshing of grasses and not only reaping (e.g., Anderson and 

Inizan, 1994). For our purposes, two points are to be considered. 

First, the historical and geographical contexts suggest strongly 

that the lustrous segments recovered from Tell Jemmeh were indeed sickles used in the harvesting of cereals and that therefore 

4 cm in length. The primary flakes are best associated with this 

technology. As mentioned above, they are variable in raw material and show no evidence for standardization in manufacture, 

either in the form of size and shape or in the presence of any 

special core preparation attributes. 

The cores well reflect this expedient small-flake technology. 

With the exception of one obviously residual Middle Paleolithic 

Levallois core (showing strong patina to clinch the case for intrusion), all the 118 other cores are basically ad hoc in their 

conception.

The single blade core was made on a pebble, shows a single striking platform, is roughly conical in shape, and measures 

5.6 cm in maximum dimension. It does not match any standard 

blade core technology (e.g., Canaanean technology, Chalcolithic 

blade technology). 

The 117 remaining cores were all used for the production of 

flakes, although 17 show mixed flake and bladelet scar patterns. 

With the exception of 20 cores on chunks and broken flakes, all 

were made on pebbles. Shapes vary from irregular to roughly 

cylindrical, conical, and pyramidal, but this appears to be determined by the shape of the pebble rather than any standardized technology. The number of striking platforms is variable: 

50 have only a single platform, 43 have two platforms, 11 have 

three platforms, and three have four platforms. No patterns are 

evident in the location of the platforms relative to each other. All 

but nine pieces retain cortex, perhaps reflecting somewhat limited reduction and overall exploitation. The generally small size 

of the cores, averaging only 4.7 ± 1.42 cm, agrees with the idea 

of limited reduction of small pebbles. 

Given the above, it is clear that none of the cores are appropriate to the manufacture of sickle segments. Even the six 

cores larger than 7 cm in maximum dimension do not show scar 

patterns attributable to sickle flake removal. 

The 47 core trimming elements (CTE) recovered probably 

relate to this general core category. They can be subdivided into 

21 ridge blades, 10 core tablets, and 11 miscellaneous core trimming or renewal flakes. Even given this breakdown, there seems 

to be little standardization in the actual core preparation and 

rejuvenation process, and the different core trimming elements 

are not typical of standardized reduction sequences known from 

other periods. The relatively low CTE:core ratio (0.39) is indicative of general low-level exploitation, in fact, with little core 

preparation and rejuvenation. 

The second major technological category is that of the “large 

geometric sickles,” represented in the waste assemblage by “sickle 

flakes.” These are large flake blades, varying in size between 5 and 

10 cm in length (Figure 26.1). In shape they may be squat blades 

or elongate flakes. They usually show a pronounced bulb of percussion and a well-defined striking platform. The platforms do not 

show faceting or other obvious evidence of preparation. As mentioned above, raw materials are almost exclusively dark brown, 

fine-grained flints. No cores appropriate to the manufacture of 

these flakes were recovered from the site. This, of course, agrees 

well with the import of raw material in the form of sickle flakes 

and not as cores. A similar picture is obtained from the sickle production caches found at Gezer (Rosen, 1986).
992 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 26.1. Sickle flakes. Unretouched flakes appropriate for Large Geometric sickle segment manufacture.
NUMBER 50 • 993

FIGURE 26.2. Sickle segments with medium to heavy gloss. (a–e) Large geometrics, (f) plain blade, (g–k) large geometrics, (l) plain 

blade, and (m–t) large geometrics.
994 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 26.3. Sickle segments with light gloss. (a) Plain blade, (b) backed blade, (c) large geometric, (d) backed blade, (e–g) large geometrics, 

and (h) backed blade, (i–n) large geometrics.
NUMBER 50 • 995

piece (Figures 26.3d,h, 26.5a,d–g). One piece showed an arched 

back (Figure 26.3b), but the others are straight backed. Gloss 

and retouch characteristics are summarized in Table 26.6. Only 

11 pieces retain the bulb of percussion, and another two show 

bulbar thinning. Only 44 pieces are unbroken, although the determination of whether a snap is intentional or not is difficult. Of 

the unbroken pieces, 20 show single truncations, with one edge 

terminating either in a hinge fracture, a bulb and platform, a 

feather edge (rare), or a point. Twenty-three unbroken segments 

show double truncations. 

Seven backed blade sickle segments retain pieces or signs 

of the lime plaster used as an adhesive to keep the segments in 

the haft (see Figure 26.7). Another two show plaster as well as 

an adhering piece of bone, and two more show pieces of bone 

with little plaster. In one case, the preservation of the plaster is 

so good that more than one half of the sickle is obscured. The 

difference in quantities of plaster used seems to be a function of 

the relative fit of the segment into the haft. A large groove with a 

thin segment clearly required more plaster than a narrow groove 

and a relatively thick segment. This probably explains the difference in the amount of plaster found on those pieces preserving 

plaster and/or remnants of the bone haft.

Plain Blade Sickles

The plain blade sickle segments (N = 53) are manufactured 

on simple blades (Figures 26.2f,l, 26.3a), technologically similar 

to the backed blade class. Four pieces show nibbling or partial 

nibbling along the back, but otherwise, the pieces lack the abrupt 

retouch diagnostic of the backed blade sickle subtype. In general, 

the presence of gloss can be used as a general indicator of such. 

Other uses may well have occurred, but they are best considered 

as secondary or subsidiary to the prime cereal harvesting function. Second, the absence of both gloss and edge retouch (edge 

sharpening) on a subset of pieces morphologically identical to 

the sickles suggests that these should generally be considered 

unused or even incomplete sickles (sickle blanks; Figure 26.4). 

Some pieces, showing reasonably heavy retouch, may well be 

repaired sickles whose lustrous edge has literally been sharpened 

off. Although some of these pieces may well have been used for 

other purposes, at present it is difficult to ascertain what those 

were. Thus, those pieces classified as sickle blanks (Table 26.4) 

will be treated analytically as sickle segments.

Morphologically, the sickle class as recovered at Tell Jemmeh can be divided into three subtypes: backed blade sickles (Figures 26.3b,d,g, 26.5a,d–g), plain blade sickles (Fig. 26.2f,l), and 

large geometric sickles (Figures 26.2a–e,g–k,m–t, 26.3a–c,e–g,i–

m). Canaanean sickles, typical of the Early Bronze Age (Rosen, 

1983, 1997:44–60), are virtually absent. Some pieces seem to 

fall on the cusp between types; however, analytically they pose 

little problem. The general class breakdown, according to raw 

materials, is presented in Table 26.2, and it constitutes the total 

number of classifiable sickles. Metric differences are presented in 

Table 26.5. Notably, the typological distinctions are confirmed 

by metric differences.

Backed Blade Sickles

The backed blade sickle segments (91 segments), as indicated by the name, show abrupt backing along one edge of the 

FIGURE 26.4. Unused (nonglossy) large geometric sickle segments.
996 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 26.5. Chalcolithic artifacts. (a) Backed blade sickle segment, (b–c) bladelet tools, (d–g) backed blade sickle segments, (h) ax fragment, 

and (i) steep scraper with point.
NUMBER 50 • 997

Large Geometric Sickles

Large geometric sickle segments (N = 894) constitute the 

largest and most diagnostic sickle class of the Middle Bronze, 

Late Bronze, and Iron Ages (see, e.g., Waechter, 1958; Payne, 

1983; Rosen, 1997:59–60). Unlike the above sickles, large geometrics were manufactured on blade flakes and not blades, technologically a significant departure from earlier types (Figures 

26.2a–e,g–k,m–t, 26.3a–c,e–g,i–m). In addition to the size and 

shape contrasts (Table 26.7), truncations, backing, and bulbar 

treatment are typical. Finally, the combination of wider flakes 

with truncations allows definition of clear geometric shapes, 

such that the sickles can be classed as rectangles, parallelograms, 

triangles, symmetric trapezes, and asymmetric trapezes.

Gloss and retouch characteristics are summarized in Table 

26.6. An important point is that, in general, the large geometric 

sickle segments show significantly greater or more intense retouch than the other types do. This, of course, is a function of 

how much the pieces were resharpened, which is, in turn, a measure of how long the pieces were considered useful before they 

were discarded and replaced. This, in turn, can be interpreted 

as a measure of value: pieces retained for a longer time were 

more valuable, that is, more expensive to replace. In short, the 

large geometric sickles seem to have been more valuable than the 

the plain blade sickle segments are somewhat larger than the 

backed blade segments. Working edge retouch characteristics 

are summarized in Table 26.6. The general range of retouch is 

similar in configuration to that of the backed blade sickles. Only 

10 pieces retain the bulb of percussion, and only 1 shows bulbar 

thinning. A high proportion (41 of 53) of the plain blade sickle 

segments are broken. Of the unbroken pieces, eight show double 

truncations, three have only single truncations, and one is lacking truncations. None of these pieces show remnants of either 

plaster or bone hafts.

TABLE 26.5. Summary of average sickle metrics according to 

type with standard deviations. Sample size (N) refers to measureable pieces.

Length Width Thickness

Type N (cm) (cm) (cm)

Backed blade sickles 35 4.3 ± 1.3 1.5 ± 0.4 0.5 ± 0.2

Plain blade sickles 14 5.5 ± 1.9 1.9 ± 0.4 0.6 ± 0.2

Large geometric sickles 648 4.6 ± 1.1 3.0 ± 0.7 0.8 ± 0.3

TABLE 26.6. General retouch type frequencies according to sickle type and degree of luster where 0 = no luster, 0.5 = slight luster, 1 = 

obvious luster, and 2 = luster on two edges. The retouch categories are arranged in order of increasing intensity of retouch.

Degree Fresh Nibbled- Heavily Total

of gloss edge Damaged Nibbled serrated Serrated serrated Other edges

Backed blades 0 3 4 6 0 2 0 15

0.5 1 4 1 5 3 0 14

1 1 21 14 10 6 4 56

Plain blades 0.5 5 0 0 0 0 5

1 2 18 11 11 7 0 49

Large geometric 0 87 26 24 11 8 1 3 160

0.5 3 6 7 3 2 0 0 21

1 11 55 210 102 322 25 4 729

2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3

TABLE 26.7. Summary of large geometric sickle shapes according to number of truncations. For example, | | represents a rectangle, \ \ 

represents a parallelogram, and /\ represents a triangle. Numbers are based on only glossy, unbroken large geometric sickle segments.

Shape/truncation direction

Truncations / / / \ | | / | \ | \ / \ \ | / | \ /\ Total

1 0 1 10 4 5 2 9 1 1 83 116

2 1 9 86 4 53 16 250 4 1 5 429

Total 1 10 96 8 58 18 259 5 2 88 545
998 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

interest to note that of the nonglossy sickle blanks, only 19% 

showed bulbar thinning, indicating that some of these sickles 

had not yet been hafted or basically completed. 

Remains of hafting are present on many of the Jemmeh large 

geometric sickle segments (Figure 26.7). Bones, bone splinters, 

and traces of bone are attached to 28 pieces, with another 10 

showing bone or bits of bone with plaster still intact. Another 50 

pieces show plaster or traces of plaster with no bone remaining. 

Some of these pieces of plaster are basically intact casts of the inside of the jaw used as a haft. One piece was, in fact, identifiable 

as the inside of the mandible of a goat (P. Wapnish, Penn State 

University, personal communication; see chapter 33).

Canaanean Technology

Canaanean technology, attributable to the Early Bronze 

Age (including the EBIV/MBI), is represented by only five sickle 

segments (0.5% of the sickle assemblage). Only three are complete. All show gloss, and, typically, one piece shows gloss on 

two edges. Retouch is restricted to edge damage, except for one 

piece, which shows ventral nibbling, also typical of the type. All 

five pieces show truncations, but only one is bitruncated. One 

of the complete pieces is patinated, showing later unpatinated 

retouch, probably reflecting an original Early Bronze use and a 

later reuse. The pieces are most likely intrusive, brought onto the 

site in brick materials or something like that, or perhaps were 

collected from nearby fields for reuse. The average dimensions 

are a length of 7.1 ± 2.6 cm, width of 2.3 ± 0.4 cm, and thickness 

of 0.6 ± 0.1 cm. The type is notably distinct metrically from the 

other types described above.

The final sickle “class” consists of six unidentifiable fragments, showing gloss on one edge. One of these even shows plaster remnants. 

The use of lime plaster as an adhesive is worthy of comment. 

Bitumen, originating in the Dead Sea, is known to be a common 

adhesive for use in sickles in the Early Bronze Age (Schick, 1978; 

Marder et al., 1995). It has not been reported on for the later 

periods. The possible use of mud plaster has been suggested at 

Deir el-Balah (Rosen and Goring-Morris, 2010). Although the 

use of lime plaster as a hafting adhesive for sickles should not 

be a surprise, the materials at Jemmeh constitute the first clear 

documentation of the phenomenon in Israel.

Backed and Retouched Blades

The retouched blade category (N = 41, 2.8%) is not typologically standardized. Twenty-seven are simple blades with edge 

retouch varying from minimal dorsal nibbling (10), ventral nibbling (1), more intense serration or semiscraper retouch (14), one 

of which shows bilateral retouch, to deeper but more irregular 

denticulation (2). Another massive blade (Figure 26.6e), measuring 10.3 × 3.7 × 1.1 cm, shows intense retouch and can be classified as a knife.

Of the 15 backed blades, only 4 show truncations, but 2 are 

bitruncated. One of the backed blades is naturally backed with 

cortex. The remaining 10 blade tools show one (7) or two (3) 

blade-based sickles, and given the basic chronological differences 

between the types, this suggests that sickles in the earlier periods 

were less valuable than in the later periods. This may be a function of increasing specialization in manufacture. 

There is a clear correlation between the presence of gloss 

and the intensity of retouch. Nonglossy edges tend to be either 

unretouched or only minimally retouched. Obviously, the underlying factor here is simply usage: reaping causes the appearance 

of gloss, on one hand, and requires resharpening, on the other 

hand. The presence of three large geometric sickles with gloss 

on two edges is interesting since it indicates blade reversal in 

the haft, unusual for these sickles, although quite common for 

Canaanean sickles.

Some 282 of the total 894 large geometric sickles were 

broken or partially broken. However, all could nevertheless be 

typed as large geometrics. The unbroken and complete sickles, as 

keyed by the presence of gloss, could be divided into nine general 

shapes, indicated by the direction of the ends of the sickle: / \, | 

|, / |, \ |, \ /, \ \, / /, | /, | \, and /\. Table 26.7 summarizes the frequency of the different shapes. Clearly, the parallelogram shape 

dominates, followed by rectangles. There is a general dominance 

of NW-SE diagonals in the shape and truncation patterns. For 

example, there is only one / / (as opposed to \ \) parallelogram 

present in the assemblage (holding the sickle segments dorsal 

face up). Aside from the obvious fact that the diagonal truncations facilitate a curved haft and blade, the orientation of the 

sickles may perhaps reflect right-handedness of the knapper or 

some similar phenomenon. 

Of the single truncated pieces, the triangular type dominates. The ratio of triangular to other shapes of roughly 5:1 is 

constant throughout the Levant and probably is indicative of the 

use of triangular segments as the long end pieces in the composite 

blade. Thus, the ratio represents an average length of 30 cm per 

composite sickle. It is not surprising that the average dimensions 

of the triangular segments are somewhat longer and narrower 

than the others (length = 5.1 ± 1.1, width = 2.6 ± 0.5, thickness 

= 0.7 ± 0.2 cm), given a selection to fit into the end of the haft. 

Backing is the retouch on the edge of the segment opposite 

the working edge, used to facilitate hafting. Of the 542 glossy 

segments that could be analyzed for backing, 70.8% (384) 

showed backing or partial backing of one kind or another. Of 

these, 249 (64.8%) show abrupt or semiabrupt dorsal retouch 

along the length of the back edge. Another 17 pieces show ventral backing. Bifacial backing was present on 29 pieces, alternate 

backing on 2 pieces, nibbling on 20 pieces, natural cortical backing on 18 pieces, and “face plan” or pseudoburin backing on 

four pieces. Partial backing was present on 56 pieces, 2 of which 

showed ventral retouch instead of dorsal.

Bulbar treatment, or removal (Figures 26.2b,d,j, 26.3g), is 

also a means of facilitating hafting. It varies from the presence 

of two to three small trimming flakes removed from the bulb 

to intensive ventral retouch on the proximal end. The common 

retouch is restricted to the bulbar area. Only 18.2% (of the 615 

glossy items) of the pieces that could be checked retained the 

bulb of percussion. Another 29.8% show bulbar thinning. More 

than half of the sickles show complete bulbar removal. It is of 
NUMBER 50 • 999

Borers

Seven of the borers (N = 46, 2.9%) show long narrow bits 

with abrupt retouch on two edges and were classified as drills. 

Five of these were on blades. Two others, manufactured on a 

bladelet and a small flake, respectively (Figure 26.6b), were classified as microdrills. The latter was made of hard limestone. 

Of the remaining 34 borers (Figure 26.6a–d), all but one (on 

a blade) were made on flakes. They all show short bits and are 

classified as awls. Five of these were made on used large geometric sickles or fragments thereof (Figure 26.6c,d), retaining gloss 

and/or other characteristics of the sickle class. Three others were 

on unretouched sickle flakes. These eight pieces show retouching 

or notching of a corner of the piece in order to form a point or 

bit. The significant aspect of these pieces is that they are clearly 

not intrusive or Chalcolithic, having been made using sickle 

flakes or large geometric sickles, chronologically diagnostic to 

the second millennium BCE. 

Of the remaining 26 awls, 20 were manufactured by either 

double notching to leave a point between the notches or corner 

notching to leave a point on the corner of the piece. Two pieces 

truncations. Some of the backed and truncated blades may be 

preliminary sickle segments but are not typical of large geometric sickles and therefore have been classified as retouched blades 

rather than sickle blanks.

Technologically, the blades on which the blade tools were 

manufactured are small, rarely longer than 4 or 5 cm in length. 

Most are broken. Average dimensions on those measured (excluding the massive blade described above) are a length of 4.51 

± 0.94 (N = 6), width of 2.02 ± 0.63 (N = 25), and thickness of 

0.70 ± 0.23 (N = 25). These dimensions match those of the waste 

assemblage. Only three are on blades that might be considered 

technologically Canaanean (cf. Rosen, 1983, 1997:60–65).

Bladelet Tools

Six bladelets are nibbled (Figure 26.5b,c), two are notched, 

five are backed, one is truncated, and three can be classified as 

micro–end scrapers (Gilead, 1984; total N = 17, 1%). One of 

the notched bladelets and the backed bladelets are probably epipaleolithic intrusions. The remainder are best attributed to the 

Chalcolithic. 

FIGURE 26.6. Other tools. (a–d) Borers, (e) knife, and (f) retouched flake.
1000 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

of them primary elements. Of the flakes, 23 are retouched ventrally, 43 dorsally, and 1 bifacially, and 14 show alternating retouch. Finally, one pebble and two chunks show ventral retouch. 

Celts

One Chalcolithic adze shows a subtriangular cross section 

and a broken working edge showing transverse and longitudinal 

repair flaking (N = 3, 0.2%, for celts). It measures 7.3 × 3.4 × 2.3 

cm. Two axe fragments were recovered (Figure 26.5h), one with 

a polished edge. These too are attributable to the Chalcolithic, 

although one was recovered from 17th century BCE contexts. 

Choppers and Hammerstones

Two choppers are on cobbles and retain much cortex. One 

shows bifacial retouch covering much of the surface. All three 

are small, not larger than 5 cm in length. One hammerstone is a 

cobble with clear signs of pecking (total N = 4, 0.3%). 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As discussed above, the lithic assemblages from Tell Jemmeh 

reflect two distinct levels of industrial organization, one specialized and the other nonspecialized. The sickles show what appears to be a medium level of craft specialization, using imported 

raw materials (Figure 26.7). This can be reconstructed from the 

total absence of cores appropriate for the manufacture of large 

geometric sickle segments, the near exclusive use of the imported 

fine-grained dark brown flint (Table 26.1), and the concentration of waste, sickle flakes, incomplete sickles (sickle blanks), 

and sickle blades in apparent caches in specific loci. Table 26.8 

summarizes the statistics of the only five loci from which more 

are borderline between awls and nosed scrapers, two are burins, 

showing possible accidental burin removals to create the points, 

and two are natural points with retouch.

Tabular Scrapers

The single tabular scraper (0.1%) is a broken piece, measuring 3.4 × 4.2 × 0.9 cm. As is characteristic of the type, it retains 

its cortex. It shows a thinned bulb of percussion and striking 

platform. It should be attributed in the Tell Jemmeh context to 

the Chalcolithic occupation. 

Scrapers

The scrapers (N = 27, 1.8%) are heterogeneous, reflecting 

the ad hoc nature of the assemblage. Nineteen are on flakes (one 

on a sickle flake), five are on primary elements, and one is on a 

pebble. Two are flat sidescrapers, six are flat end scrapers, six are 

steep end scrapers (Figure 26.5i), three are steep sidescrapers, 

and three are small scrapers (thumbnail). Five are broken and 

impossible to classify.

Notches and Denticulates

Of the 92 notches, 49 are steep and 43 are flat (N = 127, 

8.7%, for both notches and denticulates). They were made on 

a wide range of blanks: 2 on sickle flakes, 2 on pebbles, 4 on 

blades, 56 on flakes, 22 on primary flakes, 3 on core trimming 

elements, and 1 on an exhausted core. Retouch is dorsal on 73 

pieces, ventral on 16, and alternating or bifacial on 5. 

Of the 35 denticulates, 17 are steep and 18 are flat. Twentysix were made on flakes, five on primary elements, one on a 

pebble, one on a reused Levallois core, and one on a ridge blade 

(core trimming element). The number of notches on the denticulates ranges from three to six. All retouch is dorsal except for 

two pieces showing alternating retouch. 

Retouched Flakes and Pieces

This is a heterogeneous group comprising morphologically 

nonstandardized pieces (N = 161, 11%; Figure 26.6f). 

Twenty-eight of the retouched flakes are nibbled or retouched large geometric sickle flakes, which should clearly be 

associated with the first stages of sickle manufacture. Another 

three are truncations on large geometric sickle flakes. In addition to these pieces, another 10 are truncations on flakes and 

may also be attributed to sickle manufacture. Four chips show 

retouch reminiscent of the truncations on large geometric sickles and are probably fragments of larger pieces. One flake with 

minimal retouch shows what appears to be sickle gloss. 

Beyond the retouched flakes and pieces associated with 

sickle manufacture, 115 other pieces show miscellaneous retouch. Four are backed flakes, showing abrupt retouch along one 

edge but not resembling sickle segments. Thirteen are retouched 

chips, two with alternate retouch, one with ventral retouch, and 

10 with fine dorsal retouch. Eighty-one flakes are retouched, 12 

FIGURE 26.7. Sickles with remains of plaster (hafted).
NUMBER 50 • 1001

density of sickle blades suggests that agriculture was an important activity at Jemmeh from the MBII through at least the mid–

Iron Age (and perhaps later, but beyond the range of the lithic 

evidence). This is important given the marginal nature of the 

Jemmeh environment.

Analysis of the decline in the use of chipped stone tools is 

a subject for which the Jemmeh lithic assemblage is well suited. 

Table 26.9 presents the sickle frequencies as a proportion of the 

total tool assemblages from the MBII, Late Bronze Age, and 

Early Iron Age, the three periods for which there is no question 

as to the use of flint sickles (it should be noted that this dating was done only according to the excavation notes and not 

according to the final phasing used in this report). If the datings are representative, the table shows a major change in the 

functional configuration of the lithic assemblage following the 

MBII. Whereas in the first half of the second millennium BCE 

(the MBII), sickles constitute 31% of the tool assemblage, by 

the second half, they jump to 89%, with a complementary decline in other lithic types. Although this decline in range of stone 

tool types (and presumably functions) in the second millennium 

BCE has been demonstrated before (Rosen, 1996b, 1997:151–

166), the problems of intrusion of materials from earlier strata 

into those of the MBII, such as at the City of David (Rosen, 

1996a), have always rendered the transition difficult to pin down 

chronologically. For example, at Teluliyot Batashi there is a significant decline in waste products from the MBII to LB but no 

corresponding decline in tools (Rosen, 1997:154). Thus, the assemblage from Jemmeh indicates that although a technological 

transition occurred from EBIV to MBII, from Canaanean sickle 

than five sickle flakes were recovered. In each case, the number of sickle flakes found in the individual locus far exceeds 

proportionally the expected number given an even distribution 

throughout the excavation (hence the column “total loci from 

period”). Flint Nos. 589 and 591 from Field III, Phase 12 of the 

Late Bronze II probably represent the same occurrence: No. 589 

coming from the fill (GMIII B (63) 5) above the floor or debris 

of No. 591 (GMIII B (64) 5). All loci seem to represent domestic 

contexts (four of the five are dated to the LBII). In short, we can 

suggest a system of primary reduction from cores to sickle flakes 

at some as yet undiscovered quarry site, the import of the sickle 

flakes to Jemmeh for retouching and hafting in sickles by secondary specialists, who may or may not be the same people involved 

in the quarrying, and the distribution to the users. Although it 

is unclear whether repair and further retouch, much in evidence, 

were accomplished by the user or the piece was returned to the 

specialist, given the simplicity of the resharpening and retouching process in contrast to the actual manufacturing, there would 

seem to be little reason that the farmer could not do this himself.

The second level of organization, represented by the ad hoc 

tools, especially notches, denticulates, scrapers, borers, and retouched pieces, is fundamentally unspecialized. Cores for the 

production of appropriate flakes are present in the assemblage, 

indicating that these tools were manufactured on site. Furthermore, the raw materials used for the ad hoc tools reflect less 

deliberate selection than seen in the sickles, indicating a less specialized, more expedient mode of manufacture. 

According to the preliminary dating available when this 

study was conducted, it seems that within the periods represented 

at the site during which chipped stone tools were in common 

use, from the MBII through the end of the Iron I or the Persian 

Period, no change in basic lithic technology is evident. Furthermore, this is matched by a basic typological continuity. This, of 

course, is of interest since there are major ceramic changes that 

occur during this roughly millennium-long span. Beyond the fact 

that the lithics are probably less sensitive to stylistic change than 

the ceramics, the basic underlying continuities are nevertheless of 

interest, suggesting basic economic continuities at Jemmeh during this period. 

Functionally, the presence of sickle blades is clearly an indicator of agriculture. Although perhaps not surprising, the high 

TABLE 26.8. Summary of loci with evidence for sickle manufacture.

Flint Total Total sickle Total sickle Percentage No. of

Reg. loci from flakes from flakes from found in No. of sickle

No. Provenance Phase Period period period locus locus per period sickles blanks

509 GMII C3 (AB) 6/7 LBII 36 21 13 61.9 26 2

536 GMIII A3 (2) 2 2? Persian? 93 28 7 25 16 15

567 GMIII B (52) 9 (Room A) LBII 86 40 7 17.5 6 4

589 GMIII B (63) 5 12 LBII 13 44 5 11.4 33 4

591 GMIII B (64) 5 12 LBII 13 44 19 43.2 20 13

TABLE 26.9. Sickle frequencies relative to total tools, according 

to period. Note that the dating is based on preliminary notes and 

not on the final phasing used in this report.

Period Tools Sickles Percentage of sickles

Iron I 377 339 89.9

LBII 375 332 88.5

MBII 203 63 31.0
1002 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

around these domestic structures, and the explanation for the 

anomalously high lithic density in these periods may have to do 

with some special sickle production or storage function, such 

as in Flint No. 509 (GMII C3 (AB), Phase 6/7; see Table 26.8). 

Thus, there are also high densities of sickle flakes (Table 26.3) 

and sickle blanks (Table 26.4) as well as sickles in the restricted 

area exposed from the Iron I. Of course, these high densities render the contrasts with the succeeding Iron II even greater, but 

this seems primarily to be a consequence of the special function 

of the loci exposed in the LBII and possibly Iron I and is perhaps 

not reflective of the normal situation. 

Finally, the much greater lithic densities evident in the Middle and Late Bronze Age loci, in terms of both waste and tools, 

reflect the production of ad hoc tools on site. In fact, given the 

low numbers of ad hoc tools in post-1500 BCE levels, a fair proportion of the waste found in these levels, most of which is typical of ad hoc production, is almost undoubtedly intrusive. 

In sum, the lithic assemblage from Tell Jemmeh provides an 

important addition to our knowledge of both the technologies 

and economies of the second millennium BCE. A remaining task 

is for us to compare it to similarly well collected assemblages 

from other sites to provide a more comprehensive picture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Gus Van Beek for providing the opportunity to study the lithic materials from Tell Jemmeh and for helping us to understand his site. For the first phase of the research, 

the Smithsonian Institute provided a grant to S.A.R. Ron Gardiner helped immensely in arranging and cataloging the materials and explaining various issues and problems to us; Ora Van 

Beek treated one of us (S.A.R.) wonderfully, making him feel 

quite at home while in Washington. For the second phase of the 

research, Yorke Rowan aided us greatly in processing the material, and support was provided by a grant from the White-Levy 

Grant program. Finally, we are grateful to David Ben-Shlomo for 

his patience and understanding of the problems of the specialist 

writing and rewriting reports years after the initial analyses. For 

the specialist working on someone else’s materials, reports written early in the history of the publication are difficult to modify afterward: the efforts required to change the statistics to fit 

blades to large geometric sickle blades, the functional transition, 

the decline of the great range of lithic uses, occurred later, more 

or less coincident with the transition from Middle to Late Bronze 

Age. Of course, this is probably a consequence of the increasing 

availability and use of bronze. 

Beyond this major change, the sequence from MBII through 

Iron I shows an ever-increasing dominance of sickles in the assemblages. This is, of course, indicative of the accelerating restriction in the use of stone tools, probably indirectly the result 

of the rise of metallurgy. 

Table 26.10 presents tool and waste frequencies per square 

meter of excavation according to selected periods (note again that 

dating was done according to the preliminary phasing and not according to the final phasing used in this report). Several important 

conclusions can be drawn from these data. First, the contrasts between the periods appear marked and require explanation. Working backward, the Persian and Iron II assemblages show a great 

drop in tool densities, although no real drop in waste densities. 

The key point here is that the waste does not reflect the manufacture of most of the tools present in the assemblages, that is, the 

sickles, but rather, reflects a general low-level expedient manufacture. In other words, although in these periods sickles represent 

more than 50% of any assemblage, they are imported, and the 

debitage and debris from their manufacture is mostly to be found 

off site. Thus, the decline in tools is in actuality a decline in the use 

of sickles and need not be reflected in the waste assemblage. This 

decline in the use of sickles can be pinpointed, using the Jemmeh 

data, to the early Iron II (Table 26.4). Since the major decline in 

ad hoc tools seems to have occurred following the Middle Bronze 

Age, the relatively constant level of waste seems to be reflective 

of a permanent residual of expedient usage, probably continuing 

very late, perhaps into modern times. Summarizing this, there is 

a significant functional change in the general lithic assemblage 

from the Middle to Late Bronze Age, a major decline in expedient usage of chipped stone tools. Sickle segments, the products of 

specialized manufacture whose waste by-products are not found 

on site, increase proportionately as a result. 

Table 26.10 also shows a major anomaly in the extremely 

high density of tools and waste in the LBII and Iron I. However, 

the very small area actually exposed (47 m2

) from the Iron I, 

mostly in Field I FUR (the kiln area), renders interpretation difficult. There is an especially high density of sickles and waste 

TABLE 26.10. Tool and waste frequencies according to period and area excavated. Note that the dating is based on preliminary notes 

and not on the final phasing used in this report.

Period Area (m2

) Total tools Total waste Tools/m2 Waste/m2

Persian Iron IIC 299 57 472 0.19 1.58

Iron IIA-B, 7–9th centuries BCE 370 45 203 0.12 0.55

Iron I, 12th–10th centuries BCE 47 377 418 8.02 8.89

Late Bronze, 15th–13th centuries BCE 460 375 710 0.82 1.54

Middle Bronze II, 17th–16th centuries BCE 66 203 2369 3.08 35.89
NUMBER 50 • 1003

revisions of stratigraphy and periodization are substantial, and 

the demands cannot always be accommodated. In this case, we 

feel that in spite of stratigraphy and chronological revision, the 

basic conclusions, even in their details, remain sound. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Steven A. Rosen and Jabob Vardi, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. 

Box 653, Beer-Sheba 8410501, Israel. Correspondence: Rosen, rosen@

bgu.ac.il; Vardi, kobivardi@gmail.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; 

accepted 23 September 2013.
27 Scarabs and Stamp Seals

Othmar Keel

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-one scarabs and five stamp seals from the Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh are described in the catalog 

below. The description of the head, back, and side of the scarabs (for example, B2/0/e9) follows the classification system of Tufnell 

(1984:31–38), Keel (1995:74–114), and Eggler and Keel (2006: XVI). The numbering is according to the Keel corpus, “Gamma” entry 

(Keel, 2013:56–93, Gamma Nos. 130–160, 207–211).

The symbol § + number (for example, §128) refers to the relevant paragraph in Keel (1995). Place-name + number (for example, 

Afek no. 45) refers to the corresponding entry in Keel (1997) for sites beginning with A, Keel (2010a) for sites beginning with B, D, and 

E, Keel (2010b) for sites beginning with F, and Keel (2013). The spelling of the place-names follows these publications. Letter + number 

(for example, M16) refers to the “List of Hieroglyphic Signs” in Gardiner (1957:438–548). If not indicated otherwise, the object is 

pierced longitudinally for threading.

SCARABS

Gamma 130, Reg. No. 1149 (SI Cat. No. 928, Figure 27.1a). Context: GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, A3/vIv/d5, rim of the base and one 

side damaged, enstatite, 16 × 11 × 7 mm. Base: At the top boat on a socle (P1 or 3) with a sun disk above it; it should be read as Jm<w>

n R, a playful writing and spelling of Jmn-R, “Amun-Re” (see §646); compare Achsib no. 20 and Tell Farrah no. 1, with parallels; 

beneath the boat is a sign reminiscent of Gardiner’s S42 “aba-” or “kherep-sceptre”; the second one has the meaning of “controller”; 

the two open booths supported by a pole (O22) mean sh.w, “counsels”; Hornung and Staehelin (1976: no. 731) read the group of signs 

mnhR sh.w as “with helpful counsels”; parallels are Matmar (Brunton, 1948: pl. 63:76f), Sanam/Nubia (Newberry, 1907: pl. 10:36612, 

1908: pl. 40:43; Griffith, 1923: pl. 47:7); for further parallels, see Hornung and Staehelin (1976: no. 731). Date: 22nd–25th Dynasties 

(945–656 BCE).

Gamma 131, Reg. No. 1150 (SI Cat. No. 759, Figure 27.1b). Context: GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, A1/vIv/d6, rim of base damaged, 

hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 21 × 16 × 9 mm. Base: In a horizontal arrangement striding falcon-headed griffin (§549); the tail of 

the griffin is bent forward over the back of the hybrid and ends in a turned outward uraeus (§522); in front of the griffin a uraeus (§522) 

facing the hybrid; MBIIB forerunners of this composition are Tell el-Aghul nos. 657, 755, Gezer (Giveon, 1985:116, no. 19), Jericho 

(Kirkbride, 1965:618, fig. 291:13; 641, fig. 299:5); the composition continues into the New Kingdom: Tell el-Aghul no. 708; a variant 

is Timna no. 4(?), double framing line. Date: Probably 19th Dynasty (1292–1190 BCE). 

Gamma 132, Reg. No. 1151 (SI Cat. No. 445, Figure 27.1c). Context: GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, D7/0/d5, rim of the base is slightly 

damaged, hollowed-out engraving with hatching, enstatite, 21 × 16 × 9 mm. Base: Standing above a nb sign (§458) is a falcon-headed 

anthropomorphic figure with pointed apron held by two shoulder straps; the arm behind hangs down along the body; the arm in front 

is raised at a right angle and touches the snout of a vertically placed outward turned crocodile; the gesture probably expresses worship 

(§533); parallels are Tell el-Agul no. 118 (without h nb), no. 159 (with additional uraei), nos. 952, 1046–1048, Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: pl. 

32:129); Achsib no. 48 has instead of the falcon-headed figure a crocodile-headed figure; local. Date: Late MBIIB (ca. 1600–1500 BCE). 
NUMBER 50 • 1005

FIGURE 27.1. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 130–134.
1006 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

writing of “Hathor,” see Goldwasser, 2006:121–129; Ben-Tor, 

2007:126, remains rather skeptical); above the falcon red crown 

(§452), a debased hR (§453) and below that t (§463); for the 

Red Crown, see Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 33:18; regarding the hR, see 

Hall (1913: no. 2575 = Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 33:26). The scarab is 

a typical representative of the Early Palestinian Series B2 head 

(Ben-Tor, 2007:151, pls. 64:1–18, 65:1–17, 66:1–18, 67:1–11); 

local. Date: Early MBIIB (1700–1640 BCE). 

Gamma 138, Reg. No. 1157 (SI Cat. No. 930, Figure 27.2d). 

Context: GM (+), unstratified. Rectangular piece, type II (§216–

218, 220–224), hollowed-out engraving with hatching, enstatite, 

16 × 11 × 4.5 mm. Base: Side A: Jmn-r , “Amun-Re” (§642–

650); on three sides the name is surrounded by a twice bent stem 

with a lotus bud (§429f); just below the name a branch (§433); 

the name Amun-Re framed on two sides by a stem with a lotus 

bud is quite common; see, e.g., Bet-Shean no. 3 with parallels; 

the framing from three sides and the branch are uncommon. Side 

B: In a horizontal arrangement, a standing falcon (§442, 454, 

467, 556f); in front of it, a squatting falcon-headed god with a 

sun disk above and a bent line in front of it; behind the falcon, 

a uraeus (§522); the same composition as Ashdod no. 32 (the 

squatting deity is falcon-headed and not Maat, as stated in Keel, 

1997:674, no. 32) and Gamma No. 73. Date: 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE). 

Gamma 139, Reg. No. 1158 (SI Cat. No. 1, Figure 27.2e). Context: GM 1C TT1 (0), topsoil. Scarab, D9/0/e10, rim of the base 

slightly damaged, linear engraving with hatching, enstatite, 10 × 

7.5 × 5 mm. Base: In a horizontal arrangement, k (§456), below 

it, a curved line based on the framing line; both signs are flanked 

by two bent stems with a lotus bud (§429f); a parallel with an 

inverted z instead of a k is Tell el-Aghul no. 603; see also Tell 

el-Aghul no. 1005; local. Date: MBIIB (1650–1500 BCE). 

Gamma 140, Reg. No. 1159 (SI Cat. No. 235, Figure 27.2f). Context: GM 1A (12) 7, Field IV, Building I, Room C?, Phase 5 (Iron 

IIC, 700–650 BCE). Scarab, A1 or D1/pronotum line II, elytra 

line I/d5, hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 14 × 10.5 × 7 mm. 

Base: In a horizontal arrangement, a sun disk (§461) and a falcon 

(§442, 454, 467, 556f) in a boat; boats with just a sun disk are 

quite common on scarabs of the 26th Dynasty: Achsiv no. 20.53, 

Ashkelon no. 76, Dor no. 14, Gamma No. 34; in these cases and 

in many others (e.g., Carthage, Vercoutter, 1945: nos. 254–256) 

the arrangement is vertical, and the sun boat is just one element at 

the top of the design; the bow and stern of the boat seem to end 

in a head with double crown (shRmtj; §461); for a boat whose bow 

ends in a king’s head, see Landström (1970:119, fig. 369). Date: 

25th Dynasty to early 26th Dynasty (664–600 BCE).

Gamma 141, Reg. No. 1160 (Figure 27.3a). Context: GM 2A 

(13), Phase 3 (Persian, 530–330 BCE). Scarab, B2/0/d5, rim of 

the base slightly damaged, the whole object worn, hollowed-out 

engraving, enstatite, 14 × 10.1 × 7 mm. Base: In horizontal arrangement, a design that is very difficult to decipher; one possibility is a winged hybrid creature who follows a quadruped 

Gamma 133, Reg. No. 1152 (SI Cat. No. 448, Figure 27.1d). 

Context GM 3B (+), unstratified. Scarab, B2/0/d5, rim of the base 

slightly damaged, linear engraving, enstatite, 15 × 11 × 7 mm. 

Base: In a horizontal arrangement, a variant of design group 7B1 

(§506), which has paired scrolls with a top and bottom loop 

framing; in the present case the scrolls end in buds bound to 

each other by a double line; the sign framed by this device is a 

nfr (§459); compare Tell el-Aghul no. 1158, Jericho (Kirkbride, 

1965:653, fig. 303:4); local. Date: MBIIB (1600–1500 BCE). 

Gamma 134, Reg. No. 1153 (SI Cat. No. 929, Figure 27.1e). 

Context GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, the features of the scarab 

are reminiscent of Tell el-Daba type III (Ben-Tor, 2007: pls. 

30:9:17, 31:1:16): B3/0/e10, one small side is broken, particularly at the base, linear engraving, enstatite, 14* × 11 × 7 mm. 

Base: A column of hieroglyphs in the center; the uppermost is 

broken away, sun disk (§461), inverted k (§456), a pseudohieroglyph in the form of a nb with short vertical strokes ; the 

columns are flanked by two pairs of nfr (§459) in antithetical position; a rather unusual composition of hieroglyphs; local. Date: 

unclear, possibly Iron IIA (900–750 BCE). 

Gamma 135, Reg. No. 1154 (SI Cat. No. 931, Figure 27.2a). 

Context GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, unusual head, close to 

B2/I, the pronotum line V shaped/e9a, a similar type of scarab is 

Tell el-Fara-South no. 690, linear engraving, enstatite, 17 × 12 × 

8 mm. Base: In a horizontal arrangement, striding lion (§536f); 

the tail raised straight; above its neck three vertical signs without 

meaning; in front of the lion two oblique strokes; parallels to this 

type of archaizing lion in linear engraving are Beth Shemesh no. 

153, Deir el-Balah no. 79, Tell el-Fara-South no. 490, all three 

with parallels. Date: 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE).

Gamma 136, Reg. No. 1155 (SI Cat. No. 390, Figure 27.2b). 

Context GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, A1/vIv/d6, the whole 

scarab is worn and the rim of the base and part of it are damaged, hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 17.5 × 13 × 8 mm. Base: 

In the center an oval (§462) with Mn-hRpr-r, the throne name of 

Thutmosis III (§624, 634, 647, 650, 663); the oval is flanked by 

two turned outward uraei (§522f); below the oval a nbw (§458); 

exactly the same composition is found at Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: 

pl. 38:282); without the nbw below are Tell el-Fara-South no. 

739, Tell el-Aghul no. 223, and Tall as-Saidiya (Eggler and Keel, 

2006:368f, no. 4); the latter two with -hRprw-r, the throne 

name of Amenophis II (§634, 663). Date: Probably 19th–20th

Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE), but maybe earlier.

Gamma 137, Reg. No. 1156 (SI Cat. No. 932, Figure 27.2c). 

Context: GM (+), unstratified. Scarab, B2/0/e9, rim of the base 

at the lower small side slightly damaged, linear engraving with 

hatching, enstatite, 16 × 11 × 7.5 mm. Base: Falcon (§442, 454, 

467, 556f), behind the falcon ntñr (§460) or qnbt (§460); for the 

falcon with a kind of angle, see Beit Mirsim no. 7, Beth Shean 

no. 157, Beth Shemesh no. 171; for more examples, see Ben-Tor 

(2007: pl. 33:13–35, Second Intermediate Period, and pl. 52:1–

40, Early Palestinian Series); for the interpretation as a debased 
NUMBER 50 • 1007

FIGURE 27.2. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 135–140.
1008 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 27.3. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 141–145.
NUMBER 50 • 1009

IIC, 700–650 BCE). Scarab, A3/vIv/d6, rim of the base and sides 

badly damaged, hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 17 × 13 × 

8 mm. Base: In the upper part of the surface, dñd pillar (§451); 

above it was probably a sun disk; the pillar was flanked by two 

schematic falcons with protectively outspread wings and feet; see 

Bible and Orient Museum, Fribourg SK 1977.13, or as, another 

possibility, there were two winged sun disks; see Akko no. 51; 

below this composition is an oval (§462) in a horizontal position with Mn-hRpr-r, the throne name of Thutmosis III (§634, 

647, 650, 663). For the horizontally arranged name of this king, 

see Achsib no. 59, Akko no. 178, Beth Shean no. 49. The dñd

pillar and Mn-hRpr-r are often combined on scarabs of the 18th 

dynasty but in a quite different way (see Jaeger, 1982:1102f); the 

present combination is certainly later. Date: Uncertain; maybe 

19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE) or more likely 22nd Dynasty (945–713 BCE). 

Gamma 146, Reg. No. 1166 (SI Cat. No. 610, Figure 27.4a). 

Context: GMI FUR (1), Phase 3, the kiln (Iron IB, 1150–980 

BCE). Scarab, A4/0/d6, hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, remains of red paint or glazing, 19 × 13.8 × 8.3 mm. Base: At 

the top a winged sun disk (§450); below it an oval (§462) in a 

horizontal position with five anra signs (§469f): r, n, , n, and 

r; below the oval dñd pillar (§451) flanked by two uraei turned 

toward the pillar. Anra signs in a horizontally positioned oval are 

sometimes found on MBIIB scarabs, for example, Tell el-Aghul 

no. 987 (Eggler and Keel, 2006:210f), Pella no. 22; Aniba in 

the Sudan (Steindorff, 1937: pl. 56:103); in these cases the signs 

above and below the oval are different from what is seen here; a 

winged sun disk above the oval with anra signs and a dñd pillar 

below, although flanked by two red crowns and not by uraei, is 

found in Eggler and Keel (2006:62f, Amman no. 7). The oval 

and the dñd pillar below are also on Tell el-Fara-South no. 843; 

for two uraei facing a dñd pillar, see Dotan no. 6, Tell el-FaraSouth no. 604. Date: 19th–20th Dynasties (1292–1070 BCE). 

Gamma 147, Reg. No. 1167 (SI Cat. No. 924, Figure 27.4b). 

Context: GM 2B (41), Phase 7 (Iron IIB-C, 800–700 BCE). 

Nearly round piece with domed back (see §196–198; the piece 

shares the blank back with Type I, it has the grooved side in common with Type II, the piece is worn and the rim of the base is 

damaged, the engraving is mainly linear, enstatite, 8 × 7 × 6 mm. 

Base: A very schematic clumsily drawn human figure seems to 

raise one hand in a gesture of worship; the figure faces an upright 

element, which may be intended to represent a uraeus (§522); 

a similar figure with a uraeus in front is Akko no. 274, side B. 

Date: Uncertain, maybe Iron I (1200–980 BCE). 

Gamma 148, Reg. No. 1168 (SI Cat. No. 948, Figure 27.4c). 

Context GMI FUR (9), Phase 4 (Iron IB, 1150–980 BCE). 

Scarab, A1/I/e12, small pieces of the rim of the base are missing, partly hollowed-out with hatching, partly linear engraving, 13 × 10.5 × 5 mm. Base: In a horizontal arrangement y Pth.

nb<= y>, “O Ptah, (my) lord,” or Pth. nb mt, “Ptah (is) the lord 

of truth”; in some cases the sign on the right is clearly the y reed 

who has actually just three legs; to the left and above the creature with three legs, straight strokes; the composition has some 

similarity to a scarab from Perachora, Greece (Pendlebury and 

James, 1962:509, fig. 37:559). Date: Uncertain.

Gamma 142, Reg. No. 1161 (SI Cat. No. 446, Figure 27.3b). 

Context: GMII C2 (6) TT2, Phase 4 (Iron IIA, 980–800 BCE). 

Scarab, A1/I/d5, worn and rim of the base slightly damaged, 

hollowed-out engraving, Egyptian blue (§401f), 19 × 10.5 × 

9 mm. Base: In horizontal arrangement, striding bull; above its 

back meaningless signs, a kind of pseudoscript; the aggressive 

bull represents, on Egyptian scarabs of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, the pharaoh: Tell el-Aghul no. 222, 242, Akko no. 94, 

Beth Shean no. 5.33; on early Iron Age seals the bull becomes a 

symbol of fertility; see, e g., Tell el-Fara-South no. 210; see Keel 

(1992:169–193); very close to the present representation, which 

includes the pseudoscript, is Beth Shemesh no. 156, which may 

be dated in Keel (2010a:284f, no. 156) slightly too early. Date: 

Late Iron IB–early Iron IIA (1050–900 BCE). 

Gamma 143, Reg. No. 1162 (SI Cat. No. 933, Figure 27.3c). 

Context: GMIII A3 (+), topsoil. Scarab, A6/probably vIv/d6, most 

of the back is broken, hollowed-out engraving with hatching, enstatite, 21 × 10.5 × 8.5 mm. Base: Under the winged sun disk 

(§450) the standing god Ptah (§581) holding a ws scepter (§463); 

facing the god is the standing pharaoh with an ankle-length garment and a pointed apron; he wears the blue crown (S7; hRprš). 

His hands, folded below the chest, are holding the h.qt scepter 

(S38) and the flagellum nhRhRw (S45); the pharaoh facing Ptah (or 

any other deity) is usually shown in a worshipping attitude (see 

Gamma No. 152 with parallels); behind Ptah there is a uraeus 

(§522) with a sun disk above its head. A uraeus is sometimes 

shown in front of Ptah; see Deir el-Balah no. 29, Lachish (Tufnell, 

1958: pl. 39/40:360); the constellation displayed on this scarab is, 

as a whole, uncommon. Date: 19thDynasty (1292–1190 BCE). 

Gamma 144, Reg. No. 1163 (SI Cat. No. 352, Figure 27.3d). 

