the southern levant (cisjordan) during the late bronze ...

chapter 36

the sou thern levant (cisjordan) during the l ate bronze ag e nava panitz-cohen

The Late Bronze Age in the area of the Israel/Palestinian territories (termed here ‘Canaan’) was a period of prosperity and privation, submission and rebellion. It marked a high point of various technological, mercantile, and artistic endeavours, while at the same time other aspects of ancient life experienced a decline. Two seminal features characterized this period: the domination of the Egyptian empire, which provides the chrono-historical as well as the political-cultural framework for the entire duration of this period, and the economic and cultural involvement of Canaan in the ‘world system’ network of the Eastern Mediterranean and the ancient Near East. It is this dialectic nature, along with the multitude of textual evidence and rich archaeological finds, that make the Late Bronze Age a pivotal period in the development of history, society, and culture in Canaan.

The chrono-historical framework The subdivision of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan is intricately tied to the activities and policies of the Egyptian New Kingdom, the 18th–20th Dynasties, although also affected by local conditions and processes (Table 36.1). The absolute dates used here are those of the low chronology proposed by Kitchen (1987; 2007). While its inner development is basically uncontentious, there is debate concerning the beginning and the end of this period, a feature that is, of course, typical of transitional periods in general. The initial phase of the Late Bronze (LB IA) was thought to have been ‘officially’ ushered in with the conquest of Avaris and the reunification of Egypt by Ahmose, the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty; his conquest of Saruhen (Tell el-‘Ajjul) marks the expulsion of the Hyksos from Canaan and the beginning of Egyptian imperial control (1550 bce). However, while the series of destructions of various MB IIB sites has been linked to this event, the picture was much more complex and the process of change in socio-olitical organization, settlement patterns, and material culture was gradual and intermittent. Other

36_MargreetLSteiner_Ch36.indd 535

1/28/2013 8:15:02 PM

536

the archaeological record

Table 36.1 Periodization of the Late Bronze Age Period

Date

Egyptian New Kingdom

LB III/Iron IA

1190–1140

LB IIB

1300–1190

LB IIA

1375–1300

LB IB

1479–1375

LB IA

1550–1479

20th Dynasty Ramesses III–Ramesses VI 19th Dynasty Horemharb–Merneptah Late 18th Dynasty Amarna period Mid-18th Dynasty Thutmosis III–Amenophis III Early 18th Dynasty Ahmose–Hapshetsut

factors most probably also played a role in the transformation, such as natural disasters, internecine strife, nomadic incursions, previous and subsequent military campaigns, and migration of peoples such as the Hurrians (Weinstein 1981: 1; 1991; Hoffmeier 1989; Dever 1990: 76; 1992a: 48; 1997; Bietak 1991: 58–61; 2002: 37–8; Redford: 1992: 139, n. 49, 148–9; Na’aman 1994; Bunimovitz 1995: 320–22, 330; Ilan 1995: 314–15; Hasel 1998: 4–5, n. 6). It has been suggested that the second half of the 16th century should be designated as ‘transitional MB–LB’ or ‘MB IIC–LB I’ (Bietak 1991; Dever 1992b: 16), in an attempt to accommodate both the short-term events and long-term processes that shaped the inception of the Late Bronze in Canaan. It is with the ascension of Thutmosis III (1479 bce) that the full-blown Late Bronze material culture patterns appear unequivocally in the archaeological record (Leonard 1989: 12–16; Mazar 1990: 232; Bietak 1991: 58–62; Ilan 1995: 315; Oren 2001). The reigns of Thutmosis III, Amenophis II, and most of Amenophis III are designated LB IB. Some scholars deny the validity of a subdivision into LB IA and LB IB for the latter 16th and the 15th centuries bce, and use just LB I (Weinstein 1981: 12). However, it is justifiable to separate the two sub-periods in light of the different nature of the processes and events of each. The following phase (LB IIA) covers the latter three-quarters of the 14th century bce, including the end of the reign of Amenophis III and the so-called ‘Amarna Age’ (Redford 1992: 169–88). The end of the Amarna interlude was followed by a much tightened control of Canaan by the rulers of the 19th Dynasty, covering all of the 13th century bce. This phase (LB IIB) began with the military campaigns of Seti I (1295 bce) and was dominated by the long-lived Ramesses II (1279–1212 bce). The 19th Dynasty ended with brief reigns of Ramesses II’s successors, the most prominent being Merneptah (1212–1204 bce) and the last being Queen Tauseret, whose reign ended c.1185 bce. The 20th Dynasty consituted the ‘swan song’ of Egyptian domination of Canaan. The reign of Ramesses III terminated in c.1155 bce and marked the virtual demise of the Egyptian empire, though sparse Egyptian presence is attested until the reign of Ramesses VI down to c.1140 bce (Weinstein 1992). The definition of this sub-period is the most debated, as it is characterized by almost equal shares of continuity and change. Continuity is represented by the aforesaid Egyptian presence, as well as many aspects of Canaanite material culture and settlements, particularly along the coast and in the northern valleys (Gonen 1992b). Change is underscored by destructions of key Canaanite sites, against the background of the


1/28/2013 8:15:04 PM

the southern levant (cisjordan) during the late bronze age

537

breakdown of the geopolitical framework of the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean basin during the second half of the 13th until the early 12th centuries bce (Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Drews 1993; Killebrew 2005: 33–49). This turmoil terminated the extensive international trade and triggered migratory movements throughout the region, particularly of the so-called ‘Sea Peoples’ (Sandars 1985; Bietak 1993; Oren 2000; Killebrew 2005: 33–42). The long-lived Canaanite city-state system ultimately dissipated and an unprecedented regionalism took its place. This complex transitional period is designated LB III by some scholars (Ussishkin 2004: 74–5; Oren 2006), but is deemed Iron Age IA by others (Mazar 1990: 290, 296; Stern 1993: 1529), depending on how the material culture of the first half of the 12th century bce is contextualized and whether the initial settlement of the Philistines is considered contemporary with or post-dating the 20th Dynasty (Barako 2007; Finkelstein 2000; Mazar 2007: 575–9; Yasur-Landau 2007). This final part of the Late Bronze is characterized by the reshuffling of sociopolitical boundaries between various groups— Egyptians, Canaanites, ‘apiru, Shasu, Israelites, and Sea Peoples, some of whom disappeared and some who took centre stage in the subsequent Iron Age (Killebrew 2005).

