Ceramic Continuity and Change at Shechem (Tell Balatâh): Assessing the Impact of Egyptian Imperialism in the Central Hill Country

by

Catherine Anne Duff

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

©Copyright by Catherine Anne Duff 2010

Ceramic Continuity and Change at Shechem (Tell Balatâh): Assessing the Impact of Egyptian Imperialism in the Central Hill Country

Doctor of Philosophy Catherine Anne Duff

Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

2010

The material culture of Late Bronze Age Shechem (Tell Balatâh) provides an

opportunity to assess the nature and extent of the Egyptian imperial presence in the

Central Highlands, as well as the ways in which endogenous cultural traits endured

during a period of intensifying military presence. While scholars have yet to fully agree

on the exact nature of Egyptian imperialism, most concur that contact with Egypt had a

profound impact on the political, economic and social institutions of the southern Levant.

The analysis of ceramics at Shechem reveals continuity in settlement, ceramic

morphology and technology throughout the Late Bronze period. These findings

contribute to an expanding corpus of ceramic studies, which indicate that a complex

interaction and negotiation of cultural boundaries existed during this imperial period.

While there was not a sustained Egyptian presence in the Central Hill Country, textual

and archaeological data suggest there was limited interaction. While more is known about

how this imperial presence was manifested architecturally in the form of “governor

residencies” and “trading entropôts,” recent investigations at coastal and inland sites

reveal that the interaction between Egyptian and Canaanite ceramic technology was site-

specific and reciprocal in nature. The Shechem ceramic analysis illustrates the tenacity

with which potters retained Canaanite traditions at this Central Hill Country site during a

period of sporadic Egyptian contact.

ii

Acknowledgements At the end of this journey, I am grateful to many people who have provided me with support and encouragement over the years. First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor, Dr. Timothy Harrison for the diligence and care with which he read and offered comments on my work. My warmest appreciation to committee member Dr. John Holladay, Jr. for his guidance, insightfulness and friendship throughout my Ph.D experience and to committee members Dr. Mary-Ann Wegner and Dr. Robert Mason for their thoughtful and detailed comments on many aspects of my work. To my external examiner, Dr. Ann E. Killebrew of The Pennsylvania State University, who offered significant and insightful comments on this study. I appreciate the time it took all of you to read my dissertation amidst your immense teaching and research duties and a sincere thank you for doing so. To Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr. for his support, patience and kindness throughout my study of the archaeological site he so meticulously excavated and recorded for future generations of scholars. My sincerest appreciation to the many wonderful professors associated with the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations who provided encouragement and mentorship; Dr. Ronald Leprohon, Dr. Todd Lawson, Dr. Richard Blackburn, Dr. Douglas Frayne, Dr. Michele Daviau and Dr. Linda Northrup. To my family for their love and encouragement; Mom, Dad, Kimberly and Jason – thank you for believing in me! To my friends and colleagues who provided stimulating and challenging conversations about archaeological theories, ceramic typologies and life in general. My sincerest appreciation to Caroline Puzinas, Stanley Klassen, Celeste Dwarte and Dr. Jamie Novotny, for providing a much-needed distraction from writing. To dear friends, Patrick Kniss for mapping out all the Ann Taylor stores when I traveled to conferences; to Diane Ahn for her intellectual style and sparkle and to Robert Crevelle for his wry humour and Leo insightfulness. I am in awe of the integrity, joy and eclectic talents of my friends. And finally, I wish to celebrate the lives of three people who inspired me with their dedication, passion and resilience. To my brother Randy, who served his country valiantly, my grandmother Anne, who lived her long life gracefully and joyfully and my dear friend Bryan Dyke, who fought illness courageously.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii List of Tables vii List of Charts viii List of Figures ix CHAPTER 1 1 Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Canaan and Egypt: Dichotomy between Text and Archaeology 12 Egypt’s Imperial Policy in the southern Levant 15 Ideological/Theological Aspects of Imperialism 17 Political and Administrative Aspects of Imperialism 20 Elite Emulation and Direct Rule 21 Administrative Aspects of Imperialism 24 The Patrimonial Model 27 Egyptian-style Architecture in the 19th and 20th Dynasties in the Levant 30 Center-Hall Buildings 30 Tel Sera` 31 Tell Jemmeh 32 Tell el-Far`a (S) 32 Beth-Shean 33 Tell el-Hesi 34 Tell Masos 34 Administrative Buildings 35 Beth-Shean 35 Tel Mor 37 Deir el-Balah 37 Aphek 38 Tell es-Sa`idiyeh 38 Gezer 39 The Textual Evidence 40 Annals of Thutmosis III 42 Papyrus Harris I (Ramesses III) 44 Private Tomb Inscriptions 45 Topographical Lists 46 Amarna Letters 47 Shechem in the Amarna Letters 48 Summary Observations 53 CHAPTER 3: Settlement Patterns and Archaeology: The Central Hill Country 56 Divergent Settlement Patterns 57 Decline in Urban Settlement 59 Emergence of Rural Complexity 60 Studies of Settlement Integration and Hierarchy 62

iv

Regional Settlement Surveys 66 Egypt in the Central Hill Country 68 Bethel 70 Tell Dothan 71 Shiloh 71 Surveyed Sites in Manasseh 72 Egyptian Influence in Field XIII at Shechem 74 The Archaeological Evidence 74 Tananir 77 Summary Observations 80 CHAPTER 4: Shechem in the MBIIC and LB Periods: Settlement and Stratigraphy 82 Shechem through the Ages 82 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Explorers 84 Shechem Regional Survey 86 Stratigraphy of Shechem 89 General Features of the Mound 91 Stratum XVII 94 Stratum XVI and XV 95 Late Bronze Age Shechem 96 Stratum XIV: The Initial Buildings 97 Stratum XIV 98 Rooms D, E, F and G 99 Yard B, Open Area C, Building A 100 Stratum XIII 102 Rooms G, H, J, K, L and M 102 Rooms A-F 104 Stratum XII 105 Summary Observations 107 CHAPTER 5: The Late Bronze Ceramic Typology 110 Structure of the Ceramic Typology 110 Fabric Groups 112 Surface Treatments 114 Shechem Typological System 115 Bowls 118 Simple Bowls 118 Decorated and Miscellaneous Bowls 127 Carinated Bowls 128 Carinated Deep Bowls and Variants 132 Cooking Pots 133 Kraters 141 Storage Jars 146 Decorated Jars 154 In-Curved Vessels 155 Pithoi 156 Biconical Vessels 158 Jugs 161 Juglets 162 Miscellaneous Vessels 164 Chalices/Goblets 164

v

Cup 165 Flasks 166 Varia 167 Cypriote, Aegean and Egyptian Wares 167 White Slip I 167 White Slip II 169 White Slip Variants 171 Red on Black Ware 172 Base Ring Ware I and II 172 Monochrome Ware 175 Bichrome Ware 176 Mycenaean Ware 177 Marl D 179 Egypto-Canaanite Bowls 180 Non-Local Wares 180 Summary Conclusions 181 CHAPTER 6: Petrography of Late Bronze Age Ceramics: The Petrofabrics of Shechem 185 Geology of the Shechem Region 187 Soils Types in the Shechem Region 188 Petrographic Analysis: Methodology 189 Petrographic Results: Strata XIV-XII 191 Fossiliferous-Limestone Group (Group F-L) 191 Fossiliferous-Limestone (Dolomite Group F-L/1) 193 Micritic Limestone (Group M-L) 194 Shale Group (Group F) 194 Calcite Group (Group C/1) 196 Fossiliferous Calcite Group (Group C/2) 197 Petrographic Discussion 198 Petrography of Central Hill Country Ceramics 202 Shiloh 203 Giloh 203 Jerusalem 204 Jezreel Valley 204 Dothan 204 Shephelah 205 Tel Batash 205 Jordan Valley 205 Beth Shean 205 Petrography of the Amarna Letters: Letters from Shechem 207 Summary Conclusions 207 CHAPTER 7: Conclusions 211 Bibliography 220 Tables 1-15 254 Charts 1-17 272 Figures 1-18 281 Pottery Plates for Strata XIV, XIII and XII 302

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Relative chronology in the southern Levant, Egypt and eastern Mediterranean Table 2: Late Bronze Age ceramics at sites in the Manasseh survey Table 3: Samaria Hill Country sites with Late Bronze Age pottery Table 4: Late Bronze Age sites in the Shechem Valley Table 5: Late Bronze Age chronology at Shechem Table 6: Bowls submitted for petrographic thin-sectioning Table 7: Cooking Pots submitted for petrographic thin-sectioning Table 8: Petrographic fabric descriptions, Fabrics F-L, F-L/1 and F Table 9: Petrographic fabric descriptions, Fabrics C/1, C/2 and M-L Table 10: Macro-fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F-L Table 11: Macro-fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F-L/1 Table 12: Macro fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F Table 13: Fabric Groups (FG) in Field XIII at Shechem Table 14: Fabric Group frequency in Strata XIV, XIII and XII Table 15: Imported wares in Strata XIV, XIII and XII

vii

List of Charts Chart 1: Vessel classes in Field XIII Chart 2: Imported wares in Field XIII Chart 3: Proportion of vessels with exterior slip Chart 4: Exterior burnishing by stratum in Field XIII Chart 5: Bowl types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 6: Carinated Bowl types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 7: Cooking Pot types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 8: Krater Types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 9: Jar types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 10: Holemouth vessel types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XIII Chart 11: Juglet types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 12: Jug types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 13: Base types in Field XIII in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 14: Macro Fabric groups in strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 15: Petrographic Groups (Bowls) for strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 16: Petrographic Groups (Cooking vessels) for strata XIV, XIII and XII Chart 17: Percentage of chaff inclusions in strata XIV, XIII and XII

viii

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1: Cities, towns and regions in the northern Levant in the Late Bronze Age Figure 2: Egyptian bases in the southern Levant in the Nineteenth Dynasty Figure 3: Fields excavated at Shechem Figure 4: Plan of Stratum XVII, Field XIII. Figure 5: Section LL, Field XIII. Figure 6: Stratum XVB, Field XIII. Figure 7: Stratum XVA, Field XIII. Figure 8: Section FF, Field XIII. Figure 9: Section BB, Field XIII. Figure 10: Plan of Stratum XIV, Field XIII. Figure 11: Plan of Stratum XIVA, Field XIII. Figure 12: Plan of Stratum XIV, Field XIII. Figure 13: Plan of Stratum XIII Figure 14: Section CC, Field XIII Figure 15: Section RR, Field XIII. Figure 16: Stratum XII, Field XIII Figure 17: Geological Map of Shechem Valley and surrounding area Figure 18: Photographs of Petrographic Groups in Field XIII at Shechem

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Any study of the material culture in the southern Levant during the Late Bronze

Age1 should consider the imperial relationship between Egypt and the southern Levant.

While scholars have yet to reach a consensus as to the exact nature of Egyptian

imperialism, most agree that contact with Egypt during the Late Bronze IIB and early

Iron IA had a profound and destabilizing impact on the region (Albright 1949; Kenyon

1971; Ahituv 1978; Frandsen 1979; Bunimovitz 1993a; Finkelstein 1996; Killebrew

2005a; Redford 1992, 2003). While Egypt’s imperial presence in the form of “governor

residencies” and “trading entropôts” during the Nineteenth Dynasty is well-documented

(Weinstein 1981; Oren 1984, 2006; Mumford 1998; Holladay 2001; Killebrew 2004;

Morris 2005), less is known about the interaction of Levantine and Egyptian ceramic

technological traditions at these sites. Recent archaeological investigations at Tel Mor

(Barako 2007), Tel Beth Shean (McGovern 1989; Mullins 2006, 2007; Mazar 2006) and

Deir el-Balah (Killebrew 1998; Killebrew, Goldberg and Rosen 2006) have shed new

light on this relationship and suggest that there was a more complex cultural interaction

than previously understood.

The material culture at Shechem (Tell Balatâh) provides an opportunity to explore

the impact of this imperial relationship in the Central Highlands, a region that did not

experience a sustained Egyptian presence. My analyses reveal continuity in settlement,

ceramic morphology and technology throughout the Late Bronze period. 1 The chronology used in this study follows Mazar (1990) in Archaeology of the Land of the Bible which is slightly modified from the division initially proposed by W.F. Albright. Therefore, the LB 1A=1550-1470B.C.E.; LB1B=1470-1400 B.C.E.; LBIIA=1400-1300 B.C.E.; and LBIIB=1300-1200 B.C.E.) The Middle Bronze period corresponds to 2000-1550 B.C.E. and the Early Iron 1A=1200-1150 B.C.E.

2

Repeated Egyptian campaigning in the region has been understood as

precipitating the decline of flourishing Middle Bronze city-states, the abandonment and

destruction of Late Bronze IA settlements,2 and the degeneration of craft production

including the ceramic industry (Albright 1949). This demographic and technological

crisis was followed by a period of slow economic recovery in regions where an Egyptian

administrative and military presence was established.

When cultural interaction is characterized in this way, the impact of endogenous

factors on social and craft production are minimized and not fully acknowledged. By

privileging external dynamics of change over endogenous processes, our models of

interaction become uni-directional, whereby cultural influence and ideology flow just one

way – from the core to a passive periphery. While core-periphery interaction is viewed as

being inherently exploitative, Stein asserts that there is little evidence to support the

notion that cultural contact and interregional exchange necessarily leads to sociopolitical

change in peripheral regions (1999:24). Therefore, the presence of “governor residencies”

and administrative buildings, Egyptian and Egyptian-style ceramics in the Levant during

the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties does not automatically imply that this interaction

and exchange necessarily destabilized the region. In fact, Stein asserts that a more

complex negotiation of cultural identity, technology transfer and cultural influence results

from core-periphery interaction, which may be reflected in the fact that Canaanite and

Egyptian ceramic traditions were integrated and co-existed at the site level.

2 See the discussions between Hoffmeier (1989, 1990 and 1991), Dever (1990) and Weinstein (1991) for an informative debate over the role that Egyptian military campaigns played in the destruction of Middle Bronze IIC Levantine cities and the transition to the Late Bronze Age. These discussions underscore the need for the integration of a critical philological analysis of Egyptian texts and a careful reading of the archaeological record.

3

This study will focus on the material culture at one particular settlement that

played a key role in the political and social life of the Central Highlands. The material

culture at Late Bronze Age Shechem (Tell Balatâh) provides an opportunity to assess the

nature and extent of Egyptian cultural influence in the region, as well as the manner in

which indigenous cultural traits endured during this presence. The textual evidence from

this period suggests that Levantine city-states were not politically and economically

unified and that fear of the `Apiru in particular, provoked numerous pleas for assistance

from Egyptian officials (Moran 1992; EA236, 254).3 The Amarna correspondence for

example, reveals that several Canaanite rulers had formed alliances with the `Apiru,

which threatened the political balance of power in the region. The Amarna Letters

highlight that local political and social tensions, as well as a limited Egyptian presence

appear to have had little impact on life in the Central Hill Country.

The combination of inter- and intra-site settlement analysis with an examination

of ceramic morphology and technology, reveals a more complete and complex picture of

cultural life at Shechem during a period of imperial contact. While these approaches have

been studied separately in North American scholarship, recent investigations into ceramic

technology are now considering the role of human agency and choice within the

technological production sequence or chaines operatoire.4

In Chapter Two, I review the different approaches to characterizing the role of the

Egyptian presence in the southern Levant, which include ideology/theology (Kemp 1978,

3 `Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru (EA71, 74) and Lab`ayu of Shechem (EA254) repeatedly recruited `Apiru to aid in their ambitious plan of territorial expansion (Rainey 1995: 485-487). 4 This term refers to the steps or sequence of steps employed within the ceramic production process. Roux (2003), Roux and Courty (1998) and van der Leeuw (1993) commonly approach ceramic studies from the perspective of the chaines operatoire. See Loney (2001) for an excellent summary of the different approaches to the study of ceramics in North America and Europe.

4

1997), elite emulation/direct rule (Higginbotham 1996, 2000), administrative rule

(Killebrew 2005a) and patrimonialism (Weber 1978; Schloen 2001). This presence has

been understood as being administrative and military in nature, with an “overseer of

northern lands” being responsible for tax collection by ensuring the maintenance of law

and order in the region.5 These economic interests are widely accepted as having led to

repeated campaigning in the region in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, followed

by the establishment of permanent garrisons in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties.

6While the demand for raw materials and access to trade routes no doubt

motivated the Egyptian state to establish bases and garrisons in the region, the quantity

and types of goods and products that are mentioned in the diplomatic correspondence,

royal annals, economic papyri and tomb inscriptions certainly give the impression that it

might have resulted in economic hardship. Redford asserts though, that the system of

taxation in the Levant might not have represented a more onerous tax burden, since it was

modeled after the system levied against mayors along the Nile River (Redford 1990:40).

The intent of Chapter Two is to re-evaluate the main areas of scholarly debate

concerning this imperial relationahip, while considering the more recent archaeological

studies of local and Egyptian ceramic technology. Egyptian imperial interests

demonstrated an “ebb and flow” in the southern Levant in the Late Bronze Age that

culminated in residencies and administrative buildings at coastal and inland sites.

5 Scholars agree that Egypt administered the Levant through a system of provinces, but disgree on the number of divisions. Helck proposes the three provinces of Amurru, Upe and Canaan (Helck 1971). Na’aman suggests two divisions encompassing Canaan and Upe (1981:183), while Redford supports four provinces of Gaza, Megiddo/Beth Shean, Kumidi and Ullaza/Sumur (Redford 1992), 6 This view of core-periphery interaction defines the world-systems model, which was originally proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) to explain the capitalist system in Europe in the sixteenth century (Wallerstein 1974) and later adapted by archaeologists to account for cultural interaction in antiquity (Stein 1999). This approach has been used more recently to characterize interaction in the eastern Mediterranean in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries (Killebrew 2005b).

5

Therefore, a re-orientation in the study of Egyptian-Levantine relations is necessary, so

that differences at the site level, which in my opinion speaks to endogenous social,

economic and political processes, are appreciated.

From my analysis, I maintain that Egyptian imperialism in the southern Levant

appears to be motivated by symbolic, ideological and theological factors, in addition to

the subjugation and conquest of enemies and the expansion of Egyptian frontiers. Most

notably, Thutmosis III campaigned almost every year of his reign, which according to

Assmann served a teleological and resultative significance (Assmann 2002: 250).7 This

was realized in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties with the presence of Egyptian

garrisons, supply bases and troop commanders in the southern Levant (Assman

2002:201). While the receipt of booty and gifts from Canaan, as well as the annexation of

“crown land”8 is mentioned abundantly in Egyptian texts, their importance lay not only

in their monetary value but in the ideological and theological importance their presence

imbued to the Pharaoh and to Egyptian elite, in order to legitimize their status in society.

Luxury goods or preciosities were “politically charged commodities” that had the

potential to transform leadership, social class structure and ideology at both ends of the

exchange (Brumfiel and Earle 1987:5; Schneider 1977:23). Presentation scenes in

Egyptian tombs often show foreign officials bearing tribute and gifts to the Pharaoh, who

are depicted quite realistically in their native garments, in contrast to monumental reliefs

7 Assmann (2002:247-249) asserts that the wars of liberation against the Hyksos at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty signified a change in the “semantics of war” whereby the military result of victory was viewed as singular and historical, in contrast to the cyclical “smiting” of the enemy in previous periods. This view of political action, according to Assmann, signaled an innovation for the New Kingdom Pharaohs in which dichotomies of war/peace and friend/foe (through diplomatic marriages) was now possible (2002:250). 8 Amarna letter EA 365 describes the system of cultivation of “crown land” surrounding Megiddo in an attempt to fulfill grain quotas to support Egyptian troops (Moran 1992; Morris 2005:228).

6

on temple walls which depict the presentation of foreign captives by Pharoah to the God,

Amun-Re.

Loprieno’s characterization of the Egyptian worldview in Egyptian literature has

some relevance to this study. The concept of topos and mimesis provides a useful

framework for viewing the archaeological evidence for Egyptian imperialism, in that the

topos or Egyptian idealized view of the world, which is portrayed in monumental relief

often contrasted with the mimesis, the reality of daily experience, which is reflected in the

cultural interaction at garrison sites in the Levant (Loprieno 1988; Smith 2003: 24).

Chapter Three presents an analysis of the regional survey data and settlement

patterns of the Central Highlands in the Late Bronze Age. These patterns reveal evidence

for substantial shifts in settlement between the Middle and Late Bronze periods. Once a

densely populated region, the survey data reveals that cities and towns in the Central

Highlands were significantly reduced. The reconstruction of ancient settlement patterns

from ceramics that are obtained through systematic survey does not always account for

continuity in material culture, which can more reliably be confirmed through excavation.

As a result, a re-analysis of the ceramics recovered from the survey data suggests that

Late Bronze Age occupation in the Central Hill Country may be under-represented.

Settlement and ceramic analyses reveal a more diverse and complex picture of

cultural life in the Central Highlands than was previously assumed. This study confirms

the results emerging from renewed excavations and the publication of several key Late

Bronze Age sites, namely that continuity in settlement and ceramic morphology was a

hallmark of the Late Bronze Age. The results of recent excavations at Yoqne`am (Ben-

Tor, Bonfil and Zuckerman 2005) and Tel Beth-Shean (Mazar and Mullins 2007) have

7

revealed transitional and Late Bronze IA remains, during a time when Egyptian military

policies were credited with wide-scale destructions and disruptions in settlement.

A limited amount of Egyptian material culture appears to have permeated the

Central Highlands, including objects with Egyptian religious and royal motifs (Zertal

2004; Mumford 1998). A review of the textual sources suggests that while Egypt was

aware of the political tensions and inter-city battles, as well as the town of Shechem or

Sakmu (EA 289) as reflected in the Amarna diplomatic correspondence (EA 243, 250 and

250), there appears to be a limited Egyptian response to these events.9 At the site of

Shechem, the structure at Tananir along with Egyptian-style ceramics and calcite vessels

reflect Egyptian cultural influence. The ceramic and architectural continuity at Shechem

in the Late Bronze Age suggests that cultural life in this region continued uninterrupted

during a period of intensifying Egyptian presence.

Chapter Four reviews the settlement history of Shechem, including the early

regional surveys conducted by biblical scholars in the 19th century. The occupational

history of Shechem shows a well-stratified building sequence in Field XIII, which was

excavated in 1966, 1968 and 1969. These building phases span the Late Bronze I to Late

Bronze IIB and show a successive series of architectural additions where courtyards and

rooms were added or subdivided on either side of a long-standing central north-south

terrace wall. Although an occupational gap is suggested for the Late Bronze IA by the

Drew-McCormick expedition, fragmentary architectural features and a mud brick kiln in

the eastern portion of the field may represent an ephemeral phase of occupation in the

9 A notable exception is the alliance formed between Lab’ayu’s sons and the rulers of Gezer, Ginti-Kirmil, Qiltu, Gimtu, Ashkelon and Lachish against Megiddo, Rubutu, Gina and Jerusalem (EA 246, 250, 280, 286, 287, 289 and 290; Moran 1992). In this instance, Egyptian troops that were stationed at Gezer and Jerusalem actually took over the residences of local rulers (Morris 2005:246; Moran 1992 EA 292).

8

Late Bronze IA phase, preceding the building of Stratum XIV features. While diagnostic

ceramics or fossil directeurs such as Cypriot Bichrome Ware are missing on the tell in the

Late Bronze IA, it is now generally accepted that these wares were restricted to coastal

sites and inland commercial centers like Megiddo and Hazor (Artzy 2001:161).

A minor and localized destruction followed the end of the Late Bronze IB and the

same general architectural layout persisted in Field XIII in the Late Bronze IIA. In this

stratum, a more complex arrangement of rooms was visible on both sides of the main

north-south terrace wall and a sub-floor chamber was constructed, which cut into stratum

XIV features. While a major destruction level brought the Late Bronze IIA to a close, as

evidenced by fallen roof debris and debris levels that reached almost a meter deep, a

similar yet less dense arrangement of rooms continued into the Late Bronze IIB.

Chapter Five presents a ceramic typology of the Field XIII assemblage including

a macroscopic analysis of the Late Bronze ceramic forms. Levantine ceramic types

dominate the corpus which reflects a domestic assemblage. Utilitarian vessels include

bowls, kraters, cooking pots and jars, as well as speciality items such as goblets, chalices,

flasks, lamps, monochrome and bichome painted types. Painted motifs include the palm

or tree of life, framed wavy lines or red dots occasionally incorporated into a frieze of

metopes and triglyphs, hanging triangles, exterior horizontal bands, interior concentric

circles and stylized “union jack” or geometric design on storage or krater handles.

Exterior slips and burnishing are not common surface treatments, with only 17 percent of

the assemblage displaying red, brown or pink self-slips. This number doubles in the Late

Bronze IIA where 35 percent of the assemblage is slipped and 33 percent in the Late

Bronze IIB. Cypriot and Aegean wares include White Slip I and II and transitional types

9

such as, Bichrome White Slip, Base Ring I and II, Monochrome Ware, Red-on-Black

Ware, Bichrome Ware and Late Helladic IIIA1 and 2. In addition, Egyptian imports and

Egyptian-style vessels including a burnished fragment of White Slipped Egyptian Marl

D, a thick-walled bowl with a flat base and several splayed rim bowls were excavated in

Strata XIII and XII.

The typological presentation of the ceramics from Strata XIV to XII in Field XIII

provides a significant contribution to our understanding of the ceramics in the Central

Hill Country. While comparative ceramic forms from other Hill Country sites are limited,

the Shechem assemblage corresponds well with ceramic types found at other Late Bronze

stratigraphic sequences in the southern Levant namely, Tel Batash, Lachish, Megiddo and

Tel Beth Shean. The Shechem pottery corpus reflects a domestic and rural assemblage,

which is reflected in its utilitarian forms and in the limited number of specialty forms

such as, chalices, goblets, biconical vessels, juglets and painted decoration.

Chapter Six presents the results of the petrographic analysis of bowls, cooking

pots and holemouth vessels, which revealed five petrographic groups at Shechem. The

petrographic analysis reflects continuity in clay sources and manufacturing technology.

The geology of the Shechem region reveals that potters procured raw material from a

variety of local clays. The petrographic analysis also highlighted aspects of the

technological process at Shechem including the mixing of clays in the construction of

bowls, the addition of abundant angular calcite temper and quartz in cooking pots to

increase thermal expansion properties, and finally the firing of some vessels above 750

degrees celcius, as evidenced by the presence of decomposed calcite (Ben-Shlomo, Maeir

and Mommsen 2008:962). The diagonal and parallel orientation of inclusions in thin

10

section suggests that bowls were finished on a slow wheel, while cooking pot rims and

upper bodies were manufactured on a fast wheel.

The study of ceramics and technology at Shechem adds to a growing body of data

confirming that numerous changes were occurring in the southern Levant at a time when

Egyptian military interest was intensifying. The process of ruralization did not signal the

end to settlement complexity in the Central Hill Country, but produced regions with

varying degrees of settlement hierarchy and integration. These settlement shifts were

accompanied by corresponding changes in ceramic technology no doubt precipitated by

changes in clay and temper sources. Hand and coil forming techniques gained in

popularity over fast wheel technology of the Sixteenth century BCE to deal with difficult

short coarse clays, while the slow wheel or tournette was used to finish vessels. While

production of pottery on a fast wheel is presumably motivated by economic factors such

as mass output and concomitantly, consumer demand, Franken observed that pottery

constructed on a slower wheel and with thicker walls was not “a sign of deterioration”

but a necessity for daily domestic use because it was less prone to breakage (Franken

1992:151). Importantly, at sites with an Egyptian presence, local ceramic technologies

appear to have co-existed with technologies displaying distinctly Egyptian traits.

Finally, Chapter Seven presents a concluding synthesis of the results of my

analysis of the settlement and archaeological data, including the broader historical

implications and new directions for research that arise from this study. The ceramic

analysis of the Shechem corpus reveals a largely domestic and rural assemblage with a

limited number of ceramic imports. The site was accessible by the commercial route

through the Jezreel Valley or by several routes via the Shephelah. The richness of Tomb

11

C on Mount Ebal confirms that Shechem benefited from commercial ventures that linked

ports throughout the southern Levant and the eastern Mediterranean. The textual evidence

reveals that the notorious Lab’ayu and Sakmu, or Shechem was well-known to Egyptian

Pharaohs (EA 289), while the enigmatic structure at Tananir adjacent to the tell displays

Egyptian-style architectural features (Holladay 2001; Boling 1975). Although the

evidence is not conclusive, it appears that a limited Egyptian presence existed in the

Shechem Valley. Continuity in ceramic morphology and technology at Shechem

demonstrates the tenacity of Hill Country ceramic traditions and contributes to our

understanding of how various sites and regions in the southern Levant experienced and

absorbed aspects of Egyptian culture. The future petrographic analysis of storage jars at

Shechem would provide a valuable opportunity to investigate the nature and scope of

trade and cultural contact with other regions.

The three areas of archaeological inquiry employed in this study namely, ceramic

morphology, settlement stratigraphy and ceramic technology reveal a complex and

dynamic view of settlement in the Central Hill Country and of cultural life at Shechem.

Inter- and intra-site settlement and ceramic analyses reveal a region that experienced a

diversity of settlement processes and technological adaptations during a time of a

sustained, yet intensifying Egyptian interest.

12

Chapter 2

Egypt and the Southern Levant: Text and Archaeology

The textual and archaeological sources often provide conflicting and

contradictory evidence concerning the political and economic relationship between Egypt

and the southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age (Table 1). This is partly the result of

a fluctuating military policy over this 300-year period, as well as diverging regional

responses to this presence. The latter has not received sufficient attention in the

archaeological literature, as the focus of many studies has centered on themes of conquest

and subjugation. Despite these numerous studies, there has not been a consensus about

the way the region was administered by the Egyptians or the economic impact of this

military presence (Ahituv 1978; Giveon 1978; Na`aman 1981; Knapp 1989b; Bienkowski

1989; Albright 1949; Kenyon 1971; Higginbotham 2000; Killebrew 2004; 2005a; Morris

2005; Singer 1988; Weinstein 1981).

While the southern Levant was administered politically and economically by

Egypt and provided overland access to lucrative foreign markets, it was not just a passive

player in this exchange, but an active participant and beneficiary of this trade.10 The

Central Hill Country represents a case in point. The region appears to have experienced a

limited Egyptian presence, in contrast to the garrison sites in the Late Bronze IIB and

early Iron IA where Egyptian and Egyptian-style material culture appears more

10 An Egyptian presence did not limit the trade of luxury wares in the Central Hill Country, since the contents of the tomb on Mount Ebal contained Cypriot White Slip, Base Ring Ware and luxury painted wares (Clamer, 1977, 1981). See Cooley & Pratico (1995:147-190) who note similar wares among the contents of three tombs at Tell Dothan.

13

11frequently. The textual evidence reveals that Egypt was aware of tensions in the Central

Hill Country, yet allowed local rulers to operate with a certain degree of autonomy and

independence. The region also benefited indirectly from this imperial presence as is

evidenced by the presence of imported wares at the site and in Tomb C on Mount Ebal.

The imperial relationship between Egypt and the southern Levant and the

resulting Egyptian and Egyptian-style material culture can be characterized by four

distinct perspectives: ideologically/theologically motivated (Kemp 1978), elite emulation

and direct rule (Higgenbotham 1996; 2000; Singer 1988), formal administrative control

(Killebrew 2005a) and patrimonialism (Schloen 2001). While aspects of all of these

perspectives characterize Egypt’s imperial presence in the southern Levant, they do not

acknowledge endogenous factors that also shaped this interaction. This failure to account

for native agency in a peripheral region is a pervasive feature of the World-System model

which stresses core dominance and peripheral passivity in interregional exchange (Stein

1999: 36).12 This conceptual framework has been applied to the archaeological and

textual data of the Late Bronze Age either explicitly (Killebrew 2005a:23-24; Killebrew

2005b: 170-171) or implicitly (Albright 1949; Kenyon 1971; Ahituv 1978; Na`aman

1981; Weinstein 1981). As a result, the transfer of ceramic technology and cultural traits

is assumed to have been unidirectional; that is, from Egypt to the peripheral region of the

southern Levant.

11 Holladay (2001:171) asserts that “governor residencies” at select sites in Canaan and Transjordan were actually Egyptian trading posts operated by traders who were part of an Egyptian diaspora. Likewise, Bienkowski (1989:60) has stressed that Egypt was more interested in controlling trade in the region, rather than in its “economic exploitation.” 12 Wallerstein asserts that a core or empire “guaranteed economic flows from the periphery to the center by force through tribute and taxation and by monopolistic advantages in trade” (Wallerstein 1974: 15).

14

This characterization of Egyptianized and local assemblages at sites with an

Egyptian presence has revealed that is not necessarily the case and that results appear to

be site-specific (McGovern 1989; Killebrew 2004; 2005a; Mullins 2006; Martin 2006;

Martin and Barako 2007). The use of straw temper in local forms, which is considered to

be an Egyptian technological trait, is noted at Beth Shean in assemblages pre-dating

Egyptianized forms (Martin 2006:141). At Jaffa in early Late Bronze I contexts, the

mixture of limestone and coarse sand comprises Egyptianized vessels (Burke and Lords

2010: 23, Fig. 18a). At Tel Mor, the appearance of straw temper is “rare”, but does

appear “occasionally” in bowls and kraters in Egyptianized strata (Martin and Barako

2007:133). The adoption of this technological feature, which appears in carelessly made

and porous Egyptian “beer jars” and flat-base bowls, is never satisfactorily explained as a

desirable technological trait worth emulating, especially given the ability of Canaanite

potters to produce bowls with low and high ring bases. In addition, Egyptian cooking

vessels or bread molds in Canaan were “extremely rare,” while canaanite cooking pots

appear in strata characterized by Egyptianized pottery at Tel Mor, suggesting that cultural

influence was reciprocal (Martin and Barako 2007: 151).13

Egypt successfully administered a region that was socially and economically

complex, yet in the midst of a demographic shift from urbanism to rural complexity. As a

result, a perspective that also accounts for endogenous social processes between core and

peripheral interaction provides a more fruitful lens through which to assess Egyptian and

Levantine interaction.14 The textual evidence such as, the Amarna Letters and Annals

13 This example is intended to highlight how a conceptual framework can obscure data that suggests cultural reciprocity and influence. 14 Stein proposes two alternative frameworks to the world-system model to characterize interregional interaction. These include Trade-Diaspora and Distance-Parity models of interaction (1999:46). The

15

records the various quantities and types of commodities that Egypt required, while the

Topographical Lists of Thutmosis III and the Beth Shean stela from the northern wars of

Seti I provide insights into the functioning of this imperial relationship. In addition, the

letters in the Amarna Archive pertaining to the “Lab`ayu Affair” illustrate the degree of

independence and autonomy exercised by local rulers during a time of a fluctuating

imperial policy in the southern Levant.

Egypt’s Imperial Policy in the Southern Levant

Egypt’s military presence was administered differently in the Levant than it was

in Nubia, largely due to an established political system of city-states and an educated

bureaucracy (Hoffmeier 2004:127; Smith 1995). These differences were reflected in the

titles of its military officers and administrators. Nubian administrative titles reflect a

complex hierarchy of authority whereby the top official was known as the “the overseer

of southern foreign lands, the king’s son of Kush” or the “viceroy of Kush.” Below the

Viceroy, officials include the deputies of Wawat and Kush and the battalion commander

to whom the mayors of the forts reported (Hoffmeier 2004:126-127). This hierarchical

structure reflects a greater bureaucratic administration of the Nubian territory than in the

southern Levant.

Rulers in the southern Levant reported directly to a single authority, known as the

“overseer of all northern foreign lands.” Lower ranking military officials serving in this

region were responsible for dispatching and collecting letters, making arrests, deciding

cases of law and settling border disputes, which Redford argues signaled the emergence

Distance-Parity Model has been applied in Near Eastern archaeological contexts, most notably by Stein to explain Uruk expansion at the Anatolian site of Hacinebi on the Euphrates River in eastern Turkey (Stein 1998; Stein 1999)

16

of an “organized department” of foreign affairs after Thutmosis III. In the Nineteenth

Dynasty or Late Bronze IIB, a more fully developed concept of foreign affairs emerged

as evidenced by the appointment of “king’s messenger to foreign lands” who was

recruited from the chariotry of the Egyptian military and not the lower military ranks

(Redford 1992:202). Groll challenges the assumption that Nubia and the Levant were

administered differently by comparing the official titles in the Nauri Decree of Seti I with

those in the Amarna Letters (1983:23-236). Her analysis reveals a complex hierarchy of

administrative titles in both regions. For example, the hazanu and garrison commander of

the Amarna Letters were equivalent with the Nubian count/official and captain

respectively (Groll 1983: 237-238).

Egypt’s military presence in Nubia has been characterized as acculturation

colonialism, in contrast to equilibrium imperialism in the southern Levant (Smith 1995:8-

10). Following Horvath’s model of colonial versus imperial systems, Smith argues that

the presence of Egyptian settlers encouraged acculturation of the Nubian population,

while equilibrium imperialism in the Levant permitted the survival of indigenous cultural

and political institutions (Horvath 1972; Smith 1995: 9). Trigger notes that items from

Nubia were referred to as taxes in the tribute lists of Thutmosis III, while items from the

Levant were known as tribute, signifying that Egypt recognized the independence of local

rulers (Trigger 1976:110). Unfortunately, this type of characterization assumes that

Egypt’s military policy was uniform and consistent throughout the New Kingdom, an

assumption that has been challenged by Morkot (2001:243). He asserts that indigenous

Nubian rulers, primarily near the Third and Fouth Cataracts, were left in control of this

frontier zone and were not Egyptianized to the same degree as in Lower Nubia

17

(2001:243). In the southern Levant, Egyptian garrisons and “governor residencies” were

located in strategic coastal and lowland regions, but rarely penetrated the Central

Highlands, with the exception of the Egyptian-style structure at Tananir, and a possible

temple situated in Jerusalem (Moran 1992; EA280, 287-289; Barkay 1996).

The Egyptians referred to fortresses in the Levant and Nubia using different

terms. While two textual sources refer to mnnw in the Levant during the reign of

Thutmosis III, Morris suggests that mnnw were more frequently mentioned with

reference to Nubia (2005:809). On the other hand, htm fortresses were stationed at points

of entry into the Nile Valley and at the first cataract (Morris 2005:804). During the

Eighteenth Dynasty, military bases appeared to cluster nearer to Egypt’s border with the

Levant and along the Ways of Horus at Tell Heboua I (Tjaru), Tell el-Borg, Bir el-`Abd,

Haruba site A-345, Deir el-Balah and Tell el-Ajjul (Morris 2005:270). A frontier journal

dating to the time of Pharaoh Merneptah in the Nineteenth Dynasty reflects just how

carefully Egypt administered its borders. This papyrus registers the names and

patronymic of people entering and leaving Egypt, as well as their city of origin if they

were not Egyptian (Ahituv 1996:221-222).15

Ideological/Theological Aspects of Imperialism

A deeply-rooted and widely held perception is that Egypt was motivated by

economic factors, as reflected in the themes of conquest and subjugation found on public

monuments (Kemp 1978:7-8). While there is no specific word that is translated as

15 The Sile journal is contained on the verso of Papyrus Anatasi III and documents the passing of an Egyptian courier who was traveling to Canaan with gifts for a garrison commander, as well as Egyptian officers who traveled on various missions (Caminos 1954:108-113 (translation and commentary of Alan Gardiner).

18

“imperialism” or “empire” in the Egyptian vocabulary, there appears to be ample

inscriptions that focus on the theme of “triumph.” Kemp suggests that these depictions

are dictated more by theological and ideological motivations, rather than being driven by

inherently economic interests (1978:8).16

Ideological motivations may be reflected in the account of the Northern Wars of

Seti I at Karnak17 and on the Beth Shean stela. The depiction of Seti’s war in the

Northern Levant touches on several themes; the defeat of the Shasu, the receipt of tribute,

the king’s triumphal return and welcome in Egypt and the presentation of prisoners and

booty to the God, Amun (Davies 1997: 3ff). The accompanying text attributes the spoils

of war as follows: “Presentation of tribute by His majesty [to his father] Amun…that you

give me over every foreign country” (Davies 1997:7). In a register recounting the

campaign against the Hittites, there is a presentation by Amun to Seti I:

(I) have given you all lands and every foreign country under your sandals…(I) have given you all sustenance and provisions...(I) have given you all life, stability and dominion, all health (Davies 1997:19).

The second Beth Shean stela depicts the feet of several gods and Pharaoh, and it is

thought to have contained a double-offering scene. The text relates the actions by

Egyptian soldiers as they attempt to subdue an attack by the `Apiru against the town of

Ruhma. After two days of fighting, the pharaoh and his troops returned from fighting:

“…bringing the revenues…as captives and as plunder by (means of) the strength of his noble father, Amun-Re, who has decreed bravery and

16 While an Egyptian elite would undoubtedly benefit from military campaigns through the acquisition of exotic and luxury items as a means of self-legitimization, there was a belief that order and prosperity both in Egypt and abroad placated deities and offset chaos (O’Connor 2006:15). 17 This account is found in three registers on both sides of the northern doorway into the Hypostyle Hall at the Temple of Karnak. The inscriptions recount his attacks on several Canaanite and north Syrian towns. Two of the three eastern registers displays his offensive against the Shasu in southern Canaan and of the capture of Yenoam (Davies 1997:1)

19

[victory] [for his son (?)…..] (namely) the King of Upper and Lower Egypt…”(Davies 1997: 39).

These stelae were more than a record of the Pharaoh’s military ability and strategic

foresight. Although they depict the outcome of military conquests in the form of captured

prisoners and gifts, the presentation scenes were embued with theological significance

because they represented offerings to the God, Amun. In effect, these scenes were related

more to cult, than they were to economic gain. 18

The New Kingdom witnessed fundamental changes in Egyptian kingship:

Pharaohs now redefined their births and reigns within the context of a divine origin and

connection (Kemp 1978:8), while the worship of royal ancestors was fostered as seen in

Hatshepsut’s family temple at Deir el-Bahari and in Thutmosis III’s Sixth Pylon at the

temple at Karnak (Redford 1986:172-173).19 As a result, subduing enemies and

neighbors became “one element in the broader and fundamental role of divine kingshi

that of reducing chaos to order” (Kemp 1978:8). Military intervention was necessary to

establish and maintain ma’at, an Egyptian term signifying truth, justice and order; a

balance that was paramount in Egyptian society (Hasel 1998:92). The control of chaos, or

isfet and the maintenance ma`at, was a royal imperative that satisfied the gods of ancien

Egypt and was reflected in the depiction of the king in hunting scenes or subduing

nomadic elements (Lehner 1999

p:

t

: 320).

Tribute also fulfilled a theological and symbolic role, forming part of the

presentation made by the Pharaoh to the temples of Egypt (Kemp 1978:19). An increase

in temple building and pious foundations from the Middle to New Kingdom periods

18 I wish to thank Professor Mary-Ann Wegner for discussing this concept with me. 19 Thutmosis III conveys a concern for preserving inscriptions and states that he did not want to cover over the work or memory of royal ancestors within the temple.

20

allowed more offerings and goods to flow in from all over Egypt as well as from foreign

lands.20 The Temple of Amun at Karnak was made the owner of cities and lands in the

Levant, while the temple of Seti I at Abydos received tribute from Upper Nubia (Kemp

1997: 129).

The relationship between Egypt and the rulers of the southern Levant appears to

be less equitable as is reflected in the way they addressed the Pharaoh as “my lord” and

not as a “brother.”21 These letters are often rhetorical in nature and self-effacing, but also

self-serving. The local rulers, while aware of their status as vassals, were also aware that

their aggrandizing and ambitious actions might go unpunished. The letters written by and

about Lab’ayu of Shechem offer direct evidence for this tension (EA 250,253,254,280,

289; Moran 1992). In Tanaach Letter #6, an Egyptian official complains when the ruler

of Gaza fails to appear before him, an action that underscores the tense and independent

relationship between Egyptian officials and local rulers (Albright 1944:24-25;

Higginbotham 2000:18). These observations support Kemp’s assertion that the system of

vassalage did not usher in a period of stability and calm in the Hill Country; in fact life

seems to have continued as normal (1978:54).

Political and Administrative Aspects of Imperialism

This perspective incorporates two approaches to understanding Egypt’s presence

in the southern Levant during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties; elite emulation

and direct rule (Higginbotham 2000; Singer 1988) and administrative control (Killebrew

20 Adams (2002:19-20) has argued that the building of temples rather than fortresses in Nubia during the New Kingdom became a powerful symbol of Egyptian domination in the region, which culminated in Ramesses II building ten temples in Lower Nubia. 21 The local ruler of Gezer appears to have enjoyed more prominence with Egypt than other rulers as is reflected in EA 269, which records a request for myrrh from Egypt (Moran 1992; Morris 2005).

21

2005a). The southern Levant provided access to vast and lucrative markets for Egypt,

therefore maintaining relations with empires beyond the Levant through a shared system

of values and a common international language, allowed Egypt to prosper through a

peaceful and reciprocal trading system (Frandsen 1979:174).

Elite Emulation and Direct Rule

Elite emulation and direct rule is one approach that has been utilized to

characterize the political relationship between Egypt and the Levant during the Late

Bronze Age. By assessing the type and amount of Egyptian material found in the region

during the Ramesside Period, Higginbothom suggests that modifications to this material

culture reflect how the peripheral region emulated particular characteristics of the core

state (2000:7).22 The criteria for identifying elements of a culture that might be borrowed,

emulated or combined, without a transplanted Egyptian settlement include the following:

1) a restricted ceramic corpus lacking domestic vessels from the core state, 2)

hybridization of ceramic technologies and 3) more prestige items than domestic goods

and 4) Egyptian –style material in funerary and ritual contexts (2000:15). In contrast to a

complete adoption of Egyptian culture in areas of Nubia during the New Kingdom,

Higginbotham asserts that the concept of “direct rule” might better characterize the

Egyptian presence in the southern Levant. The criteria for this model includes:1)

Egyptian-style architecture using Egyptian techniques, 2) a wide array of artifacts

reflective of Egyptian settlements in the Nile Valley, and 3) Egyptian material culture

would be confined to certain areas or quarters within the site (Higginbotham 2001:14).

22 Higginbotham (1996:155) borrows the elite emulation model from Winter (1977) who used it to explain the “local style” of Hasanlu IVB cylinder seals and public buildings, which reflected Assyrian motifs and architectural features.

22

This approach has not been widely embraced because the ceramics found in the

southern Levant appear to reflect a “noteworthy Egyptian presence at a number of

strategically located administrative and military garrisons in Canaan,” which supports a

policy of targeted direct rule by the Egyptians (Killebrew 2004: 309).23 The ceramics

excavated at Beth Shean and Deir el-Balah provide a better corpus of Egyptian pottery

than do the types utilized by Higginbotham in her study. The Egyptian-style ceramics at

Deir el-Balah and Beth Shean include kitchen wares, containers and miscellaneous

vessels, with bowls being the most ubiquitous Egyptian-style vessel (Killebrew

2004:311). The high frequency of bowls at these sites actually undermines one of

Higginbotham’s criteria that domestic vessels should be minimally represented in the

assemblage. Although Egyptian cooking vessels are poorly represented in southern

Levant, Killebrew suggests that Bowl Type EG7 could have served as a cooking vessel

based on its usage at Elephantine in Egypt (2004:318-319).

The Egyptian-styled pottery at Deir el-Balah, Tel Beth Shean and Jaffa reflects an

adaptation to local conditions in which local clays were used to construct vessels that

were made with distinct Egyptian manufacturing techniques. This observation appears to

support the likelihood that Egyptian potters were serving the needs of an Egyptian

population in the southern Levant during the Thirteenth and early Twelfth centuries

(Killebrew 2004:334). In the late Fifteenth and early Fourteenth centuries, distinct

differences were noted in the production of Egyptian and Levantine ceramics. For

example, Egyptian-style vessels were manufactured exclusively with a local travertine

23 Although Higginbotham advocates a combination of elite emulation and direct rule as a unified approach to explain Egyptian material culture in the southern Levant, she argues that an Egyptian administrative presence is better explained by elite emulation of prestigious aspects of Egyptian culture and not as a result of direct rule by the Egyptians.

23

clay, while Canaanite types utilized both non-travertine and travertine clays (Mullins

2006:251-252). In contrast, Egyptian pottery at Jaffa was produced locally using little

chaff, but with coarse amounts of sand and limestone (Burke and Lords 2010:23). The

Late Bronze I and IIA strata at Beth Shean produced vessels that were not easily

distinguishable as Egyptian-inspired, which suggests that Levantine potters were

imitating Egyptian forms. Simple rimmed bowls with flat bases appear at Beth Shean

with and lacking a distinctly Egyptian decorative technique of a weak red painted rim and

interior red painted “splashes.” Similar simple rimmed bowls also appear in Egypt with

and without the decorated rim and “splashes,” making their identification as Egyptian-

inspired at Beth Shean uncertain (Mullins 2006: 255, 259).24

While a firing temperature between 500 to 700 degrees Celsius was typical for the

period, the “off-the-hump” manufacturing technique was interpreted and depicted as a

uniquely Egyptian technology due to its portrayal in New Kingdom scenes (Killebrew

2004:334-339; 340-341). In addition, the inclusion of straw temper was also assumed to

signal Egyptian clay preparation techniques. A recent analysis of ceramics from Area Q

at Beth Shean reveals that straw was used in “considerable quantities” in Canaanite bowls

and kraters, as well as in Egyptianized forms, thereby making the assignment of straw as

a specifically Egyptian attribute problematic (Martin 2006:141). At Tel Mor, straw

temper was absent in Canaanite forms and only appeared “occasionally in bowls and

kraters in strata with Egyptianized assemblages” (Martin and Barako 2007:133).These

observations indicate that technological attributes were not absorbed enmasse, but could

be dictated by site-specific and endogenous factors.

24 Some distinct Egyptian forms do occur in the LBI and LBIIA at Beth Shean, such as two splayed/everted rimmed bowls, one slender ovoid jar or “date jar” and twenty-four flowerpots.

24

Interestingly, when thick walled vessels were produced with sagging rims and

bodies, and with bases showing s-shaped cracks at Tell Deir `Alla, it was observed that

these challenges were rectified by incorporating organic material into the clay of the base

to allow for faster water evaporation and even drying (Franken and London 1995:215).

The adoption of straw or chaff temper in this instance was influenced by functional

challenges, rather than cultural processes.

Administrative Aspects of Imperialism

In rejecting Higginbotham’s arguments for direct rule and elite emulation,

Killebrew suggests instead that Egyptian artifacts found in the southern Levant reflect an

administrative function, which she refers to as “formal” administrative imperialism

(2005a:55). This characterization of Egyptian imperialism may be exemplified in a

cuneiform letter addressed to an Egyptian official at Aphek. The official Haya is asked by

the governor of Ugarit to arbitrate in a business dispute (Owen 1981:9). The governor

Takuhlina, states that he did not receive payment for a shipment of grain and is under the

impression that the Egyptian official has the authority and power to perform the

“administrative” task of settling disputes. The administrative nature may also be evident

in the manner in which an Egyptian commissioner or rabisu was dispatched to fulfill his

“circuit-officer duties.” According to Redford, an Egyptian officer might be based at a

particular headquarters abroad, but was charged with visiting towns and cities within his

sphere (Redford 1990:34). Occasionally, orders or decisions were challenged and the

local rulers wrote to the Pharoah requesting a reversal of a particular decision (Na’aman

2000:135). It appears that as long as a political equilibrium was established and

25

maintained, Egypt did not become too involved in local political affairs (James 2000:

119).

In addition, the Amarna correspondence contains letters that convey the banal

day-to-day activities of local political rulers (Liverani 1990:338). Many of the letters

contain an impending sense of doom and crisis, which leads to an overstating of their

broader political significance. Liverani argues that letters were sent and received

seasonally, announcing the impending arrival of Egyptian delegations or troops to collect

tribute in the spring and signaling to the local rulers that the collection and maintenance

of the garrison towns were to begin (Liverani 1990: 340). As such, the letters from the

local rulers were the “automatic” replies to these spring letters, which were sent to

Pharaoh in late summer reporting on administrative matters, such as requests for

assistance, reports of hostility or loss of territory, and acknowledgement that the Egyptian

official had arrived (Liverani 1990: 345).

The investment in building Egyptian garrisons and administrative buildings in the

Late Bronze IIB and early Iron 1A, according to Morris, was the result of administrative

reforms initiated during the time of Horemheb, known as the Edict of Horemheb (Davies

1997: 2149.5; Pflüger1946:263; Morris 2005: 274). This law endeavored to stop past

abuses, especially those that occurred during the Amarna Period and listed the proposals

for how the royal court was to be provisioned when traveling within Egypt. Essentially,

Horemheb’s proposal reversed a well-known practice since the time of Thutmosis III by

assuming fiscal responsibility for local and foreign travel. The policy under Thutmosis III

had required local officials to shoulder the costs of provisioning Egyptian troops on

marches through the Levant, which no doubt represented an expensive and onerous

26

responsibility (Morris 2005:271-272). The Amarna Letters suggest that Egyptian bases in

the Eighteenth Dynasty were located, at different times, in the towns of Ullaza (EA 104),

Byblos (EA 68), Gaza (EA 296), Kumidi (EA 116), Jerusalem (EA 287), Gezer (EA

290), Megiddo (EA 243 and 244), Jaffa (EA 296) and Yarimuta and Sumur (EA 81) (See

Figure 1). Egyptian-style architecture and material culture was found at Tell el-Ajjul

(Petrie 1933), Beth Shean (Mullins 2006) and Jaffa (Burke and Lords 2010) in the

Eighteenth Dynasty (Morris 2005: 271-271). In the subsequent Nineteenth and Twentieth

Dynasties, Egyptian style architecture is evident at Tell el-Far’ah (S) (Petrie 1930), Tel

el-Hesi (Bliss 1894), Tel Sera` (Oren 1972, 1984; Oren and Netzer1973, 1974), Tell

Jemmeh (Petrie 1928), Deir el-Balah (Killebrew, Goldberg and Rosen 2006), Tel Mor

(Barako 2007), Tel Masos (Fritz and Kempinski 1976, 1983) Jaffa (Burke and Lords),

Aphek (Gadot and Yadin 2009), Gezer (Macalister 1907), Tell es-Sa`idiyeh (Tubb 1988

and 1990) and Beth Shean (James 1966; Rowe 1929 and 1930; Mazar 2006) (See Figure

2).

