Re-Evaluating the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant

Re-Evaluating the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Theology Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Yoonee Ahn April 2020 Copyright © 2020 Yoonee Ahn All right reserved. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purpose chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. APPROVAL SHEET Re-Evaluating the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant Yoonee Ahn _______________________________________________________________ Steven M. Ortiz, Ph.D. Professor of Archaeology and Biblical Backgrounds Committee Chairman _______________________________________________________________ Thomas W. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Archaeology and Biblical Backgrounds Second Committee Member _______________________________________________________________ Eric A. Mitchell, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Old Testament and Archaeology Third Committee Member Date __________________________________ Abstract Re-Evaluating the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant This dissertation argues the nature of the transitional period from the late 3rd to the 2nd Millennium BCE between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Introducing diverse questions related to the period in the late 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE, Chapter 1 present a brief thesis of the study about the nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age and offers its methodology. Chapter 2 overviews the history of the research concerning the Intermediate Bronze Age including the issues of the collapse of the Early Bronze III and the debate of the early Middle Bronze I. Then the discussion reviews current arguments of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Chapter 3 examines the settlement data of the Intermediate Bronze Age sites throughout the Southern Levant, focusing on its connectivity to the previous period or the following period. The discussion illustrates the relative sedentism of the occupation throughout the Southern Levant and their connectivity to the following period. Chapter 4 considers the ceramic patterns during the Intermediate Bronze Age, demonstrating that the exogenous Syrian culture that was integrated into the indigenous Canaanite culture. This integration was prepared for the following era with a long-term perspective. vi Chapter 5 reviews copper in the late 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE, by looking at the copper industry, copper trade, and its continuation to the Middle Bronze I. The discussion presents the importance of copper in this period as a stimulus to relocate a population migration. Chapter 6 deals with the burial practices in the Intermediate Bronze Age with respect burial types and remains and its relationship to the following period. Chapter 7 reconstructs the history of the Intermediate Bronze Age based on the archaeological data and the historical texts. The discussion is about the nature of this period, grafting the exogenous Syrian culture into the indigenous culture and incubating a new era, the Middle Bronze Age. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the findings of the research and reevaluates the transitional period in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE. Yoonee Ahn, Ph.D. Advisor: Steven M. Ortiz, Ph.D. School of Theology Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2020 vii Table of Contents Table and Figure ..............................................................................................................xv Preface ............................................................................................................................ xvi Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Thesis ......................................................................................................... 5 Methodology .............................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2 History of Research ................................................................................... 8 Current Issues............................................................................................ 20 MB I or EB IV or IBA and MB IIA or MB I................................ 21 High Chronology .......................................................................... 24 Continuity and Discontinuity ........................................................28 Indigenous and Exogenous ...........................................................30 Sedentism and Pastoralism ...........................................................31 Maritime Trade and Inland Trade .................................................32 Egypt vs. Syria .............................................................................. 34 Chapter 3 Settlement Patterns ................................................................................. 37 Transition Between the EB III and the IBA.............................................. 42 Khirbet Zaraqun ................................................................44 Khirbet al-Batrawy ............................................................45 Tall al-‘Umayri .................................................................46 viii Tell el-Hammam ...............................................................47 Khirbet Iskander ................................................................48 Bab edh-Dhra‘ ....................................................................51 Feqeiqes .............................................................................52 Khirbet Hamra Ifdan .........................................................53 Summary ........................................................................... 55 The Intermediate Bronze Age .................................................................. 61 Jordan Valley ................................................................................ 61 Tel Dan ............................................................................. 63 Tel Na‘ama ........................................................................63 Hazor .................................................................................65 Ḥorbat Qishron ..................................................................66 Beth Yerah ........................................................................67 Sha‘ar Ha-Golan ...............................................................67 Gesher ...............................................................................69 Beth-Shean ........................................................................70 Tell el-Hayyat ...................................................................70 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..............................................................71 Khirbet el-Meiyiteh ...........................................................72 Tell Umm Hammad ...........................................................73 Jericho ................................................................................75 Iktanu ................................................................................77 Ader ...................................................................................78 ix Summary ........................................................................... 79 Jezreel Valley ............................................................................... 81 ‘Ein el-Hilu ........................................................................82 Tel ‘Afula ..........................................................................84 Murḥan ..............................................................................84 Tel Yizra‘’el (Tel Jezreel) .................................................86 Tel Yoqne‘am ...................................................................86 Megiddo ............................................................................87 Nahal Rimmonim ..............................................................90 Tel Yosef ...........................................................................91 Summary ........................................................................... 92 The Central Highlands .................................................................. 93 Shechem ............................................................................95 ‘Ain es-Samiyeh and Sinjil ...............................................95 Wadi ed-Daliyeh ...............................................................96 Gibeon ................................................................................97 Ras al-‘Amud (Jerusalem) ................................................98 Malcha (Manahat) .............................................................98 Nahal Refaim ....................................................................99 Bethel ..............................................................................100 Bethlehem .......................................................................101 Efrat .................................................................................102 Khirbet Kufin ..................................................................102 x Khirbet Kirmil..................................................................103 Summary ......................................................................... 103 Shephelah .................................................................................... 104 Beit Dagan ......................................................................105 Er-Rujum .........................................................................106 ‘En Yered ........................................................................107 Newe Shalom and its neighbors ......................................107 Esta‘ol .............................................................................108 Beth Shemesh ..................................................................109 Lachish ............................................................................110 Tell Beit Mirsim ............................................................. 111 Jebel Qa‘aqir ...................................................................112 Tel Sera‘ ...........................................................................113 Summary ......................................................................... 113 Negev .......................................................................................... 114 Summary ..........................................................................119 Coastal Region ............................................................................ 120 Shelomit ..........................................................................120 The other IBA Settlements along Nahal Betzet in ‘Akko Valley ...............................................................................120 H. Manot .........................................................................121 Ard el-Samra ...................................................................121 Tel Bira ...........................................................................123 xi Tel Zivda .........................................................................124 Tel Burga ........................................................................125 Kibbutz Barqai .................................................................126 ‘En Esur ..........................................................................126 Khirbet Iberiktas ..............................................................127 Ma‘abarot ........................................................................128 Tel ‘Ashir ........................................................................128 Tel Gerisa ........................................................................130 Ashkelon (Third Mile Estate) ..........................................130 Tel el-‘Ajjul .................................................................... 132 Small Sites and Cemeteries .............................................134 Summary .........................................................................134 Transition Between the IBA and the MB I ............................................. 137 Hagosherim .....................................................................137 Gezer ...............................................................................137 Kabri ................................................................................138 Nahariya ..........................................................................139 Akko ................................................................................141 Tel Nami .........................................................................142 Tel Zeror .........................................................................142 Ifshar ...............................................................................143 ‘Ain Zurekiyeh ................................................................144 Tel Poleg .........................................................................144 xii Aphek ..............................................................................145 Dhaharat el-Humraiya .....................................................146 Summary ......................................................................... 147 Discussion ............................................................................................... 150 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 158 Chapter 4 Pottery Distributions ............................................................................. 161 Canaanite Pottery in the IBA Period ....................................................... 163 Syrian Caliciform Pottery ...................................................................... 172 Black Wheel-Made Ware (Megiddo Ware) ................................ 180 Caliciform Ware ......................................................................... 185 Early MB I Pottery .................................................................................. 190 Levantine Painted Ware ......................................................................... 198 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 211 Chapter 5 Copper ................................................................................................... 215 Copper Industry during the IBA Period .................................................. 216 Copper Trade .......................................................................................... 223 Introduction of Tin-Bronze ..................................................................... 229 Copper Between the IBA and the MB I .................................................. 232 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 234 Chapter 6 Burial Customs ...................................................................................... 236 Burial Practice in the IBA ...................................................................... 237 Burial Types ............................................................................... 238 Shaft Tombs .....................................................................238 xiii Dolmans ..........................................................................240 Tumuli (Cairns) ...............................................................240 Stone-Built-Cist-Graves ..................................................242 Burial Remains ........................................................................... 244 Copper Weapons .............................................................244 Animal Bones ..................................................................246 Settlement and Cemetery ............................................................ 248 Continuous Burial Practice Between the IBA and the MB I .................. 252 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 254 Chapter 7 Historical Reconstruction and Texts.................................................... 256 Cultural Bands ........................................................................................ 258 Transjordan Band ........................................................................ 259 Northern Band............................................................................. 263 Southern Band............................................................................. 266 Migration ................................................................................................ 273 Maritime Trade ...................................................................................... 281 Economy ................................................................................................ 287 Copper Industry ..................................................................................... 289 Social Structure ....................................................................................... 293 Intermediate Bronze Age – An Ear for Incubating the Middle Bronze ..295 Chapter 8 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 298 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 301 xiv Table and Figure Fig. 1 The Variation of the Intermediate Bronze Age Chronology ......................... 20 Fig. 2 The IBA settlements continued form the EB ⅠⅠⅠ ............................................ 59 Fig. 3 The IBA settlements discontinued from the EB ⅠⅠⅠ ........................................ 60 Fig. 4 The IBA settlements in the Southern Levant mentioned in this Study ........ 136 Fig. 5 The IBA Site Distribution Map in Akko Plain .............................................151 Fig. 6 Black Wheel-Made Ware and Caliciform Ware during the IBA ................ 174 Fig. 7 Distribution of the Levantine Painted Ware in the MB I ............................ 199 Fig. 8 (1) Mining, (2) Smelting, (3) Tools Production, (4) Buffer Zone between the production area and the "market" areas in the Negev.............. 220 Fig. 9 Three Cultural Bands during the Intermediate Bronze Age ........................ 258 Table 1 The IBA sites continued from the EB III and continued into the MB I ...... 148 xv Preface This dissertation represents the culmination of my long journey. I cannot recount all of the individuals who have accompanied me in my development over the last ten years, though I am indebted to each one of them. The mercy that my family, friends, and colleagues have supported in my long study is invaluable. I could not have completed a work like this had my family not supported, encouraged, and prayed for me throughout this journey. I am profoundly grateful to my missing father who had loved and encouraged me with a tender smile all my life. As a non-native English speaker at Dallas Theological Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, I really feel thankful to the abundant love and grace that I have received during my time in Texas. I want to show my appreciation to Dr. Eugene H. Merrill, an outstanding scholar, who has inspired me with confidence and love to accomplish my long journey. Without the guidance and kindness of my advisor, Professor Steven Ortiz, this dissertation could not have completed. I am thankful for his training and sharpening my sword to succeed in my work from when I was not yet ready to begin archaeology. Above all, I give thanks to my Lord, the Author of my life. Praise the Lord my Father, my Savior, and my Holy Spirit. May My Lord be glorified through this dissertation and use it for his Kingdom. Yoonee Ahn Korea and Texas January 2020 xvi ` Chapter 1 Introduction Who were the people in the Intermediate Bronze Age (or the Early Bronze IV)? Where did the Intermediate Bronze Age settlers come from? What spurred the urbanization of the Middle Bronze Age in the southern Levant? What is the true nature of the transition between the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant? The debates about this transitional period from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age have been a controversial discourse among scholars for a long time. It has been maintained that by the end of the Early Bronze Age III the flourishing Early Bronze cities had collapsed and, after this de-urbanized period called a Dark Age,1 the rapid urbanization at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE took place in the Southern Levant, in particular in coastal regions, with the powerful Syrian influx.2 Recent 1 W. G. Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 35. 2 William F. Albright, “From the Patriarchs to Moses II. Moses out of Egypt,” The Biblical Archaeologist, no. 2 (1973); W. G. Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era,” The Biblical Archaeologist 50, no. 3 (1987): 149–177; W. G. Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant (1992): 39–51; W. G. Dever, “Settlement Patterns and Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age,” in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, University Museum monograph (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997). 1 2 research, however, has shown that this transitional period, known as the Intermediate Bronze Age or the Early Bronze IV, between the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age was not a complete collapse, and the Early Bronze traditions were continued into the following period. A meaningful degree of continuity from the late 3rd Millennium to the early 2nd Millennium BCE,3 active metal trade and industry in the Faynan region,4 and the combination of the exogenous elements with the indigenous roots for the development of a new culture,5 have been revealed. Furthermore, there were also pockets, which would become seeds for the development of the Middle Bronze Age. What about the chronology of the transition from the Early Bronze Age to the 3 S. L. Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age—Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 354 (2009): 1–13; S. L. Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Harvard Semitic Museum publications (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 5–19; M. A. Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze—Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (2015): 199–216. 4 T. E. Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy: A Newly Discovered Copper Manufactory in Southern Jordan,” Antiquity 76, no. 292 (2002): 425–437; A. Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (2015): 1–24. 5 A. M. Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan” The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE): Archaeological and Historical Correlates, Contributions to the Chronology of the eastern Mediterranean 64 26 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010); S. E. Falconer and L. Berelov, “Ceramic and Radiocarbon Chronology for Tell El-Hayyat,” in Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell El-Hayyat, Jordan, ed. Patricia L. Fall and S. E. Falconer, BAR international series (United Kingdom: Archaeopress, 2006), 44–64. 3 Middle Bronze Age? There is still confusion in using terminologies for the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant; the MB I initially suggested by Albright6 was replaced with the EB IV (W. G. Dever, 7 E. D. Oren,8) or Intermediate Bronze Age (K. M Kenyon,9 P. Lapp,10 Susan Cohen11) and the MB IIA in the initial chronology by Albright has been used along with MB I suggested by Dever. What is a proper term to describe the nature of the transitional period among the EB IV or MB I or Intermediate Bronze Age, and MB I or MB IIA? What is a proper 6 W. F. Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12 (1930): 8–14, §§ 11-19; W. F. Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13 (1931): 62–67, §§ 6-13; G. E. Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 71 (1938): 29, 33. 7 W. G. Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 41; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 8 E. D. Oren, “A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 87, no. 2 (1971): 109; E. D. Oren, “The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and Its Cultural and Chronological Setting,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 20–37. 9 K. M. Kenyon, Amorites and Canaanites, The Schweich lectures, 1963 (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 8; K. M. Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3 (1956): 41. 10 P. W. Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs: Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1966), pp.v-vi, 97ff. 11 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities.” 4 word to designate the feature of the period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE? As for the beginning of the early 2nd Millennium BCE, Susan L. Cohen, based on the port-power model by Lawrence E. Stager,12 argues that maritime trade in the eastern Mediterranean caused the development of some coastal ‘core’ cities in the Levant and they influenced the ‘peripheral’ sites which then led to the urbanization of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine.13 Aren M. Maeir, however, tells that the development of the early MB culture in the Jordan Valley is somewhat different from the coastal sites, such as Ashkelon, Aphek, and Kabri, and the new elements incorporated with the retained earlier tradition is excellent evidence of “the local indigenous elements that played a part in the appearance of the early MB culture.”14 Falconer and Savage assert the need of different approaches to the nature of the Middle Bronze urbanization between the coastal 12 Lawrence E. Stager, “Port Power in the Early and Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production,” in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse., ed. Samuel Richard Wolff and Douglas L. Esse, Studies in ancient oriental civilization: no. 59 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001), 625–38. 13 S. L. Cohen, “Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power: Theories of Canaanite Development in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E,” in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 69–75. 14 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 47. 5 plains (heartlands) and rural villages (hinterlands).15 Was the first phase of the Middle Bronze Age entirely a new cultural change with new people? or was it continued by the indigenous people of the previous Early Bronze Age? What provoked the development of urbanization of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine? Did the maritime trade prompt the urbanization of the coastal plain and reach to the inland Jordan Valley? Did the exogenous immigration stimulate the entire region of Palestine? How can we reconcile this incompatible diversity within the transitional period from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant? Thesis The writer proposes that the period of the transition between the late Early Bronze Age and the early Middle Bronze Age is a grafting period of exogenous culture onto the injured indigenous land, by incubating a new era of the Middle Bronze Age. Based on the archaeological data, the writer tries a reconstruction of the history of the Intermediate Bronze Age. The Intermediate Bronze Age can be briefly reconstructed by the following statements: The Intermediate Bronze Age should not be labeled as a “Dark Age” any longer and the Intermediate Bronze Age should not be labeled as the period of “nomadic pastoralism” any longer. There was a fatal change in the southern Levant in the middle of the 3rd Millennium BCE. In the early Intermediate Bronze Age (or the Early Bronze IV), some of the population of the Early Bronze III shifted, sitting near the Jordan river, in the 15 S. E. Falconer and S. H. Savage, “Heartlands and Hinterlands: Alternative Trajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant,” American Antiquity, no. 1 (1995): 37–58. 6 Transjordan area, and the Negev for searching to survive. There were water sources were plentiful, or the copper industry as copper industry was flourishing along the Kings’ Highway at the same time their searching. There was the initial partial migration from the north in the early Intermediate Bronze Age and they peacefully occupied territory in north of the Southern Levant with the new Caliciform culture balancing with the native Early Bronze people. This migration took place first primarily in the north of the Southern Levant, and they settled near the water sources for agriculture and ignored the Early Bronze fortifications and monuments. This first migrant population not only settled in the north of the Southern Levant, but also relied on Syria or Mesopotamia in their business as the periphery of the Northern Levant. The second migration happened later along the Mediterranean coast. This second migration might have generated the urbanization of the following ear, which was the Middle Bronze Age. The copper industry flourished in the southeast of the Dead Sea and the Negev during the Intermediate Bronze Age but decreased by the end of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Thus, the Negev and the southeast of the Dead Sea became abandoned or less attractive to settlement. With this long-term perspective, the settlements and material culture of the Intermediate Bronze Age continued into the early Middle Bronze Age. The Intermediate Bronze Age was not the offspring of the Early Bronze culture but rather the ancestor of the splendid Middle Bronze civilization. Methodology To discover the nature of this transitional period from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age, this dissertation will examine recent trends and theories regarding 7 the nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age. The goal of the proposed dissertation is to reevaluate the nature of the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE and its relation to the development of the Middle Bronze Age. To begin, it will discuss the history of the research of the Intermediate Bronze Age including the current issues for the transitional period between the late 3rd and the early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. This work will then analyze four aspects during the transitional period between the late Early Bronze Age and the early Middle Bronze Age: the settlement patterns in the Southern Levant including both the Transjordan and the Cisjordan, ceramic patterns within the relevant assemblages, copper industry and trade, and burial customs in the Intermediate Bronze Age. Lastly, this dissertation reconstructs the archaeological and textual history of the Intermediate Bronze Age, based on the analysis of four aspects (settlement patterns, ceramic patterns, copper industry, and burial customs). For the convenient reason, the writer in this dissertation adopts the term “the Intermediate Bronze Age” rather than “ the Early Bronze IV” as the chronological terms for the transitional period between the late 3rd and the early 2nd Millennium BCE believing that the Intermediate Bronze Age represents the nature of the transition from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age so far, and the term of the Middle Bronze I for the early Second millennium BCE. ` Chapter 2 History of Research To understand the nature of the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE, diverse approaches had been attempted for the last century.1 For convenience, the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE is called as the Intermediate Bronze Age BCE in this dissertation. As for the collapse of the Early Bronze urbanism, considerable writings have stressed the dramatic shift from the massively walled towns in the Early Bronze III to pastoral or rural villages or encampments in the Intermediate Bronze Age, all offering various reasons for it.2 The various reasons, such as, climate changes, outside invasions, 1 For more detail discussion, See G. Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” in Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, ed. Russell Adams (United Kingdom: Equinox Pub., 2008), 227–231; Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities.” 2 W. G. Dever, “The Collapse of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Toward a Systemic Analysis,” in L’ Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles ; Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20 - 24 Octobre 1986), ed. Pierre de Miroschedji, BAR International series 527 (Oxford: B.A.R, 1989), 225–46; D. L. Esse, “Secondary State Formation and Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine,” in L’ Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles ; Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20 - 24 Octobre 1986), ed. Pierre de Miroschedji, BAR International series 527 (Oxford: B.A.R, 1989), 81–96; D. L. Esse, Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, Studies in ancient oriental civilization no. 50 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991); A. M. Rosen, “The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14, no. 1 (1995): 26–44; R. Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative (London; New York: Leicester University Press, 2002); A. M. Rosen, Civilizing Climate: 8 9 internal strife, and plague, have been suggested for the collapse of the Early Bronze urbanism.3 Harvey Weiss studies the abrupt climate change during 2200-1900 BCE in the eastern Mediterranean and west Asian landscapes and their various social responses of each region (the Khabur Plains and the Akkadian Empire, the Euphrates River, dryfarming western Syria and the steppe, and the Orontes River).4 The relatively high resolution data documents abrupt climate change in the eastern Mediterranean during the Intermediate Bronze Age. In particular, the 10 cm diameter sample of subfossil Tamarix stem from a Mount Sedom (Dead Sea) demonstrates “three or four successive multidecadal droughts that reduced regional precipitation by 50 percent between 2200 and 1900 BCE.5 The responses to this abrupt climate change are random. While Akkadian Empire was expanding when it collapsed suddenly, the riparian, paludal, and steppic resources in Syria and Lebanon were adaptively utilized in the dramatic social and Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient near East (Lanham: Altamira Press, 2007); Pierre de Miroschedji, “Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age,” in Reasons for Change: Birth, Decline and Collapse of Societies from the End of the Fourth to the Beginning of the First Millennium B.C., ed. A. Cardarelli et al. (Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità, 2009), 101–29. 3 Rosen, “The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan”; Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant, 97–105; A. Mazar, “Tel BethShean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. W. G. Dever et al. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 116. 4 Harvey Weiss, “The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age; Altered Trajectories,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE, ed. M. L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew, First edition., Oxford handbooks (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2014), 369–389. 5 Ibid., 370. 10 environmental interactions.6 Some societies responded according to Greenberg, “with political collapse, abandonment, nomadization, and habitat tracking to sustainable agricultural regions.”7 These adaptive responses provided demographic and social resilience in the Intermediate Bronze Age. Meanwhile, R. Greenberg interprets that the transition of the Early Bronze – Intermediate Bronze Age should not be defined by collapse but exodus, which is “a prolonged, region-by-region exodus” from the Early Bronze Age towns.8 Greenberg sees that the population exodus from the Early Bronze towns had began already in the Early Bronze III mortuary stone structures of non-urban populations (tumuli in the Negev, dolmens in the Hula Valley, the Jordan Valley and Golan, and stone circles in the Carmel Mountains).9 Greenberg observes that Early Bronze III power strategy changed into a less centralized scale than in the previous Early Bronze II. Furthermore, he asserts that the Early Bronze III towns demonstrated a corporate social and political strategy to concentrate social power in fewer hands either of kin-based units or individual aggrandizers.10 Three elements at Tel Yarmuth support Greenberg’s claim. They are 1) 6 Weiss, “The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age; Altered Trajectories,” 378. 7 Ibid. 8 R. Greenberg, “No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant,” in The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, ed. F. Hoflmayer, Oriental institute seminars 11 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017), 50. 9 Ibid., 47–48. 10 Ibid., 45. 11 the segmented walls suggesting a lower level of coordination between each of the segment builders, 2) large public palaces with an integrated compound for domestic, economic, and administrative functions, which does not show any clues for the nature of the cult, 3) the enlarging of ceramic vessels used for storage and for serving as centerpieces in feasts and banquets.11 Greenberg also finds the smaller-scale power strategy in the absence of long-distance trade, significant external interaction, and the circulation of prestige goods as well as the rareness of any kind of administrative apparatus.12 Greenberg also presumes that this exodus was accelerated by the boom of Syrian urbanism in the mid-twenty-fifth century B.C., which “offered new paths to prosperity and prestige, no longer linked to the old order, but to a new, physically and socially mobile one,” and the boom in the copper industry in the Negev and Sinai with the peak in its production at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.13 Thus, Greenberg concludes that the transition of the Early Bronze – Intermediate Bronze Age defines not collapse but exodus, which is “a prolonged, region-by-region exodus from Early Bronze Age towns”14 The various reasons, such as, climate changes, outside invasions, internal strife, plague, 11 Greenberg, “No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant,” 42-45. 12 Ibid., 45–47. 13 Ibid., 49–50. 14 Ibid., 50. 12 have been suggested for th collapse of the Early Bronze urbanism.15 Mazar’s cognitive selection is one of suggested reasons to explain the avoidance of EB III centers by the Intermediate Bronze Age settlers.16 S. Paz explains the avoidance of inhabitation of Intermediate Bronze Age settlers in abandoned EB cities with ideological reasons, saying “people’s desire to disassociate themselves from the EBA cities and urban culture.”17 Paz also claims that abandoned the Early Bronze Age tells played a role as a material, functional, and symbolic resources in the landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age.18 The Intermediate Bronze Age was first labelled as Middle Bronze I (MB I) in absolute dates between 2100 and 1900 BCE by W. F. Albright in 1930s19 and it was 15 Rosen, “The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan”; Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant, 97–105; Mazar, “Tel BethShean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 16 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 17 S. Paz, “(In)Visible Cities: The Abandoned Early Bronze Age Tells in the Landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age Southern Levant,” in Seen & Unseen Spaces, ed. M. Dalton, G. Peters, and A. Tavares (ARC, 2015), 33.S. Paz, “(In)Visible Cities: The Abandoned Early Bronze Age Tells in the Landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age Southern Levant,” in Seen & Unseen Spaces, ed. M. Dalton, G. Peters, and A. Tavares (ARC, 2015), 33. 18 19 Ibid. W. F. Albright, “The Fourth Joint Campaign of Excavation at Tell Beit Mirsim,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 47 (1932): 3–17. 13 followed by N. Glueck in the series of surveys.20 G. E. Wright recognized some EB traditions at several sites and introduced the new terminology of EB IV immediately preceding Albright’s MB I.21 In the 1950-60s, K. M. Kenyon enhanced exogenous invasion, so called Amorite Hypothesis, as the cause of the collapse of EB urbanization which already had been expressed by Wright and repeated by Albright and R. de Vaux.22 P. W. Lapp and M. Kochavi adhered to Kenyon’s invasion theory,23 but others adopted a more moderate understanding of infiltrations of nomadic groups by R. Amiran, W. G. 20 N. Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14 (1933): 1–113; N. Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine II, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 15 for 1934-1935 (New Haven : American Schools of Oriental Research, 1935, 1935); N. Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III, The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 18-19 for 1937-1939 (New Haven : The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1939., 1939); N. Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV, The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 25-28 for 1945-1949 (New Haven : The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951., 1951). 21 G. E. Wright, The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to and End of the Early Bronze Age (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1937), 78– 81. 22 K. M. Kenyon, “Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83, no. 2 (1951): 106; Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul,” 41–42; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I”; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity. Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: Hopkins Pr., 1940); R. de Vaux, “Les Patriarches Hébreux et Les Découvertes Modernes,” Revue Biblique 53, no. 3 (1946): 321–348. 23 Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, 111–16; M. Kochavi, “Har Yeruham,” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 141–42. 14 Dever, K. Prag, and O. Tufnell.24 Amiran’s interesting contribution, three basic pottery “Groups”, introduced the new understanding of the Intermediate Bronze Age,25 and Dever expanded Amiran’s three groups into seven “Families.”26 Amiran later concluded these groups as largely contemporary, by suggesting chronological orders within “Families” with some degree of overlapping.27 Dever rejected his initial MB I terminology to adopt the Early Bronze IV and subdivided the Early Bronze IV into three phases (EB IVA, EB IVB, EB IVC).28 Dever formulated his model of pastoral nomadism, which denies the exogenous group from northern Syria but accepts the continuation of Early Bronze III culture into the Intermediate Bronze Age period based on ‘dimorphic 24 R. Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 10, no. 4 (1960): 224–225; W. G. Dever, “The ‘Middle Bronze I’ Period in Syria and Palestine,” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. N. Glueck and J. A. Sanders (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970); W. G. Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period,” The Harvard Theological Review 64, no. 2/3 (1971): 211–225; K. Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon,” Levant 6, no. 1 (1974): 106–107; O. Tufnell, Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir): The Bronze Age (London: pub. for the Trustees of the Late Sir Henry Wellcome by Oxford University Press, 1958), 41–42. 25 Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine”; R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, First American Edition edition. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ Pr, 1970). 26 Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period”; Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine”; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 27 R. Amiran, “A Tomb-Group from Geva’-Carmel: Revision of the Sub-Division of the Mb I Pottery,” ’Atiqot 7 (1974): 2. 28 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 15 society.’29 T. L. Thompson believed the continuity of culture and settlement between the Early Bronze Age and the Intermediate Bronze Age but went further that most of the settlement during the IBA was sedentary based on agriculture.30 Prag saw the change of the IBA not caused by invasions but by pastoral migrations from Syria as the consequence of the decline of the EB urban civilization.31 These above discussions faced a new archaeological approach by S. E. Falconer and B. Magness-Gardiner in the 1980s and 1990s.32 The observation from Tall Hayyat and Tall Abu Ni‘aj points a rural sedentary village rather than pastoral nomadism, so Falconer saw pastoral nomadism as a part of a rural economic system.33 Dever then modified his theory mixed agro-pastoralism and “ruralism” but he saw the rural villages 29 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 30 T. L Thompson, “The Background of the Patriarchs: A Reply to William Dever and Malcolm Clark,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3, no. 9 (October 1978): 2–43. 31 K. Prag, “Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant,” Levant 17, no. 1 (January 1, 1985): 81–88. 32 S. E. Falconer, B. Magness-Gardiner, and M. C. Metzger, “Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell El-Hayyat Project,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 255 (1984): 49–74; S. E. Falconer and P. L. Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age,” in A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van Der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. G. V. D. Kooij, E. Kaptijn, and L. P. Petit (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2009), 97–108. 33 Falconer, Magness-Gardiner, and Metzger, “Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell El-Hayyat Project”; Falconer and Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age.” 16 as an outgrowth of tribal nomadic structure.34 S. Richard, R. S. Boraas, and D. Wimmer excavated Khirbet Iskander, the true “urban” IBA settlement, and disserted that the change from the EB III to the IBA was happened not between sedentary and nomadic but between urban and non-urban.35 Another contribution by J. C. Long and S. Richard is the adaptation of a model of specialization/despecializaiton, which suggests that the decline of specialization in an economic system of the EBA is followed by more amalgamated and less specialized system in the pastoral nomadism model.36 Thus, the IBA period is not the shift from sedentism to nomadism but the shift from specialization in mode of production to less specialized economy as a natural adaptation.37 I. Finkelstein suggested a more sophisticated theory with multi-morphic approach. Finkelstein explained that the 34 W. G. Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy (New York: Facts on File, 1995), 291–92. 35 S. Richard, R. S. Boraas, and D. Wimmer, “Preliminary Report of the 1981-82 Seasons of the Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 254 (1984): 63–87; S. Richard and R. S. Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan: Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, no. 25 (1988): 107–130; S. Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity: Fourth Preliminary Report,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, no. 26 (1990): 33–58. 36 J. C. Jr. Long, “Sedentism in Early Bronze IV Palestine-Transjordan: An Analysis of Sociocultural Variability in the Late Third Millennium BC” (presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Schools of Oriental Reserach, Atlanta, 1986); S. Richard, “The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism,” Biblical Archaeollogist 50, no. 1 (1987): 39; D. G. Bates and S. H. Lees, “The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialization,” American Anthropologist 79, no. 4 (1977): 824–841. 37 Richard, “The Early Bronze Age,” 39; Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 55–56. 17 IBA period is characterized by the collapse of urban civilization but he stressed the importance of the marginal nomadic or semi-nomadic group, and also saw a partial sedentarization resulted not by a political power but by autonomous productive strategies.38 Finkelstein refined his theory in ‘polymorphous society’ denying Dever’s chronological variations and adding copper trade as one of the factors caused sedentarization of pastoral nomads and underlined the difficulty in tracing the archaeological division between herders practicing agriculture and agriculturalists practicing herding.39 G. Palumbo mixed the dimorphic and the multimorphic as well as the specialization and the despecialization in the concept of diversified levels of specialization.40 According to Palumbo, the IBA is rural response to urban decline rather than the pastoral aspect of production, which is capable to survive stress and continue unchanged Early Bronze urban control.41 D. L. Esse also understood that the shift from the EB to the IBA was the issue of balance so in Esse’s theory the pastoral component 38 I. Finkelstein, “Further Observations on the Socio-Demographic Structure of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” Levant 21 (1989): 135–136; I. Finkelstein, “Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia B.C.E,” in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, ed. A. M. Khazanov and O. Bar-Yosef, Monographs in World Archaeology 10 (Madison, Wis: Prehistory Pr, 1992), 134. 39 Finkelstein, “Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia B.C.E,” 134; I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology: 6 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 99–100. 40 G. Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 1990, 127–134. 41 Ibid., 130–131. 18 was dominant in the IBA period.42 S. Labianca analyzed the transition from EB to MB with “cycles of intensification and abatement.”43 In the new millennium, as many IBA settlements east of the Jordan River newly discovered, Dever restates his modification of mixed agro-pastoralism and ruralism in the IBA socio-economic structure defining the IBA period as “sedentary or semi-sedentary society and economy characterized by village-based agriculture, combined with limited seasonal movements and herding of animals,” and adds a cognitive approach as “mental map” to understand the IBA period.44 Dever explains that the IBA landscape was not the result of ecological compulsion or the coercion of the urban authorities, but was a matter of choice of those who returned to rural-pastoral from urban sedentary and preferred peripatetic existence and untrammeled freedom of movement in their economic independence and equalitarian society.45 Plumbo repeats his original analysis that the IBA rural economy at its basic level persisted throughout the EBA though the disappearance of international trade was resulted in the crisis of the urban system at the end of EB III, and reconstructs the IBA period “with an economy based on the integrating 42 Esse, Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, 175. 43 S. LaBianca, L. E. Hubbard, and L. G. Running, Sedentarization and Nomadization: Food System Cycles at Hesban and Vicinity in Transjordan, Hesban 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology: Andrews University Press, 1990). 44 W. G. Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period,” in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, ed. A. M. Maeir, S. Dar, and Z. Safrai, BAR international series 1121 (Oxford, England: Archeopress, 2003), 45. 45 Ibid., 47–48. 19 both pastoralism and agriculture, and trade on a local basis, perhaps on a large scale in the north”.46 Richard rejects Dever’s mental template arguing that Dever’s model is just fit in hundreds of sites of the marginal and peripheral areas. Then Richard develops urbanism in this period with the case of multiple, prosperous, fortified IBA Khirbet Iskander.47 Related to the IBA period, E. S. Marcus suggests that the transition between the EB and the MB is “a process of amalgamation” between two material cultural traditions and populations.48 Marcus explains that while these IBA groups/elements in the Coastal Plain including the Jezreel Valley were assimilated into the urban social pattern, the relative paucity of MB I material culture in the highlands “may indicate a longer lifespan for the IBA pastoral life, perhaps until it was assimilated by the MB IIb lowland material culture.”49 As the issues above described, the understandings of the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE have been various and there is no cohesive agreement among scholars. A number of recent studies, fortunately, have been conducted, and with this newly produced data, it is the time to reevaluate the transitional 46 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 252–53. 47 S. Richard and J. C. Jr. Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell,” in The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, ed. P. Parr, Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9 (Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009), 90–100. 48 E. S. Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period” (Submitted to the University of Oxford, 1998), 222. 49 Ibid. 20 period from the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. This dissertation seeks to understand the nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE with the recently published data to reconcile diverse conflicting issues. Current Issues As mentioned in the Introduction, there are some historical and archaeological issues related to the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant among scholars. The understanding of these current issues will help to lay the foundation for this dissertation. The issues are about the terminology in the EB-MB transition, high chronology, continuity and discontinuity, indigenous and exogenous, sedentism and pastoralism, maritime trade and inland trade, and Egypt and Syria. Egypt50 BCE 1930-40s 1950-2000 Sixth Dynasty 2300 –2100 EB IV EB IVA and EB IVB (Dever), EB IVA (Oren, Lapp), Intermediate EB-MB (Kenyon, Kochavi) First Intermediate Period 2100 –1900 MB I Caliciform (Tufnell) EB IVC (Dever) EB IVB (Oren, Lapp) Intermediate EB-MB (Kenyon, Kochavi) (25002000) Dynasty 12 1900 –1750 MB IIA MB I (Dever, Oren, and others) MB I 2000s IBA Or EB IV Fig. 1 The Variation of the Intermediate Bronze Age Chronology 50 K. A. Kitchen, “The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age,” in High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August 1987, II, Stud. in Mediterr. archaeol. & liter. Pocket-books; 56 (Sävedalen: Åström, 1987), 37–55. 21 MB I or EB IV or IBA and MB IIA or MB I There are diverse chronologies to interpret the four-hundred-year time between 2300 BCE and 1900 BCE in Palestinian archaeology during the last century.51 The chronology was first worked by W. F. Albright but later many archaeologists contributed their chronologies, terminologies, and dates. Albright, Wright, and Glueck in the 1930s initially classified the chronology of this transitional period as 2300 BCE to 2100 BCE being the Early Bronze IV and 2100 BCE to 1900 BCE as being the Middle Bronze I.52 Ruth Amiran even dated the MB I earlier than 2100 BC and she kept her chronology.53 This initial chronology, however, was rejected by many other archaeologists.54 Olga Tufnell called this period “Caliciform Culture.”55 Paul W. Lapp and Kathleen M. 51 W. F. Albright, “The Chronology of Middle Bronze I (Early Bronze-Middle Bronze),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 168 (1962): 36–42; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I,” 8–14, §§ 11-19; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” 62–67, §§ 6-13; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 29, 33. 52 Albright, “The Chronology of Middle Bronze I (Early Bronze-Middle Bronze)”; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I,” 8–14, §§ 11-19; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” 62–67, §§ 6-13; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 29, 33. 53 Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine”; Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. 54 EB IV (2300-2100 BCE) refers EB IVA and EB IVB (Dever), and EB IVA (Oren, Lapp), and MB I (2100-1950 BCE) does Caliciform (Tufnell), EB IVC (Dever), EB IVB (Oren, Lapp), though Kenyon, Kochavi, and Hennessey called the whole duration (2300-1900 BCE) as Intermediate EB-MB. MB IIA (ca. 1950 – 1800 BCE) is of MB I (Dever, Oren, and others). See Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine,” 38. 55 Tufnell, Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir), 41. 22 Kenyon used Intermediate EB-MB for the period of 2300 to 1900 BC.56 This term, Intermediate Bronze Age, is popular along with the EB IV to this day. Susan Cohen, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Raphael Greenberg, and Marta D’Andrea prefer to use the Intermediate Bronze Age to the EB IV.57 W. G. Dever at first followed the Albright’s chronology (1971)58 but later he classified the period from 2300 BC to 1900 BC as the EB IVA (2300-2200), EB IVB (2200-2100), and EB IVC (2100-2000/1950) because of a “cultural continuum” from the EB II-III to the EB IV.59 Oren also defined this period as 56 Paul W. Lapp divided the "Intermediate Bronze Age" as IB I between 24th-21st centuries, and IB II from 2050 -1900/1850 BC in Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs: Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1966), pp.v-vi, 97ff; Kathleen M. D. Kenyon, Amorites and Canaanites, The Schweich lectures, 1963 (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 8; Kathleen M. Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3 (1956): 41. 57 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities”; See other studies, S. Bunimovitz and R. Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. W. G. Dever et al. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 23–32; M. D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed. P. Bieliński et al., vol. 1, 30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw / edited by Piotr Bieliński, Michał Gawlikowski, Rafał Koliński, Dorota Ławecka, Arkadiusz Sołtysiak and Zuzanna Wygnańska ; volume 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014), 151–172; M. D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Transformation & Migration: Archaeology of Religion & Ritual: Images in Context: Audiences & Perception: Islamic Archaeology 1 1, ed. Barbara Horejs et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018), 81–96. 58 59 Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period.” Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine,” 41; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 23 the EB IVA and EB IVB.60 Dever asserted that the true Middle Bronze Age began around 1950 BCE so he classifies Albright’s MB IIA, MB IIB, MB IIC with MB I, MB II, MB III.61 Patty Gerstenblith supports the chronology suggested by Dever saying that “this new terminology should reflect our understanding of the MB I as a complete and independent, although formative, phase of the true Middle Bronze Age.”62 The reason for these diverse interpretations is that there were no distinctive events or destructive activities to separate from the Early Bronze Age from the Middle Bronze Age.63 Furthermore, this period was called as ‘Dark Age’ because of the abandonment of the flourished cities of the Early Bronze Age and the scanty settlements of non-sedentary population in the Southern Levant.64 Many recent publications about the Jordan Valley and pottery studies, however, challenge our understanding of the Middle Bronze Age. When did the Early Bronze urbanism dissapear and the true Middle Bronze urbanism 60 Oren, “A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan,” 109; Oren, “The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and Its Cultural and Chronological Setting.” 61 Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine,” 147. 62 Patty Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 74. 63 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities”; See other studies, Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine”; D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant”; D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations”; Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan”; Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell.” 64 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 35. 24 appear in the Southern Levant? High Chronology The traditional chronology of the Early Bronze Age II (hereafter EB II) in the southern Levant started in ca. 3050 BCE and the transition to the Early Bronze Age III (Hereafter EB III) around 2700 BCE and the EB III ended in 2300 BCE took place. This conventional chronology corresponded to the extended Egyptian urban culture and “contemporary with the Sumerian Early Dynastic period and the beginning of the Akkadian period in Mesopotamia”65 by A. Mazar. The time of the Intermediate Bronze Age (hereafter IBA), thus, is conventionally considered to be 2300-2000 BCE correlated to Egypt’s First Intermediate period and the later Early Bronze IV in Syria.66 However, in recent syntheses of the Early Bronze Age 14C dates, J. P. Regev et al. suggest High Chronology indicating “the possibility of substantial chronological revisions.”67 Earlier dates by 14C data than the traditional chronological schemes for the Early Bronze Age have been consistently noted by many scholars (Richard, Weinstein, 65 A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B. C. E, Anchor Bible reference library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 108. 66 Richard prefers 2400/2350-2000/1950 BCE and Cohen suggests an end date of 1925 BCE when is corresponded to the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. See J. Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology,” Radiocarbon 54, no. 3/4 (July 2012): 528; S. Richard, “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 5–34; Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. 67 525. Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 25 Joffe, Braun and Gophna, Golani and Segal, Golani, Anderson, and Holdorf).68 With the result of the radiocarbon dates by Regev et al., the transition between the EB II and the EB III is considered to be 200 years earlier than the traditional date and the beginning of Intermediate Bronze Age is also placed around 2500 BCE, earlier than the traditional ones. The time around 2500 BCE emerges as a pivotal time to the Northern Levant and Egypt experiencing great expansion and prosperity.69 With this high chronology, M. J. Adams finds the solution of the cache of Egyptianized vessels from Megiddo between the Early Bronze III strata and the plaster floor of Syrian triple temples in antis of the IBA.70 Adams suggests that a Byblite Dynasty attempted a territorial expansion into the Southern Levant with Egyptian blessing around 2500 BCE, when the intense relationship were between Egypt and the Northern Levant along the Lebanese and Syrian coastal 68 Ibid.; Richard, “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan”; A. H. Joffe, Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant : Complementarity and Contradiction in a SmallScale Complex Society, Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology: 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); E. Braun and R. Gophna, “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area G,” ’Atiqot 45 (2004): 185–242; A. Golani, “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E,” ’Atiqot 45 (2004): 9–62; Jr R.W. Anderson, “Southern Palestinian Chronology: Two Radiocarbon Dates for the Early Bronze Age at Tell El-Hesi (Israel),” Radiocarbon 48, no. 1 (2008): 101–107; P. S. Holdorf, “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’,” in Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries, ed. S. Richard, Archaeological expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its environs, Jordan v. 1 (Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2010). 69 M. J. Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” in The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, ed. Felix Hoflmayer, Oriental institute seminars 11 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017), 509. 70 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition.” 26 regions, though the southern expansion failed because the Syrian temples in antis seemed not to be completed.71 The problem of dating the transition the EB III-IBA in Regev et al.’s synthesis is that there is no modeling site where both the EB III and IBA have been 14C dated and the radiocarbon dates from the IBA sites in the southern Levant also have large variations from 2850 BCE to 2000 BCE.72 The 14C dates from the single period of Khirbet Iskander range from 2571 to 2307 BCE.73 The radiocarbon dates from two samples of Bab edhDhra’ during the IBA period range 2340-2010 BCE (1σ) and 2460-1880 BCE (2σ), which overlaps the end of Dynasty 6 (ca. 2363-2176 BCE) and the beginning of Dynasty 12 (ca. 1900 BCE) by Kitchen’s chronology,74 but Weinstein suggests that the date samples from the IBA period at Bab edh-Dhra’ “fit better with the first half of this period” and he excludes 2σ from his analysis.75 Another radiocarbon tests by Avner, 71 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 509-10. 72 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 599. 73 Holdorf, “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’.” 74 K. A. Kitchen, “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I) The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., ed. M. Bietak and E. Czerny, Contributions to the chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9 (Vienna: Verl. der Österr. Akad. der Wiss, 2007). 75 J. M. Weinstein, “A New Set of Radiocarbon Dates from the Town Site,” in Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ : Excavations at the Town Site (1975-1981), ed. J. Donahue, R. T. Schaub, and W. E. Rast, Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan: v. 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 643–46. 27 Carmi, and Segal (1994) date the Negev sites, Har Dimon in 3500-2300 BCE and ‘Ein Ziq in 2580-1980 BCE, which are traditionally ascribed to the IBA sites.76 Another comparative radiocarbon study between Tell Abu en-Ni’aj and Tell el-Hayyat by Falconer and Fall supports recent High Levantine chronology. Radiocarbon dates from seven phases of the single IBA occupation at Abu en-Ni’aj record 2591-2486 cal. BCE (Phase 7) and 2118-1970 cal. BCE (Phase 1) and the transitional phase (Phase 6) from the IBA to the Middle Bronze I at Tell el-Hayyat records 1976-1906 cal. BCE and the appearance of MB I evidence follows in Hayyat Phases 5 and 4 (1900-1800 cal. BCE).77 Falconer and Fall, thus, conclude that the radiocarbon dates from Abu en-Ni’aj and Tell el-Hayyat contribute to significantly revised Levantine IBA and MBA chronologies, which are high Levantine chronology of the IBA covered 500 years or more, starting at or before 2500 BCE and ending 1900 BCE.78 Other 14C dates, however, challenge this high Levantine chronology. There is the only model site having 14C dated in both EB III and IBA, which is Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, a recent excavation of the largest EBA copper 76 U. Avner, I. Carmi, and D. Segal, “Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: A View from the Southern Negev,” in Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. O. Bar-Yosef and R. S. Kra (Cambridge, Mass: Radiocarbon; American School of Prehistoric Research, 1994), 265–300. 77 S. E. Falconer and P. L. Fall, “Radiocarbon Evidence from Tell Abu En-Ni’aj and Tell El-Hayyat, Jordan, and Its Implications for Bronze Age Levantine and Egyptian Chronologies,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, no. 0 (March 12, 2017): 10. 78 Falconer and Fall, “Radiocarbon Evidence from Tell Abu En-Ni’aj and Tell ElHayyat, Jordan, and Its Implications for Bronze Age Levantine and Egyptian Chronologies,” 14. 28 workshop. Six carbonaceous samples from the EB III stratum date mostly to the 26th -23rd centuries BCE and one outlier (Beta-143812) dates to the very end of the 3rd millennium BCE (IBA period).79 The 14C dates from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan are corresponded to the other samples from neighboring sites in Faynan region, such as Tell Wadi Faynan, Wadi Fidan, Barqa el-Hetiye, Faynan 9, Wadi Gwair 4, and Ras en-Naqb 1.80 In sum, while Regev et al. and Falconer and Fall as well as others suggest that the chronology of the IBA period should be corrected from around 2500 BCE to 2000 BCE not from 2300 BCE to 2000 BCE. Nevertheless, all the data from them have a problem that there are not any modeling sites including both the EB III and the IBA. The 14C dates from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, which is so far the only modeling site containing both the EB III and the IBA periods, support the traditional chronology from 2300 to 2000 BCE. As for the radiocarbon dating of the transition between the EB-MB periods, we need to wait for the reliability of the 14C analysis, from sites discovered both the EB III and the IBA period. Continuity and Discontinuity Another issue is whether the IBA (EB IV) culture is continued to MB I or not. William Dever asserts that the first phase of the Middle Bronze Age represents the “rapid renascence to urban life”81 marked like this. The reoccupation of abandoned Early Bronze Age tell sites; the establishment of many new settlements that will soon grow into fortified urban centers; a shift 79 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 428; Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 6. 39. 80 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 428. 