Settlement patterns, urbanization, and population The nature and dynamics of Late Bronze settlement patterns, urbanization, and population are a prime window into the dialectics of Canaanite society, economy, and culture as a two-tier process which oscillated between autonomy and dependence. The rash of destructions of MB IIB cities eventually culminated in a new settlement pattern (Fig. 36.1). Alongside a decrease in the amount of sites, the majority were now concentrated along the coast and major inland valleys, with a decline in the erstwhile densely populated central hill country and Beersheba Valley. The net size of Late Bronze settlements also decreased, with a concomitant population reduction. These population shifts were also expressed in the refiguration of sedentary versus nomadic elements, with the latter gaining ground, particularly in the less populated peripheral regions (Gonen 1984; 1987; 1992b: 215; Mazar 1990: 239–40; Ahlström 1993: 220; Bunimovitz 1994: 194–6; Savage and Falconer 2003). Late Bronze II saw a gradual increase in settlements (Bunimovitz 1995: 320–24; Killebrew 2005: 97), although Gonen (1984: 63; 1992b: 217) claimed that the increase in LB IIB is more of an optical illusion, since it took place mainly in centres of Egyptian administration such as Tel Sher῾a, Beth Shean, Jaffa, and Aphek, while other settlements were abandoned. Although traditional scholarship has tended to homogenize the political organization of the Middle and Late Bronze city-states (i.e. Albright 1956: 91–2; Baumgarten 1992), recent evaluations using analytic methods taken from the fields of political sociology and human geography (Bunimovitz 1989; 1992; 1994; 1995; Finkelstein 1996; Savage and Falconer 2003; Jasmin 2006), survey data (Dagan 2000; 2004; Shavit 2000), and provenience studies of the Amarna archive tablets (Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004) have demonstrated that the Late Bronze political-territorial organization represented a more diverse and less integrated system than in the Middle Bronze. In place of a relatively small number of large MB IIB cities controlling broad hinterlands (Ilan 1995; Dever 1997), the Late Bronze comprised a cluster of rather small, semi-autonomous city-states of differential hierarchy,


1/28/2013 8:15:04 PM

538


Hazor

Tell Abu Hawam Tel Nami

Megiddo Beth Shean

Shechem Aphek Jaffa Gezer Tel Mor

Jerusalem

Tel Batash Ashdod Tell el-`Ajjul

Gaza

Deir el-Balah

Beth Shemesh

Gath

Lachish Tell ell Beit Mirsim Tel Sher’a

0km

100km

fig. 36.1 Periodization of the Late Bronze Age. both intra- and interregional (Strange 2000). Although there was a high degree of cultural continuity between the two periods, differences stemming from demographic depletion, Egyptian domination, and international commercial and cultural involvement are considerable (Killebrew 2005: 100). The Late Bronze political system of small city-states most probably coalesced during the 15th century bce, but the main source for its reconstruction and interpretation remains


1/28/2013 8:15:04 PM


539

the Amarna letters (Na’aman 1975; 1997; 2000; Marfoe 1979; Liverani 1983; Bunimovitz 1989: 131–61; Moran 1992; Giles 1997; Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004). Attempts to reconstruct the number of city-states and particularly to define the nature of their borders, have resulted in conflicting views, ranging from a number of 13–14 (Finkelstein 1996), or 17–18 (Bunimovitz 1989: 131–62), to 22–27 (Helck 1971; Gonen 1992b: 214; Na’aman 1997; Falconer and Savage 2003) (see Fig. 36.2). A proposed modus vivendi is the round number of c.20 suggested in wake of the recent petrographic study of the Amarna tablets (Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004: 320). The different evaluations are based on variable definitions of what constitutes a city-state (Hansen 2000), as well as on the question whether there was a ‘no man’s land’ or fuzzy border between them (Na’aman 1997: 606–7) or whether it was a tightly organized system with no sparsely inhabited or poorly controlled border zones (Finkelstein 1996: 225–6; Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004: 322). Another consequential issue is whether some kingdoms were more dominant than others. It seems probable that Hazor, Shechem, and possibly Gezer were of higher rank (Bienkowski 1987; Na’aman 1997; Zuckerman 2007: 12); Jerusalem (Finkelstein 1996: 243) and Gath (Uziel and Maeir 2005; Jasmin 2006: 174) are recent candidates for this list of ‘territorial kingdoms’. This hierarchal inequality was most likely the result of assorted factors, such as differential access to resources (natural and human), geographic location (proximity to trade and military routes, or to peripheral nomadic areas), as well as the effects of direct Egyptian intervention (garrisons, governors’ residencies, and temples). Scholars have tried to understand the reasons for the overall smaller size of Late Bronze city-states as opposed to their MB II predecessors, as well as for the causes behind the constant strife between them. One model proposes that population depletion resulted in small urban elites competing for natural resources and sedentary manpower. The smaller size of the Late Bronze city-states was also impacted by the factor of ‘economic feasibility’, i.e. the distance that the relatively impoverished rural population would be willing to go to take advantage of the central place’s services (Bunimovitz 1989: 71–100; 1994; 1995: 324–6). Explanations of Canaanite political fragmentation include disputes between the lowlands and the highlands, as the latter tried to regain power lost at the end of MB II (Finkelstein 1996; Savage and Falconer 2003: 40), as well as control of major trade routes and seizure of neighbouring agricultural land, which was at a premium due to Egyptian land confiscation and exploitation. A deliberate Egyptian policy of ‘divide and rule’ is apparently behind at least some of the internecine bickering, as well as of the relatively small size and unfortified state of most of these petty kingdoms (Gonen 1992b). Analysis of the degree of urbanization by way of the material correlates of monumental public secular and religious architecture, as well as fortifications, has shown that these parameters decline in the Late Bronze (Gonen 1984; 1992b; London 1989). This is not to say that this period was non-urban, but rather that the scale and nature of urbanism was quantitatively and qualitatively different than before (Bunimovitz 1995: 324). While Bunimovitz postulated that the main players were the small urban centres and the non-sedentary elements, Falconer (1994: 329) suggested that the rural sector in the population became steadily more influential as the urban entities deteriorated (also Gonen 1992b: 218; Finkelstein 1996: 232). When evaluating the Late Bronze population, the dissident ‘apiru and the pastoralist Shasu must be considered alongside the sedentary rural and urban Canaanites (Greenberg 1955; Finkelstein 1992; Redford 1992: 179, 195; Rainey 1995; Goren, Finkelstein, and Na’aman 2004: 321). Immigration from Anatolia, Syria, and


