The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 50)

THE

JORDAN SOME

SURVEY,

VALLEY

1953:

UNPUBLISHED SOUNDINGS

CONDUCTEDBY

JAMES

MELLAART

ALBERTLEONARD,JR.

Volumne

50

THE JORDAN VALLETY SURVEY, 1953: SOMEUNPUBLISHEDSOUNDINGS CONDUCI'EDBY JAMESMEIIAART

THE ANNUAL OF THE AMERICANSCHOOLSOF ORIENTALRESEARCH Volume 50 Editedby Eric M. Meyers and William G. Dever

Some

Survey,

Valley

Jordan

The

1953:

Unpublished Soundings

Conducted

by

James

Mellaart

by

Albert Leonard,Jr.

Eisenbrauns Winona Lake,Indiana

? 1992 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Libraryof Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData Leonard,Albert. The Jordan Valley survey, 1953: some unpublishedsoundings conducted by James Mellaart/ by Albert Leonard,Jr. p. cm. - (The Annual of the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch; v. 50) Includesbibliographicalreferences (p. ). ISBN 0-931464-72-2 1. Excavations (Archaeology)-Jordan River Valley. 2. JordanRiver Valley-Antiquities. 3. Mellaart,James. I. Mellaart,James. II. Title. III. Series. DS101.A45 vol. 50 [DS154.9J6] 91-36535 933-dc20

To Alex and Barbara

Contents Introduction ....................................................................

1

Chapter 1. Jiftlik ...............................................................

5

Chapter 2. Tell El-Mafjar ........................................................

9 24 Chapter 3. TellJam id ........................................................... 34 Chapter 4. Tell Esh-ShunehMashaweh ............................................ 64 Chapter 5. Tell Abu Habil ....................................................... 6. Umm Hamad Tell ........................................... 77 Chapter esh-Sherqi 103 Chapter 7. Tell El-Mefaliq ....................................................... Appendix ...................................................................... 109 Bibliography .................................................................... 113 Plates . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Introduction

During the springof 1953 the Departmentof Antiquities,on behalfof the Departmentof Water Resourcesand AgriculturalDevelopmentof the HashemiteKingdomof Jordan,conductedone of the first archaeologicalimpact studies in the Levant:the Point IV IrrigationProject.The archaeological fieldworkof this project,which consistedof the recordingand samplingof more than a hundredsites in the YarmoukandJordanValleys,was carriedout by Henri de ContensonandJames Mellaartunder the supervisionof G. LancasterHarding.In additionto the preparationof collectionsfrom the surface of individualsites, the JordanianDepartment of Antiquitiesat that time allowed surveyprojectsto conductbrief soundings(usuallylimited to five days) to be made at the more promisingsites in order to establisha stratigraphicalsequencethat would add the verticalcontrolof excavationto the impressions derivedfrom the horizontalsamplingof the surface. Suchsoundingswere carriedout at seven sites. Alone, de Contensonexcavatedat Tell es-Saidiyeh Tahta on the south bank of the Wadi Kufrinjewhile de Contensonand Mellaartworkedtogether at Tell esh-Shuneh Meshaweh ("ShunehNorth") overlookingthe Wadi 'Arab;and at Tell Abu Habil abouthalfwaydown the JordanValleyon the East Bank.Mellaartworkedby himselfon the West Bank at Tell el-Mafjar(Tell el-Ghubur),just to the south of the Umayyadremainsof Khirbetel-Mafjar,and at Tell Jiftlik on the northernside of the Wadi Farcah;and on the East Bank at Tell Jamid on the southernbankof the YarmoukRiver,at Tell Umm Hamades-Sherqi,north of the JordanRiver/Wadi Zerqaconfluence,and at Tell el-MefaliqoppositeTell Umm Hamadon the southernside of the Zarqa (Figure 1). Unfortunately,the publicationof this importantwork has been quitecheckered.Althougha brief note appearedin the Revue Bibliqueof 1954, it was not until 1960 that de Contenson'ssoundings reachedprint (de Contenson 1960a). In 1962 a preliminaryreport (written seven years earlier)was publishedon the sites surveyedby Mellaart,which was followedin 1964 by the resultsof de Contenson's survey, a truncatedversion of a manuscriptprepared in 1954. Subsequently,de Contenson continued to involve himself in the study of the ancient culturesof Syria-Palestine,but Mellaart's attentionwas drawnto Anatolia,and the resultsof his importantwork in the JordanValleyremained unpublished.In Marchof 1980, in the spirit of cooperationthat pervadedthe FirstConferenceon the History and Archaeologyof Jordanconvened at Oxford by HRH Crown Prince Hassan bin Talal, Mellaartturnedover to the present authorthe publicationresponsibilitiesfor his work at these seven important sites.

Workon this volumewas initiallyfundedin part by the WeldonSpringFundof the Universityof which allowedthe authorto visit Jordanin the spring of 1982 to view Mellaart's Missouri-Columbia, East Bank sites and to studysome of the materialfrom the excavationsthat was storedin the Citadel Museum in Amman. The many successesof this trip were due largelyto the help and kindnessof Professor Khair Yassine of JordanUniversity.The bulk of this manuscriptwas written in Amman duringthe 1983-1984 academicyear while the authorwas on a researchleave from the Universityof Missouri.A grant from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities(administeredby the American Schools of OrientalResearch) allowed the author to take advantageof the many resourcesof the AmericanCenter for OrientalResearchin Amman. 1

2

Introduction

m. tSH

sHtNEH

a IA51L ABU

T. UMM HfH^D T. MAFALlQ

T H R.UBBA

Fig. 1. Sketchmap of the JordanValley,showingsites soundedby Mellaartin 1953 (1.Mellaart).

Introduction

3

While in Jordan,I was fortunateto have the help and supportof Dr. AdnanHadidi,then director of the Departmentof Antiquities,and other membersof the departmentincludingDrs. Ghazi Bisheh and Fawzi Zaydine.All of these gave freely and kindlyof their time and expertise.My work at the Citadel Museum in Amman was greatly facilitatedby its director,Miss Sirnan, and its curator, Mr. Musa. I have also had the pleasureof discussingthe topicof my researchwith manyscholarswho shared their knowledgequite willingly.I especiallywish to acknowledge(alphabetically, without titles) Ellen Alten (Universityof Missouri-Columbia); Ghazi Bisheh (Departmentof Antiquities,Jordan);William G. Dever (Universityof Arizona);Doug Esse (Universityof Chicago);AdnanHadidi (Departmentof Antiquities,Jordan); Svend Helms (Jawa Excavations);Basil Hennessey (University of Sydney); Moawiyah Ibrahim (YarmoukUniversity); Zeidan Kafafi (YarmoukUniversity); David McCreery (A.C.O.R.);Walter Rast (ValparaisoUniversity);James Sauer (A.C.O.R./A.S.O.R.);Thomas Schaub (IndianaUniversityof Pennsylvania);Kevin Thompson (Universityof Missouri-Columbia); and Khair Yassine (JordanUniversity). The artifactsillustratedhere were drawnoriginallybyJames Mellaartwith assistance-in a few theof drawings, instances-by G. LancasterHarding.Mellaartalso began the inking a task that was Lois Kain completed(alphabetically)by (Universityof Arizona)who was in chargeof the final plate production,and CynthiaRomy (University of Arizona) who gave tremendousassistanceduring all phases of the project.All other illustrativematerialhad been lost in the fire that destroyedMellaart's house in Istanbul. Finally,specialgratitudeis due to the excavator,James Mellaart,for meeting with me on many occasionsand undergoingwhat must have, at times, seemed like an interrogation. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona January,1985

Since the basic manuscriptof this work was completed (January1985), two of Mellaart'ssites have been the focus of renewed excavationand publication:Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Helms 1984 and 1986), and Tell es-ShunehNorth (Gustavson-Gaube1985 and 1986). I thankboth of these excavatorsfor discussingthe resultsof theirwork with me. Relevantpublishedcomparandafrom these recentexcavationshave been incorporatedinto the present manuscript,along with pertinentmaterial from the publicationsof En Shadud(Braun1985), Babedh-Dhra (Schaub1985),Jericho(Kenyon and Holland 1981, 1982, 1983);and Pella [TabaqatFahel] (McNicollet al. 1982,Hennesseyet al. 1983).In addition, one should consult four important scholarlysyntheses of major periods representedin Mellaart'ssoundings:those by Esse (1984), Hanbury-Tennison(1986), Kafafi(1982), and Sauer(1986) are now available.Unfortunately,the finalpublicationof Shiqmim(Levy 1987) reachedthe authortoo late for incorporationinto this text. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona March,1987

4

Introduction

Since this manuscriptwas acceptedas an A.S.O.R.publication,severalother publicationsrelevant to Mellaart'ssoundingshave appeared.They consist of both reportson new fieldworkand synthetic studies of pertinent periods and geographicalareas. The following excavation/surveyreports are especiallyimportant:those on Abu Hamid (Dollfus et al. 1986), Bab edh-Dhra (Schauband Rast 1989),Jarash(Hanbury-Tenison1987),Jebelel-Thawab(Kafafi1985, 1986),Tell Nebi Mend (Mathias and Parr 1989), NorthernNegev and Sinai (Gilead1990),Tiwal esh-Sharqi,the cemeteryof Mellaart's Tell Umm Hamad(Tubb1990), and the Wadiel-Yabis(MabryandPalumbo1988).Essentialsyntheses are those of Esse (1991), Joffe (1991a & b), and Ward (1991). The author'sown workon the Chalcolithic"fine"ware from Kataretes-Samra-but encountered first by Mellaart in his sounding at Tell Abu Habil (see below PI. 22:2,3,5)-has now appeared (Leonard1989), and shouldbe consultedin connectionwith the reportsof similarlydecoratedpottery from Tel Tsaf on the West Bank (Gophnaand Kislev 1979; Gophna and Sadeh 1988-1989). As of March 1990, GrahamPhilip (BritishInstituteat Amman) and Douglas Baird (Edinburgh University)were planningto resumeexcavationat the cruciallyimportantsite of Tell esh-Shuneh(N) that had been begunby Mellaartand continuedby Gustavson-Gaube (1985, 1986).Recently,Doug Esse and P. K. Hopke conductedneutron activationanalysis(NAA) on samples of Khirbet Kerak ware from the type site itself, as well as other sites in Palestineand the 'Amuq Plain. Their preliminary resultsassociatea migrationof people with the productionof this distinctivepottery (Wolff 1991: 535 and note 31). In retrospect,this continuedactivityat sites dug by Mellaartand on problemsassociatedwith the material excavatedin his soundings of the 1950s serve to demonstratethe debt of gratitudethat archaeologistsof the 1990s owe to James Mellaartand to all of those who were connectedwith the Point IV IrrigationProject. Albert Leonard,Jr. Universityof Arizona September,1991

Jiftlik

Introduction The site of Jiftlik (fig. 1) is situatedon the northernside of the Wadi Far'ah(N), "extending about 100 m west of the Jiftlik junctionwith the JerichoRoad ... and about 1 km along the road to Damiyeh"(Mellaart1962: 133). The site was not actuallyexcavatedby Mellaart,but ratherthe artifacts presentedhere were selectedfrom a section cut throughthe site duringroadwidening activities.The archaeologicaldeposit at Jiftlikwas estimatedto be between 1 and 2 m in depth, includingsome stone foundationsthat were visible in the cutting.The site is describedas a "typicalstraggling,undefended chalcolithicsite" (Mellaart1962: 133).

The Pottery (Plate 1) The ceramicmaterialcollectedby Mellaartconsists of 27 fragments,which are presentedhere primarilyaccordingto shape, with a discussionof fabricand decorationincludedwhere appropriate. Coronets. Morphologically,the most diagnosticform in the smallJiftlikcorpusis the "coronet" (pi. 1:15-17), which immediatelyassociatesthe Jiftlik materialwith the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon. Specifically,accordingto Hennessy (1969: 9), the coronet occursmost frequentlyin the upper strata (his PhasesA-D) of occupationat Ghassul,equivalentto LevelsIVA and IVB of the earlierexcavations at this Chalcolithictype-site(Mallon1934;Koeppel 1940;North 1961).The appearanceof the coronet at Jiftlik also integratesthe present pottery sample with assemblagesfrom Arad V, Gezer XXVI, 'Affula,Azor, MegiddoXIX-XX, Meser I-III, and the Beershebasites.' Churns. A second unique and characteristicelement in the pottery of the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon is the churnor "birdvase" (Amiran 1970: 33-34). In additionto its barrel-shapedbody and functionalhandleplacement,the neck of this form usuallyexhibitsa ratherdistinctive,sinuousprofile similar to that seen in pl. 1:2. Certainlysuch an undulatingneck is not exclusiveto the churn,2but since it is most common on churns, I am proposing that pl. 1:2 be identifiedas a churn.3If this interpretationis correct,the incisedbandbelow the rim wouldbe most unusualon a vessel type whose decorationusuallyconsistsof bandsof red-brownpaint.4Two other neckfragmentsfromJiftlikmight also be from churns:the slightlyoutsplayedpl. 1:1 with an externalbandof paint at the rim, and the more articulatedpi. 1:21, again with the exteriorof the rim highlightedby a painted band.5 Handles. The two horizontally-piercedlug handles (pi. 1:26, 27), decoratedwith bands or splashes of red paint applieddirectlyto a buff surface,also relatethe Jiftlikdeposit to other GhassulBeershebasites.6Suchsimple handlesappearon a varietyof ceramicshapes,7so the specificvessel type from which these pieces came is uncertain.The same can be said for the verticallyattached"notched" handle (pl. 1:25),but judgingfrom its size, and the parallelsnoted here, it appearsto have come from a large storage jar or pithos.8 Bowls. The bowls of the Jiftlik assemblage are predominantly "V-shaped"or straight-sided and appear either undecorated (pl. 1:8) or embellished with a rim-band of reddish paint applied to the interior (pl. 1:10), exterior (pl. 1:11), or both (pl. 1:12, 13). The shape and method of decoration of these bowls are typical of the assemblages from the sites that have produced coronets and churns.9

5

6

Jiftlik

None of the hemisphericalbowls, whichbecomeso predominantin depositsof Kenyon'sProto-Urban period, are found at Jiftlik.10In fact, even the slightly roundedbowl-forms of Chalcolithicdate are absent,11althoughthis is probablynot an importantfactorin a sample of this size. A minor variationon these straight-sidedbowls can be seen in pi. 1:5-7, 9, and possibly 10, where the potter appearsto have given a slight outwardpull when finishing the rim of the vessel. This slight flourishis not uniqueto the workshop(s)that suppliedthe ancientcommunityatJiftlik,for it can also be seen at Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:8619). The bandof pendanttriangleson the interiorrim of pl. 1:9 againtiesJiftlikto the site of Ghassul, where Hennessy (1969: 7) notes it is most popular in his Phases C and D, equivalentto the later phase of the GhassulIV assemblageof the earlierexcavators.A similaruse of the pendant triangle motif is known at other sites, both on ceramicand lithic vessels.12 Basins. A variantof the straight-sidedbowl, pl. 1:14, large enough to be considereda "basin," exhibits a slightly outsplayedand flattenedrim that contrastssharplywith the more pointed rims of the majorityof the smaller,open forms. Largevessels with similarrims are known from a varietyof Chalcolithicsites, and the carelessdrip of paint, the resultof its applicationin too liquida state, is as common a phenomenonon basins and bowls as it is on other forms of the period.13 Holemouthjars. At Jiftlik there are two vessel types that can be classifiedwithin the general categoryof "holemouth"jars:pl. 1:18, 19, which presentstraightprofilesand relativelyplain rims, and pl. 1:20, which exhibits an inturnedprofile with a thickenedrim. The two simpler forms find their closest parallelsat Ghassul,where Amiran sees the first appearanceof the type, rather than at the Beershebasites, where the upper bodies of the holemouth jars tend to be much more rounded.14 Unfortunately,the absenceof this form at Neve Ur and the Golan sites15does not allow present commentas to whetheror not this straight-profiledholemouthhad a specificgeographicaldistribution. The thickenedrim (pl. 1:20) is also problematic,for althoughthe "piecrust"rim is at home on many types of Chalcolithicvessels, the combinationof the rim and the decorationof the Jiftlik piece is difficultto parallel.The closest examplescome from StratumV at Aradand StratumII at Meser,both vessels having been coveredcompletelywith a red wash.16 Necked jars. Three of the fragments from Jiftlik can be grouped together and discussedas necked jars of varying shape and proportion:pl. 1:3, with double handles and impressed cordon decoration;pl. 1:4, decoratedwith wide bands of deep red paint; and pl. 1:23, an undecoratedvessel with straightneck and slightlyoutsplayedrim. A fourthjar rim (pl. 1:22) was describedby Mellaartas wheelmadeand may be intrusivein the present collection. Impresseddecoration,as on pl. 1:3, is describedby Hennessy (1969: 9) as common on large storage jars at Ghassul from his Phase G onward,and its utilizationas a decorativedevice is well documentedin the work of the earlier excavatorsat the site (cf. among others North 1961: fig. 15:8026; Mallon 1934: fig. 50:5, 53, 54; etc.). The shape of this vessel, however, with a pair of antitheticallyplacedhandlesconnectingthe neckand shoulder,is not easy to parallel.Again,the closest examples come from the early work at Ghassel.17 PI. 1:4 and 23 may be from the same vessel type, differing only in size and the presence of decoration.Generalcomparandafor the undecoratedpl. 1:23 are includedhere only for the sake of completeness.18 the Jiftlikfragment,pl. 1:4, is similarto pl. 1:23,with the additionof broadbandsof paint. Hennessy (1969: 7) found such decorationto be most common in his Phases C and D at Ghassul,where similar forms embellishedwith bands of paint usuallyhave the shorter, and much

Jiftlik

7

more concave,neck profiles (Hennessy 1969: figs. 6:6 and 7B:3) that are also more common in the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:1-8, 11). Perhaps the closest parallel to the Jiftlik example is to be foundamong the surfaceartifactsfrom Neve Ur, locatedto the north of Jiftlikon the West Bank of the JordanRiver. Summary The presence in the Jiftlik corpusof coronetsand churn fragments,the preferencefor straightsided (as opposed to hemispherical)bowls, and the simplicityof the holemouthand neckedjar forms, all combine to indicate an assemblageeasily integratedwith the Ghassul-Beershebahorizon. This completelysupportsMellaart'sinitial in-field identificationof Jiftlikas a "typical... Chalcolithicsite," which accordingto currentviews would be dated ca. 3800-3300 B.C.

Notes I Cf. Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 5:11-15); Gezer,FieldI, Stratum14 (= GeneralStratumXXVI) (Dever 1974: fig. 1, and pp. 4-5), as well as Macalister's"Y-shapedcups"from the same site (Macalister1912: 142); cAffula(Sukenik1948: pl. 1:4);Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:20, 21); Megiddo (Loud 1948: pl. 92:18-31 [Stratum XX], pl. 96:11-19 [Stratum XIX]); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 5:8 [StratumIII], fig. 7:1-5 [StratumII], and fig. 8:12 [StratumI]; and Dothan 1957: fig. 4:2); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:9, 10); Tell Abu Matar (Perrot 1955: 82); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:6-13 [StratumI], fig. 16:11-24 [Strata II-III]). 2 For this neck on other vessel types,cf. the Beersheba area (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:12, where enough of the body is preserved to show that it is not a churn); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. V:3, which might come from a similar jar);and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. I:23 [LevelXVIII], where a similar neck appearson a vessel with an impressed bandat the junctionof the neckand shoulder).At Megiddoa sinuous neck is added in a reconstructionof a tall, twohandled jar from Level XX, but the evidence upon which this reconstructionwas basedis not given. 3 Churnswith profilessimilarto pi. 1:2can be paralleled at Arad StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 5:7, 8); the Beersheba area (de Contenson1956:fig. 9:9); HorvatBeterStrataII-III (Dothan 1959a:fig. 16:1);Meser StratumII (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:8); and Wadi Ghazzeh Site 0 (Macdonald1932: pl. XXXIX:19);and Tell esh-Shuneh(N), LevelI (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 5:3;unnoticedby the excavator,but identifiedas a churnby Amiran, 1970: 33, n. 20), and LevelII (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 12:6;identificationsuggestedby Elliott 1978: 51); and possibly Tell es-Saidyehel-Tahta (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 33:15). 4 1 know of no other churn with an incised band of decorationat the neck.Mellaartmade an intriguingreference to "crisscross"in his descriptionof the fabricof this piece, which may indicatethat it also bore painteddecoration.This sherdwas not availablefor studyin the Amman Museum.

5 Possible supportingevidencefor interpretingpl. 1:21

as the neck of a churn comes from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956:fig. 9:9; but againstthis cf. fig. 10:12,where enough of the lower portion of the vessel is preservedto indicatethat it is not a churn);and the cylindrical-necked jar from Neve Ur (Perrot1967:fig. 16:7). For a jar (not a churn)with a neck similarto pl. 1:1 cf. HorvatBeter,StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:21). 6 Cf., among others, Ghassul,Phase B (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7a:14 [squat jar]); Arad V (Amiran 1978: pl. 4:7, 8 [handlesonly]); Meser,StratumIII (Dothan 1959b:fig. 5:4 [evertedrim jar]), StratumII (fig. 7:16 [evertedrim jar],fig. 7:21 [handleonly]); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967:fig. 15:13 [squat jar], fig. 17:5 [everted rim jar]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 34:7-9 [filter-neckedbottles], fig. 40:3 [everted-rimjar], fig. 40:6 [handleonly]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956: fig. 11:2-10 [squat jars], fig. 12:15-26 [handlesonly]); and HorvatBeter,StratumI (Dothan1959a:fig. 10:22-36[handles only]), StratumII-III (fig. 15:12-15 [squatjars],fig. 17:1-7, 13-19, 22-24 [handlesonly]). The squat jars noted here, together with their taller variant,also occurin the distinctive"GezerCreamWare"(cf. Amiran1955:fig. 1; 1970:fig. 5:7, 8). 7 Similar"handles"also functionas securingdevicesfor the doors on some of the ossuariesfrom Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 21:2, 3, etc.). 8 Cf. Ghassul(Mallon1934: fig. 54; North 1961:fig. 18, E 2-3 "-080" and "-100" levels); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:7);Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:1-3 [with an excellent unpublishedparallelat Sahabfor 40:1; personalcommunication by M. Ibrahim]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:5, 6; fig. 12:29, 30); Horvat Beter, StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:39),StratumII-III (fig. 17:2-4); and the Golan (Epstein 1978:fig. 11, bottom row, fig. 12, bottom on left). 9 Cf. the sites and sources presented in nn. 1 and 3 above;and Tell Far'ah(N), "GrottoU," (de Vaux 1957: fig. 1:4-6).

8

Jiftlik

10Cf., among others, the numerous examples from JerichoTomb A94 (Kenyon 1960:figs. 10, 11). Note also the "suddenappearance"of the much more roundedbowls in contextssuch as Arad,StratumIV (Amiran1978:pl. 7). 11For instance,those publishedfrom AradV (Amiran 1978: pl. 1); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 12:2, 7, 13, 15, etc.). The "rippled"profile (pl. 1:12) causedby a thickening and/or thinning of the wall of the vessel is also quite common on the bowls of the period;cf. Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 12: 11, 21, 23, 24, etc.), and many of the other sites referredto in nn. 1 and 3 above.This should probably be consideredas a simple vagaryof productionand not as an independent(or intentional)"type." 12 Pottery:Ghassul(Hennessy 1969:fig. 7a:12,pi. VIIIb [painted on a bowl]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 38:5 [incised on a fenestratedstand]); and Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 5:89,95, 98, etc.). Stone:Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 43:2 [cup ?], Perrot and Ladiray1980: fig. 77:2); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 5:15 [bowl ?], StratumIII); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 11:18 [bowl ?], StratumI; fig. 19:1 [bowl ?], StratumII-III); JerichoVIII (Garstang1936: pl. XXXIII:17);Gezer,Field I, Stratum14 (Dever 1974:pi. 39:4); and the elaboratelydecoratedbowl fromJammasin(Tel Aviv) (Isserling1952:fig. 2). 13For the shape, cf. GhassulPhase A (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:1). Hennessy (1969: 9) notes "largervarietiesof bowls with simple bevelledrims and ornamentmostly confinedto thin horizontalbandson the rim ... occuronly in the upper two phases"(i.e., A and B); Arad StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:3); Meser, a variant (?) (Dothan 1959b:fig. 6:9; Stratum II); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:1-4, 8, 9); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 7:23, 24 [StratumI]; possibly related are fig. 8:2, 7-9, with similar profiles but impressedor "pie crust"rims [StratumI]); and possiblythe Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 11: second from top on right, fig. 12:secondrow on right). For the drippedpaint, cf. GhassulPhase B (Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:2); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:7); Arad, StratumV (Amiran 1978:pl. 1:1,4); Azor (Perrot 1961:fig.

37:27); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: figs. 6:12, 7:6); HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:17). 14Amiran 1970: 24. For Ghassul see, among others, Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:7 (Phase A), fig. 6:5 (Phase B); North 1961: fig. 16:B2:2;and Mallon 1934:pl. 43:35. For the Beersheva region,cf. de Contenson1956:figs. 2:10-12, 3:1-6, 10. Fig. 3:11 is the closest to theJiftlik holemouths.Holemouth jars with rounded upper bodies are not, however, absent from Ghassul (cf. Mallon 1934: fig. 46; Koeppel 1940: pls. 77:5,96:7). 15The storagevessels from both of these areasseem to prefer the pronounced,outsplayedrim: Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:1-3, 5); while at the Golan sites the heavy, thickenedrim predominates(Epstein 1978). 16 "Pie crust"rims: cf., among others, Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:B2:2;fig. 17: 22, 25, 26, etc.); Arad,StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:6); Gezer,FieldI, StratumXIV (Dever 1974: pl. 2:1-3); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 38:1, 8, 16, 18); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. III:1);the Beershebasites (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:2-5); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 7:25;8:2, 6-10, etc.). Red wash: cf. Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:5); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 6:13); and Tell Umm Hamad (Helms 1986:fig. 16:1). 17 Mallon 1934: fig. 50:3,pl. 43:3 (with referencesto a later type, p. 110); Koeppel 1940: pl. 77:7. Cf. also Megiddo XX (Loud 1948: pl. 2:32); Tell es-Saidiyehel-Tahta (de Contenson1960: fig. 33:16); Tell Delhamiya(Amiran 1977: fig. 2:4); and Beth Shan XVIII (FitzGerald1935: pl. 1:25 [with rope molding at neck and the sinuous profile of a churn],pl. I:10,from "pits"[p. 6]). 18 Ghassul,Phase E (Hennessy 1969: fig. 8b:9;Koeppel 1940:pl. 79:11);Arad,StratumV (Amiran1978:pl. 5:3, and the narrower-neckedpl. 6:8); A5ffula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:4 [with a shorter neck], pL V:1 [with impresseddecoration similar to Jiftlik No. 3]); the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:9, the exception to the more outsplayed,less verticalneck on most of these jars);Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:25); and possiblythe Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 6a: lower left).

Tell

El-Mafjar

Introduction Tell el-Mafjar,the second site soundedby Mellaarton the West Bank of the Jordan,is located about 100 m south of the impressiveremainsof the Umayyadbuildingprogramat Khirbetal-Mafjar (Hamilton 1959). The "tell"(fig. 2) is actuallya ratherflat site extendingfor a distanceof about150 m east-west along the northernbankof a small wadi.Its north-southdimensions,however,are uncertain due to the tremendousamount of erosion that had taken place at the northernlimits of the site, between it and the Arabic ruins. The Stratigraphy of Trench I

Mellaartconducteda single sounding(his TrenchI) at Tell el-Mafjar,approximatelyin the center of what was then preservedof the ancientsite. The excavationareawas orientedslightlywest of north (fig. 3) and measured just under 5.0 m ("N-S" by 4.50 m ("E-W"). Virgin soil was reached at a depth of about 2.0 m below the surface.

The plan of Mellaart'swork (fig. 3) shows a sequenceof threepits cut into the naturalsoil and an undescribed section of walling (?) protruding from the "west"balk at an evidently higher and unrelated

level. SectionA-B (fig. 4) includestwo of these pits, and it appearsthat the deepercentralpit was cut into the shallowernorthernpit. Mellaartdescribesthe natureof the materialexcavatedin his sounding as basicallyhaving the characterof rubbishpits, but their possibleoriginaluse as (seasonal?) shelters was not lost to him, and similaritiesbetween the northernand centralpits at Tell el-Mafjarand the "stepped entryway" formed by Pits 1 and 2 at Tell Abu Habil (see below) were noted.

Mellaartexcavatedthe centralpit and the materialaboveit in six layers,of which Layers1, 2, and 3 are open deposits that combine to form the equivalentof "top soil" in the centralpit and over the northern pit. Below this, the pebble scree that forms the interface between Layers 2 and 4 may possibly have served as an occupational surface, perhaps in conjunction with the "step" provided by the

northern pit, but this is far from certain.Below this pebble scree, Layer4, composed of soil and charcoal,lies above Layer5, which consistsof lenses of clay in an ash matrix.This seems to argueat least Layer5 was depositedintentionally.The basal level in the centralpit, Layer6, is describedas a hard,clayeysoil which, in additionto charcoal,containedfragmentsof mudbrickthat exhibitedstraw casts.This last featureof Layer6 suggeststhat mudbrickarchitectureexistedsomewherein the vicinity of the excavatedarea and may indicatethat walls of such materialwere used in conjunctionwith the cuttingsin the virgin soil. A similarsituationappearsat Tell Abu Habil.Whetherthe sequenceof pits excavatedby Mellaartat Tell al-Mafjarwould have requiredany permanentsuperstructure, with its central"chamber"ca. 3.20 m wide and from 1.50 to 1.80 m deep, is difficultto say.The cuttingsalone, or in conjunctionwith perishablematerialsuch as skins or brush,could have been sufficientto offer protection from the vagaries of climate in the Jordan Valley. The Pottery (Plates 2-5)

The Mafjarcorpusof pottery consists of slightly over 100 fragments.The pieces are predominantly handmade,less than 10% of the sample being identifiedby the excavatoras having been "wheel-made"(they are: pl. 2:1, 10, 11, 24, 25, 34; pl. 3:1, 20; pi. 4:19, 20). This is a technique 9

Tell El-Mafjar

10

TO JERICHO

WADI

TRENCHI

.1:0::]

< N

TO KHIR BET EL-MAFJAR 100 m

Fig. 2. Tell el-Mafiar.Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook,showingthe locationof TrenchI (solid squarein center of mound).No. 1 marksthe locationof "AuniBay'sHouse"and No. 2 recordsa "lowbump with Byzantinethrough Arabic"material.Auni Bay was the Director of the Department of Antiquitiesof the Kingdom of Jordanat the time of Mellaart'swork (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

previouslysuggestedfor the simpler forms of Chalcolithicand earlierpottery.1The majorityof the pieces are plain, althougha small percentageare decoratedwith a red slip (coveringeither the entire surfaceor restrictedto a band at the rim), a line of incisionsor slashes,an impressedcordon(usually applied at or just below the rim), or a combinationof these decorativeelements. Bowls. A varietyof straight-sidedor V-shapedbowls are present in the assemblageand occur either plain (pl. 2:3-5, 8,0, 11) or covered with a red wash (pI. 2:1, 2, 6, 9). To one (pl. 2:2) a horizontalbandof incisionshas been addedbelow the rim, before the applicationof the wash as on a similarbowl from Pella (McNicollet al. 1982:pl. 105:1).The base has been preservedon only one of these bowls (pl. 2:6), and the profiledrawingsuggeststhat it had been formedon a mat. Both in form and surfacetreatment,such bowls are common at the type sites of Ghassuland Beersheba,as well as in contemporarydeposits such as those at Jiftlik,discussedabove,and Arad.The incisedband on small open forms (pl. 2:2), however, is not common.2 Bowls with roundedprofiles are less frequentthan the straight-sidedvarietyat Tell el-Mafjar,a featurethat is characteristicof the Ghassul-Beersheba assemblage.Certainlysuch simple curvedforms as those illustratedhere (pl. 2:31-35) do appearin most Chalcolithicdeposits,but, with the possible exceptionof pl. 2:34, they do not approachthe smooth hemisphericalshapesthat becomeso numerous in Proto-Urban/EBI contexts such as JerichoTomb A94 and Arad StratumIV.3 A form morphologicallyintermediatebetween the straight-sidedand roundedbowls (pl. 2:33) exhibits a slight convexityin the upper part of the vessel wall and a gentle concavityjust above the (mat-impressed?)base. This profile is most frequentin Chalcolithicdeposits,but is not exclusiveto this period, for publishedexamples are found in both earlierand later contexts.4The combinationof this form with a mat-impressedbase is known from Garstang'sexcavationson the Jericho tell (Garstang1936: pl. XXXII:33B). The bowl fragmentsof unknown diameter (pl. 5:1, 4) exhibit a three-dimensionalimpressedcordondecoration.The closestparallelsfor these bowls come from Horvat 'Usa nearAcco,where they Bronze"horizon (Ben-Tor1966:fig. 4:2, 3). Relatedpieces display are datedto the "Chalcolithic/Early of dates.5 a similar range The rims of two other bowls display a "bevelled"exterior profile (pl. 2:24, 25), while one (pl. 2:25) is slightly inverted as well. Both are describedas being wheel-made.The slightly inverted

11

Tell El-Mafjar

N

A

J

t

SECT iON

'

FLOORPLEVEL

3

0

.,

r

t.

L S,

I

. 4

S M.

2

Fig. 3. Tell el-Maf/ar.Plan of TrenchL SectionA-B can be seen in fig. 4 (J.Mellaart).

B

A

0

I

ZM

Fig. 4. Tell el-Mafjar.SectionA-B of TrenchI. For the locationof the section,see fig. 3 (J.Mellaart).

12

Tell El-Mafjar

and bevelledrim of pl. 2:25 can be foundamong Kaplan's"Chalcolithicremains"at cEin el-Jarbaand in contemporary contexts at Gezer XXVI and 'Affula.6 A very similar profile embellished with a "pie

crust"rim has been found at Arad V (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:6) and Horvat Beter StratumI (Dothan 1959a:fig. 8:6), while more invertedforms are also datedto the Chalcolithicperiod.7It is quitepossible that what we have in the fragmentfrom Mafjar(pi. 2:25) and the similarpieces noted elsewhereis an embryonicstage of a rim type that gains attention in the Proto-Urbanperiod on the Jericho tell strataat Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 4:13) and the Ai (Hennessy 1969:8, pl. 11:7)and related"pre-urban" Sanctuary (Callaway 1972: fig. 5:22, etc.). This form continues to represent a type-fossil for much of

the later part of the EarlyBronze Age. Cups. There exists in the Mafjarassemblagea seriesof small,roundedforms (pl. 2:12-22) that, becauseof their size (diametersca. 0.05-0.10 m) are here arbitrarilyconsideredas "cups."In addition to their size, these vessels also vary in profile,rangingfrom shapes that narrowtowardthe rim, as do some of the larger holemouth jars, through shapes with a reasonablyvertical wall, to those that present a slightlyoutsplayedrim and a sinuousprofile.The variancewithin the Mafjarpieces is slight and often subtle,and they are thereforediscussedhere as a group.Decorationon these cups is simple. They can be either plain (pl. 2:14, 20) or coveredwith a red to red-brownslip on the exteriorsurface that is usuallycontinuedover the rim to form a horizontalbandon the interior(pl. 2:12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21). The fact that the two undecoratedcups are both formed from a "sandyred ware,"as opposed to the buff fabric of the slipped majority,may indicate that a red exterior surface was the desired slip on pl. 2:22, similarto the others appearanceof all of the vessels of this class.The "yellow-brown" in many ways,may be the resultof improperfiring.It is also possiblethat pl. 2:16,which exhibitsonly a thin band of red wash on the rim, belongs only morphologically-and not functionally-with the other vessels with which it is here grouped,a hypothesisthat may be strengthenedby its being by far the largest of the group. The identificationof appropriatecomparandafor these little cups is unfortunatelyhamperedby the fact that none of the bases of Mafjarexamples are preserved,but similaritiescan be found with equallysmall, open vessels at a sufficientnumberof sites to establishtheir relativeposition within the developmentof the fourth millenniumB.C.ceramicrepertoireof Syria-Palestine.8 Largebowls. One "family"of vessels can be seen to span the divisionbetween open and closed forms (pl. 4:13-19). Slightly angularin their upper body profile, they present themselves as closed forms morphologically,but their rather wide mouths make them open forms functionally.For this reason they are consideredhere simply as large bowls. In additionto their shape, this group is tied together by the decorativeattention given to their rims, which are either scored with a band of diagonalincisionsor modeledin the familiar"piecrust"fashion.One vessel (pl. 4:19) seems to form a bridge between these and the more open variantsof the biconicalholemouthjars.All are fashioned from a buff fabric,which is either left plain (pl. 4:13, 17) or coveredwith a red slip on the exterior surface (pl. 4:14, 18, and possibly 16) or both the exterior and interior surfaces(pl. 4:15). All are describedas being handmadewith the exceptionof pl. 4:19, which is said to exhibitwheel-markson its interior.

In general,each example demonstrates,to some degree,a thickeningand outsplayingof the rim which may,with the exceptionof the undecorated("wheel-made")example (pl. 4:19), be the resultof the decorativetreatmentaffordedthe rim.Specifically,however,four subgroupsmaybe isolatedfor the purpose of the present discussion. 1. Vessels with a thickenedand horizontallyflattenedrim with inciseddecoration(pl. 4:13, 14). 2. A similar form with a shallow channel running aroundthe top of the rim (pl. 4:18).

Tell El-Mafjar

13

3. A type whose body thickensas it approachesthe rim, which is slightlybevelledon the interior and decoratedwith incisionson the exterior (pl. 4:16). 4. A form similar to the straight-profiled,biconicalholemouth jars with a slightly invertedrim, either incisedwith diagonalincision (pl. 4:15), or modeled into pie crust form (pl. 4:17). In spite of the individualfeaturesof these subtypes,the group as a whole would fit most comfortably with Chalcolithicassemblages.9 Holemouthjars. This common domesticvessel appearsat Tell el-Mafjarin manysizes and in a variety of shapes. The simplest are those that present a straight or slightly convex upper profile (pl. 4:4, 8, 9, 10, 11) and representundecorated,thin-walledvessels of biconicalform. Such shapes, which are among the simplest closed forms to fabricate,are well representedin occupationalcontexts of the Chalcolithicperiod,10while specific parallels for the handle type and placement on vessels similarto pl. 4:8 can be found at Gassuland the "Chalcolithic" levels of Garstang'sexcavationson the tell.11 Jericho Fragments of two other simple, plain-rim holemouth jars (pl. 4:1, 12) display even greater convexityin the upper body and must come from vessels of globularor piriformshape. As with the less-roundedjars discussedabove, this form is easily documentedat sites of the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon, and although their use may begin "earlier"at Ghrubbaand continue slightly into ProtoUrban/EBI, their main floruit is the Chalcolithicperiod.12 Another thin-walledholemouth jar (pl. 4:3) exhibits what might be consideredto be a rudimentaryform of the "cutrim" that is thought to make its first appearancein the Proto-Urban/EBI period.13It should be noted, however, that the Mafjarpiece does not display the internalthickened rim that is a very importantcharacteristicof the type.14 ("bulbous"or "inward-rolled") Another holemouthjar from Tell el-Mafjarexhibits an elementaryform of this thickenedrim and in this respect stands out sharplyfrom the rest of the assemblage.Although this piece 4:2) (pl. standsvery much as a harbingerof the morphologicaldevelopmentthat the holemouthjarunderwent during the individualphases of the ensuing EarlyBronzeAge, the rimtypedoes occurin Chalcolithic assemblagesat Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1961: figs. 1:8; 2:21, 37) and in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 6:2), while it appears in the "originalsoil" of cAi in Phase I of Callaway's reexcavationof the site, where its Chalcolithicancestryis also noted (Callaway1972:6, fig. 15:9). Of the two other plain vessels includedhere among the holemouthjars,pl. 3:17 might be more correctlyassociatedwith more open forms (similarto Epstein 1978:fig. 6A, with incisions?),while the relationshipbetweenpl. 4:19 and the classof largebowls has alreadybeen noted. Fourfragments(pl. 4:5-7, 5:2) have been providedwith a bandof impressedplasticornamentation, and, although the shape and angle of the individualrims may vary, they are discussedhere together on the basis of their decoration.Impressedcordonsappliedto the walls of large vessels are well known at Ghassul(among others, Mallon 1934: fig. 53), but the applicationof such bandsbelow the rims of holemouthjarsmay indicatesomethingmore specific. The type and placementof applieddecorationon holemouthjars at Arad,absenton this form in ChalcolithicStratum V, appear suddenly-and in quantity-in EB I Stratum IV (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:12-23) and remain a populardecorationon this form throughoutthe subsequenthistoryof the city (Amiran 1978: pl. 20:2-14, 51, 54). At 'Ai the combinationappearsin EB I Phase II (Callaway 1972: 66, fig. 20:17, 20) where molded decoration again enjoys a long period of popularityon holemouthjars.The laterend of this popularityis echoedin the EB II depositsof GezerXXIII (Dever 1974:27, pl. 8:1-3, FieldI, StratumXI). In spite of this apparenttilt towardthe laterpartsof the Early Bronze Age spectrum,it should be noted that the individualforms of the Mafjarassemblageare

14

Tell El-Mafjar

difficultto parallel,especiallyin these later EarlyBronze deposits, and that the rim forms at Mafjar seem to be simple and un-evolved.15The applicationof impressedcordonsbelow the rims of holemouth jars can be found in "earlier"deposits at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1961: fig. 1:9, 12, etc., D" classof "chalcolithique moyen");and with the recentrecognitionand formulationof a "pre-urbaine potteryby de Miroschedji(de Miroschedji1971: 38-40, fig. 14), in which appliedand moldeddecoration plays an importantrole, the Mafjarexamplesmay be seen more clearlyin an "earlier"light. The last two fragmentsconsideredin this category(pl. 4:20, 21) differmarkedlyfrom each other in the profilesof their rims, but both appearto come from vessels of biconicalform and both exhibit lugs or bosses on the upper portion of their bodies.Discussionof the two pieces (which couldnot be located in the Amman Museum) is hamperedby the absenceof informationon the exact shape of these appendages. PI. 4:21 is from a thick-walledbiconicalvessel exhibitingtwo "lugs"(lug handles?)just below a roundedrim. The fact that these handleswouldbe well placedto assist in moving the vessel when hot suggeststhat this is a cookingpot ratherthan a storagevessel.Their position,well abovethe (hypothesized) carination,wouldshelter them from directheat when the vessel restedon or abovethe fire.On a storagejar,it wouldbe more functionalto place the handleslower on the body,nearerto the center of gravity.This simple but highly practicalform has an ancestrythat begins and is well representedin the Neolithic Period.16But despite the fact that lugs and bosses appearon vessels rangingin size and sophisticationfrom coronetsto pithoi at Chalcolithicsites such as Ghassul,it is difficultto find close parallels for the position of the handles on the Mafjarpiece in contemporarycontexts. In fact, in Area 188 at Jericho, additionto the (fairlysimilar)vessels excavatedby Garstangin his "Chalcolithic" of set rims below the rounded holemouth conventional the jars from 'Affula only ledge-handles just can be citedhere.17 and displaysa thinner vessel The second of these pieces (pl. 4:20) is describedas "'wheel-made" wall with a small lug (or pair of lugs) just above the point of carination.In this case, the appendages may be decorativeratherthan functional,but certaintyon this point is impededby our ignoranceof the shape (and breadth)of the lug. The top of this rim has been flattenedhorizontally,a featurethat is not uncommonin Chalcolithicdeposits.18Likewise,althoughsmall, antitheticallyopposed,unpiercedlugs can be found on vessels from Ghassul,the combinationof rim-form and lug-type and placementis difficultto parallel,with the possibleexceptionof a jar from "GrottoU" at Tell Far'ah (N).19 Jars with outsplayedrims. Fragmentsof several vessels with outsplayedor everted rims are includedin the Mafjarcorpus,but in spite of this morphologicalcommon denominatorthese pieces come from a varietyof vessels of quitedifferentsize and appearance. The rim of pl. 3:5 exhibits a pronouncedinterior swelling, a featuresharedby pl. 3:6 from a vessel with a higher, more vertical neck. Chalcolithicparallels for this rounded-as opposed to angular-swelling are known in the Beershebaregion,but the type appearsto be absentat Ghassul.A similar rim is publishedfrom EB IB Stratum13 (Field I) at Gezer,20but its stratigraphicalposition (makeupfor an earthen surface)might allow an earlierdate. The neck and rim from a smaller but relatedjar (pl. 3:1) can also be paralleledin Stratum14 at Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 1:28). Two vessels (pl. 3:4, 7) demonstratea more sharply outsplayedor everted rim with a correspondingangularthickeningof the vessel wall where the rim joins the body.Evertedrims from the Ghassuland Beershebatype-sites displayneither the degree of attenuationnor the angularityof the inner profile evidenceby pl. 3:4, the thinnerof the two Mafjarpieces.Basicallysimilarrims, however, can be identifiedin Chalcolithiccontexts at several other sites.2'Confusingthe searchfor legitimate comparandais the fact that the internal thickeningseen in the profiles of some Proto-Urbantwo-

Tell El-Mafjar

15

handledjars is more likelyto be the resultof the pressureinvolvedin attachingthe handleto the rim than the fashioningof the vessel itself.22 The larger and thickerwalled pl. 3:7, which appearsto be from a large pithos with outsplayed rim, finds its best parallelsfrom Chalcolithicsites in the easternJordanValley,at Pella (Smith 1973: pl. 34:717,730) and Tell esh-Shuneh(N) (de Contenson1960:fig. 12:5,LevelII), both with impressed decorationrather than the plain ridge of the Mafjarpiece. The shape, however, is not unlike the "heavyflaringrims"from Proto-Urbanlevels (PhasesQ-N) on the Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967:8 and pl. 2:6). Two fragments(pl. 3:2, 3), althoughthey exhibit a rim that can be describedas outsplayed,come from jars that seem to have relativelystraight,vertical necks. The rims of these vessels share an internalmodulation,which if typologicallysignificantis difficultto parallel,23 but pl. 3:3 may simplybe a thicker,more outsplayedvariantof a shapeknown fromJiftlik(pi. 4:5, 6). As reconstructed,pi. 3:20 is an elongated,bag-shapedvessel with straight sides tapering to a gently outsplayedrim, exhibitingtwo largehandlesattachedjust abovethe point of carination.Similar examples of high, straightnecks are difficultto find, but the closest parallelsare from WadiGhazzeh sites A, H, and possiblyD2.24Pl. 3:22,with its straightupper-bodyprofile,may be a smallervariantof pl. 3:20,while pl. 3:21, with its slightlymore rounded"shoulder," may representan intermediateform between the two. NeckedJars. The Mafjarassemblagealso includesa varietyof relativelyclosedforms which are discussedhere underthe generalheadingof narrow-neckedjars,or bottles.On the whole, these pieces exhibit a relativelystraightneck,but they vary considerablyin individualprofiles.The simplest forms are thickwalled (pl. 3:18, 19) and are also the least specific.25 Pl. 3:9, 13, and 14 are smallerin diameter,thinnerin vessel-wall,and more subtlein profile.The "rippled"profile of pl. 3:9 may be accidental,although the same effect is given by the rim of a wider-mouthedjar from Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 15:10 [StratumII-III]). Pl. 3:14 exhibitsa very slightlyoutsplayedneck and rim that blend almost imperceptiblyinto the shoulderof the vessel; of the wall of the neck is noticeable.At Ghassulrims with this kind of the lightest thickening onlyf sinuous profile, when present at all, appear to be restrictedto jars with much wider apertures,but similarlymodulatedrims are present on vessels of similar dimension in the Beershebaregion. At HorvatBeterthe typeoccurson jarsas well as on one vessel identifiedby the excavatoras a churn.26 Pl. 3:13, also with a slightlyoutsplayedrim, is closelyrelatedto pi. 3:14,but its more verticalneck emerges from the shoulderas a fairlydistinct morphologicalfeatureand is accompaniedby a slight thickeningat the point of transitionbetweenthe neckand shoulder.Jarswith a comparablypronounced junctionare much less easy to identifyin Chalcolithiccontexts than they are in later deposits of the Pl. 3:15 may be a simplervariantof this form. Proto-Urban/EBI horizon.27 Two fragments(pl. 3:8, 10) are from jars with shorternecks.Pl. 3:10, with its tip reconstructed, is reminiscentof the "bowrim,"a type that is characteristic of Kenyon'sPotteryNeolithic B atJericho and 2 1979: Phase of Moore's Late Neolithic 46, fig. 7:1) (Kenyon period (Moore 1973: 57ff.). The exact position of the bow rim within the Neolithic and EarlyChalcolithicsequence,however,is still uncertain(Moore 1973: esp. 60-61), and bow rims dated "Neolithic,""Chalcolithic," or "transitional" appear at a numberof sites.28The fact that the bow rim is not found in deposits of the GhassulBeershebahorizonmight indicatea position at the earlierend of the chronologicalspectrum.The bow rim of the Neolithic/Chalcolithicperiods should not be confusedwith a much different rim-form describedwith the same name by Callaway(1972: 66 and fig. 19:25) at 'Ai and Hennessy (1967: 8, pl. 11:15)at Jericho,dated to the Proto-Urban/EBI period.In the earlierform, the suggestionof the

16

Tell El-Mafjar

"bow"is given by the convex exterior and concave interiorof the rim, while in the later form the interiorline of the rim is convex (i.e., the exact opposite),while the exteriorline can varymarkedly.It as the standardbow rim, and the neck should also be noted that the Mafjarpiece is not as "globular" appearsto be constrictingtowardthe rim, a featureof some jarsfrom cAffula(Sukenik1948:pi. IV:1, 7(?)) and En Shadud(Braun1985:PotteryType 26, fig. 23:8, 10, p. 145). PI. 3:8 is from a vessel with the narrowestneck in the Mafjarcorpus. Like the taller-necked pl. 3:13, it displaysa pronouncedinternaljuncturebetween the neck and shoulder,while the slight convexityof the innerprofileof the rim is similar,but less extreme,than on the 'Ai andJerichopieces discussedabove.The dosest parallelfor the form againcomes from CAffula.29 Pl. 3:16, with a red wash on its exteriorsurface,is includedhere becauseof the narrowdimension of its mouth.It might,however,be more correctlyclassedwith the holemouthjars.30 SpoutedBowl or Jar. A single fragmentof a spoutedvessel (pl. 5:3) occursin the presentgroup. Becauseof the smallness of the fragmentand the fact that, as drawn by the excavator,it seems to "droop"in a mannernot usuallyencounteredin the type, the size and type of the originalvessel are uncertain.A stance more closed than that representedhere is probablymore appropriatein order to give the spout a more upwardtilt. In the Chalcolithicperiod, when spouted vessels bear painted decoration,this is most often confined to a simple band aroundthe rim, while in EB IB (Proto-UrbanB) the shape is often the object of "line group"decoration.31Occasionally,in the Beershebaregion, the rim will be thumbimpressed(de Contenson1956: fig. 8:6, 19) but the actualapplicationof a cordon,such as seen on the Mafjarexample, appearsto be a later feature,appearingat cAi in EB II and III contexts (Callaway 1972: figs. 38:19, 58:23, 63:24) and Umm Hammad in EB I/II Stage 4 (Helmns1986: 34, fig. 11:9). Whetheror not the absenceof this combinationof featuresearlieris fortuitousis difficultto determine. Certainly,both the spout and the applieddecorationwere well known individuallyin the Chalcolithic period.32 Stands. The fragmentson pl. 3:23, 24 are from vessels often identifiedas chalices,pedestaled bowls, incense burners,or simply (as here) stands,and the attempt to furtherdefine the functionof these fragments is resisted.Such vessels are quite popular during the Chalcolithicand EB I/ProtoUrbanperiods,in stone as well as in a wide rangeof ceramicfabrics,includingthe gray-blacklustrous ("Esdraelon")ware of EB I, which may in fact be craftedin imitation of their stone counterparts. Decorationon the two pieces from Mafjaris simple, confinedto a horizontalridge above the base of pl. 3:24 and an impressedcordonappliedto the "waist"of pl. 3:23.The latterpiece is much more easy to parallelthan the former.33 Handles. Three basic categoriesof handles appear in the Mafjarassemblage-lug, ledge, and loop-with a certaindegreeof internalvariationwithin eachgroup. Lug handles are the simplest form in the corpusand are undecoratedexcept for pl. 5:11, which exhibitsa "scoredsurface."Unpiercedlugs areencounteredin the earliest(Neolithic)pottery-producing culturesin Syria-Palestine,while lugs,piercedeither horizontallyor vertically-perhaps more to assist in securing some type of lid than to perform the functionof true handles-occur in almost every Chalcolithiccontextof any size. They continueto remaina strongfeatureof the ceramicrepertoireinto the Proto-Urban/EBI period,after which they graduallyrecedein popularity.Both single (pl. 5:7-9, 11, 13, 16) and double(pl. 5:10) lugs occurat Tell el-Mafjar,but becauseof the varietyof vessel types on which lug handlescan appear it is impossible,with the exception of the two relativelystraightsided bowls (pis. 2:23, 5:5), to determine the shape of the vessels on which these lugs were once appended.34

Tell El-Mafjar

17

Three examplesof ledge handlesoccurin the Mafjarassemblage,two (pl. 5:19,20) of the "plain" varietyand one of the impressedtype (pl. 5:21). All three are of a buff fabricand are undecorated.In the past, variationswithin this genre have been assignedvaryingdegreesof chronologicalsignificance, a view that has been less rigidly applied in recent years (Amiran 1970a: 35-40). In general, ledge handles begin in the Neolithic, occur in the Chalcolithic,and begin to evidence a great deal of popularityin the EB I/Proto-Urbanperiod,a position that they enjoyedthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. There is, unfortunately,nothing in the small sample of plain ledge handles from Mafjarthat would indicatea chronologicalrangemore specificthan "Chalcolithic-Early BronzeI." Plain loop handles,such as those illustratedhere (pl. 5:12, 14-18), present another form with minimalchronologicalsignificance,andeven the two more specificexampleswith impresseddecoration (pl. 5:22, 23) for which parallels can be cited aid little in refining the chronologicalsetting of the Mafjarassemblage.35 Miscellaneous. Seve fragments from the present collectiondo not fit easily into any of the categoriesdiscussedabove. PI. 2:26, a semi-closedform with a vertically-piercedlug handle on the shoulder,is difficultto interpretwithout a betterunderstandingof how muchof the vessel is actuallypreserved.It might have been part of one of the squat jars with multiple lug-handles that are ubiquitousin Chalcolithic deposits.36 Fourbases in a bufffabricexhibit similardiametersand shapeof the lower vessel wall. PI. 2:30 is plain; pl. 2:28 exhibits a mat-impression;pl. 2:29 is thumb-impressedon the exterior;and pl. 2:27, coveredwith a brownwash, is describedas being "pockmarked."37 The piercedbody of pl. 3:11 representsa small strainingvessel, a type unknownto the present authorin Chalcolithicor EarlyBronze contexts.38The body fragmenton pl. 3:12 has been "dimpled" but not actuallypierced. In addition to the ceramic vessels discussedabove, the Mafjarcollection also includes three fragmentsof small terracotta animalfigurines(pl. 5:25,26, and 27). Althougha specificidentification of these quadrupedsis uncertain,they do indicatethe presencehere of a type of figurinewell known at Ghassul(cf. amongothersHennessy 1969:fig. 11:4-6; North 1961:pl. X:8323,8728).

The LithicAssemblage The lithic assemblagefrom Tell el-Mafjarconsistsof four stone vessels (pls. 2:7, 5:28, 32; 5:29), as well as two "roundels"or "spindlewhorls"(pl. 5:30, 31). The material,identifiedby the excavator, includesboth white limestone and serpentine,but unfortunatelythese pieces are chronologicallynonI spectrum.Eight chipped diagnosticand wouldbe at home at many points along the Chalcolithic-EB stone tools are also recordedin the excavationnotebook.They includethree sicklebladeswith "blunted backs,"two polishedaxes, two chisels (one with cortexretained),and a side scraper.Unfortunately,no illustrationsof these pieces have survived.

PolishedBone Tools Eight examplesof polishedbone tools (pl. 5:24a-h) completethe assemblageof materialculture from Tell el-Mafjar.Similartools, which possiblyservedas awls,borers,or gravers,are well known at horizon.39 many sites of the Ghassul-Beersheba

Summaty Mellaart'sTrenchI at Tell el-Mafjar(figs. 3, 4) revealeda sequenceof fill-depositswithin a series of pits dug into the naturalsoil. The thin layerof topsoil (Layer1) can be combinedwith Layers2 and

Tell El-Mafjar

18

3, as all three are open loci. The centralirregularcuttingwas filledby a successionof deposits (Layers 4-6); if this pit was originallyutilized for habitationor storage, the materialfrom Layer6 would provide a terminus ante quem for that phase of its use. The top of the uppermostof the centralpit deposits (Layer4) is separatedfrom Layer2 by a scree of pebbles,and this stratigraphicalinterface seems to continueacrossthe pit, being indicatedin the easternpart of the excavationby the Layer3/4 soil change. This layer 2-3/4 division would representthe only other time at which the cutting(s) could have been used for occupation,a circumstancethat might be suggested only if there was a substantialdifferencebetweenthe materialaboveand below this interface. For the date of the actualcuttingof the pit we have no directarchaeological evidence,but Layer6 contains material (straight-sidedbowls, small cups, cups, modeled holemouth jars, and lug handles) that suggests that it was filledwith materialdatingto the end of the Chalcolithicperiod.The cutting must either be of that date or earlier,but it is impossible to be more specific.The three deposits in the central pit (Layers4-6) share the straight-sidedbowls and small cups, while similarlydecorated r Layers nwould in Layer seem to tie the three deposits together and s holemouth j ar appear indicateeither a relatively"quick"filling of the pit or a common sourcefor the fill-materialelsewhere on the tell. If the small "wheel-made"bowl (pl. 2:24) from Layer5 is actuallya later EarlyBronze piece, one might posit a filling of the central pit with late Chalcolithicdebris during the Early BronzeAge. The materialabove the Layer2-3/4 interface,which might have served as an occupationfloor, also producedstraight-sidedbowls and holemouth jars with decoratedrims similar to those found below. Other featuresfound both above and below this "surface"are lug-handles,plain ledge-handles, and (chronologicallyindeterminate)bone tools. In fact, the only classes of objectsthat appearexclusively on either side of this hypothetical"surface"are the small cups, backed sickle blades, and "roundels"in the lower deposits,and the two fragmentsof "stands"foundabove it. Such a separation of artifactsdoes not appearto be chronologically significant. Because of several common denominatorsin the material above and below the Layer 2-3/4 interface,it would seem most likely that the finds in TrenchI do representa cuttingmade sometime late in the Chalcolithicperiod that was subsequentlyutilizedas a rubbishpit and completelyfilledover a short span of time. This would agree with Mellaart'snotebookimpressions.As to when this filling operation took place, we can only suggest, based on the presence of an Early Bronze bowl rim (pi. 2:25) on the surfaceand a similar (and possiblycontemporary)fragmentfrom Layer5 (pl. 2:24), that it occurredin the earlypart of the EarlyBronzeAge.