81 Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.,” 29 from pastoralism and ruralism back to intensive agriculture, industry, and international trade; new technologies, especially in ceramics and metallurgy; the development of sophisticated artistic canons; and a trajectory that will lead within a few centuries to the full flowering of the Middle Bronze Age “Canaanite” culture and civilization.82 Cohen, however, sees that the continuity between the last phase of the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze I phase by noting “evidence from MB I sites in rural and/or peripheral areas of Palestine shows little difference in lifestyles and subsistence patterns from those in the preceding era.”83 Other recent studies support this continuity from IBA to MB I in the Southern Levant. Maeir investigating the Jordan Valley concludes that “All told, the pottery of this early stage (Early MB I) also seems to indicate some continuity between the EB IV (IBA) pottery traditions and those of the earliest MB I.”84 Steven E. Falconer also asserts that “diversified rural pottery production may have persisted into, rather than arisen in the urbanized Middle Bronze Age.” 85 D’Andrea notes that “it is doubtless EB IV (IBA) and early MB I were parts of a 82 Ibid., 39; See also Dever, “Settlement Patterns and Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age,” 288–9; Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine,” 152; W. G. Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in SyriaPalestine,” in Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright., ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller (New York: Garden City, 1976), 3–38. 83 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 9. 84 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 64. 85 Steven E. Falconer, “Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity,” in Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. Glenn M. Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), 133, 138. 30 long process of acculturation and hybridization that paved the way for the elaboration of common sociocultural languages during the following phases of the MBA.”86 Recently updated excavations in the regions of the Jordan Valley, the Transjordan, as well as the sites west of the Jordan River, have verified the significant cultural continuity in the transitional period from the Early Bronze to the Middle Bronze Age.87 Indigenous and Exogenous There are various theories for explaining the cultural change in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. The theory that exogenous populations made cultural change in the Southern Levant was representative of over half of the last century. The movement of the Amorites from the north-east is suggested by Albright and Dever.88 A Byblian population is another suggestion by Kenyon, which proposed that the Byblos region might be the center of Canaanite culture and it spread throughout Syria and Palestine.89 Specific ceramic repertoire related to Syria, such as the drinking wares (cups, 86 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 87. 87 K. Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes” (Tel Aviv University, 2015); G. Edelstein et al., Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-1989., vol. 3 (Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998); E. Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, last modified 2002, http://www.israel.org/MFA/IsraelExperience/History/Pages/Nahal%20Refaim%20-%20Canaanite%20Bronze%20Age%20villages%20near.aspx. 88 W. F. Albright, “Archeology Confronts Biblical Criticism,” The American Scholar, no. 2 (1938): 105–123; Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 15. 89 Kenyon, Amorites and Canaanites, 58–61. 31 teapots, goblets) from the Meggido grey group,90 and the Caliciform91 which appeared in the Southern region and Negev in the transition from the 3rd Millennium to the 2nd Millennium BCE, can be indicators of exogenous influence. Maeir, however, observed strong indigenous elements of the late 3rd Millennium BCE in ceramic retained into the next period and played a significant role to the new urbanized culture in the zenith of the Middle Bronze Age.92 How can we interpret these distinctive conclusions? Sedentism and Pastoralism The IBA period (2300-2000 BCE) was defined to be nomadic pastoralism with the term of “Dark age” in the 1980s because of poorly documented archaeological data and fairly less sites completely excavated than recent updated data.93 Unlike the conventional image of the IBA as lacking permanent occupations, many agricultural villages in this period has been attested throughout the southern Levant, both the 90 S. Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” Tel Aviv 42, no. 1 (June 1, 2015): 27–58; D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 83. 91 D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant”; D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations.” 92 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 47. 93 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 32 Cisjordan and the Transjordan.94 Even an IBA fortified center at Khirbet el-Meiyiteh east of Samaria is revealed with Iskander in the Transjordan.95 Many of these occupation settlement were uncovered by “surface surveys or salvage operations in places where there was no earlier EBA occupation.”96 Now most scholars have consensus that the IBA period was a rural agricultural society with limited pastoral herding.97 Maritime Trade and inland Trade Lots of settlements appeared in the coastal plain in the Southern Levant (such as Ashkelon, Aphek, Tel Ifshar, Tel Nami, Tel Mevorakh, Akko, Kabri and other small sized settlements) in the early Second Millennium BCE. Cohen suggests that international trade in the eastern Mediterranean “contributed to Canaanite economic and 94 Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 41–62, 132, 163–87; Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period”; K. Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” ’Atiqot (2017): 13–28; S. Bar, O. Cohen, and A. Zertal, “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria,” Revue Biblique T.120-2 (2013): 161–181; Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes”; E. Yannai, “Tel Zivda,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI), last modified 2014, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=11625; S. Bechar, “Tel Hazor: A Key Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA), no. 2 (2013): 73–75; T. Erickson-Gini and Y. Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” ’Atiqot 74 (2013): 143–165. 95 Bar, Cohen, and Zertal, “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria.” 96 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 115. 97 Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period.” 33 cultural development.”98 She asserts that peripheral cities in the Southern Levant interacted with core cities, such as Byblos and Egypt, and this interaction caused the increase of the coastal settlements in the Southern Levant, and ports were the center of economic power and distribution.99 Some studies verify that the settlement pattern in the early Second Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant marked by the settlements on the coastal plain and along river valleys.100 Other studies indicate that fortifications in this period are likewise concentrated along strategic locations for easy transportation along the coast or communication routes in the river valley.101 The Jordan Valley shows a similar aspect as in the Coastal Plain that the number of the settlements increased in the place along water or transporting routes.102 Cohen, thus, concludes that maritime trade caused the development of the coastal cities and these coastal cities became the center of 98 Cohen, “Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power,” 69. 99 Ibid. 100 R. Gophna and E. Ayalon, “Survey of the Central Coastal Plain, 1978-1979: Settlement Pattern of the Middle Bronze Age IIA,” Tel Aviv 7 (1980): 147–50; R. Gophna and P. Beck, “The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II,” Tel Aviv 8 (1981): 45–80; R. Gophna and J. Portugali, “Settlement and Demographic Processs in Israel’s Coastal Plain from Chalcolithic to the MIddle Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269 (n.d.): 11–28. 101 R. Gophna, “The Settlement Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age II-III and Middle Bronze Age II,” Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984): 30; Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Fig. 14. 102 A. M. Maeir, “The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern” (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), 210. 34 economic and politic power and led the urbanization of the Southern Levant in the Middle Bronze Age. Ilan, on the other hand, classifies cities in the Southern Levant with hierarchic order, and determines that Hazor and Tell el-Dab’a were the center of trade as the first order gateways each in the northern region and in the southern region, the second order gateways were Ashkelon, Kabri, Pella, and lastly Masos, Dan, Jericho, Dor, Jaffa were the third order gateways.103 Ilan determines that Hazor and Tel el-Dab’a controlled the production, exchange, and power over sub-ranked cities though the rural hinterland and those such as Tell el-Hayyat were more autonomous.104 What theory satisfies the development in the beginning of the Second millennium BCE? Egypt vs. Syria Caliciform vessels,105 Megiddo Ware (Black Wheel-Made Ware), 106 and 103 Ilan and Levy, “The Dawn of Internationalism—the Middle Bronze Age.” 104 Ibid. 105 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine,” 23. 106 Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age”; D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 83; D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant”; Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 81. 35 Levantine Painted Ware107 in the Southern Levant in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE can inform the cultural relationship with Syria and Mesopotamia. The arched mega mudbrick gates at Tel Dan, Acco, and Ashkelon in the early Second Millennium BCE also ascribe their Syrian origin. Dever states that Palestine should be considered in close relation with Syria even in the Middle Bronze Age even though with poorly published data and the great distance between Palestine and Syro-Mesopotamia.108 How about with Egypt? Surprisingly, the Egyptian interest to the Southern Levant in the EB III appears to have completely lost. Matthew J. Adams says that “only a small handful of Egyptian prestige objects, such as stone vessels, mace heads, and palettes, made their way in to the region, and none of these can be firmly indicative of direct exchange.”109 By the transition between the Early Bronze II and III, even the copper trade with Egypt centered at Arad in the northern Negev ceased.110 This is quite different from the time of the Early Bronze I and II, when the Egyptian First Dynasty established coastal settlements and interacted directly with the local inhabitants (two 107 Tine Bagh, “Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon: New Material from the Lebanese Coast,” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 20 (2004): 40–57; Tine Bagh, “The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications,” in The Synchromisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C. II (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003), 219– 237; Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 14. 108 Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.,” 109 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 110 Ibid. 45. 497. 36 indigenous urban centers are Beth Yerah and Arad).111 The close relationship between Palestine and Egypt has been recognized in the early Second Millennium BCE from abundant evidences. The Tale of Sinuhe,112 the Berlin, Brussels and Mirgisseh Execration Texts,113 the Beni Hasan wall painting,114 a surprising wealth of Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty artifacts unearthed in Syria-Palestine, and the Tod deposit, can tell of the close relationship between Egypt and Palestine.115 It is striking how little Egyptian influence was on the Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age. 111 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 497. 112 Anson F Rainey, “Sinuhe’s World,” in “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 277–299. 113 Even though the debatable date, see Robert K. Ritner, “Execration Texts (1.32),” in The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World, ed. K. Lawson Younger and William W. Hallo (Leiden: Brill, 2003); A. Ben-Tor, “Do the Execration Texts Reflect an Accurate Picture of the Contemporary Settlement Map of Palestine?,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman, ed. N. Naʼaman and A. Yaira (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 63–87. 114 Percy Edward Newberry, Beni Hasan, vol. 1 (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, 1893). 115 39. Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.,” Chapter 3 Settlement Patterns The conventional consensus of the settlement pattern in the Southern Levant during the transitional period of the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE are as follows: 1 once flourishing large cities in the Early Bronze III were abandoned around 2300 BCE, the settlements in this period were scanty, the people lived in the poor huts and new small villages which are mostly near water sources, and most sites in the late 3rd Millennium BCE were tomb sites. I. Finkelstein insists that after all of the 126 Early Bronze sites in the Northern Samaria (including both settlements and cemeteries) had been abandoned, all of the 34 settlements in the Intermediate Bronze Age period were new sites and had not been previously occupied.2 G. Palumbo observed different characteristics in settlement patterns of each region. Only 8% of the Early Bronze III sites on the Coastal Plain were also occupied in the Intermediate Bronze Age, 70% of the Early Bronze III sites in the Hebron region were reoccupied in Intermediate Bronze Age, and over 50% of the Early Bronze III sites in the Jordan Valley and the northern Jordan 1 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 154–158. 2 I. Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” Israel Exploration Journal 41, no. 1/3 (1991): 23. 37 38 continued into the Intermediate Bronze Age.3 W. G. Dever’s views is that most of the large Early Bronze urban centers were abandoned from 2350-2000 BCE, and that the population of the Early Bronze Age was shifted to the marginal regions in the Jordan Valley and Transjordan including the Negev.4 Dever understood that the population of the late 3rd Millennium BCE lived in the pastoral encampments and small villages in the marginal zones, mostly in the Negev-Sinai desert and the Transjordan. They moved back to the central regions in the period of the 2nd Millennium BCE.5 Dever describes this change of population as “the most dramatic shift of settlement patterns in the history of Palestine.”6 Even in 2002, S. Cohen demonstrated the same picture of the settlement in the early 2nd Millennium BCE. She explained that the inland regions of the Southern Levant are “conspicuously empty”7 until the phase 2 of the Middle Bronze I. Cohen divided the period of the Middle Bronze I into four phases.8 According to the phases of the Middle 3 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 240; Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 48–62. 4 Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” 282. 5 Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine.” 6 Ibid., 152. 7 S. L. Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, Denkschriften der Gesamtakadamie 26 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 124. 8 Ibid., 124–125. 39 Bronze I by Cohen, only two sites (Aphek and Ifshar) including the possible sites (Ashkelon and Acco), are settled in the earliest phase of the Middle Bronze I, and in the phase 2 of the Middle Bronze, some settlements appeared to settle “along the coast, particularly in the north, and along the Jezreel Valley as well as the Sharon Plain, in strategic locations for contact with the eastern Mediterranean and regions favorable to intensive agriculture.”9 Cohen states that many other Middle Bronze I sites all over the Southern Levant except the Negev, were initially occupied in the later 3 and 4 phases of the Middle Bronze I, and the settlement sites of the Southern Levant in the Middle Bronze I were regarded not to have been continued from the previous period. Cohen suggested that the case of Tell el-Hayyat (already occupied at the Phase 2 of the Middle Bronze I) in the Jordan Valley is a model of a dendritic site distribution, and Tell elHayyat was clearly skewed towards the coast and possibly higher agricultural areas, so Tell el-Hayyat might supply the materials for the economic centers.10 Similarly, P. Gerstenblith described all the settlements in the early phase of the MB I in Palestine as being located “either along the Mediterranean coastal plain or within easy reach of the coast, such as Megiddo. A similar pattern continues in the middle phase, with the possible addition of Shechem.”11 The settlement phenomenon in the Southern Levant during the late 3rd Millennium BCE and the early 2nd Millennium BCE was considered to 9 Cohen, Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” 124-25. 10 11 Ibid., 124. Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 40 contrast that of Syria where the distribution of settlement showed continuity from the previous period both along the coastal regions and inland.12 On the contrary to this conventional consensus, different theories have been propsed in the recent publications both about the Intermediate Bronze period and about the early Middle Bronze I. Many new Intermediate Bronze sites have been unearthed by salvage excavations, in particular in the Jezreel Valley and in the region between Tel Beth Shemesh and Jerusalem in the Shephelah. These settlements were actively occupied during the the Intermediate Bronze Age, and even considerable numbers of these settlements developed into the Middle Bronze I period. Unlike the traditional common expectation, numbers of the Middle Bronze Ⅰ sites in the Jordan Valley and the Transjordan were occupied already during the Intermediate Bronze Age. It is obvious that new sites in the coastal plain actually appeared in the beginning of the second millennium BCE,13 but at the same time the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements both in the Cisjordan and the Transjordan appear to have continued into the following period, the 12 Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 13 Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” 125–131. 41 early Middle Bronze I period.14 The publication by Maeir15 as well as other publications about the Jordan Valley,16 have demonstrated that active non-urban culture in the Intermediate Bronze Age continued into the Middle Bronze I period. Many Intermediate Bronze Age occupations have been discovered in the Cisjordan, and even in the coastal 14 Susan L. Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age—Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 354 (2009): 1–13; Steven E. Falconer and Patricia L. Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age,” in A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van Der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. G. van der Kooij, Eva Kaptijn, and Lucas P. Petit (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2009), 97–108; Steven E. Falconer et al., “Bronze Age Rural Economic Transitions in the Jordan Valley,” annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58 (2003): 1–17; G. Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” in Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, ed. Russell Adams (United Kingdom: Equinox Pub., 2008), 233– 69. 15 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). 16 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities”; Falconer and Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age”; S. E. Falconer et al., “Bronze Age Rural Economic Transitions in the Jordan Valley,” in The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. B. A. Nakhai, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58, 2003, 1–17; Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV”; R. Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” in Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, ed. D. Baird and G. Philip, Levantine archaeology: 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 379–402; S. Richard, “Early Bronze IV Peoples: Connections between the Living and the Dead at Khirbat Iskandar,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, ed. International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan (Amman, Jordan: Dept. of Antiquities, 2009), 269–701; S. Richard, ed., Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries, Archaeological expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its environs, Jordan v. 14 (Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2010). 42 region (Ashkelon).17 These newly excavated Intermediate Bronze Age settlements call for modifying the nature of the transitional period between the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE. This research of settlement patterns in the Southern Levant for the transition period of the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE, first examines the settlement pattern in the transitional period between the Early Bronze Age III and Intermediate Bronze Age, and then analyzes the settlements in the Intermediate Bronze Age. If the evidence with some Intermediate Bronze Age sherds either at tombs or at occupations indicates them to have been reused or continued into the Middle Bronze I, they are included in the IBA settlements even allowing for non-IBA architectural remains. Lastly, the new settlements during the early phases of the Middle Bronze I will be discussed to verify whether they are related to the Intermediate Bronze Age settlement or not. Transition Between EB III and IBA It is apparent that most of the Early Bronze cities were given up at the end of the Early Bronze III as observed by many scholars.18 Mazar mentions that the Early Bronze 17 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” 143; Y. Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer (IAA Reports 46) (Jerusalem, 2010); I. Milevski et al., “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East): An Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) Site in the Ayyalon Valley,” ’Atiqot 69 (2012): 75–140; Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes”; CovelloParan, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley”; H. Smithline, “Intermediate Bronze Age Presence at Tel Yizra’’el,” ’Atiqot (2017): 1–16. 18 Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” 282; Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age”; Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material 43 III sites in the Jordan Valley, such as Beth Yereḥ, ‘Ai, and Yarmuth, were suddenly abandoned or destroyed in their peak, and the characteristic of the end of the EB III urban system should be defined not as a process but as an event.19 He noted that the Intermediate Bronze Age settlers preferred new locations, unconnected to the previous Early Bronze III settlements.20 Aren M. Maeir also analyzes that the settlements in the Jordan Valley in the Intermediate Bronze Age period did not continue earlier Early Bronze II-III settlements, though there are various continued facets in the material culture between the Early Bronze III and the following period.21 Maeir stresses that “there does not seem to be any continuity between the EB and the EB IV levels at these sites… these sites do not continue earlier EB settlements, but, rather are settled anew during the EB IV.”22 This picture, however, does not apply to some sites where the Early Bronze III traditions were preserved, such as Khirbet al-Batrawy, Tall al-‘Umayri, and Tall alHammam in the northeast of the Dead Sea, and Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the Faynan region south of the Dead Sea. Khirbet al-Batrawy, a major copper route of the King’s Highway during the Early Bronze II-III, was soon reoccupied in the Intermediate Bronze Culture of a “Dark Age.” 19 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 20 Ibid., 115. 21 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 134. 22 Ibid. 44 Age.23 The largest copper workshop in the period of Early Bronze III was found at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, and its copper industry continued in the time of the Intermediate Bronze Age, though its size seemed to be reduced.24 Tall al-Hammam reveals the occupation continued through the Early Bronze Age and the early phase of the Middle Bronze Age.25 Archaeologists accept the continuation between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age is present in some Transjordan sites, and Dever dates those sites in the early stage of his Early Bronze IVA-B.26 Thus, the study of the Transjordan Intermediate Bronze Age sites continued from the Early Bronze III can help in understanding the nature of the period in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE. Khirbet Zaraqun In Palumbo’s survey, on top of the ruins of the EB III fortified city at Khirbet Zaraqun north of the Transjordan, a sedentary village with well-built houses appears during the Intermediate Bronze Age period.27 23 L. Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy,” Vicino Oriente 18 (2014): 39–64. 24 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy.” 25 S. Collins, M. C. Luddeni, and C. M. Kobs, The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations (Winona Lake: Published for the Tall al-Hammam Excavation Project by Eisenbrauns, 2015). 26 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 35; Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period,” ns. 28. 33. 27 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 235. 45 Khirbet al-Batrawy Khirbet al-Batrawy locates on the eastern edge of the Wadi az-Zarqa in northcentral Jordan. It lies “as a bridge at the fringes of three different ecological systems… the Jordan Valley to the west, the central Transjordan hills, crossed north-south and eastwest by the Wadi az-Zarqa; the semi-arid steppe and the basalt desert to the east, at the south-western edge of the great volcanic plateau.”28 It was occupied from the EB I and fortified in the EB III.29 The Early Bronze Khirbet al-Batrawy seemed to serve as a caravan city connecting the Northern Levant and Egypt.30 The IBA period at Khirbet alBatrawy has two phases attested both on the Acropolis in the Area A and at the center of the northern side of the site in Area B.31 L. Nigro classifies the abandonment layer of the ruins of the EB IIIB (Phase 4a in the Area A) and two earlier semi-circular pits (Phase 2d in Area B) into the early IBA (the EB IVA) period in the elapsed time span after a sudden violent destruction by a fire in the EB IIIb at Khirbet al Batrawy.32 The settlers 28 L. Nigro, ed., Khirbet Al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in North-Central Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005), vol. 3, Rome ≪La Sapienza≫ Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan (Rome: ≪La Sapienza≫ Expedition to Palestine & Jordan, 2006) iii-iv. 29 Ibid., 3:49–58. 30 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” 31 Nigro, Khirbet Al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in NorthCentral Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005), 3:39–41. 32 Nigro, Khirbet Al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in NorthCentral Jordan, 3:73–74, 157–8. 46 constructed the late IBA village at Batrawy by some terracing and levelling operations in the easternmost squares of Area A33 and by building massive structures with some stonepaved installations and a floor of beaten earth in Area B.34 The pottery from the early IBA (the EB IVA) in Khirbet al-Batrawy are characterized by the feature of the EB III pottery, and the sherds from the late IBA (the EB IVB) consist of the pottery of the EB III and the late IBA (the EB IVB).35 The Intermediate Bronze Age in Khirbet al-Batrawy shows the continuous material culture from the EB III period but the IBA village was constructed on the ruins of the EB IIIb fortification. Tall al-‘Umayri Ancient Tall al-‘Umayri, located on the natural ridge 12 km south of Amman, was small but densely occupied with multi-periods from the Neolithic to the Islamic era with some gaps.36 After two phases of the EB II-III periods (Phase 20 and 19) of the most extensively occupied, two considerably more ephemeral strata dated to the IBA (Strata 18-17) appear.37 The earliest stratum 18 is comprised of two houses with the partial 33 Nigro, Khirbet Al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in NorthCentral Jordan, 3:70. 34 Ibid., 3:157. 35 Ibid., 3:103–8, 136–9, and 202–4. 36 L. G. Herr and D. R. Clark, “From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging up Tall al-ʻUmayri,” Near Eastern Archaeology 72, no. 2 (June 2009): 69–70. 37 Herr and D. R. Clark, “From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging up Tall al-ʻUmayri,” 75. 47 remains of wall. The pillar in the center and series of small stone walls possibly for animal pens or gardens were unearthed in the Stratum 17 with a cemetery of shaft tombs. The architecture remains supersede well preserved the EB III houses, so they are indicative of the continuity between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age periods.38 Much of the second half of the IBA period seems to have had no settlement at this site with just a typical IBA shaft tomb cemetery and, after a hiatus, a major settlement was again established during the Middle Bronze IIC.39 Tell el-Hammam At Tell el-Hammam, located in the southern Jordan Valley, northeast of the Dead Sea, multiperiod occupations from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age (including the EB, the IBA, and the MB) have been found.40 The excavator divided them into two phases (IB1, 2500-2200 BCE and IB2, 2200-1950 BCE) during the Intermediate Bronze Age.41 The excavator interpreted that without interruption, the sedentary culture of the Early Bronze III with its urban and city-state stature, was retained throughout the Intermediate Bronze Age period, and the Intermediate Bronze Age Tell el-Hammam would be the largest agricultural site in the region alongside Khirbet Iskander and Iktanu in the southern 38 L. G. Herr, “Excavation and Cumulative Results,” in Madaba Plains Project: The 1994 Season at Tall al-ʻUmayri and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, Madaba Plains Project series 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology, 2002), 14–15. 39 Herr and Clark, “From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan,” 75. 40 Collins, Luddeni, and Kobs, The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations, 2–10. 41 Ibid., 116. 48 Jordan Valley.42 Monumental and domestic structures were found across the lower Tell rebuilt on the Early Bronze III buildings and the Intermediate Bronze Age ceramic repertoire is similar to the Early Bronze III corpus.43 The Syrian ‘Caliciform’ ware and the Black Wheel-Made Ware are absent from Hammam but its Syrian influence appears in the form of locally made teapots.44 The evolutionary sequence of ledge handles is remarkable throughout the Early Bronze III to the two Intermediate Bronze Age phases and the form of the ledge handle vanished between 2000 and 1950 BCE.45 Khirbet Iskander Khirbet Iskander is 24 km. south of Madaba, some 400 m west of the King’s Highway.46 Khirbet Iskander unearthed considerable evidence for a well-defended multiphased Intermediate Bronze Age settlement.47 The excavators insist that the three superimposed IBA settlements as the gateway in Area C and the remarkable remains in Area B following the collapse of urban communities of the EB III period give “sufficient evidence to suggest a surprising level of social complexity at the site, including elites in residence.”48 Phase I in Area C is considered to be “the critical nexus between collapse 42 Collins, Luddeni, and Kobs, The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations, 116-117. 43 Ibid., 118-19. 44 Ibid., 119–20. 45 Ibid. 46 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 33. 47 Ibid. 48 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A 49 and recovery” with the local Early Bronze Age traditions of red-slipped and burnished pottery, house type, and Canaanite blades.49 The notable appearance of the Syrian caliciform tradition with local red-slipped wares and forms in Phase 2 in the same area can be seen as the hybrid assemblage and it was defined as “the beginning of a period of change, innovation, and reorganization that continued through Phase 3.”50 Phase 3 provides the greatest lateral exposure with the public function of monumental buildings.51 The flat rim and rolled rim platters in Phase 1 were superseded by the platter bowl with turned down rims in Phase 2, which is the Intermediate Bronze Age fossil type, along with the straight-sided cooking pot with steam holes appeared in Phase 3 and the beveledrim bowl/platter bowl.52 The Area B has the stratigraphic seven phases (Phase G-A) and the IBA remains lay over the Early Bronze III destruction, which are the first pre-Intermediate Bronze Age stratified materials.53 The Intermediate Bronze Age fortified occupation was unearthed in View from a Tell,” 94; Richard, Khirbat Iskandar, 278. 49 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell,” 94. 50 Ibid., 95. 51 Richard, “Early Bronze IV Peoples: Connections between the Living and the Dead at Khirbat Iskandar,” 692. 52 53 Ibid., 691. Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 36; Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell.” 50 the Phases E-D with mudbrick superstructure.54 The available evidences in these phases are in the Intermediate Bronze Age pottery and an imported Intermediate Bronze Age, black-painted Syrian shred.55 Phase C in Area B was a domestic occupation with rectangular houses; Phase B also a domestic level with its interconnected broad-room houses with well-made walls, and Phase A has the final domestic structures.56 A significant remain is the tin-bronze spearhead in Area B, which is considered to be evidence of an inter-regional organization system within the sociopolitical and economic complexity at Khirbet Iskander.57 In other words, Richard and Borass mention, “the discovery of this tin-bronze socketed spearhead adds additional support to the view espoused for some time that elites were living at the site of Khirbet Iskander.” 58 The excavators explain that the evidence during the Intermediate Bronze Age period at Khirbet Iskander cannot be explained by the nature of pastoral nomadism but clearly by urban sedentism.59 Further, the excavators insist that the wealth of archaeological remains at Khirbet Iskander, “including multiple, extensive and prosperous EB IV settlements, fortifications, public areas, stores of production, evidence for prestige items and elites, 54 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 36. 55 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 125; Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 36. 56 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 37–50. 57 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell,” 98. 58 Ibid., 99. 59 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 55. 51 etc.” was the primary witness to militate against the popular pastoral-nomadic or rural views.60 The IBA Khirbet Iskander was built on the ruins of EB III destruction and developed as an urban-life center with systematic socio-economic complexity. Bab edh-Dhra‘ Bab edh-Dhra‘ had a long occupation from the Early Bronze I to Intermediate Bronze Age and unearthed three phases in the Intermediate Bronze Age period (Stratum I).61 A sparse Intermediate Bronze Age occupation with mudbrick was discovered on top of the ruins of the Early Bronze III city in only one area (Field XVI) starting with an open cultic area in the earlier stratum in Intermediate Bronze Age period (Stratum IC).62 The remains of the Intermediate Bronze Age settlement with either mudbrick buildings or stone walls were also found outside the Early Bronze III fortified town (Field IX and X) and no clear evidence of destruction was found between the Stratum II (EB III) and Stratum I (IBA) so the excavators explained that “when the EB IV settlers either came for the first time, or returned to the site as on at which they or their ancestors had previous occupied, they found the town destroyed but buildings around it still in more or less usable condition.”63 Two features, change and continuation, appear in the Intermediate 60 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell,” 99. 61 J. Donahue, T. R. Schaub, and W. E. Rast, Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ: Excavations at the Town Site (1975-1981), Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan: v. 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 17. 62 Ibid., 398. 63 Donahue, Schaub, and Rast, Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ, 398, 411. 52 Bronze Age period at Bab edh-Dhra‘. Definite changes from the Early Bronze III to the Intermediate Bronze Age are in the practice of the potters as “new patterns appear in many of ware fabric categories, in basic size ranges of vessels and in surface decoration. New specific types appear in jars, carinated bowls and cooking pots.”64 On the other hand, the Intermediate Bronze Age assemblage in Field XVI shows considerable continued use from the Early Bronze III to the Intermediate Bronze Age as “wide, shallow bowls, holemouth jars and lamps show treatment continuity in both form and type.”65 The excavators assume that the Intermediate Bronze Age ceramic shifts at Bab edh-Dhra‘ are “due to the adaptations of an ongoing, perhaps remnant, population to new economic and social conditions in this region following the collapse of the town culture of Early Bronze Age II-III.”66 The C14 samples from Bab edh-Dhra‘ date in the calibrated ranges of 2340-2010 B.C.67 Feqeiqes At Feqeiqes in the Karak region, an IBA level was discovered on top of the large EB II-III site also in Palumbo’s survey.68 64 T. R. Schaub, “An Early Bronze IV Tomb from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ’,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 448. 65 Donahue, Schaub, and Rast, Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ, 448. 66 Schaub, “An Early Bronze IV Tomb from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ’,” 448. 67 Donahue, Schaub, and Rast, Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ, 448. 68 Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 100. 53 Khirbet Hamra Ifdan Khirbet Hamra Ifdan is a naturally defended village in the copper district of Faynan, and, more recently, a densely packed semi-subterranean settlement was revealed with over seventy rooms, courtyards, alleyways, and other architectural features.69 The excavated site shows four major strata dating to pre-Early Bronze III (Str. IV), the Early Bronze III (Str. III), the Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV, Str. II), and the Iron to the Islamic (Str. I).70 The remains of copper mining, smelting, and production throughout the Early Bronze III period, indicate the gradual development of metallurgical activities without a break from the earliest phase of the site to the terminal Early Bronze III occupation and both ceramic evidence and available radiocarbon dates also support the continuous development.71 The continuation between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age can be seen as well in the Early Bronze ceramic repertoire of Phase 5 accompanied by ‘Family S’ ceramics, which continued into Phase 6 of the Intermediate Bronze Age period.72 Large amounts of material related to the copper industry was yielded at the Strata III (EB III, 2700-2200 BCE) with the remains of copper ores, prills, slag, casting molds, smelting facilities, and stone tools.73 The evidence of 69 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy.” 70 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 425. 71 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 398. 72 Ibid. 73 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 429. 54 copper industry continued to the Stratum II (IBA, 2200-2000 BCE) with a lesser quantity than the previous period.74 About 3356 metallurgical finds in the Early Bronze III were reduced to only 404 remains.75 With the general social dissolution in the southern Levant in the IBA period, the IBA at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan reveals “a distinct absence of architectural features and infrastructure associated with metal production.”76 Adams asserts that the similarities of ceramic repertoire between Phase 5 and 6 at Kh. Hamra Ifan and permanent sites in the Negev and the matching of a series of casting moulds for copper ingots at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan and from permanent Negev sites are evidence for contact between Faynan and Negev. 77 Khirbet Hamra Ifdan is so far the largest metal workshop during the EBA in the Middle East.78 Hauptmann et al. remark these strata “provide an important chronological anchor for evaluating archaeological and historical issues concerning the copper trade during the 3rd Millennium BCE in the desert regions of southern Israel and Jordan.”79 The analysis of six carbonaceous samples from Stratum III (EB III) is resulted in narrow limits, “putting the main production period of the ingots to the 26th-23rd centuries BCE,” 74 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 429. 75 Ibid., 432. 76 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 432. 77 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 398. 78 79 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 425. Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 6. 55 with one exception indicating the very end of the 3rd millennium BCE.80 This radiocarbon dating to the EB III at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan is similar to the radiocarbon dates from Numayra EB III, some IBA sites in the Transjordan and Negev, such as Har Dimon (3500-2300 BCE) and ‘Ein Ziq (2580-1980 BCE) by Avner, Carmi, and Segal,81 and the IBA Khirbet Iskandar (2571-2307 BCE) east of the Dead Sea.82 These chronological issues in the Transjordan and Negev during the Intermediate Bronze Age were already discussed in the previous chapter. Summary The IBA settlement sites continued from the EB III in Transjordan were discovered in small size, which hardly exceeded three or four hectares in size.83 As Dever found the connection between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age at the Transjordan sites, where he assigned to the his EB IVA-B periods,84 the settlement pattern of the Transjordan region show both discontinuous and continuous features between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age. The Intermediate Bronze Age settlements continued the Early Bronze III in the Transjordan area were 80 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 6. 81 Avner, Carmi, and Segal, “Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: A View from the Southern Negev.” 82 Holdorf, “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’.” 83 Falconer and Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age,” 98. 84 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 56 characterized in two ways. One group with Kh. Hamra Ifdan, Tall al-‘Umayri, and Tell el-Hammam, shows smooth continuation from the Early Bronze III to the Intermediate Bronze Age without interruption. The other settlement group of Khirbet al-Batrawy, Bab edh-Dhra‘, Khirbet Iskander, Khirbet Zeraqun, and Feqeiqes, were occupied on top of the ruins of the previous period. As Palumbo noted,85 the Early Bronze III settlement sites east of the Jordan River were reoccupied in the Intermediate Bronze Age period after the collapse of the Early Bronze urban centers, and some sites were not even interrupted but directly continued from the Early Bronze III to the Intermediate Bronze Age, especially east of the Dead Sea, at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, Tall al-‘Umayri, and Tall al Hammam. Unlike the Early Bronze sites in Cisjordan, the urban cities from the Early Bronze III were soon recovered in some sites in Transjordan during the Intermediate Bronze. It is similar to the Northern Levant, where the distribution of settlement of the EB IV continued the previous period both along the coast and inland and the Early Bronze urban centers soon recovered.86 The pottery assemblage of the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in Transjordan was definitely changed in practice of the potters, though some features of the Early Bronze pottery tradition continued into the ceramic assemblage in the Transjordanian settlements.87 The pottery repertoire in Transjordan was already 85 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 240; Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 48–62. 86 Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 87 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 125; Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 36. 57 influenced by Syrian inland characteristics, such as the imported Syrian Caliciform goblets at Khirbet Iskander.88 The settlement pattern in the Intermediate Bronze Age is different between northern and southern regions in Jordan. While the settlements north of the Transjordan mostly were located on low ground near good agricultural soils and near a spring or a water-source, such as the Jordan River and the Zarqa River, the sites south in the Transjordan were located on the hilltops or ridges, where defense was more valued in the choice of location than the settlements in the northern Jordan.89 Palumbo interprets that the occupation in northern Jordan is clearly due to agriculture, mentioning, “sedentary villages played an important role in this economy, even if the pastoral component of the society was probably very strong, especially along the eastern fringes of the plateau, where the limited amount of rainfall and the absence of permanent water courses means that the exploitation of natural resources is limited to pasture.”90 The Early Bronze remnants seemed to gather in the Transjordanian region, where crowded caravans and the copper industry flourished in the previous period and was still ongoing because the Northern Levant soon recovered from the crisis of the Early Bronze and started 88 S. Richard and M. D’Andrea, “A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period,” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII (2016): 574–580. 89 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 236–37. 90 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 236. 58 conducting commercial activities through the King’s Highway.91 This population shift might enable the Early Bronze cities in the Transjordan to continue into the following period without a break or to recover quickly in the Intermediate Bronze Age. An issue to note is the chronological problem in the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in Transjordan. In brief, while radiocarbon dates from the Early Bronze III period (Stratum III) at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan range in the traditional chronology (26th- 23rd centuries BCE), which is similar to 14C dates from another large Early Bronze III walled settlement at Nymayra near the Dead Sea,92 14C dates in some key Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in Jordan (Khirbet Iskander and Bab adh-Dhra‘) and some Negev Inermediate Bronze Age sites (Har Dimon and ‘Ein Ziq) overlap with the date from the EB III at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.93 Further research needs to be done to better understand this chronological issue. 91 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” 92 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 6. 93 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 525; Richard, “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan”; Joffe, Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant; Braun and Gophna, “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area G”; Golani, “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E”; Anderson, “SOUTHERN PALESTINIAN CHRONOLOGY”; Holdorf, “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’.” 59 Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ Na ‘ ato n a ma n Ki sh on rm Ya Jordan River Taninim Ha d e ra Alexa nder Pole g uk Khirbet Zeraqun Jabbok Yarkon a Ay ek lon So r Kh. al-Batrawy Tall al-Hamman La c Sh iqm Be s or Tall al- Umayri hi sh a Khirbet Iskander Bab adh-Dhra‘ Feqeiqes Zer ed Khirbet Hamra Ifdan Fig. 2 The IBA settlements continued from the EB III 60 Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ ato Shelomit Tel Dan Tel Na‘ama M. Manot n Hazor ama Tel Bira n Ard el-Samra Tel Zivda Horbat Qishron Ki Beth Yerah Yoqne‘am sh uk onel Hilu ‘Ein Sha‘ar Ha-Golan rm Tel ‘Afula Gesher Ya Tel Jezreel Taninim Megiddo Murhan Tel Yosef Nahal Rimmonim Hade Tel Burga Beth Shean ra Tell el-Hayyat ‘En Esur Alexa nder Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj PoTel leg Ashir Jordan River Na ‘ Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Shechem Tel Gerisa Yark on Jabbok Tell umm Hammad a Ay Sinjil ‘Ain es-Samiyah So Bethel Jericho re Er-Rujum ‘En k Yered Gibeon Esta‘ol Newe Shalom Ras al-‘Amud Beth Shemesh Bethlehem La Nahal Refaim Malcha Ashkelon chi sh Sh iqm LachishKhirbet Kufin a Jebel Qa‘aqir Tell Beit Mirsim Tell Sera‘ Tel el-‘Ajjul Khirbet Kirmil lon Be s Iktanu Ader or Har Dimon Har Zayyad Mt. Yeruham Nissana ‘En Ziq Be‘er Risisim Mashabbe Sade Fig. 3 The IBA Settlements discontinued from the EB III Zer ed 61 The Intermediate Bronze Age The Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA) settlement patterns have different characteristics in each region. New IBA settlements have been found in the Cisjordan, in particular in the Jezreel Valley and in the region between Jerusalem and Beth Shemesh. The study focuses on newly excavated IBA occupied sites with the IBA sites previously excavated, and the IBA burial sites will be discussed briefly in each region. The regions will be divided into the Jordan Valley and the Transjordan, the Jezreel Valley, the central highlands, the Shephelah, Negev area, and coastal region. Jordan Valley Although most of the evidence from throughout the Jordan Valley during IBA period is derived from burial sites, there is some evidence of settlement sites during the IBA. Palumbo highlights an array of the domestic settlements along the Jordan Valley and suggests the Jordan Rift is a kind of home for several of the largest Intermediate Bronze Age communities.94 The urban centers in the Early Bronze periods appear to be 94 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV.” 62 small villages, such as Tel Dan,95 Tel Nacama,96 Hazor,97 Beth Yerah,98 Beth-Shean,99 Tell Umm Hammad,100 and Jericho.101 Meanwhile, the possibility of the fortification system reveals in the Jordan Valley in the period of the Intermediate Bronze Age. The survey of the East Jordan Valley in 1976 already suggested the possible fortification with small stone structures and large stone walls at Dhahret Umm el-Marar,102 and later excavations at this site demonstrate burned daub and brick fragments indicative of stonefounded mudbrick architecture, the evidence of the rudimentary defensive wall.103 Khirbet el-Mitte to the southwest of Beth Shean Valley is another example of fortified 95 A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994), 44–45. 96 R. Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” ’Atiqot 35 (1998): 9–35. 97 Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant, 36. 98 R. Greenberg and Y. Paz, “Area BS: The Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951–1953,” in Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 19331986, ed. R. Greenberg et al., vol. 30 (Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006), 117–234. 99 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 100 S. W. Helms, “Excavations at Tell Um Hammad, 1984,” Levant 18, no. 1 (1986): 25–50. 101 L. Nigro, “Tell Es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300-2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis - A Stratigraphic Periodization,” Contibuti e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9 (2003): 121–158. 102 M. Ibrahim, J. A. Sauer, and K. Yassine, “The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 222 (1976): 51. 103 Falconer and Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age,” 100–101. 63 settlement during the 2300-1900 BCE.104 Khirbet el-Meiyiteh northeast of Samaria in the Cisjordan recently discloses the IBA fortification over a few EB III sherds. Tel Dan Tel Dan (Tell el-Qadi) is at the most northeastern corner of the Huleh Valley. A few scattered IBA sherds were discovered in two areas (Stratum XIII) on the ruins of the EB III urban center but no architectural remains were found.105 Dan is reoccupied in the early stage of the MB I with four phases spanned over 200 years.106 The settlement appears to have been dispersed by utilizing the EB fortification in the beginning of the MB I, and the intensive settlement with fortifications appears by the end of the MB I stratum (XII).107 Tel Na‘ama Tel Na‘ama is located in the middle of the northern Hula valley and about 18 km north of Hazor.108 The artificial mound at Tel Na‘ama provided a partial stratigraphic 104 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity”; Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell”; A. Zertal, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 105 Biran, Biblical Dan, 44–45, fig. 20; D. Ilan, “The Middle Bronze Age Tombs,” in Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, ed. A. Biran et al., Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996), 195. 106 Biran, Biblical Dan, 53. 107 Ilan, “The Middle Bronze Age Tombs,” 164. 108 Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” 9. 64 sequence from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the MB I and II transition.109 After the great settled area in the EB I and II, Greenberg et al. assert that “there is a clear evidence for prolonged habitation with architectural remains” in the IBA.110 The ceramic repertoire is characterized by the northern IBA assemblages including jars with beak-like projections and amphoriskoi as well as the Black Wheel-Made goblets and teapots.111 The excavators point out the virtual independence of the Na‘ama IBA pottery from earlier ceramic traditions because all the wheel-made forms are new and “none of the dominant forms of EB III—such as platters, red-slipped bowls, vats, Metallic Ware jars and pithoi—are carried over to MB I” with the exception of loop-handled jars and plain globular cooking pots.112 Two features of IBA pottery assemblage are apparently found in the variety of decorations, forms, and fabrication techniques, such as the typical northern group, the Black Wheel-Made Ware, and the imported vessel from the central Jordan Valley.113 Above the IBA stratum, three MB I phases are revealed to indicate that the site could have been founded in the early MB IIA with “15 m long wall along the edge of the mound” interpreted as a part of a fortification.114 Toward the end of MB I, the 109 Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” 10. 110 Ibid., 31. 111 Ibid., 17–23, figs. 20–21. 112 Ibid., 23. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid., 31. 65 settlement on the mound served for burials marked by tombstones.115 No dramatic change was clear in the transition from IBA to MB I like at Tel Dan, thus the excavators interpret that “there is sufficient chronological scope to posit a gradual intensification of settlement during MB IIA” in the Hula Valley from ca. 2000 as the most likely date for the end of IBA to the mid-eighteenth century BCE as the end of MB I in Palestine.116 Hazor Hazor, like Megiddo, is one of only in a few cases that was an abandoned EB site reoccupied in the IBA period.117 Yadin firstly discovered scattered IBA sherds in Area A and L at Stratum XVIII without any architectural remains.118 Architectural remains attributed to the IBA were exposed during the renewed excavations.119 Specifically, the remains were below the courtyard located north of the LB ceremonial Palace and east of LB ceremonial Precinct, beneath the MB Standing Stones Precinct, and in Area A in the middle of the upper tell of Hazor.120 Bechar suggests that the building remains were located in the vicinity of the monumental EB walls and in both areas consist of “poorly 115 Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” 32. 116 Ibid. 117 Bechar, “Tel Hazor,” 73. 118 R. Greenberg, “Ea A: The Early Bronze Age; The Early Bronze Age Phases in Area L,” in Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968: Text and Illustrations, ed. A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil, Hazor final excavation reports 5th v (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), 194. 119 Bechar, “Tel Hazor,” 73. 120 Ibid. 66 constructed walls built with two rows of stones, associated plastered or packed-earth floors, and various installations.”121 The rich IBA ceramic assemblage of bowls, cooking pots, jars, pithoi, and Black Wheel-Made Ware were found on the floors of this stratum XVIII.122 The earliest MB I activity at Hazor dates to the late MB I and the greater Hazor settlement began relatively late in the MB II.123 Ḥorbat Qishron Ḥorbat Qishron is situated near the multiperiod site of Qishron in the lower Galilee and revealed a single-period IBA settlement on the alluvial plain.124 Under the stone fill belonging to the Roman period, the remains of the IBA wall or walls were discovered125 with other ceramics, flints, and basalts. Based on all the finds at Ḥorbat Qishron, Smithline points out that the IBA remains indicates that Ḥorbat Qishron had a permanent occupation, “agriculturally oriented settlement which experienced a relatively 121 Bechar, “Tel Hazor,”73. 122 Ibid., 73–74, figs. 8–9. 123 A. M. Maeir, “Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B,” in Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968: Text and Illustrations, ed. A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil, Hazor final excavation reports 5th v (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997); K. Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Hagosherim, Upper Galilee,” ’Atiqot 30 (1996): 71–83; K. Covello-Paran, “Tel Ḥaẓor: Areas Q (The Eastern Spur) and N,” ’Atiqot 55 (2007): 17*-42*. 124 H. Smithline, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Site at Horbat Qishron,” in Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, ed. Z. Gal (Jerusalem: Rashut ha-ʻatiḳot, 2002), 21*-46*. 125 H. Smithline, “Ḥorbat Qishron,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109 (1999): 94*-94*. 67 long existence.”126 Two burial caves near IBA rural settlement of Ḥorbat Qishron was exposed by salvage excavation and each cave consists of an entrance shaft and three chambers, which probably served as a burial ground for the nearby IBA settlements.127 Beth Yerah Beth Yerah is famous for its extensive EB remains but not settled extensively in the following periods. Beth Yerah also yielded a few IBA sherds in the southeastern tip of the mound.128 In Area BS excavated by Bar-Adon, Stratum 5 is dated to late MB I with mixed pottery assemblage including Canaanite local types and Syrian elements.129 Sha‘ar Ha-Golan Sha‘ar Ha-Golan is located south of the Sea of Galilee in the Middle Jordan Valley.130 E. Eisenberg and S. A. Rosen mention that the IBA domestic structures were uncovered in two separate excavated areas and the domestic buildings in open places represent “the remains of a single-stratum, rural settlement that extended over some 200 126 Smithline, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Site at Horbat Qishron,” 45*. 127 S. Zagorski and A. Rosenblum, “Two Burial Caves from the Intemediate Bronze Age in Horbat Qishron in Summaries of the Hebrew Section,” Contract Archaeology Reports 3 (2008): 62*-64*. 128 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 114. Raphael Greenberg’s personal communication with Mazar. 129 Greenberg and Paz, “Area BS: The Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951– 1953,” 157–167. 130 E. Eisenberg and S. A. Rosen, “The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha’ar HaGolan,” ’Atiqot 69 (2012): 1. 68 dunams, one of the largest that have been exposed so far in the land of Israel.”131 A combination of boardrooms and other rectangular rooms were built for the dwelling units, although their plans were irregular.132 The absence of any imported finds indicate that the IBA settlement at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan was “a closed, self-supporting economic system that provided for most of its own needs, as there was no evidence of trade, apart from perhaps the flint blades.”133 The excavators interpret the single period of IBA at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan as a model of an unfortified rural settlement, which was completely disconnected from the EB urban system.134 A large percentage of the sherds represent incompletely fired gray cores and most vessels were handmade characterized by large flat bases.135 Various domestic vessels are discovered, such as, shallow bowls resembling the unique decoration of ‘Trickle-Painted Ware’,136 personal cups equivalent of the southern Caliciform cups,137 deep bowls,138 cooking pots belonging to the northern group,139 131 Eisenberg and Rosen, “The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha’ar Ha-Golan,” 66. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid., 67. 134 Ibid., 68. 135 Ibid., 34–35. 136 Ibid., 35, fig. 41. 137 Ibid., 35, figs. 42:1–4. 138 Ibid., 35, figs. 42:5–10. 139 Ibid., 40–41, figs. 44:1–6. 69 amphoriskoi,140 several storage jars, and pithoi.141 Gesher The MB I cemetery was found at Gesher in the central Jordan Valley over the Pre-Pottery Neolithic layer.142 The typology of the various find categories of the tombs date to the beginning of the early MB and one radiocarbon measurement yielded the date between 2100-1900 BCE.143 The significance at the MB I Gesher cemetery is that the material culture shows affinities to the preceding IBA period, although demonstrably of MB I type.144 S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel assert that the transitional period between IBA and MB I can be confirmed with more than fifty whole vessels, which are “representative of this transitional phase and subsequent early MB I development,” and seven warrior burials, almost thirty percent of the excavated burials.145 Thus, the excavators conclude that MB I Gesher reflects patterns and characteristics of both IBA and MB I, as “the material excavated at Gesher illustrated a composite social structure in the central Jordan valley region, in which new factors and influences appear but older 140 Eisenberg and Rosen, “The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha’ar Ha-Golan,” 41, Figs. 44:9-12. 141 Ibid., 43–47, figs. 45–48. 142 S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel, The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007), 1–3. 143 Ibid., 3. 144 Ibid., 8. 145 Ibid. 70 practices and social frameworks continue as well.”146 Beth-Shean At Beth-Shean, following the destruction of the EB III urban center, a brief period of occupation was unearthed during the IBA in Area R, which is in contrast to the tomb caves containing rich IBA finds in the Northern Cemetery at Beth-Shean.147 Jars with a flaring simple rim are similar to the Northern Cemetery, which is paralleled to the Syrian type, and are common in northern assemblages (Dever’s Family North and NorthCentral).148 Cooking pots and jugs are mostly common in northern group and teapots are also common in all IBA assemblages as well as related to Syrian Caliciform ones.149 The contrast between the EB III and IBA settlement at Beth-Shean is very sharp.150 While the break between the EB III and IBA period appears to have been both temporal and cultural, the short-term IBA settlement continued until an advanced stage of MB II (1700 BCE).151 Tell el-Hayyat Tell el-Hayyat is located 2 km east of the Jordan River in the middle of the Jordan 146 Cohen and Garfinkel, The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher, 137. 147 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 107. 148 Ibid., 109, fig 3:3-4. 149 Ibid., 110–11. 150 Ibid., 114. 151 Ibid. 71 Valley with five phases of occupation.152 Below the disturbed Phase 1, Phase 2 is represented by MB II and III, the architectural phases (Phases 3, 4, and 5) are all dated to MB I, and Phase 5 without domestic architectural remains yielded considerable IBA pottery mixed with MB II examples.153 Over the virgin soil, a kiln was well-preserved in the Phase 4 (early MB I) in Area A and the pottery within the kiln is predominantly IBA sherds with envelope ledge-handles and the trickle-painted ware.154 Phase 4 and 3 is illustrated with a homogeneous MB I domestic assemblage, such as decorated carinated bowls, cooking pots, burnished juglets, and store jars, mixed with a modest amount of IBA pottery.155 The IBA sherds were found mixed with the later pottery assemblages even in the Phase 2 (MB II-III) so the excavators suggest that the IBA forms “evolved directly into MB I without undergoing the transitional typological development.”156 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj is located southwest of modern Meshara, 500 m east of the Jordan River in the northern Jordan Valley.157 The site appears to have been occupied 152 Falconer, Magness-Gardiner, and Metzger, “Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell El-Hayyat Project,” 49, 54. 153 Ibid., 54. 154 Ibid. 155 Ibid., 55. 156 Ibid., 56–57. 157 S. E. Falconer, P. L. Fall, and J. E. Jones, “The Jordan Valley Village Project: Excavations at Tell Abu En- Ni‘aj, 2000,” American Journal of Archaeology 105, no. 3 (2001): 438. 72 from the beginning of the IBA with a few EB III sherd, and to have enjoyed a long occupational history.158 Falconer and Fall state that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj “uncovered seven stratified phases of mudbrick architecture reaching a total depth of 3.3 m.”159 Falconer and Fall suggest that the evidence, such as “rectilinear mudbrick architecture, sherdpaved streets, large storage bins and a possible olive or grape press, coupled with floral and faunal assemblages dominated by domesticated farm crops and herded animals,” clearly attests that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was a long-lived sedentary farming community.160 The case of these domestic settlements in the Jordan Valley is distinct from the conventional and influential synthesis that excavated evidence from the IBA remains in the southern Levant which indicates seasonal encampments and cemeteries linked to nomadic pastoralists.161 Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Khirbet el-Meiyiteh is located in the northeastern Samaria, right to Wadi el-Lasm and beside the road to the Jordan Valley.162 A fortification wall attributed to the IBA 158 Falconer, Fall, and Jones, “The Jordan Valley Village Project: Excavations at Tell Abu En- Ni‘aj, 2000,” 438-39. 159 Falconer and Fall, “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age,” 99. 160 Ibid.; Falconer, Fall, and Jones, “The Jordan Valley Village Project: Excavations at Tell Abu En- Ni‘aj, 2000.” 161 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age”; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine”; Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine.” 162 Zertal, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey, 290. 73 period (2300-1950 BCE) was unearthed with a wealth of a highly manufactured IBA ceramic assemblage.163 With the small probe yielded at Area A, the excavators date the material culture of all three strata to IBA though implying the possibility to be a prefortification IBA phase.164 The IBA fortification at Khirbet el-Meiyiteh in the west of the Jordan Valley is unique in the Southern Levant with the fortification at Khirbet Iskandar in the east of the Jordan Valley. The ceramic assemblage is “a combination of late IBA ‘Southern group’ pottery styles with earlier ‘Northern’ and ‘Megiddo’ styles.”165 The excavators note some assemblages closely paralleled in the EB III, such as the rounded bowl with a sharp rim found at Kh. Hamra Ifdan EB III,166 highly fired jars with molded rope decorations “at the joint of the shoulder and the neck, on the body and at the base” paralleled to the EB III at Kh. Hamra Ifdan,167 and four-spouted oil lamps, which were common in the IBA but already seen during the EB III.168 Tell Umm Hammad Tell Umm Hammad, located in the foothills of the Rift Valley and between the Jordan River and Zarqa River, revealed the four stages of the Intermediate Bronze Age 163 Bar, Cohen, and Zertal, “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria.” 164 Ibid., 172. 165 Bar, Cohen, and Zertal, “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria.” 166 Ibid., 167, fig. 10:4. 167 Ibid., 169, fig. 11:2. 168 Ibid., 169–70, fig. 11:7. 74 occupation settlement directly atop the Early Bronze I-II horizons with the residential hiatus of the Early Bronze III.169 A series of mud-brick domestic structures and their associated installations are distinguished at Tell Umm Hammad eš-Šarqi and somehow a later extensive settlement at Tell Umm Hammad el-Garbi was established.170 Considerable ceramic assemblage was yielded from the two Intermediate Bronze Age sites at Tell Umm Hammad, such as storage jars, spouted bowls, bowls, goblets or cups, holemouth jars, amphoriskoi, four spouted lamps.171 The absence of red slipped and burnished wares and the appearance of goblets/cups and perforated cups at Tell Umm Hammad attributes to it being dated in the later Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IVB).172 It is noteworthy that the analysis of the Jar of TUH3114 from the terminal phase at Tell Umm Hammad el-Garbi (Stage 3, Phase 9) , which is strongly influenced by Syrian feature, reveals the “the later EB IV and MB I horizons.”173 the TUH3114 finds parallels in the MB I contexts in the southern Levant, such as Tell el-Hayyat, Gesher, Jericho, and 169 M. A. Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (May 2015): 202. 170 M. A. Kennedy, “Life and Death at Tell Um Hammad: A Village Landscape of the Southern Levantine EB IV,” in Zeitschrift Des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 131, 2015, 4–5. 171 Ibid., 5–20. 172 Ibid., 20–21. 173 Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” 211. 75 even later Middle Bronze IIB deposits at Shechem.174 Kennedy insists that “significant cultural continuity and conservatism were present in the region throughout both periods, tempered by a degree of external influence.”175 Jericho The IBA period at Jericho is an exception. Three stratigraphic phases with poor mudbrick buildings were assigned to the IBA period by Kenyon.176 While the remains of IBA buildings were so fragmentary that the plan of these structures was not published, K. Prag suggested that the IBA occupation seems to have covered “the whole of the tell area in an uneven and perhaps ephemeral pattern of wide-spread occupation, with thin-walled and poorly built mudbrick houses set into terraces in the slopes.”177 Prag’s suggestion is confirmed by The Italian-Palestinian Expedition providing new data of the Intermediate occupation (Period IIId) on Tell es-Sultan.178 The IBA settlements on top of the southern 174 Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze—Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” 205. 175 Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” 211. 176 K. M. Kenyon, T. A. Holland, and British School of Archaeology, eds., Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 3 Plates: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (Jerusalem: British School of Archaeology, 1981), 105–8, 166–67, 213–15. 177 K. Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Sequences at Jericho and Tell Iktanu Reviewed,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 264 (1986): 63, 65. 178 Nigro, “Tell Es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300-2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis - A Stratigraphic Periodization,” 130. 76 slope of the site (Area B) was attested by the identification of a layer with associated the IBA pottery materials and objects.179 L. Nigro explains that there are two clear stratigraphic phases in the IBA period. The early stage of the IBA settlements was built directly upon Jericho’s IIIc2 collapsed buildings (EB IIIB) after a certain time span elapsed (one or two generations).180 No major razing operation are detectable in this early IBA phase and the new settlers simply flattened the top of the ruins to erect a small village with sparse dwellings in poor and irregular houses.181 The second stage of the IBA Jericho was on IIId2 phase, where the village grew up in houses denseness and dimension with some important architectural transformation all around the site slopes.182 Pottery assemblages also “allow to distinguish two slightly different ceramic horizons, tentatively corresponding to Period IIId1 and IIId2.”183 While the assemblage of the early IBA period was roughly hand-made and its typological inventory is limited, that of the second IBA period was continued in types and clays from the previous period but distinguished by the introduction of the fast wheel, resulting in “the combed tool for decorating with horizontal and wavy bands small and medium size jars on the 179 Nigro, “Tell Es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300-2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis - A Stratigraphic Periodization,” 131. 180 Ibid. 181 Ibid., 132. 182 Ibid. 183 Ibid., 133. 77 shoulders.”184 Nigro concludes that IBA finds at Jericho show “the gradual growth of an agricultural society based upon the domestic mode of production, which, as a hint at its complex structure, is capable to produce metal objects and tools. No invasions or prevalence of nomadic elements are reflected in material culture.”185 Iktanu Iktanu was first settled in the Early Bronze I period and after a long abandonment, a new occupation at Iktanu began in the IBA period.186 An unfortified village, at least 18 hectares, was discovered on the south tell, and Intermediate Bronze Age pottery sherds were found on the north tell.187 “Narrow unpaved streets crossed the centre of the hill and extended down the south slope to the wadi. Rectangular rooms and courtyards lay between the streets.”188 Phase 1 of two short Intermediate Bronze Age phases is characterized by the Early Bronze III tradition with red slip and burnish so the excavators dated the village near the beginning of the IBA period (ca. 2350).189 K. Prag pointed out the different features of IBA pottery assemblage at Iktanu. Even though the red slip and burnish are connected to the EB III traditions, Prag suggested that “grooving or 184 Nigro, “Tell Es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300-2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis - A Stratigraphic Periodization,” 138. 185 Ibid., 139. 186 K. Prag, “The Excavations at Tell Iktanu, 1989 and 1990,” Syria 70, no. 1/2 (1993): 269. 187 Ibid. 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. 78 corrugation on the upper exterior wall of these vessels is an EB-MB feature attributable to inland Syrian influence.”190 This grooving or corrugation on the exterior wall are common not only on bowls but also on cups and holemouth jars,191 though distinct from line incised decoration with single lines or multiple combing.192 After a short period of abandonment, the settlement in Phase 2 seems to have reached its greatest extent over the courtyards in Phase 1, and the pottery of Phase 2 continues the same traditions without the use of red slip and burnish.193 The population of the IBA Ikutanu was settled on the mound of the EB I abandonment with the EB-MB Syrian ceramic traditions. Ader Ader is located 7 km northeast of the Kerak in Transjordan and is famous for a large temple and its great extension in the Intermediate Bronze Age covered about ten acres on the tell.194 On the thick coat of plaster and small stone foundation, the mudbrick walls of the nearly destroyed temple were found on the northwest slope of the mound below the Roman and the Nabataean phases.195 The pottery remains of Phase A and 190 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Sequences at Jericho and Tell Iktanu Reviewed,” 61. 191 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age,” 3:20-22, 4:11-12. 192 K. Prag, “A Study of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age in Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon” (University of Oxford, 1972), figs. 7:8, 8:7, 9. 193 Prag, “The Excavations at Tell Iktanu, 1989 and 1990,” 270. 194 R. L. Cleveland, “The Excavation of the Conway High Place (Petra) and Soundings at Khirbet Ader,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34/35 (1954): 79. 195 Ibid., 86–87. 79 Phase B are paralleled to H-I of Tell Beit Mirsim so the excavator dated the temple structure to about the 21st century B.C.196 Though the excavator does not provide exact provenience of the pottery in the bottom level, Phase C, a few red slips and burnished wares indicate Early Bronze characters.197 Near the trench was found a pit accessed to a shaft cave, which had been used as a group-burials.198 Considerable quantities of IBA pottery were found in the bottom of the shaft tomb. 199 The excavator provided the pottery from the burial cave which is corresponded to Phase C of the trench and Stratum J at Tell Beit Mirsim.200 While Palumbo sees that Ader indicates the continuity between the Early Bronze III and the Intermediate Bronze Age, less stratigraphic excavation cannot tell the exact nature.201 Dever dated Phases C-B to his EB IVA and Phase A to his EB IVB. Thus, the population seemed to have newly occupied at Khirbet Ader on the virgin soil from the early stage of the Intermediate Bronze Age period (Phase C). Summary The Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in Jordan Valley appear to be un-walled settlements built on empty places or abandoned mounds where fortifications existed 196 Cleveland, “The Excavation of the Conway High Place (Petra) and Soundings at Khirbet Ader,” 88–93, figs. 13-15. 197 Ibid., 91, fig. 15; pl.19: C. 198 Ibid., 87. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid., 93. pl.22. 201 Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 98–99. 80 during the Early Bronze I-II. One exception is Khirbet el-Meiyiteh where a fortification system is unearthed. The population in the Jordan Valley did not cling to the EB urbanized cities and rather, the Intermediate Bronze Age settlers decided to occupy the vacant places. Gophna already highlighted the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in the Jordan Valley stating that “most of the unwalled Intermediate Bronze Age settlements were built at new and previously uninhabited locations or at village sites of a much earlier era, pre-dating the urban centers of the Early Bronze Age (of Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or Early Bronze I date).”202 The Intermediate Bronze Age settlements at the Early Bronze urban centers are mostly poor with the meager evidence of pottery sherds without building remains (Tel Dan, Hazor, Beth Yerah, Beth-Shean, and Jericho). Although the Intermediate Bronze Age building structure at Hazor has been recently discovered, the building remains were flimsy in the vicinity of the EB monumental walls. The relatively well stratified IBA sites in the Jordan Valley were mostly built anew (Sha‘ar ha-Golan, Tell Abu en- Ni‘aj, Khirbet el-Meiyiteh, and Ader) or reoccupied after a long abandonment of EB I or EB II (Tell Na‘ama, Tell umm Hammad, and Iktanu). The closed and self-supported economy in an isolated society shown at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan can be seen as an extreme case of the regional variation during the Intermediate Bronze Age period. The significant nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in the Jordan Valley is characterized by the direct development from the IBA culture to the MB I culture. The flimsy settlements in the Intermediate Bronze Age gradually grew into the 202 R. Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 1992, 129. 81 Middle Bronze Ⅰ with intensification (Tel Dan, Tel Na‘ama, Hazor, Gesher, Beth-Shean, Tell el-Hayyat, Tell umm Hammad, and Jericho). In particular, the vessel of TUH3114 from Tell umm Hammad can attest the continuity between two periods. Jezreel Valley As twenty-two Intermediate Bronze sites were recorded by the survey of the central and eastern Jezreel Valley,203 large Intermediate Bronze Age occupations in the Jezreel Valley and the Harod Valley have been attested. Covello-Paran analyzes total 58 Intermediate Bronze Age sites in the Jezreel Valley.204 Among 58 sites, occupation settlements are 40 sites and there are 18 cemetery sites.205 She outlines that the Intermediate Bronze Age settlements in the Jezreel Valley reflect a rural network of cotemporaneous sites but there is no evidence characterizing multi-component urban periods.206 The linear settlements are predominantly small in size (up to 1 ha) “located adjacent to water sources aligned with the valley borders in conjunction with the communication and transportation routes.”207 For instance, in the northwestern valley, three sites of the total 12 settlements (Nahal Yifat, Tel Re‘ala, and Tel Shimron) were 203 N. Zori, The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977). 204 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 60. 205 Ibid., 61–71. 206 Ibid., 429. 207 Ibid. 82 occupied from the EBA-IBA-MBA, four sites (Seifan south, H. Seifan, Tel Shadud, and Tel Tab‘un)were resettled during the Intermediate Bronze Age after the EB I abandonment, and three sites (‘Ein el Hilu, Tel Risim, and Kfar Yehosua) were newly erected in the Intermediate Bronze Age period.208 Only ten Early Bronze sites scattered throughout the valley might continue into the Intermediate Bronze Age, but a pattern of continuation observed between the IBA and the MBA is significant.209 Covello-Paran analyzes the data: The data presented in this chapter shows IBA-MBA occupation at 83% of sites in the Northwestern Valley, 89% in the Southwestern Valley, 75% in the En Gannim Valley, 83% in the Harod Valley and clear continuation of Tel ‘Afula in the Central Valley spanning the MBA. These numbers only address sites that have IBA occupation with continued MBA settlement and does not review the percentage of these IBA-MBA sites within the renewed urban MBA continuum. It is interesting to consider the role of specific IBA sites that later become major sites or central places during the successive urban Middle Bronze Age.210 The strong Syrian elements demonstrated by the material culture form the mortuary assemblages (Black Wheel-Made Ware and the metal finds) is worthy of note.211 ‘Ein El Hilu The site of ‘Ein El Hilu northwest of the Jezreel valley was not identified until discovered during the course of construction in 1994.212 With two season excavations, 208 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 62. 209 Ibid., 81–82. 210 Ibid., 82. 211 Ibid., 434. 212 Ibid., 87. 83 the ancient ‘Ein El Hilu reveals the remains of multi-period occupation dating the IBA (Str. VI), MB II (Str. IV-V), LBA (Str. III) and Iron I (Str. II) with Roman period (Str. I) without the remains of wall.213 The best preserved Stratum IV of the Intermediate Bronze Age is the initial settlement and the largest period at the ancient ‘Ein El Hilu. Six units of households (Units A-F) were found throughout the Stratum VI in varying size and state of preservation, and the units consist of multi-room structures reflecting domestic activities of storage and food preparation and open areas on both eastern and western sides for working.214 Unit A had ten spatial areas with three separate levels and at least three circulatory systems, which are rooms, entrances, terraces, passageways, and squares.215 Abundant typical IBA ceramic assemblage is discovered with several hewn architectural features, such as a corner cooking installation, a built platform, stone worktable, a rock hewn pit.216 The architectural feature is characterized by “the fused nature of adjoining rooms of varying size that together comprise a larger unit.”217 These characteristics in building architecture appear in neighbor sites, at Tel ‘Afula and Murhan in Jezreel Valley, and the sites in the central Jordan Valley (Sha‘ar Ha-Golan and Tel Itztaba) and in the Lower Galilee (Horbat Qishron) during the IBA period.218 213 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 87. 214 Ibid., 90–132 See fig. 4.4 ‘Ein El Hilu Stratum Vi site plan. 215 Ibid., 100. 216 Ibid. see ceramic assemblage fig. 4.17-22. 217 Ibid., 185. 218 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: 84 Tel ‘Afula Tel ‘Afula is situated at a strategic location easy for the transportation and communication routes in the center of the valley.219 A single stratum IBA settlement was exposed in seven excavation areas at Tel ‘Afula.220 The well-preserved multiroom domestic structure in Unit A has six spatial areas (Room 1-6) linked with three circulatory systems.221 The finds of Trickle Painted Ware and Red Band Painted Ware among the domestic units are significant.222 The evidence of early MB I occupation at Tel ‘Afula indicates that the IBA occupation was continued into the urban MB I.223 Murḥan Murḥan is a single IBA period site located in the precincts of Tel Yosef in the Ḥarod Valley, a narrow corridor connecting the Jezreel Valley to Beth-Shean area.224 The numerous springs along the edges of the Ḥarod Valley doubtlessly gave rise to the new settlements in the IBA period. Murḥan extending over 10 hectares is the largest of the single-period sites among the small contemporaneous settlements on the edges of the Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 186-87. 219 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 68. 220 Ibid., 159. 221 Ibid., 162. 222 Ibid. 223 Ibid., 69. 224 Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” 13. 85 Ḥarod Valley, such as Kefer Yeḥezq‘el,225 Gid‘ona,226 Tel Yosef,227 and ‘En Yizra‘’el.228 The architectural remains of Unit B provides evidence of multi-room units, which are dispersed over a large area at Murḥan, and are similar in the construction method and plans of other IBA settlements in the Jezreel Valley and Jordan Valleys.229 The ceramic repertoire also resembles those in the Jezreel Valley and Jordan Valleys and petrographic analysis indicates the holemouth vessels were made in the Jezreel Valley and storage jars in workshops in the central Jordan Valley.230 The distributed IBA settlements along the Ḥarod Valley each respectively have rock hewn burial grounds above the habitation sites and “this pattern of settlements dispersed along the valley margins is paralleled in the Jezreel Valley.”231 Covello-Paran says that the closely related material culture between the two region indicates “the inclusion of Murḥan and other sites in the Ḥarod Valley in the cultural milieu of the Jezreel Valley during the latter part of the 3rd Millennium 225 Zori, The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey, site 106: 69, 72. 226 Ibid., site 38; 24. 227 K. Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef,” ’Atiqot 42 (2001): 155, fig. 16; Zori, The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey, 19. 228 Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” 27. 229 Ibid. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid. 86 BCE.”232 Tel Yizra‘’el (Tel Jezreel) Tel Yizra‘’el is located on the western foothills of Mount Gilboa at the border of the Jezreel Valley.233 On the summit of Tell Yizra‘’el, a large Iron Age II enclosure was uncovered with the pottery sherds in various periods, from the EB I-III, MB II, LB and Iron I-II.234 In 2007, the ceramic finds in the Intermediate Bronze Age and the late EB III are revealed on the midway from the top of the tell.235 Although no definite architectural elements were uncovered, the excavator suggests that the light brown matrix consisted of brick material and a number of stones on the southern edge of the site may indicate building activity and the sherds were washed down the slope from the summit.236 The pottery assemblages are included in the northern IBA ceramic repertoire with holemouth jars, bowls, cooking pots, storage jars, and an amphoriskos.237 Tel Yoqne‘am Tel Yoqne‘am in the Jezreel Valley originally only had a few EB III and IBA sherds in Strata XXV and XXIV reported in the 1993 publications (1993 Ben-tor) but the 232 Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” 27. 233 Smithline, “Intermediate Bronze Age Presence at Tel Yizra’’el,” 1. 234 Ibid., 2; D. Ussishkin and J. Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 19941996: Third Preliminary Report,” Tel Aviv 24 (1997): 67–68. 235 Smithline, “Intermediate Bronze Age Presence at Tel Yizra’’el,” 2. 236 Ibid. 237 Ibid., 3, figs. 4, 5, 6. 87 final report of the excavations does not mentions any IBA remains and Stratum XXV was assigned to the MB I pre-Palace period.238 The surveys in 1999 confirmed that still no architectural remains dating to the IBA period were found, but large amounts of IBA ceramic remains were discovered in the glacis fills of Area A, including Black WheelMade Ware vessels.239 Megiddo Megiddo is located on a very strategic position in the Jezreel Valley as an intersection of two routes: one reaching along the eastern side of the mountains to the Akko Plain, and the other connecting the Carmel Coast with the Galilee and Transjordan via Nahal cIron. After the long EB II-III occupation, Megiddo suffered the same decline of urban life as other Intermediate Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant.240 Strata XVXIIIB at Megiddo are assigned to the IBA period though the IBA pottery mixed with some EB II or MB I pottery.241 A small cultic place from the IBA has been suggested inside EB III temple 4040 with the evidence of a single fenestrated axe, which is 238 A. Ben-Tor, D. Ben-Ami, and A. Livneh, “Yoqe’am III: The Middle Brone and Late Bronze Ages—Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988),” Qedem Reports 7 (2005): 11. 239 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 48. 240 I. Dunayevsky and A. Kempinski, “The Megiddo Temples,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 89, no. 2 (1973): 174. 241 G Loud, Megiddo 2. Seasons of 1935-39: Text and Plates, Oriental Institute Publications (OIP) 62 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pls. 8:2-4, 9:1213, 20 (Str XV); pls. 13:6–7, 15:14, 16, 18, 22 (Str. XIV); pl. 16:16-18 (Str. XIIIB). 88 controvertible as terminus post quem.242 Kempinski attempted to reconstruct a plan with some substantial buildings during the IBA243 but Mazar points out that none of the secure architectural structures are dated to the IBA because they may well belong to the MB I period.244 Part of level XIVa, dating from 2050 BC, is a very short period of the IBA with the evidence of IBA pottery assemblage as well as a fenestrated axe and a double Minoan axe, probably of Anatolian origin.245 Except Temple 4040 in stratum XIVa, which seems to have functioned as a small shrine, and also the stone pavement of platform 4009, other architectural evidence from the IBA is extremely sparse.246 M. J. Adams and D. Ussishkin re-date Stratum XV to the Intermediate Bronze Age and Strata XIVB, XIVA and XIIIA/B to the MB I. The reason Adams and Ussishkin assign Stratum XV to the Intermediate Bronze Age is from the IBA pottery uncovered by 242 Dunayevsky and Kempinski, “The Megiddo Temples,” 172–73. 243 A. Kempinski, Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel, Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie Bd. 40 (München: C.H. Beck, 1989), 40, fig. 17. 244 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 114. 245 Kempinski, Megiddo, 41 fig. 18:9-14; Dunayevsky and Kempinski, “The Megiddo Temples,” 174. As for the Minoan axe, the excavators suggest that the discovery of the Minoan axe indicats the increasing of coastal influence at Megiddo in the period of MB I-IIA. 246 Dunayevsky and Kempinski, “The Megiddo Temples,” 175. 89 the plaster floor in the foundation trenches of Temple 4040.247 Adams insists that the temple complex (4040, 5192, and 5269) at Stratum XV has its origin from northern Levantine design as “being the southernmost examples of Syrian temples in antis” already known from many Syrian sites, which date to the EB IV after 2500 B.C. with the Northern Levant chronology.248 Adams also suggests that the sixteen vessels of Egyptian technology and form discovered at the bottom of a pit “that cut through the Early Bronze III strata but was sealed by the plaster floor of Temple 4040” belongs to the IBA stratum XV.249 With the Syrian triple temple complex and the Egyptianizing pottery at Megiddo within High Chronology of the Southern Levant, Adams suggests the possibility that “a Byblite dynasty attempted a southern expansion with Egyptian blessings, it appears most likely that the agency for this event derived from the Lebanese and Syrian coastal regions 247 M. J. Adams, “Part III: The Main Sector of Area J,” in Megiddo V the 20042008 Seasons, ed. I Finkelstein et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 96–99; D. Ussishkin, “Comments Regarding the Early Bronze Cultic Compound, 1992–2010,” in Megiddo V the 2004-2008 Seasons, ed. I Finkelstein et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 1324; M. J. Adams, “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J,” in Megiddo V the 2004-2008 Seasons, ed. I Finkelstein et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 328– 30. 248 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 508; as for the Syrian temples see, C. Castel, “The First Temples in antis: The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd Mil- lennium Syria,” in Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie ; Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, ed. J. W. Meyer et al., Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bd. 371 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 123–64. 249 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 506–508. Before Adams’ discovery, the date of these Egyptian vessels have been debated among the excavators and specialists between an EB I and an EB III, in other words, from the late Predynastic to Early Dynastic periods, even to Old Kingdom period. (see Ibid., 506.) 90 that had most direct interaction with the Egyptian state,”250 though with debatable date of Egyptianizing vessels at Megiddo. Despite the meager remains from the IBA habitation at Megiddo, the greatest use of the eastern cemetery in this period is remarkable.251 Thirty of its forty-nine shaft tombs contained Intermediate Bronze Age are found and two were reused in the next period (MB I).252 MB I at Megiddo might begin at the end of level XIV, though no evidence of architecture and ceramic collections for a transition from IBA to MB I has been found. Level XIII B is undoubtedly from the early of MB I still with humble buildings, and Level XIII A has already discernible urban development around the temple with two residential areas and the earthen rampart of the lower city.253 Stratum XII at Megiddo marked a major change to the MB I with the construction of the Palace 5001 and the rectangular courtyard buildings near the open area “high place.”254 Nahal Rimmonim Nahal Rimmonim is located in the southeast of Tel Megiddo at the fringe of the Jezreel Valley and along Nahal Rimmonim, “in the vicinity of Tel Kadesh (750 m to the 250 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 251 Kempinski, Megiddo, 46. 510. 252 P. L. O. Guy and Robert Martin Engberg, Megiddo Tombs (The University of Chicago Press, 1938). 253 Dunayevsky and Kempinski, “The Megiddo Temples,” 177; Kempinski, Megiddo, 122. 254 Kempinski, Megiddo, 122. 91 north), Tel Megiddo (5 km to the northwest) and Tel Ta‘anakh (3 km to the south).”255 Architectural remains were discovered from five settlement strata dating to MB I - III and IBA by salvage excavation.256 In Strata V and IV dated to the IBA period, the remains were meager but the accumulations of pottery were characteristic of a settlement’s outskirts with “stone levels that served as the foundations of floors and buildings that did not survive” on the virgin soil.257 The artifacts of IBA Nahal Rimmonim consist of pottery, including imported vessels from Syria, flint tools and animal bones.258 The settlement finds in the MB I Nahal Rimmonim was yielded on the IBA layers with some scant building remains and the evidence of a pottery workship with three pottery kilns.259 Tel Yosef The mound of Tel Yosef located in the Harod Valley revealed the IBA settlement at the lower lands below the mound of the tell in the vicinity of the springs.260 The MBA cemetery is found above the IBA settlement remains.261 255 K. Covello-Paran and Y. Tepper, “Nahal Rimmonim,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI), last modified 2014, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=9562. 256 Ibid. 257 Covello-Paran and Tepper, “Nahal Rimmonim.” 258 Ibid. 259 Ibid. 260 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 169–70. 261 Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef,” 139, 155. 92 Summary The east-west region in the Jezreel Valley and the Harod Valley through the Nahal Harod seem to have had active roles during the Intermediate Bronze Age period. Not only large extended sites, ‘Ein El Hilu and Murḥan, but also the small contemporaneous settlements in the Jezreel Valley, provide enough evidence of sedentary activity. On the other hand, Megiddo during the IBA period appears the greatest usage of the cemetery with meager remains of habitations. Covello defines the IBA pottery in the Jezreel Valley as “locally made wares augmented by serving vessels of non-local ware.”262 A petrographic study of a total 112 vessels from the Jezreel Valley (‘Ein el Ḥilu, Nahal Rimmonim, Murhan, and Jalame) indicates that the bulk of the ceramic samples are from local manufacture, and the non-local pottery are from the Carmel region and also the Central Jordan Valley, which are areas to the west and east to the Jezreel Valley.263 The extra-regional vessels were made in Syria, which are the Black WheelMade Ware, a storage jar and an amphoriskos.264 It is interesting that the strong connection with Syrian as well as the north of the southern Levant in the IBA period appeared unto small rural villages where the locally made ware was dominant.265 It is meaningful that most IBA settlements in Jezreel Valley continued into the Middle Bronze 262 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 338. 263 Ibid., 342. 264 Ibid. 265 Ibid., 432. 93 Age and they also developed as major center places. The Central Highlands Tomb sites are primary in the IBA period in the Central Highland with the exception of the Jerusalem region. Many of the great tells of the Central Hill Country are discovered to be very scant in IBA levels and well-stratified IBA material from occupation sites is also poor.266 Finkelstein observed that 49 settlement sites and 42 burial grounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age are recorded in the central hill country, and 70% of them are located in the north of Samaria but 98% of the cemeteries are found south of Shechem.267 While the 126 EB III sites in the Hill Country had been abandoned, 34 IBA settlements began to be settled on the virgin sites, “on the other hand, almost half of the IB sites continued to be inhabited during the MB.” 268 The settlement pattern of over thirty IBA sites in northern Samaria is markedly different from the EB pattern. Most IBA sites are small and not occupied in the previous period.269 IBA settlements are “concentrated in to north-eastern and eastern parts of the sub-region, independent of perennial water sources and in places not previously inhabited” and almost no settlements along the lines of the western springs.270 Dever explained that the conspicuous absence of 266 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 42. 267 Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 26. 268 Ibid., 23. 269 Ibid. 270 Ibid. 94 structures and cave dwellings in the IBA sites in the Central and Southern Hills as well as nearby Lachish and Tell Beit Mirsim suggest seasonal settlement by pastoral nomads.271 Unlike the transition from the Early Bronze Age to Intermediate Bronze Age, which is clearly discontinued, Finkelstein mentioned that the transition from the IBA to the MB I is more complex characterizing both discontinuity and continuity.272 He points out some discontinued features in this transition; 1) the size of 248 MB settlements including larger fortified centers, is compared to 49 IBA small settlement, 2) new large MB settlements balanced in east-west distribution in northern Samaria and penetrated “into the western slopes of southern Samaria and the hill country of Benjamin, an area completely devoid of permanent activity in the preceding period.”273 On the other hand, the continued features are 1) 16 of the 34 IBA sites kept to be occupied in the MB I in northern Samaria, 2) some of the IBA shaft tombs were re-used in the earlier phases of the MB I.274 An exception recently appears in the region of Nahal Refaim near Jerusalem. Some IBA rural settlements are unearthed in this area (Ras al-‘Amud, Nahal refaim, Malcha, Bethel, Bethlehem.) This region seems to have been linked with the rural villages in the region of Beth Shemesh. 271 W. G. Dever, “Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir: A Domestic Assemblage of Middle Bronze I,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 15 (1981): 30*. 272 Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 42. 273 Ibid. 274 Ibid. 95 Shechem Shechem (Tell Balatah), the most important center in Samaria, lies both on a latitudinal route connecting the Jordan Valley to the west Coastal Plain via Wadi Farah and on north-south route along the Highland spine.275 Although IBA sherds appeared in fills, no architectural evidence was found in the IBA period.276 Shechem in the MB I period (Strata XXII-XXI) was not fortified but architectural remains show both “substantial housing and at least one imposing public building,”277 which is reflected by a large rectangular platform.278 The pottery repertoire points out that this unfortified occupation was established in a later phase of MB I.279 ‘ Ain es-Samiyeh and Sinjil ‘ Ain es-Samiyeh and Sinjil located ca. 24 km north of Jerusalem are primarily IBA burial complexes, which is the largest cemetery in all of the southern Levant.280 275 E. F. Campbell, “Shechem,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1234–6; D. A. Dorsey, “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268 (1989): 57–70. 276 Campbell, “Shechem,” 1347. 277 L. E. Toombs, “The Stratification of Tell Balâṭah (Shechem),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 223 (1976): 57. 278 Campbell, “Shechem,” 1347. 279 Ibid. 280 W. G. Dever, “An MB I Tomb Group from Sinjil,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 204 (1971): 31–37; W. G. Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 217 (1975): 23–36. 96 These IBA shaft tombs were often reused in MB I, as at so many other MB I sites.281 The striking phenomenon at the enormous isolated IBA cemeteries, Dever says, is the material continuation between IBA and MB I by reusing MB I shaft tombs for MB I burials.282 The two socketed spearheads at ‘Ain es-Samiyeh are paralleled with Megiddo in an IBA context and attested in Mesopotamia and Syria, and numerous comparisons in the southern Levant come from MB I tomb deposits, such as “Megiddo, Barqai, BethShean, Nahariyeh, Gibeon, Moza, Ras el- ‘Ain, and Tell el- ‘Ajjul.283 The fenestrated axehead among the weapon group at ‘Ain es-Samiyeh and Sinjil is the most significant as well.284 Wadi ed-Daliyeh Wadi ed-Daliyeh is located just 9 miles north of Jericho and east of ‘Ain esSamiyeh.285 Cave II at Wadi ed-Daliyeh was a cave complex with four chambers and some 100 pieces of IBA pottery including both whole vessels and more fragmentary pieces and sherds were unearthed from the chambers.286 Dever defined Cave II as “an 281 Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” 23. 282 Ibid., 34. 283 Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” 23. 284 Ibid., 30. 285 Paul W. Lapp and Nancy L. Lapp, “Discoveries in the Wâdī Ed-Dâliyeh,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41 (1974): 1. 286 W. G. Dever, “The Middle Bronze Occupation and Pottery of ’Araq EnNasaneh (Cave II),” in Discoveries in the Wâdī Ed-Dâliyeh, ed. P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp, vol. 41 (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974), 33, pls.1–13. 97 occupational deposit rather than a tomb group” because of the lack of evidence of burials and absence of small lug handled amphoriskoi in IBA tombs.287 The IBA pottery repertoires at Cave II are largely characterized by the typical assemblages of the Central Hills but mixed with Jericho/Jordan group and southern group.288 Gibeon Twenty-nine of the 46 tombs found at the cemetery at Gibeon contains good evidence of the MB I usages. Ten among the MB I tombs also gives evidence for an IBA use.289 The IBA four fragments of funerary jars alongside with the broken Tell elYahudiyeh juglet in MB I at Tomb 42,290 the bulk of pottery from MB I period with the funerary jars and a bronze pin of IBA at Tomb 57,291 two socketed spearheads of the MB I as well as the funerary jars and the four nozzle lamp of IBA at Tomb 58,292 are some examples of tombs used in the continuous period between IBA and MB I. On the base of these observation, Pritchard assumed that the remaining 19 tombs with MB I goods seemed to be cut in the earlier period and the earlier grave materials removed ahead of 287 Dever, “The Middle Bronze Occupation and Pottery of ’Araq En-Nasaneh (Cave II),” 47. 288 Ibid., 46–47. 289 J. B. Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, First. (Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1963), 71. 290 Ibid., 49, fig. 46. 291 Ibid., 60, figs. 62–63. 292 Ibid., 61, fig.64. 98 the use in the MB I period.293 Ras al-‘Amud (Jerusalem) Ras al-‘Amud east of Jerusalem was exposed the IBA building plans within a wide scope.294 Multi-roomed structures built around an open courtyard at Ras al-‘Amud is similar to the Newe Shalom IBA farmhouse, and above the IBA stratum there was evidence of a less extensive occupation belonged to the MB II period.295 Malcha (Manahat)296 A cluster of IBA domestic structures were discovered at Malcha in the Nahal Refaim Valley.297 The IBA settlement at Malcha was continued into the MB II period and even became increasingly intensified well into the MB IIB period.298 North of Malcha, in the area of the Holyland compound, dozens of shaft tombs were also uncovered through 293 Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, First. (Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1963), 71. 294 D. B. Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, 2012, 13*. 295 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 296 Malcha has been identified as biblical Manahat see in Edelstein et al., Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds, 3:125–129. 297 E. Eisenberg, “Naḥal Rephaim — A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem,” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 26, no. 3/4 (103/104) (1993): 82–95; Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 298 E. Eisenberg, “Manahat - A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem,” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 26, no. 3/4 (103/104) (1993): 92–102; Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 99 the salvage excavation.299 The excavators conclude that the cemetery of the Holyland compound probably was mostly used for the burials of the Malcha/Manahat settlement and “during the IBA, these sites were villages which existed on the base of a combination of agriculture, animal exploitation and small crafts.”300 Nahal Refaim Nahal Refaim located on the southern slopes of a hill, is some 6 km southwest from the Old City of Jerusalem, upon the ancient road which linked from the Coastal Plain to the Judean Hills and Jerusalem.301 Nahal Refaim along with Mahanat were observed as vast neighboring IBA rural settlements,302 but most of the remains were uncovered between 1987 and 1990.303 A rural settlement dated to the end of the IBA (2200-2000 BCE) was discovered in the Refaim Valley with the houses consisting of a 299 Y. Zelinger and A. Golani, “Rock-Cut Shaft Tombs from the Intermediate Bronze Age near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem,” ’Atiqot (2005): 1–7. 300 L. Milevski, Z. Greenhut, and N. Agha, “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 5 May-10 May 2009, ed. P. Matthiae and L. Romano (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 403. 301 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem”; See also Eisenberg, “Naḥal Rephaim — A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem.” 302 Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 25; E. Eisenberg, “’Emeq Refaim,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7–8 (1989 1988): 84–89; G. Edelstein and E. Eisenberg, “’Emeq Refaim,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 3 (1984): 51–52; ibid.; G. Edelstein and E. Eisenberg, “’Emeq Refaim,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1 (1982): 53–54. 303 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 100 number of different-sized rooms on the exposed rock surfaces.304 A new Canaanite village of the MB II was established with most of its houses built on the IBA village.305 A burial cave in the Nahal Refaim near the IBA and MBA settlements was also dated to the IBA and MB II.306 Their walls were built of fired bricks and the floors were leveled with stone surfaces.307 In particular, the remains of several building complexes in the eastern part of the village were extended over an area of some hundred square meters, which seemed to be for the extended family based on agriculture and herding.308 Eisenberg asserts that the IBA pottery at Nahal Refaim was well-fired with handmade coarse clay and the vessels were “mainly large, barrel-shaped storage jars, cooking pots, cups and bowls.” 309 Bethel The IBA remains at Bethel appear after a meager finding of the previous periods, such as one Neolithic sherd and four Khirbet Kerak sherds.310 The ceramic remains of the 304 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 305 Ibid. 306 L. K. Horwitz, “The Archaeozoology of Bronze Age Offerings from Burial Cave 900 in Naḥal Refa’im, Jerusalem,” ’Atiqot (2017): 73. 307 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 308 Ibid. 309 Ibid. 310 J. L. Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960), American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual: 39 (Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research with the aid of the Jane Dows Nies Publication Fund, 1968), 22. 101 EBA phase are similar to the Tell Beit Mirsim level J and those of IBA are identical with Tell Beit Mirsim level H.311 A temple was discovered above the bedrock with cooking pot sherds and other butchering flints, and other building structures reflecting a town were also uncovered. The excavator mentioned that the town began at the very end of the EB, in other words, the IBA with current chronology, and lasted to the 19th BCE.312 Bethel, thus, was occupied in the IBA period after a few traces of the previous periods, and continued into the MB I and MB II, when Bethel reached the status of a full-grown town unlike the preceding periods.313 Bethlehem A regional survey claims that Bēt Sāḥūr region considered part of the larger Bethlehem area, has provided the archaeological remains of dense settlement since the Early Bronze, Late Bronze or Iron Age, while a few single sherds and flints were dated to the Neolithic period.314 The cemetery consisting of 11 tombs at Bēt Sāḥūr have been dated to the IBA (EB IV) and MB II and a jar at Bethlehem dated to the IBA (EB IV) has 311 Ibid.; Tell Beit Mirsim levels J and H are defined as the IBA period, see W. G. Dever, “An EB IV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies ‫( כז‬2003): 29*; W. F. Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II: The Bronze Age,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17 (1936): xi–141. 312 Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960), 23. 313 Ibid. 314 F. De Cree, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 115, no. 1 (1999): 79. 102 been found.315 The objects of the tomb at Eš-Šeḫ Ṣāliḥ also dated to the IBA (EB IV).316 Bethlehem shows the same pattern as the cemeteries in the central highlands as that of the IBA tombs which were reused in the following period. Efrat Efrat in the Hebron mountains unearthed IBA shaft tombs but no settlement sites are known near in the vicinity. Among twenty-two of twenty-seven total IBA tombs were reused during the MB period.317 Although there was hewing of new shafts for the extant chambers, there are no newly created tombs. The ceramic assemblage is assigned to the MB IIA period, but the publication does not provide many ceramic forms.318 Khirbet Kufin The cemetery at Khirbet Kufin also contains numerous IBA (MB I) shaft tombs cut during the IBA and then reused in the MB I period.319 The IBA finds alongside the MB I finds were in disarray so Robert H. Smith made notes that the earlier skeletons had been disturbed by the later interments.320 Smith suggested two deposits belongs to two 315 Cree, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 78. 316 Ibid., 75. 317 R. Gonen, “A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery at Efrat in the Hebron Mountains,” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 14, no. 1/2 (53/54) (1981): 27. 318 Gonen, “A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery at Efrat in the Hebron Mountains.” 319 R. H. Smith, Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kufin, Palestine, First Edition edition., Colt Archaeological Institute Monograph (London: Quaritch, 1962), 12– 13. 320 Ibid., 15–17. 103 separate strata although the distinction is not clear.321 Khirbet Kirmil Khirbet Kirmil, about 12 km south-southeast of Hebron, revealed a large IBA shaft tomb cemetery.322 No trace of an IBA settlement has been found and no clearly identifiable MB I sherds were found around the cemeteries or on the nearby hilltop.323 Most of them are found looted but fortunately Tomb A1A is preserved without any trace of the tomb robbers.324 A teapot, a typical spouted amphoriskos, occasionally occurred in the north-central region, a miniature cup, as well as other objects, indicate that the tomb A1A belongs to the IBA burial but “a large two-handled storejar with typical MB I flat base, greenish slip and band of combing and two smaller, fragmentary jars with a small, flat base”325 shows the tomb was also reused in the MB I. Summary The IBA sites in the Central Highlands are characterized mostly by cemeteries but the IBA rural settlements near Jerusalem (Ras al-‘Amud, Nahal Refaim, and Malcha) are significant with some settlement traces at Bethlehem, Nahal Tirzah and Shechem.326 The 321 Smith, Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kufin, Palestine, 13. 322 W. G. Dever, “A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet El-Kirmil,” EretzIsrael: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (1975): 18*-33*. 323 Dever, “A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet El-Kirmil,” 19*. 324 Ibid., 30*. 325 Ibid., 32*, fig. 6. 326 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 132. 104 Central Highland in the IBA period was inactively used for occupation but the region nearby Jerusalem was active with village population. As Gophna points outs the features of the IBA settlements of the hill region that “occupational-stratigraphic gaps between the Early Bronze urban system and the Intermediate Bronze village system are also characteristic of the hill country,” the ruined centers of the EB II-III exhibit minor traces of IBA occupation, but the IBA settlements were usually built on the new ground. It is significant that most of the cemeteries in the Central Highland were reused by the MB I population (‘Ain es-Samiyeh, Sinjil, Gibeon, Bethlehem, Efrat, Khirbet Kufin, and Khirbet Kirmil) and the IBA settlements continued into the following period (Ras al‘Amud, Malcha, Nahal Refaim, and Bethel). Shephelah Shephelah with the coastal regions were reported to be scanty settlements during the IBA period. The Ayalon Valley in the IBA period, however, has been attested to be significant in settlement activities in many recent surveys and excavations.327 Recently updated settlements in the IBA period in the Shephelah are Ramat Bet Shemesh with other 23 small settlement sites in the Ayalon Valley,328 and ‘En Yered near Tel Gezer.329 327 Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer, Sites 136, 160.2, 222, 237, 248; Milevski et al., “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East): An Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) Site in the Ayyalon Valley,” 129. 328 Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer, Sites 136, 160.2, 222, 237, 248. 329 A. Shavit, “Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages,” Tel Aviv 27, no. 2 (2000): 207–09. 105 Beit Dagan A large cemetery from the IBA period was recently exposed at Beit Dagan in the lower Ayalon and Yarkon river basins. The publication reports rich ceramic repertoire of the IBA period in the Ayalon and Yarkon river basins.330 The pottery repertoire is very unique, for instance, most middle-sized storage jars have handles connected over the neck and shoulder,331 and the amphoriskos is similar to the Megiddo group but the spout is narrower than the Megiddo type.332 The ceramic repertoire is quite different from any other groups in the IBA period. E. Yannai concludes that “the multitude of finds makes it possible to define the characteristics of this region’s unique material culture and propose a plausible model of the social structure in Israel’s central region.”333 Four cemeteries with hundreds of individual tombs dating to the IBA and the MB I tombs in the proximity of an IBA settlement on the north bank of the river were already observed in 1990s, though the finds not published fully.334 330 E. Yannai, “Burial in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Lower Ayalon and Yarkon River Basins,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies ‫( ל‬2011): 153*. 331 Yannai, “Burial in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Lower Ayalon and Yarkon River Basins,” 240, see fig. 9. 332 Ibid., 241, fig 10:4; Compare Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine,” 210, fig. 4:5. 333 Yannai, “Burial in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Lower Ayalon and Yarkon River Basins,” 153*. 334 J. Kaplan and H. Ritter-Kaplan, “Tel Aviv,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1451–57. 106 Er-Rujum Er-Rujum (Sha’alanim East) is placed some 15 km. east of the Mediterranean coast on the western slope in the Ayalon Valley.335 Er-Rujum (Sha’alanim East) recently exposes an IBA rural community with a subsistence strategy associated agriculture with some cattle herding and the activity of manufacturing workshop.336 The IBA architectural remains are discovered in Area F70, F70/1, F71, F82, F91/1, and the Level III (Phase IIIb) in Area F70 with “a series of quasi-rectangular rooms around a larger, T-shaped courtyard, subdivided into three parts.”337 Large quantities of IBA pottery vessels in situ are contained in the well-packed floors in the courtyards and rooms. Above the remains of the Level III building, a fill of stones and dark brown soil is revealed with MB I-II pottery and other finds.338 The pottery assemblages in the Er-Rujum IBA period belongs to the southern group and almost all the repertoires from the southern group are represented at this site.339 The radiocarbon dates indicate that Er-Rujum IBA period existed during the twenty-second century.340 As for the MB I-II pottery in the fill of stones after the abandonment of the building, the excavators suggest that it may be 335 Milevski et al., “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East): An Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) Site in the Ayyalon Valley,” 75. 336 Ibid., 129. 337 Milevski et al., “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East),” 80. 338 Ibid., 81. 339 Ibid., 88. 340 Ibid., 131. 107 explained as post-depositional activities connected to the MB settlement nearby Tel Sha’albim.341 ‘ En Yered In A. Shavit’s survey of settlement patterns in the Ayalon Valley, the site of ‘En Yered, near Gezer, shows a trace of inhabitants from Neolithic period. The noteworthy period of this site is the Intermediate Bronze Age. The large amount of IBA pottery repertoire gives evidence of indicating an actual IBA settlement when no indication of a settlement was found at Gezer.342 Even the fenestrated axe mold uncovered at ‘En Yered tells that “the local inhabitants were familiar with the metal industry techniques and were not limited to a pastoral or autarchic lifestyle.”343 Shavit suggests that Gezer was repopulated in the Middle Bronze Age “possibly by the inhabitants of ‘En Yered who decided to move to the higher ridge,”344 and ‘En Yered functioned as one of the satellite sites of Gezer. Newe Shalom and Its Neighbors An Intermediate Bronze Age farmhouse was revealed at Moshav Newe Shalom, north of Beth Shemesh, by salvage excavation.345 The IBA settlement at Newe Shalom 341 Milevski et al., “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East),” 131. 342 Shavit, “Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages,” 207–209. 343 Ibid., 209. 344 Ibid., 223. 345 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 8*. 108 continued into the MB period with less intensive occupation.346 The IBA building structure “consists of an entrance corridor (Room 112), a rectangular open courtyard (Room 113), and three rectangular side rooms (Room 106, Room 108, and Room 109).”347 The excavator explains that the lack of other structures and the limited material remains probably indicates that the building was isolated and functioned as a farmhouse, either serving as work and storage areas to the nearby larger agricultural settlements or a seasonal temporal usage.348 In the immediate area at Newe Shalom, other IBA settlement sites were uncovered at Moshav Tarum, Nahal Yarmut, the Esta‘ol Junction, and Ramat Bet Shemesh.349 The remains of the IBA multiroomed structure in a single stratum were exposed at Moshav Tarum with limited salvage excavation and the remains of an IBA large settlement with numerous IBA shaft tombs was also uncovered at Ramat Bet Shemesh, south of Newe Shalom.350 Multiple structures and a courtyard discovered at Nahal Yarmut are dated to the IBA period.351 Esta‘ol The Esta‘ol Junction is one of the neighbors of Newe Shalom in the Judean 106. 346 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 8*. 347 Ibid., 8*, figs. 2–3. 348 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 12*. 349 Ibid., 13*. 350 Ibid. 351 Y. Dagan, “Naḥal Yarmut,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 17 (1998): 105– 109 Shephelah.352 The settlement remains of two periods, the EB IB and the IBA, were revealed at the Esta‘ol Junction. Three distinct occupation strata (Strata IV-II) were dated to the IBA and Stratum II was exposed two building phases.353 A group of multiple structures built around large central courtyards was dated to the IBA period.354 Beth Shemesh At Beth Shemesh, there was little clearly attributed to the MB I in the first expedition led by Duncan Mackenzie355 but in the later seasons E. Grant and G. E. Wright distinguished a stratum (VI) which contained a mixture of sherds both from the IBA and the MB I found beneath the earliest architectural stratum over all the area excavated above the bedrock.356 Grant and Wright suggested that a quantity of sherds with no building remains are the same case “with the earliest occupation of such cities as 352 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 353 A. Golani and B. Storchan, “Eshta’ol – Preliminary Report,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI), last modified 2009, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=993&mag_id=115. 354 Ibid. 355 D. Mackenzie, Excavations at Ain Shems: (Beth-Shemesh), Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 2 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1913); S. Bunimovits and Z. Lederman, “Solving a Century-Old Puzzle: New Discoveries at the Middle Bronze Gate of Tel Beth-Shemesh,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145, no. 1 (March 2013): 6. 356 E. Grant and G. E. Wright, Ain Shems Excavations Part IV (Pottery), First Edition edition. (Haverford College, 1938), pl. XXIV:1-11; E. Grant and G. E. Wright, Ain Shems Excavations Part V (Text), Reprint edition. (Haverford, 1939), 27; Patty Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, American Schools of Oriental Research. Dissertation series: no. 5 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 33. 110 Gezer, Bethel, and Tell Beit Mirsim”357 and the sole evidence with pottery, flint, and a few stone objects, from the earliest stratum VI is sufficient to prove that the site of Beth Shemesh was found about 2200 BCE. Lachish A few IBA pottery sherds were found on the mound at the site of Lachish in the renewed excavations but D. Ussishkin suggests any actual occupied settlement was not in the IBA period with the agreement of Tufnell at the first expedition.358 However, Gophna and Blockman consider the possibility that “the Intermediate Bronze Age settlement and cemeteries at Lachish may also have been dispersed around the abandoned Early Bronze Age site and over its ruins” as at other deserted sites during this period.359 Mazar is also convinced that Area 1500 was clearly the main IBA settlement northwest of the mound.360 Gophna mentions that “Area 1500 revealed dwelling structures, dwelling caves, and garbage pits of the Intermediate Bronze Age. The houses were of the rectangular broadhouse type with fieldstone foundations.”361 Nearby Tell Lachish, a shaft 357 Grant and Wright, Ain Shems Excavations Part V (Text), 27. 358 D. Ussishkin, Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994) ([S.l.]: The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 2004), 54. 359 M. Gophna and N. Blockman, “The Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Pottery,” in Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), ed. D. Ussishkin ([S.l.]: The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 2004), 895. 360 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 115 n. 7. 361 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 133. 111 Tomb cemetery was found called the 2000 Cemetery.362 In particular, a few copper ingots found in Area 1500 needs to be worthy. Ussishkin notes that it can be best compared to copper ingots from Mt. Yeruham, Jericho and the Hebron Hills at the same period, indicating trade between copper mines and copper workshop of tools, weapons or jewellery.363 Tell Beit Mirsim Tell Beit Mirsim is located in the southern Shephelah at a point where Shephelah, Highland Hill country, and Negev region of the south nearly converge. Tell Beit Mirsim is the site demonstrating the continuity in the transition period between the IBA to the MB I. Albright assigned the earliest Stratum J to the end of the EB III and the early part of the IBA (EB IV), Strata I-H to the Middle Bronze I (2100-1900 BCE), and Strata G and F to the MB II .364 Dever later demonstrated Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum J contains materials from the EB III, the IBA (EB IV) period, and even the MB I.365 Tell Beit Mirsim in the IBA period lacks domestic architecture like other neighbor sites, Jebel Qa‘aqir and Lachish.366 Dever found a cemetery located off the mound of Tell Beit Mirsim dated to the IBA period with the typical southern group of ceramic assemblage. 362 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 133. 363 Ussishkin, Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), 54. 364 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II,” 12–25. 365 Dever, “An EB IV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim,” 29*. 366 Ibid. 112 367 The MB I settlement characterized by modest domestic structures contains a single- or two-story patrician house along the southeastern perimeter.368 Although the ceramic from Strata G and F could not be divided typologically, the appearance of storage jars with netpatterned decoration and an elongated rim,369 which is the hallmark of the early phases of MB I, as well as the abundance of red-slipped and burnished wares of the MBA period,370 indicate the continued occupation from the IBA period through the MB I period at Tell Beit Mirsim. Jebel Qa‘aqir Jebel Qa‘aqir is located 12 km west of Hebron at the junction of the Shephelah and the Central Hill country.371 Jebel Qa‘aqir in IBA appears to have been a site of ubiquitous shaft-tomb cemeteries “but also relatively rare evidence for contemporary domestic occupation.”372 On the ridge of the shaft tomb cemeteries, six cairns were found with building remains under one of cairns.373 Surrounding the cairns, a stone wall of a 367 Dever, “An EB IV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim.” 368 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II,” 20–22. 369 P. Beck, “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First Summary,” Tel Aviv 12, no. 2 (1985): 194. 370 W. F. Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign,” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13 (1931): pls. 4: 7, 9, 11-12, 5:5. 371 Dever, “Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir,” 22*. 372 Ibid., 30*. 373 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 133. 113 large animal pen as well as a pottery kiln was discovered.374 Cave G 26 at Jebel Qa‘aqir and its domestic assemblage indicate exclusive cave dwellings in the southern Hills like nearby Lachish and Tell Beit Mirsim.375 Dever assigned the Cave G 26 to the early to mid 21st century, which is contemporary with the bulk of the southern sites.376 Tel Sera‘ Tel Sera‘ located on the north bank of Nahal Gerar midway between Gaza and Beer-Sheba in the western Negev desert was discovered to have thirteen settlement strata from the Chalcolithic to the Mumluk periods.377 The Canaanite city (MB III) was established on the large field stones and wadi pebbles, which was packed sand and ash from the Chalcolithic-IBA period.378 Summary The IBA settlements in Shephelah appear to have been small rural villages in the Ayalon Valley (Er-Rujum, and ‘En Yered) along with cemeteries, and poor residential activities illustrated by IBA sherds and lack of domestic structures at the major sites (Beth Shemesh, Lachish, and Tell Beit Mirsim). The continuation between the IBA and the MB I period is attested in the rural IBA occupation at Er-Rujum and in the large 374 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 133. 375 Dever, “Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir,” 30*. 376 Ibid. 377 E. D. Oren, “Ziglag: A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev,” The Biblical Archaeologist 45, no. 3 (1982): 163. 378 Ibid., 164–65; E. D. Oren, “Sera῾, Tel,” Oxford Biblical Studies Online, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com.aaron.swbts.edu/article/opr/t256/e957. 114 cemetery at Beit Dagan, and IBA pottery was also mixed with MB I pottery at Beth Shemesh. Negev The huge settlements in Negev are significant during the Intermediate Bronze Age as they are related to the Faynan copper mines. Haiman defined seven large settlements consisting of 100 to 200 structures in the Negev as permanent settlements and divided them into three groups.379 This analysis below uses Haiman’s division in discussion with the excavation reports of each site. Haiman mentions that the largest settlements are “characterized by round rooms whose walls were built of large, flat stones laid on their narrow sides” and one to three pillars in the center of the room for supporting the ceiling were found with the lack of courtyards and animal pens.380 ‘Ein Ziq, Be‘er Resisim, Mashabbe Sade, and Be‘er Hayil are in this largest settlement group. ‘En Ziq is the largest IBA site in Negev with more than 200 round structures.381 Mashabbe Sade has 200 structures consisting one room.382 379 M. Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts: View from Small Marginal Temporary Sites,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 303 (1996): 3. 380 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts: View from Small Marginal Temporary Sites,” 3. 381 R. Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, Monographs in World Archaeology (Madison: Prehistory Pr, 1992), 109–10. 382 Ibid., 110–11. 115 Be‘er Resisim contains 100 round structures in size of 2.5 acres.383 Lastly Be‘er Hayil has dozens of round structures.384 The second group is characterized by square structures, which are also with the stone wall and pillar in the rooms but “most of the structures contain rooms attached to small courtyards.”385 Har Yerham and Har Zayyad are in this group. The lower stratum (II) at Har Yerham is a permanent settlement about 2.5 acres and the upper stratum (I) is a temporary occupation with large animal pens and a few rooms.386 Har Zayyad contains dozens of structures placed along a narrow ridge measuring 200 m.387 The last group of permanent settlement in the Negev by Haiman, is characterized by “large structures with rooms and large courtyards resembling the EB II enclosed 383 R. Cohen and W. G. Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project,’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 232 (1978): 29–45; R. Cohen and W. G. Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project,’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 236 (1979): 41–60; R. Cohen, W. G. Dever, and J. R. Caldwell, “Preliminary Report of the Third and Final Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project,’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 243 (1981): 57–77. 384 Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” 117. 385 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 3. 386 M. Kochavi, “The Excavations at Tel Yeruḥam,” Eretz-Israel 27 (1963): 284– 292; Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” 112–13. 387 Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” 113–16. 116 structures.”388 One is in Negev and another one is in Sinai. Nahal Nizzana in the Negev is a large, enclosed block in size of 2.5 acres with nine sections consisting 90 rooms measuring 3-4 m in diameter and 80 courtyards up to 20 m in diameter.389 Wadi Fauqiya in the western Sinai dated to the Predynastic period but “its features are similar to those of Nahal Nizzana” with round platforms in its northwestern corner.390 Cohen also assumed that the site can be dated to IBA.391 Haiman defines the inhabitants of the permanent settlements in the Negev as “a rural element that specialized in metallurgy…the main activity in the Negev was commercial transport of ingots and other hammered-down copper implements.”392 The significance is that the permanent settlements are mostly connected to watercourses, ‘En Ziq on the Nahal Zin, Har Dimon and Har Zayyad on the Nahal Hemar, Mashabbe Sade near Nahal Heman, Be‘er Resisim 388 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 3. 389 Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” 116; Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 4. 390 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 4, fig. 4:2. 391 R. Cohen, “The Mysterious MB I People,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9, no. 4 (1983): 20–21. 392 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 21. 117 and Nissana on the Nahal Nissana, and Be’er H̱ayil on the Nahal Be’er H̱ayil.393 These watercourse could be used for the transportation of copper ingots and copper goods to merchants. R. Adams presumes that Har Zayyad and Har Yeruham northwest of Faynan are located close to the permanent water sources and on a natural path leading westward to the central and northern Palestine, and the Judean Hills, and En Ziq and Beer Resisim south of Eeynan were passing along Nahal Zin as a southern route westward to Egypt.394 Mashabbe Sade is somehow further westward than Har Yeruham also leading to the westward. 395 The metallurgy in the Negev will be discussed in Chapter 5. Besides the permanent occupations in the Negev, about 100 temporary sites in the period of IBA have been published in the Negev and Sinai.396 These temporary settlements include a few one room dwelling structures without connection to a water source, and numerous animal pens were found in these temporary sites.397 IBA pottery was found at about 100 sites in the survey, “of which 70 well-preserved sites contained 393 Y. Yekutieli, S. Shilstein, and S. Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 340 (2005): 1– 21 see Fig. 1 Regional map and sites; Cohen and Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project’” see Fig. 1 Nelson Glueck’s sketch-map of Central Negev Highlands. For other sites, see the map by Mapcarta, https://mapcarta.com/12936756. 394 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 397–98. 395 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 397–98. 396 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 5. 397 Ibid. 118 pottery only from that period.”398 In contrast with the permanent settlements with dwelling rooms, courtyards, and areas of storage and workshop, Haiman suggests that one-room structures reflect temporary sites for those who left the permanent settlements for engaging in seasonal herding or for accommodations of copper traders who stayed for short periods without family members.399 Haiman also claims that the fact that regular ceramic repertoire from the IBA is homogenous (the southern group) and is distributed from Jordan to the Negev and the Sinai, provides evidence of a single culture framework without any continuity from the EB III.400 Related to the High chronology between the Negev and the sites south of Jordan, however, these Negev sites within the IBA period seemed to be varied in the time of occupation. For instance, Be‘er Resisim and ‘Ein Ziq seemed to have begun relatively earlier than other Negev sites. As already discussed, Calibrated C14 dates of samples from Be‘er Resisim ranged between 2850-2350 BCE and those from ‘Ein Ziq between ca. 2600-2000 BCE.401 In the petrographic analysis by Y. Goren, Be‘er Resisim and ‘Ein Ziq also appear with the holemouth jars of the Negebite Early Bronze II-III tradition and red painted pottery, which are unique within the suggested sequence.402 This sequence is 398 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 5. 546. 399 Ibid., 21–22. 400 Ibid., 14–15. 