Context: GMII C2 (0), topsoil. Scarab, ?/0/e9, nearly half of the 

scarab is broken, the engraving is linear, enstatite, 12 × 10.5 × 

7 mm. Base: The surface is divided into an upper and lower half 

by a bar; in the center of the complete lower half is a scarab 

(§454, 516) flanked by two nhR (§449); just parts of signs are 

preserved in the upper half; in the center are remains of two 

flower buds; at the left rim is the lower part of a y flowering 

reed (M17; §456) or a Maat feather (H6; §462); the division 

of the surface by a bar is common on Late Middle Kingdom 

scarabs (Ben-Tor, 2007: pls. 7:19,20,25,26, 10.3:6–8); examples 

from Palestine with a scarab below or above the bar are Lachish 

(Tufnell, 1958: pl. 32:123), Megiddo (Loud, 1948: pl. 150:107); 

a scarab at the bottom flanked by nhRsigns is from Megiddo 

(Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 105:13); unclear whether local or 

imported. Date: MBIIB (1700–1600 BCE).

Gamma 145, Reg. No. 1164 (SI Cat. No. 754, Figure 27.3e). 

Context: GM 2B (35) 2A, Building II, Room B, Phase 5 (Iron 
1010 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 27.4. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 146–150.
NUMBER 50 • 1011

(Tufnell, 1958: pl. 38:289, with the name of Amenophis III, and 

pl. 38:282, with the name of Thutmosis III and two pairs of 

uraei). Date: Time of Amenophis II (1426–1400 BCE) or Thutmosis IV (1400–1390 BCE). 

Gamma 152, Reg. No. 1172 (SI Cat. No. 946, Figure 27.5b). 

Context: GMI FUR (8) 3, Phase 3/4, Iron IB (1150–980 BCE). 

Scarab, A1/vIv/d6, hollowed-out engraving with some hatching, 

enstatite, 19.5 × 14 × 10 mm. Base: Under the winged sun disk 

(§450) is the standing god Ptah (§581) in his chapel (indicated 

by two bent lines above his head), holding a ws scepter (§463). 

Facing the god is the standing pharaoh with an ankle-length robe 

and a pointed apron; he wears the blue crown (S7; hRprš) with a 

uraeus (§522) on his forehead; both hands are raised in a gesture of worship. King and god are standing on a line that forms 

together with the framing line a nb (§458). Parallels are Akko 

no. 189, Beth Shean no. 134, Deir el-Balah nos. 73, 99, Tell elFara-South no. 565, Gezer (Macalister, 1912: pl. 203b:8), Tel 

Harasim (Karon, 1985: no. 10 = Keel et al., 1989:306, fig. 93), 

Tell el-H.esi (Bliss, 1898:79, fig. 125), Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 131:3). A rare variant of the common subject is 

Gamma No. 143. See further parallels in Keel et al. (1989:301, 

302, 306, figs. 64–66, 69–72, 74, 75, 84–94), Lalkin (2008: 

pl. 30f, nos. 531–540). Date: 19th to middle of 20th dynasties 

(1292 to ca. 1150 BCE). Bibliography: Van Beek (1993a:668), 

Lalkin (2008: pl. 30:531).

Gamma 153, Reg. No. 1173 (SI Cat. No. 949, Figure 27.5c). 

Context: GMI FUR (8) 3, Phase 3/4, Iron IB (1150–980 BCE).

Scarab, A1/vIv/d6, hollowed-out engraving with some hatching, 

enstatite, 19 × 15 × 9 mm. Base: The design is very similar to 

the one on Gamma No. 152; it is, however, not the same piece; 

there are small differences in the design; the wings of the winged 

sun disk are straight on no. 152 and bent on no. 153; the roof of 

Ptah’s chapel is indicated on No. 152 by two bent lines, whereas 

on No. 153 it is indicated just by one. The position of the hands 

and the shape of the counterweight of the pharaoh’s necklace are 

also different. Date: 19th to middle of 20th dynasties (1292 to 

ca. 1150 BCE).

Gamma 154, Reg. No. 1174 (SI Cat. No. 947, Figure 27.5d). 

Context: GMI FUR (9) 4, Phase 4, Iron IB (1150–980 BCE). 

Scarab, A1/?/d6, the back is missing, hollowed-out engraving 

with hatching, enstatite, 19 × 11 × 7 mm. Base: In a horizontal 

arrangement, squatting Maat (§456), falcon (§442, 450, 454, 

467, 556f), uraeus (§522,529); exact parallels are Akko no. 68, 

Tell el-Fara-South no. 731; on Tell el-Fara-South no. 711 the 

uraeus is winged; Ashdod no. 32 and Gamma Nos. 73 and 138 

have, instead of Maat, a squatting falcon-headed deity. Date: 

19th to middle of 20th Dynasties (1292 to ca. 1150 BCE). 

Gamma 155, Reg. No. 1175 (SI Cat. No. 511, Figure 27.6a). 

Context: GM 3B (11) 2, Building III, Unit 2, Phase 6, Iron IIB-C 

(800–700 BCE). Scarab, B5/0, §103/d7, part of the back is missing, hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 19 × 14 × 7 mm. Base: 

(§456; M17), in other cases it is clearly recognizable as a Maat 

feather (§462; H6); in many cases one version is as probable 

as the other; parallels are Tell el-Aghul no. 250, Aseka no. 29, 

Asor no. 19, Beth Shean no. 122, 248, Tell el-Fara-South nos. 

175, 451, 498, 523, 621, 623, 700, 722, 769, 774, 801, 911, 

Tel Harasim (Karon and Anbar, 1994:45, fig. 15:10; see further 

§641; Keel, 2006:262–265). Date: 19th to first half of the 20th 

Dynasties (1292 to ca. 1100 BCE). 

Gamma 149, Reg. No. 1169 (SI Cat. No. 755, Figure 27.4d). 

Context: GM 2E (4), Phase 1/3? (LBII?, 1400–1200 BCE).

Scarab, A4/pronotuminie vIv, elytraline II/coarse d5, worn and 

rim of the base damaged, mainly coarse hollowed-out engraving, 

blackish stone, 16 × 13 × 8 mm. Base: Highly schematic human 

figure facing left, sitting on a throne with slightly raised back, 

holding a ws scepter (§463); on the forehead a small protrusion 

reminiscent of a uraeus; it remains unclear which god is meant 

to be represented, perhaps Ptah (Tel Zippor, Lalkin, 2008: pl. 

37:645) or Amun (Taanach, Lalkin, 2008: pl. 35:611); it cannot 

even be excluded that by a misunderstanding the pharaoh was 

meant to be represented, although enthroned he usually holds 

the h.qt scepter (Wiesse, 1990:27–40). Date: Late LBIIB or Iron 

IA (1250–1150 BCE). 

Gamma 150, Reg. No. 1170 (SI Cat. No. 830, Figure 27.4e). 

Context: GMIII B (64) 5, Unit 8?, Phase 12 (LBII, 1400–1200 

BCE). Scarab, ?/?/d5, the back and nearly half of the plinth are 

missing, the engraving is linear, enstatite, 20 × 12.5 × 4 mm. 

Base: The small sides of the plinth are engraved with two antithetical nfr signs (§459); between them are the remains of a 

bunch of spirals; the design could be described as convoluted 

coils combined with hieroglyphs; parallels are Kahun (Petrie, 

1891: pl. 10:161 = Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 14:24); Uronarti (Reisner, 

1955: figs. 8:182; 9:185 = Ben-Tor, 2007: pl. 14:8,10). Tell elFara-South no. 690 is probably a 19th Dynasty imitation of this 

type of design. Date: 12th–13th Dynasties, from Amenemhet III 

onward (1818 to ca. 1700 BCE). 

Gamma 151, Reg. No. 1171 (SI Cat. No. 1022, Figure 27.5a). 

Context: GMIII C1 (67), Unit 10, Phase 13, LBII (1400–1200 

BCE). Scarab, A8/vIv/d5, rim of the base slightly damaged, 

mainly hollowed-out engraving with little hatching and a linear element (sun disk), enstatite, 16 × 12 × 7 mm. Base: At the 

top winged sun disk (§450) with two schematic uraei; below 

it an oval (§462) with two uraei turned outward (§522f) and 

nbw (§458) below the oval; in the oval is written -hRprw-r, the 

throne name of Amenophis II (§634, 663) or, less probable, MnhRprw-r, the throne name of Thutmosis IV (§634, 663). The second element from the top is not entirely clear; in Palestine and 

Israel about 30 seals were found with the name of Amenophis 

II (see Bet-Mirsim no. 67, Beth Shean no. 81, Beth Shemesh no. 

175, all with parallels) and about 20 with the name of Thutmosis IV (see Beit Mirsim nos. 33, 103, Bet-Shean no. 59, 110, all 

with parallels). All the elements of the composition have quite 

close parallels for all the elements of compositions from Lachish 
1012 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 27.5. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 151–154.
NUMBER 50 • 1013

FIGURE 27.6. Scarabs: Gamma Nos. 155–160.
1014 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

(§442, 454, 467, 556f), and uraeus (§522); the same combination of signs is found on Tell el-Fara-South no. 530 and at Tel 

Harasim (Givon, 2004:73, fig. 109:1). Date: Late 18th-19th dynasties (1400–1190 BCE). 

Gamma 160, no registration number (SI Cat. No. 22, Figure 

27.6f). Scarab, ?/?/e11, the back and half of the base are missing, 

linear engraving, enstatite, 9 × 11 × 5 mm. Base: An insect with 

at least six legs and a small round head; the head is flanked by 

two dots. Date: Uncertain. 

STAMP SEALS

Gamma 207, Reg. No. 1194 (SI Cat. No. 304, Figure 27.7a). 

Context: GM (+), unstratified. Oval, unilaterally engraved, Type 

III (§204, 209) or Scaraboid, Type I (§133f), about one-third 

is broken off, the relief is delicately raised (§324), which is unusual, and it seems as if it is the impression of another seal; black 

stone, 25 × 20 × 7.5 mm. Base: Two human figures with short 

aprons, one behind the other, border the shape of the seal. The 

iconography is very similar in Ashdod no. 26 (Avigad and Sass, 

1997: no. 1065), where it is listed as possibly a Philistine seal. 

Iconographically, it could be either the motif of the ruler, who 

leads a prisoner before him (see parallels to Ashdod no. 26). 

However, the plain behind the figures on the fish scaraboid (Hornung and Staehelin, 1976: no. 892; scarabs from Kamid el-Lomz, 

Kühne and Salje, 1996: fig. 25:83) is different. Under the two 

figures there is a nb sign (§458), without a border line. Date: Iron 

IIB (830–700 BCE).

Gamma 208, Reg. No. 1235 (SI Cat. No. 232, Figure 27.7b). 

Context: GM 2C W4, unclear. Conoid, Type IV (§248, 253), perforated top, square base, engraved surface, gray stone, 10 × 9, 

height 14 mm. Base: Schematic, quadruped, left sided probably 

a caprid (§518–521), although the tail is rather long for a caprid; 

no additional motifs appear, no border line (see parallels for Gezer 

no. 110 in Keel, 2010a). Date: Iron IB–IIA (1050–900 BCE).

Gamma 209, Reg. No. 1236 (Figure 27.7c). Context: GM 2A 

W2, Phase 2 (Persian period?). Konoid, Type V (§248, 254–258), 

the upper end and a portion of the base are broken, worn out 

rim base, engraving area, wells, composite (§392–401), probably glass (§396f), 12–10, height 9* mm. Base: left-facing caprids 

(§518–521) without an additional motif. For caprids, see Gezer 

no. 110, with parallels to the late glass conoid seals with an animal as the only motif (see Gezer nos. 147, 551, Lachish [Tufnell, 

1953: pl. 45:139]). Date: Persian period (530–330 BCE).

Gamma 210, Reg. No. 1237 (Figure 27.7d). Context: GM 1D 

(2), unstratified. Konoid, probably Type IV (§248–253), the 

dome and part of the side are broken, engraved surface, drill 

holes, quartz crystal stone (§362–364), 10, height 13 mm. This 

engraving technique also appears on an impression from a sealing from Field IV (Gamma 189, Reg. No. 1219, Figure 20.3c). 

Base: Four-legged animal with horns or pointed ears and a short 

In the center of the composition is the horizontally arranged 

oval (§462) with Mn-hRpr-r, the throne name of Thutmosis III 

(§624, 634, 647, 650, 663); beside the mn is a complimentary n

and a tiny oval between the hind legs of the beetle, perhaps the 

sun disk (see Keel, 1997:779f, with fig. 2); below the oval, tyt 

Jmn-r, “Image of Amun-Re.” Above the oval in the center is a 

nfr (§459); to the right of it is an angle and within it a disk; to the 

left of the nfr there are three horizontal lines. The whole group 

is reminiscent of ntñr nfr nb twy, “the perfect god, the lord of the 

two lands,” which is found at this place in similar compositions 

(see, for example, Hall, 1913: no. 753; the uppermost part on 

Akko no. 53 is similarly debased as on the present piece; Ramesseum [Quibell, 1898: pl. 30:13; Jaeger, 1982:60 ill. 90]). Date: 

19th Dynasty (1292–1190 BCE) or later, until the 22nd Dynasty 

(945–713 BCE); for the difficulty in attributing a date to this 

type, see Jaeger (1982:143f), §1090. 

Gamma 156, Reg. No. 1176 (Figure 27.6b). Context: GM 1B 

P16 (3), Phase 3? (Persian?, 500–350 BCE). Scarab or scaraboid, 

fragment, just one long side preserved, faience, 14 × 8 × 3 mm. 

Base: Undecipherable remains of signs. Date: Uncertain.

Gamma 157, Reg. No. 1177 (SI Cat. No. 829, Figure 27.6c). 

Context: GMIII B (64) 5, Unit 8, Phase 12, LBII (1400–1200 

BCE). Cowroid, Type II (§184–189), linear engraving, enstatite, 

16 × 13 × 8 mm. Base: In the center of a vertical bar and four 

convoluted coils is a circle; the vertical bar end at the top and 

the bottom in a bent double line, which rests on the framing 

line; parallels are Tell el-Aghul nos. 71, 394; local. Date: MBIIB 

(1650–1500 BCE). 

Gamma 158, Reg. No. 1179 (SI Cat. No. 435, Figure 27.6d). 

Context: GMI 5E (2), unclear phase. Cowroid, Type III (§185, 

190–193), hollowed-out engraving, enstatite, 16.5 × 11 × 5 mm. 

Base: Hathor fetish (§577–579); the neck is flanked by very schematic, hardly recognizable uraei (§523); Tell Abu Hawam no. 

24, Akko nos. 7, 146, 212, Ashkelon no. 65, Dan no. 23; Tell 

el-Fara-South no. 709 is particularly close because it is also a 

cowroid of the same type; Gezer (Macalister, 1912: pls. 204a:12, 

205a:10, 206:2; Hornung and Staehelin, 1976: no. 675; cf. Keel 

et al., 1989:139, 199). Date 18th Dynasty from Thutmosis III 

onward (1479–1292 BCE).

Gamma 159, Reg. No. 1195 (SI Cat. No. 760, Figure 27.6e). 

Context: GM (+), unstratified. Rectangular piece, Type II (§216–

218, 220–224), half of side B is missing, hollowed-out engraving 

with hatching, enstatite, 17 × 12 × 4 mm. Base: Side A: In a horizontal arrangement, nfr (§459) and pintail duck; the wings of 

the pintail duck are reminiscent of G40 rather than G39; nfr and 

pintail duck appear usually together in the royal epithet nfr z

Jmn-R, “perfect (is) the son of Amun-Re.” See Tell el-Aghul no. 

251 with parallels and, in addition, Betaniën no. 9, Beth Shean 

no. 189, Megiddo (Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 131:10 = Rowe, 

1936: no. 771); instead of Amun-Re, the present scarab shows 

an nhR (§449). On Beit Mirsim no. 70, Amun-Re is replaced by 

Re alone. Side B: In a horizontal arrangement, nhR (§449), falcon 
NUMBER 50 • 1015

FIGURE 27.7. Stamp seals: Gamma Nos. 207–211.
1016 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

right corner, there are holes in the top left, in which an oblique 

line is located. For compositions of rectangles and drill holes, 

see Gamma No. 91 (from Petrie’s excavations) with parallels; no 

border line. Date: Iron I (1200–980 BCE).

AUTHOR NOTE

Othmar Keel, Department of Biblical Studies, University of Fribourg, 

Bureau 4219B, Avenue de l’Europe 20, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. 

Correspondence: othmar.keel@unifr.ch. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; 

accepted 23 September 2013.

tail, probably a caprid (§518–521), before the animal is a flower 

(§429); on his back, an unspecified element, perhaps the head 

of an animal (see the ram’s head in Keel, 2010a: Gezer no. 112, 

under the caprids); no border line. Date: End of Iron IB to beginning of Iron IIA (1050–900 BCE)

Gamma 211, Reg. No. 1238 (SI Cat. No. 836, Figure 27.7e). 

Context: GMI 4D (3){77}, Phase 1, LBII (1400–1200 BCE). Finger ring or oval plate with handle, Type I (§210f), base edge 

worn out and partly broken off, linear engraving, drilled holes, 

black stone, probably basalt, 45 × 28 × 32 mm. Base: A geometric design of several lines forming right angles: two complete 

rectangles, two incomplete, and a circle segment, except in the 
28 Cylinder Seals: 

A Clay Cylinder 

with Cuneiform Signs

Wayne Horowitz and Tallay Ornan

INTRODUCTION

In 1982, excavators at Tell Jemmeh from the Smithsonian Institute under the direction of G. W. Van Beek recovered a small cylinder seal made from clay in the Middle Bronze level of Field III (Figures 28.1–28.2, Reg. No. 1234, SI Cat. No. 1023, context: GMIII 

J2 (16) 1, Phase 17, dated to the MBIIB-C). The find was never published in full, but its archaeological context and a brief description 

were given by Van Beek in his article on Tell Jemmeh in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Van 

Beek 1993a:668) in the second paragraph of the MBII period section: “In field III, a small cylinder seal of baked clay, with five vertical 

rows of geometric designs and two vertical lines of cuneiform was also found.” Van Beek provided further information in a letter to the 

Cuneiform in Canaan Project regarding the find, and some of this information was published in Horowitz and Oshima (2006:95) with

Van Beek’s permission; the cylinder seal is listed there as Tell Jemmeh 1. This information included the dimensions of the object (diameter: 9 mm; height: 22 mm) and find information (Field III, Square J2, Layer 16, Locus 1, found August 3, 1982). Earlier, Van Beek had 

communicated with William Hallo of Yale University in regard to the cylinder seal. Hallo’s formal response to Van Beek’s enquiries are 

available in a letter from the former to the latter dated to September 1, 1990. At this time, we find it proper to make available, in Van 

Beek’s name, additional information supplied in the letter to W. Horowitz. We also add here some further observations from the letter 

of William Hallo and of our own. 

THE CYLINDER SEAL

Description

Upon reexamination, the seal is engraved 

with 10 vertical single rows, including 2 rows 

with cuneiform. The rows, as seen from left to 

right on the modern impression, are (1) a vertical zigzag made of four thin lines, (2) a row of 

superimposed upturned V signs, (3) cuneiform 

signs, (4) a row of superimposed downturned V 

signs, (5) another line of cuneiform signs, (6) a 

second row with a zigzag made of four thin lines, 

(7) a third row with a zigzag whose components 

are drawn in mirror image to the previous one, 

(8) a second row of superimposed downturned 

V signs, (9) a second row of superimposed 

FIGURE 28.1. The seal, Reg. No. 1234, and its impression. Photograph: Gabi Laron.
1018 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

seven AN signs and seven KI signs, perhaps for Sumerian an.ki, 

“heaven and earth”:

ÉN en.ni.nu.na

an.an.an.an.an.an.an

ki.ki.ki.ki.ki.ki.ki

su.su.su.su.su.su.su 

bára.bára.bára.bára.bára.bára.bára

x x x x x x x

nin!.nin!.nin!.nin!.nin!.nin!.nin! 

ezen?.ezen?.ezen?.ezen?.ezen?.ezen?.ezen?

We believe that Hallo’s idea may not be so farfetched after 

all. Both the above incantation and a parallel incantation collected by Tonietti and Horowitz typically include rows of AN 

signs. Most important for the context of the Jemmeh seal, a similar example is available in the Bronze Age cuneiform far west, 

at Amarna as El Amarna (EA) letter no. 355, on another clay 

cylinder (Knudtzon, 1915; see also Izre’el, 1997):

DU DU DU DU

TU TU TU TU

NU NU NU NU NU NU NU

NA NA NA NA NA

ŠA ŠA ŠA ŠA 

AN AN AN AN AN

UD UD UD UD UD UD UD

NI NI NI NI NI NI 

KI KI KI KI KI KI

SAR SAR SAR SAR

DUB DUB DUB DUB

upturned V signs, and (10) a third row of superimposed downturned V signs (see Figure 28.2).

The Cuneiform Inscription

As pointed out by Van Beek, the cylinder seal is inscribed 

in the negative, as is typical for cylinder seals whose impressions 

are meant to be read when rolled out on clay in the positive. 

Thus, the signs are also in the negative on the seal but are in the 

positive in the impression (see Figure 28.1). The two rows of cuneiform noted by Van Beek are, in fact, two rows of repeated series of highly stylized versions of the same cuneiform signs, first 

a row of AN signs ( ) and then a row of three slightly different versions of the same sign. The sign forms cannot be used to 

confirm the Middle Bronze date suggested by the archaeological 

find site and the stylistic dating offered below. The form of AN 

remains basically the same throughout the second millennium 

BCE, and in any case, the strokes of both signs are too stylized to 

be of any real use in epigraphy.

TOWARD AN INTERPRETATION 

OF THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTION

In his letter of September 1, 1990, W. Hallo mentions a “farfetched” idea he had concerning the cuneiform inscription, suggesting that the two lines of cuneiform may be related to a set 

of incantations that present repeated sets of signs in a line. A 

number of these are noted and discussed in Tonietti (1979:311–

312) and Horowitz (1998:214–215). In particular, Hallo’s letter 

cites the incantation 16 in Nies (1920), which includes a series of 

FIGURE 28.2. Drawing of the seal, Reg. No. 1234, and its impression.
NUMBER 50 • 1019

Nile Delta, during the first half of the second millennium BCE 

(Hallo, 1992:399–400).

MEANING

Seals, along with their bureaucratic functions, had an important amuletic role (Keel, 1995:10–12). Thus, the repetition 

of cuneiform signs on the Jemmeh seal can be seen as a means 

of enhancing the apotropaic role of the object. This multiplicity 

of signs or icons is loaded with intrinsic meanings of its own 

that is required for the charm to be “realized” in an effective 

manner and to enhance the seal’s powers to bless, protect, or 

ward off evil (Berleunjg, 2010; cf. Winter, 2003:257, 259; Bahrani, 2004:118). Indeed, such repetition of motifs is a very typical property of Middle Bronze Syrian glyptic, which is expressed 

through both pictorial and inscriptional elements on seals (e.g., 

Parker, 1949: nos. 19, 17, 72; Otto, 2000: nos. 2–9, 12–60; 

Stein, 2003). The possible borrowing of certain cuneiform signs 

from incantation formulas on the Jemmeh seal can be compared 

to a parallel dynamics in the southern Levant with regard to the 

use of hieroglyphs on locally produced scarabs. A comparison 

can be made to the depiction of hieroglyphs taken from Egyptian formulas as good luck signs on Middle Bronze Age “anra” 

scarabs (Ben-Tor, 2009:87). This may imply that the artisan who 

made the Jemmeh cylinder seal also acknowledged the magical 

quality of the AN signs he was copying, although he did not 

necessarily understand their original meaning. 

The comparison of the two groups of zigzag with the Syrian pictorial motif of the guilloche, standing for running water 

with reference to abundance and productivity (Otto, 2000:114, 

275), suggests that the “geometric” designs on the seal may also 

have had an apotropaic meaning. However, the inspiration for Vshaped elements may have come not from the world of pictures 

but from the realm of writing. Considering that the junction of 

the heads and tails of cuneiform signs forms a sort of V shape 

(see a seal from Megiddo, Parker, 1949: no. 133), we may even 

speculate that the inclusion of rows of V-shaped elements was 

also motivated by recognition of the efficiency of written formulas. However, the seal maker’s lack of competence and/or knowledge of real writing results in the appearance of cuneiform-like 

signs without any tangible meaning for one who can read cuneiform. However, this does not mean that these elements had no 

meaning for the ancient maker and owner of the seal. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Wayne Horowitz and Tallay Ornan, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Correspondence: Horowitz, whorowitz@mscc.huji.ac.il; Ornan, tallay@mscc

.huji.ac.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

Therefore, it seems likely that the maker of the Tell Jemmeh 

seal copied his set of AN signs from a cuneiform incantation that 

he may have had in his possession or seen. If this supposition 

is true, an important question may be asked: Did the Jemmeh 

seal maker know the magical quality of the AN signs he was 

drawing? In other words, was he truly excerpting a line from the 

incantation or just using both the cuneiform signs as decorations 

without attention to any semantic value in Sumerian, Akkadian, 

a West Semitic dialect, or any other language written in cuneiform? The question then is what the purpose of the cuneiform 

was on seals such as Tell Jemmeh 1 or Bet Mirsim 1 in the corpus 

from Canaan (Horowitz and Oshima, 2006:46).

ATTRIBUTION AND DATING

The composition, composed of vertical rows, links the 

Jemmeh cylinder seal to Group 1c of the early and classic 

phases of Middle Bronze Age Syrian glyptics dated from the 

last third of the 19th and the first half of the 18th centuries 

BCE (according to the Middle Chronology). Seals belonging to 

this group were typical of northwest Syria, mainly from the 

surroundings of Carchemish and westward toward the Mediterranean coast (Otto, 2000:113–115, pls. 4, 5). Two additional features offer further support for the above attribution: 

(1) the presence of rows of tiny superimposed V-shaped signs 

(also depicted on a MBII clay cylinder seal from Tell Hammam 

al-Turkman, see below) that recall similar vertical rows made 

of archlike elements found mainly on seals belonging to Group 

1c (Otto, 2000:273) and (2) the very fact that the seal is made 

of clay. Particularly telling are clay cylinder seals and sealings 

made by the former found in the palace of Šamši-Adad and 

his son Yasmah-Adad in Tuttul/Tall Bi’a, with tiny arches, at 

times arranged in rows, which may narrow the date if the Jemmeh seal to the first quarter of the 18th century BCE (Otto, 

1999:337, 340–342, figs. 6, 7, 2004:93–95, pls. 99–100). The 

fact that the impressions of the clay seals from Tuttul were not 

found on written documents, only on door sealings, stresses 

their simple character (Otto, 1999:342). Seal impressions from 

Hammam al-Turkman located on the Balikh River in northern 

Syria, made by a clay cylinder seal found at the site, were also 

probably used for sealing door bolts (Meijer, 1995) and may 

further imply a similar usage for the Jemmeh cylinder seal. Another Middle Bronze clay cylinder seal from Jemmeh reported 

by Petrie (1928:11, pl. 19:28) enhances the association between 

the cheap Jemmeh seals and similar finds from northwest Syria, 

in particular Tuttul/Tall Bi’a (Otto, 1999:340–342, figs. 6, 7). 

The link of the Jemmeh cylinder seals to north Syria adds other 

artifacts attesting to the strong connections between northern 

Syria and the southern Levant during the MBIIB period that 

probably reflect Amorite traditions, which spread from Babylonia to the Levant, extending to the Asiatic settlements in the 
29 Cylinder Seals: 

A Mitannian Cylinder 

Seal with a Worshipper 

and Divine Images

Tallay Ornan

DESCRIPTION

The limestone seal (height: 29 mm, diameter: 15 mm) was found on the site’s surface (Figure 29.1; Reg. No. 1233, SI Cat. No. 404). 

The small globes surrounded by thin circles seen on the impression, which mark the animals’ heads and the tree’s volutes, were made 

with a drill terminating with thin and slightly protruding borders inside which led to a tiny bump (cf. Gorelick and Gwinnett, 1978: fig. 

12). The seal depicts three compositional groups: two shown are lengthwise, whereas the third forms a horizontal “band” on the upper 

part of the seal. The lengthwise groups are composed of two scenes. The left (on the impression) consists of two figures: an enthroned 

man facing a horned animal, probably an ibex, standing on its rear legs. The scene on the right depicts three images: two standing 

human figures facing each other and in between them a “mirror” image of a similarly standing ibex, looking to the right. Between the 

latter and the right-side standing figure is, perhaps, a schematically rendered gazelle head. A line of six globs, slightly curving to fit the 

back of the left ibex, may have served as a divider between the two- and three-image scenes. To the right of the three-image scene, serving as a termination of the lengthwise scenes, are a stylized volute tree and a reclining horned animal, perhaps an oryx. The horizontal 

band stretching from the top of the right ibex to above the seated man shows three animals: on the left is an antlered animal, probably 

a young male fallow deer, facing left; on the right are two bulls with large curved horns facing each other.

STYLE AND INTERPRETATION

Stylistically, the seal can be assigned to the Common Mitannian cylinder seals of the north Mesopotamian/Syrian group typified by 

meticulous and plastic workmanship: subgroup 3 of Group 2.1.1 according to the classification offered by Salje (1990:82, pl. 9:166–

168). These seals are usually made of sintered quartz, a term replacing the formerly common usage of faience, frit, or paste (Collon, 

1987:61). However, the latter group has some stylistic and iconographic features, such as a volute tree, figures with rounded brimmed 

hats, and a nude female, that are also found on Elaborate Mitannian cylinder seals often made of hard stones, such as hematite or agate 

(see hematite cylinder seals from Akko and Ugarit; Beck, 1977:63–64, pl. 21:1; Amiet, 1992: no. 50, fig. 11). Similarly, worked seals 

made of sintered quartz were found in Israel and Palestine. In their details or layout these seals recall the Jemmeh cylinder seal (see 

below) and confirm the links prevailing between the Elaborate and the Common Mitanni styles (Stein, 1997b:74), on the one hand, and 

the connections between local Common Mitanni cylinder seals and glyptic items belonging to the eastern realm of the Mitanni workmanship centered at Nuzi, on the other hand. The Jemmeh cylinder seal can thus be assigned to group 1 of the seal impressions from the 

Nuzi archive of Šilwa-Teššub, which show gods and human figures in presentation compositions and are dated to end of the 15th and 

the beginning of the 14th centuries BCE (Stein, 1993:79–99).
NUMBER 50 • 1021

of Jemmeh’s, although arranged in an inverted manner: on the 

latter the file of animals tops the lengthwise scenes, whereas on 

the Megiddo seal it appears as the lower band of the composition 

(with the image of the nude woman inserted into it). 

The seal from Jemmeh can also be associated with two sintered quartz Mitanni-style cylinder seals found in the monumental building on the acropolis of Hazor (Ben-Tor and Rubiato, 

1996:16, bottom right; Ornan, 2011: fig.13), although it differs 

in having a bouquet tree instead of a volute tree as on the seal 

from Jemmeh and in having only one group of three images (as 

on the seal from ‘Azekah). The seals from Hazor also belong to 

Salje’s north Mesopotamian-Syrian Group 2.1.1 (Salje, 1990:82, 

pl. 9:166–168). A related cylinder seal from Gezer, of which only 

a line drawing is known (Macalister, 1912:345, fig. 464), shows 

two pairs of standing figures at the sides of a small tree that 

seems to be a type of volute tree. The two figures to the left of the 

tree have rounded brimmed hats and long dresses with squares 

decorating the hems; one of these figures holds a sickle sword. 

The seated figure in the left scene of the Jemmeh seal wears 

the brimmed rounded hat typical for Mitanni glyptics. He raises 

his left forearm in front of his face; the right arm is tucked behind the back. The figure is clad with a girdled long dress whose 

folds, hardly observed on the lap, are perpendicular to the legs. 

This manner of display was perhaps aimed to allow the viewer 

to fully observe the dress’s folds and therefore emphasize a special kind of garment. The throne on which the figure sits has a 

low backrest, slightly turned out at the top. Four fine, slightly 

oblique lines (see a seal from Ugarit; Salje, 1990: pl. IV:64), 

clearly differentiated from the thick bar below them, probably 

represent a soft seat made of woven textile stripes or of bands 

made by basketry. In front of the enthroned figure is a standing 

Similar seals from Israel were found in ‘Azekah (Tell Zakariya) and Megiddo; both items lack a clear stratigraphic attribution. The limestone (as registered in the Israel Antiquities 

Authority archive) seal from ‘Azekah (Bliss and Macalister, 

1902:153, pl. 83:27; Parker, 1949, no. 86, designated as made of 

frit; Frankfort, 1939:280 note 1; Salje, 1990:200, no. 57, cf. pl. 

II:28,29) in particular recalls the second three-image group on 

the seal from Jemmeh: a worshipper with a rounded brimmed hat 

facing a figure holding a sickle sword and in between a horned 

animal standing of its rear legs. Similar, almost identical compositions are found on a seal impression from Nuzi (Stein, 1993: 

cat. no. 2) and on a sintered quartz seal from Ugarit classified as 

belonging to the Elaborate Mitanni style, although made of sintered quartz (Schaeffer-Forrer, 1983:123, Ras Shamrama (R.S.) 

no. 20.49; Stein, 1997b:94, fig.4d). The difference between the 

three image scenes on the Jemmeh and ‘Azekah seals lies in the 

arrangement of the figures: the man with the sickle sword on the 

latter faces left (on the impression). The seal from ‘Azekah also 

differs from Jemmeh’s in its second lengthwise scene depicting 

two confronting seated sphinxes and in the addition of a lion to 

the two horned animals comprising the file on the upper part of 

the seal. 

Although a sintered quartz seal from Megiddo (Guy and 

Engberg, 1938:183, pl. 176:3; Parker, 1949: no. 128; Salje, 

1990:207, no. 101) differs from the Jemmeh seal in the tree and 

ibexes being a central motif, the (large) figure of the worshipper 

with the rounded brimmed hat on the left and the volute tree 

flanked by standing ibexes, which are identical to the ones on the 

Jemmeh seal, link the two seals. This association suggests that 

the Megiddo seal can be assigned to Nuzi impressions group 1 

(Stein, 1993:79–99). The layout of the Megiddo seal recalls that 

FIGURE 29.1. A limestone cylinder seal, Reg. No. 1233. Photograph: Gabi Laron.
1022 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

hands as a worshipper strongly implies that the right figure of 

the three-image scene, signified by the worshipper and the ibex, 

represents a divine image. Some support for this proposal can be 

found in the short kilt seen below the long open garment of this 

figure, which is often found in representations of combatant deities (e.g., Collon, 1987: no. 560). 

The identical mirror images of the standing ibexes in the 

two- and three-image scenes not only define these animals as the 

attributes of the gods depicted on the Jemmeh seal but also indicate that the two deities could have been understood as one 

and the same god shown in two positions: sitting and standing. 

Whereas the three-image scene depicts a cultic occasion, a “meeting” between a worshipper and a god accompanied by his (ibex) 

attribute, the two-image scene on the left only shows the god and 

the attribute. 

The cylinder seal from Jemmeh depicts, then, a god accompanied by a tree and a variety of horned animals that probably 

mirror the abundance of nature. It is commonly accepted that 

representations combining horned animals and trees belong to 

the imagery of female deities that represent various notions of 

fertility and/or sexuality (Keel and Uehlinger, 1998:29, 51, 54–

58, 72–75). However, a large bronze statue found in a monumental building on the acropolis of Hazor identified as the storm 

god Ba‘al, whose headgear is adorned with horned animals on 

the sides of a volute tree (Ornan, 2011), suggests that the double 

figure of the god on the cylinder seal from Jemmeh could also be 

identified as a storm god, the god in charge of the propagation of 

nature in the Levant, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia (Ornan, 

2011:272, 275).

AUTHOR NOTE

Tallay Ornan, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Correspondence: tallay

@mscc.huji.ac.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

ibex whose foreleg is touching the former’s knee. The seated 

position, the detailed throne, and the close nexus between the 

figure and the ibex imply that the seated figure is to be identified as a god. Accordingly, the ibex is to be seen as the animal 

attribute of this god. Similar relations between standing horned 

animals and enthroned gods on an early Akkadian period seal 

impression from Tell Brak (ancient Nagar, located in the Khabur basin in northeast Syria) support these identifications (Felli, 

2001:140–141, no. 346) and may reflect a long-term shared 

Hurrian tradition. 

The left figure of the standing three-image scene has a 

rounded brimmed hat similar to that of the seated god. However, the plain dress of this figure and, in particular, the raising of the arms toward the standing ibex (and the figure behind 

it) suggest he is worshipper. A similarly dressed figure on the 

abovementioned seal from Megiddo identified as a worshipper 

(Keel and Uehlinger, 1998:56, fig. 52) enforces the above identification. The common Mitanni rounded brimmed hat and long 

dress with squares decorating the hem (Salje, 1990:82) do not, 

however, assist in identifying the right figure of the three-image 

scene as this outfit appears with regard to both worshippers and 

addressees of veneration in the Common Mitanni style (e.g., the 

seal from Hazor: Ornan, 2011: fig. 13); the short kilt below the 

open long dress may hint, however, at a divine image (see below). 

The sickle sword held by this figure cannot be taken as a decisive 

criterion for its identification since the object is held, although 

not frequently, by a variety of figures on Common Mitanni cylinder seals (cf. Macalister, 1912: fig. 464; Salje, 1990: pl. XIII, 263; 

Ben-Tor and Rubiato, 1996:16; also see a Megiddo tomb KassiteMitannian cylinder seal in Guy and Engberg, 1938: pl. 90:8). 

However, since in some cases the sickle sword is clearly held by 

divine images (e.g., Porada, 1981:55, no. 29; Collon, 1987: no. 

462), the identification of this figure as a god is possible. 

The clues for identifying the right figure of the three-image 

scene seem, then, to rely more on the composition of the scene. 

The standing ibex interpreted as an attribute of the seated god 

combined with the identification of the man with the raised 
30 Coins: Coins from the 

1978–1990 Excavation 

Seasons at Tell Jemmeh

Donald T. Ariel

Twenty-three coins were found in the excavations, excluding one stray find (now apparently missing). Sixteen were identified: a 

hoard of 11 coins (10 deniers and one obol) of the Crusader period (discussed in chapter 31) and five isolated finds.1

A SINGLE STRAY COIN

Regarding the single stray find, we quote from an undated typewritten report prepared by Gus W. Van Beek: 

A coin of Ptolemy II struck in Alexandria was found on 9 March 1980, by Stephen E. Montgomery, who visited the site to look 

for sherds and chert blades in the wadi. The heavily encrusted coin was found in the wadi about 200 m west of the tell resting 

on a silt ledge immediately below the south bank and just above the wadi bed

Obv. Head of Zeus-Ammon, r.

Rev. [ΒΑΣΙ]ΛΕΩΣ–ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Spread-winged eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt; in l. field: Ï above shield; between legs: Λ

Æ, 18.10 g, 26 mm.

Kromann and Mørkholm, 1977: pl. IV:122.

The coin [Figure 30.1] probably comes from the tell and belongs to the final occupation of the site—the Granary Phase—which 

is assigned to the late fourth and third centuries BCE, and therefore fits nicely into the present chronological framework.

THE ISOLATED FINDS

Catalog number 1 (Figure 30.2) is a silver-plated 

underweight drachm (or rb‘ šql) of the general category 

discussed in Gitler et al. (2007). Fifty-nine drachms 

were presented there, of which six were plated (cat. nos. 

23, 32, 34, 36, 42, 57), appearing in two subcategories: 

drachms/rb‘ šqln struck from worn, recut, and repolished dies and those with obverses depicting a “prominent dome-shaped motif.” The Tell Jemmeh coin could 

belong in either category. 

This coin is certainly worn, although it cannot be 

determined whether before or after striking. This is the 

second specimen of the general category that is derived 

from a controlled archaeological excavation. The first 

FIGURE 30.1. A stray silver coin.
1024 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The drachm/rb‘ šql (Cat. No. 1) seems to date to the first part of 

that century (Gitler et al., 2007:53), whereas the remainder, or at 

least Nos. 2–4, fall in the last third of the century. The date for 

Cat. No. 5, a type imitative of Alexander’s bronzes, may continue 

into the 3rd century BCE. Ariel (2006:72) discussed the numismatic finds in the southern Levant from this period, particularly 

the time of Alexander’s reign and the period of the Diadochi, 

and came to the conclusion that a number of sites on the eastern 

Mediterranean coastline were adversely affected by the military 

events of 312–311 BCE. The southernmost site he discussed was 

Yaffo. It may be that these finds from Tell Jemmeh are evidence 

that the upheavals discussed above extended to Tell Jemmeh on 

the southern Philistine coast, some 80 km south of Yaffo.

CATALOG OF THE ISOLATED FINDS

1. Reg. No. 1167, SI Cat. No. 967, GM (+), Surf., Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) 135892. Figure 30.2.

Autonomous, 4th century BCE?

Obverse (Obv.) Head r.?

Reverse (Rev.) Owl r., head facing; in l. field, olive sprig; below 

it: Θ(?).

Æ, 6?, 2.85 g, 14 mm.

Compare Gitler et al. (2007:55, no. 23).

is a coin from Horbat ‛Etri (Gitler et al., 2007:55, cat. no. 10), 

which was categorized as a drachm/rb‘ šqln struck from a worn 

die. The findspot for Cat. No. 1 agrees well with the general geographical conclusion that Athenian-style silver coins struck from 

worn dies were common in southern Palestine. The Tell Jemmeh 

coin, however, adds weight to the Philistine origin of such coins, 

perhaps alongside the Edomite attribution for similar coins 

struck from worn dies as proposed in 2007 (Gitler et al., 2007). 

It is interesting to note that in the spring of 1970, a few months 

before Van Beek’s excavation began, a hoard of five minute silver 

coins of the Yehud class, roughly contemporaneous with Cat. 

No. 1, was found on the surface of the tell (see Rahmani, 1971).

The remaining four isolated finds (Figures 30.3–30.5) are 

all bronzes related to Alexander the Great. Remarkably, each 

one represents a different type of the bronzes of that king, whose 

gold and silver series were prolifically struck throughout his empire during his life and posthumously. The types are a head of 

Heracles with a quiver and bow on the reverse (1⁄4 unit; Cat. No. 

2), a diademed head with a horse running on the reverse (1⁄2 unit; 

Cat. No. 3), and a “Macedonian” shield with a Macedonian helmet on the reverse (1⁄4 unit; Cat. No. 4). The fourth coin is an 

anonymous Anatolian bronze definitely inspired by Alexander 

types: A “Macedonian” shield with a quiver and bow on the 

reverse (Cat. No. 5).

As a group, these five isolated finds represent a relatively 

short period of time. All could belong to the 4th century BCE. 

FIGURE 30.5. Coin, Cat. No. 4.

FIGURE 30.2. Coin, Cat. No. 1.

FIGURE 30.3. Coin, Cat. No. 2.

FIGURE 30.4. Coin, Cat. No. 3.
NUMBER 50 • 1025

5. Reg. No. 1122/2, SI Cat. No. 968, GM (+), Surf., IAA 135891.

Anonymous, Anatolia, after 323 BCE.

Obv. “Macedonian” shield.

Rev. Quiver and bow.

Æ, 2.42 g, 19 mm.

Compare Liampi (1998:103, no. M11.2a).

AUTHOR NOTE

Donald T. Ariel, Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum, 

Building POB 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel. Correspondence: donald@

israntique.org.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 

2013.

NOTE

1. With one exception the coins were cleaned in the laboratories of the Smithsonian Institution. The exception is Cat. No. 1, which was cleaned in the 

laboratories of the IAA by Hila Rosenstein. All of the photographs are by 

Clara Amit of the IAA photography studio.

2. Reg. No. 1122, SI Cat. No. 973, GM (+), Surf., IAA 135890. 

Figure 30.3.

Alexander the Great (during his lifetime and possibly 

posthumous).

Obv. Beardless head of Heracles r.

Rev. Quiver (above) and bow (below); between them: [ΑΛ]

Ε[ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ].

Æ, 6, 1.72 g, 13 mm.

3. Reg. No. 1128, SI Cat. No. 135, GM 2D (2), Field IV, unclear 

phasing, IAA 135893. Figure 30.4.

Alexander the Great (336–323 BCE), Macedonia.

Obv. Diademed head r.

Rev. Horse running r.; below [··].

Æ, 9, 4.04 g, 18 mm.

Compare Price (1991:123, no. 338).

4. Reg. No. 1122/1, SI Cat. No. 968, GM (+), Surf., IAA 

135889. Figure 30.5.

Alexander the Great (posthumous), Salamis?, 323–315 BCE.

Obv. “Macedonian” shield; in central boss, gorgoneion.

Rev. Crested Macedonian helmet with cheek pieces.

Æ, 6, 2.83 g, 10 mm.

Compare Price (1991:393, no. 3157).
31 Coins: The Crusader Purse 

from Tell Jemmeh

Robert Kool

INTRODUCTION

A small Crusader period hoard consisting of 11 coins in a corroded lump was found in the topsoil of the center of the tell while the 

crew was digging a test trench (Field IV, Square 1A) during the 1984 excavation season. Most of the hoard was published in exemplary 

fashion by Michael Metcalf (1987:84–91). The report below contains an updated summary of the finds, photographs of all the coins, 

and some new insights on the contents and context of the hoard since its publication a quarter of a century ago.1

THE PURSE AND ITS CONTENTS

The hoard consisted of 11 thin billon coins, 9 royal deniers of King Amaury of Jerusalem (1163–1173 CE) and 2 French feudal coins, 

an obole of the lords of Melgueil in the Languedoc and a denier from the episcopal mint of Le Puy in south central France (Table 31.1).

Upon discovery the coins were found cemented together in a rouleau, a roll-shaped lump, of which parts were coated with textile 

fragments. Evidently, the find seemed to constitute the remains of a small purse since the corroded lump had preserved the image of the 

coins pressed together in a pouch. Examination of the textile fibers welded into the corrosion of the coins showed that the purse was 

made of cotton.2

 Carrying small amounts of money in purses made of cotton or linen seems to have been a common practice in the 

Medieval Near East in contrast to Western Europe, where such fabrics were much rarer. Archaeological evidence shows the widespread 

use of such textile pouches between the end of the 10th century and 14th century CE in southern Syria (Kool et al., 2011:38). A similar cotton pouch hoard also dated to the second half of the 12th century CE was excavated at the castle of Vadum Iacob guarding the 

northern frontier of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It apparently belonged to one of the defenders who died violently in the conquest of the 

castle by Saladin’s forces, August 1179 CE. 

The careful separation of the coins, with the aid of mechanical tools, and in a few cases using a formal acid solution, showed that 

the hoard consisted of two groups of billon: 

1. The main group consisted of nine AMALRICVS deniers minted in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the 12th century CE. These 

billon coins were introduced under Amaury I (1163–1173 CE), replacing the previous BALDVINVS issues of his brother and predecessor Baldwin III (1143–1163 CE). Styled on the billon coinage of Christian Europe, they were widely used in the kingdom for

smaller cash transactions alongside locally minted cut gold fragments (Kool, 2007:152–154). Of a standard design and weight, these 

coins remained the main royal-controlled issue of the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the 1190s, when they were replaced by a similar 

but more irregular and lightweight type (Metcalf, 1987:84–92).3

 Reexamination of the eight legible Amaury deniers based on the 

styling of the letter A and associated annulets and stops in the inscriptions and cross surface deviated somewhat from the classification by Metcalf (1987:91–92) and consisted of the following types: double barred (two), chevron barred (one), triple barred (two), 

and dotted chevron barred (three).

2. The second part of the hoard consisted of two French Feudal coins: an obole of the lords of Melgueil, circulating widely in the 

Languedoc during the 11th–12th centuries CE, and a denier from the episcopal mint of Le Puy in south central France. These coins 

were found midway in the lump, sandwiched between the royal deniers, clear evidence that they circulated together with the royal 

billon of Jerusalem after 1163 CE. These coin types have commonly been identified by scholars with events surrounding the First 

Crusade (1095–1099). They supposedly functioned as some sort of semiofficial “crusader money” during Pope Urban II’s extended 
NUMBER 50 • 1027

hoard evidence is backed up by numerous isolated finds, some 22 

coming from 12 separate site finds, many of them excavations. 

The distribution of these finds and their archaeological context is 

clearly indicative of the continuous and widespread use of these 

so-called First Crusade French billon, during the entire 12th century CE in the kingdom. They are found in major cities and pilgrim centers of the kingdom such as Jerusalem, Acre, and Jaffo.7

However, they are also found in the smaller towns and faubourgs 

adjacent to seignorial centers such as Arsur/Arsuf, Belinas/Banias, Bet Shean/Bethsan.8

 A few specimens have also turned up 

in more isolated contexts: a Le Puy denier from a Frankish villeneuve situated in the western hinterland of Jerusalem (el-Burj), 

along the Vicus ad Civitatem, the main medieval road leading 

from Jaffa to Jerusalem from excavations (1992; Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) 81069, unpublished); a denier from Melgueil excavated outside the wall of the small Templar stronghold 

of Qal’at Ad-Dam/Cisterna Rubea, protecting a nearby crusader 

khan and the many pilgrims journeying from Jerusalem to the 

Jordan River and its holy sites (Pringle, 1994:148–166; Magen, 

2008:309–313);9

 and even farther north a single coin found in 

the grounds of a small isolated parish church of St. George, 

above Crusader period Tiberias (Bijovsky, 2004:174, no. 60, although she made no reference to its Crusader period context). 

Similar pouches of Amaury deniers with small additions of 

west European money often appear in military or civilian contexts 

of this period: smaller purses (~160 coins) were discovered at Ateret/Vadum Iacob on the skeleton of one of its defender’s, killed 

by Ayyubid forces in the summer of 1179 CE, at Tel Yavneh/Ibelin 

(50), and Jaffa (6). A much larger hoard of some 3,400 deniers 

was found at Harenc/Harim in northern Syria, presumably lost in 

the battle for the castle in 1164 CE (Metcalf, 2008:179–180; Philips, 2008:432–433), showing that such purses sometimes could 

contain also a very large quantity of silver. 

(RE)DATING OF THE HOARD

Metcalf (1987:84–92) dated the loss of this small pouch to 

1175–1187 CE, but we suggest redating it somewhat earlier to 

tour of south central France and preparations for the First 

Crusade in 1095/1096 CE (Matzke, 1994:13–19). Thereafter, 

according to most scholars studying Crusader period coinage, they served as “travel money” among the participants of 

the First Crusade, based on a detailed listing of seven types 

of monies by the chronicler Raymond of Aguilers (Schlumberger, 1877:2–3; Porteous, 1989:356).4

 Metcalf (1995:12–

13), noting the pro-Provencal bias of Raymond of Aguilers’s 

narrative as chaplain to the Count of Toulouse Raymond St. 

