The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of The Iron Age

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY
OF THE IRON AGE

CULTURE AND HISTORY OF
THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
E D I T E D BY
B. HALPERN, M.H.E. WEIPPERT

TH. PJ. VAN DEN HOUT, I. WINTER
V O L U M E 13
THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY
OF THE IRON AGE
BY
NICOLA SCHREIBER
' 6 8^
BRILL
LEIDEN · BOSTON
2003
L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a
Schreiber, N i c o l a , 1971-
T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber.
p. c m . — ( C u l t u r e a n d history o f the ancient N e a r East; v. 13)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004128549
1. C y p r u s — A n t i q u i t i e s . 2. Pottery, Cypriote. 3. Pottery, A n c i e n t — C y p r u s .
I. Title. II. Series.
D S 5 4 . 3 .S34 2002
939'.37—dc21
2002033201
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e
Schreiber, N i c o l a :
T h e C y p r o - P h o e n i c i a n pottery o f the Iron A g e / by N i c o l a Schreiber. - Leiden ;
Boston : Brill, 2 0 0 2
(Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; Vol. 13)
ISBN 90-04-12854-9
ISSN 1566-2055
ISBN 9 0 0 4 12854 9
© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted

by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly
to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
P R I N T E D IN THF. N E T H E R L A N D S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures, Maps and Tables ix

Acknowledgements xviii
INTRODUCTION xix
Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery xxii
Aims and Methodology xxix
Chapter One: T H E INITIAL APPEARANCE OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY. 1

Definition 1
Earliest Appearances of BoR 5
Black-on-Red Antecedents? 10
Conclusions 19
Chapter Two: T H E DISTRIBUTION OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY

IN THE LEVANT AND THE N A T U R E OF ITS T R A D E 25
Methodology 27
Results 28
A Comment on Chronology 46
Phoenician Pottery and BoR 48
Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Imports 51
Deposition Contexts 54
The Popularity of BoR 56
The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open versus Closed Vessels 59
Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their Contents? 62
The Nature of Their Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in
Perfumed Oil 65
Uses and Types of Oils 67
Implications 72
Possible Routes of BoR Trade from Cyprus 73
Cargoes 74
Routes over the Sea 75
The Coast: Ports and Harbours 77
Routes Inland 78
Conclusions 80
Chapter Three: T H E CHRONOLOGY OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY. 83
SECTION I : THE 1 0 T H CENTURY

The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak 85
Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological
Context 88
Megiddo 92
Hazor. 103
Tell Ta'anach 113
Tel Michal 117
Tel Qiri 121
Beersheba 124
Beth-Shan 129
Tell el-Far'ah (N) 137
Tel Mevorakh 142
Tel 'Amal 146
Mt. Carmel 149
Tell Keisan 152
Tell el-Hammeh 154
Tel Halif 157
Tel Rehov 159
Tell Abu Hawam 160
Sarepta 163
Other 10th Century Sites 166
Conclusions 169
Cultic Contexts 170
Associated Pottery 173
Establishing 'Phase Γ of BoR 180
SECTION I I : THE 9 T H - 8TH CENTURIES

Megiddo 186
Hazor. 189
Ta'anach 195
Tel Michal 195
Tel Qiri 195
Beersheba 196
Beth-Shan 197
Tell el-Far'ah (N) 198
Tel Mevorakh 198
Tel 'Amal 199
Tell Keisan 196
Tell el-Hammeh 199
Lachish 201
Hurvat Rosh Zayit 201
Tel Kabri 202
Tell Kazel 204
Sarepta 205
Tyre 205
Tell Sukas 208
Hama 209
Other Sites 210
Conclusions 212
Chapter Four: T H E O R I G I N OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY 221

Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR 221
Post-Gjerstad - Reassessments 226
Post-Birmingham - Origin of BoR 230
Post-Birmingham - Chronology of Cyprus 232
The Scientific Contribution 234
'Deconstructing' Gjerstad 239
A: BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus 240
B: Gjerstad's Typology: Does it Fit on the Mainland? 249
BoR within Cyprus 253
Test-Case: Palaepaphos-Skales 255
Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus 259
'Non-Ceramic' Dating Evidence 269
Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation of the
Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland 271
The Origin and Development of BoR 273
"Imitation" BoR 277
Conclusions 280
Chapter Five: T H E LATER HISTORY OF B O R AND THE QUESTION OF

PHOENICIAN INVOLVEMENT IN ITS DISPERSAL TO THE W E S T 281
The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus 281
Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus 285
BoR in Rhodes 286
BoR in Cos 290
BoR in Crete 293
The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician
Involvement in BoR Trade to the West 299
CONCLUSION 307
Appendix I: Comparative Distribution Table of BoR Pottery on

the Mainland by Site and Phase 313
Appendix II: Cypriot Pottery Statistics 327
Appendix III: BoR Vessel Types: Chronological 'Phase' on
Mainland versus Gjerstad's Classification 331
Appendix IV: The Earliest Appearance of BoR pottery at
Palaepaphos-Skales: Proportions of BoR types versus
White Painted 341
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 361
INDEX 407
LIST O F FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Group of BoR juglets from Palaepaphos-

Skales 347
Figure 2:1 - BoR juglet from Lapithos tomb 417 (82) (Photo
courtesy of K. Kaiser) 348
2:2 - Selection of BoR pottery from Palaepaphos-Skales
(Photo by author) 348
Figure 3 BoR I(III) pottery according to Gjerstad's
classification (1948) 349
3:1 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV:9)
3:2 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 10)
3:4 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:3)
3:5 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1)
3:6 - BoR I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:2)
3:8 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV:9)
3:9 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 10)
3 : 1 0 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 16)
3:11 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 17)
3:14 - BoR I (III) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 12)
3 : 1 6 - B o R I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 18)
3:17 - BoR I (III) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVL2)
3:18 - BoR I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 11)
Figure 4: BoR I(IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's
4:1 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII: 1)
4:2 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIL2)
4:6 - BoR II (IV) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:7)
4:16 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:2)
4:17 - BoR II (IV) jar (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:5)
4:18 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:21)
4:19 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:7)
4:22 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII: 10)
Figure 5: BoR II (IV) pottery according to Gjerstad's
5: 1 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVIII:8)
5:2 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2)
5:3 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6)
5:4 - BoR II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 13)
5:5 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:9)
5:6 - BoR II (IV) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 10)
5:9 - BoR II (IV) flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 17)
5:10 - BoR II (IV) zoomorphic vessel (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XXXIX:20)
5:11 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic jug (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XXXIX: 15)
5:12 - BoR II (IV) anthropomorphic juglet (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XXXIX:21)
5:13 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:4)
5:14 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:1)
5:15 - BoR II (IV) amphoriskos (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XL:2)
5 : 1 6 - BoR II (IV) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 16)
Figure 6: BoR III(V) pottery according to Gjerstad's
6:1 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:1)
6:2 - BoR III (V) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:2)
6:3 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:11)
6:4 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:6)
6 : 6 - BoR III (V) juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:10)
6:7 - BoR III (V) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:9)
6:9 - BoR III (V) amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:13)
6:10 - BoR III (V) krater (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:5)
Figure 7: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the
mainland Levant 353
7:1 - Pyxis, Beersheba Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984,
Fig. 20:15)
7:2 - Pyxis, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinksi 1983,
PI. 143:5)
7:3 - Pyxis, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21)
7:4 - Bottle, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:22)
7:5 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983,
PI. 143:4)
7:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:21)
7:7 - Amphoriskos, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985,
Fig. 19:42)
7:8 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 22:1)
7:9 - Bowl, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 29:14)
Figure 8: Other Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the
mainland Levant (cont) 354
8:1 - Flask, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983,
PI. 159:7)
8:2 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 37:2)
8:3 - Flask, Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 20:13)
8:4 - Jug, Tel Masos Stratum II (Fritz & Kempinski 1983,
PI. 148:1)
8:5 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:8)
8:6 - Jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:14)
8:7 - Spouted jug, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985,
Fig. 35:3)
8:8 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 6 (Dothan 1971,
Fig. 74:15)
8:9 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971,
Fig. 41:26)
8:10 - 'Ashdod ware,' Ashdod Stratum 3b (Dothan 1971,
Fig. 41:22)
Figure 9: Phoenician pottery 355
9:1 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:24)
9:2 - Phoenician globular jug (Bikai 1987, PI. V:67)
9:3 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XV:395)
9:4 - Phoenician trefoil-lipped jug (Bikai 1987, PI. XIV:357)
9:5 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:161)
9:6 - Phoenician heavy-walled juglet (Bikai 1987, PI. X:162)
9:7 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug (Bikai 1987,
PI. XIII:298)
9:8 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:14)
9:9 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, Pl. XXIV: 12)
9:10 - 'Red Ware' flask (Bikai 1987, PI. 11:2)
9:11 - 'Red Ware'jug (Bikai 1987, PI. 111:21)
Figure 10: White Painted and Bichrome I pottery according
to Gjerstad's classification (1948) 356
10:1 - White Painted I bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 1:14)
10:8 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:12)
10:9 - White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:17)
10:10-White Painted I juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:1)
10:11 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 11:15)
10:12 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 10)
10:13 - White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 13)
10:14-White Painted I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:13)
10:15 - Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14)
10:16- Bichrome I jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 15)
10:17 - Bichrome I flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII:22)
10:18 - White Painted I spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. IV: 17)
10:19 - White Painted I bottle (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. V:6)
Figure 11: White Painted and Bichrome II pottery according
11:1 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII:8)
11:3 - White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 14)
11:5-White Painted II bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XII: 16)
11:6 - White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:7)
11:7 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:9)
1 1 : 8 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIV: 1)
11:9 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:8)
11:10-White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 11)
11:11 - White Painted II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 12)
11:12-White Painted II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 16)
11:13 - White Painted II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XIII: 21)
11:16- White Painted II amphora (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XIV:6)
11:17 - Bichrome II juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4)
11:18 - Bichrome II jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5)
11:19- Bichrome II spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:9)
Figure 12: White Painted and Bichrome III pottery according
12:1 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVIII: 10)
12:2 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:9)
12:3 - White Painted III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XVIII:4)
12:4 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:2)
12:5 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:3)
12:6 - White Painted III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:4)
12:7 - White Painted III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX: 10)
12:8 - White Painted III spouted juglet (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig.XIX: 15)
12:9 - White Painted III flask (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XIX:17)
12:10 - White Painted III amphora (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig.XX:5)
12:11 - Bichrome III bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.XXI: 10)
12:12 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII:9)
12:13 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 10)
12:14- Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 11)
1 2 : 1 6 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 13)
12:18 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXII: 14)
12:19 - Bichrome III jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII:2)
1 2 : 2 0 - Bichrome III juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIII: 1)
12:21 - Bichrome III amphora (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXIV: 1)
Figure 13:1 - Corinthian aryballos (Cook 1960, Pl. 10B) 359
13:2 - Cypriot Bichrome jug with ship motif (Hadjisavvas
1995, Figs. 5a, 5b)
13:3 - Map of wind routes in the eastern Mediterranean
(Murray 1995, Fig. 4)
13:4 - Terracotta equid from Rhodes,Ialysos Tomb 73
(Mountjoy 1993, Fig. 391)
Figure 14: Pottery Associated with 'Phase I' BoR 360
14:1 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII
(Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:11)
14:2 - One-handled cooking jug, Beersheba Stratum VII
(Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:13)
14:3 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository
(Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:3)
14:4 - One-handled cooking jug, Tel Halif tomb, repository
(Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:2)
14:5 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB
(Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:127)
14:6 - Black-burnished juglet, Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB
(Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 5:128)
14:7 - Black-burnished juglet, Tel Halif tomb, repository
(Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig.8:7)
14:8 - Plain red-slipped jug with ridged rim, Tel 'Amal
Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:7)
14:9 - Red-slipped jug with neck-ridge and thickened rim,
Tel Halif (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:7)
14:10-'Hippo'storage jar, Tel 'Amal Strata IV-III (Edelstein
& Levy 1972, Fig. 8:6)
14:11 - Spouted jar, Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy
1972, Fig. 11:1)
14:12-Spouted jar,Tel 'Amal Stratum IV (Edelstein & Levy
1972, Fig. 11:2)
14:13 - Red-slipped bowl, Tel Halif tomb, repository (Biran
& Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2)
& Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:1)
& Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:6)
Figure 15:1 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus 361
(Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:480)
15:2 - 'Cilician Black-on-Red' pottery, Tarsus
(Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 123:520)
(Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:349)
(Hanfmann 1963, Fig. 65:352)
15:5 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLL12)
15:6 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:7)
15:7 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:4)
15:8 - Bichrome Red I (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI: 14)
15:9 - Red Slip I (III) bowl (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVI: 16)
1 5 : 1 0 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XLIL5)
15:11 - Bichrome Red I (IV) spouted jug (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XLIL3)
1 5 : 1 2 - R e d Slip II (IV) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XLIII:6)
15:13 - Red Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL6)
1 5 : 1 4 - R e d Slip I (III) jug (Gjerstad 1948, XXVIL3)
Figure 16:1 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery, 362
Rhodes, Camiros Tomb XLV (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 151)
16:2 - Juglet influenced from Cypriot pottery,
Rhodes, Ialysos Tomb LI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 76)
16:3 - Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug, Rhodes,
Ialysos Tomb CXXXII (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 139)
16:4 - Juglet with 'spaghetti' decoration, Rhodes,
Ialysos Tomb LVI (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 93)
16:5 - Imitation BoR juglet with 'fugitive' slip, Cos,
Fadil Tomb III (Morricone 1978, Fig. 467)
16:6 - 'Hellenizing' handle-ridge juglet, Cos, Serraglio
Tomb 20 (Morricone 1978, Fig. 282)
16:7 - Bowl showing influence of Cypriot pottery,
'fugitive' slip, Cos, Serraglio Tomb 43 (Morricone 1978,
Fig. 468)
Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:58)
Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Fig. 2:64)
Knossos (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXVL69)
MAPS
Map 1: Distribution of BoR Pottery in the East Mediterranean 20
Map 2: Sites in the North-East Mediterranean and Cyprus 21
Map 3: Sites in the Southern Levant 22
Map 4: Sites west of Cyprus 23
Map 5: Distribution of BoR Juglets in the East Mediterranean 29
Map 6: Distribution of BoR Jugs in the East Mediterranean 32
Map 7: Distribution of BoR Bowls in the East Mediterranean 33
Map 8: Distribution of Early (Pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery on the
Mainland Levant 36
Map 9: Distribution of White Painted Juglets in the
East Mediterranean 40
Map 10: Distribution of White Painted Jugs in the
Map 11: Distribution of White Painted Bowls in the
Map 12: Distribution of Bichrome Juglets in the
Map 13: Distribution of Bichrome Jugs in the
Map 14: Distribution of Bichrome Bowls in the
Map 15: Distribution of Phoenician pottery in Context with BoR
in the Southern Levant 49
Map 16: Distribution of LB A Cypriot Pottery in the Levant 52
Map 17: Distribution of BoR Bowls in the Levant (detail) 60
Map 18: Distribution of BoR Juglets in the Levant (detail) 60
Map 19: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Pottery in the Levant 214
Map 20: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Pottery in the
Levant 215
Map 21: Distribution of 'Phase Γ BoR Juglets in the Levant 216
Map 22: Distribution of 'Phase 1 ' BoR Bowls in the Levant 217
Map 23: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Juglets in the Levant..218
Map 24: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Bowls in the Levant..219
Map 25: Sites in Cyprus 254
TABLES
Table A: Well-Stratified Reliable Loci for 'Phase 1 ' of
BoR Chronology 184
Table B: Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with
'Phase Γ BoR 185
Table C: Some Examples of BoR Tested with Gjerstad's
Characteristics 246
Table D: Gjerstad's Divisions of BoR Types 250
Table E: Chart Showing Relative Quantities of Vessel Types
and their Chronological Phases on the Mainland 252
Table F: The Early Tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales 257
Table G: Four Early Iron Age Tombs at Lapithos 261
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is based upon my DPhil thesis 'An Archaeological and

Historical Investigation into the "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery of the Iron
Age Levant,' Oxford 2000. The altered title reflects my view that this
study has important implications for a broader region than the Levant
alone. The use of the name 'Cypro-Phoenician' for the pottery is thus to
indicate this breadth of scope, rather than to serve as an alternative for
'Black-on-Red', which is to be preferred.
A number of people provided invaluable advice and support during the
writing of my thesis. I owe special gratitude to Roger Moorey, for his
wisdom, clear-sightedness and expert supervision. I would particularly
like to mention Vassos Karageorghis, Susan Sherratt, Nicolas Coldstream,
Robin Lane Fox, John Boardman, John Baines, Patricia Bikai, Judith
McKenzie, George Williamson and Eleanor Robson, and for
encouragement along the way, Jenny Morris, Gerald Cadogan, Peter Parr,
John Woodhead, Sy Gitin, Barry Gittlen, Nancy Serwint, Jeff Zorn, Aaron
Brody, Eric Lapp and Ezra Marcus. The following generously provided
me with access to unpublished material: Amihai Mazar, Eilat Mazar,
Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Gilboa, Gunnar Lehmann, Yardena Alexandre,
Annabelle Zaretsky, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Vassos Karageorghis, Pavlos
Flourentzos, Estelle Villeneuve de Montlivault, Karen Excel, Ian Carroll,
Kevin Kaiser, Sam Moorhead, and Claude Doumet.
I owe a great deal to Somerville College, Oxford, for the Katherine
and Leonard Woolley Travelling Fellowship which gave me the
chance to spend two years in Jerusalem during 1994 - 1996, and to the
W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, which was a
source of inspiration while I was there. I am also grateful to the Cyprus
American Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia for
exceptionally warm hospitality.
In all cases, I use the term 'the mainland' to refer to the Levantine
mainland, which for these purposes is taken as the south-eastern part
of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. For
clarity of reference, I use where possible the original site names
adopted by the excavators. Thus 'Tel' in Hebrew and 'Tell' in Arabic.
INTRODUCTION
Since the earliest excavations of the last century in Cyprus and the
Levant, scholars have noted the presence of a group of Iron Age wares
which stand alone amongst other ceramics of the period. Two
different terms are used to describe this pottery, one descriptive:
"Black-on-Red," the other cultural: "Cypro-Phoenician." The co-
existence of these terms illustrate on the one hand the distinctiveness
of this pottery and on the other the prevailing confusion about whence
it originally came.
The main characteristics of this pottery are the delicate forms in
which it is made and its striking geometric decoration. The 'classic'
forms of the pottery are single-handled neck-ridged juglets, with
flaring lips and flat bases, and large shallow or deep bowls with two
horizontal loop handles and flat base. The vessels are unusually fine
and made of well-levigated clay, slipped red or orange, usually
carefully burnished and painted with thin black horizontal lines,
bands and sets of small concentric circles. Some forms are peculiar to
the ware, such as the conical juglet with handle-ridge and flat base,
while other shapes, such as the krater, the barrel-juglet and many of
the bowl shapes, as well as some motifs found on the vessels, show
influence of other pottery types of the period. At its latest stages,
'Black-on-Red' ware becomes less easily distinguishable as a 'type'
from other finewares. Its motifs and decorative technique converge
with a range of other pottery forms, from White Painted (black paint
on a pale buff clay) to Bichrome (black and red paint on a pale buff
clay) and Bichrome Red (black and white paint on a red slipped clay).
'Black-on-Red' wares have generally been dated approximately
two centuries earlier in Palestine than in Cyprus, where it is regarded
as beginning in the late Cypro-Geometric period and flourishing in
the Cypro-Archaic period, ie 9th-7th centuries BC. In the southern
Levant it is seen as almost a trademark of 10th century BC 'early Iron
II' assemblages, possibly extending back into the 11th century and in
rare cases down into the 8th century BC. Its appearance in Phoenicia
has often been regarded as significant; limited excavations in this
region have tended towards later dates, close to those put forward for
Cyprus. The appearance of the pottery in fairly late Iron Age
contexts, at least until the 7th century, at sites in Cyprus and further
west in the Mediterranean is generally accepted, although much of
this pottery is believed to consist of local, and often fairly free,
imitations. Lastly, the pottery appears in much greater quantities in
Cyprus than in the Levant, where it has a broad distribution but
occurs in limited numbers.
The term 'Cypro-Phoenician,' although less current now than
earlier in the century, indicates general assumptions about the origin
of the pottery. On the basis of the prominent trading role held by
Cypriots and Phoenicians during the Iron Age, as well as the ceramic
affinities of this ware to local pottery types of these regions, its origin
has generally been assigned to one or other of the regions, or both.
The appearance of 'Black-on-Red' wares very often in contexts with
other decorated fine wares of the period - eg Cypriot White Painted or
Bichrome pottery - has led some to describe a "Phoenician and
Cypriote Mischkultur" in which a range of related wares might have
been traded together in the same commercial market (Koehl 1985,
24). One assumption arising from use of this term is that it is a
trademark ware of Phoenician commercial enterprise, particularly
connected with Phoenicians in Cyprus, or that it defines a particular
"Cypro-Phoenician" commercial network (Coldstream 1998, 258).
Confusingly, other finewares with similar distributions have
sometimes been included as "Cypro-Phoenician" wares for this
reason (Amiran 1969, 286).
The term has also been seen as characterising a particular period of
time: a "Cypro-Phoenician" period (eg du Plat Taylor 1959, 87); or
simply as synonymous with pre-Iron Age 'east Mediterranean'
pottery (eg Albright 1924, 16). Most recently, it has been suggested
that the term "Cypro-Phoenician" is appropriate to describe early Iron
Age Phoenician Bichrome pottery which has adopted aspects of
contemporary Cypriot decoration (Gilboa 1999, 12). In Palestine
particularly the use of the term "Cypro-Phoenician" has been found
convenient to cover what are regarded as the significant 'imported'
wares of the early Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 286). While it should
be noted that the term is not used in Cyprus, it remains a concept
entrenched in Palestinian Iron Age archaeology (Tufnell 1953, 297;
Birmingham 1963, 23; Stern 1978, 52, 62; Culican 1982, 55, 60, 61;
Koehl 1985, 25, 26, 48; Mazar 1985, 81; Bikai 1987, 2; Ben Tor &
Portugali 1987, 202; Tappy 1992, 129).
The history of this cultural terminology begins early in the last
century with J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter's Catalogue of
the Cyprus Museum of 1899. Myres defines the "Graeco-Phoenician
Age" as stretching "from the First Introduction of Iron, to the
Ptolemaic Conquest of Cyprus in 295 B.C... so named, because
throughout it Cyprus was the principal meeting-point of Greek
colonists and traders from the West, and of Phoenicians from the
East" (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, 21-22). This enormous
span of time included Iron Age Black-on-Red ware as well as late
Mycenaean-influenced Cypriot types (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter
1899, Pl. IV). In 1924, Albright published his excavations at Tell el-
Ful (Gibeah), where he describes "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery
concurrent with Aegean Late Bronze Age types and preceding
"Philistine" wares (Albright 1924, 16). Albright's use of the term here
appears to describe a general region of pottery production. He uses
the same terminology in his subsequent Tell Beit Mirsim publication
of 1932, but there he also distinguishes a "Cypro-Phoenician" form
"of the Iron Age type" which he dates to the 11th century BC (Albright
1932, 54-55, 61). It is from this point it seems that the term "Cypro-
Phoenician" for the Iron Age Black-on-Red ceramic, particularly the
small 'perfume'juglet, enters Palestinian archaeology.
In 1948, Gjerstad published Volume IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus
Expedition report, in which he set out a typology for the 'Black-on-
Red' pottery of Cyprus, following Furumark's definition (Furumark
1941, 127). The ware he described corresponded to the Black-on-Red
decorated pottery found on the mainland. His typological
classification, which included a survey of similar pottery found
outside Cyprus in the Levant and Anatolia, served as a basis for future
studies of the ware, and the term "Black-on-Red" has since been
widely accepted. Gjerstad's corresponding definitions are also used
for the related wares, White Painted, Cypriot Bichrome and Bichrome
Red (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73, 242-262). Problems remain with this
definition as local variants are identified - eg Culican's "Local Black-
on-Red" - and scholars attempt to distinguish between 'Cypriot' and
'non-Cypriot' versions of the pottery, following Gjerstad's division
(Gjerstad 1948, 270 n.l, 287; 1953, 23; Culican 1982, 55; see Chapter
Four). Bikai rightly points out the confusions inherent in this
'cluttering' of the class with "Cypriote, Phoenician and Syro-
Palestinian Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983,400 n.32). Currently a variety
of designations for this distinctive type of pottery are in use (Tappy
1992,129).
Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery
Few scholars, especially in the Levant, have published or referred to

Black-on-Red pottery without attempting to set out their
understanding of its origin and chronology. The result is a history of
debate on the subject, from the middle of the last century to the
present day, and increasing calls for scientific analysis to contribute
more conclusive evidence to the issue.1 The main arguments are set
out below.
In 1932, William Foxwell Albright began the debate with his
publication of the pottery from Tell Beit Mirsim, where he asserts that
"Cypro-Phoenician" pottery was found in context with Philistine
pottery (Albright 1932, 61-62, 72). He states that the "imported
Cypro-Phoenician perfume juglet... always occurs in EI I and early EI
II deposits in Palestine, and does not descend to a date later than the
ninth century... it is absolutely certain that Myres' date for Cyprian
specimens of the same category, cir. 700-500 BC is several centuries
too low" (Albright 1932, 72).
In 1938-1939, Elihu Grant and George Ernest Wright published
the early excavations at Beth-Shemesh. They dated Stratum III at the
site to the 12th-mid-l 1th century BC, and stated that a "Cypriote"
juglet (decorated in Black-on-Red) found in this level "is one of the
few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in the 11th
century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). They further note that this
vessel is comparable to pottery appearing in Cyprus "in the early part
of Cypro-Geometric I" and accept Albright's lower limit of the 9th
century for this ware, though they suggest "it was probably used later
than this date in Cyprus" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133).
In 1948, Einar Gjerstad included Black-on-Red pottery in Volume
IV:2 of his Swedish Cyprus Expedition publication. He suggested that
it developed in Cyprus from a non-Cypriot prototype that had been
1
The two best summaries of the history of this debate on Black-on-Red pottery
are Tappy 1992, 126-132 and Brodie & Steel 1996, 263-264.
imported simultaneously to Cyprus and Palestine from a "third
region" which was probably Syro-Anatolia (Gjerstad 1948, 288, 314,
435; 1953, 24). From its first appearance in Cyprus in Cypro-
Geometric IA, c. 1050-950 BC, until the beginning of Cypro-
Geometric III, c. 850 BC, Gjerstad regards this ware as a foreign
import (Gjerstad 1944, 99; 1953, 23, 24). The pottery type then
continued as a locally made (and exported) type from Cypro-
Geometric III until Cypro-Archaic IIB (Gjerstad 1948, 314). Gjerstad
links the development of Black-on-Red pottery with an immigrating
people: "From [CG III], the Black-on-Red and Red Slip wares are
Cypriote, and represent in shape and decoration a combination of
Cypriote and Syrian elements of art... The influence of this pottery
extends even to the earlier White Painted and Bichrome wares, so that
an entirely new Cypriote art of pottery is formed, characterized by an
artistic unification of the foreign and Cypriote elements and
indicating an immigration of Syrian tribes to Cyprus at this date"
(Gjerstad 1948, 314-315).
In 1951, G us Van Beek challenged Gjerstad's chronology, claiming
that as this chronology for the Cypriot Iron Age is based on finds of
Cypriot pottery in Palestine it is no basis from which to argue against
the Palestinian dates assigned to that pottery. He restates Albright's
position and claims that "on the basis of the Palestinian evidence...
Black-on-Red I must go back to before c. 1025 BC in Cyprus and
perhaps before 1050 BC" (Van Beek 1951, 28). He also disputes
Gjerstad's denial of the Cypriot origin of the pottery pointing out that
it is much more abundant on Cyprus than in any other region, and
argues that there is no basis for the Syro-Anatolian migration
proposed by Gjerstad (Van Beek 1951, 27).
In 1953, Albright published a correspondence with Gjerstad on the
chronological discrepancy noted between the ware at Palestinian sites
and on Cyprus. Gjerstad reiterates his view that Black-on-Red occurs
early in Palestine at the same time as its sporadic appearance in
Cyprus, from Cypro-Geometric I, datable c. 1050-950 BC, but that it
is manufactured on Cyprus only from Cypro-Geometric III, c. 850-
700 BC. Gjerstad states that the challenge to his Cypriot dates
suggested by the apparent occurrences of Cypriot Black-on-Red in
pre-9th century sites in Palestine, can only stand if the material in
question is proven to be Cypriot in origin (Albright 1953, 25-26). This
he suggests remains in question.
In 1958, Gustavus Swift published the pottery of the 'Amuq
sequence in Syria. He re-examined the problems of chronology
associated with the Cypriot pottery found in the 'Amuq sites (Tell
Tayinat, Tell el-Judeidah and Chatal Hiiyiik) and questioned
Gjerstad's claim that the pottery began as a mainland phenomenon
before its manufacture was transferred to Cyprus. Swift proposed that
the ware was Cypriot in origin, and that Van Beek's high Palestinian
dates for Black-on-Red pottery should be lowered and the Cypriot
dates raised slightly. He suggests, however, that Gjerstad's view that
the pottery was "not made in Cyprus before the ninth century" was
probably correct (Swift 1958, 159-161).
In 1959, Joan du Plat Taylor re-evaluated the dating of the early
levels at the site of Al Mina, at the mouth of the Orontes, in the light
of the Cypriot pottery found in them. Woolley had dated Level VIII at
the site to c. 700-675 BC (Woolley 1938, 1-30). Du Plat Taylor
concludes that Black-on-Red should be subsumed under the group of
"Phoenician" wares originating on the southern Phoenician coast and
spreading from there to Cyprus (du Plat Taylor 1959, 88). She notes
that the Black-on-Red pottery at Al Mina exhibits "at least four
classes of fabric, of which the later Slip wares from Levels VII-VI
most nearly approach the Cypriot types;" the disappearance of Black-
on-Red wares after Level VI indicates that "the Cypro-Phoenician
period lasted from the mid-ninth century until the Assyrian invasion
in the last half of the eighth" (du Plat Taylor 1959, 75, 77, 87)
In 1963, Judy Birmingham reiterated Van Beek's views that Black-
on-Red in Cyprus should be dated early, from the 10th century, to
correlate with the material in Palestine, chiefly on the basis of the
existence of a "homogenous Cypro-Levantine cultural province"
during this period. She states that this ware continues in use on the
mainland "throughout the ninth... ending in most regions by the end
of the eighth" and that its date in Cyprus should be adjusted
accordingly, "with late advanced forms only surviving into the
seventh." Apart from the later stages of the ware, when it was "widely
copied in a variety of Cypriot fabrics," it was a "coastal Phoenician"
product, exported to neighbouring areas from the 11th century
onwards and "increasing rapidly with the Phoenician 10th century
expansion" (Birmingham 1963, 24, 25, 32, 36).
In 1963, George Hanfmann published the Iron Age pottery from
Tarsus in Cilicia, and distinguished two types of Black-on-Red:
imported and local Cilician, the latter found in kilns at the site.
Hanfmann dates 'imported' Black-on-Red, which he suggests has
little relation to the local product, to the 11th century and considers
"that these small perfume flasks were originated by Phoenicians,
perhaps as early as 1100 BC and spread abroad by the Phoenician
trade" (Hanfmann 1963, 57). He believes that the appearance of the
concentric circle style represents a general change in pottery style at
the beginning of the Iron Age, which was adopted earlier in Cilicia
than in Cyprus (Hanfmann 1963, 111).
In 1968, Frieda Vandenabeele published a discussion of the
pottery from Amathus in Cyprus, and proposed a Phoenician origin
for Black-on-Red ware, introduced to Cyprus through Phoenician
"transactions commerciales" (Vandenabeele 1968, 110). She
observed in particular that the burnished examples of Black-on-Red
pottery found in Cyprus were specifically Phoenician (Vandenabeele
1968, 111).
In 1969, Ruth Amiran, in a broad survey of early pottery in
Palestine, stated that current knowledge was insufficient to assign
Black-on-Red or any other of the "Cypro-Phoenician" wares an origin
"along the coasts of Cilicia, Phoenicia, Israel and Cyprus, where
highly developed cultures flourished in the Iron Age," but that the
evidence suggested that "this kind of pottery was foreign to the
Judaean and Israelite ceramic repertoire and that it was imported from
abroad" (Amiran 1969, 286). She notes an increase of this pottery,
especially Gjerstad's categories of "Black-on-Red I-II," in the
Palestinian chronological periods Iron II Α-B and a decline in Iron II
C (c. 800 BC) (Amiran 1969, 286).
In 1972, Susan Chapman, publishing pottery from four cemeteries in
Syria and South Lebanon, stated that the ware was "unlikely to have
originated from the area around Tyre and Sidon" where few examples
were found. She observes that it "possibly dates back to the tenth century
but the bulk of the material must come from the ninth and eighth
centuries" (Chapman 1972, 181-182). She also notes the occurrence of
a similar pottery type in the area, perhaps a local imitation, which she
calls "Local Black-on-Red" (Chapman 1972, 140, 182).
Also in 1972, Moshe Prausnitz published an article on a selection
of pottery from the Phoenician cemetery site of Achziv. He argues for
the presence of a "proto black-on-red" group that is related to the
appearance on the mainland of red-slipped pottery, and from which
the Black-on-Red pottery found in Cyprus develops, but the
discussion of the relevant wares and their relationships is brief and
unclear (Prausnitz 1972, 156).
In 1978, Ephraim Stern published the imported wares found at Tel
Mevorakh in some detail, using finds from other Levantine sites to
construct a typology of Black-on-Red pottery. He notes regional
variations in the forms, and suggests a date range of 10th to 8th
centuries BC for the ware on the mainland. In particular, Stern notes that
the neck-ridged juglet is "an almost constant component of tenth
century tomb assemblages" (Stern 1978, 55). In conjunction with the
scientific project of Joseph Yellin and Issac Perlman (1978), he
concludes that the origin of the pottery is uncertain, but that it was
probably linked with the Phoenician expansion and that there were
likely "several contemporary places of manufacture" (Stern 1978, 62).
In her studies of Phoenician pottery in Cyprus and in her
publication of the Tyre pottery, in 1978, 1983 and 1987, Patricia
Bikai attempted to redefine Black-on-Red as an exclusively Cypriot
product, distinct from the similarly decorated mainland ware (Bikai
1983, 400 n. 32). Bikai suggests that "true Cypriot Black-on-Red"
may have developed from a heterogeneous pottery type she terms
"Red Ware," which is found in Cyprus. This shows elements of
mainland (ie Phoenician/Canaanite) manufacture but also a "thin
black-line decor... that points to the later development of Cypriote
Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 400-402). Bikai views all examples of
the 'Cypriot' type of Black-on-Red, even when occurring on the
mainland, as late, around the 8th century BC, with a relatively short
time span (Bikai, pers. comm.).
Neutron Activation Analyses were conducted on four samples of
Black-on-Red ware from Strata II, V and IX at Tyre and published as
an appendix alongside Bikai's study (Bieber 1978). These samples
showed a compositional similarity to two sherds of Black-on-Red
found in Cyprus, but on the basis of "an overall compositional
dissimilarity of this group to the other Cypriot groups and its very
general similarity to groups of specimens from Palestine," the author
suggests that "this group may be of Syro-Palestinian origin" (Bieber
1978, 88).
In 1982, William Culican, in a review of Phoenician pottery, stated
that "origins of Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red are uncertain,
though a growing body of opinion supports, on circumstantial
evidence, an origin in Phoenicia" (Culican 1982, 61). Culican defines
two 'traditions' of Black-on-Red found on the mainland, "Local" and
"Cypro-Phoenician," the former datable from the 12th to 9th
centuries, the latter beginning before the end of this period and
continuing to c. 700 BC (Culican 1982, 55-70).
In 1985, Amihai Mazar, publishing the few fragments of Black-on-
Red pottery from Tell Qasile, stated that "most of the juglets and
bowls of this ware were found in 10th century BC contexts" and in
Cyprus they continue "in smaller numbers" until the 7th century
(Mazar 1985, 82). "[TJhe origin of the group remains a mystery.
Could it have originated in the Acre Plain and the Carmel region? In
any case it must be Levantine in origin, passing to Cyprus with the
massive Phoenician immigration there during the 10th century BC, as
suggested by Birmingham. The continuation of production of Black
on Red ware in Cyprus later than the 10th century BC was the result
of this massive Phoenician colonisation" (Mazar 1985, 82 n.220).
Mazar further notes: "the relationship between the technique of black
decoration on red slip and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Black-
on-Red group should be considered. It might be argued that the
former technique is the predecessor which led to the development of
the distinctive Black-on-Red technique, probably somewhere along
the Phoenician littoral" (Mazar 1985, 84).
In 1987, Melvin Hunt in his discussion of the Tel Qiri pottery
(published by Amnon Ben-Tor and Yuval Portugali) concludes "it is
clear, given the NAA results from Mevorakh, that separate sources for
Cypro-Phoenician and Black-on-Red wares are very unlikely. It
seems that the basic chronologies of many sites in one culture or
another are off by at least a century. The preponderance of the
evidence supplied by Birmingham and van Beek demonstrates that
the dates from Palestine are to be preferred" (Hunt 1987, 202).
In 1992, Ron Tappy re-examined Kenyon's stratigraphy and
chronology of Israelite Samaria, and reviewed the chronology and origin
of Black-on-Red pottery which he believed she had misinterpreted
(Tappy 1992, 126-132). Tappy restates Mazar's claims for an Israelite
origin for this pottery and confirms the 10th century date for the bulk of
the pottery put forward by Levantine archaeologists (Tappy 1992, 129
n. 120, 131 ). "The current trend is to view the B-o-R ware as representing
a single class of vessel and to direct research to clarifying its place of
origin" (Tappy 1992, 127 n.l 14).
Scientific analyses of Black-on-Red have been limited (see
Chapter Four, 234-239) for further discussion). In 1978, Joseph Yellin
and Issac Perlman conducted Neutron Activation Analyses on a
selection of sherds from Tel Mevorakh, comparing them to Black-on-
Red pottery from three sites in Cyprus. Their results were
inconclusive; the pottery from Mevorakh showed similarities to
Cypriot wares, but required the blending of various local Cypriot
ceramics to gain sufficient correspondence (Yellin & Perlman 1978,
89-90). Also in 1978, Alan Bieber analysed four Black-on-Red sherds
from Tyre, but with inconclusive results (see above) (Bieber 1978, 88-
90). In 1983, J. Matthers, D J. Liddy, G.W.A. Newton, V.J. Robinson
and H. Al-Tawel conducted further Neutron Activation Analyses with
cluster analysis on Black-on-Red pottery, taking samples from
Cyprus, Syria and Palestine. The results were interpreted as indicating
several areas of manufacture, including the import of Cypriot wares
to Al Mina in Syria, as well as possible different periods of
importation between the groups (Matthers et al. 1983, 378-379).
In 1996, Neil Brodie and Louise Steel published another
archaeometric study of Black-on-Red. This discounts the previous
scientific studies on the grounds of their poor sampling range, use of
material of unknown provenance, and misleading choice of elements
for definition (Brodie & Steel 1996, 271). Using Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry, Brodie and Steel examine material from Cyprus,
modern Turkey (Al Mina), and sites in Palestine, using both Black-
on-Red and local wares as control groups, and conclude that all the
pottery was of Cypriot origin. The authors note the presence of two
apparent fabric distinctions and draw tentative conclusions about the
production and distribution of the wares, attempting to correlate the
results of the analysis with Phoenician involvement and settlement on
the island in the Iron Age (Brodie & Steel 1996, 274-5).
In the Aegean, the appearance of Black-on-Red pottery in the
Dodecanese islands and Crete has long been of interest to scholars in
indicating the eastward links of Dark Age and post-Dark Age Greece.
Research published over the last thirty years by Nicolas Coldstream
proposes that Black-on-Red ware is likely to be a product of Cyprus
but manufactured under Phoenician influence, especially at Kition
from where the Phoenicians exported it (Coldstream 1969, 1982,
1984, 1998). Coldstream views the initial appearance of Black-on-
Red ware on Rhodes, Cos and Crete as due to Phoenician commerce
with these islands, exploiting a lucrative "unguent trade" (Coldstream
1998, 260). He further suggests that the initial development of the
pottery type may have been "influenced by a heavier and coarser
Black-on-Red fabric evolved earlier in the southernmost reaches of
the Phoenician homeland" (Coldstream 1998, 258).
Aims and Methodology
The implications of the origin and chronology of Black-on-Red

pottery are wide-ranging and particularly pertinent to current
controversies over Iron Age Levantine chronologies, as well as trade
relations in the East Mediterranean during this period. The pottery is
distinctive, widely distributed and found in tomb and settlement
contexts. Geographically it appears as far west as Crete and the
Dodecanese islands, in the Egyptian Delta, Anatolia and in inland
Syria as well as throughout the Levant and Cyprus. As is clear from
the survey above, past studies of this material have been
contradictory, inconclusive and limited in scope and have suffered
from the relative regional isolation in which the material has been
considered.
This book resolves the questions of origin and dating of the
material by:
• Establishing geographical distribution with association and
context.
• Establishing a chronology on the basis of key archaeological
sites on the mainland.
• Investigating the appearance of the ware in Cyprus.
• Assessing current scientific data relating to origin.
The book also assesses the nature of trade in the ware, its latest
stage of production and distribution in the Mediterranean, and its
possible implications for the role of the traditional main 'players' in
the East Mediterranean, Cyprus and Phoenicia. Chapter One assesses
the initial appearance of Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland;
Chapter Two assesses the distribution of the pottery on the mainland
and its implications; Chapters Three and Four investigate the chief
issues of the chronology and origin of the pottery, and, finally,
Chapter Five examines its later history and appearance in the west.
A database of Black-on-Red pottery has been compiled. This
draws on published and unpublished material and includes sites in
Israel, Syria, Lebanon, modern Turkey, Cyprus, Crete and the
Dodecanese islands. Where possible the pottery was examined
directly. The database is used in assessment of the geographical
distribution of the pottery. The chronology of the ware is investigated
through examination of the stratigraphical contexts of the pottery at
key sites in the Levant and its appearance in Cyprus. Appendix I
presents a modified version of the database, including sites from the
Levantine mainland. Related material, such as other Cypriot and
Phoenician decorated finewares, is investigated stratigraphically and
typologically and related to Black-on-Red.
CHAPTER O N E
THE INITIAL APPEARANCE OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY
As set out in the introduction to this book, the chief problems of

Black-on-Red pottery are those of its origin and chronology. This
chapter lays the foundations for subsequent investigation of these
issues by examining the background to the appearance of Black-on-
Red. First, in view of the prevailing confusion over definition of the
ware, the chapter defines Black-on-Red pottery as a specific type.
Second, it assesses the validity of claims for the earliest examples of
this ware at sites on the mainland and establishes a terminus post
quern for it. Third, the form, typological development and decoration
of Black-on-Red pottery is examined in the light of its initial
appearance and the vessel types which might plausibly be its
antecedents. The extent to which Black-on-Red pottery bears
similarities to Phoenician, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Cypriot pottery is also assessed.
Definition
Integral to the question of definition of the Black-on-Red group is

the establishment of a single type meaningful as a recognisable and
marketable commodity. This requires distinguishing the ware from
other similarly decorated types current in the same period, based on
a "diagnostic set of design characteristics" (Plog 1990, 63).
The existence of a number of so-called 'Black-on-Red' wares
has been noted in the preceding survey of past scholarship. Many
publications have attempted to borrow from each other in the
definition and description of these wares and to postulate the
relationships between them. While the pottery type often
designated 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red is, in fact, easily
recognisable on examination and has seldom been mistaken for
another ware, 'Black-on-Red' continues to be used as a broad
classification for a variety of potentially unrelated wares. The
apparent chronological priority of one 'group' of 'Black-on-Red'
wares to the 'Cypro-Phoenician' group has increased this confusion,
with serious chronological repercussions. One is often assumed to
be a forerunner of the other, with the consequent creation of an
"early "Black-on-Red"" group (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77), a
"Proto Black-on-Red" group (Prausnitz 1972, 156) and a class of
"Local Black-on-Red ware" which "has no immediately obvious
relation to the Cypro-Phoenician ware traditionally called Black-on-
Red" but "could be ancestral or an early parallel" (Culican 1982,
55). The confusion over nomenclature and the interchangeablity of
the term 'Black-on-Red' is evident in the publication of Tel Masos,
for example, where 'Ashdod ware' is called "a local variant of
"Black-on-Red"," and the general dating of this pottery type
confirmed by examples of an "early type of "Black on Red" ware"
(Fritz & Kempinski 1983, 77).
The potential confusion over 'Black-on-Red' pottery is due, first,
to the simplicity of this definition, and second, to the use of a
combination of colours on these wares that was basic to the
repertoire of the Levantine potter throughout the Bronze and Early
Iron Ages. Red and black concentric circles on the bodies of flasks
were a common decorative motif in the Late Bronze Age (Amiran
1969, PI. 51:11-15). Red burnished slip was generally rare in the
Late Bronze Age but occurs occasionally on chalices and goblets
(Amiran 1969, 134; PI. 40:7, 11, 13).
Beginning in the late Iron Age I period, however, red slipped and
burnished vessels began to appear throughout the Levant, from the
regions of Syria and Phoenicia in the north to southern Palestine
(Mazar 1985, 83-85; 1998, 373-377). By the Iron II period (10th
century onwards) other decorative wares such as Philistine
Bichrome pottery had disappeared and the burnished red slip
technique became the ceramic hallmark of the region (Mazar 1985,
83-84; 1998, 373-377; Holladay 1990). While the mode of
transmission of this technique throughout the Levant remains
uncertain, the attractive finish it produced clearly had widespread
appeal and its development in different regions is likely to have
been related to each another (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; Mazar 1998,
376-377). Mazar suggests that the earliest appearance of this
technique may have been in the region of Philistia in the southern
Levant (Mazar 1985, 45, 83-84; 1998, 376-377). It is likely to have
derived initially from attempts to imitate the surface appearance of
copper alloy vessels (cf. Vickers & Gill 1994, 141-144).
The application of black paint to the red slipped surface
developed naturally alongside the plain red slip technique. In 11th-
10th century strata at many sites in the southern Levant and in tomb
groups in Phoenicia, pottery occurs decorated with bands of black
paint on a red surface, either horizontal circumventing the body and
neck of a vessel, or as black spirals or concentric circles painted on
the interior of bowls (eg. Mazar 1985, 83-84, Figs. 18:18-21, 35: 2-
3, 41:8; Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157). The
relationship between these various black painted wares has not yet
been satisfactorily studied and is discussed briefly below. It is the
resemblance of this 'Black-on-Red' decorative style, however, to
that of 'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red that has been responsible
for the persistent confusions and lack of precise definition of
'Black-on-Red' pottery.
As noted above, one 'Black-on-Red' decorated type stands out
amongst these various similarly decorated types. For the purposes of
this book, Black-on-Red pottery is defined as the ware described in
Gjerstad's typology of 'Black-on-Red' ware in Cyprus (henceforward
BoR) (Gjerstad 1948, 68-73). The problematic aspects of Gjerstad's
typology, which was constructed for the pottery in Cyprus, are fully
examined in Chapter Four. For example, Gjerstad defined a separate
category of pottery, the 'non-Cypriot Black-on-Red,' which preceded
the pottery of Cypriot origin. This was not included in his typology.
The establishment of a single origin for both categories of the pottery
would require combining the two into a single group. Also requiring
investigation is the extent to which the stratified examples of the
pottery on the mainland correspond with the chronology proposed by
Gjerstad, in which BoR III (V) follows from II (IV) and I (III).
Nevertheless, the pottery type to be investigated in this book is that
described by Gjerstad. The following is therefore an abbreviated
version of the main characteristics of Gjerstad's BoR pottery. The
categories of "BoR I (III)" followed by "BoR II (IV)" represents the
location of these pottery types within the overall Cypriot Iron Age
pottery sequence. This is further explained in Chapter Four; the
divisions are included here simply to indicate Gjerstad's views on the
development of the pottery. Gjerstad's typology of BoR focuses on
the form and decoration of the wares and incorporates only the
briefest descriptions of their fabric. In general, however, the clay is
finely-levigated, with only very small either white or more commonly
black inclusions, thin-walled and well-fired. The black line
decoration, which sometimes fades to purple or brown, is always
carefully applied and the concentric circles are compass-drawn.
BoR I (III) (Figure 3)
Wheel-made; the clay is reddish-brown; the slip red or reddish-brown,

lustrous, or polished; on this slip the ornaments are painted in black,
mat colour... The decoration sometimes consists only of encircling
lines and bands. The jugs are frequently decorated with intersecting,
concentric lines, but isolated, concentric circles, which are placed
below the rim of the deep bowls and on the shoulder of the jars, jugs,
amphorae, and hydriae, are the most characteristic ornament. (Gjerstad
1948, 68-69).
The main forms belonging in this category are illustrated in Figure 3.

The most characteristic types found on the mainland are the deep or
shallow bowl with loop handles below the rim or bar handles at the
rim, the pedestalled bowl, the barrel-juglet, the handle-ridge juglet
and the trefoil-lipped globular-bodied jug (Gjerstad 1948, Figs.
XXIV-XXVI).
BoR II (IV) (Figures 4 & 5)
Wheel-made; the slip is usually lustrous, but never polished and

thinner than that of Black-on-Red I (III); the ornaments on the slip are
painted in black, mat colour... 1 The circle style of Black-on-Red I
(III) is further advanced in accordance with the development of the
circle style in White Painted and Bichrome IV: groups of circles border
the circular, intersecting lines: the circles are often connected into
vertical or horizontal rows; the outer circle-line is sometimes thicker
than the others; the latticed lozenge ornaments have developed into a
group of intersecting straight lines. (Gjerstad 1948, 70-71).
1
Note that Gjerstad's observation that this 'second' group of pottery is not
burnished ("polished") is not borne out by examination of a large range of this pottery
in Cyprus and on the mainland. Evidence of burnishing is present on the majority of
BoR pottery throughout the period of its occurrence; where it is not clearly present,
the slip is usually lustrous and may have been additionally polished with a cloth or
piece of leather. Rarely, and only on late examples of the ware, is the slip entirely
matt.
The main forms belonging in this category include the simple-rimmed
small bowl with no handles, deep and shallow bowls similar to those
appearing earlier and the bowl with carinated rim. Handle-ridge
juglets remain especially characteristic, and also in this category are
trefoil-lipped juglets, conical juglets and trefoil-lipped jugs (Gjerstad
1948, Figs. XXXVII-XL).
BoR III (V) (Figure 6)
W h e e l - m a d e ; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or nearly mat, often

dark-brown in c o l o u r . . . The decoration is chiefly executed in the
circle style, but the ornamental syntax is poor, and the main part of
the decoration of the red wares of Type V is in the bichrome
technique and is, therefore, found in Bichrome Red II (V). (Gjerstad
1948, 71-72).
Few of these late wares have been found on the mainland. The
tendency amongst the closed types is towards an increasingly
biconical shape or 'heavy' appearance. Bowls tend to be lower and
shallower versions of the earlier forms (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII).
Earliest Appearances of BoR
As seen in the survey of past scholarship on this pottery, an

appearance of BoR pottery in early Iron Age contexts at sites in
Palestine is at the crux of arguments concerning its origin. If this is
the case, either a mainland origin to the pottery must be accepted,
against the Cypriot claims, or a serious attempt is required to reassess
the low Cypriot chronology so that the period in which the pottery
appears on the island is contemporary with its occurrence on the
mainland.
Chapter Three examines comprehensively the chronology of BoR
pottery. Here it is instructive to provide a brief survey of the few early
contexts which are claimed to have produced BoR vessels in the 11th
century and examine their reliability (Van Beek 1951, 28). This analysis
also assesses the stratigraphical relationship of BoR pottery (as defined
above) to the other similarly decorated wares of the region.
The mainland sites for which an 11th century date for BoR has
been proposed are: Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2, Beth-Zur, Gezer
Tomb 59, Beth-Shemesh Stratum III, Beersheba Stratum VII and
Shiqmona (Van Beek 1951, 28; Albright 1932, 72; 1943, 9; Sellers
1933, 37, Fig. 31; Macalister 1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, PI.
LXXXIV; Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI:39, PI. LX:22; 1939,133;
Herzog 1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7; Elgavish 1993, 1373-1378).
Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2

The debate over the early appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland
began with Albright's publication of Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932,
72). The neck and rim of a BoR juglet was found in Silo 43, Locus 12B-
3, underneath a "stone on which was found a small, but characteristic
Philistine crater" (Albright 1943, 9; 1932, Fig. 31:43). A second,
complete BoR juglet was found in Room 22 B-4, next to this silo,
which Albright dates on the basis of the context of the juglet in the silo
(Albright 1932, 72, PI. 51:9; 1943, 9). These two loci belong to Stratum
B2; Albright places the end of this stratum at c. 1050, on the basis that
the BoR juglet "is not likely to be earlier than cir. 1050 BC" (Albright
1943, 9). A recent attempt to reassess the Iron Age strata at the site fails
to take account of the apparent juxtaposition of BoR and Philistine ware
in Silo 43, commenting that pottery in the silos is "of a rather
homogeneous nature" (Greenberg 1987, 61). The other vessels
published from Silo 43 are dated by Greenberg to the 11th century
(Greenberg 1987, 75). It is evident that Albright's dating of Silo 43 is
not only circular, based on an early date for BoR, but also that the lack
of real stratigraphy in the silos, as well as the early excavation and
publication of the site, render this early BoR context unreliable.
Beth-Zur
This site, located near Hebron, was published by Sellers in 1933. A
fragment of a possible BoR handle-ridge juglet is published in a
photograph of "Early Iron Age Forms" (Sellers 1933, 37, Fig. 31). It is
impossible to determine if this is a true BoR juglet, and difficult to see
on what basis Van Beek incorporates this vessel into his discussion of
11th century BoR pottery (Van Beek 1951, 28). This evidence is
therefore an inadequate basis on which to assess the date of this ware.
Gezer Tomb 59
A small fragment of a BoR juglet is published from Tomb 59 at Gezer
in association with early Iron Age and Philistine ware (Macalister
1912a, 330, Fig. 171:6; 1912b, Pl. LXXXIV). Although it is not clear
whether this tomb had been robbed, it was evidently in use over an
extended period with numerous re-interments. Remains of over thirty
skeletons were found and "bones and pottery were piled up in complete
disorder" (Macalister 1912a, 325). Pottery belonging to this tomb
included fragments of Philistine Bichrome pottery, spoon-mouthed
pilgrim flasks, basket-handled spouted jugs and an Iron II black-
burnished juglet (Macalister 1912a, Fig. 168; 1912b, PI. LXXXIV: 10,
20). The range of the pottery and the state of preservation of the tomb
render this context insufficient to provide an indication of date.
Beth-Shemesh Stratum 111

A fragment of a BoR juglet base and, less certain, a BoR rim are
assigned to Stratum III at this site (Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXL39, PI.
LX:22). A third fragment appears to be White Painted ware (Grant &
Wright 1938, PI. XXXVIIL3). The excavators date Stratum III at the site
to the 12-11th centuries BC and describe the juglet fragment Pl. LXL39
as "one of the few in Palestine which can be dated with confidence in
the 11th century" (Grant & Wright 1939, 133). The presence of BoR in
Stratum III would make it contemporary with Philistine ware which is
dominant in the stratum; other pottery includes wares generally datable
to the late Iron I period (eg. Grant & Wright 1938, Pl. LXI: 37, 31; 1939,
127). No other pottery, however, is published from Room 448 in which
the juglet fragment was found and there is no discussion of the loci of
any of these fragments. The stratigraphy of this site is generally too
imprecise to rely on this early BoR attribution.
Beersheba Stratum VII

An example of a BoR handle-ridge juglet is published from Stratum
VII at this site, from Locus 2307, a floor in Building 2309 (Herzog
1984, 20-22, 50, Pl. 24:7). The excavators suggest a date for this
stratum "in the late 11th - early 10th century BCE" on the basis of
ceramic parallels with Tel Masos Stratum II and Megiddo Stratum VI
(Herzog 1984, 51). Part of Building 2309, however, is noted by the
excavators as continuing in use in Stratum VI after the dismantling of
the Stratum VII house (Herzog 1984, 20). This suggests that the BoR
juglet may have belonged to the later, 10th century Stratum VI. The
stratigraphy of the Iron Age levels at Beersheba, including this
particular context, is fully discussed in Chapter Three.
Shiqmona
This site has not yet been fully published, but preliminary reports
indicate the presence of BoR pottery in the latest Iron I level: in a
house "probably destroyed in the eleventh century B.C.E." (Elgavish
1993, 1374). In the absence of full publication of this site this finding
must remain in question.
Discussion
These contexts therefore represent the earliest examples of BoR cited
from levels on the mainland. The excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth-
Zur, Gezer and Beth-Shemesh were conducted in the first part of the
century and the contexts of the pottery under consideration are
therefore of very limited reliability. No detailed plans of the settlement
loci are published and the Gezer tomb is too disturbed to provide a
satisfactory date. The context of the BoR juglet in Beersheba Stratum
VII is not wholly reliable because of re-use of the building in which it
was found and, while more reliable in terms of modern excavation
techniques, the overall dating scheme for the Iron Age levels at this site
is problematic. As noted, this is discussed further in Chapter Three, but
the excavators' transitional 11th-10th century BC date may be too early.
While Shiqmona may possibly provide evidence for an early
appearance of the ware, assessment of this site awaits full publication.
In considering the position of this early BoR pottery on the mainland,
three additional points are to be noted:
1. The absence of BoR in contexts prior to the 10th century at sites

where earlier levels are present and well preserved: 2
Hazor (BoR appears in Stratum XB, none in XI)

Megiddo (BoR in Stratum VA-IVB, none in Stratum VI)
Tell Keisan (BoR appears in Niv. 8, none in Niv. 9)
Tell Qasile (BoR in Stratum IX, none in Stratum X)
Ta'anach (BoR in Period IIB, none in Period IIA)
Beth-Shan (BoR in Lower Level V, none in Level VI)
Tell el-Far'ah (N) (BoR appears in Stratum Vllb, none in Vila)
2
For full discussion of the contexts of BoR and the Iron A g e stratigraphy at these
sites, see Chapter Three; for Tell Masos which is not included, see Fritz & Kempinski
1983, 80.
Tell Abu Hawam (BoR in Stratum III, none in IV)
Tel Masos (no BoR in Stratum II, dated late 11th-10th
century BC)
2. The presence of other Black-on-Red pottery types in strata

immediately preceding those in which BoR is present:
Tell Qasile (Stratum X)

Beersheba (Strata IX-VIII)
Red slip jugs decorated with black bands, pilgrim flasks and spoon-
mouthed flasks with black concentric circles on a red slip and
basket-handled strainer-spouted jugs with black bands are all
assigned to Stratum X at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 63-65, 71, 74;
Photo 63; Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 49:5-6, 50:2). At Beersheba, a red-
slipped black-painted basket-handled jug appears in Stratum IX, and
a red slipped pyxis decorated with black horizontal lines in Stratum
VIII (Herzog 1984, Figs. 19:7; 20:15). These pottery types will be
further examined below, but their appearance in levels preceding
those containing early BoR examples should be noted.
3. The presence of what may be an imported BoR juglet at Lapithos

in Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I.
Gjerstad describes this vessel, which appears in Tomb 417, as a "Red

Slip painted small, depressed oval jug with flat base; narrow neck with
handle-ridge; handle from neck to shoulder. Encircling lines round neck
and body; one group of concentric circles on shoulder. Mouth missing.
Foreign ware. Height 7.6. Inside no. 81 [WPI oval amphora]." (Gjerstad
1934, 230, No. 82, Pl. L). Recent photographs have confirmed that this
vessel is a BoR juglet (Figure 2:1). Gjerstad further comments that "all
the Cypriote pottery found in this tomb is exclusively of early Type I...
which shows that the tomb dates from the early part of Cypro-Geometric
I. The three specimens of foreign pottery are noteworthy" (Gjerstad
1934, 232). This context may, therefore, support an early production
date for BoR, on Gjerstad's dating of Cypro-Geometric I c. 1050-950 BC
(Gjerstad 1948,427). However, the problems of correlation between the
Cypriot and mainland chronologies remain to be investigated. This
vessel is also further discussed in Chapter Four (261).
Black-on-Red Antecedents?
As was seen in the introductory survey of scholarship on BoR

pottery, the question of the origin of the ware has been addressed
either in scientific terms, or on a quantitative or chronological basis.
Neutron Activation Analysis and other scientific methods have been
employed in attempting to pinpoint regions of production but the
results have been inconclusive (Yellin & Perlman 1978, Matthers et
al. 1983, Brodie & Steel 1996; see Chapter Four, 234-239). Both
other approaches have been unsatisfactory, with the quantitative
approach tending to support a Cypriot origin and the chronological
generally an origin on the mainland. Little research has yet been
conducted on the typological development of BoR, despite
recognition of its "Cypro-Phoenician" affinities and the possibility
of association with other similarly decorated forms (Mazar 1985,
84). While an increasing quantity of early 'Black-on-Red' decorated
wares published from the region of Phoenicia encourages
assessment of the relations between these pottery types, pottery
from Phoenicia generally comes from tomb groups, which are less
reliable than stratified sites (eg. Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The most
reliable 'Black-on-Red' decorated pottery, therefore, in terms of its
precedence to BoR is that found at stratified sites in the southern
Levant, and these are the focus of the discussion below.
The following questions are addressed here:
1. How can BoR proper be related typologically to these early

Black-on-Red types? Are there other forms from the preceding
period that may have influenced the earliest manufacture of the
BoR type?
2. Are there any Phoenician types that could be chronologically as

well as typologically significant?
3. How does the earliest BoR relate typologically to Late Cypriot and
early Cypro-Geometric forms?
Other Early Black-on-Red Pottery on the Mainland:

Black-on-Red decoration appears on a fairly narrow range of early
Iron I vessels. A single example of a pyxis decorated with red slip
and black horizontally painted lines was found in each of Tel
Masos Stratum II (Area H), Beersheba Stratum VIII, and Tell
Qasile Stratum XI (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:5; Herzog
1984, Fig. 20:15; Mazar 1985, 77, Fig. 27:21) (.Figure 7:1-3). This
pottery type, a fairly squat vessel carinated at the shoulder and near
the base and with either two lug or loop-handles, was originally
derived from a Mycenaean prototype (Amiran 1969, 277; PI. 96). It
was already imitated in the Late Bronze Age, and continued into
the Iron I period, occasionally decorated with painted bands. It
declined by the Iron II period (Amiran 1969, 277; Mazar 1985, 77).
At Beersheba, the Black-on-Red decorated pyxis appears in the
same locus (1306) in Stratum VIII as another red slipped but
undecorated, taller pyxis (Herzog 1984, Fig. 20:16). The excavator
notes the scarcity of painted vessels in the succeeding strata at the
site, VII and VI (in which BoR pottery appears) and that the
ceramic repertoire of Stratum VIII is more closely associated with
Stratum IX (the earliest Iron Age stratum) than with VII and VI
(Herzog 1984, 46). This suggests that this early Black-on-Red
decoration may be derivative of the early Iron Age ceramic
tradition (see below). At Tel Masos, the Black-on-Red decorated
pyxis appears in the same locus as a Black-on-Red decorated jug in
Stratum II: House 314, Room 307 (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI.
143:4) (Figure 7:5). The jug is not burnished, unlike the pyxis. The
Black-on-Red pyxis from Tell Qasile is the only vessel published
from the locus (302) in which it is found (Mazar 1985, Fig. 27:21).
However a variety of other Black-on-Red decorated vessels are
found in Stratum XI at Tell Qasile: a Black-on-Red decorated
bottle, which resembles an elongated pyxis (Figure 7:4), bowls
(Figure 7:8-9), an amphoriskos (Figure 7:7) and a fragmentary
vessel on three feet (Mazar 1985, Figs. 19:42, 22:1, 5, 29:14, 15,
30:22, 31:6). The form and decoration of the bowls and pyxis bear
similarities to local Philistine pottery found in the same stratum,
while the origin of the bottle shape is less certain. 3
Black-on-Red decoration also appears on pilgrim flasks in the
3
Note however that this bottle shape is paralleled by similar vessels in Cyprus
from Cypro-Geometric I, decorated in White Painted and Bichrome techniques, and
it may perhaps indicate a similar sphere of influence (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. V:5-6,
VIII: 23; Amiran 1969, 277).
Iron Age (Figure 8:1-3). This is again a Late Bronze Age shape
which continues into the Iron Age. Lentoid flasks with a black
painted concentric circle design on red slip are found at Tell Qasile
Stratum X, Ashdod Stratum X and Tel Masos Stratum II (Mazar
1985, 71, Fig. 37:2; Dothan 1971, 159; Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI.
159:7). In the earlier Stratum XI at Tell Qasile, an example of a
variation on this form with a spoon-mouthed rim and two loop
handles on the shoulder was found decorated in black concentric
circles on a red slip (Mazar 1985, 74, Photo 80; Fig. 20:13).
Amongst the other examples of this type from Iron I contexts
elsewhere, however, none have been found similarly decorated
(Mazar 1985, 74). A development from the original lentoid pilgrim
flask is the spherical or globular jug, which sometimes has one
handle only. This is also found in Iron I contexts, but only one
example is so far known decorated in Black-on-Red (Fritz &
Kempinski 1983, PI. 148:1) (Figure 8:4). These globular jugs are
generally not red slipped and are decorated instead in black or red
or a combination of the two colours. The 'Phoenician Bichrome'
version of this vessel becomes characteristic of the early Iron Age
Phoenician pottery repertoire (Mazar 1985, 74-76; Bikai 1987, 48).
Several examples of plain jugs with high neck and flat base have
also been found with red slip and black painted horizontal lines
(Figure 8:5). Three examples of this type are found at Tell Qasile
Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 41:8, 49:5-6). A number of similar jugs
in this stratum are decorated only in red slip, including one small
example with a faint neck ridge (Mazar 1985, Fig. 41:7, 49:7-8;
41:14) (Figure 8:6). A jug with a more pronounced neck ridge and
decorated with black horizontal bands on a burnished red slip was
found at Tel Masos in Stratum II (Area H) in context with the Black-
on-Red pyxis (noted above) (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 143:4). It
should be noted, however, that a ridged neck is rare on these Black-
on-Red decorated wares, while it is common on the Bichrome
decorated globular jugs from the same period which are characteristic
of the Phoenician repertoire (Chapman 1972, 150-152, Fig. 3; Bikai
1987, 48). Culican suggests that the jug from Tel Masos should be
related to his category of "Phoenician Local Black-on-Red ware"
(Culican 1982, 57; and see below).
Another early Black-on-Red type is the basket-handled strainer jug
(Figure 8:7). This shape, known as early as the Middle Bronze Age,
continues into the Iron Age, and is adopted into the Philistine
repertoire of shapes (Amiran 1969, 251; Mazar 1985, 64-65). At
Qasile, however, four examples are known of Black-on-Red versions
from Stratum X (Mazar 1985, Figs. 35:2-3, 36:1, 50:2). The first three
of these were found in the same locus (188) as almost identical jugs
with Philistine Bichrome decoration. A parallel example is found at
Beth-Shemesh Stratum III (Grant & Wright 1938, PI. LX:18).
It should, in addition, be noted that a variety of other Black-on-Red
decorated wares are known from levels on the mainland which are
contemporary or later than the initial appearance of BoR ware. These
are most likely developments from the earlier Black-on-Red wares, or
at least related to the same local pottery traditions, but the technique
is now applied to the range of forms common in the later period.
These later types include "Ashdod ware," which first appears in the
10th century Stratum X at Ashdod and continues throughout Iron Age
II at the site in a range of (non-Philistine) forms (Dothan 1971, 97-98,
Figs. 74:15; 41:22, 25-27; also Culican 1973, 98) {Figure 8:8-10).
Mazar notes the peculiarity of the appearance of this Black-on-Red
pottery at Ashdod at a point at which the early Black-on-Red
decorated wares had ceased at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985, 83-84). While
this is perhaps surprising, this regionality of the Black-on-Red
technique suggests that it is an organic development from the
introduction of red slip pottery, and it should caution against
attempting to relate the origin of BoR pottery to a single production
area of earlier Black-on-Red.
Phoenician Pottery
Belief in the Phoenician involvement in the development of BoR is
reflected in the designation "Cypro-Phoenician" for this pottery, as
has been discussed above. Lack of excavation in the area of
Phoenicia, modern Lebanon, however, and the consequent uncertain
chronology for Phoenician ware, which is largely typological and
based on tomb groups from this region, from Cyprus and from further
west, renders it particularly problematic in attempting to assess its
relationship to BoR (cf. Gal 1992, 185 n.9). Scholars of Phoenician
pottery have been reluctant to align the chronology of these wares
with any of the currently available Near Eastern chronologies for the
region, relying instead on internal pottery schemes (Culican 1982, 68;
Bikai 1987,48 n. 1,50-63).
In general, the shapes of Phoenician pottery bear little resemblance
to BoR shapes: the earliest phase of Phoenician pottery is represented
by the development of the globular neck-ridged jug which appears
predominantly with bichrome or polychrome decoration (Bikai 1987,
48) (Figure 9:1-2). Gradually, however, red slipped vessels become
more popular in the Phoenician repertoire. The most common of these
are the conical-necked jug with trefoil lip, the heavy-walled juglet and
later the mushroom-lipped jug which appears with both Bichrome and
Red Slip decoration (Bikai 1987, 49) (Figure 9:3-7). The heavy-
walled juglet with its flat base, handle from neck to shoulder, faint
neck ridge and everted rim (Figure 9:5-6) has in particular been
regarded as a significant shape in the development of the BoR juglet
(Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). None of these red-slipped types, however,
appear to precede the introduction of BoR pottery on the mainland
(although the earliest examples of trefoil-lipped jugs are probably
contemporary with the earliest BoR; see also Chapter Two, 48-51).
These vessels cannot therefore be viewed as precedents for BoR.
Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus, however, identifies
a type of Phoenician ware occurring in early contexts on Cyprus which
she designates "Red Ware" and suggests may be a possible predecessor
of BoR (Bikai 1983,400-404; 1987, 59-60). This ware is coarse and soft
with a thick, dark red slip and is hand-burnished, with painted decoration
in "fine black (and sometimes white) lines or circles" (Bikai 1983,401).
The forms in which the ware appears are lentoid pilgrim flasks, globular
flasks and large "dipper" juglets with trefoil rim (Bikai 1983,401; 1987,
5-6, 59-60, PI. Π: 2-4, 7-9, 10-12, 14, Pl. Ill: 21, 19) {Figure 9:8-11).
Bikai notes that only one globular jug with neck-ridge was found in this
ware type; this vessel also dates later than the other examples of this
type, to Cypro-Geometric II-III (Bikai 1987, 60, PI. XXV:20). The
earliest 'Red Ware' vessels in Cyprus are found in context with Late
Cypriot IIIB pottery but are more commonly found in Cypro-Geometric
I-II contexts (Bikai 1987, 59-60).
Both the pilgrim flask and the dipper juglet are common in the Iron
I period on the mainland, although the currently limited excavation in
Phoenicia precludes our assessment of early Iron Age wares in this
region (eg. Amiran 1969, PI. 93, 84:13-15). A limited number of
examples of 'Red Ware,' however, have been found in Phoenician
tombs on the mainland, probably belonging to early Iron Age contexts
and contemporary with the early Black-on-Red pottery in the south,
in the 11th century BC (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig. 29:157;
Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8). The forms in these tombs bear some
similarities to those found in the south-pilgrim flasks, a red-slipped
jug with black bands similar to that at Tel Masos and a strainer
spouted jug with single handle (Chapman 1972, 101, Fig. 15:277; Fig.
29:157; Doumet 1982, PI. XIV:8).
As at sites along the southern Levantine coast, Black-on-Red
decorated wares continue to appear in the region of Phoenicia in the
same period as BoR. Culican's group of "Local Black-on-Red Ware"
included Bikai's 'Red Ware' group amongst his early examples of
"Local Black-on-Red," but also examples of Black-on-Red decorated
"globular jugs with squared-off or rounded rims in the tradition of the
(usually smaller) bichrome flasks" (Culican 1982, 59). Culican dates
these latter until the mid-9th century (Culican 1982, 59, 68; Abb. 5a-
c). A number of other (unpublished) examples of Black-on-Red
decorated wares in forms that show interesting similarities in motifs to
BoR have been found in tombs at Tell er-Rachidiyeh and are
tentatively dated later than the 9th century (Doumet, pers. comm.).
'Red Ware' is further discussed in Chapter Four.
Late Cypriot and Early Cypro-Geometric Pottery

Although Late Cypriot pottery was frequently found on the mainland
during the Late Bronze Age, there is little in either the forms
themselves or their decoration to relate them to BoR. No Late Cypriot
pottery was decorated in Black-on-Red.
In the Cypro-Geometric period various forms later found on BoR
pottery begin to appear on decorated wares in Cyprus. Wide and
shallow bowls and the deeper bowl, with two horizontal handles
either at the rim or below it, are known in White Painted I ware
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. I) (Figure 10:1-5). These have bands of
horizontal dark paint around the bodies of the vessels, and painted
handles. The bowl on a raised foot also appears, decorated in the
typical White Painted metope design (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. II) (Figure
10:6-7). Jugs are either ovoid or more globular with a low foot and
pinched rim, or globular or barrel-shaped with "collar-shaped" rim. A
small neck ridge appears on one form of the latter and both types have
a single handle (Gjerstad 1948, Figs. 111:12-15, 17, IV:9-13) (Figure
10:8-9, 11-13). Examples of the basket-handled jug with spout and
low foot are also present in White Painted I as well as a "squat" juglet
with round base, flaring rim and handle from neck to shoulder
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 1, 15-18) {Figure 10:18,10). Bichrome I ware
(Figure 10:15) appears in similar shapes to White Painted I, with the
addition of a flat base on the globular jug (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.
VIII: 14, 15) (Figure 9:15). Also present in Bichrome I is a flask with
two handles and lentoid body with features of both the pilgrim flask
and the barrel juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 22) (Figure 10:17).
In White Painted II ware the bowls tend to have flatter, wider
bases; those with raised foot become a goblet-type shape (Gjerstad
1948, Fig. XII:7-16) (Figure 11:1-5). The barrel-shaped jugs now
have a flared rim and handle-ridge, "the collar-shaped mouth of the
White Painted I jugs having been elongated into a funnel, while the
rudiment of the collar has been transformed into a handle-ridge, from
which the handle runs down to the shoulder" (Gjerstad 1948, 52; Fig.
XIII:6-7) (Figure 11:6). Small globular juglets also appear without
handle-ridge but with flared rim, flat base and handle drawn from the
neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. ΧΙΠ: 11-12) (Figure 11:10-11). The footed
base of the pinched-rim jugs tends to be elongated and the basket-
handled jugs have a more pronounced ovoid body and footed base
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 17-21) (Figure 11:13-14). Bichrome II is
again similar to WP II in shape. Among the shapes only assigned to
Bichrome II are the globular juglet with flared rim and round base,
handle drawn from the neck (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:4), the oval jug
with ring base, handle-ridged mouth and flared rim (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XVI:5) and the strainer-spout jug with handle from shoulder to
neck, which appears for the first time at this stage (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.
XVI:9) (Figure 11:17-19). A trefoil-lipped jug with flat base and
handle from rim to shoulder also seems to be new at this time
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XVI:5).
White Painted III sees the introduction of the juglet with handle-
ridge which is "influenced from the Black-on-Red I (III) ware"
(Gjerstad 1948, 54; Fig. XIX:4) (Figure 12:6). A similar Black-on-
Red I (III) influence is noted in Bichrome III: the juglet with wide flat
base and small body (Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIIilO) (Figure
12:13). Another new type is the "sack-shaped jug...which seems to be
influenced from the Plain White jugs with a sack-shaped body"
(Gjerstad 1948, 61; Fig. XXIII:2) (Figure 12:19).
This general survey of the early Cypro-Geometric pottery types, as
classified by Gjerstad in his typology of 1948, suggests that there are
possible similarities between the shapes of BoR and earlier ceramic
shapes in the Cypriot repertoire. A crucial consideration, however, in
the use of Gjerstad's pottery typology in assessment of Cypriot traits
to be found in BoR, is his chronology for these pottery types. This
generally places White Painted and Bichrome I and II in the 11th-10th
centuries BC and fits BoR pottery into a scheme which puts its
introduction only at the later stages of these Cypriot wares, in group
III. Stratigraphical evidence from the mainland may suggest that BoR
is in fact appearing contemporaneously with these early decorated
types. The possible example of "foreign" BoR in a CG I context at
Lapithos in Cyprus should also be taken into account. These issues
are further examined in Chapters Three and Four.
Discussion
The relationship between the technique of black decoration on a red slip

and the origin of the Cypro-Phoenician Black-on-Red group should be
considered. It might be argued that the former technique is the
predecessor which led to the development of the distinctive Black-on-Red
technique, probably somewhere along the southern Phoenician littoral.
(Mazar 1985, 84)
It is clear from the survey above of early Black-on-Red decorated

pottery on the mainland, in the southern Levant and Philistia, and
further north in Phoenicia, that the shapes in which this Black-on-Red
pottery occurs bear little resemblance to BoR forms. A few BoR
forms, however, possess features also found on the earlier mainland
Black-on-Red pottery. These are:
1. The handle-ridge juglet, which is possibly the most common BoR

form to be found in early Iron II levels in Palestine, and is noted by
Gjerstad as a non-Cypriot type (Gjerstad 1948: 69, Figs. XXV:9-10,
Fig. XXXVIII: 9-10) (Figure 3:9). Gjerstad places the handle ridge
for the first time in his White Painted II category as a development of
the "collar-shaped" rim of the White Painted I style (Gjerstad 1948,
52). The essential features of this vessel type, however, also bear
similarities to the globular jug with neck-ridge which appears in early
Black-on-Red pottery on the mainland (Figure 7:5).
2. The bottle, which Gjerstad assigns to his BoR II (IV) category and
is similar in shape to the pilgrim flask (Gjerstad 1948: Fig.
XXXIX: 17) (Figure 5:9). The pilgrim flask occurs decorated in
mainland Black-on-Red style (Figure 8:1-3).
3. The elongated oval 'dipper' style vessel, which resembles the
typical Iron Age mainland dippers and the examples found decorated
in Bikai's 'Red Ware' (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV: 16) (Figure 3:10,
9:8-9).
In general, however, the forms in which BoR appears do not bear a

strong resemblance to the early Black-on-Red pottery on the
mainland. In the case of the Black-on-Red pottery along the southern
coastal region, in Philistia, the shapes and ornamentation of this
Black-on-Red ware follow closely the 'Philistine' tradition of
decorated wares. This pottery is perhaps best regarded as a local and
reasonably popular variant on the later styles of Philistine decoration
with which it is contemporary. It also appears from examination of
Bikai's 'Red Ware' that this pottery type is a Black-on-Red decorated
variant of local Phoenician pottery types in early Iron Age contexts.
Nevertheless, the presence of these Black-on-Red decorated
vessels in circulation in the period prior to the introduction of BoR
should be noted. It must remain a strong possibility that the
introduction of red slip, often burnished, to pottery on the mainland in
the Iron Age I period was the source of inspiration for the red slip
which characterises the later BoR pottery. It is also possible that the
combination of black paint on a red slip inspired the decoration of
BoR. In assessing the means of transmission of the Black-on-Red
decorative technique, the presence of examples of 'Red Ware' on
Cyprus should be noted, as well as the presence of BoR in levels
succeeding Black-on-Red decorated pottery on the mainland. The
transference of the decorative technique could therefore have taken
place in either location.
Also notable is the similarity between some BoR types and those
found in the earlier Cypriot pottery repertoire. Of the main BoR bowl
types, Gjerstad claims that four out of six are "of entirely Cypriote
tradition," while the two other types appear in the contemporary WP
III and Bichrome III wares (Gjerstad 1948, 69, Fig. XXV:2-3). This
may be of significance in assessing the means of diffusion of the BoR
style. Chapter Two examines the distribution of container versus non-
container vessels. The possibility that this apparent discrepancy
between the common forms of closed vessel, which bear some
similarities to mainland types, and open vessels, which are closer to
local Cypriot shapes, suggests that BoR was initially developed as a
ware for container vessels and developed in local Cypriot shapes once
they had been introduced to the island is considered there.
Conclusions
This chapter has assessed some of the outer parameters of BoR

pottery. It has investigated the apparently early contexts of BoR
pottery on the mainland, and established that there is no satisfactory
evidence with which to date this pottery to the 11th century BC. A
survey of the strata on the mainland in which the pottery first appears
suggests that a terminus post quem for this ware can be established in
terms of relative chronology. These strata are further investigated in
Chapter Three and an absolute chronology proposed. Finally, this
chapter has defined the pottery as distinct from other Black-on-Red
decorated wares and investigated the relationship of form and
decoration between the types. It seems likely that the early Black-on-
Red decorated wares on the mainland were local variations on the
local pottery repertoires of the coastal Levantine regions, and that the
similarity between these types and BoR essentially lies only in its
decorative combination. These issues are fully assessed in Chapter
Four which investigates the origin of BoR pottery.
s:
«5
-J
•s
s
ο
to
to
02
ί-
ο.
U
è
<n
§
CHAPTER TWO
THE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY IN THE

LEVANT AND THE NATURE OF ITS TRADE
This study, as with any involving the analysis of archaeological

material, is subject both to the vicissitudes of its original deposition and
to the naturally random element of excavation work. Thus it has certain
and obvious limitations. First, there is the question as to how far the
corpus of pottery studied at a site is representative of the range and
quantity of pottery originally in use in the stratum excavated. It is
impossible to estimate the percentage of surviving vessels from those
originally in circulation, especially outside burial contexts. In the
absence of preserved whole assemblages, such as those from the
storage areas of a shipwreck, we cannot be secure in our calculations of
the proportions of different vessel types in use. Burial contexts often
produce proportionately a far higher quota of pottery than settlement
contexts, which tends to inflate the prominence of the site concerned in
the overall pottery distribution pattern. Lastly, when a single stratum is
seldom completely exposed over a whole site, the number of vessels
preserved for the archaeologist from that stratum will be arbitrary.
Second, the study may be compromised by the research strategy
and the reliability of excavation techniques employed. The personal
goals of the excavator, particularly in older excavations, are often
selective, as at Al Mina where Leonard Woolley attempted to identify
a Greek colony and consequently gave disproportionate emphasis to
"Greek" material in his reports (Woolley 1938).1 Many of the
excavations in the Levant were conducted in the first half of the
century when there was inadequate control over the material and
therefore now little possibility of retrospective analysis of pottery loci
and context from the publications. Many more recently excavated
sites have not yet been published.
1
See Papadopoulos 1997 for discussion of 'Hellenocentric' views, particularly in
relation to Euboean enterprise.
Third, there is the nature of the pottery under investigation. In the
case of BoR, this is primarily the extent to which its high
"recognition-factor" may have influenced the proportions of this ware
recorded relative to local wares. There is also the possibility of
recurrent confusion between unpainted BoR sherds and sherds of Red
Slip or Bichrome Red pottery. The arbitrariness with which BoR
pottery is still being classified by excavators as 'Phoenician' or
'Cypriot' on account of persisting confusions over definition and
origin has been discussed in the Introduction and is one of the primary
reasons for undertaking the investigations in this book.
In addition to these factors, the pattern of excavation in the Levant
is unequal throughout the region. In Cyprus and Phoenicia most sites
are cemeteries or groups of tombs isolated from the settlement to
which they were originally attached. The only settlement sites so far
excavated from the period of Iron Age in Phoenicia proper are Tyre
and Sarepta, both of which were limited soundings. The sites are for
the present inaccessible. More recent excavations in Beirut, Sidon and
Tell Kazel further north may succeed in balancing the picture, but
excavation in Lebanon is presently hindered by political
circumstances. In Egypt, few sites have been excavated from the
Third Intermediate Period (21st to 25th Dynasties: 1070 - 665 B.C.)
and at fewer still has the pottery been fully published.
In Israel a far greater proportion of settlement sites have been
excavated and excavation is much denser throughout the country, in
large part because of the high international profile of the country's
Biblical history and consequent financial support for excavation from
within Israel and from interested parties abroad. Archaeological
techniques have advanced significantly over the past fifty years and
the modern political situation in Israel has been conducive to their
exploitation. While much of our knowledge of ancient Phoenicia and
Syria must therefore still rely on the results of early, poorly published
excavations, the results of recent investigations in Israel, which
include the re-excavation of old sites, have produced an impressive
databank for ceramic studies. Account must, therefore, be taken of
possible discrepancies in the archaeological record for some regions.
However, despite these discrepancies, analysis of the distribution of
BoR pottery in the Levant can provide some important clues to its
origin, to its date, to the nature of the trade itself and to the trade
networks through which it travelled.
Methodology
The chief issues investigated in this chapter, with the aid of distribution
maps, contribute, it is hoped, to resolution of the fundamental problems
of BoR pottery, its origin and date, which are fully examined in Chapters
Three and Four. In assessing the distribution patterns of this pottery, this
chapter also throws important light on the nature of trade in BoR. The
chapter is therefore divided into several parts.
First, the relative distribution patterns of BoR open and closed shapes
on the mainland (Israel, Phoenicia, Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt) are
assessed. This provides an indication of whether these types seemed to
have been traded together, perhaps as part of a 'set' of decorated pottery
for household use. Alternatively, differences in the distribution pattern of
these vessels might indicate that the juglets were container vessels,
transported and acquired with their contents, while the bowls, and
perhaps jugs, were used in a domestic context as "tableware."
Second, the distribution of BoR is compared to other distinctive
wares of the period, in order to elucidate the trade networks through
which it may have been distributed. White Painted and Bichrome
pottery are first examined, which have generally been accepted as
beginning at an earlier stage than BoR and might provide an indication
of whether BoR represented a continuation of trade in these wares.
Second, the extent to which BoR is associated with Phoenician pottery
is examined. Third, while essentially too broad a subject for
consideration here, a brief discussion of the general pattern of Late
Bronze Age Cypriot pottery distribution in the Levant is included in
order to determine whether BoR distribution shares any features with
this earlier trade in Cypriot wares. The sequence of appearance of BoR
juglets versus other BoR forms is also assessed in order to help
determine whether the BoR style developed for other vessel shapes as
a 'spin-off' from a lucrative established trade in the contents of the
juglets. Finally, the last part of this chapter discusses two chief aspects
of the distribution pattern of BoR in the light of the results attained in
this survey: first, the commodities possibly conveyed in the pottery,
and, second, the routes by which it may have travelled.
The Distribution Maps (1-24) relate to the issues outlined above.
The quantities of pottery in each case are based primarily on
published material, largely because of the inaccessibility of pottery
from unpublished excavations. Where possible, unpublished material
has been included and in all cases the BoR pottery from the sites in
this study has been examined. For this reason, however, the numbers
of each pottery type may be taken as a minimum. The following
survey is likely to be reasonably representative of the proportions of
pottery in each case, but it is hoped that future excavation will be able
to increase the present corpus. In the interests of the clarity of the text,
references to all the vessels included in this Chapter are listed
separately in Appendix I at the end of the book. Also, in view of the
extensive investigation into the stratification of BoR pottery in the
following Chapter Three, the stratification of BoR is discussed here
only where directly relevant to the argument. It should further be
noted that not all the strata included in the study below are equally
reliable. Appendix II presents some statistical results from this
distribution study.
Results
BoR Juglets (Map 5)

364 juglets (59% of the total amount of BoR pottery) were found from
the sites on the mainland investigated in this survey. In Israel, the dis-
tribution of BoR juglets is very widespread at early Iron II sites 2 and
reflects a significant level of contemporary use. The juglets appear in
relatively similar quantities throughout the region west of the Jordan,
ranging from one or two vessels to upwards of fifteen. In the south
they are found in the region of Judea and in the northern Negev, from
Tell ez-Zuweyid, Tell er-Reqeish, Tel Fara (S), Tell Jemmeh and Tell
el-Ajjul near the coast, to Tel Halif and Beersheba further inland. A
relatively large number are found in the tombs at Lachish and at Tell
en-Nasbeh, and small numbers at Beth-Shemesh, Jerusalem, Jericho
and Hebron.
BoR juglets are found in the Jordan Valley, at Beth-Shan, Pella,
and in the current excavations at Tel Rehov, but so far no further east
than the eastern shore of the Galilee, at 'Ein Gev. No BoR pottery has
yet been published from the Transjordan itself. Examples are also
found at Samaria and nearby Tell el-Farah (N).
2
This has been noted by numerous Israeli excavators, and is at the root of the
problem of its use in chronological assessment of strata at Israeli sites. See Stem
1978, 55.
In northern Israel, BoR juglets are found at almost all sites of the
period and in proportionally higher quantities than in the south of the
country. They are found especially around the Akko Bay area, at Mt.
Carmel, Tell Abu Hawam, Achziv, Tel Kabri, Tell Keisan and Hurvat
Rosh Zayit. They appear also further south along the coast at Tel
Mevorakh and Tel Dor, and at sites along the River Kishon: Yoqneam,
Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish. Further inland they appear at Ta'anach and
in relatively large quantities at Megiddo.
In Phoenicia proper, BoR juglets appear at Tyre, Sarepta, Byblos,
Beirut, and at a few inland cemetery sites - Joya, Qraye and Khirbet
Silm. Juglets are present in minimal quantities at some of the few sites
excavated along the northern coast, such as Tell Sukas, Ras Bassit and
Tabbat al-Hammam and in relatively larger quantities at Tell Kazel.
Excavation in this region is at present notably limited. The total quantity
of BoR pottery at Tell Kazel (23 vessels) suggests that future
excavations, for example those currently in progress at Sidon, may
uncover a more significant sample of pottery, but the present evidence
shows a limited distribution in this region.
In Syria, BoR juglets occur inland in the 'Amuq region, at Hama
and further east in the Yunus graves at Carchemish. A limited number
only of non-classical sites have been excavated in modern Turkey,
especially in the more inaccessible southern region of the country
closest to the Levant and directly opposite Cyprus (Mellaart 1955,
122).3 Al Mina, at the north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean
yielded a number of juglets, as also did nearby Kinet Hoyiik and Kilise
Tepe (unpublished) and Zinjirli. BoR juglets are also found at Tarsus. 4
In Egypt, BoR pottery is altogether rare. In part this is probably due
to haphazard excavation of the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (cf.
Weinstein 1998, 192). Little material from this period has been
published since Petrie's excavations at the turn of the century and the
subsequent survey of Cypriot pottery abroad by Gjerstad in 1948.
Archaeological excavation was also in its infancy when most of the
major sites were investigated, and BoR pottery is often published as
part of an "Aegean" repertoire intermixed with Late Bronze Age
3
Birmingham notes that the southern part of Anatolia generally s h o w s "little
contact with the Cilician-Cypriot zone," and no BoR pottery is found in this region
(Birmingham 1964, 33).
4
Pottery kilns found at Tarsus provide evidence of the production of imitation
BoR wares at the site, alongside the 'imported' wares. This phenomenon is examined
further in Chapter Four.
wares, and seldom presented in any detail. 5 Gjerstad notes that one
BoR juglet was found at Lahun, just south of the Fayum, one at
Sanam, one at Memphis and possibly two at Naukratis (Gjerstad
1948, 240-241). The only BoR pottery noted so far from beyond the
Delta is a possible BoR bowl at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt. 6 Late
Bronze Age importation of Cypriot pottery to Egypt is similarly
restricted: while Base Ring juglets appeared in some quantity,
especially at coastal sites such as Marsa Matruh (Hulin 1989, 120-
121), White Slip pottery is very rare, and both pottery types have a
restricted chronological range in Egypt (Prag 1985, 157, 159;
Bergoffen 1991, 69).
BoR Jugs (Map 6)

While the distribution of BoR jugs in Israel covers a range as broad
as that of BoR juglets, the quantities of this larger vessel type are
minimal (only 35 in total). A limited number of jugs appear at a few
southern sites in Israel, like Ashdod, Gezer and Tell Jemmeh. Four
coastal cemeteries have six jugs between them: Tell ez-Zuweyid, Tel
Mevorakh (the 'Israelite' Tomb 100) and Achziv. They are found
sporadically in northern Israel, at Hazor, Beth-Shan, Tel Rehov,
Hurvat Rosh Zayit and Megiddo, and two appear inland at 'Ein Gev.
In Phoenicia, two BoR jugs are reported at Sarepta and two at Tell
Kazel. One BoR jug is published from Al Mina and two from Tarsus,
and in Egypt, one BoR jug has been noted at Sanam.
BoR jugs are therefore significantly under-represented in BoR
vessel distribution: of total BoR pottery found on the mainland they
5
Eg. Petrie 1894, Pl. XXVII: 30. R.S. Merrillees observes that minimal quantities
of BoR pottery have been found in Egypt (Merrillees, pers. comm.).
6
Petrie 1894, Pl. X X V I L 3 0 . The "Aegean" pottery in which Petrie includes the
Cypriot wares at this site came largely from the rubbish heap outside Akhenaten's
palace, and the BoR is clearly not related to the period of the palace itself (Petrie
1894, 15-16; contra Montet 1928, 220). Gjerstad comments that no BoR was found
beyond the Delta, but note that he disregards what he believes to be 'non-Cypriot'
BoR: "It is easy to understand that this pottery was mistaken for Cypriot parallels,
and the corresponding Syro-Palestinian pottery was unknown at that time. The Syro-
Palestinian origin of the pottery has, however, now been recognized..." (Gjerstad
1948, 240, 242). The scarcity of BoR pottery in Egypt may be a reflection of the
position of Egypt vis-à-vis the East Mediterranean in the Iron A g e . Redford, for
example, notes a trend in Third Intermediate Period Egypt, aside from the expedition
of Shoshenq I (see Chapter Three), towards parochialism and a general reduction of
avenues of exchange with the Levant (Redford 1973, 14-16).
comprise only 6%. The pattern of distribution appears random. Jugs
appear to be totally absent from some sites with relatively large BoR
assemblages, such as Tell Keisan, and only one appears at Tell Abu
Hawam amongst 40 vessels.
BoR Bowls (Map 7)

The plotting of BoR bowls on the distribution map offers the most
interesting results. There is a noticeable clustering of bowls at sites
around the Carmel and Akko Plain region and an absence in the south-
ern Levant. BoR bowls are found at most sites in this northern coastal
region and the quantities are significant: 46 at the upper limit of a sin-
gle site (Tell Keisan), ranging down to 27 vessels at Tell Abu Hawam,
16 at Tel Kabri and 3 at Hurvat Rosh Zayit. South along the coast, 11
bowls appear at Tel Dor and 10 at Tel Mevorakh, but no bowls appear
further south than Tel Michal. Inland from Tel Michal, 7 bowls are
found at Tell el-Farah (N), and small numbers of bowls at Samaria,
Tel 'Amal and Tel Jezreel. Eighteen bowls are found at Megiddo and
11 at Hazor. The excavators of Yoqneam and Tel Qiri comment that
bowls are the most common BoR form at the two sites (Hunt 1987,
202). Fewer BoR bowls have so far been found in Phoenicia - 4 so far
at Sarepta, 1 at Tyre, 1 at Khalde and 1 in the recent excavations at
Beirut. 7 The 13 bowls at Tell Kazel suggest, however, that the limited
excavation in this region may be partly responsible. One BoR bowl is
found at Tarsus in Cilicia and one at Aspendos in Pamphylia. In total,
215 BoR bowls have been found at sites on the mainland, comprising
35% of all BoR pottery.
White Painted and Bichrome Pottery

This study also analysed the distribution of two pottery types that
have been claimed as indisputably Cypriot: White Painted and
Bichrome. Gjerstad's sequence of these pottery types in Cyprus
placed White Painted and Bichrome pottery before the introduction of
BoR. He noted:
The first group, White Painted and Bichrome, is the only decorated
pottery during Cypro-Geometric I and II. Of the second group, Black-on-
Red begins in Cypro-Geometric III (a few stray specimens at the end of
7
Koehl 1985, 4 9 notes particularly the limited number of BoR b o w l s in
Phoenicia.
Cypro-Geometric IIB disregarded), and Bichrome Red does not appear
before Cypro-Archaic IB. White Painted is commonest in Cypro-
Geometric I, and decreases gradually in number until Cypro-Archaic IIB
when it reaches a minimum, and continues in approximately the same
quantities during the Cypro-Classical period. Bichrome is rare in Cypro-
Geometric I, but then increases gradually in quantity, so that it becomes
more numerous than White Painted in the Cypro-Archaic period. In the
Cypro-Classical period, it suddenly falls off to a trifle. Black-on-Red
culminates in Cypro-Geometric HIB and Cypro-Archaic IA, ie, very soon
after its introduction. In Cypro-Archaic IB, it begins to decrease in
quantity, but is then supplemented by its sister ware, Bichrome Red,
which culminates in Cypro-Archaic IIB and Cypro-Classic IA. (Gjerstad
1948, 205-6)
This chapter therefore examines the appearance of White Painted

and Bichrome pottery on the mainland in terms of its chronological
span, its geographical range and its association with BoR. The early
White Painted and Bichrome pottery found on the mainland is
generally believed to represent the reestablishment of trade
connections between Cyprus and the Levant after the deterioration
of these relations at the end of the Late Bronze Age (eg. Mazar
1991, 95, 102-103). Although increasing studies are focusing on this
early stage of contact, as yet no thorough research has been
conducted on these wares and a number of the sites at which this
pottery appears are not well-stratified or published. 8 It should also
be noted that most examples of the pottery are highly fragmentary
and difficult to assess in terms of Gjerstad's typological sequence of
the wares. While the chronological and geographical distribution of
this early Cypriot pottery are therefore included here (see Map 8),
the issues arising from the distribution pattern are too broad to be
fully investigated in this book. (See, however, further comments in
the Conclusion.)
White Painted pottery begins to appear in the southern Levant in
the period generally succeeding that of 'Philistine' pottery. 9 It has a
broad geographical range from the northern coast inland to the
southern Shephelah, although the quantities of vessels found are not
large. The two most popular forms appear to be the barrel-juglet and
8
For the most important studies to date, see especially Gilboa ( 1989, 1998, 1999),
as well as general discussions by Mazar 1985, 81-82; 1991; 1994; Stern 1978, 57-62.
9
Although note that at Tell Qasile, a "last generation" of 'Philistine' pottery
continues into Stratum X, alongside the first appearance of White Painted pottery at
the site (Mazar 1985, 81, 87, 105).
ο All Early (Pre-BoR) Cypriot pottery Tell Abu
' Rivers
I 1-akes Tel
j 1 .and Tell Qasile
Ocean
Map 8: Distribution of Early (pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery in the Levant
the bowl (Mazar 1985, 81; Gilboa 1989, 216), and it seems that both
forms had a contemporaneous circulation, like the later BoR
vessels. Early Bichrome pottery is less common but has a similar
distribution.
Early White Painted Bowls