401 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 119 not the chronological sequence but the petrographic samples from Be‘er Resisim and ‘Ein Ziq indicate their earlier occupation. Adams observes that a lot of the ceramic assemblage from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan shows a remarkable resemblance with the assemblage from ‘Ein Ziq, such as a red-slipped flat bottomed juglet from Phase 5a (EB III stratum) at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan is fairly common form from ‘Ein Ziq and southern style of holemouth bowls from Phase 6 (IBA stratum) are also to be found at ‘Ein Ziq.403 These earlier settlements could be related to the metal industry discovered at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in Faynan region during the EB III to IBA, even though the chronological issue waits to be solved. As the copper industry and copper trade was developed, other Negev sites might be gradually established with workers making copper ingots into tools or traders for copper markets. Summary Seven huge permanent settlements consisting of 100 to 200 structures and over 100 temporary sites in the Negev are very unique settlement activities in the IBA period. These settlements seemed not to be occupied simultaneously but some settlements could be occupied earlier, and some sites could be later established within the IBA period based on the homogenous ceramic assemblage discovered in the Negev, which provides a 402 Goren suggested the sequence of each assemblage like this, molemouth jars of the Negbite Early Bronze II-III tradition-Red Painted pottery-Transjordanian importJudean import, and lastly local production at the central Negev. See Fig. 16 Y. Goren, “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303 (1996): 67. 403 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 393. 120 single culture framework without any relation to either earlier or later periods. Coastal Region Shelomit Settlement remains attributed to the IBA were exposed in caves at Shelomit, located north of Nahal Betzet at the northern end of chalk hills, between the edge of the ‘Akko Valley and the lower reaches of the western Galilee with a salvage excavation.404 Though most of the evidence of settlement was swept away, the excavator suggests that “the accumulation of pottery fragments, flint industrial debris and hundreds of patella shells that were found in the two caves, indicate a habitation site.”405 The ceramic finds is characteristic of the IBA assemblage in the northern group and in western Galilee, in particular.406 A series of settlements and burials during the IBA is revealed along the slopes of the ‘Akko Valley so the excavator concludes that the habitation remains at Shelomit should be viewed as part of this pattern.407 The other IBA Settlements along Nahal Betzet in ‘Akko Valley A series of settlements and cemeteries from the IBA are discovered along the slope of ‘Akko Valley and alongside with Nahal Betzet: settlements at Rosh Ha-Niqra, 404 N. Getzov, “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit,” ’Atiqot (2005): 133. 405 Ibid. 406 Getzov, “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit,” 133, fig. 4. 407 Ibid., 133. 121 Shelomi, and Khibet Umm-Tuma, cemeteries at Rosh Ha-Niqra and Hanita.408 H. Manot An Intermediate Bronze Age burial cave was revealed with a salvage excavation at Lower Ḥorbat Manot near Nahal Kziv lying “at the foothills on the eastern fringe of the northern ‘Akko Plain” in 1995.409 No other signs of contemporary habitation was near the site.410 The plan of the cave is complex with interments with rectangular burial chambers and a large number of burials, which are characteristic of the western Galilee.411 A typical IBA teapot fragment, a whole vessel of globular jug, amphoriskos, and jars are dated to the IBA period.412 The excavators at H. Manot observe that the burial and settlement sites are distributed along the fringes of the ‘Akko plain as sedentary rural culture and conclude that the burial cave at Lower H. Manot accords well with these settlement and burial pattern.413 Ard el-Samra A multi-period site, Ard el-Samra, is revealed by the salvage excavation, located 408 Ibid.; N. Getzov, “‫שרידי יישוב מתקופת הברונזה הביניימית בשלומית‬,” ’Atiqot 49 (2005): 1. 409 N. Getzov, E. J. Stern, and D. Parks, “A Burial Cave at Lower Ḥorbat Manot: Additional Evidence for the Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV–MB I) Settlement Pattern in the ’Akko Plain and Western Galilee,” ’Atiqot (2001): 133. 410 Ibid. 411 Ibid., 136. 412 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “A Burial Cave at Lower Ḥorbat Manot,” 134-137. 413 Ibid., 137. 122 north of Nahal Na‘aman on the eastern edges of the Akko Plain at the border of the Upper Galilee mountains.414 The architectural remains in Strata I and II in Area Z were dated to the Intermediate Bronze Age, Stratum III contains both the remains in the IBA and the EB, and the last Stratum IV belongs to the Chalcolithic period.415 The excavators suggest that the economy of IBA Ard el-Samra appears to have been self-sufficient with the direct evidence of livestock management and faunal remains consisting of the cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, were a typical Bronze Age pattern as a whole and which continued into later periods.416 A high frequency of cattle represented by old specimens as well as the skeletal frequency of caprine also emphasize intensive agriculture and implying rural settlement, which consistently tempers the pastoral model of subsistence.417 Jars are the largest component in the IBA pottery repertoire of Ard el-Samra (63.4%) followed by cooking-pots (23.8%) and bowls (9.2%) as well as a variety of holemouths, amphoriskoi, pithoi, and a spouted holemouth.418 A low percentage of bowls, amphoriskoi, and jugs, are notable, and the absence of cups and teapots in agreement with typical patterns in the Lower and Western Galilee in the IBA appears to be striking.419 414 A. Nativ et al., “Ard El-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain,” Salvage Excavations Series, no. 10 (2017): 1. 415 Ibid. 416 Ibid., 52. 417 A. Nativ et al., “Ard El-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain,” 53-54. 418 Ibid., 18. 419 Ibid., 54. 123 Tel Bira Tel Bira is situated north of Nahal Na’aman and east of Akko, at a position on the inner road along the Coastal Plain. The settlement on the east and north of the tell was enclosed by MBA rampart, and the presence of IBA remains appears in tombs in the bedrock, which were re-used in the MB I period.420 An interesting finds is an IBA teapot along with MB I ceramics on the floor of a courtyard house, which is not from the context of burial, so this evidence provides some degree of contemporaneity between the IBA and MB I periods.421 Another salvage excavation in 2007 confirms the evidences of the IBA period. The earliest Stratum V in Area A, “characterized by high rock faces containing cavities, pits, and natural fissures,”422 comprises two cavities used for burial and appears with Intermediate Bronze Age jars and jugs containing bone fragments.423 The next Stratum IV is exposed over a bed of crushed limestone with natural cavities also used for tombs with MB I potsherds.424 Area B appears with three phases: Stratum III over virgin soil containing a mixture of potsherds of MB I-II, Stratum II also with MB I- 420 M. Prausnitz, “Bira,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 262–63. 421 A. Kempinski, “The Beginning of the Renewed Urbanization in the Northern Akko Valley During the Middle Bronze IIA Period,” Michmanim 5 (1991): 8. 422 Nurit Feig, “Finds from the Bronze and Iron Ages West of Tel Bira,” ’Atiqot / 89 ‫( עתיקות‬2017): 117*. 423 Ibid., 117 and see Hebrew 46* fig. 10 and 47* fig.11 (Intermediate Bronze Age flint tools. 424 Ibid., 117*. 124 II, and Stratum I with LB I pottery.425 Feig suggests that the main bulk of the MB finds indicate that Tel Bira is within a series of permanent settlement of the Akko Valley in the 2nd millennium BCE.426 The first occupation at Tel Bira is in the IBA period on the virgin soil and this occupation is continued and enlarged into the MB I fortified settlement. Tel Zivda Tel Zivda is a hill in the middle of the Zevulun Valley by the Mediterranean Sea and reveals one of the largest IBA sites in the southern Levant, which is also the first found in the Valley itself. 427 The IBA architectural remains at Tel Zivda were exposed beneath the Hellenistic period, paralleled to the architecture at “Horbat Qishron, ‘Ein Helu, in the Jerusalem area, and at Har Yeruham.”428 In particular, Area D appears in an excellent state of preservation in three IBA strata with the evidence of walls and rooms.429 The ceramic assemblages included “bowls, kraters, spherical cooking pots, jars and pithoi decorated with a rope-like collared rim. A clay goblet decorated with a redpainted zigzag pattern was also found. Several of the sherds were treated with red slip.” 430 Perforated biconical clay objects and sherds were found together with the other 425 Nurit Feig, “Finds from the Bronze and Iron Ages West of Tel Bira,” 117* figs 426 Ibid., 117*. 427 Yannai, “Tel Zivda.” 428 Yannai, “Tel Zivda.” 429 Ibid. see figs. 3-8. 430 Ibid. 8-9. 125 pottery vessels.431 Tel Burga Tel Burga is located about 6 km from the Mediterranean and on the southern side bounded by Nahal Taninim, which is reaching into the Mediterranean. Tel Burga is famous for its enclosed fortification of MB I on the large plateau.432 Tombs from Tel Burga yields early phases of MB I and the pottery assemblage from the tombs is mostly paralleled with phases 2 and 3 of Tel Aphek MB I but none related with Phase 1 of Tel Aphek sequence.433 It is worthy to pay attention to the materials of the previous period. While all the pottery published from excavations in the enclosure has been attributed to MB I, “large amounts of ceramic material from the Intermediate Bronze Age were discovered following deep plowing in the eastern portion of the site, attesting to a settlement from this period within the confines of the enclosure.”434 Intermediate Bronze Age sherds were already noted by the salvage excavation in Area C, “found both in the earthern lays of the ramparts and in the settlement that was destroyed by its 431 Yannai, “Tel Zivda.” 432 M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and R. Gophna, “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain,” ZDPV 95 (1979): 142–43; A. Golani and D. Ben-Tor, “A Built Tomb from Middle Bronze Age IIA and Other Finds at Tel Burga in the Sharon Plain,” ’Atiqot 68 (2011): 69. 433 Golani and Ben-Tor, “A Built Tomb from Middle Bronze Age IIA and Other Finds at Tel Burga in the Sharon Plain,” 93. 434 Golani and Ben-Tor, “A Built Tomb from Middle Bronze Age IIA and Other Finds at Tel Burga in the Sharon Plain,” 93. 126 construction.”435 Kibbutz Barqai At Kibbutz Barqai on the south of Nahal ‘Iron in the Sharon Palin, a Middle Bronze Age tomb was excavated. 436 The shaft tomb at Barqai hewn in the IBA was reused for burial twice in the later period, MB I and II.437 The first burial belonging to the IBA yielded pottery classified in Family C by Amiran, the so-called Megiddo group, and the types of daggers and pins are common from the IBA while javelins are known from the southern region such as Lachish, Jericho, and Dhahr Mirzbaneh.438 The remains from the second burial-phase include MB I materials, pottery and weapons paralleled with Megiddo strata XIV-XIII, the painted juglets similar at Gezer, the socket javelin-heads are also known at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Gibeon, and some sites in the Sharon Plain.439 ‘En Esur ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) lying 300 m southeast of Barqai junction in the Sharon Plain reveals the evidence of multi-period settlements, from Neolithic, Chacolithic, Early Bronze 1A, Early Bronze 1B, Intermediate Bronze Age, and late Roman and 435 Kochavi, Beck, and Gophna, “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga,” 143, see note #41. 436 R. Gophna and V. Sussman, “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai,” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 5 (1969): 1*. 437 Ibid. 438 Ibid. 439 R. Gophna and V. Sussman, “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai,” 1*. 127 Byzantine.440 In particular, Area J reveals Early Bronze IB (Strata V-III) and Intermediate Bronze Age (Stratum II).441 The settlement remains at ‘En Esur in the IBA period is characterized by “a rounded wall and a tamped-earth floor covered with potsherds” with IBA pottery sherds in several of the excavation areas.442 Khirbet Ibreiktas Khirbet Ibreiktas in the Sharon Plain revealed seventeen hewn shaft tombs by salvage excavation and the cemetery reflects some uniformity in their dimensions, shape, and orientation.443 With the abundance of IBA remains and a number of finds of MB I, the excavator concluded either that the burials were reused during the MB I, or that the timespan between two phases was quite short.444 It is interesting that according to the inventory, the four tombs yielded the MB I artifacts (Tombs 5, 8, 9, 19) do not contain any IBA remains.445 E. S. Marcus suggests two alternative explanations: “the cemetery 440 E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, IAA Reports 31 (Jerusalem, 2006); E. Yadin, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) II: Excavations at the Cemeteries (Jerusalem, 2006); I. Elad and Y. Paz, “‘En Esur (Asawir),” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI), last modified 2018, http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25453#bibliography. 441 E. Yannai, “Remains of the Wadi Rabah Culture, Early Bronze Age IB and the Intermediate Bronze Age at ’En Esur ('Ein Assawir), Area J,” ’Atiqot 85 (2016): 104– 105. 442 Ibid., 105, W10; Plan 3; Figs. 21, 22. 443 G. Edelstein, “Excavations at the Cemetery of Khirbet Ibreiktas,” Ezor Menashe 5 (1971): 11–20. 444 Ibid., 17. 445 Ibid., 18, see the inventory table. 128 was discovered by the inhabitants of an unknown MB I settlement, who practiced similar burial customs, or the IBA population continued to use this cemetery and augmented or replaced its customary burial offerings with newer MB I material.”446 Ma‘abarot IBA cemetery was excavated at Kibbutz Ma‘abarot in the Sharon Plain in 1960s.447 In particular, a fenestrated battle-axe was found within the chamber near the entrance in a shaft tomb (T. 4) with nine pottery vessels.448 The amphoriskoi, amphoriskoi with elongated necks, jugs, and teapots, are very similar to those of the northern group (Megiddo group) and Jordan.449 Tel ‘Ashir The small site Tel ‘Ashir located c. 500 m. from the coast on a hill to the south of the Poleg Stream unexpectedly discovered the Intermediate Bronze Age and MB I remains.450 Stratum I of the two strata is dated to the IBA as the main phase of occupation 446 Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIa Period,” 149. 447 R. Gophna, “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Ma’abarot,” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 2, no. 6 (1969): 50–51.R. Gophna, “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb with Fenestrated Axe at Ma’abarot,” Israel Exploration Journal 19, no. 3 (1969): 174. 448 Gophna, “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb with Fenestrated Axe at Ma’abarot,” 174, figs 1, 2. 449 Gophna, “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb with Fenestrated Axe at Ma’abarot,” 174, fig. 3. 450 R. Gophna and E. Ayalon, “Tel ʿAshir: An Open Cult Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age on the Bank of the Poleg Stream,” Israel Exploration Journal 54, no. 2 (2004): 154–55. 129 and Stratum II to the MB I.451 Ceramic finds at Stratum I, such as an amphoriskos, a holemouth cooking pot, and a possible four nozzle lamps, as well as copper daggers and pin, are paralleled to the IBA finds at Lachish, Tell el-‘Ajjul, and the sites in Central Hills and Negev Highlands.452 A cooking krater with a gutter rim and a pot with upright walls at Stratum II are typical MB I ceramic repertoire.453 The excavators conclude that Tel ‘ Ashir was used for an open cultic place in the IBA period evidenced with the distribution of the rounded limestones brought from a distance as well as “the thick layers of ash, and the association of copper tools, flint and sherds.”454 However, animal bones are hardly at the IBA phase.455 The excavators are interested in that no similar examples have been found among all the IBA sites in Israel.456 In the MB I period, a small settlement existed in the early phase of the period and the excavators suggest that Tel ‘Ashir in the MB I was “a part of a system of fortified sites established along the southern bank of the Poleg Stream” along with at Tel Poleg and ‘Ain Zurekiyeh.457 451 Gophna and Ayalon, “Tel ʿAshir: An Open Cult Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age on the Bank of the Poleg Stream,” 157-58. 452 Ibid., 166–69. 453 Ibid., 166. 454 Ibid., 170. 455 Ibid. 456 Ibid. 457 Ibid., 171. 130 Tel Gerisa Tel Gerisa is located ca. 4 km upriver from the Mediterranean near the confluence of the Ayalon river and Yarkon river, serving as a fording point for movement and as a riverine port.458 Tel Gerisa was occupied in the EB II-III and, after a phase of Intermediate Bronze Age sherds, was resettled during the MB I.459 The earlier one among three fortification phases was fortified with a 1.7 m brick wall and protected by a glacis and the second phase is complex with two types of wide walls, which are associated with two habitation levels.460 Ashkelon (Third Mile Estate) Ashkelon is placed directly on the coast in the southern Levant between Ashdod and Tell el-cAjjul (Gaza). It was settled from the Chalcolithic period to the IslamicCrusader times.461 Ashkelon has been considered to have a chronological break during the IBA period. L. E. Stager and R. J. Voss explained the occupation gap at Ashkelon caused the ceasing of maritime trade when ships did not sail north to Byblos according to the Egyptian “Admonitions of Ipuwer” and all of that changes in MB I when the sea 458 Z. Herzog, “Gerisa,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 480. 459 Ibid., 482. 460 Ibid., 481. 461 L. E. Stager and Ross J. Voss, “Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon,” Eretz Israel Amnon Ben-Tor Volume (2011): 119. 131 routes were open, and the economy of Ashkelon was increasing due to trade.462 However, a salvage excavation was conducted in 1991at ‘Third Mile Estate’ in Ashkelon, east of the Barne‘a neighborhood, running the Mediterranean shoreline, and the site appears to be first occupied in the Intermediate Bronze Age and reveals the MB II cemeteries.463 Its location is shielded from the wind near the Migdal Valley to the east characterized by its fertile soil and abundant water source with wells in the valley.464 The IBA architectural remains were uncovered in Area F and IBA pottery was unearthed below the buildings in the Byzantine period.465 Area F at Third Mile Estate reveals a group of four round or oval rooms and the wall made of mud bricks, and the mudbricks had been made by hand as evidenced by their irregular shapes.466 The excavators points out that the plan of the four rooms excavated at Third Mile Estate is “similar to that of stone-built structures comprising round or oval-shaped rooms dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Central Negev Highlands,”467 such as partially-sunken structures with average diameter 462 Stager and Voss, “Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon,”119. 463 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” 143. 464 Ibid. 465 Ibid., 143. As for the pottery assemblages, see pp. 146-151. 466 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,”144. 467 Ibid. 132 3m at cEn Ziq and Be’er Resisim.468 The pottery assemblages are also very similar to contemporaneous repertoires from other sites in the southern Judean Shephelah and the southern coastal region.469 Tel Ashkelon was reoccupied during the MB II period. On the North slope a sequence of four earthen freestanding ramparts appears, which are all built in MB I and continued into the end of the MB III.470 Gate 2 among the four city gates was “the earliest arched city gate yet discovered in Canaan, dating shortly after 1800 BCE.471 The cemetery and grave goods at Third Mile Estate in MB II-III are similar to those of Tel Ashkelon. Thus, the IBA settlers seemed to move to Tel Ashkelon during the following period and Third Mile Estate was later used for a burial site in the MB II period. Tel el-‘Ajjul Tel el-‘Ajjul is located in the far south of the southern Levant on the northern bank of Nahal Besor and can be considered one of the richest archaeological sites during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. While the “Courtyard Cemetery” from the tell itself 468 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, vol. 1, IAA Reports 6 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999), 137–164; Cohen, Dever, and Caldwell, “Preliminary Report of the Third and Final Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project,’” 58–61. 469 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” 146. See the fig. 3 the parallel table. 470 L. Levy et al., eds., Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985-2006), Harvard Semitic Museum publications v. 1 (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 215– 237. 471 Stager and Voss, “Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon,” 120*. 133 was dated to the MB IIA by J. R. Stewart,472 the earliest remains excavated at the west and east of the tell was dated to the IBA cemeteries by Kenyon.473 Kennedy recently suggests that the stone-built cist-graves of Area 1500 at Tell el-‘Ajjul “can tentatively be dated to the late EB IV, possibly sometime between c. 2300-2000 BCE.”474 The stonebuilt cist-graves were “originated further north on the Euphrates, as well as in western inland Syria” and were not frequent in the southern Levant.475 A few stone-built graves appear in the Jordan Valley and the Jordanian plateau during the EBA, and even the presence of a stone-built cist-grave at Tell el-Ajjul, where is on the southern coast far from the Jordan Valley, is very unusual during the IBA period.476 Kennedy suggests that “an overland route was not the only possible means of dissemination,” though the likelihood of seaborne transmission seems uncertain in the late 3rd millennium BCE.477 As for the presence of the stone-built cist-graves in the southern Levant, she explains that 472 J. R. Stewart and H. E. Kassis, Tell ElʻAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 38 (Göteborg: P. Åström [S.vägen 61], 1974), 10– 11. 473 K. M. Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Age at Tell El-’Ajjul,” in Tell ElʻAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, ed. J. R. Stewart and H. E. Kassis, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 38 (Göteborg: P. Åström [S.vägen 61], 1974), 76–85. 474 M. A. Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147, no. 2 (June 2015): 126. 475 Ibid., 121–23. 476 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 121-23. 477 Ibid., 123. 134 it possibly indicates a modest influx of people from central and southern Syria.478 The MB I fortification represented by the rampart and the big fosse obviously dates from the MB I.479 Small Sites and Cemeteries Except the sites discussed above, some sites only with a handful of IBA sherds have been discovered at Rosh ha-Niqra, Tel Megadim in the Akko plain, Tel Hefer, Nahal Alexander site, at Tel Poleg near Tel Ashir, at Tel Aphek on the Yarkon river, near Palmahim on the Sorek river, in Nahal Shiqma, and in Nahal Besor.480 Some cemeteries “concentrated for the most part long the kurkar ridges and to a lesser extent in the limestone hills on the eastern fringe of the coastal plain,” were Eliashib, Ramat Aviv, Horashim, Azor, Yavne, Gedera, and Nahala.481 Summary In the Coastal region from the Akko Valley through Sharon Plain to Coastal Plain, the features of IBA period are characterized by scanty trace of occupations near the water sources and near the Mediterranean coast with the single period cemeteries (H. Manot, Ma‘abarot) and the IBA shaft tombs reused in the MB period (Tel Bira, Barqai, Khirbet 478 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 126. 479 P. M. Fischer and M. Sadeq, “Tell El-’Ajjul 1999: A Joint Palestine-Swedish Field Project: First Season Preliminary Report,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 10 (2000): 211. 480 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 134. 481 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 134. 135 Ibreiktas, Tel el-‘Ajjul). Some exceptional large settlements during the IBA period are uncovered by salvage excavations, at Ard el-Samra and Tel Zivda in Akko Plain. An open cultic place at Tel Ashir is interesting, of which there are no similar examples found among all the IBA sites. It is significant that the plan of the four rooms found at Three Miles Estate near Tel Ashkelon is similar to those at Negev IBA sites. It may imply that the copper industry could extend to the Mediterranean coast from Feynan mines through Negev to the destination of Ashkelon for the maritime trade. The stone-built cist-graves at Tell el-Ajjul originated in the north of the Euphrates and inland Syria are worthy to note. As M. A, Kennedy suggested,482 this Syrian style of the grave also implies the possibility of maritime trade along the Mediterranean coast. 482 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 123. 136 Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ ato Shelomit Tel Dan Tel Na‘ama M. Manot n Hazor n Tel Bira Ard el-Samra Tel Zivda Horbat Qishron Ki Beth Yerah Yoqne‘am sh uk on el Hilu ‘Ein Sha‘ar Ha-Golan rm Tel ‘Afula Gesher Ya Tel Jezreel Taninim Megiddo Murhan Tel Yosef Nahal Rimmonim Hade Tel Burga Beth Shean ra Tell el-Hayyat ‘En Esur Alexa nder Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj a ma Pole Tel Ashir g Jordan River Na ‘ Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Shechem Tel Ya rkGerisa on Khirbet Zeraqun Jabbok Tell umm Hammad Kh. al-Batrawy a Ay Sinjil ‘Ain es-Samiyah So Er-Rujum Bethel Jericho re ‘En k Yered Tall al- Umayri Esta‘ol Gibeon Tall al-Hamman Newe Shalom Ras al-‘Amud Iktanu Beth Shemesh Bethlehem La Nahal Refaim Malcha c Ashkelonhi sh Sh Khirbet Kufin iqm Lachish a Jebel Qa‘aqir Khirbet Iskander Tell Beit Mirsim Tell Sera‘ Tel el-‘Ajjul Khirbet Kirmil lon Be s or Bab adh-Dhra‘ Ader Feqeiqes Har Dimon Zer Har Zayyad ed Mt. Yeruham Nissana ‘En Ziq Be‘er Risisim Khirbet Hamra Ifdan Mashabbe Sade Fig. 4 The IBA Settlement in the Southern Levants mentioned in this study 137 Transition Between IBA and MB I Many IBA settlements and cemeteries were developed and continued into the MB I period, in particular, reused IBA cemeteries in the MB I, though other settlements and cemeteries were not. Already continuation between IBA and MB I has been discussed by scholars.483 Some sites occupied in the early stages of the MB I also need to be discussed to understand the nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Hagosherim Hagosherim in the north of the Huleh Valley is a multi-period mortuary site from the Neolithic through Roman periods. In particular, MB tombs (Tombs A and BII) are dated to a very early stage of the MB I with their rich ceramic assemblage and some of the ceramic repertoires (such as handle-less storage jars and a bottle) appear to indicate the continuation of IBA forms into the MB I.484 Gezer Gezer is located in the Shephelah, was abandoned at the end of the EB IIIA and no real EB III finds are apparent.485 Gezer during the MB I was an unfortified settlement on EBA remains and the site was fortified during the MB II-III, the zenith of its power 483 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities”; Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). 484 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 41. 485 W. G. Dever, “Gezer,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 498. 138 (1800-1500 BCE).486 After a long period of abandonment, the population resettled during the MB I with domestic structures, such as houses and courtyards with fine plaster floors and cist tombs and several intramural infant jar burials.487 Wright observed two caliciform cups at Gezer, which are within Macalister’s First Semitic period, are like the IBA type and also fit in the IBA period.488 Kabri Kabri is a huge site located five kilometers east of Nahariya by the Mediterranean coast and in the western Galilee.489 It was reoccupied during the MB I, following an extensive EBA sequence with the abandonment of IBA period. Some equivocal sherds from previous sondages cannot give any conclusive evidence of an IBA occupation.490 At its peak, during the MB II, the site was the main center over the western Galilee and the 486 Dever, “Gezer,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 500. 487 Ibid., 498; W. G. Dever, H. D. Lance, and R. G. Bullard, Gezer IV: The 196971 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis” (Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1986). 488 R. A. S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 And 1907-1909 Vol III (London: John Murray, 1912), pl. 146: 8 and 20; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 32. 489 A. Yasur-Landau, E. H. Cline, and N. Goshen, “Initial Results of the Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Tel Kabri Middle Bronze Age Palace,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant (2014): 355. 490 A. Kempinski, “History of the Site and the Region,” in Excavations at Kabri, Vol. 1. Preliminary Report of 1986 Season, ed. A. Kempinski (Tel Aviv: Tel Kabri Expedition: Tel Aviv University, 1987), 15–16. 139 Akko plain.491 Occupation at Kabri is attested already with the Tombs 990, 1045, and 1050 in the early MB I, which is slightly after the beginning of the MB I in other sites.492 The earliest remains at Loci 2068 and 2070 are pre-palace domestic structures represented by floors and walls or installations.493 The pottery assemblage from the prepalace is paralleled to Aphek Phase 2, though no occurrence of some predominant MB I types, such as shallow open bowls and folded-rimmed jars.494 Nahariya Nahariya is located in the north of Akko in the northern coast and excavated by I. Ben-Dor in 1947495 and M. Dothan in 1954.496 Dothan divided the Canaanite Temple site into three phases: Phase A, B, and C.497 The temple in Phase B was enlarged and extended over the first temple forming a circle cultic place with 14 m diameter and the 491 Yasur-Landau, Cline, and Goshen, “Initial Results of the Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Tel Kabri Middle Bronze Age Palace,” 355. 492 A. Kempinski et al., Tel Kabri: The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons, Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 20 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2002), fig. 5:22. 493 I. Samet, “The Chrono-Typological Pottery Sequence from the Middle Bronze Age Palace at Kabri: Some Preliminary Results,” Ägypten und Levante (Egypt and the Levant) (2014): 367. 494 Ibid., 369. 495 I. Ben-Dor, “A Canaanite Temple at Nahariya,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 1 (1951): 17–28. 496 M. Dothan, “The Excavations at Nahariyah: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55),” Israel Exploration Journal 6, no. 1 (1956): 14–25. 497 Ibid., 15; Ben-Dor, “A Canaanite Temple at Nahariya.” 140 latest temple in Phase C is larger than the previous one.498 Dothan dated the abandonment of the larger temple in Phase C “not before the middle of the 16th century and most of the finds point to the 17th century as the period when the temple complex experienced its greatest prosperity.”499 The first structure in the Phase A is worthy to pay attention. Though the first building was erected on virgin soil and only preserved the north wall foundations with their entire length, the remains enable one to trace the building plan, almost square 6 X 6 m2, and later still within Phase A, a smaller structure was added adjacent to the main building’s north wall.500 The excavator asserts that the earliest structure clearly served as a cultic center with small circular cultic spot of stone pavement before the building of the later temple.501 Kaplan insists that because the pottery of the site is undoubtedly dated to the beginning of MB I and two sanctuaries in Phase B and C existed during the MB I, the earlier temple in Phase A may perhaps overlap somewhat the IBA period.502 The reason of his suggestion is the narrow conical cup and the ordinary conical cup common at Nahariya are paralleled in Diyala, Early Dynasty III (second half of the 3rd millennium) in Mesopotamia, and the incense burner with rectangular apertures paralleled in Diyala, Early Dynasty II, though it is not clear from what phase these two 498 Dothan, “The Excavations at Nahariyah,” 17–18. 499 Ibid., 24. 500 Ibid., 16. 501 Ibid., 16–17. 502 J. Kaplan, “Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30, no. 4 (1971): 305. 141 cups and the incense burner come.503 The earliest clearly cultic structure in Phase A and some vessels paralleled in the Mesopotamian Early Dynasty III during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE can indicate that the beginning of the MB I at Nahariya overlaps with the IBA period. Akko Akko at the northern end of Haifa/the Bay of Akko was chosen for settlement because of its agricultural environment, but, more importantly, because of its location by one of the best anchorages near the Mediterranean throughout history.504 Its geographical and environmental factors enable Tel Akko to become one of the principal ports for the Southern Levant, connecting to a hinterland that extended into the Jezreel Valley and Galilee hills. It was recorded in Ebla Tablets from the 2400-2250 BCE as one of several coastal sites on the itinerary of merchant from Ebla, Byblos, Sidon, Akko, Dor, Ashdod, to Gaza, and the Egyptian Execration Texts in the early second millennium BCE but there are no archaeological remains during those periods.505 The earliest architectural remains at Tel Akko appear in the earliest phase of the MB I period.506 Six phases of 503 Ibid., 297, figs.7: A1, A2; Fig.10: L. Ben-Dor, Dothan, and Kaplan don’t provide the stratigraphic pottery. 504 M. Dothan, “Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224 (1976): 1–3; M. Dothan, “Acco,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 16–24. 505 M. Artzy and R. Beeri, “Tel Akko,” in One Thousand Days and Nights - Akko through the Ages, ed. A. E. Killebrew and V. Raz-Romeo (haifa: Hecht Museum, 2010), 15*. 506 M. Artzy and R. Beeri, “Tel Akko,” in One Thousand Days and Nights - Akko 142 development appear in the MB period. Area B on the northwest of the original hill unearthed the initial fortified settlement with the earliest phase of the rampart and a brick wall in the later phase.507 By the end of MB I period, the city expanded to the southeast with the construction of the mudbrick gate in Area F.508 Tel Nami Tel Nami is placed on the southern Carmel coast between Atlit and Tel Dor.509 Three settlements appear during the 2nd millennium BCE with Tel Nami, Nami east and Site 104-106 and the greatest horizontal exposure of MB I occupation is attested on the southeastern edge of Tel Nami (Area D).510 The earlier phase appears a large domestic structure with two rows of rectangular rooms and courtyards.511 The pottery remains in Area D is dated from the second phase of MB I.512 Tel Zeror Tel Zeror is located about 9 km from the Mediterranean in the Sharon Plain and in through the Ages, 16* 507 Dothan, “Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4,” 5–7. 508 A. Raban, “The Port City of Akko in MB II,” Michmanim 5 (1991): 29*-31*; Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIa Period,” 137. 509 M. E Kislev, M. Artzy, and E. S. Marcus, “Import of an Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel,” Levant 25 (1993): 145. 510 Ibid. 511 Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIa Period,” 141. 512 Ibid., 142. 143 the south of Hadera river reaching into the Mediterranean. A fortified settlement at Tel Zeror was established on virgin soil during the earlier phases of the MB I, “unique in having a city wall crowning the earthen ramparts and a moat at their foot. Perhaps it was the swampy and its high underground water level that dictated this type of fortifications.”513 The two sets of defenses at Tel Zeror, the earlier one replaced by the later one, indicate “the continuous existence of a fortified city there throughout the entire MB IIA, while the absence of any remains whatsoever of the MB II shows that this site— like neighboring Tel Burga and Tel Poleg—was deserted at that time.”514 Ifshar Ifshar (Tel Hefer) was also one of the earliest and largest sites during the Middle Bronze Age. Ifshar is located in the central Sharon Plain about 4 km upriver from the coast and on the north of the Alexander River.515 Ifshar is reachable to the ancient trade route via the river and its river valley provides a natural harbor for ships and a large arable soil for agriculture.516 The earliest stage of MB I settlement in Area C is a modest 513 Kochavi, Beck, and Gophna, “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga,” 160. 514 Ibid. 515 E. S. Marcus, Y. Porath, and S. M. Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 18 (2008): 221; See also S. Paley and Y. Porath, “Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Remains at Tel El-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report,” in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. E. D. Oren, University Museum symposium series: 8 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997), 369–378. 516 S. M. Paley and Y. Porath, “Hefer, Tel,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, 2 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 609. 144 domestic feature that lasted two or three phases of habitation and the final stage of Phase A occupation was “leveled and filled in for the construction of a building complex of public or elite character, which would have had a prominent position on the eastern side of the tell overlooking the main north-south road.”517 According to the excavators the accumulation and floor raising of this complex after appearing to be a very short period of inhabitation and “gives the impression of a rapid process.”518 c Ain Zurekiyeh c Ain Zurekiyeh is situated on about 3.5 km southeast of Tel Poleg. The excavators suggest that its location at a narrow point in the marshes of the basin reflects the safe fording point for north-south movement.519 Two fortification phases with 3.2 m wide mudbrick walls related to the occupied levels are dated to the MB I/2 phase, slightly earlier than Tel Poleg.520 Tel Poleg Tel Poleg located on the Peleg Stream in the Sharon Plain and 1.2 km. from the seacoast and the site was occupied during several periods: the MB I, Iron Age, and 517 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 228. 518 Ibid. 519 R. Gophna and E. Ayalon, “A Fortified Middle Bronze Age IIA Site at ʻAin Zurekiyeh in the Poleg Basin,” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 77. 520 Ibid., 69–77. 145 Persian period.521 A massive fortification system is the most important MB I remains with thick brick walls on the eastern slope and a huge brick tower in the southwestern sector.522 All the pottery found at Tel Poleg belongs exclusively to the typical MB I.523 Aphek Aphek is considered to be one of the earliest settlements in the coastal region in the beginning of the second millennium BCE. Aphek is located in the central coastal plain of Israel, 15 km from the coast and by the headwaters of the Yarkon River, which is a strategically important position for contact with the eastern Mediterranean and on the Via Maris.524 Aphek was occupied from the EB IB but there were unsettled periods between the EB IB and MB I. A city-wall from the EB IB and the remains of houses from the EB II were unearthed and A city-wall and three palaces appeared from the MB I-II.525 521 Kochavi, Beck, and Gophna, “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga,” 133. 522 Ibid. 523 Ibid., 136–139, see figs. 7-8. 524 M. Kochavi and E. Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 189; M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, eds., Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000), 1–7. 525 Kochavi, “The Excavations at Tel Yeruḥam”; Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 189. 146 Aphek was one of the first towns to become re-settled in the MB I as it was one of the first walled sites of Canaan in the Early Bronze Age.526 A small, unwalled settlement on the tell’s summit in the first phase of the MB I was “soon enough buried under a construction fill intended to form a solid level base for Palace I and the first MB city wall” in the MB Phase 2.527 Palace I was built within a larger inhabited area and modified four times, which points a longer duration of Phase 2 of MB I.528 In the Phase 3 Palace I was deserted possibly due to the unstable soil and Palace II was established down the slope by the springs, which was later deserted and private houses were built in the phase between MB I and II.529 Dhaharat el-Humraiya A large cemetery at Dhaharat el-Humraiya on the Sorek river about 4 km. from the Mediterranean has drawn attention to the importance of Middle Cypriot imports during the MB I.530 Sixty-three tombs at the cemetery are covered from the MB I to LBA periods and most of the MBA burials are pit graves with a single interment.531 Four 526 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 193. 527 Ibid., 194. 528 Ibid. 529 Ibid. 530 Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 18, n. 104. 531 J. Ory, “A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahrat El Humraiya,” The Quarterly Of The Department Of Antiquities In Palestine 13 (1948): 75–7, n. 1. fig. 2. 147 tombs (T. 12, 21, 55, and 62) among them should probably be assigned to MB I, and of particular significance is T. 62 discovered with both Levantine Painted Wares and Middle Cypriot jugs.532 The Egyptian finds are found somewhat later in the period of MB I-II tombs (T. 18, 42, and 49).533 Summary Many new sites in the early stage of the Middle Bronze Age I appear along the Mediterranean coast as discussed by Cohen534 and Dever.535 Some of these sites were not newly reoccupied or established on the virgin soil but were already stepped as in made into steps by the IBA settlers (Hagosherim, Gezer, and Kabri). Two IBA Caliciform cups at Gezer and some equivocal IBA sherds at Kabri in the MB I period, are not conclusive of an IBA occupation. The Mesopotamian paralleled conical cups at the early Phase A of MB I at Nahariya, and Akko recorded on Ebla tablets during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE, reflect that the IBA settlers already stepped the sites before the MB urban centers were established. As it was observed in the IBA settlements that many settlements and cemeteries during the IBA period were reused in the MB period, many new sites established in the early stage of the MB I can be seen as expansion and 532 Ory, “A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahrat El Humraiya,” 88. 533 Ibid., 82, figs. 20; 86, pl. 33:11). 534 According to Cohen, the sites in the two early phases of MB IIA are mostly in Coastal region except El-Hayyat and Dan, such as Aphek, Ifshar, Acco, Ashkelon, Tel elcAjjul, Gerisa, Hadar Yosef, Ain Zurekiyeh, Zeror, Barqai, Burga, Megiddo, Nami, Hebonim, Nahariya. See Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant.” 535 Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine,” 152. 148 development of the preceding settlers, in particular, those concentrated upon the Mediterranean coast. Table 1. The IBA sites continued from the EB III and continued into the MB I Region Site EBIII IBA MBI Kh. Zaraqun Kh. al-Batrawy Tall al-‘Umayri Tell el-Hamman Transjordan Kh.Iskander Bab edh-Dhra‘ Fegeiges Kh. Hamra Ifdan Be‘er Resisim ‘Ein Ziq Negev Mashabbe Sade Har Yerham Tel Dan Tel Na‘ama Hazor Ḥorbat Qishron Beth Yerah Sha‘ar Ha-Golan Gesher Jordan Valley Beth Shean Tell el-Hayyat Kh. el-Meiyiteh Tell umm Hammad Jericho Iktanu Ader ‘Ein el-Hilu Tel ‘Afula Murḥan Tel Yizra‘’el Jezreel Valley Tel Yoqne‘am Megiddo Nahal Rimmonim Tel Yosef 149 The Central Highland Shephelah Coastal Regions Shechem ‘Ain es-Samiyeh Sinjil Wadi ed-Daliyeh Gibeon Ras al-‘Amud (Jerusalem) Malcha (Manahat) Nahal Refaim Bethel Bethlehem Efrat Kh. Kufin Kh. Kirmil Beit Dagan Er-Rujum ‘En Yered Newe Shalom Esta‘ol Beth Shemesh Lachish Tell Beit Mirsim Jebel Qa‘aqir Tel Sera‘ Shelomit Nahal Betzet H. Manot Ard el-Samra Tel Bira Tel Zivda Tel Burga Kibbutz Barqai ‘En Esur Kh. Iberiktas Ma‘abarot Tel ‘Ashir Tel Gerisa Ashkelon Tel el-‘Ajjul 150 Settlements in the transition between the IBA and the MB I Hagosherim Kabri Nahariya Akko Tel Nami Tel Zeror Ifshar ‘Ain Zurekiyeh Tel Poleg Aphek Gezer Dhaharat el-Humraiya Discussion The settlement patterns of the Intermediate Bronze Age have been understood with several characteristics. Falconer et al. summarized well the conventional IBA characteristics in the synthesis of early Levantine social collapse by Prag,536 Dever,537 Finkelstein,538 and Palumbo.539 Of them, three points below are related to settlement patterns,540 1. Virtually all the Levantine cities and towns were abandoned by the end of 536 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age.” 537 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 538 Finkelstein, “Further Observations on the Socio-Demographic Structure of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 539 G. Palumbo, “‘Egalitarian’ or ‘Stratified’ Society? Some Notes on Mortuary Practices and Social Structure at Jericho in EB IV,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 267 (1987): 43–59; Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age.” 540 Falconer et al., “Bronze Age Rural Economic Transitions in the Jordan Valley,” 2. 151 Early Bronze III. 2. In striking contrast to those in preceding and succeeding periods, Early Bronze IV sites are small, often seasonal, and distributed commonly in the arid margins of the southern Levant. 3. Following Early Bronze urbanized settlements redeveloped in the Middle Bronze Age even more rapidly than they were abandoned previously. The updated new archaeological data urge these conventional characteristics to be modified, and the Intermediate Bronze Age period to be reevaluated. Firstly, while it is certain that most of the cities and towns in the Southern Levant were deserted by the end of Early Bronze III, this abandonment has an exception in the region south and east of the Dead Sea, for instance, at Tall al-‘Umayri, Khirbet Iskander, and Khirbet Hamra Ifdan. The urban centers of the Early Bronze Age III, such as Arad, Beth Yeraḥ, ‘Ai, and Yarmuth, appear to have been suddenly abandoned when they were at their peak because there was no indication of decline ahead of the abandonment/destruction that was found.541 Thus, Mazar convincingly argues that this drastic end of the EB III urban cities “should not be defined as a “process” but, rather, as an “event.”542 Many reasons have been suggested for this catastrophe at the end of the EB III: drought due to climate changes, internal strife, or outside invasions of Amorites or Egyptians.543 Mazar explains the possibility of plagues as one of factors combined other factors, for instance, a drought brought severe competition over food resources and it led to wars and destructions between cities, then plagues could easily have erupted under the 541 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 542 Ibid. 543 Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant, 97–105. 152 absence of the centralized authorities.544 Another possible reason suggested by Mazar is the cognitive selection. The memories of the catastrophic end caused the Intermediate Bronze settlers to avoid the Early Bronze centers. 545 Dever recently explained with the mental template as the IBA settlers choosing peripheral context in the rural components of society.546 This abandonment of the EB centers seemed to have lasted for a long duration because the EB urban cities were not chosen by the IBA populations. Though some exceptional sites appear east of the Jordan River (Khirbet Hamra Ifdan), the most IBA settlers occupied areas of virgin soil and on the ruins of a long abandoned EB I sites. Even Bab edh-Dhra‘ on the ruins of the EB III was built outside the EB fortification or used just partially used the remains of the EB III.547 The IBA populations seemed to not be familiar with the EB III centers or intentionally avoided them. This phenomenon is more clearly confirmed in many new IBA sites unexpectedly discovered by the salvage excavations, in the Akko plain, Jezreel and Harod Valleys, the Ayalon Valley, and at Nahal Refaim near Jerusalem, which were dated later than the Transjordanian sites. In particular, the new IBA occupational settlements near the Mediterranean coast are significant because the coastal regions was considered to be vacant during the IBA 544 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 545 Ibid. 546 Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period.” 547 Donahue, Schaub, and Rast, Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ, 398, 411. 153 period.548 Mazar gives the same observations that “the ruined EB III cities were deliberately abandoned because they were considered inappropriate as settlements for the sedentary population, which preferred new locations for its village.”549 Mazar explains this avoidance of the EB III centers as cognitive selection as “the memories of the previous regimes and their catastrophic end were probably strong enough to keep the sedentary population of the IBA away from most of these city sites, which perhaps were considered “cursed.”550 As for the avoidance of the EB III urban centers by the IBA settlers, Mazar finds the answer in cognitive selection. Thus, a conscious selection of new settlement sites and abandonment of the old city sites may be explained on cognitive grounds as being related to human beliefs, fears, and feelings rather than to environmental/ecological factors. This cognitive explanation cannot be tested or proved, but it may provide a possible avenue for understanding both the end of the EB III urban system and the new settlement pattern and life-style during the IBA.551 Not the result of the coercion of the urban authorities or ecological compulsion, Dever also understands that the IBA settlement pattern was a matter of choice of those who prefer untrammeled freedom of movement and peripatetic existence in their economic independence and egalitarian society, and thus they returned to a rural-pastoral life from 548 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 549 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 550 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 551 Ibid. 154 urban sedentary.552 The exception of the abandonment of the EB urban centers appears in the east of the Jordan River, in particular south and east of the Dead Sea. Some IBA sites were reoccupied above the ruins of the EB III (Khirbet al-Batrawy, Bab edh-Dhra‘, Khirbet Iskander, Khirbet Zeraqun, and Feqeiqes) but others were continued without interruption or abandonment (Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, Tall al-‘Unmayri, and Tall al Hammam). As Richard insists the urbanism at Khirbet Iskander during the IBA period,553 the EB III collapse in some Transjordan sites were soon replaced by the recovery and growth during the IBA period. However, this was not the case of the other regions in the southern Levant as discussed above. Secondly, IBA settlements are mostly small in contrast to the sites in preceding and succeeding periods like the conventional notions, but unlike the conventional synthesis, they were neither seasonal nor distributed in the arid marginal regions of the Southern Levant. The IBA occupational sites are mostly small agricultural and unwalled with some exceptional fortified towns, such as Khirbet Iskander and Khirbet el-Meyiteh, and distributed not in the arid margins but mostly in the valleys near water sources, such as the Hulah Valley and Rift Valley near the Jordan River, the Zarqa River, the Jezreel Valley and Harod Valley near the Kishon river and the Harod River, the Akko Valley 552 Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period,” 47– 48. 553 S. Richard, “Khirbat Iskandar—A New View of Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan,” The American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), last modified 2017, https://www.acorjordan.org/2017/01/12/khirbat-iskandar-early-bronzeage/?v=38dd815e66db#. 155 near the Nahal Betzet and Nahal Kziv, and the Ayalon Valley near the Sorek River, and some sites near the Nahal Na’aman, Nahal Taninim, Nahal Alexander, Nahal Poleg, and Nahal Besor, which are mostly connected to the east Mediterranean Sea. Fig. 5 the IBA Site Distribution Map in Akko Plain 554 As Dever insisted,555 the settlement usually accompanied its cemeteries nearby, in particular, some cemeteries in the Akko Valley and the Jezreel-Harod Valleys were located above the habitation sites.556 Settlements were located in the lowlands and their 554 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “133,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 555 Dever, “An EB IV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim.” 556 Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” 27; Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 156 cemeteries were located in the highlands. What the major EB tells used for their cemeteries can be the evidence for this pattern of lowland settlements and highland cemeteries. The pattern of settlements and cemeteries along the fringes of the plain in Akko plain are well illustrated by Getzov et al. (See Fig.5). As for the solitary domestic caves in the hills of the western Galilee (Tel Harashim, Tefen Cave, the Sarakh Cave and in Namer Cave, as well as Kefer Vradim) in Fig. 1,557 Getzov et al. suggest that the lodging caves in the neighboring hills close to the settlements do not seem to have been nomadic in nature of the population but secondary dwellings of the plain settlers “used by shepherds who went forth from the settlements on the fringes of the plain into the hills with their flocks on a seasonal basis.”558 It is certain that the IBA settlers preferred to settle on the agricultural environments in the lowland and they used the highland for mostly the cemeteries and some domestic caves except the cemetery group in the Central Hill Country. The solitary cemeteries far from the sedentary sites in the Central Hill Country can be interpreted as evidence for potential nearby settlements or as the cemeteries for the massive population which dwelt in the Negev desert for copper industry. Further excavational activities and studies will expand this evidence. It is clear that the massive settlements in the arid marginal regions appeared in the Negev in the IBA period were caused by the copper industry not by the nomadic pastoralist. Either survivors of the EB III population or newcomers from the northern 557 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬ 558 Ibid. 157 Levant rushed into the Negev area for the purpose of participating in a new way of life in copper mining, smelting, making tools with copper, and selling copper ingots or copper tools. According to Haiman, while the temporary sites scattered throughout the Negev highlands and Sinai Peninsula were used in the periphery of the permanent settlements, the permanent settlements or walled towns located between Negev Highlands and Lowlands from the Faynan region to El ‘Arish by the Mediterranean, were surely for regions of the copper manufacture.559 The permanent settlements do not provide strong evidence for a seasonal nomadic population, such as less animal pens in the permanent settlements in the Negev, but rather they provide evidence for copper industry related to the largest copper workshop of Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the Middle East during the EB III to IBA period. The urban-like sites around the Dead Sea and near Faynan might be connected to this flourishing copper industry throughout the EB III and IBA. Finally, unlike the conventional notion of the rapid urbanization in the beginning of the MB I, the urbanization of the MB I was the result of the preparation during the IBA period. The continuation between the IBA and the MB I has been attested in various aspects, not only in settlements, but also in ceramics, burial customs, and metallurgy. Thirty-four settlements of a total sixty-six IBA sites discussed in this study, with the exception of the Negev sites, were continued into the early MB I period. It is over half the percentage of the total. These are Tel Dan, Tel Na’ama, Hazor, Gesher, Beth-Shean, Tell el-Hayyat, Tell umm Hammad, Jericho, ‘Ein el Hilu, Tel ‘Afula, Tel Yizra‘’el (Tel 559 See Fig. 12 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 13. 158 Jezreel), Megiddo, Nahal Rimmonim, Tel Yosef, Shechem, Ras al-‘Amud, Malcha, Nahal Refaim, Bethel, Beit Dagan, Er-Rujum, Beth Shemesh, Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel Bira, Tell Burga, Kibbutz Bargai, Tel Ashir, Tel Gerisa, Ashkelon, Tell el-‘Ajjul and four cemeteries in the Central Hill county. Furthermore, the sites occupied in the early stage of the MB I, such as HaGosherim, Gezer, and Kabri, were discovered with only a few IBA sherds, which is not enough to designate the remains to the IBA settlers. In other words, the Middle Bronze urbanization was not swift or rapid, but the process of the MB urbanization was gradual from its pre-stage of the IBA period. The continuation between the IBA and the MB I appears not only in the Jordan Valley but also in Mediterranean zone in the west of the Jordan River, but most of the settlements in the Jordan Plateau and around the Dead Sea were not continued. The urbanizing process of the MB I west of the Jordan River could be accelerated by various factors, like international trade and an influx of the exogeneous culture as the development of the Negev was accelerated by the copper industry during the IBA. While the interaction among each region happened between its neighbors during the IBA period, the interaction was not active nor derived by centralized urban centers. Fortified urban cities were rare during the IBA period. A question is raised: how could Syrian culture indicated by the ceramic repertoire be adopted within the isolated homogenous IBA culture in the Southern Levant? Conclusion Quite different from the conventional notion for the IBA period of the drastic abandonment of the EB occupation and the marginalization of the IBA pastoral- 159 nomadization, the settlement pattern in the IBA period can be characterized by considerable sedentarization with unwalled villages spread throughout the Southern Levant and with a few fortified sites (Khirbet el-Meiyiteh and Khirbet Iskander). While the continuation from the EB III to IBA can be found east and south of the Dead Sea, most regions of the Southern Levant experienced the gap between the EB III and the IBA. Maeir emphasizes very little continuity in settlement patterns between in the EB IIIII and in the IBA and stresses that “the very different settlement pattern and drastic changes in even the choice of ecological zones, is a clear indication of the major change between the periods.”560 The major EB urban centers were illustrated by a handful of IBA sherds and lack of architecture, and the IBA settlers preferred to settle in new sites. Recent discoveries by salvage excavations reflect the avoidance of major EB centers by the IBA population and they are found at lowlands near water source and fertile land, such as the Harod and Jezreel Valleys, the Jordan Valley, the Yarkon and Ayalon Valleys, and the Shephelah regions. The Central Highlands were mostly used for cemeteries except the IBA settlements near Jerusalem and throughout the region of Beth Shemesh. The Negev and Arava region far south of the Southern Levant seemed to have been settled for the copper industry, though there is a chronological problem between the high chronology and the conventional chronology. The significance is the domestic IBA settlement in Ashkelon which is similar to that of Negev IBA settlements and the stonebuilt graves at Tell el-Ajjul which originated in Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant. 560 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 134. 160 They can imply the possibility that the copper industry of the Negev region could be connected to the Mediterranean coast by the seaborne transmission. The transitional continuation from the EB III to the IBA appears limited in east of the Jordan and south of the Dead Sea, but the transitional continuation between the IBA and the MB I can be seen throughout the Southern Levant both in settlements and cemeteries. Chapter 4 Pottery Distribution Pottery has an important role to determine cultural change in the transitional period from the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. It is sure that the Intermediate Bronze Age pottery has regionalism and each region has its distinguishable features. For instance, the pottery groups in the Transjordan retains strong Early Bronze II-III features but the Southern pottery has more new elements with few Early Bronze traditions. While earlier studies tried to put these pottery group in chronological order, latest studies stress that these regional groups are not chronological sequences but rather, are contemporaneous or overlapping within regional groups. In particular, the Megiddo blackish ware (Black Wheel-Made Ware) in the north and the Caliciform repertoire in the south were understood as important exogenous elements to change Canaanite culture in the late Early Bronze and the early Middle Bronze. Soon they were considered to be imported luxurious items or pointless external elements to be left out of the question. Some recent works, however, demonstrate that the Megiddo blackish ware and Caliciform repertoire are worthy to pay attention to understand the transitional period of the Early Bronze and the Middle Bronze. How did these exogenous assemblages relate to the regional Intermediate Bronze Age pottery groups? Are there any chronological sequences among overlapped regional pottery groups? The relation between the indigenous pottery groups and the exogenous assemblages will be discussed, after the study of pottery assemblages in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE. 161 162 The pottery analysis of this study will be ranged from ca. 2300 (or 25001) BCE to ca. 1800 BCE, divided into the Intermediate Bronze Age and the early phases of the Middle Bronze I. Three primary assemblages from the Intermediate Bronze Age and two the early phase of the Middle Bronze I are to be discussed for understanding the transitional period from the EB to the MB: Canaanite Pottery, Caliciform Ware,2 and Black Wheel-Made Ware (Megiddo Ware)3 in the Intermediate Bronze Age and early MB I Canaanite pottery, and Levantine Painted Ware4 in the early Middle Bronze Age. 1 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 525; Richard, “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan”; Joffe, Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant; Braun and Gophna, “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area G”; Golani, “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E”; Anderson, “SOUTHERN PALESTINIAN CHRONOLOGY”; Holdorf, “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’.” 2 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations”; D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant”; S. Bunimovitz and R. Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 334 (2004): 19–31; Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine.” 3 Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 4 Tine Bagh, “Painted Pottery at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th-26th of January 2001 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 89– 101; Bagh, “The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications”; Bagh, “Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon: New Material from the Lebanese Coast.” 163 Dever’s six groups of assemblage,5 and Amiran’s three or four groups of pottery in the Intermediate Bronze Age, 6 and in the early Middle Bronze Age, Hayyat’s continuation from phase 6 to phase 5,7 and the stratigraphic analysis of Aphek’s pottery8 as well as the analysis of Ifshar’s assemblage,9 will be discussed. Black Wheel-Made Ware is a kind of Syrian Caliciform assemblages, but Black Wheel-Made Ware and Caliciform Ware will be here separated because their distribution shows difference in regions, chronology, and characteristics. Canaanite Pottery in the IBA Period After the crisis of the Early Bronze III urban centers, the land of the Southern Levant was populated by village dwellers throughout the Southern Levant. This decentralization during the Intermediate Bronze Age may be seen in the regionalism in pottery distribution. Ruth Amiran saw that 2300-1900 BCE is the beginning of the true Middle Bronze Age. According to Amiran, common features of the EB-MB transitional period in contrast to the previous period are spherical or barrel-shaped body, a large flat base or no 5 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 6 Ibid. 7 Falconer and Berelov, “Ceramic and Radiocarbon Chronology for Tell El- Hayyat.” 8 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance.” 9 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations.” 164 base, the absence of handles, light greenish-grey clay, and the methods of handmade body and a wheel-made neck and rim.10 She divided the pottery from the Intermediate Bronze Age into three regional groups: the Southern Group A, the Northern Group B, and the Megiddo Group C. She argued that the Group A and B share the common pottery features, but their decorations chiefly differ from one another. Amrian said that while comb incision are popular in the Southern Group, a single point incision in the Northern Group.11 Megiddo Group are quite different from the others in many respects, and a special feature within the Megiddo group is the ‘grey teapot’ style, which is so called as the Black Wheel-Made Ware.12 Dever, however, disagrees with Amiran’s arguments and claims that the people from 2300-1900 BCE in the Southern Levant were still an EB population with three chronological phases, the EB IVA (2300-2200 BCE), EB IVB (2200-2100 BCE), and lastly EB IVC (2100-2000/1950 BCE). The reason that Dever designated the duration of 2300-2000 BCE as the EB IVA-C is that the Transjordan non-urban culture in the Intermediate Bronze Age is retained the Early Bronze traditions and influences more than other Palestinian regions, though “the newer elements were borrowed from the more sophisticated urban civilization of Syria.”13 He classifies the Canaanite pottery in 23001900 BCE in terms of “Families” in the geographical and chronological order; TR 10 Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 80. 11 Ibid., 79–81. 12 Ibid. 13 Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine,” 57. 165 (Transjordan), N (Northern, Upper Galilee), NC (Northern Central, lower Galilee and Jezreel Valley), J (Jericho and Jordan Valley), (CH (Central Hills) S (Southern, including settlements in Negev and Sinai) and AZ (Amman-Zerqa region) groups,14 though later he somewhat stands back for this assertion.15 Dever insisted that the TR group is earlier than any other groups because it holds a strong EB III tradition of red slip and paint. The TR group (Bab edh-Dhra‘, Ader, Aro‘er, Kh. Iskander, Iktanu) ranges during his EB IVA and EB IVB, and Family S is the latest group of the EB IVC because Dever believes that the Southern family is derived from the Transjordan EB IVA-B characteristics as well as many new forms.16 It is worthy to paying attention to Dever’s notes on some diagnostic features in the Southern family, (1) The increased employment of the wheel, now used to finish the upper body and rim of almost all vessels, as well as in forming the rills or “corrugations” on bowls and cups (and, perhaps related, the preference for thinner, better levigated and fired wares); (2) the complete absence of the red paint, slip, or burnish of EB style found in the north and Transjordan; (3) the fact that handles of all sorts are either vestigial or entirely absent.17 In spite of quite different features of the Southern family from Early Bronze tradition, Dever argued that EB IVC culture is not “intrusive” or brought by newcomers directly from Syria, but derived from the Early Bronze Transjordan feature, and therefore he 14 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine”; Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” 289. 15 Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” 289. 16 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 45–48. 17 Ibid., 48. 166 asserts that Albright’s MB I should be discarded.18 Dever also excluded the painted Caliciform teapots and goblets in both the Northern group and the Northern Central group as imported items like “anomalous” or “luxury goods.”19 Unlike Dever, recent studies reevaluate this Caliciform wares as a significant role in the changing culture in the Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age.20 Amihai Mazar also notes the regional distinctions in pottery and divides the pottery into three groups (Transjordan group, Northern Family, and Southern Family), but separates Syrian influenced ware in the north as imported pottery like Dever.21 Mazar agrees with Dever that the Transjordan family still retains the Early Bronze tradition and it indicates Transjordan group in the early stage of the Intermediate Bronze Age period,22 and that the Southern group appears to be somehow later because it is less similar to Early Bronze traditions than the other pottery families except “hole mouth”23 cooking 18 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 38. 19 Ibid., 50. 20 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups”; Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine”; D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant”; D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations.” 