111 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT ‘Atiqot 79, 2014 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT eilAT MAzAr And dAvid ilAn 198 000 196 000 192 000 736 000 736 000 Phoenician harbor re Nahal O ‘Atlit Castle n 734 000 734 000 The Site Range 732 000 e‘arot Nahal M 730 000 Carmel In late December 1990, during construction work at a military facility near the Frankish castle of ‘Atlit, a tractor fell into the collapsed ceiling of a chamber tomb. The tractor damaged two chamber tombs on the western slope of the ridge; one of them was decimated and no inds were discerned that could be associated with it or testify it was ever in use. The other, 10 m to the south, had only its upper section destroyed, preserving the mortuary assemblage intact for the most part.1 On December 24–27, Eilat Mazar mounted a rescue excavation in the southern tomb on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Prior to excavation, the tomb was partially looted by construction workers. When apprised of the importance of a complete assemblage, the workers returned many, perhaps nearly all of the plundered objects, including scarabs. The tomb is located approximately 100 m southeast of the castle’s outer wall (map ref. NIG 1935/7335; OIG 1435/1935), in the second of the three north–south kurkar ridges of the Carmel coast that run parallel to the seashore (Fig. 1). 194 000 interpolated from that point (see Fig. 4). At this ixed elevation, 1.44 m below the ceiling, a grid was laid out in 1 sq m squares. Most objects were plotted with reference to this grid. The soil was sieved. Eilat Mazar and one volunteer inTroducTion Tel Nami Ancient Course 732 000 730 000 Middle Bronze site 728 000 728 000 Nahal Maharal The excAvATion 726 000 726 000 Tel Dor Lagoon Fig. 1. Location map. 2 km 198 000 196 000 0 724 000 194 000 Excavation Strategy The irst step in the excavation was to remove the collapsed debris of the ceiling down to what appeared to be the original accumulation in the tomb. This accumulation was of different depths in various parts of the tomb, up to a maximum of 0.8 m. A ixed elevation was determined relative to the ceiling remains on the southeastern corner and a level plane was 724 000 112 Eilat Mazar and david ilan carried out most of the work. Due to time and manpower constraints excavation proceeded rapidly. While it would have been desirable to leave all inds in situ and then illustrate and photograph their positions, the excavators were forced to make do with coordinate plotting and removal of the individual inds. Fig. 2. The tomb in its kurkar ridge setting, surrounded by debris created by heavy machinery, looking east. Description of the Tomb The tomb comprises one square chamber (3.74 × 3.74 m). The eastern margins of the thin kurkar ceiling were preserved (Figs. 2–4), allowing us to reconstruct a height of 1.75 m. The eastern wall was completely preserved while the northern and southern Fig. 3. The tomb prior to excavation of the lower level of collapse, looking east. Fig. 4. The tomb after excavation down to the loor, looking east. 113 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT walls were partially cut away by the heavy machinery, sloping downward to the west. The western wall was completely destroyed by heavy machinery. The tomb opening was not preserved. Contemporaneous tomb structures (e.g., at Megiddo, Barqa’i and Kafr ‘Ara) suggest that the entry would have been either a horizontal or sloping dromos, or a vertical shaft cut down into the western slope (Loud 1948; Gophna and Sussman 1969; Gadot et al., in press). The loor of the tomb is fairly level, approximately 10 cm lower on the northern and western sides. This slight slope may correspond to the northwestern strike of the kurkar layers. Distribution of Finds Large quantities of bones and bone fragments were found in a very friable condition that would have made analysis almost impossible. Aside from those retrieved from the dumps brought up by the tractor, most of the powdery, fragmentary skeletal remains were found in each corner of the tomb, all indicating the existence of at least several burials. Larger concentrations of artifacts were discerned in the tomb’s southwestern and northeastern corners, and a smaller concentration in the southeastern corner. This is a common phenomenon in Middle Bronze Age tombs where successive burial agents shoved the remains of previous burials up against tomb walls and into tomb corners (cf. Kenyon 1960:263; Ilan 1996:249; Maeir 1997:298; Kempinski 2002:52). Finds (see Table 4). For a summary of the vessel count for the whole assemblage, see Table 2 below. Local Pottery (Table 1) Platter Bowls (MNI = 90; Fig. 5).— The platter bowls of the ‘Atlit tomb comprise the most frequent vessel type, and the assemblage contains little that is out of the ordinary. The average diameter is 27 cm; apparently, there are no bowls with diameters greater than 40 cm. The inturned, rounded rim is, by far, the dominant rim type (Table 1), as is characteristic of MB IIB (e.g., Albright 1933: Pl. 10:8; Ilan 1996:213–216; Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002:109; Maeir 2007: Pl. 23:1). The next highest rim frequency is the simple rim, which occurs in both the later and earlier Middle Bronze phases, and is therefore not chronologically indicative. Squared-off or cut rims are a feature of MB IIA and MB IIB, but not of MB IIC.2 The everted rim is rare in Canaan in MB IIA, but it comes into its own in MB IIB and continues to be common in MB IIC (Albright 1933: Pl. 13:14; Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXIX:12; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Figs. 78:1; 86:1; Livneh 2005: Figs. II.14:6; II.23:14; Maeir 2007: Pls. 13:21; 34:11).3 While different degrees of rim thickening occur amongst the different rim types, this feature does not seem to be very diagnostic. The upright rim exempliied by Fig. 5:7 is the least frequent form; only 4 out of 90 rims registered are of this type. The rouletted pattern on the rim of Fig. 5:8 is highly unusual. No parallels were found, though incised patterns are known from other vessels in MB IIB–C. Table 1. Platter Bowl Rim Types and Their Frequency (see Fig. 5) Pottery The pottery of the ‘Atlit tomb is entirely dated to the Middle Bronze Age. As far as we can tell, the deposit showed no stratiication; no diachronic evolution of morphological characteristics can be discerned. We are therefore forced to rely on analogy to parallel assemblages from stratiied contexts to place the tomb and its types in chronological context Rim Type MNI % Fig. 5 Inturned and rounded 47 52.3 3, 5 Simple 24 26.7 1, 4, 6 Cut or squared off 8 8.9 2, 8 Everted 7 7.7 9, 10, 11 4 4.4 7 90 100.0 Upright Total 114 Eilat Mazar and david ilan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 0 11 Fig. 5. Platter bowls. 