Of their earliest appearances, four White Painted bowls were found at
Tell Qasile X, one at Megiddo VIA, one at Tel Gerisa (unpublished),
one at Beth-Shemesh (Tomb 1) and one at Tel Fara (S) (Tomb 506).
Several White Painted bowls have been found in the (unpublished)
Phase 9/7 at Tel Dor, Areas Β and G. Three White Painted bowls were
found in Tyre Stratum XIII-1; two further fragments of White Painted
pottery in Strata XII and XI at Tyre and seven White Painted bowls
were found in Stratum X-2.
Early White Painted JugsUuglets
A number of White Painted barrel-juglets were found in cist tombs at
Achziv, one in a (possibly early) cist tomb at Tel Zeror, one at
Shiqmona, one in the Period II Citadel at Tell el-Ful, possibly one at
Tel Fara (S) and one in a silo at Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2. In the
north, early White Painted barrel juglets were found at Tell Sukas and
at Tell Darouk, south of Sukas and c. 17 km inland. Two White
Painted barrel-jugs were found at Tyre Stratum X-2 and fragments of
barrel jugs at Sarepta Substratum D-2.
Other early White Painted pottery includes a White Painted
amphoriskos from Tel Dor Phase 9/7, another example with basket-
handle from Ashdod X, a White Painted amphora from Sarepta
Stratum Ε and a krater from Tyre Stratum X-2. Fragmentary White
Painted pottery is found in Beth-Shan VI, possibly Tell Abu Hawam
IV and at the 'Amuq sites in the Phase Oa period. At Ras al-Bassit,
while the excavators mention examples of "Proto-White Painted et
CG I ou II, et III" from the site (Courbin 1986, 190), the earliest
White Painted pottery presented belongs to the later Iron Age. 10
Early Bichrome Pottery

A smaller quantity of early Bichrome pottery was found than of White
Painted wares. An early Bichrome II bowl was found in Tomb 221b
at Megiddo, a Bichrome barrel-juglet at Tyre Stratum XII and another
at Sarepta Substratum D-2, a Bichrome II bowl at Ras Bassit and
examples of Bichrome pottery in the 'Amuq sites in Phase Oa. An
apparently early Bichrome bowl found at Tel Dor was examined by
Neutron Activation Analysis and found to be of local (mainland)
origin (Yellin 1989, 223-227).
White Painted Pottery Contemporary with BoR (Maps 9-11 )

White Painted pottery continues in Iron II, alongside but in smaller
quantities than BoR (21% of all Cypriot pottery). It is present in the
earliest BoR levels on the mainland at Beth-Shemesh III, Hazor IX,
Megiddo VA-IVB, Tel Mevorakh VII, Tell Qasile IX-VIII, Tell Beit
Mirsim B2, Tell Far'ah (N) Vllb, Tyre XI and Yoqneam XIV. It con-
10
Bounni also notes at Ras Ibn Hani "abondants sont aussi les vases chypriotes
des styles Myc. IIIC2 ou proto-White Painted et chypro-Geométrique" (Bounni 1991,
110), but this pottery could not be traced in the publications o f the site.
tinues throughout the period of BoR, occurring in levels as late as
Hazor IV, Tell Keisan Niv. 4, Tel Kabri Area Ε Stratum 3b and 2," and
Tell Qiri VIIC, but in decreased quantities. It is noticeably absent at
Megiddo IV & III at Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vlld. 131 White Painted ves-
sels have been found in total on the mainland from the strata in which
BoR also occur.
Bichrome Pottery Contemporary with BoR (Maps J2-14)

Cypriot Bichrome pottery is also found throughout the period of BoR
on the mainland, with a similar distribution pattern to White Painted
pottery, but in still smaller quantities (8% of all Cypriot pottery). The
possibilities of confusion of this ware with Phoenician Bichrome are
higher than in the case of the other types, but the relative proportions
of Cypriot Bichrome to White Painted and BoR are probably
reasonably reflected in the record. Bichrome pottery is found in early
contexts with BoR at Beth-Shemesh III, Megiddo VA-IVB, Tel
Keisan Niv. 8, Tel Mevorakh VII and Tyre IX. It is present as late as
Tell Keisan Niv. 5, and Tyre III, but these are single examples; there
are no more than 69 Bichrome vessels from the mainland in total from
the strata in which BoR occurs.
The chronological range of White Painted and Bichrome pottery
therefore accords with Gjerstad's belief that the two pottery types
began earlier than BoR, continued alongside it and declined in
number in later Iron II. It is also clear from the quantities of
pottery retrieved on the mainland that BoR pottery exceeds White
Painted and Bichrome in popularity on the mainland from the
moment of its introduction. This has been a contributing factor to
the argument for a mainland origin for this pottery and is
considered further below.
Combined Appearances of the Wares

The geographical range, in terms of physical extent, of White Painted
and Bichrome pottery was examined and compared to that of BoR, in
order to assess whether they may have followed the same distribution
routes. White Painted and Bichrome both occur together with BoR in
the far north, at Al Mina and Carchemish, and in Phoenicia, at Tyre
11
Publication of the Iron A g e pottery from Tel Kabri Area Ε is in press.
(Lehman, forthcoming.)
and in tombs at Khirbet Silm and Qraye. In Israel both types occur
with BoR at Beth-Shan in the Jordan Valley, Megiddo, Tell Keisan, on
the coast from Tell Abu Hawam to Tel Mevorakh, Tel Dor and Tel
Michal, and as far south as Lachish, Tel Jemmeh and Tel Fara (S).
One White Painted juglet is found with a Bichrome juglet and a BoR
juglet at Memphis in Egypt. White Painted and BoR, without
Bichrome, occur together at Zinjirli in Anatolia and in Israel at 'Ein
Gev, Hazor, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tel Jezreel and Tell el-Far'ah (N), on
the coast at Tell Qasile and south to Tell er-Reqeish. Bichrome and
BoR, without White Painted, occur together at Tell Kazel and Tell
Sukas on the Phoenician coast, Samaria and Khan Sheikhun. At only
two sites is White Painted pottery possibly found alone: at Tell
Tebilleh in Egypt (4 juglets) and at Ras Ibn Hani in the north. It is
clear, therefore, that even given the minimal numbers of the pottery
vessels involved, their geographical range is generally similar.
White Painted and Bichrome Bowl Distribution (Maps 11, 14)

The distribution of White Painted and Bichrome bowls in particular
was analysed to provide a comparison with the apparently localised
BoR bowl distribution. The small quantities of these vessels should,
again, be noted. This assessment showed that unlike BoR bowls,
White Painted bowls were not confined to the Carmel and Akko Plain
region. White Painted bowls (42 in total) occur from Tabbat-al-
Hammam in the north, Tyre, Beirut, Tell Abu Hawam, Hurvat Rosh
Zayit, Tel Dor, Tel Jezreel, Tel Mevorakh, Tell Qasile to Tel Fara (S)
and Tell er-Reqeish in the south. None occur in the Mt. Carmel tombs.
Bichrome bowls (28 in total) are found more exclusively in the north,
at Ras al-Bassit, Tell Sukas, Tyre, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Mevorakh,
Tel Dor, Tell Keisan, and Megiddo. Neither White Painted nor
Bichrome bowls seem to have been found in Egypt.
White Painted and Bichrome Jug!Juglet Distribution (Maps 9, 10,

12,13)
The distribution of the closed vessels of each type were also com-
pared to identify any possibly related patterns of trade in their con-
tents. White Painted juglets (41 in total), which may have had a sim-
ilar function to the BoR vessels, have a similarly widespread distri-
bution in this period. They occur from Zinjirli to Tyre and Khirbet
Silm, inland in the Galilee at 'Ein Gev, at Beth-Shan, Hazor,
Megiddo, Tell Keisan, Tel Michal, Tel Zeror, Tell Hammeh, Lachish,
and Tel Fara (S).12 Bichrome juglets (only 16 in total) appear in small
quantities both in the north and south, from Tell Kazel to Tel Fara (S).
Forty-eight White Painted jugs have been found plus 7 White
Painted amphorae, 25 Bichrome jugs and 7 Bichrome amphorae. White
Painted jugs have a broad distribution and are found from Zinjirli and
Carchemish in the north to Al Mina, Tyre and Qraye in Phoenicia,
Hazor, Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo, Tell Keisan,
Yoqneam and southern sites such as Beth-Shemesh and Tell Jemmeh.
One White Painted jug is found from Gurob in Egypt. Bichrome jugs
also have a fairly broad distribution: Al Mina, Carchemish, Ras al-
Bassit, Tyre, Khirbet Silin, Khan Sheikhun, Tell Abu Hawam,
Megiddo, Tell Keisan and Tel Michal. BoR jugs are relatively rare in
the Levant and the sample may be too small for conclusive analysis.
The small number of examples at Gezer, Ashdod and Tel Jemmeh
suggest they reached the southern region in minimal quantities.
Summary
In the subsequent period, White Painted and Bichrome pottery seems
to have been in circulation alongside BoR but in smaller quantities.
Jugs and juglets in the three pottery types have a broad and generally
similar distribution. BoR jugs are minimal and White Painted jugs
appear to be marginally more popular, but BoR juglets far outweigh
White Painted and Bichrome juglets in popularity. The concentration
of bowls in one general area is unique to BoR; however this is clearly
observable because of the larger quantities of this type and it is
possible that equal quantities of the other types might show a similar
distribution. There seems to be no particular pattern of co-existence of
any two of the types.
A Comment on Chronology
One of the chief problems of BoR pottery is its chronology. Chapter
Three investigates the chronology of BoR through detailed analysis of
assemblages on the mainland and the contexts in which they appear.
This is then compared to the evidence from Cyprus and a proposal
12
The quantity of White Painted juglets at Tel Fara (S) is notable, and correlates
with the high proportions of other imported wares: it is likely that the site was on a
key trade route.
made as to its date. Here, in this general survey of the strata in which
BoR appears, the chronological contemporaneity between BoR open
and closed shapes should be particularly noted. BoR bowls are
appearing already in Hazor XA, Megiddo VA-IVB, Hurvat Rosh
Zayit, Tell Keisan Niv. 8, Tel Mevorakh VII, Tel Michal XIV, Tel Qiri
VIIC, Tell Abu Hawam III, and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vlld, alongside
BoR jugs and juglets. These are the earliest strata in which BoR
pottery appears and they may represent the earliest 'phase' of BoR
production and distribution in the eastern Mediterranean.
This result has interesting implications. First, it undermines the
suggestion that there was an early phase of BoR on the mainland
during which the juglets preceded the circulation of bowls and open
vessels. It had previously been thought plausible that the distinctive
BoR decorative style was developed for the juglets as a form of
advertisement for their contents, presumably precious oils; this
'trademark' decoration was thought to have been subsequently
applied to other non-container vessels such as the larger jugs and the
bowls. Instead, it now appears that both the open and closed vessels
were being traded simultaneously, or at least within the length of the
first phase of BoR distribution. This discovery may provide support
for the theory of a single region of manufacture and export, and even
for some element of central production and distribution. These issues
are discussed further later in this chapter.
In view of these findings, however, the results of a statistical study of
Cypriot Iron Age pottery in Cyprus should be noted (S0rensen 1987). In
assessing the relative popularity of Iron Age decorated pottery types in
Cyprus, S0rensen observes that BoR bowls begin contemporaneously
with BoR juglets on the island, and that BoR bowls represent in fact a
quarter of all bowl types in the first period of its occurrence (S0rensen
1987, 130-131). The pottery distribution in Cyprus, therefore, correlates
quite significantly with the distribution evidence from the mainland. The
relative lack of popularity of BoR jugs in Cyprus is also paralleled by its
rarity on the mainland, and the contrasting popularity of the BoR juglet
form is evident in both locations. See Table Ε in Chapter Four, 252. 13
13
It is important to note here that the full potential of S 0 r e n s e n ' s study is flawed
by her complete reliance on Gjerstad's typology and chronology of the various
pottery types ( S 0 r e n s e n 1987, 129). Gjerstad excludes, for example, from his
chronological scheme the ware he considers "non-Cypriot" BoR. See Chapter Four
for a detailed analysis of Gjerstad's typology and chronology. S 0 r e n s e n ' s results are,
however, useful in terms of general trends in popularity of the pottery types.
The chronological contemporaneity of bowls and juglets is also
important in terms of Gjerstad's original suggestion that the BoR
juglet form was of Levantine inspiration, while the bowls were
predominantly traditional Cypriot shapes (see Chapter One). The
discovery that there was apparently no chronological distinction
between the two types suggests that production of the BoR style was
more homogenous than has been supposed. Gjerstad's dichotomy
between 'Levantine' and 'Cypriot' features may in fact have been
over-emphasised and the inter-cultural contacts between the island
and mainland during the Late Bronze Age inadequately appreciated -
'Levantine' features on Cypriot pottery may instead reflect these
connections. Furthermore, concurrent production of the same ware
type with both 'Levantine' and 'Cypriot' traits may have important
implications for the cosmopolitan nature of east Mediterranean
pottery manufacture in this period. These issues are addressed in
discussion of the origin of the pottery in Chapter Four.
Phoenician Pottery and BoR (Map 15)

The traditional view of BoR proposed Phoenicia as a candidate for the
earliest manufacture and export of BoR pottery (du Plat Taylor 1959,
88; Vandenabeele 1968, 110-111; Culican 1982,46,61; Mazar 1985,
82, 84). While scholars now increasingly tend to assign to Phoenicia
the inspiration behind BoR's production in Cyprus, the view of a
Phoenician association with the ware is persistent (eg. Coldstream
1998, 257-258). Here the distribution of Phoenician pottery on the
mainland was examined in order to establish whether it appears in
context with BoR with any consistency, indicating that BoR might
have at least have been carried by Phoenician merchants. The results
of this survey indicate that the distribution of Phoenician pottery at
sites outside Phoenicia proper is minimal, except in those sites further
south which are clearly under Phoenician influence, such as Achziv,
Tell Keisan and possibly Tel Dor. In these cases, BoR does not seem
to increase correspondingly.
The types investigated here were closed vessels: Phoenician
Bichrome jugs and juglets, Phoenician plain juglets and Phoenician red
slip trefoil-rimmed jugs, often termed 'Achziv' ware. These are the most
prominent vessels in the early Phoenician repertoire and it is likely that
BoR pottery, had it been produced or distributed through Phoenician
trade, would have accompanied these wares. Phoenician 'mushroom-
lipped' jugs, dating from the 8th century onwards, were also included
but these vessels generally occurred in levels later than BoR.
The sites investigated here are those which have a relatively high
quantity of BoR pottery, so the proportions of Phoenician pottery to
BoR will be most apparent. Twenty-three BoR juglets have been found
in total at Lachish, but only one Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jug.
At Hazor, three Phoenician red slip trefoil-lipped jugs and two possible
Phoenician Bichrome jugs were found in Strata IX-X, which also
contained nine BoR vessels and small quantities of White Painted ware.
At Megiddo, Phoenician pottery does not appear in Stratum VA-IVB
alongside the earliest BoR, but only in Strata IV-II, where five red slip
trefoil-lipped jugs and one 'mushroom-lipped' jug were found. A
Phoenician Bichrome neck-decorated juglet and a Phoenician red slip
trefoil-lipped jug was found in the tombs at Mt. Carmel, as well as
twelve BoR juglets. In the Iron Age tomb at Tel Halif, two red slip
trefoil-lipped jugs were found with five BoR juglets. Two Phoenician
red slip trefoil-lipped jugs were found at Tel Mevorakh Stratum VII,
and two Phoenician jugs at Tel Qashish. Three Phoenician plain and
bichrome neck-decorated juglets (as well as several Phoenician-type
amphorae) appear in the tombs at Tell er-Reqeish, in addition to six
BoR juglets. Possibly three Phoenician juglets appear at Tell Jemmeh,
and one possible Phoenician jug at Tel Fara (S). One Phoenician red slip
trefoil-lipped jug appears in Niv. Vllb at Tell el-Far'ah (N), alongside
eight BoR vessels. At Yoqneam, which is not yet fully published, the
excavators note the rarity of Phoenician pottery-only 12 Phoenician
rims were found in total, in contrast to 90 BoR rims (Hunt 1987, 203).
The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit, also not yet fully published, contains two
Phoenician Bichrome jugs, a Phoenician Bichrome amphora and two
possible heavy-walled red slip juglets, along with a fine assemblage of
BoR and White Painted pottery. The excavators particularly note the
absence of 'Achziv'jugs (Gal 1992, 182).14 These results indicate a
sparse distribution of Phoenician pottery in association with BoR.
The site of Achziv provides additional important evidence for a
disassociation of BoR pottery from the Phoenicians. 15 The graves at
14
Note also this appearance o f Phoenician heavy-walled juglets no earlier than
BoR at the site, contra Brodie and Steel's suggestion that these v e s s e l s were
prototypes for BoR (Gal 1992, Fig. 9:3; Brodie & Steel 1996, 274).
15
S e e E. Mazar 1996 for the most thorough study to date of the Achziv
cemeteries.
Achziv are largely of Phoenician type and the bulk of the pottery
contained within them is Phoenician. The main pottery types in the
tombs are the red slip trefoil-lipped jug and the Phoenician Bichrome
jug, and in the later tombs the Phoenician mushroom-lipped jug
(Mazar 1996, 21). Despite the location of the site at the southern
reaches of 'metropolitan' Phoenicia and near the Carmel region
where, as noted above, a high proportion of BoR pottery has been
found, only 20 BoR vessels in total have been found in the main
cemeteries at Achziv (Schreiber, forthcoming). Note also that no BoR
pottery has been found in the late 8th- 6th century Phoenician
cemetery at 'Atlit (Johns 1938, 133). The site of Tell Keisan produced
two BoR vessels in Niv. 8, preceding the increased quantities of
Phoenician pottery from Niv. 7 onwards. The apparently large
numbers of BoR pottery from the later levels at this site are not fully
published so it is not possible to assess their relation to the Phoenician
ware (see Chapter Three). The site of Tel Dor, apparently under
Phoenician influence during the 10th century BC, produced a number
of BoR sherds. As this site is also not yet fully published, it is not at
present possible to assess the relative proportions of Phoenician to
BoR ware. It should also be noted that both Tell Keisan and Tel Dor
are located at or near the coast and so as easily penetrated by goods
from overseas as from Phoenicia to their north. Other sites which
would no doubt be important in determining the relative proportions
of these wares are either unpublished, such as Akko, or have
problematic stratigraphy, such as Tell Abu Hawam.
Although, therefore, the evidence provided by a survey of the
Phoenician association with BoR is not entirely conclusive, due to the
sparse distribution of Phoenician pottery in the southern regions, there
are good indications that BoR pottery was not distributed by
Phoenicians. The generally small quantities of BoR pottery further
north in Phoenicia itself, assessed above, further supports this view
(Chapman 1972, 171, 182; cf. Bikai in Coldstream 1988, 37).
Aspects of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Pottery Iniports (Map 16)

While no comprehensive study has yet been published of Cypriot
pottery imports to the Levantine mainland in the Late Bronze Age,
several studies have illuminated aspects of this trade (Oren 1969;
Holmes 1975; Gittlen 1975, 1977, 1981; Artzy 1985; Prag 1985;
Bergoffen 1991; Knapp & Cherry 1994, 42-47). The most notable
feature of the distribution of Cypriot pottery on the Levantine
mainland during the Late Bronze Age is its widespread occurrence.
The distribution of the main Cypriot types - Base Ring jugs, juglets
and bowls and White Slip bowl - covers almost every site at which
Late Bronze occupation has been found. Recent studies have included
Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware (of which the most prominent type is
the spindle bottle) as a Cypriot product. This ware also has a broad
distribution in the Levant and its origin has consequently been long
debated (Eriksson 1991).
Base Ring ware appeared predominantly in closed shapes and
the Base Ring juglet is overall the dominant Cypriot pottery
import to the mainland (Gittlen 1981, 51, Artzy 1985, 93; Prag
1985, 159; Bergoffen 1991, 64). Base Ring bowls are considerably
rarer (Bergoffen 1991, 65). 16 White Slip pottery on the mainland
occurs exclusively as bowls, notably the 'milk bowls,' and this
pottery represents c. 25% of the total Late Bronze Age Cypriot
pottery imports to Palestine (Gittlen 1981, 54; Artzy 1985, 98;
Prag 1985, 156). While Base Ring is reasonably popular in Egypt,
very little White Slip pottery has been found in Egypt (Prag 1985,
157). Cypriot White Shaved and Bichrome pottery are found in
smaller quantities in the Levant than Base Ring and White Slip.
Artzy notes that these wares were commonly imitated on the
mainland, beyond the period of importation of the Cypriot
specimens, and suggests that the market for these wares may have
been satisfied by the local imitations (Artzy 1985, 96-98). Cypriot
Bucchero ware was imported in very small quantities (Prag 1985,
162; Bergoffen 1991, 64).
The period of exportation of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery to
the Levant seems to have begun in the Late Bronze I period, peaked
in Late Bronze IIA and almost completely ceased by the end of the
period (c. end 13th century) (Gittlen 1981, 50-51). Gittlen suggests
that some types continued to be produced in Cyprus beyond the
period of their export to the mainland, but Base Ring pottery may
have continued as an export almost to the end of Cypriot
production, c. 1190 BC (Gittlen 1981, 51; Prag 1985, 159).
In view of the range of exported wares, Gittlen argues that the
16
Note, interestingly, the inclusion of Base Ring b o w l s in the cargo of the Ulu
Burun shipwreck (Bass 1986, 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 ) .
Cypriot export trade "catered to a known Palestinian market," on the
basis that "the dominant position of the jug and juglets [in Base-Ring
ware] in both Palestine and Egypt can clearly be seen to be grossly out
of proportion to their manufacture on Cyprus" (Gittlen 1981, 52-53).
He further believes that "White Shaved juglets were manufactured
specifically for export to Palestine" (Gittlen 1981, 53). The quantity
of Late Cypriot pottery at Tell-el-Ajjul suggests that this site was a
"principal trading partner of Cyprus at the beginning of the Late
Bronze Age" (Bergoffen 1991, 60, 69). Bergoffen also identifies a
pattern of "unofficial," 'on the side' trade in Late Cypriot pottery in
the southern part of the Levant (Bergoffen 1991, 72-73). She notes
that "there was no steady fall-off from the point of origin" in
"quantities, wares and shapes," possibly due to a degree of
"intraregional trade" (Bergoffen 1991, 72).
Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery distribution differs, therefore,
from BoR in the ubiquity of all types, open and closed, although the
especial prominence of the Base Ring juglet is interesting. The
marked reduction in quantities of BoR bowls far inland from the
Carmel and Akko region, and their virtual absence in the southern
Levant may suggest that the distribution of BoR pottery was not based
on "intraregional" trade, which would have picked up and circulated
BoR bowls as well as the juglets.
Deposition Contexts
This study of BoR distribution also throws light on the deposition
contexts. The traditional belief that BoR juglets are the most common
form to be found in tombs while bowls are largely restricted to settle-
ments is upheld by this examination. 17 BoR bowls are not exclusive
to settlements, but only five have so far been found in tombs - at Tel
Zeror, Megiddo, Mt. Carmel and Qraye in modern Lebanon. This is a
small proportion (2%) of the 215 bowls discovered in total. However,
the previously noted geographical limit to the distribution of bowls
17
S e e also Gittlen 1981, 5 2 and Maguire 1995, 55 re the large proportions of
Cypriot jug and juglet shapes in Middle and Late Bronze A g e tombs. Rasmussen
notes an extraordinary quantity of small oil juglets in s o m e tomb contexts in the
Archaic Aegean: out of 297 objects in a single 6th century grave at Rhitsona in
Boeotia, 2 5 3 were Corinthian aryballoi (Rasmussen 1991, 78). The popularity of the
oil juglet in graves of the Roman period has been noted by Anderson-Stojanovic
1987, 105-122.
should be noted here as also should the fact that tombs provide only
146 vessels in total (24% of total BoR). The contrasting situation in
Cyprus should also be taken into account. There by far the greater
proportion of BoR pottery comes from tombs, including bowls in
quantity (S0rensen 1987, 131). It is difficult, therefore, to assess the
significance of this distribution pattern on the basis of the limited
material available and the random element of tomb location through-
out the area over which BoR is found.
There is little in the deposition contexts of BoR juglets to
indicate their function in the tombs. There is a possibility that these
vessels sometimes were non-functional and produced especially for
funerary use. Anderson-Stojanovic notes that in the necropolis at
Myrina, in modern Turkey, "a number of graves were found to
contain small alabastra and unguentaria that were of solid clay and
obviously of no practical use;" at Stobi in Macedonia unguentaria
were found within a tomb "with the body cavity sealed off by clay
at the neck" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 120-121, 122). However,
scientific analysis of Corinthian aryballoi which are believed to
have come from graves found evidence of an adherence of oily
compounds to the soil inside them, suggesting that the vessels had
been deposited filled with their contents (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff
1994, 25, 29; and see below). 18 There is only limited evidence from
the deposition contexts of BoR pottery that these vessels were
associated with a certain part of the body - BoR juglets found in
Tomb 1 at Mt. Carmel are noted as near the heads of the occupants
(Guy 1924, 48) - and no evidence as yet that they were gender-
specific. 19 The contents of the tombs are, however, often too
fragmentary or disturbed to enable assessment of these associations;
careful future publications may reveal some vessel distribution
patterns within tombs.
18
It is interesting to note in this context that the bulk of miniature (and essentially
non-functional) BoR vessels found on the mainland were not from tomb contexts.
19
Compare t w o studies of Cypriot Bronze A g e wares: Maguire observes that
Base Ring juglets in Middle Bronze A g e tombs at Tell ed-Dab'a were placed near the
head or body of the deceased (although this is a fairly general area) (Maguire 1995,
55). Eriksson, in her study of Late Bronze A g e Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware, notes
that "a large percentage of the v e s s e l s c o m e from female burials" and "a position
c l o s e to the skull or upper torso has been observed in both female and male burials"
(Eriksson 1991, 93).
The Popularity of BoR
The quantities of BoR found on the mainland are not large and
presently number under a thousand vessels. Despite this, the pottery
type is considerably more popular on the mainland than the White
Painted and Bichrome pottery examined above (see also Appendix II).
This is somewhat surprising. White Painted, Bichrome and BoR
juglets are comparable in shape, size and general decorative fields.
The clays in each case are finely levigated and well-fired. The
manufacturing processes of the different pottery types were likely to
have been similar to one another and White Painted pottery may
indeed have been simpler and cheaper to produce (S0rensen 1987,
132) - few examples of White Painted pottery are in fact finished to
the level often achieved by BoR and they are not burnished.
The function of BoR juglets as perfumed oil containers will be
examined below, but the closed shape and small mouth of these vessels
indicates that they must have held a liquid. One factor in the popularity
of these BoR vessels was perhaps, therefore, a low porosity. While a
degree of porosity was often desirable for ceramic water containers,
which helped keep the liquid cool through evaporation (Orton, Tyers &
Vince 1993, 220-221), impermeability was an obvious requirement for
vessels which contained precious liquids and oils. 2 0
The porosity of ceramic vessels is affected by the heat level to
which the ceramic has been fired, as well as the treatment and quality
of the clay itself (Shephard 1956, 125-130). While it was clearly
preferable for small oil juglets to be non-porous, tests conducted on
Hellenistic ceramic unguentaria from the Athenian Agora excavations
and from the site of Stobi in Macedonia suggested that not all of these
vessels were satisfactorily so. Poorly-made grave unguentaria were
particularly porous - "both water and oil seeped through two well-
made but unslipped examples from Stobi within eight hours"
(Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116). Perhaps surprisingly, the Athenian
glazed unguentaria were not necessarily less porous than unglazed. In
20
Ceramic v e s s e l s were not, of course, the optimum material for holding precious
liquids - stone, metal or glass are far superior in terms of impermeability - but clay
w a s cheap and widely available. Theophrastus and Pliny, writing in the late 4th
century B C and 1st century A D respectively, recommended particularly alabaster or
lead vessels which helped to keep their contents cool (Theophrastus, On Odours 41;
Pliny, Natural History, XIII: 19). It is likely that ceramic v e s s e l s did not contain the
costliest perfumes, as Pliny also notes (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 28, 29; Pliny,
Natural History, VII. 28-30; and see discussion below).
these tests, "an unglazed gray unguentarium... lost only 20% of its
water in five days and only 5.5% of its contents in a week when tested
with oil. In contrast, the black glazed examples belonging to the same
period were more porous, losing 36-100% of their water in only two
days" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116). While it was common to line
amphorae with resin to enhance their impermeability, no evidence of
the use of resin has been found in BoR juglets, (nor in the Hellenistic
unguentaria examined) (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 116).
In view of the popularity of BoR juglets, therefore, it is possible
that the slip and high burnish of the BoR juglets increased the
impermeability of the ware. The burnishing process itself may have
compacted the clay particles on the surface of the vessel and rendered
it less porous (Orton, Tyers & Vince 1993, 126). A recent chemical
analysis of BoR pottery - using Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
techniques - has, however, additionally proposed that the use of non-
calcareous clay for some BoR pottery may have enhanced the
vitrification of the ceramic, making it especially impermeable (Brodie
& Steel 1996, 273). Bichrome and White Painted pottery was slipped
but not burnished, and AAS tests on sherds of these wares indicated
that they were manufactured from calcareous clay, which would not
vitrify to the same extent. The exceptionally good levigation and
uniformly fine grain-size characteristic of BoR juglets would also
increase vitrification, since "fineness increases areas of contact"
between particles during the firing process (Shephard 1956, 127).
While, therefore, it should be noted that calcareous clay was also used
for other BoR vessels, it is plausible that the BoR juglets were
especially non-porous and that this may have been a factor in their
popularity. Other scientific tests have noted general compositional
differences between BoR ware and other types of Cypriot pottery
(Yellin & Perl man 1978, 89).21 In the case of the popularity of the
BoR bowls, which were generally manufactured from calcareous
clay, the slip and burnish of BoR ware is likely to have created an
especially pleasant eating surface. 22
21
Scientific analyses on BoR pottery are fully assessed in Chapter Four.
22
The appeal of the BoR b o w l s might be paralleled by the popularity of
(marginally later) Greek pendent semi-circle plates in the Levant. Coldstream
observes that "the attraction of the A e g e a n imports would have lain in the watertight,
"metallic" quality o f their surface paint, superior to all local products except the best
"Samarian" ware" (Coldstream 1988, 39).
A further consideration in this ware's popularity is the notably
"metallic" look of some of the finer BoR vessels. The polished red
slip may well have recalled the sheen on copper alloy vessels (Vickers
& Gill 1994, 141-144). The angular shape of the neck and rim of
many of the juglets and especially the ridge on the neck of the vessels
which resembles a metal strip joining the handle to the neck on a
metal vessel, suggests that the potter may have been imitating a
contemporary metal design. 23
The intrinsic value of metal, and therefore the recyclable
properties of metal vessels, have left very few examples remaining
from this period, and the association of metals and ceramics is
therefore difficult to trace. Parallels are known but rare. Three
examples of metal trefoil-lipped jugs, two bronze and one silver,
identical to the Phoenician red-slipped ceramic versions, have been
found in Cyprus (Amiran 1969, 272, Photo 283; Culican 1976,
Figs. 1-2). 24 A bronze jug with plain mouth was found in Sidon
(Culican 1976, Fig. 3). Also, several examples of bronze bowls with
horizontal handles and pedestal bases have been found in early
Cypro-Geometric tombs in Cyprus, which bear strong similarities to
White Painted and BoR pedestal bowls (Flourentzos 1997, 210, fig.
6). A metal pilgrim flask, probably tin, found on the Ulu Burun
shipwreck, indicates a stylistic association between ceramic and
metal forms in the Late Bronze Age (Bass, Pulak, Collon &
Weinstein 1989, 12, Fig. 22).
The popularity of metal drinking sets in the Late Bronze Age has
been noted by Sherratt and Sherratt, who suggest the possibility
that pottery forms developed in the latter part of the period as
substitutes for metal vessels, perhaps as wine consumption
increased (Sherratt & Sherratt 1991, 363). The especial metallic
appearance of BoR, and the range of bowl and jug forms in which
it appears, as well as the occasional appearance of this range of
23
Note, however, that Coldstream suggests this feature also served a practical
purpose on ceramic vessels, in reinforcing a weak part of the vessel (Coldstream
1977, 67). Myres, at the beginning of the century, proposed that this ridge was an
imitation of a separate "funnel" piece inserted either into or over the neck of an
alabaster vase, with a ridge at the point of juncture (Myres 1914, 80). Such prototype
alabaster vases are not, however, known to this author.
24
The jug illustrated by Amiran w a s cast in one piece with handle and body,
which indicates possible west Mediterranean workmanship (R. Moorey, after Brian
Shefton, pers. c o m m . ) .
different BoR vessels in associated contexts, such as at the site of
Hurvat Rosh Zayit (see Chapter Three, 201-202), suggests that
some of the appeal of BoR may have lain in its resemblance to
contemporary drinking sets. It is also possible that pottery
imitations of metal vessels were particularly useful as substitutes
for metal in grave offerings. A study of the Iron Age pottery from
tombs in Cyprus indicates an abnormal popularity of Red Slip
bowls and Black Slip jugs (67% of the total number of jugs) in
tombs (S0rensen 1987, 130, 133), both of which have a markedly
metallic appearance in shape as well as colour: the black, possibly
tarnished silver and the red, copper alloy (cf. Vickers & Gill 1994,
141-144). 25
The Dynamics of BoR Trade: Open Versus Closed Vessels: (Maps

17, 18)
As is evident from the study above, the distribution of open and
closed vessels in BoR ware, and to a lesser extent, White Painted and
Bichrome ware, shows different patterns. Bowls are found in a fairly
dense concentration but in a limited geographical range,
predominantly near the coast, while the juglets are both more popular
and wide-reaching. Yet the appearance of the full range of open and
closed vessels at several sites, and their chronological
contemporaneity, discussed above, suggests that these two categories
did not belong to two entirely different trade networks and that they
most likely originated from the same general source. Although the
smaller juglets may have been marginally easier to transport than the
larger bowls, perhaps on pack-animals, this alone is not an adequate
explanation for their broader distribution.
Explanation for the difference in distribution patterns should
most logically be sought in their 'value' factor: the vessels which
functioned as containers for added 'value' goods, and those, like
the open vessels, which were purely of value for themselves.
Sherratt distinguishes between gradients of "added value" goods:
25
The reasons for transference of s o m e of the elements of metal design to ceramic
vessels, and the extent to which these ceramics were true substitutes (as opposed
merely to imitations), are difficult to assess. It is possible that trade in bronze and
copper alloy objects decreased after the disruption at the end of the Late Bronze A g e
and potters attempted to fill the market for these unobtainable g o o d s (cf. discussions
by Sherratt 1998, 295; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991, 3 6 3 , 373; Sherratt 1994).
Map 18: Distribution of BoR Juglets in the Levant (Detail)
open pottery vessels might be termed basic "added value" items
(value added to the basic properties of clay) but closed vessels, if
acquired containing precious goods, would have supplementary
"added value," along with, perhaps, a degree of "cultural value"
(Sherratt 1994, 62-63). In terms of function, a distinction can be
made between eating and drinking vessels - the 'table-ware' - and
vessels of probable cosmetic, not culinary, use, such as the handle-
ridge juglets. The broader dimension to trade in BoR juglets
suggests, therefore, that these had an additional value to the BoR
bowls, which, popular though they evidently were in coastal
regions, were not of sufficient value to the occupants of the inland
regions to make their distribution further afield worthwhile to the
merchants involved.
A study of Metallic Ware in the Early Bronze Age Levant
(Greenberg & Porat 1996) offers comparative data for the
distribution pattern of open and closed vessels in BoR. Analysis of
this pottery type suggests that while the full range of forms was
encountered over a surprisingly broad range, "at greater distances,
small quantities of Metallic Ware were distributed either as
containers (eg. ' A b y d o s ' j u g s ) or as fine ware" such as a fine platter
found at Arad (Greenberg & Porat 1996, 19). This again suggests
that in the case of a range of pottery vessels in a single ware type,
the vessels reaching maximum geographical distribution were those
of particular value, in either functional features or status, which
made their transport further from the point of origin profitable
regardless of the extra cost involved.
The popularity of closed vessels is also a feature of international
trade in the Late Bronze Age. Cline notes, for example, that many
more closed vessels than open were imported into Late Minoan I-II
contexts in Crete, and suggests that "the most common open shape,
bowls, may indicate a passing interest in unique tableware as a
luxury item for the wealthy or as a curio for the collector of the
unusual" (Cline 1994, 75). Maguire's study of Cypriot pottery
imports to Tell el-Dab'a and the nearby site of 'Ezbet Helmi in
Egypt in the Middle and Late Bronze Age observes that "primarily,
though of course not exclusively, the Cypriot forms exported
comprise jugs and juglets" (Maguire 1995, 55). Maguire notes
particularly the extensive distribution of Cypriot Base Ring jugs and
juglets throughout the Levant in the Late Bronze Age, which
dominate the closed shapes in circulation, along with smaller
proportions of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware (spindle bottles)
(Maguire 1995, 63). She suggests that these closed vessels were
intended to hold "a commodity that was precious... one might
imagine an oil or perfume (Maguire 1995, 54). 26
The less dramatic pattern formed by the distribution of open and
closed vessel types in White Painted and Bichrome pottery may
simply be accounted for by the smaller quantities of these vessels
involved. However, there is some indication that the BoR juglets had
a greater value to the distributor and to the consumer than the other
contemporary wares available.
Trade in BoR: A Trade in the Vessels or their Contents?

The distribution pattern of BoR wares, shows, therefore, that there
was probably an "added-value" factor to the BoR juglets. The
question then arises - was this added factor the quality and
attractiveness of the juglets and their superiority to locally-available
vessels, or was it their contents, which are commonly presumed to
have been perfumed oil? Was, in fact, this simply a trade in a popular
ceramic vessel that would have, amongst other and various uses,
served to contain perfume and exotic oils?
Although the most popular view of the BoR juglets (eg. Brodie &
Steel 1996, 273), the assumption that these vessels were transported
with their contents is problematic. We have no firm evidence of the
use of any White Painted, Bichrome or BoR juglets as transport
containers for the perfumed oils postulated. No stoppers of any
description have been found either in place in the vessels or in
association with them, even when the vessels are found intact in
tombs. Some form of stopper must have been used in the case of the
transportation of a liquid, and particularly in the storage of aromatic
oils which would have spoiled on prolonged exposure to air. These
requirements for perfumes were noted by the late 4th century BC
26
Merrillees' claim that Base Ring juglets contained (and exported) opium from
Cyprus (Merrillees 1962) has been consistently challenged, eg. by Gittlen, w h o
suggests instead s o m e other "prized Cypriot product" (Gittlen 1981, 5 5 - 5 6 ) . H o l m e s
also believed these vessels more likely to have contained "some kind of oil or
ointment" ( H o l m e s 1975, 93). Merrillees' analysis of the insides of s o m e of these
juglets found that different Base Ring v e s s e l s bore traces of different contents: crude
opium, "some kind of wax" or pure fat (Merrillees 1968, 161). These latter could
possibly have been ingredients in perfumed oil production.
writer, Theophrastus, who observed: "men put them into vessels of
lead and try to secure phials of alabaster.... For evaporation
destroys the perfume, and so does any foreign substance which finds
its way in: for even draughts of air destroy odours and cause them
to waste" (Theophrastus, On Odours, 41).
One explanation of the absence of stoppers found in tombs may
be that the vessels were intentionally left open to perfume the air
within, in lieu of burnt incense or resin, but it is doubtful whether
this method would have been effective. It is likely, therefore, that
they were stopped up either with a clay plug (which might
occasionally have been expected to survive) 27 or perhaps organic
matter, such as a wooden stick, waxed cloth or leather. 28 Another
possibility is cork: two 6th century BC Etruscan shipwrecks found
in France, at Cap D' Antibes and Bon-Porté, were carrying
amphorae sealed with cork discs (Parker 1992a, 74, 101). A juglet
of similar proportions to the BoR vessels was found in a cave at En-
Gedi from the Roman period, still containing a viscous oil thought
to be balsam (opobalsamum), and was sealed with a small stone
(Patrich & Arubas 1989, 50). It is noteworthy that no stoppers have
been found associated with any of the numerous Hellenistic and
Roman ceramic unguentaria which occur at sites all over the
Mediterranean, supporting the view that stoppers were generally of
organic materials which do not survive (Anderson-Stojanovic
1987, 114).
It should be noted, however, that the BoR trefoil-rimmed juglet,
which is found frequently alongside the 'classic' handle-ridge flared-
rimmed juglet, would have been difficult to seal effectively. The
relatively wide rim is often inturned into the neck of the juglet (as also
with the trefoil jug) and would in most cases prevent any attempt to
seal the mouth of the vessel by obstructing it. The popularity of this
juglet type in terms of its function as a transport container is therefore
perplexing, and perhaps suggests that these juglets were used as
"dippers" with which to withdraw liquids from larger jars, or were
27
The large stirrup jars found in situ in the 'House of the Oil Merchant' at
M y c e n a e were sealed with lumps of clay still in place over the spouts of the vessels
(Knapp 1991, 29; see also Shelmerdine 1985, 143).
28
An exterior seal, however, such as material bound over the necks of the
vessels, would be expected to leave friction marks, of which w e have no trace.
used to pour oils over one's body or head. The possibility of multiple
uses for closed vessels should be borne in mind. 29
There is, further, a possibility of a 'décantation' process of oils
from larger vessels into smaller vessels. Shelmerdine's study of the
perfumed oil industry at Pylos associates the abundance of stirrup jars
found at the site with the perfume manufacture recorded in the Pylian
Linear Β tablets (Shelmerdine 1985, 51, 141-143; Ventris &
Chadwick 1973, 481). Stirrup jars with a false neck and easily
stoppered narrow spout were well-suited to containing oils
(Shelmerdine 1985, 142-143). Shelmerdine suggests, however, that
bulk quantities of perfumed oil, or even unscented oil, were probably
exported in large coarse stirrup jars, alongside smaller ones "for
individual quantities of scented oil" (Shelmerdine 1985, 145).30 Were
perhaps the contents of the larger only decanted into the smaller at
their destination? Dayagi-Mendels, in her study of perfumed oil in
antiquity, concurs that "presumably only a little of the quantity
produced was decanted into small flasks, while the greater part was
poured into larger containers, suitable for delivering to various
destinations," and that the large stirrup jars at Pylos were probably
"used for transporting perfume, while the exquisitely made small
stirrup jars were intended to hold perfumes for personal use" (Dayagi-
Mendels 1989, 101). A storage jar found on the mainland from the
Roman period inscribed with the word "balsameh" provides further
evidence of the use of larger jars to hold bulk quantities of luxury oil
(Dayagi-Mendels 1989, 108).
The physical risks encountered in the transportation of ceramic
vessels might support a 'décantation' trade in BoR, rather than the
conveyance of small and delicate vessels filled with valuable
contents. Anderson-Stojanovic comments on the liability of breakage
of the Hellenistic and Roman unguentaria in her study: "Considering
the cost of transport and the danger of the neck breaking off from the
body of the unguentarium, it seems more likely that, in most cases,
29
Our only iconographie evidence for BoR juglets is the painted depiction, on
the shoulder of a BoR conical juglet, of a small juglet - possibly a handle-ridge juglet
- next to a large rectangle with t w o "wishbone" handles and a diagonally checked
interior rectangle (a net?) (Karageorghis & des Gagniers 1974, 500, PI. X X I X : 6 ) .
The meaning of this depiction is now obscure.
30
Hankey suggests that the larger stirrup jars may have been "specially made to
order for grand customers or for wholesalers, w h o then re-sold perfumed oil in
smaller, more profitable quantities" (Hankey 1995, 123).
the contents of the small bottles were transported in bulk, in large
vessels, and later transferred to smaller containers" (Anderson-
Stojanovic 1987, 115).
The Late Bronze Age Ulu Burun shipwreck provides direct
evidence for the transportation of small closed vessels, presumably
empty, within larger jars. A large pithos from this wreck was found to
contain a variety of intact LBA Cypriot vessels in both open and
closed shapes - including Cypriot White Slip milk-bowls and White
Shaved juglets - with some of the bowls still stacked inside one
another (Bass 1986, 279-281; 1987, 710-711; Pulak 1988, 11-12;
Gates 1996, 304-305). Traces of organic materials were found in these
pithoi suggesting that the smaller vessels may have been packed in
organic matter to prevent breakage (Gates 1996, 304).
Given these observations, however, and the possibility of a
décantation process in the transport of BoR pottery, there is still not
sufficient evidence with which to reject the likelihood that the
"added value" of BoR juglets, which appealed to the consumer to a
greater degree than BoR bowls, lay in their contents. Consequently,
we must assume that trade in BoR juglets essentially represented
trade in the contents of these vessels, as well as a possible subsidiary
trade in the "recyclable" properties of closed vessels of unusually
good quality. 31
The Nature of the Contents - BoR and a Possible Trade in Perfumed

Oil
Examination of the distribution pattern of BoR pottery accords, there-
fore, with the hypothesis that the distribution of BoR juglets represent-
ed trade in their contents, which has been presumed to be perfumed oil.
Several factors further support this view. First, although there is no evi-
dence of pot-marks on the vessels specifically identifying their con-
tents, the distinctive 'packaging' of BoR juglets would have served as
an effective advertisement for their contents. 32 Second, BoR juglets
show considerable standardisation in size - the juglets range within c.8
31
Merrillees observes similarly that the Base Ring jugs of the Late Bronze A g e
were no doubt "prized at the time of their purchase for the contents, but subsequently
perhaps valued for the containers themselves" (Merrillees 1968, 168). Prag notes the
possible "varied purposes of domestic use suggested for re-use o f BR jugs and
juglets" (Prag 1985, 163).32
32
S e e for packaging in cosmetics, Askinson 1923, 374, 380.
cm to c.lO cms high, and c.5-6 cms in diameter - and these sizes are
retained throughout the period of the vessels' production. 33 It is possi-
ble that the retention of this size by the manufacturers was intended to
indicate to the consumer a certain quantity of contents. Merrillees'
observation that Late Bronze Age customers of Base Ring jugs "would
have been constantly reassured by the sight of goods which never
showed much difference in shape, decoration or size" may therefore
hold true also for the later BoR juglets (Merrillees 1968, 157). By con-
trast, the lack of volume standardisation of some Hellenistic and early
Roman unguentaria has been interpreted as suggesting that they were
"probably not made by the potters as containers for a standard amount
of oil or perfume, but were purchased empty to be filled as the need
arose" (Anderson-Stojanovic 1987, 117-118). Third, despite the prob-
lems of the porosity of ceramic containers discussed above, the shape
of the 'classic' globular flared-rimmed BoR juglet was ideally suited to
use for a precious viscous liquid such as perfumed oil. A liquid insert-
ed through the narrow neck could be poured out slowly, in small quan-
tities, and the wide flared rim would force any surplus to drip back into
the vessel.
A significant factor in considering the association of BoR juglets
with a trade in perfumed oil is the appearance of these vessels in some
quantity in the latter stages of its currency on the Dodecanese islands of
Rhodes and Cos, and on Crete. The appearance of BoR further west is
fully discussed in Chapter Five. In the case of these islands, BoR ware
is found almost exclusively in juglet form. The association of the juglets
with perfumed oil on these islands is suggested by this exclusivity of
shape, the extensive imitation of these juglets in local wares of similar
proportions and their subsequent replacement in popularity in the 7th
and 6th centuries BC, especially on Rhodes and Cos, by Corinthian
aryballoi. Scientific testing of Corinthian aryballoi and "plastic" vases
has confirmed that they were used for some kind of perfumed oil (Biers,
Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 28, 32; and see below). Later classical
sources also specifically associate the islands of Rhodes and Cos with
perfumed oil production (Pliny, Natural History XIII:2; and see below).
33
Miniature BoR vessels (under c.6 c m in height), which were probably non-
functional, are rare. These vessels are further discussed in Chapter Five. It is most
likely that the attraction of the miniatures to the consumer lay in the established appeal
of the standard BoR juglets, and perhaps their 'luxurious' connotations. The production
of the miniatures further underlines the easy recognisability of the BoR shape.
Some aspects of the contexts in which BoR juglets are found on the
mainland also possibly support the use of these juglets for perfumed oil.
These contexts are fully discussed in Chapter Three. Here it should be
noted that the juglets are associated in a number of contexts with
vessels that are believed to have served as censers for incense - the
perforated three-legged bowl and the perforated flat-based bowl, which
may have served as a strainer (see 170-173). While BoR juglets may
have been present simply as small vessels for domestic use, it is also
possible that they were associated with some kind of anointing ritual, of
the body or a cult object, alongside perhaps the burning of incense and
offering of wine. It should be noted that the production of perfumed oil
at Pylos is also specifically associated with a context of offerings to
divinities and regional sanctuaries (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 476,
483; Shelmerdine 1985, 123-125; Palaima 1991, 294).
Uses and Types of Oils

Aside from this possible occasional use in ritual, perfumed oils in the
ancient Mediterranean would generally have had secular uses, similar
to those today - emollients and cleansers for the skin and hair in a hot
dry climate, and a pleasant fragrance to mask body odour. Oils could
also be sprinkled on clothing, as was customary in Egypt and appar-
ently in Mycenaean Pylos (Manniche 1999, 8, 91, 95; Ventris &
Chadwick 1973, 482). 34 Fragrant gums could be chewed to sweeten
the breath. Many oils would additionally have had medicinal uses, as
preventatives (such as preventing lice, which are suffocated by oils)
as well as cures for a myriad of internal and external ailments
(Manniche 1999, 113-125). The astringent and disinfectant properties
of many of the oils known to have been produced in antiquity would
have rendered them as effective as their modern counterparts. 35
No ancient texts directly describe the uses to which perfumed oils
were put before the writings of Theophrastus in the late 4th-early 3rd
century BC, but there are Biblical references to uses of such oils. Joab,
34
The Linear Β text from Pylos reads "Olive o i l . . . for the Mistress of Hyp...,
ointment for robes: 9.6 1. oil." A l s o Psalms 45:8: "All thy garments smell of myrrh,
and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad."
See also Psalms 133:2 for Biblical uses of oils.
35
For discussion of the uses and nature of Mediterranean perfumed-oils in
antiquity, see especially Shelmerdine 1985, D a y a g i - M e n d e l s 1989, Manniche 1989,
Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, and most recently the comprehensive study o f
ancient perfumes and c o s m e t i c s in Egypt by Manniche 1999.
for instance, indicts a woman not to anoint herself: "I pray thee, feign
thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint
not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned
for the dead" (II Samuel 14:2).36 The New Testament tells a story of
the anointing of Jesus with spikenard oil: "And being in Bethany in
the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman
having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and
she brake the box, and poured it on his head" {Mark 14:3). A similar
story is told in John 12:3: "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of
spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his
feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the
ointment." The use of cosmetic oils was common in Classical Greece,
and Greek vase paintings from this period show scenes of the use of
small globular aryballoi by women bathing and athletes anointing
themselves (Dayagi-Mendels 1989, 18, 32, 33). Similar uses of oils
are described in the Homeric texts (eg. The Odyssey, VI: 79-80).
In the absence, as yet, of Gas-Chromatography studies of the
contents of BoR juglets, the scientific tests which have been conducted
on twenty-four 6th century BC Corinthian aryballoi and "plastic"
vases, to detect traces of perfumed oils, are invaluable (Biers, Gerhardt
& Braniff 1994) (Figure /3.7). 3 7 A Gas-Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry study of the insides of these vessels found evidence of a
vegetable oil base (possibly olive oil) with traces of plant terpenoids
probably from coniferous resins - such as from juniper (Juniperus
communis or Juniperus oxycedrus), cypress (Cupressus sempervirens)
pine (Pinus or Abies species) and cedar (Cedrus libani) - and
cholesterol, indicating animal fats (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994,
23-29). These ingredients suggest that the oils were possibly
manufactured using the 'enfleurage' process, which required flower
petals to be either pressed into animal fat or steeped in cold oil, which
released their essential oils (Lucas 1989, 86; Shelmerdine 1985, 12-13;
Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 24). Alternatively, the animal fat may
have entered the compounds as a thickening agent (Biers, Gerhardt &
36
Text taken from the Authorized King James Bible.
37
T h e s e Corinthian v e s s e l s were taken from m u s e u m c o l l e c t i o n s in North
America, but include at least three v e s s e l s b e l i e v e d to be from East Greece, perhaps
from the islands under consideration (Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 11). A future
study w o u l d d o well to utilise v e s s e l s from k n o w n archaeological contexts or at
least sites.
Braniff 1994, 24). The results of these tests also suggest that the carrier
oil was olive oil, rather than almond oil which was regarded as the
preferred carrier of later antiquity (Theophrastus, On Odours, 16).
Lastly, the presence of the coniferous resins could have served to
provide the dominant scent for the oil, or these could have served as
astringents to 'stabilise' the oil (make it less volatile), on top of which
the final scent could be added (Shelmerdine 1985, 13; Theophrastus,
On Odours, 17; Pliny, Natural History, XIIL7). Pliny specifies that
"tears" from Abies trees "are added to unguents to overcome the
hardness of the oil" (Pliny, Natural History, XII: 134). The authors of
the study conclude that scents used in the Corinthian vases may have
been "pungent, rather than sweet (floral), and the connection of certain
contents, such as those suggesting cedar, indicate that oil of this scent
could also have served as insect repellent or in embalming" (Biers,
Gerhardt & Braniff 1994, 32).
The study of the perfumes contained in the Corinthian vases
provides, therefore, valuable indications of the constituents of these
popular scents in 7th-6th centuries, the period succeeding that of
BoR. The Linear Β tablets from Knossos and Pylos provide,
additionally, important evidence for Late Bronze Age perfumes and
their production. The tablets record "rose-scented" (wo-do-we),
"sage-scented" (pa-ko-we) and "cyperus-scented" (ku-pa-ro-we)
perfumes and mention the role of the "unguent-boiler" in perfume
production, suggesting that the perfumes were prepared by boiling the
ingredients together (maceration), as mentioned later by Pliny
(Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 477; cf. Pliny, Natural History, XII: 109).
A recipe for a Mycenaean perfume at Pylos is preserved, which
contains coriander seed, cyperus seed, fruits, wine, honey, wool
[fennel?] and must [low quality wine?] (Ventris & Chadwick 1973,
223-224; Shelmerdine 1985, 18-19). 38 Other spices and herbs
mentioned in the Linear Β texts include fennel seeds, cumin, sesame
seeds, red safflower and mint (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 228). It is
should be noted that the Linear Β tablets at Knossos record Cyprus as
an exporter of cyperus-seed and probably coriander; for example,
38
T h e use o f wine, honey, "fruits" (probably raisins) and different herbs in this
recipe is similar to those for the w e l l - k n o w n Egyptian "kyphi" perfume, recorded
from the period of R a m e s s e s III onwards (12th century BC) (Manniche 1999, 4 7 - 5 9 ) .
Theophrastus writes that the addition of wine to a heavy perfume lightens it
(Theophrastus, On Odours, 44).
Text 102 at Knossos records "120 1. of cyperus seed from
Cyprus"(Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 221-223). 39 Note also, in this
context, that the annals of Thutmosis III in Egypt (c. end 16th-early
15th century BC) refer to the distribution amongst the troops of a
"Cypriot speciality oil" (Bergoffen 1991, 61, 72).
Egyptian recipes for perfumes include a vast array of ingredients
using plants, flowers and resins (Manniche 1999, 10-31). The Book of
Exodus describes a composite perfume including "pure myrrh" which
would have been imported from Somalia and southern Arabia
(Manniche 1999, 26-28):
The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take thou also unto thee principal
spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so
much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two
hundred and fifty shekels. And of cassia five hundred shekels... and of oil
olive an hin: And thou shall make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment
compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.
(Exodus 30: 22-25)
Myrrh was common in Egyptian recipes for composite perfumes, but the
Linear Β texts mention it only at Knossos (Shelmerdine 1985, 23).
Mycenaean perfumes appear to have been simpler and probably less
heavy than most Egyptian perfumes - a base olive oil, made astringent
with coriander, cyperus or pine resin and an added scent of one main
component (Shelmerdine 1985,22). The tests on the Corinthian aryballoi
uphold this view, and it is likely that the perfumes manufactured in the
Iron Age Mediterranean were of comparable components.
Our knowledge of the perfumes which may have been manufactured
in the Iron Age in the regions of BoR distribution is limited and relies
largely on the later classical writers, as well as our modern knowledge
of the aromatic plants and flowers native to these regions (eg.
Georgiades 1985).40 By Pliny's day, Cyprus was especially associated
39
Elsewhere the Linear Β texts at K n o s s o s refer to an unidentified "Phoenician
spice" (po-ni-ki-jo) (Ventris & Chadwick 1973, 222). This does not, however, appear
to be related to unguent production and may have been a culinary ingredient.
40
We know that a huge variety of Mediterranean plants produced scented oils in the
Classical period. Pliny writes that oils were made from "aspalathus, reed, balsam, iris,
cardamomum, melilot, Gallic nard, all-heal, marjoram, helenium, and cinnamomum
root, by steeping all these plants in oil and then pressing out the juices. Similarly also
rose-oil is made from roses, and rush-oil, which is very similar to oil of roses, from the
sweet rush, and likewise oils are extracted from henbane and from lupins and narcissus"
(Pliny, Natural History, XV:30). Theophrastus includes also bergamot-mint, tufted
thyme, myrtle as sources of perfume (Theophrastus, On Odours, 27). Georgiades notes
with "vine-flower scent" and "cyprus-scent," 41 Rhodes with "oil of
saffron" and Cos with "scent of marjoram" and "quince-blossom
unguent" (Pliny, Natural History XII: 133, XIII:4-6). Scent of marjoram
was also, however, associated with Cyprus: "Sampsuchum (otherwise
amaracum, sweet marjoram) of which the most valued, and the most
fragrant, comes from Cyprus, counteracts the stings of scorpions..."
(Pliny, Natural History, XXI: 163). Theophrastus notes that 'drop-wort'
"grows in Cyprus on the hills and is very fragrant: that which grows in
Hellas yields no perfume, being scentless" (Theophrastus, On Odours,
27). Pliny and a later writer associate the herb 'aspalathos' with Rhodes
and Crete, and Theophrastus says this herb was used in making rose
perfume (Theophrastus, On Odours, 25; Pliny, Natural History,
XXIV: 112; Zohary 1982, 195; Manniche 1999, 4). Spikenard perfume
was highly esteemed by the later period but the plant was not native to
the Mediterranean and had to be imported from India or Nepal; it may
not have reached the Mediterranean in the Iron Age (Theophrastus, On
Odours, 38,42; Mark 14:3; John 12:3; Manniche 1999, 23).
Plants native to the mainland Levant included the Pistacia atlantica
L. and Pistacia terebinthus L. trees, which produced terebinth resin,
juniper (Juniperus phoenicea), cedar, Balanites aegyptiaca L. and c.
opobalsamum, both of which produced fine balsam and grew
especially in the desert areas of the southern Levant, and hyssop
(Manniche 1999, 21, 61, 67; Moldenke 1952, 55; Crowfoot &
Baldensperger 1932, 78; Zohary 1982, 110, 117). II Chronicles 2:8
the presence of numerous aromatic plants and shrubs growing wild on Cyprus today:
including Cypressus sempervirens (cypress), Juniperus phoenicea (juniper), Pistacia
terebinthus, Salvia cypria (sage), T h y m u s capitatus (thyme), Origanum microphyllum
and Origanum heracleotium (origanum), Rosemarinus officinalis (rosemary) and
Laurus nobilis (sweet bay), as well as the fragrant flowers Geranicum tuberoscum
(geranium), Chrysanthemum coronarium (crown daisy), Calendula arrensis (field
marigold), Myrtus c o m m u n i s (myrtle), Matriciaria chamomilla (camomile), a modern
variety of iris (Iris germanica), Cistus monseliensis and Cistus villosus creticus (rock
roses) (Georgiades 1985, 2 0 - 8 9 ) .
41
Note the distinction between "cypros" scent, from the flowers of the henna plant
Lawsonia inermis L„ and Cyperus, or 'sedge' (Manniche 1999, 17-19; Zohary 1982,
190). Pliny writes that the "cypros" perfume from Cyprus "has a sort of sweet scent"
(Pliny, Natural History, XII: 109). Cyperus was apparently more c o m m o n l y used as an
astringent than as a scent in itself (Shelmerdine 1985, 21-22). D y e s were perhaps
applied to Mycenaean perfumes, and are also referred to by Theophrastus (Shelmerdine
1985, 23, 27-31 ; Theophrastus, On Odours, 31). Perhaps it is possible to speculate that
if vessels served as advertisements for the scents within, a reddish-coloured "cypros-
scent" might be appropriately advertised in a red-slipped ( B o R ) juglet?
tells of Solomon requesting algum trees, probably sandalwood, from
Hiram of Tyre: "Send me also cedar trees, fir trees, and algum trees,
out of Lebanon." Pliny mentions that "cypros" (henna) from
Ashkelon was famous in his time (Pliny, Natural History XII: 109).
Implications
From this survey of ancient perfumes, it appears most likely that the
consumption and no doubt production, to varied extents, of perfumed oil
was common to all regions of the eastern Mediterranean during the Iron
Age. However, this chapter has also shown that, on current evidence, it
is plausible to suggest an association between BoR pottery and trade in
perfumed oil. If BoR juglets were intended for this commodity, then it
appears that we should look for a single region which both manufactured
the ware and produced its contents. The distribution of the later
Corinthian aryballoi provides a good parallel. Although these aryballoi
were "exported far and wide, ...no doubt many of them were filled at
Corinth itself, which clearly was trading in perfumes and unguents as
well as the containers for them" (Rasmussen 1991, 65).
The question of the origin of BoR pottery is fully examined in
Chapter Four; other factors such as visual examination of the BoR
pottery from Cyprus and that found on the mainland consistently
suggest that the pottery originates from a single source. 42 The
chronological contemporaneity of BoR juglets and bowls on the
mainland, discussed above, has already implied some degree of
central production for the pottery. The distribution pattern of BoR
pottery on the mainland, predominantly along the coastal Levant with
a degree of concentration in the Akko Plain region, does not exclude
the possibility of either Cyprus or Phoenicia as sources for BoR. The
possibility of local manufacture of the pottery in the Akko or Carmel
region should not be discounted, although there is, as yet, no evidence
for this. 43 However, the points noted above - early textual references
to Cypriot export of oils and ingredients desired in perfumed oil
production, later classical associations between the production of
perfumed oil with Cyprus, and the abundance of aromatic plants
42
The most recent general discussion of BoR by Tappy upholds this v i e w : "The
current trend is to v i e w the B - o - R ware as representing a single class o f vessel and to
direct research towards clarifying its place o f origin" (Tappy 1992, 127 n. 114).
43
This suggestion has been put forward by Mazar 1985, 8 2 n.220. See, also,
discussion o f the pottery at Tell Keisan in Chapter Four, 279.
flourishing on this island in modern times - suggest that Cyprus is a
good candidate for perfumed oil production.
The distribution of Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware in the Late
Bronze Age may, perhaps, be viewed as a parallel phenomenon.
Eriksson's study of this ware makes a strong case for an origin in
Cyprus (Eriksson 1991). The spindle-bottles in particular appear to
have been designed to contain some sort of precious liquid. Perhaps,
however, the most significant parallel is Eriksson's observation that
while the range of Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware shapes found in
different localities varied, "on the islands of Rhodes and Crete only
the spindle bottle has been recorded" (Eriksson 1991, 90).
Possible Routes of BoR Trade from Cyprus

In view of the distribution patterns of BoR on the mainland, therefore,
it remains to examine the actual routes by which BoR pottery may
have travelled. Chapter Four, as noted, discusses the origin of the
ware in greater detail and attempts to show that even in the absence
of conclusive scientific evidence, the proposition of a Cypriot origin
for BoR is well-grounded. The following discussion assesses the
plausibility of this hypothetical Cypro-Levantine maritime trade route
in light of the distribution patterns determined on the mainland. In
addition, with the establishment of a key zone of BoR distribution in
the coastal/Carmel region, the routes inland from this region along
which BoR may have been traded are investigated.
One of the most important sources of evidence for maritime trade
are, of course, shipwrecks themselves. In addition, studies of the East
Mediterranean coastline in antiquity are valuable - the range of its
natural harbour facilities and lighterages, and the geomorphological
changes the coastline may have undergone over the centuries. 44
Modern ethnographic accounts of transhipment in the region,
especially those recorded earlier this century, are also illuminating, as
are studies of ancient wind routes and conditions at sea. 45
Nevertheless, analysis of maritime trade in the largely prehistoric Iron
Age is restricted by the limited nature of the evidence and can offer
only informed hypotheses. The following discussion will utilise all
44
S e e especially Shepstone 1937; Raban 1985; Marcus 1998; Wachsmann 1998.
Note that no geomorphological study has yet been conducted for this early period.
45
S e e Casson 1938, 1951; Mallowan 1939; Murray 1995.
available evidence to construct what may be a plausible picture of the
Iron Age trade in pottery from Cyprus to the Levantine coast and
inland to their final destinations.
Cargoes
This Cyprus is so fertile and so abounds in products of every kind, that

without the need of any help from without, by its native resources alone
it builds cargo ships from the very keel to the topmost sails, and equipping
them completely entrusts them to the deep. (Ammianus Marcellinus,
History, XIV, 8, 14)
Despite the importance of shipwrecks for our knowledge of maritime
shipping for any given period, the Early-Middle Iron Age is barely
represented in our evidence. The two most important shipwrecks, in
terms of their state of preservation, date from the Late Bronze Age:
the merchant ships excavated at Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya in
Turkey (Bass 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991; Pulak 1988, 1997;
Wachsmann 1998, 206-208). In particular, the Ulu Burun shipwreck,
as noted above, provides valuable evidence for the transport of
pottery in considerable quantity in ships' cargoes (see above, 73).
The Cape Gelidonya wreck in Turkey and the Point Iria wreck in the
Argolid, both dating c. 1200 BC, were much more fragmentary but
included stirrup jars in their cargo (Lolos 1995, 72-73; Wachsmann
1998, 208). A survey of known Mediterranean shipwrecks published
in 1992 notes only fifteen from the Iron Age in total, of which only
four are of good preservation (Parker 1992a). These wrecks, the
Giglio wreck dated c. 600-590 BC, the wreck at Cap D'Antibes dated
c. 540 BC, that at Bon-Porté dated c. 550-525 BC, and the Gela wreck
dated late 6th-early 7th century were all involved in Etruscan or
Archaic Greek trade and were found in the western Mediterranean
(Parker 1992a, 192, 101, 74, 189). They provide, however, valuable
evidence of pottery involved in maritime trade, mostly amphorae
presumably filled with their contents. The Giglio ship, in addition to
Laconian and Ionian bowls and Etruscan amphorae, was carrying
twenty-eight Corinthian aryballoi and six Laconian aryballoi
(Bound 1991, 16).
There is limited iconographie evidence from the Iron Age showing
pottery travelling by ship. A late Bichrome Cypriot jug from the Karpas
peninsula, now in the British Museum, is decorated with a painted boat
loaded with two amphorae (Hadjisavvas 1995, Figs. 5a, 5b) (Figure
13:2a-b). The groups of concentric circles in the style of Iron Age
painted pottery decorating the front of the amphorae probably simply
indicate the prevalence of this motif, but it is appealing to imagine them
representing the contents within (Wachsmann 1998, Fig. 12:4).
The profitability of pottery cargoes has been challenged by scholars
of classical Greek vases, who used prices marked on Greek vases to
calculate their relative value against other commercial goods; these
scholars suggest that even fine-ware pottery was exceptionally
inexpensive and would have functioned only as "saleable ballast" in
ships' cargoes (Gill 1988a, 739; 1988b; Vickers & Gill 1994, 90). The
Ulu Burun wreck, however, as well as more recent critiques of Vickers'
and Gill's analysis have tended to undermine this view (Williams 1996,
231). The scale of large consignments of pottery travelling on boats in
the Iron Age may, however, be overestimated. It should be noted that the
quantities of BoR pottery found on the mainland altogether are fairly
minimal. This would be in accordance with small-scale and perhaps
intermittent trade in BoR pottery over the relatively long period in which
it is found, rather than large or necessarily regular consignments.
Routes over the Sea

The precise maritime route used by merchant ships on a passage from
Cyprus to the mainland in the Iron Age is more difficult to determine. As
has been noted above, the greatest proportion of BoR pottery seems to
have been found in the region of the Akko Plain and the Carmel. Lack
of excavation further north on the coast in the territory of Phoenicia may
have unbalanced the picture, but it is plausible that the 'peak' trade in
BoR was directed at this lower part of the Levantine coast.
Aside from the quantity of imported pottery at sites along this part of
the coast, Artzy points out that the Carmel region had been especially
associated with maritime trade in the Late Bronze Age. She notes that an
"incised "fleet" of diverse boat types which was discovered on the rocks
of the Carmel Ridge, especially the area of the Me'arot (Caves) River,
marked not only a landfall but also one of the routes which connected [Tel
Nami] to the hinterland" (Artzy 1998, 440, 444). It is plausible that this
region may have been a natural point of disembarcation for ships arriving
from overseas. Artzy also notes that the "jaw-like crevice" in the Carmel
mountain ridge carved out by the Me'arot river was a "distinctive
marker... readily discernible from the sea" (Artzy 1998, 441).
A bone scapula found at Tel Dor may also provide evidence of
Cypriot Iron Age connections with this part of the coast. The scapula
was decorated with an incised manned boat, possibly representing a
"cultic" departure scene, and was inscribed on the reverse with a Cypro-
Syllabic script (still undeciphered) (Stern 1994b, 7). Various features of
the dress and pose of the sailors suggest Egyptian influence while the
ship itself shows "hybrid" features and is similar to Cypriot boat
depictions from the 7th century BC (Stern 1994b, 9). It is possible that
this item, though found in a later Persian context at Tel Dor, is not only
indicative of trade between Cyprus and this part of the Levantine coast,
but also reflects the generally cosmopolitan nature of East
Mediterranean trade.
The use of sails by merchant ships in the Mediterranean had been
established by around 2000 BC and developed throughout the Bronze
Age until sail construction was such that ships could be manoeuvred
in directions other than before the wind (Roberts 1991, 59; Georgiou
1991, 62). 46 The development of sail was particularly advantageous
to the merchant ship in allowing more cargo to be taken on board, in
place of an oared crew. This was doubtless the method of transport
from Cyprus to the mainland in this period.
Unlike the Aegean area, which is broken up by numerous islands and
peninsulas and subject to fairly volatile wind changes, the waters of the
East Mediterranean are generally more predictable and less hostile to the
sailor (Raban 1991, 130). The sailing season in the East Mediterranean
would, however, have probably been confined to the summer months of
early April to November (Raban 1991, 130). The most prominent winds
in the Mediterranean blow from the west and north-west, and the main
coastal winds around Cyprus blow from the west (Murray 1995, 39-40)
(,Figure 13:3). A vessel taking a direct route from Cyprus to the
mainland would therefore land far north of Tyre on the Phoenician coast.
Travel southwards down the Levantine coast would, it seems, have been
difficult under sail, as local sea breezes also blew from the south-west
along this stretch of coast. During the months of September to
November, however, winds from the north-west and north prevail which
might have taken a ship from the southern coast of Cyprus to the region
46
Evidence of sailing methods in the Bronze and Iron A g e s is chiefly limited to
Egyptian depictions of ships, the Akrotiri ship painting, and the Ulu Burun wreck.
Details of the methods e m p l o y e d have been widely discussed, predominantly in
context of long-distance maritime trade from the Near East to Greece. Relatively
sophisticated sailing techniques are likely e v e n for this period. For discussion, see
Roberts 1991, 55-59; Georgiou 1991, 6 1 - 7 1 ; Wachsmann 1998, 2 4 7 - 2 5 4 .
of the Akko Plain (Murray 1995, 40). We must bear in mind therefore
that, in the case of BoR pottery, we might be looking at seasonal trade,
in the autumn months. The relative lack of BoR in Egypt, although
possibly due to the chance factors of excavation, suggests that as with
Cypriot pottery in the Late Bronze Age (Prag 1985, 157, 159) BoR may
seldom have been included in major trans-Mediterranean trade, from
Cyprus to Egypt and up the Levantine coast, but rather in smaller-scale
crossings from island to mainland. Raban suggests that the crossing at
the narrowest point between the Levantine coast (in north Syria) and
Cyprus "could be made easily within less than a day's sailing in both
directions" (Raban 1985, 140). Travel from Cyprus to the lower part of
the coast need not have taken substantially longer. 47
The Coast: Ports and Harbours

It is also interesting to assess the terrestrial or river routes by which
BoR pottery may have been distributed from the coastal regions to
which it was first imported, to the range of inland sites at which it was
found. The limited number of good harbours along the coast of
modern Israel and Phoenicia is well known (Raban 1985, 11; Frost
1995, 2). There are few natural bays along this coast, and apart from
the Bay of Akko and the natural lagoons at Dor, the coastline is open
and relatively unprotected. Even Jaffa, which the Bible mentions in
connection with Solomonic maritime trade, was not a natural haven
(Shepstone 1937, 263; Raban 1985, 27; 1998, 430). Artificial
construction could enhance coastal protection for ships but there is
limited evidence for man-made harbours along this coast during the
early part of the Iron Age. Only Tel Dor, unique in not being located
at a river outlet, was enhanced with an ashlar quay during the 13th-
11th centuries (Raban 1995, 148; 1998, 432). 48 Later ashlar quays,
usually moles extending out into the sea, were constructed at Tabbat
al-Hammam on the north Phoenician coast (9th century), and in the
Carmel region at 'Atlit (7th century) and Akko (6th century) (Raban
47
The southern coast of Cyprus to the Carmel cape is approximately 135 nautical
miles; sailing at a speed of c. 6 knots would take a merchant ship a little less than a
day to make the crossing. At 2 knots, the journey might take 2.5 days (Marcus, pers.
comm.).
48
There is also e v i d e n c e of Middle Bronze A g e attempts to enhance the natural
anchorages of this part of the coast: earthwork dams were built at Achziv, a sandstone
wall at Dor and perhaps similar constructions at Tel Nami (Raban 1995, 144-148;
Artzy 1994, 123-125).
1995, 148-158). The Iron Age sites in the region of the Akko Bay,
however, such as Achziv, Akko and Tell Abu Hawam, would probably
have provided reasonably safe anchorages (Markoe 1999, 192-194).
An alternative to the actual harbour was to dock a ship out at sea
and transport goods by freighters to the shore. This was a risky
process, and the quantities of pottery recovered from the seabed off
the coast of Ashkelon and Ashdod, for example, suggest that loss of a
cargo in the process was not infrequent (Barag 1963, 16).49 However,
while limited quantities of pottery from the early Iron Age have been
recovered from the sea off the Israeli coast, and especially few
imported wares, an increase by the Iron Age in the quantities of
locally-made storejars recovered suggests that, by this period,
navigation from one coastal city to another was reasonably well-
developed (Barag 1963, 17). We may surmise therefore that the
transportation of goods along the coast of modern Israel may have
been conducted by sea as well as land. Small boats could have
transported cargoes from the Akko Plain area, if this was a major
import point, south to sites such as Tel Dor, Tel Mevorakh and Tel
Michal. Occasionally, a southern site such as Tell-el-Ajjul, at which a
considerable quantity of Cypriot pottery has been found, may have
been a direct recipient of cargoes from Cyprus. This site was also a
notably prominent recipient for Cypriot goods in the Late Bronze Age
(Bergoffen 1991, 60; Knapp & Cherry 1994, 43).
Routes Inland
Our knowledge of the inland routes in this period from the east
Mediterranean coast into the hinterland is not extensive. 50 It is
possible that river mouths served as havens for small ships (Raban
1985, 18) and that goods were unloaded there and either taken
inland by pack-animal, or possibly smaller vessels used to ship
cargoes further upstream. This latter option may have been
contingent on the season, for many rivers may have dried out in the
hot summers of the region (Raban 1985, 19). Others would have
been too shallow or narrow to be navigable, or the river outlet
49
Or, as Artzy suggests ( 1 9 9 8 , 4 4 3 ) , that much of the quota of imported pottery
found at coastal sites is due to breakages en route or in the process of unloading.
50
See especially Raban 1985 and 1998 for detailed discussion and maps of the
estuaries and harbours of the coast of Israel during the Bronze and Iron A g e s . A l s o
Artzy 1998.
would be swampy, unsuitable either for boat or animal (Artzy 1998,
440). Of the inland sites at which BoR pottery appears, many are
located on or near river routes: Tel Kabri on Nahal Ga'aton; Tell
Abu Hawam, Yoqneam, Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish on Nahal Qishon;
Tel Mevorakh on Nahal Ta'aninim; Tel Zeror on Nahal Hadera; Tel
Qasile on Nahal Yarkon; Tel Ashdod and Lachish on Nahal
Lachish, Tell el-Ajjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Farah (S) on Nahal
Besor and Beersheba on Nahal Beersheba (Raban 1985, 14-17, 23,
Figs. 2-3). There is, however, evidence for a rise in sea level during
the last two centuries of the 2nd millennium, and a likelihood that
many of the riverine anchorages were silted up during this period
(Raban 1998, 432). Few of these rivers during the Iron Age, aside
from perhaps Nahal Besor, may have served as more than sources
of fresh water (Raban 1985, 23, 29).
While these rivers may not, therefore, have been used as
waterways, their track from the coastal plain into the hinterland may
have been used by merchants seeking convenient passage. Artzy
suggests, in particular, that the Me'arot river bed inland from the
Carmel coast was "used as a route supporting humans and pack
animals" and notes also that Nahal Oren which led inland from 'Atlit
would have been passable: Iron Age II pottery has been found on the
slopes of Khirbat Shalaleh on this route, which might then open up
access to Megiddo (Artzy 1998, 441, 442). The Carmel Ridge itself
may not have been an obstacle to merchant traders (Artzy 1998, 442).
An inland route from the Akko Plain to the Galilee and the Jordan
Valley would have been possible through the Beth-Netopha Valley
(Gal 1992b, 8). Also, from Yoqneam and Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley
a route led eastwards through the Harod Valley to Beth-Shan and Pella
(Dorsey 1991, 110-111, Map 5). In the south, the site of Tell Jemmeh,
directly inland from Tell el-Ajjul, would link eastwards both with
routes to Beersheba and to Tel Halif (Dorsey 1991, 58, 67-68, Map 1).
The use of pack-animals for conveyance of goods is well established
by this period and we must surmise that this was the major means of
transporting cargoes of pottery to inland sites (Dorsey 1991, 13-17; Artzy
1994, 134-135). Donkeys were especially well-suited to negotiate the
stony mountain paths of much of the region inland from the Akko Plain,
which camels would have found difficult, and wagons or carts would
have required wider and better cleared roads (Dorsey 1991, 14-16). The
distances involved are noticeably small; a day's journey by foot covered
approximately 20 miles, rising to approximately 25-30 miles with a pack
animal (Dorsey 1991, 12-13). Artzy estimates that "the distance between
Nami or Dor to Megiddo is no more than a day's walk, even with pack
animals" (Artzy 1998, 442). (See Figure 13:4).
While very limited quantities of BoR pottery have been found in
inland Syria, the ware does occur far inland at the site of Hama.
Riis points out that the route of goods travelling to Hama from the
Syrian coast was unlikely to have followed the Orontes River from
Al Mina, but instead merchants arriving at the coast probably found
a pass in the mountain ridges further south. Such a route could be
followed from the coastal site of Tell Sukas to Hama (Riis 1982,
257). The route from Al Mina to the 'Amuq was feasible via the
Orontes (Riis 1970, 161, Fig. 56).
Conclusions
This chapter has attempted to answer some of the chief questions

posed by BoR pottery: how much can we tell from its distribution
pattern and what was the nature of trade in these vessels. The chapter
has identified a broad but relatively minimal distribution, over a
lengthy period, with a concentration of the ware on the coast,
especially in the Carmel area. This accords with the ware being
imported to the mainland from overseas, probably as small
consignments. It also suggests that trade in BoR was essentially a
'filtering-through' trade from key import points on the coast, similar
to the "unofficial," "on the side" trade in Late Bronze Age Cypriot
pottery in the Levant, defined by Bergoffen (Bergoffen 1991, 60).
Although it appears to have followed the same principal trade
network as the earlier White Painted and Bichrome wares, BoR has
altogether a more intensive distribution. This may simply reflect
larger quantities of the pottery arriving at the coast. It may also,
however, perhaps reflect an increase in contact between the coast
and the hinterland of the Levant from the beginning of the Iron II
period onwards. 51
It seems likely that while BoR pottery may occasionally have
travelled as 'sets' of fine ware, including BoR bowls and jugs, the
51
For an interesting contrasting analysis of the difference between local coastal
and inland pottery distributions in the area of Phoenicia and Syria, which persists
until the expansion of Assyrian power in late Iron II, see Lehmann 1998.
contents of the BoR juglets rendered them of greater value and hence
they reached a broader consumer market than other shapes in this
ware. The juglets most probably contained perfumed oil. There is
some evidence that perfumed oil was produced in Cyprus from the
Bronze Age onwards and that similar commodities were perhaps
exported during the Late Bronze Age in Red Lustrous Ware spindle
bottles, and, perhaps, Base Ring juglets. Given that, in addition, no
clear association between Phoenician pottery and BoR was found, a
Cypriot origin to BoR ware seems plausible.
This chapter, therefore, throws valuable light on the more
fundamental issues of the pottery - its origin and date. The following
two chapters investigate these issues thoroughly, through examination
of the archaeological contexts of the pottery on the mainland and a
study of BoR pottery in Cyprus.
CHAPTER THREE
THE CHRONOLOGY OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY
This chapter seeks first to establish a chronology for BoR pottery use
at individual sites on the mainland and then assess the implications of
the results for the current chronologies of this ware in Cyprus and in
the Levant in general.
The problems of the chronology of BoR have been discussed
briefly in the Introduction to the book. In Chapter One, it was noted
that contrary to the claims of some scholars there was no evidence
that this pottery initially appeared in the 11th century BC on the
mainland. The claim that it is, however, a 'hallmark' of the 10th
century there is persistent, and the ware is generally believed to range
in date from the 10th century, continue throughout the 9th century and
disappear by the end of the 8th century. However, especially at some
sites in Syria and Lebanon, it has been argued that BoR is still found
in levels attributed to the 7th century. This chapter assesses the
accuracy of this chronological scheme and outlines the best current
evidence for the earliest appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland,
its 'peak' period, and the point at which it seems to have disappeared
from circulation. The legacy of BoR, in terms of its influence on
pottery production on the islands of Crete, Rhodes and Cos, is
examined in Chapter Five.
The establishment of a reliable chronological scheme for BoR is
important not least on account of its high "recognition-factor." As a
consequence, it holds a significant place in all future excavation of the
relevant periods and in clarification of internal site chronologies. It also
provides a crucial link between Cyprus and the mainland. These two
regions, although geographically adjacent and historically intertwined,
at present have independent archaeological chronologies, largely
because few studies have attempted to correlate them. Analysis of the
chronology of BoR on the mainland will not only aids the establishment
of a satisfactory chronology for both regions, but it also throws
important light on the trading relations between them.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first (Section I)
provides an analysis of archaeological contexts on the mainland in
which BoR is found presently dated to the 10th century BC. The
second (Section II) investigates contexts dated to the 9th and 8th
centuries BC. The resulting information is used to establish the main
'phases' of the pottery and these phases will be plotted on distribution
maps to assess any shifts in the circulation of the pottery (Maps 19-
24). The peak period of BoR distribution, in terms of the quantity of
the material in each phase, is noted. Chapter Four assesses the
chronology of the ware in Cyprus and correlates this with the data
presented here.
In addition to assessment of the stratigraphical context of BoR
on the mainland, indications of different social status between the
contexts are considered. The question of whether, during the
earliest phase of distribution of BoR, the pottery appeared in 'elite'
contexts and later became more popular in broader contexts, or
whether that the pottery was distributed throughout the market at a
low level in all periods is addressed. Although in many cases it
remains impossible to determine whether the individual vessels
published were found intact or as sherds of a single vessel, this
does not cause major discrepancies in the chronological
assessment.
Notes
In the following analysis full references are given for each BoR
vessel examined. Beyond this, direct references are only given to
'other finds' from relevant contexts when they are of especial
interest or it is expected that the reader will want to investigate
them. It is possible in all cases to find the vessels mentioned below
in the original publication according to the locus from which they
came. (See also Appendix I). The archaeological features defined by
locus numbers are referred to in some instances as 'Locus X' and,
where the nature of the locus is relevant or useful, as 'Room
X'/'Building X'/or 'Floor X.' A specific stratum at a site will often
be referred to simply by its number, eg. Megiddo VA-IVB. Note also
the different terms for the ancient mound: 'tel' in Hebrew, and 'tell'
in Arabic. The names of the site originally used by the excavators
are preserved here, as are the stratigraphie terms they employed, eg.
'Niveau X' for a level published in French. Internal vessel 'Type'
numbers are included where this is helpful in tracing the vessels
described, for example at Megiddo. Finally, where the identification
of a vessel type cannot be confirmed from the publication, this is
indicated by a question mark.
Section I: The 10th Century
The 10th Century and the Problem of Shishak

A brief discussion of one of the chief factors in the dating of
archaeological strata to the 10th century is useful here. This is the
campaign of the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq I (the same pharaoh as
the Biblical Shishak - see below), attested in three independent
sources to have invaded Palestine and brought about the destruction
of many of its major cities. One source of this evidence is the Old
Testament, which records that:
in the 5 t h y e a r o f k i n g R e h o b o a m , . . . S h i s h a k k i n g o f E g y p t c a m e up
against Jerusalem; he took a w a y the treasures o f the H o u s e o f the Lord
a n d t h e t r e a s u r e s o f the k i n g ' s h o u s e - h e e v e n t o o k a w a y all: a n d h e t o o k
a w a y all t h e s h i e l d s o f g o l d w h i c h S o l o m o n h a d m a d e . . . A n d h e t o o k t h e
f e n c e d c i t i e s w h i c h p e r t a i n e d t o J u d a h , a n d c a m e t o J e r u s a l e m . . . (I K i n g s
14: 2 5 - 2 6 ; II C h r o n i c l e s 12: 4 ) .
The second source of evidence is Sheshonq's triumphal relief,

inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Amon at Karnak (Thebes)
(Redford 1973, 12-13; Kitchen 1986, 432-447; Hughes 1990,
191). The inscription records names of the cities in Palestine that
the pharaoh razed, amongst which those that have been
archaeologically identified are T a ' a n a c h , Megiddo, Tirzah
(probably Tell el-Far'ah (N)), Tel Rehov and Beth-Shan. A
reconstruction of Sheshonq's campaign suggests that task-forces
were sent out to include east Jordan, the plain of Acco and the
Galilee, and that the returning route led from Megiddo through
1
This stela was originally about 10 feet high (Kitchen 1986, 299).
the Carmel ridge and south across the Sharon plain towards
Philistia and Egypt (Kitchen 1986, 296-300, 436). A third source
of evidence of the campaign is provided by a fragment of a
commemorative stela erected by Sheshonq at Megiddo 1 and found
in Schumacher's early excavations at the site, although out of
context (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 61, Fig. 70). 2
Sheshonq's accession is generally dated to c. 945 BC and his
military campaign to c. 925 BC (Kitchen 1986, 179, 295). The
evidence of widespread destruction and conflagration discovered
at many of the previously flourishing sites in Palestine excavated
between levels dated independently to the Iron I period and the
later, Assyrian, period, is believed to be best assigned to
2
For discussion of Sheshonq's campaign, see Kitchen (1986, 2 9 6 - 3 0 0 , 4 3 2 - 4 4 7 ) ,
Redford ( 1 9 7 3 , 3-17), Hughes ( 1 9 9 0 , 1 8 9 - 1 9 3 ) and Rast (1978, 26-27). For maps o f
Sheshonq's possible routes, see Kitchen (1986, 2 9 7 , 4 3 4 ) . The motivation for this
Palestinian campaign is not certain. Redford suggests that Sheshonq required tribute
to replenish the treasury that had been empty o f military booty for around t w o
centuries and to make offerings to the god A m u n , perhaps to o v e r c o m e the suspicion
that his foreign origins (as chief of a Libyan tribe, the M e s h w e s h ) had incurred in
T h e b e s (Redford 1973, 11-13). There are signs that the high priests at T h e b e s were
reluctant to name Sheshonq with a royal cartouche early on in his reign, indicating
tensions of this kind, although the extent to which the 'foreignness' o f Sheshonq was
a burden to him may be overstated (Redford 1973, 9; Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . An
alternative theory proposes that Sheshonq invaded at the request of Jeroboam I of
Israel, w h o had been an exile at the Egyptian court and w h o sought help in war
against R e h o b o a m of Judah; the pharaoh may have been bought off with Rehoboam's
treasures from Jerusalem and turned against Jeroboam in the north ( D a v i e s 1986, 96).
Kitchen suggests that "the formal casus belli was probably a border incident —
incursions across Egypt's East-Delta boundaries by Semitic tribesmen" (Kitchen
1986, 294), although Sheshonq's claim at Karnak that he "smites the lands that attack
him" is customary justification of Egyptian military action (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) .
Sheshonq's campaign was probably predominantly a s h o w o f strength (Baines, pers.
c o m m . ) . The exact nature of the campaign is also uncertain. Redford suggests that
Sheshonq's list d o e s not necessarily represent the cities that were devastated but
merely "a set of itineraries extracted from the army day-book;" the list should
therefore be reconstructed as "the towns o f Palestine that he visited on this campaign"
(Redford 1973, 11 n.74). Examination o f the relief at Karnak reveals in fact a
suspiciously rounded number of 150 cities conquered in total by the pharaoh. One
line of the relief lists towns in Nubia while the remainder is devoted to a list of towns
in Asia (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . It is highly unlikely that these place-names are
representative of the real campaign route and they are more likely to be a standard list
of Asian cities in Egyptian records (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) . Redford c o m m e n t s that
although the likelihood of a destructive campaign is high, Sheshonq did not attempt
to "annex" the territory he covered (Redford 1973, 11). In sum, there is little evidence
for the precise form taken by the pharaoh's campaign in Palestine.
Sheshonq's campaign (eg. Rast 1978, 26-27). This is especially so
in the case of sites noted in his list at Karnak. 1 Loci sealed by
destruction material at many of these sites are therefore
traditionally attributed to the last quarter of the 10th century.
The problems associated with use of the Sheshonq evidence to
provide an absolute chronology of Iron Age Israel have, however,
been much discussed. First, some scholars have proposed a wholesale
disassociation of Shishak with the pharaoh Shoshenq I in
etymological terms (James et al. 1992, 229-231). This is not
convincing. Although the "nun" character is missing from the Hebrew
version of the name, the Akkadian rendering of the name, susinqu,
and the later Greek name, sesonchosis, are close enough
etymologically to be one and the same (Baines, pers. comm.). Of the
Shoshenq pharaohs of the 22nd Dynasty, the inscriber at Karnak is
clearly most likely to be the 'Shishak' of the Bible. 4
Second, the absolute dating of Shoshenq's reign is in danger of
circularity. Hughes suggests that "the seemingly impressive agreement"
between Egyptian dates for Shoshenq's campaign, in around the 20th or
21st year of his reign, and the Biblical dates - the 5th year of king
Rehoboam - "results from the fact that Egyptian chronologists, without
always admitting it, have commonly based their chronology of this
period on the Biblical synchronism for Shoshenq's invasion" (Hughes
3
See Mazar 1956, 60. Sites in the Levant which feature on the list at Karnak and
have major destruction levels in this period include: No. 12 Gezer, No. 17 Rehob, N o .
5 9 Tirzah (Tell el-Far'ah (N)), N o . 16 Beth Shan, N o . 14 Ta'anach, N o . 27 M e g i d d o
and N o . 53 Penuel (possibly Tell e l - H a m m e h ) .
4
The other arguments offered by James et al. for disassociating Shishak with
Sheshonq are equally unconvincing. These rely wholly on use of Old Testament
evidence (of a campaign aimed predominantly at Jerusalem) to refute the evidence
provided by Sheshonq's inscription at Karnak (which lists a range of cities subjugated
throughout Palestine) (James 1992, 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 ) . Chronicles II, 12: 2-13, however,
provides a theological rationale for the campaign, suggesting that when the over-
reaching "princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves," the Lord imposed
o b e d i e n c e through Shishak's e x a c t i o n o f tribute from Jerusalem: "when he
I R e h o b o a m ] humbled himself, the wrath o f the Lord turned from him, that he would
not destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well" (II Chronicles 12: 6,
7, 12). The central role of Jerusalem in the Biblical text cannot be used to postulate a
non-invasive campaign involving only Judah and unrelated to Sheshonq I. A more
acceptable interpretation of the Biblical text, aside from the possibility that the
scribes were working from an extant c o p y of a contemporary chronicle which records
only the tribute paid by Jerusalem (Na'aman 1997, 59), w a s simply that Sheshonq did
not devastate the country entirely. This has been argued also with regard to the victory
stela erected at M e g i d d o (Ussishkin 1990, 73-74).
1990, 192). Hughes also questions the use of Biblical evidence for
Sheshonq's campaign on the basis of proven irregularities elsewhere in
the Book of Kings which shows a tendency towards producing dates in
multiples of five (Hughes 1990, 78, 193). The absolute chronology of
Third Intermediate Period in Egypt is, in fact, generally recognised as
uncertain with no true chronological anchor of its own. Few modern
scholars attempt to produce more than provisional dates for the reigns
of the pharaohs within it.5
Third, the generally accepted view of Sheshonq's campaign
occurring late in his reign (commonly adduced as his 20th year) has
been challenged by Redford, who placed it "fairly early" (Redford
1973, 10; cf. Hughes 1990, 193). Redford argued that while the relief at
Karnak "may have been erected long after the Palestinian campaign, the
latter, significantly, is termed in the relief 'his first victorious
[campaign].' It would be singular indeed if an Egyptian monarch
delayed such a glorious baptism of fire until the closing years of his
reign!" (Redford 1973, 10). Redford's view, although seldom observed
by scholars seeking absolute dates for historical events of the period, is
perhaps the most convincing interpretation. The date of the 20th year is
extrapolated from evidence that Sheshonq began quarrying stone at
Thebes in his 21st year, with which it is assumed that he intended to
construct his Temple of Amun (Kitchen 1986, 301; Hughes 1990, 191).
It seems, however, that Sheshonq carried out a wide-scale building
programme throughout his country, any part of which may have been
the recipient of the stone quarried in this year.6 In the absence of
additional reasons to associate the reliefs on the Temple of Amun with
the stone-quarrying activity, therefore, it is impossible to locate the
pharaoh's campaign at any fixed point during his reign.
Despite these problems, however, absolute dating of Sheshonq I's
reign to some time in the second half of the 10th century BC is well-
established. The presence of the Egyptian pharaoh in Palestine and the
requisition of a form of tribute mentioned in Sheshonq's supplication to
the god Amun is reasonably secure. Sheshonq can be associated with
5
Note that Kitchen, however, asserts that the reliance on the Biblical narrative in
Egyptian chronology has been over-stated; the ten 22nd Dynasty kings must be placed
before 7 1 5 / 7 1 3 BC, with a total of 2 3 0 years: "This brings the accession of Shoshenq
I back absolutely minimally to 9 3 9 / 9 3 6 BC, but in fact to 9 4 5 / 4 2 BC, most likely 9 4 5
BC. Which happens to agree well with the Near Eastern data" (Kitchen 1997, 111).
6
The god A m u n in Sheshonq's relief proclaims that his protégé had constructed
monuments in Upper and L o w e r Egypt, "and in every city" (Baines, pers. c o m m . ) .
Shishak of the Bible with confidence. The traditional date for
Sheshonq's accession is 945 BC, with a campaign in his 20th year in 925
BC. On the basis of a slightly revised Biblical chronology, and
calculating the campaign as in Sheshonq's 20th year, Hughes dates the
pharaoh's accession to c. 951 BC and a campaign in c. 932 BC (Hughes
1990, 191). A later date for Sheshonq's campaign - 918 BC - is
preferred by some, in line with a low Biblical chronology (eg. Rast
1978, 26-27), but has gained little acceptance amongst Egyptologists
(Hughes 1990, 192). Given the possibility that Sheshonq's campaign
may have been conducted at any point in his reign, it is in fact
impossible to narrow the dates further than some time during the 3rd
quarter of the 10th century, approximately c. 950-925 BC (Baines, pers.
comm.). Sheshonq's death is traditionally placed c. 924 BC, prior to the
completion of his building programme (Kitchen 1986, 302). Redford
places the end of the reign at c. 906 BC, but this may perhaps be too late
(Redford 1973, 13). In sum, for the purposes here, it is possible to place
Sheshonq/Shishak's campaign in the last third or quarter of the 10th
century BC. TO provide consistency in the remainder of this chapter, the
date of this campaign is taken as c. 925 BC and Sheshonq is referred to
by the Biblical name of Shishak.
Shishak, Ben-Hadad or Hazael? Identifying the Archaeological Context
The archaeological visibility of Shishak's campaign is a perhaps

irresolvable problem. First, the difficulty of identifying a military
invasion in an archaeological destruction level, as opposed to a localised
or accidental conflagration, is seldom given full consideration. In the
absence of a commemorative stela set in the burnt remains from such an
invasion, the attribution of a destroyed archaeological level to a specific
military campaign is hypothesis only. The presence of military
equipment (arrowheads, slingshots) in situ in the remains is, naturally, a
valuable indicator of military activity.7 An extraordinarily intense
7
For example, the discovery of a large quantity of iron arrowheads in the
destruction level of a building in Niveau Ε at Hama supported the excavators' belief
that this destruction represented the attack by Sargon referred to in the literary
sources (Fugmann 1958, 258). A second e x a m p l e might be the destruction of Lachish
by Sennacherib in 7 0 2 BC, depicted in an Assyrian relief and represented at the site
itself by numerous ballista balls and iron arrow heads found at the base of the
defensive ramparts around the city. S e e Ussishkin 1982, 5 1 - 5 8 .
destruction, especially from which the settlement did not appear to
recover for a period of time subsequently (i.e. a period of abandonment)
is also likely to be a consequence of a military campaign. 8
Second, Shishak is not the only possible candidate for agent of the
destructions of many of these levels. Campaigns by the Aramaean king
Ben-Hadad I against northern Israel during the early part of the Divided
Monarchy are referred to in I Kings 15:20 (cf. II Chronicles 16:4):
So Ben-Hadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of the hosts
which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon, and Dan, and
Abel-beth-maachah, and all Cinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali.
This campaign, which is noted only in the Bible, has been dated to
c. 885 BC (Mazar 1962, 104). It is possible that the destructions more
usually assigned to Shishak could instead, especially in the north, be
related to this campaign by Ben-Hadad I (eg. Ben-Tor 1989, 36). It
also appears that Ben-Hadad's successor, Ben-Hadad II, fought
against Ahab and his sons, Ahaziah and Joram (c. 875-842 BC) as I
Kings 20, 22 and II Kings 6:24, 8:7 suggests (cf. Mazar 1962, 106).9
Some scholars, attempting to lower the current Iron Age chronology,
have instead attributed the destructions to the military campaign of
Hazael, king of the Aramaeans, dated c. 841 BC or later (Na'aman
1997, 127; Finkelstein 1999, 59-61). II Kings 8:7-15, for example,
tells the story of Elisha's prediction to the future king, Hazael:
I know the harm that you will bring upon the Israelites: you will set their
fortresses on fire; you will put their young men to the sword; you will
dash their little ones in pieces and rip open their pregnant women...
(II Kings 8: 12).
II Kings 8:25 follows with reference to conflict between the kings
of Israel and Judah with Hazael:
...[Ahaziah] joined Joram son of Ahab in battle against Hazael king of
Aram at Ramoth-Gilead; but the Aramaeans defeated Joram.
8
Dever, for example, points out that a massive desruction at Gezer in this period
"literally 'melted' the boulders of the outer towers of the Gate" i Field III (Dever 1997,
242). An example of destruction followed by abandonment is found in the recent
excavations at Tel Rehov: the destruction of Stratum I was followed by a period of
abandonment and then reoccupation on a greatly decreased scale (Mazar, pers. comm.).
9
There is s o m e debate about the sequence of Aramaean kings and the possibility
o f an Aramaean king - Ben-Hadad I or II - fighting the strong Omride dynasty of the
early 9th century has been challenged (Pitard 1992, 6 6 3 - 6 6 5 ; Finkelstein 1999, 59).
Assyrian texts mention an Aramean king Adad-Idri as contemporary with Ahab, w h o
is presumably Ben-Hadad II (contra Pitard 1992, 664).
An Aramaic inscription found at the site of Tel Dan in northern
Israel is also attributed by these scholars to Hazael, who is
proclaiming his victory over the kings Joram and Ahaziah (Biran &
Naveh 1993, 90; 1995, 13; Na'aman 1997, 126):
...I slew [seve]nty kin[gs],10 who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]riots and
thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king
of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]-g of the House of
David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into
[desolation...].11
The scholars propounding this view have assigned the destruction
of the enclosure settlement at Iron Age Jezreel to Hazael (Na'aman
1997, 126-127; cf. Ussishkin & Woodhead 1997, 69-70). Chiefly on
the basis of alleged similarities between the ceramic repertoire of this
site and that of Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB, Yoqneam Stratum XIV,
Beth-Shan Stratum Lower VB, Tel 'Amal Stratum III, the cultic site
at Tell Ta'anach and Hazor Stratum IX, these scholars have also
assigned the destructions of all the above levels to Hazael (Na'aman
1997, 126-127; Finkelstein 1999, 59-61). There are equally, however,
problems with this attribution. 12
10
Translation: Biran & N a v e h 1995, 13. Na'aman reconstructs this as "[migh]ty
C d ] m ) kin[gs]".
11
Most of the sites mentioned as locations for battles with the Aramaeans are
east of the Jordan river, but II Kings 12:17-18 relates that Hazael captured Gath and
took tribute from Jerusalem (cf. Biran & N a v e h 1993, 95).
12
Not only is there, as yet, no more substantial evidence to associate the destruction
of these sites with destruction by Hazael than Shishak (or in the case of Hazor, Ben-Hadad),
but the argument itself is problematic. For example, Finkelstein views Hazor X, Megiddo
VA-IVB, and the enclosure at Jezreel as contemporary, with Hazor X only perhaps
"slightly earlier" in the late 10th - early 9th centuries (Finkelstein 1999,59-60). Yet, he also
suggests that Megiddo VA-IVB, the enclosure at Jezreel and Hazor IX (as well as a range
of other sites) were destroyed by Hazael, dated c. 835 B C (Finkelstein 1999,59-63). Given
that Hazor IX was a relatively long-lived stratum this interpretation sits uneasily. On the
basis of the present evidence, Yadin's view that Hazor IX was destroyed by the Aramaean
king Ben-Hadad I in c. 885 BC is preferable, although a military end to this stratum is also
uncertain (Ben-Tor 1989,36; see below, 124 n.22). While the aggressive policies of Hazael
are evident from the Biblical texts and in the reconstruction of the Dan stela, and an
association between destructions at sites in the north and Hazael's activities are plausible,
it seems there is as yet little evidence with which to reassign a large range of sites to this
substantially later period. The proposed correlations between the pottery of the Jezreel
enclosure and Megiddo VA-IVB (Zimhoni 1997, 92) also require further study. In the
opinion of this author, the similarities are not based on an adequate quantity of diagnostic
wares to warrant this shift in the chronology of the period, nor is the longevity of certain
ware types sufficiently taken into account (cf. Mazar 1999, 38-42).
It is clear that in view of these issues, however, attribution of some
of the destructions excavated at the sites examined below to a
historical figure, such as Shishak, must be cautious. Analogous
ceramic assemblages found with some consistency in destruction
levels at sites in the possible 'path' of Shishak's campaign, however,
renders the attribution of these destructions to the Pharaoh's campaign
more likely. The evidence of associated pottery assemblages and the
correlation of the various strands of evidence for the dating of these
sites are presented at the end of Section I of this chapter.
Megiddo
The site of Megiddo was first excavated in 1903 by a German team

led by G. Schumacher. The finds of this excavation, most notably
the Middle Bronze Age 'Mittelberg' and 'Nordberg' and remains of
a 'Palast' (which later became 'Palace 1723' - see below) were
published by Watzinger in 1929. In 1925, a Chicago expedition
began further excavation, and this continued under different
directors until 1939. The results of these excavations were published
in 1939, as Megiddo I, by Lamon and Shipton, and in 1948, as
Megiddo II, by Loud. Subsequent excavations were carried out in
the 1960s by an Israeli expedition under Yadin and have been
renewed by Ussishkin and Finkelstein in recent years. The results of
these later excavations, though important to the clarification of the
site's stratigraphy, have not been published in complete volumes.
For the purposes of determining the chronology of BoR, the
publications of the two Chicago expeditions are the most
comprehensive. The inclusion of site plans and photographs, as well
as lists of loci and their finds, renders it possible to establish a good
chronology for BoR pottery at the site.
For this analysis, it is most productive to examine the two major
volumes representing successive expeditions separately. First
therefore the pottery from the 1925-1934 Chicago expedition is
catalogued, followed by a discussion of context and other finds, and
then the publication of the 1935-1939 Chicago expedition. A possible
date for the earliest appearance of BoR pottery at Megiddo is then
discussed. Further discussion of the subsequent appearances of BoR
at the site takes place in Section II of this chapter.
The Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy of Iron Age Megiddo is controversial, due to the
pioneering nature and early date of the major excavations at the site,
the range and complexity of the architectural layout, and scholars'
persistent attempts to find traces of the Biblical Solomon in the
site's monumental architecture. In addition, it has become clear that
Strata V-IV, with which we are concerned in the case of BoR,
require certain reassessment.
The first main publication of the site, Megiddo I (Lamon &
Shipton 1939) presented Stratum V as a single stratum; a city of
predominantly domestic buildings, unfortified and protected only by
a perimeter ring of houses, and probably representing a "peaceful
agricultural settlement" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 3). In 1948, the later
excavators of the mound published two separate strata, VB and VA
(Loud 1948, 45-46). Stratum VB was a poor and sparse stratum;
Stratum VA contained a rich variety of finds, well-defined
architecture and areas of possibly cultic nature (eg. Locus 2081, Area
AA). It is clear from examination of the stratigraphy of the 'Stratum
V' of the Megiddo I publication that some of the buildings in this
stratum, such as Building 10 and Building 1A, should be reassigned
to Stratum VA. The excavators state that there were " a number of
walls under Building 10" and that there was most likely "rebuilding
within the V period" (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 6-7). 13 Building 51,
which is nearby Buildings 1A and 10 (and of similar construction to
Building 10), should also probably be assigned to Stratum VA.14 A
reassessment of the stratigraphy, therefore, places the BoR pottery
from these two Buildings, 10 and 51 into Stratum VA. The discovery
by Albright and Wright that Stratum VA was in fact the same level as
Stratum IVB at the northern and southern areas of the mound led to
the definition of a new, single, stratum: VA-IVB (Davies 1986, 86-
87). This was preceded by Stratum VB, (of predominantly domestic
nature, as described by Lamon and Shipton), and succeeded by
Stratum IVA (or ' I V ' ) . The stratigraphie associations of the
13
S e e also Rast 1978, 2 4 - 2 5 w h o notes Yadin's personal communication that
Building 10 belongs to Stratum VA-IVB; D a v i e s 1986, 79, and Ussishkin 1990, 73.
14
Yadin believed Buildings 1A and 10 to be the residential buildings associated
with the Palace 6 0 0 0 he discovered at the north of the mound. This Palace has
generally been accepted as belonging to Stratum VA-IVB, as its foundations overlie
the remains of Stratum V B and V I A structures beneath ( D a v i e s 1986, 87-88).
fortification systems and city gates in these strata are further problems
and are not discussed here. It is found that, as is the general
assumption, the earliest appearance of BoR is in Stratum VA-IVB.
Megiddo I: (Lamon & Shipton 1939)