21 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 162–165. 22 Ibid., 162. 23 Dever, “Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir”; S. Gitin, “Miiddle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa’aqīr: A Ceramic Inventory of Cave G 23,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 46*-62*. 167 pots which are quite related to those of the Early Bronze Age.24 Later, G. Plumbo and G. Peterman reappraise the notion of Dever’s regionalism in the Intermediate Bronze Age with the addition of one more regional group AZ (Amman/Zerqa) group. They recognize that the Family AZ is spatially linked and distinct with Families TR (Transjordan) and J (Jericho/Jordan Valley).25 These chronological divisions of the Intermediate Bronze pottery began to be criticized in the 1990s. Since the Families or groups are overlapped or merged, the groups are considered to be largely contemporaneous and also to be simply representing geographical and typological boundaries.26 The primary report of Tell el-Hayyât shows certain elements of continuity in the ceramic repertoire. The excavators, therefore, suggest that the Intermediate Bronze Age forms were evolved directly into the Middle Bronze I “without undergoing the transitional typological developments Dever describes for the later Southern family of Western Palestine.”27 Red-slipped and burnished pottery at Tel Iskander, classified in Family TR by Dever, occurs alongside pottery with the characteristic of southern group considered to be the latest in Dever’s chronological 24 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 164. 25 G. Palumbo and G. Peterman, “Early Bronze Age IV Ceramic Regionalism in Central Jordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 289 (1993): 23–30. 26 27 Ibid., 30. Falconer, Magness-Gardiner, and Metzger, “Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell El-Hayyat Project,” 57. 168 order.28 For example, “Large ovoid storejars in gray ware with band-combing,” 29 which is a type thought as a hallmark of southern group, are attested in Transjordan as well as handless jars. Richard and Boraas conclude that some of the typological attributes, considered to be a chronological diagnosis, may reflect just regional differences.30 Maeir points out that regional aspects can be seen in each of the three regions (Upper Jordan Valley, Central Joran Valley, and Southern Jordan Valley), and they are interconnected within regions.31 Tell umm Hammad also exhibits repertoire to be characteristic of all the groups, so S. W. Helms insists that all the regional groups could be contemporaneous because similar forms appear irrespectively in ware, slip, paint, or incisions.32 Another examples appear in similar pottery features at Um Bighal and the Amman Tombs, where some forms are related to Dever’s EB IVB, but some others to his EB IVC. Helms observes that similar decoration elements such as recessed rims and wavy line incisions indicate “the same partial contemporaneity and possibly also a merging of styles.”33 28 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 124. 29 Ibid. 30 Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 126. 31 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 134. 32 Helms, “Excavations at Tell Um Hammad, 1984”; S. W. Helms, “Rescue Excavations at Umm El-Bighal. The Pottery,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32, no. 1 (1986): 323, 339–41. 33 S. W. Helms, “An EB IV Pottery Repertoire at Amman, Jordan,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 273 (1989): 31. 169 Thus, Helms asserts that Dever’s typological analyses are still the most convincing but his chronological component in the Intermediate Bronze Age should be seriously abandoned.34 Since the 1990s, the new approaches to pottery production, distribution, and exchange, enable us to make clear the picture of the Intermediate Bronze Age pottery distribution. Falconer’s analysis of the pottery at Tell el-Hayyât shows active exchange of specialized wares produced at rural scale between its boarder communities.35 With the petrographic analysis of the pottery assemblages from some sites in the Judaean Hills, the Northern and Central Negev, and southern central Transjordan, Yuval Goren reveals the complex network of interactions of regionalism during the late 3rd Millennium BCE.36 Goren’s petrographic analysis from the Negev Intermediate Bronze Age pottery assemblages points to the significant evidence of pottery transportation. From the central Negev sites, nearly 80% of the pottery was originated from foreign sources (38% for Transjordan, 26% for the Judaean hills, and minors) and the 20% of them was manufactured in a local pottery workshop, probably at Har Yerham.37 Unlike Dever’s assumption that Family TR is the earliest in the EB IV sequence and Family S is the 34 Helms, “An EB IV Pottery Repertoire at Amman, Jordan,” 32. 35 S. E. Falconer, “Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Perspective,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Vol. 3: ..., ed. A. Hadidi (Amman: Dep. of Antiquities, 1987), 251–59. 36 Goren, “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective.” 37 Ibid., 56. 170 latest, Goren’s examination indicates that “Family TR coexists with the dominant Family S at Ein Ziq and Beer Resisim.”38 The ceramic findings at Khirbet Hamra Ifan gives another insights that the ceramic Family TR, Dever’s earliest family during the IBA period, were originated from the EB III because the repertoire of ‘Family TR’ was found at Phase 5 (EB III phase) at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan and ‘Family S’ was not at Phase 5 but was discovered at Phase 6 (IBA) at Khirbert Hamra Ifdan.39 D’Andrea approaches the pottery of 2300-2000 BCE by examining the ceramic technology. Within some major Intermediate Bronze Age sites clearly showing the stratified repertories, the characteristics of the ‘early’ Intermediate Bronze Age ceramic repertoire are 1) the complete lack of all the distinctive specialized wares of the previous period such as Kerak Ware, metallic ware, and pattern combed ware, 2) oversimplified pottery repertoire for ordinary usages such as simple ware, cooking ware, and preservation ware, 3) the disappearance of use of the slow wheel in the process of manufacturing pottery.40 On the other hand, the features of the ‘late’ Intermediate Bronze Age ceramic repertoire are 1) the reintroduction of the slow wheel with the wheel-coiling and wheel -fashioning, 2) some distinctive technical style as valid chronological markers, 38 Goren, “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective,” 58. 39 R. B. Adams, “Copper Trading Networks across the Arabah during the Later Early Bronze Age,” in Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah, ed. K. Galor and P. Bienkowski, Levant supplementary series: v. 3 (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006), 137–144. 40 D’Andrea, “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant,” 33. 171 such as “the distinctive inner ridges on the neck of the vessels, the wavy- and bandcombed decoration, the rilled and grooved surfaces,”41 and 3) some technical innovations, such as “firing processes and fabrics and the re-appearance of specialized wares”.42 Some specialized wares are “Black Wheel-Made Ware in southern Lebanon and northern Palestine, Trickle Painted Ware in north-central Palestine and Transjordan, and combed vessels in south-central Palestine and Transjordan.”43 D’Andrea suggests that the demand of specialized wares during the late phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant reflects “a progressive change of the socio-economic organization of pottery production.”44 In conclusion, even though pottery regionalism is still the prevalent way to understand the period of the Intermediate Bronze Age, each region clearly had somehow interaction with different sub-regional communities. In ceramic technology, the completely handmade pottery in the early phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age period replaced a higher skilled pottery, and even technical knowledge of manufacturing pottery was shared within sub-regional communities in the later phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age period. Now, thus, the study will turn into the exogenous elements: the Caliciform 41 M. D’Andrea, “The Socio-Economic Landscape of the Early Bronze IV Period in the Southern Levant: A Ceramic Perspective,” in Broadening Horizons 4: A Conference of Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East, Egypt and Central Asia, University of Torino, October 2011, ed. G. Affanni et al., BAR international series 2698 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015), 33. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., 34. 172 Ware in the south and the Megiddo group in the north. Syrian Caliciform Pottery Albright as well as Wright paid attention to the pottery similar to Syrian Caliciform wares found in the Southern Levant in the period of the Intermediate Bronze Age (his MB I).45 Caliciform assemblages are derived from Mesopotamia around 22002000 BCE46 except Megiddo Ware by Guy and Engberg.47 Olga Tufnell even named the transition of EB-MB with the term “Caliciform Culture” as a whole.48 Albright asserted that “finds in Palestinian strata of this period are characterized by rather roughly shaped cups decorated with incised bands of straight and wavy lines,”49 which are obviously derived from Syrian Caliciform pottery. He also highlighted the importance of the Intermediate Bronze Age materials, which are in general well-made, and “must have been produced in great quantities for every-day purposes. The jars are thin and hard, but 45 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I,” 8–14; W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1971), 80; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I.” 46 W. F. Albright, “Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 184 (1966): 31; R. W. Ehrich, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 52, 58. 47 Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, 148. 48 Tufnell, Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir), 31, 41. 49 Albright, “Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-Palestine,” 32. 173 surprisingly light for the size.”50 Kathleen Kenyon developed her Amorite invasion hypothesis with these Caliciform Wares,51 and Amiran also took up the Syrian or Mesopotamian connection of her Group C (Megiddo group) and defined her long MB I (2250-1900/1850 BCE) as characterized by intensive contacts with Syria.52 Dever points out that “Family S (South) has many distinctive features, in addition to the high frequency of vessels in the distant “caliciform” repertoire of Syria and the common use of band-combing.”53 The exogenous elements expressed by the Amorite movements, invasion, or infusion in the transitional EB-MB by scholars in the 19030s to 1960s, however, was revised and largely discarded in the 1970s and 1980s with processual ideas by Kay Prag,54 Dever,55 and Suzanne Richard.56 With new discoveries in the Transjordan local 50 Albright, “Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-Palestine,” 32. 51 K. M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn, 1957), 186–209; K. M. Kenyon, “Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780. The Archaeological Sites,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, v 1, Pt 2: Early History of the Middle East, ed. I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Pr, 1971), 567–94; K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (London: Ernest Benn, 1970), 119–47. 52 Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine,” 224. 53 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 42, 44. 54 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age.” 55 Dever, “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine”; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 56 Richard, “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan.” 174 sites, they insist there is fundamental ceramic continuity from the Early Bronze III to the Intermediate Bronze Age. Caliciform Ware found in the Southern Levant in the period of 2300-1900 BCE was first treated as a significant exogenous element to interpret the social structure of the ‘Dark Age’ in the transitional period, but later its argument was discarded and Caliciform Ware was considered to be just luxury items for the rural population. These importance of these Syrian drinking practices has been recently focused on by some scholars.57 The drinking practice expressed with Syrian Caliciform ware, in particular, demonstrates an significant role in small-scale societies to manipulate social prestige, economic advantage, and political power.58 Bunimovitz and Greenberg interpret that the drinking habit is the expression of the dominant ideology of the non-urban society, in other words, when the Early Bronze structure was rejected, and the Early Bronze society moved to tribalism and agropastoralism, the surviving Early Bronze society needed Syrian drinking practice as part of the new, alternative system of symbols 57 As for recent work on drinking practice, see these, B. Arnold, “‘Drinking the Feast’: Alcohol and the Legitimation of Power in Celtic Europe,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, no. 1 (1999): 71–93; Alexander H. Joffe, “Alcohol and Social Complexity in Ancient Western Asia,” Current Anthropology 39, no. 3 (1998): 297–322; S. Vencl, “The Archaeology of Thirst,” Journal of European Archaeology 2, no. 2 (1994): 299–326; Andrew Sherratt, “Cups That Cheered,” in Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean: Definition, Inperpretation, Theory and New Site Data: The Oxford International Conference, 1986, ed. William H. Waldren and Rex Claire Kennard, BAR international series 331 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1987), 81–106; Michael Dietler, “Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9, no. 4 (1990): 352– 406. 58 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 27. 175 to reproduce the existing order.59 As for the agency to introduce this drinking customs, Bunimovitz and Greenberg attribute this to “people straddling the interface between Canaan and the urban centers of central Syria” with their acquaintance of “highly visible drinking behavior” and “a wish to emulate values of the Syrian elite.”60 In comparison with these drinking behaviors in the transitional period of the EB-MB, major EB urban cities testify of a highly stratified society with huge fortifications as well as multiple ceramic traditions and workshops. Bunimovitz and Greenberg explain the case of Caliciform Ware in Palestine as “the emulation of habits and rank symbols associated with the remote Syrian elite” and this emulation of Caliciform Ware in the transitional period of EB/MB “became part of a series of local responses to the disintegration of the long-established Early Bronze Age urban system, and part of the ensuing restructuring of social hierarchies in the period that followed.”61 The general style of the Early Bronze ceramic assemblage is “bowls and platters alongside large cooking and storage vessels,”62 and the development of the enormous platter-bowl in the EB II-III reflects “a meal-based hospitality reserved for festive occasions.”63 Bunimovitz and Greenberg assert that “the 59 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 27. 60 Ibid., 27; See also, S. Mazzoni, “Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 257 (1985): 13–15; cf. Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period,” 210–20. 61 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 28. 62 Ibid., 22. 63 Ibid., 21. 176 technical competence required to make large platters was lost after the Early Bronze Age, and similar vessels were never again produced.”64 D’Andrea, however, asserts a different hypothesis. D’Andrea understands the phenomenon when the drinking goblets replaced the platter-bowls of the Early Bronze IIIII tradition it was not emulation of the Syrian elites but “a pan-Levantine trend.”65 D’Andrea argues that simultaneous urbanization occurred both in the Northern Levant and in the Southern Levant during the period of 2900-2500 BCE, and the two regions have cultural horizons, even though the shift from the collapse of the Early Bronze IV to the Middle Bronze I “took place at a different pace at individual sites and areas.”66 As for the Black Wheel-Made Ware in the Southern Levant, D’Andrea insists that it was also “a sub-regional segment of a technological milieu encompassing a broad area of the Levant.” Except these drinking wares and the Black Wheel-Made Ware, D’Andrea suggests other items connected between the Northern and Southern Levant, for example, Askoi found between at Zafat and at ‘Ain Mallaha in the Hula Valley, handled cups between at Tel Arqa and at Byblos, wishbone handles found between both in the 64 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 28. 65 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 82. 66 Ibid., 82; See the radiocarbon dating of the Northern and Southern Levant, Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 559–560; A. Vacca, “Before the Royal Palace G. The Stratigraphic and Pottery Sequence of the West Unit of the Central Complex: The Building GS,” Studia Eblaiticia 1 (2015): 1–2. 177 Southern Levant and in Cilicia, cooking ware repertoire, as well as mortuary practices.67 As discussed above, Syrian Caliciform pottery has been interpreted differently depending on scholars or trends. The time has come to reevaluate the insightful interpretation of Caliciform ware by Albright, Amiran, and others even in the 1930s to 1950s when evidence was insufficient. There is no doubt that, after the collapse of the EB population who used large platters, the population in the Southern Levant began to change eating practice by using Syrian fashioned cups and teapots, which could be a panLevantine trend according to D’Andrea’s assertion. According to Bunimovitz and Greenberg, the introduction of the Caliciform cups and teapots shows two basic configurations. One is an “exotic” function of Black Wheelmade teapots, cups, beakers, and bottles, and the other is a part of the local assemblage in each sub-region of Palestine.68 Bechar insists that exotic Syrian fashioned Black WheelMade Ware was not just imported luxury items, but was manufactured in the north of the Southern Levant earlier than its variety was used in rural contexts throughout the Southern Levant.69 Bunimovitz and Greenberg explain that chronologically Black WheelMade Ware indicates a long association with the Painted Simple Ware (Syrian Caliciform repertoire) of the Early Bronze IV in Syria, and then the development of cups and teapots 67 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 84–86. 68 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine,” 28. 69 Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 178 of Caliciform Ware appears to be derived from the initial Megiddo blackish ware in the later Intermediate Bronze Age, in particular south in the Southern Levant,.70 See the Fig. 6 the distribution of Black Wheel-Made Ware and the Caliciform Ware during the Intermediate Bronze Age. The writer attempts to draw a map of distribution of Black Wheel-Made Ware and Caliciform Ware in the later 3rd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. Interestingly, Black Wheel-Made Ware was found north of the Southern Levant, and the variety of Caliciform Ware was more frequently found south of the Southern Levant at the last phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Now a question will be raised. What is the relationship between the Black Wheel-Made Ware distributed in the north and the Caliciform Ware distributed in the south? The question firstly needs the analysis of each one of Syrian Caliciform pottery in their research and distribution: Black WheelMade Ware and Caliciform Ware. 70 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine,” 28. 179 ★ Black Wheel-Made Ware ☆ Caliciform Ware Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ Na ‘ ★☆ Tel Na‘ama ★ Tel Anafa ★ Qedesh Cave n ★ Hanita ★ Hazor a ma n ☆Tel ‘Ashir Jordan River ★ Ḥorvat Qishron ★ KYagur is★ ho Megiddo ★ Tel Itztaba uk n a rm ★ Tel Y‘Amal ☆Beth Shean Taninim Ha d e ra Alexa nder Pole g ato ★ Mayan Baruch ★ HaGoshrim Jabbok Yarkon Sh iqm a ek lon La c a Ay So r ☆Gezer ☆Gibeon ☆Jericho hi sh ☆Lachish ☆Jebel Qa‘aqīr ☆Tel Beit Mirsim ★Kh. Iskander ☆Kh. el-Kirmil Be s or ☆ Har Yeruḥam Zer ed ☆ Beer Resisim Fig. 6 Black Wheel-Made Ware71 and Caliciform Ware during the IBA 71 See the distribution of the Black Wheel-Made Ware in the north of the Southern Levant in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 30. 180 Black Wheel-Made Ware (Megiddo Ware) The Black Wheel-Made Ware assemblage was first found and identified at Megiddo by the University of Chicago excavations in 1930s,72 and Amiran named it ‘Megiddo Group distinguished from the other Northern and Southern Groups.73 Drinking vessels and vessels storing liquids are the main representatives of Black Wheel-Made Ware and they usually have a dark surface often painted white.74 Because of their different characteristics, scholars have claimed that Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels were imported to the Southern Levant from Syria.75 M. D’Andrea explains that the Black Wheel-Made Ware was one of the pan-Levantine phenomena as “a locally produced manifestation of the grey, hard-textured wares spreading over the central and lower Orontes Valley, the Syrian steppe, southern Syria, the Beqa‘ and Upper Galilee”76 during the late 3rd Millennium BCE. S. Richard see a black-painted Syrian shred unearthed in the phases of the Intermediate Bronze Age at Khirbet Iskander was imported.77 A few 72 Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs. 73 Amiran, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine,” 81–83. 74 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups.” 75 Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, 36; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 30, 33; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 50; Mazzoni, “Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV,” 13–15. 76 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 83 and See Fig. 1. 77 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 125; Richard, “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity,” 36. 181 scholars, however, doubt its origin. Guy and Engberg noticed several differences between Black Wheel-Made Ware and the Syrian wares and suggested an intermediate element between Syrian urban centers and the villages in the Southern Levant.78 The claim that this Black Wheel-Made Ware was locally produced with the influence of the Syrian Caliciform ware was first asserted by M. Tadmor, who refers to three distinctive features of Black Wheel-Made Ware. Tadmor asserts that firstly the teapots found at Hama has neither gray nor black surface but reddish brown, secondly no decorations with white paint is on the Hama vessels, and finally there are typological differences between vessels in the Megiddo group and teapots found in the Hama J stratum.79 Richard and D’Andrea, claims that the difference between the Syrian goblet at Khirbat Iskander and Black Wheel Made Ware in its techno-style and its petrographic origin of kaolin outcrops at the southern Syrian or southern Lebanese areas.80 Richard and D’Andrea, thus, insist that the fragmentary Syrian black goblet from Khirbat Iskander “offers a glimpse of the early spread of the Caliciform culture into the southern Levant, pointing to interconnectivity of the northern and southern Levant in the EB III period.”81 Recent renewed excavation at Hazor unearthed an unusually large and diverse assemblage of Black Wheel-Made Ware. The Black Wheel-Made Ware was found 78 Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, 148–49. 79 M. Tadmor, “A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze Age I near Qedesh,” Israel Exploration Journal 28, no. 1/2 (1978): 8–10. 80 Richard and D’Andrea, “A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period,” 574–580. 81 Ibid., 580. 182 among 14 sites, mostly in the Hula Valley, and Shlomit Bechar reports that “the vessels and sherds found at Hazor comprise 76% (!) of the total BWMW found thus far in northern Israel.” The vessels found at the Qedesh Cave constitute 6% of total assemblages in the Northern Israel, those from the Megiddo tombs comprise 7%, and the items from Tel Na‘ama are 9%.82 Bechar investigates the relationship between the Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels in the Southern Levant and those found in southern Syria and Lebanon and concludes that Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels are found in southern Syria and Lebanon but they are more prevalent in Northern Israel. Bechar suggests that “at the end of the 3rd Millennium BCE one or several workshops located in the vicinity of the Hula Valley specialized in manufacturing BWMW vessels.”83 Bechar also evinces that Megiddo group are not imported from Syria, which is in contrast to the traditional view, “but were rather influenced by the Syrian style of Caliciform culture which was widespread throughout Syria starting in the mid-3rd Millennium BCE.”84 According to Bechar, Hazor may have played a role in the trade of Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels in and out of the Hula Valley and “maintained strong ties with the Syrian culture to the north, ties which continued and became even stronger during subsequent periods”.85 82 The 14 sites found Black Wheel-Made Ware are in the northern Palestine: Hazor, Mitlol Zurim, Tel Na‘ama, Qedesh, Tel Anafa, Horvat Qishron, Qanat el’Ja‘ar, Hanita, Megiddo, Nahal Yagur, HaGoshrim, Tel ‘Amal, Maayan Baruch, and Tel Itztaba (see Table 1) in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 29–31. 83 Ibid., 46 see Fig. 14. 84 Ibid., 53. 85 Ibid., 54. 183 Bechar pays attention to the reserved slip decoration. Two main decoration techniques are shown in Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels: 1) “Horizontal stripes and/or waves in white on the dark background”86 and 2) “Reserved slip: White stripe painted onto dark background and waves (wavy reserved slip) or very thin horizontal lines (band reserved slip) etched into the white stripe.”87 Most Black Wheel-Made Ware vessels were found in tombs which usually lack internal stratigraphy in the Southern Levant, but in Syria and Lebanon are the sites with internal sequence during the second half of the 3rd Millennium BCE. The reserved slip decoration appears at the end of the 3rd Millennium BCE in Hama (Levels J5-J1 to 2100-200088/2250-1900 BCE89), in Ebla (EB IVb in Stratum IIB parallel to Hama’s level J5-J1 at the end of the 3rd Millennium BCE90), and in Qatna (EB IVb to 2200-2000 BCE91). The reserved slip decoration of Black Wheel- 86 See Fig. 5: 1–5, 8, 11–13, 15–16, 19; Fig. 6: 1–3, 5–6, 8–10 in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 29. 87 See Fig. 2: 6; Fig. 5: 6–7, 9–10, 14, 17–18, 20 in ibid. 88 H. Ingholt, Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932-1938) (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1940), 48–49. 89 Ejnar Fugmann, Hama: fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg, 19311938. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques. II:1 (Copenhagen: Fondation Carlsberg, 1958), 82–85. 90 S. Mazzoni, “The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwestern Central Syria,” in Céramique de l’Âge Du Bronze En Syrie, I. La Syrie Du Sud et La Vallée de l’Oronte. Édité Par..., ed. M. Al-Maqdissi, V. Matoian, and C. Nicolle (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2002), 79 and Pl. XLV. 91 D. Morandi Bonacossi, “Tell Mishrifeh and Its Region During the EBA IV and the EBA– MBA Transition. A First Assessment,” in The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, ed. P. J. Parr, Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9 (Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009), 131–136. 184 Made Ware, thus, can be a chronological marker, which is “a later type of decoration technique that appears in Syria between 2250-2000/1900 BCE.”92 In the southern Levant, however, the case is different. Bechar notices an elongated cup with a horizontal handle found at Hazor which is characteristic of the EB IVa in Syria,93 but is decorated with wavy reserved slip, a type of the EB IVb, and therefore proposes that “BWMW vessels are influenced in their shape and surface colour by the earlier Syrian vessels, but were manufactured in northern Israel when the later Syrian decoration was in use” in the time of the EB IVb (2250-2000/2200-1950 BCE) or a bit later.94 With the High Chronology of the Southern Levant,95 M. J. Adams finds the answer of this time gap as “with the Intermediate Bronze Age beginning already in 2500 B.C., the northern innovation of and the southern distribution of Caliciform Ware comes into sync.”96 With the great number of newly unearthed Black Wheel-Made Ware (the Megiddo group), which was treated as an imported ware by Dever and Mazar, is now attested to be a local product influenced by Syrian Caliciform repertoire somehow earlier 92 Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 51. 93 Mazzoni, “The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwestern Central Syria,” 77; See Fig. 5:10 in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 94 Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 51. 501–2. 95 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant.” 96 Adams, “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition,” 185 phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Caliciform Ware The other Syrian Caliciform pottery is Caliciform Ware found south in the Southern Levant. Scholar interpret that Caliciform Ware was the daily ceramic assemblages found in rural contexts, which might be derived from Black Wheel-Made Ware.97 What about the distribution of Caliciform Ware? Strata I-H at Tel Beit Mirsim uncovered assemblages with combed decoration of horizontal and wavy bands and the fragments of the Caliciform Ware disappear before stratum G.98 Tel ‘Ashir is a small hill site to the south of the Poleg river just 500 meters from the coast, dated to the typical IBA and MB from a few selected sherds.99 An amphoriskos found at Stratum I (IBA) at Tel ‘Ashir resembles the ware with combed band amphoriskos at Stratum H at Tell Beit Mirsim.100 Caliciform jars are found at cemeteries near Gibeon. The barrel-shaped funerary jar at Tomb 13, with a handmade body and wheel-made rim, indicates the manufactural 97 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups”; Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” 98 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I,” 8 and See Plates 3-5. 99 Gophna and Ayalon, “Tel ʿAshir,” 166. 100 Ibid., 10:1, 5; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” pl.3:10; Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, pl. 22:12. 186 method for jars of the Caliciform pottery.101 A fragment of a cup with the decoration of combed and wavy lines between horizontal bands below the rim at Tomb 22 has parallels at Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum H and in the Caliciform culture at Lachish.102 A few Caliciform Ware occurred in the North-East Section from Lachish in the first expedition by Tufnell, so Tufnell was not sure if the Caliciform Culture built a wall or a city around it.103 Gophna and Blockman, however, insists that the sherds unearthed in the renewed excavations seem justified to suggest settlements and cemeteries during the IBA at Lachish.104 Two Caliciform cups from Gezer discovery by Macalister are extraordinary like the IBA type from Tell beit Mirsim.105 Macalister called it the evidence of “First Semitic.”106 Caliciform Ware was also discovered at Jericho in the Intermediate Bronze Age period.107 101 Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, 20. 102 Ibid., 39. 103 Tufnell, Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir), 31, 41 and see pl. 67:454, 455. 104 Gophna and Blockman, “The Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Pottery,” 895. 105 Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 32. 106 Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 And 1907-1909 Vol III, pl. 146: 8 and 20. 107 Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 186–209; Kenyon, “Syria and Palestine c. 21601780. The Archaeological Sites”; Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 119–47. 187 Some villages in the Hula Valley had a relatively high proportion of local Caliciform Ware, such as Tel Na‘ama. Wheel-finished sherds with combed wavy line decoration, which is a typical in southern Israel, appeared in the phase of the Intermediate Bronze Age as well as the Black Wheel-Made goblets and teapots at Tel Na‘ama.108 Two small teapots at Beth Shean, one without handles and the other with handles between the neck and shoulder, are also related to Syrian Caliciform teapots.109 Two handleless jars with a rounded bottom are paralleled with Syrian vessels, which are common in northern assemblages.110 Teapots with vestigial handles, pitchers, and cups yielded at Khirbet Kirmil near Hebron are numerous.111 The Khirbet el-Kirmil cups are the total known repertoire of the period, and closely paralleled with the delicate, wheel-ribbed Caliciform Ware of other southern sites, such as Lachish, Jebel Qa‘aqīr, and Tell Beit Mirism.112 Jebel Qa‘aqīr on the eastern ridge of Hebron was investigated and there was revealed to be five cemeteries, twelve stone cairns, and dozens of caves.113Cave 23 at Jebel Qa‘aqīr, being just not a tomb deposit but rather a settled cave, is dated to MB I 108 Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” 18–23 and see fig. 20:3. 109 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 111. 110 Ibid., 109. 111 Dever, “A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet El-Kirmil.” 112 Ibid., 27*, see fig. 5:16-26. 113 Gitin, “Miiddle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa’aqīr,” 46*. 188 from the variety of ‘domestic’ forms.114 The corpus of vessels from Cave 23 is clearly paralleled with other pottery Families, such as Jordan Valley/ Jericho Family, the Transjordan Family, and also Northern Central Family.115 The majority of the forms are paralleled with Amiran’s Group A and Dever’s ‘Southern Family’: Strata I-H at Tel Beit Mirsim;116 Loci 1518 and 1529 at Lachish;117 Cave 26 at Jebel Qa‘aqīr;118 Strata I-H at Har Yeruḥam.119 Out of a total assemblage of 1899 sherds, 488 sherds are cups and 429 vessels, teapots have been identified by 38 sherds and 32 vessels, and beakers have been 64 sherds and 58 vessels.120 The total sherds consist of 22.5 percent cups, 3 percent beakers, and 2 percent teapots.121 Further south, the Negev highland sites uncovered a significant number of Caliciform cups, which as a group consist of 7.4 percent of the total repertoire assembled 114 Gitin, “Miiddle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa’aqīr,” 46*. 115 Ibid., 60*; As for the Pottery groups, see Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” 116 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” Pls. 1-3. 117 Tufnell, Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir), Pl. 66. 118 W. G. Dever, “A Middle Bronze I Site on the West Bank of the Jordan,” Archaeology 25, no. 3 (1972): 233; Dever, “The ‘Middle Bronze I’ Period in Syria and Palestine,” Fig. 4. 119 Kochavi, “The Excavations at Tel Yeruḥam.” 120 Gitin, “Miiddle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa’aqīr,” 55*-60*. 121 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 25. 189 by Cohen.122 A small Negev site, Har Yeruḥam, also yields Caliciform band-comb cups.123 Bunimobitz and Greenberg point out that “the repair holes visible in many of the Negev cups underline the importance accorded to these vessels in the far-flung sites of the arid margins of the southern Levant.”124 R. Cohen and W. G. Dever observe the Beer Resisim ceramic repertoire in the Intermediate Bronze Age shares the characteristic of ‘Family S,’ and the wares are “surprisingly fine, with well-levigated clays and fired to an almost metallic hardness.”125 Spouted teapots and small straight-sided or cyma-profile cups are frequent with band-combing decoration or the combination of comb-band and incision.126 Therefore, the Syrian Caliciform pottery (both Black Wheel-Made Ware and Caliciform Ware) communicates that a considerable amount of the exogenous culture flowed into the Southern Levant in the Intermediate Bronze Age. It first happened with Black Wheel-Made Ware from the Hula Valley along the Jordan Valley and to the Jezreel Valley in the early Intermediate Bronze Age. In the later Intermediate Bronze Age, the exogenous influx took place with Caliciform Ware in the Judean Hills, Shephelah, the 122 Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, 1:239, see figs. 145:1, 17, 24; 147:3; Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 25. 123 Kochavi, “The Excavations at Tel Yeruḥam.” 124 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 25 and see fig. 2, bottom left. 125 Cohen and Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project,’” 40. 126 Ibid. 190 Sharon Plain, the Coastal plains, and the Negev. It is possible that the Black Wheel-Made Ware was the result of the earlier migration who brought their Syrian culture into the north of Palestine in the early Intermediate Bronze Age. Then this Syrian pottery culture was later developed with Caliciform Ware manufactured locally in the south, or another migration group through the coast developed Caliciform Ware as a new eating and drinking culture. As for the migration during the Intermediate Bronze Age this will be discussed in Chapter 7, Historical Reconstruction and Texts. Middle Bronze I Pottery Beside the Levantine Painted Ware, what are the characteristics of the MB I Canaanite pottery? And what is the relationship of the MB I pottery with the pottery in the previous period? Dealing with the ceramics in the period of MB I needs a careful approach because clarifying the development of the ceramics as well as the settlement pattern is the key element to comprehending the nature of the MB I. As for the MB I ceramic repertoires, the typological studies of the MB I pottery at Aphek or at Megiddo were considered as the standard MB I forms until the recent active publications of the excavations in the Jordan Valley have been come out in the last a few decades. Dever briefly describes the features of the MB I pottery as a complete contrast to the crude pottery of the previous period saying that there were “exceptionally well made on a fast wheel… the delicate and graceful forms, many of them carinated… most of them now appear for the first time in the history of the country.”127 The pottery analysis by Patty 127 Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 7–8. 191 Gerstenblith is mostly from the Megiddo tombs,128 and the works from the assemblage of Aphek have been the basic study of the ceramic typology in the MB I Palestine.129 The MB I assemblage at Aphek is divided into four stratigraphic phases as Gerstenblith’s four phases of the MB I assemblages.130 In the Phase I, none of the sherds were painted nor red slipped though “the pottery is wheel-turned and well fashioned with the exception of the handmade cooking pots.”131 The incised and relief decoration on kraters, which is similar to the pattern combing of the EB metallic ware, “appears only in the earliest phases of the MB I and does not continue into the mature middle phase of the period.”132 The trade mark of MB I pottery, such as Red slip and burnish on the bowls and carinated bowls with gutter rim, began to appear in the Phase 2 and dominate over the later phases 128 Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, 50–51. 129 P. Beck, “Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery,” in Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, ed. M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000), 173–238; P. Beck, “Area B: Pottery,” in Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, ed. M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000), 93–133; Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance.” 130 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 196; Kochavi, Beck, and Yadin, AphekAntipatris I. 131 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 196. 132 Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” 114; Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 196. 192 of MB I.133 Most forms from the Phase I, such as the hemispheric bowl, the storage jar with the elongated and folded rim, and a flat or convex disc base, continue to the Phase 2.134 The collarette juglets appear in this phase but the ring base does not yet occur in the Phase 2 of the MB I.135 Another early MB I site, Tel Ifshar, also provides meaningful evidences with the stratified pottery sequence. There are two phases at MB I Ifshar. The earliest appearance of Phase A has good parallels with the earlier Phase 1or Phase 2 at Aphek, “the earliest MB I stratum at Tel Dan, and Tell ‘Arqa”136 and Phase B corresponds with the Phase 2 of Aphek.137 The short distance between Tel Ifshar and Tel Aphek, a two days walk, has as reasonable comparison of relative chronological relationship between them even with a limited presentation of the pottery. Some interesting comparisons in pottery assemblages by Marcus, Porath, and Paley, is worthy to paying attention to. The flat, flaring rim with a slight gutter “made of a highly fired, metallic-sounding brown fabric” in the Phase A, “is 133 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 198. 134 Ibid., 198–210; Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” 117. 135 Cohen, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant,” 117. 136 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 235. 137 Ibid., 237. 193 paralleled in the northern Levant at Tell ‘Arqa Phase N.”138 Another flaring, externally folded and molded rim in the Phase A is also best known from Tell ‘Arqa Phase N in Lebanon139 and Mardikh IIIA2 in Syria.140 More parallels with the Northern Levant in the pottery vessels occur in the Phase B. While the assemblage at the Phase 2 indicates activities of storage, food preparation and serving and perhaps some ritual activity, Marcus and the others suggest that there was some fancy table ware for communal drinking activities, such as painted jars, jugs, and juglets, befits an elite structure of the building.141 They also stress on the vessels with “the quantity of wide-ranging imported or foreign related items” in ceramics as well as cedar for construction.142 How about the pottery repertoire of the inland Jordan Valley in the early phases of MB I? The evidence of the Jordan Valley demonstrates different features from the traditional understanding based on the coastal plain and Jezreel Valley. The ceramic 138 Ibid., 231, fig. 8:10; J. P. Thalmann, Tell Arqa-I: Plans de Repérage (Dépliants), Tell Arqa-I Contributions de Hanan Charaf-Mullins (Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2006), 141–43, pls. 86:4, 87:3, 5, 89:2, 90:1, 3. 139 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 231, fig 8:9; Thalmann, Tell Arqa-I: Plans de Repérage (Dépliants), 142–43, pls. 88:6, 8–11, 89:1, 90:2. 140 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 231, fig. 8:9; L. Nigro, “The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, ed. M. Bietak (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), figs. 7:18, 22, 9, 10:1-2. 141 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 237–38. 142 Ibid., 238. 194 corpora at some northern sites of the Jordan Valley, such as Gesher, Hagosherim, and Tel Yosef, “show significant typological trends that differ from the standard MB I forms found predominately in the coastal assemblages and at larger urban sites.”143 Even though they clearly correspond with the MB I corpus, the assemblages from the sites of the Jordan Valley show affinities to forms from the preceding IBA period. For example, the bodies of the closed vessels at the sites mentioned above are wider and rounder than the coastal MB I forms and “the proportions of the body diameter to rim and base are far closer to those in the Intermediate Bronze Age.”144 The bottles unearthed at Gesher and Hagosherim indicate the continuous features from the IBA.145 The bottles as well as other characteristics of forms, such as “some of the painted pieces and the short-necked, wide mouthed handleless jars,” attest to Syrian influences on the pottery repertoire and on the MB I culture as a whole.146 143 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 5. 144 Ibid., 5; S. L. Cohen and R. Bonfil, “The Pottery,” in The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, ed. S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel, The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62 (Boston MA : American Schools of Oriental Research, c2007., 2007), 77–99; P. Beck, “The MIddle Bronze Age IIA Pottery Repertoire: A Comparative Study,” in Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, ed. M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000), 247. 145 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 5; Cohen and Bonfil, “The Pottery,” 86, fig. 5.14:5; Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Hagosherim, Upper Galilee,” 73, figs. 4:9, 9:2. 146 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 5; Cohen and Bonfil, “The Pottery,” 91, 99; Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Hagosherim, Upper Galilee,” 73, 75, 82; Greenberg, Early Urbanizations in the Levant, 105–8. 195 These observations are more clearly attested by Aren Maeir.147 Maeir divides the period of the MB I with three phases: the early MB I, the mid-MB I, and the late MB I. The characteristics of the assemblages in the early MB I are 1) little red-burnished decoration, 2) a large percentage of the vessels “appear to be poorly made with thick walls and low-temperature firing,”148 3) parallels with the Syrian ceramic traditions, such as some painted decoration ware and the handless jars, 4) many reminiscent of the IBA pottery types, and 5) the similarities between vessels “from the tomb assemblages from the different parts of the Jordan Valley.”149 Maeir, therefore, suggests that non redburnished decoration of the assemblages indicates very early phase in the MB pottery sequence, even earlier than the “Pre-Palace” stage at Aphek, and the assemblages from the Jordan Valley, are influenced both by Syrian repertoire and by the IBA pottery types.150 He also points out that the early phase of the MB I in the Jordan Valley has cultural similarity but in the later phases cultural division appear in each region, the Northern, Central, and Southern Jordan Valley.151 Typical MB features such as large percentages of red-burnished decoration, high-quality massive production, and carinated bowls, occur in the mid and late MB I phases in the Jordan Valley. 147 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE). 148 Ibid., 64. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid., 64–84. 196 As discussed above, the typical types of the Middle Bronze I pottery in red-slip and burnished or carinated style, appeared in later phase of the MB I both in Transjordan and Cisjordan. There is slight distinct in the MB I ceramic repertoire between the coastal assemblage and pottery vessels in the Jordan Valley. The ceramic regionalism during the Intermediate Bronze Age could cause the distinction in form and style between the assemblage in coastal sites and those in the Jordan Valley. The pottery assemblage in the Jordan Valley in the early Phase of the MB I, maintained the previous IBA typology, paralleled with the Syrian ceramic traditions, and the bodies of the vessels are wider and rounder than the assemblage of the coastal MB I forms.152 In the 1970s when Jordan Valley was considered as a scanty land, Amiram understood that the Group C (Megiddo/ Caliciform group) as a link between the IBA (her MB I) and the MB I (her MB IIA), because many elements of the Megiddo group continue to appear in MB I repertoires in decoration, form, and technical improvement in making pottery. Thus Amiran concluded that the common ceramic elements between the Intermediate Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze I indicate a steady development of the local materials from IBA to MB I.153 Amiran attributed the technical advances of the MB I pottery to the widespread use of the pottery wheel, which already has been noticed in the end of the Intermediate Bronze Age, and the wheel gives the potter a greater refinement of forms with delicacy and 152 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 5; Cohen and Bonfil, “The Pottery”; Beck, “The MIddle Bronze Age IIA Pottery Repertoire: A Comparative Study,” 247. 153 Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 90. 197 precision.154 Amiran’s observation has been verified with the ceramic continuity from the Intermediate Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze I. The writer now focuses on the Levantine Painted Ware to seek the nature of the MB I urbanization because the Levantine Painted Ware is one of the hallmarks of the MB I pottery. 154 Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 90. 198 Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ Na ‘ ato n ★ Tel Dan ★ Kabri ama ☆ Nahariya n Tel Megadim ☆ Ki Tel Nami ★ sho uk ★ Gesher rm ☆ Afula Ya ★ ☆ Megiddo Taninim ★ Tel Yosef Ha d e ra ★ Tel Burga Alexa ndBaqai er ☆ ★ Ifshar Jordan River Pole g n Jabbok Yarkon ★ Aphek Dharat el Humraiya ☆ a Ay ek lon So r ☆ Gezer La ch ☆ Ashkelon is Sh iqm h a ☆ Tel ‘Amr Be so ☆ Tel el-‘Ajjul r Zer ed ★ LPW in Early phase of MB I ☆ LPW in Second Phase of MB I Fig. 7 Distribution of the Levantine Painted Ware in the MB I Levantine Painted Ware Levantine Painted Ware is one of the distinguished hallmarks of the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age with duckbill axe and appears almost exclusively in the early context of the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant.155 Levantine Painted Ware has 199 horizontal-band decorations mainly on the shoulder and in the middle of body, such as concentric circles or spirals, triangles, crisscross bands, lozenges, band-zones, and wavy bands.156 Its forms are typically jugs and jars at the beginning of the Second Millennium BCE with amphorae, jars, jugs and juglets.157 Amiran already dealt with some painted pottery in MB I pottery and revealed the similarities and differences between the MB I painted pottery and Khabur ware following up Albright’s suggestion.158 Gerstenblith, later, agreed with Amiran and Albright, so he explained Levantine Painted Wares partly connected with Khabur ware.159 Jonathan N. Tubb, who first coined the term Levantine Painted Ware for the sake of convenience even though he preferred to MB I Palestine Painted Ware,160 attempts to trace the origin of the two painted pottery of the MB I in 155 Bagh, “The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications,” 89; Tine Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 71 (Wien: Verl. der Österr. Akad. der Wiss, 2013), 19. 156 Bagh, “Painted Pottery at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware,” 92. 157 Ibid., 93. 158 Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 113; Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” 67–75. 159 160 Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, 59. J. N. Tubb, “The MBIIA Period in Palestine: Its Relationship with Syria and Its Origin,” Levant 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1983): 52; J. N. Tubb, “Report on the Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery,” in The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and Its Catchment: Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977-79, ed. John Matthers, vol. 2, 98 (BAR IS, 1981), 406. 200 Palestine and in Syria. According to Tubb, Amuq/Cilician Ware (Syro-Cilician Ware161) found in inland Syrian and southeastern Anatolia as far as south into the Orontes Valley, but Levantine Painted Ware occurred along the coast of the Northern and Southern Levant as well as the southern regions on the Orontes Valley.162 Tubb concludes that the two wares were mutually exclusive and both two painted wares appeared only in the Orontes Valley. On the other hand, P. Beck proposes Levantine Painted Ware is related rather to Syro-Cilician Ware.163 A tentative origin of Levantine Painted Ware is still not clear. Tina Bagh recently conducted an extensive work on Levantine Painted Ware, and demonstrates that the monochrome red painted jugs appeared in Egypt earlier than finer burnished bichrome Levantine Painted Ware and also can be traced back to the Byblos jugs derived from the EB traditions.164 The combined decoration of concentric circles and crosshatched triangles, for example, has clear comparisons with Levantine Painted Ware at Ifshar and Aphek in the Southern Levant.165 The present writer will here only focus on Levantine Painted Pottery occurring at the beginning of the second millennium BCE in the Southern Levant (MB I), to search for the fuel of urbanization in the coastal area. There seems to be two phases of 161 Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, 64–70. 162 Tubb, “The MBIIA Period in Palestine.” 163 Kochavi, Beck, and Yadin, Aphek-Antipatris I, 241. 164 Bagh, “Painted Pottery at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware,” 101. 165 Ibid. 201 appearance of Levantine Painted Ware in the coastal cities. The occurrence of Levantine Painted pottery in the first phase of the MB I in the early second millennium BCE are Aphek, Ifshar, Tel Burga, Tel Yosef, Megiddo, Gesher, Tel Nami, Kabri, and Tel Dan. Aphek is a typical site of the MB I with several phases. Most Levantine Painted Ware appears in the first phases of the MB I and later red, burnished MB I pottery takes its place.166 Aphek was considered within three phases; pre-palace, palace, and postpalace in Area A and B but when Area X was excavated there was an even earlier phase than the phase of pre-place of MB I.167 Levantine Painted Ware was found at Palace II in the Area A, at the city wall in the Area B, and at Palace I in the Area X.168 At Aphek, a number of pieces of Levantine Painted Ware occurred from the earliest MB I phase and more examples appeared in the Phase 2, pre-Palace period and mostly the fragments are parts of jars, jugs, juglets, and dippers.169 In the Phase 1, one fragment of LPW shows with incised decoration and applied rope bands170 alongside a bichrome sherd with crosshatched chevrons and a monochrome fragment with red crisscross band decoration.171 166 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 72. 167 P. Beck, “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek,” Tel Aviv 2, no. 2 (1975): 45–85; Beck, “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972– 1984”; Kochavi, Beck, and Yadin, Aphek-Antipatris I. 168 Beck, “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984”; Kochavi, Beck, and Yadin, Aphek-Antipatris I, 151, n.2. 169 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, figs. 36-38. 170 Beck, “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984,” 3. 171 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 77. 202 Their surfaces in Phase 1 are often covered with a white wash but the red slip that later becomes common is not apparent.172 Ifshar is one of the most important sites in the Middle Bronze Age and Phases AC are early MB I and Phase E-G are somehow later with intermediate Phase D.173 Levantine Painted Pottery at Ifshar is mostly from Phase A and the Phase B, the earlier phases both with the monochrome and the bichrome decoration.174 The examples from Phase A include “the net pattern decoration, concentric circles, and a reversing hatched or herringbone pattern, often on a white washed background” and these motifs are also all documented in Phase 2.175 These decorative motifs are paralleled at Aphek Phases 1 and 2.176 The fortified MB I site with artificial rampart in the Sharon Plain, Tel Burga, yields one fragment of Levantine Painted storage jar with red horizontal bands.177 It falls 172 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 77. 173 Paley and Porath, “Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Remains at Tel El-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report.” 174 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 235. 175 Paley and Porath, “Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Remains at Tel El-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report,” see fig. 13.6:4, 5; Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” see fig. 11. 176 Marcus, Porath, and Paley, “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations,” 235; Beck, “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984,” 3:7, 8, 10; Beck, “Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery,” figs. 10.2:17-19, 10.4:3; Beck, “Area B: Pottery,” figs. 8.10:14, 8.11:16. 177 Kochavi, Beck, and Gophna, “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga,” 12:8; Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, fig. 42. 203 within the simple local Levantine Painted Ware and is best paralleled by fragments from Phase 3 at Aphek.178 12 simple MB I pit burials at the summit of a small tell of Tel Yosef is uncovered.179 A Levantine Painted jar in Burial 28 has very short neck and high rim with simple monochrome red in broad band around the middle of the body, which is in the first phase of MB IIA with other variations in Burials 21, 22, 25, 29.180 At Megiddo, Levantine Painted Ware was found in great number with other types at MB tombs, which are rock-cut shaft tombs with several chambers used from IBA.181 Chambers A1 and D in Tomb 911 and Chambers B and D in Tomb 912 yield a number of painted MB materials182 such as a low-necked jug with red triangles, slightly different types of band-painted dippers, and a bichrome elongated piriform handless jar.183 Furthermore, various bowls with red band decoration as well as with rims with a red wash could be “a typological consistency of decoration between the painted jugs and jars and the bowls.”184 The dating of Levantine Painted Ware at Megiddo tombs, however, are 178 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 84. 179 Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef,” 139. 180 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 84 and fig. 43; Covello-Paran, “Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef,” fig 12:3. 181 Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, 64–72. 182 Ibid., pls. 28, 29; Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 85, figs. 46. 183 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 85. 184 Ibid., 85; Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, pl. 28 and pl. 35:16. 204 debatable among scholars.185 At Gesher, where 23 burials were found yielded the date of ca. 2100-1900 BCE, the first phase of the MB I, using the calibrated date.186 Levantine Painted Ware was unearthed from four or five tombs with a duckbill axe or burnished MB I pottery.187 An ovoid handle-less jar decorated with monochrome crisscross in Grave 13,188 a dipper type jug with two bands red decoration in Grave 14,189 a painted jug with monochrome band on the upper mid-body in Grave 18,190 are typical Levantine Painted Ware at Gesher with some other various.191 Affula also yields four fragments of simple Levantine Painted Ware style in the MB I phase though the context is not secure.192 Tel Nami settled during the MB I and LB II was confirmed as an international 185 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 87. 186 Cohen and Garfinkel, The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, 3. 187 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 88. 188 Cohen and Garfinkel, The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, 35–39. 189 Ibid., 39–41. 190 Ibid., 43–45. 191 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 89. 192 Zvi Gal and Karen Covello-Paran, “Excavations at Afula, 1989,” ’Atiqot 30 (1996): 23:9–12; Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 90. 205 maritime port through finds at the site.193 Tomb 235 at Tel Nami contains 10 burials, which were not interred at the same time, yields some vessels of Levantine Painted Ware, which are mostly bichrome, such as a long-necked orange burnished jug with bichrome decoration, a dipper jug with black and red band-zone decoration, three handleless jars and etc.194 The date is not secure but the finds are all typical early MB I material with the Levantine Painted Ware.195 Kabri was placed on an ideal location to provide a water supply and access to the sea and there was uncovered three pit tombs during the MB I and II dug into the EB layers in Area B, where Levantine Painted Ware was contained.196 Tombs 1045 and 1050 expose “similar dipper jugs with single and band-zones and collarettes”197 and Tomb 990 has two handle-less jars with monochrome or bichrome.198 Tel Dan is a very important stratified site for MB I pottery. Early MB I phases (Stratum XII) above the EB levels exposed a total of 18 fragments of Levantine Painted 193 M. Artzy, “Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon, ed. S. Gitin and M. Artzy, Colloquia and conference papers no. 1 (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co, 1995), 17. 194 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 92–93 and see also fig 51. 195 Ibid., 93. 196 Ibid., 98. 197 Ibid., 98; fig. 54; Kempinski et al., Tel Kabri, 31; figs. 5.22:4-7, 12–14. 198 Kempinski et al., Tel Kabri, 30; figs. 5.58:3, 4. 206 Ware, which are “coarse, gritty and red or brown in color.”199 The painted vessels continued into the late MB I phases (Stratum XII) with elaborate motifs and more refined decoration.200 The appearance of Levantine Painted Ware in the second phase of the MB I took places in Tell el-‘Ajjul, Ashkelon, Dharat el Humraiya, Gezer, Barqai, Megiddo, Afula, Tel Megadim, Tel ‘Amr, and Nahariya. A Levantine Painted dipper jug at Tell el-‘Ajjul was unearthed from the buildings in the south of the tell, opposite the Palaces and Courtyard Cemetery.201 The date of this building is obscure because W. M. Flinders Petrie dated the buildings in general to the Hyksos period,202 but other evidence from the area of the building indicated it belonged to the Dynasty XII.203 Bagh, with its slender shape, dates this Levantine Painted dipper later than the beginning of the MB I.204 Another complete juglet with spiral motif was found in Tomb 1551 at Tell el-‘Ajjul with 199 D. Ilan, “Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Tel Dan,” Levant 28, no. 1 (1996): 157–58 and figs. 1–2. 200 Ibid., 158. 201 W. M. Flinders Petrie, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, and Egyptian Research Account, Ancient Gaza II: Tell El Ajjūl (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College, 1932), pl. LI. 202 W. M. Flinders Petrie, Ancient Gaza I: Tell El Ajjūl (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1931), 5. 203 A statue of an Egyptian Hor-ka from this area, ibid., 5. 204 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 68 Fig. 31a. 207 other MB II pottery205 and its shape with the button base and rim also refers its date to the MB II.206 Ashkelon has a large MB seaport with a rampart and an impressive city gate. Most painted pottery from Ashkelon was Red, White and Blue Ware, which was likely a local production with similar examples at Tell Beit Mirsim and other nearby sites.207 A jug/jar fragment of true Levantine Painted Ware from Ashkelon is a relatively thick and burnished from Phase 13/14, which is in the so-called Moat Deposit continued up to the MB II.208 Unlike Ashkelon, the sherds of the painted pottery in the MB I strata (Strs. GF) at Tell Beit Mirsim largely belong to Red, White and Blue.209 No fragments of Levantine Painted Ware are found from Tell Beit Mirsim. Bagh suggests that Red, White and Blue Ware “seems to be a local southern variation of Levantine Painted Ware that does not occur till at least phase 2 of the MB I.”210 205 W. M. Flinders Petrie, Ancient Gaza IV: Tell El Ajjūl, (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1934), pl.LIV J60 N7. 1551; Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, fig. 34;14. 206 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 68 see Fig. 31b. 207 L. E. Stager, “The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the ‘Port Power’ Model of Trade,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, Denkschriften der Gesamtakadamie 26 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), Fig. 4-5; M Bietak et al., “Synchronisations of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and Tellel-Dab’a,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 18 (2008): 2:14-15. 208 Bietak et al., “Synchronisations of Stratigraphies,” 49, See fig. 2:13. 209 Albright, “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A,” 70. 210 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 70. 208 Excavation of the small site of Dharat el Humraiya placed on 13 km south of Jaffa near the coast uncovered 63 simple pit tombs, which dated from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.211 The two vessels of Levantine Painted Ware found were a long-necked jug both with a globular body burnished in red with black crisscross band decoration and a long-necked piriform jug.212 The painted tradition of the long-necked jugs with black decoration seems “to continue from the MB I into the MB II through painted juglets.”213 Similar to Dharat el Humraiya, one long-necked jug and a dipper of Levantine Painted Ware are found at Macalister’s tombs in III 30 at Gezer.214 The decoration of rhombi in two-bands with red and black bichrome on the red burnished surface seems to fit well within the late phase of Levantine Painted Ware repertoire so Bagh suggests that Levantine Painted Ware “reached the southern Levant relatively late during the MB IIA [MB I].”215 A Middle Bronze Age shaft tomb at Barqai in the Sharon Plain was used from the IBA to the MB I and II, and the materials are all typical of MB I.216 Levantine Painted 211 Ory, “A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahrat El Humraiya,” 76–77. 212 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 71 and see fig. 34 a and b. 213 Ibid., 71. 214 Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 And 1907-1909 Vol III, 299. 215 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 72. 216 Ibid., 83. 209 Ware from Barqai are two band-painted dippers from MB I materials,217 one monochrome and one bichrome, which both have ovoid bodies with band decorations.218 They can be compared with the Gezer dipper juglet and Megiddo dipper juglet.219 Afula located on the way through the Jezreel Valley east of Megiddo, links the coastal lowlands and the inland hills.220 Plot 198 conducted by Z. Gal and K. CovelloParan in 1989 was settled from EB IA/B, IBA, and MB I/II. In particular, Level IV (MB I) above Level V (IBA) has a long sequence but a further stratigraphy is impossible due to modern activities.221 Four fragments of the Levantine Painted Ware found in this context were two rims and two wall pieces with monochrome and bichrome.222 MB I tombs at Tel Megadim located on the Carmel coast unearthed eight almost complete Levantine Painted Ware, which varies “between very simple monochrome red bands principally belonging to a coarser fabric to relatively more elaborately decorated vessels, mainly bichrome, well burnished and with a wider variety of designs mainly 217 Gophna and Sussman, “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai”; R. Gophna and V. Sussman, “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai / ‫מערת קברים מן התקופה הכנענית‬ ‫התיכונה בברקאי‬,” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 5 (1969): Fig. 4:13, 14. 218 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 83 and see fig. 41a and 41b. 219 Gophna and Sussman, “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai”; Bagh, Tell ElDabʿa. 23, 83. 220 Gal and Covello-Paran, “Excavations at Afula, 1989,” 25–26. 221 Ibid., 44. 222 Ibid., 52–53; Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 90. 210 associated with a finer fabric.”223 Tel ‘Amr (Cave Sheman) exposed three MB tombs, where a low-necked Levantine Painted Ware of typical MB I jug was found.224 Tel Nahariya occupied from the end of MB I to LB has four miniature out of five Levantine Painted Ware examples to indicate their distinctive offering feature.225 Hazor has not unearthed actual Levantine Painted Ware, “which must largely be due to the fact that the early MB I period is apparently not represented.”226 As discussed above, the first occurrence of Levantine Painted Ware mostly appeared along the coast of the Southern Levant and Jezreel Valley from Tel Nami to Gesher and went further south to Ashkelon, Tel el-‘Ajjul, and Gezer in the later phase of the MB I (see Fig. 1). Levantine Painted Ware occurred along “the Lebanese sites of Sidon, Lebe‘a, Ruweisé, Majdalouna, Beirut, Sin el Fil together with Byblos and Mgharet al-Hourriyé where less ‘fancy’ LPW [Levantine Painted Ware] and a possible earlier tradition of LPW occurred”227. According to Bagh, monochrome band-painted dipper jugs at the very beginning of the MB I arrived in the Delta of Egypt and they were 223 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 96; S. R. Wolff, “Archaeology in Israel,” American Journal of Archaeology 100, no. 4 (1996): 732–34. 224 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23; Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, photo 225 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 97. 106. 226 Ibid., 100; Maeir, “Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B,” 321 and See the reference n. 107 about the MB IIA finds. 227 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 171. 