Some of the Egyptian-inspired buildings or “Amarna-type” structures in the

southern Levant known as “Governors’ Residencies” appear to be the remnants of

Egyptian trading entrepôts (Holladay 2001: 169-170). Holladay asserts that the enigmatic

square-shaped structures at Tananir, Tell es-Sa`idiyeh, Building 1500 at Tel Beth Shean

and the Amman Airport structure may represent the archaeological correlates of

displaced groups or “trade diasporas” engaged in long-distance economic activities

(2001:140). These trading posts likely operated under the auspices of an Egyptian

bureaucracy and facilitated the transfer of “desired surpluses” from the remote Central

Hill Country (Holladay 2001: 170-172).

27

The Patrimonial Model

This model incorporates both ideological and theological aspects to characterize

an Egyptian presence in the southern Levant. Proposed initially by German sociologist

Max Weber (1978:1006) to characterize the organization of ancient Near Eastern society,

and later expanded upon and adapted by Schloen (2001), the Patrimonial Household

Model, referred to as the PHM, presents ancient society as an extension of the ruler’s

household and ultimately of the divine household. According to the PHM, social order is

derived from a hierarchy of households that are bound by personal relationships between

members of the households, regardless of status (Schloen 2001:51). Egyptian society was

organized according to the PHM whereby the portrayal of Pharaoh as a son of Amun-Re

necessitated the building and provisioning of temples with offerings. This divine father-

son relationship was evident on a domestic level through ancestral worship of the “cult of

the dead,” in which deceased family members were remembered.

The architectural layout of domestic buildings in Egypt may also reflect this

hierarchical nesting of the PHM. The layout of domestic buildings at Tell el-Amarna in

the New Kingdom and Kahun during the Middle Kingdom shows similarly designed

smaller houses adjacent to larger buildings.25 At Tell el-Amarna, the replication of a

similar architectural layout differs only in relation to house and courtyard size (Lehner

1999: 284-285).

25 The PHM does not diminish the importance of redistribution to the ancient Egyptian economy as outlined by Bleiberg (1996:118-119) and Janssen (1975:559, 1982:253-254). In fact, aspects of redistribution and private accumulation can be seen in the different house sizes and granaries in the different neighborhoods at Tell el-Amarna (Kemp 1989, 2006).

28

The patrimonial nature of society permeated Egyptian administration and was

evident in the types and names of titles given to officials (Schloen 2001:313-315).26

Redford suggests that in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, administrative

positions appear to be created on an “ad-hoc” basis (1992:199).27 Schloen asserts that

these titles adhered to a practical need, rather than an idealized concept of how an empire

should be structured (2001: 313-315). A review of the numerous military titles revealed

in Schulman’s analysis of the Egyptian textual sources, suggests otherwise, and reveals a

complex hierarchy of positions (Schulman 1964).28 Weber maintained that the

patrimonial office lacked the bureaucratic separation of the “private” and “official”

sphere and was treated as a personal affair of the ruler (1978:1028). According to the

PHM, economic and political interactions were negotiated and resolved through

interpersonal relationships based on kinship.

With regard to the great powers of Babylonia, Mitanni and Assyria, the PHM

dictates that the relationship between these powers and Egypt was not only motivated by

trade in luxury objects, but was a symbolic means for providing credibility to a politically

dominant group, while also recognizing mutually dominant powers (Schloen 2001:88).

This is reflected by the manner in which the kings of the major Late Bronze Age empires

addressed one another as “brother” in their correspondence. Schloen suggests that the

types of luxury goods preferred, such as gold and silver as well as the desire for skilled

26 O’Connor (2006:17) suggests that as early as the reign of Thutmosis III, Egypt’s relationship with the southern Levant may have been organized along patrimonial lines as a “loosely structured entity.” 27 See also Schulman (1964) for the numerous military titles used in Egyptian textual sources. 28 My appreciation to Professor Mary-Ann Wegner for bringing Schulman’s study to my attention.

29

craftspeople in the design of palaces or temples, confirmed the “rightness of their rule”

(2001:88).29

The difficulty in assessing Egyptian imperialistic motivations arises when one

attempts to separate the ideology inherent in the patrimonial relationship from the

fundamental obligation of the “material maintenance of the ruler,” which may manifest

itself as economic imperialism.30 While ideology is no doubt embedded in expressions of

imperialism, Schloen’s assessment of attempts to characterize imperial expansion in

antiquity is intriguing:

In my view, a fundamental issue in ancient studies that is too often ignored concerns the discrepancy between the largely ideological motivations for empire that are actually attested in the ancient world and the “real” economic motivations that many modern historians and archaeologists assume to have been at work (2001:88).

The PHM provides an intriguing lens through which to view Egyptian

imperialism in the southern Levant, yet Smith argues that patrimonial empires tend to

integrate center and periphery in a common political and cultural system with little

interconnectedness, while imperial systems permit differentiation with a higher degree of

interconnectedness (Smith 2003: 58). While the latter system more aptly characterizes

Egyptian-Levantine interaction, the PHM reflects the close alliance of ideological,

political and economic motivations inherent in this relationship.

29 While an Egyptian elite would no doubt benefit from campaigns abroad through the acquisition of exotic and luxury items, there was a strongly held belief that order and prosperity both internally and abroad placated the deities and offset chaos (O’Connor 2006:15). 30 Weber (1978:1014) states that the “material maintenance” initially may take the form of honorary gifts, but expands to include food, clothing, armor or the provisioning of the ruler and his court wherever it may be residing, including garrisons and administrative buildings abroad. He proposes that upon the development of trade and a market economy, the ruler looks outside of his oikos or household to satisfy his needs to profit-oriented exchange.

30

While aspects of all approaches can be seen to encapsulate Egypt’s imperial

presence in the southern Levant, this analysis illustrates a distinction between how

imperial rule was envisioned by the Egyptian state and how it was practically manifested

in peripheral regions.

Egyptian-Style Architecture in the 19th and 20th Dynasties

In the Late Bronze IIB and early Iron 1A, coastal and inland sites in the southern

Levant experienced a renewed Egyptian interest in the form of Egyptian style

architecture, pottery and objects. The center-hall buildings, administrative buildings and

hybrid Levantine Egyptian style temples signaled a more pronounced Egyptian presence.

Whether this reflected a substantial increase in Egyptian troops (Weinstein 1981) or a

direct effort at curbing past administrative abuses by Egyptian officials (Morris 2005),

the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty Pharaohs adopted a new approach to

administering the region. The analysis of sites with Egyptian-style center-hall and

administrative architecture follows Higginbotham’s architectural typology (2000:363-

301) and Killebrew’s (2005a:58-64) discussion of Egyptian-style buildings.

Center-Hall Buildings

These buildings have a series of small rooms surrounding a central hall, a side

entrance and brick walls set upon stone foundations, which according to Oren reflected

an “Egyptian architectural concept” that was adapted to a local building tradition (Oren

1984:52). Flinders Petrie referred to the square structure at Tell el-Far`a as an Egyptian

31

residency belonging to a governor, and since then the term “governor residency” has been

commonly used to describe this type of building in the southern Levant (Petrie 1930:17).

The Center-Hall buildings, identified at Tel Sera`, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Hesi, Tell el-

Far`a (South), Tel Masos and Beth Shean closely conform to the shape and construction

methods employed in Egyptian buildings (Oren 1984).

Tel Sera`

Tel Sera` is a crescent-shaped mound encompassing 16 dumans and rising 12

meters above ground on the north bank of the Nahal Gerar (Oren 1972:167). Building

906 consisted of a central hall surrounded by smaller rooms, a paved area in the northern

wing and walls and foundations built of mudbrick (Oren 1984:39). Building 906 was

constructed directly atop a similarly shaped Building 2502 and re-used portions of the

stone paved floors and brick walls on stone foundations (Oren and Netzer 1973:253).31

The pottery from stratum IX contained Egyptian-style vessels including bowls with

straight sides and string-cut bases, date-shaped vessels and “beer bottles,” as well as

Levantine forms such as, cups and saucers, “cyma” profiled bowls, lentoid flasks with

concentric circles and storage jars with stump bases (Oren 1984:41).

Also included were several Nineteenth Dynasty scarabs and seals from Ramesses

II and a fragment of a Mycenaean IIIB stirrup vase (Oren and Netzer 1973:253). Bowls

and ostraca with hieratic inscriptions referring to regnal years and grain amounts arriving

at a temple were also recovered from the site (Goldwasser 1984:77-81). A bowl with the

31 Oren’s study of the center hall buildings refers to brick foundations at Tel Sera` (1984:39), while the original excavation summary reports that Building 906 sat atop the earlier structure and shared its brick walls on stone foundations (Oren and Netzer 1973:253).

32

hieratic inscription “year 22 +x” around the exterior of its body has been assigned to the

reign of Ramesses III (Oren 1984:41; Goldwasser 1984:85).

Tell Jemmeh

Although Petrie reported that Building JF was comprised of 11 chambers, only

the northeast corner of the building was preserved due to later construction in strata GH

and EF (Petrie 1928; Pl.VI). Oren considered this building to be of an Egyptian type and

reconstructed its overall dimensions at 15 meters by 15 meters, with a 4 meter by 12

meter central courtyard (1984:46). Higginbotham tentatively assigned Building JF to the

center hall type with a square or broad main room, but remained skeptical about the

Egyptian nature of the building because of the poor state of preservation (Higginbotham

2000:276). Stratum JK produced Canaanite and Egyptian style bowls (Oren 1984: 46;

Petrie 1928, Pl. XLVIII, LI, LII). An excavation trench dug by Phythian-Adams

recovered White Slip II bowls in level H (1923:143, Pl. IV).

Tell el-Far`a (S)

The Egyptian residency identified by Petrie at Tell el-Far`a (S) featured a series of

well-built halls suitable for a governor (1930:7, Pl. LI). Petrie noted “marked” differences

in the construction of various chambers within Building YR; some rooms had

foundations and walls of brick, while others were constructed of earth and reused brick

faced with plaster (Petrie 1930:17). Subsequent excavations by Starkey and Harding

identified bathroom and bedroom chambers, as well as a cobbled courtyard and a

chamber with 45 storage jars still sealed with conical mud sealings (1932:28, Pl. LXIX).

33

A jar fragment bearing the cartouche of Seti II was found in the courtyard. Oren dated the

founding of Building YR to the late Thirteenth Century with occupation continuing into

the Twelfth Century due to the presence of Philistine wares that were recovered from the

higher floor levels (Oren 1984:47; Starkey and Harding 1932:18). Petrie had originally

identified two residencies; one dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty and the second

comprising Building YR, dating to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties. That

interpretation has been rejected in favor of a two-phase constructional process being

proposed for Building YR, with the building being founded in the Nineteenth Dynasty

(Yannai 2002: 375).

Beth Shean

Building 1500 at Tel Beth Shean was constructed of mudbrick walls on stone

foundations and featured two broad halls at the rear of the center hall, which was entered

through a smaller room (James 1966:8). The structure contained numerous limestone

architectural features such as, lintels, door jambs, t-shaped sills; some of which were

inscribed with hieroglyphics. Although not in situ, an inscribed lintel depicting the

Egyptian official, Ramesses-user-Khepesh kneeling before Ramesses III was assumed to

have belonged to Building 1500 (James 1966:4; Higginbotham 2000:64). Although

Building 1700 was partially preserved, it too resembled Building 1500 and contained

many architectural features such as, an in situ door sill, fragments of a painted cornice

and an orange-painted lintel with carved uraeii and sun disks (James 1966:12). The

34

buildings contained Egyptian-style bowls with a flat base and everted rim, “beer bottles”

and spinning bowls.32

Tell el-Hesi

The center-hall building excavated by Bliss in City IV was constructed of brick

walls placed either on debris, or on the walls of an earlier structure below, always with a

layer of “fine yellow sand” in the foundation trenches (Bliss 1894:71). The City IV

building was 56 feet squared with a broad main hall measuring 30 feet by 15 feet (Bliss

1894:74). The main hall was flanked by three rooms on the south and north sides, with

two broad halls on the southeast side. While Bliss did not indicate a door to the building

on his architectural plan, the two smaller broad halls in the southeast of the building

usually provided access to the center hall houses at Tell el-Amarna. Oren’s

reconstruction, which placed the door in the northwest part of the building opening

directly into the center hall, is unusual for Egyptian-style center houses (Oren 1984, Fig.

2.4). Bliss noted the presence of pottery, spear-heads, knives, kohl sticks and jewellery in

the debris above the walls of the City IV building (1894:80-81). The Late Bronze Age

ceramics include three cup and saucer bowls, three carinated bowls and a dipper juglet

(Bliss 1894: Fig. 174).

Tel Masos

The plan of House 480 in Stratum IIB at Tel Masos measured 15 meters by 14

meters, with a pillared central hall measuring 6 meters by 7.5 meters (Fritz and

32 For Egyptian-style bowls, see James (1966: Fig 49:9 and 12, 55:1 and 3, 57:2, 4 and 5), spinning bowls (Fig. 49:21) and perforated “beer bottles” (Fig.49:6, 51:6 and 54:1).

35

Kempinski 1983:63). Stone foundations supported the structure, which was comprised of

a series of square and broad halls surrounding a pillared central court (Fritz 1977:149;

Fritz and Kempinski 1976:Figure 1). The entrance to House 480 was situated in the

eastern corner of the building and provided entry into a broad room. The inclusion of two

broader halls on one or two sides of the building closely resembles the plans of buildings

at Tell Hesi and Tel Sera`.

Administrative Buildings

These square buildings, featuring buttresses, corner towers and a symmetrical

arrangement or rooms are also referred to as migdols,33 forts and palaces (Higginbotham

2000:288; Killebrew 2005a:60). Examples from the southern Levant were found at Tell

Beth Shean, Deir el-Balah, Tel Mor and Aphek.

Beth-Shean

The Egyptian “commandant’s” residence and a partially preserved fort or migdol,

excavated in the 1928 season were located just west of the Amenophis (Amenhotep) III

temple in city level VII (Rowe 1930:21). The migdol was rectangular in shape, measured

25 meters by 16 meters with 2 meter wide walls (Rowe 1929:54). The walls were

constructed of mudbrick placed on “heavy foundations” of undressed stones (Rowe

1929:56). The western half of the building was disturbed by later Roman and Byzantine

construction, but the preserved portion of the migdol featured entrance towers, five

33 The term migdol is found in the battle scenes of Seti I at Karnak and refers to one of a series of forts across the Sinai (Gardiner 1920: 99-116; Hasel 1998: 96). Mention is also made to “the migdol of Ramesses, Ruler of Heliopolis” in the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramesses III in which the king celebrates his victory over the Sea Peoples at a nearby fort (Hoffmeier & Moshier 2006:173).

36

internal rooms and a staircase (James and McGovern 1993:56, Map 1; Rowe 1930:Fig.

2). A re-analysis of the Late Bronze levels VIII and VII (Rowe’s city level VIII and VII)

redated level VII to the reign of Ramesses II and possibly the late years of Seti I (James

and McGovern 1993:5). This redating places Level VIII in the Late Bronze IIB and Level

VII in the late Late Bronze IIB, since the pottery assemblages and layout were similar for

the two levels (1993:4).

The migdol, located immediately south of the ‘commandant’s house,” had a

doorway opening from an open space to the north that also appeared to provide access to

the “commandant’s house.” Few internal features were noted, but a thick 1.8 meter north-

south dividing wall likely provided support for a second storey (James and McGovern

1993:57). The artifacts inside the migdol included figurine fragments, Egyptian “flower

pots,” “beer bottles” and Egyptian-style bowls, as well as Levantine cooking pots (James

and McGovern 1993:58).

The square-building known as the “commandant’s house” had 12 meter long

mudbrick walls built atop stone foundations. The house was divided into two rectangular

rooms, which were bordered by two elongated rectangular rooms or hallways (James and

McGovern 1993: 53, Map 1; Rowe 1929: 64). Few interior features were noted for the

building, except for the two partition walls dividing one of the elongated rectangular

rooms into three chambers, with a possible mudbrick staircase base at the end of the

westernmost chamber (James and McGovern 1993: 54). The artifacts located inside the

building reflect Egyptian and Levantine types including, local pottery, basalt vessels and

weights, copper, ivory inlay fragments, a macehead, faience bowl fragments, scarabs and

a life-size arm fragment from a statue (James and McGovern 1993:54).

37

While a temple in Level VI closely resembled the temple structure in Level VII,

Level VI walls were built atop the “commandant’s house” and migdol of Level VII

(James and McGovern 1993:4). The Level VI buildings, Houses 1500 and 1700 were

described above in the section on Center-hall type buildings.

Tel Mor

The square-shaped structure in stratum VIII measured approximately 21 meters

by 23 meters, with corner buttresses or towers, exterior recessed walls and ten

symmetrically arranged rooms (Barako 2007: Fig.2.4). Building B showed evidence of

Egyptian influence in the sand-lined foundations, corner staircase and Egyptian-style

pottery in stratum VIII and VII. The Egyptian-style corpus in these Late Bronze IIB strata

included mainly bowls and storage jars (Barako 2007: 20-21, Fig. 4.4).

In subsequent stratum VI, a square building measuring 12 meters by 12 meters

with 4 meter thick walls was constructed to the east of the old Building B and slightly

atop its ruins (Barako 2007: Fig. 2.5). Building F had two square-shaped rooms and a

single broad room. The five furnace installations, which were uncovered to the west of

Building F, showed evidence of metalworking with quantities of ash, slag and tuyère

fragments (Barako 2007:28). Stratum VI was dated to the transitional Late Bronze IIB

and early Iron 1A periods.

Deir el-Balah

The square-shaped building at Deir el-Balah measured 20 meters by 20 meters,

with fourteen interior rooms and four towers at each corner (Killebrew, Goldberg and

38

Rosen 2006:115). Egyptian building influence was observed in the sand discovered along

the foundations and in the lamp and bowl deposit.34 The stratum VII structure was built

over the southeastern section of the earlier residency, and based on parallels with similar

buildings was dated to the late Thirteenth and early Twelfth centuries. The presence of

the four-handled storage jar and upright triangular cooking pot rim firmly place this

building in the transitional Late Bronze IIB/early Iron 1A periods (Killebrew, Goldberg

and Rosen 2006:113-115).

Aphek

Building 1104 was a square-shaped building measuring approximately 17 meters

by 15 meters with corner staircase (Gadot and Yadin 2009: Fig.3.18). The building,

constructed in stratum X13 and re-used in stratum X12, contained three square rooms,

two rectangular rooms and an outer entranceway paved with limestone slabs (2009:59).

As with the Deir el-Balash “fortress”, Building 1104 also contained a foundation bowl

and lamp deposit. A cache of Egyptian-style bowls was found adjacent to the building

and assumed to have fallen during the collapse of the second storey, while faience,

arrowheads, bronze fragments, and inscribed clay tablets were found within this Late

Bronze IIB building (Gadot and Yadin 2009:62, 66-67).

Tell es-Sa`idiyeh

Although structures at Tell es-Sa`idiyeh and Gezer have also been proposed as

“residencies” there is no scholarly concensus as to their function. In Stratum XII, a

34 While foundation offerings were common under walls of temples, palaces, fortresses, royal and private tombs in Egypt, Bunimovitz and Zimhoni suggest that the presence of a Levantine lamp reflects an “Egyptian inspired local Canaanite custom” (Bunimovitz and Zimhoni 1993:123-124).

39

“tightly packed complex of rooms” made of mudbrick walls placed atop a construction

surface of pisée was dated to the early Iron 1 period in Area AA at Tell es-Sa`idiyeh

(Tubb 1988:40, Fig. 15). The destruction debris of this stratum contained burnt timber

possibly from a second storey, a basalt tripod bowl discovered in situ and a blue faience

“Eye of Horus” amulet (Tubb 1988:41). The “governor’s residency” has not been

described in detail by the excavators, only that it was a deeply founded, low lying and

disturbed greatly by leveling for later buildings (Tubb 1990:25, Fig. 5). Egyptian inspired

artifacts were also found in some of the pit burials overlying Early Bronze occupation in

Area BB, notably Grave 32 which contained a single internment, an extra four skulls and

a bronze wine set (Tubb 1988: 63: Fig. 44 and 50). A bowl, strainer and jar set was also

excavated at Tell el`Ajjul in the “Governor’s tomb” (Petrie 1933:5; Higginbotham

2000:182-183).35

Gezer

The “Canaanite castle,” excavated by Macalister in Trenches 14 to 16 and dated

to the Third Semitic Period or Thirteenth Century BCE, was proposed as a possible

residence of the governor (Macalister 1907:192, Fig. 4). The building was roughly square

in shape, measuring 18 meters by 14 meters, with 1 meter to 3 meter wide walls. The

structure incorporated a tower from the inner wall into its plan (Macalister 1907: 194).

According to Singer, the overall square plan of the building, the thick walls for a second

storey and corner entrance appears to support Macalister’s original identification of the

building (Singer 1986-1987: 29). A “brick structure” identified by Macalister at the

Western Hill was proposed as a better candidate for an Egyptian governor residency 35 See Lilly Gershuny for a review of bronze wine sets in the Levant (1985:46-47).

40

(Bunimovitz 1988-1989: 72). This building measured 15 meters by 15 meters, contained

three rows of two square rooms and had a corner entrance and interior staircase

(Bunimovitz 1988-1989: 72).

Egyptianizing influence was not only evident in administrative and domestic

structures in the form of “governor residencies” and center-hall houses, but also in

religious structures. A Canaanite temple with a raised Holy of Holies and displaying

Egyptianizing architectural features and artifacts was excavated in Level VI at Lachish

(Ussishkin 2004: 215, Fig 6.2) and at Tel Beth Shean in Level VII (Rowe 1940: Plate VI)

and in Level VI (Rowe 1940: Plate VIII).

The Textual Evidence

The Egyptians kept meticulous lists of commodities received or seized from the

southern Levant, yet different conclusions have been reached concerning the burden and

impact this obligation had on the region (Ahituv 1978; Na`aman 1981; Weinstein 1981).

This is partly due to the different types of goods that were classified as tribute, gifts,

benevolences, booty and taxes, and to confusion over the exact meaning of the Egyptian

words that denoted these commodities. The Amarna Letters record gifts and tribute as

inw, the Annals record booty and goods collected as a result of war, animals, as well as

raw material and goods that resulted from human or animal labor as b3k, while produce

from cultivated land was referred to as snw or a harvest tax (Redford 2003;

Panagiotopoulos 2006:372, 374).36 The various sources described below clearly indicate

36 Bleiberg (1984:173) differentiates inw and b3kw(t) by its destination and origin. The latter was usually provided by a country or group to be sent to an Egyptian temple. Bleiberg suggests that the collection of b3kw(t) intensified in the Late Bronze IIB or Nineteenth Dynasty and coincided with centers being established at Gaza, Lachish and Beth Shean (Bleiberg 1984:182-183).

41

that Nubia’s obligation in tribute and taxes was much more onerous than that expected

from the southern Levant.

In the tomb of Ineni (TT81), an overseer of the granary of Amun under Thutmosis

III, products arriving from Canaan were assigned to the temple as an “annual tax,” but are

referred to as jnw, a term which normally denoted gifts, tribute or benevolences

(Panagiotopoulos 2006:378-381). Redford suggests that inw did not always have a

precise meaning for Egyptians and could apply to a wide range of commodities, such as

birds, wine and “storehouses and containers that are set aside for inw.” In fact, hieratic

dockets recovered from Malkata record that items such as wine, curds, fowl and oil were

received as inw (Bleiberg 1996:143). While the types of commodities grouped as inw

may be varied, Bleiberg argues that inw was differentiated with great precision because it

represented goods paid yearly to the Pharaoh by both foreigners and Egyptians (Redford

2003: 246-256; Bleiberg 1984:137). In essence, inw solidified the personal relationship

between the giver and the Pharaoh and reinforced the existing social hierarchy (Bleiberg

1996:98).

Various texts record the variety and quantity of goods arriving from the northern

and southern Levant and offer insight into the economic obligations expected from the

region including: the Annals of Thutmosis III, Papyrus Harris I, private tomb

inscriptions, and toponym lists and the Amarna Letters.37

37 The textual sources used in this study were chosen because they provide a cross-section of the types of products arriving from the southern Levant.

42

Annals of Thutmosis III

The Annals formally recognize parts of the land of Canaan as the property of the

Pharaoh, listing Gaza38 and Jaffa as royal cities and the dedication of three additional

towns to the Temple of Amun at Karnak (Breasted 1962: §557). The products received

from the Levant were the result of seventeen campaigns by Thutmosis III during his

forty-two year reign. Inscribed on the Temple of Amun at Karnak, the Annals or “Day-

book of the king’s-house” list the goods presented by foreign chiefs, or as Redford

suggests, the commodities brought directly to the king as he traveled abroad (Redford

1990:41). When compared to the other pharaohs of his dynasty, Thutmosis III led a

campaign every 1.2 years, compared with Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, who led

foreign expeditions every 10.5 years (O’Connor 2006: 5-6). In addition, three inscriptions

list the cities that Thutmosis III encountered in his first military campaign. The first copy,

known as the Topographical List, records 119 cities “which his majesty shut up in the

city of Megiddo the wretched, whose children his majesty brought as living prisoners.”39

Redford suggests that these were cities and areas that were familiar to Egyptian scribes

from their expeditions during the Middle Kingdom (2003: 44). A second badly damaged

copy was recorded on Pylon VIII and lists 248 cities most of which were located mainly

in the northern Levant.

The Annals meticulously record the amount and type of agricultural and

commercial tribute sent from the southern Levant, yet scholars have yet to agree on

whether this economic obligation left the region overburdened (Ahituv 1978; Na’aman

1981). Whether this tribute consisted of temple donations or supplies sent to granaries at

38 Gaza is referred to as “That-Which-the Ruler-Seized.” 39 This first copy of the 119 cities was recorded on the west side of Pylon VI, while copies two and three are recorded on the north and south sides respectively of Pylon VIII (Breasted 1962:170).

43

Egyptian bases in the Levantine region, the amount of tribute collected appears to be

quite significant.40 For example, the tribute from the chiefs of Retenu during Thutmosis

III’s ninth campaign in Year 34 included “sweet oil and green oil, 2080 (mn-)…” which

Ahituv calculated was 30,000 litres.41 In the fifth campaign, Year 29, some of the tribute

included: “30 horses, 10 flat dishes of silver; incense…6,428 (mn-) jars of wine…”

calculated at 95,000 litres, which was the largest amount recorded (Ahituv 1978:99).42 In

terms of precious metals, Nubia held vast reserves of gold for Egypt and appears to have

paid much more tribute than the Levant. For example, in the ninth campaign, the amount

of tribute in gold given by the chief of Retenu amounted to more than 55 deben,43 while

the amount of tax from “Kush the wretched” amounted to 300 deben or more.44

According to Janssen, the valuation of commodities in deben was necessary to

evaluate whether an exchange was fair for both parties (1975:108).45 When compared to

the valuation of transactions recorded at the Workman’s Village in Thebes in the

Nineteenth Dynasty, the large amounts of copper and silver received from the northern

Levant appears quite large. For example, 2, 821 deben of copper was recorded in the

thirteenth campaign46 and 1,495 deben of silver rings recorded in the fourteenth

campaign.47 The amounts of precious metals taken by Thutmosis III pale in comparison

40 This discussion is intended to provide a brief introduction to the valuation of commodities received from the Levant. For detailed studies on valuation and wealth in the Levant in the Iron Age, see Holladay (2006, 2009). 41 Breasted II, § 491; Sethe, Urk IV, 707:4. 42 Breasted II, § 462; Sethe, Urk. IV, 688:8. 43 Janssen equates a deben with 91 grams (1975:101). 44 Breasted II, § 491, 494; Urk, IV, 706:5. 45 Janssen’s (1975) analysis of monetary values in the Ninteenth Dynasty was based on transactions recorded on ostraca that were found in the Workman’s Village in Thebes. 46 Breasted II, § 509; Sethe, Urk IV 47 Breasted II, § 518; Sethe, Urk, IV

44

48with those recorded in the second campaign of Amenhotep II. In regnal Year 9, this

pharaoh boasts of taking 6,800 deben of gold and a staggering 500,000 deben of

copper.49

Papyru

91).

Syria,

sty

to

l el-

Amarna in the central palace area reveal wines from the eastern Delta, the Oases,

s Harris I (Ramesses III)

This document is primarily a statistical record of the gifts, buildings and

dedications made by Ramesses III to the three main temples in Thebes, Heliopolis and

Memphis, in addition to some smaller ones. Scribes from each temple contributed to the

papyrus by providing lists of the various items each temple received (Breasted 1906:

In a final section of the papyrus, a summary of these items is provided ranging from

cattle, lands, gardens, precious metals, cedar, linens, wine, incense, honey and towns.50

Interestingly, the towns listed include 160 towns of Egypt and nine towns of Syria.51 In

addition, oil appears to be the only commodity listed specifically as arriving from

which includes 1800 (mn)- jars, compared to 2700 (mn)-jars of oil from Egypt.52

Specifically, moringa oil from Nahrin or the “many oils of the Port to annoint his maje

and his chariotry” are included in a lengthy list in Papyrus Anastasi IV as products

have available upon Pharoahs arrival (Caminos 1954:200).53 It appears that Egypt

consumed wine that was primarily produced locally, as jar labels uncovered at Tel

48 Redford (1990:40-63) provides a breakdown by campaign year for the most common categories of commodities sent to Thutmosis III. 49 Cumming, fasc I, § 1316. 50 Breasted IV, § 384-387. 51 ANET, 261; Breasted IV, § 384. 52 Breasted IV, § 233. Ahituv (1978:99) estimated that the standard (mn)- jars held 15 litres. 53 Papyrus Anastasi IV 15:4, 5.

45

54Memphis and “[wine of] Syria” (Lesko 1995:226). Other products from Canaan are

mentioned generally in a section entitled “Amun’s income,” which includes the galleys,

barges and ships built by Ramesses III in order to “transport the products of the land of

Djahi...”55 The products dedicated to the temple in Heliopolis include a storehouse with

“…barley and wheat, filled with the spoil which I carried away from the Nine Bows.”56

Prisoners captured during campaigns were dedicated to the various temples as well. The

papyrus lists 205 people from Syria and presumably Kush, as “people attached to the

temple” for Ptah at Memphis, while “gifts of people” for Amun at Thebes, numbered

2,607 Syrians and Nubians.57

Private Tomb Inscriptions

The tribute and gifts which arrived from Canaan were not only depicted in

monumental inscriptions, but were also shown in the tombs of private officials. The

scenes are usually depicted on the walls leading to the inner room of the tomb and show

the tombs’ owner executing his duties in service to the king (Davies 1933:2). In the tomb

of Rekhmire, the well-known vizier of Thutmosis III, a procession of foreigners with

tribute is depicted in two registers showing princes of Canaan, “bowing down in

humility, with their tribute upon their backs,” as well as the presentation of the children

of foreign princes.58 In the Theban tomb of Menkheperrasonb, the treasurer for

Thutmosis III, a procession of foreign princes from “keftiu,” “Hatti,” ‘Tunip” and

54 Lesko (1995:226) questions whether this wine was actually produced abroad and imported, or signified a local vineyard with Syria in its name. Two of the fifteen vintners named on jars in Tutankhamon’s tomb had Syrian names; Aperershop produced jar #1 and Khay produced six jars of wne (Lesko 1995:223). 55 Breasted IV, § 211. 56 Breasted IV, § 259. 57 Breasted IV, §338, 225. 58 ANET, 248; Davies 1943a, pp. 27-30;Pl.XXI-XXIII; Davies 1943b; Pl. X-XI.

46

59“Kadesh” and “Asiatics” praise Pharoah for “laying waste” to the lands of Mitanni. In

the tomb of Huy, a viceroy of Nubia under Tutankhamun, the tribute presented included

precious metals and stones such as silver, gold, lapis lazuli and turquoise.60

Topographical Lists

Towns in the southern and northern Levant comprise the place-names found in the

northern or Asiatic lists of New Kingdom Pharaohs, which were located on pylon

gateways, stela, base panels of temple walls, columns, bases of royal statues and in

private tomb chapels (Kitchen 2009: 129-130). These lists reflect the itineraries from

military campaigns, and while the lists of Thutmosis III are generally accepted as being

accurate reflections of his extensive campaigning in the Levant, the later lists of Seti I,

Horemheb, Ramesses II and Ramesses III are now generally accepted as comprising

place-names from earlier lists (Kitchen 2009: 133-134; Higginbotham 2005: 24; Ahituv

1984: 11; Murnane 1990:44-45). Thutmosis III’s Lists XIII and XIV at Karnak contain

four toponyms that are also mentioned in the first Beth Shean stela including, Pella,

Hammath, Beth Shean and Yeno`am (Higginbotham 2000:25).61 A list of place-names in

the Ramesseum includes eighteen towns or regions in the Levant and Jordan captured by

Ramesses II including, Ashkelon, Akko, Moab and three towns in the Upper Galilee

(Higginbotham 2000:29; Kitchen 1975:148-149). Most importantly, these lists do not

contain any towns located in the Central Hill Country. The absence of the Central Hill

Country from these Topographical Lists is intriguing, especially given the frequency with

which the bothersome `Apiru and the renegade ruler Lab’ayu were mentioned in the

59 ANET, 248; Davies, 1933, Pl. IV, V; Sethe, Urk, IV, 929-30. 60 ANET, 249; Davies and Gardiner (1926:XIX-XX); Breasted II, § 1031. 61 See Porter and Moss (1970: 369-381) for an inventory of Egyptian finds in Canaan.

47

Amarna correspondence less than fifty years earlier. In addition, Amarna Letter (EA 255)

informs us that both Lab’ayu and his son Mut Bahlu, were responsible for ensuring the

safe passage of the Pharaoh’s caravans to northern cities, suggesting that the Egyptians

were familiar with travel routes throughout the Central Hill Country (Moran 1992).

Amarna Letters

The Amarna Letters shed light on the political and social relationships between

the local rulers of the southern Levant and their relationships with Egypt during the

Fourteenth century BCE. This cache of 350 letters was discovered at the ancient site of

Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna) in 1887 BCE (Cohen & Westbrook 2000:1). The archive,

which was composed of international correspondence detailing administrative and

military affairs of local Levantine rulers, was addressed to Pharaohs Amenhotep III and

Akhenaten and possibly Tutankhamun.

The quantities and types of gifts and tribute listed in the Amarna Letters appear to

have exceeded any tribute provided by other regions (Na’aman 1981). For example,

Jerusalem, (EA287), Gezer (EA270) and southern Levant (EA313) were required to pay a

total of 8400 shekels, while Amurru (EA160) sent eight ships loaded with wood

(Na’aman 1981:175). In addition, five-hundred cattle from southern Palestine (EA301),

twenty maidservants and eighty slaves were sent from Jerusalem (EA288). The payment

of 8400 shekels was undoubtedly an onerous amount to pay, indicating that these local

rulers from the lowland and highland regions of Canaan had access to substantial wealth.

While gifts and tribute sent to Egypt might have exceeded neighboring obligations, rulers

in the Levant were known to embellish their loyalty. Abdi-Heba reports that 5000 shekels

48

was robbed from his caravan (EA 287), which Na`aman suggests was exaggerated by the

ruler of Jerusalem in order to reduce future obligations (1981:183).

While the textual evidence illustrates the wide-array and quantity of goods

requested or seized by Egypt, the economic impact of these obligations on the southern

Levant is more difficult to assess. When compared to Nubia, the economic obligations for

this region appear to have exceeded that of the southern Levant.

Shechem in the Amarna Letters

The group of letters dealing with Lab’ayu, the ruler of Shechem provides valuable

insight into local political dynamics in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze IIA or

Fourteenth century BCE. Thirteen letters mention the actions of this energetic and

ambitious ruler.62 Often the letters are from neighboring rulers who complained that

Lab’ayu frequently incited rebellion, invaded towns and formed alliances with the `Apiru.

Campbell suggests that most of the correspondence involving Lab’ayu actually occurs

early in the sequence of letters starting from Year 32 of Amenhotep III, while the

emergence of Lab’ayu’s sons and the complaints by Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem coincide

into the early years of Akhenaten (Campbell 1964:104). The letters concerning Lab’ayu

suggest that there was minimal Egyptian intervention in this area of the Central

Highlands, leaving the ambitious and motivated leader Lab`ayu the opportunity to amass

territory (Moran 1992).

While many of the letters from vassals in the southern Levant document their

political squabbles, they did not signify a breakdown in Egyptian administration, but

62 See Campbell (1965: 191-207) for his treatment of Shechem and Lab’ayu in the Amarna correspondence. The fourteen letters referred to here are translated by Moran (1992).

49

rather reflected a stable presence and “normal situation” (Bienkowksi 1989:60; Knapp

1989:66). Therfore, the lack of response to Lab`ayu’s rebellious actions suggests that a

certain degree of independence and autonomy was tolerated by the Egyptians, until it was

necessary to either summon rulers to Egypt or send troops into the affected regions.

In EA237, an unidentified local mayor reports that Lab’ayu has been captured and

that “they” have attacked the cities of the king. These cities are not only cities of the king,

but cities that the king has asked the writer to guard specifically. The writer of this letter

informs the Pharaoh that cities have been captured, and that the city in which the writer is

now in will be attacked soon. The writer assures Pharaoh that he will keep guard until he

sees “the eyes” of the commissioner of the king. He concludes the letter with a prediction

that his city may be under siege even before the letter has reached Pharaoh.

Amarna Letter EA244 concerns Lab’ayu’s plan to seize Megiddo and its

surrounding hinterland (Moran 1992). Biridiya, the mayor of Megiddo, complains to

Pharaoh that it is not safe for his residents to work in the fertile fields around his town.

He accuses Lab’ayu of waging war, but it is not clear from the letter whether an actual

attack has already taken place on the city. Interestingly, we gain insight into Lab’ayu’s

political strategy as he only “wages war” once the Egyptian archers have left the area. In

this letter, Biridiya conveys that a siege by Lab’ayu is imminent and that the Pharaoh’s

city needs to be protected immediately.

In Amarna letter EA245, the Pharaoh’s assistance is requested in order to capture

and send Lab’ayu to the Egyptian court to answer for his actions. This letter recounts a

previous encounter between Lab’ayu and a local ruler who was supposed to take Lab’ayu

from Megiddo to Egypt. The letter recounts how this ruler seized Lab’ayu, but rather than

50

send him to Egypt, Lab’ayu was allowed to escape from Hinnatunu to “his home.” The

writer of Amarna Letter EA245 charges that this local ruler, Surata, had accepted a bribe

from Lab’ayu and allowed him to remain free. In Amarna Letter 246, Biridiya alerts

Pharaoh that the sons of Lab’ayu have finanaced the `Apiru to wage a war against

Megiddo.

Amarna Letter EA250, written by Ba`lu-ur-sag, informs Pharaoh that the two sons

of Lab’ayu are attempting to take land from the king, as their father had done in the past,

which gives the impression that Lab’ayu is no longer alive. In this letter, the sons of

Lab’ayu are accused of waging war against the people of Gina, who supposedly killed

their father. In Amarna Letter EA 252, Lab’ayu refers to a letter written by the Pharaoh in

which he is asked to guard the men who seized the city, although it is not clear which

town is meant. Lab’ayu responds by asking Pharaoh how he is to carry out this duty when

the city was seized in war. In addition, Lab’ayu claims that he has been slandered and

questions the appropriate action in this case by rhetorically asking “…when an ant is

struck does he not fight back and bite the hand of the man who struck him.” This letter

provides several insights. First, it reveals that Lab’ayu has waged war on towns within his

territory. Secondly, it indicates that he felt it was his duty and responsibility to retaliate

and protect his land when attacked and finally, that the political environment in the

Central Hill Country during the Amarna Period was politically volatile and socially

unstable.

In two letters (EA 253 and 254), Lab’ayu addresses Pharaoh directly and defends

himself against accusations and charges that have been leveled against him by Biridiya,

and presumably other local mayors. In letter, EA 254, Lab’ayu reassures Pharaoh of his

51

loyalty and obedience as a “loyal servant” and denies that he is a “rebel.” Lab’ayu

defends his honor by rejecting a charge of delinquency in duty that must have been

leveled against him by one of the Egyptian commissioners. In doing so, Lab’ayu refers to

a letter that has not been preserved in the archive. This letter was presumably sent by the

Egyptian commissioner in Canaan to the Pharaoh in Egypt. At issue is the

commissioners’ charge that Lab’ayu has held back payments of tribute, a charge that

Lab’ayu strongly denies stating that the commissioner, “…denounces me unjustly.” Even

more surprising is the manner in which Lab’ayu chastises Pharaoh for not examining

personally and promptly the charges of rebellion for which he is accused in Amarna

Letter EA253.

In this letter (EA253), Lab’ayu defends himself against these charges of rebellion

and recounts in great detail his version of the events by writing, “Here is my act of

rebellion and here is my delinquency in duty.” Once again, Lab’ayu defends himself

against fairly harsh condemnations from either a local ruler or Egyptian commissioner.

He ends his letter by imploring Pharaoh to “keep him in [the char]ge of my

commissioner…” indicating that Lab’ayu is aware of the possible consequences of his

actions. This also provides insight into the way that the Egyptian Pharaoh dealt with

rebellious or delinquent rulers by relieving them of their duties.

In Amarna letter (EA254), Lab’ayu once again answers to charges of rebellion.

The Egyptian commissioner has informed the Pharaoh that Lab’ayu has withheld

payments and has marched into the town of Gazru. A second charge concerns the

activities of his sons. Lab’ayu denies knowledge of his sons’ associations with the `Apiru,

but writes to the Pharaoh that he will hand his sons over to the Egyptian official, Addaya.

52

In a highly rhetorical style that makes ample use of hyperbole, Lab’ayu stresses his

allegiance to the Pharaoh,

“…if the king wrote for my wife, how could I hold her back? How, if the king wrote to me, ‘Put a bronze dagger into your heart and die,’ how could I not execute the order of the king?”

In Amarna Letters 255, the son of Lab’ayu, Mut Bahlu, assures Pharaoh that he is

not detaining or interfering with caravans enroute to northern destinations. We learn in

this letter that Lab’ayu also was responsible and diligent in protecting Egyptian caravans

carrying goods to Hanagalbat. In Amarna Letter 280, ones gets the impression that while

Lab’ayu is dead, his nefarious actions live on in the personality of another Central Hill

Country ruler. Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem is referred to as “another Lab`ayu.” The writer of

Amarna Letters 287 and 289, Abdi-Heba, charges the ruler of Gezer, Milkilu and the sons

of Lab’ayu of Sakmu giving away crown land to the `Apiru.

63The letters recounting the “Labayu Affair” highlight the political ambitions of

the ruler of Shechem and portray the local political and social relationships between the

city-state rulers as contested, volatile and marked by intrigue. Moreover, the political

skirmishes between local rulers, combined with a persistent threat by the ‘Apiru, reveals

that the Central Highlands appears not to be under Egyptian hegemony. As long as

caravans could travel north unhindered and tribute was collected, Egypt appears not to

have intervened in local matters. When Egypt did act to quell an insurgency led by

Lab’ayu’s sons and their alliances, garrison troops were stationed at Gezer and Jerusalem

(Moran 1992; EA 284 and 292; Morris 247). The letters give one the impression that

63 Amarna Letters EA249 and 263 contain the name of Lab’ayu, but are two fragmentary to reconstruct Lab’ayu’s relationship with the writers of the two letters.

53

local rulers exercised a degree of political independence and autonomy, while Egypt

maintained a flexible and “hands-off” approach to affairs in the Central Hill Country.

Summary Observations

Egyptian imperial interests focused on specific regions in Canaan, which is

supported by the architectural evidence and artifacts at select coastal and inland sites.

While the textual evidence describes in great detail the variety and quantity of

commodities arriving in Egypt or produced for storage at Levantine facilities, the

economic burden of this obligation is more difficult to assess, primarily because a variety

of texts list different types of commodities. Redford has maintained that the tax system

imposed on Levantine cities and towns was similar to the system for mayors of Egyptian

towns along the Nile River (Redford 1990:40).

If local Canaanite officials had to shoulder the costs of provisioning Egyptian

troops on marches through the Levant as did the local Egyptian mayors for festival

celebrations (Morris 2005), it would have represented an expensive and onerous

obligation. A lengthy list of items, ranging from bread, oil, weaponry, copper ingots,

horses and livestock are among the commodities listed in Papyrus Anastasi IV (13.9-

17.9), as an instruction on how to best prepare for Pharaoh’s arrival (Caminos 1954:198-

201). The Annals and Amarna Letters suggests that in the Eighteenth Dynasty, Egyptian

bases might have been located at Ullaza, Byblos, Gaza, Akko, Kumidi, Jerusalem, Gezer,

Megiddo, Tell el-Hesi, Lachish, Jaffa, Yarimuta and Sumur, while Egyptian-style

architecture and material culture has been excavated at Tell el-Ajjul, Byblos, Beth Shean

and Jaffa (Morris 2005: 271-272; Burke and Lords 2010:14). In the Nineteenth and

54

Twentieth Dynasties, “governor residencies” and administrative buildings appear at

several coastal and inland sites such as, Tell el-Far’ah (South), Tel el-Hesi, Tel Sera`, Tel

Mor, Jaffa, Aphek, Deir el-Balah, Beth Shean, Tell Sa`idiyeh and Gezer. Whether this

represented a substantial influx of Egyptian personnel (Weinstein 1981) or an intentional

change in administrative policy aimed at curbing abuses (Morris 2005), Egyptian-

inspired architecture and artifacts appear in greater frequency at these sites.

The ceramics at garrison sites reflect a dynamic interaction and co-existence of

Egyptian and Levantine ceramic technologies. While straw temper was originally

assumed to have been an Egyptian technological trait, the addition of this organic

material has been observed in local ceramics pre-dating Egyptian cultural influence,

specifically at Beth Shean. Egyptian pottery at Jaffa was produced locally using little

chaff with coarse amounts of sand and limestone (Burke and Lords 2010:23), while at Tel

Mor organics appear rarely in local forms but appear “occasionally” in Egyptianized

strata. The frequent occurrence of Canaanite cooking pots in Egyptianized strata raises

the possibility that cultural boundaries were more fluid and complex than previously

assumed and suggests that technology transfer might have been determined by site-

specific factors.

Several perspectives have attempted to characterize the Egyptian presence in the

Nineteenth and Twentieth Dyansties such as, ideology, elite emulation and direct rule,

administrative imperialism and patrimonialism. While I would argue that aspects of all

perspectives can be seen to characterize the Egyptian presence, the architectural and

artifact assemblages appear to support an Egyptian interest in administering a system of

55

tax collection by securing access routes through the region, as well as maintaining law

and order.

An examination of the Amarna Letters recounting the “Lab`ayu Affair”

demonstrate that while Egypt was aware of Shechem or Sakmu and its ruler, it tolerated a

certain degree of independence and rebellion, as long as local rulers met their tax

obligations (EA 254 and 289). Lab’ayu and his sons were expected to provide safe

passage for caravans that were traveling from Egypt to northern destinations (EA 255),

demonstrating the importance of Shechem within this geo-political landscape.

Egypt did not interact with an under-developed or static culture in the southern

Levant; rather it met a complex and hierarchical society with well-established political

and economic institutions composed of diverse regions with entrenched social, economic

and ceramic technology traditions.

56

Chapter 3

Settlement Patterns and Archaeology: The Central Hill Country

The scarcity of sedentary settlements in the Central Hill Country in the Late

Bronze Age stands in stark contrast to the abundance of settlements in the preceding

Middle Bronze and succeeding Iron IA periods. Until recently, the three hundred years

comprising the Late Bronze Age were studied as a static and monolithic period of time

unaffected by endogenous processes, yet profoundly impacted by exogenous factors.64

The demographic shift in the southern Levant has been attributed to repeated Egyptian

campaigns in the Eighteenth Dynasty and the subsequent system of taxation that was

established for Levantine vassal states. This world systems approach to characterizing

culture contact between the Levant and Egypt views cultural contact and transmission as

uni-directional, that is from a dominant core to a passive periphery. Unfortunately, this

perspective underestimates the dynamic and unique ways in which the various regions in

the southern Levant experienced increased cultural contact with Egypt, and minimizes the

role of endogenous influences and human agency at the site level.

The current chapter will review the various approaches to settlement pattern

analysis in the Central Highlands and will illustrate that the region experienced rural

complexity, rather than de-urbanization during the Late Bronze Age. While profound

settlement changes occurred in the southern Levant generally, the timing and nature of

these shifts suggests that endogenous processes played an important role as well.

Regional surveys such as the Samaria and Manasseh projects have shown that Late

64 This conceptual framework has been applied to the archaeological and textual data from the Late Bronze Age either explicitly (Killebrew 2005a:23-24; Killebrew 2005b: 170-171) or implicitly (Albright 1949; Kenyon 1971; Ahituv 1978; Na`aman 1981; Weinstein 1981).

57

Bronze Age sedentary occupation in the highlands was minimal because of the scarcity of

Late Bronze Age ceramic forms. I maintain that Late Bronze Age sites have been under-

represented because continuity of material culture between occupational periods can not

be adequately assessed without incorporating some form of stratigraphic excavation into

the survey design. Secondly, the archaeological evidence from the Central Hill Country

illustrates that a limited amount of Egyptian artifacts displaying iconographical and

ideological significance were present, along with Egyptian-style architecture and artifacts

at Shechem and Tananir.

Divergent Settlement Patterns

An inherent weakness in landscape survey is the methodological process by

which occupation is identified at ancient sites. Archaeologists rely all too frequently on

the presence of key types or fossil directeurs to confirm an occupational period at a site.

Although the most thorough and effective way to assess occupation is through large-scale

excavation, regional landscape surveys provide a broader superficial snapshot of

settlement within a particular region. Unfortunately, not all depositional material makes

its way to the surface, therefore surface collection may miss important phases of

occupation. Banning has suggested that a different sampling strategy be employed

between highland and lowland sites, since the former will likely have smaller sites with

diverse vegetation that may affect the “obtrusiveness” of material culture (1996:29-30).65

The Manasseh Survey (Zertal 2004) deviated from the standard system employed in the

Israel Survey that produced the many maps of the region. Instead, Zertal divided the

65 Banning (1996) suggests applying sampling methods that are “culturally meaningful” to highland sites such as sampling along field walls that are not always spatially ordered.

58

Manasseh area according to the “ancient, natural and territorial division” which was

based mainly on the varied geomorphology of the region (Zertal 2004:13).66 In terms of

methodology, the survey was conducted by a “complete combing of the area on foot with

no gaps or omissions” (Zertal 2004:13-14). During the excavations at Shechem, a

regional survey of the surrounding region formed an integral part of the research strategy.

Many of the sites in the area were visited several times resulting in Late Bronze Age

ceramics and a fragment of Cypriot White Slip Ware being discovered on a third visit

(Campbell 1991:80).67 In the course of excavations at Shiloh, Late Bronze occupation

was attested only from ceramics found in an ancient favissa or ceremonial pit (Finkelstein

1993a:227). Had this ceremonial pit not been found, would it have been entirely correct

to conclude that Shiloh was not occupied during the Late Bronze Age?

Without the aid of stratigraphic sampling, the assignment of ceramics to the

correct chronological period is problematic when continuity of ceramics exists between

periods. In a survey conducted in the Akko hinterland of the Western Galilee, all terraces,

agricultural installations, wells and cisterns were included in the reconstruction of the

Late Bronze and Iron Age landscape. More importantly, Lehmann employed a method of

both excavation and sampling of all diagnostics from the surveyed areas (Lehmann

2001:72). By including stratigraphic sampling within the overall survey methodology, the

recovery of strata that had been covered by later building activity was more likely to be

achieved. Since many Iron Age sites in the Hill Country were likely located near springs

before disappearing under the later terracing activity of Roman-Byzantine, Medieval and

66 Zertal chose not to adopt the Israel Survey method of surveying, which divided the landscape into fixed 10 by 10 km areas from 1:20,000 maps, arguing instead that the arbitrary division did not correspond well with biblical boundaries that appeared to correspond with geomorphological units (2004:13). 67 At Site 52 (Tell Sofar) Late Bronze Age sherds were uncovered on the northwest slope of the site.

59

Ottoman sites (Gibson 2001:122-121). Therefore, closer attention to how the landscape

may have been transformed through subsequent agricultural activity and the adoption of a

stratigraphic sampling strategy may bring to light additional Late Bronze Age sites in the

Hill Country.

Ceramic sequences from only a few well-stratified sites have been used to

reconstruct cultural life on a broader scale for all regions of the southern Levant.

Characterization of the settlement and ceramic continuity at Shechem in the Late Bronze

Age illustrates the longevity of one Hill Country site during a time of intensified

Egyptian interest. Demographic shifts throughout all chronological periods in the

southern Levant have revealed the complex process of settlement expansion and

contraction68 and the necessity of viewing demographic shifts as part of a long-term

cyclical process, known as the longue durée (Braudel 1972). It is within the context of

cyclical and long-term change that shorter events, such as the Egyptian military presence

during the Late Bronze Age should be assessed.