The BoR: '5
• BoR Juglet ÍJugl Type 123 (1939, pi. 5). Handle-ridge juglet. 9
examples assigned to Stratum V.
Fragments of this vessel type were found in Locus N=1710 in Area B,
possibly belonging to Stratum VB (see below). One example was
found in Locus 1669, a room in Area Β (Square Q8). This room is
illustrated only by photograph (Lamon & Shipton 1939, Fig. 123) and
is located in the area north of Building 1482 and between Courtyard
1693 and the later courtyard of the Southern Stables 1576. It may
have been associated with Building 1482 and should be assigned to
Stratum VA-IVB. Three juglets of this type were found in Locus 50,
one example found in Locus 52 and one example found in Locus 53
(rooms in Building 51, Area C). One further example was found in
Locus 6 and one in Locus 7 (rooms in Building 10, Area C).
• BoR Juglet Marl Type 87 (1939, pi. 17). Two-handled juglet. 5
examples assigned to Stratum V.
One juglet of this type was found in Locus 50 (Building 51). A second
example was found in Locus 1710, Area B, a small room beneath
Courtyard 1693. One further example was found in Locus '-1693
(Q10),' which corresponds to the level beneath the lime plaster paving
of Courtyard 1693. Courtyard 1693 was ascribed to Stratum IVB by the
excavators (later called Stratum VA-IVB) and is associated with
Building 1723. The BoR juglets from Locus - 1 6 9 3 and Locus 1710, as
well as the handle-ridge juglet from Locus N=1710 (above), may
therefore possibly belong to Stratum VB. Two further juglets of this
type were found in loci E=1673 and S=1682, Area A. These loci are
related to rooms of two separate buildings (1673 and 1682) located
beneath the lime-plaster courtyard of Southern Stables 1576. The small
buildings are possibly contemporary with Building 1482. Southern
Stables 1576 belong to Stratum IVA and Building 1482 is dated to
Stratum VA-IVB ('IVB'). The BoR pottery within the smaller-scale
15
Note that, due to the large amount of BoR pottery in g o o d contexts at Megiddo,
the f e w fragments found in contexts named only by square, or dissociated from any
structure, will not be included in this survey.
buildings should therefore be dated to Stratum VA-IVB, with a
possible, but unlikely, extension into Stratum VB. 16
• BoR Jug Type 176 (1939, pi. 8). Trefoil-lipped jug, double-handled,
c. 30 cm high. I example assigned to Stratum V.
Found in Area C, Locus 52 (Room in Building 51).
• BoR Bowl Type 107 (1939. pi. 29). Wide open bowl with foot,
looped handles, c. 20 cm diameter. 3 examples assigned to Stratum V.
One example was found in Area C, Locus 398 (Room nearby
Building 51). Two further examples are assigned to Stratum V: from
Loci 294 (square S i l ) and S=1673 (square Q7). Locus S=1673
belongs to Area A (beneath Southern Stables 1576), and should
probably be dated to Stratum VA-IVB. Locus 294 belongs to a room
at the south-east corner of the mound, between Areas Β and C,
directly to the east of Building 1723. This room is not drawn in the
plans, and it is impossible to identify its relationship to Building
1723. Its relatively rich finds however, such as a steatite scaraboid,
seals of steatite and limestone, beads of lapis lazuli and shell and a
bone hairpin (as well as bowls partly wheel, partly hand-burnished -
discussed below) suggest that it might be associated with the 'palace'
1723, and therefore at a corresponding level, Stratum VA-IVB.
• BoR Bowl Type 140 (1939, pi. 30). Wide open bowl with foot,
horizontal bar handles, c. 20 cm diameter. 2 examples assigned to
Stratum V.
One example was found in Area C, Locus 52 (Room in Building 51).
The second example of this bowl type was found in Locus S=1685.
16
D a v i e s 1 9 8 6 , 7 7 c o m m e n t s that the f i n d s o f Stratum V B can be
" s u p p l e m e n t e d with those attributed indiscriminately to Stratum V in Area A ,
b e c a u s e it is n o w clear that Stratum VA is represented in this area by the higher
level w h i c h the e x c a v a t o r s c a l l e d Stratum I V B (Palace 1723, its courtyard and the
adjacent B u i l d i n g 1482). T h e structures w h i c h underlie this must b e l o n g to
Stratum V B . " H o w e v e r , although B o R pottery is found beneath the courtyard o f
B u i l d i n g 1576, this c o m p l e x w a s built later than B u i l d i n g 1482, w h i c h b e l o n g s to
Stratum V A - I V B (although c o n t i n u i n g into Stratum IV in d i m i n i s h e d form). T h e
e x c a v a t o r s note: "the w a l l s o f certain r o o m s b e l o n g i n g to the h o u s e [ 1 4 8 2 ]
p l u n g e d under w a l l s and f l o o r s o f the stable c o m p l e x [ 1 5 7 6 ] " ( L a m o n & Shipton
1939, 9). T h e smaller b u i l d i n g s located to the w e s t o f B u i l d i n g 1 4 8 2 m a y have
been a s s o c i a t e d with it, and cannot, therefore, with c o n f i d e n c e , be pushed into the
earlier Stratum V B . In addition, the p r e s e n c e o f a d e e p fill ( L o c u s 1 6 7 4 ) beneath
the courtyard o f B u i l d i n g 1576 and p r e s u m a b l y o v e r l y i n g these b u i l d i n g s m a y
have c o n t a m i n a t e d the r o o m s l y i n g beneath it ( L a m o n & Shipton 1 9 3 9 , 3 2 - 3 3 ) .
Finally, attribution o f the small Area A b u i l d i n g s beneath B u i l d i n g 1576 to Stratum
V B , as D a v i e s s u g g e s t s , c a u s e s a c h r o n o l o g i c a l gap in this area during the m i s s i n g
Stratum V A - I V B period. S e e d i s c u s s i o n o f ' C o n t e x t s ' b e l o w .
This locus belongs beneath the court of Building 1576 (see above). It
should be assigned to Stratum VA-IVB, with a possible extension into
Stratum VB.
• BoR Bowl Type 169 (1939. pi. 32) Bowl with carinated body,
looped handles, c. 18 cm diameter. 1 example assigned to Stratum V.
Found in Area C, Locus 53 (Room in Building 51).
The Contexts
Despite the problems of assessing the stratigraphy of the Megiddo
Iron Age levels, the archaeological contexts for the BoR pottery from
the first Chicago expedition are good. Buildings 10 and 51 were both
built of mud-brick on stone foundations, with Building 10 particularly
large. The excavators comment that Building 51 contained "much
pottery in a surprisingly good state of preservation" (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, 7). Building 10 also contained "a considerable amount
of pottery" in situ on the floors of the two rooms, 6 and 7 (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, 3). The excavators suggest that part or all of Building
10 may have been used as a storehouse - some of the jars in rooms 6
and 7 contained charred grain. The presence of objects of a cultic
nature in Building 10, as well as Building 1A nearby, suggest that
these buildings may also have had 'cult significance' and a recent
study of Iron Age cult places has confirmed this possibility (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, 3; Gilmour 1995, 57).
The BoR recovered from beneath Courtyard 1693 (Loci -1693,
1710 and N=1710) is in contexts sealed by the courtyard above. The
excavators comment on the thickness and strength of the lime plaster
floor of this courtyard (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 17). However,
although there is no mention of fill beneath this courtyard, a degree of
levelling may well have taken place in its construction, and there are
also repairs to the floor during its occupation (Lamon & Shipton
1939, 17). The BoR from these contexts may, therefore, belong to
Stratum VB, but may also possibly have been contaminated by
construction of the Stratum VA-IVB level.
The location of the other BoR pottery, found beneath the courtyard
of Building 1576 ('The Southern Stables') is problematic. 17 We have
a terminus ante quem for the pottery, as the buildings from which the
pottery came were clearly overlain by the courtyard, which is datable
17
S e e note above.
to Stratum IVA, and the pottery must therefore be prior to this.
However, these few small-scale buildings beneath the courtyard may
have been associated with Building 1482 (this is not clear in the
publication) and it is possible that they belonged to the same period
(VA-IVB). In addition, the lime plaster courtyard surface lay on top of
a fill (Locus 1674), which was itself composed of debris from the
adjacent water shaft (Locus 925). The pottery of this fill is mixed and
although chiefly of Stratum V and IV types, it contained also Middle
Bronze and Chalcolithic sherds, which may have contaminated the
rooms beneath. The buildings in question may, therefore, belong to
Stratum VB, but taking account of the chronological gap then
required between the construction of these buildings and the later
courtyard of Stratum IVA, as well as the possibility of contamination
from Fill 1674, it would be unwise to date the BoR pottery found
within them any earlier than Stratum VA-IVB.
Other Finds
Alongside the BoR pottery of Buildings 51 and 10 in Area C were
black-burnished juglets, plain wide-mouthed jugs, red-slipped and
burnished ridged neck jugs, and jugs decorated with black and red
bands. A type common to these loci was the open one-handled
cooking jug (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5: 119; PI. 7: 167). (This
type is common also to Tel Halif, Tel 'Amal and Ta'anach - see
discussion at the end of Section I, 174-175). A perforated vessel
and a spouted jar were found in Locus 6 of Building 10. Bowls
were generally red-slipped with a combination of hand and wheel
burnish on the same vessel. A few bowls were irregularly hand-
burnished and one of the red-slipped wheel/hand burnished bowls
was decorated with simple dark painted bands. Several interesting
objects such as bronze bracelets, an ivory pendant and ivory
inlays, a sacred eye, faience beads and pottery shrines were found
in Loci 6 and 7 in Building 10, and faience beads and a scarab in
Building 51.
A Bichrome bowl ('possibly a sub-Mycenaean import' - Lamon
& Shipton 1939, 169) was found in Locus=1701 of Area B.
Alongside the BoR of Locus 1710, which may possibly be assigned
to stratum VB, were found ovoid store jars, wheel/hand burnished
red slipped bowls, and a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel. In Locus ' - 1 6 9 3
(Q10),' which may also possibly be assigned to stratum VB, we
find, again, wheel/hand burnished red slipped bowls, plus a faience
sacred eye, a bronze chisel and a bronze bracelet. In E=1673, Area
A, the excavators found an interesting red-slipped black-painted
jug with lozenge decoration and striped handles, wheel/hand
burnished red slipped bowls, a wide open bowl with punched
decoration on the base, a similar black-banded red slip bowl to that
from the Area C buildings, and a large multi-handled krater. In
S=1682, alongside the BoR juglet was a red-slipped hand
burnished jug, as well as a bronze ring and carnelian, faience and
'blue composition' beads.
In Locus 398, a room near Building 51 in Area C, black-burnished
juglets were found, storage jars, red-slipped wheel/hand burnished
bowls, as well as irregular hand-burnish bowls. Room 294, as noted
above, is not indicated in the plans of the site, but is next to 'Palace
1723.' This room produced exotic items, as detailed above, but of the
pottery, only wheel/hand burnished red-slip bowls, as well as one
irregular hand burnished bowl.
In Locus S=1685, below the courtyard of Building 1576, the
pottery in context with BoR was mostly in sherd form (suggesting that
it was fill) and consisted of wheel/hand burnished bowls, an irregular
hand-burnished bowl and a chalice. One possible Bichrome sherd has
been noted above. One White Painted juglet was found in Locus
1674. This is, specifically, the Stratum IV fill beneath Building 1576,
which is rich and varied in finds but of mixed origin and
stratigraphically unreliable.
Megiddo 11: (Loud 1948)

The publication of the excavation season of 1935-1939 in Megiddo II
(Loud (1948) divides Stratum V at Megiddo into Stratum VB
followed by VA. Here BoR pottery does not appear in Stratum VB.
The finds from Stratum VB in areas AA, BB, CC and DD are minimal
and include black-burnished juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 87:17-19), a
perforated 'strainer' bowl, a red-slip burnished bowl (hand/wheel
burnish not specified) (Loud 1948, PI. 87: 21, 22), a carinated red-
slipped fine ware bowl (Loud 1948, PI. 146: 8), and plain jugs and
juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 87: 14-16). Also included in this stratum are
fragments of a limestone horned altar (Locus 2074), a bronze human
figurine (Loud 1948, PI. 239:31) and a bronze bowl (Loud 1948, PI.
190: 13).
The BoR
• BoR Bowl Type 373 (1948. pi. 90:1). Wide open bowl, looped
handles. 2 examples assigned to Stratum VA.
Two bowls were found in Locus 2081, Area AA. This was a room in
a building complex to the north-west of the city gate, along the
perimeter of the mound.
• BoR Bowl Type 374 (1948. pi. 90:2). Deep bowl, two looped
handles. 4 examples assigned to Stratum VA.
Two bowls were found in Locus 2081, one in Locus 2111 and one in
Locus 2100, all rooms of buildings in Area AA.
• BoR Bowl Type 375 (1948. pi. 90:3). Deep large bowl with looped
handles and 'feather' motif. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA.
This bowl was found in Locus 2081 in Area AA.
• BoR Bowl Type 376 (1948, pi. 90:4). Small bowl ('Cypriote imitation
(?)'), one horizontal handle. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA.
Bowl found in Locus 2081, Area AA.
• BoR Juglet [Jarl Type 171 (1948. pi. 89:6). Two handled juglet. 1
example assigned to Stratum VA.
Juglet found inside large jar with perforated body, in Locus 2081,
Area A A.
• BoR Juglet Type 470 (1948. pi. 88:6). Trefoil-lipped juglet. 1
Juglet found in Locus 2162, room adjacent to Locus 2081, Area AA.
• BoR Juglet Type 471 (1948. pi. 88:7). Trefoil-lipped juglet. 1
Juglet found in Locus 2100, room in building adjoining Locus 2081,
Area AA.
• BoR Juglet Type 472 (1948. pi. 88:8). Trefoil-lipped squat juglet. 1
Juglet found in Locus 2081, Area AA.
• BoR Jug Type 473 (1948, pi. 88:9). Trefoil-lipped jug. 1 example
assigned to Stratum VA.
Jug found in Locus 2081, Area AA.
• BoR Juglet Type 482 (1948. pi. 88:18). Conical juglet. 4 examples
Two conical juglets from Locus 2081, one from Locus 2100 and one
from Locus 2164, all rooms in buildings in Area AA.
• BoR Juglet Type 483 (1948. pi. 88:19). Basket-handled spouted
juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum VA.
Found in Locus 2164, room in building next to Locus 2081, Area AA.
• BoR Jug Type 492 (cf. 1939. pl. 5:123). Handle-ridge juglet. 3
examples assigned to Stratum VA (not illustrated).
Two examples found in Locus 2081, Area AA, one example found in
Locus 2100, Area AA.
The Contexts
Only limited details of the contexts of the BoR pottery published
from the excavation seasons of 1935-1939 at Megiddo are
available. The excavators note that of the Stratum AA buildings,
none is complete. Pottery is abundant in the rooms of the buildings
in this area, however, and many of the rooms are stone-paved,
although this does not seem to have been preserved throughout the
rooms. The excavators comment on the difficulty of determining
the exact layout of the room structure: "Stone floors are present in
so much of the stratum that they lose their usual value in
distinguishing courts f r o m covered rooms. The absence of
thresholds and the fact that tops of walls as found are in many
cases at floor level, so that most door locations are lost, also make
positive restoration difficult." (Loud 1948, 45). The excavators'
reconstruction of the building complex in this area proposes that
Locus 2081 may be a forecourt. Two upright stones were found in
the rooms to its north, and the 'cultic' association of many finds
from Locus 2081 suggests that this area may have been associated
with ritual of some sort (Loud 1948, 45, fig. 102; cf. Gilmour
1995, 62-63).
The location of one of the BoR juglets from this locus inside the
large perforated jar is particularly interesting in terms of the function
of the vessels. 18 The probability that the BoR juglet was used for
perfumed oil was considered in the previous chapter. There are other
examples of BoR juglets found in context with perforated vessels,
such as in Building 10 of the Megiddo I publication (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, PI. 23:20, see above). This combination of vessels also
appears at other sites, such as Hazor and Beth-Shan. At Ta'anach a
perforated vessel is found, without any BoR pottery, in the 'Cultic
Structure' (Rast 1978, 33, 35). The possibility of some
18
N o t e also the B o R juglet contained within an unspecified "grande jarre" in a
burial at Hama in Syria (Riis 1948, 19).
pouring/anointing ritual should therefore be considered. Note also the
number of trefoil-lipped BoR juglets in this locus, designed
particularly for pouring. In his publication of the pottery from
Ta'anach, Rast, following Crowfoot, suggests that the perforated
vessel was probably used as a censer, rather than a strainer (Rast
1978, 35). The large perforated jar probably also functioned as a
censer, while the bowls with perforation on the bottom of the vessel
were probably strainers. There seems to be strong evidence, therefore,
that the BoR juglet and its contents were part of the perfume
paraphernalia of some cultic activity.
The BoR pottery from Stratum VA of the Megiddo II publication
comes therefore only from Area AA; Stratum VA was barely
represented in Area BB, not represented in Area CC and while Area
DD has traces of "impressive" architecture from Stratum V (VB and
VA), these features are "so interwined and their levels so wandering"
that no attempt was made to decipher them (Loud 1948, 116). No
BoR was found in this area.
Other Finds
The finds from Stratum VA alongside BoR pottery are particularly
significant in the case of Locus 2081. The range of items recovered
from this locus was extensive (Loud 1948, 161-162). It included red-
slipped burnished bowls (no details on the form of burnish are given,
other than in some cases, "irregular burnish"), cylindrical juglets,
plain jugs, a double-handled cooking jug, a red-slipped pyxis, a
chalice and a large 'cult' stand. Also found in this locus were scarabs,
seals of steatite, limestone and hematite, four iron arrowheads,
fragmentary iron axes, amulets, carnelian, faience, glass and shell
beads, pendants, a bronze toggle pin, fibula and bracelets, limestone
altars and a limestone offering stand, basalt vessels, astragali in a clay
bowl, possible clay game pieces, and preserved grain.
The other loci in which BoR was found seem to have been
associated with the same complex as that of Locus 2081 : Loci 2111,
2100, 2162, 2164. These loci contained beads, a steatite seal, a bronze
spear or arrowhead, a faience Ptah-Sokar amulet (in Locus 2162) and a
faience ape amulet (Locus 2164), as well as plain jugs and red-slipped
kraters. Few bowls were found in these loci. A large White Painted
amphora was found in Locus 2102, adjacent to Loci 2100 and 2162.
Discussion of Chronology
This analysis of the middle Iron Age strata at Megiddo is instructive.
It is likely that BoR pottery appears for the first time in Stratum VA-
IVB. Three exceptions to this may be the BoR juglets that were found
in Loci 1710, N=1710 and - 1 6 9 3 (all below Locus 1693) in Area A,
by the Megiddo I expedition. Notwithstanding possible contamination
of these loci beneath the courtyard, the dating of Courtyard 1693 to
Stratum VA-IVB, in association with Palace 1723, places the pottery
beneath it into the preceding period, Stratum VB. The possibility of a
small quantity of BoR pottery in Stratum VB at Megiddo should,
therefore, be observed. The large quantity of BoR pottery in Stratum
VA-IVB, however, suggests that the pottery was by far most popular
in this period.
The absolute dating of Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB has continued to
be a subject of scholarly controversy since the early excavations at the
site. 19 One of the main diagnostic wares of the early Iron II period is
red-slipped pottery, in particular red-slipped bowls. The transition
from irregularly hand burnished red slip, to a combination of hand
and wheel burnished pottery, and finally to the solely wheel burnished
ware has been studied at length in attempts to define diagnostic
pottery for the early Iron II.20 The pattern in Stratum VA-IVB at
Megiddo of irregularly hand burnished red-slipped bowls appearing
alongside bowls with a combination of wheel/hand burnish is
interesting. This phenomenon has usually been dated, with a degree
of circularity, to the mid - late 10th century, on the basis of the
supposed date of the destruction of this level at Megiddo to Shishak's
campaign of c. 925 BC (Holladay 1990, 63). However, for our present
purposes, a date of the mid-late 10th century for the earliest
appearance of BoR at Megiddo is satisfactory. Various other finds
from the contexts examined above support a 10th century date, such
as the predominance of bronze as opposed to iron objects (see also the
conclusions to this Section). The absence of any Phoenician pottery is
19 See, most recently, the attempts to date M e g i d d o V A - I V B to the 9th century,

on the basis largely of its supposed association with the 'enclosure' period pottery at
Tel Jezreel (Finkelstein 1996) and subsequent rejection of these claims by Mazar
1997, Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998, w h o reinstate the level in the
10th century. A l s o see Rast 1978, 4, for a brief but useful discussion.
20 For discussion of red slipped and burnished pottery, see particularly Mazar
1985, 33-36; Holladay 1990, Stager 1990, 102-103; Mazar 1998, 3 6 8 - 3 7 8 .
also significant and perhaps indicates a date prior to the ascendance
of the Phoenician trading networks.
Of the contexts themselves, the association of BoR pottery with
areas of possible cultic affiliation, such as Locus 2081 and part of
Building 10, suggest that BoR pottery was a reasonably high-status
ware at this stage, although the focus of excavation on 'key' areas at
the site must be taken into account. The quantity of BoR pottery at
Megiddo, c. 40 vessels, is considerably above average. The scale of
excavation at the site is also greater than at most other sites
investigated, and it may be that this number represents a more accurate
quota of BoR than is represented by other sites. The appearance of the
pottery in relatively large quantities for the first time in Stratum VA-
IVB at Megiddo supports the excavators' original assessment that the
level represents a departure from the preceding stratum in terms of
both architecture and ceramics (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 7).
Hazor
The site of Hazor, north of the Galilee, was first investigated by

Garstang in the 1920s. Major excavation, however, only began in 1955
with an Israeli expedition led by Yigael Yadin. These excavations
continued until 1958 and are published in three volumes, Hazor I (the
first season of 1955), Hazor II (the second season of 1956) and Hazor
III-IV (the third and fourth seasons of 1957-1958). The plates volume
of this latter was published by Yadin in 1961. The text volume was
published posthumously in 1989, edited by Amnon Ben-Tor.21 One
further season at Hazor was conducted by Yadin in 1968. Excavations
at Hazor were renewed in the 1990s under the directorship of Ben-Tor
and the results of Yadin's 1968 season as well as these recent
excavations have appeared in the publication Hazor V (Ben-Tor 1997).
This latter publication represents, however, the selective excavation of
old areas and small-scale new areas on the mound, and offers only a
very small quantity of BoR pottery. This investigation, therefore,
focuses on the publications of Hazor I-TV. As with the Megiddo
volumes, each consecutive publication is considered individually.
21
The text of Hazor III-IV is thus referred to as Ben-Tor 1989, but Yadin's v i e w s
are specified where relevant. Hazor I, II and the plates of III-IV were published by
Yadin ( 1 9 5 8 , 1960, 1961).
An important article clarifying some of the issues surrounding
Strata X-IX at Hazor appeared in 1998 (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998).
This was based on further excavation beneath the Pillared Building,
in an extension of Yadin's area, and a general re-assessment of the
evidence. The information provided in this article is incorporated into
the following discussion.
The stratigraphy of the site of Hazor is beset by fewer problems than
at Megiddo, although the 'Solomonic' contribution to the Iron Age
architecture of the site continues to be a subject of debate. Iron Age
occupation of the site is evident only in the Upper City (the tell). Three
areas of excavation on the tell, Area A at the centre of the mound, Area
Β at the western edge of the tell, and Area G at the eastern edge of the
tell all exposed structural remains from the Iron Age. The first phase of
the Iron Age at Hazor is represented by Stratum XII; Stratum X is
commonly believed to be the 'Solomonic' period of occupation, and
Stratum III represents the (post-) Assyrian occupation of the site. During
Strata X-IX, only the western part of the tell was occupied and fortified
(with a casemate wall and a city gate in the middle of the tell). This
occupation was exposed in Areas A and B. In Stratum VIII, occupation
expanded to include the whole tell, and fortifications (including a solid
wall) extended to the eastern edge (excavated in Area G). BoR pottery
makes its first appearance in Strata X-IX: these strata, and the
subsequent Stratum VIII in Area G is therefore investigated here.
Hazor I: (Yadin 1958)

The BoR
• BoR Juglet (1958, Pl. XLVI: 1,2) Probably handle-ridge. 2 examples
assigned to Stratum IX-X.
Two fragments of possibly the same BoR juglet were found in Area
A, Locus 92a, in square H I 3 - 'Sounding - Stone Flooring.' This was
located beneath the 'Pillared Building' and was the only square in
Area A in which remains of Strata X and IX were noted during this
season. A 'conspicuous burnt layer' was visible in Locus 92a covering
the structures assigned to Strata IX-X, but the intrusion of part of
Garstang 's trench made distinction between the two strata impossible
(Yadin 1958, 10).
No more BoR was published from the first season of excavation, prior
to Stratum III. In this stratum one BoR juglet (possibly a jug), and
three possible BoR bowls were published from Citadel III. This
structure was built using a considerable quantity of fill, and therefore
produced pottery of earlier as well as later strata (Yadin 1958, 49-54).
The Contexts
As noted above, Locus 92a lay beneath burnt material, but the
excavators do not specify whether this was a deposit that sealed the locus
(Yadin 1958, 10).22 No plans of Strata IX-X from the 1955 season are
offered in the publication. The relationship between the 'walls' in this
square belonging to the Casemate City Wall and the "cobbled pavement
belonging to an earlier stratum" (Yadin 1958, 10) is, therefore, unclear.
The presence of the pottery beneath a burnt deposit may, however,
secure it in association with the other wares found in the same locus. 23
Other Finds
A limited quantity of pottery was found in Locus 92a. This included
lamps, jug fragments and a number of red-slipped burnished bowls.
The publication does not always note which vessels are hand-
burnished and which wheel-burnished, but the wheel burnish
technique is intermittently present.
Hazor II: (Yadin 1960)

The BoR
• BoR Bowl (1960, PI. LI: 7) Wide open bowl with two looped
handles. 1 example assigned to Stratum X.
No decoration is noted on this bowl, but it appears to have a 'brown'
slip and is of BoR shape. It is found in Area A, Locus 174b, square
J11. This is the Street in between the Casemate Wall and the Buildings
to the west (these 'Buildings' became the Pillared Building of Stratum
VIII) (Yadin 1960, 2).
22
S e e ' D i s c u s s i o n of C h r o n o l o g y ' b e l o w for c o m m e n t . T h e burnt matter noted
by Yadin's excavations w a s attributed by Yadin to destruction by the Arameans c. 8 9 0
B C at the end o f Stratum I X A . Aharoni attributed the s a m e burning to an Aramean
destruction at the end o f Stratum I X B , before the final phase of Stratum IX. Ben-Tor
and B e n - A m i , in their most recent study, suggest that the burning is instead "evidence
o f s o m e sort o f industrial activity" in the building (Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998, 10).
23
Rast, in his study o f primary loci from sites comparable with Ta'anach Stratum
IIB, c o m m e n t s that L o c u s 9 2 a is "problematical" in that it contains "later forms" as
well as those contemporary with Ta'anach IIB ( 1 9 7 8 , 25).
• BoR Juglet (1960. PL LII: 17) Juglet. no handles preserved. 1
example assigned to Stratum IX.
Found in Area A, Locus 116b, square J13. This was part of the Street
174b.
The Contexts
As the excavators noted, the nature of the street which was reused from
Stratum X through IX to Stratum VIII put it under "suspicion of
'infiltration' from stratum to stratum" (Yadin 1960, 5). In Stratum X the
street was cobbled, and varied in width from 3m (where the BoR bowl
was found) to 8m. A drainage channel ran down its centre. In Stratum
IX, the paving had been covered over with an earthen floor, with some
areas of new paving. New structures were built abutting the street next
to the Casemate Wall. The street continued, at a raised level, in Stratum
VIII. The excavators note that the phases of construction in the street
were well defined. Although, therefore, two fragments are too small a
sample to use for chronological purposes, we can cautiously assign the
BoR here to Strata IX-X.
Other Finds
Alongside the BoR from Street 174b in Stratum X, Area A, were
found a red-slipped burnished bowl and two kraters, one red-slipped
and burnished, as well as a black-burnished juglet (from Stratum X-
IX). In Stratum IX, the street produced 'Samaria bowls' and a part of
a decorated storage jar (Yadin 1960, Pl. LIL20). Further west in
Stratum IX was found a storage jar decorated in brown with a large
metope (Yadin 1960, PI. LII:21). This decoration, as well as the sharp-
angled shoulder of the vessel, also appears in Stratum VIII (Yadin
1960, PI. LIX: 4, 7).
Hazor III-IV: (Yadin 1961)™

The BoR
• BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXII: 1) Hand1e-ridge(?) juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum XB.
This juglet was found in Area A, Locus 203d, square F l 5 . This locus
belongs to a room in the building complex (Building 200-202) to the
24
N o t e that the contexts of the pottery referred to b e l o w from Yadin's v o l u m e of
1961 are discussed in Ben-Tor 1989.
north of the pillared building (and underlying it), west of the casemate
wall. Room 203d contained clay ovens and was of domestic nature.
• BoR Bowl (1961, Pl. CLXXIV: 9) Deep bowl. 1 example assigned
to Stratum XA.
This bowl was found in Area A, Locus 213c, square G13. This is a
southern room in the building complex (Building 200-202). Part of
this room underlay the Pillared Building of Stratum VIII.
• BoR Juglet (1961. PL CLXXIV: 15) Fragment of juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum XA. 25
The juglet sherd was found in Area A, Locus 221c, square H14. This
locus was assigned to the 'open space' in Building 200-202, adjacent
to the street. This area contained a clay oven and was a rebuilding of
the open, possibly cooking area of Stratum XB (which contained
three ovens). Locus 221c adjoins Room 213c (above).
• BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CLXXV: 18) Deep carinated bowl. 1 example
assigned to Stratum IXB.
This bowl belongs to Area A, Locus 216b, square J13. This locus is
assigned to the open space in Building 200-202, adjacent to the street,
a rebuilding of Locus 221c (above).
• BoR Juglet 26 (1961. Pl. CLXXVII: 14) Rim and neck of juglet. 1
example assigned to Stratum IX-X.
The juglet is found in Area A, Locus 239a, square J19. This represents
the southernmost of the two gate towers in Area A (pl. XVIII: 4). This
was the only room in the gate structure in which floors were preserved.
The excavators comment that the vessels found here are most likely
from the gate's latest phase (Stratum IXA) (Ben-Tor 1989, 31).
• BoR Juglet (1961. Pl.CCVIII: 38) Squat-shaped trefoil-lipped
juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum IX.
This juglet belongs to Area B, Locus 3281, square Ε12. This was part
of the casemate wall exposed from Stratum X in the west of the
mound. In Stratum X, the room is presumed to have had an
(unpreserved) entrance, on the basis of the quantity of pottery found
on its floor (Ben-Tor 1989, 83; Yadin 1961, PI. XL:6). No plans are
given of any alterations to this area in Stratum IX, but a photograph
25
Note the error: in the text of Hazor III-IV (Yadin 1989, 38) this juglet is noted
as Stratum IXA, while in the plates and plans Locus 2 2 1 c belongs to Stratum X A .
26
This juglet neck is referred to as White Painted in the text (Yadin 1989, 38).
H o w e v e r , its shape (PI. C L X X V I I : 14) and description "Pink levigated clay,
burnished. Decorated (brown)" suggest that it might be BoR. In any event, its
location and date is of interest.
illustrates the cache of pottery lying on the 'Stratum IX' floor. 27 Two
further examples of BoR juglets may be assigned to the same locus
(Yadin 1961, Pl. CCVIII: 39, 40) but the rims and part of the necks of
the vessels only are preserved and descriptions of the ware type are
minimal.
• BoR Jug (1961. Pl. CCXLVIII: 18) Base of jug. 1 example assigned
to Stratum VIII.
This jug is found in Area G, Locus 10061, square O/P 8. This locus
belongs to a sounding east of the Forward Bastion of the Stratum VIII
city wall at the east of the tell (Ben-Tor 1989, 174-180).
The Contexts
Building 200-202, excavated in the seasons of 1957-1958 in Area A,
lay partly underneath the Pillared Building of Stratum VIII. This
building was excavated further in the most recent seasons at the site,
after the Pillared Building had been removed and relocated to another
area of the mound. The building complex was found to continue south
underneath the Pillared Building, although only two examples of BoR
were found in the new excavations (Ben-Tor et al. 1997, Figs. 11.49:8,
11.51:21). The pottery from Locus 92a, Area A, excavated in the initial
1955 season (see above), may well have come from this same
complex of buildings.
The excavators comment that clear phases could be determined in
the stratigraphy of this area, as they underwent alterations in each
period from Stratum X to IX. The excavators labelled these phases
XB, XA, IXB and IXA (Ben-Tor 1989, 32). Re-examination of this
area by the excavations of the 1990s have confirmed Yadin's original
assessment of the sequence of strata here (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998,
12-13). The rooms themselves are well-defined with straight walls
and, in places, stone paving is preserved. The BoR juglet found in
Room 203d belonged to the earliest phase of Stratum X. This room
contained clay ovens and was stone paved, part of which was
preserved. In the next phase, this room continued in form but a clay
floor was laid on top of the stone paving (Ben-Tor 1989, 33): the
location of the BoR juglet therefore on the stone floor is relatively
27
There are s o m e discrepancies in the textual description of the phases of the
Casemate Wall in Area B: s o m e of the pottery assigned to Stratum IX (see eg. PI.
CCVIII) s e e m s to belong to the architectural structures described as Stratum X
(Yadin 1989, 82-87). This may perhaps best be placed in 'Stratum IX-X.'
secure. In the next phase, two BoR vessels were found: a juglet from
an open space (221c) backing onto the street, and a bowl in an
adjoining room (213c) only partially excavated. Neither of these areas
had stone flooring and the location of Open Space 221c next to the
Street, which was itself re-paved in this phase, renders these contexts
marginally less secure. In the next phase, part of this open space was
built into by adjacent rooms. Locus 216b in which the BoR bowl is
found, is an open space next to the street but is subsequently overlaid
by other rooms. The context is reasonably secure. The BoR (or
possibly White Painted) juglet found in Gate Tower 239a, is found in
association with Phoenician pottery (PI. CLXXVII: 15-16) and
belongs to a context that may have been re-used in periods later than
that of the gate (Ben-Tor 1989, 31). The excavators suggest, however,
that it dates to Stratum IXA.
Of the contexts in Area B, the BoR trefoil-lipped juglet found on
the floor of Casemate 3281 is in a good archaeological context, but
whether this locus should be assigned to Stratum X, as it appears in
the plans, or Stratum IX is uncertain. 28 In Area G, the excavators note
particularly that Locus 10061, the sounding east of the Forward
Bastion of the city's fortifications, is a secure context, and date it to
Stratum VIII. The plans of this area do not illustrate the nature of this
sounding (Pl. XXXI), and we must rely on the excavators' views here.
The contexts in which the BoR pottery is found in these strata are
largely domestic. In Building 200-202, especially, the BoR appears in
proximity to food preparation utensils, such as clay ovens and basalt
grinders. The renewed excavations of the 1990s found several more
ovens in Locus 8019 to the south, possibly the central courtyard of the
whole complex. The additional presence of "metal slag and what
appear to be stone tubes (bellow parts?)" in this area led them to
suggest instead the presence of "industrial activity" (Ben-Tor & Ben-
Ami 1998, 10). Yadin's excavations, however, suggest that this
complex must have served as living quarters. "Considering the large
number of small rooms clustered together into living units, and their
location near the city wall and gate, it seems likely that they served
the garrison or royal officials" (Ben-Tor 1989, 32). In contrast, the
Gate Tower 239a contains an assemblage of relatively unusual pottery
(see below) and may possibly reflect either that this was a storage area
28
See note above.
for more valuable utensils, or that it served as an area of some sort of
ritual, or, equally possibly, that discarded pottery was simply
deposited there. Of the nature of the contexts of the BoR found in
Areas Β and G, less can be determined. The Casemate 3281 may have
been a guardroom, or possibly had a commercial function (see the
other finds below).
Other Finds
As noted above, the finds from Building 200-202 in Area A are
mostly of a domestic nature. In Stratum XB, Room 203d, a red-
slipped and burnished wide flat bowl, a perforated vessel with three
feet and cooking pots, open jugs and store jars were found
alongside the BoR juglet. This room also contained several ovens,
as well as basalt grinders, pestles and a bone spindle whorl. Also
found in Stratum XB of this Building 200-202 were a red-slipped
bowl with rounded carination (Ben-Tor 1989, 37), a red-slipped
jug, a jug painted with a bichrome band and a decorated store jar.
In Stratum XA, the finds continue to be of domestic type. In Locus
213c, the room underlying part of the Pillared Building Stratum
VIII, a small number of plain juglets and bowls were found
alongside the large BoR bowl. In other rooms of the Building 200-
202, also in Stratum XA, were basalt mortars, an incised stone seal,
and a bronze artefact, possibly an arrowhead, from the Street area
(Locus 207c). In Locus 221c, the open space adjoining Locus 213c,
a black-slipped bowl (burnt?), plain bowl, cooking pot and large
store jar were found with the BoR juglet sherd. In Stratum IXB, the
BoR bowl was found in Locus 216b. The only other find recorded
from this locus is a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel. Overall however,
Stratum IXB in this building contained red-slipped and burnished
bowls, cooking pots, two bichrome single-handled globular jugs
(Pl. CLXXVI: 6, 7), one from the adjacent room to Locus 216b, a
second example of a 'cup-and-saucer' vessel, the base of an
'Achziv' Phoenician jug, a basalt bowl and scraper, lamps, a bone
spatula, a bronze figurine, a large clay amulet, a bone amulet and a
faience eye-amulet.
Gate Tower 239a (Pl. CLXXVII) is an interesting locus in terms of
the quality of its finds. Alongside the BoR (or White Painted) juglet
was found a White Painted jug, a 'Samaria' bowl, four single-handled
drinking bowls, two red-slipped trefoil-lipped 'Achziv' jugs, red-
slipped wheel-burnished bowls, three 'cup-and-saucer' bowls, a clay
zoomorphic (horse) vessel, and a basalt bowl.
In Area B, Casemate 3281 produced a large amount of pottery,
including plain bowls, 'Samaria' bowls, a strainer bowl, a large red-
slipped wheel-burnished krater, possibly an 'Achziv' ware Phoenician
jug, two fragments possibly of Phoenician globular jugs (Pl. CCVIII:
44,45), a basalt weight, a large ceramic tray, lamps, a black-burnished
'Achziv-type'jug, cooking pots and store jars.
Sounding 10061 excavated in Area G (Pl. CCXLVII-III) exposed,
alongside the base of a BoR jug, bowls decorated with a red-banded
rim, and a red-slipped bowl. Also found in Area G, but less well
stratified, was a (Cypriot) Bichrome jug, dated by the excavators to
Stratum VII-VIII.
Excavation of Area A at Hazor by the expeditions of the 1950s, in
conjunction with the renewed excavations of the 1990s, have
produced a well-defined architectural and ceramic sequence for the
early Iron II period at the site. The re-examination of the extended
Building 200-202 by Ben-Tor's recent excavations has confirmed the
stratigraphy of Yadin's original publications and his division of the
earliest Iron II strata into Stratum XB, XA, IXB and IXA (Ben-Tor &
Ben-Ami 1998, 13).
Examination here of the Iron Age levels at Hazor has established
that BoR pottery first appears in loci assigned to Stratum X. The
pottery continues to appear in Stratum IX, and is present in
subsequent levels to the end of the Iron Age at the site. Of this corpus,
one BoR vessel only is dated to Stratum XB, one to Stratum X in the
Street, two vessels to Stratum XA and six vessels to Stratum IXB or
IX-X. The reliability of a Stratum XB date for BoR pottery at the site
is minimised by the presence of only one vessel in this context, but
there is no specific reason to discount it.
The relative dating of Strata X-IX can be confirmed by the
sequence of levels in Area A: the extension of Building 200-202
was found to cover an Iron I pit of 12th - 11th century type (Ben-
Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 3) and it was itself overlaid by the later
Pillared Building of Stratum VIII. The excavators, therefore, state
that "the two strata, divided into four phases, are... 'sandwiched'
into a time span between the late eleventh and the early ninth
century B.C.E." (Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 5).
The absolute dating of these strata is more problematic. There is
some doubt over the attribution of the ashy burnt layer encountered
at the end of Stratum IX to a destruction of the site. While Yadin
and Aharoni believed it the result of the Aramaean king Ben-
Hadad's destruction of the site in c. 890/885 BC, the most recent
excavations have instead proposed that this burning was simply the
result of large-scale industrial activity in the building (Ben-Tor &
Ben-Ami 1998, 10, 12). The use of a historical parallel to date these
levels is therefore not secure. There is further confusion over the
dating of the burnt layer itself - Yadin assigned it to the end of
Stratum IXA (Ben-Tor 1989, 36), while Aharoni placed it at the end
of Stratum IXB, regarding Stratum IXA as an "intermediate
stratum which existed for a short time between Ben-Haddad's
destruction of the city and the renewed building activity of Stratum
VIII" (Ben-Tor 1989 [Ed's note], 36). Ben-Tor's excavation seems
to support the presence of this burning at the end of Stratum IXB
(Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 1998, 10). On the assumption that a military
conquest would tend to terminate a stratum in which it occurred,
rather than be followed by a secondary phase of the same level, an
interpretation of the burning as industrial waste may be preferred.
The dating of Hazor X-IX, therefore, relies principally on dating
of 'parallel' assemblages at other sites. Hazor is located in the
Huleh valley, far north of the Jezreel valley and the other major
excavated inland sites flourishing in the Iron Age. However, a
comparison between the Iron Age ceramic repertoires of Hazor,
Yoqneam and Megiddo has recently been published by Zarzeki-
Peleg (1997). 29 While Megiddo's stratification is complex, the site
of Yoqneam has a fairly dense and clear series of strata for the early
Iron II. Its Strata XVI-XIII have been found to show significant
29
The excavations at Yoqneam have not yet been fully published. The article by
Zarzeki-Peleg comprises, to an extent, a preliminary publication o f the material from
the Iron A g e and her conclusions are the result of a detailed study of the pottery from
the site. S o m e further Iron A g e pottery from Yoqneam was published in a study of
the Tel Qiri pottery by M. Hunt (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987, 1 3 9 - 2 2 3 ) and see
analysis below. Note, however, one of the problems o f unpublished stratigraphy:
Hunt's Strata 11 and 10 at Yoqneam appear to correspond with Str. XV-XIII as
published by Zarzeki-Peleg (eg. Hunt 1987, 202; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 280. S e e also
Table 8, 216). Future publication is required for clarification o f these strata; until
then Zarzeki-Peleg's stratigraphical labelling is to be preferred.
parallels to Hazor XB-IXA (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 280, 283). The
stratum immediately preceding Yoqneam XVI, Stratum XVII, is
also found to bear striking similarities in its ceramic repertoire to
Megiddo Stratum VIA (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 283). The dating of
these strata, as has been discussed, is controversial, but a late 11th
- early 10th century date for Megiddo VIA is generally accepted. A
comparison with the strata at Yoqneam would therefore place the
subsequent strata there, which parallel Hazor Strata XB-IXA, into
the 10th century and following. Given the number of strata at the
two sites, there is a reasonable possibility of Hazor Stratum IXA
(and Yoqneam Stratum XIII) continuing into the beginning of the
9th century. These dates would fit with an Aramaean destruction at
the site in c.890/885 BC should further evidence be uncovered to
support this.
The quantity of BoR in its earliest appearance at Hazor is notably
small - eleven vessels (or parts of vessels) only have been found from
Strata X-IX. This is most probably due to the small areas excavated
on the tell from this period: chiefly the fortifications and the domestic
(or industrial) structures that may have been associated with them. It
may also, perhaps, be explained by the inland location of the site,
beyond the usual area of circulation of imported wares in this period.
A recent article by Ben-Tor has proposed that Building 200-202,
which existed during Strata XB - IXA should be dated "from the
second half of the tenth century to the beginning of the ninth century
BCE" (Ben-Tor 1999, 33). This dating, as is seen below, corresponds
well with the evidence from other sites assessed in this study and
should be taken as representing the period of the initial appearance of
BoR at the site.
Tell Ta'anach
The site of Ta'anach, located 8 km southeast of Megiddo, was first

excavated by a German expedition, led by Sellin in 1902-1904, and
published as Tell Taannek in 1904. Four BoR juglets and possibly
one BoR or White Painted bowl were included in this publication but
their exact find spots are not specified. Further excavation took place
in 1963, 1966 and 1968 under the direction of Paul Lapp. A
preliminary publication by Lapp appeared in 1967. After Lapp's
premature death in 1970, excavation ceased and the first, and so far,
only, major publication of the site appeared as a study of the Iron Age
pottery at the site (Rast 1978). Most importantly, Rast's analysis used
well-stratified comparable pottery assemblages from relevant sites in
the region to elucidate Ta'anach's chronology, as well as to throw
light on the broader Iron Age chronology in the region. In the absence
of publication of the stratigraphy at the site, as well as the appearance
of only two, poorly stratified, examples of BoR pottery (Rast 1978,
29), Ta'anach's value here lies in this comparative study. The pottery
assemblages he discusses bear striking parallels to those at Megiddo
and Hazor, and they therefore aid clarification of the chronology of
the earliest levels in which BoR appears. 30
The Stratigraphy
As noted, the detailed stratigraphy of the site still awaits publication.
Architectural and fortification remains from the Early, Middle and
Late Bronze Ages were exposed (Lapp 1967, 3-26) but the
stratigraphical sequence from the Iron Age was particularly clearly
defined in certain areas on the mound. The Iron Age sequence was
designated Periods IA and IB, followed by IIA and IIB. The period
regarded as corresponding with Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB and Hazor
X is Ta'anach Period IIB. This pottery group from Period IIB at
Ta'anach is also comparable with assemblages at Tel 'Amal III and
IV, Beth-Shan Lower Level V, and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Niv. Ill (Vllb)
(Rast 1978, 24-26). Ta'anach IIB, like Megiddo VA-IVB, was
destroyed in a fierce conflagration and some of its key loci were
found sealed by destruction debris (Rast 1978, 23). The part of the
mound in which Period IIB was best defined was the 'Cultic
Structure' in SW 2-7 (Lapp 1967, 27-30; Rast 1978, Fig. 97a-b), and
this will be examined below in comparison with Megiddo Locus 2081
and Building 10. Hazor Stratum X will also be examined in terms of
the dating of the pottery sequence.
Tell Taannek: (Sellin 1904)

The BoR
Four BoR juglets and one possible BoR bowl were illustrated in
Sellin 's publication of his 1902-1904 excavations.
30
Finkelstein's recent attempts to m o v e Ta'anach IIB with M e g i d d o V A - I V B
d o w n to the early 9th century BC are not convincing (Finkelstein 1998a).
• BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 8b) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example.
From Sellin's "Nordburg."
• BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 44) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example.
From the "Westburg."
• BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 97) Conical juglet. 1 example.
• BoR Juglet (1904, Fig. 94) Possibly trefoil-lipped juglet. 1 example.
Neck and rim missing. Unclear from drawing whether this is BoR or
White Painted.
• BoR Bowl (1904, Taf. V: 1). Fragment of wide shallow bowl. 1
example.
Unclear from drawing whether this is BoR or White Painted.
Ta'anach I: (Rast 1978)

The BoR
Two BoR juglets were found by Lapp's expedition.
• BoR Juglet (1978, Fig. 93:5) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example.
Found in SW 1-9, Locus 19 and assigned to Period IIB, although
poorly stratified (Rast 1978, 54).
• BoR Juglet (1978. Fig. 93:6) Conical juglet. 1 example.
Found in SW 2-8, Locus 21 and assigned to Period IIB, although
poorly stratified (Rast 1978, 54).
The Cultic Structure at Ta'anach

Although no BoR was published from the Cultic Structure, the
similarity of the pottery from this area to the pottery from Megiddo
Locus 2081, which may have cultic associations, is striking. The
pottery from Megiddo Building 10 is also notably similar (Rast 1978,
24). BoR pottery was found in both these latter contexts and it is
useful to examine Ta'anach's Cultic Structure for comparative
purposes.
Excavation of the Cultic Structure by Lapp in the 1960s exposed two
rooms of the building, Rooms 1 and 2. Publication of this building is
limited to the pottery and one basic plan and section. Of the non-ceramic
finds associated with this structure, the excavators found a large
rectangular basin, probably, at least in its final phase, "employed for
cultic purposes" (Lapp 1967, 27-30; Rast 1978, 23). The exact
stratigraphie association of this basin with the Cultic Structure was
rendered unclear by Sellin's previous excavation in the area, but Lapp
proposes that of its three phases, the second was most probably
associated with the destruction of the Cultic Structure (Lapp 1967, 30).
In addition to the basin, astragali and a figurine mould were found (Rast
1978, Fig. 97a). No further details of the finds have yet been published.
The destruction of the Cultic Structure is indicated by an ashy burnt level
approximately 0.75 m deep in Rooms 1 and 2, found above a "floor of
tamped earth." In Room 1 the destruction material lay beneath a loose
Iron II fill and in Room 2 beneath an Iron II floor (Rast 1978, 23). The
contexts of the final phase of occupation of the Cultic Structure can
therefore be regarded as well-sealed.
Much pottery was retrieved from this building. It would be
superfluous to provide here detailed citations of the parallels between
pottery types at Ta'anach, Megiddo and Hazor which are discussed at
length by Rast (Rast 1978, 27-35). For our purposes, a few examples
only are noted.
Quantities of store jars, some still containing grain, were found in
Room 1. Some of these (Rast 1978, Fig. 34: 1,4,5) resemble the
"Hippo jars" noted at Hazor Strata X-IX and Yoqneam (Rast 1978,
27-28; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997: 277, Fig. 11:13, c.f. Alexandre 1995, Fig.
2). Jugs are generally plain with thickened rims (Fig. 37:1, cf. Loud
1939, PI. 7:174) and juglet types (Fig. 40) vary from black-burnished
juglets to an example of a cylindrical juglet (Fig. 40:8), which is
similar to a specimen from Locus 2081 at Megiddo (Loud 1948, PI.
88:13). Of the large bowls, many good parallels are found at Megiddo
Stratum VA-IVB (Rast 1978, 30-31). Irregularly hand burnished
bowls also appear in the Cultic Structure, of parallel types to those
noted at Megiddo Locus 2081 and Building 10 (Rast 1978, 33). An
important pottery type appearing in Ta'anach's Cultic Structure is the
perforated vessel (Fig. 51:3), which has parallels at Hazor Stratum
XB and Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB (see discussions above).
Rast concludes that "the cumulative evidence for the
contemporaneity of the Cultic Structure, Megiddo Locus 2081 and
Megiddo Building 10 groups is impressive. Nearly one out of every
four or five forms in the Cultic Structure group has an identical or
close parallel in one of these two groups from Megiddo" (Rast 1978,
35). In addition, Cistern L. 69, in which a cult incense stand was
found, is shown to be fairly homogeneous and comparable to the
pottery from the Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, 35).
These conclusions have important bearing on our analysis of the
chronology of Megiddo and Hazor above. BoR pottery appears in
contexts at Megiddo which bear strong similarities to contexts at
Ta'anach. At both sites the contexts are sealed by destruction debris.
The epigraphic records of Shishak at Karnak list Ta'anach followed
by Megiddo amongst the cities he destroyed in approximately 925 BC
(Rast 1978, 26; see beginning of the chapter, 85-89). It is plausible
that the levels at Megiddo and Ta'anach which are destroyed by fire
should, therefore, be associated with Shishak's military campaign.
While BoR pottery does not appear in well-stratified levels at
Ta'anach, it is present at the site and may well have belonged to
Period IIB (Rast 1978, 54). There is therefore some persuasive
evidence that BoR pottery was present in levels at the end of the 10th
century BC in this region of the mainland.
Tel Michal
The site of Tel Michal is located amongst sand dunes on the coast of
Israel, approximately 6.5 km north of the River Yarkon. The site is
composed of a High Tell and various nearby hillocks to the north,
south and east. Excavation took place in 1977-1980 by an Israeli team
and the results were published in a single volume in 1989 (Herzog
1989). The importance of the site to this study lies particularly in its
coastal location (and therefore access to overseas trade), as the lack of
continuous occupation throughout the Iron Age prevents the
construction of a complete Iron Age ceramic sequence. The dating of
the site relies primarily on pottery parallels with other sites. However
the excavators' dating of their initial Iron Age stratum to the 10th
century is of interest to our study of BoR chronology.
The Stratigraphy
The site has suffered greatly from erosion and its remains are badly
preserved. Iron Age occupation at the site is represented by Strata
XIV-XII. Strata XIV and XIII, dated by the excavators to the 10th
century, were exposed in architecture and ceramics on the upper and
lower terraces of the High Tell. There was then a gap in occupation
until Stratum XII, dated to the 8th century, which was represented on
the High Tell only by potsherds. Occupation of the Eastern Hillock
was badly preserved in Stratum XIV, but a cult building was
uncovered in this area dating to Stratum XIII which had been
constructed along the lines of a previous building. Stratum XII was
again represented in this area only by potsherds. Traces of Stratum
XIV/XIII occupation were found on the Southeastern hillock.
(Singer-Avitz 1989)
The BoR
• BoR Bowl (1989, Fig. 7.1.1) Wide open bowl, two loop handles. 1
example assigned to Stratum XIV.
Found in Locus 1522 of the High Tell. This was a room/courtyard in
a free-standing house at the northern corner of the upper terrace of the
tell.
• BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.1.15) Handle-ridge juglet. Neck only. 1
example assigned to Stratum XIV.
Found in Locus 378, a fill underneath Floor 777 in a room of a building
on the lower terrace of the High Tell, attributed to Stratum XIV.
• BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.3.10) Two-handled juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum XIII.
Found in Locus 418 of Structure 423 on the upper terrace of the High
Tell. This was a building reused from Stratum XIV, and may be a
four-room house.
• BoR Juglet (1989. Fig. 7.3.11) Conical juglet. 1 example assigned
to Stratum XIII.
Found in Locus 423, the courtyard of Structure 423 on the upper
terrace of the High Tell.
• BoR Bowl (1989. Fig. 7.5.1) Large bowl, possibly imitation BoR. 31
1 example assigned to Stratum XIV/XIII.
Found in a favissa, Locus 140, on the north side of the Eastern Hillock
cultic structure.
The Contexts
The contexts of the BoR pottery at Tel Michal are not wholly
satisfactory due to the partial state of preservation of the architecture.
Much of Building 1522 (Stratum XIV) on the upper terrace of the
31
The excavators' v i e w that this bowl may have been imitation B o R is based
largely on the coarseness of the clay, which could not be verified for this study. The
pierced bar handle on the rim o f the bowl is not, however, as stated, a non-Cypriot
feature, and appears quite c o m m o n l y , for e x a m p l e , in the tombs at Palaepaphos-
Skales in Cyprus (eg. no. 15 in Tomb 4 6 ) . T h e fine regularity of the painted lines on
this b o w l , evident particularly in the photograph o f the vessel (PI. 59:3), warrant its
inclusion here, provisionally, as BoR.
High Tell was robbed out, but there is evidence that it had originally
been destroyed by fire. The BoR bowl is noted as amongst the vessels
"recovered from a thick layer of ashes and fallen brick debris on Floor
1514" (Moshkovitz 1989, 64) and it may be that this context was
sealed by the construction of Building 1513 on top. Room 1522 may
have been the courtyard or working area of the building; it also
contained an oven and a silo. The BoR juglet found in Fill 378 on the
lower terrace belonged to "a rich collection of pottery vessels"
underneath Floor 777 of an Iron Age building. The building however
is poorly preserved and the excavators comment that the "attribution
of these remains to Stratum XIV instead of XIII is based more on
assumption than hard fact" (Moshkovitz 1989, 67).
Of the pottery assigned to Stratum XIII, one BoR juglet was found
on a "tilted floor" in Room 418 of Structure 423, possibly a four-room
house. A BoR conical juglet came from the courtyard of this house,
Locus 423. Structure 423 and its floors continued in use from Stratum
XIV, and its finds are therefore assigned to the latest phase, XIII,
although possibly belonged earlier. The possible imitation BoR bowl
(Fig. 7.5.1) was found in afavissa probably associated with a building
to its south which has been interpreted as a Cultic Structure
(Moshkovitz 1989, 69-71). The several favissae found in this area
were attributed to Stratum XIV-XIII on ceramic evidence.
Other Finds
One White Painted barrel-juglet neck, storage jars, a burnished jug, a
red-slipped bowl, a bronze fibula and basalt grinding vessels were
found from Locus 423, the courtyard of Structure 423. Floor 99, in a
room in the centre of the building, produced cowrie shells,
bone/faience beads, faience gaming pieces and a bone handle with an
iron rivet (Moshkovitz 1989, 69). A basalt grinder and a stone weight
were found in Locus 418 of this building, as well as a red-slipped
thickened-rim dipper juglet (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.3.8). An
almost identical dipper juglet was found in the repository of the Iron
Age tomb at Tel Halif (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8:11 ). A large red-
slipped krater, a red-slipped juglet and two storage jars were found in
context with the BoR bowl in Locus 1522 of the High Tell, assigned
to Stratum XIV. Alongside the handle-ridge juglet of the lower terrace
of the High Tell, in Locus 378, a red-slipped bowl, a juglet, two
cooking pots and a storage jar were found (Moshkovitz 1989, 67).
T h e f a v i s s a of the Eastern Hillock contained, alongside the BoR-style
bowl, two red-slipped bowls, a chalice, and a cooking pot; other
favissae nearby contained two other chalices.
The stratigraphy of Tel Michal is not as precise as that of other sites
studied here, nor did it produce a significant amount of BoR pottery. The
contexts in which BoR appears are only in one case reasonably secure
(Moshkovitz 1989, 64, Fig. 7.1.1), and publication details are minimal.
No explanation is given by the excavators for the conflagration that
evidently took place on the High Tell at the end of Stratum XIV
(Moshkovitz 1989, 64). To surmise an association with the destruction
levels noted at other sites in the northern region is tempting but unwise
in the absence of any further evidence. The BoR bowl however in Locus
1522 may be regarded as fairly securely in Stratum XIV. The other
contexts examined here are less securely attributed. The lack of any
further architectural construction overlying the second Iron II phase,
Stratum XIII, however, and the relative homogeneity of the pottery of
the two strata (Singer-Avitz 1989, 86-87) suggests that this period of
Iron Age occupation was relatively short-lived.
Of the pottery, the great majority of the red-slipped bowls from
Strata XIV are hand-burnished; wheel burnish is not yet present
which suggests an early date for this stratum. Relative to other sites
examined here, the site produced minimal quantities of pottery
altogether. However, the excavators' attribution of these strata to the
end of the 10th century on the basis of comparisons with other sites is
plausible (Singer-Avitz 1989, 86). The red-slipped dipper juglet with
thickened rim, for example, paralleled in the repository of the tomb at
Tel Halif, as well as at Lachish Stratum V (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig.
7.3.8; Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8:11; Aharoni 1975, PI. 42:10)
supports a late 10th - early 9th century date for Strata XIV-XIII (see
also 'Tel Halif' below).
Most interesting in terms of a possible Cypriot connection to
BoR pottery is the remarkable amount of Cypriot pottery found at
the site from the Late Bronze Age (Negbi 1989, 62). So much so,
that the excavators have suggested that "connections with the island
of Cyprus itself were the raison d'etre for the occupation of the site
from the late 17th century onward" possibly corresponding with
"the founding of the first harbour towns (such as Enkomi) in eastern
Cyprus" (Negbi 1989, 62). The BoR pottery from the site is minimal
in comparison with that from other sites under examination, but as
a proportion of all the pottery published from Tel Michal, taking
account of the small-scale occupation in the Iron Age, it is not
perhaps insignificant.
Tel Qiri
The site of Tel Qiri is located on the slopes of Mt. Carmel, within 10
miles of Megiddo and a few miles from Yoqneam and Tel Qashish.
The site was excavated as part of a salvage operation in 1975-1977.
Later excavation of the nearby sites of Yoqneam and Tel Qashish as
part of the Yoqneam Regional Project set out to investigate the
relationship of these three sites to each other, and the project
concluded that Tel Qiri and Tel Qashish were satellite settlements of
Yoqneam. Tel Qiri was published in a single volume which drew also
on the preliminary results of the regional project (Ben-Tor &
Portugali 1987). The pottery from the site was additionally discussed
by Hunt (1987). A relatively small quantity of BoR pottery was found
at Tel Qiri, eleven vessels only, but a complete sequence of Iron Age
strata were exposed at the site. In the absence as yet of publication of
the Iron Age levels at Yoqneam, therefore, which had a far larger
quantity of BoR, Tel Qiri can be used to shed light on the chronology
and contexts of BoR pottery at a small agricultural settlement in the
Carmel region. The publication of Tel Qiri is somewhat brief in
discussion of loci and contexts, although it is valuable in terms of data
presented in addition to the stratigraphy and pottery. The following
discussion, however, attempts to clarify the initial appearance of BoR
at this site.
The Stratigraphy
The Iron Age strata at Tel Qiri represent a continuous occupation, with
no evidence of any destructions by conflagration or major resettlement,
from Stratum IX to Stratum V. Stratum VIIC was the first phase of Iron
II, directly following a ceramically and architecturally rich Stratum
VIII, in which a building with clear cultic associations was uncovered.
Stratum VIIC was followed by VIIB and VIIA.
(Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987)
The BoR
• BoR Juglet ( 1 9 8 7 . Fig. 1 4 . 3 ) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum VIIC.
Found in Area D, Locus 657. This was a room in the western part of
a building. This building may have been purely residential.
• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.5) Medium wide and deep bowl. 1
example assigned to Stratum VIIC.
Found in Area D, Locus 659. This was a room in the eastern part of
the building noted above.
• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.6) Fragment of small bowl. 1 example
• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 14.7) Fragment of large bowl. 1 example
• BoR Juglet (1987. Fig. 14.4) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum VIIA.
Found in Area D, Locus 530. This may have been a courtyard
associated with the same building as above, now associated with an
agricultural industry which was probably olive oil production.
• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig. 24.8) Small shallow bowl. 1 example
(unstratified) assigned to Stratum VII.
Found in Area C, Locus 1/14.
• BoR Bowl (1987, Fig. 30.7) Large wide bowl. 2 examples assigned
to Stratum VI/VII.
Found in Area F, Locus 1806. Area F was excavated on the southern
slope of the site; Locus 1806 seems to have been a street running
north to south between residential buildings.
The Contexts
Little information is published about the contexts or the function of
the buildings in which the BoR pottery appears. The reliability of the
contexts themselves is not clear from the publication, although the
plans present well-defined walls and structures, often with stone-
paved floors. The continuous sequence of occupation in the areas
exposed during the Iron Age will have enabled the excavators to
locate each assemblage stratigraphically, especially for the earlier
periods that had been least damaged by bulldozing activity. The
building in Area D belonging to Stratum VIIC comprised an open
courtyard, and a long narrow room in which were found a stone-built
installation and an oven. Of the contexts in Areas C and F where BoR
pottery was found, little can be determined.
Other Finds
Two kraters and a baking tray were found in context with the BoR
juglet in Stratum VIIC in Area D. A storage jar was found with the
BoR bowls in the same building (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 9,
Photo 27). Elsewhere in the building of Area D, the excavators found
four chalices, two in a room south of Locus 657, and two in possibly
a courtyard area. In Stratum VIIA, Area D, several cooking pots with
incised rims were found, including one in Locus 530, alongside a BoR
juglet rim. One of the rooms in the building in Area D also contained
a perforated vessel, belonging to Stratum VIIA. In Area F, the BoR
bowls appear alongside red-slipped juglets and a large red-slipped jug
(rim not preserved) in Stratum VI/VII.
Tel Qiri is less valuable than more thoroughly published sites for the
purposes of establishing BoR chronology. However, the high standard
of relatively modern excavation at the site and its continuous Iron Age
occupation can provide an indication of the first appearance of BoR
in the region of the Carmel. BoR appears in Stratum VIIC at the site
and clearly continues throughout Stratum VII. The pottery from Tel
Qiri's Stratum VIIC is minimal and therefore not easily comparable
with assemblages from other sites. One red-slipped burnished bowl
found in Locus 680 and attributed to Stratum "VIIIB (VII?)" is
similar in shape, but with a slightly sharper carination, to a bowl from
the Iron Age tomb at Tel Halif (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 10:2;
Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2). The tomb is dated by the excavators
from the "end of the tenth century and the beginning of the 9th
century" onwards (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167).32 This may, therefore,
support a date in the second half of the 10th century for the beginning
of Stratum VII at Tel Qiri. The marked cooking pots which appear in
32
S e e ' T e l H a l i f below.
Stratum VII are also regarded as diagnostic of the 1 Oth century (Ben-
Tor 1993, 1228)
Hunt's analysis of Iron Age pottery at Tel Qiri states that BoR
"shows a decline in frequency" during the 9th century at the site
(Hunt 1987, 208). Although this may be the case, it is not especially
borne out by a study of the strata at the site, and is perhaps a
reflection of the traditional view of BoR as typical of the 10th
century. In fact, of eleven BoR vessels at Tel Qiri, only five are in
stratified contexts in Stratum VII; the rest are assigned to Strata
VI/VII or V/VI. The greater preservation of the buildings in Area D
in Stratum VII should be taken into account. In conclusion, while
the evidence from Tel Qiri is not wholly satisfactory, there is some
support for the dating of Stratum VII to the latter half of the 10th
century.
Beersheba
Beersheba lies in the Beersheba valley at the confluence of Nahal

Hebron and Nahal Beersheba. It lies at a cross-roads between Mt.
Hebron to the north, the Judean Desert and the Dead Sea to the east,
the Coastal Plain to the west, and the Negev Hills to the south.
Excavations were conducted by a team from Tel Aviv University from
1969-1975. The later Iron Age was published in preliminary form in
1973 as Beersheba I (Aharoni 1973). The early Iron Age remains
were published by Ze'ev Herzog in 1984 as Beersheba II. This latter
represents the final report of the excavations of these levels, and is a
good standard of publication.
The Stratigraphy
While Chalcolithic remains were found in the vicinity of the tell, no
settlement earlier than the Iron Age was found on the mound itself.
Remains from the first part of the Iron Age were found only on the
south-eastern slopes of the tell: Stratum IX - VI. The later period,
Strata V-II, saw the fortification and settlement of the summit of the
mound. Beersheba is one of the few sites at which BoR pottery is
published from a level assigned to the 11th century. Since, of these
sites, Beersheba is alone in having good and well published
stratigraphy, it is a key site in examination of the initial period in
which BoR appeared on the mainland. The dating of BoR to the 11th
century has in general been discredited (see Chapter One) but the
site may provide evidence of a secure 10th century date.
Beersheba II: (Herzog 1984)

The BoR
• BoR Juglet (1984. Fig. 24:7) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example,
assigned to Stratum VII.
This juglet (rim missing) was found in Locus 2307. This is part of the
'left wing' of the largest house preserved from the stratum, Building
2309. The juglet was found on the floor of this room.
• BoR Juglet (1984, Fig. 30:8) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example,
assigned to Stratum VI.
This juglet was found in Locus 2757. This is a floor on the eastern
side of Alley 2744 which led from the gateway of the settlement in
towards the city, between two rows of houses.
• BoR Juglet (possibly White Painted) (1984. Fig. 30:9) Barrel-
juglet? 1 example, assigned to Stratum VI.
This juglet (neck only preserved) was found in Locus 2072. This is
the courtyard area of the 'principal' house found in Stratum VI,
Building 2072, in which "a rich and varied group of very well
preserved artifacts" were found (Herzog 1984, 31). A long narrow
room stood on the right of the courtyard, separated by pillars, and a
broadroom stood at the back of the building.
The Contexts
The context of the juglet assigned to Stratum VII is of particular
importance in view of the early date given to this level. The
attribution is not wholly secure. Building 2309, in which the vessel
was found, was re-used and subdivided in the later Stratum VI
(Rooms 2029 and 1689) (Herzog 1984, 20, 29, 33). The BoR juglet
was found on the floor of Room 2307, which makes up the larger part
of the eastern wing of the house. Virtually nothing of the external
walls of the house, or the wall dividing this room from Courtyard
2029, were preserved in this area. The condition and nature of the
floor of Room 2307 is not specified. The excavators note that it lay
on top of a black ashy fill which levelled off a pit belonging to
Stratum VIII (Herzog 1984, 23) and that the floor of Courtyard 2029
next door, lying beneath Paving 2075 of Stratum VI, was constructed
of beaten earth. Anomalies elsewhere in this house, which resulted in
the floor of Stratum VI lying on top of the under-floor fill of Stratum
VII in some areas (Herzog 1984, 33) (when the buildings of Stratum
VII were dismantled down to their foundations) suggests that it is
possible that finds attributed to some loci in Stratum VII may have
actually belonged to Stratum VI. The BoR juglet attributed to Locus
2307 of Stratum VII, should perhaps be considered in this category.
It is also possible, however, that the BoR was correctly attributed to
this Stratum VII context. The other finds from Building 2309,
although minimal, in fact have notable similarities to pottery from
other BoR contexts.
The contexts of the remaining BoR at Beersheba are reasonable. A
BoR juglet was found in Locus 2757 in the gateway area. This was a
floor adjoining Alley 2744 which led inside the settlement, but no
relevant walls of rooms or the original structures were found with it
(Herzog 1984, 36). The gate itself was abandoned in Stratum VI, and
the alley and the associated houses replaced it. These may have been
themselves abandoned at the end of the stratum (Herzog 1984, 36).
The attribution of the BoR to Stratum VI is therefore acceptable. The
third BoR (or possibly White Painted) juglet was found in the
courtyard of Building 2072. The juglet was found in the northwest
corner of the courtyard amongst a rich cache of finds. The area had a
beaten earth floor, and the excavators comment that some of the finds
lay beneath the floor, suggesting that they may have been hidden
there. This is a therefore a reliable context for the pottery.
Other Finds
The finds associated with the BoR juglet attributed to Locus 2307 in
Stratum VII are not dissimilar to finds from other BoR contexts. The
juglet is published alone from Locus 2307, but the pottery elsewhere
in this stratum comprises red-slipped and hand burnished bowls,
cooking pots and one-handled cooking jugs, a tripod-footed bowl (no
perforation) and storage jars. A bronze bracelet was found in Building
2060, but also an iron blade and an iron hoe in Building 2358. In
buildings outside the 'fortified' settlement area, an iron toggle pin and
an iron ring were found. A clay pillar figurine was also found in these
buildings. Alongside the BoR juglet in Locus 2757, Stratum VI,
several red-slipped and hand burnished bowls were found, three
kraters, one of which was red-slipped and hand burnished and one
simply hand burnished, one cooking pot and one cooking jug, a jug
and a lamp. In Locus 2072, two black burnished juglets were found in
context with the BoR (or White Painted) juglet, as well as two iron
sickles, an iron knife blade and a bronze toggle pin.
Examination of the BoR pottery at Beersheba has produced three
contexts only in which the pottery appears, but all are stratified and
fully published. It is possible that BoR appears in Stratum VII at the
site, and fairly certain that it is present in Stratum VI. The dates
offered by the excavators for these strata are notably high. Stratum
VII is dated to "the late 11th - early 10th centuries BC" and Stratum
VI from c. 1000 BC until c. 975 BC (Herzog 1984, 51, 67). No BoR
appears beyond Stratum VI at Beersheba (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54).
Study of the pottery from these levels and the parallels cited by
the excavators for their ceramic assemblages suggests that the
dating of these strata is perhaps too high. Although some early
pottery types are no doubt present in Stratum VII, some of the
parallels cited are from the earliest levels at which they appear at
other sites, while similar vessels appear at these sites in later levels.
For example, the one-handled cooking jug type (Herzog 1984, 49,
Fig 22: 12) has parallels at Tel 'Amal Niv. Ill, the Tel Halif tomb,
and Megiddo VA-IVB (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 9:6,8; Biran &
Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:3; Lamon & Shipton 1939; PI. 5: 119; PI. 7:
167) all of which are not dated earlier than the late 10th century. 33
The 'stepped foot' chalice (Herzog 1984, 47, Fig. 21:11), which the
excavators comment is an Iron I type found at Beth-Shan VI and
Beth-Shemesh III, appears also at Tel 'Amal Niv. Ill and Ta'anach
Period IIB (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 16: 1,3,5; Rast 1978, Fig.
53:5). The minimal number of juglets preserved from Stratum VII at
Beersheba is unfortunate in that these vessels are often usefully
diagnostic. The presence of iron tools in this stratum also suggests a
date later than the 11th century.
Beersheba Stratum VI has many parallels from other ' 10th
century' levels. The black-burnished juglets with handles drawn from
the neck as opposed to the rim (Herzog 1984, 6, 7) are noted by Rast
in his study of the pottery from Ta'anach as an early type, with
"numerous parallels from late tenth-century contexts" (Rast 1978, 30,
33
S e e also the concluding c o m m e n t s of this Section.
Fig. 40: 4-6). The large multi-handled krater from Stratum VI also has
a parallel at Ta'anach IIB (Herzog 1984, Fig. 29: 5; Rast 1978, Fig.
41). An almost exact parallel to the spouted jar of Beersheba VI, of
which the upper part only remains, is a decorated jar from Tel 'Amal
IV (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:4; Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:2).
The absence of BoR pottery from Stratum V at Beersheba, which
is dated by the excavators to the 10th century, is notable. The pottery
assemblage assigned to this stratum is limited (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54),
and includes a probable late variety of the one-handled cooking pot,
with large rounded body (Aharoni 1973, PI. 54:13). In addition, the
flat open krater assigned to the subsequent Stratum IV (Aharoni 1973,
PI. 55:8), which terminated, according to the excavators, "not much
later than that of Stratum V" (Aharoni 1973, 5), does not appear at
Tell el-Farah (N) until Niv. Vile (Chambon 1984, PI. 54:8).
The chronology of the early Iron Age levels at Beersheba is
problematic. The excavators assign Stratum V to the 10th century and
the United Monarchy (Aharoni 1973, 106), Stratum VI to the beginning
of the 10th century, Stratum VII to the late 11th to 10th centuries and
Stratum VIII to the 2nd half of the 11th century (Herzog 1984, 46, 51,
67). This chronological scheme appears too compressed for the levels
under consideration. In addition, the excavators assert that Yadin had
dated Stratum VI to Solomon's reign but that this has been proven
incorrect and the destruction of Stratum V should rather be attributed to
Shishak in c. 925 BC while "the remains of Stratum VII must be dated
to the time of Saul" (Herzog 1984, 85 η. 14). This emphasis on Biblical
history in the interpretation of the archaeological strata at the site may
be responsible for the chronological problems incurred. 34 The presence
of BoR pottery in Stratum VI, and possibly, though unlikely, Stratum
VII, suggests that Yadin's lower chronology for the site should probably
be preferred. Even if the BoR juglet noted above has not been
erroneously attributed to Stratum VII, this stratum should probably be
dated towards the middle of the 10th century. Stratum VI seems to have
good parallels at the other sites examined in this investigation, and it is
unlikely that it existed prior to the middle of the 10th century BC. In this
writer's opinion, Strata V - IV most likely belong to the 9th century.
Further research is, however, required to clarify fully the chronology of
this site.
34
S e e especially Herzog 1984, 7 8 - 8 5 .
Beth-Shan
The large mound of Beth-Shan is located at a major junction in

northern Israel, between the route leading west-east from the Jezreel
Valley and that running north-south through the Jordan. Occupation
of the site was virtually continuous from the late Neolithic through to
the early Arab period. The site was excavated by the University of
Pennsylvania between 1921 and 1933 and the first publications of the
excavation appeared as two volumes in 1930 and 1940 as The Four
Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, by G.M. Fitzgerald and A. Rowe.
These, however, focused on the more spectacular finds from these
structures and provided only a brief discussion of the complex
stratigraphy. The Iron Age strata of the tell (which in fact included
two of these "Canaanite" temples) were only fully addressed many
years after the excavations and appeared in 1966 as The Iron Age at
Beth-Shan by F. James. The delayed date of this publication, however,
the limited records available to the author and the complexities of re-
assessment of the stratigraphy greatly hindered the analysis, and
many confusions remain.
Recent (as yet unpublished) excavations at the site by Amihai
Mazar of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem have attempted to
clarify some of these problems, although predominantly for the later
levels. These excavations did not produce any BoR pottery (Mazar,
pers. comm.). In 1986, Shulamit Geva published the results of a
single excavation season at the site conducted by Yigael Yadin, with
Geva, in 1983 (Yadin & Geva 1986). Although the excavators
identified four Iron Age strata at the site, strata 1-4, which
corresponded with Lower V- VI of the original excavations, the
results were inconclusive. In particular, the remains from Stratum 1,
which corresponded with Upper and Lower Level V, were "much
too scanty to enable any clear conclusions or serious suggestions as
to the character or the life of that stratum" (Yadin & Geva 1986, 20).
This study does not therefore contribute to the investigation of BoR
chronology and will not be included here. Despite the problematic
stratigraphy at the site, its importance in geographical, historical
and archaeological terms, as well as the claims of an early
appearance of BoR, requires its investigation here. This analysis
will make use of James' publication of 1966, supplemented where
possible by the earlier 1940 study of A. Rowe.
The Stratigraphy
The Iron Age levels at the site comprised Levels VI to IV. Both
Levels VI and V were divided into two substrata, Lower and Upper
levels. Levels IV and V were exposed in their entirety on the tell,
and Level VI to a great extent. Finds published from Lower Level
V have been dated to a broad span of the 11th to 10th centuries, and
Upper Level V to the 9th to 8th centuries. The main features of
Level V are the two 'twin' temples, the Northern and Southern
Temples, aligned west to east, and groups of small rooms in the
north and east of the tell which are designated the 'Northern
Storerooms' and the 'Southeast Quadrant.' The exact function of
these complexes remains obscure, but for ease of reference the
terminology used by James (1966) will be retained here. Block A is
the eastern part of the Northern Storerooms, Block B-l the part of
the Southeast Quadrant nearest the Southern Temple, and Block B-
6 the eastern group of these rooms, near the edge of the tell. The
gateway area, never properly excavated, is located in the northwest
of the tell. The earliest BoR pottery at the site is published from
Lower Level V and it is designated a "type fossil" of Upper Level
V. Its location in the former of these is particularly important in the
establishment of the initial period in which BoR appears on the
mainland.
The Iron Age at Beth-Shan: (James 1966)

The BoR
• BoR Juglet (1966, Fig. 1:4) Possibly imitation, coarse clay.
Assigned to Lower Level V.
This vessel belongs to Locus 1045, which is part of the 1045-1050
Block in the south of the tell. Locus 1045 is the southeasternmost
room of this complex. There is no discussion of the preservation of
these rooms in the publication.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966. Fig. 6:14) Juglet sherd. Assigned to Lower
Level V.
This fragment belongs to Locus 1029, from the floor of the central
hall of the Southern Temple. The state of preservation of this floor
is not discussed.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 8:3) Two-handled juglet. Assigned to
Lower Level V.
This BoR juglet comes from Locus 1211 in Block A of the Northern
Storerooms. This locus is regarded as the foundation level for Rooms
4, 5, 6 and 20 (James 1966, 52). Information on Locus 1211 is limited
to diary records and a photograph, but it seems to be composed partly
of collapse from Rooms 4, 5, 6, and 20, and partly, possibly of a fill
(James 1966, 52). There are also indications that the locus could have
been sealed by preserved floors in the rooms above.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 9:2) Sack-shaped juglet. Assigned to
Level VI.
This juglet belongs to Locus 1212 which is "the horizontal area"
beneath the 'foundation' Locus 1211 of the Northern Storerooms.
This is assigned by the excavators to Level VI (James 1966, 52, 58).
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 13:8) Handle-ridge juglet. 3
examples, assigned to Upper Level V.
This juglet belongs to 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513' of Block
A. Fragments of two other BoR juglets were found in this locus. Locus
1513 was an eastern room in the Northern Storerooms; the excavators
noted that the BoR pottery came from "somewhat below the assumed
floor level at 95.61" of this room (James 1966, 54).
• BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 13:8b - not illus.) No further details of
vessel. Assigned to Upper Level V.
This jug also belongs to 'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513,' Block
A.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 13:9) Fragment only. Assigned to
Upper Level V.
This fragment, most probably belonging to a juglet, comes from
'Below the Threshold of Locus 1513,' as the vessels above.
• BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 18:19) Fragment, most probably of jug-
Assigned to Lower Level V.
This jug fragment was found in Locus 1082, in Block B-l of the
Southeast Quadrant. This area is interpreted as storerooms, located
immediately to the east of the Southern Temple. Locus 1082 was a
small room which contained stairs and was probably a stairwell
(James 1966, 60). The BoR fragment was found 1 metre above the
floor level, presumably on the stairs.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 18:21) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned
to Lower Level V.
This juglet forms part of the type series. It was found in Locus 1083,
a room in the same Block, B - l , as the vessel above. No details of this
room are recorded (James 1966, 60).
• BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 22:1) Trefoil-lipped jug. Assigned to
Lower Level V.
This jug belongs to Locus 1163, a room in Block B-6, the eastern
storerooms of the Southeast Quadrant, near the edge of the tell.
Although rooms in this Block were well-built, the walls of Room
1163 were minimally preserved.
• BoR Juglet (James 1966, Fig. 22:9) Barrel-juglet. Assigned to
Lower Level V.
This barrel-juglet was found in the same locus, 1163, as above.
• BoR Jug (James 1966, Fig. 29:9) Fragment, probably of jug.
Assigned to Upper Level V.
This fragment was found in Locus 1350-b, which belongs to Block D-
5, the rooms just within the gate structure in the northwest of the tell.
Locus 1350-b comprises an area of steps of limestone or basalt blocks
laid on radim (packing). The BoR jug fragment was found in the
radim below the steps, and further fragments (possibly of the same
vessel) were found nearby (James 1966, 87).
• BoR Bowl (James 1966, Fig. 39:1) Small simple-rimmed bowl.
Assigned to Level IV.
This bowl belongs to Locus 1147, Block B-5, which lies above Block
B-6 in the east of the tell. Locus 1147 is one of three rooms that lie
above Loci 1167 and 1163, the latter of which also contained BoR
(see above). No details are provided of the exact context in which the
pottery appears.
The Contexts
Part of the problem of analysis of the stratigraphy of Beth-Shan is the
minimal information available on the loci in each stratum. While the
loci are fitted into the general architectural plan, discussion is for the
most part limited to a locus number and elevation, seldom a reliable
means of deciphering stratigraphy. The contexts are rarely discussed
in terms of floor preservation or the exact location of the pottery
within them. This analysis will, however, attempt to reconstruct the
contexts of BoR as far as possible. This section will be discussed in
greater detail than in the case of previous sites because of its
complexity.
Loci 1045-1050, the rooms south of the Southern Temple, were
originally placed in Level VI but reassigned to Lower Level V on the
basis of pottery type and structural location. No further details are
provided on the preservation of the rooms. While this group of rooms
does appear to fit together as a single unit, dating of the pottery within
them is in danger of circularity, and given that the juglet found in
Locus 1045 may not be true BoR, it would be unwise to base too
much on this context.
The BoR juglet fragment from Locus 1029 belongs to an important
context. This was a floor of the central hall area of the Southern
Temple (called the "Southern Temple of Rameses III" in the 1940
publication). While it is possible that the Southern Temple extended
back into Upper Level VI, the BoR vessel is dated to Lower Level V.
The state of preservation of the floor is unclear, but the basalt column
bases that divided the interior walls of the temple were found in situ
and foundation deposits "inserted to the east of them." The author
comments, in addition, that " the bases rested on a level of 95.25, and
this is as near to a figure for the floor of the central portion of the
southern temple as the level books give us" (James 1966, 38). It may
be that a floor was indeed distinguishable. The other finds found
alongside the BoR in this context, however, seem to indicate a
prolonged period of use. Rowe lists an abundance of finds from the
floor of 1029 - including several "cylindrical cult objects" one of
which was decorated with a serpent and doves, a "shrine-house,"
foundation deposits of gold and silver, and stone weights (Rowe
1940, 26). The presence of a fragment only of BoR is unsatisfactory
and the chronological range of many of the objects from the temple
renders this context less than secure.
The BoR juglet found in Locus 1211 is dated to Lower Level V.
This locus comprises "hardened clay", probably collapse, as well as a
"softer, darker-coloured debris" and is regarded as the foundation for
the rooms constructed above, Loci 4, 5, 6 and 20. These rooms appear
to have had floors of differing materials - plaster and brick (James
1966, 52). Beneath Locus 1211 lay Locus 1212, assigned to Level VI
and apparently beneath the "hardened clay" of Locus 1211, which
might have prevented any intrusive material. (The possibility that
Locus 1212 included the material beneath the soft debris area of
Locus 1211 does not seem to be considered.) The two BoR vessels in
these loci may, therefore, belong to a period antedating the
construction of the Northern Storerooms, at least in Block A, although
the attribution of one of these vessels to Level VI should be regarded
as very uncertain. The dating of Rooms 4, 5, 6 and 20 most probably
to Upper Level V suggests that Loci 1211 and 1212 could possibly be
dated to Lower Level V.
The five fragments of BoR found below the threshold of Locus
1513 may belong to the foundation level of the construction of Room
1513. The BoR pottery is specifically noted as coming from below the
"assumed" floor level (James 1966, 54). However, the excavators also
noted that "work in 1513 continued down in hard reddish brick debris
without reaching the bottom of the walls" which seems to belie the
claim that excavation continued under the floor (James 1966, 54). The
position of the BoR possibly in context with some interesting pottery
here (see below) should be noted. This locus cannot, however, be
assigned reliably to any earlier than Upper Level V.
The BoR jug found in Locus 1082 may belong to Lower Level V.
These rooms of the Southeast Quadrant, Block B - l , were built
parallel to the east wall of the Southern Temple and were bounded on
the north by a line continued from the north wall of the Southern
Temple. Room 1082 seems to have been a stairwell, but little further
information is provided. A fragment of a cult cylinder is noted from
this room, though not illustrated in the plates. It is suggested that
Block Β went out of use after the destruction of Lower Level V
(James 1966, 60-61).
Locus 1083, in which a handle-ridge juglet was found, is a small
room in Block B-l which appears to be built up against the eastern
wall of the Southern Temple. No further details are provided but this
room is included in the area possibly going out of use at the end of
Lower Level V.
Locus 1163, in which a BoR jug and a BoR barrel-juglet are found,
belongs to Block B-6, located east of B-l near the edge of the tell.
This has resulted in some disturbance of the stratigraphy in this area.
The rooms are generally sturdily built with "heavy stone foundations
and thick, solid plastered mud-brick walls" (James 1966, 68),
although in the case of Locus 1163 the walls are minimally preserved.
While a quantity of pottery was found in this locus, the author
comments that "since so little of the walls survived, it is of rather
doubtful diagnostic value" (James 1966, 69). Few details are given of
the floor preservation. The author comments that "1163 produced
good Lower V material and a certain amount of later pottery which
may belong to either Upper V or Level IV" (James 1966, 70). This
context may be regarded as possibly Lower Level V.
One BoR jug fragment was found in the gateway area and dated to
Upper Level V. Locus 1350-b is regarded as "occupational material
from the gateway phase" (James 1966, 87). The quality of
preservation of the steps of Locus 1350-b, their construction and the
floors associated with them is not discussed, other than that "the
surface associated with the steps in 1350 was sufficiently hard to be
traced" (James 1966, 43). The attribution of this jug fragment to
Upper Level V, however, is reasonable.
The only BoR bowl recorded as found at the site is attributed to
Level IV, Locus 1147 which is a room above the Level V rooms of
Block B-6. The loci of this Block are noted as "fragmentary," and the
pottery mixed (James 1966, 106).
Other Finds
A wide range of finds are published alongside the BoR pottery of
Level V at Beth-Shan. The BoR juglet (possibly not true BoR) was
the only vessel recorded from Locus 1045, but two red-slipped and
burnished bowls, an alabaster pyxis and perforated vessel were found
from Locus 1046, the adjoining room. Locus 1029, the floor of the
Southern Temple, has been discussed above in the context of its rich
finds. This included cult stands and red-slipped bowls. From the floor
of the northern bay of the Southern Temple, however, (Loci 1021 and
1021-a) the excavators found what appears to be a base-ring juglet
(Fig. 6:10), several alabaster vessels and red-cross bowls and cult
objects.
Locus 1211, in the Northern Storerooms, produced, alongside a
BoR juglet, jugs and a faience vessel. Locus 1212 contained a strainer
spout. Alongside the juglets and jugs from 'Below the Threshold of
Locus 1513,' the excavators found only a strainer nozzle. From Locus
1513, however, came a large perforated jar, similar to that from
Megiddo Locus 2081, a cup-and-saucer vessel, a long narrow bottle,
and a red-slipped burnished bowl (possibly goblet). This seems to be
a collection of cultic-related objects and the presence of several BoR
vessels in association with them should be noted.
The BoR juglet found in the 'stairwell' Locus 1082, in the
Southeast Quadrant, appeared alongside a red burnished bowl, an
incised jar handle, a jar, a cup-and-saucer vessel, possibly a black-
burnished juglet, and a spouted jar. Locus 1083 produced, alongside
the BoR juglet, two large jars with plastic decoration (Fig. 18: 9 &
10), an incised jar handle, and a wide-mouthed red-slipped jug,
similar to that found in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach (Rast 1978,
Fig. 39:6). In context with the BoR jug and barrel-juglet in Locus
1163, near the edge of the tell, a cup-and saucer vessel, several bowls,
including one red-slipped and burnished, a 'zir' (large pithos), a
cooking jug and a spouted jug were found. The radim below the steps
of Locus 1350-b, from Block D near the gateway, produced only two
jars and a cooking pot in addition to the BoR jug fragment, while
Locus 1350-b itself produced several jars and possibly one BoR jug
(not discussed here as the evidence is minimal). The only BoR bowl
found at Beth-Shan, attributed to Level IV, appeared in Locus 1147
alongside a spouted jug, a 'zir', several bowls and a storage jar.
The appearance of BoR juglets in association with certain vessels
should perhaps be noted here. In particular, BoR seems often to
appear in context with pouring and straining vessels, such as the
spouted jar. Cup-and-saucer vessels also appear frequently in
association with BoR and in two instances perforated vessels, a bowl
and a jar, are found in associated loci. The over-riding interest of the
original excavators in the temples no doubt influenced the
predominance of 'cultic' objects published from Beth-Shan, but the
evidence from the site nevertheless provides some support for the use
of BoR juglets in ritual activity (see below, 170-173).
It is clear from the above survey that, despite its geographical and
archaeological importance, Beth-Shan cannot be used as a key site for
determining BoR chronology. None of the contexts are entirely
satisfactory. Loci 1211 and 1212 were believed to have preceded the
construction of Block A of the Northern Storerooms above, which are
attributed to Upper Level V. It is possible, therefore, that the BoR
pottery from these contexts may be dated to Lower Level V, although
interpretation of the stratigraphy in this area is questionable. There
seems little evidence to date the BoR from 'Below the Threshold of
Locus 1513' to any earlier than Upper Level V. While James stated in
1966 "we have now reached the delightful moment when Blocks B-
1, B-2, B-3-a and B-6 can be added without further discussion to the
Lower V layout" (James 1966, 143), we should note the possible
contamination of loci in the Southeast Quadrant, and that the above
statement is based chiefly on the small proportion of 'Upper Level V
forms' in this area. Of the contexts in this area, a Lower Level V date
for the BoR in Locus 1163 is plausible. The appearance of BoR
pottery in contexts assigned to Lower Level V is not, therefore,
confirmed by this analysis, but the possibility remains open for one or
two vessels.
Mazar's recent excavations at the site uncovered only three
fragmentary buildings which he dates to the 10th century, beyond
minor probes in Area P, None of these areas produced BoR pottery,
although they confirmed the presence of a heavy destruction in the
10th century BC (Mazar, pers. comm.).
The absolute dating of Lower and Upper Level V is,
unsurprisingly, uncertain. Lower Level V seems to have been
destroyed by fire, and recent excavations at the site by A. Mazar
found traces of burning in the area east of the temples (Mazar 1993,
221). Upper Level V was also destroyed by fire. Mazar suggests that
this latter conflagration should be dated to the Assyrian conquest of
Tiglathpileser III in the late 8th century BC (Mazar 1993, 222). James'
analysis of the pottery of Lower and Upper Level V proposed that
Beth-Shan Lower Level V "is in time very close to Megiddo VA,
though in all probability somewhat earlier" (James 1966, 118). The
Egyptian stelae in Lower Level V predating the ceramic assemblage
of this stratum by one to two hundred years are problematic and best
explained as heirlooms (Mazar 1993, 221). James' proposal that
Shishak's campaign of c. 925 BC marks the destruction of Lower
Level V is plausible (James 1966, 153). The broad chronological
range of ceramic types attributed to Lower Level V is testament to the
confusions of the early excavations at the site; the assemblages
assigned to this stratum are therefore of little use in clarifying its
chronology. The likely presence of BoR pottery in Lower Level V at
Beth-Shan suggests that the appearance of the pottery at the site by
the end of the 10th century is reasonable, and its continuation into the
9th century fairly certain.
Tell el-Far'ah (N)
The site of Tell el-Far'ah (N) is located in Wadi Far'ah, between the
Jordan Valley and the western mountain district. The site was excavated
by the Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem between
1946 and 1960. The main publication of the Iron Age strata at the site by
A. Chambon appeared in 1984 and it is well-produced and thorough.
Despite the small quantity of BoR pottery at the site, therefore, Tell el-
Far'ah (N) will be examined here in order to investigate the initial
appearance of this pottery type.
The Stratigraphy
The site was occupied from the Neolithic period until the Iron Age. The
excavators divided the Iron Age period, Niveau VII, into sub-strata:
Vila being the earliest, followed by Vllb, VIIc and Vlld. Excavation
took place in four areas ("chantiers") of the mound, Areas I-IV, of
which Areas II and III in the west of the tell were the most extensive.
BoR pottery appeared almost exclusively in the excavations of Area Π.
Tell el-Far'ah I (Chambon 1984)