211 relatively coarse fabric and band-decorated.228 She suggests that the arrival of the painted jugs at the very first phase of the MB I may indicate the Middle Kingdom trade with Byblos.229 In the next phase in the beginning of the MB I, more diverse painted pottery including fancy bichrome Levantine Painted Ware with concentric circles etc. is dominant along the Levantine coast from “Lebanon to Ras Shamra in the north and Aphek in the south and reaches Tell el-Dabca from the end of the Dynasty XII.”230 Thus, it is evident that Levantine Painted Ware found along the coast and Jezreel Valley in Palestine is connected with the Lebanese coast in the north and with the Delta region in the south. Furthermore, the occurrence of Levantine Painted Ware in the Southern Levant is identical with the earlier urbanization of the MB I. Conclusion While the interaction among each pottery group existed, regionalism is a distinguishable feature in the IBA pottery distribution. The IBA pottery studies have focused on chronological order within these regional groups, and latest studies assert that the IBA regional pottery groups are not chronological sequences but contemporaneous (see the Canaanite Pottery in the Intermediate Bronze Age in this chapter). Based on the study of the IBA pottery in this chapter, it is attested that slight chronological sequences existed within regional pottery groups. These pottery groups were not closed off but there 228 Bagh, Tell El-Dabʿa. 23, 172. 229 Ibid. 230 Ibid. 212 was interaction among them. The exogenous elements help to make clear these chronological sequences. Three groups in chronological arrangement are noticed in the Intermediate Bronze Age pottery. These bands appeared in chronological order, but they coexisted or overlapped during the entire Intermediate Bronze Age period. Each group respectively developed within each region and continued into the next period. The earlier pottery groups in the Intermediate Bronze Age are Transjordan groups including Family TR (Dever), 231 AZ group (Plumbo and Peterman),232 and ‘Ein Ziq and Be‘er Resisim in the Negev. The EB ceramic traditions continued into this band but these IBA assemblage groups in the Transjordan show definite change in practice in ceramic typology. The Syrian featured Black Wheel Made Ware is attested in some sites in this group. The IBA pottery at ‘Ein Ziq and Be‘er Resisim in the Negev might belong to this chronological group. The assemblage from ‘Ein Ziq and Be‘er Resisim shows strong EB features, such as red painted pottery, and furthermore C14 dates from these two sites are relatively earlier than other Negev sites.233 Goren’s petrographic analysis also indicates that Family TR and Family S at ‘Ein Ziq and Be‘er Resisim were contemporaneous.234 Much of the pottery from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan remarkably 231 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 124. 232 Palumbo and Peterman, “Early Bronze Age IV Ceramic Regionalism in Central Jordan,” 23–30. 233 Regev et al., “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant,” 546. 234 Goren, “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective,” 58. 213 resembles with the assemblage at Phase 5a (EB III stratum) and Phase 6 (IBA stratum) from ‘Ein Ziq.235 The second pottery group can be seen in Northern Group B by Amiran,236 or Family N (Northern, Upper Galilee), Family NC (Northern Central, lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley), and Family J (Jericho and the Jordan Valley) by Dever.237 This pottery group manufactured its pottery in a local workshop, and the non-local pottery was only from adjacent regions. The significance in this group is strong Syrian elements. The strong Syrian influence appears even in small rural villages in the Jezreel Valley where the locally made ware was dominant.238 Hazor might be an important workshop manufacturing and distributing the Black Wheel-Made Ware.239 The ceramic features of this group are in contrast to the EB pottery and reveal strong exogeneous elements from Syria. The last group is Southern Group by Amiran and Family CH (Central Hills), C 235 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 393. 236 Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 79–81. 237 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine”; Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine,” 289. 238 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 432. 239 The 14 sites found Black Wheel-Made Ware are in the northern Palestine: Hazor, Mitlol Zurim, Tel Na‘ama, Qedesh, Tel Anafa, Horvat Qishron, Qanat el’Ja‘ar, Hanita, Megiddo, Nahal Yagur, HaGoshrim, Tel ‘Amal, Maayan Baruch, and Tel Itztaba (see Table 1) in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 29–31. 214 (Coastal plain), S (Southern, including settlements in Negev and Sinai) by Dever. The style of the Early Bronze Age is completely absent in this group and the employment of the wheel was increased. The interesting point is that it is strongly connected with the Caliciform Ware but not with the Black Wheel-Made Ware. The Syrian elements in the southern group were not an exotic luxury items but domestic items in this group. The earlier luxury Black Wheel-Made Ware might develope into cups and teapots of Caliciform Ware in the later phase in Southern Palestine.240 Or, another migration group came into along the Mediterranean coast. Thus, it is likely that while these IBA pottery groups developed with its adjacent neighbors and continued into the next period, they have somehow chronological and typological distinction among them. The exogenous elements could help this chronological distinction in the various IBA pottery groups. With the long-term perspective, each group of the Intermediate Bronze Age gradually developed its own local pottery during the transition from the IBA to the MB I, and the common pottery elements spread over the Southern Levant in the later MB I. It is clearly observed that the coastal regions in the southern pottery group of the Intermediate Bronze Age became a trigger of a new era and rapidly developed into be urban centers in the Middle Bronze Age. 240 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine,” 28. Chapter 5 Copper Metal is an invisible item for trade and commerce because it can be reused in later periods by nature. Larger amounts of smelted copper in the Ghassul-Beersheba culture in the early 5th millennium were already discovered in the Southern Levant.1 Copper ingots are known from the Chalcolithic period onward as the local metallurgy in the Southern Levant, and large quantities of copper ingots were produced at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, near present Aqaba, during the late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age (in the middle of the 4th millennium BCE).2 The first evidence of the use of alloys of copper is from the cave near the Dead Sea at the end of the fourth millennium BCE.3 This intentional arsenical alloy of copper became the dominant alloy in the 3rd Millennium BCE, in particular in the 1 F. Klimscha, “Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-Production at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass, Aqaba Area, Jordan,” in Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity, ed. Stefan Burmeister and Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Menschen - Kulturen - Traditionen 12 (Rahden/Westf: Leidorf, 2013), 42. 2 K. Pfeiffer, “The Technical Ceramic for Metallurgical Activities in Tall Hujayrat Al-Ghuzlan and Comparable Sites in the Southern Levant,” in Prehistoric ʻAqaba, ed. L. Khalil and K. Schmidt, Orient-Archäologie Bd. 23 (Rahden/Westf: VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2009), 305–38; Klimscha, “Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-Production at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass, Aqaba Area, Jordan.” 3 James D. Muhly, “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,” Iraq 39, no. 1 (1977): 74. 215 216 Aegean region, Anatolia, Egypt, Transcaucasis, and Central Asia.4 A change in the usage of copper, however, took place during the transitional period of the EB-MB. Tin-bronze production was gradually introduced in the Levant during the transitional period from the Early Bronze to the Intermediate Bronze Age, 2400-2000 BCE.5 Did this change have any relationship with the population influx into the Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age? Did the copper industry during the Intermediate Bronze Age affect the numerous inhabitants in the Negev region? This chapter will discuss the copper industry, copper trade, and new technologies in the Intermediate Bronze Age, and copper matierals in the transition between the IBA and the MB I. Copper Industry During the Intermediate Bronze Age Recently, “the largest Early Bronze Age metal workshop in the Middle East” has been discovered with thousands of objects related to ancient copper processing at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the Faynan district of Southern Jordan.6 These archaeometallurgical finds 4 James D. Muhly, “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,” Iraq 39, no. 1 (1977): 74. 5 Amnon Rosenfeld, Shimon Ilani, and Michael Avorachek, “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997): 857; D. Bahat, “A Middle Bronze I Tomb-Cave at Motza,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 18–23; D. Bahat, “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Menahemiya,” ’Atiqot 11 (1976): 27–33; T. Stech, J. D. Muhly, and R. Maddin, “Metallurgical Studies on Artifacts from the Tomb near Enan,” ’Atiqot 17 (1985): 75–82. 6 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 425. 217 include “crucible fragments, prills and lumps of copper, slags, ores, copper tools (e.g. axes, chisels, pins), copper ingots, a few furnace remains and an extensive collection of ceramic casting moulds for ingots and tools.”7 Until the discovery of this huge copper workshop, the largest assemblage of metallurgical finds of that period were yielded at Troy excavated at Schliemann, where 70 crucible fragments and 70 casting moulds were found with some other metal production during the Early Bronze Age.8 The workshop at Troy is incommensurable with that of Khirbet Hamra Ifdan in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, where more than 3,5000 metallurgical objects used for the smelting, processing, and re-melting of copper, were found.9 Metal production was already noticed as being organized throughout Southern Palestine in places such as Tell ‘Ajjul, Jericho, and Bab edh-Dhra’.10 The analysis of the Pella copper artifacts from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age concludes that “while the EBA samples confirm the dominance of unalloyed copper as documented elsewhere … its use alongside metal from Faynan reveals that EBA resource acquisition systems were highly complex.”11 This factory-like copper workshop at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan shed new light on the metal processing in the 7 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 425. 8 Ibid., 429. 9 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 6. 10 Graham Philip, “Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in Syria-Palestine around 2000 B.C.,” Levant 23 (1991): 100. 11 D. Dungworth, P. W. Clogg, and G. Philip, “Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the Third to the First Millennia BC; Chemical, Metallographic and Lead Isotope Analyses of Artefacts from Pella,” Levant 35 (2003): 92. 218 Near East during the EBA period. Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, being a naturally defended village on an inselberg, has four stratigraphic strata from some sporadic evidence of pre-EB III (Stratum IV), EB III (Stratum III), EB IV (Stratum II), and the later Iron to Islamic period (Stratum I).12 The main occupation phases are Stratum III (2700-2200 BCE) and Stratum II (2200-2000 BCE) and all the archaeometallurgcial remains were found at these two strata.13 The excavators suggest that the production of the washed or purified copper illustrated in Ebla cuneiform tablets in the 3rd millennium BCE is probably identical to “the multiple remelting and re-cycling of copper lumps and prills into larger units” at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.14 The skill and expertise of metallurgists at Khirbet Hama Ifdan was remarkable as “they produced high-quality copper perfectly suitable for a flawless casting and ready for export in the form of both ingots and finished tools.”15 Alloying, however, was not conducted in the Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.16 It is interesting that alloying was not performed at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan because copper alloy already appeared in the southern Levant in the latter part of the fourth millennium BCE, “the hoard of 436 copper objects from the cave of Nahal Mishmar near the Dead Sea, also found in 1961, is one of the most 12 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 7. 13 Levy et al., “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy,” 428. 14 Ibid., 432. 15 Ibid., 433. 16 Ibid. 219 spectacular metallurgical discoveries ever made and also provides our first clear evidence for the creation of an intentional alloy of copper.”17 It seems that Khirbet Hamra Ifdan was a workshop casting primary copper ore from the mine into ingots to facilitate crafting, and later alloying copper may have been conducted in other places when they were made into tools, such as those at Nahal Mishmar. Another analysis of the chemical composition of the copper ingots from various sites in the southern Levant is striking. The copper ingots from various sites, such as Hebron Hills, Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, and Har Yeruham in the Negev, show uniformity in the chemical composition and in the lead isotope abundance ratios, and the same has also been observed in the samples from ‘Ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim.18 Thus, the excavators conclude that “apparently, a rather narrowly defined kind of copper dominated the market in this part of the Levant during the second half of the 3rd Millennium BCE” though some chronological issues are left.19 Dever and Tadmor already observed the metallurgical consistence of the hoards from the Hebron Hills, from Har Yeruham, and from Lachish during the IBA period and suggested the copper ingots from three regions originate from 17 Muhly, “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,” 74. 18 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 20; I Segal et al., “Chemical and Metallurgical Study of ’ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim,” Arx (Near Eastern Studies) 2–3 (97 1996): 43–51. 19 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 20. Avner, Carmi, and Segal’s studied radiocarbon dates suggest that the Negev sites (Har Dimon and ‘Ein Ziq) were probably the primary EB III copper producer during the southern Levant. See Avner, Carmi, and Segal, “Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: A View from the Southern Negev.” 220 the same smelting center.20 Fig. 8 (1) Mining, (2) Smelting, (3) Tools Production, (4) Buffer Zone between the production area and the "market" areas in Negev21 A significant publication by Yekutieli, Shalev, and Shilstein related to the copper mining in the Negev and the ‘Arava regions, suggests that there is a “four-tiered zoning pattern that stretches from Feinan westward.”22 Zone I is a core area of copper mining at Feinan, Zone 2 is an area of ore smelting and copper ingot production, Zone 3 is that of the 20 W. G. Dever and M. Tadmor, “A Copper Hoard of the Middle Bronze Age I,” Israel Exploration Journal 26, no. 4 (1976): 168. 21 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava,” 18. 22 Ibid. 221 working of copper ingots into tools, and lastly Zone 4 is a buffer zone for transporting the products to the consumer markets, though there is not enough published data for such a conclusion about Zone 4 to be made yet.23 The site of ʿEn Yahav in Zone 2 yielded the overwhelming majority of chipped and ground stones during the survey, except for the slags which covered the site during the IBA period.24 This assemblage includes both tools, such as blades and scrapers that were related to the activities carried out in small campsites, and objects, such as prominent flint hammers and stone anvils, that “were probably employed in crushing slags to extract copper prills.”25 The extensive settlement in the Negev region during the transitional period of the late 3rd and the early 2nd Millennium BCE26 might be better understood through this four-tiered zone copper industry. Haiman, following Kochavi, claimed that the inhabitants at Har Yeruham (Zone 3) were preoccupied with the local industry of hammering down copper ingots into implements.27 ‘Ein Ziq, the largest 23 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava,” 17. 24 Ibid., 9. 25 Ibid. 26 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 2; Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 2; W. G. Dever, “Village Planning at Be’er Resisim and SocioEconomic Structure in Early Bronze Age IV Palestine,” Eretz-Israel 18 (1985): 18–28. 27 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 18; M. Kochavi, “The Settlement of the Negev in the MIddle Bronze (Canaanite) I Age” (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1967), 35–46. 222 Negev site, was like har Yaruham, as every rooms contained a large number of stone tools, fine grindstones, work tables made of heavy stone plates, burned stone installations, and in a case, over 40 hammerstones were found in one room.28 Masabbe Sade and har Sayyad also yielded abundant hammerstones, grindstones, work tables and stone installations.29 The evidence of copper transport was also discovered at Be’er Resisim with some ingots, swords, and a fragment of an ingot on the surface.30 It is likely that this copper industry zoning pattern was not limited to the westward, to the Via Maris. Another copper industry zoning pattern could reach to the northeast near the cities of the Dead Sea through the King’s Highway (Khirbet Iskander, Tall a-Hammam, Tall al‘Umayri, and Khirbet al-Batrawy.) Khirbet Iskander Area C, during the IBA period, uncovered an abundance of hammerstones, large stone platforms, and grinding stones which are similar to the finds in the Negev.31 The considerable copper industry, which began in the Faynan mining region, was a very awkward phenomenon for the non-urban society during the Intermediate Bronze Age. 28 Cohen, “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev,” 110, 119, fig. 11. 29 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 20. 30 Kochavi, “The Settlement of the Negev in the MIddle Bronze (Canaanite) I Age,” 140. 31 Jordan.” Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, 223 Copper Trade Copper ingots are different from copper objects or copper alloy, and they “are understood to have been intermediary products used in the trade and transport of copper to its final destination, where it would be alloyed with tin to make bronze or be made directly into the desired end products.”32 Thus, copper ingots are “the most obvious indicators of commerce, stockpiling, and exchange of metal.”33 As discussed above, Levy et al. investigated the copper ingots from various sites in the southern Levant, and drew the result of their uniformity in chemical composition and lead isotopy. They suggested these uniformed copper ingots dominated the market and this dominance may have lasted from the EB III through the IBA period with some uncertainty surrounding the time span.34 Where was the destination of this huge copper industry from the largest copper workshop during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE? Were the IBA rural settlers or pastoral nomads in the southern Levant consumers of these copper ingots? If the 4tiered zoning pattern related to copper mining in the region of Negev and Faynan35 were accurate, the sellers would have opened copper markets for merchants at the coastal trade 32 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 1; Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 20; T. Stech-Wheeler, R. Maddin, and J. D. Muhly, “Ingots and the Bronze Age Copper Trade in the Mediterranean: A Progress Report,” Expedition 17, no. 4 (1974): 32– 37; Muhly, “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,” 81. 33 Hauptmann et al., “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant,” 1. 34 Ibid., 20. 35 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava.” 224 route (Zone 4). The archaeological data or written records do not give enough evidence to confirm an active copper trade between the Mediterranean coast (western Delta) and Negev area. Trade in metals, the base metals copper and tin as well as the precious metals gold and silver, was one of the major facets of Bronze Age commerce. The first large scale trade in metals might have grown during the 3rd Millennium B. C., developed international commerce, and became the representation of the wealth of the Early Bronze II period in the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Near East.36 Metal trade continued to become one of the most important items of commerce to the Late Bronze Age. Muhly argues, thus, A proper understanding of the nature and the scope of this trade is essential to the study of Bronze Age civilization and the nature of foreign relations in the third and second millennia B. C. Since these metals were available only in certain areas, trade was essential for the development of metallurgy in those parts of the ancient world without native mineral resources, especially the Aegean and Mesopotamia.37 Dungworth et al. suggest that the study of the copper artifacts from Pella from the EB to the Iron Age claim that the well documented East Mediterranean trade networking during 36 Colin Renfrew and John Cherry, The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011), 440–475. 37 Muhly, “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade,” 73; James D. Muhly, Copper and Tin: The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age (New Haven: Archon Books, 1973). 225 the Second millennium BC38, had a thriving 4th/3rd millennium BCE predecessor, “the importance of which has frequently gone unnoticed by archaeologists, largely because the network was focused not upon pottery, but upon the transmission of consumables, raw materials and technological innovations, which are often less easy to identity in the archaeological records.”39 One possible copper trade route during the 3rd millennium BCE east of the Rift Valley is the King’s Highway. Recent discoveries at Khibert alBatrawy by Rome «La Sapienza» University provides some hints that the King’s Highway was used as an overland trade network within the EB II-III Jordanian in connecting flourishing cities between Pharaonic Egypt and Jordan as well as “longdistance trade routes towards the west (Palestine and Lebanon), the north (Syria), and across the desert and the steppe, also to the east (Mesopotamia) and the south (Arabia).”40 The discoveries found in the Palace of Batrawy (including copper axes and imported items, such as the four-string necklace, which were made of imported semi-precious gems from the Egypt Arabia Peninsula, or Anatolia, the pedestal cup inspired by Khirbet Kherak Ware, the paw of a Syrian brown bear, an Egyptian lotus shape bowl, and the fragment of an Egyptian siltstone palette), represent this international long-distance trade 38 S. Sherratt and A. Sherratt, “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,” in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, ed. N. H. Gale, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 90 (Paul Aström’s Förlag: Jonsered, 1991), 351–386. 39 Dungworth, Clogg, and Philip, “Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the Third to the First Millennia BC; Chemical, Metallographic and Lead Isotope Analyses of Artefacts from Pella,” 92. 40 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy,” 39. 226 network through the King’s Highway east of the Jordan River during the 3rd millennium BCE.41 Thus, it will be significant in the IBA period of the southern Levant to understand who the consumers of these copper ingots were and who the head of this copper trade system was because while the Intermediate Bronze Age was considered to be the darkest period in Palestinian history, the largest copper workshop and the first evidence of arsenic alloyed copper appeared in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. Haiman researched the possibility of copper trade in the Negev during the IBA period well.42 Egypt seems to have been the first and foremost the main consumers of this larger copper industry because Egypt relied on importing copper throughout its history.43 Egypt sent delegations to mine copper and turquoise in the Sinai and the ’Arava through a government monopoly on provision of strategic commodities during the period of its political strength, but in the time of political weakness, such as the First Intermediate 41 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” 42 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts.” 43 Raphael Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1978), 51–56; A. Kempinski, “Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Canaan,” in L’Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles: Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs, 20-24 Octobre 1986, ed. P. Miroschedji, BAR international series 527 (Oxford: B.A.R, 1989), 165–66; W. A. Ward, “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on the Paper by Amnon Ben-Tor,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 281 (1991): 11–26. 227 Period during the IBA, such delegations were not known.44 Haiman, however, suggested that it did not mean that “Egypt would not have continued to consume copper only because the kingdom had dissolved into small political entities, particularly in view of evidence of maritime copper trade between the western Delta and the Syrian coast.”45 He insists that the evidence of transporting copper along the east Mediterranean route in the EB I period46 might reflect the possibility of the existence of such transport during IBA. A maritime trade route during the EBA I-II was suggested by Gophna and Milevski, where sites along the southern coastal plain through Ashkelon, Afridar, and Tall asSakan, were possibly a maritime base for the copper trade up to the Levantine coast towards Byblos and also to Egypt.47 Nonetheless, Haiman addressed several weak points of this hypothesis. There were no relevant finds in Egypt and a lack of remains related to copper in regions of northern Sinai.48 The reasons for the lack of relevant remains can 44 Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan. 45 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 46 E. D. Oren, “Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto-Canaanite Interconnections,” in L’Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles: Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs, 20-24 Octobre 1986, ed. P. Miroschedji, BAR international series 527 (Oxford: B.A.R, 1989), 389–405; Ward, “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai,” 17–18. 47 Adams, “Copper Trading Networks across the Arabah during the Later Early Bronze Age,” 136. 48 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 228 find in the general state of preservations in the eastern Delta sites49 or no sites excavated in the area,50 as well as the nature of the copper ingots already melted and alloyed with tin.51 In spite of these weaknesses, Haiman claimed that “the only reasonable destination for the ingots found in the Negev was Egypt.”52 Haiman pointed out another problem, the question of who the head of the copper trade system was. Such a large copper industry, in particular Negev and ‘Arava during IBA, should have been organized by system, and “international trade in ingots between countries requires systematic organization.”53 The wandering tinkers and coppersmiths descripted on the wall painting of Beni Hasan54 is totally different from the systematic copper trade. 55 Haiman insisted that the sites in the Negev are “a “tail” of an enigmatic 49 Ward, “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai,” 11. 50 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 51 Stech-Wheeler, Maddin, and Muhly, “Ingots and the Bronze Age Copper Trade in the Mediterranean: A Progress Report.” 52 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 53 Ibid.; see also M. Heltzer, “The Metal Trade of Ugarit and the Problem of Transportation of Commercial Goods,” Iraq 39, no. 2 (1977): 203–211. 54 Dever and Tadmor suggeseted that members carrying weapons would be itinerant metal-smiths. Dever and Tadmor, “A Copper Hoard of the Middle Bronze Age I,” 168. 55 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24; see also Heltzer, “The Metal Trade of Ugarit and the Problem of Transportation of Commercial Goods.” 229 body whose “head” is in the northern sedentary land.”56 Adams observes the copper trade has convenient westward routes linked to the permanent settlements in the Negev. He presumes that while En Ziq and Beer Resisim south of Eeynan were passing along Nahal Zin as a southern route westward to Egypt, Har Zayyad and Har Yeruham, northwest of Feynan close to the permanent water sources, are located on a natural path leading westward to central and northern Palestine, and the Judean Hills.57 Introduction of Tin-Bronze During the Intermediate Bronze Age, tin-bronze was introduced in the north and south Levant. “Tin (Sn) was intentionally added to Cu [copper] to produce a castable, harder and stronger alloy than unalloyed Cu.”58 Some metal items, such as the objects unearthed in the Intermediate Bronze Age (henceforth IBA) tomb near Motza,59 tin bronze daggers at Jericho,60 a dagger in Tomb I at Menahymiya,61 and the daggers from 56 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 57 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 397–98. 58 Rosenfeld, Ilani, and Avorachek, “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” 857. 59 Bahat, “A Middle Bronze I Tomb-Cave at Motza.” 60 P. R. S. Moorey and F. Schweizer, “Copper and Copper Alloys in Ancient Iraq, Syria and Palestine: Some New Analyses,” Archaeometry 14, no. 2 (August 1972): 193. 61 Bahat, “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Menahemiya.” 230 ‘Enan in the period of the IBA,62 provide reliable evidence for this technological development of tin-bronze. The introduction of tin-bronze objects occurring in the Levant during the IBA period is worthy to make note of because tin-bronze objects were quite different from producing with pure copper or arsenical bronze in the Early Bronze Age (3200-2400 BC).63 Tin bronze sporadically appeared in the region of Iran and Mesopotamia between the 4th and 3rd Millennium BCE and tin consumption drastically increased in the Early Dynasty III in southern Mesopotamia, “a time when the basic of political power may have shifted from religious to secular.”64 Anatolia was the only area west of Mesopotamia where tin bronze regularly occurred during the second half of the 3rd Millennium BCE, along with arsenical copper and unalloyed copper.65 In Syria, the earliest archaeological evidence for tin bronze occurred at Tell Sweihat in the late 3rd Millennium BCE, and the Ebla texts mentioned of tin and the making of bronze in the context related to the Early Dynasty III of Mesopotamia, though no tin bronze artifacts 62 Stech, Muhly, and Maddin, “Metallurgical Studies on Artifacts from the Tomb near Enan.” 63 Rosenfeld, Ilani, and Avorachek, “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” 862; Bahat, “A Middle Bronze I Tomb-Cave at Motza”; Bahat, “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Menahemiya”; Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine”; Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age; Stech, Muhly, and Maddin, “Metallurgical Studies on Artifacts from the Tomb near Enan.” 64 Tamara Stech and Vincent C. Pigott, “The Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” Iraq 48 (1986): 43. 65 Ibid., 52. 231 have been found yet at Ebla.66 The regular usage of tin bronze in Palestine and Cyprus occurred in the second millennium BCE.67 A north, south fall-off in tin bronze occurrence was observed through the abundant remains of tin bronze at ‘Enan, its greater rarity at Jericho, its sporadic appearance in the Central Hill sites, and its absence at Tell el-‘Ajjul.68 In the Minoan civilization, the production of tin-bronze axes also began from the Early Bronze Age while statuettes containing tin were first cast only in the Middle Bronze Age.69 This result draws the conclusion that the key usage of tin in the late Early Bronze Age, both in the Aegean region and the Canaan, “was in weapons rather than in figurines, pins and bracelets.”70 In the Middle Bronze Age, tin-bronze alloy was made for domestic and artistic figurines (72% of the objects contain up to 15.7 % tin, an average 6.4% in Rosenfel’s study).71 A complete change from the pure copper or arsenical bronze to tin-bronze, however, did not take place in the Middle Bronze Age. The transition to 66 Stech and Pigott, “The Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium B.C.,” 43. 67 Ibid. 68 Philip, “Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in Syria-Palestine around 2000 B.C.,” 94. 69 Paul T. Craddock, “The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 1. The Greeks before the Archaic Period,” Journal of Archaeological Science 3, no. 2 (1976): 93–113. 70 Rosenfeld, Ilani, and Avorachek, “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” 862. 71 Ibid., 863. 232 tin-bronze was completed by the Late Bronze Age for domestic production as well as weapons.72 Tin bronze in the southern Levant was introduced much later than it was in Mesopotamia and Anatolia even though the greatest copper workshop was revealed in the southern Levant in the late 3rd millennium BCE. It seemed that Southern Levant was an important provider of raw material in the form of copper ingots to other regions of the northern Levant in the Intermediate Bronze Age period and this copper industry led to the development of Negev and the Jordan Valley during the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE as Hiaman suggested,73 though the evidence for international trade is not strong yet. Copper Between the IBA and the MB I Generally understood, the weapons in the IBA period are made of copper, and “the use of tin bronze is a characteristic of Middle Bronze Age weapons.”74 Cohen insists that the mix of a metal composition from the single-period site appeared, such as one at Beth Shan cemetery and at Gesher cemetery, indicates a more gradual change, and hence overlaps as well, in metal technologies and trade.75 Oren mentioned that tin bronze artifacts seems to have existed concurrently with the using of copper alone at Beth 72 Rosenfeld, Ilani, and Avorachek, “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” 863. 73 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts.” 74 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 7. 75 Ibid. 233 Shan,76 and weapons at Gesher Cemetery show a composition of both arsenical copper and tin bronze in the same period.77 The two socketed spearheads at cAin es-Samiyeh are parallel with Megiddo in an IBA-MB I context and also attest with the MB I comparisons in Syria.78 Numerous comparisons come from MB I tomb deposits in the southern Levant, such as “Megiddo, Barqai, Beth-Shean, Nahariyeh, Gibeon, Moza, Ras el- ‘Ain, and Tell el-‘Ajjul.79 The fenestrated crescentic axehead made of tin bronze was found in the ‘Ain es-Samiyeh MB I phase, which had a long history in Mesopotamia and Syria through the Early Bronze Age, and was developed into duckbill axes, which were common in Syria and the Southern Levant by the MB I period.80 In particular, the dagger and the axe in the Middle Bronze Age are worthy to look into. While “the duckbill axe, which had a wide distribution throughout the Near East at the beginning of the second millennium, remained characteristic of Syrian during the MB I period,” the duckbill axe in Palestine was “often replaced by the notched chisel-axe.”81 76 Oren, “A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan,” 130. 77 S. Shalev, “Metallurgical Analysis,” in The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher : Final Report, ed. S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel, The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007), 112–13. 78 Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” 23. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., 30. 81 Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 234 A simple form of dagger from Syrian sites, similarly, was replaced by the trilled or veined dagger in Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age I period.82 Gerstenblilth interprets it. These innovations are evidence that a creative metal industry existed in Palestine during MB I. Although the Syrian coastal region may have been responsible for the modification of third millennium types of Mesopotamian origin, only the socketed spearhead was probably a Syrian innovation of the EB IV-MB I period. On the other hand, the development of the notched chisel-axe and of the trilled dagger in Palestine during MB I and their subsequent establishment throughout this region as the dominant types of the later Middle Bronze Age indicate the existence of a strong local school of metalworking in Palestine, which is not entirely dependent upon that of Syria.83 Thus, it seemed that the weapons of the IBA period in the southern Levant were strongly affected by Syrian influence but later they gradually changed into independent styles during the MB I period. Conclusion Active copper industry during the Intermediate Bronze Age was continued from the previous period, the Early Bronze III. While the IBA sites along the King’s Highway was the continued cites from the EB III, the inhabitants in the Negev were settled anew during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Khirbet Hamra Ifdan near Faynan seemed to lead this copper industry through the EB III to the IBA and also to be the cause of the EB population shift to the Transjordan by the end of the Early Bronze III. Khirbet Hamra Ifdan seemed to be the center of this copper industry during the Intermediate Bronze Age 82 Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 83 Ibid. 235 and the copper industry spread westward through the Negev for copper trade. It is not clear who the consumer of this enormous quantity of copper was. Egypt was suggested as the possible consumer, but any relevant evidence has not been yet attested yet in the northern Sinai or Egypt. New technology of tin-bronze was introduced during the Intermediate Bronze Age. The primary usage of tin-bronze in the Intermediate Bronze Age was in weapons rather than domestic or artistic figurines. The weapons which bear the resemblance to Syrian styles and creations of tin-bronze. The Syrian affected weapons of tin-bronze can point to a new culture or migration from Syria. At the beginning of the Intermediate Bronze Age, there was a Syrian influence on the weapons in the Southern Levant, but independent styles were gradually developed in the later period. These independent innovations can be the evidence of a strong local school of metalworking in the Southern Levant. Chapter 6 Burial Customs Burials or burial practices generally show the eschatological component of a society, therefore burial customs are one element of cultural expression. Over forty EB I rock cut tomb cemeteries and a few natural caves have been uncovered in the southern Levant.1 Burial goods were mostly standardized and modest with pottery, beads, and more infrequently, weapons and rather simple jewelry of metal and stone.2 Unlike the EB I period, the mortuary practice in the EB II-III shows a different picture.3 Fewer than ten cemeteries have been found from the EB II-III in the southern Levant except for in the Negev Highland and the plateau and slope east of the Jordan, which seem to have maintained their previous mortuary practices into the Intermediate Bronze Age.4 Other than the burials in Jericho and Bad edh-Dhra, the burials are all single tombs with very few interments (at Gadot, Asherat, Ai, Lachish, and Kinneret).5 In the important EB cities, such as Arad and Yarmuth, cemeteries have not been found yet. Ilan sees that the 1 D. Ilan, “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, no. 2 (2002): 93, a few exceptions with Nahal Qana" natural limestone caves; Ai, and Beit Sahur: modified natural caves. 2 Ibid., 96. 3 Ibid., 99. 4 Ibid., 101. 5 Ibid., 98. 236 237 normal mode of cadaver disposal, without burial goods or cremation in the open rather than in caves, indicates the intention of leaving no permanent material remains.6 In contrast to mortuary practices during the EB II-III, the vast cemeteries are a primary source in the study of the IBA period. Did the change of burial customs during the Intermediate Bronze Age indicate any meaningful change in population or their value of death in this culture? This chapter will discuss the burial customs in the Intermediate Bronze Age, and the burial customs between the IBA and the MB I. The Burial Practices in the Intermediate Bronze Age There were various burial customs in the transitional period between the late 3rd and the early 2nd Millennium BCE. Shaft tombs were common in western Palestine during the Intermediate Bronze Age.7 Caves for multiple burials were popular in MB II and MB III.8 Mazar explains that cave tombs are suitable for “an urban society in which families wished to bury their dead in the same place over several generations.”9 It has been attested that the IBA shaft tombs were reused in the MB I. Furthermore, not all types of cave tombs disappeared in the IBA, such as the burial caves unearthed in the 6 Ilan, “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” 101. 7 Ibid., 159. 8 Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 Bce, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 213. 9 Ibid. 238 ‘Akko Plain and Western Galilee in the IBA.10 Caves were even used for dwelling places in the IBA period.11 The research concerning of burial customs in the IBA period will discuss the burial types, the burial remains and their eschatological cultic meanings, and the connection between IBA settlements and nearby cemeteries. Burial Types Most of the cemeteries in the IBA period are composed of shaft tombs with some megalithic dolmens in Golan Heights and Upper Galilee, a few built-up tumuli in Central Negev,12 and stone built cist-graves at Tell el-Ajjul and at some sites in the Jordan Valley.13 K. Covello-Paran observes that there are diverse burial types in the Jezreel Valley, having six different types, so she concludes that “there is no distinct ‘Jezreel Valley Tomb Type.”14 Shaft tombs Shaft tombs are considered to be one of the characteristic types in the IBA period.15 Rock cut tombs, which had been popular in the west of the Jordan Valley in the 10 Getzov Nimrod, J. Stern Edna, and Parks Danielle, "A Burial Cave at Lower Ḥorbat Manot: Additional Evidence for the Intermediate Bronze Age (Eb Iv–Mb I) Settlement Pattern in the 'Akko Plain and Western Galilee," 'Atiqot (2001): 133-38. 11 Getzov, “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit.” 12 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 159. 13 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul.” 14 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 431. 15 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 139. 239 EB I, became normal once again in the IBA.16 Shaft tombs are rock-cut vertical shafts entering underground burial chambers.17 The shapes of the chambers and shafts are various, ranging from rectangular to round, and the entrance leading from the shaft to the burial chamber was usually blocked with a large stone.18 K. Kenyon classified the shaft tombs at Jericho into many types: composite type, dagger type, pottery type, outsize type, bead type, and square-shaft type.19 Many of the shaft tombs during the IBA period “were used for individual burials but some served for entire families.”20 Shaft tomb cemeteries have been attested in the upper Jordan Valley (Safed, Hanita, Shamir, Ha-Goshrim, Ma’ayan Baruch, and ‘Enan) and the middle and lower Jordan Valley (Tiberias, Menahemiya, Beth Shean, En Ha-Naziv, Tirat Zvi, Tel Rehob, Jericho, and Bad edhDhra‘), Central Highlands (‘Ain Samiya, Sinjil, Gibeon, Khirbet Kufin, Efrat, Tekoa, and Khirbet Kirmil), the Judean Shephelah (Lachish and Jebel Qa‘aqir), and the coastal regions (Barqai, Khirbet Ibreiktas, Ma‘abarot, Tel aviv, Azor, Yavne, Tell el-Ajjul, and Ramot Menashe (Gal‘ed).21 16 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 159. 17 Ibid. 18 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 139. 19 K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho Vol. II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-8, vol. 2 (London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1965). 20 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 140. 21 Ibid., 140, add some new sites on the basis of Gophna’s investigation. 240 Dolmens Dolmans, meaning stone tables, are enlarged versions of tumulus-covered cists; the average size of dolmen stones is “0.9 X 0.7 X 4 meters, and each weighs over a ton.”22 A simple dolman consisted of six large unworked slabs with four stones arranged in a rectangule, the fifth stone as a base, and the largest of all placed atop the rest.23 Dolman fields with thousands of dolmens have been found in Golan and Transjordan which have some basalt regions in eastern Galilee.24 Shamir Dolmen 3, in the Golan hills, appears with hundreds of tons of basalt stones and a giant basalt capstone weighing some 50 tons with a ceiling decorated by rock art with remains from the IBA period.25 The excavators assert that Shamir Dolmen 3 was established as a monumental structure in the Hula Basin during the IBA and conclude that “the Shamir Dolmen Field is evidence of a hierarchical, complex society with well-defined burial customs and monumental architectural designs, requiring a great deal of human labor and effort.”26 Tumuli (Cairns) Tumuli were “laid either in an articulated or disarticulated state within a stone 22 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 141. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 G. Sharon et al., “Monumental Megalithic Burial and Rock Art Tell a New Story about the Levant Intermediate Bronze ‘Dark Ages,’” PLoS ONE 12, no. 3 (2017): 21. 26 Ibid. 241 cist, covered with a mound of stone and earth.”27 From the Intermediate Bronze Age, tumulus fields were found in the basalt regions of Hauran and Golan, in the Jordan Valley and the Transjordan plateau, and in particular in the Negev highlands, “where thousands of tumuli have been discovered in large concentrations on mountain ridges, on hilltops, and near or even within habitation sites (for example, Har Yeruham and Beer Resisim).”28 Haiman divided the cairns excavated in the Negev into two main groups. The common cairns inside dwelling sites at small, marginal sites were found at various locations within the occupational sites, “in yards, between dwelling rooms and yards, attached to walls, on top of walls, and even in dwelling rooms that were no longer inhabited once the cairns were built.”29 These could be dated to the Early Bronze and the IBA sites.30 The cairn fields at the major, central sites, are located at the top of a hill near water sources in northern Negev with scanty remains in them.31 Because of the lack of pottery remains, the exact date of these cairns cannot be told,32 but there are a few burial cairns with rectangular platforms that were dated to the IBA period related to the major 27 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 141. 28 Ibid. 29 M. Haiman, “Cairn Burials and Cairn Fields in the Negev,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 287 (1992): 27. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., 37. 32 Ibid., 33. 242 sites.33 Thus, Haiman suggested the possibility that “most of the inhabitants of the major sites were from the north and buried their dead there, while most of the inhabitants of the marginal settlements were local desert dwellers who continued the tradition of cairn burial practiced in earlier periods.”34 Stone-Built Cist-Graves Stone-Built cist-graves were generally characterized by a rectangular stone-lined and sealed form and are considered to have “originated further north of the Euphrates, as well as in and western inland Syria and the Black Desert/Hauran.” 35 They appear in the southern Levant during the IBA period.36 The distribution of stone-built cist-graves in the southern Levant was in the central Jordan Valley and Wadi Zerqa at the key routes of “the north-south and east-west access and communication.”37 In the Jordan Valley, they 33 Haiman, “Cairn Burials and Cairn Fields in the Negev,” 41. 34 Ibid., 42. 35 L. Cooper, “Early Bronze Age Burial Types and Social-Cultural Identity within the Northern Euphrates Valley,” in Euphrates River Valley Settlement, vol. 5, The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC (Oxbow Books, 2007), 55–70, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr99p.10.Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 121. 36 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 122. 37 Ibid. 243 were discovered at Tiwal esh-Sharqi, the associated cemetery of Tell Um Hammad,38 at Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh,39 at Deganya A on the bank of the Jordan River,40 and at Eitrawi in the Wadi Zerqa, 41 but they were apparently absent along the trade route into the lowlands in western Jordan Valley.42 The presence of this burial type at Tell el-Ajjul is unique, as it is on the Mediterranean coast far from the Jordan Valley.43 Kennedy’s interpretation of the IBA stone-built cist-graves at Tell el-Ajjul is significant. She suggests that “the overland route was not the only possible means of dissemination,” though the likelihood of seaborne 38 J. N. Tubb and M. W. Wright, “Excavations in the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal Esh-Sharqi: A Preliminary Report,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29 (1985): 115–30; J. N. Tubb, Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal Esh-Sharqi (London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications, 1990); J. N. Tubb, “Aliens in the Levant,” in The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, ed. Peter Parr, Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9 (Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009), 111–17. 39 Tubb, “Aliens in the Levant,” 112. 40 J. Seligman and O. Yogev, “An Early Bronze Age IV Built Tomb at Deganya A,” ’Atiqot 22 (1993): 71–75. 41 K. Prag, “The ‘Built Tomb’ of the Intermediate Early-Middle Bronze Age at Beitrawi, Jordan,” in Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, ed. J. B. Hennessy, S. Bourke, and J. P. Descœudres, Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 3 (Sydney: Meditarch, 1995), 103–14. 42 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 122. 43 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul.” 244 transmission is uncertain during the late 3rd millennium BCE.44 Furthermore, she mentions that the coexistence of stone-built cist-graves with shaft tombs and pit graves, typical IBA burials, indicates a form differentiation, possibly an ethnic distinction, so Kennedy suggests that “there may have been a modest influx of peoples from central and southern Syria, as well as the movement of ideas… the MBA processes of the reurbanization have antecedents earlier, in the final centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE.”45 The predominant cist-graves in the MBA period46 support Kennedy’s suggestion. Burial Remains Burial remains during the Intermediate Bronze Age are articulated or disarticulated skeletons, the gift of pottery vessels, and a number of copper weapons. In addition, female skeletons were also accompanied by beads.47 Also worthy of note are the copper daggers and animal bones among the burial remains. Copper Weapons The abundance of copper artifacts discovered in the IBA tombs is striking compared to the poor and simple architecture and pottery.48 M. D‘Andrea researches 44 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul.” 125. 45 Ibid., 126. 46 Dever, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine,” 163. 47 Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 160. 48 Aaron Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144, no. 1 (March 2012): 33. 245 burial weapons during the Intermediate Bronze Age. The distribution of burial weapons (dagger and Javelin, dagger, spear, and arrow) are not limited within regionalism.49 The burials laid daggers, spears, and arrows together are Menahemiya, ‘Ain Samiya, and Musheirfeh, and the sites found daggers and javelins or spears are fourteen sites near Amman, along the Jordan Valley, south of Judean Hills, and north of Sharon Plain.50 D‘Andrea explains these burial weapons with the Pan-Levantine phenomenon as the increasing deployment of weapons in funerary contexts and the emphasis on major individuals within burials first began in the Euphrates Valley and then spread in Mesopotamia by the mid-3rd millennium BC, and such a phenomenon was diffused to the Southern Levant, Cyprus, and the Aegean during the Bronze Age.51 Greener observes that the copper daggers offered to the deceased in the burials expressed social status during the IBA period.52 According to Greener, the dagger type tombs and the composite type tombs, among the six types at Jericho contained “almost exclusively articulated skeletons” with daggers as the typical offering, but the other four types at Jericho appeared to have a majority of disarticulated skeletons with various 49 D’Andrea, M., “Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities during the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant,” in SOMA 2012: Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3 March 2012, ed. L. Bombardieri et al., BAR international series 2581 (Oxford, England: Archaeopress, 2013), 139. 50 Ibid., 146, see Fig. 3 Distributional Map of the dagger + spear/javelin and dagger + spear + arrow sets during the EB IV period. . 51 52 Ibid., 139. Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers.” 246 offerings except daggers.53 A similar pattern was also seen at Tell el-‘Ajjul, where Cemetery 1500 as well as 11 other tombs contained intact skeletons and many daggers. In contrast, Cemeteries 100-200 had mostly disarticulated skeletons and few daggers.54 Javelins were not common burial artifacts but mostly found alongside the daggers and articulated interments, such as the four javelins at Jericho cemetery and Javelins at Tell Ajjul and other sites.55 Thus, Greener concludes that copper daggers represented status, fertility, and wealth or power, within the basic separation between men’s and women’s roles; and the copper javelins testify that “it was not merely a functional weapon, but rather played the symbolic role of broadcasting the potency and power of the leaders.”56 Greener also emphasizes that the burial customs and patterns attested at Jericho should be seen as “very much part of the dynamic processes that created, modified, and standardized the social structure and ideals of the IB society.”57 Animal Bones The IBA period is not different from those during the EBA period except for 53 Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers.” 35. 54 Ibid., 36. 55 Ibid.; Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul,” 49; Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, 52; Bahat, “A Middle Bronze I TombCave at Motza.” 56 Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers,” 44; Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, 53. 57 Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers,” 44. 247 animal bones. Ilan mentions that “animal bones are not an intentional component in EB burial assemblages,”58 but the introduction of animal bones in the IBA is a major change in the way of perceiving the liminal stage between life and death.59 Animal bones in burial remains have been found throughout the region during the IBA period. Sheep and goats are predominant but other animals, such as pigs, cows, donkeys, and even dogs, have been included.60 In the IBA cemetery of the Holyland compound, sheep and goats are the most common species together with a few donkeys, corroborating other contemporaneous tombs in the southern Levant.61 Burial jars at a cave burial in Nahal Refaim near Jerusalem during the IBA period also contains sheep and goat bones as well as human bones.62 At the IBA cemetery at Tell el-Ajjul, 62% of the total corpus are the evidence of animal remains (including Tombs 1530, 1535, 1537, 1544, and 1545).63 The bones of sheep and goats are prevalent but the excavators believed the bones from Tomb 1530 58 Ilan, “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” 96. 59 Ibid. 60 Milevski, Greenhut, and Agha, “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem,” 403; Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 120. 61 Milevski, Greenhut, and Agha, “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem,” 403. 62 S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Intermediate and Middle Bronze Age Burial Cave 900 in Naḥal Refa’im, Jerusalem,” ’Atiqot 88 (2017): 21. 63 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 120. 248 may have been from a domestic dog, which was popular during the Middle Bronze Age. Settlement and Its Cemetery It has been considered that no correlation was found between the large number of cemeteries and the relatively small number of occupational settlements during the IBA peirod.64 A collation of old and new data, however, shows that IBA burials considerably correspond with nearby settlements. The pattern of settlement and burial has been discovered on the fringes of the ‘Akko Plain during the Intermediate Bronze Age,65 such as a settlement and a burial at Rosh Ha-Niqra,66 two dwelling caves and tombs at Shelomi,67 a cave dwelling at Shelomit,68 a settlement at Sa‘ar, burial caves near Kabri,69 a settlement near Asherat,70 64 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 128. 65 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 66 M. Tadmor, “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb-Group from the Rosh Haniqra Ridge,” Eretz Israel 11 (1973): 286–289 (Hebrew; English Summary, p. 32*). 67 N. Getzov, “Shelomi,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115 (2003): 71*-71*. 68 Getzov, “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit.” 69 N. Getzov, “Abstract: Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee,” ’Atiqot / ‫( עתיקות‬1995): 211; N. Getzov, “Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee,” ’Atiqot 27 (1995): 1*-6*. 70 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 249 burial caves at Abu Sinan,71 a settlement at Ḥ. ‘Uẓa, 72 a settlement and cemetery at Tel Bira,73 a settlement near Yavor Junction,74 a burial cave near Tel Regev,75 the burial caves at Naḥaf,76 and the burial caves at Ḥanita.77 The excavators at Ḥorbat Manot even connect these burial and settlement patterns in the ‘Akko plain with the caves with habitation in western Galilee as “shelters used by shepherds who went forth from the settlements on the fringes of the plains into the hills with their flocks on a seasonal basis.”78 Thus, it is suggested that the dwelling caves in the hills ofwestern Galilee are not evidence for a separate habitation of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes, but rather “these caves should be identified as a sub-group of the sedentary population residing on the fringes of the ‘Akko Plain.”79 Another large settlement and cemetery group is found in the Jezreel Valley. The 71 Getzov, “Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee,” 15*-16*; Getzov, “Abstract.” 72 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 73 Prausnitz, “Bira.” 74 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 75 J. Garstang, “El Harbaj, Notes on Pottery Found at El Harbaj,” Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 2 (1924): 45–46. 76 Getzov, “Abstract”; Getzov, “Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee,” 7*-15*. 77 E. Yannai and A. Rochman-Halperin, “Burial Caves of the Intermediate Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age IV) at Ḥanita,” ’Atiqot 59 (2008): 193*-194*. 78 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 79 Ibid. 250 documented fifty-eight IBA sites consist of forty settlements and eighteen cemeteries and the IBA settlements are found “below an overburden of colluvial soil at the valley’s margins,” but cemeteries are never located below the colluvial soil.80 Covello-Paran attests that among them are at least ten paired settlements and near cemeteries within the limited archaeological survey and development.81 In the Judaean Shephelah, an IBA farmhouse at Newe Shalom82 with other settlement sites (Moshav Tarum,83 Esta‘ol,84 and Nahal Yarmut85) are nearby the large cemeteries at Ramat Bet Shemesh86 and Beth Shemesh.87 The Rephaim Valley also reveals a group of settlements and cemeteries, such as a cemetery at the Holyland compound at Jerusalem,88 a settlement at Ras al-‘Amud east of Jersualem,89 a settlement and a cemetery at Malcha,90 and a settlement and a 80 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 59–60. 81 Ibid., 60, Covello-Paran mentions that there are many more IBA sites that are not detectable in surveys so this result can change in the future archaeological activties. 82 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 8*. 83 Ibid., 13*. 84 Ibid. 85 Dagan, “Naḥal Yarmut.” 86 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 87 Grant and Wright, Ain Shems Excavations Part V (Text). 88 Milevski, Greenhut, and Agha, “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem.” 89 Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 90 Eisenberg, “Manahat - A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem”; 251 burial cave at Nahal Refaim.91 Some sites have evidence of both an occupation and a cemetery, such as Hazor, Megiddo, Beth Shean, Tel Rehov, Tell umm Hammad, Jericho, Tel Poleg, Lachish, Jebel Qa‘aqir, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Tell Halif.92 Mazar explains that on the one hand, the abundant agricultural villages in the Mediterranean zones appear to be “sedentary farmers who lived permanently in newly established villages based on a mixed subsistence economy (agriculture and animalraising, including pigs),” and on the other hand, many of the cemeteries, including the burial caves, may have belonged to a non-sedentary population.93 Some solitary burial sites have been interpreted in either ways: 1) as evidence of the lack of settlements for a pastoral-nomadic population94 or 2) as evidence for settlements not yet discovered.95 While many solitary burial sites and meager occupational traces during the IBA period seem to demonstrate the pastoral-nomadic structure, many rural villages newly excavated in unexpected places give more weight to the sedentary agricultural society than what Storchan, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom,” 13*. 91 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 92 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 129, see the map 5.1 Intermediate Bronze Age Sites and Cemeteries. 93 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 116. 94 Finkelstein, “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 41; Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil”; Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period.” 95 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 152–54; Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 252 was thought before. The Continuous Burial Customs Between the IBA and the MB I Dever already mentioned that the striking phenomenon at the enormous isolated IBA cemeteries, such as ’Ain es-Samiyeh and Khirbet el-Kirmil in the Central Hill Country many kilometers far from any known settlements, demonstrates the material continuation between IBA and MB I by reusing IBA shaft tombs for MB I burials.96 ’Ain es-Samiyeh and Sinjil in the Central Hill Country are primarily the IBA burial complexes, especially the cemetery at ’Ain es-Samiyeh, which is the largest in all of the southern Levant.97 These shaft tombs from the IBA period were often reused in MB I, like those at many other MB I sites.98 The reuse of IBA shaft tombs for the MB I burials has frequently been observed in both Syria and the Southern Levant, such as at Barqai, Megiddo, Gibeon, Moza, ’Ain es-Samiyeh, Sinjil, Khirbet Kufin, Khirbet el-Kirmil, and elsewhere.99 96 Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” 34. 97 Dever, “An MB I Tomb Group from Sinjil”; Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil.” 98 99 Dever, “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil,” 23. Eliezer D. Oren, The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shan, Museum monograph of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 12 (T. 92); Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, 64–72, 88, 89 (T. 911-12, 1100); Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, 42-43 (T. 31); Gophna and Sussman, “A Middle Bronze 253 Rachel S. Hallote classifies the MBA various burials into two basic types: constructed tombs and cut tombs.100 A masonry tomb, masonry lined pit, and tumulus, are kinds of constructed tombs, and cut tombs include the shaft-and-chamber tomb, pit, cave, and jar burial in a pit.101 Hallote observes that out of 144 sites with cut tombs in the MBA period (ca. 2000-1550 BC), “at least 26 of them, or 18%, included tombs originally constructed in the EBIV/MBI [IBA] period.”102 At Jericho, at least 63% of the shaft tombs were cut and used in the IBA period and 56% of them were reused during the course of the MB I.103 Kennedy also observes that stone-built cist tombs at Tell Umm Hammad first appeared during the late IBA (late EBIV) and were reused increasingly throughout the MB I.104 As for the reason to reuse the IBA tombs in the MB I period, Age Tomb at Barqai,” 2:41; Varda Sussman, “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Moza,” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 3 (1966): figs. 1-3; Smith, Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kufin, Palestine, 12–21; Dever, “A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet ElKirmil.” 100 Rachel S. Hallote, “Real and Ideal Identities in Middle Bronze Age Tombs,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, no. 2 (June 2002): 97. 101 Ibid. 102 R. S. Hallote, “Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8, no. 1 (1995): 106; See also Hallote, “Real and Ideal Identities in Middle Bronze Age Tombs,” 109. 103 Rachel S. Hallote, “Mortuary Practices and Their Implications for Social Organization in the Middle Bronze Southern Levant. Unpublished PhD Dissertation” (University of Chicago, 1994), 210–11; Hallote, “Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant,” 106. 104 Kennedy, “Assessing the Early Bronze—Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan,” 209. 254 Covello-Paran suggests that the cemeteries were used as territory markers of the living so the MBA inhabitants “intentionally reused IBA burial caves, seemingly to reinforce their cultural ancestral claim.”105 D‘Andera also stresses that the analysis of the IBA weaponry in funerary contexts argues for a diachronic connectivity and much of the sets of weapons discovered in the IBA period continue to be employed in the following Middle Bronze Age.106 Conclusion In contrast to the previous period, the increased numbers of tombs and burial sites found during the IBA is impressive. This indicated a change in the value placed upon death and its eschatological meaning in the IBA society, expressed by the great numbers of tombs and cemeteries. The pairs of settlements and burials have been discovered on the ‘Akko Plain, in the Jezreel Valley, the Shephelah, the Rephaim Valley, and a few sites in the Jordan Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age. This pattern of settlements and burials can imply the sedentary agricultural society. While, the tombs with copper daggers contain articulated skeletons, tombs without copper daggers mostly contain disarticulated skeletons and various offerings except copper daggers. These burial customs surely represent the hierarchy and complexity of society during the IBA period. The practice of using weapons in burials in the IBA was already present in Mesopotamia 105 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 431. 106 D’Andrea, M., “Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities during the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant,” 140. 255 and the Northern Levant and later arrived in the Southern Levant. Furthermore, these weaponry practices within funerary contexts are employed in the following MB I period. Thus, considering this with a long-term perspective, new burial practices in the IBA period seemed to be introduced in the early Intemediate Bronze Age and continued into the Middle Bronze Age. They may also mean that the Syrian culture started to be grafted onto the indigenous Canaanite culture and this grafting would incubate a new era, which is the Middle Bronze Age. Chapter 7 Historical Reconstruction and Texts The Intermediate Bronze Age (Early Bronze IV) was portrayed as a nonsedentary settlement and a transhumant pastoralist society for over a half of century.1 Much of evidence of settlement patterns, pottery distribution, copper industry, and burial customs now demonstrates that the Intermediate Bronze Age is not just a sedentary transhumant society. Many sedentary villages are attested in the Akko Plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Ayalon Valley, the Jordan Valley, and even urban-like settlements, such as Khirbert Iskander and Khirbet al-Batrawy, are in the Transjordan. An active copper industry and trade has been revealed between the Negev and ‘Arava regions near the largest copper workshop in the Intermediate Bronze Age at Khirbet Hamra Ifan. Scholarly general consensus concerning to the society of the IBA period is that both agricultural and pastoral economic systems coexisted whether it was a pastoralist society refusing urban society,2 a de-specialized from specialized society,3 rural response 1 Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period”; Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine”; Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine”; Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 2 Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period,” 47– 48. 