10 115 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT Approximately 70% of the platter bowls had ring bases, though some of these could also be termed concave disc bases. Only four items showed high ring bases (e.g., Fig. 5:1, 11). There are very few simple lat bases (we counted only 9, approximately 10%, e.g., Fig. 5:6); these appear to be associated with simple and squared rims. The rest, approximately 20%, Fig. 5 No. Rim Type Reg. No. 1 Simple 138 2 Squared 123 3 Inturned and rounded 169/15 4 Simple 003 5 Inturned and rounded 240 6 Simple 004 7 Upright 006 8 Squared 164/2 9 Everted 83/3 10 Everted 005 11 Everted 165 are disc bases, either lat or concave. No bases showed any kind of proiling (a characteristic of the MB IIC platter bowls). In short, the base features all point to a MB IIB horizon. Slip and burnish is, as usual, dificult to gauge; this is particularly true in the damp coastal environment. At least three of the illustrated examples (Fig. 5:2, 3, 10) are slipped and three, highly burnished (Fig. 5:1, 8, 10). This is fairly indicative of the assemblage as a whole, though the proportions represent minimum numbers— slipped surfaces are notorious for laking off. Figure 5:4 is a platter bowl with a painted cross in the interior, a feature of late MB IIA and MB IIB (Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.24:7; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Fig. II:21:5). Two loop handles were found that appear to belong to open bowls (with thickened, simple rims). Deep Rounded Bowl (MNI = 1; Fig. 6:1).— This single example, with an everted rim and a double lug handle, is an anomalous form. The MB IIA 1 3 2 4 6 5 0 10 Fig. 6. Deep and carinated bowls. No. Description Reg. No. 1 Bowl, deep rounded 002 4 Bowl, laring rim 92/2 2 Bowl, closed carinated 008 5 Bowl, laring rim 90 3 Bowl, closed carinated 126 6 Bowl, laring rim on trumpet base 139 No. Description Reg. No. 116 Eilat Mazar and david ilan globular bowls are generally more closed and the hemispherical bowls always have simple inturned rims (cf. Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming: Figs. 7.5, 7.6 and, for now, cf. Artzy 1995: Fig. 2.4 and Beck 2000: Fig. 10.10:4). Thus, it is sort of a hybrid of the two. This item would also it into Bonil’s deep rounded bowl category (e.g., Bonil, forthcoming: Fig. 8.4:9 = Maeir 2007: Pl. 32:8), though it is smaller than any of Bonil’s examples. Carinated Bowls (MNI = 3; Fig. 6:2, 3).— These are surprisingly few. Both complete examples are illustrated and both are slipped red (as is the only other rim sherd of this type). Both have the more pronounced, everted rim, without the gutter, that is more characteristic of MB IIB than MB IIA (compare Bonil, forthcoming: Fig. 8.6 to Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming: Fig. 7.7). Figure 6:2 has a disc base and Fig 6:3 has a ring base. Flaring Rim Bowls (MNI = 32; Fig. 6:4–6).— This is the third most common type, after platter bowls and juglets. They are called “open carinated bowls” by Bonil (forthcoming: Figs. 8.6:11–14 = Yadin et al. 1958: Pls. CXIV:17; CXIX:15; Kenyon and Holland 1982: Figs. 186:9; 191:13; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Fig. 91:2; Maeir 2007: Pls. 14:26; 23:11; 26:1). Two basic variations occur: one with a more open carination and a higher ring base (Fig. 6:4), the other with a shorter carination and lower ring base (Fig. 6:5). Two wares can be distinguished: one exhibiting a yellowish brown clay and the other a reddish pink clay. One laring rim bowl (fragmentary, not illustrated) has an omphalos in the interior. Six laring rim bowls were of the type with a high trumpet base (Fig. 6:6), sometimes called “chalices” (e.g., Amiran 1969: Pl. 28:10, 11). Krater (MNI = 1; Fig. 7:1).— The dearth of kraters is somewhat surprising. The only identiied example is the shallow, two-handled, carinated type characteristic of MB IIB (cf. Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.13:10; Maeir 2007: Pl. 31:2). It is essentially a laring 1 2 0 10 0 Fig. 7. Krater and votive bowl. No. Description Reg. No. 1 Krater, shallow ( = carinated bowl 007 with handles) 2 Votive bowl 75 2 117 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT rim carinated bowl with handles and a simple rim. Votive(?) Bowl (MNI = 1; Fig. 7:2).— This small open vessel is placed in the “votive” category following a typological tradition (cf. Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXIX:26, 27; Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.13:4, 8; 6.22:4; 6.23:7; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Fig. 94:2; Maeir 2007: Pls. 32:17, 18; 34:9; Bonil, forthcoming: Fig. 8.5), though perhaps the less committal term would be “miniature” bowl (cf. Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming Fig. 7.24:15, 16, 18 = Loud 1948: Pls. 19:14; 21:5; Ilan 1992: Fig. 10:2). There is also a quatrefoil element here that is reminiscent of the larger bowls of the period (cf. Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXIV:18). The anomalous shape of these bowls may be a botanical motif. Jugs (MNI = 2; Fig. 8:1, 2).— The small number of jugs is unusual for a cave tomb with this many interred burial goods. One jug, Fig. 8:1, seems to be of local manufacture, having the standard globular form which irst appeared in MB IIA (Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.58:5) and continued unchanged into the early Iron Age (and see Kenyon and Holland 1983: Figs. 186:9; 191:13 for the MB IIB–C examples). The base is somewhat lattened and the rim spouted. The other jug, Fig. 8:2, is a small shoulderhandled jug with a ring base and a double handle. Its shape is somewhat more biconical than either globular or piriform. This type occurs throughout MB IIB–C (Bonil, forthcoming: Fig. 8.26:6 = Loud 1948: Pl. 31:6). Dipper Juglets (MNI = 17; Fig. 8:3–7).