Tell El-Mafiar:TrenchI Layer 1 2 3 4 5 6

Description Brownsurfacesoil Soft grayash Soft brownearth,but harderthan Stratum2 Hard,grayish-buffsoil with charcoalspecks Ash layerwith clayor mudbrickstreaks Hardbuffsoil with clayand mudbrick(with strawcasts) fragments

Period

Tell El-Mafjar

19

Tell El-Mafjar:ArtifactIndex Layer 1 Layer 2

None

Layer 3

PI. 2:4 Pl. 3:8,24 PI.4:3,4,6, 16 PL.5:10, 14, 21, 23, 32

Layer 4

PI. 2:3(?), 10, 14, 16, 20, 32, 34 Pl. 3:12, 13, 16, 22 PL4:1, 7, 21 PI. 5:20,24f, 25, 27, 30, 31

Layer 5

PI. 2:1, 3(?), 6, 11, 15, 19, 24 PI. 3:1, 7 PI. 5:2,4, 24d, 24e

Layer 6

Pl. 2:5, 13, 17, 26, 33, 35 Pl. 3:3, 5, 9, 15 PI.4:9, 12 PI. 5:17, 19, 24a, 26

PI. 2:8, 9, 23, 27, 29-30 P1.3:2,4, 6, 11, 14, 17-21, 23 PI.4:2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-20 Pl. 5:1, 3, 5-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 24b, 24c, 24g, 24h

Notes 1 At GhassulHennessy (1969: 7) notes evidencein his Phases C-A (i.e., Ghassul IV) for the finishing of some vessels on a "tournette,"and Mellaart (1956: 29) thought that the use of the wheel was "common"in the assemblages of the earlier excavations at that site. At Horvat Beter, StratumI bowls are saidby Dothan to have been "thrownon a wheel or tournette"(1959a: 12), a technicalaspectthat he also comparesto GhassulIV (p. 13). Cf. also the bowl with "tracesde tournage"from Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:1, p. 224). But these vessels, properlyspeaking,were finished, not "thrown,"on a slow wheel In additionto the utilizationof the potterswheel in the Chalcolithicperiod,de Vaux (1970: 511-12) sees evidenceof its use "for necks and small vases" in Jericho VIII, while Moore (1973: 45, 57) recordsthat "many(pots) are finished by turningon a mat"in his Late Neolithic Phase 2 (equivalent to JerichoPNB). 2 Hennessy (1969: 9) notes that inciseddecorationwas common in his excavationsat Ghassul"in all phases from G upwards,but confined to large storage jars and vats." Cf., however,the bowl on fig. 8b:3 (Phase E) with a doublerow

of crescent-shapedincisions(punctures?).Inciseddecoration on more roundedbowls appearsat Ghassul(North 1961:fig. 17:4) and Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 2:11; StratumI). Open forms with multiple incised wavy bands appear to be frequent in the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 12, etc.), a technique also at home in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 12:4, 5) and elsewhere.Ghrubbapresents a bowl with a band of some sort of horizontal"dragging"(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:8), possiblyfrom an earliercontext. 3 Cf. the referencesto Jerichoand Arad in the chapter on Jiftlik,n. 10 above.The hemisphericalform of the Mafjar bowl (pl. 2:34) can be paralleledat Meser (Dothan 1957:fig. 2:11). Exceptions to the numerical inferiorityof rounded bowls in Chalcolithiccontextsmay be seen at Tell Turmusin the Huleh Valley(Dayan 1969: fig. 6) and at the Golansites (Epstein1978). 4 For Chalcolithicexamples,cf. Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:1); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 8:5; StratumI); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956: fig. 6:11, 13, 19, 20); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:figs. 7:6, 16; 12:10,17, 21, etc.; StratumII). A bowl with similarconcavityis published

20

Tell El-Mafjar

by Kaplan (1958a: fig. 8:22) from his "Neolithic"(Jericho IX) LevelIV at TeluliotBatashi. Bowls from Proto-UrbanA Tomb A94 at Jericho(Kenyon 1960: fig. 12:3,4) and the cave at Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:71, 14:96) have a similarconcavityof the lower body form.Arqubel-Dhahralso providespieces with similar concavityand (PUB/EB IB) painted decoration(Parr 1956: figs. 13:82,14:84,etc.). 5 Cf. Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16:17,8601); Tell eshShuneh(N) (de Contenson1960:fig. 10:12,13;andGustavsonGaube 1985: 73, fig. 9:22; Tell es-Saidiyeh el-Tahta (de Contenson 1960: fig. 32:18); Munhata (Tsori 1958: fig. 3: right). At Ai this decorationappearson thickerbowls with more verticalprofiles (Callaway1972: fig. 20:17, 20) in the (pre-urban)Phase II of the sanctuary. A similar decorationon a basalt bowl with outsplayed sides is known from Rosh Hanniqra,StratumII (Tadmor 1959: fig. 6:37). The pottery in this level is said to date to "EarlyCanaaniteI ... while still continuingthe traditionof the Chalcolithicperiod"(p. 81). 6 'Ein el-Jarba (Kaplan 1969a: fig. 4:5 and p. 112); Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 1:22, and possibly pl. 2:16; FieldI, Stratum14); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:42). 7 Affula (Sukenik1948:pLVI:39-41, 43); HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:16;StratumI-Il), where its presence is noted as being "of special interest"(p. 26); and the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:15, 16). Possiblyto be relatedare those from Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:1; Phase A), with a rim-channel;and from Rosh Hanniqra StratumII (Tadmor1959:fig. 6:31). 8 Cf. Meser (Dothan 1959:fig. 5:6); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960:fig. 24:2;larger,but similarin shape);Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:3 and 5:5, a goblet similar in profile but with an oval mouth [Phase A]; fig. 6:8, "holemouth," and 6:9, a round-mouthedgoblet [Phase B]; the diameterof either fig. 6:8 or 6:9 must be recordedincorrectly: cf. p. 11; fig. 7:10, especiallyfor pl. 2:12 [Phase B]; fig. 8:1 [Phase D]; and possibly fig. 9b:7 [Phases G, H, I]). The type, usuallywith straightersides, is known from the earlier excavations at Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 42:2; Koeppel 1940: pls. 79:4, 96:3; and possibly North 1961: fig. 17:8652 [with double lug-handle] and 17:8164); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 16:11); Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 3:3); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 4:4 [squatter,but similarin diameter]);and Tell Abu Matar(Perrot 1955:fig. 16:11, p. 81). For its "earlier"appearanceat Ghrubba,cf. Mellaart1956: fig. 4:22; and at WadiRabah,Kaplan 1958b: fig. 5:5. Similar are Hennessy's "small, narrow necked,baggy shaped jars" (1967: 8, pl. 11:17,his jar type "V"-only the upper portion is preserved),which he sees first appearingat Jerichoin the Proto-Urban,Phase Nii destruction,but which might also belong to the precedingPhase M (p. 8). For the positionof Phase M, cf. Hennessy 1967: 10. stratigraphical 9 The best parallelfor subgroup1 comes from Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IX:4, 5), while vessels from Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:6 [Phase C], with a painteddecoration) and the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 1:2)

might be consideredsimilar"in spirit."Cf. also the "earlier" example from Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:24) with horizontallugs on the shoulder. Good parallelsfor subgroup2 come from a numberof sites: Meser (Dothan 1957:fig. 3:5 [StratumII]); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 39:11); 9Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IX:13 [more open and thumb-impressed]);Benei Beraq(Kaplan1963:fig. 9:6); and Horvat Beter StratumI (Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:8 [thumbimpressed]). A plain rim similar to subgroup3 can be seen in an examplefromAzor (Perrot1961:fig. 41:2). For subgroup4, pl. 4:15 can be paralleledat Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:7); while the best example for pl. 4:17 comes from Jericho in Garstang's"Chalcolithic" Tomb 355 (Garstang1935:pl. XLII:17).For the pie crust rim on more open forms, cf. the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 8:3, 18, etc.); more distant parallelscome from Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:9 [Phase A]; North 1961: fig. 18: E2-3 [-140]). Cf. also the pie crust rim from Gezer XXVI, Field I, Stratum 14 (Dever 1974: pl. 2:1-4) of Chalcolithic date. 10The distinctionbetweenthe straightand slightlyconvex variantsmay be contrived,but: (a) For the straighterpl. 4:9, cf. Ghassul (Hennessy 1969:fig. 6:5 [Phase B], fig. 8b:8 [Phase E], and possiblyfig. 9a:4 [Phase F]; North 1961: fig. 16:8552, etc.); Tell eshShuneh (N) (de Contenson 1960: fig. 12:2 [Level II]); and Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960: fig. 26:10 [Level III]). Similarprofilesare illustratedfrom Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: figs,4:26, 5:98,etc.). (b) For the rounderpl. 4:10, 11, cf. Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:7 [Phase A]), 8a:6 [Phase D]; Arad,StratumV (Amiran 1978:pl. 3:6); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960: fig. 26:12 [Level III]); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:11); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 14:2 [StratumII-III]). For possibly earlier parallelsat Ghrubba, see Mellaart1956:fig. 6:107,etc. (c) For the "flatter"pl. 4:15, cf. Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 8a:5 [Phase D]; North 1961: fig. 16:8552); and HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 18:24[StratumII-III]). 11Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 47; Koeppel 1940: pls. 78:5, 96:4). Similar,but with a squarerim, is the example in Mallon 1934 (fig. 45:51). Hennessy's work at the site produceda similarlyshapedvessel with low, unpiercedlugs(?) at the spot where the Mafjarpiece has handles(Hennessy1969: fig. 6:5 [Phase B]); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLII:19).Cf. also Tell Umm Hammad(Helms 1986:37, fig. 12:8,Stage2). 12Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: pls. 77:5, 96:3, 7; Hennessy 1969:fig. 8b:2 [Phase E]); GezerField I, Stratum14 (Dever 1974: pls. 1:6, 2:6, 3:5); Arad, Stratum V (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:2, 3); Megiddo XX (Loud 1948: pl. 1:16-18); 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. III:18); Tell Delhamiya (Amiran 1977: fig. 4:1); Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 13:2 [= Helms 1981: fig. B4:10]); the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:1- 3, andpossiblythe moreclosedfig. 2:10-12); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 8:15, 18 [StratumI], fig. 14:1, 16 [Stratum II-III]). For the "earlier"Ghrubba,cf. Mellaart 1956:fig. 4:34, 35, etc

Tell El-Mafjar Callaway(1972: 60) notes that this roundedform is the oldest holemouth form in his Proto-UrbanB Phase I at the cAi Sanctuaryand emphasizes its Chalcolithicheritage. In both Phase I at cAi and StratumIV at Arad,Callawaysees this type giving way to the thickerrim forms (cf. fig. 15:7-9) of his Phase II, the later of the two pre-urbanphases at cAi. For contemporarydepositsat other sites, cf. p. 61. 13For the techniqueof the cut-rimholemouth,cf. Callaway 1972:66-67. I cannotcommenton the technicalprocess by which pl. 4:3 was formed, since the piece could not be locatedin the Amman Museum. Callaway(1972: 66) states that the cut rim is the most common type of rim decorationon such forms in the EB I Phase II (Wall R building) of his reexcavationof the cAi Sanctuaryand refers (p. 67) to Hennessy'swork on the tell material from Jericho,where it begins in Phase Oi of the Proto-Urbanperiod. 14 "Bulbous" rims are one of the featuresthat are said by Dever (1974: 16, pl. 1:11) to supplantthe simple rounded (Late Chalcolithic)holemouthsat Gezer in Field I, Stratum rims are also describedas appear13 (EBIB). "Inward-rolled" ing more frequentlyin Phase II of Callaway'swork at the Ai Sanctuary(Callaway1972:66). This thickened rim is alreadypresent in Callaway's earliestlevel (Phase I) at Ai (Callaway1972:fig. 15:7,8) and appearsas early as the Proto-UrbanPhase P at the Jericho tell on "collarrims,"and Phase Oi on "cutrims" (Hennessy 1967: 8). The collar rim of Jerichoequals the "railrim" of Gezer (and other sites), where it appears first in deposits from EB IB Stratum 13 in Field I (Dever 1974: pl. 4:8, 9). Note, however, the holemouthwith the thickenedrim from (Chalcolithic)Stratum14 at Gezer (pl. 1:11).Similarthickening of the rim is alreadyapparenton examples from such deposits as Stratum I at Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 8:4). 15For the profile of pl. 4:5, cf. Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. VI:12 [plain]). The taperedrim of pl. 4:6 can be foundat Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:5); Tell Umm Hammad (Helms 1984:fig. 14:14,StageII);and Tellesh-Shuneh(N) (GustavsonGaube1985:77, fig. 12:43),all with raiseddecoration.PI.4:7 finds good parallelsat Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux and Steve 1947:fig. 1:6 ["eneolithiquemoyen,"also good for the decoration of pl. 4:6], fig. 2:5 ["eneolithiquesuperieur"]);and for the squared-offrim, cf. Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 40:18); and the combinationof rim and decorationat 'Affula(Sukenik 1948:pl. IX:11). Cf. also Ben ShemenTomb 506 (Perrotand Cadiray1980:fig. 132:7);andTell esh-Shuneh(N) (GustavsonGaube 1985: 74, fig. 10:30). For the profile of pl. 5:2 no suitableparallelsare known to the presentauthor. The similaritiesbetween the rim of pl. 4:7 and Callaway's"squaredor flattenedrim"(Callaway1972:61, fig. 15:9) at Ai (Phase I) shouldbe noted. For holemouthswith "rope moulding"cf. p. 60. 16Moore 1973: fig. 6:1-3, from Pottery Neolithic A (Moore'sLate Neolithic Phase 1) Jericho.For good parallels to the Mafjarpiece, cf. also Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958a: fig. 7:10 [and 7:8, 12 for variants], equated with Garstang'sJericho Level IX); Munhata (Tsori 1958: fig. 2,

21

center left); and Lod (Kaplan 1977: fig. 3:2 [but with a smallerdiameter]). 17 For Jericho,cf. Garstang1935: pl. XLI:8, 10, 12. Cf. also round bosses from his "Chalcolithic"Strips 1-4, pl. XLII:28-31, and for 9Affula,Sukenik 1948: pl. III:15a,16a, 17a. Similar pieces appear later at Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 5:1), which are said to be "the most common shape, occurring in all trenches"of the citadel excavations.They are dated to the EB-MB period (Helms 1975: 24; fig. 5:1 = Helms 1981:fig. B1:1 ["potteryfrom the MiddleBronzeAge Citadelcomplex"],p. 222). 18 Cf. 'Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IX:6 [impressedrim]); Rosh HanniqraStratumII (Tadmor1959: fig. 6:20); and in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956: fig. 2:5). Perhaps also relevant is a fragment from Phase II at Ai (Callaway 1972: fig. 18:28), which, although not as flattened as the Mafjarexample, is seen by Callawayas "bentto a horizontal stance anticipatingthe drooping,in-turnedrim-form found in Kenyon'sEB I atJericho"(p. 66, with referencesto Hennessy 1978). 19 For Ghassul,cf. Mallon1934:fig. 46; Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:5. Cf. also, on a more roundedform from Ghrubba, Mellaart1956: fig. 4:21. For Tell Farcah,cf. de Vaux 1957: fig. 1:8. 20 For the Beershebaregion,cf. de Contenson1956:fig. 2:3. For possibly similar rims, cf. also those from Tell elSaidiyeh el-Tahta (de Contenson 1960: fig. 33:5); Affula Jericho (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:31); and the "Chalcolithic" Tomb 355 (Garstang1935:pl. XLII:5).For Gezer,cf. Dever 1974: pl. 3:9. This fragment comes from material below Surface4143, which containedChalcolithicpottery (p. 102). The closeness of the sequenceis indicatedby the fact that some of the ChalcolithicStratum14 floorsseem to have been reusedduring the life of the EB IB Stratum13, and Dever notes that there was "probablynot even a periodof abandonment precedingthe EarlyBronzeI occupation"(p. 14). 21 Compare, for instance, Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 18:8686);the Beershebasites (de Contenson 1956: fig. 1:5, 7); and HorvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 9:15 [StratumI] on a smallervessel).One vessel from this site is, however,closer to the Mafjarexample-fig. 15:18 (StratumII-III).The best examples come from Tell Farcah (N) Tomb 9 (de Vaux 1951:fig. 4:6); Tell es-Saidiyehel-Tahta(de Contenson1960: fig. 33:12); and 5Affula(Sukenik1948: pl. IV:29). For other possibilities,cf. Tell Turmus(Dayan 1969: fig. 5:3 [less inverted]); MegiddoXX (Loud1948:pl. 1:15 [less pointed]); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 17:2 [much sharper], and fig. 17:3 [closerto MafjarIII:4]);Jawa (Helms 1975:fig. 13:5,6 [both with a point at the inner transition from body to rim]). Ai seems to present a sequencefor smaller vessels with everted rims: a transitionalpoint, but no thickeningin pre-urbanPhases I and II (Callaway1972: figs. 15:3, 17:11), with the combinationof point and thickeningappearingin Phase III,the firsturbanperiodat the site (fig. 27:17). 22 Compare,for instance, the jar from Jericho Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 14:12) with similar vessels from "eneolithique"Tombs 11, 12 and 13 at Tell Farcah (N)

22

Tell El-Mafjar

(de Vaux 1951: figs. 6:15, 11:24, 27; and de Vaux 1952: fig. 10:15), where more than one profile drawingfor each piece is offered. 23The type of modulationon the rim of the narrower pl. 3:2 may be seen in a small jar from the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 6:6). Possiblyrelevantto pl. 3:3 is a bowl from MeserStratumII (Dothan 1959b:fig. 6:11). 24Site A (Macdonald1932: pl. XL:31 [drawnwithout handles]). Cf. also the photograph on pl. XXIII:23 (with handles),which is closer to the example from Tell el-Mafjar. Site H (Macdonald1932:pLXL:71,with verticalburnishing). Site D2 (Macdonald1932:pl. XXXVIII:5,a two-handledjar with similarattenuationof the bodyshape,but in this case it appearsbelow the handles). 25 Cf. for pl. 3:18, Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 9a:5 [Phase F]); and possibly Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 5:5);and Tell Turmus(Dayan1969:fig. 5:1). 26For Ghassul,Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:3 (Phase C) and possibly fig. 6:6 (Phase B); and North 1961: fig. 18 (E2-3, -080). For the Beershebaregion, cf. de Contenson 1956: fig. 5:5. A similar rim appearsat Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:44). For the rim on jars at Horvat Beter,cf. Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:22 (StratumI) and fig. 15:3 (StratumII-III). For the vessel identifiedas a churn,fig. 16:3 (StratumII-III). 27 A very similar profile appears on a jar from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956:fig. 5:9). Cf. also a vessel with straighterneck from Arad, StratumV (Amiran 1978: pl. 6:8). Cf. also the "bottle"from Trench TT1 at Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 9:2); and two vessels from the EB I Cave 4 at Givatayim(Sussman1966:fig. 9:18,24). The treatmentof the rim/shouldertransitionis similar on a variety of jugs and jars from Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub 1973: fig. 17:10, 22, 27:026, etc. [EB IA], fig. 50:1102 [EB IB]). At Ai, with the exceptionof one example with more sharply defined junction (Callaway1972: fig. 17:28 [Phase II]), fragmentsof possiblysimilarvessels in the lower strata (pre-urbanPhases I and II, and first-urbanPhase III) are not preserved to the point of transition,thereby making any comparisonsbetweenthe Mafjarand cAipieces impossible. 28 In addition to the Jericho material (Kenyon 1979: 46), compareexamplestermed"Neolithic"at Ghrubba(Mellaart 1956: fig. 4:39-42; fig. 4:41, the closest to the Mafjar rim, is describedas "wheel-made")and also the example in stone from a Neolithic deposit at Kabri (Prausnitz1966: fig. 6:3). Similar rims assigned (in varyingdegrees) to the Chalcolithicperiod come from: Jericho (Garstang1935: pl. XL:3-5); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960: fig. 23:2 [Level I]); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (de Contenson 1960: fig. 6 [Level I]); Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1955: fig. 4:1, 3, and de Vaux 1961:fig. 1:2,4, 5); WadiRabah(Kaplan1958b:fig. 5:8 [with the "bow"extendedbelow the junctionof the neck and shoulder]);Newe Yam (Prausnitz1977: fig. 2:11); Lod (Kaplan 1977: fig. 6:9); 9Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:1-3, 5); Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 5:4); cEin el Jarba and TeluliotBatashi(Kaplan1958a:fig. 10:13[LevelIII]).

29Sukenik1948: pl. IV:12.This type may representan embryonic stage in the development toward the narrowmouthed jars with a "triangularsection neck and rim" that appear on the Jericho tell in Phase L of Kenyon's EB I period (Hennessy 1967:p. 10 and pl. IV:36).The absenceof intermediatestages at Jerichocouldthen be explainedby the "total absence"of narrow necks of bottles and jugs in the Proto-Urbanphases (p. 8). 30Similarlyshaped vessels are known from Tell eshShuneh (N) (de Contenson1960: fig. 12:3); Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960:fig. 25:7);JerichoTomb 355 (Garstang 1935: pl. XLII:9); Ghrubba(Mellaart 1956: fig. 4:46); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 3:17); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 9:21, 24 [Stratum I]); and the Golan(Epstein 1978:fig. 12: top row centerand right). 31 Cf., among others, for the plain Chalcolithicdecoration: Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: fig. 7b:13 [plus festoons on fig. 6:1]); and for the EB IB/Proto-UrbanB "line group" decoration,cf. Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub1973: 265 and fig. 49 [type 1070a-h]), where the absence of the form in EB IA/Proto-UrbanA is noted (p. 275). 32 In additionto the pieces from Ai cited in the text, support for-and occasionalexceptions to-the statements made here can be found,inter alia, in the referencesto the following sites: Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 16:10d, fig. 16:8644);Arad, StratumIV (Amiran 1978: pl. 10:7 [cf. also examples from Stratum III: pl. 14:12; and Stratum II: pl. 42:1-4, 6-11]); Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 4:10 [Stratum II]) and Dothan 1959b:fig. 8:18 [StratumI]); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: figs. 3:7, 8; 4:1-3; 7:4); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:1 [StratumI] and possiblyfig. 14:17 [Stratum II-III]); the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 12, upper left [Rasm Harbush]);Jawa (Helms 1975: fig. 13:3); Azor (Perrot 1961: figs. 39:10, 40:4); Givatayim(Sussman 1966: fig. 9:11, 12, 26 [Cave 4]); Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 23:12,21 [Phase II]); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLII:1,2, 4 Tomb 355]); Kenyon 1960:figs. 17:24[Proto["Chalcolithic" Urban Tomb A114], 23:22 [EB I Tomb A108]), and later examplesin tombs throughoutthe BronzeAge. 33Similar treatmentto that given on pl. 3:23 is especially frequent on pieces from Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:32 [Tomb 5, "eneolithique"];de Vaux 1951: fig. 12:13[Tomb 12, "eneolithique," gray-blacklustrous];de Vaux 1952:fig. 12:17 [Tomb 14, also gray-blacklustrous];de Vaux 1955:fig. 5:24 ["chalcolithique superieur"];andde Vaux1961: Cf. also Ghassul 23 2:22, superieur"]). ["chalcolithique fig. (North 1961: fig. 17:26, and possibly 16:14/24); the Beersheba region (de Contenson 1956: fig. 10:6); and Tell ejsh Shuneh (N) (Gustavson-Gaube 1985: 83, fig. 16:79A). Applied and impresseddecorationon other parts of similar vessels can be seen in the Golan (Epstein 1978: fig. 13a [on the bowl]) and at Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:60 [on the base]). A band of inciseddecoration,as opposed to a "rope moulding,"at the waist of these vessels is known from Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 15:15); and a similarlyplacedband of punctatesis known-from Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 56:4) and Tell Delhamiya(Amiran1977:fig. 3:2).

Tell El-Mafjar 34For pieces similarto pl. 5:5,cf. cAffula(Sukenik1948: Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 5:77); and WadiGhaz1:3); pl. zeh Site A (Macdonald1932:pl. XXIII:24).PI. XL:33 ("No. 31") may be from a churn;cf. 35 ("No. 51"). PI. 2:23 is more difficultto parallel,and the excavator's descriptionof it as "doubledlugged"is difficultto reconcile with the drawing. 35Cf. Beth Shan (Tsori 1977: fig. 3:12); Tell Farah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 1:33); and Wadi Ghazzeh Site B (Macdonald1932:fig. XXXIX:27). 36For the type, and the internalvariety,cf., inter alia, the many examples from the Beershebaregion (de Contenson 1956: fig. 11:1-10), which usuallyhave a more pointed rim, and also from Pella (McNicollet al. 1982:91, pl. 105:6). 37Decorationsimilar to pl. 2:29 can be found at Jawa on a base of slightly largerdiameter(Helms 1981:fig. B5:4).

23

For the decorationof pl. 2:27 cf. Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 17:8670); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. 1:8, 9); and Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934: fig. 8:Z ["stage"VII]). For "gouging"on Neolithicpottery,cf. Tsori 1958:pl. III:Alower right (from el-Munhata),and pl. IV:A center right (from Khirbetes-Soda). 38The piercedbodyandhandledatedto the Chalcolithic from Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. 1:10) was actuallyfound on the surfacebeforethe startof excavation. 39 Cf., inter alia, Ghassul(Mallon1934:fig. 30:6, 11, 13, 14; North 1961: pl. X:B8231, B8372; Hennessy 1969: fig. 11:1-3, 7-9); Tell Turmus(Dayan 1969:fig. 9:16, 17); ?Ainel Jarba(Kaplan 1969a: fig. 14:2-4, 6-8); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: figs. 11:21 [StratumI] and 18:41-46 [Stratum II-III]). Perhaps earlier are those from Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan1958a:fig. 9:14-18.

Tell

Jamid

Introduction Of the sites testedsolelyby Mellaart,the northernmostis Tell Jamid,locatedon a sharplimestone outcrop above and just to the south of the el-Maqarin station of the famous Hejaz railway. The site commands a strategic position at the confluence of three wadis that unite to form the Yarmuk River, which then flows westerly to the Jordan Valley (fig. 1). Jamid was studied by the German scholars

Schumacher(1913: 114-23) and later Steuernagel(1926: 142-45) in the early part of this century, then visited by Glueck (1951: 122-24), who considered Tell Jamid (his site No. 88) to be exceedingly

important,noting from the surfacefinds that the major period(s) of occupationseemed to be "EB I-II," with the possibilityof a continuationinto EB III.Tell Jamidand its environswere subsequently included in the surface surveys of de Contenson (1964: 30-31) and Kerestes et al. (1978: 121-22, Site No. 14), both of which have expanded our knowledge of the early history of the site. The most conspicuous feature of Tell Jamid when visited by Mellaart was its basalt enceinte

constructedof both hewn blocks and boulderslaid without mortar (fig. 5). In general, the wall is describedas having been preservedto a maximumheight of two courses,with the exceptionof a short e it is slightly better stretch (ca. 3.0-4.0 m) on its southwer preserved. The bottom course of the wall was observed to be in the best state of preservation on the steep northern face of the tell, while on the eastern side the wall had been quite severely damaged by erosion. In fact, basalt blocks,

evidently fallen from this wall, are describedin Mellaart'snotebook as littering the slopes of Tell Jamid.Faint tracesof the gatewayto the ancientcity were detectedby Mellaartat the southernedge of the mound,where advantagewould have been takenof the more gradualslope of the terrain.At least one tomb had been cut into the naturalrock just to the southeastof the suggestedgateway. Within the enceinte,especiallyin the centerof the tell, "massesof fallen stones"from undatable constructionswere recorded,while partiallystandinghouses of the "Turkishperiod"were noted near the easternedge of the tell. Mellaartalso describedseveralholes (possiblycut as wells) which had been dug into the top of the mound, revealinga maximumdepth of debrisof about 1.50 m, althoughhe noted that the archaeologicaldeposit could be deeper elsewhereon the site. Mellaartconductedtwo soundingsat Tell Jamid:TrenchI on the easternside of the tell, just to the north of the ruinedTurkishbuildings;and TrenchII in the centerof the northernedge of the site.

The Stratigraphyof TrenchI The stratigraphyof Trench I is fairlyclear from the excavationnotebook:below a dark topsoil (Layer1) a deposit of gray earth mixed with stones (Layer2) was encountered,just above the pebbly conglomerateof the naturalsoil. The ceramicmaterialfrom Layers1 and 2 is describedas havingbeen "mixedEB I-II," and the excavationin Trench I was terminatedwhen work was shifted to the more promising northernpart of the site. The archaeologicalfeaturesin this one-day sounding,however, were never drawn.

The Stratigraphyof TrenchII TrenchII, evidentlywithin the enceinte,was excavatedfor a longer periodthan TrenchI and was more fully recorded,but unfortunately,only the plan of the soundingis preserved(fig. 6). Trench II 24

Tell Jamid

SPRING

X

TRENCH

TRENCH SPRING x

25

RIVER YARMOUK

~

L-TRENCH

GATE ?/

TOMB Fig. 5. TellJamid.Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook.North is at top (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

exhibited a stratigraphysimilar to that of Trench I: a dark topsoil (Layer 1) above a stratum of gray-whitesoil (Layer2), which in this case includedconcentrationsof huwwarchips,with the natural rock conglomeratebelow. Here Mellaartexcavatedthe foundationsof a portion of a multi-room structurewith minimum (exposed)dimensionsof ca. 8 x 8 m. The walls of this buildingare described as having been constructedof large dry-laidblocksof basaltwith similar smaller stones in between. Only the basalcoursewas preservedat the time of excavation,and it is expresslyrecordedthat these walls were laiddirectlyon Layer2 and did not cut into that stratumin any way.Foundationtrenches,if they existed, are thought to have been destroyedby plowing. Since only the foundationcourseof the walls survived, there were no remains of the associatedoccupationsurface(s),nor was there any evidence for the nature of the superstructureof the building.The plan of this building is most interesting,but for ease of referencein the present discussionarbitrarynumbershave been addedto the walls and "installations" of Mellaart'soriginaldrawingof the structure(fig. 6). Wall 1, judging from its 0.75-0.80 m width (slightly wider where it has slipped) and its close proximity to the scarp,must representone of the major exteriorwalls of the building.Its exposed exteriorlength of more than 6.5 m indicatesthat we are dealingwith a fairlysubstantialstructure.At its southeasternend, Wall 1 is bondedat a right angle into the slightlynarrower(ca. 0.60 m) Wall 2, which in turn is bondedat a right angle into the short and (in places) still narrower(ca.0.50-0.60 m) Wall 3. These three walls partiallydefine the room/area of which Installations1 and 2 were a part. This room would have originallymeasuredat least 6.0 x 2.0 m, but it was possibly reducedto ca. 4.5 x 2.0 m when Wall 9 was butted againstthe interiorface of Wall 1.1Wall 3 is bondedat a right angle into Wall 4, which runs to the southwestfor ca. 3.0 m to a point where it makes an uncertain

26

Tell Jamid

11

SCARP

I I i ',

SCARP

IWALL 9

2

N

.. %-%, ,-WALL 8 INST3 WALL 4.

^2^I1

~

\--^ BLOCKING WALL,

r

WALL

f

\

MUDBRICK.,,

7-WALL ..,..

WALL5-.

-

WALL6

Fig. 6. Tell jamid. Plan of the basalt structure in Trench II (]. Mellaart and L Kain).

junctionwith two other walls:Wall 5, a narrower(ca.0.40 m) wall runningto the northwest;and Wall 6, a wider (ca. 0.55 m) wall running to the southwest.Wall 5 appearsto have buttedagainstWall 4 (although this is not indicatedon the drawing) and may bear the same (secondary)relationto it as Wall 9 does to Wall 1, but this is far from certain.Wall6 also offers minimalexposurebut the slightly wider (ca. 0.60 m) Wall 7 must be consideredto have joined its (Wall 6) inner face defining the (ca. 1.40 x 3.0 m) enclosurethat housed Installation3. The natureand purposeof the mudbrickelement on the southeasternside of Wall 7 is problematic.It seems to have been set upon a stone socle and hence representspart of the superstructureof the building,but the excavationnotebooksspecifically either in stone or mudbrick,was found.Equallypuzzlingis state that no evidenceof the superstructure, the "blockingwall" (here Wall 8) that seems to connect the patch of mudbrickwith the junctionof

Tell Jamid

27

Walls 2 and 3. The orientationof Wall 8 is completelydifferentfrom any other wall in the structure and is one of the best argumentsfor the presenceof "phasing"within the building. in orderto distinguishthem The three archaeologicalfeaturesthat are here termed"installations" from the walls of the structureare also difficultto interpret.At firstglance they would appearto have been domestic work areas,centeredaroundsuch utensils as the quern in Installation3, the grinding stone(?) in Installation1, or the large oval stone in Installation2. To function in this manner, would have to have been associatedwith the occupationalsurfaceof the however,these "installations" building,but again the excavationnotebooksspecify that no such floors were found. Although in size the plan of the excavated portion of the basalt building at Tell Jamid is impressive,attention should also be paid to the fact that the junctionsof Walls 2 and 3 and Walls 3 and 4 appear to have served as buttresses,suggesting a fairly substantialsuperstructure(second storey?) for the building.It should also be noted that (at least) the foundationsof the structurewere built of basalt. This should not be viewed simply as the utilizationof local material,for the more easily-workedlimestonewas also readilyavailablein the area.The buildersat Tell Jamidintentionally selectedthe harderstone.

The Pottery (pl. 6-7) Bowls Bowl with horizontally-flattenedrim. Two wheel-made bowls exhibit horizontallyflattened rims: pl. 6:6 with traces of a plain red wash, and pl. 6:7 with a polished red wash. The former representsa fairly steep-sidedvessel with what might be consideredto be an elementary(morphologicallyratherthan chronologically)form of Hennessy's "hammerrim" since both the interiorand the exteriorof the Jamidrim projectslightly.On the Jerichotell, hammerrims are said to appearin Phase L (his EB I) and continue with some modificationthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. Good examples of the form are known from cAi in Phases V (EB IIB) and VI (EB IIIA), while lesser parallels may be noted in Jericho Tomb D12 and the cave at Arqub el-Dhahr.2These are vague similaritiesto a bowl from Mellaart'sPeriod V at Tell esh-Shuneh in a fabricdescribedby him as Khirbet Kerak Ware (see below, pi. 14:7). The secondfragment(pi. 7:7) may be associatedwith Hennessy'sEB IIA (Phase H) "bowlwith flat rim and highly polished red slip" or his EB IIB (Phase G) "broadbowl with plain, flat rim" (Hennessy 1967: 12 and pi. VI:61,62). It does, however,seem to be in the initialstagesof showing the of rim profile evident in bowls from the slightly laterJerichoTombs D12 and F4. At "triangularity" cAi similartriangularrims appearin (EB I) Phase III,and later in (EB IIB) Phase V and in (EB IIIA) Phase VI.3Attention shouldalso be calledto similaritiesbetween the Jamidpiece and "grain-washed" vessels from Mellaart'sPeriod IV at Tell esh-Shuneh (see below, pl. 11:18, 20, 21) and bowls from Period V said by him to be of KhirbetKerakWare (see below, pi. 13:3, 5). Bowl with in-turnedrim. Fourbowls displayin-turnedrims (pl. 6:4, 5, 8, 9). PI. 6:8, coveredon both surfaceswith a red wash, presents a profile that is only slightly in-turned and is similar to (although slightly more open than) Hennessy's "deepstraight-sided... bowl... with bevelled rim" that appearsatJerichoin tell depositsof (EB IIA) PhaseJ, but it is also similarto more shallowvessels that he sees as characteristicof EB IIIA.4In Period V levels at Tell esh-Shuneh,Mellaartexcavated bowls with similarprofilesin what he identifiedas KhirbetKerakWare (see below, pl. 13:2 and 14:6 and referencesto similarforms in "local"fabrics).

28

Tell Jamid

The other three vessels of this type (pl. 6:4, 5, 9) presentan externally"bevelled"profile,but this is achievedby elongatingthe rim and subsequentlysplayingit towardthe interiorof the vessel. All three are wheel-madeand differ mainly in the color of the slip and the surfacetreatment.These are Hennessy's "carinatebowls with sharply in-turned rim," which are found in Jericho occupational deposits as early as the Proto-Urbanperiod (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. 11:12).The form continues to develop throughoutthe EarlyBronze Age and is found in Mellaart'sPeriod V at Tell esh-Shunehin concertwith Khirbet Kerak Ware (see below, pl. 12:16 and references). rim. PI. 6:1, a wheel-madebowl with an exterior Bowl with in-turnedand horizontally-flattened red wash, presents a rim that has been turned in and then flattened horizontally.This type is essentiallyHennessy'sbowl with "horizontalrim that projectsin,"to which he assigns an initial date of EB I. The form continuesto enjoypopularitythroughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge, appearingin Jericho Tomb D12 alongsideKhirbetKerakWare5and,accordingto Mellaart,in KhirbetKerakWareitself in PeriodV at Tell esh-Shuneh(cf. below,pl. 14:4,with referencesto parallelsin localfabricsat a variety of sites throughoutthe EarlyBronze Age). Bowl with internallythickenedor "foldedover"rim. The Jamidcorpuspresentstwo fragments (pl. 6:2, 3) with internallythickenedrims that appearto have been achievedby folding the rim back againstthe inside of the vessel. Both are wheel-madeof a buff fabric,while pl. 6:2 possesses a red slip on the exterior.Unlike the other open forms from the site, this bowl is difficultto parallel,and only isolatedexamples can be cited.Two deeperbowls from (Proto-Urban/EBI) Phase II at 'Ai exhibit a technicallysimilar rim, while very close examples appearthere in (EB IIIB)Phase VII, as well as at Tell Yarmouth,also in late EarlyBronzedeposits,and in phasesG-I of the CAmuq sequence.6 Jars A numberof fragmentsrepresentthe necks of jars, ranging from simple to complex. Suitable comparandafor the individualvessels,however,are often elusive.7 Necklessjars with verticalor outsplayedr ims.The simplest of these forms is pl. 6:19, with a thin verticalrim, practicallyundistinguishedin thicknessfrom the shoulderof the vessel. Such a basic shape in a plain brownfabricis not a distinctivechronologicalindicator.Externally,pl. 6:16 presentsa similarverticalprofile,but the vessel wall is much thicker,and the concavityof the interioris rareon vessels decoratedin the "bandslip" manner, which is how the Jamid sherd is described.A single parallel,perhapsalso decoratedin "bandslip" can be cited from Level XIV at Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935:pl. IV:19).The tall, slightlyoutsplayedrims of pl. 6:18, 20 are much more suitableto jugs than jars,especiallythe one-handled"stump-based"jugs (exemplifiedat Jamidby pl. 7:23, 24), for which the smooth curve of pl. 6:20 and the more abrupttransitionof pl. 6:18 can be readilyparalleled.8 Comparandawith vessels with wider aperturescan be found in JerichoTombs D12 (for pi. 6:20) and F3 (for pi. 6:18).9Pl. 6:20, however,is said to have been decoratedin the "bandslip"technique. PI. 6:25 exhibits an S-shaped profile from the shoulderto the extremityof the lip without any noticeablethickeningof the vessel wall. This thin, sinuousprofile is present on a jar from Jericho Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 143, fig. 47:4 LtypeC.4.a]) and in general the Jamid fragmentapproximates what Hennessy called the "typicalEB III jar form" (Hennessy 1967: 23, pl. XIII:7,shown in CombedWare).The remainingtwo fragmentsin this category(pl. 6:26, 27) are characterizedby rims that are splayedbacksharplyin relationto the angleof the shoulderand a thickeningof the vessel wall at the point of transitionbetween these two morphologicalelements.Vesselswith this combinationof featuresappearthroughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge, appearing,inter alia, in Phases II, III, and possibly

Tell Jamid

29

IV at 'Ai and in GezerGeneralStrataXXV-XXIII, while its appearancein the laterpart of the Early Bronze Age is indicatedby its presence in Jericho Tomb D12. A similar profile is also seen in the 'Amuqon cookingpots of Phase G.10The punctateand inciseddecorationon pl. 6:27 can be foundon EB II jarsat Arad,in the Kinnerethtomb,and on some of the 'AmuqPhaseG cookingpots previously cited.11

Necked jars with outsplayedrims. Four vessels (pi. 6:17, 22-24) share sufficientverticality between the shoulderand the rim to allow them to be classifiedas "neckedjars."Generallysimilar forms are known from most of the EarlyBronze Age, but the present discussionwill be limited to specificparallelsfor the individualpieces of the Jamidcorpus.PI. 6:23 exhibitswhat might almost be consideredan embryonic"bead"rim. It is not, however, as distinct a featureas Hennessy's "curled over"rim that appearsatJerichoin EB IIIAPhaseF (Hennessy1967:13, pl. VII:70),or his "overhanging rim"that becomescommonduringthe same period/phase(Hennessy 1967: 13, pl. VII:71),nor does it (as drawn) fold over as do some of his EB IIIBtypes (Hennessy 1967: pi. IX:93a).Perhapsthe most specificparallelscan be foundin GezerGeneralStratumXXIII (EB IIB) and laterat Tell Yarmouthon a jar with combed decoration.This featurealso appearsat Beth Shan in a deposit assignedto Level XIII.12PI. 6:24 differsfrom the latterin that its neckhas been pulledout more and and the edge of the rim has either been flattenedor given a slight bevel so that the lower edeedge of the rim projectsslightly beyondthe line of the upperedge of the rim. This treatmentis especiallyfrequenton largejars (often with taller necks) from Arad II (Amiran 1978: pl. 34:1, 8; 35:6; 40:1, 6, as well as others). PI. 6:17 exhibits a markedverticalityin the neck,abovewhich the rim has been outsplayed.This is similarto a vessel from Mellaart'sTell esh-ShunehPeriodsIV (pl. 12:2,6) and V (pl. 12:8),the last of which may have been decoratedwith "bandslip" decoration.PI. 6:22 appearsto come from a jar with relatively tall neck and thickened,outsplayedrim. Althoughgenerallysimilarto an EB IIIBtype from the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1967:pl. X:102), preciseparallelsfor theJamidfragmentare scarce. PI. 6:22 presents a profile that seems to have been achievedby bendingthe rim over and against the exterior of the vessel. Relatedpieces appearin EB II and EB III deposits at cAi (Callaway1972: figs. 46:1, 2; 57:1; 61:24; and 1980: fig. 131:37, 132:21) and in EB IIIB deposits on the Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967:pl. X:102). Neckedjars with "bead"rim. Threejar rims (pl. 6:13-15) are includedhere with some hesitation underthe headingof "bead"rims. All three are on vessels (of unknowndiameter)with short,vertical necks.The nearestto a truebead-rimis pl. 6:14, which can be comparedwith Hennessy's"curledover" rims that are found on jars with taller necks in (EB IIIA) Phase F of the tell sequenceat Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 13, pl. VII:70)and on a shorter-neckedvessel from the cave at Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 72, fig. 17:211). PI. 6:15, with a more triangular"bead"on a slightly taller neck, finds vague parallelswith vessels from Jericho Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 74, 108, fig. 35:42, type D.4.B) and Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 72, fig. 17:210). PI. 6:13, with a very short neck and an even more pronouncedtriangularityin the "bead,"is decoratedin the "bandslip" technique.Its closest parallel comes from LevelXIII at Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:11). Neckedjars with horizontallyflattenedrim. Of the three jars (pl. 6:10, 11, 21) with horizontally flattened rims, pl. 6:10, 11 can be discussedtogether since the rim of pl. 6:10 is simply a "pushed down"variantof that on pl. 6:11. PI. 6:10 might be considereda more angularvariantof Hennessy's "overhangingrim"of (EB II) Phase G in the Jerichotell deposits,togetherwith similarrims known from Arad and Ai.13 The best parallelsfor the more flattenedpl. 6:10, however,come from Khirbet Kerak, where they appear in "MetallicWare,"which would agree with the excavator'sdescription

Tell Jamid

30

("hardfired")of the Jamid pieces. More roundedforms are known from cAi, Tell Yarmouth,and Arad.14

PI. 6:21, a horizontallyflattenedrim of a differenttype, is more easily paralleledon jugs/juglets than on jars (JerichoTomb F4; Kenyon 1960: fig. 46:49, 56, etc.). Similar rims on larger aperture vessels, however,can be found in JerichoTomb A114 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 179, fig. 68:21 [type C.5.a] and the cave at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:200). Attention should also be called to an apparently earlier jar from Tell Umm Hamad es-Sherqi (see below, pl. 27:13). Miscellaneous jars. PI. 6:12, with "band slip" decoration, is difficult to parallel, and only a single example from Beth Shan Level XIV can be offered here (FitzGerald 1935: pl. IV:12). Holemouth Jars

The holemouthjarsfromJamidare reviewedhere accordingto five arbitrarycategories.Unfortunately most of these rim types are not very diagnostic,and all seem to have enjoyed a sustained popularitythroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age. Becauseof this, comparisonsare limited for the most part to the site of 'Ai, from which a wide varietyof types in a long chronologicalsequencehas been published.15 Plain, rounded rims. Holemouth jars with simple rounded rims such as pl. 7:6, 7 occur at 'Ai from (Proto-Urban/EB I) Phase II through (EB IIIB) Phase VII. Internally bevelled rims. Two holemouth jars present rims that have been bevelled internally (pl. 7:9, 10). These can also be paralleled at 'Ai throughout the Early Bronze Age, appearing in Phases II through VIII. Internally bevelled rim with inner "channel." PI. 7:1 and 8 display the bevelled rims of the

group just mentioned but have in additiona slight concavityor "channel"to the extremity of the rim/lip. Holemouthjarswith this featureare foundat 'Ai from Phase I throughPhase VIII. Horizontally flattened rims.

Three fragments are from holemouth jars with rims that have been

flattenedhorizontallyto varyingdegrees (pl. 7:2, 4, 11). These can be paralleledat 'Ai from (ProtoUrban/EB I) Phase II through (EB IIIB) Phase VI. Miscellaneous. Two holemouth rims do not fit into the above categories. PI. 7:5, which displays

only the slightestupturnat the tip of the rim,can be paralleledin materialfrom Mellaart'ssoundingat Tell Abu Habil (see below, pl. 11:14, 15), for which Chalcolithic(Ghassul-Beersheba) comparandaare offered.The profile and stanceof pl. 7:3, with appliedcordondecoration,is best comparedwith a rim from Beth Shan Level XIV, but applied cordon decorationon holemouth jars lasts throughoutthe Early Bronze Age. Jugs/Juglets

Two one-handledjugs (or juglets) are present in the assemblagefrom Jamid:pl. 7:23, with a slip. Both vesselswere burnished.Althoughpossibly heavyred slip, andpl. 7:24,with an "orange-buff" EB I this as (Hennessy 1967: 22), jug type is most characteristicof the later EB II appearingas early and EB III periods.Unfortunately,neitherof the Jamidvessels is complete,which makes comparison difficult.However,basedon the slimnessof profile (and slight concavityin the lower bodyof pl. 7:23), the placement of handle from shoulder to rim (on pl. 7:24), and the lack of raised decoration at the

junctureof the shoulder and neck (on both vessels), an EB II rather than an EB III date seems appropriate(Hennessy1967:49-51 [EB II] vs. 71-72 [EB III]).

Tell Jamid

31

CombedWare Five fragmentshave been "decorated" in a mannerthat has changedthe textureof their exterior surfaces.PI. 7:12 is describedby the excavator as having been "scored,"while pl. 7:15-18 were "(pattern)combed."Hennessy notes that "haphazardcombing"on storage jars (more similar to pl. 7:12) appearson the Jerichotell as earlyas (Proto-Urban)Phase L (Hennessy 1967:9, 31, pls. 111:28 and XXV), and a holemouthjarfrom Meserbearsdecorationsimilarto the Jamidpiece (Dothan 1957: 225, fig. 3). The more regulardecorationof pl. 7:15-18 is, of course,the CombedWarecommonduring EB II-III in Palestine,which was frequentlyexportedto Egypt.Although it seems most likelythat all of the Jamid fragmentsare from jars with opposing handlesat mid-body(Amiran 1970a:59, photo 52), we cannotbe certain.This is unfortunate,since for Hennessy "isolatedsherdsare difficultto place in this fabric,and it seems that the only criterionis the shape of the jars"(Hennessy 1967: 23 n. 152; cf. also his remarkson CombedWare,pp. 52, 72-73). Miscellaneous The two small fragmentsof paintedware (pi. 7:20, 21) and the three ledge-handles(pl. 7:13, 14, 19) do not add significantlyto the chronologicalrefinementof the Jamidcorpus.The tiny fragmentof a ribbedstand (pl. 7:22) in KhirbetKerakWare,however,is a certainindicatorof the EB IIIperiodat the site.16

Summary Trench I, consisting of two strata without any indicationof architecture,was describedin the notebooks as representing "mixed EB I-II" material. The upper layer (1) in this trench is the equivalentof topsoil,and the four sherdsillustratedfrom here rangein date from EB I to EB II. It is in the lower layer(2), however,that the mixing becomesmore apparent,with EB I grainwash/band-slip appearingwith EB II (and later)pattern-combeddecoration. Trench II presented a similar two-layerstratigraphy.Here Layer1 also representstopsoil and displaysthe mixing seen in the upperstratumof TrenchI, includingthe presenceof grainwash/bandslip. The large basaltstructureis said to have been foundedon the lower layer(2), a graypottery-rich soil deposit, the material from which should provide the terminuspost quem for this impressive building.As noted by the excavator,with the exception of a few (intrusive?)sherds decoratedwith EB I grain wash/band-slipdecoration,the potteryfrom Layer2 is more uniformlyEB II, as indicated by the inverted-rimbowls, stump-basejugs, and at least one of the pattern-combed(in this case, "scored")vessels. Unfortunately,none of the floors associatedwith the buildingwas preserved,and thus Layer2 is not actuallysealed.Surfacefinds,which includedone fragmentof a KhirbetKerakWare stand, showed no pottery definitelylater than EB III, which would seem to suggest that the basalt buildingat Jamidwas built in late EB II at the earliest,or possiblyearlyin EB III at the latest.Since no evidence for later Bronze Age occupationof the site was detectedby Mellaart(post-EarlyBronze potteryconsistedof "medievalArabicpainted"wares and Turkishpipe fragments),the structuremust have been abandonedsometimein the EB IIIperiod. The earliest people to settle on Tell Jamid must have arrivedduringEB I; the excavatornoted that no Chalcolithicpotterywas foundeither on the surfaceor in the lower strata,and thus the users of the EB I potteryseem to have been the firstto utilizethis strategicallyimportantsite.17

32

Tell Jamid Jamid:ArtifactIndex TrenchI Layer 1 Layer 2 TrenchII Layer 1 Layer 2

PI. 6:7-10 PI.6:5, 6, 12, 16, 17,22,25,26 Pl. 7:13-18 PI. 6:2-4, 13-15, 18-21 Pl. 7:2, 3 Pl. 6:1, 23 P1.7:1,4, 8-10, 12, 19, 21, 23, 24

Notes 1If the sequential characterof the combination of bonded and butted walls can be extrapolatedto apply to foundations,Mellaart'sreferenceto "twowalls (that) abuton the south side of the wide wall"(here, Wall 1) must refer to what are here termed Wall 9 and Installation1. A case for interpretingInstallation1 as a wall with a comparativewidth of ca. 0.60 m (cf. Wall 2, which would run parallelto it on the southeast) can be made by "removing"the three stones in its southern angle with Wall 1, but in this case the oval grindingstone (doorsocket?)visibleon the plan wouldhave formed part of the foundationof the wall. If we are in fact dealing here with a secondwall, this wouldpresent evidence for a furtherreductionin the length of this room. 2Jericho Tell (Hennessy 1967: 10, pl. IV:30; 15, pl. X:98); Ai (Callaway1972: 29, figs. 44:11 [Phase V], 61:5 [Phase VI]); JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 59, 111, fig. 36:15 [type 0.2.b, "platter"];55, 118, pl. 38:12 [type D.4.a, bowl];andArqubel-Dhahr (Parr1956:fig. 14:86,117). 3Jericho(Kenyon 1960:Tomb D12-60, 98, fig. 33:24 [type P.2.a];Tomb F4-55, 129, fig. 43:9 [type D.3.a]). Kenyon offers what is basicallya relative chronologyfor her EarlyBronze tombs (Kenyon 1960: 52-53). Hennessy considersTomb F4 to be contemporarywith his EB IIIAPhase F (Hennessy 1967:21, chart).Tomb D12 containedKhirbet Kerak Ware (Kenyon 1960: 60, 120-21, fig. 38:27-35). 'Ai (Callaway1972: 29 [chronology]and figs. 26:18, 45:5, 56:15 and 60:10). 4 EB IIA:Hennessy 1972: 12, pl. VL:56.Hennessynotes, however,that the form mayhave originatedas earlyas (EB I) Phase L (1972: 12, 21, chart). EB IlA: Hennessy 1967: 22, pi. XIII:1;cf. the wide bibliographycitedin the notes on p. 22. 5 Hennessy 1967: 19, pl. XI:4. For JerichoTomb D12, cf. Kenyon 1960: 55, 97, figs. 33:2 (type D.2.b) and 38:9 (type D.l.b).

6

'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 20:11, 14; 1980: fig. 129:2,4, 9, etc.); Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor 1975b;fig. 6:5); the Amutq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: Phase G, figs. 202:1, 2, 4, [Plain Simple Ware] and 216:1 [Simple Warewith OrangeBrownSlip and Burnish];Phase H: figs. 271:6 [Plain Simple Ware], 272:1 [Simple Ware with Orange-BrownSlip and Burnish];and PhaseI: figs. 312:10,314:1 [SimpleWare]). 7 Hennessy notes the difficultiesin ceramicallydefining the middlerangeof the EarlyBronzeAge on the Jerichotell "from fragmentsof bases and necks"(Hennessy 1967: 20), while Kenyon prefers only to suggest a relativechronology for the sequenceof her Early Bronze tombs. For the difficulties involved in separatingEB II from EB III at Arqub el-Dhahr,cf. Parr 1956:62. 8 At Jerichothe curveof the form representedhere by pl. 6:20 can be seen as early as the Proto-Urbanperiod (Hennessy 1967:pl. XIX:4, XXXI:1, 3) and as late as EB III (Hennessy 1967: pl. VII:84c).It also appearson the Palestinian jugs found in Egyptiantombs, includingthose of the so-called "AbydosWare" (Hennessy 1967: pls. XXXIXXLIV:passim). The more abruptchange of directionof pl. 6:18 appearson jugs at Jerichoin EB IIIA (Hennessy 1967: pl. VII:75a)and on the exampleshe illustratesfrom SanctuaryA at cAi (pl. XIV:17). 9JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:60, 120, fig. 38:27, a Khirbet Kerak Ware bowl [type R.l.a]). Note also its appearanceon a large imitation Khirbet Kerak Ware onehandledcup from Tomb F4 (type A.3.a, Kenyon 1960: 133, fig. 44:15). Tomb F3 (Kenyon 1960: 73, 153, fig. 53:1 [type C.2.a]). 109Ai(Callaway1972: figs. 17:9, 10 [Phase II, ProtoUrban]; 27:15 [Phase III, EB I]; and 37:15 [Phase IV, EB IIA]; Gezer (Dever 1974: 4-5 [chart], pls. 3:5 [XXV, EB IB]; 5:3, 7:7 [XXIV, EB IIA], and 10:7 [XXIII, EB IIB]). Possibleearlierversionsof this form can be seen in deposits

Tell Jamid of Hennessy's EB I on the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1967: pl. IV:35); Jericho Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 108, fig. 35:51 [type B.l.b]); cf. also examples from Tell Yarmouth(BenTor 1975b:fig. 6:16) and possiblyCAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. IV:32);the Am,uq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:292, fig. 232:5). 11Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 37:4, 5); Kinnereth(Amiran and Hass 1973: pl. 6:35); and the Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:292, "pottersmarks"). 12 Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 10:23,and possibly24); Tell Yarmouth (Ben-Tor 1975b: 66, pl. 8:3); and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:9). 13Jericho(Hennessy1967:13, pl. VI:65);Arad (Amiran 1978:pl. 40:5 [StratumIII-II]); and 'Ai (Callaway1972:259, fig. 61:28 [Phase VI]; and possiblyCallaway1980:fig. 111:36 [PhaseVI]). 14 Khirbet Kerak (Esse, personalcommunication,inter alia, EB II deposits in Phase III of Trench M); Ai (Callaway 1972:fig. 37:19 [PhaseIV]); Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor1975b: fig. 10:6);andArad (Amiran1978:pl. 53:19 [StratumI]). 15 A. plain, roundedrims:Callaway1972:cf., inter alia, figs. 18:5,6 (PhaseII);28:23,24 (PhaseIII);38:11, 16 (Phase IV); 46:17-19 (Phase V); 62:5, 8, 11 (Phase VI); and Callaway 1980:fig. 133 (PhaseVII).

33

B. internallybevelled rims: Callaway1972: figs. 18:26 (Phase II); 28:9, 10, 29:5 (Phase III):38:17 (Phase IV); 48:3 (Phase V); 63:8, 11, 67:11 (Phase VI); and Callaway1980: figs. 133:20,134:8,16 (PhaseVII), and 141:25(PhaseVIII). C. bevelledrims with channel.Callaway1972:figs. 15:9 (Phase I); 20:19 (Phase II); 30:6-9 (Phase III); 38:21, 22 (Phase IV); 48:4, 5 (Phase V); 63:12, 13, 17, 18 (Phase VI); andCallaway1980:figs. 136:18,21 (PhaseVII), 141:15(Phase VIII). D. horizontally-flattenedrims: Callaway 1972: figs. 18:20,20:16 (Phase II); 28:24 (Phase III);47:2, 48:12 (Phase V); 62:22 (Phase VI); and Callaway1980: fig. 88:11 (Phase IV). E. miscellaneousrims:FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:12,from Beth Shan XIV. They also appearin EB II StratumI at Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 52:24) and EB IIIB Phase VII at CAi (Callaway1980:fig. 137:10-16,etc.). 16 For ribbedstands in KhirbetKerakWare,cf. below, pls. 18:16,18,20,21; 19:1,15), fromMellaart'sLevelV at Tell esh-Shuneh. 17 Mellaartdoes note, however,that the WadiYarmouk was "inhabited"earlierthan EB I, as shown by the presence there of Mousterianpoints and at least three stations with signs of Neolithicflint-workingdetectedby de Contenson.