Gilles, went further and argued that these coins in fact reflected the currencies used by the Provencal contingent of the 

First Crusade army (1095–1099 CE).

My ongoing research, however, shows the presence of relatively large numbers of these Le Puy and Melgueil billon in sites 

within the Kingdom of Jerusalem, both hoards and single finds, 

many of them coming from controlled excavations. These seem 

to suggest that the coins continued circulating within the kingdom long after the First Crusade.5

 Accumulated evidence at present shows some 51 exemplars from at least 15 different sites. The 

large majority of these were debased Le Puy deniers, regarded 

by contemporaries as a fractional denier (half or quarter denier) 

vis-à-vis other French/European billon (Raymond of Aguilers 

himself valued the Le Puy denier as one-half of the other deniers 

listed by him as “duo pogesi pro uno istarum”). These pogesi

were particularly popular among the many pilgrims visiting the 

shrine of Notre-Dame du Puy during the 12th century CE. They 

were used widely in the southern part of France as a fractional 

coinage as evidenced by their appearance in medieval documents (Dieudonné, 1936:246) and two dozen hoards (Duplessy, 

1985:157). In comparison, Melgueil deniers were found in less 

than half of the sites where the pogesi were found (Acre, Caesarea, Jaffa, Qal’at Ad-Dam/Castrum Dumi, Jerusalem).

The presence of these coin types (29 of the 51 noted above) 

is noted in five hoards with mid- to late 12th century CE royal 

deniers and other coins, like the Tell Jemmeh hoard. Most of 

these hoards were buried or lost with the Ayyubid conquest of the 

kingdom in 1187 CE, unequivocally showing the extended use 

of these small billon coins throughout the 12th century CE.6

 The 

TABLE 31.1. Amaury billon type varieties. IAA = Israel Antiquities Authority.

IAA No. A type; obverse (2x)/reverse (1x)a Mintmarks in REX Annulets/stops in cross squares

122218 Triple; triple/unbarred None 2/3, annulets

122217 Triple; double/double barred Single annulet 2/3, annulets

122220 Double; double/double barred None 2/3, annulets

122219 Double; triple/double barred Single annulet 2/3, annulets

122215 Chevron; chevron/chevron Triple annulet 2/3, stops

122216 Chevron; illegible/chevron barred Single stop 2/3, annulets

122222, 122223 Dotted chevron; dotted chevron/dotted chevron Single annulet 2/3, annulets

122221 Dotted chevron; dotted chevron/dotted chevron Single stop 2/3, stops

a

A appearing twice in obverse legend, once in reverse legend.
1028 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

š denier, 0.86 g, 19 mm, ã axis. 

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 4, this coin). 

2. Reg. No. 10/15, Surf., IAA 122217. Figure 31.1b.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.82 g, 19 mm, ä axis.

Metcalf (1987:91, no. 3, this coin). 

Series with Double A Issues

3. Reg. No. 3/15, Surf., IAA 122220. Figure 31.1c.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.90 g, 18 mm, ã axis.

Metcalf (1987:91, no. 6, this coin). 

4. Reg. No. 8/15, Surf., IAA 122219. Figure 31.1d.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.92 g, 18 mm, â axis.

Metcalf (1987:91, no. 5, this coin). 

Series with Chevron A Issues

5. Reg. No. 9/15, Surf., IAA 122215. Figure 31.1e.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 1.02 g, 17 mm, ä axis.

Metcalf (1987:91, no. 1, this coin).

6. Reg. No. 11/15, Surf., IAA 122216. Figure 31.1f.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.60 g, 17 mm, ä axis.

Metcalf (1987:91, no. 2, this coin).

Series with Dotted-Chevron A Issues

7. Reg. No. 4/15, Surf., IAA 122222. Figure 31.1g.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.97 g, 17 mm, ß axis.

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 8, this coin).

8. Reg. No. 1/15, Surf., IAA 122223. Figure 31.1h.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

the late 1160s–1170s CE. This is based on a comparison of the 

Amaury types in the hoard with other (new) hoard material and 

excavated finds from the kingdom’s territory, particularly in the 

past two decades. These show that the AMALRICVS types in the 

hoard belong to the early/middle period of the type’s development (note 6). 

More important, however, the site where the pouch was lost 

plays, in our eyes, a pivotal role in redating the hoard and should 

not be treated as a mere isolated venue where a chance traveler 

passing through lost his money (Metcalf, 1987:84; Van Beek, 

1993a:669). This becomes clear when we consider the site and 

its hoard within the context of the southern boundary and history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

In ancient times Tell Jemmeh functioned as a major staging 

point for military units operating in the border zone between 

Egypt and Philistia. By the 12th century CE Tell Jemmeh seems 

to have been situated well beyond the Jerusalem kingdom’s 

most southern settlement belt, which probably ran more to the 

north (~20 km), along the banks of Wadi el-Hesi according to 

mid-13th century CE evidence (Blakeley and Huster, In press). 

This seems to explain why no remains of a permanent Crusader 

period settlement were discovered on the tell: although various 

pits contained Crusader–Early Mamluk pottery, no architectural 

remains of this period were uncovered. Situated about 8 km east 

of, but on the same latitude as, the kingdom’s most southern 

outpost at Darum/Deir el-Balah (visible to the naked eye from 

Tell Jemmeh), it lay in an area that constituted a taghr, a frontier 

region between Ayyubid-Egyptian-controlled territory and the 

Latin Kingdom. Nevertheless, the site’s elevated position (~60 

m high) and its situation near a water source made it a strategic point overlooking the ancient wayfare running through Wadi 

Ghazzeh/Nahal Besor that connected the main road leading to 

Fatimid/Ayyubid Egypt with the southern reaches of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Presumably because of this, it is likely that 

it served as a temporary station or a rallying point for one of 

Amaury’s army units participating in the king’s expeditions to 

conquer Egypt in 1162–1163 and 1167 CE, during which this 

small money pouch was apparently lost.

CATALOG OF THE CRUSADER HOARD

All coins correspond to Reg. No. 1118, SI Cat. No. 15, GM 

(+). The catalog contains the following abbreviations: Reg. No. = 

excavation basket number; Loc. = excavation locus number; IAA 

= Israel Antiquities Authority number; Obv. = obverse of coin; 

Rev. = reverse of coin; š = silver; g = gram; mm = millimeter; axis 

= die axis of the coin. 

Series with Triple A Issues

1. Reg. No. 5/15, Surf., IAA 122218. Figure 31.1a.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.
NUMBER 50 • 1029

11. Reg. No. 6/15, Surf., IAA 122225. Figure 31.1k.

Bishops of Le Puy, 12th century CE.

Obv. Cross.

Rev. Chrimon.

š denier, 0.68 g, 18 mm.

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 11, this coin).

AUTHOR NOTE

Robert Kool, Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum, Building 

POB 586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel. Correspondence: robert@israntique

.org.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

š denier, 1.03 g, 18 mm.

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 9, this coin).

9. Reg. No. 7/15, Surf., IAA 122221. Figure 31.1i.

Amaury I, 1163–1173 CE. 

Obv. + AMALRICVS REX Cross patteé.

Rev. + DE IERVSALEM Church of Resurrection.

š denier, 0.83 g, 17 mm, ß axis.

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 8, this coin).

10. Reg. No. 2/15, Surf., IAA 122224. Figure 31.1j.

Lords of Melgueil, Languedoc, France 1050–1215 CE. 

Obv. RΛMVNOS Pale with two pennons.

Rev. NΛIBONΛ Four annulets.

š obole, 0.25 g, 15 mm.

Metcalf (1987:92, no. 10, this coin).

FIGURE 31.1. The coins from the Crusader purse.
1030 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

26910) and a denier from Gap (lost); several of the coins of Le Puy were 

stuck together in a rouleau, possible evidence that the coins were once held 

in a purse and then dispersed (Meshorer, 1986:175–176); Jaffo, crusader 

citadel(?) hoard, ca. 1190s CE (Metcalf, 2003–2006:138–139): two early Le 

Puy, six Amalricus coins, one Eudes of Burgundy, and one denier of the Priors of Souvigny; Jaffa-Yefet street hoard (excavation), around the end of the 

12th century CE: a minihoard of three Le Puy deniers from a domestic-type 

context within the lower city faubourg intra muros (IAA 60290–60292, unpublished); Jerusalem “YMCA” hoard, ca. 1170s–1180s CE, two Le Puy and 

Melgueil deniers with some ~150–200 billon, including Chartres (1), Celles 

(2), Baldwin III (3), Amalricus (73; IAA 56505–56600); these coins arrived 

on the market with a number of the other 13th century CE coins (John de 

Brienne [1], Tripoli [2], Cyprus [10]), but it is not certain these belonged to 

the original hoard (Pesant, 1980:102–121); Jerusalem Citadel area hoard (excavation), ca. 1180s CE: one Le Puy denier with six Amalricus deniers (IAA 

73198–73203, Metcalf, 1995:314). 

7. From Acre: two excavated Melgueil deniers (IAA 102934, 102632) from the 

Eastern intra muros section of the Crusader period city (currently outside the 

Ottoman walls of the Old City; Akko, School for Maritime Officers excavation, 1998) and the Hospitaller compound excavation, 1994; two stray finds 

from Melgueil and Le Puy (Metcalf, 1995:359–360). From Jerusalem: two 

Melgueil deniers and one obole of the same mint apparently from the area 

north of the seven-arched entrance to the Crusader period Salomon’s Stables 

on the Temple Mount (Temple Mount Sifting Project, 2004–2012); a Le Puy 

denier (IAA 38214, unpublished) from the cattle market/tannery area in the 

southeastern part of the Crusader period city of Jerusalem, Temple Mount 

excavations, 1968. From Jaffa: two deniers of Le Puy and Melgueil (IAA 

60283, 60285) from domestic structures in the fortified faubourg below the 

citadel (excavation, 1993, unpublished).

8. From Arsur/Arsuf: two Le Puy deniers (IAA 117042, 117102, unpublished) 

from the walled villeneuve of the castle (excavations). From Belinas/Banias: 

a Le Puy denier (IAA 61595, unpublished) found near the citadel area. From 

Beth Shean/Bethsan: a Le Puy denier (IAA 75222; stray find, unpublished).

9. Magen (2008:306) mentioned the dearth of 12th century CE billon coins at 

the site but noted the presence of post-1187 CE period billon(?) evidence of 

the continuous presence of European pilgrims after the Ayyubid conquest.

NOTES

1. The hoard was reexamined by me after its registration in the National Treasures of Israel by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., in 2010. I 

thank David Ben-Shlomo for his assistance in bringing the coins over and 

initiating their final publication in this volume.

2. In many places the fiber stands were completely covered in green copper corrosion. The fibers showed the typical collapsed-tube morphology of cotton fibers twisting to the right or left without a particular pattern or sequence. The 

width of the fibers was 10–18 μm. See an unpublished conservation report 

(No. 3551) by Catherine Valentour, conservator at the Smithsonian’s Conservation Analytical Laboratory (presently the Museum Conservation Institute), 

dated 15 November 1983. I thank the Smithsonian Institution for providing 

me with a copy of the report. 

3. An updated detailed analysis of the “regular” Amaury type minted during the 

12th century CE based on excavation finds is currently in preparation by the 

author.

4. “Erat haec nostra moneta Pictavini, Cartenses, Manses, Luccenses, Valenziani, Melgorienses et duo pogesi pro uno istarum”; see Raymond of Aguilers 

(1968), Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, RHC Occ 3 (Recueil 

des Historiens des Croisades. Historiens occidentaux, Volume 3) (1866):278. 

The context of the passage was the capitulation of the Fatimid governor of 

Tripoli to the crusader army on May 13–14, 1099, and payment of a ransom 

of 15,000 dinars (“aureos Saracenae monetae”). Raymond of Aguilers, who 

finished his manuscript several years after the First Crusade, knew that his 

Western readers were completely unfamiliar with gold coins (reintroduced 

only in the second half of the 13th century CE after a 500 year absence). 

To impress his readers with the large amount of money involved, he made 

a simple calculation showing that one dinar equaled at least seven or eight 

coins of the money familiar to his region: “Valebat quipped unus aureus eo 

tempore octo vel novem solidos monetae nostri exercitus.”

5. On the basis of an unpublished database/gazetteer of Crusader period finds 

that forms part of my Ph.D. research on the “Use of Coinage in the Latin 

Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291).”

6. Burj al-Ahmar/Turris Rubea hoard (excavation), burial date ca. 1187 CE: 

20 coins of Le Puy together with 4 regular Amalricus deniers (IAA 26892–
32 Ostraca from Tell Jemmeh

Haggai Misgav

INTRODUCTION

A group of 17 ostraca found in the Smithsonian Institution excavation at Tell Jemmeh are discussed in this chapter. These come 

from Iron IIB-C, Persian period, or unstratified contexts. The ostraca can be divided into two groups: one that is written in Hebrew 

script and dated to the late Iron Age or early Persian period. Two Hebrew ostraca were previously published by Naveh (1985:11–14 

figs. 1–3, pls. 2C, 3), who suggested they contain non-Semitic personal names. These ostraca are presented with Naveh’s and the current readings. In addition, Petrie also published a seal and an inscribed sherd, probably of the same period (Petrie, 1928: pl. XLIII:1,2; 

Naveh, 1985:9–10, 16, fig. 1:1,2). The second group is of Aramaic script and language, and these date later, probably to the late Persian 

period (5th–4th centuries BCE or later). In addition a collection of sherds with a single letter incised on them either before or after firing 

were also found in the site. These are presented in the chapter dealing with ceramic objects (chapter 19, Figures 19.3, 19.4).

OSTRACA IN HEBREW SCRIPT

Of the four or five ostraca written in Hebrew script, two were published by Naveh (Figure 32.1a,b, SI Cat. Nos. 507, 233, 406; 

Naveh, 1985:11–13, figs. 1,2, pl. 3) and his reading is in parentheses. Naveh read in these ostraca names that are not Semitic, having an 

š ending typical of Indo-European languages (see also Na’aman and Zadok, 1988:36–38). The script is typical of the 7th century BCE, 

and it is difficult to identify any special characteristics for this group beyond a personal style of writing.

Reg. No. 1959, SI Cat. No. 507, IAA No. 84-208. Context: GM 3B (11) 1, Phase IV-6, Iron IIB-C (Figure 32.1a).

להרש בנ יהו[ ]ק[... (להרש. בנ כש) kš bn ̇ lhrs[...] (q[ ]yhw bn Lhrš

אמנה אגנה (וננת אדנש) ʾsnš wnnt (ʾgnh ʾmnh

שלמ אנש[ ] [...]ʾnš Šlm

bʿlšmʾ. II q (bʿlšmʾ šgš) (שגש בעלשמא (ק II .בעלשמא

הכר שמאש šmʾš rkh

bʿlʾ.[??]m II (bʿlʾ h>mš (חמש בעלא (II מ [??].בעלא 

נתנ.ננש (שפפ נתנ) ppš ntn ̇ (nns.Ntn

- - - (טי של ) (šl≥t (--- -

Apparently, in this ostracon there are fewer Philistine names than have been published, and some are Hebrew; the ostracon probably mentions a name beginning with “Yho” in the first line, even though the actual person is named hrš. If this reading is correct, the 

text testifies to a mixture of population and/or significant cultural influences. Na’aman and Zadok (1988:36–42) suggested that these 

indicate the presence of deportees (possibly also from Iran) brought to the site by Sargon II and employed by the Assyrians. The script 

fits a dating of the 7th century BCE, and there are no differences between this script and the Hebrew script during this period (except 

for possible differences that can be attributed to personal style). Another difference between the current reading and Naveh’s (1985:11, 

fig. 2:1) reading is an addition element reflecting numbers and quantities in the text (in the fourth and sixth lines). As most list names 

known to us from this period are receipts for commodities or supply lists, the appearance of single letters denoting figures and small 
1032 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 32.1. Hebrew ostraca from Tell Jemmeh.
NUMBER 50 • 1033

century BCE or slightly later, i.e., the late Persian and possibly 

early Hellenistic periods. From this aspect this group fits well 

with the data arising from the collection of ostraca from southern 

Israel currently being published by B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Hebrew University (personal communication) and the group of ostraca from Beer-Sheba and ‘Arad (Naveh, 1973, 1986), all dated 

roughly to the same period. All the Jemmeh ostraca probably also 

deal with some economic activities or transactions and include 

names, numbers, few dates references (which are not datable), 

and names of commodities and products. The private names that 

were preserved are very few and include זבידי, zbeidi, which is an 

Arabian name, and נבו בעל, ba’al nebo, which is a combination of 

an Acadian god’s name with the Semitic “Ba’al”; also, נתן, natan, 

is a common name in all ethnic groups of the Levant. There are 

no names with the theophoric element of יהו, Yho.

Reg. No. 1948, SI Cat. No. 171, IAA No. 03-238. Context: GM 

1C (2A), Phase IV-2?, Persian period? (Figure 32.2a).

צ(יו?)דמ נתנ ntn dm?)yw(ṣ

כרמ?דוי dwy?krm

The meaning of these words is not clear; the sherd possibly 

includes names including the word krm, “vineyard” (as in Figure 

32.3c).

Reg. No. 1847, SI Cat. No. 170, IAA No. 03-237. Context: GM 

1C (0), unstratified (Figure 32.2b).

דכרצחר? dkrṣḥr

Possibly, this refers to wool of a male, probably a white deer.

Reg. No. 1949, SI Cat. No. 177, IAA No. 03-239. Context: GM 

2A (5) 2, Phase IV-2? Persian? (Figure 32.2c).

חמר פ hmrʿp

שתבר Štbr

The script of this ostracon seems earlier, and it dates to the 

earlier Persian period (5th century BCE). It mentions the word 

hmr (wine) probably with a personal name (as in Figure 32.3d).

Reg. No. 1951, SI Cat. No. 200, IAA No. 03-240. Context: GM 

2D (+), unstratified (Figure 32.3b).

[b]šnt II II שנת]ב[

The writing reads “year 2,” but there is no way to say what 

year that is. This possibly refers to the second year of one of the 

first Ptolemaic kings (late 4th to early 3rd centuries BCE).

Reg. No. 1953, SI Cat. No. 293. Context: GM 2D (6), postgranary fill, Persian period (Figure 32.3a).

B III [III?] [?III ]III ב

L[...] (possibly numbers) [...]ל

Šqyn III III I [...]yn ין]... [I III III שקין

Clearly, this is a dispatch document of some commodities 

(with the word “sacks”), going by the date appearing in the text, 

numerals are not surprising. It should be noted that the ink on 

the ostracon is not very clear, and thus, any reading should be 

taken with reservation.

Reg. No. 1952, SI Cat. No. 233. Context: GM 1D (23A), Phase 

IV-5, Iron IIC fill (Figure 32.1b; Naveh, 1985:11, fig. 2:2).

Klytbš II II בטילכש

קלגריה = (קסריה) (qsryh = (Qlgryh

צברשיה (י. ברציה) (brṣyh.y (ṣbršyh

Rwš III r (rwš III >) (< III רוש (ר III רוש

ל L

In this sherd as well we are dealing with a list of names 

and numbers, and it includes names unknown in the Semitic 

vocabulary.

Reg. No. 1956, SI Cat. No. 406. Context: GM 2B (35) 2, Phase 

IV-5, Iron IIC, Building II (Figure 32.1c; Naveh, 1985:15, fig. 3, 

pl. 2C).

I = Z

The first sign is Z shaped, and it could be also a י, yod. 

Naveh read it as “21 X” and dated it to the 7th century BCE.

Reg. No. 1967. Context: GM (+), unstratified (Figure 32.1d). 

This ostracon is worn and blurred and cannot be read in 

this stage. Nevertheless, several identifiable letters are clearly in 

Hebrew script, typical for the 7th century BCE. Single letters that 

can be identified include a י, yod, and a ב , beit, at the end of the 

second line (or possibly the third line) and possibly כל‘kl’ in the 

bottom line.

Reg. No. 1958, SI Cat. No. 443, from jar RV 33. Context: GM 

0A (9), Phase IV-5, Building I, Room E, Iron IIC (Figure 32.1e).

שקד.בל.קב qb.bl.šqd

The ostracon is very worn; the mention of šqd, “almond,” 

possibly suggests the document deals with the marketing of 

almonds.

Summarizing these three Hebrew ostraca, a homogeneous 

picture of some economic activities, possibly commercial or agricultural, is reflected. Possibly, one may assume certain relationships between the Philistine and Judaic populations during the 

7th century BCE according to these texts, yet all readings should 

be taken with extreme caution. Previously, analysis of excavations of Tel Miqne-Ekron, has suggested similar cooperation 

between these populations in relation to the olive oil industry 

(Gitin and Cogan, 1999). In the inscription from Tel Miqne, 

typical Semitic and Philistine names appear side by side and are 

attributed to the same family.

ARAMAIC OSTRACA

The second group of ostraca from Tell Jemmeh is written 

in Aramaic script and language and dates probably to the 4th 
1034 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

The ostracon reads, “wine of the vineyard of Zudeidi, 

Sermita or Sedmita (Sodomite?),” noting wine from a person’s 

vineyard and probably the type of the wine. The reconstruction 

of the name is according to Figure 32.3d (Reg. No. 1962; see 

below). Zubeidi is an Arabian name in the diminutive form. 

This name is also found in contemporary inscriptions from Be’er 

Sheva and ‘Arad (Naveh, 1973, 1986). Another Aramaic ostracon from Ashdod also read “the vineyard of Zebadiah” (זבדיה 

כרם ;Dothan, 1971: pl. XIII:1); there Naveh (1971) dated the 

of which only the beginning of the day in the month is preserved, 

with some vague remains of letters and numbers.

Reg. No. 1960, SI Cat. No. 940, IAA No. 03-231. Context: 

GMIII A1 P1, Phase III-1?, Persian granary? (Figure 32.3c).

חמר כרמ krm ḥmr

זבי[די] [dy[Zby

סר/דמיתא 	 	 	dmytʾ/Sr

FIGURE 32.2. Aramaic ostraca from Tell Jemmeh.
NUMBER 50 • 1035

FIGURE 32.3. Aramaic ostraca from Tell Jemmeh.
1036 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

can be identified, and in the second the letter shin can be identified; the other signs are shadows of letters and are unreadable. 

Reg. No. 1957, SI Cat. No. 407, IAA No. 84-206. Context: 

GM 1B (14) 2, Phase IV-5, Building I, Room A, Iron IIC (Figure 

32.4e; Naveh, 1985:19, fig. 5, pl. 4D).

°°°° בשנת bšnt °°°°

(על יד) ----- (yd ʿl (------

חרוף? (ח 2 פ) (p 2 ḥ? (ḥrwf

Egyptian numerals ( ) ( ב) (Egyptian numerals)

On the top part of the sherd there are several open circles; it 

is doubtful these are letters (Naveh suggests these are a series of 

‘Ain letters). The word h>aruf is a sheep in Arabic and Palestinian 

Aramaic. This is possibly a document dealing with the marketing 

of sheep’s wool. Naveh also notes this as an ostracon in Aramaic 

script but also compares it with Assyrian dockets from Assur 

(Naveh, 1985:19, possibly dealing with grain) and defines it as 

a “7th century Aramaic script” (the word bšnt is Hebrew); this 

would fit its 7th century BCE context in Building I in Field IV. 

A polished bone from the Iron IIC levels (Building III) with 

a Hebrew inscription in ink on it (Figure 8.106h, Reg. No. 4138) 

should also be noted. The letter ש, shin, and possibly א, aleph, 

could be identified on it.

Summarizing this group of ostraca, a picture quite similar to 

those from other contemporary assemblages arises (Beer-Sheba 

and ‘Arad). The population conducting the commercial activities at the site, as far as the very few private names preserved 

may indicate, was probably of mixed local and Arabian origin. 

In contrast to other sites from this period, no Edomite or Hebrew names appear, but as mentioned, there are too few names 

to draw any further conclusions. 

APPENDIX: A JAR WITH A SOUTH 

ARABIAN SCRIPT SIGN

Gus W. Van Beek

SI Cat. No. 313.1, RV 673 (Figure 32.4f; see also Figure 

8.259a; Van Beek, 1989a: ill. 5). 

The sign was marked with ink on a sherd that was restored 

on the top part of a Persian period jar found in the granary area 

script to the mid-5th century BCE and considered this to be a 

Hebrew name. 

Reg. No. 1962, SI Cat. No. 952, IAA No. 03-236. Context: 

GMIII A1 P1, Phase III-1?, Persian granary? (Figure 32.3d).

חמר ḥmr

זבידי Zbydy

See Reg. No. 1960 (Figure 32.3c) above.

Reg. No. 1961, SI Cat. No. 951, IAA No. 03-242. Context: 

GMIII A1 P1, Phase III-1?, Persian granary? (Figure 32.4a).

mʿyn II II מעין

This ostracon denotes a sum of money; no other names were 

preserved.

Reg. No. 1950, SI Cat. No. 190, IAA No. 03-232. Context: GM 

2C (6) 2, postgranary fill, Persian period (Figure 32.4c).

בית (חננ?) דחט[ין?] בעלנבו בר (נתנ?) [?ntn [br bʿlnbw?[ yn[dḥṭ?) ḥnn (Byt

Qbn ḥmšh dḥn [......] III [...] [...] III [.......] דחן חמשה קבן

The ostracon reads, “house (name) of wheat (name) 5 kabin 

of millet.” Possibly, we are dealing here with a piece of land 

whose size is big enough to plant a certain amount of wheat. 

This amount is customary and has some references in Jewish 

sources, such as “beit se’ah zer’a” or “beit seataim” (סאתים בית ;

זרע שאה בית(, a piece of land sufficient for growing these quantities 

of grain. Two names are possibly mentioned here: Hanan and 

Ba’al Nevo Bar Natan.

Reg. No. 1955, SI Cat. No. 295, IAA No. 03-235. Context: GM 

2D (11), Phase IV-3, granary floor, Persian period (Figure 32.4b).

B III lʾdr? ?לאדר IIIב

שקין? ?Šqyn

The reading here is very difficult; as the word “sacks” (Šqyn) 

appears, this is possibly also a dispatch list or order.

Reg. No. 1963, SI Cat. No. 984, IAA No. 03-241. Context: 

GMIII A1 P1, Phase III-1, Persian granary? (Figure 32.4d). 

A separation line between two lines of an inscription are 

visible; possibly, there were three lines: in the first the letter aleph 

TABLE 32.1. Additional ostraca and possible ostraca from Tell Jemmeh. IAA = Israel Antiquities Authority.

SI Cat. No. Reg. No. Provenance IAA No. Phase/period Location

294 1954 GM 2D (9) 03-233 Postgranary (IV-3) fill (Persian) IAA

294.1 GM 2D (6) 03-234 Postgranary (IV-3) fill (Persian) IAA

985 1964 GMIII A1 P1 פ-567683 III-1? (Persian granary?) IAA

986 1965 GMIII A1 P1 פ-567667 III-1? (Persian granary?) IAA
NUMBER 50 • 1037

AUTHOR NOTE

Haggai Misgav, The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Correspondence: 

misgav@macam.ac.il. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 

23 September 2013.

(Figure 8.259a). This seems to be a south Arabian script sign. A 

somewhat similar monogram reads ‘abi or ‘amm, meaning “my 

father” (Grohmann, 1963:242, fig. 109). A somewhat similar 

sign was recorded to have been found on a sherd from another 

similar jar in the granary area (SI Cat. No. 394, Van Beek, 1989a: 

ill. 4, here Figure 8.259b). 

FIGURE 32.4. Various ostraca from Tell Jemmeh.
33 Temporal Trends in Animal 

Exploitation: Faunal Analysis 

from Tell Jemmeh

Edward F. Maher

INTRODUCTION

Tell Jemmeh has revealed a long occupational sequence that spans, with minimal interruption, from the Chalcolithic to the Islamic 

periods. The field operations advanced archaeological methodologies in the region in that all artifacts and ecofacts were collected and 

saved, including the remains of animals on which the ancient community relied for a number of different products and services. Contemporary with Van Beek’s field investigations at the site, Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish were appointed the task of processing and 

studying the massive faunal sample recovered. In fact, at one point it was considered to be the largest such assemblage from a historical 

site in the southern Levant. Their efforts led to the presentation of multiple conference papers at professional academic meetings (e.g., 

Hesse and Wapnish, 1980, 1984b; Wapnish, 1981b; Wapnish and Hesse, 1982, 1984) as well as peer-reviewed publications (Wapnish, 

1981a, 1996, 1997; Hesse and Wapnish, 1984a, 1985; Wapnish and Hesse, 1988). Their report on the fauna from Tell Jemmeh studied 

by them is published elsewhere (Wapnish, In press, after Hesse and Wapnish, 1984b). The research conducted by Hesse and Wapnish 

was critical for the development of zooarchaeology in that they clearly demonstrated the utility of a synthetic approach that incorporated faunal evidence with archaeology, anthropology, and historical studies to formulate a more complete understanding of ancient 

animal use as practiced by ancient communities. Simply put, their work was ahead of its time. More zooarchaeologists currently active 

in the field would do well to follow their example by emphasizing the interpretive value of faunal remains by underscoring cultural and 

historical themes and processes rather than strictly adhering to zoological taxonomy, morphologies, and metrics. Certainly, the zoological data are of critical importance and represent a cornerstone of zooarchaeology, but every effort must be made to render the faunal 

remains archaeologically meaningful not just to other faunal analysts but also to archaeologists in general.

In 2011 a small unstudied component of the faunal sample from the Tell Jemmeh excavations was analyzed and studied by the author. This chapter details the results of the study, a hand-collected zooarchaeological assemblage recovered from five fields of excavation 

at Tell Jemmeh, designated as GM ST1, GMI (including FUR and KB), GMII, GMIII, and GM (Table 33.1). The faunal assemblage is 

derived from all of the main periods of occupation, which begins in the Chalcolithic and continues from the Middle Bronze Age IIB-C 

to the Hellenistic period, as well as a small sample from the Islamic period. The assemblage was recovered from multiple years of field 

excavation, as early as 1972 and as recent as 1990. This study consists of a total of 1,727 animal bones and bone fragments (of which 

399, or 23%, were identified) from at least 12 different species (Tables 33.2 and 33.3).

METHODS

Species identification was assisted by Boessneck (1969), Schmid (1972), Payne (1985), and Prummell and Frisch (1986). Because of

the morphological and size similarity between sheep and goats, most of their remains were combined into a caprine category whenever 

precise taxonomic distinction between the two was not possible. For the bones that could not be identified, a size-based taxonomy comprising three classes was used: small, medium, and large mammals. Some of the remains in an advanced state of fragmentation could 

not be assigned to a size-based division and were considered unidentifiable. 
NUMBER 50 • 1039

the animal bones. His coding system (e.g., Hd-1, PS-8) pertains 

to marks made during processes of dismemberment, skinning, 

and filleting. It has been demonstrated experimentally that the 

color of burnt bone can reflect firing temperatures, where brown 

and black bones are associated with cooler temperatures than 

bones colored white or blue gray (Shipman et al., 1984; Nicholson, 1993). To reduce subjectivity, the color of each burnt bone 

was coded using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (1954) because 

it offers a standardized replicable method of description. The 

Mortality profiles, cultural modifications, and methods of 

quantification are important details to document in a faunal assemblage. Determining age at death was estimated using postcranial epiphyseal fusion rates (Silver, 1969) and dental attrition 

scores and eruption times for sheep and goats (Payne, 1973; 

Zeder, 1991:93). The mortality data for cattle was based on 

postcranial remains (Silver, 1969). Cut marks were considered 

in light of Binford’s (1981) work that established how butchery 

intent can be inferred via cut mark placement and orientation on 

TABLE 33.1. Faunal distribution by time period and field of excavation at Tell Jemmeh

Fields of excavation

Period GM ST1 GMI GMII GMIII GM Total

Chalcolithic 4 4

MBIIB-C 706 12 718

MBIIB-C/LBII 55 3 58

LBII 359 58 28 445

Iron IB 21 6 17 44

Iron II 27 27

Iron IIA 7 1 12 20

Iron IIB 41 41

Iron IIC 303 303

Persian 22 22

Persian/Hellenistic 40 40

Islamic 5 5

Total 706 462 76 65 418 1727

TABLE 33.2. Species distribution with associated field of excavation at Tell Jemmeh.

Field

Species GM ST1 GMI GMII GMIII GM Total

Cattle, Bos taurus 15 22 4 2 10 53

Dog, Canis familiaris 1 1 1 3

Equid, Equus sp. 1 1

Cat, Felis sp. 3 3

Fish 2 2 5 9

Medium bird 1 1

Hare, Lepus sp. 1 1

Sheep/goat, Ovis/Capra 64 69 26 14 113 286

Pig, Sus scrofa 36 36

Turtle 6 6

Small mammal 1 1

Medium mammal 281 170 33 29 150 663

Large mammal 24 28 7 21 80

Unidentified 286 169 10 11 108 584

Total identified 115 95 33 14 139 399

Total 706 462 76 65 418 1727
1040 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Cattle were culled at different ages: before 18 months of age 

(three unfused first proximal phalanx), after 18 months (fused 

proximal second phalanx), and after 3.5–4 years (unfused distal 

ulna). One piglet was killed during its first year (unfused proximal second phalanx), which agrees with an unfused distal radius 

epiphyses (less than 12 months) and five unfused metacarpals 

(less than 2 years). Two unerupted first lower molars (aged less 

than 4–6 months) further indicate that pigs were slaughtered 

early in life. On the basis of this evidence, the pigs were probably domesticated since juveniles are considered a signature of 

culling domestic stock rather than hunting wild game (Wapnish 

and Hesse, 1988:85; Horwitz, 2007:3). As pigs offer few secondary products, early culling indicates an interest in pork consumption. Caprids were culled at various stages of life. Juveniles 

were taken before 10 months old (unfused distal humerus and 

unfused acetabulum) and younger than 13–16 months (unfused 

first phalanx). Caprids with unfused distal radii, unfused humerus, and unfused proximal ulna signal animals taken before 

they were 2.5–3.5 years old. Fused epiphyses on a proximal humerus (older than 10 months), proximal second phalanx (at least 

13–16 months of age), and proximal femur (at least 2.5–3 years 

old) may indicate the same or multiple specimens. 

Certain bones in the sample were culturally modified. Sixteen bones, all unidentified medium or large mammals, exhibited 

three distinct color classes: 10 brown (10YR 3/4) and 4 black 

(10YR 2/1) bones were fired at relatively cooler heat registers 

and likely indicate meal preparation. Two gray bones (10YR 4/1) 

fauna was quantified using number of identifiable specimens 

(NISP) values, representing the number of fragments per taxon. 

RESULTS

Chalcolithic Period

Fauna from Chalcolithic contexts was only found in Field 

III, Phase 19 (Tables 33.1 and 33.3). A total of four animal 

bones were collected from a pit in Square C3, Layer P3. All of 

the bones were identified as domestic sheep/goat and consisted of 

one upper molar and three rib fragments. 

Middle Bronze IIB-C

Most of the MBIIB-C fauna comes from ST1, although a 

small quantity has also been recovered in Field III (Table 33.1). 

There were no buildings defined in ST1, with sloping walls being 

the only architecture (see chapter 5). The fauna is derived from 

multiple contexts (Layers 1, 2, 3, 4, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19). 

This is the single largest sample of this study consisting of a total 

of 718 bones, of which 117 (16%) could be identified (Table 

33.3). Most of the remains consist of sheep/goat, pigs, and cattle (Table 33.4). This is also the only period with any evidence 

for pork consumption. The unexpected high incidence of pork 

(31%) probably reflects the small sample size.

TABLE 33.3. Faunal abundance by time period. NISP = number of identifiable specimens.

Period

Chalcolithic MBIIB-C MBIIC/LBII LBII Iron IB Iron II 

Species NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % 

Cattle, Bos taurus 15 13% 1 11% 25 24% 1 8% 1 25% 

Dog, Canis familiaris 1 1% 1 1% 1 8% 

Equid, Equus sp. 1 1% 

Cat, Felis sp. 

Fish 1 8% 1 25% 

Medium bird 

Hare, Lepus sp. 

Pig, Sus scrofa 36 31% 

Sheep/goat, Ovis/Capra 4 100% 65 56% 8 89% 79 75% 9 75% 2 50% 

Sheep, Ovis aries 6 5 

Goat, Capra hircus 2 5 

Turtle 

Small mammal 1 

Medium mammal 286 46 140 23 13 

Large mammal 25 3 28 2 1 

Unidentified 290 170 7 9 

Total Identified 4 117 9 106 12 4 

Total 4 718 58 445 44 27 
NUMBER 50 • 1041

Iron IIA Iron IIB Iron IIC Persian Persian/Hellenistic Islamic

NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % NISP NISP % Total

2 15% 2 13% 6 6% 53

3

1

3 3% 3

2 15% 1 6% 4 4% 9

1 6% 1

1 1% 1

36

3 23% 12 75% 84 86% 8 100% 7 100% 5 100% 286

1 17 2 3 30

3 10

6 46% 6

1

7 13 109 9 17 663

6 4 1 10 80

6 92 4 6 584

13 16 98 8 7 5 399

20 41 303 22 40 5 1727

Late Bronze Age II

Most of the LBII fauna came from Field I, although smaller 

samples were also discovered in Fields II and III (Table 33.1). 

The LBII fauna is the second largest sample in this study, with 

a total of 445 bones, of which 106 (24%) could be identified. 

Most of the assemblage consists of cattle and caprids (Tables 

33.3 and 33.5). 

Twenty-five caprine bones provided age-related data based 

on rates of long bone fusion (Table 33.6). The resulting mortality 

profile (Figure 33.1) suggests more interest in culling younger animals. One mandible with a first molar demonstrated wear consistent with a juvenile aged 6–12 months at death. It seems sheep 

and goats were more prized for their meat rather than secondary 

products. Although the mortality profile may illustrate actual 

LBII animal management, it could also reflect the small sample 

size on which the reconstructed culling patterns are based.

Some of the remains were culturally modified through burning and butchery. A total of 25 bones were burnt. Fifteen were 

black (10YR 2/1) and are associated with cooler temperatures 

likely associated with cooking meat (Table 33.7). Evidence for 

hotter temperatures such as gray, blue gray, and white illustrates 

a different activity that perhaps centered on disposal. A total 

of 10 bones were butchered. Most of the cuts were indicative 

of general dismembering procedures such as those on a cattle 

astragalus (TA-2) and rib (RS-3). Dismembering was also found 

on caprine remains: humerus (Hd-1), ischium (PS-7), proximal 

fired at higher temperatures indicate a more intensive combustive 

event; one of the gray bones associated with hearth fragments 

may have been introduced as refuse or fuel. Four sheep/goat and 

two pig bones were butchered. The cut marks appear along the 

distal scapula (S-1), acetabulum (PS-8), and proximal metacarpal (MCp-1). Each of these marks indicates general dismembering. Fragments of pig mandibles were also cut to perhaps remove 

the animal’s tongue or cheek meat. Eleven bones, a mix of ribs 

and limbs, exhibited a very high degree of smooth surface polish. Since the polish also appears on the interior of the bone, it 

may be the result of having been boiled in hot liquid as a soup 

or stew. Contacting the sides of the vessel, stirring utensil, and 

other bones could have produced the observed abrasion pattern. 

Seven rib fragments, perhaps originally all part of the same artifact, exhibited an extremely smooth polished surface, which also 

demonstrated unidirectional marks on the surface, suggesting a 

repetitive motion. 

MBIIB-C/LBII (Phase III-14)

Most of the fauna from the MBIIB-C/LBII contexts was found 

in Field I, although a few bones also come from Field III (Table 33.1). 

A total of 58 bones date to this phase, with only 9 (16%) identifiable 

(Table 33.3). One cattle thoracic vertebra was found along with caprine cranial and postcranial remains. One sheep/goat was killed after 

it was 10 months old (fused distal humerus). One caprine proximal 

metacarpal was burned black (10YR 2/1). 
1042 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 33.4. MBIIB-C animal skeletal parts.

Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Pig Total Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Pig Total

Astragalus 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Calcaneum 2 2

Fragment 2 2

Carpal 3 3 2 8

Fragment 2 2

Whole 1 3 2 6

Cranial 2 2

Fragment 2 2

Femur 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Horn core 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Humerus 8 8

Distal 3 3

Proximal epiphysis 1 1

Shaft 4 4

Incisor 2 3 5

Fragment 2 3 5

Incisor lower 1 1 2

Fragment 1 1 2

Lateral malleolus 1 1

Whole 1 1

M1 lower 1 2 3

Fragment 1 1

Whole 2 2

M1/M2 lower 1 1

Whole 1 1

M2 lower 1 1

Fragment 1 1

M3 lower 2 2 4

Fragment 2 2 4

M3 upper 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Mandible 4 2 6

Condyle 1 1

Coronoid process 1 1

Fragment 2 2 4

Maxilla 1 1 2

Fragment 1 1 2

Molar 4 7 11

Fragment 4 7 11

Molar lower 8 8

Fragment 8 8

Molar upper 2 2

Fragment 2 2

Metacarpal 3 1 4

Distal epiphysis 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Shaft 2 2

Metacarpal II 1 1

Whole 1 1

Metacarpal III 1 1

Whole 1 1

Metacarpal IV 2 2

Proximal 1 1

Whole 1 1

Metacarpal IV 1 1

Whole 1 1

Metapodial 3 3

Distal 1 1

Proximal 2 2

Orbital 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Phalanx 1 2 3 5

Distal 3 3

Fragment 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Whole 1 1 2

Phalanx 2 1 1 1 3

Fragment 1 1

Whole 1 1 2

Phalanx 3 1 1

Whole 1 1

Pelvis 1 3 4

Acetabulum 1 1 2

Ischium 2 2

Premolar lower 3 3

Fragment 3 3

Upper Premolar 3 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Radius 1 4 1 6

Distal 1 1

Distal epiphysis 1 1 2

Shaft 2 2

Whole 1 1

Scapula 1 1

Distal 1 1

Tibia 1 1 2

Distal 1 1

Shaft 1 1

Ulna 1 2 3

Distal 1 1

Proximal 1 1 2

Vertebrae 1 1 2

Thoracic process 1 1 2

Total 15 65 36 116
NUMBER 50 • 1043

TABLE 33.5. LBII animal skeletal parts.

Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Total Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Total

Astragalus 2 2

Distal 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Calcaneum 3 3

Fragment 1 1

Proximal epiphysis 2 2

Carpal 2 2 4

Whole 2 2 4

Cuneiform 1 1

Whole 1 1

Femur 3 3

Proximal 1 1

Proximal epiphysis 1 1

Shaft 1 1

Humerus 3 5 8

Distal 2 2

Proximal 1 1

Shaft 3 2 5

Incisor 2 1 3

Fragment 2 1 3

M1 lower 3 3

Fragment 2 2

Whole 1 1

Mandible 4 4

Condyle 1 1

Coronoid process 1 1

Fragment 2 2

Maxilla 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Molar 1 9 10

Fragment 1 9 10

Molar lower 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Molar upper 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Metacarpal 3 3

Distal 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Shaft 1 1

Metapodial 2 2

Distal 1 1

Distal epiphysis 1 1

Metatarsal 1 1 2

Distal 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Naviculo-cuboid 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Phalanx 1 1 4 5

Distal 1 2 3

Proximal 1 1

Whole 1 1

Phalanx 2 2 4 6

Distal 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Whole 4 4

Phalanx 3 2 1 3

Fragment 2 2

Whole 1 1

Pelvis 4 4

Ilium 1 1

Ischium 1 1

Pubis 2 2

Premolar 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Premolar upper 1 1 2

Fragment 1 1

Whole 1 1

Radius 1 4 5

Distal 2 2

Proximal 1 1 2

Shaft 1 1

Rib 2 4 6

Proximal 2 4 6

Scapula 3 3

Distal 2 2

Fragment 1 1

Skull 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Tibia 1 1 2

Proximal 1 1

Shaft 1 1

Tooth 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Vertebra 13 13

Caudal 1 1

Centrum 5 5

Process 6 6

Thoracic process 1 1

Total 25 79 104
1044 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

areas within the buildings. Rather, most of the remains were in 

the street (Street J), a small area that separates Buildings I and II. 

As most of the identified remains from the street are non-meatbearing bones, their deposition seems to reflect discard onto the 

street outside. Streets were often used as locations for discard, 

as excavations in the streets also uncovered abandoned items, 

which included metal objects.

Iron Age IB

Fauna from Iron IB contexts was collected in Fields I FUR, 

II, and III (Table 33.1), yielding a total of 44 bones, of which 12 

radius (RCp-6), and proximal rib (RS-3). Cut marks on a cattle 

second phalanx illustrates skinning procedures. This is an area 

of low meat yield where the skin is attached more tightly to the 

body, requiring additional effort for its removal. Thus, cut mark 

placements indicate disarticulation aimed at the acquisition of 

two products: meat and hides.

The main architectural design is a large Canaanite building 

with multiple rooms with a paved cobblestone courtyard that 

includes a baking installation (see chapters 6 and 9; Van Beek, 

1972:245, 1977:173). The distribution of over one-quarter of 

the LBII bones in Field I (Buildings I and II) should be considered 

(Table 33.8). Most of the animal remains were not found in large 

TABLE 33.6. Late Bronze Age II caprine fusion data.

Bone and portion Quantity Rate of fusion Age range

Unfused scapula 1 Less than 6–8 months 6–10 months

Fused scapula 1 Greater than 6–8 months

Unfused distal humerus 1 Less than 10 months

Fused distal humerus 2 Greater than 10 months

Fused proximal radius 1 Greater than 10 months

Fused proximal phalanges 5 Greater than 13–16 months 13–16 months

Unfused proximal phalanges 2 Less than 13–16 months

Fused distal metapodial 1 Greater than 18–28 months 18–30 months

Unfused distal metapodial 1 Less than 18–28 months

Fused distal metacarpal 1 Greater than 18–24 months

Fused distal metatarsal 1 Greater than 20–28 months

Unfused proximal femur 1 Less than 30–36 months 30–36 months

Fused proximal femur 1 Greater than 30–36 months

Unfused calcaneum 3 Less than 30–36 months

Unfused distal radius 1 Less than 30–36 months

Fused distal radius 1 Greater than 36 months

Unfused proximal humerus 1 Less than 36–42 months 36–42 months

Total 25

FIGURE 33.1. LBII caprine mortality based on bone fusion from Tell Jemmeh (top register: survivorship; 

bottom register: kill off).
NUMBER 50 • 1045

fish, along with medium- and large-sized mammals. Three of 

these bones, medium mammal limbs, were burnt black (10YR 

2/1). Other items were also found in the kiln, such as painted 

Philistine pottery, a scarab, and one small piece of gold (chapter 7; Van Beek, 1977:173). Had the kiln been operational at 

the time it was filled with general debris, everything would have 

been burnt. However, most of the bones were not burnt. Those 

fired at a much lower temperature (black) were more consistent 

with routine meal preparation and may have been fired elsewhere. It is likely the animal remains and the other items were 

tossed into the kiln as an act of discard when it was no longer in 

use. The lack of pig bones from the Iron I Philistine occupation 

at Jemmeh seems to run counter to the general notion that pork 

(27%) could be identified (Table 33.3). The sample was dominated by caprids. One mandible and associated molars were 

identified as belonging to a goat. The attrition on its deciduous 

third molar and permanent first and second molars was consistent with a juvenile culled between 1 and 2 years, likely for its 

meat. One cattle bone, a second phalanx with a fused proximal 

epiphysis, is from a specimen aged at least 18 months. One fish 

vertebra indicates interest in aquatic resources. A foot bone of 

a dog (second phalanx) demonstrates the existence of nonfood 

animals in the community at Tell Jemmeh, employed as a form 

of security, herding aid, or companionship.

Twenty-one bones were found in the kiln (Field I FUR, see 

chapter 7), including the remains of cattle, dogs, caprids, and 

TABLE 33.7. Late Bronze Age II burnt bones from Tell Jemmeh.

Standard Munsell color codes

Color 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 5/1 10YR 6/2 10YR 8/1 2.5YR 7/1 7.5YR 8/1 GREY2 4/1 Total

Black 15 15

Large mammal 1 1

Unidentified 1 1

Medium mammal 6 6

Limb 4 4

Phalanx 3 1 1

Rib 1 1

Sheep/goat 6 6

Femur 2 2

M1 lower 1 1

Mandible 1 1

Molar 1 1

Phalanx 2 1 1

Small mammal 1 1

Limb 1 1

Unidentified 2 1

Blue/Gray 1 1

Medium mammal 1 1

Unidentified 1 1

Gray 1 3 1 1 1 7

Cattle 1 1

Phalanx 1 1 1

Medium mammal 1 1

Rib 1 1

Sheep/goat 1 2 1 1 5

Humerus 1 1

Metacarpal 1 1

Phalanx 1 1 1

Skull 1 1

Vertebra 1 1

White 2 2

Medium mammal 2 2

Limb 2 2

Total 15 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 25
1046 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

proximal femur, is not a convincing morphological match to Gallus (domestic chicken). Its proximal measurement (Bp = 24.52) 

indicates it belongs to a slightly larger species, perhaps one of 

the domestic stock of ducks or geese previously identified by B. 

Hesse and P. Wapnish, Penn State University (unpublished). Only 

one bone offered cull-related data: the fused proximal end of a 

sheep/goat calcaneum from a specimen at least 2.5–3 years old. 

The Iron IIB fauna was distributed between three buildings 

(Table 33.9). It may be significant to note that most of the fauna 

was found near rather than within Building III, a much smaller 

area than that of Buildings I and II. The observed pattern is probably best explained by the fact that Buildings I and II were hardly 

excavated in the lower phases. 