— Ubiquitous as they are in Middle Bronze Age assemblages, dipper juglets are of limited typological utility. Most of the seventeen examples recovered are MB IIB–C types, i.e., larger, lentoid and with a converging base (Fig. 8:3–5). These are characteristic of Tell el-Dab‘a Strata E/3 to D/3 (Kopetzky 2002). Only two are of the earlier, smaller and squatter variety (Figs. 8:6, 7); these are comparable to examples from Tell el-Dab‘a Strata G/1-3 and F (Kopetzky 2002). None have the slightly lattened base that is found only in MB IIA. On the other hand, at least four showed signs of red slip, common in MB IIA, fairly frequent in MB IIB, but rare in MB IIC. Piriform Juglets (MNI = 57; Figs. 8:8–15; 9:1–5; 10:1).— The simple everted rim type is most frequent (Fig. 8:8–12). In some cases the rim becomes a down-turned lip (Fig. 8:13, 14). These rim types are found throughout the Middle Bronze Age, but are almost the only rim type in MB IIB and MB IIC (Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXXI:4–6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Figs. 83:11; 90:20; 91:3; Livneh 2005: Figs. II.31:2; II.32:5; Maeir 2007:276). It is noteworthy that the “stepped rim” examples are mostly fragmentary (e.g., Figs. 9:3, 4), except for Fig. 9:1, 2. Since these are more indicative of the late MB IIA–early MB IIB (Epstein 1974:13–14), they probably represent the tomb’s initial period of use, and a Fig. 8 No. Description Reg. No. 1 Jug, globular 161 2 Jug 1/6 3 Juglet, dipper 22 4 Juglet, dipper 92/3 5 Juglet, dipper 209 6 Juglet, dipper 207 7 Juglet, dipper 52 8 Juglet, piriform 136 9 Juglet, piriform 235 10 Juglet, piriform 153 11 Juglet, piriform 208 12 Juglet, piriform 50/10 13 Juglet, piriform 53 14 Juglet, piriform 142 15 Juglet, piriform 12 118 Eilat Mazar and david ilan 2 3 1 7 12 8 15 14 0 11 10 9 13 6 5 4 10 Fig. 8. Jugs and juglets (dipper, piriform and globular). 119 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT 3 2 4 1 6 5 8 7 0 9 10 Fig. 9. Juglets (stepped rim, cylindrical, biconical) and a bottle. No. Description Reg. No. No. Description Reg. No. 1 Juglet, piriform 20 6 Juglet, biconical 124 2 Juglet, piriform 120 7 Juglet, cylindrical 167 3 Juglet, piriform 73/4 8 Juglet, cylindrical 168/14 4 Juglet, piriform 90 9 Bottle (alabastron) 222 5 Juglet 009 correspondingly greater degree of breakage due to subsequent deposition. Piriform juglet bases are mostly button bases, though some are ring bases (Fig. 8:11) or a combination of the two (Fig. 8:12). Double handles are the rule, with some single strand exceptions (Figs. 8:15; 9:4). There is only one triple handle (Fig. 9:5), generally indicative of MB IIA. The snake handle motif in Fig. 9:3 is paralleled in many assemblages dating throughout the Middle Bronze Age (for examples and a possible meaning, see Ziffer 1990:86*). As for body treatment, a number are red slipped and burnished (Fig. 8:9–11, 13, 14); one (Fig. 9:4) is of the black burnished “metallic” 120 Eilat Mazar and david ilan ware class that is held to be more at home in the Syrian interior (Nigro 2003:351–353). The painted juglet (Fig. 10:1) is in the MB IIA Monochrome Painted Cream Ware tradition discussed by Ilan (1991). None of the small, waisted cylindrical juglets of MB IIA (e.g., Beck 2000: Fig. 10.6:2) have been noted in this assemblage. Biconical or Squat Juglet (MNI = 1; Fig. 9:6).— The biconical juglet (rim missing) belongs to the MB IIA tradition (cf. Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming: Fig. 7.22:23 [a still unpublished example from Megadim]) that continues into MB IIB–C (cf. an example from Hazor— Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXXI:19). The ring base enabled this vessel either to stand on its own or to serve as a lid for a jug or a jar. This type is conspicuous at Afeq in the Postpalace phase (Beck 2000: Fig. 10:31) and at Kabri in Tombs 984 and 498, i.e., in that site’s MB IIB horizon (e.g., Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Pls. 5:23, 26, 27). Bottle or Alabastron (MNI = 1; Fig. 9:9).— Bottles are closed, handleless vessels (MB IIA: Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming: Fig. 7.24:9–13 = Illife 1936:125:74, Pl. LXVII; Loud 1948: Pl. 13:8; Dever 1975: Fig. 3:5; Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 4:9; Beck 2000: Fig. 10.23:1; MB IIB: Kenyon and Holland 1983: Fig. 195:1; Ben-Tor and Bonil 2003: Fig. 91:5; Maeir 2007: Pls. 16:10; 17:4). This particular example belongs to the miniature vessel category and can be construed as an Egyptian inspiration (Beck 2000:216 and reference therein); it has a ring base and a simple, everted rim. The MB IIA repertoire (examples cited above) exhibits the more analogous examples, though nothing quite like the one here. Cylindrical Juglets (MNI = 10; Fig. 9:7, 8).— Eight cylindrical juglets were of the larger, more barrel-shaped type (Fig. 9:7) and only two were clearly of the more squat variety (Fig. 9:8). The ware tends to be gray with carbonate inclusions. Rims are always simple and everted and the bases, where recognized, are somewhat convex, i.e., rounded, rather than lat. Two handles are double stranded (e.g., Fig. 9:7), but most fragments are single stranded. Cypriot Pottery White Painted V “Eye” Juglets (MNI = 11; Fig. 10:2, 3; 11:1, 2).— These juglets are characterized by a white-to-buff fabric and a black-to-reddish black matte-painted decoration, a short “trumpet” base, a pinched mouth and a single-strand handle with a painted line along its spine from shoulder to rim. The decoration takes the form mainly of vertical and horizontal lines that sometimes contain Fig. 10 No. Type Reg. No. Description 1 Juglet, piriform 115 Monochrome Painted Cream Ware 2 Juglet, piriform 169/20 Cypriot White Painted V, “eye juglet” 3 Juglet, piriform 010 Cypriot White Painted V, “eye juglet” 4 Jug, globular 216 Cypriot White Painted III–IV, Pendent Line Style 5 Juglet, globular 230 Cypriot White Painted III–IV, Pendent Line Style 6 Juglet, globular 56 Cypriot White Painted III–VI, Cross Line Style 7 Jug, globular 011 Cypriot White Painted III–VI, Cross Line Style 8 Juglet, biconical 149 Tell el-Yahudiya Ware 9 10 Juglet, cylindrical 91 Tell el-Yahudiya Ware Juglet, piriform 241 Tell el-Yahudiya Ware (Piriform 2) 121 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT 2 1 4 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 0 10 Fig. 10. Painted juglet (1), Cypriot White Painted wares (2–7), and Tell el-Yahudiya Ware (8–10). 