Early Bronze III and IV: Chronological and Cultural Relations

EARLY BRONZE III AND IV: CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RELATIONS Rupert L. Chapman III CHRONOLOGICAL RELATIONS: THE DATE OF THE END OF EB III B F or many years the date of the end of EB III in Palestine, Lebanon and Coastal Syria was set at c. 2200 bc (Albright 1957, 404–405; 1965, 57; Kenyon 1966, 6; 1979, 119), and EB IV was said to correspond in date to the First Intermediate Period in Egypt. This dating received a powerful challenge with Hennessy’s demonstration that the latest dateable Egyptian objects found in Palestine, the collection from ‘Sanctuary A’ at cAi, contained nothing later than the Fifth Dynasty (Hennessy 1967, 69–71, 74). Consequently, Hennessy raised the date of the end of EB III to a date not later than c. 2350–2300 bc. This analysis, combined with the clear evidence discussed above, and the assumption (following Albright: see especially 1965, 47–49) that taxonomically discrete assemblages in Palestine must represent discrete spans of time, never overlapping one another chronologically, has led to a general acceptance of a date of c. 2400–2300 bc for the end of EB III (e.g., Dever 1980, fig. 1; Callaway 1980, 273). There are several points which are important to remember about this dating. The first is that there is no radiocarbon evidence concerning the date of the end of EB III (Callaway and Weinstein 1977, 10–12). The second is that Callaway’s renewed excavations at cAi began only three years before Hennessy’s study was published; only one preliminary report on the renewed excavations had appeared before publication of Hennessy’s study (Callaway 1965), and this was not referred to by Hennessy. Moreover, it is clear that Callaway, who in 1965 (37, fn. 25) agreed with Hennessy’s views concerning the contemporaneity of Sanctuary A with 1-PEF9-01.indd 1 the Egyptian alabasters found there had changed his mind by 1972 (292–293). In his final report on the renewed excavations of the ‘Sanctuary’ at cAi, Callaway demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that ‘Sanctuary A’ was originally constructed in Phase VI as an ordinary house, and modified extensively in Phase VII in order to convert it into a sanctuary (Callaway 1972, 247–297). Although the full details have not yet been published, it seems that the great temple constructed at Callaway’s Site D in Phase VI was changed into a residence (possibly for the ruler of cAi) in Phase VII (Callaway 1972, 292–293). Moreover, Callaway, in his re-analysis of the artefacts from the final occupation of ‘Sanctuary A’, preferred to date all of the objects regarded by Hennessy as Fourth or Fifth Dynasty Egyptian as either earlier (Callaway 1972, 300) or nonEgyptian (1972, 303–304). This is particularly important in the case of the votive cups (Callaway 1972, 303–304, figs. 73: 1–2, 4–7, 76: 1–16, 77: 4, 78: 2, 79: 1). Callaway suggested that the cAi cups had a Mesopotamian origin (Callaway 1972, 304). On the other hand, Saghieh sees the votive cups from Byblos, which occur in J I–II, as quite different from those of cAi, and as having a different origin (Saghieh 1983, 115–116), in which case the cAi cups could share the Third Dynasty dating of the other Egyptian objects, although the long life of the type in Egypt (Callaway 1972, 304) renders them nearly useless for dating. Given that the number of imported Egyptian objects, spread out over the whole of Palestine, is so small, their absence from most of the major sites can be readily accounted for by sampling error, and does not require us to raise the date of the end of EB III to the end of the Third, or even the Fifth, Dynasty in Egypt. On the contrary, this evidence, taken on its own, would 4/16/2008 9:59:49 AM 2 the levant in transition seem to require that we lower the date to a point after the end of the Fifth Dynasty without specifying how long after. It is worth considering that the majority of these objects come from the excavation of a single room. In view of these facts, plus the fact that Hennessy himself noted that some of the Egyptian items found in ‘Sanctuary A’ were heirlooms whose manufacture must be dated to the Second Dynasty (1967, 69–71), would seem to remove all grounds for objection to the view that the entire collection of Egyptian artefacts found in the ruins of Phase VIII (Callaway 1972, 299–304) consisted of heirlooms — a collection to which nothing was added after a date prior to the end of Phase VI, possibly as