2016-Braun-Strata ANNOTATED.pdf

From the desk of Eliot Braun: This article was just published and I’m pleased to make it available to the interested reader. However, for reasons not clear to me, a particular portion of the submitted article was redacted. As I believe it is important to correct some errors in the article to which it is a rejoinder, I’m taking the extraordinary step of annotating this version of my published article and adding the missing text. I suggest noting it as an addendum of a missing portion by the author. If it is cited, one may do so by using its formal citation in Strata, and then noting: with addendum by the author in an annotated version posted to Academia.edu. Basically the article wishes to make these major points. 1. Early Bronze 1 is a chrono-cultural designation, not merely a social paradigm. EB 1 is followed by EB 2. In late EB 1 some sites were basically egalitarian, while others probably had complex, hierarchical social systems, which likely were absolutely contemporary. 2. The Erani C styles of pottery are linked to others and represent a chronological and parochial phenomenon associated with central and southern EB 1 in advance but not the latest phases of EB 1. The article to which this is a rejoinder offers absolutely no reason to dispel that idea, which is based on detailed and well-documented research (Braun and van den Brink 1998). 3. The correlations between EB 1 and the Naqada cultures of Egypt are briefly discussed below in order to correct the major errors in the article by Paz and Gophna. 4. Following is the redacted text that was included in my original submission, and a copy of references in the event they are not in the published text: Part III: On South Levantine-Egyptian Correlations in the Early Bronze Age Gophna and Paz (2014: 20-21) claim to document an “Egyptian episode” for the region under consideration. Unfortunately, they have based their analysis on partial, and at times incorrect information and an improper understanding of the correlations between south Levantine and Egyptian chronologies. Quite contrary to what their article suggested, the presence of Erani C pottery does not indicate a date prior to Dynasty 0. Indeed, the presence of this pottery in tombs in Cemetery U at Abydos clearly places it within early phases of Dynasty 0 (Hartung 1993; Braun 2014b). Tomb U-j and U-k in the same cemetery, both of which had south Levantine imported pots, are of rulers of that very dynasty. Similarly, Gophna’s and Paz’ description of what they called “an Egyptian episode” suffers from misinformation and possibly hyperbole. The Egyptian and Egyptianized elements from the excavation at Lod is significant in that it documents a large number of serekhs on jars imported from Egypt (van den Brink and Braun 2002; Fig. 11). Additional evidence of such pottery (van den Brink et al. 2015) from the site indicates that the Egyptian and Egyptianized objects were found at different locations on the tell in several excavations, including one by Paz and colleague (Paz, Rosenberg and Nativ 2005). To what extent those finds constitute an “impressive” assemblage is open to interpretation, and not necessarily evidence of an Egyptian settlement at the site, as suggested. The Egyptian and Egyptianized pottery recovered and published by van den Brink and Braun (2001) represents far less than 1% of a massive quantity of EB 1 pottery found in that excavation. It need not imply anything more than trade, although, together with finds of similar types at the site, it could suggest there was an enclave of Egyptians within a primarily local population. It does not, however, argue for the inclusion of the site within a putative Egyptian colony (Braun 2014a; 2016). Three vessels from caves in Ramla (Avrutis 2012: 116-118) cited by Gophna and Paz are simply evidence of the distribution of this special pottery. They do not constitute evidence corroborating the existence of an Egyptian colony including that site. Neither does the Egyptian pottery from Azor offer significant evidence for a settlement of Nilotic peoples there. Egyptian imports do not make up the bulk of vessels from the EB 1 burial caves, while many more from the tombs excavated by Ben-Tor (1975) were of what I have termed TFN Ware (Braun 2012) and obviously imported from more northerly regions of the southern Levant. They, and the Egyptian imports are more likely to be evidence of trade and the economic status of those interring their dead, which allowed for acquiring imported objects. In another instance Gophna and Paz claim that Egyptian pottery was found in the Qiryah Quarter of Tel Aviv, in excavations directed by ECM van den Brink and myself. Unfortunately, that claim is totally unfounded as no such pottery was recovered from the six, poorly preserved late EB 1 tombs excavated. Elsewhere, I have discussed (Braun 2014; 2016) sites with significant quantities of Egyptian imports that may have been Egyptian settlements and/or enclaves of Egyptians within south Levantine communities. All those sites are, however, beyond the borders of Gophna’s and Paz’ study area, and thus are not relevant to the present discussion. The reader is invited to peruse the evidence I offer on the subject, which suggests a far more complicated pattern of distribution of Egyptian and Egyptianized artifacts than that presented by Gophna and Paz, and to consider its implications. Eliot Braun: Har Adar, Israel 16/4/2017 REFERENCES Albright, W.F. 1926. The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Studies. Albright, W.F.1935 Presidential Address: Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society XV: 193-234. Adams, M., Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2014. The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo. American Journal of Archaeology 118/2:285-305. Amiran, R. 1963. The Ancient Pottery of Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute (Hebrew). Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada. Amiran, R. 1970. The Beginnings of Urbanization in Canaan. Pp. 83-100 in J. A. Sanders, ed. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Amiran, R. 1974. An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 4-12. Amiran, R. 1976. The Narmer Jar Fragment from Arad: An Addendum. Israel Exploration Journal 26: 45-46. Amiran, R. and Ilan, O. 1996. Early Arad II. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Avrutis, V.W. 2012. Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. Haifa: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. Bar, S. 2010. Early Bronze Age I “Umm Hammad Ware”: A study in regionalism’. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 142/2:82–94. Ben-Tor, A. 1975. Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor, 1971. Qedem 1:1-54. Brandl, B. 1989. Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani. Pp. 357-388 in P. de Miroschedji, ed. L'urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles [Actes du Colloque d'Emmaüs: 20-24 octobre 1986] (British Archaeological Reports International Series 527{ii}, Oxford: British Braun, E. 1985-6. Of Megarons and Ovals: New Aspects of Late Prehistory in Israel. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society: 17-26. Braun, E. 1989. The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is There a Missing Link? Pp. 7-28 in P. de Miroschedji, ed. L'urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles [Actes du Colloque d'Emmaüs: 20-24 octobre 1986] (British Archaeological Reports International Series 527{i}, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Braun, E. 1996. Cultural Diversity and Change in the Early Bronze I of Israel and Jordan: Towards an Understanding of the Chronological Progression and Patterns of Regionalism in Early Bronze Society. Ph. D. Thesis: Tel Aviv University. https://www.academia.edu/6071150/16_Braun_Ph_D_Refs_ (last accessed 8/1-16). Braun, E. 2000. Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze I: Part of the Missing Link. Pp. 113-128 in G. Philip and D. Baird, eds. Breaking with the Past: Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Braun, E. 2004. Egypt and the Southern Levant: Shifting Patterns of Relationships during Dynasty 0. Pp. 507-17 in Stan HENDRICKX; Renée F. FRIEDMAN, Krzysztof M. CIAŁOWICZ, Marek CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Krakow, 28th August - 1st September 2002. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138. Leuven: Peeters. Braun, E. 2008. Palmahim Quarry. Pp. 1991-1993 in E. Stern, H. Geva and A. Paris, eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary volume. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and the Biblical Archaeology Society. Braun, E. 2009. Social Development and Continuity in Early Bronze Age I of the Southern Levant: Reflections on Evidence for Different Modes of Ceramic Production. Pp. 233-252 in S. A. Rosen and V. Roux (eds.) Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant (Mémories et travaux du Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem: Archéologie et Sciences de l'Antiquité et du Moyen Âge 9). Paris: De Brocard. Braun, E. 2011a. Of Pots and Towns: Old and New Perspectives on EB I of the Southern Levant. Pp. 265-280 in (ed.) M. Chesson. Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, Indiana. Braun, E. 2011b. South Levantine Early Bronze Age Chronological Correlations with Egypt in Light of the Narmer Serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New Interpretations. Pp. 975-1001 in (eds.) Renee F. Friedman and Peter N. Fiske. Egypt at Its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”. Leuven: Peeters. Braun, E. 2011c. Early Interaction between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant. Pp. 106-122 in (ed.) E. Teeter, Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Braun, E. 2012. On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic "Wares" and Styles’. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144/1:5-32. Braun, E. 2012-2013. A Note on Relations between the Southern Levant and Egypt during Early Dynasty 0. Egypt and the Levant XXII-XXIII: 339-348. Braun, E. 2014a. Reflections on the context of a late Dynasty 0 Egyptian Colony in the Southern Levant: interpreting some evidence of Nilotic material culture at select sites in the Southern Levant (ca. 3150 BCE – ca. 2950 BCE ). Pp. 3755 in A. Mączyńska (ed.) The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. Proceedings of the conference held in the Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznań, Poland, 21-22 June 2013 (Studies in African Archaeology Vol. 13). Poznań: Archaeological Museum. Braun, E. 2014b. Observations on Contacts between the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant in Late Prehistory Prior to Dynasty 0. Pp. 223-234 in M.A. Jucha, J. Debowska-Ludwin and P. Kolodziejczyk (eds.) Aegyptus Est Imago Caeli: Studies Presented to Krzysztof M. Cialowicz on His 60th Birthday. Krakow: Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Braun, E. 2016. Little Pot Who Made Thee, Dost Thou Know Who Made Thee? Pp. 69-84 in (eds.) B. Bader, C.M. Knoblauch and E.C. Köhler. Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th-18th of May, 2012 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 245. Leuven, Paris, Bristol CT: Peeters. Braun, E. Forthcoming. Early Bronze I (ca 3,700-3,000), Chapter 3 in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Neolithic through the Hellenistic Period, S. Gitin, editor. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Israel Antiquities Authority, and American Schools of Oriental Research. Braun, E. 2016. Little Pot Who Made Thee? Dost Thou Know Who Made Thee? 2016. Pp. 69-84 in B. Bader, C. Knoblauch and E.C. Köhler (eds.), Vienna 2. Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th-18th May 2012 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 245), Leuven. Braun, E. and Milevski, I. 1993. Baja Khorvat `Illin: Una aldea del Bronce Antiguo cerda de Beth Shemesh. Revista de arqueologia 142: 8-15. Braun, E. and Roux, V. 2013. The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”. Paléorient 39/1:15-22. Braun, E. and van den Brink, E. C. M. 1998. Some Comments on the Late EB I Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j at Umm el Ga`ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan. Egypt and the Levant VII: 71-94. Braun, E., van den Brink, E. C. M., Regev, J, Boaretto, E. and Bar, S. 2013. The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”. Paléorient 39/1:1522. Czarnowicz, M. and Braun E. Forthcoming. Some Remarks on the Stratigraphic Attribution of the Pillar Building in Area D at Tel Erani. Chapter in an excavation report on the first three seasons at Tel Erani. Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Droop, J.P. 1935. VIII: Pottery of the Chalcolithic and Neolithic Levels, 1935. Pp. 169-173 and Plates XXXVIII, XLXLII, XLIV-XLVI and XL in J. Garstang, J. P. Droop and J. Crowfoot, joint authors. Jericho: City and Necropolis: Fifth Report. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22:169-175. Esse, D.L. 1984. A Chronological Mirage: Reflections on Early Bronze IC in Palestine. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43:317-330. Gal, Z. and Kochavi, M. 2000. Chapter 7--Area B: Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs. Pp. 59-88 in M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin eds. Aphek-Antipatris I--Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972-1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Golani, A. 1999. New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture and the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan. Levant 31:123-133. Golani, A. 2008 Eshta’ol. Hadashot Arkheologiyot. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=955&mag_id=114 (last accessed 9/2/16. Gophna, R. 1974. The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel During the Early Bronze Age. Ph. D. thesis: Tel Aviv University (Hebrew with English summary). Gophna, R. 1996. Excavations at Tel Dalit: An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot. Gophna, R. and Paz, Y. 2014. From Village to Town to Village Again: Settlement Dynamics in the Central Coastal Plain and Adjacent Shephela from the Late Early Bronze Age I to Early Bronze Age III. Strata 32:13-36. Hartung, U. 1993. III: Importkeramik aus Grab U-j. Pp. 49-55 in G. Dreyer, ed. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Köningsfriedhof 5./6. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archáologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 49: 48-62. Hartung, U. 1998. Importkeramik. Pp. 92-107 in Dreyer, G. Umm el-Qaab I: das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hartung, U. 1998. Importkeramik. Pp. 92-107 in Dreyer, G. Umm el-Qaab I: das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hendrickx, S. 2011. Sequence Dating and Predynastic Chronology. Pp. in E. Teeter (Ed.) Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Oriental Museum Publications 33). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hendrickx, S. 2014. The Emergence of the Egyptian State. Pp. 259-278 in C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.). The Cambridge World Prehistory, Vol. 1. Cambridge U. Press: Cambridge. Hendrickx, S. and Bavay, L. 2002. The Relative Chronological Position of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Tombs with Objects Imported from the Near East and the Nature of Interregional Contacts. Pp. 58-80 in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy. Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London, New York: Leicester University Press. Kempinski, A. and Gilead, I. 1991. New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985-1988 Seasons. Tel Aviv 18:164-192. Kenyon, K.M.1960. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: Praeger. 1970 Archaeology in the Holy Land (Third Edition). New York: Praeger. Lapp, P. 1970. Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 101-131 in J. A. Sanders, ed. Near Eastern Archaeology in the 20th Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. Lass, E.H.E. 2000. Ḥorbat Tittora, the Eastern Slope. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20:, 99 and 72*–73* (Hebrew and English). Mazar, A. and de Miroschedji, P. 1996. Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze Culture of Southern Israel. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 302:1-40. Mellaart, J. 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut: Khayata. Milevski, I and Baumgarten, Y. 2008. Between Lachish and Tel Erani: Horvat Ptora, A New Late Prehistoric Site in the Southern Levant. Pp. 609-624 in Eds. J. M. Córdoba, Ma. Molist, Ma. Carmen Pérez, I. Rubio and S. Martínez. Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Madrid, April 3-8 2006 (Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Arqueología del Oriente Próximo Antiguo VOL. II. Madrid: Centro Superior de Estudios sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto. de Miroschedji, P. 1971. L'époque Pré-Urbaine en Palestine (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 13). Paris: Gabalda et Cie. de Miroschedji, P. 1988. Yarmouth I. Paris: Edition recherche sur les civilisations. de Miroschedji, P. 1999. Yarmuth: The Dawn of City-States in Southern Canaan. Near Eastern Archaeology 62/1: 2-19. de Miroschedji, P. 2011-2012. Les villes de Palestine de l’âge du Bronze ancient à l’âge du Fer dans leur context Procheoriental. Cahier des Thèmes transversaux ArScAn vol. XI. http://www.mae.u-paris10.fr/arscan/IMG/pdf/Cahier_des_Themes_XI_TH_8_deMiroschedji.pdf last accessed 13/3/2014. Oxcal 2016 (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html) last accessed 10/2/16. Paz, Y. and Nativ, A. 2013. Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a Post-Ghassulian Entity. Paléorient 39/1: 83-93. Paz, Y. and Paz, S. 2007. Tel Bareqet: Excavations at a Fortified Urban Settlement of the Early Bronze Age 2 in the Central Coastal Plain. Qadmoniot 40/134: 82-88 (Hebrew). Paz, Y., Rosenberg, D. and Nativ, A. 2005. Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian Presence in the Early Bronze Age. Salvage Excavation Reports 2: 114-158. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R. Braun, E, Greenhut, Z. and Boaretto, E. 2012. Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54,3-4:525-566. Roux, V. and Courty, M-A. 1997. Les bols élaborés au tour d’Abu Hamid: rupture technique au 4 e millénaire avant J.C. dans le Levant-Sud. Paléorient 23/1:25-43. Roux, V. Courty, M-A., Dollfus, G. and Lovell, J.L. 2011. A Techno-Petrographic Approach for Defining cultural Phases and Communities: Explaining the Variability of Abu Hamid (Jordan Valley) Early 5th Millennium cal. BC Ceramic Assemblage. Pp. 114-132 in (eds.) J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan. Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition (CBRL Levant Supplementary monograph series Vol. 9). Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books. Roux, V., van den Brink, E.C.M. and Shalev, S. 2013. Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi’in “Deep Deposits” Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study. Paléorient 39/1:63-81. van den Brink, E.C. M. and Braun, E. 2002. Wine Jars with Serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Vallée du Nil Contrôlée, but for Whom? Pp. 167-192 in E. C. M. van den Brink and E. Yannai, eds. In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Ramot: Tel Aviv. Van den Brink, E.C.M., Horwitz, L.K., Kool, R., Liphschitz, N. Mienis, H.K. and Zvenovich, V. 2015. Excavations at Tel Lod: Remains from the Pottery Neolithic A, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age I, Middle Bronze Age I and Byzantine Periods. ‘Atiqot 82:141-218. Wengrow, D. 2006. The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Capetown, Singapore and Sao Paulo: Cabridge University Press. Wright, G.E. 1936. The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools or Oriental Research 63:12-21. Wright, G.E. 1937. The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Wright, G.E. 1958. The Problem of the Transition Between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz-Israel V: 37*-45*. Wright, G.E. 1971. The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic through the Middle Bronze Age. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91:276-293. Yeivin, S. 1961. First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel “Gat” (Tell Sheykh `Ahmed el-`Areyny): Seasons 1956-1958. Jerusalem: The Gat Expedition. Yekutieli, Y. 1998. The Pottery Assemblage of Level C of the Early Bronze Age IB 1 from Area DII at Tel Erani. Beersheva XV: *57-*78 (Hebrew). Yekutieli, Y. 2000. Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan. Pp. 129-152 in G. Philip and D. Baird (eds.) Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Yekutieli, Y. 2006. The Ceramics of Tel 'Erani, Layer C. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 22:225-242. STRATA Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Volume 34 2016 The Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2nd loor, Supreme House 300 Regents Park Road London N3 2JX The full texts of articles within Strata are available online through Academic Search Premier (EBSCO). This periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database®, published by the American Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago IL 60606, Email: atla@atla.com; website: www.atla.com Cover: Beth Alpha synagogue mosaic, NASA image © 2016 The Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 2nd loor, Supreme House 300 Regents Park Road London N3 2JX ISSN Series 2042–7867 (Print) Typeset by DMilson, Switzerland Printed and bound in Great Britain by 4word Page & Print Production Ltd. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Editor: David Milson Reviews Editor: Sandra Jacobs Editorial Advisory Board: Rupert Chapman, Shimon Dar, Yossi Garinkel, Shimon Gibson, Martin Goodman, Sean Kingsley, Amos Kloner, David Milson, Rachael Sparks Please send correspondence and books for review to: The Secretary The Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 2nd loor, Supreme House 300 Regents Park Road London N3 2JX UK Please format material according to the ‘Notes for Contributors’ found at the back of this volume and submit articles to the editor electronically at: editor@aias.org.uk. Book reviews should be sent to the book reviews editor at strata.reviews@aias.org.uk Strata is published annually. To subscribe, please consult the Society’s website at www.aias.org.uk or use the form at the back of this volume. The Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society HONORARY OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS Honorary Chair Prof. Tessa Rajak Vice-President Prof. Martin Goodman, FBA Mr Mike Sommer Prof. H. G. M. Williamson, DD, FBA Vice-President (Israel) Prof. Amihai Mazar Prof. Ze’ev Weiss Hon. Secretary Dr Nick Slope† Hon. Treasurer Dr Paul Newham Committee Mrs. Barbara Barnett Prof. George Brooke Dr. Rupert Chapman III Dr. Irving Finkel Prof. Shimon Gibson Prof. Martin Goodman Dr. Sandra Jacobs Dr. Sean Kingsley Dr. Mark Merrony Dr. David Milson Mr. Anthony Rabin Dr. Stephen Rosenberg Dr. Rachael Sparks Dr. Guy Steibel Executive Secretary Mrs. Sheila Ford Contents Editorial 5 in MEMoriaM Nick Slope 9 Katharina StrEit The 6th Millennium Cal. BCE Wadi Rabah Culture: Further Excavations at Ein el-Jarba in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (2015–2016) 13 itaMar WEiSSbEin, YoSEf GarfinKEl, MichaEl G. haSEl and Martin G. KlinGbEil Goddesses from Canaanite Lachish 41 Jan GunnEWEG and Marta balla The Provenience of 7th–6th Century BCE Cult Vessels from the Iron Age II Fortress at ‘En Hazeva using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) 57 EGon h.E. laSS Soil Flotation from the Persian Period at Ashkelon, Israel 73 YotaM tEppEr, Jonathan david and MatthEW J. adaMS The Roman VIth Legion Ferrata at Legio (el-Lajjun), Israel: Preliminary Report of the 2013 Excavation 91 tali EricKSon-Gini, dov nahliEli and robErt Kool Mezad Zohar: A Medieval Fort Near the Dead Sea 125 robErt Kool The Coins from the Medieval Fortress at Mezad Zohar 151 orit ShaMir and naaMa SuKEniK 13th Century CE Textiles from Mezad Zohar 155 YoSEf GarfinKEl The Decauville Light Train at Lachish (1933–1938) 165 Eliot braun Observations on the South Levantine EB1 and the Erani C Horizon: A Rejoinder to Gophna and Paz 191 Book Reviews 213 Books Received 245 Lecture Summaries 247 Reports from Jerusalem 251 Student Grant Reports 259 Notes for Contributors 261 7 Book Reviews 8 Claire Clivaz, Andrew Gregory and David Hamidović (eds.), Digital Humanities in Biblical, Early Jewish and Early Christian Studies. (James Aitken) 209 Erin Darby, Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual. (Josef Mario Briffa) 212 Hanan Eshel† (Shani Tzoref and Barnea Levi Selavan, eds.), Exploring the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeology and Literature of the Qumran Caves. (George J. Brooke) 214 Eric C. Lapp, Sepphoris II: The Clay Oil Lamps of Ancient Sepphoris: Light Use and Regional Interactions. (Shimon Dar) 216 David M. Jacobson, Nikos Kokkinos (eds.), Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BCE - 135 CE. Papers Presented at the International Conference Hosted by Spink, 13th - 14th September 2010. (Yoav Farhi) 217 Reinhard G. Kratz, Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah. (Lester L. Grabbe) 221 Jacobson, David M., Antioch and Jerusalem: The Seleucids and Maccabees in Coins. (David F. Graf) 224 David T. Sugimoto, ed., Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite. (Sandra Jacobs) 226 Gil Gambash, Rome and Provincial Resistance. (Tessa Rajak) 231 Astrid Swenson and Peter Mandler (eds.), From Plunder to Preservation: Britain and the Heritage of Empire, c.1800–1940. (Michael Sommer) 233 Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues - Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. (Joan Taylor) 236 Strata: bullEtin of thE anGlo-iSraEl archaEolocial SociEtY 2016 voluME 34 Observations on the South Levantine EB1 and the Erani C Horizon: A Rejoinder to Gophna and Paz* Eliot braun This paper presents some observations and new evidence on the need to develop a fuller periodization for the Early Bronze Age 1 (EB1). Recent data indicate that this period lasted for up to eight centuries. Therefore, dividing 800 years into two-parts (EB1A and EB1B) is clearly insuficient. Pottery styles of the Erani C horizon may be used as a heuristic, chronocultural model for recognizing that at least one additional phase of EB1 is present in the south-central region of the southern Levant. Introduction In a recent paper, Gophna1 and Paz (2014) discussed the chronology of the Early Bronze Age settlements of the central Israel coastal plain, the Shephela. They treated the Early Bronze Age 1 (EB1) as if it were a short period, which they divided into earlier and later sub-periods called EB1A and EB1B respectively. Their paper contributes to the understanding of intensive human activity in the period, in that they took a regional approach to major developments (Fig. 1), yet their data derive from a select group of sites that do not accurately relect all of the settlement patterns in the region. For example, no mention is made of the earliest EB1 occupations at Modi’in (van den Brink 2013; Roux, van den Brink 201 and Shalev 2013), Yesodot (Paz and Nativ 2013), the major fortiied settlement at Tel Aphek (Gal and Kochavi 2000) nor the large village at Palmahim Quarry (Braun 1985–86; 2003; 2008). Furthermore, their periodization does not take account of at least seven centuries of complex development, and they contest the chrono-cultural, regionally-based paradigm recognizing the Erani C horizon irst presented by the author and van den Brink in 1998. The intention here is not to present an entirely new chrono-cultural paradigm for the EB1; that must await another occasion (Braun forthcoming). Rather, it is to focus on the relative dating of the pottery that has lent its name to a developed, but not very late phase of the EB1 that is often called the Erani C horizon. Gophna and Paz try to refute the Erani C horizon as a regional, chronological construct. Yet, there is convincing evidence of its existence, and this paper begins with the data 191 Eliot braun Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text. presented by Gophna and Paz. The discussion here will offer new data showing that horizon as a regional and chronological episode within a lengthy EB1, and will clarify the correlations between the late southern Levantine EB1 and Egypt from the archaeological record. 192 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr The Erani C Paradigm for Periodization, Revisited Terminology The abbreviations EB1, EB2 and EB3 are used to represent the period between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age 2. I eschew alternate designations, such as EBI, EBII and EBIII or variants thereof, except when citing others’ and my earlier works, because they utilize the same style for both letters and numbers, often causing confusion. I further eschew the use of the term ‘Canaanite’ because it is appropriate only for the 2nd and 1st millennia, and in any case suggests unwarranted ethnic associations that are not pertinent to the Early Bronze Age. The Use of Pottery to ‘Deine’ a Time Period Pottery has been used to deine the chronology and periodization of late prehistoric cultures for over a century. Such periods or ‘cultures’ are heuristic devices useful for describing sets of material culture (Petrie 1891) that form recognizable chronological and spatial manifestations in the archaeological record. Such periods are invaluable concepts for interpretation. However, they also impose severe limitations because they do not recognize other signiicant aspects of human activity that are equally important.2 For instance, such periodization does not inherently convey information on human social organization (for more detail, cf. Braun et al. 2013: 24). Absolute Chronology of the EB1 The EB1 covers approximately the latter three quarters of the 4th millennium, roughly from ca. 3800 BCE to ca. 3000 BCE (Braun et al. 2013; Braun and Roux 2013). This period includes a Late Chalcolithic (LC) to EB1 transition (LC–EB1), roughly dated ca. 3800 BCE to ca. 3500 BCE, for which there is a growing body of evidence (Roux, van den Brink and Shalev 2013; van den Brink 2013), particularly if the earliest manifestation of the EB1 is considered (Braun forthcoming). The period containing the LC–EB1 horizon and a more traditionally recognized EB1 therefore represent between seven and eight centuries of human activity and development in the southern Levant. The Erani C Horizon This horizon is associated with a number of ceramic styles that are often found together (Fig. 2). They mark a chrono-cultural horizon of a certain duration, best represented in three successive strata at Horvat Ptora (Milevski and Baumgarten 2008). These styles have not yet been found associated within a full EB1 sequence, therefore its beginning is hard to deine. Nonetheless, it probably post-dates most of the Afridar (Ashqelon) sites (Braun and Gophna 2004) and the occupation of Site 193 Eliot braun Fig. 2. Examples of the Erani C styles of pottery. Reproduced from Braun 2012: Fig. 4. H in Wady Ghazzeh (Macdonald 1932). Correlations with Egyptian chronology suggest a starting date within the last quarter of the 4th millennium BCE. There are no reliable radiocarbon dates for occupations of this period, but Yekutieli dates it to the EB1b2 (2000; personal communication). Pottery styles now associated with the Erani C horizon were irst recognized in a relatively late EB1 level (Level C) at Tel Erani, which was excavated by Kempinski and Gilead (1991). The pottery associated with this level included a number of distinctive shapes and decorations, that were different from those of both earlier and later EB1 occupation levels (Braun 2012). Similar pottery has been found elsewhere, dispersed within a region that seems to be primarily located west of the Jordan River in south-central Israel. Considerable quantities were 194 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr Fig. 3 Vessels of the Erani C styles, all of approximately the same size. 1. Small open vessel with handle(s) decorated with incisions, from Level III (the earliest) in an EB1 tomb at Azor. After Ben-Tor 1975: Fig. 6: 3. 2. Small spouted jar with triple-stranded handle and thin, decorative coil around spout, from Ai (et-Tell). After Marquet-Krause 1948: Pl. LXVII: 1.912. 3. Small two handled jar with double line of rope-like decoration, possibly in imitation of the Erani C style of incised decoration, from Level III (the earliest) in an EB1 tomb at Azor. After Ben-Tor 1975: Fig. 9: 13. Fig. 4: Sherds of Erani C styles, in ‘installation C’ deposits representing a postChalcolithic to Early Bronze Age utilization of the cave in its upper reaches (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: 55–56; Fig 74). Nos. 1–4 are after Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 74: 19, 21, 30 and 22, respectively. found at Jericho (Fig. 3: 1–3,6) and there is evidence for it at Tell en-Nasbeh, Ai (et-Tell; Fig. 3: 2), Nahal Mishmar (Fig. 3: 3), Azor (Fig. 4), the environs of Tel Yarmuth, possibly Eshtaol (Golani 2008),3 Hartuv (Fig. 3: 5), Ptora (Fig. 5: 3), Amaziya (personal observation), Ashqelon-Afridar (Gophna 1974: Figs. 31: 11, 32: 4), Khirbet Ras Abu Daliyeh/Tel Dalit (Gophna 1974: Fig. 30: 9), and Arad (Braun 2011b; Braun 2012). If these examples were in situ, then the pottery may indicate a chrono-cultural horizon. 195 Eliot braun Fig. 5. Storage jars of an Erani C style, of red vertical stripes painted over chalky white slip, with deeply indented ledge handles and short segments of rope-like decoration on their upper bodies. 1. From Abydos Tomb U-j. After Hartung 1998: Abb. 61: 7/50; 2. From Abydos Tomb U-j. After Hartung 1998: Abb. 70: 11/17; 3. From Horvat Ptora. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Photo by the author. The inclusion of vessels of the Erani C styles in relatively early tombs at the Proto-Dynastic (Dynasty 0) Cemetery U at Abydos conirms the relatively early date of this pottery. This evidence also indicates that there were signiicant contacts between the Nile Valley and the southern Levant at this time. While there is very little corresponding evidence of Egyptian imports into the southern Levant, it seems likely that royal Egyptian interest in its neighbor beyond Sinai was sparked in this period. The Context of Nomenclature In order to understand why the simple periodization of the EB1 into an early and a late phase is so problematic, it is necessary to briefly discuss the origins 196 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr of the prevailing Early Bronze Age nomenclature (Albright 1926; 1935). The first scholar to popularize the term EB I was George Ernest Wright (1936; 1937), who originally suggested that Gray Burnished Ware (or GBW), what is known today as an early type of EB1 pottery, should be identified with the Late Chalcolithic (LC) instead4. Some twenty years later however, Wright (1958; 1971) changed his opinion and placed GBW within a tripartite periodization scheme that recognized sub-periods that progressed chronologically, as EB1a, EB1b, and EB1c respectively. Kenyon (1960; 1970) too introduced another terminology that recognized three chronologically overlapping classes of pottery, which were partially related to definable regions and were purportedly associated with ethnicities. She labeled them Proto-Urban A (PUA),5 ProtoUrban B (PUB) and Proto-Urban C (PUC), and for a time they were preferred by some scholars (e.g. de Miroschedji 1971;6 Ben-Tor 1975). Yet, Wright’s terminology rapidly regained popularity and remains favored. In 1984, Esse published evidence suggesting that Wright’s EB1c was an ephemeral phase. Most scholars adopted the more simplified scheme, EB1a and EB1b for the period’s chronological subdivisions, which they generally associated with specific ceramic types. As long as EB1 was believed to have covered around 300 years, or less, this simplistic division was satisfactory (e.g. Mellaart 1966: 45–47; Lapp 1970: 102–105). Yet, in 2000, Yekutieli presented a detailed periodization for the southwest region, recognizing a regional sequence for what he called ‘southwestern Canaan’.7 This sequence has two sub-periods, early and late, each being further sub-divided into early and later phases: EB1a1, EB1a2, EB1b1, and EB1b2 respectively. However, this periodization is not directly applicable to other areas in the southern Levant. Indeed, local sequences in some regions might provide evidence for further local periodization schemes. Regionalism in the EB1 Signiicant variations between the ceramics found at sites in different areas of the southern Levant exist, although these have not always igured prominently. Kenyon’s Proto-Urban A–C paradigm recognized those differences, though only peripherally. Her observations were of limited use in determining chronology, as they were based only on speciic types of pottery from tomb assemblages, which represent chronological ranges of unknown duration and simple patterns of distribution. In Amiran’s (1963; 1969) seminal work on early pottery cultures of the southern Levant, a north-south bifurcation in the EB1 was recognized, without chronological periodization, although she did consider aspects of absolute chronology in a series of later studies, generally in relation to correlations with Egypt (e.g. Amiran 1970; 1974; 1976). 197 Eliot braun Gophna and Paz’s (2014: 14) criticism of the Erani C horizon chronological paradigm states: One view suggests the Erani-C pottery is the earliest of the EBI occupations, as indicated by its associations with Proto-Dynastic Egyptian sites (Braun and van den Brink 1998). However, the sporadic presence of sherds of this style in ceramic assemblages of the study region cannot clearly testify to late EBI sub-phasing.8 Sporadic indications of the earliest recognizable post-early EBI settlement system within our study area are marked by the presence of few ceramic vessel forms of Erani-C pottery in a burial cave at Azor (Ben-Tor 1975: Fig. 6.3, 9.13; Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 74: 19, 22, 30), at Tel Dalit, Stratum 5 (Gophna 1974: Pl. 30, no. 9), at Giv’at Tittora Cave 5 (Lass 2000; in appendix) and at Horbat Hamim, a cave context near Modi’in (van den Brink, in press). This quotation is an excellent example of the confusion and lack of precision inherent in a simplistic EB1a/EB1b periodization. The key word in the critique of the Erani C horizon is ‘sporadic,’ which indicates that some limited evidence of Erani C pottery has been found at a number of sites. The presence of sherds, which make up the bulk of Erani C inds (rather than complete, or nearly complete vessels), is not suficient evidence for dating, especially when there is ample evidence for post-depositional processes at virtually every site, resulting in residual and intrusive objects being found in non-primary contexts. Caves, especially those used for burials, tend to be re-used over time and undergo limited natural depositional processes, and their contents thus cover long periods of time, which may be determined by the pottery found there. Accordingly, the presence of Erani C styles of pottery in caves noted by Gophna and Paz suggests either that the objects were placed within them during the period when the Erani C styles were in use, or that the objects were already heirlooms when placed there. Notably, the local and Egyptian pottery in a cave tomb excavated by Ben-Tor in 1975 is, with few exceptions, easily dated to late EB1/Naqada IIIB–C. The exceptions Gophna and Paz noted are only two small vessels, from Level III, the earliest deposit in the cave. Of those two, only one (Fig. 3: 1) is deinitively of an Erani C style, while the other (Fig. 3: 3) seems to be similar to the Erani C style although unusual and not a deinitive example. It has two parallel bands of ropelike decoration that may be considered as imitating bands of oblique incisions found on bona ide examples of one of the Erani C styles (cf. Figs. 2: 6, 7, 4: 1). These Azor caves were associated with many successive burial episodes that included purposeful illing. This suggests that vessels in Level III potentially belonged to the earliest use of the cave, for they would have been buried in the irst episode of illing. Thus, the presence of one or even both of these vessels is not evidence against a chronological paradigm for Erani C pottery. At most, it may 198 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr extend the span of its latest phase to the beginnings of late EB1, which is marked by the presence of other pottery types in the same level. Evidence for Erani C style pottery has been found in another cave, a deposit in a tomb excavated by Perrot and Ladiray (1980: Fig. 74: 19–22, 30), where it was associated with an area of post-Chalcolithic utilization called ‘Installation C’. These were a few small fragments of vessels (Fig. 3) within an assemblage of sherds that included early EB1 types, such as pithoi with pie-crust type decoration on their rims (Braun 2000). This context does not help date Erani C style sherds to the late EB1. Corroborative evidence from Horvat Ptora exists (Milevski and Baumgarten 2008), where three occupational phases of the Erani C horizon were excavated in an extremely comprehensive and large-scale excavation. A storage jar from the site is virtually identical to, albeit larger than jars found in Tomb U-j in the protodynastic Cemetery U at Abydos (Braun 2012–2013) (Fig. 5). This Egyptian tomb was constructed early in Dynasty 0 (Hartung 1993; 1998; Hendrickx and Bavay 2002) or Naqada IIIA1. This date is signiicantly earlier than late EB1 (correlated with the Naqada IIIB–C phases). Notably, neither late EB1 types nor contemporary Egyptian (Naqada IIIB–C) imports were found at the site. Additional corroboration for the relative chronology of these styles comes from renewed excavations at Tel Erani by Jagiellonian University and Ben Gurion University in Yeivin’s Area D (now labeled ‘Area D3 Higher’). Local late EB1 types and considerable quantities of Egyptian imports dated to Naqada IIIB–C (Brandl 1989) have been found in several occupation levels.9 These are demonstrably later than styles from the nearby Level C, after which the Erani C horizon was named (Kempinski and Gilead 1991). The author participated in those excavations, and other than a few minuscule sherds of Erani C style that were clearly residual, the late EB1 strata were virtually devoid of Erani C pottery (Czarnowicz and Braun forthcoming). The stratigraphy at the site indicates the relative chronology of Erani Level C pottery. Level C was discovered downslope and to the east of Yeivin’s Area D (Kempinski and Gilead 1991; Yekutieli 2006). Pottery was deposited at considerably lower elevations than the late EB1 levels, as recent research into Yeivin’s material in the Israel Antiquities Authority archive has shown (Czarnowicz and Braun forthcoming). Thus the Erani C horizon is incontrovertibly earlier than the late EB1 occupation phases, albeit not in a sequence of superimposed occupations. However, no information on the presence of Erani C styles is available from Horbat Tittora. A citation by Lass in both the English and Hebrew versions of the site report (Lass 2000) refers to a brief communication about Erani C pottery, but no mention was otherwise made. Presumably some incised loop handles were found (Gophna and Paz 2014: 31: no. 4). Neither was any Erani C type pottery recovered in the Modi’in excavations (van den Brink; personal communication). 199 Eliot braun Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, Tel Bareqet, and EB1–2 Periodization Gophna and Paz (2014: 19) described Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit as follows: This site, located c. 25 km south-east of Shoham North,10 was irst deined as a late EBIB village (Braun 2005).11 It cannot be dated prior to Dynasty 0 in Egypt for two reasons: irst, it lacks Erani-C pottery, abundant in other sites at the Beth Shemesh region, such as Hartuv, (Mazar and de-Miroschedji 1996), and second, Egyptian pottery ixes its late EBIB horizon to no earlier than 3200 BCE (Braun 2005).12 Their description of Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit is based on The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. They imply that the site dates to later than 3200 BCE. However, this is inexact, for just two strata (IV and III) should be ascribed to late EB1. Both strata contained numerous complete vessels that were found in situ on loors (Braun and Milevski 1993). The types were similar in both, indicating chronological continuity. Stratum IV was destroyed in a massive conlagration, and the succeeding Stratum III occupation included elements that were dug directly into the Stratum IV debris, or built directly atop its ruined walls (Fig. 9). A radiocarbon date was derived from a sample of emmer wheat, found in an Stratum III in-situ jar. This sample yielded a calibrated range between 3355–3082 BCE at 88.7% probability (Oxcal 2016). This indicates an absolute date in an early phase of the late EB1. The uppermost indicated date is 155 years earlier than Gophna and Paz’s suggestion of 3200 BCE. The absolute dates of these two strata have not been ixed because of calibration curves, which represent changes in the quantities of 14C in the atmosphere in the last half of the 4th millennium. Accordingly, the late EB1 of Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit most likely dates to the last quarter of the 4th millennium BCE, and ends approximately during the reigns of Horus Ka and Horus Narmer (see below; Fig. 11; Braun and van den Brink 1998). A jar of local manufacture bearing an Egyptian serekh, probably of the so-called ‘Double Falcon’ (Fig. 8a; Braun and van den Brink 1998) appears to date Stratum IV to sometime later than the construction of Tomb U-j at Abydos, which contained Erani C pottery, but to earlier than the end of Dynasty 0, and the reigns of Horus Ka and Horus Narmer. The latter was probably the last ruler of Dynasty 0 and/or the irst ruler of Dynasty 1 (Wengrow 2006: 211; Hendrickx 2011; 2014). This vessel has a close parallel at Palmahim Quarry in Stratum 2. Limited amounts of Egyptian pottery were found at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, and included only fragments of vessels with none in-situ. The Naqada IIIB–C types would either have arrived at the site very late, or would have been from Stratum III, which was at least partially dug into the ruins of Stratum IV (Fig. 6). No deinitively EB2 types were found in the Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit ceramic assemblage, indicating it should be dated to the EB1. This is consistent with the 200 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr Fig. 6. Two late EB1 strata at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, showing a stone-line pit of Stratum III dug into burnt debris of the destruction of Stratum IV. Photo by the author, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Naqada IIIB–C types of imported pottery found there, as well as the local pottery types indicated by Gophna and Paz. Gophna and Paz (2014: 20) have also suggested a somewhat complicated chrono-stratigraphic sequence for EB1 and EB2. For example, they have stated: A complicated chronological jigsaw can be illustrated, even though we cannot date Tel Bareqet to the EBIB and Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit to the EBII. The following sequence between settlement episodes might be suggested, from the earliest to the latest: Shoham North stratum II (late EBIB), Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit (late EBIB), Lod post-Egyptian phase (latest EBIB, see Paz et. al. 2005: 139), Shoham North stratum I and Tel Bareqet pre-town phase (earliest EBII). The chronological span for each episode cannot be more than 50–100 years, between 3100–3050/3000 BCE (compare between Braun 2005,13 Paz et. al. 2005, Paz and Paz 2007). Although the text cited as Braun 2005 (for Braun 2008) makes no mention of absolute dates, this quote makes it clear that their EBIB is a chronological period within a sequence, which is not generally contested. Yet Gopher and Paz suggest 201 Eliot braun Fig. 7. Two locally made jars with rims similar to Egyptian wine jars, from late (but not the latest) EB1 occupations at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit and Palmahim Quarry. The serekh on the Palmahim example has tiny punctuations in a compartment, which likely indicate a post Tomb U-j ruler of Dynasty 0; one who preceded the reigns of Ka and Narmer. Those kings are ascribed to the very end of that dynasty, which correlates with very late EB1. Fig. 8. Sherds of two large Egyptian jars, bearing symbols and names of rulers incised prior to iring, from excavations at Lod. 1. Serekh of Narmer. 2. Serekh of Ka, Narmer’s predecessor. Photos by the author, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. that EBIB and other such terms are actually indications of social organization, and not of chronological periods (Gophna and Paz 2014: 23): …by the very beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE, sites at the Yarkon-Ayalon Basin were fortiied and passed the threshold of urbanization. These date to EBII, while other sites, at precisely the same time in the Bet Shemesh region, had no North Canaanite Metallic Ware or other EBII traits and therefore continued their EBIB culture. This is highly problematic, especially when the similarities between Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit and Tel Bareqet highlight the former as a large, nucleated, preplanned, fortiied town. The two quoted excerpts are contradictory, which perhaps explains why Gopher and Paz consider the paradigm to be ‘problematic’. In the irst, Horvat ‘Illin 202 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr Tahtit is cited as earlier in a chronological sequence than Tel Bareqet, while in the second quotation it existed at ‘precisely the same time’ and continued its EBIB culture. The EBIB and EBII thus appear to represent cultural entities with limited chronological signiicance, in that they are both parts of the Early Bronze Age. The terms would indicate different forms of social organization in contemporary occupations. Further confusion is added by the use of ‘pre-town’ to describe the ‘earliest EBII’ phase at Tel Bareqet, which, according to this paradigm, should be ascribed to the late EB1. The use of such terms, whether as indicators of social organization or as chronological markers, adds a layer of confusion. This is understandable because there is no sharp break in ceramic traditions between the end of EB1 and the beginning of EB2 (Braun 1996). Numerous ceramic types that irst appeared in EB1 continued to be produced in EB2 (Braun 2011b). The major difference between the latest EB1 and the earliest EB2 is the appearance of certain types of pottery, including Metallic Ware and platters, which are not found in late EB1 occupations. This distinction is clear at Tel Dalit (Gophna 1996) between Stratum V and Stratum IV. Furthermore, the pottery ascribed to the pre-fortiication occupation at nearby Tel Yarmuth (Niveau BV) apparently includes types also found at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, while typical EB2 types appear only at Tel Yarmuth (de Miroschedji 1988: 33). Gophna and Paz’s suggestion that Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit (presumably Stratum III)14 was contemporary with the fortiied occupation at Bareqet and Tel Dalit IV, would mean that a major site such as Tel Yarmuth, which grew into a large urban center, received EB2 type ceramics later than the much smaller occupations at Tel Bareqet and Tel Dalit did. While possible, it is extremely unlikely. A larger population could have possibly encouraged those who brought such wares to Tel Yarmuth. Yet, a chronological explanation seems to better relect what is known from the archaeological record. An interpretation that requires contemporaneous EB1 occupations at Lod and Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit and an EB2 occupation at Tel Bareqet hardly seems justiiable, as these sites are all relatively close to one other. Tel Bareqet is a mere seven kilometers from Lod, Lod is eighteen kilometers from Beth Shemesh, Beth Shemesh (with its Erani C pottery) is thirty kilometers from Tel Bareqet, while Tel Dalit is only around four and a half kilometers from Tel Bareqet. So many late EB1 pottery styles are shared between the assemblages of these sites that they must represent patterns of distribution, probably from centers of production (Braun 2009) that supplied several towns. They probably belonged to the same chronological horizon, and are likely to have been contemporary. Accordingly, it seems that EB1 and EB2 should continue to be understood in chronological terms, which are identiied by ceramics that, in some instances, may also be associated with speciic types of social organization. 203 Eliot braun Not all contemporary occupations were fortiied or urbanized to the same degree. Cases in point include the late EB1 fortiied site of Tel Aphek, located only eleven kilometers from Tel Bareqet in the same topographical zone (Gal and Kochavi 2000: 61–66), and contemporary occupations at Tel Dalit (Stratum V), Lod, and Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, which were unfortiied, and presumably not urbanized. Thus, if one deines the material culture of Lod and Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit as late EB1, then one should similarly ascribe other sites with similar sets of material culture in close physical proximity. Tel Bareqet too, in its pre-town phase, should be dated to late EB1. To judge from the small quantity of pottery so far published, some types are comparable to those at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit (cf. Paz and Paz 2007: 87 upper registers of photos and Braun 2008: 1790), suggesting that an urban and a nonurban site were occupied concurrently. The similarities between Tel Bareqet and Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit are not as ‘problematic’ as Gophna and Paz (2014: 23) suggested, since they attempted to force issues based on the absence or presence of fortiications, rather than using the more conventional approach of regarding sets of material culture as evidence for chronological units. The Implications of Fortiications While it is possible that undue importance has been attached to the presence of fortiications, the existence of fortiications presupposes that large numbers of people were involved in their construction (Braun 2016). Yet, with the possible exception of some extremely large sites,15 their existence does not need to have been accompanied by an advanced degree of sophistication in town planning (contra Golani 1999), but does suggest changes in social organization into complex, hierarchical social systems capable of organizing and completing major projects (Braun 2016). Examples of somewhat less well-planned settlements can be seen at Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996) and Tel Bareqet (Paz and Paz 2007: 82), where the typical multi-roomed, rectilinear buildings were separated by narrow, winding lanes. Houses at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit (Braun 2008: 1790) and Palmahim Quarry (Fig. 10) were similar to those of the fortiied occupation at Tel Bareqet. The major difference between these sites is the presence of fortiications. One may therefore question Gophna and Paz’s description of Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit as a ‘nucleated,’ pre-planned, fortiied town. Additional data will be required before a case can convincingly be made for the sites such as Tel Bareqet or Tel Dalit. 204 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr Fig. 10. Schematic plan of a portion of the large, EB1 village at Palmahim Quarry. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Conclusion The approach utilized by Gophna and Paz is a simple, two-part periodization into EB1a and EB1c. The EB1 period is understood as indicative of a village lifestyle, while EB2 is considered typical of an ‘urban’ social paradigm. This division is too simplistic to adequately characterize the complicated reality of human activity for over 700 years. There is now abundant evidence that urbanized social organization developed during the EB1 (Braun 2011a). Moreover, the periodization of the late 4th millennium in the southern Levant is further complicated by distinct regionalism. Some morphological characteristics were maintained throughout the period, a fact 205 Eliot braun that lends veracity to the term ‘EB1’ when applied to pottery, yet the ceramics of this period also exhibit regional differences. These included a signiicant northsouth bifurcation (Amiran 1963; 1979), while additional patterns in the dispersal of particular types and styles are evidence of chronological and spatial niches. One of the most important, and perhaps the best documented of these is a collection of styles known as Erani C (Braun 2012), which represents a chronological horizon within the south-central region. Such different ceramic styles, wares and traditions suggest a more nuanced reality than the two-period approach would allow (Braun 1989; 1996; Braun forthcoming). Notes * This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Mikko Louhivuouri. 1 Gophna (pers. comm.) suggests that his contribution to this paper happened more than a decade prior to publication, and was limited to generalized observations on sites in the Lod Valley. 2 This is not to suggest that pottery is merely an indication of chronology. It may be used as evidence for many aspects of ancient human activity (e.g. Braun 2009). 3 No pottery report is available for this site, but Golani compares it chronologically to Hartuv. However, he dates it to EB IB. That ascription fails to distinguish it from late EB1, and exempliies the lack of precision in a simplistic, two part chronological phasing of the Early Bronze Age. 4 For a brief discussion of this issue, see Braun and Roux 2013. 5 This term can be misleading because the preix ‘proto’ indicates a irst or primary degree, which Kenyon’s terms do not intend. They are better understood as ‘pre-urban’ in the manner of de Miroschedji’s (1971) ‘pré-urbaine’. 6 De Miroschedji (1971) proposed a fourth group, which he labeled ‘pré-urbaine D’, now more commonly known as Umm Hammad Ware (Bar 2010; Braun 2012). 7 This is roughly the region of south-central Israel between Tel Aviv and Nahal Besor (Wady Ghazzeh), and the Gaza Strip. 8 Author’s emphasis. 9 Sub-areas D-3H and D-3L are two distinct areas separated by a relatively steep slope, which is adjacent to Yeivin’s (1961) excavation Areas D, and within Kempinski’s and Gilead’s (1991) Area DII. 10 The modern name of the location of Tel Bareqet. 11 Incorrect citation for Braun 2008. 12 Presumably for Braun 2008. This may have been an erroneous citation, because the short article does not deal with absolute chronology. 13 Incorrect citation for Braun 2008. 14 The preceding Stratum IV occupation may be relatively dated by the serekh, to a period after the construction of Abydos Tomb U-j, but earlier in Dynasty 0 than the reigns of Ka and Narmer, the latter of whom is considered to be either the last ruler of that dynasty, or the irst of Dynasty 1 (van den Brink and Braun 2002). 206 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr 15 The large late EB1 temple on the high tell at Megiddo (Adams, Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2014) and the EB3 palaces at Tel Yarmuth (de Miroschedji 1999; 2011–2012) are the probable exceptions. References Albright, W.F., (1926). ‘The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age’. AASOR 6: 13–74. Albright, W.F., (1935). ‘Presidential Address: Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period’. The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 15: 193–234. Adams, M., Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. (2014). ‘The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo’. AJA 118/2: 285–305. Amiran, R., (1963). The Ancient Pottery of Eretz Yisrael. (Jerusalem; Hebrew). Amiran, R., (1969). Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. (Jerusalem). Amiran, R., (1970). ‘The Beginnings of Urbanization in Canaan’. Pp. 83–100 in J. A. Sanders, (ed.) Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. (Garden City, New York). Amiran, R., (1974). ‘An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad’. IEJ 24: 4–12. Amiran, R., (1976). ‘The Narmer Jar Fragment from Arad: An Addendum’. IEJ 26: 45–46. Amiran, R., and Ilan, O., (1996). Early Arad II. (Jerusalem). Avrutis, V.W., (2012). Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. (Haifa). Bar, S., (2010). ‘Early Bronze Age I “Umm Hammad Ware”: A Study in Regionalism’. PEQ 142/2: 82–94. Ben-Tor, A., (1975). ‘Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor’. Qedem 1: 1–54. Brandl, B., (1989). ‘Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani’. Pp. 357–388 in P. de Miroschedji, (ed.) L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR 527/2, Oxford). Braun, E., (1985–6). ‘Of Megarons and Ovals: New Aspects of Late Prehistory in Israel’. BAIAS: 17–26. Braun, E., (1989). ‘The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is There a Missing Link?’ Pp. 7–28 in P. de Miroschedji, (ed.) L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. (Oxford). Braun, E., (1996). Cultural Diversity and Change in the Early Bronze I of Israel and Jordan: Towards an Understanding of the Chronological Progression and Patterns of Regionalism in Early Bronze Society. Ph. D. Thesis (Tel Aviv University). Braun, E., (2000). ‘Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze I: Part of the Missing Link’. Pp. 113–128 in G. Philip and D. Baird, (eds.) Breaking with the Past: Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. (Shefield). Braun, E., (2004). ‘Egypt and the Southern Levant: Shifting Patterns of Relationships during Dynasty 0’. Pp. 507–17 in S. Hendrickx et al. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’. (Leuven). 207 Eliot braun Braun, E., (2008). ‘Palmahim Quarry’. Pp. 1991–1993 in E. Stern, H. Geva and A. Paris, (eds.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5: Supplementary volume. (Jerusalem). Braun, E., (2009). ‘Social Development and Continuity in Early Bronze Age I of the Southern Levant: Relections on Evidence for Different Modes of Ceramic Production’. Pp. 233–252 in S. A. Rosen and V. Roux (eds.) Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant (Paris). Braun, E., (2011a). ‘Of Pots and Towns: Old and New Perspectives on EB I of the Southern Levant’. Pp. 265–280 in M. Chesson (ed.). Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. (Winona Lake, Indiana). Braun, E., (2011b). ‘South Levantine Early Bronze Age Chronological Correlations with Egypt in Light of the Narmer Serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New Interpretations’. Pp. 975–1001 in Renee F. Friedman and Peter N. Fiske (eds.). Egypt at Its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”. (Leuven). Braun, E., (2011c). ‘Early Interaction between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant’. Pp. 106–122 in E. Teeter (ed.), Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, (Chicago). Braun, E., (2012). ‘On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic “Wares” and Styles’. PEQ 144/1: 5–32. Braun, E., 2012–2013. ‘A Note on Relations between the Southern Levant and Egypt during Early Dynasty 0’. Egypt and the Levant 22–23: 339–348. Braun, E., (2014a). ‘Relections on the Context of a late Dynasty 0 Egyptian Colony in the Southern Levant: Interpreting Some Evidence of Nilotic Material Culture at Select Sites in the Southern Levant (ca. 3150 BCE – ca. 2950 BCE)’. Pp. 37- 55 in A. Mączyńska (ed.) The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. (Poznań). Braun, E., (2014b). ‘Observations on Contacts between the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant in Late Prehistory Prior to Dynasty 0’. Pp. 223–234 in M.A. Jucha, J. DebowskaLudwin and P. Kolodziejczyk (eds.) Aegyptus Est Imago Caeli: Studies Presented to Krzysztof M. Cialowicz on His 60th Birthday. (Krakow). Braun, E., (2016). ‘Little Pot Who Made Thee, Dost Thou Know Who Made Thee?’ Pp. 69–84 in B. Bader, C.M. Knoblauch and E.C. Köhler (eds.). Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th-18th of May, 2012 (Leuven). Braun, E., (Forthcoming). ‘Early Bronze I (ca 3,700–3,000)’. In S. Gitin, (ed.) The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Neolithic through the Hellenistic Period. (Jerusalem). Braun, E., and Milevski, I. (1993). ‘Baja Khorvat `Illin: Una aldea del Bronce Antiguo cerca de Beth Shemesh’. Revista de arqueologia 142: 8–15. 208 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr Braun, E., and van den Brink, E. C. M., (1998). ‘Some Comments on the Late EB I Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j at Umm el Ga`ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan’. Egypt and the Levant 7: 71–94. Braun, E., van den Brink, E. C. M., et al. (2013). ‘The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”’. Paléorient 39/1: 15–22. Czarnowicz, M., and Braun, E., (forthcoming). ‘Some Remarks on the Stratigraphic Attribution of the Pillar Building in Area D at Tel Erani’. (Krakow). Droop, J.P., (1935). ‘Pottery of the Chalcolithic and Neolithic Levels’. Pp. 169–173 in J. Garstang, J. P. Droop and J. Crowfoot, Jericho: City and Necropolis: Fifth Report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22: 169–175. Esse, D.L., (1984). ‘A Chronological Mirage: Relections on Early Bronze IC in Palestine’. JNES 43: 317–330. Gal, Z., and Kochavi, M., (2000). ‘Area B: Stratigraphy, Architecture and Tombs’. Pp. 59–88 in M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds.). Aphek-Antipatris I–Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972–1976 Seasons. (Tel Aviv). Golani, A., (1999). ‘New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture and the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan’. Levant 31: 123–133. Golani, A., (2008) ‘Eshta’ol’. Hadashot Arkheologiyot. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ report_detail_eng.aspx?id=955&mag_id=114 (accessed 9/2/16). Gophna, R. (1974). The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel During the Early Bronze Age. Ph. D. thesis: (Tel Aviv University; Hebrew with English summary). Gophna, R. (1996). Excavations at Tel Dalit: An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. (Tel Aviv). Gophna, R. and Paz, Y. (2014). ‘From Village to Town to Village Again: Settlement Dynamics in the Central Coastal Plain and Adjacent Shephela from the Late Early Bronze Age I to Early Bronze Age III’. Strata 32: 13–36. Hartung, U., (1993). ‘Importkeramik aus Grab U-j’. Pp. 49–55 in G. Dreyer, (ed.) Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Köningsfriedhof. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archáologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 49: 48–62. Hartung, U., (1998). Importkeramik. Pp. 92–107 in Dreyer, G. Umm el-Qaab I: das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. (Mainz). Hendrickx, S., (2011). Sequence Dating and Predynastic Chronology. Pp. 15–16 in E. Teeter (ed.) Egypt before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization (Chicago). Hendrickx, S., (2014). The Emergence of the Egyptian State. Pp. 259–278 in C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.). Cambridge World Prehistory, Vol. 1. (Cambridge). Hendrickx, S., and Bavay, L., (2002). ‘The Relative Chronological Position of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Tombs with Objects Imported from the Near East and the Nature of Interregional Contacts’. Pp. 58–80 in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy (eds.). Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. (London). 209 Eliot braun Kempinski, A., and Gilead, I., (1991). ‘New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985–1988 Seasons’. Tel Aviv 18: 164–192. Kenyon, K.M. (1970). Archaeology in the Holy Land. (New York). Lapp, P. (1970). ‘Palestine in the Early Bronze Age’. Pp. 101–131 in J. A. Sanders, (ed.) Near Eastern Archaeology in the 20th Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. (Garden City). Lass, E.H.E. (2000). ‘Ḥorbat Tittora, the Eastern Slope’. ESI 20: 99 and 72*–73* (Hebrew and English). Mazar, A. and de Miroschedji, P. (1996). ‘Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze Culture of Southern Israel’. BASOR 302: 1–40. Mellaart, J. (1966). The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. (Beirut). Milevski, I. and Baumgarten, Y., (2008). ‘Between Lachish and Tel Erani: Horvat Ptora, A New Late Prehistoric Site in the Southern Levant’. Pp. 609–624 in J. M. Córdoba, Ma. Molist, Ma. Carmen Pérez, I. Rubio and S. Martínez (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Madrid, April 3–8 2006 (Madrid). de Miroschedji, P., (1971). L’époque Pré-Urbaine en Palestine (Paris). de Miroschedji, P., (1988). Yarmouth I. (Paris). de Miroschedji, P., (1999). ‘Yarmuth: The Dawn of City-States in Southern Canaan’. NEA 62/1: 2–19. de Miroschedji, P. 2011–202. Les villes de Palestine de l’âge du Bronze ancient à l’âge du Fer dans leur context Proche-oriental. Cahier des thèmes transversaux ArScAn vol. 11 (online). Oxcal (2016) https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html (accessed 10/2/16). Paz, Y. and Nativ, A. (2013). ‘Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a Post-Ghassulian Entity’. Paléorient 39/1: 83–93. Paz, Y. and Paz, S. (2007). ‘Tel Bareqet: Excavations at a Fortiied Urban Settlement of the Early Bronze Age 2 in the Central Coastal Plain’. Qadmoniot 40/134: 82–88 (Hebrew). Paz, Y., Rosenberg, D. and Nativ, A. (2005). ‘Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian Presence in the Early Bronze Age’. Salvage Excavation Reports 2: 114–158. Regev, J., de Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, et al. (2012). ‘Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology’. Radiocarbon 54/3–4: 525–566. Roux, V. and Courty, M-A. (1997). ‘Les bols élaborés au tour d’Abu Hamid: rupture technique au 4e millénaire avant J.-C. dans le Levant-Sud’. Paléorient 23/1: 25–43. Roux, V. Courty, M-A., Dollfus, G. and Lovell, J.L. (2011). ‘A Techno-Petrographic Approach for Deining Cultural Phases and Communities: Explaining the Variability of Abu Hamid (Jordan Valley) Early 5th Millennium cal. BC Ceramic Assemblage’. Pp. 114–132 in J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.). Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition (Oxford). Roux, V., van den Brink, E.C.M. and Shalev, S. (2013). ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi’in ‘Deep Deposits’ Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study’. Paléorient 39/1: 63–81. 210 obSErvationS on thE South lEvantinE Eb1 and thE Erani c horizon: a rEJoindEr van den Brink, E.C. M. and Braun, E. (2002). ‘Wine Jars with Serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Vallée du Nil Contrôlée, but for Whom?’ Pp. 167–192 in E.C.M. van den Brink and E. Yannai, (eds.). In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. (Tel Aviv). van den Brink, E.C.M., Horwitz, L.K., Kool, R., et al. (2015). ‘Excavations at Tel Lod: Remains from the Pottery Neolithic A, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age I, Middle Bronze Age I and Byzantine Periods’. ‘Atiqot 82: 141–218. Wengrow, D. (2006). The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. (Cambridge). Wright, G.E. (1936). ‘The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age’. BASOR 63: 12–21. Wright, G.E. (1937). The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. (New Haven). Wright, G.E. (1958). ‘The Problem of the Transition Between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages’. Eretz-Israel 5: 37*–45*. Wright, G.E. (1971). ‘The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic through the Middle Bronze Age’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91: 276–293. Yeivin, S. (1961). ‘First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel “Gat” (Tell Sheykh `Ahmed el-`Areyny): Seasons 1956–1958’. (Jerusalem). Yekutieli, Y. (1998). ‘The Pottery Assemblage of Level C of the Early Bronze Age IB1 from Area DII at Tel Erani’. Beersheva 15: *57–*78 (Hebrew). Yekutieli, Y. (2000). Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan. Pp. 129–152 in G. Philip and D. Baird (eds.) Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. (Shefield). Yekutieli, Y. (2006). ‘The Ceramics of Tel ‘Erani, Layer C’. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 22: 225–242. 211