Tell

esh-Shuneh

Mashaweh

Tell esh-Shuneh Mashaweh ("ShunehNorth"), a site measuringca. 800-1000 m east-west by 100-150 m north-south,is locatedon the northernbank of the Wadi 'Arab (fig. 1). Alreadyin the early 1950s Shuneh North, describedby Mellaart(1962: 131, 133) as "probablythe most important site" in his survey area and "one of the most importantearly sites in the JordanValley,"had been severely damagedby canal and road constructionand settlement occlusion.In fact, de Contenson's attention was first called to the potential of the site during the building of the crossroadsat the southern end of the town, which revealedover 200 m of horizontalarchaeologicaldeposit. Here, de Contenson(1960a: 12-31; 1960b;1961) placedhis sounding(TrenchI), which producedartifactsand architecturethat he attributedto both "Middle"and "Late"Chalcolithicand the EB I and II periods. Mellaart,on the other hand, chose the western end of the tell for his work (fig. 7). Here he began excavationin three "trenches"(II, III,IV), all of which he dug to the EB III/KhirbetKerakphase of the site. He was able to reachvirgin soil, however,only in Trench II. In his field recordsMellaartequatedthe term layerwith stratumand the term level with period. For the sake of consistencythese equationsare followed here. It should also be noted that in dealing with the lower levels of Trench II, the "north-south"orientationof Mellaart'ssection drawings(fig. 12) has been utilized in the present discussion.These are not, however, to be consideredprecise compass directionssince, as fig. 11 illustrates,Section A-B is nearer NE-SW and Section C-D is actuallya "dog-leg."

The Stratigraphyof TrenchII Level I The artifactsfrom Level I, which representthe earliest remains excavatedat Tell esh-Shuneh, were found only in the bottom strataof de Contenson'ssounding (Trench I) and have been amply describedin the reporton his work at the site (1960a: 13-20). Contemporarymaterialwas not found in Mellaart'ssoundings(TrenchesII-IV) in the western part of the site.

Level II Mellaartexcavatedhis Trench II in a series of "layers"of which Layer20, the lowest, was virgin soil. Above this was a soft, ashy Layer 19, which included"masses"of pottery.Associatedwith this layer the notebook records two walls, L and M. Although Wall L is not indicatedon any of the preservedplans or sections,Wall M is (fig. 12), and it appearsto be an east-westwall ca. 1.45 m wide at the base and preservedto a height of ca. 0.90 m. It was constructedof mud brickset on a single course stone sockle that was built into a shallow foundationtrench dug into the virgin soil. Since pottery-richLayer19 is not cut by WallM, it must representeither slow accumulationor deliberatefill on both the "northern"and "southern"sidesof the wall.This situationsuggeststhat the buildersof the structureof which Wall M formeda part utilizedthe virgin soil as their occupationsurface;they thus representthe firstoccupantsof the westernend of the site for whichexcavationhas providedevidence. 34

35

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

WADI ARAB

ROCKS

I

TO IRBID

Fig. 7. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Sketchmap of the site from the excavationnotebook,with detail (inset) of the western end of the tell showing the locationof TrenchesII-IV (solidarea). TrenchesII-IV were later combinedand dug to virgin soil as Trench II. No. 1 marks a small mound with Roman materialon the surface;No. 2 recordstwo small moundsproducing "Medievalto Arabic"sherdson the surface;and No. 3 callsattentionto a large section of the ancienttell that had been dug awayshortlybeforeMellaart'sworkat the site (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

36

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

Fig. 8. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Photographof Round House 0 takenapproximatelyfrom the west duringexcavation(J.Mellaart).

Level III The major architecturalfeatureof Level III is Round House 0 (fig. 8), which is situatedto the "south"of the earlierWall M and was actuallybuilt on (or more probablyinto) Layer19, as Mellaart definitelynoted the presenceof this materialbelow the Round House floor (figs. 10, 12). Associated with this Level are four walls (fig. 9): Wall N in the southerncornerof the square;Wall 0, the curved wall of the RoundHouse itself;and WallsP and Q not otherwisedescribed,but which may be the two "wing walls"that flank the entrywayof the house on its western side. The stratigraphicrelationship between Wall N and the Round House is, unfortunately,impossibleto ascertainwithout appropriate section drawings.The relationshipof the two "wingwalls"to the roundstructureis also problematic, but on both the plan (fig. 9) and SectionC-D (fig. 12) they appearto butt against(perhapsat a higher level than) the western side of the RoundHouse and thus were probablybuilt subsequentto the main construction. Round House 0 measuresmore than 4.5 m in diameterexternally,with an internalliving space just under 3.0 m (fig. 9). The (0.70 m wide) wall is built of mud bricks,which vary greatly in shape and size, laid on a single(?) coarse stone sockle.Unlike its predecessorWall M, the Round House is

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

o -

-

2

37

3

M. ~~~~1~

Fig. 9. Tell esh-Shuneh (North). Plan of RoundHouse 0 from Level III in TrenchII. SectionC-D appearsin fig. 12, and SectionE-F appearsin Fig. 10 (J.Mellaart).

founded on debris (Layer 19) rather than on virgin soil. No foundationtrench was indicatedor recordedfor this building. Mellaartnoted severallayersduringthe excavationof Level III,seven of which consistedof ash and soil build-upoutsideRoundHouse 0 (18a-14, and 11), and fourof which representedlayersinside the structure(13-11). Layer 11 and its subdivisionsis alwaysproblematic.Layer13, the occupation surface,is not furtherdescribedin the notebooks,but it appearsfrom all of the drawings(especially SectionE-F, fig. 10) to have been madeof plasterthat formeda curbwhere it met the walls.There is some suggestionfrom SectionC-D (fig. 12) and the plan (fig. 9) that the walls of the buildingmight also have been coveredwith a thin coatingof a similarmaterial.A flat stone foundslightlyoff-center

38

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

/ /

'

, i

/

\

/

,/

\

A

/ /

/j ./

/

/ /

I \I

\ \

i

5ELrIoN s_E,, :LO0c, ........ ,,','.

E'

",,

19

L A ~A4y

Fig. 10. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). SectionE-F throughRoundHouse 0 in LevelIII,TrenchII (J.Mellaart).

on this floor suggestedto Mellaartthe type of roofingsystem illustratedin fig. 10. To the north of the base for the centralroof support,a small assemblageof intactand fragmentarypotterywas foundon the floor (Layer13), partiallycoveredby a thickdeposit of ash (Layer12). The floor,pottery,and ash were subsequentlysealedby a collapseof the walls of the RoundHouse. This processis representedby the subdivisionsof Layer 111and culminatedwith the main (ash) Layer11, which was, accordingto the excavator,later "troddenin" and used as an occupationfloor in the succeedingphase. The deposit outside and against Round House 0 is much thickeron the "northern"side of the structureand here revealsa series of alternatingsoil (Layers18, 16, and 14) and ash (Layers18a, 17, and 15) deposits, some of which could have served as occupationsurfaces.As in the case with the deposits within Round House 0, the sequenceoutside the structureis cappedby ash Layer11 of the succeedinglevel, which was traceableacrossthe entire sounding,sealingbelow it the remainsof Round House 0 as well as the top of Wall M, which must have remainedvisible duringmuch of the history of the Round House. Level IV Layer 11, the thin but extensive ash deposit that covers the entire sounding, represents the absoluteend of RoundHouse 0 (figs. 10, 12). Althoughit is interpretedby Mellaartas the lowest floor of Level IV, there is no known architectureassociatedwith this surface,and contemporarybuildings,if they ever existed, must lie outside the excavatedarea.Above the ashy Layer11 is a deposit of brown earth (Layer10) upon which is superimposeda thin screeof gravel (Layer9), which might possiblybe the ephemeral remainsof an occupationsurface.Above Layer9 is a second earth deposit, Layer8, apparentlysimilar to Layer10. Associatedwith Layer8 is the enigmatic"WallK" visible in Section C-D. From the drawing, Wall K seems to be an "east-west"wall one row wide and (possibly) preserved to a height of two courses above the gravel "floor"of Layer9, but there is insufficient informationto be more certainor specific.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

39

Other layerswere also includedby Mellaartin his LevelIV: Layer7, possiblya gravelfloor similar to Layer9;2 Layer6, a hard,buff soil layer;and Layer7a, a localizedashy deposit in the centerof the sounding.The first two of these layershave much in common with the other strataof Level IV, but Layer7a is especiallyproblematic.The locationof this patch of ash, directlybelow the hearth of the LevelV building,suggeststhat Layer7a was in some way associatedwith the later installation,but the stratigraphicconnectionbetween the two remains ambiguous. Level V Level V, consistingof five layersand their subdivisions,was separatedby the excavatorinto two major sub-phases(figs. 11, 12): Level Va, lower, with considerablearchitectureunited by a stamped clay floor (Layer5) with its make-up (Layers5a and 5b-not indicatedon section drawings) and deposit (Layer4); and Level Vb, upper, consisting of a second clay floor (Layer3a) and deposits between it and the topsoil (Layer1). Level Va. The architectureof LevelVa can be discussedmost convenientlyin three groups (fig. 11): a centralunit consistingof Walls D, E, and K; a southernunit comprisedof walls F, G, H, and I; and an eastern unit that includesWalls B and C. The centralunit is comprisedof a seriesof walls (especiallyD and E) that produceda rectangular element with its long axis oriented approximatelynortheast, with a shallow (ca. 0.75 x 1.20 m) "annex"on the south containinga rectilinearsherd-linedhearthwith a small hole or pit south of it.3 The locationof the entranceto the main (ca. 2.0 x 4.10 m) room of this complex is unknown,but it was possibly positioned in the gap in the wall indicatedby Mellaarton the plan, to the west of the A-B Section Line (see arrow).4At any rate, the hearth appearsto be less relatedto the rectangular room than to the open courtyardand the architecturalunit to the south. The southernunit (WallsF, G, H, and I) in great part mirrorsthe plan of the adjacentcentral unit, with the exception that the large rectangularroom of the latter appearsto be dividedinto two smaller rooms (by Wall H). There is no evidencefor a hearthin the southernunit, and the placement of the doorwayscan only be hypothesized. The similaritiesin orientationand plan between the centraland southernunits, as well as the probabilitythat the clayfloor (Layer5) indicatedin both sections"south"of Wall F coveredthe open area between Walls E and G, suggest that this in fact is a single architecturalcomplex. The easternunit is representedby a single well-definedstone wall (WallB) excavatedto a length of ca. 3.0 m and describedas having been built of boulder-sizestones, without a foundationtrench.At the time of excavationit was preservedto a height of fourcourses.To the east of WallB are the scant tracesof WallC, recordedsimply as the "fragmentaryremainsof a poor wall."The relationshipof this wall to the better preservedWall D is not clear from the plan and is confusedby the section (C-D), where two walls, both evidentlyfoundedat a lower level (than B), are shown to the north of Wall B. Plaster and what appearsto be (part of ?) a secondhearthare also noted on the plan to the north of the wall, but more cannot be said with certainty.That the Wall B structureshould be consideredan integralpart of the architectural complexto the west can be demonstrateoby the fact that the stamped floor connects Walls B and D. clay (Layer5) The problematicpoints regardingthe relationshipof WallsB throughI, which can be seen in the section drawings,shouldbe noted.WallsB, D, E, and F are all directlyassociatedwith the clayfloor of Layer5, built (without foundationtrenches)5directlyon Layer6 (or its equivalent)6of the preceding Level IV. The clay Layer5 would then represent an intentionaldeposition of a standardizedfloor, which, as noted above, seems to integratethe variousarchitecturalelements of this phase. It is not

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

40

B I

N

*

POST4 OL I :T.' `>, . _/

A ':

I_

K

4EArRTH

,. -';7

r

A

0I

2 1.

3 ..

4 I

M.

Fig. 11. Tell esh-Shuneh(North). Plan of the largebuildingfrom Level V in TrenchII. (J.Mellaartand A. Leonard,Jr.).

41

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

I-

0CF z co

0\ 0 0 ?s 0

0 ..,

0 0 0

0

fj 0 o 0

0 *I

0 Es

0

.^) 0 0 0 00 0

I x

'-S

0

0i *0

I_

0I (Nj

E

42

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

clear,however,whetherLayers6, 5a, and 5b (5a and 5b do not appearin the sectiondrawings)should be consideredtogetheras a single stratigraphicunit, with localizedvariations(i.e., a filling operation) carriedout by the Level V buildersin order to achievesuch a remarkablylevel floor.7 The second majorproblemwith the architectureof this phase is the apparentcoincidenceof the LevelV hearthbeing built almostexactlyabovethe earlierlevel IV ash lens (Layer7a). It seems better to associatethe Layer7a ash lens with the laterphase,but a definiteattributioncannotbe made at this time.

Level Vb. Level Vb, the upper subdivisionof Level V, is characterizedby a second clay floor (Layer3a), which againappearsto covermost of the excavatedarea.SectionA-B indicatesthat at least WallsB and D of the earliercomplexwere utilizedin this secondphase,but WallE had definitelygone out of use by this phase, since Layer4, consideredby Mellaartto be "occupationaldebris,"entirely covers its remains.The subdivisionof this debris into Layer4a and 4b (SectionA-B) is not easy to understand.That these layersappearimmediatelyto the south of Wall D may indicatelater digging that resultedin the rediscoveryand reutilizationof Wall D by capping it with a mudbrickwall, as is apparentin SectionA-B. In additionto the incorporationat this time of the earlierWallD, a bolsteringof WallB seems to have taken place by the buildingof a narrower(ca. 0.20 m wide) wall againstat least a portion of its southernface (cf. plan and SectionA-B). Unfortunately,we cannotcommentfurtheron the natureof the plan of the Level Vb buildingof which the reused Wall D and the strengthenedWall B were elements.The demise of the structure,however,can be seen in the debris(Layer3) that accumulated on and finallycoveredthe Layer3a floor andthe remainsof its architecture. In additionto the two majorsubdivisionsof this phase (Va and Vb), resumedbuildingactivityon the site is evidencedby Wall A with a "posthole"(LayerIa) nearbyto the east (fig. 11). This angle of walling differs dramaticallyin orientationfrom the precedingstructures,and in fact its foundation trenchis said to have cut into Layer3 debristhat coveredthe laterphase of that construction.No floor was found associatedwith this wall, but the ceramicssuggestedto Mellaarta date for the structure within the parametersof the Level V horizon.Mudplasterfragmentsin a matrixof soft brown earth (Layer2) were seen as evidenceof the structure'sdisintegration,afterwhich the whole was coveredby surfacesoil (Layer1).

The CeramicAssemblage The ceramicartifactsfrom Mellaart'sexcavationsat Tell esh-Shunehare presentedhere according to the four periods/levels (II-V) into which the excavatorsubdividedthe resultsof his soundings.In the terminologyof the early 1950s they are: PeriodII, LateChalcolithic;PeriodIII,EB Ib; PeriodIV, EB II; and Period V, EB III. The "MiddleChalcolithic"Period I, identifiedby de Contenson in his soundingat the site (de Contenson1960a:13-20), was not encounteredby Mellaartat Tell esh-Shuneh. Period/Level II The Period II assemblageconsists of both open and closed forms in a variety of shapes and surfacetreatments. Small Bowls. Small thin-walledbowls or cups appearin two types:those with a hemispherical shape (pl. 8:16) and those whose profilesexhibit a slight carinationin the upper body wall (pl. 8:14, 15). The shape of the former,with a red wash on the interiorthat continuesover the lip to present a horizontalband at the exterior rim, can be easily paralleledin the Proto-Urbantomb materialfrom

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

43

Jericho,but the absenceof the lower portion of the vessel makes it difficultto assign it to a specific position within Kenyon's type-seriesof the form.8PI. 8:14 and 15, both decoratedwith a red wash, exhibit an incipientcarinationsimilarto that found on Hennessy'sProto-Urbanbowl type VI, which first appears on the Jericho tell in Phase Oi (Hennessy 1967: 8, pi. 11:6),but which seems to be unrepresentedin the contemporaryJerichotombs.Other "early"examplesof this type can be foundat Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1948: fig. 6:13; 1961: fig. 3:35, 38), but the type does continueinto the fully urbanizedphases of the EarlyBronzeAge.9 LargerBowls. Three of the larger bowls present relativelystraight-sidedprofiles (pl. 8:8, 12, 17). All three are of a buff fabric,varyingportionsof which have been treatedwith a red wash. Both hand- and wheel-manufactureare evidenced.The exterioredges of the rims of pl. 8:8 and 12 have been slightly "flattened,"giving the impression of a very slight carination.This may have been accidentalor done in imitationof formssuch as pl. 8:14, 15.10 PI. 8:11, of a buff fabriccoveredwith a dull blackwash, displaysa stronglyin-curvedrim that occursfrequentlyin Kenyon's Proto-Urbantype-seriesof bowls from the Jerichotombs. The shape can also be paralleledon the tell at Jerichoby Hennessy'scontemporarybowl type III and is common at Tell Farcah(N).11 Four wheel-madevessels (pl. 8:9, 10, 18, 19), predominantlyof a buff fabricwith a red or black wash,12share a sharplyinvertedrim. Rims of this type, which enjoya sustainedpopularitythroughout the EarlyBronzeAge, appearin Proto-Urbandepositson the Jerichotell on both shallow and deeper bowls (Hennessy 1967: 8, pl. 11:7[type VII]; 11:12[type XII]). The deepest of these is relatedby Hennessy to bowls of Kenyon'stype-seriesfrom the Jerichotombs and,judgingfrom the stances,it is to this class that the Tell esh-Shuneh fragmentsshould be assigned.These vessels, which may be forerunnersof (or variati oson) the more standard"platter,"are known from a numberof sites in contexts comparablein date with the Jerichoexamples.13Chalcolithicantecedentsfor this rim-type may be seen in the Beershebaregion (de Contenson1956:fig. 8:15, 16). Holemouth Bowls. Fourfragments(pls. 8:13, 21, 22 and 9:4) represent"holemouthbowls,"i.e., to those on holemouth jars,but on more open forms. All are describedas they display rims simrnilar wheel-made.Pls. 8:22 and 9:4 are said by the excavatorto have been decoratedin the "grain-wash" ("band-slip")technique,a style that has been consideredfor almost half a centuryto be a diagnostic featureof the "NorthernCulture"of Palestineduringthe EB I (Proto-Urban)period.14PI. 8:13 bears (a band of?) slashes below the exterior of the rim, while pl. 8:21 combines these two types of decorativetreatment.15 SpoutedBowls. A wheel-madebowl with incurvingprofile (pl. 9:1) displaysa short cylindrical spout high on the vessel wall. The exteriorof the rim of this spoutedbowl has been given a horizontal bandof diagonalslashesbefore its red surfacewas coveredwith a buffwash and subsequentlypainted with a linear design in red. Spoutedbowls and jars have a Chalcolithicheritage(de Contenson1956: figs. 3:7, 8; 4:1-3; 8:6, 19, etc.), but linearpainting in this manneron a light-coloredgroundis more indicativeof the "line-group" or "band-painted" decorationof the Proto-UrbanB/EB IB period.16 Holemouthjars. Six fragmentscome from vessels sufficientlyclosed to be termed holemouth jars ratherthan bowls (pls. 8:20; 9:11-14, 11:15).These jars are predominantlywheel-made,and the majority(pls. 9:11-14, 11:15) are decoratedwith a horizontalband of slashes at, or more frequently just below, the rim, a type of decorationthat is quite popularon holemouthjars at sites on the East Bank of the JordanRiver.'7PI. 9:12 exhibits the combinationof "grain-wash"over slashes that we

44

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

have seen to be ratherspecific to Tell esh-Shuneh (N). PI. 9:13, 14 are describedby the excavator as being of a "cracklyware," which might relate these pieces to similarly describedpieces from KhirbetKerak. Morphologically,the jars with slashed decoration(pls. 9:11-14; 11:15) and the closely related holemouthbowls discussedabovefind theirclosestand most frequentparallelseast of the Jordan(cf. n. 17). The thickenedrim of pl. 8:20 is known from de Contenson'ssoundingat the site, 'Affula,and possibly'Ai.18 Everted-RimJars. The materialfrom Mellaart'sPeriodII depositsalso containeda largenumber of jarswith short rims evertedto varyingdegrees (9:7-10, 15-19). Buff fabricsand wheel-manufacture categorizethis group,which exhibitsrims that are everted,slightlythickened,and flattenedon the top (pl. 9:8, 9, 15, 19), and also rims that present a "wavy"profileforminga shallowchannelthat perhaps functionedas a lid-device (pl. 9:10, 16, 17, 18).19Decorationconsists of plain red, brown, or black washes (pl. 9:10, 16-19); a brownwash appliedover a bandof small punctates(pl. 9:9); and the more elaborate"grain-wash" (pl. 9:8, 15), whichprobablyindicatesan EB I datefor these pieces. PI. 9:25 is includedhere for the sake of convenience.The exteriorof its thick,rolledrim has been emphasizedwith a horizontalband of impressions,and the vessel itself has been decoratedwith a red-brown"washypaint"in a mannerdescribedby the excavatoras "northernpainted."Althoughthe origin of this jar type may be seen in a thinner-rimmedversion from Hennessy's Proto-Urban sequenceon the Jericho tell (Hennessy 1962: 8, pl. 11:13),more specificparallelsfor the Tell eshShunehpiece are foundin EB I contexts.20 Juglets. The base fragmentin the composite reconstructionof pl. 9:21 presents an (evidently) string-cutbase.Jugletscoveredwith a red wash are well known from Kenyon'sProto-Urbantombs at Jericho,but with the possibleexceptionof her type D.1 ("flat,sharp-cutbase")this fragmentdoes not fit easily into her type series of the form (Kenyon 1960: 13-16; 1965:7, 8). Rims and upper bodiesof two similarvessels (pl. 9:5, 6) displaythe same buff fabricand red wash.The highlyburnishedsurface of pl. 9:6 links this piece more with the jugletsfrom Tell Far'ah (N) than those fromJericho,where burnishingis less frequentlydocumented(Kenyon 1960:5). Three rim fragmentswith partialhandles attached(pl. 9:23-25) shouldalso be placedhere. Miscellaneous. Fourfragmentsare includedunderthis generalheading.PI. 8:7 is from a small, open form (cup?) with (single?) loop handle attachmentat the rim. The angle of the handle distinguishes the vessel from the series of jugletsdiscussedabove,but the slashes on its plain, buff surface may relatethe piece to the holemouthbowlspresentedearlier.2' Two body fragments (pl. 9:2, 3) display vertical stripes in red paint and should probablybe associatedwith the "line-group"(or "band-painted") decorationof EB IB. A single fragmentin a grayburnished/blackfabricthat seems to be EsdraelonWare(pl. 9:20) can be paralleled with "knobbed"vessels in that fabric assigned to Period III Layer 15 (see below, pl. 8:1, 2). Period/LevelIII (RoundHouse 0) The majorityof vessels from Mellaart'sPeriodIII at Tell esh-Shunehconsistsof open forms. CarinatedBowls. The most numerousvessel type in the Period III assemblageis a small bowl with carinatedprofile (pl. 10:1-4, 6-9, 12-14). The degreeof carinationvariesfrom the slight bend in the vessel wall of pl. 10:14to the more sharplydefinedkeels of pl. 10:7,8, etc. All eleven examplesare wheel-madeof a buff fabric.The color of the wash is almost equallydividedbetween red and brown,

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

45

with one bowl displaying a color between the two. Five of these vessels exhibit string-cut bases (pI. 10:4,6, 7, 9, 13) while pl. 10:8 is said to have a "potter'smark."Two of these bowls (pl. 10:8, 13) are describedas havinglime concretions;if these concretionsare on the interior,they may indicatethe functionthat the bowls had served before they were sealed in this deposit. If the lime deposits also were on the exterior,they may suggestthat the bowls were in a refusecontext. Carinatedbowls from Proto-Urbanand EB I contextson the Jerichotell displaya concavityabove the point of carinationthat is absentin the Tell esh-Shunehbowls.Unfortunately,carinatedforms are the exception among the plethora of small bowls from the contemporaryJericho tombs, although some similaritieswith the Shunehpieces can be seen in the EB III (KhirbetKerak)Tomb D12. This suggests a potentiallylong chronologicalrange for these bowls, since some affinitiescan also be found with Chalcolithicforms as well as with vessels from Early Bronze contexts prior to JerichoTomb D12.22

PI. 10:1exhibitsa certaindegreeof verticalityabovethe base,which is intriguinglyreminiscentof the small silver bowl from Tomb 12 at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1951:587, 589, fig. 13:1;pl. XXVIIa, with a ceramicparallel,fig. 13:2,attributedto JerichoLevelV ["EBI"]). Bowls with IncurvedRim. Four vessels from the Period III deposit exhibit rims that are invertedor in-curvedto varyingdegrees (pl. 10:23, 25, 26, 28). All are wheel-madeof a buff, gritty fabric,as are vessels of similarform in PeriodII levels (pl. 8:11, 18, 19). Most are coveredwith black wash,which furtherassociatesthem with the PeriodII pieces. PI. 10:25 displaysa very slight curveat the tip of the rim. Althoughits base is missing,this rim type can be comparedwith some of the bowls in Kenyon'sProto-Urbantype series from the Jericho tombs. Most similarto the Shunehpieces is round-basedB.2.a (Kenyon 1960: 11, esp. fig. 11:7,from Tomb A94). PI. 10:24admittedlydoes appearto be deeperthan most of the bowls from this sequence. The rims of pl. 10:23,28 are more sharplyincurving.PI. 10:23,which forms the morphological transitionto the other two bowls, is similar to pl. 8:11 from Period II and can also be paralleledin Proto-Urbancontextsat Jericho.PI. 10:28,of similarprofile,comes from a vessel that is an essentially deepervariantof manyof the shallowbowls of Kenyon'sProto-Urbantomb series (Kenyon 1960: 11, fig. 9:3, 5). This deeper form is known in roughly contemporarydeposits at several other SyroPalestiniansites.23 The rim of pl. 10:26 is more sharplyin-turnedthan the examplesof relatedvessels in PeriodII (pl. 8:9, 10, 18, 19), for which Proto-Urban/EBI comparisonshave been cited above,and parallelsfor the present piece are also to be found in many of the referencedcontexts.24The form and its matteblackwash, however,still seem to anticipatethe main line of the "platter"form that is sucha hallmark of the fullyurbanizedEarlyBronzeAge. EsdraelonWareBowls. Five bowls were identifiedby the excavatoras EsdraelonWare(pl. 8:14, 6). The originaldrawingsidentifythe provenienceof these vessels as "1.15?," but since de Contenson (not Mellaart)dug TrenchI, they are interpretedhere as coming from Trench II, Layer15, a context assignedto Period IIIby the excavator.Another fragmentof EsdraelonWare,pl. 9:20, is said to come from basal Layer 19, while pl. 8:5 was found on the surface.They are all grouped together in this sectionwith vessels of like fabric.Three (pls. 8:1, 2; 9:20) are similarto the "type1"vessels of Wright and other authorsdiscussedbelow with similarshapes from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(pl. 24:5, etc.). Both de Contenson (1960a: 21, fig. 9:1, 2) and Gustavson-Gaube(1985: 52, fig. 15:75a-c) encounteredthe shape in their respectiveexcavationsat this site. PI. 8:4 may possiblyhave come from one of the less ornate "type 3" bowls, also attested at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (see below). PI. 8:5, with its thin line of carination,is not easilyplacedwithin the establishedEsdraelonWareseries,

46

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

but might be relatedto a ridgedvariantof similarfabricknown at Meser (Dothan 1957: 221, fig. 2:1) and 'En Shadud(Braun1985:fig. 19:3,5). PI. 8:3, if correctlyreconstructedby the excavatoras having an outsplayed,flaringrim (of a jar?),wouldbe unique.25 Jars with EvertedRims. Three necklessjars present short, sharplyeverted rims (pl. 10:5, 11, Where described,they are wheel-madeof a buff fabricand coveredwith a reddishwash/slip that 21). fired blackon the exteriorof pl. 10:5 and was appliedin the "grain-wash"("band-slip")manneron the largerpl. 10:21.Although their profilesare not as extreme as some of the everted-rimjars from the PeriodII deposits,they are of the same genre, and the presenceof "grain-wash" decorationin both groups (PeriodII-pL 9:8; Period III-pl. 10:21) supportsthe analogy.PI. 9:7, with a simple everted rim, is decoratedwith red paint applied directlyto the buff fabric.The form can be paralleledin Kenyon's EB I phases of the Jericho tell, and the painted decorationcomplementssuch a date (see n. 19, above). HolemouthJars. The upper portionof a large holemouthjar was foundon the floor of Round House 0 (pl. 10:22). Wheel-made of a buff fabric,it has been coveredwith a reddishwash in the "band-slip"technique.Its roundedrim, with exterior ridge below, can be closely paralleledat Beth Shan,cAi,and cAffula.26 One HandledJuglets. Pls. 9:22 and 10:17-19are obviouslyone-handledjuglets.Two are described the excavatoras hand-made(pls. 9:22, 10:18) and two as wheel-made(pl. 10:17, 19) of a buff clay. by The surfaceof pl. 10:19 has been left plain, while pl. 10:17, 18 is coveredwith a red slip/wash, which in the cases of pls. 9:22 and 10:18 has been burnished.Two of the jugletspresent string-cutbases (pl. 10:18,19), as does pl. 9:21 from PeriodII. Although varying in size, all four juglets share a short, slightly everted rim above an inverseconicalupperbodyand,where preserved,a moderatelyhigh loop-handleand flat base.Sucha combination should suggest inclusionin types C..a or D.3.a of Kenyon'sProto-Urbanseries of juglets from the Jerichotombs (Kenyon 1960: 15, 16, from Tombs A94 and A114). The conicalprojectionor knob on the bodyof pl. 10:19 is in line with other forms of plasticdecorationon jugletsfrom Proto-Urban funerarycontextsatJericho.27 Spouted Vessels. Fragmentsof two tubular-spoutedvessels are present in the Period III assemblage (pi. 10:16,20). Both are describedas hand-madeof a gritty,buff fabricand coveredwith a red wash. The shape of the spout of pl. 10:20and its placementjust abovethe point of carinationof a vessel with biconicalprofile are morphologicallyclosest to a fragmentexcavatedby Mellaartat Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (pl. 29:13) discussedbelow, where parallelsat Tell Farcah (N) and Beth Shan are noted.PI. 10:16appearsto be from a similarvessel,but one with a softerprofile. Miscellaneous. Three ledge handlesmake up the miscellaneousmaterialfrom Mellaart'sPeriod III deposits (pl. 12:28,31, 32). They are all relativelyplain and appearto be morphologicallynondiagnostic,with the exceptionof the "potter'smark"on pl. 12:28. Period/Level IV Thirty-two fragments were registeredand drawn from deposits assigned by Mellaart to his PeriodIV. Small Bowls. This ratherarbitrarygroupingconsists of small, open forms within which three morphologicaldistinctionscan be observed:pl. 11:3,with evertedrim;pl. 11:2,with sharplyin-turned rim; and pls. 10:24, 27 and 11:4, 5, 17, with more roundedprofile. All, however, share their size,

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

47

wheel-made manufacture,and a (predominantlygritty) buff fabric.A red or brown wash has been appliedto all exceptpl. 11:3. Pl. 11:3 exhibits a concave string-cutbase and, accordingto the excavator,wheel markson the exteriorof the vessel indicativeof manufactureon a fast wheel. The use of the fast wheel makes this piece exceptionalin the present context,for althoughthe use of the wheel is attestedon bowls from the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho,it is confined to the rims, the bodies being handmade28and the bases plain.29The use of the wheel is not mentioned in the descriptionof the open forms from the transitionalJerichoTomb A108 (Kenyon 1960:83,fig. 23:1-7), but wheel-formedrims occurin Tomb A127 (Kenyon 1960:87, fig. 25:1-8). In fact,althoughwheel-madebodiesare documentedin the Early ri Bronze AgeAge F-se cho (Kenyon 1960: inter alia,Tomb F4, fig. 43:13, 15, 27, etc.), it is in and the disturbed only confusingTomb D12 (which containsKhirbetKerakWare) that one finds string-cutbases;and this techniqueis foundexclusivelyin Kenyon'sEarlyBronzebowl types L, M, 0, and P (Kenyon 1960:98, 109-11, 120). Unfortunately,Kenyondoes not utilizethe string-cutbase as a diagnosticcriterionin formulatingher type series,but she does considerthese types to be late in the sin EarlyBronzeAge sequence, especialy light of the overwhelmingpredominanceof her Type L bowls in Garstang'sJerichoTomb 351 (Kenyon 1960:80 and references). PI. 11:2presentsa profilesimilarto vessels alreadydiscussedfrom PeriodsII (pl. 8:11) and III (pI. 10:23),for which Proto-Urbanparallelshave been cited.Of the three bowls with roundedprofiles,pls. 10:24 and 11:17, with very slightly in-turnedrims, might be comparedwith a similar vessel from a PeriodIIIdeposit (pl. 10:25),while pls. 10:27and 11:5,exhibitinga more in-curvedprofile,are related to two differentvessel types from both PeriodII (pl. 8:11) and PeriodIII (pl. 10:28).In profile,pl. 11:4 couldbe considereda miniatureversion of the holemouthbowls that have been discussedabovewith the PariodII material(pl. 9:4). Larger Bowls with Flattened Rims. Five rim fragments come from larger bowls sharing a slightly thickenedand horizontallyflattenedrim that projectsslightly into the interiorof the vessel (pl. 11:1, 18-21). These vessels readilyseparatethemselvesinto two subgroups:the more rectangular profiledpl. 11:18-21, and the curvilinearpl. 11:1.Where described,these vessels are wheel-madeof a buff/brown,gritty fabric,and while each vessel has been given a coatingof slip or wash the distinctive "grain-wash"("band-slip")techniquepredominates(pi. 11:18,20, 21). The key to the group of rectangular-profiled bowls is pI. 11:21, which can be comparedwith Hennessy's EB I bowl with "horizontalrim projectinginwards,"a form closely akin to his "hammer rims"that firstappearon the Jerichotell in Phase L.30Bowls with similarly"in-turned"rims appearin the pre-urbanPhase II of the cAiSanctuary(Callaway1972:65, fig. 16:24) and the firsturbanstratum (IV) at Arad (Amiran 1978: 42, pi. 8:2). This internalprojection,however,becomesmore attenuated in EB II and III,emphasizingthe earlyform of the Tell esh-Shunehpiece.The fact that pl. 11:21,with its embryonicinternalprojection,is decoratedin the "grain-wash"techniquealso indicatesan early date, and the less extreme (or less developed)pl. 11:18,20, also decoratedwith "grain-wash,"should follow suit. The morphologicallysimilar pl. 11:19, with a "polishedself-slip," can be considered contemporary,as well as pl. 11:1,with its more curvilinearprofileand plain red wash. Holemouth Bowls. Five vessels present plain or simple rims similar to those found on holemouth jars,but on more open forms.All of these bowls are wheel-madeof a buff,grittyfabric.PI 11:6, 12, 14, and 23 are decoratedin "grain-wash"("band-slip")manner. PI. 11:12 combines a band of slasheswith the "grain-wash," a decorativecombinationthat also appearson PeriodII vessels (pls. 8:21, a treatment considered 9:12), specificto Tell esh-Shuneh(N).

48

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

PI. 11:14, 23 share the simple rim of similarlydecoratedPeriod II vessels (pl. 8:21, 22), while pl. 11:22 has a horizontallyflattenedrim that is also reminiscentof Period II forms (pls. 8:13, 9:4). PI. 11:12 is probablyrelatedto this lattergroup. Pl. 11:6 is essentiallya largerversion of pl. 11:5 (cf. Glueck 1951: 427, pl. 120:1, from el-Fakhar[98], dated "EB";and Braun 1985: fig. 14:9, 14, Pottery Type 1, from cEnShadud). Holemouth Jars. Three rims come from vessels sufficientlyclosed in form to warrantconsiderationas holemouthjars ratherthan bowls (pl. 11:9, 11, 13). All are wheel-madeof a buff fabric with plain surfaces,exceptfor pl. 11:9,which is coveredwith a red-brownwash. PI. 11:10, 13 present simple, roundedrims. On the former piece a small pellet of clay has (apparently)been addedto the bodyof the vessel just below the rim, in a position often markedby an impressedcordon on jars of this type.31PI. 11:9 can be associatedwith a rim from de Contenson's soundingat Tell esh-Shuneh(de Contenson1960a:22, fig. 11:1,LevelII), while pl. 11:15 is similarin profileto a groupof PeriodII holemouthjarswith similarslasheddecoration(pl. 9: especially11, 14). EvertedRim Jars. The PeriodIV assemblagealso includestwo markedlydifferentvessels, both of which exhibit everted rims (pl. 11:16, 24). Handmadepl. 11:16 of a buff fabric,from Mellaart's vessel from de Contenson'ssoundingat excavations,can be comparedin form to a "gray-burnished" the site (de Contenson1960a:21, fig. 94). In generalappearance,fabric,and "grain-wash" decoration, pl. 11:24 resemblesa jar from the Round House deposit of Period III, but the slightly everted and horizontallyflattenedrim of the vessel is even more closelyrelatedto the everted-rimjarsof PeriodII (especiallypl. 9:7, 8, 15), some of which are also decoratedin the "grain-wash" technique. NeckedJars. Two jarspresent simple necks that are the resultof the bodyof the vessel having been pulled up almost to (pl. 12:1), or slightlypast (pl. 12:5), the vertical.Both are wheel-madeof a buff fabricand decoratedwith a red or brown slip, which in the case of pl. 12:1 has been appliedto a polishedcreamsurfacein roughlyhorizontalbands.Althougha Chalcolithicancestryis evident for the general form (de Contenson1956: figs. 4:13, 15; 6:4, etc.), EarlyBronzeexamplesof both types were excavatedat the site by de Contenson.32 P1. 12:2, 6, both wheel-made of a buff fabric,possess a short neck that terminatesin a slightly outsplayedrim. PI. 12:2 has been given a brown wash, and the exteriorof the rim appearsto carrya shallow groove. The surfaceof pl. 12:6, however, is plain, with a horizontalband of "fingernail" impressionsmarkingthe shoulderof the vessel.33Althoughthese two pieces are morphologicallyquite close, the internalprofileof pl. 12:6exhibitsa slight verticalitythat will be met with againin PeriodV (pl. 12:8).34

PI. 12:3,which displaysa burnishedred slip, also exhibitsa "rolled"rim that has been foldedover and down, but not completelyagainstthe vessel wall. This jar may be relatedto a type that appearsat 'Ai in Phase II,Tell Far'ah (N) in AncienBronzeI, and at Beth Shan in LevelXIII.35 Jug/juglet. Three rim fragments(pls. 10:10, 11:7, 8) exhibit a red wash over a buff fabricand are tentativelyidentifiedhere as jugs or jugletsbecauseof their relativelynarrowapertures.Pls. 10:10 and 11:8 have a very short, slightly outsplayedrim such as seen on vessels of similar size in EB II deposits at Arad,while that of pI. 11:7 is much more elongated.The handledoes not rise above the rim of pl. 11:7, as it does on the many vessels of this type in the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho (Kenyon 1960: figs. 12, etc. [Tomb A94], 18 [Tomb A1 14]), and the betterparallelsare found in the laterEarlyBronzetombsD12 and F2. Similarjugs from Aradhave a muchhigherhandle. The fragmentof the "stumpbase"jug with burnishedred slip (pl. 12:4) is much too small to permit chronologicallyvalidcomparisons.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

49

Miscellaneous. PI. 12:7 is a fragmentof a base from a vessel of unknowndiameter.A white slip had been appliedto the vessel before the painteddecoration,a practiceencounteredat cAi,Arad,and elsewhere (cf., inter alia, Ai: Callaway1972: figs. 33:19-27 [Phase III],42:30-35 [StratumIV], 46:13, 57:6 [Phase V], 66:10-13, 15, 16 [Phase VI], and Callaway1980: fig. 123:22 [Phase VII]; Arad: Amiran 1978:pls. 11:12-14, 16 [StratumIV], 33:15 [StratumII]). A single example of a roughlycylindricalhandle completes the ceramiccorpusfrom Period IV deposits (pl. 10:15).It is of buff fabric,coveredwith a red-brownwash, and the tip has been pierced for suspension.Although it couldbe identifiedas the handleof a spoon/ladle akin to those found in Chalcolithicassemblages,similarlypierced handles are present, though not common, in Megiddo "Stages"VI-V, where they are consideredto be from open bowls (Engbergand Shipton 1934: 10 and chart:handletype C). Period/Level V Excavationsin PeriodV strataproduceda large collectionof ceramicartifactsin which the vast majoritywere made of the distinctiveKhirbetKerakWare,and the slight minoritywere executedin "local"fabric(s). Non-Khirbet Kerak Ware. Nineteen fragments comprise that part of the assemblagethat was not identifiedas Khirbet Kerak Ware by the excavator.They includebowls, neckedjars, and holemouth jars. Bowls. The six bowls of local fabricdrawnby Mellaartexhibit rims that are in-turnedto some degree (pl. 12:16-21). Similarvessels from PeriodIV depositsat this site have been discussedabove. with in-turnedor invertedrims appearthroughout Althoughplatters,bowls, and "platter-bowls" the entire Early Bronze Age (Amiran 1970a: 41-77 passim), both Hennessy and Kenyon note a transition from taller, thinner rims in EB I to profiles closer to pl. 12:16 during EB II at Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 19). Similar rims are known from EB II contexts at Gezer and in the Kinnereth tomb, as well as in later (EB III) deposits at Jericho,'Ai, and Rosh Hanniqra.36With the possible exceptionof pl. 12:17,none of the Shunehpieces exhibitsthe concavityof the exteriorvessel wall that is commonlyfoundbelow the rim of many EB III platterbowls,37but vessels similarto pl. 12:17 are stratigraphicallyassociatedwith such distinctive forms at cAi and Arad and with earlier (EB II) materialat Gezer.38PI. 12:19 can be paralleledat cAi in both EB II and EB III contexts,39while the form of pl. 12:20,where the tip of the rim is just beginning to emerge as an independentmorphological element, appearsin contemporarydeposits at that site and possiblyalso at Gezer and Arad.40 PI. 12:21 is similarboth to Kenyon's type D.4.a from the Jerichotombs (Kenyon 1960: 87, fig. 25:5, Tomb A127) and to a form that Callawaysees appearingat cAi in Phase V (EB IIB) (Callaway1972: 196, fig. 45:7). PI. 12:18 is difficultto parallel,but if drawn with a more open stance it could be associatedwith EB Il forms from 'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 73:4 [Phase VIII]; Callaway1980: fig. 108:25,26 [Phase VI], fig. 129:15,18 [Phase VII]). All of the Shunehpieces are simplycoveredwith a wash or slip that has at the most been smoothedor polished.None exhibitsthe pattern-burnishthat is so distinctive,especiallyon EB III vessels of similar form, but the lack of this decorativetreatment should not be considereda valid chronologicalindicator,since both plain and elaboratelyburnished vessels often appearin the same contexts.41 Neckedjars. Of the six neckedjars from PeriodV strata,pi. 12:10 is the simplest,exhibitinga short neck that is the resultof pulling the rim up slightlypast the vertical,as has been seen previously on PeriodIV jars(pls. 11:16,12:5).The neckof pl. 12:11is higher and presentsa concaveprofilewith

50

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

a rim that, to judgefrom the fielddrawings,has been paredor beveled,as have some jarsfrom 'Ai and to pl. 12:8,with a verticalneck that is foundon possiblyArad.42PI. 12:9, 12 seem to be transitional43 another Period IV vessel (pl. 12:6), a shape that appearsthroughoutthe EarlyBronze Age at Ai.44 The "band-slip"decorationof this piece appearsto be more common with similarlydecoratedvessels in Period IV deposits, but it should be noted that at 'Ai jar necks are still being decoratedwith punctates and incisions (as pl. 12:9, 12 and the Period IV pl. 12:6) well into the EB III period (Callaway1972:fig. 74:2 [PhaseVIII];andCallaway1980:fig. 139:21,26 [PhaseVII]). The neck of a large jar with elaborately"sculpted"rim (pl. 12:13) finds numerousparallelsin MetallicWareand other fabricsat a numberof sites, includingTell Yarmouth,Arad,Rosh Hanniqra, cAi,and KhirbetKerak.45 Holemouthjars. Of the holemouth jars, pl. 12:22 is describedby the excavatoras being of a fabric,while the remainder(pl. 12:23-27) are said to be made of a buff,gritty ware, "gray-burnished" the surfacesof which were left plain, with the exception of pl. 12:23, which showed tracesof once having been covered with a red wash, and pl. 12:27, which has been given a horizontalband of incision.Morphologically,they can be subdividedinto three groups:those with simple, taperingrims (pI. 12:23,25); those with "squared"rims (pl. 12:22,24, 26); and those with a horizontallyflattened rim (pl. 12:27). The first subgrouprepresents a simple form that is common throughout,but not restrictedto, the EarlyBronze Age.46The second subgroup(pl. 12:22, 24, 26) is only slightly more diagnostic.The Tell esh-Shunehforms are nearerto the plain (unswollen),flattenedrims that appear on theJerichotell in Phase L (EB I) and continueto Phase D (EB IIIA) (Hennessy1967: 11, pl. IV:30) than to the version that appearsin PhaseC (EB IIIB);in Phase C, althoughthe rim is still squared,the final few centimetersof the interior of the rim have been noticeablythickened.47The last rim, pl. 12:27, is not easy to parallel,but in form and inciseddecorationit is more reminiscentof vessels from some of the lower strataat Shuneh. Holemouth Bowl. PI. 11:11 is a more open form and shouldbe considereda holemouthbowl. Its surface is plain, with the exception of a band(?) of diagonal slashes below the rim, and its horizontallyflattened rim is similar to Period II (pls. 8:13, 9:4) and Period IV (pl. 11:22) pieces discussedabove. The Khirbet Kerak Ware. The most striking feature of the ceramic assemblagefrom Period V depositsat Tell esh-Shunehis the preponderanceof KhirbetKerakWare.This distinctivepotterytype was first noted and describedby Albrightat the type site KhirbetKerakat the southernend of the Sea of Galilee (Albright 1926: 26), and with the equivalent"Red-BlackBurnishedWare"of the CAmuq (Phases H and I) and other contemporarySyrian sites (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 358-68, 398-403, 458-59), has becomean importantdiagnosticfeatureof the EB IIIperiod. Mellaartobserved Althoughmost authorsconsiderKhirbetKerakWareto be a handmadefabric,48 that while the majorityof the vessels in this fabricat Tell esh-Shunehwere handmade,some of the smaller bowls (such as those with flattenedrims) appearedto have been formed on the fast wheel, suggestinga coexistenceof manufacturingtechniquesthat might also have been present atJerichoand in the CAmuq.49

The Khirbet Kerak Ware from Tell esh-Shunehis arrangedhere in groups determinedby the morphologicalfeaturesof the individualvessels or sherds. These subdivisionsare not intended to represent an attempt at a true classificationof this fabric but are only a device to facilitate the discussionof this specificassemblage.

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

51

1. Bowlsand cups The majorityof forms in this fabricare bowls and cups and includeshapes that are "classic"to KhirbetKerakWareas well as others, identifiedby the excavatoras KhirbetKerakWare,that appear to be more closelyrelatedto the fabricof the localceramicrepertoire.Only 15 fragmentsof this group were locatedin the Amman Museum(cf. Appendix),and the present authordoes not believe that all of the sherds approximating"local"shapes measureup to the qualityof the sherdsof more standard KhirbetKerakforms. Shallow bowl with plain, roundedrim. Morphologically,the simplest open form is the hemisphericalbowl with plain or roundedrim (pl. 13:11-17),a type that was relativelyfrequentat the type site of KhirbetKerakand also appearsin Red-BlackBurnishedWarein the CAmuq,where it is saidby the excavatorsto have been more common in Phase I than in Phase H. Less preciseparallelscan be foundat Tabarael-Akradin the plainerexamplesof Hood's Type 15, andpossiblyalso at Ras Shamra, 'Affula,Jericho,and 'Ai.50 Shallowbowlwith horizontally-flattened rim. Slightlymorecomplexarebowlswith horizontallyflattened rims (pi. 13:1-10), some of which have been providedwith vertically-piercedlugs applied (horizontally)justbelowthe rim (pl. 15:7,25). While commonat Tell esh-Shuneh,plainbowlswith this rim in KhirbetKerakWaredo not enjoya wide distribution.They occurat Tabarael-Akrad(Type 15) alongside a similar vessel with an unpierced lug51 and in the cAmuq in unpierced and horizontally-

piercedvariants(BraidwoodandBraidwood1960:361, fig. 281:7,8 [PhaseH]). In localfabric,bowls with similarrims appearin EB II PhasesH and G on the Jerichotell. This is essentiallyKenyon'sbowl type D.4.a from theJerichotombs,appearingin TombA127 at the beginning of EB II and in Tomb D12 alongsideKhirbet Kerak Ware.Similarvessels are known from cAi, in associationwith imitationKhirbetKerakWare,and from EB IIIcontextsat Rosh Hanniqra.52 Doubly handles such as those on are also found on in "local" F2 at D12 25 bowls tombs and piercedlug pl. 15:7, Jericho.53 Shallowbowl with in-turnedrim. Three fragments(pls. 13:18, 19; 14:9) representsmall bowls with in-turnedrims that are much shallowerand possess thickervessel walls than Hennessy'sclass of "curvedbowl with in-turnedrim,"which he illustrateswith examples from cAffulaand the 'Amuq (Hennessy 1967:76, pl. LXIII:3,9). The shape is also known at Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:76, fig. 18:1,2). A few parallelsfor the Shunehbowls can,however,be foundamongthe less typicalsherds from the 'Amuqsites.54PI. 14:7,8 seem to form a transitionto two bowls (pls. 13:20,14:6)thatpossess rims that might almostbe termed"beveled."All fourof these vessels are much more representativeof local forms,and none finds readyparallelsin assemblagesof KhirbetKerakWarefrom other sites.55In fact, if the stanceof pi. 14:7 were more open, the resultingshape (with the slight concavitybelow the rim) wouldfit perfectlyinto the localrepertoire.56 The bowls thatexhibitthe "beveled"rim are,in the localfabric(s),essentiallymoreopen variantsof forms that appearon the Jerichotell in Phase J (or possibly L) (Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:56) and assumeprofilesmorecloselyrelatedto the Shunehpiecesin PhaseH (Hennessy1967:12,pl. VI:60,and the Proto-Urbanform on pl. 11:7).Similarvessels are known from occupationalcontexts at cAi, Rosh Hanniqra,Gezer,andArad,and in funerarydepositsatJerichoandKinnereth.57 Bowl with in-turnedand horizontally-flattened rim. Fourbowl fragmentsexhibitrims that have been in-turnedand subsequentlyflattened(pl. 14:2-5). As with the precedinggroup, such shapes are

52

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

much more allied to the local ceramic development and are not representativeof the "classical" KhirbetKerakWareforms. Morphologically,this type is related to Hennessy's (local) bowls with "horizontalrims which projectin" that begin in EB I deposits on the tell at Jerichoand somewhat later in the Jerichotombs. Their geographicalas well as chronologicalrange is wide throughoutthe EarlyBronzeAge and can be paralleled,interalia,at cAi, Gezer,Rosh Hanniqra,Arad,and the Kinnerethtomb.58 Carinatedbowl with verticalupper body. Twelve examplesof carinatedbowls with (relatively) verticalupperbodiesare presentin the assemblagefrom Tell esh-Shuneh(pls. 14:16,17; 15:10,15, 21; the hallmarksof any KhirbetKerakWareassemblageand,with 17:1-3, 9, 16-18). This form is one ofthe the relatedvariantsdiscussedbelow,exhibitsa wide geographicaldistribution.For the first time in the fluted fluted decoration(pl. 17:1-3, 16-18) so typicalof this ware Tell esh-Shuneh corpus the ribbedand "omphalos"base. appears,while the two intactvessels (pls. 15:15,17:9)exhibitthe characteristic Basically,the shape is relatedto Amiran'sType 4, Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 16a,Hennessy's "simplebowls with upright sides,"and Kenyon'sEarlyBronze Age bowl type R.5.a that appearsin JerichoTomb D12. It is also quitecommonin PhasesH and I in the CAmuq.59 Carinatedbowl with in-turnedupper body. Related to the precedingshape ("carinatedbowl with verticalupper body")is anothergroup of bowls (pls. 12:15;14:12-14; 15:1-6, 24; 17:13-15) that exhibit an in-turningof the vessel wall above the carination.The angle thus formed can range from slight (pls. 14:12, 15:2, etc.) to severe (pls. 15:6, 17;15,etc.), with the majorityof the pieces falling betweenthese two extremes.Some (pl. 17:13-15) are decoratedwith the standardribbeddecoration. This subtypeis distinguishedby Hood (1951: 134, fig. 7) at Tabarael-Akradby the b-variantof his Type 16. The form is frequent at Khirbet Kerak itself, and a single example from the early excavationsat cAi has been identifiedby Amiran.In the cAmuq many of the examples of "verticalsided bowls"are of this type with inclining upper body.They differ from Hennessy's "curvedbowl with in-turned rim" in that on the Shuneh examples the transitionpoint is quite well markedand much lower on the vessel than on Hennessy'stype.60 Carinatedbowl with outsplayedrim. The third variant of the carinatedbowl noted in the Shuneh assemblage(pls. 14:10-11, 15; 15:11-14, 19-20, 22-23) is characterizedby its slightly outsplayedrim, which may occuron vessels with vertical(pls. 14:10, 15:19,etc.) or in-turned(pl. 15:14, 22, etc.) upper bodies.The rims of several of the Shuneh pieces are similar to those on (probably) deeper vessels of Hood's Tabarael-Akrad Type 14. Related forms occur at Khirbet Kerak, Ras Shamra,the 'Amuq,andJericho,all in standardKhirbetKerakWarefabric.61 Bowl with S-profile. The bowl with S-shaped (or cyma reversa) profile (pls. 15:8-9, 16-18, 26-27; 16:9, 14-17) is a classicin the KhirbetKerakWarerepertoireand one that can be viewed as a "development"of the last two bowl types. In these vessels the wall above the carinationhas been turnedin and the rim outsplayed(more markedlythan on the precedingform) to form a distinctive S-shaped profile.When decorated,the Shunehexamplesdisplaya knob (or knobs) slightlyabove the point of carination(pi. 16:9, 14-17), a device that seems to be the most popularway of embellishing this particularform at other sites. The base, where preserved,is an omphalosbase that appearsto be for this type of bowl. characteristic This shape is essentiallythat of Amiran'sType 2 and can be includedin Hennessy'sgroup of "small bowls with marked shouldersand flaring rims."Morphologicallysimilar, but proportionally different,are the vessels that illustrateHood's Tabarael-AkradType 13.62These bowls present a wide distribution,having been found at Jericho,'Ai, Beth Shan, 'Affula,Khirbet Kerak,Tabarael-Akrad, Ras Shamra,and the cAmuq.63

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

53

One-handled cup/jug. Three one-handled open forms (pl. 16:1-3) appear in the Shuneh assemblageof Khirbet Kerak Ware. Morphologically,the shallowerversion (pl. 16:1, 2) is directly relatedto the precedinggroup of S-profile bowls and the two examplescouldbe regardedas "cups," while the deeper version (pl. 16:3) is akin to some of the deeper S-profile jars to be discussedbelow and might be interpretedas a "jug." Small one-handledcups are includedby Amiran in her Type 2, by Hennessy in his "bowlswith markedshouldersandflaringrims,"andby Hood in his Tabarael-AkradType 13.64The form is not as common as similarvessels that were not equippedwith (or did not preserve)a handle,but they have been found at Jericho,Megiddo,and the cAmuq,all in true Khirbet Kerak or Red-BlackBurnished Ware,and it is imitatedin localfabricsatJerichoand cAi.65 The deeper "jug"(pl. 16:3) can be associatedwith Amiran'sType 1, Hennessy's "deepcup or small jug,"and Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 17.66Likethe shallower"cup,"this form is limitedin its distribution,appearingatJericho,KhirbetKerak,'Affula,Ras Shamra,and the CAmuq.67 Spouted cup. The S-profile cup with tubularspout (pl. 16:11) and the fragmentof a similar spout (pl. 19:25)in like fabricpresentus with a form that is difficultto parallel.Hood recordedbut did not illustratea short tubularspout (in an unburnishedfabric)from "KhirbetKerakWare levels"at Tabarael-Akrad,which he thought "mayperhaps be a stray from some earlierlevel" (Hood 1951: 137). A single "semisphericalcup with cylindricalspout"is known in Red-BlackBurnishedWarefrom the CAmuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960:364, fig. 284:13),but here the spout is attachedat the rim and not at the point of carinationas is the case with the Tell esh-Shunehpiece. 2. Jars Jar with S-shaped profile. Deeper, more closed forms here defined as "jars"appear in both small and largevariantsin the Shunehassemblage(pls. 16:20,21; 17:4-6, 10-12). Both sizes are richly decoratedwith the raiseddecorationcharacteristic of the ware. The smallervessels (pl. 17:4, 5) exhibit a carinationat a point on the vessel high enough to be considereda "shoulder."In the present corpus the rims are only slightly outsplayed.The form is similarto examplesincludedin Amiran'sType 2, Hennessy's"smalljars,"andpossiblyHood'sTabara el-AkradType 17a.68They have been attestedatJericho,Beth Shan,possiblyat Ras Shamra,and in the and they may have influencedlocalforms at 'Ai andJericho.69 CAmuq, The largerjars in this category(pls. 16:20,21; 17:6, 10-12) are handlelessversionsof Amiran's Type 1 and fit nicelywithin Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 18. Vesselsthat are similarto the Shuneh pieces in form and decorationare includedby Hennessy in his categoriesof "largedecoratedjars"and These large "largejars with elaboratefluted decoration,"for which he sees a northerndistribution.70 have been at found Beth Shan,'Affula,Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the Amuq.71 jars Large,neckedjar. The Shunehcorpusincludesother largejars (pl. 16:5-8, 18, 19) in which the neck appearsas a more definite morphologicalentity and not simply as a segment of the continuing curve from body to rim, as was the case in the precedinggroup. PI. 16:12, 13 may be considered transitionalbetweenthe two types. This group is not easilyassimilatedinto previoustypologies(Amiran1952;Hood 1951;Hennessy 1967) and has a ratherlimited (and northern) distribution,having been attestedat Khirbet Kerak, Tabarael-Akrad,and in the CAmuq.72 Related to these is pl. 16:4, with a much narrowerneck that might be consideredpart of a "bottle."Althougha parallelis known from KhirbetKerak(Esse,personalcommunication:TrenchE, Phase V), the shape seems to lie beyondthe mainstreamof forms in this fabric.