Iron IIC

The Iron IIC fauna was only found in Field IV, Phase 5 

(Table 33.1). This area produced a total of 303 bones, of which 

98 (32%) were identified (Tables 33.3 and 33.10). The community members relied mainly on sheep and goats, although cattle 

are also present in small numbers. Sheep remains outnumber 

goats (17:3). Nondomestic animal resources were also exploited 

as evidenced by hare, possibly the brown hare (Lepus capensis), 

and unidentified species of fish. A maxillary fragment with two 

associated teeth was identified as a species of cat (Felis sp.), and 

its size is consistent with a domesticate cat. 

A total of 15 sheep and goat bones offered data suitable for 

considering harvest profiles (Table 33.11, Figure 33.2). The data 

show a high degree of survivorship, especially in early and late age 

categories. Slaughters scheduled within the 13–28 month range 

would suggest an interest in meat acquisition. Culling younger 

animals is supported by the dental attrition score from a lower 

deciduous third molar, indicating a specimen aged 6–12 months 

at death. Dental wear can identify older individuals, which agrees 

with the fusion data. Attrition on affixed mandibular teeth, such 

is an undisputed hallmark of Philistine ethnicity. This topic will 

be discussed in more detail below.

Iron Age II

Many of the Iron II levels could be assigned with precision 

to specific ranges within this time span, such as Iron IIA, Iron IIB, 

and Iron IIC. Precise temporal separation could not be assigned 

to all deposits, and as such, the Iron II constitutes its own temporal category. These levels were only found in Field I, Square 

KB (Table 33.1). A total of 27 animal bones were found here, of 

which only 4 (15%) could be identified (Table 33.3). The identifiable assemblage consists of cattle (fused proximal second phalanx from a specimen aged at least 18 months), caprids (molar 

fragment and tibia shaft), and the vertebra of a rather small fish. 

One medium-mammal limb bone was butchered as evidenced by 

cut marks. 

Iron IIA

Fauna from the early Iron II was recorded in Fields II, III, 

and IV (Table 33.1). A total of 20 bones were retrieved from 

these deposits, of which 13 (65%) could be identified (Table 

33.3). The assemblage consists of cattle (two metatarsals), two 

fish vertebrae found in a pit, and six turtle shells. The turtle, 

whose relative abundance is overrepresented as a result of the 

small assemblage, may or may not have been consumed as it is 

only evidenced by carapace and plastron plate fragments (upper 

and lower shell halves). Perhaps these were the most valued parts 

readily convertible into a container.

Iron IIB

Animal remains from Iron IIB contexts are only found in 

Field IV (Table 33.1). A total of 41 bones date to this occupation phase, of which 16 (39%) were identified (Table 33.3). The 

sample consists of cattle, fish, an unidentified medium-sized bird, 

and caprids. All cattle remains are dental, whereas caprids are 

mainly represented with postcranial remains. The bird bone, a 

TABLE 33.8. Spatial distribution of LBII fauna in Field I.

Species Building I Street J Total

Cattle 2 6

a 8

Sheep/goat 6

b 12b 18

Medium mammal 10 35a 45

Large mammal 2 9 11

Unidentified 20 20

Total 20 82 102

a

One butchered bone.

b

One burnt bone and one butchered bone.

TABLE 33.9. Species distribution associated with Iron IIB Buildings in Field IV.

Building Building Building

Species I II III Total

Cattle 1 1 2

Fish 1 1

Sheep/goat 1 1 10b 12

Medium bird 1 1

Medium mammal 4 4

a 5 13

Large mammal 2 4 6

Unidentified 6 6

Total 5 8 28 41

a

One burnt black (10YR 2/1).

b

One with cut marks.
NUMBER 50 • 1047

TABLE 33.10. Iron IIC animal skeletal parts.

Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Total Bone and portion Cattle Sheep/goat Total

Astragalus 1 3 4

Fragment 1 2 3

Whole 1 1

Calcaneum 2 2

Distal 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Carpal 1 1 2

Fragment 1 1

Whole 1 1

Femur 1 3 4

Distal 1 1

Distal epiphysis 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Shaft 1 1

Humerus 3 3

Distal 1 1

Shaft 2 2

Hyoid 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Maxilla 1 1

Fragment 1 1

M1 upper 2 2

Fragment 2 2

M2 lower 2 2

Fragment 2 2

M2 upper 1 1

Fragment 1 1

M3 lower 4 4

Fragment 2 2

Whole 1 1

Mandible 4 4

Fragment 4 4

Molar 2 2

Fragment 2 2

Molar lower 7 7

Fragment 7 7

Molar upper 1 4 5

Fragment 1 4 5

Metacarpal 1 1 2

Proximal 1 1 2

Metapodial 4 4

Distal 1 1

Distal epiphysis 1 1

Shaft 2 2

Metatarsal 1 1

Proximal 1 1

Naviculo-cuboid 1 1

Whole 1 1

Phalanx 1 3 3

Distal 1 1

Proximal epiphysis 1 1

Whole 1 1

Phalanx 2 4 4

Whole 4 4

Phalanx 3 4 4

Fragment 4 4

Pelvis 1 1

Ischium 1 1

Pm lower 4 4

Fragment 4 4

Pm4 lower 2 2

Whole 2 2

Premaxilla 2 2

Fragment 2 2

Radius 5 5

Proximal epiphysis 2 2

Shaft 3 3

Rib 3 3

Fragment 1 1

Proximal 2 2

Scapula 4 4

Distal 3 3

Fragment 1 1

Skull 1 1

Fragment 1 1

Ulna 3 3

Distal 3 3

Vertebra 2 2

Centrum 1 1

Process 1 1

Total 6 84 90
1048 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

found in Building I, most from Room F (N = 5). Two worked 

sheep astragali bones (both from the right side) were found in 

Room F of Building I. Both exhibit slightly ground surfaces. The 

proximal half of both anterior ridges is mildly flattened on one 

astragalus, whereas the other demonstrates some flattening on 

as a fourth premolar aged 4–6 years old and a second molar aged 

6–8 years, demonstrates the presence of mature animals. Recording such advanced ages is especially noteworthy since dental attrition scores are not bound by the same methodological limitations 

associated with epiphyseal fusion and, as such, can detect much 

older animals that would otherwise remain unnoticed in the assemblage. The remains of older animals were also butchered, as 

evidenced by dismembering marks (TC-1) on a goat calcaneum 

that was at least 2.5–3 years at the time of the animal’s death. 

The undoubted historical significance of the Iron Age IIC caprine 

mortality profile will be discussed below.

Some of the Iron IIC bones could be assigned to their original context of discovery, enabling one to consider their distribution in relation to the Assyrian architecture in Field IV. A total 

of 265 bones were associated with Buildings I–III (Table 33.12). 

Most of the remains were found in Building I, an expected outcome since it occupies a much larger area than the other two 

structures. Of the 193 bones from Building I, 174 are associated with Room F, including the four fish bones from this occupation phase. A total of nine cut-marked bones (dismembering 

activities) were associated with these structures, seven coming 

from Building I and most from Room F (N = 5). Evidence for 

butchery is absent in Building II. Burnt bones (N = 6) were only 

TABLE 33.11. Iron Age IIC caprine fusion data.

Bone and portion Quantity Rate of fusion Age range

Unfused scapula 3 Less than 6–8 months 6–10 months

Fused distal humerus 1 Greater than 10 months

Fused proximal phalanges 3 Greater than 13–16 months 13–16 months

Unfused proximal phalanges 3 Less than 13–16 months

Fused distal metapodial 1 Greater than 18–28 months 18–28 months

Unfused distal metapodial 1 Less than 18–28 months

Fused distal ulna 3 Greater than 30 months Greater than 30 months

Total 15

TABLE 33.12. Faunal distribution and associated Iron IIC buildings in Field IV at Tell Jemmeh.

Building Building Building

Species I II III Total

Cattle 2 1 2 5

Cat 3 3

Fish 4 4

Hare 1 1

Sheep/goat 51 3 22 76

Medium mammal 72 8 14 94

Large mammal 2 2

Unidentified 62 18 80

Total 193 12 60 265

FIGURE 33.2. Iron IIC caprine mortality based on bone fusion from Tell Jemmeh (top register: survivorship; bottom register: kill off).
NUMBER 50 • 1049

Two of these bones, a distal humerus and a second phalange, 

were from sheep. 

Late Periods (Crusader-­Mamluk?)

Fauna from possibly the Crusader-Mamluk period comes 

Field IV, Phase 1 (Table 33.2). Only five animal bones were 

found in Islamic period ash levels, all of which were identified 

as caprids (Table 33.3). With the exception of one tooth (lower 

first or second molar fragment), all bones were from sections 

in the lower limb, including metapodials and astragali. Three 

bones were specifically identified as sheep (two astragali and one 

proximal metacarpal). As these postcranial remains are not significant meat-bearing bones, they were likely deposited during 

discard. One metapodial had a fused distal epiphysis, meaning 

the animal had died after it was 24–28 months old. Cut marks 

near the proximal end of the metacarpal (MCp-1) indicate general dismembering. 

DISCUSSION

During the course of excavations at Tell Jemmeh, it was estimated that the faunal sample consisted of more than 100,000 

fragments (see Wapnish, In press). It should be noted that the observations made above and the ideas expressed below only pertain to the small assemblage available for this particular study. 

As such, the conclusions should be regarded as tentative given 

that the sample size is further reduced as it is spread over multiple time periods spanning thousands of years.

The rate of species identification for each period of occupation (excluding the very small Chalcolithic and Islamic samples) 

varies from 15% to 65%. Since the assemblage also comes from 

different areas of the tell, the differential bone preservation also 

reflects significant intrasite variability in how organic remains 

its lateral aspect. Their function is not known, but some have 

speculated on their role in games or oracular proceedings (see 

Gilmour, 1997). Van Beek (1974a:274) noted the discovery of 

“60 knuckle bones” from the Assyrian period, although there is 

no mention of whether they were modified. 

A medium mammal rib bone worked on both sides was 

found in Square 3B on the floor of Building III; its exterior aspect was repeatedly worn against another object to produce an 

incredibly smoothed and polished surface (Figure 33.3, Reg. No. 

4138). The preserved length of the bone is 28.1 mm, its preserved width is 16.7 mm, and its greatest preserved thickness 

measures 1.8 mm. This is an especially significant discovery as it 

bears an inscription on the exterior side of the bone. The inscription is dye based rather than cut or etched into the bone surface 

(see Figures 8.106h, 33.3 and chapter 32). 

The Persian Period

Fauna dating to the Persian period was only discovered in 

Field IV (Table 33.1). These levels produced a total of 22 bones, 

of which 8 (36%) were identified, all as caprids (Table 33.3). 

Most of the caprine remains came from the head (mandible, 

orbital, and four teeth) with a couple of postcranial (rib and 

metacarpal) fragments. The wear on a lower second molar is 

consistent with a young caprid that died at 6–12 months old. 

Four bones provided age-related data. Animals were killed after 

10 months of age (fused distal humerus), after 13–16 months of 

age (fused proximal first and second phalanx), and before 2.5 

years (unfused distal ulna). It is possible that all of these remains 

belong to the same individual specimen. Evidence for meal preparation is indicated by dismembering butchery marks (PS-8 and 

PS-9) on an ischium that was also burnt black (10YR 2/1). 

Fauna from Persian/Hellenistic contexts comes from Field 

IV, Phase 2 (Table 33.1). These deposits produced a total of 40 

bones, of which 9 (23%) were identified as caprids (Table 33.3). 

FIGURE 33.3. An inscribed bone fragment (Reg. No. 4138; on the right is a close-up of the right part of the object).
1050 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

put forth. The culling of young pigs and mature cattle agrees with 

the first study. However, some juvenile cattle were also identified, 

which indicates at least a minor interest in beef consumption. 

Immature caprine specimens and the presence of a mature specimen older than 3 years support culling strategies documented 

previously. The absence of data of sheep and goat dental attrition hampers further interpretation as older specimens cannot 

be identified. 

The Iron IB period at Tell Jemmeh is thought to represent a 

Philistine occupation. If true, then one may expect to document 

evidence for raising pigs and the consumption of pork. In fact, 

the only pig bones in the current study came from the Middle 

Bronze Age (ST1, Layers 1, 2, 4, and 4B and Pit 10). Wapnish 

and Hesse (1988) indicated 12% of the identifiable Middle 

Bronze Age fauna from Jemmeh came from pigs. Not a single pig 

bone or tooth was found in the Iron I at Tell Jemmeh. This may 

be expected because of the sample size, but it should be noted 

that P. Wapnish (unpublished) also found little evidence for early 

Iron Age pig use at Jemmeh. Not every Philistine community 

consumed the same quantities of pork. On the basis of bone 

fragment counts, contemporary Iron I pig assemblages from 

Ashkelon (19%) and Tel Miqne/Ekron (18%; Hesse, 1990:217; 

Maher, In press) and Tell es-Safi/Gath (Lev-Tov, 2012:594; see 

also Maeir et al., 2013:16–17) contrast with Batash (8%; Hesse, 

1990:216) and Tel Qiri (1.4%; Davis, 1985:149). Iron I Philistine 

rural occupations at Nahal Patish (Nahshoni, 2009a, 2009b), 

Qubur al-Walaydah, and Tell Farah (S) all produced very few 

pig remains, less than 1% at each site. The evidence suggests 

that pig consumption was practiced more often in urban centers 

than in smaller towns, cultic centers, or rural settlements (Maher, 

2012). Much of our understanding of early Philistine economy is 

derived from large Philistine cities, yet the Philistine countryside 

is still largely unexplored. This top-down perspective may have 

led to a skewed perception of Iron I Philistine diet and ethnicity. 

Although elements of the same tradition, heritage, and history 

are shared, it should be considered that the dynamic elements of 

Philistine culture varied between city and country folk. High levels of pig consumption may not have actually been a Philistinewide cultural phenomenon, but rather, may have been specific to 

the lifeways of Philistine city dwellers. 

Some Philistine communities ate canids (dog and fox), a 

practice that seems temporally restricted to the Iron I, documented at Tel Miqne (Maher, In press), Ashkelon (Wapnish and 

Hesse, 1999), and Qubur al-Walaydah (Maher, unpublished). 

Dog bones bearing evidence of butchery are never as abundant 

as the cut-marked remains from more traditional food animals 

such as sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs are. Since many other animals would have been available for consumption, eating canid 

meat seems a tactic borne out of choice rather than crisis or 

desperation. The preference apparently was not adopted at Tell 

Jemmeh in the Iron IB, which only produced one nonbutchered 

dog bone. Once again, one must consider the impact of the small 

sample size of the study.

The Assyrian occupation at Tell Jemmeh in the 7th century 

BCE begun by Esarhaddon was continued later by his son Ashurbanipal. Tell Jemmeh may have been used as a military base from 

are preserved (Hesse and Wapnish, 1985:27). Many of the bones 

were encrusted internally and externally with crystalline growth 

(see Hesse and Wapnish, 1985:28, fig. 21) which often resulted in 

the destruction of the element, leaving only unidentifiable bone 

fragments still adhering to the rock crystals. Not only did this 

impact identification rates, but bone surfaces with evidence for 

butchery, pathologies, or animal disturbance such as gnawing or 

partial digestion were less likely to be noticed. Cut marks were 

identified, but there were likely more that eluded detection. Significantly, evidence for carnivore and raptor feeding habits or pathological development was not recorded on any of the remains. The 

number of different taxa from each occupation phase is relatively 

consistent. In all cases, the remains of domestic animals dominate 

the assemblage. Wild animals tend to comprise a small portion 

of the local cuisine. Since Tell Jemmeh’s position within Israel’s 

southern coastal plain is considered to be a marginal agricultural 

zone (Wapnish, 1981a:101), local economic reliance on domestic stock would have been oriented mainly toward pastoralism. 

Wild game was taken on occasion, as their remains have been 

previously identified (Wapnish, In press; Wapnish and Hesse, unpublished), but they never comprise a significant portion of the 

animals consumed at Tell Jemmeh. This is consistent with other 

historic period faunal assemblages in the region.

Faunal remains can sometimes indicate interaction with 

nonlocal markets. Two vertebrae from a cartilaginous fish were 

found in an Iron IIA pit in Field II, Square A2. These remains are 

from a shark or ray from the Mediterranean Sea. The merchants 

at Tell Jemmeh may have had direct contact with neighboring 

coastal communities. Alternatively, marine resources might have 

trickled inland to Tell Jemmeh from a large neighboring port city. 

The large shell of the freshwater bivalve Aspatharia rubens caillaudi, an import from Egypt, was found in Late Bronze Age levels at Tell Jemmeh (Reese et al., 1986:82; see also Appendix 33.1 

on shells). Its initial entrance into the region was likely through a 

Mediterranean port, perhaps Gaza or Tell el-‘Ajjul.

Aspects of the current study’s MBIIB-C fauna are compared 

to the earlier findings from Wapnish and Hesse (1988), who considered the nature of the MBIIB-C animal-based economy at Tell 

Jemmeh. The present and previous data have documented the 

importance of sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle. Each study demonstrates similarities in relative species frequency; Wapnish and 

Hesse found that cattle made up 13% of the assemblage, exactly 

the result of the current study. They also found that sheep were 

much more common than goats, an observation supported by 

the new data. Wapnish and Hesse noted that sheep and goats 

together comprised 72%–83% of the assemblage, and pigs comprised about 10%–15%. Caprids from the current study represent only 56% of the sample, and pigs represent 36%. Wapnish 

and Hesse’s sample was much larger (NISP = 2,500 bones) and 

more representative. The small MBIIB-C assemblage from the 

current study explains the underrepresentation of caprids and 

over representation of hogs. Wapnish and Hesse interpreted the 

harvest profiles as evidence for a self-contained economy that 

focused on dairy production, pork consumption, and cattle traction. Mortality data from the current study are too small for 

large-scale interpretation, but some general observations can be 
NUMBER 50 • 1051

such circumstances would be discouraged (Zeder, 1996). Thus, 

there is convergence between zooarchaeological, archaeological, 

and epigraphic evidence regarding the nature of Tell Jemmeh’s 

economy in the 7th century BCE.

Wapnish noted a shift in the Iron IIC caprine mortality profile that featured more mature specimens after 4 years of age. 

This slaughter schedule is much different than earlier phases, 

which were oriented more toward culling young animals. From 

the current study, the LBII caprine harvest profile (Figure 33.1) 

includes many juvenile animals. This contrasts with the Iron 

IIC mortality profile with evidence for fewer young and greater 

survivorship resulting in mature animals (Figure 33.2). The 

consumption of older sheep and goats is a consequence of the 

strained production strategies that fed Assyrian administrators 

and soldiers (Wapnish, 1981a:116). It is also possible that Assyrian tribute demands, a practice that involved the exportation of 

animal livestock from conquered regions, were executed, resulting in the removal of juvenile caprids from Tell Jemmeh’s holdings (Wapnish, 1996:293).

Another way in which the Assyrian presence may have 

changed the local animal economy is marked by a substantive increase in camel remains, with camels intended for war, transport, 

or both (Wapnish, 1981a:116). The last faunal marker of Assyrian 

domination noted by Wapnish, aided by the expert identifications 

of H. Mienis, is the increased abundance of Nile mollusk shells, 

taken as an indicator of more frequent contact and exchange with 

Egypt. The current study did not identify any additional camel 

remains or imported Nile fauna (mammals, fish, or mollusks). 

During the excavations of the large Assyrian building, Van 

Beek (1974b:138) reported that Rooms A and F in Building I 

were partly subterranean and served as basement storerooms 

full of storage jars (see chapter 8). This interpretation may explain why most of the butchered and burnt animal bones came 

from Room F in Building I (see above). These joints of meat, 

having already been cooked, were then placed in storage jars 

and were perhaps intended to provision Assyrian soldiers. Such 

valuable commodities would not be left unattended; perhaps the 

two worked astragali were cast in games of chance to whittle 

away the time during a guard’s post. Although many items were 

recovered from Room F, some may have originally come from 

the upper floors of Building I, and their occurrence in the lower 

levels could be the result of eventual structural collapse.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank David Ben-Shlomo for inviting me to study the faunal assemblage from Tell Jemmeh. I also thank Paula Wapnish 

for her permission to work on this sample. 

AUTHOR NOTE

Edward F. Maher, The Field Museum, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 

Illinois 60605-2496, USA. Correspondence: efmaher@hotmail.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 2013.

which the Assyrians launched offensives against Egypt. The archaeological evidence for an Assyrian presence is illustrated 

by the establishment of new buildings reminiscent of Assyrian 

styles with vaulted rooms (see chapters 8 and 34; e.g., Van Beek, 

1997:214). Assyrian-style pottery (chapter 13), including dimpled drinking cups and ribbed bowls, may suggest this structure 

served as the residence for a high-ranking Assyrian official (Van 

Beek, 1972:245). The Assyrian presence at Tell Jemmeh may 

have interrupted normal daily routines for the local Philistine 

community; their attention would have focused on meeting the 

needs of the Assyrian commanders, soldiers, and messengers or 

any other official representing Assyria’s imperial agenda. The 

Assyrian occupation resulted in a change in the local economic 

system that is evident in the sampled faunal record in multiple 

ways. Each of these will be outlined and then compared to the 

data from the current study.

Wapnish (1981a:116) documented five distinct changes in 

the Iron IIC faunal composition not practiced by earlier settlers 

at the site. The proportion of caprids to cattle in the LBII and 

Iron I periods was 4:1, demonstrating a locally driven pastoral 

economy, but the proportion increased to 9:1 in the Assyrian 

period. Considering the data by century, the caprid to cattle ratio 

for the 8th century BCE is 10.4:1, and it is 6:1 in the 7th century 

BCE (Wapnish, 1996:289). From the current study, the combined 

LBII–Iron IIB samples produced a caprid to cattle ratio of 3.4:1, 

significantly different from the Assyrian pattern of 14:1. The species ratio method was also considered between sheep and goats, 

which Wapnish noted to be 3:1 in the LBII and Iron I phases and 

4:1 during Assyria’s presence. The best sequence from the current 

study, although still a small sample, is from the LBII, where the 

sheep to goat ratio is 2.5:1. This differs from the ratio of 5.7:1 during the Assyrian presence, which is closer to the more substantial 

and therefore more representative 7th century BCE sample (Wapnish, 1996:289). The sets of species ratios from the current study 

before and during the Iron IIC are not markedly different than 

those reported by Wapnish, thereby providing additional evidence 

for Jemmeh’s possible economic shift during Assyrian control.

Why would the Assyrian occupation or influence coincide 

with elevated caprine abundance, specifically more sheep than 

goats? Wool was a resource regularly taken from sheep for taxation purposes (Hesse, 1986:26) and is the least perishable animal product well suited for distribution (Zeder, 1988:10) even 

over long distances. Goat hair was used to make tents, sacks, 

and rope (Hirsch, 1933:10; Borowski, 1998:63). Contemporary 

texts confirm the importance of the Philistine textile industry, 

as Assyrian documents record the receipt of linen, robes, and 

tent cloth as tribute from Philistia (Tadmor, 1966:93). Ten loom 

weights found in the Assyrian buildings at Tell Jemmeh (Van 

Beek, 1974a:274) indicate local weaving practices. By managing 

flocks with older animals, those at Tell Jemmeh could have met 

their obligations to Assyria. This may also explain why no pigs 

were found in this Late Iron Age Philistine settlement, although 

Hesse and Wapnish probably identified a few during their study 

of the material. Diener and Robkin (1978) point out that pigs do 

not offer any secondary products that can be used as tax payment to a ruling elite. Given this limitation, their management in 
1052 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

APPENDIX 33.1

Table 33.A1 includes preliminary identification of the shells from Tell Jemmeh stores in the National Museum of Natural History 

(NMNH), carried by Yorke Rowan and other NMNH interns (notes were copied from the cards). A few shells were not identified, or 

their identification is questionable, and others had no provenance.

TABLE 33.A1. List of shells with preliminary identification. Byz = Byzantine (see Schaefer 1989).

Identification Provenance Items found Notes/origin

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI 4G (3) 1 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI FUR (2) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMIII F1 TT1 (1) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMIII F1 (5) 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMIII B (59) 2 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1B NBR (1) 1 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1B (1) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 00B P2 (2) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 00A (1) 3 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1D (1) 1 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1A P9 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 00A (4) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1A (+) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1E (9) 3 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2A (1) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2A (6A) 3 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2A TT1 (6) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B (35) 2 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 1A P6 (1) 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI 4D (3) 3 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI TTE (0) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI 5E (2) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI 5E TT1 (1) 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GMI 1F (2) 1 2 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 3B (+) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 00A (7) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B TT2 (17) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B (0) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B (35) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 3B (9) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B TT3 (17A) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerastoderma glaucum GM 2B (1) 3 1 Mediterranean Sea

Cerithium scabridum GMI 4G (0) 1 Red Sea

Terebridae or Turridae GM 2C P1A (6) 1 Red Sea (Terebridae) Red Sea or Mediterranean 

Sea (Turridae)

Bufonaria crumena (Ranellidae or Buridae)? GM 1A (+) 2 ?

Bufonaria crumena (Ranellidae or Buridae)? GM 2A NBR (13) 1 unknown

Bufonaria crumena (Ranellidae or Buridae)? Byz F1 TT1 (11) 1 unknown

Chambardia rubens arcuata GMIII C2 (89) 5 fragments Nile

Chambardia rubens arcuata GM 00A P5 1 Nile

Chambardia rubens arcuata GM 2A (12) 1 Nile

Hexaplex trunculus GMI 4D (1) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Hexaplex trunculus GMII A3 (20) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Hexaplex trunculus GM 0M P6 (2) 1 Mediterranean Sea

Gyrineum bitoberculare Byz F2 Square 2 (1) 2 1 Murex family
NUMBER 50 • 1053

Euplica varians or Columbella rustica GM 1C (11) 4 1 Red Sea or Mediterranean Sea

Hiatella flacida? GMIII C2 TT2 (4) 1 Unknown

Barbatia perinesa? GMI 5G (1) 1 Unknown

Glycymeris Unknown 12

Monetaria annulus GM 1A (+) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 1B (7) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 0A (1) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 2B (15) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 00A (2) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 2C P1A (1) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 1C (3) 1 Red Sea

Monetaria annulus GM 2A (31) 1 Red Sea

Borátic(?) GM 2B (25) 2A 1 Unknown

Glycymeris nummaria GMI 4G (3) 1 23 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GMI 5G (1) 3 12 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GMI FUR (1) 4 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 2B (58) 12 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 00A (1) 3 82 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 0A (7) 17 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 2B TT3 (17A) 56 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 2B (35) 2A 13 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 1B (14) 2 6 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 3B (9) 15 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 3B (10) 18 Mediterranean Sea

Glycymeris nummaria GM 3B (11) 2 4 Mediterranean Sea

Total from all contexts 1089

TABLE 33.A1 (continued)

Identification Provenance Items found Notes/origin
34 Synthesis and Conclusions: 

The Significance 

of Tell Jemmeh

David Ben-Shlomo

This chapter ending the report will summarize the results of the excavations at the site and will attempt to evaluate the significance of 

the site in the different periods of its occupation in relation to its closer and more distant vicinity and to the ancient history of the Levant.

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIB-C

The Chalcolithic period is represented at Tell Jemmeh only by ceramic evidence, yet this region is well known in this period (such 

as the sites on the Besor and Gerar rivers and the Beer-Sheba Valley; e.g., Perrot, 1968; Gilead, 1989; Gilead et al., 1995). Then, there 

is a long gap in the occupation of Tell Jemmeh during the entire Early Bronze Age and the early Middle Bronze Age from ca. 3600 BCE 

to ca. 1700 BCE at least. Wherever virgin soil was reached, MBIIB-C remains were lying on top of it.

Although the Middle Bronze Age was excavated only in a relatively small area, important results were recovered. During this period 

the site was probably fortified with a rampart wall or an earth glacis, which was probably attached to the city wall (remains of which 

may have been found in ST1, chapter 5). Rampart and other massive fortifications are considered a typical phenomenon of the MBA in 

the Levant; these have been explained as competing power symbols of the local rulers (see, e.g., Bunimovitz, 1992:225–228; Finkelstein, 

1992:206–207; Uziel, 2008:248–249). At Tell Jemmeh, domestic structures and open areas yielded a large and diversified pottery assemblage. This site compares well with other MBIIB-C tells in southwestern Israel such as Tel Nagila, Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tell es-Safi/Gath, Ashkelon, 

and Tel Haror. Generally, the pottery and other aspects of material culture in the southern Levant are more uniform during the MBIIB than 

during the LBII period (see, e.g., Uziel, 2008:264–266). Although no administrative or cultic complexes were unearthed (like at Tell Haror 

and Ashkelon, for example; Figure 34.1), the material culture testifies to the importance of the site. It includes a relatively large quantity 

of Cypriot imports, mostly White Painted ware (chapter 11), even though the site is not on the coast. Levantine decorated pottery such as 

Tell el-Yahudiyeh and Red, White, and Blue ware and a large group of impressed sealings, scarabs, jewelry, and other small finds were also 

found. The faunal remains may indicate a specialization with production of dairy products and interesting remains of equid burials (see 

chapter 33). Whereas the long-range connections with Cyprus are well attested (chapter 11), even connections with the north are reflected 

by a rare find of a clay cylinder with cuneiform signs (chapter 28). The four overlying excavation phases dated to this period at Field III, 

located on the edges of the tell, have a thick accumulation of debris and also testify to the size and density of the settlement during this 

period. If the central part of the tell (located under the LBII courtyard building, Field I) would have been excavated down to the MBII levels 

to a large extent, possibly, an administrative center of the town would have been unearthed. Thus, Tell Jemmeh was probably a large and 

well-connected urban site during the MBII, located on an important crossroad on the way from Egypt to the Levant and farther north. 

LATE BRONZE AGE

The transition between the MBIIC and the Late Bronze Age is elusive at Tell Jemmeh, and a clear LBI assemblage is difficult to 

identify (for example, there are no Cypriot imports from this period). The Late Bronze Age II, however, is well represented will at least 
NUMBER 50 • 1055

six occupation phases in Fields I and III, as well as two phases 

in Field II. Apparently, the intensity of the settlement of the site 

during the LBII was high. The main importance of the Field III 

remains is the overlying sequence of at least six LBII phases, enabling us to compare pottery assemblages, although of limited 

size, from the different stages of this period. Such a sequence 

has not been published yet from any other site of this period in 

southern Israel. The remains from Field II are quite limited, and 

their interpretation is unclear. Possibly, remains of fortifications 

dated to the LBII were found here, and several interesting small 

finds came from this field. The highlight of the LBII remains is 

the quarter excavated in Field I including two large courtyard 

buildings, one of them nearly complete (Building I). Building I 

boasts a very large, carefully paved courtyard, a series of rooms 

with a high-access depth scheme, a bath or other water-holding 

installation, and several food preparation installations. This 

building was probably an affluent patrician house (Oren, 1992; 

Ben-Shlomo, 2012b). The building adjacent to Building I was 

only partly excavated, but it seems to have been of a similar 

plan and nature. Relatively, the finds from Building II are even 

richer, including seals, sealings, figurines, and bone inlays. The 

finds from the LBII consist of pottery, including decorated pottery in the Canaanite style (chapter 10), imported Cypriot and 

Mycenaean wares (dated to mid-14th through the 13th centuries 

BCE, chapter 11; notably, Egyptian-style pottery is rare), female 

figurines (chapter 17), stone vessels and tools, metal weapons 

and tools, bone tools and inlays, jewelry, beads, scarabs, and 

amulets. Other small finds include a fine example of a Mitannistyle cylinder seal (chapter 29). 

The intensity and affluence of the LBII site fit well with the 

textual and historical record mentioning Yurza (= Tell Jemmeh) 

as an important Canaanite border town. The term “Canaanite” 

in the Late Bronze Age southern Levant is largely defined by external elements such as the Egyptian and biblical sources, and the 

people in this region were probably diversified ethnically in the 

modern sense of the term (see Tubb, 1988; Killebrew, 2005:12, 

93–96). The external sources define Canaan as a land lying south 

of Alalakh and Ugarit and north of the Egyptian border, yet textual evidence from Canaan proper is rather scarce. Nevertheless, 

the Canaanite culture may be defined by a socioeconomic system 

represented by various city-states (as reflected by the Amarna 

letters, for example) and other sites and by a mutual, yet diversified, material culture (see, e.g., Killebrew, 2005:93–148). 

As noted above, Tell Jemmeh lies in the southern most edge 

of this area. The Egyptian expression “from Yurza to the outer 

ends of the earth” (see Maisler [Mazar], 1952:50) vividly reflects 

its status as a border town, whereas the finds from the excavation show its Canaanite character. Moreover, the Egyptian 

influence in the material culture remains quite minimal and is 

limited mainly to the appearance of Egyptian-style amulets and 

scarabs (160 altogether with Petrie’s collection, see chapters 20, 

24, and 27), which are quite common in most sites of southern 

Israel. The reason for this may be that the Egyptian presence in 

the southern Levant was limited to specific garrison towns such 

as Deir el-Balah (Dothan and Brandl, 2010a), Tel Sera’ (Oren, 

1993c), Aphek (Stratum X12, Gadot and Yadin, 2009), and 

FIGURE 34.1. Map of Israel with sites mentioned in the text (chapters 8, 13, and 32).
1056 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

well-preserved pottery kiln from Field I FUR. This kiln is furthermore unique in its structure and is more sophisticated than other 

kilns found in the Levant, especially because of the extensive 

usage of flues to regulate the firing temperature and atmosphere. 

It would have been natural to associate this kiln with the production of Philistine Bichrome and other Iron IB pottery found in the 

site. However, hardly any area was excavated around the kiln, 

and no apparent kiln wasters could be identified. Interestingly, 

the Iron I kiln area yielded a large number of scarabs (five in 

total), all dated stylistically to the 13th–early 12th centuries BCE 

(see chapter 27). Maybe this indicates a certain Egyptian influence on the Philistines or possibly testifies to an earlier phase in 

the area of the kiln dated to the Iron IA.

Tell Jemmeh lies within the territory of Philistia, in its southern part, bordering the Negev, with Gaza being the closest main 

Philistine city. As Gaza has barely been excavated, this site is 

important for understanding this part of the Philistine territory. 

The site probably connects the town of Gaza to its hinterland, 

which lies farther to the east. The proper hinterland is reflected 

by small sites in the northwestern Negev such as Qubur Walayideh (Lehman et al., 2009; Lehmann, 2011) and the Iron IB–IIA 

village and temple at Nahal Patish (Nahshoni, 2009a, 2009b; 

Figure 34.1). The Philistine character of this site is reflected by 

the Philistine Bichrome pottery found at the site (attested in 

Fields I FUR and III, as well as in Petrie’s excavations) and by 

Aegean-style cooking jugs. According to the petrographic analysis, it seems that most of the Philistine Bichrome analyzed was 

produced at the site (chapter 15). In the later phases of the Iron 

IB and the early Iron IIA “degenerated” Philistine pottery also 

appears. Philistine Monochrome pottery typical of the early 12th 

century BCE was not found at Tell Jemmeh, but this is not surprising, as this ware is hardly found outside the main Philistine 

cities. The pottery kiln can also attest to the developed pottery 

production technology of the Philistines, yet Aegean parallels for 

this type of kiln are not clear. 

Notably, the faunal remains, as far as we know (chapter 

33), are not typically Philistine. No pig bones were identified 

from the Iron I levels (of a small sample, see Table 33.3). This 

is not a regional phenomenon, as in the MBIIB sample 31% of 

the identified bones were from pigs. A lack of pig bones was also 

encountered in nearby Iron I Qubur Walayideh, for example. A 

similar phenomenon at Beth Shemesh, the lack of pig bones in an 

Iron I settlement containing nevertheless Philistine Bichrome pottery, was interpreted as the “resistance” of the Canaanite culture 

to the Philistine one (Bunimovitz and Lederman, 2011). Indeed, 

at Tell Jemmeh Canaanite-style pottery continues to appear as 

well as a few bowls in the Egyptian style. Apparently, as in other 

Philistine settlements (or settlements in Philistia), the Canaanite 

material culture coexisted with the Philistine one. 

IRON IIA

The Iron IIA (ca. 1000–800 BCE) was probably a formative 

period in sociopolitical history of the southern Levant. During 

this period new ethnic states evolved, and the material culture 

Qubur Walaydah, Stratum VIII (Lehmann et al., 2009), as well 

as Beth Shean in the north (e.g., James and McGovern, 1993; 

Killebrew, 2005:51–98). Outside these towns, even on the southern coast of Israel, Canaanite culture predominates. A similar 

picture arises from the remains of Late Bronze Age Ashdod and 

Tell es-Safi/Gath (Gadot et al., 2012:252–253). Furthermore, as 

a (relatively) independent Canaanite town on the border between 

Canaan and Egypt, the population may have deliberately intensified Canaanite material culture and other elements related to 

“Canaanite identity” and possibly “resisted” Egyptian cultural 

elements. Such cultural behavior related to areas on the border 

of two different ethnic groups was suggested also, for example, 

for the Philistines and their neighbors in the same region during 

the Iron I (see, for Beth Shemesh, Bunimovitz and Lederman, 

1997; Bunimovitz and Faust, 2001; see also Parker, 2006:86–87; 

Ben-Shlomo, 2012b:152–153).

Apparently, Tell Jemmeh was important and flourishing 

during both the Middle and Late Bronze Ages; its importance 

was in its strategic location controlling the coastal route and is 

also evidenced from the textual sources mentioning it during the 

New Kingdom as the town of Yurza. During the MBII the town 

was probably fortified; the evidence so far regarding fortification 

during the LBII is not clear. As noted, the Canaanite character 

of the site is clearly evident from the archaeological results. The 

courtyard building architecture is typical during the Bronze Age 

Levant for both public and private houses. The material culture 

including both pottery and small finds is typically Canaanite. 

This includes also figurative artifacts such as decorated pottery, 

female figurines, and bone inlays, all indicating the Canaanite 

tradition. This tradition reflects both Egyptian and Syrian influences but still carries its own independent character. These 

remains together with other recently published finds from the 

region of southern Israel (such as Aphek, Batash, and Tell es-Safi) 

add important data on the material world of the Canaanites.

IRON I

The Iron I (ca. 1200–1000 BCE) is a period with special 

importance in this region as it involved the appearance of a new 

ethnic group: the Philistines, who were probably immigrants 

from the west (the Aegean and/or Cyprus; see, e.g., Dothan, 

1982; Killebrew, 2005; Ben-Shlomo, 2006a; Yasur-Landau, 

2010). Regretfully, this period was not exposed in large areas 

in the Smithsonian Institution excavations at Tell Jemmeh. The 

main reason for this is that Petrie’s excavations exhausted these 

remains in the upper layers in Field I, whereas in Field IV the 

Iron II structures were not removed. Thus, this period is only 

testified to in Phases 5 and 6 in Field III and in the small exposure of Field I FUR, where three phases could be attributed to 

this period. Petrie’s results display pottery and small finds from 

this period, but because of the excavation methods, it is difficult 

to securely attribute these finds to the recorded architectural remains (see chapter 1). 

Nevertheless, the Smithsonian excavations yielded a very 

important and rare find from the period: the nearly complete and 
NUMBER 50 • 1057

34.2c–h, 34.3), as examples from Nimrud, Arslan Tash, Zinjirli, 

Shekh Hamad, and Nush-i Jan indicate (see chapter 8 for further 

references; Figure 34.2). These examples are usually auxiliary 

buildings near or adjacent to palaces, but some examples are forts 

or burial structures (Figure 34.2g,h). Comparing the plans seen 

in Figure 34.2, it seems that the Jemmeh buildings are quite a bit 

smaller than the Neo-Assyrian buildings and have a simpler plan 

in most cases. A second adjacent building, Building II, was not 

as well preserved but also may illustrate a Neo-Assyrian ground 

plan with a courtyard surrounded by elongated rooms (see Amiran and Dunayevsky, 1958). The plan of this area may have been 

similar in Phase 6, whereas in Phase 7 there might have been a 

somewhat different administrative complex built here. However, 

this could not be ascertained as most of the Phase 5 remains 

were not dismantled. The Neo-Assyrian traditions more clearly 

attested at Tell Jemmeh thus include mainly the extensive use of 

true brick arches with voussoir-type bricks and brick paving (see 

chapter 8). Moreover, there is certain evidence of Neo-Assyrian 

architectural techniques used at Tell Jemmeh in previous periods, 

as early as the late Iron IIA/Iron IIB (Phase 8); these include brick 

arches and the wall-building techniques.

The pottery from Phases 7–5 is relatively similar and is comparable to other contemporary sites in southern Israel and the 

southern coastal plains. Certain forms show a strong link to the 

region of the northern and central Negev (such as comparisons 

with sites like Kadesh Barnea, Tel Malhata, Tel ‘Ira, and ‘Aroer 

indicates; see chapter 5). Apparently, during this period Tell Jemmeh was an important post on the route from the Negev, the 

spice route and Arabia, and the Mediterranean emporia such as 

Gaza. Other classes of material culture are also typical of the late 

Iron II in this part of the country such as the horse and horse and 

rider figurines.

The most important contribution of the pottery from this 

period is the Assyrian-style pottery found only in Phase 5 and 

almost entirely concentrated in Buildings I and II. This pottery 

was found in large numbers, more than in any other site in the 

Levant, mostly from Building I. The forms include bowls and 

beakers, and the pottery appears in various fabrics. Much of 

it is of high quality and cannot be visually distinguished from 

proper Neo-Assyrian palace ware. However, petrographic analysis clearly shows that most of this pottery was locally produced 

at Tell Jemmeh or in its vicinity. Moreover, the petrographic 

analysis of similar pottery found at other sites (e.g., Tell el-Hesi, 

Ashkelon, and ‘Aroer) indicates the pottery at those sites was 

also produced mostly in the Tell Jemmeh region. Thus, Tell Jemmeh was probably a center producing Assyrian-style pottery 

distributed in southern Israel in the early 7th century BCE. A 

few rooms in Building I were also quite rich in complete pottery 

vessels and small finds, especially Room A, where a large quantity of Assyrian-style pottery was found. Ornan (1997:268–269) 

identified several stamp seals made in the Assyrian tradition from 

Petrie’s excavations at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie, 1928: pls. XVII:49, 

XIX:50, XX:14,15,17), but none come from the Smithsonian Institution (SI) excavations. She notes these are all made locally, incorporating Assyrian influences in their style and themes (Ornan, 

1997:269).

was changed (e.g., Mazar, 1990:387–390; Herzog and SingerAvitz, 2004). This period was also not exposed in a large area 

at Tell Jemmeh. Clearly, Petrie’s excavations produced material 

from this period, but it is difficult to isolate a clear architectural 

plan of the Iron IIA. In the Smithsonian Institution excavations 

this period was exposed only in a small area in Field IV (Square 

2B under the Iron IIB-C Assyrian building), where about three 

phases of this period could be defined (Phases 11–9), as well as in 

Phase 4 of Fields III and II and in Phase KB3 of Field I.

This phase yielded some examples of Late Philistine Decorated Ware (Ben-Shlomo et al., 2004), which could indicate the 

continuance of the distinct regional Philistine material culture 

at the site during this period. Several sealings found in Field I, 

Square KB may also be of importance. On the other hand, it 

seems that this horizon may anticipate the next period of the 

Iron IIB-C, with its strong Neo-Assyrian affiliation, which may 

be reflected by a group of pottery bowls showing a mixture of 

Philistine, local, and Assyrian characteristics (chapters 8 and 12, 

Type BL5). However, it is impossible to compare the Iron IIA and 

IIB-C architectural remains as the latter were not dismantled. 

Moreover, Iron I levels were not excavated under the Iron IIA 

ones anywhere in the Smithsonian Institution excavations, and 

thus, the site cannot really contribute to the discussion on the 

dating of this important transition. It is therefore difficult to fully 

assess the significance of Tell Jemmeh during this period.

IRON IIB-C AND NEO-ASSYRIAN 

INFLUENCE AT THE SITE

Remains from Tell Jemmeh

The Iron IIB-C (late 8th through the 7th century BCE) is 

a period characterized by the involvement and influence of the 

Neo-Assyrian Empire in the southern Levant. At Tell Jemmeh 

this is probably the most extensively represented period. From 

Petrie’s excavations two to three levels belong to this period 

(Levels C-D and probably Levels E-F and A-B as well). These 

levels illustrate well-built public architecture; however, the 

better-documented results come from Field IV in the Smithsonian Institution excavation.

In Field IV four phases belong to this period (Phases 8–5), 

with Phases 8–7 probably dating to the Iron IIB (ca. 800–700 

BCE) and Phases 6–5 dating to the Iron IIC (probably the early 

7th century BCE). The remains of Phase 5 include a complex of 

structures that are probably public in their nature. The most well 

preserved structure is the vaulted or Assyrian Building (Building 

I, Figure 34.2a), a building with at least two stories, where the 

ground floor is carried by true brick arches built on the basement 

floor. This structure was erected within the existing local town 

of the Iron II. Similar structures seem to have been unearthed by 

Petrie (Figure 34.2b).

Although this building was not completely preserved or 

excavated, its construction technique and plan points to NeoAssyrian architectural traditions. The building may have a certain 

resemblance to structures in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Figures 
1058 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

FIGURE 34.2. Building I from Field IV, Phase 5 at Tell Jemmeh and possibly similar Assyrian period buildings. (a) Tell Jemmeh, 

Smithsonian Institution excavations, Building I; (b) Tell Jemmeh, Building EG from Petrie’s town of XXIInd Dynasty (adapted 

from Petrie, 1928: pl. IX); (c) Nimrud, NW palace (adapted from Mallowan, 1966: fig. 35); (d) Arslan Tash (adapted from 

Turner, 1968: pl. XVII, Rooms XXXII–XLII); (e) Zinjirli, upper palace (adapted from Frankfort, 1970: fig. 330); (f) Tell Shekh 

Hamad, House 4 (adapted from Pucci, 2008: fig. 3); (g) Nush-i Jan, the fort (adapted from Stronach and Roaf, 2007: fig. 4.1); 

(h) tomb structure from Nimrud (adapted from Hussein, 2008: fig. 12k).
NUMBER 50 • 1059

Certain texts even refer to deportees brought by the Assyrians 

to a location near the “brook of Egypt,” probably Tell Jemmeh (Franklin, 2001:258–259; Bagg, 2007:29–30). Evidence 

of Iranian and possibly Kassite names is mentioned (Na’aman 

and Zadok, 1988:40–42; Na’aman, 1993:109). Na’aman and 

Zadok (1988:36–42) suggested that the names appearing in 

two ostraca from Tell Jemmeh (see chapter 32, Figure 32.1a,b; 

Naveh, 1985:11–13) indicate the presence of deportees brought 

to the site from Iran and other provinces to Tell Jemmeh by 

Sargon II and employed there by the Assyrians. This was part 

of the Neo-Assyrian population change strategy in various parts 

of their empire, including the region of Philistia (Na’aman, 

1993:108–109). Na’aman suggested that building techniques 

(such as rib vaulting or vaulting struts) attested at Iron II Tell 

Jemmeh were brought by deportees from the region of the Iranian plateau rather than by Neo-Assyrian architects (Na’aman, 

2001:264–265; see also Stronach and Roaf, 2007:190). Indeed, 

there are certain similarities between the architecture of the Median Nush-i Jan in Iran (Figure 34.3) and Neo-Assyrian Jemmeh, and both sites are roughly contemporary (see chapter 8), 

yet whether any direct contacts existed between these two very 

distant regions is difficult to determine and, if so, whether they 

were Iranian in origin.

The Iron IIB-C is also attested in Field III, Phase 3; Field I, 

Square KB, Phases 2–1; and Field II, Phases 3–2 with fragmentary building remains. Several of the installations termed by Petrie as “furnaces” and cleaned by the SI excavations (Field I FUR 

II and FUR III) probably also date to this period. Some interesting and important finds from this period include a bull’s-head 

bronze weight from Field II, several scale weights (although not 

from stratigraphic contexts), and several ostraca in Hebrew 

script, one of them a name list mentioning both Hebrew/Semitic and Aegean or non-Semitic personal names (Naveh, 1985; 

chapter 32). 

This latter find may indicate how the Philistine element was 

still identifiable during the end of the Iron Age (note, however, 

that the new reading by Misgav identifies fewer “Philistine” 

names than were suggested by Naveh). Similar contemporary 

evidence of the use of non-Semitic names in Iron II Philistia 

comes from ostraca from Ashdod, Tell es-Safi/Gath (Naveh, 

1985; Maeir et al., 2008), and the royal inscription of Tel MiqneEkron (Gitin et al., 1997; see also a recent overview of the continuity of the Philistine culture during the Iron II in Maeir et al., 

2013). On the other hand, such non-Semitic names appearing 

during the 8th and early 7th centuries BCE could reflect deportees brought by the Assyrians to Philistia (Oded, 1979:62–67). 

FIGURE 34.3. Map of Mesopotamia with sites mentioned in the text (chapters 8, 13, and 32).
1060 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

the term “Assyrians” in texts becomes a political rather than an 

ethnic term (Machinist, 1993:89; Parpola, 2004).

Herrmann (2011; after Eisenstadt, 1969, 1979) suggested 

two models regarding the relationship between the center of the 

Neo-Assyrian Empire and its periphery. The first is a rational 

model, consisting of the drainage of the periphery to the core or 

an economic maximization, as suggested by a “world systems” 

view (“core-periphery” model or bureaucratic empire model). 

The second is an irrational model: a “patrimonial” model (Eisenstadt, 1979) related to an ideological view represented in royal 

Assyrian texts, which suggest all provinces in Assyria are equal 

and that certain elements of the local society benefit from the 

Assyrian rule; these are bottom-up processes. This model may 

also be related to the Pax Assyriaca concept. The question is also 

whether the manifestation of these relationships differed between 

Assyrian direct provinces and the vassal kingdoms. In regard to 

archaeological evidence, according to Herrmann, a rational coreperiphery model would imply more factory and industrial production for export and taxes, possible reduction in small-scale 

household production, possible decrease in quality of domestic 

architecture, and replacement of domestic architecture by Assyrian administrative buildings. A patrimonial model would imply 

less change, more intensification in production, superficial reconstruction in architecture, mainly in palace areas, and continuity of 

households and their production. Herrmann presents an example 

from Zincirli Höyük (Herrmann, 2011:316–319), where a high 

degree of continuity between pre-Assyrian- and Assyrian-level 

households occurred. It is difficult to examine these options at Tell 

Jemmeh as the Iron IIC Assyrian structures were not dismantled.