1/28/2013 8:15:05 PM

540


Hazor Acco

Dor

Acshaf Shim'on Anaharath Megiddo

Gath-Carmel

Ta'anach a'anach

Rehov

Gath-Padalla Shechem Aphek Gezer Jerusalem Gath Ashkelon Lachish Yurza

Debir

0km

100km

fig. 36.2 Map of Late Bronze sites of the southern Levant (Cisjordan). the Aegean world influenced the local population by the latter part of LB IIB (Mazar 1988a). The spatial and temporal diversity of burial types reflects regional and socioeconomic differences of the indigenous Canaanite population and their differential exposure to Egyptian influence, alongside a minority of burials that are an expression of foreign and nomadic groups (Gonen 1992a; Bunimovitz 1995: 331). Thus, while the urban and village Canaanites


1/28/2013 8:15:05 PM


541

constituted the main bulk of the population, other socioeconomic and ethnic elements must be reckoned with when analysing Late Bronze society (Dever 1992c; Killebrew 2005).

The impact of the Egyptian Empire on Canaan The ‘shadow of Egyptian domination’ (Mazar 1990) is the primary formative factor of the Canaanite Late Bronze Age, for better and (for the most part) for worse. The vassal status of the Canaanite city-states exposed the local population to ongoing economic stress of land confiscation, population deportation, and military raids, although also offering a preferred status and economic advantages for some (Knapp 1993: 85–6). The Egyptian domination was far from monolithic, having undergone alterations and adjustments that deeply impacted Canaanite culture, economy, and society during the 400-odd years of its duration. The first seventy years of the 18th Dynasty (LB IA) were a moratorium for Canaan, when a new, more decentralized social equilibrium was being established which entailed shifts in political loyalties, with local elites turning from the Hyksos to the Egyptian 18th Dynasty in a process termed ‘dynastic substitution’, or having been replaced with new elements who would prove loyal to the latter (Bunimovitz 1989; 1995: 323–6; Ilan 1995: 315; Dever 1998: 112). On the basis of somewhat later sources such as Ugaritic texts and the Amarna letters, this new elite included civilian and military functionaries, such as the maryannu, as well as scribes, administrators, landowners, middlemen, and merchants (Heltzer 1976; Mazar 1990: 247; Ahlström 1993: 211). Egyptian administrative apparatus in Canaan was cursory, and it seems that the first potentates of the 18th Dynasty were content with oaths of loyalty and regular tribute by local princes (Redford 1992: 148–55, 200). Egyptian involvement in Canaan expanded in proportion to their engagement with the Mitannian kingdom in northern Syria over the course of the 15th century bce, with growing acknowledgement of the potential of Canaan as a launching place and buffer zone, as well as a valuable economic resource (Leonard 1989: 13; Ahlström 1993: 218; Hasel 1998: 117; Killebrew 2005: 51–92; Morris 2005). Following the peace treaty with the Mitanni, the last part of LB IB was one of relative tranquility, with the pax aegyptiaca being especially lucrative for Egypt, although detrimental for Canaan, as an Egypt now free of international altercations increasingly set its sights on exploiting its northern province with labour and land confiscation, as well as taxes and tribute (Knapp 1987: 25; Redford 1992: 169). Egyptian administration of Canaan became more proactive at this time, though the details of its subdivision are debated (Na’aman 1999: 34). It is difficult to assess the impact of the Amarna interlude in LB IIA on the Canaanite vassals, and scholarly opinion is divided as to whether this was an era of prosperity or weakness (Weinstein 1981: 15–16; Redford 1992: 175). Bienkowski (1989: 60); Giles (1997: 352), Knapp (1989: 65; 1993: 86), and Ahlström (1993: 241–2) view the minor squabbling of the petty kings of Canaan and their constant expressions of loyalty to Egypt as the very proof of viable Egyptian rule rather than as a breakdown; it was ‘business as usual’ that was simply frozen for modern eyes by dint of the discovery of the archive. On the other hand, the greatly intensified Egyptian involvement in Canaan during the subsequent 19th Dynasty is thought