54

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

"Holemouth"jars. Eleven fragmentsare from vessels that are here (with hesitation) termed "holemouth"jarsbecauseof the simplicityof the rim profile.The fact that they can be highlydecorated (pls. 17:19-21; 18:1-3, 9-11) as well as plain (pl. 17:7,8, 20) couldargueagainsttheir singularuse in domesticcontexts,as is usuallythe case with "holemouth"jars.Validcomparandacome only from the type site of KhirbetKerak,while less satisfactoryparallelsoccurat Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and in the CAmuq.73

or "stand" 3. "Vase-support" One of the most distinctiveshapes in the KhirbetKerakWareassemblageis the tall vase-support or stand. Examplesof this type from Tell esh-Shunehcan be dividedinto four subgroups:(a) those that are plain in form and without decoration;(b) those plain in form that exhibit horizontally-fluted decorationon all or part of the exterior surface;(c) those with fenestratedsides; and (d) those with internallugs below the "rim." Hennessy discussesall variantsof this form undera single heading,"waistedpot stands,"as does Hood under his Tabarael-Akrad Type 20, "vase support."Only Amiran subdividesthe form, her Type 6.74

Plain vase-support. The plain vase-support(pl. 18:4-8, 17), often difficultto distinguishfrom lids in an assemblageof sherds,is Amiran'sType 6a. It occursat KhirbetKerak,Arqubel-Dhahr,Ras Shamra,and possibly'Affula.75 Decoratedvase-support. Six vase-supportsin the present assemblageare decoratedwith horizontal fluting (pls. 18:18,20, 21; 19:8,9, 15). As in other decoratedexamplesof this class,the fluting may be continuousover the entire objector confinedto bandsof flutingaccentingthe upper,middle,or lower zone. Vessel-supportswith fluted decorationform Amiran's Type 6b (Amiran 1951: 92-93, fig. 1:6 [second from left], from 'Affula) and appear also at Beth Shan, Arqub el-Dhahr, 'Affula, KhirbetKerak,Tabarael-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the CAmuq.76 Fenestratedvessel-support. Two fragmentsof vessel-supportsfrom Tell esh-Shunehare fenestrated.One (pl. 18:19) appearsto be from an undecoratedstand,while the other (pl. 18:16) displays the fluteddecorationof the precedingclass.The fenestratedstand forms Amiran'sType 6b, which she illustrateswith a single example (a standwith triangularapertures)from Beth Shan.77This appearsto be the only parallelin Syria-Palestinefor the two Shunehvessel-supports. Vessel-supportwith internallug(s). Three of these standsexhibita lug(s) on the interiorof the form,just below the "rim,"evidentlyto assistin stabilizingthe vessel that the objectsupported.Two of these are plain (pl. 19:2, 3), and the other is decorated(pl. 19:1). Such a form is not includedin Amiran'stypeseries(Amiran 1952), and the only parallelknown to the present authoris one with horizontalflutingfrom Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VII:7). 4. Lids Knobbedlids with a conicalprofile appearfrequentlyin the assemblageof KhirbetKerakWare from Tell esh-Shuneh (pl. 19:4-7, 11-14, 16). On most of these pieces the knob is solid,while in one instanceit has been piercedhorizontally(pl. 19:14). The knobbedlid is Amiran'sType 7 and Hood's Tabarael-AkradType 21. Hennessy also treats them as a group, noting their rarity outside of Syria and northern Palestine.78They have been found at

Beth Shan (piercedand unpierced),'Affula(piercedand unpierced),KhirbetKerak (pierced),Tabara el-Akrad(unpierced),Ras Shamra(pierced),and the 'Amuq(piercedand unpierced).79

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

55

5. Vesselswith incised(andfilled) decoration In additionto the ribbedand fluteddecorationthat is characteristic of KhirbetKerakWare,a few objects exhibit decorativepatterns achievedby pre-firing incision that was subsequentlyfilled with white.80This treatmentseems to be limitedto three shapes:vessel-supports,lids, and "andirons." The two fragments in the present corpus (pl. 19:17, 18) could be from either of the first two forms. Although rare, incised Khirbet Kerak Ware has been noted at Beth Shan on a stand, at 'Affulaon stands,at Tabarael-Akradon lids, and in the 'Amuiqon lids and stands.81 6. "Andirons" The "andiron"(pot-stand or fender), Amiran's Type 8, is representedby three undecorated fragments (pl. 19:21-23).82Similarpieces are known from cAi, Beth Shan, Khirbet Kerak, Tabara el-Akrad,Ras Shamra,and the cAmuq.83 7. Miscellaneous Several vessels and objects that cannot be convenientlygrouped complete the Khirbet Kerak Wareassemblagefrom Tell esh-Shuneh. Two slightlyconcavebases are from large jarsof uncertainform (pl. 18:13, 15). Two fragments (pl. 18:12, 14) appearto come from flat-bottomedjugs, a shape known but not frequentin this fabric (Amiran 1951:92, fig. 1:5 [her Type 5]; Hennessy 1967:78-79, pl. LXXIII).A small omphalosbase is decoratedwith a pattern-burnishedgrid (pl. 19:20). While pattern-burnishingis common on the "local"fabricsof this period,it has also been noted on KhirbetKerakWareat Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935: 19, pl. VIII:5),Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:49), andJericho.84 A bag-shapedvessel with a horizontally-pierced "lug"that rises above the rim (pl. 16:10) and a secondlug, evidentlyfrom a similarpiece (pl. 19:19),are also difficultto parallel. The objectillustratedin pl. 19:24 (stampseal,gamingpiece,token?)is unique. Summary Mellaartidentifiedfive majorlevels or periodsof occupationat Tell esh-Shuneh,the upper four of which (PeriodsII-V) were present in his Trench II. In this section these units will be reviewed, beginningwith the lowest (TrenchII, PeriodII). Period/LevelII, the earliestoccupationin TrenchII, consistsof a structurecut into the virgin soil representedby WallsL and M, the latter,at least,being a 1.50 m mudbrickwall builton a stone sockle. Associatedwith these walls is Layer19 (found on both the northernand southernsides of Wall M), representingeither accumulationassociatedwith the demise of that structureor deliberatefill subsequent to its destruction.The ceramic material from Layer 19 contained an abundanceof pottery, domestic as well as finer wares. The red-washedjuglets and inverted-rimbowl fragmentsfrom this assemblageare at home in both Proto-Urbanand EB I contexts.Largerbowls decoratedwith bandsof slashes or incisionsare common, as are similarforms that have been furtherembellishedin the EB I grain wash ("band-slip,"Northern Painted)manner.A spoutedbowl displayscombinationof slashes andpainteddecoration("band-painted," "line-group")of Proto-UrbanB/EB IB type.A small fragment of an EsdraelonWare bowl adds furthersupport for an EB I date for the basal Period II layer in TrenchII. Period/LevelIII is comprisedof the archaeologicallayersassociatedwith Round House 0, both within the structureandwithout.The materialfrom insidethe buildingwill be reviewedfirst. The main deposit in Round House 0 was foundon its floor (Layer13) and in an ash lens (Layer in 12) the northernpart of the structurethat might representthe remainsof a hearth.It should be

56

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

noted that the problematicLayer11a, above these depositsbut still within the walls of the building,is assigned by the excavatorto his (subsequent)Period IV, where the material from that layer is discussed. The floor of the roundhouse producedeleven intactcarinatedbowls, some with string-cutbases. Unfortunately,bowlsof similarform and manufacturehave a wide chronologicalrange.They are noted in Chalcolithicdepositsby Dothan at HorvatBeterand in the Beershebasites studiedby de Contenson, as well as in much latercontextssuch as Kenyon'sJerichoTomb D12, which extendswell into the EB III period. The one-handledjuglets, however, may be more specific, for they can be paralleledin Proto-Urban/EBI tomb depositsatJericho,a date for this depositthat is supportedby the presenceof storagejarsdecoratedin the "band-slip" grain-washtechnique. Outsidethe Round House assignedby the excavatorto his PeriodIII,a small amountof pottery was detectedin Layers14-17. At least the lowest three of these (Layers15-17) are indicatedon the plans on both sides (north and south) of the Period II Wall M, but the pottery evidently was not separatedby location,which lessens the chronologicalsignificanceof these layers.The four fragments from Layer17 and the single sherd from Layer16, however, all find at least generic parallelsin the more securedeposits assignedto PeriodsII and III.The five fragmentsfrom Layer15, if they did in fact come from this small ash lens, are of EsdraelonWare,a fabricalreadyencounteredin Period II Layer19. The two bowl rims from Layer14, a deposit that runs over the earlierWall M, are also of types encounteredearlier.All this implies that there is not muchchronologicaldifferentiationbetween the PeriodII andPeriodIIIdeposits. Period/LevelIV, Layer11 completelyseals the excavationareaaccordingto SectionC-D (fig. 12). Of the three sherds specificallyrecordedfrom Layer 11, one (pl. 11:24) is decoratedin the "grainwash"manner,a techniquethat relatesit to materialfrom the earliestlayer (Layer19), in Trench II. Layer 1la, within the walls of the Round House, still remains confusing, but the three sherds (pl. 10:10,24, 27) found in it are not distinctiveand would not greatlyaffectour understandingof the chronologicalsequencein TrenchII. The upper strataof Period IV consist of Layers6 through 10, the lowest three of which (Layers 8-10) cover the entire excavationareain SectionC-D (fig. 12). From the lowest of these strata(Layer 10), the excavatorillustratedfour sherds:three decoratedin "grain-wash"and one combining"grainwash" with incisions. If this is the complete (or a representative)sample, it is either supporting evidencefor an early (EB I) date for the deposit in the Round House, or evidenceof mixing, perhaps due to intentionalleveling of this part of the site. Only one sherd from Layer9 is illustratedby the excavator,a layerwhich he interpretedas a possible gravel floor preservedfor over 7 m in the N-S section (fig. 12). This sherd also appearsto be more representative,in its form and painteddecoration, of the EB I depositsbelow.The assemblageof three sherdsfrom Layer7, also interpretedas a possible gravel floor, is chronologicallynon-diagnosticand (if anything)looks backwardto EB I. Surprisingly, no artifactsare recordedas coming from the (ca. 0.10-0.50 m thick) Layer8, which contains the enigmaticWall K. Of the PeriodIV deposits,Layer6, which containedthe largestamountof pottery, exhibits bowls and holemouthjars that look backwardto PeriodsII and III contexts,but also for the first time shows materialin (or approaching)EarlyBronze II, such as the neckedjars and the small fragmentof a stump-basedjug. Period V deposits, upon or in which at least some of the walls of the basalt building were founded,compriseLayers1-5b in TrenchII. Certainlythe KhirbetKerakWare,which forms the major hallmarkof the ceramicmaterialfrom this building,indicatesa date in the EB IIIperiod,but very little of the non-KhirbetKerak Ware pottery for which section drawings survive actuallycomes from TrenchII. The situationis furtherexacerbatedby three facts:the stampedclayfloor (Layer5) produced

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

57

only the rim of a holemouth jar that has definite parallels in the EB I levels below; Layer 4, sealed(?) by Floor 3a south of Wall D (but sketchy to the north between Wall D and the addition to Wall B), presented only a single plain ledge-handle; and only two sherds come from Layer 3, which is the equivalent of topsoil south of Wall D (fig. 12). Based on the artifacts and their stratigraphic position, then, we can only place the date of the basalt building in EB III, as early in that period as the presence of the Khirbet Kerak Ware will allow.

Tell Esh-Shuneh TrenchII Stratum/Layer 1 la 2 3 3a 3b 4 4a 4b 5 5a 5b

Description Surface,blackearth,disturbed. Post-hole. Light-brownearth.WallA. Light-graymudbrickfragmentsand stones.Pit with brownearth. Occupationaldebrisin pit. Clayfloor. Plasterstreaks,graywall debris. Ashy brownsoil in Room 1, buffsoil and mudbrickin Rooms 3 and4. Plasterstreak Pocketof soft brownearthin Room 3. Stampedclayfloor.Partlyburnedin Room 4. Hearthin Room 4. Floormakeup.Hearthmadeon basisof sherdswith clayon top. Burntred earthunderWallD.

6 7 7a 8 9 10 11 111 112 11a

Hardbuffearth. Gravel.Floor(?). Blackclay. Brownearth. Gravel.Floor(?). Brownearth. Destructionof RoundHouse 0. Ash layertroddenin and used as floor. Brownearth. Pocketof ash. Burntdebrisof RoundHouse 0. Cakinedbrick,daub,and ashes. Non-trodden.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18a

RoundHouse 0. Ashes (hearth?),potteryon RoundHouse floor. RoundHouse 0. The occupationfloor. Successiveoccupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse, buffearth. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse, soft green-grayash. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse;buffearth. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse;soft, green-grayash. Occupationoutsideand againstRoundHouse:buffearth. Grayash floor,up to stone foundationof RoundHouse 0.

19

Soft, brown-blackearthwith muchash. ExtendsunderRoundHouse 0. WallsL and M. Virgin soil.

20

Period/Level

V

IV

III

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

58

Tell esh-Shuneh:ArtifactIndex Trench II: Layer 1 Layer la Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 3a Layer 3b Layer 4 Layer 4a Layer 4b Layer 5 Layer 6 Layers 6-10 Layer 7 Layer 7a Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 Layer 11 Layer 111 Layer 112 Layer 11a Layer llb Layer 12 Layer 13 Layer 14 Layer 15 Layer 16 Layer 17 Layer 18 Layer 18a Layer 19 Layer 20 Trench III: Layer 2 Layer 3 Trench IV: Layer 2 Layer 3 l" "eP.3 12:26,27 "Rm.3-4" 12:12 "RHO" 10:17-20 Provenience ? 8:9 "Period V"

none none none 12:13, 15 none none 12:30 none none 11:11 11:2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21; 12:2, 3, 4, 6 11:1, 7, 14, 22; 12:5, 29 11:5, 17; 12:7 none none 12:1 11:6, 12, 20, 23 10:15; 11:13, 24 none none 10:10, 24, 27 10:21, 22, 28 10:1-4, 6-9, 12-14 none 10:25, 26 8:1-6 10:23 9:7, 21, 22; 10:5, 11 none none 8:7, 8, 10-22; 9:1-6, 8-20, 23-25; 10:16; 11:15, 25; 12:28, 31, 32 none 12:10, 11 12:8, 9, 21-23 12:16 12:14, 20, 24, 25

12:17-19

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

59

Notes 1Only Layer11a appearson the drawings,but an 111 and 112 appear in the notebooks.Without any doubt,Layer 11 is a confusingdepositas recorded. 2 In the notebooks Mellaart interprets Layers9-7 as successiveoccupationsassociatedwith WallK. This seems to imply a reuse of Wall K after Layer8 had accumulatedor been deposited. 3 In the notebooksthis is referredto as "Room4." 4 This is a problematicarea, however, for the A-B section line seems to be the limit of the excavations,and hence these walls may only have been tracedon the surface, rather than having been completely excavated.The outer Wall K on these plans adds to the confusion,since another WallK appearsin SectionC-D in LevelIV. 5 The combinationof the plasterstreak(Layer4a) and pocketof soft brownearth (Layer4b) againstthe "southern" face of Wall D looks very much like a foundationtrench to the presentauthor. 6 The position, relationships,and meaningof Layers5a and 5b are not entirelyclear. 7 Khirbet Kerak pottery is said to have been found underWall B. This architecture,therefore,tied togetheras it is by the Layer5 clay floor, should not be taken to indicate the first appearanceof the people associatedwith Khirbet KerakWareon the site. Accordingto the notebooks,"Combed Ware"was foundin the Layer5a floor makeup. 8 Kenyon 1960: 11-13; 1965: 6-7. The present piece might best be associatedwith the round-bottomedtype A.4.c with gently curvingsides. 9 At Jericho(Hennessy 1967: pl. V:52, "carinatedbowl with offset rim" [p. 11], which is new in Phase K [still in Kenyon'sEB I] but which might actuallybelong to the succeeding[EB II] PhaseJ [p. 11]); the Kinnerettomb (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:31 [EB II]; Ai (Callaway1980: fig. 90:15, 16 [Phase V]); and possibly Gezer (Dever 1974: fig. 5:30 [EB IIA, Field I, Stratum12]). Cf. other possibleoccurrencesat Horvat cUsa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 4:13);Azor (BenTor 1975a:fig. 6:2); and 'Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. VI:53). 10A similar rim appearedin the "MiddleChalcolithic" Level I of de Contenson'ssoundingat Tell esh-Shuneh (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 3:18). Cf. also Gezer Field I, Stratum 14 (Dever 1974:pl. 3:4 [Chalcolithic]);andpossiblya similar form at Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 16:15), from his pre-urban Phase II. 11Jericho Tombs (Kenyon 1960: 11-13; 1965: 6-7). The angle of the body of the Tel esh-Shunehpiece suggests comparisonwith the deeperbowl types B.1.c,B.2.a,etc.;Jericho Tell (Hennessy 1965:pl. II:3,"smallshallowbowls with in-turnedrim" [p. 8]); Tell Far'ah (N), inter alia (de Vaux 1947: fig. 2:28 ["eneolithiquesuperieur"];1949: fig. 13:3, 5 (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:14). ["eneolithique"]);cf. also CAffula 12 Note that pl. 8:9 is of a black gritty fabricthat Mellaart parallelsto pl. 8:6, a sherd that he includedwith the EsdraelonWare pieces. I have not seen either of these two sherds.

13Jericho (Hennessy 1967: 8), where Type XII from the tell is comparedwith Kenyon's tomb Type A.I.a. The more curvedprofileof pL8:18 might actuallybe considereda transitionalform between the roundertomb forms and the more angularvessels from the tell. At Arad Stratum IV, note the "profiled"rim of one example(Amiran1978:pL8:2, 10), and the pairof shallower vessels (pl. 8:4, 5), from which Amiran suggests that the "platters"may have evolved (p. 42); cf. also Amiran (1970a: 43, 55; pls. 9:7, 11:3,4); cf. Azor (Ben-Tor1975a:fig. 6:1, 5); Ai (Callaway1972:fig. 16:18,20, 22, etc. [Phase II];Callaway 1980: fig. 68:16, etc.); Tell FarCah(N) (inter alia, de Vaux 1948:fig. 1:2 ["eneolithiquemoyen"];1961:fig. 3:28 [Ancien Bronzeperiode 1]); Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 13:16 [StrataII-III]); Gezer (Dever 1974:pl. 4:13 [EB IB Stratum 13]); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (Gustavson-Gaube1985: fig. 8:19a-b); and Arqub edh-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:58, 69, 70). 14 For the terminology,technique,andbasicallynorthern distributionof this classof pottery,cf. Albright1926:28-29; 1960: 72; Wright 1937: 44-45, 62; Engberg and Shipton 1934:28; Glueck1946: 3-20; 1951:458; and Amiran 1970a: 42. For its appearance,but rare occurrence,in Proto-Urban (Phase Ni) depositson the Jerichotell, cf. Hennessy 1967:9. Cf. also at En Shadud,Braun1985:figs. 14:14,21:16. 15 "Grain-wash" decorationis addedto a punctatepattern on a vessel from Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 25, fig. 9); but the combinationof the "grain-wash"and slashes appearsto be specificto Tell esh-Shuneh(N); cf. pl. 9:12, etc.; and possibly Tell edh-Dhiyabeh (150) (Glueck 1951: pl. 137:14), discussedunder materialfrom Tell Deir SacanehMekhlediyeh(112), 462. 16 For a succincthistory of this type of decoration,cf. Dever 1974: 17 n. 43. Hennessy (personalcommunication) at Pella,which helps to notes similarvessels in "grain-wash" tie together the incision plus "grain-wash"(pi. 8:21, 9:12, etc.) and the incisionplus "line-group"(pl. 9:1) decorationat Tell esh-Shuneh.Cf. also at Jawa (Helms, TechnicalStudies [forthcoming]:B5.5),with paint;and Bdbedh-Dhra(Schaub 1973: fig. 49), with paint, but most have largerspouts (EB IB). Similarbowls are includedin cEn ShadudPotteryType I (Braun1985:32, fig. 14:1,6). 17 The closest West Bank parallels to the Tell eshShuneh (N) jars are from cAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. III:1-3, 5, 8, etc.). Cf. the minorityposition held by holemouthjars with slashed or incised bands at Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 5:15 [Ancien Bronze I]; de Vaux 1961: fig. 2:3 superieur");and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: ("chalcolithique pl. IV:5 [Level XIV]). In contrast,comparetheir frequency at sites east of the JordanRiver surveyedby Glueck(1951: el Fakhat (98): pl. 120:3, 6 ["EB I-II," pp. 426-27]; Sibya (121): pl. 129:4, 7 ["EBI," p. 449]; Tell Deir SaCaneh Mekhlediyeh (112), a site with a tremendousquantity of "grain-wash"sherds:pl. 133:8-13 ["EBI,"pp. 458,462]; Tell edh-Dhiyabeh(150): pl. 138:3-4 [discussedunderTell Deir

60

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

Sa'aneh Meklediyeh,p. 462]; and Ameidat:pl. 139:24, 25 ["EBI-II,"p. 425]). 18de Contenson1960a:fig. 11:1. Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. III:21,22); and CAi(Callaway1980:fig. 69:12 [Phase III]). Good parallelsare also to be found at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,i.e.,for pl. 9:13,cf. Helms 1986:41, fig. 16:2,4; for pl. 9:11-14,cf. Helms 1984:45, fig. 11:15. 19 The basictypeis equivalentto a form thatfirstappears on the Jerichotell in Phase L of (Kenyon's)EB I date.It also includesvariantswith slightlyflattenedtops (Hennessy 1967: 10, pl. IV:35). The Chalcolithicancestryof this rim can be seen in formsfrom the Beershebaregion(de Contenson1956: fig. 1:7,8, etc.). PI. 9:15 might better be considereda variantof Hennessy'sProto-UrbanjarType 1 (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. II:14). It is knownfrom Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(Helms 1984: 46, fig. 12:2). Rims generally similar to pl. 9:10, etc., are published from Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:21-24); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:26 [Level XV]); and Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor1959:fig. 5:22 [StratumI]). Possiblyrelatedto the type are vessels from 'En Shadud (Braun 1985: fig. 20, PotteryType 17B); Tell Deir SaCaneh Mekhlediyeh(112) (Glueck 1951: pl. 133:14 [and possibly 134:9,10] dated"EBI"[pp.458,461]); Arqubel-Dhahr(Parr 1956: fig. 16:184); and Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958: pl. 11:6).Pl. 9:18 is well paralleledby a sherdfromGustavsonGaube'swork at the site (1985:figs. 7:6c, 12:49). 20 Cf., inter alia, Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:fig. IV:17 [Level XIV]); Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor 1959: fig. 6:1-4 [Stratum 1, Early"Canaanite" I]); cAffula(Sukenik1948:pl. D. Esse); IV:38-42);KhirbetKerak(personalcommunication, and cEn Shadud(Braun1985: 115, 144, fig. 23:4-7 [rail rim pithos]. Cf. also de Contenson1960a:fig. 14:11for a similar rim from his soundingat Tell esh-Shunehin a level he dated to EB II (p. 29). Note, however,his caveatfor distinguishing betweenhis LevelsIV (EBII) and HIl(EB I) (1960a:30, 31). 21Possiblyrelatedare forms from Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1952: fig. 10:11 ["'eneolithique superieur,"tombe 13]); or Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor1959:fig. 6:39 [StratumII]). 22 For the concavityabove the carination,cf. Hennessy 1967:8, Proto-Urbanbowl Types II:4and II:6.Differentalso is the profile of the (Kenyon's) EB I carinatedbowl with offset rim (pl. V:52 andp. 11). The closestparallelto the Tell esh-Shuneh bowls in the Jericho tombs is Kenyon's ProtoUrbanbowl Type D.l.c, of which a single exampleappearsin Tomb A114 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 17:19). For Jericho Tomb D12, Kenyon's EarlyBronze Type L.2.band L.3.b (Kenyon 1960:58, andpl. 36:8-10).Althoughthis tomb is describedby Kenyon as having been "completelydisturbed"(p. 94), the presenceandpercentageof L-typebowlsareconsideredby her to indicate a late date in the Early Bronze sequence (cf. especiallyp. 80, with referencesto Garstang'sJerichoTomb 351). For Chalcolithicparallelsin the Beershebaregion,cf. de Contenson1956: fig. 6:11-13, 19, 20; and possiblyat Horvat Beter, Dothan 1959a: fig. 7:11 (StratumI). Other later examples come from Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1952: fig. 12:8 ["eneolithiquesuperieur,tombe 14]; Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr

1956: fig. 13:18, 82); Wadi Ghazzeh Site D2 (MacDonald 1932:pl. XXXVIII:7);Meser(Dothan 1958:fig.8:6 [Stratum I]); and Bdbedh-Dhra (Schaub1973: fig. 43, type 0702 [EB IA]). 23 Cf., inter alia, Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 13 ["holemouthbowls,"13A]StagesVII-IV); Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 14:99, 101); Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:10 [with handle, "eneolithiquesuperieur,tombe 5]); Affu/a (Sukenik1948:pl. VI:1). 24 Cf.,inter alia,Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 8:4, 5); and Ai (Callaway1972:65, "platterbowls";fig. 15:2 from Phase I is closer to the Tell esh-Shunehpiece than are the Phase II examples [figs. 16:26-29, 17:1-5]; all are said to be "attributableto newcomersin EB IB"[p. 70]). 25 Cf. also the atypical forms from de Contenson's sounding at Tell esh-Shuneh,which are describedas "grey burnished"(de Contenson1960a:fig. 9:3-6 and p. 21 ["Late Chalcolithic" LevelII]). 26Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:9 [Level XIV]); Ali (Callaway1972:fig. 19:1 [Phase II], fig. 30:5 [Phase III]); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. 111:40). 27 Cf., inter alia, the "knob" (Kenyon 1965: fig. 4:12) and "nipples"(Kenyon 1965: fig. 4:17) from Tomb K2i, as well as the "horizontalbars"on a juglet from Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960:fig. 14:6). 28This is the exception in Tomb A114(A) (Kenyon 1960: 43, fig. 17:16), but quite common in Tombs KI, K2, andA127 (Kenyon 1965:15-32). 29Exceptionsto this statementcan be found in Tomb A94, but there the exteriors of the bowls show a matimpression (Kenyon 1960: 25, fig. 9:3) or incised lines (Kenyon 1960: 27, fig. 9:17, 18). Never are the bases stringcut, nor, with the exception of the first example cited, do these marksindicatethe typeof manufacture. 30 Hennessy 1967: 20, pl. XI:4. This slight projection separatesthe present group from the simple flattenedrims that appear on the Jericho tell in EB II Phase H (p. 12, pl. VI:61) and Phase G (p. 12, pl. VI:62).Cf. also cEnShadud (Braun 1985: fig. 15:12, PotteryType 4). For the "hammer rim,"which projects from the vessel wall on both the exteriorand the interior,cf. Hennessy 1967: 10, 20, bowl Type I (pl. IV:30). The "hammerrim" is similar to Kenyon'sEB bowl Type C.1l.c.(Kenyon1960:54, fig. 25:4). 31 Cf. also Glueck 1951: pl. 123:10, from Khirbet ,Ain Riyashi,dated "EBI" (p. 436, with references);cEn Shadud (Braun1985:fig. 18:8-11),on small bowls of similarprofile; and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Helms 1984: 50, fig. 16:2;1986:41, fig. 16:12).A latervessel fromAradcombines both the pellets and the cordon (Amiran 1978: pl. 51:11 [StratumII]). 32 de Contenson 1960a. For pl. 12:1, fig. 5:2, which, although illustratedwith "MiddleChalcolithic"material,is describedas having fallen from EB contexts (p. 16). See also similarpieces from:Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 12:10);Tell edh-Dhiyabeh(Glueck1951:pl. 137:10,discussedundermaterial from Tell Deir SacanehMekhlediyeh,p. 463); and Affula (Sukenik1948:pi. IV:5).

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh 33For pl. 12:6, fig. 14:7,dated "EarlyBronzeII"(p. 30, where the lack of major differencesbetween his Levels III and IV is noted). See also Arad IV (Amiran 1978:pl. 12:20). Hennessy (1967: pl. XX) illustratessimilar simple rims on ledge-handledjars from both Proto-UrbanPalestinianand Egyptiandeposits. 34This feature,if indeed it should be considereddiagnostic, occursearly at 'Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 17:18 [Phase II]). Cf. also 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:16); Tell edhDhiyabeh (150) (Glueck1951: pl. 137:1, p. 462); and Arad III (Amiran1978:pl. 15:28,which may have as an antecedent pl. 12:8 [StratumIV]). 35 Ai (Callaway1972: 65, fig. 17:26; 1980: fig. 37:16, and p. 58, where he refers to, and agrees with, Hennessy's for the form); Tell suggestionof a North Syrian"backround" Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 5:4; 1948: fig. 6:1; 1961: fig. 3:5); and Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. IV:9). Similarities can also be seen in a later (EB IIIB) form from Jericho (Hennessy 1967:pl. IX:93a). 36Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 7:24; note that this type is consideredto "falllate in EB II or earlyin the EB IIIperiod" [p. 22]); Kinnereth (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:27); Jericho(Kenyon 1960: 148, fig. 51:2 [Tomb F3], Type B.2.a [p. 54]; p. 175, fig. 67:1 [Tomb A114], Type E.l.a [p. 55]); Ai (Callaway1972: 329, fig. 80:2 [Phase VIII]; note also the unburnishedexample from Phase VII [fig. 68:1]); and Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1979: 76, fig. 5:2 [StratumI]). 37Hennessy 1967: 19. Cf. also his pls. VII:68,X:95. For the possible appearanceof the type at Jericho in EB II, cf. pl. VI:63, which, however, may actuallybelong to (EB III) level F (p. 12). 38 Ai (Callaway1972: 258, fig. 59:26 [Phase VI, EB IIIA];for its Chalcolithicantecedents,cf. p. 65 and fig. 16:21; Callaway1980: 160, fig. 110:13 [Phase VI]); Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 52:21 [StratumI]); and Gezer (Dever 1974: 21, pl. 7:16 [FieldI, Stratum12]). 39Callaway 1972: 298, fig. 68:2 (Phase VII), unburnished (p. 307); Callaway1980: fig. 90:3 (Phase V), 109:12 (PhaseVI). 40 Gezer (Dever 1974: 21, pl. 7:17 [Field I, Stratum 12]), EB IIA;Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 23:10, 11 [StratumII], but cf. also pl. 8:10 [StratumIV], dated to the latter part of EB I). 41 For a good exampleof this, see the Phase VI material from the cAi Sanctuary(Callaway1972). Compareespecially the "type-bowl"(fig. 59:27) with the unburnishedbowl (fig. 59:26) similar to pl. 12:17. At cAi the best parallel comes from a Phase VII (EB III) deposit from Site C (Callaway 1980: fig. 131:15). An earlier appearancecan be seen in Phase V (EB IIB) material from the sanctuary(Callaway 1972:fig. 57:3);and possiblyPhase VI (EB IIIA) (fig. 61:23). ForArad,cf. Amiran 1978:fig. 34:8. 43There may be some relationshipbetween these two vessels and a "band-slip"decoratedjar from de Contenson's sounding at Tell esh-Shuneh (de Contenson 1960a: 27, fig. 13:4),LevelIII,datedEB I.

61

44 For the earlierparallels,see above, n. 33. The form also appearsat 'Ai in Phase IV (EB II) (Callaway1972: fig. 37:28), and possibly Phase VI (EB IIIA) (fig. 61:7), in the Sanctuary;and in Phase VII (EB IIIB) on Site C (Callaway 1980:fig. 132:9). 45 Tell Yarmouth(Ben-Tor 1975b:78, fig. 7:22); Arad (Amiran 1978:pl. 40:3 [StratumII]); Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor and Prausnitz1959:fig. 5:20 [StratumI]); Ai (Callaway 1972: fig. 46:4, 5 [Phase V, EB IIB]; Callaway1980: figs. 87:21 [Phase IV, EB IIA]; 111:36 [Phase VI, EB IIIA]; 132: 15 [Phase VII, EB IIIB]);and KhirbetKerak(personalcommunication,D. Esse). 46For example, the form can be traced through the successivephases of the Sanctuaryat cAi (Callawayl972:fig. 18:13 [Phase II]; fig. 29:5 [Phase III];fig. 38:21 [Phase IV]; fig. 47:23 [PhaseV]; fig. 63:17 [PhaseVI]). 47Hennessy 1967:15, pl. IX:90.Cf. also at Ali(Callaway 1980: fig. 93:17 [Phase V]; fig. 114:3 [Phase VI]; and fig. 136:21,etc. [PhaseVII]); and at Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 8:15 [Stratum IV], pl. 18:26 [Stratum III], and fig. 48:23 [and pl. 48:10 for its coexistencewith Hennessy'smore thickened form,Hennessy 1967:pl. IX:90]). 48 Cf. FitzGerald1935: 18; Hood 1951: (chronologically) 137 ("appears to be handmade");Amiran 1952: 89-90; 1970a:68; and Hennessy 1967:74. 49Jericho:unfortunately,the methodof manufactureof the Khirbet Kerak Ware vessels in the Jericho tombs is rarelyspecified.Of the two bowls for which methodof manufacture is described,one is said to have been wheel-made (Kenyon 1960: 120, fig. 38:27, from Tomb D12), while the other is said to exhibit a combinationof a wheel-maderim and a handmadebody(133, fig. 44:10,from Tomb F4). The Amuq:concerningthe Red-BlackBurnishedWare in Phase H, Braidwoodand Braidwoodnote that "this... ceramicmay be handmadein largepart"and that "theremay be wheelmarks(horizontalscratches)on the untreatedinner surfacesof narrow-neckedjar sherds,but such cases are rare and not completelyconvincing"(1960: 358). With regardto the same fabricin PhaseI they state: "it seems possiblethat a fairpart of this potteryis still handmade"(p. 398), suggesting that at least some of these vessels were (wholly or partially)executedon the wheel. 50Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication), Trench E, Phase IV and Road Station 5; Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 399, fig. 304:1-5); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 133-34, fig. 7); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:8); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. X:12, 14, 17); Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XXVIII:13, 14); and 5li (Amiran 1967: 185:86,figs. 1:6 [1252], 1:7 [1298]). 51 Hood 1951: 133-34. Comparefig. 7:b,c (plain) with 7:f fig. (unpiercedlug). 52Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:6a[Phase H], pl. VI:62 [PhaseG]); JerichoTomb A127 (Kenyon1960:55, 87, fig. 25:5);JerichoTomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:55, 118, fig. 38:12). The flattened rim also appears on several platters from Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 59, 98, 111, figs. 33:21 [Type O.l.a], 33:22 [Type O.1.c], 36:15 [Type 0.2.b]); cAi

62

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh

(Callaway1972:257-58, fig. 60:2); and Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor and Prausnitz1959:76, fig. 5:14 [StratumI]). 53Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 54, 118, fig. 38:7 [Type C..d], 59, 111, fig. 36:12 [Type N.2.a], 59, 120 fig. 38:22 [Type N.2.a]). Tomb F2 (Kenyon 1960: 58, 159, fig. 57:21 [Type L.Le], where the holes are "vestigial"and not completely pierced [pp. 59, 160, fig. 57:32 [Type N.2.a]). Note that the presence of the lug is not a criterionfor Kenyon's Type N.2.a (p. 59). 54Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 361, fig. 281:1-6 (Phase H); 399, fig. 304:13-17 (PhaseI). 55The exception to this statement might be found in the cAmuq material (cf. Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 399, fig. 304:8 [Phase I]). It is also possible that they could be consideredvariantsof Tabarael-AkradType 15 (Hood 1951: 133-34, fig. 15, esp. 15a,b). 56This concavitybegins to be noticeableeither at the end of EB II or the beginningof EB III (cf. Hennessy 1967: 12, pl. VI:63). 57For its earlyappearanceat Ai, see Callaway1972:64, fig. 16:17, 19 (Phase II). For later occurrencesat Ai, figs. 60:17, 61:1 (Phase VI), fig. 68:3 (Phase VII). Note also Callaway1980:figs. 61:3 (PhaseIII),92:17 (PhaseV), 108:28 (Phase VI), and 126:3, 7 (Phase VII). Other sites: Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmorand Prausnitz1959:76, fig. 5:7 [Stratum I]); Gezer (Dever et al. 1974: 22, pl. 7:24 [Field I, Stratum 12]; 27, fig. 9:3 [Field I, Stratum11]; a somewhatlater date for the appearanceof the type is given [p. 22]); note also its presence in Arad StratumIV (latter part of EB I) (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:3); and in later deposits as well: Stratum III (pl. 13:9 [and 40?]), StratumII (pls. 22:51, 23:13), and possiblyStratumI (pl. 52:21);JerichoTombs (Kenyon 1960:fig. 25:6 [Type D.4.b], from Tomb A127; fig. 38:14 [Type E.l.a], from Tomb D12; fig. 57:39 [Type P.2.b], from Tomb F2); and in the Kinnereth Tomb (Amiran and Hass 1973: fig. 6:25). 58Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967: 19, pl. XI:4); Jericho Tombs (Kenyon 1960: Tomb D12, pp. 55, 97, 118, fig. 33:2 [Type D.2.b], fig. 38:9 [Type D.l.b]; Tomb F3, pp. 55, 128, fig. 43:8 [Type D.2.a]; and Tomb F4, pp. 55, 148, fig. 51:4 [Type D.2.a]); Ai (Callaway1972: figs. 16:24 [Phase II], 26:18, 19 [Phase III], 36:3, 5 [Phase IV], 45:1-7 [Phase V], 60:21,61:5 [PhaseVI], 74:7 [PhaseVIII];andCallaway1980: figs. 62:2 [Phase III], 92:10 [Phase V], 108:2, 109:12, 23 [Phase VI], 123:4, 124:5, etc. [Phase VII], 141:8 [Phase VIII]); Gezer(Dever et al. 1974:21, pl. 7:18 [FieldI, Stratum 12]); Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmorand Prausnitz1959: 76, fig. 5:12-14, 29 [Stratum I]; cf. also its earlier appearancein StratumII [fig. 6:33]); Arad (Amiran 1978: 42, 45, pl. 8:2, for its early appearancein StratumIV [latterpart of EB I]; pls. 23:20 [StratumII], 52:17, 18 [StratumI] for its continued use in EB II); and at Kinnereth (Amiran and Haas 1973:fig. 6:30). 59Cf. Amiran 1952:92, fig. 1:4 (left); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 7; Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIII:1,2, 4-8, 10-12 (not all of his examples,however,are good parallelsfor the Tell eshShuneh material);Kenyon 1960: 61, 121, fig. 38:32-34 (al-

though some of these examples have slightly outsplayed rims); and Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 360, fig. 282:2 (Phase H); 399, fig. 304:10 (Phase I); cf. also the Second MixedRange (pp. 458-59, fig. 358:1). 60 Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication), especiallyin Trench E, Phase IV; less frequentin Road Station 5 and Trench D; Ai (Amiran 1967: 185-86, fig. 1:8 [No. 1251]; Amu2q(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 361, fig. 362:9-11 [Phase H]; 399, fig. 304:11 [Phase I]; 458-59, fig. 358:2 [SecondMixed Range]); Jericho(Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIII:3, 9). The closestexample to the Shunehbowls illustratedby Hennessy is includedwith his "simple bowl with upright sides" (1967: pl. LXIII:11,from Tabara elAkrad).Note its similaritiesto pl. 14:12, 13 in the present corpus. 61Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 133, fig. 7, "deepbowl with bead rim and sunkenbase");Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personalcommunication;TrenchE, Phase IV, and RoadStation 5); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:3-5); 9Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:5 [Phase H]; 399, fig. 304:20 [Phase I]); Jericho (Kenyon 1960: 61, 121; fig. 38:32, 35, includedwith her bowl Type R.5.a; cf. also Garstang 1935: pi. XXVIII:18, 19, from Room 109). Note that some of the Shuneh pieces are similar to vessels from 'Ai, which are said to show "KhirbetKerak Ware influence,"or to be "in imitation of" Khirbet Kerak Ware(Callaway1972:258, fig. 60:8,with references[Building A, Phase VI]; Callaway1980: 160, fig. 108:18-19,22 [Site A, PhaseVI]; p. 193, fig. 125:43[Site C, Phase VII]). 62 Amiran 1952: 92, fig. 1:2 (left) from Beth Shan; Hennessy 1967:76, pl. LXIV.Similaritiesalso exist to some examples in his categoryof "smalljars"(p. 77, pl. LXVI), but they are consideredhere to be nearer to the deeper Shunehbowls (pl. 17:4,5), discussedbelow (Hood 1951: 133, fig. 7, esp. Type 13b). 63 Jericho,Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960:60, 121, fig. 38:28 [bowl type R.2.a];fig. 38:29,30 [bowl Type R.3.a];fig. 38:31 [bowl Type R.3.b];fig. 38:42 [bowl Type R.3.c]); Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960: 60, 133, fig. 44:10-11 [bowl Type R.3.a]); Tomb F2 (Kenyon 1960: 60, 160, fig. 57:41 [bowl Type R.3.b]; fig. 57:42 [bowl Type R.3.c]; for similarforms from the Jericho tell, cf. Garstang 1932: pl. III:9, 10, 12); Ai (Amiran 1967: 185-86, fig. 1:2-4 [nos. 1252, 1248, and 1261]); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18-19, pl. VIII:4,7); Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. X:18-20); KhirbetKerak(D. Esse, personal communication,Trench E, Phase IV); TarabaelAkrad (see above, n. 61); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:9); and the cAmuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364 [inter alia], figs. 281:19, 23; 282:5, 6 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 305:6 [Phase I]; pp. 458-59, fig. 358:4,5 [Second MixedRange]). 64 Amiran 1967: 92, fig. 1:2 (right), from Megiddo; Hennessy 1967: 76, pl. LXIV:5 (from Jericho),pl. LXIV:7 (from Megiddo);Hood 1951:135, fig. 7:13d. 65TrueKhirbetKerakWare:Jericho(Kenyon 1960:60, 160, fig. 57:43 [bowl Type R.4.a];Garstang1932:pl. VI:1-3

Tell Esh-Shuneh Mashaweh [but note fabricdescription]);Megiddo(Loud1948: pl. 5:14 [StratumXVII], with two handles); Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 281:24 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 305:8,9 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 359:1 [SecondMixedRange]). Imitation Khirbet Kerak Ware:Jericho(Kenyon 1960: Tomb F2, p. 62 and fig. 58:6, 7 [cup Type B.l.a and B.l.b]); Ai (Callaway1980:193, fig. 125:44[Site C, PhaseVII]. 66Amiran 1967:92, fig. 1:1 (examplesfrom 'Affulaand Jericho); Hennessy 1967: 76-77, pl. LXV:1, 2 (examples from Jericho); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8:17 (esp. 17b, and possibly17d). 67Jericho (Kenyon 1960: 60, 160); Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication,Trench E, Phase IV); Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. X:1); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:10, 13); and the Amu2q (Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:21 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 307:1 [Phase I]). 68Amiran 1967: 92, fig. 1:2 (center), from Beth Shan; Hennessy 1967:77, fig. LXVI;Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8. 69 Jericho(Kenyon 1960:Tomb D12, 60, 120, fig. 38:27 [bowl Type R.l.a]; Garstang1935: pl. XXVIII:21-23);Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18, pl. VII:6);Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 18:11); 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, [inter alia] fig. 283:5 [Phase H]); 'Ai (local) (Callaway1972:257-58, fig. 60:11 [BuildingA, Phase VI]; 1980: 193, fig. 125:37 [Site C, Phase VII], both with referencesto Jerichomaterial).Althoughthe influenceon the local forms is apparent,they are quite different from the Shunehvessels. 70Amiran 1952: 3, fig. 1 (esp. 1:1 [left], from Affula); Hood 1951: 134, fig. 8:18; Hennessy 1967: 77, pls. LXVII, LXVIII. 71 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 18, pl. VII:8); Affula (Sukenik1948:pls. X:1-3, XI:2); Ras Shamra(de Contenson 1969:64, fig. 10:1); Amu2q(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, fig. 283:10, 11 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 306:1, 3 [with a more "vertical" profile,Phase I]. 72 Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication, Trench D, Phases A and C; Trench E, Phases IV and V); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 134-35, 8:19a [and possibly fig. 8:z]); Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, figs. 283:20,284:3 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 304:29 [PhaseI]). 73Khirbet Kerak (D. Esse, personal communication, Trench E, Phase V); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 134-35, fig. 8:19b);Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:76, fig. 18:12); Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 364, fig. 283:2 [Phase H]; p. 399, fig. 304:21[Phase I]). 74Hennessy 1967: 78, and pl. LXX; Hood 1951: 135, 7:20, 20a; Amiran 1952:92-93, fig. 1:6. fig. 75Amiran 1952:92-93, fig. 1:6 (far left), from Khirbet Kerak; further, for Khirbet Kerak, cf. Amiran and Haas (1973: fig. 6:27). It is also found in Trench E, Phase V and Road Station 5 (D. Esse, personal communication).Arqub

63

el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 66, 72, fig. 17:208); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:1, 6-8); Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. X:23-25, illustratedas bowl rims). 76 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VII:5); Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: 62, 72, fig. 17:214); 'Affula(Sukenik 1948:pl. XI:1);KhirbetKerak(D. Esse,personalcommunication, Trench E, Phases IV and V; Trench D, Phase A); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951:135,fig.7:type20); Ras Shamra (de Contenson1969:64, fig. 10:4 [decoratedwith zig-zag and concentriccircles]); and the 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 364, figs. 282:13,284:6-8 [Phase H]; p. 400, figs. 306:4, 307:7 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 359:3 [Second Mixed Range]). The fact that the decorationneed not cover the entire vase-supportleaves open the possibilitythat some of the "plain"stands of the precedinggroup are actuallythe undecoratedportionsof flutedstands. 77 Amiran 1952: 92-93, fig. 1:6 (second from right); note her reference to similar forms from Alishar Hiiyiik (1952:99, n. 39). 78 Amiran 1952:93, fig. 1:7;Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21, 21a; Hennessy 1967:78, pl. LXXII. 79Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 17, pl. X:1-4); Affula (Sukenik1948:pl. XI:3-6); KhirbetKerak(D. Esse,personal communication,Trench E, Phases IV and V; Trench D, Phase A); Tabarael-Akrad(Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21); Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1969: 76, fig. 19:1-5); the Amuq (Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 364, 368, figs. 282:10, 11; 285:14, 15, 17-19 [Phase H]; p. 400, fig. 307:10 [Phase I]; p. 459, fig. 358:6 [SecondMixedRange]). 80 At Ras Shamra and Tabarael-Akrad some of the white filling was still present. Ras Shamra (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 368, 459); Tabara el-Akrad (Hood 1951: 135). 81 Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: 19, pl. VIII:6); 'Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. X:5, 6); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 135, fig. 7:21b, 21c); the Am2uq(Braidwoodand Braidwood 1960: 368, figs. 282:12, 285:3-13, 16 [Phase H]; p. 400, fig. 307:11,12 [PhaseI]; p. 459, figs. 358:7,8; 359:4). 82 Amiran 1952:93, fig. 1:8.This classof objectsis also discussed by Hennessy (1967: 78) and by Hood (1951: 139-40). 83 'Ai (Marquet-Krause 1949:pl. LXXV:1521).On this piece, cf. also Callaway(1972: 303, fig. 73:8), with references to its identificationby Amiran (1967: 185-86, fig. 1:9); Beth Shan (FitzGerald 1935: 17-18, pl. X:18); Khirbet Kerak (Amiran 1952: 93, pl. 6:D); Tabarael-Akrad (Hood 1951: 139-40, fig. 9, pl. XI); Ras Shamra(de Contenson1969:64, fig. 10:5); the 'Amuq(Braidwoodand Braidwood1960: 371, figs. 290, 291 [PhasesH, I, and the SecondMixedRange]). 84 Cf. the burnishedcross on the base of a vessel from Tomb D12 (Kenyon 1960: 120, fig. 38:27 [Type R.l.a]). Incised crosses appear on an omphalos base in Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960:60, 133, fig.44:10, 11).

Tell

Abu

Habil

Tell Abu Habil is describedby the excavatoras a low, extensive (ca. /4-1km long) site locatedto the west of the -212 m contourline and just to the northof a rise in the groundcalled"el-Qurn"and the small "Wadiel-Qurn."The center of the site was said to be markedby a ca. 3-4 m high mound and cut by an old unpavedroadthat crossedthe site in a north-south direction.Southeastof the main part of the site lay KhirbetAbu Habil, which was not tested by Mellaartbut whose surfaceis said to have producedmaterialdating to the Iron II, Roman, and Byzantineperiods.Mellaart'ssmall sondage was locatedon the top of the higher center of the site.

The Stratigraphy Mellaartdug his 2 x 3 m sondage,Trench I, at Tell Abu Habil in 13 layers,which he saw as events is not easy to representingfive stratigraphiclevels or "periods."This sequenceof archaeological it to in seems so best the material here two interpret, present major groups: an upper group, consisting of Mellaart'sPeriods III, IV, and V; and a lower group, consisting of his Periods I and II-the dividingline being the stampedclay floor (Layer9) and its makeup(Layer10) (figs. 15, 16). The lower group consistsof a series of three pits cut into the white huwwarand/or the natural gravel and their associatedstratigraphy(fig. 14).

The Lower Strata (PeriodsI and II) Pits 1 and 2 The relationshipbetween Pits 1 and 2 is difficultto determine,especiallyin the light of the apparentstratigraphicdifferencesto the north and south of Pit 1 (figs. 14, 15:SectionC-D). Pit 2 appearsfrom the plan (fig. 14) to be the earlierof these two pits, since the southernthirdof its outline (if, in fact,it was originallycircular)has evidentlybeen lost to the cuttingof the deeper(and hence subsequent?)Pit 1. MellaartinterpretedPit 2 as a "doorway"to Pit 1, which he hypothesized might have been utilized as a granary.Pit 1 has two layerstentativelyidentifiedby the excavatoras floors (fig. 15), a lower one of clay (Layer llf) and an upper one of mudbrick(Layer lid).1 It is therefore possible that Pits 1 and 2 were contemporary,used as an occupationalunit (dwelling?) entered on the north by stepping down into Pit 2, with the Layer1Id mudbrick(and previouslythe Layer1lf clay?)serving as a floor. Unfortunately,we do not have any evidencefor the natureof the superstructureof this "house,"if indeed its 1 m depth (on the south side) would have requiredone.2 According to the excavation notebooks, the Pit 2 "doorway"was filled in when Pit 1 was "surroundedby at least two coursesof mudbrick."SectionsC-D (fig. 15) shows two such courseson the southernside of Pit 1 and five courseson the northernside. Although the top of this mudbrickis cut or eroded at approximatelythe same level (the interfacewith Layer 10), there is a noticeable differencein the materialon/in which this mudbrick"wall"was founded:on the south it is built on accumulation(?)Layers 12 and 12a, while on the north it is built into unspecifiedlayers in the depression of the Pit 2 "doorway."It is uncertainfrom the section, however, whether or not a foundationtrench was utilizedin either case.3 64

Tell Abu Habil

A

65

ROAD

I,.

-

-, / -212

,01'

N?

N

WADI

f

Fig. 13. Tell Abu Habil. Sketch map of the site from the excavationnotebook. No. 1 marks the location of Mellaart's sounding;No. 2 recordstracesof walls visibleon the surfacewhen Mellaartwas workingon the site; and No. 3 callsattention to "Khirbet"Abu Habil,the surfaceof which is said to have producedIron II, Roman,and Byzantinepottery (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

The differencesin both the foundinglevels and soil types, in such a small area,4combineto make it difficultto visualizethe appearanceof this part of the soundingbeforethe buildingof the mudbrick "wall"aroundPit 1. The utilizationof Pit 1 after it was surroundedby the mudbrickwall is also difficultto interpret,since most of the deposit above the mudbrickfloor (Layerlid) consistsof lenses of ash. It is probablyfor this reasonthat Mellaartsaw this featureas a possiblegranarythat had been later used as a rubbishpit. Such an interpretationof the later use of the structure,while probably correct,still raises a major question:upon which (stratigraphic)level were the ancientoccupantsof Tell Abu Habil standing (and hence living) when the installationwas constructed?5 Furthercomplicatingthe entire questionof Pit 1 and its relationto the archaeological stratabelow Layer10 (cf. fig. 15: SectionC-D) is the observationin the notebooksthat the sides of Pit 1 had been whitewashed.Unfortunately,the importantverticalextent of this whitewash is not recorded.Such informationwould be extremely useful. If, for instance,the whitewash went down (or up) only to Layerli1dor 1 f, this wouldbe additionalevidencefor the internalphasingof the pit. If, however,the entire depth of Pit 1 had been whitewashed,it would indicatean act (the whitewashing)that would

Tell Abu Habil

66

C

A

I. MU6DSRICK WALL C

WALL A

-

2

0 *o

__

.-

-

.

'.1

WALL B

'

Fig. 14. Tell Abu Habil.Plan of the excavationarea (TrenchI). Serion A-B can be seen in fig. 16, and SectionC-D through Pits 1 and 2 in TrenchI (J.Mellaart).

C

I^

e-.:t.

^

*'H 'Jf'*^^

^

A4X'*~ uWWAP^

h FLoOR

*^^/^NCH'

H ow<

ei. cj

../~_j

,.

^ "-

-

UPF CLAY FLooR.-

.Ask

8*

-*

--

'

A STU

1

BUFF WITH $oNFE 3

8ic L-

NATURAL .AVE

i-, WHITE HUWWAR.

SEcr

ION

THr

ouG f

? iT$o,

I

z.

3

C_D)

Fig. 15. Tell Abu Habil.SectionC-D throughPits 1 and 2 in TrenchI (J.Mellaart)

to

67

Tell Abu Habil

A

B AJ-8- I

Uppoer / The/ .,,,,,-/y//

I FLOOR

c t

:

4 Jix 6^

+

..

/./.

X

-,

-

tr o

A

_&UFP

WITHI-

Lay er^0,

an


1 o

D

L6 GRAVE ,

4

L

o

? ___P

CQhY-A5H /ATufrZAl

//7 Q

ASH

o

J1

_

?lI2AM-.._ wIt1re

/

// -A

H .e.P

4

-*Y

y //// A

7/ 7,,' wIT,-louT

bvFF

AND

0 v1

? $

e

?/ S

Y-A5 2A ^TlJ-.

h f

/ 7'

Vy

A^

ptcu /t

/// a abeses ~ th

S0O o

/7

./

r

-

FLooR. c-

nACE

.LUjJ//F

*T0

T

t

/

Strt(PWN

> HACJ\.3BuP?f

3 WALLA A

4 3P^itH in

",T ted wt@

| tiAtK A

//

.AURc4

4APJD

s

n/J////

,_ /BI,ACKSTReAK //CD i Pa /r fH BlJIP WITH CHIPS r

<>ill

7U

f

UJC'ouT-r

t4AATPIAL

l

H uUNWA^R.

Fig. 16. Tell Abu Habil.SectionA-B, which actuallyforms the 3-m south balkof the sounding.Seefig. 14 (J.Mellaart).

serve as a terminuspost quem for the subsequentfilling of the pit. In the lattercase, the bell-shaped Pit 1 may actuallyhave been dug down from Layer10;6but then, the problemof the surroundingwall of mudbrickwith its apparentlack of foundationtrencheswould remain. It seems that we simplydo not have, in this small sounding,sufficientevidenceto disentanglethe complicatedstratigraphyof this part of the site prior to the laying of the Layer10 floor. Pit 3 Pit 3, in the eastern corner of the sounding (fig. 14), is describedas having been cut into the naturalhuwwar.Its roundededge is uncertain,and it was filled with soft gray ash. This pit does not appearon either of the sectiondrawings,and little more can be said aboutit. No artifactualmaterialis associatedwith Pit 3 in the notebooks.

The UpperStrata (PeriodsIII-V) The understandingof the upper stratain Mellaart'sTrenchI at Tell Abu Habil must be basedon the "east-west"SectionA-B (fig. 16). Here, in the southeasternpart of the sounding,ashy Layer12a appearsabovethe naturalhuwwarand below gravellyLayer12 and soil Layer10, which is the makeup for the stampedclay floor (Layer9) that is said to seal the pit depositsof Mellaart'sPeriodsI and II. This sequenceis difficultto interpret,becauseFloor9 is preservedfor only about0.50 m in the section and Layers 10, 12, and 12a appear to be lenses in a pit cut through the sequenceof unnumbered deposits marked"veryhardbuff/mudbrick"and "buffwith chips/dug out natural"in the westernpart of the sounding. Period III consists of Layers6 through 10. The basal Layer10 of this "period"may itself have been cut by the pit, which would accountfor the inclusionof ash in its easternextent. The tip-line for

68

Tell Abu Habil

this pit might actuallybe indicatedin the sectiondrawing(fig. 16). The notebookrecordsthat WallsD and E (and possibly in addition,Wall F) were built on the Layer9 floor, but of these only Wall D appears on the plan (fig. 14), covered(?)on the west by mudbrick"WallC" and passing over the earlier Pit 3 on the east. As drawn on the plan, however,Wall D also seems to pass over the late (PeriodIV) Wall A. We thus have very little idea of the appearanceof the structureformedby these walls and the Layer9 floor.Above Layer9, the thick ash Layer8 is coveredby a deposit of buff earth, Layer7, while a localizedash lens (Layer6a) in the easternpart of the soundingand an (unnumbered) floor at the interfaceof Layers5 and 7 are the final strataassociatedby the excavatorwith his Period III. Makingthe interpretationof these layerseven more difficultis the fact that Layers5, 7, and the floor at their interfacewere cut on the west by (Period IV) ash Layer5a prior to the laying of the (Period IV) Layer4a "floor." Period IV is said to be comprisedof four archaeologicalelements: Layer5, a soil and ash layer above the Layer5/7 interface"floor";Layer5a, an ash lens that must representa pit in the western part of the soundingthat cuts Layers5, 7, andpossibly8; Layer4a, a floor that might have sealedLayer 5a but is in turncut by the PeriodIV Pit 3b (cut from the interfaceof Layers2 and 3); and ash Layer4, which lies upon the Layer4a floor within the room of which Wall A formedthe easternlimit. WallA is shown to have been a mudbrickwall, surviving to two courses,built directlyon Floor 4a. The notebooksindicatethat WallB was also builtat the same time, but this is not explicitin the drawingof section C-D (comparefigs. 14 and 15). Period V deposits includeLayer3, a two-part(?) stratum,the lower portion of which appears above Layer4 west of Wall A, while the upper part coversWall A (fig. 16). Stratum3b, as drawnin section A-B, representsa pit dug from the Layer2/3 interface,Layer3' (or 3a?) is a soft ash lens to the west of the Layer3b cutting,and Layers1 and 2 can be groupedtogetheras topsoil.None of the Period V layersseem to representsecuredeposits. The stratigraphicalrelation of thick (over 1.0 m) mudbrickWall C (fig. 14), along the eastern limits of the soundingto the rest of the archaeologicalfeaturesin the excavationis not indicatedin the notebook. In summary,the upper layers(1-10) in TrenchI that constitutethe excavator'sPeriodsIII-V do not appearto displaymuch archaeologicalintegrity,due mainlyto the uncertaintiesin the westernpart of the excavatedarea.Layers 10, 12, and 12a appear to be fill-depositsin a pit or cutting, and the relationshipbetween these strata and the small portion of Floor 9 that reachesthe A-B section is unclear.Above this, a secondgroupof deposits-5, 6, and 7-are all cut by a pit (Layer5a), which was subsequentlycovered(in part) by Floor4a, upon which at least Wall A was founded.Fill in this room consistsof Layer4 and the lower part of Layer3, but muchof the westernpart of these levels were cut by Layer3b, a pit cut from the interfaceof Layers2 and 3. Materialabove and to the west of Layer3 representsopen deposits.

The Pottery (pls. 20-22) The ceramicassemblagefrom Tell Abu Habil consists of 66 vessel-fragmentsand one animal figurineof (unbaked)clay.These handmadevessels appeareither plain or coveredwith red or brown slip. Furtherdecorationis achievedby the restrictionof the slip to individualparts of the vessel, by painted motifs, or by bandsof incisionand impressedcordons;while some vessels exhibit a combination of one or more of these decorative devices. All of these features can be found in the material from

de Contenson'ssoundingat the site (de Contenson 1960a:31-49).