122 Eilat Mazar and david ilan caduceus, lattice or thicker band motifs. Two concentric circles form the “eye” next to the pinched spout. Parallels come from Kabri Tomb 304 (Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.20:14, dated to MB IIB); Megiddo Tombs 3046 and 5050 (Loud 1948: Pls. 34:16; 41:30). The latter tomb has been ascribed by Kenyon (1969:31) to her Pottery Group D, a group that is characterized in general by Middle Cypriot vessels. Pottery Group D corresponds to her rather nebulous architectural Phases N and O, which contain elements of old Strata XII and XI. The Levantine parallels as of 1957 were discussed in detail by ̊ström (1972:219– 221). White Painted V vessels occur only in Stratum E/1–a/2 to Stratum D/2–a/2 at Tell elDab‘a, i.e., in the Second Intermediate period corresponding to late MB IIB and MB IIC (Bietak 2002: Fig. 7). It is a style that occurs later on in Cyprus as well (Middle Cypriot III and Late Cypriot IA ), especially in the eastern part of the island (Maguire 1992:116–118). White Painted III–IV, Pendent Line Style (PLS) Jugs and Juglets (MNI = 4; Fig. 10:4, 5).— Made of light brown or buff clay, these vessels have the typical rounded, gourd-shaped body and display a brown to black painted line decoration, which takes the form of horizontal bands around the neck and vertical lines, straight and wavy from the neck to the base. The White Painted III–IV Pendent Line Style irst occurs at Tell el-Dab‘a in Stratum G (Bietak 2002: Fig. 15). Merrilees (2002) has shown that the White Painted Pendent Line Style is most characteristic of the Middle Cypriot III– Late Cypriot IA period, which corresponds to the MB IIB–C period in the southern Levant. However, based on the inds from Tell el-Dab‘a, the Pendent Line Style does not cross over into Dynasty XVIII—its terminus ad quo must be c. 1550 BCE (Merrilees 2002:6). White Painted III–VI, Cross-line Style (CLS) Jug and Juglet (MNI = 6; Fig. 10:6, 7).— These vessels tend to have a greenish-white fabric and a darker, greenish-black painted decoration. As the name of the class indicates, the body decoration is characterized by criss-crossing groups of multiple parallel lines. The forms and the bands around the neck appear to be the same as the White Painted Pendant Line Style class. Figure 10:7 is the central body section of a jug decorated with two painted concentric circles from which further bands of lines emanate. It seems to presage later motifs. We have found no parallels for this item—the closest example appears to be some body fragments from Tel Mevorakh Stratum XIII (Salz 1984:59, Pl. 44:5). Cross-Line Style irst appears at Tell elDab‘a in Stratum G1-3 or Dynasty XIII (Maguire 1992:117) and at Ashqelon in Gate 1 of Stratum 14, which Stager (2002:357) would place even earlier in MB IIA, parallel to Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum G4 or even Stratum H. It also occurs in MB IIA contexts at Tel Nami and Tel ‘Akko (Dothan 1976: Fig. 8:1–10; Artzy and Marcus 1992). It has been suggested that this style does not continue into MB IIC (Johnson 1982:62). Some General Remarks on the Cypriot Pottery.— At nearby Tel Mevorakh, Middle Cypriot pottery was gleaned from two levels: Stratum XIII (MB IIB) and Stratum XII (MB IIC). It is worth noting that the whole and partially restorable items all come from Stratum XIII; the pieces originating in Stratum XII are all single sherds (Salz 1984), i.e., there is always the chance that they originated in the earlier stratum. The best parallels for the Cypriot wares in the ‘Atlit tomb are to be found at Tel Megiddo. White Painted Pendant Line Style items are much more frequent in late MB IIA (Gerstenblith 1983: Phase 4), through Kenyon’s (1969) Pottery Group B, with only one fragment being later (Item N6 in Johnson’s [1982] catalogue). On the other hand, the majority of Cypriot pottery at Megiddo, primarily White Painted Crossing Line Style and White Painted V, originates in Kenyon’s Pottery Group D, irmly in MB IIB. Very few items, all fragmentary, 123 A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT come from MB IIC levels (Johnson’s [1982] N6, N18, N19, N20, the later three all White Painted V). For a summary of the stratigraphic distribution of White Painted Wares at Tell elDab‘a, see Bietak 2002: Fig. 15. Overall, the White Painted II–IV PLS class seems to begin in late MB IIA, reaches a peak in MB IIB, and survives as a vestige—or heirloom-type—in MB IIC and not beyond. The White Painted III–VI Crossing Line Style class appears to make a slightly earlier appearance in MB IIA and to reach the end of MB IIB, but probably not much beyond that. The White Painted V class (the eye-juglets in the case of ‘Atlit) makes its appearance in MB IIB and continues into MB IIC. From the perspective of the Cypriot pottery, and its stratigraphic context in other Levantine sites, this assemblage would best be dated to MB IIB. In Cyprus itself, all these wares are most at home in the eastern part of the island (̊ström 1972:11). Tell el-Yahudiya Ware (MNI = 8; Fig. 10:8–10) For an assemblage of this size the Tell elYahudiya component is varied and unusual. One Tell el-Yahudiya juglet is biconical (Fig. 10:8), two are cylindrical (e.g., Fig. 10:9) and ive are of the Piriform 2 type (e.g., Fig. 10:10), all according to the Bietak/Aston typology (Aston 2002; Bietak 2002). Apparently, there are no Tell el-Yahudiya juglets of the earliest, ovoid variety (cf. Zevulun 1990) and none of the Piriform 1 class (see Bietak 2002: Fig. 10 for a good graphic aid in placing the Tell elYahudiya vessels from ‘Atlit). The ‘Atlit tomb Tell el-Yahudiya group, as a whole, would it somewhere between the Strata E3 (b2) and D3 horizon at Tell el-Dab‘a, i.e., MB IIB and MB IIC, circa 1690–1530 BCE. Interestingly, the Tell el-Yahudiya ware of ‘Atlit appears more Egyptian in style than Canaanite (Aston 2002:51–53; cf. Bietak 2002:37–41). Figure 10:8 is quite similar to an example from Kabri Tomb 498 (Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Figs. 5.13; 5.40:7). Summary of the Pottery Assemblage (Table 2) A minimum of 243 ceramic vessels were recovered from the ‘Atlit tomb. The date of the assemblage ranges from late MB IIA to early MB IIC. While a number of forms begin in MB IIA, few if any, are solely MB IIA types (the exception may be Fig. 5:6); these few may originate in one or two burials from this period. The assemblage contains very little that is deinitely MB IIC (see Table 4). Signiicantly, no globular bowls were found. These are a feature of inland Syria and northern Canaan and more characteristic of MB IIA (Ilan and Marcus, forthcoming: Fig. 7.6 = Smith 1962: Pl. XVI:23; Epstein 1974: Fig. 7:13; Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984: Fig. 15:2; Beck 1985: Fig. 2:3–5; Garinkel and Bonil 1990: Fig. 3:8; Covello-Paran 1996: Fig. 4:7, 8; Paley and Porath 1997: Fig. 13.2:2, 3; Beck 2000: Fig. 10.8:5; Gonen 2001: Fig. 23:4; Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz 2002: Fig. 5.22:9). Table 2. Pottery Counts (Approximate) Type Platter bowls MNI 90 % of assemblage 37.0 Hemisperical bowls 1 0.4 Carinated bowls 3 1.3 32 13.1 1 0.4 Flaring-rim bowls Minature bowls Kraters 1 0.4 Jugs 2 0.8 Dipper juglets 17 7.1 Piriform juglets 57 23.5 1 0.4 10 4.1 Biconical juglets Cylindrical juglets Bottles WP V “eyelet” juglets 1 0.4 11 4.5 WP PLS 4 1.6 WP CLS 4 1.6 TeY juglets Total 8 3.4 243 100.0 124 Eilat Mazar and david ilan 1 3 2 0 10 Fig. 11. Alabaster bottles. No. Type Reg. No. 1 Ovoid lask 214 2 Ovoid lask 210 3 Ovoid lask 209 No cooking pots were found in the ‘Atlit tomb assemblage; this is commonly the case in Middle Bronze Age burial assemblages. Less usual is the absence of oil lamps and the small numbers of jugs, kraters and smaller bowls. This lack opens questions as to whether excavation retrieval was entirely comprehensive, and whether the construction workers who initially looted the tomb really did return all inds. In any case, one would not expect kraters and jugs to be the artifacts of choice for looters. Stone Vessels Fragments from eight alabaster vessels were found in the ‘Atlit tomb (Fig. 11). All of them appear to be of true calcite alabaster whose most likely source is Egypt (e.g., Hester and Heizer 1981). They are all best attributed to Ben-Dor’s (1945) Ovoid Flask category, though only Fig. 11:1 is manifest in his typology (Type D3).4 Figure 11:1 is known in other Middle Bronze Age contexts, for example at Alalakh (Woolley 1955: Pl. 80). Figure 11:2, 3 are broadest closer to the base rather that at the shoulder. This lowers the center of gravity, which may have some signiicance regarding the way they were used (heavy stone objects with higher centers of gravity are inherently unstable). Figure 11:3 is inversely piriform and as such, might be considered part of Ben-Dor’s Baggy-shaped category, though it lacks the sharp angle between the side and the base typical of Ben-Dor’s form. While somewhat baggy-shaped, Fig. 11:2 may embody the dipper juglet form (Ben-Dor’s Type A—Juglets). This vessel is apparently a local Canaanite type manufactured of gypsum sulfate, probably in the Bet She’an region (BenDor 1945:99–101). The two items with base intact (Fig. 11:2, 3) show a button base, which is typical of the ceramic juglets of this assemblage and of this period as a whole, but rare in alabaster vessels. The dipper juglet with a button base is particularly a feature of the MB IIB assemblage at Megiddo (Ilan, Hallote and Cline 2000:202). Metal Objects The 17 metal objects were submitted for cleaning to the IAA laboratory some weeks after the excavation and were misplaced prior to photography. We can only give the inventory, A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT 125 Fig. 12. Beads. without details: an axe (MNI = 1); projectiles, most likely spearheads (MNI = 4); toggle pins (MNI = 6); and unidentiied fragments (MNI = 10). Beads These 41 beads may well be only a portion of what was a much larger assemblage prior to disturbance. They too, have gone missing and the following analysis is based on a color photograph (Fig. 12). Materials and Shapes.— Five beads are amethyst; four of these are scaraboids and a ifth is a standard circular bead (Beck’s 1928 Type I.C.1.a). Eleven beads are carnelian; these are all short barrel or oblate forms (Beck’s I.B.1.a and b). The majority of the beads comprises a glazed composition (“frit” or “faience”) or glazed steatite (23 beads). Eighteen of these are barrel discs (Beck’s I.A.1.b), three are oblate discs (Beck’s I.B.1.a), one is a short convex cone (Beck’s I.B.1.c) and one is a scaraboid. Two beads are of quartz or “rock crystal”; these are both scaraboids. Scarabs (Table 3) The scarabs (MNI = 20) from this tomb were published by Keel (1997:770–777). Most of them are steatite and most are thought to be of local manufacture, a few may be imported. Scarab-dating criteria have led Keel to date the group to Dynasties XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE), with eight scarabs belonging to a more narrow date range of mid-Dynasty XIII to mid-Dynasty XV (c. 1700–1600 BCE). At the time of Keel’s examination of the scarabs, the other inds from the tomb had not yet been processed, and the excavator informed Keel that the assemblage probably dated to the late Middle Bronze Age–early Late Bronze Age horizon (Keel 1997:770). In fact, Keel’s dating corroborates the authors’ present assessment that the tomb should be dated to late MB IIA– late MB IIC. suMMAry And conclusions There is nothing in the ‘Atlit tomb that calls for a MB IIA date, though it is possible that its irst use dates to the end of this period. Most of the artifacts suggest a MB IIB date, as shown by (1) the large proportion of inwardly rolled rims on platter bowls; (2) the fairly large proportion of red slipped and ine burnished vessels; (3) the large number of piriform juglets juxtaposed with the small number of cylindrical juglets; (4) the large proportion of double handles rather than triple (= more MB IIA) or strap (= more MB IIC); and 126 Eilat