early as 2613 bc, the date of the end of the Third Dynasty (Edwards, Gadd, and Hammond 1971, 995). On this evidence there can be no support for the argument that the stratified material from ‘Sanctuary A’ at cAi requires the correlation of the end of EB III with the end of the Fifth Dynasty in Egypt. In addition, it has been noted that ‘the existence of Palestinian EB III B Metallic Ware jars in Egypt up to the end of the VIth Dynasty there, c. 2200 bc (Helck 1962, 33–39) strongly points to a date between 2250 and 2150 bc for the process of cultural change from EB III to the Middle Bronze Age I [= EB IV]’ (Kempinski 1978, 7). This is a powerful body of evidence in favour of the argument that EB III B was contemporary with the Sixth Dynasty in Egypt (c. 2345–2181 bc: Edwards, Gadd, and Hammond 1971, 995). While the Egyptian objects from cAi are the latest dateable Egyptian objects from an EB III context in Palestine, they are not the latest dateable Egyptian objects from Canaan. Hennessy states that at Byblos ‘Egypt maintained contact with the Levant during the Sixth Dynasty; but it need cause no surprise that that centre, undoubtedly enjoying Egyptian protection, should have held out against the invaders long after the surrounding territories were lost’ (Hennessy 1967, 90). The invaders in question were, of course, the ‘Amorites’. No direct evidence has ever been cited to support the untested hypothesis that the Egyptians had extended military protection to the independent kings of Byblos in the EB. This hypothesis is a hangover from the days when Egypt was thought to have had an Asiatic empire during the Old Kingdom, a view no longer supported by any of the leading experts on the period in Egypt. 1-PEF9-01.indd 2 The dating of the final EB III material at Byblos to the VIth Dynasty is based on the discovery at Byblos of a 0.50 m. thick layer of ash left by a radical destruction of the city (Schaeffer 1948, 51–52; Kenyon 1966, 46; Saghieh 1983). The date of this destruction may be pinpointed fairly precisely by reference to the large number of Egyptian objects inscribed with the names of Egyptian kings found in the layers immediately beneath it. Saghieh provides a list of Egyptian royal name objects from Byblos (1983, 99, Table 8, which lists nine objects bearing the name of Pepi I, seven of Pepi II, and 11 which might be either). This list requires minor corrections: object 2965, listed as inscribed with the name of Pepi I, is a flint blade (Dunand 1939, 189) and object 61 from Montet’s ‘Dépôts de Fondation’, listed as inscribed with the name of Pepi II, is an uninscribed alabaster vase (Montet 1928, 74, Item 4940 should read 4941), while objects 5141 and 5191, listed as being either Pepi I or Pepi II, were probably from the same vessel and were definitely inscribed with the name of Pepi I. Thus amended the list is given in Table 1. It reveals that two objects bearing definite references table 1 Reg. # Pepi I 1 1359 2 2359 3 2466 4 2469 5 47 6 48 7 49 8 50 9 1927 10 2365 11 2874 12 3800 13 56 14 62 15 1113 16 1114 17 1116 18 1742 19 3530 20 3792 21 4941 22 17540 23 5141 24 5191 25 5446 Pepi I or II Sed Festival Reference X X X X X X X X X? X X X X X X X X X X X X X? X X X X X X X X Dunand 1939, 93 Dunand 1939, 161 Dunand 1939, 169 Dunand 1939, 169 Montet 1928, 70 Montet 1928, 71 Montet 1928, 71 Montet 1928, 71 Dunand 1939, 132 Dunand 1939, 162 Dunand 1939, 185 Dunand 1939, 261 Montet 1928, 72 Montet 1928, 74 Dunand 1939, 26 Dunand 1939, 26 Dunand 1939, 27 Dunand 1939, 117 Dunand 1939, 240 Dunand 1939, 260 Dunand 1939, 331 Dunand 1958, 929 Dunand 1939, 345 Dunand 1939, 349 Dunand 1939, 373 4/16/2008 9:59:49 AM early bronze iii and iv to a Sed-festival of Pepi I, and one probably bearing reference to a Sed-festival of Pepi I, and one bearing a reference to a Sed-festival of either Pepi I or Pepi II, probably the former, were found at Byblos. In addition, there are at least six objects which definitely bear the name of Pepi II. This would preclude any date for the destruction of Byblos prior to the accession of Pepi II in 2269 bc (Edwards, Gadd, and Hammond 1971, 995), while the absence of any definite inscriptions relating to a Sed-festival of this king may indicate that the destruction took place fairly early in his reign. I think it is possible to identify the author of the destruction of Byblos. I also think that it was the total set of events, of which the destruction of Byblos was only one small, but very significant, part, which ultimately brought about the end of the EB III in Canaan. Of course this view is advanced as a working hypothesis. In her study of Byblos, after giving a brief resume of events in the Akkadian and Ur III periods, Saghieh (1983, 124–125) says: ‘Surely these historical events could not have passed by without leaving great repercussions.’ Yet in her discussion of the chronology of Byblos, and of its cultural history, she does not attempt to make any direct connection between the events recorded in the textual sources and the archaeological record. A number of such correlations can, however, be attempted with a fair degree of confidence. The campaigns of Sargon of Agade and his grandson Naram-Sin are said to have reached the Mediterranean Sea (Gadd 1971, 425, 429–430). There now seems to be a consensus that the account of Sargon’s conquests in North Syria, and of his having reached the Mediterranean coast of Syria has an historical basis. The same appears to be true of the western campaign of NaramSin (Gadd 1971, 441–442). The inscriptions concerning these two kings also give us enough detail to reconstruct the routes they took on these campaigns. Sargon went via Tuttul (modern Hit), Mari, Iarmuti, Ebla (Tell Mardikh), the Cedar Forest, and the Silver Mountains (Gadd 1971, 424). Naram-Sin is said to have conquered Armanum and Ebla, and to have reached as far as Ulisum (Drower 1971, 325). What appears clear from the accounts and the identifiable sites is that both Sargon and Naram-Sin marched up the Euphrates, west through the neighbourhood of Aleppo, and from 1-PEF9-01.indd 3 3 thence to the Mediterranean, either via the pass between the Cassius and Amanus Mountains followed by the lower Orontes River, along which Alalakh, Antioch, and al-Minah lay at later dates, or the next most southerly pass, to the south of Jebel Aqra, which would have brought them to the coast at a point in the neighbourhood of Ugarit (Baly and Tushingham 1971, 96, map 14; 114, map XII). The lack of any evidence of destructions in the area of the more northerly of these two passes renders the southern route more likely. From this point they appear to have moved south along the Mediterranean coast for an unknown distance. If we look at those sites along the Syrian coast from Jebel Aqra on the north to Ras en-Naqurah on the south, an interesting pattern emerges. The history of Tell Mardikh/Ebla is, of course, well known, and the assignment of its destruction at the end of Stratum II B1 to Naram-Sin has gained acceptance. On the Syrian coast, the northernmost site for which we have any clear archaeological evidence is Ras Shamra/Ugarit. At this site Stratum III A2 was destroyed around 2300 bc. The city was restored, as Stratum III A3, but at a much lower level of prosperity, for a relatively short time before succumbing to a second, and final, destruction, around 2200 bc (Schaeffer 1948, 39). Slightly down the coast from Ras Shamra/Ugarit lies Qalacat er-Rous. Forrer identified 14 levels at this site. Level 9 was violently destroyed (Schaeffer 1948, 41), but immediately rebuilt as Level 8. Levels 7 and 6 followed without interruption, but Level 6 was violently destroyed at a date around 2200 BC (Schaeffer 1948, tableau synoptique II). Just south of Qalacat er-Rous lies Tell Sukas. Excavation at this site only penetrated as far as the latest EB occupation, which was violently destroyed at around 2200 bc. At Tyre, Strata XXVII to XXI were characterised by Early Bronze II–III pottery, while in Strata XX and XIX Early Bronze IV B pottery was in use (Bikai 1978, 70). There was no destruction between Strata XXI and XX, although, as Bikai points out, excavation over a larger area might modify this conclusion (Bikai 1978, 5). What may be said with assurance is that there is no evidence presently available from Tyre for a massive destruction at the end of EB III, as there is at the sites from Ugarit on the north to Byblos on the south. 