Tell Abu Habil

69

Coronet. In discussingthe materialfrom his excavationsat Tell Abu Habil de Contensonnoted the absenceof the coronet (de Contenson1960a:37). While completeexamplesof this type-fossilof the Ghassul-Beershebacultureare absent in the assemblagefrom Mellaart'ssoundings,the existence of two fragmentsof vessels with small mouthsand angularprofiles(pl. 20:1, 2) couldbe used to argue for the presenceof the coronet at Tell Abu Habil. Such an argumentwould be supportedby a small fragment (pl. 22:10) that appearsto representthe tip of one of these vessels.7 Churn. As with the coronet,the presenceof the "churn"at Tell Abu Habil can only be inferred ratherthan conclusivelydemonstrated.And as with the coronet,de Contensoncalledattentionto the but in light of the materialfrom Mellaart's absenceof the distinctive"birdvase"from his excavations,8 soundings a case can be presented for the inclusionof this diagnosticform within the Abu Habil corpus.PI. 21:1-3 representsthe necks of three vessels that taper towardthe rim. Although two of these (pl. 21:1, 3) displaya relativelystraightprofile,pl. 21:2 exhibitsa definitesinuousnessthat can be documentedon churnsfrom other sites (cf. Jiftlik,pl. 1:2). It should be possible, then, to posit that pl. 21:2 (if not all three fragments)representsthe neckof a churn,and that Tell Abu Habil shouldbe associated,at least in part, with other sites of the Ghassul-Beershebahorizon.9 Bowl. Bowls compriseover a thirdof the Tell Abu Habil assemblageand appearin a varietyof sizes and types.Thin-walledsharp-rimmedbowls with straightsides are well represented(pl. 20:8-12, 20). These were generallyexecuted in a buff fabricwith both the interior and exterior of the rim highlighted with a band of matte red paint (or wash) applied directlyto the surfaceof the vessel. Additionalpainted "decoration" can appearon the interiorsurface(pl. 20:11, 12). A portion of the base is preservedon two of the bowls, one (pl. 20:12) bearingthe imprint of the mat on which the vessel was turned.In shape,techniqueof manufacture,and decoration,this is one of the most common bowl types of the Chalcolithicpotters' repertoire.10 Similarin fabricand shape,but slightlymore elaboratein its decoration,is pl. 20:16.This vessel is coveredon the inside (only?)with a creamslip. Bandsof red paint have been addedto both surfacesof the rim, while the interior has been given a further embellishmentby the additionof two wavy painted lines. In spite of the presence of a "cream"slip, this fragmentshould not be confusedwith pieces of the "GezerCream Ware,"for that term refers to the fabric,not just to the slip, and is confinedto a specificgroupof (mostlyclosed)forms.)' The small "carinated" bowl (pl. 20:17) might be comparedto vessels similarlydescribedfrom Gezer'sChalcolithicStratum14, FieldI (Dever 1974: 12, pl. 2:23-29), but the Tell Abu Habil bowl has much more verticalsides.If, however,the comparisonis legitimateit wouldbe significant,for the best parallelsfor the Gezer bowls come from coastalAzor (Dever 1974: 13, n. 13), and this would move the geographicaldistributionof the type well into the JordanValley.The tracesof red paint on the rim of pl. 20:17 is quite in keepingwith the decorationon the Gezerbowls. Two rim fragments from bowls with relativelystraight sides (pi. 22:2, 3) exhibit a painted decorationof lattice design applied to an unslipped surface.Unfortunately,not enough of either fragmentis preservedto indicatewhether or not this latticedesign appearedas the majordecorative element, as a band aroundthe vessel, or was used secondarilyas a fillingdevice in a motif (triangleor lozenge), as it was popularlyutilizedin the Chalcolithicperiod."2Perhapsarguingthat it was a major design element is the fact that when the lattice design is used as a subsidiaryor filling ornamentat Ghassul and contemporarysites, it is most usuallydisplayedin a more vertical format than it appears here.

70

Tell Abu Habil

The last of the straight-sidedopen forms from Tell Abu Habil (pi. 20:21) has a thickerbodythan the majorityof the open forms at the site. It is also set apartfrom the rest of the seriesof bowls by the presencebelow the rim of a cordonof impresseddecorationin additionto a buffpaint or wash.Similar vessels appear in the corpus from Tell el-Mafjar (pl. 5:1, 4), where a Chalcolithic date has been

suggested(Mafjar,n. 5; FitzGerald1935:pl. 1:24;and Gustavson-Gaube1985:73, fig. 9:22). The Tell Abu Habil assemblagealso includesbowls with curvedprofiles (pls. 20:7, 13-15, 18, 22:1), but, as is the case with other Ghassul-Beershebacontexts (includingTell el-MafjarandJiftlik, discussedhere), they never achievethe roundnessof profileof those that make up the majorityof the small open forms in Proto-Urban/EBI deposits (cf.Jiftlik,n. 10). Interestingly,these simple rounded forms are predominantlyundecoratedat Tell Abu Habil. At first glance, pl. 20:19 looks out of place in the assemblageand may, in fact, have been reconstructedby the excavatorwith too round a lower profile and base.13Its painted decoration, however, in a manner similar to the straight-sidedbowls, fits well with the materialcited from the sites. Ghassul-Beersheba PI. 22:4, from a bowl of slightly roundedprofile, exhibits a "pier crust"rim accentedby an undulatingband of red paint. This type of modulatedrim appearsquite frequentlyin Chalcolithic contextson both open and closed forms,but,perhapsdue to the requiredmodeling,the rim is seldom as roundedas that presentedhere.14 Cup. Four fragmentscome from open forms that, becauseof the diameterof their rims, might be termed "cups."Small semi-roundedvessels with plain rims such as pl. 22:3, 4, 6 are common at Ghassul,but the attentionto the rim of pI. 20:5 is less easy to documentand is not in keepingwith the generaltreatmentof the small Ghassulianopen forms.15 HolemouthJar. Another majorcomponentof the ceramicassemblagefrom Tell Abu Habil is the "holemouth"jar.This form is here divided,arbitrarily,into three broadsubcategoriesaccordingto slight modificationsof the rim. This divisionis solely for the purposeof facilitatingpresentationand is not meant to suggest rigid classification(s).Lines of demarcationbetween the groups are subtle and subjective,and in fact the internaldevelopmentwithin the holemouthform at Tell Abu Habil is best seen when each subgroupis viewed as a single element in a continuousspectrum. 1. The simplest of the holemouthforms are the "true"holemouths,i.e., those that do not exhibit of the body. any differentiationbetween the bodyand the rim, the rim being merelythe "termination" Under this subheadingseveralof the Abu Habil vessels can be placed. Biconicalholemouth jars are representedby pl. 21:13 (and possibly pl. 21:22). The opposing handlesplaced above the point of carinationare common on this form at Ghassul.Similarly,simple rims, but on vessels that are more globular(at least) in the upper body zone (pl. 21:14, 15), are also standarddomesticelementsin the Ghassul-Beersheba repertoire.16 Between the biconicalholemouth jars and their more globularcounterpartsis a group that is morphologicallyintermediate,sharing some of the featuresof the two typologicalpoles. PI. 21:19 is from a jar of about the same size as the globularholemouths,while pl. 21:16-18 representsvessels almost half that size. The exteriorof pl. 21:16, the smallest of these, is decoratedwith a horizontal bandof fingernailimpressionsin additionto rim-bandsof drippingmatt-brownpaint.This represents either a small jar or one of the cups (or stemmedgoblets) that vied with the coronetfor popularityas the leadingdrinkingvessel at Ghassul.17 2. The second categoryof holemouth jars at Tell Abu Habil consists of vessels with vertically straightenedrims. In this group the rim of the jar has been pulled up to a verticalstance,giving it a

Tell Abu Habil

71

morphologicalexistencedistinctfrom the wall of the vessel. Present,but barelyperceivableon pl. 21:4, this featureis more noticeablein pi. 21:5, 11. The more closedpi. 21:20,with decorationsimilarto the others, may be related.Comparandafor these pieces can be foundin de Contenson'ssounding,as well as at other sites. They appearto be generallyChalcolithicin date.18 Two other vessels (pi. 21:6, 12) might, on the basis of their externalprofiles,be relatedto this class. PI. 21:12, which probablybore a second (antitheticallyarranged)handle, displays an internal thickeningof the rim that does not appearon the others.The slight modelingof the rim of pl. 21:6 seems to anticipatethe thirdcategory,those with slightlyevertedrims. 3. The third group of "holemouth"jars exhibits short, slightly everted verticalrims createdby pulling the embryonicrim of the secondgroup slightlybackfrom the vertical.This rim type is known from de Contenson'ssoundingat Abu Habil,as well as at Ghassuland relatedsites.19 Less easy to "classify" is the rim of pl. 21:21,displayingan angularflatteningof the interiorthat is seen, with sharperlines, on a jar from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956: fig. 2:6), where it also stands apartfrom the rest of the series of holemouthjars.Callawaydescribedthe Beershebapiece as a forerunnerof the "flattened"rim that appears in the earliest of the pre-urbanstrata at the cAi Sanctuaryand relatedit to similartypes that appearon the Jerichotell in the Proto-Urbanperiod.20 Jarswith outsplayedrims. The Tell Abu Habil assemblagealso includesa numberof fragments that displayan outsplayed(i.e., more than simply everted) rim and that sort themselvesinto smaller and largerforms.The smallerfragments(pls. 20:23,24, 21:9, 10) sharea commonbufffabricand have rims highlightedby a slip or wash. PI. 21:10 is furtherdecoratedwith a horizontalbandof fingernail impressions on the shoulder.Individualpeculiaritiesin rim-stancecan be paralleledin a variety of Chalcolithic contexts.21

Three examplesof the outsplayedrims come from larger,thicker-walledpithoi or storagejars (pl. 20:22, 25, 26). This form, withoutplasticdecoration(as pl. 20:22), can be foundin the easternJordan Valley at Tell es-Saidiyehto the north of Abu Habil.22Both pl. 20:25 and 26 exhibit an indented cordonjust below the junctureof the rim and body,while the edge of pl. 20:26 has been impressedas well. Similarpieces appearat Tell el-Mafjarand other sites in the JordanValley.23 Two more completelypreservedjarsexhibit lug-handlesslightlyabovethe point of greatestbody diameter(pl. 22:6, 11). The noticeabledistortionin the bodyof these vessels apparentlyis the resultof the pressure exerted while attachingthese handles.Although the rims of both jars can be termed "outsplayed," they differ from each other sufficientlyto remindus of the problemsof working with small fragments.An almost identicaljarcomes from de Contenson'ssoundingat Tell Abu Habil,while similarvessels are known from Ghassul-Beersheba depositsat other sites.24 One sherd (pi. 22:5), reconstructedby the excavatoras havinga somewhatoutsplayedrim, stands out in the present assemblagebecauseit is decoratedwith both red and blackpaint on a "cream"slip. The presenceof both red and blackpaint is noted by de Contensonon a bow-rimfrom his soundingat Tell Abu Habil, but this differsfrom the present piece in that it is said to be fashionedfrom "white finely levigatedclay"whereasMellaart'sfragmentis in a red ware and the two colors are not used in the same "decoration."25 Handles. Three basictypes of handles-lug, loop, and ledge-are includedin the materialfrom Mellaart'sexcavationsat Tell Abu Habil. Of the lug handles,pl. 22:13 appearsto have come from a vessel similarto pi. 22:6, 11, for the wall displaysa similardistortion.The fragmenton pi. 22:12,with a double lug, is from a vessel with more roundedprofile. PI. 22:14, decoratedboth with paint and a band of fingernailimpressions,is from a thinner-walled,more gently curvedvessel.26Loop handles

72

Tell Abu Habil

such as pI. 22:15 are well representedin de Contenson'ssoundingat the site (de Contenson1960a:fig. 23:7, 12, etc.), but the ledge handle,pl. 22:16, is the first handleof this type to be publishedfrom Tell Abu Habil. Bases. Of the five bases in the assemblage,one (pl. 22:8), was mat-impressed.Similar bases were frequentlyencounteredin de Contenson'ssounding at the site (de Contenson 1960a: fig. 23:5 [Level I], 25:15, 26:16 [Level III].The thumb-impressionsat the edge of the concavebase of pl. 22:7 can be seen on flat bases from Tell el-Mafjar(cf. above, pl. 2:29) and Jawa (Helms 1981: B5:4). Whetherthis was an attemptat decorationor simply a productof manufactureis impossibleto say.PI. 22:9 bears a verticalstripe of red "paint"applied directlyto the buff surfaceof the vessel.Jars with verticallypainted stripes do not appearto have had much interest in the Ghassul-Beershebaculture, and they are generally consideredfirst to gain popularitywith the "line group"decorationof the Proto-UrbanB/EB IB period. The two "footed"bases,which at first appearto be out of place in this assemblage,are sometimes encounteredin Chalcolithiccontexts, but it is not until the Proto-Urban/EBI period that the type becomes widespread.27

Miscellaneous. The assemblagefrom Tell Abu Habil also includesa single (unbaked)animal figurine(pl. 22:17). As with the (baked)examples from Tell el-Mafjardiscussedabove (pl. 5:25-27), an identificationmore specificthan a "quadruped" cannotbe offered.

TheLithicAssemblage In additionto the ceramicartifacts,the Tell Abu Habil assemblagealso includessix stone vessels This materialincludesthreesmall bowls (pl. 22:22, describedby the excavatoras serpentineor basalt.28 24, 25) of simple shape,a basewith distinctivegrooves (pl. 22:23),and two fragmentsfrom fenestrated "stands."The standsare especiallycommonin the strataof the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon.29

Summary The ceramicmaterialfrom Trench I at Tell Abu Habil forms a very coherent assemblage,and even withoutthe presenceof the coronetand churnpositedabove,the straight-sidedbowls,holemouth horizon. jars,and lug-handledvessels find readyparallelsin the corporaof the Ghassul-Beersheba As noted above,the sequenceof depositsin this soundingis confusingto me, but only fourof the artifacts recovered from the excavation might at first glance appear to be out of place in this assemblage.The two storage vessels that displayan outsplayedrim above an applied and impressed cordon(pl. 20:25,26) do enjoy more popularityin the Proto-UrbanD "'period," but parallelsfor them in Chalcolithiccontexts have been cited, and their presence in open Layers2 and 3 lessens their relevanceto a discussionof the Tell Abu Habil sequence.Of the fragmentsof two "footed"vessels, the flat-basedpl. 22:18 appearsalongsidepl. 22:26 in open Layer3, and thus its value to a discussionof stratigraphyis moot. The concavefoot of pl. 22:19 does at first look out of place chronologically,and its position in ash Layer6 below both Wall A and Floor 4a would give us pause if it were not for its parallelsat the type-siteof Ghassul.Although stratigraphically confusing,then, TrenchI does appear to offer a series of deposits presentingmaterialthat is-in form, fabricand finish-homogeneously LateChalcolithicin character.

Tell Abu Habil

73

Tell Abu Habil TrenchI Stratum/Layer

Description

1 2 3 3a 3b

Dark brownearth,disturbed Soft, light brownearth Hard,darkbrownearth,Top possiblyused as floor Soft,grayash Grayash layerwith white specks,Hearth (?)

4 4a 5 5a

Soft,grayish-buffash Floorupon which WallA (andB?) were built Hardbrownsoil with ashes,soft at east end Grayash

6 7 8 9

Grayash Soft buffearth Blackash Veryhard,stampedclayfloor.Burntto red-brown.Walls D and E (andpossiblyF as an addition)builton it. Buffsoil (some ash in parts),Floormakeup

10 11 1la lib lic lid 1le lif llg 12 12a 13

The stratificationof Pit 1 Gray-buffashysoil Buffearth Whitish ash Levellayerof mudbrickfragments,floor (?), doorway(?) Ashes, gray-blackspecks Floorof buffclaywith ash and burntmaterialupon it Brownsoil with grayash, abovenaturalwhite huwwar. Graysoil with manystones and largeamountsof gravel Grayashymaterialwithoutstones Naturalsoil a. brownhuwwar b. gravel c. white huwwar

Period/Level

V

III

Tell Abu Habil

74

Tell Abu Habil: Artifact Index TrenchI: Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7 Layer 8 Layer 9 Layer 10 Layer 11 Layer 112 Layer lIa Layer 12

none 20:25, 22:14 20:3, 22, 26; 21:3, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20; 22:9, 19, 22 20:4, 16, 18; 21:2, 7, 10; 22:4 none 22:18 20:10, 11, 13, 19; 21:1, 6; 22:1, 16 21:4 none (floor) none (floor makeup) 20:1, 6, 9, 15, 20, 24; 21:5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 21, 22; 22:2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17 20:3, 4, 5, 17 20:12 20:7, 8, 14, 21; 21:14, 15, 19; 22:5, 10

"TrenchII": Layer 8

22:3, 11

Surface: 22:20, 21, 23, 24, 25

Notes ' One wonders whether or not it is meaningful that Floor lid is at the same level as the bottom of Pit 2, while the top of Pit 2, at its northernedge, is at the approximate level at which Pit 1 meets (andcuts through)the huwwaron its southernside. 2A problemwith suchan interpretationis the factthat the mudbrickfloor (lid) consists of fragmentsof individual mudbricks.This could indicateany of three circumstances: (1) that it in fact representspart of the superstructureof the suggestedPit 1-2 dwelling;(2) that it is detritusfrom an earlier(or later) mudbrickstructureoutsidethe sounding;or (3) that it is merelya layerof fill in a lateruse of the cutting. 3This discussion can only deal with two (north and south) "sides"of the wall that surroundPit 1, since only the informationpresented in Section C-D is available.Neither the point(s) of transitionbetween the two and five course segments of this wall nor the nature of that transition is recorded. 4 Stratigraphically it appearsthat a terminuspost quem for the mudbrickadditionto Pit 1 couldbe gained from the artifactsin Layers12 and 12a below its southernside, but in spite of the fact that Layer 12 is describedas containing "massesof potsherds,"very little of the materialfrom these two layersis illustratedin the preserveddrawings.

5 It would seem that, if this wall was dug into previously utilized strata,some sort of foundationtrench would have been noticed,especiallyon the northernside of Pit 1 where the horizontalexposureis muchgreater. 6 Note that de Contensonalso had troublewith pits in his excavationsat Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960a:3144). Cf. especiallythe south section to his sounding(fig. 19), where a very deep pit is assignedto Layer8 even though it was actuallycut from at least as high as the interfaceof Layers4 and 5. 7 It is possible that pl. 22:10 might be the tip of the handleof one of the small "spoons"that appearin both the Chalcolithicand EB I periods.Chalcolithicexamples can be found,inter alia, at Ghassul(North 1961:pl. IX:8685 [= fig. 18:8685]); H.orvatBeter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 17:38); Tell Turmus (Dayan 1969: fig. 8:11); and possibly earlier at Ghrubba(Mellaart1956: fig. 4:54, 55). For EB I examples, cf. Babedh-Dhra(Sailer1965:fig. 33:3,4). 8 Cf. de Contenson 1960a:37. It should also be noted, however,that his articlewas completedby 1955 without the aid of knowledgegained from many of the excavationsand surveysthat are often taken for grantedtoday.For instance, Perrot'sexcavationsat Tell Abu Matar (Beersheba),which were to greatlyexpandour understandingof the Chalcolithic

Tell Abu Habil period,were conductedbetween 1952 and 1954 (Perrot1955: 17), and althoughde Contensonwas to work subsequentlyon the pottery from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956), this importantsourcefor comparandawould not have been availableto him when he conductedhis work at Tell Abu Habil in the springof 1953. 9 Note also the similaritiesbetweenpl. 21:2 andde Contenson's"jarwith swellingneck"(de Contenson1960a:fig. 26, andp. 40), as well as betweenthe latterpieceandthe neckof a churnfrom the Beershebaarea(de Contenson1956:fig. 9:8). 10Fragmentsof similarbowls were foundin all threeof de Contenson'ssoundingsat Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960a:fig. 23:3 [LevelI], 24:6 [LevelII], 26:1,7 [LevelIII]. 11 Cf.Amiran1955.Forexamplesof the warein Stratum V at Arad,cf. Amiran1978:8. Forthe forms,cf. Amiran1955: 242. For red painted decorationon a "white slip" from de Contenson'ssounding,cf.de Contenson1960a:fig.24:5, 35. 12 Firm, well-drawn lattice designs, as well as sketchy cross-hatching,areincludedhere in this partialbut representative list of examples from the Chalcolithic.In addition to de Contenson1960a:fig. 24:5,cf. also Ghassul(Koeppel1940: pl. 96:3, 4; North 1961:pl. IX:8469,8619, etc.); H.orvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 6:10, 11 [two color]; Tell Delhamiya (Amiran 1977: fig. 1:1); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:20 [StratumII]; Teluliot Batashi,Level III (Kaplan 1958a: fig. 10:18, 11:8 [on "roundel"];Ain el-Jarba(Kaplan 1969a:fig. 9:2-4); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 28:2, 6; 30:3; 34:2, 5 [ossuaries];Ghrubba)(Mellaart1956: fig. 6:127); and Kataret es-Samra(Leonard1989). 13 It could also be reconstructed with a concavelower body and flat base more along the lines of examples from Beersheba(de Contenson 1956: fig. 6:12, 13). The sharply evertedrim is still unusual,but de Contenson1956: fig. 6:12 does exhibita very slightlyevertedrim. 14 This sherd was locatedin the Amman Museumand can be assignedan approximatediameterof 0.30 m. For the rim type cf., inter alia,on open forms:Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 16: B2:2, 10d, etc.); Arad, Stratum V (Amiran 1978: pl. 2:5); Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 2:9 [StratumII]; Teluliot Batashi,LevelIII (Kaplan1958a:fig. 11:9,10); the Beersheba area (de Contenson 1956: fig. 7:9, 8:9, 11, etc.); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 8:6-8 [StratumI], fig. 13:29, 31 [StratumII-III]). 15 Cf., inter alia, Koeppel 1940: pl. 76:4, 5; Hennessy 1969: fig. 8a:1 (Phase D). The less shallow pl. 20:3, 4 could also be from some of the more globularcoronets (Koeppel 1940: pi. 76:17, 18, 20; Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:2 [Phase A]). the Perhapsthe drawingby the excavatorsimply"regularizes" grooves and indentationsseen at the rim of some of the coronetsfrom Ghassul(Hennessy 1969:pl. VIIIA).A "rolled rim" may occur on a concave-bodiedcoronet from Ghassul (Koeppel 1940:pl. 95:7). 16 Ghassul(Mallon1934:fig.45,47, pl. 43:103;Koeppel 1940: pl. 96:4). With the handleson, ratherthan above,the Tomb 354 (Garstang1935: carination,cf.Jericho"Chalcolithic" pl. 42:13). The same biconicalform without handlesis also

75

known from Ghrubba(Mellaart1956:fig. 4:26);cf. also from Tell el-Mafjar,above,pl. IV:1, 12, and references. 17 Cf., inter alia, small jar (Koeppel 1940: fig. 78:1,4); cup (Mallon 1934: pl. 53:2; Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:8); and goblet (Mallon1934:pls. 49:6, 50:97). 18 Specificparallelsfor these pieces include:for pi. 21:4, TellAbuHabil(de Contenson1960a:fig.24:2);Ghassul(Hennessy 1969:fig. 6:8 [PhaseB], 8a:12[PhaseD], etc.);and the Beershebaarea(de Contenson1956:fig. 3:11).Forpl. 21:5, 11, cf. Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960a:fig. 23:10); Ghassul (Koeppel 1940:pl. 78:11 [largerand with handles]);Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966: fig. 3:3); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 16:3);the Beershebaarea(de Contenson1956:fig. 13:3);and even Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr1956:fig. 14:123).Note also the piece from Beth ShanXVIII (FitzGerald1935:pl. 1:15 [with cordon]). For pl. 21:20, cf. also similar vessels from Arad StratumV (Amiran1978:pl. 3:6,10); Alayiq(Pritchard1958: pl. 57:5); and from the Beershebaarea (de Contenson1956: fig. 3:6, 11). 19 Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960a: fig. 25:7 [Level III]); Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:9 [Phase A]; and on a spouted jar, fig. 7a:13 [Phase B]); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IV:19 [and perhapsIV:36,37]; Meser (Dothan 1959b:fig. 6:6 [StratumII]); and Pella (personalcommunicationbyJ. B. Hennessy).The fact that this is one of the simplestforms of the holemouthjar is evidencedby its presenceat the "dawn" of pottery-makingin JerichoPottery Neolithic A, cf. Moore 1973:fig. 6:9, his LateNeolithic,Phase I. Visualinspectionof pl. 21:8 in the Amman Museum showed it to be a very blackened(secondarilyburned)sherdand did not excludethe possibility that it may have been decoratedin a manner similarto the "grain-wash" technique. 20Callaway1972:61, fig. 15:9 (PhaseI), with references to Tell Farcah(N); and66, fig. 18:26(PhaseII,whereit is also a minoritytype). Actuallythe Tell Abu Habilpiece seems to be a blend of two of Hennessy'stypes (cf. Hennessy 1967:8, "plainslightly everted rim" [pl. III:21],and the "plainflat rim" [pl. 111:23]).A similar forerunnermight be seen in ChalcolithicStratum 14 (FieldI) at Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 1:12). 21 The elongatedrim of pl. 20:23 can be seen at H.orvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 15:18 [StratumII-III]). Cf. also Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XXXVII:18 ["EarlyBronzeI"]). The sharp profileof pl. 20:24 appearsat Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 7a:13 [a Phase B spouted jar]); and Tell Turmus (Dayan 1969: fig. 4:5 [slightly more outsplayed]).The short rims of pl. 21:9, 10 appear at Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 18:8686);and the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 4:15). The combinationof rim-typeand "incised"decoration can be seen at Tell Umm Hamad es-Sherqi (Helms 1984: fig. 12:3,5,6, 8). 22 Cf. de Contenson1960a:fig. 33:12.Cf. also a slightly differentinner profilefrom Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor1966:fig. 5:1);Neve Ur (Perrot1967:fig. 17:3). 23 To the referencescited above for Mafjarpl. 3:7, add KhirbetSheikhMohammed(de Contenson1964:pl. XI:15);

76

Tell Abu Habil

andpossibleNeve Ur (Perrot1967:fig. 17:1,6); Delhamiyeh (Amiran1977:fig.4:6); the Beth Shanarea(Tsori1958:fig.4: bottom); Pella (Hennessy et al. 1983: 327, fig. 1:7, and McNicoll et al. 1982: 89, pl. 104:1); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (Gustavson-Gaube1985: 73, fig. 9:26); 'En Shadud(Braun 1985:50, fig. 23:1,PotteryType 23). Note: these forms are quite similar to vessels that are included by de Miroschedji in his pre-urbaine 'D' (de Miroschedji1971: 38-40, fig. 14:A, B1) and types that are quite common at Tell Umm Hamad es-Sherqi (see below). 24 Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson1960a:fig. 24:1 [Level II]; Ghassul(Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:6 [Phase B]); the Beersheba area (de Contenson 1956: fig. 4:14, 19, 20); Ho.rvat Beter (Dothan 1959a: fig. 15:9 [more globular]); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:16 [StratumII]); and possibly Newe Yam(Prausnitz1977:fig. 1:2 [rim not preserved]);and Wadi Ghazzeh,Site 0 (Macdonald1932:pl. XXXV:14, lower right corner. 25 Cf. de Contenson1960a:33, fig. 23:2. De Contenson's pieces may bear the same relation to the "Gezer Cream Ware"(Amiran 1955) as does the "chalkywhite to cream fabric"that Hennessy notes occurringin his Phases A-C at Ghassul (Hennessy 1969: 9). For the possibility that this fragmentis relatedto or representativeof a dass of Chalcolithic "fine ware"slowly becoming known from the central JordanValley,cf. Leonard1989.

26 Cf. also pl. 21:16, from which this handle may have come. The combinationof paint and fingernailimpressionis also known from de Contenson'ssoundingat Tell Abu Habil (de Contenson 1960a: fig. 25:20) and many other sites, includingGhassul(North 1961: fig. 17:25,40, 41, etc.); Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:26 [Stratum II]); Neve Ur (Perrot el-Jarba(Kaplan 1969a:fig. 8:14); the 1967: fig. 17:5); Amin WadiRabah(Kaplan1958a:fig. 10:20[LevelIII]). 27For the concave pl. 22:19, cf. in the Chalcolithic: Ghassul,inter alia,Mallon 1934: fig. 56:4, 11; Koeppel 1940: pl. 79:9; North 1961: fig. 18:8625;Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:9 [Phase B]). For Proto-Urban/EB1, cf. Gezer Stratum 13 (FieldI) (Dever 1974: pl. 4:4, with referenceto Jerichoand 'Ai [pp. 15, 17, and n. 41]). This type of base is common on a numberof bowl-typesfrom Bdb edh-Dhra (Schaub1973: fig. 43:0702a, 0760, 44:0762, 0763, etc.). For the flat-based pl. 22:18,cf. Babedh-Dhra,fig. 44:0780. 28Visual inspectionof these pieces in the Amman museum suggeststo me (andI am not a geologist) that pi. 22:22 is basaltand not serpentine. 29 Cf., inter alia, Ghassul (North 1961: pl. 10:8022); Horvat 'Usa (Ben-Tor 1966:fig. 6:14); Tell Turmus(Dayan 1969:fig. 9:12-14); Meser (Dothan 1957:pl. 37b); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 13:1, 2); and WadiGhazzehSite A (Macdonald 1932: pl. XL:30, 34, 36); and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 11:4 [StratumI], fig. 19:5 [Stratum II-III]).

Tell

Umm

Hamad

Esh-Sherqi

Introduction Tell Umm Hamad is a low (2.50 m maximumrise) site that extends for severalhundredmeters along the northernbanks of the Wadi Zerqa at the point where it joins the JordanRiver (fig. 17). Glueck,who visitedTell Umm Hamadduringhis surveyof Transjordan,assignednumber199a and b to the site, therebycallingattentionto its dual nature:Tell Umm Hamadel-Gharbi(199a), the slight rise at the western end, which producedsubstantialquantitiesof "MBI" pottery (Glueck1951: 321); and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (199b), the longer, lower eastern end considered by Glueck to belong to the Late Chalcolithic/EB I period (Glueck 1951: 328; 1945: 10-22).

MellaartdescribedTell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqias an essentiallyflat site, partiallycoveredby a moderncemetery,with ancientwall foundationsvisibleeverywhereon the surface.Erodedcuts on the southernand southeasternmarginsof the site revealeda subsurfacedeposit of between 2.0 and 2.5 m in that area.This, when combinedwith the materialunderthe higher partsof the site, wouldindicate a maximum thickness of ca. 5.0 m for the archaeological horizon at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. Mellaart conducted three soundings at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi: Trenches I and II in the central part of the "tell," where it is cut by a shallow wadi, and Trench III on a level portion at the northern end of the site. Trench II was laid out a short distance to the north of Trench I, and the two

areaswere eventuallyjoined by a narrownorth-south corridor,enabling the stratigraphyof the two areasto be connectedin the soil as well as in the notebook.Unfortunately,a single drawingcombining an "East-WestSection"with the "WestFace of Trench I" is the only graphicdocumentationof the double sounding that has survived (fig. 18).1 Trench III, a 5 x 5 m square oriented slightly to the northwest, is located at the northern end of

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.Interpretationof the sequenceof archaeologicalevents in this part of the excavationis madeeasier by the preservationof the plan of the excavatedareas(fig. 19) and both "N-S" and "E-W" sections (fig. 20).

The Stratigraphyof TrenchI (fig. 18) Trench I, the deepest of the three soundings,was dug by Mellaartin nine archaeologicallayers, with Layer 10 representingthe naturalbedrock.2This excavationproducedmaterialof two distinct chronologicalphases: Layers1-3, attributedby Mellaartto the "EB-MB"horizon (Mellaart'sPeriod III); and Layers4-9, assigned by him to the "LateChalcolithic"period (Mellaart'sPeriods I and II). The later phase of the history of occupationon the site consists of surfacesoil (Layer 1) above a stratumof soft brownearth (Layer2), below which was a thin (0.05-0.10 m) depositof clay (Layer3) that had evidently been used as a floor. Almost 3.0 m of horizontal exposure of this surface is preservedin the "WestFace"drawingof Trench I, but it does not appearto have coveredthe entire excavated area (cf. its absence from the "East-WestSection"),nor was any architecturefound in associationwith it. Below Layer3, a thick (0.25-0.30 m) depositof ash, Layer4, separatesthis later (PeriodIII) floor from the sequenceof build-upassociatedwith the earlyoccupationof Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. 77

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

78

o

VILLAGE

N If .fi TRENCH

TRENCH m

RISE TRENCH 1,1I WADI

I

WALL TRENCH 1 JmSL TRENCH I

TRE U

C

Fig. 17. Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.A sketch map of the site from the excavationnotebook. The detail shows the relationshipbetween TrenchesI and II (laterjoined) and TrenchIII on the easternpart of the site (J.Mellaartand L Kain).

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

-J^

?y

4u3 i

-

c

law

..

l

i?

,-

-

.,3 u

CrL

r--

* 4

79

80

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

The stratigraphyof this earlierperiodwas dividedby the excavatorinto two majorgroups (PeriodsI and II), while he noted a possiblefurthersubdivisionof the lowergroup (PeriodsIa and Ib). All of the material,however,was consideredto be uniformly"LateChalcolithic." Period II consistsof a series of three very thin occupationalfloors (Layers5a-c) in a brown soil matrix.The uppermostof these floors (Layer5a) is preservedhorizontallyfor only ca. 1.50 m, while the lowest two (Layers5b and c) are extant across the full "west face"of Trench I. Layer5c is, in addition,intact in the E-W Section for about 1.0 m to a point where it had been cut away by the erosion of the small wadi. Below this sequenceof floors and separatedfrom it by a deposit of gray (ash) to buff soil (Layer6) is a clayfloor (Layer6a) that againis preservedacrossthe entire excavated area,except where cut by the wadi. No architecturewas encounteredwith this sequenceof floors,and the excavatorhas suggestedthat they may simply representexteriorcourtyarddeposits. Period I, the deepest of the three stratigraphicalgroups excavatedby Mellaartin Trench I, is separatedfrom the Period II materialby a thick (0.30-0.40 m) pottery-richdeposit of brown soil (Layer7) that rests upon a troddenclay floor (Layer7a). This floor and the deposit found on and above it combine to represent the PeriodIb phase in Trench I. Floor 7a was built upon a thick (ca. 0.50 m) layerof brown-whitematerial(Layer8) that may have been depositedintentionallyin order to present a solid and level base on which to lay the clayfloor of Layer7a. The stratabetweenLayer8, which is also describedas having been "full of potsherds,"and bedrockare includedin Mellaart's PeriodIa. The interfacebetween Layer8 and the brown clay below it (Layer9) is describedas a clay floor (Layer8a) in the excavationnotebooks,but this is not indicatedas such in the section drawing. When first encountered,Layer9 was consideredby its appearanceand textureto have been the virgin soil of the site, but continuedexcavationand the subsequentdetectionof potsherdsin this material proved that this was not the case. Below the hard upper portion of Layer9 a softer layer of similar materialwas encounteredthat filled a (circular?)cutting in the naturalrock measuringat least 3.0 m wide (cf. West Face drawing) and ca. 0.55-0.80 m deep (West Face drawing, together with E-W at Tell Umm Hamad eshsection). This cutting in the bedrockrepresentsthe earliest "occupation" in I was able to excavation Trench that demonstrate. Sherqi

The Stratigraphyof TrenchII TrenchII does not appearto have been excavatedto the same depth as neighboringTrenchI, for six layersare recorded,and these were correlatedby the excavatorwith stratafrom only stratigraphical Period II ("LateChalcolithic")and Period III ("EB-MB")of Trench I. Since only about a dozen artifactsare registeredfrom Trench II, for the purposesof this study,the equivalentstrataof the two trenchesare cross-referencedin the stratigraphicallists at the end of this section.

The Stratigraphyof TrenchIII (figs. 19, 20) Trench III was dug in five stratigraphicallayers,with Layer6 being the naturalbrown clay that comprisesbedrockat most of the site. The stratigraphyof Trench III can be discussedin two phases representing,respectively,the materialabovethe mud floor of Layer2a and that below it (fig. 20). Top-soil (Layer1) is not especially thickover most of the excavatedarea,giving way quicklyto the soft brownearthof Layer2 that covers Floor 2a in the northwesternpart of the sounding and lies directly on the natural marl at the southeasterncornerof the excavatedarea.This situationsuggeststhe presenceof a habitationor work surfaceused in connectionwith exposed bedrock,a hypothesissupportedby the discoveryof the large storagejarsor pithoi (fig. 21) on the naturalsoil (in the easternpart of the sounding),where it slopes

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

81

A

C

0

3M.

I

Fig. 19. Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.Plan of the excavatedarea in TrenchIII showing the roughlyoval cuttingin which two smallerpits (Pit 1 and Pit 2) can be seen. SectionsA-B and C-D appearin fig. 20 (J.Mellaart).

A

B

I BLACW.KSUeFACE 2.

SOFT

EAR.TH

bQZOWN tARTH

2A MUD F LOOR 3 HARD SAA4JDy/BUFF 4 ASH 5'

STONES A"

BR.OWN E'AR.TH,

C

Fig. 20. Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. Approximately east-west section A-B and north-south section C-D from the excavation of Trench III. For their location see fig. 19 (J. Mellaart).

82

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi ??ae<s_I.q.....

i

1. ,

W#-

HHji.^tn /$wrKrT!uWrtmsw

qII

i.srn

0

10cm IJ

3

1

2

4

Fig. 21. Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.Fragmentsof large storagejars with raised cordon decorationfrom Trench IlI, probablyLayer2 (J.Mellaartand G. L Harding).

awayfrom the troddenmud floor (2a). Neither walls nor evidencefor any other type of superstructure could be associatedwith Floor 2a.3 Floor 2a covers and apparentlycompletelyseals a large (ca. 4.0 x 2.40 m), shallow (ca. 0.30 m) pit cut into the naturalmarl and oriented approximatelynorth-south. Into this main oval pit two smaller and secondarypits were dug: Pit 2 (an elongatedoval measuringca. 0.75 m E-W by 0.50 m N-S, 0.30 m deep), approximatelyin the center of the main pit; and Pit 1 (more circular,ca. 0.70 x 0.80 m, ca. 0.40 m deep), to the east of Pit 2, along the easternperimeterof the main cutting.Within strata: the confinesof the majorcutting,Floor2a is separatedfrom the bedrockby three archaeological Layer3, a sandysoil that was perhapsplacedas an intentionalfilling and leveling device for Floor 2a; Level4, a thin (ca.0.10 m), practicallysterileash lens most prominentin the westernand northwestern part of the sounding;and Layer5, a buffsoil matrixwith largestones (includinga disuseddoor socket) that fills the bottom of the largepit and the two deepersecondarypits (Pits 1 and 2). No evidencefor a permanentsuperstructurewas found in any of the strata. This sequenceof pits may indicatea place of (seasonal?)occupation,with Pits 1 and 2 serving a storagecapacityor some other domesticfunction.It is difficult,however,to determinewhetheror not the artifactsfound in these pits (a stone bowl and pottery fragmentsin Pit 1 and a quern in Pit 2)

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

83

should be associatedwith the use of the installationor whether they are simply a part of a filling operationof which Layer5, with its largeboulders,seems to be at least a part.Nor is it clearwhether or not it is possibleto interpretthe interfaceof Layers3 and 5 as a secondoccupationalsurfacewithin the (partiallyfilled)bedrockcuttingand to assign to this periodof reusethe largeone-handledjug that was found crushedin the ash (Layer4) above Layer5 and subsequentlysealed by the depositionof Layer3 and the layingof Floor 2a.

The CeramicAssemblage The EarlierMaterial The assemblageof early pottery from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi consists of almost two hundredfragments,representinghandmadeand wheel-madevessels of a varietyof domesticand less utilitarianshapes,as well as a numberof distinctivefabrics.Pink and red waresare often coveredwith a thick slip and smoothed (the excavator'sdescriptionis "polished")or burnishedto a high lustre. Gray-blacklustrous"EsdraelonWare"is also present. Perhapsthe decorativefeaturemost notablein the assemblageis the common use of applieddecoration(knobson bowls, impressedcordonson jars, of de Miroschedji'spre-urbaineD phase.All of these elementscombine etc.) and incisioncharacteristic to give a rather special appearanceto the ceramic corpus from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,a distinctivenessthat has only been made more noticeableby Helms's re-excavationof the site (Helms 1984 and 1986 passim). The pottery is presentedhere accordingto a series of types and subtypesthat are meant only to facilitate the ordering and presentationof the material and are not intended to represent rigidly defined "dclasses" or to be a universalclassificationfor the period(s). Bowls. Only two straight-sidedbowls (pl. 23:17, 18) occurin the present collection,a situation quite differentfrom the majorityposition held by such forms at Jiftlik,Tell el-Mafjar,Tell Abu Habil, and other sites with close affinitiesto the Ghassul-Beersheba horizon.Both bowls are of red fabric,but pl. 23:18 exhibits a burnishedslip that furtherseparatesthese bowls from those found at the Chalcolithic type-sites. The most common type of small bowl displaysthe well-roundedor hemisphericalprofile that appearsin such profusionin the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho (inter alia, Kenyon 1960: figs. 9-12, tomb A94), as well as relatedoccupationaldepositson the tell (Hennessy 1967:8, pi. 11:3);EB I Arad Stratum IV (Amiran 1978: pi. 7); and the earliest pre-urbanPhase I (EB I) at the 'Ai Sanctuary (Callaway1972: 60, fig. 15:1). The simplest of these hemisphericalbowls (pl. 23:3, 12, 14-16) display a rim that comes up (more or less) to the vertical,such as those that become common in the Jericho tell from Phase Oi onward(Hennessy 1967:8, pl. II:2).When preserved,the base is flat or flattenedmuch like Kenyon's Type C.2.bof the Proto-Urbantombs at Jerichoand some types from cemeteryC at Bab edh-Dhrac.4 Most of the bowls can be describedas "shallow"(Schaub'scriterion:with radiusgreater than the depth) except pl. 23:16,which is slightlydeeper.PI. 23:3 might be considereda more shallowvariant of Kenyon'sType D.1.a, while pl. 23:15 shows an internalthickeningof the centralpart of the base that may be relatedto the conical projectionsthat are prevalent on small bowls, especiallyat Tell FarCah(N).5 The examples in pl. 23:10, 13 stand slightly apart from the others. The former has a short, almost verticalsection to the upper rim,6while the latter exhibits an internallybevelledrim. Two small bowls (pi. 23:5, 6) exhibit a more incurvingrim than those just discussed,while pl. 23:7 appearsto act as a transitionalform between the two groups.All three are coveredwith a red

84

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

or brown slip/wash, and the exteriorof pl. 23:5 has been burnishedas well. PI. 23:7 was noted by the excavatoras having been used as a lamp.7Similarbowls with incurvingsides are ubiquitousin the Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho(cf., inter alia,Kenyon 1960:bowl Types A.1-3a, 4a-c; B.1.c,2.a) and in contemporarydepositson the tell (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. 11:3).The burnishedslip of pl. 23:5 shouldtie the series to relateddeposits at Tell Farcah(N) (Kenyon 1960:5). One bowl (pi. 25:8) with similarly incurvingsides but almost twice the diameterhas been given a band of impresseddecorationat the point of its greatest width (cf. Beth Shan, FitzGerald1935: pl. 1:24). The shallownessand rim treatmentof pl. 23:3 seem to lead morphologicallyto two other bowls (pl. 23:1, 2) which, although similar in proportions,exhibit either a vertical (pl. 23:2) or inverted (pl. 23:1) rim. These last two vessels may be relatedto Hennessy'sProto-Urbanbowl type VII, which begins on the Jerichotell in Phase Oi.8The rim of a third,deeperbowl (p. 23:4) appearsto be a less extremeexampleof his type XII, which is first noted in tell depositsin Proto-UrbanPhase Ni and for which Hennessy sees a relationshipwith bowls of type A.1.a from the Proto-UrbanJericho tombs (Hennessy 1967: 8, pl. 11:12).Similarvessels are known from StratumIV at Arad, the earliest preurbanphase (EB I) at cAi, and the cave at Arqubel-Dhahr.9 Three of the hemisphericalbowls (p. 23:18, 19, 20) displaythin rims that are evertedto varying degrees.Similarlyeverted rims are present in, but form the exception to, the large quantityof bowls to mbs at Jericho.10 with incurvedsides in the Proto-Urban of apartfrom the series of small bowls at Tell The internallybeveledrimets . 23:11 sets this piece Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.It appears to be absent from the Proto-Urban(A and B) tomb and tell deposits at Jerichol1and most of the related (EB I) contexts at Bab edh-Dhra'. It does, however, lattersite, the and in the cave at Arqubedh-Dhahrwell to appearin the EB IB (PU B) Tomb A43 at the north.12Pl 25:7 presents a rim with similar beveling on the interior and, to judge from the drawing,a band of short slashes on the exteriorof the rim. Bowls of "EsdraelonWare." The Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqiassemblageincludesa groupof fine medium-sizedbowls that are expresslyidentifiedby the excavatoras "EsdraelonWare"(pls. 23:27; 24:1-5). These highly burnishedvessels exhibit surfacecolors of gray (pl. 24:1, 3, 5), black(pl. 24:4), red (pls. 23:27;24:2), and brown (23:25).The class of "GrayBurnishedbowls,"similarto the firsttwo types from Tell Umm Hamad, was first publishedin 1934 from the finds at Megiddo,where color variances from gray through yellow-gray to black were noted. In the following year "gray-black burnishedware"sherdsfrom the lowest levels at Beth Shan were published,and the the fabricof these sherds is describedas being "sometimesbrown, sometimes gray."Subsequentdiscoveryof "GrayburnishedWare"at cAffulaand Meser, and "ceramiquegrise lustree" at Tell Farcah (N) clearly demonstratedthat, althoughgrayor blackwas the distinctivecolorof this potteryclass,the colorof the fabric as well as the surfacecould vary.13 In 1958, Wright publisheda typologyof these vessels, producinga tripartitesystem,of which the morphologicalsubdivisions-if not the chronologicalimplications-have been utilizedto a considerable extent by Amiranand de Miroschedji.14 Three of the Tell Umm Hamad fragmentsshould,on the basis of the decorativeadditionof a "sinuousband"(pl. 24:4, 5) or row(?) of knobs (pl. 24:1), fit readilyinto Wright'sType 1, especially since Type 2 normallyexhibits some type of "rope"design and Type 3 does not present raised The examples in pl. 24:1, 5, however, appearto be from vessels much deeper than the decoration."5 standardexamples of Type 1. Regardlessof this small discrepancy,the three pieces combine a light grayor blacksurfacewith a form and type of decorationspecificenough to includethem in the general categoryof "EsdraelonWare"in spite of the "buff"fabricof two of the pieces (pl. 24:1, 5).

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

85

Three other fragments (pls. 23:25, 27; 24:2) combine the outsplayedrim that is common on vessels of this class with a definiteconcavityon the exteriorof the wall between the rim and the side of the bowl.16In profile these bowls seem to be a combinationof (or transitionbetween) Wright's Types 2 and 3, apparentlyhaving the straightsides of Type 2 and the more outsplayedrim (but not the carination)of Type 3. This featureis difficultto parallel,but the closest examplescan be seen in Type 2 bowls from the Tell Farcah (N) tombs, especiallyTomb 12; these bowls also exhibit a of pl. 23:25.Bowl type 0536 at B&bedh-Dhra' may also decorationsimilarto the square"projections" be mentioned,since it is describedas similarin form to the bowls of Wright'sType 2, though the rim is less outsplayedand a band of decorationtakes the place of the concavityfound in the Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqibowls.17 The example in pl. 23:26 is apparentlyrelatedto the Type 2 bowls, but has a flatter,"washed" rim, which suggests that this form was also fashionedfrom local claysor given a more "traditional" surfacetreatment. The shape of Wright'sType 3 bowl is representedat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqiby a single (evidentlynon-EsdraelonWare) example (pl. 23:9). Althoughwe are unableto commenton the broaderquestionof the origin of this ware (or more likely, technique?),the occurrenceof EsdraelonWare at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqiand at Tell el-Mefaliq, together with its presence at Tell esh-Shuneh to the north and 'Alayiq to the south, reinforcesthe conceptof the JordanValleyas an importanttraderouteduringthis period.18 Fourbowls (pi. 23:21-24) with exteriorknobsare examplesof a type that is usuallyconsideredto be relatedto "EsdraelonWare,"but is either of "local"manufactureor in some other way exhibit a departurefrom the high standardsof surfacetreatmentseen in the best of the gray-blackburnished bowls. Severalsites have producedthese vessels, from which the Tell Umm Hamad examplesdiffer most markedlyin size, being on averagetwice that of the norm. These largervessels also exhibit a different rim, showing a gradualinternal thickeningof the wall at and above the projectionsand generallya horizontalflatteningof the upper surface.PI. 23:24 differsfrom the others in that it has a concaveprofile at the top of the rim, which forms a shallow channel that runs aroundthe mouth of the bowl.19 Large bowls with thickened rims. Seven large open bowls (pl. 26:1-4, 10-12) display a rim slightly thickenedon the interiorand horizontallyflattenedon the top. These bowls are foundin both buff and red fabricsand accordingto the excavator,couldhave been fashionedeither by hand or on a slow wheel. The differencein manufacturingtechniqueappearsto be unrelatedto the color of the fabric.The predominantdecorationis an impressedband at or just below the exterior of the rim. PI. 26:10 bears rows of incision in the same zone. The modulationof the exteriorprofilecouldbe the resultof the decorationprocess.Onlypl. 26:11 presentsevidenceof havingbeen burnished.Fragments of this type of bowl were also collectedby Glueckduringhis visit to the site.20 A similarvessel form, describedas a "pithos,"is includedby de Miroschedjiin his pre-urbaineD class of pottery with referenceto an example from Tell Farcah (N) and has a diameternot unlike some of the pieces from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.This particularrim-profile,with its internal thickening,can be foundin Chalcolithic(i.e.,coronet-bearing)contexts,and the type may carrythrough EarlyBronze and into the MiddleBronze Age, but the examples from Tell Farcah(N) indicatethat the form can also be at home in depositsdatingto the end of the fourthmillenniumB.C.21 and flattened rims. Four(?)bowls (pl. 26:6, 7, 13, 14), repreLargebowls with "exaggerated" of two vessels distinct sizes, exhibit a rim that has been horizontallyflattened as in the senting precedinggroup. In addition,however, these rims have been given an "exaggerated" thickeningthat

86

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

causes them to stand out markedlyin any assemblage.Suitablecomparandafor such rims on large bowls are difficultto identify.A rim with a similarprofile can be seen on tall jars found at Horvat Beter,Meser,andpossiblyBeth Shan,and a relatedform is seen on more straight-shouldered jarsfrom and Installation C at Azor. The only parallelfor a similarlythickenedrim on a vessel with cAlayiq roundedprofilecomes from Garstang'sexcavationsatJericho.22 Also to be relatedto this general type is a rim (pl. 26:5) with a more angularprofile.This form was also collectedby Glueckduringhis surveyof the site (Glueck1951:pl. 158:8)and parallelsfor this form are more easilyfoundthan for the majorityof the group,with datesrangingfrom Chalcolithicto the EB I period.23 Large bowls with internallybeveled rims. This group can for the purposes of the present discussionbe divided into two subgroups:a more round form, which might be consideredto be a wide-mouthedvariantof the holemouthjar (pls. 24:6; 25:1-3; 30:9, 10),24 and a form that exhibits (or preserves) a rather straight body profile below the point of greatest diameter,giving the vessel a piriform shape (pl. 25:4, 5, 9). Three transitionalpieces (pl. 25:6, 10, 11) are consideredwith the second subgroup.Admittedly,this subjectiveseparationmay rest on the state of preservation-or on the degree of the excavator'sreconstruction-of the individualfragments.In spite of differences between and variationswithin the two primarysubgroups,however,the majorityof these pieces share three common denominators:an internallybeveledrim; an aperturewide enough for the form to be consideredas a bowl; and the frequentuse of impressionsor incisionsat the rim and/or appliedand impressed cordons in the upper body zone. It should also be noted that many of the pieces in the secondsubgroupcouldbe thoughtof as variantsof the firsttwo groupsof largebowls from Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi,with the beveledrim simplybeing the resultof the turningin of the upperportion of the body with its (originally)horizontallyflattened rim (compare "flattened"pl. 26:6, 7 with "beveled"pI. 25:10,11). In the first subgroup(the roundedforms), all but pi. 25:1 are of a red fabric,and the majorityare describedas handmadeinstead of having been fashionedon the slow wheel. Only pl. 24:6 is undecorated,while the sole occurrenceof burnishingappearson pl. 25:2.PI. 30:9 has been (secondarily?) burned to black.The second subgroupand "transitional"pieces appear either handmadeor wheelmade, and plain wares, with the exception of the burnished (self-) slip of pl. 25:6, are the rule. Ledge-handles,both serrated(pl. 25:10) and with finger-impressionson the underside(pl. 25:5, 11), are preservedon some of this group.A similargroupof sherdswith ledge-handlescan be foundon the Jerichotell (Hennessy 1967:9). That this was a common type of vessel at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi is indicatedby its presence in Glueck'ssurfacecollection(Glueck1951:pl. 157:1,2) but, as is the case with so many of the distinctiveforms from the site, it is difficultto parallelelsewhere.Except at Tell Far'ah (N), the subgroupwith roundedprofilesis even less easy to documentthan the straight-sidedtype, which can be comparedto sherds found at Megiddo,Tell Far'ah (N), and from Mellaart'sown sounding at neighboringTell el-Mefaliq.25 Holemouthjars. This common form of domesticvessel occursat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi in a varietyof types and will be consideredhere, for the purposesof discussiononly, in six categories accordingto the shape and/or treatmentof the rim: 1. roundedrim 2. verticallyflattenedrim 3. internallybeveledrim

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

87

4. horizontallyflattenedrim 5. internally"drooping"rim 6. "cut"rim 1. Roundedrim holemouthjars. With one exception (pls. 24:20), the rims of this class indicate vessels of globularor semi-globularshape (pls. 24:9, 10; 29:15, 16, 21; 30:11). The majorityof the pieces were handmadeof plain wares with decoration,when present, consistingof a red wash/slip (pl. 24:20), painted bands at the rim (pl. 24:10), a row of punctates(pl. 29:15, 16), or an impressed cordon(pls. 29:21;30:11). The plain (pl. 24:9) and paintedrim (pl. 24:10) holemouthsare less diagnosticthan the two jars with impresseddecoration.As noted above,pl. 30:11 actuallyforms a morphologicalbridgebetween the group of holemouth"bowls"(suchas pl. 30:10) and the holemouth"jars"(as definedby pl. 29:21), which can be paralleledin late fourthmillenniumcontextsat severalsites.26 Two examples of the simple holemouth jars exhibit a (pair of?) small ledge-handle(s),which have been foldedup againstthe body of the vessels (pl. 29:15, 16). Their small size and proximityto the rim would arguefor a decorativeratherthan a functionalplacement,a hypothesissupportedby their position being markedby a bandof punctateincisionsaround th e vessel.This specific combinationof bodyform and handletype was also foundby Glueckat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi, and it is known at other sites in the JordanValley,and possiblyin the hill-country.Surprisingly,it also appears-with the punctateband-at distantJawa,where it comprisesalmost 50% of the (published) holemouthjar fragments. The profile of pl. 24:20,with its roundedbiconicalform, appearsto stand apartfrom the rest of the group,but the flattenedledge-handles,albeitlower on the body,may form the connectionwith the other rounded-rimholemouthjars.27 2. Verticallyflattened rim holemouth jars. Three jars (pl. 30:6, 8, 14) exhibit an internal rim profile that has been verticallyflattened,while the closely similarpl. 30:15, 16 bond this group to the other types of holemouth jars from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.All five of the vessels are of a red fabricand with the exception of pi. 30:6 are describedas having been formed by hand. All are decoratedwith a single (or double,pl. 30:8) impressedcordon applied in close proximityto the mouth. The main featureof this categoryis the verticalityof the edge of the rim, which distinguishesit from the angularstance displayedby Callaway's"squaredor flattened"holemouth rims. This sharp, vertical stance can be paralleledexactly in Glueck'ssurfacecollectionfrom Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqi,and less satisfactorilyat sites suchas Aradand Tell Farcah(N).28 3. Internallybeveled rim holemouthjars. Two vessels (pls. 29:20; 30:7), both of a buff fabric, display somewhat globularbodies and internallybeveled rims. The wheel-made pl. 30:7 has been decoratedwith an impressedcordonvery close to the mouth of the jar, while the edge of the rim of handmadepl. 29:20 has been modeledinto a rope design.The shape of the rims of these two vessels is best associatedwith Callaway's"squaredor flattened"rim, which appearsat cAi in basal pre-urban depositsof Phase I.29 Examples similar to pl. 30:7 were collectedby Glueckduring his surveyof the site, and several similarvessels are known from Tell Farcah(N).30Comparandafor pl. 29:20 can be found at a wider cAffulaandWadiGhazzehSite H.31 varietyof sites, includingCAlayiq, One holemouth jar (pl. 24:13) with "beveled"rim was providedwith a loop handle,the upper part of which was attachedto the rim. To date,such a combinationof vessel form and handletype has