There is evidence of various population changes and deportations conducted by the Assyrians in the Levant (e.g., Oded, 

1979; Na’aman and Zadok, 1988; Na’aman, 1993, 1995), 

deporting large numbers of people from the Levant to Mesopotamia (including many from Philistia) and resettling peoples 

from northern Mesopotamia in their place. These deportees 

could have also been highly instrumental in the administration 

of the Assyrian Empire (Oded, 1979:81–91). However, the Assyrians probably did not impose their religion in the Levant (see 

Cogan, 1993, on Judah; see also Berlejung, 2011, 2012). Thus, 

apparently, the issue of the nature of the Neo-Assyrian presence 

and control in the southern Levant is a rather complicated one 

involving the local populations, deportee populations, and the 

Assyrian administration (see, e.g., Na’aman, 1993:104; Tadmor, 

1966:91–92). Although in most studies only royal Assyrian inscriptions and annals are discussed, it is apparent that private 

and commercial documents, often mentioning the names of foreign deportees and their connections with the Neo-Assyrian administration, should also be examined, and these may even have 

greater importance for shedding light on this issue together with 

the archaeological evidence (see, e.g., Bernbeck, 2010:149).

Neo-­Assyrian Empire and the Philistines: 

Historical and Textual Evidence

The relationships between the Neo-Assyrian Empire and 

the local population and administration in Philistia during the 

Relationships between the Neo-­Assyrian

Empire and Its Periphery

The Neo-Assyrian Empire in general and its influence in the 

Levant in particular have been studied and discussed in a large 

number of studies. The majority of these studies analyze the history, economy, structure, and ideology of this empire according 

to the textual data, mostly royal Assyrian inscriptions and annals 

(e.g., Cogan, 1974; Liverani, 1979, 1988, 1992; Postgate, 1979; 

Parker, 1997, 2003, 2006; Bedford, 2001; for the Levant, see, 

e.g., Bloom, 1988; Park Lee, 2003). Economic gain has been commonly accepted as the primary motivation for Assyrian territorial 

expansion. Liverani (1988, 1992) first suggested a model of the 

Neo-Assyrian Empire as a “network empire,” whereas Bernbeck 

(2010) further compared this empire to the modern United States. 

The Assyrian Empire was probably not initially a territorial or colonial type of an empire (the “oil stain” model) but a 

network empire. A network empire exerts it power in its periphery through various scattered “nodes” of power, “islands” of 

imperial control (as in buffer zones; Parker, 2003:552–553), and 

strongholds or controlled commercial centers (see, e.g., Parker, 

1997), and military raids or campaigns are executed merely to 

maintain and strengthen these conditions (Liverani, 1988). The 

people under the empire’s control usually do not gain any special 

status of citizenship or relations with the core society. It should 

be noted that Liverani suggested this model mainly for the earlier 9th century stage within Upper Mesopotamia, whereas for 

the later 8th–7th centuries BCE stage (namely, from the reign of 

Tiglath-pileser III onward, 744–630 BCE; Bedford, 2001: Period 

2) a more traditionally territorial model is maintained (Liverani, 

1988:92; see also Parpola, 2003:100). In this period the Assyrians apparently took measures by military activities to “provincialize” most of the western polities, mainly because the earlier 

network system failed to work and these polities (the “vassals” 

or “client” kings) often failed to deliver the tributes (e.g., Hallo 

and Simpson, 1998; Bedford, 2001:18–19). 

Bernbeck (2010:146) lists six key elements of network empires:

1. An imperial center, located in a territorially controlled core 

zone

2. The hinterland of the imperial core

3. A periphery with more or less densely spaced nodes of a 

network

4. A hierarchy of these nodes that is based on specific functions

5. A system of network articulation that is highly efficient

6. Interstices in the network, the areas that the empire seeks to 

monitor

Although the regions of northern Mesopotamia could have 

been seen as provinces in the periphery of the Assyrian core state 

(Radner, 2006), the region of the Levant (or Syro-Palestine) was 

clearly outside Assyria, and the appointment of the polities of 

this region as vassals was clearly an extension of the Assyrian 

borders. The Neo-Assyrian royal texts often create a framework 

of ideological justification for this situation. It is during this 

period the Pax Assyriaca is assumed to have taken place, and 
NUMBER 50 • 1061

Egyptians, yet the lenient policy toward the Philistine cities probably came to an end. Esarhaddon conducted three campaigns to 

Egypt and Philistia in 669, 671, and 674 BCE, and Tell Jemmeh, 

which was plundered during 679 BCE (according to a Babylonian chronicle), could have been particularly important in this 

context for the Assyrians because of to its geographic location. 

The town is mentioned in Esarhaddon texts (681–669 BCE) as 

“[Ar]zani which is on the Brook of Egypt ... I reached ... I destroyed” (BM K8523, 13 obverse, Pritchard, 1950:292). In sum, 

it seems as if the Assyrians treated each Philistine city in a special 

manner, depending on military, economic, and strategic interests. 

Evidence of Neo-­Assyrian Influence

in Philistia and the Southern Levant

An important example of a Neo-Assyrian post in Philistia 

is a site just north of Tel Ashdod (“Ashdod-Ad Halom”), where 

a salvage excavation of the Israel Antiquities Authority (KoganZehavi, 2005, 2006, 2007) revealed a large administrative structure built on a massive brick podium. This structure, dated to 

the late 8th century BCE, was probably an Assyrian palace and/

or administrative center. This is apparent according to both its 

architectural plan, the courtyard surrounded by elongated rooms 

and the brick podium, and the appearance of special features 

of the Sargonite standard cubit for bricks, brick flooring, and 

a bathroom. The erection of this Assyrian center was probably 

connected to the subduing of the Yamani revolt at Ashdod by 

Sargon II and should be seen in the context of the establishment 

of Ashdod as an Assyrian province (Radner, 2006). Notably, this 

site has not yet yielded any significant amount of Assyrian-style 

pottery.

Additional evidence of Neo-Assyrian presence or influence at Philistia includes the relevant levels at Tel Sera’ and 

Tell Ruqeish, also possibly yielding Assyrian-style architecture 

and some Assyrian-style pottery (Oren, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 

1993d). A fort at coastal Tell Qudadi on the Yarkon River was 

also suggested as Neo-Assyrian (Fantalkin and Tal, 2009). At 

Philistine Tel Miqne-Ekron the 7th century palace-temple complex (Building 650), concentrating the massive olive oil industry 

of the region, possibly shows Neo-Assyrian architectural characteristics (e.g., Gitin, 1995, 1998). Note that in the 8th century 

BCE Assyrian pottery or influence does not appear at Tell es-Safi/

Gath (A. M. Maeir, Bar Ilan University, personal communication), which was then influenced by Judah and outside the Philistine territory.

Generally, there seem to be more Neo-Assyrian characteristics in the material culture of southern Israel (except the territory 

of Judah) than in the north. The Edomite culture of southern 

Israel and Jordan also shows, especially in architecture and pottery, certain Assyrian characteristics or influences during the 

7th century BCE (Na’aman, 2001:267–270; Thareani-Sussely 

and Na’aman, 2006). This phenomenon is interesting since the 

northern part of Israel was a proper Assyrian province, with 

seemingly stronger connection to the empire’s centers (e.g., Stern, 

2001:42–57), whereas the south was divided between various 

vassal kingdoms (Judah, various Philistine cities, Edom) paying 

reigns of the various kings of Assyria were already addressed 

by Tadmor during the 1960s (Tadmor, 1966; see also Otzen, 

1979:255–258) and subsequently by Na’aman and others (e.g., 

Na’aman, 1979, 2004; Stern, 2001:102–129; Shai, 2006). These 

studies focused on the picture arising from the Neo-Assyrian 

texts and written records relating to this region. Neo-Assyrian 

texts relating to Philistia, which begin in Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign in 734 BCE (especially against Mitinti, king of Ashkelon), 

indicate that the Philistines cities preserved a degree of independence under this rule as tribute-bearing states, notwithstanding 

the suppression of the various revolts by the Assyrian army. The 

trade between the Philistine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod; 

the southern Egyptian delta; and the northern Phoenician ports, 

such as Byblos, Arvad, Tyre, and Sidon, probably attracted most 

of the Assyrian interest (Elat, 1978, 1990). Philistia was also 

an important region because of its geographic location on the 

Egyptian border; strengthening the hold in this region, both economically and militarily, enabled the Assyrians to limit the Egyptian influence in part of the Levant and in general (Na’aman, 

1979:83–86). 

During the reign of Sargon II there were several rebellions 

against Assyria, probably with some Egyptian support. During 

722/721 BCE King Hanun of Gaza joined such a rebellion with 

other cities and was suppressed by Sargon in 720. The siege of 

Ekron by Sargon II is depicted on his palace walls at Khorsabad. 

In 712 BCE Yamani, probably a commoner, replaced the king of 

Ashdod and revolted against the Assyrians. Yamani is mentioned 

as a Greek, and the name is also reminiscent of the term Greek 

in Semitic languages, but he was more probably a Philistine from 

the local population of Ashdod. This revolt, although swiftly terminated by Sargon II, who destroyed the city in 712, leaving a 

basalt victory stele of which fragments were found in the excavation, reflects the relative power that Ashdod had in that time. 

Just a year earlier Sargon destroyed the city of Raphia south of 

Gaza and deported over 9,000 people from its region, including 

the king of Gaza (Na’aman, 1993:107, 2004:57). Asuhili, king 

of Arzâ, and his court were deported to Ashur by Esarhaddon 

(Oded, 1979:34,117). 

After Sargon II’s death in battle numerous rebellions broke 

out against the Assyrian administration, including at Ekron and 

Ashkelon. These were crushed by Sennacherib’s well-known 

campaign to Philistia and Judah in 701 BCE. In the Sennacherib annals the Philistine cities of Ashdod and Ekron are mentioned; in the latter the Assyrian king reinstated the original King 

Padi after a local revolt (possibly supported by Judah). It thus 

seems that the Assyrians were more lenient with the Philistine 

cities, preserving their independence to some degree as a buffer 

zone between Assyria and Egypt (e.g., Tadmor, 1966:87; Otzen, 

1979:255–256; see also a possibly similar treatment of southeastern Anatolia as a buffer zone by the Assyrian Empire, Parker, 

2003, 2006). Moreover, in the Assyrian sources the cities of Philistia seem to be mentioned as independent states, each one with 

its own king. Ekron (amqar[r]una) and its king Ikausu are listed 

in the annals of Sargon II and Esarhaddon. 

During the reign of Esarhaddon it seems that the Philistines 

were an important ally of Assyria such as in the war against the 
1062 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Halom, Ayelet Ha-Shahar-Hazor). The possible series of sites 

with evidence of Neo-Assyrian building activities along the 

southern Mediterranean coast of Israel (Rishon Le-Zion, Ashdod Ad-Halom, Tell Jemmeh, Tel Sera’, Ruqeish) is also noteworthy (see Na’aman, 2001:260–266). It was suggested that this 

entire region (from Ashdod down to El-’Arish in northern Sinai) 

was under the control of Gaza during this period (Oren, 1993d; 

however, see Na’aman, 2004:61–68). Moreover, in most cases 

the Assyrian architectural elements are not followed by large 

quantities of Assyrian-style pottery or other material culture of 

Assyrian characteristics. There seems to be no model here, or 

the reality reflects a complicated situation where local considerations are combined with the Neo-Assyrian ones.

Nature of Assyrian Presence at Tell Jemmeh

Since the SI excavations at Field IV came to light, it was 

quite widely agreed that the architectural and ceramic evidence 

at the site indicate that it was the seat of the Assyrian military 

governor of the area at least or even a larger major Assyrian 

center (see, e.g., Van Beek, 1973, 1983, 1993a; Na’aman, 1979, 

2001:264; Naveh, 1985; Na’aman and Zadok, 1988:37). It 

should be noted that the Assyrian term beμl paμhRete, usually translated as “governor,” implying an official administrative figure 

with a fixed status and set of responsibilities, could be translated 

rather as “commander” or “person in charge,” implying a more 

flexible, informal, and ad hoc type of position or figure (Bernbeck, 2010:151). Furthermore, the term governor could have 

applied in Assyrian eyes to a provincial governor as well as to a 

vassal king (Bedford, 2001:23).

The appearance of the Neo-Assyrian elements in the public 

building at Tell Jemmeh raises several questions regarding the 

tribute to the Assyrian monarchs (later, after 712 BCE, Ashdod 

became a province as well; Radner, 2006). 

The special interest the Assyrians had in this specific area, 

especially the region of Gaza (and Edom), probably relates to 

controlling the Incense Route to the east and the route to Egypt 

(see, e.g., Na’aman, 2001:263). Possibly, the evidence from Philistia reflects both the special status this region had for the Assyrian Empire, in relation to the Incense Route to the east and the 

route to Egypt, as well the usage of Assyrian cultural elements 

and power symbols by the late Philistine elites (and possibly by 

other local ethnic groups). Such usage may have substantiated 

the authority of such elites (e.g., Parpola, 2003, 2004) in addition to aiding in differentiating them from other political ethnic 

groups in the region, such as the Judahites.

Other examples of the Neo-Assyrian presence or influence 

in Levantine centers have been discussed in the past (Figure 34.1; 

see, e.g., Reich, 1975, 1992; Bloom, 1988; Kogan-Zehavi, 2007; 

see Table 34.1), with examples from Megiddo, Strata III–II (also 

with a podium, Lamon and Shipton, 1939: fig. 89, Buildings 

1052, 1369, section A-B), Dor (Gilboa, 1996), Ayelet Hashaher (Reich, 1993:183, fig. 11), Hazor Area B (Reich, 1993: fig. 

12), Rehov (Mazar and Ahituv, 2011), Tell Abu Salima (Petrie 

and Ellis, 1937; Reich 1993), Balakhiyah in Gaza (Humbert and 

Sadeq, 2000:105–120), and Busayra (Bennet, 1982). The site 

of Gezer yielded several “Assyrianized” seals and was also suggested to be an Assyrian center (Ornan et al., 2013:21). 

Table 34.1 lists some of the main Neo-Assyrian architectural 

and ceramic evidence from the Levant (for a description, see also 

chapter 8). It seems that the Assyrian elements appear in various forms. Some sites have Assyrian forts or palace built within 

them (Megiddo, Haror, Miqne?), and in some cases the Assyrian structure lies apart from the tell overlooking it (Ashdod-Ad 

TABLE 34.1. Main examples of clear Neo-Assyrian architectural elements in the Levant (after Kogan-Zehavi, 2007: table 3).

Quantity of Suggested dating,

Site Elements recovered Location Assyrian-style pottery century BCE

Jemmeh Brick arches, courtyard plan? On the tell High Early 7th

Ad Halom Palace/fort on podium, courtyard plan, North of the tell Very low Late 8th

Sargonic bricks, bath (Ashdod)

Sera’ Fort on podium Tell edges Low 7th?

Haror Fort on podium On the tell Unknown 8th?

Rishon Le-Zion Fort on podium Near beach Unknown 8th–7th

Miqne-Ekron Courtyard plan On the tell Low Late 7th

Tel el-Hesi None Moderate 8th–7th

Busayrah Palace on podium On the tell Low-moderate 7th

Abu Salima Fort on podium Near beach Unknown 7th?

Megiddo Palaces on stone podium, courtyard plan, bath On the tell Low 8th–7th

Hazor Courtyard plan On the tell Very low 7th 

Ayelet Hashahar Assyrian palace plan, no podium Outside the tell Unknown Late 8th

(Hazor)

Tel Dor Unknown Moderate 8th
NUMBER 50 • 1063

see, e.g., Parpola, 2004:10, 14–15), in order to manifest their 

superiority and strength (such elites were used by the Assyrians 

to promote their interests; see, e.g., Parpola, 2003:101–102). 

The use of the Assyrian palace plan at Philistine Ekron, and possibly at Jemmeh, could have been for similar reasons and also 

was employed as a power symbol. As noted, the connections between the late Philistine and Neo-Assyrian cultural elements seen 

in Philistia and especially at Tell Jemmeh are not surprising. It 

seems that this site reflects a combination of several elements: a 

late Philistine city that was important for the cultural and trade 

axis between the Negev and the southeast and the Gaza coast. In 

fact, during the final part of the Iron Age the site might have had 

stronger connections to the Negev than to the Philistine coast. 

The pottery and material culture of the site during the end of the 

Iron Age clearly testify to this in addition to differences between 

the finds from Ashkelon and Tell Jemmeh. On the other hand, 

the strategic position of the site on the border with Egypt also 

played an important role, especially in light of the military campaigns of Assyria into Egypt in this period. It has been noticed 

in the past that the Neo-Assyrian-style forts or palaces, located 

in various sites in the Assyrian Empire, were probably built and/

or maintained by the local vassal kingdoms in many cases rather 

than having the actual presence of Neo-Assyrian administrators, 

governors, or military personnel in place (e.g., Parker, 1997; 

Fantalkin and Tal, 2009). However, clearly, any Neo-Assyrian 

presence, influence, or interest in this site is primarily associated 

with its strategic geographic location. Moreover, this Assyrian 

influence fits well the data from other sites in southern Israel.

The Assyrian army may have stopped at the site or near it 

for various amounts of time during the early 7th century, especially in relation to Esarhaddon’s campaigns against Egypt. This 

reality arises from the texts; for example, in a query to the sun 

god, Esarhaddon presents his worries that when he camps with 

his troops near the city of Ashkelon (the “district of Ashkelon”), 

the troops of the Egyptians will wage war against him (Starr, 

1990:97: no. 82). The Assyrians may not have been interested 

in building an administrative center of their own in the heart of 

a Canaanite (or Philistine) city, especially as this was not a longterm center of an Assyrian province, but rather a strategic military and commercial outpost. Even the army on its campaigns 

was stationed outside the cities. Thus, if the Assyrians would 

have continued to control this area through a tribute-bearing 

local vassal kingdom, the structures at Tell Jemmeh may reflect 

local administrative buildings built under the inspiration of the 

Neo-Assyrian centers by the local (Philistine?) elites. 

However, the fact that the administrative structures of Field 

IV, Phase 5 are abandoned by the mid-7th century BCE, several 

decades before the destruction of all the main Philistine cities 

(ca. 600 BCE), strengthens the connection of this building phase 

to the Neo-Assyrian rather than the local Philistine administration. The site was also probably not destroyed violently during 

the Assyrian period. Moreover, Tell Jemmeh was not a major 

Philistine city and was therefore not likely to be an important 

administrative center of the late Philistines during this period. 

The structures from Tell Jemmeh and the Assyrian-style pottery 

found inside them seem to have been “planted” within the town 

function and significance of these remains; the nature of the Assyrian presence and/or influence at the site, in Philistia in particular, and generally in the southern Levant; and the nature of the 

relationships the Neo-Assyrian Empire created between its core 

and periphery. 

It seems that the Assyrians had a special interest in Gaza, 

even more than Ashdod (see Na’aman, 2004). As Cogan notes 

(1993:407), “after the conquest of Gaza in 734 BCE and the ensuing deportations, Tiglath-pileser reinstalled Hanun, the city’s 

former king, who, having failed to find refuge in Egypt, pledged 

once again his loyalty to Tiglath-pileser. Gaza was proclaimed an 

‘Assyrian customs station’ (bit kari ga Assur), a sign that a permanent Assyrian presence was to be stationed in the region. That 

we are dealing with a political status beyond regular vassaldom 

but not yet full incorporation as a province is clear. ... even after 

Hanun’s rebellion against Sargon, little more than a decade later, 

Gaza maintained its special status.” The Neo-Assyrian related 

remains at Tell Jemmeh should be probably seen in light of this 

special attention to the Gaza region.

It was suggested also according to the faunal evidence from 

the site that the Iron IIC witnessed a change in the economy, 

namely, the sharp relative rise in sheep and goat remains, reflecting a possibly intensified production of products related to 

these animals as wool, skins, etc. (Wapnish, 1981a, 1996; see 

chapter 33); there are also no pig bones from this period. This 

phenomenon can be compared to that at other regional sites such 

as Ashkelon and Tel Miqne-Ekron, which also prospered during 

this period. Recently, however, Faust has strongly criticized the 

concept of Pax Assyriaca and the bottom-up model (see above) 

in both Philistia and Judah during the 7th century BCE (e.g., 

Faust, 2011; Faust and Weiss, 2011) and undermined the Assyrian role as a “positive” catalyst for prosperity in the region of 

Philistia (such as at Ekron and Ashkelon), as some scholars suggested (e.g., Elat, 1990; Na’aman, 1995:114, 2001, 2003; Gitin, 

1995, 1997). Accordingly, the prosperity in Philistia during the 

7th century BCE is attributed to the flourishing Mediterranean 

trade and the opening of new markets in the west, led by the 

Phoenicians. This trend was suggested also for the prosperity of 

Ashkelon during this period (e.g., Master, 2003).

In regard to the 679 BCE campaign of Esarhaddon to Arzâ 

(Tell Jemmeh), a problem may arise: where is the destruction 

layer related to this campaign? One would expect a destruction 

of Phase 5 (or Phase 6?) remains, yet this is not evident on the 

ground. Possibly, the meaning of “plundering” was not destruction of the structures. Alternatively, the lower Phase 6 structures 

were destroyed and then immediately rebuilt in Phase 5. The 

question is also whether the Assyrian-related structures at Tell 

Jemmeh where built by the Esarhaddon administration following the campaign or before, as part of the Assyrian efforts to 

strengthen their hold against Egypt or in relation to other causes 

or events.

It can be suggested that factors other than the Neo-Assyrian 

administrative interests also influenced these manifestations of 

material culture. Assyrian-style pottery could have been adapted 

by the local late Philistine elite, who had strong ties to the Assyrians (or who possibly wished to be identified as Assyrian citizens; 
1064 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

army, in relation to campaigns to Egypt. Petrie suggested that 

the site was a garrison for the Persian army storing supplies 

on the road to Egypt (Petrie, 1928:8–9). Similar contemporary 

granaries were discovered in regional sites such as Tel Sera’ and 

in northern Sinai. Possibly, the many three-bladed arrowheads 

(common in Persia) found at the site could support such a suggestion. Another option, which may complement or replace Petrie’s suggestion, is that this accumulation of cereals related to the 

site being a commercial center or emporium during this period. 

Clearly, this is not a domestic scale of storage. Some ostraca in 

Aramaic script dated to this period (two were found in the Field 

III granary; chapter 32) seem to allude to commercial activates, 

mentioning terms like sacks and measurements, grain, millet, 

vineyards, and wool. During the Persian period Tell Jemmeh 

was probably an important regional commercial center where 

marketing of various agricultural products was conducted. The 

archaeological results show in particular large-scale storage of 

grains in circular granaries. Ostraca note various commodities, 

wine, and wool, but grains as a commodity are not explicitly 

mentioned. The fact that other commodities appear may indicate 

other goods were traded for the grains, whereas grains were marketed in large quantities but may have not been mentioned in the 

dockets. Possibly, the grain jars were marked differently, perhaps 

by a single inscribed shin or trident symbol, as seen on many 

marked sherds (chapter 19, Figure 19.3e–m), probably standing 

for barley (seora in Hebrew). Names appearing include Hebrew 

ones as well as terms and names with Arabian affinities; also 

found in the granary area is a jar sherd with a south Arabian 

script sign (Figure 30.4f). 

As noted, a large amount of pottery was recovered from 

this period, including dozens of reconstructed vessels. Most were 

jars and probably contained grains or liquids; some were probably imported according to their form (possibly some of these 

contained Aegean-produced wine). During this period the site 

imported the so-called East Greek products, closed table vessels, 

banded bowls, and the contents of a very few transport amphorae, and Attic table wares (chapter 14). Other special finds include plaque and other figurines, decorated limestone altars or 

incense burners (chapter 23), iron tools, scarabs, amulets, and 

glass vessels. Camel bones found at the site (Wapnish, 1981a, 

1981b; chapter 33) also most likely relate to this period and further testify to the commercial importance of the site for caravans 

and its connections to Arabia during this period. A couple of 

camel clay figurines (chapter 17), probably from this period, can 

be linked to this phenomenon as well.

Later periods at the site are represented mainly by ceramic 

evidence. The early Hellenistic period (4th–early 3rd centuries 

BCE) is possibly represented by Phase 2 in Field IV, but this is 

a fragmentary and ill-defined phase. Moreover, there is a sharp 

decrease of imports at the site during this period, and most 

4th–2nd century BCE Greek imported wares are lacking. Generally, the Hellenistic remains at the site are scanty at best; all 

the identified coins (see chapter 29) also date to the very early 

part of this period, i.e., Alexander the Great’s time. A handful of Byzantine sheds were found, and in Field IV a layer of 

pits (Phase 1) is clearly dated to the Crusader-Mamluk period. 

of Tell Jemmeh for a rather short duration of time by some foreign element, apparently, the Assyrians. The fact that Tell Jemmeh was a center of production for this ware for a very restricted 

period of time may indicate more extensive Assyrian influences 

resulting from the presence of Assyrian personnel, armies, and/

or deportees relocated at the site. The strategic position of the 

site on the border with Egypt played an important role in light 

of the military campaigns of Assyria into Egypt, especially in the 

days of Esarhaddon.

Today, it seems likely that Tell Jemmeh did experience, at 

least for a short period of several decades, a foreign presence related to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. This probably happened over 

the course of the early 7th century BCE, maybe during the reign 

of Esarhaddon. We still do not have enough data to determine 

whether the nature of the Neo-Assyrian presence at Tell Jemmeh 

was of an administrative, military, or commercial nature or any 

combination of those.

PERSIAN PERIOD AND BEYOND

What happened at Tell Jemmeh between the end of the 

usage of the Assyrian buildings (the early 7th century BCE) and 

the Persian period (the late 6th to 4th centuries BCE) is somewhat unclear. This supposed gap, which includes the late 7th 

and 6th centuries BCE, or the final Iron IIC and the Babylonian 

period, can possibly be filled by Level A-B of Petrie’s excavations, 

which included a massive fort, and also possibly by scattered remains in Field IV (Phase 4?) of the SI excavations. The problem 

is that the local pottery of the 7th and 6th centuries is similar, 

and thus, it is difficult to pinpoint this phase typologically. Some 

of the imported ceramic finds, such as the East Greek oinochoai 

(“Wild Goat” style) and Ionian cups (chapter 14, Figure 14.1, 

Cat. Nos. 1–47), found in unclear contexts indicate that the site 

was settled and active during this period as well. However, according to the typological dating of the Greek imports from the 

site, there might have been a certain break in occupation of activity during the 6th century BCE since the earliest Attic pottery is 

dated to ca. 500 BCE (chapter 14). 

The Persian period is the most damaged period at the site 

(because of erosion). Although large areas were excavated from 

this period, apart from the granaries themselves, which were 

used to store grain, little can be said about the architecture of 

this period. For this reason, although vast amounts of pottery 

and other finds were found from this period, both in Petrie’s 

and the SI excavations, hardly any of the vessels or other objects 

come from well-defined architectural units. Petrie reported at 

least nine rounded granaries, and they seem to include two types: 

large ones with an inner supporting wall or buttress and smaller 

ones without it. In the SI excavation one complete granary (of 

the first type) was excavated in Field IV (Phases 4–3), and a fragment of another was excavated in Field III, Phase 2. Field IV 

may have had another later Persian period phase (Phase 2), and 

Persian period remains come from Field II as well (Phase 1). 

Apparently, the granaries were scattered all around the site 

and may have been used for large-scale storage, possibly for the 
NUMBER 50 • 1065

cut off from its surroundings. This nature of the site was even 

stronger in the later periods when external powers probably used 

it to control and exploit these trade routes. The excavations at 

Tell Jemmeh have not answered all possible archaeological questions that could arise from this project, but a profusion of new 

information now illuminates our vision of the region of the Levant in ancient times and now shows how this settlement served 

as a meeting point between cultures, from near and far.

AUTHOR NOTE

David Ben-Shlomo, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of 

Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 112, 

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA. Correspondence: davben187@

yahoo.com. Manuscript received 4 April 2013; accepted 23 September 

2013.

A better representation of the Byzantine and Mamluk periods 

was reported from the lower city of Jemmeh just south of the 

tell (Schaefer, 1989). Coins from these periods are also attested 

(chapter 30).

SUMMARY

During nearly 1,400 years Tell Jemmeh was occupied almost continuously. In all that time the site seemed to have been 

an important settlement that illustrated both a local developed 

and sophisticated culture, integrated in the local cultural background of its region, and strong evidence of connections to other 

regions and cultures. The location of the site at the crossing of 

important ancient routes explains this reality. It thus attracted 

the attention of the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrian, 

and possibly other ethnic and cultural groups. The site was never 

References

Ackermann, O., H. J. Bruins, S. Pariente, H. Zhevelev, and A. M. Maeir. 2005. Landscape Archaeology in a DryStream Valley near Tell es-Safi/Gath (Israel): Agricultural Terraces and the Origin of Fill Deposit. Environ. 

Archaeol., 10:199–215.

Adams, J. L. 1988. Use-Wear Analyses of Manos and Hide-Processing Stones. J. Field Archaeol., 15:307–315. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346988791974394. 

———. 1989a. Methods for Improving Ground Stone Artifacts Analysis: Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns. 

In Experiments in Lithic Technology, ed. D. S. Amick and R. P. Mauldin, pp. 259–276. BAR Int. Ser. 528. 

Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 1989b. Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva, 53(4): 261–271.

———. 1993a. Mechanisms of Wear of Ground Stone Surfaces. Pac. Coast Archaeol. Soc. Q., 29(4):61–74.

———. 1993b. Toward Understanding the Technological Development of Manos and Metates. Kiva, 

58(3):331–344.

Adan-Bayewitz, D., A. Karasik, and U. Smilansky. 2009. Differentiation of Ceramic Chemical Element Composition and Vessel Morphology at a Pottery Production Center in Roman Galilee. J. Archaeol. Sci., 36:2517–

2530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.07.004.

Adkins, R. A., and J. G. Perry. 1989. . . . of Sherds and Soil and Sealing Layer, of Cobbling and Coins. . . . Oxford 

J. Archaeol., 8:119–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1989.tb00194.x.

Agora 4 = Howland, R. H. 1958. Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. Athenian Agora 4. Princeton, NJ: American 

School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Agora 12 = Sparkes, B. A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. 

Athenian Agora 12. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Agora 30 = Moore, M. B. 1997. Attic Red-Figured and White Ground Pottery. Athenian Agora 30. Princeton, NJ: 

American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Aharoni, M. 1981. The Pottery of Strata 11–12 from the Arad Citadel. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 15:181–204. [English summary, 82*.]

Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Rachel. Vol. 2. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici.

———, ed. 1973. Beer-Sheba I, Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Institute of 

Archaeology.

———. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv: Gateway.

———. 1987. Eretz Israel in Biblical Times: A Geographical History. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi.

Albright, W. F. 1932. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. 1. Annu. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 12. New Haven, 

CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.

———. 1938. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 2, The Bronze Age. Annu. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 17. New 

Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.

———. 1943. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. 3. Annu. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 21–22. New Haven, CT: 

American Schools of Oriental Research.

———. 1956. The Date of the Kapara Period at Gozan (Tell Halaf). Anatol. Stud., 6:75–85. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/3642402. 

Aldred, C. 1971. Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewelry of the Dynastic Period. London: Thames and Hudson.

Alexandre, Y. 2002. “A Fluted Bronze Bowl with a Canaanite-Early Phoenician Inscription from Kefer Veradim.” 

In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, pp. 65–74. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

———. 2007. Iron Age IIA Remains from a Salvage Excavation at Sulam. ‘Atiqot, 56:23*–32*.

Amiet, P. 1972. Glyptique susienne. Mém. deleg. archéol. Iran 43. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 

———. 1992. Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra-Ougarit II, Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses. 

Ras Shamra-Ougarit 9. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Amiran, D. H. K. 1951. A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine, Isr. Explor. J., 1:223–246.
1068 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Ataç, M.-A. 2010. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Aurenche, O. 1977. Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de l’architecture du Proche 

Orient Ancien. Lyon: Meson de L’Orient Méditerranéen Ancien.

———. 1981. La maison orientale: l’architecture du Proche Orient ancien des origines au milieu du IVe millénaire. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Avigad, N. 1997. West Semitic Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Avigad, N., and B. Sass. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: 

Israel Exploration Society.

Avissar, M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery.” In Yoqne’am I: The Late Periods, ed. 

A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali, pp. 75–172. Qedem Rep. 3. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

Avissar, M., and E. J. Stern. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk 

Periods in Israel. IAA Rep. 26. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Avissar, R. S., and A. M. Maeir. 2012. “Iron Age IIB Pottery from Stratum A2.” In

Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 365–382. 

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Avitsur, S. 1976. Man and His Work: Historical Atlas of Tools and Workshops in 

the Holy Land. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Carta. 

Avi Yonah, M. 1954. Geographical History of the Holy Land. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Magness.

Ayalon, E. 1999. “Area C.” In Tel 'Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, ed. 

I. Beit-Arieh, pp. 40–59. Emery Claire Yass Publ. Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 15. 

Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. 

———. 2006. “Bone, Ivory and Shell Objects.” In Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 

1989–1996, Vol. 1, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, 

ed. A. Mazar, pp. 666–674. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Aznar, C. A. 2005. Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age 

II: A Study of Pottery Origin and Distribution. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Badè, W. F. 1928. Excavations at Tell en-Našbeh, 1926 and 1927, a Preliminary 

Report. Berkeley, CA: Palestine Institute.

Badre, L. 2011. “The Cooking Pot Tradition at Tell Kazel.” In On Cooking Pots, 

Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and 

Neighbouring Regions: An International Archaeological Symposium held in 

Nicosia, November 6th–7th, 2010, ed. V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 

149–166. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation.

Bagg, A. M. 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit. Teil 1: 

Die Levante. Rép. Géogr. Textes Cunéif. 7/1. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Bahrani, Z. 2004. “The King’s Head.” Iraq, 66:115–119. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/4200566.

Barag, D. 2003. “Early Glass Vessels.” In Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: 

The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts, ed. Y. Israeli, pp. 21–64. 

Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

———. 2011. “A Neo-Assyrian Glass Bowl Fragment.” In Tel ‘Aroer: The Iron 

Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement, ed. 

Y. Thareani, pp. 259–260. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Barako, T. J. 2007. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. IAA 

Rep. 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Barber, E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Barkay, G., and D. Ussishkin. 2004. “Area S: The Late Bronze Age Strata.” In The 

Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. 2, ed.

D. Ussishkin, pp. 316–407. Sonia Marco Nadler Inst. Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 

22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Bar-Yosef, O., A. Belfer-Cohen, A. Goren, I. Hershkovitz, O. Ilan, H. K. Mienis, 

and B. Sass. 1986. Nawamis and Habitation Sites near Gebel Gunna, Southern Sinai. Isr. Explor. J., 36:121–167.

Beck, H. C. 1928. Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants. Archaeologia, 11:1–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900013345.

Beck, P. 1977. The Cylinder Seals. ‘Atiqot, 12:63–69.

———. 1995. “Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Iconography.” In Horbat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. Beit-Arieh, pp. 

27–197. Inst. Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 11. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

———. 2000. “Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery.” In Aphek-Antipatris I: 

Excavations of Areas A and B—The 1972–1976 Seasons, ed. M. Kochavi, 

P. Beck, and E. Yadin, pp. 173–238. Sonia Marco Nadler Inst. Archaeol. 

Monogr. Ser. 19. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 

Beck, P., and M. Kochavi. 1985. A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13th Century 

B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek, Tel Aviv, 12:29–42. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443585788339683.

Bedford, P. 2001. Empire and Exploitation: The Neo-Assyrian Empire. 

https://archive.org/details/Bedford2001EmpireAndExploitationThe

Neo-assyrianEmpire2001. 

———. 1952. A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine. Isr. Explor. J.,

2:48–65.

Amiran, D. H. K., R. Adler, H. Eliakim, H. M. H. Gilead, Y. Hinberger, N. Kadmon, M. Kantor, A. Shachar, and R. Tsameret eds. 1985. Atlas of Israel. Tel 

Aviv: Survey of Israel.

Amiran, R. 1939. The Pottery of Grar. M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

———. 1955. The “Cream Ware” of Gezer and the Beersheba Late Chalcolithic. 

Isr. Explor. J., 5:240–245.

———. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada.

Amiran, R., and I. Dunayevsky. 1958. The Assyrian Open-Court Building and 

Its Palestinian Derivatives. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 149:25–32. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/1355740.

Amiran, R., and N. Porat. 1984. The Basalt Bowls of the Chalcolithic Period and 

the Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv, 11:11–19.

Amiran, R., and G. W. Van Beek. 1976. Jemmeh, Tell. In Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land II, ed. M. Avi Yonah, pp. 545–549. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Amiry, S., and V. Tamari. 1989. The Palestinian Village Home. London: British 

Museum. 

‘Amr, A. J. 1980. A Study of the Clay Figurines and Zoomorphic Vessels of TransJordan during the Iron Age, with Special Reference to Their Symbolism and 

Function. Ph.D. diss., University of London, London.

Anastasio, S. 2007. Das Obere Haburtal in der Jazira dem 13. Und dem 5. Jh v.Chr. 

Die Keramik des Projektes ‘Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabour 

Occidental (Syrie du N.E.). Florence: Centro Editoriale Toscano. 

———. 2010. Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age. Subartu 24. Turnhout, 

Belgium: Brepols.

Anderson, P. C. 1980. A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Diagnostic Residues on 

Stone Tool Working Edges. World Archaeol., 2:181–194. http://dx.doi.org/1

0.1080/00438243.1980.9979791.

Anderson, P., and M.-L. Inizan. 1994. Utilisation du Tribulum au Debut du IIIe 

Millenaire: Des lames ‘Cananeenes’ Lustrees a Kutan (Ninive V) dans la Region de Mossoul, Iraq. Paléorient, 20:85–103. 

Anderson-Stojanovic, V. R. 1987. The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria. Am. J. Archaeol., 91:105–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/505460.

Andrews, C. A. R. 1994. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Antonova, I., V. Tolstikov, and M. Treister. 1996. The Gold of Troy: Searching for 

Homer’s Fabled City. London: Thames and Hudson.

Arbino, G. 2004. “Stoppers, Stoppers, Everywhere: Toward an Understanding of 

Reworked Ceramic Discs.” Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, St. Antonio, TX, November. 

Arie, E. 2006. “The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA.” In Megiddo, Vol. 4/1, The 

1998–2002 Seasons, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, pp. 

191–298. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Arie, E., Y. Goren, and I. Samet. 2011. “Indelible Impression: Petrographic Analysis of Judahite Bullae.” In The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Persian 

Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, pp. 

1–16. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Ariel, D. T. 1990. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal 

Shiloh. II. Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and 

Ivory, and Glass. Qedem Ser. 30. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2006. Coins from Tel Mikhal (Tel Michal). ‘Atiqot, 52:71–88.

Artzy, M., and R. Beeri. 2006. “Mended Storage Jars and Colored Plaster: A Middle Bronze IIa Practice?” In Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, 

Vol. 2, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, pp. 

325–330. Leuven: Peeters.

Artzy, M., and E. Marcus. 1992. “Stratified Cypriote Pottery in MBIIa Context 

at Tel Nami.” In Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, ed. G. C. Ioannides, pp. 103–110. Nicosia: Levantis Foundation.

Assmann, J.. 1999. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Aston, D. A. 2004. Tell el-Dab’a XII: A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and 

Second Intermediate Period Pottery. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der 

Wissenschafte.

Åström, P. 1972a. The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. Swed. Cyprus Exped. 4, part 

1B. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.

———. 1972b. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery. Swed. 

Cyprus Exped. 4, part 1C. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.

———. 1972c. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age: Other Arts and Crafts; Relative 

and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations, Historical Conclusions. Swed. 

Cyprus Exped. 4, part 1D. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
NUMBER 50 • 1069

Beyond, ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling, and L. B. Mazow, pp. 183–206. 

Leiden: Brill. 

———. 2012a. The Cemetery of Azor: Moshe Dothan’s Excavations (1958, 1960).

IAA Rep. 50. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

———. 2012b. Tell GBemme during the Bronze Age and Canaanite Household Archaeology. Z. Dtsch. Paläst. Ver., 128:133–157, pls. 16–20.

———. 2014. “Marked Jar Handles from Tel Miqne-Ekron.” In Material Culture 

Matters: Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. John R. Spencer, Aaron J. Brody, and Robert A. Mullins, pp. 

19–34. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Ben-Shlomo, D., and T. Dothan. 2006. Ivories from Philistia: Filling the Iron Age I 

Gap. Isr. Explor. J., 56:1–38. 

Ben-Shlomo, D., and Y. Garfinkel. 2009. Sha’ar Hagolan and New Insights on Near 

Eastern Proto-Historic Urban Concepts. Oxford J. Archaeol., 28:189–209. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2009.00324.x.

Ben-Shlomo, D., and M. D. Press. 2009. A Re-examination of Aegean Style Figurines in Light of New Evidence from Ashdod, Ashkelon and Ekron. Bull. Am. 

Sch. Orient. Res., 353:39–74

Ben-Shlomo, D., I. Shai, and A. M. Maeir. 2004. Late Philistine Decorated Ware 

(“Ashdod Ware”): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers. Bull. Am. 

Sch. Orient. Res., 335:1–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4150067.

Ben-Shlomo, D., I. Shai, A. Zukerman, and A. M. Maeir. 2008. Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Philistia and Neighboring Regions. Am. J. Archaeol., 112:225–246. http://dx.doi.

org/10.3764/aja.112.2.225.

Ben-Shlomo, D., J. Uziel, and A. M. Maeir. 2009. Pottery Production at Tell es-Safi/

Gath: A Longue Durée Perspective. J. Archaeol. Sci., 36:2258–2273. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.06.011.

Ben-Tor, A. 1975. Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor, 1971. 

Qedem 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1997. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Ben-Tor, A., and R. Bonfil. 2003. “The Stratigraphy and Pottery Assemblages of 

the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in Area A.” In Tel Qashish: A Village in the 

Jezreel Valley; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987),

ed. A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonfil, and S. Zuckerman, pp. 185–276. Qedem Rep. 5. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ben-Tor, A., R. Bonfil, and S. Zuckerman, eds. 2003. Tel Qashish: A Village in the

Jezreel Valley; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987). 

Qedem Rep. 5. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ben-Tor, A., and M. T. Rubiato. 1996. The Renewed Excavations of Tel Hazor, 

1990–1995. [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot, 111:2–18.

Ben-Tor, A., A. Zarezcki-Peleg, and S. Cohen-Anidjar. 2005. Yoqne’am II: The 

Iron Age and the Persian Period; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavation (1977–1988). Qedem Rep. 6. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem.

Ben-Tor, D. 2007. Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine 

in the Second Intermediate Period. Orb. Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 27. 

Fribourg: Academic.

———. 2009. “Pseudo Hieroglyphs on Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Scarabs.” 

In Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and Pseudo Scrip from Prehistory 

to Modern Times, ed. P. Andrássy, J. Budka, and F. Kammerzell, pp. 83–100. 

Lingua Aegyptia Stud. Monogr. 8. .

Bergoffen, C. J. 1989. A Comparative Study of the Regional Distribution of Cypriote Pottery in Canaan and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. Ph.D. diss., New 

York University, New York.

———. 1991. Overland Trade in Northern Sinai: The Evidence of the Late Cypriot Pottery. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 284:59–76. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/1357194.

———. 2001. “The Base Ring Pottery from Tell el Ajjul.” In The Chronology of 

Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware and Base-Ring Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19, 2000, ed. P. Åström, pp. 31–50. Stockholm: The Royal 

Academy of Letters.

———. 2005. The Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Tell Atchana /Alalakh. Vienna: Austrian Science Foundation.

———. 2006. “Canaanite Wheelmade Imitations of Late Cypriot Base Ring II 

Jugs.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. 2, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, pp. 331–338. Orient. 

Lovan. Analecta 149. Leuven: Peeters.

———. In press. The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery from Southern Canaan: A Regional Study Including North Sinai with a Catalogue of the Cypriote Imports 

from W. M. F. Petrie’s Excavations at Tell el-’Ajjul. Contrib. Chronol. East. 

Mediterr. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Beedle, P. L. 2001. Silos: An Agricultural Success Story. Giving Old Barns New 

Life, 4:1–19. Madison: Wisconsin University. 

Beeri, R. 2003. Middle and Late Bronze Age Tombs from Tel Akko (Area AB). 

M.A. thesis, University of Haifa.

Behar, A., N. Yahalom-Mack, S. Shilsteina, A. Zukerman, C. Shafer-Elliott, A. M. 

Maeir, E. Boaretto, I. Finkelstein, and S. Weiner. 2012. Iron and Bronze Production in Iron Age IIA Philistia: New Evidence from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. 

J. Archaeol. Sci., 39:255–267.

Beit-Arieh, I. 1973. “The Western Quarter.” In Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel 

Beer-Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons, ed. Y. Aharoni, pp. 31–37. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Ben-Ami, D. 2005. “Stone Objects.” In Yoqnea’am III: The Middle and Late 

Bronze Ages; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988), 

ed. A. Ben-Tor, D. Ben-Ami, and A. Livneh, pp. 363–369. Qedem Rep. 7. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

Ben-Arieh, S. 1981. A Late Bronze Age Tomb from Tel Gedor. [In Hebrew.] Eretz 

Isr., Vol. 15:115–128 (Hebrew).

———. 2004. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. IAA Rep. 23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ben-Arieh, S., and G. Edelstein. 1977. Tombs near the Persian Garden, Akko. 

‘Atiqot, Engl. ser., 12.

Ben-David, A. 1979. The Philistine Talent from Ashdod, the Ugarit Talent from Ras 

Shamra, the pym and the nsf. Ugarit Forsch., 11:29–45.

Ben-Dor, I. 1950. An MB Temple at Nahariyah. Q. Dep. Antiq. Palest., 14:1–40. 

Ben-Dov, M. 1992. “Middle and Late Bronze Age Dwellings.” In The Architecture 

of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, pp. 99–104. Jerusalem: 

Israel Exploration Society.

Ben-Dov, R. 2011a. Dan III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966–1999; The Lade 

Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

———. 2011b. Craft Workshop at Tel Dan. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 30:77–94. 

Ben-Dov, R., and Y. M. Rowan. 2011. “Basalt Vessels and Ground Stones.” In Dan 

III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966–1999; The Late Bronze Age, ed. R. 

Ben-Dov, pp. 335–344. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Bennet, C.-M. 1974. Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1972: Preliminary 

report. Levant, 6:1–24.

———. 1975. Excavations at Buseirah, Southern Jordan, 1973: Preliminary Report. Levant, 7:1–19.

———. 1982. Neo-Assyrian Influence in Transjordan. Stud. Hist. Archaeol. Jordan, 1:191–194.

———. 1984. Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. Levant, 16:1–23. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/007589184790586300.

Bennett, W. J., Jr., and J. A. Blakely. 1989. Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum 

V). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Ben-Shlomo, D. 2003. The Iron Age Sequence at Tel Ashdod. Tel Aviv, 30:83–107. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443503787959163.

———. 2006a. Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. BAR Int. Ser. 1541. Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 2006b. New Evidence of Seals and Sealings from Philistia. Tel Aviv,

33:134–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443506787924537.

———. 2006c. “Selected Objects.” In Tel Miqne-Ekron: Excavations 1995–1996, 

Field INE East Slope; Late Bronze II-Iron I (The Early Philistine City), ed. 

M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin, pp. 189–205. Tel Miqne-Ekron Final 

Field Rep. 8. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

———. 2006–2007. “Cultural Diversity, Ethnicity and Power Imbalance in Philistia.” in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional 

Perspectives of Continuity and Change, ed. T. Harrison, pp. 267–290. Scr. 

Mediterr. 27–28. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies.

———. 2008a. The Cemetery of Azor and Early Iron Age Burial Practices. Levant, 

40:29–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175638008X284161.

———. 2008b. Zoomorphic Vessels from Tel Miqne-Ekron and the Different Styles 

of Philistine Pottery. Isr. Explor. J., 58:24–47.

———. 2009. “Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery.” In Khirbet Qeiyafa,

Vol. 1, Excavation Report 2007–2008, ed. Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, pp. 

161–173. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2010. Philistine Iconography: A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2011a. “Food Preparation Habits and Cultural Interaction during the Late 

Bronze and Iron Age in Southern Israel.” In On Cooking Pots, Drinking 

Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions: An International Archaeological Symposium Held in Nicosia, 

November 6th–7th 2010, ed. V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 273–286. 

Nicosia: Leventis Foundation.

———. 2011b. “Early Iron Age Domestic Material Culture in Philistia and an Eastern Mediterranean Koiné.” In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and 
1070 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

———. 1994. Finds from the Iron Age Cemetery at Tel H ̆alif, 1988. ‘Atiqot, Engl. 

ser., 25:45–60. 

Bosse-Griffiths, K. 1975. The Use of Disc-Beads in Egyptian Bead Compositions. 

J. Egypt. Archaeol., 61:114–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3856493.

Bottéro, J. 1987. The Culinary Tablets at Yale. J. Am. Orient. Soc., 107:11–19. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/602948.

Bourdier, J.-P., and T. T. Minh-Ha. 1985. African Spaces: Designs for Living in Upper Volta. New York: Africana.

Brandl, B. 1993a. “Scarabs, a Scaraboid and a Scarab Impression from Area G.” In 

Ashdod V, ed. M. Dothan and Y. Porath. ‘Atiqot, 23:129–142.

———. 1993b. “Clay, Bone, Metal and Stone Objects.” In Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, ed. I. Finkelstein, pp. 223–262. Tel Aviv: Institute of 

Archaeology.

———. 2001. “A Scarab, a Seal and an Amulet.” In Timnah (Tel Batash) II, ed. 

A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen, pp. 266–272. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew 

University of Jerusalem.