4/16/2008 9:59:49 AM 4 the levant in transition What do these observations mean? First of all, to summarise, at Ugarit and Qalacat er-Rous there is clear evidence of two destructions within a relatively short period of time, the second of which brought an end to EB III on this site. At Tell Sukas, there is at least one destruction. At Byblos there was only one destruction, dated early in the reign of Pepi II, which brought an end to the EB occupation. At Tyre, there is no presently available evidence of a destruction, and EB IV appears simply to succeed EB III peacefully. We therefore see a pattern of two destructions at sites on the northern Levantine coast, one destruction on the central Levantine coast, and no destruction at the most northerly site of the southern Levantine coast. I suggest that the earlier of the two destructions at the northern sites was the work of Sargon, and the second set of destructions at the northern sites and as far south as Byblos, was the work of Naram-Sin. If these armies passed this way, and if they left any traces, then these are the only traces available. As these two kings were engaged in extended razias, rather than an attempt to permanently conquer and control territory, they will have had less interest in whether the territory and polities they left behind were viable functioning economic entities or smouldering ruins; what was important to them was (1) the maximum amount of loot, and (2) the denial of the benefits of the territory and its trade to their competitors. In support of this view is Saghieh’s observation (1983, 109–110) that the pottery of Byblos K IV is very similar to that of EB III B in Palestine. If EB III ended in Palestine around 2350/2300 bc, but continued at Byblos until 2235 bc, or even 2180 bc (on the traditional view), it is difficult to understand why it should be that the additional 165 to 220 years should have produced no greater degree of taxonomic change than could be explained as regional variation within a single archaeological culture (Saghieh 1983, 107). This point is particularly significant in view of the fact that it is normal for the amount of variety in any system to increase dramatically in a troubled or transitional period (Clarke 1968, 254–286; 1978, 272–298), as this period certainly was. Moreover, the evidence Byblos has produced of contacts with EB IV groups, in particular the fourspouted lamps (Saghieh 1983, 52, 56, 74, 91, 93, 107, Figs. 5, 14, 21) from Level K IV (Saghieh 1983, 51–53, fig. 5–5411, Plan I) seems most closely related to the 1-PEF9-01.indd 4 lamps of EB IVA and B, while the example found in a post II context (Saghieh 1983, fig. 5–10562) seems more closely related to the lamps of EB IVC. The third example (Saghieh 1983, 72–74, 75, Table VI, fig. 21, Plan II) also comes from Level J I–II, and, insofar as one can judge from the illustration, it, too, belongs to the EB IVC repertoire. THE STRATIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR AN EB III–IV OVERLAP As will be clear from the arguments and evidence presented above, I am convinced that there was a considerable chronological, and, necessarily, geographical, overlap between EB III and EB IV. The crucial evidence occurs at Jericho. Here, the final EB III defensive ditch, Ditch VI, was cut, and its accompanying defensive wall was built, or at least begun, in Stage XL. Tr. I. lii. The wall was destroyed in the succeeding phase, Stage XL. Tr. I. lii–XL. Tr. I. liii, and the debris of this destruction formed the primary deposit in the ditch. In the next phase, Stage XLI. Tr. I. liii, the secondary fill of this ditch was deposited. This consists of a series of horizontally laid water deposited silt layers containing EB IVC pottery. The two significant points about this succession are, first, that there was no silting in the ditch prior to the destruction of the wall, which confirms Kenyon’s view of the short life of this defensive system, and, second, that the first silting in this ditch contained EB IVC pottery in ‘considerable’ amounts (Kenyon 1954, 56; 1957, 192; 1981, 105). Since the first silting in the ditch belongs to the first winter rains after its construction, there is no room here for the two hundred year gap proposed by Dever (1980, 37, fig. 1) between the end of the EB IIIB occupation and the beginning of the EB IVC occupation. Kenyon suggested (1981, 105) that this pottery, for which there were no occupation deposits remaining in situ, was evidence for a camping phase of occupation among the ruins of the EB III town; however, they could equally well be evidence of a small settlement with huts, such as those found extending above the silted-up ditch, higher up the mound and since eroded away. All that can be said with certainty is that the sherds have washed down in the erosion products from their original locus of deposition higher up the mound than Ditch VI. 4/16/2008 9:59:49 AM early bronze iii and iv figure 1. Jericho. Part of section of north side of Trench I, FI (after Kenyon 1981, pl. 236). Another site which has produced clear stratigraphic