1/28/2013 8:15:05 PM

542


to be clinching evidence of a significant weakening of Egyptian control during the Amarna period (Weinstein 1981: 17; Leonard 1989: 16). Not only is the political situation difficult to evaluate, but economic and social conditions are ambivalent as well. Scholars have deliberated as to the apparent disparity between certain aspects of material culture which demonstrate great wealth and artistic prowess (such as elabourate burial deposits, elegant ceramic imports, and high-quality luxury items), as opposed to others (such as local pottery technology and dearth of monumental architecture) which show decline (Gonen 1987; Knapp 1987: 26; 1989; Leibowitz 1987; 1989; Bienkowski 1989; Bunimovitz 1994: 9–10; Hasel 1998: 115–17). Was Canaan too poor to constitute a target for Egyptian exploitation (Ahituv 1978; Bienkowski 1989; Dever 1998: 111), or are the texts mentioning ample tribute, taxation, goods, manpower, and services commandeered by the Egyptians evidence of an economically sound province (Na’aman 1981; Weinstein 1981; Knapp 1989; 1992; Hasel 1998: 117)? Various reasons have been suggested for this incongruity, such as disparate socioeconomic conditions, ethnic entities, and settlement venues. One scenario points to a highly stratified society, whose ruling elite was preoccupied with maintaining their status at all costs through conspicuous consumption within the framework of Egyptian supremacy and status symbols, at the expense of the rural hinterland and ultimately, themselves (Bunimovitz 1994: 10–11; Bryan 1996; Higginbotham 2000). Others postulate that prosperity was enjoyed only in those regions where Egyptians were present or had clear vested interests, while poverty was the lot of those ‘off the Egyptian track’ (Bienkowski 1989). This ‘complex pattern of economic decline and survival’ (Bunimovitz 1995: 326) is to be understood against the background of the duality of life in Late Bronze Canaan, caught between local autonomy and imperial dependence. The reign of the 19th Dynasty marked an unprecedented intensification of Egyptian presence in Canaan, well-attested in Egyptian sources by a step-up in punitive military campaigns, and in the archaeological record by the governors’ residencies and garrison stations established at strategic locations (i.e. Deir el-Balah, Beth Shean, Jaffa, Gaza, Tel Mor, Lachish, Aphek, Tel Shera’, and possibly Gezer and Megiddo), temples dedicated to Egyptian deities, and an increase in Egyptian and Egyptianized objects, inscriptions, and burial customs in the form of anthropoid coffins (Weinstein 1981: 17–22; Oren 1984; 2006; Gonen 1992a; Ahlström 1993: 251–3; Singer 1994: 284; Higginbotham 2000; Killebrew 2004: 342; 2005: 51–92; Killebrew, Goldberg, and Rosen 2006). Egyptian involvement in local craft production is evident, particularly in pottery manufacture (Cohen-Weinberger 1998; Killebrew 2004; 2005: 79–80; Oren 2006: 271; Martin 2007). An alternative explanation for this intensification entails the concept of ‘elite emulation’, wherein the surge of Egyptianization reflects local elites who acculturated the trappings of Egyptian culture as status symbols (Bryan 1996; Higginbotham 2000). However, it seems that while such a process might have occurred on some level, it does not sufficiently account for the intensified Egyptian involvement in Canaan, which was in fact the core of its Asiatic empire following the battle of Kadesh and the peace treaty with the Hittites. The nature of Egyptian presence in the 20th Dynasty, considered a continuation of the intense 19th Dynasty policy, has been recently questioned by Mazar (2007: 578), who postulates a weakening of imperial rule in face of the incursions of Sea Peoples and the general disturbances that shook the entire ancient Near East at this time.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM


543

The place of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age ‘world system’ The Late Bronze has been termed the ‘age of internationalism’ due to the extensive economic, cultural, political, and ideological interaction between Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Mycenaean world, Cyprus, and the Levant. The concept of a ‘world system’, taken from Wallerstein’s analysis of the emergence of modern capitalism, is a convenient analytic framework in which to understand these processes (Kohl 1987; Knapp 1998; Killebrew 2005: 23–4). Globalization is still another heuristic framework currently being utilized in the analysis of the interconnected relations of the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean basin in the latter half of the second millennium bce (Randsborg 2001; La Bianca and Scham 2006). These analyses emphasize the interaction between regions and political entities, wherein both major (core regions, palace systems) and minor (periphery and semi-periphery regions, small city-states) players impacted different and dynamically developing levels of the system. This fundamentally economic interaction was concomitant with a shared artistic koiné or ‘international style’ (Caubet 1998), whose material correlates reflected an ideology that served the great kings and high elites in the construction and consolidation of their status and power (Feldman 2006). This materiality and its associated social and ideological ‘added value’ trickled down to local elites of secondary city-states and even to lower social echelons (‘sub-elite consumers’: Sherratt and Sherratt 1991: 341), so that virtually all social classes were able to partake in some way and on some level of the commercial contacts and absorb the ideological baggage that accompanied them (Zaccagnini 1987; Caubet 1998: 112; Knapp 1998: 202–4; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991: 240–341; van Wijngaarden 2002). Late Bronze Canaan was a secondary but significant participant in this system, as a ‘semi-periphery’ component (Killebrew 2005: 23) that served as a geographic, economic, cultural, and political interface and buffer zone between the larger powers of Egypt and the Hittite Empire (Leonard 1989). Despite its vassal state, Canaan enjoyed some degree of autonomy in the international trade network. Canaanites were involved in both shipbuilding and maintenance, although most of the known references and archaeological remains pertain to Ugarit (Wachsmann 1998). The active role of Canaanites as seamen is evidenced by the Syro-Palestinian finds in the Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidoniya shipwrecks that may be considered personal effects (Bass 1986: 296; Pulak 1997). The Canaanite storage jar was both widely traded and copied throughout the Mediterranean basin (Gunneweg, Perlman, and Asaro 1987; Mazar 1988b), so that not only did the contents of these jars figure in the trade interaction, but the jars themselves fulfilled an emblematic role of transmitting ‘Canaanitism’ throughout the world system. Canaanite trade was not only an officially attached or palace-dependent commerce as were most of the mercantile endeavours of Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt, but rather the Canaanite merchants and seafarers apparently often operated as middlemen, mercenaries, or free agents in a kind of ‘opportunistic sailor’s trade’ or ‘entrepreneurial trade’ (Artzy 1994; 1998). Such traders filled the niche of informal exchange of ‘added-value products’, such as pottery, less expensive substitutes for elite luxury items, and possibly scrap metal as well (Sherratt 1998). Certainly the ubiquity of Cypriot ceramic imports in virtually every Canaanite town is due, at least in part, to this informal but critical role of Canaanite seamen and sub-elite