Decline in Urban Settlement

Studies of settlement patterns in the Central Hill Country have focused on two

tasks: quantifying settlement decline and defining political boundaries and borders. While

it has been shown that there was a significant decline in the number of settlements at this

time, few studies have focused on other settlement trends that occurred simultaneously.

Gonen’s survey (1984:66) revealed a sharp decline in the number of large sites (over 100

68 The studies that appeared in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (Levy 1995) treated demographic shifts throughout historical periods in the southern Levant in the context of shorter and longer term cyclical developments. See Knapp (1992) for the application of the Annales approach to changing ceramic production at Pella in the Late Bronze Age.

60

69dunams) from the Middle to Late Bronze Periods and a corresponding increase in the

number of smaller sized settlements (1-10 dunams). The number of medium-sized sites

(11-100 dunams) remained consistent. This analysis was based on earlier survey work

(Kochavi 1972; Broshi and Gophna 1984), and revealed several broader, notable

settlement changes throughout the Levant. First, sites in the Late Bronze Age were

significantly smaller than their counterparts in the preceding Middle Bronze Period, with

occupation coalescing in the acropolis areas of sites (Gonen 1984:65). This settlement

pattern suggests that surveys conducted on the lower terraces of sites may actually miss

pottery and lead to erroneous conclusions about occupational history. Secondly, the

number of smaller-sized sites (1-10 dunams) increased significantly from 11 percent in

the Middle Bronze Period to 43 percent in the Late Bronze Period (Gonen 1984:66).

Finally, sites that were clustered in the southern Coastal Plain and along wadi and river

routes suggest that communication and trade provided an impetus for this growth (Gonen

1984:66).70 In the Central Hill Country, the 31 sites recorded by Zertal were located near

perennial water sources, fertile land and trade routes (Zertal 1994: 51).

Emergence of Rural Complexity

Although the Late Bronze Period reflected a “time of dramatic weakening of the

urban fabric” (Gonen 1984:68), it was equally a time of increasing ruralization. Falconer

(1994) has noted that scholars have been so accustomed to studying the southern Levant

through an “urbanocentric” lens, they have failed to recognize that another settlement

69 Four dunams corresponds to one acre and 0.4 hectares (Gonen 1984:63). 70 Bunimovitz (1993b:446) argues that Gonen’s analysis lacks regionality and underrepresents survey data. He suggests that a larger and more regional sample is required, as was provided by the 550 sites surveyed in his dissertation (1989). Unfortunately, not all of the sites were contemporaneous.

61

phenomena was occurring simultaneously in the region (1994:329). The increase in the

number of rural settlements indicates that the southern Levant was undergoing a process

of increasing “rural complexity.” “Rural complexity” results in the emergence of smaller

rural communities at the expense of larger, nucleated cities and towns. Ironically,

ruralization occurred during a period that was characterized by international trade and

Egyptian administrative presence; factors that conceivably should have led to an

“urbanized florescence” (Falconer 1994:321). This “urbanocentric” view undervalues the

“highly discontinuous tradition of aggregated communities” that was a common element

amongst the early forerunners of Bronze Age cities and towns (1994:308). Falconer

suggests that the Middle Bronze Age was not a time of settlement centralization, but

rather a time of settlement “proliferation” in favor of the countryside (1994: 326). For

example, at the close of the Middle Bronze Period, 95 percent of the settlements in the

Central Highlands and Jordan Valley could be classified as rural and were located some

distance from an urban city (1994: 326). Therefore, settlement changes in the Late

Bronze Age were simply a continuation of an evolution in rural expansion that had begun

centuries earlier.

In contrast, Finkelstein (1994:152) has viewed settlement changes in the region in

terms of urban emergence and collapse, considering events of the Late Bronze Age as an

“oscillation” between the more complex urban society of the Middle Bronze Age and a

less complex rural society of the Late Bronze Age (1994:153). The socio-political

organization in the Central Highlands was different than the Lowlands because cities in

the former region ruled over larger territories (1993b:116). Drawing upon Rowton’s

typology of societies, which predicts the level of social organization that may develop in

62

mountainous or steppe environments, Finkelstein suggested that Shechem and Jerusalem

were strongholds that governed a tribal territory of pastoral and nomadic peoples

(1994:175). This model of dimorphic chiefdom occurred because of the isolation and

inaccessibility of the highlands, which “was not easily penetrated by lowland local forces

and was remote from the Egyptian sphere of interests along the international routes”

1994:178).71

While the survey data from the Samaria region supports previous conclusions

about the dramatic decrease in settlements during the Late Bronze Period, the survey also

reveals that the western and eastern areas of the Central Hill Country were settled

differently. During the Late Bronze Period, the eastern section of the region experienced

a rise in settlement through larger occupied areas, while the western section experienced

a larger built-up area in the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages (Finkelstein 1994:161). While

Finkelstein attributes the settlement shift mainly to attempts to maximize the existing

environment, there remains the possibility that during the Late Bronze Period the Jordan

valley polities such as Pella, Tell Deir `Alla and Tell es-Sa`idiyeh were important trade

centers that competed for access to the highlands.72

Studies of Settlement Integration and Hierarchy

Rather than focus on an urban – rural dichotomy that has dominated previous

research (Finkelstein 1994), Savage and Falconer (2003:31-32) have emphasized the

71 Bienkowski (1989:59) also asserted that a degree of prosperity was evident at sites with direct Egyptian contact, whereas those areas at a distance experienced economic decline. 72 Excavations at Tel Akko, Tel Nami and Tell Abu Hawam have uncovered extensive harbor facilities that provided a point of entry for goods destined for lucrative markets through the Jezreel Valley to Megiddo and Dothan and into the Jordan Valley (Artzy 2006:45-64). Although not on a direct route, the road system leading south to Shechem perhaps proved more accessible than the route leading west to east from the lowland areas, as suggested by Finkelstein (1994:178).

63

importance of the way rural communities were organized and how they interacted. In the

decades since Gonen (1984) and Falconer (1994) first illustrated settlement trends in Late

Bronze Age Levant, scholarly debate has continued to focus on the spatial relationships

between urban and rural communities by employing geographical methods that

presupposed a “central place” or ‘city” in relation to a town.73 The weakness in this

approach is its lack of emphasis on a network of rural communities and as well reifying

the “assumption of firm boundaries” between communities in the Late Bronze Age

(Savage and Falconer 2003:32). Rather than interpreting clusters of rural settlements as

reflecting specific political relationships between sites, k-means analysis implies spatial

relationships instead and seeks to determine whether these relationships were meaningful

or random (2003:35-36).74 The results indicated that some clusters of sites likely

reflected the city-state polities mentioned in the Amarna archive, especially in the Cen

Hill Country, Jezreel and Jordan Valleys (2003:38). By employing rank-size analysis, the

degree of integration between communities was determined, specifically, how

communities of varying sizes were related and the role of central settlements (Savage and

Falconer 2003: 40).

tral

The settlement clusters in the Central Hill country and the Jezreel Valley were

more dispersed, lacking defined political boundaries and exhibiting little integration of

their large to small-sized sites or capital cities, with the exception of Shechem and

Megiddo (Savage and Falconer 2003: 40).75 The settlement data supported the social and

73 Geographical models such as rank-size analysis and Theisson Polygons are employed to establish settlement hierarchy and to construct territorial boundaries. 74 K-means analysis simply identifies spatial clusters of sites and the point in space around which these sites cluster. More importantly, the sites are not clustered around a predetermined historical central place (Savage and Falconer 2003:36). 75 Bunimovitz (1994b:188) arrived at the same conclusion suggesting that low integration implied independent or decentralized polities, but framed within the urban collapse model.

64

political relationships hinted at in the correspondence between Levantine rulers and the

Egyptian Pharaoh preserved in the Amarna Archive. As we have seen, these letters

reflected the often tense and “fractious” interactions between the rulers of the Canaanite

communities, who were forming allegiances and vying for land, power and economic

dominance over neighboring towns. While the Central Highlands and the Jezreel Valley

exhibited similar structural relationships, settlements in the Coastal Plain were less

homogenous in their structure and had varying degrees of integration between capitals

and towns. In contrast, the settlements in the Jordan Valley were very well-integrated,

with capital cities demonstrating control over their towns and rural communities (Savage

and Falconer 2003:40-41). This study highlighted the various settlement systems in the

different geographical regions of the Levant in the Late Bronze Age and showed that

these differing regions could develop unique, rather than similar responses to internal and

external pressures. Savage and Falconer’s analysis provided a much more balanced and

quantitative approach to settlement complexity because the political boundaries alluded

to in the Amarna Letters were a supplementary source used to confirm and support the

inferences drawn from their statistical data.

In contrast, previous studies have employed textual sources initially to construct

models of settlement complexity and hierarchy and then simply applied these

geographical models to the region. For example, Bunimovitz suggested that settlements

in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze II period were more integrated than the

preceding Middle Bronze Age (1993b:445). The concept of “territorial polities” was

borrowed from Albrecht Alt, who organized the Levant into a series of “districts” whose

cities were led by rulers or hereditary princes. Referred to as “nobles of Rntw” in the

65

Amarna Letters, their authority was sanctioned by the Egyptian Pharaoh, with this

hereditary system eventually leading to the southern Levant being divided into “territorial

units” (Alt 1989:146). By using this terminology, Bunimovitz perpetuated the idea that

urban complexity continued to exist in the Central Hill Country and that the city-states of

the preceding Middle Bronze Period survived, though on a much smaller scale into the

Late Bronze Period (1993b:446). The underlying assumption is that the settlements in

southern Levant could be analyzed using a model constructed to examine the very

different and complex city-states of Mesopotamia and Greece. This approach uses the

“early state module” to dictate central places or cities that are equidistant and which

dominate a prescribed amount of territory.76 Bunimovitz simply applied this geographical

model to the Central Hill Country landscape, constructed territorial states of 35-40 sq km

in size from references to cities and towns in the Amarna Archives (1993b:447).77

More recently, a study of site integration in the Coastal Plain, Shephelah and the

western Judean Hill Country has proposed that political boundaries should encompass

much smaller geographical areas than those drawn by Bunimovitz. Rather, territorial

states should range from 6.5 to 15 kilometers instead, leading to an overlap between

peripheral sites if the latter figure is used (Jasmin 2006: 164). While this study focused on

sites in the Coastal Plain and Shephelah, it nevertheless reveals the difficulty of defining

and qualifying the interaction between sites in a diverse geographical landscape. In

addition, the small distance (3-5km) between medium-sized sites in the coastal plain and

76 The Early state module or ESM was first proposed by Renfrew and Cherry (1986) and later adapted to the southern Levant. 77 The concept of territorial states is elaborated upon by Finkelstein (1996:236) who suggests that fourteen territorial units existed in the Central Highlands with Shechem ruling the entire northern portion of the region.

66

Shephelah corresponded well with the amount of agricultural land needed for subsistence

(Jasmin 2006: 168).

All scholars appear to agree that there were at least two major political kingdoms

in the Central Hill Country during the Late Bronze Period. The political boundaries of

these two main city-states in the Central Hill Country have been drawn and revised using

textual references in the Amarna Archives. Na`aman suggests that Shechem was the

major kingdom in the Central Hill Country and dominated an area as far north as the

Jezreel Valley and Tappuah in the south, based on the textual evidence (1992:288).

Bunimovitz suggests that Shechem in the 14th century B.C.E. commanded ten settlements

within its borders with a total area of fourteen hectares (1994a:11). This assertion would

mean that the Shechem region supported a population of about three-thousand people, an

estimate that Campbell refutes, arguing that while the region might have been extensive

in the Late Bronze Age, it “was far from populous” (Campbell 1976: 45). Finkelstein

(1996:236) suggests that Shechem controlled twenty-four settlements that accounted for

twenty-two hectares of land. While these studies may disagree on the number of

settlements within Shechem’s sphere of influence, they all support the idea that Shechem

was the main city in the northern Hill Country during the Late Bronze Age.

Regional Settlement Surveys

Two comprehensive surveys have illustrated settlement trends for the northern

and southern parts of the Central Hill Country: the Manasseh Survey and the Southern

Samaria (Zertal 2004; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997). The Manasseh

landscape was divided into eleven squares covering an area just south of Shechem to the

67

Jezreel Valley. Zertal concluded that survey squares ranging from 20-70 square

kilometers would best incorporate the regions’ natural geographical features (2004:3).

The survey revealed twenty sites with Late Bronze pottery accounting for only 5 to 10%

of the assemblage. A careful analysis of Zertal’s ceramic finds indicates that twelve

additional sites, located in the western portion of the Central Hill Country contained Late

Bronze ceramic forms that Zertal dated to earlier Middle Bronze or later Iron I periods

(Table 2).78 These forms including bulbous rim bowl and profile storage jars are Middle

Bronze Age forms that continue into the Late Bronze Period as well. In addition, two

triangular-rimmed cooking pots were dated to the Iron I period, but are clearly in the Late

Bronze tradition as well.

The Southern Samaria survey covered an area of approximately 1050 sq km from

Shechem to Ramallah, the biblical Land of Ephraim (Finkelstein, Lederman and

Bunimovitz 1997:3). Unfortunately, of the 585 sites recorded the surveyors neglected to

include agricultural installations and cisterns, concentrating instead on settlement sites,

mounds and ruins. Similarly, a re-analysis of the ceramics from the Southern Samaria

survey showed that although eleven sites were identified with Late Bronze material, there

were additional sites that contained ceramic forms which reflect continuity between the

Middle Bronze or Early Iron I periods (Table 3).79 As the surveyors of the Southern

Samaria survey acknowledged, Late Bronze pottery “is notoriously difficult to identify in

surveys and imported pottery is rare in the highlands.” Therefore, ceramics can and likely

78 Table 2 lists the sites with Late Bronze pottery identified by Zertal, as well as additional sites re-assigned by the author to have Late Bronze Age ceramics. 79 Table 3 lists sites identified in the Southern Samaria survey with Late Bronze occupation in addition to sites that were identified by the author to also contain Late Bronze transitional forms.

68

are “misdated to either the late phase of the Middle Bronze Age or to the early phase of

the Iron Age I” (Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997:18).

In summary, the survey evidence indicates clearly that settlement in the southern

in the Late Bronze Age was a complex phenomenon with site integration varying

depending on the specific geographical region. The studies by Falconer (1994) and

Savage and Falconer (2003) have suggested that previous research has downplayed the

intriguing and complex process of “ruralization” that occurred, due to a reliance on

traditional models like urban collapse to explain settlement changes. By situating these

changing settlement patterns a century earlier, the traditional paradigms for explaining

these demographic shifts appear inadequate. While Egyptian administrative policies no

doubt affected cultural life in the Levant, endogenous processes should also be

considered as an impetus for change during the Late Bronze Age.

80 Egypt in the Central Hill Country

The administrative presence in the form of “governor residencies” and

administrative buildings in the southern Levant has already been reviewed in Chapter

Two. This Egyptian-style architecture and material culture along the Via Maris reflects a

re-intensification of Egyptian foreign policy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties81

(Oren 1984; Hasel 1998; Higginbotham 2000; Killebrew 2005a). During the reign of

80 For the purpose of this study, a review of Egyptian-style artifacts in the northern central hill country is reviewed. Due to its importance in the Amarna Letters, Jerusalem is mentioned here briefly because of finds that support the presence of a Late Bronze age temple structure. Barkay proposes that an offering table, Egyptian stele fragment, alabaster vessels and column capital, which was excavated in 1885 in the St. Étienne Monastery, represents an isolated Egyptian temple located a kilometer north of Jerusalem (1996:41). 81 Recently, Oren (2006:279) has suggested that forts situated across the North Sinai and southern Syria-Palestine may have been “re-established” in the Nineteenth Dynasty, but were patterned on an existing and earlier military network dating to the 18th dynasty.

69

Merneptah, the coastal route linking Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Jaffa and Aphek had

become an “Egyptian highway” of military strongholds (Singer 1988:3).

This network of residencies along the Via Maris, the Jordan Valley at Tel Beth

Shean (Mazar 2006; Mullins and Mullins 2007) and in the Jezreel Valley at Megiddo

(Mazar 2002) in the Nineteenth Dynasty suggests that the Via Maris was firmly under

Egyptian control. As a result, the focus shifted to towns like Gezer and signaled the

intention of the Egyptians to penetrate the Central Hill Country (Singer 1988:3).82 The

quantity of Egyptian artifacts in the Central Hill Country is minimal compared to those

found in other regions of the Levant. This apparent lack of Egyptian-styled material

culture did not mean that the Egyptians were unaware of the area; in fact, they were well

aware of the Central Hill Country and the activities of several of its rulers. The letters in

the Amarna Archive mentioning Lab’ayu of Shechem83 suggests that the region that was

politically unstable and fractious and was under threat by the `Apiru.

If the Central Hill Country was already firmly under Egyptian control, then one

would expect to see the same types of architecture, ceramics or other inscriptional

evidence supporting Egyptian hegemony.84 The Central Hill Country site of Shechem

(Tell Balatâh) has revealed mainly Egyptian material culture reflecting iconographical

and ideological motifs during the Late Bronze Age, with the intriguing exception of the

Tananir structure adjacent to the site, calcite and alabaster vessels and Egyptian-inspired

82 Gezer was one of the towns listed in the “Israel Stela” but the Egyptian architectural remains are debated. Singer (1986:29) has suggested that Macalister’s “Canaanite Castle” at Gezer was an Egyptian “residency”, but Bunimovitz (1988-89:72) argues that a building identified on the Western Hill at Gezer was the Egyptian “residency.” See Higginbotham (2000:101) who refutes both claims, although she identified Egyptian-styled bowls and cup-and-saucers at Gezer. 83 The Amarna Letters (EA 236, 237,244, 245,250, 252, 253 and 254) pertain to Lab’ayu and Shechem. 84 The Khu-u-Sobek stela, which mentions the campaign of Sesostris III to Skmm in the Middle Kingdom, has not been definitely identified with Shechem. Goedicke (1998:34-35) suggests that the stela refers to a fortified place that “withstood” the military offensive.

70

bowl forms uncovered on the main mound. In addition, two comprehensive surveys in the

Samaria region of the Hill Country (Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997) and in

the area of Manasseh (Zertal 2004) provide limited Egyptian-style artifacts. Yet, analysis

of the ceramics found in both these regional surveys suggests that Late Bronze Age sites

may be under-represented in the region. Sites identified as having Late Bronze

occupation and tomb remains such as, Bethel, Shiloh and Tell Dothan have produced

some Egyptian-style artifacts. A review of Egyptian-style material from these Central

Hill Country sites suggests that while an Egyptian presence was not as established as it

was at lowland and coastal areas, an Egyptian influence was discernible.

Bethel

At the site of Bethel in the Central Hill Country excavators recovered a cylinder

seal in a dump depicting the Cananite goddess Astarte, who was incorporated into the

Egyptian pantheon and known as Qudshu (Nakhai 2001:146).85 She was depicted

wearing the Egyptian “two truth” feathers and holding an ankh (Kelso 1968: Pl. 43).86 In

addition, a bone handle carved in the form of a Hathor column and capital was uncovered

in Late Bronze Age strata.87 A steatite scarab depicting Horus beside two Uraei (Kelso

1968: Pl. 44:1), a bone kohl stick and two bronze kohl sticks were also among the

Egyptian-styled artifacts uncovered at Bethel.

85 The acropolis temple at Lachish showing numerous Egyptianizing architectural elements also produced a gold plaque depicting a goddess known as Qudshu-Astarte (Ussishkin 2004:266-267, Fig. 21.21, 21.26). 86 Nakai (2001: 150) has suggested that the presence of a well-known Canaanite and Egyptian goddess, Astarte, within Canaanite/Egyptian temples would ensure the payment of the Egyptian grain tax or smr. 87 Hathor was considered a “great mother goddess” within the Egyptian pantheon and has been referred to as the mother of Horus, the falcon god (Shafer 1991:100). Hathor handles and other objects have also been uncovered at Late Bronze IIB strata at Tel Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993).

71

Tell Dothan

At the site of Tell Dothan, three Late Bronze Age burials produced over twenty-

five hundred vessels ranging in form from bowls, jugs, juglets, biconical jars and

pyxides. In addition, a collection of non-ceramic bronze bowls showing Egyptian

inspiration was also found.88 The bronze vessels at Tell Dothan include hemispherical

bowls, bowls with omphalos bases and disk bases, as well as bowls with ring handles

(Gershuny 1985:1-11).89

Shiloh

The Late Bronze Period at Shiloh was represented only by ceramics found in a

debris pit in Area D (Finkelstein 1993a:127). No Egyptian-style pottery was recovered

from this debris pit. Egyptian-styled Hyksos scarabs and a handle seal impression were

found and dated to the Middle Bronze Period by the excavators. One seal impression on

the upper section of a handle was dated to the Late Bronze II (Stratum VI), but the

ritualistic scene of a robed worshipper, sacred tree and antelope was interpreted as being

influenced by Mitanni iconography (Brandl 1993: fig. 8:12). A ceramic votive ear and an

amulet, known from New Kingdom contexts of Deir el-Medineh was uncovered in Area

C (Brandle 1993: fig 9.5:3 & 9.8:6).90

88 See Cooley and Pratico (1995) for a discussion of the contents of the tombs at Tell Dothan and Lilly Gershuny (1985) for the Egyptian-inspired bronze vessels. 89 The Late Bronze Age remains at Tell Dothan have not been thoroughly published, although a volume on the topography of the site and on the Middle Bronze and Iron periods has appeared (Master et. al. 2005). 90 While the ceramic votive ear is thought to have originated in a Stratum VI or a Late Bronze II context, the excavators have only assigned Late Bronze strata to Area D and the pit. This suggests the possibility that Late Bronze occupation did exist on the site, but was destroyed by later building activity.

72

Surveyed Sites in Manasseh

Although the Samaria Survey (Finkelstein 1997) did not record artifacts other

than ceramics found at the sites surveyed in this region, the Manasseh survey (Zertal

2004) recorded a variety of features including soil type, distance from water sources and

roads, as well as special finds such as inscriptions, coins and figurines (2004:551-570).91

In the Mount Ebal survey unit, the excavators found two “Egyptianized scarabs from the

time of Ramesses II” (Zertal 2004: fig.459) along with a stone square seal, jewellery,

metal, stone and flint tools. The site of el-Burnat (A) (Site 276:17-18/72/1) was identified

as a cultic enclosure on the eastern part of Mount Ebal (Zertal 2004: fig. 453).

Excavations from 1982 to 1989 uncovered a double enclosure wall connected by several

stone-built steps. Located within the smaller enclosure was a four meter high altar with

two stone courtyards (Zertal 2004:533). Two strata were identified and dated to the early

Iron I period with a layer of ash and bones uncovered under the larger altar described

above.92

One of the scarabs was made of faience covered with a yellow glaze, which was

pierced lengthwise (Brandl 1986-1987:166, fig. 1.1:1). The back of the scarab has a faint

outline of a beetle, while the base displayed a rosette pattern with vertical petals

decorated with diagonal strokes or slashes. Hanging from the petals are branches that

have serpents coiled and suspended (Brandl 1986-1987:166).The scarab is dated to

Ramesses II based on parallels from tombs at Tell el Fa`ah (S) and Megiddo (Figure

19:1). The second scarab, made of faience and pierced lengthwise was coated with a

91 Southern Samaria, or the central region of the Central Hill Country is also known as the biblical Land of Ephraim, while Northern Samaria from Shechem to the Jezreel Valley is known as the Land of Manasseh (Miller & Hayes 1986:94). 92 See Zertal (1986-1987) for a preliminary report and figures 11-19 for a selection of the ceramics found including a Mycenaean and biconical jug sherd, both of which were found in fill contexts.

73

white glaze (Brandle 1986-1987:168-169, fig. 1.1:2). The anatomy of the beetle is more

visible and naturalistic than in the first scarab and the base contains a cartouche with the

prenomen of Thutmosis III, Mn-hpr-r (Menkhéperrê), in addition to an accompanying

inscription “lord of many troops” (Figure 19:2). Brandl concludes that this was a

commemorative scarab known from the Nineteenth Dynasty contexts (Brandl 1986-

1987:170).

A jar handle with a scarab impression depicting a person praying and the “ankh”

sign was found at Khirbet Nib (Site 251:17-18/45/1) in the Samaria region. Zertal

classified the site as a large ruin of 18 dunams that was situated on a hill south of Mount

Ebal. The architecture on the hilltop dates to the Middle Bronze Age, while Iron I

occupation was found on the northern slopes (Zertal 2004:491). Unfortunately, no

drawing or discussion accompanied the mention of this find.

A clay weight bearing a seal impression of an “unidentified Hyksos king” was

found at Bir ej-Jadu’ (Site 65:17-19/29/1). The site was classified as a small ruin of 1.6

dunams, with traces of walls pottery that was dated to the Middle Bronze IIB and the

Late Bronze I and II, including “imported wares” (Zertal 2004:188). Unfortunately,

neither the seal impression nor imported pottery was shown in this survey publication.

Khirbet Bel`ameh (Site 26:17-20/75/1) located in the Dothan Valley produced

Middle Bronze IIB and Late Bronze IIB ceramics. It has been identified as Toponym No.

43, Ible`am in the Topographical List 1 of Thutmosis III (Zertal 2004:125).93 In addition,

the sites of Burqin (Site 13:17-20/46/1) and el-`Khrab (Site 27:16-20/44/1), both within

the Dothan Valley, have been identified as Burquna and `Harabu of the Amarna Letters

93 See Simons (1937:116) for the West Asian toponyns of the 18 and 19th dynasty pharaohs, and for the transliteration of No. 43 as y-b-r-`-m.

74

respectively (Zertal 2004: 104 & 126). Burquna and `Harabu were mentioned in Amarna

Letter EA250 as two of three cities captured by Lab’ayu of Shechem. Burquna is found in

the Topographical List 1 of Thutmosis III as Toponym No. 117.94 Burqin yielded

ceramics dating to only the Late Bronze IIB, while el-`Khrab yielded Late Bronze I and II

ceramics (Zertal 2004:71).

Egyptian Influence in Field XIII at Shechem

The Archaeological Evidence

The excavated and surveyed sites in the Central Hill Country reveal limited

Egyptian and Egyptian-style ceramics and objects, although the Amarna Letters illustrate

that the Egyptians were aware of political and social aspects of like in the Central Hill

Country. In addition, if the Tananir structure adjacent to the Shechem mound was an

Egyptian trading entropot, then the lack of more substantial Egyptian and Egyptian-style

ceramics is surprising. This is especially so, given how accessible this region was from

the coastal region through the Jezreel Valley, the Shephelah via Gezer and from the south

via Jerusalem. If the Tananir structure was administered by an Egyptian bureaucracy for

the purpose of long-distance trade as Holladay suggests (2001:171-172), then it reflects a

well-integrated Egyptian diaspora who relied heavily on the local Shechem population

for ceramics and other commodities.

An Egyptian imported Marl D sherd may belong to Egyptian vessel type EG8.

This vessel is known as a “mug” in the Egyptian ceramic corpus and usually has a white

burnished slip with one handle (Killebrew 2005a:69). The vessel from Shechem has a

pale yellow horizontally burnished slip (2.5YR8/2) with fine sub-rounded limestone and 94 See Simons (1937:118) and the transliteration as b-r-q-n.

75

fine red oxide inclusions. The sherd is similar macroscopically to the Marl D fabric but

has coarser and larger grains of limestone than is commonly found in Marl D. The Marl

D vessel occurs in destruction debris assigned to the end of Stratum XIV.95 Several bowl

rims display profiles that are commonly associated with an Egypto-Canaanite type found

in the Levant, but in local fabrics. In Stratum XIII, two everted rim bowls with painted

decorated bands (Plate 40:2-3) were found in Loci 3356 and 3360, both of which are

surfaces discerned in Room L. Room L was one of a series of rooms located in the

southernmost area in the eastern sector of Field XIII.96 In Stratum XII, a thick-walled

bowl with a flat base was recovered from Locus 3518, a surface layer in Yard B located

in the western sector of Field XIII (Plate 79:8). Absent are Egyptian-styled ceramics,

such as the shallow or hemispherical bowls with flat or rounded bases (EG1-6),97 ovoid

or globular handless jars (EG 10-15), tall-necked storage jars (EG17), spinning bowls

(EG 18), or “beer bottles” (EG19).

Although Egyptian-styled pottery is not well-represented in Field XIII, the Drew-

McCormick expedition did note “Egyptian influence” in a cache of special objects found

along with forty-seven Late Bronze IIB sherds beneath a patch of plaster flooring 5002A

of the Fortress Temple in Field V.98 The objects include an alabaster macehead, a faience

sherd and bead, a faience cylinder seal with the “tree of life” motif and a fragment of

95 The Drew-McCormick Expedition concluded that Thutmosis III’s early campaigns account for the absence of LBIA strata and that the LBIB or Stratum XIV is to be associated with a period of recovery after Thutmosis III (Campbell 2002:185 ). 96 These rooms and surfaces will be discussed in Chapter 4. 97 This typology follows Killebrew’s (2005a: 70-78) classification of the Egyptian-styles pottery found at Deir el-Balah and Tel Beth Shean. 98 Floor 5002A was originally thought to be associated with an ephemeral Temple 2 structure with fragmentary Walls 5703 and 5704 that dated to the Late Bronze IIB and replaced the Fortress Temple. Stager (1999:230-231) has argued that plaster floor 5002A is the last of three plaster floors of the Fortress Temple, and that the fragmentary Walls 5703 and 5704 do not represent a Temple 2 but should instead be associated with the later Iron II granary structure that was built over the Fortress Temple.

76

ivory inlay (Campbell 2002:180). In Field XIII, a fragment of a fluted column (#546) was

found in the destruction layer of Stratum XIV in an area between Wall 3534 and the

corner of Building A in the northern part of the field.99 This fragment, although found in

the destruction debris of Stratum XIV, was dated to the Middle Bronze IIC based on

parallels with Egyptian columns known from rock-cut tombs of the Middle Kingdom.100

The excavators dated the fluted column fragment by its similarity with fragments

uncovered in the Fortress Temple in Field V (Campbell 2002:194).

In Field VII, a bronze figurine in a silver tunic with what appears to be a

‘bulbous” crown was located in Stratum XIII destruction debris.101 The figurine stood

0.18 meters high and had pegs at the end of its feet for mounting. Also recovered with the

figurine were four whole vessels, three bronze arrowheads, a bronze spatula, a rim of a

granite bowl, two rubbing stones of basalt and a clay bead (Campbell 2002:203). Also

attributed to Stratum XIII was a steatite scarab that depicted a Horus falcon with uraei

and a royal “asp” sign. The scarab was uncovered from a firepit, located in the center of

Room L of the Field XIII domestic building (Campbell 2002:209). The scarab was found

alongside local bowls and cooking pots, two bone buttons and needles, a bronze needle

and stone grinding implements (Campbell 2002:209). The 1926 excavation season

produced several calcite vessels including a drop-shaped conical alabastra, a cylindrical

jar alabastra and five alabastra (Horn 1968; Sparkes 2007:221).

99 Two walls that delineated the corner of Building A extended into Field XIII, but Building A was excavated by Drew-McCormick Expedition. This column fragment is thought to have been re-used in a wall attributed to Stratum XIV. Fragments of similar fluted columns were found in front of the Fortress Temple in Field V by the Austro-German team in 1926 and in 1962 by the American team (Campbell 2002: 150 & 194). 100 See Wright (1965, 1969) for a discussion of fluted columns at Shechem. 101 See Campbell (2002:203, Fig. 197).

77

Tananir

The square-shaped building, measuring 18 m x 18 m with a square-shaped central

hall surrounded by smaller rooms was excavated originally excavated by the Austro-

German team. The structure is located 300 m from the Shechem mound on the slope of

Mount Gerizim (Boling 1975:33). Unfortunately, the original excavation records and

artifacts are no longer available and are thought to have been destroyed in the bombing of

Berlin during World War II. The few published reports by the Austro-German team

suggest that the team assigned religious significance to the structure based on the

presence of incense stands, idols and other “fetish” objects (Welter 1932:313-314).

Albright suggested that the building resembled a typical Middle Bronze Period patrician

house (1949:92). In contrast, Holladay has proposed that the square-shaped structure at

Tananir, Building 1500 at Tel Beth Shean and the Amman Airport structure actually

reflect Egyptian Amarna-style houses and represented a trading post for groups of

Egyptians who were part of a trade diaspora (2001:170-171).

Excavations undertaken by the Drew-McCormick Expedition in 1968 uncovered

part of Building A and Building B (Figure 23), located adjacent to one another (Boling

1975:35). Building A had a central square hall with longer broad halls on all sides

(Boling 1975, fig. 13).Welter had originally discerned a low platform in the central hall

which he called an “altar” (1932: 313-314). Some of the small finds from Building A

include buttons, bone, a perforated stone disk, and a plain amethyst scarab (Boling

1975:56). The building was assigned religious significance by the excavators because of

a copper needle and fragments of an alabaster vase recovered from two of the foundations

walls (Boling 1975:56). Building B was more fragmentary in nature and consisted of a

78

series of longer walls giving the structure a broader and longer shape (Boling 1975:57).

Located in destruction debris was a cache of pottery including profiled rim storage jars

(Boling 1975, Plate 3:51, 52, 53 & 55), a sharply carinated bowl (Boling 1975, Plate

2:29), and two rounded rim platter bowls (Boling 1975, Plate 1:5 & 6). The ceramics are

typical Middle Bronze IIC forms, although a re-analysis of the platter bowls from the

Shechem mound has shown that simple rounded platter bowls continue into the Late

Bronze period.102 While the excavators were aware of the similarities between Building

A at Tananir and the square-shaped structure at the Amman Airport in Jordan, they

assumed the structures dated to different periods (Boling 1975:65).

Holladay suggests that the Tananir structure, as well as other “Amarna” type

buildings at the Amman Airport, Tel Beth Shean (Building 1500) and Tell es-Sa`adiyeh

represent Egyptian trading posts (2001:171). The square-shaped structures share

similarities to Egyptian-style architecture, which has roots as far back as the Twelfth

dynasty in the Levantine area (Holladay 1997:109).

Egyptian artifacts account for almost 35 percent and 45 percent at Tell es-

Sa`adiyeh and the Amman Airport structure respectively, confirming a distinct Egyptian

influence at these sites (Holladay 2001: 174, Table 2, quoting Mumford 1998). In

contrast, the frequency of Egyptian or Egyptianizing artifacts is low in Field XIII at

Shechem and in the Tananir building. In addition, the Shechem regional survey failed to

turn up any Egyptianizing artifacts and only one fragment of a Cypriot milkbowl (Site

52=Tell Sofar), with the obvious exception of Tomb C on Mt. Ebal which yielded

hundreds of imported vessels (Campbell 1992; Clamer 1977; 1981). Holladay’s assertion

102 Chapter 5 presents the typology of the ceramics at Shechem and illustrates the continuity in morphology throughout the Late Bronze Age.

79

that the Tananir structure represented an Egyptian trading post in the Central Hill

Country may help explain the high frequency of imported wares recovered from the

Mount Ebal tomb (Holladay 1997; Clamer 1977; 1981).103 Compared with the less than 4

percent of imported wares recovered from Field XIII at Shechem, this tomb assemblage

confirms that the Shechem Valley was on a well-established trading route, perhaps

nurtured by an Egyptian trading presence.

The Egyptian-style ceramics found in the Central Hill Country occur in

exceptionally low frequencies, if at all, and are represented only at Tell Dothan and

possibly at Shechem. The ceramic assemblage at these sites is represented overwhelming

by local Late Bronze Age Levantine styles. The small finds and special objects found at

some Hill Country sites appear to be Egyptian-inspired and contain Egyptian royal motifs

such as, the names of Pharaohs and gods. When compared to the quantity of Egyptian-

styled ceramics and objects found at coastal sites, the Central Hill Country reveals a

limited corpus. It is possible that some of the objects found in the Central Hill Country

were either byproducts of trade that trickled into the area alongside the Cypriot imported

wares, or were luxury objects valued by elite groups as a means of legitimization. In

addition, the courtyard type house with L-shaped partition walls, reflected in the structure

at Shechem in Field XIII, was a common architectural style found in Canaan throughout

the Late Bronze Age that had Middle Bronze antecedents (Holladay 1997: 105). The

presence of royal and religious iconography such as, the Astarte cylinder seal from Bethel

and the scarab seals with royal iconography from Mount Ebal and Shechem does not

103 The religious nature of the Tananir building due to high frequency of miniature votive vessels has been questioned by Campbell (2002:160).

80

support sustained Egyptian contact or hegemony in the region, but does indicate Egyptian

influence.

Summary Observations

In the Central Highlands, Egyptian-styled ceramics and architecture appear

infrequently, while objects reflecting Egyptian religious, royal and ideological

iconography appear more frequently. While the Tananir structure adjacent to the site of

Shechem reflects an Egyptian-inspired center-hall house, none of the material culture

found within the building showed Egyptian influence. Holladay’s assertion that the

Tananir building represented a trading diaspora of Egyptian traders is an intriguing

suggestion. If this was the case, it makes the ceramic and architectural continuity evident

at Shechem during the Late Bronze Age even more remarkable and illustrates that a

limited Egyptian presence permitted cultural life to continue uninterrupted, at least in the

Shechem region.

The socio-political organization of the Shechem region into a dimorphic chiefdom

is a viable model for regional settlement, whereby smaller towns and pastoral elements

were incorporated into Shechem’s sphere of influence.While the Central Hill Country

may not have been easily accessible, numerous roads permitted entry from the Shephelah,

the Jezreel Valley and from Jerusalem in the south. The quantity and quality of imports in

the Mount Ebal tomb testifies to Shechem’s prominence and strategic location in a

lucrative trade network.

Settlement pattern analysis and ceramic technology studies indicate that numerous

changes were occurring in the southern Levant at a time when an Egyptian presence was

81

intensifying in the coastal region and the Jordan Valley. The process of ruralization did

not signal the end to settlement complexity, rather it produced regions with varying

degrees of settlement hierarchy and integration (Savage and Falconer 2003). A diversity

of settlement hierarchy as well as a shift from urban centered towns to more a rural-based

society, no doubt contributed to changes in the ceramic production process in the region.

Towns with a direct Egyptian presence produced Egyptian-style material culture and

showed evidence for the adoption of specific Egyptian production traits, as well as a co-

existence of Levantine ceramic forms. These observations not only reflect divergent

regional responses to an Egyptian presence, but also suggest that site-specific factors

including endogenous responses played a role in shaping he manner in which Egyptian

and Canaanite culture interacted.

82

Chapter 4

Shechem in the MBIIC and LB Periods: Settlement and Stratigraphy

Shechem Through the Ages

Shechem’s settlement history is rich and lengthy, with evidence of occupation

dating as far back as the Chalcolithic Period (4300-3300 B.C.E.). However, the earliest

textual references begin two-thousand years later in the Middle Bronze Age with

references to Shechem in the Egyptian Execration texts and in the Late Bronze Amarna

Archive. Later references occur in the writings of early Jewish and Christian historians,

such as Josephus Flavius and Eusebius, as well as the Hebrew Bible. Early wide scale

surveys, though not necessarily systematic in nature were conducted at Shechem by

scholars with a keen interest in discovering the sites of the Old and New Testaments

(Robinson 1841, Condor and Kitchener 1998).104

The Shechem region not only held a fascination for Nineteenth century explorers,

but also figured prominently in the early biblical tradition of the Patriarchal Narratives,

the Deuteronomistic History and in the Books of the Prophets. In Genesis 12:1-7,

Abraham is reported as having stopped at Shechem, received the Promise andbuilt an

altar to Yahweh before heading south to Bethel. In Genesis 35:1-4, Jacob is recorded as

making a pilgrimage from two important shrine sites in the Central Hill Country from

Shechem to Bethel. In addition, Joseph’s brothers are reported as having pastured their

flocks in the fields of Shechem (Gen. 37:12-14), while Joseph’s burial place is recorded

104 The early history of exploration at Shechem is described by G.Ernest Wright (1965) in his popular account, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City.

83

105at Shechem (Josh. 24:32). The site of Shechem is also mentioned in the

Deuteronomistic History where the Israelites entering Canaan are instructed to participate

in a ceremony that places a blessing on Mount Gerizim and a curse on Mount Ebal (Deut.

11:26-32). Standing stones or massebot such as those recovered in front of the Fortress

Temple in Field V at Shechem, are also mentioned in Deut. 27:1-8 whereby Moses

instructs his followers to set up stones coated with plaster to record the words of the law

(Stager 1999: 233). In Joshua 24, Joshua convenes the tribes before God at Shechem near

the Oak of Moreh, where a Covenant was made and foreign gods were rejected. In the

story of Abimelech’s rise to power (Judges 9), the citizens of Shechem support

Abimelech’s quest to become king and provide him with funds from the Temple of Baal-

Berith (Anderson 1957:15). Finally, Joshua 8:30-36 records the transfer of the Ark by

Levite priests from the Oak of Moreh to an area located between Mounts Gerizim and

Ebal (Anderson 1957:18).

The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, writing in 90 A.D., described the ancient

mound of Shechem as lying between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (Wright 1965:5).

Approximately three hundred years later, reference to Shechem was made by Eusebius of

Pamphilus in his Onomasticon, which is a topographical list of biblical sites in Palestine

during the Roman Period. In this ancient document, Eusebius meticulously recorded

distances in “milestones” and provided directions to sites that he considered biblical in

nature (Safrai and Notley 2005: xi). In the English translation of the Greek, Eusebius’

entry 805 described Shechem; “It is also called Sikima or Salem. The City of Jacob (Gen

33:18) is now deserted. The place is now shown on the outskirts of Neapolis, where also

105 The tomb of Joseph is located on the eastern part of the mound just outside the East gate and is marked by a Muslim shrine today.

84

the tomb of Joseph is shown. It was nearby,” (Safrai and Notley 2005:140-141). Eusebius

appears to have been aware of the mound of the ancient tell and the town of Neapolis that

was located west of the ruins. This is an important distinction, for in the Latin translation

of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, Jerome’s translation in 490 A.D. revised this entry slightly

and asserted that ancient Shechem is the later Neapolis, and mistakes “Sychar” depicted

on the Madaba Mosaic Map for “Sychem” (Wright 1965:6). During his travels to the

Holy Land in the Nineteenth century, Robinson appears to have been aware of the

confusion concerning the location of the ancient mound of Shechem:

It would be useless to spend time here, in showing that the Nabulus of the present day is the Neapolis of the Roman age; or that the latter appellation took the place of the more ancient name Shechem….The historical testimonies to the general identity of Neapolis and Sichem are hardly less definite and numerous, than in the case of Aelia and Jeruselem; while the situation of Nabulus in the mountains of Ephraim and beneath Mount Gerizim, of which tradition has never lost sight, corresponds entirely to the ancient accounts of the position of Shechem. (Robinson 1941:vol 3:113-114).

Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Explorers

Interest in surveying Western Palestine in the early 19th century arose largely

because scholars at the time realized that they knew little about the geography and

“sacred history” of the area, but understood the necessity of “scientific exploration” of

the region to fill in gaps within their knowledge (Conder & Kitchener 1998, vol1:2). As a

result, the Palestine Exploration Fund was established with the mandate to investigate

“the archaeology, geography, geology and natural history of the Holy Land” (Conder and

Kitchener 1998 vol1:4). This mission statement identified several sites and areas as being

worthy of re-examination; amongst them the Shechem Valley because of the possibility it

may contain the earliest settlement of Jacob in the Holy Land (Conder and Kitchener,

85

vol.1:8). Armed with this biblical reference, Conder and Kitchener visited the Shechem

region describing its environment as “open and less rugged than to the south” (Conder

and Kitchener 1881:149). Conder and Kitchener mapped features of the entire landscape

and compiled the information into a body of work, which still informs recent surveys

today (Vol 1:27). It was not until 1903, when a German scholar traveling by horseback in

the area, discovered sections of the ancient wall encircling Shechem. Professor Hermann

Thiersch had located the ancient mound of Shechem, which he recorded in his journal:

The horses are still too tired from yesterday to go any farther. Therefore, a day of rest. The question of old Shechem discussed. On the small hill of ruins which the English map shows directly north of Balata near Kubr Yusuf…we discovered to our great joy and surprise a piece of cyclopean wall, lying exposed for a distance of some 8 m and to be traced further a distance of 30 m….It controls the plain of Askar and at the same time straddles the pass. These two together are not true of modern Nablus. From this the situation of old Shechem is fixed with certainty and the earlier supposition (Nablus) is refuted (Wright 1957:20).106

Approximately 10 years later, the Austro-German excavations led by Ernest

Sellin followed up on Thiersch’s discovery and exposed more of the wall and the city

gate on the northwestern part of the mound. Following World War I, Sellin returned and

employed a staff as large as two hundred people to continue with the excavations in the

northeastern gate, the Fortress Temple on the western side of the mound, as well as the

eastern gate area (Wright 1957:21-24).107 A dispute between Sellin and Welter, the on-

site field archaeologist over excavation methodology led to Sellin being dismissed as

director. Although Welter assumed control, Sellin returned to study the large standing

stones in front of the Fortress Temple courtyard, which he assumed were the massebot of

106 This passage follows the German translation by G. Ernest Wright (1957). 107 See reports in ZDPV 49 (1926a): 229-236; (1926b) 304-327; and ZDPV 50 (1927a):205-211; (1927b):265-274.

86

the Old Testament (Wright 1957:25-26). Welter’s architectural plans of the temple and

the northeast gate area are valuable contributions in the history of excavation of

Shechem.108 109 A last campaign was carried out by the Germans in 1934, before the Joint

Drew-McCormick Expedition returned to conduct systematic excavations. The

expedition, composed of Drew University in Madison, New Jersey and the McCormick

Theological Seminary in Chicago, carried out eight major excavations from 1956 to 1968

(Wright 1956; 1957; Toombs and Wright 1961; 1963; Bull et al.1965; Bull and Campbell

1968; Campbell, Ross and Toombs 1971). During the 1968 excavation, investigations

were also carried out on the adjacent structure at Tananir (Boling 1969; 1975). Several

team members returned for two shorter seasons; one in 1969 in Field XIII (Seger 1971)

and in 1972 and 1973 in Field IV (Dever 1974).

Shechem Regional Survey

During the excavations undertaken by the Joint Expedition to Shechem, a regional

survey was carried out as part of its research design for the region in the 1966 and 1968

seasons (Campbell 1991:1). The aim was to investigate the roadways leading into the

Shechem Valley, as well as determine the location of other contemporary sites within the

valley. In total, ten routes were found to lead into the Sahl `Askar valley, in which the

ancient mound of Shechem was located (Campbell 1991:3). The ceramics recovered from

the survey were compared with the ceramics emerging from the stratified excavations on

the mound. Of the fifty-four sites that were surveyed in the Shechem region, eighteen of

those sites were occupied during the Late Bronze Age, and were also strategically located

108 Unfortunately, as Wright noted, Welter produced only one report for his work found in Archaeologischer Anzeiger (1932), III/IV, columns 289-314. 109 Sellin’s excavation records were destroyed in Berlin during World War II (Davis 2004:106).

87

along the major access routes leading to Shechem. Table 4 lists the sites that were

established in the Late Bronze Age, as well as those that continued in occupation from

the preceding Middle Bronze Period. Interestingly, eight sites were continuously

occupied from the Middle to Late Bronze Periods, with only one site (Site #15)

abandoned after the Middle Bronze Age. This trend is certainly in contrast to the survey

data presented for the Central Hill Country as a whole and reflects the resilience and

continuity of the Shechem Region during a time of intensifying Egyptian activity, as well

as heightened tensions between local rulers and unsettled `Apiru population.

The distribution of sites within the Shechem Valley reveals sites located at

strategic points leading into the plain. Upon entering the valley from the west through the

pass between Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, one passed the sites of Kûmeh (Site 54) and Tell

Sofar (Site 52). The former was about one-quarter the size of Shechem and provided a

good view of the two mountains while also dominating the main east-west route

(Campbell 1976:42-43). The latter, Tell Sofar, lay just east of Kumeh and was a circular

tell that also occupied a prominent position in the valley. The survey team discovered

Late Bronze pottery at Tell Sofar on their third visit. The pottery was located on the

northwestern slopes suggesting there was a contraction in settlement during the Late

Bronze period (Campbell 1991:3).

On the far eastern side of the plain, Kh. Tana el-Foqa (Site 17) and Kh. Tana et-

Tahta (Site 18) were strategically located along a route leading from the east into the

valley in much the same way as Tell Sofar and Kumeh were to the west.110 Located

across from Kh. Tana el-Foqa (Site 17) was Beit Dajan (Site 16), which controls the route

110The Joint Expedition survey uncovered only a few Late Bronze sherds at Sites 17 and 18 (Campbell 1991). A survey conducted by Finkelstein (1988) did not uncover any evidence of Late Bronze occupation.

88

leading to the Wadi el-Far`ah. Interestingly, the four sites mentioned above were all

newly occupied in the Late Bronze Period suggesting that there was a deliberate effort to

control or restrict access into the Shechem Valley during this period.

The northern and southern routes leading into the Shechem Valley were also

rotected by newly established Late Bronze Age sites. Kh. Kefr Kuz (Site 7) is located on

the lower slopes of Mount Ebal and had traces of ancient walls and terracing surrounding

the site. Beit el-Khirbeh (Site 31) and Kh. en-Nebi (Site 33) were situated less than four

kilometers apart and guarded access to the Nablus-Jerusalem road. The plain itself had

three sites dating to the Late Bronze Period: Rujeib (Site 23), Salim (Site 12) and Kh.

esh-Sheikh Nasrallah (Site 13). Located atop Mount Gerizim was Tell er-Ras (Site 40),

while Jebel et-Tur (Site 37) lay on the eastern slopes of Mount Gerizim. The site of Kh.

el-`Urmeh (Site 26) occupied a commanding position overlooking the entire Shechem

Valley atop Jebel el-`Urmeh. The survey of Kh. El-`Urmeh produced pottery dating from

the Late Bronze IB to the Late Bronze II (Campbell 1976:43). To the south of Shechem,

ancient Tappuah or Tell Abû Zarâd yielded sherds dating from the Late Bronze I and II.

The location of Tappuah controlled access farther south, leading into the Shechem plain

from the northwest.

The continuity in occupation of sites from the Middle to Late Bronze Periods,

coupled with the strategic location of newly founded Late Bronze settlements in the

Shechem Valley suggests that this particular region of the Central Hill Country

experienced a unique demographic trend. The continuity in settlement in the Shechem

Valley reflects continued occupation during a time of localized political tensions as

reflected in the Amarna Letters, as well as a period of intensifying Egyptian activity. The

89

strategic location of sites within the Shechem Valley and on on promontories may reflect

a deliberate effort by inhabitants to secure sites within the low-lying ‘Askar Plain.

Although it is not entirely clear from the Expedition Survey which sites are

contemporaneous, manly due to the small quantity of Late Bronze Age pottery recovered,

as well as the extensive building activity in the later Persian, Hellenistic, Roman and

Byzantine Periods, there nevertheless appears to have been a concerted effort to secure

access over this fertile plain.

Stratigraphy of Shechem

The ceramic corpus under study for this dissertation represents the ceramic finds

from Strata XIV to XII in Field XIII at Shechem (Table 5). Field XIII was excavated in

1968 and in a subsequent season by Joe Seger in 1969 (Seger 1972:29-35), while wide-

scale excavations at Shechem were conducted between 1956 and 1973 by the Joint

Expedition (Campbell 2002:1). Field XIII at Shechem is located approximately 25m to

the east of the Northwest gate and north of Fields V and VI (Ill. 2). It contained four

excavation units, Areas 1 through 4 with two additional excavation squares to the south,

Areas 5 and 6. These additional areas connected Field XIII to Field VI.2 (Figures 4 and

5).111 Field XIII was excavated in order to clarify the Late Bronze Age strata that were

uncovered in the domestic areas of Fields VII and IX, as well as the East Gate

fortification system in Field III (Campbell 1976:41). The excavations in Field XIII

uncovered a well-stratified sequence of Late Bronze Age architecture and ceramics,

111 Seger’s subsequent return to Shechem in 1969 had three main objectives: 1) to explore the MBIIC strata in Field XIII; 2) excavate beneath MBIIC strata in order to establish a stratigraphic connection to earlier MBIIB strata ,and 3) excavate Areas 5 and 6 in the hopes of establishing a direct stratigraphic link to Field VI in the south which was the sacred precinct in the Middle Bronze period (Seger 1972:20-22).

90

which permitted the Joint Expedition to develop a site-wide stratigraphic sequence for

this period.

The diagnostic sherds from Field XIII were kept and are now stored at the

University of Toronto and form the basis for this study.112 The pottery registries from

1966 and 1968 record the vessel types recovered from each basket, as well as their field

assignment to a chronological period. The following ceramic analysis was conducted

mainly on rim and base fragments, rather than whole and complete vessels.113 A corpus

of whole and restorable vessels were found in a basement structure within Field XIII,

which dates to the Late Bronze IIA and provides a “control group” for the rim and base

fragments from the other four areas of Field XIII.114 A great amount of leveling and

filling occurred at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age as builders covered older

structures and constructed new foundations. This was especially evident in the northeast

to southeast slope of Field XIII (Campbell 2002:5). The stratigraphy of the site has been

presented by Edward F. Campbell in Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of

Shechem/Tell Balatâh.115 This study will present the ceramics excavated from four areas

within Field XIII, as well as an analysis of the stratigraphic contexts from which they

were found. First, a summary of the general features of the mound will be provided,

112 The late Professor Lawrence Toombs kindly provided his notes and ceramic reports on the Late Bronze period ceramics from Field XIII, which provided a valuable resource in this study. 113 The publication of Shechem III (2002) has been criticized for its reliance on rim sherds, although many excavations uncover and publish analyses that are based on ceramic fragments as well as whole vessels (Finkelstein 2006). 114 Unfortunately, not all of the restorable vessels from the basement structure were available for this study, as some remained in Jerusalem. In addition, the tombs excavated on the slope of Mount Ebal also produced a rich collection of over 2000 vessels including local, imported and painted wares (Clamer 1977, 1981). 115This dissertation follows and supports the stratigraphic presentation offered by Campbell in Shechem III with minor revisions concerning a possible ephemeral Late Bronze IA phase. Campbell (2002) and Cole (1984) address the Expeditions’ excavation and ceramic methodology.