———. 2006. “Canaanite and Egyptian Seals and Sealings.” In Timnah (Tel Batash 

III): The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and 

A. Mazar, pp. 213–233. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2009. “Scarabs, Seals, Sealings and Seal Impressions.” In Excavations at 

Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in 

Areas N and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, pp. 636–684. Jerusalem: 

Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2010a. “Secondary Use of Fragments of Pottery Vessels.” In Deir el-Balah: 

Excavations in 1977–1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The 

Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, pp. 239–258. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2010b. “Two Bullae, a Plaque, Four Scarabs and a Stamp Seal.” In Deir 

el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, 

The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, pp. 207–224. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Braun, E. 1985. En Shadud Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the 

Jezreel Valley, Israel. BAR Int. Ser. 249. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Briend, J. 1980. “Lex Niveaux 9 a 11 (Fer I).” In Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cite 

phenicienne en Galilee, ed. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert, pp. 197–234. Orb. 

Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 1. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires.

Briend, J., and J.-B. Humbert. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cite phénicienne en Galilée. Orb. Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 1. Fribourg: Éditions 

Universitaires.

Brosh, N. 2003. “Glass in the Islamic Period.” In Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: The Eliahu Dobkin Collection and Other Gifts, ed. Y. Israeli, pp. 

319–383. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Browning, D. C. 2001. “Loomweights.” In Timnah (Tel Batash) II, ed. A. Mazar 

and N. Panitz-Cohen, pp. 248–258. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Brunton, G. 1948. Matmar: British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929–

1931. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 

Buchholz, H.-G. 1963. Steinerne Dreifusschalen des Agaischen Kulturkreises und 

ihre Beziehungen zum Osten. Jahrb. Dtsch. Archaol. Inst., 78:1–77.

Bunimovitz, S. 1992. The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestine as a 

Social Phenomenon. Tel Aviv, 19:221–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179

/033443592788179467.

———. 1995. “On the Edge of Empires: Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE).” In

The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy, pp. 320–331. 

London: Continuum. 

Bunimovitz, S., and A. Faust. 2001. Chronological Separation, Geographical 

Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnoarchaeology and the Iron Age 

Low Chronology. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 322:1–10. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/1357512.

Bunimovitz, S., and Z. Lederman. 1997. Beth-Shemesh: Culture Conflict on Judah’s 

Frontier. Biblic. Archaeol. Rev., 23(1):42–49, 75–77.

———. 2011. Canaanite Resistance: The Philistines and Beth-Shemesh—A Case 

Study from Iron I. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 364:37–51.

Bunimovitz, S., and O. Zimhoni. 1993. Lamp and Bowl Foundation Deposits in 

Canaan. Isr. Explor. J., 43:99–125.

Cahill, J. 1992. “Chalk Vessel Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early 

Roman Periods.” In Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Vol. 3, 

ed. A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel, pp. 190–274. Jerusalem: Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem.

Campbell, E. F. 2002. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/

Tell Balatah, Vol. 1, Text. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Capet, E., and E. Gubel. 2000. “Tell Kazel: Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation 

(c. 1200–612 B.C.).” In Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens, pp. 

425–458. Anc. Near East. Stud. Suppl. 7. Louvain: Peeters. 

Berlejung, A. 2010. There Is Nothing Better Than More! Texts and Images on 

Amulet 1 from Arslan Tash. J. Northw. Semit. Lang., 36(1):1–42.

———. 2011. “The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism, Indifference, or Development Policy?” In IOSOT Conference Helsinki 2010, ed. 

M. Nissinen, pp. 21–60. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2012. “Shared Fates. Gaza and Ekron as Examples for the Assyrian Religious Policy in the West.” In Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient 

Near East and Beyond: Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar Held 

at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, April 8–9, 2011, ed. 

N. N. May, pp. 129–152. Orient. Inst. Semin. 8. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Berlin, A. M., and R. Frankel. 2012. The Sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim: Phoenician 

Cult and Territory in the Upper Galilee during the Persian Period. Bull. Am. 

Sch. Orient. Res., 366:25–78.

Berlin, A. M., and K. Lynch. 2002. Going Greek: Atticizing Pottery in the Achaemenid World. Stud. Troica, 12:167–178.

Bernbeck, R. 1989. Die neolithische Keramik aus Qale Rostam, Bakhiyari-Gebiet 

(Iran): Klassifikation, Produktionsanalyse und Datierungspotential. Berlin: 

Schäuble.

———. 2010. Imperialist Networks: Ancient Assyria and the United States. Present 

Pasts, 2:142–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.30.

Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007. “The Ceramic Assemblage and the WheelMade Pottery Typology.” In Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell elQudeirat)1976–1982, ed. R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, pp. 131–

187, IAA Rep. 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bienkowski, P. 2002. Busayra: Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971–1980. Br. 

Acad. Monogr. Archaeol. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bierling, N. 1998. Report of the 1995–1996 Excavations of Field XNW. Miqne 

Field Rep. Ser. 7. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological 

Research.

Bietak, M. 1989. “Archaologischer Befund und Historische Interpretation am 

Beispiel der Tell el-Yahudiya-Ware.” In Akten des Vierten Internationalen 

Agyptologen Kongresses, Munchen 1985, ed. S. Schoske, pp. 7–34. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

———. 1997. “Avaris, Capital of the Hyksos Kingdom: New Results of the Excavations.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives,

ed. E. D. Oren, pp. 87–139. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 96, Univ. Mus. Symp. Ser. 

8. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Bijovsky, G. 2004. “The Coins.” In Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, ed. 

Y. Hirschfeld, pp. 169–175. IAA Rep. 22. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities 

Authority. 

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic.

Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Biran, A., and R. Ben-Dov. 2002. Dan II: A Chronicle of the Excavations and the 

Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Biran, A., and R. Cohen. 1981. Aroer in the Negev. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 

15:251–272. 

Blakeley, J. A., and Y. Huster. In press. “The Wadi el-Hesi Region in 1256/7 based 

on John of Ibelin’s Deed.” In Crusades.

Blaylock, S. R. 1999. “Iron Age Pottery from Tille Höyük, South Eastern Turkey.” In Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and 

Southeastern Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter and A. Rieche, pp. 263–286. Altert. 

Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

Bliss, F. J. 1894. A Mound of Many Cities. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

———. 1898. A Mound of Many Cities: Tell el Hesi Excavated. London: Palestine 

Exploration Fund.

Bliss, F. J., and R. A. S. Macalister. 1902. Excavations in Palestine 1898–1900.

London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Bloom, J. B. 1988. Material Remains of the Neo Assyrian Presence in Palestine and 

Transjordan. Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA.

Boardman, J. 1989. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period. London: 

Thames and Hudson.

———. 2002. Al Mina: The Study of a Site. Anc. West East, 1(2):315–331.

Boertien, J. H. 2009. A Simulation Experiment in the Context of a Technological 

Study of Levantine Iron Age Clay Loom Weights. Leiden J. Pottery Stud.,

25:31–46.

Boessneck, J. 1969. “Osteological Differences Between Sheep (Ovis aries Linne) 

and Goat (Capra hircus Linne).” In Science in Archaeology, 2nd ed., ed. 

D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, pp. 331–358. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bonnet, H. 1952. Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Vol. 2. Berlin: 

de Gruyter.

Borowski, O. 1998. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. 

Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

———. 1991. The Iron Age Cemetery at Tel H ̆alif. [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot, 

95–96:89–92.
NUMBER 50 • 1071

Curtis, J. E. 1989. Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij. Saddam Dam 

Rep. 10. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

———. 2008. “Observations on Selected Metal Objects from Nimrud Tombs.” In 

New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th 

March 2002, ed. J. E. Curtis, H. McCall, D. Collon, and L. al-Gailani-Werr, 

pp. 243–252. London: British Museum.

Curtis, J. E., and A. Green. 1997. Excavations at Khirbet Khatuniyeh. Saddam 

Dam Rep. 11. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Curtis, R. I. 2001. Ancient Food Technology. Technol. Change Hist. 5. Leiden: 

Brill.

Curwen, E. C. 1930. Prehistoric Flint Sickles. Antiquity, 4:179–186.

Dagan, A. 2011. Negebite Pottery beyond the Negev. Tel Aviv, 38:208–219. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443511x13099584885349.

Dan, J., Z. Raz, D. H. Ya’alon, and H. Koyumdjisk. 1975. Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Agriculture.

Dan, J., D. H. Yaalon, H. Koyumdjisky, and Z. Raz. 1972. The Soil Association 

Map of Israel. Isr. J. Earth Sci., 21:29–49.

Daviau, P. M. M. 1993. Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine: 

Domestic Activity; Areas and Artifact Distribution in the Middle and Late 

Bronze Ages. JSOT/ASOR Monogr. Ser. 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

———. 1997. Technological Change and Assyrian Influence at Tell Jawa, Jordan. 

Bull. Can. Soc. Mesop. Stud., 32:23−32.

———. 2003. Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, Vol. 1, The Iron Age Town. Cult. 

Hist. Anc. Near East 11/1. Leiden: Brill. 

David, A. 2009. “Clay Cobras: Ramesside Household Cult or Apotropaic Device?” 

In Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen, and A. Mazar, pp. 

556–560. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

David, N., and C. Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, S. J. M. 1985. “The Large Mammal Bones.” In Excavations at Tel Qasile II: 

The Philistine Sanctuary; Various Finds. The Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes, ed. A. Mazar, pp. 148–150. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem.

Dayagi-Mendels, M. 2002. The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-Dor Excavations, 

1941–1944. IAA Rep. 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Delaney, C. 1991. The Seed and the Soil: Gender Cosmology in Turkish Village 

Society. Berkeley: University of California.

Delougaz, P., H. D. Hill, and S. Lloyd. 1967. Private Houses and Graves in the 

Diyala Region. Orient. Inst. Publ. 88. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Deutsch, R. 2004. Catalogue of Archaeological Center. Auction No. 33. Tel Aviv: 

Archaeological Center.

Dever, W. G. 1986. Gezer IV: The 1969–1971 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis.”

Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dever, W. G., H. D. Lance, R. G. Bullard, D. P. Cole, and J. D. Seger. 1974. Gezer 

II. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dever, W. G., H. D. Lance, and G. E. Wright. 1970. Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical 

Archaeology.

De Vaux, R. 1952. La quatrième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâra`ah, près 

Naplouse. Revue Biblique. 59/1: 551–583.

Diener, P., and E. E. Robkin. 1978. Ecology, Evolution, and the Search for Cultural 

Origins: The Question of Islamic Pig Prohibition. Curr. Anthropol. 19:493–

540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/202138. 

Dieudonné, A. 1936. Monnaies féodales françaises. Paris: Auguste Picard. 

Dikaios, P. 1969–1971. Enkomi Excavations 1948–1958. Vols. 1–3. Mainz: 

Philipp von Zabern. 

Dorrell, P. 1983. “Appendix A: Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects.” In Jericho V, 

ed. K. Kenyon and T. A. Holland, pp. 485–575. London: British School of 

Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Dorrnmann, R. H. 2000. “The Iron Age Remains at Tell Qarqur in the Orontos 

Valley.” In Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens, pp. 459–485. 

Anc. Near East. Stud. Suppl. 7. Louvain: Peeters. 

Dothan, M. 1955. The Excavations at ‘Afula. ‘Atiqot, 1:19–70.

———. 1971. Ashdod II–III. ‘Atiqot, 10–11:1–222.

———. 1989. A Cremation Burial at Azor—A Danite City. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 

20:164–174. [English summary, 200.]

Dothan, M., and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2005. Ashdod VI. Excavations of Areas H and K 

(1968–1969). IAA Rep. 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dothan, M., and D. N. Freedman. 1967. Ashdod I. ‘Atiqot, 7: 1–171.

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

15:1–175.

———. 1993. Ashdod V. The Excavation of Area G: The 4th and 6th Seasons 

1968–1970. ‘Atiqot, 23.

Cassuto, D. 2008. “Bringing the Artifacts Home: A Social Interpretation of Loom 

Weights in Context.” In The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical 

Near East, ed. B. Alpert- Nakhai, pp. 63–77. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

———. 2012. “Weaving Implements.” In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 467–484. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Caubet, A. 1991. “Objets et instruments d’albatre.” In Arts et Industries de la 

Pierre: Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI, ed. M. Yon, pp. 265–272. Paris: Editions 

Recherche sur les Civilisations. 

Cechini, S. M. 1998. “Area G, Iron Age I–III. Architecture, Pottery and Finds.” 

In Tell Afis (Syria): Scavi sull’ acropoli 1988–1992., ed. S. M. Ceccini and 

S. Mazzoni, pp. 273–365. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. 

Chambon, A. 1984. Tell el-Far’ah I: L’Âge du Fer. Mem. 31. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Cialowicz, K. M. 1987. Les têtes de massues des periodes prédynastique et archaique dans la vallée du Nil. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.

———. 1989. “Predynastic Mace-Heads in the Nile Valley.” In Late Prehistory of 

the Nile Basin and the Sahara, ed. L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz, pp. 

261–266. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum.

Clairmont, C. 1955. Greek Pottery from the Near East: Introduction. Berytus, 

11:85–141.

Clamer, C. 1980. A Gold Plaque from Tel Lachish. Tel Aviv, 7:152–162.

———. 1986. The Dayan Collection: The Stone Vessels. Isr. Mus. J., 5:19–36.

———. 1989. “Calcite-Alabaster Vessels.” In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. 

Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and O. Negbi, pp. 345–349. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press.

———. 2004. “The Pottery and Artefacts from the Level VI Temple in Area P.” 

In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. 

D. Ussishkin, pp. 1288–1368. Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Cogan, M. 1974. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth 

and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

———. 1993. Judah Under Assyrian Hegemony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion. J. Biblic. Lit., 112(3):403–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307

/3267741.

Cohen, R., and H. Bernick-Greenberg. 2007. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell 

el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. IAA Rep. 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Cohen, R., and R. Cohen-Amin. 2004. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands, 

Vol. 1, The Iron Age and the Persian Period. IAA Rep. 20. Jerusalem: Israel 

Antiquities Authority.

Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2006. “Petrographic Results of Selected Fabrics of the Late 

Bronze Age and Iron Age I from Tel Batash.” In Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The 

Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, 

pp. 16–21. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Cole, D. P. 1984. Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns. 

Collon, D. 1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London: British Museum Press.

———. 1990. Near Eastern Seals. London: British Museum Press. 

Cook, J. M. 1962. The Greeks in Ionia and the East. London: Thames and Hudson.

Cook, R. M., and P. Dupont.1998. East Greek Pottery. London: Routledge.

Cornelius, I. 1994. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba’al. Orb. 

Biblic. Orient. 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2004. The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE. 

Orb. Biblic. Orient. 204. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Courtois, L. C., and A. M. Doray. 1983. “Technologie des ceramiques Levantines 

au temps de la domination Assyrienne.” In Comptes Rendus du 108e Congrès National des Socidtes Savantes, pp. 125–136. Grenoble: Ministere de 

L’éducation Nationale Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.

Cross, F. M., and L. E. Stager. 2006. Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon. Isr. Explor. J., 56:129–159.

Crouwel, J. H. 1985. Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus. Rev. Dep. Antiq. Cyprus, 

1987:101–118.

Crowfoot, G. M. 1957. “Faience, Amulets and Beads.” In The Objects from Samaria, ed. J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon, pp. 389–

402. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

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

Palestine Exploration Fund. 

Crowfoot, J. W., G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste III: 

The Objects. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Culican, W. 1969. Dea Tyria Gravida. Aust. J. Biblic. Archaeol., 1(2):35–50. 

Currid, J. D. 1985. The Beehive Granaries of Ancient Palestine. Z. Dtsch. Paläst. 

Ver., 101:97–109. 
1072 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Area E: The Finds, ed. A. De-Groot and H. Bernick Greenberg, pp. 251–302. 

Qedem 54. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Eisenstadt, I., K. Arabas, and Z. Ablas, 2004. “A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave at 

Zawata.” In Burial Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria from the Bronze 

and Iron Ages, ed. H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot, pp. 77–106. Judea Samaria 

Publ. 4. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Eisenstadt, S. N. 1969. The Political Systems of Empires. New York: Free Press.

———. 1979. “Observations and Queries about Sociological Aspects of Imperialism in the Ancient World.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on 

Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, pp. 21–34. Mesop. Cph. Stud. Archaeol. 

7. Copenhagen: Akademisk.

Eitam, D. 1996. “The Olive Oil Industry at Tel Miqne-Ekron during the Late Iron 

Age.” In Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighboring Countries from the 

Neolithic to the Early Arab Period, ed. D. Eitam and M. Heltzer, pp. 167–

196. Padua: Sargon. 

Elat, M. 1978. The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt. 

J. Am. Orient. Soc., 98:20–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/600148. 

———. 1990. “The International Trade in the Land of Israel Under Assyria.” [In 

Hebrew.] In Commerce in Palestine Throughout the Ages, ed. B. Z. Kedar, 

T. Dothan, and S. Safrai, pp. 67–88. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.

Elgavish, J. 1968. Archaeological Excavations at Shikmona. Field Report No. 1. 

The Levels of the Persian Period, Seasons 1963–1965. [In Hebrew.] Haifa: 

Museum of Ancient Art.

Elliott, C. 1991. “The Ground Stone Industry.” In Arts et Industries de la Pierre: 

Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI, ed. M. Yon, pp. 9–99. Paris: Editions Recherche sur 

les Civilisations.

Ellison, E. R. 1984. Methods of Food Preparation in Mesopotamia (c. 3000–600 BC). 

J. Econ. Soc. Hist. Orient, 27:89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3631938.

Elsworthy, F. T. 1895. The Evil Eye: An Account of this Ancient and Widespread 

Superstition. London: J. Murray.

Engström, C. M. A. 2004. The Neo-Assyrians at Tell el-Hesi: A Petrographic Study 

of Imitation Assyrian Palace Ware. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 333:69–81. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357795.

Epstein, C. 1985. Dolmens Excavated in the Golan. ‘Atiqot, Engl. Ser., 17:20–58.

Eran, A. 1982. “The Weights.” In Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M, ed. M. Dothan 

and Y. Porat. ‘Atiqot, Engl. Ser., 15:91–100.

———. 1993. “The Weights from Area G.” In Ashdod V: The Excavation of Area 

G; The 4th and 6th Seasons 1968–1970, ed. M. Dothan, and Y. Porath. 

‘Atiqot, 23: 123–128.

———. 1996. “Weights and Weighing in the City of David: The Early Weights from 

the Bronze Age to the Persian Period.” In Excavations at the City of David 

1978–1985, Vol. 4, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot, pp. 204–256. Qedem 35. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Eran, A., and G. Edelstein. 1977. “The Weights.” In Akko: The Tombs near the 

Persian Garden, S. Ben-Arieh and G. Edelstein. ‘Atiqot, 12: 52–62.

Erlich, A., and A. Kloner. 2008. Maresha Excavations Final Report II: Hellenistic 

Terracotta Figurines from the 1989–1996 Seasons. IAA Rep. 35. Jerusalem: 

Israel Antiquities Authority.

Erman, A., and H. Grapow. 1971. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 7 vols. 

Berlin: Akademie.

Ernest, J. H., D. Mackay, and M. A. Murray. 1952. Ancient Gaza V. BSAE Vol. 64. 

London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Evans, G. J. 2003. Environmental Archaeology and the Social Order. New York: 

Routledge.

Evenari, M., L. Shanan, and H. Tadmor. 1971. The Negev: The Challenge of a 

Desert. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Evershed, R. P., C. Heron, S. Charters, and L. J. Goad. 1992. “The Survival of 

Food Residues: New Methods of Analysis, Interpretation and Application.” 

In New Developments in Archaeological Science, ed. A. M. Pollard, pp. 187–

208. Proc. Br. Acad. 77. London: British Academy.

Fantalkin, A. 2001. Mezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical 

Background. Tel Aviv, 28:3–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/0334435017

88056337.

Fantalkin, A., and O. Tal. 2006. “Re-dating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy.” In Judah 

and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Liphshitz and M. Oeming, pp. 

167–197.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 

———. 2009. Re-discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qudadi in the Context 

of the Neo-Assyrian Imperialistic Policies. Palest. Explor. Q., 141:188–206. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/003103209X12483454548121.

Faust, A. 1999a. Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages in 

the Iron Age II. Tel Aviv, 26:233–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/03344359

9788145610.

Dothan, T. 1967. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: The Bialik 

Institute and the Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew).

———. 1976. Forked Bronze Butts from Palestine and Egypt. Isr. Explor. J. 26:20–34.

———. 1979. Excavation at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balah. Qedem Ser. 10. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Dothan, T., and D. Ben-Shlomo. In press. “Various Ceramic Finds from Field IV 

Lower.” In Excavations 1985–1995: Field IVNE/NW (Lower); Iron Age I–

II, The Elite Zone, ed. Y. Garfinkel, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin. ELES 10. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

Dothan, T., and B. Brandl, eds. 2010. Deir el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 

in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The Finds. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Dothan, T., and M. Dothan. 1992. People of the Sea. New York: Macmillan.

Dothan, T., S. Gitin, and A. Zukerman. 2006. “The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditions and Cypriote and Aegean Imports.” In Tel Miqne-Ekron: 

Excavations 1995–1996, Field INE East Slope; Late Bronze II–Iron I (The 

Early Philistine City), ed. M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin, pp. 71–176. 

Tel Miqne-Ekron Final Field Rep. Ser. 8. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute 

of Archaeological Research.

Dothan, T., and T. Nahmias-Lotan. 2010a. “A Lamp and Bowl Deposit.” In Deir 

el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2,

The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, pp. 111–114. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2010b. “Figurines.” In Deir el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in the 

Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, pp. 

195–205. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2010c. “Various Metal Finds.” In Deir el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–

1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. 

Brandl, pp. 185–190. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Dothan, T., and A. Zukerman. 2004. A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 

Pottery Assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 333:1–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357793.

———. In press a. “The Iron I Philistine Pottery.” In The Ancient Pottery of Israel 

and Its Neighbors: From the Neolithic through the Hellenistic Period, ed. 

S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 

———. In press b. “The Iron I Pottery.” In Excavations 1985–1995: Field IVNE/

NW (Lower); Iron Age I–II, The Elite Zone, ed. Y. Garfinkel, T. Dothan, 

and S. Gitin. ELES 10. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological 

Research.

Dubreuil, L. 2004. Long-Term Trends in Natufian Subsistence: A Use-Wear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools. J. Archaeol. Sci., 31:1613–1629. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.04.003.

Duistermaat, K. 1996. “The Seals and Sealings.” In Tell Sabi Abyad: The Late Neolithic Settlement, ed. P. M. M. G. Akkermans, pp. 339–401. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.

———. 2008. The Pots and Potters of Assyria: Technology and Organization of 

Production, Ceramic Sequence and Vessel Function at Late Bronze Age Tell 

Sabi Abyad, Syria. Pap. Archaeol. Leiden Mus. Antiq. 4. Turhout: Brepols.

Duncan, J. G. 1930. Corpus of Palestinian Pottery. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Duplessy, J. 1985. Les trésors monétaires mediévaux et modernes decouverts en 

France. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale.

Echt, R. 1982. “Die Schlangenfiguren aus Kamid el-Loz undverwandte Kleinplastiken in Syrien und Palästina.” In Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974, ed. R. Hachmann, pp. 

37–52. Saarbr. Beitr. Altert. 32. Bonn: Habelt. 

Edelstein, G., and S. Aurant. 1992. The “Philistine” Tomb at Tell ‘Eitun. ‘Atiqot,

21:23–41.

Edelstein, G., Y. Milevski, and S. Aurant. 1998. Villages, Terraces and Stone 

Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989. IAA Rep. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Eggler, J., and O. Keel. 2006. Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 25. Göttingen: 

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

Eidem, J., and R. Ackermann. 1999. “The Iron Age Ceramics from Tell Jurn 

Kabir.” In Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and 

Southeastern Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter and A. Rieche, pp. 309–324. Altert. 

Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

Eisen, G. A. 1916. The Characteristics of Eye Beads from the Earliest Times to the 

Present. Am. J. Archaeol., 20:1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/497200. 

Eisenberg, E. 2012. “The Pottery of Strata 18–17 (the Middle Bronze Age).” In Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7B,
NUMBER 50 • 1073

Fritz, V., and A. Kempinski. 1983. Ergebnisse der ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet elMsas (Tel Masos) 1972–1975. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Fuchs, A., and S. Parpola. 2001. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III. State 

Ann. Assyria 15. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Fugmann, E. 1958. Hama Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938, II.1. L’architecture 

des periodes pre-hellenistiques. Copenhagen: National Museum.

Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhetsakademien historie och antikvitets akademien.

Gachet-Bizollon, J. 2007. Les ivoires D’Ougarit: Ras Shamra-Ougarit XVI. Paris: 

Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Gadot, Y. 2010. The “Governor’s Residence” at Aphek: Late Bronze Age Egyptian 

Involvement in the Central Coastal Plain of Israel. Tel Aviv, 37:48–66.

Gadot, Y., and E. Yadin. 2009. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Upper City of Aphek. 

Bronze and Iron Age Remains from Areas X, A and G. Monogr. Ser. Inst. 

Archaeol. Tel Aviv Univ. 27. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Gadot, Y., and A. Yasur-Landau. 2006. “Beyond Finds: Reconstructing Life in the 

Courtyard Building of Level K-4.” In Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons, 

ed. I. Finkenstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, pp. 583–600. Monogr. Ser. 

Inst. Archaeol. Tel Aviv Univ. 24. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Gadot, Y., A. Yasur-Landau, and J. Uziel. 2012. “The Late Bronze Age Pottery.” In 

Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 241–264. 

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 

Gal, Z., and Y. Alexandre. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and 

Village. IAA Rep. 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Gamer-Wallert, I. 2004. “The Scarabs.” In The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-elBass: Excavations of 1997–1999, ed. M. E. Aubet. Bull. Archéol. Archit. 

Liban., 1(Hors-Série):397–413.

Gardiner, A. H. 1957. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of 

Hieroglyphs. London: Oxford University Press. 

Gardner, E. A., and F. L. Griffith. 1888. Naukratis II. Mem. Egypt Explor. Fund 6. 

London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Garfinkel, Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Garfinkel, Y., D. Ben-Shlomo, and T. Kuperman. 2009. Large-Scale Storage of 

Grain Surplus in the Sixth Millennium BC: The Silos of Tel Tsaf. Antiquity, 

83:309–325.

Garfinkel, Y., A. Vered, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2006. The Domestication of Water: 

The Neolithic Well at Sha’ar Hagolan, Jordan Valley, Israel. Antiquity,

80:686–696.

Garstang, J. 1932. Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverp. Ann. Archaeol. Anthropol., 20:3–42.

———. 1934. Jericho: City and Necropolis (Fourth Report). Liverp. Ann. Archaeol. Anthropol., 21:99–136.

Garstang, J., J. P. Droop, and J. Crowfoot. 1935. Jericho: City and Necropolis 

(Fifth Report). Liverp. Ann. Archaeol. Anthropol., 22:143–184.

Gera, A. 2007. “The Small Finds.” In Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell elQudeirat) 1976–1982, Part 1, ed. R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, pp. 

211–235. IAA Rep. 34. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Gershuny, L. 1991. Zoomorphic Clay Vases and Rhyta in Israel of the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

———. 2002. A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery in Ashqelon. In The Middle Bronze 

Age in the Levant, ed. M. Bietak, pp. 185–188. Vienna: Österreichischen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Gibson, M. 1980. “The Hamrin Expedition, Chicago-Copenhagen Expedition to 

the Hamrin, Iraq; Second Season 1979.” In The Oriental Institute, Annual 

Report, 1979–80, pp. 19–28. Chicago: University of Chicago. 

Gilbert-Peretz, D. 1996. Ceramic Figurines. In City of David IV, ed. D. Ariel 

and A. De-Groot, pp. 29–86. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem.

Gilboa, A. 1989. New Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of Cypro-Geometric Pottery Import to Palestine. Isr. Explor. J., 39:204–218. 

———. 1996. Assyrian-Type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the Town during the 

Assyrian Occupation Period. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 25:122–135. [English 

summary, 22*.]

Gilboa, A., A. Karasik, and U. Smilansky. 2004. Towards computerized typology 

and classification of ceramics. J. Archaeol. Sci., 31:681–694. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.10.013.

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2003. An Archaeological Contribution to the Early 

Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and 

Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 

332:7–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357808.

Gilead, I. 1984. The Microendscraper: A New Tool Type of the Chalcolithic Period. 

Tel Aviv, 11:3–10.

———. 1999b. Socioeconomic Stratification in the Israelite City: Hazor VI as a 

Test Case. Levant, 31:179–190.

———. 2011. The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test-Case. J. Econ. Soc. Hist. Orient, 54:62–86. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1163/156852011X567382.

Faust, A., and E. Weis. 2011. “Between Assyria and the Mediterranean World: The 

Prosperity of Judah and Philistia in the Seventh Century BCE in Context.” In 

Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennia 

BCE, ed. T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, and J. Bennet, pp. 189–204. Oxford: 

Oxbow.

Felli, C. 2001. “Some Notes on the Akkadian Glyptic from Tell Brak.” In Excavations at Tell Brak 2, Nagar in the Third Millennium BC, ed. D. Oates, J. 

Oates, and H. McDonald, pp. 141–150. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. 

Finkelstein, I. 1992. Middle Bronze Age “Fortifications”: A Reflection of Social 

Organization and Political Formations. Tel Aviv, 19:201–220. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1179/033443592788179377.

Finkelstein, I., and L. Singer-Avitz. 2001. Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv, 28:231–259. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443501788052908.

Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques 

rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ. BAR Int. Ser. 990. Oxford: 

Archaeopress.

Fischer, E. 2007. Agyptische und agyptisierende Elfenbeine aus Megiddo und Lachisch Inschriftenfunde, Flaschen, Löffel. AOAT 47. Münster: Ugarit. 

Fischer, P. M. 2006. Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, Vol. 2, The Middle 

and Late Bronze Ages. Contrib. Chronol. East. Mediterr. 11. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

———. 2011. The New Swedish Cyprus Expedition 2010: Excavations at Dromolaxia Vizatzia/Hala Sultan Tekke. Preliminary Results. OpAthRom (Opuscula), 4:69–89.

FitzGerald, G. M. 1930. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, the Pottery. 

Vol. 2.2. Philadelphia: University Museum.

———. 1935. The Earliest Pottery of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Folk, R., and H. Leibowitz. 2003. “Petrographical, Chemical and Mineralogical 

Analysis of the Local Pottery.” In Tel Yin’am I: The Late Bronze Age, ed. 

H. Leibowitz, pp. 235–240. Stud. Archaeol. 42. Austin: Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.

Foucault-Forest, C. 1996. L’habitat privé Palestine au Bronze Moyen et au Bronze 

Récent. BAR Int. Ser. 625. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm.

Francis, P. 1988. When Is a Bead Not a Bead? Ornament, 11:33, 66–69, 71–76.

Frankel, R. 2011. Devices for Baking Bread in Talmudic Literature. [In Hebrew.] 

Cathedra, 139:79–114. [English abstract, 180.]

Franken, H. J. 1992. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla I: The Late Bronze Age and 

Sanctuary. Louvain: Peeters.

Franken, H. J., and J. Kalsbeek. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla, Vol. 1, A 

Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: 

Brill. 

Frankfort, H. J. 1939. Cylinder Seals. London: MacMillan.

———. 1970. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 4th ed. London: 

Penguin.

Franklin, N. 2001. “A Room with a View: Images from Room V at Khorsabad. 

Samaria, Nubians, the Brook of Egypt and Ashdod.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, pp. 257–277. 

JSOT Suppl. 331. Sheffield: Academic.

Free, J. P. 1959. The Sixth Season at Dothan. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 156:22–

29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356057.

Freestone, I. C., and M. F. Hughes. 1989. “Examination of Pottery from Qasrij 

Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij.” In Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij, 

ed. J. Curtis, pp. 61–75. Saddam Dam Rep. 10. London: British School of 

Archaeology in Iraq.

French, E. B. 1971. The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines. 

Annu. Br. Sch. Archaeol. Athens, 66:101–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

S0068245400019146.

———. 1985. “The Figures and Figurines.” The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi, ed. C. Renfrew, pp. 209–280. London: British School of 

Archaeology at Athens.

Freud, L. 1999. “The Iron Age Pottery.” In Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical 

Negev, ed. I. Beit Arieh, pp. 189–289. Monogr. Ser. Inst. Archaeol. Tel Aviv 

Univ. 15. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Freud, L., and I. Beit-Arieh. 1995. “Pottery.” In Horbat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine 

in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. Beit-Arieh, pp. 209–257. Inst. Archaeol. Monogr. 

Ser. 11. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
1074 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

———. 2012. “The Non-Metallic Jewelry Objects from the Iron Age and Late 

Bronze Age Tombs.” In The Cemetery of Azor: Moshe Dothan’s Excavations 

(1958, 1960), ed. D. Ben-Shlomo, pp. 165–174. IAA Rep. 50. Jerusalem: 

Israel Antiquities Authority.

———. In press. The Jewelry and Cosmetic Articles from Persian Period Burials at 

Tel Shor. ‘Atiqot. 

Golani, A., and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2005. “The Jewelry from Areas H and K.” In

Ashdod VI, ed. M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, pp. 247–264. IAA Rep. 24. 

Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Golani, A., and B. Sass. 1998. Three Seventh Century B.C.E. Hoards of Silver Jewelry from Tel Miqne-Ekron. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 311:57–81. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357424.

Goldberg, P. 1986. Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Southern Levant. 

Geoarchaeology, 1:225–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340010301.

Golden, J. M. 2010. Dawn of the Metal Age: Technology and Society during the 

Levantine Chalcolithic. London: Equinox.

Goldsmith, D., R. Ben-Dov, and T. Kertesz. 1999. “Miscellaneous Finds.” In Tel 

‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. Beit Arieh, pp. 445–475. Tel 

Aviv Monogr. 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. 

Goldwasser, O. 2006. Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs. Horus is Hathor?—The 

Invention of the Alphabet in Sinai. Ägypten Levante, 16:121–160. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1553/AEundL16s121.

Gopher, A., and E. Orelle. 1995. “New Data on Burials from the Pottery Neolithic 

Period (Sixth-Fifth Millennium BC) in Israel.” In The Archaeology of Death 

in the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Campbell and A. Green, pp. 24–28. Oxford: 

Oxbow.

Gorelick, K. L., and A. J. Gwinnett. 1978. Ancient Seals and Modern Science Using 

the Scanning Electron Microscope as an Aid in the Study of Ancient Seals. 

Expedition, 20:38–47.

Goren, Y. 1992. “Petrographic Analyses of White Shaved Juglets from Tomb 26 

at Palmahim.” [In Hebrew.] In Two Late Bronze Age Tombs at Palmahim, 

ed. L. Singer-Avitz and Y. Levi. ‘Atiqot, 22:15*–26*. [English summary, 

174–175]. 

———. 1996. The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 303:33–72. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/1357469.

Goren, Y., I. Finkelstein, and N. Na’aman. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance 

Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Emery 

Claire Yass Publ. Archaeol. 23. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Goren, Y., and N. Halperin. 2004. “Selected Petrographic Analyses.” In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin, pp. 2553–2586. Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute of 

Archaeology.

Goring-Morris, N. 1995. “Complex Hunter/Gatherers at the End of the Paleolithic 

(20,000–10,000 BP).” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. 

T. E. Levy, pp. 141–168. London: Leicester University Press.

Gorzalczany, A. 1999. “Petrographic Analysis of Persian Period Pottery—A Preliminary Report.” In Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations, Vol. 

1, The Persian and Hellenistic Periods, ed. I. Roll and O. Tal, pp. 185–189. 

Sonia Marco Nadler Inst. Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 16. Tel Aviv: Institute of 

Archaeology.

———. 2005. “Petrographic Analysis of the Persian Period Pottery from YavnehYam.” [In Hebrew with English summary.] In Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and Their 

Neighborhood. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal 

Plain, ed. M. Fisher, pp. 209–216. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 

Gould, B. 2010. “Egyptian Pottery.” In Deir el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in 

the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, 

pp. 7–56. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Grace, V. R. 1971. Samian Amphoras. Hysperia, 40(1):52–95, pls. 12–15.

———. 1979. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Princeton, NJ: American 

School of Classical Studies at Athens. 

Grant, E. 1929. Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. Haverford, PA: Biblical and Kindred Studies.

———. 1932. Ain Shems Excavations II. Haverford, PA: Bible and Kindred Studies, Haverford College.

———. 1934. Rumeileh: ‘Ain Shems Excavations III. Haverford, PA: Bible and 

Kindred Studies.

Grant, E., and G. E. Wright. 1938. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine): Part IV

(Pottery). Haverford, PA: Haverford College.

Green, A. 1999. “The Ninevite Countryside: Pots and Places of the Eski-Mosul 

Region in the Neo-Assyrian and Post-Assyrian Periods.” In Studies on Iron 

Age Pottery from Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern 

Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 91–126. Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

———. 1989. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev, Israel. J. Field Archaeol., 16:377–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/530276.

Gilead, I., D. Hershman, and O. Marder. 1995. “The Flint Assemblages from 

Grar.” In Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev, ed. I. Gilead, pp. 

223–280. Beersheva 7. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University Press.

Gilmour, G. H. 1997. The Nature and Function of Astragalus Bones from Archaeological Contexts in the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford J. Archaeol., 16:167–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00032.

Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron 

Age II Period. Annu. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

———. 1990. Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

———. 1995. “Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal 

City State.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West; Reports 

on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor and Ashkelon, ed. S. Gitin, pp. 61–79. 

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

———. 1997. “The Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Western Periphery: The Levant, 

with a Focus on Philistine Ekron.” In Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th 

Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, 

September 7–11, 1995, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, pp. 77–103. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Project.

———. 1998. “Philistia in Transition: The Tenth Century B.C.E. and Beyond.” In 

Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries 

BCE, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, pp. 162–183. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society. 

———. 2003. “Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record: The 

‘Smoking Gun’ Phenomenon.” In Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of 

the Past, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, pp. 279–295. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

———. 2012. “Temple Complex 650 at Ekron. The Impact of Multi-Cultural Influences on Philistine Cult in the Late Iron Age.” In Temple Building and 

Temple Cult, ed. J. Kamlah, pp. 223–258. Abh. Dtsch. Palästi. Ver. 41.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Gitin, S., and M. D. Cogan. 1999. A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from 

Ekron. Isr. Explor. J., 49:193–202.

Gitin, S., T. Dothan, and J. Naveh. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from 

Ekron. Isr. Explor. J., 48:1–16.

Gitler, H., O. Tal, and P. Van Alfen. 2007. Silver Dome-Shaped Coins from PersianPeriod Southern Palestine. Isr. Numis. Res., 2:47–62.

Gittlen, B. M. 1977. Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine. Ph.D. 

diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Giveon, R. 1985. Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the 

British Museum. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Givon, S. 1998. The Eighth Season of Excavation at Tel Harassim (Nahal Barkai) 

1997. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.

———. 2002. “Six Female Figurines from the Late Bronze Age from Tel Harasim.” 

In Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related 

Disciplines, ed. E. D. Oren and S. Ahituv, pp. 24*–37*. Beer-Sheva 15. BeerSheva: Ben-Gurion University Press.

———. 2004. Nahal Barqai 1998–2000. Excav. Surv. Isr., 116, 73f, 55*.

Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Swed. Cyprus Exped. 4, part 2. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

———, ed. 1977. Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found in Cyprus. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Gjerstad, E., J. Lindros, E. Sjöqwist, and A. Westholm. 1937. The Swedish Cyprus 

Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus1927–1931. Vol. 

3. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. 

Glueck, N. 1967. Some Edomite Pottery from Tell el-Kheleifeh. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 188:3–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356246.

Golani, A. 1996a. Jewelry and the Jeweler’s Craft at Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 

Iron Age. M.A. thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1996b. A Persian Period Cist Tomb on the Ashqelon Coast. ‘Atiqot,

30:115–119.

———. 2003. “Metal Objects.” In Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age 

Site of Qiryat Ata, ed. A. Golani, pp. 215–217. IAA Rep. 18. Jerusalem: 

Israel Antiquities Authority. 

———. 2004. “Jewelry.” In Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 

ed. S. Ben-Arieh, pp. 189–202. IAA Rep. 23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities 

Authority. 

———. 2009. The Development, Significance and Function of Jewelry and the Evolution of the Jeweler’s Craft in the Land of Israel during the Iron Age II. Ph.D. 

diss., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
NUMBER 50 • 1075

———. 2003. Die ägyptischen Amulette der Sammlungen Bibel + Orient der Universität Freiburg/Schweiz, Anthropomorphe Gestalten und Tiere. Orb. Biblic. 

Orient., Ser. Archeol. 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2006. Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Orb. Biblic. Orient., Ser. 

Archeol. 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Herrmann, C., and T. Staubli. 2010. 1001 Amulett, Altägyptischer Zauber, monotheisierte Talismane, säkulare Magie, Bibel and Orient Museum Freiburg 

(CH). Stutgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk Stuttgart.

Herrmann, G. 1986. Ivories from Nimrud IV/1: Ivories from Room SW 37 Fort 

Shalmaneser. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Herrmann, G., and S. Laidlow. 2008. Ivories from the North West Palace (1845–

1992) (Ivories from Nimrud VI). London: British School of Archaeology in 

Iraq. 

Herrmann, V. R. 2011. “The Empire in the House, the House in the Empire: 

Toward a Household Archaeology Perspective on the Assyrian Empire in 

the Levant.” In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, ed. 

A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling, and L. B. Mazow, pp. 303–320. Leiden: Brill.

Herzog, Z., ed. 1984. Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: Tel 

Aviv University.

Herzog, Z., M. Aharoni, A. F. Rainy, and S. Moshkovitz. 1984. The Israelite Fortress at Arad. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 254:1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/1357030.

Herzog, Z., G. R. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi, eds. 1989. Excavations at Tel Michal, 

Israel. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv 

University.

Herzog, Z., and L. Singer-Avitz. 2004. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of 

State in Judah. Tel Aviv, 31:209–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/0334435

04788913143.

Hesse, B. 1986. Animal Use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Bull. 

Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 264:17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357016. 

———. 1990. Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production. 

J. Ethnobiol., 10(2):195–225.

Hesse, B., and P. Wapnish. 1980. “Tell Jemmeh: Animal Exploitation in Historical 

Perspective.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools 

of Oriental Research, Tucson, Arizona.

———. 1984a. “The Dromedary and Bactrian Camel in Levantine Historical Settings: The Evidence from Tell Jemmeh.” In Animals and Archaeology 3: Early 

Herders and Their Flocks, ed. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 171–200. 

BAR Int. Ser. 202. Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 1984b. Archeozoology at Tell Jemmeh: Taphonomy and Paleoeconomy 

in Historic Archeology. Project Report. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society.

———. 1985. Animal Bone Archaeology: From Objectives to Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum.

Hestrin, R., and E. Stern. 1973. Two “Assyrian” Bowls from Israel. Isr. Explor. J., 

23:152–155.

Higgins, R. A. 1954. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and 

Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: British Museum.

Hirsch, S. 1933. Sheep and Goats in Palestine. Tel Aviv: Palestine Economic Society.

Hirschfeld, N. E. 1993. “Incised Marks (Post-Firing) on Aegean Wares.” In Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Wace and Blegen: Pottery as 

Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1939–1989, ed. C. Zerner, 

P. Zerner, and J. Winder, pp. 311–318. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University 

Press.

———. 2000. “Marked Late Bronze Age Pottery from the Kingdom of Ugarit.” In 

Céramiques mycéniennes (Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII), ed. M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirschfeld, pp. 163–200. Paris: ERC-ADPF.

———. 2002. Marks on Pots: Patterns of Use in the Archaeological Record at Enkomi. In Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, ed. J. S. 

Smith, pp. 49–109. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology. 

———. 2007. “Potmarks.” In Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–

1960, ed. T. J. Barako, pp. 183–190. IAA Rep. 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Hizmi, H. 1998. “The Excavations of Khirbet Nimra in Hebron.” [In Hebrew.] In 

Is It Possible to Define the Pottery of the 6th Century B.C.E. in Judea?, ed. 

O. Liphshits, pp. 14–18. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Hodos, T., C. Knappett, and V. Kilikoglou. 2005. Middle and Late Iron Age 

Painted Ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, Micro and Elemental Analyses. 

Anatol. Stud., 55:61–87. 

Holladay, J. S. 1990. Red Slip, Burnish and the Solomonic Gateway to Gezer. Bull. 

Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 277/278:23–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357373.

———. 1997. “The Eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: 

Towards a Systematic/Socioeconomic Understanding.” In The Hyksos: New 

Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren, pp. 183–252.

Greenberg, R. 1987. New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tel Beit Mirsim. Bull. Am. 

Sch. Orient. Res., 265:55–80. 

Greenhut, Z., and A. De Groot. 2009. Salvage Excavations at Moz>a. The Bronze 

and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations. IAA Rep. 39. Jerusalem: 

Israel Antiquities Authority.

Griffith, F. L. 1923. Oxford Excavations in Nubia. Liverp. Ann. Archaeol. Anthropol., 10:73–171.

Grohmann, A. 1963. Arabien. Kulturgesch. Alten Orients 3. Munich: Beck.

Gunneweg, J. 1983. “The Ovens of the First Campaign.” In Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Mšaš (Teμl Maμsaoμsa) 1972–1975, ed. V. Fritz and 

A. Kempinski, pp. 106–112. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 

Guy, P. L. O., and R. M. Engberg. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Guzowska, M., and A. Yasur-Landau. 2009. “Anthropomorphic Figurines.” In 

Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis, ed. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin, pp. 

387–395. Monogr. Ser. 27. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1995. “The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” In Excavations at Tel 

Dor: Final Report, Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. E. Stern, pp. 

289–433. Qedem Rep. 1B. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Israel Exploration Society.

Hachmann, R., and S. Penner. 1999. Kaμmid el-Loμz 3. Der eisenzeitliche Friedhof 

und seine kulturelle Umwelt. Saarbr. Beitr. Altert. 21. Bonn: Habelt.

Hadidi, A. 1987. Sahab and Its Foreign Relations. Stud. Hist. Archaeol. Jordan, 

3:73–81.

Hadley, J. M. 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for 

a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Haiman, M. 1989. Preliminary Report on the Western Negev Highlands Emergency Survey. Isr. Explor. J., 39:173–191.

Hall, H. R. 1913. Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, etc., in the British Museum I. 

Royal Scarabs, London: British Museum.

Hallo, W. W. 1992. “Royal Ancestor Worship in the Biblical World.” In Sha’arei 

Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumeran, and the Ancient Near East Presented 

to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. W. Fields, pp. 381–

401. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Hallo, W. W., and W. K. Simpson. 1998. The Ancient Near East: A History. 2nd ed. 

Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Hamilton, R. W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu-Hawam. Q. Dep. Antiq. Palest., 

4:1–69.

Hammond, W. M. 1977. The Raw and the Chipped: An Analysis of Correlations 

between Raw Materials and Tools of a Lithic Industry from Tell el Hesi, 

Israel. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Harding Lankester, G. 1953. The Tomb of Adoni Nur in Amman. Palest. Explor. 

Fund Annu., 6:48–75.

Harrison, T. P. 2005. The Neo-Assyrian Governor’s Residence at Tell Tayinat. Bull. 

Can. Soc. Mesop. Stud., 40:23–32.

Hausleiter, A. 1999a. “Graves, Chronology and Ceramics: Some Considerations on 

Neo-Assyrian Assur.” In Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria 

and Southeastern Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter and A. Rieche, pp. 127–147. 

Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

———. 1999b. “Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Kalvu/Nimrud, with Special Reference 

to the Polish Excavations in the ‘Central Building’ (1974–76).” In Pottery 

in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia, ed. 

A. Hausleiter and A. Rieche, pp. 17–60. Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

———. 2008. “Nimrud in the Context of Neo-Assyrian Pottery Studies.” In New 

Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 

2002, ed. J. E. Curtis, H. McCall, D. Collon, and L. al-Gailani-Werr, pp. 

83–98. London: British Museum.

———. 2010. Neuassyrische Keramik im Kerngebiet Assyriens. Abh. Dtsch OrientGes. 127. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Helck, W., and W. Westendorf, eds. 1977. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden: 

Harrassowitz.

Helms, S. 1991. “Other Finds.” In Excavations at Jawa 1972–1986, ed. A. V. G. 

Betts, pp. 154–167. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hendin, D. 2007. Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-coinage Currency of the Near 

East. New York: Amphora.

Herrmann, C. 1985. Formen für ägyptische Fayencen: Katalog der Sammlung des 

Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz und einer Privatsammlung. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 1989. Fünf phönizische Formen für ägyptische Fayence. Z. Dtsch. Paläst. 

Ver., 105:27–41. 

———. 1994. Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Mit einem Ausblick 

auf ihre Rezeption durch das Alte Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 

Ruprecht.
1076 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Im, M. 2006. Horses and Chariotry in the Land of Israel during the Iron Age II 

(1000–586 BCE). Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan. 

Iserlis, M., and Y. Thareani. 2011. “Petrograsphic Analysis.” In Tel ‘Aroer: The 

Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic-Early Roman Settlement, ed. 

Y. Thareani, pp. 179–187. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Izre’el, S. 1997. The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. Cuneif. Monogr. 9. Groningen: Styx. 

Jaeger, B. 1982. Essai de Classification et Datation des Scarabées Menkhéperrê. 

Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

James, F. W. 1966. The Iron Age at Beth Shean. Philadelphia: University Museum. 

———. 1978. “Chariot Fittings from Late Bronze Age Beth Shan.” In Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr, 

pp.102–115. London: Warminster.

James, F. W., and P. E. McGovern. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at 

Beth Shan. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 85. Philadelphia: University Museum. 

Jamieson, A. 1999. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Tell Ahmar. In Pottery in Northern 

Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter 

and A. Rieche, pp. 287–308. Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

———. 2012. Tell Ahmar III: Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C. Anc. Near East. 

Stud. Suppl. 35. Leuven: Peeters.

Janes, R. 1983. Archaeological Ethnography among Mackenzie Basin Dene, Canada. AINA Tech. Pap. 28. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.

Janssen, J. J. 1968. The Smaller Dâkhla Stela. J. Egypt. Archaeol., 54:165–172. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3855921.

Jasmin, M. 1999. L’Etude de la Transition du Bronze Recent II au Fer I en Palestine. 

Ph.D. diss., Université Paris I–Sorbonne, Paris.