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM

544


merchants. Gateway ports such as Tell Abu Hawam and Tel Nami were coastal emporia that served as the foci of this distribution to inland Canaan (Artzy 1994; 2007), most likely by way of regional hubs along the inland trade routes, such as Megiddo and Beth-Shean in the northern valleys (Knapp 1993: 87).

Material culture and Canaanite society: diversity and homogeneity The material culture of the Late Bronze continued many features of the previous period, while developing unique patterns of its own. The various factors discussed above—the nature of the settlement pattern and degree of urbanization, the scope and makeup of the population, the Egyptian imperial presence, and the involvement of Canaan in the world system—are all crucial factors in the contextual interpretation of Late Bronze material culture, which demonstrated both rags and riches, autonomy and interdependence, and creativity and stagnation. Canaanite temples were either a reuse of monumental MB II temples or newly built of rather heterogeneous plans, such as at Hazor, while some temples demonstrate Egyptian influence, especially in LB IIB, such as in Beth Shean Stratum Lower VI and Lachish Area P, Stratum VII (Mazar 1992). Few buildings that can be defined as administrative and/or royal palaces have been found; the most prominent examples include Hazor (Zuckerman 2007), Megiddo, and Tell el-‘Ajjul (Oren 1992). Somewhat more frequent are the so-called ‘patrician houses’, found mostly at southern sites such as Ashdod, Tel Batash, Tel Beit Mirsim, and Beth Shemesh (Ben-Dov 1992; Oren 1992; Daviau 1993; Panitz-Cohen 2006b). These well-appointed dwellings attest to the comfortable status of certain sectors of the urban population. The diversity of burials, ranging from multiple interments in caves with thousands of pottery vessels to single-burial cist tombs accompanied by a well-defined funeral kit, reflects the socioeconomic multiplicity of the Canaanites, as well as other ethnic entities in the land (Gonen 1992a; Baker 2003). Specialized crafts such as glyptics, faience, metallurgy, pendants, and ivory and alabaster carving obtained a high level of achievement that was the outcome of long-lived local traditions, Egyptian auspices, and the exposure of Canaanite artisans to the styles and technologies of the world system cultural koiné (Kohl 1987; Leibowitz 1987; Gonen 1992b; Caubet 1998; Moorey 2001; Feldman 2006). Although typologically there was continuity in the ceramics from MB IIB, pottery production experienced a certain technological decline, evident in the less plastic clays, a reduction in fast wheel formation, warping and cracks due to unsuitable drying or firing conditions, and a narrower typological range (Amiran 1969: 125; Bienkowski 1986; Wood 1990: 18; Franken and London 1995; Killebrew 2005). Various reasons for these changes may be suggested, such as denied access to clay sources due to political strife, disruption of consumer and marketing patterns which dictated changes in production modes, and increased competition from affordable high quality imports (Panitz-Cohen 2006a: 276–83). Late Bronze pottery includes some of the most elabourately painted ware to be found in Canaan, indicating that alongside this technological decline, there often was no reduction in the quantity and the quality of certain production steps (Feinman, Upham, and Lightfoot 1981). The widespread imitation of ceramic imports (Prag 1985) was an integral facet of


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM


545

8

fig. 36.3 Different proposals for the division of Canaanite city-states (based on Falconer and Savage 2003).


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM

546


Late Bronze pottery production, as a conscious effort on the part of Canaanite potters to stimulate market competition with import substitution (Bergoffen 2006). Fig. 36.3 presents a sample of Late Bronze Canaanite pottery. The typological and technological ceramic changes during LB I–LB IIA suggest that some of the plain pottery production was conducted in small–medium scale household workshops that involved elementary specialization and were geared to local distribution catchments (Killebrew 1998: 255). This marked a departure from the mostly centralized, specialized production and controlled distribution of the previous MB IIB. This change is assumed to be based on various factors, such as the above-mentioned technological decline, petrographic studies that show localized production for the same shapes throughout the country, a high degree of formal variation, and the use of different formation techniques to manufacture the same shapes (Panitz-Cohen 2006a: 275–83). Ethnographic analogies demonstrate how the reduction of sustenance from agriculture often prompts villagers to turn for subsistence to pottery making in household or nucleated household workshops (i.e. Arnold 1985: 171–96); extensive Egyptian land confiscation could have induced such a process in Late Bronze Canaan (Na’aman 1988; Panitz-Cohen 2009; 2010). The lack of central authority (Egyptian or Canaanite elite) interested in controlling pottery production at this time was also one of the mechanisms that encouraged such a dispersed production mode (Rice 1987: 460). In LB IIB–LB III, a shift in the organization of production to a more centralized mode took place with the heightened intervention of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, at least in those towns and regions where Egyptian presence was most active (Panitz-Cohen 2009; 2010). Egyptian potters were brought to the garrison towns and Egyptian centres, and made Egyptian shapes locally using Egyptian technology, working alongside Canaanite potters, thus impacting local technology and distribution patterns (Knapp 1993; Cohen-Weinberger 1998; Killebrew 2005: 79–80), although there was virtually no typological cross-fertilization between the Canaanite and Egyptian traditions (Martin 2005; Oren 2006: 271). An interesting issue is the homogeneity of Canaanite material culture during the Late Bronze Age, particularly the pottery, in a land that was politically fragmented and socioeconomically disparate. A major factor that prompted this homogeneity was the pressure of Egyptian imperialistic policy, which solidified a well-defined group identity of ‘us’ and ‘them’ (Killebrew 2005: 11; see also Na’aman 1999). This external force joined the habitus of the long-lived Canaanite ceramic tradition that had its roots in the MB II and, as such, became emblematic of a shared identity, language, and cult. Both the technological style and the pervasive decorative motifs of Canaanite pottery served to form and reinforce the group identity of people who, despite the geopolitical borders between them, shared a common heritage with recognizable material correlates that was able to overcome the political fragmentation of the city-state confines. Social interaction of relocation, visits, labour exchange, and marriage connections that crossed the political borders were part of the adhesive that bound Canaanite self-identity. The intense Egyptian political and economic control of the 13th and early 12th centuries bce, along with the influx of foreign immigrants and the rash of destructions of key Canaanite sites, resulted in a gradual breakdown of this cultural distinctiveness, aside from isolated pockets such as in the Northern Valleys, ultimately culminating in the new cultural segmentation of the Iron Age and ending the long-lived Canaanite culture that reached its zenith in the Late Bronze Age.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM


547

Suggested reading Baumgarten, J. J. (1992). Urbanization in the Late Bronze Age. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 143–50. Bunimovitz, S. (1995). On the edge of empires: Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 bce). In T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, 320–31. Finkelstein, I. (1996). The territorial-political system of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.UgaritForschungen 28: 221–55. Gonen, R. (1984). Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 61–73. —— (1992). The Late Bronze Age. In A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, trans. R. Greenberg. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press/Tel Aviv: Open University of Israel, 211–57. Hasel, M. G. (1998). Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 1300–1185 B.C. Leiden: Brill. Higginbotham, C. R. (2000). Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. Leiden: Brill. Leonard, A., Jr (1989). The Late Bronze Age. Biblical Archaeologist 52: 4–39. Mazar, A. (1990). In the shadow of Egyptian domination: the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550– 1200 B.C.E.). In Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 1: 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 232–94. Redford, D. B. (1990). Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom, ed. S. Ahituv. Beer-Sheva: BenGurion University of the Negev Press.

References Ahituv, S. (1978). Economic factors in the Egyptian conquest of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 93–105. Ahlström, G. W. (1993). The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, ed. D. Edelman. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Albright, W. F. (1956). The Archaeology of Palestine, rev. edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Amiran, R. (1969). Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada Press. Arnold, D. E. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Artzy, M. (1994). Incense, camels and collared rim jars: desert trade routes and maritime outlets in the second millennium. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13.2: 121–47. —— (1998). Routes, trade, boats and ‘nomads of the sea’. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 439–48. —— (2007). Tell Abu Hawam: news from the Late Bronze Age. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 357–66. Baker, J. L. (2003). The Middle and Late Bronze Age tomb complex at Ashkelon, Israel: the architecture and the funeral kit. Ph.D dissertation, Brown University.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM

548


Barako, T. J. (2007). Coexistence and impermeability: Egyptians and Philistines in southern Canaan during the twelfth century BCE. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 509–16. Bass, G. F. (1986). A Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 90: 269–96 Baumgarten, J. J. (1992). Urbanization in the Late Bronze Age. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 143–50. Ben-Dov, M. (1992). Middle and Late Bronze Age dwellings. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 99–104. Bergoffen, C. J. (2006). Canaanite wheelmade imitations of Late Cypriot base ring II jugs. In E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, and A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honor of Manfred Bietak. Leuven: Peeters, 331–8. Bienkowski, P. (1986). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster: Aris & Philips. —— (1987). The role of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119: 50–61. —— (1989). Prosperity and decline in LBA Canaan: a reply to Leibowitz and Knapp. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 59–61. Bietak, M. (1991). Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281: 27–72. —— (1993). The Sea Peoples and the end of the Egyptian administration in Canaan. In A. Biran and Y. Aviram (eds), Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem. June–July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 292–306. —— (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. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 29–42. Bryan, B. M. (1996). Art, empire and the end of the Late Bronze Age. In J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz (eds), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 33–79. Bunimovitz, S. (1989). The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: a case study of socio-cultural change in a complex society [in Hebrew]. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. —— (1992). The beginning of the Late Bronze Age [in Hebrew]. Eretz Israel 23: 21–5. ——(1994). The problem of human resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and its socioeconomic implications. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 1–20. —— (1995). On the edge of empires: Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE). In T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, 320–31. Caubet, A. (1998). The international style: a point of view from the Levant and Syria. In E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique/Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, 105–13. Cohen-Weinberger, A. (1998). Petrographic analysis of the Egyptian forms from Stratum VI at Tel Beth-Shean. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 406–12.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM


549

Dagan, Y. (2000). The settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the second and first millennnia B.C.E. [In Hebrew]. Ph.D dissertation. Tel Aviv University. —— (2004). Results of the survey: settlement patterns in the Lachish region. In D. J. Ussishkin (ed.), Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 5. Tel Aviv : Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 2672–90. Daviau, P. M. M. (1993). Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine: Domestic Activity Areas and Artefact Distribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Dever, W. G. (1990). Hyksos, Egyptian destructions and the end of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age. Levant 22: 75–82. ——(1992a). The chronology of Syria-Palestine in the second millennium B.C. In M. Bietak (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of the Second International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology (The Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean), Schloss Haindorf/Langenlois, Austria 12.–15. VIII 1990. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 39–51. —— (1992b). The chronology of Syria-Palestine in the second millennium B.C.E.: a review of current issues. Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 288: 1–25. —— (1992c). The Late Bronze–Early Iron I horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, Sea Peoples, and Proto-Israelites. In Ward and Joukowsky (1992: 99–110). —— (1997). Settlement patterns and chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age. In E. D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 285–301. —— (1998).Gezer, A Crossroad in Ancient Israel [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv : Kibbutz Meuchad/Israel Exploration Society/Israel Antiquities Authority. Drews, R. (1993). The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Falconer, S. E. (1994). The development and decline of Bronze Age civilization in the southern Levant: a reassessment of urbanism and ruralism. In C. Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age. Sheffield: J. R. Collins, 305–34 Feinman, G. M., S. Upham, and K. G. Lightfoot (1981). The production step measure: an ordinal index of labor input in ceramic manufacture. American Antiquity 46: 871–84. Feldman, M. H. (2006). Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an ‘International Style’ in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Finkelstein, I. (1992). Pastoralism in the highlands of Canaan in the third and second millennia B.C.E. In O. Bar-Yosef and A. M. Khazaonv (eds), Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Madison, Wis.: Prehistory, 133–42. —— (1996). The territorial-political system of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. UgaritForschungen 28: 221–55. —— (2000). The Philistine settlements: when, where and how many? In E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University Museum, 159–80. Franken, H. J., and G. A. London (1995). Why painted pottery disappeared at the end of the second millennium BCE. Biblical Archaeologist 58.4: 214–22. Giles, F. J. (1997). The Amarna Age: Western Asia. Warminster: Aris & Philips. Gonen, R. (1984). Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 61–73. —— (1987). Megiddo in the Late Bronze Age: another reassessment. Levant 19: 83–100. —— (1992a). Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. —— (1992b). The Late Bronze Age. In A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, trans. R. Greenberg. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press/Tel Aviv: Open University of Israel, 211–57.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM

550


Goren, Y., I. Finkelstein, and N. Na’aman (2004). Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv : Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Greenberg, M. (1955). The Hab/piru. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society. Gunneweg, J., I. Perlman, and F. Asaro (1987). A Canaanite jar from Enkomi. Israel Exploration Journal 37: 168–72. Hansen, M. H. (2000). Concepts of city-state and city-state culture. In M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: An Investigation. Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 11–34. Hasel, M. G. (1998). Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 1300–1185 B.C. Leiden: Brill. Helck, W. (1971). Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Heltzer, Michael. (1976). The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Higginbotham, C. R. (2000). Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. Leiden: Brill. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1989). Reconsidering Egypt’s part in the termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 21: 181–93. Ilan, D. (1995). The dawn of internationalism: the Middle Bronze Age. In T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, 297–319. Jasmin, M. (2006). Political organization of the city-states in southwestern Palestine in the Late Bronze Age IIB (13th century BC). In A. M. Maier and P. de Miroschedji (eds), ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, vol. 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 161–91. Kohl, P. (1987). The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age worldsystem: a view from the northeastern frontier of the ancient Near East. In M. J. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143–64. Killebrew, A. E. (1998). Ceramic craft and technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: the relationship between pottery technology, style and cultural diversity. Ph.D dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. —— (2004). New Kingdom Egyptian-style and Egyptian pottery in Canaan: implications for Egyptian rule in Canaan during the 19th and early 20th Dynasties. In G. N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch (eds), Egypt, Israel and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford. Leiden: Brill, 309–44. —— (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature. —— P. Goldberg, and A. M. Rosen (2006). Deir el-Balah: a geological, archaeological, and historical reassessment of an Egyptianizing 13th and 12th Century B.C.E. center. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 97–119. Kitchen, K. A. (1987). The basics of Egyptian chronology in relation to the Bronze Age. In P. Ǻström (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg, 20th–22nd August 1987, vol. 1. Gothenburg: Ǻströms, 37–55. —— (2007). Egyptian and related chronologies: look sciences, no pots! In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May– 1st of June 2003. Vienna: österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 163–72.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM


551

Knapp, A. B. (1987). Pots, PIXE and data processing at Pella in Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 266: 1–30. —— (1989). Response: independence, imperialism, and the Egyptian factor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 64–8. —— (1992). Independence and imperialism: politico-economic structures in the Bronze Age Levant. In A. B. Knapp (ed.), Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 83–98. —— (1993). Society and Polity at Bronze Age Pella: An Annales Perspective. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. —— (1998). Mediterranean Bronze Age trade: distance, power and place. In E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18–20 April 1997. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique/Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, 193–207. La Bianca, Ø. S., and S. A. Scham (eds) (2006). Connectivity in Antiquity: Globalization as Long Term Historical Process. London: Equinox. Leonard, A., Jr (1989). The Late Bronze Age. Biblical Archaeologist 52.1: 4–39. Leibowitz, H. (1987). Late Bronze II ivory work in Palestine: evidence of a cultural highpoint. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265: 3–24. —— (1989). Response: LBIIB ivories and material culture of the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 63–4. Liverani, M. (1983). Political lexicon and political ideologies in the Amarna letters. Berytus 31: 41–56. London, G. A. (1989). A comparison of two contemporaneous lifestyles of the late second millennium B.C. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 273: 37–55. Marfoe, L. (1979). The integrative transformation: patterns of socio-political organization in southern Syria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 234: 1–42. Martin, M. A. S. (2005). Aspects of the Egyptian involvement in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Canaan: the Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery. Ph.D dissertation, University of Vienna. —— (2007). A collection of Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery at Beth Shean. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003. Vienna: österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 375–88. Mazar, A. (1988a). Some aspects of the Sea Peoples settlement. In M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński (eds), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.): Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May, 1985. Leuven: Peeters, 251–60. —— (1988b). A note on Canaanite jars from Enkomi. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 224–6. —— (1990). Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 1: 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday. —— (1992). Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 161–89. —— (2007). Myc IIIC in the Land of Israel: its distribution, date and significance. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003. Vienna: österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 571–82.


1/28/2013 8:15:06 PM

552


Moorey, P. (2001). The mobility of artisans and opportunities for technology transfer between western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. In A. J. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC. Oxford: Oxbow, 1–14. Moran, W. L. (trans. and ed.) (1992). The Amarna Letters. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Morris, E. F. (2005). The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evidence of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Leiden: Brill. Naaman, N. (1975). The political disposition and historical development of Eretz-Israel according to the Amarna letters [in Hebrew]. Ph.D dissertation, Tel Aviv University. —— (1981). Economic aspects of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 172–85. —— (1988). Pharaonic lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. In M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński (eds), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.): Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May, 1985. Leuven: Peeters, 177–85. —— (1994). The Hurrians and the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 26: 175– 87. —— (1997). The network of Canaanite kingdoms and the city of Ashdod. Ugarit-Forschungen 29: 599–612. —— (1999). Four notes on the size of Late Bronze Age Canaan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313: 31–7. —— (2000). The Egyptian–Canaanite correspondence. In R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations. Baltimore, NJ: Johns Hopkins University Press, 125–38. Oren, E. D. (1984). ‘Governors’ residencies’ in Canaan under the New Kingdom: a case study of Egyptian administration. Journal for the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37–56. —— (1992). Palaces and patrician houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 105–20. —— (ed.) (2000). The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University Museum. —— (2001). Early White Slip pottery in Canaan: spatial and chronological perspectives. In V. Karageorghis (ed), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 127–44. —— (2006). An Egyptian marsh scene on pottery from Tel Sera: a case of Egyptianization in Late Bronze Age III Canaan. In A. M. Maier and P. de Miroschedji (eds), ‘I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, vol. 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 263–75. Panitz-Cohen, N. (2006a). Processes of ceramic change and continuity: Tel Batash in the second millennium BCE as a test case. Ph.D dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. —— (2006b). Distribution of finds, activity areas and population estimates. In N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar (eds), Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 173–94. ——(2009). The organization of ceramic production during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age I: Tel Batash as a test case. In C. Bachhuber and R. G. Roberts (eds), Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxbow, 186–92.


1/28/2013 8:15:07 PM


553

—— (2010). Technological change in the organization of ceramic production at Tel Batash in the second millennium BCE. 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: Boccard. Prag, K. (1985). The imitation of Cypriot wares in Late Bronze Age Palestine. In J. N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London: Institute of Archaeology, 154–66. Pulak, C. (1997). The Uluburun shipwreck. In S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder, and H. Wilde Swiny (eds), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 233–62. Rainey, A. F. (1995). Unruly elements in Late Bronze Canaanite society. In D. P. Wright, David N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 481–96. Randsborg, K. (2001). Archaeological globalization: the first practitioners. Acta Archaeologia 72.2: 1–53. Redford, D. B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sandars, N. K. (1985). The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, rev edn. London: Thames & Hudson. Savage, S. H., and S. E. Falconer (2003). Spatial and statistical inference of Late Bronze Age polities in the southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 330: 31–45. Shavit, A. (2000). Settlement patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Tel Aviv 27: 189–230. Sherratt, A. G., and E. S. Sherratt (1991). From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems. In N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford. In December 1989. Jonsered: Åströms, 351–86. Sherratt, E. S. (1998). ‘Sea Peoples’ and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the eastern Mediterranean. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 292–313. Singer, I. (1994). Egyptians, Canaanites and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel. In I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (eds), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 282–338. Stern, E. (ed.) (1993). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta/London: Simon & Schuster. Strange, J. (2000). The Palestinian city-states of the Bronze Age. In Mogens H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: An Investigation. Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 67–76. Ussishkin, D. J. (2004). A synopsis of stratigraphical, chronological and historical issues. In D. J. Usisshkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). Tel Aviv : Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 50–119. Uziel, J., and A. M. Maeir (2005). Scratching the surface at Gath: implications of the Tell es-Safi/ Gath surface survey. Tel Aviv 32: 50–75.


1/28/2013 8:15:07 PM

554


van Wijngaarden, G. J. (2002). Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600–1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wachsmann, S. (1998). Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press/London: Chatham. Ward, W. A., and M. S. Joukowsky (eds) (1992). The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C.: From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque, Ia.: Kendall/Hunt. Weinstein, J. M. (1981). The Egyptian empire in Palestine: a reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1–28. —— (1991). Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA transition in Palestine. Levant 23: 105–15. ——(1992). The collapse of the Egyptian empire in the southern Levant. In Ward and Joukowsky (1992: 142–50). Wood, B. G. (1990). The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield: JSOT Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research. Yasur-Landau, A. (2007). Let’s do the time warp again: migration processes and the absolute chronology of the Philistine settlement. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May–1st of June 2003. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 609–20. Zaccagnini, C. (1987). Aspects of ceremonial exchange in the Near East during the late second millennium BC. In M. J. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–65. Zuckerman, S. (2007). Anatomy of a destruction: crisis architecture, termination rituals, and the fall of Canaanite Hazor. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20: 3–32.


1/28/2013 8:15:07 PM