91

many of which were constructed in the Middle Bronze IIC and continued in use into the

Late Bronze Period, followed by a presentation of the Late Bronze Age stratigraphy.

General Features of the Mound

Occupation at Shechem was represented by twenty-four strata, spanning the

Chalcolithic to Hellenistic periods. The Late Bronze Age site acquired many of its

features during the Middle Bronze IIC period when the site underwent a major expansion

and strengthening (Campbell 2002:105; Seger 1975: 43*). The Shechem mound was

surrounded by a large cyclopean wall (Wall A) standing as high as 6.50 m and measuring

approximately 2.30 m wide (Figure 3). Wall A was built at the foot of a less imposing

fortification system that featured a Rampart (C) retained by a Wall (D), which was

constructed in MBIIB period (Campbell 2002:27). A second wall, (Wall B) shadowed

Wall A along the interior and provided a “double defense system” (Campbell 2002:109).

This parallel wall system ran from the northwest gate (Field IV), along the northern part

of the mound and southeast. Although Wall A had two different construction techniques

in the south and north of the northwest gate, the Joint Expedition assigned the

construction of the cyclopean wall (Wall A) to the MBIIC period (Campbell 2002:109).

The northwestern gate had six-chambers with orthostat piers, two towers, as well

as an entryway paved with flagstones (Campbell 2002:110). Interestingly, Late Bronze

sherds were found sealed within a ramp in the southern gate tower suggesting that the

gate was renovated and in use in the Late Bronze Period. Although the Joint Expedition

did not excavate outside of the northwest gate, excavations by Welter in 1931 suggested

that a walled ramp provided an approach to the gate (Campbell 2002:112). The East Gate

92

was constructed into the C Rampart and consisted of two chambers and a wide

passageway (Campbell 2002:133). As in the northwest gate, orthostat slabs were also

used in its construction. Once inside the East Gate, visitors descended onto a cobbled

street over a series of six steps (Campbell 2002:137). Two articulated skeletons and a

child were found on the cobbled surface inside the gate. Burned brick and broken MBIIC

pottery, including “chocolate-on-white” ware suggested two closely-related destructions,

which the Joint Expedition assigned to the last years of the MBIIC period, roughly 1550

BCE and 1540 BCE respectively (Campbell 2002:139). Although Campbell generally

concurs with Wright’s assessment that the first destruction level appeared to be followed

by a resurfacing of the street before a second destruction level was encountered, he does

not rule out the possibility that the East Gate was destroyed as a result of a single event.

On the acropolis of the mound, several public and domestic buildings were

constructed in the MBIIC period, which continued into the Late Bronze Age. The largest

structure, the Fortress Temple (Field V) was a rectangular building measuring 26 meters

by 21 meters that was founded on a platform of soil formed by the leveling of Rampart C.

The structure was a direct-access tripartite building with two large towers at the front and

rectangular cellas. The structure at Shechem has parallels with Temple 2048 at Megiddo,

Tel Haror in the Negev and Tell el-Hayyat and Tel Kittan in the Jordan Valley (Stager

1999:235-236). Two rows of columns divided the main hall, while side aisles ran

lengthwise on both sides of the main hall. Both the German excavations in 1926 and the

Joint Expeditions’ campaigns in 1962 and 1968, uncovered column fragments, one of

which was found in Field XIII in Stratum XIV destruction debris near the unexcavated

93

116Building A (Campbell 2002: 150-151). Two phases of occupation were discerned for

the MBIIC Fortress Temple, while a “broad-room” style sanctuary was built over the

massive foundations of the Middle Bronze temple. The “broad-room” structure, known as

“Temple 2” was dated to the Late Bronze II based on LB II pottery including Cypriot

White Slip II that was excavated adjacent to it. The LB II pottery was found beneath a

plaster layer and fragmentary wall, which defined a dais or platform constructed against

the walls of the “broad-room” sanctuary (Campbell 2002: 179-180). However, Stager has

argued that the two fragmentary walls (Walls 5703 and 5704), which define the “broad-

room” sanctuary were actually the lower courses of walls that defined an eighth century

BCE four-room house, known as Building 5900 (Stager 1999:230-234). If Stager’s re-

analysis of the temple wall alignments and limited stratigraphy is correct, then the life of

the Fortress Temple extended throughout the Late Bronze Age into the early Iron Age

(Stager 1991:232; Campbell 2002:184).

A second three-roomed structure, referred to as Temple 7300 was located south of

the northwestern gate, directly behind the Fortress Temple. The Joint Expedition assumed

that this was an open-air shrine which was later enclosed and used as a private chapel for

the local ruler. Temple 7300 featured a podium and contained string-cut juglets, pommels

from dagger handles and miniature votive bowls (Campbell 2002:153).

A third structure, the Tananir Building, was located approximately 300 m outside

of the east gate on the lowest slope of Mount Gerizim on a low spur known as Tananir. It

has already been described in Chapter Three. Domestic buildings were also present both

on the acropolis and elsewhere on the mound in Fields IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX & XIII, and

116 The five fragments of fluted columns are similar to columns known from Middle Kingdom rock-cut tombs, but went out of use in the New Kingdom. The Shechem columns are considered “provincial” examples (Campbell 2002:151).

94

XV. The domestic building in Field XIII will be described in greater detail below,

beginning with the Middle Bronze IIC structure that provided a basis for the Late Bronze

architectural remains.

Stratum XVII

(Figures 4 and 5)

Although the primary focus of this study is theLate Bronze Age levels, several

Middle Bronze levels will be discussed briefly as they relate to Field XIII in Areas 5 and

6. These areas connected Fields XIII and VI to the south and were excavated to establish

a relationship between the domestic structures in front of the Fortress Temple (Field V)

and Field XIII. The Joint Expedition assigned the first building remains within Field XIII

in Area 6 to the end of Stratum XVII, dated to the Middle Bronze IIB period (Campbell

2002:101-103, Seger 1972: 33). The building consisted of three mud brick walls that ran

northward into the unexcavated section of Field XIII. The mud brick walls were

preserved almost two meters in height and over one meter in width. Within the southwest

corner of Room A, a circular tannur lined with large fragments from a storage jar was set

into the floor. To the west of Room A, a second room (Room B) was enclosed by Stone

Wall 3906 and mud brick Wall 3901W. Up to 1.30 meters of destruction debris had

accumulated in Rooms A and B including roofing plaster, ash and charcoal, as well as

Middle Bronze IIB pottery (Seger 1972: 34-35).

95

117 Stratum XVI and XV (Figure 6 and 7)

In these Middle Bronze IIC strata, a north-south terrace wall divided Field XIII

into western and eastern sectors, with building complexes in each sector (Campbell 2002:

161-166). Building II was constructed almost 4 meters lower than Building I in the

eastern sector of the field. This terrace wall and these two buildings would continue in

this basic configuration throughout the Late Bronze Age strata.

In Stratum XVI, the terrace wall was defined by Walls 3626 and 3272 and in

Stratum XV by Walls 3792, 3231 and 3240. The earliest traces of occupation were

assigned to a series of floors, Locus 3137 that was enclosed by a circle of stones (Locus

3137A), which was assumed to be a worker’s hut for the construction of Building II. This

stone circle (Locus 3137A) was subsequently covered by soil and provided a platform for

Building I (Figure 8, ##52).

Connected with Building I in the northwest corner of Field XIII was a series of

flagstones (Locus 3550) that led from the northwest gate area and descended to a

secondary passageway, which was situated north of Field XIII. The passageway ran

alongside the East Wall 3496B of Building I. This northern passageway contained Drain

3542, which stretched for almost 4.0 m south before it veered off into the terrace wall.

Only the corner of Building I was preserved in the form of Walls 3462B and 3496B.

Stratum XV in Field XIII was characterized by Building II, which is located to the

east of the terrace wall in Areas 2 and 4. It is divided into two phases XVA and XVB,

which reflect wall additions and room re-alignments (Figures 6 and 7). Building II is

composed of a series of rooms: in the north, Rooms A to D are 1.50 m lower than the

117 The following stratigraphic presentation of Middle Bronze IIC strata follows Campbell 2002: 162-166 and Seger 1972: 26-28.

96

southern series of rooms, Rooms E to G. Phase B of Stratum XV is defined by the

division of Room A by Wall 3622 into two rooms (Rooms A and B). Unfortunately,

Room B was not excavated by the Joint Expedition as it extended under a sub-floor

chamber that was constructed in Stratum XIII. In the southern sector of Field XIII, a

series of rooms (Rooms C, D, E, F and G) were excavated with plaster flooring (Locus

3848) uncovered in Room G (Figure 9 ##70).

Phase A of Stratum XV was characterized by the addition of a series of smaller

walls which divided Rooms E and F and by the abandonment of dividing Wall 3622,

which had separated Rooms A and B in the earlier phases. As with the architectural

remains in Stratum XVII, destruction debris of up to 2.50 m in depth covered the

buildings. In addition, fragments of storage jars lay crushed on the floor of Room A,

above which were bricks interspersed with plaster fragments that formed part of the

superstructure built on top of Wall 3780. Restorable jars, ivory inlays, scarabs, goat

astragali and a dagger blade were found within the debris leading the Joint Expedition to

correctly hypothesize that a second story existed for Building II (Campbell 2002:165-

166).

Late Bronze Age Shechem

The fortification system at Shechem was re-used in the Late Bronze Age,

contradicting a prevailing view that Late Bronze Age sites lacked fortification systems.

During this time, parts of the northwestern and eastern gate system were re-used from the

MBIIC as were the fortifications in Field III (Campbell 2002:169). In the eastern gate

system, a new tower was constructed atop the debris of a destroyed tower that had

97

collapsed in the MBIIC period. The Late Bronze Age tower was rectangular with walls

spanning 2.5 m in width and a cross wall (W128), which divided the tower into two

rooms. Within the tower, the Joint Expedition uncovered five floors, with the skeleton of

an equine on the latest level (Campbell 2002:173, fig 164). In the northwestern gate area,

sealed deposits of Late Bronze ceramics were found in the ramp leading to the gate and in

between two orthostats (Campbell 2002:174).

Stratum XIV: The Initial Buildings

(Figures 9, 10 and 11)

While the structures of Strata XVI and XV had been built on platforms created by

the movement and leveling of soil, the structures attributed to Stratum XIV were likewise

built on the MBIIC destruction debris, whose wall fragments were used to anchor Late

Bronze Age walls (Campbell 2002:185). Much of the soil and debris was moved to the

south of Field XIII into the low valley which separated it from Field VI.2. In addition, in

the western sector of the field, debris and traces of Stratum XV occupation were scraped

away and deposited over the debris already in the eastern sector of the field. As a result,

Field XIII was generally level except for a gentle slope running to the south and to the

east.

The initial building activity in Stratum XIV, the Late Bronze I was concentrated

in the southern part of Field XIII over Rooms C and E of the Middle Bronze IIC. A brick

kiln (3396) structure was built in the debris of Room C, while an oven was built against

the top of the strata XV wall (Wall 03271) in Room E. The Joint Expedition assigned

these initial building activities to the Late Bronze IB, assuming that there was an

98

occupational gap in the Late Bronze IA because of the lack of “pottery forms and

decorative styles characteristic of the LB IA” (Campbell 2002:185).

A second phase was observed for Kiln 3396, whereby the western wall of the

structure was moved west, which resulted in a larger kiln and a 0.35 m resurfacing with

MBIIC debris. A MBIIC store jar was recovered within the debris that was used to raise

the level of the second kiln. In addition, Wall 03218 was built over the oven that had

originally been set into MBIIC Room E. An opening was created through the main

Terrace Wall 3309 to provide access to a pebbled surface (Locus 03221) in the west.

Although the pottery from the loci was not available for this dissertation, I would propose

that these fragmentary features, such as the oven and first kiln that was constructed over

MBIIC Rooms E and C respectively, may represent the fragmentary architectural features

of the “elusive” Late Bronze IA at Shechem. Interestingly, this period is represented at

Shechem in Tomb C on the slope of Mount Ebal, located north of the tell (Campbell

2002:185; Clamer 1977; 1981).

Stratum XIV (Figure 12)

The main north-south Terrace Walls 3309-3706 were raised in this stratum, yet

maintained the separation of Field XIII into eastern and western segments (Campbell

2002:190-195). To the west of the terrace in the direction of the northeastern gate, were

several areas including Yard B, Open Area C and Building A, which was formerly

Building I in Stratum XV. A passageway (Locus 3121) ran immediately west of the

terrace wall and was covered with pebbles and pottery fragments. To the east of the main

terrace wall, there were a series of Rooms (D, E, F and G), which were built over the kiln

of the initial phases of Stratum XIV. In light of this stratigraphy, I would like to propose

99

that even the second phase of alterations to Kiln 3396 may represent the construction

attempts of Late Bronze IA builders.118

Rooms D, E, F and G (Figures 14 and 15)

In the eastern sector of Field XIII, Rooms D, E, F and G in Areas 2 and 4 remain

difficult to reconstruct because of the later construction of the sub-floor chamber of

Stratum XIII. In the north in Area 4, Room D was built by the bonding of Wall 3663 to

Wall 3667. Room D had two floor surfaces, a plaster floor (Locus 3774) and limestone

floor (Locus 3763), which the Joint Expedition dated to Stratum XIV. Two White Slip II

sherds in the ladder pattern decorative motif were recovered from locus 3763 (Plate

31:10, 12). Destruction debris (Locus 3759) covered the second floor (Locus 3763) and

contained fired brick, three complete LB I to IIA vessels, four basalt rubbing stones, two

beads and fragments of a bronze pin (Campbell 2002:192).119

Only the lower courses of the walls that defined Room E remained as the room

itself was destroyed by the digging of the sub-floor chamber in Stratum XIII. Only one

floor, a beaten earth surface is associated with Room E (Locus 3753). In Area 2, Rooms

F and G were defined by Wall 3381 in the north and Wall 02305 to the south. During a

minor season of excavation in 1969, Seger determined that Wall 3831 in Area 5 was the

southern-most limit for the series of rooms in this eastern sector (Seger 1972: 22-23).

Rooms F and G were separated by Wall 3390, but only a small fragment of the Wall 3390

abutted the main terrace Wall 3309. Above the debris that covered Kiln 3396 of the

118 Although this observation does not concur with the conclusions of the Joint Expedition, it is proposed because of the successive number of alterations and minor constructions attributed to the LB IB. Without having access to the pottery from these initial building stages, my proposal remains unconfirmed. 119 See Campbell 2002: 191,fig. 186 for a photo of Room D and a smashed vessel under the destruction debris (Locus 3759).

100

earlier phases of Stratum XIV, Wall 3382 ran parallel to the terrace wall creating a

smaller room within Room F in which a stone-lined pit (Pit 03202) was found (Campbell

2002:192). The later Stratum XIII wall (Wall 3338) divided Room F and severed the

floor surfaces, creating a series of surfaces on either side of the foundation trench of the

LB IIA wall (Wall 3338). A gravel layer (Locus 3380) was overlaid with a surface of

compacted gray ash (Locus 3384), which was in turn covered by a destruction layer

(Locus 3375). On the other side of the foundation trench in the east, a similar series of

surfaces were found, a beaten earth surface atop MBIIC debris (Locus 3385) covered by

a plaster floor (Locus 3377), which was also overlaid by destruction layer (Locus 3371)

(Campbell 2002: 193). Room G was also dissected by later Stratum XIII walls, creating a

similar series of floor sequences as in Room F. In the western section of Room G, a

plaster floor (Locus 3392) was covered by a second beaten earth floor (Locus 3379),

which had sherds laying flat on its surface. Both were covered by a destruction debris

layer (Locus 3370). Two beaten earth surfaces (Loci 3378 & 3376) were covered by

destruction debris (Locus 3371) in the eastern section of Room G.

Yard B, Open Area C, Building A

To the west of the main terrace wall (Walls 3309-3706) and the pebbled walkway

(Locus 3121), the corner walls (Walls 3462 and 3496) of the Middle Bronze IIC public

building were visible. This building was not excavated by the Joint Expedition.120 Yard B

120 Building A (Building I in the MBIIC) contained a flagstone channel (Drain3542) visible in the corner created by Wall 3462 and Wall 3496. Unfortunately, a pit left by the Austro-German excavations removed floor surfaces. Due to the location of the Fortress Temple in the south and the Northwest gate roughly 25 m away, the Joint Expedition concluded that this building was a “governor residency” (Campbell 2002:162). The fluted column fragment found in debris on a Stratum XIV floor (Locus 3537) was assumed to have been reused in a Stratum XIV wall, likely belonging to the temple area to the south in the MBIIC.

101

lay immediately south of these corner walls, while Open Area C was south of Yard B and

separated from it by Wall 3534 (Campbell 2002:193). One of the surfaces in Yard B,

found mainly in the east was a compacted soil layer (Loci 3538-3768) contained bone

fragments and a sherd of Red-on-Black ware (Plate 31:5). Within this surface was a

single flat stone (Platform 3524B), while an oven was lodged against the stones north

edge. In the western part of Yard B, a crushed limestone surface (Locus 3537) was

observed between the corner of Building A and running south to Wall 3534. Overlying

this surface was destruction debris layer (Locus 3536) which contained the fluted column

fragment, a mixture of Middle and Late Bronze pottery and a sherd of Egyptian Marl D.

In a fill level (Locus 3533) for the Yard B surface, a White Slip I rim of a hemispherical

bowl in the framed wavy line decorative motif was recovered (Plate 32:9). Several

surfaces were observed for Open Area C in the southern-most section of Area 1, even

though the area was disturbed by the foundation trenches of later Stratum XIII walls and

Iron 1 pits. These surfaces included Loci 3528, 3117 and 3122. One of the surfaces

showed evidence of plaster flooring (Locus 3528) into which jar stand was embedded.

Running north-south and parallel to the pebbled walkway (Locus 3121) was a hard bricky

surface (Locus 3122), while the third surface (Locus 3117) was traced in the southern

part of Open Area C. The Joint Expedition concluded that the end of Stratum XIV was

not violent, although 0.20 meters to 0.40 meters of bricky debris covered the LB IB

surfaces (Campbell 2002:195).

102

Stratum XIII (Figure 13)

While the arrangement of rooms became more complex in Stratum XIII with the

addition of more rooms, continuity in the overall architectural layout of the field into

eastern and western sectors was maintained. The architectural changes combined with the

presence of imported ceramics gives the impression that Stratum XIII represented a more

prosperous time in the life of Shechem.

Rooms G, H, J, K, L and M (Figure 14)

The eastern sector of Stratum XIII was reconfigured to include six rooms with a

more complex arrangement in the south. While terrace wall 3309-3706-3663 was

preserved, Room G was constructed above former Room D of Stratum XIV. The portion

of Room G that was excavated contained Silo 3734 with a plaster lip, a beaten earth

surface (Locus 3739) and two defining walls (Wall 3667 and 3663). The sharp slope of

Room G led to the conclusion that it was not a walking surface, but instead an outdoor

storage unit that was part of a complex farther north. Locus 3739 contained a Mycenaean

body sherd with a burnished very pale brown slip and linear decoration, whose decorative

scheme is similar to the design motifs of Furumark’s small piriform jars (FS45), the

straight-sided alabastron (FS94) or the small jug (FS114) (Furumark 1992).

To the south of Wall 3667, Space H was interpreted as a corridor, with surface

Locus 3745 leading into Yard B, although it was not clear if Locus 3745 extended

through the opening in Wall 3742 to the south. The sub-floor chamber constructed

beneath Room J destroyed most of the Strata XV and XIV buildings due to the 2 meter

depth of the foundation walls (Figure 15). The chamber was defined by four bonded

walls (Walls 3742, 3743, 3751 and 3752) which were positioned directly on top of

103

MBIIC walls. Roof beams may have covered the storage chamber with access by a ladder

in the west near Wall 3743. Almost 2.5 meters deep, the first floor was a crushed

limestone surface (Locus 3772) on which lay a silted level (Locus 3771), which

contained wood fibers, charcoal and decayed brick. Locus 3771 contained four complete

vessels and several objects, including an electrum pendant, an ivory button or drilled

bone and a basalt grinding stone (Campbell 2002: 207). Overlying Locus 3771 was a

midden deposit (Locus 3750), which contained complete vessels and imported ceramics.

The Joint Expedition concluded that the chamber was filled with this midden material

when it went out of use towards the end of the Late Bronze IIA, likely due to periodic

flooding. Surface 3745 lay over Locus 3750 and had partially dropped into the chamber

as a result of the 0.90 meter of destruction debris.

Located south of the sub-floor chamber Wall 3752, Room K provided entry to a

series of interconnected rooms. To the east, Room K had a paved flagstone surface

(Locus 3365) where three accumulated layers were discerned (Loci 3349, 3350 and

3354). A Base Ring jug rim was recovered from surface Locus 3350 (Plate 67:8). Room

K provided entry into Room L, which was created by Walls 3313-3338-3311. Within

Room L two surfaces (Loci 3361 and 3356) were discerned with fragments of seashells

and numerous objects laying on the later surface (Locus 3356). The objects include awls,

needles, pestles and grinding stones and a steatite scarab depicting the falcon god Horus

(Campbell 2002: 209). These surfaces (Loci 3361 and 3356) had accumulated over the

remains of Rooms F and G of the earlier Stratum XIV. The destruction debris (Locus

3346) overlying Room L surfaces had a plaster slab embedded within it, suggesting that

part of the second story had collapsed. Room M was located to the east of Wall 3338 and

104

also contained a buildup of similar laminated surfaces as those in Room K. These

surfaces (Loci 3369, 3364 and 3357) were composed of thin multi-colored striations,

overlaid by a thick destruction layer (Loci 3347 and 3348) almost half a meter thick.

Rooms A toF (Figure 14)

To the west of Terrace Wall 3309-3706-3663, a series of cross-walls created four

smaller rooms, which the Joint Expedition interpreted as outdoor work spaces or the

privately owned work areas by neighboring houses (Campbell 2002: 204). In Stratum

XIII, Yard B was now defined by two southern walls (Wall 3486 and Wall 3457). Wall

3486 was bonded to the upper courses of the terrace wall, while Wall 3457 sat atop the

Stratum XIV wall (Wall 3534). The two cross walls were not built directly in line with

one another, but they provided a meter wide opening to the series of rooms to the south.

Three surfaces were evident in Yard B, a beaten earth floor (Locus 3525) and two other

surfaces (Loci 3504 and 3518). The thickening of the debris near Wall 3496 of Building

A suggested that part of the building was destroyed. Unfortunately, an Iron I pit had

erased any flooring inside Building A.

A series of Stratum XIII cross walls divided the southern area (Area C in Stratum

XIV) into Rooms C, D, E and F. The southern section was heavily disturbed by six Iron

Age pits, making the stratigraphic reconstruction more difficult for the Joint Expedition

(Campbell 2002: 204). In Room C, a plaster layer (Locus 3522) was traced running south

from Wall 3457, while in Room D an ashy beaten earth floor (Locus 3526) was

discerned. In Room F, a cobbled surface (Locus 3114) was evident against Walls 3124,

105

3309 and 3080, while a fragment of flooring (Locus 3119) was traced near Wall 3108.

Unfortunately, no surfaces were discernible in Room E.

Stratum XIII ended in a violent destruction and appeared more visibly over the

rooms to the east of the main terrace wall. The evidence for destruction includes; 1)

destruction debris over Wall 3742, which was the northern wall defining the sub-floor

chamber walls, 2) plaster-faced bricks and a meter-long plaster slab of flooring amongst

the debris in Room K, 3) almost 0.30 meters of debris over the floor of Room L in which

a meter-wide plaster slab (Locus 3343), likely the second story flooring was embedded at

an angle. Above this second story debris lay several fragments of copper, a fragment of

the blade of a bronze sword, a bone awl and a drilled ceramic disk (Campbell 2002:209),

and 4) the 0.40 meter of destruction debris covering the surface of Room M. While the

western sector of rooms did reveal evidence of destruction, most notably near Wall 3496

of Building A where the debris thickened, this sector appears not to have been as major

likely due to the lack of roofing over the rooms in the western sector.

Stratum XII (Figure 16)

Field XIII maintained the same general architectural layout as in Stratum XIII,

with a main north-south Terrace Wall 3309-3606-3663 dividing the field into two sectors.

Within these sectors, there was a less complex arrangement of rooms with the areas

opening up into larger units. In the eastern sector of the field, the northernmost room

(Room F) and silo was reused in Stratum XII. Room F had a beaten earth floor (Locus

3726) which was contemporaneous with the raising of the lip on Silo 3734. Stratum XI

surface (Locus 3716) sealed the silo and its contents.

106

The complex arrangement of rooms in Stratum XIII was now simplified and

consisted of two rooms (Rooms G and H) in the eastern sector of the field. In the south,

the series of Stratum XIII rooms (Rooms K, L and M) was consolidated into one room in

Stratum XII (Room H). The two rooms above the sub-floor chamber (Rooms H and J)

now became Room G in Stratum XII. The flooring of Room G sloped southwards

perhaps due to the settling of the debris within the sub-floor chamber (Loci 3733 and

3736). The entryway into the eastern sector was moved along the main terrace wall with

an opening was created Wall 3309.

Room H in the southern end of the eastern sector had a beaten earth floor (Locus

3333), which lay atop earlier Stratum XIII walls (Wall 3338 and Wall 3311). The joint

Expedition observed 0.20 meters of destruction debris laying on top of the floor in Room

H, but concluded that the debris did not signal a violent end but rather an abandonment

and accumulation of erosion debris (Campbell 2002: 212).

In the western sector of Field XIII, Building A was assumed to have been in use

although no surfaces were discerned due to a large Iron Age pit. Although Yard B

continued in use in Stratum XII, access to the yard is from the south complex of rooms. A

direct connection with the eastern sector was blocked giving the impression that the

complex of rooms in the eastern and western sectors now represented two distinct

housing units. The surface in Yard B (Locus 3518) was characterized by leveling and

dusting of crushed limestone. A bichrome sherd was recovered from surface Locus 3518

(Plate 110:7).

In the southern part of the western sector, the arrangement of rooms more or less

continued in arrangement as in Stratum XIII, with the exception that cross-wall (Wall

107

3124) was abandoned resulting in the expansion of Room D. Now only three rooms

(Rooms C, D and E) comprised a series of open areas or workshops. In Room C, a

buildup of plaster-like floorings (Locus 3517) connected Wall 3457 and Wall 3123 which

defined the room. Curiously, a bichrome painted sherd (Plate 110:3) and a White Slip II

sherd (Plate 107:5) decorated in the hooked chain motif, were recovered from Locus

3517. The hooked chain style was considered to be a deterioration of the White Slip II

framed lozenge style (Popham 1970:454). In Room D, the surfaces sloped southward

with a series of surfaces discerned in the north and south of the long narrow room. The

floor in the south of Room D (Locus 3105) consisted of organic material and light gray

ash, while in the north the floor was composed of crushed limestone (Locus 3519). The

buildup of surfaces in Room D appeared similar to the floorings in Yard B and Room C.

The multi-layering characteristics of the floorings in the western sector led the Joint

Expedition to conclude a longer passage of time had elapsed in Stratum XII (Campbell

2002: 213).

Summary Observations

The settlement and stratigraphic history of Shechem has attracted explorers and

ancient historians over the centuries. In the 19th century, renewed interest in the region

led scholars to investigate the archaeology and natural history of sites that were deemed

theologically significant (Conder and Kitchen 1998; Robinson 1841). Numerous

references in the Hebrew Bible, relate the significance of Shechem to the early Patriarchs

and kings of Israel. Modern archaeological surveys in the Shechem region revealed a

network of strategically placed sites during the Late Bronze period (Campbell 1991).

108

Major archaeological excavations, carried out by the Joint Expedition in the 1960’s and

1970’s, uncovered occupation spanning the Chalcolithic to Hellenistic periods, with well-

stratified Late Bronze Age occupational remains (Campbell 2002). Surveys and

excavations provide a more complete picture of daily life at Shechem and its relationship

with surrounding sites in the Shechem Valley.

Excavations in Field XIII revealed continuity in architecture in Strata XIV to XII.

The field was divided into a western and eastern sector of rooms and open areas by a

main north-south running terrace wall. Although an occupational gap was posited for the

Late Bronze IA, a brick kiln (3396) structure built atop the Middle Bronze IIC debris and

an oven against the top of the strata XV wall (Wall 03271) in the eastern sector may

represent the fragmentary architectural features of this “elusive” Late Bronze IA.

Interestingly, this period is well-attested in Tomb C on the slope of Mount Ebal

(Campbell 2002:185; Clamer 1977; 1981). In the western sector of Field XIII, the

arrangement of rooms remained fairly consistent throughout all three Late Bronze Age

strata, with Open Area B in the north and Area C to the south. In Stratum XIII, Area C

was sub-divided into a complex of rooms with the addition of cross-walls. In the eastern

sector of Field XIII, a subterranean structure, dated to the Late Bronze IIA, revealed a

midden containing restorable vessels. While the overall layout is preserved in Stratum

XII, the configuration of rooms became less complex and more fragmentary.

The end of Stratum XIV at Shechem appeared not to be violent or caused by a

conflagration, although 0.20 meters to 0.40 meters of bricky debris covered the LB IB

surfaces. In contrast, Stratum XIII ended in a violent destruction, which appeared more

pronounced over the rooms to the east of the main terrace wall. The evidence for this

109

destruction includes, 1) destruction debris over one of the subterranean chamber walls, 2)

plaster-faced bricks and a meter-long plaster slab of flooring amongst the debris in Room

K to the south of the subterranean chamber and 3) almost 0.30 meters of debris over the

floor of Room L in which a meter-wide plaster slab (Locus 3343) was embedded at an

angle. In Stratum XII, the end of the Late Bronze IIB was more prolonged and less

violent evidenced by a build-up of surfaces in Yard B and Room C to the west and Room

D to the east.

110

Chapter 5

The Late Bronze Ceramic Typology

This chapter presents the typology of ceramics from strata XIV, XIII and XII

excavated in Field XIII at Shechem (Tell Balâtah). The corpus was excavated during the

1968 season by the Drew-McCormick Archaeological Expedition under the directorship

of G. Ernest Wright.121 The assemblage represents vessels from well-stratified loci that

reflect the typical Levantine and imported forms found at other Late Bronze Age sites.

The 3200 sherds analyzed for this study included diagnostic rims, bases, painted body

sherds, imported wares and complete vessels. The complete vessels derive from a sub-

floor chamber that is dated to Stratum XIII and represents vessels deposited

contemporaneously, likely towards the end of the Late Bronze IIA. The whole and nearly

complete vessels constitute a control group to compare ceramic forms excavated

elsewhere in Field XIII.122 Thus, the ceramic assemblage provides a unique opportunity

to illustrate ceramic development at a well-stratified site in the Hill Country during the

Late Bronze Period.

Structure of the Ceramic Typology

The pottery typology for the Late Bronze Age ceramics from Field XIII is

arranged according to vessel class, type and sub-type with discussion of vessel metrics,

121 Publications by the Joint Expedition include Campbell (text), G.R.H. Wright (architectural plans and sections) (2002); Campbell (1991); Cole (1984). 122 A major challenge for any classification system is assigning small rim fragments confidently to a vessel class. For example, some of the smaller fragments of Late Bronze Age bowl rims were difficult to assign to the carinated class. This issue has been noted by Cole (1984:8) and more recently by Finkelstein (2006:351).

111

123surface treatments and macroscopic analysis. The ceramics are presented

stratigraphically (strata XIV, XIII and XII), proceeding from open to closed forms and

arranged by the following functional classes: Bowls – simple, carinated and deep,

Cooking Pots, Kraters, Storage vessels, which include jars and pithoi, Biconical vessels,

Jugs, Juglets, Miscellaneous vessels, including cups, chalices/goblets, flasks (Chart 1)

and non-Levantine wares, which include Cypriot, Aegean and Egyptian wares (Chart 2).

The vessel classes are presented according to a rim typology along with chronological

parallels and proportional representations of how each type progressed throughout the

three strata.

Since this material was analyzed in the field more than 25 years ago and mends

noted there, the counts of sherds in this study reflects after mend totals which produces

proportional values nearer to the maximum number of vessels. While approaches to the

quantification of sherds varies, a drawback to recording rim sherds as unique vessels,

rather than calculating EVE’s or estimated vessel equivalents is that the former approach

will overestimate the number of vessels present (Rice 1987: 290). An approach adopted

at Tel Beth-Shean involved recoding the number of vessels by grouping rims belonging

to a vessel type on a diameter chart that was divided into eighths (Mazar and Mullins

2007:392). While the minimum number of vessels was recorded, this method tends to

under represent the number of vessels at a site (Rice 1987:292).

The Late Bronze Age assemblage from Field XIII may be divided into four

primary cultural elements: Levantine (95.5%), Cypriot (4.2%), Aegean (0.12%) and

Egyptian or Egyptian-style (0.12%). The primary goal of this typology is to present the

123 Slips and washes are found on many of the simple and carinated bowls. Painted decoration is rare on the diagnostic rims, although numerous body sherds of storage and biconical jars contain fragmentary traces of monochrome and bichrome decorated bands and patterns.

112

ceramics from the well-stratified Field XIII and situate this Central Hill Country

assemblage within the broader regional context arranged in the following regions: Central

Hill country, Jezreel Valley, Shephelah, Coastal Region and Jordan Valley.

124 Fabric Groups

Twenty-four fabric groups were discerned in Field XIII at Shechem, four of

which include imported wares such as, Base Ring I and II (FG21), White Slip I and II

(FG 22), Red-on-Black (FG 23) and Mycenaean/Aegean Ware (FG 24) (Table 15).

Twenty local macro fabrics groups were identified at Shechem in Field XIII (Table14).

These macro fabric groups were identified using a 10x hand lens and contain many

similarities at the macroscopic level. As a result, the macro fabrics were grouped

generally into the Limestone Group, Lithic Group, Calcite Group, Quartz Group and an

Iron-rich Group.125 The main criteria included the identification of the mineral inclusion

or “type” where possible, inclusion frequency, size (mm),126 degree of roundness and

sorting. A secondary consideration was given to the Munsell color of the sherds including

interior, interior range, core, exterior range and exterior color.

Inclusion Frequency(%) Size(mm) Roundness Sphericity Sorting Calcite <5 <0.5 Very Angular High Very Poor Flint 5 0.5-1.0 Angular Low Poor Grog 10 0.5-2.0 Sub-Angular Fair Limestone 20 Sub-Rounded Good Organic Rounded Shell Quartz

124 Table 13 provides a detailed description of the macroscopic Fabric Groups (FG) observed in Field XIII. 125 The term “fabric group” is used because it reflects better the range of variation among the sherds comprising the group and does not suggest that all sherds are identical (Whitbread 1995:372). 126 Grain size follows the Wentworth Grade Scale (Wentworth 1922).

113

As mentioned above, the predominant macroscopic Fabric Group in Field XIII is

the Limestone Group, which was characterized by varying mineral percentages and sizes

of mainly limestone, with lesser frequencies of iron oxides, lithics (opaque gray/black

inclusions) or organic matter in the form of voids. Macro fabric groups (FG) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

and 13) belong to the Limestone Group. This macro group corresponds well with the

Fossiliferous-Limestone (F-L) and the Fossiliferous-Limestone with dolomite (F-L/1)

petrographic groups. The Calcite Group, used primarily in cooking pots and holemouth

vessels includes macro fabrics (FG) 5, 6 and 15. The Lithic Group, characterized by gray

or black rock inclusions includes groups 9, 10, 12 and 14, while the Quartz Group,

comprised of quartz and either voids, lithics or iron oxides and lithics includes macro

fabric groups (FG) 8, 11, 16, 19 and 20. Two additional macro fabric groups, Group 17

and Fabric Group 18 are characterized as Iron-rich with voids and were not submitted for

petrographic thin-sectioning.

The fabrics in Field XIII were characterized as generally coarse (0.5-1.0mm)

poor to fairly-well-sorted fabrics with mineral abundance falling between 5-10%.

Although twenty Fabric Groups were discerned for the local Canaanite assemblage, the

Limestone Group dominated the assemblage in all the three Late Bronze Age strata.

Table 14 shows that macro Fabrics Groups 2 and 3 appear consistently as the most

frequently occurring fabrics across all vessel categories, except cooking wares. For

example, Fabric Group 3 comprises 33 percent of the assemblage in Stratum XIV, falling

slightly to 28 percent in Stratum XIII and 26 percent in Stratum XII.

Cooking vessels in Field XIII were constructed from two distinct macro fabrics,

Fabric Groups 5 and 6, which were characterized by angular calcite inclusions. Fabric

114

Group 5 contained 5-10 % coarser calcite and limestone inclusions that were sub-rounded

to angular in shape, while Fabric Group 6 contained 5-20% calcite, limestone and lithic

inclusions that were sub-rounded to angular in shape. The calcite inclusions in Fabric

Group 6 were more abundant and varied in size perhaps indicating that less attention was

paid to the crushing and mixing of the clays by the potter in the initial stages of

production. While Fabric Group 5 was used mostly in Stratum XIV, the coarser Fabric

Group 6 becomes the more popular fabric for cooking vessels in Strata XIII and XII.

Simple bowls and cooking pot classes were selected for petrographic analysis in

the most frequently occurring fabric groups in order to investigate stratigraphic continuity

and to determine whether the macro fabrics identified by the analyst accurately reflect the

petrographic groupings. This determination was considered critical as petrographic

analyses at other sites tended to reduce the number of macroscopic groups. For example,

at Tel Batash fifteen macro fabric groups were identified based on diverse sherd sections,

but were reduced to four petrographic groups. This was especially noted for sherds that

were constructed from marl from the same Taqiye Formation (Cohen-Weinberger 2006:

22).127

Surface Treatments

Exterior slips and burnishing are not common treatments in Stratum XIV (Charts

3 and 4). In the Late Bronze IB, 17 percent of vessels, mostly simple bowls are slipped

with either brown, red or pink slips, while 6 percent display horizontal exterior

burnishing. In the Late Bronze IIA, the popularity of slips almost doubles with 35 percent

127 Cohen-Weinberger (2006) notes that the location in which clay was quarried within a formation is relevant as clay from the surface of a formation contains more aeolian sediments such as windblown quartz sand or river-borne sand, while clay quarried deeper in the formation can have larger inclusions like terra rossa mudballs.

115

of vessels having brown, red, pink or white slips. The number of vessels in Stratum XIII

with exterior burnishing also doubles to 12 percent. There is only a slight decrease in

slips in Stratum XII with 33 percent of vessels displaying brown, red, pink and white

slips. Exterior burnishing rises slightly to 13 percent in the Late Bronze IIB.

While slips can be difficult to detect, storage jars throughout all Late Bronze age

strata display “self-slips.” The continuity in exterior slips and burnishing between

Stratum XIII and XII is significant, especially because the Late Bronze IIB is usually

considered to signal the deterioration in ceramic technology and material culture. At

Shechem, this appears not to have been the case as the ceramic traditions of the Late

Bronze IIA continued uninterrupted into the Late Bronze IIB.

The following decorative conventions apply to the Late Bronze Age corpus: only

red slip is illustrated and shown as angled lines, bichrome decoration is illustrated as a

solid line for gray or black paint and a stippling effect for the red, reddish brown or pink

paint. All other slips such as pink, gray, pale brown and white are not visually indicated

but are noted in the descriptive tables accompanying the plates. Self slips are noted in the

descriptive tables as well when observed.

128 Shechem Typological System

The typological system for the ceramic corpus from Strata XIV to XII in Field

XIII at Shechem differs from that used in the analysis of ceramics from the Middle

Bronze IIB in Field VI (Cole 1984:9). Cole’s typology employed a common typological

128 The typological coding system in Field XIII was devised by Emily Rachman, a former University of Toronto graduate student and adapted from the typological system developed at Sarepta (Anderson 1988) and in the archaeological manuals by Joukowsky (1980) and Rice (1987). When the author was asked to complete the project in 1999, this typological system was maintained.

116

scheme known as the type-series approach, whereby an assemblage is divided into broad

functional classes, sub-divided into groups based on attributes and individual types

numbered within a group sequentially (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993: 78). The

typological coding system of the Late Bronze ceramics in Field XIII uses an alphabetical

rather than a numerical sequence to describe distinct typological attributes. While an

assumed benefit of this approach provides the analyst with an easy visual representation

of the vessel rim and base attributes, the description of types using an alphabetical rather

than a variation of the type-series approach, deviates from the familiar presentation of

vessel types in the Late Bronze Age. As a result, brief verbal descriptions accompany the

presentation of the typology so that the vessels are easily compared with other Late

Bronze Age assemblages in the region.

The various segments of a vessel were typed according to the attribute choices for

the rim, neck, carination, handle and base as outlined below:

Rim Typology

Rim: stance Thickening Profile Lip a)Upright a)Simple a)Simple a)Rounded b)Direct b)Symmetrical b)Rounded b)Flattened c)Outcurved c)Internal c)Oval c)Pointed d)Everted d)External d)Rectangular d)Beveled-in e)Out-folded e)Triangular e)Beveled-out f)Iincurved f)T-shaped f)Depressed g)Iinverted g)P-shaped h)In-folded h)Pendant-shaped j)Compound k)Flanged

In order to illustrate how the typological system works, a bowl excavated in

surface Locus 3538 in Yard B of Area 3 and dated to Stratum XIV (Plate 4:2) would be

given the typological designation: Bbfa. Using the rim typology outlined above, the

117

initial letter b refers to the direct rim stance of the vessel, the second letter b refers to the

symmetrical thickening of the rim, the letter f refers to the rim profile which is t-shaped,

while the final letter a suggests that the lip of the vessel is rounded. Continuing with the

typology, the attribute choices for the neck, handle and base are outlined below:

Neck Shape & Carination Typology

Neck Shape Neck Height Carination a)Upright a)Low a)None b)Insloping b)Medium b)Simple Curve c)Outsloping c)High c)Tight Curve d)Bulbous d)Sharp e)Concave e)Very Sharp f)Complex Handle Typology

Type Placement Position Section a)Loop a)Rim to Rim a)Vertical a)Round b)Lug b)Rim to Neck b)Horizontal b)Oval c)Ledge c)Rim to Shoulder c)Mixed c)Flat d)Bar d)Rim to Body d)Double Strand e)Basket e)Neck to Neck e)Triple Strand f)Wishbone f)Neck to Shoulder f)Irregular g)Neck to Body h)Shoulder to Shoulder i)Shoulder to Body j)Body to Body Base Typology Type a) Pointed, b) Round, c) Flat, d) Knobbed, e) Stump, f) Disk (Flat), g) Disk (Concave), h) Ring, (Low), j) Ring (High), k) Pedestal (Simple), m) Pedestal (Flared), n) Footed and p) Loop

This coding system should provide a visual representation of the vessel as well as

the degree of completeness, signified by the length of the alphabetical code. A 12-letter

code signals that a vessel is completely preserved as illustrated by the krater on Plate

18:4.

118

The presentation of vessels in Field XIII proceeds stratigraphically with Stratum

XIV (LBIB) vessels presented in Plates 1 to 32; followed by Stratum XIII (LBIIA)

vessels on Plates 33 to 68, and Stratum XII (LBIIB) on Plates 69 to 110.

Bowls

Simple Bowls

Rounded Rim Bowls (Baaa Type) This bowl type is defined by its upright rim stance, rounded rim profile and

rounded lip. It also occurs with a pointed lip (Baac) (Plate 3:2), a slightly beveled-in lip

(Baad) (Plate 36:1-3, 5-6) and a beveled-out lip profile (Baae) (Plates 3:3-10; 4:1; 36:7-

9). Although the ceramic corpus contains many small rim diagnostics, there are enough

complete profiles to conclude that this rim type occurs with gently rounded (Plate 1:13-

14; Basement Plates 13-14; 16:11-12; 22:10 and 13) or straight walls (Plate 2:8-9;

Basement Plates 22:12; 24-25), and with a variety of base types, including concave disk,

disk and low and high ring bases (Plate 1:14; Basement Plates 16:11-12; 25:12-13).

In Stratum XIV (Plates 1 to 2), the Baaa bowl is characterized by a rim diameter

between 17 cm to 26 cm with internal and external pink, light gray, very pale brown self-

slips and a red slip. Four smaller or miniature type bowls with the simple rounded rim

have diameters of 9 cm to 13 cm (Plate 2:12-15). Two bowls with rim diameters of 30 cm

and 35 cm likely represent the wider and shallower platter bowls with pedestal bases that

reflect Middle Bronze age types (Plate 2:6-7). The simple rounded bowls with a beveled-

out lip profile (Baae) display burnishing with reddish-yellow and light red slips and a

brown self slip. Bowls are preserved with a concave disk base, closely resembling the

119

numerous examples at Shiloh recovered from Debris 407 in Area D (Finkelstein et al.

1993). In Stratum XIV, the Baaa and Baae bowls appear in a variety of fabrics including

the Limestone (FG 2, 3, 4 and 13), Calcite (FG 5), Quartz (FG 8 and 19) and Lithic (FG

9, 10 and 14) Groups

In Stratum XIII (Plates 33-35), the Baaa type bowl appears with white, red and

light gray slips and reddish brown painted bands primarily with a diameter range of 19

cm to 26 cm. Several smaller or miniature bowls have diameters from 15 cm to 17 cm,

while shallower platter bowls are 28 cm to 30 cm wide. Simple bowls with flattened

(Baab), beveled-in (Baad) and beveled-out (Baae) lips have a diameter range of 20 cm to

25 cm with two bowls having a wider diameter of 29 cm and 30 cm. One vessel has

reddish brown painted bands on a pink slip framing a wavy line on the interior of the rim

(Plate 36:10). A similar bowl with a red slip is found in Stratum R-1B at Tel Beth Shean,

dated to the Late Bronze 1B (Mullins 2007). A second bowl has exterior bichrome gray

and light reddish brown bands (Plate 36:11), which is similar to bowls at Lachish

recovered in Late Bronze IIA (Fig. 20.6:1, Level P-2) and Late Bronze IIB contexts (Fig.

20.11:1, Level P-1). The third example displays light red and reddish gray bands on the

interior of the body (plate 36:12).

While the concave disk base and disk base (Plates 33:11; 34:11) continue in

Stratum XIII, the high ring base (Plate 33:12) and pedestal base (Plate 34:10) now

appear. Straight walled bowls with plain rims continue as well, albeit in less frequent

quantities (Plate 35:9-11). The Baaa bowls of this stratum occur in the Limestone (FG 1,

2, 3 and 7), Lithic (FG 10) and Quartz (FG 16 and 19) Groups, as well as an Iron-rich

fabric (FG 18).

120

In Stratum XII (Plates 69-73:1-6, 8; 78:1 and 11; 79:3-5), the Baaa bowl type

primarily appears with two diameter ranges; 17 cm to 20 cm and 21 cm to 25 cm. Smaller

or miniature bowls with diameters of 11 cm to 16 cm and platter bowls with wider

diameters of 29 cm and 30 cm continue as in previous strata. Surface treatments include

pale red, dark gray and weak red slips with horizontal burnishing. Baaa sub-types

continue with Baae (Plate 73:6; 79:5). Baab (Plate 70:14; 79:4 and 8), Baac (Plate 73:4)

and Baad type bowls (Plate 73:1-3, 5; 78:1), as do straight-sided bowls with simple

rounded rims (Plate 72:9-11). Bowls in this stratum also show an exterior groove just

below the rim (Plate 78:2-6, 9-10, 11). The Baaa bowl and sub-types appear in a variety

of fabrics; Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 13), Lithic (FG 9, 10 and 14), Quartz (FG 8)

and Calcite (FG 5 and 6) Groups, and in the Iron-rich fabric (FG 17).

The Baaa bowl quickly becomes the predominant type in the Late Bronze II,

rising from 37 percent in Stratum XIV to 60 percent in Stratum XIII and 62 percent in

Stratum XII (Chart 5 and 13). While the simple rim bowl appears in MBIIB levels (Cole

1984, Type BP.11, Plate1: a-d) and MBIIC levels (Seger 1965, Type BP.11, Plate 1: e-f)

at Shechem, this type becomes the most popular type in Field XIII in the Late Bronze

Age, a trend observed at Yokne`am (Ben-Tor, Ben-Ami and Livneh 2005: 172) and Tel

Beth-Shean (Mazar and Mullins 2007: 406, Table 5.5).

Parallels

Hill Country Sites: Shiloh, Debris 407 in Area D, Fig. 6.30: 1, 7, 10 (Finkelstein 1993); Bethel, Phase 2, Pl. 53:9, 13-14 (Kelso 1968); Dominus Flevit, Fig. 18:4-6 [straight sided type] (Saller 1964); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig.4.16:1-2 (Steiner 2001); Site 65:17-19/29/1 (Bir ej-Jadu’), Fig. 126:5; Site 158:18-19/30/1 (el-Muntar A), Fig. 288:4; Site 204: 16-18/99/1 (Ras el-`Ain), Fig. 358:8 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 16-14/17/01 (Kh. Ras el-Wadi-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:98:1; Site 17-17/52/01 (Sherd Scatter –survey dated to MB), [Baad type], Fig. 8:273:2 (Finkelstein et al. 1997);

121

Tell el-Far`ah (N), Periode I, Fig. 13:8, 14; Tombe 6, Fig. 2:14 & 16 (straight-sided bowl) (de Vaux 1951); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 4, Fig. 7:1 9 (de Vaux 1949). Jezreel Valley: Tell Dothan Area A/D, MBIIB-LBI, Fig.7.12:3 (Master 2005); Megiddo Tomb 855, Pl. 43:18 (LBI); Tomb1100A, (LBI ), Pl. 45:5-6 (Guy 1938); Megiddo Stratum VIII, Pl. 61:13-15, Stratum VIIA, Pl. 69:4) (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig.9.10:13 & 17; LB Gate floor, Fig. 10.2:1-3,5, 10 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo F-10 (LBIA), Fig. 12.1:3-4;12.2:3-4, 9 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Level N-4 (Megiddo IV, fig. 12.5:1); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB (LBI), Fig. 101:2, 6-7; Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 112: 2; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 130:2 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level LBI Phase (Area P), Fig. 18.4.1, 3; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.3:2-3; Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig.19.2:2; 19.3:2; 19.6:7; 19.1:1 (Baae bowl); Fig. 19.5:1 (straight-sided bowl); Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.11:9-13 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.9:1; Stratum IX (LBIB), Pl.16:1-2, 12; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 21:4; 27:1; 37:1-3; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 38:2-3 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.30:27, 29; Tomb 1, Fig. 2.67:15-16 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 9A-B, Pl. 9:19; Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 11:20 (Dever 1986); Gezer (Weill’s Tombs), Pl.1:2 (Maeir 2004); Lachish Fosse Temple II-III, PL. XXXVII:19 (Tufnell et al. 1940); Qubeibeh burial cave, Fig. 7:7 (Ben-Arieh et al. 1993). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-2 (LB-1A), Pl. 45:7; Pl. 57:16-17 (with pedestal base) (Mullins 2007); Kataret es-Samra Tomb, Fig. 8:6-8 (Leonard 1979); Pella Tomb 20, Pl. 113:4; 115:7-8, 11; Phase IV, Area IIIC (LBIIB), Pl. 119:5, 10 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Pella Phase VA (Area IIIC), Pl. 44:2 (McNicoll 1992); Pella, Trench XXXIIF (LBA), Fig. 22:2-3 (Bourke et al., 1998); Pella, Area IIN/S (Phase V), Fig. 17:7 (Bourke et al. 1994); Tell Deir `Alla Phase A, Fig. 7-1:6-9; Phase B, Fig. 7-5:9-10; Phase D, Fig. 7-10:21 (Franken 1992); Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 17:1 (McGovern 1986); Sahem Tomb Type 1A, Fig.5.1 (Fischer 1997). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum XI (LBI), Fig. 5:3-5; 11 (Baae type); Stratum X (LBIIA), Fig. 11, 6 (Stern 1984); Akko Tombs, Fig 8: 4-5 (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977). North: Hazor, Area L (LBI), Fig. III.15: 3, 5-6 (rounded); Fig. III.15: 15-16, 18 (straight-sided) (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997); Hazor, Area D, Pl. CXXV: 4-7 (LBII); Pl. CXXII: 1-3 (LBI)(red painted bands) (Yadin 1958). Simple Bowls with Bulbous Interior Thickening (Bcga Type) The Bcga bowl represents a continuation of the shallow platter bowls found in

Middle Bronze contexts throughout the Levant (Killebrew 1997:82), including the

122

Middle Bronze IIB (Cole 1984, Type Bp.51, Plate 51) and Middle Bronze IIC (Seger

1965, Type Bp. 25 and 31, Plates V and VI) at Shechem. It is characterized by an upright

rim stance and interior rounded or bulbous rim profile. Occasionally, some bowls show

evidence of scraping along the bottom of the interior bulbous, which creates a sharp

overhang (Plate 5:9; 7:6). The interior thickening appears to be formed by excess clay

that is folded over once the vessel was drawn up (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006:34). The

Bcga bowl type also displays a flattened lip (Bcgb) (Plate 8:6-8). This bowl type is found

in Late Bronze 1A (Stratum R-2) contexts at Tel Beth Shean, where rim edges appear to

have degenerated in comparison to their Middle Bronze counterparts (Mazar and Mullins

2007: 409). This bowl type decreases sharply from 37 percent after the Late Bronze IB,

where it accounts for only 19 percent in Stratum XIII and 23 percent in Stratum XII129

(Chart 5), a similar trend noted at Tel Beth-Shean (Mazar and Mullins 2007: Table 5.4,

Type BL6d).