evidence that one of Dever’s hypothetical occupation gaps, this time of four hundred years, is untenable, is Megiddo. At this site a reinterpretation of the stratigraphic section published by Dunayevsky and Kempinski (1973, fig. 3) shows that the perimeter wall around the sacred precinct assigned by Dunayevsky and Kempinski (1973, fig. 11) to Stratum XIII B actually belongs to Stratum XIV A, and that it was constructed, on the eastern side of Temple 4040, on a floor which was laid down while the temple was still in use. Clearly, unless Temple 4040 was constructed in Stratum XV, which Dever dates to his EB IVC (2100–2000 bc), which seems somewhat unlikely, there is no room in the stratigraphic record for Dever’s occupational gap between Strata XVI and XV. 1-PEF9-01.indd 5 5 These are the only two sites from which clear stratigraphic evidence concerning the chronological relationship between EB III and EB IV is presently available. THE CULTURAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EB III AND EB IV At present only two models have been proposed for the relationship between EB III and IV. The first of these was the ‘Amorite Hypothesis’, which took as its comparative model the Volkerwanderungen of post-Roman Western Europe, and saw the EB IV people as invaders who came in from the north and destroyed the EB III cites. There were a number of variations on this theme (Albright 1940, 118–122; 1957, 163–168; 1973, 5–33; 4/16/2008 9:59:49 AM 6 the levant in transition Kenyon 1966; Lapp 1966; 1970), and the various ideas expressed have been thoroughly debated. Since 1970 (Dever 1970) this model and has been replaced by a model in which the EB III people, with perhaps a limited number of immigrants from the north, are identical with the IV people (Dever 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1980; Prag 1974). The argument that Dever’s chronological gaps are untenable would render this model inadequate also, and the demonstration that the EB III and EB IV ceramic traditions were partially contemporary with one another, rather than strictly and rigidly successive, a new model capable of explaining the relations between, the various groups. While in EB III there were numerous large fortified towns, all the EB IV sites were poverty stricken villages. But while a specific walled town may be succeeded by a poverty-stricken village, the poverty-stricken village may then exist alongside a walled town which survives. In other words, what we are looking at are not two separate systems existing in chronological isolation, but a single system in a state of decline, with some elements collapsing at an earlier date than others due to the detailed differences of their economic and political circumstances. Perhaps some of the EB IV villages may even have been the rural component of a complex system alongside the EB III walled towns. I suggest that EB society was hierarchically organised, but that it was neither a stratified chiefdom nor a complex bureaucratic state such as those in Mesopotamia and Egypt (Lapp 1970, 113); rather it was a feudal system, loosely defined, that is to say, a system of hierarchically organised obligations in which service was owed by peasants to land-owning families, and by land-owning families to the local ruler. Such a system may be more or less centrally organised in — in England and Japan there was a central ruler with real power, in Ireland there was a ‘High King’ who was no more than the first among equals, and in Germany the feudal baron and princes operated quite independently (although there was, at least at times, a nominal emperor) (Bassett 1989). In EB Palestine the last situation appears the most likely, but without even a nominal central overlord. We may picture the EB towns of Palestine as being composed of a local feudal ruler and his extended family, the retainers of his court, the handful of overseers who administered the work of the peasants in 1-PEF9-01.indd 6 the villages controlled by the ruler, and a handful of craftsmen. In other words, we have a social, political, and economic picture, recovered by archaeology alone, of a society which does not precisely fit any of the historically observed models, but is clearly closer to one than to the others. The society of EBI-III Palestine was a complex society, involving a number of formally disparate groups whose internally different economic structures were linked in a single comprehensive and interdependent system. From about 2300 bc this group was