The BoR
• BoR Bowl (1984, PI. 62:1) Small bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb
This bowl was found in Locus 442A, 35 Area II. This was the room to
the east of the courtyard of House 442, located near the gateway area.
The room was open to the courtyard, separated by pillars, and the
floor was composed of beaten earth. Two ovens were found in the
southeast corner.
• BoR Bowl (1984. PI. 62:2) Large bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vllb
This bowl was found in Locus 431, Area II. This was a room of House
442 west of the entrance to the house and divided from the central
courtyard by pillars. It was paved with cobbles.
• BoR Bowl (1984, PI. 62:3) Medium deep bowl. Assigned to Niv.
Vllb
This bowl belongs to Locus 307, Area II. This was the gravel platform
to the east of the rampart, south of the gateway. It is not located on the
plans of the level.
• BoR Bowl (1984. PI. 62:4) Deep bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vlld
This bowl was found in Locus 405, Area II. This was an area east
of the northeast - southwest wall of Locus 404A (Ref. J6c). This
wall was constructed on top of the destruction material of Niv.
Vllb. Locus 405, like Locus 404, the destruction material,
35
N o t e a discrepancy: B o w l 62:1 is assigned to L o c u s 4 4 2 in the plates but 4 4 2 A
in the loci descriptions. We shall take 4 4 2 A as the correct attribution. L o c u s 4 4 2 is
the courtyard adjoining R o o m 4 4 2 A .
comprised chiefly mud-brick and stone debris.
• BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:5) Shallow bowl. Assigned to Niv. Vlld
This bowl was found in Locus 350, Area II. This was the part of the
courtyard of House 327 nearest the entrance. This seems to have had
a beaten earth floor (PL 42 a, d).
• BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:6) Wide shallow bowl. Assigned to Niv.
Vllb(d) 36
This bowl belongs to Locus 430, Area II. This was a continuation of
Road 438.
• BoR Bowl (1984. PL 62:7) Krater. Assigned to Niv. Vllb
This krater belongs to Locus 430, Area II, as the vessel above.
• BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:8) Two-handled juglet (?) (handles
missing). Assigned to Niv. Vllb
This was found in Alley 217, Area II, which lay in front of House 176.
The floor of this alley was constructed of beaten earth.
• BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:9) Handle-ridge iuglet. Assigned to Niv.
Vllb
This juglet was found in Locus 149(B), Area II. This belongs to a house
adjoining the gate area which was badly damaged by the destruction of
Niv. Vllb. It is difficult to determine its internal structure, but there is
evidence of revisions to the house during this period. This house lay
below Palace 148 of Vlld, and Locus 149 of Niv. Vllb lay beneath the
cobbled Courtyard 149A of this later stratum. Two ovens are found
against the northern wall of House 149B.
• BoR Juglet (1984. PL 62:10) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned to Niv.
Vllb
This juglet (possibly a trefoil-lipped juglet, only the base remaining)
was found in the same locus, 149(B), as the juglet above.
The Contexts
The contexts of the BoR pottery at Tell el-Far'ah are good,
predominantly because of the well-defined structures excavated at the
site. In Niv. Vllb, most of the structures are houses, while Niv. Vlld
comprises more public buildings. No BoR pottery was found in Niv.
VIIc, which seems to have been a short-lived period of building after
36
Note a discrepancy: B o w l s PI. 6 2 : 6 and 62:7 are both assigned to L o c u s 4 3 0 ,
yet the former vessel is attributed to Niv. V l l d and the latter to Niv. V l l b . L o c u s 4 3 0
is a small area continuing west from Rue 4 3 8 , outside House 4 4 2 , and is marked only
on the plans of Niv. V l l b .
the destruction of Niv. Vllb. The typically tripartite houses in Niv.
Vllb are composed of an open courtyard with two rooms on either
side separated from the courtyard by pillars. These were usually
paved and may have been workshops or kitchens. The rear of the
house comprised closed rooms and a second storey.
Of the loci in Niv. Vllb containing BoR pottery, Rooms 442A and
431 in House 442, Alley 217 and Locus 149 of House 149 are all
reliable contexts in that the pottery was found on either cobbled or
beaten earth surfaces within a delineated and apparently
uncontaminated area. The destruction material that overlay Niv.
Vllb, and often the cobbled floors of the succeeding Niv. Vlld,
would in most cases have sealed these contexts. Locus 307 is not
marked on the plans and may have belonged to the indeterminate
area in the south part of Area II. Locus 430, in which a BoR bowl
and krater were found, was a western extension of Road 438, and
adjoined Locus 429 in which two ovens were found. The excavators
refer to the "sol de chaux" (lime floor) which suggests that part at
least of this area may have been a well-defined surface.
Of the Niv. Vlld contexts, Locus 350 was part of the courtyard of
House 327 and provides a good context for the BoR bowl found
here. This house was well preserved. The exact nature of Locus 405
is not clear, as the wall it adjoins is free-standing. It lay above House
442 of Niv. Vllb and may have contained destruction material from
the previous stratum.
Other Finds
A red-slipped jug (PI. 48: 7) was found alongside the BoR bowl in
Room 442A in House 442, which also contained two ovens. The BoR
bowl found in Room 431 of the same house was the only item found
in this room, but an iron arrow head, an iron hook and a stone spindle-
whorl were found in the adjoining courtyard. An iron scale of armour
and a cup-and-saucer vessel were found in the corner Room 462 of
the same house, and two chalices in the rear Room 443A. Locus 307,
the gravel platform, produced a storage jar, a large red-slipped jug and
a plain bowl alongside the BoR bowl. In Locus 405, a dipper juglet, a
lamp and a bronze needle were found. Locus 350, in House 327 (Niv.
Vlld) produced a ceramic female figurine, a fragmentary pair of iron
scissors, a ceramic spindle whorl, and a tripod basalt mortar. Locus
430 produced weights, an iron awl, a pestle, an (ovoid) storage jar,
cooking pots, a bowl and two shallow, wide, red-slipped and
burnished bowls. 37 Alley 217 contained a dipper juglet as well as the
BoR juglet. House 149 of Niv. Vllb, in which a BoR juglet was found,
also contained bronze and cornelian beads, a basalt grindstone and
mortar, and a red slip jug (PI. 49:11).
The finds associated with BoR pottery are therefore predominantly
domestic or belonging to small-scale industry. Only a small amount
of diagnostic pottery is present in these BoR contexts to provide any
chronological indication, but elsewhere in Niv. Vllb, the pottery bears
similarities to that at the sites investigated here. For example, the red-
slipped jugs in Niv. Vllb (Pis. 48 and 49) are similar in appearance to
many at Megiddo VA-IVB, the Tel Halif tomb, Tel 'Amal IV and
Ta'anach IIB. A red-slip jug (PI. 49:15) with handle ridge also
belonging to Niv. Vllb is similar to Cypriot Red Slip I (III) ware (cf.
Gjerstad 1948, Pl. XXVII: 1). A globular jug painted with concentric
circles present in Niv. Vllb is of early Phoenician type (Chambon
1984, PI. 50:5). A number of black burnished juglets with handles to
the middle of the neck are found in Niv. Vllb, and are of early type
(PI. 50: 17-27; cf. Rast 1978, 30). The red-slipped burnished bowls of
Niv. Vllb with flat base and gently rounded sides (PI. 58: 2-5) are also
of types parallel at, for example, Ta'anach IIB (Rast 1978, Fig. 48:2).
A fragmentary terracotta temple model was found in Locus 437 of
Niv. Vllb, (PI. 66:2), the adjacent house (and correlating room) to that
which produced BoR pottery. A number of bronze needles and
bracelets were also found in Niv. Vllb (PI. 72).
The stratification at Tell el-Far'ah (N) is relatively clear and well-
presented in the publication. Niv. Vllb, in which the majority of the
BoR was found, was destroyed by conflagration, and it was covered in
Area II by the later construction of Niv. Vlld (and in places buildings
of Niv. VIIc). The excavators identified the site with Biblical Tirzah and
proposed that the destruction of Niv. Vllb (=Stratum III) should be
correlated with the conquest of the town by Omri in c. 885 BC. Other
scholars have suggested that the destruction of Stratum III at Tell el-
Far'ah (N) should be attributed to Shishak's campaign (Rast 1978, 26).
37
These last three b o w l s are attributed to Niv. V l l d , which should probably be
corrected to Niv. V l l b . S e e note above.
The short-lived occupation of Niv. VIIc is explained as the result of
Omri's transfer of power to Samaria after only two years of
construction at the site (Chambon 1993, 439). Niv. Vlld (=Stratum II)
is regarded as representing the re-establishment of a flourishing city at
Far'ah, which was used by the Biblical leader Menahem to launch an
attack on Samaria. The destruction of Niv. Vlld can be dated to the
Assyrian conquest of c. 732 BC (Chambon 1993, 433).
Parallels drawn between ceramic types from Niv. Vllb and those
from Megiddo VA-IVB and Hazor IX (-VIII) are reasonable
(Chambon 1984, 12). The presence of BoR pottery in good contexts
in this level should be noted. The site of Tell el-Far'ah provides,
therefore, good evidence for the appearance of BoR pottery in
contexts dated not later than the beginning of the 9th century. The
longevity of Niv. Vllb occupation (Chambon 1993, 439) and its
probably extension well back into the 10th century suggests that BoR
pottery could be dated also to the 10th century BC.
Tel Mevorakh
The site of Tel Mevorakh is located on the bank of Nahal Tanninim,

which separates the Carmel coast area from the Sharon Plain. It was
excavated from 1973-1976 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Volume One, the Iron Age to Roman period, was published in 1978
by E. Stern. The site is of particular importance to this study on
account of the prominence the publication gave to BoR pottery
discovered at the site. The detailed discussion of this pottery from Tel
Mevorakh and extensive ceramic parallels listed from other sites have
given especial credibility to the chronology proposed by the authors.
Since the 1970s, Stratum VII at Tel Mevorakh, to which the BoR
pottery was assigned, has been regarded by scholars as an exemplary
10th century level. 38 It is clear, however, from examination of the
contexts of this pottery that considerable errors have been made in the
publication of the site, and that the evidence, as presented, indicates
that BoR pottery appeared in levels beyond Stratum VII.
38
References to Stratum VII at Tel Mevorakh appear in virtually every study o f
Iron IIA pottery from the region. See, for example, Briend & Humbert 1980, 194-
195; Singer-Avitz 1989, 76; Tappy 1992, 130; M c N i c o l l 1992, 100.
The Stratigraphy
The Iron Age strata of Tel Mevorakh range from Strata IV-VI, "The
Persian Period" to Stratum VII, "The 10th Century" and Stratum VIII,
"The late 11th century." The lack of intervening strata between
Stratum VI and VII led the excavator to propose "if this conclusion is
correct and stratum VI began only in the fifth century..., the
approximately four-hundred year gap between these two strata creates
a unique situation that can contribute greatly to the longstanding
debate concerning the initial appearance of these pottery groups in
Israel" (Stern 1978, 52). Investigation of the contexts of BoR at the
site indicate that this "four-hundred year gap" may be illusory (cf.
James 1991, 159-160). While parts of Stratum VII may be assigned to
the 10th century, it is either necessary to date the subsequent strata to
the chronological periods immediately following the 10th century, or
accept that the stratigraphy of the site is confused.
(Note that BoR pottery assigned to 'surface' loci or given merely a
grid reference will not be examined below.)
(Stern 1978): The BoR

• BoR Bowls (1978. Fig. 17:1.3. 4). 3 bowls: one large, two small-
Assigned to Stratum VII.
These bowls belong to Locus 117. While this is assigned to Stratum
VII in the plates, the locus is marked on the plans of Stratum VIII.
This locus is described as "a large courtyard, partly paved with stone
slabs" (Stern 1978, 66). The courtyard lay to the east of a large
rectangular podium, which was surrounded by thick walls and is
presumed to have supported a superstructure. Building 130 of Stratum
VII overlay the podium structure (Stern 1978, 66). An area of beaten
earth (Loci 309, 249, 238) lay just to the south of Locus 117, on which
a quantity of pottery was found. Stern comments that although "not a
single sherd of imported Cypriot ware was present," in Stratum VIII,
"the vessels were quite similar to the stratum VII local pottery and
there can be no doubt that a gap of short duration only separated these
two strata" (Stern 1978, 67).
• BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:2). 1 large bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII.
This bowl belongs to Locus 118. This locus appears in the plans of Strata
V-VI, and belongs to a room in Building 120 in Stratum V. The excavators
note the absence of floors in Building 120 and that the dating of Stratum
V is dependent on the pottery found in the pits (Stern 1978, 29).
• BoR Bowl (1978, Fig. 17:6). 1 small bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII.
This bowl belongs to Locus 134, part of a pit belonging to Stratum VI.
Because the pit reached down to Middle Bronze IIB occupation, the
excavators state that "Stratum VI does not represent a level of
occupation but merely an isolated stratigraphical element." They
comment "it is not certain that the mound was actually settled at this
time" (Stern 1978, 30).
• BoR (1978. Fig. 17: 7.18. PI. 33:8). 1 large bowl, 2 jugs. Assigned
to Stratum VII.
These three, possibly two vessels (the two jug fragments may belong
to the same vessel) belong to Locus 122, which is a room in Building
120 of Stratum V. As noted above, no floors were preserved from this
building.
• BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:11). 1 deep bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII.
This bowl is assigned to Locus 150, a room in a " large building
complex" assigned to Stratum IV. The excavators note that Room 150
was one of those in the south-west section of the building in which
floors were preserved "with intact pottery vessels lying on them"
(Stern 1978, 26).
• BoR (1978, Fig. 17:12, 15). 1 very large bowl, 1 juglet. Assigned to
Stratum VII.
This bowl and juglet belong to Locus 155. This locus could not be
located on any of the plans, nor is it described in the text.
• BoR Bowl (1978. Fig. 17:13). 1 large bowl. Assigned to Stratum VII.
This bowl belongs to Locus 130. This is one of only two loci that
seem to be correctly placed in Stratum VII. Locus 130 was the
northern room of Building 130, the only structure of Stratum VII. The
room was stone-paved. Two phases of this building were exposed -
"the originally carefully-paved stone floor and a few centimetres
above it an upper floor of white limestone" (Stern 1978, 47).
• BoR Juglet (1978. Fig. 17:16). 1 juglet (neck only). Assigned to
Stratum VII.
This juglet belongs to Locus 192. This locus could not be located on
plans or text.
• BoR Bowl (Stern 1978. P1.33:l). 1 possibly late bowl. Assigned to
Stratum VII.
This bowl fragment belongs to Locus 308. This locus could not be
located on plans or text. No other pottery is attributed to it.
• BoR Jug (Stern 1978. PI. 33:6). 1 jug. Assigned to Stratum VII.
This jug fragment belongs to Locus 132, the southern room in
Building 130 of Stratum VII. The room was stone paved.
The Contexts
It is clear from the above survey that there are serious errors in the
attributions of the BoR pottery at Tel Mevorakh. In only two cases is
a BoR vessel assigned to the plan of the stratum in which it is
published. Of the usable loci, it seems that three BoR bowls may have
been found in what is designated Stratum VIII, on a paved courtyard
surface. A BoR bowl and jug were assigned to stone-paved rooms in
Building 130 of Stratum VII, a BoR bowl to 'Stratum VI' and two
BoR bowls and two jugs to a building assigned to Stratum V, in which
no floors were preserved. A BoR bowl was found in a building
assigned to Stratum IV, possibly on a floor. The very limited area of
exposure in these strata, only one building in Stratum VII, none in
Stratum VI, only part of a building complex in Stratum V and solely
in Stratum IV more extensive occupational remains does not in the
first instance provide a good basis for determining chronology. The
prominence that Stratum VII has received in publication of Iron Age
strata at other sites must therefore be reassessed.
Other Finds
Alongside the BoR bowls in Locus 117, the paved courtyard area
appearing on the plans of Stratum VIII, a painted jug fragment (of 'East
Greek ware') (Fig. 10:18), a red-slipped and hand burnished dipper
juglet (Fig. 16:5) and a White Painted bowl (Fig. 18:3) were found. In
Locus 118, the room in Building 120, which was assigned to Stratum V,
two plain bowls (Fig. 4:1,9), an amphora neck (?) (Fig. 8:2), a krater
(Fig. 13:5), a cup-and-saucer vessel (Fig. 13:12) and a pithos (Fig. 15:4)
were found alongside the BoR bowl. Stratum VI, which is represented
by Pit 134 (a non-stratigraphic locus) produced alongside the BoR bowl,
an amphora base (Fig. 8:11), an East Greek bowl (Fig. 10: 9), a krater
(Fig. 13:10), a lamp (Fig. 13:11) and jar handles with pot marks (Fig. 16:
12, 15, 17). Locus 122, belonging to Stratum V, Building 120, produced
alongside the two BoR vessels, a large bowl (Fig. 4:21), a jug (Fig. 9:3)
and a red-slipped and hand burnished bowl (Fig. 12:1). Locus 150,
belonging to Stratum IV, produced only a 'Megarian bowl' (Fig. 3:9)
with the BoR bowl. Locus 155 which was not located on the plans or in
the text descriptions, contained, alongside the two BoR vessels, two red-
slipped and hand burnished bowls (Fig. 12:3,14) and one red-slipped
burnished bowl (Fig. 18:16). Locus 130, belonging legitimately to
Stratum VII, produced, alongside the BoR bowl, a plain shallow bowl
(Fig. 12:4), a cooking jug (Fig. 13:14), two cooking pots (Fig. 14:6, 10),
a storage jar (Fig. 15:2) and a White Painted bowl (Fig. 18:5). Locus 132
contained a cooking pot (Fig. 14:13) and a fragment of Attic ware (PI.
29:10). Locus 192 to which a BoR juglet was assigned could not be
found on the plans, nor is any other pottery attributed to this locus.
The 'other finds' have been listed in detail above in order to show the
extent of apparent contamination of each context in which BoR
appears. To construct out of such diverse ceramic assemblages a
"Stratum VII" attribution for BoR pottery at Tel Mevorakh seems to
be misleading. 39 Locus 130, the building assigned to Stratum VII,
may be an uncontaminated context and the pottery appearing in this
locus would uphold this. Aside from this context and Locus 132
(which contains also Attic ware), no BoR pottery appears in loci
attributed to the stratum in which it is published.
It is possible to suggest, however, that the presence of BoR pottery
in loci attributed to Strata VII, (VI), V and IV indicates that the
structures associated with these strata may have been occupied
consecutively. Perhaps on this evidence we should reassess the concept
of a "four-hundred year gap" between Stratum VII and VI, as proposed
by the excavators. BoR pottery may well have appeared at the site later
than the 10th century. Parts of the buildings belonging to Strata V-IV
must also have been in use earlier than the "Persian period" to which
they are attributed. The extent to which buildings assigned to Strata
VII-IV at the site may have in fact been contemporary with one another,
however, requires further investigation.
Tel 'Amal
The site of Tel 'Amal is located approximately 3 km from Beth-Shan,

in the Harod Valley. The site was excavated by the Israel Department
39
N o t e also the results of contamination of the later periods. Tappy notes "a nice
parallel" for a 10th - 9th century bowl type in "levels assigned to the Persian Period
at Tel Mevorakh" (Tappy 1992, 174).
of Antiquities in a salvage operation between 1962-1966, and again in
1983 and 1985. The results of the early excavations were published in
Revue Biblique 1972 (Volume 79) by G. Edelstein and S. Levy.
Although this publication is brief, the results of the excavations are
important for the investigation here. The site was well-preserved and
the published pottery assemblages provide a good indication of the
overall ceramic contexts of BoR.
The Stratigraphy
Aside from evidence of tombs of the Early Bronze Age, five strata of
occupation at Tel 'Amal were uncovered from the Iron II, Persian,
Byzantine and Early Arab periods. Strata IV and III represented the
Iron II occupation of the tell. These two strata were believed to have
been close in period, and the excavators claim each was destroyed by
conflagration. Stratum Ill's destruction has been assigned to
Shishak's military campaign (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 343).
(Edelstein & Levy 1972): The BoR

• BoR Juglet (1972. Fig. 13:18) Juglet neck (possibly White Painted).
Assigned to Niv. IV.
This fragmentary juglet was found in Locus 34. This was the central
room in a large building of Niv. IV. Much pottery is noted from a
"petit trou" (hole) in the floor in the northeast of the room, although
the location of the juglet not specified. This room also contained a
brick basin, a clay oven and many stone loom weights.
• BoR Juglet (1972. Fig. 13:19) Handle-ridge juglet. Assigned to Niv.
IIL
This juglet came from Locus 12. This was a room in a building complex
in the southwest of the excavation area. Room 12 contained two clay
basins, only one of which was well preserved and full of ashes. The
excavators note that the area near the two basins was thick with pottery.
• BoR Bowl (1972, Fig. 15:10) Small bowl. Assigned to Niv. III.
This bowl was found in Locus 11. This was from the room adjacent
to Room 12 in the same building complex as the juglet above. The
excavators note that few finds came from this room.
• BoR Bowl (1972. Fig. 15:11) Large bowl. Assigned to Niv. III.
This bowl was found in Locus 9, which belonged to a building
complex with notably large rooms. Room 9 was the best-preserved
room, and seemed to have been pillared, as "typique du début de
l'époque du Premier Temple" (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 329).
The Contexts
The publication of the excavations at Tel 'Amal, contained within a
journal article, is necessarily brief. Few details are provided on the
contexts of the BoR pottery at the site. The rooms in Niv. Ill in which
the pottery appears, however, are reasonably well-preserved, with
floors of beaten earth covered with a thin layer of white plaster. In
Locus 34 of Niv. IV, the presence of the installations still in place and
the loom weights found fallen against the wall, suggest that this floor
was also well-preserved. The excavators comment that Niv. IV was
founded on bedrock (Edelstein & Levy 1972, 330). The juglet found
in Room 34 may be White Painted, but the distinctive neck-ridge on
the vessel suggests that it is likely to be BoR. The exact context of the
vessel is unknown and it is not discussed in the textual description.
Niv. IV and III were both destroyed by fire and buried beneath an
accumulation of destruction debris.
Other Finds
Much of the value of the excavations of Tel 'Amal to this study lies
in the ceramic assemblage found with the BoR pottery, which share
many parallels with the other sites examined above. Alongside the
BoR juglet of Locus 34, Niv. IV, were found storage jars, including
one of ' H i p p o ' type, double-handled cooking jugs, an ovoid
amphoriskos with ridged neck, a jug with red painted bands, a large
red-slipped krater and a loom weight. In Locus 12 of Niv. Ill, in
which a BoR juglet was found, two dipper juglets were found, one
red-slipped, a globular juglet, a lamp, a large red-slipped hand
burnished bowl, four smaller red-slipped bowls, one of which was
hand-burnished, a plain bowl, the head of a zoomorphic vessel (a
horse), and a cult stand. In Locus 11, Niv. Ill, alongside the BoR
juglet the excavators found a 'Hippo' storage jar, a large red-slipped
bowl, a red-slipped krater, a plain bowl, an iron tool, a red-slipped
chalice and a plain chalice. Locus 9 produced a large ridged-neck
jug, a double-handled cooking jug, a four-handled cooking pot, a
wide-mouthed burnished jug, and a ridged-neck jug with red painted
bands (Fig. 12:13) as well as the BoR bowl.
The excavation and publication of Tel 'Amal is relatively clear and the
pottery assemblages retrieved from Iron Age Niv. IV-III seem to be
uncontaminated. The excavators distinguish between Niveaux IV and
III in stratigraphie and ceramic terms. They suggest that although Niv.
III followed on soon after Niv. IV, the first period was a self-contained
phase of occupation of c. 20 years, and was then destroyed (Edelstein
& Levy 1972, 342). The excavators also suggest that the pottery from
Niv. Ill differs from that in Niv. IV in its more uniform quality and
probable central production, as well as its move away from 'Canaanite'
influences. In concurrence with W. Rast, however, a preferable view is
that the distinction between the two strata is untenable, that there was a
single stratum of two phases and that this was destroyed in, possibly,
the Shishak campaign of 925 BC (Rast 1978, 25-26). 40 Niv. IV and its
later phase, Niv. Ill, therefore, represent a well-stratified mid-late 10th
century assemblage. The presence of some early pottery types in Niv.
IV suggest that this first phase probably represents the earliest stage of
BoR circulation on the mainland.
Mt. Carme I
In 1923, a group of tombs were excavated on the slopes of Mt. Carmel

by the Inspector of Antiquities in Palestine, PL.O. Guy. These were
published by Guy in 1924 in the Bulletin of the British School of
Archaeology in Jerusalem, Volume 5. Seven tombs were excavated in
total. Their excavator noted the proximity of the cemetery to Tell Abu
Hawam and proposed that the tombs should be connected to this site.
The relatively large quantity of BoR pottery found in the tombs, as
well as their apparently short-lived period of use, is of value to this
study. Although all the tombs were disturbed in antiquity, much of the
pottery remained in situ and is mostly illustrated.
(Guy 1924): The BoR

• Tomb I: Pots 8-10: 3 BoR juglets (1924. 51: PI. 11:8)
40
Rast points out that the pottery types are similar in both Niveaux IV and III, that
it is unlikely that both strata were destroyed by fire, and that "the fact that the walls of
Stratum III followed the lines of walls of Stratum IV is suspicious" (Rast 1978, 25-26).
(Note that Rast dates Shishak's campaign to 9 1 8 B C - Rast 1978, 26-27).
These vessels are handle-ridge juglets. Pot 8 only is illustrated, Pot 9
is noted as larger but of "more porous" clay. Pot 10 larger still but of
similar fine fabric to Pot 8.
• Tomb II: Pots 17-18: 2 BoR juglets Π924. 51)
These are handle-ridge juglets.
• Tomb VII: Pots 32-33. 37-42: 7 BoR juglets. 1 BoR bowl (1924. 52.
55: PI. Ill: 32. 33. 37. 38)
This tomb produced four handle-ridge juglets, two trefoil-lipped squat
juglets, one conical juglet and one medium bowl with Maltese Cross
decoration. The excavator comments that four of the juglets may be
'imitation' Cypriot ware, the clay "more porous and without polish"
(Guy 1924, 55).
Other Finds
The value of the cemetery to this study lies predominantly in the
pottery found alongside the BoR in the tombs. Tomb I produced, with
three BoR juglets, a plain one-handled cooking jug, a cooking jug
decorated with black bands, two lamps, a fine small bowl with a red
wash inside, one red-slipped two-handled dipper juglet, an unslipped
dipper juglet and two blue glaze beads. The tomb contained two
burials but was disturbed and few bones were found. The juglets are
noted as found near the heads of the occupants.
Tomb II contained, alongside the BoR pottery, two Bichrome
painted jugs (decorated in metope style), possibly of Phoenician ware,
two amphorae with elongated base and sharply carinated shoulders
(of later date) 41 which contained fragments of bones, a large red-
slipped and burnished bowl of poor quality, a small fine bowl with red
wash inside, four lamps, a bowl with sharply-profiled thick rim, and
a globular jug with black and red concentric circles on the body. Also
found in this tomb were a number of bronze objects - three rings, two
bangles, a fibula, an arrow-head and a fish-hook. The tomb contained
a single burial, of which little was preserved. The pottery was found
throughout the tomb.
Tombs III - VI produced very few finds as they were either badly
destroyed or too dangerous to excavate fully. Tomb VII produced,
alongside the eight BoR vessels, two red-slipped burnished jugs (neck
and rim missing on the vessel illustrated), two kraters, three plain
41
Cf. Tell Keisan N i v e a u x 4 and 5 (Briend & Humbert 1980, P1.25: 5, 4 7 : 2 )
bowls with rounded sides, a lamp, two globular jugs with bichrome
neck decoration (probably Phoenician), a pinched-rim jug with black
bands around body, a trefoil-lipped red-slipped Phoenician jug and a
fragment of a Cypriot Base Ring juglet. The tomb contained few
bones, only part of a skull and tibia. The excavator suggests that there
may have been two burials, one belonging to the Late Bronze Age, as
indicated by the Base Ring juglet.
The publication provides little discussion of the chronology of the
tombs. Despite the presence of a few items in these tombs that do
not belong to the early-middle Iron Age, however, they seem to have
had a relatively short period of use. Tombs I and VII, especially,
preserve a homogenous assemblage of pottery and can contribute to
assessment of the 'ceramic horizon' of the BoR pottery within them.
The bulk of the pottery in the tombs at Mt. Carmel is of types
similar to that found at the sites examined above. Particularly
diagnostic of this period are the one-handled cooking jug, the
bichrome painted pottery and the trefoil-lipped 'Achziv ware' jug
which are of early types, and the kraters. The pottery found in the
Carmel tombs may therefore be dated with reasonable certainty to
the mid-late 10th century.
The quantity of BoR pottery is remarkable. BoR comprises
c.40% of all pottery found in the three tombs examined, including
that which may be intrusive from a later period. The excavator's
belief that some of the BoR vessels in this tomb are 'imitations' of
Cypriot BoR may not have much basis. The squat-shaped juglet
with simple decoration is well-known in the Cypriot repertoire of
BoR and is not always finished to the high standard achieved on the
handle-ridge juglets. The conical juglet (Pot 38) is well paralleled
by an example from Ta'anach (Rast 1978, Fig. 93:6). The location
of the site of Mt. Carmel near the Acco Bay area which produced
the largest concentration of BoR pottery (see Chapter Two) at a
point of convenient access to ships from Cyprus should be noted,
as should the examples of Phoenician pottery found alongside the
tombs. This points more to contemporary taste in fine wares,
however, than the ethnicity of the tomb's occupants. The proximity
of the site to Tell Abu Hawam is noted by the excavator. The
relatively rich finds in the Mt. Carmel tombs, especially given the
robbing of the cemetery, suggests that its occupants may well have
been associated with this flourishing settlement located nearby. 42
Tell Keisan
The site of Tell Keisan is located between the Acco Coastal Plain and the
hilly region of Lower Galilee. The shoreline lies 8 km away beyond sand
and marshland, but the site was linked to the coastal region by its
proximity to the site of Acco. The preliminary season of excavation
conducted in 1935-1936 by G. Garstang was interrupted by World War
II. Re-excavation only began in 1971 under R. de Vaux of the Ecole
Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem. After the first season,
the directorship of the site was taken over by J. Prignaud, J. Briend and
J.-B. Humbert until 1980. The main publication of the site by Briend and
Humbert (1980) covers the first part of the excavation period, 1971-
1976. This publication is thorough in terms of stratigraphical detail, but
selective in the pottery assemblages published. Two BoR vessels only
are included. Many more examples of BoR were uncovered at the site
but were never published. A thesis written on BoR pottery in 1982 by a
student of the excavators recorded the remaining quantity of BoR at the
site, which numbered 161 sherds in total (de Montlivault 1982, 178-180,
183-185; Pl. XIV-XVII). Almost all this number, however, belong to the
later Iron Age levels at the site and are investigated in the following
sections of this Chapter.
The Stratigraphy
The site flourished during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages and was
occupied throughout the Iron Age. The excavators proposed a relative
decline in the Iron II period and a renascence in the 8th - 7th centuries,
possibly as a result of independence and commercial prosperity
during the Neo-Assyrian period (Humbert 1993, 862-863). Niveau 9,
representing a well-planned late Iron I city, was destroyed by
conflagration. The site was reoccupied soon afterwards, and Niv. 8
was built directly on the destruction material of Niv. 9. Niveaux 8 - 6
were meagre by comparison with Niv. 9, but continued without major
42
Note that there are approximately double the amount o f BoR b o w l s to juglets
at Tell Abu Hawam. B o R juglets were a l w a y s more popular than b o w l s in tombs,
however. S e e Chapter T w o for distribution patterns.
disruption for approximately 250 years. In Area A, on the Eastern
Summit, Niv. 8 represented only "de couches minces qui ne sont pas
à proprement parler des sols d'occupation" (Briend & Humbert 1980,
18). In Area B, however, nearby, Niv. 8 was better represented and
comprised three phases of occupation: Niv. 8c was the earliest,
followed by Niv. 8b and 8a.
(Briend & Humbert 1980)

The BoR
• BoR Bowl (1980. Fig. 56:1) Medium bowl. Assigned to Niv. 8b-c.
This bowl was found in Locus 659b, a room in a modestly-sized
structure on the eastern side of the tell, which overlay a Niv. 9 building.
The floors of the room were badly preserved and lay directly upon the
destruction level of Niv. 9. This room contained an oven (6070).
• BoR Bowl (1980. Fig.56:2) Medium, slightly carinated bowl-
Assigned to Niv. 8b-c
This bowl was found in Locus 636b. This was a fairly large room with
a drainage basin placed towards the slope. The room is interpreted as
a courtyard, and had a floor 17cm thick. The room lay directly above
the destruction level of Niv. 9.
The Contexts
The information provided on the contexts in which the BoR pottery
appears is minimal. The excavation of well-defined rooms in three
phases of Niv. 8 in Area Β at Tell Keisan, however, suggests that these
contexts are reliable. Both Rooms 659 and 636 lay directly upon the
destruction debris of Niv. 9. The floor of Locus 636 was thick,
suggesting that this room was in existence in both Niv. 8c and 8b. The
plans of Niv. 8c and 8b are shown together, and the excavators note
that these phases differed little architecturally.
Other Finds
Few finds are published from the same loci in which BoR pottery
appears. No other finds appear in Locus 659b, other than Oven
6070. A cooking-pot and bowl with several looped handles was
found in Locus 636c, the earlier phase of Room 636. In Locus 506,
the next-door room to Locus 636, a large number of storage jars
were found, cooking pots and a plain bowl with rounded sides. Two
dipper juglets were also found in this room. Locus 656c, the room
next to 659b, produced a cult stand.
The excavators date Tell Keisan Niv. 8 to c. 980-900 BC (Briend &
Humbert 1980, 27). The destruction of Niv. 9 is dated approximately to
1000 BC, and assigned to "local events," such as internecine strife over
the fertile coastal plain, rather than military conquest (Humbert 1993,
866). The pottery retrieved from the buildings in Area B, Niv. 8, is
minimal, but the rounded bowls and the cooking pots are similar to
those examined at other sites in this study. The excavators propose a
reasonable degree of continuity between Niv. 9 and Niv. 8 and suggest
that the population was not radically changed between the two strata
(Briend & Humbert 1980, 195). The presence of BoR pottery in phases
c and b of Niv. 8 places it, on the excavator's chronology, in the first
half of the 10th century (Briend & Humbert 1980, 26). Bikai in her
assessment of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus places Tell Keisan
Strata 9 a-b, 8 and 7 in her "Kouklia" horizon, which she dates
approximately 1050 - 850 BC (Bikai 1987,66-68). Reassessment of the
chronology of Niv. 8 is hindered by the limited quantity of pottery
published from the stratum. The pottery published from the succeeding
Niv. 7 is similar, although includes many more Phoenician forms.
While perhaps a date in the first decades of the 10th century is too early,
the BoR pottery at Tell Keisan, may, nevertheless, be amongst the
earliest found on the mainland. The presence of BoR in the later levels
of Tell Keisan also, in quantities in Niv. 4 (see Section Two of this
chapter) which far exceed the quantity of BoR at other late Iron Age
sites on the mainland, as well as changes in the fabric of this ware
(Chapter Four, 242), suggests that this site may have had particularly
strong links with Cyprus.
Tell el-Hammeh
The site of Tell el-Hammeh is located 16 km south of Beth-Shan and

2 km north of the junction between the Jordan Valley and Wadi
Malikh. The site is almost equidistant from Tel 'Amal, Beth-Shan and
Tell el-Far'ah (N). Tell el-Hammeh was surveyed in 1925-26, 1967-
68 and 1977, and excavation seasons were conducted in 1985, 1987
and 1988 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the direction
of J. Cahill, G. Lipton and D. Tarier. No full publication of the site has
appeared, but preliminary publications are relatively thorough and
enable an assessment of the site's stratigraphy and chronology. No
pottery plates have, however, been produced, and the reports make
reference only to "'Cypro-Phoenician' Black-on-Red juglets, all of
one type" (Cahill, Lipton & Tarier 1987, 282). Two BoR juglets are
illustrated in a photograph of the pottery assemblage of Loci 117 and
119 in a paper in Qadmoniot (Hebrew), Volume 22 (Cahill, Tarier &
Lipowitz 1989, 36). At least two further BoR juglets are mentioned.
The Stratigraphy
The site was occupied from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian and
later Byzantine periods. Only the south-eastern corner of the tell was
excavated, Area A. The steep slope of the tell necessitated division of
the area into terraces, of which the M-Terrace (Squares M6, M7) and
L-Terrace (Squares L5-L7) produced Iron II remains. Below, Iron I
occupation was excavated in Terraces Κ and J, and below still, Middle
Bronze Age occupation appeared in Squares I6-F6.
The BoR
• BoR Juglets (Cahill. Lipton & Tarier 1989. 36). Two handle-ridge
juglets.
These juglets are illustrated in a photograph of a pottery assemblage
from Loci 117 and 119. These loci represent two mud-brick rooms in
the eastern part of the L-Terrace. The rooms are adjacent to one another,
almost identical in size and well-preserved by the thick layer of
destruction debris which overlay them. A great quantity of finds were
discovered. Two large, poorly-fired, ceramic containers with
carbonized grain were found in Room 117, as well as a polygonal
installation containing carbonized grain built into the floor.
• BoR Juglets (Cahill & Tarier 1993. 562). A number of handle-ridge
juglets.
These juglets were found in Locus 406, a limestone-cobbled
rectangular room in the western part of the L-Terrace. Parts of three
other architectural units were preserved in this western part. Like the
eastern area, these rooms were sealed by the destruction debris which
overlaid it. Room 406 produced a large number of finds. The eastern
and western parts of the L-Terrace were connected by a large open
courtyard of beaten-earth, Locus 379.
The Contexts
Details on the exact contexts of the BoR pottery are limited. However,
Rooms 117, 119 and 406 excavated in the L-Terrace are well-defined
with preserved walls and floors. The destruction debris that overlay
them sealed their contents. These are, therefore, reliable contexts.
Other Finds
As noted above, the finds from Tell el-Hammeh are not illustrated in
plates, but listed and some photographed. The wealth of finds is
notable. Rooms 117 and 119 contained store jars filled with carbonized
grain, one sealed with an unbaked loom weight. Cloth impressions on
pieces of unbaked clay suggest that cloth was laid over jar mouths
which were then sealed with clay. Of the non-ceramic finds, several
gypsum pyxides, a basalt bowl on top of a decorated tripod base, a
variety of iron tools, including a trident, over a hundred beads of
carnelian, rock crystal, faience, glass and silver, stone weights, two
scaraboids, one stone conoid seal, three clay bullae with stamped
impressions, and an ivory box containing traces of fabric were found.
Rooms 117 and 119 also produced remains of wooden spindles and
thread. Some of the ceramic finds are illustrated (Cahill, Lipton &
Tarier 1989,36). These include storage jars of 'Hippo' type, a decorated
high-necked store-jar, possibly a large Cypriot White Painted barrel-
jug, black-burnished juglets with handle to the neck, holemouth jars, a
jug with ridged rim and pinched mouth and dipper juglets. 43
Room 406 contained over forty restorable ceramic vessels,
including a complete kernos with five projectiles, a zoomorphic
vessel, a multi-handled krater with horned animal appliqués, and
part of a female plaque figurine. Two only of these vessels are,
however, illustrated (Cahill et al. 1989, 37). Also in this room were
gypsum pyxides, a collection of astragali, a faience cat amulet, and
a stamp seal.
Tell el-Hammeh, while still not fully published, nevertheless provides
evidence of BoR pottery in well-sealed contexts amongst numerous
finds paralleled by other sites examined in this survey. The
43
The similarity o f much of this pottery to that at Tel 'Amal is particularly
striking. S e e , for e x a m p l e , Edelstein & L e v y 1972, Fig. 8:2; Fig. 11:3 & 7.
destruction debris that overlies both western and eastern parts of the
L-Terrace structures is dated by the excavators, provisionally, to
Shishak's campaign of 925 BC (Cahill & Tarier 1993, 562). They also
propose an alternative, that the stratum in which these finds appear
was destroyed "earlier in the tenth century" (Cahill & Terler 1993,
562). On the basis of the parallels noted between Tel 'Amal IV-III, in
particular, and other sites investigated here, it seems that the former
proposition is best supported by the evidence and that a date in the
mid-late 10th century is most likely.
Tel Halif
An Iron Age tomb was excavated near Tel Halif in the Judean hills in
1965 and published in 1970 in the Israel Exploration Journal,
Volume 20 (Biran & Gophna 1970). The tomb had not been robbed
and its intact preservation and the possibility of stratification within it
provide a significant contribution to assessment of the ceramic
horizon of this period of BoR.
The Stratigraphy
Three internal areas were identified by the excavators - a repository, a
main burial chamber and a bench. The pottery from the two main
phases, the repository and burial chamber, was found to have
typological differences. The excavators suggest that the earliest burials
in the tomb, originally placed on the bench, were removed to the
repository as new burials were added to the burial chamber. The process
continued until the repository was filled. Later burials were piled on top
of the repository until this area was filled and burials ceased. A second
phase of use, perhaps involving a second family, moved the final
occupants of the bench to the heap over the repository and continued to
use the burial chamber for a few generations until it was completely
filled, sealed and abandoned (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167-168).
The BoR and its Context

Five BoR handle-ridge juglets were found in the repository of the
tomb. The excavators note: "An attempt was made to examine the
stratigraphical formation of the finds in the repository. Four layers
were found, but with no clear typological differentiation. However,
the red juglets and the Cypro-Phoenician vessels found in the lower
layers of the repository are indeed the earliest of the vessels
discovered" (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167).
Other Finds
The finds from the repository include red-slipped and burnished
bowls, a bowl with knob-handles, a chalice, one-handled jugs (some
red-slipped), similar to cooking jugs, two 'Achziv'jugs, black juglets
and red juglets with handles drawn from neck, and dipper juglets,
including a red-slipped dipper juglet with thickened rim. Also from
the repository were lamps, including a bronze lamp, and 34 bronze
anklets. The burial chamber produced red-slipped wheel-burnished
bowls, often carinated with a thickened rim, one-handled jugs, some
similar to cooking jugs, others with ridged or thickened rim and
globular bodies. Black juglets with handles drawn from rim and
"squat" bodies were also found in the burial chamber, as well as
dipper juglets, a two-handled cooking jug, lamps, two iron double-
pronged forks and a limestone roller. The finds on the bench
"resemble the finds in the burial chamber" rather than the repository
(Biran & Gophna 1970, 166), and include carinated bowls, jugs,
juglets with handle drawn from rim, lamps and a bronze anklet.
The tomb at Tel Halif is invaluable in providing a pottery assemblage
in the same chronological horizon as BoR. The absence of later
intrusions to the tomb and identification of the earliest deposits within
it, which include the BoR pottery, distinguish this tomb as one of the
most reliable contexts available for this study. All the vessel types
found in the repository are paralleled at other sites examined here. In
particular, the trefoil-lipped 'Achziv' jugs of early type, the red-
slipped jug with ridged neck and thickened rim, the black (and red)
juglets with handle to neck and the red-slipped bowls with gently
rounded or carinated sides are indicative of the period under
examination (Biran & Gophna 1970, Figs. 6: 8-9; 6: 7; 8: 1-9; 4: 1-6).
The pottery from the burial chamber is more indeterminate but the
black juglets with handles drawn from the rim and the wheel-
burnished red-slip bowls indicate a later stage of ceramic
development. The dates proposed by the excavators, therefore -
earliest use of the tomb from the end of the 10th or beginning of the
9th century onwards, continuing for "several generations," and a final
phase of use from the end of the 9th or beginning of the 8th century,
until the mid-8th century (Biran & Gophna 1970, 167-168) - are
acceptable. Given some of the relatively early pottery types in the
tomb, however, it is possible that it dates back to the middle of the
10th century.
Tel Rehov
The site of Tel Rehov is located in the Jordan valley, about 6 km west
of the Jordan river and 5 km south of the site of Beth-Shan. The site
is currently in the process of excavation under the direction of Amihai
Mazar with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has been
published only as a preliminary report (Mazar 1999). The appearance
of the name of the site in Shishak's inscription at Karnak (see above),
the well preserved Iron Age remains and the use of Carbon-14
sampling at the site render it important for the investigation here. The
BoR pottery from Tel Rehov was examined by this author after its
initial two seasons (1997 and 1998).
The Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy of the site is at present only local to the areas of
excavation of the tell. Area Β was excavated on the Upper Mound,
while Area C is located in the west of the Lower Mound, and Area Ε in
the east of the Lower Mound. Strata la and lb in Area C are parallel
chronologically with Strata la and lb in Area Ε and date to the 10th/9th
centuries BC. Area Β is predominantly assigned to the 8th-7th centuries,
but probes within this area also uncovered "at least two Iron Age IIA
strata," which could be dated earlier (Mazar 1999, 33).
The BoR
• BoR Jug & Juglets (unpublished). Fragments of 1 jug and possibly
2 juglets.
These fragments were found in Locus 2305 of Area B, the Upper
Mound, in Stratum 5. This was a plaster floor in a destruction level,
found with burnt timber material. Stratum 5 is dated provisionally to
the late 9th - early 8th centuries.
• BoR Juglet (unpublished). Fragments of juglet.
This fragment was found in Locus 2605 of Area E, the Lower Mound
(Stratum 1). This area had some cultic associations.
• BoR Bowl (unpublished). Fragments of possible bowl.
This fragment was found in Locus 2611 of Area E, the Lower Mound,
in Stratum la. This locus was street make-up, dated provisionally to
the 10th/9th centuries.
• BoR Juglet (unpublished). Fragments of possibly 2 juglets.
These fragments were found in Locus 2617 of Area E, the Lower
Mound, in Stratum 1. This was fallen and decayed mudbrick material
of the destruction level, dated provisionally to the 10th/9th centuries.
A few fragments of White Painted and Bichrome pottery were also
found at Tel Rehov. One White Painted fragment was found in Locus
2311, Area B, Stratum 6, the earliest level reached in this area, dated
provisionally to the 10th century BC. A second fragment of a fine
White Painted juglet was found in Locus 2312, also of the same area
and dated similarly. A fragment of a very fine White Painted juglet
was found in Locus 2268 in Area B, Stratum 4. This is floor build-up
and is dated provisionally to the 8th century. One fragment of a White
Painted jug was found in topsoil in Area Β (Locus 2306). A fragment
of a Bichrome bowl was found in Locus 1675 of Area E, Stratum lb,
dated to the 10th/9th centuries. An almost intact Bichrome jug was
found in Area C, Stratum 1, dated to the 10th/9th centuries BC.
In the absence so far of full excavation and publication of the site,
chronological conclusions can only be tentative. Given the wealth of
material already uncovered at the site, the relative rarity of BoR
pottery is surprising. Its presence however in the destruction level,
Stratum 1 of Area E, as well as White Painted and Bichrome pottery
in the destruction level of Area C, suggests that this pottery was
occurring at least at the beginning of the 9th century, and possibly in
the late 10th century (see also 182).
Tell Abu Hawam
The site of Tell Abu Hawam is located 1.5km from the coast, in the
southern part of the Bay of Acco. Now at a distance from the coast
because of progressive silting of the bay, it was originally sited on the
shoreline at the head of the Kishon River estuary and at the junction of
the road leading inland from Shiqmona via Megiddo and Beth-Shan to
the Jordan Valley. This commanding position and the site's natural port,
sheltered from winds by Mt. Carmel, was largely responsible for its
significant role in overseas trade throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Preliminary excavations were conducted by the Department of
Antiquities at the site in 1929 and 1930. In 1932-1933 a larger-scale
excavation was carried out by R.W. Hamilton and L. Sorial.
Preliminary results were published by Hamilton in the Quarterly of the
Department of Antiquities in Palestine Volume 3 in 1934 (Hamilton
1934, 74-80) and a full report appeared in the same journal in 1935,
Volume 4 (Hamilton 1935, 1-69). In 1963 further excavation was
conducted on the tell by E. Anati and M. Prausnitz. The stratigraphy of
the site was revised by J. Balensi and M. Herrera in studies in the 1980s,
in conjunction with further excavations in 1985-1986. A 'rapport
préliminaire' was published by Balensi and Herrera in Revue Biblique
Volume 92 in 1985 (Balensi & Herrera 1985, 82-128). Herrera
conducted further study of the stratigraphy of Stratum III at Tell Abu
Hawam, the Iron Age level, for a PhD thesis (unpublished) (Herrera
1989). In addition, an unpublished MA thesis investigating the
Phoenician expansion to the west includes an analysis of the date of Tell
Abu Hawam Stratum III (Aznar Sánchez 1996).
The Stratigraphy
The site of Tell Abu Hawam produced a large amount of BoR pottery.
Herrera's PhD thesis gives a BoR count of over 40 vessels, 13 of
which were juglets and 27 bowls. Little of this has, however, been
published. 44 The problems of analysis of the site for this study lie
chiefly in its stratigraphy. Hamilton's Stratum III at Tell Abu Hawam,
in which the BoR pottery appears, was of long duration. The stratum
lay above the destruction of Stratum IV and beneath its own
destruction debris, after which there was a period of abandonment
before reoccupation, represented by Stratum II. Hamilton noted,
however, "although the foundations lying between the two burnt
layers embody more than a single phase of building I refer to them
collectively as Stratum III" (Hamilton 1934, 77). Revision of the
stratigraphy at the site has defined two sub-phases of Stratum III: IIIA
followed by IIIB (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10).
The dating of Stratum III, however, is also problematic. Hamilton's
original dating of the stratum, c. 1100 - 925 BC, proposed tentatively
44
A selection of the unpublished B o R pottery from Tell Abu H a w a m is presented
in de Montlivault's thesis, although without full context (de Montlivault 1982, PI.
VIII-IX).
that the stratum ended with Shishak's military conquest at the end of
the 10th century (Hamilton 1935, 68). He recognised, however, that
some pottery types in Stratum III appeared in the 9th century at other
sites, such as the red and yellow 'Samaria ware' (Hamilton 1935, 8,
67). The revised stratigraphy places Stratum III A in the 10th century
and Stratum IIIB in the 9th - 8th centuries; BoR pottery is located in
Stratum IIIA (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10).
The value of the site for the present study is limited especially
by the small quantity of BoR pottery published by Hamilton, and
the consequent minimal information available on its exact find
spots. Of the three BoR vessels published by Hamilton, only one
(Pl. XIII: 87) is located in a good context, in Room 18. This
belongs to Complex 13-21 which is dated by Herrera to Stratum
IIIB (Balensi & Herrera 1993, 10). Hamilton believed that BoR
pottery belonged to a phase just prior to the destruction of the
stratum, in its "higher levels" (Hamilton 1934, 77). "Most of the
fragments were found in the upper burning or hardly below it - a
fact suggesting that the occupation did not much outlive the
currency of the ware" (Hamilton 1934, 77).
Taking account, therefore, of these difficulties, the BoR pottery
from the site of Tell Abu Hawam will not be discussed in detail, as
with other sites. The one BoR vessel published by Hamilton which is
in a reasonable context, however, indicates that the chronology of
BoR from the site is in accordance with the chronology for the ware
suggested by the other sites examined here.
• BoR Juglet (Hamilton 1935. 22. No. 87. PI. XIII:87). Conical juglet.
Assigned to Stratum III.
This juglet belongs to Room 18, a central room in Complex 13-21.
Balensi and Herrera (1985, 98) suggest that the use of Rooms 18-
20 of this group ceased before the end of Stratum III. The other
finds with this juglet, a red-slipped pinched-mouth jug, a cooking
pot and a plain red-slipped bowl (possibly of 'Samaria ware') are
of types common to other BoR contexts examined in Section I of
this chapter.
Tyre
See discussion in Section II.

Sarepta
The site of Sarepta lies on the Phoenician coast approximately 13

km south of Sidon, occupying a promontory and extending along
the shore with access to three small bays (Anderson 1988, 34). The
site was excavated by the University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania, under J. B. Pritchard from 1969 - 1974. A
preliminary report was published by Pritchard in 1975, and full
publications later appeared as Sarepta I - The Late Bronze and Iron
Age Strata of Area II,Y (Anderson 1988), Sarepta II - The Late
Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X (Khalifeh 1988), Sarepta
III - The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X
(Koehl 1985) and Sarepta IV - The Objects from Area II, X
(Pritchard 1988). A small quantity of BoR pottery was published,
although unsatisfactorily, in the first three of these volumes. The
section below describes the overall stratigraphy of the site, and
follow with a description of the BoR in each publication. The
imported wares from Area II-X are published separately from the
main report (Koehl 1985).
The Stratigraphy
Two main areas were excavated by the Pennsylvania expedition at
Sarepta: Area II-X, an area c. 800 sq. m. near the sheltered port, and
Area II-Y, a smaller area of c.100 sq. m. further inland in the highest
point of the mound. Within Area II-Y, the strata were numbered from
A (the latest) to L (the earliest). Minimal indications of destruction in
this area suggested that occupation was more or less continuous
(Anderson 1988, 58). Pottery kilns were located in Strata F + Ε (Kiln
A A), and Stratum D (Kiln BB). In Sarepta II-X, the strata were
numbered Period I (the earliest) to X (the latest). The presentation of
these strata, however, (Khalifeh 1988), does not incorporate with any
clarity the levels of the previously published imported wares, which
are presented by locus and type only (Koehl 1985). The overall
stratification of the imported wares of Area II-X is, as a result,
indecipherable and the fragments of BoR shall be listed only.
Sarepta I (Area II-Y) (Anderson 1988)

The BoR
• BoR Juglet (1988, pi. 34:14). Two-handled juglet. 1 example
assigned to Substratum Dl. 4 5
This rim and neck fragment was found in Area II-K-21, level 7
"sealed." This is a secure deposit from Substratum Dl (Anderson
1988, 104-6).
• BoR Bowl (1988. pi. 34:15). Shallow bowl. 1 example assigned to
Substratum D l .
This bowl fragment comes from Area II-K-20, locus 18. This is also
a secure deposit from Substratum D-l (Anderson 1988, 104).
• BoR Juglet (1988. pi. 36:11). Conical juglet. 1 example assigned to
Substratum C2.
This fragment comes from Area II-K/L-20, "possibly Substratum C2"
(based on its absolute level rather than stratification).
• BoR Bowl (1988. pi. 38:11). Bowl fragment. 1 example assigned to
Substratum C I .
This fragment is noted by the excavators as a possible mainland
imitation BoR, on the basis of its fairly coarse slip, although the type
is a typical BoR form. It comes from Area II-L-20, locus 19, from the
"Substratum 1 "fill" laid as a base for the construction of Stratum B"
(Anderson 1988, 278).
The Contexts
The contexts for the earliest BoR pottery at Sarepta are relatively
secure. 46 The BoR juglet fragment (pi. 34:14), in particular, comes
from a sealed locus within Substratum D l .
Other Finds
Alongside the BoR pottery from Substratum D l , the excavators found
a White Painted barrel-jug and a White Painted amphora, a Bichrome
barrel-juglet, and two other Bichrome examples. White Painted
pottery appears first in Substratum D2, the first phase of Stratum D.
The excavators comment that "red-slipped, burnished vessels are
especially characteristic of Substratum D l " (Anderson 1988, 404). A
few specific pottery examples from this stratum appear to have
45
Anderson notes that a fifth BoR fragment w a s recorded from Area II-K/L-21,
level 8, but that it w a s not located and therefore not confirmed (Anderson 1988, 2 7 8
(note 759)). The fragment would belong to Substratum D l .
46
The inconsistent use o f locus numbers for the pottery fragments found in Area
II-Y at Sarepta makes assessment o f their exact architectural location difficult. The
stratification o f this area is otherwise well-presented and is accepted in this survey.
parallels in sites further south, despite the considerable distance
between these sites and Sarepta, for example the straight-sided, red-
slipped and burnished bowl type (Anderson 1988, PI. 33:22). In
Substratum C2, the other pottery is represented by an increase in
solely wheel-burnished wares (Anderson 1988,411). A late, probably
White Painted, fragment with concentric circle decoration occurs
alongside the BoR juglet from this stratum. Substratum CI produced
a number of "torpedo" storage jars which belong to a later Iron Age
phase than the more bulbous earlier versions.
Sarepta III (Area II-X) (Koehl 1985)

The BoR
• BoR Bowl (1985. 129. Fig. 11:224). Bowl fragment. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-B-7, level 10.
• BoR Bowl? (1985. 130. Fig. 11:225). Body sherd. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-B-9. level 1.
• BoR Juglet (1985. 130. Fig. 11:226). Juglet fragment. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-A-5, 484 clean up.
• BoR Jug (1985. 130. Fig. 11:227). Handle fragment, probably from
jug. 1 example assigned to Locus II-B-4. level 7-1.
• BoR fragment (1985. 131. No. 228). Body sherd. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-B-6. level 10.
• BoR fragment (1985. 131. No. 229). Body sherd. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-B-6/7, level 13-2.
• BoR fragment (1985, 131. No. 230). Body sherd. 1 example
assigned to Locus II-C-8, Rm 76.
• BoR Juglet (1985, 131. Fig. 11: 231). Two non-joining juglet
fragments. 1/2 examples assigned to Locus II-C-8. level 5, Rm 76.
• BoR Jug (1985. 131-132. No. 232). Six non-joining jug body
sherds. 1/6 examples assigned to Locus II-B-5. level 4-2. kiln. 47
• BoR Jug (1985. 132. Fig. 11: 233). Seven non-joining jug (?)
fragments. 1/7 examples assigned to Locus II-D-6. level 8, Rm 3.
As noted above, the contexts of the BoR pottery at Sarepta in Area II-
X are impossible to decipher from the published report. One BoR
bowl alone is mentioned in the stratigraphical report of this area, from
Period VII (Khalifeh 1988, 137).
47
The location and description o f this kiln could not be found in the text v o l u m e
o f this area at Sarepta (Khalifeh 1988).
According to the excavators, Stratum D in Area II-Y represented "the
beginning of a new era in the history of Sarepta," with the
introduction of distinctive 'Phoenician' ceramics and the use of ashlar
masonry (Anderson 1988, 396-7). Anderson dates Stratum D from the
second half of the 11th century to the third quarter of the 9th century;
Substratum Dl is believed to begin c.950 BC (Anderson 1988, 407).
These dates fit well within the chronology for BoR emerging from the
survey of sites above. Substratum C2 is dated from c.850 - 750 BC,
and Substratum CI from c.750 - 650 BC (Anderson 1988, 419). The
excavators of Area II-X believe Period VII to be contemporary with
Substratum D in Area II-Y, and note similar trends in II-X to the latter
area - an increase in red-slipped burnish and in the frequency of
imports (Khalifeh 1988, 137). This level, Period VII, is dated c. 1025
- 8 0 0 BC (Khalifeh 1988, 139).
The publications of the site of Sarepta are, however, inconsistent and
despite the importance of the site, the chronology of BoR on the
Phoenician coast is not greatly enhanced by the excavations at Sarepta.
Nevertheless, a reasonable number of BoR sherds were found at the
site. The presence of the pottery in Substratum Dl of Area II-Y,
contemporary with red-slipped and burnished wares noted in the early
levels of BoR at stratified sites in the south, suggests that its appearance
on the Phoenician coast within the 10th century BC is probable.
Other 10th Century Sites
Several other sites warrant inclusion in Section I of this chapter, but

have unstratified or inadequately stratified examples of BoR pottery,
and therefore do not contribute substantially to assessment of the
chronology of BoR, which is the purpose here. One of these is Tell
Qasile (Mazar 1985). The stratigraphy at this site is good but the two
examples of BoR juglets found in Area C of the excavations are not
in reliable contexts. One was found on a wall of Temple 131 "in a
level matching a Strata IX-VIII floor north of the building" (Mazar
1985, 82). The second was found in "an unstratified wash, close to the
surface" (Mazar 1985, 82). The excavator comments that the absence
of BoR pottery from Stratum X at Tell Qasile, which is rich in pottery,
supports a date for the appearance of this ware later than Stratum X,
which is dated to the late 11th - early 10th century (Mazar 1985, 82;
1993, 1212). A large fine BoR bowl was found in the early 1950s
excavations at Tell Qasile and has not yet been published. This vessel
was found in Stratum IX at the site, in a well-stratified context,
alongside a fine White Painted "dish" and a White Painted barrel-jug
(Mazar, pers. comm.). 48 The presence of BoR pottery at the site in the
10th century is therefore most likely.
The site of Pella in Jordan has a few examples of BoR pottery
probably datable from the 10th century, but they are from badly
stratified areas and not of significant chronological value (McNicholl
1992, 93-95; PI. 68: 8, 9). Another site with BoR pottery dated to the
10th century is 'Ein Gev. Two jug sherds and one juglet sherd were
found at the site, one of which (possibly all) is assigned to Stratum V,
the earliest occupation, dated by the excavators to c.990 - 950 BC
(Mazar, Biran & Dunayevsky 1964, 22, 32). One jug sherd only is
drawn in the figures, however, and it is not given a locus number. The
other two are illustrated only in the plates. The small quantity of
pottery published from Stratum V includes irregularly burnished red-
slip bowls and may be dated early in the 10th century. A 'cultic' group
from Stratum III at the site (Mazar, Biran & Dunayevsky 1964, PI. 10)
contains a 'Hippo' storage jar and is dated to the 9th century.
Other sites, although containing apparently early BoR pottery,
were excavated too early in the century to provide adequate
information for our purposes. Such are the sites of Beth-Shemesh and
Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el-Ajjul and Tel Fara (S). The southern and
eastern cemeteries at Achziv, which contain BoR pottery that are in
probability dated to the period under examination here, are not yet
fully published. 49 Another possibly early context containing BoR
juglets is Tomb 32 at Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947). Despite the
thoroughness of publication, however, the tomb was disturbed and
48
BoR b o w l Ref. 3 2 0 2 , White Painted bowl (with flat broad base: possibly o f
White Painted II type, cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XV: 9) Ref. 6 6 1 4 , White Painted jug
Ref. 6 6 1 3 .
49
For an analysis of the A c h z i v tombs see E. Mazar 1996 (unpublished PhD)
and Schreiber, forthcoming. BoR pottery appears at the site in tombs dating from the
10th - 9th century (eg. T o m b 6 1 0 (T.C.4) - Mazar 1996, PI. 3: 5 2 , 53; T o m b Z . X X -
Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 13-14, 3 7 - 4 1 ) , along with early-type ' A c h z i v ' trefoil-lipped jugs
(Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 9 - 1 2 ) rounded b o w l s (Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 2-5), neck-decorated
globular j u g s (Mazar 1996, PI. 8: 16-20) and small two-handled flasks (Mazar 1996,
PI. 8 : 2 7 - 3 3 ) . The pottery d o e s not occur in the earlier cist tombs at the site, b e l o n g i n g
to the late 11th - early 10th centuries, nor in the later cut shaft tombs, dated to the 8th
century (Mazar 1996, 1 3 , 2 1 ) .
contained a large amount of artefacts which spanned a broad period in
the Early to Middle Iron Age. No stratigraphy was discernible within
the tomb and although it doubtless covered the period under
examination, it cannot be used to pinpoint the chronology of BoR
(Wampler 1947, 78, 80, 82). A tomb at Megiddo (Tomb 76A) also
contained BoR pottery with other contemporary artefacts, but was
disturbed and spanned a broad period (Guy 1938, PI. 74:20). Likewise
Tomb 1002 at Lachish (Tufnell 1953, 229-236).*> The site of Tel
Batash, interestingly, although well-stratified with a complete
sequence of levels dated from the 10th century onwards and large
pottery assemblages, is composed of predominantly local wares and
has no BoR pottery (Mazar, pers. comm.)
Few of the sites examined in this Section of Chapter Three are
further north than the southern reaches of Phoenicia. This is due in
large part to scant excavation in the region of modern Syria and
Lebanon, most of which took place in the early decades of last
century, as well as limited or inadequate publication of sites that have
been excavated. In addition, many major sites in this region have been
continuously settled up until the modern era and their Iron Age strata
are presently archaeologically inaccessible (Koehl 1985, 23). The
potentially useful sites in the 'Amuq region of Syria, Chatal Hiiyiik,
Tell Tayinat and Tell el-Judeidah, were excavated early in the century
and although Swift's 1958 study of these sites is valuable, it does not
examine contexts of the pottery in detail. Full publication of the sites
in this region has never appeared. Al Mina, at the mouth of the
Orontes, was excavated very early in the century. Later publication of
the Cypriot pottery from Al Mina relied heavily on the Cypriot
chronology for the wares and placed the earliest BoR pottery in 9th -
8th centuries (du Plat Taylor 1959, 78). The BoR ware from Tyre and
Tell Sukas is also dated to the 9th century at the earliest (Bikai 1978,
67; Lund 1986, 7). The pottery from these sites is further examined in
Section II of this chapter. Note that it is suggested there that the
earliest BoR pottery from Tyre may date to the late 10th century.
Pottery likely to be BoR was found in the shaft of the Tomb of
Ahiram at Byblos (Tomb V), which is dated around the 11th century
(Montet 1928, 219; Baramki 1961, 25; Teixidor 1997, 31-32).
50
It should be noted that the excavators o f Lachish T o m b 1002 divided it into
three stratigraphie layers, and c o m m e n t that "Cypriote wares" were "no longer found
at the top of the tomb" (Tufnell 1953, 2 3 4 ) .
However, the BoR is likely to be intrusive into the tomb. 51 Several
more fragments of BoR have been found at Byblos, but none in
stratigraphie contexts. One BoR juglet was published as a surface find
on the tell (Dunand 1954, 98, Fig. 86). Further examples were found
in Necropolis " K " at Byblos, published in 1980 (Salles 1980, 20, Pl.
9: 1-5; Pl. VIII: 1, 2). Of these latter examples only one handle-ridge
juglet may be Cypriot BoR; the other jug fragments are of coarse
fabric and probably related to the "Red Ware" discussed in Chapter
One (14-15). Few finds from the Iron Age (0.8 % of the total)
appeared in Necropolis "K", suggesting that it was only intermittently
used during this period (Salles 1980, 21, 66).
In general, BoR pottery is seldom dated before the 9th century in
the region of Phoenicia and Syria. This is primarily because of use of
Gjerstad's chronology for the Cypriot pottery, which is often the main
source of dating Iron Age sites in Syria and Phoenicia. 52 Gjerstad's
chronology is examined in detail in the following Chapter Four.
Section I: Conclusions
These concluding remarks deal with three aspects of the above study.
First, a comment on the nature of the contexts of BoR pottery, in
terms of its possibly 'cultic' affiliation. Second, assessment of which
pottery types appear to be particularly diagnostic of the period in
which BoR is first appearing, which may comprise a recognisable
' 10th century' assemblage. Third, suggestion of a chronology for the
initial period of the appearance of BoR pottery on the mainland.
51
The BoR pottery w a s found at the top of the shaft of this tomb (Montet 1928,
2 1 9 ) . Other finds from the shaft included Late Bronze A g e Cypriot White Slip ware
and an alabaster vase inscribed with a cartouche o f R a m s e s II (Montet 1928, 225;
Baramki 1961, 25). T h e sarcophagus itself w a s carved with a Phoenician inscription
c o m m i s s i o n e d by Ahiram's son, Itthobaal, and has been dated on epigraphic grounds
to the end of the 11th century (Teixidor 1997, 3 1 - 3 2 ) . The original excavators'
suggestion that an early date for the B o R in the tomb is perhaps indicated by B o R or
White Painted pottery found in the Late Bronze A g e palace at Tell el-Amarna must
be rejected, as the pottery specified w a s found in the rubbish heaps outside the palace
(Montet 1928, 220; Petrie 1894, 15-16). T h e appearance of BoR in this tomb at
B y b l o s is clearly not a reliable m e a n s with which to date the ware. The excavators'
claim that the Iron A g e Cypriot pottery could have been deposited in the tomb during
later Iron A g e intrusions is the strongest likelihood (Montet 1928, 219).
52
For e x a m p l e , s e e the initial dating of the BoR pottery at Sarepta (Pritchard
1975,94-95).
'Cultic' Contexts
The appearance of BoR pottery in contexts which may be associated
with some cultic activity has been noted in passing above. While the
identification of cult places in the archaeological record is difficult
(Gilmour 1995, 13-15), two features of archaeological contexts in
which BoR pottery appears are striking. One is the quantity of
perforated vessels that appear with BoR pottery. Two types of this
vessel should be distinguished here, as they are both commonly called
'perforated bowls' in the literature. One, the 'strainer bowl' is
perforated on its base, and functioned as a strainer or sieve. The other
is not a bowl at all, but is shaped either as a pyxis or cup with handle,
and is often set on three feet. This is referred to here as a 'perforated
vessel.' The perforations in the latter vessel are around the body or
shoulder, and the type is best interpreted as a censer (Rast 1978, 33-
34; cf. Tappy 1992, 202-203). A third type, the large jar with many
holes punched in the body, two handles on the shoulder and flat base,
is rare. 53 In this survey, only the second and third types appear in
direct association with BoR pottery. The contexts in which BoR
appears with perforated vessels are:
1) Megiddo VA-IVB. Locus 6 in Building 10 - perforated vessel
alongside BoR juglet.
2) Megiddo VA-IVB. Locus 2081 - large perforated jar with BoR
juglet found inside the jar.
3) Hazor XB. Locus 203d in Building 200-202 - perforated vessel
alongside BoR juglet.
4) Beth-Shan Upper Level V, 54 Locus 1513 - large perforated jar in
locus immediately above and probably associated with BoR juglet.
The probable use of BoR juglets to contain perfumed oil has been
assessed in Chapter Two. It is possible that the juxtaposition of these
vessels in the contexts noted above may indicate the scenting of body
53
For an e x a m p l e of the 'strainer' type, s e e Chambon 1984, Fig. 5 4 : 1 4 (Tell el-
Far'ah V l l b ) ; Loud 1948, PI. 8 7 : 2 2 ( M e g i d d o V B ) ; James 1966, Fig. 2 2 : 2 4
(Beth-Shan L o w e r Level V); for the second, 'censer' type, see Chambon 1984, Fig.
54: 12, 13 (Tell el-Far'ah VIIc,b) and Rast 1978, Fig. 51:3 (Ta'anach IIB); and for the
large perforated jar, s e e Loud 1948, PI. 89:4 ( M e g i d d o V A - I V B ) ; James 1966, Fig.
13:5 (Beth-Shan Upper Level V). A clear e x a m p l e o f shoulder perforation which
would obviate use o f these v e s s e l s as strainers is found in Tell en-Nasbeh T o m b 5
(Wampler 1947, PI. 7 9 : 1 8 1 4 ) .
54
N o t e that the attributions of pottery to 'Upper' and ' L o w e r ' Level V at Beth-
Shan must remain uncertain.
or hair while aromatic herbs or woods were burnt. The evidence for
such activity is minimal, particularly since the function of the
perforated vessels remains uncertain. Not all these vessels, for
example, show traces of burning (Tappy 1992, 202). However, the
presence of similar perforated vessels in a clearly 'cultic' group from
Mt. Nebo in Jordan alongside small 'Ammonite' juglets similar to
BoR juglets, suggests that cultic use is a reasonable conjecture
(Culican 1976, 53, Taf. 4A). Tappy suggests that the relative
abundance of these perforated vessels in Iron Age Transjordan
"would fit well their portrait as utilitarian spin-offs from the lucrative
spice and incense trade developing in South Arabia during this time"
(Tappy 1992, 203). The discovery of the BoR juglet inside the
perforated jar from Megiddo Locus 2081 supports at least an
association of the two vessel types and the possibility of use of BoR
juglets in cultic activity should therefore be considered.
The second feature of BoR contexts illuminated by this study is the
quantity of 'cup-and-saucer' vessels found in association with BoR.
These contexts are:
1) Megiddo VA-IVB: Locus 1710 - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR
juglet.
2) Hazor IXB: Locus 216b - cup-and-saucer alongside BoR bowl.
3) Hazor IX-X: Gate Tower 239a - three cup-and-saucers alongside
BoR juglet.
4) Beth-Shan Upper Level V: Locus 1513 - cup-and-saucer in locus
immediately above and probably associated with BoR juglet.
5) Beth-Shan Lower Level V: Locus 1082 - cup-and-saucer alongside
BoR juglet.
6) Beth-Shan Lower Level V: Locus 1163 - cup-and-saucer alongside
BoR jug and barrel-juglet.
While the function of these fairly rare cup-and-saucer vessels is
still not satisfactorily established, they have been noted to appear in
contexts associated with cultic activity with relative frequency.
Although a domestic use for this type of vessel can be reconstructed,
it has been suggested that they were used to offer libations. 55 In this
context, their appearance with BoR pottery (especially juglets) is of
particular interest, and suggests that the two vessel types may have
been used in a ritual which involved the pouring of oils. The presence
55
S e e May 1935, 22; also Lamon & Shipton 1939, 172, w h o c o m m e n t that this
vessel type w a s "certainly used for s o m e religious purpose."
of a hole on occasion pierced at the bottom of the cup part of the
vessel suggests that oil or liquids flowed out of this part into the
saucer receptacle. Several examples also have a lip on the saucer,
which may have aided the pouring out of the oil. 56 The absence of
both of these features, however, on many cup-and-saucer vessels
should also be noted. 57
Gilmour's study of cult objects from the Iron Age makes the
additional suggestion that that the cup-and-saucer vessel served as a
lamp, perhaps using a lump of bitumen rather than oil, which would
have created a torch-like effect (Gilmour 1995, 239-240). An
Egyptian temple painting shows priests carrying vessels similar to
these, with a high flame coming out of the cup part of the vessel
(Gilmour 1995, 240). It is possible that the BoR juglet could have
been used to pour perfumed oil onto the burning material to scent it.
While the 'cultic' associations of these two vessel types are not by
any means beyond question, 58 there is some evidence that BoR
pottery appears in contexts that would concur with the function of the
juglets as perfumed oil vessels. The BoR bowls, in particular the large
ones such as in Locus 2081 at Megiddo, may possibly have
functioned as grand mixing or serving bowls.
The site of Pella, in Jordan, may also support a cultic interpretation
of some BoR pottery. BoR pottery is rare at this site and appears only
in Plot IVE, an area of "very unclear and irregular stratigraphy," cut
by pits and later foundation trenches (McNicoll 1992, 93). The
structures of this area were indefinable but two 'cultic stands' were
found in a pottery deposit in the north-west of Plot IVE. The
excavators note that "amongst the pottery associated with the stands
are a few sherds of Cypriot Black-on-Red ware, including the neck of
a juglet" (McNicoll 1992, 95). Twelve wooden spindle-whorls were
found on the earliest surface located in this area, and in probably a
later phase, a conflagration preserved a group of storage jars on a
stone-paved floor. Gilmour's study suggests that cultic paraphernalia
was occasionally associated with industrial activity, including the
textile industry, of which this may be an example (Gilmour 1995,
56
A lipped vessel w a s found, for e x a m p l e , in the so-called O i l Maker's H o u s e '
at Yoqneam (Ben-Tor 1993, 8 0 9 ) .
57
On the diverse forms of the cup-and-saucer vessel, s e e also Tappy 1992, 132-
136.
58
S e e eg. Tappy 1992, 132-136, 2 0 3 .
217). For our purposes, the association of the BoR pottery with cultic
stands should be noted and may provide additional evidence of the
use of BoR vessels - or their contents - in cultic ritual. 59
An additional site which may provide evidence, albeit weak, for use
of BoR pottery in cultic ritual is Tell Sukas in Phoenicia. The
excavators note a fragment of BoR ware amongst "a small number of
objects" alongside the platform (bama) of the 'Greek' sanctuary of
Period G3 which include a foot-shaped limestone fragment, a Bichrome
bowl fragment, a basalt bowl, and a carnelian bead (Riis 1970, 41-42).
Beyond the possible affiliation of BoR juglets with 'cultic' contexts,
on occasion, there are few other indications that the ware type had any
especial value. BoR pottery is found generally throughout the
excavated areas of a site. Several examples of the pottery are found in
streets and outside courtyards, such as Alley 2744 at Beersheba VI (1
example), Courtyard 1710 at Megiddo VA-IVB (1 example), Street
174b at Hazor X and IX (2 examples) and Alley 217 at Tell el-Far'ah
(N) Vllb (1 example). The possibility that these vessels were out of
their original context, washed by rain into the street, for example,
should be considered, but is not a significant factor.
Most frequently, perhaps, BoR pottery appears in domestic contexts.
Often it is found in rooms with ovens, although these juxtapositions may
well be due to chance. Such contexts are Room 203d at Hazor XB (BoR
juglet with several ovens); Room 221c of Hazor XA (BoR juglet with one
oven); Room 1522 of the High Tell at Tel Michal XIV (BoR bowl with
one oven); Room 442A at Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb (BoR bowl with two
ovens); Room 34 at Tel 'Amal Niv. IV (BoR juglet with one oven); and
Room 659b of Tell Keisan Niv. 8b (BoR bowl with one oven). Grinding
stones and cooking pots also appear in some quantity in the same contexts
as BoR vessels, but these are relatively common types. These contexts
indicate that BoR bowls and juglets were frequently used in domestic
contexts, or at least stored alongside general household goods.
Associated Pottery (Figure 14)

In most cases, the contexts of the BoR pottery examined in the survey
above are stratigraphically reliable. The presence of floors and often
59
B y contrast, the cultic group from L o c u s 4 9 at Lachish, Stratum V, dates to the
s a m e period as the sites above, and contains many similar finds, including chalices,
one-handled c o o k i n g jugs, and red-slipped dipper juglets with thickened rim. It d o e s
not, however, contain BoR pottery (Aharoni 1975, PI. 27:1; PI. 4 2 ) .
destruction debris sealing a pottery assemblage enables the
archaeologist to trace a pattern of certain pottery types occurring in
context with BoR. These vessels are important in providing a
chronological horizon within which BoR pottery is occurring. 60 This
can then be tested at sites which have a limited chronological range,
such as single-period tombs, and those with external indicators of
date, such as a destruction that can plausibly be correlated with
historical events. Recent increase in the use of carbon dating
techniques to produce absolute dates has already made an important
contribution and will continue to clarify the dating of the period under
discussion. Preliminary results of scientific dating methods are
discussed below.
References to vessels that either share contexts with BoR pottery
(indicated by an asterisk*), or belong to the same stratum as BoR
pottery are listed below, followed by brief comments. Two sites which
do not contain BoR pottery but have many types paralleled at sites
examined here are Tel Masos Stratum II and Lachish Stratum V (Fritz
& Kempinski 1983; Aharoni 1975). Reference are made to these
levels where relevant. The survey below is not exhaustive and
represents only a selection of the more distinctive vessels that occur
in context with BoR. 61
• One-Handled Cooking Pots: (Figure 14:1-4)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 in Building 10, *Locus 52 in Building
51, *Locus 398 near Building 51 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 5:119;
PI. 7:167)
Hazor IX-X: Locus 3104, Area Β (Yadin et al. 1961, Pl. CCX:25)
Tel 'Amal IV: Locus 27 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 9: 3,6,8)
Tel Halif tomb: ^Repository, burial chamber & bench. (Biran &
60
Bikai's definition o f a ceramic horizon is useful: meaning "a shift in the pottery
repertoire such that it s e e m s clear that certain forms have disappeared and been
replaced by others, such that taken together these forms present a recognizably
different c o m p l e x from the earlier or later horizons. It is, of course, unlikely that each
class o f pottery e v o l v e d lock-step with the o t h e r s . . . " (Bikai 1987, 62). N o t e also
Mazar's caution concerning the isolation o f pottery a s s e m b l a g e s in the Levant: "a
period o f 5 0 - 1 0 0 years is the shortest w e can expect to d e f i n e on the basis o f pottery
a s s e m b l a g e s in our region" (Mazar 1998, 373).
61
A detailed study o f pottery types assigned to the period under discussion here
is provided e l s e w h e r e (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, 2 5 8 - 2 8 8 ) . S e e also Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i
1998, 13-29.
Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:1 -4; Fig. 7: 10,11 ; Fig. 11:11)
Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 50:1-3)
Tell el-Far'ah Vllb: Various loci (Chambon 1984, PI. 50:1, 53: 11-12)
Mt. Carmel tombs: *Tomb I (Guy 1924, Pl. II: I)
Tell Abu Hawam III: *Room 18 (Hamilton 1935, No. 80)
Tell Michal XIV-XIII: Locus 88, High Tell (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig.
7.2.8)
Beersheba VII: Various loci (Herzog 1984, Fig. 22:11-16)
Beersheba VI: *Loci 2757 inter alia (Herzog 1984, Fig. 28:7-12)
This vessel occurs with some regularity in contexts with BoR
pottery and the wares were clearly in contemporary use. Most of the
jugs noted above generally have a rounded body and base and short,
slightly flared neck. 62 Similar-shaped vessels with longer necks or
covered with a red slip may possibly have served different functions
but belong to the same period. 63 Those that can be termed specifically
'cooking' jugs often have calcite or quartz inclusions which would
have diffused the heat of the fire, and some examples show traces of
burning on their base (Rast 1978, 33; Chambon 1984, Fig. 53:11-12;
Hamilton 1935, 22, No. 80). The first examples of this vessel type
appeared in levels which may be attributed to the late 11th century or
the early 10th century, such as Megiddo Stratum VI and Tel Masos III
(Loud 1948, PI. 81:7; Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140:11) and two
examples of the type occur in Megiddo Stratum III-II (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, PI. 5:118). The vessel type seems to be most common,
however, in the levels noted above.
• Black Juglets with Handle to Middle of Neck: (Figure 14:5-7)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Loci 6, 7 in Building 10; *Loci 50, 52, 53 in
Building 51; *Locus 398 near Building 51; Building 1482; (Building
1576 in Stratum IVA); *Locus 2081 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI.
5:124-128; Loud 1948, PI. 88:11)
Tel Halif tomb: ^Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 8: 1-10)
Tel 'Amal IV: *Locus 12 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 13:16)
Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117 & 119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36)
Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 40:4-6)
62
S e e also Tappy 1992, 195.
63
Eg. Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:1-2; 7:11; Chambon 1984, PI. 50:1; Loud
1948, PI. 88:1.
Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb: Various loci (Chambon 1984, PI. 50: 10, 12,
13,20-25,32)
Tell Abu Hawam III: (Hamilton 1935, Pl. XIII: 91)
Beersheba VI: Locus 2500, *Locus 2072 (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:5-7)
Black juglets appear for the first time in the same levels, or
possibly slightly earlier, than those in which BoR first appears. A
black juglet from Tel Masos Stratum II may predate the levels noted
above (Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140^). 6 4 Although the type
continues throughout the Iron II period, the shape develops from the
earliest period when the handle reaches from the middle of the neck
to the shoulder, with often a button-base, to a later stage in which
handle reaches to the rim (Rast 1978, 29-30). There may be an
intermediary stage in which the handle reaches to just below the rim
(Singer-Avitz 1989, 82).
• Plain red-slipped jugs with ridged rim: (Figure 14:8)

Tell Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 37:2)
Tel 'Amal IV: Locus 29 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:7)
Tel Michal XIV-III: Locus 128 (Singer-Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.5.12)
This jug type is relatively rare but the ridged rim and long, straight
or slightly conical neck are distinctive and seem to be confined to this
period. 65 The handles are thick and rather inelegant. The vessel is
typically red-slipped and burnished (the examples at Tel 'Amal and Tell
el-Hammeh are possibly only slipped). Future finds of this jug may help
establish its contribution to BoR chronology. Similar red-slipped jugs
with ridged rims, but sometimes shorter necks, are also found at sites in
southern Phoenicia (Chapman 1972, Fig. 9:13,14). The relation of this
pottery type to Phoenician jugs with conical necks must be established.
• Red-slipped jugs with neck-ridge and thickened rim: (Figure 14:9)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 in Building 10 (Lamon & Shipton 1939,
PI. 7:174)
Tel Halif tomb: *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6:7)
64
Note, however, that Stratum II at Tel Masos, while it did not produce any BoR
pottery, s h o w s many ceramic similarities to the levels which have been e x a m i n e d in
this chapter. It is unlikely to have preceded these levels by a great margin, if at all.
65
Rast's useful d i s c u s s i o n of j u g t y p e s o m i t s to include this v e s s e l (Rast 1978,
28-29).
Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 37:1)
Lachish tomb 1002: *Lower levels (11-13) 66 (Tufnell 1953: PI. 87:
254)
Tell en-Nasbeh tomb 32: (Wampler 1947, PI. 36: 636)
This vessel is also relatively rare in the ceramic repertoire of this
period - for example only one jug of this type was found at Megiddo.
Rast suggests that this vessel type is largely confined to the northern
region but the vessels at Tel Halif and Lachish indicate that the jug
type was also present in the south (Rast 1978, 28-29). The jug at Tell
en-Nasbeh may not have been slipped. Similar jugs with neck-ridge
but without red slip or thickened rim, for example at Tel Masos
Stratum I (eg Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 159:10), may be a later
development, or possibly do not belong to the same tradition.
• 'Hippo' storage jars: (Figure 14:10)

Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 34:1-3)
Yoqneam XIV: (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997, Fig. 6:9, 7:9)
Tel 'Amal IV-III: Loci 33, 28, *11, *34 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig.
8: 5-10)
Tell el-Hammeh: *Loci 117-119 (Cahill et al. 1989, 36)
Hurvat Rosh Zavit: *(Gal 1992, Fig. 3:1; Alexandre 1995, 81-87)
This vessel type has recently received especial attention on account
of its large quantities at the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit (Gal 1992, 175;
Gal 1995, 89; Alexandre 1995). The jar is characterised by its "coarse
metallic ware with a buff greenish hue" (Alexandre 1995, 83). Initial
publication of the jars at the site suggested that the type "first appeared
in the tenth century BC and reached its peak of popularity during the
ninth century BC." (Gal 1992, 175). Subsequently, this was amended to
"a short, well-defined life-span from the late 10th to early 9th
centuries" (Gal 1995, 89). The present survey suggests that while the
'Hippo'jar may well be characteristic of the late 10th - 9th centuries,
there are some difficulties with assigning it so short a period of
circulation. For example, Alexandre claims that the 'Hippo' jars at
Megiddo belong "probably in Stratum VA-IVB" (Alexandre 1995, 83),
despite numerous examples of the jar in loci at the site that cannot be
66
Lachish T o m b 1002 spanned a broad period and w a s much disturbed.
H o w e v e r , the excavator c o m m e n t s that this j u g "is distinctly archaic, covered with a
thick red slip and vertically hand burnished. Its position in the bottom layers is
further e v i d e n c e o f its antiquity" (Tufnell 1953, 2 3 3 ) .
assigned any earlier than Stratum IV. Only one example of those
recorded (Locus =1482) may belong to Stratum VA-IVB. 67 Equally, the
examples cited from Beth-Shan "Level V" belong to Upper Level V
(Alexandre 1995, 84; James 1966, Fig. 3,10). 68 Other examples, not
cited, may date to the 9th century, such as Tel Masos Stratum post I
(Fritz & Kempinski 1983, PI. 140:4).6<}
The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit itself suggests that the 'Hippo'
vessels were flourishing in the 9th century, as originally suggested by
the excavators. Although the site is not yet fully published, the BoR
pottery from the site appears to date to a later period than the BoR
found in the levels examined above. The range of the pottery at the
site includes fine pieces in an advanced style as well as a number of
miniature BoR wares which do not appear elsewhere at this period.
Rather than "a rare example of a well-defined historical point in time
reflected in the ceramic repertoire" (Alexandre 1995, 86), therefore,
the 'Hippo' jar probably spans the late 10th century to at least the
mid-9th century and possibly beyond. The presence of the pottery
type in the same contexts as BoR at the sites listed above and its
relatively short period of use nevertheless make it a useful
chronological indicator for the period under consideration.
• Spouted jars: (Figure 14:11-12)

Megiddo VA-IVB: *Locus 6 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 19:106),
Locus 2102 (Loud 1948, PI. 146:30)
Ta'anach IIB: Cultic Structure (Rast 1978, Fig. 36:1, 2)
Beersheba Stratum VI: Locus 2755 (Herzog 1984, Fig. 30:4)
Tel 'Amal Stratum IV: Loci 29, 33, 27 (Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig.
11:1,2, 4)
Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb: Locus 381 (Chambon 1984, PI. 49: 14)
The initial appearance of this vessel type, a wide carinated body
67
S o m e jars at M e g i d d o may be in sherd form only and are possibly mis-
assigned, but the type is noted, for e x a m p l e , from the Stable C o m p o u n d 3 6 4 (Locus
378), belonging to Stratum IVA. Other loci containing this jar type include: 5 0 4 , 5 4 8 ,
1301, S = 1 5 4 2 , 3 1 5 , 5 6 9 , 6 1 0 , 9 3 4 , 9 3 7 , 1311, 4 4 , 9 3 , 2 7 5 , 4 8 2 , 5 0 4 , 5 2 2 , 5 5 3 , 1484,
1490, S = 1 5 5 3 , 1576, = 1 4 8 2 , 1630, 1541 (Lamon & Shipton 1939, 166-167).
68
L o c u s 4 8 , in which Fig. 64:3 w a s found, w a s one o f the more reliably
attributed loci in Beth-Shan Upper Level V (James 1966, 4 4 ) .
69
Tel M a s o s Stratum post I is dated later than the 10th century (Fritz &
Kempinski 1983, 80).
with two handles and spout on the shoulder, is earlier than the levels
in which BoR first appears. These early levels include Ta'anach IIA
(Rast 1978, Fig. 26:1) Megiddo VIA (Loud 1948, PI. 77:12, 13), Tell
Qasile XI (Mazar 1985, Fig. 30:8) and Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vila
(Chambon 1984, PI. 49:13). Two types of spouted jar also occur,
however, in levels contemporary with BoR. One is the wide-bodied
jar with straight, or sometimes slightly flared, neck (eg. Rast 1978,
Fig. 36:1). The other is narrower in body and typically has a ridged or
thickened rim (eg. Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 19:106).™ The jar at
Tell el-Hammeh has, however, a wide body and ridged rim while the
jar at Tell el-Far'ah (N) has a short, sharply flaring rim. The vessel is
commonly red-slipped and sometimes painted with dark bands. 71 Rast
suggests that while the spouted jar of this type appears earlier, "the
form becomes particularly prominent in Period IIB" at Ta'anach (Rast
1972, 28). It is, therefore, a useful chronological indicator for BoR.
• Red-slipped and burnished bowls: (Figure 14:13-15)

The range of bowl forms from the levels under consideration is too
extensive to detail in this study. Three types, however, shall be
selected here, which all occur in the repository of the Iron Age tomb
at Halif along with BoR juglets and may represent types common to
the earliest period of BoR circulation on the mainland. 72
Type 1: Red-slipped burnished bowl with gentle carination, everted
rim and flat/disc base
Eg. Tel Halif tomb - *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:2; PI.
36:B). A similar vessel occurs in *Locus 6 of Megiddo VA-IVB
(Lamon & Shipton 1939, PI. 30:130), but without burnish. This bowl
type has a thickened, everted rim and relatively thick walls. (Figure
14:13).
70
Rast distinguishes between the earlier "depressed" body and the later
"rounded" body (Rast 1978, 28; cf. Tappy 1992, 223). I would propose a distinction
instead between the 'wider' and 'narrower' versions of the vessel, with c o m m o n l y the
thickened or ridged neck on the narrower version. While the wide-bodied is certainly
a continuation of the earlier type, the t w o types appear to be contemporary (eg.
Edelstein & Levy 1972, Fig. 11:1 versus Fig. 11:2).
71
The vessel is described as a Phoenician type in the publication of Tel Qiri (Ben-
Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:15). The association of this pottery type with Phoenicia
requires, however, further investigation.
72
For further discussion o f Iron A g e bowl types, see Mazar 1985, 33-42; Tappy
1992, 110-119.
Type 2: Red-slipped burnished bowl with gentle carination, flaring
rim and flat/disc base
Eg. Tel Halif tomb - ^Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:1).
Similar bowls appear in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach IIB (Rast
1978, Fig. 48:5, 9,10). (Figure 14:14).
Type 3: Red-slipped burnished bowls with gentle carination, simple
rim and rounded base
Eg. Tel Halif tomb - *Repository (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 4:6).
Almost identical bowls are found in the Cultic Structure at Ta'anach
IIB (Rast 1978, Fig. 48:2), at Hazor IX-X, *Locus 92a (missing base)
(Yadin 1958, Pl. XIV: 1), in *Locus 378 at Tel Michal XIV (Singer-
Avitz 1989, Fig. 7.1.2) and in *Locus 12 at Tel 'Amal III (Edelstein
& Levy 1972, Fig. 15:3). Another possible bowl of this type is found
in *Tomb I at Mt. Carmel (Guy 1924, PI. 11:4). The carination is low
down on the body of these bowls and they have slightly tapered rims.
(Figure 14:15)
Other types of pottery that appear frequently in context with BoR
and are characteristic of the period under consideration are
cylindrical juglets (Loud 1948, PI. 88:12,13), the early type of
Phoenician 'Achziv' jug (Biran & Gophna 1970, Fig. 6: 8, 9; PI.
36:C) and red-slipped thickened-rim dipper juglets (Biran &
Gophna 1970, Fig. 6: 11).
Establishing 'Phase V of BoR