Mazar and david ilan Table 3. The Scarabs from ‘Atlit: A Summary (Based on Keel 1997:770–777) i No.i Reg. No., IAA No. Keel (1997) Date Local/ Import Material 30 1760-16, 96-1970 Dyn. XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE) ? Steatite, glazed 31 1760-18, 96-1969 Dyn. XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE) Local? Steatite, brownish 32 1760-19, 96-1965 Dyn. mid-XIII–XV (1700–1522 BCE) Local Steatite, gray 33 1760-24, 96-1963 Dyn. XIII–mid-XV (1700–1600 BCE) Local Steatite, brown-beige 34 1760-25, 96-1959 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1759–1575 BCE) Local Steatite, beige-yellow 35 1760-26, 96-1971 ? Local Stone, dark gray 36 1760-31, 96-1964 Dyn. mid-XIII–XV (1700–1522 BCE) Local Steatite, brownish 37 1760-35, 96-1957 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1700–1575 BCE) Local Stone, dark gray to black 38 1760-37, 96-1955 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1700–1575 BCE) Local Steatite, blue-green glaze 39 1760-38, 96-1968 Dyn. XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE) Uncertain Steatite 40 1760-42, 96-1962 Dyn. XIII (1759–1630 BCE) Imported? Composite material? 41 1760-55, 96-1953 Dyn. XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE) Uncertain Steatite, beige 42 1760-60, 96-1966 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1700–1575 BCE) Local Steatite, brownish 43 1760-65, 96-1972 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1700–1575 BCE) Local Stone, dark gray to black 44 1760-67, 96-1960 Dyn. XIII (1759–1630 BCE) Local? ? 45 1760-69, 96-1954 Dyn. mid-XIII–mid-XV (1700–1600 BCE) Local Steatite 46 1760-80, 96-1961 Dyn. XIII–mid-XV (1759–1575 BCE) Local? Steatite, brownish, remains of glaze 47 1760-81, 96-1967 Dyn. XIII–XV (1759–1522 BCE) Local Steatite 48 1760-82, 96-1956 Dyn. XV (1630–1522 BCE) Local Steatite, gray-beige 49 1760-200, 96-1958 Dyn. XV (1630–1522 BCE) Local Steatite, red-brown int. After Keel 1997. Table 4. Assemblages Synchronous to the ‘Atlit Tomb Afeq (Beck 2000) Post Palace Phase Barqai (Gophna and Sussman 1969) 2nd Burial Phase Dan (Ilan 1996) Strata XI–X Gezer (Dever et al. 1986: Pls. 1–3) Strata XXI–XXII Ginosar (Epstein 1974) T. 2/3 Hazor (Yadin et al. 1960; 1961; Ben-Tor et al. 1997) Pre Stratum XVII–Stratum XVII/Lower City Stratum 4 Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982:268–454) Tomb Groups II–IV (Kenyon 1960; 1965) and equivalent levels on tel (see Kenyon and Holland 1983:xlvii, Chart X) Kabri (Kempinski 2002) T.498, T.984, T.304 Lakhish (Singer-Avitz 2004a; 2004b) P4–5 and Post P6–Pre P5 burial phase Megiddo Gerstenblith’s (1983) MBI (IIA) Phase 4, Kenyon’s (1969) Groups A–D Tel Mevorakh (Kempinski 1984; Salz 1984) Strata XII–XIII Shekhem (Cole 1984) XIX–XVIII Tel Qashish (Bonil 2003) Strata IXA–C Yoqne‘am (Livneh 2005) Strata XXIIIA–XXI A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT (5) the painted cross motif on a platter bowl. In addition, the Cypriot pottery, is, on the whole, more common in MB IIB than it is in either MB IIA or MB IIC. Finally, this dating is supported by several of the scarabs (Nos. 33, 34, 36–38, 40, 42–46), while the others do not negate it (Table 3). Conversely, several characteristics suggest a later date, perhaps early–mid-MB IIC. For one thing, a comparison of the Tell el-Yahudiya juglet group from the ‘Atlit tomb with the sequence and development of this type at Tell el-Dab‘a suggests a somewhat later date than does the rest of the assemblage. Secondly, many of the scarabs can be given a Dynasty XV date, some even late in that phase. Parallel assemblages from neighboring sites also suggest that the bulk of the material in the ‘Atlit tomb should be dated to MB IIB, with some items having MB IIC afinities (Table 4). Considering the number of burial goods and the range of typological parallels, the tomb should be understood as having a fairly long period of use, perhaps more than 100 years. 127 Dates of 1700–1600 BCE might be considered reasonable. As intimated above, this ‘Atlit tomb is part of a very large Middle Bronze Age cemetery that has been little explored and is, by now, partly decimated (Johns 1934:145–151; Raban 1996:491 and Fig. 4). The cemetery belongs to a substantial Middle Bronze Age settlement, most likely including an anchorage of sorts, that appears to occupy the tell underlying part of the Frankish castle (Chateau Pellerin) and settlement (Johns 1934). This anchorage may have supplanted the MB IIA anchorage at Tel Nami a few kilometers to the south (e.g., Artzy 1995). Perhaps future surveys and excavations will clarify this matter. In any event, a number of artifacts seem to originate abroad: Egypt (alabaster, amethyst beads, at least some of the Tell el-Yahudiya Ware and at least one scarab), inland Syria (black burnished juglet), Cyprus (White Painted Ware), and probably other regions as well. Clearly, this assemblage relects a society with wide-ranging trade connections and a maritime orientation. noTes 1 We would like to thank Col. Pini Dagan, chief engineering oficer of the nearby military base, who initiated contact with Eilat Mazar and provided logistical assistance to the excavator. Uzi Binyamin of Tirat Ha-Carmel volunteered to excavate the tomb together with Eilat Mazar. The excavation used a three-dimensional grid for relative heights, but the location of the tomb inside the army base precluded the use of surveying equipment and the establishment of absolute elevations. Michal BenGal restored the ceramics; Michael Miles and Noga Ze’evi were responsible for the object illustrations. Field photography was carried out by Eilat Mazar and object photography, by Tsila Sagiv and Clara Amit. Conservation work on the metals was done by Ella Altmark. We are also grateful to Ruhama Bonil for going over the manuscript and commenting on the ceramic study. Thanks, too, to the anonymous reviewers whose comments improved markedly the inal product. 2 We have adopted the tripartite MB IIA-MB IIBMB IIC (= MBI-MB II-MB III) terminology used by Seger (1975), Cole (1984), Dever (1987), Ilan (1995) and others. For the present authors this division is not based on any sharp differences in material culture, for indeed, continuity is the rule (cf. Kempinski 1983 and Bienkowski 1989). Rather, it is a matter of convenience, acknowledging subtle differences in material culture that vary from site to site. This subdivision will prove useful, in social, political and historical terms as research progresses. 