joined by a second major group, using EB IV pottery. This group had a radically different economic, and probably social, structure. They lived in a small villages, practised horticulture (subsistence farming) and pastoralism. There is some evidence of the use of mobility as a part of their subsistence strategy, probably in the form of transhumance, as is common in societies which practice mixed farming, particularly in environments whose marked seasonality renders them marginal. Since it is now clear that these two societies lived alongside one another, it is also clear that they must have interacted with one another. The evidence indicates that there were barriers to the exchange of material goods, at least of the sorts which survive archaeologically, between them. There is a marked contrast in wealth between the rich towns of the EB III people and the poor villages of the EB IV people. This allows us to think of these groups as constituting the two ends of an economic spectrum — they were the rich and the poor segments of late EB society in Palestine. EB III–IV IN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT: THE CAUSES OF THE END OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE CITIES In order to understand the collapse of the EB towns, we must also understand the nature of their relation to the Old Kingdom in Egypt. The demand for strategic raw materials, particularly timber and copper, stimulated the expansion of foreign trade — and there is now increasing evidence that trade by sea, on a substantial scale, with Byblos had begun as early as Naqada I (Prag 1986). Canaan supplied not only the vital raw materials, but other desirable goods, such as resin, olive oil, and wine, and, more important, a large market for Egyptian products, probably including fine linen. The opening of Egypt to Levantine 4/16/2008 9:59:50 AM early bronze iii and iv products provided a stimulus to economic and demographic growth which led to the rise of the walled towns in EB II. Here, however, in contrast to Egypt, a very large percentage of the economy was based, either directly or indirectly on this trade. This also explains the complete economic collapse of Palestine when the Egyptian trade ceased — especially so, since it is increasingly clear that the decline of Egypt in the First Intermediate Period was nothing like as severe as that of contemporary Palestine. When the kings of Agade attacked the Syrian end of this system and closed the Syrian ports to Egyptian trade, they dealt a blow to the Levantine economy. The initial attack, by Sargon, caused a temporary recession, but the archaeological evidence from Ugarit and Qalacat er-Rous shows that these sites soon recovered. The date of this expedition corresponds reasonably well with the end of the Fifth Dynasty in Egypt as given by The Cambridge Ancient History (Edwards, Gadd, and Hammond 1971, 995). Naram-Sin’s expedition, however, was a different matter. It was on a far larger scale, and, more important, the evidence from Byblos clearly shows that it led to a shift in the cultural orientation of this city (at least), and diverted the flow of trade from Western Inland Syria, and the coastal region itself, from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Neither Sargon nor Naram-Sin actually reached Palestine, so that the trade routes from Palestine to Egypt remained open. The economic, political and administrative, collapse of Egypt meant that trade with Palestine ceased. This was an economic disaster for Palestine. Unlike the producers of Inland Syria, the Palestinian producers could not reach the Mesopotamian market. The Syrian cities had fewer overland transportation problems before their goods could be loaded onto cheaper, more efficient, waterborne transport on the Euphrates. The Palestinian producers could not compete in the Mesopotamian market, and, with Egypt no longer able to take their 7 surplus production they had nowhere else to turn. Thus, the economy of Palestine collapsed, and with it the system of walled towns, leaving only the EB IV villages. The destructions visible at some (but not all) of the Palestinian sites may be due to the internal disorders which accompanied the economic collapse. With the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur just before 2000 bc the Syro-Mespotamian trade network also collapsed, and the Levantine societies once more turned their trading activities toward Egypt. The break-up of the Ur III Empire must have begun as early as the