As seen in the discussions above, BoR pottery appears at many sites
for the first time in levels which bear similarities to each other in their
ceramic repertoire. The absolute dating of these levels places them
generally, in their excavators' opinion, in the latter part of the 10th
century. Several of these sites have destruction levels which appear,
on the basis of the pottery found within them, to have been
contemporary. Such sites are Megiddo VA-IVB, Ta'anach IIB,
possibly Beth-Shan (although the stratigraphy at the site is too
unreliable to be of use here), Tell el-Far'ah (N) Vllb, Tel 'Amal IV-
III, Tell el-Hammeh 'L-Terrace' and possibly Tell Abu Hawam III. In
most cases, the excavators' belief that the sites were destroyed in this
period by Shishak is supported by the pharaoh's campaign list
inscribed in the Temple of Amon at Karnak (Kitchen 1986, 432-447).
In the case of other sites, the destructions may have been due to local
events, or natural disaster.
The pottery types occurring with the BoR ware are in many
cases distinctive and provide supporting evidence for the
contemporaneity of the levels in which BoR first appears. Study of
these ware types has enabled us to establish a 'ceramic horizon'
within which BoR appears, which can be related to the chronology
of the Iron II period. The dangers of circularity are avoided by
combining factors that help produce absolute dates for the period in
question. These factors are:
1) A ceramic horizon within which BoR appears on the mainland

2) Destruction levels within this ceramic horizon that can be assigned
plausibly to an external, datable, destruction
3) Carbon-14 dating of levels which lie within the ceramic
horizon
The results of this study suggest that BoR pottery begins to appear on
the mainland from the middle of the 10th century. The first ceramic
horizon, which we can term 'Phase Γ of BoR distribution, continues
from this period until the beginning of the 9th century (c.950 -
c.890/880 BC). The ceramic horizon begins to change in the levels
succeeding those examined above in Section I of this chapter. The
destruction possibly caused by Shishak at various sites has preserved
for us assemblages of wares which were sealed probably in the last
decades of the 10th century. At sites not directly affected by this
military campaign, the same ceramic types probably continued to be
produced and circulate for one or two more decades until a gradual
ceramic change becomes perceptible throughout the region, and
pottery types previously popular become less so.
This survey of the initial phase of BoR circulation on the
mainland does not support the presence of BoR pottery in the first
few decades of the 10th century. Although Beersheba Stratum VII
may have been in existence pre-950 BC, the one BoR fragment in
this level is not sufficient to alter the picture. 73 The presence of
BoR pottery in phases c & b of Tell Keisan Niv. 8, in Tel 'Amal
73
The presence of BoR pottery in 11th century levels at Shiqmona cannot be
verified for this study, as the site remains unpublished (Elgavish 1993, 1374).
Although the likelihood that the pottery is correctly dated to the 11th century is very
remote, the possibility that this coastal site w a s one of the earliest to receive the
imported pottery should be considered (see also Chapter One, 8).
Niv. IV and in Hazor XB, however, suggests that it may have been
in circulation by the mid-10th century. 74
Carbon-14 sampling has produced some ambiguous results. The
current excavations at Tel Rehov in the Beth-Shan valley have
uncovered a destruction level (Stratum 1) containing pottery similar
to that at the levels examined here (see 'Tel Rehov,' 159-160 above).
The site is among those mentioned as conquered by Shishak in his list
at Karnak (Kitchen 1986, 296-299). C-14 samples taken from
carbonized grain sealed in this level have been dated to 906-843 BC
(calibrated, 65% probability) or 916-832 BC (calibrated, 98%
probability) (Mazar 1999, 40-41; Mullins 1999, 9). C-14 samples
taken from olive and elm wood beams used in the construction of
Stratum 1 are dated to, respectively, 1400-1260 and 1120-990 BC
(Mazar 1999, 41). The excavators note that "both beams could
somewhat pre-date their use for construction, yet the elm tree date
hints that the transition between Strata 2 and 1 in the lower city
occurred sometime in the tenth century BCE. Even though we do not
have C14 dates from Stratum 2, it appears, on stratigraphie and
ceramic grounds, that it was both constructed and destroyed sometime
in the tenth century BCE." (Mazar 1999, 41; cf. Mullins 1999, 9;
Shanks 1999, 40). On the basis of the present incomplete state of
excavation, the excavators suggest that Stratum 1 was either a
consequence of a 9th century event such as attack by Ben-Hadad or
Hazael, or Jehu's revolt c. 842 BC, or less likely, destroyed by Shishak
in 925 BC (Mazar 1999, 41). If the destruction of Stratum 1 is placed
in the 9th century, then the end of Stratum 2 would probably
correspond with the date of Shishak.
In addition, of the BoR pottery appearing in the levels on the
mainland examined here, none is of types which are best considered
more 'advanced' BoR, such as the range of vessels discovered at the
site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit (personal examination, August 1998) (Gal
993, 1291). The range of forms occurring in the early contexts noted
above is relatively small and includes handle-ridge juglets, conical,
trefoil-lipped and sack-shaped juglets, jugs, and varieties of bowl.
74
The f e w e x a m p l e s of BoR pottery that appear to belong to M e g i d d o V B (see
' M e g i d d o ' above) are best explained, in v i e w of the surmounting evidence, as
belonging to the latest phase pre-construction of Palace 1723, rather than an
altogether earlier stratum. The evidence from M e g i d d o would fit, in these terms, with
a date around the mid-10th century.
There are no miniature BoR vessels and no BoR amphorae. The
Cypriot chronology of BoR is fully examined in the following
Chapter Four.
Finally, Patricia Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery of Cyprus
provides a useful comparison for these conclusions. Bikai's study is
discussed more fully in Chapter Four. In assessing the absolute
chronology of the 'ceramic horizons' that she establishes for
Phoenician pottery occurring in Cyprus, she compares them to sites
on the mainland (Bikai 1987, 64-69). Of these sites, only one, Tell
Keisan, is well-stratified and of relevance here, the others either
belonging to later periods or of less reliable tomb contexts in
Phoenicia. She notes that the Phoenician pottery from Tell Keisan
Strata 9a-b, 8 and 7 bears similarities to the wares of her "Kouklia" or
earliest phase (Bikai 1987, 66-67). She dates this horizon to c."1050
- 850?" (Bikai 1987, 69). This date therefore supports a generally
early date, within the 10th century, for Tell Keisan Niv. 8c-b, which
represents the first appearance of BoR at the site (see discussion of
'Tell Keisan'above, 152-154).
The dates provided here for the earliest BoR pottery on the
mainland, therefore, fit best with the evidence currently available.
An absolute chronology for the pottery is proposed at the end of
Chapter Four.
TABLE A: Well-Stratified, Reliable Loci for 'Phase Γ of BoR
Chronology
(Loci in square brackets indicate contexts of marginally less reliability)

Stratum Contexts
Megiddo V B L o c u s 1 7 1 0 (beneath Courtyard 1693)
Megiddo VA-IVB Loci 50, 52, 5 3 (Building 51); Loci 6, 7
(Building 10); L o c u s 3 9 8 (Near Building 51);
L o c u s 2081 ('Cultic')
Hazor X B L o c u s 2 0 3 d (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )
Hazor X A L o c u s 2 1 3 c , [Locus 2 2 1 c : Open Space]
(Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )
Hazor IXB [Locus 216b: open space] (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )
Hazor I X A [Locus 239a: gate tower] (Building 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 )
HazorIX-X L o c u s 92a, [Locus 3 2 8 1 : Casemate R o o m ]
Ta'anach IIB R o o m s 1 & 2 ('Cultic Structure')
Tel Michal X I V [Locus 1522: Building on High Tell]
Tel Michal XIII [Loci 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 : Building 4 2 3 on High Tell]
Tel Qiri VIIC Loci 6 5 7 , 6 5 9 (Building in Area D )
Beersheba VII/VI L o c u s 2 3 0 7 (Building 2 3 0 9 )
Beersheba VI Locus 2 0 7 2 (Building 2 0 7 2 )
Tell el-Far'ah (N) V l l b Loci 4 4 2 A , 431 (House 442); [Locus 217:
Alley in front of House 176; Locus 430:
Continuation of Road 438; Locus 149: House 149]
Tel 'Amal IV L o c u s 3 4 (Central room of building)
Tel ' A m a l III Loci 12, 11 ( R o o m s in building c o m p l e x ) ;
L o c u s 9 ( R o o m in building c o m p l e x )
Mt. Carmel tombs Tombs I and VII
Tell Keisan 8b-c Loci 6 5 9 b , 6 3 6 b ( R o o m s in t w o buildings)
Tell e l - H a m m e h Loci 117, 119 (L-Terrace)
Tel Halif tomb Repository; [Burial chamber]
Sarepta D1 [Area II-K-21, level 7]
75
Ussishkin argues that part o f M e g i d d o w a s preserved by Shishak, in order to
explain the erection of a victory stela by the Egyptian pharaoh inside the city
(Ussishkin 1900, 7 3 - 7 4 ) . A n alternative possibility is that the site w a s destroyed a
year or t w o after Shishak's conquest: "if Sheshonq did not destroy Megiddo, s o m e o n e
else o b v i o u s l y did." (Wightman 1990, 63).
TABLE B : Summary of Dating Evidence for Sites with 'Phase 1'
BoR
Stratum Dating Evidence

Megiddo VA-IVB Destroyed by Shishak in c. 9 2 5 . 7 5 Compatible
'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e 7 6
Ta'anach IIB Destroyed by Shishak in c. 925. Compatible
'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e
Hazor X B - I X A Correlates with Yoqneam XVI-XIII. Stratum
IX possibly destroyed by Arameans in c.
8 9 0 / 8 8 5 . Compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage.
Tel Qiri VIIC-A Inadequate independent evidence. Generally
compatible 'Phase l ' a s s e m b l a g e
Tel Michal XIV-XIII Sealed destruction of compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage
Beersheba VII-VI S o m e early types in Beersheba VII - stratum ends
mid-10th century latest. Beersheba VI compatible
'Phase 1 ' assemblage.
Beth-Shan L o w e r Level Stratification unclear. L o w e r Level V probably ends
V - Upper Level V late 10th century. Upper Level V into 9th century.
Tell el-Far'ah (N) V l l b Far'ah V l l b (=Niv. Ill) destroyed, probably by
Shishak c. 9 2 5 (or possibly Omri c. 885).
Far'ah V l l d destroyed by Assyrians c. 732.
Far'ah V l l b compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage
Tel Mevorakh VII Problematic stratigraphy
Tel ' A m a l IV-III Probably = one level with rebuilding, destroyed
by Shishak c. 9 2 5 . Niv. IV s o m e early types -
earliest phase around mid 10th century.
Compatible 'Phase 1 ' assemblage
Mt. Carmel tombs Limited period tombs. Generally compatible
'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e
Tell Keisan Niv. 8 N o destruction between Niv.'s 8-6. Niv. 8 possibly
from beginning 10th century, but limited pottery
published and no compatible 'Phase Γ assemblage
Tell e l - H a m m e h L- Possible destruction by Shishak c. 9 2 5 .
Terrace Compatible 'Phase l ' a s s e m b l a g e
Tell Abu H a w a m III Stratification unclear, long duration of period.
Elements of compatible 'Phase 1 ' assemblage
Tel Halif tomb Limited period tomb, with stratification. Compatible
'Phase Γ a s s e m b l a g e in repository with B o R .
76
Compatible 'Phase 1 ' a s s e m b l a g e ' i s defined here as the group o f pottery types
which appear to be characteristic o f this ceramic horizon, a selection of which are
outlined in 'Associated Pottery' above.
Section II: The 9th - 8th Centuries
The continuation of BoR pottery into the 9th and 8th centuries BC is
attested at sites throughout the mainland. This section of the chapter
examines whether BoR 'peaked' in the 9th century, or whether it
began to decrease in quantity during this period. It also assesses the
evidence for the latest levels in which the pottery appears. The main
phases of the appearance of BoR are plotted on a distribution map in
order to determine whether there was any shift in patterning over the
period of the ware's circulation.
This section therefore examines later levels of the sites investigated in
Section I of this chapter, and also includes brief comments on other
stratified sites, such as Hurvat Rosh Zayit, Tel Kabri and the inland site
of Hama, and sites on the Phoenician coast - Tell Sukas, Sarepta, Tyre and
Tell Kazel. As the primary aim of this section is to determine the later
chronology of the pottery, it does not investigate aspects of the BoR
contexts in the same detail as in the preceding Section I. The reader is
referred to the preceding section for general discussion of excavation
history and stratigraphy of the sites re-examined here.
Megiddo
Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925-1934: (Lamon & Shipton 1939)
BoR in Strata 1V-II

• BoR Handle-ridge Juglet Type 123 (1939. PI. 5) 1 example assigned
to Stratum IV: 4 examples assigned to Stratum III.
One juglet was found in Locus 1674, the fill beneath the Southern
Stable Courtyard 1576. This fill was composed largely of debris from
the disused water-shaft (Locus 925) and although assigned to Stratum
IV, also contains pottery from earlier periods. 77 In Stratum III, one
juglet was found in Locus 508, a small room in Building 1052. This
was an open-court building located in Area D, to the west of Gate 500,
erected during Stratum III and enlarged and remodelled in Stratum II
(Lamon & Shipton 1939, 70-71). Two further handle-ridge juglets
were found in Loci 1422 and 1479, small rooms in residential
77
S e e Section I, 9 5 n. 16.
buildings of Area A, assigned to Stratum III (Lamon & Shipton 1939,
Fig. 72). A further handle-ridge juglet was found in Locus 1547, a
long room in the same area.
• BoR Two-handled Juglet ÍJar1 Type 87 (1939. PI. 17) 2 examples
assigned to Stratum III.
One two-handled juglet was found in Locus S=1553, a (possibly
open) area in the east of the mound, Area A. A second juglet of this
type was found in Locus 1598, a partially-preserved room also in
Area A. Both these loci were assigned to Stratum III.
• BoR Bowl Type 95 (1939. PI. 28) Plain bowl with rounded sides. 1
example assigned to Stratum IV.
This bowl was found in Cistern 1672, a mud-brick water-tank in the
Southern Stable Compound 1576, assigned to Stratum IV.
• BoR Bowl Type 107 (1939, PI. 29) Large medium-deep bowl with
loop handles. 2 examples assigned to Strata IV & III
One bowl of this type was found in Locus - 3 3 8 , the filling beneath
Building 338. This building, whose use is uncertain, 78 is assigned to
Stratum IV, and the filling is composed of "Stratum V types with a
sprinkling of earlier sherds and a few Stratum IV specimens" (Lamon
& Shipton 1939, 49). A second bowl of this type was found in Room
1588, Area A, Stratum III, in the east of the mound.
• BoR Bowl Type 109 (1939. PI. 29) Fragment of bowl with row of
concentric circles (late type). 1 example assigned to Strata II.
This bowl sherd was found in Locus 1259, part of a building in Area
A, Stratum II.
Megiddo 11: Seasons of 1935-1939 (Loud 1948)

• BoR Juglet Type 502 (1948, PI. 91:2) Probably trefoil-rimmed
juglet. 1 example assigned to Stratum IV.
This juglet was found in Locus N=2049, a locus north of Room 2049
in a building complex to the west of Gate 2156 in Area AA. This locus
is assigned to Stratum IV.
Discussion and Chronology

The BoR pottery at Megiddo in strata succeeding Stratum VA-IVB
78
Various functions have been suggested for Building 338. Its identification as
a 'palace' or "a private residence of an important personage" is generally accepted
(Lamon & Shipton 1939, 59; Shiloh 1993, 1021).
comes from contexts of varying reliability. Only one BoR juglet
comes from a reasonably-stratified Stratum IV context (Locus
N=2049) - in Area AA of Loud's excavations. The buildings to which
this locus belongs, north of a larger building near the entrance to Gate
2156, are "of domestic character" (Loud 1948, 46). Elsewhere,
however, the BoR from Stratum IV is confined to 'fill' deposits,
possibly of mixed periods. The BoR bowl in Cistern 1672, belonging
to the Southern Stable Compound 1576, most probably found its way
there once the cistern had fallen into disuse, along with other
miscellaneous items. The absence of BoR is notable from buildings
that are reliably assigned to Stratum IV, such as the Southern Stable
Compound 1576, or Buildings 338 and 364. This is most likely
explicable by the probable equestrian nature of these buildings, and
the small quantity of pottery retrieved from them in total. 79 The fact
that "approximately half of the area of the stratum IVA city was
allocated to public buildings of an administrative nature" (Shiloh
1993, 1021), may also have affected the quantity of BoR in
circulation in this period.
Four BoR juglets and one BoR bowl (from Loci 508, 1422, 1479,
1547 & 1588) were found in contexts reasonably attributed to Stratum
III. Two two-handled juglets were also found in Stratum III, in less
well-preserved contexts. The BoR bowl found in a Stratum II context
is also stratigraphically reliable and of a very late ware type.
The attribution of BoR pottery to Strata IV and III at Megiddo
is, therefore, supported by examination of the evidence. The
number of juglets decreases from 26 in Stratum VA-IVB, to 2 in
Stratum IV and 6 in Stratum III. BoR jugs, always the least
popular of the three main BoR types, do not appear beyond
Stratum VA-IVB. The dating of Strata IV-III, as with that in the
earlier strata, is not wholly certain. Stratum IVA is believed to
have continued until at least the end of the 9th century (Lamon &
Shipton 1939, 61; Shiloh 1993, 1023). While, however, the
excavators proposed that Stratum IV ended in c. 780 BC and was
followed by a period of non-occupation, the majority of scholars
believe the stratum to have continued until the Assyrian conquest
of the city by Tiglath-pileser III in c. 732 BC (Lamon & Shipton
79
The identification of the Stratum IVA structures as c o m p o n e n t s of a "Chariot
City" has been much discussed. The likelihood that Buildings 3 6 4 and 1576 served
as stables is, however, high ( D a v i e s 1986, 82).
1939, 62; Davies 1986, 97-98). The destruction debris overlying
Building 338 supports the termination of this stratum by
conflagration, and while Megiddo is not explicitly named in the
Assyrian records of the campaign, it is likely to have suffered the
same fate as its neighbours (Davies 1986, 97-98). The layout and
structures of Stratum III show clear Assyrian influence and
indicate a period subsequent to the rise of Assyrian rule. Stratum
IV can be dated tentatively, therefore, from the beginning of the
9th century until c. 732 BC. Stratum III should probably be dated
from c. 732 to the late 7th century. During Stratum III, Megiddo
was probably capital of the Assyrian province of Magiddu, which
possibly included Upper and Lower Galilee as well as the plain
and valley of Jezreel (Yadin 1993, 1004; Davies 1986, 98). The
small quantity of BoR pottery present in Stratum II is of very late
type and fits with a date sometime in the 7th century.
Hazor
Hazor I: Season of 1955 (Yadin et al. 1958)

BoR in Strata VIII-III:™
• BoR Juglet (1958. PI. L:14) Handle-ridge juglet. 2 examples
assigned to Stratum VII.
One neck fragment was found in Locus 94, Area A, part of the central
hall of Pillared Building 71. The other body of a juglet came from
Locus 71, the southern hall of the building. The upper floor of this
building (Stratum VII) was paved with "small stones set far apart"
(Yadin 1958, 12). The building was destroyed by fire at the end of
Stratum VII (Yadin 1958, 13). A third juglet, possibly of Cypriot type,
but without any trace of black decoration came from Locus 94 (Yadin
1958, Pl. L: 15).
• BoR Juglet (1958. Pl. LIL16) BoR or White Painted juglet. 1
example assigned to Stratum VI.
The description of this vessel suggests it may be White Painted ware.
80
N o t e , as with the earlier strata at Hazor, that the publications of the site include
White Painted and Phoenician ware along with BoR in one category of "Cypro-
Phoenician" pottery. Most of these v e s s e l s are in sherd form, and it is s o m e t i m e s
impossible to determine from the drawing and description whether the vessel is BoR.
The most doubtful BoR v e s s e l s have not, therefore, been included in this survey.
The fragment came from Locus 26a, a room in Building 49, which
belonged to Area A, Stratum VI.
• BoR Jug (1958, PI. LVI:21) Jug sherd. 1 example assigned to
Stratum V.
This fragment comes from Locus 46, a room in a residential complex
of Area A, Stratum V.
• BoR Juglet (1958, PI. LXI:4) Juglet sherd. 1 example assigned to
Stratum V.
This fragment (which appears to be BoR ware) comes from Locus 19,
a room in Building 1 of Area A, Stratum V. The building was pillared,
with a courtyard divided into two parts. Locus 19 was the southern
room and may have been partially-roofed.
• BoR Bowl (1958. PI. LXVII:26) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned to
Stratum V
This fragment (which appears to be BoR) comes from Locus 3014,
which although assigned to Stratum V is, in fact, one of the rooms of the
Assyrian Citadel III, Area B, Stratum III. Locus 3014 is stone-paved.
• BoR Bowl (1958, PI. LXXVII:9) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned
to Stratum III.
This fragment comes from Sounding 3038, made in the central
courtyard of Citadel III, Area B.
• BoR Juglet (1958, Pl. LXXVII: 10) Juglet sherd. 1 example assigned
to Stratum III.
This fragment comes from Sounding 3038, Area B, as above.
• BoR Bowl (1958, PI. LXXVII:25) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned
to Stratum III.
This fragment (probably of BoR) comes from Locus 3011, just north
of Citadel III, Area B.
• BoR Bowl (1958. PI. LXXVIII:22) Bowl sherd. 8 ' 1 example
assigned to Stratum III-IV.
This fragment comes from Locus 3006, the south-eastern entrance
hall to Citadel III, Area B.
Hazor II: Season of 1956 (Yadin et al. 1960)

• BoR Juglet (1960. PI. LVIII:12) Two-handled juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum VIII.
This neck fragment of a juglet (which appears to be BoR ware) comes
81
This fragment is listed, probably incorrectly, as a j u g sherd.
from Locus 95a, Area A, the central hall of Pillared Building 71.
• BoR Juglet (1960. PL LXXV:11. 12) One neck and one body sherd.
2 examples assigned to Stratum V.
These two fragments come from Locus 16, a room in Building 14,
Area A. This room was well preserved, with benches and a shelf on
which pottery lay (Yadin 1960, 30).
• BoR Bowl (1960. PI. LXXXII:16) Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned
to Stratum VA.
This fragment comes from Locus 3116a, Area B. This was an Alley to
the west of the Israelite Citadel, between the Citadel and the
'Northern Buildings.'
• BoR Bowl (1960. Pl. XCIIL16) . Bowl sherd. 1 example assigned
to Stratum VA.
This fragment belongs to Locus 3106, Area B. This was a small room
inside the Israelite Citadel.
Hazor III-IV: Seasons of 1957-1958 (Yadin 1961, Ben-Tor (ed.)

1989)
• BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CLXXXIL18) Fine large bowl. 1 example
This bowl belongs to Locus 83a, Area A, Stratum VI. This is a small
room in Building 2a. The excavators comment "this is the largest and
best example of a residential building excavated at Hazor" (Ben-Tor
1989, 41). Room 83a, which is only 1.2m wide, was probably "used
as a storeroom, probably entered through an opening high up in the
wall" (Ben-Tor 1989,41).
• BoR Juglet (1961. Pl. C L X X X I V 2 5 ) Juglet body. 1 example
This juglet belongs to Locus 83a, Area A, as above.
• BoR Krater (1961. Pl. C L X X X I V 3 ) Krater. 1 example assigned to
Stratum VI.
This vessel is most probably BoR, although the description suggests
that the shoulder is unslipped. It belongs to Locus 237b, Area A, an
area inside the gate and next to the casemate wall.
• BoR Amphora (1961. Pl. C L X X X V 8 ) Possibly amphora neck. 1
This vessel comes from the same locus, 237b, Area A, as above, and
is of the same ware.
• BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXXIX:16) Probably handle-ridge juglet.
1 example assigned to Stratum V.
This juglet rim comes from Locus 87, Area A, Stratum V. The locus
could not be located on the plan provided in the publication (Ben-Tor
1989, Plan XIV).
• BoR Bowl (1961. Pl. CCXIV: 17) Shallow bowl. 1 example assigned
to Stratum VII.
This bowl belongs to Locus 3038d, Area B. This locus is shown on
the plans of Stratum VIII, and continued into Stratum VII. It
comprises a courtyard area to the north of the Israelite Citadel 3090.
These are designated the 'Northern Buildings' by the excavators.
• BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CCXXI:5) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum VA-VIII.
This juglet comes from Locus 3193, Area B. This belonged to a "sort
of terrace" supporting the city wall, north of the 'Northern Buildings.'
• BoR Juglet (1961. PI. CLXXXVIII:22) Juglet body. 1 example
This juglet belongs to Locus 3162, Area B. This locus was a narrow
open space between Building 3148a and Building 3153, which
adjoined the Citadel on the east.
• BoR Jug ( 1961. Pl. CCXLVIII: 18) Base of Jug. 1 example assigned
to Stratum VIII.
This jug base belongs to Locus 10061, Area G, a sounding east of the
Forward Bastion of the city's fortifications. The jug and context are
discussed briefly in Section I of this chapter.
• BoR Juglet (1961, PI. CCLII:14) Juglet neck. 1 example assigned to
Stratum V.
This juglet belongs to Locus 10034, Area G, a silo which continued in
use from Stratum VI. The excavators comment that "its ruin at the end
of this stratum is indicative of the final and total destruction of this
stratum. The burnt layer in the silo is very thick and extends into the
masonry of the walls, next to which it rises almost to their full height.
It sinks down towards the silo's centre. The floor level of the silo in
Stratum V is the base of the burnt layer, about 0.4 m above the Stratum
VI silo floor and the stone debris lying on it." (Ben-Tor 1989, 194).
• BoR Juglet ( 1961. Pl. CCLII: 15) Possibly White Painted. 1 example
assigned to Stratum V.
This juglet fragment, most likely of White Painted ware, was found in
Locus 10039b, Area G, the area between House 10037c and the city wall.
• BoR Jug (1961. PI. CCLV15) Jug handle 1 example assigned to
Stratum IV.
This jug was found in Locus 10007a, Area G, a "large structure...
partially paved with densely packed stones" (Ben-Tor 1989, 196).

Examination of Strata VIII - III at Hazor provide good evidence that
BoR pottery continued to circulate at the site until the later Iron Age.
After the destruction of Stratum IX at Hazor, the city expanded to
include the whole tell in Stratum VIII. This period is assigned to the
Omride dynasty. Fortifications were built at its eastern end, Area G.
The 'Israelite Citadel' was built in Area Β at the western edge of the
tell, and continued unchanged in plan until the destruction of the city
at the end of Stratum VA, probably by Tiglathpileser III in c. 732 BC.
This citadel was adjoined by the 'Northern Buildings.' In Stratum
VIII, the main building in Area A, in the centre of the tell, was Pillared
Building 71 (now relocated). This building continued in use in
Stratum VII, with raised floors, but was destroyed by fire at the end
of Stratum VII and was not reconstructed. In Stratum VI, Area A was
rebuilt as residential quarters. These buildings were destroyed at the
end of Stratum VI, probably by earthquake, but were reconstructed in
Stratum V. With the threat of Assyrian invasion, in Stratum V, the
Israelite Citadel in the west was fortified with an additional offset-
inset wall and a tower, and four-room houses were constructed to its
east. The whole city was destroyed and burnt at the end of Stratum
VA. A new citadel was built in Area Β in Stratum III, most probably
by the Assyrians.
BoR pottery appears in all the areas excavated on the tell,
throughout the period under examination. The contexts are generally
good on account of the relatively short-lived nature of each stratum
which was successively destroyed. In Stratum VIII, one BoR juglet
was found in Pillared Building 71 and a jug in the Forward Bastion of
Area G. In Stratum VII, two juglets were found in the Pillared
Building, and a BoR bowl in an area north of the Israelite Citadel. In
Stratum VI, two juglets and a bowl were found in the residential
buildings of Area A (two of which in the small Storeroom 83a). A
krater and amphora of uncertain BoR type appeared inside the gate
area of Area A in Stratum VI. In Stratum V, four BoR juglets and one
jug were found in the residential buildings of Area A, one juglet and
one bowl near the Israelite Citadel, and a bowl inside the Israelite
Citadel. A juglet was found in the terrace north of the 'Northern
Buildings,' assigned to Strata VIII-VA. One juglet was found in the
silo of Area G in Stratum V, and one (possibly White Painted) juglet
in an open area of Area G. In Stratum IV, a BoR jug appeared in the
large structure built in Area G. In Stratum III, one juglet was found in
a sounding in the Assyrian citadel of Area B, two bowls near the
Assyrian citadel and two bowls inside the citadel.
While BoR pottery was present therefore in all strata from Stratum
VIII to Stratum III, it should be noted that the vessels were generally
preserved in highly fragmentary form, seldom more than a sherd. Only
one almost complete vessel was found, in a Stratum VI context (Yadin
1960, PI. CLXXXII:18). Although, therefore, the pottery may simply
be well-worn from use, the possibility that BoR sherds were transferred
to these later Iron Age contexts via infilling or later construction in
these areas is heightened. The fragmentary preservation of the pottery
also hinders assessment of whether the types assigned to later strata are
of late BoR forms. 82 The Assyrian Citadel of Stratum III, in particular,
is problematic. The excavators note:
The whole thickness of the filling of the citadel structures (beneath the
surface layer) contained great quantities of sherds, the bulk of which
belonged to the Israelite period. The rest belonged to earlier periods, while
the loci discovered on the floors of the various rooms, the ovens and the
rest of the kitchen installations, all belonged to the second phase of
settlement of the Citadel, ie. the Persian Period... This filling of the
building may perhaps be associated with the builders of Stratum I, w h o
had to level off their floors with an eye to the tops of the walls of Building
III, which served as foundations for their walls... [In fact] only a very
little material definitely belonging to III was found. (Yadin 1958, 49-50).
The possibility that the BoR pottery found in the latest level
(Citadel III) was intrusive must, therefore, be considered. BoR
appears, however, in good contexts in Strata VIII, VII, VI and Stratum
VA, and it is therefore likely to have been in circulation at the site
throughout the 9th century up to the Assyrian conquest in c. 732 BC.
An extension of BoR into the early 7th century at Hazor may be
possible. The fragmentary preservation of the later BoR at the site
82
A s presented in the Plates, in general the B o R from Hazor VIII-III is o f
standard B o R ware. T h e well-preserved B o R bowl from Stratum V I , noted above, is
of a type k n o w n from the earliest levels in which the pottery appears on the mainland.
should be noted, however, and suggests that some of the pottery in the
later levels was intrusive from the earlier period. The distribution of
the pottery throughout the Iron Age levels at Hazor which, in contrast
to Megiddo, appears to represent a steady importation, may therefore
be partly illusory.
Ta'anach
According to the excavators, the later Iron Age strata at Ta'anach "were
found in a very disturbed condition" and the site is consequently "able
to make only a minimal contribution to the ceramic sequence of Iron II"
(Rast 1978, 41). No BoR pottery was published from these levels. The
site is not therefore re-examined here.
Tel Michal
Subsequent to Stratum XIII at Tel Michal, which is datable to the 10th

- 9th centuries BC, there was a period of abandonment of about 150
years (Herzog 1993, 1038). The next level of occupation, Stratum
XII, dated to the 8th century, was sparse in finds and architecture and
contained no BoR pottery (Singer-Avitz 1989, 87).
Tel Qiri
BoR pottery was found at Tel Qiri from Strata VII-V. The pottery
from Stratum VII and VI/VII was included in Section I of this chapter.
The BoR pottery from later levels is presented below.
(Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987): The BoR

• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig 43:10) Wide deep bowl with ledge handles.
1 example assigned to Stratum VB/VI.
This bowl was found in Locus 607, Area C. This is an area which has
"not yet reached floor level" beneath the major building of Stratum V
(Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 110). The locus is associated with walls
beneath the northern part of the Stratum V building.
• BoR Juglet (1987, Fig 43:11) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
assigned to Stratum V/VIC.
This juglet (neck only preserved) was found in Locus 529, Area D.
This locus appears to belong to a room in a residential complex. The
area was much disturbed by modern construction, however, such that
"meaningful stratigraphie analysis and comparison were not possible"
(Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 62).
• BoR Bowl (1987. Fig 22:18) Simple-rimmed bowl. 1 example
assigned to Stratum V.
This bowl was found in Locus 518, Area C. This is noted as one of the
"key loci" of the stratum, although it appears to comprise two areas
south of the main building in Stratum V, a courtyard area and an
adjacent enclosed space.

As noted in Section I of this chapter, the stratigraphy and
publication details at Tel Qiri are not extensive. The later Iron Age
levels were especially vulnerable to modern bulldozing activity at
the site and were badly preserved. The BoR bowl found beneath the
Stratum V building in Area C, however, must precede this
structure, which also contained 'Samaria' ware and an angular-
shouldered storage jar. A Euboean Subgeometric dinos was found
in Stratum V/VI, possibly contemporary with this BoR bowl, and is
dated to c. 700 BC (Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 110-111). The BoR
bowl assigned to Stratum V is possibly of late type (in sherd form
only) and is associated with the main Stratum V building. The BoR
juglet found in Area D is in a disturbed area but appears to belong
to a residential complex that replaced the agricultural industrial
area of preceding Stratum VIIA.
The evidence from Tel Qiri suggests, therefore, that BoR pottery
continued into the later part of the Iron Age at the site. Given the
considerable disturbance of the site's upper levels, the three BoR
vessels in Strata VI-V may possibly have been intrusive. However,
the BoR vessels examined in Section I from Strata VI/VII in Area F
probably date to the 9th century and it is possible that BoR continued
into the 8th century in Stratum V (Ben-Tor 1993, 1228).
Beersheba
The later levels at Beersheba were published in the volume Beersheba

I (Aharoni 1973). As seen in Section I, no BoR pottery appeared at
this site beyond Stratum VI, which most probably belonged to the
second half of the 10th/9th century BC. The absence of BoR pottery in
the later levels at the site is somewhat surprising, but is reflected in
general by the limited quantity of BoR pottery in the southern region
in the later period (see Map 20). The distribution pattern of BoR over
these periods is discussed at the end of the Chapter.
Beth-Shan
BoR pottery from Upper Level V and Level IV at Beth-Shan was

examined in Section I of this chapter (see previous section). Three
BoR handle-ridge juglets and one indeterminate BoR juglet sherd
were noted from 'Below the Threshold of 1513.' One probable BoR
jug fragment is noted from Locus 1350-b, inside the gate area. These
loci are assigned in the publication to Upper Level V. James notes that
"at least seven" examples of BoR in Upper Level V were noted in the
excavators' records, but further details were lacking (James 1966,
123). One BoR bowl was found in Locus 1147 in Block B-5, which is
assigned to Level IV.
The serious stratigraphical problems at Beth-Shan have been
demonstrated in the survey of the site in Section I. Close analysis
of the loci in which the pottery appears does not, therefore, greatly
illuminate its chronology. Upper Level V has been shown to
continue (most probably) into the 9th century. James suggests that
this stratum was destroyed around c. 800 BC (James 1966, 124).
Mazar, however, dates Upper Level V to the 9th - 8th centuries and
attributes its destruction to the Assyrian conquest of c. 732 BC
(Mazar 1993, 222). There is evidence that part, at least, of this level
was destroyed in a violent fire (Mazar 1993, 222). James notes that
Level IV at Beth-Shan represents "an untidy village sprawl," and
dates its end to "near the end of the 8th century" (James 1966, 153-
154). In particular, she notes that Level IV "is conspicuous for the
almost complete lack of Cypriote imports or imitations" (James
1966, 128). Mazar's view that this latter level should be assigned to
the "partial renovation of the settlement during the years following
the conquest" by the Assyrians may be preferable, although there is
little evidence to support the dating on either account (Mazar 1993,
222). The presence of BoR pottery at the site at least in the 9th
century can be proposed, therefore, with a possible extension into
the 8th century.
Tell el-Far'ah (N)
The BoR pottery from Niveau Vlld at Tell el-Far'ah (N), the latest
level in which it appears at the site, is included in Section I of this
chapter. Three BoR bowls in total are attributed to Niv. Vlld, of which
two only are correctly placed in this level (see Section I, 'Tell el-
Far'ah (N),' 137-142). One vessel alone, however, is found in a good
context - Locus 350, part of the courtyard of House 327.
The destruction of Niv. Vllb is assigned by the original excavators
to conquest by Omri in the early 9th century, and by other scholars to
Shishak's campaign of c. 925 BC (see Section I). Niv. VIIc was a short-
lived period with fairly sparse remains, and did not contain BoR
pottery. Niv. Vlld is assigned to the late 9th - 8th centuries, and
culminated in a violent destruction, attributed to the Assyrian conquest
of nearby Samaria by Sargon II in 721 BC (Chambon 1993, 440). The
excavators draw comparison between the architecture of houses of Niv.
Vlld at Tell el-Far'ah (N) and those at Hazor Strata VI-V in Areas A and
Β (Chambon 1984, 43). Despite its scarcity at the later levels at the site,
therefore, the presence of BoR pottery in Niv. Vlld indicates that it was
probably in circulation at the site in the 8th century BC.
Tel Mevorakh
As seen in Section I of this chapter, the stratigraphy of Tel Mevorakh

is confused and unreliable for the purposes of this study. It should be
noted, however, that while the excavators assign all BoR pottery at
the site to 'Stratum VII,' all but two of the BoR sherds come from loci
assigned to levels later than Stratum VII. While these levels are
similarly confused and some of their structures possibly misplaced
stratigraphically, it is possible that BoR pottery continued at this site,
as at others investigated here, into the later Iron Age levels.
Tel 'Amal
Strata II-I at Tel 'Amal, which succeeded Strata IV-III, were sparse in
architectural and ceramic finds. No BoR pottery was found in these
strata, which are dated by the excavators to the 8th and 7th centuries.
Tell Keisan
Although the site of Tell Keisan produced a large quantity of BoR

pottery, as noted in Section I, only two vessels have been fully
published (Briend & Humbert 1980, Fig. 56:1-2). These both belong
to Niv. 8. A further 159 examples were presented in a subsequent
thesis (de Montlivault 1982, 178-180). For the purposes here,
however, the usefulness of this latter study is limited by minimal
information on the contexts of the pottery. No locus numbers are
included and the reliability of the contexts cannot therefore be
assessed. Of the total numbers of BoR vessels recorded, a selection
are illustrated. Of these, two further BoR bowls are assigned to Niv.
8b, and the base of possibly a BoR stand is assigned to the level
defined as 'Niv. 7/8.' 8 3 Three juglets and 1 BoR bowl are assigned to
'Niv. 4/5/6.' One juglet and 7 bowl fragments are assigned to Niv. 5,
and 2 juglets and 5 bowls to 'Niv. 4/5.'Three juglets and 16 bowls are
assigned to Niv. 4. Five juglets and 7 bowls are illustrated but
unstratified. The total quantities recorded from Tell Keisan, including
those not illustrated, are summarised below:
Tell Keisan strata Total BoR at Tell Keisan incl.

unpublished (de Montlivault 1982)
Niv. 8 4 bowls
'Niv. 7/8' 1 stand (BoR?)
Niv. 6 1 sherd BoR (indeterminate)
'Niv. 4/5/6' 3 juglets, 1 bowl
Niv. 5 1 juglet, 9 bowls (37 BoR sherds total)
'Niv. 4/5' 2 juglets, 5 bowls (21 BoR sherds total)
Niv. 4 3 juglets, 15 bowls (42 BoR sherds total)
Unstratified 5 juglets, 7 bowls (51 BoR sherds total)
TOTAL: 161 BoR sherds
83
The author d o e s not indicate whether these c o m b i n e d strata at Tell Keisan
represent an area of indeterminate stratification at the site, or whether the sherds were
simply imprecisely recorded.
The quantities of BoR pottery in the later levels at Tell Keisan are
significant, suggesting that "les niveaux 4 et 5 correspondent à Tell
Keisan à la période d'utilisation la plus intense du BoR" (de Montlivault
1982, 184). These strata are dated by the excavators from the end of the
8th to the end of the 7th century BC (Briend & Humbert 1980, 27; de
Montlivault 1982, 184). These dates correlate with the date of the
'ceramic horizon' which Bikai proposes best represents the Phoenician
pottery in these levels. Bikai places Niv. 5 at Tell Keisan into her "Kition"
horizon (dated c. 750 - c. 700) and Niv. 4 at Tell Keisan into her
"Amathus" horizon (dated "after 700 to after 600") (Bikai 1987, 66-69).
The high proportion of BoR in the later levels at Keisan may be partly
explained by the coastal location of the site, inland from the Acco Bay
area. It also, however, suggests that the site was especially connected with
Cyprus, both in the early period when the site may have been an early
recipient of BoR (see Section I) and in the later period when the pottery
occurs in greater abundance than at most contemporary mainland sites.
In addition, some possible anomalies in the BoR pottery at Tell
Keisan should be noted. Juglets are far superseded in number by bowls,
and show a greater consistency of ware types. The juglets at the site are
generally composed of the very fine pinkish-orange clay most
characteristic of BoR. Bowls are generally of pale buff and occasionally
pink clay and many have a grey core, although virtually all are well-
fired, burnished and finished. One or two fragments are coarsely
burnished. 84 Slips on the bowls vary considerably in colour from pale
to bright, pinkish-orange. The bowls are predominantly of simple-
rimmed type and a number have a substantial footed base. These
features of the BoR pottery at Tell Keisan suggest that the site was
either recipient of BoR from different locations on Cyprus, or that it
possibly reflects small shiploads of pottery imported over a long period.
Alternatively, the possibility that these anomalies point to some local
manufacturing centre at or near the site, especially for BoR bowls,
should be considered. See Chapter Four for further discussion.
Tell el-Hammeh
The site of Tell el-Hammeh remains unpublished. Excavation of the
84
Eg. vessel no. K . 7 4 . 5 3 1 / 4 - 0 5 - 8 0
M-Terrace, just below the summit of the site, uncovered levels which
are dated by the excavators to the 8th - 7 t h centuries (Cahill & Tarier
1993, 561). No BoR pottery is mentioned, but future publication of
the M-Terrace and the upper layers of the L-Terrace will clarify the
later Iron Age history of the site.
Lachish
As seen in Section I, BoR pottery from Lachish appears only in tombs

at the site (eg. Tombs 218, 224 and 1002). These tombs extended over
a broad period, and cannot therefore be used to pinpoint the date of
BoR pottery. The excavator proposes that the "ware in Palestine
appears to centre in the ninth century, with a possible extension into
the eighth century B.C," although this conclusion is based largely on
Gjerstad's Cypriot chronology for the ware (Tufnell 1953, 299-300).
Hurvat Rosh Zayit
The site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit is located in the mountains of the Lower
Galilee, on the slopes facing the Acco Plain. The site is not yet fully
published, but preliminary reports have appeared in article form (Gal
1992, Gal 1995, Alexandre 1995). The main area of Hurvat Rosh Zayit
comprises a fortress, in which two phases were exposed. The pottery
from these phases is presented altogether in the reports, with no locus
or context data, and the relation of the BoR pottery to the corpus of
other wares is therefore not clear. The excavators propose, however,
that the "locally-produced pottery assemblage is very homogeneous
throughout both phases of the H. Rosh Zayit fortress" indicating that
"the occupation of the fortress was of short duration" (Gal 1992, 184).
The BoR pottery assemblage from the site comprises eleven
juglets, of which four are miniatures, one BoR 'container', one jug
and four bowls. The assemblage is notable for the fine quality of the
wares, and the particularly delicate shapes of the miniature BoR
vessels (Nos. 96-2552, 96-2437, 96-2507, 96-2455). The juglets
85
Note that the excavators' reference to a 'mushroom' rim is incorrect (Gal 1992,
175) - the true 'mushroom' rim which is flattened on top appears only in Phoenician-
style pottery. T h e s e juglets from Hurvat Rosh Zayit have flaring rims typical of BoR
handle-ridge juglets.
comprise three handle-ridge juglets, 85 one basket-handled spouted
juglet, and two trefoil-lipped juglets. One of these latter is of
exceptional quality - a long, thin and fine neck and flared high ring
base (No. 96-2485). Also interesting is the BoR conical 'container,'
which has an inverted flat base and conical body as if a conical juglet
has been sawn off mid-way, with two holes on either side of the plain
mouth (probably for suspension) (No. 96-2454). 86 The miniature
juglets are carefully executed and finished to a high standard. The
large jug (No. 96-2431) is of fine quality and of characteristic BoR
trefoil-lipped jug design. 87 Of the bowls (Nos. 96-2440, 96-2441, 96-
2443, 96-2446), one is exceptionally large (approximately 45-50 cms
in diameter) (No. 96-2440). The jug and two of the bowls in particular
(Nos. 96-2431, 96-2440, 96-2443) show evidence of having been
burnt.
In the absence, as yet, of full stratigraphie detail of these vessels,
their chronological contribution is limited. However, the exceptionally
fine assemblage of BoR at this site, which includes 'advanced' types of
BoR pottery (such as juglet No. 96-2485), suggests that the levels in
which they appear belong perhaps to a later period than those examined
in Section I of this chapter and should not be dated earlier than the
beginning of the 9th century BC. The excavators suggest that both
phases of the fortress at Hurvat Rosh Zayit were destroyed, the first in
the middle of the 10th century BC, and the second in the middle of the
9th century BC (Gal 1992, 184). The carbonization of the contents of
some of the store jars indicates that the site was destroyed by fire, most
probably at the end of both phases of occupation (Gal 1992, 175).
Traces of burning are also visible on some of the BoR pottery. The dates
proposed by the excavators for the second destruction, the mid-9th
century BC, therefore seems a satisfactory date for the BoR at the site.
Tel Kabri
The site of Tel Kabri is located north of the Acco Bay, a few km inland
86
A similar conical base without the punctured holes appears in the Cyprus
M u s e u m collection in N i c o s i a (unprovenanced) - N o . B . 1 5 7 3 . 1 9 3 5 (personal
examination). This is a broken conical juglet, but is a g o o d indication that the vessel
at Hurvat Rosh Zayit may have been a reused juglet with filed-off break.
87
Clay samples have been taken from this jug for scientific testing. The results
have h o w e v e r been mislaid (Alexandre, pers. c o m m . ) .
from the modern town of Nahariya, and along the river route of Nahal
G'aton. The site was excavated during the 1980s by A. Kempinski of
Tel Aviv University and W-D. Niemeier of Freiberg University. While
the Middle Bronze Age settlement has been extensively excavated
and published, however, the Iron Age town has been partially
published only in preliminary reports (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990,
1991, 1992, 1994). The current, albeit limited, evidence for BoR
pottery from the site of Tel Kabri is presented below. Some further
unpublished material is also included. 88
In Area D at Tel Kabri, 4 BoR bowls were found alongside a small
number of cooking pots and bowls dated by the excavators
provisionally to the 10th - 9th century (Kempinski & Niemeier 1992,
3, Fig. 14:5-8). 89 Also in the preliminary reports, BoR pottery is
mentioned (not illustrated) from Room 873 of Area Ε at the site and
is dated by its excavators to the 9th century (Kempinski & Niemeier
1991, 17, 20). 90
Further information on Area Ε at the site indicates that 7 BoR bowls
were found in Stratum 3b (dated by the excavators c. 750-650 BC), 2
BoR bowls in Stratum 2a (dated c. 644-604 BC) and 3 BoR bowls from
later periods, including disturbed tombs. Five further BoR body sherds
(indeterminate) were found in later/disturbed levels. Two BoR juglets
only were found - one from Stratum 3b and one from Stratum 2b. The
absence of BoR pottery from Stratum 5 (dated c. 1050-850 BC) and
Stratum 4 (dated c. 850-750 BC) may be partly explicable by the small
areas of these levels exposed in Area Ε at the site (Lehmann, pers.
comm.). Nineteen BoR fragments were found altogether from Area Ε
(Lehmann forthcoming). A number of White Painted sherds were also
88
Area Ε at the site, excavated in the s e a s o n s o f 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993
is in the process of publication (Lehmann, forthcoming).
89
Note that the dating of the B o R in this area o f Kabri is based entirely on Stern's
dating o f B o R pottery at Tel Mevorakh which as noted in Section I of this chapter
appears to be unreliable.
90
The non-Cypriot origin postulated by the excavators for the BoR pottery from
Area Ε at the site, examined by Y. Goren by pétrographie analysis in 1990, is not
convincing (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990, XXXIII, XLVI-XLVII, L). Only t w o
'Cypro-Phoenician' vessels are tested, neither illustrated, one of which (Juglet No.
8 2 1 5 ) is viewed as of typical Cypriot clays and the other ("body sherd" N o . 3 0 3 7 ) of
possible local clay. In the absence of illustration of these vessels, the results d o not
indicate that "the often suggested Cypriote provenance of this ware can be definitively
discarded" in favour of a "south Phoenician origin" (Kempinski & Niemeier 1990,
XXXIII). Further analysis, however, on the pottery from these sites would be valuable.
found at the site. One White Painted fragment was found in Stratum E4,
the others, belonging mostly to closed vessels, were found mainly in
Stratum E2 (dated c. 650-600 BC). Thirteen White Painted fragments
were found altogether in Area Ε (Lehmann forthcoming).
In the absence of full publication of the Iron Age levels at the site,
the contribution of BoR at Tel Kabri to the overall chronology of the
pottery is minimal. The predominance of BoR bowls found at the site
is paralleled by other sites of this northern coastal region, particularly
Tell Keisan. Preliminary indications that BoR was most popular at the
site in the later Iron Age strata is also well paralleled at Tell Keisan.
Taking account of the range of similar local forms also found at the
two sites, it is likely that these sites may have been closely linked in
this period (Kempinski & Niemeier 1994, 26). Although the late dates
assigned to the levels in which this pottery occurs are perhaps to be
treated with caution until the full publication can be assessed, it is
possible that Tell Keisan and Tel Kabri in particular were strongly
linked with Cyprus in the later Iron Age.
Tell Kazel
The site of Tell Kazel lies inland of Tabbat al-Hammam on the

Phoenician coast, approximately 3.5 km from the shoreline. It
occupies a "unique break point between the two long chains of Mount
Lebanon and Jabal al-Ansariyeh" (the northern mountain range), and
thus a strategic trade route through to inland Syria (Badre et al. 1990,
13). Originally excavated in 1960-1962 by M. Dunand, the site was
re-excavated in 1985 -1987 under the direction of Leila Badre with
the Museum of the American University of Beirut. Preliminary results
of these excavation seasons has been published in Berytus Volume 38
(Badre et al. 1990, 10-124).
Although the rarity of a stratified site in Phoenicia renders Tell
Kazel especially valuable, the exposure of only small areas at the
site as well as the preliminary stage of publication severely limits
its use for this study. Three areas were excavated from the Iron
Age: Area I in the west of the mound, Area II in the east, and Area
III in the north-east. The levels exposed in each have not yet been
correlated with the overall stratigraphy of the site and commonly
contain material of mixed periods. Most problematically, the dating
of the levels containing Cypriot pottery is reliant on Gjerstad's
1948 chronology which places them in the 8th - 7th centuries BC
(Badre et al. 1990, 104). Too few diagnostic finds are presented
alongside the BoR to enable a reassessment of its chronology. In
Area II, BoR pottery appears in Level 4 but not in the preceding
Level 5 which contains early Iron Age I pottery (Badre et al 1990,
78). The dating of Level 4 should possibly therefore be raised in
date to the post-Iron I period, and dated approximately in the late
10th century. Full publication of the site will it is hoped clarify this
chronology.
The Cypriot pottery at Tell Kazel is presented in an appendix
without full details of its levels (Badre et al. 1990, 110-113). The list
of wares includes: 10 BoR closed vessels (predominantly juglets), 13
BoR bowls, 10 White Painted amphorae fragments, 12 White Painted
closed vessels, 8 White Painted open vessels (bowls), 2 Bichrome
amphorae, 6 Bichrome closed vessels and 6 Bichrome open vessels.
The description of the BoR vessels suggests that they are of typical
BoR ware type.
Sarepta
As seen in Section I, the publications of the site of Sarepta are

unsatisfactory. One BoR conical juglet is published from Substratum C2
at Sarepta (Area II-X), and a BoR bowl from Substratum CI (See
Section I above). Neither of these, however, are in fully reliable contexts.
Substrata C2 and CI date from a subsequent period to Stratum D in
which BoR pottery first appears, and possibly therefore indicate the
presence of the ware in the 9th century. The limited sample available,
however, is not sufficient basis from which to draw conclusions.
Tyre
The pre-classical settlement of Tyre, originally an island off the

Phoenician coast and connected to the mainland in 332 BC by
Alexander the Great with the construction of a causeway, was
excavated in 1973 by Patricia Bikai. Extensive disturbances in the 4th
century BC, and later Roman occupation had obliterated many of the
earlier strata at the site. Bikai conducted, therefore, only "a small
controlled excavation" to establish the pottery sequence, c. 150 sq. m.
(Bikai 1978, 1). Political circumstances in Lebanon subsequently
prevented full publication of the Iron Age settlement at the site; the
pottery from the excavation was, however, published by Bikai as The
Pottery of Tyre in 1978.91
A total of 29 BoR sherds were found at the site, only 4 of which were
illustrated (Bikai 1978, 53). Sixteen (Cypriot) Bichrome sherds were
found in total, and 24 fragments of Sub-Protogeometric skyphoi. White
Painted pottery is included in the calculations of all White Painted
wares, including those of the Late Bronze Age (producing a total of 336
fragments). Since details of shapes and locus numbers are available
only for the illustrated vessels, these only were examined here.
(Bikai 1978): The BoR

• BoR Juglet (1978. Pl. XXIIA: 10) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
This juglet comes from Square 1C-6D, Area 19. This area could not
be traced precisely in the plans.
• BoR Juglet (1978. PI. XXIIA:9) Handle-ridge juglet. 1 example
This juglet comes from Square 1C-6A, Area 10. This is an open (not
fully excavated) area.
• BoR Jug? (1978, PI. XVIIIA:17) Fragment probably of jug. 1
This fragment comes from Square 1C-6A, Area 9. This area is not
specified on the plans.
• BoR Bowl (1978, PI. XIA:21) Late type bowl. 1 example assigned
to Stratum II.
This bowl comes from Square 1C-6C, Area 8. This is an
indeterminate area of the late, upper, levels.
The Contexts
As is apparent from this assessment, no architectural contexts could
be retrieved from the published report.
Other Finds
Little information is also provided on the other finds from the areas
in which the BoR was found. The sequence of White Painted wares
91
S e e Coldstream 1988, 3 6 - 3 7 for a brief discussion of this publication by
Patricia Bikai.
at the site, however, is interesting. The earliest fragments of White
Painted are assigned to Stratum XIII-I (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXIV:
4,9,12). A fragment of a White Painted jug appears in Stratum XII
(Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXII: 10), and a White Painted amphora neck in
Stratum XI (Bikai 1978, PI. XXX:2). In Stratum X-2, 2 White
Painted barrel-juglets, 6 White Painted bowls, and 1 White Painted
amphora are found (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXVIII: 1,2, 4-9). In Stratum Χ-
Ι, 1 White Painted jug and 1 bowl are found (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXII:
9,19) and in Stratum IX, 2 White Painted bowls (Bikai 1978, PI.
XXIIA:15, 16). Three White Painted fragments are found in Stratum
VI (Bikai 1978, PI. XVIIIA:20-22).
Table 13A in the published report demonstrates that BoR pottery is
first found in Stratum X-l at Tyre, as 0.02% of total diagnostics in
the stratum, in Stratum IX as 0.21%, increasing to 0.59% in Stratum
VI, 0.43% in Stratum V, and decreasing to 0.13% in Stratum II
(Bikai 1978, 54). White Painted pottery begins in earlier strata than
BoR and is generally more popular, reaching an initial peak in
Stratum X-2 of 4.48%, a decrease in Strata X-l - VII, followed by
an increase in Stratum VI to 4.55%.
Bikai's absolute dating of the levels at Tyre follows a low
chronology, assigning Stratum XII to ?1000 - ?925 BC, Stratum XI
to ?925 - 850 BC, Stratum X to c. 850 BC,92 Strata VIII - VI from 800
- ?760 BC, Strata V - IV from ?760 - 740 BC, and Strata III - II from
740 - 700 BC (Bikai 1978, 68). The presence, however, of early
White Painted wares in Stratum XII and a considerable quantity of
these wares in Stratum X-2 suggests that Strata XIII - X-2 should be
dated to c. 11th - 10th century BC, rather than 11th - mid-9th century.
The dating of these early strata is based predominantly on Gjerstad's
dating of the Cypriot wares rather than the internal Phoenician
pottery sequence (in large account because of the preliminary state
of research on Phoenician wares in 1978). Early type Phoenician
Bichrome jugs appear in Stratum XII at Tyre, paralleled by a jug
found at Tel Qasile Stratum X (Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXIII: 15; Mazar
92
The peculiarly short chronological period assigned to Stratum X at Tyre
suggests, perhaps, an overly-tight Iron A g e chronology.
1985, 67-68, Photo 71). 93 This is an indication that Stratum XII at
Tyre dates no later than the beginning of the 10th century, Stratum
X-2 and X-l date from early/mid-10th century to end 10th century,
Stratum IX-VIII from the end 10th century to mid-9th century. The
sequence of White Painted wares preceding BoR wares is paralleled
at numerous sites investigated in Section I of this chapter. See also
Chapter Two (34-46).
Strata at Tyre Bikai chronology (1978) Revised chronology?
XIII-1 c. 1 1 0 0 - 1000 c. 1 1 0 0 - 1050

XII c. 1000-925 c. 1050-990
XI c. 925 - 850 c. 990 - 960
X-2 c. 850 c. 960 - 940
X-l c. 850 c. 940-910
IX c. 850 - 800 c. 910-880
VIII c. 800 c. 8 8 0 - 850
VII c. 800 - c. 760 c. 8 5 0 - 820
VI c. 800 - c. 760 c. 820 - 780
The above revised chronology for the strata at Tyre is naturally

tentative. The excavated area at Tyre was so small as to make any
attempt to base an absolute or even relative chronology on it, very
uncertain. Nevertheless, the raising of the dates of the Tyre strata
appears to fit the pottery evidence more satisfactorily than as
originally proposed by the excavators. 94 The presence of BoR pottery
in the 9th and early 8th centuries BC at Tyre is probable. The increase
in imported wares (both White Painted and BoR) in Stratum VI
suggests that the late 9th - early 8th century may have seen a
strengthening of the links between Tyre and Cyprus.
Tell Sukas
The site of Tell Sukas is located on the Phoenician coast, north of

Tabbat al-Hammam and south of Ras Shamra, at a distance of c. 185
93
Note that Mazar 1 9 8 5 , 6 8 , has incorrectly attributed this jug to Tyre Stratum XIV.
94
Note also that the revised dates presented here for the later levels VII-VI at Tyre
correspond with revisions to the dating of these levels presented independently by the
excavator in a subsequent study (Bikai n.d., 30).
km from Salamis in Cyprus. This is one of the shortest routes from the
mainland to island (Riis 1970, 125). The site was excavated by a
Danish expedition (the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia) from 1958
- 1963, and published in a series of volumes, Sukas I-VIII, by P.J. Riis,
M-L. Buhl and J. Lund (separately). The emphasis given to the Greek
pottery and finds from the site, which led the excavators to believe
they had a period of "Greek Domination" during the 7th - 6th
centuries, may have discouraged interest in the Cypriot Iron Age
wares which are mentioned only briefly. The absolute dating of the
Cypriot pottery is based upon Gjerstad's chronological scheme for
this ware.
BoR pottery appeared in limited quantities in Periods H1 and G3
at Tell Sukas. In Period H I , a BoR juglet sherd appeared alongside
Bichrome and White Painted pottery (Lund 1986, 51). A quantity of
"imported Greek and Cypriot pottery" from Period H at Sukas was
noted in a recent summary article on the site, but with no detail (Assaf
1992, 91). This pottery could not be traced in the report. In the
following Period G3, however, the excavators note "a relatively large
amount of Cypriote sherds" on a floor in layer 9 of square PI 1NW
(not fully illustrated) (Lund 1986, 74). Another BoR sherd is noted
from the surrounding area to the platform (bama) of the 'Greek
Sanctuary' also of Period G3 (Riis 1970, 42). These chronological
periods are dated by the excavators from the 9th century through the
7th century: Period HI from c. 850 - 675 BC, and Period G3 from c.
675 BC - 588 BC (Lund 1986, 7).
In the absence of full presentation of the pottery in plates it is
difficult to assess the chronological scheme proposed by the
excavators. The minimal quantities of BoR pottery at the site are also
surprising. The date of the 9th - 7th centuries for the BoR pottery at
Tell Sukas must therefore be accepted only with caution.
Hama
The site of Hama is located on the Orontes river in inland Syria, near
the modern city of the same name. The site was excavated by M.
Ingholt between 1932-1938. The excavations were published in a
series of volumes. Of relevance here are the preliminary report
published by Ingholt in 1940 covering the 1932-1938 seasons, the
publication of the cremated burials (Riis 1948), and the publication of
the pre-Hellenistic architecture on the mound (Fugmann 1958). In
1990 a publication of objects from the Iron Age levels appeared as
Hama 11:2 (Riis & Buhl 1990).
The early date of the excavations and publications hinders full
assessment of the contexts of the BoR pottery found at the site. Four
BoR vessels (at least) were found from Niveau Ε on the tell. Two of
those published were trefoil-lipped juglets, and the third was a handle-
ridge juglet (Ingholt 1940, 97-98; Pl. XXX:2). A further BoR
handle-ridge juglet is published in a later report from the destruction
level of Bâtiment V in Niveau Ε (Fugmann 1958, 252-253, Fig. 325).
The juglet was found in Room F, a small and enclosed central room
within the building. Bâtiment V was destroyed by the fierce
conflagration that swept over the tell at the end of Niveau E. More than
550 arrow heads were found in this building, most of which probably
belonged to its final inhabitants in their defence of the city (Fugmann
1958, 258). BoR pottery occurred also in the cemetery, south of the tell,
in similar types to the vessels in Niveau Ε on the mound itself (Riis
1948, 112-113). This pottery was assigned to Period IV and "I or II."
White Painted and Bichrome pottery was also present.
Niveau E, which represents a wealthy and powerful city with
monumental architecture, was clearly destroyed by fire (Ingholt 1940,
118). The excavators date this destruction, which included
desecration of statuary at the site and the vitrification of the bricks
with the intense heat, to the campaign by Sargon in 720 BC (Ingholt
1940, 118; Fugmann 1958, 258). The destruction of the city is
mentioned in textual sources as resulting from the uprising by a
usurper, Iaubidi (Buhl 1992, 34-35).
The basis for the dating of BoR pottery at the site is reliant on the
excavators' attribution of the destruction of Niveau Ε at Hama to
Sargon in 720 BC. Although BoR pottery is not found in large
quantities, the context of the juglet in Bâtiment V is reliable. The
presence of BoR pottery in the 8th century can therefore be attested
at Hama.
Other Sites
The cemetery sites of Khirbet Silm, Joya and Qrayé, in Phoenicia,

have produced BoR pottery that has been dated approximately to the
9th - 8th centuries (Chapman 1972, 144-145, 171, Fig. 31:161, 162,
266, 163, 308). The site of Tabbat al-Hammam on the northern
Phoenician coast was published only in preliminary form in ajournai
article and no information is available on the BoR pottery found at the
site (Braidwood 1940, Fig. 4).
BoR pottery was found at the site of Al Mina in Woolley's
excavations of 1936-1937 and was published independently some
years later (du Plat Taylor 1959). Despite several reassessments of
these early excavations, however, the stratigraphy at the site and
attribution of the pottery within it remain uncertain (Lehmann 1997,
Boardman 1990, Boardman 1999). Cypriot pottery, amongst which
BoR may comprise c. 15%, occurs first and with most frequency in
Level 8 at the site (du Plat Taylor 1959, 74-75; Boardman 1999, 149).
This level is dated to the mid 8th century, primarily on the basis of the
Greek pottery occurring in it, but also in accordance with recent
studies of the unpublished local wares at the site (Lehmann 1997;
Boardman 1999, 138).95 Bikai's study of the Phoenician pottery in
Cyprus, which she compares to sites on the mainland, leads her to
conclude that Level 8 at Al Mina belongs to the same chronological
phase as her "Kition" horizon (Bikai 1987, 67). This she dates to
"750? to after 700" (Bikai 1987, 69). A date somewhere in the 8th
century for Al Mina Level 8 is therefore most probable.
One BoR trefoil-lipped juglet has been published in the
preliminary report of the excavations at Tel Jezreel (Zimhoni 1997,
100, Fig. 12:5). While the juglet is in a stratified context, Area F in
which it appears is not discussed in the report. The juglet comes from
Locus 484, a room in the casemate wall, alongside a krater, a red-
slipped bowl and two cooking pots (Zimhoni 1997, 100). The
excavators date the destruction of Tel Jezreel provisionally to the
Aramaean conquest of the mid - 9th century, or to Jehu's revolt c. 842
BC (Ussishkin & Woodhead 1997, 70; cf. Na'aman 1997, 126-127).
The controversies surrounding the Iron Age chronology of this site
notwithstanding (see Section I, 89-91), a date in the 9th century for
BoR pottery at Tel Jezreel is plausible.
95
Examination of a sample of BoR pottery from Al Mina, presently located in the
Institute of Archaeology in London, suggests that s o m e of these wares may be non-
Cypriot and produced either in the Al Mina region or possibly in the area of Tarsus. The
bulk of the BoR pottery from the site - both coarse, possibly imitation BoR and finer,
certainly Cypriot ware - is labelled as Level 8. However, the labelling system
employed on acquisition of the pottery in the 1950s by the Institute of Archaeology
prevents identification of individual sherds and thereby assessment of their contexts.
Four BoR juglets were published from the cemetery site of Tell er-
Reqeish on the southern Levantine coast, excavated in 1940 (Culican
1973). These vessels are interred with cremated remains inside
storage jars (Culican 1973, 108, Figs. l : R l b , 2:R1 lb, 3:R13a, R16b).
Although Culican dates some pottery at the site to the 10th - 9th
centuries on the basis of parallels with the site of Tel Halif, the
cemetery is dated generally to c. 850 BC (Culican 1973, 99-100). The
finds from the site are "slightly confused" due to its early excavation
and the subsequent storage of the material during major political
upheaval in the region, but assessment of the range of wares interred
supports a date around this period (Culican 1973, 68, 81-95).
Conclusions
The survey of sites in Section II of this chapter suggests that there is

good evidence that BoR pottery is present on the mainland during the
9th century BC. There is also evidence that this ware occurs in the 8th
century, but its proportions in this later period are not easy to establish.
For example, it is noted in relatively large quantities in levels dated to
the 8th century which have not been fully published (such as at Tell
Keisan, Tel Kabri and Tell Kazel), in small quantities in the late
Megiddo strata, and in fragmentary form in late strata at Hazor. It is
notably absent from the tombs at Achziv which are dated by the
excavator from the 8th century onwards and it is also absent from the
8th century cemetery at 'Atlit (Mazar 1996, 21; Mazar, pers. comm;
Johns 1938, 133). BoR appears, however, inland at Hama in the
destruction level dated to 720 BC and in other strata which can be dated
to the second half of the 8th century, such as Tell el-Farah (N) Niv.
Vlld. Aside from the 7th century dates accorded BoR at Tell Keisan
and Tel Kabri, which may perhaps be too late, and small quantities of
the ware in Stratum III at Megiddo, BoR pottery does not appear to
have been present on the mainland during the 7th century BC.
The appearance of BoR pottery in the periods subsequent to those
established in this Chapter as Phase 1 can be defined here as Phase 2
and Phase 3, which can be taken as representing the 9th and 8th
century respectively. The results of the assessment of the chronology
of BoR at sites on the mainland were plotted on distribution maps in
order to determine whether there were any spatial differences between
them over time. Due to the generally less reliable stratigraphy of these
later levels, the less easily definable ceramic horizon of the latter
period of the pottery and in order to avoid artificial chronological
distinctions, Phases 2 and 3 of the pottery are plotted on the maps
together. (See Maps 19-24).
The evidence presented by these distribution maps suggests that
BoR had a more restricted geographical and quantitative distribution
in the later 9th and 8th centuries than in the period dated to the
10th/9th centuries. For example, little BoR pottery seems to be
present in the southern region of the Levant in Phases 2 and 3. An
exception is the pattern of a greater number of sites along the
Phoenician and Syrian coast showing BoR pottery in Phases 2 and 3
than in Phase 1. This may, however, be in part a reflection of the
general reliance of the excavators of Phoenician and Syrian sites on
Gjerstad's chronology of BoR ware, which restricts the initial date for
its appearance from the mid-9th century onwards. The accuracy of
Gjerstad's chronology is fully assessed in the following chapter.
Conversely, the especial interest taken by many excavators further
south in Israel in the late 10th - 9th century period, to which the
destruction of many possibly "Solomonic" structures are assigned,
may have encouraged particularly thorough excavation and
presentation of Phase 1 levels and a consequently greater quantity of
pottery published from this period. 96 In general, however, it seems
that the quantity of BoR pottery on the mainland appears to gradually
decrease after its first introduction in Phase 1. On present evidence,
therefore, the 'peak' period of BoR importation and circulation should
be placed within this initial phase, probably c. 925-880 BC. There may
have been subsequent 'spurts' of importation of the pottery in the later
period, as indicated by the late appearances of BoR at Tell Keisan and
Tel Kabri. The following Chapter Four examines the origin of BoR
pottery and the possibility that this ware was manufactured and
exported from Cyprus. An absolute chronology for the ware is
suggested at the end of Chapter Four.
96
For discussion of the issues surrounding S o l o m o n and the Iron A g e in Israel,
see eg. Ben-Tor 1999; Ben-Tor & B e n - A m i 1998; Dever 1990, 1997; Handy 1997;
Holladay 1990; Mazar 1997, 1998; Na'aman 1997; Ussishkin 1990 and Wightman
1990.
Phase 1 BoR Pottery
Rivers
Ukes
Land
Ocean
200 Kilometers
Map 19: Distribution of 'Phase V BoR Pottery in the Levant

• Phases 2 & 3 BoK pottery
V Rivers
• • lakes
J Land
—I Ocea η
200 Kilometers
Map 20: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Pottery in the Levant
Phase 1 BoR Juglets
Rivers
Lakes
Land
Ocean
200 Kilometers
Map 21: Distribution of 'Phase /' BoR Juglets in the Levant

Map 22: Distribution of 'Phase Ρ BoR Bowls in the Levant
Phases 2 & 3 BoR J uglets
Rivers
Iâkes
Land
Ocean
100 200 Kilometers
Map 23: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Juglets in the Levant
Phases 2 & 3 BoR Bowls
Rivers
I>akes
Land
Ocean
100 200 Kilometers
Map 24: Distribution of 'Phases 2 & 3' BoR Bowls in the Levant
CHAPTER FOUR
THE ORIGIN OF BoR POTTERY
This chapter investigates the issue of the origin of BoR pottery, in

terms both of its inspiration and its main place of manufacture.
Chapter Two concluded that the pattern of distribution of BoR pottery
corresponded well with a hypothetical Cypriot origin for the ware,
which would have entered the mainland Levantine coast probably at
several key points. The quantity of the pottery on the mainland and its
density of distribution in the coastal regions, as well as its
dissimilarity to local wares, suggested that the pottery was not a local
product. Chapter Three, however, established that there is substantial
evidence that BoR pottery was already occurring in the second half of
the 10th century at sites on the mainland Levant, most probably c.
950/925 BC onwards. This is at odds with the current chronology of
BoR pottery on Cyprus, which at present is dated only from the mid-
9th century onwards, c. 850 BC (Gjerstad 1948, 191, 427). This
chapter therefore investigates the origin of the pottery in the light of
these problems, reassesses the currently available evidence from
Cyprus and suggests a reconciliation of the two chronological trends.
While scientific testing of the pottery was not attempted in this project
due to financial and time constraints, results of previous scientific
tests on the wares are presented and discussed. It is, of course, hoped
that future scientific analysis will contribute to and ultimately confirm
the views proposed here.
Gjerstad and the Problem of the Origin of BoR

Einar Gjerstad's work on behalf of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, in
the first half of this century, remains to this day at the core of any
discussion of Cypriot Iron Age pottery. In 1948, Gjerstad published
Volume IV:2 of his Expedition report, which comprised a study of the
'Cypro-Geometric' to the 'Cypro-Classical' periods in Cyprus. This
involved the establishment of a full typology and chronology of
Cypriot Iron Age pottery types, including those types found on the
mainland Levant with which we are here concerned - BoR, White
Painted and Bichrome pottery. The magnitude of Gjerstad's task was
such that no serious attempts have been undertaken since 1948 to
wholly revise his chronological and typological scheme for the
Cypriot Iron Age.
Gjerstad's study proposed a relative and an absolute chronology
for the Cypriot wares. The relative chronology was based largely on
a seriation of tomb groups from different sites in Cyprus
(predominantly Amathus and Lapithos, in conjunction with the
stratified excavations at Kition) which were believed to correspond
with chronological horizons (Gjerstad 1948, 186). Gjerstad named
these Iron Age horizons Cypro-Geometric I-III, followed by Cypro-
Archaic I-II, with a sub-division of these groups into A and B. His
typology of the Iron Age pottery established a relational sequence of
appearance for these forms, so that BoR pottery which appeared in
some quantity in the third stage of White Painted and Bichrome
pottery development was termed BoR I (III), and was followed by
BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V). The sequential pottery types generally
corresponded with the chronological sequence for this period: Type I
forms dominating the horizons of Cypro-Geometric I Α-B, Type II
forms beginning to appear in Cypro-Geometric IIA, and continuing
until Cypro-Geometric IIIA, and Type III forms predominating in
Cypro-Geometric IIIB (Gjerstad 1948, 186-192).
Gjerstad's views on the origin of BoR pottery are at the root of the
controversies not only over this issue but also the broader aspect of
Iron Age chronology in the Eastern Mediterranean. Claiming that
BoR pottery first occurred as an imported 'foreign ware' to Cyprus
(Gjerstad 1948, 287), Gjerstad effectively laid the way open for the
establishment of different chronologies for the ware in Cyprus and the
mainland Levant. 1 This exclusivity has in turn affected the internal
chronologies of the two regions and, in its broadest context, hindered
the understanding of the nature of trade between Cyprus and its
eastern neighbours in the Iron Age. Persistent use by 'non-Cypriot'
1
This c o n s e q u e n c e w a s of course unintentional: as Tappy notes, "Gjerstad was
careful not to impose his chronology for native Cypriot ware on the picture in
Palestine" (Tappy 1992, 127). H o w e v e r , Gjerstad's insistence on an early non-
Cypriot B o R pottery defined by fabric alone (a flaking slip and a grey core) which
w a s never w h o l l y clear and consistently proved indistinguishable to other scholars,
inevitably encouraged a divergence o f scholarship on the subject. Gjerstad's claims
are discussed in detail later in the chapter.
scholars of Gjerstad's chronological scheme for Cypriot pottery found
at sites on the mainland Levant (and the application of these dates to
the sites as a whole) has simply ensured the longevity of the
chronological discrepancies of this region. 2 For these reasons,
Gjerstad's views regarding the origin of BoR pottery are worth
quoting here in full:
D u r i n g C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c I - II t h e S y r i a n p o t t e r y o f t h e Black-on-Red,
B i c h r o m e R e d , a n d R e d S l i p w a r e s is i m p o r t e d to C y p r u s , as w e h a v e s e e n .
It a p p e a r s in c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s w i t h o n l y o n e o r t w o s p e c i m e n s
o c c a s i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d in e a c h t o m b . It is a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t f r o m the
contemporary C y p r i o t e p o t t e r y ; there is n o c o n n e c t i o n between them,
n e i t h e r in s h a p e , n o r in d e c o r a t i o n . In C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c I-II this i m p o r t e d
S y r i a n p o t t e r y f o r m s l e s s than 2 % o f t h e total s u m o f pottery. In C y p r o -
G e o m e t r i c III the B l a c k - o n - R e d a n d R e d S l i p w a r e s a m o u n t to 2 1 . 5 % o f t h e
total s u m o f C y p r i o t e p o t t e r y ; in C y p r o - A r c h a i c I t h e s e w a r e s a n d t h e
B i c h r o m e R e d v a r i e t y i n c r e a s e in q u a n t i t y to 3 4 % a n d in C y p r o - A r c h a i c II
t o 3 6 % . It c a n n o t b e d o u b t e d that t h e s e w a r e s , f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f C y p r o -
G e o m e t r i c III, are C y p r i o t e . T h e i r c l a y a n d t e c h n i q u e are C y p r i o t e , a n d
differ from those of the corresponding Syrian wares. In shape and
d e c o r a t i o n there is a c o m b i n a t i o n o f C y p r i o t e a n d f o r e i g n e l e m e n t s , in the
s h a p e s w i t h a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f C y p r i o t e e l e m e n t s a n d in t h e d e c o r a t i o n a
p r e d o m i n a n c e o f foreign ornaments. T h e typical decoration, the concentric
c i r c l e s t y l e , i n t r u d e s e v e n u p o n t h e o r n a m e n t a l f i e l d o f the e a r l i e r C y p r i o t e
w a r e s , W h i t e P a i n t e d a n d B i c h r o m e , s o that an e n t i r e l y n e w C y p r i o t e s t y l e
o f p o t t e r y is c r e a t e d , m a r k e d b y an artistic s y n t h e s i s o f the C y p r i o t e a n d
f o r e i g n e l e m e n t s . T h e c e r a m i c c o n d i t i o n s are t h u s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f L a t e
C y p r i o t e III a n d the b e g i n n i n g o f C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c : w e h a v e r e a c h e d t h e
s t a g e in the r e l a t i o n s o f t w o c u l t u r e s w h e n their p r o d u c t s n o l o n g e r run
p a r a l l e l , but f o r m an o r g a n i c unit, a n d this s t a g e s e e m s t o arise w h e n a
f o r e i g n p e o p l e i m m i g r a t e s a n d c o a l e s c e s w i t h the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n . In
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the s u p p o s e d o r i g i n a l h o m e o f t h e earlier i m p o r t e d pottery,
it is indicated that the immigrating people came from Syria. The
i m m i g r a t i o n t o o k p l a c e at t h e v e r y e n d o f C y p r o - G e o m e t r i c III. W e shall s e e
h o w this a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e c a n b e c o m b i n e d w i t h , a n d e x p l a i n e d by,
historical events. (Gjerstad 1948, 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 ) .
Gjerstad therefore proposed that "a few specimens" of 'foreign'

BoR pottery first appeared in Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I A
(Gjerstad 1948, 186). 'Foreign' BoR pottery next occurs, again in tiny
quantities, in the Cypro-Geometric II Β horizon, but this time
alongside small quantities of BoR pottery Gjerstad believed to be
local to Cyprus (Gjerstad 1944, 99; 1948, 188, 189). By Cypro-
2
See Tappy 1992, 131-132.
Geometric III A, BoR pottery was well-established in the Cypriot
repertoire and occurs as 13.2% of the total pottery corpus of this
period. It continues to increase throughout Cypro-Geometric III Β
and Cypro-Archaic I A, and begins to decrease from Cypro-Archaic
II Β (11.3%) (Gjerstad 1948, 190-191, 196, 204).
Gjerstad's absolute dating for his Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-
Archaic periods is reliant largely on cross-parallels between Cypriot
wares in Cyprus and those found in sites elsewhere which are dated
by means, allegedly, independent from Cyprus. This system involved
the establishment of a relative chronology of his Cypriot pottery
styles, assessment of the stratified location of these 'identified' styles
in sites outside Cyprus (chiefly the mainland Levant) and then
attribution of the horizon into which the style falls in Cyprus to the
date of the strata in which they appear at these sites (Gjerstad 1948,
421-427). The accuracy of Gjerstad's scheme was therefore
dependent on three main factors:
1) Correct identification of pottery development within Cyprus, such

that the scheme of BoR I (III), BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V)
comprised a true chronological sequence.
2) Correct attribution of the miscellaneous sherds found at sites
outside Cyprus to the horizons created in (and for) Cyprus.
3) Reliable stratigraphy at the sites outside Cyprus with which this
pottery was investigated.
Gjerstad's typological scheme for the development of BoR
pottery is examined later in this chapter in order to assess the first
factor - the extent to which the sequence holds true for well-
stratified sites on the mainland. With regard to the second factor,
while Gjerstad's attribution of BoR pottery on the mainland to the
typological categories for Cyprus may have been conducted with an
expert eye, subsequent scholars lacking Gjerstad's extensive
knowledge of Cypriot wares were likely to make errors in their
assessment, and over-reliance on this method was bound to lead to
erroneous dating. The third factor, however, Gjerstad's use of
evidence from sites in the mainland Levant to provide dates for the
chronological horizons he proposes for Cyprus, is clearly
problematic. As seen in Chapter Three, assessment of the
chronology of stratified sites on the mainland is still uncertain
today, but in 1948 it was especially so, due to the scarcity of well-
excavated (and published) sites available to scholars. Gjerstad was
also forced to rely to a large extent on evidence from tombs at sites
such as Tell Fara (S) and Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish) (Gjerstad 1948,
422-423). As these tombs were commonly re-used over several
generations, they are not closed contexts. Gjerstad's use of scarabs
to date several of these tombs was also problematic (Gjerstad 1948,
421-427).
Gjerstad's absolute chronology dated Cypro-Geometric I from c.
1050 BC to c. 950 BC, Cypro-Geometric II from c. 950 BC to 850 BC,
Cypro-Geometric III from c. 850 BC to c. 700 BC, Cypro-Archaic I
from c. 700 BC to c. 600 BC, and Cypro-Archaic II from c. 600 to c.
475 BC (Gjerstad 1948, 427). Gjerstad's conclusion that BoR pottery
proper appeared in Cyprus only after about c. 850 BC conflicts with
the date which we have established with a reasonable degree of
certainty for the earliest BoR on the mainland - the second half of
the 10th century BC onwards (see Chapter Three). An assessment of
the extent to which Gjerstad's dates have undergone revision in
recent years and the possibility of reassessing the accuracy of his
chronological scheme today is therefore not only crucial to
resolution of the problem of BoR pottery's origin; but also has
important implications for the general history of the Eastern
Mediterranean at this time.
This chapter therefore examines:
1 ) The present state of research on the chronology of Cyprus.
2) The extent to which Gjerstad's views on the chronological
development of BoR pottery can be supported by evidence from
sites on the mainland.
3) Alternative possibilities to Gjerstad's view on the origin of BoR.
Within this last section the evidence for the appearance of BoR
pottery within Cyprus is examined and, independent of Gjerstad's
views, the earliest possible date that the pottery might have been in
production in Cyprus is established. A hypothesis for the process of
development of BoR pottery on the island is then put forward. Finally,
a means of reconciliation between the different chronologies of BoR
pottery in the mainland Levant and on Cyprus is suggested.
Post-Gjerstad - Reassessments
As noted above, Gjerstad's typology and his chronology of Cypriot
pottery are still, to a large extent, in current use. The massive task of
undertaking a wholly new typological study of Cypriot Iron Age
pottery is not likely to be attempted until new discoveries from
stratified sites in Cyprus can aid such a reclassification. 3 Gjerstad's
chronological and typological scheme has, however, attracted
considerable attention in the intervening years.
In 1951, a scholar based in Palestine, Gus Van Beek, published a
short article discussing Gjerstad's chronological scheme. Here he
observed that Gjerstad's dates for Cypriot pottery did not agree with
those proposed for the levels in which it occurs on the mainland
Levant, specifically at Palestinian sites, and he suggested an overall
raising of Gjerstad's chronology. Thus he raised the beginning of
Cypro-Geometric I to 1100 BC, suggested that Cypro-Geometric II
was merely a "transitional phase" belonging to the late 11th century,
and dated Cypro-Geometric III from the end of the 11th century
throughout the 10th century, and Cypro-Archaic I from the late 10th
century throughout the 9th century (Van Beek 1951, 27). Most
importantly, Van Beek observed that Gjerstad's 'Cypriot' and 'non-
Cypriot' categories of BoR pottery were one and the same, and that in
dating his Cypriot category so low, Gjerstad had been "forced to deny
the Cypriot origin of the juglets which are found in almost every 11th
- 10th century site in Palestine, although most of these are identical in
form and decoration with those found in Cyprus" (Van Beek 1951,
27). Examination of evidence from sites on the mainland (in Chapters
One and Three) established that placing BoR pottery in the 11th
century is unsustainable, and consequently that Van Beek's
chronology is too high. However, his observation that Gjerstad's view
on the origin of BoR had little supporting evidence is still valid today:
"After scores of excavations in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and the
remaining Mediterranean areas, although Black-on-Red is frequently
encountered, in no area has it been so numerous as to suggest that it
was native to that area. It is still far more abundant in Cyprus than in
any other area of the Near East" (Van Beek 1951, 27-28).
In 1953, a correspondence between Gjerstad and Albright was
3
This is itself hindered by the fact that many settlement sites from this period in
Cyprus have been continuously occupied until modern times, making excavation
difficult.
published in ajournai article, in which Albright encouraged Gjerstad to
raise his dates for native BoR pottery in Cyprus to c. 925 BC (Gjerstad
1953, 22). In reply, Gjerstad reiterated his belief that non-Cypriot BoR
pottery was appearing in small quantities in Cyprus from Cypro-
Geometric I (which he dated c. 1050-950 BC) and still as a tiny
percentage in Cypro-Geometric II (c. 950-850 BC). He restates that the
"ceramic phenomenon" of native Cypriot BoR pottery began only in
the period of Cypro-Geometric III (c. 850-700) (Gjerstad 1953, 22-23,
25). He even continues that in its first stage "it seems unlikely that this
pottery should have been imported from Cyprus, where it is extremely
rare, to Palestine, where it was much more common" (Gjerstad 1953,
24). In support of his view, Gjerstad points out that the concentric circle
ornamentation characteristic of BoR pottery does not appear on Cypriot
White Painted and Bichrome wares until the stage he believes BoR
pottery becomes locally made, when similar motifs appear on all three
pottery types. Thus the 'artistic isolation' of this BoR motif is indicative
that the pottery was originally a foreign introduction (Gjerstad 1953,
24). Gjerstad briefly discusses the problem of BoR pottery found in
levels dated earlier than those he assigns the 'Cypriot' version of the
ware in Cyprus and recognises that this could affect his chronology. He
states: "//the [BoR vases found at Megiddo in Stratum VA-IVB] can be
proved to be of Cypriote provenance and if Megiddo IVB-VA cannot be
dated later than 950-918 BC, we shall have to revise the chronology of
Cypro-Geometric II" (Gjerstad 1953, 26).
In 1958, Gustavus Swift published the pottery of the 'Amuq region
in Syria and included some comments on Gjerstad's view that BoR
pottery originated on the mainland Levant. He notes "there is no doubt
that Gjerstad's theory is logically a possible one, but I would go so far
as to say that it does not seem inherently probable. It would require,
first, that the centre of manufacture of Black-on-Red ware should shift,
suddenly and without apparent explanation, from the mainland to
Cyprus, and second, that certain pottery types, such as the small
handle-ridge jar with round body and concentric-circle decoration,
should have a life-span of at least three centuries. Both of these points
seem to place a strain upon credulity." 4 (Swift 1958, 160). Like Van
4
S w i f t ' s suggestion that the BoR juglet type could not have survived three
centuries m a y not be correct. There is considerable e v i d e n c e that this shape continued
in popularity in the later Iron A g e beyond Cyprus, in the D o d e c a n e s e islands and
Crete. The latter stages of B o R pottery are fully assessed in Chapter Five.
Beek before him, Swift apparently recognised that there was no
significant difference between the BoR pottery found on the mainland
and that in Cyprus. He also noted the problems of Van Beek's high
chronology. He states that "early sporadic occurrences of Black-on-
Red ware in Cyprus are matched only by equally sporadic early
occurrences of it in Palestine, 5 and while a slight upward adjustment of
Gjerstad's dates may be in order, such a large change as Van Beek
proposes seems, in the face of the substantial evidence of the Swedish
Cyprus Expedition, to raise more difficulties than it removes. In fact,
some of the evidence cited by Van Beek in trying to raise Cypriote
dates seems in need of correction. Correspondingly, a reasonable
reduction of Palestinian chronology in the neighbourhood of the
eleventh and tenth centuries, such as I have implied by placing the
beginning of phase Ο at ca. 950 B.C. is not out of the question." (Swift
1958, 161). Swift noted that BoR pottery did not appear in his first
phase, Oa, however, and suggested that Gjerstad's dating of the ware
in Cyprus to the 9th century may have been correct (Swift 1958, 161).
In 1963, Judy Birmingham presented a revision of the chronology
of Cyprus in an important article, which came to represent the main
challenge to Gjerstad's views for the latter part of the century
(Birmingham 1963). Birmingham argued that Gjerstad and the
Swedish Cyprus Expedition's chronology for the Cypriot Iron Age was
too low and that it had consequently obscured the cultural
homogeneity between the mainland Levant and Cyprus in the Iron Age
(Birmingham 1963, 15). She observed, as had Van Beek, that
Gjerstad's dates for some pottery types were later than the dates
proposed for the same pottery on the mainland Levant, but also that
Gjerstad's typological sequence for Cypriot pottery was in some cases
incorrect. On the basis, therefore, of Cypriot pottery, combined with
the evidence of artefacts and tomb architecture found at stratified sites
on the mainland, Birmingham presented a revised chronology for Iron
Age Cyprus, which she divided into Early Iron (1050-900), Middle
Iron (900-600), and Late Iron (600-HelIenistic) (Birmingham 1963,
15). This new synchronised scheme emphasised the strong cultural
connections she believed had existed between the mainland and
Cyprus from the late 10th century onwards. She concluded: "Whether
5
N o t e h o w e v e r that the initial appearance o f B o R pottery on the mainland, as
seen in Chapter Three, w a s not "sporadic:" rather its most consistent appearance w a s
within 'Phase Γ (Maps 19-24).
there was actual immigration or merely very strong trade contact
between the two regions, Cyprus must be considered part of a
homogeneous Cypro-Levantine cultural province from ca. 925 to ca.
600, as shown by fibulae and other metal types, sculpture, architecture
as well as pottery, and there can be no further question of a
chronological discrepancy between the two" (Birmingham 1963, 42).
Birmingham's conclusions are, in the opinion of this writer,
essentially correct. However, in 1963 the stratified evidence from the
mainland available to her, although increased since 1948, was still
minimal. She also relied on the dating of the stratified sites on the
mainland put forward by her contemporaries. Although not
subscribing to Van Beek's ultra-high chronology, she nevertheless
accepted contemporary opinion that BoR pottery was present on the
mainland "early in the tenth century" (Birmingham 1963, 32). She
suggested, however, that this ware joined the Cypriot repertoire in
Cyprus only in c. 925 BC, where it then "increased in volume during
the ninth century" (Birmingham 1963, 40). Due to this chronological
discrepancy, she was seemingly forced to assume, as had Gjerstad,
that the origins of BoR lay in the mainland Levant. She states: "it is
quite clear that all the types selected, with the probable exception of
the early Red Slip wares and the later BoR shapes, were first
manufactured on the Levantine coast and then widely copied in a
variety of Cypriot fabrics" (Birmingham 1963, 24-25).
Birmingham's work was generally perspicacious. First, she was
alone in noting that Gjerstad's typological sequence of Cypriot
pottery types was inaccurate when tested against sites on the
mainland. Some of Gjerstad's Type II pottery forms appeared in fact
to be contemporary with Type I pottery forms (Birmingham 1963,
40). Birmingham therefore advocated an adjustment of the dates of
Gjerstad's typological categories, "essential if the typology is to
remain in use," as well as a reassessment of the sequence of types
(Birmingham 1963, 40). She proposed a general scheme of
development of BoR pottery, with certain types appearing throughout
the period of BoR production, other types, seldom found on the
mainland, appearing in Cyprus only in the later end of the BoR
sequence (eg. the miniature BoR amphora shape). The implications of
this particular observation are crucial for our investigation of the
nature of trade between island and mainland: the appearance on the
mainland of only the earlier BoR pottery types suggests that trade
between Cyprus and the mainland may have terminated (or lessened)
in the latter stages of BoR production, rather than constituting a
selective trade in BoR pottery throughout its currency on Cyprus. The
apparent transference of Cypriot trading interests from east to west is
discussed in Chapter Five. The BoR pottery types Birmingham
investigated are incorporated into the discussion of these wares later
in this chapter.
Second, Birmingham noted that BoR pottery seems to have
appeared in the Cypriot repertoire on Cyprus after the introduction and
development of early Red Slip pottery types (Birmingham 1963, 28).
This has important implications for the development of BoR pottery
itself and is discussed later in the chapter. Third, she notes that barrel-
juglets in White Painted and Bichrome precede the introduction of BoR
pottery on the mainland, a conclusion which is supported by the present
research (Birmingham 1963, 40; see Chapter Two).
Birmingham's research was therefore crucial in illuminating some
of the more vexing problems arising from Gjerstad's study, and
pointing a way forward for future study on the chronology of Iron Age
Cyprus. However, her important article was not developed into a
major published study, and therefore never broke the back of
Gjerstad's scholarly and tidily-arranged typological research. The
chief result of her article was, unfortunately, simply to allow scholars
based in the mainland Levant to support their dating of BoR pottery
at mainland sites in the 10th century, in certain cases in the first half
of the 10th century, with "new" and "revised" evidence from Cyprus
(eg. Stern 1978, 56; Hunt 1987, 202).
Post Birmingham - Origin of BoR

Research on BoR pottery since Birmingham's work in 1963 has been
limited. The origin of the ware has generally been investigated from
two angles - educated hypotheses on the pottery's evolution and
scientific testing of the material.
In 1968, Frieda Vandenaheele published an article discussing the
"civilisation d'Amathonte" at the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric
period (Vandenabeele 1968). Defining three different stylistic groups
of BoR at Amathus, she proposed that the burnished type of BoR
pottery was of Phoenician origin, while the other non-burnished
pottery was manufactured in Cyprus (Vandenabeele 1968, 107-112).
She believed that the dominance of the juglet form in this ware set it
apart and that it was part of a Phoenician commercial enterprise in
distributing perfumed oil (Vandenabeele 1968, 108).
In 1983, Patricia Bikai published the eastern imports at the site of
Palaepaphos-Skales in Cyprus. She noted a "previously unrecognized
family of pottery" which she designated "Red Ware," and suggested
that the type, which she dates approximately to the late 11th - 10th
centuries (Bikai 1983, 405), was possibly the inspiration for BoR:
"The heavy red slip on these pieces, as well as their shapes, point to
mainland manufacture but there is something about the thin black-line
décor on these particular pieces that points to the later development of
Cypriote Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 402). Vassos Karageorghis, in
the same publication, remarks on the BoR (and Bichrome Red)
pottery found at Palaepaphos-Skales: "the Skales material helps to
trace the development of these two wares from their inception, which
should be placed earlier than hitherto believed, and to ascertain their
derivation from Near-Eastern prototypes" (Karageorghis 1983, 374).
Aside from this possible general Phoenician influence on BoR, Bikai
observes that the excavation of quantities of Phoenician pottery at
Tyre indicates that "Cypriote Black-on-Red was clearly an alien
element in this group, i.e. clearly an import." She states that "this
writer has always been mystified by the suggestion that Black-on-Red
is Phoenician" (Bikai in Coldstream 1988, 37).
Robert Koehl in the publication of the site of Sarepta in 1985, also
subscribed to the theory of a Phoenician inspiration for BoR pottery,
although within a low chronological framework: "Opinions differ on
the origin of this ware, its date of inception and diffusion, and
provenience of the numerous examples found in Cyprus and the
Levant. The style seems to have emerged first on the Phoenician coast
in a fairly coarse fabric, related in its clay, slip, and forms, to the local
and more common Red Slip Ware. At the time of the Phoenician
expansion on Cyprus, sometime in the 9th century, it was adopted by
Cypriote potters and emerged finally as a hybrid ware, fusing
Phoenician forms and decorative elements with indigenous Cypriote
forms, motifs, and technology" (Koehl 1985, 48).
Current opinion remains uncommitted to the theory of a Cypriot
origin for BoR pottery, and the belief persists that the ware had several
contemporary places of manufacture or that it originated in the Carmel
region of the Israeli coast (Stern 1978, 62; Mazar 1985, 82 n.220; Tappy
1992, 129). The most recent detailed study of BoR pottery is
represented by the work of Brodie and Steel, who published an
archaeometric study of the ware in 1996 (discussed fully below). Here
the authors suggest that "BoR juglets were first made in imitation of the
Phoenician heavy walled juglet which they ultimately supplanted, with
the black-on-red decoration passing over to other Cypriot pot forms"
(Brodie & Steel 1996, 274). They conclude that "although the initial
stimulus for manufacture of Black-on-Red ware was probably provided
by imported Phoenician pottery, it was a Cypriot product... there are
important chronological implications of these findings but they lie
beyond the scope of the present study" (Brodie & Steel 1996, 276).
Post Birmingham - Chronology of Cyprus

Little attempt has been made to tackle the chronological problems
inherent in the question of the origin of BoR.
Two studies of the pottery of Amathus have, however, reiterated
Birmingham's concerns over Gjerstad's chronological scheme.
Vandenabeele's study of the pottery of Amathus observes briefly the
problems of Gjerstad's chronology of BoR (Vandenabeele 1968, 111
n.2). More recently, Christiane Tytgat drew attention to these
discrepancies in her 1989 publication of the tombs at Amathus. She
observes that the dates provided by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition
are "aujourd'hui unanimement considérée comme trop basse" and
comments: "En fait, nous préférons voir dans la discordance entre la
date avancée pour la céramique chypriote et celle proposée pour les
vases importés, un élément de plus en faveur d'une révision du
système de classement et de chronologie établi par la SCE" (Tytgat
1979, 749; cf. 1989, 21; 1995, 181).
The preliminary report of the first seasons of the American
Expedition to Idalion (1971-1972) also commented upon Gjerstad's
chronological scheme. The excavators address the problem of the
apparently drastic reduction in settlements on the island from the 11th
century to the 9th century. They suggest that if "it can be shown that
Cypro-Geometric I-II occupied merely a short span in the 11th - 10th
century and was immediately followed by the greater prosperity of
the Cypro-Geometric III, then the so-called Dark Age is largely
eliminated" (Stager, Walker & Wright 1974, 5). However, subsequent
excavations at Idalion, restricted by the location of the site in the post-
1974 military zone, did not uncover early Iron Age phases with which
to test this hypothesis (see 269).
In 1987, Patricia Bikai published a study of the Phoenician pottery
found on Cyprus. Here she defined four chronological 'horizons' for
this pottery (Bikai 1987, 62). Like Gjerstad, these horizons were
based on tomb groups in Cyprus, with the exception of Phoenician
material from the newly-excavated site of Kition (Bikai 1987, 50). A
relative chronology was established by assessment of the dominant
Phoenician wares in a series of tombs and horizons labelled according
to the site that "best represented" them: the earliest was the 'Kouklia'
horizon, followed by the 'Salamis' horizon, the 'Kition' horizon and
the 'Amathus' horizon (Bikai 1987, 62). Bikai then compared this
relative chronology for Cyprus with evidence from sites on the
mainland (as well as Gjerstad's chronological scheme) and proposed
a - fairly speculative - absolute chronology, in which she dated the
'Kouklia' horizon c. 1050 - 850, the 'Salamis' horizon c. 850 - 750,
the 'Kition' horizon c. 750 - 'after 700', and the 'Amathus' horizon
from 'after 700 to 'after 600' (Bikai 1987, 68-69).
Despite the erudition of Bikai's study, the nomenclature of her
horizons, which is confusingly non-chronological (and hence not self-
explanatory), 6 and her complex presentation of data has hindered its
usefulness. Bikai's partial reliance on Gjerstad's dating for her absolute
chronology (eg. Bikai 1987, 69) also perpetuates the problems of the
absolute dating of this period, despite her recognition that "no attempt
to relate Phoenician ceramic chronology to Palestinian, Cypriote, or
Greek chronologies is called for at this time" (Bikai 1987,48). In terms
of absolute chronology, therefore, Bikai's scheme is ultimately no more
satisfactory than that of Gjerstad - nor is it intended to be a replacement.
However, her contribution to the relative chronology of the Iron Age
pottery of Cyprus is substantial. Her observations on the broad periods
covered by Phoenician pottery in Cyprus, particularly the correlations
between early levels at mainland sites and tomb groups in Cyprus, is
important for consideration of the earliest appearance of BoR pottery in
Cyprus. Bikai's observations are therefore incorporated into the
discussion of this issue later in the chapter.
Within Cyprus, the standard current chronology for the Iron Age
still closely follows Gjerstad. The dates provided by Vassos
6
N o t e also Merrillees' c o m m e n t s on c o n f u s i o n s caused by the introduction of
geographical terms into aspects o f pottery studies: "ware titles should be based on
visible features and, as a corollary, not incorporate nonintrinsic aspects, such as
geographic or topographical terms" (Merrillees 1991, 238).
Karageorghis in his work on the Iron Age figurines of Cyprus raise
Gjerstad's division of the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic
periods by fifty years: Karageorghis places Cypro-Geometric II c. 950
- 850 BC, Cypro-Geometric III c. 850 - 750 BC, Cypro-Archaic I c. 750
- 600 BC, and Cypro-Archaic II c. 600-475 BC (Karageorghis 1993, x).
This chronology is generally in current use.
The Scientific Contribution

The application of scientific methods to the problem of BoR pottery,
as various techniques were developed over the last fifty years, offered
the possibility of resolution of this issue. As a consequence of several
factors, however, the scientific contribution to the debate has not
proved conclusive. The chief problems with the studies discussed
below for the purposes of answering the question of BoR, have been
the extreme paucity of samples investigated and the presentation of
the results. In all cases, the pottery samples tested are not illustrated
and are seldom described. 7 Even in the most detailed studies the
sherds chosen for analysis are not recorded by original site number
(Matthers et al. 1983; Brodie & Steel 1996). This prevents the
archaeologist with experience of the range of different BoR ware
types from re-assessing the significance of each sherd - such as, for
example, when an obviously non-Cypriot 'locally-made' sherd is
included in the sample and tested as true Cypriot BoR. 8 In addition,
the sherds chosen for testing are seldom from well-stratified levels
and therefore provide no chronological framework within which the
results can be interpreted. This is, in general, a reflection of lack of
co-ordination between analyst and archaeologist.
The main scientific techniques used in these analyses, NAA and
AAS (neutron activation analysis and atomic absorption
7
T h e e x c e p t i o n s are the B o R sherds tested from Tyre which are illustrated in a
(very hazy) photograph; one B o R b o w l fragment is illustrated by line-drawing
(Bieber 1978, 90, N o . T C I 3 ) .
8
This is especially the case with a site such as AL Mina, included in t w o o f the
B o R studies, which has t w o visually distinctive B o R ware types and is likely to have
been linked with an 'imitation' B o R source s o m e w h e r e in the region of south-east
modern Turkey (including probably Tarsus) (see end of chapter, 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 ) . A clear
e x a m p l e of so-called B o R pottery tested as B o R and not surprisingly found to be of
mainland origin is from T o m b 2 0 2 at Tel Fara (S) (Ε.VII.85/12), which is distinctly
of n o n - B o R appearance; see b e l o w 2 3 8 ) . Boardman also observes the " c o m m o n
fault" of inaccurate selections and inadequate descriptions in scientific analyses
(Boardman 1999, 149).
spectrometry) could also usefully be supplemented by studies of
the paint pigments on BoR and White Painted wares (eg. with
scanning electron microscopy, X-ray florescence and X-ray
diffraction) which could help elucidate the provenance of the
materials, and gas chromatography with which to analyse trace
elements of the original contents of the closed vessels. Although
there are numerous problems involved in the testing of organic
materials, in particular the effects of microbiological action on the
chemical composition of buried fats (Jones 1986, 843), this
technique has been successfully applied to Corinthian aryballoi
(Biers, Gerhardt & Braniff 1994; see Chapter Two, 68). The
relatively frequent presence of whole BoR vessels in tombs lends
itself to these studies.
In 1978, BoR (and White Painted) pottery from the site of Tel
Mevorakh was analysed by neutron activation analysis at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 86-94).
The unreliability of the stratigraphy of this site has been
demonstrated in Chapter Three, largely obviating the possibility of
obtaining chronological data on the site's connection with Cyprus.
Of the four White Painted sherds analysed, none is illustrated in
the site report. As the White Painted pottery tested similar to other
wares from Cyprus, however, the authors reasonably suggested
"an eastern Cypriot origin" (Yellin & Perlman 1978, 88). None of
the sherds of the BoR pottery are illustrated. The database of
Cypriot wares with which the Mevorakh pottery was compared
comprised only pottery from the later Iron Age in Cyprus, from
Amathus, Marion and Idalion. 9 The results of the NAA were not
tested by the clustering method 1 0 but by straightforward
comparison, element for element, between the tested materials.
The authors concluded that while "many were of the same
compositional pattern as that of the Mevorakh material," a better
match could be found by testing the BoR against a combination of
Cypriot clays, and they proposed that the Mevorakh BoR pottery
originated probably also in Eastern Cyprus (Yellin & Perlman
9
The B o R pottery from the site Tel Mevorakh has not been proven to belong to
the 10th century B C ( s e e Chapter Three), and it may therefore have been
contemporary with the samples o f 'later' Cypriot pottery with which it is compared
(Yellin & Perlman 1978, 86). It is indeed likely, however, to have been earlier than
the 7th century BC.
10
S e e Matthers et al ( 1 9 8 3 , 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 ) for a brief description of this method.
1978, 89-90)." These NAA results are not, therefore, by any
means conclusive, but they do not militate against the possibility
of a Cypriot origin for BoR pottery.
In 1977, Alan Bieber submitted a PhD dissertation based on neutron
activation analyses on Cypriot ceramics (Bieber 1989; Jones 1986,531-
533). His analysis of pottery from Tyre was published in 1978 as part
of Bikai's excavation report (Bieber 1978). Bieber's PhD study focused
on assessment of the Iron Age trade between Idalion and the rest of
Cyprus, with samples taken from a range of sites on the island including
Amathus, Kition, Salamis and Lapithos (Jones 1986, 531; Bieber
1989). This study attempted to test four chief hypotheses, including the
question of the origin of BoR (Jones 1986, 612-613). Bieber's results
suggested that of six BoR sherds from Tyre, five were compositionally
similar to BoR from Cyprus, and one was similar to groups from
Palestine (Bieber 1978, 88; 1989, 369). He concluded that BoR could
have been made simultaneously on the mainland and in Cyprus in the
Cypro-Archaic period, which had possible "implications for the
reconstruction of Cypriot Iron Age cultural history" (Bieber 1989, 369).
Bieber's methodology was heavily criticised (Jones 1986, 612-
613). Matthers (see below) subsequently ran a clustering programme
on Bieber's results and concluded that Bieber's samples clustered
with his 'Syria' group, and that there was "no evidence at all to
support Bieber's tentative suggestion that the Tyre samples originated
from Cyprus" (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). Jones also reassessed
Bieber's results and suggested that they indicated an origin in
Palestine (Jones 1986, 533).' 2
In 1983, another programme of NAA was enlisted to determine the
origin of BoR (Matthers et al 1983). This was more comprehensive
than its predecessors and analysed the neutron activation results with
two different clustering methods in order to determine whether there
were several places of manufacture of the ware. Eleven samples of
BoR were taken from unknown sites in Cyprus (from the Cesnola
collection), 21 from sites in Palestine, and 26 from sites in Syria.
Most of the vessels tested were juglets. The cluster analysis
11
N o t e that the authors also found that neither the BoR ware from Cyprus itself
nor that from Tel Mevorakh "had any compositional resemblance to the large
numbers of Cypriot pottery o f other styles which had been analysed" (Yellin &
Perlman 1978, 89).
12
The pottery included in the 'control' Palestine group is not specified, but was
tested by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, N e w York and could not be verified here.
conducted on the element concentrations of the wares produced six
clusters, which the authors named Palestine A and B, Syria, and
Cyprus A, Β and C (Matthers et al. 1983, 372). Grouping 1 (Palestine
A) included BoR from Tel Fara (S), Tell Jemmeh, Hazorea, Samaria,
and Lachish; Grouping 2 (Palestine B) included Lachish, Tell el-
Ajjul, and Tell el-Hesi; Grouping 3 (Syria) included Tabbat
al-Hammam, Chatal Hüyiik, Judeidah, Tell Tayinat, Rifa'at, and Al
Mina; Grouping 4 (Cyprus A) included Tabbat-al-Hammam, Chatal
Hüyiik, Cyprus, Tell Tayinat, and Rifa'at; Grouping 5 (Cyprus B)
included Tabbat al-Hammam, Chatal Hüyiik and Cyprus; and
Grouping 6 (Cyprus C) included only Al Mina.
The authors conclude from their results, first, that there was more
than one place of manufacture of BoR (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). This
is not surprising and not incompatible also with several places of
manufacture in Cyprus. Second, they conclude that approximately half
of the BoR samples from sites in Syria were directly compatible with
samples from Cyprus, and that all the BoR juglets tested from Syria
were in this group, indicating a trade in BoR juglets from Cyprus to
Syria (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). The authors suggest that BoR bowls
were not part of this trade, but it should be noted that only five open
forms were tested altogether from Cyprus. Third, cluster analysis
defined a group of BoR juglets from Al Mina which was "distinctively
different to the rest of the Cyprus samples" but yet, on the basis of the
element analysis, were of "Cypriot rather than Syrian origin" (Matthers
et al. 1983, 378). Fourth, a 'Syrian' group was defined, including the
pottery from the 'Amuq sites, which contained open forms only and did
not match any of the other groups. The 'Palestine' groups were separate
from the 'Syrian,' suggesting different places of manufacture for the
BoR pottery at sites in the southern Levant (Matthers et al. 1983, 378). 13
The authors suggest that the Palestine groups were made at different
times to one another - this is a reasonable suggestion, although not
especially indicated by the analysis results.
In general, therefore, Matthers' study provided a useful indicator of
a Cypriot connection with BoR trade in juglets, and the likelihood of
different places of manufacture for BoR pottery. A mainland
manufacturing centre remains a possibility. The authors note,
however, that the Syrian group "is distinguished from the Palestine
13
Note the error: the samples from Tel Fara (S) fit all into the group Palestine A,
not Β as stated (Matthers et al. 1983, 3 7 3 , 378).
and Cyprus groups not so much by large differences in any individual
element, but by small differences in practically all of them" (Matthers
et al. 1983, 377). It is possible that this group, rather than representing
'local imitations' of Cypriot BoR on the mainland, was instead simply
from a Cypriot source not represented in Matthers' small sample
group of unknown provenance (cf. Brodie & Steel 1996, 271).
'Locally-made' BoR from the mainland Levant is likely to have been
of significantly different elemental composition to the main groups of
BoR, as local red-slipped wares were shown to be in Brodie & Steel's
study (see below). Unfortunately the BoR pottery in Matthers'
analysis was not tested against known local wares.
An analysis of BoR pottery from the Knossos North Cemetery
using atomic absorption spectrometry was conducted in Athens by
D.J. Liddy and published in 1996 in the Knossos excavation report
(Liddy 1996, 481-489). Liddy's results showed evidence of one
composition group of BoR which included pottery found at Knossos,
at Palaepaphos-Skales and at Al Mina, suggesting that Palaepaphos-
Skales was likely to be a source for all these samples (Liddy 1996,
488). Two examples of so-called BoR pottery from Tel Fara (S) which
Liddy's analysis suggested were manufactured at Tell el-Ajjul were
examined by this author and found to be clearly local imitations, of
similar ware to local vessels from Ajjul and not to be confused with
true BoR (Liddy 1996, 495 (Group Y)). 14
Brodie and Steel's AAS analysis (1996) was the completion of
Liddy's project, and was specifically aimed at determining the origin of
BoR pottery. This study attempted to correct the omissions of previous
studies by selecting a large sample size from Cyprus (158 BoR and 109
White Painted sherds), and include mainland 'control' pottery.
However, as the authors note, the sample size from the mainland Levant
both of BoR pottery and of local wares was small (29 BoR sherds from
three sites, and 10 local red-slipped pottery sherds) (Brodie & Steel
1996, 264). In addition, none of the Levantine sites chosen (Tel Fara
(S), Tell el-Ajjul and Al Mina) are well-stratified.
The results of this study were, first, that all the BoR pottery tested
appeared chemically dissimilar to the local red slip pottery tested as a
control group but of "similar geochemistry" to one another, indicating
14
Vessel numbers: E.VII.33/5 from Tel Fara (S) Tomb 241 (barrel-juglet),
Ε.VII.85/12 from Tel Fara (S) Tomb 2 0 2 (handle-ridge juglet). (Vessel location:
Institute of Archaeology, London).
a similar origin (Brodie & Steel 1996, 267). 15 Second, the authors
suggested that the BoR pottery found on the mainland clustered most
closely with BoR pottery tested from the sites of Amathus and
Kourion on the south coast of Cyprus, and with Sia, a small site
inland. A sub-cluster identified an association between the BoR
pottery from Kouklia (Palaepaphos-Skales) and Kition (sites at some
distance from each other, indicating the possibility of internal Cypriot
trade) (Brodie & Steel 1996, 269). The authors attempt to associate
the BoR pottery from the Levantine sites with the clusters appearing
around BoR from Cypriot sites (BoR from Al Mina with
Kouklia/Kition and BoR from Ajjul and Fara with Amathus/Kourion),
but the Levantine sample is too small and the Cypriot clusters too
general to be wholly convincing (Brodie & Steel 1996, 269-271).
Lastly, as noted in Chapter Two, Brodie and Steel identified two
'fabric groups' within the BoR samples from sites on the mainland
and on Cyprus, a calcareous and a non-calcareous fabric (Brodie &
Steel 1996, 268). BoR in both fabric types is present in both Cyprus
and in the Levant, but some distinction could be drawn: 16 out of 19
of the Ajjul/Fara BoR samples were non-calcareous; 8 out of 9 of the
Al Mina BoR samples were calcareous (Brodie & Steel 1996, 268).
All White Painted and Bichrome pottery, with one exception, was
composed of calcareous clay (Brodie & Steel 1996, 272). As noted in
Chapter Two, the authors suggest that the use of non-calcareous clay
for BoR juglets, which was anomalous to the preceding tradition of
fineware ceramic production, enabled greater vitrification of the
fabric in the kiln and therefore the creation of a less porous vessel. 16
In the absence of a broad-scale scientific programme dedicated to the
resolution of this issue, Brodie & Steel's study represents the most
convincing of the scientific contributions to the problem of BoR.
'Deconstructing' Gjerstad
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Gjerstad's views on the
origin of BoR pottery hinged on his belief that the earliest BoR was
foreign - and markedly different - to BoR in the Cypriot repertoire
15
Cf. Matthers' results ( 1 9 8 3 , 377).
16
S e e e g . Jones 1986, 7 5 1 - 7 5 7 for discussion of the firing process. Briefly, iron
oxide is more abundant in a non-calcareous clay than a calcareous: this oxide acts as
a 'flux' during firing, lowering the temperature range for vitrification of the clay. The
presence of calcium in a clay inhibits the vitrification process.
(Gjerstad 1948, 287). It is highly likely that Gjerstad was partly
forced into his conclusions by his contemporaries' extremely high
dating of BoR on the mainland. A footnote comments: "The vexed
problem as regards the origin of BoR ware is discussed below, p. 270,
n. 1, where it is shown that there are two groups of BoR, one of which
is of non-Cypriote origin. This is proved by chronological evidence,
and to some extent by technical and typological evidence..."(my
italics) (1948, 240). His belief has nevertheless persisted, with
troubled results. This section of the chapter will first, therefore,
attempts to show that there was no basis in Gjerstad's claim of a
significant (and substantial) group of "non-Cypriot" pottery, and,
second, that Gjerstad's typological sequence for BoR was not quite
correct, which affected his chronology of the ware.
A): BoR on the Mainland versus BoR in Cyprus

A few specimens of BoR pottery found at mainland sites are of
different quality to true 'Cypriot' BoR. These 'coarse' vessels, both
bowls and juglets, do not show the delicacy of form of the classic
BoR ware. They generally have a darkish pink slip, often simple
decoration of thick black painted lines, clearly visible burnishing
striations and quite coarse and unrefined fabric with many visible,
usually black, inclusions. It should be noted, however, that examples
of 'coarse' BoR appear on Cyprus as well as the mainland. These
vessels are relatively rare and do not appear in earlier contexts than
'true' BoR, either on the mainland or on Cyprus. They cannot
therefore be considered a BoR 'prototype.' The specimens are simply
part of the natural range of a ware type and were probably on occasion
exported from Cyprus alongside finer quality BoR. Other variations,
such as BoR vessels of refined shape and decoration but inferior (thin)
slip and paint quality appear amongst the assemblage of BoR at the
site of Palaepaphos-Skales in Cyprus, and were clearly locally
manufactured (Figure 2:2).17
These vessels were not, however, the focus of Gjerstad's concern.
Nor, apparently, was the clearly mainland manufactured 'Cilician'
17
Examples o f 'coarser' BoR v e s s e l s on the mainland include (unpublished)
b o w l no. 8 9 / 6 2 : 1 1 0 1 2 6 : L . 1 1 0 2 2 (Area B) and c l o s e d v e s s e l no. 7 4 / 9 3 :
9 9 2 8 4 / 3 : L . 9 9 2 5 (Area G) from Tel Dor. Relatively coarse BoR vessels from Cyprus
include sack-shaped juglet T.54:13 and bowl T.62:128 from Palaepaphos-Skales, and
(unpublished) jug no. 2 2 7 5 and bowl no. 2 2 9 4 from Kition.
'Black-on-Red' pottery found in the north-east region of the
Mediterranean (see below, 277). Gjerstad defined instead a less
obviously distinct but substantial category of 'non-Cypriot' BoR
(Gjerstad 1948, 270, n.l). His identification of this latter group was
based on three criteria:
Gjerstad's 'Non-Cypriot' BoR Characteristics

1 ) "often a grey core"
2) "a bright orange, burnished surface, with the decoration applied
after the burnish." Note that the application of paint to the
burnished surface "occurs also in Cyprus, parallel with the
opposite technique of burnishing after the decoration has been
painted."
3) "the surface flakes off very often ("smallpox" surface)."
(Gjerstad 1948, 270, n.l)
Gjerstad's criteria are themselves problematic. First, the grey core
Gjerstad believed was indicative of BoR pottery manufactured
outside Cyprus is not restricted to BoR pottery found on the mainland,
but appears also in some BoR found in Cyprus. The presence of a grey
core is a factor of firing technique and control - the result of residual
uncombusted carbon in the vessel due to a reducing phase in the
firing, or the prevention of oxidation of iron in the clay (Shepard
1956, 216-222; Jones 1986, 754). Although Gjerstad was correct in
believing that 'true' Cypriot BoR was of remarkably high quality and
usually fired evenly so that no core was present in the fabric, firing
was not always consistent and could vary even within the same
vessel. 18 Several BoR vessels of high quality found in Cyprus have a
darker pink core, suggesting possibly the use of clays with slightly
different properties which required different firing conditions
(Shepard 1956, 221-222). Furthermore, it should be noted that the
presence of a grey core in BoR fabrics can only be determined by
examination of a fresh or cleaned break in the pottery, a test seldom
possible to perform on vessels in a museum collection. Most of the
18
For example, a BoR vessel from Hurvat Rosh Zayit (Ref. No. 9 6 - 2 4 4 3 ) s h o w s
a different coloured core at different points o f the same vessel; cf. also sherd Ref. N o .
81-31 2 0 3 5 4 - 2 from Tel Dor. The presence of a grey core in the base of a vessel due
to the greater thickness of this area is not uncommon.
examples of BoR pottery examined in Cyprus were of museum
quality, and the proportion of BoR vessels in Cyprus with grey cores
may therefore be marginally higher than they appeared. Note also that
dirt adhering to a break often gives the impression of a lighter core.
At some sites, eg. Tell Keisan, a large quantity of BoR sherds had
grey cores. These fragments were generally bowl sherds. Only two
BoR vessels out of the large number excavated at this site have been
fully published but the great majority of the BoR pottery at the site
belongs, according to the excavators, in the later strata (see Chapter
Three, 152-154). Consequently, this pottery is later than the period in
which Gjerstad placed his phase of early 'non-Cypriot' BoR, and the
site should be excluded from consideration in this respect. In view,
however, of the large quantity of BoR bowls at Tell Keisan the
anomaly is interesting and suggests that some BoR pottery at this site
may either have been locally manufactured or recipient of a different
Cypriot production centre. The Black-on-Red pottery from the site of
Tarsus (Gözlü Kule) in Cilicia also commonly had grey cores
(Hanfmann 1963, 27-28). This pottery, however, was not only clearly
manufactured locally - specimens were found in kilns - but it is
visually distinctive from true BoR, and, most importantly, it also post-
dates the early stages of BoR (Hanfmann 1963, 118). This latter group
we shall consider true 'imitation' BoR, and is discussed at the end of
this Chapter (see 277-280).
In sum, while a 'grey core' does indeed appear on some
examples of non-Cypriot BoR, this is not a satisfactory criterion by
which to judge its origin. The presence of a grey core is generally
very rare in BoR found either on Cyprus or the mainland. Most
notably, of the particular vessels which Gjerstad assigns to his
"foreign ware" category, very few had grey cores. The number of
BoR vessels examined by this author (aside from those at Tell
Keisan) in which grey cores were recorded, including the pottery
from Al Mina, some of which is likely to have been non-Cypriot,
represents a tiny proportion of the total vessels examined. See
Table C.
Second, Gjerstad's acknowledgement that paint was applied after
burnishing on some 'Cypriot' vessels as well as the 'non-Cypriot'
makes this a not wholly satisfactory criterion for assessing 'non-
Cypriot' BoR. The black paint used in decoration of BoR pottery was
manganese (or a combination of manganese and iron oxide), which
retains its colour during firing and gives the matt effect noticeable on
the majority of the vessels (Shepard 1956, 40; Jones 1986, 762,
812). 19 The skill of the potters producing BoR was often such that it
difficult to identify whether paint was applied before or after the
burnish. On many, the paint seems to have been applied after the
surface was burnished. However, the occasional 'bleeding' of the
paint into the background colour on juglets in particular may have
resulted from burnishing of the surface after the paint is applied,
possibly when the vessel was still moist, forcing or compacting the
pigment particles into the pores of the clay wall (Shephard 1956, 42;
Jones 1986, 761). On BoR vessels found in Cyprus, paint seems to
have been commonly applied pre- and post-burnishing. Gjerstad's
stylistic criterion is clearly, therefore, not pertinent to the question of
the origin of the ware and over-simplified in view of the range of BoR
wares produced.
Third, the flaked surface of some BoR vessels is not solely due to
a different quality of clay and slip used, as Gjerstad (implicitly)
suggests. The flaking of the surface of fine wares such as BoR is the
product often of different burial and soil conditions. A high soil
salinity produces a flaked effect. The only vessels from the mainland
observed by this author which have, in particular, the "small-pox"
effect noted by Gjerstad, come from the site of Tel Fara (S) (See
Table). This form of erosion of the clay's surface is much more likely
to be the result of local burial conditions than any intrinsic instability
of the slips used, and it seems probable that Gjerstad's observation of
this feature on some of the BoR vessels at Tel Fara (S) gave rise to his
definition here. Furthermore, clear examples of this pock-marked
"small-pox" effect are found on several BoR vessels from the site of
Kition in Cyprus. 20 Several of the BoR juglets imported to Cos most
probably from Cyprus showed a similar pitted effect (eg. Morricone
1982, Fig. 693).
It should lastly be noted that on several occasions Gjerstad cites the
chronological evidence provided by the excavators of the mainland
specimens of BoR in support of his 'non-Cypriot' origin (Gjerstad
1948, 243, 249). This 'chronological' evidence - that the BoR pottery
appears in levels too early to conform with the Cypriot chronology -
19
Note that manganese-rich earths are c o m m o n in Cyprus (Jones 1986, 817).
20
Eg. Juglets N o . 1732 and 2 1 4 4 from Bothros 10 Floor 3, and B o w l s no. 1801
and 1803 from Bothros 4, Floor 3 in Area II at Kition.
seems, in fact, to form a fourth criterion for Gjerstad's category of
'non-Cypriot' BoR ware.
It has not been possible to investigate every example of 'non-
Cypriot' BoR found on the mainland to which Gjerstad refers (Gjerstad
1948, 242-257), as most are now dispersed into international museum
collections and many others are now not possible to locate. However, a
number of these specimens has been personally examined, as well as
many more BoR sherds from mainland sites which have been published
since 1948, others which have been recently excavated and are still
unpublished and a large quantity of BoR pottery excavated throughout
Cyprus pre- and post-1948. The quantity of BoR ware which has
surfaced since 1948 altogether, in both Cyprus and on the mainland,
comprises a vastly larger corpus of BoR to that which was available to
Gjerstad. This increased corpus of BoR ware sanctions a revision of
some of Gjerstad's views on the pottery. Even without personal
examination of each specimen of BoR, this increased knowledge of the
range of BoR ware types enables the modern specialist to judge even
from a photograph or line drawing whether vessels to which Gjerstad
refers as "non-Cypriot" are in fact of 'true' Cypriot BoR type.
Gjerstad's survey of the BoR pottery found on the mainland states
that the majority, if not all, of the BoR pottery from Tell ez-Zuweyid,
Tel Fara (S), Tel Jemmeh, Tell el-Ajjul ("Gaza"), Beth-Shemesh, Tell
en-Nasbeh, 'Atlit, Megiddo, and Tell Abu Hawam, is non-Cypriot
(Gjerstad 1948, 242-250). 21 These sites comprise almost the total of
those Gjerstad investigated in the region. Of these sites, the BoR
pottery from Tel Fara (S), Tell el-Ajjul and Tell en-Nasbeh has been
re-examined and no difference noted between the BoR pottery from
these sites and that found in Cyprus. In addition, scientific analysis
has provided substantial evidence that the BoR pottery from the site
of Tel Fara (S) is of Cypriot origin (Brodie & Steel 1996, 263-278).
Examination of published illustrations of the BoR pottery from the
other sites to which Gjerstad refers indicates that this pottery is also
'true' Cypriot BoR.
Table C below represents a selection of BoR vessels from sites in
21
Gjerstad notes that one BoR two-handled juglet from Tomb 1074 at Tell el-
Ajjul ( 1074.69a/XIV.4/5) is probably Cypriot (Gjerstad 1948, 244). Examination o f
this vessel s h o w s it certainly to be so. Unfortunately, however, only a limited number
of the BoR v e s s e l s from the original collections o f Tel Fara (S) and Tell el-Ajjul were
available for inspection in the Institute of Archaeology (London).
Cyprus and on the mainland which have been personally examined by
this author. Those indicated by an asterisk* are currently unpublished.
Over 136 BoR vessels from mainland sites and Cyprus (81-mainland;
55-Cyprus) have been examined and recorded in detail by this author;
approximately 100 more were examined during the course of
research. This Table represents only a selection only of those
specimens which are relevant to Gjerstad's criteria, either because
they feature a grey core, paint clearly applied after burnish, or a flaked
surface, or, in the case of Hurvat Rosh Zayit, are noticeably fine
examples of true 'Cypriot' BoR. No scientific analysis has been
published regarding these vessels.
As the Table makes clear, Gjerstad's criteria for 'non-Cypriot' BoR
pottery are not satisfactory. A grey core is rare, paint is applied after
and before burnish, most often afterwards, and a flaking "small pox"
surface is very rare. These characteristics are in fact meaningless
when applied to a corpus of BoR pottery, and should be eliminated
from further consideration. The great bulk of the BoR pottery on the
mainland is in fact identical with the bulk of BoR pottery on Cyprus.
Key of Present Locations: (CY)= Cyprus

(IS) = Israel
(LN) = London (UCL)
Table C: Some Examples of BoR Tested with Gjerstad's
'Non-Cypriot' Characteristics
Other charac-
Site reg. no.
Grey core?
Paint after
Probable
burnish?
surface?
teristics
Type of
Flaked
origin
vessel
SITE
Palaepaphos- T-62-101 Juglet Not visible Yes No Self-slip?22 Cyprus

Skales (CY) Very fine
ware.
Palaepaphos- T-62-97 Juglet No No? No Bright orange Cyprus

Skales (CY) ware & slip.
Fine ware.
Palaepaphos- T-54-13 Dipper juglet Not visible Yes No Pink-red slip. Cyprus
Skales (CY) Ware quite
coarse, fairly
thick walled.
Palaepaphos- T-62-104 Barrel Not visible No? No Bright orange- Cyprus

Skales (CY) juglet red ware, very
fine. Self-slip?
Palaepaphos- T-46-18 Barrel juglet Not visible No? No Bright orange- Cyprus
Skales (CY) pink clay &
slip, fine.
Palaepaphos- T-52-79 Barrel juglet Poss. buff core 9 No Dull red slip, Cyprus
Skales (CY) turning red-pink ware fine.
to exterior
Palaepaphos- T-54-37 Jug Not visible Yes? No Dark pink-red Cyprus

Skales (CY) clay, pink-red
slip & paint
similar toT-
54-13
Palaepaphos- T-54-62 Bowl Buff core turning ? No Fine ware, Cyprus

Skales (CY) pink to exterior some small
inclusions
Palaepaphos- T-46-15 Bowl Grey core turning 7 No Fine ware Cyprus

Skales (CY) pink-red to exterior
Palaepaphos- T-54-58 Bowl Not visible Yes No Very fine, thin Cyprus
Skales (CY) walled
22
Shepard d e f i n e s u s e o f the term " s e l f - s l i p " as "a very fine-textured paste that
has been w e l l s m o o t h e d or p o l i s h e d [and] m a y superficially r e s e m b l e a slipped
surface" (Shepard 1 9 5 6 , 192). T h e f i n e n e s s o f B o R ware and usually similarity o f
c o l o u r b e t w e e n surface and fabric matrix m a k e s it frequently difficult to determine
whether v e s s e l s are slipped or s e l f - s l i p p e d .
Other charac-
Site reg. no.
Grey core?
Paint after
Probable
surface?
burnish?
teristics
Type of
Flaked
vessel
origin
SITE
Cyprus Museum B. 1577.19 Conical Not visible Yes No Well Cyprus

(CY) 35 juglet burnished
Hurvat Rosh 96-2552* Miniature No 7 No Very fine pink Cyprus

Zayit (IS) juglet ware
Hurvat Rosh 96-2507* Miniature Dark pink core 7 No Very thin and Cyprus
Zayit (IS) juglet turning pale pink to fine ware
exterior
Hurvat Rosh 96-2485* Trefoil juglet Not visible 7 No Exceptional Cyprus

Zayit (IS) quality ware
and form
Hurvat Rosh 96-2452* Juglet Pink core turning 7 No Minimal Cyprus

Zayit (IS) buff to exterior burnishing,
medium fine
vessel
Hurvat Rosh 96-2443* Bowl Grey (buff?) core. 7 No Cyprus

Zayit (IS) exterior variable
colour-bumt
Achziv (IS) ZRXXXX Trefoil-rim Grey core, turning 7 7 "Powdery red Cyprus
VI-70 23 juglet orange to exterior slip"
Achziv (IS) 2207, Barrel-juglet No Yes No Pale buff flak- Possibly

L.410* ing clay, thick main-
dark red slip land or
early
Cypriot
Tel Dor (IS) 84-20/321 Juglet sherd Light grey core, Yes? No Cyprus
25-2* orange slip on
exterior
Tel Dor (IS) 88-(?)9/92 Bowl sherd Poss. buff core Yes? No Cyprus
603* turning brick red,
orange-red slip
Tel Dor (IS) 74-93 Bowl rim Dark core 7 No Medium fine Possibly
99356/1* clay, some dark main-
inclusions land
Tel Dor (IS) 82-25 Juglet sherd No No No Very fine clay Cyprus
28217/11*
Tel Dor (IS) 83/ Juglet neck No 7 7 Very fine clay Cyprus
27569*
23
Vessel published by Culican ( 1 9 8 2 , 7 5 , A b b . 9k), not e x a m i n e d by this author.
Other charac-
Site reg. no.
Grey core?
Paint after
burnish?
Probable
surface?
teristics
Type of
Flaked
origin
vessel
SITE
Tel Dor (IS) 89-91 Jug sherd? Pale grey core turn- ? 7 Very coarse Main-
96111* ing buff-orange to clay, dark pur- land
exterior ple-red slip
Al Mina (LN) 55/108 Bowl? No? No 7 Very coarse Syria/

buff ware, modern
lots of inclu- Turkey
sions in clay
AI Mina (LN) 55/1072 Juglet No? ? Yes Very coarse Syria/

buff ware, modern
slip dark pink Turkey
Al Mina (LN) 55/1085 Krater No? ? Yes Very coarse Syria/

buff ware, modern
slip dark pink Turkey
Al Mina (LN) 55/1078 Jug No 7 7 Fine (level 8) Cyprus
Al Mina (LN) 55/1079 Bowl No 7 7 Fine (level 8) Cyprus
Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 236 Juglet No No No Fine orange Cyprus
x8/E.VII.Í ware
0.14
Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 229 Juglet No core visible Surf- Yes Classic "small Cyprus
x26/E.VII ace pox" effect;
59.10 worn ware buff,
some fine
inclusions.
Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb 227 Juglet No core, except in No? No Very fine Cyprus
x5/dx3/E. base area where orange ware
VII.82/1 light grey
Tel Fara (S) (LN) Tomb Juglet No core visible 7 Yes Fine ware, Cyprus
376.84E "small pox"
effect
Tell el-Ajjul (LN) Tomb Two-handled No Yes No Very fine Cyprus

1074.69a/ juglet ware
XIV.4/5
Tell el-Ajjul (LN) Tomb 306 Juglet No Surf- Yes Very fine Cyprus
E.XIV.4/2 ace pinkish-
worn orange ware
24
N o t e that the reference numbers g i v e n for A l M i n a sherds are o f t e n duplicated
- these sherds are not registered individually but by the 'batches' in w h i c h they
originally arrived in the Institute o f A r c h a e o l o g y ' s c o l l e c t i o n ( L o n d o n ) .
B): Gjerstad's Typology of BoR: Does it Fit on the Mainland?
As noted at the beginning of the chapter, Gjerstad's chronology for BoR
was based on the accuracy of his typological sequence for the ware's
appearance at mainland sites. Birmingham first drew attention to some of
the flaws in this typology, and stated that Gjerstad's sequence was, in fact,
"compiled mostly from a series of tomb groups without absolute dating
evidence, the pottery arranged typologically with unstratified finds
inserted where they appeared appropriate" (Birmingham 1963, 23, 40).
The accuracy of Gjerstad's typology for BoR is tested here by assessing
whether the scheme of BoR I (III), BoR II (IV) and BoR III (V)
comprised a true chronological sequence when applied to some well
stratified mainland sites.25 Gjerstad's categories BoR IV (VI) and BoR V
(VII) are not included - the BoR styles represented in these categories
belong to a period later than that under discussion here.
Table D represents a selection of the main pottery forms classified
by Gjerstad as BoR. According to this scheme, BoR I (III) types are
characterized by a lustrous or burnished surface and matt black paint.
BoR II (IV) types are "never polished" but the slip is lustrous; the
paint is matt black. BoR III (V) types have a "slightly lustrous or
nearly mat" surface; no mention is made of the paint quality (Gjerstad
1948, 68-73). Within the limited repertoire of BoR decorative
techniques, there is some variation between the categories - BoR I
(III) types occasionally show "instances of the usual rectilinear
ornaments of the type used in White Painted III and Bichrome III,"
but are more commonly decorated with intersecting, concentric lines
and/or isolated, concentric circles (Gjerstad 1948, 69). BoR II (IV)
shows a development of the small group of concentric circles, so that
they often form into vertical or horizontal rows (Gjerstad 1948, 71).
BoR III (V) shows the same linear and concentric circle decoration as
BoR (IV), but no (apparently) intersecting concentric circles.
The large proportion of vessel forms assigned to the BoR II (IV)
25
Note also that problems have been encountered with use of the Swedish Cyprus
Expedition's typological classification for Late Bronze A g e Red Polished Ware. This
ware type was divided typologically into strict sequential chronological periods with
little consideration taken of its differing regional developments. Thus the ware (like
B o R ) is designated to f o l l o w chronological 'periods' (Red Polished I in Early Cypriot
I etc.), while "what has happened in practice is that Red Polished 1 and II are
considered north coast regional variants of the sequence, while Red Polished III and
IV are encountered islandwide. In sherd form it is often difficult to make these fine
distinctions..." (Merrillees 1991, 2 3 9 ) .
Table D: Gjerstad's Division of BoR Types (After Gjerstad 1948,
Figs. XXIV-XXVI; XXXVII-XL; LI1) Types in italics are represented
in Table E, following.
B o R I (III) B o R II ( I V ) B o R III ( V )
Shallow bowl with Handleless bowls Flat handleless bowls

horizontal handles at rim
Wide & deep bowls Carinated "raised rim" howls Low, carinated "raised
splayed rim" bowls
Pedestalled bowls Both deep & shallow bowls,

none pedestalled
Kraters on pedestals Kraters on pedestals
Barrel-juglets Elaborate double-handled

barrel juglets
Handle-ridge juglets Handle-ridge juglets Sharply biconical juglets

(more globular and flare-lipped,
wider base)
Two-handled handle-ridge juglet
Conical juglets (also with 'eye'

and bulging neck)
'Phoenician' style fat-necked juglet
'Phoenician' style flat-rimmed jug
'Sack-shaped' juglet 'Sack-shaped' juglet 'Misshapen' heavy-look

ing 'sack-shaped'juglet
Small simple 'sack-shaped' juglet
Trefoil-lipped jug Trefoil-lipped jug (more refined)
Trefoil-lipped juglet
Trefoil-lipped 'squat' juglet Trefoil-lipped 'squat' juglet
Basket-handled spouted Basket-handled spouted juglet

juglet
Amphorae Amphorae, miniature amphorae Amphorae
category is immediately evident. Birmingham noted several problems

in the attribution of forms to this 'second' BoR category. The
following vessels, belonging to Gjerstad's BoR II (IV) category, she
believed were mis-assigned (Birmingham 1963, 40):
1. The trefoil-lipped jug with intersecting circles and groups of
concentric circles (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:2)
2. The trefoil-lipped juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX:6)
3. The two-handled handle-ridge juglet (Gjerstad 1948, Fig.
XXXIX: 18)
4. The earinated "raised rim" bowl with groups of concentric circles
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXVII:24)
Birmingham believed that these vessels belonged in the first phase of
BoR pottery, Gjerstad's BoR I (III).
To determine the accuracy of Gjerstad's typological scheme, the
most common BoR types classified by Gjerstad were investigated here
as they appeared on the mainland. The results are presented fully in
Appendix III and summarized in Table Ε below. The chronological
'Phases' used in this analysis were established in Chapter Three. In
investigation of the chronology of BoR on the mainland, Phases 2 and
3 were found to be less obviously distinct from one another than Phase
1 from both these, due to clearer stratification of the earlier levels at
many of the sites examined and, in general, the greater proportion of
sites that have been well-published from the early Iron II ('Phase Γ )
period. The chart should be read accordingly, and attention drawn in
particular to the differentiation between Phase 1 and Phases 2-3. The
apparent "tail-off' of BoR pottery in Phases 2-3 may not have been as
dramatic as indicated in the Table, although true to the general pattern.
The stratigraphie contexts for the BoR vessels included in Table Ε
and Appendix III are fully discussed in Chapter Three. To obtain a good
sample of material, some vessels from mediocre contexts have been
included into the Table/Appendix, but only where these vessels are
certainly of the type specified. Contexts with a large proportion of BoR
sherds which are of indeterminate vessel type, such as in the later Iron
Age levels at Hazor, may therefore be under-represented, and
consequently the exact proportions of vessels in these levels may be
affected. 26 Only one bowl type (the carinated BoR bowl) has been
included in the chart represented by Table E, although other types are
listed more fully in the Appendix. This is because bowl types are less
26
Note also that the BoR pottery from the site of Hurvat Rosh Zayit is included
in Table Ε and Appendix III as chronological 'Phase 1.' This early dating of the
fortress period at the site, which is in accordance with the preliminary publication of
the site, may, in the opinion of this writer, need lowering to the early part o f 'Phase
2'. The inclusion of the BoR from this site in Phase 1 does not, however, radically
alter the pattern represented in the chart.
easy to identify than closed vessels, as the diagnostic parts of the vessel
are often not preserved. According to Gjerstad's typology, the
introduction of the carinated bowl in BoR II (IV) is a distinctive change
in BoR bowl development. Finally, Gjerstad's classification of BoR
types (in Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV:2) does not always include the
exact type represented on the mainland, most commonly in terms of
decoration of the vessels and also in marginal variations in shape. The
typological categories into which they are placed in the table below
represent, however, their closest parallel in Gjerstad's system.
Table E: Chart showing relative quantities of vessel types and their

chronological phases on the mainland. See also Appendix 111.
35
• Chronological Phase 1
® Chronological Phase 2
30.
• Chronological Phase 3
25.
20-
15-
10.
5-
Έ
"ω
3
•"•s
Ol
0<j
"Β
"Si
33
"—
•o
Ll·
Ό
O£
3)
S.
α
ω
SX
3
•a
£
1
IX
3
a3
OS
3
BD
3
'"s
XS
SI
3
1
B
C
«
u
Ο
JS
CL
ε
<
r -c
c 1 .9· a· d «S. α
ί-
ό a 'o J. Ό ο
U
X! «
J3 (S
st-
m
cn è 1 -2
S H a U
« it
H C
βο
a H ΙΛ
μ
H
It is clear from Table Ε that Birmingham's misgivings about
Gjerstad's typology were correct. The two-handled juglet, the conical
juglet and the trefoil-lipped juglet all appear in firm contexts in 'Phase
1 ' sites, and in smaller proportions in subsequent periods. The bowl
with a carinated body is, likewise, not confined to a secondary stage
of BoR development. In general, Gjerstad's scheme placing the
greater proportion of BoR vessel types in his BoR II (IV) category is
not reflected in their stratigraphical locations on the mainland.
As seen in Chapter Three, the stratigraphy of the bulk of these
mainland sites, while not infallible, is generally reliable. The basis of
Gjerstad's establishment of a chronology for BoR in Cyprus was the
sequencing of tomb groups, which are inherently less reliable than
stratified settlement contexts. The results indicated by assessment of
Gjerstad's typology on the mainland are therefore of considerable
significance. Most importantly, these results demonstrate the serious
problems contingent on automatic application of Gjerstad's BoR
chronology to sites on the mainland, as has been frequently done in
the past - and without alertness to these problems will continue to be
done in the future.
The release of BoR pottery from the constraints of Gjerstad's
chronology for the ware - placing it inexorably in a fixed lower
chronological framework than that in which, in reality, it appears on
the mainland - enables a reassessment of its origin. In resolving this
question, a tentative reassessment of Cypriot chronology is proposed,
based on a new 'phasing' of BoR ware.
This following part of this chapter therefore, first, examines the
chronology of BoR pottery within Cyprus. Independent of Gjerstad's
views, the earliest possible date that the pottery might have been in
production on the island is established. Second, a hypothesis for the
process of development of BoR pottery in Cyprus is put forward, as a
predominantly local development. In the final part of this chapter, a
means of reconciliation between the different chronologies of BoR
pottery in the mainland Levant and on Cyprus is suggested.
BoR Within Cyprus (See Map 25)
As noted at the beginning of the chapter, despite the large quantity of

BoR pottery which has been excavated or retrieved from sites in
Cyprus, there is a dearth of stratigraphie evidence for the period of
early BoR on the island. Of the tombs which comprise the bulk of Iron
Age sites, the majority were excavated early in the century. Many had
been subject to looting and disturbances from the time of the original
depositions onwards, or had been reused from one generation to
another in antiquity, and were thus a priori of restricted chronological
use. It is to be regretted that of the few important settlement sites that
have been excavated in Cyprus in the latter part of the century, none
have yet been fully published; few also of the cemetery sites have been
published in the detail required for satisfactory assessment of the
development of the ceramics within them.
Gjerstad's typology (and his corresponding chronology), which
was based largely upon a seriation of the tomb evidence available to
him, forms an integral part of all publications of Iron Age sites in
Cyprus. The following study does not, therefore, attempt a wholesale
reassessment of the Iron Age sites and their chronology, but instead
presents an independent assessment of the appearance of BoR pottery
within Cyprus in the light of the conclusions drawn in the first part of
this chapter.
Map 25: Sites in Cyprus

Test-Case: Palaepaphos-Skales
One of the sites most valuable to this study is the Iron Age cemetery
at Palaepaphos-Skales, in the far western part of the island. A rescue
excavation was undertaken at this site in 1979, and the subsequent
publication (Karageorghis 1983) is exemplary in terms of
presentation detail. Although some of these tombs had been badly
damaged by bulldozing activity, the tomb groups retrieved are
presented as far as possible in their original assemblages, which are
generally preserved, with fine quality illustration and recorded
detail. 27 The large number of tombs at this site (51 in total, of which
26 contain BoR) and the period of the Iron Age they encompass,
which shows clearly the pre-BoR, followed by early-BoR stage,
render this site of particular importance to the present study.
Three features of the sequence of the early tombs at the site are of
especial interest: first, the appearance of BoR pottery types in tomb
groups which illuminate some of the problems of Gjerstad's typology
discussed above; second, the appearance of BoR pottery in tomb
assemblages which contain a large proportion of early White Painted
types, indicating that BoR pottery appears perhaps earlier in the Cypriot
ceramic repertoire than hitherto believed; third, the appearance of early
forms of BoR pottery which show clearly the process of development
of the ware type within the Cypriot repertoire.
Applying Gjerstad's Typology at Palaepaphos-Skales

Some of the inconsistencies of Gjerstad's typological sequence
demonstrated above in the context of mainland settlement sites are
also, to a degree, evident in the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales. Re-use
of these tombs, as noted above, detracts considerably from their
chronological contribution, and most tombs at the site contained at
least three or four burials. Few also were discovered intact, and
distinction between the burials inside the tombs was virtually
impossible. The range of BoR pottery types within two of these
tombs, however, provides support for the belief that some aspects of
Gjerstad's classification are problematic.
Tomb 74 contained three burials. The BoR contained within the lower
27
The quality of presentation of the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales essentially
overrides the potential problems caused by the (standard) use of Gjerstad's typology
in the publication.
burial layer (representing two burials) comprised BoR bowls on a high
foot, wide flat BoR bowls, a two-handled BoR juglet and BoR trefoil-
lipped jugs. Gjerstad's typology classifies the footed BoR bowl as BoR
I (III), and the two-handled BoR juglet and the type of BoR jug
represented here as BoR II (IV) (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CXXIII: 12, 16,
24, 25, 47, 48, 17; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXV: 1-3; Fig. XXXIX: 2,18).
The number of burials in Tomb 54 was not recorded, but it produced a
large amount of pottery. The BoR pottery found here was of early types
- barrel-juglets, a 'sack-shaped' juglet, and a plain BoR handle-ridge
juglet (see discussion below). However, it also included three examples
of carinated BoR bowls, which Gjerstad classified as BoR II (IV) types
(Karageorghis 1983, Pl. LXXVII: 60, 61, 62; Gjerstad 1948, Fig.
XXXVII: 23, 24). While only tentative conclusions should be drawn
here, these tomb assemblages provide, therefore, additional evidence
that the two-handled juglet, the more elegant versions of the BoR trefoil-
lipped jug and the carinated bowl are contemporary with types Gjerstad
assigns to his first phase of BoR development.
For the purposes of this discussion, Gjerstad's typology is used in
general assessment of 'early' White Painted and Bichrome wares.
Examination of the general sequence of White Painted development
suggests that the typology established by Gjerstad for these wares is
satisfactory. Detailed assessment of Gjerstad's typology of White
Painted and Bichrome pottery, in the same detail as attempted here for
BoR pottery, is limited by the smaller quantity of this pottery
excavated at sites on the mainland, and also simply by the restricted
scope of this book. The absolute chronology of these other Cypriot
wares is considered at the end of this chapter, along with the
chronology of BoR.
The Earliest BoR at Palaepaphos-Skales

The contribution of the Skales cemetery to our knowledge of the
earliest stages of BoR pottery is particularly important. First, the
number of tombs which contain no BoR pottery but a large quantity
of early White Painted and Bichrome pottery confirms the well-
established view that these pottery types preceded the introduction of
BoR pottery (cf. S0rensen 1987, 130; Gilboa 1989, 205-214; and
Chapter Two). The early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales, in which BoR
pottery does not appear, are Tombs 43-45, 48-51, 53, 58, 61, 67, 68,
78, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92. These tombs contained predominantly
Table F: The Early Tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales: Relative
Proportions of Early BoR Pottery Types cf. White Painted
(TOMBS 46, 52, 54, 63, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 90)
White Painted pottery and a few examples of 'imported' wares

(discussed below).
Second, the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales provide important
indications of the earliest forms to appear in the BoR repertoire. This
early BoR stage is most clearly evident in Tombs 46, 52, 54, 63, 69,
71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 90. These tombs contained, again, predominantly
White Painted pottery. The number of White Painted bowls (of all
types, but not including 'cups'), White Painted jugs and juglets and
amphorae (not including hydriae or amphoriskoi) is plotted in Table F
against the BoR types appearing alongside them: barrel juglets,
'squat' type juglets, handle-ridge juglets, amphorae, plain open bowls
and footed bowls.
The quantity of White Painted pottery (not Bichrome, Red Slip and
Black Slip, which also appears in these tombs) has been included here
in order to indicate the early date of these tombs and the relatively
small proportions of BoR at this early stage. All BoR vessels present
in these early tombs have been included in the table, except for one
'sack'-shaped juglet, a BoR jug and four BoR carinated bowls which
appear in Tomb 54. 28 This tomb may have spanned a slightly later
period than the others listed. A deep BoR bowl (not included) was
also found in Tomb 71 (Karageorghis 1983, 189, No. 57).
Table F (and see also Appendix IV) indicates clearly that BoR
barrel-juglets are the most popular BoR vessel at its initial stage.
Contemporary with this type is the 'squat' BoR juglet with globular,
squat body, no neck-ridge and handle from neck to shoulder (eg.
Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CXVII: 28; PI. CXXI:13; PI. CXLV:6) - these
BoR juglets are very similar to forms appearing in Gjerstad's early
White Painted and Bichrome categories (Gjerstad Fig. XVI:4; Fig.
XIX:3), and are probably contemporary or a development from these
types (Figures 10:17, 11:5). The rarity of the 'classic' handle-ridge
juglet in these tombs is noteworthy and indicates that this vessel type,
later to become the most popular BoR form, was not the earliest BoR
type to develop. The appearance of BoR bowls in these early tombs
accords with evidence from sites on the mainland that BoR bowls
appear in the earliest BoR levels there (see Chapter Two, 46-48).
Despite the problems of assessing the chronology of tomb groups, the
appearance of BoR pottery in tombs containing 'early' White Painted
and Bichrome forms is important in consideration of the absolute date
of BoR - this is further discussed below.
Finally, the tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales provide good evidence
that BoR pottery developed from other 'indigenous' Cypriot shapes,
and was not a development from imported wares. The imported wares
28
For these other e x a m p l e s of B o R ware from T o m b 5 4 which have not been
included in the table, see Karageorghis 1983, Pl. L X X V I i 1 3 , 37; Pl. L X X V I I : 60, 61,
62, 64. A 'cup' o f B o R ware is also noted from T o m b 5 4 (Karageorghis 1983, PI.
L X X V I I : 2 5 ) , but this is unlikely to be true B o R .
occurring in the early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales, in which BoR also
appears, comprise small pilgrim flasks, 29 a plain jug, 30 a globular jug
with handle-ridge, 31 Bichrome jugs - one with strainer spout, one
'polychrome' globular jug, 32 and two 'Canaanite' amphorae, one of
'Hippo' type. 33 None of these vessels have any affiliation with BoR in
shape or fabric type. The Phoenician 'heavy-walled juglet' which has
been claimed as a prototype for BoR handle-ridge juglets (Brodie &
Steel 1996, 274-275), is rare. This vessel type appears only in Tomb 75
(with an example of Phoenician Bichrome) along with BoR pottery of
medium phase, and in Tomb 81 (with a red-slipped globular jug), again
with BoR of medium to late phase. 34 The proposed association of this
vessel with BoR development is not, therefore, supported by the
Skales tombs. Interesting, however, in terms of BoR development is
the hypothesis originally proposed by Bikai in the publication of the
imports at Palaepaphos-Skales, concerning "Red Ware," which does
precede the introduction of BoR (Bikai 1983, 400-402; see Chapter
One). This is further discussed at the end of the chapter.
Other Iron Age Sites in Cyprus

Few other Iron Age sites of this period in Cyprus have been published
with the quality of the excavation report of Palaepaphos-Skales.
Gjerstad's excavations in Cyprus during the early part of the last
century (1927-1931), which provided the backbone of Cypriot
archaeology, uncovered a number of important Iron Age sites -
Lapithos, Amathus, Stylli, Marion, Idalion and Ayia Irini - and were
published with careful and thorough descriptive detail (Gjerstad 1934,
1935). Reassessment of the chronology of these sites is, however,
hindered by presentation of the accompanying plates as unlabelled
(black-and-white) photo-shots of the tomb groups, which makes
identification of the vessels in the text difficult and sometimes
29
T o m b 54:21, 2 2 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. L X X I L 2 0 ) , T o m b 55:26, 27
(Karageorghis 1983, PI. L X X I X : 2 6 ) ; also Tomb 90:3 (Karageorghis 1983, PI.
CXCII:3).
30
Tomb 69:1 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. C X V I : 1)
31
Tomb 77:19 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CXLV:19)
32
T o m b 80:87, 88, 89 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CLVII:87-89)
33
Tomb 80:1, 16 (Karageorghis 1983, Pl. CLVL1, 16). One more amphora with
angular shoulder and triangular shape is described but incorrectly referenced.
34
Tomb 75:2, 2 0 (Karageorghis 1983, PI. CXXVIII:2, 20); T o m b 8 1 : 1 3 0
(Karageorghis 1983, Pl. C L X L 1 3 0 ) .
impossible. Of these sites, only the tombs at Lapithos and Amathus
properly span the period in question. The following survey will
investigate all Iron Age sites in Cyprus, however, which cover the
early period of BoR circulation and in doing so, help assess the
chronology of BoR on the island.
Despite the early date of its excavation, the necropolis at Kastros,
Lapithos (Gjerstad 1934, 172-265) on the north coast of Cyprus is of
especial value for this discussion in that it presents clear evidence for
BoR pottery occurring in early Iron Age contexts. The tombs in which
BoR occurs are generally well-preserved, mostly unrobbed, and
where the tombs were re-used, stratified 'burial periods' can in most
cases be identified. An illustration of the results of this examination is
presented in chart form in Table G.
Tomb 402 (single burial period) produced a BoR pedestalled bowl
and a BoR jug grooved in the style of Black Slip ware (Gjerstad 1934,
Pl. XLII: (36)5/5; (3)4/3?). 35 The other pottery found alongside these
vessels included White Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip wares, all
classified as Types I and II, and one Red Slip bowl with grooved rim,
classified as Type III. Tomb 403 (first burial period) contained four
BoR vessels - three barrel-juglets and a BoR deep bowl (Gjerstad
1934, PI. XLIII:(60, 101, 134)4/7,(102)7/?). The other pottery of this
burial period in Tomb 403 comprised White Painted and Black Slip
wares of Types I and II, two Bichrome pilgrim bottles and two
Bichrome pilgrim flasks of Type III and a Red Slip amphoriskos,
Type III. Tomb 407 was robbed and contained a very little pottery.
The dromos comprised only a BoR jug, along with a White Painted
jug classified as Type II, and the chamber two White Painted vessels,
classified as Type I (Gjerstad 1934, Pl.XLV:2(l-2, 4-5)). Tomb 413
contained no BoR, but White Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip
pottery predominantly of Type I, a few examples of Type II, and a Red
Slip amphoriskos which Gjerstad describes as "probably foreign
ware" (Gjerstad 1934, Pl. XLIX: 1 (20)4/11). The shape is wholly
Cypriot however, and there is no reason to believe that this vessel is
an import.
35
N o original figure numbers can be provided here as the pottery is simply
photographed en masse. Where the BoR vessel can be clearly identified, it is
indicated as [(number in text)row from top/vessel number from left]. Thus
P l . X L I I : ( 3 6 ) 5 / 5 . W h e r e the v e s s e l is uncertain, it is indicated as here -
Pl.XLII:(3)4/3? Where only one or t w o v e s s e l s are illustrated, only the plate number
is indicated.
Table G : Four Early Iron Age Tombs at Lapithos (Kastros
Necropolis): BoR Pottery cf. White Painted "I-II" Wares (after
Gjerstad 1934)
80 ,
• "White Painted I"
• "White Painted II"
• BoR Juglets
• BoR Bowls
40
30
20
10 .
JUL
ο r-
§
•Q
τ
-Ο XI
8 ε ε
ο
ο ο
Η Η Η
Tomb 417 was unrobbed, although part of the chamber roof had
collapsed, and contained two skeletons inside the chamber and a third
at the door of the dromos. The tomb contained a large quantity of
White Painted pottery "exclusively of early Type I," and two BoR
vessels: one a jug and one juglet (Gjerstad 1934, PI. L:(65, 82)10/2,1).
Gjerstad refers to these vessels as "Red Slip Painted," but
examination of the vessels in the plates indicates that they are BoR.
The BoR juglet (Figure 2.7) 36 was found inside a White Painted I
amphora (No. 81), and the BoR jug was found on top of this and
another White Painted I amphora (No. 87). The early date of the other
pottery in this tomb is notable, and the presence of BoR pottery in
this, apparently secure, context is therefore particularly significant.
Juglet No. T.417:82 is currently in the Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm.

Tomb 422 was partially collapsed. The chamber of this tomb
contained White Painted and Black Slip pottery of Type I, as well as
"numerous potsherds of White Painted II, White Painted III,
Bichrome II-III, and Black-on-Red I (III)," which are assigned to the
second burial period (Gjerstad 1934, 246). A BoR juglet and a BoR
krater (only) were found in the dromos of this tomb, and assigned to
the second burial period (Gjerstad 1934, PL. LIV:2). Tomb 424 (an
unfinished tomb) contained only one intact White Painted I jug, but
additionally "fragments of White Painted I-II and a stray specimen of
Black-on-Red I (III) were found" (Gjerstad 1934, 248). Tomb 426 had
been robbed. It contained "numerous sherds... of the same types as
those of Tomb 424: White Painted I-II, and two specimens of Black-
on-Red I (III) Ware, belonging to the same pot, viz. a deep bowl with
base-ring and three horizontal, grooved lines around the rim" (cf. Red
Slip ware) (Gjerstad 1934, 254).
Table G is an illustration of the distribution of BoR pottery in four
tombs at Lapithos in which BoR pottery is found intact. The vessels
are presented here according to Gjerstad's classification system, in
order to show the persistent presence of this ware type amongst finds
that are dated by Gjerstad's typology considerably earlier than BoR.
Other pottery types (such as Bichrome and Black Slip ware) are also
present in these tombs, usually in smaller amounts, also chiefly of
Types I and II. The presence of this 'early' BoR is in most cases
explained by Gjerstad as 'foreign ware,' but examination of these
vessels confirms that the pottery is of canonical BoR type (Figure
2:1). The appearance of several 'overlapping' forms of BoR, such as
the BoR jug decorated in the style of Black Slip ware, and the bowl
with incised rim, similar to deep Red Slip ware bowls, (Gjerstad
1934, Pl. XLII: (3)4/3?, Pl. XLIII: (102)7/? - this latter style is also
found at Kaloriziki, possibly in a later context (Benson 1973, PI. 35:
K687, K670, K671), is further evidence of the development of BoR
within the Cypriot ceramic milieu.
The tombs at Amathus, on the southern coast of Cyprus, were
excavated successively by the British Museum, the Swedish Cyprus
Expedition and in the 1970s by the École française d'Athènes and the
Cypriot Department of Antiquities and produced a large and
important corpus of Cypriot Iron Age pottery. Gjerstad published the
Swedish excavations at the site in 1935. Most of the tombs found by
this expedition had been used for multiple burials, and had been
subsequently robbed. Tomb 7 is of particular interest, however, as it
was dense in finds and parts of it were well-stratified; the presence of
BoR pottery in early contexts here should be noted. Gjerstad
comments:
The pottery found on the first burial floor dates from the Cypro-
Geometric II and III periods, the bulk, (cf. Wh. R Ware) however, being
of Type II. The comparatively large number of vases of the Black-on-Red
I (III) Ware found in this layer is worth notice. Possibly some of these
pots, all small bottles, are imported and the suggestion may be made that
this class is partly to be dated to the true transition between the Cypro-
Geometric II-III periods, or even to the Cypro-Geometric II period and
contemporary with some of the White Painted II ware; especially as most
of the pots were found among the earlier deposits of the layer in the W.
part of the tomb. (Gjerstad 1935: 45, Pl. IX)
Tomb 18 is of interest in that the dromos of this tomb contained

pottery entirely assigned to 'Type II,' with the exception of three
examples of 'Type III:' two Bichrome jugs and a BoR barrel-juglet
(Gjerstad 1935, 108, T.18:3). The tomb had been re-used and the
context is therefore not wholly reliable, but it may provide further
evidence of the early presence of the BoR barrel-juglet.
Two Iron Age tombs found in the north cemetery at Amathus by the
French expedition were published in a journal article in 1984 (Aupert
& Tytgat 1984). These tombs contain predominantly White Painted
wares, some imported mainland pilgrim flasks, 37 but no BoR. The
excavators date the first tomb to "CGIIB (900-850 av. J.-C.)" and the
second tomb to "CGIIA (950-900 av. J.-C.)" (Aupert & Tytgat 1984,
627, 641). The presence, however, in both tombs of a high proportion
of types in Gjerstad's White Painted I category, 38 as well as the possibly
early flasks interred with them, suggest that this absolute dating is too
late. It is likely that these tombs belong to a pre-BoR phase.
The most recent publication of Iron Age tombs at Amathus is a
textual catalogue of the material only, with no accompanying volume
of plates (Tytgat 1989). These tombs, while including a limited
number from the early Iron Age pre-BoR stage (such as Tomb 117)
(Tytgat 1989, 17-18), predominantly represent the 'mid-late' Iron Age
and subsequent periods. In assessing the Phoenician pottery in the
37
Eg. Aupert & Tytgat 1984, PI. 3: 9, 10. T h e s e are published as Cypriot
Bichrome II flasks but appear from the photograph more likely to be imports.
38
Eg. Aupert & Tytgat 1984, PI. 1:4 cf. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. IV: 10.
tombs, Bikai places a large group of Amathus tombs in her 'Salamis'
horizon, c. 850 - c. 750 BC (Bikai 1987, 52, 69). Detailed analysis of
the BoR pottery from these more recent excavations at Amathus is,
however, impossible in the absence of plates.
The tombs at Salamis, in the far eastern part of the island (now
inaccessible from southern Cyprus), were excavated by the
Department of Antiquities in Cyprus from 1957-1967. Salamis Tomb
1 dates to the early Iron Age period and was published independently
(Yon 1971). This tomb does not contain BoR, but predominantly
Proto-White Painted and White Painted I pottery, with a few
specimens of imported Phoenician pottery (Yon 1971, PI. 20:60, PI.
27:93, 94, PI. 29:104-106). 39 One vessel from this tomb, however, of
particular interest is a Proto-White Painted amphora published
separately by Desborough, which is decorated with a small group of
concentric circles (Desborough 1980, Fig. 1). Desborough comments
that this motif, which he believes is of Greek origin, is an anomaly for
the early period: "Compass-drawn circles are introduced into the
Cypriot potter's repertory only during CGIII, that is to say the period
in the Aegean world of Middle Geometric. Why so late an
acceptance?" (Desborough 1980, 112-113). It is clear that placing
BoR pottery - on which this motif was common - earlier in the
Cypriot ceramic repertoire than it hitherto lies would lessen the gap
between its sporadic early appearance and its subsequent popularity.
The other magnificent 'Royal Tombs' of Salamis, published by
Dikaios (1963) and Karageorghis (1967, 1970, 1974, 1978) date to
the later Iron Age. The BoR pottery within these tombs is of a
corresponding late type. 40
39
Note the c o n f u s i o n over terminology. In her discussion o f Phoenician pottery
in Cyprus, Bikai refers to t w o different tombs at Salamis as "Tomb 1" and "Tomb I,"
distinguishing b e t w e e n Dikaios's excavation ("Tomb 1"), published in 1963 (not
1965) and the French "Tomb I" published by Yon in 1971 (Bikai 1987, 5 0 - 5 1 , 59). It
is perhaps more helpful to refer to Dikaios's tomb as the "Royal" T o m b 1 at Salamis
and s p e c i f y the much earlier date o f Yon's T o m b 1. N o t e also that t w o red-slipped
mushroom-lipped j u g s found in Yon's T o m b 1 (PI. 26:82, 8 3 ) are intrusive into the
tomb which is otherwise dated to the early 11th century (Yon 1971, 95).
40
Bikai bases her 'Salamis' horizon on the types of Phoenician pottery occurring
in these tombs (Bikai 1987, 5 0 - 5 3 ) , and dates this horizon to c . 8 5 0 - c . 7 5 0 B C (Bikai
1987, 69). Phoenician ware occurs in ' R o y a l ' T o m b 1 at Salamis (eg. Dikaios 1963,
no. 2 0 9 ) , in T o m b 2 (Karageorghis 1967, Pl. XIII); T o m b 4 7 (Karageorghis 1967, PL.
C X X X V I I I ) ; T o m b 105 (Karageorghis 1970, Pl. C L X X X I - I I ) ; and T o m b 7 9
(Karageorghis 1974, Pl. C C X X V I - V I I ) . A late type of amphora occurs, for example,
in T o m b 2 3 (Karageorghis 1970, PI. CI:38).
The Iron Age site of Kaloriziki, on the south coast of Cyprus, was
excavated by the Cyprus Museum and the University of Pennsylvania
in the early part of this century, in conjunction with excavation of the
(later) settlement of Kourion to its north. Although many of the tombs
in the necropolis at Kaloriziki were fairly well-preserved, they are not
illustrated in their original tomb groups but by division into Gjerstad's
categories, which considerably hinders reassessment here (Benson
1973, Pis. 35, 36, 50, 51). A recent attempt at reanalysis of the early
Kaloriziki tombs (Steel 1996) accepts the conventional Cypriot
chronological periods uncritically and does not therefore throw light
on the issue of BoR. 41
A number of tombs at Kaloriziki predate the appearance of BoR
and predominantly contain early White Painted types. BoR pottery
appears in Tombs 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38 and 44, where it is
assigned in all cases to the 'Cypro-Geometric III' or 'Cypro-Archaic
I' periods. One tomb, Tomb 27, may possibly have included an
earlier period of BoR than that to which it is assigned, Cypro-
Archaic I (Benson 1973, 36-37). The BoR in this tomb included two
barrel-juglets, 42 a two-handled juglet, 43 and a trefoil-lipped jug, 44 as
well as BoR bowls; three of these bowls belong to the Red Slip
grooved rim tradition, with the addition of black painted lines
around the body. 45 Gjerstad places this bowl type in the Red Slip I
(III) category (Gjerstad 1948, Pl. XXVI: 16). Extraction of the
pottery from the chronology assigned to it by the excavators is,
however, hindered by the frequently uncertain internal stratigraphy
of the tombs, and in most cases the burial 'periods' cannot be
independently assessed. It appears that, in general, the tombs at
Kaloriziki may have covered the medium phases of BoR pottery,
rather than the period of its initial introduction.
41
Only one tomb containing BoR pottery (Tomb 24) is included in Steel's
reassessment. On the basis of a reorganisation of their predominant ware types
(according to Gjerstad's s c h e m e ) , Steel redates s o m e of the tombs at Kaloriziki which
B e n s o n had assigned to Cypro-Geometric I, to Cypro-Geometric II, suggesting that
"there was a more gradual development in the use of the cemetery than was apparent
from B e n s o n ' s dating of the t o m b s . . . " (Steel 1996, 300). While this conclusion may
be correct, in v i e w of the methodology e m p l o y e d it does not elucidate the problem of
the chronology of BoR.
42
K673, K675 (Benson 1973, PI. 35, PI. 20)
43
K751 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35)
44
K 7 3 3 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35)
45
K 6 8 7 , K670, K671 ( B e n s o n 1973, PI. 35)
The cult site of Ayia Irini, in the north of Cyprus, west of Lapithos,
was excavated by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1929 (Gjerstad
1935, 642-824). Only meagre occupation remains are preserved at
this site from a period earlier than the later Iron Age (Gjerstad 1935,
812, 822-823). Between 1960-1985, the necropolis at Ayia Irini was
excavated by the Italian Mission and the Iron Age tombs were
published in 1978 (Rocchetti 1978). A large number of these tombs
contain BoR pottery, but also represent only the 'mid-late' phase of
the Iron Age and the BoR within them is of advanced type. A
substantial proportion of the pottery in these tombs shows Phoenician
influence. Red-slip Phoenician trefoil-lipped jugs, for example, occur
in Tombs 28, 33, 46, 47 (Rocchetti 1978, 101, Figs. 28:9; 33:10;
46:3), and a Phoenician inscription was found in Tomb 43 (presumed
to have a Phoenician occupant) (Rochetti 1978:112, 114-16). A Greek
Geometric skyphos was also found in Tomb 46, dated to c. 750-700
BC (Rocchetti 1978, 109, Fig. 46:4). The relatively late date of this
necropolis does not, however, contribute to the assessment of BoR
chronology here.
A number of Iron Age tombs containing BoR pottery have been
excavated in the vicinity of Nicosia but most represent also only the
'mid-late' period of the Iron Age. 46 In 1951, however, four tombs
were excavated in the centre of Nicosia which produced finds from
the earlier part of the Iron Age (Flourentzos 1981). Analysis of the
BoR pottery from these tombs is not inconsistent with the findings at
the cemetery at Palaepaphos-Skales (above), although aspects of
these tombs require reassessment.
Tomb 1 produced predominantly White Painted and Bichrome
wares, but also a shallow BoR bowl, a BoR barrel-juglet and a
fragmentary BoR juglet (ex situ, not illustrated). 47 The pottery in this
tomb is dated to the "later stage of the Cypro-Geometric III period"
(Flourentzos 1981, 118). Several examples in this tomb may,
however, belong to an earlier phase: a White Painted jug is better
paralleled by an example in Gjerstad's 'White Painted II' category
than by 'White Painted III' to which it is assigned (Flourentzos 1981,
Pl. XVI: 17 (No. 15), 117; Gjerstad 1948: Fig. XIII: 14). Similarly, a
Bichrome amphora is also best paralleled by an example in 'White
46
Eg. Flourentzos 1986.
47
Flourentzos 1981, 117-118
Painted II' (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVI: 2 (No. 10), 117; Gjerstad
1948, Fig. XIV:6). These vessels, along with two Black Slip jugs that
are classified as 'Type II,' (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVI: 20-21 (Nos.
12, 8), 118) suggest that the tomb may represent an earlier phase of
the Iron Age than that presented, and may be contemporary with the
earliest phase of BoR production. 48 The presence of the barrel-juglet
in this tomb corresponds with the establishment of this ware type at
Palaepaphos-Skales as one of the earliest BoR forms to develop.
Tomb 3 in this group is divided stratigraphically into dromos and
chamber; no BoR was found in the dromos, but amongst the White
Painted and Bichrome wares in the chamber appeared two BoR handle-
ridge juglets, a BoR barrel-juglet, a BoR basket-handled juglet, a
two-handled BoR juglet, a BoR carinated bowl, a BoR shallow bowl,
and a BoR amphoriskos. 49 The presence of a Bichrome jug with
mushroom-lip 50 in Tomb 3 suggests a later date for this tomb group than
Tomb 1, despite the apparent link between this tomb and Tomb 1 in
aspects of its construction (Flourentzos 1981, 126). It should probably
be dated to the 'middle' phase of BoR circulation. Tomb 4 produced
two plain BoR bowls (one fragmentary) alongside White Painted and
Bichrome pottery. An example of a similar, possibly more advanced
form of the White Painted jug (classified as 'White Painted II' by
Gjerstad) found in Tomb 1 (see above) is also present in Tomb 4 (and
in Tomb 2), in Bichrome decoration. This may indicate that Tomb 4 is
not substantially later than Tomb 1 (Flourentzos 1981, Pl. XVII: 15 (No.
2), 125; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII: 14). However, only a small number of
vessels are preserved from this tomb and it should be discounted from
chronological consideration.
The tombs from this necropolis at Nicosia do not contribute
substantially to discussion of the chronology of BoR pottery in Cyprus,
and the circumstances of their excavation and publication caution
against their reliability. However, there is some indication from
48
Note that no vessels in this tomb are decorated with the small concentric circle
motif, which also argues for an early date in the ceramic sequence. It is a strong
possibility that the presence of BoR pottery in this tomb encouraged the author of the
publication to s w e e p the w h o l e assemblage of wares into the 'Type III' category, in
accordance with Gjerstad's typology.
49
Flourentzos 1981, 1 2 2 - 1 2 4
50
Flourentzos 1981, 122, No. 21. It is also possible, especially g i v e n the
circumstances of excavation (and delayed publication) of these tombs, that this vessel
was intrusive.
reassessment of the pottery assemblage from Tomb 1 that BoR pottery
was appearing during an earlier phase of White Painted and Bichrome
pottery circulation than Gjerstad's typological arrangement suggests.
In 1973, a necropolis was excavated by the Cypriot Department of
Antiquities at the site of Kato Dheftera, 8 miles SW of Nicosia, and
produced finds from the earlier part of the Iron Age. The publication of this
site without essential illustrations is, however, unsatisfactory (Christou
1974; 1984).51 Tomb 1, which was intact, contained (amongst White
Painted, Bichrome and Black Slip pottery), a BoR amphoriskos, a shallow
bowl, a barrel-juglet and two handle-ridge juglets.52 The excavator
suggests that two burial periods are represented, but there is no indication
of disturbance of the first burial and it is therefore more likely to be a
single-period tomb (Christou 1984, 174-178). Tomb 4 contained one
burial and was intact. The small number of finds in this tomb include
White Painted and Black Slip pottery, one Red Slip bowl and a BoR
barrel-juglet. The presence of the BoR barrel-juglet here may support the
early occurrence of this vessel type in the BoR sequence; the excavator
dates the tomb to the "beginning of the Cypro-Geometric III period"
(Christou 1984, 184). Tomb 5 is likewise dated by the excavator to the
beginning of the CG III period, and contained two BoR juglets, one a plain
juglet with no handle-ridge, the other a ovoid-bodied juglet (with possibly
trefoil-lip, missing). Assessment of the chronology of the Kato Dheftera
cemetery, however, is greatly hindered by the lack of plates provided in the
publication and any alteration of the chronology of BoR pottery within the
Cypriot sequence on the basis of this evidence would be unwise.
Other Iron Age tombs from different regions on the island produced
BoR pottery but were also of the later Iron Age period and therefore not
of especial contribution here. 53 The settlement site of Kition is
51
The original publication o f the cemetery does not present the finds by tomb
but merely as a selection of notable vessels, whereas the supplementary publication
a decade later includes a full catalogue but no accompanying plates (Christou 1974;
1984). With no cross-references it is impossible to combine the t w o and the exact
pottery types are therefore unclear.
52
Christou 1984, 174 -178.
53
Eg. Hadjisavvas 1989; Flourentzos 1985; Christodoulou 1972. The Swedish
Cyprus Expedition's excavations at Sty Hi and Marion were published in Gjerstad
1935: 142-180, 181-459. Although a small number of tombs at Marion represent an
early Iron A g e phase, these do not contain BoR (eg. Gjerstad 1935, 373, T.63) - the
excavator postulates a "gap in the habitation of the site between Cypro-Geometric II
and Cypro-Archaic I" (Gjerstad 1935, 4 5 5 ) . B o R appears in tombs at both Stylli and
Marion in later contexts.
potentially one of the most valuable to this discussion, but the
'Phoenician' levels at this site are not yet published. The BoR pottery
from this site has, however, been examined by this author, and is
generally of the mid-late Iron Age period. The levels to which this
pottery is assigned are dated to the late Iron Age period (Karageorghis,
pers. comm.; Bikai n.d.).54 The Swedish excavations at the settlement
of Idalion early in the century, and the more recent American
excavations at the site (Stager & Walker 1989) produced BoR pottery,
but meagre architectural remains were found prior to the later Iron Age
cult site here, and the BoR from this site was generally of late types
(Gjerstad 1935, 572, 624, 627; Stager & Walker 1989, 461),"
'Non-Ceramic' Dating Evidence

It is clear from the above survey that, despite the problematic nature
of tomb evidence, the sites of Palaepaphos-Skales and Lapithos, and
to an extent the Iron Age cemetery at Amathus and that excavated at
Nicosia in 1951, make a substantial contribution to assessment of
BoR chronology. Analysis of the non-ceramic material in the tombs
can provide supplementary evidence to the conclusions drawn here.
The intrinsically valuable nature of most non-ceramic evidence
found in tomb contexts - seals, metal items such as weapons, and
jewellery - and therefore its 'heirloom value,' renders it problematic
for the purposes of clarifying chronology. Other factors, such as re-
use of the tombs, later intrusions and the possibility of mis-assigning
small items during their original excavation, all contribute to the
hazards of including these items in assessment of the dating of their
contexts. 'Datable' objects such as scarabs can sometimes provide a
terminus post quern for the contexts in which they are found, but the
reliability of this evidence tends to decrease in proportion to the age
of the excavation itself, as control over excavation conditions has
improved with time. For this reason, only the tombs at Palaepaphos-
Skales which represent the earliest phase of BoR pottery (Tombs 46,
54
The BoR from Kition will be discussed separately in an appendix of the Kition
VI publication (Schreiber, forthcoming).
55
N o BoR was uncovered in the first seasons of American excavation at Idalion
(Stager, Walker and Wright 1974). Subsequently, the initial project directives of
investigating the early Iron A g e period at the site had to be altered in v i e w of the
military situation on the island in the 1970s (Stager, Walker and Wright 1974, 5;
Stager & Walker 1989, 1).
52, 54, 63, 69, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80 and 90 - discussed above) and Tomb
1 at Nicosia will be discussed here.
Many of the early tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales contain iron
weapons (Tombs 52, 54, 63, 69, 77, 79 and 80). Of these, the
excavator notes that three iron knives and one iron dagger from
Tombs 52 and 54 (Karageorghis 1983, 95, 107, T.52:la-c, T.54:l,8)
are of types similar to those found in earlier (pre-BoR) tombs. 56 A
bronze bowl found in Tomb 80 is similar to one in Tomb 49, which
belongs to an earlier, pre-BoR phase (Karageorghis 1983: 256,
T.80:27, T.49:10). Bronze tweezers of the type found in Tomb 72
"have a long tradition in the Late Bronze Age and continue in the
early Iron Age" (Karageorghis 1983, 192). The two gold and silver
pins found in Tomb 79 are of similar type to an example from Tomb
417 at Lapithos (see above) (Karageorghis 1983, 249 n.255, Gjerstad
1934, Pl. LI:5). A gold needle also from Tomb 79 is comparable to a
specimen in Tomb 1 at Salamis, which belongs to the earliest phase of
the Iron Age (Karageorghis 1983, 249, T.79:54).
The two cylinder seals found in Tomb 71 at Palaepaphos-Skales
tombs are regarded as likely to have been heirlooms, as is the stone
gaming board found in Tomb 69 (Karageorghis 1983: 1A, 46, 189,
182, T. 69:A; Porada 1983, 407-410). One item from Tomb 69 may,
however, be important here: a Plain White jug inscribed with
Phoenician letters (Karageorghis 1983, T.69:66; Sznycer 1983,
416-417). Not all the letters on this jug have been identified as
known Phoenician, and Sznycer notes that "on ne peut même pas
être assuré qu'il s'agit d'une inscription proprement phénicienne"
(Sznycer 1983, 416). The inscription may possibly have been
copied onto the jug from an older Phoenician text. However, the
very archaic forms of the lettering, some of which is paralleled by
the Phoenician text found at the site of Izbet Sartah on the mainland
in an early Iron Age context ( c . l l t h century BC) (Sznycer 1983,
416), may equally indicate that this vessel, and by (possible)
implication the context in which it was found, should be dated to an
early stage of Phoenician writing.
Tomb 1 in the necropolis at Nicosia may also support an early
dating. An impressive iron sword was found in this tomb, published
56
The bronze rather than iron rivets in the iron knife from Tomb 5 4
(Karageorghis 1983, Fig: 54:1) is especially noted as an indicator of an early date
(Karageorghis 1 9 8 3 , 9 5 )
by Snodgrass (Flourentzos 1981, 127; Snodgrass 1981, 129-134).
While he accepts a 'Cypro-Geometric III' date for the sword on the
basis of the date proposed for the tomb by Flourentzos (Snodgrass
1981, 131), Snodgrass comments that in points of detail
"remarkably little has changed" from the form of earlier sword
found at Palaepaphos-Skales (Tomb 76), and that in fact the
Nicosia sword "resumes... the line of descent of a type long
previously established in Cyprus" (Snodgrass 1981, 131). The
possibility should therefore be considered that the sword and the
tomb in which it was found could be dated earlier than c. 850 BC,
as originally proposed.
In sum, although not providing any absolute dates, the 'non-
ceramic' finds from tombs in which BoR pottery appears would
support an earlier date for these contexts than that to which they are
assigned. None of these items are firmly associated with a period later
than that specified, and several appear to be linked closely with the
early Iron Age.
Absolute Chronology and (Towards) a Reconciliation of the

Chronologies of Cyprus and the Mainland
Chapter Three established, on the best interpretation of the current

evidence, that BoR pottery was present on the mainland in the second
half of the 10th century, and 'Phase 1 ' of the pottery should be dated
there from c. 940-890 BC, from the late 10th - beginning of the 9th
century BC. The current chapter has shown that aspects of Gjerstad's
typology are flawed, and consequently that the chronological scheme
which Gjerstad proposed for his typology is open to reassessment.
This chapter has also shown:
1. That the earliest BoR pottery is contemporary with relatively early
White Painted and Bichrome pottery.
2. That BoR pottery developed from Cypriot types of pottery, and that
an early 'foreign' class of BoR pottery in Cyprus is not convincing
(see also below).
3. That there are some indications from non-ceramic evidence within
Cypriot tombs that BoR pottery appears in a phase closely linked
with the early part of the Iron Age.
In consequence of these finds, it is possible to propose a raising of
the dates of the first appearance of BoR pottery in Cyprus.
Gjerstad's Absolute Dates

Cypro-Geometric I 1050 - 9 5 0 BC
Cypro-Geometric II 950 - 850 BC
Cypro-Geometric III 850 - 700 BC
Cypro-Archaic I 700 - 600 BC

Cypro-Archaic II 600 - 475 BC
Gjerstad's typology placed small quantities of 'foreign' BoR
pottery in Cypro-Geometric II, and Cypriot manufacture of the
ware from Cypro-Geometric III onwards. The White Painted and
Bichrome Ί Γ types, with which BoR is often associated in its
earliest appearance, are dated generally to Cypro-Geometric II, c.
950 - 850 BC. It is here suggested that this early BoR pottery is of
Cypriot manufacture. The accuracy of Gjerstad's dating sequence
for the Cypro-Geometric period is placed in doubt by the
inconsistencies demonstrated in his typology. It is possible that
BoR pottery should be dated from c. 950 BC, alongside White
Painted and Bichrome pottery of 'Type II.' It is also a possibility
that this White Painted and Bichrome 'Type II' period (ie. Cypro-
Geometric II) should be shifted earlier and dated from the
beginning of the 10th century BC. This is a subject for further
consideration but beyond the scope of this book.
The dating of the earliest Cypriot BoR ware from at least c. 950 BC
in Cyprus places it in line with the earliest BoR ware to be found on
the mainland, according to analysis of the chronology of the ware in
that region (Chapter Three). One important consideration is the
relative quantities of this pottery - was BoR pottery being produced in
adequate quantities in Cyprus by c. 950 BC to warrant its export
abroad? It is very possible that the archaeological record in Cyprus is
somewhat distorted by strict application of Gjerstad's dates, and thus
the proportion of 'Cypro-Geometric II' contexts which produced BoR
pottery appears smaller than it was in reality. On the mainland, the
final years of the strata in which BoR first occurs are provisionally
dated to the end of the 10th century - c. 925 BC onwards; the ware
appears in these strata in fair quantity. It is possible that its initial
appearance, prior to the destruction of these levels, was in smaller
quantities. On the mainland, BoR's first appearance is in fair
quantities, not a trickle, although it is probably significant that the
strata in which it first appears often follow rather insubstantial levels.
The extent to which production of BoR pottery developed uniformly
over the whole of Cyprus, or whether some regions of the island
developed and exported the pottery earlier than others is a further
question, which it is difficult to address in the state of current
evidence of this early BoR period.
This survey has shown, however, that resolution of the problem of
the chronology of BoR pottery lies in reassessing Gjerstad's typology
and chronology and disengaging BoR from its strictures. It is
proposed here that the ware should be dated from c. 950 BC on Cyprus
and that it was exported to the mainland from the early stages of its
production, correlating exactly with 'Phase Γ of BoR in that region.
The Origin and Development of BoR
Resolution of the chronology for BoR pottery in Cyprus allows us

to address the question of its origin: what was the process of its
development? This chapter has established that probably the first
BoR form to appear in Cyprus was the BoR barrel-juglet. This form
was more or less contemporary with bowl types such as the
'pedestalled' bowl and the plain bowl, possibly a simple form of
the BoR jug and also the plain 'squat'juglet, without handle-ridge.
Soon after this initial period of BoR, other BoR types developed -
the 'classic' handle-ridge juglet, trefoil-lipped jugs, amphorae,
two-handled juglets, and the (rarer) basket-handled juglet. The
question of inspiration for these wares has been discussed briefly
above, and the possibility of direct 'Phoenician' prototypes
overruled; the extent of the Phoenician contribution is further
discussed below.
The early BoR wares are clearly direct descendants of their
cousins in White Painted and Bichrome wares. The White Painted
barrel-juglet (Figure 11:6) is an especially popular and distinctively
Cypriot type found consistently in periods preceding those in which
BoR first appears, and continuing until a relatively late stage of BoR
production. This pottery type soon inspired production of the BoR
barrel-juglet. Note that Bichrome barrel-juglets probably also
preceded the introduction of the BoR barrel-juglet; an early
Bichrome example is found in Tomb 19 at Amathus (Gjerstad 1935,
T.19:6, 2 8 ) . "
The barrel-juglet soon developed an off-shoot, the juglet with
flared rim, globular body, rounded base and single handle reaching
from the neck to the shoulder, usually decorated with one or two large
groups of concentric circles. This type appears in White Painted and
Bichrome ware in Gjerstad's 'Type II' category, and certainly
preceded the introduction of BoR (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:9; Fig.
XVI:4) (Figure 11:7,17). It is possible that this shape could have
developed directly to the globular juglet with flat base, and then the
'classic' handle-ridge juglet. However, another early juglet form is
perhaps more directly linked with BoR. This is a smaller juglet with
flared rim, either 'squat' with a gently rounded base, or more globular
with a flat base, and single handle from neck to shoulder. These forms
are found in Gjerstad's White Painted II category but are known also
in Bichrome ware and are decorated with thin horizontal lines
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIII:8, 11,12) (Figure 11:9-11). A good example
in Bichrome is found in Tomb 50A at Salamis (Karageorghis 1978, PI.
111:2). This tomb, which does not contain BoR, may belong to a period
contemporary (rather than earlier) to BoR, but it is likely that the type
represented here was a prototype for the 'classic' BoR juglet.
Once the BoR barrel-juglet had developed, it is reasonable to
assume that a similar style of decoration was simply adopted onto a
range of other Cypriot shapes. Early BoR bowls are identical in form
to those in the White Painted and Bichrome repertoire. However, two
particular features of BoR pottery warrant discussion here, as they are
frequently cited as evidence of BoR's 'foreign' origins: the handle-
ridge and the red-slipped and black painted decoration.
1. The Handle-Ridge
The popularity of the small BoR globular juglet with handle attached
to a sharply-defined ridge around its neck has given rise to the
synonymous term 'handle-ridge juglet.' It has often been suggested
that this was a 'Phoenician' feature, as it occurs commonly on
57
S e e also Birmingham for discussion of the sequence of barrel-juglets in Cyprus
"beginning just before the bulk of Black-on-Red w a r e . . . consistent with an early-mid
tenth century date" (Birmingham 1963, 38).
Phoenician jugs (eg. Vandenabeele 1968, 111). However, as noted
above, the Phoenician 'heavy-walled juglets' with small neck-ridge,
which have been proposed as a BoR prototype, are chronologically
later than the first appearance of the BoR juglet (Brodie & Steel 1996,
274). While variants on this feature are common on other Phoenician
jug types, such as the Bichrome jugs (eg. Bikai 1987, Pis. IV-VI), the
most common early Phoenician vessels found in pre-BoR contexts on
Cyprus do not have neck-ridges (see Chapter Two, 48-51). On
balance, there is little firm evidence that the appearance of this feature
on BoR vessels is due to influence from Phoenician pottery. It should
instead be noted that the 'handle-ridge' is found on early Cypriot
pottery, preceding the appearance of BoR, but in a less pronounced
form: for example, on White Painted and Bichrome barrel-juglets of
Gjerstad's Type I and II (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. 111:15, Fig. XIII:7; Fig.
XVI:3) and Bichrome globular jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. VIII: 14). It
is possible that the function of the handle-ridge was a 'ceramic
imitation' of the metal strip fixing the handle of a jug or juglet to its
neck, or genuine reinforcement for the narrow neck of a juglet at the
point of its greatest weakness (Coldstream 1977, 67). Both of these
propositions are logical, but in the absence as yet of metal prototypes
for the BoR handle-ridge juglet, the possibility of such a prototype
remains conjectural. 5 8 Reinforcement of the juglet neck is a
convincing explanation.
2. The Decoration
As noted in Chapter One, while the characteristic decoration of BoR
pottery - black painted lines and concentric circles - has been shown
to have plausible origins in earlier types of Cypriot pottery, there is
some evidence that the combination of black paint on a red slipped
background may owe its inspiration to mainland pottery. Red-slipped
black-painted ware found at the site of Palaepaphos-Skales, of
probable mainland origin, has been defined by Bikai as "Red Ware"
(Bikai 1983, 400-402; see Chapter One, 13-15, Figure 9:8-1 J). This
pottery type appears generally in earlier tombs at the site of
Palaepaphos-Skales than those in which BoR appears: Tombs 43, 49,
58
Note that a bronze jug from Sidon s h o w s the handle attached to the neck with
a metal strip around the rim; a similar attachment could be considered for the neck
(Culican 1968, Pl. XIX: 1).
50, 58, 78, although one example also appears in Tomb 93, alongside
BoR vessels (Bikai 1983, 401). Bikai notes: "It is perhaps not a
coincidence that true Cypriot Black-on-Red is made from a fine red
clay. That may well be a refinement of the early type we are seeing
here. The heavy red slip on these pieces, as well as their shapes, point
to mainland manufacture but there is something about the thin black-
line décor on these particular pieces that points to the later
development of Black-on-Red" (Bikai 1983, 402).
The similarity of Bikai's 'Red Ware' to other red-slipped and
black-painted pottery on the mainland was noted in Chapter One
(Bikai 1983, 400, n.32). It was suggested there that this decorative
technique developed independently, or semi-independently, within
the ceramic repertoires of 'Philistine' and 'Phoenician' pottery, both
of which had earlier black painted pottery traditions (see Chapter
One, 10-19). Bikai's 'Red Ware' correlates most closely with the red-
slipped and black-painted pottery found in the region of Phoenicia.
In view of the presence of 'Red Ware' in contexts on Cyprus which
precede the appearance of BoR pottery, it is very possible that these
vessels encouraged Cypriot potters to experiment with a red-slipped
background alongside their own traditions of simple geometric black
painted motifs. 59 In addition, there is some evidence, frustratingly
incomplete, of vessels undoubtedly manufactured on the mainland
which show stylistic associations to BoR. One red-slipped trefoil-
lipped jug in particular from the site of Rachidiyeh on the Phoenician
coast, 4 kms from Tyre, has a double handle and shows a band of
finely drawn black painted horizontal lines edged with a thicker line
on each side, and a 'tree' motif. The fabric is identical to other
Phoenician wares from the site, and the red slip is thin and flaking.
The fineness and arrangement of the painted lines, however, show a
clear affiliation with BoR decoration. The tomb in which the vessel
was found is dated approximately from 10th - 8th centuries BC; the jug
may possibly belong early in the sequence (Doumet, pers. comm.).
This vessel provides a useful caution against the study of BoR pottery
in isolation from other ceramic influences of the period and suggests
that a degree of cross-transference of motifs and decoration was
likely.
59
It should in this context be noted that the earliest BoR barrel-juglets in Cyprus
often have a thick dark red slip, which may only subsequently have developed into
the fine orange-red slips characteristic of B o R vessels.
It is also interesting to consider whether to some extent early 'Red
Ware' on the mainland was itself influenced by early imported White
Painted pottery. The excavator of the site of Achziv, for example,
points out similarities between an early jug type found in tombs at the
site with slight neck-ridge, decorated with red slip and black paint,
and an identical jug type in the Cypriot White Painted I repertoire
(Prausnitz 1972, 152-154: Fig. 3; Gjerstad 1948, PI. IV:5). Also
probably of mainland manufacture, but clearly imitating Cypriot
vessels, are two examples of red-slipped and black-painted barrel-
juglets found at Achziv and in the south at Tel Fara (S). 60 The tomb
contexts in which these vessels appear, however, (and the state of
publication) prevent fully satisfactory dating. 61
"Imitation" BoR
This chapter has shown that Gjerstad was incorrect in assigning much
of the BoR pottery found in Cyprus to an early type of "foreign ware,"
manufactured on the mainland. However, there is indeed evidence of
local production of BoR pottery on the mainland. The excavations at
Tarsus (Gözlii Kule) in the first part of the century uncovered pottery
kilns located outside the Late Bronze Age walls, in which some
specimens of BoR pottery were found, along with local White Painted
and ' b u f f wares (Hanfmann 1963, 24, 26, 50). This pottery the
excavators termed 'Cilician black-on-red.' (Hanfmann 1963, 50).
Examples of 'imported Cypriot' BoR were also found at the site
(Hanfmann 1963, 57-58). The locally-made wares closely resemble
BoR in forms and decoration style, but are distinguishable from true
Cypriot BoR by its ware as well as the quality of decoration. The slip
60
See Prausnitz 1972, 154; one e x a m p l e is juglet N o . 2 2 0 7 from Locus 4 1 0 ,
Tomb T.C.4 at Achziv and N o . E.VIII.33/5 from Tomb 241 at Tel Fara (S). N o tomb
number is given for the red-slipped jug (Fig. 3) in Prausnitz 1972.
61
The barrel juglet from Achziv was found in Tomb T.C.4, Locus 6 1 0 , which the
excavator dates to c. 10th - 9th century BC, and also contained e x a m p l e s of clearly
imported Cypriot BoR (Mazar pers. c o m m . ) . The possibility that initial production
of these mainland barrel-juglets could have been the impetus for the development of
BoR barrel-juglets on Cyprus is not likely in v i e w of the longstanding Cypriot
tradition of barrel-jugs and juglets from the early Iron A g e period, as well as the
absence of this style in local mainland repertoires. However, the details of the
transference of decorative technique remain obscure to us. It is possible that there
w a s a degree of cross-transference, with Cypriot pottery techniques imitated by
potters on the mainland and the heterogeneous products (or awareness o f them)
exported to Cyprus where they influenced the development of BoR pottery.
is generally thinner and the paint of lesser quality than on Cypriot
BoR. The motifs, such as the concentric circle design, are frequently
'over-applied' (See Figure 15:1-4). The excavators note also the
frequent presence of a grey core in the ware (Hanfmann 1963, 27-28;
Gjerstad 1948, 259). Hanfmann comments:
If we compare Tarsian black-on-red with that of Cyprus, we must take into
account that Cypriote black-on-red is not completely homogenous. It may
be said that the Cypriote red slip is always different from the Cilician in
tone, but in some Cypriote groups it is more orange, in others a clearer
red. The Cilician red tends to look crimson. The Cypriote black paint is a
more marked matt black and does not have the faint sheen of the Cilician
paint. Polishing is very pronounced in Cypriote black-on-red especially in
the small flasks and jugs; burnishing seems to occur less frequently than
in Tarsus. (Hanfmann 1963, 50).
Two other recently excavated (and unpublished) sites in Cilicia

have produced BoR pottery which resembles the ware from Tarsus
- Kilise Tepe to the west of Tarsus and Kinet Hüyük to the east
(Postgate 1997, Hodos 1999, Knappe» 1999). This pottery is also
distinct from the Cypriot wares in quality and decoration, while
clearly a variant on the Cypriot style. Like Tarsus, these local
imitation wares are dated to the later Iron Age. Kilns have been
found at the site of Kinet Hüyük containing examples of these
imitation wares, dated to Period 9, c. 750-720 BC (Hodos 1999).
Recent chemical analysis conducted on the Cypriot pottery from the
site of Kilise Tepe have confirmed the presence there of a locally-
produced group of 'Cypriot-style' wares, which contains a high
proportion of serpentine, alongside a separate group which are
viewed as imports from Cyprus (Knappett 1999). Significantly, this
analysis indicated a range of fabrics within the imported group,
suggesting a number of different production centres on Cyprus
(Knappett 1999).
The site of Al Mina also provides evidence of BoR pottery possibly
locally made in the Antioch region, similar to the ware from Kilise
Tepe, Kinet Hüyük and Tarsus. A proportion of BoR pottery at Al
Mina has a dark pink, often flaking slip, and coarse fabric (see Table
C). Gjerstad notes that "a considerable quantity [of BoR pottery at Al
Mina] is apparently of local origin, ie. made by Cypriotes in Syria.
This is shown by the structure of the clay and also by the somewhat
uncanonic and peculiar type of ornamentation" (Gjerstad 1948, 255).
While unusual, some features of the decoration on specimens from Al
Mina are paralleled by pottery from Cyprus, 62 but the coarse fabric of
other examples suggests that their origin is most likely to be local.
Liddy's scientific analysis which showed compositional similarities
between BoR pottery from Knossos, Palaepaphos-Skales and Al Mina
also indicates, however, that at least a proportion of the BoR at this
site was Cypriot (Liddy 1996, 488; see above, 234-239).
A proportion of the BoR pottery from the site of Tell Keisan may
possibly be categorized as 'imitation' BoR, although the ware differs
from the examples discussed above in being of fine quality and in all
respects similar to BoR from Cyprus except for the frequent
occurrence of a grey core. It seems likely to this author that, as
Knappett's study indicated (above) these examples of BoR pottery
from Tell Keisan may simply have been produced at a centre on
Cyprus from which we have, as yet, few other examples. However,
the anomaly should be noted and a local place of manufacture remains
a possibility.
Other sporadic examples of locally-manufactured pottery which
imitates the BoR style have been found at the sites of Tel Fara (S),
Achziv and Tel Dor (as noted above). 63 The BoR pottery from these
sites has been personally examined by this author, and it is likely that
a small number of similar examples occurred at many other sites in
the region and are simply not published. These examples should be
regarded as the occasional by-products of an importation process of
BoR pottery. Other examples of White Painted and Bichrome pottery
may have been locally manufactured on the Phoenician coast (Riis
1982, 259; Culican in Riis 1982, 259). Culican notes that these
examples were collected as surface sherds and he dates them
generally to the later Iron Age (Culican in Riis 1982, 259).
In contrast to these wares, the proliferation of imitation Cypriot
pottery found in the region of Cilicia represents "something of a
koine" in the later Iron Age (Boardman 1999, 149). These wares,
which are distinct from the sporadic examples noted above, should be
considered the true category of 'imitation BoR.' In order to avoid
62
For example, the 'curled tongue' motif on a BoR jug fragment from Al Mina
(vessel no. 5 5 / 1 0 7 8 ) is similar to that on a White Painted IV-V jug from Idalion
(Stager & Walker 1989, 91, PI. 5a).
63
Eg. juglet nos. E.VII.33/5 from Tomb 2 4 1 , Ε. VII.85/12 from Tomb 2 0 2 , E.VII
39/1 from Tomb 212, E.VII.59/16 and E.VII.59/15 from Tomb 2 2 9 at Tel Fara (S);
juglet nos. 2 2 0 7 . L . 4 1 0 . Tomb T.C.4, 1390. L.212.Tomb T.C.2 from Achziv; sherd
nos. 8 7 - 3 5 . 7 1 5 6 4 - 8 0 . L . 7 1 8 9 , 7 4 - 9 3 . 9 9 3 5 6 / 1 . L . 9 9 1 0 from Tel Dor.
confusion over terminology, however, Boardman's suggestion of the
term "Cypro-Levantine" for the ware is perhaps most satisfactory
(Boardman 1999, 149).
Conclusions
This chapter has therefore examined the origin of BoR from the
perspective of Cyprus and the problems arising from previous
scholarship on the pottery. Assessment of the chronology of the ware
on the mainland in Chapter Three, comparison with its chronology in
Cyprus, and clarification of errors in Gjerstad's scheme allows us to
present a plausible absolute chronology for the ware and a single
place of origin - Cyprus. It is hoped that future scientific analysis will
confirm these findings. The implications of this assessment are
further considered in the Conclusion.
C H A P T E R FIVE
THE LATER HISTORY OF BoR AND THE QUESTION OF