In Stratum XIV (Plates 5-8), Bcga bowls fall into three diameter ranges; smaller

bowls ranging from 12 cm to 19 cm, average size bowls with diameters of 20 cm to 26

cm and finally, wider and shallower platter bowls with diameters of 28 cm to 35 cm. This

bowl type appears with a limited variety of surface treatments including, reddish-yellow

and pink slips and pinkish white self slips. Similar to the Baaa type, the Bcga bowls

appear in a variety of fabrics including the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13), Lithic (FG 9

and 10), Calcite (FG 5), Quartz (FG 19) and the iron-rich (FG 17 and 18) Groups.

The Bcga bowls in Stratum XIII (Plates 37-38) appear with two diameter ranges,

20 cm to 25 cm and 29 cm to 35 cm. One vessel has a small diameter of 10 cm, likely

129 A rise in the Bcga type in LBIIB reflects residual sherds that were excavated from loci disturbed by numerous pits which penetrated Stratum XII surfaces.

123

representing a goblet or cup. The Bcga type bowl appears in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4

and 7) and Lithic (FG 10) Groups. In Stratum XII (Plates 74-75), the Bcga type bowl

appears with two diameter ranges; 19 cm to 25 cm and 27 cm to 37 cm and with reddish

yellow, light red and light gray slips with horizontal burnishing.

As in Stratum XIV, the Bcga bowls in Stratum XII appear in the Limestone (FG

1, 2, 3, 7 and 13), Lithic (FG 10), Calcite (FG 6) and Quartz (FG 8) Groups. While this

bowl type continues in Stratum XII, it does not disappear completely as it does at Tel

Rehov (Mullins 2002:188). At Tel Batash, the bulbous rim bowl appears in Stratum IX,

dated to the Late Bronze IB and less frequently in subsequent strata, where the simple

rounded bowl dominates (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006:27).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Shiloh, Debris 407 in Area D, Fig. 6.31:26 (Finkelstein et al. 1993); Tell Dothan Area K1 (MBIIB-LBI), Fig.7.12:1(Master 2005); Bethel, Phase 1, Pl. 52:15, 20, 22 (Kelso 1968); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig. 4.16:31-32 (Steiner 2001); Site 57: 18-20/03/1 (M`rah el-Khararib), Fig. 114:2; Site 118:17-19/43/1 (Khirbet esh-Sheikh Hureish), Fig. 220:3; Site 190: 17-18/14/4 (`Ain Musa A), Fig. 339:1; Site 196:16-18/49/1 (Abu Mizr), Fig. 346:2; Site 265:18-18/17/1 (Jebel Thor), Fig. 441:3 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 16-15/68/01 (Sherd Scatter-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:141:2; Site 17-14/49/01 (Cemetery-survey dated to MB), Fig.8:207:2; Site 17-16/17/01 (Tell Abu Zarad), Fig. 8:240:23; Site 17-16/62/01 (Sherd Scatter-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:256:8; Site 18-16/55/01 (Cave-survey date to MB), Fig. 8:325:4 [Bcgd type] (Finkelstein et al. 1997); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Niveau 4, Fig. 8:2, 8; Tombe 6, Fig. 2:8 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo LB gate floor, Fig. 10.2:18 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo level F-10:12 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB, Fig. 100:3 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish (Area P), Level LBI Phase, Fig. 18.2:2; 18.4:5; Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.8:11; Level S-2, 19.11:3, 5-6; level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.9:3 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.9:10; Stratum IX (LBIB), Pl. 16:13 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 8/7, Pl. 13:18 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10084 (LBIA), Pl. 32:20 (Seger 1988); Aphek X12, Fig. 3:4 (Beck and Kochavi 1985).

124

Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-2 (LB1A), Pl. 45:12 (Mullins 2007); Pella Tomb 20, Pl.112:3; Phase A, Area IIIC (MB-LBI), Pl. 117:3 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Tell Deir `Alla Phase B, Fig. 7-7:12; Phase D, Fig. 7-10:24 (Franken 1992); Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 17:4, 6 (McGovern 1986). Bowls with Elongated Interior Thickening (Bcha Type)

The Bcha has an upright rim stance, internal thickening and a rim profile that is

less bulbous than the Bcga bowl and more pendant-shaped or elongated, yet still in the

tradition of the Middle Bronze IIC platter bowls. In Stratum XIV (Plates 9-10), the Bcha

bowl also occurs in three diameter ranges, 15 cm, 20 cm to 27 cm and 28 cm to 35 cm. It

appears with a light red slip and internal horizontal burnishing. The Bcha bowl type is

found primarily in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3 and 13) and Lithic (FG 9, 10 and 14)

Groups.

In Stratum XIII (Plates 39-40), the Bcha bowl appears with similar diameter

ranges as in Stratum XIV with the exception of two vessels that have wider diameters of

40 cm and 50 cm. Surface treatments include red, pink, light gray and white slips and

horizontal burnishing and in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3 and 4), Lithic (FG 9 and 10) and

Quartz (FG16) Groups.

In Stratum XII (Plates 76:2-8; 77, 79:1), the Bcha bowl type has two main

diameter ranges of 19 cm to 25 cm and 26 cm to 35 cm, with several smaller or miniature

bowls and wider platter bowls appearing as well. Surface treatments include light red,

very pale brown and pink slips. One Bcha bowl has a flat base and straight-sided walls. It

appears in the Limestone (2, 3 and 7), Lithic (FG 9 and 10) and Quartz (FG 8) Groups.

Parallels:

125

Central Hill Country: Shiloh, Debris 407 in Area D, Fig. 6.32:17, 18, 21 (Finkelstein et al. 1993); Tell Dothan Area A/D, (MBIIB-LBI), Fig.7.12:2 (Master 2005); Bethel, Phase 1, Pl. 52:8, 16 (Kelso 1968); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig. 4.16:33, 35 (Steiner 2001); Site 159:18-18/39/1 (el-Muntar B), Fig. 293:1 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 17-14/49/01 (Cemetery-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:207:1; Site 17-17/52/01, Fig. 8:273: 3-4; Site 18-17/33/02 (Khirbeh-survey date to MB), Fig. 8:338:1 (Finkelstein et al.1997). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level F-10, Fig. 12.2:1, 10 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB (LBI), Fig. 100:7; Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 111:8; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:6 (Ben-Tor 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level LBI, Fig. 18.3:1; Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.7:13; 19.11:3; Level P-2, Fig. 20.3:3; 20.4:14; 20.5:9; Level P-1, Fig.20.17:13 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl.1:13, 17; 9:7-8; Stratum IX (LBIB) Pl.16:8,10; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 27:3-4; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 38:6,10 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim Tomb 100, Fig. 2.28:4 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer Field I, Cave10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl. 32:15-16 (Seger 1988); Gezer (Weill’s Tombs), Pl. 1:9 (Maeir 2004); Lachish Fosse Temple II, Pl. XXXVIIIB: 43 (Tufnell et al. 1940); Aphek X12, Fig. 3:3 (Beck and Kochavi 1985). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-2 (LB1A), Pl. 39:7 (Mullins, 2007); Kataret es-Samra Tomb Fig. 9:14 (Leonard 1979); Pella Phase A, Area IIIC (MB-LBI), Pl. 117:2 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Pella Stratum 9 (Area VIII), Pl. 28:13 (McNicoll 1992); Tell Deir `Alla Phase B, Fig. 7-7:6, 15 (Franken 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.6:21-22, 28 (Herr et al. 1997); Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 21:6 (McGovern 1986). North: Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXV: 20 (Yadin 1958). Incurved Simple Bowls (Faaa, Faad, Fcga, Fdha and Fdja Types) These bowls are characterized by their incurved rim stance and a variety of rim

profiles, including a simple rounded (Faaa), p-shaped (Fcga) and beveled-in lip (Faad).

These types are not well-represented at Shechem. The incurved bowl is commonly found

in the transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron periods, but appears in Late Bronze IIB

contexts at Tel Batash (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl.58:3-5).

In Stratum XIV (Plate 11:1-2), the Faaa bowl type has a dark gray band along the

interior of the rim and is burnished on the inside and outside of the vessel, while a second

126

example is red slipped. Both Faaa bowls appear in Locus 3392 in RoomG and Locus

3592A. Two examples of the incurved bowl with a beveled-in rim (Faad) have diameters

of 25 cm and 15 cm and lack surface decoration. One of the Fcga bowls appears with a

handle attachment and a diameter of 12 cm (Plate 11:3). The incurved bowls appear in

the Limestone Group (FG 1, 2, 3 and 7), in a fill locus 3533 in Yard B and surface locus

3117 in Area C.

In Stratum XIII (Plate 40:5-6), two vessels with a beveled-out lip appear one

displaying red slip, and horizontal burnishing in the Limestone Group (FG3). In Stratum

XII (Plate 79:6) the incurved bowl appears with an exterior thickened rim forming a

compound profile (Fdja) in a fill locus 3333. It has a diameter of 24 cm and appears in

the Limestone Group (FG7).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Shiloh, Debris 623 in Area C (dated to Iron 1), Fig. 6.52:1-2 (Finkelstein et al. 1993); Bethel (Iron 1), Pl.60:1-2 (Kelso 1968); Site 57: 18-20/03/1 (M`Rah el-Khararib, Fig. 114:1 Zertal 2004).

Shephelah: Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.3:4 (Fcga), Fig. 19.5:3; Level VIIB, Fig. 19.22:1; Level P-1, Fig.20.15:14; 20.20:8 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum VIA (LBIIB-IRI), Pl. 58:3-5 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.30:28 (Ben-Arieh 2004). Jordan Valley: Beth Shean Stratum Q-3/Q-2, Pl. 2:1 (Mazar 2006); Kataret es-Samra Tomb, Fig. 9:12, 15 (Leonard 1979); Tell Deir `Alla Phase D, Fig. 7-10:7 (Franken 1992). Simple Bowl with T-shaped Rim (Bbfa Type) The Bbfa bowl type is not a common bowl rim at Shechem, where it appears in

low frequencies and reflects Middle Bronze IIB and MBIIC styles (Cole 1984, Bp.23,

127

Plate 3; Seger 1965: Bp. 23, Plate IV). It is characterized by a T-shaped rim profile and a

rounded lip and appears in the Limestone Group (FG 1 and 3). Two examples of the Bbfa

type appear in Stratum XIII (not included in plates), one of which displays a light red slip

applied to the interior and exterior of the vessel with horizontal burnish. In Stratum XII,

two Bbfa bowls appear with a flattened lip (Bbfb) with light gray slips (Plate 73:9-10).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Shiloh, Debris 623 in Area C (Dated to Iron 1), Fig. 6:52:3 (Finkelstein et al. 1993); Bethel, (Iron II), Pl. 63:4-5 (Kelso 1968); Site 65:17-19/29/1 (Bir ej-Jadu’), Fig. 126:4; Site 97:17-19/65/1 (Khirbet Kheibar), Fig. 181:5; Site 107:17-19/05/1 (Kheir’allah), Fig. 201:13 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 16-15/91/01 (Sherd Scatter-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:149:1 (Finkelstein et al. 1997). Jezreel Valley: Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB, Fig. 101:3 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.4:5; 19.5:4; 19.8:12; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.15:9; 20.16:1 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl. 9:17 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl. 32:14 (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1a (LBIIA), Pl. 76:3 (Mullins 2007); Pella Phase IV (LBIIB), Pl. 119:9 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Tell Deir `Alla Phase D, Fig. 7-10:17-18 (Franken 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.6:25 (Herr et al. 1997). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum XI (LBI), Fig. 5:6 (Stern 1984); Tel Michal, Fig. 5.5:4 (Negbi 1989). Decorated and Miscellaneous Bowls In Stratum XIII, two bowls appear with well-preserved painted decoration in the

Limestone Group (FG 3). One is a body sherd with bichrome decorated bands along the

low interior of the vessel (Plate 36:12), while the second example displays an exterior

groove below a slightly everted rim. This example displays a single interior reddish

brown band and two parallel exterior gray bands framed by reddish brown bands (Plate

36:11). This bowl type is reminiscent of Egyptian-style splayed bowls found at Beth

128

Shean, Tel Rehov and Tel Batash. Three bowls in the sub-floor chamber display exterior

thickened rims (not illustrated) with the rim pulled in and folded over to create a ledge.

The bowls appear in the Limestone (FG 2 and 3) and Lithic (FG 9) Groups.

In Stratum XII, a high ring base of a bowl with interior concentric dark reddish

brown bands appears with an interior ridge visible in profile (Plate 110:4). This ridge is

uniform around the interior of the base and represents wheel manufacture. A second

smaller fragment has two reddish brown parallel bands connected by a fragmentary wavy

band (Plate 110:8). These vessels appear in the Limestone Group (FG 2 and 3).

Carinated Bowls

Carinated bowls in strata XIV to XII occur in two main rim profiles, the Baaa and

Caaa types. Occasionally, assignment of rim diagnostics to the carinated bowl class

proved problematic as only a limited portion of the rim was preserved or the vessel was

broken just above the carination line. The vessels preserved in the sub-floor chamber

though were generally more complete and permitted a more accurate classification of the

rim fragments from stratigraphic contexts.

Carinated Bowl with Upright, Simple rim (Baaa Type) This carinated bowl type has an upright rim stance, rounded rim profile and lacks

a flare at the point of carination. The carination is situated mid-way and occasionally

lower on the vessel wall, and occurs with low ring and concave disk bases. When only

the upper half of the vessel is preserved, it is quite possible that the vessel may also

represent a chalice, such as the vessel illustrated in Plate 12:1, which has a good parallel

129

in Stratum IX at Megiddo (Loud 1948: Pl. 55:12, 15). In Stratum XIV at Shechem (Plate

12:1-3), the Baaa carinated bowl type shows a simple carination (Plate 12:3), a tight

carination (Plate 12:1) and a sharp carination (Plate 12:2). Many chalices of this period

also display a carination situated lower on the body, with upright and slightly out-curved

stances.130 Usually, the chalices are elaborately decorated with horizontal bands situated

below the rim and at the point of carination, but the example preserved in Stratum XIV

does not display any traces of decoration. The diameter of this bowl type ranges from 18

cm to 36 cm, with one example displaying surface treatment (Plate 12:2). In Stratum XIV

the Baaa carinated bowl type appears in the Limestone Group (FG 1).

In Stratum XIII, one vessel with an upright rim (Plate 41:1) appears with a

diameter of 18 cm in the Limestone Group (FG 7). The Baaa carinated type bowls in

Stratum XII appear with simple (Plate 80:1, 2 and 3) and sharply curved (Plate 80:5)

carinations, which are reminiscent of Middle Bronze Age types (Killebrew 1997:82).

They appear in the Limestone Group (FG 2, 3, 4 and 7). This bowl type occurs most

frequently in Stratum XIV at 23 percent, and declines substantially to 6 percent in

Stratum XIII, rising slightly again in Stratum XII to 14 percent (Chart 6).

Parallels Central Hill Country: Bethel, Phase 2, Pl.54:5 (Kelso 1968). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Stratum IX, Pl. 55:12, 15 (Loud 1948). Shephelah: Lachish level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.7:17; Level S-1 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.20:3; Level P-1, Fig. 20.11:26 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl.21:8; 27:12 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 1, Fig. 2.68:35 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Lachish Fosse Temple I, Pl. XLIIB:130 (Tufnell et al. 1940). North: Hazor, Area L (LBI), Fig. III.15:29 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997). 130 For a good parallel as a goblet see Lachish Fosse Temple I, Pl. XLVIIB: 223 (Tufnell et al.1940).

130

Flaring Rim Carinated Bowl (Caaa Type)

The Caaa carinated bowl has an out-curved rim stance, a simple rounded rim

profile and a carination that is situated at or above the mid-way point of the vessel wall.

In contrast to Middle Bronze Age types, those of the Late Bronze Age tend to be more

open with the flaring rim and a carination that is not as pronounced (Dever 1986:44).131

In Stratum XIV (Plates 12:4; 13:1-11; 14:1, 3, 9), the Caaa carinated type appears with a

simple (Plate 13:3) and sharp carination (Plate 13:4). Most of the Caaa carinated bowls

appear with two diameter ranges; smaller or miniature bowls with diameters of 10 cm to

15 cm and those with range of 18 cm to 20 cm. Two examples appear with much larger

diameters of 25 cm and 30 cm. A good parallel for the sharply carinated bowl can be

found in Tomb 6 at Tell el-Far`ah (N) (de Vaux 1951: Fig. 2:1). A bichrome decorated

carinated sherd has dusky red and reddish brown painted wavy lines framed by two

horizontal bands on the interior of the bowl. The Caaa carinated bowl appears in the

Limestone (FG 2, 3, 4) and Quartz Groups (FG 8 and 19).

In Stratum XIII (Plates 41:2-10, 42:1-10), numerous complete and nearly

complete Caaa carinated type bowls are preserved and appear with a variety of

carinations and with predominantly high ring bases. The carination types include simple

(Plate 41:2), tight (Plate 41:9) and sharp (Plate 41:4). In this stratum, the carination

appears slightly higher along the vessel wall (Plate 41:3, 7, 10), although there are still

examples where the carination appears mid-way (Plate 41:4, 9).The Caaa carinated type

bowls have a diameter ranging from 17 cm to 25 cm, with one bowl having a smaller

131 The extreme carination on the example shown on Plate 14:1 may be a bowl type reminiscent of transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron contexts, or an example of a sharply carinated chalice. The angle of the body below the carination suggests a shallow vessel.

131

diameter of 15 cm. Surface treatments include light reddish brown and light brown slips,

exterior burnishing and gray painted band (Plate 42:10). In Stratum XIII, the Caaa

carinated bowls occur in the Limestone (FG 1, 2 and 3), Quartz (FG 8 and 16) and Lithic

(FG 9 and 10) Groups.

In Stratum XII (Plates 80:4, 6-12, 81), the Caaa carinated type bowl occurs with a

simple (Plate 80:6) carination, a diameter range of 15 cm to 25 cm and with red and pink

slips with horizontal burnishing. In this stratum, the Caaa bowl appears with a greater

variety of lip profiles including a pointed lip (Plate 81:9-10, 12) and a beveled-out profile

(Plate 81:11, 14). The Caac type displays a red slip and horizontal burnishing and appears

in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13), the Lithic (FG 9 and 10) and Quartz (FG 8).

In Stratum XII, two Caaa carinated types appear with painted decoration

including, one with interior yellow slip and exterior weak red slip with weak red parallel

bands applied to the interior and exterior of the vessel (Plate 106:6). A second bowl

fragment has three exterior weak red parallel bands and a single interior weak red painted

band applied to a very pale brown slip (Plate 106:9). The carinated bowl with flaring rim

is the most frequently occurring type increasing from 59 percent in Stratum XIV to 82

percent in Stratum XIII, and decreasing to 78 percent in Stratum XII (Chart 6).

Parallels:

Central Hill Country: Stratum XIV: Tell Dothan Area D3 & D9 (LBI), Fig.7.15:6-7 (Master 2005); Bethel, Phase 2, Pl. 54:8;Pl. 52:9, 53:20 (Kelso 1968); Dominus Flevit, Fig. 10:8-9; 11:7-8; 12:7 (Saller 1964); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 6, Fig. 2:1, 5 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Stratum VIII, Pl. 61:7-8 (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-10, Fig. 12.2:11, 13-14 (Finkelstein et al. 2006). Shephelah: Lachish Level LBI Phase, Fig. 18.4:6, 8-9; Level S-3, Fig. 19.7:4-5;19.16:1; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.22:6 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum IX (LBIB), Pl.

132

17:6, 8-9; 20:12, 14; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 21:7; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl.1:9; 10:3, 6; 37:6-7 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.31: 47; Tomb 1, Fig. 2.68:30, 32 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 9A-B, Pl. 921; 10:20;11:9; Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 12:6 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl. 32:1; L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 7:26-27 (Seger 1988); Gezer (Weill’s Tomb Excavations), Pl. 3:9 (Maeir, 2004); Lachish Fosse Temple I, Pl. XLIIB:129 (Tufnell et.al. 1940). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-2 (LB1A), Pl. 43:14-15 (Mullins 2007); Kataret es-Samra Tomb, Fig. 9:8 (Leonard 1979); Tell Deir `Alla Phase A, Fig. 7-1:12-13; Phase B, Fig. 7-5:9-10 (Franken 1992); Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 18:2 (McGovern 1986); Pella, Areas IIN/S (Phase V), Fig. 17:3 (Bourke et al. 1994). North: Tel Dan, Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.54:5 (Biran and Ben-Dov 2002); Hazor, Area L (LBI), Fig. III.15:30-32 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997). Carinated Deep Bowls and Variants These carinated bowls display out-curved or everted rim stances, a larger

volumetric capacity and a more restricted opening or smaller rim diameters in Stratum

XIV (Plate 13:12-13 14:2, 4-5) and Stratum XIII (Plate 43:5-7). These deep bowls appear

in the Limestone (FG 1 and 3), Calcite (FG 5) and Quartz Groups (FG 8 and 19). The

deep bowls accounts for 5 percent of bowl types in Stratum XIV and declines to 2 percent

in Stratum XIII (Chart 6).

In Stratum XII (Plate 82: 4-8), deep bowls appear with an out-curved stances

(Caaa) and an upright and externally thickened rim (Bdga). They appear in the Limestone

(FG 2 and 3) and Calcite Groups (FG 5) with a wide rim diameter range of 20 cm to 30

cm. A miniature deep bowl is illustrated on Plate 82:8. A deep bowl variant with an out-

curved stance and p-shaped rim profile (the Cdga type) occurs with a simple carination in

Stratum XIV (Plate 14:1) and Stratum XIII (Plate 42:11) and with a sharper carination in

Stratum XII (Plate 81:13). In addition, a carinated bowl or possibly chalice appears with

an upright rim and internal p-shaped profile, the Bcga type (Plate 82:2).

133

Parallels

Hill Country: Site 222:16-18/97/3 (Khirbet Shreim), Fig. 381:4 [Ddaa type] (Zertal 2004). Shephelah: Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 11:15 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl. 32:5 (Seger 1988); Aphek X12, Fig. 3:1 [Daaa Bowl] (Beck and Kochavi 1985). Jordan Valley: Pella Tomb 20, Pl. 115:2 (McNicoll et al. 1982). North: [Ddaa type] Hazor, Area L (Str. XV/LBI), Fig. III.15:25 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997).

Cooking Pots

There are nine cooking pot types identified at Shechem, two of which appear

consistently throughout all Late Bronze age strata. Several of the types found at Shechem

reflect profiles well known throughout the Levant including, the everted and rounded rim

type (Ddaa) and the everted and triangular rim type (Ddea). Two cooking pot types

appear in greater frequencies in the Late Bronze IIB, reflecting its transitional Late

Bronze IIB/early Iron I provenience including the upright and triangular rim type (Bdea)

and compound type (Bdja).

The cooking pots display evidence of burning with residual soot evident on the

inner and outer portion of the rim, as well as the shoulder of the vessels. Although they

appear in the Calcite Group (FG 5 and 6), petrographic analysis reveals that these macro

fabric groups differ in the frequency of angular calcite temper and accessory heavy

minerals. The Late Bronze Age rounded bottom cooking pots appear to be mould-made

and coil built, while the upper half was constructed of coils added at the leather-hard

stage to increase the height of the vessel. The rims of the vessels at Lachish were shaped

by folding and pinching while the vessel was turned on a wheel (Clamer 2004: 1165).

134

Analysis of four additional cooking pots at Lachish revealed that the mould-made

lower bodies had traces of trimming and scraping, while the upper bodies and rims

displayed the characteristic rilling marks of wheel-thrown vessels (Magrill and Middleton

2004: 2527). This heterogeneity in manufacturing methods for a vessel class was also

observed on cooking wares at Beth Shean (James and McGovern 1993).

Everted and Rounded Rim Cooking Pots (Ddaa Type)

This type is defined by its everted rim stance and external rounded rim profile.

The form is well-known from Middle Bronze Age contexts in the Levant and continues in

Late Bronze Age strata at Shechem. In Stratum XIV (Plate 15:3-6), only four examples of

the Ddaa cooking pot appears with a wide diameter range of 23 cm to 40 cm in the

Calcite (FG 5 and 6) and Limestone (FG 4) Groups. All display evidence of burning on

the interior and exterior of the rim and body. The rounded rim examples were found in

fill and destruction loci (Plate 45:1-2) in Stratum XIII where they appear in the Calcite

(FG 6) and Quartz Groups (FG 19).

In Stratum XII, Ddaa type cooking pots were recovered in surface and fill loci

(Plate 85:1-4) in the Calcite Group (FG 5 and 6). Petrographic analysis of cooking pots in

the Levant have revealed the use of calcite, shell and quartz to increase the vessel’s

resistance to cracking as a result of repeated heating and cooling (McGovern 1993;

Killebrew 2001).132 The Ddaa type cooking pot occurs most frequently in Stratum XIV

132 Tite and Kilikoglou’s (2002:2) analysis reveals that platey minerals such as shell may lead to a greater increase in the crack propagation energy than angular inclusions such as calcite, indicating that calcite may be better suited in cooking vessels.

135

where it accounts for 18 percent, and declines to 3 in Strata XIII and XII, where its

presence reflects “relict” types (Chart 7).133

Parallels Central Hill Country: Dominus Flevit, Fig. 57:2 (Saller 1964); Site 34:17-20/64/1 (el-Qitneh), Fig. 77:12 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 18-17/02/01 (Kh. el-`Urma), Fig. 8:326:13 (Finkelstein et al. 1997). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level F-10b (LBIA), Fig. 12.1:9; Level N-2fill (MBIIC), Fig. 12.6:6 (Finkelstein et al. 2006). Shephelah: Lachish, Fosse Temple I, Pl. LVB: 358 (Tufnell et al. 1940). Jordan Valley: Pella Phase VA (Area IIIC), Pl. 45:7 (McNicoll 1992). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum XI, Fig. 7:9-10 (Stern 1984). North: Hazor, Area L (Str. XV/LBI), Fig. III.16:7 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997); Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXVII: 7 (Yadin 1958). Everted Triangular Rim Cooking Pots (Ddea Type) The Ddea cooking pot is one of the most widely occurring types in the Levant and

is ubiquitous in all Late Bronze age strata at Shechem. It has an everted rim stance and an

exterior triangular rim profile. In Strata XIV (Plates 15:7-9; 16:1-2, 4-7), the Ddea

cooking pot accounts for 55 percent of all types represented and displays a rim diameter

ranging from 19 cm to 28 cm with one example having a wider diameter of 40 cm. The

Ddea cooking pot appears in the Calcite (FG 5, 6 and 15) and Limestone Groups (FG 3

and 4).

In Stratum XIII (Plates 45:3-7; 46-47), the Ddea cooking has a variety of diameter

ranges including; 18 cm to 23 cm, 26 cm to 30 cm and 35 cm to 43 cm, while two vessels

133 I want to thank Professor Jack Holladay for discussing the residual nature of the Ddaa cooking pot type and the significance of the low frequencies in Late Bronze IIA and B strata at Shechem.

136

have smaller diameters of 14 cm and 15 cm. This type appears in the Calcite Group (FG

5, 6 and 15), Limestone (FG 3 and 13) and Quartz (FG 20) Groups.

The Ddea type appears in Stratum XII (Plates 85:5-7; 86-88; 89:1-5) with two

predominant diameter ranges; 20 cm to 25 cm and 26 cm to 40 cm, while three vessels

have smaller diameters. This type also appears with a pointed lip profile (Ddec).

Typically, the Ddea cooking pot appears in the Calcite (FG 5 and 6), Limestone (FG 1, 3,

7 and 13) and Quartz (FG 8) Groups.

This cooking pot type occurs generally accounts for 50 percent of all types in

strata XIV to XII, making the Ddea cooking pot the most popular type at Shechem during

the Late Bronze Age (Chart 7).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Bethel, (Phase unknown), Pl. 55:1 (Kelso 1968); Tell Dothan D7, LBI, Fig.7.15:2 (Master 2005); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig. 4.16:83 (Steiner 2001); Site 3:17-20/27/1 (el-Maqarraneh), Fig. 29:4; Site 77: 17-19/25/1, Fig. 146: 8; Site 158:18-19/30/1 (el-Muntar A), Fig. 288:7; Site 193:17-18/03/2 (Khirbet Qumy), Fig.342:4; Site 204:16-18/99/1 (Ras el-`Ain), Fig. 358:6 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 16-16/39/01 (Kh. et-Tell-survey date to MB), Fig. 8:163:1; Site 18-17/02/01 (Kh. el-`Urma), Fig. 8:326:16-17 (Finkelstein et al. 1997); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 11, Fig. 9:4 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo, Stratum VIII, Pl. 61:27 (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.11:14, 18-19; 9.14:13; LB gate floor, Fig. 10.3:1 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Level F-10 (LBIA), Fig.12.1:1-12; 12.3:7,9, 12; Level N-2fill (MBIIC), Fig. 12.6:5 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIA (LBI), Fig. 104:11-13; Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 108:10; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 14 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level S-2, Fig.19.11:12; 19.12:16 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 21:14; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl.2:3; 51:9 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.34:69; Tomb 803, Fig. 2.86:22 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 8/7, Pl. 11:21;13:10 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl. 31:28; L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 8:13-14 (Seger 1988); Aphek X12, Fig. 3:5 (Beck and Kochavi 1985).

137

Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1a (LBIIA), Pl. 76:10 (Mullins 2007); Pella Phase VB (Area IIIC), Pl. 34:21-22 (McNicoll 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7:14-16 (Herr et al. 1997). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum XI (LBI), Fig. 7:11 (Stern 1984); Tel Michal, Fig. 5.6:4-6 (Negbi 1989). North: Tel Dan, Locus 363 (west of Mycenaean Tomb), Fig. 2.29:9; Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.55:22 (Biran and Ben-Dov 2002); Hazor, Area L (Str. XV/LBI), Fig. III.16:13 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997); Hazor, Area D, Pl. CXXVII: 4 (Yadin 1958). Everted with Compound Profile (Ddja Type) The Ddja cooking pot type displays an everted rim stance and a compound

external rim profile. The elongation of the rim profile produced a shallow channel on the

exterior of the rim, which evolves into the exaggerated flange of the Early Iron I cooking

pots. The Ddja cooking pot type accounts for only 3 percent in Stratum XIV (Plate 16:3)

where a single example appears in the Calcite Group (FG 6) in a fill level in Area 3.

In Stratum XIII (Plates 48-49), the Ddja cooking pot type has diameter ranges of

20 cm to 26 cm and 30 cm to 36 cm, with two vessels displaying smaller diameters of 16

cm and 18 cm. One Ddja cooking pot has a gentle carination, while another has a very

sharp carination (Plate 48:1). The Ddja cooking pot accounts for 27 percent of cooking

pot types in this stratum and occurs in the Calcite (FG 5, 6 and 15), Limestone (FG 2 and

3) and the Quartz (FG 8) Groups.

In Stratum XII (Plates 90-91), the Ddja cooking pot type appears in the Calcite

(FG 5 and 6), Quartz (FG 8) and Lithic Groups (FG 9) with a diameter range of 20 cm to

36 cm. Three examples have an upright rim stance and compound rim profile, the Bdja

type (Plate 83:5-6, 10 and 12). Although the everted and compound rim cooking pot

occurs in a Late Bronze IA to Late Bronze IIA transitional layer in Gezer Cave 10 in

138

Field I, a similar vessel appears in a Late Bronze IIB context at Deir el-Balah (Killebrew,

Goldberg and Rosen 2006:Fig. 14:7).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Bethel, Phase 1, Pl.52:19 (Kelso 1968); Site 204:16-18/99/1 (Ras el-`Ain), Fig. 358:7; Site 272: 17-18/32/1 (el-`Aqqabah), Fig. 450:5 (Zertal 2004); Samaria Region, Site 18-17/02/01 (Kh. el-`Urma), Fig. 8:326:14 (Finkelstein et al. 1997) Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.11:11, 13, 15; LB gate floor, Fig. 10.3:4-5 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Level F-10, Fig. 12.3:8,10-11 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIA (LBI), Fig. 107:13; Stratum VI (LBIIA), 108:14; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:15 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level S-2, Fig. 19.11:11, Level S-1 (LBIIA), Fig.19.19:12; Level VIIA, Fig. 19.23:5; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.2:4 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl. 11:18; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 21:13; 27:15; 37:10; Stratum VI (LBIIB-IRI), Pl. 56:6 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.34:71 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer Field VI, Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 12:7 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 7:4 (Seger 1988); Lachish Fosse Temple II-III, Pl. LVIB: 367 (Tufnell et al. 1940). Jordan Valley: Pella Phase VA (Area IIIC), Pl. 45:4, 6 (McNicoll 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7:22 (Herr et al. 1997). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum X, Fig. 2:3 (Stern 1984). Everted and Pendant-Shaped Profile (Ddha Type) The Ddha cooking pot type is defined by an everted rim stance and pendant-

shaped external rim profile, which lacks the concavity or groove characteristic of the

Ddja type. The Ddha type is rare at Shechem and accounts for only 2 percent of cooking

pot types in Strata XIII and XII (Chart 7). In Stratum XIII (Plate 49:7), the Ddha cooking

pot appears with a gentle carination (Plate 49:7) in the Limestone Group (FG 2), while in

Stratum XII (Plate 89:6-7), it occurs with a gentle carination in the Calcite Group (FG 6).

139

Five examples of the Ddha cooking pot type appear in the sub-floor chamber (not

illustrated) with a diameter range of 20 cm to 28 cm, also in the Calcite (FG 5 and 6).

Parallels

Jezreel Valley: Tel Qashish Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:11 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003) Shephelah: Lachish Level 19.20:6; Level VIIA, Fig. 19.26:4 (Ussishkin 2004); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 8:15 (Seger 1988). Coastal Region: Tel Mevorakh Stratum X, Fig. 2:4 (Stern 1984). North: Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXVII: 8 (Yadin 1958). Cooking Pots with Upright and Out-curved Stances (Bdea and Cdea Types) These two cooking pot types have a triangular rim profile and are distinguished

from the Ddea type by the nature of their stance. The Bdea type cooking pot has an

upright stance, while the Cdea type is more out-curved than everted in stance. These two

types appear mainly in Strata XII (Plates 83:1-4, 7-9, 11; 84: 1, 3-7), where they

represent transitional forms before the appearance of the upright and flanged types of the

Early Iron 1 periods. The Bdea type also appears with a pointed (Bdec) lip (Plate 83:3-4)

in Stratum XII, while several examples of the out-curved, the Cdea type appears already

in Stratum XIII (Plate 44:4-7). The Bdea and Cdea cooking pot types occur in the Calcite

(FG 5, 6 and 13) and Limestone Groups (FG 2).

The out-curved Cdea cooking pot type are found at Megiddo in Late Bronze IA

contexts in Level F-10 (Finkelstein et al., 2006) and in Cave 10A at Gezer, which is dated

to the Late Bronze IA to late Bronze IIA (Seger 1988: Pl. 31:29). A close parallel for the

Bdea type at Shechem comes from a thirteenth century context at Deir el-Balah

(Killebrew, Goldberg and Rosen 2006, Fig.15.11).

140

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Bethel, Phase 2, Pl. 54:16 (Kelso 1968); Dominus Flevit, Fig. 57:1 (Saller, 1964); Jerusalem Square A/I (LBIIB/Early Iron), Fig.4.5:3-5, 7; Square A/I-III Terraces, Fig. 4.16:87-88 (Steiner 2001); Site 23:17-20/05/3 (Tell el-Muhaffar), Fig. 58:4; Site 34: 17-20/64/1 (el-Qitneh), Fig. 77:16; Site 76: 17-19/15/1 (Khirbet Bir el-Bushm), Fig. 143:8; Site 107:17-19/05/01 9Kheir’allah), Fig. 201:1; Site 178: 16-18/45/1 (Khirbet Qarqaf), Fig. 318:1; Site 193:17-18/03/2 (Khirbet Qumy), Fig.342:3 (Zertal, 2004); Samaria Region, Site 15-16/22/01 (Kh. Sarsara-survey dated to LB/IR I), Fig. 8:51:1; Site 17-15/12/01 (el-Muneitrah-survey dated to IA I), Fig. 8:219:7 (Finkelstein, et al. 1997). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.11:16-17; 9.14:10-11 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Level F-10, Fig. 12.3:5 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIA, Fig. 104:9; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:12-13, 16 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003); Pella, Tomb 106, Fig. 20:3 (Bourke et al. 1994). Shephelah: Lachish Level S-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.11:12; 19.16:8; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.12:5 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.11:11; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 40:3, 11 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 12:8 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10083 (LBIA), Pl.31:29 (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean Stratum Q-3 (LBIIB), Pl. 1:6 (Mazar 2006); Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-2 (LB1A), Pl. 46:8 (Mullins 2007); Pella Phase IV, Area IIIC (LBIIB), Pl. 119:15-16 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Pella Area VIII, Stratum 9, Pl. 28:4 (McNicoll 1992); Pella Phase VA (Area IIIC), Pl. 45:3,5 (McNicoll 1992); Tell Deir `Alla Phase B, Fig. 7-7: 30-31 (Franken 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7: 18 (Herr et al. 1997); Beq`ah Valley, Cave B3, Fig. 42:13 (McGovern 1986). North: Tel Dan, Locus 363 (West of Mycenaean Tomb), Fig. 2.31:8; Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.55:18-20 (Biran and Ben-Dov 2002); Hazor, Area E (LBII), Pl. CXXXIII: 17 (Yadin 1958).

Cooking Pot Variants

These cooking pots occur in low frequencies and with various rim profiles. The

Bdka cooking pot type is defined by its upright rim stance and flanged rim profile, which

is characteristic of the later Iron I forms. It appears at Shechem in Stratum XIV fill and

surface loci (Plate 15:1-2) in the Calcite Group (FG 5). One example of a Bdfa cooking

141

pot (Plate 16:8) has an upright stance and t-shaped rim profile, with a smaller rim

diameter of 15 cm, in the Calcite Group (FG 6).

In Stratum XIII (Plate 44:1-3), two cooking pots appear with molded decoration

and one with a pendant-shaped rim (Bdha) profile. The cooking pots with molded

decoration appear in fill and destruction loci in the Calcite Group (FG 6) and represent

residual forms clearly reminiscent of the Middle Bronze molded types found at Shechem

in Field VI and at Tel Qashish (Cole 1984; Ben-Tor et al. 2003).

Parallels

Central Hill Country (Bdka Type): Bethel, (Phase uncertain), Pl.54:17 (Kelso 1968). Jezreel Valley (Molded type): Tel Qashish, Fig. 82:8 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003); Shechem, Field VI, Stratum, Pl. 23-24: a-b (Cole 1984).

Kraters

The krater types in Strata XIV to XII at Shechem appear with an upright, out-

curved and everted rim stance with a variety of rim profiles. The most common Late

Bronze Age types appear with an upright stance and hammer shaped or T-shape rim

profile, which reflect Middle Bronze IIC and Late Bronze I antecedents (Dever 1986:44).

While these types occur at Shechem, the everted triangular rim profile common for

cooking pots are also popular krater forms as well, an observation noted by Mullins for

Strata R-2 and R-1 at Tel Beth Shean (2007:416-417).

142

T-Shaped Rim Profile (Bbfa Type) The Bbfa krater is defined by its upright rim stance and T-shaped rim profile. In

Stratum XIV (Plate 17:7), it has a flattened lip (Bbfb) and appears in the Calcite Group

(FG 6). In Stratum XIII, two T-shaped krater rims appear, one with a handle attached

from the rim (Plate 50:2; 53:1) in the Limestone Group (FG 2 and 3).

In Stratum XII (Plate 93:1), this krater type has a flattened lip profile(Bbfb) and

appears with a pinkish white slip with red painted lines arranged in a crisscrossed pattern

in the Limestone Group (FG 3). The Bbfa krater type increases from 6 percent in Stratum

XIV to 14 percent in Stratum XII (Chart 8).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Dothan Tomb 1, Level 4 (LBIIA), Fig. 34:5 (Cooley and Pratico 1995). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Stratum VIIA, Pl. 69:16 (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.11:6 (Finkelstein et al. 2000). Shephelah: Lachish Level LBI Phase, Fig. 18.4:10; Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.6:11; Level S-2, Fig.19.16:4; Level VIIA, Fig. 19.28:3 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 1:20; 2:1-2; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl.39: 6, 8; Stratum VI (LBIIB-IRI), Pl. 55:14 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 9A-B, Pl. 9:18 (Dever 1986); Aphek X12, Fig. 3:6 (Beck and Kochavi 1985). Jordan Valley: Beth Shean Stratum Q-3/Q-2, Pl. 2:11 (Mazar 2006). Coastal Region: Ashdod Stratum XIV (LBIIB), Pl. 3.1:6 (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). North: Hazor, Area L (LBII), Fig. III.17:6 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997); Hazor, Area E (LBI), Pl. CXXXVII: 6, 8 (Yadin 1958).

143

Upright and Triangular Rim Krater (Bdea Type)

The Bdea krater type is defined by its upright rim stance and exterior triangular

rim profile. It does not occur in Stratum XIV. In Stratum XIII (Plate 50:5), this krater has

a loop handle attached from the rim to shoulder with an oval-shaped section and a low

ring base. A very pale brown slip is applied to the exterior of the vessel. In the sub-floor

chamber (Basement Plates 40:3; 41: 5; 43:5; 44:5), the Bdea krater type appears in the

Limestone (FG 3), Lithic (FG 10) and Quartz (FG 19) Groups.

In Stratum XII (Plate 92: 8; 93:2-3), the Bdea krater type has loop handles

attached from rim to shoulder. It appears in the Limestone (FG 2) and Calcite (FG 6 and

13) Groups. The Bdea type krater accounts for 3 percent in Stratum XIII and increases to

9 percent in Stratum XII (Chart 8).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Bethel, Phase 2, Pl. 54:3 (Kelso 1968). Shephelah: Lachish Level VIIA, Fig. 19.26:2 (Ussishkin 2004); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 7:3 (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Room E9, Fig. 5-9:12; 5-10:13; 5-13:13 (Franken 1992); Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1a (LBIIA), Pl. 76:6 (Mullins 2007) Upright and P-Shaped Rim Krater (Bdga Type) This krater type is characterized by its upright rim stance, external p-shaped or

bulbous rim profile and rounded lip profile. Two Bdga kraters appear in Stratum XIV

(Plate 18:2-3), one of which displays an exterior pink slip in the Limestone Group (FG 2

and 4). In Stratum XIII (Plate 50:1,3-4; 52:4; 53:2), five Bdga kraters appear with wide

diameters ranging from 30 cm to 61 cm, in the Limestone Group (FG 2, 3 and 7). Two of

144

the vessels have flattened lip profiles (Bdgb). In Stratum XII (Plate 92:1), the Bdga krater

appears with a flattened lip (Bdgb). The Stratum XII vessel has a pale brown self-slip

applied to the exterior of the vessel and appears in the Limestone Group (FG 3).

Parallels

Jezreel Valley: Tel Qashish, Stratum VIII (MBIIC), Fig.93:9 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003).

Shephelah: Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.6:4; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.5:16 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 39:7 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006). Jordan Valley: Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 22:29 (McGovern 1986). Out-curved and Triangular Krater (Cdea Type) The Cdea type krater, characterized by an out-curved rim stance, external

triangular rim profile and rounded lip, has a complete example preserved in Stratum XIV

(Plate 18:4). The krater has loop handles attached from the rim to shoulder, a low ring

base and a very pale brown self-slip applied to the exterior. The vessel is made from the

Limestone Group (FG 2). The rim and neck have sagged, most likely during the drying

stage or perhaps under the weight of other kraters as they were stacked in the kiln.

In Stratum XIII (Plate 51:1-2; 52:1-2), the Cdea krater appears with a diameter

range of 29 cm to 35 cm, with horizontal exterior burnishing in the Limestone Group (FG

1, 2 and 3).

In Stratum XII (Plate 92:2, 4-6; 93:4), the Cdea krater appears with a rounded and

pointed lip (Cdec). It also occurs in the Limestone (FG 2 and 13) and Lithic (FG 9)

Groups. The Cdea krater type increases steadily from 13 percent in Stratum XIV, 14

percent in Stratum XIII and 19 percent in Stratum XII (Chart 8).

145

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Tell el-Far`ah (N), Periode I, Fig.13:15 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level N-3 (Late MBIIC), Fig. 12.5:5 (Finkelstein et.al 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIA (LBI), Fig.104:9 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10068 (LBIIA fill), Pl. 9:16 (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1a (LBIIA), Pl. 76:8 (Mullins 2007). North: Hazor, Area E (LBI), Pl. CXXXVII: 3 (Yadin 1958). Everted and Rounded Rim Krater (Ddaa Type)

In Stratum XIV (Plate 17:4), the Ddaa krater type is characterized by an everted

rim profile, simple rounded rim profile and rounded lip. It has a basket-shaped handle

that is molded to the rim of the vessel. In Stratum XIII (Plate 52:6), the Ddaa krater type

appears with a very small rim diameter of 14 cm and a gentle body carination. In both

strata, it appears in the Limestone Group (FG 3). The Ddaa krater type accounts for 13

percent of all kraters in Stratum XIV and declines to 5 percent in Stratum XIII. It does

not appear in Stratum XII.

Parallels

Shephelah: Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L.10071 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 17:11 (Seger 1988).

Krater Variants

A wide variety of rim profiles characterize kraters at Shechem. The Ddea and

Ddja kraters are characterized by an everted rim stance and either triangular or compound

rim profiles. As shown above, these rim profiles are popular with cooking pots at

Shechem. While the examples assigned to the krater class do not show signs of interior or

146

exterior burning or accumulation of soot, several examples do appear in the Calcite

Group, a petrographic fabric almost exclusively used in the construction of cooking pots.

In Stratum XIV (Plate 17:5-6) and Stratum XII (Plate 92:7 and 9), the Ddea and Ddja

krater types occurs in the Calcite Group (FG 5, 6 and 15).

In Stratum XIII (Plate 51:3-5), three kraters appear with out-curved stances and

pendant shaped profiles (Cdha), that have a small tail or flange at the bottom rim profile.

They occur with rim diameters of 29 cm to 30 cm in the Limestone (FG 3) and Lithic (FG

10) Groups. The Cdga krater has an out-curved rim stance, exterior p-shaped or bulbous

rim profile and rounded lip. It occurs in Stratum XIV (Plate 17:2-3) in the Limestone

Group (FG 2).

A Caaa type krater or deep bowl, with an out-curved and simple rim (Caaa) or

beveled-out (Caae) rim appears in Stratum XIII (Plates 52:3, 5) in the Limestone (FG 3)

and Lithic Groups (FG 10). Types with a flange rim appear in the sub-floor changer (not

illustrated) that are reminiscent of Middle Bronze IIC deep bowls at Shechem (Seger

1965: Plate XXXVc and d).

Parallels

Jezreel Valley: Tel Qashish, Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 111:11 [Ddea type] (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 8/7, Pl. 13:12 (Dever 1986).

Storage Jars

Jars at Shechem occur in two primary rim stances, out-curved or upright, with

triangular, p-shaped, pendant and compound shaped profiles. Rim profiles are presented

147

together regardless of rim stance as the latter was not observed to be chronologically

significant, as it was in the cooking pots described above. The one exception is the out-

curved and pendant-shaped jar which tends to occur more frequently in the Late Bronze

IIB. Jars are the least homogenous group in terms of rim profiles and macro fabrics, as

they frequently appear in fabric groups used in the construction of simple and carinated

bowls. This apparent lack of specialization in fabric points to a less structured mode of

production, reflecting manufacturing at the household rather than workshop level. Jar

bodies excavated in the sub-floor chamber reflect pithoi, the widely popular Canaanite jar

with a stump base, and elongated and tapered jars with round and flat bases.

Triangular Rim Jar (Bdea/Cdea Type) 134 The Bdea/Cdea jar is defined by its external triangular rim profile, rounded lip

and either upright or out-curved stances. The rim type typically belongs to the smaller

two-handled jar with rounded base as is illustrated at Yoqne`am in Fig. III.20:17-19 from

LBIIA contexts (Ben-Ami 2005). In Stratum XIV (Plate 19:2-5; 23:4-11; 24:1-2, 6 and

9), it appears with a rim diameter range of 10 cm to 21 cm, with two examples have a

larger diameter of 35 cm. Decoration consists of reddish brown painted bands on the

interior and exterior of the rim and a thin painted band with a hanging triangle on the

exterior of the jar (Plate 23:11). The Bdea/Cdea jar mainly appears in the Limestone (FG

1, 2, 3, 4 and 7) and Lithic (FG 10) Groups.

134 This rim type is also common on bichrome and monochrome decorated single-handled jugs at Megiddo Stratum VIII, Pl. 57:1, 9 (Loud, 1948). Good parallels for Shechem examples shown on Plate 23:8-10 are Megiddo Pl. 57:1, 8-9. For the two-handled jar, see Megiddo Stratum VIII, Pl.60:1-2 (Loud, 1948).

148

In Stratum XIII (Plate 55:3-8; 58:1-4, 8-9; 60:7), the Bdea/Cdea jar has a diameter

range of 10 cm to 16 cm with one vessel having a wider diameter of 20 cm. It occurs in

the Limestone Group (2, 3 and 4), with one example displaying a weak red painted band

around the rim (Plate 58:1).In Stratum XII (Plate 94:5-11; 98:1-6), the Bdea/Cdea jar

appears with a diameter range of 12 cm to 20 cm. Surface treatments includes an exterior

white slip and a reddish-brown painted band encircling the rim. This jar type occurs in

the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7), Quartz (FG 8) and Calcite (FG 6) Groups.

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Site 15-15/89/01 (Sherd Scatter-survey dated to MBII), Fig. 8:38:3 (Finkelstein et al. 1997); Dominus Flevit, Fig. 4:2, 9 (Saller 1964). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo level F-9, Fig. 9.12:2, 7, 9, 11; LB gate floor, Fig. 10.3:8 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Tomb 855, Pl. 44:4; Tomb 1145B, Pl. 51:3, 7-9 (Guy 1938); Tel Qashish, Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig.127:20 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl. 13:12; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl.22:10 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Lachish Fosse Temple I, Pl. LVIIB:385 (Tufnell et al. 1940); Lachish Level LBI Phase, Fig. 18.1:8; Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.8:8; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.4:5; 20.6:21; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.12:8; 20.21:22 (Ussishkin 2004); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L.10086A (LBIIA), Pl. 11:25 (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Phase D, Fig. 7-10:52; Phase E (LBIIB), Fig. 7-19:218-219; Room E10, Fig. 5-15:24; Phase B, Fig. 7-7:25 (Franken 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7:5, 7 (Herr et al. 1997); Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1b (LB1B), Pl. 59:7 (Mullins 2007). Coastal Region: Tel Michal, Fig. 5.7:2 (Negbi 1989); Ashdod Stratum XVI (LBII), PL. 3.1:1 (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). North: Tel Dan, Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.56:24 (Bira and Ben-Dov 2002).

149

P-shaped Rim Jar (Bdga/Cdga Type) The Bdga/Cdga jar is characterized by its p-shaped exterior rim profile, rounded

lip and upright and out-curved stances. In Stratum XIV (Plate 19:6-13), the Bdga/Cdga

jar generally has a diameter range of 10 cm to 15 cm, with two vessels displaying wider

diameters of 30 cm and 50 cm. This jar type appears in the Limestone (FG 2, 3, 4 and 7)

Group. In Stratum XIII (Plate 54:1-3, 5; 58:5-7), this also has a diameter range of 10 cm

to 15 cm and appears in the Limestone Group (FG 1,2, 3 and 4. The jars in Stratum XII

(Plate 95:1, 3-5, 11; 98:7-10), display a slightly wider diameter range from 10 cm to 20

cm with light gray and light red slips, horizontal burnishing in the Limestone Group (2

and 3). Appearing in Field VI at Gezer, this jar type is dated to the Late Bronze IIB

(Dever 1986:44), while at Yoqne`am it appears both in the LBIIA or Stratum XIXb in

Fig. III.15:15 and LBIIB or Stratum XIXa in Fig. III.23:21 (Ben-Ami 2005). This jar type

accounts for 9 percent in Stratum XIV, decreasing to 4 percent in Stratum XIII and rising

to 10 percent in Stratum XII (Chart 9).

Parallels

Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Tomb 1145B, Pl.52:1 (Guy 1938); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.12:10 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Level F-10 (LBIA), Fig. 12.4:3 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 110:2; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 18, 23 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level LBI Phase, Fig. 18.2:6; Level VIIB, Fig. 19.21:6; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.15:21 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.13:13; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 27:14 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 9A-B, Pl. 9:17, 11:6; Stratum 8A-B, Pl. 11:14 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10086A (LBIIA), Pl. 11:26; :10074 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 25:1 (Seger 1988); Lachish Fosse Temple I-II, PL. LVIIB:389 (Tufnell et al. 1940). Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Phase D, Fig. 7-10:56; Phase E (LBIIB), Fig. 7-19:213 (Franken 1992).

150

Coastal Region: Akko tombs, Fig. 10:7 (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977). Pendant Rim Jar (Bdha/Cdha Type) The Bdha/Cdha jar type displays an external pendent-shaped or elongated rim

profile with upright or out-curved rim stances. In Stratum XIV (Plate 22:8-9; 24:3, 7, 10),

the upright Bdha/Cdha jar has a diameter range of 13 cm to 15 cm and with various

surface treatments, including interior and exterior reddish brown painted bands around

the rim and pink and pinkish gray slips. In Stratum XIII (Plate 54:4, 6-13; 55:9; 58:10-12;

60:6), it occurs primarily with a diameter range of 8 cm to 15cm with light gray and

pinkish gray slips. Two examples have slightly larger diameters of 20 cm and 21 cm. In

strata XIV and XIII, the Bdha/Cdha jar occurs in the Limestone Group (2, 3, 4 and 7).

In Stratum XII (Plates 95:2, 6-10; 96; 98:11-12; 99:1-6), the Bdha/Cdha jar type

increases in frequency and appears with a wider rim diameter range of 9 cm to 29 cm and

in a variety of surface treatments including, pinkish gray, very pale brown, light reddish

brown and white slips in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 7 and 13) and Quartz (FG 8) Groups.

The pendant-shaped Cdha jar type at other sites occurs most frequently in Late

Bronze IIB strata. At Ashkelon, this rim type accompanies 4-handled storage vessels that

are common to the southern coastal plain and Shephelah in the end of the thirteenth and

early twelfth century BCE (Killebrew, Goldberg and Rosen 2006: Fig. 16:5). This jar rim

usually appears on shorter-necked storage jars (Barako, 2008:437). In Tomb 803 at Tell

Beit Mirsim, several jugs with a handle attached from the lower neck to shoulder and

rounded base display an out-curved and elongated rim profile (Ben-Arieh 2004; Fig. 25-

28).

151

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Bethel, (LB Phase Uncertain), Pl. 53:22 (Kelso 1968); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig. 4.16:57-58 (Steiner 2001); Site 15-15/89/01 (Sherd Scatter-survey dated to MBII), Fig. 8:38:4 (Finkelstein et al. 1997). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Tomb 4, Pl. 55:8 (Guy 1938); Megiddo LB gate floor, Fig. 10.3:11 (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Megiddo Level F-10 (LBIA), Fig. 12.4:4 (Finkelstein et al. 2006); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB (LBI), Fig. 100:22; Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 110:1: Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:19 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003); Megiddo Tomb 4, Pl. 56:10; 1100A, Pl.47:5 (Guy 1938); Tel Qashish, Stratum VI (LBIIA), Fig. 110:4; Stratum V (LBIIB), Fig. 127:17 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.2:7; 20.5:17; 20.6:23; Level VIIA, Fig. 19:34.8; Level S-1 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.18:15; Level VIIB, Fig. 19.21:14; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig. 20.6:24; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.12:9; Level VIIA, Fig. 19.35:6 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.13:19; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl.28:12; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 41:1, 3; Stratum X (LBIA), Pl.13:10; Stratum VI (LBIIB-IRI) Pl. 57:10 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field VI, Stratum 9A-B, Pl.11:6 (Dever 1986); Gezer, Field I, cave 10A, L10059 (LBI/LBIIA), Pl. 7:11; L10074 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 29:1 (Seger 1988);; Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.38: 98; Tomb 803, Fig. 2.89:31 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Aphek X12, Fig. 5:2 (Beck and Kochavi 1985). Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Phase E (LBIIB), Fig. 7-19:221;Phase B, Fig. 7-7:21 (Franken 1992); Beth Shean Stratum Q-3 (LBIIB), Pl. 1:11; Stratum Q-3/Q-2, Pl. 3:2 (Mazar 2006); Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1b (LB1B), Pl. 59:8 (Mullins 2007); Pella Stratum 9, Pl. 28:5 (McNicoll 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7:6, 8 (Herr et al. 1997). Coastal Region: Ashdod Stratum XIII (Iron I), Pl 3.6:1 (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005); Akko Tombs, Fig. 10:6 (Ben -Arieh and Edelstein 1977). North: Tel Dan, Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.56:27 (Biran and Ben-Dov 2002); Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXXI:4 (decorated); Area E (LBII), Pl. CXLVI:15 (Yadin 1958) Compound Rim Jar (Bdja/Cdja Type)

The Bdja/Cdja jar type is defined by its exterior compound rim profile and upright

and out-curved rim stances. Some of the jars are reminiscent of the profiled Middle

Bronze jars and pithoi (Plate 21), but the Late Bronze types now lack the internal

overhang or thickening (Plate 20:1-14, 24:3-10; 25:1-2). In Stratum XIV, this jar type has

152

typically has a diameter range of 10 cm to 15 cm with three having diameters ranging

from 17 cm to 22 cm. It appears with a variety of surface treatments including light gray,

pinkish gray self slips and a pink slip. In Stratum XIV, an example displays a pink

decorative band along the interior and exterior of the rim (Plate 32:11). The Bdja/Cdja jar

appears in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7), Calcite (FG 5) and Lithic Groups (FG 12)

and Quartz (FG 12) Groups.

The Bdja/Cdja jar type displaying an internal overhang in Stratum XIII, are

clearly residual in nature (Plates 55:10-11; 56:3, 5-9, 11-14). Otherwise, the Bdja/Cdja

jars of Stratum XIII (Plates 56:1-2, 4, 10; 57:1-12; 59-60) have a diameter range of 11 cm

to 25 cm, with one vessel having a larger diameter of 45 cm. Surface treatments include

white and pink slips in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7), Calcite (FG 5 and 6), Lithic

(FG 10) and Quartz (FG 19) Groups.

In Stratum XII (Plate 97; 99:7-8; 100:1-8), a few residual examples with an

internal overhang or thickening appear (Plate 97:3-4, 6-7, 9; 100: 6; 101:1). The

remaining Bdja/Cdja jars with an exterior compound profile have a diameter range of 10

cm to 19 cm with reddish yellow and very pale brown slips. This jar appears in the

Limestone (FG 1, 2 and 3) and Lithic (FG 13) Groups.

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Tell Dothan Area A/D (MBIIB-LBI), Fig.7.13:3; Area K11 (MBIIB-LBI), Fig.7.13:2 (Master 2005); Jerusalem Square A/I-III Terraces (LBIIB/IRI), Fig. 4.16:59-60 (Steiner 2001). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Tomb 911 A1, Plate 30:13; Megiddo Tomb 1145B, Pl. 52:2 (Guy 1938); Megiddo Stratum VIIB, Pl. 64:2 (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.12:3; LB gate floor, Fig. 10.3:7 (Finkelstein et al. 2000). Shephelah: Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.4:11 (Ussishkin 2004); Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.5:11; 19.10:8; Level S-2, Fig. 19.13:7-9; Level P-2 (LBIIA), Fig.

153

20.2: 6, 8; 20.6:19-20; Level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.27:19; Level VIIA, Fig.19.35:4 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl.2:8; 13:13; Stratum VI (LBIIB-IRI), Pl. 57:1 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 803, Fig. 2.89:32 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Lachish Fosse Temple II, PL. LVIIB:393 (Tufnell et al. 1940).

Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Phase D, Fig. 7-10:55; Phase E (LBIIB), Fig. 7-19:227 (Franken 1992); Beth Shean Stratum Q-3, Pl. 1:13 (Mazar 2006); Tel Beth Shean, Stratum R-1b (LB1B), Pl. 71:1 (Mullins 2007); Pella Phase A, Area IIIC, Pl. 118:1 (McNicoll et al.1982); Beq`ah Valley, (Khirbet Umm ad-Dananir-LBII), Fig.48:3 (McGovern 1986). Coastal Region: Ashdod Stratum XIII (Iron I), Fig. 3.6:2 (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). North: Hazor, Area L (Str. XV/LBI), Fig. III.16:18 (Ben-Tor and Bonfil 1997); Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXX:1 (Yadin 1958).

Simple Rim Jar Baaa/Caaa Jar Type This jar type is defined by a simple rounded rim and upright or out-curved rim

stance. In Stratum XIV (Plate 23:1-3), the Caaa jar type has a diameter range of 8 cm to

12 cm and appears in the Limestone (FG 3 and 4) and Lithic Groups (FG 14). A vessel

displaying an upright stance and rounded lip (Plate 19:1) has a diameter of 16cm in the

Limestone Group (FG 7).

In Stratum XIII (Plate 55:1-2), the Caaa/Baaa type appears with a very pale brown

exterior and interior self-slip and in the Limestone Group (FG 3). In Stratum XII (Plate

94:1-4; 100:9-11), the Baaa/Caaa jar type has a diameter range of 8 cm to 14 cm in the

Limestone (FG 2 and 3) and Lithic (FG 9, 10 an 12) Groups. The example illustrated in

94:2 is similar to the shorter-necked jar found in the sub-floor chamber.

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Site 16-14/03/01 (Beit `Ur el-Fauqa-survey dated to MB), Fig. 8:95:1 (Finkelstein et al. 1997).

154

Shephelah: Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.4:9; 19.8:9; Level S-1 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.18:10-11 (Ussishkin 2004).

Decorated Restricted Vessels In Stratum XIV, four body sherds occur with monochrome painted bands in a

reddish brown, weak red or light red paint applied on a white slip (Plate 32: 13-16). One

vessel has two wavy lines below a horizontal band in a bichrome decorative style of

reddish gray and pinkish white paint (Plate 32:12).

In Stratum XIII, five jars display bichrome decorated linear bands (Plate 61:1, 3-

4) and linear bands framing a wavy line (Plate 61:2, 6). These jars display a white, pink

or reddish yellow slip with red, reddish brown, gray and reddish gray bichrome bands. A

jar fragment displays monochrome reddish brown bands around the neck and shoulder of

the vessel (Plate 61:5). Finally, a body sherd displays a fragmentary design of two half

circles divided by a solid dot (Plate 61:7), a design reminiscent of the top leaves of the

palm tree featured in the ibex and tree of life motif common on Late Bronze jars and

biconical jars (Amiran 1969). These decorated jars occur in the Limestone (FG 2, 3 and

13) and Calcite (FG 6) Groups.

In Stratum XII, vessels with monochrome and bichome painted exterior bands

appear (Plate 110: 1-2) in the Limestone Group (FG 1, 2 and 3). One displays a reddish

brown band encircling the rim, while the second has weak dusky red and brown painted

bands applied to a pinkish white slip. Four body sherds with parallel painted bands

appear in bichrome and monochrome style decoration (Plate 110: 3, 5-6), while one

example has a wavy line framed by two bands (Plate 110:7).

155

135 In-Curved Vessels

The in-curved vessel types are defined by a rolled over rim and in-curved stance,

which produces a restricted opening. The cooking pots of the Middle Bronze age, likely

represent residual vessels in Field XIII due to the small frequencies in which they appear

in Strata XIV to XII (Chart 10). Occasionally, sherd rims from a particular locus displays

evidence of burning with an accumulation of soot on the outside of the vessel, suggesting

that they served as cooking vessels.

In Stratum XIV, in-curved vessels appear in a wide variety of rim profiles

including, rounded (Plate 28:1-6), oval (Plate 28:7-9; 29:1-9; 30:1-4), rectangular (Plate

30:5), triangular (Plate 30:6), pendant shaped (Plate 30:7) and compound shaped rim

profiles (Plate 30:8). They have three ranges for rim diameters; 17 cm to 22 cm, 24 cm to

28 cm and 30 cm to 36 cm and generally lack surface treatment with the exception of a

light brown self-slip applied to the rim. The vessels in Stratum XIV occur in the

Limestone (FG 3 and 13) and Calcite (FG 5, 6, and 15) Groups. The predominant rim

profile in Stratum XIV is the oval shaped rim, the Fdca type followed by the rounded rim

profile.

In Stratum XIII, the in-curved vessel appears with a rounded (Plate 64:1-4), oval

(Plate 64:5-7; 65:1-4, 8-9), rectangular (Plate 65:5-6, 10) and pendant shaped (Plate 65:7)

rim profiles. The rim diameters are generally wider at 24 cm to 48 cm, with two vessels

having smaller diameters of 14 cm and 15 cm. One vessel is burnished with a reddish

yellow slip applied to the interior and exterior of the vessel (Plate 65:7). In Stratum XIII,

135 These restricted vessels from Field XIII resemble the holemouth cooking types from other fields at Shechem (Cole 1984: 63; Seger 1965:124). While many of the Middle Bronze IIB and IIC examples showed evidence of burning, many examples from Field XIII did not. A petrographic examination indicated that the main tempering agent in these vessels is angular calcite.

156

they appear in the Limestone (FG 2, 3 and 7), Calcite (FG 5 and 6), Lithic (FG 10) and

Quartz Groups (FG 19).

Rounded (Plate 104:3), oval (Plates 104:4-7; 105: 2-4), rectangular (Plate 104: 8),

triangular (Plate 105:5), pendant shaped (Plate 104:9; 105:7), and p-shaped profiles (Plate

105:1 and 6) appear in Stratum XII. The rim diameters range from 14 cm to 50 cm with

little surface treatment. An exception is a vessel with a light red interior and exterior slip

with horizontally burnishing. These vessels occur in the Calcite (FG 5 and 6), Limestone

(FG 2 and 4), and Lithic (FG 9) Groups.

Parallels:

Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Level N-1fill (MBIIC/LBI), Fig. 12.6:11 (Finkelstein et al. 2006). Shephelah: Tel Batash Stratum XI (MBII), Pl. 7:14, 16 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10091 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 33:33 (Seger 1988).

Pithoi

Vessels in this jar class display an exterior compound rim profile, internal

thickening along the rim and generally have larger diameters and thicker walls than

smaller storage jars with a Bdja/Cdja rim type (Plates 19:12-13; 20:13-14; 21:1-13; 22:1-

6; 24:1-2). While pithoi are common in Middle Bronze IIB and IIC contexts at Shechem

(Cole 1984, Plates 33-36; Seger 1965, Plates LXXXVI-LXXX), they continue in the Late

Bronze Age strata in Field XIII in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3 and 7) and Quartz (FG 19)

Groups. Generally, the Late Bronze types lack the elaborately profiled rim and the

interior thickening. At Lachish, this jar rim profile appears in Late Bronze IIA strata in

Level S-3 (Ussishkin 2004, Fig. 19.6:10).

157

In Stratum XIV, (Plate 19:12-13), two vessels with a Bdga rim profile have

diameters of 30 cm and 35 cm, while a Cdea pithos, defined by an out-curved stance and

triangular rim profile (Plate 24:1-2) have diameters of 35 cm. Pithoi with out-curved

stances and compound rim profiles (Plate 21:1-13; 22:1-6; 25:3-7) generally have thicker

walls and larger diameters ranging from 17 cm to 21 cm and 24 cm to 31 cm, although

several thicker walled vessels do occur with smaller diameters between 12 cm to 16 cm.

The sub-floor chamber contains pithoi with upright and out curve compound rims

occur in the sub-floor chamber. While clearly descendants of the elaborately profiled

rims of the MBIIC, they lack an internal overhang or thickening. In occupational contexts

in Stratum XIII (Plates 55:10-11; 56:3, 5-9, 11-14), pithoi with the internal overhang are

clearly residual in nature in the Limestone (FG 2 and 3), Quartz (FG 16), and Lithic (FG

9 and 10) Groups.

In Stratum XII, pithoi occur with Bdga and Bdja type rim profiles (Plate 97:3-4,

6-7, 9 and 11; 101:1 and 4). The Bdja pithos displays dark gray and pinkish white slips,

as well as an interior dark reddish brown painted band. In this stratum, pithoi occur in the

Limestone Group (FG 2, 3 and 13).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Shechem (Middle Bronze IIB), Plates 33-36 (Cole 1984); Shechem (Middle Bronze IIC), Plates LXXVI-LXXX (Seger 1965). Shephelah: Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10080 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 31:20-23 (Seger 1988); Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum D (MBII), Plate 14:10 (Albright 1933); Lachish, Level S-3, (Late Bronze IIA), Fig. 19.6:10 (Ussishkin 2004).

158

Biconical Vessels

These vessels are well-known in Late Bronze Age contexts in the Levant, but

comprise only a small portion of the vessel classes at Shechem (Amiran 1969). While

there are a few completely preserved examples, this vessel class is attested mainly by rim

fragments that either lack decoration or are represented by decorated body sherds that

lack the rim. Following Amiran, Mullins divides complete examples of biconical vessels

at Tel Beth-Shean into biconical jugs and biconical kraters (Mazar and Mullins

2006:434). Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the rim fragments preserved in Field

XIII makes it difficult to classify the vessels to any great extent. Generally, the biconical

vessels at Shechem display a low carination on the vessel wall, upright rim stance and a

beveled-in or flattened lip profile.

In Stratum XIV (Plate 26:1, 3, 5-6), the biconical jar has a beveled-in lip, the

Bdad type. The rim sherds preserved do not display surface treatment and appear in the

Limestone Group (FG 1, 3 and 11). A good parallel is the high-footed jar found in Tomb

11 at Tell el-Far`ah (de Vaux 1951: fig. 9:15). Decorated body sherds include motifs with

monochrome painted linear bands (Plate 26:7-8), a wavy lined framed by horizontal

bands (Plate 26:9) and a net or crisscrossed pattern on a handle fragment (Plate 26:12)

The painted decoration occurs in a reddish brown or red paint applied to a white or pink

slip. A bichrome painted vessel with light reddish brown and dark reddish gray paint with

a crisscrossed or net pattern motif, also appears in Stratum XIV (Plate 26:11). Finally, a

monochrome painted body sherd displays a fragmentary image in a metope design

consisting of a horizontal and vertical band (Plate 26:10). The design appears to be an

animal, perhaps an ibex adjacent to a tree, which is a decorative motif found frequently

159

on Late Bronze Age biconical and storage jars. The vessels are constructed from the

Limestone (FG 1, 2 and 3) and Lithic (FG 10) Groups

In Stratum XIII, the biconical jar (Plate 62:7) also has a beveled-in rim, a rounded

lip, the Bdaa type (Plate 62:1) and a flattened lip, the Bdab type. A close parallel to the

flattened rim type is found at Tell el-Far`ah (N) in Tomb 11 (de Vaux 1951). A complete

vessel displays a low gentle carination, an upright stance, a rounded rim and a low ring

base (Plate 62:3), the Bdea jar type has an exterior burnished pink slip. The vessels

appear in the Limestone Group (FG 2 and 3). A similar vessel type appears in Stratum

VIII at Tel Batash with monochrome decoration (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl.

37:12). An everted and triangular rim biconical jar, the Ddea type (Plate 62:4-5) is similar

to vessels in Tomb 6 and 11 at Tell el-Far`ah (N) (de Vaux 1951, Figs. 2:18; 9:13).

Numerous decorated sherds belonging to biconical jars were excavated in Stratum

XIII. The decoration includes bichrome horizontal bands in gray and light red or reddish

brown paint (Plate 62: 12-13). Vertical bands encompassing wavy lines appear in

monochrome (Plates 62:9, 11; Plates 68: 6) and bichrome painted decoration (Plate 62:8,

10; 68:7-8). The monochrome color is usually red, reddish brown or yellowish brown on

a white slip, while the bichrome decoration appears in reddish brown and gray

combinations on vessels that have white or very pale brown slips. Three body sherds

display various decoration, including a red painted design of vertical bands extending

from a single horizontal band (Plate 62:9), a neck sherd with a thinner band above a

wider band (Plate 68:4) and finally, a body sherd with two monochrome painted strokes

(Plate 68:5). They occur in the Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3 and 13) and Calcite (FG 6) Groups.

160

In Stratum XII (Plate 102:6), a complete biconical jar is preserved with an upright

stance and flattened lip. The Bdab jar type has a sharp carination located nearest the low

ring base. Three vessels display an upright stance and beveled-in lip, the Bdad type (Plate

102:3-5), an everted and triangular rim, the Ddaa type (Plate 102:1) and an exterior

bulbous rim, the Bdga type (Plate 102:2). The biconical jars in this stratum occur in the

Limestone (FG 1, 2, 3 and 7) and Lithic Groups (FG 9). Biconical body sherds appear

with monochrome decorated converging bands (Plate 102:10) and intersecting horizontal

and vertical bands in a metope style (Plate 102:8-9). The monochrome decoration occurs

in red, reddish brown or brown paint. Bichrome decoration in red and gray paint appears

on a body sherd and a floral design on the upper part of the handle (Plate 102:7).

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Dominus Flevit, Fig. 5:6 [Bdab type]; Fig. 25:2-3 [Bdad and Bdab types] (Saller 1964); Dothan Tomb 1, Level 1 (Early Iron I), Fig. 20:4 [Ddea type]; Level 3 (LBIIB), Fig.29:1-2 [Ddea type); Level 4 (LBIIA), Fig. 32:8 [Bdad type]; 33:1 [Bdea type], (Cooley and Pratico 1995); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 6, Figs. 2:18; Tombe 11, 9:13, 14-15 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Stratum VIIB, Pl. 64:5 [Bdab type] (Loud 1948); Megiddo Level F-9, Fig. 9.12:18 [Ddea type] (Finkelstein et al. 2000); Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIB, Fig. 100:12 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003). Shephelah: Lachish Level S-2, Fig. 19.11:13; Level VIIA, Fig. 19.23:4; Level P-2, Fig. 20.6:17 (Ussishkin 2004). Tel Batash Stratum IX (LBIB), Pl.1:7; Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 32:10; 37:12; Stratum VII (LBIIA), 44:7; Stratum VIIA (LBIIA), Pl. 54:1; Stratum VI (LBIIB), Pl. 60:23 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 100, Fig. 2.37:94-95; Tomb 1, Fig. 2.70:52 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L10086A (LBIIA), Pl. 11:11 [Ddea Type], Pl. 11:14 [Bdad Type] (Seger 1988). Jordan Valley: Tell Deir `Alla, Room E8, Fig. 5-7:25 [Bdad type] (Franken 1992); Madaba Field F, FP10 (LBIIB), Fig. 7.7:24 [Bdad type] (Herr et al. 1997); Beq`ah Valley, Cave B3, Fig. 36:5-6; Fig. 37:4 (McGovern 1986); Sahem Tomb Type 2A, Fig. 10:1 [Ddea type], (Fischer 1997).

161

Coastal Region: Ashdod Stratum XIV (LBIIB), Fig. 3.1:4 (classed as bowl in report) {Bdad Type] (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005); Akko Tombs, Fig. 9:6-7 [Bdab type] (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977). North: Tel Dan, Mycenaean Tomb, Fig. 2.58:39-41, 43; Fig. 2.59:48 (Biran and Ben-Dov 2002); Hazor, Area D (LBII), Pl. CXXVIII:3 [Bdad type](Yadin 1958).

Jugs

Jugs generally fall into three typological groups based on stance including the

upright and out-curved stances. Correctly identifying this vessel class proved difficult

because there were no complete examples preserved in Field XIII and only a few had

partial handles attached to the rim. The jugs identified at other sites appear with a variety

of rim profiles, making the assignment of just rims to this vessel class problematic.

Upright Jug (Baaa jug) In Stratum XIV (Plate 27:1, 9), this jug type is defined by an upright stance and

simple rounded rim which has been folded over to create a ridge below the lip. The

handle, which has an oval-shaped section likely attached to the ridge and descended to

the shoulder of the vessel. In Stratum XIII, a jug with a preserved handle attachment just

below the rim is shown in Plate 63:1. The Baaa jug types in strata XIV and XIII appear in

the Limestone Group (FG 4, 7 and 13). There are no examples of the upright jug type

preserved in Stratum XII. Proportions of the jug types are presented in Chart 12.

Parallels

Shephelah: Lachish Level S-3 (LBIIA), Fig. 19.8:7 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 32:4 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006).

162

Out-curved Jugs (Caaa Type) The Caaa jug type has an out-curved rim stance with various rim profiles. In

Stratum XIV (Plate 27:2), an out-curved rim with a handle attached at the rim appears in

the Iron-rich fabric group (FG 17). In Stratum XIII (Plate 63:2, 3, 5), this jug type

appears with a variety of rim profiles including, an inner rounded thickening with a

handle attached at the rim (Plate 63:5), a flattened and pointed lip, classified as the Caab

and Caac types respectively in the Limestone Group (FG 2). In Stratum XII, the out-

curved jug type appears with a triangular shaped rim (Plate 103:7) and the p-shaped

(Cdga) rim with a handle attached from the rim (Plate 103:8). The triangular rim (Cdea)

is similar to rims found on the decorated and undecorated biconical jars recovered at

Dominus Flevit (Saller 1964: Fig. 5:1, 8). Both rim types appear in the Limestone Group

(FG 3).

Parallels

Shephelah: Lachish Level VIIB, Fig. 19.21:10; level P-1 (LBIIB), Fig. 20.25:6 (Ussishkin 2004); Tel Batash Stratum IX (LBIB), Pl. 19:3; Stratum VII (LBIIA), Pl. 43:1 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 11, Fig. 8:19 (Cdea type at Shechem) (de Vaux 1951).

Juglets

Juglet forms, like the jug class, are poorly represented at Shechem and present the

same difficulties in identification. Several examples are preserved with the handle

attachments, while one nearly complete example is preserved with a rounded base and

ovoid body, which lacks the rim (Plate 63:7). The overall shape of the ovoid shaped

juglet has a close parallel with an example in Stratum X at Tel Batash, dated to the Late

163

Bronze IA (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 14:9). The juglet types appear in a wide

variety of fabrics throughout Strata XIV to XII at Shechem. The Middle Bronze piriform

types become more ovoid in the Late Bronze Age, before giving way to the bag-shaped

types of the early Iron Age.

In-curved Juglet (Faaa Type) This is the most popular rim type for juglets in Field XIII and based on complete

examples found at other sites, occurs on dipper and ovoid shaped juglets. The Faaa jug

type is defined by an in-curved rim stance and simple rounded rim, which is a

characteristic feature of the dipper juglet. In Stratum XIV (Plate 27:3-6), the Faaa juglet

has a rim diameter range of 6 cm to 7 cm and has a handle attached from the rim to the

shoulder of the vessel. They appear in the Quartz (FG 19) and Limestone (FG 3 and 13)

Groups.

In Stratum XIII (Plate 63: 4, 6), the Faaa juglet appears with a wider diameter

range of 3 cm to 8 cm, an interior thickening just below the rim in the Limestone Group

(FG 2 and 4). Juglets in the sub-floor chamber display characteristic rounded and button

bases. In Stratum XII (Plate 103:1-2), Faaa juglets have a handle attached from the rim

and appear in the Limestone Group (FG 2 and 3). Chart 11 presents the proportions of

each type.

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Dominus Flevit, Fig. 27:2, 5; 39:19-20 (Saller 1964); Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 11, Fig. 8:7 (de Vaux 1951). Jezreel Valley: Tel Qashish, Stratum VIIA, Fig. 104:14 (Ben-Tor et al. 2003); Megiddo Stratum VIII, Pl. 58:14-15 (Loud 1948).

164

Shephelah: Tell Beit Mirsim, Tomb 1, Fig. 2.69:42 (Ben-Arieh 2004); Gezer, Field I, Cave 10A, L.10080 (LBIB/LBIIA), Pl. 31:16 (Seger 1988); Qubeibeh burial cave, Fig. 8:1-3 (Ben-Arieh et al. 1993). Jordan Valley: Pella Phase V (LBIIA), Pl.118:6 (McNicoll et al. 1982); Pella, Phase V- Area IIIN/S, Fig. 17:6 (Bourke et al. 1994); Beq`ah Valley, Cave A2, Fig. 19:7, 11 (McGovern 1986). North: Hazor, Area E (LBI), Pl. CXL: 1-2 (Yadin 1958).

Miscellaneous Juglets

In Stratum XIII, vessels with a rounded base and an ovoid body (Plate 63:7) and

an out-curved rim with interior thickening (Plate 63:5) are preserved. A juglet with an

upright stance and simple rounded rim with a partial handle attached at the rim is

preserved in Stratum XII (Plate 103:9). All three vessels occur in the Limestone Group

(FG 2 and 3).

Parallels

Shephelah: Tel Batash Stratum VIII (LBIB-LBIIA), Pl. 23:8 (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006).

Miscellaneous Vessels

Chalices/Goblets

These vessels appear infrequently in Strata XIV and XIII at Shechem, yet they are

a class of vessel well-known in Middle Bronze and early Late Bronze Age contexts

(Chart 3; Amiran 1969:95). According to Amiran’s classification, goblets are more

restricted and display a slightly pinched carination situated lower on the vessel body,

while chalices are shallower with a wider diameter (Amiran 1969, Pl.40). Although these

165

vessels are not well-represented at Shechem, several rim and decorated body sherds are

present.

Chalices appear in Stratum XIV with an out-curved rim stance and a diameter

range of 10 cm to 15 cm (Plate 32:3-10). There are three rim profiles including, simple

rounded, triangular and p-shaped. They appear in the Limestone (FG 1, 2 and 3) and

Lithic (FG 10) Groups. In Stratum XIII, a chalice displays an interior pink slip with

dusky red and gray painted bands, while the exterior of the vessel has a pinkish white slip

with dusky red and yellow painted decoration (Plate 68:2).

Chalices appear in Stratum XII with different rim profiles and wider diameters

ranging from 14 cm to 28 cm. Three of the chalices have more restricted diameters and a

gentle carination below the rim (Plate 106:5, 7-8), while two are shallow with unusually

thick walls and large diameters (Plate 106:7-8). Surface treatments include reddish brown

painted exterior bands and white slip. While these types of bases usually appear on

pedestal bowls, in cultic contexts they are usually interpreted as chalices (Mullins 2007:

413). The pedestal bases appear in lower frequencies when compared to other base types

present at Shechem (Chart 13).

Parallels Jezreel Valley: Megiddo Stratum VIIB, Pl. 67:5; Stratum VIIA, Pl. 70:11-12 (Loud 1948). Jordan Valley: Beq`ah Valley, Cave B3, Fig. 33:9 (McGovern 1986); Pella, Trench XXXIIF(MB/LB), Fig. 23:2, 6 (Bourke et al. 1998).

Cup

Two vessels in this class appear with an upright stance, gentle carination and a

bulbous or triangular rim profile in Stratum XIV (Plate 32:1-2). In Stratum XII (Plate

166

82:9) a shallow vessel with carinated walls may represent this vessel type. There are no

examples preserved in Stratum XIII.

Flasks

Although this vessel class is not well represented at Shechem, flasks appear in a

variety of rim types and are often represented by painted body sherds showing traces of

concentric circles (Chart 8). In Stratum XIV, flasks appear with a rounded rim and

flattened lip (Plate 27:8), triangular (Plate 27:11), p-shaped (Plate 27:10) and compound

(Plate 27:7) rim profiles. They occur in the Limestone (FG 2 and 3) and Lithic (FG 14)

Groups.

In Stratum XIII, a flask rim appears (Plate 68:1) with painted decoration in the

form of ticks or strokes across the rim. Three flasks in Stratum XII occur with various

rim types (Plate 103:3-5) and display horizontal burnishing (Plate 103: 3) and a pinkish

gray slip (Plate 103:4). These vessels occur also in the Limestone (FG 2, 3 and 4) Group.

The body sherd in Stratum XII displays the concentric circle pattern common to

this vessel class. Four concentric reddish brown (5YR5/4) circles dominate the center of

the flask, while traces of another circle is evident on the edge.

Parallels

Central Hill Country: Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tombe 6, Fig. 3:6 (de Vaux 1951). Jordan Valley: Kataret es-Samra Tomb, Fig. 9:9 (Leonard 1979). Coastal Region: Akko Tombs, Fig. 11:3 (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977).

167

Varia

A vessel with a ridged rim displayed in Plate 43:8 from Locus 3114 in Stratum

XIII could be identified as a jar rim but no parallels from jars in adjacent fields at

Shechem as illustrated by Cole (1984) and Seger (1965) were found. While it bears no

resemblance to the ridged rims of the MBIIC cooking pots (Seger 1965: Plate XLVI),

another possibility may be a baking tray similar to those found in Middle and Late

Bronze contexts at Tel Beth-Shean (Maeir 2007:263, Plate 25:11; Mullins 2007:421,

Plate 76:9). The Field XIII example does not display any diagonal incisions along the

rim, has a more restricted diameter and is slightly deeper.

Cypriote, Aegean and Egyptian Wares

White Slip I (Chart 2, Table 15)

136 There are four sherds of White Slip I distributed through Strata XIV to XII.

These vessels display a similar framed wavy line pattern decorative style, which consists

of a wavy line framed by two parallel lines (Popham 1972:440).137 In Stratum XIV, the

rim of a hemispherical bowl with a burnished white slip and reddish brown painted

decoration was found in fill layer Locus 3533 in Yard B (Plate 32:9). In Stratum XIII,

two examples of the framed wavy line motif are present, one with a bichrome decorative

style (Plate 66: 4), and another with a monochrome painted style (Plate 66:7).138 The

wavy line design occurs in a reddish yellow decoration and is framed by dark brown 136 See G.R.H. Wright (1967) for a review of the imported wares excavated at Shechem in the 1964 season. 137 See Eriksson (2001b:57, Fig. 2) for a slightly adapted and convenient collection of White Slip I (WS I) motifs based on Popham’s original decorative classification. 138 The bichrome decorative style is a considered a decorative motif marking the transition between White Slip I (WS I) to White Slip II (WS II). The slip also undergoes a change during this transition from a kaolinitic and smectitic clay in WS I to a micaceous clay in WS II (Aloupi, Perdikatsis and Lekka 2001:24).

168

parallel lines. Below the parallel bands, two vertical rows of dark brown solid dots frame

a vertical and intertwined wavy line which diverges into “horns” near the rim (Popham

1970:440). The second example of a hemispherical bowl body sherd has brown solid dots

arranged vertically and bordered by a brown vertical solid band. The examples from

Stratum XIII were recovered from a surface layer in Area 1 and from a destruction level

in Area 4.

In Stratum XII, a body sherd of White Slip I has a white burnished slip with a

vertical row of reddish brown solid dots framed by what appears to be two parallel

reddish yellow wavy lines in a bichrome decorative style (Plate 108:9). This body sherd

was recovered from Locus 3519, a surface layer in Stratum XII and represents a residual

sherd. Three smaller dots are visible adjacent to the hanging dots and appear to be

accidental paint splatter by the potter.

At Tel Batash, White Slip I is represented by sherds with a rope lattice motif and

wavy line decoration below the rim in Stratum X, which is dated to the Late bronze IA. It

features a burnished thick white slip, with a bichrome decorative style in dark brown and

yellowish brown. In the later White Slip II, the wavy line decoration below the rim is

replaced by strokes, dashes or dots. White Slip I is minimally represented in the Levant in

coastal areas, but it does appears in great frequency in the south at Tell el-`Ajjul (Steel

2006:158). While the wavy line style is rare at Tell el-`Ajjul, it accounts for the only

known type of White Slip I at Shechem in Field XIII and at Tell Far`ah (N), Beth Shean,

Megiddo and numerous coastal and Shephelah sites (Bergoffen 2002: 29).139 This might

suggest that a different distribution network for Cypriote wares existed for the northern

139 Bergoffen provides a useful index of White Slip I sherds found in the Levant, Egypt and the Aegean.

169

Levantine as opposed to southern coastal areas, and that sites in the Jezreel and Jordan

Valleys were recipients of this network in the early Late Bronze I period.

White Slip II

Two White Slip II sherds in the ladder style pattern appear in Stratum XIV. A rim

sherd of either a tankard or krater has a flattened rim profile (Popham 1972, fig 32:4).

The rim is framed by dots or strokes below which sits a ladder pattern motif with thick

exterior reddish brown strokes and thinner vertical strokes (Plate 31:10). The other White

Slip II sherd has a brown ladder pattern decoration applied to a burnished very pale

brown, rather than white slip (Plate 31: 12). Both these sherds were recovered from

Locus 3763 a floor in Room D, in the eastern sector of Field XIII.

In Stratum XIII, three rim sherds of hemispherical bowls occur in the ladder style

pattern (Plate 66: 2-3, 6). The bowls have an average diameter of 18 cm and occur in a

white, gray and a pinkish white slip that is burnished on the inside and outside of the

vessel. The ladder pattern appears in a brown, dark reddish brown and dark reddish gray

decoration. In two of these bowls (Plate 66:3, 6), the ladder pattern has thicker outer

strokes with thinner vertical strokes, known as the “Normal” style in the decorative

scheme of White Slip II wares, which is dated to the Late Cypriot IIA-B (Steel

2006:159). A third example (Plate 66:2) in a surface Locus 3114, the exterior bands of

the ladder pattern appear with similar line weights, which is a hallmark of White Slip II

transitional of the Late Cypriot IIA (Steel 2006:159).

This White Slip II transitional decorative style may also appear with a vertical

ladder pattern and vertical lozenges bordered by solid strokes (Plate 66:2). Three body

170

sherds display traces of the ladder pattern design (Plate 66: 8-10). A wishbone handle

with a triangular section has a burnished pinkish gray slip and reddish brown decoration.

In Stratum XII, White Slip II occurs in three decorative styles including, the

ladder pattern, the framed row of lozenges and the hooked chain style. The ladder pattern

continues into Stratum XII (Plates 107: 2-4, 7; 108: 1-3, 6), appearing with four

horizontal strokes and thinner vertical strokes (Plate 107: 6). The framed row of hatched

lozenges bordered by two brown horizontal ladder designs is applied to vessels with an

exterior burnished white slip and a burnished interior very pale brown slip (Plate 107:1,

7). The hooked chain motif, which Popham considered to be a deterioration of the framed

lozenge style (1970:454) appears in two examples that are represented by a series of

hooked chains bordered by a ladder design (Plates 107:5). This example appears in Locus

3517, a surface layer in Yard B. The brown painted decorative motifs are usually applied

to vessels that have an interior burnished light gray slip and exterior burnished very pale

brown slip.

The second example appears with loosely connected hooked chains that were

bordered by two wide solid bands and was recovered in destruction Locus 3104 (Plate

108: 11). Four body sherds display fragmentary traces of the ladder pattern style

including, two body sherds with the end strokes of the ladder design (Plate 108: 7-8), a

sherd with two ladders preserved with thick vertical and horizontal strokes (Plate 108:

10), and a ladder pattern with an additional third stroke in the center of the two main

strokes (Plate 108:5).

The White Slip I and II vessels in Field XIII are assigned generally to Fabric

Group 22, although fabric differences are apparent on the macroscopic level. In Stratum

171

XIV, three groups are observed including, an iron rich clay composed of limestone and

quartz (Plate 31:9, 12); a grayish fabric composed of limestone and mica inclusions (Plate

31: 11), and finally a grayish brown fabric composed of limestone (Plate 31:10). In

Stratum XIII, most of the vessels occur in a brownish colored fabric with limestone and

mica and occasional void inclusions (Plate 66: 2-3, 6-10). A less common fabric consists

of limestone and iron oxide inclusions in a gray colored matrix (Plate 66:1). In Stratum

XII, the majority of the vessels occur in a matrix of limestone and mica inclusions in a

gray colored fabric (Plates 107: 3-4, 7-8; 108:1-3, 5, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14). Additional

fabrics include a limestone and opaque black inclusions in a grayish brown fabric (Plate

107:2, 6; 108:9) and iron oxides and limestone inclusions in an iron rich clay (Plate

107:5).

White Slip Variants

A body sherd from Stratum XIV has a burnished white slip and three olive green

horizontal strokes (Plate 31: 11). A body sherd that appears to be a transitional WSI and

WSII type has a wishbone handle attachment and dark reddish gray painted decoration

applied to a burnished very pale brown slip (Plate 66:1). The design consists of a

horizontal ladder pattern, vertical rim strokes and vertical hanging cross-hatched

lozenges. Adjacent to the vertical hanging lozenges are a row of solid dots bordering a

solid line, a characteristic feature of the White Slip I decorative style.

172

Red on Black Ware

Four sherds of Red on Black Ware appear mainly in fill layers in Stratum XIV.

Three body sherds have reddish brown painted lines applied to a black slipped and highly

burnished surface (Plate 31: 5-8). These sherds were recovered from a surface Locus

3538 in Yard B and in Yard B fill levels Loci 3533 and 3539. The rim of a hemispherical

bowl, corresponding to Aström’s Type III bowl has a dark reddish gray slip and weak red

painted decoration (Aström 1972b:Pl. XXXII: 6). These vessels are made from iron rich

clays with showing two distinct groups of inclusions. One fabric includes limestone and

opaque black/lithic inclusions, while the other is an Iron-rich fabric comprised of

limestone and iron oxide inclusions.

Base Ring Ware I and II

In the Levant, Base Ring Ware appears in the form of jugs, juglets, lentoid flasks,

bull rhyta and open carinated cups (Steel 2006:157). Base Ring jugs with relief

decoration (Base Ring I) appear mainly in the Late Bronze IB to Late Bronze IIA periods

and primarily in tomb contexts (Steel 2006:157). Base Ring II juglets with white painted

decoration usually in the form of four parallel lines were the most common vessels in the

Levant in the Late Bronze IIA (Steel 2006:157-158).140 The appearance of Base Ring I is

generally dated to the time of Thutmosis III as it is frequently found in tomb contexts

along with Red Lustrous Ware from the time of this pharaoh to the reign of Amenhotep

II. Base Ring II is generally dated to the Late Bronze IIA-B where it appears with White

140 The traditional nomenclature for BR I as having a lustrous surface, and relief decoration (1625-1400BC) versus BR II as having a coarser fabric, matte surface, white paint and clumsy shapes (1400-1150BC) is challenged by Vaughn as too simplistic a reduction of the technological complexity of the wares (1991: 128).

173

Slip II as the predominant Cypriote wares at Tell el-Amarna and with the notable absence

of Base Ring I and Red Lustrous Wares (Eriksson 2001b: 64-65).

At Shechem, a Base Ring jug rim, two handles and a carinated bowl sherd appear

in Stratum XIV. The jug is vertically burnished on the neck and has a reddish gray slip

(Plate 31:1). The Base Ring wishbone handle is burnished with a brown slip, while the

other handle with a rounded section has a dark gray slip (Plate 31: 2-3). The carinated

bowl sherd and the wishbone handle described above appear in similar fabrics and likely

represent the same vessel (Plate 31:4). While there is an absence of relief decoration on

the Stratum XIV sherds, the high lustrous burnishing has traditionally been associated

with Base Ring I ware. Vaughn has challenged this simplistic classification based on

surface treatment in favor of one that incorporates more technical attributes (1991: 128-

129).

In Stratum XIII, open and closed Base Ring vessels include carinated bowls and

jug rims, bowl and jug bases, a jug handle and a Base Ring II painted body sherd. The

Base Ring bowls have a beveled-in rim (Plate 67: 3, 5) and bulbous rim profiles (Plate

67:2), are horizontally burnished with dark grayish brown, brown or black slips. They

appear in a similar grayish colored fabric that has distinctive inclusions. The beveled-in

rim bowl contains limestone and opaque black inclusions, while the bulbous rim bowl

contains iron oxides and quartz inclusions. The rim on Plate 110:3 was recovered from

surface Locus 3356 in Room L.

Two jug rims are defined by everted flanged rims and appear with light reddish

brown and gray burnished slips (Plate 67:6, 8). The bases belong to a bowl (Plate 67: 7)

and jug (Plate 67: 9) and display a dark gray burnished slip. The body sherd of Base Ring

174

II in a Stratum XIII destruction level in Room C has the characteristic white painted

decoration arranged in a group of three or four parallel strokes (Plate 67:10). The Base

Ring handle, with a yellowish red burnished slip, is preserved with the excess plug of

clay that served to secure the bottom portion of the handle to the body by penetrating the

vessel wall (Plate 67:11). Finally, a Base Ring body sherd from a jug has a yellowish red

slip and is horizontally burnished (Plate 67: 12). The Base Ring II white painted

decoration, which appears most frequently in Late Bronze IIA contexts in the Levant

appears in Stratum XIII.

Base Ring dominates the imported wares in the sub-floor chamber which includes

jugs, bilbils and bowls. A unique Base Ring II sherd, both for its combination of relief

and pinkish white paint decoration and its light red exterior slip appears in Locus 3771, a

layer near the bottom of the sub-floor chamber. While the combination of painted and

relief decoration is characteristic of Base Ring II wares, the painted tree-pattern motif is

not as frequently occurring as the parallel painted lines. Astrom notes that the painted tree

motif occurs on baskets, strainers resembling tankards and lentoid flasks (1972:196-197).

The example preserved in the sub-floor chamber likely represents the neck and body of a

closed vessel such as a flask. Since flasks represent a common import to the Levant at

sites in the north, but more commonly at southern coastal sites such as Tell el`Ajjul and

in the Shephelah at Tel Batash (Steele 2006:158), we can now include the Central Hill

Country region as well. Unfortunately, parallels for the painted tree motif were not found.

In Stratum XII, a variety of Base Ring vessels appear including a carinated bowl,

the rim and neck of a jug, two handles, four painted body sherds, two bases and two

undecorated body sherds. The carinated bowl has a bulbous rim and a dark gray

175

burnished slip (Plate 109: 1). The rim and neck of a Base Ring I jug with molded

decoration at the base of the neck appears in a fill locus. Although the two pieces do not

mend, they are of the same fabric. Two ring bases with horizontal burnishing and a dark

gray slip, likely belong to a bowl and jug (Plate 109: 2-3). Two handles, one with the

excess clay, known as a plug and a double handle appear with dark gray slips (Plate

109:4, 6). Four body sherds of Base Ring II appear with a gray slip and pinkish white or

white painted parallel strokes (Plate 109: 7-10). They appear in surface Loci 3736 and

3519 and in destruction level Locus 3509 in Stratum XII. Finally, two undecorated body

sherds have reddish brown and dark gray slips. In Stratum XII, the occurrence of Base

Ring I in Locus 3343, a fill level for a Late Bronze IIB surface in the eastern sector of

Field XIII, is likely a residual sherd from earlier strata.

Monochrome Ware

This Cypriot ware is hand-made, undecorated and poorly defined and commonly

grouped with other wares (Steel 2006:157). The fabric is usually buff in color with a red

to brown matte slip applied to the surface In Stratum XIII, a bowl with a beveled-in rim

and red slip, as well as a krater with a simple rounded rim and reddish yellow slip appear

in an iron rich clay (Plate 67: 1, 4). The fabric of both vessels is comprised of limestone,

iron oxides and opaque black inclusions. Monochrome ware is found in Late Cypriot I to

IIA contexts on Cyprus and usually in transitional Middle Bronze to Late Bronze Age

contexts in the southern Levant (Steel 2006:157). At Tel Batash in Stratum X,

Monochrome Ware is recorded solely in Late Bronze I contexts where it is found

alongside White Slip I and Base Ring I (Steel 2006:157). At Shechem, these

176

monochrome ware vessels occur in Locus 3526 and Locus 3740, a surface and

destruction level respectively, which is attributed to the Late Bronze IIA. Also appearing

in these loci are Base Ring II and White Slip II wares.

Bichrome Ware

Ten body sherds and rims with bichrome decorated bands and fragmentary

metopes designs were excavated in strata XIII and XII. They are included here because

they differ in the quality and execution of the painted design when compared to the

bichrome painted sherds described above, but appear to be fabricated from local fabrics

(Plates 61:2-3; 68:7-8).141 There were no bichrome decorated sherds excavated from

Stratum XIV.142 The sherds and rims belong to biconical jars, storage jars and bowls. In

Stratum XIII, the bichrome sherds were recovered from destruction levels (Loci 3735,

3740 and 3744) above floors in Area 4, in the eastern sector of Field XIII. The decorative

motif includes horizontal bands framing a wavy band (Plate 61:2), framed vertical wavy

lines (Plates 61:8, 10; 68:7-8) and framed horizontal bands (Plate 61:3). In Stratum XII,

three bichrome decorated sherds and a jar rim display framed horizontal bichrome bands

and a framed wavy line (Plate 110:2, 3, 7). The bichrome sherd on Plate 110:3 was

recovered from one of the plaster surfaces in Room C, while the sherd on Plate 110:7

came from the surface of Yard B, all of which are located in the western sector of Field

141 The NAA analysis of Wheel-made Bichrome ware from sites in the Levant, Egypt and Cyprus revealed that most of the finer wares originated from eastern Cyprus, while samples from Megiddo revealed a local provenience for some of the vessels. This appears to correspond with Heurtley’s original stylistic divisions of the ware into “mature” and “pre-figure” styles (Artzy, Asaro and Perlman 1973; Artzy 2001:161; Heurtley 1939). See also Karageorghis (2001:153) who suggests a Syrian or Anatolian origin for the pictorial style of the ware, which was produced by potters who settled on Cyprus. 142 Bichrome Ware appears most frequently at coastal sites and along trade routes such as the Jezreel Valley in the Levant (Artzy 2001:167).

177

XIII. The bichrome jar rim was found in a fill level under one of the Stratum XII floors in

Room C.

143 Mycenaean Ware

Two Mycenaean sherds were recovered from Field XIII, although fifteen vessels

were excavated elsewhere on the Shechem mound (Leonard 1993; Wright 1967).144 The

Late Bronze IIA witnessed the arrival of Mycenaean wares to the Levant, with the most

common Late Helladic IIIA2 vessels being the piriform jar, straight-sided alabastron,

stirrup jar and the globular flask (Mountjoy 1993:172). In the Late Helladic IIIA1,

goblets and piriform jars with scale or spiral motifs appear in the Levant in small

quantities (Mountjoy 1993:169).145

In Stratum XIV, a neck sherd with a pale yellow burnished slip appears with a

single wide band and two parallel thinner bands (Plate 31:13). In the bottom corner of the

sherd there are faint traces of another band. The thinner bands were reddish brown in

color and the wider band was light red. An interesting feature of this decoration was a

flourish or tail that trailed below the thinner bands as they were applied by the potter.146

The vessel diameter is 6 cm, indicating that the closed vessel might have been a jug with

143 Three Mycenaean sherds were recovered in Field XIII, but only two from Late Bronze Age strata will be described here. The third is a disk base recovered from Stratum IXB, Locus 3518, a transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron context, and has a reddish yellow (7.5YR7/6) burnished slip with a red (2.5YR5/8) painted band encircling the top of the base. The base is 3cm and displays spiral rilling on the bottom, indicating that it was wheel-made. 144 See the index of Mycenaean forms found at sites in Syria-Palestine, including Shechem (Leonard 1993:210). The Mycenaean vessels excavated at Shechem include a piriform jar, globular flask, stemmed cup or kylix, and kraters. 145 Although less common, Late Helladic IIA Mycenaean wares have been found at Lachish and Tell el-`Ajjul, Byblos, Saqarra and Thebes. In the Late Helladic IIB, wares were found at Amman and at Kahun in Egypt (Mountjoy 1993: 169). 146 See Furumark (1992), Pl. 39:60 and 61, Pl. 40:63 for examples of this flourish on a globular three handled jar from Ialysos, dated to the Late Helladic IIIB (Pl. 39:61), and on a globular-biconical vessel from Kalymnos, dated to the Late Helladic IIIC (Pl. 40:63). The flourish on these vessels finish above, rather than below the decorative band as was the case on the Shechem sherd.

178

the cutaway neck (FS132) or a stirrup jug (FS150). These Late Helladic IIIA1 vessels are

typically characterized by linear decoration which surrounds the neck (Mountjoy 1986:

Fig. 66, 68). The vessel from Shechem was excavated in a Stratum XIV fill locus,

suggesting that this sherd is from a disturbed context. It appeared also with a button base,

bulbous rim bowl and profiled pithos rim.

In Stratum XIII, a Mycenaean body sherd with a burnished very pale brown slip

was excavated in Stratum XIII in Locus 3739 (Plate 66:11). The decoration consists of

five painted bands of unequal thickness and a fragmentary half circle. The bottom band is

painted in a dark gray color, with two reddish brown bands above. The widest band

contains two different colored lines. The main band is red and is outlined by two dark

gray strokes. Directly above the series of bands is a reddish brown half circle design that

resembles the U-pattern (FM45) or simple quirk motifs (FM48) based on Furumark’s

typology of decorative motifs (Furumark 1992). The vessel may belong to one of a

variety of Mycenaean forms including, the linear decorated small piriform jars (FS45),

the straight-sided alabastron (FS94) and the small jug (FS114). The FS114 provides the

best parallel for the Shechem example as this vessel type has multiple linear bands of

varying widths with the U-pattern design (Mountjoy 1986: Fig. 85:4). This vessel is dated

to the Late Helladic IIIA2, which corresponds with the middle of the 13th century or the

Late Bronze IIA in the Levant. In Stratum VII at Tel Batash, alabastra (FS94) appear as

the most frequent export vessel to the Levant (Steel 2006:160)

The Shechem examples display similar fabrics, but differ in the types of

inclusions that are visible macroscopically. The Mycenaean neck sherd was recovered

from Stratum XIV Locus 3534, which is layer of fill below the stratum XIV surfaces in

179

Yard B in the western sector of Field XIII. This decorated sherd is comprised of a fine

matrix of limestone, iron oxides and opaque black minerals. The decorated body sherd

from Stratum XIII was recovered from surface Locus 3739, which was located in the

northernmost room in the eastern sector of Field XIII. This sherd contained quartz in

addition to limestone, iron oxides and opaque black minerals. In both fabrics, the

inclusion frequency is <5%, with grain size not exceeding <0.5mm, indicating a very

finely made fabric. Neutron Activation analysis of Mycenaean sherds at Tell Abu Hawam

and Tel Beth Shean share chemical similarities with one another and indicate an origin in

the Greek mainland. Hankey suggests that once Mycenaean vessels arrived at the

northern coastal site of Tel Abu Hawam, the Jezreel Valley was the route by which these

vessels moved inland into the Jordan Valley (Hankey 1993: 92).

Marl D

The fabric and surface treatment of this body sherd is quite unique when

compared to the coarser fabrics that characterize the Shechem assemblage. While it is

difficult to determine the overall shape of the vessel from this small fragment, one of the

Egyptian Marl D vessels found in the Levant in the Late Bronze Age was the one-

handled mug, the EG8 according to Killebrew’s typology (Killebrew 2005:69, fig. 2.12).