fourth year of the reign of Shu-Su’en, c. 2103 bc (Roux 1980, 165), although the final collapse did not take place until the beginning of the reign of his son and successor Ibbi-Su’en, c. 2028 bc (Roux 1980, 167). It is, perhaps, not a coincidence that at precisely this time, in c. 2040 bc, Egypt was reunited by Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe II (Hayes 1971, 479). SUMMARY AND SPECULATIONS The traditional picture of the end of the EB in the Levant, based on the diffusionist thinking of the 1920s and 1930s, has now been discredited. Environmental evidence presents new factors for our understanding of what precipitated the crisis, without resorting to crude environmental determinism. The archaeological evidence shows that groups of people once thought to have lived successively were actually contemporaries. A new model of the relationships between these groups explains their differences and similarities in terms of the break-up of a shared culture, and places them in a relationship with one another which is consistent with the known functioning of complex social systems. This model is complex, and involves a number of key variables, namely, environment, technology, and economics. Such a complex model is preferable, to one which contains too few or too simple factors to explain the totality of the available evidence. REFERENCES Albright, W. F., 1940. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (1st edn) (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press). Albright, W. F., 1957. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (2nd edn) (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press). Albright, W. F., 1965. ‘Some Remarks on the Archaeological Chronology of Palestine Before About 1500 bc’, in Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 1-PEF9-01.indd 7 Albright, W. F., 1973. ‘From the Patriarchs to Moses I: From Abraham to Joseph’, The Biblical Archaeologist 36:1, 5–33. Baly, D., and Tushingham, A. D., 1971. Atlas of the Biblical World (New York, The World Publishing Company). Bassett, S. (ed.), 1989. The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, Studies in the Early History of Britain (London: Leicester University Press). Bikai, P. M., 1978. The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). 4/16/2008 9:59:50 AM 8 the levant in transition Callaway, J. A., 1965. ‘The 1964 cAi (et-Tell) Excavations’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 178, 13–40. Callaway, J. A., 1972. The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at cAi (et-Tell), Colt Archaeological Institute Publications (London: Bernard Quaritch). Callaway, J. A., 1980. The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at cAi (et-Tell) (Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research). Callaway, J. A., and Weinstein, J. M., 1977. ‘Radiocarbon Dating of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 225, 1–16. Clarke, D. L., 1968. Analytical Archaeology (London: Methuen). Clarke, D. L., 1978. Analytical Archaeology (2nd edn) (London: Methuen). Dever, W. G., 1970. ‘The “Middle Bronze I” Period in SyriaPalestine’, in Sanders, J. A. (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (New York: Doubleday). Dever, W. G., 1971. ‘The Peoples of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I Period’, Harvard Theological Review 64, 197–226. Dever, W. G., 1973. ‘The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1210, 37–63. Dever, W. G., 1976, ‘The Beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine’, in Cross, F. M., Lemke, W .E., and Miller, P. D. (eds.), Magnalia Dei, The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (New York: Doubleday), 3–38. Dever, W. G., 1977. ‘Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: The Archaeological Picture’, in Hayes, J. H., and Miller, J. M. (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press), 70–120. Dever, W. G., 1980. ‘New Vistas on the EB IV (“MB I”) Horizon in Syria-Palestine’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237, 35–64. Drower, M., 1971. ‘Syria Before 2200 bc: Part V: Byblos and the Land of Negau’, in Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.), 1971, 343–351. Dunand, M., 1939. Fouilles de Byblos, Tome 1: 1926–1932 (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner). Dunayevsky, I., and Kempinski, A., 1973. ‘The Megiddo Temples’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 89, 161– 187. Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.), 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I: Part 2: Early History of the Middle East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gadd, C. J., 1971. ‘The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion’, in Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.), 1971, 417–463. Hayes, W. C., 1971. ‘The Middle Kingdom in Egypt: Internal History from the Rise of the Heracleopolitans to the Death of Ammenemes III’, in Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.), 1971, 464–531. Helck, H. W., 1962. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden). Hennessy, J. B., 1967. The Foreign Relations of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age (London: Bernard Quaritch). Kempinski, A., 1978. The Rise of an Urban Culture: The Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age (3000–2150 BC) (Jerusalem: Israel Ethnographic Society). Kenyon, K. M., 1954. ‘Excavations at Jericho, 1954’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 86, 45–63. 1-PEF9-01.indd 8 Kenyon, K. M., 1957. Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn). Kenyon, K. M., 1966. Amorites and Canaanites (London: Oxford University Press). Kenyon, K. M., 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land (Fourth Edition) (London: Ernest Benn). Kenyon, K. M., 1981. Excavations at Jericho III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (London and Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem). Lapp, P. W., 1966. The Dhahr Mirzbâneh Tombs (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lapp, P. W., 1970. ‘Palestine in the Early Bronze Age’, in Sanders, J. A. (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (New York: Doubleday), 101–131. Montet, P., 1928. Byblos et l’Egypte: quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 (Paris: Paul Geuthner). Prag, K. W., 1974. ‘The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: an Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon’, Levant 6, 69–116. Prag, K. W., 1986 ‘Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium bc’, Levant xviii, 59–74. Roux, G., 1980. Ancient Iraq (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). Saghieh, M., 1983. Byblos in the Third Millennium BC: A Reconstruction Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections (Warminster: Aris and Phillips). Schaeffer, C. F. A., 1948. Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l’Asie Occidentale (IIIe et IIe millénaires) (Oxford University Press). Shanks, H., and Mazar, B. (eds.), 1984. Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, and Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society). Schaub, R. T., and Rast, W. E., 1989. Bab edh-Dhra’: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–1967) (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns). Smith, W. S., 1971. ‘The Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Beginning of the First Intermediate Period’, in Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I: Part 2: Early History of the Middle East (Cambridge University Press), 145–207. Sollberger, E., 1960. ‘Byblos sous les rois d’Ur’, Archiv für Orientforschung xix, 120–&. Speiser, E. A., 1933. ‘The Pottery of Tell Billa: A Preliminary Account’, The Museum Journal 23:3, 249–283. Speiser, E. A., 1935. Excavations at Tepe Gawra Volume I: Levels I–VIII (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research and the University of Pennsylvania Press). Tadmor, M., 1978. ‘A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze Age I near Qedesh’, Israel Exploration Journal 28, 1–30. Tainter, J. A., 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge University Press). Tubb, J. N., 1983. ‘The MB IIA Period in Palestine: Its Relationship With Syria and Its Origin’, Levant 15, 49–62. Tufnell, O., 1958. Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) IV: The Bronze Age (London: Oxford University Press). Watson, P. J., 1965. ‘The Chronology of North Syria and North Mesopotamia from 10,000 bc to 2000 bc’, in Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 61–100. Wright, G. E., 1961. ‘The Archaeology of Palestine’, in Wright, G. E. (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (New York: Doubleday), 84–139. 1 4/16/2008 9:59:50 AM Author Query Sheet Manuscript Information Journal Acronym: PEF Chapter no. Article Title: Early Bronze III And IV: Chronological and Cultural Relations Manuscript No. QUERY NO. 1 1-PEF9-01.indd 9 QUERY DETAILS Please supply end number 4/16/2008 9:59:50 AM