88

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

been quite rare.It does, however,occurin the JordanValleyat KhirbetKerak (Beth Yerah),where a single examplecontaininga childburialwas foundin (EB I) LevelXVI.32 4. Horizontally-flattenedrim holemouthjars. The rims of three holemouth jars (pls. 24:7; 30:12, 13) have been horizontallyflattenedon top. All of these are of a bufffabric,and the smallgroup contains both handmadeand wheel-made vessels. The plain surfacesof pl. 30:12, 13 have been highlightedby a band of diagonalslashes at the rim, while the external surfaceof pl. 24:7 has been coveredwith a brownwash. A much less extreme variantof this type appearsin pre-urbanPhase II of the cAiSanctuary,and Callawaythoughtthat it anticipatedthe "droopingin-turnedrim form"foundin later (Kenyon'sEB I) deposits on the tell at Jericho and suggestedthe possibilitythat the type may have functionedas a cooking pot rather than as a storage jar. Specificparallelsfor pl. 30:12 can be found at cAi, Tell esh-Shuneh(N), andJericho,and for the more extremepl. 30:13 at Tell en-Nasbeh.Both types appear in StratumII at Rosh Hanniqra.33 5. Internallydrooping rim holemouth jars. Fragments from two handmadevessels with a "smoothedred surface"(pl. 24:11, 12) exhibit an internally"drooping"rim, which can be associated with a type that first appearson the Jerichotell in Phase L and which Hennessy sees as a hallmarkof (Kenyon's) EB I period. The type does not appear in Glueck'ssurfacecollection from Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi,but it is known at severalof the sites includedin his Transjordanian survey,as well as at Tell esh-Shuneh(N) and at other sites, most frequentlyin EB I contexts.34PI. 24:8, wheel-made of a buff fabric,seems to be relatedto this group in spite of the slightlymore sculptedinteriorprofile. PI. 30:5,decoratedin the distinct"band-slip"("grain-wash")technique,belongsmorphologicallyeither to this categoryor to the predecessorsof the precedingclass noted by Callawayin Phase II depositsat 'Ai (Callaway1972:66,fig. 18:20,27). 6. "Cut"rim holemouth jars. Four fragments (pl. 24:14-17) are presented here under the general headingof "cutrims,"since all exhibit articulatedprofilesthat are the resultof the cuttingor paringof the vessel, that is, a subtractivetechnique,ratherthan the additiveplacementof a cordonor simple modelingwith the fingers.35These vessels are both handmadeand wheel-made,of plain fabrics that can exhibit a mottledsurfacecausedby exposureto uneven temperaturesduringfiring.All of the Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqipieces have a much more squareprofile than is common on the type, which makesthem difficultto parallelsatisfactorily. Perhapsthey shouldbe consideredhybridsof some of the rim forms that first appearon the tell at Jerichoin (Kenyon's)EB I Phases L and K, for some of which a Proto-Urbanancestrycan be demonstrated.36 Smalljars. The ceramicassemblagefrom Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqiincludesa selectionof small jars.Fourof these (pl. 27:11-14)are plain, apparentlyhandleless,bag-shapedjarsthat have short rims out-splayedto varyingdegrees.Evidenceof manufactureby hand and wheel is present,and their surfacesare plain, with the exceptionof pl. 27:14, which presents a red wash and "strokingburnish." On six fragments (pl. 27:1, 2, 8-10, 15), however, handles are preserved,and these vessels will be consideredhere accordingto handletype andplacement. Where specified,all of the small handledjarsare of a buff fabriccoveredby a "red"wash. PI. 27:1 is describedas having been highly polished,whilepl. 27:9 is said to exhibit verticalburnishingmarks. The surfacesof the remainderare describedsimply as "polished."Where preserved,bases are flat (pl. 27:9), mat-impressed(pl. 27:18),or "omphalos"(pl. 27:15). Loop handlespredominatewithin the group,and ledge handlesare in the minority. PI. 27:9, 10, vessels with more everted rims and loop handlesat the shoulder,have a close and importantparallelin a jar fromJerichoTomb A94, one of the type-depositsof Kenyon'sProto-Urban

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

89

sequence.PI. 27:2, however,differsfrom similarvessels with handlesattachedto the rim fromJericho Tomb A94 and in roughly contemporaryfunerarydeposits at Azor and Tell Farcah (N). In these instances,the handleis generallypinchedto the top of the rim (cf. also the juglets),ratherthan simply being attachedto the underside(alone), as it was on the Tell Hamadesh-Sherqijar.37It is not easy to findparallelsfor the shape and profileof the handleson pl. 27:1 on vessels of this size.38 Small jars with ledge-handles,such as pi. 27:8, 15, appearfrequentlyin funerarycontextsof the Proto-Urban/EBI period,when the omphalosbase and "knobs"of pl. 27:15were also quitecommon.39 Largejars with evertedrims. Nine fragmentsare from largernecklessjarswith sharplyeverted rims. Handmadepl. 27:17, 18 and wheel-madepl. 27:16 are from plain, unslippedvessels without decorationof any type.40PI. 28:9, 10, handmadeof buff fabrics,are, on the other hand,both slipped and burnished.In addition,these two vessels exhibit "vestigial"ledge-handlesof the same type and in the same position as those previouslynotedon two of the holemouthjarsfrom the Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqiassemblage(pl. 29:15, 16).41Three fragmentsare from shapeswith similarlyevertedrims, but from vessels of unknowndiameter.Two (pl. 33:2, 4) are wheel-madeof a buff fabricwith a red slip/wash, while the third (pl. 33:3) is handmadeof a gray ware. All exhibit slash marksaroundthe top of the rim. Five pieces display an out-splayedrim above a short concave neck (pl. 27:3-7). All are from handmadevessels of globularshape, fashionedfrom both red and buff fabricsthat are plain, with the red wash/slip and pl. 27:7, which exhibits an exception of pl. 27:4, which has a "pebble-burnished" impressedcordon at the shoulderechoed by a second impressedband at mid-bodythat incorporates the "serrated"ledge-handlesin to tal decorativeconcept of the vessel. Similar neck and rim profiles are present in Chalcolithicassemblagesbut can also be seen in later fourth millennium contextsat Beth Shan,'Affula,and the earlierexcavationat cAi.42 Three vessels displaya more verticalneck:pl. 27:19,which might betterbe consideredthe neckof a "bottle";the handmadepl. 27:21, the profile of which recallsnarrower-neckedvessels from Jawa (Helms 1981: fig. B4:11);pl. 27:20, with a sharp differentiationbetween shoulderand neck that may also be seen in examplesfrom Tell FarCah(N) and in EB IB contextsat Babedh-Dhrac.43 Three rims from handmade,ratherthick-walled,undecoratedvessels (pl. 28:6-8) exhibit slightly everted-or simply out-turned-rims that seem to be morphologicallytransitionalto other forms in the Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqiassemblage.All three are decoratedwith a single horizontalbandof punctatemarks below the rim. Fragmentsof similar vessels were collectedby Glueckat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi;and the type, similarlydecorated,is known at Iktanuand-with the substitutionof an impressed cordon for the punctate band-at Beth Shan, while plain examples appear in the Golan.44Handmadepl. 28:3, from a more straight-neckedvessel, but with similarpunctatedecoration, may possiblybe relatedto these. Largejars with horizontallyflattened rim. The slightlyflattenedtop of pi. 28:8 leads morphologically to a group of jars with more out-splayedand exaggeratedprofiles, but which share the horizontallyflattenedrim (pl. 28:18-21). These fragmentsappearto be from globularvessels similar to the thinner-walledpi. 27:7. Handmade or wheel-made, of a red or buff fabric,they all have decorationthat consistsof impressedbandsappliedeither to an addedcordonor directlyto the wall of the vessel. In the former instance,the decorationappearsin the shoulderzone, while in the latter it highlights the outer edge of the rim. PI. 28:18 bearsa simple linear (cross-shaped)"potter'smark"on the flattenedtop of the rim. This specificthickenedand flattenedrim is presentin Glueck'ssurfacecollectionfrom the site, but does not have satisfactoryparallelselsewhere.This suggests a regional type or variation,while the

90

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

exclusiveuse of plasticdecorationrelatesthese pieces to the ceramicsof de Miroschedji's pre-urbaineD dass of pottery.45

PI. 26:8, 9 appearto be necksof jarswith a sharpconstrictionat the shoulder.Both are fashioned by hand (or slow wheel) of a plain red fabricand share with the precedinggroup the horizontally flattened rim and plastic decoration.This type also seems to be restrictedto Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,as suitableparallelsat other sites are not easy to document. Two fragments(pl. 30:2, 4) are from jars with necks that narrowin diameteras they approach the rim and both have exaggerated,horizontallyflattenedrims and impresseddecoration.The profile of pl. 30:4, made on a slow wheel in a buff fabric,is frequentlypresent in the surfaceassemblagesof sites in the Golan and can be found across the Jordan at Tell Far'ah (N). The thicker-rimmed, handmadepl. 30:2 is actuallya variantof a similarbut more common jar with beveled ratherthan flattenedrim (pl. 30:3), to be discussedbelow.46 Largejars with internallybeveledrims. PI. 30:3 is identicalin fabric,method of manufacture, and decorationto the horizontallyflattenedrim of pl. 30:2, differingfrom it only in the "beveled" stanceof the rim. This single example from Mellaart'sexcavationsbelies the popularityof the type at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,becauseit is also includedin Glueck'ssurfacecollectionfrom the site (Glueck1951: fig. 159:6, 160:1).Jars with the "beveled"profile have a much wider distributionthan the flattenedvariant and can be found at Beth Shan, Tell Far'ah (N), and several other sites both The slightlybeveledrim of pl. 30:1,difficultto parallelin itself, within the JordanValleyand beyond.47 also exhibits a slightly "pulledout" exterior edge and can perhaps be consideredtransitionalto the groupof jarswith "wavy"rim profiles. Largejars with "wavy"rims. Six jars (pl. 28:4, 12-16) displayrims with wavy or "wing-like" profiles.They are predominantlyof a red fabric,and the majorityare handmade.Surfacesare plain, and decorationconsistsof an impressedcordonor bandof punctatesat (and/or above) the junctureof the rim and "neck."This unusual and distinctive rim is not common at other sites, but it has a surprisingwest-east distribution,being found at Tell Far'ah (N) and Beth Shan on the West Bankof the JordanRiver and on the East Bankas far inlandas Tell Deir Sa'aneh Mekhlediyeh,southwestof Irbid.48

Spouted vessels. The ceramic assemblagefrom Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi contains four fragmentsof spoutedvessels (pls. 28:1; 29:11-13). The most complete of these (pl. 28:1) represents the upper portion of a jar with a short flaringspout of a type that is later to develop into the solid "tpillarhandles"of the fullyurbanizedEarlyBronzeAge. The present piece, however,seems to belong to the earlierend of this chronologicalspectrum,since the spout is completelypiercedand thus able to function in its originalcapacity;and, second, the spout is short and well below the level of the rim, making its use as a handle much less convenient.Althoughthe general form has a wide distribution, vessels that display these specific morphologicalfeatures,combined with a pattern-burnishednetpatternon the shoulder,occuronly in Tell Far'ahTomb 5 and the cave at 'Arqubel-Dhahr.49 PI. 29:13 is a sectionof a straight,tubularspout that was apparentlyattachedjust abovethe point of carinationof a vessel with a somewhat biconicalform. The frequentlyappearingspouted vessels have long been offeredas one of the majoraidsfor establishingthe foreignrelationsof Syria-Palestine during the Proto-Urban/EBI period, but such spouts are more commonlyfound on vessels of more roundedform. The combinationof sharpness of profile and placement of spout of the Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqipiece findsits closestparallelsat Tell Far'ah (N) and Beth Shan.50

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

91

Two other spouts preservelittle if anythingof the vessel to which they were attached,and it is tentativelysuggestedhere that they may have come from spoutedbowls such as the examplefrom Tell el-Mafjar(pl. 5:3). One-handledjuglets. Mellaart'ssoundingsalso producedten one-handledjuglets(pl. 29:1-10) of the type that is ubiquitousin but not restrictedto Proto-Urban/EBI funerarycontexts. All are describedas handmadeand occur in both buff and red fabrics.With the exception of pl. 29:2, the with a band of drippyred paint, the red wares are either left interiorof which has been "decorated" or a of the buff wares,however,have all been coveredwith a The exteriors plain given slight "polish." red wash/slip, which in two instances(pl. 29:8, 9) has been burnished,as is seemingly the norm at Tell Farcah(N) but the exceptionatJericho.51 As reconstructedby the excavator,most of these juglets can be easily assimilatedinto Kenyon's Jerichotype-series:52 Kenyon B.5.a D.l.b D.2.a D.3.a D.5.a E.2.a

Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi pl. 29:2 pl. 29:4 (?) pl. 29:10 pl. 29:1, 5 (and8?) pl. 29:7 pl. 29:3

PI. 29:9 appearsto have functionedmore as a cup than as a juglet.The largesize of pl. 29:8 causesit to stand out from the rest of the class of juglets,but the presenceof appliedand impresseddecorationis most helpfulin unifyingthe Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqicorpus. Miscellaneous. Three of the jars in the assemblagedo not fit readilyinto the categoriespresented above.PI. 28:11, a handmadevessel of biconicalform, is decoratedwith a highly burnishedred slip on the exteriorand drippyred paint on the interior.As with pl. 24:20,biconicalforms tend to be more common in Chalcolithiccontexts,but the burnishedred slip definitelybrings the piece into the Proto-Urban/EBI horizon.PI. 28:2, a handmadestraight-neckedjar (?), exhibitsa bandof low relief decorationbelow the rim. PI. 24:19, decoratedin the band slip ("grainwash") technique,may be a variantof the holemouthjarswith "drooping"rims. Five bases should also be noted. PI. 29:14, from a small vessel with concavemat-impressedbase, displays a highly burnishedbuff slip on the exterior surfaceand is probablyfrom a juglet such as pI. 29:1-10. PI. 29:17 is from a medium-sized(plain) red-warevessel with concavelower bodyprofile, while p1.29:18 is decoratedon both surfacesin the band-slip("grain-wash")manner.Flat bases from two large handmadevessels exhibit either verticallines in darkred paint on a buffground(pl. 29:19) or a plain surfacewith horizontalimpressedbands (pl. 26:15). All of these bases are very much at home in the assemblage. A large and variedassortmentof fragmentaryledge-handlesappearin the materialexcavatedby Mellaart Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi.These can be subdividedmorphologicallyinto four groups, with some handlesqualifyingfor inclusionin more than one category:ledge-handleswith plain margin (pls. 31:10-12, 14-21; 32:1-3, 8-11, 16, 17); ledge-handleswith thumb-impressedmargin (pls. 31:13; 32:6, 13, 18; 33:1); ledge-handleswith serratedmargin (pls. 32:4, 5, 7, 12, 15, 19); and ledge-handles with impressionat the junctureof the handleand the vessel wall (pi. 32:7, 14, 19).

92

Tell Umm HamudEsh-Sherqi

Single decorativeelements, which on some vessels are used in combination,consist of painted bands(pi. 32:8, 15, and possiblythe less carefullyexecutedpl. 31:21) and latticedesigns (pl. 32:1,9), as well as incised or punctate"patterns"(pl. 32:2, 3, 10, 16, 17). The serratedmargin on some ledgehandlesshouldalso be considereddecorative,since it often completesthe cordondecorationof the body zone (pls. 25:10; 27:7). Most surprisingis the appearanceof stamp-sealimpressionson two of the handles (pl. 32:4, 11 and fig. 22), for this not only links Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi with the neighboringsites of Tell el-Mefaliq(a roundseal, see below,pl. 35:3), Kataretes-Samra(unpublished, but similarin generalshape and treatmentto pl. 32:4, 11) and Tell Handaquq(a roundseal;personal communication, J. Mabry),but also with distantJawa.53 The nature,function,and purpose of pl. 33:6 is unknown,as is the "leg of an animal figurine" (pl. 33:5).

TheLater CeramicMaterial Nine fragments(pl. 31:1-9), most of which come from TrenchII, are later than the potteryjust discussedand shouldbe assignedto the EB IV period,an epoch in which most of the occupationin the area seems to have shifted to neighboringTell Umm Hamad el-Gharbi.Similar materialhas been encounteredby Helms in the upper stages (5-8) of his re-excavationof Tell Umm Hamad, which leadshim to believethat the occupationhere was continuous(Helms 1986:44-48).

TheLitbicAssemblage The groundstone industry The groundstone industryis representedat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqiby two bowls or cups (pl. 33:7, 8). Describedby the excavatoras basalt or serpentine, these vessels display a distinctly concaveprofile.Similarstone bowls,with and withouta bandof raiseddecorationaroundthe body,are common, especiallyin funerarycontexts at Bab edh-Dhra' and Tell Far'ah (N), where the shape is also producedin pottery(Lapp1968:figs.9: STI, 10:8 andpp. 25-26, with references).The assemblage of serpentineor limestone(pl. 33:18, 19). also includestwo "roundels"

Theflakedstone industry The flakedstone industryconsists of two fragmentsof a knife (pl. 33:11), possibly notched for hafting,with cortexon the right side indicatingthat the left was the cuttingedge; two pressure-flaked projectilepoints (pl. 33:12, 17), the latterpossiblyhavingbeen tangedfor hafting;one drill (pl. 33:16); sickle (?) blades(pl. 33:13-15), two of which have been notchedor snappedat one three "Canaanean" end; an elongatedcorticalscraper(pi. 33:10);and an "axe"(pl. 33:9),possiblypolishedfrom use.

Summary TrenchI The architectural depositin TrenchI consistsof nine stratafrom the uppermostLayer1 (topsoil) to the lowest, Layer9, which fills a cuttingin the naturalrock.This sequencewas dividedby Mellaart into two chronologicalphases: an "EB-MB"Period III (Layers1-3) and "LateChalcolithic"PeriodsII (Layers6, 5a-5c, and 4) and I (Ib:Layer7; and Ia: Layers8 and 9). The present discussionwill follow the orderof Mellaart'speriods,beginningwith the earliest,PeriodIa. PeriodIa is comprisedof Layers9 and 8. Layer9 is a brownsoil separatedinto a lower (soft) and an upper (hard) segment, a distinctionmade in the section drawing but, unfortunately,not in the

93

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

B

0

xi

i

l

l

l

5cm

'IOoOU

moogsoU .

.

d.

.

.

C~~~~~oo

Fig. 22. Ledgehandleswith impressionsof stamp seals.A (cf. pl. 32:11) and B (cf. pl. 32:4) are from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,while C (cf.pl. 35:3) is from neighboringTell el-Mefaliq(J.Mellaartand L Kain).

94

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

pottery separation.Above this is white earth Layer8 (this layer is differentlydescribedin different elements sectionsof the notebooks),partiallysealedby a troddenclayfloor (Layer7a). No architectural are associatedwith the PeriodIa deposits,and the earliestevidencefor occupationin TrenchI (besides the possible theuse of cuttingfor such purposes)is Floor 7a, which separatesPeriodla from lb. The artifactsin basalLayer9 do not seem to differgreatlyfrom those in Layer8. The bowls are as a rule from two strata,find readyparallelsin Kenyon's the hemispherical,which,likes Proto-Urbantombs at Jericho,and both deposits are characterizedby a large percentageof ProtoUrban D vessels. Layer9 does includeEsdraelonWareand relatedtypes not found in Layer8, and in ware and vessels decoratedin a mannercloser Layer8 the firstoccurrenceof "grain-wash"/"band-slip" to Proto-UrbanB paintedware is found.The stratigraphicalnatureof these two deposits,however, does not seem to justifyusing this circumstanceto define a sequencefor these wares outside of this particularsounding,and Mellaart'sPeriod Ia is here considered(in currentterminology)indicativeof the Proto-Urban/EBI period.If the cuttingin the naturalrockhad been used for occupationor some other domesticfunction,the materialfrom Layer9 wouldindicatea terminusante quemfor that use. Period lb presents the earliestfloor in this sounding,Layer7a, which separatesbut does not seal the underlyingstrata.Period Ib was also rich in ceramicinclusionsand offers an assemblagesimilarto the Period Ia deposits if taken as a whole. The Proto-UrbanD style of decorationis common on holemouthbowls andjars,as well as other storagevessels,while the Proto-Urbanhemisphericalbowls and one-handledjugletscontinue to be present.EsdraelonWareand relatedvessels are also found in Layer7, and this reducesthe significanceof their absence in Layer8. Period Ib thus appearsto be equivalentin date to Period Ia, confirmingMellaart'sviews on the relativecontemporaneityof the lower depositsin TrenchI. Period II is representedin Trench I by a floor (the Layer6/7 interface)that seals Period Ib (Layer7) as well as a deposit (Layer6) between that surfaceand the series of floors in Layer5 (Layers 5a-5c). Littleartifactualmaterial,however,is known from these deposits.Only a single sherd,a spout from a Proto-Urban/EBI vessel, is recordedfrom Layer6, while no materialcan be attributed(with certainty)to the sequenceof Layer5a-c floors and relateddeposits.As Mellaarthas suggested,these must be the remainsof exteriorcourtyardsurfacesthat may be roughlycontemporarywith the ProtoUrban/EB I depositsbelow them, to judgeby the fact that the thick ash Layer4 that dividesthe early (PeriodIII) from later (PeriodsI, II) sequencein this soundingproducedonly two fragments,both of which can be associatedwith the Proto-UrbanD repertoire. Period III in Trench I is representedby a possible floor (Layer3) and two open strataabove it (Layers1 and 2). Only four sherds (and a Canaaneanbladesegment) were drawnfrom these deposits, and they divide themselves equally between EB I (EsdraelonWare) and the excavator's"EB-MB" period (i.e., Albright's"MBI" and Dever's EB IVA and B). Certainlythe later ("EB-MB"/EBIV) occupationwas not intensiveon this part of the site, and these two fragmentsmay actuallyrepresent vessels droppedthere by the inhabitantsof neighboringTell Umm Hamadel-Gharbi,where contemporarymaterialis abundant. Trench II As noted above, Trench II was not excavatedto bedrock,but it was joined physicallywith TrenchI, and both soundingsappearedto Mellaartto offer the same chronologicalsequence.Verylittle artifactualmaterial was encounteredduring this part of the excavation,but what was found does supportthe excavator'sinterpretationof a scant "EB-MB"/EBIV presenceabove a lower sequenceof layersthat can be assignedto the Proto-Urban/EBI period.

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

95

TrenchIII The archaeologicalassemblage from Trench III, which also involves deposits associatedwith cuttingsinto the bedrock,can be reviewedin two groups:Layers1 and 2, which are open strataabove mud floor Layer2a; and three depositswhich that floor seals (Layers3-5) in the bedrockcutting. Topsoil (Layer1) producedonly a single (EB I?) ledge-handle,while Layer2 below illustratesits archaeologicalstatuswith a mixtureof "EB-MB"/EBIV, EB I, and Proto-UrbanD pottery,as well as a late (elongated)version of the "fan scraper."Below these mixed levels, the Layer2a floor seals the materialin the cutting but does not, unfortunately,help to determinethe stratigraphicrelationship between the main sequenceand the large (Proto-UrbanD) storagejars foundto the east (fig. 21). Of the materialactuallyin the cuttingsealedby floor 2a, Layer3 covers (most of) the localizedLayers4 and 5. The pottery from Layer5 consists of EsdraelonWare (red) and a relatedvessel, as well as a small hemisphericalbowl of Proto-Urban/EBI type and a concave-sidedbowl in serpentineof similar or earlierdate.The ash Layer4, a localizeddeposit in the northwesternpart of the cutting,includeda bowl, jar, and one-handledjuglet,all of which find parallelsin Proto-Urban/EBI contexts at Jericho, while Layer3 in additionto similarpieces presentsvessels of EsdraelonWareand those decoratedin the "band-slip"/"grain-wash" and Proto-UrbanD techniques. With the exceptionof the later "EB-MB"/EBIV pottery,then, the archaeologicalmaterialfrom Tell Umm Hamad esh-SherqiTrench III illustratesa wide spectrumof Proto-Urban/EBI ceramic types,usuallyin associationwith one anotherbut not, unfortunately,in contextsthat wouldallow us to postulateeither the contemporaneityor the sequenceof the individualclassesof pottery.

Tell Umm HamadEsh-Sherqi TrenchI

Stratum/Layer

Description

Period/Level

1 2 3

Blacksurfacesoil Soft, dark-brownearth. Thin layerof greenish-grayclaypossiblyused as floor

("EB-MB"/EBIV)

4 5 6

Thick ash layer Brownish-buffsoil. Occupationfloors5a, b, and c Grayish-buffsoil on occupationfloor6a

II (LateChalcolithic)

7

Brownish-buffsoil on occupationfloor7a

III

Ib (LateChalcolithic)

8 9

Greenish-brownsoil with ash. Possibleoccupationfloor (8a) at interfacewith top of Stratum9 Brownsoil with white specksin pit cut into the naturalrock

Ia

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

96

Tell Umm Hamad Esh-Sherqi TrenchII

Stratum/Layer

Period/Level

Description

I ("EB-MB"/EBIV)

1 2

Blacksurface Soft darkbrownearth,Very thin

3

Harddarkbrownwith white specks

IV (Mixed"EB-MB"/EB and LateChalcolithic)

4 5

Buffwith ashes Thickash layer 5a-ash-gray-black 5b-buff 5c-ash 5d-buff 5e-ash 5f-buff

| Very few sherdsbut all LateChalcolithic

6 7

Crumblybrownnaturalclay Crumblyyellowhuwwar

Natural

Tell Umm Hamad Esh-Sherqi TrenchIII

Stratum/Layer

Description

1

Black surface soil

2

Soft brown earth

2a

Occupationfloor (mud)

3

Hard, sandy-buffsoil

4

In pit, cut into natural marl; ash layer thinning to north

5

In pit cut into naturalmarl;buff soil with large stones. Fill: one disused door socket

6

Natural brown marly clay, directly under Layer 3 outside pit

Period/Level

LateChalcolithic

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

Tell Umm HamadEsh-Sherqi:ArtifactIndex TrenchI: Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 Layer4 Layer5 Layer6 Layer7

Layer8

Layer9

TrenchII: Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 Layer4 Layer5 TrenchIII: Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 Layer4 Layer5

none pl. 31:1, 5; 33:13 none pl. 30:7 pl. 33:6(?) pl. 29:11 pl. 23:6, 9, 16, 23, 24; 24:4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16; 25:3; 26:1, 3-8, 15; 27:9, 13, 14, 17, 19; 28:4,6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 19; 29:4,7, 12, 17; 30:2,8, 11-13; 31:10, 15, 16, 18; 32:3, 12, 13; 33:5, 19 pl. 23:1, 14, 17; 24:13, 17, 18; 25:1, 4, 6; 26:2, 9, 12; 27:3, 12, 16, 20; 28:13, 15; 29:1, 2, 18; 30:3, 4, 6, 15, 16; 31:11, 19; 32:1, 4, 9, 11; 33:16, 17 pl. 23:5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 20-22, 26; 24:1, 7; 25:2, 7-10; 26:11;27:1, 2, 10, 11, 18; 28:2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 20, 21; 29:5, 9, 10, 14-16, 19, 21; 30:1, 9, 10, 14; 31:12, 14, 17; 32:5-8, 10, 14-17, 19; 33:2-4 none pl. 24:19(?); 27:21; 31:2, 4, 6-9 pl. 29:20 none pl. 24:8, 15 pl. 32:2 pl. 24:19?, 20; 27:7; 28:10, 17; 31:3, 33:10 pl. 23:3,4, 10, 13, 15; 24:5;25:5;27:4-6, 15; 29:6; 30:5;33:11, 18, 21 pl. 23:2; 27:8; 29:3; 31:21 pl. 23:19, 25, 27; 24:2; 33:7

Surface: pl. 28:18; 31:20; 32:18; 33:1 SurfaceIII: pl. 33:8 Provenience? pl. 26:10; 28:1; 29:8 (III), 13; pl. 31:13; 33:14, 15

97

98

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

Notes I The "East-WestSection"must represent the south "balk"of Trench I, since it appears to "corner"with the drawingof the "WestFaceof TrenchI,"which shouldequal the (north-south)drawingof the west balkof the excavation. 2 This presentationof the stratificationof Trench I at Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqirelies for the most parton the latest and most evolvedorderingof the materialin the excavation notebook.It shouldbe noted,however,that while this seems to me to give an adequateprofile of the sequenceof human utilizationof the site, it cannot alwaysbe precisely integratedwith some of the preliminarynotationsconcerning Trench I. Where it is thought that any such "discrepancies" would have a major bearingon the interpretationofeither the stratigraphyor the sequenceof artifacts,this has been noted in connectionwith the discussionof the appro-

priate material.

3 The excavationnotebook,however,does recordthat the bottomcoursesof stone walls were visibleoutsideTrench III.It is emphasizedby the excavatorthat these walls "reach down into Layer2 (and) not lower."There was no traceof any mudbrickwith these walls.Mellaartconsidered"thedate of these walls (to be) uncertainas EB-MB(pottery)occursa little furtherto the west in good quantity." 4 Kenyon 1960: 12, fig. 17:15 (Tomb A114). Note also the similarityin vessel wall with her round-basedType C.1.b (1960: 12, fig. 11:18-20,etc.). Schaub1973. The Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqibowls appearto be a hybridof several types: they combine a base between types 0716 and 0750 (1973: 143-44) with the side profileof type 0754. This last type has a roundedbase and is equatedby Schaubwith Kenyon'sJerichotype C.l.b. 5Cf. Amiran (1970a:pl. 12:4,etc.), with true omphalos that is equivalentto Kenyon'sJericho type C.4.a.The Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqipiece is closer to Kenyon's type C.3.a. 6 This shouldqualifyit for inclusionin Kenyon'sJericho type C.1.c,but there the verticalsection is more pronounced. Note, however, the profile on Kenyon's bowl of type B.l.a (Kenyon 1960: fig. 10:16,Tomb A94), which exhibits a rim closerto the bowl from Tell Umm Hamad. 7 The use of these small bowls as lamps is well documented; cf., inter alia, at Ai (Callaway1972): 61; Arad IV (Amiran 1978: 41); and several examples from Jericho Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960:25-32). 8 Hennessy 1967: 8, pl. 11:7.Cf. also Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: the more roundedfig. 14:99, 101, as compared with the more verticalfig. 14:100);'En Shadud(Braun1985: fig. 18:4,PotteryType 8); and in Helms's recentexcavations at Tell Umm Hamad (Helms 1986:fig. 10:16,22, etc.) 9 Arad (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:4, 5): "platters,"but as at Tell Umm Hamad the rim is of the same thicknessas the side, and Amiran posits this as a "peculiartype" of bowl from which the later platters were evolved (p. 42); Ai (Callaway1972: fig. 15:12, and pp. 59-60); and 9ArqubelDhahr (Parr1956:fig. 13:58,69, leadingto the thicker,more angular13:57).

10Kenyon 1960:11-13; 1965:7: typesB.l.b, C.1.d,C.2.d, and C.3.a,with cited examples.The type is also known from Helms's excavations at Tell Umm Hamad (Helms 1984: figs. 10:13,12:12,14; 1986:fig. 10:4,20, etc.). 11Cf., however, the small bowl from Jericho ProtoUrban B tomb A13ii-i (Kenyon 1960: fig. 22); and Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux1951:fig. 11:11[Tomb 12]). 12 Bab edh-Dhra"(Schaub1973: 287, fig. 54:1587).Cf. also the more vertically-sided fig. 34:5420a(EB IA), 200 with referencesto (also more straight-sided)Chalcolithicparallels edh(nn. 115, 116), fig. 39:0542,0562b (EB IA), etc.; CArqub Dhahr (Parr1956:fig. 14:112). 13Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 17-19, 61-63). Beth Shan, Levels XVIII-XVI (FitzGerald1935: 8-10, pl. 111:1-5).Note that pl. 1:3 is of a buff fabricwith a red wash and is noted by FitzGeraldas being of similarshape,but not belonging to the same class (p. 10). Notice among the gray wares from Affula (Sukenik1948) vessels of similar shape and degree of burnishin "grayish-buffware"(p. 21, no. 1); "Darkbrown ware"(21: nos. 5, 8): a "browncore"(21: no. 10); and even a "creamware"(22: no. 11). Meser (Dothan 1957): note vessels "whoseburnishrangesfrom light yellow to almost pure black"(p. 4). Tell FarCah(N): note the frequencyof vessels of this type in Tomb 11 that are fashioned from a brownfabric(de Vaux1951:574: fig. 6:1, 3, 4, 6). Amiran 1970a:47, in one of the most recenttreatments of this class of pottery, notes that "both clay and slip are grey ... (but) ... the 'grey'may vary from light to dark,includingmanyshadesof yellowishgrey." 14 Wright 1958: 37*-45*. It must be admittedthat, for me, the potential impact of Wright's article is severely thwartedby a plethoraof technicalmistakes (typographical errors,duplicatedand/or dropped lines, etc.). For Wright's personal inspection of the Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi material,cf. 1958:44*. Cf.also Amiran(1970a:47-49) for the main types (with illustrations),and p. 47 for the possibilitythat these divisions "may have chronologicalimplications";and de Miroschedji (1971: 35-38, fig. 13). For a fuller treatment of Wright's chronologicalviews: de Miroschedji(1971:51-55); Hennessy (1967: 15-16); while recentlythis class of ceramicshas been discussedby Braun (1985: 65-66), Hanbury-Tenison(1986: 121-23), and Esse (1984). 15 The decorativecharacteristic of Type 1 is, according to Wright (1958: 41*), "sinuousprojectionor a series of knobs";Amiran (1970a: 47), "sinuousridge or a series of broad knobs";and de Miroschedji(1971: 37), "un cordon sinueux."For the added decorationon Type 2, cf. Wright 1958:41*, "ropeof clay";Amiran 1970a:47, "twistedrope of clay";de Miroschedji1971:38, "uncordonapplique,a impressions digitalesou en trosade."For the undecoratedType 3, cf. Wright (1958:41*); Amiran(1970a:47); and de Miroschedji (1971: 38). EsdraelonWarevessels with raiseddecorationhave recentlybeen publishedfrom 'En Shadud(Braun1985: 111-12, 127, fig. 18:13,Pottery type 11 [GrayBurnishedBowl with

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi ProjectingSinuousLine]); Tell esh-Shuneh(N) (GustavsonGaube 1985: 51-52, fig. 15:75a-c); and the renewedexcavations at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(Helms 1984: 11:12; 1986:fig. 11:2). 16 Pis. 23:27, 24:2 share similarities in form, fabric, description,and provenance,suggesting that they may be from the same vessel. They are, however,treatedseparately here, since this is not a certainty.The hypotheticalcontinuation of the rim and base of pl. 23:25,drawnby the excavator, is not meant to be precise,and it is intendedonly to give an impressionof the probableproportionsof the piece. 17 Tell Farcah (N), Tomb 12 (de Vaux 1951:fig. 11:1012 [10 with squareprojections]). It should be noted, however, that the rope patterns on many of these vessels have rather angularsegments (de Vaux 1951: pl. XXII). Cf. also Tomb 11 (de Vaux1951):includingfig. 11:2-4, which exhibit a brown surface;and Tomb 14 (de Vaux 1952): including fig. 12:18, with a brown slip. All of these tombs include a good samplingof red burnishedvessels, while Tomb 14 also includesa small bowl with conicalprojections(de Vaux1952: fig. 12:10)similarto largerexamplesfrom Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. Bdbedh-Dhra'(Schaub1973:fig. 37, p. 200). Interesting is a bowl (or chalice)from Lachish(Tufnell 1958:pls. 12:38, 56:13), which is similar in appearanceto bowls from Bab edh-Dhrac, but whose shiny red surfacehas "firedgrey in patches." 18 For a well-documentedthesis for a northernsource for this pottery, cf. Hennessy (1967: 35-36, pls. XXIX, XXX). Cf. also the materialfrom Tell es-Shuneh (N), cf. above, pl. 8:1-6 (Mellaart'ssounding); and de Contenson (1960a: fig. 9:1-7 ["grey burnished,"p. 21]); and Alayiq (Pritchard1951: 17-19). For the distributionof the pottery type,cf. Hanbury-Tenison(1986: 121-23, andesp. fig. 15). 19 Wright 1958:41*-42*, fig. 1:7 (his Type 4); de Miroschedji1971: 38, fig. 13 (his Type 4, followingWright); and Amiran 1970a:49, pl. 10:9.For examples,cf. Jericho,ProtoUrban Tomb K2ii (Kenyon 1965: 22: fig. 7:8 ["imitation EsdraelonWare,"coarseware,pinkish-drabslip]); Tell Gath (Level IX) (Yeivin 1961: pl. VIII: top); Beth Shan (Level XV) (FitzGerald1935:pl. V:28 [buff with red slip, p. 11]); 5Affula(Sukenik1948: pl. XII:2 [and 1?], with light brown ware and brown slip [p. 54]); Ai (Marquet-Krause1949:pl. LXXIV:1055);Megiddo(Engbergand Shipton 1934: 19, 63, fig. 6:18a [and b]), "Stages"IV-VI ("Inadditionto the grey ware,vessels of this form were found in Stage IV with a red high polish outside and over rim; in Stages IV-VI they occurredwith a reddishbrown wash,"p. 19). Note also Guy (1938: pl. 3:31, 32; 22, fig. 21), a basaltbowl of similartype (Tomb 1106). Cf. two-knobbedbowls on which one knob has been pierced verticallyfor suspension, thereby further tying this class of pottery to the mainstreamof the ProtoUrban/EB I ceramicrepertoire.Cf. Tell Far'ah(N) Tomb 14 (de Vaux 1952: fig. 12:10, pl. XX:7 [gray-blackfabricwith lustrousbrown slip, p. 581]); and Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947:pl. 52:1124[light orangefabric,wet smoothed]). Note also the basaltbowl on a fenestratedstand from Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934: 63, fig. 17). A rim

99

similarto pl. 23:24can be seen on an "EsdraelonWare"bowl ("light brown ware, gray core, black slip, burnished")from Affula (Sukenik1948:22, pl. 11:22). 20 Glueck 1951: pls. 156:7, 157:9, 158:2; Glueck 1945: pl. 10:2, 3 and perhaps others on the plate. Cf. also p. 13, with referencesto JerichoVIIIof Garstang. 21 "Pre-Urbaine D": cf. de Miroschedji1971:38, fig. 14: top. Cf. also from Tell Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 2:1; 1948: fig. 5:12 [both "eneolithiquesuperieur"];and de Vaux 1961: fig. 3:17 [ancien bronzeperiode 1]). Chalcolithic:cf. Ghassul (North 1961: fig. 15:8485);HIorvatBeter (Dothan cf. Glueck1951:Tell el-Arbain(144) 1959a:fig. 9:1). "Later": and Tell Abu Hayet (154). There does, however, seem to be some degree of confusionbetween the two sites. There is no discussionof the potteryfrom Tell Abu Hayet (p. 450), but pottery from Tell el-Arbain is discussed(pp. 450-53). The "list of Plates" lists pottery illustratedfrom Tell Abu Hayet on pi. 130:1-8 and pl. 131, and that from Tell elArbainon pi. 130:9-13. Potteryon pl. 131 is, however,describedunderthe headingof Tell el-Arbain(pp. 450-53). To add to this confusion,Glueckdates the earliest materialat Tell Abu Hayet to "MB I-II" (p. 259), while he parallels the Tell el-Arbainpotteryto "LateChalcolithic"(with references to similar pieces at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi) with a subsequentgap to MB II (p. 245). For a similar piece from Tell Iktanu (219), cf. Glueck (1951: 491, pl. 151:3), where it is also dated "MB II"but with parallelsto Ghassul.End of FourthMillennium:In additionto the Tell Far'ah(N) references(above,n. 17), cf. also Tell Kufr Yuba (81) (Glueck 1951: pl. 152:1, and pp. 493-95, where dates are "EBI" or "EB I-II"); and Khirbet Abu Habil (Glueck 1951:pi. 121:25,andp. 434, where it is dated"MiddleChalcolithic").A similarlytreatedrim, but with a shallowchannel, is known in "EsdraelonWare"from Affula (Sukenik1948: pl. II:22). Some of the fragmentsfrom the Golan (Epstein 1978), illustratedby photographs(only), are probablyalso of this type.The frequentuse of the impressedcordondecoration is certainlywell documentedby Epstein at these sites. This typeof decorationis alsowell known at Kataretes-Samrajust to the north of Tell Umm Hamad (Leonard1983: 40, fig. 8:23,24). 22 On tall jars:Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 8:20); Meser (Dothan 1957: fig. 3:6 [Stratum II]); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pl. IV:3 [XIV]). Possiblyrelatedto de Contenson 1956: fig. 2:7, from the Beershebaarea.On straightshoulderedjars: Alayiq (Pritchard1958: pl. 57:12); Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:16, and p. 20). Cf. also the rim of a "cookingpot" from Tell en-Nekheil (179) (Glueck1951:pl. 145:17),dated"MBIIb-c"(p. 482). Glueckcomparessome of the "MBI"pieces fromTell en-Nekheil with fragmentsfrom Tell Umm Hamad el-Gharbi(199a). On jars with rounded profile:Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLI:4,from the "Chalcolithic"Area 188). 23 Cf.AradStratumV (Amiran1978:pl. 6:4 [and6? ]); WadiRabah (Kaplan 1958b:fig. 5:2 [WadiRabahculture]); Lod (Kaplan1977:fig. 6:10);Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux1961: fig. 3:17 [ancien bronzeperiode 1]); and Kataretes-Samra (Leonard1983:41,fig. 8:26).

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

100

pi. 30:9,10,here treatedas bowls,and the slightlymore dosed pl. 30:11,discussedunder holemouthjars.PI. 30:10even exhibitsthe droopinginterior rim of pl. 24:12,etc. 25Roundedprofiles:de Vaux1961:fig. 3:14, 15;de Vaux 1948: fig. 6:7; and possibly pre-urban Ai (Callaway1980: fig. 37:2). Some are similarto the more open example from the Jerichotell, used by Hennessy (1967: pl. II:23),illustrate his Proto-Urbanholemouthjar type V with "plainflat rims" (p. 8). Related forms do, however, occur later in the Early BronzeAge; cf. AradStratumII (Amiran1978:pl. 42:14); Hi, Phase IV (BuildingB stratum) (Callaway1972: figs. 39:27, 40:2, 3). Straight-sided:Megiddo(EngbergandShipton 1934: Type 13 "holemouthbowls"[some spouted]in "Stages"VIIIV, p. 13, fig. 4:13a); and with rope decorationat the rim (Shipton 1939: pl. 16:25, Chart XIX:II). Referencesto examples from Beisan (p. 44) are furtherfrom the Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi type. Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 3:6 [spouted jar], ancien bronze 1); and Tell el-Mefaliq (see below,pl. 34:7, 12). Cf. also the spoutedjarwith beveled rim at H.orvatBeter (Dothan 1959a:fig. 10:1),from Stratum I, a depositthat also includedcoronets(fig. 10:6-13). 26Undecoratedholemouth jars are frequent in early domesticcontexts.Paintedrim-bandson holemouthjarscan be found in coronet-producinglevels at Horvat Beter Strata II-III (Dothan 1959a:fig. 14:2,etc.) It should also be noted that the holemouthjaron pl. 30:11 also seems to leadus into the vertical-rimholemouthsas exemplifiedby pl. 30:16. For other sites, cf. Arad StratumIV (Amiran 1978: pl. 8:13, 15);Jawa(Helms 1981:fig. B3:2,6, 10); Meser(Dothan 1957:fig. 3:2); Tell Deir SaCaneh Mekhlediyeh(112) (Glueck 1951:pl. 133:5,"EBI,"pp. 458, 462); Lod (Kaplan1977:fig. 7:6);and the Jerichotell (Hennessy1967;pl. III:22,his ProtoUrban holemouth Type IV with "rounded,in-turnedrims" [p. 8]); 9Ai(Callaway1980:fig. 37:4),frompre-urbanPhaseII (Site A). 27For pl. 29:15, 16, cf. Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Glueck, 1951: pl. 162:7); Jericho (Kenyon 1952: fig. 5:3); Kataret es-Samra (Leonard1983: 46, fig. 9:7, 8). Possibly Ghrubba(Mellaart1956:fig.4:36); Tell el-Meghaniyeh(261) (Glueck1951:pl. 163:9);Jawa(Helms 1981:fig. B3). For pl. 24:20, cf. Hennessy (1969: fig. 6:5), who notes biconical forms from secure Chalcolithic contexts from Ghassul,also with slight "handles"in a similarposition. 28 Ali (Callaway1972:fig. 15:9).The Tell Umm Hamad rims are even furtherremovedfrom the pieces he cites from Proto-UrbanJericho(p. 61). Cf.also the examplefrom Gezer (Dever 1974: pl. 4:11 [Stratum 13, EB IB]); Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(Glueck1951: pls. 156:11,157:17);Arad (Amiran1978:pl. 8:12, 15 [StratumIV], 20:5 [StratumIII]); Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1961: fig. 2:3 [impressedcordon, chalcolithiquesuperieur], 1:8 [painted decoration,chalcolithiquemoyen]). Note, however,the "morecommon"appearanceof rope moldingson holemouthjars at Gezer in EB IIB Stratum11 (Dever 1974: 27), a situation that can also be seen in the upper strata at Tell Arad (Amiran 1978: 49), while the 24 Cf.the similaritiesbetween

combinationof form and decorationcontinues late at Ai (Callaway1972: 198,etc.). 29Callaway1972:fig. 15:9.For the Chalcolithicheritage of the type, as well as correlationswith Hennessy's "plain, slightly everted rims"(holemouthtype III) fromJericho,cf. p. 61. It seems best not to identifypl. 30:7 with the "railrim" (Dever 1974: 16, pl. 4:9, with references)or the "cutrim" (Hennessy 1967: 8, pl. 111:20,holemouth type 1), since the "flange"above the cordon on the Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqipiece is createdby an additiveratherthan a subtractive process.For the mechanicsinvolvedin producinga "cut"rim, cf. Callaway(1972: 66-67). The "everted"upper profile of pl. 29:20,closerto Hennessy'sholemouthType III (Hennessy 1967:8, pl. 111:21,"plain,slightlyevertedrim"),seems to be the productof the decorativetreatmentgiven to the rim. 30 Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Glueck 1951: pls. 156:10,159:5);TellFarCah(N) (deVaux 1947:fig. 5:7 [ancien bronze I], 7:15 [ancien bronze II]; de Vaux 1948: fig. 6:7 [ancien bronze I]; de Vaux 1955: fig. 4:9 [chalcolithique moyen], 5:20 [chalcolithiquesuperieur];de Vaux 1961: fig. 1:12[chalcolithiquemoyen], 3:14 [ancienbronzeI]). 31 Alayiq (Pritchard1958: pl. 22:13); Affula (Sukenik 1948: pl. IX:la); Wadi GhaazehSite H (Macdonald1932: pl. XL:68). Less specificparallelscan be seen from Glueck's survey of Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Glueck 1951: pl. 157:8);Jericho(Garstang1935:pl. XLII:17);Meser (Dothan 1957:fig. 3:5 [StratumII]). The Chalcolithicancestryof the type may be in the Beershebaarea (de Contenson 1956: fig. 2:3). 32 Forpl. 24:13,cf. Amiran(1970a:pl. 14:10,andp. 55). This vessel is also discussedby Callawaywith regardto the holemouthprofilesfromPhaseI at the 5li Sanctuary(Callaway 1972:61). For a loop handleon the rim of a holemouthjar with a different profile from Arad IV, cf. Amiran (1978: pl. 8:38). At Megiddo,cf. Engberg and Shipton (1934: 11, Chart:12M ["StageIV"]). A smallervessel "whichmay be a holemouthjar"with smallhandleis knownfromStratumII at Rosh Hanniqra(Tadmor1959:81, fig. 6:39). Possiblyrelated is a vessel from 9Affula(Sukenik1948:pl. VIII:32). 33For function,cf. Callaway1972: fig. 18:28,and p. 66, with referencesto Hennessy 1967: 11, pl. V:48 (PhaseL). For specificsites: '/i (Callaway1980: fig. 37:23 [Site C, pre-urbanPhase II]); Tell esh-Shuneh (N) (de Contenson Level II]); Jericho(Gar1960a:fig. 11:4 ["LateChalcolithic" "EB Tell en-Nasbeh (Wam1935: I"); pl. XXXVIII:21, stang pler 1947: pl. 11:166, and p. 6); Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor 1959:fig. 6:16,20 [StratumII,datedto the "EarlyCanaaniteI" period]). 34Hennessy 1967:pls. V:48, XI:8, and p. 11, his holemouth jar Type VII: Kenyon's EB I being equated with Wright'sformerEB IB (p. 19). Incipientformsof the "drooping"rim were notedin pre-urbanstrataat 'Ai(Callaway1972: 66), but the developedJerichotype does not seem to appear there. For the TransjordanSurvey,cf. Glueck 1951: at elFakhat (98), pl. 119:12, 14 (dated "EB,"p. 427). Note the fragment of Khirbet Kerak ware at el-Fakhat,pl. 120:12; Khirbet Amin Riyashi(270), pl. 123:14(dated"EBI,"p. 436);

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi Tell edh-Dhiyabeh(150), pls. 136:20, 138:12 (dated "EBI," with largequantitiesof "band-slip," p. 252); Tellel-Handaquq (168), pl. 140:6 ("EB I-II," p. 470). For the form at other sites, cf. Tell esh-Shuneh(N) (de Contenson1960a:pl. 11:2 [Level II]); Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 7:13, 14 ["ancienbronze II"];de Vaux 1955: fig. 4:9 ["chalcolithique moyen"], fig. 13:8 ["ancien bronze periode 1"], fig. 14:7 ["ancienbronzeperiode4"]; de Vaux1961:fig. 3:15 ["ancien bronze periode 1"]); Lod (Kaplan 1977: fig. 7:5); Lachish (Tufnell 1958: pls. 56:5, 57:38); Rosh Hanniqra (Tadmor 1959:fig. 6:21, and p. 81 [StratumII, "EarlyCanaaniteI"]). 35 Cf. Callaway 1972: 66-67 for a discussion on the technique,and Hennessy 1967:8, pl. III:20for its use.Wright originallyreferredto this generaltype as the "holemouthwith ridge" (Wright 1937: 59, fig. A:VIII),a term also used by Hennessy in some instances (Hennessy 1967: 10, 19, pls. IV:40,XI:9).Dever refersto them as "railrims"(Dever 1974: 16, pl. 3:13, etc.), a term that is applied to a differentrim type at Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934: Type 16S [pithos], 17, fig.4). Forthe type at Megiddocf. "Stages"V-IV: 12:H,J,K. 36Hennessy 1967:pl. IV:42,43 (forpl. 24:14);pi. IV:41, 47 (for pl. 24:16);pl. IV:41,43 (for pl. 24:17). PI. 24:15 may simplybe a variantof pi. IV:41. 37For pl. 27:9, 10: JerichoTomb A94 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 14:8).Cf. Hennessy 1967:30, pl. XXII:1,2 for theJericho vessel and a similar jar from Gerzeh (Egypt). For pl. 27:2: Jericho (Kenyon 1960: fig. 14:12, 13, etc.); Azor (Ben-Tor 1975a: fig. 9:12, 13); and Tell FarCah(N) (among others, de Vaux 1951:fig. 4:1, 3). This method of attachmentcan be documentedat Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1951:fig. 11:24,an oval-mouthed jar from "eneolithique"Tomb 12); and on taller-neckedjars from Bab edh-Dhra"(Schaub1973: 268, fig. 52:1152,1250 [EB IB]). 38 Even the larger vessels from the later tomb F4 at Jericho (Kenyon 1960: fig. 47:1, 2, 4, etc.) or the cave at 'Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:184-86, 194, 196, etc.) do not exhibit the profile of the Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqi piece. Examples from Azor (Ben-Tor 1975a: fig. 8:4, 5) are similar morphologically,but quite different in appearance. 39For pi. 27:8, undecorated,cf., among others,AradIV (Amiran 1978: pl. 9:7); Azor (Ben-Tor 1975a: fig. 8:2, 3); Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:8 [eneolithiqueTombe 5], fig. 13:20[eneolithiqueTombe 8]); Jericho(Kenyon1960: fig. 18:23 [round-bottomed,from Tomb Al114(A)], fig. 21:6 [Tomb A13iii]): 'Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:199); Giv'atayim(Sussman1966:fig. 9:22, 25). Similarvessels with painted decorationcan be found at 'Arqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:195); Ai (Marquet-Krause1949: pl. LXVII:23, 718); and Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler1947:pl. 9:131-33). Forpi. 27:15,seeJericho(Kenyon1960:fig. 14:10[Tomb A94]); Azor (Ben-Tor 1975a:fig. 8:9, 10 [EB I Cave4]); and Tell Far'ah(N) (de Vaux1955:fig. 1:6 [chalcolithique Tombe 15]). Related vessels from EB IA Bab edh-Dhracexhibit a more verticalneck,andthe handlesareplacedmuchloweron the body (cf. Schaub 1973: fig. 21:0120a, fig. 22: all, fig.

101

26:0220,0224,etc.).This type appearsto continueinto EB IB (fig. 51:1123),where it is less common and the handlesare higher. 40 The extremely"flaring"rim of pl. 27:17 is common on jars from the Tell Far'ah(N) tombs; (cf., among others, de Vaux 1949: fig. 1:27 ["eneolithique"Tombe 3], 13:18 Tombe 8]). ["eneolithique" 41 A possiblyrelatedtype is foundin an EB IB contextat Babedh-Dhra'(Schaub1973:268, fig. 52:1211);but note also a KhirbetKerakWare (EB III) vessel from Affula (Sukenik 1948:pl. XI:2). 42 Cf. de Contenson(1956:fig. 4:20, 21), from the Beersheba area; and possibly related examples from Ghassul (Mallon 1934: fig. 52:4, 8), and later examplesat Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. I:11 (Level XVI), 20 (Level XVIII]); A5ffula(Sukenik1948: pl. IV:16, etc.); 'Ai (Marquet-Krause 1949:pl. LXVIII:120). 43 Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1952: fig. 10:23 ["eneolithiquesuperieur"Tombe13]); Bdbedh-Dhrca(Schaub1973: fig. 20:0102,0104c,etc.,with a punctatebandat the junction, EB IA; andfig. 50:1102,1103,withoutthe punctates[EBIB]). 44 Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Glueck 1951: pls. 157:6, 158:1,3); Iktanu(Glueck1951:pl. 151:1);Beth Shan, (FitzGerald1935:pl. 1:15[LevelXVIII]); the Golan(Epstein 1978:fig. 12: top, center). 45 Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (Glueck 1951: pls. 156:6,159:8);note thatde Miroschedji1971:fig. 14:B2(from Garstang'swork at Jericho)is similar,but it does not exhibit of the Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi the main characteristics rims. In fact, the closest parallelsfor the present piece are from StratumI at H.orvatBeter(Dothan 1959a:fig.9:11) and possibly StratumII at Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 6:14). It might be possible to considerthe Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqirims as a variationon or combinationof forms published by Hennessy from Proto-Urbanlevels of the tell at Jericho(Hennessy 1967:pl. 11:13,14). The distinctivenessof the present type is apparentwhen they are comparedwith similarvessels from other sites suchas Ghassul(North 1961: fig. 15:8026);Azor (Perrot1961:fig.40:1-3); Megiddo(Loud 1948: pl. 2:44, 47); Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935: pl. 1:11, 12, etc.) 46Forpl. 30:4cf. the Golan(Epstein1978:fig. 11:center [Tell Turmus] 12: lower center [Rasm Harbush]). For Tell Turmus,cf. also Dayan 1969: fig. 4:1-3; Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux1947:fig. 2:2 ["e'neolithique superieur"]).The type was also collected at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqiby Glueck (Glueck1951:pl. 158:6,7).A rim fromAzor (Perrot1961:fig. 41:16) and possibly from Neve Ur (Perrot 1967: fig. 16:1) maybe related.Examplesof pl. 30:2were alsocollectedat the site by Glueck(1951:pl. 158:6). 47Beth Shan(FitzGerald1935:pl. I:3 [LevelXVI]); Tell Far'ah(N) (de Vaux 1948:fig. 5:13 [eneolithiquesuperieur], de Vaux 1955: fig. 5:27 [chalcolithiquesuperieur],de Vaux 1961: fig. 2:9, 10 [chalcolithiquesuperieur]);Azor (Perrot 1961:figs.40:16,41:3,6);Delhamiyeh(Amiran1977:fig.4:6); Neve Ur (Perrot 1967:fig. 17:6);and perhaps Ai (Callaway excavations.Similar 1972:fig. 34:14),from Marquet-Krause's

102

Tell Umm Hamud Esh-Sherqi

profileson wider vessels are known from Pella (Smith 1973: pl. 34:717,730). 48 Tell FarCah(N) (de Vaux 1947: fig. 5:17 [ancien bronze 1]; de Vaux 1948: fig. 8 [eneolithiquesuperieur];de Vaux 1955: fig. 5:17 [chalcolithiquesuperieur]);Beth Shan (FitzGerald1935:pi. IV:26 [LevelXV, "EBIA"]); Tell Deir Sa'anehMekhlediyeh(Glueck1951:pl. 134:7). 49For a discussion of the development of this type through Strata IV-II at Arad, cf. Amiran (1978: 43, 47). Cf. also Hennessy's"columnor thumbhandles,"which begin on the Jerichotell in (Kenyon's) EB I Phases L and K and continueinto PhaseJ (Hennessy 1967: 11, pls. V:49, XI:13). Note also the "columnhandledjars"that first appearat Bdb edh-Dhrac in EB IB; cf. Schaub [1973: 277-78]. For the decorativetreatment,cf. Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux 1949: fig. 8:31 ["eneolithique"]);and 54rqubel-Dhahr (Parr 1956:fig. 16:204).For lattice or net-burnishingon other vessels from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,cf. Glueck(1951: pls. 156:14, decoration"first appears 159:3, and p. 509). "Cross-burnish on the Jerichotell in PhasePi (Hennessy 1967:9, pl. III:25). 50For the foreign relations,cf. Kantor (1965: 8); Hennessy (1967: 30-31, pls. XXII, XXIII); Amiran (1970b:8689). For the vessels themselves,cf. Tell Farcah(N) (de Vaux tombe 13]); Beth Shan(Amiran 1949:fig. 13:8["eneolithique" 1970b:fig. 8:7 [redrawn]).Note the sharpnessof profileon

the vessel from WarkaVII,also illustratedby Amiran(1970b: fig. 2:1). Another vessel from Beth Shan providesan almost exact parallel to the Tell Umm esh-Sherqipiece (Amiran 1970a:pl. 9:16),whereit is thoughtto be an "entirelydifferent form whose typologicalhistory(is) as yet unknown"(p. 43). Some vessels will have a carinatedor semi-carinatedprofile, but in these instancesthe spout is often placedmuch higher on the bodyof the vessel;cf.Jericho(Kenyon 1960:fig. 14:14, 15 [Tomb A94]; 1965:fig.4:34 [TombK2i]); Azor (Ben-Tor 1975a: fig. 10:1); and Givatayim(Sussman 1966: fig. 9:10 [Cave4]). 51 On the higher proportionof burnishedred wares at Tell FarCah(N), as opposedto Jericho,cf. Kenyon (1960:5). 52Kenyon 1960:13-16;andKenyon 1965:7-8. Dependon the state of preservation,however, some of these ing jugletscouldbe assignedto more than one of Kenyon'stypes. An apparentproblemin the drawingof pl. 29:6 makes this piece difficultto classify. 53 Tell el-Mefaliq,cf. pl. 35:3; Kataretes-Samra,from Leonard's1985 excavations;andJawa (Helms 1981:223, fig. B4:6). For Chalcolithicseal stones from Ghassul (Mallon 1934: 75, fig. 28:1);and Tell esh-Shemdin (Tsori 1958: 47, pl. Va. Helms's recentexcavationsat Tell Umm Hamadhave also producedseal-impressedhandles (Helms 1984: 47, fig. 11:17).