Johns, C. N. 1933. Excavations at ‘Atlit (1930–1): The South-Eastern Cemetery. 

Q. Dep. Antiq. Palest., 2:41–104.

Johns, J. 1998. “The Rise of Middle Islamic Hand-Made Geometrically-Painted 

Ware in Bilâd al-Shâm (11th–13th Centuries A.D.).” In Colloque internationale d’archéologie islamique. IFAO, Le Caire, 3–7 février 1993, ed. R.-P. 

Gayraud, pp. 65–93. Textes arabes études islam. 36. Cairo: Institut français 

d’archéologie orientale.

Johnson, F. P. 1955. A Note on Owl Skyphoi. Am. J. Archaeol., 59:119–124. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/501102.

Johnson, P. 1982. The Middle Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine. Opusc. Atheniensia, 14:49–72.

Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. 

Athens: British School at Athens. 

Kaczmarczyc, A., and R. R. M. Hedges. 1983. Ancient Egyptian Fayence: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience from Predynastic to Roman Times. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Kakosy, L. 1981. The Astral Snakes of the Nile. Mitt. Dtsch. Archäol. Inst. Kairo, 

37:163–191.

Kang, H., and Y. Garfinkel. 2009a. “The Early Iron Age IIA Pottery.” In Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1, Excavation Report 2007–2008, ed. Y. Garfinkel and S. 

Ganor, pp. 119–149. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2009b. “Ashdod Ware I: Middle Philistine Decorated Ware.” In Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1, Excavation Report 2007–2008, ed. Y. Garfinkel and 

S. Ganor, pp. 151–160. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Kantor, H. J. 1958a. “The Ivories from Floor 6 of Sounding IX.” In Soundings at 

Tell Fakhariyeh, ed. C. W. McEwan, L. S. Braidwood, H. Franfork, H. G. 

Güterbock, R. C. Haines, H. J. Kantor, and C. H. Kraeling, pp. 57–68. Oriental Inst. Publ. 79. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

———. 1958b. “The Glyptics.” In Soundings at Tell Fakhariyeh, ed. C. W. McEwan, L. S. Braidwood, H. Franfork, H. G. Güterbock, R. C. Haines, H. J. 

Kantor, and C. H. Kraeling, pp. 70–85. Orient. Inst. Publ. 79. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

Kaplan, M. F. 1980. The Origin and Distribution of Tell el Yahudieh Ware. Stud. 

Mediterr. Archaeol. 72. Goteborg: P. Astrom.

Karageorghis, V. 1976. Kition: Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus. 

New Aspects of Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson.

———. 2000. Ancient Art from Cyprus: The Cesnola Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

———. 2006. Aspects of Everyday Life in Ancient Cyprus: Iconographic Representations. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation. 

Karageorghis, V., and M. Demas. 1985. Excavations at Kition V: The PrePhoenician Levels. Cyprus: Department of Antiquities.

Karasik, A. 2010. “A Complete, Automatic Procedure for Pottery Documentation 

and Analysis.” In 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer 

Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pp. 29–34. Berkeley, 

CA: IEEE Computer Society.

Karasik, A., and U. Smilansky. 2008. 3D Scanning Technology as a Standard Archaeological Tool for Pottery Analysis: Practice and Theory. J. Archaeol. Sci., 

35:1148–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.08.008.

Univ. Mus. Monogr. 96, Univ. Mus. Symp. Ser. 8. Philadelphia: University 

Museum.

Holland, L. B. 1929. Mycenaean Plumes. Am. J. Archaeol., 33:173–205. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/497807.

Holland, T. A. 1975. A Typological and Archaeological Study of Human and Animal Representations during the Iron Age. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 

Oxford. 

———. 1995. “Palestinian Iron Age Figurines.” In Jerusalem IV, ed. I. Eshel and 

K. Prag, pp. 159–189. London: Oxford University Press.

Homan, M. M. 2010. Did the Ancient Israelites Drink Beer? Biblic. Archaeol. Rev., 

36(4):49–56. 

Horne, L. 1994. Village Spaces: Settlement and Society in Northeastern Iran. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Hornung, E., and E. Staehelin. 1976. Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus 

Basler Sammlungen. Ägyptische Denkmäler Schweiz 1. Mainz: Verlag Von 

Zapern.

Horowitz, A. 1979. The Quaternary of Israel. New York: Academic. 

Horowitz, W. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

Horowitz, W., and T. Oshima. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan, Cuneiform Sources 

from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration 

Society. 

Horwitz, L. K. 2007. Faunal Remains from Late Chalcolithic-Bronze Age Dwelling 

and Burial Caves at Shoham (North), Lod Valley. ‘Atiqot, 55:1–15.

Hovers, E. 1996. “The Groundstone Industry.” In City of David 1978–1985, Vol. 

4, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot, pp. 171–192. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Howard, S., and F. P. Johnson. 1954. The Saint Valentin Vases. Am. J. Archaeol.,

58:191–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/500900.

Hoyos, D. 2010. The Carthaginians. New York: Routledge.

Hrouda, B. 1962. Tell Halaf IV: Die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit. Berlin: de 

Gruyter.

Hughes-Brock, H. 1999. Mycenean Beads: Gender and Social Contexts. Oxford J. 

Archaeol., 18:277–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00084.

Humbert, J.-B. and M. Sadeq. 2000. “Fouilles de Blakhiyah—Anthédon.” In Gaza 

méditerranéenne: Histoire et archéologie en Palestine, ed. J.-B. Humbert, pp. 

105–120. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

Hunt, A. 2009. “Assyrian Palace Ware: Definition, Chaîne Opératoire and Archaeological Implications.” Lecture given at the European Meeting on Ancient 

Ceramics 2009, London.

———. 2010. The Assyrians at Tel Jemmeh: An Archaeological and Archaeometric 

Study of Assyrian Palace Ware. ASOR Newsl., 60(4):26.

———. 2012a. “The Social Value and Semiotic Function of Palace Ware in the 

Neo-Assyrian Empire.” Paper presented at the Conference on the Provincial 

Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire, Cambridge, December.

———. 2012b. And I Called Them Assyrians: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Analysis of Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware. Ph.D. diss., University College, 

London.

Hussein, M. M. 2002. “Excavations of the Department of Antiquities and Heritage 

at Nimrud, 1988–1993.” In Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology 

and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour 

of his 75th Birthday, ed. L.-G. Werr, J. E. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon, 

J. Oates, and J. Reade, pp. 143–157. London: Nabu.

———. 2008. “Recent Excavations in Nimrud.” In New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002, ed. J. E. Curtis, 

H. McCall, D. Collon, and L. al-Gailani-Werr, pp. 83–98. London: British 

Museum.

Hussein, M. M., and A. Suleiman. 2000. Nimrud: A City of Golden Treasures. 

Baghdad: Ministry of Culture.

Hyland, D. C., J. M. Adovasio, J. M. Tersak, M. I. Siegel, and K. W. Carr. 1990. 

Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. 

Am. Antiq., 55:104–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/281496.

Ibrahim, J. K. 2002. “The Humaidat Tomb.” In Of Pots and Plans: Papers on 

the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David 

Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday, ed. L.-G. Werr, J. E. Curtis, H. Martin, 

A. McMahon, J. Oates, and J. Reade, pp. 158–164. London: Nabu.

Ilan, D. 2011. “Household Gleaning from Iron I Tel Dan.” In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling, and 

L. B. Mazow, pp. 133–152. Leiden: Brill.

Ilan, D., and E. Marcus. In press. “Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA.” In The 

Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbours from the Neolithic through the 

Hellenistic Period, ed. S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Iliffe, J. H. 1936. A Hoard of Bronzes from Askalon c. Fourth Century B.C. 

Q. Dep. Antiq. Palest., 5:61–68.
NUMBER 50 • 1077

———. 2000. “Aegean-Style Early Philistine Pottery in Canaan During the Iron 

I Age: A Stylistic Analysis of Mycenaean IIIC:1b Pottery and Its Associated 

Wares.” In The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D. 

Oren, pp. 233–253. Univ. Monogr. 108, Univ. Symp. Ser. 11. Philadelphia: 

University Museum.

———. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines and Early Israel, 1300–1100 BCE. Atlanta: 

Society of Biblical Literature.

———. 2010. “Canaanite Pottery.” In Deir el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in 

the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2, The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, 

pp. 75–109. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

King, P. J., and L. E. Stager. 2001. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Kirkbride, D. 1965. “Scarabs.” In Excavations at Jericho II: The Tombs Excavated 

in 1955–8, ed. K. M. Kenyon, pp. 580–655. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kletter, R. 1991. The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah. Tel Aviv, 

18:121–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443591788179611.

———. 1994. Phoenician(?) Weights from H ̆orvat Rosh Zayit. ‘Atiqot, 25:33–43.

———. 1996. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR 

Int. Ser. 636. Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 1997. Figurines and Scale Weights from Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv, 24:110–121. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443597788168284.

———. 2001. “Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah 

and the Asherah.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and 

Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, pp. 179–216. JSOT Suppl. 331. Sheffield: Academic.

Kletter, R., I. Ziffer, and W. Zwickel. 2010. Yavneh I: The Excavation of the 

“Temple Hill” Repository Pit and the Cult Stands. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. 

Archaeol. 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Knudtzon, J. A. 1910. Die El Amarna Tafeln. Erster Teil: Texte. Leipzig: J. C. 

Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

———. 1915. Die El Amarna Tafeln. Zweiter Teil: Anmerkungen und Register. 

Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

Kogan-Zehavi, E. 2005. An Assyrian Building North of Tel Ashdod. [In Hebrew.] 

Qadmoniot, 38:87–90. 

———. 2006. Ad Halom (Ashdod North). Hadashot Arkheol. Excav. Surv. Isr., 

118 (Internet Edition). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/reports.

———. 2007. Assyrian Palace North of Tel Ashdod. [In Hebrew.] M.A. thesis, Tel 

Aviv University, Tel Aviv.

Kool, R. 2007. “Coin Circulation in the Villeneuves of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: The Cases of Parva Mahumeria and Bethgibelin.” In Archaeology 

and the Crusades, ed. P. Edbury and S. Kalopissi-Verti, pp.133–156. Athens: 

Pierides Foundation. 

Kool, R., A. Berman, and O. Shamir. 2011. A Late Tenth-Century Fatimid Coin 

Purse from Bet She’an. ‘Atiqot, 67:31–41. 

Kraay, C. M., and P. R. S. Moorey. 1968. Two Fifth-Century Hoards from the Near 

East. Rei’ne Numis., 10:181–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/numi.1968.966.

Kramer, C. 1979. “An Archaeological View of a Contemporary Kurdish Village: 

Domestic Architecture, Household Size, and Wealth.” In Ethnoarchaeology: 

Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, ed. C. Kramer, pp. 139–163. 

New York: Columbia University Press.

Kraybill, N. 1977. “Pre-Agricultural Tools for the Preparation of Foods in the Old 

World.” In Origins of Agriculture, ed. C. Reed, pp. 485–521. The Hague: 

Mouton.

Kromann, A., and O. Mørkholm. 1977. Egypt: The Ptolemies. Sylloge Nummorum 

Graecorum 40. Copenhagen: Danish National Museum.

Krzyszkowska, O. 2005. Aegean Seals: An Introduction. Bull. Inst. Class. Stud. 

Suppl. 85. London: University of London. 

Kühne, H., and B. Salje. 1996. Kaμmid el-Loμz 15: Die Glyptik. Saarbr. Beitr. Altert. 

56. Bonn: R. Habelt.

Kurtz, D. C. 1975. Athenian White Lekythoi: Patterns and Painters. Oxford: 

Clarendon.

Lalkin, N. 2008, Late Bronze Age Scarabs from Eretz Israel. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).

Lamon, R. S., and G. M. Shipton. 1939. Megiddo I. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

Landström, B. 1970. Die Schiffe der Pharaonen: Altägyptische Schiffsbaukunst von 

4000–600 v. Chr. Munich: C. Bertelsmann.

Layard, A. H. 1853. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London: 

John Murray. 

Lechevellier, M. 1978. Abou Gosh et Beisamoun: Deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël. Paris: Association Paléorient.

Lehmann, G. 2002. “The Iron Age.” In Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation 

Seasons, ed. A. Kempinski, pp. 178–202. Emery Claire Yass Publ. Archaeol. 

20. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. 

———. 2011. Computerized Morphological Classification of Ceramics. J. Archaeol. Sci., 38:2644–2657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.05.023.

Karasik, A., U. Smilansky, and I. Beit Arieh. 2005. New Typological Analyses of 

Holemouth Jars from the Early Bronze Age from Tel Arad and Southern Sinai. Tel-Aviv, 32:20–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443505791198503.

Karon, E. 1985. Scarabs from Kh. Ab-el-Quaut (Tel Harasim) from the Collection 

of the Shefela Museum. Unpublished undergraduate seminar essay presented 

to Prof. R. Giveon, Tel Aviv University.

Karon, E., and D. Anbar. 1994. “Scarabs.” In The Fourth Season of Excavations 

at Tel H>arasim (Nah≥al Barqai, 1993), ed. S. Givon, pp. 44–46. Tel Aviv: Tel 

Aviv University. 

Keel, O. 1992. Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 122. 

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 1994. Philistine “Anchor” Seals. Isr. Explor. J., 44:21–35.

———. 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina, Israel: Von den 

Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Einleitung. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 

10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amultte aus Paliästina/Israel. Orb. Biblic. 

Orient. 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2006. “Cylinder and Stamp Seals in the Southern Levant between 1800 and 

1500 BC.” In The Iconography of Cylinder Seals, ed. P. Taylor, pp. 62–81. 

Warburg Inst. Colloq. 9. London: Warburg Institute.

———. 2007. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. 

Orte Landsch. Bibel 4/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2010a. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den 

Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band II: Von Bahan bis Tel Eton. Orb. 

Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

———. 2010b. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band III: Von Tell el-Far‘a-Nord bis Tell Fir.

Orb. Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 31. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

———. 2013. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel von den 

Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Katalog Band IV: Von Tel Gamma bis Chirbet 

Husche. Orb. Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 33. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht. 

Keel, O., H. Keel-Leu, and S. Schroer. 1989. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus 

Palästina/Israel II. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 88. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht.

Keel, O., and A. Mazar. 2009. Iron Age Seals and Seal Impressions from Tel Reh≥ov. 

Eretz Isr., 29:57*–69*.

Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient 

Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. 

Kelso, J. L. 1968. The Excavations of Bethel (1934–1960). Annu. Am. Sch. Orient. 

Res. 39. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 

Kenyon, K. M. 1957. “Miscellaneous Objects in Metal, Bone and Stone.” In 

Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects, ed. J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot, and 

K. M. Kenyon, pp. 439–468. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. 2005. A New Classification System of East 

Greek Pottery. Anc. West East, 4(1):1–56. 

Khawam, R. 1971. Un ensemble de moules en terre cuite de la 19e

 dynastie. Bull. 

Inst. Fr. Archéol. Orient., 70:133–160.

Killebrew, A. E. 1989. The Potters’ Craft During the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in 

Eretz Israel: A Description of the Ancient Pottery Manufacturing Process and 

Its Implications for Archaeological Research in Israel. M.A. thesis, Hebrew 

University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. 

———. 1996a. “Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel Miqne-Ekron.” In Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in 

Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, pp. 135–162. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

———. 1996b. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Report of the 1985–1987 Excavations in Field 

INE: Area 5, 6, 7, the Bronze and Iron Ages Text and Data Base (Plates, Sections, Plans). Tel Miqne-Ekron Ltd. Ser. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of 

Archaeological Research.

———. 1998a. Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Iron I 

Ages: The Relationship Between Pottery Technology, Style and Cultural Diversity. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

———. 1998b. “Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I 

Assemblages from Tel Miqne Ekron: The Transition from Canaanite to Philistine Culture.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early 

Tenth Centuries BCE, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, pp. 379–405. 

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1999. “Late Bronze and Iron I Cooking Pots in Canaan: A Typological, 

Technological and Functional Study.” In Archaeology, History and Culture 

in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock, ed. T. 

Kapitan, pp. 83–126. ASOR Books 3. Atlanta: Scholars.
1078 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

———. 1914. The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. London: British 

Academy.

MacGinnes, J., and T. Matney. 2009. Archaeology at the Frontiers: Excavating a 

Provincial Capital of the Assyrian Empire. J. Assyrian Acad. Stud., 23(1):3–21.

Machinist, P. 1993. “Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C.” In Anfänge 

politischen Denkens in der Antike, ed. K. Raaflaub, pp. 135–144. Munich: 

R. Oldenbourg.

Mackenzie, D. 1913. The Excavations at ‘Ain Shems. Palest. Explor. Fund Annu., 

2:1–39.

Maeir, A. M. 2002. “Red White and Blue Ware: A Little-Known Group of Painted 

Pottery of the Middle Bronze II Period.” In Aharon Kempinski Memorial 

Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, ed. E. D. Oren and 

S. Ahituv, pp. 29–55. Beer-Sheva 15. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press.

———. 2007. “The Middle Bronze Age II Pottery.” In Excavations at Tell Beth 

Shean 1989–1996: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, Vol. 

2, ed. A. Mazar and R. A. Mullins, pp. 242–389. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2010. “And brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated 

things faithfully” (2 Chron. 31:12): On the Meaning and Function of the 

Late Iron Age Judahite “Incised Handle Cooking Pots.” J. Am. Orient. Soc., 

130:43–62.

Maeir, A. M., L. A. Hitchcock, and L. K. Horwitz. 2013. On the Constitution and 

Transformation of Philistine Identity. Oxford J. Archaeol., 32:1–38. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12000.

Maeir, A. M., S. J. Wimmer, A. Zukerman, and A. Demsky. 2008. A Late Iron Age 

I/Early Iron Age IIA Old Canaanite Inscription from Tell Es-Safi/Gath, Israel: 

Palaeography, Dating, and Historical-Cultural Significance. Bull. Am. Sch. 

Orient. Res., 351:39–71.

Magen, Y. 2008. The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judea Samaria Publ. 7. 

Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200–800 CE. JSOT/ASOR 

Monogr. Ser. 9. Sheffield: Academic. 

Maguire, L. 2009. The Cypriot Pottery and Its Circulation in the Levant. Tell elDab’a 21. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.

Magrill, P., and A. Middleton. 1997. “A Canaanite Potter’s Workshop at Lachish, 

Israel.” In Pottery in the Making, World Ceramic Traditions, ed. I. Freestone 

and D. Gaimster, pp. 68–74. London: British Museum. 

Maher, E. F. 2012. Iron Age Fauna from Early and Late Philistine Occupations 

at Qubur al-Walaydah. Paper presented at ASOR Annual Conference, 

Chicago, IL.

———. In press. “Early Philistine Subsistence Strategies at Tel Miqne-Ekron.” In 

Excavations 1985–1996: Field IIINE/SE, Iron Age I (Early Philistine City) 

and Iron Age II (Olive Oil Industrial Zone), ed. S. Gitin. ELES 12. Jerusalem: 

W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

Maisler (Mazar), B. 1950–1951. The Excavations at Tell Qasile, Preliminary Report. Isr. Explor. J., 1:61–76, 125–140, 194–218.

———. 1952. Yurza, the Identification of Tell Jemmeh. Palest. Explor. Q., 

84:48–51.

Mallet, J. 1987. Tell el-Far’ah II, Vol. 1, Le Bronze Moyen. Ed. rech. civiliz. 66. 

Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 

———. 1988. Tell el-Far’ah II, Vol. 2, Le Bronze Moyen. Ed. rech. civiliz. 66. Paris: 

Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Mallowan, M. E. L. 1954. The Excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu) 1953. Iraq, 16:59–

63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199583.

———. 1966. Nimrud and Its Remains. Vols. 1–2. London: Collins.

Maran, J. 2004. The Spreading of Objects and Ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: Two Case Examples from the Argolid of the 13th and 

12th Centuries B.C. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 336:11–30. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/4150085.

Marchese, R. T. 1989. “Aegean and Cypriote Imports in the Persian Period.” In 

Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp, and O. Negbi, 

pp. 145–152. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel 

Aviv University.

Marcus, M. I. 1996. Emblems of Identity and Prestige: The Seals and Sealings from 

Hasanlu, Iran. Philadelphia: University Museum. 

Marder, O., E. Braun, and I. Milevski. 1995. The Flint Assemblage of Lower Horvat ‘Illin: Some Technical and Economic Considerations. Atiqot, 27:63–93.

Martin, M. A. S. 2009. “The Egyptian Assemblage.” In Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th-11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N 

and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, pp. 434–477. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

Martin, M. A. S., and T. J. Barako. 2007. “The Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery.” In Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960, ed. T. J. 

Barako, pp. 129–165. IAA Rep. 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

———. 2011. “Cooking Pots and Loomweights in a ‘Philistine’ Village: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Qubur el-Walaydah, Israel.” In On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loom Weights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus 

and Neighbouring Regions, ed. V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 287–314. 

Nicosia: Levantis Foundation.

Lehmann, G., and A. K. Killebrew. 2010. Palace 6000 at Megiddo in Context: Iron 

Age Central Hall Tetra-Partite Residencies and the “Bıμt-HRilamni” Building Tradition in the Levant. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 359:13–33. 

Lehmann, G., S. A. Rosen, A. Berlejung, and H. M. Niemann. 2009. Ausgrabungen 

in Qubur el-Waleyide, Israel, 2007–2008. Z. Dtsch. Paläst. Ver., 125:1–32.

Leibowitz, H. 2003. Tel Yin’am I: The Late Bronze Age. Stud. Archaeol. 42. Austin: 

Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.

Leonard, A., Jr. 1994. An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from SyriaPalestine. Stud. Mediterr. Archaeol. 114. Jonsered, Sweden: P. Åstrom.

Levine, E., S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. 2011. A Zebu-Shaped Weight from Tel 

Beth-Shemesh. Isr. Explor. J., 61:146–161.

Levine, T. 2003. “Pottery and Small Finds from Subterranean Complexes 21 and 

70.” In Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21,44, 

70, ed. A. Kloner, pp. 73–130. IAA Rep. 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities 

Authority.

Lev-Tov, J. S. E. 2012. “A Preliminary Report on the Late Bronze and Iron Age Faunal Assemblages from Tell es-Safi/Gath.” In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–

2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 589–612. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Levy, T. E., and S. A. Rosen. 1987. “The Chipped Stone Assemblage at Shiqmim: 

Typological Considerations.” In Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic 

Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984), ed. T. E. Levy, 

pp. 281–294. B.A.R. Int. Ser. 356. Oxford: Archaeopress

Levy, Y., M. Peilstöcker, and A. Ginzburg. 2004. An Iron Age Fortress in the Sand 

Dunes of Rishon Letzion. [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot, 37:92–94.

Liampi, K. 1998. Der makedonische Schild. Bonn: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen.

Limmer, A. S. 2007. The Social Functions and Ritual Significance of Jewelry in 

the Iron Age II Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, Tucson.

Lines, J. 1954. Late Assyrian Pottery from Nimrud. Iraq, 16:164–167. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199588.

Liu, R. 1978. Spindle Whorls: Part 1. Some Comments and Speculations, Bead J., 

3:87–103. 

Liverani, M. 1979. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, pp. 297–319. 

Copenhagen: Akademisk.

———. 1987. “The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the 

Bronze Age: The Case of Syria, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World.” 

In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, 

and K. Kristiansen, pp. 66–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1988. The Growth of the Assyrian Empire on the Habur/Middle Euphrates 

Area: A New Paradigm. State Arch. Assyria Bull., 2:81–98. 

———. 1992. Studies in the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II, Vol. 2, Topographical 

Analysis. Rome: Università di Roma “La Sapienza.”

Livingston, D. 2002. A Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I Tomb (No. 65) at 

Khirbet Nisya. ‘Atiqot, 43:17–35.

Loud, G. 1936a. Khorsabad Dur-Sharukin I: Excavations at the Palace and the 

City Gate. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press. 

———. 1936b. An Architectural Formula for Assyrian Planning Based on the 

Results of Excavations at Khorsabad. Rev. Assyriol. archéol. orient.,

33:153–160.

———. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago: University of Chicago. 

———. 1948. Megiddo II, Seasons 1935–39. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

Loud, G., and C. B. Altman. 1938. Khorsabad Dur-Sharukin II: The Citadel and 

the Town Chicago: Oriental Institute Press.

Loy, T. H. 1997. “Prehistoric Organic Residues: Recent Advances in Identification, 

Dating, and Their Antiquity.” In Archaeometry’90, ed. E. Pernicka and G. A. 

Wagner, pp. 645–656. Basel: Birkhauser.

Luke, J. 2003. Ports of Trade, Al Mina, and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant. BAR Int. Ser. 1100. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Lumsden, S. 1999. “Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Nineveh.” In Pottery in Northern 

Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia, ed. A. Hausleiter 

and A. Rieche, pp. 3–15. Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. Münster: Ugarit.

Lund, J. 1986. Sukas VIII: The Habitation Quarters. Historisk-filosof. Skr. 12. 

Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Lyons, D., and C. D’Andrea. 2003. Griddles, Ovens and Agricultural Origins: An 

Ethnoarchaeological Study of Bread Baking in Highland Ethiopia. Am. Anthropol., 105(3):515–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.2003.105.3.515.

Macalister, R. A. S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer, 1902–5 and 1907–9. Vols. 

1–3. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
NUMBER 50 • 1079

Mazar, B., T. Dothan, and E. Dunayewski. 1963. ‘Ein-Gedi. Archaeological Excavations 1961–1962. Bull. Isr. Explor. Soc., 17:1–2.

Mazar, E. 1985. Edomite Pottery at the End of the Iron Age. Isr. Explor. J., 

35:253–269.

———. 1996. The Achziv Burials: A Test-Case for Phoenician-Punic Burial Customs. [In Hebrew.] Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Mazow, L. B. 2005. Competing Material Culture: Philistine Settlement at Tel 

Miqne-Ekron in the Early Iron Age. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 

Tucson.

Mazzoni, S. 1992. “Fibulae from Tell Mardikh and Tel Afis.” In Tell Afis E L’Eta 

del Ferro, ed. S. Mazzoni, pp 231–273. Semin. Orient. 2. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori in Pisa.

McCown, C. C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh I. Berkeley, CA: Palestine Institute of Pacific 

School of Religion.

McGovern, P. E. 1985. Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants: Innovation in a Cosmopolitan Age. JSOT/ASOR Monogr. 1. Sheffield: Academic.

———. 1986. The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The 

Baq’ah Valley Project, 1977–1981. Univ. Museum Monogr. 65. Philadelphia: 

University Museum.

McQuitty, A. 1984. An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study of Clay Ovens in 

Jordan. Annu. Dep. Antiq. Jordan, 28:259–267. 

———. 1993–1994. Ovens in Town and Country. Berytus, 41:53–76. 

Meehl, M. W., T. Dothan, and S. Gitin, eds. 2006. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Excavations 

1995–1996, Field INE East Slope; Late Bronze II–Iron I (the Early Philistine 

City). Tel Miqne-Ekron Final Field Rep. 8. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute 

of Archaeological Research.

Meeks, N. D., G. de G. Sieveking, and M. S. Tite. 1982. Gloss and Use-Wear Traces 

on Flint Sickles and Similar Phenomena. J. Archaeol. Sci., 9:317–340. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(82)90038-3.

Meijer, D. J. W. 1995. “A Cylinder Seal and Some Ramifications.” In Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. I. Houwink 

ten Cate on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. P. J. van den Hout and 

J. de Roos, pp. 195–209. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch 

Instituut.

Melson, W., and G. W. Van Beek. 1983. Properties, Cultural Selection, and Provenance of Pumice from Tell Jemmeh, Israel. SAS Newsl., 7(1):3–6.

———. 1992. Geology and the Loessial Soils, Tell Jemmeh, Israel. Geoarchaeology, 7:121–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340070204.

Merker, G. S. 2012. “The Object of Metal.” In Tel Anafa II, Vol. 2, Glass Vessels, 

Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels, ed. A. M. Berlin and S. C. Herbert, pp. 213–266. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey 

Museum.

Merrillees, R. S. 1978. Introduction to the Bronze Age Archaeology of Cyprus. 

Stud. Mediterr. Archaeol. Pocketbook 9. Göteborg: P. Åström.

Meshorer, Y. 1986. “Coins.” In The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar) Settlement in 

the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks AD 1099–

1516, ed. D. Pringle, pp. 175–176. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Jerusalem. 

———. 1998. Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins: The Reuben and 

Edith Hecht Museum Collection. Haifa: Hecht Museum.

Metcalf, D. M. 1987. Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East: Some New 

Hoards and Site Finds. Numis. Chron., 147:84–105. 

———. 1995. Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East. London: Royal Numismatic Society.

———. 2003–6. The Jaffa Hoard of 1954: Crusader Coinage of the Late 12th 

Century. Isr. Numis. J., 15:138–140.

———. 2008. Crusader Numismatics: How Immobilized Types are Classified, 

How Chronologies Are Revised and Verified, and How Coins Are Attributed 

to Their Mints. Isr. Numis. Res., 3:175–188.

Meyers, C. L. 2007. “From Field Crops to Food: Attributing Gender and Meaning 

to Bread Production in Iron Age Israel.” In The Archaeology of Difference: 

Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity; Studies in Honor of 

Eric M. Meyers, ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, pp. 67–84. Annu. 

Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 60/61. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Miére, M., and M. Picon. 2003. “Appearance and First Development of Cooking 

and ‘Non-Cooking’ Ware Concepts in the Near East.” In Ceramic in the Society: Proceedings of the 6th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, ed. S. Di 

Pierro, V. Serneels, and M. Maggetti, pp. 175–184. Fribourg: Department of 

Geosciences, Mineralogy and Petrography, University of Fribourg.

Milwright, M. 2010. An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Monakhov, S. I. 1999. “Towards a Typology of Knidian Amphoras of 4th–2nd 

Century BC.” In The Bosporan Phenomenon: Greek Culture on the Periphery of the Ancient World, pp. 161–172. Moscow: Kimmerida.

Martin, M. A. S., Y. Gadot, and Y. Goren. 2009. “Imported Egyptian and Local 

Egyptian-Style Pottery from the late Bronze and iron Age Strata.” In Aphek 

II: The Remains on the Acropolis, ed. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin, pp. 362–386. 

Monogr. Ser. 27. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Martin, S. R. 2007. Hellenization and Southern Phoenicia: Reconsidering the Impact 

of Greece before Alexander. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.

Master, D. M. 2001. The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: A Petrographic Study. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

———. 2003. Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the Seventh 

Century B.C.E. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 330:47–64. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/1357839.

———. 2011. “Home Cooking at Ashkelon in the Bronze and Iron Ages.” In On 

Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loom Weights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age 

Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions, ed. V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 

257–272. Nicosia: Levantis Foundation.

Master, D. M., J. M. Monson, E. H. E. Lass, and G. Pierce. 2005. Tell Dothan I. 

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Matney, T., J. MacGinnis, H. Macdonald, K. Nicoll, L. Rainville, M. Roaf, M. L. 

Smith, and D. Stein. 2003. Archaeological Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe 2002. 

Anatolica, 29:175–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ANA.29.0.2015515.

Matney, T., and L. Rainville. 2005. Archaeological Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe 2003–2004. Anatolica, 31:19–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/

ANA.31.0.2011751.

Mattews, R. 2003. Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 4, Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994–1996. Oxford: Oxbow.

Mattingly, G. L. 1980. Neo-Assyrian Influence at Tell Jemmeh. Near East Archaeol. 

Soc. Bull., 15–16:33–50.

Matzke, M. 1994. Die Sieben KreuzfaherMünzen und Das Papsttum. Schweiz. 

Münzblatter, 44:13–19.

Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R. 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000–612 B.C. London: 

Methuen.

May, H. G. 1935. Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One: The Philistine Sanctuary; 

Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem.

———. 1985a. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two: Various Objects, the Pottery, 

Conclusions. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1985b. The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture. Isr. Explor. J., 

35:95–107.

———. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. New York: Doubleday.

———. 1997. Timnah (Tel Batash) I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Qedem 37. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1998. “On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron Age I Period in Israel.” 

In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries 

BCE, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, pp. 368–378. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

———. 1999. The 1997–1999 Excavations at Tell Rehov: Preliminary Report. Isr. 

Explor. J., 49:1–42. 

———. 2003. Ritual Dancing in the Iron Age. Near East. Archaeol., 66(3):126–

131. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3210916.

———. 2006. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 1, From the Late 

Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2009a. “The Iron Age Dwellings at Tell Qasile.” In Exploring the Longue 

Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. J. D. Schloen, pp. 319–

336. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 

———. 2009b. “Clay Figurines and Cult Vessels.” In Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N 

and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, pp. 530–555. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

———. 2011. A Tenth Century BC Oven from Tel Rehov. [In Hebrew.] Cathedra, 

139:111–114. [English abstract, 180.]

Mazar, A., and S. Ah≥ituv. 2011. “Tel Reh≥ov in the Assyrian Period: Squatters, 

Burials, and a Hebrew Seal.” In The Fire Signals of Lachish, Studies in the 

Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and 

the Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. 

Na’aman, pp. 265–280. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Mazar, A., and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2005. Stratigraphy and Building Remains. In Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), ed. M. Dothan 

and D. Ben-Shlomo, pp. 11–61. IAA Rep. 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities 

Authority. 

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

the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem.
1080 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

Nicholson, R. A. 1993. A Morphological Investigation of Burnt Animal Bone and 

an Evaluation of Its Utility in Archaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci., 20:411–428. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1993.1025.

Niemeier, W. D. 1998. “The Mycenaean in Western Anatolia and the Problem of 

the Origins of the Sea Peoples.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, pp. 

17–65. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 

Nies, J. B. 1920. Historical, Religious and Economic Texts and Antiquities. Babylon. Inscr. Collection James B. Nies, Yale Univ. 2. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nodet, E. 1980. “Fusaïolies et pesons.” In Tell Keisan (1971–1976) une cite 

phenicienne en Galilee, ed. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert, pp. 315–321. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse.

Oates, D. 1972. “The Development of Assyrian Towns and Cities.” In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, ed. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 

799–804. London: Duckworth.

———. 1973. “Early Vaulting in Mesopotamia.” In Archaeological Theory and 

Practice: Essays Presented to Professor William Grimes, ed. D. E. Strong, pp. 

183–191. London: Seminar.

Oates, J. 1959. Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Iraq, 21:130–146. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199656.

Oates, J., and D. Oates. 2002. Nimrud: An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo Assyrian Empire, 

Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Olsen, F. L. 1973. The Kiln Book. Basset, CA: Keramos Books.

Oppenheim, A. L. 1969. “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts.” In Ancient 

Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., ed. J. B. Pritchard, 

pp. 265–317. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Oppenheim, M. F. 1931. Der Tell Halaf. Leipzig: Brockhaus.

———. 1950. Tell Halaf, Vol. 2, Die Bauwerke. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Oren, E. D. 1969. Cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I Context. Opusc. 

Atheniensia, 9:127–150.

———. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shan. Univ. Pa. Mus. Monogr. Philadelphia: University Museum. 

———. 1985. Architecture of Egyptian “Governor’s Residencies” in Late Bronze 

Age, Palestine. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 18:183–199.

———. 1992. “Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.” 

In The Architecture of Ancient Israel, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, pp. 

105–120. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993a. “Ruqeish.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, pp. 1293–1294. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993b. “Northern Sinai.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological 

Excavations in the Holy Land, pp. 1386–1396. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993c. “Tel Sera’.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, pp. 1329–1335. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993d. “Ethnicity and Regional Archaeology: The Western Negev under 

Assyrian Rule.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 

1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram, pp. 102–105. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration 

Society.

———. 1997. “The Kingdom of Sharuhen and the Hyksos Kingdom.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Ored, pp. 

253–283. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 96. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Oren, E. D., N. Fleming, S. Kornberg, R. Feinstein, and P. Nahshoni. 1986a. A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt. [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot, 19:83–91.

Oren, E. D., M. A. Morrison, and I. Gilead. 1986b. Land of Gerar Expedition: 

Preliminary Report for the Seasons of 1982 and 1983. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. 

Res. Suppl. Stud., 24:57–87.

Ornan, T. 1986. A Man and His Land: Highlights from the Moshe Dayan Collection. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

———. 1997. Mesopotamian Influence on the Glyptic of Israel and Jordan in the 

First Millennium BC. [In Hebrew.] Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. 

———. 2011. “Let Ba’al Be Enthroned”: The Date, Identification and Function of 

a Bronze Statue from Hazor. J. Near East. Stud., 70:253–280.

———. 2005. The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representations of Deities in 

Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban. Orb. Biblic. Orient 213. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Ornan, T., S. M. Ortiz, and S. Wolff. 2013. A Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian 

Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context. Isr. Explor. J., 63:6–25.

Ornan, T. and B. Sass. 1992. A Product of Cultural Interaction: The Seal of Nergalsallim. Isr. Mus. J., 10:63–66.

Mook, M. S., and W. D. E. Coulson. 1995. “East Greek and Other Imported Pottery.” In Excavations at Tel Dor: Final Report, Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The 

Finds, ed. E. Stern, pp. 93–126. Qedem Rep. 1B. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Moorey, P. R. S. 1980. Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük. 

BAR Int. Ser. 87. Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 2003. Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near 

East. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Muhly, J. D., and P. Muhly. 1989. “Metal Artefacts.” In Excavations at Tel Michal, 

Israel, ed. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp, and O. Negbi, pp. 267–295. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Müller, V. K. 1915. Der Polos: Die griechische Götterkrone. Berlin: Universitäts 

Buchdruckerei.

Müller-Winkler, C. 1987. Die ägyptischen Objekt-Amulette: Mit Publikation der 

Sammlung des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, ehemals 

Sammlung Fouad S. Matouk. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Mullins, R. A. 2007. “The Late Bronze Age Pottery.” In Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989–1996, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, 

ed. A. Mazar and R. A. Mullins, pp. 390–547. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration 

Society. 

Mullins, R. A., and A. Mazar. 2007. “Area R: The Stratigraphy and Architecture 

of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Strata R-5–R-1.” In Excavations at 

Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata 

in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. A. Mullins, pp. 39–199. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

Münger, S. 2003. Egyptian Stamp-Seal Amulets and Their Implications for the Chronology of the Early Iron Age. Tel Aviv, 30:66–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179

/033443503787959145.

———. 2005. “Stamp-Seal Amulets and Early Iron Age Chronology: An Update.” 

In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, ed. 

T. E. Levy and T. Higham, pp. 381–404. London: Equinox

Na’aman, N. 1979. The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of 

Egypt. Tel Aviv, 6:68–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443579788497504.

———. 1993. Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations. 

Tel Aviv, 20:104–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443593788179330.

———. 1995. “Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period.” In Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani, pp. 103–115. Quad. Geogr. Stor. 5. Rome: Università di Roma “La 

Sapienza.”

———. 2001. An Assyrian residence at Ramat Rahel? Tel Aviv, 28:260–280. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443501788052935.

———. 2003. Ekron under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires. Bull. Am. Sch. 

Orient. Res., 332:81–91.

———. 2004. The Boundary System and Political Status of Gaza under the Assyrian Empire. Z. Dtsch. Paläst. Ver., 120:55–72.

Na’aman, N., and R. Zadok. 1988. Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716–708 B.C.). J. Cuneif. Stud., 40:36–46. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/1359705.

Nahshoni, P. 2009a. Nahal Patish. Preliminary Report. [In Hebrew.] Excav. Surv. 

Isr., 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/reports.aspx?id=115.

———. 2009b. A Philistine Temple in the North-Western Negev (Nahal Patish). [In 

Hebrew.] Qadminiot, 138:88–92.

Naveh, J. 1962a. The Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu. Isr. Explor. J., 12:89–113.

———. 1962b. More Hebrew Inscriptions from Mesad Hashavyahu. Isr. Explor. 

J., 12:27–32.

———. 1971. “An Aramaic Ostracon from Ashdod.” In Ashdod II-III, ed. 

M. Dothan. ‘Atiqot, 9–10:200–201.

———. 1973. “The Aramaic Ostraca.” In Beer Sheba I: Excavations at Tel BeerSheba 1969–1971 Seasons, ed. Y. Aharoni, pp. 79–82. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv 

University Press.

———. 1985. Writing and Scripts in Seventh-Century B.C.E. Philistia: The New 

Evidence from Tell Jemmeh. Isr. Explor. J., 35:8–21.

———. 1986. “The Aramaic Ostraca.” In Arad Inscriptions, ed. Y. Aharoni, pp. 

175–214. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. 

Negbi, O. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient 

Syro-Palestinian Figurines. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.

Nelson, S. M. 1997. Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 

Newberry, P. E. 1907. Scarab-Shaped Seals (Catalogue général des antiquités 

égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos. 36001–37521). London: Archibald 

Constable.

———. 1908. The Timins Collection of Ancient Egyptian Scarabs and Cylinder 

Seals. London: Timins Collection of Ancient.
NUMBER 50 • 1081

Payne, S. 1973. Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan 

Kale. Anatol. Stud., 23:281–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642547.

———. 1985. Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young 

Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra. J. Archaeol. Sci., 12:139–147. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0305-4403(85)90058-5.

Pedde, F. 2000. Vorderasiatische Fibeln: von der Levante bis Iran. Abh. Dtsch. 

Orient-Ges. 24. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

Peersman, J. 2000. “Assyrian MAGIDDU: The Town Planning of Stratum III.” In 

Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. 

Halpern, pp. 524–533. Tel Aviv Monogr. 18. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Peleg, Y., and I. Eisenstadt. 2004. “A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Hebron.” In Burial

Caves and Sites in Judea and Samaria from the Bronze and Iron Ages, ed. 

H. Hizmi and A. De-Groot, pp. 231–259. Judea Samaria Publ. 4. Jerusalem: 

Israel Antiquities Authority.

Pendlebury, J. D. S., and T. G. H. James. 1962. “The Egyptian Type Objects.” In 

Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia; Excavations of the 

BSAE at Athens, 1930–1933, Vol. 2, Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs, and Other 

Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia, ed. H. Payne and T. J. 

Dunbabin, pp. 461–516. Oxford: Clarendon.

Perlzweig, J. 1963. Lamps from the Athenian Agora. Princeton, NJ: American 

Schools of Classical Studies at Athens.

Perrot, J. 1968. Prehistorie palestienne. Suppl. Dict. Bible, 8:285–446.

Pesant, R. 1980. “The Amalricus coins of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” In Coinage 

in the Latin East: The Fourth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary 

History, ed. P. W. Edbury and D. M. Metcalf, pp. 105–121. BAR Int. Ser. 77. 

Oxford: Archaeopress

Petrie, W. M. F. 1891. Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

———. 1894. Tell el Amarna. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

———. 1896. Koptos. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

———. 1914. Amulets. London: Constable. 

———. 1917. Tools and Weapons. BSAE 30. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

———. 1926. Ancient Weights and Measures. BSAE 39. London: British School of 

Archaeology in Egypt. [Repr. 1974, London: Warminster.]

———. 1928. Gerar. BSAE 43. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

———. 1930. Beth-Pelet I. BSAE 48. London: British School of Archaeology in 

Egypt.

———. 1931. Ancient Gaza I. BSAE 53. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Egypt.

———. 1932. Ancient Gaza II. BSAE 54. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Egypt.

———. 1933. Ancient Gaza III. BSAE 55. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Egypt.

———. 1934. Ancient Gaza IV. BSAE 56. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Egypt.

Petrie, W. M. F., and J. C. Ellis. 1937. Anthedon, Sinai. BSAE 58. London: British 

School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Pfälzner, P. 1995. Mittanische und mittelassyrische Keramik: Eine chronologische, 

funktionale und produktionsökonomische Analyse. Ber. Ausgrab. Tall Šemhr

H ̆amad/Dumr Katlimmu 3. Berlin: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

———. 2002. “Modes of Storage and the Development of Economic Systems in 

the Early Jezireh Period.” In Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology 

and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour 

of his 75th Birthday, ed. L. G. Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon, 

J. Oates, and J. Reade, pp. 259–286. London: Nabu.

Philips, M. 2008. Medieval and Modern Coin Hoards, No.103. Numis. Chron., 

168:432–433.

Pythian-Adams, W. J. 1923. Report on Soundings at Tell Jemmeh. Palest. Explor. 

Q., 1923:140–146.

Piperno, D. R., and I. Holst. 1998. The Presence of Starch Grains on Prehistoric 

Stone Tools from the Humid Neotropics: Indications of Early Tuber Use 

and Agriculture in Panama. J. Archaeol. Sci., 25:765–776. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1006/jasc.1997.0258.

Piperno, D. R., E. Weiss, I. Holst, and D. Nadel. 2004. Processing of Wild Cereal 

Grains in the Upper Palaeolithic Revealed by Starch Grain Analysis. Nature, 

430:670–673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02734.

Platt, E. E. 1972. Palestinian Iron Age Jewelry from Fourteen Excavations. Ph.D. 

diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

———. 1978. Bone Pendants. Biblic. Archaeol., 41:23–28. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/3209473.

Popham, M. 1972. “White Slip Ware.” In The Late Cypriote Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery, ed. P. Åström, pp. 431–471. Swed. Cyprus Exped. 4, part 

1C. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.

Ortiz, S. M. 2000. The 11/10th Century B.C.E. Transition in the Aijalon Valley 

Region: New Evidence from Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum IV. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, Tucson.

Ory, J. 1944. A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Tell Jerishe. Q. Dep. Antiq. Palest., 

10:55–57.

Otto, A. 1999. “Local, Regional, and International: Seal Impressions from the Palace of Šamši Adad in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul.” In Languages and Cultures in Contact 

at the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm: Proceedings of the 42th RAI, ed. K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet, pp. 337–353. 

Leuven: Peeters.

———. 2000. Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der klassischen syrischen Glyptik. 

Berlin: de Gruyter. 

———. 2004. Siegel und Siegelabrollungen. Ausgrab. Tall Bi‘a Tuttul 4. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

Otzen, B. 1979. “Israel Under the Assyrians.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, pp. 251–261. Mesop. Cph. Stud. 

Archaeol. 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk.

Panitz-Cohen, N. 2006a. “The Pottery of Strata XII–V.” In Timnah (Tel Batash) 

III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, ed. N. Paintz-Cohen and 

A. Mazar, pp. 9–150. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

———. 2006b. “‘Off the Wall’: Wall Brackets and Cypriots in Iron Age I Israel.” In 

“I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical 

Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 

ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, pp. 613–636. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

———. 2010. “The Pottery Assemblage.” In Yavneh I: The Excavation of the 

“Temple Hill” Repository Pit and the Cult Stands, ed. R. Kletter, I. Ziffer, 

and W. Zwickel, pp. 110–145. Orb. Biblic. Orient. Ser. Archaeol. 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Panitz-Cohen, N., and A. M. Maeir. 2004. “The Pottery Assemblage.” In Bronze 

and Iron Age Tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: Finds from the Raymond-Charles 

Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 9–41. BAR Int. 

Ser. 1206. Oxford: Archaeopress. 

Panitz-Cohen, N., and A. Mazar, eds. 2006. Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from 

the Second Millennium BCE. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

———, eds. 2009. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th-11th 

Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Panitz-Cohen, N., and N. Yahalom-Mack. 2009. “Textile-Related Objects and a 

Basket Imprint.” In Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 

13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. 

Mazar, pp. 737–741. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Panitz-Cohen, N., N. Yahalom-Mack, and A. Mazar. 2009. “Various Finds: Clay, 

Stone, Ivory, Bone and Faience Objects and Vessels.” In Excavations at Tel 

Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 3, The 13th–11th Century BCE Strata in Areas 

N and S, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, pp. 742–763. Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

Papadopoulos, J. K. 1997. Phantom Euboians. J. Mediterr. Archaeol., 10(2):191–

219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v10i2.191.

Parker, B. 1949. Cylinder Seals from Palestine. Iraq, 11:1–43. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/4241686.

Parker, B. J. 1997. Garrisoning the Empire: Aspects of the Construction and Maintenance of Forts on the Assyrian Frontier. Iraq, 59:77–87. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2307/4200438.

———. 2003. Archaeological Manifestations of Empire: Assyria’s Imprint on 

Southeastern Anatolia. Am. J. Archaeol., 107:525–557. http://dx.doi.org/10

.3764/aja.107.4.525.

———. 2006. Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes. Am. Antiq., 

71:77–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40035322.

———. 2011. Bread Ovens, Social Networks and Gendered Space: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Tandır Ovens in Southeastern Anatolia. Am. Antiq., 

76:603–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.76.4.603.

Park Lee, J.-Y. 2003. Archaeological and Philological Remains of the Neo-Assyrian 

Empire in the Southern Levant: A General Survey. M.A. thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Parpola, S. 2003. “Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its LongTerm Repercussions in the West.” In Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of 

the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze 

Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, pp. 99–111. 

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

———. 2004. National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-empire Times. J. Assyrian Acad. Stud., 18(2):5–22.

Payne, J. C. 1982. “The Flint Implements of Jericho.” In Jericho IV, ed. K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland, pp. 622–758. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Jerusalem.
1082 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium: The Periphery of the Mycenaean World, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999, ed. N. Kyparissi-Apostolika 

and M. Papakonstantinou, pp. 397–415. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture.

———. 2005. “Ethnicity and Changes in Weaving Technology in Cyprus and the 

Eastern Mediterranean in the 12th Century BC.” In Cyprus: Religion and 

Society; from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, ed. 

V. Karageorghis, H. Matthäus, and S. Rogge, pp. 143–170. Nicosia: Levantis 

Foundation.

Ranke, H. 1935. Die ägyptischen Personennamen, Vol. 1, Verzeichnis der Namen.

Glückstadt, Germany: J. J. Augustin.

Rawson, P. S. 1954. Palace Ware from Nimrud: Technical Observations on Selected 

Examples. Iraq, 16:168–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199589.

Raymond of Aguilers. 1968. Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Translated by J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill. Philadelphia: American Philosophical 

Society. 

Reese, D. S. 1986. “The Marine and Freshwater Shells.” In The Late Bronze and 

Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan: The Baq’ah Valley Project 1977–

1981, ed. P. E. McGovern, pp. 320–332. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 65. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Reese, D. S., H. K. Mienis, and F. R. Woodward. 1986. On the Trade of Shells 

and Fish from the Nile River. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 264:79–84. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357022.