PHOENICIAN INVOLVEMENT IN ITS DISPERSAL TO THE WEST
The preceding chapters have focused on the early stages of BoR

pottery in the eastern Mediterranean: its origin, and the establishment
of a satisfactory chronology of the ware in Cyprus and on the
Levantine mainland. This chapter will conclude the history of this
pottery type by examining the evidence for the later stages of trade in
BoR pottery and its appearance further west on the Dodecanese
islands of Rhodes and Cos, and on Crete. The role of the Phoenicians
in the dissemination of BoR pottery to the west as part of a Phoenician
involvement in an "eastern unguent trade," originally proposed and
still advocated by Coldstream (1969, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1996, 1998)
has been generally accepted (Rupp 1987, 149, 159; Shaw 1989, 181;
Markoe 1985, 127; 2000, 171). This chapter therefore, first, assesses
the approximate date of the latest BoR production in Cyprus and the
influence of BoR on other pottery styles within Cyprus. Second, it
examines the date for the appearance of BoR pottery on the islands of
Rhodes, Cos and Crete and the extent to which this pottery was
imitated locally on these islands. Third, this chapter assesses the
question of Phoenician involvement in this process. To what extent is
there evidence of Phoenician-run "perfume-factories" on these
islands (Coldstream 1969, 4; 1998, 258, 260)? Are there in fact more
convincing reasons to associate the Phoenicians with this trade of
BoR to the west than there are for Cypriots? Finally, does the
evidence of the later trade in BoR throw any light upon the earliest
stage of trade in BoR between Cyprus and the Levant?
The Latest Stage of BoR in Cyprus
The later history of BoR pottery in Cyprus sees two chief stylistic
developments. First, an evolution in BoR forms and decoration, and
second, aspects of its distinctive design incorporated onto other
contemporary Cypriot Iron Age wares. Later BoR pottery develops a
wider and more imaginative range of forms. Some BoR forms appear
to continue from the early to the latest period of BoR production, such
as the ubiquitous handle-ridge juglet and some of the bowl shapes, the
simple-rimmed handleless bowl and the carinated bowl. The later
stage of BoR, however, sees an elaboration of shapes, such as a
tendency to produce anthropomorphic and animal-headed vases
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXXIX: 13-15, 21). In general, by c. 800 BC
BoR has reached the apex of its artistic form. In the latest period, a
few types, such as the 'sack-shaped' juglets, develop a 'heavy'
appearance with a low centre of gravity (eg. Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII:
9) (jFigure 6:7).
Miniature BoR vessels, approximately 5-6 cms tall, begin to
appear relatively early - a selection of miniature BoR juglets and
bowls are found at Hurvat Rosh Zayit on the mainland, dated
probably to the early 9th century. 1 These vessels may increase in the
middle period of BoR production. A large number of miniature BoR
juglets were found in Bothros 10 at Kition, from the Temple area,
suggesting that these vessels had perhaps had a special significance in
a ritual context. 2 The miniatures are often exquisitely executed and
formed and decorated in identical fashion to the larger BoR vessels;
only their size limits their functionality. Later BoR often also shows
the influence of Phoenician pottery. BoR juglets appear with a
mushroom-lipped rim and heavy body, closely resembling their
Phoenician prototypes, or simply with a flattened mushroom-lip
(Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLI:4, Fig. XXXIII:7 (in Bichrome Red and
Bichrome); cf. Bikai 1987, Pl. XIII: 298). 3 Rarer than these are the
BoR jugs with conical necks, resembling the Phoenician red-slipped
trefoil-lipped jugs (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. LII: 11; cf. Bikai 1987, PI.
XVI: 388) (Figure 6:3).
1
Vessel nos. 9 6 - 2 5 5 2 , 9 6 - 2 4 3 7 , 9 6 - 2 5 0 7 , 9 6 - 2 4 5 5 . See discussion of the dating
of this site in Chapter Three: although the site is dated by the excavators around the
late 10th century, in this writer's opinion it should be placed slightly later, in the early
9th century.
2
Eg. Nos. 2 1 4 5 , 1928, 2 1 3 5 , 2 1 6 3 , 2 1 1 7 from Bothros 10, Area II, Floor 3
(unpublished, see Schreiber forthcoming).
3
Examples o f 'mushroom-lipped'jugs decorated in Bichrome Red or BoR and of
Cypriot manufacture are found throughout Cyprus (eg. at the Cyprus M u s e u m nos. Β.
1563.1935, Β. 1567.1935); also on display in the Paphos and Kouklia museums.
In decoration, the later stage of BoR also shows a greater
complexity of design - most characteristically an increase in the
number of groups of concentric circles on bowls and juglets, which
often occur in vertical 'bands.'The intersecting circle designs on BoR
jugs become more elaborate. The slip on these later BoR vessels is
often a brighter, more crimson, red than previously, and vessels are
frequently left unburnished.
Alongside the later BoR, a related style of pottery develops -
Bichrome Red. This is similar in technique and decoration to BoR
ware - red slip with black painted decoration - but with additional
painted white lines, or sometimes dots, alongside the black paint
(Gjerstad 1948, 73). Bichrome Red vessels are also frequently
decorated with pictorial motifs, similar to those on Bichrome pottery,
and appear in anthropomorphic form. Otherwise the shapes and
decoration of Bichrome Red are generally similar to that of
contemporary BoR. The imaginative combination of stylistic features
on this pottery type reflects an increased inventiveness of Cypriot
potters in the later Iron Age period {Figure 16:5-8, 10-11).
Gjerstad states that BoR pottery continues on the island throughout
his 'Cypro-Archaic' period, falling off by the 'Cypro-Classical'
period, when Bichrome Red becomes the most common decorated
type in Cyprus (Gjerstad 1948, 204-206). On Gjerstad's chronology,
therefore, BoR begins to decline by c. 600 BC, the beginning of his
Cypro-Archaic II period, although he suggests it continues throughout
the 6th century (Gjerstad 1948, 204, 427). The decline in the export
of BoR pottery beyond the 7th century, however, (see discussion
below) and the slight raising of Gjerstad's chronology advocated in
Chapter Four, suggests that the latter stages of this pottery's
production should not be extended far beyond the end of the 7th
century. There is, however, good evidence that very fine examples of
BoR ware continue to be produced in Cyprus well into the 8th
century. The inclusion of numerous BoR vessels in the 'Royal' Tomb
1 at Salamis is indicative of the high value placed upon BoR pottery
in this period (Dikaios 1963, 175-176).
The introduction of Bichrome Red pottery is put at the second
stage of BoR pottery - Gjerstad terms it Bichrome Red I (IV), and
dates it from the late 7th century (Cypro-Archaic IB) increasing to
reach a peak at the end of the 6th / beginning of the 5th century
(Cypro-Archaic IIB - Cypro-Classical IA) and a decline by c. 400 BC
(Gjerstad 1948, 204, 427). Again, these dates are probably too late.
However, of the decorated wares, this pottery type persists longest
into the late Iron Age and early Classical period, where its
increasingly elaborate decoration attempts to compete with the fine
imported Attic wares. Bichrome Red pottery is, however, almost
never found on the Levantine mainland, supporting the later
chronology assigned to it and the shift in trade of Cypriot pottery
away from the mainland in the later period (see Chapter Three and the
Conclusion).
Another pottery type related to BoR is Red Slip, which according
to Gjerstad's chronology begins to develop in Cyprus at the same time
as the first stage of BoR (BoR I (III) (Gjerstad 1948, 80-82).
Karageorghis differentiates between early Red Slip in Cyprus, which
he dates from Cypro-Geometric II onwards, and Gjerstad's later,
often Phoenician-influenced Red Slip (Karageorghis 1983, 369).
Deep Red Slip bowls, very similar to deep BoR bowls, are especially
common in the early type, and are often decorated with incised
horizontal lines along and underneath the outer rim (Gjerstad 1948,
Fig. XXVI: 16) (Figure 15:9). Identical bowls are sometimes
decorated additionally with black painted lines, in the BoR style
(Karageorghis 1983, 369). This further supports an early development
of BoR pottery in Cyprus.
The later Red Slip jug types show many similarities to Phoenician
pottery, and, as seen above, are also occasionally decorated in
Bichrome Red, or more rarely BoR. A few examples are known in
either Red Slip or Bichrome decoration on classic Phoenician red slip
shapes (Gjerstad 1948, PI. XXXV:4) (Figure 15:12-14). Comparison
between the chronology of the Phoenician prototypes and the Cypriot
imitations can help provide a date for the latter. Bikai dates the
Phoenician prototypes of two jug forms Gjerstad places in his Red
Slip I (III) category, to her 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850 - 750 BC
(Gjerstad 1948: Fig. XXVII:3, 5; Bikai 1987, P1.X:177, 178; PI.
XIV:356, 360). She dates the 'classic' mushroom-lipped jug, a shape
which Gjerstad places in his Red Slip II (IV) category, to her 'Kition'
horizon, c. 750 - 700 BC (Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XLIII:6; Bikai 1987, PI.
XIII:298) (Figure 15:12). The strongly-biconical Phoenician trefoil-
lipped jug, which Gjerstad places in Red Slip I (III), she dates,
however, to her latest 'Amathus' horizon, "after 700 - after 600 BC"
(Bikai 1987, 69, PI. XVI:373; Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XXVIL6) (Figure
15:13). Although this indicates some confusion of the sequence of
these vessels appearing in Cyprus, it is probable that the Cypriot
imitation versions of the Phoenician wares probably began around the
mid-9th century, and occurred well into the 7th century on the island.
Cypriot Pottery West of Cyprus
The appearance of Cypriot pottery in various locations west of

Cyprus is well attested. Perhaps the earliest known Cypriot vessel to
reach a western location is the globular Bichrome juglet found in a
Late Protogeometric context (mid-late 10th century) 4 at Lefkandi, in
Tomb 22 of the Palaia Perivolia necropolis (Popham and Sackett
1979, PI. 270:a; 1980,149). The juglet is of early, probably Bichrome
II type. 5 Fragmentary remains of a BoR juglet and a White Painted
juglet also appear in Sub-Protogeometric II contexts at Lefkandi
(early - mid 9th century BC) (Popham and Lemos 1996, PI. 125:f, d). 6
A 'Phoenician' Bichrome juglet is also found in a Sub-Protogeometric
context at Lefkandi (Popham and Lemos 1996, PI. 125:e).7 Other
sporadic examples of Cypriot pottery were noted by Gjerstad from the
Aegean islands of Thera (Santorini), Delos and at a few locations on
the Greek mainland, but only four of the examples noted are BoR
(Gjerstad 1948, 267-269). The date of these latter finds is, however,
considerably later than that of the Lefkandi finds.
The presence of BoR pottery in significantly greater quantity on
the islands of Rhodes, Cos and Crete, and especially the role of these
islands in recent discussion of Phoenician activity in the
Mediterranean (Coldstream 1998), warrant their individual
examination here. The imported Cypriot wares on these islands are
important in indicating contact between the islands. Especially
interesting, however, is the clear evidence of selectiveness in both the
importation and imitation of this pottery, which is not paralleled at
other regions at which imitation Cypriot wares are produced, such as
Cilicia (see Chapter Four). Chapter Two has investigated the
4
The chronology established by the excavators for Lefkandi is used here (Popham
and Sackett 1980, frontispiece).
5
The juglet is illustrated by photograph only; it is possible that it is a barrel-juglet.
6
Both vessels are too fragmentary to ascertain their types. A likely parallel for the
White Painted juglet is a White Painted III juglet in Gjerstad 1948, Fig. XIX:3.
7
The fabric of this juglet looks Phoenician but exact parallels to the shape in the
Phoenician repertoire are unknown to this author.
possibility that BoR juglets contained perfumed oil, and this is firmly
supported by the evidence from these islands. The following part of
this chapter investigates the nature of the importation of Cypriot
pottery to Rhodes, Cos and Crete and follows with a discussion of
Coldstream's views of the Phoenician involvement in this trade.
BoR in Rhodes
Cypriot pottery was found at several sites excavated on the island of
Rhodes. The cemeteries at Ialysos and Camiros were excavated by the
Italian Mission in the 1920s and 1930s and published in the annals of
the Italian excavations (Maiuri 1926) and successive volumes of
Clara Rhodos (Maiuri 1928, Jacopi 1929, 1931, 1933, Laurenzi
1936). Excavations at the sites of Lindos and Vroulia on Rhodes also
uncovered examples of Cypriot or Cypriot-influenced pottery
(Blinkenberg 1931: 270-271, PI. 43; Kinch 1914: 73, PI. 40). Gjerstad
discusses the Cypriot pottery retrieved from these excavations
(Gjerstad 1948, 262-269) and Coldstream reviews them in his article
"The Phoenicians of Ialysos" and subsequently in a lecture
(Coldstream 1969, 1998).
Examples of both true Cypriot imports and imitation wares were
found on Rhodes. The quantities of these Cypriot and Cypriot imitation
wares are not large and the forms in both categories are entirely restricted
to closed vessels - predominantly juglets of the handle-ridge form, but a
few examples of barrel-juglets and jugs. The examples of Cypriot
pottery in Rhodes, either imported from Cyprus or imitating versions,
include White Painted and Bichrome pottery as well as BoR.
True Cypriot examples are in several cases difficult to discern from
the imitation wares in the photographs provided. Most likely however
to be true Cypriot imports in the necropolis at Ialysos are two BoR
jugs and a two-handled BoR juglet from Tomb LI (Jacopi 1929, 85,
Figs. 75, 78; Gjerstad 1948, 263), a White Painted basket-handled
spouted juglet from Tomb LII (Jacopi 1929, 89, Fig. 79; Gjerstad
1948, 263), a BoR jug« from Tomb LVII (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 92;
Gjerstad 1948, 263), and a Cypriot Bichrome juglet 9 from Tomb
8
Coldstream c o m m e n t s that the applied slip on this vessel indicates that it is a
Rhodian imitation of a Cypriot jug, but this is a feature perfectly within the Cypriot
repertoire (Coldstream 1969, 3, Pl. I:j; cf. Gjerstad 1948, 69).
9
This does not appear to be a Phoenician or 'Syrian' juglet, contra Coldstream
1969, 4, n. 35, but may be a local Rhodian imitation of Cypriot Bichrome ware.
LXIV (Jacopi 1929, Fig. 101). The Danish excavations on the
acropolis at Lindos produced a few further examples of Cypriot-type
wares, a possible Bichrome handle-ridge juglet and several sherds,
but it is difficult to determine if these are imports or imitations
(Blinkenberg 1931, PI. 43). A White Painted jug of late type, most
likely an import from Cyprus, was found in Tomb 12 at Vroulia, and
several other unstratified examples appear at this site (Kinch 1914, PI.
40:12/2, PI. 20:3; Gjerstad 1948, 266-267). The tomb contexts of the
imported wares make assessment of their date difficult, especially as
several of the tombs have little or no additional diagnostic pottery, but
those datable all fall within the Late Geometric period, c. 745-680 BC
(such as Ialysos Tombs LI, LU, LVII, Vroulia Tomb 12).10
Also found at Rhodes are examples of imitation Cypriot pottery,
or pottery clearly influenced by its Cypriot prototypes. Perhaps an
early example of imitation Cypriot ware on Rhodes is a spherical
juglet found in Tomb XLV at Camiros, with pink clay and black
painted decoration (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 151; Coldstream 1969, 2, PI.
la) (Figure 16:1). The globular shape is likely to have been
influenced by the Cypriot barrel or pilgrim flask. Coldstream dates
this vessel to the Protogeometric period (ending c. 900 BC)
(Coldstream 1969, 2).11 Three possible imitation barrel-juglets with
trefoil-lips were found in a tomb at Mallona, between the sites of
Ialysos and Lindos, in a context which Coldstream dates to the early
Middle Geometric (c. 850 - 745 BC) (Coldstream 1969, 2, n.9,
CVA'2, 2 PI. 65:3, 6, 7).
Other, more clearly Cypriot-influenced vessels include two barrel-
juglets, possibly White Painted or Bichrome, found by Laurenzi in
Marmaro Tomb 43 at Ialysos and noted as imitations by their
excavator (Laurenzi 1936, 163, Fig. 149).13 Coldstream dates the
Marmaro tomb group to the Early Geometric, c. 900 - 850 BC
10
For absolute dating of the D o d e c a n e s e islands, Coldstream's chronology is
used, which differs little from that o f Snodgrass (Coldstream 1977, 385; Snodgrass
1971, 134-135). Note that the three early Iron A g e examples of imports referred to
in N e g b i 1992, 6 0 6 are all imitation wares, nor probably as early as she dates them.
11
Note, however, that a Late Geometric Corinthian-style juglet appears in the
same tomb (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 148).
12
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Copenhagen 2.
13
Note, however, that these are not the juglets illustrated by Coldstream 1969, 2,
PI. Ib-c, which are t w o photographs of a single White Painted juglet (possibly one of
the juglets in the original plate?).
(Coldstream 1969, 2). Other imitation wares include a poorly-
preserved juglet decorated with crude concentric circles found in a
bothros near the temple of Athena at Ialysos (Maiuri 1928, 76, Fig.
58), two examples of handle-ridge juglets (decoration unclear) found
in Tomb IX at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, 39, Fig. 24), a handle-ridge juglet
with reddish-black paint from Tomb LVI at Ialysos (similar to juglets
from Cos with fugitive paint and slip - see below) (Jacopi 1929, Fig.
90; Coldstream 1969, PI. Ig-h), as well as several examples of
Cypriot-type handle-ridge juglets in Tombs LVIII and LXIV (Jacopi
1929, Figs. 93, 101).
These imitation wares, therefore, can perhaps be dated earlier than
the actual imports so far found in Rhodes, although none of the earlier
contexts are wholly reliable. The imitations do at least indicate
association between Cyprus and Rhodes by the beginning of the 9th
century. The majority of the imitations should, however, be dated on
the basis of their tomb contexts to the Late Geometric period, 8th -
early 7th centuries. It is notable that these imitations of Cypriot
pottery encompass all Cypriot pottery types, not just BoR, but all are
closed shapes.
There is also evidence of an adaption of Cypriot motifs and
shapes in the development of uniquely Rhodian vessels. In some
cases this is represented by the 'hellenization' of Cypriot forms,
especially the handle-ridge shape, to create the elegant handle-ridge
jug with geometric design found, for example, along with BoR in
Tomb LI at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 75, 76) (Figure 16:2).
Similar jugs, including a two-handled jug, were found in Tombs
VIII and LXXX at Camiros, (and also in quantity on the island of
Cos - see below) (Jacopi 1933, Fig. 38; Fig. 223; see also Gjerstad
1948, 296). In other cases the Cypriot jug shape was borrowed but
the traditional Cypriot decoration of concentric groups of thin lines
was simplified into broad concentric bands of paint. Examples of
this form are found in Tomb LIV at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 84,
85; Gjerstad 1948, 299 n. 12). Another characteristic Rhodian motif
is the "spaghetti" design - compass-drawn concentric circles "tailing
off into wavy lines" (Coldstream 1998, 256) (Figure 16:4). This
decoration occurs on numerous juglets at Ialysos and Camiros (eg.
Jacopi 1929, Fig. 84; Jacopi 1933, Fig. 148). Examples combining
the typically Cypriot concentric circle design and the "spaghetti"
motif occur on juglets in Tombs VIII and XLV at Camiros (Jacopi
1933, Figs. 39, 148).14 These adaptations of Cypriot features in the
local ceramic repertoire date approximately to the Late Geometric
period, 8th - 7th centuries BC.
It is noteworthy that Phoenician pottery is very rare in the tombs
on Rhodes and where it occurs it is exclusively represented by red-
slipped mushroom-lipped jugs of late type. Single examples of these
mushroom-lipped jugs occur at Ialysos in Tomb I (Maiuri 1928, Fig.
162:7), Tomb LVIII and Tomb CXXXII (Jacopi 1929, Figs. 93, 139)
{Figure 16:3). Two examples of mushroom-lipped jugs appear at
Lindos (Blinkenberg 1931. PI. 48), one example in Tomb 2 at Vroulia
and one in Tomb 6 (Kinch 1914, PI. 36:2/26, PI. 38:6/5). It is
significant that Gjerstad views these "sack-shaped handle-ridge
juglets" as belonging within the late Iron Age Cypriot category of Red
Slip II (IV), and he states that it is the Cypriot variety of mushroom-
lipped jug that is exported to Rhodes (Gjerstad 1948, 263, 265, 295).
He notes Blinkenberg's observation that the clay of two jugs in
particular is "identical with that of the painted Cypriote specimens
mentioned above, and we are therefore justified in considering these
vases as Cypriote imports" (Gjerstad 1948, 265). While it is
impossible to assess the fabric of the so-called Phoenician vessels
from the illustrations provided, a Cypriot origin should be considered
a possibility. One example of this mushroom-lipped jug type which
may possibly be an export from Phoenicia itself is the crude-looking
vessel from Tomb CXXXII at Ialysos (Jacopi 1929 Fig. 139;
Coldstream 1969, 2, PI. I:e).
Coldstream's theories regarding a Phoenician involvement with
Rhodes and Cos are examined fully below. Excavations on Rhodes
have not so far uncovered large quantities of imported Cypriot
pottery, but there is evidence that this ware strongly influenced local
styles, and that Cypriot forms and decoration were incorporated into
the local ceramic repertoire. The evidence for this process on Rhodes
places it predominantly in the Late Geometric period, but it possibly
began "unobtrusively" earlier in the Protogeometric period
(Coldstream 1969,2). The exclusively closed shapes of the Cypriot
imports have been noted above. In the later period this ware is
exceeded by the large numbers of Corinthian aryballoi, which were
both imported and locally imitated. Regardless of the small quantities
14
For a general discussion of the extent o f Cypriot influence on Rhodian and
other A e g e a n pottery, see Gjerstad 1948, 2 9 2 - 3 1 1 .
of Cypriot pottery found in Rhodes, (and perhaps because of the very
limited amount yet found elsewhere), Gjerstad wrote of the role of
Rhodes as a possible trading post between Cyprus and the Aegean in
the later Iron Age:
No remains of such a Cypriote trading factory have been discovered
hitherto on Rhodes, but the considerable number of imported vases, on the
one hand, and the quantity of locally made pottery, on the other, indicate
that the commercial connections were fairly intimate, and that the
Cypriotes were stationed on Rhodes for some time. It is therefore
probable that the Cypriote trade with Rhodes was organized in a similar
way as in Syria and Cilicia... The numerous Cypriote vases found on
Rhodes and their infrequency W. of that island seem to indicate that
Rhodes served as a commercial and cultural clearing centre between
Cyprus and Greece during Cypro-Geometric III and perhaps Cypro-
Archaic I... (Gjerstad 1948, 316).
In view of a later literary tradition of a Phoenician occupation on

Rhodes, as well as the likelihood that "Cypriote and Phoenician trade
sometimes collaborated" Gjerstad further suggests that it would "be
natural if Cypriote traders established themselves on Rhodes in
connection with a Phoenician occupation of a part of the island"
(Gjerstad 1948, 464-465).
BoR in Cos
The publication of the Italian excavations on the island of Cos
provides a valuable further insight into the extent of Cypriot trade
with these Dodecanesian islands in the earlier part of the Iron Age.
Several burial grounds were excavated by Luigi Morricone on Cos
during the 1930s and 1940s and published posthumously in 1982
(Morricone 1978). The 'Serraglio' cemetery produced the majority of
finds, while other tombs were discovered in the 'Pizzoli,' 'Fadil' and
'Sabriè' cemeteries (Morricone 1978, 9-11). Cypriot pottery occurs
here in some quantity in tombs covering the whole Geometric period,
making it more numerous and earlier than the finds from Rhodes
(Morricone 1978, 405). The published excavations provide an
important indication of the strength of the Cypriot ceramic influence
on the island.
BoR pottery, in contrast to Rhodes, appears to be the exclusive
Cypriot pottery type imported to Cos. Morricone divides the Cypriot
material in the tombs on the island into three groups - the first, true
Cypriot imports, and the second and third also imported but different
versions of the BoR juglet. However, Coldstream's observation that
Morricone's second group in fact represented local Coan imitations of
Cypriot pottery is correct, and this applies equally to Morricone's
third group (Coldstream 1998, 255-256).
True Cypriot imports, Morricone's first group of pottery, are found
in tombs dated to each successive period, from the Early Geometric (c.
900-850 BC), to the Middle Geometric (c. 850-745 BC) and Late
Geometric (c. 745-680 BC).15 All these imported vessels are BoR
handle-ridge juglets, with the exception of one BoR conical juglet. The
earliest vessels found are the four handle-ridge juglets in Sabriè Tomb
A(l) and Pizzoli Tomb V(l-3) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 797, 653-655).
Morricone dates these tombs to the first part of the Geometric period
(Morricone 1978, 405). A BoR handle-ridge juglet and the BoR
conical juglet with swollen neck and eye ornament were found in
Serraglio Tomb 1(1-2), dated by Morricone to the Middle Geometric
(Morricone 1978, Figs. 4, 5). Eight other imported BoR handle-ridge
juglets are found in contexts dated to the Late Geometric: five in
Serraglio Tomb 23(38-42) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 350-354), one in
Serraglio Tomb 64(7) (Morricone 1978, Fig. 573), one in Fadil Tomb
111(21) (Morricone 1978, Fig. 742) and one in Pizzoli Tomb VII(l)
(Morricone 1978, 321). The handle-ridge juglets in Serraglio Tombs
54(2) and 68(1) may also be true imports, belonging to the Late
Geometric period (Morricone 1978: 406-407, Figs. 515, 610). Cypriot
imports in Cos, therefore, date from the beginning of the 9th century
to perhaps beyond the end of the 8th century.
The second and third group of vessels all date from the latest
Geometric phase (c. 745-680 BC), and are local imitations of Cypriot
BoR (Morricone 1978, 405; Coldstream 1982, 2). A two-handled
juglet, two handle-ridge juglets and a trefoil-lipped juglet were found
in Serraglio Tomb 43(1-4) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 463-466), a
handle-ridge juglet in Serraglio Tomb 54(4) (Morricone 1978, Fig.
517), a trefoil-lipped jug in Serraglio Tomb 64(1) and three handle-
ridge juglets in Tomb 64(3-5) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 566, 568-571).
These vessels are characterised by a lustrous metallic-looking red slip
and painted decoration in the style of BoR. Possibly due to a low
firing temperature, the black paint has in several cases flaked off,
taking the underlying red slip and leaving the paler clay beneath in an
15
S e e note 10 on dating used.
impression of incised decoration (Morricone 1978, 406; Coldstream
1998, 256) (Figure 16:5). Morricone's third group of vessels is
distinguished from these by its slip, but is otherwise identical. The
slip on this latter group is a more intense "wine-red" than the second
group but generally not lustrous, and in some cases has also flaked off
with the black paint (Morricone 1978, 406). Examples of the latter
type, all but one handle-ridge juglets, are found in Fadil Tomb 111(18-
20) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 739-741), and Serraglio Tombs 43(5),
54(3) and 64(2, 6) (Morricone 1978, Figs. 467, 516, 567, 572).
Morricone's distinction between groups two and three is perhaps an
illusion created by firing conditions, but without personal
examination this is impossible to verify. The local origin of both these
latter groups of pottery is supported by the presence of two carinated
cups in the local Geometric form found alongside the juglets in Tomb
43, made in the same fabric as the juglets and decorated with
concentric circles in the style of BoR (Morricone 1978, Figs. 468-
471, cf. Fig. 493; Coldstream 1998, 256) (Figure 16:7). In addition,
the "freer" placing of the concentric circles on the juglets, which often
occur on the lower part of the juglet body in a style alien to their
Cypriot prototypes, indicates their non-Cypriot origin (Coldstream
1998, 256). Note that an example of a juglet with similar 'fugitive'
slip to these vessels has also been found on Rhodes (see above)
(Jacopi 1929, Fig. 90; Coldstream 1969, Pl. I g-h).
As also on Rhodes, the cemeteries on Cos show clearly the extent
to which Cypriot pottery, and in particular the handle-ridge juglet
form, influenced local ceramic production. The quantity of
Geometric-decorated handle-ridge juglets is noteworthy, and this
form of imitation begins soon after the first imports appear (Figure
16:6). While the true BoR juglet in Sabriè Tomb A, which Morricone
dates to the Early Geometric period, appears alongside only local-
style (non-handle-ridge) juglets, Pizzoli Tomb V, which contains
imported juglets and also dates to the Early Geometric, already
contains a Geometric-decorated juglet with a handle-ridge
(Morricone 1978, Fig. 660). This suggests that this style of
'hellenizing' imitation began by the 9th century. The Middle
Geometric Serraglio Tomb 1 contains local juglets but also a variety
of large and standard-sized versions of the handle-ridge juglet,
decorated in Geometric style (Morricone 1978, Figs. 20-23, 27-30).
In the Late Geometric period, these Geometric imitations are
numerous, and appear in several of the same tombs as the imitations
decorated in BoR style (eg. Morricone 1982, Figs. 575-577). A few
examples of imitation barrel-juglets and miniature handle-ridge
juglets decorated in Geometric style are also known (Morricone 1978,
Figs. 358, 359, 476-482).
The Coan tombs provide, therefore, an interesting complement to
the evidence from Rhodes. Unlike perhaps Rhodes - although our
evidence there is sparser - Cos shows evidence of an especial interest
in BoR juglets. There are no examples of Cypriot jug imports to Cos.
Other differences between the islands are the absence on Cos of the
'Rhodian' version of the jug with broad concentric bands and vessels
with the "spaghetti" motif. It is also notable that no Phoenician
pottery is published from the Coan tombs. BoR juglets were
apparently imported to the island as early as the beginning of the 9th
century, and the Cypriot shapes were soon incorporated into the local
style. In view of this, similar developments should perhaps be
considered for Rhodes in the early Geometric period - the island lies
en route from Cyprus to Cos - but it is also possible that the
differences (noted above) between the islands indicate a degree of
independent development. Our evidence is at present insufficient. In
any case, the cemeteries on Cos and Rhodes provide important
evidence of an extended sequence of Cypriot contact with the
Dodecanese islands from the beginning of the 9th - early 7th
centuries. Most importantly, the predominance of the Cypriot BoR
juglet in the Coan tombs suggests that early trade between Cyprus and
Cos (and perhaps Rhodes), was focused on these vessels, in which the
Dodecanesian potters had a special interest. This interest in the
original imports and in the manufacture of local versions is likely to
have been the result of local manufacture of perfumed oil, for which
these vessels were ideally suited. See Chapter Two for a discussion of
perfumed oil in context of BoR pottery.
BoR in Crete
Three cemeteries excavated by the British School of Archaeology in
the vicinity of Knossos in Crete have provided important evidence for
Cypriot relations with this island in the Iron Age. The Fortetsa
cemetery was excavated by J. K. Brock in 1933-1935 and published
in 1957 (Brock 1957). In 1975-1976, the Teke cemetery just to the
north of it was excavated by L.H. Sackett, M.R. Popham and R.
Howell and published in preliminary form in 1977 (Catling 1977, 11-
17). The North Cemetery at Knossos, which was an extension of the
Teke cemetery, was excavated in a rescue mission by the British
School in 1978. The Early Iron Age finds in the Teke cemetery and
the Knossos North Cemetery were published in full by Coldstream in
1996 (Coldstream & Catling 1996). A preliminary study by
Coldstream of the "Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North
Cemetery of Knossos" was published in 1984. Recent excavations at
the site of Eleutherna in Crete have uncovered two BoR jugs in
context dating to the 8th century, as well as Cretan imitation juglets
(Stampolidis 1998, 177-178, Figs. 3-4).
A few examples of BoR imported pottery occur in the Fortetsa
cemetery, most probably in 8th century contexts. 16 One BoR imported
handle-ridge juglet was found in Tomb TFT (Brock 1957, PI. 45:669)
in the same tomb as a possible imitation BoR juglet (Brock 1957, PI.
45:694). The tomb is dated from the Protogeometric Β period to the
Early Orientalizing period, c. 850-680 BC (Brock 1957, 60). A two-
handled BoR juglet and three BoR handle-ridge juglets - of which one
(No. 1432) is noted as imitation BoR - occur in Tomb P, where Brock
dates them to the Middle to Late Geometric periods (8th century)
(Brock 1957, 101, PI. 97:1432; PI 109:1411, 1448, 1262).' 7
Coldstream's discussion of the Cypriot pottery in the North
Cemetery at Knossos (1984; 1996, 406-409) divides the material into
true Cypriot imports and their imitations and the "freer" Cretan
imitations that show only Cypriot influence. The true Cypriot
imported vessels found in the Teke group and Knossos North
Cemetery include a few examples of Bichrome ware as well as BoR,
but like the Dodecanesian sites comprise only closed vessels, mainly
handle-ridge juglets. The only exception so far found is a small BoR
amphoriskos from Tomb 219(22) in the North Cemetery (Coldstream
1984, 127, Fig. 1:7).
These Cypriot imports comprise two Bichrome juglets from Teke
Tomb A(7) and North Cemetery Tomb 106(39) (Coldstream 1984, PI.
16
For absolute dating of the Cretan chronological periods I use Brock's sequence
(Brock 1957, 2 1 4 ) (as does Coldstream in his publication of 1984 (n.2), rather than
the slightly lower chronology set out for Crete in Coldstream 1977, 385). The recent
reappraisal of Brock's dating concludes that it remains a satisfactory "working
hypothesis" (Coldstream & Catling 1996, 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; Coldstream, lecture March 1999).
17
It is possible that all these juglets are Cretan imitations of B o R but this is
difficult to verify from the photographs provided.
XXIV:8-9), three BoR globular jugs from North Cemetery Tombs
292(94), 175(52) and 107(199) (Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXIV: 12-14),
four two-handled BoR juglets from Teke Tomb H(15) and North
Cemetery Tombs 104(8) and 292(244, 245) (Coldstream 1984, PI.
XXIV: 16, 18) and seventeen BoR handle-ridge juglets all from Knossos
North Cemetery. Six of these last come from Tomb 285(45, 49, 52, 80,
85, 8818), five from Tomb 292(97, 48, 132, 51, 62), two from Tomb
219(40, 98), and one each from Tombs 104(123), 134(33) and 107(201)
(Coldstream 1984, 129-131, Fig. 2:20, 21, 26, 28, 30, Pl. XXV:20, 21,
23-30). In addition, one fragmentary trefoil-lipped 'sack-shaped' juglet
was found in Tomb 292(96) (Coldstream 1996, 265). All these vessels,
as well as the BoR amphoriskos (above), Coldstream regards as true
Cypriot imports. Amongst these, however, he notes that three juglets
found in Tomb 292(48, 132, 51 ) are "maladroit pieces with a lumpy and
uneven surface, made of clay which turns to a yellow-grey tone inside"
(Coldstream 1984, 131, Pl. XXV26-28). It is possible, but difficult to
determine from the photographs, that these may not be of Cypriot origin.
These imported wares are best dated to the 8th century, with
possible extensions into the 9th and 7th centuries (see below). It was
seldom possible to determine a stratified location for the pottery
within the tombs and dating the pottery must rely on the chronological
range of each tomb. The tombs have generally a long span of use.
Coldstream additionally uses Gjerstad's stylistic criteria to suggest
dates for the wares which, as seen in Chapter Four, are not wholly
satisfactory. A few vessels are found directly in context with other
local pottery. For example, three BoR handle-ridge juglets were found
in a Middle Geometric urn in Tomb 285(39), dated c. 800-770 BC,
another inside a Late Protogeometric pyxis in the same tomb, dated c.
870-850 BC, and a two-handled BoR juglet inside a LG pithos in
Tomb 104, dated c. 770-735 BC (Coldstream & Catling 1996, 241,
242, 139; Coldstream 1984, 129, 131). This evidence provides
perhaps some indication of date, although the small vessels could
have been placed in the large jars at a late stage to make way for new
burials (Coldstream 1984, 131). 19 The Bichrome juglets, BoR
18
This vessel is mistakenly noted by Coldstream as Tomb 292:88, which is a non-
Cypriot juglet.
19
Coldstream's distinction between the "firm chronological context" o f the M G
urn and the "less secure" context o f the LPG pyxis in Tomb 2 8 5 is presumably on
account o f s o m e disturbance around the pyxis, but this is not entirely clear
(Coldstream 1984, 131; Coldstream & Catling 1996, 242).
amphoriskos and BoR jugs all belong to unassociated contexts within
tombs which generally date from the Middle Geometric to the
Orientalizing period (c. 800 - 630 BC).
Of the close Cretan imitations of Cypriot wares, one imitation BoR
jug, two imitation Bichrome juglets and fourteen imitation BoR
juglets were found in Knossos North Cemetery. These vessels are
found in Tombs 283(24, 83, 88), 292(202), 60(22), 218(41, 84, 6, 118,
19, 2), 219(56), 61(1), 306(1, 19), 175(60), 125(16) and one near the
Fortetsa site (F67.4.12) (Coldstream 1984:127- 133).2° These vessels
are close imitations of the originals, produced in a paler and harder
clay but replicating almost exactly the BoR or Bichrome decoration.
Some of the BoR imitation juglets, however, have larger bodies, and
in several cases are more biconical. Three tombs produced examples
of BoR imports and imitations together (Tombs 219, 175, 292).
Coldstream notes one imitation BoR juglet found in a deposit
excavated earlier at Knossos containing "mainly local EG" pottery
and dated c. 800 BC, and suggests that imitation Cypriot juglets had
begun by the end of the 9th century (Coldstream 1972, 77; 1984,
132). The imitation BoR jug (Tomb 60(22)) is dated to the Late
Geometric period, c. 770-735 (Coldstream 1996, 102). In general, the
imitation wares date to the 8th century and probably continue into the
7th (Coldstream 1984, 132-133).
The "freer" Cretan imitations comprise four types of locally-made
juglet that owe aspects of their form and decoration to Cypriot BoR
juglets (Coldstream 1984, 133 - 136). Three handle-ridge juglets
found in Tomb 218 form one group (Coldstream 1984, 133, PI.
XXVI:53-55). These vessels have ovoid bodies, are made in the same
fabric as the close imitations above, and are decorated with black
painted lines but no concentric circle motif. The second group,
comprising six handle-ridge juglets, are larger and more elaborate
versions of these, decorated with large intersecting concentric circles
(Coldstream 1984, Pl. XXVL56-61) (Figure 16:8). A few examples
show anomalous features, such as a small group of concentric circles
on the neck, or freehand concentric circles (Coldstream 1984, 134, PI.
XXVI: 58). Examples of this type are found over several tombs. A
group of seven juglets form a third group. Each vessel shows a
20
S e e Coldstream's excellent and comprehensive discussion of these imitation
wares. Note that one BoR juglet ( 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 ) ) is included twice, as an import and an
imitation (Coldstream 1984, N o s . 36 & 48).
peculiar mixture of typically Cypriot features which are never
combined within a single vessel in the Cypriot repertoire, such as the
trefoil-lip and handle-ridge. These vessels are all found in one tomb,
292, suggesting they may have been an aberrant experiment
(Coldstream 1984: 134-135, PI. XXVI:62-65) {Figure 16:9). The
final group of seven juglets are adaptations rather than imitations of
Cypriot ware, retaining the Cypriot handle-ridge and flared rim, but
replacing the usual concentric circle decoration with large sets of
circles covering the whole side of the vessel, and smaller sets
alongside them (Figure 16:10). These juglets have very fine, usually
pale orange or buff clay and their execution shows "a self-assurance
sometimes lacking in the closer imitations" (Coldstream 1984: 15, PI.
XXVI:69-75). Examples of these juglets were also found in the
Fortetsa cemetery (Brock 1957, 158, Type E(iii)). These "freer"
Cretan imitation vessels are found in contexts dating from the Middle
Geometric to the Early Orientalizing period, 8th - early 7th centuries.
Of especial importance in considering the Phoenician involvement
in Crete and the Dodecanesian islands, which is discussed fully
below, is the quantity and date of Phoenician and other imports found
in the Knossian cemeteries. Of seven non-Cypriot imports found in
total in these tombs, four may be assigned a probable Phoenician
origin. A Bichrome jug, missing its rim, was found in Tomb 107(80).
Similar Bichrome jugs appear in the Cypriot repertoire (eg. Gjerstad
1948, Fig. VIII: 14), but the fabric of this vessel, which is described as
soft, porous, dark and gritty, and "greyish inside"(Coldstream 1984,
123; 1996, 408), suggests that it was manufactured on the Levantine
mainland. Its context inside Tomb 107 is not specified in the report,
but the date of the tomb ranges from the Protogeometric Β period to
the Late Orientalizing period, c. 850-630 BC. Coldstream dates this
vessel, on the basis of parallel examples found at Tyre, to the late 9th
century and a similar type is assigned by Bikai to her 'Salamis'
horizon, c. 850-750 BC (Coldstream 1984, 125; 1996, 408; Bikai
1987, Pl. IX: 169). It should be noted that a BoR jug (199) and a BoR
handle-ridge juglet (201) are also found in the same tomb but their
context is also not specified.
Four red-slipped jugs were also found in Knossos North Cemetery.
One is a small jug with globular body, belonging to Bikai's category
of "heavy-walled juglet," from Tomb 283(50) (Coldstream 1984, PI.
XXIII:2; Bikai 1987, Pl. X: 150, 160). This tomb also produced Cretan
imitations of Cypriot pottery, but the context of the heavy-walled
juglet is not recorded. Bikai's parallel juglets belong to her 'Salamis'
horizon, c. 850-750 BC. A fragment of a "coarse and porous" red-
slipped jug from Tomb 292(211 ) is also probably of mainland origin
(Coldstream 1984, PI. XXIII:3). The upper and lower parts of a red-
slipped trefoil-lipped jug were found in Tomb 292(80) (Coldstream
1984, Fig. 1:4, PI. XXIII:4). This jug was in context with the
fragmentary remains of a "sack-shaped" BoR juglet (96) and local
MG pottery (Coldstream 1996, 260). Parallels are perhaps found also
in Bikai's 'Salamis' horizon, c. 850-750 BC (eg. Bikai 1987, PI.
XIV:363). A red-slipped jug (not published in the 1984 report) was
found in Tomb 56(10), with wide flaring rim, carinated shoulder and
grooves at a faint ridge on the neck and at the shoulder (Coldstream
& Catling 1996, Pl. 110:10). The rim is not a true mushroom-lip (cf.
Coldstream 1996, 409). This vessel, found in context with Late
Orientalizing pottery, is recorded as Cypriot Red Slip II by the
excavators (Coldstream & Catling 1996: 95-96, 409).
The Bichrome jug, heavy-walled juglet and red-slipped trefoil-
lipped jug - all most likely of Phoenician origin - can possibly be
placed in the 9th century BC, although it should also be noted that all
the tombs in which the pottery appears, except Tomb 56, range from
the Protogeometric Β to Late Orientalizing periods (c. 850-630 BC).
The only vessel in a specified context, the trefoil-lipped jug, should
perhaps be placed in the Middle Geometric period (800-770 BC).
The second group of imports, represented by the two tall ovoid
jugs with long necks decorated in Bichrome Red style, are most likely
to have a Dodecanesian origin (Coldstream 1984: 126, Pl. XXIIL5,
6). They are similar to vessels found in Rhodes and Cos in their shape,
fabric and decoration, even to their fugitive black paint and slip (cf.
Morricone 1978, Fig. 566; Jacopi 1929, PI. 90; Coldstream 1984, PI.
Ig-h). One jug (43), which was found in parts, may have been
associated with a Late Geometric pithos in Tomb 219, and possibly a
BoR juglet and imitation BoR juglet. It contained sheet bronze
fragments (Coldstream and Catling 1996, 213). The location of jug
(97) within Tomb 219 was not recorded. These vessels are most likely
to date to the Late Geometric period (c. 770-735 BC).
Like the tombs on Cos, therefore, the cemeteries in Crete provide
valuable evidence for a particular Cretan interest in BoR pottery. The
exclusively closed shapes imported and adapted for locally-produced
wares suggest the involvement of these vessels in a local perfumed oil
industry, similar to that on the Dodecanesian islands. Some degree of
association between the Dodecanese and Crete is suggested by the
presence of the two Bichrome Red jugs at Knossos. The dating of the
Cypriot pottery in Crete suggests that the imports and local imitations
were most common in the 8th century. The Phoenician wares may
possibly have preceded the introduction of BoR pottery to the island,
but their total quantity is very limited, and these wares are not
imitated locally (Coldstream 1984, 136).
The Phoenicians of Ialysos? Assessment of the Phoenician

Involvement in BoR Trade to the West
Coldstream argues strongly for a Phoenician involvement in the

transportation of Cypriot pottery to the Dodecanese and Crete, and in
the process of its local imitation on these islands. In 1969, examining
the Iron Age cemeteries on Rhodes, he suggested a process of
Phoenician perfume-factories set up on the island from the mid-8th
century onwards - an "infiltration of Phoenician metoikoi among the
rising city-states of Rhodes" who marketed their products "in
containers locally manufactured by their own craftsmen" (Coldstream
1969, 4). These views were based partly on the literary traditions
alluding to Phoenician settlers on the island, but in large part on the
apparently "clear" Phoenician heritage of BoR pottery, which was
"introduced from Phoenicia to Cyprus not later than the early ninth
century," and which he claims lent its features, notably the neck-
ridge, to Rhodian pottery (Coldstream 1969, 1-5). In Coldstream's
view, the Phoenician settlement in Rhodes is supported by evidence
of other Phoenician features on the island, such as imported
mushroom-lipped jugs, Egyptianizing objects and "the occasional use
of Phoenician-type coarse amphorae to contain the inhumations of
children" (Coldstream 1969, 2, 4-5).
Reassessment of the evidence from Rhodes, however, suggests that
Coldstream's views of Phoenician involvement with "perfume-
factories" on the island have little substantial basis. The establishment
of BoR pottery as a Cypriot pottery type, not contingent on a
Phoenician introduction of the ware to Cyprus (see Chapter Four),
removes the chief evidence with which to link the Phoenicians with
the production of small unguent vessels in imitation of BoR on the
island. The presence of other non-BoR Cypriot pottery on the island,
as imports and as imitations, also strengthens the likelihood of a
Cypriot involvement in this process. Furthermore, additional
evidence of the Phoenicians on Rhodes is meagre. Very few examples
of Phoenician pottery have been found on the island, and these, as
noted, may possibly be Cypriot imitations of Phoenician ware. As
Coldstream observes, there is no attempt to "hellenize" the
Phoenician wares (Coldstream 1969,2). The human faces moulded on
the neck of the jugs which Coldstream regards as showing Phoenician
influence (and the faces a "Semitic look") have good parallels in the
Cypriot repertoire (Coldstream 1969, 3; Gjerstad 1948, 297-298).
Egyptianizing objects found from the late 8th century on the island
are not in themselves indicative of Phoenician residents on Rhodes
and they may also represent local Rhodian imitations of Egyptian
objects. 21 Lastly, there are very few examples of "Phoenician-type"
amphorae containing inhumations on Rhodes and there is some
evidence that this funerary custom should not solely be equated with
mainland Phoenicians (Calvert 1980, 121). In the case of the
amphorae on Rhodes, the only pottery found in context with them is
Greek. 22 In general, therefore, although there may have been
Phoenician residents on Rhodes who are not now archaeologically
visible, it is difficult to identify "the Phoenicians of Ialysos" in the
evidence for a perfume-oil industry on the island.
In 1982, 1984 and 1998, drawing on new evidence from Cos and
Crete, Coldstream restated his views of Phoenician 'perfume-
factories' in the Dodecanese and Crete. He suggests that Kition
"would have served the Phoenician traders as a forward base" for the
21
Boardman suggests, for example, that e x a m p l e s of Egyptianizing faience found
at R h o d e s from the 7th and 6th centuries may have been the product of local Rhodian
'factories,' set up "possibly by Egyptians" on Rhodes and producing items similar to
those found at Naucratis in Egypt (Boardman 1980, 126-127). Other associations
between Cyprus, Rhodes and Naucratis during the 7th and 6th centuries are
demonstrated by Cypriot influences on terracotta and limestone statuary found at
Naucratis and on Rhodes (Hermary 1998, 2 6 7 - 2 6 9 ) .
22
Coldstream 1969, 8 n.53 and references there. Note, for example, the quantity
of fine Greek and Corinthian pottery in the amphora found in Tomb C C X I in the
cemetery of Checraci (Jacopi 1931, Figs. 4 1 2 , 4 1 3 ) . The diversity o f Phoenician
funerary practice is notable. For a recent investigation into different Phoenician
funerary customs, see the unpublished Phd thesis by E. Mazar ( 1 9 9 6 ) . She notes,
however, that the significance of child burials in v e s s e l s within Phoenician funerary
ritual still requires further investigation (Mazar 1996, 28).
setting up of these factories, and that evidence from Knossos also
indicates "unguents locally bottled in a small factory staffed by
resident Phoenicians" in Crete (Coldstream 1982, 268). Even
considering the possibility of scientific evidence that BoR juglets
were a Cypriot product, Coldstream "would still attribute their export
to the energy of Phoenician traders settled at Kition, the most likely
place for the genesis of Cypriot Black-on-Red ware, under some
influence from the southernmost part of the Phoenician homeland"
(Coldstream 1998, 258).
There are, however, also some problems with these theories. First,
the cemeteries of Cos provide evidence for a specific and prolonged
interest in BoR pottery, beginning perhaps at the start of the 9th
century and continuing to the end of the 8th, but so far not a trace of
Phoenician pottery, or of Phoenician-influenced pottery, has been
found in context with this ware. Second, the very limited Phoenician
pottery found in the cemeteries at Knossos, again not locally imitated,
is not adequate evidence from which to deduce a Phoenician
association with local ceramic or perfumed oil manufacture. Third,
significantly, scientific tests on ten imported BoR vessels found at
Knossos have demonstrated that these examples are more likely to
come from Palaepaphos-Skales than Kition (Liddy 1996, 481-488,
492). While BoR samples from Knossos, Palaepaphos-Skales and Al
Mina cluster together, BoR samples taken from Kition are "very
varied, and probably from different centres" (Liddy 1996, 486). This,
therefore, belies Coldstream's attempt to link Phoenician trade in BoR
with a Phoenician "forward base" at Kition, and fits well with the
evidence of an especially large-scale production of BoR pottery at
Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983, 374; S0rensen 1987, 130).23
The western location of Palaepaphos-Skales is the natural point from
which Cyprus might have traded with the Aegean. While it remains
possible that Phoenicians at Palaepaphos-Skales may have used this
site as a base for trade westwards, as has been argued by Bikai for the
earlier Iron Age period, finds from the later Iron Age at Palaepaphos-
Skales indicate that the Phoenician association with this site declines
by c. 850 BC (Bikai 1987, 125-127; Karageorghis 1983, 374).
23
Note also the larger proportion of BoR pottery found at Palaepaphos-Skales;
at Kition White Painted pottery remains consistently more popular than BoR at the
site (Bikai n.d.). In addition, the handle-ridge juglet does not appear in quantity
amongst the range of BoR wares at Kition.
There are several further indications that the importation and
imitation of Cypriot ceramics in Crete, alongside a production of
perfumed oil, was not under Phoenician auspices. First, Coldstream
notes in Crete "a strange but brief prelude" to the later "eastern
unguent trade" - the presence of Cretan-made juglets with distinctive
ribbed sides which seem to imitate ribbed Cypriot pottery - Late
Bronze Age Bucchero ware and Iron Age Black Slip ware
(Coldstream & Catling 1996, 346-7; Coldstream 1998, 256). This
pottery at Knossos is dated by Coldstream to the mid-9th century, and
scientific examination of the clay of these juglets suggests that they
originated in eastern Crete (Coldstream 1998, 256). This suggests,
therefore, that an interest in and imitation of Cypriot pottery may
already have been established on the island by the time of the first
BoR imports and that the subsequent process of imitation and
adapation of BoR represented a perpetuation of Cretan interest in
Cypriot products - both pottery and probably perfumed oil.
Second, the complete absence of BoR and other Cypriot pottery
from the purportedly Phoenician site of Kommos in Crete, whose
later phases are contemporary with the Iron Age tombs at Knossos,
and which produced over two hundred fragments of Phoenician
pottery, mostly amphorae, contrasts starkly with the evidence from
the Knossian cemeteries (Shaw 1989, 181-182). Coldstream proposes
that the Phoenician trade route via Kommos was perhaps "the one
most favoured by Phoenicians bound further west" (Coldstream 1998,
260). It is notable also that it is on this south coast of Crete that a site
with the prefix "Phoinix" is found (Markoe 1996, 60; 1998, 234). It
seems that, in fact, Kommos and the pottery industry at Knossos are
best perhaps interpreted as entirely different trading enterprises - and
probably different traders.
Finally, any Phoenician interest in setting up "factories" on these
islands must have been in order to dominate and exploit a trade in
local products. However, the locally-manufactured handle-ridge
juglets on all three islands, decorated in Geometric or the "Creto-
Cypriot" style, have not been found outside the islands themselves,
strongly suggesting that the local products were intended for local
markets. Possible exceptions are the Rhodian "spaghetti" motif
imitations, of which some examples are found further west in Etruria
(Coldstream 1998, 257). Otherwise the only evidence we have for
association between the local products of these islands are the two
imitation Bichrome Red jugs found at Knossos which most likely
come from the Dodecanese, and an imitation BoR juglet from Rhodes
which is similar to a group found on Cos (see above). The absence of
a wider circulation of the locally-manufactured vessels indicates that
the benefits to the Phoenicians of orchestrating and dominating local
production would have been negligible. The common denominator
between the three islands is, instead, the BoR pottery. This therefore
suggests that the arrival of this pottery, and most probably the
products it contained, intended in each case simply to satisfy local
demand, which was then further stimulated into local production.
Re-examination of the evidence, therefore, from the islands of
Rhodes, Cos and Crete, suggests that there is, in fact, no stronger
basis on which to associate the Phoenicians with trade in BoR pottery
to the west than there is for the Cypriots. Our current evidence does
not endorse Coldstream's views of a Phoenician involvement in the
setting up or staffing perfume-oil industries on these islands. This -
albeit attractive - theory remains based on circumstantial evidence
and reflects, perhaps, a current tendency to assign most facets of early
Iron Age trade in the Mediterranean to the "Phoenician expansionist
trading strategy in the central and western Mediterranean" (Rupp
1987, 154). In this context, it should be noted that our knowledge of
the earliest Phoenician trading activity in the Aegean is based on a
sporadic distribution of so-called Phoenician luxury items found in
western locations, and 'oriental' influences noted on Greek ceramics
and metalwork, predominantly from the Orientalizing period
(Boardman 1980, 56-60; Markoe 1996, 54-59). Many scholars have
argued on the basis of the 'oriental' metalwork in particular, including
the 'Teke' Phoenician bronze bowl of the mid-9th century found at
Knossos, for the presence of immigrant Phoenician metalworkers in
Crete from this period onwards (Coldstream 1982, 266-268; 1998,
259; Markoe 1996, 59), although recent studies have challenged the
scale of this industry. 24 There is, however, no evidence that these
immigrant craftsmen were also involved with the ceramic or perfume-
oil industry on the island. The 'oriental' influences which have been
24
Sarah Morris, in discussion after Matthäus 1998, 157, with reference to a new
P h D dissertation by G. H o f f m a n from the University of Michigan. Boardman also
suggests the possibility that, with regard to the metalworkers and their products on
Crete, "even Cyprus could prove to be the immediate source" (Boardman 1980, 57).
S e e also Markoe 1998 for a discussion of Phoenician metal interests on Crete.
detected on some aspects of Greek ceramics, are solely derived from
eastern metalwork and other luxury goods (Markoe 1996, 59).
Lastly, two ancient sources provide some evidence in support of
the views presented here. At the beginning of the Histories,
Herodotus refers to the Phoenicians' "long trading voyages" during
which "[1]oaded with Egyptian and Assyrian goods, they called at
various places along the coast" (Herodotus, Histories I). He tells the
story of the snatch of the Argive women while the Phoenicians were
"disp1ay[ing] their wares" and the "women were standing about near
the vessel's stern, buying what they fancied." Although this account
is no more than a literary tradition, it does not suggest the
considerable Phoenician commercial authority over different
Mediterranean island communities which is proposed in the
hypothesis of Phoenician "factories" of perfumed oil, and which
would be likely to have persisted in local memory.
Second, Pliny's comments in the Natural History concerning
perfumed oil production are of interest here (see Chapter Two). He
comments that, amongst other Mediterranean regions, Phoenicia was
indeed involved with the production of perfumed oil (Pliny, Natural
History XIIL4-6). However, not only did this Phoenician involvement
occur apparently at a date later than that with which we are
concerned, it is clear that the Phoenicians are not known to have had
a monopoly over perfumed oil production. Pliny writes:
The perfume most highly praised in the old days was made on the island
of Delos, but later that from the Egyptian town of Mendes ranked the
highest... The iris perfume of Corinth was extremely popular for a long
time, but afterwards that of Cyzicus, and similarly the attar of roses made
at Phaselis, but this distinction was later taken from it by Naples, Capua
and Palestrina. Oil of saffron from Soli in Cilicia was for a long time
praised most highly, but subsequently that of Rhodes; vine-flower scent
made in Cyprus was preferred, but afterwards that from Adramytteum,
and scent of marjoram made in Cos, but afterwards quince-blossom
unguent from the same place, and cyprus-scent made in Cyprus, but
subsequently that made in Egypt; at this point scent from Mendes and
almond-oil suddenly became more popular, but later on Phoenicia
appropriated these two scents and left the credit for cyprus-scent to Egypt.
(Pliny, Natural History XIII:2)
Pliny's comments do not, therefore, indicate historical

consciousness of Phoenician control over perfumed oil production in
the regions under consideration. It should, in addition, be noted that
the ingredients recorded by the ancient sources for the production of
the Mendesian perfume - oil of Balanites aegytiaca L., myrrh, cassia
ΟCinnamomum iners) and resin - are not believed to be native to the
Dodecanese or Crete, but originate in Arabia and Egypt (Manniche
1999, 16-17, 26-28, 65).
In contrast, therefore, to a Phoenician involvement with perfumed
oil production in the Dodecanese and Crete, it is plausible to
reconstruct Cyprus as the key player in this trade, exporting its wares
and stimulating local production on the islands. The importation of
Cypriot BoR pottery from perhaps as early as the mid-9th century and
its continuation alongside local imitations and variations of the ware,
suggests that the islands were closely involved with Cyprus from the
9th, throughout the 8th and into the 7th centuries. The subsequent
proliferation on Rhodes and Cos of Corinthian aryballoi, and their
local imitations, suggests that by the late 7th century however, the
perfumed-oil market was dominated by Corinth.
In view of the earlier Cypriot association with this part of the
Aegean, Gjerstad's comments on Cypriot trade should be observed:
C y p r u s f o r m e d a c e n t r e f r o m w h i c h t h e trade r o u t e s e x t e n d e d t o t h e
p e r i p h e r y o f a w i d e c i r c l e , t o t h e f a c t o r i e s a n d o t h e r t r a d i n g - p l a c e s in
S y r i a a n d P a l e s t i n e , t o t h e E g y p t i a n D e l t a , a n d in t h e W e s t t o R h o d e s ,
a n d , t h o u g h o f t e n via R h o d e s , t o t h e r e m a i n i n g part o f G r e e c e a r o u n d
the A e g e a n . N u m e r o u s c r o s s - r o a d s j o i n e d u p in all d i r e c t i o n s w i t h t h e
p r i n c i p a l r o u t e s a n d o n all o f t h e s e m e r c h a n d i s e m o v e d t o a n d f r o m
Cyprus, w h i c h thus b e c a m e a principal station for the c o m m e r c i a l and
cultural intercourse b e t w e e n the Orient and the O c c i d e n t . (Gjerstad
1948,465)
Trade connections between Cyprus and Rhodes are well
established during the Late Bronze Age, with Cypriot pottery
imported to the island "if not in the MM III period then certainly in
the LM I, continuing until the end of LH HIB" (Karantzali 1998, 98).
Recent studies have also shown evidence of trade connections
between Cyprus and Crete in the period preceding the arrival of BoR
pottery. While no Proto-White Painted Cypriot pottery has yet been
found on the island, contact during the 11th and early 10th century has
been proposed in terms of Cypriot metalwork imported to Crete, in
particular the importation of Cypriot bronze bowls with "lotus"
handles, and evidence for related burial customs between the islands
(Matthäus 1998, 140-141). Questions of the "elite" or "mercantile"
nature of these early Iron Age Cypriot relations with Crete require
further investigation (Matthäus 1998, 140-141). However, the interest
of Cyprus in the Dodecanese and Crete from the 9th century onwards
is clearly demonstrated by Cypriot export of BoR pottery westwards,
which, on the basis of the present evidence, does not appear to have
lain in Phoenician hands. It seems likely that future investigations into
the Iron Age trade networks in this region will find support for the
possibility that "there are indeed two streams of export from the east,
one Phoenician, one Cypriot" (Matthäus 1998, 158).
Finally, the apparently exclusive trade in BoR juglets to the west
provides a stark contrast to the export of a much broader range of BoR
wares to the Levant in the preceding late 10th - 9th centuries. It
appears that there is a shift in the dynamics of Cypriot foreign trade
during this period, with a fall-off in exportation of Cypriot wares to
the east from c. 800 BC and a new focus on trade westwards. This
latter period also coincides with a substantial increase in the quantity
of Greek pottery imported to the mainland Levant (eg. Koehl 1985,
148). The extent to which these patterns reflect general historical
processes should therefore be considered, but are beyond the scope of
this book.
CONCLUSION
This book has sought to investigate the long debated issues of the ori-
gin and date of BoR pottery, and in so doing, to resolve confusions
over equivocal definition of the ware as "Cypro-Phoenician." More
broadly, this book has aimed to throw some light on the interconnec-
tions between Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age. The
need for satisfactory resolution of the issues of the origin and date of
BoR has increased with a general trend towards a more 'global' view
of Mediterranean archaeology, as research and excavation continues to
illuminate intra-Mediterranean connections during the Bronze and
Iron Ages. The ubiquity of this pottery type, which as a decorated fine
ware is easily recognisable and generally preserved and published
from excavations, renders it almost uniquely useful in reassessment of
disparate chronologies in the East Mediterranean, as well as the shift-
ing trade patterns during the progression of the Iron Age.
Thus this book has approached study of the ware from four direc-
tions: an assessment of the geographical distribution of the ware in the
East Mediterranean; a definition of the identifying features of the
ware such that other pottery types are no longer arbitrarily placed in
the same category; an assessment of the stratigraphical context of the
pottery at key excavated sites in the mainland Levant, which current-
ly provides the most secure basis for such an analysis; and an assess-
ment of the internal chronology of the ware in Cyprus, which has
dominated study and interpretation of this ware for the last half cen-
tury. The results of these investigations have provided a workable
hypothesis of the origin and chronology of the pottery. In addition,
they have thrown some light on other aspects of East Mediterranean
trade in the Iron Age, which, while they must remain speculative at
this stage of research, are nevertheless potentially useful avenues of
research. These will be discussed below.
First, this book has shown that there is substantial evidence that
this pottery is Cypriot in origin, manufactured in Cyprus and export-
ed from the island to the regions of Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, the
southern Levant and Egypt, and westwards to the Dodecanese and
Crete. Where the evidence is sufficient for such an assessment, the
BoR juglet appears to dominate the other types of BoR pottery
imported to these regions, and it is plausible to reconstruct the juglets
as containing perfumed oil. Although we have no evidence of the
nature of this oil or any production centre with which we can associ-
ate it, it appears on current evidence most likely that this commodity
was exported from Cyprus inside or at least alongside the BoR juglets
in which it was subsequently distributed. The oil was probably a sim-
ple rather than a composite fragrance, with perhaps similar
herbal/coniferous components to the product identified in the
Corinthian aryballoi of the later Iron Age (see Chapter Two, 68-69).
Other BoR vessels distributed on the mainland Levant, such as the
BoR bowl and jug, are likely to have been used as attractive 'table-
ware.' While BoR pottery appears most frequently in domestic con-
texts at sites on the mainland, indicating an everyday - or at least not
strictly 'élite' use - the occasional appearance of BoR juglets in 'cul-
tic' contexts suggests that they contained a commodity that may also
have been desirable in purification or anointment ritual.
While the origin of the ware appears to be exclusively Cypriot -
and the weight of scientific analysis appears to support this hypothe-
sis - there is a reasonable possibility that the inspiration for the black-
on-red decorative technique which is so characteristic of BoR was
drawn from pottery produced on the mainland Levant in the preced-
ing period. Although red-slipped pottery decorated with simple geo-
metric black painted lines is found in both northern and southern
coastal regions of the Levant in the early Iron Age, respectively dom-
inated by 'Phoenician' and 'Philistine' material culture, it is especial-
ly the Phoenician versions of this style that appear in early tombs in
Cyprus. It is therefore plausible that this early Phoenician pottery,
provisionally termed 'Red Ware,' originally transmitted the idea of
this decorative technique to Cypriot potters. The mode of transmis-
sion remains unclear. Were Cypriot potters simply exposed to this pot-
tery through Phoenician wares imported to Cyprus, or were early Iron
Age contacts between Cyprus and the mainland more extensive than
has been traditionally believed? Could potters on the mainland have
experimented with aspects of the decoration - and even shapes - of
early Cypriot White Painted and Bichrome pottery which found its
way to the Levant, and in turn transmitted their heterogenous products
to Cypriot potters, encouraging the development of the more accom-
plished BoR style in Cyprus? These questions are not presently
answerable, but should perhaps be considered in terms of early
Cypriot-Levantine contact (discussed further below).
Satisfactory resolution of the origin of true BoR ware, which can
be placed in Cyprus, has also had considerable implications for its
chronology. Chapters Three and Four assessed the evidence for the
chronology of the ware. The examination of the contexts in which
BoR pottery appears on the mainland, in Chapter Three, concluded
that the ware first appeared in this region within a definable ceramic
horizon, alongside certain pottery types which occur together with
unusual regularity. It is reasonable to assume that these wares are
diagnostic of a certain, and restricted, chronological period. Absolute
dates for this chronological period, which we term 'Phase 1 ' of BoR
pottery, are tentative. Nevertheless, examination of the external 'his-
torical' evidence suggests that these pottery types, comprising the
'ceramic horizon,' occur also with some regularity in levels which
appear to have been destroyed, sometimes with evidence of confla-
gration. In addition, a number of these sites are recorded as amongst
those visited by the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak in the late years of the
10th century, approximately 925 BC. Given that the chronological
'window' available to date these strata must occur sometime between
the 10th century and the late 8th century, before the Assyrian con-
quests, it is possible to assign the likely date of this Egyptian cam-
paign to the destructions, and consequently to the ceramic horizon
within which BoR pottery first occurs. It is suggested here, therefore,
that Phase 1 of BoR pottery is dated around c. 925 BC - at the earli-
est, c. 940 BC - until the early years of the 9th century, approximate-
ly c. 880 BC. An alternative possibility, that these levels should be
dated from the early-mid 9th century, may, with future excavation,
prevail. Radiocarbon dates are still very limited for this period; those
so far acquired appear to support both dating schemes, but with a pos-
sible preference for the former (Mullins 1999, 9).
Phases 2 and 3 of BoR pottery on the mainland are dated in accor-
dance with the chronology established for its initial appearance. Thus
Phase 2 is dated here c. 880 - 800, and Phase 3 c. 800 until the
Assyrian conquests of c. 730. This distinction is necessarily, howev-
er, highly tentative and in order to avoid artificial distinctions these
subsequent stages of the circulation of BoR pottery are where possi-
ble considered together.
Chapter Four examined the chronology of the pottery within
Cyprus. Assessment of Gjerstad's 1948 typology and chronology of
the ware in conjunction with the appearance of the ware in stratified
sequences on the mainland indicated that aspects of Gjerstad's typol-
ogy are flawed. Birmingham's suggestion that the first appearance of
BoR pottery should be raised within the Cypriot chronological
sequence is confirmed through analysis of the initial appearance of
BoR pottery in tombs on the island. The ware appears with some con-
sistency alongside earlier White Painted and Bichrome pottery than
Gjerstad's sequence proposes. Gjerstad's dating of the Cypro-
Geometric Period II, with which BoR's first appearance can be asso-
ciated, is c. 950 - 850 BC. The preceding period, Cypro-Geometric I,
is dated c. 1050 - 950 BC. Raising the dates of the initial appearance
of BoR pottery in Cyprus to within the earlier part of the Cypro-
Geometric period, at least by c. 950 BC, resolves the problem of the
late 10th century appearance of the pottery on the mainland, and thus
its origin. It is consequently possible for BoR pottery of Cypriot ori-
gin to have been exported to the mainland by this period.
This book also examined the latter stages of BoR pottery and its
appearance on the Aegean islands further west than Cyprus: in partic-
ular Rhodes, Cos and Crete. The exportation of BoR pottery to these
islands almost exclusively took the form of juglets, suggesting a
selective trade in the product contained within them which is pre-
sumed to be perfumed oil. This trade appears to date from the early
part of the 9th century throughout the 8th and into the 7th century. The
role of the Phoenicians in conveying these vessels to the islands was
considered. Although the view that the Aegean trade in BoR juglets
lay in the hands of Phoenicians based on these islands has long pre-
vailed, examination of the evidence for a Phoenician association with
this trade suggests that this is largely circumstantial. The possibility
that trade in these vessels should not be subsumed under a dominant-
ly 'Levantine' westward quest for high-value materials in the 9th and
8th centuries, but comprised instead part of the increasingly complex
commercial networks in the Aegean in this period of the Iron Age, in
which perhaps Cypriots from western sites such as Palaepaphos-
Skales took part, should be considered.
The investigations in this book have illuminated other aspects of
the East Mediterranean Iron Age, which might be potentially useful
avenues of future research. First, the analysis of stratigraphie contexts
at sites on the mainland can contribute, albeit to a small extent, to cur-
rent controversies concerning the dating of 10th century levels in the
southern Levant. The assessment of the stratigraphical reliability of
these contexts at key sites in the region might itself be useful to future
research. In addition, the establishment of a ceramic horizon ('Phase
1 ') definable by diagnostic pottery types which is identifiable in a
broad range of sites in the region might be potentially useful for the
purposes of relative chronology, and with increasing use of radiocar-
bon testing, an absolute chronology.
Second, analysis of the distribution of BoR pottery through time
throws up patterns which may have implications for the broader pic-
ture of Cypriot trade with other regions of the East Mediterranean. In
particular, our current evidence suggests that the earliest Iron Age
Cypriot contacts with the Levant were with regions under Phoenician
influence, such as Tyre and Tel Dor. This supports the view that after
the disruptions at the end of the Late Bronze Age, the first region to
revitalize overseas links with Cyprus may have been the Phoenician
littoral (Bikai 1992, 133; Sherratt 1994, 74).' The subsequent broad-
ening of Cypriot commercial interests in the Levantine region may be
reflected in the widespread distribution of Cypriot pottery, which pos-
sibly entered the region at some of the same nodal points used in the
Late Bronze Age, such as Tell Abu Hawam and Akko, and perhaps
Tell el-Ajjul in the south. The general fall-off in the quantity of this
pottery in circulation in the later Iron Age, especially by the 8th cen-
tury, is likely to reflect a shift in the commercial interests of Cyprus
from east to west, where a market for particular Cypriot products was
found. This appears to have been eventually overtaken by Greek
commercial activity, which began to dominate both the trade in per-
fumed oil (viz. the Corinthian aryballoi) and the market in fine table-
ware which appears increasingly at sites in the Levant from the 7th
century onwards.
Third, analysis of Gjerstad's Cypriot chronology has suggested
that there is scope for revision within this. The small revisions here,
such as the upwards adjustment of the dating of BoR ware in Cyprus,
have concomitant implications for the dating of sites that have, to a
large extent, relied upon Gjerstad's chronology for their own absolute
1
A full investigation into these early Cypriot wares and their implications is
desirable but not possible within the bounds of this book. See also Caubet 1992 and
Koehl 1985, 148.
chronology. In particular, excavators of a number of sites in
Phoenicia, often lacking the long stratigraphical sequences which
have been traced at sites in the southern Levant, have dated their Iron
Age levels to the 9th century onwards in accordance with the Cypriot
dates for the pottery found within them. This has resulted in a discor-
dance between the dating of sites on the northern and southern coasts
of the Levant which on the basis of other aspects of material culture
appear to have been in closer alignment than as currently presented.
A revised dating for the Cypriot pottery on which many of these sites
rely would bring these regions into greater alignment.
Fourth, the likelihood that commercial networks in the Aegean
region were not wholly monopolized by the Phoenicians' exploration
westwards, but that alternative trade networks also flourished, involv-
ing Cypriots, perhaps, but not necessarily associated with Phoenicians
at Kition, is suggested by the investigation here. Considerable further
research is required, however, if any real determination in this period
between different trade networks and different ethnic elements with-
in them is to be possible.
It is hoped, in conclusion, that this book has helped clarify some
perplexing aspects of the Iron Age East Mediterranean, and pointed a
way towards useful paths of future research.
APPENDIX I
COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION TABLE OF BoR POTTERY ON

THE MAINLAND LEVANT, BY SITE AND PHASE
O N O N on
& & 00
O
—
N O N Ov"
cα ca C o
Γ3 r-
οoc — Ξ T3 ε Ξ op
— on on —
-ο
— ιΖ >1
3 cΟe 3ο CO
ε - νΜ M ο H
£Ο ffl CÛ CÛ — NO
00 νο
οο όΓ ό*' ON' 0- on
οο χι Ο NC SO NO 3
(Ν ΝC fN
(N NO
S < νΟ
r-
C/1 t— ον ON O u-ìN
ο ON ON fN <N
Γ-
ω JÊ
o r-rA •—1
b. ε u. ο
ΙΟ (Ν
υ •SO· ri _o 3 ο ε^ >r> o^
ζ
tù C ON
οο χ CO Ë οχ CO οχ
ON
es Η CO 3
ω re <υ H "3 C CO
— Cω
u. I s CO PO cο Jo cο
w 1 SιΞ 3 c c- •ΛΙ- 0- Í2
Q "3 cο
Ot •ζ: « eu3 Ο 3 Ο 3 -J
.i U= CL. -α cJ •σ α Ό & S Q
fs}3j8nf u30ijj
^Λΐ/qav uaoqj
* qaig uaoqj
s|Mog qaig
s8np qaia
sjo|3nr qaig
S|moq <ΙΛ\
sSnfdM
sjajSnp
s[Moe »oa
sSnp yog
sjaiSnpgog
•OM ascqj
> > crt

Ο
η CO CO
-α
M c c cυ
w b n .o s G
H " "S I < > <
CΛ S < 2
ûtì
iΖ O
(Νn M m
ΓΝ)
oo CN
NO
ON m CL ri
en Ι00
Λ1 M CN
(N
Tf"
oo
ON
rn -cn
O
ON
ON
T) <Nm
—
ω O —»HCl 5
Ο ΙΛ
00 S N
C
O >
eQ Ξ oo > ON 1>
ΓΛ >1
IX U, -rN oo bi> .ĒP CL >K CO
οr- <
ON Ε U· IN roΙ s3
oo' T α
u —
ON H ^ r-' 0> — ' ΓΛ «β
υ
ζ —' Ci
00 JC
.SP <> O
ΓΛ
rf ON ON'
VC " m m in CL. M
ON 2
ai £n ^—
O «^ fi ON On ON
ω c <3
ON
© ' 3
<N O
u. ε ^ «ο —2 g C Ú
Ë ri a υΓ3 o'
oo "o
O s
c
ca t *
>—co · •
> On o S Q
3 ON
£
< (N
^sjoi8nj· uaoqj
YAizqov uaoqj
* qoig uaoqj
s|Moa q3!a
sSnf i(.ijj]
sjajSnp qDifl
siAVOfl JA\
s8nf dM
Sí3iānp JM
s(Mog «»Η
s3iif yog
spiSnf tfog NO
•0M oscqj
ω u υ ω
υε υε
co
Λ
-w
£>
ω S 0C3 >J><u
5 X! •c χ:
CS -C
ca J3 «J 0Π1 u CO C/3
W t —
Η <" 6
ω S -ÌÖ èΩ D.^ XI
WW ^
00 ω o >N
CΛ ? Cû j CQ D 03 2 en
»ο
C
U
Ο CQ
NO „
·' Ο S ^ «Μ ε ε ON OC u ·
_r < Ο
— Tf so c .ε > HI
(N On Q C
Ο
— CÛ
~0000 S2 Ε CQ
·U, ^—
— on Ï-S3 I «
ΓΝΐ u ofio*
ν D» Ρ
<N g £
r-' c >
^ ε Ν „ η ON « u J —
_J CÛΧ >
u «r .««N ο — ^ ON
^
υ 2 Ο r-T 2 (Ν "Γ
CU 00 CL,
ζ ο— <Ci N Ξ ο* Z; 00
>5 °° §
u 00 Ό
U-) CS NO u-1
as
u
S x " ΖCQ ^τ<*>"
Tt Ό 2 > Os >- O
-n >
u. J χ Ξ ON (Ν ON ON
— ΓΛ— ON c ><
u « ^ ο
ÌŠ U IΛ gCJ
1
C — •S X,
06 « £ oh H a a _l
2 51 —'ci α! LZ > · < >• U >· U >· υ
^S)3jSnj' iiaoqj
Âizqay U9oqd
» qaig uaoqj
S]Moa qsifl
s3nf qaig
s}D|3nf qaig
s3nf dAV
sja|3nf dM
s(Moa «oa
s3np «oa
S)3|3nr «oa
•ojsj 9snqj
«
«
_iUJ—
b
sj3|Snf
SITE REFERENCE
w/ strata
sj3|Snf a o a
s8nf jjoa
sjMoa « « a
sSnp dA\
siôa <l\\
s j a | 8 n f qaifl
S|Mog q o i a
sSnp qaig
•OM a s c q j
*Aizq3v u a o q j
*sj3|3nf u o o q j
* qaig u a o q j
Hazor V cont. LXXXII.T6; PI. XCII:16; Yadin 1961, PI.
CLXXXIX:16, CCXXI:5, CLXXXVIII:22,
CCLII:14-15
m
—
—
1 Hazor IV Yadin 1961, PI. CCLV:15
r<->
Hazor III Yadin 1958, PI. LXXVII:9-10, 25,
LXXVIII:22
Hebron Unpublished. 3 located in Bade Museum,
California; 1 in École Biblique, Jerusalem
—.
—
—
(Ν
<N
Hurvat Rosh Gal 1984, 56-59; 1992, 173-186, Figs. 5-9;
Zayit 1995, 89-98; personal exam.
1 Jericho Kenyon 1982 , 5 1 7 , Fig. 213:19-20
1 Jerusalem Eshel & Prag 1995, 34, Pl. 7:17, 18
CN (Ν ÍN
<N
Joya Chapman 1972, 142-145, 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 182. Fig.
31
—
—
—
Khaldé Saidah 1966, 57, 66, 69
Khan Sheikun Gjerstad 1948, 253
— —
<N
<N
<N
Khirbet Silm
NO
Chapman 1972, 142-147; 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 182, Fig.

3 1 ; Culican 1982, Abb.8
Kilise Tepe Baker et al. 1995, 166; Knappet 1999
— —
—
Kinet Hüyük Gates, pers. comm.; Hodos 1999
NO 00 bû
L/Ί NO
Ε Ε
£ « NO O N 00
c
. . —
oc C- OοC Ndd 2 ro (Ν
οο
g K OC ~ CO Γ-
On
<->* .a <Ν
1 ^ - •> fN > C ON Γ-
es — CO
οa 00*
' - C ) û ^ Q do
^6n* C<λ r! "Ξ
Ο <Ν NO
U.. O—N Ο —
I
χ ^ on oo ON ON τ
«« Χ nO - S Ε Cl ιο
3 . . On' 00* ON ON (N
00* fproNNp< J, s ^ C
Ο On Ο ΙΟ
Cl
σ^
M °N —5 Ο Ooo' mι (O
Νn* <N
υ O O η. ~ Ο.
O n Γ-
"φ ON ΙΟΝ-
ζ Um 71 NO' •JE ·§-C »rj
u
ο 2O
χ: 0s" «Λ Ο&0 ΟΟ Tf* C
ec m oo cy 2 (Ν
u CO r-
c Γ~* C
CO
εCL
ε3 I S t Ο CRT ON
ω ο, 1 2 ^
-c
u ·=• O ONεCO >« ω CO
et x: On Ο C
•FI —
o (Λ (/) (N ON—1 (Νι—ι C α c5^ Ο U ΓΟ

^sjoi3nf u.ioqj
Âizqay uaoqj
y q3|a uaoqd
siMoa qaia
s3nf qo;a
sja|8nf qaia
siMoa cl M
s3nf j M
sj3|Snf dM
sjMoa «ioa
s3np yoa
sp|3nf uoa NO
•0f^ osBqf|
><
M
•Όο ο ο
ΌΟ
JZ
eá •Ό Ό
Ό
-α
Ή -α ο. CO
ω
Wb >>
H ^ '»ω 'üΟb '5ωο ο Ε εο
'μ-2 U Jß CO
t S Ss il σ
Ϋ Λ[ΖΙ|3Υ
•OM
S|Moa
SITE REFERENCE
w/ strata
s 3 n p d/ vV
sj3|3nr y o a
sjaiSnf qaja
s3np « o a
s|Moa a o a
s8nf qaig
U00l)([
3SBqj
qaia
sjaiSnr d M
siôa d M
»sjai3nf u o o q j
* qoja u a o q j
fN
fN
Ras al-Bassit Courbin 1993,55-64, 1 1 5
fN
Samaria II Gjerstad 1948, 246; Kenyon 1957, 195-196,
Fig. 33; Tappy 1992, 126-132
-
Sanam Gjerstad 1948, 240
fN
1
Sarepta Substr. Anderson 1988, 407, 274 PI. 32:19, 34:17
D2
—
—
fN
Tt-
OO
Sarepta Substr. Pritchard 1975, Fig.26:l,12; Koehl 1985,49,
C 129-132; Anderson 1988, 274, PI. 34:14,
36:11,38:11
—
fN
Shiqmona Elgavish 1993, 1374
—
ο
—
Ta'anach IIB Sellin 1904, Figs. 8b, 44, 97, 94, taf. V:l;
Rast 1978, 24-54, Fig. 93,5-6
—
fN
Tabbat al- Braidwood 1940, 191-193, Fig. 4; Chapman
Hammam 1972, 1 7 1
vo
fN
Tarsus Hanfmann 1963, 57, 177, 202-205, 246-247
—
fN
fN
Tel 'Amal IV- Edelstein & Levy 1972, 325-367, Figs.
III 15:10-11, 13:18-19
1
C1
Tel Dor Phase Gilboa 1989, 1998; Stern 1990, 27-34; 1994,
9 85-104
ο
—
_
—
—
—
fN
fN
fN
Tel Dor Stem 1990, 27-34; 1994, 110; 1995a, 81-93;

1995b, 13, 17, 28, 48; Gilboa 1989; personal
exam.
m
Ό —
ca <Ν
υ C/5
W. ON m• <N
Ό U 00 nt 4nO
VO g c52 —
oo a ΪSΛ ON
<N O OC
—O O S_ce U,
Q_ C S 5 r-Γ r- £
oo <Noc
oro- Ο£5 ohlS » oo 00 00 ι Γ- noJ, >ο
c LZ .= r-, N
Ô— I
' ο α on iZ: χ 2 g
. ε On "c/5
M c <ν • uο vo g O°°N 2;0ΟOC ο
C3 00
•r- .ω -C Ζ. ON 2 S
υ Ο ON
CU 1Λ εο -εt: NO
ζ C —
3 « . ω N _·
Ν
es α "5 Λ Íοο
N
O N
.,
rn oo ^ 1 3
< > <K
u — Χ > — CN « s 2 S
u. Ο .ë p uω '
u •ρ χ C
« ΧΟ
•e oo ë J Ε J SA.
SO Ι
Λ so ·
tt i : TT
O — ο -S
j a -S £ ° Ξ
Q. ON
N 2 OO ù0ùô S 73 c
,sj3|Snp uooqj
fAIZIJDV uaoqj
» MDig uaoqj
S[AVog qoifl
s8nf qaia
sj0|3n[· qaig
siMoa <i\\
s8nfd/W
s»3|Snf j M
s[Moa »«a
s3np «oa
sj3j3nf yoa
•0M aseqd
j= -sε
2 ο
Λ
-M •c 5 S
es Λ CO -Ç> C3
CS c^ ο · -
ω b U h Χ) * J> — gS _ >
S „
Η " ω U.
Ο CΛ ω — çj » —
55 f j 5 1 ( ω s- r Η > Η Χ Η Χ
—
SITE REFERENCE
w/ strata
sjajSnf a o a
sSnf a o a
s|Moa a o a
sSnp qaja
•OM ascqd
sja|3iif q a i g
S|/wog q a i g
sí3lSnr JAV
sSnf d M
siôa d M
* q a i g uaoMd
vizqoy u o o q j
S)d[3np uooqj
fN
Tel Qiri VIIA
fN
Hunt 1987, 200-202; Ben-Tor & Portugali
1987, Fig. 14:4
fN
CI
Tel Qiri VII/VI Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Figs. 22: 18, 24:8,
30:7
CI
Tel Qiri VI-V
<N
Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, Fig. 43:10-11,
22:18
—
—
—
1 Tel Rehov Recent excavations, Mazar pers. comm.
—
—
1 Tel Zeror
in <N
Ohata 1967, PI. X:l-2
I
Tel Zeror cist Ohata 1967, PI. X:3
tomb
•
Tell Abu Balensi & Herrera 1985, 101 n.24; Gilboa
Hawam IV 1989,212
r
•
f
<
t
<
Tell Abu
Hawam III 1935, 6-8; Maisler 1 9 5 1 , 2 1 -25, Balensi &
Herrera 1985; Herrera 1989; Aznar Sanchez
1996
-
—
Tell Beit Albright 1932, 65, PI. 30:3; Gilboa 1989, 2 1 3
Mirsim Silo 6
—
fN
Tell Beit
<N
Albright 1943, 9-10, Pis. 91:5, 30:14, 3;
Mirsim B2 Greenberg 1987, 55-80
l·-
c
ε
—
C
ε
Ί-
es
r-
et
κ
ό-
σ-
ι-
Γ-
ίΞ
fN
Ϋ
¥ A|zqDV
SITE REFERENCE
w/ strata
* s ) d | 3 n f uaoqd
sjajSnf q o i g
sSnf qoig
sjMog q a i g
s[Mog g o g
sjajSnf y o a
sSnr y o a
•OM a s e q d
s*>|3nf dAV
sSnf d/w
s|Aiog d/W
uaoqj
qaig u a o q j
•7
fN
Tell Darouk Ehrich 1939, 86; Riis 1960, 1 1 1 ; Chapman
(early) 1972, 173
i/l
—<
Tell el-Ajjul Petrie 1932, Pl. XXXV; de Montlivault 1982;
personal exam.
—
—
—
ΓΛ
Tell el-Farah De Vaux 1952; Chambon 1984, 70, Pl. 62
(N) Vllb
fN
fN
Tell el-Farah De Vaux 1952; Chambon 1984, 70, Pl. 62
(N) Vlld
—
—
—
Tell el-Ful Albright 1924, PI. XXXI:7; Gilboa 1989, 214|
—
fN
Tell el- Cahill, Lipton & Tarier 1987; Cahill, Tarier
Hammeh & Lipowitz 1989, 33-38; Cahill 1993
ΓΛ
Tell el-Hesi Gjerstad 1948, 244; Blakely pers. comm.
—
Tell en-Nasbeh Wampler 1947, 25, 78, 80, 82, PI. 43:873-
tombs 877; Kaiser pers. comm.
-
—
fN
Tell er-Rachid- du Plat Taylor 1959, 89; Doumet 1982, 1 9 9 1 ,
iyeh pers. comm.
fN
Tell er-Reqeish Culican 1973, 66-105; Figs. 1 : R 1 , 2 : R 2 ,
3:R16, 12, 13;Oren 1986, 88
Tell es-Safi Unpublished, recent excavations (A. Faust
pers.comm.)
-
—
Tell ez- Petrie 1937, 7, Pis. XIII, XXX, XXXVIII
Zuweyid
SITE REFERENCE
w/ strata
sj3|Snf H » a
sSnp Moa
s|Moa y o a
sSnj· qaig
•0{«j o s n q j
sj3jSnf q a i a
S[Mog q a i a
s S n f JAV
siMoa , i \ \
Âizqay u a o q j
*sj3|Snf u a o q j
* qDig u a o q j
sjoiSnf dM.
—
Tell Judeidah Bliss & Macalister 1902, 84-85, PI. 31
m
Ό
f-
r-
rr
(Ν
<Ν
Tell Kazel
ΓΛ
Dunand et al. 1964, 1 - 1 4 ; Badre et al. 1990,
OO
103-113
—
m
—
Tell Keisan 8 Briend & Humbert 1980, 194-196, Pl. 56:1-2,
4; de Montlivault 1982, 178-180
—
<n
<N
Tell Keisan 7 de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished,
located in École Biblique, Jerusalem
fN
—
m
r<ï
©
Tell Keisan de Montlivault 1982, 178-180; unpublished,
4/5/6 located in École Biblique, Jerusalem
—
—
m
r-
η-
1
Tell Qasile XI- Mazar 1985, Figs. 27:4-6, 45:18
X
—
—
(Ν
m
Tell Qasile IX- Mazar 1985, 81-82; Mazar pers.comm.
VIII
—
—
Tell Sukas du Plat Taylor 1959, 88; Riis 1970,40-129;
Lund 1986, 74, 51, Figs. 3 1 , 32, 49, 50
I
(N
Tell Sukas Lund 1986, 26, 40
m
1
Tyre XIII-1 Bikai 1978, PI. XXXIV:4, 9, 12; Table 13A
—
—
I
Tyre XII Bikai 1978, Pl. XXXII:7,10; PI. XXXI:15;
Table 13A
Tyre XI Bikai 1978, PI. XXX:2; Table 13A
-7
(N
Tyre X-2 Bikai 1978, Pl. XXVIII: 1 , 2 , 4-9; Table 13A |
t—
—
—
1
Tyre X-l Bikai 1978, PI. XXIII:9, 19, 20; PI. XXIV:3;
Table 13A
—
—
fN
Tyre IX Bikai 1978, PI. XXIIA:15, 16; PI. XXI:6;
Table 13A
—
—
fN
Tyre VIII Bikai 1978, PI. XXIIA:9, 10, 1 1 ; PI. XX:3;
<N
Table 13A
—
—
—
fN
fN
Tyre VI Bikai 1978, Pl. XVIIIA: 16, 17, 18 , 21-22;
Table 13A
—
Tyre V Bikai 1978, PI. XVIIIA:20; Table 13A
Tyre III Bikai 1978, Pl. XIV:17, PI. XIB.22
<N
—
Tyre II Bikai 1978, PL. XIA:21
ci ΓΛ —
fN
Yoqneam XV- Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt
ΓΛ
XIV 1985; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997
(N
Yoqneam XIII Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt
1985; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997
fN
Yoqneam XII Ben-Tor & Portugali 1987, 202-204; Hunt
<N
1985: Zarzeki-Pelep 1997

wo
3
-o
O.
.S*
"T «
·= Ji
ao <2 00
£ .2,
w ai '"§ >
υ o g. x:
S
ζ, m .£-
x:
en —
Ό n)
í x:ë -s c
w S .y U- y Uε5
u. 2 o
w ω Dû S =
ai 1< Hs4 C c 2 M
o<j ä 'û
c c cω Sc
fsj0|oin· uaoqj
g O.2 O O,
ë £ S.
»Aizqay uaoqd C
CL II II >
ν ω
ä
S a -S "5b
* «P!8 uaoqj Z.I T> DÛ
C
ω
o οCo Coω ooC
S|Mog M3!8 6Z J= X X X
CIIL. C. û, eu
Sori|· ipia 9Z
sjajSnf qaig 61
siôa dM P9
s3nf JM »'S
sj3[Snf dM zs
s|Moa Hoa SIZ
sSnf aoa se
s}D|Snp aoa P9£
•ON ascqd
n«
U t
H ^
ï N
A P P E N D I X II
IRON AGE CYPRIOT POTTERY ON THE MAINLAND:

STATISTICS
1) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland: 858 vessels
2) Total Cypriot Pottery on Mainland
in period of BoR (Phases 1-3): 814 vessels
3) Total BoR of all Cypriot Pottery, including early: 71%
4) Total W P of all Cypriot Pottery, including early: 19%

5) Total Bich of all Cypriot Pottery, including early: 9%
6) Total BoR of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 69%

7) Total W P of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 21%
8) Total Bich of all Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period:
9) BoR Juglets of Total BoR: 59%

10) BoR Jugs of Total BoR: 6%
11 ) BoR Bowls of Total BoR: 35%
12) W P Juglets of Total WP, including early: 30%

13) W P Jugs of Total WP, including early: 32%
14) W P Bowls of Total WP, including early: 38%
15) W P Juglets of Total WP, during BoR period: 31%

16) W P Jugs of Total WP, during BoR period: 37 %
17) W P Bowls of Total WP, during BoR period: 32%
18) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, including early: 26%

19) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, including early: 35%
20) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, including early: 39%
21) Bich Juglets of Total Bich, during BoR period: 23%

22) Bich Jugs of Total Bich, during BoR period: 36%
23) Bich Bowls of Total Bich, during BoR period: 41%
24) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 42%

25) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 4%
26) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, including early: 25%
27) BoR Juglets of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 45%
28) BoR Jugs of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 4%
29) BoR Bowls of Total Cyp. Pottery, during BoR period: 26%
APPENDIX (III):
BOR VESSEL TYPES: CHRONOLOGICAL 'PHASE' ON
MAINLAND VERSUS GJERSTAD'S CLASSIFICATION
* * O n l y w h o l e o r c l e a r l y d i a g n o s t i c v e s s e l s in g o o d c o n t e x t s i n c l u d e d .
W h e r e n o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is g i v e n u n d e r G j e r s t a d ' s t y p o l o g y , the v e s s e l is o f
r e c o g n i s a b l e t y p e but is e i t h e r t o o f r a g m e n t a r y to a s s i g n a c a t e g o r y or is
not a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e t y p o l o g i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s .
* S e e Chapter Three for assessment of chronological 'phase' of B o R

p o t t e r y at m a i n l a n d s i t e s .
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
Reference BoR Vessel Type Vessels ological Comments
Stratum ** Classification
-
'Phase *
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Handle-ridge juglet 12 1 BoR I (III)

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 5: 123; Cf. Gjerstad
Loud 1948, Type 492 1948, Fig.
(not illus.) XXV: 10 +
BoR II(IV) Cf.
Fig. XXXVIII:9
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Two-handled juglet 6 1 BoR II (IV) 2 of these

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 17:87; Cf. Gjerstad vessels
Loud 1948, pi. 89:6 1948, Fig. possibly
X X X I X : 18 in Str. VB
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Trefoil-lipped jug 2 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 8:176; Cf. Gjerstad
Loud 1948, pi. 88:9 1948, Fig.
XXXIX:2 +
BoR I (III)
Cf. Fig.
XXV: 18, 19
Megiddo Loud I948.pl. 88:6,7 Trefoil-lipped juglet 2 1 BoR II (IV) Locus

VA-IVB Cf. Gjerstad 2081
1948, Fig.
XXXVIIL23+
Fig. XXXIX:6
Megiddo Loud 1948, pi. 88:8 Trefoil-lipped squat 1 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB juglet Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVIII:I8,19
Megiddo Loud I 9 4 8 . p l . 88:18 Conical juglet 4 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVIII: 12
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Wide medium-deep 3 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 29:107 bowl with low foot, Cf. Gjerstad
flat looped handles 1948, Fig.
XXXVIL20
(poss. BoR I
(III): Fig.
XXIV: 13)
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Wide medium-shal- 2 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 30:140 low bowl with low Cf. Gjerstad
foot, horizontal bar 1948. Fig.
handles at rim XXXVII: 14
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Medium bowl with 1 1 BoR II (IV)

VA-IVB 1939, pi. 32:169 carinated body, flat Cf. Gjerstad
looped handles 1948, Fig.
XXXVIL23
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
'Phase'*
Hazor IX Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, Trefoil-lipped squat 1 1 BoR II (IV)

pi. CCVIII:38 juglet Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVIII:18
Hazor IX-X Yadin (ed) 1958, pi. Handle-ridge juglet 2 1 BoR I (III)
XLVI: 1,2 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXV: 10 +
BoR II (IV) Cf.
Fig. XXXVIII:9
Hazor IXB Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, Deep carinated 1 1 BoR II (IV) - no

pl. CLXXV: 18 bowl, no handles (?) exact parallel
Hazor XA Ben-Tor (ed.) 1989, Deep carinated 1 1 BoR II (IV)

pi. CLXXIV:9 bowl, frags only Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVII:24
(not exact par-
allel)
Ta'anach - Rast 1978, Fig. 93:6 Conical Juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Strati-
Cultic Cf. Gjerstad graphy
Structure? 1948, Fig. less reli-
XXXVIII: 12 able
Ta'anach - Rast 1978, Fig. 93:5 Handle-ridge juglel 1 1 BoR I (III) Strati-
Cultic Cf. Gjerstad graphy
Structure? 1948, Fig. less reli-
XXV: 10 able
Tel Michal Singer-Avitz 1989, Wide medium-shal- 1 1 BoR II (IV)

XIV Fig. 7.1.1 low bowl with flat Cf. Gjerstad
looped handles (no 1948, Fig.
base preserved) XXXVII: 15
(poss. BoR I
(III): Fig.
XXIV: 10)
Tel Michal Singer-Avitz 1989. Handle-ridge juglet 1 1
XIV Fig. 7.1.15 Rim &
neck only
preserved
Tel Michal Singer-Avitz 1989. Two-handled juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV)

XIII Fig. 7.3.10 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXIX: 18
Tel Michal Singer-Avitz 1989, Conical juglet (with 1 1 BoR II (IV)

XIII Fig. 7.3.11 'eye' & bulging Cf. Gjerstad
neck) 1948, Fig.
XXXIX:9
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
'Phase'*
Beersheba Herzog 1984, Fig. Handle-ridge juglet 2 1 BoR I (III)

VI (VII) 24:7, 30:8 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXV: 10 +
BoR II (IV) Cf.
Fig. X X X V I I L 9
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. 8:3 Two-handled juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV)

Lower Cf. Gjerstad
Level V 1948, Fig.
XXXIX: 18
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. 9:2 'Sack'-shaped 1 1 BoR I (III)

Lower juglet Cf. Gjerstad
Level V 1948, Fig.
(VI) XXV: 1 6 - o r
poss. BoR II
(IV) Cf. Fig.
XXXVIIL21
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. Trefoil-lipped jug 1 1 BoR I (III) Cf.