Tell

El-Mefaliq

Introduction Tell el-Mefaliq is an extensive (500 m E-W x 200 m N-S), practicallyflat site that rises at its westernend to a maximumof 1 m abovethe surroundingterrain(Mellaart1962: 129, 137). The site is situated just to the southeastof Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,on the southern bank of the Wadi Fannush, immediatelyto the west of a large dolmen field and the East Ghor highway (fig. 23). Although surroundedon three sides by several small khirbets whose surfacesproducedRomanByzantineartifacts,it is expresslystatedby Mellaartthat the main part of Tell el-Mefaliqcontainedno Roman pottery. In fact, the pottery found on the surface was noted as being exclusively "Late Chalcolithic,"with strong similaritiesto that excavatedin the basal StratumI at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. Mellaartplaced his sounding (Trench I) at the relativelyhigher western end of the site and recordedonly a single thin soil layerbetween topsoil and the naturalhuwwar.No traceof architecture was detectedin this shallow sounding. Layer Description 1 Surface:brownish-redearth 2 Red Earth Hard brown clay with white specks,natural 3

Period | Late Chalcolithic |

The CeramicAssemblage(pls. 34, 35) Mellaartdrew 22 potsherds from his sounding at Tell el-Mefaliqand noted two other pieces, includinga fragmentof "EsdraelonWare."Becauseof the similaritiesbetweenthe Tell el-Mefaliqand Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqicorpora,the followingdiscussionwill be in largepart limitedto parallels between the materialfrom these two neighboringsites. Bowls. The two largebowls in a gritty red fabric(pl. 34:6, 7) have readyparallelswith "ProtoUrban D" vessels from Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. Jars. Three differenttypes of jars can be distinguishedin the collection. Straightneckedjar. PI. 34:1,which displaysa relativelyverticalneckand a slight thinningof the vessel wall at the rim, can be comparedto a thickerbut similar piece from Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqi (pi. 27:19). Evertedrim jar. Four fragmentsrepresentvessels with evertedor out-splayedrims (pl. 34:811). Pl. 34:8, 10 present an internalthickeningat the point at which the rim was everted.At the sites soundedby Mellaart,this featurecan be seen at Tell el-Mafjar(pl. 3:4), Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi (pls. 27:11, 18; 28:29), and possiblyJamid (pi. 6:26). The combinationof this profile and the bandof radialincisions on the inside of the rim of pl. 34:8, however, is unusual.It is known at Tell Umm Hamad (pI. 33:2-4) and might possiblybe paralleledin the materialfrom Marquet-Krause's excavations at cAi.l PI. 34:11,which exhibitsan extreme thickeningat the junctionof the shoulderand rim, can be comparedwith a Proto-UrbanD (i.e.,decoratedwith impressedcordons)vessel from Garstang's "EBI" LayerVII at Jericho.2 103

104

Tell El-Mefaliq

ROCKS

O

-- WALLS

'D A /I

WADI

O

'f

f

If

\

rLL TELLELMAFALIQ x. ?i

FT i

?

f'T

r-T

Fig. 23. Tell el-Mefaliq.Sketchmap from the excavationnotebookshowingthe location(solidsquare)of the small sounding at the western end of the site. Mellaartalso recordedmany other archaeologicalfeatures in the immediatearea:No. 1 is a small group of "cairns"to the east of a "thin scatter of Roman pottery"; No. 2 is a scatterof Roman pottery possibly associatedwith walling;No. 3 is a small khirbetwith Roman and Byzantinepottery;No. 4 is a "greenrise with Roman pottery";No. 5 marksthe remainsof "alarge buildingwith Roman,Byzantine,Medieval,and Arabicpottery in association"; No. 6 indicatestracesof a circularbuildingca. 10 in diameter;No. 7 is a small rise with Romanand Byzantinepottery;No. 8 marks a series of rock-cuttombs of unknown date; No. 9 is a scatterof Roman, Byzantine,and Arabicpottery; No. 10 indicatesArabicpottery in associationwith walling;No. 11 marks a large dolman field; and No. 12 is another series of rock-cuttombs of unknowndate. (J. Mellaartand L Kain).

Tell El-Mefaliq

105

PI. 34:9 does not displaythis internalthickeningand the vessel wall retainsthe same thickness from shoulder to rim. Similar simple forms have been producedfrom Mellaart'ssoundingsat Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(pl. 27:4, 5) and Jamid (pl. 6:25). "Thickened"rim jar. Pl. 34:12, 13, in a gritty red ware, have thickenedrims that were subsequently flattenedhorizontally.Both rims are decoratedwith a row of impressionsthat aligns them with de Miroschedji'spre-urbaineD class of pottery,and both find generalparallelsin materialfrom Mellaart'ssoundingsat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi,as well as Glueck'searliersurveywork at that site (Glueck1951: pl. 158:6, 7). Holemouth Jars.Of the four fragmentsof holemouthjars from the Tell el-Mefaliqcorpus (pl. 34:2-5), two (pl. 34:2, 5) have simple rounded (or slightly flattened) rims. These are basic shapes without too much chronologicalspecificity,and similarforms can be seen in the JordanValleyat Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(pls. 24:10, 18; 30:6, 8) and elsewhere. The extremity of the rim of pl. 34:3 has been more "flattened"and seems to be an angular variantof Hennessy's "drooping"rim, which he finds characteristicof Kenyon'sEB I on the Jericho tell. The type was encounteredin Mellaart'ssoundingsat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(pl. 24:11, 12), but not in Glueck'ssurfacecollectionfrom the site. It did, however, appearelsewhere in his Transjordaniansurvey,and it has been frequentlydocumentedin EB I contexts at sites such as Tell eshShuneh (N) and Tell el-Far'ah (N). PI. 34:4 exhibitsa more "sculptured"' internalrim profilethan the last. It can be documentedat neighboringTell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(pl. 24:8) and also appearsin Glueck'ssurveymaterialfrom Tell edh-Dhiyabeh,Tell el-Handaquq,and possiblyTell Kufr Yuba.3 Handles. A large percentageof the sherds in the Tell el-Mefaliqcorpus consists of handles, includingledge handles and "loop"handles,both round and flat in section. Ledgehandles. The seven ledge handlesare subdividedhere in the same mannerthat they were at Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi,where parallelsfor all of the Mefaliqpieces can be found. 1. Plain margin.PI. 35:2, 7, 9, with plain margins,can be comparedwith pl. 31:10,etc., from Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi. 2. Thumb-impressedmargin.Pl. 35:4, describedby the excavatoras "waved,"shows very slight "thumb"impressionson the margin, as do Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi(pl. 32:13, 18). 3. Serratedmargin. PI. 35:1, describedby Mellaartas "ribbed,"finds frequentparallelsat Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqiin the categorytermed "serrated"in this book (cf. pl. 32:5, 12, etc.). 4. Thumb-impressedat juncturewith vessel wall. PI. 35:6 exhibitsdeep thumbor fingerimpressions where the handlewas joinedto the vessel, as do pl. 32:7, 14 from Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi. 5. Stamped.The upper surfaceof pl. 35:3 bears four imprintsof a circularseal (fig. 22c) with geometric "design."Similarhandles,stampedwith more oval stamps,were foundby Mellaartat Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(pl. 32:4, 11) and representa practicethat we have also encounteredatJawa. Non-ledge handles. Also present are two non-ledgehandles(pl. 35:5,8). Pl. 35:8,from a vessel with a red wash, is round in section and most probablyconnectedthe shoulderand rim of a juglet similar to those from Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(pl. 29:1-6, 7-10) and Proto-Urbancontextssuch as Jericho Tomb A94 (Kenyon 1960). It is not, obviously,a chronologicallyspecificelement and is foundon jugletsof manyperiods.Pl. 35:5,from a vessel in a gritty red claycomparableto manypieces in the present assemblage,is more flat in section and was attachedto the bodyof an ovoid jar.Similar handleplacementcan also be seen at Tell Umm Hamadesh-Sherqi(pl. 27:1), but the combinationof handle and body profile is best seen in later contexts such as Tomb C at cAi (Callaway1964: pl. 17, upper left) and Tomb F4 at Jericho (Kenyon 1960: fig. 47:1-4).

106

Tell El-Mefaliq

Summary The present review of the materialcultureamplydemonstratesthe similaritiesbetween the Tell el-Mefaliqand Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqicorpora.Becausethese finds were not associatedwith architecture,however,they can only give us an impressionof how denselypopulatedthis part of the JordanValleywas duringthe Proto-Urban/EBI period.

Tell El-Mefaliq: A Postmortem During the winter of 1983-1984, while an NEH/ASOR fellow at the American Center for OrientalResearchin Amman, I had anotherchanceto visit Tell el-Mefaliq.It was quite a shock!The many small khirbetsand other topographicalfeatureson Mellaart'ssketchmap of the site (fig. 23) no longer existed. Everythinghad been bulldozedand leveled. In an attempt to save something, a brief surveyof the area was conductedand a new map of the area drawn (fig. 24). Here are some of our observations,based on my brief report to the Departmentof Antiquitiesdated December 15, 1983. a. The area marked"rock"on Mellaart'ssketchplan from the 1950s, west of the N-S highway and dolmen field (cf. fig. 23), is still basicallyintact,but quitedisturbedaroundits perimeter(fig. 24:1). This rockyoutcropcontainsmany rock-cuttombs and small nichesthat were not recordedby Mellaart. The few non-diagnosticbody sherds found on the badlydenudedsurfaceappearto date to the Late Byzantineperiod. b. Extendingfrom the northernfoot of the rockoutcrop(fig. 24:1) and extendingbetween and under the recentlyconstructedgreenhouses,we encounteredan intensive scatterof sherds that consisted primarilyof "sugarpots."The few diagnosticsherdsthat were not of this type can be assignedto the Ayyubid-Mameluk period.This suggeststhe presenceof an Arabicsugarfactoryhere (fig. 24:2), a fact supportedby its designationon the topographicalmap (Tiwahinel-Sukkar).It should be noted that there exists on Mellaart'splan (fig. 23) both round(ca. 10 m diameter)and rectangularstructures in this area.Unfortunately,none of these walls were visible duringour work and this complex seems to have been destroyedby recent plowing. c. To the north and west of Tiwahin el-Sukkar,the area is under cultivationof two types: permanentplanting (bananaand citrusgroves) and short term crops (tomatoes,squash,etc.). At the time of our visit, the latter were in the process of being coveredwith large greenhousesto increase productivity,but this is also adding to the destructionof the site. In those areas where the planting allowedus to survey(which should have placedus over Mellaart'sChalcolithic/EBI site many times) the sherdscatterwas primarilyLateByzantinewith an occasionalRoman fragment.Only rarelycoulda sherdbe assignedto the fourthmillenniumB.C. This factcausedus a greatdealof concern,for Mellaart describedthe Chalcolithic/EBI remains at Mefaliqas having an east-west extent of one kilometer. Also troublingwas the flatnessof the area!Althoughthe modernmap exhibitsonly slight variationsin the topography,manyof the landmarksthat shouldhave been identifiablewere not to be found.These facts, combinedwith the looseness of the soil and hints by local farmers,suggest that the series of small, Roman-Byzantinekhirbetshad been bulldozedin orderto createan even layerof plantingsoil and a level areafor the constructionof the greenhouses.This wouldaccountfor the wide scatterof late materialand the almostcompleteabsenceof earlyartifacts.As if to prove this point, in an areawest of the bananafield, water divertedfrom a canal had cut randomlythroughthe loose topsoil, leaving a channelca. 0.30-0.50 m wide and ca. 0.10-0.20 m deep. In the banksof this small stream (fig. 24:4) was the only place that we were able to find fourthmillenniumartifactsin any quantity.They included a good range of incisedand cordondecoratedsherds from domesticvessels and severalvery long flint

I

I

I

0

Metel

s

500

w

I

205

206

205

206

I

a

f

Fig. 24 Tell el-Mefaliq.Plan made during the survey of 1983. No. 1 is a rock outcropcut by Byzantine(?)tombs and niches; No. 3 is a largearea of Late-Roman/Byzantinepotteryplowed over the un fragments in the area knownas 'Tiwahin el-Sukkar"; an area of extremelydisturbedByzantineoccupation(C. Romy and A. Leonard,Jr.). by Mellaart;and No. 4 nmarks

108

Tell El-Mefaliq

blades.North and south of this cutting a few early sherds were found, but again the predominant period representedon the present surfacewas Byzantine. d. The small khirbetnoted by Mellaartbetweenhis Chalcolithic/EBI site and the WadiFannush has also been severelydisturbedby plowing and seems to have been spread around(even into the wadi) to increasethe level plantingspace.Squaredand dressedblocksof stone are frequentalong the southern edge of the wadi (fig. 24:5). The tops of walls, evidently undisturbedand in situ at the southernlip of the wadi, can be seen from both the plantedarea and the bottom of the wadi. Visual inspectionof the ceramicmaterialbelow them suggests that they belong to what remainsof the Late Byzantineoccupationof the site. The materialcollectedduring this brief surveyeasily and quicklyseparatesitself into two main groups. First, there are Proto-Urban/EBI domestic wares, often with impressed cordon (PUD) decoration(pi. 36:1-17).They, as well as the groundstone (pl. 36:18) and knappedflint (pl. 38:26-32) artifacts,are quite at home with the assemblageproducedby Mellaart'sTrenchI at Tell el-Mefaliqand in contemporarylevels of other sites that he tested in the JordanValley. In addition,later Roman-Byzantineartifactswere quite frequentin the "surface"collection,the result of the absoluteleveling of the small khirbetsthat had once been so numerousadjacentto the earlier Bronze Age part of the site. For the sake of completeness,both the pottery (pl. 37:1-25, 38:1-21) and groundstone (pi. 38:22-25) from this later occupationare includedhere. When consideringthe destructionand demise of Tell el-Mefaliq,one can only wonder why Mellaart'swarningsof the 1950s had gone unheededfor so long. Notes 1 Marquet-Krause1949: pl. LXVIII:43a.This would, however,requirea radicalredrawingof the sherd. 2 De Miroschedji1971: 39, 144, fig. 37:B2, after Garstang 1936:pl. XXXIV:19.

3 Cf. referencesto vessels from Tell Umm HamadeshSherqi above and Glueck 1951: Tell edh-Dhiyabeh (150), 656, pl. 138:4; Tell el-Handaquq(168), 658, pls. 140:1, 2; 141:4;Tell Kufr Yuba(81), 670, pl. 152:2.

Appendix

In the spring of 1982, througha WeldonSpringsGrantadministeredthroughthe Universityof Missouri(Columbia,Missouri),I had the opportunityto studyfirsthandthe materialfrom Mellaart's Citadel Museum in Amman. the Aided by the kindness of the museum's soundings ing that is housed and Mr. I was its curator, able to examine the following sherds from Tell director, Ms. Sirnan, Musa, esh-Shuneh (north), Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi, and Tell el-Mefaliq. Notes taken during that visit form the basis of the present appendix in which the Citadel Museum's registration numbers are equated both with the excavator's sherd numbers and the illustration numbers used in this text. It is hoped that this information will facilitate future study of this important material. For those unable to study in the Citadel Museum, the right-hand column contains fab eri ptions based on notes taken by me and should make the material more accessible to those accustomed to workingwith descriptions

utilizingthe MunsellColorChart. Informationappearingbetweenquotationmarks(" ") representsdataeither writtenon the sherd itself or on a slip of paperpackedwith the artifacts.It is not known whetherthese notes were madeby the excavatoror addedlater. It is not impossiblethat some of these notes may have been made by G. E. Wright, who is one of the few scholarsto have studied the materialin the CitadelMuseum firsthand (Wright 1961: 127, n. 32).

Tell Esh-Shuneh Plate No.

SherdNo.

MuseumNo.

Description

10:21

447

J4718

"Tellesh-ShunehII;RoundHouse,on floor."Moderatelywelllevigatedclay.Fine white andgraygrit to 1 mm, fine strawcasts (breakexteriorsurface).Thin 7.5YR 6/2 (PinkishGray)core.7.5YR 8/2 (PinkishWhite) slip interior/exteriorSplashesof 5R 4/3 (Weak Red)-4/2 (DarkReddishGray)paint on interior,"grainwash" exterior,10R 3/3 (DuskyRed) where thick,through2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) where thin.

10:22

448

J4718

"Tellesh-ShunehII;floor,"RoundHouse O."Moderatelywelllevigatedclay.White grit to 1 mm, infrequentgraygrit to 2 mm. Partial7.5YR 5/6 (Red) wash,partial"grainwash"to 5R 4/3-4/4 (WeakRed) Handmade?

13:9

92

J4683

Verycoarse7.5YR 8/4 (Pink) fabric.Lightgrayto buffcore.Large, 3-5 mm white andgraygrit with frequentstrawandchaffcasts. Strawcastsbreaksurfaces.O10R 4/6-4/8 (Red) slip interior/exterior Burnished(to lustreat rim).

13:11

156

J4683

Similarto pl. 13:9 (92) above,but muchfiner.Strawcastsdo not breaksurface.Highly burnished.

13:13

105

J4683

Fine,well-levigatedfabric.Infrequentsand-sizedto 1 mm white grit. Graycore.Interiorand upper3/4 of exteriorcoveredwith ca. 10R 5/8-4/8 (Red) slip. Burnished.Exteriorlower /4 is 5YR 7/4 (Pink) with some traceof burnishing.

109

110

Appendix

Tell Esh-Shuneh- (continued) Plate No.

SherdNo.

MuseumNo.

13:14

108

J4683

Moderatelywell-legivated5YR 5/6 (YellowishRed) fabric. Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit.Surfacesslipped:interior5YR 5/6 (YellowishRed); exterior5YR 5/6-4/6 (YellowishRed).

13:16

109

J4683

Completelygraycore.Interior/exteriorslippedca. 10R 4/8 (Red). Littletraceof burnish.Sherdabraded.

13:18

84

J4685

Identicalto 13:9 (92) above.

15:1

150

J4683

Moderatelywell-levigated5YR 5/6 (YellowishRed) fabric. Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit.Surfacesslipped:interior,ca. 7.5YR 7/4 (Pink);exterior,ca. 5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow)to 5/6 (YellowishRed). Burnished.

15:5

9

J4670

"Tellesh-ShunehII.4."Well-levigatedday. Occasionalwhite grit to 1 mm. Core5YR 6/4 (light ReddishBrown).Slipped interior/exterior7.5YR4/6-5/8 (Red) but varies.Burnished.

15:27

32

J4683

"Tellesh-ShunehII."Fabricand temperas pl. 15:1 (150) above. Interiorand upper2 cm of exteriorcoveredwith ca. 7.5R 5/8-4/8 (Red) slip. Lowerportionof exterioris "buff"(no Munsell equivalent).

16:18

73

J4718

"Tellesh-Shuneh,ft for WallD." Poorlylevigatedday. "Softca. 7.5YR 8/2 (PinkishWhite) fabric,firedgrayin places.Graygrit, 1-2 mm. Highly burnished7.5YR 4/6-4/8 (Red) slip.

17:4

44

J4683

Moderatelywell-levigated"buff"fabric.White andgraygrit to 2 mm. Slipped10R 4/6-4/8 (Red).

17:12

63

J4683

"Surfacefind."Completelygraycore.Interiorslipped5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow)unburnished;exteriorblackandburnished.

17:20

54

J4683

Moderatelywell-levigated.Thickgraycore in "buff"(no Munsell equivalent)sandwich.Surfacesslipped,interior10R 5/6 (Red); exteriorbetween5YR 6/8 (ReddishYellow)and 5/6 (Yellowish Red) aboveblack.Burnished.

18:2

51

J4683

Moderatelywell-levigatedbut grittyfabric.Completelygraycore. Surfacesslipped,interior2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red) and unburnishedexterior:blackand lustrous.

19:21

141

J4682

"Tellesh-Shuneh11.2;141."Note: Mellaartnotebookslist as sherdno. 90. Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Frequentwhite andgraygrits ca. 1 mm; occasionalgrits to 3 mm breaksurfacesbut are not noticeable in core.Core5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow) to 6/4 (LightReddish Brown).Surfacesmottled7.5YR 7/4 (Pink) through6/4 (Light Brown) to gray.Difficultto Munsell.

19:22

142

J4682

"Tellesh-ShunehIV, 142."Note: Mellaartnotebookslist as sherd No. 91. Well-levigatedclay.White sand-sizedgrit andgraygrit ca. 1 mm. Core5YR 6/8-6/4 (LightReddishYellow).Surfacesas pl. 19:21(141) above.Burnishedbut not to a lustre.

Description

111

Appendix Tell Umm HamadEsh-Sherqi Plate No.

SherdNo.

MuseumNo.

23:21

108

J4629

"TUHS1.8"on one sherd,"TUHS1.9"on joiningsherd.Surfaces 5YR 8/3 (Pink).Unburnished.

23:22

110

J4629

Fabricand slippedsurfacesca. 10R 6/6 (LightRed). No traceof burnish(handsmoothed?).

23:23

107

J4629

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Fabricand (slipped?)surfacesca. 10R 6/6 (LightRed). White grit to 1-2 mm. Interiorand top of rim burnished,tracesof burnishingon exterior.

24:11

76

J4629

Surfacesbetween 10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed).

24:12

74

J4629

Surfacesca. 10OR 6/6 (LightRed).

24:13

81

J4629

Poorlylevigatedclay.Largegraygrit 2-3 mm breaksurfaces.interior surface(slipped?)10R 6/6 (LightRed);exteriorsurface(slipped?) fired 10R 6/1-5/1 (ReddishGray).

25:3

89

J4731

"I.9."Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White andgraygrit 1-2 mm. Surfacesslipped 10R 5/6 (Red) appearingas 10R 6/4 (Pale Red) in places.

25:12

135?

J4731

"I.8."Fabricandsurfacetreatmentas 25:3 abovebut surfacescan be nearer2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) in places.

27:1

47

J4619

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White,gray,and redgrit to 1 mm. Fabric5YR 7/3-7/4 (Pink).Surfaces10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) appearingas 10R 4/6 (Red) in places.Burnished.

27:2

31

J4619

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White andgraygrits to 1 mm. Occasionally2 mm. Coreca. 5YR 6/4 (LightReddishBrown). Surfaces10R 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red). Good indicationof burnishingat rim, rest of sherdabraded.

29:9

34

J4619

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White,grayand redgrit to 1 mm. Core5YR 7/4 (Pink) through7/6 (ReddishYellow)to 10R 5/6 (Red) just below exteriorsurface.Surfacesslipped 10R 4/8 (Red) but 4/6 in burnishstrokes.

29:10

44

J4619

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White grit to 1 mm. Fabric10R 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red).

29:16

120

J4629

Poorlylevigatedclay.Largegraygrit 2-3 mm breakssurfaces. Interior10R 6/6 (LightRed), exteriorfired10R 6/1-5/1 (Reddish Gray).

30:2

67

J4731

Moderatelywell-levigatedday. White andgraygrit 1-2 mm. Surfaces slipped 10R 5/6 (Red). Nearer 10R 6/4 (Pale Red) in places.

30:5

79

J4629

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Core7.5YR 6/2 (PinkishGray). White andgraygrit to 1 mm painted"BandSlip"decorationin 5R 4/3 (WeakRed) to 4/2 (DarkReddishGray)on 7.5YR 8/2 (Pinkish White) slip.

30:8

82

J4627

Well-levigatedday. White andgraygrit to 1 mm. Fabricand surfaces between 10R 6/6 (LightRed) and 2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) slightly mottledto black.

30:11

88

J4627

Moderatelywell-levigatedday. White andgraygrit 1-2 mm. Surfaces slippedbetween 10R 6/6 (LightRed) and 2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed).

Description

112

Appendix Tell Umm Hamad Esh-Sherqi- (continued)

Plate No.

Sherd No.

Museum No.

Description

31:1

206

J4566

"TUHS1.2."Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Sandyfabricwith sand size white and less frequentlygraygrit. Thickgraycore.Surfacesca. 10YR 8/3-7/3 (VeryPale Brown).

31:2

207

J4566

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Sandsize white grit. Fabric5YR 7/4 (Pink)-7/6 (ReddishYellow).Slip (difficultto Munsell)ca. 2.5Y 8/2 (White).

31:5

202

J4566

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Fabric10R 6/4 (Pale Red). Fine white grit sand size to 1 mm. Interior10R 5/6 (Red) wash/slip, exterior5YR 7/3 (Pink) wash/slip.

31:6

204

J4566

Similarto pl. 31:2 (207) above.

31:8

203

J4561

"TUHSII.2."Similarto pl. 31:2 (207) above.

31:11

149

J4620

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White andgraygrit ca. 1 mm. Fabric and surfacesca. 5YR 8/3 (Pink) to 7.5YR 8/4 (Pink).

31:14

156

J4620

10R 5/4 (WeakRed) fabriccoveredwith ca. 10R 5/6 (Red) slip. Possibleburnishon exterior.

31:15

147

J4620

"I.7."Similarto pl. 31:11 (149) above.

31:16

158

J4620

Similarto pl. 31:11 (149) above.

31:20

157

J4620

Probablyoriginallya red warebecause,althoughfiredgrayin many places,there are still largeareasof 10R 6/2 (Pale Red) through6/36/4 (Pale Red).

35:2

15

J4645

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Graycore.White andgraygrit 1-2 mm. Surfaces(slipped?)ca. 10R 6/6 (LightRed).

35:3

16

J4645

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.White andgraygrit 1-2 mm. Fabric 7.5YR 8/6-7/6 (ReddishYellow) to 2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) on parts of interior.

35:4

19

J4645

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Frequentwhite andgraygrit ca. 2 mm, occasionallyto 3 mm. Fabric5YR 6/4 (LightReddish Brown)-6/6 (Reddishyellow).Slip abraded,but ca. 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) where present.

35:5

13

J4645

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Core 5YR 6/4 (LightReddish Brown).Surfaces2.5YR 5/6 (Red).

35:6

21

J4645

"I.2."Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Grayand white grit 1-2 mm. Fabricand surfacesca. 7.5YR 7/6-7/8 (ReddishYellow).

35:7

20

J4645

Moderatelywell-levigatedclay.Core 10YR 7/3 (VeryPale Brown). White andgraygrit to 1 mm. Surfaces10R 6/8 (LightRed).

35:8

14

J4645

Similarto pl. 35:7 above.Surfacecolor nearer10R 5/6 (Red).

35:9

18

J4645

Well-levigatedclay.Coreca. 10R 6/8 (LightRed). White andgray grit to 1 mm. Surfaces10R 6/8 (Red).

Bibliography

Albright,W. F. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1926 6: 13-74. Review: Loud,G., MegiddoII:Seasonsof 1935-1939 (OrientalInstitutePublications52) American 1949 Journalof Archaeology53: 213-15. The Archaeologyof Palestine.Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin. 1960 Some Remarkson the ArchaeologicalChronologyof Palestinebefore about1500 B.C.Pp. 47-60 in 1965 Chronologiesin Old WorldArchaeology,ed. R. W. Ehrich.Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Amiran,R. B. Connectionsbetween Anatoliaand Palestine in the EarlyBronze Age. Israel ExplorationJournal 1952 2: 89-103. The "CreamWare" of Gezer and the Beersheba Late Chalcolithic.Israel ExplorationJournal 1955 5: 240-45. KhirbetKerakWareat Ai. IsraelExplorationJournal17: 185-86. 1967 1968 ChronologicalProblems of the Early Bronze Age; Early Bronze I-II: The City of Arad; Early BronzeIII:The KhirbetKerakWare.AmericanJournalof Archaeology72: 316-18. 1970a AncientPotteryof the Holy Land.New Brunswick,NJ.: RutgersUniversity. 1970b The Beginnings of Urbanizationin Canaan.Pp. 83-100 in Near Eastern Archaeologyin the TwentiethCentury,ed.JamesA. Sanders.GardenCity:Doubleday. 1977 Pottery from the Chalcolithicsite near Tell Delhamiyaand Some Notes on the Characterof the BronzeI Transition.EretzIsrael13: 48-56 (Hebrew),291* (EnglishSummary). Chalcolithic-Early Arad: The 1978 Chalcolithic Settlementand EarlyBronzeAge City.Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Early Society. Amiran,R., and Hass, N. An EarlyBronzeAge II Tomb at Beth Yerah(Kinneret).EretzIsrael11: 176-93. 1973 Baramki,D. C. An EarlyByzantineBasilicaat Tell Hassan,Jericho.Quarterlyof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof 1935 Palestine5: 28-88. Ben-Tor,A. Excavationsat Horvat cUsa. 'Atiqot(HebrewSeries)3: 1-24 (Hebrew),1*-3* (EnglishSummary). 1966 1975a Two BurialCavesof the Proto-UrbanPeriodat Azor, 1971.Qedem 1: 1-54. 1975b The FirstSeasonof Excavationsat Tell Yarmouth:August 1970.Qedem 1: 55-87. New Lighton the RelationsBetween Egypt and SouthernPalestineDuring the EarlyBronzeAge, 1991 Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch281: 3-10. Braidwood,R. J., and Braidwood,L. S. Excavationsin the Plain of Antioch, I, the EarlierAssemblages,Phases A-J. OrientalInstitute 1960 Publications61. Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Braun,E. En Shadud:SalvageExcavationsat a FarmingCommunityin the JezreelValley.BAR International 1985 SeriesNo. 249. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports Burney,C. A. EasternAnatoliain The Chalcolithicand EarlyBronzeAge. AnatolianStudies8: 157-209. 1958

113

114

Bibliography

J. A. Callaway, 1964 Potteryfrom the Tombsat Ai (et-Tell).London:Quaritch. The EarlyBronzeAge Sanctuaryat Ai (et-Tell).London:Quaritch. 1972 New Perspectiveson EarlyBronzeIII in Canaan.Pp. 46-58 in Archaeologyin the Levant:Essays 1977 for KathleenKenyon,ed. P. R. S. Mooreyand P. J. Parr.Warminster,England:Aris & Phillips. The EarlyBronzeAge Citadeland LowerCityat Ai (et-Tell):A Report of the JointArchaeological 1980 Expeditionto Ai (et-Tell),No. 2. Cambridge,MA: AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch. Callaway, J. A., and Schoonover,K. The Early Bronze Age Citadel at Ai (et-Tell). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental 1972 Research207: 41-50. J. A., and Wagner,N. E. Callaway, A Re-examinationof the LowerCityat Ai (et-Tell) in 1971, 1972.PalestineExplorationQuarterly 1974 106: 147-55. Callaway, J.A.,and Weinstein,J. M. RadiocarbonDating of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of 1978 OrientalResearch225: 1-16. Contenson,H. de La ceramiquechalcolithiquede Beersheba;etude typologique.IsraelExplorationJournal6: 163-79, 1956 226-38. 1960a Three Soundingsin the JordanValley.Annual of the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan4-5: 12-98. 1960b Lachronologierelativede niveaule plus anciende Tell esh-Shuna(Jordanie)d'apresles decouvertes recentes.Melangesde l'UniversiteSaint-Joseph37: 57-75. recentde Tell esh-Shuna.Revue Biblique68: 546-56. 1961 Remarquessur le Chalcolithique in Yarmuk andJordanValleys.Annual of the Departmentof Antiquitiesof The the 1964 1953 Survey Jordan8-9: 30-46. Les couchesdu niveauIII au sud de l'acropolede Ras Shamra.Ugaritica6: 45-89. 1969 Dayan,Y. 1969

Tell Turmusin the Huleh Valley.IsraelExplorationJournal19: 65-78.

Dever, W. G. The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordanand Southern Palestine. Bulletin of the American 1973 Schoolsof OrientalResearch210: 37-63. GezerII: Reportof the 1967-70 Seasonsin FieldsI and II.Jerusalem:HebrewUnion College. 1974 Dollfus,G., and Kafafi,Z. 1986 PreliminaryResultsof the FirstSeasonof the JointJordano-FrenchProjectat Abu Hamid.Annual of the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan30: 353-79. Dothan,M. Tell Asawir.IsraelExplorationJournal3: 263. 1953 Excavationsat Meser, 1956: PreliminaryReport on the First Season. Israel ExplorationJournal 1957 7: 217-28. at HorvatBeter (Beersheba).Atiqot II: 1-42. Excavations 1959a at Meser, 1957: PreliminaryReport on the SecondSeason.IsraelExplorationJournal Excavations 1959b 9: 13-29. Elliott,C. 1978

The GhassulianCulturein Palestine:Origins,Influenceand Abandonment.Levant10: 37-54.

Engberg,R. M., and Shipton,G. M. Notes on the Chalcolithicand EarlyBronze Age Potteryof Megiddo.Studiesin Ancient Oriental 1934 Civilization10. Chicago:Universityof Chicago.

Bibliography Epstein,C. 1978

115

A New Aspect of ChalcolithicCulture.Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch229: 27-45.

Esse,D. 1984

A ChronologicalMirage:Reflectionson Early Bronze IC in Palestine.Journalof Near Eastern Studies43: 317-30. 1991 Subsistence,Trade,and SocialChangein EarlyBronzeAge Palestine.Studiesin Ancient Oriental Civilization50. Chicago:The OrientalInstitute. FitzGerald,G. M. Excavationsat Beth Shan 1933.PalestineExplorationFundQuarterlyStatement46: 123-34. 1934 The EarliestPotteryof Beth Shan.MuseumJournal24: 5-22. 1935 Garstang,J. Jericho:Cityand Necropolis.LiverpoolAnnals of Archaeologyand Anthropology19: 3-22, 35-54. 1932 Jericho:CityandNecropolis.LiverpoolAnnals of Archaeologyand Anthropology20: 3-42. 1933 Jericho:Cityand Necropolis (FourthReport). LiverpoolAnnals of Archaeologyand Anthropology 1934 22: 99-136. Jericho:City and Necropolis (Fifth Report). LiverpoolAnnals of Archaeologyand Anthropology 1935 22: 143-84. Jericho: City and Necropolis (Report for Sixth and ConcludingSeason). LiverpoolAnnals of 1936 Archaeologyand Anthropology23: 67-100. Gilead,I. The Neolithic-ChalcolithicTransitionand the Qatifianof the Northern Negev and Sinai. Levant 1990 22: 47-63. Gophna,R. and Kislev,M. Tel Saf (1977-1978). RevueBiblique86: 112-14. 1979 ChroniqueArch6ologique: Gophna,R., and Sadeh,S. 1988-89 Excavationsat Tel Tsaf:An EarlyChalcolithicsite in theJordanValley.Tel Aviv 15-16: 3-36. C. Gustavson-Gaube, Tell esh-ShunehNorth, 1984:A PreliminaryReport.Annual of the Departmentof Antiquitiesof 1985 Jordan29: 43-87. Tell esh-ShunehNorth, 1985:A PreliminaryReport.Annual of the Departmentof Antiquitiesof 1986 Jordan30: 69-113. Glueck,N. Tell el-Hammeh.AmericanJournalof Archaeology39: 321-30. 1935 1945a A ChalcolithicSettlement in the Jordan Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research97: 10-22. 1945b A Settlementof MiddleBronzeI in the JordanValley.Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research100:7-16. 1946 Band-SlipWare in the JordanValley and Northern Gilead.Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch101: 3-20. 1951 Explorationsin EasternPalestine,IV. Annualof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch25-28 (1945-1949). P. 0. L. Guy, 1938 MegiddoTombs.OrientalInstitutePublicationsVol. 33. Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Hamilton,R. W. Khirbatal-Mafjar:An ArabianMansionin the JordanValley.Oxford:Clarendon. 1959 Hanbury-Tenison, J. W. The LateChalcolithicto EarlyBronzeI Transitionin Palestineand Transjordan. 1986 BAR International SeriesNo. 311. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports. 1987 JarashRegion Survey1984.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan33: 129-57

116

Bibliography

Helms, S. W Jawa:An EarlyBronzeAge Fortress?Levant5: 127-28. 1973 Jawa 1973:A PreliminaryReport.Levant7: 20-38. 1975 JawaExcavations1974:A PreliminaryReport.Levant8: 1-35. 1976 1981 Jawa,Lost Cityof the BlackDesert.London:Methuen. Excavationsat Tell Umm Hammadesh-Sharqiyain the JordanValley.Levant16: 35-54. 1984 Excavationsat Tell Umm Hammad,1984.Levant18: 25-50. 1986 1987 Jawa,Tell Umm Hammadand the EB I/Late ChalcolithicLandscape.Levant19:49-81. Forth- Excavationsat Jawa1972-1976:technicalstudies. coming Hennessy,J. B. The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London:Colt Archaeological 1967 Institute. 1969 PreliminaryReporton a FirstSeasonof Excavationsat TeleilatGhassul.Levant1: 1-24. B. Hennessy,J. et al. Studies1: 113-47. 1983 PreliminaryReporton the FourthSeasonof Excavaatolian L. Huot,J. 1967 Typologieet chronologierelativede la ceramiquedu bronzeanciena Tell el-Far'ah.Revue Biblique 74: 517-54. Ibrahim,M., Sauer,J., andYassine,K. The EastJordanValleySurvey,1975. Bulletin of the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch222: 1976 41-66. Isserling,B. S.J. Some RecentArchaeologicalNews from Israel.PalestineExplorationQuarterly84: 42-47. 1952 Joffe,A. 1991a Settlement and Society in E.B. I and II Canaan.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,University of Arizona. 1991b EarlyBronzeI and the Evolutionof SocialComplexityin the SouthernLevant.Journalof MediterraneanArchaeology4: 3-58. Kafafi,Z. A-K. The Neolithic of Jordan.Ph.D. dissertation.Berlin:FreienUniversitat. 1982 The First Season of Excavationsat Jebel Abu Thawab (Er-Rumman)1984, PreliminaryReport. 1985 Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan29: 31-41. The Second Season of Excavationsat Jebel Abu Thawab (Er-Rumman),1985. Annual of the 1986 Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan30: 57-67. Kantor,H. J. The Relative Chronologyof Egypt and its Foreign Correlationsbefore the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 1965 1-46 in Chronologiesin Old WorldArchaeology,ed. R. W. Ehrich.Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Kaplan,J. 1958a 1958b 1959 1960 1963 1969a

Excavationsat Teluliot Batashi in the Vale of Sorek. Eretz Israel 5: 9-22 (Hebrew), 83*-84* (EnglishSummary). Excavationsat WadiRabah.IsraelExplorationJournal8: 149-60. The Neolithic Pottery of Palestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 156: 15-22. The Relation of the ChalcolithicPotteryof Palestine to HalafianWare.Bulletinof the American Schoolsof OrientalResearch159: 32-36. Excavationsat Benei Beraq,1951.IsraelExplorationJournal13: 300-312. CEinel-Jarba,ChalcolithicRemains in the Plain of Esdraelon.Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch194:2-39.

Bibliography 1969b 1977

117

A SuggestedCorrelationbetweenStratumIX, Jericho,and StratumXXIV, Mersin.Journalof Near EasternStudies28: 197-99. Neolithic and ChalcolithicRemains at Lod. Eretz Israel 13: 57-75 (Hebrew), 291*-92* (English Summary).

Kenyon,K. ExcavationsatJericho,1952.PalestineExplorationQuarterly84: 62-82. 1952 Excavationsat JerichoI: The Tombs Excavatedin 1952-54. London:BritishSchoolof Archaeology 1960 in Jerusalem. Excavationsat JerichoII: The TombsExcavatedin 1955-58. London:BritishSchoolof Archaeology 1965 in Jerusalem. 1979 Archaeologyin the Holy Land.4th ed. London:ErnestBenn. Excavationsat JerichoIII,The Architectureand Stratigraphyof the Tell. London:BritishSchoolof 1981 Archaeologyin Jerusalem. Kenyon,K. M., and Holland,T. A. Excavationsat JerichoIV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London:British School of 1982 Archaeologyin Jerusalem. Excavationsat JerichoV: The PotteryPhases of the Tell and OtherFinds.London:BritishSchool 1983 of Archaeologyin Jerusalem. Kerestes,T. M., Lundquist, J. M., Wood,B. G.; and Yassine,K. An ArchaeologicalStudy of Three Reservoir Areas in Northern Jordan:1978. Annual of the 1978 Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan,22: 108-135. Koeppel,R., and others. Teleilat GhassulII: Compte rendu des fouilles de l'Institutbibliquepontifical,1932-1936. Rome: 1940 PontificalBiblicalInstitute. Kuschke,A. BerichtiiberEine SondageIm Palastgartenvon Ugarit-RasShamra.Ugaritica4: 252-99. 1962 Lapp,P. W. Bab edh-Dhra' Tomb A76 and EarlyBronze I in Palestine.Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof 1968 OrientalResearch189: 12-40. Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 101-31 in Near EasternArchaeologyin the Twentieth 1970 Century,ed.J. A. Sanders.GardenCity:Doubleday. Lee,J. R. ChalcolithicGhassul:New Aspects and Master Typology.UnpublishedPh.D. thesis. Jerusalem: 1973 Hebrew University. Leonard,A., Jr. Kataretes-Samra:A LateBronzeAge Cemeteryin Transjordan?Bulletinof the AmericanSchools 1979 of OrientalResearch234: 53-65. The 1983 Proto-Urban/EarlyBronze I Utilization of the Kataret es-Samra Plateau.Bulletin of the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch251: 37-60. Kataretes-Samra,1985.Archivfur Orientforschung 1986 33: 166-67. A Chalcolithic"FineWare"from Kataretes-Samrain the JordanValley.Bulletinof the American 1989 Schoolsof OrientalResearch276: 3-14. Levy,T. E. 1987

ShiqmimI. BritishArchaeologicalReportsNo. 356. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.

Lloyd,S. 1966

EarlyAnatolia:The Archaeologyof Asia Minorbeforethe Greeks.Baltimore:Pelican.

Loud,G. 1948

MegiddoII:Seasonsof 1935-39. Chicago:Universityof Chicago.

118

Bibliography

Mabry,J., and Palumbo,G. The 1987 Wadiel-YabisSurvey.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan33: 275-305. 1988 Macalister,R. A. S. Excavationsat GezerI-III. London:J. Murray. 1912 Macdonald,E. Beth Pelet II. London:BritishSchoolof Archaeology. 1930 Maisler,B., Stekelis,M., and Avi Yonah,M. The Excavationsat Beth Yerah (Khirbetel-Kerak) 1944-46, I. IsraelExplorationJournal2: 1651952 73; 218-29. Mallon,A., Koeppel,R., and Neuville,R. Teleilat GhassulI: Compte rendu des fouilles de l'Institutbibliquepontifical,1929-1932. Rome: 1934 PontificalBiblicalInstitute. J. Marquet-Krause, Lesfouilles de 'Ay(et-Tell) 1933-1935.Paris:P. Guethner. 1949 Mathias,V. T., and Parr,P. J. The EarlyPhasesat Tell Nebi Mend:A PreliminaryAccount.Levant21: 13-32. 1989 Mazar,B., Amiran,R., and Haas, N. An EarlyBronzeII Tomb at Beth Yerah(Kinneret).EretzIsrael11: 176-93. 1973 M. A. McConaughy, Formaland FunctionalAnalysesof the ChippedStone Toolsfrom Bab edh-Dhrai,Jordan.Unpub1979 lishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Pittsburgh. McNicoll,A. W. et al. A Third Season of Excavationat Pella, 1980/81. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of 1982 Jordan26: 343-63. McCown,C. C. Tell en-Nasbeh I (Archaeologicaland HistoricalResults). New Haven, CT: AmericanSchoolsof 1947 OrientalResearch;and Berkeley,CA:The PalestineInstituteof the PacificSchoolof Religion. Mellaart,J. 1956 1962

The NeolithicSite of Ghrubba.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan3: 24-40. PreliminaryReport of the ArchaeologicalSurveyin the YarmoukandJordanValleys.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan6-7: 126-57. The Chalcolithicand EarlyBronzeAges in the Near Eastand Anatolia.Beirut:Khayats. 1966 Miroschedji,P. R. de 1971 L'epoquepre-urbaineen Palestine.Cahiersde la Revuebiblique13. Paris:J. Gabaldaet Cte. Mittmann,S. Wiesbaden: 1970 Beitragezur Seidlungs-und Territorial-geschichtedes n6rdlichenOsterjordanlandes. Harrassowitz. Moore,A. M. T. The LateNeolithic in Palestine.Levant5: 36-68. 1973 Nasrallah,J. Une stationghassouliennedu Hauran.Revue Biblique55: 81-103. 1948 Neuville,R. L'industrielithique de Teleilat Ghassoul.Bulletin et memoirs societe d'anthropologiede Paris 8: 1931 55-66. North, R. 1961

Ghassul1960:ExcavationReport.AnalectaBiblica14. Rome: PontificalBiblicalInstitute.

Bibliography

119

Oren,E. D. The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and its Cultureand ChronologicalSetting. 1973 Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch210: 20-36. Ory,J. Excavationsat Ras el-:Ain. Quarterlyof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Palestine5: 113-26. 1935 Excavationsat Bnei Baraq, 1951. Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 12: 1946 43-57. Parr,P. J. A Caveat Arqubel-Dhahr.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan3: 61-73. 1956 Perrot,J. The Excavationsat Tel Abu Matar,near Beersheba.Israel ExplorationJournal5: 17-40; 73-84; 1955 167-89. Une Tombe a Ossuairesdu IV millenairea Azor pres Tel Aviv. Atiqot 3: 1-83. 1961 Les deux campagnesde fouillesa Munhata1962/3. Syria41: 323-45. 1964 La prehistoire palesinienne. Cols. 246-86 in Supplementau Dictionairede la Bible 8, ed. H. 1968 Cazelles.Paris:Gabalda. 1977 Remarquessur la prehistoirerecented'EretzIsrael.EretzIsrael13: 283*-87*. Perrot,J., and Ladiray,D. Tombes a ossuaires de la region coterie Palestinienne.Memoires et traveauxdu centre de re1980 cherchesprehistoriquesfrancaisa Jerusalem,1. Paris:Centrede recherchespre-historiquesfrancais a Jerusalem. Perrot,J., Zori, N., and Reich,Y. Neve Ur: un nouvelaspectdu Ghassoulien.IsraelExplorationJournal17: 201-32. 1967 Prausnitz,M. The Excavationsat Kabri.EretzIsrael9: 122-29 (Hebrew),137* (EnglishSummary). 1969 The Potteryof Newe Yam.EretzIsrael13: 272*-76*. 1977 Pritchard,J. IB. The Excavationsat HerodianJericho,1951.Annual of the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 1958 32-33: New Haven, CT.:AmericanSchoolof OrientalResearch. W. and Rast, E., Schaub,T. Babedh-Dhra', 1975.Annualof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch43: 1-60. 1976 Ross,J. R. 1980 The Early Bronze Age in Palestine. Pp. 1-14 in Historical Essays in Honor of Kenneth R. Rossman,ed. K. Newmyer.Crete,N.B.: Doane College. Saller,S. Babedh-Dhra.LiberAnnuus 15: 136-219. 1965 Salles,J.-F. Notes sur la periodpre-urbaineen Palestine.Revue Biblique85: 66-71. 1978 Sauer,J. 1986 Transjordanin the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critiqueof Glueck's Synthesis. Bulletin of the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch263: 1-26. Schaeffer,C. F. A. Les fondementsprehistoriquesd'Ugarit.Ugaritica4: 151-250. 1962 R. T. Schaub, 1973a The Early Bronze IA-IB Pottery of the Bab edh-Dhra"Cemetery,Jordan.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Pittsburgh. 1973b An Early Bronze IV Tomb from Bab edh-Dhrac. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research210: 2-19.

120

Bibliography 1981

CeramicSequencesin the Tomb Groups at Bab edh-Dhra. Annual of the American Schools of OrientalResearch46: 69-118.

Schaub,R. T., and Rast,W. E. Bab edh-Dhra,Excavationsin the CemeteryDirectedby Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the 1989 Expeditionto the Dead Sea Plain,Jordan,Volume1. WinonaLake,IN: Eisenbrauns. Schumacher,G. 1886 Acrossthe Jordan.London:RichardBentleyand Son. El-Makarinund der Tel ed-Dschamid.Zeitschriftdes deutschenPalastinaVereins36: 114-23. 1913 D. Seger,J. Gezer V: The Cavesin FieldLJerusalem:HebrewUnion College. 1989 M. G. Shipton, Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI-XX. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 17. 1939 Chicago:Universityof Chicago. Smith,R. H. Pella of the Decapolis,I. London:WilliamClowes& Sons. 1973 Stekelis,M. Les monumentsmegalithiquesde Palestine(lesfouilles d'el-Adeimeh).Paris:Masson. 1935 Tracesof ChalcolithicCulture.EretzIsrael8: 88-94 (EnglishSummaryp. 71*). 1967 Steuernagel,D. C. Der 'Adschlun.Zeitschriftdes deutschenPalastinaVereins49: 1-167. 1926 Stocton,E. Non-GhassulianFlint Elementsat TeleilatGhassul.Levant3: 80-82. 1971 E. L. Sukenik, LateChalcolithicPotteryfrom 'Affuleh.PalestineExplorationFundQuarterly68: 150-54. 1936 A ChalcolithicNecropolisat Hederah.Journalof the PalestineOrientalSociety17: 15-30. 1937 1948 Archaeological Investigationsat cAffuleh.Journalof the PalestineOrientalSociety21: 6-78. and Sussman,V., Ben-Arieh,S. AncientBurialsin Giv'atayim.?tiqot (HebrewSeries)3: 27-39 (EnglishSummaryp. 4*). 1966 Tadmor,M., and Prausnitz,M. Excavationsat Rosh Hanniqra.Atiqot (EnglishSeries)2: 72-88. 1959 Tsori,N. Neolithic and ChalcolithicSites in the Valleyof Beth Shan. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly90: 1958 44-51. Bet She'anin the ChalcolithicPeriod.EretzIsrael13: 76-81 (EnglishSummaryp. 292*). 1977 Tubb,J. N. Excavationsat the Early Bronze Age Cemeteryof Tiwal esh-Sharqi.London:British Museum 1990 Publications. Tufnell,0. LachishIV (Tell ed-Duweir),The BronzeAge. London:OxfordUniversity. 1958 Vaux,R. de La troisiemecampagnede fouilles a Tell el-FarCah,pres Naplouse. Revue Biblique58: 393-430, 1951 566-90. Laquatriemecampagnede fouillesa Tell el-Farcah,pres Naplouse.Revue Biblique59: 551-83. 1952 Les fouillesde Tell el-Far'ah,pres Naplouse,cinquiemecampagne.RevueBiblique62: 541-89. 1955 Les fouillesde Tell el-Farcahpres Naplouse,sixiemecampagne.RevueBiblique64: 552-80. 1957 Review:Kenyon,K.,JerichoI. RevueBiblique67: 597-600. 1960 sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes,1958-1960.Revue Les fouillesde Tell el-Farcah,Rapportpr61liminaire 1961 Biblique58: 557-92.

Bibliography

121

Palestine during the Neolithic and ChalcolithicPeriods.Pp. 498-503 in The CambridgeAncient History 1, Part 1, 3d ed. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity. Palestinein the EarlyBronzeAge. Pp. 208-37 in The CambridgeAncient History 1, Part 2, 3d ed. 1971 Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity. Vaux,R. de, and Steve,A. M. La premierecampagnede fouilles a Tell el-FarCahpres Naplouse. Revue Biblique54: 393-433, 1947 573-89. La secondecampagnede fouillesa Tell el-FarCah, 1948 pres Naplouse.Revue Biblique55: 544-80. La deuxiemecampagnede fouillesa Tell el-Farcah,pres Naplouse.Revue Biblique56: 102-38. 1949 Vincent,H. Jerusalemsous terre,Les recentesfouilles d'Ophel.Lone 1911 don:HoraceCox. L.-H. Vincent, Les fouillesd'et-Tell= cAi.RevueBiblique46: 231-66. 1937 Wampler,J. C. Tell en-Nasbeh, Vol.II: The Pottery.New Haven, CT:AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch;and 1947 Berkeley,CA:The PalestineInstituteof the PacificSchoolof Religion. Ward,W. 1991 Early ContactsBetween Egypt, Canaan,and Sinai: Remarks on the Paper by Amon Ben-Tor, Bulletinof the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch281: 11-26. Wolff S. 1991 Archaeologyin Israel.AmericanJournalof Archaeology95: 489-538. Wooley,L A ForgottenKingdom.London:Max Parrish. 1959 E. G. Wright, The Pottery of Palestinefrom EarliestTimes to the End of the EarlyBronzeAge. New Haven, 1937 CT:AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch. An ImportantCorrelationbetweenthe Palestinianand SyrianChalcolithic.Bulletinof the American 1951 Schoolsof OrientalResearch122: 52-55. The Problemof the Transitionbetweenthe Chalcolithicand BronzeAges. EretzIsrael5: 37*-45*. 1958 The Archaeologyof Palestine. Pp. 85-139 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. 1961 Wright.GardenCity,NY: AnchorBooks. 1971 The Archaeologyof Palestine from the Neolithic throughthe MiddleBronze Age. Journalof the AmericanOrientalSociety91: 276-93. Yassine,K. 1988 Archaeologyof Jordan:Essaysand Reports.Amman:Universityof Jordan. Yeivin,S. First PreliminaryReport on the Excavationsat Tel Gat, Tell Sheykh Ahmed el-Areyny Seasons 1961 1956-1958.Jerusalem:The Gat Expedition. 1970

Plates

PLATE1 Jiftlik No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

1. 2. 3. 4.

8 11 21 22

5. 6.

3 9

7. 8. 9.

2 15? 1

10.

4

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

7 6 5 16 12 13 14 18 17 20 19

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

10 23 27 26 25 24

Hand-made;buffware,medium-largegrits,red wash outsideand over rim Hand-made;buffware,largegrits,hardfired,(criss-cross?)smoothed Hand-made;buffgrittyware,largegrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buff,grittyware,graycore,hardfired;grits insidesurfacedeep red paint,smoothed Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits,hardfired,brownpaint outside Wheel-made(slow wheel), buffware,medium-largegrits,hardfired.Buffwash outsideand rim Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits,hardfired,red paint outside Wheel-made;buff ware,smallgrits,hardand fired Wheel-made,buff ware, minute grits, hard fired, dull red-brownpainted trianglesoutside Wheel-made (slow wheel); buff ware,gray grits, hard fired,red paint outside, bandat rim Wheel-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash outsideand rim inside Hand-made;buffgrittyware,grayand white grits,hardfired,fine Wheel-made(slow wheel), buffware,grits, red paint outside/inside Wheel-made;buffware,largegrits,hardfired,red on rim outside Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;gray-buffware,mediumgrits,hardfired,red paint Hand-made;gray-buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,redpaint Hand-made;buffware;largegrits, red surfaceoutside,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,largegrits,soft-fired,coarse Hand-made;graygrittyware;hardfired,red surfacecoarse Hand-made; buff ware, large grits, hard fired; red paint on rim outside, smoothed Wheel-made;red-buffware,small-mediumgrits, hardfired Hand-made;buffgrittyware;small graygrits,hardfired,wiped Graygrittyware,poroustexture,wet-smoothedoutersurface,red paint Gray-buffware,largegrits, red-orangesurface,coarse Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits,hardfired,red paint Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits,hardfired,red paint

[124]

Provenience

PLATE 1

n_

5

9

1

6

/

2

_

7

8

'-

16\ 7

15

16

12

17 13

I

4 14

0 2 /

18 /

_

f

<4

v 21

19

HFH H H

0 lcm

5

,

10

1 25

20

23

726 26

[125]

t,

PLATE2 No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

FieldNo.

Tell el-Mafjar

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Wheel-made;buff ware, small grits; hard fired,pale red wash inside/outside polished(i.e.,smoothed) Buff ware, small white grits; buff surface, red wash inside/outside, incised 103 beforewash, and smoothed 48 (98) Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits;soft fired,smoothed 49 Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits;hardfired,smoothed 50 Hand-made;buffware,mediumwhite grits;hardfired,coarse 45 Hand-made; buff ware, small grits; hard fired, pale red wash, interior smoothed 102 STONE, serpentine,smoothed 14 Hand-made;graygrittyware;hardfired,buffsurface,smoothed 47 Hand-made;buff ware, medium grits, medium fired, pale red wash inside/ outsidesmoothed 54 Wheel-made;buffware,mediumgraygrits;soft fired,exteriorsmoothed 56 Wheel-made;buffware,mediumgraygrits;mediumfired 9 Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired,orange (?) red slip outside and over rim, fine 8 Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired,red slip outside and over rim, fine 4 Hand-made;sandy red ware, very small white grits; hard fired,rough surface, coarse 10 Hand-made;buff ware, gray core, very small grits; hard fired,red-brownslip, fine 19 Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired,red wash rim, smoothed 7 Hand-made;buff ware, small white and gray grits; hard fired,red slip outside andover rim, fine 6 Hand-made;buff ware, small white and graygrits; hard fired,buff slip outside and over rim, fine 3 Hand-made;buff ware, small white and gray grits; hard fired,red slip outside and over rim, fine 1 Hand-made;sandyred ware,very smallgrits;hardfired,roughsurface,coarse 5 Hand-made;buff ware, small white and gray grits; hard fired,red sip outside and over rim, fine 2 Hand-made;buff ware, small white and gray grits; hard fired,yellow-brown slip (polishedoutside)and over rim, fine 13 Hand-made;verygrittybuffware;hardfired,buffsurface,smoothed Wheel-made (?); buff ware, white grits; red wash outsideand inside,polished 29 (worn) Wheel-made(?); buffware,graycore,smallwhite grits;smoothed,hardfired 104 71 Hand-made;buffware,blackgrits;hardfired,red wash insideand outside 77 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,brownwash, coarse,pockmarked 106 Hand-made;buff ware, small grits; hard fired,smoothed, mat-impressionon base 79 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,coarse 78 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,coarse 51 Hand-made;buffware,mediumwhite grits;hardfired,coarse,straw 53 Hand-made;buff ware, gray core, straw; hard fired,coarse outside,smoothed inside 44 Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits,straws;soft fired 52 Wheel-made;buffware,mediumwhite grits;hardfired,red wash 46

[126]

Provenience 1.5 Surface 1.4/I.5 1.3 1.6 1.5 Surface 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 (?) 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6

1.5 1.4 -1.7 1.2 1.5 Surface 1.6 1.2 Surface 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4

PLATE 2

l

fa

--.......

12

7

" .....:::.c',"

" .

______- I

2

14

13

....:J':'-'::" t. ,,,

16

15 8

3

17

18

19

9 4

21

2( 3

5

22

10

/

6\ 6 11

31

32 (

23

'I , _ 26 _

,

f

26

33

I

24

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.1

1

27

(

) 34

25 28

HH -

0 1

H 5cm

H

10

\ 30

29

[127]

35

PLATE3

Tell el-Mafjar

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

62 63 66 68 67 69 70 58 16 59 72 84 61 60 17 11 23 64 65 57

1.5 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

21. 22. 23. 24.