3 Long, “Sedentism in Early Bronze IV Palestine-Transjordan: An Analysis of Sociocultural Variability in the Late Third Millennium BC”; Richard, “The Early Bronze Age,” 39; Bates and Lees, “The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialization.” 256 257 avoiding urban sedentary society,4 or a return to the basic social system of EBA.5 The approaches of a cognitive interpretation or a mental template6 are not enough to explain a few urban settlements in the Transjordan during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Although Richard is admitting it as a minority view, Richard’s paradigm of urban city is also short to understand many small agricultural settlements east and west of the Jordan River in the Southern Levant.7 In particular, small rural villages located along the valleys, new Syrian cultural elements, and the Negev permanent settlements in a single period related to the copper trade, all need to other explanations. This chapter will reconstruct the history of the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant with archaeological evidence and textual sources with providing the answers for these above questions. 4 Palumbo, The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 130–131. 5 LaBianca, Hubbard, and Running, Sedentarization and Nomadization. 6 B. Mazar, “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, no. 2 (1969): 116; Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period,” 47–8; Paz, “(In)Visible Cities: The Abandoned Early Bronze Age Tells in the Landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age Southern Levant.” 7 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell.” 258 TR (Transjordan band) N (Northern band) S (Southern band) Bet ze t Kziv Ga ‘ ato Shelomit Tel Dan Tel Na‘ama M. Manot n Hazor n Tel Bira Ard el-Samra Tel Zivda Horbat Qishron Beth Yerah Ki Yoqne‘am sh ‘Ein Sha‘ar Ha-Golan uk on el Hilu Gesher Tel ‘Afula rm Tel Jezreel Ya Taninim Megiddo Murhan Tel Yosef Nahal Rimmonim Tel Burga Beth Shean Ha d e ra Tell el-Hayyat ‘En Esur Alex ande Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj r Khirbet el-Meiyiteh Pole Tel Ashir g Khirbet Zeraqun Shechem Jabbok Tell umm Hammad Tel Gerisa Yarkon Kh. al-Batrawy Sinjil ‘Ain es-Samiyah So Bethel Jericho re ‘En Er-Rujum Yered Gibeon k Tall al- Umayri Esta‘ol Tall al-Hamman Newe Shalom Ras al-‘Amud Iktanu Beth Shemesh Bethlehem La Nahal Refaim Malcha ch Ashkelon ish Sh Khirbet Kufin iqm Lachish a Jebel Qa‘aqir Khirbet Iskander Tell Beit Mirsim Tell Sera‘ Tel el-‘Ajjul Khirbet Kirmil Na ‘ a ma Jordan River N a Ay lon TR Be s or S Bab adh-Dhra‘ Ader Feqeiqes Har Dimon Zer Har Zayyad ed Mt. Yeruham Nissana ‘En Ziq Be‘er Risisim Khirbet Hamra Ifdan Mashabbe Sade Fig. 9 Three Cultural Bands during the Intermediate Bronze Age Cultural Bands As discussed in the Pottery Distribution in Chapter 4, three pottery groups are 259 attested during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Based on these three pottery groups, three cultural bands can be classified in the Intermediate Bronze Age; the Transjordan band (TR), the Northern band (N), and the Southern band (S). Chronologically, the Transjordan band maintained some Early Bronze elements, thus the Transjordan Band is earlier than the others. Some ceramic features of the Southern band, such as the increased employment of the wheel or the complete absence of the red painted EB style, lead to the assessment that the Southern band is somehow later than the Northern band. However, each band clearly interacted with one another. The ceramic repertoire from the IBA sites indicates the interrelation among these three cultural bands.8 Thus, autonomy as well as interaction coexisted among bands in the Southern Levant through the whole Intermediate Bronze Age. Transjordan Band The Transjordan band is the earliest of the cultural bands connecting the Early Bronze III to the early Intermediate Bronze Age. With the unknown crisis in the Southern Levant at the end of the EB III (most likely by abrupt climate change)9, the EB people could have rushed into the Transjordan where there was less damage from the crisis. This region soon recovered from the crucial collapse with the continuing copper industry and 8 Eisenberg and Rosen, “The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha’ar Ha-Golan,” 34– 43; Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 110–11; Bar, Cohen, and Zertal, “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria.”No Reference 9 Weiss, “The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age; Altered Trajectories.” 260 trade through the King’s Highway. Unlike the Early Bronze sites in the Cisjordan, the EB urban city life was soon recovered from the collapse at some sites in the Transjordan in this period. This is reminiscent of the IBA sites in the Northern Levant, where there was a quick recovery from the destruction and continuity from the previous period.10 The copper industry and trade in Transjordan band were surely the reason to inherit the Early Bronze tradition. The copper industry in Faynan region was active during the EB III, and the King’s Highway might be the main route between the Southern Levant and Northern Levant.11 Khirbet Iskander, Tall al-Hamman, and Khirbet al-Batrawy were already major cities during the EB III to the IBA. In the case of Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, the copper industry began in the early EB III and continued to the IBA period.12 Thus, it is obvious that the Transjordan band could experience urban life in contrast to the Cisjordan where there were mostly small rural villages. The size of the IBA settlements in this band are not large with three or four hectares. The settlements in the Transjordan region show both discontinuous and continuous features between the EB III and the IBA. The Transjordan settlements continued from the EB III were characterized in two ways. One group showed smooth continuation between the EB III and the IBA without interruption (Kh. Hamra Ifdan, Tall 10 Gerstenblith, “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 73. 11 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” 12 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 398. 261 al-‘Umayri, and Tell el-Hammam). The other settlement group was occupied on top of the ruins of the EB III period (Khirbet al-Batrawy, Bab edh-Dhra‘, Khirbet Iskander, Khirbet Zeraqun, and Feqeiqes). It is sure that this band also underwent the crisis of the period. There seems to be a difference in settlement patterns between the northern and southern regions in Jordan in the IBA period. The sites in the northern Transjordan are located in lowlands near water-sources (near the Jordan River and the Zarqa River) and good agricultural soils, but the occupations in the central and southern Transjordan were placed on the hilltops or ridges for possibly defensive reason.13 While the EB ceramic features continued into this band, definite changes in ceramic typology is also witnessed in the IBA assemblage of the Transjordan Band. The Family TR by Dever14 and the AZ group by Palumbo15 belong to the Transjordan band. A few earlier Syrian Black WheelMade Ware forms are also attested in this band. Be‘er Resisim and ‘Ein Ziq in the Negev could be included in the Transjordan band because the pottery from ‘Ein Ziq and Be‘er Resisim indicates a strong Early Bronze tradition, such as red painted ware.16 The copper trade seemed to be taken place in the ways of south-north via the King’s Highway and east-west via the Negev and the Sinai. 13 Palumbo, “The Early Bronze Age IV,” 236–37. 14 Richard and Boraas, “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan,” 124. 15 Palumbo and Peterman, “Early Bronze Age IV Ceramic Regionalism in Central Jordan,” 23–30. 16 Goren, “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective,” 58. 262 Rare is the historical texts mentioned the flourishment of the Dead Sea area in the Intermediate Bronze Age so far. Nonetheless, the history of the Transjordan region during the Intermediate Bronze Age can be tracked from the Ebla Tablets and the biblical stories. The Dead Sea area is the important region for the battle between five Canaanite kings and four eastern kings in Genesis 14 in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah are also the legendary cities in the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis 18 and 19. In previous settlement models and social reconstructions, the Transjordan region has been considered as vacant during the Intermediate Bronze Ag and MB I period except a few sites.17 Recently discovered large settlements in the Transjordan region between the Intermediate Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze I might recall the biblical stories. Furthermore, some earlier Syrian Caliciform pottery in this Transjordan Band find their ceramic horizon in the Syrian cities, such as Qatna and Ebla,18 and this indicates the contacts between Syria and the Transjordan Band. Cuneiform Ebla tablets between the EB III and the IBA (2600 – 2300 BCE) was unearthed from Tell Mardikh. They are economic texts which recorded the commercial transactions between Ebla and other neighboring city-states. The excavator of Khirbet hamra Ifdan asserts that the copper product illustrated in Ebla cuneiform tablets is identical to the copper lumps and prills multiple re-melted and 17 Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.,” 39–52; W. G. Dever, “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B. C. E.: A Review of Current Issues,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 288 (1992); Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 152, 58, 76–79. 18 S. Mazzoni, “elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 257 (Winter, 1985): 15. 263 recycled from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan. The Ebla Tablets and the biblical record can reflect the dynamic activity in the Transjordan band in the Intermediate Bronze Age and in later periods. Northern Band The birth of the Northern band appears to be quite different from the Transjordan band. The settlements of the Northern band were mostly small and un-walled rural villages with a few exceptions (such as Khirbet el-Meiyiteh). The Hula Valley, the Galilee region, the Jezreel Valley, and the upper Jordan Valley, belong to this Northern band. Interaction among the sites appears between the Central Jordan Valley and Jezreel Valley tells. While the bulk of 112 ceramic samples from the Jezreel Valley was locally manufactured, non-local ceramic samples were from the Carmel region and the Jordan Valley. The population of this Northern band did not cling to the Early Bronze urban centers, and rather they preferred to settle on new and previously uninhabited locations. The IBA strata at Megiddo, with a few remains of an occupation, consisted primarily of a cemetery as its primary remaining feature. The evidence of the IBA occupations at the Early Bronze urban cities are meager, and the building remains are also flimsy (Tel Dan, Hazor, Beth Yerah, Beth-Shean, Jericho, Tell hazor, Megiddo). The relatively well stratified IBA sites in the Northern band often were built new or resettled after a long abandonment of EB I or II (‘Ein el-Hilu, Tel ‘Afula, Murhan, Tel Yizra‘’el, Tel Yoqne‘am, Nahal Rimmonim, Tel Yosef, Sha‘ar ha-Golan, Tell Abu en- Ni‘aj, Khirbet el-Meiyiteh, Ader, Tell Na‘ama, Tell umm Hammad, and Iktanu). The Early Bronze traditions don’t appear in the pottery assemblage of the Northern band, and most pottery was manufactured in a local workshop. The most 264 noticeable feature of the Northern band is its strong Syrian features. The Syrian pottery elements appeared within the Jordan Valley and the Jezreel Valley, where the locally made ware was dominant.19 Even in small rural villages in the Jezreel Valley, this Syrian influence in the ceramic assemblage appears.20 This striking connection with the Syrian culture in this band could be presented in the distribution of the Black Wheel-Made Ware, which seemed to be manufactured and distributed at Hazor (see Fig. 6).21 Black Wheel-Made Ware is somehow earlier in its shape and surface than the Caliciform Ware in the Southern band.22 Thus, the Northern band seems to be chronologically ahead of the Southern band. Significant Syrian influence in small rural villages in Jezreel Valley might indicate that Northern band was under the power of the Nothern Levant or Syria. Bechar insists that Hazor may have been the center of trading Black Wheel-Made vessels and of maintaining strong ties with the Syrian culture during the Intermediate Bronze age and even stronger in subsequent periods.23 As Bachar claims, Hazor was mentioned in the 19 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 432. 20 Ibid. 21 The 14 sites found Black Wheel-Made Ware are in the northern Palestine: Hazor, Mitlol Zurim, Tel Na‘ama, Qedesh, Tel Anafa, Horvat Qishron, Qanat el’Ja‘ar, Hanita, Megiddo, Nahal Yagur, HaGoshrim, Tel ‘Amal, Maayan Baruch, and Tel Itztaba (see Fig. 6) in Bechar, “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age,” 29–31. 22 Ibid., 51. 23 Ibid., 54. 265 Mari Tablets in the Middle Bronze Age. Hazor was not just Mari’s normal political sphere of Syrian influence, but it was on the very edge of its horizon of Mesopotamian commerce. Mari had a brisk trade of tin in this period, and the city was a major tin emporium.24 Abraham Malamat discusses Hazor in the Mari Texts. 500 kgs of tin are listed, and other smaller quantities are noted as being received from or dispatched to several destinations and persons in the West. Besides consignments to the king of Aleppo, quantities were apparently sent to Ugarit, to a Caphtorite there (that is, a merchant from Crete), and to a ta-ar-ga-ma-an-num. This is one of the earliest occurrences of this Kulturwort which is still used, after almost 4,000 years, in more or less the same meaning, “dragoman. What is of greatest concern to us in this document, is the fact that it includes three consignments of tin for Hazor, totaling over 35 kg, sufficient for the manufacture of some 300 kg of bronze. Furthermore, it is consigned to “Ibni-Adad, King of Hazor,” revealing the personal name of the ruler of the city.25 Tin-bronze was introduced in the Southern Levant in the later 3rd millennium BCE, and its regular usage occurred in the 2nd millennium BCE (see the Chapter 5 Copper in this study). The introduction of tin-bronze might be one of the evidences of this strong association with Syria. Another city, Laish (biblical Dan), some 30 kms north of Hazor, was also mentioned in the Mari Texts. Less than 5 kgs of tin for Wari-taldu, the king of Laish, was sent.26 Malamat claims that Laish was also important to the economic and political set-up of the Middle Bronze much like Hazor.27 It is not impossible that Hazor 24 Abraham Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 25. 25 Ibid., 26; Abraham Malamat, “Syro-Palestinian Destinations in a Mari Tin Inventory,” Israel Exploration Journal 21, no. 1 (1971): 36. 26 Malamat, “Syro-Palestinian Destinations in a Mari Tin Inventory,” 34–36. 27 Ibid. 266 became a Mesopotamian political and commercial sphere already beginning in the IBA period. It appears that a Syrian population as well as the Syrian culture flowed into what can be known as the Northern bands. Another significant pattern of the Northern band is a continuation between the IBA culture and the MB I culture. The poor settlements of this band gradually developed into the MB I with intensification at most sites. Evident continuation from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze I in the Northern Band is investigated by major scholars, as for the Jordan Valley by Cohen,28 Maeir,29 Falconer,30 and D’Andrea,31 and also for the Jezreel Valley by Covello-Paran.32 Southern Band The Southern band is the most significant band among three bands in this research. The Southern band includes the Central Highlands, the Shephelah, the Negev, and the coastal plains. With the exception of the hundreds of the sites across the Negev and the Sinai, enough archeological data has not been accumulated, so the other regions 28 Cohen, “Continuities and Discontinuities,” 9. 29 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 64. 30 Falconer, “Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity,” 133, 138. 31 D’Andrea, “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations,” 87. 32 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes”; Edelstein et al., Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds, vol. 3, p. ; Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 267 in Southern Band have been overlooked.33 The clusters of small rural villages excavated near the rivers or the valley in the Shephelah and the Coastal regions, however, demonstrate a startling context to reflect upon the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. The Central Highlands was inactive during the IBA period, but the Nahal Refaim near Jerusalem was busy with a village population.34 Small rural settlements appear on virgin land in the Ayalon Valley, and the IBA period of the major sites are characterized by poor residential activities in the Shephelah.35 Except seven permanent settlements consisting of hundreds of structures, about 100 temporary sites in the Negev are known and had evidence of specific activities during the IBA. The Coastal settlements from the Akko Valley to Tell el-‘Ajjul are determined by the scanty settlements near the water sources and along the Mediterranean coast. Many of them have been unexpectedly unearthed by the salvage excavations. Avoiding the ruined centers of the Early Bronze Age, the IBA sites in the Southern band were mostly built on the virgin soil. Most of the IBA cemeteries in the Southern band were reused by the MB I people, and the IBA settlements also continued into the following period. The Early Bronze tradition is completely absent in the ceramic assemblage of the Southern band and instead the ceramic tradition increased its use of the wheel. It is interesting that most of the Caliciform Ware were discovered in the Southern band. Syrian elements in this band 33 Dever, “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine,” 48. 34 Eisenberg, “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” 35 Dagan, The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer, Sites 136, 160.2, 222, 237, 248. 268 were not exotic luxury items anymore as it was in the Northern bands, but Caliciform vessels were used as domestic items for daily life. It is noticeable that the IBA sites in the Southern band are located at water sources near the rivers connected to the Mediterranean coast. Er-Rujum, ‘En Yered near Tel Gezer, and Ramat Bet Shemesh with 23 other small settlement sites are placed between the Ayalon river and Sorek river. And this is also the same settlement pattern in the Coastal region. The site Shelomit and a series of settlements and burials are along the Nahal Betzet in ‘Akko Valley.36 Ard el-Samra and Tel Bira are placed north of Nahal Na‘aman along the Coastal Plain.37 One of the largest IBA sites in the Southern Levant, Tel Zivda, is a hill by the Mediterranean Sea.38 Tel Burga, Tel Ashir, Tel Gerisa, Ashkelon (Third Mile Estate), and Tel el-‘Ajjul, are located along the Mediterranean coast and near rivers. Most of the permanent settlements in Negev are also located close to water sources and on a natural path (‘En Ziq on the Nahal Zin, Har Dimon and Har Zayyad on the Nahal Hemar, Mashabbe Sade near Nahal Heman, Be‘er Resisim and Nissana on the Nahal Nissana, and Be’er H̱ayil on the Nahal Be’er H̱ayil.)39 Har Zayyad 36 Getzov, “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit,” 133; Getzov, “1,” ‫שרידי יישוב מתקופת הברונזה הביניימית בשלומית‬. 37 Nativ et al., “Ard El-Samra,” 1. 38 Yannai, “Tel Zivda.” 39 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava” see Fig. 1 Regional map and sites; Cohen and Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project’” see Fig. 1 Nelson Glueck’s sketch-map of Central Negev Highlands. For other sites, see the map by Mapcarta, https://mapcarta.com/12936756. 269 and Har Yeruham flow to the central and northern Palestine, and the Judean Hills, and En Ziq and Beer Resisim along with the Nahal Zin were flowing toward Egypt40 with Mashabbe Sade linked to Tel el-‘Ajjul.41 These connectivity to rivers or to the Mediterranean coast for the IBA settlements and the settlement continuation into the Middle Bronze can imply that maritime trade already took place in the IBA period and it led the development of the MB urbanization as Cohen argues that maritime trade caused the urbanization of some coastal ‘core’ cities and then their ‘peripheral’ sites in the Middle Bronze.42 Another example of this is Lachish which is also located near the Lachish river. In particular, according to Ussishkin, the copper ingots from Lachish are the best compared to those from Har Yeruham, Jericho, and the Hebron Hills during the IBA period, which indicate copper trade between copper workshop and copper mines.43 The mud brick rooms at Third Mile Estate (Ashkelon) are similar to stone-built structures at the Negev highlands, and its pottery repertoire is also very similar to the southern Shephelah and coastal region.44 The finding of stone built cist-graves at Tell el-‘Ajjul (which originated west of inland Syria 40 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 397–98. 41 Ibid. 42 Cohen, “Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power.” 43 Ussishkin, Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), 54. 44 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” 146. See the fig. 3 the parallel table. 270 and north on the Euphrates) can give some plausibility to maritime trade during the Intermediate Bronze Age.45 The existence of the Syrian cist-graves on the southern coast is very remarkable during the IBA period. Thus, Kennedy explains that a seaborne route was a possible way of transmission in the IBA period.46 Furthermore, this maritime trade seemed to be conducted by the exogenous population. Kennedy also asserts that a modest group of people from Syria might migrate to Tel el-‘Ajjul because of the Syrian cist-graves, which was unique in the Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age.47 The IBA ceramic finds at Tel ‘Ashir on the Poleg Stream 500 m. from the coast are paralleled to those at Lachish, Tell el-‘Ajjul, and the IBA sites in Central hills and Negev, but its open cultic place does not find any parallel among all of the IBA sites in Israel.48 Caliciform Ware as a domestic item in the Southern band can be connected to this migrate influx. This migration seemed not to be the result of any political invasion but the consequence of economic reasons by means of maritime trade. Khirbet Hamra Ifdan south of the Dead Sea was so far the largest copper mine in the ancient Middle East during the late 3rd millennium BCE. Could not seaborne merchants ignore this great source of commerce at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan close to the Mediterranean Sea through the Negev? Accodirng to Yekutieli, Shalev, and Shilstein’s 45 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 121–23. 46 Ibid., 123. 47 Ibid., 126. 48 Gophna and Ayalon, “Tel ʿAshir,” 170. 271 study, the Negev was the hot place of copper business. The natural copper was mined in the region of Faynan (Zone I), its smelting took place at “En Yahav and Ḥazeva in Zone 2 near Faynan, and then the smelted copper was produced to be tools in Negev Highlands in Zone 3.49 It is apparent that copper trade took place in Zone 4 (such as Tell el-‘Ajjul or Lachish).50 With the probability of copper trade in the Negev during the Intermediate Bronze Age, Haiman assumes that Egypt was the most possible consumers of this large copper industry as Egypt was the owner of copper in Faynan during the Early Bronze III.51 Whereas a trace of the Egyptians cannot be attested in the archaeological data in the Negev and coastal sites during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Rather, archaeological finds in the Southern bands demonstrate a remarkable Syrian connection at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. Maritime merchants or an exogenous population might be interested in the Southern band in the later Intermediate Bronze Age, and the Southern band became a coastal route connected to Byblos and Egypt by seaborne traders including Byblites, Egyptians, and even Minoans. How about the Southern band or the Negev in historical texts? As discussed above that the Negev and the Sinai did not appear in the Egyptian texts in this period, sparse historical texts are recorded the Southern Levant in the Intermediate Bronze Age. 49 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava,” 18. 50 51 Ibid. Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan, 51–56; Kempinski, “Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Canaan,” 165–66; Ward, “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai.” 272 Some feeble traces can be found in the Bible. The Patriarchs visited the Central Highland and met the habitants in the area of Jerusalem (Genesis 14:1-24). It is plausible that the series of the IBA settlements along the Nahal Refaim can indicate the indigenous settled in the region near Jerusalem who met the wanderers from Syria. The Negev is also one of the common backgrounds in some biblical episodes. In particular, a major city-state was portrayed in the eastern Negev. Abimelech was its political figure and some part of eastern Negev belonged to Abimelech. The Patriarchs met Abimelch and his commander Phicol, who had a name of Aegean origin name (Genesis 21:32). Kitchen explained that Phicol is neither West Semitic nor Egyptian, but it may well be of Aegean or Anatolian origin.52 He suggests that the early Greeks inhabited in mainland Greece from circa. 2000 BCE as well as the non-Greek Minoans in Crete from 2700-1420 BCE53 might well have reached to the Southern Levant on occasion throughout this time.54 The maritime activities in the late Intermediate Bronze Age (see below) might have provided for the development of the Southern band, and thus, the Southern band became the center of the Middle Bronze urbanization as a middleman among major figures (Egypt, Byblos, Crete, Cyprus, Akkad, and etc.) during the Middle Bronze Age. Many settlements are continued into the Middle Bronze I. Among the new sites in the 52 The Anatolian-named Kuhun inscribed an Obelik at Byblos in the early second millennium; see by Kitche in D. J. Wiseman, Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 72 n.24. 53 K. Kalantzis, Tradition in the Frame: Photography, Power, and Imagination in Sfakia, Crete, New anthropologies of Europe (Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2019), 23–58. 54 Kitchen. 273 early phase of the Middle Bronze Age,55 some settlements were already stepped by the IBA settlers, such as the Mesopotamian cultic structure and conical cups at Nahariya in the early phase of the MB I,56 Akko in Ebla texts during the mid-3rd millennium BCE, 57 two IBA Caliciform cups at Gezer,58 and some equivocal sherds at Kabri.59 It is appropriate that these new settlements of the early phase of the Middle Bronze I were expanded and developed by the population in the Southern band in the Intermediate Bronze Age. Migration Aaron Burke mentions, “refugees are of central importance to understanding the impact of changing natural and socio-economic environments from the late third to the early second millennium B.C”60 in the ancient Near East. Burke concludes that precipitous declines in rainfall brought substantial changes to Near Eastern environments 55 They are discussed in the Chapter 3 Settlement Patterns in this dissertation. They are Hagosherim, Gezer, Kabri, Nahariya, Akko, Tel Nami, Tel Zeror, Ifshar, ‘Ain Zurekiyeh, Tel Poleg, Aphek, and Dhaharat el-Humraiya. 56 Kaplan, “Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine,” 297, figs.7: A1, A2; Fig.10: L. Ben-Dor, Dothan, and Kaplan don’t provide the stratigraphic pottery. 57 Artzy and Beeri, “Tel Akko,” 15*. 58 Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 And 1907-1909 Vol III, pl. 146: 8 and 20; Wright, “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I,” 32. 59 60 Kempinski, “History of the Site and the Region,” 15–16. A. A. Burke, “Amorites, Climate Change, and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.,” The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, edited by F. Höflmayer, Oriental Institute Seminars 11. (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017), 276. 274 over the period between 2200 and 1900 B.C., and “archaeological data confirm the attendant effects on populations across this region, revealing abandonments but also resettlement in neighboring regions that expose the movements of refugees seeking to flee these changes.”61 Burke relates this climate pressures to the change in the southern Levant during the Early Middle Bronze Age, and he asserts that it may have been responsible for the demographic wave of migration and their resettlement through the southern Levant, such as Ashkelon and Hazor.62 The hypotheses of influx of newcomers of the Southern Levant during the IBA period, either the Amorites or an infiltration of nomadic groups, were both popular in the 1950s and 1960s. The idea of exogenous influx later has been discarded among scholars for the last half of century. However, much data of this research point to the exogenous migration during the Intermediate Bronze Age. One of the responses to abrupt climate change is habitat tracking to sustainable agricultural regions along with other responses, such as political abandonment or nomadization.63 Climate change is the most plausible reason for the devastation in the late 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE. The population who could not no longer occupy their habitats because of the abrupt climate change seemed to experience habitat tracking to find sustainable regions throughout the eastern Mediterranean coast. The change of eating and drinking habits mentioned in the previous chapter 61 Burke, “Amorites, Climate Change, and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.,” 295. 62 63 Ibid., 296. Weiss, “The Northern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age; Altered Trajectories,” 378. 275 should be regarded as having been caused by a considerable exogenous influx of people with their culture. The idea, suggested by Bunnimobitz and Greenberg, that the emulation of Caliciform ware to reconstruct social hierarchies in the transitional period between EB-MB,64 are not enough to explain the disappearance of the enormous EB II-III platterbowl and the appearance of Syrian drinking habits newly introduced throughout the southern Levant. The more frequent Caliciform variety in the southern group, such as 7.4 % of Caliciform cups of total repertoires and their repairing holes already mentioned, is interesting because they were used for daily usage but not exotic like Black WheelMade Ware in north of the southern Levant. The vast number of cemeteries in the IBA period contrasting with the fewer than ten cemeteries in the EB II-III in the southern Levant is itself more evidence of the influx of newcomers to indicate the change toward the value and ritual of death.65 The plentiful metal objects as well as the appearance of animal bones found in the IBA tombs are a substantial change in comparison to the poor architecture and pottery technique during this period. As seen in the settlement patterns, however, an interesting selection of the valleys, which were not defensive locations in the context of the southern Levant, surely needs a special attention along with the clear adoption of Syrian culture in the IBA period. The IBA population preferred new and previously unoccupied land to the EB urban centers except for a few IBA settlements in the Transjordan. The reasons that the IBA settlers chose the lowlands without the purpose of defense are not clear yet. Mazar and Dever 64 Bunimovitz and Greenberg, “Revealed in Their Cups,” 28. 65 Ilan, “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan,” 101. 276 understand it in cognitive ways as the selection of previously unoccupied low land during the IBA because of fear from the catastrophic end of the EB urban centers came to or as a preference for untrammeled freedom in a rural landscape.66 Another possible reason of preferring new locations for their villages is that the IBA populations might be newcomers who were unaware of geography of the southern Levant and of urban centers of the previous period. Some lowland inhabitants accidently discovered by salvage excavation were not typical inhabitants in the southern Levant. Many IBA sites in the Akko, Jezreel, Ayalon, and Jordan Valleys, and on the coastal plain, belong to these unexpected IBA occupations. Archaeologists have referred to two different waves of external influence during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Dever in his early studies of this in the 1970s noticed two different waves of ‘Amorites’ influence in the Sothern Levant.67 Later, what made him confused in the 1970s is the significant break between the two periods, his EB IV and MB I, “in terms of their material culture is one of the most abrupt and complete in the entire sequence of Palestine.”68 So he concluded that the earlier waves of Amorites came from a seminomadic culture on the fringes of Syria,”69 and then “by the late twentieth and nineteenth centuries B.C. succeeding waves of “Amorites” coming from the same areas 66 Mazar, “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age”; Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period.” 67 Dever, “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period,” 224–225. 68 Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 5. 69 Ibid., 15. 277 had meanwhile been partly or wholly urbanized.”70 His explanation of an “abrupt and complete’ break between the two periods, his EB IV and MB I, however, is challenged by the recent studies regarding the continuity between two periods. Dever has abandoned his theory of an initial exogenous influence of the IBA period. Pirhiya Beck defines the origin of the MB I vessels at Aphek as “Possibly the carriers of the new styles came in two separate streams – one from inland Syria and the other from the coastal plain,”71 and the pottery assemblage were already mixed with the components of both from inland Syria and from the coastal plain before it arrive at Aphek.72 Esther Yadin also concludes her analysis of Aphek quoting Beck’s words because the MB I assemblage at Aphek was different from the repertoires in previous period but rather continued from EB tradition far from Syria where there is no break between the EB and MB.73 As Maeir stresses there is very little continuity in settlement patterns between the EB II-III and the EB IV, and major changes between the two periods are the very different settlement patterns and the drastic choice of ecological zones. Then he does not reject “the possibility that some of these changes may have occurred due to the influx of new groups into the region, even if one does not accept earlier theories of mass migrations during this period.”74 Marcus 70 Dever, “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine,” 15. 71 Kochavi, Beck, and Yadin, Aphek-Antipatris I, 251. 72 Ibid. 73 Kochavi and Yadin, “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance,” 218. 74 Maeir, “In the Midst of the Jordan”the Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE), 134. 278 insists that “the Coastal Plain and Jordan Valley should be see [seen] as two parallel corridors that convey cultural change and population, both enclosing between them the continuation of highland culture.”75 He also suggests that the important catalyst in the interaction between the highland-lowland is possibly inter-regional trade but the catalyst of the developments along the southern Levantine shore is maritime activity.76 It is obvious that two different external stimuli have been attested during in the Intermediate Bronze Age. The writer suggests two influxes of the exogenous culture and people were absorbed in the southern Levant in the late 3rd and early 2nd millenniums BCE. The first influx, an earlier but gradual one, took place in the Jordan Valley in the early IBA period. The other, a later but abrupt one, began from the coastal area in the later IBA period. The first influx seemed to be by inland route from the north, and the second influx to be through the Mediterranean coast and rivers as the communication and transportation routes. These two chronological influxes are not by political military invasions like the Amorite invasion theory, but rather by a people group’s need to survival elsewhere or economic business. The first influx might take place earlier than the second influx, but they might coexist during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Evidently, the second influx might continue into the early Middle Bronze I and may have become the cause of the splendid urbanization of the Middle Bronze Age. 75 Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIa Period,” 222. 76 Ibid., 222–24. 279 The first influx as an external stimulus was carried out during the early Intermediate Bronze Age. The evidence of the external influx of newcomers is found in cultural aspects of ceramics, metallurgy, and burial customs, as well as the settlement pattern. Prag in 1980s developed her view of the IBA that the change during the IBA is derived not from any invasions but from infiltrations of true pastoral migrations or nomadic groups from Syria toward the main northern valleys, such as the Hula, Jezreel, and Jordan Valleys. For Prag, the infiltration from Syria toward the northern valleys is the consequence of the decline of the Syrian Early Bronze Age urbanization.77 Ram Gophna is also inclined to interpret that the origin of the IBA population in the Southern Levant was “an integral part of the nonurban Semitic population residing in parts of Syria.”78 Richard and D’Andrea insist that the Syrian goblet at Khirbet Iskander and Black Wheel-Made Ware have difference in its techno-style and petrographic origin so the Syrian black goblet fragmentary points to interconnectivity between the Northern and Southern Levant from the Early Bronze III period.79 The copper industry and copper trade might be an important cause for the newcomers to move into the southern Levant. Nigro asserts that the King’s Highway between Egypt and the Transjordan was a possible alternative path of trade for copper as well as other stuffs and copper industry, and trade along this track during the EB III 77 Prag, “Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant.” 78 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 158. 79 Richard and D’Andrea, “A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period,” 574–580. 280 enhanced the urban phenomenon, in particular in the Jordan Valley and east of the Jordan Valley, when a series of cities and towns with their small-scale palaces were flourished.80 If copper in Faynan region had already been famous in the EBA period, it would have been attractive enough to draw newcomers from the outside, and this attraction would have lasted into the IBA period. Even at Iktanu in the Transjordan Intermediate Bronze Age sites, where the Early Bronze III ceramic tradition were strongly preserved, the Intermediate Bronze Age vessels indicate a considerable inland Syrian influence in its typology of the corrugation on the upper exterior wall with the red slip and burnish.81 Besides this possible route of the King’s Highway to the copper industry, another route is the Mediterranean coast and its connected rivers in the Southern Levant. This second was located along this route, which is easy to use for transportation and communication. The water way connecting the rivers and the Mediterranean Sea might be the main conduits of their travel for this second influx because most of the settlements in the Southern Band and in the Jezreel Valley are located along the rivers or beside the sea. Ramat Bet Shemesh with the other 23 other small sites are located in the Ayalon Valley between the Yarkon River and the Sorek River. Covello-Paran observes that the linear settlements in the Jezreel Valley are placed adjacent to water sources alongside with the valley borders in conjunction, where communication and transportation take 80 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy,” 49. A list of fortified cities are Nemeira, Bab edh-Dhra‘, Tell es-Sultan, Tell Hammam, Tell sh-Saidiyeh, PellaTabaqat, Fahl, Beth-Shean, Tell Abu-Kharaz, Tell esh-Shuna, Khirbet Kerak, El-Lehun, Khirbet al-Batrawy, Khirbet ez-Zaraqon (see n.76). 81 Prag, “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age,” 3:20-22, 4:11-12. 281 places.82 Kennedy observes new external culture in the sudden appearance of Syrian drinking habits, the utilization of arsenic-copper daggers, the proliferation of warrior burials, and the adaptation of stone-built cist grave.83 As for the stone-built cist-grave at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Kennedy assumes a modest influx of people and ideas arrived from Syria. Moreover, the greater presence of this burial type in the southern Levant during the final centuries of the Third millennium BCE suggests that there may have been a modest influx of peoples from central and southern Syria, as well as the movement of ideas. Although this should not be characterized as an invasion, the possibility of infiltration or movements of peoples from the North, significantly challenges our current perceptions of north-south interaction and influence at the end of the EBA, possibly suggesting that the MBA processes of the reurbanization have antecedents earlier, in the final centuries of the Third millennium BCE.84 Maritime trade via the seaborne route might assist this second influx of migration. The early Middle Bronze settlements and pottery distribution indicates that the civilization of the Middle Bronze Age was progressed along the Mediterranean coast. Thus, it seems that the second influx of migration in the late Intermediate Bronze Age was a seed for the opening of the Middle Bronze. Maritime Trade As already mentioned above, the evidence of maritime trade between the Western 82 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 429. 83 84 Kennedy, “Life and Death at Tell Um Hammad,” 209. Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul.” 282 Delta and the Syrian coast already was found in the Early Bronze I period.85 Gophna and Milevski provide a possibility of a maritime trade during the EBA I-II, that sites along the coastal plain through Ashkelon, Afridar, and Tall as-Sakan, were used to be a base for the copper trade up to the Levantine coastal towards Lebanon and also to Egypt.86 They assumed that a sea route was in use to transport the copper product originated from Feynan during the EB III, as in the EB II, because there was not the land route through northern Sinai during the Old Kingdom of Egypt until the end of the EB III.87 Gophna and Melivski suggested some cities to be used for this sea route in the Negev, such as Tel ‘En Besor, Tel es-Sakan, and Tel Ashkelon.88 Newly updated coastal settlements can open the possibility of maritime trade during the IBA period. Third Mile Estate at Ashkelon which was newly discovered by salvage excavations in 1991 reveals the plan of a group of four round or oval rooms and mudbrick walls, which may recall the stone-built structures with round or oval-shaped rooms in the Negev permanent settlements.89 The ceramic finds at Third Mile Estate appear to be similar to the contemporaneous repertoires in the southern family. The 85 Oren, “Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for EgyptoCanaanite Interconnections”; Ward, “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai,” 17–18. 86 R., Gophna and I. Milevski, “Feinan and the Mediterrannean During the Early Bronze Age,” Tel Aviv, 30, no. 2 (2003): 222-231. 87 Ibid., 226. 88 Ibid., 226. 89 Erickson-Gini and Israel, “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon,” 144. 283 stone-built cist-grave of Area 1500 at Tell el-‘Ajjul is also significant, which were rare in the southern Levant, in particular in the coastal regions, and found its origin further north on the Euphrates and inland Syria.90 Thus, Kennedy notes that the cist-grave indicates that an overland route was not the only way of dissemination and she suggests the possibility of the likelihood seaborne transmission.91 The line of coastal settlements beginning from Tel Rosh ha-Niqra, to Tel Zivda of one of the largest IBA settlements, then Tel Ashir with an open cultic site without an equivalent known in the southern Levant, then Tel Gerisa and Third Mile Estate at Ashkelon, and finally Tell el-‘Ajjul, all seem to reflect the maritime trade through the Mediterranean coast. Furthermore, the permanent settlements in the Negev Highlands are mostly linked to rivers easy for transportation and communication, such as ‘En Ziq on the Nahal Zin, Har Dimon and Har Zayyad on the Nahal Hemar, Mashabbe Sade near Nahal Heman, Be‘er Resisim and Nissana on the Nahal Nissana, and Be’er H̱ayil on the Nahal Be’er H̱ayil, already mentioned in the chapter concerning Settlement Patterns.92 These watercourses seemed to be used for the transporting copper ingots. As Adams presumes, there are two westward 90 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 121–23. 91 Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 123. 92 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava” see Fig. 1 Regional map and sites; Cohen and Dever, “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project’” see Fig. 1 Nelson Glueck’s sketch-map of Central Negev Highlands. For other sites, see the map by Mapcarta, https://mapcarta.com/12936756. 284 ways for the copper to be routed from Faynan, one of which is to the northwestern from Har Zayyad and Har Yeruham located close to the permanent water sources connected on a natural path leading westward to the central and northern Palestine, and the Judean Hills, and then on to the southwest. Also, to the southwest, from En Ziq and Beer Resisim south of Faynan were passing along the Nahal Zin to Egypt.93 The copper industry in the Negev Highlands and the line of coastal settlements along the eastern Mediterranean coast may point to who purchased these massive pure copper ingots, and who spurred the massive metal industry throughout the south of Southern Levant, when no records or any relevant finds related to copper industry have not been discovered in the northern Sinai and Egypt. The archaeobatanical evidence from Tel Nami also indicates the possible connection between Crete and Palestine. In the light of the nature of the Aegean archaeobotanical evidence at Tel Nami, M. E. Kislev, M. Artzy, and E. Marcus conclude the following: we must consider that Minoan-Levantine contacts were not of an ephemeral disposition but were of a sufficient scale to create the conditions whereby either local inhabitants (merchants, sailors?) acquired a presumably expensive taste for an Aegean plant, or Aegean abroad imported the ingredients for their own haute cuisine!94 93 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 397–98. 94 Mordechai E Kislev, Michal Artzy, and E Marcus, “Import of an Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel,” Levant 25 (1993): 151–52. 285 Tel Nami was first settled in the Middle Bronze Age I (1950-1750 BCE). 95Therefore, the Cretans in the Patriarchal narrative have enough value to endeavor to study its historical evidence. An interesting study by Avner Raban supports the possibility of the Minoan presence along the eastern Mediterranean coast in the early Middle Bronze Age. The earliest securely dated harbors from the Levant were Akhziv, Misrefot-Yam, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Nami, Michmoreth, and Tel Poleg along the Mediterranean coast very early in the 2nd millennium BCE.96 Ravan asserts that the sea being so easily crossed by maritime voyages, the distance between Crete and the Levantine coast was by far shorter than any international inland trade route, within the Levantine entities, in spite of the geographical gap.97 His survey based on archaeological data suggests that there was “a close technical and conceptual resemblance for the type of siting and the layout of the portal installations in the Aegean, Crete, and the Levant,” although so far, no vessels have been found either in the Levant or in Crete.98 Furthermore, Linear A inscriptions on a potshered attributed to the MB III was uncovered at Tel Haror (considered to be biblical Gerar) in the eastern Negev. J. P. Olivier concluded that this Linear A inscriptions is a graffito engraved by a literate person who knew “at least the logographic system on 95 S. Lev-Yadun et al., “Wood Remains from Tel Nami, a Middle Bronze IIa and Late Bronze IIb Port, Local Exploitation of Trees and Levantine Cedar Trade,” Economic Botany, no. 3 (1996): 310–11. 96 Lev-Yadun et al., “Wood Remains from Tel Nami, a Middle Bronze IIa and Late Bronze IIb Port, Local Exploitation of Trees and Levantine Cedar Trade,” 317. 97 A. Raban, “Minoan and Canaanite Harbours,” Aegaeum 7 (1991): 137. 98 Ibid., 145. 286 Hieroglyphic and/or Linear A,”99 but the potsherd does not match the composition of any ceramics from Crete, or any composition of any pottery local in Israel.100 Thus, it is not impossible that merchants, not only Byblites and Egyptians but also Minoans, engaging in seaborne trade, visited the Southern Band. One of Marcus’s hypotheses to explain the urban culture of the coastal plain during the MB is that “ports of the southern Levant were founded specifically by maritime-oriented groups from the northern Levant, which had entered the 2nd millennium with their urban culture intact”.101 With the maritime seafaring tradition of the Northern Levant, which had continued unabated during the Intermediate Bronze Age, these maritime oriented groups “sought to participate and secure their position in the burgeoning trade with Egypt.”102 As Marcus’s hypothesis, there are the IBA coastal sites along the coastline and there is some evidences indicating another way other than beyond overland trade. These could be the traces of the antecessors of the active seaborne trade during the MB I, and later these coastal sites could be stimulated and developed by urgent demand of maritime trade between Syria and the Delta. However, the significance is that the active copper industry was ceased in the beginning of the MB I. The Negev 99 Raban, “Minoan and Canaanite Harbours,” 109. 100 Ibid., 117. 101 Marcus, “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIa Period,” 223, the other Marcus’s explanation for the coastal sites in the MB IIA is “the resumption of maritime trade between Egypt and Byblos, agricultural groups that had moved terrestrially into the Coastal Plain were stimulated by the vibrant long-shore traffic to establish parts-of-all” (p. 223). 102 Ibid., 224. 287 settlements were not continued into the Middle Bronze Age. Economy The IBA society can be defined as mixed agro-pastoralism,103 in other words, a sedentary society based on rural agriculture with limited seasonal movement and herding of animals. The animal remains both of domesticated species and of hunted species indicate the agro-pastoral economy. While sheep and goats have been found in the Negev Highlands, cattle, pigs, gazelles as well as sheep and goats have been reported in the Jordan Valley, the Jordan Plateau, the Jezreel Valley, the Rephaim Valley, and the Sharon Plain.104 Even donkeys, dogs, and pigs have been found in the context of domestic and burials during the IBA.105 An autonomous self-sufficiency seemed to be more valued in each community during the IBA period. Each region or each village seemed to have autonomous selfsufficiency and also shared its culture with its neighbors. Petrographic study results from four settlements of the IBA Jezreel Valley show that the pottery vessels were locally manufactured, a total “67% at ‘Ein el Hilu, 100% at Nahal Rimmonim, 63% at Jalame” 103 Dever, “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period,” 45; Dever, “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine.” 104 105 Gophna, “The Intermediate Bronze Age,” 152. Liora Kolska Horwitz, “Sedentism in the Early Bronze IV: A Faunal Perspective,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 275 (1989): 16– 18; Kennedy, “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El-’Ajjul,” 120; Milevski, Greenhut, and Agha, “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem,” 403. 288 were from local pottery workshop.106 The vessels samples from Murhan reveals 75% were from the Central Jordan Valley and 25% from the Jezreel Valley but both were in the vicinity of Murhan.107 The ceramic vessels from Ard el-Samra in the western Galilee are also striking in the absence of cups and teapots and a low percentage of bowls, and amphoriskos, which were not a typical pattern in the western Galilee in the IBA period. Thus, the excavators suggest the economy of Ard el-Samra was self-sufficient with managing livestock with cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, and continued into the later periods.108 Some pottery vessels such as middle-sized storage jars and an anphoriskos from Beit Dagan in the Ayalon Valley are also very unique, thus, E. Yannai theorizes that this region had unique material culture proposing a new model of the social structure during the IBA period.109 This phenomenon is reminiscent of autonomous village production and exchange at Tell el-Hayyat in the beginning of the Middle Bronze. Falconer asserts that the relationship between the IBA Tell Abu Ni‘aj and the MB Tell elHayyat shows the transition from the IBA to the MB in a rural economic structure.110 It is obvious that this autonomous self-sufficient economy during the IBA period was lasted 106 Covello-Paran, “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes,” 341. 107 Ibid. 108 Nativ et al., “Ard El-Samra,” 52. 109 Yannai, “Burial in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Lower Ayalon and Yarkon River Basins,” 153*. 110 Falconer, “Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Perspective”; Falconer and Fall, “Radiocarbon Evidence from Tell Abu En-Ni’aj and Tell El-Hayyat, Jordan, and Its Implications for Bronze Age Levantine and Egyptian Chronologies.” 289 and continued into the early MB I. Control of nearby water sources might help create this autonomous self-sufficient economy during the IBA period. As already discussed in the chapter 3 about the IBA settlements, the IBA sedentary settlements were scattered in valleys near rivers or streams. It is significant that most sedentary settlements both in the Cisjordan and Transjordan have been appeared in the lowlands or in valleys near water sources and arable plains near rivers, which are not strategically placed at a high location. Their sedentary settlements were usually accompanied by cemeteries located above the sedentary villages.111 The cemeteries in the Central Highlands or the EB major tells used just for the cemeteries at Megiddo or at Hazor, can be understood in the pattern of lowland settlements and highland cemeteries, though yet the sedentary settlements have not been found for the solitary cemeteries in the Judean hill country. In this agro-pastoral context, these cemeteries in the hill country can give an expectation of discovery of nearby settlements yet excavated so far. In addition, the domestic caves in the hillsides112 can be the evidence of seasonal herding of animals as secondary dwellings for those departing from the sedentary villages. Copper Industry Th copper industry appears to have been fist attractive to the merchants using the King’s Highway between Syria and the Transjordan. Khibet al-Batrawy, for example, 111 Covello-Paran, “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley,” 27; Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 112 Getzov, Stern, and Parks, “137,” ‫מערת קבורה בחורבת מנות תחתית‬. 290 was a large city in the EB III with copper trade.113 Khirbet Hamra Ifdan south of the Dead Sea, the largest copper mines in the 3rd millennium BCE in the ancient Middle East, could be of great interest to the merchants.114 This copper trade might enable the EB remnants to shift to the Transjordan and to survive there in the early Intermediate Bronze Age. The traders purchasing copper, however, seemed to find another easier way than the route of King’s Highway, which might be the route through the Negev highlands located along the rivers. The settlements in arid zones of the Negev and near the Dead Sea have been considered to describe seasonal pastoralists for a longtime but the remains from contemporaneous permanent settlements point to commercial transport of ingots and tools of copper implements rather than herding animals. The Negev highlands and ‘Arava region during the IBA period need a special interpretation with the settlements near the Dead Sea where they clearly show the continuity between the EB II/III and the IBA. According to M. Haiman’s analysis, there were seven permanent settlements in the Negev highlands and temporary sites scattered in the Sinai desert.115 In particular, the seven permanent settlements located between the sites east and south of the Dead Sea and some IBA sites at El ‘Arish in the northern Sinai are significant. As discovered the largest 113 Nigro, “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” 114 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.” 115 Deserts.” Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai 291 EB copper workshop was discovred at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, these contemporaneous permanent sites can be considered settlements for the copper industry rather than herding or seasonal migration. R. Adams mentions that this copper industry began much earlier in the EB II and continued to the IBA period, when Egypt demanded copper from Old Kingdom to the First Intermediate Period without interruption.116 According to Y. Yekutieli, S. Shalev, and S. Shilstein, the direction of the copper industry stretched from Faynan throughout the Negev permanent settlements to westward to the Mediterranean coast. Mining was conducted at Faynan (Zone 1), smelting at Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, ‘En Yahav, and Ḥazeva in the ‘Arava area (Zone 2), producing tools at ‘En Ziq, Har Yeroḥam, har Zayyad, Har Dimon, Mashabbe Sade, and Beer Resisim in the Negev area (Zone 3), and lastly Zone 4 as a buffer zone between the production and commerce.117 However, the question about who the head of this copper industry was arises. Also, who were the consumers of copper produced in the Negev and the ‘Arava region? The head of this copper industry seems to be the fortified cites east of the Dead Sea on the Jordan Plateau north of the Faynan region. They also experienced the collapse of the EB urban centers but soon reoccupied and established cities. Even some sites were continued without experiencing abandonments. Egypt seems to have been the most probable market as it had sent governmental delegations to mine raw minerals to the Sinai and the ‘Arava from the Early Bronze I and II. Haiman claims that Egypt was the 116 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 398. 117 Yekutieli, Shilstein, and Shalev, “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava,” 18. 292 only reasonable destination of the copper ingots and copper tools in the Negev. Adams, who excavated Khirbet Hamra Ifan, also supports Haiman’s claim, saying that the trade between Egypt and the southern Levant continued to flourish even in the IBA period. Also, Adams believes that copper was one of the key commodities in demand as seen in the Beni Hasan relief indicating Asiatic trade with Egypt and this depicts caravans of donkeys transporting goods to Egypt in the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE ( during Egyptian Dynasty 12th).118 There are no records in Egypt, however, to confirm this in the First Intermediate Period when Egypt was suffering from political weakness (the IBA in the southern Levant). Furthermore, no relevant remains of this trade were found and the finds related to copper is lacking in the northern Sinai.119 The distress and pessimism was recorded in Lamentations of Ipuwer from the beginning of the First Intermediate period, which was caused by the ascendancy of Asiatics to the Delta, the breakdown of law and order, and the decline of seaborne trade to Byblos in the Northern Levantine. The copper trade between the Southern Levant and Egypt conducted during the EB seemed likely to have been influenced by external elements during the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BCE whether the trade between these two entities was continued or not. The writer suggests maritime trade via the Mediterranean coast developed copper industry in the Negev during the Intermediate Bronze Age. As discussed before, new archaeological data indicate the possibility of the seaborne transportation of goods in the 118 Adams, “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan,” 398. 119 Haiman, “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” 24. 293 Southern band during the IBA period though clear evidence has not been discovered yet. The lack of copper objects related to Egypt and the absence of the Egyptian records related to the IBA Negev can imply the commercial activities with seaborne merchants via the Mediterranean coast, probably with a middleman among major figures (Byblos, Crete, Cyprus, Akkad, and etc.). Social Structure The rare urbanized fortifications during the IBA period were likely to indicate the absence of sociopolitical structure. However, it is certain that the Intermediate Bronze Age society was not an egalitarian society, rather, the IBA population had their own independent hierarchical system whether in each tribe or in each region. The hierarchical system in the IBA period can be seen in many ways. Shamir Dolmen Field in the Hula Valley Basin is famous for megalithic tombs during the IBA period. The largest of the Shamir dolmens is Dolmen 3 and it is also “one of the largest dolmens ever reported from the Levant” to our knowledge. Its ceramic finds in situ from Dolmen 3 are assigned to the northern family in the IBA period and the metal remains are comparable to those from other dolmens in the Golan as well as other burial caves at Shamir dating to the IBA.120 Abstract drawing art on the megalithic ceiling rock at Dolmen 3 is worthy to note because it is a unique find in an archaeological context with no exact comparison existing. It has been interpreted as either a territorial marker or it has a symbolic meaning. Thus, the excavators interpret that monumental Dolmen 3 “requiring a great 120 Sharon et al., “Monumental Megalithic Burial and Rock Art Tell a New Story about the Levant Intermediate Bronze ‘Dark Ages,’” 13. 294 deal of human labor and effort” with “complex burial customs, a hierarchical burial system, and symbolic rock art” demonstrates a hierarchical complex society.121 Burial remains provide more clear evidence of hierarchic social status. Copper daggers are mostly discovered in the shaft tombs with exclusively articulated skeletons, but copper daggers do not appear in the majority of the other tombs with disarticulated skeletons with various offerings at Jericho and Tell el-‘Ajjul.122 In particular, javelins were not common finds in the IBA period but mostly discovered alongside the daggers and articulated interments.123 Therefore, Greener insists that copper daggers were the representation of status, fertility, wealth, or power and javelins broadcasted the potency of the leaders.124 A tin-bronze spearhead with a miniature size was unearthed in the vicinity of the IBA public complex at Khirbet Iskander, which is one of the earliest in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennia BCE, in comparison to the tin-bronze daggers from tombs at Motza, Jericho, Menahymiya, and ‘Enan, (see the chapter on copper in this study), and Richard and Long consider it as one of the growing corpus of prestige bronze weapons like copper daggers during the Intermediate Bronze Age as an indicator of being an elite 121 Sharon et al., “Monumental Megalithic Burial and Rock Art Tell a New Story about the Levant Intermediate Bronze ‘Dark Ages,’” 18-19. 122 Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers,” 35. 123 Ibid., 36; Kenyon, “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul,” 49; Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, 52; Bahat, “A Middle Bronze I Tomb-Cave at Motza.” 124 Greener, “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers,” 44; Lapp, Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs, 53. 295 group.125 Intermediate Bronze Age – An Ear Incubating the Middle Bronze Age The IBA period in the Southern Levant appears to be a period of preparation for the coming urbanization rather than a period of collapse of the EB urbanization suggested by the ‘EB IV school’. Greenberg asserts that a startling feature of the Na‘ama IBA pottery is its virtual independence from the earlier EB ceramic traditions. He mentions that all the wheel-made forms are new and it is the same as most of the handmade forms in the bowls, jeaked jars, or rope-decorated cooking pots.126 Greenberg disagrees with the concept of the EB IV phases because the IBA pottery at Tel Na‘ama in comparison to the EB III vessels either at Tel Hazor or at Tel Dan reveals considerable discontinuity between the two periods.127 Greenberg observes that except loop-handled jars and plain globular cooking pots, “none of the dominant forms of EB III—such as platters, redslipped bowls, vats, Metallic Ware jars and pithoi—are carried” over to the IBA, and this is contrary to the common wisdom of the EB IV school of thought, thus it accords better with approaches serving the Intermediate Bronze Age from the preceding period.128 Falconer et al. explain that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat provided examples of “the basis for village economy and ecology in emerging urbanized societies 125 Richard and Long, “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell,” 99. 126 Greenberg et al., “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley,” 23. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 296 such as those of the southern Levant.”129 While Ni‘aj and Hayyat showed overall similarities in animal managements and crop cultivation, Tell Abu en-Ni ‘aj demonstrated sedentary communities and orchard cultivation during the IBA and Tell el-Hayyat exemplified several striking trends accompanying the rejuvenation of Middle Bronze Age cities.130 The case of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el Hayyat can be applied to other rural villages throughout the southern Levant in the transition from the IBA to the MB period. Many IBA rural sites were continued into the following period and increased in its size as seen in many IBA occupied sites and in particular at the sites west of the Jordan River and in the Jordan Valley. This continuation as from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj to Tell el Hayyat were also occured in the movement from the IBA occupational settlements in the lowlands to nearby mounds in the highland as Third Miles Estates at Ashkelon as well as from many small rural villages to Tells, which were more defensible locations. In her analysis of the IBA weapons, D’Andrea remarks that “such pieces of evidence suggest that this period was a crucible of techniques, ideas, vogues and practices, whose final result we will see crystallized in the following MBA.”131 Although the Transjordan band maintains the Early Bronze Age traditions in settlements and in pottery repertoire or burial customs, the material culture and the 129 Patricia L. Fall, Lines, and Steven E. Falconer, “Seeds of Civilization: Bronze Age Rural Economy and Ecology in the Southern Levant,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, no. 1 (1998): 122. 130 131 Ibid., 121. D’Andrea, M., “Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities during the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant,” 140. 