Lower 22:1 Gjerstad 1948,
Level V Fig. XXV: 1 8 -
or poss. BoR II
(IV) Cf. Fig.
XXXIX:2
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. Barrel-juglet 1 1 BoR I (III) Cf. N o neck

Lower 22:9 Gjerstad 1948, preserved
Level V Fig. XXV:6,7
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. Handle-ridge juglet 1 1 BoR I (III) Cf.

Lower 18:21 Gjerstad 1948,
Level V Fig. XXV: 10
Tell el- Chambon 1984, PI. Two-handled juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Inaccurate
Farah (N) 62:8 Cf. Gjerstad drawing
Vllb 1948, Fig.
X X X I X : 18
Tell el- Chambon 1984, PI. Handle-ridge juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Inaccurate
Farah (N) 62:9 Cf. Gjerstad drawing
Vllb 1948, Fig.
XXXVIIL9
Tell el- Chambon 1984, PI. Wide medium-deep 1 1 BoR II (IV)

Farah(N) 62:3 bowl, looped han- Cf. Gjerstad
Vllb dles (no foot pre- 1948, Fig.
served) XXXVIL20
Tell el- Chambon 1984, PI. Amphora 1 1 BoR I (III) Not exact
Farah (N) 62:7 Cf. Gjerstad parallel
Vllb 1948, Fig.
XXVI:2
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
'Phase'*
Tel 'Amal Edelstein & Levy Handle-ridge juglet 1 1 BoR I (III)

IV (-III) 1972, Fig. 13:19 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXV: 10
BoR II (IV)
Tel 'Amal Edelstein & Levy Small medium- 1 1 CF. Gjerstad
IV (-III) 1972, Fig. 15:10 deep bowl, two flat 1948, Fig.
looped handles XXXV1L17
Tel 'Amal Edelstein & Levy Medium-deep 1 1 BoR II (IV)

IV (-III) 1972, Fig. 15:11 bowl, two flat Cf. Gjerstad
looped handles 1948, Fig.
XXXVII:20
Tell Keisan Briend & Humbert Medium bowl with 1 1 BoR Π (IV)
Niv. 8b-c 1980, Fig. 56:2 carinated body Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVII:23
Tell Keisan Briend & Humbert Wide, medium- 1 1 BoR II (IV)

Niv. 8b-c 1980, Fig. 56:1 deep bowl with Cf. Gjerstad
base preserved) XXXVIL20
(poss. BoR I
(HI): Fig.
XXIV: 13)
Tell el- Cahill 1989, 36 Handle-ridge 2 1 BoR I (III)

Hammeh juglets Cf. Gjerstad
Loci 117- 1948, Fig.
119 XXV: 10
Tel Halif Biran & Gophna Handle-ridge 5 1 BoR I (III)

tomb 1970 juglets Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXV: 10
Tell Abu Hamilton 1935, PL. Conical juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Room 18
Hawam III XIII:87 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVIII: 12
Sarepta Anderson 1988, pi. Two-handled juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Neck &
Substratum 34:14 Cf. Gjerstad handle
D-l 1948, Fig. juncture
XXXIX: 18 only pre-
served
Sarepta Anderson 1988, pi. Conical juglet 1 2 BoR II (IV)

Substratum 36:11 Cf. Gjerstad
C-2 1948, Fig.
XXXVIII: II
Beth-Shan James 1966, Fig. Handle-ridge juglet 1 2 BoR I (III) Cf.

Upper 13:8 Gjerstad 1948,
Level V Fig. XXV: 10
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
Phase'*
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Handle-ridge juglet 1 2 BoR I (III) Cf. Strati-
IV 1939, PI. 5:123 Gjerstad 1948, graphy
Fig. XXV: 10 + less reli-
BoR II (IV) Cf. able
Fig. XXXVIII:9
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Handle-ridge juglet 4 3 BoR I (III) Cf.

III 1939. PI. 5:123 Gjerstad 1948.
Fig. XXV: 10 +
BoR II (IV) Cf.
Fig. XXXVIII:9
Megiddo Lamon & Shipton Two-handled juglet 2 3 BoR II (IV)

III 1939, PI. 17:87 Cf. Gjerstad Strati-
1948, Fig. graphy
XXXIX: 18 less reli-
able
IV 1939, pi. 29:107 bowl with low foot. Cf. Gjerstad
XXXVIL20
(poss. BoR I
(III): Fig.
XXIV: 13)

III 1939, pi. 29:107 bowl with low foot, Cf. Gjerstad
XXXVIL20
(poss. BoR I
(III): Fig.
XXIV: 13)
Megiddo II Lamon & Shipton Bowl with concen- 1 3

1939, PI. 29:109 tric circles (frag. Late type
only) but frag.
only.
Possibly
from jar.
Megiddo Loud 1948, PI. 91:2 Trefoil-lipped juglet 1 2 BoR II (IV)
IV Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXIX:6
Hazor VII Yadin 1958, PI. L : I 4 Handle-ridge juglet 2 2

(Frag, only) Frag, of
neck
only.
poss.
conical
juglet
Hazor VIII Yadin I960. PI. Two-handled juglet 1 2 BoR II (IV)
LVIILI2 (Frag, only) Cf. Gjerstad Frag, of
1948. Fig. neck only
X X X I X : 18
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
'Phase'*
Hazor VII Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. Very shallow bowl 1 2 Frag,
CCXIV17 (frag, only) only
Hazor VI Ben-Tor ed. 1989, PI. Wide medium-shal- 1 3 BoR II (IV)

CLXXXII:18 low bowl, flat Cf. Gjerstad
base preserved) XXXVII: 15
Tel Qiri Ben-Tor & Portugali Wide deep bowl 1 2 Frag only
VB/VI 1987, Fig. 43:10 with bar handles - + poss.
frag, only inaccurate
recon-
struction
Tel Qiri V Ben-Tor & Portugali Simple-rimmed 1 3 Frag only

1987, Fig. 22:18 bowl - frag, only + poss.
inaccurate
recon-
struction
Tell el- Chambon 1984, Pi. Shallow bowl with 1 3 BoR II (IV)? N o exact
Farah (N) 62:5 low carination parallel
Vlld
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:12, Handle-ridge juglet 3 1 BoR I (III) Note:
Rosh Zayit 7, 10 Cf. Gjerstad Chronolo
- Fortress 1948, Fig. gy of this
XXV: 10 site unde-
termined
as site not
yet fully
published.
Possibly
belongs in
Phase 2.
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:9, 8 Trefoil-lipped juglet 2 1 BoR II (IV)

Rosh Zayit Cf. Gjerstad
- Fortress 1948, Fig.
XXXVIII:23 +
Fig. XXXIX: 6
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:6 Basket-handled 1 1 BoR I (III)

Rosh Zayit spouted juglet Cf. Gjerstad
XXV22
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:11 Conical juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV)

1948, Fig.
XXXVIII: 12
No. of Chron-
Site & Gjerstad's
'Phase'*
Hurvat Unpublished Conical juglet 1 1 BoR II (IV) Peculiar

Rosh Zayit (Ref. (96-2454) Cf. Gjerstad vessel -
- Fortress 1948, Fig. sawn off
XXXVIII: 13 at waist
and
drilled
with sus-
pension
holes
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:4 Trefoil-lipped jug 1 1 BoR II (IV)

XXXIX:2
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:1 Wide medium-shal- 1 1 BoR II (IV)

Rosh Zayit low bowl with low Cf. Gjerstad
- Fortress foot, horizontal bar 1948, Fig.
handles at rim XXXVII: 14
Hurvat Gal 1992, Fig. 5:2 Wide medium shal- 1 1 BoR II (IV)
Rosh Zayit low bowl with low Cf. Gjerstad
foot, two looped 1948, Fig.
handles XXXVII: 15
Tyre VIII Bikai 1978, PI. Handle-ridge juglet 2 2 Necks

XIIA:I0, PI. only pre-
XXIIA:9 served
Tyre II Bikai 1978, PI. Medium bowl with 1 3 BoR II (IV)

XIA:21 carinated body (no Cf. Gjerstad
handles preserved) 1948, Fig.
XXXVII:24
Hama Niv. Ingholt 1940, 97-98 Trefoil-lipped juglet 2 3 BoR II (IV)

Ε PI. XXX:2 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXXVII:23
Hama Niv. Fugman 1958,252- Handle-ridge juglet 2 3 BoR I (III)

Ε 253, Fig. 325 Cf. Gjerstad
1948, Fig.
XXV: 10
A P P E N D I X IV
T H E EARLIEST A P P E A R A N C E OF BOR POTTERY AT

PALAEPAPHOS-SKALES:
PROPORTIONS OF BOR TYPES VERSUS WHITE PAINTED

(After Karageorghis 1983)
«
BoR Footed
Bowls
<N IN
Bowls
Plain
BoR
M IN rn O^
Amphorae
BoR
IN
ύ χ
=5 u Ζ
SS β ei τν
e « - =
S = 'Ζ -! IN
»
5 «
-» ψ
σ «
TFR
— *
~ £ S
?Sfi Sfi
S -î= IN Π <N IN
IN
Amphorae
Painted
White
M Ο
ιΛί
M M TF -Τ CL Γ- 'i-j
ä 1 ν ί
JÏ · - ST SI (Ν C vC OO «ο
^ m vO OC IN (N IN
É £
Ό
4. Β; Κ
Ξ ·= § Ct
I— vC Τ >/"
nn
NC t
^ bLÍ ûs Ό oc oc IN IN
TOTALS
Tomb 80
Tomb 90
Tomb 79
Tomb 77
Tomb 72
Tomb 69
Tomb 54
Tomb 46
Tomb 63
Tomb 52
Tomb 71
(Lower)
(Lower)
TOMB
FIGURES
Figure 2:1 - BoR juglet from Lapithos tomb 417 (82)
(Photo courtesy of K. Kaiser)
16
^L7
S 10 I5EN
J 10 IJcw
Φ
5
10
m
TB*
12 13 14 15
17
•saatr? :
20
^7
19
18
3 10 I3ca
21
Figure 13 - (1) Corinithian aryballos
(2) Cypriot Bichrome Jug with Ship Motif
(3) Wind Routes in the East Mediterranean
(4) Terracotta Equid Carrying Pots
2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelman, C. M.
1976 Cypro-Geometric Pottery: Refinements in Classification.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XLVII, Göteborg.
Aharoni, Y.
1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. The Biblical Archaeologist
31(l):2-32.
1973 Beersheba I: Excavations at Tel Beersheba, 1969 - 1971

Seasons. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Aharoni, Y. (editor)
1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and Residency
(Lachish V). 5 vols. Gateway Publishers, Tel Aviv.
1975 Tel Beersheba, 1975: Notes and N e w s . Israel Exploration

Journal 25:169-171.
Albright, W. F.
1924 Excavations at Gibeah of Benjamin (Tell el-Ful). Annual of the
American School of Oriental Research IV.
1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim I. Annual of the American

School of Oriental Research XII.
1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim III. Annual of the American
School of Oriental Research XXI-XXII.
Albright, W. F. and E. Gjerstad

1953 Correspondence with Professor Einar Gjerstad on the
Chronology of "Cypriote" Pottery from Early Iron A g e Levels in
Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
130:22-26.
Alexandre, Y.
1995 The 'Hippo' Jar and Other Storage Jars at Hurvat Rosh Zayit.
Tel Aviv 22:77-88.
Amiran, R.
1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Massada Press, Jerusalem.
A m y x , D. A.
1988 Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period II-III.
University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Anderson-Stojanovic, V. R.
1987 The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria.
American Journal of Archaeology 91:105-122.
Anderson, W.
1988 Sarepta 1: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y.
Département des publications de l'université libanaise, Beyrouth.
1989 The Pottery Industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand,

Lebanon), with Parallels to Kilns from Other East Mediterranean
Sites. In Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics,
edited by P. E. McGovern, pp. 197-216. Ceramics and Civilisation,
vol. IV, W. D. Kingery, general editor. The American Ceramic
Society, Inc., Westerville, Ohio.
1990 The Beginnings of Phoenician Pottery: Vessel Shape, Style, and

Ceramic Technology in the Early Phases of The Phoenician Iron A g e .
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279:35-54.
Andrae, W.
1943 Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli V. Verlag von Walter de Gruyter
& Co., Berlin.
Artzy, M.
1985 Supply and Demand: A Study of Second Millennium Cypriote
Pottery in the Levant. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. B. Knapp and T.
Stech, pp. 93-99. Monograph XXV. Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
1994 Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes
and Maritime Outlets in the 2nd Millennium. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 13:121-147.
1998 Routes, Trade, Boats and "Nomads of the Sea". In

Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar
and E. Stern, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 4 8 . Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Askinson, G. W.
1923 Peifumes and Cosmetics - Their Preparation and Manufacture. A
Complete and Practical Treatise. Crosby, Lockwood and Son, London.
Assaf, A. A.
1997 Tell Sukas. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 90-91. vol. V. Oxford University
Press, N e w York.
Aubet, Μ. Ε.
1993 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Aupert, P. and C. Tytgat

1984 Deux tombes Géométriques de la nécropole nord d'Amathonte
(NT 226 I-II). Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 108:619-649.
Aznar Sanchez, C.
1996 El Impacto Asirio en La Expansion de Los Fenicios Hacia
Occidente. El Caso de Tell Abu Hawam (Haifa, Israel): La Rampa
Septentrional. Unpublished M A thesis, Universidad Complutense,
Spain.
Badre, L.
1998 Late Bronze A g e and Iron A g e Imported Pottery from the
Archaeological Excavations of Urban Beirut. In Eastern
Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C.
Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon -
Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis,
pp. 73-86. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation,
Athens.
Badre, L., E. Gubel, M. Al-Maqdissi and H. Sader

1990 Tell Kazel, Syria: Excavations of the A U B Museum, 1985-
1987. Preliminary Reports. Berytus 38:10-124.
Baker, H., D. Collon, J. D. Hawkins, T. Pollard, J. N. Postgate, D. Symington and

D. Thomas
1995 Kilise Tepe 1994. Anatolian Studies 45:139-193.
Balensi, J. and M. D. Herrera

1985 Tell Abu Hawam 1983-1984: Rapport Préliminaire. Revue
Biblique 92:82-128.
Balensi, J., M. D. Herrera and M. Artzy

1993 Tell Abu Hawam. In The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in
the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 7-14. vol. 1. 4 vols. The Israel
Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
Barag, D.
1963 A Survey of Pottery Recovered from the Sea off the Coast of
Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 13:13-19.
Baramki, D.
1961 Phoenicia and the Phoenicians. Khayats, Beirut.
1964 Second Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell el

Ghassil. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth XVIL47-103.
Barlow, J.
1991 N e w Light on Red Polished Ware. In Cypriot Ceramics:
Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and
B. Kling, pp. 51-57. University Museum Symposium Series, vol. II.
The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania & The A.G.
Leventis Foundation, Philadelphia.
Barlow, J., D. L. Bolger and B. Kling (editors)

1991 Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania & The A.G. Leventis
Foundation, Philadelphia.
Barreca, F.
1986 The Phoenician and Punic Civilization in Sardinia. In Studies in
Sardinian Archaeology: Sardinia in the Mediterranean, edited by M.
Balmuth, pp. 145-170. vol. II. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Bass, G.
1986 A Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 Campaign.
American Journal of Archaeology 90(3):269-296.
1987 Oldest known shipwreck reveals splendours of the Bronze Age.

In National Geographic, pp. 692-733. vol. 172.
1990 Nautical Archaeology and Biblical Archaeology. Biblical

Archaeologist 53( 1 ):4-13.
1991 Evidence of Trade from Bronze A g e Shipwrecks. In Bronze Age

Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 69-82. Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag,
Jonsered.
Bass, G., C. Pulak, D. Collon and J. Weinstein

1989 The Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign.
American Journal of Archaeology 93( 1 ): 1 -29.
Benson, J. L.
1973 The Necropolis of Kaloriziki. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology X X X V I , Göteborg.
Ben-Tor, A. (editor)
1989 Hazor IIl-IV. Text. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
1993 Jokneam. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 805-811. vol. 3.
4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
1993 Tel Qiri. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1228-1229. vol.
4. 4 vols. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
Ben-Tor, A.
1999 Excavating Hazor. Part I: Solomon's City Rises from the
Ashes. Biblical Archaeology Review 25(2):26-37, 60.
Ben-Tor, A. and D. Ben-Ami

1998 Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E. Israel
Exploration Journal 48( 1 -2): 1 -37.
Ben-Tor, Α., R. Bonfil, Y. Garfinkel, R. Greenberg, A. M. Maier and A. Mazar

1997 Hazor V. Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Ben-Tor, A. and Y. Portugali

1987 Tel Qiri - A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem 24.
Ben-Tor, Α., Y. Portugali and M. Avissar

1981 The First T w o Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978-
1979: Preliminary Report. Israel Excavation Reports 31:137-164.
Bergoffen, C. J.
1991 Overland Trade in Northern Sinai: Evidence of the Late
Cypriot Pottery. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 284:59-76.
Bieber, A.
1973 Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics from
Cyprus. PhD, University of Connecticut.
1978 Appendix C: Neutron Activation Analysis. In The Pottery of

Tyre, edited by P. Bikai, pp. 88-90. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.
1989 Neutron Activation Analysis of Cypriot Pottery. In American

Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1973-1980, edited by L. Stager and A.
Walker, pp. 357-397. Oriental Institute Communications No. 24. The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.
Biers, W„ K. Gerhardt and R. Braniff

1994 Lost Scents: Investigations of Corinthian "Plastic" Vases by
Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry. MASCA Research Papers
in Science and Archaeology 11. University of Pennsylvania Museum
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.
1995 Scientific Investigations of Corinthian "Plastic" Vases. Paper

Presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute
of America, Atlanta, Georgia, 1994. American Journal of
Archaeology 99:320.
Bikai, P.
1978 The Late Phoenician Pottery Complex and Chronology. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229:47-56.
Bikai, P.
1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.
1983 The Imports from the East - Appendix II. In Palaepaphos-

Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis,
pp. 396 - 406. G M B H . Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
1987 The Phoenician Pottery. In La Nécropole d'Amathonte. Tombes

113-367, edited by V. Karageorghis, O. Picard and C. Tytgat, pp. 1-
19. Études Chypriotes VIII. Leventis, Nicosia.
1987 The Phoenician Potteiy of Cyprus. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia.
1987 Trade Networks in the Early Iron Age: The Phoenicians at

Palaepaphos. In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D. W.
Rupp, pp. 125-128. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol.
LXXVII. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg.
1992 Cyprus and Phoenicia: Literary Evidence for the Early Iron
Age. In Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis, edited by G. C.
Ioannides, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 4 8 . Leventis, Nicosia.
1992 The Phoenicians. In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C.
From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, edited by W. A. Ward and M.
S. Joukowsky, pp. 132-141. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa.
1994 The Phoenicians and Cyprus. In Cyprus in the 11th Century BC,
edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 31-36. The University of Cyprus,
Nicosia.
n.d. Statistical Observations on the Phoenician Pottery of Kition.

Unpublished ms.
Biran, A.
1994 Biblical Dan. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Biran, A. and R. Gophna

1970 An Iron A g e Burial Cave at Tel Halif. Israel Exploration
Journal 20:151-169.
Biran, A. and J. Naveh

1993 An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration
Journal 43(2-3):81-98.
1995 The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. Israel Exploration

Journal 45(1): 1-18.
Biran, A. and O. Negbi

1966 The Stratigraphical Sequence at Tel Sippor. Israel Exploration
Journal 16:160-173.
Birmingham, J.
1963 The Chronology of S o m e Early and Middle Cypriot Sites.
American Journal of Archaeology 67:15-42.
1964 Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey. Anatolian Studies

XrV:21-37.
Blinkenberg, C.
1931 Lindos. Fouilles de L'Acropole 1902-1914. Fondation
Carlsberg-Copenhague, Berlin.
Bliss, F. J. and R. A. Macalister

1902 Excavations in Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.
Blue, L. Κ.
1997 Cyprus and Cilicia: The Typology and Palaeogeography of
Second Millennium Harbours. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the
Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by
S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 31-43. Cyprus
American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series,
Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Boardman, J.
1960 The Multiple Brush. Antiquity 34:85-89.
1980 The Greeks Overseas: their early colonies and trade. Thames
and Hudson, London.
1990 Al Mina and History. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(2): 169-190.
1999 The Excavated History of Al Mina. In Ancient Greeks West and

East, edited by G. Tsetskhladze, pp. 135-161. Brill, Leiden.
Bound, M.
1991 The Giglio Wreck: A wreck of the Archaic Period (c. 6 0 0 BC)
off the Tuscan island of Giglio. An account of its discovery and
excavation: a review of the main finds. EN ALIA Supplement 1:
Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology .
Bounni, A.
1991 La syrie, Chypre et l'egee d'après les fouilles de Ras Ibn Hani.
In Proceedings of an International Symposium "The Civilizations of
the Aegean and their diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern
Mediterranean 2000-600 BC" (1989), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp.
105-110. Pierides Foundation, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Bounni, Α., Ε. J. Lagarce and N. Slaiby

1978 Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles
( 1 9 7 6 ) a Ibn Hani. Syria 55:233-301.
Bouzek, J.
1994 The Distribution of Greek Painted Pottery in the Mediterranean
and in the Black Sea Region. A Comparison. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 13(2):241-243.
Braemer, F.
1986 La céramique à e n g o b e rouge de l'âge du Fer. Syria 63:
221-246.
Braidwood, R. J.
1940 Report on Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of
Tartous. Syria XXI: 183-226.
Briend, J. and J.-B. Humbert

1980 Tell Keisan (1971-1976). Une cité phenicienne en Galilée.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Éditions
Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, Paris.
Brock, J. K.
1957 Fortetsa: Early Greek Tombs Near Knossos. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Brodie, N. J. and L. Steel

1996 Cypriot Black-on-Red Ware: Towards a Characterisation.
Archaeometry 38(2):263-278.
Brody, A. J.
1998 "Each Man Cried Out To His God." The Specialized Religion
of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Harvard Semitic
Monographs. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Buhl, M.-L.
1992 Hamath. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N.
Freedman, pp. 33-36. vol. III. Doubleday, N e w York.
Cahill, J., G. Lipton and D. Tarier

1987 Tell el-Hammeh, 1985 - 1987: Notes and N e w s . Israel
Exploration Journal 37(4):280-283.
1988 Tell el-Hammeh, 1988: Notes and N e w s . Israel Exploration

Journal 38(3): 191-194.
Cahill, J. and D. Tarier

1993 Tell el-Hammeh. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 561-562. vol. 3.
4 vols. Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
Cahill, J., D. Tarier and G. Lipowitz

1989 Tell el-Hammah in the Tenth Century B.C.E (Heb.). Qadmoniot
22(l-2):33-38.
Calvet, Y.
1980 Sur certains rites funéraires a Salamine de Chypre. In Salamine
de Chypre. Histoire et Archéologie, edited by M. Yon, pp. 115-121.
Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, Paris.
1982 Pharmacopée antique. Un pot à 'lykion' de Beyrouth. In

Archéologie au Levant. Recueil R. Saidah, edited by J. Starcky, pp.
2 8 1 - 2 8 6 . Collection de la Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen No. 12;
Serie Archéologique, 9. Maison de L'Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon.
Campbell Thomson, R.
1949 A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany. British Academy, London.
Cariolou, G. A.
1997 K Y R E N I A II: The Return from Cyprus to Greece of the
Replica of a Hellenic Merchant Ship. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and
the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited
by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 83-97. Cyprus
Casson, L.
1995 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Casson, S.
1938 The Modern Pottery Trade in the Aegean. Antiquity 12:464-473.
1951 The Modern Pottery Trade in the Aegean: further notes.

Antiquity 25:187-190.
Catling, H.
1977 The Knossos Area. Archaeological Reports for 1976-1977 23:3-23.
Caubet, A.
1992 Reoccupation of the Syrian Coast after the Destruction of the
"Crisis Years". In The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From
Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, edited by W. A. Ward and M. S.
Joukowsky, pp. 123-131. Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa.
Chambon, A.
1984 Tel! el-Far'ah I: L'Âge du Fer. Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, Paris.
1993 Tell el-Farah (North): Late Bronze A g e to the Roman Period.

In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, edited by E. Stern, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 4 0 . vol. 2. 4 vols. The Israel
Chapman, S.
1972 A Catalogue of Iron A g e Pottery from the Cemeteries of
Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon. Berytus
XXI:55-194.
Charters, S., R. P. Evershed, L. J. Goad, A. Leyden, P. W. Blinkhorn and V.

Denham
1993 Quantification and Distribution of Lipid in Archaeological
Ceramics: Implications for Sampling Potsherds for Organic Residue
Analysis and the Classification of Vessel Use. Archaeometry
35(2):211-223.
Christodoulou
1972 A Cypro-Archaic Tomb Group from Maroni. Report of the
Department of Antiquitites in Cyprus : 156-160.
Christou, D.
1974 Pottery Types from a N e w Necropolis at Kato Dheftera. Report
of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 174-185.
1984 Supplementary Report on the Iron A g e Necropolis at Kato

Dheftera. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 174-206.
1998 Cremations in the Western Necropolis of Amathus. In Eastern

pp. 2 0 7 - 2 1 5 . The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis
Foundation, Athens.
Cline, E.
1994 Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late
Bronze Age Aegean. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.
Cline, E. H.
1995 Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze A g e
Mycenae. In Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, edited by W. V.
Davies and L. Schofield, pp. 91-115. British Museum Press, London.
Cogan, M. and H. Tadmor

1988 The Anchor Bible - II Kings. Doubleday, New York.
Coldstream, J. N.
1969 The Phoenicians of Ialysos. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies 16:1-8.
1972 Knossos 1951-61: Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery from

the Town. Annual of the British School at Athens 67:63-98.
1977 Geometric Greece. Ernest Benn Limited, London.

Coldstream, J. N.
1979 S o m e Cypriote Traits in Cretan Pottery. Paper presented at the
Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 B.C., Nicosia.
1982 Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean. In Phönizier im Westen,

edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 2 6 1 - 2 7 5 . Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
Mainz am Rhein.
1984 Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North Cemetery at

Knossos. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 122-137.
1985 Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-1985: The Geometric and Archaic

Periods. In Archaeology in Cyprus 1960 - 1985, edited by V.
Karageorghis, pp. 4 7 - 5 9 . Leventis Foundation, Nicosia.
1986 Kition and Amathus: S o m e Reflections on their Westward Links

During the Early Iron Age. In Acts of the International
Archaeological Symposium "Cyprus between the Orient and the
Occident," 8-14th Sept 1985, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 321-329.
Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.
with a note by Patricia Bikai

1988 Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: S o m e Preliminary
Comparisons. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :35-44.
1996 The Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery. In Knossos North

Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. Discussion, edited by J. N.
Coldstream and H. W. Catling, pp. 19-420. BS A Supplementary
Volume No. 28. vol. II. 4 vols. British School at Athens.
1998 Crete and the Dodecanese: Alternative Eastern Approaches to

the Greek World During the Geometric Period. In Eastern
Foundation, Athens.
1998 The First Exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians: W h o

Took the Initiative? In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited
by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 353 - 360. Israel Exploration
Society, Jerusalem.
Coldstream, J. N. and H. W. Catling (editors)

1996 Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. The Tombs, and
Catalogue of Finds. I. 4 vols. The British School at Athens.
Conkey, M. and C. Hastorf (editors)

1990 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Contenau, G.
1920 Mission Archéologique à Sidon (1914). Syria 1:198-229.
Cook, R. M.
1960 Greek Painted Pottery. Methuen, London
Courbin, P.
1975 Rapport sur la 4 è m e campagne de fouille ( 1 9 7 4 ) a Ras el
Bassit. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 25:59-71.
1986 Bassit. Syria 63:175-220.
1993 Fouilles de Bassit: Tombes de Fer. Éditions Recherche sur les

Civilisations, Paris.
Crielaard, J. P.
1998 Surfing on the Mediterranean Web: Cypriot Long-distance
Communications during the Eleventh and Tenth Centuries B.C. In
Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th
cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at
Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and Ν
Stampolidis, pp. 187-206. The University of Crete and the A.G.
Leventis Foundation, Athens.
Crowfoot, G. M.
1957 Israelite Pottery, General List. In Samaria-Sebaste III: The
Objects, edited by J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and Κ. M.
Kenyon, pp. 134-198. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.
Crowfoot, G. M. and L. Baldensperger

1932 From Cedar to Hyssop: A Study in the Folklore of Plants in
Palestine. Sheldon Press, London.
Culican, W.
1966 The First Merchant Venturers: The Ancient Levant in History
and Commerce. Thames and Hudson, London.
1968 Quelques aperçus sur les ateliers phéniciens. Syria XLV:275-293.
1970 Phoenician Oil Bottles and Tripod Bowls. Berytus 19:5-18.
1973 The Graves at Tell er-Reqeish. Australian Journal of Biblical

Archaeology 2(2):66-105.
1976 Phoenician Metalwork and Egyptian Tradition. Revista de la

Universidad Complutense XXV(101):83-89.
1976 A Terracotta Shrine From Achzib. Zeitschrift des Deutschen

Palästina-Vereins 92:47-53.
Culican, W.
1982 The Repertoire of Phoenician Pottery. In Phönizier im Westen,
edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 45-82; Plates 4-8. Verlag Philipp von
Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Curtin, P. D.
1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Dahlberg, B. and K. O'Connell (editors)

1989 Tell el-Hesi. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.
Davies, G.
1986 Megiddo. Cities of the Biblical World. Lutterworth Press,
Cambridge.
Davies, W. V. and L. Schofield (editors)

1995 Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: interconnections in the
Second Millennium BC. British Museum Press, London.
Davis, J. L. and H. B. L e w i s
1985 Mechanisation of Pottery Production: A Case Study from the
Cycladic Islands. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. Knapp and T.
Dayagi - Mendels, M.
1989 Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World. Israel Museum
Catalogue no. 305, Jerusalem.
de Crée, F.
1991 The Black-on-Red or Cypro-Phoenician Ware. In Phoenicia and
the Bible, edited by E. Lipinski, pp. 95-102. Studia Phoenicia XI.
Uitgeverij Peeters, Leuven.
de Montlivault, E.
1982 La Chronologie de la Céramique dite "Black-on-Red" en
Palestine. Vue à travers son évolution dans Γ histoire de la
recherche. Unpublished thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain.
de Vaux, R.
1952 La Quatrième Campagne de Fouilles à Tell el-Far'ah, Près
Naplouse. Revue Biblique 59:551-583.
Desborough, V. R. d. A.
1980 An Amphora from Salamis. In Salamine de Chypre. Histoire et
Archéologie, edited by M. Yon, pp. I l l - 114. Editions du Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Desborough, V. R. d. A.
1957 A Group of Vases from Amathus. Journal of Hellenic Studies
77:212-219.
1972 The Greek Dark Ages. Ernest Benn Limited, London.
Deshayes, J. and B. C. S. Wilson

1963 La nécropole de Ktima. P. Geuthner, Paris.
Dever, W.
1990 Of Myths and Methods. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 277/278:121 -130.
1997 Archaeology and the "Age of Solomon": A Case-Study in

Archaeology and Historiography. In The Age of Solomon.
Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp.
2 1 7 - 2 5 1 . Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East,
vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill,
Leiden.
Dikaios, P.
1963 A 'Royal' Tomb at Salamis. Archäologischer Anzeiger : 126-198.
Domemann, R. H.
1983 The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron
Ages, Milwaukee.
Dorsey, D. A.
1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Dothan, M.
1958 Azor - Notes and N e w s . Israel Exploration Journal 8:272-274.
1961 Excavations at Azor. Israel Exploration Journal 11:171 -175.
1965 The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea. Israel Exploration Journal

15:134-151.
1971 Ashdod II-III, 1963, 1965. 'Atiqot IX-X.
1982 Ashdod IV. 'Atiqot XV.
Dothan, M. and D. N. Freedman

1967 Ashdod I, 1962. 'Atiqot VII.
Doumet, C.
1982 Les tombes IV et V de Rachidieh. Annales d'histoire et
d'archéologie. (Faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines,
Beyrouth, Liban) 1:89-148.
Doumet, C. and I. Kawakabani
1995 Les Tombes de Rachidieh: Remarques sur les contacts interna
tionaux et le commerce phénicien au V i l l e siècle av. J.-C. In Actes du
Ule congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques
(1991), pp. 3 7 9 - 3 9 5 . vol. I. Institut National du Patrimoine, Tunis.
Doumet-Serhal, C.
1993-1994 La cruche a "arete sur le col": Un fossil directeur de
l'expansion phénicienne en Mediterranee aux 9 è m e et 8ème siècles
avant J.-C. Berytus X L L 9 9 - 1 3 6 .
du Mesnil du Buisson, L. C.
1932 Une Campagne de Fouilles A Khan Sheikhoun. Syria 13:171-188.
du Plat Taylor, J.
1959 The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina, Syria. Iraq
XXL62-92.
Dunand, M.
1954 Fouilles de Byblos 1933-1938 II. Geuthner, Paris.
Dunand, M.. A. Bounni and N. Saliby

1964 Fouilles de Tell Kazel - Rapport Préliminaire. Annales
Archéologiques de Syrie 14:1-14.
Duncan, J. G.
1930 Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. British School of
Archaeology in Egypt, London.
Edelstein, G. and Ν. Feig

1993 Tel 'Amal. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Edelstein, G. and S. Levy

1972 Cinq Années de Fouilles à Tel 'Amal. Revue Biblique
LXX:325-367.
Elgavish, J.
1993 Shiqmona. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Eriksson, K.
1991 Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A Product of Late Bronze A g e
Cyprus. In Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited
by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 81-96. University Museum
Symposium Series Volume II. The University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania & The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Philadelphia.
Eshel, I.
1978 Petrie's Excavations at Tel Jemmeh: Pottery and Chronology of
the Iron Age Levels. Unpublished M A thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Eshel, I. and K. Prag (editors)

1995 Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967. IV.
Published for the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem by
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Esse, D.
1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age
Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50. The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.
Fensham, F. C.
1983 The Relationship Between Phoenicia and Israel During the
Reign of Ahab. In Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale Di Studi Fenici
e Punici, Roma, 5-10 Novembre 1979, edited by P. Bartolom, pp.
5 8 9 - 5 9 4 . Collezione di Studi Fenici, 16. Istituto Per La Civiltà
Fenicia e Punica. vol. 2. 3 vols. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Richerche,
Roma.
Finkelstein, I.
1990 On Archaeological Methods and Historical Considerations:
Iron Age II Gezer and Samaria. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 277/278:109-119.
1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative

View. Levant 28:177-187.
1998a Notes on the Stratigraphy and Chronology of Iron A g e

Ta'anach. Tel Aviv 25(2):208-218.
1998b Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the

Iron A g e ? A Rejoinder. Levant 30:167-174.
1999 Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology
Perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
314:55-70.
Fitzgerald, G. M.
1930 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan Part II: The Pottery.
University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.
Flourentzos, P.
1981 Four Early Iron A g e Tombs from Nicosia. Report of the
Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :115-128.
1985 An Archaic Tomb from Khirokitia. Report of the Department of

Antiquities in Cyprus :222-231.
Flourentzos, P.
1986 Tomb Groups From the Necropolis in Ay. Omologites, Nicosia.
Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus : 150-163.
1997 The Early Geometric Tomb No. 132 from Palaepaphos. Report
of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :205-218.
Forbes, R. J.
1993 Studies in Ancient Technology III. E.J. Brill, Leiden.
Frankel, D.
1991 Ceramic Variability: Measurement and Meaning. In Cypriot
Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D.
Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 5 2 . The University Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Unviersity of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
Franken, H. J.
1974 In Search of the Jericho Potters. North Holland Ceramic
Studies in Archaeology. North-Holland Publishing Company,
Amsterdam.
1995 Theory and Practice of Ceramic Studies in Archaeology.

Newsletter: Department of Pottery Technology, Leiden University
13:81-102.
Fritz, V. and A. Kempinski

1983 Ergebnisse Der Ausgrabungen Auf der Hirbet el-Msas (Tel
Masos) 1972-1975. 2 vols. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Frost, H.
1995 Harbours and Proto-Harbours; Early Levantine Engineering. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea,
edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 1-22. University
of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Fugmann, E.
1958 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches. 1931-1938. L'Architecture des
Périodes Pré-Hellénistiques II.i. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.
Furumark, A.
1941 The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery. Svenska institutet i
Athen, Stockholm.
Gal, Z.
1979 An Early Iron A g e Site near Tel Menorah in the Beth-Shan
Valley. Tel Aviv 6:138-146.
1984 Hurvat Rosh Zayit - A Phoenician Fort in Upper Galilee (Heb.).

Qadmoniot XVII(2-3):56-59.
Gal, Ζ.
1992a Hurvat Rosh Zayit and the Early Phoenician Pottery. Levant
24:173-186.
1992b Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. American Schools of

Oriental Research Dissertation Series Volume 8. Eisenbrauns, Winona
Lake, Indiana.
1993 Horvat Rosh Zayit. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 1289-1291. vol.
1995 The Diffusion of Phoenician Cultural Influence in Light of the

Excavations at Hurvat Rosh Zayit. TA 22:89-93.
Gale, Ν. H. (editor)
1991 Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. XC. Paul Äströms
Förlag, Jonsered.
Galili, E. and J. Sharvit

1992 Classification of Underwater Archaeological Sites along the
Mediterranean Coast of Israel: Finds from Underwater and Coastal
Archaeological Research. Actes Du Symposium International 7-12
Octobre 1991 Sozopol: Thracia Pontica V:269-296.
Gates, M.-H.
1994 Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology
98:249-278.

100(2):277-335.

101(2):241-305.
Georgiades, C. C.
1985 Flowers of Cyprus - Plants of Medicine. Georgiades, C., Nicosia.
Georgiou, H.
1991 Bronze A g e Ships and Rigging. In Thalassa. L'Egée
Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 61-
71. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège.
Université de Liège. Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce
antique, Liège.
1997 Seafaring, Trade Routes, and the Emergence of the Bronze Age:
Urban Centers in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Res Maritimae.
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late
Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp.
117-124. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute
Monograph Series, Volume 1. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Gilboa, A.
1989 N e w Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of Cypro-Geometric
Pottery Import to Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 39:204-218.
1998 Iron I - IIA Pottery Evolution at Dor - Regional Contexts and

the Cypriot Connection. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,
edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 4 1 3 - 425. Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Gilboa, A.
1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery: A View from
Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
316:1-22
Gill, D.
1988 Expressions of wealth: Greek art and society. Antiquity
62(237):735-743.
1988 Silver Anchors and Cargoes of Oil: S o m e Observations on

Phoenician Trade in the Western Mediterranean. Papers of the British
School at Rome 56:1 -12.
1991 Pots and Trade; S p a c e f i l l e d or Objets D'Art? Journal of

Hellenic Studies 111:29-47.
Gilmour, G.
1995 The Archaeology of Cult in the Southern Levant in the Early
Iron Age: An Analytical and Comparative Approach. Unpublished D.
Phil, Oxford University.
Gitin, S.
1990 Gezer III: A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II. Persian and
Hellenistic Periods at Tel Gezer. Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem.
Gitin, S., A. Mazar and E. Stern (editors)

1998 Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries BCE. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Gittlen, B.
1975 Cypriote White Slip Pottery in its Palestinian Stratigraphie
Context. In The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments,
edited by N. Robertson, pp. 111-120. N o y e s Press, Park Ridge, N e w
Jersey.
1977 Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery found in Palestine.

Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
1981 The Chronological and Cultural Implications of the Cypro-

Palestinian Trade During the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 241:49-59.
Gjerstad, Ε.
1934 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition I. The Swedish Cyprus
Expedition, Stockholm.
1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition II. The Swedish Cyprus

1944 The Initial Date of the Cypriote Iron Age. Opuscula

Archeologica 111:73-106.
1948 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV:2, The Swedish Cyprus

1953 Correspondence with Professor Einar Gjerstad on the

Chronology of "Cypriote" Pottery from Early Iron A g e Levels in
Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
130:22-27.
1974 The Stratification of Al Mina (Syria) and its Chronological

Evidence. Acta Archaeologica 45:107-123.
Goldman, H. (editor)
1963 Excavations at Gözlii Kule, Tarsus. Ill - The Iron Age.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Grant, E. and G. E. Wright

1938 'Ain Shems Excavations IV: Text, Haverford.
1939 'Ain Shems Excavations IV: Pottery, Haverford.
Greenberg, R.
1987 N e w Light on the Early Iron A g e Levels at Tell Beit Mirsim.
Greenberg, R. and N. Porat

1996 A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Center:
Typology, Petrography, and Provenance of the Metallic Ware of
Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 301:5-24.
Guy, P. L. O.
1924 Mt. Carmel - An Early Iron A g e Cemetery near Haifa;
excavated September 1922. Bulletin of the British School of
Archaeology in Jerusalem 5:47-55.
1938 Megiddo Tombs. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute

Publications Volume XXXIII. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Illinois.
Hadjicosti, M.
1997 The Family Tomb of a Warrior of the Cypro-Archaic Period at
Mari. Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :251-263.
Hadjidaki, E.
1997 The Classical Shipwreck at Alonnesos. In Res Maritimae.
Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp.
125-134. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute
Hadjisavvas, S.
1989 T w o Cypro-Archaic I Tombs at Alassa-Kampos. Report of the
Department of Antiquities in Cyprus: 95-108.
1995 Cyprus and the Sea: the Archaic and Classical Periods. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus and the Sea,
edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 89-98. University
of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Hagens, G.
1999 An ultra-low chronology of Iron A g e Palestine. Antiquity
73:431-439.
Haidane, C.
1990 Shipwrecked Plant Remains. Biblical Archaeologist 53(1):
55-60.
1993 Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze A g e .

World Archaeology 24(3):348-360.
Hamilakis, Y.
1996 Wine, Oil and the Dialectics of Power in Bronze A g e Crete: A
Review of the Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(1): 1-33.
Hamilton, R. W.
1934 Tall Abu Hawam: Interim Report. Quarterly of the Department
of Antiquities in Palestine 3:74-80.
1935 Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department

of Antiquities in Palestine IV: 1-69.
Handy, L.
1997 On the Dating and Dates of Solomon's Reign. In The Age of
Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L.
Handy, pp. 96-106. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient
Near East. vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor.
Brill, Leiden.
Hanfmann, G. M. A.
1963 The Iron Age Pottery of Tarsus. In Excavations at Gözlü Knie,
Tarsus, edited by H. Goldman, pp. 18-160. Vol. Ill, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Hannestad, L.
1996 Absolute Chronology: Greece and the Near East c. 1000 - 5 0 0
BC. Acta Archaeologica Supplementa 1:39-51.
Hayes, J. W.
1991 Fine Wares in the Hellenistic World. In Looking at Greek Vases,
edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 183-202. Cambridge
Hemelrijk, J. M.
1991 A closer look at the potter. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by
T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 2 3 3 - 2 5 6 . Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Hermary, A.
1998 Votive Offerings in the Sanctuaries of Cyprus, Rhodes and
Crete during the Late Geometric and Archaic Periods. In Eastern
Foundation, Rethymnon, Crete.
Herrera, M.
1989 Las Excavationes de R.W. Hamilton en Tell Abu Hawam, Haifa:
El Stratum 111: Historia del Puerto Fenicia durante Los Siglos X-V1II
A. de C. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad de Cantabria, Spain.
Hershkovitz, M.
1986 Miniature Ointment Vases from the Second Temple Period.
Israel Exploration Journal 36:45-51.
Herzog, Ζ.
1984 Beersheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Herzog, Ζ., G. Rapp and Ο. Negbi (editors)

1989 Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Institute of Archaeology, Tel
Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Hodos, T.
1999 Iron A g e Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey) and the Aegean. Paper
presented at the meeting of the British Association of Near Eastern
Archaeology, Cambridge, 16th-18th December.
Holladay, J.
1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278:23-70.
1995 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic

Centralization in the Iron II Α-B. In The Archaeology of Society in the
Holy Land, edited by T. Levy. Leicester University Press, London.
Holmes, Y. L.
1975 The Foreign Trade of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. In
The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments, edited by N.
Robertson, pp. 90-110. N o y e s Press, Park Ridge, N e w Jersey.
Horden, P. and N. Purcell

2000 The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History.
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Hughes, J.
1990 Secrets of the Times. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series. JSOT Press, Sheffield.
Hulin, L.
1989 Marsa Matruh 1987, Preliminary Ceramic Report. Journal of
the American Research Centre in Egypt XXVI: 115-126.
Humbert, J.-B.
1993 Tell Keisan. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 862-867. vol. 3.
Hunt, M.
1985 The Iron Age Pottery of the Yoqneam Regional Project.
Unpublished Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley.
1987 The Tel Qiri Pottery. In Tel Qiri - A Village in the Jezreel
Valley, edited by A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali, Qedem 24: 139-223.
Iacovou, M.
1988 The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B.C. Cyprus. Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology LXXIX. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg.
Ingholt, H.
1940 Rapport Préliminaire sur Sept Campagnes de Fouilles a Hama
en Syrie (1932-1938). Einar Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
Jacopi, G.
1929 Scavi Nella Necropoli di Jalisso 1924-1928. Clara Rhodos III.
Istituto storico-archeologico, Rodi.
,1931 Scavi nelle Necropoli Camiresi 1929-1930. Clara Rhodos IV.

Jacopi, G.
1933 Esplorazione Archeologica Di Camiro. Clara Rhodos VI-VII.
James, F.
1966 The Iron Age at Beth-Shan. Pennsylvania University Museum.
James, P.
1991 Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London.
James, P., I. J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos and J. A. Frankish

1987 Bronze to Iron A g e Chronology in the Old World: Time for a
Reassessment? Studies in Ancient Chronology 1.
Johns, C. N.
1938 Exavations at Pilgrims' Castle, 'Atlit (1933): Cremated Burials
of Phoenician Origin. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in
Palestine VI: 121-152.
1948 Discoveries in Palestine since 1939. Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 81-101.
Johnston, A.
1991 Greek Vases in the Marketplace. In Looking at Greek Vases,
edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 2 0 3 - 2 3 2 . Cambridge
Jones, R.E. (editor)

1986 Greek and Cypriot Pottery - A Review of Scientific Studies.
British School of Archaeology at Athens, Athens.
Jones, R. E. and L. Vagnetti

1991 Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean:
Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research. In Bronze Age
Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 127-148.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag,
Jonsered.
Joukowsky, M. S.
1997 Byblos. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 3 9 0 - 394. vol. I. Oxford
University Press, N e w York.
Karageorghis, V.
1967 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (3). Department of
Antiquities, Nicosia.
1970 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II (4). Department of

Antiquities, Nicosia.
Karageorghis, V.
1974 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III - Plates (5).
Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.
1976 Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus.

N e w Aspects of Antiquity. Thames and Hudson, London.
1978 Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis IV 7. Department of

Antiquities, Nicosia, Cyprus.
1982 Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident in the Eleventh
Century B.C. In Archéologie au Levant. Recueil R. Saidah, edited by
J. Starcky, pp. 173-178. Collection de la Maison de L'Orient
Méditerranéen No. 12; Serie Archéologique, 9. Maison de L'Orient
Méditerranéen, Lyon.
1982 Cyprus: From the Stone Age to the Romans. Thames and
Hudson, London.
1983 Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus.

Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz.
(editor)
1986 Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium "Cyprus
between the Orient and the Occident," 8-l4th Sept 1985. Department
of Antiquities, Nicosia.
1987 A Cypro-Archaic I tomb at Palaepaphos-Skales. Report of

Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :85-97.
(editor)
1991 Proceedings of the International Symposium "The Civilizations
of the Aegean and their diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern
Mediterranean 2000-600 BC" (1989). Peirides Foundation, Lamaca,
Cyprus.
Karageorghis, V. and J. des Gagniers

1974 La Céramique Chypriote de Style Figuré. Age du Fer ( 1050 -
500 Av. J.-C.). Biblioteca di antichitá cipriote, 2. Istituto per gli Studi
Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome.
Karageorghis, V., O. Picard and C. Tytgat (editors)

1987 La Nécropole d'Amathonte. Tombes 113-367. A.G. Leventis,
Nicosia.
Karageorghis, V. and D. Michaelides (editors)

1995 Proceedings of the International Symposium "Cyprus and the
Sea." University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Karantzali, Ε.
1998 A N e w Mycenaean Pictorial Rhyton from Rhodes. In Eastern
pp. 87 - 104. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis
Foundation, Athens.
Kearsley, R.
1989 The pendant semi-circle skyphos: a study of its development
and chronology and an examination of it as evidence for Euboean
activity at Al Mina. The Institute of Classical Studies: Bulletin
Supplement 44. Institute of Classical Studies, London.
Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier (editors)

1990 Excavations at Kabri. Preliminary Report of 1989 Season 4.
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier (editors)


Kempinski, A. and W.-D. Niemeier

1994 Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1992-1993
Seasons 7-8. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Kenyon, K.
1957 The Evidence of the Samarian Pottery and its Bearing on Finds
at Other Sites. In Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects, edited by J. W.
Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. K.M., pp. 198-210. Palestine
Exploration Fund, London.
1982 Excavations at Jericho: Vol. 4. British School of Archaeology

in Jerusalem.
Kinch, K. F.
1914 Vroulia. Fondation Carlsberg-Copenhague, Berlin.
Kitchen, K.
1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.).
Second Edition with Supplement ed. Aris & Phillips Ltd.,
Warminster.
1997 Egypt and East Africa. In The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at

the Turn of the Millennium, edited by L. Handy, pp. 106-126. Studies
in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. vol. XI, B.
Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert, general editor. Brill, Leiden.
Knapp, Α. Β.
1991 Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic G o o d s in Bronze A g e
East Mediterranean Trade. In Bronze Age Trade in the
Mediterranean, edited by Ν. H. Gale, pp. 2 1 - 6 8 . Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag,
Jonsered.
Knapp, Β. and J. F. Cherry

1994 Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus. Prehistory Press,
Madison.
Knappett, C.
1999 Local versus Imported Pottery at Kilise Tepe; the Role of
Pétrographie and Chemical Analysis. Paper presented at the meeting
of the British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology, Cambridge,
16th - 18th December.
Kochavi, M.
1998 The Eleventh Century B C E Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel
Hadar. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A.
Mazar and E. Stem, pp. 4 6 8 - 4 7 8 . Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.
Koehl, R. B.
1985 Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from
Area II, X, Beyrouth.
Kolb, C. C.
1993 Review of 'Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated
Approach', edited by George J. Bey & Christopher A. Pool, 1992,
Westview Press, Boulder. American Journal of Archaeology
97(3):572-573.
Krauss, R.
1985 Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und tech
nischen Chronologie Altägyptens. Gerstenberg Verlag, Hildesheim.
Krings, V.
1995 La Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique. Brill, Leiden.
Kurtz, D. C.
1975 Athenian White-Ground Lekythoi. Patterns and Painters.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Lambrou-Phillipson, C.
1991 Seafaring in the Bronze A g e Mediterranean: The Parameters
involved in Maritime Travel. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique et
La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 11-20. Annales
d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège.
Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique, Liège.
Lamon, R. S. and G. M. Shipton
1939 Megiddo 1: Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I-IV. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lapp, P.
1967 The 1966 Excavations at Tell Ta'annek. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Reseach 185:2-43.
Laurenzi, L.
1936 Necropoli Ialisie (Scavi Dell'Anno 1934). Clara Rhodos VIII:7-205.
Lehmann, G.
1996 Untersuchungen zur spaten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon:
Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr.
Alterumskunde des Vorderen Orients. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster.
1997 Al Mina and the East: Syrian and Phoenician pottery finds and
their implications. Paper presented at the 21st British Museum
Classical Colloquium: The Greeks in the East, London, 9th - 10th
December.
1998 Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron A g e

and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 7 0 0 to 3 0 0 B.C.
forthcoming Excavations at Tel Kabri: The Iron A g e .
Leonard, J. R.
1997 Harbour Terminology in Roman Periploi. In Res Maritimae:
Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. Wylde Swiny,
pp. 163-200. Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Liddy, D. J.
1996 A Chemical Study of Decorated Iron A g e Pottery from the
Knossos North Cemetery. In Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek
Tombs, edited by J. N. Coldstream and H. W. Catling, pp. 4 6 5 - 5 1 4 .
vol. Supplementary Volume No. 28. The British School at Athens.
Lolos, Y. G.
1995 Late Cypro-Mycenaean Seafaring: N e w Evidence From Sites
in the Saronic and the Argolid Gulfs. In Cyprus and the Sea, edited
by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 65-85. University of
Cyprus, Nicosia.
London, G.
1991 Ethnoarchaeological Evidence of Variation in Cypriot Ceramics
and Its Implications for the Taxonomy of Ancient Pottery. In Cypriot
Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, pp. 221-235. The
University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Unviersity of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Loud, G.
1948 Megiddo II - Seasons of 1935-1939. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Lucas, A.
1989 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. 4th Edition: Revised
by J.R. Harris ed. Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd., London.
Lund, J.
1986 Sukas VIII: The Habitation Quarters. Publications of the
Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia, 10. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
1997 The Distribution of Cypriot Sigillata as Evidence of Sea-trade

Involving Cyprus. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern
Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny,
R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 2 0 1 - 2 1 5 . Cyprus American
Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Volume 1.
Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Macalister, R. A. S.
1912a The Excavation ofGezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909
Volume 1: text. John Murray, London.
1912b The Excavation ofGezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909

Volume 3: plates. John Murray, London.
MacLaurin Hemsley, L.
1991 Techniques of Village Pottery Production. In Cypriot Ceramics:
Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and
B. Kling, pp. 2 1 5 - 2 2 0 . The University Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Macridy, T.
1904 À travers les nécropoles sidoniennes. Revue Biblique 13:547-
571.
Maguire, L.
1995 Tell el-Dab'a: The Cypriot Connection. In Egypt, the Aegean
and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC,
edited by W. V. Davies and L. Schofield, pp. 54-65. British Museum
Press, London.
Maisler (Mazar), B.
1951 The Stratification of Tell Abu Hawam on the Bay of Acre.
Maiuri, A.
1926 Jalisos - Scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana a Rodi.
Annuario della R. Scuola Archeologica Di Atene e Delle Missioni
Italiane in Oriente VI-VII:83-341.
1928 Jalisos e L'Agro Jalisio. Clara Rhodos 1:56-82.

Mallowan, M. E. L.
1939 Phoenician Carrying Trade, Syria. Antiquity 13:86-87.
Manniche, L.
1989 An Ancient Egyptian Herbal. British Museum Publications,
London.
1999 Sacred Egyptian Luxuries. Fragrance, Aromatherapy, and

Cosmetics in Pharaonic Times. The American University in Cairo
Press, Cairo.
Marcus, E.
1998 Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times
through the Middle Bronze IIA Period. Unpublished D.Phil.,
University of Oxford.
Markoe, G.
1985 Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the
Mediterranean. Classical Studies 26. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
1996 The Emergence of Orientalizing in Greek Art: S o m e

Observations on the Interchange Between Greeks and Phoenicians in
the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 301:47-67.
1998 The Phoenicians on Crete: Transit Trade and the Search for
Ores. In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th -
6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at
Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N.
2 0 0 0 Phoenicians. Peoples of the Past. British Museum Press,

London.
Marx, A.
1999 De Shîshaq à Shéshak. A propos de 1 Rois X I V 25-26. Vêtus
Testamentum 49(2): 186-190.
Matthäus, H.
1998 Cyprus and Crete in the Early First Millennium B.C. In Eastern
pp. 127-158. The University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis
Foundation, Rethymnon, Crete.
Matthers, J., D. J. Liddy, G. W. A. Newton, V. J. Robinson and H. Al-Tawel

1983 Black-on-Red Ware in the Levant: A Neutron Activation
Analysis Study. Journal of Archaeological Science 10(4):369-382.
Matthews, V.
1992 Perfumes and Spices. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by
D. N. Freedman, pp. 2 2 6 - 2 2 8 . vol. 5. Doubleday, N e w York.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R.
1974 Assyrian Sources of Iron. A Preliminary Survey of the
Historical and Geographical Evidence. Iraq 36:139-154.
May, H. G.
1935 Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. University of Chicago
Press, Illinois.
Mazar, A.
1985 Excavations at Tel Qasile, part Π. Qedem 20.
1991 Comments on the Nature of the Relations between Cyprus and

Palestine during the 12th - 11th Centuries BC. In Proceedings of an
International Symposium "The Civilizations of the Aegean and their
diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000-600 BC"
(1989), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 95-104. Pierides Foundation,
Lamaca, Cyprus.
1993 Beth-Shean. In The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in the

Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 214-223. vol. 1. 4 vols. The Israel
1994 The 11th Century B.C. in the Land of Israel. In Cyprus in the
11th century B.C., edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 39-57. Leventis,
Nicosia.
1997 Iron A g e Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant

29:157-167.
1998 On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron A g e I Period in

Israel. In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A.
Mazar and E. Stem, pp. 368 - 378. Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.
1999 The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report.

Israel Exploration Journal 49( 1 -2): 1 -42.
Mazar, B.
1956 The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Supplement to
Vetus Testamentum 4:57-66.
1962 The Aramaean Empire and its Relations with Israel. Biblical
Archaeologist 25(4):98-120.
1993 'En Gev. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 409-411, vol. 2.
Mazar, Β., A. Biran, M. Dothan and I. Dunayevsky
1964 'Ein Gev: Excavations in 1961. Israel Exploration Journal
14:1-49.
Mazar, E.
1996 The Achziv Burials: A Test-Case for Phoenician-Punic Burial
Customs. Unpublished Ph.D, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mazzoni, S. (editor)
1992 Tell Afis e L'Età del Ferro. Giardini Editori e Stampatori in
Pisa, Pisa.
McNicoll, A. (editor)
1992 Pella in Jordan. 2. Meditarch, Sydney.
Mellaart, J.
1955 Iron A g e Pottery from Southern Anatolia. Belleten
XIX(74):115-136.
Mellink, M. J.
1959 Archaeology in Asia Minor. American Journal of Archaeology
63:79.
1959 Misis-Mopsouhestiou. Anatolian Studies 63:79.
Merrillees, R.
1962 Opium Trade in the Bronze A g e Levant. Antiquity 36(144):287-
292.
1968 The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery found in Egypt. Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology XVIII, Lund.
1975 The Cypriote Bronze A g e Pottery Found in Egypt: A Reply.

Report of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus :81 -90.
1991 The Principles of Cypriot Bronze A g e Pottery Classification. In

Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J.
Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 2 3 7 - 2 4 0 . The University
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mills, J. S. and R. White

1989 The Identity of the Resins from the Late Bronze A g e Shipwreck
at Ulu Burun. Archaeometry 31(l):37-44.
Moldenke, H. N.
1952 Plants of the Bible. Chronica Botanica Company, Waltam,
Massachusetts.
Montet, P.
1928 Byblos et L'Egypte Texte. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
Paris.
Montet, P.
1929 Byblos et L'Egypte Atlas. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
Paris.
Moore Cross, F.
1986 Phoenicians in the West: The Early Epigraphic Evidence. In
Studies in Sardinian Archaeology: Sardinia in the Mediterranean,
edited by M. Balmuth, pp. 117-130. vol. II. The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Moorey, P. R. S.
1980 Cemeteries of the First Millenium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, near
Carchemish, salvaged by T.E. Lawrence and C.L. Woolley in 1913.
BAR International Series 87. BAR, England.
Morricone, L.
1978 Sepolture della prima età del ferro a Coo. Annuario della
Scuola Archeologica di Atene New Series 40:9-427.
Moshkovitz, S.
1989 Iron A g e Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata XIV-XII). In
Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and
O. Negbi, pp. 64-72. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology,
Number 8. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Mountjoy, P.
1993 Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 36. O x b o w Books,
Oxford.
Mullins, R.
1999 The Excavations at Tel Rehov: The Chronology of Iron A g e II.
American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter 49(l):7-9.
Murray, W. M.
1995 Ancient Sailing Winds in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Case
for Cyprus. In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus
and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 33-
43. University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Myres, J. L.
1914 Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, N e w York.
Myres, J. L. and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter

1899 A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Na'aman, N.
1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv
19:71-93.
Na'aman, Ν.
1997 Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel.
Tel Aviv 24(1): 122 - 128.
1997 Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon. In The

Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, edited
by L. Handy, pp. 57-80. Studies in the History and Culture of the
Ancient Near East. vol. XI, B. Halpern and M. Η. E. Weippert,
general editor. Brill, Leiden.
Negbi, O.
1989 Bronze A g e Pottery (Strata XVII - X V ) . In Excavations at Tel
Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, pp. 4 3 - 6 3 . University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis & Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv.
1992 Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands: A

Reappraisal. American Journal of Archaeology 96:599-615.
Negueruela, I., J. Pinedo, A. Minano, I. Arellano and J. S. Barba

1995 Seventh-century B C Phoenician vessel discovered at Playa de la
Isla, Mazarron, Spain. The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 24(3): 189-197.
Nicolaou, K.
1982 The Mycenaeans in the East. In Studies in the History and
Archaeology of Jordan, edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 121-126. vol. I.
Department of Antiquities, Amman.
Niemeyer, H. G.
1990 "Trade before the Flag? On the Principles of Phoenician
Expansion in the Mediterranean.", A. Biran (ed.) in Biblical
Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International
Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, pp 336-345, Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Ohata, K. (editor)
1967 Tel Zeror. II. Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan,
Tokyo.
Oren, E.
1969 Cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze A g e Context.
Opuscula Atheniensia 9:127-150.
Oren, E. et al.
1986 A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt (Heb.).
Qadmoniot XIX(3-4):83-91.
Orton, C., P. Tyers and A. Vince

1993 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Palaima, T. G.
1991 Maritime Matters in the Linear Β Tablets. In Thalassa. L'Egée
Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp.
2 7 3 - 3 0 9 . Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège.
Université de Liège. Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce
antique, Liège.
Papadopoulos, J. K.
1997 Phantom Euboians. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology
10(2): 191-219.
Papathanasspoulos, G., Y. Vichos, E. Hadzidaki and Y. Lolos

1992 Dokos: 1990 Campaign. ENALIA Annual 1990: Hellenic
Institute of Marine Archaeology 2:6-24.
Parker, A. J.
1992a Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the
Roman Provinces. BAR International Series 580. Tempus Reparatum,
Oxford.
1992b Cargoes, containers and stowage: the ancient Mediterranean.

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21 (2):89-100.
Patrich, J. and B. Arubas

1989 A Juglet Containing Balsam Oil (?) From a Cave Near Qumran.
Peckham, B.
1992 The Phoenician Foundation of Cities and Towns in Sardinia. In
Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R.
H. Tykot and T. Andrews, K., pp. 4 1 0 - 4 1 7 . Studies in Sardinian
Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth. Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield.
Peserico, A.
1996 Le Brocche "A Fungo" Fenicie nel Mediterraneo: Tipologia e
Cronologia. Collezione di Studi Fenici 36. Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche, Rome.
Petrie, F.
1891 Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). Palestine Exploration Fund, London.
1894 Tell el-Amarna. Methuen, London.
1928 Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.

1930 Beth-Pelet I (Tel Fara). British School of Archaeology in
Egypt, London.
1932 Ancient Gaza II (Tell el-Ajjul). British School of Archaeology in

Egypt, London.
Petrie, F.
1937 Anthedon (Sinai). British School of Egyptian Archaeology,
London.
Pitard, W. T.
1992 Ben-Hadad. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N.
Freedman, pp. 6 6 3 - 6 6 5 . vol. 1. Doubleday, N e w York.
Plog, S.
1990 Sociopolitical implications of stylistic variation in the American
Southwest. In The uses of style in archaeology, edited by M. Conkey
and C. Hastorf, pp. 61-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Porada, E.
1983 Appendix III: Cylinder and Stamp Seals from Palaepaphos-
Skales. In Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus,
edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 4 0 7 - 4 1 5 . Universitätsverlag Konstanz,
Konstanz.
Portugali, Y. and Α. Β. Knapp

1985 Cyprus and the Aegean: A Spatial Analysis of Interaction in the
17th to 14th centuries. In Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by A. B. Knapp and T.
Prag, Κ.
1985 The Imitation of Cypriote Wares in Late Bronze A g e Palestine.
In Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga
Tufnell, edited by J. Tubb, pp. 154-165. Institute of Archaeology,
University of London.
Prausnitz, M.
1966 A Phoenician Krater from Akhziv. Oriens Antiquus 5:177-188.
1972 Red Polished and Black-on-Red Wares at Achziv, Israel and

Cyprus in the Early Middle Iron Age. Praktikou tou protou diethrous
Kyporlogikou Synedrion : 152-156.
1982 Die Nekropolen von Akhziv und die Entwicklung der Keramik
v o m 10. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in Akhziv, Samaria und
Ashdod. In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 31-
44. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
1982 Discussion with William Culican over "The Repertoire of

Phoenician Pottery". In Phönizier im Westen, edited by H. G.
Niemeyer, pp. 78-82. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz A m Rhein.
1998 Discussion in 'The Crystallization of N e w Societies'. In

Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar
Pritchard, J. B.
1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. The University
of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.
Pulak, C.
1988 The Bronze A g e Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985
Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 92( 1 ): 1 -37.
1997 The Uluburun Shipwreck. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and the

East Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S.
Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 233-262. Cyprus
Raban, A.
1985 The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times. In Harbour
Archaeology. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on
Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caeserea Maritima, edited by A.
Raban, pp. 11-44. B A R International Series 257. University o f Haifa,
Haifa.
1991 Minoan and Canaanite Harbours. In Thalassa. L'Egée

Préhistorique et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp.
131-145. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège.
Université de Liège, Liège.
1995 The Heritage of Ancient Harbour Engineering in Cyprus and

the Levant. In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus
and the Sea, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, pp. 139-
188. The University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
1998 Near Eastern Harbours: Thirteenth - Seventh Centuries BCE.

In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar
Rasmussen, T.
1991 Corinth and the Orientalising Phenomenon. In Looking at Greek
Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey, pp. 57-78. Cambridge
Rasmussen, T. and N. Spivey (editors)

1991 Looking at Greek Vases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rast, W.
1978 Ta'anach I - Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. American Schools
of Oriental Research, Cambridge, Mass.
Redford, D.
1973 Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the
First Millenium B.C. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:3-17.
Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn
1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Reyes, R. T.
1994 Archaic Cyprus. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Riis, P. J.
1948 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches. Les Cimetières à Crémation II
3 . 1 Kommission Hos, Copenhague.
1960 L'activité de la mission archéologique danoise sur la côte

phenicienne en 1959. Syria 10:111-132.
1970 Sukas 1: The North-East Cemetery and the First Settling of

Greeks in Syria and Palestine I. Publications of the Carlsberg
Expedition to Phoenicia, Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
1982 Griechen in Phönizien (Discussion). In Phönizier im Westen,

edited by H.-G. Niemeyer, pp. 2 5 6 - 2 6 0 . Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
Mainz am Rhein.
Riis, P. J. and M.-L. Buhl

1990 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg. Les
Objets de la Periode dite Syro-Hittite (Age du Fer) II 2. I
Kommission Hos, Copenhague.
Roberts, Ο. T. P.
1991 The Development of the Brail into a Viable Sail Control for
Aegean Boats of the Bronze Age. In Thalassa. L'Egée Préhistorique
et La Mer, edited by R. Laffineur and L. Bäsch, pp. 55-59. Annales
d'archéologie égéenne de l'Université de Liège. Université de Liège,
Liège.
Rocchetti, L.
1978 Le Tombe dei Periodi Geometrico ed Arcaico délia Necropoli a
Mare di Ayia Irini "Paleokastro". Bibliteca di antichità cipriota - 4.
Istituto per gii Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome.
Rowe, A.
1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan 2. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Rupp, D. W.
1987 Vive Le Roi: The Emergence of the State in Iron A g e Cyprus.
In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D. W. Rupp, pp. 147-161.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. LXXVII. Paul Äströms
Förlag, Göteborg.
Saidah, R.
1966 Fouilles de Khaldé. Bulletin de Musées de Beyrouth 19:51-90.
Sailer, S.
1966 Iron A g e Tombs at Nebo, Jordan. Liber Annus XVI: 165-298.
1968 Iron A g e Remains From the Site of a N e w School at

Bethlehem. Liber Annus XVIII: 153-180.
Salles, J.-F.
1980 La Nécropole "Κ" de Bybios. Recherche sur les grandes
civilisations. Editions A.D.P.F., Paris.
Schaeffer, C.
1935 Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Sixième Campagne
(Printemps 1934). Syria 16:141-176.
Schreiber, Ν.
forthcoming The Black-on-Red pottery at Achziv.
forthcoming The Black-on-Red pottery from Kition in Excavations

at Kition Volume VI, edited by V. Karageorghis.
Schumacher, G.
1908 Tell el-Mutesellim: Β - Tafeln. R. Haupt, Leipzig.
Sellers, O. R.
1933 The Citadel ofBeth-Zur. Westminster, Philadelphia.
Sellin, Ε.
1904 Tell Ta'annek. C. Gerold, Wien.
Shanks, Η.
1999 A Mickey Mouse Operation. Biblical Archaeology Review
25(2):38-41, 64-65.
Shaw, J. W.
1989 Phoenicians in Southern Crete. American Journal of
Archaeology 93:165-183.
1998 K o m m o s in Southern Crete: an Aegean Barometer for East-

West Interconnections. In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus -
Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th cent. B.C. Proceedings of the
International Symposium held at Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997,
edited by V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis, pp. 13-27. University
of Crete and The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Athens.
Shelmerdine, C. W.
1985 The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. Paul Äströms
Förlag, Göteborg.
Shepard, Α. Ο.
1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington D.C.
Shepstone, H. J.
1937 Palestine's N e w Lighterage Ports. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 69:263-267.
Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt

1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean
Bronze A g e Trading Systems. In Bronze Age Trade in the
Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, pp. 351-386. Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. XC. Paul Äströms Förlag, Jonsered.
1993 The growth of the Mediterranean e c o n o m y in the early first

millennium BC. World Archaeology 24(3):361-378.
Sherratt, S.
1994 Commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical Innovation in
12th - 11th century Cyprus. In Cyprus in the 11th Century B.C.,
edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 59-106. Leventis, Nicosia.
1998 "Sea Peoples" and the Economic Structure of the Late Second
Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Mediterranean Peoples
in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 292-313.
Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Shiloh, Y.
1993 Megiddo. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Singer-Avitz, L.
1989 Iron A g e Pottery (Strata XIV - XII). In Excavations at Tel
Michal, Israel, edited by Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and O. Negbi, pp. 76-
87. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Number 8. Institute
of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Snodgrass, A.
1981 Early Iron Swords in Cyprus. Report of the Department of
Antiquities in Cyprus : 129-134.
S0rensen, L. W.
1987 Cypriote Iron A g e Pottery. An Experiment Employing Simple
Quantitative Analysis. In Western Cyprus: Connections, edited by D.
W. Rupp, pp. 129-146. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol.
LXXVII. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg.
1991 Aspects of Iron A g e Pottery from the Canadian Palaepaphos

Survey Project. In Acta Cypria. Acts of an International Congress on
Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22-24 August, edited by P.
Aström, pp. 356-370. vol. 2. Paul Äströms Förlag, Göteborg.
1997 Travelling Pottery Connections Between Cyprus, the Levant,

and the Greek World in the Iron Age. In Res Maritimae. Cyprus and
the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited
by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, pp. 2 8 5 - 2 9 9 . Cyprus
American Archaeological Research Institute, Volume 1. Scholars
Press, Atlanta, Georgia.
Stager, L.
1985 The Firstfruits of Civilisation. In Palestine in the Bronze and
Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, edited by J. Tubb, pp.
172-188. Institute of Archaeology, London.
1990 Shemer's Estate. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 277/278:93-107.
Stager, L. and A. Walker (editors)

1989 American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1973-1980. The
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Stager, L„ A. Walker and G. E. Wright (editors)

1974 American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus. First Preliminary
Report: Seasons of 1971 and 1972. American Schools of Oriental
Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Stampolidis, N.
1998 Imports and Amalgamata: the Eleuthema Experience. In
Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus - Dodecanese - Crete 16th - 6th
cent. B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at
Rethymnon - Crete in May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis and N.
Steel, L.
1996 Transition from Bronze to Iron at Kourion: A Review of the
Tombs from Episkopi-Bamboula and Kaloriziki. Annual of the British
School of Archaeology at Athens: 287-300.
Stem, E.
1978 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh Part I: From the Iron A g e to the
Roman period. Qedem 9:86-94.
1990 N e w Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the

Phoenicians along the Northern Coast of Israel. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 279:27-34.
(editor)
1993 The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land. 4 vols. Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
1994a Dor: Ruler of the Seas. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
1994b A Phoenician-Cypriote Votive Scapula from Tel Dor: A

Maritime Scene. Israel Exploration Journal 44(1-2): 1-12.
402
Stern, Ε.
1995 Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Qedem Reports 1. Α-B vols.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem / Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.
1995 Tel Dor: A Phoenician - Israelite Trading centre. In Recent

Excavations in Israel. A View to the West., edited by S. Gitin, pp. 81-
93. vol. 1. Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and
Conference Papers.
Swift, G. F.
1958 The Pottery of the 'Amuq Phases Κ to O, and its historical
relationships. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Chicago.
Sznycer, M.
1983 Appendix V - Note sur l'inscription gravée sur une cruche de la
tombe 69 de Palaepaphos-Skales. In Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron
Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 4 1 6 - 4 1 7 .
Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz.
Tappy, R. E.
1992 The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria: I, Atlanta.
Teixidor, J.
1987 L'Inscription D'Ahiram À Nouveau. Syria 64:137-140.
Teixidor, J.
1997 Ahiram Inscription. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. Meyers, pp. 31. vol. I.
Doubleday, N e w York.
Tubb, J.
1985 Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of
Olga Tufnell. Institute of Archaeology, London.
Tufnell, O.
1953 Lachish HI: the Iron Age - text. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Tytgat, C.
1979 La céramique des tombes 121 et 135: Problèms de typologie et
de chronologie du matérial Amathousien. Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellénique 103:742-749.
1989 Les Nécropoles Sud-Ouest et Sud-Est D'Amathonte I. Les

Tombes 110-385. Études Chypriotes XI A.G. Leventis, Nicosia.
1995 La tombe N W 194 de la nécropole nord d'Amathonte. Report of

the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus : 137-185.
Ussishkin, D.
1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Institute of
Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
1990 Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod, and Tel Batash in the Tenth
to Ninth Centuries BC. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 277/278:71-91.
Ussishkin, D. and J. Woodhead

1997 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994-1996: Third Preliminary
Report. Tel Aviv 2 4 ( l ) : 6 - 7 2 .
Van Beek, G. W.
1951 Cypriote Chronology and the Dating of Iron I Sites in Palestine.
1955 The Date of Tell Abu Hawam. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 138:34-38.
Van Der Leeuw, S. E.

1984 Pottery Manufacture - S o m e Implications for the Study of
Trade. In Pots and Potters, edited by P. Rice, pp. 55-69. University of
California Press, Los Angeles.
Vandenabeele, F.
1968 Quelques Particularités de la Civilisation d'Amathonte. Bulletin
de Correspondance Hellénique 92:103-114.
1985 Un Depot de Céramique Archaïque Chypriote dans un silo à

Amathonté. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique CIX:629-655.
Vaughan, S.
1991 Material and Technical Characterization of Base Ring Ware: A
New Fabric Typology. In Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric
Record, edited by J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, pp. 119-130.
The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick

1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Vichos, Y. and Y. Lolos

1997 The Cypro-Mycenaean Wreck at Point Iria in the Argolic Gulf:
First Thoughts on the Origin and the Nature of the Vessel. In Res
Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory
to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny,
pp. 321-337. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute
Vickers, M. and D. Gill
1994 Artful Crafts: Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Vinson, S.
1990 Ships in the Ancient Mediterranean. Biblical Archaeologist
53( 1 ): 13-19.
Wampler, J. C.
1947 Tell en-Nasbeh II: The Pottery. American Schools of Oriental
Research, N e w Haven.
Watzinger, C.
1929 Tell el-Mutesellim II. R. Haupt, Leipzig.
Weinstein, J. M.
1998 Egyptian Relations with the Eastern Mediterranean World at the
End of the Second Millennium BCE. In Mediterranean Peoples in
Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century BCE, edited by S.
Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 188-196. Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem.
Weiss, H.
1997 Archaeology in Syria. American Journal of Archaeology
101(1 ):97-148.
Wightman, G. J.
1990 The Myth of Solomon. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental
Research 277/278:5-22.
Williams, D.
1996 Refiguring Attic red-figure: A review article. Revue
Archéologique (2):227-252.
Wilson, J. A.
1969 The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia. In Ancient Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J. B. Pritchard,
pp. 25-29. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Winter, I.
1990 Markoe, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls. Gnomon 62:236-241.
Wood, B. G.
1990 The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine 4. JSOT/ ASOR
Monographs, Sheffield.
Woolley, L.
1938 Excavations at Al Mina, Sueida. Journal of Hellenic Studies
LVIII: 1-30.
1939 The Iron A g e Graves of Carchemish. Liverpool Annals

XXVI: 11-37.
Woolley, L.
1952 Carchemish III: The Excavations in the Inner Town. British
Museum Press, London.
Yadin, Y.
1958 Hazor I. The Magnes Press of the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem.
1960 Hazor II. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
1961 Hazor III-IV Plates. Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
1972 Hazor: The head of all those Kingdoms. The Schweich Lecture
Series of the British Academy 1970. Oxford University Press, for the
British Academy, London.
1993a Hazor. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 594-603. vol. 2.
1993b Megiddo. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stem, pp. 1012-1013. vol.
3. The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, Jerusalem.
Yadin, Y. and S. Geva

1986 Investigations at Beth-Shan. The Early Iron A g e Strata. Qedem
23.
Yellin, J.
1989 The Origin of Some Cypro-Geometric Pottery from Tel Dor.
Yellin, J. and I. Perlman

1978 Appendix I - Provenance of Iron A g e Pottery from Tel
Mervorakh. Qedem 9:86-105.
Yon, M.
1971 La Tombe T. I du Xle s. av. J.-C. Editions de Boccard, Paris.
Zaccagnini, C.
1983 Patterns of Mobility A m o n g Near Eastern Craftsmen. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 42:245-264.
Zarzeki-Peleg, A.
1997 Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Tel
Aviv 24(2):258-288.
Zimhoni, O.
1992 The Iron A g e Pottery from Tel Jezreel - An Interim Report. Tel
Aviv 19:57-70.
Zimhoni, Ο.
1997 Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre - Omride Settlement at Tel
Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24:83-109.
Zohary, M.
1982 Plants of the Bible. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
INDEX
Achziv XXV, 30, 48, 50-51, 78, 167, Brodie, Neil xxviii, 232
212, 277, 279 Byblos 30, 168, 169
Adad-Idri 90 Cap D'Antibes shipwreck 74
Ahab 9 0 , 9 1 Cape Gelidonya shipwreck 74
Ahaziah 90 Carbon-14 testing 182
Akko Bay xxvii, 30, 77-78, 85 Carchemish 3 0 , 3 8 , 4 6
Al Mina xxiv, xxviii, 25, 30-31,38, Carmel Plain xxvii, 34, 39, 51, 72,
46, 80, 168, 211, 234,278-279 7 5 , 7 7 , 79, 121
Albright, William Foxwell xxii, Carnelian 98, 101, 141, 156
xxiii, 226-227 Chapman, Susan xxv
Amathus xxv, 230, 232, 262-264 Chatal Hüyük 168
Amiran, Ruth xxv Cilicia xxiv-xxv, 34, 277-280
Ammianus Marcellinus, History, on Coldstream, Nicolas xxviii
Cyprus 74 Corinthian aryballoi 55, 66, 68, 72,
' Ammonite ' pottery 171 74, 289, 305
'Amuq 30, 37, 80, 168, 227 Cos 290-293
Aramaeans 90, 91, 105, 112 Crete xxviii, 293-306
Ashdod 3 1 , 3 7 , 4 6 , 7 8 - 7 9 Culican, William xxi, xxvi
'Ashdod' ware 2, 13 du Plat Taylor, Joan xxiv
Ashkelon 78 Early Bronze Age, Metallic Ware 61
Ashlar quays 77 Egypt 2 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 7 7 , 8 5 - 9 2
Aspendos 34 'Ein Gev 28, 31, 39, 167
'Atlit 5 1 , 7 7 , 7 9 , 2 1 2 Enkomi 120
Ayia Irini, Cyprus 266 Finkelstein, Israel 91
Balsam 63-64 Galilee, region of 79, 85
Beersheba 7, 1 1 , 2 8 , 7 9 , 124-128, Gaming pieces 101,119
173, 175-176, 178, 181,196-197 Gath 91
Beirut 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 9 Gela shipwreck 74
Ben-Hadad 90-91, 112, 182 Gezer 6 - 7 , 3 1 , 4 6 , 8 7 , 9 0
Beth-Shan 28, 31, 37, 39, 79, 85, Giglio shipwreck 74
91, 100, 114, 127, 129-137, 170- Gjerstad, Einar xxi, xxii, 3-5, 221-
171, 180, 197 226, 240-259, 272-273
Beth-Shemesh xxii, 7, 28, 36, 37, Grant, Elihu xxii
3 8 , 4 6 , 127, 167 Gurob, Egypt 46
Beth-Zur 6 Hama 3 0 , 8 0 , 8 9 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 1 2
Biblical history, reliance on 128 Hazael 90, 91, 182
Bieber, Alan xxviii Hazor 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 7 - 3 9 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 5 0 ,
Bikai, Patricia xxvi, 182, 231, 233 91, 100, 103-113, 116, 142, 170,
Birmingham, Judy xxiv, 228-230 174, 180, 182, 189-195
Boeotia 54 Hebron 28
Bon-Porté shipwreck 74 Hellenistic unguentaria 56, 64
Hematite 101 Mt. Carmel 30, 50, 54-55, 75, 79,
Herodotus, Histories 304 160, 175, 180
Hunt, Melvin xxvii Mt. Carmel, tombs 149-152
Hurvat Rosh Zayit 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 9 , Mt. Nebo, Jordan 171
46-47, 50, 59, 177-178, 182, 201- Mycenaean perfume trade 63-64
202, 245 Myrina, Turkey 55
Idalion, Cyprus 232, 269 Naukratis, Egypt 31
Imitation pottery 277-280 Nicosia, tombs 266-268, 270
Ivory 97 Omri 141
Jaffa (Tel Aviv) 7 7 , 7 8 Opium 62
Jehu's revolt 182 Pack animals 79-80
Jericho 28 Paint, BoR 242-243
Jeroboam 86 Palaepaphos-Skales 231,255-259,
Jerusalem 28, 87 269-271,275-276, 301
Joram 90 Pella 28, 79, 167, 172
Jordan Valley 79 Perfumed oil 65-72,308
Joya 3 0 , 2 1 0 Perlman, Isaac xxvi, xxviii
Kaloriziki, Cyprus 265 Philistine pottery 6, 10-13
Karageorghis, Vassos 231 Phoenician pottery 13-15, 48-51,
Karnak, Egypt 8 5 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 8 8 102, 282, 284
Kato Dheftera, Cyprus 268 Phoenician trade to west 281-306
Kenyon, Kathleen xxvii Pliny, Natural History, on perfume
Khalde 34 69-72, 304
Khan Sheikun 3 9 , 4 6 Point Iria shipwreck 74
KhirbetSilm 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 2 1 0 Porosity, ceramic 56
KiliseTepe 3 0 , 2 7 8 Prausnitz, Moshe xxv
Kinet Hoyük 3 0 , 2 7 8 Pylos, perfume trade 64, 67, 69
Kition xxviii, 239, 268-269, 300-301 Qashish 30
Knossos, Crete 69, 238, 293-306 Qraye 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 5 4 , 2 1 0
Kommos, Crete 302 Ramoth-Gilead 90
Lachish 28, 39, 46, 79, 89, 120, Ras al-Bassit 30, 37, 39, 46
168,173-174, 177, 201 Ras Ibn Hani 39
Lahun, Egypt 31 'Red Ware' 1 3 - 1 5 , 2 7 6 , 3 0 8
Lapis lazuli 95 Rehoboam 85
Lapithos 9, 260-262 Rhodes 286-290,299-300
Late Bronze Age pottery 2, 51-54 River navigation 78-79
Late Minoan pottery 61 Routes inland 79
Lebanon, modern 26 Sail 76
Lefkandi, Euboea 285 Salamis, Cyprus 264
Linear Β 64, 67, 70 Samaria xxvii, 28, 34, 39, 142
Maritime trade 73-78,310-312 Sanam, Egypt 31
Marsa Matruh, Egypt 31 Sarepta 26, 30-31, 34, 37, 163-166,
Matthers, J. xxviii 205,231
Mazar, Amihai xxvii Scientific testing xxviii, 57, 68,
Megiddo 30-39, 46-47, 50, 54, 79- 234-239
80, 85-86,91-103, 112-116, 127, Sennacherib 89
142, 170-189,212, 227 Sheshonq, Pharaoh 85-92
Megiddo tombs 168 Shipwrecks 53, 65, 74
Memphis, Egypt 3 1 , 3 9 Shiqmona 8, 37, 160, 181
Metal influences 58 Shishak, Pharaoh 85-92, 117, 137,
Miniature BoR pottery 282 141, 149, 159, 181, 309
Sidon xxv, 26 Tell e l - A m a r n a 3 1 , 1 6 9
'Solomonic'archaeology 213 Tell e l - F a r ' a h ( N ) 2 8 , 3 4 , 3 7 - 3 9 ,
Steel, Louise xxviii, 2 3 2 4 7 , 5 0 , 114, 128, 1 3 7 - 1 4 2 , 1 7 3 -
Stern, E p h r a i m x x v i 1 8 0 , 198, 2 1 2
Stobi, Macedonia 55 Tell e l - F u l x x i , 3 7
Stoppers 63 Tell e l - H a m m e h 4 6 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 7 , 1 7 5 -
Swift, Gustavus xxiv, 2 2 7 180, 2 0 0 - 2 0 1
Tabbat a l - H a m m a m 3 0 , 3 9 , 7 7 , 2 1 1 Tell e l - J u d e i d a h 1 6 8
Tappy, R o n x x v i i Tell e n - N a s b e h 2 8 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 , 2 4 4
Tarsus x x v , 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 Tell e r - R a c h i d y e h 2 7 6
Tel ' A m a l 3 4 , 9 1 , 114, 1 2 7 , 1 4 6 - Tell e r - R e q e i s h 2 8 , 3 9 , 5 0 , 2 1 2
149, 1 7 3 - 1 8 1 , 198 Tell e z - Z u w e y i d 2 8 , 3 1
Tel B a t a s h 168 Tell J e m m e h 2 8 , 3 1 , 4 6 , 5 0 , 7 9
Tel D a n 91 Tell K a z e l 2 6 , 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 6 ,
Tel D o r 3 0 , 3 4 - 3 9 , 5 1 , 7 5 - 7 8 , 8 0 , 204-205
279 Tell K e i s a n 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 - 3 9 , 4 6 - 4 8 ,
Tel Fara ( S ) 2 8 , 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 6 , 7 9 , 167, 5 1 , 1 5 2 - 1 5 4 , 173, 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 , 199-
243, 244, 279 200, 2 0 4 , 2 1 2 , 242, 279
Tel G e r i s a 3 6 Tell Q a s i l e x x v i i , 3 4 - 3 9 , 7 9 , 1 6 6 -
Tel H a l i f 2 8 , 5 0 , 7 9 , 1 2 0 1 2 7 , 1 5 7 - 167, 179
159, 1 7 4 - 1 8 0 Tell S u k a s 3 0 , 3 7 , 3 9 , 8 0 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 ,
Tel J e m m e h 3 9 , 2 4 4 208-209
Tel J e z r e e l 3 4 , 3 9 , 9 1 , 1 0 2 , 2 1 1 Tell T a ' a n a c h 3 0 , 8 5 , 9 1 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ,
Tel Kabri 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 , 7 9 , 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 , 105, 1 1 3 - 1 1 7 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 1 7 5 - 1 8 0 ,
212 195
Tel M a s o s 2 , 11, 1 7 4 - 1 7 8 Tell T a y i n a t 168
Tel M e v o r a k h x x v i , x x v i i , 3 0 - 3 9 , Tell T e b i l l e h 3 9
4 7 , 50, 7 8 - 7 9 , 142-146, 198, 235 Theophrastus, On Odours 63, 67-
Tel M i c h a l 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 6 - 4 7 , 7 8 , 117- 71
1 2 1 , 1 7 3 - 1 7 6 , 180, 195 T i g l a t h p i l e s e r III 1 3 7 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 3
Tel N a m i 8 0 Tirzah 8 5
Tel Q a s h i s h 3 0 , 5 0 , 7 9 , 121 Tyre x x v , x x v i , 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 4 - 3 9 , 4 6 ,
Tel Qiri x x v i i , 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 8 , 4 7 , 7 9 , 7 6 , 168, 2 0 5 - 2 0 8 , 2 3 6
121-124, 195-196 Ulu Burun shipwreck 53, 65, 7 4
Tel R e h o v 2 8 , 3 1 , 8 5 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 , 1 8 2 Van B e e k , G u s x x i i i , 2 2 6
Tel Z e r o r 3 7 , 4 6 , 5 4 , 7 9 V a n d e n a b e e l e , Frieda x x v , 2 3 0 - 2 3 1
Tell A b u H a w a m 3 0 , 3 4 , 3 7 , 3 9 , Winds, Mediterranean 7 6
4 6 - 4 7 , 51, 78-79, 160-162, 175- W r i g h t , G e o r g e Ernest x x i i
176, 180 Yellin, Joseph xxvi, xxviii
Tell Beit M i r s i m xxi, xxii, 6, 3 7 , 167 Yoqneam 30, 34, 37, 46, 50, 79,
Tell D a r o u k 3 7 9 1 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 116, 1 2 1 , 1 7 2 , 177
Tell e d - D a b ' a 5 5 , 6 1 Zinjirli 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 6
Tell e l - A j j u l 2 8 , 5 4 , 7 8 , 7 , 1 6 7 , 2 4 4
CULTURE AND HISTORY
OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
ISSN 1566-2055
1. Grootkerk, S.E. Ancient Sites in Galilee. A Toponymie Gazetteer. 2000.

ISBN 90 04 11535 8
2. Higginbotham, C.R. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside
Palestine. Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periph-ery.
2000. ISBN 90 04 11768 7
3. Yamada, S. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of
the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III Relating to His Campaigns in the
West. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11772 5
4. Yener, Κ.A. The Domestication of Metals. T h e Rise of Complex Metal
Industries in Anatolia. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11864 0
5. Taracha, P. Ersetzen und Entsühnen. Das mittelhethitische Ersatzritual für
den Großkönig Tuthalija ( C T H *448.4) und verwandte Texte. 2000.
ISBN 90 04 11910 8
6. Littauer, M.A. & Crouwel, J.H.and P. Raulwing (ed.) Selected Wrìtings on
Chariots and other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 11799 7
7. Malamat, A. History of Biblical Israel. Major Problems and Minor
Issues. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12009 2
8. Snell, D.C. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. 2001.
ISBN 90 04 12010 6
9. Westbrook, R. & R. Jasnow (ed.) Security for Debt in Ancient near Eastern
Law. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12124 2
10. Holloway, S.W. Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of
Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12328 8
11. Daviau, P.M.M. Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan. Volume 2: T h e Iron
Age Artefacts. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12363 6
12. Homan, M.M. To your Tents, Ο Israel! T h e terminology, function, form,
and symbolism of tents in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East.
2002. ISBN 90 04 12606 6
13. Schreiber, Ν. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. 2003.
ISBN 90 04 12854 9
14. SchifTman, L.H. Semitic Papyrology in Context. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12885 9

The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of The Iron Age

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of The Iron Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CYPRO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY

OF THE IRON AGE

B. HALPERN, M.H.E. WEIPPERT

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e

© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted

List of Figures, Maps and Tables ix

Chapter One: T H E INITIAL APPEARANCE OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY. 1

Chapter Two: T H E DISTRIBUTION OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY

SECTION I : THE 1 0 T H CENTURY

SECTION I I : THE 9 T H - 8TH CENTURIES

Chapter Four: T H E O R I G I N OF B L A C K - O N - R E D POTTERY 221

Chapter Five: T H E LATER HISTORY OF B O R AND THE QUESTION OF

Appendix I: Comparative Distribution Table of BoR Pottery on

Figure 1 - Group of BoR juglets from Palaepaphos-

This book is based upon my DPhil thesis 'An Archaeological and

Past Scholarship on the Origin and Date of the Pottery

Few scholars, especially in the Levant, have published or referred to

Aims and Methodology

The implications of the origin and chronology of Black-on-Red

THE INITIAL APPEARANCE OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY

As set out in the introduction to this book, the chief problems of

Integral to the question of definition of the Black-on-Red group is

BoR I (III) (Figure 3)

Wheel-made; the clay is reddish-brown; the slip red or reddish-brown,

The main forms belonging in this category are illustrated in Figure 3.

BoR II (IV) (Figures 4 & 5)

Wheel-made; the slip is usually lustrous, but never polished and

BoR III (V) (Figure 6)

W h e e l - m a d e ; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or nearly mat, often

Earliest Appearances of BoR

As seen in the survey of past scholarship on this pottery, an

Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B2

Beth-Shemesh Stratum 111

Beersheba Stratum VII

1. The absence of BoR in contexts prior to the 10th century at sites

Hazor (BoR appears in Stratum XB, none in XI)

2. The presence of other Black-on-Red pottery types in strata

Tell Qasile (Stratum X)

3. The presence of what may be an imported BoR juglet at Lapithos

Gjerstad describes this vessel, which appears in Tomb 417, as a "Red

As was seen in the introductory survey of scholarship on BoR

The following questions are addressed here:

1. How can BoR proper be related typologically to these early

2. Are there any Phoenician types that could be chronologically as

Other Early Black-on-Red Pottery on the Mainland:

Late Cypriot and Early Cypro-Geometric Pottery

The relationship between the technique of black decoration on a red slip

It is clear from the survey above of early Black-on-Red decorated

1. The handle-ridge juglet, which is possibly the most common BoR

In general, however, the forms in which BoR appears do not bear a

This chapter has assessed some of the outer parameters of BoR

THE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK-ON-RED POTTERY IN THE

This study, as with any involving the analysis of archaeological

BoR Juglets (Map 5)

BoR Jugs (Map 6)

BoR Bowls (Map 7)

White Painted and Bichrome Pottery

This chapter therefore examines the appearance of White Painted

Map 8: Distribution of Early (pre-BoR) Cypriot Pottery in the Levant

Early White Painted Bowls

Early Bichrome Pottery

White Painted Pottery Contemporary with BoR (Maps 9-11 )