20 21 85 86

Wheel-made;coarsered ware,white grits;hardfired,buffwash Hand-made;white-buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,straw,small grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,white grits;hardfired,graysurface,smoothed Hand-made;gray-buffware,small white grits;hardfired Hand-made;blackcore,small white grits;red surface,hardfired,coarse Hand-made;buffware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;grayware,red surface,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,brownwash insideandoutside Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,smallblackand white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,rough Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired,buffsurface,smoothed,mendinghole Hand-made;grittybuffware,white grits;hardfired,red wash outside,fine Grayware,largewhite grits;buffsurface,rough Hand-made;white-buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;white-buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Wheel-made(?); white-buffware, largewhite grits; hard fired,smoothedonly on exterior Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buff-brownware,mediumwhite and blackgrits;hardfired,coarse Hand-made;buff-brownware,largeblackgrits;hardfired,coarse

[128]

1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3

PLATE 3

1 8 13 2

9

14

Jy

(

4

4

t 10

15 11 5 16

r

*) 6

12

I

17

18

19

21

23

\

/I

//

I

20

I

I"22

[129]

...::-":

24

PLATE4

Tell el-Mafjar

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

43 40 41 27 28 35 36

1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

18 24 25 26 42 30 34 32

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

31 22 33 39 38 37

Hand-made;buffware,mediumgrits;hardfired,red wash Hand-made;red ware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,huge grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed,burntrim Hand-made;gray-buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,largewhite grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware, large white and black grits; hard fired, red surface, smoothed Hand-made;buffgrittyware;high fired,red wash,smoothed,fine Hand-made;buffware,white grits;high fired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,white grits;high fired,smoothed Hand-made;grayware,white grits;hardfired,coarse Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;high fired Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired,red wash outside,rim Hand-made;buff ware, white and black grits; hard fired, red wash inside/ outside Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired,red wash Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired,red wash outside Wheel marksinterior;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothedoutside Wheel-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothed Buffware,white and blackgrits;smoothedsurface

[130]

1.2 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4

PLATE4

I

/

~1

~HP~

H

HH 0 1cm

5

H 10

12

2

13

3

14

4

"jj4z4 Id

\1

15

5

.

CZ 16 6

/

A 17

7

9 18 8

p

/

10

19

11

20

[131]

21

PLATE 5

Tell el-Mafjar

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

76 75 73 74 15 91 88 93 90 89 87 94 92 11 96 98 97 95 83 105 82 107

Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;coarse,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;coarse,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;coarse,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;coarse,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,graygrits;hardfired,buffslip, smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired,red "washy" Hand-made;gray-brownware,largegrits;hardfired,roughsurface Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired;roughred slip Hand-made;red-buffware,grits;hardfired,scoredsurface Hand-made;buffware,smallblackgrits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired,coarsesurface Hand-made;buffclay,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,blackgrits,straw;hardfired,coarse Hand-made;buffware,blackgrits,straw;hardfired,coarse Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallwhite and blackgrits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;gray-buffware,grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,small white and blackgrits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made; reddish ware, large white grits, hard fired, buff-red surface, smoothed Hand-made;buffware,small white and blackgrits;hardfired,smoothed

1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.3 Surface

a. brownpolishedbone b. yellowpolishedawl c. brownpolishedawl d. brownpolishedawl e. brownpolishedawl f. yellowpolishedawl g. yellow fire-polishedborer h. yellow;bone splinter,point polished;borer Hand-made;grayday, blackgrits,hardfired,figurinebody Hand-made;light grayclay,white and graygrits;hardfired,roughsmoothed Hand-made;grayclay,blackgrits;hardfired,smoothed STONE, serpentine,smoothed STONE, serpentine,smoothed Spindlewhorl,polishedwhite limestone Spindlewhorl,smoothedwhite limestone white limestone,roughlycarved STONE,

1.6 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 Surface Surface 1.4 1.4 1.3

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

81 112-119 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 108 110 109 101 100 121 120 99

[132]

1.3

PLATE 5

4

3 ;\

~

y

s .wA~2

)

2UP

1{

p\\

9

8

6

5

\1

r A

-

-1--

d

1

4" 1Wr '^r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~12

11

13

10

-r

o,gf-

'

/

i-

l---16

Q

17

1

15 I4

21 20

-L

28

19

--cy3

.,> 22

f

h

e

d

c

29

a

b

24

26

23

25

27

?

[133]

32

PLATE6

TellJamid

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

521 527 526 525 524 528 523

II.2 II.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 I.1

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

JA 010 JA 011 JA 012 508 519 520 517 515 516

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

512 514a 513 514b 518 JA 006 510 509 JA 004 JA 005 511

Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;tracesred wash outside Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits;smoothed,tracesred wash Wheel-made;buffware,white and blackgrits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,minutegrits;hardfired;buffslip, polished Wheel-made;brown/redware;hardfired;red polishedsurfaceoutside Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;soft fired,red wash at rim outside Buff ware, gray core, blackgrits; at rim outside:crimson-redwash, polished, worn Buffware,white and blackgrits;red wash inside;worn off outside Wheel-made;buffware;hardfired,red burnishedslip insideandoutside,worn Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,blackgrits;hardfired;tracesbandslip Hard fired;buffware,blackgrits;brownbandslip Wheel-made;buffware,blackand browngrits;hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,grits;hardfired,red wash Wheel-made;buff ware,largeblackgrits; hardfired;buffbandslip outsideand over rim White grits;buffware,gray-greencore;wheel made,plain Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired;red wash Wheel-made;buffware,blackcore,white grits;hardfired Wheel made;buffware,smallblackgrits;hardfired;bandslip, brownwash Wheel-made;brownware,gritty (mica?);hardfired;brownsurface,plain Wheel-made;buffware,no grits;hardfired;fine buffreservedslip Wheel-made;buffware,white grits, red wash Wheel-made;hardbuffware,white grits;smoothed Wheel-made;grayware,micagrits;brownsurface,plain White grits;brownsurface,blackcore;wheel made,plain White grits;buffsurface,graycore;wheel-made,hardfired,smoothed

[134]

1.1 II.1 1.1 1.2 II.1 II.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 11.1 II.1 II.1 IL. 1.2 II.2 -1.2 1.2 --

PLATE 6

2

)

4

6

7

10 ,el

8

I

a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,

11

9

t

161*

14

13

12

15

)

7

17

18

19

20

21

22

)

23

24

5

25

)

(6 26

27

[135]

PLATE7

TellJamid

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

JA 013 522 529 JA 014 JA 008 JA 009 JA 007 534 535 530 533 507 531 532 JA 003 JA 002 JA 001 506 JA 015 502 501 503

11.2 II.1 11.1 I1.2 II II II 11.2 II.2 11.2 II II.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 II.2 Surface 11.2 Surface

23.

505

24.

504

Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;brownsurface Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;soft fired;red wash Buffware,blackand white grits;hardfired;buffsurface,polished,worn Wheel-made;brownware,white grits;brownsurface Brownware,white grits,crumbly;red surface Wheel-made;brownware,white grits, soft fired;blacksurface Brownware,white grits,crumbly;mediumfired;red surface,smoothed Wheel-made;brownware;fine smoothedblacksurface Wheel-made;brownware,gritty;brownsurface Wheel-made;brownware,grits;brownsurface Wheel-made;buffware,smallgrits, mediumfired Wheel-made;blackware,white grits;buffsurfaceinside,red outside;scored Red ware,blackgrits;plain Buffware,largewhite grits;brownwash,bandslip Wheel-made;blackgrittyware;hardfired;red surface,combed Buffware,wheel-made,veryhard;combed,then smoothed Buffware,largeblack& redgrits;pink surface,combed Grayware,grits;red surface,combed Buffware,largeblackand white grits;mediumfired;brownbandslip Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;buffsurface;red paint Hand-made;red ware,white grits;white slip outside,matt redpaint Khirbet Kerak Ware; ribbedstand;buff surface,blackcore, small white grits; worn red burnishedslip Wheel-made(heavy wheel marksinside);brown ware,small white grits (lime inclusions?);red burnishedslip outside Wheel-made;red ware,blackgrits;hardfired;orange-buffslip, burnished

[136]

11.2 11.2

PLATE 7

3

0 lcm

5

10

8

4

5 9

10 -

/

/111! millll lllR!ttltt^ ^,lllltll;l\\\ltI

~~~ ~ ~ ~

13 14

12

4)

&8 19

15

fl

r~~~18

16

I

k *t

1'

W/ /f^I I/liI//
tt

23

17

[137]

24

PLATE8

Tell esh-Shuneh

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

--

I.15?

2.

--

3.

--

4.

--

5.

--

6.

--

7. 8.

413 415

9. 10. 11. 12.

S029 S027 S028 S030

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

S022 409 410 411 412 426 427 482 480

22.

481

Hand-made,deep brown clay, fine grits; black/brownslip, medium fired,very highlypolished,fine Hand-madesoft, gray-brownware thin black/brownwash, polished (?) now worn off Hand-made,brownware,minutegrits,hardfired,thin slip (almostwash) black with patchesof brown.Highly polishedinside/outside,fine Gray ware, medium-soft,pale gray surface.No slip, polished outside or just smoothed,worn Dark gray ware, medium fired, fine gray slip, burnished inside/outside, crackled(?)surface Gray ware, medium-soft fired, pale gray surface;no slip; smoothed/polished inside/outside Hand-made;buffware,largegrits,hardfired,smoothed,incisions Wheel-made;buff ware,small blackand white grits, hardfired,good red wash insideand outside Wheel-made;blackgrittyware,blacksmoothedsurface Wheel-made;buffware,red wash,polished Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,dullblackwash Hand-made;buff ware,small grits; hardfired;red wash outsideand at interior rim Wheel-made;blackcore Wheel-made;buffware,very smallgrits;red wash insideand outside Wheel-made;buffware,very smallgrits, red wash Wheel-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash inside andoutside Wheel-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash outside Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,blackwash Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,blackwash insideand outside Wheel-made;blackcore,buffsurface,gritty,mediumfired,wet smoothed Wheel-made; buff gritty ware, hard fired, red paint outside, over incisions, grain-washpainted Wheel-made; buff ware, black core, gritty, hard fired, red paint inside and outside,grain-washpainted.Bandof horizontalslasheson exteriorbelow rim

[138]

1.15? 1.15? 1.15? Surface 1.15? II.19 11.19

11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 II.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 II.19 II. 19

PLATE 8

\-?

(

5

( 4

IX

/ 7

r

7

~~~~~~~~~~~~6

0 1

5cm

10

I

I

1

17

14

18 15

8

< 9 ~~I

7

16

19

9

20

10

11

21

12

I

(\X~".-~',

3 13

[139]

/

PLATE9 No. 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

FieldNo.

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Wheel-made; buff ware, small white and black grits, hard fired, brick red surface,red/brown paint on buff wash over incisionsoutside,at rim inside, roundspout 417 Hand-made,buffware,largewhite grits,matt red paint S015 Hand-made,buffware,largewhite grits,matt red paint S025 Wheel-made;buff ware, large grits, hard fired,paintedoutside and at interior rim over buffslip, grainwash 406 Fine buffware;hardfired,red wash,polished 405 Wheel-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash,highlyburnished 418 Hand-made;buff gritty ware, large white and blackgrits, red paintedbandsLateChalcolithic 419 Wheel-made;buff gritty ware, mediumfired,buff paint, grain wash/Northern Painted 420 Wheel-made;buff gritty ware, hard fired,brown washy paint over incisions/ NorthernPainted S019 Wheel-made; red/buff ware with grits, medium fired, red washy surface/ NorthernPainted 478 Hand-made;blackcore, red sandwich,buff surface,gritty,hard fired;incisions on smoothedsurface 479 Wheel-made;blackcore, red sandwich,buff surface,gritty, hard fired,buff to red grainwash outsideand at interiorrim, over incisions 476 Hand-made;buff cracklyware, large grits, brown wash outside and at rim inside 477 Wheel-made;buffcracklyware,largegrits,hardfired,smoothed 421 Grain wash (Northern paintedware). Wheel-made,buff ware,very gritty,red wash 422 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,soft fired,red wash/NorthernPainted 424/423a Wheel-made;gray core, gritty, soft fired,red to buff wash inside and outside/ NorthernPainted 423b Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,soft fired,red/brownwash/NorthernPainted 425 Wheel-made;red gritty ware, hard fired, red/blackwash on rim, blackwash outside,"washpainted" Esdraelonware,hand-made;blackgrittyware,soft fired,polished-grayburnished 407 404a Wheel-made (?); buff ware, small grits, hard fired, red wash. String-cutbase (?). Reconstructeddrawing above IX:21 shows a hypotheticalcomposite with IX:22 S023 Hand-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash,polished S034 Hand-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired,red wash,polished White to red creamslip, polished S033 S032 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, red wash 455

[140]

Provenience II.19

II.19 II.19 II.19 11.19 I1.19 II.17 1II.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 11.19 1II.19 11.19 II1.19 11.19 11.19 I1.19 11.19 11.19 II.19(?)

11.17 II.19 I1.18 I1.19

PLATE 9

~~~~/

I

''''i7\,

j -i

f\

I

I, L

.-

'~11

I

12

,

kA

%13

6dJI

1

I

3

_

% %.

I

(,

~~14

4

5

A

15

'~~ZI I \

~~~~

16

21

17 8

22

N\0 18

23

f

19

24

2- 5 01cm 20

[141]

5

10 25

PLATE10 No.

FieldNo.

1.

436

2.

440

3. 4. 5. 6.

439 S003 445 438

7. 8.

441 437

9.

S001

10. 11. 12.

431 432 S002

13.

S004

14. 15. 16. 17.

S005 446 S014 430

18.

428

19.

429

20. 21.

S013 447

22.

448

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

444

435 434 443 442 433

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription Wheel made;buffgrittyware;soft fired;red/brownwash outsideand inside

Provenience

RHO 12 (on floor) Buffcrumblyware,minisculegrits;brownwash RHO 12 (on floor) RHO II:12 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;red wash outside RHO 12 Wheel-made;buffware,smallgrits;red wash;stringcut Buffware,hardfired;smoothed,red wash at rim inside,blackwash outside 11.17 Wheel-made;buff gritty ware; hard fired,red wash inside and outside;string RHO 12 cut (on floor) RHO II:12 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;red wash outside;stringcut Wheel-made;buff gritty ware; brown wash inside and outside; lime coated; RHO 12 (on floor) potter'smark Wheel-made; buff gritty ware; red wash inside and outside; wet smoothed; RHO 12 stringcut (on floor) II.11a Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;thickred wash outsideand insideat rim II.17 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash RHO 12 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;brownwash (on floor) Wheel-made; buff crumblyware, small grits; brown wash; string cut; lime RHO II.12 concretions RHO 12 Wheel-made;buffcrumblyware,smallgrits;brownwash insideand outside II.11 Buffware,hardfired,red/brownwash RHO II.19 Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired RHO(onfloor Slow wheel;buffgrittyware;buff/redslip outside;polished at doorway) cut hard RHO 12 wash red buff outside,burnished,string fired, Hand-made; grittyware; (on floor) RHO(onfloor Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;smoothed,stringcut nearhearth) RHO Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red polishedwash Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired:red/brownpaint on smoothedsurface RHO II. lb (on floor) (= bandslip/"grainwash"),splashof paint at interiorrim RHO lib Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red/purplewash, bandslip (on floor) Level 16 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;buffto blackslip II.11a Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash inside Level 14 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;blackwash insideandoutside 11:14 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;blackwash insideandoutside II.1la Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;red wash-traces RHO II. lb Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;wheel marks,burnt (on floor)

[142]

PLATE 10

K^

1

12

6

17

2

13

7

8

14

3

4

9 15 19 10

5

/

1

16

20 1 1

23

24

26

21

25 27

22

0 lcm

5

10 28

[143]

PLATE11 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

465 464 459 465A 466 458

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

S006 S024 460 462 S020 463 S021 456

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

S026 S007 467 461 S018 SO 016 S017 457

23.

454

24. 25.

474 473

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription Provenience Buffgrittyware,red wash;coarse 11.6-10 11.6 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash worn 11.6 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;smoothed;stringcut base 11.6 Wheel-made;buffware;smoothed;brownwash outside 11.7 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;red wash insideand outside II.10 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red/buffwashyslip insideandoutside (bandslip) 11.6-10 Hand-made;buffgrittyware;wet smoothed,tracesof red wash 11.6 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;blackcore;mediumfired;red wash II.6 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red/brownwash 11.6 Wheel-made;buffcrumblyware,blackgrits;soft fired 11.5 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;smoothed II.10 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red/brownbandslip II.11 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired 11.6-10 matt hard wet smoothed; ware; fired; Wheel-made;red/buffgritty brown/gray washypaint;bandslip 11.19 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;incised 11.6 fired hard buff Hand-made; grittyware; and 11.7 outside wash inside red buff Wheel-made; grittyware; II1.6 wash buff Wheel-made; grittyware;buff/brownstreakypaint-grain 11.6 self Wheel-made;browngrittyware;soft fired;polished slip II.10 Graygrittyware,buffsurface,grainwash II.6 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;buff/browngrainwash 11.6-10 Wheel-made;buff gritty ware; hard fired;brown wash outside,red at interior rim;patternwash II.10 Wheel-made; buff gritty ware; hard fired; thin buff wash outside; latticepatternedgrainwash (brown)outside II.11 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;brownwashybandslip Buffgrittyware,blackcore;red/brownwashypaint/NorthernPainted 11.19

[144]

PLATE 11

I

/

000 17

I

)

5

I=i^

18

4

19 0 l1lcm cm

.5

10

6

20

/ AQ^

!8 \

-7I

^

8

I

-_ 1

9

\ 22

l

/

\ 11

12

**'

\

7

13 13

23 14

15

24

16

25

I

[145]

PLATE12 No.

FieldNo.

1.

469

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

471 475 468 472 470 S031 495 496 497 498 499 500

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

S008 S009 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 414 S010 S011 S012

32.

416

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

11.9 Wheel-made;buff gritty ware, medium fired,brown washy paint on polished creamsurface 11.6 Wheel-made;buffware,soft fired;buff/brownwash insideand outside Buffgrittyware,soft fired,red burnishedslip outsideand interiorrim 11.6 11.6 Stumpbase,burnishedred slip 1.6-10 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired,red washypaint 1.6 Wheel-made,buffgrittyware,hardfired Blackgrittyware,white slip, buff/redpaint 11.7 III.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,wet smoothed,bandslip? III.3 Hand-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired,smoothed III.2 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,smoothed III.2 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,blackcore;hardfired,smoothed Room 3:4 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,smoothed,incised 11.3 Wheel-made;buff ware, medium blackgrits, hard fired,plain inside, dull red wash outside IV.3 Hand-made;blackcore,verysmallgrits, red surface,smoothed buff wet-smoothed black 11.3 core; surfaces, Wheel-made; IV.2 black buff wash Wheel-made; grittyware, -Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired,red/brownmatt wash soft black core buff fired, Hand-made; grittyware, -Hand-made;buffware,hardfired,polishedbuffslip IV.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,polishedred slip III.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired,smoothed III.3 Grayburnishedware;mediumfired III.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash IV.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;smoothed IV.3 Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;smoothed "P.3" Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;smoothed "P.3" Wheel-made;buffgrittyware;smoothed II.19(RH) Grittybuffwashedware,brownpaint outside 11.6-10 Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash 11.4 Buffgrittyware,hand made,hardfired;smoothed,red wash Hand-made;brown gritty ware; hard fired; brown/gray surface,smoothed, RHO II:19 burnt 11.19 Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;red wash

[146]

PLATE 12

4

IV

2 1

J

'

<s

6

5 7

c~c

16 22

/

17

23 9

X~S-

18 24

10

)w77r

1)

11

2

19

12 25

20 26

/ 21

13

H

HH 01

27

HH 5cm

W-i 10

14

30

29

f 15

@1/32 31

28

[147]

32

PLATE13 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

82 83 88 87 89 85 90 86 92 98 156 106 105 108 107 109 110A 84 104 97

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

11.2 11.3 II.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 II.1 11.2 11.2 11.4 Surface 11.3 Surface Surface 11.4 11.3 11.2 Surface 11.2 11.2

[148]

PLATE 13

11 1

/

\

12

2

/

I

V

13

\

/

4

/

\ 14

I

.

A

/

5/

15

5

16

/

^

6

17

7

^.

/

J^~~18 18

8

19 9 _

_

10

I

I

r

-I 20

[149]

PLATE14

Tell esh-Shuneh

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

143 93 91 94 95 103 100 96 99 22 6 2 1 153 7 27 29

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

11.1 11.4 II.2

[150]

11.1 II.3 11.2

11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.1 II.4 II.2 II.2

PLATE 14

1

10

/ 11

3 12

J

4 13

'?, 5 14

Xs^ -~

,}^~ l

'1

6 15

7

(

16

~A I 8

-J 17

'-

F El 01

9

[151]

H c-I Scm

H 10

PLATE15

Tell esh-Shuneh

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

150 17 23 3 9 8 102 34 33 12 13 15 14 16 11 26B 37 40 152 151 24 154 4 28 101 36 32

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

Surface 11.3 11.2 II 11.4 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.2 11.3 11.2 II.3 11.2 11.2 -11.2 11.2 11.3/4 11.3 II.3 Surface 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.3

[152]

PLATE 15

)

'V

10 19

1

I j

I

(

11

20 2

C

)

H

I

12 21

3

)

L 13

22

4

14

( ~

23

J^~5 5 15

01

5cm

10

I

>__J 24

6

16

25

17

26

18

27

8

9

[153]

PLATE16 No.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Field No.

41 42 77 76 68 70 72 69 35 110B 43 67 74 31 25B 39 30 73 71 66 61

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator's Field Description

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[154]

Provenience

11.4 11.2 11.2 11.3 II.3/6 11.3 11.4 11.3 II.1 II.4(?) 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.2 II.5 11.4 I1.2 11.3/4

s

-A211

?-I

1-

-

(nA _

t

to

V

I ~

- O(_

Co

./

I_

4'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,x 0 oI,,

<

I- o_

(Mn 2

II

9 I T \ ^^!

T: 1 T v

.

to

I

iI

I'

-I

"I

'r

I

I'l

It

1' t1"

,

? I

I

^ 7's

''

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~J

(1

(

PLATE17

Tell esh-Shuneh

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

19 18 20 44 45 65 56 57 10 64 62 63 149 21 5 155 26A 25A 53 54 55

KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

II.3 II.4 II.4 Surface 11.3/4 II.3/4 11.1 II.3/4 II.3 II.2 I1.2 Surface II.3 I1.2 11.4 11.3/4 11.2 11.3 II.3 Surface II.3

[156]

rP-( in

1^"I

r-

*,d

CO \-

P I

k,

0)

I1

Kl

S

i

f

0\

TI

0^>I

P?-

(0

V00

s-.

.0mZ-

-~~~~~~~

11

II

~~~~ ~

K

I

;|

Io

II

~~~~~~~~~~-

I

-1-

PLATE18 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

50 51 52 121 122 123 137 124 46 48 157 80 79 78 81 129 132 131 130 136 138

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[158]

Provenience 11.2 Surface 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.1 11.4 11.2 11.2 11.3/4 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.3

PLATE 18

\

I

I,"; ,,r:,, ,I

.9

.

9 /I t r(

m

I

I1J

{z1El

l"C;*"'ij

10

Il 2

f

.--

-

...

-

-

i'a11

3

5

12

13

14

15

X-"'- ''""s 17

16

6 \ 18 18

19

f HH H H H 0 1cm 5

I

H 10

/ 20

21

[159]

I

PLATE19 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

133 134 135 116 118 119 120 127 128 111 112 114 113 115 148 117 125 126 147 144 90 91 140 145 146

Tell esh-Shuneh

Excavator'sFieldDescription KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare KhirbetKerakWare

[160]

Provenience II.3 11.4 11.3 II.4 II.3 II.4 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.4 11.3/4 11.3/4 11.3/4 11.4 Surface II.3 11.3 I1.2 II 11.2 --11.2 11.2 11.2

PLATE 19

\'

-

f2

I'

8

1

9

\

;;'/~~~ la~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 10

t

I 3

16 1

4 17

12

5

'

........

18 13

6 19

0 1 cm 01 cm

14

5 5

10 10

20

7

c 7c~~~~~j~~~, 22

[161]

23

24

25 25

PLATE20 No. 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

FieldNo.

Tell Abu-Habil

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

Hand-made;gray core, buff ware, largegrits; smoothedinside and outside,red wash outside Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; red/brown wash inside and outside; polishedoutside Buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;yellowoutside,red paint inside Buffware,smallgrits;soft fired,smoothed;brown/graypaint Buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed Buffware,very smallgrits;mediumfired,smoothed,red paint Hand-made;black core, red surface,grits; hard fired; smoothed; red wash outside;worn Buffware,gritty,hardfired;wet smoothed;washyred paint insideand outside Buffware,mediumgrits;smoothed;red paint,outsideand inside Graycore,buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint Grayware,manygrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint insideand outside Hand-made;buffware,grits;soft fired;matt redpaint;mat-impressedbase Hand-made, buff-red ware, large grits, hard fired; red paint/wash inside/ outside,smoothed,worn Grayware,grits,dull brown/blackslip/wash outside/inside Gray/browngrittyware;wet smoothed Buffware,largegrits;creamslip inside;red paint insideand outside Buffware,grits;tracesof redpaint on rim;worn Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed,red/brownpaint Hand-made;buffware,small grits; hardfired;smoothed;matt red paint inside andoutside Hand-made;buff ware, few grits; hard fired;smoothed,buffpaint/wash inside and outside Hand-made;buff ware,very gritty;hard fired,red wash; fire-blackenedinside/ outside Hand-made;buff ware, large grits; hard fired;smoothed;red paint inside and outside Buffware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed;buffpaint insideand outside Hand-made;buffgrittyware;hardfired;smoothed;tracesof red wash outside Graycore,red/buffsurface,grits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint on lip

1.11

[162]

1.4 1.112 1.112 1.112 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11

1.7 1.7 I.llA 1.7 1.12 1.11

1.4(?) 1.112 1.4 1.7 1.11 1.12

1.3 1.3 1.11 1.2

1.3

PLATE 20

I

I

3 7 2

[

I

I

6

4

1

-I

W 17

I

17

13 13

-1 I

18

14

I

I

10

1

i

15 ly 19

20

/

11

16

FF0 1 cm O lcm

55

I

110

21

12

i-~-'p

25 25

23

26 24

[163]

S

PLATE21

Tell Abu-Habil

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2.

--

1.7 1.4

3. 4.

--

5. 6. 7.

----

8.

--

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

----

14. 15. 16.

----

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

----

Hand-made;buffware,grits;mediumfired;smoothed;matt brownpaint Hand-made;buff ware, large grits; medium fired; smoothed, matt red paint inside and outside Buffware,largegrits;smoothed,buffpaint outside Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired;smoothed, matt buff/red paint Hand-made;fine buffware,small grits;hardfired;smoothed,washyredpaint Buffware,white grits;underfired;smoothed;red paint Hand-made;buff ware, largegrits; hardfired;smoothed,thickred paint inside and outside Hand-made;thickblackcore,buff surface,largegrits; mediumfired,smoothed, red paint;fire blackened Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;soft fired;brownwash outside Hand-made;graycore,buffsurface,very largegrits;smoothed;red wash Grayware,largegrits,crumbly;smoothed;redpaint;burnt Hand-made;buffware,gritty;soft fired;smoothed;washyred paint Hand-made;graycore, red surface,mediumgrits;hardfired;red wash outside; burnt Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed;red surface Buffware,largegrits;soft fired;smoothed;blackto brownsurface Hand-made;thick gray core, buff surface,grits; medium fired; matt brown paint Buffware,mediumgrits;hardfired;smoothed,red paint Buffware,largegrits;red paint outside/inside;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,buffware,grits;hardfired Hand-made;grittybuffware;underfired;darkred to brownpaint Black/grayware,largegrits;smoothed;red wash outside;fire blackened Buffgrittyware,red slip

--

[164]

1.3 11.8 1.11 1.7 1.4 1.11 1.11 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.3 1.3 1.12 1.3 1.11 1.11

PLATE 21

/ 1

I

~i

.?

N

14

9

15 10

I 3 dXI -3

11

16

11

17

18

12 4 h KMH 0 1

J-H 5cm

5 19

N

13

6 20

7 21

8 22

[165]

H 10

PLATE22 No. 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

FieldNo.

Tell Abu-Habil

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

Hand-made;buff ware, gritty;soft fired;brown/red paint inside and outside; misfired? Buff ware, grits; soft fired, smoothed; orange surface;faded black to purple paint Buffware,gritty;light buffsurface,deep red paint Buffware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed;redpaint Red ware,no grits;creamslip, red and black(polychrome)paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;red wash insideand outside;partiallyburnt Buffware,very small grits;smoothed;matt redpaint Buffware,smallgrits;matt impressedbase Buffware,largegrits;smoothedsurface,red paint Hand-made;buffgrittyware,hardfired;tracesof red wash Buffware,grits;smoothed,red paint Red ware,verygritty;brownto blacksurface Buffware,hardfired,wet smoothed Buffware,smallgrits;smoothed,red paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;red paint insideand outside Unbakedclay Graycore,buffware;largegrits;red paint Red ware,grits;smoothed Basalt Basalt Basaltor serpentine Basalt Basalt Basalt

I.7

[166]

1.11 11.8 1.4 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.3 1.12 II.8 1.11 1.11 1.2 1.11 1.7 1.11 1.6 1.3 Surface Surface 1.3 Surface Surface Surface

PLATE 22

I

/

1

-

I

24 2

5

8

7

10

9

l 12

16

15

/'S~

-\\ ,01t

14

13

I I1

IX' 11

=: I 18

20

23

24

-19 19

17

t

l1

21 10

[167]

Iw

PLATE23

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

2

1.8

2.

4

3.

5

4. 5.

14 1

6. 7.

3 8

8. 9. 1L0.

11 17 12

11. 1L2. 13.

15 9 6

1L4. 1L5. 1L6. 1L7. 1L8. 19. 2!0. 21. 2!2. 2!3. 2!4. 2!5.

18 19 20 7 16 10 13 108 110 107 106 54

2!6. 2!7.

58 53

Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;brown slip and highly burnished exterior Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired; brown slip inside and outside; highlyburnishedexterior;blackenedrim suggestsuse as lamp Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;deep red slip inside and outside; finelyburnished Wheel-made;graycore,buffsurface;hardfired;self-slipped,polishedexterior Wheel-made;buff ware, no grits; hard fired;brown slip and highly burnished, exterior Wheel-made;buffware,no grits;hardfired;red wash,polishedexterior Wheel-made;buff ware, minute grits; soft fired; red slip inside and outside, polishedsurface Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;buffwarewith grits;hardfired;roughlysmoothedexterior Hand-made;gray core, buff surface,small grits; hard fired;coarselysmoothed exterior Hand-made;graycore,red surface,smallgrits;hardfired;used as lamp Buffware,no grits;red to buffslip outside,over rim;polished Hand-made; red ware, no grits; hard fired; surface not preserved; (or: no surfacetreatment);used as lamp Hand-made;red ware;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;buffware;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;pink ware with grits;hardfired;smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;no surfacetreatment Red ware,white grits;red burnishedself-slip insideand outside Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfiredsmoothedsurface Hand-made;buffware,no grits,soft fired,coarselysmoothed Hand-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothedsurface Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,roughsurface Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,roughsurface Brown Esdraelonware; black core, grits, hand-made,soft fired, brown slip, highlyburnishedinside/outside Wheel-made;buffware,verysmallgrits;soft fired,wheel marks,washedrim Hand-made;red Esdraelonware, medium grits, hard fired, highly burnished surfaceinside and outside

[168]

III.4 II1.3 III.3 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 III.3 1.9 1.9 III.3 1.8 III.3 1.7 1.8 1.9 III.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 III.5 1.9 III.5pit.

PLATE 23

/

E

1

19 10 1\

2

20 11

18

3

I-

I

12 21

4

L I

13

5 ,Is

__

~//

h 22

14

6

\ /1 //

\

7

15

\

t/

23

8 16

HF-I 1-4 }-4 H 5ev

1-4~

0 1

10 24

9

* e

r ;0

26

k

.3 N.j 25\

T 25

[169]

tI

PLATE24 No.

FieldNo.

1.

55

2.

53

3.

56A

4.

57

5. 6. 7.

56B 80 76

8. 9. 10.

196 77 78

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

75 74 81 71 197 73 70

18. 19.

72 210

20.

178

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Provenience 1.9 Light gray Esdraelonware; buff ware, small grits, light gray surface,highly burnishedinside and outside Red Esdraelonware; red ware, medium grits, hand made; hard fired, highly III.5pit burnishedinside/ outside Light gray Esdraelonware; buff ware, white grits, self-slip, light gray surface, highlyburnishedinside/outside BlackEsdraelonware;buff ware, small grits, self-slip, highly burnishedsurface 1.7 insideand outside Same as No. XXIV: 3 (56A) above III.3 Red ware,small white grits,slow wheel, hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 1.9 Hand-made;buff ware, large blackgrits, medium fired, brown wash outside, smoothedsurface II.5 Wheel-made;buffware,largegrits,polished 1.7 Hand-made;red-brownware,white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 Hand-made;buff ware, large grits, medium fired, red painted band at rim insideand outside 1.7 Hand-made;red-buffware,white grits, hardfired,smoothedred surface 1.7 Hand-made;redware,blackgrits, mediumfired,smoothedred surface 1.8 Hand-made;brownware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.7 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothedsurface buff surface II.5 Wheel-made; ware,largegrits;polished 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,largewhite grits,hardfired,smoothedpurplesurface Slow wheel; buff ware, small grits, hard fired, smoothed gray to pink to red 1.8 surface 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedbuffsurface Hand-made;buff ware,white grits, hardfired,light white-yellowwash, yellow II:2/III:2(?) band-slip III.2 Hand-made;buff ware, medium to small grits; hard fired;red wash/slip, very worn

[170]

PLATE 24

F

-r

i r_3

Bi 14

6

I

/'

v

1

---- L

I 8

X

/

~~~I 17

9

r\

L 10 10

Z, 11

11

HH 1 H H 0 lcm 5

[

H 0

N 13 19

[171]

20

_~qk*

PLATE25 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2.

101 102

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

89 114 118 116 95 109 104 135 --

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Provenience Excavator'sFieldDescription 1.8pit Hand-made;buffware,verysmallgrits;hardfired,polishedinside andoutside 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,small grits; mediumfired;burnishedred self slip inside and outside 1.7 Hand-made;graycore,red ware;gritty,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.8 Slow wheel;grayware,small white grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface III.3 Slow wheel;red ware,graycore,no grits,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.8 Wheel-made;red-buffware,no grits,hardfiredburnishedself slip 1.9 Slow wheel; red ware,smallgrits, hardfired,finelysmoothed Slow wheel; red ware,graycore,hardfired,smoothedsurface 1.9 1.9 Wheel-made;buffware,grits,hardfired 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,small white grits,hardfired Variantreconstructionof XXV:5 (?). Drawn at half scale

[172]

PLATE 25

7

)

7

2 ( r ~f rrrfrrffI t{ ff rr mHfa (fm

...3 fI

3

I

4

9

?~KKh~~Mh~l ...... ". v b btblUlrtblOUX

iA

btthiSd3

._/

-- -

/7 \1

"I

:, _, /_ _ ._ _ _

1c ,-.,

.

--l

gflunenDp1eiI11ij

ummmmmmmmft-z

u

j

6

H-I 1 0 1 cm

H 5

H

HI 10

1 11

[173]

?

PLATE26 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

94 112 91 113 123 115 117 96 97 111 103 93 -174

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Slow wheel;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Slow wheel;red ware,small white grits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits, hardfiredsmoothed Slow wheel;red ware,small white grits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,white grits, hardfired,smoothed Slow wheel;buffware,small darkgrits;soft fired;smoothed Slow wheel;red ware,no grits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-madeor slow wheel;red ware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired Buffware,smallgrits, red burnishedself-slip insideand outside Wheel made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,finelysmoothed Variantreconstructionof No. XXVI:6(?).Drawn at 1/2 scale Variantreconstructionof XXVI:7(?).Drawn at 1/2 scale Hand-made;graycore,buffsurface,grits,hardfired,smoothed

[174]

Provenience 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 --1.7

PLATE 26

F

Pak\qdlLIIIOOOOQI

8 7) 1

,_

*..

.\

9

VI 3ivqmi

tISI I

V10

2

10

I

1

/ 11

I

4

12

5

\VVV

wI

lvv 13

II / / //

// //

//

14

I 6 ///

dOO I0000000( 00O00uO000 800OO0

15

11H I 0 1cm

71 7

[175]

H 5

IH --J 10

PLATE27 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

47 31 22 32 21 25 27 42 43

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

46 49 48 51 45 41

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

26 23 24 61 62 28

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Provenience Excavator'sFieldDescription 1.9 Buffware,smallgrits;red-brownwash, highlypolished oval mouth hard red 1.9 small buff surface; fired, ware,very Hand-made; grits; 1.8 no hard smoothed red fired; Hand-made; ware, grits; surface red III.3 buff small ware, Hand-made; grits;smoothed,pebble-burnished, III.3 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed soft fired III.3 buff ware,verycoarse,largegrits; Hand-made; III.2 hard smoothed fired; Hand-made;red ware,very smallgrits; III.4 Hand-made;buffware,smallgraygrits;hardfired;deep red wash,worn 1.7 Hand-made;buff ware,small grits;hard fired;creamyred to gray-brownwash, verticalburnishingmarks 1.9 Buffware,small grits;red wash,polished 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Wheel-made;buff-creamware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Buffware,smallgrits;red wash, strokingburnish III.3 Hand-made;buff ware, small gray grits; hard fired;deep red wash, shadingto buffoutside;polishedrim, worn 1.8 Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;red washed;smoothed 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;burnishoutsideand interiorrim 1.9 Hand-made;light buffcoarseware,largegrits;hardfired 1.7 Slow wheel;buffware,smallgrits;soft fired;red paint 1.8 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed III.2(?) Hand-made; light gray core, buff ware, medium to large grits; very soft; smoothed

[176]

PLATE 27

15 8

Ba

9

(

,, 16

10 2

_ 11 3 17

N

12 4

13

18

5

I \

/

19 I

14

6 20

[177]

PLATE28

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

1.

31

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

59 63 128 60 66 65 64 29

10. 11.

30 50

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

130 131 132 133 134 98 127 99 124 100

Hand-made;buff ware, very small grits; hard fired;red surface;burnishedat rim and handle Hand-made;buffware,grits;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,largegrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;brownware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;brownware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffcreamware,grits;hardfired;yellow slip, burnishedoutside,at rim Hand-made;buffware,gritty,poor, soft fired;red burnishedwash Hand-made;gray core, red ware, black and white grits; hard fired;red paint inside,red slip outside;highlyburnished Wheel-made;pink ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Wheel-made;red ware,blackand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,manylargegrits;smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware,grits;hardfired;smoothed Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;graycore,red ware,white grits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed

[178]

Provenience __

1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 III.2 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 III.2 Surface 1.7 1.9 1.9

PLATE 28

.<x

>,>c. .^

o^i^Y

.

. __ _

_

l

A 12

9

I

S

v

;i^ti^'^'^.e

10 13

J 2 I

I

( C

ce eee eecc f\c

etoo ?46444

Oa*A

? tl Ot of

aHStt-ifWiWt2E^

14 11

1 15

t0t000 ~7

v016 16

5

17

6 18

7

19

S

8

HH 01

H-

H 5cm

20

H 10

21

[179]

PLATE29

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

52

1.8

2. 3.

40 36

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

38 37 35 39 177

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

34 44 181 180

Hand-made;buff cream ware, small grits; hard fired; red wash outside;wet smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;redpaint inside Hand-made;buff ware, small grits; hard fired; fine red-buffwash, polished; partlyburnt Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;slight polish Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;fine red polishedsurface Hand-made;buffware,small grits;hardfired;fine red-buffwash,polished Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made; gray core, buff ware, minute grits; hard fired; pale red slip, burnished Buffware,small blackgrits;redpaint;slight burnish Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red-buffware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed

19.

173

20. 21.

199 86

184 119 120 170 171

Hand-made;gray-buffware,small grits;hardfired;smoothed;mat impressed Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired Hand-made;red ware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed Buff ware, small white grits; buff surface,creaminterior;brown paint outside; grainwashedor bandslipped Hand-made;pink-buffware,small white grits;pale buffsurface;dull red paint; hardfired Hand-made;buff ware,grayand white grits;hardfired Hand-made;grayware,smallwhite grits;mediumfired;smoothed

[180]

1.8 III.4 1.7 1.9 III.3 1.7 III 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 11.3 1.9

PLATE 29

-- I/ ///^\\

/ 1

II

3/

/

t2

2

1

3

4

5

6

/

-,

'

I 1

11

12 12

13

13

14

7

9

8

10 ccy--r---?ri-cc

15

16

2(

17

18

21

19

[181]

PLATE30 No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

126 67 68 69 79

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

87 198 82 92 90 88 121 122 84 83 85

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription Provenience 1.9 Hand-made;buffware,white grits;soft fired;worn surface 1.7 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed Slow wheel;graycore,buffware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 black and buff white self buff-red band III.3 Wheel-made; ware, grits; slip; slip; smoothed 1.8 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed small fired 1.4 buff medium Wheel-made; ware, grits; small hard white grits; 1.7 fired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware, 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,burntblack;hardfired;smoothed Slow wheel; red ware,grits;hardfired;polished 1.9 1.7 Wheel-made;red ware,smallgrits;hardfired;smoothed 1.7 Hand-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired 1.7 Wheel-made;buffware,white grits;hardfired 1.9 Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,smallwhite grits;hardfired;smoothed 1.8 Hand-made;red ware,small white grits;hardfired;smoothed

[182]

PLATE30 OO00000W 00

4'

1

212

13 4

-

N

5 14

6 15

N

, , [Z.I..ILLUJL_LLLj-

7

16

N 0 1

5cm

10

8

[183]

PLATE31

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3.

206 207 209

1.2 11.2 III.2

4.

200

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

202 204 201 203 205 137 149 140

--Wheel-made(slow wheel) Buffware.White grits, hardfired,buff-graysurface, slight polish Wheel-made;green-buff ware, minute grits, hard fired, not smoothed, thin metallic Wheel-made;red/pink ware,hardfired Wheel-made;red/pinkware,hardfired Wheel-made;green-buffware,hardfired Wheel-made,red/pink ware,hardfired Wheel-made;red/pink ware,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallblackand white grits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired;smoothed

156 147 158 143 154 155 157 169

Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash outside,worn Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallwhite grits,hardfired Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, red wash Hand-made;buffware,graygrits;hardfired,red slip, polished Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash outside,worn Hand-made,grayware,largewhite grits,hardfired,coarsegraysurface Buffware,largewhite andgraygrits,painted:dull red/brownto black

[184]

11.2 1.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 Surface III.4

PLATE 31

^^^^

(

)

^~~~~~~~~ 47

I

(-

)(

58

9

6

-

I/

3

f:

A

Jr 18

19

14

10

I

15 20

15 11

16

12

21 13 1

[185]

1-A I Sr

V

1 10

PLATE32

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2.

152 141

1.8 III.1

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

153 145 148 163 167 151 146 142 144 139 159 164 150 138

17. 18. 19.

136 161 160

Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed,brightredpaint Hand-made; red ware, gray core, small black and white grits, hard fired, impressed Hand-made,grayware,smallgrits, hardfired,graysurface Hand-made,buffware,hardfired,impressed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made,buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red paint Hand-made,red ware,smallgrits,hardfired,impressed Hand-made;red-buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,dull red paint Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired;smoothed,brownpaint Hand-made;buffware,small grits,hard-fired,smoothed Hand-made;red ware,very smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;grayware,mediumblackand white grit, hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired,buffsurface,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,mediumwhite grits,hardfired,red washedand painted Hand-made; buff ware, large black and white grits, hard fired, smoothed, impressed Hand-made;buffware,blackand white grits, mediumfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,buff-redwash Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,coarse

[186]

1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Surface 1.9

S*'

.i

I

?.T.

I

(C)

C-C

I V-WNAO

D r;

_;j;j .

.

._

.

_

.qf aN'

sss

,-

ou./ '

>,':.41'

==

Sb s'."s

e@

a;iA

I

_

O0

I _-

!

/

fI

(D

I

'I Co

00 00

00 0

PLATE33 No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

FieldNo.

Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi

Excavator'sFieldDescription

168 125 125c 125b 185 183 175 176

Hand-made;gray-buffware,white grits, hardfired,smoothedred surface Wheel-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,red slip Hand-made;grayware,white grits, hardfired Wheel-made;buffware,white grits,hardfired,red washed Leg of animalfigurine.Hand-made,graycore,smallgrits,hardfired Hand-made,buffware,strawcasts Serpentine,smoothed Serpentine,smoothed

190 189

Side scraper,brownflint, bluntedback Knife,gray-brownflint

208 194 195 192 193 186 187 -188

Canaaneanbladesegment,lustre Sickleblade,brownflint, lustre Sickleblade,lustreon both edges Bladesegment,darkbrownflint Bladesegment,light brownflint Serpentine,smoothed White limestone,smoothed Thin copperplaque,perforated Thin copperplaque,perforated

Provenience Surface 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5(?) III.5pit. III.surface

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

III.2 III.3 1.2

1.8 1.8 III.3 1.7 III.3

[188]

PLATE 33

9~~~

11

T?

7

5

-7 8

21

1 12

13

0 4

14

5 r

15

16

17

0

[189]

18

19

C

I 20

PLATE 34

No.

FieldNo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

4 6 7 9 8 12 24 1 2 3 5 10 11

Tell el-Mefaliq

Excavator'sFieldDescription Hand-made;buffware;smallgrits, soft fired;buff-graysurface,smoothed Hand-made;pink ware,largegrits;hardfired,smoothed Wheel marksinside;redgrittyware,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;redgrittyware,soft fired Hand-made;redgrittyware,hardfired,grayoutside/redinside,smoothed Hand-made;red grittywarewith verygrittygraycore;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,mediumgrits;hardfired;smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired,smoothed.Incisionon rim Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits;mediumfired;smoothed Hand-made;red ware,smallgrits;mediumfired;thin red wash, polished Hand-made;blackcore,small grits,hardfired,buff/redsurface,smoothed Hand-made;red grittyware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;redgrittyware,smallgrits,hardfired,smoothed

[190]

Provenience Surface 1.1 1.2 1.2 I.1 Surface 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Surface Surface Surface

?

I

I/ 0)

I 9

L_______. 1.,

_

I

I

A f 4

rp 4

1

IF5 11

1 I

15 lt? T15

I p 0

_~~~~~~~~~~

W

t

R

R w

., __

a

L

A

PLATE35

Tell el-Mefaliq

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

17 15 16 19 13 21 20 14 18

Hand-made;buffware,largegrits, hardfired,pink surface Hand-made;graycore,mediumgrits,hardfired,red surface Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, hardfired,yellowsurface;impresseddesign Hand-made;grittybuffware;rough,white grits on surface,hardfired Hand-made;red ware,verygritty,largegrits;graycore,hardfired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,soft fired,smoothed Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits,hardfired,red wash (?), smoothed Hand-made;buffware,hardfired,red wash Hand-made;buffware,smallgrits, mediumfired,red wash

Surface Surface Surface Surface 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Surface

Flint;brown,hanchetaxe;chipped,polishedcuttingedge, broken Pithos.Hand-made;red ware,mediumgrits,hardfired,smoothed EsdraelonWare. Wheel-made (?); (poor) gray-blackware, grits, hard fired, surfacehighlyburnished

-I.1-I.2 --

Not Illustrated 22 25 26

[192]

'K 0L

I4

I

I

I

I

E L

I I =

r. ,/I

!

I

/I

l|

0

PLATE36 No.

FieldNo.

1.

10

2.

6

3.

7

4.

2

5.

15

6.

17

7.

12

8.

11

9.

13

10.

14

11.

8

12.

9

13.

16

14.

3

15.

4

16.

5

17.

1

18.

18

Tell el-Mefaliq

FabricDescription Provenience Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto Surface 2 mm and fine straw casts. Thick core 5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown), surfaces10R 5/6 (Red)-6/6 (LightRed). Exteriorslipped,interiorplain Hand-made.Poorly levigatedday. White grit 2-3 mm, straw casts to 2 mm. Surface Core: gray, fabric 10R 6/4-6/6 (Pale Red). Slip: interior 10R 6/8 (Light Red), exterior5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Heavy concentrationof gray and white grit 2-4 mm. Core: 5YR 7/4 (Pink), surfaces:2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Slippedexterior? Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Heavy concentrationof white grit Surface 1-3 mm and occasionallystraw casts to 2 mm. Core:10R 5/4 (WeakRed)5/6 (Red), slip exteriorand over rim on interior10R 6/8 (LightRed)-5/8 (Red). Interiorand fabricas core Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto 2 mm, infrequentlyto 4 mm. Thick graycore towardsrim. Fabric10R 6/66/8 (LightRed), surfaces(slipped?)as fabric Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and gray grit sand-sizedto 2 mm, and fine straw casts.Thick gray core, fabricand interiorsurface10R 6/8 (LightRed), exteriormottled 10R 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Frequentwhite and gray grit sand-sizedto 3 mm, infrequentlyto 7 mm, occasionalfine straw casts. Core: as interior surface10R 5/3-5/4 (WeakRed), exteriorfiredblack Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Frequentwhite and gray grit 25 mm. Core: 7.5YR 7/4 (Pink). Interior surface plain 7.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), exteriorslipped (?) 2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. White grit sand-sizedto 2 mm. fabric 7.5YR 10R Thickgraycore, 8/45/6 (Red). Slippedinterior/exterior 7/4 (Pink) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigatedclay.Very frequentwhite and gray grit 3-7 mm and chaff casts.Core:7.5YR 6/4 (LightBrown), interiorfiredgray,exterior O1YR8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Surface Hand-made.Poorly levigated clay. White, gray and red grit 1-2 mm. Core: 5YR 7/4 (Pink) to 7/6 (ReddishYellow), interiorsurfaceas core, exterior slipped2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White andgraygrit 3-5 mm. Core: as surfaces 10R 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Slip exterior and over rim, interior plain Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. Occasionalwhite grit 1-3 mm, infrequentlyto 5 mm, straw and chaff casts. Thick gray core, fabric and interior/exteriorsurfaces10R 6/8 (LightRed) Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.White, grayand redgrit to 1 mm, infrequently Surface to 2 mm. Core: 10R 4/3 (Weak Red), fabric:10R 5/8 (Red), slip: interior/ exterior10R 5/6 (Red) Surface Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.Graygrit 1-2 mm and fine straw casts.Core: 5YR 8/4-7/4 (Pink),surfacesinterior/exterior5YR 7/4 (Pink) Surface Hand-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm, occasionalfine strawcasts.Core:7.5YR 7/4 (Pink), interior/exteriorsurfaces10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), tracesof 10R 4/6 (Red) wash (?) on exterior Surface Hand-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. White and gray grit to 2 mm. Core:7.5R 5/6-5/8 (Red), surfaces:10R 6/8 (LightRed) Surface White limestonedigging-stickweight [194]

PLATE 36

?

11

12

0

i; f

00000 0

0

00

r-w

\ 2

r--J

13

3

14

4

-

sfi

-

15

5

^ ixx]xnii":-' ~~~~II_

16

'*-j 3 6

I-

17

I

7

8

lof

~~~~~~~I

18

10 Hf-0

10

[195]

k-' -

I -4 5cm

10

PLATE37 No.

FieldNo.

1.

Si

2.

S2

3. 4.

S3 38

5.

63

6.

52

7.

51

8.

55

9.

58

10.

39

11.

53

12.

56

13.

43

14.

61

15.

62

16.

60

17.

49

18.

48

19.

64

20.

47

21.

46

22.

45

23.

59

24.

41

25.

40

Tell el-Mefaliq

FabricDescription

Provenience Surface

Sugarpot. No fielddescription Sugarpot. No fielddescription Sugarpot. No fielddescription

Surface Surface

Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. White grit 1-2 mm, occasionallyto 3 mm. Thick gray core "sandwiched" by 2/5YR 6/8 (Light Red) fabric.Thick slip interior/exterior10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalwhite and graygrit 1-2 mm. Fabric2.5YR6/6 (Light Red), interior/exteriorsurfacesslipped7/5YR 7/4 (Pink) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Infrequentwhite to 1 mm. Core:2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), thin below surfaces.Surfacesas core gray "sandwich"

Surface

Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Occasionalwhite grit to 1 mm, frequentstraw casts. Core and surfaces:5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow), exteriorrim fired(?) 10YR 8/2 (White) to 8/3 (VeryPale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm. Core:fabricand surfaces2.5YR 5/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit rarelyto 1 mm. Core:5YR 8/4 (Pink), interiorsurfacebetween 5YR 8/4 (Pink) and 5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow), exterior slippedwhite (no Munsell)with decorationin 2.5YR 5/8-4/6 (Red) paint Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. White grit sand-sized to 1 mm. Fabric:5YR 6/6 (Reddish Yellow), slippedinterior/exterior10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Thick, light gray core, fabricand interiorsurface2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) to 5/6 (Red), exteriorslipped (or fired) 10YR 8/2 (White).Traceof white on interior Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White and pink grit 1-2 mm. Thick blackcore with Int. surface2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), exteriorslipped (or fired) 2.5YR 5/6 (Red) "sandwich." 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm, occasionallyto 2 mm and fine straw casts. Fabric:2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), interiorsurfaceas fabricmottled to gray. Slipped white (no Munsell)on exteriorandover rim on interior Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit c. 1 mm. Core:5YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish Yellow), interiorsurface5YR 7/8 (ReddishYellow),exterior5YR 7/8-6/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Frequentwhite and gray grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Thick gray core,exteriorsurfacegrayas core (fired)interior2.5YR6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite sand-sizedgrit. Thin 10R 4/4 (Weak Red) core. Fabricand interiorsurface10R 6/8 (LightRed), exteriorsurfacemottledto 10R 4/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Infrequentsand-sizedto 1 mm white and gray grit, fine strawcasts.Thickcore 5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow) to 5/6 (YellowishRed), interior/exterior surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Coreand fabric:10R 4/8 (Red) to 2.5YR 4/8 (Red), slipped (?) 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White and graygrit to 1 mm. Core:5YR 6/6 (ReddishYellow). Slip interior/exterior2.5YR 5/6-5/8 (Red), slightly mottled at rim to 2.5YR 4/4 (Reddish Brown) Wheel-made. Moderatelywell levigated clay. Sand-sizedwhite grit, infrequentlight brown grit (ceramic?)to 3 mm. Fabricas surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigated clay. Occasionalwhite grit sand-sized to 1 mm. Fabric: 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Traces of white wash on exterior above carination.White, no Munsell,as MF 43 Wheel-made.Very well levigatedclay,no traceof temper.Fabric:7.5YR 8/4 (Pink). Mottledslip (streaky)interior/exterior2.5YR 5/8-4/8 (Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedday. Frequentsand-sizedwhite grit occasionallyto 1 mm. Core: 10R 4/8 (Red), interiorsurfacefired (?) gray,exteriorwhite (no Munsell,cf. MF 43) slip over grayof interiorsurface Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit. Core/fabric:5YR 7/6-6/6 (ReddishYellow), thickslip interior/exterior2.5YR 5/6 (Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Frequentwhite sand-sizedgrit 1-2 mm. Core:as interiorsurface 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red), exterior mottled (secondarily?)from color off interior surface through2/5YR 5/6 (Red) to black

Surface

[196]

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface

PLATE 37

V

K(13 13

14

/

15

16

L.

^

17

~ ~1'1

~

18

T

4

I

I

I

r

-

t

19

(

---I

) 20

2 21

5

23

6 22

lz~~

I 8

I

tk

f

*I 9

l/ I

e~~ l 1

24

10

7

44

_

' 25

12

[197]

PLATE 38

Tell el-Mefaliq

No.

FieldNo.

Excavator'sFieldDescription

Provenience

1.

22

Wheel-made. Well levigated clay. Sand-sizedwhite and occasionallygray grit. Thick gray core, interior/exteriorsurfaces2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed)

Surface

2.

19

Surface

3.

29

4.

34

5.

25

6.

26

7.

33

8.

27

9.

50

10.

31

11.

20

12. 13.

32 28

14.

21

15.

54

16.

23

17.

30

18.

24

19.

42

20.

44

21.

37

Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Sand-sizedwhite grit. Graycore with 2.5YR 5/8 (Red) "sandwich,"interior/exteriorsurfacesc. 10YR 5/1 (Gray) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit and fine straw casts.Fabricand interior/exteriorsurfaces2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), slightly mottled on interiorto 10R 5/4 (Weak Red) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White and gray sand-sizedto 1 mm, occasionallyto 2 mm. Core as surfaces5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Sand-sizedgrit and occasionalfine straw cast. Core:as interior surface10R 6/6-6/8 (LightRed), exteriorsurfacewhite (no Munsell) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay. Sand-sizedto 1 mm white and red grit. Thin, light graycore,fabricas surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Sand-sizedwhite grit, very frequentstrawcasts.Gray core,fabric2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) slippedinterior/exterioras fabric,exteriorfiredblackin places Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit. Thick gray core, fabric5YR 7/6-7/8 (ReddishYellow), interior/exteriorsurfaceseither mottledor coveredwith streakywash 2.5YR 5/2-4/2 (WeakRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedwhite grit. Core: 10R 5/8 (Red), thin gray "sandwich" below surfaces.Surfaceswhite (no Munsell)as MF 43 Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm, infrequentlyto 2 mm. Core:gray as surfaces.Possiblycoveredinterior/exteriorwith streakywash 10YR 7/3 (VeryPale Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Occasionalsand-sizedwhite grit. Core:2.5YR 5/6 (Red), interior surface mottled from core color through 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) to gray, exterior surface mottled 10YR 7/3 (VeryPale Brown) to 7/1 (LightGray) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White grit sand-sizedto 1 mm. Core:gray,surfacesfiredblack Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay. Occasionalwhite grit sand-sizedgrit. Fabric2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red), interior/exteriorslippedbut mottled2.5YR 4/4 (ReddishBrown) through2.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) to gray Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentsand-sizedto 1 mm white grit. Thin graycore, fabric as surfaces2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentwhite grit to 1 mm and fine straw casts.Core,fabric and surfaces2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Moderatelywell levigatedclay.Very frequentsand-sizedwhite and occasionallygray grit to 1 mm. Core: as surfaces2/5YR 6/8 (Light Red) and mottled (?) to 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) Wheel-made.Well levigated clay. Sand-sizedto 1 mm white grit, occasionalgray grit to 2 mm. Core as exterior surface,between 10R 5/8 (Red). Slip (?) on exteriorfired in places to 10R 6/4 (Pale Red) andon interiorto 5YR 7/6 (ReddishYellow) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.White sand-sizedto 1 mm grit. Core and interiorsurface2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed), exteriorsurface2.5YR 6/8 (LightRed) Wheel-made.Well levigatedclay.Infrequentstrawcasts and sand-sizedwhite grit. Thickblackcore "sandwiched"with 2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red) exterior slipped 2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red), interior mottledto gray Wheel-made. Very well levigated clay, no trace of temper. Fabric: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown).Good,shiny slip c. 2.5YR4/8 (Red) interior/exterior Wheel-made. Moderatelywell levigated clay. White and gray grit 1-2 mm. Thick gray core, surfaces2.5YR 6/6 (LightRed) mottledto 6/4 (LightReddishBrown) Three-leggedStone Bowl Lightgraystone White limestone White limestone Flint

22.

--

23. 24.

57 35

25. 26.

36 --

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

--

--

Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint

Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface

Surface

Surface Surface

Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface

[198]

PLATE 38

10

1 _ ^^-

11

\

2

1

1

17

7

3

I

18

13 8

4

oI 9

29 _I I

-

^J-a^

a

-

19 I

X

,

30

26

O 20

I..c

2CL

H

I SC";cm

2703

2

,

222731

23

24

,

,....-

F

I

_

K

25 28

[199]

32