297 settlement patterns in the Northern and Southern bands lean toward practicing new exogenous culture. This new exogenous culture practiced in the Northern and Southern bands was continued into the following period and developed with the urbanization of the MBA. Thus, it is proper that the era in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE can be named as the Intermediate Bronze Age rather than the Early Bronze IV. The IBA period can be defined as the seed of urbanization for the Middle Bronze Age. As for the issue of the IBA chronology (see High Chronology in Chapter 2), although the researches by Falconer and Fall as well as Regev et al. insist high chronology of the IBA period in 2500-2000BCE from the traditional chronology 23001900 BCE, it needs to wait for more reliable data, because the only modeling site, Khirbet Hamra Ifdan, including both the EB II and the IBA, support the traditional chronology. Chapter 8 Conclusion The Intermediate Bronze Age is one of the more complicated and obscure periods in the history of the Southern Levant. Various approaches and interpretations about this period have been suggested for half of the last century. The reason for the variety seems to be that well walled and well- fortified urban centers were rarely discovered in the Southern Levant during this period. The excavations recently conducted for the last a few decades, however, demand archaeologists to re-evaluate the conventional consensus about the nature of the Intermediate Bronze Age. New settlements have been found in the Jezreel and Harod Valley, the Ayalon Valley, the Refaim Valley, the Transjordan and scattered along the coastal plains. The archaeological data have been also updated from many Intermediate Bronze Age sites already unearthed, in particular from sites in the Transjordan. Based on these updated archaeological data, this dissertation re-evaluates the nature of the transitional period in the late 3rd and early 2nd Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. The Intermediate Bronze Age should not be named as a “Dark Age” and a period of “nomadic pastoralism” any longer. Rather this period seemed to be a period of integration of the exogenous culture acting upon the indigenous existing culture and of incubating a coming era of the Middle Bronze Age. It is apparent that there was a fatal crisis in the Southern Levant by the end of the Early Bronze Age III. This was most probably due to abrupt climate change along with the decline of precipitation. The Early Bronze Age population abandoned their urban 298 299 centers and found new habitats closer to water sources to survive besides move closer to water sources. For some of the population, the Transjordan and Negev was a compelling region where there was a traditional trade route for copper and goods and also arable land near the rivers. These settlers Continued operating/ in the same manner as the previous and at the same time gradually adapted to new changes. The Transjordan and Negev are reminiscent of the Early Bronze IV in Syria, where the urban centers were restored from the collapse of the fatal crisis in the previous period. Some groups of people from the Northern Levant migrated via inland route and settled in the north of the Southern Levant in early Intermediate Bronze Age. This exogenous people were absorbed into the indigenous population in the north of the Southern Levant. As the periphery of the Syrian or Mesopotamian gust, the north of the Southern Levant centered by Hazor, shared and enjoyed the Syrian culture. The next migration seemed to take place in the later Intermediate Bronze Age through the coastal route and inland, in particular, to the Coastal Plain, the Sharon Plain, the Shephelah, and the Negev. The route of the Mediterranean coast was already used between Byblos and Egypt during the Early Bronze Age. The route of the Mediterranean coast could cut the travel time shorter than the inland route. There is not yet enough evidence to fully test this theory, but a few evidences from the coastal sites should be explained with the seaborne route. This second exogenous influx appears to continue in the following period and flourish in the Middle Bronze culture. The copper industry and trade might cause these migration s because there was the largest copper mine in the region of Faynan south of the Dead Sea during this period. The copper in the region of Faynan was already well-known in Egypt from the Early Bronze I and II. However, at the end of the Intermediate Bronze Age, the 300 copper industry conducted in the Negev was declined and the settlements of the Negev abandoned. More research is needed to understand the reason of the decline of the copper industry and trade in the following period. It is possible that the Mediterranean merchants could have discovered new regions of copper mines that were easier for transportation and to make copper objects other than the Faynan region. The overall characteristics of the Intermediate Bronze Age society is regionalism and agro-pastoralism. Each region maintains a self-sufficient economy with farming and herding. The most IBA pottery was manufactured in a local workshop and the pottery exchange took place in nearby regions. The regionalism in the Intermediate Bronze Age was continued into the early Middle Bronze Age so the pottery repertoire between the coastal plains and the Jordan Valley are different in their style and shape. Even though the general IBA society was centered in small rural villages, social hierarchy can be attested in the burial customs. In sum, the early Intermediate Bronze Age seemed to be a grafting period in which the exogenous culture and people were gradually grafted upon the indigenous culture and people. Thus, the late Intermediate Bronze Age appears to have been a time which incubated a new era, the Middle Bronze Age. ` Bibliography Adams, M. J. “Egypt and the Levant in the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition.” In The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, edited by Felix Hoflmayer, 493–515. Oriental institute seminars 11. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017. ———. “Part III: The Main Sector of Area J.” In Megiddo V the 2004-2008 Seasons, edited by I Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, E. H. Cline, and M. J. Adams, 47–118. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ———. “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J.” In Megiddo V the 2004-2008 Seasons, edited by I Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, E. H. Cline, and M. J. Adams, 295–334. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Adams, R. “The Early Bronze Age III_IV Transition in Southern Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet Hamra Ifdan.” In Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, edited by D. Baird and G. Philip, 379–402. Levantine archaeology: 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Adams, R. B. “Copper Trading Networks across the Arabah during the Later Early Bronze Age.” In Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah, edited by K. Galor and P. Bienkowski, 137–144. Levant supplementary series: v. 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006. Albright, W. F. “Archeology Confronts Biblical Criticism.” The American Scholar, no. 2 (1938): 176–88. ———. “From the Patriarchs to Moses II. Moses out of Egypt.” The Biblical Archaeologist, no. 2 (1973). ———. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore: Hopkins Pr., 1940. ———. “Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-Palestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 184 (1966): 26–35. 301 302 ———. The Archaeology of Palestine. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1971. ———. “The Chronology of Middle Bronze I (Early Bronze-Middle Bronze).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 168 (1962): 36–42. 292 ———. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. I A: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13 (1931): 55– 127. ———. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12 (1930): ix– 165. ———. “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II: The Bronze Age.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 17 (1936): xi–141. ———. “The Fourth Joint Campaign of Excavation at Tell Beit Mirsim.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 47 (1932): 3–17. Amiran, R. “A Tomb-Group from Geva’-Carmel: Revision of the Sub-Division of the Mb I Pottery.” ’Atiqot 7 (1974): 1-12 (Hebrew Section). ———. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. First American Edition edition. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ Pr, 1970. ———. “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine.” Israel Exploration Journal 10, no. 4 (1960): 204–225. Anderson, Jr R.W. “Southern Palestinian Chronology: Two Radiocarbon Dates for the Early Bronze Age at Tell El-Hesi (Israel).” Radiocarbon 48, no. 1 (2008): 101–107. Arnold, B. “‘Drinking the Feast’: Alcohol and the Legitimation of Power in Celtic Europe.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9, no. 1 (1999): 71–93. Artzy, M. “Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon, edited by S. Gitin and M. Artzy. Colloquia and conference papers no. 1. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co, 1995. Artzy, M., and R. Beeri. “Tel Akko.” In One Thousand Days and Nights - Akko through the Ages, edited by A. E. Killebrew and V. Raz-Romeo, 14*-23*. haifa: Hecht Museum, 2010. 303 Avner, U., I. Carmi, and D. Segal. “Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: A View from the Southern Negev.” In Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and R. S. Kra, 265–300. Cambridge, Mass: Radiocarbon; American School of Prehistoric Research, 1994. Bagh, Tine. “Levantine Painted Ware from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Sidon: New Material from the Lebanese Coast.” Archaeology and History in Lebanon 20 (2004): 40– 57. ———. “Painted Pottery at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware.” In The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th-26th of January 2001, 89–101. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. ———. Tell El-Dabʿa. 23: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie / Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 71. Wien: Verl. der Österr. Akad. der Wiss, 2013. ———. “The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronological Implications.” In The Synchromisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B. C. II, 219–237. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003. Bahat, D. “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Menahemiya.” ’Atiqot 11 (1976): 27–33. ———. “A Middle Bronze I Tomb-Cave at Motza.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 18–23. Bar, S., O. Cohen, and A. Zertal. “New Aspects of the Intermediate Bronze Age (IB/MBI/EBIV)-Khirbet El-Meiyiteh: A Fortified Site on the Eastern Fringe of Samaria.” Revue Biblique T.120-2 (2013): 161–181. Bates, D. G., and S. H. Lees. “The Role of Exchange in Productive Specialization.” American Anthropologist 79, no. 4 (1977): 824–841. Bechar, S. “A Reanalysis of the Black Wheel-Made Ware of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” Tel Aviv 42, no. 1 (June 1, 2015): 27–58. ———. “Tel Hazor: A Key Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA), no. 2 (2013): 73–75. Beck, P. “Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery.” In Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, edited by M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, 173– 238. Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000. 304 ———. “Area B: Pottery.” In Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, edited by M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, 93–133. Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000. ———. “The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First Summary.” Tel Aviv 12, no. 2 (1985): 181–203. ———. “The MIddle Bronze Age IIA Pottery Repertoire: A Comparative Study.” In AphekAntipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons, edited by M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin, 239–54. Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000. ———. “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek.” Tel Aviv 2, no. 2 (1975): 45– 85. Ben-Dor, I. “A Canaanite Temple at Nahariya.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 1 (1951): 17–28. Ben-Tor, A. “Do the Execration Texts Reflect an Accurate Picture of the Contemporary Settlement Map of Palestine?” In Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʼaman, edited by N. Naʼaman and A. Yaira, 63–87. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Ben-Tor, A., D. Ben-Ami, and A. Livneh. “Yoqe’am III: The Middle Brone and Late Bronze Ages—Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988).” Qedem Reports 7 (2005): III–435. Bietak, M, K. Kopetzky, L. E. Stager, and R. Voss. “Synchronisations of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and Tellel-Dab’a.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 18 (2008): 49– 60. Biran, A. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994. Braun, E., and R. Gophna. “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar-Area G.” ’Atiqot 45 (2004): 185– 242. Bunimovits, S., and Z. Lederman. “Solving a Century-Old Puzzle: New Discoveries at the Middle Bronze Gate of Tel Beth-Shemesh.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145, no. 1 (March 2013): 6–24. Bunimovitz, S., and R. Greenberg. “Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine.” In Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays 305 on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by W. G. Dever, S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel, 23–32. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 334 (2004): 19–31. 296 Campbell, E. F. “Shechem.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Burke, A. A. “Amorites, Climate Change, and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.,” The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, edited by F. Höflmayer, 261-307. Oriental Institute Seminars 11. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017. Castel, C. “The First Temples in antis: The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd Mil- lennium Syria.” In Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie ; Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, edited by J. W. Meyer, J. Becker, R. Hempelmann, and E. Rehm, 123–64. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bd. 371. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. Cleveland, R. L. “The Excavation of the Conway High Place (Petra) and Soundings at Khirbet Ader.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34/35 (1954): 53–97. Cohen, R. Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev. Vol. 1. IAA Reports 6. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1999. ———. “The Mysterious MB I People.” Biblical Archaeology Review 9, no. 4 (1983): 16–29. ———. “The Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev.” In Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology. Madison: Prehistory Pr, 1992. Cohen, R., and W. G. Dever. “Preliminary Report of the Pilot Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project.’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 232 (1978): 29–45. ———. “Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project.’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 236 (1979): 41–60. Cohen, R., W. G. Dever, and J. R. Caldwell. “Preliminary Report of the Third and Final Season of the ‘Central Negev Highlands Project.’” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 243 (1981): 57–77. Cohen, S. L. Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. Harvard Semitic Museum publications. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. 306 ———. “Continuities and Discontinuities: A Reexamination of the Intermediate Bronze Age— Middle Bronze Age Transition in Canaan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 354 (2009): 1–13. ———. “Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power: Theories of Canaanite Development in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E.” In Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, 69–75. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2009. ———. “Middle Bronze Age IIA Ceramic Typology and Settlement in the Southern Levant.” In The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, 113–131. Denkschriften der Gesamtakadamie 26. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. Cohen, S. L., and R. Bonfil. “The Pottery.” In The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report, edited by S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel, 77–99. The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62. Boston MA : American Schools of Oriental Research, c2007., 2007. Cohen, S. L., and Y. Garfinkel. The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher: Final Report. The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007. Collins, S., M. C. Luddeni, and C. M. Kobs. The Tall Al-Hammam Excavations. Winona Lake: Published for the Tall al-Hammam Excavation Project by Eisenbrauns, 2015. Cooper, L. “Early Bronze Age Burial Types and Social-Cultural Identity within the Northern Euphrates Valley.” In Euphrates River Valley Settlement, 5:55–70. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC. Oxbow Books, 2007. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr99p.10. Covello-Paran, K. “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Hagosherim, Upper Galilee.” ’Atiqot 30 (1996): 71–83. ———. “Middle Bronze Age IIA Burials at Tel Yosef.” ’Atiqot 42 (2001): 139–157. ———. “Murḥan: An Intermediate Bronze Age Site in the Ḥarod Valley.” ’Atiqot (2017): 13– 28. ———. “Tel Ḥaẓor: Areas Q (The Eastern Spur) and N.” ’Atiqot 55 (2007): 17*-42*. ———. “The Jezreel Valley during the Intermediate Bronze Age: Social and Cultural Landscapes.” Tel Aviv University, 2015. Covello-Paran, K., and Y. Tepper. “Nahal Rimmonim.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI). Last modified 2014. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=9562. 307 Craddock, Paul T. “The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 1. The Greeks before the Archaic Period.” Journal of Archaeological Science 3, no. 2 (1976): 93–113. Dagan, Y. “Naḥal Yarmut.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 17 (1998): 105–106. ———. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project: The Gazetteer (IAA Reports 46). Jerusalem, D’Andrea, M. “Of Pots and Weapons: Constructing the Identities during the Late 3rd Millennium BC in the Southern Levant.” In SOMA 2012: Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3 March 2012, edited by L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, and S. Valentini, 137–146. BAR international series 2581. Oxford, England: Archaeopress, .2013 D’Andrea, M. “The EB–MB Transition in the Southern Levant: Contacts, Connectivity and Transformations.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Transformation & Migration: Archaeology of Religion & Ritual: Images in Context: Audiences & Perception: Islamic Archaeology 1 1, edited by Barbara Horejs, Christoph Schwall, Vera Müller, Vera Luciani, Markus Ritter, and Mattia Guidetti, 81–96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. ———. “The Socio-Economic Landscape of the Early Bronze IV Period in the Southern Levant: A Ceramic Perspective.” In Broadening Horizons 4: A Conference of Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near East, Egypt and Central Asia, University of Torino, October 2011, edited by Giorgio Affanni, Cristina Baccarin, Laura Cordera, Angelo Di Michele, and Katia Gavagnin, 31–38. BAR international series 2698. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015. ———. “Townships or Villages? Remarks on Middle Bronze IA in the Southern Levant.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by Piotr Bieliński, Michał Gawlikowski, Rafał Koliński, Dorota Ławecka, Arkadiusz Sołtysiak, and Zuzanna Wygnańska, 1:151–172. 30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw / edited by Piotr Bieliński, Michał Gawlikowski, Rafał Koliński, Dorota Ławecka, Arkadiusz Sołtysiak and Zuzanna Wygnańska ; volume 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014. De Cree, F. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 115, no. 1 (1999): 59–84. Dever, W. G. “A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet El-Kirmil.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies (1975): 18*-33*. ———. “A Middle Bronze I Site on the West Bank of the Jordan.” Archaeology 25, no. 3 1972): 231-233 ———. “An EB IV Tomb Group from Tell Beit Mirsim.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies ‫( כז‬2003): 29-*36* 308 ———. “An MB I Tomb Group from Sinjil.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 204 (1971): 31–37. ———. “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era.” The Biblical Archaeologist 50, no. 3 (1987): 149– .177 ———. “Cave G26 at Jebel Qa’aqir: A Domestic Assemblage of Middle Bronze I.” EretzIsrael: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 15 (1981): 22*-32*. ———. “Gezer.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, 496–506. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. ———. “MB IIA Cemeteries At ’Ain Es-Sâmiyeh and Sinjil.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 217 (1975): 23–36. ———. “New Vistas on the EB IV (‘MB I’) Horizon in Syria-Palestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 35–64. ———. “Settlement Patterns and Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. University Museum monograph. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997. ———. “Social Structure in the Early Bronze Age IV Period in Palestine.” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, 282–96. New York: Facts on File, 1995. ———. “The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine.” In Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright., edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, 3–38. New York: Garden City, 1976. ———. “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant (1992): 39–51. ———. “The Collapse of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine: Toward a Systemic Analysis.” In L’ Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles ; Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20 - 24 Octobre 1986), edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 225–46. BAR International series 527. Oxford: B.A.R, 1989. ———. “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 37–63. 309 ———. “The ‘Middle Bronze I’ Period in Syria and Palestine.” In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, edited by N. Glueck and J. A. Sanders. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970. ———. “The Middle Bronze Occupation and Pottery of ’Araq En-Nasaneh (Cave II).” In Discoveries in the Wâdī Ed-Dâliyeh, edited by P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp, 41:33–48. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974. ———. “The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period.” The Harvard Theological Review 64, no. 2/3 (1971): 197–226. ———. “The Rural Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze IV Period.” In The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, edited by A. M. Maeir, S. Dar, and Z. Safrai, 43–60. BAR international series 1121. Oxford, England: Archeopress, 2003. ———. “Village Planning at Be’er Resisim and Socio-Economic Structure in Early Bronze Age IV Palestine.” Eretz-Israel 18 (1985): 18–28. Dever, W. G., H. D. Lance, and R. G. Bullard. Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis.” Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1986. Dever, W. G., and M. Tadmor. “A Copper Hoard of the Middle Bronze Age I.” Israel Exploration Journal 26, no. 4 (1976): 163–169. Dietler, Michael. “Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9, no. 4 (1990): 352– 406. Donahue, J., T. R. Schaub, and W. E. Rast. Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ: Excavations at the Town Site (19751981). Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan: v. 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Dorsey, D. A. “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 268 (1989): 57–70. Dothan, M. “Acco.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, 16–24. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. ———. “Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224 (1976): 1–48. ———. “The Excavations at Nahariyah: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55).” Israel Exploration Journal 6, no. 1 (1956): 14–25. 310 Dunayevsky, I., and A. Kempinski. “The Megiddo Temples.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 89, no. 2 (1973): 161–187. Dungworth, D., P. W. Clogg, and G. Philip. “Copper Metallurgy in the Jordan Valley from the Third to the First Millennia BC; Chemical, Metallographic and Lead Isotope Analyses of Artefacts from Pella.” Levant 35 (2003): 71–100. Edelstein, G. “Excavations at the Cemetery of Khirbet Ibreiktas.” Ezor Menashe 5 (1971): 11– 20. Edelstein, G., and E. Eisenberg. “’Emeq Refaim.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1 (1982): 53–54. ———. “’Emeq Refaim.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 3 (1984): 51–52. Edelstein, G., I. Milevski, S. Aurant, H. Gitler, L. Horwitz, M. E. Kislev, R. Reich, et al. Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987-1989. Vol. 3. Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998. Ehrich, R. W. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Eisenberg, E. “’Emeq Refaim.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7–8 (1989 1988): 84–89. ———. “Manahat - A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem.” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 26, no. 3/4 (103/104) (1993): 92–102. ———. “Nahal Refa’im-Canaanite Bronze Age Villages near Jerusalem.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Last modified 2002. http://www.israel.org/MFA/IsraelExperience/History/Pages/Nahal%20Refaim%20- %20Canaanite%20Bronze%20Age%20villages%20near.aspx. ———. “Naḥal Rephaim — A Bronze Age Village in Southwestern Jerusalem.” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 26, no. 3/4 (103/104) (1993): 82–95. Eisenberg, E., and S. A. Rosen. “The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha’ar Ha-Golan.” ’Atiqot 69 (2012): 1–73. Elad, I., and Y. Paz. “‘En Esur (Asawir).” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI). Last modified 2018. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25453#bibliography. Erickson-Gini, T., and Y. Israel. “An Intermediate Bronze Age Settlement and a Middle Bronze Age II Cemetery at the ‘Third Mile Estate’, Ashqelon.” ’Atiqot 74 (2013): 143–165. 311 Esse, D. L. “Secondary State Formation and Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine.” In L’ Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles ; Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20 - 24 Octobre 1986), edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 81–96. BAR International series 527. Oxford: B.A.R, 1989. ———. Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in ancient oriental civilization no. 50. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. Falconer, Steven E. “Village Economy and Society in the Jordan Valley: A Study of Bronze Age Rural Complexity.” In Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, edited by Glenn M. Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer, 121– 42. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994. ———. “Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Perspective.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Vol. 3: ..., edited by A. Hadidi, 251–59. Amman: Dep. of Antiquities, 1987. Falconer, S. E., and L. Berelov. “Ceramic and Radiocarbon Chronology for Tell El-Hayyat.” In Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell El-Hayyat, Jordan, edited by Patricia L. Fall and S. E. Falconer, 44–64. BAR international series. United Kingdom: Archaeopress, 2006. Falconer, S. E., and P. L. Fall. “Radiocarbon Evidence from Tell Abu En-Ni’aj and Tell ElHayyat, Jordan, and Its Implications for Bronze Age Levantine and Egyptian Chronologies.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, no. 0 (March 12, 2017): .19–7 ———. “Settling the Valley: Agrarian Settlement and Interaction along the Jordan Rift during the Bronze Age.” In A Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van Der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by G. V. D. Kooij, E. Kaptijn, and L. P. Petit, 97–108. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2009. Falconer, S. E., P. L. Fall, and J. E. Jones. “The Jordan Valley Village Project: Excavations at Tell Abu En- Ni‘aj, 2000.” American Journal of Archaeology 105, no. 3 (2001): 438–39. Falconer, S. E., P. L. Fall, M. C. Metzger, and L. Lines. “Bronze Age Rural Economic Transitions in the Jordan Valley.” In The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by B. A. Nakhai, 1–17. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 58, 2003. Falconer, S. E., B. Magness-Gardiner, and M. C. Metzger. “Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell El-Hayyat Project.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 255 (1984): 49–74. 312 Falconer, S. E., and S. H. Savage. “Heartlands and Hinterlands: Alternative Trajectories of Early Urbanization in Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant.” American Antiquity, no. 1 .58– 37 :)1995( Feig, Nurit. “Finds from the Bronze and Iron Ages West of Tel Bira.” ’Atiqot/ 89 (2017): 117118. Finkelstein, I. “Further Observations on the Socio-Demographic Structure of the Intermediate Bronze Age.” Levant 21 (1989): 129–140. ———. Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology: 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. “Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia B.C.E.” In Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, edited by A. M. Khazanov and O. Bar-Yosef, 133–142. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madison, Wis: Prehistory Pr, 1992. ———. “The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age.” Israel Exploration Journal 41, no. 1/3 (1991): 19–45. Fischer, P. M., and M. Sadeq. “Tell El-’Ajjul 1999: A Joint Palestine-Swedish Field Project: First Season Preliminary Report.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 10 (2000): .226–211 Fugmann, Ejnar. Hama: fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg, 1931-1938. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques. II:1. Copenhagen: Fondation Carlsberg, .1958 Gal, Zvi, and Karen Covello-Paran. “Excavations at Afula, 1989.” ’Atiqot 30 (1996): 25–67. Garstang, J. “El Harbaj, Notes on Pottery Found at El Harbaj.” Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 2 (1924): 45–46. Gerstenblith, Patty. “A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in SyriaPalestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 65– .84 ———. The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental Research. Dissertation series: no. 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Getzov, N. “Abstract: Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee.” ’Atiqot (1995):211 ———. “Settlement Remains from the Intermediate Bronze Age at Shelomit.” ’Atiqot (2005): 133. 313 ———. “Shelomi.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115 (2003): 71*. ———. “Tombs from the Early and Intermediate Bronze Age in the Western Galilee.” ’Atiqot 27 (1995): 1*-18* ———. “‫’ ”שרידי יישוב מתקופת הברונזה הביניימית בשלומית‬Atiqot 49 (2005): 1*-4* Getzov, N., E. J. Stern, and D. Parks. “A Burial Cave at Lower Ḥorbat Manot: Additional Evidence for the Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV–MB I) Settlement Pattern in the ’Akko Plain and Western Galilee.” ’Atiqot 42 (2001): 133–138. Gitin, S. “Miiddle Bronze I ‘Domestic’ Pottery at Jebel Qa’aqīr: A Ceramic Inventory of Cave G 23.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 46*62*. Giveon, Raphael. The Impact of Egypt on Canaan: Iconographical and Related Studies. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 1978. Glueck, N. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14 (1933): 1–113. ———. Explorations in Eastern Palestine II. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 15 for 1934-1935. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1935, 1935. ———. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 18-19 for 1937-1939. New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1939., 1939. ———. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 25-28 for 1945-1949. New Haven: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951., 1951. Golani, A. “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E.” ’Atiqot 45 (2004): 9–62. Golani, A., and D. Ben-Tor. “A Built Tomb from Middle Bronze Age IIA and Other Finds at Tel Burga in the Sharon Plain.” ’Atiqot 68 (2011): 69–98. Golani, A., and B. Storchan. “Eshta’ol – Preliminary Report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI). Last modified 2009. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=993&mag_id=115. 314 Gonen, R. “A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery at Efrat in the Hebron Mountains.” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 14, no. 1/2 (53/54) (1981): 25–29. Gophna, M., and N. Blockman. “The Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Pottery.” In Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), edited by D. Ussishkin. [S.l.]: The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 2004. Gophna, R. “A Middle Bronze Age I Cemetery at Ma’abarot.” Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands 2, no. 6 (1969): 50–51. ———. “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb with Fenestrated Axe at Ma’abarot.” Israel Exploration Journal 19, no. 3 (1969): 174–177. ———. “The Intermediate Bronze Age.” In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 126–158, 1992. ———. “The Settlement Landscape of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age II-III and Middle Bronze Age II.” Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984): 24–31. Gophna, R., and E. Ayalon. “A Fortified Middle Bronze Age IIA Site at ʻAin Zurekiyeh in the Poleg Basin.” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 69–78. ———. “Survey of the Central Coastal Plain, 1978-1979: Settlement Pattern of the Middle Bronze Age IIA.” Tel Aviv 7 (1980): 147–50. ———. “Tel ʿAshir: An Open Cult Site of the Intermediate Bronze Age on the Bank of the Poleg Stream.” Israel Exploration Journal 54, no. 2 (2004): 154–173. Gophna R., and I. Milevski, “Feinan and the Mediterrannean During the Early Bronze Age,” Tel Aviv, 30, no. 2 (2003): 222-231. Gophna, R., and P. Beck. “The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II.” Tel Aviv 8 (1981): 45–80. Gophna, R., and J. Portugali. “Settlement and Demographic Processs in Israel’s Coastal Plain from Chalcolithic to the MIddle Bronze Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269 (n.d.): 11–28. Gophna, R., and V. Sussman. “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai.” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 5 (1969): 1*-2* (English Summary). ——— “A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai/ .‫מערת קברים מן התקופה הכנענית התיכונה‬ ‫בברקאי‬.” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 5 (1969): 1–13. Goren, Y. “The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 303 (1996): 33–72. 315 Grant, E., and G. E. Wright. Ain Shems Excavations Part IV (Pottery). First Edition. Haverford College, 1938. ———. Ain Shems Excavations Part V (Text). Reprint edition. Haverford, 1939. Greenberg, R. “Ea A: The Early Bronze Age; The Early Bronze Age Phases in Area L.” In Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968: Text and Illustrations, edited by A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil, 17–24, 183–93. Hazor final excavation reports 5th v. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. ———. Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. London; New York: Leicester University Press, 2002. ———. “No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant.” In The Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, edited by F. Hoflmayer, 33–60. Oriental institute seminars 11. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2017. Greenberg, R., L. K. Horwitz, L. Omri, M. K. Henk, K. Hamoudi, and M. Ofer. “A Sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley.” ’Atiqot 35 (1998): 9–35. Greenberg, R., and Y. Paz. “Area BS: The Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951–1953.” In Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933-1986, edited by R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz, and Y. Paz, 30:117–234. Israel Antiquities Authority, .2006 Greener, Aaron. “The Symbolic and Social Meanings of the Intermediate Bronze Age Copper Daggers.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144, no. 1 (March 2012): 33–46. Guy, P. L. O., and Robert Martin Engberg. Megiddo Tombs. The University of Chicago Press, 1938. Haiman, M. “Cairn Burials and Cairn Fields in the Negev.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 287 (1992): 25–45. ———. “Early Bronze Age IV Settlement Pattern of the Negev and Sinai Deserts: View from Small Marginal Temporary Sites.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 303 (1996): 1–32. Hallote, R. S. “Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8, no. 1 (1995): 93–122. Hallote, Rachel S. “Mortuary Practices and Their Implications for Social Organization in the Middle Bronze Southern Levant. Unpublished PhD Dissertation.” University of Chicago, 1994. 316 ———. “Real and Ideal Identities in Middle Bronze Age Tombs.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, no. 2 (June 2002): 105–111. Hauptmann, A., S. Schmitt-Strecker, T. E. Levy, and F. Begemann. “On Early Bronze Age Copper Bar Ingots from the Southern Levant.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (2015): 1–24. Helms, S. W. “An EB IV Pottery Repertoire at Amman, Jordan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 273 (1989): 17–36. ———. “Excavations at Tell Um Hammad, 1984.” Levant 18, no. 1 (1986): 25–50. ———. “Rescue Excavations at Umm El-Bighal. The Pottery.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32, no. 1 (1986): 319–47. Heltzer, M. “The Metal Trade of Ugarit and the Problem of Transportation of Commercial Goods.” Iraq 39, no. 2 (1977): 203–211. Herr, L. G. “Excavation and Cumulative Results.” In Madaba Plains Project: The 1994 Season at Tall al-ʻUmayri and Subsequent Studies, edited by L. G. Herr, 8–22. Madaba Plains Project series 5. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology, 2002. Herr, L. G., and D. R. Clark. “From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in Jordan: Digging up Tall al-ʻUmayri.” Near Eastern Archaeology 72, no. 2 (June 2009): 68–97. Herzog, Z. “Gerisa.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, 480–84. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Holdorf, P. S. “Comparison of Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Results from Khirbat Iskandar and Bâb Adh-Dhrâ’.” In Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries, edited by S. Richard. Archaeological expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its environs, Jordan v. 1. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2010. Horwitz, L. K. “The Archaeozoology of Bronze Age Offerings from Burial Cave 900 in Naḥal Refa’im, Jerusalem.” ’Atiqot (2017): 75–100. Ibrahim, M., J. A. Sauer, and K. Yassine. “The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 222 (1976): 41–66. Ilan, D. “Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery from Tel Dan.” Levant 28, no. 1 (1996): 157–176. ———. “Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65, no. 2 (2002): 92–104. 317 ———. “The Middle Bronze Age Tombs.” In Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, edited by A. Biran, D. Ilan, R. Greenberg, A. Gopher, L. K. Horwitz, and N. Porat, 163–329. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996. Ilan, D., and T. E. Levy. “The Dawn of Internationalism—the Middle Bronze Age.” In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 297–581. London: Leicester Univ Pr, 1998. Ingholt, H. Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932-1938). Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1940. Joffe, A. H. “Alcohol and Social Complexity in Ancient Western Asia.” Current Anthropology 39, no. 3 (1998): 297–322. ———. Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant : Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology: 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Kaplan, J. “Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30, no. 4 (1971): 293–307. Kaplan, J., and H. Ritter-Kaplan. “Tel Aviv.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, 1451–57. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Kelso, J. L. The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960). American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual: 39. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research with the aid of the Jane Dows Nies Publication Fund, 1968. Kempinski, A. “History of the Site and the Region.” In Excavations at Kabri, Vol. 1. Preliminary Report of 1986 Season, edited by A. Kempinski, 14–20. Tel Aviv: Tel Kabri Expedition: Tel Aviv University, 1987. ———. Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie Bd. 40. München: C.H. Beck, 1989. ———. “The Beginning of the Renewed Urbanization in the Northern Akko Valley During the Middle Bronze IIA Period.” Michmanim 5 (1991): 21-34 (English abstract pp.36*-37*). ———. “Urbanization and Metallurgy in Southern Canaan.” In L’Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles: Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs, 20-24 Octobre 1986, edited by P. Miroschedji, 163–68. BAR international series 527. Oxford: B.A.R, 1989. 318 Kempinski, A., N. Angel-Zohar, N. Scheftelowitz, and R. Oren. Tel Kabri: The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons. Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 20. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2002. Kennedy, M. A. “Assessing the Early Bronze—Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (2015): 199–216. ———. “Assessing the Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant in Light of a Transitional Ceramic Vessel from Tell Umm Hammad, Jordan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 373 (May 2015): 199–216. ———. “EB IV Stone-Built Cist-Graves from Sir Flinders Peterie’s Excavations at Tell El- ’Ajjul.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147, no. 2 (June 2015): 104–129. ———. “Life and Death at Tell Um Hammad: A Village Landscape of the Southern Levantine EB IV.” In Zeitschrift Des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 1–28. 131, 2015. Kenyon, K. M. Amorites and Canaanites. The Schweich lectures, 1963. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. ———. Archaeology in the Holy Land. London: Ernest Benn, 1970. ———. Digging Up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn, 1957. ———. Excavations at Jericho Vol. II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-8. Vol. 2. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1965. ———. “Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83, no. 2 (1951): 101. ———. “Syria and Palestine c. 2160-1780. The Archaeological Sites.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, v 1, Pt 2: Early History of the Middle East, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond, 1:567–94. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Pr, 1971. ———. “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Age at Tell El-’Ajjul.” In Tell ElʻAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, edited by J. R. Stewart and H. E. Kassis, 76–85. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 38. Göteborg: P. Åström [S.vägen 61], 1974. ———. “Tombs of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age at Tell Ajjul.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3 (1956): 41–55. Kenyon, K. M., T. A. Holland, and British School of Archaeology, eds. Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 3 Plates: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Jerusalem: British School of Archaeology, 1981. 319 Kislev, M. E, M. Artzy, and E. S. Marcus. “Import of an Aegean Food Plant to a Middle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel.” Levant 25 (1993): 145–154. Kitchen, K. A. “Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I) The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current Assessment.” In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny. Contributions to the chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. Vienna: Verl. der Österr. Akad. der Wiss, 2007. ———. “The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age.” In High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th-22nd August 1987, II. Stud. in Mediterr. archaeol. & liter. Pocket-books; 56. Sävedalen: Åström, 1987. Klimscha, F. “Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-Production at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass, Aqaba Area, Jordan.” In Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Stefan Burmeister and Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 31–63. Menschen - Kulturen - Traditionen 12. Rahden/Westf: Leidorf, 2013. Kochavi, M. “Har Yeruham.” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 141–42. ———. “The Excavations at Tel Yeruḥam.” Eretz-Israel 27 (1963): 284–292. ———. “The Settlement of the Negev in the MIddle Bronze (Canaanite) I Age.” Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1967. Kochavi, M., P. Beck, and R. Gophna. “Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain.” ZDPV 95 (1979): 121–165. Kochavi, M., P. Beck, and E. Yadin, eds. Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons. Monograph series / Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology no. 19. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2000. Kochavi, M., and E. Yadin. “Typological Analysis of the MB IIA Pottery from Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance.” In The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th26th of January 2001, edited by M. Bietak, 189–225. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. LaBianca, S., L. E. Hubbard, and L. G. Running. Sedentarization and Nomadization: Food System Cycles at Hesban and Vicinity in Transjordan. Hesban 1. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology: Andrews University Press, 1990. 320 Lapp, P. W. Dhahr Mirzbaneh Tombs: Three Intermediate Bronze Age Cemeteries in Jordan. American Schools of Oriental Research, 1966. Lapp, Paul W., and Nancy L. Lapp. “Discoveries in the Wâdī Ed-Dâliyeh.” The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41 (1974): iii–106. Lev-Yadun, Simcha, Michal Artzy, Ezra Marcus, and Ragna Stidsing. “Wood Remains from Tel Nami, a Middle Bronze IIa and Late Bronze IIb Port, Local Exploitation of Trees and Levantine Cedar Trade.” Economic Botany 50, no. 3 (1996): 310–17. Levy, L., L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, eds. Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985-2006). Harvard Semitic Museum publications v. 1. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Levy, T. E., R. B. Adams, A. Hauptmann, M. Prange, S. Schmitt-Strecker, and M. Najjar. “Early Bronze Age Metallurgy: A Newly Discovered Copper Manufactory in Southern Jordan.” Antiquity 76, no. 292 (2002): 425–437. Long, J. C. Jr. “Sedentism in Early Bronze IV Palestine-Transjordan: An Analysis of Sociocultural Variability in the Late Third Millennium BC.” Atlanta, 1986. ———. “Theory in Archaeology: Culture Change at the End of the Early Bronze Age.” In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader, edited by S. Richard. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Loud, G. Megiddo 2. Seasons of 1935-39: Text and Plates. Oriental Institute Publications (OIP) 62. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Macalister, R. A. S. The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905 And 1907-1909 Vol III. London: John Murray, 1912. Mackenzie, D. Excavations at Ain Shems: (Beth-Shemesh). Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 2. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1913. Maeir, A. M. “In the Midst of the Jordan” The Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000-1500 BCE): Archaeological and Historical Correlates. Contributions to the Chronology of the eastern Mediterranean 64 26. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010. ———. “The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern.” Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. ———. “Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B.” In Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968: Text and Illustrations, edited by A. Ben-Tor and R. Bonfil. Hazor final excavation reports 5th v. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. 321 Marcus, E. S. “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period.” Submitted to the University of Oxford, 1998. Marcus, E. S., Y. Porath, and S. M. Paley. “The Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Phases at Tel Ifshar and Their External Relations.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 18 (2008): 221–244. Matthiae, P., and L. Romano, eds. “Excavations at the Holyland Compound: A Bronze Age Cemetery in the Rephaim Valley, Western Jerusalem.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 5 May-10 May 2009, 397–415. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B. C. E. Anchor Bible reference library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of the Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age.” In Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by W. G. Dever, S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel, 105– 118. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Mazzoni, S. “Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with SyroPalestinian EB IV.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 257 (1985): 1–18. ———. “The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwestern Central Syria.” In Céramique de l’Âge Du Bronze En Syrie, I. La Syrie Du Sud et La Vallée de l’Oronte. Édité Par..., edited by M. Al-Maqdissi, V. Matoian, and C. Nicolle, 69–96. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2002. Milevski, I., E. Boaretto, A. Cohen-Weinberger, E. Kamaisky, H. Khalaily, Nili Liphschitz, Moshe Sade, et al. “Er-Rujum (Sha’alabim East): An Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) Site in the Ayyalon Valley.” ’Atiqot 69 (2012): 75–140. Miroschedji, Pierre de. “Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age.” In Reasons for Change: Birth, Decline and Collapse of Societies from the End of the Fourth to the Beginning of the First Millennium B.C., edited by A. Cardarelli, A. Cazzella, M. Frangipane, and R. Peroni, 101–29. Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità, 2009. Moorey, P. R. S., and F. Schweizer. “Copper and Copper Alloys in Ancient Iraq, Syria and Palestine: Some New Analyses.” Archaeometry 14, no. 2 (August 1972): 177. Morandi Bonacossi, D. “Tell Mishrifeh and Its Region During the EBA IV and the EBA– MBA Transition. A First Assessment.” In The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a 322 Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, edited by P. J. Parr, 56–68. Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9. Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009. Muhly, James D. Copper and Tin: The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metals Trade in the Bronze Age. New Haven: Archon Books, 1973. ———. “The Copper Ox-Hide Ingots and the Bronze Age Metals Trade.” Iraq 39, no. 1 (1977): 73–82. Nativ, A., R. Shimelmitz, L. Sapir-Hen, I. Ktalav, and M. Iserlis. “Ard El-Samra: A Chacolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Site on the Akko Plain.” Salvage Excavations Series, no. 10 (2017): 1–72. Newberry, Percy Edward. Beni Hasan. Vol. 1. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, 1893. Nigro, L., ed. Khirbet Al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in North-Central Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005). Vol. 3. Rome ≪La Sapienza≫ Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan. Rome: ≪La Sapienza≫ Expedition to Palestine & Jordan, 2006. ———. “Tell Es-Sultan in the Early Bronze Age IV (2300-2000 BC). Settlement vs Necropolis A Stratigraphic Periodization.” Contibuti e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9 (2003): 121–158. ———. “The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd Millennium BC Jordan Seen from the Caravan City of Khirbet Al-Batrawy.” Vicino Oriente 18 (2014): 39–64. ———. “The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective.” In The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, edited by M. Bietak, 297–328. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. Oren, E. D. “A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) 87, no. 2 (1971): 109–139. ———. “Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto-Canaanite Interconnections.” In L’Urbanisation de La Palestine à l’âge Du Bronze Ancien: Bilan et Perspectives Des Recherches Actuelles: Actes Du Colloque d’Emmaüs, 20-24 Octobre 1986, edited by P. Miroschedji, 389–405. BAR international series 527. Oxford: B.A.R, 1989. ———. “Sera ̔, Tel.” Oxford Biblical Studies Online. http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com.aaron.swbts.edu/article/opr/t256/e957. 323 ———. “The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and Its Cultural and Chronological Setting.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 20–37. ———. “Ziglag: A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev.” The Biblical Archaeologist 45, no. 3 (1982): 155–166. Oren, Eliezer D. The Northern Cemetery of Beth Shan. Museum monograph of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Ory, J. “A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahrat El Humraiya.” The Quarterly Of The Department Of Antiquities In Palestine 13 (1948): 75–89. Paley, S. M., and Y. Porath. “Hefer, Tel.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, 609–614. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Paley, S., and Y. Porath. “Early Middle Bronze Age IIA Remains at Tel El-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report.” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by E. D. Oren, 369–378. University Museum symposium series: 8. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1997. Palumbo, G. “‘Egalitarian’ or ‘Stratified’ Society? Some Notes on Mortuary Practices and Social Structure at Jericho in EB IV.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 267 (1987): 43–59. ———. “The Early Bronze Age IV.” In Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, edited by Russell Adams, 233–69. United Kingdom: Equinox Pub., 2008. ———. The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant Settlement Patterns, Economy, and Material Culture of a “Dark Age,” 1990. Palumbo, G., and G. Peterman. “Early Bronze Age IV Ceramic Regionalism in Central Jordan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 289 (1993): 23–32. Paz, S. “(In)Visible Cities: The Abandoned Early Bronze Age Tells in the Landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age Southern Levant.” In Seen & Unseen Spaces, edited by M. Dalton, G. Peters, and A. Tavares, 28–36. ARC, 2015. Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Ancient Gaza I: Tell El Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1931. ———. Ancient Gaza IV: Tell El Ajjūl,. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1934. Petrie, W. M. Flinders, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, and Egyptian Research Account. Ancient Gaza II: Tell El Ajjūl. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College, 1932. 324 Pfeiffer, K. “The Technical Ceramic for Metallurgical Activities in Tall Hujayrat Al-Ghuzlan and Comparable Sites in the Southern Levant.” In Prehistoric ʻAqaba, edited by L. Khalil and K. Schmidt, 305–38. Orient-Archäologie Bd. 23. Rahden/Westf: VML, Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2009. Philip, Graham. “Tin, Arsenic, Lead: Alloying Practices in Syria-Palestine around 2000 B.C.” Levant 23 (1991): 93–104. Prag, K. “A Study of the Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age in Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon.” University of Oxford, 1972. ———. “Ancient and Modern Pastoral Migration in the Levant.” Levant 17, no. 1 (January 1, 1985): 81–88. ———. “The ‘Built Tomb’ of the Intermediate Early-Middle Bronze Age at Beitrawi, Jordan.” In Trade, Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, edited by J. B. Hennessy, S. Bourke, and J. P. Descœudres, 103–14. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 3. Sydney: Meditarch, 1995. ———. “The Excavations at Tell Iktanu, 1989 and 1990.” Syria 70, no. 1/2 (1993): 269–271. — ——. “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon.” Levant 6, no. 1 (1974): 69–116. ———. “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age Sequences at Jericho and Tell Iktanu Reviewed.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 264 (1986): 61–72. Prausnitz, M. “Bira.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa, and J. Aviram, 262–63. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. Pritchard, J. B. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. First. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1963. Raban, A. “The Port City of Akko in MB II.” Michmanim 5 (1991): 17*-34*. Rainey, Anson F. “Sinuhe’s World.” In “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 277–299. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006. 325 Regev, J., P. de Miroschedji, R. Greenberg, E. Braun, Z. Greenhut, and E. Boaretto. “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology.” Radiocarbon 54, no. 3/4 (July 2012): 525–566. Renfrew, Colin, and John Cherry. The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011. Richard, S. “Early Bronze IV Peoples: Connections between the Living and the Dead at Khirbat Iskandar.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, edited by International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 269–701. Amman, Jordan: Dept. of Antiquities, 2009. ———, ed. Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. Archaeological expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its environs, Jordan v. 14. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2010. ———. “Khirbat Iskandar—A New View of Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan.” The American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR). Last modified 2017. https://www.acorjordan.org/2017/01/12/khirbat-iskandar-early-bronzeage/?v=38dd815e66db#. ———. “The 1987 Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity: Fourth Preliminary Report.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, no. 26 (1990): 33–58. ———. “The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism.” Biblical Archaeollogist 50, no. 1 (1987): 22–43. ———. “The Southern Levant (Transjordan) during the Early Bronze Age.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE, edited by M. L. Steiner and A. E. Killebrew, 330–52. First edition. Oxford handbooks. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2014. ———. “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in PalestineTransjordan.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 237 (1980): 5– 34. Richard, S., and R. S. Boraas. “The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan: Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies, no. 25 (1988): 107–130. Richard, S., R. S. Boraas, and D. Wimmer. “Preliminary Report of the 1981-82 Seasons of the Expedition to Khirbet Iskander and Its Vicinity.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 254 (1984): 63–87. 326 Richard, S., and M. D’Andrea. “A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period.” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII (2016): 561–585. Richard, S., and J. C. Jr. Long. “Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell.” In The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, edited by P. Parr, 90–100. Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9. Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009. Ritner, Robert K. “Execration Texts (1.32).” In The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World, edited by K. Lawson Younger and William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Rosen, A. M. Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient near East. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2007. ———. “The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14, no. 1 (1995): 26–44. Rosenfeld, Amnon, Shimon Ilani, and Michael Avorachek. “Bronze Alloys from Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age.” Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997): 857–864. Samet, I. “The Chrono-Typological Pottery Sequence from the Middle Bronze Age Palace at Kabri: Some Preliminary Results.” Ägypten und Levante (Egypt and the Levant) (2014): 365–395. Savage, S. H., S. E. Falconer, and T. P. Harrison. “The Early Bronze Age City States of Southern Levant. Neither Cities nor States.” In Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, edited by T. E. Levy, P. M. M. Daviau, and R. W. Younker, 285–97. London, Oakville, CT: Equinox Pub. Ltd, 2007. Schaub, T. R. “An Early Bronze IV Tomb from Bâb Edh-Dhrâ’.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 210 (1973): 2–19. Segal, I, I. Roman, R. Cohen, and I. Brenner. “Chemical and Metallurgical Study of ’ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim.” Arx (Near Eastern Studies) 2–3 (97 1996): 43–51. Seligman, J., and O. Yogev. “An Early Bronze Age IV Built Tomb at Deganya A.” ’Atiqot 22 (1993): 71–75. Shalev, S. “Metallurgical Analysis.” In The Middle Bronze Age IIA Cemetery at Gesher : Final Report, edited by S. L. Cohen and Y. Garfinkel, 107–114. The annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research: v. 62. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007. 327 Sharon, G., A. Barash, D. Eisenberg-Degen, L. Grosman, M. Oron, and U. Berger. “Monumental Megalithic Burial and Rock Art Tell a New Story about the Levant Intermediate Bronze ‘Dark Ages.’” PLoS ONE 12, no. 3 (2017): 1–21. Shavit, A. “Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages.” Tel Aviv 27, no. 2 (2000): 189–230. Sherratt, A. “Cups That Cheered.” In Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean: Definition, Inperpretation, Theory and New Site Data: The Oxford International Conference, 1986, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, 81–106. BAR international series 331. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1987. Sherratt, S., and A. Sherratt. “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems.” In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale, 351–386. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 90. Paul Aström’s Förlag: Jonsered, 1991. Smith, R. H. Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kufin, Palestine. First Edition edition. Colt Archaeological Institute Monograph. London: Quaritch, 1962. Smithline, H. “An Intermediate Bronze Age Site at Horbat Qishron.” In Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, edited by Z. Gal, 21*-46*. Jerusalem: Rashut ha-ʻatiḳot, 2002. ———. “Ḥorbat Qishron.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 109 (1999): 94*-94*. ———. “Intermediate Bronze Age Presence at Tel Yizra’’el.” ’Atiqot (2017): 1–16. Stager, L. E. “The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the ‘Port Power’ Model of Trade.” In The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th-26th of January 2001, 353–362. Denkschriften der Gesamtakadamie 26. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. Stager, L. E., and Ross J. Voss. “Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon.” Eretz Israel Amnon Ben-Tor Volume (2011): 119*-126*. Stager, Lawrence E. “Port Power in the Early and Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production.” In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse., edited by Samuel Richard Wolff and Douglas L. Esse, 625–38. Studies in ancient oriental civilization: no. 59. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001. Stech, T., J. D. Muhly, and R. Maddin. “Metallurgical Studies on Artifacts from the Tomb near Enan.” ’Atiqot 17 (1985): 75–82. 328 Stech, Tamara, and Vincent C. Pigott. “The Metals Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Millennium B.C.” Iraq 48 (1986): 39–64. Stech-Wheeler, T., R. Maddin, and J. D. Muhly. “Ingots and the Bronze Age Copper Trade in the Mediterranean: A Progress Report.” Expedition 17, no. 4 (1974): 31–39. Stewart, J. R., and H. E. Kassis. Tell ElʻAjjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 38. Göteborg: P. Åström [S.vägen 61], 1974. Storchan, D. B. “An Intermediate Bronze Age Farmhouse at Newe Shalom.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, 7*-15*, 2012. Sussman, Varda. “Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Moza.” ’Atiqot: Hebrew Series 3 (1966): 40–43. Tadmor, M. “A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze Age I near Qedesh.” Israel Exploration Journal 28, no. 1/2 (1978): 1–30. ———. “A Middle Bronze Age I Tomb-Group from the Rosh Haniqra Ridge.” Eretz Israel 11 (1973): 286–289. Thalmann, J. P. Tell Arqa-I: Plans de Repérage (Dépliants). Tell Arqa-I Contributions de Hanan Charaf-Mullins. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2006. Thompson, T. L. “The Background of the Patriarchs: A Reply to William Dever and Malcolm Clark.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3, no. 9 (October 1978): 2–43. Toombs, L. E. “The Stratification of Tell Balâṭah (Shechem).” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 223 (1976): 57–59. Tubb, J. N. “Aliens in the Levant.” In The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004, edited by Peter Parr, 111–17. Palestine Exploration Fund annual 9. Leeds, UK: Maney, 2009. ———. Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal Esh-Sharqi. London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications, 1990. ———. “Report on the Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery.” In The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and Its Catchment: Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977-79, edited by John Matthers, 2:403–412. 98. BAR IS, 1981. 329 ———. “The MBIIA Period in Palestine: Its Relationship with Syria and Its Origin.” Levant 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1983): 49–62. Tubb, J. N., and M. W. Wright. “Excavations in the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Tiwal EshSharqi: A Preliminary Report.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29 (1985): 115–30. Tufnell, O. Lachish IV (Tell Ed - Duweir): The Bronze Age. London: pub. for the Trustees of the Late Sir Henry Wellcome by Oxford University Press, 1958. Ussishkin, D. “Comments Regarding the Early Bronze Cultic Compound, 1992–2010.” In Megiddo V the 2004-2008 Seasons, edited by I Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, E. H. Cline, and M. J. Adams, 1317–28. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ———. Renewed Archaeology Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). [S.l.]: The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 2004. Ussishkin, D., and J. Woodhead. “Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994-1996: Third Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 24 (1997): 6–72. Vacca, A. “Before the Royal Palace G. The Stratigraphic and Pottery Sequence of the West Unit of the Central Complex: The Building GS.” Studia Eblaiticia 1 (2015): 1–32. de Vaux, R. “Les Patriarches Hébreux et Les Découvertes Modernes.” Revue Biblique 53, no. 3 (1946): 321-348. Vencl, S. “The Archaeology of Thirst.” Journal of European Archaeology 2, no. 2 (1994): 299– 326. Ward, W. A. “Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on the Paper by Amnon Ben-Tor.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 281 .26– 11 :)1991( Weinstein, J. M. “A New Set of Radiocarbon Dates from the Town Site.” In Bâb Edh-Dhrâʻ : Excavations at the Town Site (1975-1981), edited by J. Donahue, R. T. Schaub, and W. E. Rast, 638–48. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan: v. 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Weksler-Bdolah, S. “Intermediate and Middle Bronze Age Burial Cave 900 in Naḥal Refa’im, Jerusalem.” ’Atiqot 88 (2017): 17–32. Wolff, S. R. “Archaeology in Israel.” American Journal of Archaeology 100, no. 4 (1996): 725– .768 Wright, G. E. “The Chronology of Palestinian Pottery in Middle Bronze I.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 71 (1938): 27–34. 330 ———. The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to and End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1937. Yadin, E. ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) II: Excavations at the Cemeteries. Jerusalem, 2006. Yannai, E. “Burial in the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Lower Ayalon and Yarkon River Basins.” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies :)(2011) 152*-153* (Hebrew, 234-255). ———. ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. IAA Reports 31. Jerusalem, 2006. ———. “Remains of the Wadi Rabah Culture, Early Bronze Age IB and the Intermediate Bronze Age at ’En Esur ('Ein Assawir), Area J.” ’Atiqot 85 (2016): 104-106 (Hebrews 23*–43*). ———. “Tel Zivda.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA-ESI). Last modified 2014. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=11625. Yannai, E., and A. Rochman-Halperin. “Burial Caves of the Intermediate Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age IV) at Ḥanita.” ’Atiqot 59 (2008): 193*-194*. Yasur-Landau, A., E. H. Cline, and N. Goshen. “Initial Results of the Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Tel Kabri Middle Bronze Age Palace.” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant (2014): 355. Yekutieli, Y., S. Shilstein, and S. Shalev. “ʿEn Yahav: A Copper Smelting Site in the ʿArava.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 340 (2005): 1–21. Zagorski, S., and A. Rosenblum. “Two Burial Caves from the Intemediate Bronze Age in Horbat Qishron in Summaries of the Hebrew Section.” Contract Archaeology Reports 3 (2008): 62*-64*. Zelinger, Y., and A. Golani. “Rock-Cut Shaft Tombs from the Intermediate Bronze Age near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem.” ’Atiqot (2005): 1–7. Zertal, A. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Zori, N. The Land of Issachar Archaeological Survey. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977. `