3 At Shekhem, Cole (1984:42) has discerned that everted rims are only characteristic of MB IIC. While this may be so for that site, Bonil’s (forthcoming) more recent study shows that they are common in MB IIB at several other sites. 4 For stone vessels found in Canaan, Ben-Dor’s 1945 typology still appears to be the most useful. Items such as Fig. 11:2, 3, for example, do not occur in the synthetic treatments of Aston (1994) or Lilyquist (1995). 128 Eilat Mazar and david ilan reFerences Albright W.F. 1933. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim 1A: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. AASOR 13:55–127. Amiran R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, from Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. Jerusalem–Ramat Gan. Artzy M. 1995. Nami: A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean. In S. Gitin ed. Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West; Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Eqron, Dor, and Ashkelon (Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers 1). Dubuque, Iowa. Pp. 17–40. Artzy M. and Marcus E. 1992. Stratiied Cypriote Pottery in MB IIa Context at Tel Nami. In G.C Ioannides ed. Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis. Nicosia. Pp. 103–110. Aston B.G. 1994. Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5). Heidelberg. Aston D.A. 2002. Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Middle Bronze IIA. In M. Bietak ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXVI; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean III). Vienna. Pp. 43–87. ̊ström P. 1972. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV, 1B: The Middle Cypriot Bronze Age. Lund. Beck H.C. 1928. Classiication and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants. Oxford. Beck P. 1985. The Middle Bronze IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First Summary. Tel Aviv 12:181–203. Beck P. 2000. Area A: Middle Bronze IIA Pottery. In M. Kochavi. Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B; The 1972–1976 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 19). Tel Aviv. Pp. 173–254. Ben-Dor I. 1945. Palestinian Alabaster Vases. QDAP 11:93–112. Ben-Tor A., Bonil R., Garinkel Y., Greenberg R., Maeir A.M. and Mazar A. 1997. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem. Ben-Tor A. and Bonil R. 2003. The Stratigraphy and Pottery Assemblages of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in Area A. In A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonil and S. Zuckerman. Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. Pp. 185–276. Bienkowski P. 1989. The Division of Middle Bronze IIB–C in Palestine. Levant 21:169–179. Bietak M. 2002. Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research. In M. Bietak ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th of January 2001) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXVI; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean III). Vienna. Pp. 29–42. Bonil R. 2003. Pottery Typology of the Middle Bronze Age II and the Late Bronze Age. In A. BenTor, R. Bonil and S. Zuckerman. Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. Pp. 277–318. Bonil R. Forthcoming. Middle Bronze IIB–C (1700– 1550). In S. Gitin ed. The Pottery of Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors. Jerusalem. Bunimovitz S. and Finkelstein I. 1993. Pottery. In I. Finkelstein ed. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 10). Tel Aviv. Pp. 81–196. Cole D.P. 1984. Shechem I: The Middle Bronze Age IIB Pottery. Winona Lake. Covello-Paran K. 1996. Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves at Hagosherim, Upper Galilee. ‘Atiqot 30:71–83. Dever W.G. 1975. MB IIA Cemeteries at ‘Ain esSâmiyeh and Sinjil. BASOR 217:23–36. Dever W.G. ed. 1986. Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”. Jerusalem. Dever W.G. 1987. The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. BA 50:148– 177. Dothan M. 1976. Akko: Interim Excavation Report First Season, 1973/4. BASOR 224:1–48. Epstein C. 1974. Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Kefar Szold and Ginosar. ‘Atiqot (HS) 7:13–39 (English summary, pp. 2*–6*). Falconer S.E. and Magness-Gardiner B. 1984. Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell el-Hayyat Project. BASOR 255:49–74. Gadot Y., Ilan D., Tepper Y. and Yannai E. In press. The Bronze Age Cemetery at ‘Ara (Salvage Excavation Reports 8). Tel Aviv. Garinkel Y. and Bonil R. 1990. Graves and Burial Customs of the MB IIA Period in Gesher. Eretz- A Middle Bronze Age ToMB AT ‘ATliT Israel 21:132–47 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 106*). Gerstenblith P. 1983. The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (ASOR Dissertation Series 5). Philadelphia. Gonen R. 2001. Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages (IAA Reports 12). Jerusalem. Gophna R. and Sussman V. 1969. A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at Barqai. ‘Atiqot (HS) 5:1–13 (English summary, pp. 1*–2*). Hester T.R. and Heizer R.F. 1981. Making Stone Vases: Ethonoarchaeological Studies at an Alabaster Workshop in Upper Egypt (Monographic Journals of the Near East, Occasional Papers on the Near East 1/2). Malibu. Ilan D. 1991. ‘Stepped-Rim’ Juglets from Tel Dan and the ‘MBI–II (MB IIA–B) Transitional Period’. IEJ 41:229–238. Ilan D. 1992. A Middle Bronze Age Offering Deposit from Tel Dan and the Politics of Cultic Giving. Tel Aviv 19:247–266. Ilan D. 1995. The Dawn of Internationalism: the Middle Bronze Age. In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 297–319. Ilan D. 1996. The Middle Bronze Age Tombs. In A. Biran, D. Ilan and R. Greenberg. Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem. Pp. 161–329. Ilan D., Hallote R.S. and Cline E.H. 2000. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area F. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern eds. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18). Tel Aviv. Pp. 186–222. Ilan D. and Marcus E. Forthcoming. Middle Bronze IIA (1950–1700). In S. Gitin ed. The Pottery of Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors. Illife J.H. 1936. Pottery from Râs el-‘Ain. QDAP 5:113–126. Johns C.N. 1934. Excavations at Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit (1932): The Ancient Tell and the Outer Defenses of the Castle. QDAP 3:145–164. Johnson P. 1982. The Middle Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine. Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 49–72. Keel O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel; Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit (OBO.SA 13). Fribourg–Göttingen. Kempinski A. 1983. Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650–1570 v. Chr.) (Ägypten und Altes Testament 4). Wiesbaden. 129 Kempinski A. 1984. The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age: The Local Pottery. In E. Stern. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976) 2: The Bronze Age (Qedem 18). Jerusalem. Pp. 55–58. Kempinski A. 2002. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20). Tel Aviv. Kempinski A., Gershuny L. and Scheftelowitz N. 2002. Pottery: Middle Bronze Age. In A. Kempinski. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20). Tel Aviv. Pp. 109–175. Kenyon K.M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho I: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London. Kenyon K.M. 1965. Excavations at Jericho II: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London. Kenyon K.M. 1969. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo. Levant 1:25–60. Kenyon K.M. and Holland T.A. 1982. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London. Kenyon K.M. and Holland T.A. 1983. Excavations at Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Kopetzky K. 2002. The Dipper Juglets of Tell el-Dab‘a. A Typological and Chronological Approach. In M. Bietak ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna 24th–26th on January 2001) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXVI; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean III). Vienna. Pp. 227–244. Lilyquist C. 1995. Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Thutmosis IV. New York. Livneh A. 2005. The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age. In A. Ben-Tor, D. Ben-Ami and A. Livneh. Yoqne‘am III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 7). Jerusalem. Pp. 41–138. Loud G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (OIP LXII). Chicago. Maeir A.M. 1997. Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B. In A. Ben-Tor, R. Bonil, Y. Garinkel, R. Greenberg, A.M. Maeir and A. Mazar. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem. Pp. 295–340. Maeir A.M. 2007. The Middle Bronze Age II Pottery. In A. Mazar and R.A. Mullins eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Jerusalem. Pp. 242–389. 130 Eilat Mazar and david ilan Maguire L.C. 1992. A Cautious Approach to the Middle Bronze Age Chronology of Cyprus. Ägypten und Levante 3:115–120. Merrilees R.S. 2002. The Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Cypriote White Painted Pendent Line Style. BASOR 326:1–9. Nigro L. 2003. The Smith and the King of Ebla. Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware: Metallic Wares and the Ceramic Chronology of Middle Bronze Syria. In M. Bietak ed. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC II (Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, Wien) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXIX; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean IV). Vienna. Pp. 345–363. Paley S.M. and Porath Y. 1997. Early Middle Bronze Age IIa Remains at Tel el-Ifshar, Israel: A Preliminary Report. In E.D. Oren ed. The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (University Museum Monographs 8; University Museum Symposium Series 8). Philadelphia. Pp. 369–378. Raban A. 1996. The Phoenician Harbour and “Fishing Village” at ‘Atlit. Eretz-Israel 25:490– 508 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 107*). Salz D.L. 1984. The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age: Imported Cypriot Pottery. In E. Stern. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976) 2: The Bronze Age (Qedem 18). Jerusalem. Pp. 58–59. Seger J.D. 1975. The MB II Fortiications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel 12:34*–45*. Singer-Avitz L. 2004a. The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P. In D. Ussishkin. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) III (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Pp. 900–965. Singer-Avitz L. 2004b. The Middle Bronze Age Cemetery. In D. Ussishkin ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973– 1994) III (Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv. Pp. 971–1011. Smith R.H. 1962. Excavations in the Cemetery at Khirbet Kûin Palestine (Colt Archaeological Institute Monograph Series 1). London. Stager L.E. 2002. The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade. In M. Bietak ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant (Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001) (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXVI; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean III). Vienna. Pp. 353–362. Woolley C.L. 1955. Alalakh: An Account of Excavations at Tel Atchana in the Hatay, 1937– 1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London XVIII). Oxford. Yadin Y., Aharoni Y., Amiran R., Ben-Tor A., Dothan M., Dothan T., Dunayevsky I., Geva S. and Stern E. 1958. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958— Text. Jerusalem. Yadin Y., Aharoni Y., Amiran R., Dothan T., Dunayevsky I. and Perrot J. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem. Yadin Y., Aharoni Y., Amiran R., Dothan M., Dothan T., Dunayevsky I. and Perrot J. 1961. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958—Plates. Jerusalem. Zevulun U. 1990. Tell el-Yahudiyah Juglets from a Potter’s Refuse Pit at Afula. Eretz-Israel 21:174– 190 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 107*). Ziffer I. 1990. “At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land”: Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2, 2000–1550 B.C.E. Tel Aviv.