Regev, D. 2003. “Typology of the Persian and Hellenistic Pottery Forms at Maresha—Subterranean Complexes 70, 21, 58.” In Maresha Excavations Final 

Report: I. Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, ed. A. Kloner, pp. 163–183. 

IAA Rep. 17. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Reich, R. 1975. The Persian Building at Ayyelet ha-Shahar: The Assyrian Palace of 

Hazor? Isr. Explor. J., 25:233–237.

———. 1989. A Third Season of Excavations at Mezad Hashavyahu. [In Hebrew.] 

Eretz Isr., 20:228–232. [English summary, 203*.]

———. 1992. “Palaces and Residences in the Iron Age.” In The Architecture of 

Ancient Israel, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, pp. 202–222. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993. “Abu Salima, Tell (Sheikh Zuweid).” In The New Encyclopedia of 

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, pp. 1396–1398. Jerusalem: 

Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1996. A Note on the Relative Chronology of Buildings A and B at Tell Jemmeh. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 25:264–267. [English summary, 98.]

Reisner, G. A. 1955. Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort. Kush, 

3:26–69.

Reisner, G. A., C. S. Fischer, and D. G. Lyon. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rhodes, D. 1968. Kilns: Design, Construction and Operation. Philadelphia: 

Chilton.

Risser, M. K., and J. A. Blakely. 1989. “Imported Aegean Fine Ware in the First 

Millennium B.C.E.” In Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V), ed. W. J. 

Bennet Jr. and J. A. Blakely, pp. 69–137. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Roll, I., and O. Tal. 1999. Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations, the 

Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Emery Claire Yass Publ. Archaeol. 16. Tel 

Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Roosevelt, C. H. 2008. “Stone Alabastra in Western Anatolia.” In New Approaches 

to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, ed. Y. M. Rowan 

and J. R. Ebeling, pp. 284–297. London: Equinox. 

Rose, D. G., and L. E. Toombs. 1976. Tell el-Hesi, 1973 and 1975. Palest. Explor. 

Q., 108:41–45.

Rosen, S. A. 1983. The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age. Isr. Explor. 

J., 33:15–29.

———. 1986. “The Gezer Flint Caches, 1970–71.” In Gezer IV, ed. W. G. Dever, 

pp. 259–263. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

———. 1988. A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped 

Stone Assemblage from Tel ‘Erani. Isr. Explor. J., 38:105–116.

———. 1996a. “Flint Implements.” In Excavations at the City of David 1978–

1985 IV, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. De Groot, pp. 257–267. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 1996b. “The Decline and Fall of Flint.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights 

into Human Prehistory, ed. G. Odell, pp. 129–158. Plenum: New York.

———. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the 

Levant. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.

Rosen, S. A., and A. N. Goring-Morris. 2010. “The Deir el-Balah Lithics.” In Deir 

el-Balah: Excavations in 1977–1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Vol. 2,

The Finds, ed. T. Dothan and B. Brandl, pp. 273–277. Qedem 50. Jerusalem: 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 

Rosenan, N. 1955. One Hundred Years of Rainfall in Jerusalem, Isr. Explor. J.,

5:137–153.

Porada, E. 1981. The Cylinder Seals Found at Thebes in Boeotia. Arch. Orientforsch., 28:1–78.

Porath, Y. 1974. A Fortress of the Persian Period. [In Hebrew.] ‘Atiqot, 7:43–55. 

[English summary, 6*–7*.]

Porteous J. 1989. “Crusader Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions. In A History of the Crusades VI. The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, ed. H. W. 

Hazard and N. P. Zacour, pp. 354–420. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Portugali, Y. 1987. “Construction Methods, Architectural Features and Environment.” In Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley, ed. A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali, pp. 132–138. Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Postgate, J. N. 1979. “The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power 

and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, pp. 

193–221. Copenhagen: Akademisk.

Powell, B. B. 2002. “Seals and Writing in the Ancient Near East and Cyprus: Observations from Context.” In Script and Seal Use in Cyprus in the Bronze 

and Iron Ages, ed. J. S. Smith, pp. 227–248. Colloq. Conf. Pap. 4. Boston: 

Archaeological Institute of America.

Pratico, G. D. 1993. Nelson Glueck’s 1938–1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: 

A Reappraisal. ASOR Archaeol. Rep. 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 

Press, M. D. 2007. Philistine Figurines and Figurines in Philistia in the Iron Age. 

Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

———. 2012. Ashkelon 4: The Iron Age Figurines of Ashkelon and Philistia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Preziosi, D., and L. A. Hitchcock. 1999. Aegean Art and Architecture. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press.

Price, M. J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. Zurich: Swiss Numismatic Society.

Price-Williams, D. 1973. Environmental Archaeology in the Western Negev. Nature, 242:501–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/242501a0.

———. 1975. The Environmental Background to Prehistoric Sites in the Fara Region of the Western Negev. Bull. Inst. Archaeol., 12:125–143.

Pringle, D. 1984. Thirteenth-Century Pottery from the Monastery of St. Mary of Carmel. Levant, 16:91–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/007589184790586292.

———. 1994. “Templar Castles on the Road to the Jordan.” In The Military 

Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. M. Barber, pp. 

148–166. London: Variorum. 

Pritchard, J. B. 1943. Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses 

Known through Literature. Am. Orient. Ser. 24. New York: Kraus.

———. 1950. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

———. 1954. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

———, ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 4th 

ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

———. 1975. Sarepta Preliminary Report: The Iron Age. Philadelphia: University 

Museum.

———. 1980. The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa’idieyh, Jordan. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 41. 

Philadelphia: University Museum.

———. 1985. Tell es-Sa’idiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966. Univ. Mus. 

Monogr. 60. Philadelphia: University Museum. 

———. 1988. Sarepta IV: The Objects from Areas II, X. Beirut: Université 

Libanaise. 

Prummell, W., and H. J. Frisch. 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex, 

and Body Side in Bones of Sheep and Goat. J. Archaeol. Sci., 13:567–577. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(86)90041-5.

Pucci, M. 2008. “The Neo-Assyrian Residences of Tell Shekh Hamad, Syria.” In 

Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (3–8 April 2006), ed. J. Cordoba, M. Molist, C. Pérez, I. Rubio, and S. Martinez, pp. 49–63. Madrid: UAM Ediciones.

Pulak, C. 1988. The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign. 

Am. J. Archaeol., 92:1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/505868.

Quibell, J. E. 1898. The Ramesseum. BSAE 2. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Quigg, J., M. E. Michael, R. Malainey, R. Przybylski, and G. Monks. 2001. No 

Bones about It: Using Lipid Analysis of Burned Rock and Groundstone Residues to Examine Late Archaic Subsistence Practices in South Texas. Plains 

Anthropol., 46 (177):283–303.

Radner, K. 2006. “Provinz. C. Assyrien.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und 

Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Vol. 11(1/2), ed. M. P. Streck, pp. 42–68. 

Berlin: de Gruyter.

Rahmani, L.-Y. 1971. Silver Coins of the Fourth Century B.C. from Tel Gamma. 

Isr. Explor. J., 21:158–160.

Rahmstorf, L. 2003. “Clay Spools from Tiryns and Other Contemporary Sites: 

An Indication of Foreign Influence in the LH IIIC?” In Proceedings of the
NUMBER 50 • 1083

Sass, B., and G. Cinamon. 2006. “The Small Finds.” In Megiddo IV: The 1998–

2002 Seasons, ed. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, pp. 353–425. 

Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 24. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Schaefer, J. 1979. The Ecology of Empires: An Archaeological Approach to the 

Byzantine Communities of the Negev Desert. Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Schaefer, J. 1989. Archaeological Remains from the Medieval Islamic Occupation 

of the Northwest Negev Desert. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 274:33–60. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357052.

Schaeffer-Forrer, C. F. A. 1983. Corpus des cylinders-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit 

et d’Enkomi-Alasia. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Schlumberger, G. 1877. Les Principautés Franques du Levant d’apres de plus récentes découvertes de la numismatique. Paris: Leroux.

Schick, T. 1978. “Flint Implements.” In Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement 

and Early Bronze City; First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966, ed. 

R. Amiran, U. Puran, Y. Shiloh, R. Brown, Y. Tsafir, and A. Ben-Tor, pp. 

58–63. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Schlotzhauer, U. 2000. “Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen und Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit.” In Die Ägäis und das 

westliche Mittelmeer, ed. F. Krinziger, pp. 407–416. Vienna: Osterreichischen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

———. 2001. Die südionischen Knickrandschalen. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zu den sog. Ionischen Schalen in Milet. Ph.D. diss., University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

———. 2006. “Griechen in der Fremde: Wer weihte in die Filialheiligtümer der 

Samier und Milesier in Naukratis?” In Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari 

del Mediterraneo antico, ed. A. Naso, pp. 288–320. Florence: Le Monnier. 

Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1992. Before Writing, Vol. 1, From Counting to Cuneiform. 

Austin: University of Texas Press.

———. 1994. “Tokens: A Prehistoric Archive System.” In Archives Before Writing, 

ed. P. Ferioli, pp. 1–28. Turin: Scriptorium.

Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Schneider, E. 1999. “‘Assyrische’ Gefäßformen aus Tell Sheikh Hassan (Syrien) und 

ihre Stellung innerhalb der Keramik des assyrischen Einflußgebietes.” In Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and Southeastern Anatolia, 

ed. A. Hausleiter and A. Rieche, pp. 347–375. Altert. Vorderen Orients 10. 

Münster: Ugarit. 

Schoske, S., and D. Wildung. 1992. Gott und Götter im Alten Ägypten. Mainz: 

Philipp von Zabern.

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

Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt.

Seger, J. D. 2011. The Typology of LB I Period Cooking Pots in Canaan. Eretz Isr., 

30:104*–118*.

Seger, J. D., and H. D. Lance. 1988. Gezer V: The Field I Caves. Jerusalem: Hebrew 

Union College.

Seligman, J., ed. 2010. Nahal Hagit: A Roman and Mamluk Farmstead in the 

Southern Carmel. IAA Rep. 44. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Sellin, E. 1905. Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta’annek in Palästina. Denkschr. Kais. 

Akad. Wiss. Wien 52, part 3. Vienna: A. Holder.

Shahar, A., ed. 1995. The New Atlas of Israel. Tel Aviv: Israel Mapping Center.

Shai, I. 2006. “The Political Organization in Philistia during the Iron Age IIA.” In 

“I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical 

Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 

ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, pp. 347–359. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

Shai, I., D. Ben-Shlomo, and A. M. Maeir. 2012. “Late Iron Age Judean Cooking 

Pots with Impressed Handles: A New Class of Stamped Impressions from 

the Kingdom of Judah.” In “Go out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): 

Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. 

A. M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L. H. Schiffman, pp. 225–244. Leiden: Brill. 

Shai, I., D. Ilan, A. M. Maeir, and J. Uziel. 2011a. Iron Age Remains at Tel Nagila. 

Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 363:25–43.

Shai, I., and A. M. Maeir. 2012. “The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from 

Stratum A3.” In Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. 

Maeir, pp. 313–363. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 

Shai, I., A. M. Maeir, Y. Gadot, and J. Uziel. 2011b. “Differentiating Between Public and Residential Buildings: A Case Study from Late Bronze Age II Tell 

es-Safi/Gath.” In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, ed. 

A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling, and L. B. Mazow, pp. 107–132. Leiden: Brill.

Shai, I., and J. Uziel. 2010. The Whys and Why Nots of Writing: Literacy and Illiteracy in the Southern Levant During the Bronze Ages. Kaskal, 7:67–84.

Shalev, S. 2002. “Metal Artefacts.” In Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons, ed. A. Kempinski, pp. 307–318. Tel Aviv Monogr. Ser. 20. Tel Aviv: 

Institute of Archaeology.

Rosenberg, D. 2010. Early Maceheads in the Southern Levant: A “Chalcolithic” 

Hallmark in Neolithic Context. J. Field Archaeol., 35:204–216. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1179/009346910X12707321520512.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1995. “Imported Hellenistic and Roman Pottery.” In 

Excavations at Tel Dor: Final Report, Vol. 1B, Areas A and C: The Finds, ed. 

E. Stern, pp. 183–288. Qedem Rep. 1B. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Roshwalb, A. 1981. Protohistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A Typological and Technological Study Based on the Macdonald Excavations. Ph.D. diss., University 

of London, London.

Rothenberg, B., and R. Tylecote. 1991. A Unique Assyrian Iron Smithy in the 

Northern Negev (Israel). Inst. Archaeo-Metall. Stud. Newsl., 17:11–14. 

Rotroff, S. I. 1991. Attic West Slope Vase Painting. Hesperia, 60(1):59–102. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/148228.

———. 1996. The Missing Krater and the Hellenistic Symposium: Drinking the 

Age of Alexander the Great. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of 

Canterbury.

———. 2006. “Fusiform Unguentaria.” In Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares, 

ed. S. I. Rotroff, pp. 137–160. Athenian Agora 33. Ann Arbor: Edwards. 

Rotroff, S. I., and J. H. Oakley. 1992. Debris from a Public Dining Place in the 

Athenian Agora. Hesperia Suppl. 25. Princeton, NJ: American Schools of 

Classical Studies in Athens.

Roux, V. 1985. Le Materiel de Broyage: Etude Ethnoarcheologique a Tichitt, Mauritanie. Mem. 58. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Rowan, Y. M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels During Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.

Rowan, Y. M., and J. R. Ebeling. 2008. “Introduction: The Potential of Ground 

Stone Studies.” In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground 

Stone Artifacts, ed. Y. M. Rowan and J. R. Ebeling, pp. 1–15. London: 

Equinox.

Rowan, Y. M., and T. E. Levy. 2011. “Prestige vs. Pragmatic Production: Transitions in Macehead Manufacture in the Ancient Levant.” In Daily Life, Materiality and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: 

Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub, ed. M. S. Chesson, pp. 199–218. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Rowan, Y. M., T. E. Levy, D. Alon, and Y. Goren. 2006. “Gilat’s Ground Stone Assemblage: Stone Fenestrated Stands, Bowls, Palettes, and Related Artifacts.” 

In Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, ed. T. E. 

Levy, pp. 575–684. London: Equinox.

Rowe, A. 1936. A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in 

the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Cairo: L’Institut français d’archéologie 

orientale.

———. 1940. The Four Canaanite Temple of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University 

of Pennsylvania Press.

Saggs, H. W. F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneif. Texts Nimrud 5. London: 

British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Salje, B. 1990. Der ‘Common Style’ der Mitanni-Gkyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in der späten Bronzezeit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von 

Zabern.

Salles, J. F. 1980. “Le Niveau 4 (Fer II C).” In Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cite 

phénicienne en Galilée, ed. J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert, pp. 131–156. Orb. 

Biblic. Orient., Ser. Archaeol. 1. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires.

Samuel, D. 1999. Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Worksmen’s 

Village, Egypt. World Archaeol., 31:121–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/004

38243.1999.9980435.

Samson, J. 1978. Amarna, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti as Pharaoh, 

London: Warminster.

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

Sass, B. 1993. “Personal Accessories and Ornaments.” In Shiloh, the Archaeology 

of a Biblical Site, ed. I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman, pp. 

266–268. Monogr. Ser. Inst. Archaeol. Tel Aviv Univ. 10. Tel Aviv: Institute 

of Archaeology.

———. 2000. “The Small Finds.” In Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, ed. 

I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern, pp. 349–423. Tel Aviv Monogr. 

18. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

———. 2004a. “Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia.” In The 

Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin, pp. 1450–1524. Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Institute 

of Archaeology.

———. 2004b. “Iron Age and Post-Iron Age Artefacts. Section A: Vessels, Tools, 

Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia.” In The Renewed Archaeological 

Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. 3, ed. D. Ussishkin, pp. 1983–

2057. Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
1084 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

South, A. K., and L. Steel. 2001. “The White Slip Sequence at Kalavasos.” In The 

White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International 

Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in 

Honour of Malcolm Weiner, Nicosia, 29th–30th October 1998, ed. V. Karageorghis, pp. 65–74 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, Vol. II). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

Spaer, M. 1985. “Some Observations on the Stratified Mediterranean Eye-Beads of 

the First Millennium BC.” In Annales du 10e

 congrès de l’Association Internationale pour L’histoire du Verre, pp. 1–14. Amsterdam: Association International pour l’Histoire du Verre.

———. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects. 

Isr. Mus. Cat. 447. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Sparkes, B. A. 1981. Not Cooking, but Baking. Greece Rome, 28(2):172–178. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500033283.

Sparks, R. 1998. Stone Vessels in the Levant During the Second Millennium BCE. 

Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney, Sydney.

———. 2007. Stone Vessels in the Levant. Leeds: Maney.

Stager, L. E. 1995. “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE).” 

In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy, pp. 332–348.

London: Leicester University Press.

———. 1996. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. Kislev 604 BCE. 

Eretz Israel, 25:61*–71*.

———. 2002. “The MBIIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the ‘Port Power’ Model of Trade.” In The Middle Bronze Age in 

the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic 

Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak, pp. 353–362. 

Contrib. Chronol. East. Mediterr. 3. Vienna: Academy of Sciences. 

———. 2005. “The House of the Silver Calf at Ashkelon.” In Timelines: Studies in 

Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. 2, ed. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab, pp. 403–410. Orient. Lovan. Analecta 149. Leuven: 

Peeters.

Stager, L. E., D. M. Master, and J. D. Schloen. 2011. Ashkelon 3: The Seventh 

Century B.C. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Stager, L. E., J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, eds. 2008. Ashkelon 1: Introduction 

and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Stager, L. E., and R. J. Voss. 2011. Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon. Eretz Isr., 30:119*–126*.

Starkey, J. L. 1930. “Beads of Beth-Pelet.” In Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery, 

ed. J. G. Duncan, pls. A–Z. BSAE 21. London: British School of Archaeology 

in Egypt.

Starkey, J. L., and G. L. Harding. 1932. Beth-Pelet II (Cemetery). BSAE 52. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Starr, I. 1990. Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. 

State Arch. Assyria 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

Steffen, H. 1979. Population Geography of the Yemen Arab Republic: The Major 

Findings of the Population and Housing Census of February 1975 and of 

Supplementary Demographic and Cartographic Surveys. Tübinger Atlas Vorderen Orients, Beihefte, Ser. B, 39. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Stein, D. 1993. Das Archiv des Šilwa-Teššub 8 and 9: The Seal Impressions. Wiesbaden: Harrassovitz.

Stein, D. 1997a. “Siegelverwendung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung.” In Mit Sieben 

Siegeln Versehen: Das Siegel in Wrtschaft und Kunst des Alten Orients, ed. 

E. Klengel-Brandt, pp. 104–124. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

———. 1997b. “A Question of Quality and Class.” In De Chypre à la Bactriane, les Sceaux du Proche-Orient ancien, à Edith Porada in memoriam, ed. 

A. Caubet, pp. 73–115. Paris: Mission archéologique.

———. 2003. An Old Syrian Cylinder Seal from Azor. ‘Atiqot, 44:179–181. 

Steindorff, G. 1937. Aniba. Vols. 1–2. New York: Augustin.

Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, 

Vol. 3, The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cph. Int. Ser. 9. London: 

Sheffield Academic. 

Stern, E. 1973. Eretz-Israel at the End of the Period of the Monarchy. [In Hebrew.] 

Qadmoniot, 21:2–17.

———. 1978. Excavation at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976), Part One: From the 

Iron Age to the Roman Period. Qedem 9. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem. 

———. 1982. The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 

538–332 B.C.E. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1984. Excavation at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976), Part Two: The Bronze 

Age. Qedem 18. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). New York: Doubleday. 

———. 2003. The Assyrian Impact on the Material Culture of Palestine. [In Hebrew.] Eretz Isr., 21:218–229. [English summary, 291*.]

Shalev, Y., and S. R. Martin. 2012. Crisis as Opportunity: Phoenician Urban Renewal after the Babylonians. Transeuphratène, 41:81–100.

Shamir, O. 1991. Loom-Weights and Textile Production at Tel Miqne-Ekron. Archaeol. Text. Newsl., 13:4–5.

———. 1996. “Loomweights and Whorls.” In Excavations at the City of David 

1978–1985, Vol. 4, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot, pp. 135–170. Qedem 35. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2007. “Loomweights and Textile Production at Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Preliminary Report.” In “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology 

and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. 

S. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram, 

pp. 43–49. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

———. 2009. “The Loom Weights.” In Salvage Excavations at Moz>a: The Bronze 

and Iron Age Settlements and Later Occupations, ed. Z. Greenhut and A. De 

Groot, pp. 157–161. IAA Rep. 39. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Shapiro, M. B. 2006. Soils of Israel. Eurasian Soil Sci., 39(11):1064–2293. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1064229306110032.

Sharon, I. 2001. “Philistine Bichrome Painted Pottery: Scholarly Ideology and Ceramic Typology.” In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Neighboring 

Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff, pp. 555–609. Studies 

in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: The Oriental 

Institute.

Sharon, I., J. Yelin, and I. Perlman. 1987. “Marked Iron Age Cooking Pots.” In Excavations at Tel Qiri, ed. A. Ben Tor and Y. Portugali, pp. 224–235. Qedem 

24. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Shaw, J., A. van de Moortel, P. M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou. 1997. “A LM IA Pottery 

Kiln at Kommos, Crete.” In R. Laffineur and P.P. Betancourt eds., TEXNH: 

Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, pp. 

323–331. Aegeum 16. Liège: Université de Liège.

Shaw, J., A. van de Moortel, P. M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou. 2001. A LM IA Ceramic 

Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production. Hesperia 

Suppl. 30. Princeton, NJ: American Institute of Archaeology.

Shea, O. M. 1983. The Small Cuboid Incense-Burner of the Ancient Near East. 

Levant, 15:76–109.

Shefton, B. B. 2000. Reflections on the Presence of Attic Pottery at the Eastern 

End of the Mediterranean during the Persian Period. Transéuphrantene, 

19:75–82.

Shipman, P., G. Foster, and M. Schoeninger. 1984. Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental Study of Color, Morphology, Crystal Structure, and Shrinkage. J. Archaeol. Sci., 11:307–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(84)90013-X.

Shoval, S., M. Gaft, P. Beck, and Y. Kirsh. 1993. Thermal Behaviour of Limestone 

and Monocrystalline Calcite Tempers during Firing and Their Use in Ancient Vessels. J. Therm. Anal., 40:263–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF0

2546577.

Silver, A. 1969. “The Aging of Domestic Animals.” In Science in Archaeology, 

2nd ed., ed. D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, pp. 283–302. London: Thames 

and Hudson. 

Singer-Avitz, L. 1989a. “Local Pottery of the Persian Period (Strata XI–VI).” In 

Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi, 

pp. 115–144. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 8. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel 

Aviv University. 

———. 1989b. “Stone and Clay Objects.” In Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, ed. 

Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr., and O. Negbi, pp. 350–360. Publ. Inst. Archaeol. 8. 

Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. 

———. 1999. Beersheba—A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian LongDistance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv, 26:3–74. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1179/033443599788145737.

———. 2002. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv, 29:110–214. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443502788035555.

———. 2004. “The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P.” In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin, 

pp. 900–965. Inst. Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 

——— . 2007. On Pottery in Assyrian Style: A Rejoinder. Tel Aviv, 34:182–203. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443507787780257.

Smith, R. H., A. W. McNicoll, and J. B. Hennessy. 1983. The 1981 Season at Pella of the 

Decapolis. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 249:45–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307

/1356562.

Sneh, A., Y. Bartov, and M. Rosensaft. 1998. Geological Map of Israel. Jerusalem: 

Geological Survey of Israel.

South, A. K. 2012. “Tinker, Tailor, Farmer, Miner: Metals in the Bronze Age Economy at Kalavasos.” In Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork 

in the Second Millennium BC: A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly, 

Nicosia, 10th–11th October 2009, ed. V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas, 

pp. 35–47. Oxford: Oxbow. 
NUMBER 50 • 1085

Tufnell, O., C. H. Inge, and G. Harding Lankester. 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse 

Temple. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Turner, G. 1968. The Palace and Bâtiment aux Ivoires at Arslan Tash: A Reappraisal. Iraq, 30:62–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199838. 

———. 1970. The State Apartments of Late Assyrian Palaces. Iraq, 32:177–213. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199901.

Tushingham, A. D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965–1967. Vol. 1. Toronto: 

Royal Ontario Museum.

Uehlenger, C., ed. 2000. Images as Media Sources for the Cultural History of the 

Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (Ist Millennium BCE). Orb. Biblic. 

Orient. 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Unger-Hamilton, R. 1984. The Formation of Use-Wear Polish on Flint: Beyond the 

“Deposit Versus Abrasion” Controversy. J. Archaeol. Sci., 11:91–98. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(84)90044-X.

Ussishkin, D. 1974. Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ‘Eiton. Tel Aviv, 1:109–

127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443574788593520.

Uziel, J. 2007. The Development Process of Philistine Material Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation and Everything in between. Levant, 39:165–173.

———. 2008. The Southern Coastal Plain of Canaan during the Middle Bronze 

Age. Ph.D. diss., Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan.

Uziel, J., D. Ben-Shlomo, D. Ilan, I. Shai, and A. M. Maeir. 2009. Middle Bronze 

Age II Pottery Production in the Western Shephelah: Comparing Methods 

from Tel Nagila, Tell es- Safi/Gath, and Tel Burna. Leiden J. Pottery Stud., 

25:141–162.

Uziel, J., and Y. Gadot. 2010. The “Cup-and-Saucer” Vessel: Function, Chronology, Distribution and Symbolism. Isr. Explor. J., 60:41–57.

Vainstub, D. 2012. Inscriptions and Incised Potsherds from the Western Wall Plaza 

Excavations, Jerusalem. [In Hebrew.] ‘Atiqot, 72:1–12. [English Summary, 

88*–89*.]

Valado, M. T. 2008. “Identifying Lightly Used Polishing Stones: Experiments and 

Implications.” In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground 

Stone Artifacts, ed. Y. M. Rowan and J. R. Ebeling, pp. 173–182. London: 

Equinox.

Vallianou, D. 1997. “The Potters’ Quarter in LM III Gouves.” In TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. R. Laffiineur and P. P. Betancourt, pp. 333–343. Aegeum 16. Liège: Université de Liège.

Van Beek, G. W. 1972. Tel Gamma. Isr. Explor. J., 20:245–246.

———. 1973. Vaulted Assyrian Buildings at Tell Jemmeh. [In Hebrew.] Qadmoniot, 6:23–27.

———. 1974a. Tel Gamma. Isr. Explor. J., 24:274–275.

———. 1974b. Tel Gamma. Isr. Explor. J., 24:138–139.

———. 1977. Tell Jemmeh. 1975–1976. Isr. Explor. J., 27:17–1176.

———. 1982. A Population Estimate for Marib: A Contemporary Tell Village in 

North Yemen. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 248:61–67.

———. 1983. Digging up Tell Jemmeh. Archaeology, 36:12–19.

———. 1986. Tel Jemmeh—1984. [In Hebrew.] Hadashot Archeol., 88:32.

———. 1987. Arches and Vaults in the Ancient Near East. Sci. Am., 257(1):96–

103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0787-96.

———. 1989a. Total Retrieval and Maximum Reconstruction of Artifacts: An Experiment in Archaeological Methodology. Eretz Isr., 20:12*–29*.

———. 1989b. The Buzz: A Simple Toy from Antiquity. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. 

Res., 275:53–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1356880.

———. 1992. The Rammed Earth Revetment at Tell Jemmeh. Eretz Isr., 23:4*–9*.

———. 1993a. “Tell Jemmeh.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, pp. 667–674. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1993b. “The Reexcavation of Sites: Tell Jemmeh.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram, pp. 

575–580. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 1996. Ancient Methods for Minimizing Earthquake Damage at Tell Jemmeh. Eretz Isr., 25:1*–8*.

———. 1997. “Tell Jemmeh.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology of the 

Near East, ed. E. M. Myers, pp. 213–215. New York: Oxford University 

Press.

———. 2007. Glorious Mud! Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly 

Press.

Van Beek, G. W., and O. Van Beek. 1990. The Function of the Bone Spatula. Biblic. 

Archaeol., 53(4):205–209.

Vandenabeele, F. 1986. Bread in the Cypriote Terracota Production of the Archaic 

Period. Medelhavsmus. Bull., 21:39–43. 

Van der Steen, E. J. 1991. The Iron Age Bread Ovens from Tell Deir ‘Alla. Annu. 

Dep. Antiq. Jordan, 35:135–53. 

———. 1998. What Happened to Arabic Geometric Pottery in Beirut? ARAM, 

9–10:121–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ARAM.9.1.2002171.

———. 2007. Ein-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem: Israel 

Exploration Society.

———, ed. 2010. Excavations at Dor: Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets, 1980–

2000 Seasons. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

 ———. In press. “Iron IIC Assyrian-Type Pottery.” In The Ancient Pottery of 

Israel and Its Neighbors: From the Neolithic to the Hellenistic Period, ed. 

S. Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 

Stern, E., A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, eds. 1993. The New Encyclopedia 

of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Stern, E. J., and A. Tatcher. 2009. “The Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluk Pottery.” In H>orbat ‘Uz>a: The 1991 Excavations, Vol. 2, The Late Periods, ed. 

N. Getzov, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y. Gorin-Rosen, E. J. Stern, D. Syon, and 

A. Tatcher, pp. 118–175. IAA Rep. 42. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 

Stern, W., and M. J. Goldschmidt. 1970. Hydrology in Atlas of Israel. Jerusalem: 

Israel Hydrological Service. 

Stewart, A. F., and S. R. Martin. 2005. “Attic Imported Pottery at Tel Dor, Israel: 

An Overview.” Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 337:79–94.

Strommenger, E., and P. A. Miglus. 2010. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 

Stronach, D. 1959. The Development of the Fibula in the Near East. Iraq, 21:181–

206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4199659.

———. 1969. Excavations at Tepe Nush-I Jan. 1967. Iran,7:1–20. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/4299610.

———. 1978. Pasargadae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stronach, D., and M. Roaf. 2007. Nush-I Jan I: The Major Buildings of the Median 

Settlement. Leuven: Peeters 

Swan, V. G. 1984. The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain. London: Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.

Tadmor, H. 1966. Philistia Under Assyrian Rule. Biblic. Archaeol., 29:86–102. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211004.

Tadmor, M. 1982. “Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence.” In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon 

and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979, ed. T. Ishida, pp. 139–173. Tokyo: 

Yamakawa-Shuppansha.

Tal, O. 1999. “The Persian Period.” In Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the Excavations, Vol. 1, The Persian and Hellenistic Periods, ed. I. Roll and O. Tal, pp. 

83–222. Emery Claire Yass Publ. Archaeol. 16. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

———. 2007. Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth-Century BCE 

Palestine. Isr. Numis. Rev., 2:17–28.

Talbot Rice, T. 1957. The Scythians. New York: Praeger.

Teeter, E. 2010. Baked Clay Figurines and Votive Beds from Medinet Habu. Orient. 

Inst. Publ. 132. Chicago: Oriental Institute Press. 

Te-Velde, H. 1967. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Leiden: Brill.

Thareani, Y. 2011. Tel ‘Aroer. The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the HellenisticEarly Roman Settlement. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Thareani-Sussely, Y., and N. Na’aman. 2006. Dating the Appearance of Imitations 

of Assyrian Ware in Southern Palestine. Tel Aviv, 33:64–82.

Thompson, R. C., and R. W. Hamilton. 1932. The British Museum Excavations 

on the Temple of Ishtar at Nineveh. Ann. Archaeol. Anthropol., 19:55–116.

Thureau-Dangin, F., A. Barrois, G. Dossin, and M. Dunand. 1931. Arslan-Tash. 

Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Thureau-Dangin, F., and M. Dunand. 1936. Til Barsib. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Todd, I. A. 1985. In Quest of Cypriote Copper Traders: Excavations at Ayios Dhimitrios. Archaeology, 38(5):40–47.

Todd, I. A., and D. Pilides. 2001. “The Archaeology of White Slip Production.” In 

The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, 

Nicosia, 29th–30th October 1998, ed. V. Karageorghis, pp. 27–44. Vienna: 

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Tonietti, M. 1979. Un incantesimo sumerico contro la Lamaštu. Orientalia, 48: 

301–323.

Toombs, L. E. 1985. Tell el-Hesi. Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery in Field I, Strata I–II. Waterloo, Ontario: Laurier University Press.

Tubb, J. N. 1988. Tell es-Sai’diyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons 

of Renewed Excavation. Levant, 20:23–88.

———. 1990. Preliminary Report on the Fourth Season of Excavations at Tell esSa’idiyeh in the Jordan Valley. Levant, 22:21–42.

Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

———. 1958. Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

———. 1984. Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. 2, Scarab Seals and Their Contribution 

to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. 
1086 • SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

———. 1984. “Organization of Animal Production at Tell Jemmeh in the Middle 

Bronze Age.” Lecture given at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools 

of Oriental Research, Chicago.

———. 1988. Urbanization and the Organization of Animal Production at Tell 

Jemmeh in the Middle Bronze Age Levant. J. Near East. Stud., 47:81–94. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/373259.

———. 1993. Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? The Ashkelon Dog Burials. Biblical Archaeologist, 56:55–80.

Wartke, R. B. 1999. “Les objets de parure de la Tombe no

 45 à Assour.” In Cornaline et pierres précieuses: La Mèditerranée, de l’Antiquité à l’Islam, ed. 

A. Caubet, pp. 317–340. Paris: Documentation française.

Wason, P. 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press.

Watson, P. J. 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Viking Fund 

Publ. Anthropol. 57. Tucson: University of Arizona. 

Watterson, B. 1996. Gods of Ancient Egypt. Phoenix: Sutton.

Way, K. C. 2010. Assessing Sacred Asses: Bronze Age Donkey Burials in the Near 

East. Levant, 42:210–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175638010X127972

46583852. 

Weinberg, S. S. 1954. Corinthian Relief Ware: Pre-Hellenistic Period. Hesperia, 

23:109–137.

Welch, F. B. 1900. The Influence of the Aegean Civilization on Southern Palestine. 

Palest. Explor. Fund Q. Statement, 1900:342–350.

Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study. Fitch Lab. Occas. Pap. 4. Exeter: British School at Athens. 

Wieder, M., and G. Gvirtzman. 1999. Micromorphological Indications on the Nature of the Late Quaternary Paleosols in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel. 

Catena, 35:219–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00102-7.

Wiesse, A. 1990. Zum Bild des Königs auf ägyptischen Siegelamuletten. Orb. Biblic. Orient. 96. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Wilkinson, C. K. 1956. Two Ancient Silver Vessels. Bull. Metrop. Mus. Art, 15:9–

15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3257705.

———. 1967. Two Ram-Headed Vessels from Iran. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Winter, I. J. 2003. Ornament, and the “Rhetoric of Abundance” in Assyria. Eretz 

Isr., 27:252*–264*.

Witthoft, J. 1967. Glazed Polish and Flint Tools. Am. Antiq., 32:383–389. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/2694666.

Wolff, S. R., and C. J. Bergoffen. 2012. “Cypriot Pottery from MB IIA Loci at Tel 

Megadim.” In All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, ed. S. Ahituv, M. Gruber, 

G. Lehmann, and Z. Talshir. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

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

Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages. 

JSOT/ASOR Monogr. 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. 

Woolley, C. L. 1934. Ur Excavations, Vol. 2, The Royal Cemetery. London: British 

Museum.

———. 1955. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, G. R. H. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden: Brill. 

———. 2005. Ancient Building Technology, Vol. 2, Materials. Leiden: Brill.

Wright, K. I. 1992a. Ground Stone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000-5,500b.p. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, New 

Haven, CT.

———. 1992b. A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric 

Levant. Paléorient, 18:53–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1992.4573.

———. 1993. Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages in the Levant. Levant, 

25:93–111.

Yadin, E. 2009. “Middle Bronze Age (Strata X19–X15).” In Aphek-Antipatris II, 

the Remains on the Acropolis: The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations, ed. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin, pp. 7–40. Sonia Marco Nadler Inst. 

Archaeol. Monogr. Ser. 27. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 

Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, M. Dothan, T. Dothan, I. Dunayevski, and J. Perrot. 1961. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of 

Excavations, 1957–1958, Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Yadin, Y., Y. Aharoni, R. Amiran, T. Dothan, I. Dunayevsky, and J. Perrot. 1958. 

Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: 

Magnes. 

———. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations 1956.

Jerusalem: Magnes.

Yadin, Y., and S. Geva. 1986. Investigations at Beth Shean: The Early Iron Age 

Strata. Qedem 23. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Yahalom-Mack, N. 2006a. “Various Small Objects.” In Timnah (Tel Batash 

III): The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen 

Vaughan, S. 1987. A Fabric Analysis of Late Cypriot Base Ring Ware: Studies in 

Ceramic Technology, Petrology, Geochemistry and Mineralogy. Ph.D. diss., 

University College, London.

———. 1991a. “Material and Technical Classification of Base Ring Ware: A New 

Fabric Typology.” In Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, ed. 

J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and B. Kling, pp. 119–130. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 

74. Philadelphia: University Museum.

———. 1991b. “Late Cypriot Base Ring Ware: Studies in Raw Materials and Technology.” In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, ed. A. Middleton and 

I. Freestone, pp. 337–368. Br. Mus. Occas. Pap. 81. London: British Museum.

Vercoutter, J. 1945. Les objets égyptiens et égyptisants du mobilier funéraire 

carthaginois. Bibl. archéol. hist. 40. Paris: L’Académie des Inscriptions et 

Belles-Lettres.

Vilders, M. M. E. 1993. Some Remarks on the Production of Cooking Pots in the 

Jordan Valley. Palest. Explor. Q., 125:149–156. 

Villing, A. 2006. “‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in Archaic Eastern Mediterranean.” In Naukratis: Greek Diversity in 

Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer, pp. 31–46. London: Trustees of 

the British Museum.

Voss, R. J. 2002. “A Sequence of Four Middle Bronze Gates in Ashkelon.” In The 

Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001, ed. 

M. Bietak, pp. 379–384. Contrib. Chronol. East. Mediterr. 3. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

von Luschan, F. 1893–1911. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Berlin: Mittheilungen 

aus Den Orientalischen Sammlungen.

Waechter, J. 1958. “Flint Implements.” In Lachish IV, ed. O. Tufnell, pp. 325–327. 

London: Oxford University Press.

Waldbaum, J. C. 1994. Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant ca. 1000–

600 B.C.: The Eastern Perspective, Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 293:53–66.

———.1997. Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition 

and Recognition of Presence. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res., 305:1–18. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357743.

———. 2002a. “Seventh Century B.C. Greek Pottery from Ashkelon, Israel: An 

Entrepôt in the Southern Levant.” In Pont-euxin et commerce: Le genèse de 

la “Route de la Soie,” Actes de IXe Symposium de Vani (Colchide), 1999, ed. 

A. F. M. Faudot, A. Frayse, and E. Geny, pp. 57–75. Paris: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises.

———. 2002b. “Trade Items or Soldiers’ Gear? Cooking Pots from Ashkelon, 

Israel.” In Autour de la mer Noire: Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé, ed. 

D. Kacharava, M. Faudot, and E. Geny, pp. 133–140. Paris: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises.

———. 2003. “After the Return: Connections with the Classical World in the Persian Period.” In 100 Years of American Archaeology in the Middle East, ed. 

D. R. Clark, and V. H. Matthews, pp. 301–318. Proceedings of the American 

Schools of Oriental Research Centennial Celebration Washington, DC, April 

2000. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

———. 2011. “Greek Pottery.” In Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century B.C., ed. L. 

E. Stager, D. M. Master, and J. D. Schloen, pp. 127–338. Winona Lake, IN: 

Eisenbrauns.

Waldbaum, J. C., and J. Magness. 1997. The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: 

New Evidence from Seventh-Century B.C. Destruction Levels in Israel. Am. 

J. Archaeol., 101:23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/506248.

Wampler, J. C. 1947. Tell en Nasbeh II: The Pottery. Baltimore: American Schools 

of Oriental Research.

Wapnish, P. 1981a. Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh. J. Near 

East. Stud., 13:101–121.

———. 1981b. “Research Design in Zooarchaeology at Tell Jemmeh, Israel.” Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 

San Diego. 

———. 1996. “Is s≥eμni ana lam mamni an Accurate Description or a Royal Boast?” In 

Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology, 

ed. J. D. Seger, pp. 285–296. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

———. 1997. “Middle Bronze Equid Burials at Tell Jemmeh and Reexamination of 

a Purportedly “Hyksos” Practice.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren, pp. 335–367. Univ. Mus. Monogr. 

96, Univ. Mus. Symp. Ser. 8. Philadelphia: University Museum.

———. In press. “Archeozoology at Tell Jemmeh.” In Discovering Noah’s Ark: 

Zooarchaeology of the Holy Land, ed. G. Bar-Oz and L. K. Horwitz. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 

Wapnish, P., and B. Hesse. 1982. “The Equid Remains from Tell Jemmeh.” Lecture 

given at the International Symposium on Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Distribution of the Equids in the Palearctic Region, Tübingen, May.
NUMBER 50 • 1087

———. 1991. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near 

East. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

———. 1996. “The Role of Pigs in Near Eastern Subsistence: A View from the 

Southern Levant.” In Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research 

and Methodology in Honour of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, pp. 297–

312. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Zevulun, U. 1990. Tell el-Yahudiyah Juglets from a Potter’s Refuse Pit at Afula. 

Eretz Isr., 21:174–190.

Ziffer, I. 1990. At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land: Daily Life in the 

Middle Bronze Age 2000–1550 BCE. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.

Ziffer, I., S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. 2009. Devine or Human? An Intriguing Late Bronze Age Figurine from Beth-Shemesh. Ägypten Levante, 19:333–

341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1553/AEundL19s333. 

Zimhoni, O. 1997a. “Lachish Levels V and IV: Comments on the Material Culture 

of Judah in the Iron Age II in the Light of the Lachish Pottery Repertoire.” In 

Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, pp. 57–178. Tel Aviv Occas. Publ. 2. 

Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

———. 1997b. “Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Levels III and II (Tel Aviv

17:3–52).” In Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, pp. 211–262. Tel Aviv 

Occas. Publ. 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

———. 1997c. “The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ‘Eton and Its Relation to the Lachish, 

Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages (Tel Aviv 12:63–90).” In Studies in 

the Iron Age Pottery of Israel, pp. 179–210. Tel Aviv Occas. Publ. 2. Tel Aviv: 

Tel Aviv University.

Zohary, M. 1970. Botany in Atlas of Israel . Jerusalem: Survey of Israel.

Zuckerman, S. 1996. “Beads and Pendants.” In Excavations at the City of David: 

1978–1985, Vol. 4, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. De Groot, pp. 276–290. Qedem 35. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2007. “Late Bronze Age Scoops: Context and Function.” In “Up to the 

Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern 

Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, ed. S. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J. P. 

Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram, pp. 313–330. Jerusalem: W. F. 

Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

———. 2012. “The Pottery of Stratum 9 (the Persian Period).” In Excavations at 

the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7B, Area E: The 

Finds, ed. A. De-Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg, pp. 31–50. Qedem 54. 

Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Zukerman, A. 2011. Titles of 7th Century BCE Philistine Rulers and Their 

Historical-Cultural Background. Bibl. Orient. 68(5–6):466–472.

———. 2012. “Iron Age I and Early Iron Age IIA Pottery.” In Tell es-Safi/Gath 

I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, ed. A. M. Maeir, pp. 265–312. Wiesbaden: 

Harrassowitz.

Zukerman, A., and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2011. Mortaria as a Foreign Element in the Material Culture of the Southern Levant during the 8th–7th Centuries BCE. Palest. Explor. Q., 143:87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/003103211X129718

61557197.

and A. Mazar, pp. 255–266. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of 

Jerusalem.

———. 2006b. “Typology of the Metal Objects.” In Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The 

Finds from the Second Millennium BCE, ed. N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, 

pp. 195–203. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

———. 2007a. “The Textile Industry.” In Beth-Shean, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late 

Bronze Age Strata in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. Mullins, pp. 661–669. 

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2007b. “The Metal Objects: Catalogue and Discussion.” In Excavations at 

Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata 

in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. Mullins, pp. 606–620. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2009. Bronze in the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Land of Israel: Production and Utilization in a Diverse Ethno-Political Setting. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew 

University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Yahalom-Mack, N., and A. Mazar. 2006. “Various Finds from the Iron Age II 

Strata in Areas P and S.” In Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 

1, From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period, ed. A. Mazar, pp.

468–504. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

———. 2007. “Clay, Stone, Faience, Bone and Ivory Objects.” In Excavations at 

Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. 2, The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata 

in Area R, ed. A. Mazar and R. Mullins, pp. 672–687. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Yahalom-Mack, N., and S. Shalev. 2009. “Metal Objects.” In Aphek II: The Remains on the Acropolis, ed. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin, pp. 416–443. Monogr. 

Ser. 27. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Yannai, E. 2004. “Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S.” In The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), ed. D. Ussishkin, pp. 

1032–1154. Tel Aviv Univ. Monogr. Ser. 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Yassine, K. 1984. Tell el Mazar I: Cemetery A. Amman: University of Jordan. 

Yasur-Landau, A. 2003. The Many Faces of Colonization: 12th Century Aegean 

Settlements in Cyprus and the Levant. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom., 

3:45–54.

———. 2005. Old Wine in New Vessel: Intercultural Contact, Innovation and 

Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine Foodways. Tel Aviv, 32:168–191. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443505788017723.

———. 2010. The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze 

Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Yasur-Landau, A., and Y. Goren. 2004. A Cypro-Minoan Potmark from Aphek. Tel 

Aviv, 31:22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/033443504787997818.

Yener, K. A., and G. Bı∫ke Yaziciogblu. 2010. “Excavation Results.” In Tell Atchana, 

Ancient Alalackh, Vol. 1, The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons, ed. K. A. 

Yener, pp. 11–50. Istanbul: Koç University Press.

Zeder, M. A. 1988. Understanding Urban Process through the Study of Specialized Subsistence Economy in the Near East. J. Anthropol. Archaeol., 7:1–55. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(88)90006-2.
ALL MANUSCRIPTS ARE REVIEWED FOR ADHERENCE TO THE SISP MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION AND 

STYLE GUIDE FOR AUTHORS (available on the “Submissions” page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu). Manuscripts not 

in compliance will be returned to the author. Manuscripts intended for publication in the Contributions Series are evaluated by a content review board and undergo substantive peer 

review. Accepted manuscripts are submitted for funding approval and scheduling to the Publications Oversight Board. 

MINIMUM MANUSCRIPT LENGTH is thirty manuscript 

pages. If a manuscript is longer than average, an appropriate 

length will be determined during peer review and evaluation 

by the Content Review Board. Authors may be asked to edit 

manuscripts that are determined to be too long. 

TEXT must be prepared in a recent version of Microsoft 

Word; use a Times font in 12 point for regular text; be double 

spaced; and have 1" margins. Each chapter/section must be 

saved in a separate file.

REQUIRED ELEMENTS are title page, abstract page, table 

of contents, main text, and reference section. See the SISP 

Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for Authors for the 

order of all elements.

HEADINGS should be styled so different levels of headings are 

distinct from each other and so the organization of the manuscript is clear. Insert one line space above and one line space 

below all headings.

FRONT MATTER should include title page, abstract page, 

and table of contents. All other sections are optional. Abstracts must not exceed 300 words. Table of contents should 

include A-, B-, and C-level headings.

TABLES (numbered, with captions, stubs, rules) should be 

submitted in separate MS Word files; should include footnotes, if appropriate; should have rules only at top, bottom, 

and beneath column heads. Print outs of each table should 

accompany the manuscript to ensure correct layout of data. 

Tabulations within running text should not be numbered or 

formatted like formal tables, and should be included in the 

text of the manuscript. 

FIGURE CAPTIONS should be provided in a separate MS 

Word file.

FIGURES (e.g., photographs, line art, maps) should be numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the order called out; be 

placed throughout text, not at end of manuscript; have all 

components of composites lettered with lowercase letters and 

described in the caption; include a scale bar or scale description, if appropriate; include any legends in or on the figure 

rather than in a caption. 

ART must not be embedded in the main text.

Figures must be original and submitted as individual TIFF 

or EPS files. Resolution for art files must be at least 300 dpi 

for grayscale and color images and at least 1200 dpi for line 

art. Electronic images should measure no more than 100% 

and no less than 75% of final size when published. JPG files 

will not be accepted. Color images significantly increase 

costs so should be included only if required. Funding for 

color art is subject to approval by SISP and the Publications 

Oversight Board.

TAXONOMIC KEYS in natural history papers should use 

the aligned-couplet form for zoology. If cross referencing is 

required between key and text, do not include page references 

within the key but number the keyed-out taxa, using the same 

numbers with their corresponding heads in the text.

SYNONOMY IN ZOOLOGY must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with full reference at the end of the 

paper under “References.”

IN-TEXT REFERENCES should be used rather than bibliographic notes and should follow the author-date system in the 

following format: “(author last name, year)” or “. . . author 

(year)”; “(author, year:page used within the text)” or “. . . 

author (year:page).” A full citation should be included in a 

“References” section.

ENDNOTES are to be used in lieu of footnotes and should 

be keyed manually into a separate MS Word file, in a section titled “Notes”. Notes should not contain bibliographic 

information. Manually type superscript numerals in text and 

use full-sized numerals at the beginning of each note in the 

“Notes” section. SISP will determine the best placement of the 

notes section, either at the end of each chapter or at the end 

of the main text.

REFERENCES should be in alphabetical order, and in chronological order for same-author entries. Each reference should 

be cited at least once in main text. Complete bibliographic 

information must be included in all citations (e.g., author/editor, title, subtitle, edition, volume, issue, pages, figures). For 

books, place of publication and publisher are required. For 

journals, use the parentheses system for volume(number):pagination [e.g., “10(2):5–9”]. Do not use “et al.”; all authors/

editors should be included in reference citations. In titles, 

capitalize first word, last word, first word after colon, and all 

other words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. 

Examples of the most common types of citations are provided 

in the SISP Manuscript Preparation and Author Style Guide. 

For questions regarding the guidelines, please email SISP at 

schol.press@si.edu. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION