Typological Dating and Chronology

Goals for the Day Understand how stratigraphy is used to separate out pottery Understand the basics of ceramic typology Understand how ceramic typology is used to compare strata from different sites Hazor will be used as a “case study”

Stratigraphy and ceramic typology Earlier we talked about stratigraphy this is used to separate layers at a particular site but we still need to compare strata from other sites Ceramic typology allows for the relative chronology between different sites We identify all of the pottery from different loci (or layers) from one stratum and compare with other strata

Our Goal: identify pottery in strata Modern Stratum Stratum I Stratum II

Step 1: pottery is cleaned

Step 2: pottery is sorted and labeled

Step 3: pottery is analyzed & drawn

Step 4: complete forms are studied

Step 5: comparison is made to other sites start with pottery from identified strata at one site after these forms are analyzed, then you compare with other sites you want to identify similarities between strata at different sites the similar strata allow you to construct a relative chronology

Ceramic Typology (Late Bronze pottery)

Evolution of the Cooking Pot Example of Form Example of Form Variant Example of Ware Example of Manufacture

Philistine Pottery decoration form form variant manufacture ware

Form “form” describes function cooking pot storage jars milk bowl beer jug most forms occurs throughout history of tel forms in Palestine / Israel are agrarian

Form Variant assume that items develop over time we see this in an automobile we also see this in items like modern pots forms develop over time (like cooking pot) some are radical changes and some subtle

Decoration Not as important in Palestinian / Israelite archaeology (but compare others) Burnishing in MB IIA: fine burnishing in IA II: interior burnishing on wheel Painting: esp. important in Philistine forms Other incisions, etc.

Ware appearance AND composition of clay pottery skill varies over time also includes study of provenance of clay

Manufacture study of the method pottery was constructed this is different from form what are some of the inherent difficulties? this study is also helpful for identifying workshops

Case Study: Hazor and Ceramic Typology The article we read used Hazor as the site base for the relative chronology The authors also constructed an absolute chronology: how and what does this mean? We will go through their argument for the purpose of understanding how ceramic typology is used our purpose is not to test their argument N.B.: their argument will be challenged in the Tel Aviv low chronology

Aharoni and Amiran’s Chronology X and IX: 950-875 B.C.E. VIII: 875-841 B.C.E. VII: 841-815 B.C.E. VI: 815-765 B.C.E. V: 765-732 B.C.E. IV: end of 8th - early 7th

Comparison of different sites Cypro-Phonecian after IA II not clear until IA III

Cooking pots: a clear distinction Early Shallow Type: Hazor VIII and earlier Late Shallow Type: Hazor VII and later Deep Type: only in Judah eighth century type (cf. Tell Beit Mirsim = Lachish Level III) seventh century type (cf. Lachish Level II)

Early Shallow Types Hazor, Area A Stratum VIII Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B3

Late Shallow Types: Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A1

Late Shallow Type: Hazor Strata VIII and later

Deep Type: Tell Beit Mirsim

Comparing Strata: conclusions