The Shechem example has a horizontally burnished pale yellow slip, with reddish yellow

interior and exterior edges and a distinctive brown core. The distinguishing feature of this

Egyptian ware is the burnished white slip and fabric, which is characterized by abundant

and rounded (10%) limestone inclusions, >5mm, in a well-sorted matrix. The sherd of

180

Marl D was found in debris layer Locus 3536, which was atop the Stratum XIV surface

in Yard B in the western sector of Field XIII.

147 Egypto-Canaanite Bowls

Three bowls display rim profiles of the Egyptian-Canaanite style bowls, which

occur in local fabrics have tentatively been identified at Shechem. In Stratum XIII, two

everted rim bowls with painted decorated bands (Plate 40:2-3) were found in Loci 3356

and 3360, both of which are surfaces discerned in Room L. Room L was one of a series

of rooms located in the southernmost area in the eastern sector of Field XIII. In Stratum

XII, a thick-walled bowl with a flat base was recovered from Locus 3518, which was a

surface layer in Yard B in the western sector of the field (Plate 79:8).While identifying

these types as being Levantine or Egyptian inspired can be challenging, the splayed rim

variety appears more frequently in 13th and 12th century contexts at Tel Beth-Shean

(Mullins 2007: 446).

Non-Local Wares

The abraded base from Shechem resembles a spindle bottle or flask that is

common to the repertoire of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware (RLW-m), but differs from

this Cypriote ware in fabric and finish (Plate 31:14). The sherd, from Locus 3539 in a

Stratum XIV fill level, has a light reddish brown thin slip, a light brownish gray interior

and a mottled surface with limestone inclusions protruding slightly from the surface.

Equally spaced spiral lines appear on the interior of the vessel walls indicating the vessel

147 These “hybrid” type vessels are discussed by Mullins (2007:442-447) in relation to the appearance at Tel Beth-Shean.

181

was wheel-made. This Cypriote ware is dated the Late Cypriot (LC) IA/B where it

coincides with the rise of Thutmosis III in Egypt. By the Late Cypriot IIB or the mid-14th

century, Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware was no longer found in Egypt and was on the

decline in the Levant (Eriksson 2007:52-53). The provenience of the sherd in a Stratum

XIV fill level at Shechem corresponds well with the chronological time span noted for

the ware in Cypriote and Egyptian contexts.

Summary Conclusions

The typological presentation of the ceramics from Strata XIV to XII in Field XIII

provides a significant contribution to our understanding of the ceramics at a Central Hill

Country Site. The Shechem assemblage corresponds well with the Late Bronze

stratigraphic sequences specifically, Lachish, Tel Batash, Tel Beth-Shean and Megiddo,

all of which have well-stratified Late Bronze Age sequences. The Shechem assemblage

from Strata XIV to XII reflects a rural and domestic assemblage comprised primarily of

utilitarian or domestic wares, which include bowls, kraters, cooking pots, jars, jugs,

juglets, cups, and pottery stands and a limited range of specialty wares such as, chalices,

goblets, biconical jars, lamps and flasks. Bowls, cooking pots and jars maintain some

morphological and stylistic attributes from Middle Bronze IIC types. The simple rounded

and internally thickened bowls, everted and rounded rim cooking pots and compound or

profiled rim jars continue into the Late Bronze Age at Shechem. Residual forms such as

holemouth cooking vessels and elaborately profiled storage jars appear as well, no doubt

due to the leveling of Field XIII in the early Late Bronze I.

An analysis of the macro fabrics reveals that the Limestone Group comprises

most of the assemblage, followed by the Quartz and Lithic Groups. The Calcite Group

182

was used primarily for cooking pots, although the everted and triangular rim type (Ddea )

also appeared in the Quartz Group, reflecting a similar tradition at Beth Shean and

Baq`ah Valley where calcite and quartz steadily increased throughout the Late Bronze

Age. This raises interesting questions concerning the influence that the Jordan Valley

exerted on ceramic traditions at Shechem, but have not been explored in this study.

Cultural influence is evident from the lowland areas in the east where Egyptian-style

ceramic traditions existed, as well as from the west in the Jordan Valley.

Cooking vessels were constructed from two Fabric Groups 5 and 6, whose

predominant inclusion consisted of crushed calcite. In Stratum XIV, Fabric Group 5 was

used more frequently in the construction of cooking pots, but declined in popularity to

Fabric Group 6 in strata XIII and XII. The typological analysis also revealed a cooking

pot type which may be considered as a forerunner to the upright and flanged cooking pots

of the Early Iron Age. Appearing primarily in Stratum XII, the out-curved and upright

cooking pots with triangular rims, the Cdea and Bdea types, contain hybrid features such

as, an outer groove or channel on the rim that elongated slightly the well-known

triangular rim types, but do not replace the Ddea type completely.

Generally, jars exhibited the most diverse range of morphological types and

macroscopic fabrics, reflecting the cultural contact between the Hill Country and

Lowland and coastal regions and Jordan Valley.

Cypriote and Aegean wares include White Slip I and II, including transitional

types such as White Slip with a bichrome effect, Base Ring I and II, Monochrome Ware,

Red-on-Black Ware, Cypriot Bichrome Ware and Late Helladic IIIA1 and 2. In addition,

Egyptian imports and Egyptian-style vessels are present. For example, a fragment of a

183

highly burnished and white slipped Egyptian Marl D, a thick-walled bowl with a flat base

and several splayed rims were excavated in Strata XIII and XII.

The macroscopic fabric analysis reveals the popularity of two Fabric Groups

throughout the three Late Bronze Age strata. The Limestone Group including Fabric

Groups (FG) 2 and 3 account for the predominant fabrics across vessel types including,

simple and carinated bowls, kraters, jars and jugs. The coarse-sized non-plastic

inclusions, which include limestone bodies, iron oxides and opaque black minerals would

have reduced the plasticity of the clay and resulted in short clays. These clays were more

suitable for hand-building, coiling and slow turning on a hand-operated tournette, rather

than a fast-wheel, which is thought to have been replaced in the Sixteenth century BCE

(Franken 1990:90; Franken 1992:149). Indeed, the only evidence observed for fast-wheel

production at Shechem is the finishing of rims on jars and cooking pots. The

characteristic rilling, reflected in fast wheel production is visible on the upper bodies and

rims of the vessels.

Surface treatments such as slips and exterior burnishing are not common in

Stratum XIV, but increase significantly in the Late Bronze IIA and B. In strata XIII and

XII, brown, pink and red colored slips occur on 35 percent and 33 percent of the

assemblage respectively, while burnishing accounts for 12 percent in Stratum XIII and 13

percent in Stratum XII. The persistence of ceramic traditions such as, exterior slips and

burnishing in Late Bronze IIB at Shechem is surprising, given that the end of the Late

Bronze Age is believed to have signaled a decline in ceramic technology and

workmanship (Bienkowski 2004:1371). This appears not to have been the case at

Shechem where many ceramic traditions continued uninterrupted, reflected also in the

184

overall continuity of the main architectural layout of Field XIII throughout all Late

Bronze Age strata.

185

Chapter 6

Petrography of Late Bronze Age Ceramics: The Petrofabrics at Shechem

Petrography has become a common analytical approach to studying Late Bronze

Age ceramics over the last twenty years, since petrographic analysis is the best method

for analyzing fabrics with coarse inclusions from igneous and metamorphic rocks (Glass,

Goren, Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993 (Shiloh); Killebrew 2001 (Giloh); Master et al.

2005 (Dothan); Franken 2005 (Jerusalem); Cohen-Weinberger 1998 (Tel Beth Shean)

and Glass 1989 (Tel Michal). When petrographic analysis of ceramics is combined with

other chemical techniques such as, instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and

x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), a more complete picture of ceramic production

and provenience is revealed (Tite 1999:197; Harrison and Hancock 2005 (Megiddo) and

Maeir 2007 (Beth-Shean).

Petrographic analysis of ceramics at the intrasite level has often been overlooked

in favor of broader inter-regional studies that aim to characterize trade and exchange

networks by establishing geographical provenience. While research into long-distance

trade during the Late Bronze Age is relevant, equally as important is the investigation of

intrasite ceramic production to reveal the complexities of production at the site level. The

petrographic studies at Shiloh, Giloh, Dothan, Jerusalem, Tell Beth Shean and Tel Michal

reveal that a diverse range of clay and aplastic inclusions co-existed at a single site,

reflecting the variety of technical choices available within the production sequence or

chaînes opératoire. This process refers to “suite” of operations, both technical and

cultural that combine to create the “life history” of an artifact (Roux 2003: 2, 9). The

186

characterization of local ceramic technologies reveals that ceramic traditions are more

heterogeneous in nature, while ethnoarchaeological research indicates that distinct

mineralogical differences can exist in ceramics from a homogenous geological setting,

reflecting the variability of raw materials (Stark, Bishop and Miksa 2000:296).148

Ceramic production at Shechem and other Late Bronze age sites reveals that

production was more regionally heterogeneous than previously characterized. While the

ceramic industry experienced substantial changes from the preceding Middle Bronze

Period, specifically in manufacturing methods and clay selection, the characterization of

Late Bronze Age ceramics has been influenced also by the perception that Egyptian

influence in the region had a “negative” impact on Levantine culture, including ceramic

production (Albright 1949:93).

The sagging rims and necks, cracked bases and surface “blooms” characteristic of

some Late Bronze Age ceramics is seen as a function of how a potter’s technological

choices can lead to unanticipated results (Franken and London 1995). However, the

adoption of short clays with coarser inclusions resulted in undesirable traits. The poorer

quality pottery produced in the early Iron Age was attributed to a shift to village

production, caused by a breakdown in the production-distribution network (Wood

1990:72). Similarly, in light of the low settlement integration and site hierarchy exhibited

by Central Hill Country sites during the Late Bronze Age, could this socio-economic shift

have impacted technological choices concerning raw materials and manufacturing

techniques. Sillar and Tite argue that technological choice may be a result of cultural

factors such as the role played by pottery in a society and may not always be related to

148 This study of two Kalinga villages in the Philippines, which were separated by two kilometers showed that although the groups shared similar clay sources, the ceramics differed mineralogically suggesting that raw materials play a complex role in the production process (Stark et al., 2000:298).

187

the technical skill of the potter (2000:14). Increasingly, studies are now characterizing the

diversity in raw material and manufacturing techniques at the site level and their

significance in accurately constructing regional traditions (Franken 2005; Magrill and

Middleton 2000, 2004).

In this chapter, the petrographic results of bowls, cooking pots and holemouth

vessels from Field XIII at Shechem will be presented and situated within the wider

lithological environment of the Shechem Valley and Central Hill Country. In addition,

the Shechem petrofabrics will be compared to the petrography of letters 250 and 253

within the Amarna correspondence mentioning Lab’ayu and Shechem. Finally, a review

of significant ceramic studies of Late Bronze Age ceramic technology will be discussed.

Geology of the Shechem Region (Figure 17)

Shechem is located within a geomorphological formation known as the Shechem

Syncline that stretches north to south from the Jezreel Valley to Shechem (Zertal

2004:23). This syncline or dip in the landscape resulted in the peaks of Mount Ebal and

Mount Gerizim being composed of younger rocks dating to the Eocene and Senonian

Periods, while formations located in the east and west in the Samaria region are

composed of hard limestones dating to the later Cenomanian and Turonian periods

(Zertal 2004:24).149 The underlying geology of the Shechem Valley originates from the

Timrat, Meroz and Yizre`el Formations, which are composed of limestone, chalk and

chert, dating to the Lower-Middle Eocene Period (Sneh, Bartov and Rosensaft 1998:

Sheet 2). Outcroppings of chalk, marl and clay from the Mount Scopus Group are found

149 See Singer (2007: Fig. 4.1-3) for a geological cross-section of Mount Ebal indicating the Lower Cretaceous period at the base and the Upper and Lower Cenomanian periods at 704m at the peak.

188

in the pass separating Mount Gerizim in the south and Mount Ebal to the north. At the

eastern end of this pass, alluvium composed of gravel, sand, clay and loess from the

Quaternary Period is located, while outcroppings of limestone, marl and dolostone from

the Bina and Weradim Formations are located in the valley near the site of itself (Sneh,

Bartov and Rosensaft 1998: Sheet 2). The Samaria region in general is characterized by

western mountains that are composed of chalk from the hard limestone ridges (Singer

2007:88).

Soil Types in the Shechem Region

The soils most commonly associated with the mountain slopes include terra

rossa, rendzinas and brown forest. Terra rossa soils are usually found where limestone or

dolomite rocks have been exposed to humid conditions and in areas where 400 mm of

rainfall occurs (Singer 2007:91). The Munsell hues range from 2.5YR to 5YR. Pale

rendzina soils are commonly found on chalk or marl, which makes them highly

calcareous, while brown forest and brown rendzina soils are found on calcareous rocks

located in the hills and plateaus flanking the higher mountain ranges (Singer 2007:116).

These soils are dark brown and rich in organic matter, resulting in a 10YR hue, while

brown forest and brown rendzina soils are composed of quartz and feldspars. An

interesting feature of soils in the mountain ranges is their close proximity to one another

and the tendency for a rapid transition between soils types, leading to pale rendzina and

brown rendzina soils to form a “mixed soil mosaic” (Singer 2007: 91).150

150 Although the close association between terra rossa and rendzinas exists, there are large continuous areas of terra rossa soil in the western and upper eastern flanks of the Samaria Mountains (Singer 2007:91).

189

The resulting geological formations and soils in the Shechem area resulted in a

diverse range of clays sources potentially being available to potters including, limestone,

dolostone, marl and chalk. Since ethnographic research has shown that potters will

procure raw materials within specific distances of their workshops, the potters at

Shechem had a variety of raw materials from which to choose.151

Petrographic Analysis: Methodology

Petrographic analysis was conducted on bowl, cooking pot and holemouth vessels

from Late Bronze Age Shechem following a typological classification of 3200 sherds,

according to vessel morphology and macroscopic fabric analysis (Tables 6 and 7).

Polarized light microscopy involves grinding fragments of the ceramic samples to a

thickness of 0.03 mm and affixing it to a glass slide. These thin-sections were viewed

both in plane polarized (ppl) and crossed polars (xpl) and minerals were identified

according to their unique optical properties such as relief, pleochroism, extinction and

birefringence (Mason 2004:20, Fig. 2.3).

Seven percent of bowls were submitted for thin-sectioning out of a total of 506

examples within this vessel class in Strata XIV to XII. Eleven percent of cooking pots

and 7 percent of holemouth vessels were also submitted for petrographic analysis. The

resulting sixty thin-sections152 represent ceramics from various types within these three

vessel classes. The proportion of inclusions in the ceramic body was estimated using the

151 Arnold (1985) found that seven kilometers is the maximum distance that potters will travel in order to procure raw materials. Given the behavioral variability inherent within the production process, one would predict that this distance might fluctuate. 152 The polished thin sections were prepared by the Department of Geology at the University of Toronto.

190

visual percentage estimation charts (Terry and Chilingar 1955) and inclusion size was

measured under a 10x magnification using the Wentworth grade scale (Wentworth 1922).

Petrographic analysis was pursued for two reasons; first, to investigate whether

morphological continuity between strata was reflected technologically in terms of clay

sources and aplastic inclusions. More specifically, did Shechem potters utilize the same

local clays and tempers in a similar manner throughout the Late Bronze Age? And

secondly, how did the assignment of ceramics to macro fabric groups correspond with

petrographic groups?

Since a clay sample from Shechem was not available for petrographic analysis,

meeting the criteria outlined by Stoltman is relevant for this study. The criteria for a

“locally” produced vessel, includes a vessel comparison with local geological samples, an

accepted “local” vessel or compositional homogeneity within a vessel class (2001:312).

At Shechem, compositional homogeneity within a vessel class in Field XIII has been

observed at the macroscopic level. As will be indicated below, vessel classes at Shechem

show consistency in petrofabrics in strata XIV to XII in Field XIII as well.

The visual assignment of ceramics to macroscopically did not always correspond

well to the petrographic groups. At Shechem, as at Tel Batash, discrepancies were

identified between the two levels of analysis and will be discussed in detail below. The

analysis of the Late Bronze and Early Iron I assemblage at Tel Batash indicated that

fifteen macro fabric groups actually comprise only four petrographic groups (Cohen-

Weinberger 2006:22). In addition, fabrics were grouped on a macro level were in fact

petrographically distinct. At Tel Beth Shean, twenty-nine fabric groups were reduced to

nine petrographic groups (Cohen-Weinberger 2007:551)

191

As the option to submit an entire assemblage for petrographic analysis is not

feasible, the value of incorporating petrographic observations early in the analysis to

better inform standard macro-analysis can not be understated (Stoltman 2001:308). This

was a methodological approach employed by Shepard in her study of southwestern

ceramics and one that Stoltman says is “underappreciated by archaeologists” (Stoltman

2001:308, Shepard 1942).

Petrographic Results: Strata XIV-XII

The ceramics submitted for petrographic analysis included bowls, cooking pots

and holemouth vessels from strata XIV to XII. Most of the ceramic classes belong to

distinct petrographic groups, which shared similarities in both clay and aplastic inclusions

(Cohen-Weinberger & Wolff 2001:639; Porat & Goren 2002:253). The petrographic

distinction between vessel classes was most pronounced with the use of a calcite for

cooking pots and holemouth vessels, while bowls were comprised of fossiliferous

limestone, dolomite or shale fabrics. The petrographic groups will be described below

with a discussion of the vessel classes and ceramic types included in each group.

Fossiliferous-Limestone Group Group F-L (Figure 18a, Tables 8 and 10) This petrographic fabric appears in an optically active brownish-tan, tan and

ferruginous clays. Nineteen sherds belong to the Fossiliferous-limestone petrographic

group. It is characterized by 10 to 20 percent well sorted foraminifera fragments with

some appearing as well-rounded single and double-chamber ooliths, ranging in size from

0.05mm to 0.25mm; 3 to 10 percent sub-rounded to rounded, moderately sorted

192

153limestone bodies, many of which contain rounded foraminifera, 0.25mm to 1.2mm in

size; 1 to 7 percent poor to moderately sorted, rounded to sub-rounded iron oxides,154

some of which contain angular quartz, ranging from 0.15 to 0.6mm in size; 3 to 15

percent angular to sub-angular, moderate to well sorted sub-angular fine to medium sand-

sized quartz grains ranging from 0.05mm to 0.25mm with undulose extinction, with one

sample containing rounded to sub-rounded, moderately sorted medium to coarse sand-

size quartz grains ranging in size from 0.25 to 0.5mm; 1 to 3 percent poorly sorted,

angular calcite rhombs from 0.05mm to 1.0mm; 1 to 2 percent poorly sorted, sub-rounded

very fine to fine sand-size hornblende ranging from 0.25mm to 0.15mm, 1 to 3 percent

poorly sorted, sub-rounded very fine to medium sand-size pyroxene grains ranging from

0.025mm to 0.18mm; and 1 percent poorly sorted, angular to sub-rounded twinned

plagioclase ranging from 0.05mm to 0.25mm. Three samples contained 1 to 3 percent

poorly sorted, sub-angular to rounded chert ranging from 0.1mm to 0.6mm. One sample

contained poorly sorted, angular biotite grain at 0.1mm in size.

Simple rounded rim bowls (Baaa type) occurred in this petrographic fabric

throughout strata XIV to XII (Chart 14), as did Bcga and Bcha bowl types in Strata XIII

and XII only (Chart 15.) Two cooking pots, with an everted triangular rim type also

belonged to this petrographic group.

153 Whitbread (1995:386) refers to these concretions as textual concentration features (tcf’s) that may be formed by the mixing of clays. 154 Goren (2000:498) characterizes the spherical bodies of reddish ferruginous silty soil as terra rossa that were mixed with carbonatic clays intentionally by the potter and was a common trend in all periods. Cohen-Weinberger (2006:18) notes “dark mud balls” in her petrographic Group A1 at Tel Batash as a mixture of terra rossa soil. At Tel el-Dab`a, the analysis of Middle Bronze/Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate period Canaanite ceramics comprised carbonatic ferruginous and argillaceous clays mixed with terra rossa clays, which was considered a “Levantine trait” (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004) See Singer (2007) who suggests that clay sources in Central Hill country, which are located in close proximity to one another may inadvertently lead to mixing and may not reflect a “cultural” or technological decision.

193

Fossiliferous-Limestone (Dolomite Rhombs) Group F-L/1 (Figure 18b, Tables 8 and 11) This petrographic group is similar in clay to Group F-L but contains single

rhombs of dolomite and signs of dolomitization, the transformation of calcite into

dolomite. Six sherds belonged to this petrographic group. Group F-L/1 is characterized

by 2 to 30 foraminifera, moderately to well sorted, appearing with rounded single and

double chambered ooliths, ranging in size from 0.075mm to 0.2mm; 3 to 5 percent

limestone bodies, poor to moderately sorted, rounded to sub-rounded ranging from

0.15mm to 1.7mm; 2 to 5 percent iron oxides, poorly sorted, sub-rounded ranging from

0.08mm to 0.9mm, some opaques containing angular quartz; 2 to 10 percent poor to

moderately sorted, sub-angular to angular fine to medium sand-size quartz, ranging in

size from 0.05mm to 0.25mm; 5 to 30 percent, moderate to well sorted, angular dolomite

rhombs, with five samples displaying dolomitization with anhedral shaped rhombs and

one example with single euhedral rhombs, all ranging in size from 0.15mm to 0.85mm; 1

percent poorly sorted, sub-rounded hornblende ranging from 0.075mm to 0.15mm; 1

percent pyroxene, poorly sorted, sub-angular ranging from 0.05mm to 0.1mm; and 1

percent poorly sorted, sub-angular chert grains, ranging in size from 0.1 to 0.5mm. One

sample contains 1 percent twinned plagioclase, poorly sorted and sub-angular grains at

0.1mm.

A Bcha bowl type belongs to the F-L/1 Group, appearing throughout strata XIV to

XII. Two examples of the Bcga bowl type appears in strata XIV and XIII, while one

example of the Baaa bowl type from Stratum XIV was assigned to this petrographic

group.

194

Micritic Limestone Group M-L (Figure 18d Table 9) This group is distinguished from the F-L groups by the infrequent occurrence of

foraminifera fragments, the occurrence of micrtic limestone and the presence of biotite

within the matrix and in iron oxide or opaque inclusions. One sherd belonged to this

petrographic group. This optically active fabric contains 2 percent foraminifera

fragments, moderately sorted, well rounded, ranging in size from 0.05mm to 0.1mm; 5

percent micritic limestone, moderately sorted, rounded ranging in size from 0.3mm to

0.6mm; 5 percent opaques, moderately sorted, well rounded, ranging in size form 0.05 to

0.1mm; 3 percent iron oxides that contain angular quartz, moderately sorted, rounded

ranging in size from 0.5mm to 0.1mm; 3 percent moderately sorted angular biotite,

exhibiting pleochroism (0.5mm); 2 percent poorly sorted angular pyroxene ranging from

0.05mm to 0.1mm; and 1 percent poorly sorted, angular calcite ranging in size from

0.15mm to 0.35mm. A simple rounded rim bowl, the Baaa type from Stratum XII was

assigned to this petrographic group.

Shale Group Group F (Figure 18c, Tables 8 and 12) Nine sherds were assigned to this petrographic group based on the inclusion of

shale, siltstones, and bimodal quartz grains. This group is primarily ferruginous in color

under plane-polarized light with a few examples appearing brown and tan. The clay likely

represents terra rossa soil that is known in Samaria and Judea and is found in the

Shechem area (Singer 2007). The group is characterized by 2 to 15 percent foraminifera

fragments, poor to well sorted, rounded ranging in size from 0.025mm to 0.25mm; 4 to

195

10 percent limestone bodies, poor to moderately sorted, round to sub-round ranging from

0.4mm to 1.2mm, some of which contain iron-rich nodules with quartz within; 1 to 5

percent iron oxides, poorly sorted, sub-angular to angular ranging from 0.025 to 1.0mm,

some containing angular quartz grains; 5 to 10 percent well sorted, sub-angular to sub-

rounded fine to medium sand-sized quartz grains ranging from 0.025mm to 0.25mm; 2 to

5 percent poorly sorted rounded medium to coarse sand-sized quartz grains ranging from

02mm to 0.6mm; 1 to 3 percent poorly sorted angular calcite ranging from 0.3mm to

1.6mm; 1 to 5 percent moderately sorted, rounded shale grains ranging from 0.1mm to

0.6mm; 1 to 3 percent moderately sorted, sub-angular siltstone ranging from 0.3mm to

1.1mm; 1 to 2 percent poorly sorted, sub-rounded chert ranging in size from 0.3mm to

1.2mm; trace amounts of poorly sorted and sub-angular hornblende (0.02m); poorly

sorted and sub-rounded pyroxenes ranging from 0.02mm to 0.5mm; and poorly sorted

and angular twinned plagioclase ranging in size from 0.1 to 0.2mm.

Seven bowls with a simple rounded rim, the Baaa type, were assigned to this

petrographic group. Two interior thickened bowls, the Bcha and Bcga bowl types, also

belonged to this petrographic group, the former appearing in Stratum XIII and the latter

in Stratum XIV. This petrographic group represents the Lower Cretaceous formation,

where the combination of shales and siltstones can be found in the nearby Wadi Malikh

and Wadi Far`ah regions (Buzaglo and Goren 2006:387-388).155

155 The Lower Cretaceous group, comprised of ferruginous to argillaceous shales, siltstones and spheroids of iron oxides was used widely in the construction of Iron II storage jars at Tel Beth Shean since the clay increases the strength of the vessels (Buzaglo and Goren 2006: 388).

196

Calcite Group Group C/1 (Figure 18e, Table 9) Twenty sherds belong to this petrographic group, primarily cooking pot forms and

holemouth vessels. This petrographic group is characterized by 5 to 10 percent angular

calcite moderate to well sorted, ranging in size from 0.02mm to 1.5mm, displaying a

rhombohedral and tabular shape; 3 to 7 percent moderate to well sorted, sub-rounded to

sub-angular very fine to fine sand-sized quartz, ranging from 0.05mm to 0.15mm; with

one sample containing 3 percent well sorted, sub-rounded to sub-angular very fine sand-

sized quartz ranging from 0.025mm to 0.05mm and 2 percent moderately sorted, sub-

angular, medium to coarse sand-sized quartz grains ranging in size from 0.2mm to

0.4mm; 1 to 5 percent poorly sorted, rounded limestone ranging in size from 0.15mm to

1.0mm; 1 to 2 percent poorly sorted, rounded iron oxides ranging from 0.025mm to

0.45mm; 1 to 3 percent poorly sorted, sub-rounded hornblende ranging in size from

0.01mm to 0.05mm; 1 percent poorly sorted, sub-rounded plagioclase with lamellar

twinning ranging in size from 0.025mm to 0.3mm; 1 to 2 percent poorly sorted angular

chert ranging from 0.45mm to 0.6mm; and 1 to 3 percent poorly sorted, rounded

pyroxenes ranging in size from 0.2mm to 0.5mm.

Twelve cooking pots and holemouth vessels belonged to this petrographic group,

including the everted triangular rim Ddea cooking pot type, which appeared in stratum

XIV to XII, as well as Ddha type in Strata XII. Five holemouth vessels, representing a

variety of rim types, the Faaa, Fdca, Fdga and Fdka types were also assigned to this

petrographic group.

197

Fossiliferous Calcite Group Group C/2 (Figure 18f, Table 9) This petrographic group is differentiated from the Group C/1 by the presence of

fossiliferous fragments and foraminifera. It is characterized by 1 percent poorly sorted

and well-rounded fossiliferous material and foraminifera, ranging in size from 0.05mm to

0.2mm; 5 to 10 percent moderately sorted sub-angular fine to medium sand-sized quartz

ranging from 0.025mm to 0.25mm, 5 to 7 percent well sorted angular calcite, ranging

from 0.2mm to 1.0mm. One sample lacked any complete calcite rhombs but contained

instead moderately sorted, sub-rounded decomposed limestone with a cryptocrystalline

appearance. The clay ranges from ferruginous to yellowish-tan in color. Two sherds were

assigned to this group, the Ddea cooking pot type and the everted and rounded rim

cooking pot, the Ddaa type.

When the petrographic groups were correlated with the macro fabric groups the

following associations were evident. The Fossiliferous-Limestone Group (F-L) included

sherds assigned to macroscopic Fabric Groups 1, 2, 3 and 16, while the Fossiliferous-

Limestone Group with Dolomite (F-L/1) included sherds from Fabric Groups 2 and 3

only. The overlap in the assignment of Fabric Groups 2 and 3 to the F-L and F-L/1

petrographic goups implies that the dolomite rhombs, which petrographically

differentiates these two groups, were not observed using a 10x hand lens. The Shale

Group (F) included sherds assigned to Fabric Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, an overlap that is not

easily reconciled. Since shales and siltstones define this group in a Fossiliferous-

Limestone clay, re-analysis at the macroscopic level is required. The Calcite Group (C/1)

included sherds from Fabric Groups 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, and 16, while the Fossiliferous-

Calcite Group (C/2) included Fabric Groups 5 and 6 only. The inclusion of Fabric Groups

198

3 and 13 implies an incorrect assignment between limestone and calcite at the

macroscopic level.

Petrographic Discussion

The petrographic examination of bowls, cooking pots and holemouth vessels at

Shechem reveals the following results. 1) there appears to be continuity of clay and

temper sources throughout the Late Bronze Age, 2) similar clay and aplastic inclusions

were used to produce a variety of bowls, cooking pots and holemouth vessels, 3) cooking

pots were constructed from a distinct petrographic group that included calcite and quartz,

4) there appears to have been a mixture of two different clays sources in the construction

of bowls and cooking pots, 5) several petrographic groups were used in the construction

of bowls, 6) some of the macroscopic fabric groupings actually belonged to the same

petrographic group and finally, 7) aspects of ceramic technology relating to clay

preparation, procurement and firing temperatures were discernible through petrographic

analysis.

For the most part, continuity in fabrics was evident throughout Late Bronze Age

strata in Field XIII (Table 14, Chart 14 and 15). The fossiliferous-limestone (F-L)

petrographic group was used in the construction of simple rounded bowls, the Baaa type

in Strata XIV to XII. In contrast, the internally thickened bowls, the Bcga type and the

internally pendant shaped bowls, theBcha type, were constructed from the fossiliferous-

limestone (F-L) group in Strata XIII to XII. In Stratum XIV, the Bcga and Bcha bowl

types appear in the dolomitic group (F-L/1), along with one Baaa type bowl.

199

Cooking pots belonged primarily to the calcite (C/1) petrographic group, with two

examples appearing in the fossiliferous-calcite group (C/2) in Stratum XIV (Chart 16).

The use of calcite or shell as temper has been observed ethnographically and

archaeologically since it improves vessel resistance to rapid heating and cooling.156 The

Calcite group (C/2) also contained 5 to 10 percent medium and coarse sized quartz

grains, suggesting that sand likely in the vicinity of the alluvium deposits in the eastern

end of the Shechem Pass, was utilized by Shechem potters. An increasing use of sand

temper, indicated by the presence of sub-rounded to rounded quartz grains was observed

also in Baaa bowls in Strata XIV and XII in Fabric Groups (FG 8 and 16) (Table 14). A

similar technological trait was observed in the Baq`ah Valley where the volume of quartz

inclusions increased over time, producing coarser wares towards the Late Bronze

Age/Iron IA transition (McGovern 1986). This change in raw material resulted in

different construction methods being adopted as potters attempted to deal with the coarser

clays (McGovern, Harbottle and Wnuk 1986:193).

Petrographic analysis revealed several insights into ceramic production in Field

XIII. The Fossiliferous-Limestone petrographic group (F-L) included rounded terra rossa

inclusions, commonly referred to as “mud balls,” and rounded limestone inclusions

containing foraminifera fragments in marl clay, suggesting that potters mixed clay

sources. The terra rossa “mudballs” appear only in strata XIII and XII for bowl types,

suggesting that a change in ceramic technology, in terms of raw material procurement,

occurred in the Late Bronze IIA. Some of the limestone bodies in this petrographic group

were up to 1.2 mm in size suggesting that the clays were not sifted or crushed sufficiently

156 See (Killebrew 1999) for a discussion of cooking pot fabrics at Giloh, and Tite and Kilikoglou (2002) for comments on the best temper to use for thermal resistance in cooking pots.

200

in the initial stages of production. Ethnographic research has shown that potters may mix

up to five clay sources to arrive at clay that is suitable (Whitbread 1995: 375).

In relation to firing temperature, several thin-sections at Shechem contained

decomposed limestone and exhibited a “milky” appearance, indicating that the firing

temperatures had exceeded 750 degrees Celsius (Badreshany and Genz 2009:68; Ben-

Shlomo, Maeir and Mommsen 2008: 962; Killebrew 1996:152).157 In general, most of the

petrographic samples appeared to be optically active and showed high order interference

colours, all of which suggests a lower firing temperature (Whitbread 1995: Table A3.5).

In fact, coarser clays and the corresponding technological changes including, coil

building usually lead to decreases in firing temperatures. McGovern noted that vessels

were fired between 700 and 850 degrees Celsius in the Late Bronze IIA, but decreased to

550 to 700 degrees Celsius in the Iron IA period. This suggests that the lower firing

temperature was a way to deal with coarser clays and the spalling of calcite since it

disintegrated at higher temperatures (McGovern, Harbottle and Wnuk 1986:193).

In addition, many of the bowls at Shechem were fired under oxidizing conditions,

as a core was lacking in many of the samples. When a core was preserved, it constituted

25 to 50 percent of the wall thickness and was light gray or gray in colour. This suggests

that vessels were either fired in an incomplete oxidation environment or that there was a

significant amount of organic material present, since carbon decomposes more rapidly in

coarser clays than in finer clays (Rice 1987:334). Chart 17 displays the chaff inclusions

thoughout strata XIV to XIII.

157 Specifically, a Bcga bowl (B68.2.102.17961) in Stratum XIII belonging to the fossilferous-limestone petrographic group (F-L); a Bcga bowl (B68.2.054.16336) in Stratum XII and an everted and triangular rim cooking pot (B68.2.097.18847) in Stratum XIII

201

The bowls that were constructed from the Fossiliferous-Limestone dolomitic

petrographic group (F-L/1), exhibited dolomitized anhedral-shaped rhombs, indicating

that the transformation from calcite to dolomite was incomplete. The bi-modality of

quartz inclusions observed in the shale petrographic group (F) suggests that rounded

quartz temper may have been part of the matrix, but also intentionally added by the potter

as suggested by the increase in fabric groups (FG 8 and 16) (Table 14).

Unequally spaced rilling or spiral lines were observed on the interior walls of

several bowls, which is usually associated with wheel-thrown pottery.158 Unfortunately,

conclusive signs for wheel-thrown construction, which is reflected by the preferred

orientation of inclusions parallel to the vessel surface or coil-built methods, shown by

“seams” from coils or joins, were not easily discerned (Vaughan 1996:120). In fact, many

of the thin-sections revealed inclusions that appeared to have slightly diagonal and

parallel orientation. Since elongated inclusions such as voids, mica and shell tend to be

more affected by rotational forces, the equi-dimensional nature of the bulk of the

Shechem petrofabrics such as rounded limestone or iron oxides, showed no preferred

orientation (Gibson and Woods 1997: 219; Figs 174 and 175). In contrast, coil built

vessels show inclusions that are aligned with the long axis parallel to the rim.159

The orientation of inclusions in the thin-sections of cooking pots rims displayed a

parallel orientation of the calcite inclusions, suggesting that the upper half of the cooking

pot was formed on a wheel, despite the high frequencies of angular calcite that must have

158 See Magrill and Middleton (2004:2523) for xeroradiographic results showing the spiral patterning on Lachish bowls, confirming the use of the fast wheel in the Late Bronze period. But see also Courty and Roux (1995:18) who suggest rilling may result from the turning of hand-built vessels as they are finished on a tournette. 159 See Figures 174 and 175 in Gibson and Woods (1997) for informative photomicrographs of particle alignments in wheel thrown and coil built vessels.

202

been difficult for the potter to turn. Further analytical techniques, such as

xeroradiography would offer more precise insights on manufacturing techniques.160

This effectiveness of this analytical method has been illustrated at Lachish on

vessels found with artifacts associated with the potters’ craft such as clay, pigments,

stone pivots and scraping and trimming tools (Magrill and Middleton 2004:2514). The

orientation of the inclusions and voids within the vessel walls displayed the characteristic

spiral pattern associated with wheel thrown technology (Magrill and Middleton

2000:140). In addition, rilling marks combined with the symmetrical shape of the vessels

suggested that wheel technology was used to produce vessels from Cave 4034 at Lachish.

These conclusions contradict the findings at Deir `Alla and the Beq’ah Valley, which

indicated that wheel technology was abandoned at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

Petrography of Central Hill Country Ceramics

Petrographic analyses at other sites within the Central Hill Country provide

valuable information on the kinds of clay and temper choices made by potters in adjacent

areas. Although the purpose of these petrographic analyses are to assign petrographic

groups to geological formations in order to establish geographical provenience, the

descriptions of clay and aplastic inclusions provide comparative data to which

petrographic groups at Shechem can be analyzed. More importantly, the analyses indicate

that a variety of technological choices were available in the production of local wares

resulting in various combinations of clay and aplastic materials. The picture that emerges

160 The necessity for properly oriented thin sections in order to make informed conclusions about manufacturing methods is crucial. I wish to thank Professor Robert Mason for discussing this issue with me. See also Badreshany and Genz (2009:67) who encountered similar limitations.

203

for ceramic production in the Late Bronze Age is one in which multiple production

strategies for raw material procurement and manufacturing techniques.

Shiloh

While five distinct petrographic groups were discerned at Shiloh, two were

considered to be locally produced (Glass, Goren, Bunimovit and Lederman 1993: 271-

286). A petrographic group originating from the Moza-`Amminadav Formation is

characterized by a mixture of iron-rich carbonatic clay and coarse dolomitic sand (Glass

et al. 1993:272). A second group, originating from the Lower Cretaceous Formation, is

characterized by argillaceous iron-rich shales, clay mud balls, ferruginous ooliths and

sub-rounded quartz from weathered sandstone. Sources for the Lower Cretaceous

formation are found in the eastern Samaria region, Transjordan and the Northern Galilee

(Glass et al. 1993:276).

Giloh

The vessels at Giloh were manufactured from three main clay sources that were

considered to be local fabrics (Killebrew 1999:103). The geology of this area consists of

dolomite from the Weradim and Aminadav Formations, in addition to limestone and

chalk formations. The cooking pots from Giloh belonged primarily to one petrographic

group, which was characterized by 5 to 15 percent crushed calcite and 4 to 10 percent

sandy quartz. This group was correlated with the “terra rossa + calcite” group identified

petrographically at Shiloh. One cooking pot belonged to a petrographic group that lacked

calcite, but was comprised of 10 to 15 percent sandy quartz and 1 to 3 percent limestone

204

(Killebrew 1999:104). Two everted triangular rim cooking pots at Shechem occurred also

without calcite temper, and in a fossiliferous-limestone petrographic group (F-L). This

suggests that either these vessels had another function or that the potter was

experimenting with the optimal clay sources that would resist rapid and intense heating

and cooling.

Jerusalem

The Late Bronze Age ceramics at Jerusalem, dated to the end of the 13th century,

were classified into four petrographic groups. Petrographic Groups A to D were

considered to be local fabrics from the Jerusalem area (Franken 2005:39). Clay A is

characterized as fossiliferous clay, while Clay B is comprised of dolomitic clay with

calcite inclusions, while both petrographic groups comprise quartz sand as part of the

matrix. The fossiliferous and dolomitic petrographic groups at Jerusalem appear to share

similarities with the fossiliferous-limestone and dolomitic fabrics at Shechem.

Jezreel Valley

Dothan

Petrographic analysis was conducted on Iron Age collar rim storage jars

excavated in Area A2 (Master, Monson, Lass and Pierce 2005: 76-77). Unfortunately, the

lack of secure stratigraphical contexts did not permit the typological analysis of the Late

Bronze II strata or a petrographical analysis of the limited Late Bronze I ceramics.

Eighteen jars of the Early Iron Age were submitted for petrography and fifteen were

characterized as belonging to the Lower Cretaceous Group. This group at Tell Dothan

205

was correlated with the Lower Cretaceous petrographic group identified at Shiloh

(Master et al., 2005:76). Two of the collared rim jars were assigned to a “local” Dothan

petrographic group, which was characterized by shale fragments and mud balls within a

micritic limestone matrix (Master et al. 2005:77). This “local” Dothan group appears to

share similar petrographic attributes to the Shale group (F) at Shechem.

Shephelah

Tel Batash

Petrography permitted the grouping of ceramics at Tel Batash (Timnah) into five

petrographic groups, with two primary clay sources being used in the construction of

vessels during the Late Bronze Age. These sources include marl from the Taqiye

Formation and loess soil, both of which are found in the Tel Batash area (Cohen-

Weinberger 2006:22). Although the majority of fabrics were constructed from the marl

group, and a smaller number from the loess group, the analysis indicated that the ceramic

industry at Tel Bastash reflected “diversity in fabric recipes, suggesting a number of

production venues, techniques and modes” (Cohen-Weinberger 2006: 23).

Jordan Valley

Beth Shean

The Levantine ceramics from Area Q at Tel Beth Shean were produced locally

from a petrographic group identified as the “travertine family” (Martin 2006: 141). In

Stratum VI, ninety-five percent of the Egyptian-style ceramics were manufactured from a

local travertine petrographic group, compared to seventy-five percent of local Canaanite

206

forms (Cohen-Weinberger 1998:409-411; Martin 2006:141). This single fabric used for

Egyptian-style vessels suggests that Egyptian potters working in a separate workshop,

due to the varying amounts of added straw temper and coarse finish (Cohen-Weinberger

1998:411). In addition, large amounts of chopped straw were observed in two Egyptian

bowl and “beer jar” types and also in Levantine bowls and kraters (Martin 2006:141).161

Studies on Thirteenth and Twelfth century ceramics at Beth Shean revealed distinct

technological differences, despite the fact that similar clays were used for local and

Egyptian-styled vessels (James and McGovern 1993:87; Cohen-Weinberger

1998:409).162 Xeroradiography revealed that some Egyptian-styled splayed bowls were

constructed on a wheel, while local forms such as jugs and juglets were coil built and

trimmed while being rotated slowly (Glanzman and Fleming 1993:99).

The petrograhic analyses at sites in the Hill Country and the neighboring

Shephelah and Jordan Valley, indicate that a variety of clay sources were utilized in the

production of ceramics at the site level, some of which share similar petrographic

attributes to groups at Shechem. Although some of the fabrics are designated as “non-

local” to the area, the analyses indicate that potters exercised a wide range of technical

choices in the procurement of raw materials.

161 The presence of organics in local wares was a trend noted in the 15th century at Tel Beth Shean when Egyptian-style pottery was still absent (Martin 2006:141). This suggests that the addition of straw was not a cultural influence but a functional one instead. Organics increase the workability of the clay, allow for a faster and even drying, while reducing shrinkage (Martin 2006:141). Similarly, at Tel Mor “heavy” straw temper is rare in Canaanite forms, but does “occasionally appear in bowls and kraters in strata with Egyptianized assemblages (Strata IX-V).” (Martin and Barako 2007:133). 162 Cohen-Weinberger’s (1998:406) analysis consisted of Egyptian forms from Stratum VI, which was assigned to the 12th century or early Iron Age, while McGovern’s (1989) analysis was based on ceramics from Strata VII and VIII of the 13th century.

207

Petrography of the Amarna Letters: Letters from Shechem

The petrographic analysis of the clay tablets from the Amarna archive, which

mentions Lab’ayu of Shechem also provides valuable comparative data against which the

Shechem petrographic groups can be compared. Amarna Letter (EA250) recounts the

conquering of several towns in the Dothan Valley and southern Jezreel Valley by

Lab’ayu. This letter (EA250) is characterized by a yellowish-tan fabric in plane-polarized

light with silt to sand-sized euhedral inclusions of dolomitic sand, which originates from

the Moza-`Amminadav Formation (Goren 2004:263). Amarna Letter (EA253) is

characterized as carbonatic with foraminifera, sub-rounded quartz, hornblende and

plagioclase. This petrographic fabric reflects a mixture of rendzina and terra rossa soils

and is associated with the limestones of the Bina Formation, as well as the Eocene Chalks

in the area surrounding Shechem (Goren 2004:264). The petrographic description of

Amarna Letter (EA 253) appears to correlate with the fossiliferous-limestone group (F-L)

identified for bowl types at Shechem.

Summary Conclusions

The goals of the petrographic analysis were to investigate whether there was

continuity of fabric throughout strata XIV to XII, as well as whether the macroscopic

classification of the assemblage correlated with the macro fabric groups. Simple rounded

(Baaa type) bowls exhibit continuity throughout strata XIV to XII, while the internally

rounded (Bcga type) and pendant shaped (Bcha type) bowls show continuity from strata

XIII to XII. Cooking pots and holemouth vessels were tempered with angular calcite and

208

quartz throughout all Late Bronze Age strata. This inclusion of calcite in holemouth

vessels suggests that their original function was as cooking vessels, even though many

examples in Field XIII did not show evidence of soot or burning on the rim and shoulder.

The petrographic analysis reveals fabric differences that were not reflected on the

macroscopic level, which illustrates the necessity of incorporating petrographic analysis

early in the processing of ceramics to better inform the macroscopic classification of the

assemblage.

In addition, petrographic analysis highlighted some intriguing aspects of the

technological process. First, mixing of clay sources was used in the construction of

bowls. The F-L petrographic group included rounded terra rossa inclusions, known as

“mud balls” and rounded limestone inclusions containing foraminifera fragments,

suggesting that potters mixed clay sources. Some of the limestone bodies in this

petrographic group were up to 1.2 mm in size suggesting that the clays were not sifted or

mixed thoroughly in the initial stages of clay preparation. While clay mixing is well

documented ethnographically and represents a cultural attribute, the Shechem region is

also known to contain clay sources in close proximity to one another. Second, the bi-

modality of rounded quartz inclusions observed in the Shale Group (F) suggests that the

quartz may emanate from different sources that contain wind-blown or river deposits.

Third, several sherds contained decomposed limestone, indicating that in these samples

the firing temperatures exceeded 750 degrees Celsius. Most of the thin-sections were

optically active and showed high order interference colors and extinction, all of which

suggests a lower firing temperature was used in the production. Finally, many of the

bowls were fired thoroughly under oxidizing conditions evident in the lack of a core.

209

When a core was present, it was preserved from 25 to50 percent of the wall thickness and

ranged in color from light gray or gray. This suggests either that sherds were either fired

in an incomplete oxidation environment or that more likely, there was a significant

amount of organic material present, since carbon decomposes more rapidly in coarser

clays than in finer clays.

The petrographic results concur with the macroscopic analysis in characterizing

the bulk of the Shechem assemblage as being composed of coarse fabrics, comprised

primarily of vessels with fine to coarse size sand. While unequal spaced rilling or spiral

lines were observed on many bowls, the petrographic analysis did not reveal conclusively

whether vessels were wheel-thrown. Since the inclusions appear slightly diagonal and

parallel in orientation, it appears that coil-built bowls were most likely finished on a

rotating device or tournette. Since diagonal and parallel orientations of equi-dimensional

inclusions such as, rounded limestone or iron oxides are less affected by rotational forces,

compared to elongated inclusions such as voids, mica and shell, more analytical

techniques are required to determine manufacturing technique. The orientation of

inclusions in the cooking pots displayed parallel orientation, suggesting that the upper

half and rim were wheel thrown, despite the high frequencies of angular calcite that must

have proved difficult for the potter to handle.

The diverse range of fabrics evident through petrographic analysis at Shechem

and other Central Hill Country sites such as, Shiloh, Giloh and Jerusulem reveal a diverse

range of technological choices that were available to potters. This diversity in clay

sources, as well as manufacturing techniques highlights the tenacity and complexity of

210

potting traditions in the Central Highlands during a time of increasing Egyptian

interaction.

211

Chapter 7

Conclusions

The material culture of Late Bronze Age Shechem (Tell Balatâh) provides an

opportunity to assess the nature and extent of the Egyptian presence in the Central

Highlands, as well as the ways in which indigenous cultural traits endured during a

period of intensifying military presence. My analyses reveal continuity in settlement,

ceramic morphology and technology at Shechem throughout this period. These findings

contribute to an expanding body of analyses which indicate that a more complex

interaction and negotiation of cultural boundaries resulted from this cultural interaction.

While there was not a sustained Egyptian presence in the Central Hill Country as in the

lowland, coastal and Jordan Valley, the textual and archaeological data suggest that there

was limited interaction.

The Egyptian presence in the southern Levant demonstrated an “ebb and flow”

throughout the Late Bronze Age, and while scholars have yet to fully agree on the exact

nature of this presence, most concur that contact with Egypt had a profound and

destabilizing impact on the region. The height of this presence occurred during the

Nineteenth and early Twelfth Dynasties with the appearance of “governor residencies”

and “trading entropôts.” The results of recent investigations into Egyptian and Levantine

ceramic technologies at these coastal and inland sites have revealed remarkable insights

into raw material procurement and manufacturing strategies. While similar technological

traits and influences can be identified at these sites, the general impression is that

Egyptian-Levantine interaction yielded ceramic technological features that were site-

specific. The ceramics at Shechem illustrates the tenacity with which Shechem potters

212

retained ceramic traditions and continuity, despite a limited Egyptian presence in the

form of Egyptian-style ceramics and architecture.

The characterization of the Egyptian presence in the 13th and early 12 centuries

BCE includes the following approaches; elite emulation, direct rule, administrative rule,

ideology/ theology and Patrimonialism. While aspects of all approaches can be seen to

account for this presence, the architectural and textual evidence suggests that

administrative motivations were a prime impetus for Egyptian involvement in the

southern Levant. The center-hall buildings or “Governor Residencies” and the square

buttressed and towered structures, known as administrative buildings have been identified

at Tell el-Far’a (S), Tell Hesi, Tel Sera`, Deir el-Balah, Tell Jemmeh, Tel Mor, Aphek,

Tell Beth Shean, Tell es Sa’ideyeh, Gezer and reflect an intensified Egyptian interest, as

well as Egyptian personnel stationed in the region. The hybrid Canaanite and Egyptian-

style temples identified at Lachish and Beth Shean no doubt served this mixed

population.

The Amarna correspondence from the 14th century BCE gives the impression that

a “structured” administrative system was lacking and that resident governors, as well as

local rulers, exercised a certain degree of independence. For example, Abdi Heba of

Jerusalem (EA285) complains of having his house occupied by the governor Addaya and

his troops, while Milkilu of Gezer (EA270) complains that the Egyptian governor is

trying to extort him of 2000 Shekels. The letters dealing with the “Lab`ayu Affair”

illustrate the volatility of social relationships and the fractiousness of political alliances in

the Central Highlands, Lowlands, Jezreel and Jordan Valleys. The concept of a “circuit-

official” might certainly account for the lack of Egyptian-style architecture in the Levant

213

in the Eighteenth Dynasty, especially if local rulers, like their Nile counterparts, were

expected to shoulder the cost of royal travel. If the Edict of Horemheb was intended to

curb onerous obligations such as those mentioned in a Ramesside letter containing a

lenthy list of provisions. Papyrus Anastasi IV, 13.9 meticulously lists the food, oils,

weapons, metals and clothing necessary for the arrival of the royal entourage. If the

Nineteenth Dynasty signaled a change in policy for royal travel, whereby the costs were

now assumed by the Crown, then these “standardized” buildings such as, the center-hall

and administrative structures, reflect this new policy.

The ceramic evidence meanwhile, suggests that the interaction of Egyptian and

local ceramic technologies did not have similar trajectories in all regions. While straw

temper was originally assumed to have been an Egyptian technological trait, the addition

of this organic material has been observed in local ceramics pre-dating Egyptian cultural

influence, specifically at Tel Beth Shean. In addition, straw or chaff temper served a

functional role at Tell Deir `Alla as it allowed more even drying and faster evaporation of

water and solved the problem of sagging rims and cracked bases.At Tel Mor organics

appear rarely in local forms but appear “occasionally” in Egyptianized strata. The

frequent occurrence of Levantine cooking pots in Egyptianized strata raises the

possibility that cultural boundaries were more fluid and complex than previously

assumed.

Shifting settlement patterns observed in the Central Hill Country underline major

demographic changes that were happening across the southern Levant during the

transitional Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods, specifically the emergence of rural

complexity. While the number of rural settlements increased at the expense of urban

214

areas, this did not signal a breakdown in the ‘social fabric” of the region. My analysis of

the ceramics types recovered during the expansive Manasseh and southern Samaria

surveys suggests that Late Bronze Age occupation may be under-represented, especially

in the eastern section of the Samaria region.

The Egyptian-style material culture recovered from the surveys was limited to

specialty objects, as well as items that carried iconographic and ideological significance

The results are somewhat surprising especially given the frequency with which Lab’ayu

of Shechem is admonished by the Egyptian governor or neighboring rulers. In Amarna

Letter 255, the writer of the letter is Lab’ayu’s son, Mut Bahlu who defends himself

against a charge of preventing the Pharaoh’s caravans from passing enroute to Mitanni.

He informs us that his father Lab’ayu was also responsible for ensuring the safe passage

of Egyptian caravans traveling north.

The limited amount of Egyptian-style archaeological material compared to the

documentary evidence highlighting Lab’ayu and Shechem or Sakmu reveals the

complexity of interaction in the Central Highlands. The Tananir structure adjacent to the

Shechem mound may represent the presence of a limited Egyptian bureaucracy whose

purpose was to facilitate long-distance trade. If this square-structure was a trading

entropôt, then it appears that the Egyptian personnel stationed there utilized local

craftspeople to supply their ceramic needs. From the ceramic and architectural continuity

at the site of Shechem throughout the Late Bronze Age, it appears that cultural life in this

region continued uninterrupted throughout a period of intensifying Egyptian presence.

Settlement and stratigraphic history in Field XIII reveals continuity in architecture

in Strata XIV to XII, with a main western and eastern terrace wall that divided the field.

215

Although an occupational gap was posited for the Late Bronze IA, a brick kiln (3396)

structure built atop the Middle Bronze IIC debris and an oven against the top of the strata

XV wall (Wall 03271) in the eastern sector may represent the fragmentary architectural

features of this “elusive” Late Bronze IA. Interestingly, this period is well-attested in

Tomb C on the slope of Mount Ebal, located north of the tell (Campbell 2002:185;

Clamer 1977; 1981). In the western sector of Field XIII, the arrangement of rooms

remains fairly consistent throughout all three Late Bronze Age strata with Open Area B

in the north and Area C to the south. In Stratum XIII, the area undergoes intensification

in construction whereby Area C is sub-divided into a complex of rooms with the addition

of cross-walls. In the eastern sector of the Field, a subterranean structure dated to the Late

Bronze IIA revealed a midden containing restorable vessels. While the overall layout is

preserved in Stratum XII, the configuration of rooms became less complex and more

fragmentary.

The end of Stratum XIV at Shechem appeared not to be violent or caused by a

conflagration, although 0.20 meters to 0.40 meters of bricky debris covered the LB IB

surfaces. In contrast, Stratum XIII ended in a violent destruction, which appeared more

pronounced over the rooms to the east of the main terrace wall. The evidence for this

destruction includes, destruction debris over one of the subterranean chamber walls,

plaster-faced bricks and a meter-long plaster slab of flooring amongst the debris in Room

K to the south of the subterranean chamber and almost 0.30 meters of debris over the

floor of Room L in which a meter-wide plaster slab, which was likely the second story

flooring embedded at an angle. In Stratum XII, the termination of the Late Bronze IIB

216

was more prolonged and less violent and was evidenced by a build-up of surfaces in Yard

B and Room C to the west and Room D to the east.

Chapter Five presented the typological presentation of the ceramics from Strata

XIV to XII in Field XIII. The ceramic assemblage at Shechem is predominantly

Levantine in nature at almost 95%, while Cypriote, Aegean and Egyptian wares

comprised less than 6 percent. Continuity is evident across vessel class, notably in the

Bowl Class where simple rounded rim bowls as well as interior thickened rims persist in

all three strata. This continuity also exists in the use of surface treatments and burnishing,

where the use of red, brown and pink self-slips almost doubles in the LBIIA to 35 percent

and remains relatively consistent at 33 percent in the Late Bronze IIB. The continuity in

surface treatments is significant, as the Late Bronze IIB is usually believed to signal a

decline in ceramic workmanship in the southern Levant. At Shechem at least, ceramic

technology and workmanship continued uninterrupted between the Late Bronze IIA and

IIB. The most heterogenous vessel class is the storage jar which displays a variety of rim

profiles and macro fabrics.

Vessel forms in Stratum XIV contain many residual types from the Middle

Bronze IIC stratum such as, the incurved rim bowl and the elaborately profiled storage

jars. This is likely caused by the extensive leveling and filling which occurred to prepare

Field XIII for renewed building in the Late Bronze I. Stratum XIII contains vessel forms

such as, the simple rounded rim bowls, everted and triangular rim cooking pots, pendant

and compound rim storage jars, which are commonly found at other Late Bronze II sites.

In Stratum XII these forms continue to occur, while new forms gain in popularity like the

upright and outcurved cooking pots.

217

Imported wares such as White Slip I and II, Base Ring I and II, monochrome

ware, Red-on-Black Ware and Late Helladic IIIA1 and 2 were excavated in Field XIII

and elsewhere on the site. The “framed wavy line style” of White Slip I was not well-

represented in the southern Levant at Tell el`Ajjul, but does account for the only WS I

type in Field XIII at Shechem and at Tell el-Far`ah (N), Tel Beth-Shean, Megiddo and

Shephelah. This suggests that a different distribution network for Cypriote wares might

have existed for sites along the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys compared to the southern

Levant. In addition, Egyptian imports and Egyptian-style vessels include a fragment of a

highly burnished and White Slipped Egyptian Marl D, a thick-walled bowl with a flat

base and several splayed rim bowls from strata XIII and XII.

Regionalism is evident in the limited variety of painted decorative schemes found

on the vessels. While few painted bands are found on the interior or exterior of bowls, the

traditional LB motifs of exterior bichrome decoration in bands, ibex and palm motif and

framed wavy lines are found on several sherds of biconical jars and storage jars. In

addition, a limited number of specialty vessels such as chalices and goblets, biconical jars

and jugs appear in this assemblage. The corpus reflects a primarily domestic and rural

assemblage, contained most likely by the natural geographical features of the region.

The petrographic examination of bowls, cooking pots and holemouth vessels in

Chapter Six that there was a continuity of clays throughout the Late Bronze Age,

reflected in the use of fossiliferous-limestone (F-L) clays to construct simple rounded

(Baaa type) bowls throughout Strata XIV to XII. The internally thickened bowl (Bcga

type) and the internally pendant shaped bowls (Bcha types) were constructed of the

fossiliferous-limestone (F-L) group in strata XIII to XII only, while in stratum XIV, the

218

Bcga and Bcha bowl types appear in the fossiliferous-limestone group with dolomite (F-

L/1). In fact, two distinct clay sources were utilized in the construction of bowls, a

limestone and fossiliferous-rich clay, occasionally with a dolomite and shale-rich clay.

Cooking pots primarily belonged to petrographic group C/1, characterized by

angular calcite temper and bimodal quartz grains. Two cooking pots from Stratum XIV

were assigned to petrographic group C/2, comprising calcite and fossiliferous material,

while two Ddea type cooking pots belonged to the fossiliferous-limestone group (F-L)

group.

The petrographic analysis also revealed that two clay sources were mixed in strata

XIII and XII as is indicated by the presence of rounded terra rossa inclusions or “mud

balls” and rounded limestone inclusions containing foraminifera fragments. Some of the

limestone bodies were up to 1.2mm in size, indicating that the clays were not well-sifted

or mixed in the early stage of preparation.

Distinct differences were noted between petrographic groups and fabric groups

that were not discerned on a macroscopic level. Limestone and fossiliferous inclusions

predominate in the petrographic groups F-L and F-L/1 which macroscopically were

identified generally as the Limestone Group.The dolomite rhombs that were

characteristic of group F-L/1 were not always visible to the naked eye or under a 10x

hand lens. These observations highlight the importance of incorporating petrographic

analysis early in the study of ceramic technology to aid in the grouping of sherds

macroscopically, especially since these groupings significantly inform our petrographic

sampling.

219

The continuity in ceramic morphology and technology demonstrates the tenacity

of ceramic traditions in the Central Highlands. While an Egyptian presence was sporadic

in the Shechem Valley, it does appear to have existed in a limited way. Although not

included in this study, the petrographic analysis of storage jars would constitute a

valuable endeavor to investigate the diversity of interaction at Shechem. Additonal study

of local vessels from the macro fabric quartz and voids groups at Shechem, would shed

light on whether these inclusions served a functional role, or reflect Egyptian

technological significance.

220

Bibliography

Ahituv, Shemuel.

1978 “Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan.” Israel Exploration Journal 28: 93-105.

1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem:

Magnes Press.

1996 “Sources for the Study of the Egyptian-Canaanite Border Adminstration.” Israel Exploration Journal 46:219-224.

Adams, William Y. 2002 “The First Colonial Empire,” pp. 13-29 in Expanding Empires:

Cultural Interaction and Exchange in World Societies from Ancient to Early Modern Times. Edited by Wendy F. Kasinec and Michael A. Polushin. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Albright, William F.

1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim IA: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13: 55-128.

1933 “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim: IA-The Bronze Age Pottery

of the Fourth Campaign,” pp.55-123. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Volume 13. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1944 “The Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C.” Bulletin of

the American Schools of Oriental Research 94: 12-27. 1949 The Archaeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Aloupi, Eleni, Vassilis Perdikatsis and Anna Lekka.

2001 “Assessment of the White Slip Classification Scheme based on Physico-Chemical Aspects of the Technique,” pp. 15-26 in The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Edited by Vassos Karageorghis. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Alt, Albrecht.

1989 Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Sheffield: JSOT. Amiran, Ruth.

1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem.

221

Anderson, Bernard W. 1957 “The Place of Shechem in the Bible.” Biblical Archaeologist 20(1):

10-19. Anderson, William P.

1988 Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Beyrouth: Publications de L’université Libanaise.

Arnold, Dean E.

1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Artzy, Michal.

2001 “A Study of the Cypriote Bichrome Ware: Past, Present and Future,” pp.157-174 in The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Edited by Paul Astrom. Stockholm: (KVHAA Konferenser 54).

2006 “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze

Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 45-64.

Artzy, Michal, F. Asaro and I. Perlman.

1973 “The Origin of the “Palestinian” Bichrome Ware.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:446-461.

Assmann, Jan.

2002 The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. (Translated by Andrew Jenkins). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Astrom, Paul.

1972 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. Vol. IV, Part 1B. Lund: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

1972 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: The Late Bronze Age,

Architecture and Pottery. Vol IV, Part 1C. Lund: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.

Badreshany, Kamal and Hermann Genz.

2009 “Pottery Production on the Northern Lebanese Coast during the Early Bronze Age II-III: The Petrographic Analysis of the Ceramics from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 355:51-83.

Baines, John and Jaromír Málek. 1980 Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File.

222

Banning, Edward B. 1996 “Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for

Rural Archaeology.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 201: 25-45.

Barako, Tristan. 2008 ‘Amphoras through the Ages,” pp.429-461 in Ashkelon I:

Introduction and Overview (1985-2006). Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen and Daniel M. Master. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Barako, Tristan J.

2007 Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1060. (IAA Reports, No. 32). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Barkay, Gabriel.

1996 “A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 46:23-43.

Beck, Pirhiya and Moshe Kochavi.

1985 “A Dated Assemblage of the Late 13th Century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek.” Tel Aviv 12(1):29-42.

Ben-Arieh, Sara.

2004 Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim.(IAA Reports, No. 23). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ben-Arieh, S., D. Ben-Tor and S. Godovitz.

1993 “A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave at Qubeibeh, near Tel Lachish. `Atiqot XXII: 77-89.

Ben-Arieh, Sara and Gershon Edelstein.

1977 “Akko: Tombs near the Persian Garden.” `Atiqot XII: 1-99. Ben-Shlomo, David, Aren Maeir and Hans Mommsen.

2008 “Neutron Activation and Petrographic Analysis of selected Late Bronze and Iron Age Pottery from Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4):956-964.

Ben-Tor, Amnon, Ruhama Bonfil and Sharon Zuckerman.

2003 Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley, Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978-1987). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Ben-Tor, Amnon and Ruhama Bonfil.

1997 Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

223

Ben-Tor, Amnon, Doron Ben-Ami and Ariella Livneh. 2005 Yoqne`am III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages, Final Report of

the Archaeological Excavations (1977-1988). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University

Bergoffen, Celia.

2002 “Early Late Cypriot Ceramic Exports to Canaan: White Slip I,” pp. 23-41 in Leaving no Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Edited by Erica Ehrenberg. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Bienkowski, Piotr.

1989 “Prosperity and Decline in LBA Canaan: A Reply to Liebowitz and Knapp.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 59-63.

2004 “Appendix: Notes on the Manufacture of Pottery from Area P,”pp.

1369-1372 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Edited by D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Biran, Avraham and Rachel Ben-Dov.

2002 Dan II: A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb. (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology). Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

Bleiberg, Edward L.

1984 Aspects of the Political, Religious, and Economic Basis of Ancient Egyptian Imperialism during the New Kingdom. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Toronto: University of Toronto.

1996 The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press. Bliss, Frederick Jones.

1894 A Mound of Many Cities or Tell el Hesy Excavated. London: The Committeeof the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Boling, Robert G.

1975 “Excavations at Tananir,” pp.25-85 in Report on Archaeological Work at Suww'anet eth-thaniya, Tananir, and Khirbet Minha (Munhata). Edited by G. M. Landes. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research.

224

Bourke, Stephen J., R. T. Sparks, K.N. Sowada and L.D. Mairs. 1994 “Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Fourteenth

Seasons of Excavation at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in 1992.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38: 81-126.

Bourke, Stephen J., R.T. Sparks, K.N. Sowada, P.B. McLaren and L.D. Mairs.

1998 “Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Sixteenth and Seventeenth Seasons of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) in 1994/95.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42: 179-211.

Brandl, Baruch.

1986-1987 “Two Scarabs and a Trapezoidal Seal from Mount Ebal.” Tel Aviv 13-14(2): 166-172.

1993 “Clay, Bone, Metal and Stone Objects,” pp. 223-262 in Shiloh: The

Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited by S. Bunimovitz, Z. Lederman and B. Brandl. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

1993 “Scarabs and other Glyptic Finds,” pp. 203-222 in Shiloh: The

Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited by S. Bunimovitz, Z. Lederman and B. Brandl. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Braudel, Fernand.

1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. (Translated by Siân Reynolds). New York: Wm. Collins Sons Ltd. and Harper & Row, Publishers.

Breasted, James H.

1906 Ancient Records of Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1962 Ancient Records of Egypt. Vols. II & IV. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Broshi, Magen and Ram Gophna.

1984 “Middle Bronze II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 41-53.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth and Timothy Earle.

1987 Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bryce, Trevor. 2003 Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal

Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. New York: Routledge.

225

Bunimovitz, Shlomo. 1988-1989 “An Egyptian "Governor's Residency" at Gezer? - Another

Suggestion.” Tel Aviv 15-16 (1): 68-76. 1989 “The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of

Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Tel Aviv University.

1993a "The Changing Shape of Power in Bronze Age Canaan," pp.142-

149 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power, Jerusalem, June 1990 supplement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1993b "The Study of Complex Societies: The Material Culture of Late

Bronze Age Canaan as a Case Study," pp.443-451 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1994a “The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine

and its Socioeconomic Implications. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 1-20. 1994b “Socio-political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the

Late Bronze-Iron I Transition,” pp.179-202 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Orna Zimhoni.

1993 “’Lamp-and-Bowl’ Foundation Deposits in Canaan.” Tel Aviv 43(2-3): 99-124.

Burke, Aaron A. and Krystal V. Lords.

2010 Egyptians in Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 73(1):2-30.

Buzaglo, Eyal and Yuval Goren.

2006 “Petrographic Study of Selected iron Age Pottery,” pp.385-391 in Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989-1996: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Edited by Amihai Mazar. Vol.1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

226

Campbell, Edward F. 1964 The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, with Special Reference to

the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis 3 and Akhenaten. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

1965 “Shechem in the Amarna Archive,” pp.191-207 in Shechem: The

Biography of a Biblical City. Edited by G. E. Wright. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.

1976 “Two Amarna Notes: The Shechem City-State and Amarna

Administrative Terminology,” pp.39-54 in Magnalia Dei,The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by F. M. Cross, P. D. Miller, G. E. Wright and W. E. Lemke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

1991 Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale, The Shechem

Regional Survey. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. 2002 Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell

Balatah. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Caminos, Ricardo. 1954 Late Egyptian Miscellanies. London: Oxford University Press. Clamer, Christa.

1977 “A Burial Cave near Nablus (Tell Balata).” Israel Exploration Journal 27 (1): 48.

1981 “A Late Bronze Age Burial Cave near Shechem.” Qadmoniot 14:

30-34 (Hebrew). Cohen, Raymond and Raymond Westbrook.

2000 “Introduction: The Amarna System,” pp. 1-12 in Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cohen-Weinberger, Anat.

1998 “Petrographic Analysis of the Egyptian Forms from Stratum VI at Tel Beth-Shean,” pp. 406-412 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Edited by Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2006 “Petrographic Results of selected Fabrics of the Late Bronze Age

and Iron Age I from Tel Batash,” pp.16-26 in Timnah (Tel Batash)

227

III: The Finds from the Second Millenniem BCE. Edited by Nava Panitz-Cohen and Amihai Mazar. (Qedem, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 45). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

2007 “Petrography of the Late Bronze Age Pottery,” pp. 548-553 in

Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Vol II. Edited by Amahai Mazar and Robert Mullins. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Cohen-Weinberger, Anat and Yuval Goren

2004 “Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dab`a.” Egypt and the Levant 14: 69-100.

Cohen-Weinberger, Anat and S. R.Wolff.

2001 “Production Centers of Collard-Rim Pithoi from sites in the Carmel Coast and Ramat Menashe Regions,” pp.639-657 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Edited by S.R. Wolff. Chicago.

Cole, Dan P.

1984 Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake, IN: Distributed by Eisenbrauns.

Conder, Claude and Horatio H. Kitchener.

1998 The Survey of Western Palestine: 1882-1888. [Slough]: Archive Editions in association with Palestine Exploration Fund. (Facsimile of edition published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881-1888, London)

Cooley, Robert E., Gary D. Pratico.

1995 Tell Dothan: The Western Cemetery with Comments on Joseph Free's Excavations, 1953-1964,” pp. 147-190 in Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir umm Fawakhir, Tell el-`Umeiri, the Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan. Edited by W. G. Dever. (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 52).Ann Arbor, Mich.: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Courty, Marie-Agnes and Valentine Roux.

1995 “Identification of Wheel Throwing on the Basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics.” Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 17-50.

228

Cumming, Barbara. 1982 Egyptian Historical Records of the Later Eighteenth Dynasty.

Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. Davies, Benedict G.

1997 Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Jonsered, Sweden: Paul Astroms Forlag.

Davies, Nina de Garis and Norman de Garis Davies.

1933 The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another (no. 86,112, 4, 226). London. Egypt Exploration Society.

Davies, Norman de Garis.

1943a The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York: Plantin Press.

1943b Paintings from the Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition.

Davies, Norman de Garis and Alan Gardiner.

1926 The Tomb of Huy. (Thban Tomb Series, IV). London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Davis, Thomas W.

2004 Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press.

de Vaux, Roland.

1949 “La Deuxième Campagne de Fouilles a Tell el-Far`ah près Naplouse.” Revue Biblique 56: 102-138.

1951 “La Troisième Campagne de Fouilles a Tell el-Far`ah, près

Naplouse.” Revue Biblique 58: 393-430; 566-590. 1978 The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Dever, William G.

1986 Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis.” Volume 4. Jerusalem: Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

1990 “’Hyksos,’ Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian

Middle Bronze Age.” Levant XXII: 75-81.

229

Dorsey, David. 1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press. Dothan, Moshe and David Ben-Shlomo.

2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968-1969). (IAA Reports, No. 24). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Emory, Walter B. 1965 Egypt in Nubia. London: Hutchinson and Co. Ltd. Eriksson, Kathryn.

2001a “Cypriot Ceramics in Egypt during the Reign of Thutmosis III,” pp. 51-68 in The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Edited by Paul Astrom. Stockholm: (KVHHA Konferenser 54).

2001b “Cypriote Proto White Slip and White Slip I: Chronological

Beacons on Relations between Late Cypriote I Cyprus and Contemporary Societies of the Eastern Mediterranean,” pp.51-64 in The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Edited by Vassos Karageorghis. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2007 Using Cypriot Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware to establish

Cultural and Chronological Synchronisms during the Late Bronze Age,” pp.51-60 in The Lustrous Wares of the Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Irmgard Hein. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Falconer, Steven E.

1985 “Village Pottery Production and Exchange: A Jordan Valley Perspective,” pp. 251-259 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Edited by A. Hadidi. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

1994 "The Development and Decline of Bronze Age Civilisation in the

Southern Levant: A Re-assessment of Urbanism and Ruralism," pp. 305-333 in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age. Edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffield: J.R. Collins Publications.

Finkelstein, Israel.

1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

230

1993 “The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium B.C.E.,” pp. 110-131 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: Pre-congress Symposium, Population, Production and Power, Jerusalem, June 1990, supplement. Edited by A. Biran, J. Aviram and A. Paris-Shadur. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1994 “The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of

Canaan in the Third and Second Millennium B.C.E.,” pp.150-178 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na'aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1996 "The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze

Age." Ugarit-Forschungen 29: 221-255. 2006 “Shechem in the Late Bronze and the Iron I,” pp. 349-356 in

Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny. Leuven: Peeters.

Finkelstein, Israel, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman.

1993 Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site.Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Finkelstein, Israel, Zvi Lederman and Shlomo Bunimovitz.

1997 Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey, The Sites. 2 vols (Sonia and Marco Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series, No. 14). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Finkelstein, Israel, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern.

2000 Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. 2.volumes. Edited by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern. (Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Monograph series, 18). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

2006 Megiddo IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. 2.volumes. Edited by Israel

Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern. (Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Monograph series, 24). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Fischer, Peter M.

1997 A Late Bronze to Early Iron Age Tomb at Sahem, Jordan. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins, Band 21).Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

231

Frandsen, Paul J. 1979 “Egyptian Imperialism,” pp.167-190 in Power and Propaganda: A

Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by M. T. Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Franken, Henk J. 1969 Excavations at Tell Deir `Alla: A Stratigraphical and Analytical

Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1992 Excavations at Tell Deir `Alla: The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary.

Vol. 2. Louvain: Peeters Press. 2001 “Pottery Technology,” pp. 653-657 in The Archaeology of Jordan.

Edited by B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

2005 A History of Pottery and Potters in Ancient Jerusalem:

Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961-1967. London: Equinox.

Franken, Henk and Gloria London.

1995 “Why Painted Pottery Disappeared at the End of the Second Millennium BCE. Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): 214-222.

Franken, Henk and M.L. Steiner

1990 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. Volume II. (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology, No. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fritz, Volkmar. 1977 “The Iron I Settlement (Areas C, H).”Tel Aviv 4(3-4): 149-158. Fritz, Volkmar and Aharon Kempinki.

1976 “Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Masos), 3. Kampagne 1975. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 92(2): 83-104.

1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Masos)

1972-1975. 2 vols.Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Furumark, Arne.

1992 Mycenaean Pottery III: Plates. Edited by Paul Astrom, Robin Haag and Gisela Walberg. Stockholm: Paul Astrom Forlag.

Gadot, Yuval and Esther Yadin.

232

2009 Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains of the Acropolis. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Gardiner, Alan H.

1920 “The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6: 99-116.

Gershuny, Lilly.

1985 Bronze Vessels from Israel and Jordan. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/6. Munich: Beck.

Gibson, Alex and Ann Woods.

1997 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist. Second Edition. London: Leicester University Press.

Gibson, Shimon.

2001 “Agricultural Terraces and Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine: Is there any Correlation between the Two?” pp. 113-147 in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Edited by Amihai Mazar. (JSOT Supplement Series 331).

Giveon, Raphael.

1978 The Impact of Egypt on Canaan. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 20. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Frieburg Schweiz.

Glanzman, William D., S. J. Fleming.

1993 “Fabrication Methods,” pp.94-102 in The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern and Frances James. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Glass, Jonathan.

1989 “Petrographic Analysis of the Bronze Age Pottery,” pp.261-263 in Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Edited by Ze’ev Herzog, George Rapp, Jr., and Ora Negbi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Glass, Jonathan, Yuval Goren, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Israel Finkelstein.

1993 “Petrographic Analyses of Middle Bronze Age III, Late Bronze Age and Iron I Pottery Assemblages,” pp.271-286 in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited by Israel Finkelstein, Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

233

Glock, Albert. 1975 “Homo Faber: The Pot and the Potter at Taanach.” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 219:9-28. Goedicke, Hans.

1998 “Khu-u-Sobek's Fight in 'Asia.’” Agypten und Levante VII: 33-37. Goldwasser, Orly.

1984 “Hieratic Inscriptions from tel Sera` in southern Canaan.” Tel Aviv 11:77-93.

Gonen, Rivka. 1984 “Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 61-73. Goren, Yuval.

2000 “Technology, Provenience and Interpretation of the Early Bronze Age Egyptian Ceramics,” pp.496-501 in Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. 2. Edited by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin and Baruch Halpern. (Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Monograph Series 18). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

Goren, Yuval, Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na`aman.

2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenience Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Groll, Sarah.

1983 “The Egyptian Administrative System in Syria and Palestine in the 18th Dynasty,” pp. 234-242 in Fontes atque Pontes. Edited by Manfred Görg. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Guy, Philip Langstaffe.

1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hankey, Vronwy.

1993 “The Mycenaean Pottery,”pp. 103-110 in The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern and Frances James. Philadelphia: University Museum.

Harrison, Timothy P and R. G. V.Hancock.

2005 “Geochemical Analysis and Sociocultural Complexity: A Case Study from Early Iron Age Megiddo (Israel). Archaeometry 47(4): 705-722.

234

Hasel, Michael G. 1998 Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the

Southern Levant, ca. 1300-1185 B.C. Boston, Mass.: Brill. Heartley, W. A.

1939 “A Palestinian Vase Painter of the Sixteenth Century B.C.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 8:21-34.

Helck, Wolfgang.

1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien in 3. und 2. Jahrtausand v. chr. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz

Herr, Larry G., Lawrence T. Geraty, Oystein S. LaBianca and Randall W. Younker.

1997 Madaba Plains Project: The 1989 Season at Tell el-`Umeiri Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Vol.3. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press.

Higginbotham, Carolyn R.

1996 “Elite Emulation and Egyptian Governance in Ramesside Canaan.” Tel Aviv 23(2):154-168.

2000 Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine:

Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. Leiden: Brill.

Hodder, Ian. 1978 “The Maintenance of Group Identities in the Baringo Distrist, West

Kenya,” pp. 47-74 in Social Organisation and Settlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography. Edited by D. Green, C. Haselgrove and M. Spriggs. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Hoffmeier, James K. 1989 “Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle

Bronze Age in Palestine.” Levant XXI: 181-193. 1990 “Some Thoughts on William G. Dever’s ‘Hyksos, Egyptian

Destructions, and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age.’” Levant XXII: 83-89. 1991 “James Weinstein’s ‘Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late

Bronze IA Transition’: A Rejoinder.” Levant XXIII: 117-124. 2004 “Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in

Western Asia and Nubia,” pp121-141 in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies inHonor of Donald B. Redford. Edited by G. Knoppers and A. Hirsch. Boston: Brill.

235

Hoffmeier, James K., Stephen O. Moshier. 2006 “New Paleo-environmental Evidence from North Sinai to

complement Manfred Bietak's Map of the Eastern Delta and some Historical Implications,” pp.167-176 in Timelines Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny. Leuven: Peeters.

Holladay, Jr., John S. 1990 “Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer.”

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277:23-70. 1997 “Syro-Palestinian Houses,” pp94-114 in The Oxford Encyclopedia

of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press.

2001 “Toward a New Paradigmatic Understanding of Long-Distance

Trade in the Ancient Near East: From the Middle Bronze II to Early Iron-A Sketch,” pp. 136-198 in The World of the Aarmaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion. Edited by P.M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press

2007 “Hezekiah’s Tribute, Long-Distance Trade and the Wealth of

Nations ca. 1000-600 B.C.: A New Perspective. (“Poor Little [Agrarian] Judah” at the end of the Eighth Century B.C.: Dropping the First Shoe), pp. 309-331 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Ancient Israel in Honor of William G Dever. Edited by S. Gitin, J.E. Wright, and J.P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

2009 “How much is that in…? Monetization, Money, Royal States, and

Empires,” pp. 207-222 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloean. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Horn, S. H.

1968 “Objects from Shechem excavated in 1913 and 1914.” Jaarbericht van het Voorziatisch Egyptisch Gezelschap 20:71-90.

Horvath, Ronald J.

1972 “A Definition of Colonialism.” Current Anthropology 13: 45-56. James, Alan.

2000 “Egypt and her Vassals: The Geopolitical Dimension,” pp112-124 in Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Edited by R. Westbrook and R. Cohen. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

236

James, Frances. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth Shean. Philadelphia: The University

Museum. James, Frances, and Patrick McGovern.

1993 The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Janssen, Jac.

1975 Commodity Prices from the Ramesside Period. Leiden: Brill. 1982 “Gift-Giving in Ancient Egypt as an Economic Feature.” Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology 68:253-58. Jasmin, Michael.

2006 “The Political Organization of the City-States in Southwestern Palestine in the Late Bronze Age IIB (13th century BC),” pp.161-191 in “I will Speak in Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by A. M. Maeir and d. P. Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Joukowsky, Martha.

1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology. New York: Prentice Hall Press

Karageorghis, Vassos.

2001 “Bichrome Wheel-made Ware: Still a Problem?,” pp.143-155 in The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Edited by Paul Astrom. Shockholm: (KVHAA Konferenser 54).

Kelso, James L., J. P. Thorley.

1943 The Potter's Technique at Tell Beit Mirsim. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21-22: 86-142.

Kelso, James L. 1968 TheExcavation of Bethel (1934-1960). Annual of the American

Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. 39). Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Kemp, Barry J.

1978 “Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c.1575-1987 B.C.),”pp.7-57 in Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History. Edited by P. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker. New York: Cambridge University Press.

237

1989 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1997 “Why Empires Rise.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(1):

125-131. 2006 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. 2nd Edition. London:

Routledge. Kenyon, Kathleen M.

1971 Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Vol.II, Ch. XI in Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press.

Killebrew, Ann E.

1996 “Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel Miqne-Ekron,” pp. 135-162 in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Edited by Joe D. Seger. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

1998 Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Early

Iron Ages: The Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style and Cultural Diversity. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1999 “Late Bronze and Iron I Cooking Pots in Canaan: A Typological,

Technological and Functional Study,” pp. 83-126 in Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock. Edited by Tomis Kapitan. Georgia: Scholars Press.

2004 “New Kingdom Egyptian-style and Egyptian Pottery in Canaan:

Implications for Egyptian Rule in Canaan during the 19th and Early 20th Dynasties,” pp 309-343 in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford. Edited by D. B. Redford, G. N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch. Boston: Brill.

2005a Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of

Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

2005b “Cultural Homogenisation and Diversity in Canaan during the 13th

and 12th Centuries BC,” pp. 170-175 in Archaeological Perspectives on the Transition and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Joanne Clarke. (Levant Supplementary Series, Volume 2). Oxbow Books.

238

Killebrew, Ann E., Paul Goldberg, and Arlene 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, Kenneth A.

1975 Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. 4 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.

2009 “Egyptian New-Kingdom Topographical Lists: An Historical

Resource with ‘Literary’ Histories,” pp. 129-135 in Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Edited by Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper. Leiden: Brill.

Knapp, A. Bernard.

1989a “Complexity and Collapse in the North Jordan Valley: Archaeometry and Society in the Middle-Late Bronze Ages.” Israel Exploration Journal 39(3-4): 129-148.

1989b “Response: Independence, Imperialism, and the Egyptian Factor.”

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 64-68.

1992 “Independence and Imperialism: Politico-Economic Structures in the Late Bronze Age Levant,” pp. 83-97 in Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Edited by A. Bernard Knapp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kochavi, Moshe.

1972 Judea, Samaria and the Golan Archaeological Survey 1968. Jerusalem: Carta.

Lehmann, Gunnar

2001 “Phoenicians in Westrn Galilee: Fist Results of an Archaeological Survey in the Hinterland of Akko,” pp. 65-112 in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Edited by Amihai Mazar. (JSOT Supplement Series 331).

Lehner, Mark. 1999 “Fractal House of Pharaoh: Ancient Egypt as a Complex Adaptive

System, a Trial Formulation,” pp. 275-353 in Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes. Edited by T. A. Kohler and G. J. Gumerman. New York: Oxford University Press.

239

Leonard, Jr., Albert. 1979 “Kataret Es-Samra: A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Transjordan?”

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 234:53-65.

1994 An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. CXIV). Jonsered: Paul Astrom Forlag.

Lesko, Leonard H.

1995 “Egyptian Wine Production during the New Kingdom,” pp.215-230 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming and Solomon H. Katz. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Levy, Thomas E.

1995 The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: Leicester University Press.

Liverani, Mario. 1983 “Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters.”

Berytus 31:41-56. 1990 “A Seasonal Patterns for the Amarna Letters,” pp.337-348 in

Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Edited by A. Tzvi, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

London, Gloria. 1989 “Past and Present: Village Potters in Cyprus." Biblical

Archaeologist 50: 219-229. 1999 “Central Jordan Ceramic Traditions,” pp.57-101 in Ancient

Ammon. Edited by B. MacDonald and R. W. Younker. Boston: Brill.

Loney, Helen L.

2000 “Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies.” American Antiquity 65(4): 646-668.

Loprieno, Antonio.

1988 Topos und Mimesis. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Loud, Gordon.

1948 Megiddo: Seasons of 1935-39. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

240

Macalister, R.A.Stewart. 1907 “Fourteenth Quarterly Report on the excavation of Gezer, 18

March-9 May 1907.” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly:184-204.

Maeir, Aren M. 2004 Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: Finds from

Raymond-Charles Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921. (BAR International Series 1206). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Maeir, Aren M. and Joseph Yell.

2007 “Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of selected Pottery from Tel Beth-Shean and the Central Jordan Valley,” pp. 554-571 in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Vol II. Edited by Amahai Mazar and Robert Mullins. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Magrill, Pamela, Andrew Middleton.

2000 “Did the Potter’s Wheel go out of use in Late Bronze Age Palestine?” Antiquity 75:137-44.

2004 “Studies in Pottery, Petrography, Geology, Environment and

Technology,” pp.2514-2549 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Edited by David Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Martin, Mario. 2006 “The Egyptianized Pottery Assemblage from Area Q,” pp. 140-157

in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996. Edited by Amihai Mazar. vol. 1 Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Martin, Mario and Tristan Barako.

2007 “Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery,” pp. 129-165 in Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. (IAA Reports, No. 32). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Mason, Robert B.

2004 Shine Like the Sun: Lustre-Painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle East. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers (in association with the Royal Ontario Museum).

Master, Daniel M., John M. Monson, Egon H.E. Lass and George A. Pierce.

2005 Dothan I: Remains from the Tell (1953-1964). Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake.

Mazar, Amihai.

1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday.

241

2002 “Megiddo in the Thirteenth-Eleventh Centuries BCE: A Review of Some Recent Studies,” pp. 264-282 in Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaelogy and Related Disciplines. Edited by Eliezer D. Oren and Shmuel Ahituv. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

2006 Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996: From the Late Bronze

to IIB to the Medieval Period. Volume 1. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Mazar, Amihai and Robert Mullins.

2006 Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Volume II. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

McGovern, Patrick E.

1989 "Cross-Cultural Craft Interaction: The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shean," pp.147-195 in Cross-craft and Cross-cultural Interactions in Ceramics. Edited by P. E. McGovern, M. D. Notis and W. D. Kingery. Westerville, Ohio: American Ceramic Society.

McGovern, Patrick E. 1986 The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan, the

Baq'ah Valley Project, 1977-1981.(University Museum Monograph, No. 65) Philadelphia: University Museum.

McGovern, Patrick E., Garman Harbottle, and Christopher Wnuk.

1986 “Ware Characterization: Petrography, Chemical Sourcing and Firing,” pp. in The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan, the Baq'ah Valley Project, 1977-198. Edited by Patrick McGovern. Philadelphia: University Museum.

McNicoll, Anthony, Robert H. Smith and Basil Hennessy.

1982 Pella in Jordan I: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979-1981. Vol. 1-2. Canberra: Australian National Gallery.

McNicoll, A.W., P.C.Edwards, J. Hanbury-Tenison, J.B. Hennessy, T.F.Potts, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley, and P. Watson.

1992 Pella in Jordan 2: The Second Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985. (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2). New South Wales: Meditarch.

242

Miller, James M., and John H. Hayes. 1986 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster

Press. Moorey, P. R. S.

1991 A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. Moran, William L.

1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003 Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. Edited by John Huehnergard

and Shlomo Izre`el. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Morris, Ellen F.

2005 The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom. Boston: Brill.

Morkot, Robert.

2001 “Egypt and Nubia,” pp. 227-251 in Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terrence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison and Carla M. Sinopoli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mountjoy, Penelope. 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification.

Goteborg: Paul Astrom Forlag.

1993 Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction. (Monograph No. 36). Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Mullins, Robert A.

2006 “A Corpus of Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian-style Pottery from Tel Beth-Shean,” pp. 247-262 in “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre De Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

2007 ‘The Late Bronze Pottery,” pp.390-547 in Excavations at Tel Beth-

Shean 1989-1996: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Vol II. Edited by Amahai Mazar and Robert Mullins. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Mumford, Gregory.

1998 International Relations between Egypt, Sinai, and Syria-Palestine during the Late Bronze Age to Early Persian Period (Dyansties 18-26: c.1550-525 B.C.): A Spatial and temporal Analysis of the Distibution and Proportions of Egyptian(izing) Artefacts and

243

Pottery in Sinai and selected Sites in Syria-Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Na’aman, Nadav.

1981 “Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. Israel Exploration Journal 31, no. 3-4: 172-185.

1990 “Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to his Plans for a Campaign to

Canaan,” pp. 397-405 in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Edited by A. Tzvi, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

1992 “Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in

the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275-291. 2000 “The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence” pp. 125-138 in Amarna

Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nakhai, Beth A.

2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Negbi, Ora. 1989 “The Middle and Late Bronze Pottery,” pp.43-63 in Excavations at

Tel Michal, Israel. Edited by Ze`ev Herzog, George Rapp, Jr., and Ora Negbi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

O'Connor, David.

2003 “Egypt’s Views of ‘Others,’”pp. 155-185 in ‘Never had the Like Occurred’: Egypt’s View of its Past. Edited by John Tait. London: UCL Press.

2006 “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh,” pp.1-38 in Thutmose III: A

New Biography. Edited by E. H. Cline and D. B. O' Connor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Oren, Eliezer D. 1972 “Tel Sera`.”Israel Exploration Journal 22(2-3):167-169. 1984 “`Governors' Residences’ in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A

Case Study in Egyptian Administration.” Journal for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37-56.

2006 “The Establishment of Egyptian Imperial Administration on the

'Ways of Horus': An Archaeological Perspective from North

244

Sinai,” pp.279-292 in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny. Volume 2.Leuven: Peeters.

Oren, Eliezer D. and E. Netzer. 1973 “Tel Sera`.” Israel Exploration Journal 23(4): 251-254. 1974 “Tel Sera`.” Israel Exploration Journal 24(3-4): 264-266. Owen, David.

1981 “An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek.” Tel Aviv 8 (1): 1-17.

Panagiotopoulos, Diamantis.

2006 “Foreigners in Egypt in the Time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III,” pp. 370-412 in Thutmose III: A New Biography. Edited by E. H. Cline and D. B. O'Connor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Panitz-Cohen, Nava and Amihai Mazar.

2006 Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Qedem 45), Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Petrie, Flinders. 1891 Tell el Hesy (Lachish). London:The Committee of the Palestine

Exploration Fund. 1928 Gerar. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1930 Beth-Pelet I(Tell Fara). London: British School of Archaeology in

Egypt. 1933 Ancient Gaza III (Tell el`Ajjul). London: British School of

Archaeology in Egypt. Pflüger, Kurt.

1946 “The Edict of King Haremhab.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5: 260-268.

Phythian-Adams, W. J.

1923 “Report on Soundings at Tell Jemmeh.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 55:140-146.

245

Popham, Mervyn R. 1972 “White Slip Ware,” pp. 431-471 in The Swedish Cyprus

Expedition: The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Vol. IV, Part 1C. Edited by Paul Aström. Sweden: Lund.

Porat Naomi and Yuval Goren.

2002 “Petrography of the Naqada IIIa Canaanite Pottery from Tomb U-j in Abydos,” pp. 252-270 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd Millennium BCE.Edited by Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Thomas E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press.

Porter, Bertha, and Rosalind Moss.

1970 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Pritchard, James B.

1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. (3rd Edition with supplement). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rainey, Anson. 1995 “Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Age Society,” pp. 481-496 in

Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Redford, Donald B.

1986 Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books.Mississauga: Benben Publications.

1990 Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom. (Beer-Sheva, Volume

IV). Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. 1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press. 2003 The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Boston: Brill. 2006 “The Northern Wars of Thutmose III,” pp.325-343 in Thutmose

III: A New Biography. Edited by E. H. Cline and D. B. O’Connor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Renfrew, Colin, and John Cherry.

246

1986 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rice, Prudence M., ed. 1984 Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology.

Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Robinson, Edward. 1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea:

A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838. (3 volumes). Boston: Crocker and Brewster.

Rowe, Alan.

1929 “The Palestine Expedition: Report of the 1928 Season.” The Museum Journal 20:37-88.

1930 The Topography and History of Beth-Shean. Philadelphia: The University Press for the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

1940 The Four Canaanite Temple of Beth-Shean. (Volume II, Part I).

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Roux, Valentine.

2003 “A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1): 1-30.

Roux, Valentine and Marie-Agnes Courty.

1998 “Identification of Wheel-fashioning Methods: Technological Analysis of 4th-3rd Millennium BC Oriental Ceramics.” Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 747-763.

Rye, Owen S.

1976 “Keeping your Temper Under Control: Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery.” Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11 (2): 106-137.

1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Washington,

D.C.: Taraxacum. Safrai, Zeev, and R. S. Notley.

2005 Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Boston: Brill.

247

Saller, Sylvester. 1964 The Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem):

The Jebusite Burial Place. Part II. (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, No.13). Jerusalem: Franciscan Press.

Savage, Stephen H., Steven 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.

Schloen, J. David. 2001 The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in

Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schneider, Jane.

1977 “Was there a Pre-Capitalist World System?” Peasant Studies 6:20-29.

Schulman, Alan R.

1964 Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Bd.6 Berlin: Verlag Bruno Hessling.

Seger, Joe D.

1965 The Pottery of Palestine at the Close of the Middle Bronze Age. Unpublished Dissertation. Harvard University: Cambridge.

1972 “Shechem Field XIII.” Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 205:20-35 1975 ‘The MBII Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos

Retrospective.” Eretz-Israel 12: 34*-45* . 1988 Gezer V: The Field I Caves. Vol.5. Edited by Joe D. Seger and H.

Darrell Lance. Jerusalem: Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Sellin, Ernest.

1926a “Die Ausgrabung von Sichem: Kurze vorläufige Mitteilung über der Arbeit im Frühjahr 1926.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 49:229-36.

1926b “Die Ausgrabung von Sichem: Kurze vorläufige Mitteilung über

der Arbeit im Sommer 1926.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 49:304-327.

248

1927a “Die Ausgrabung von Sichem: Kurze vorläufige Mitteilung über der Arbeit im Frühjahr 1927.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 50:205-211.

1927b “Die Ausgrabung von Sichem: Kurze vorläufige Mitteilung über

der Arbeit im Sommer 1927.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 50:265-274.

Sethe, Kurt.

1984 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Shafer, Byron E. 1991 Religion in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Shepard, Anna.

1942 “Rio Grande Glaze Paint Ware: A Study Illustrating Ceramic Technological Analysis in Archaeological Research.” Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 528:129-262.

Sillar, B. and Michael Tite

2000 “The Challenge of ‘Technological Choices’ for Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology.” Archaeometry 42 (2000):2-20.

Simons, Jan J.

1937 Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists relating to Western Asia. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Singer, Arieh.

2007 The Soils of Israel. Berlin: Springer. Singer, Itmar.

1986-1987 “An Egyptian "Governor's Residency" at Gezer.” Tel Aviv 13-14 (1): 26-31.

1988 “Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of

the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269: 1-10.

Smith, Stuart T.

1995 Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium B.C. New York: Kegan Paul International.

2003 Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s

Nubian Empire. London: Routledge.

249

Sneh, A., Y. Bartov and M. Rosensaft. 1998 Geological Map of Israel. 1:200,000. Sheet 2. Jerusalem:

Geological Survey of Israel. Sparks, Rachael T. 2007 Stone Vessels in the Levant. Leeds: Maney Publishing. Stager, Lawrence E.

1999 “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the "House of El, Lord of the Covenant,” pp.228-249 in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at his Retirement. Edited by P. H. Williams and T. Hiebert. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.

Stark, Miriam T., Ronald L. Bishop and Elizabeth Miksa.

2000 “Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Selection and Use.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 295-331.

Starkey, J. L. and Lankester Harding. 1932 Beth-Pelet II. London: Brotish School of Archaeology inEgypt. Steel, Louise.

2006 “Cypriot and Mycenaean Pottery,” pp. 151-172 in Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. Edited by Nava Panitz-Cohen and Amihai Mazar. (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Qedem 45), Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Stein, Gil.

1998 “World System Theory and Alternative Modes of Interaction in the Archaeology of Culture Contact,” pp.220-255 in Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and Archaeology. Edited by James G. Cusick. (Occasional Paper No. 25). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

1999 Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction

in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. Steiner, M.L.

2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967, Volume III: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. (Copenhagen International Series, 9). London: Sheffield Academic Press.

250

Stern, Ephraim. 1984 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976): The Bronze Age. Part

Two. (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Qedem 18). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Stoltman, James B.

2001 “The Role of Petrography in the Study of Archaeological Ceramics,” pp. 297-326 in Earth Sciences and Archaeology. Edited by Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday and C. Reid Ferring. New York: Kluwer/Academic Publishers.

Terry, R.D. and G.V. Chilingar.

1955 `Summary of “Concerning some additional aids in studying sedimentary formations” by M.S. Shvetsov.’ Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 25:229-34.

Tite, Michael and Vassilis Kilikoglou.

2002 “Do We Understand Cooking Pots and is there an Ideal Cooking Pot?” pp. 1-8 in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y. Maniatis. (Bar International Series 1011). Oxford.

Tite, Michael S.

1999 “Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption-The Contribution of the Physical Sciences.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 181-233.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1976 Nubia under the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson. Tubb, Jonathan N.

1988 “Tell es-Sa`idiyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons of Renewed Excavations.” Levant 20:23-88.

1990 “Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of Excavations at Tell es-Sa`idiyeh in the Jordan Valley.” Levant 22:21-42.

Tufnell, Olga, Charles H. Inge and Lankester Harding.

1940 Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press. Ussishkin, David.

2004 The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Vol. 3. (Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Monograph Series 22) Tel Aviv.

251

van der Leeuw, Sander. 1993 “Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery

Techniques,” pp. 238-288 in Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Edited by P. Lemonnier. London: Routledge.

van der Steen, Evelyn.

1997 “Pots and Potters in the Central Jordan Valley,” pp. in Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Edited by Anonymous Amman: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Vaughan, Sarah J. 1991 “Material and Technical Characterization of Base Ring Ware: A

New Fabric Technology,” pp.119-130 in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. Edited by Jane A. Barlow, Diane L. Bolger and Barbara Kling. (University Museum Monograph 74). Philadelphia: University Museum.

1996 “Contributions of Petrography to the Study of Archaeological

Ceramics and Man-made Building Materials in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean,”pp.117-125 in The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology. Edited by Scott Pike and Seymour Gitin. Archetype.

Wallerstein, Immanuel.

1974 The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Volume 1. New York: Academic Press.

Warren, Peter and Vronwy Hankey. 1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Weber, Max.

1978 Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol. 2. Edited by Guenther Roth And Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weinstein, James 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 XXIII: 105-115. Welter, G.

1932 “Stand der Ausgrabungen in Sichem.” Cols. 289-314. Archäologischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Archäologischen Instituts, III-IV.

252

Wentworth,Chester K. 1922 “A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments.”

Journal of Geology 30:377-392. Westbrook, Raymond, and Raymond Cohen.

2000 Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Whitbread, I. K. 1995 Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological

Study. Exeter: British School of Athens. Wimmer, Stefan.

1990 “Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai,” pp.1065-1106 in Studies in Egyptology presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Volume II. Edited by Sarah Israelit-Groll. Jerusalem: Magness Press.

Winter, Irene J.

1977 “Perspective on the ‘Local Style’ of Hasanlu IVB: A Study in Receptivity,” pp. 371-386 in Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. (Biblioteca Mesopotamica 7). Edited by L. D. Levine and T. C. Young, Jr. Malibu:

Wood, Bryant G.

1990 The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages. (JSOT Supplement Series, 103). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Wright, George. E.

1957 "The Archaeology of the City." Biblical Archaeologist 20 (1): 19-32.

1961 The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William

Foxwell Albright. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday. 1965 Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London: Gerald

Duckworth & Co. Wright, G.R.H.

1965 “Fluted Columns in the Bronze Age Temple of Baal-Berith at Shechem.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 97:66-84.

1967 “Some Cypriote and Aegean Pottery Recovered from the Shechem

Excavations 1964.” Opuscula Atheniensia 7:47-75.

253

1969 “Another Fluted Column from Bronze Age Shechem.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 101:34-36.

Yadin, Yigael, Yohanan Aharoni, Ruth Amiran, Trude Dothan, Immanuel Dunayevsky and Jean Perrot.

1958 Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavation, 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Yannai, Eli.

2002 “A Stratigraphic and Chronological Reappraisal of the ‘Governor Residence’ at Tell el-Far`ah (South),” pp 368-376 in Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Edited by Eliezer D. Oren and Shmuel Ahituv. Ben-Gurion University Press of the Negev Press.

Zertal, Adam. 1984 Arruboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel-Aviv:

Sifriyat Po'alim. 1986-1987 “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation

Seasons 1982-1987.” Tel Aviv 13-14 (2): 105-165. 1994 “`To the Land of the Perizzites and the Giants:' on the Israelite

Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh,” pp. 47-69 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na`aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2004 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Shechem Syncline. Vol. 1

Boston: Brill.

254

Table 1: Relative chronology in the southern Levant, Egypt and eastern Mediterranean

LEVANT(1) EGYPT (2) AEGEAN(3) Late Bronze Age (LH=Late Helladic)

1500-1470 BCE LB 1A 18th Dynasty:

Ahmose to Thutmosis II/III LHIIA (1510/1500)

1470-1400 BCE LB1B Thutmosis III LHIIB (1400) 1400-1300 BCE LBIIA Amarna Period: Amenhotep III

and Akhenaten. Tuankhamun to Horemheb

LHIIIA1 (1390 +) LHIIA2 (1370/60) LHIIIB (1340/30)

1300-1200BCE LBIIB Early 19th Dynasty: (Set I, Ramesses II,

Merenptah)

LHIIIB

1200-1150 BCE Early Iron 1A

Late 19th Dynasty to early 20th Dynasty:

(Ramesses III)

LHIIIC (early)

(1) Chronology based on Mazar (1990). (2) Chronology adapted from Baines and Malek (1980:36-37). (3) Chronology from Warren and Hankey (1989:169 (traditional)).

255

Table 2: Late Bronze Age ceramics at sites in the Manasseh survey (compiled from Zertal, 2004)

Site # (Israel Survey Coordinates)

Region/ Soil type

Site Type/ size

Survey Pottery Reading %)

Pottery Re-assignments to Late Bronze Period

3:17-20/27/1 El-Maqarraneh

Dothan, Terra Rossa

Scatter, 2d

MBIIB= 100

Fig 29:4 ( everted triangular rim of LB Cook Pot)

13:17-20/46/1 Burqin

Terra Rossa

Tell-35d

LBIII=10 Burqin, identified with Burquna of Amarna Letter (EA 250)

23:17-20/05/3 Tell el-Muhaffar

Rendzina & Alluvium

Fort. Tell/ 120d

LBIII=3 Fig 58:4 (upright LB/IR transitional Cook Pot)

26:17-20/75/1 Khirbet Bel`ameh

Rendzina & Brown Forest

Fort. Tell/ 90d

LBIII=5 LB pottery not shown

27:16-20/44/1 El-Khrab

Terra Rossa & Brown Forest

Tell/ 10d

LBI=5 LBII=5 LBIII=15

Fig 66:12 (Late Bronze low ring bowl base). Identified with Harabu in Amarna Letter (EA250).

29:16-20/64/1 Khirbet Rujjam

Alluvium Ruin, 15d

LBI=5 LBII=5 LBIII=20

Fig. 69:5 (LB juglet, black)

34:17-20/64/1 El-Qitneh

Rendzina & Terra Rossa

Ruin, 5.6d

LBI=5 Fig 77:12 (everted and rounded cook pot) Fig. 77:16 (outcurved cook pot)

37:17-20/23/1 El-Meshatta

Terra Rossa, Alluvium, & Brown Forest

Ruin, 8d

LBIII=5 LB survey pottery not shown

44:17-20/22/1 Tell Dothan

Terra Rossa & Alluvium

Fort. Tell 60d

LBII=5 LB survey pottery not shown

50:17-20/85/1 Khirbet en-Najjar

Qabatiyeh Plains Terra Rossa & Brown Forest

Fort. Tell, 32d

LBII=5 LB survey pottery not shown

57:18-20/03/1 M`rah el-Khararib

Alluvium Ruin-4d MBIIB=80 Fig 114:1 (incurved rim bowl type) Fig. 114:2 (bulbous rim bowl type)

61:18-20/01/1 Dhahrat et-Tawileh

Terra Rossa, Brown Forest & Alluvium

Encl & Cairn, 0.9d

LBIII=5 Bronze bull figurine. No LB survey pottery shown

65:17-19/29/1 Bir ej-Jadu’

Zawiyah Plains Terra Rossa & Brown Forest

Ruin-1.6d

LBI=25 LBII=5 LBIII=20

Fig. 126:4 (Bbfa Bowl type) Fig. 126:5 (simple rounded rim bowl) Fig. 126:10 (high ring base)

76:17-19/15/1 Khirbet Bir el-Bushm

Rendzina Ruin-8d IAII=20 Fig 143:8 (upright cooking pot type found in LB/IR1A transition)

77:17-19/25/1 Sanur

Brown Forest Ruin-9d MBIIB=20, IA IB=10

Fig 146:8 (everted rim cooking pot)

95:17-19/96/2 el-Kebarrah

Sanur Valley Terra Rossa

Fort. Tell, 35d

LBI=2, LBII=2 LBIII=1

LB survey pottery not shown

97:17-19/65/1 Khirbet Kheibar

Terra Rossa & Alluvium

Fort. Tell,35d

LBIII=10 Fig. 181:5 (Bbfa type bowl)

107:17-9/05/1 Er-Rameh Ruin- LBI=10 Fig.201:1 (outcurved triangular rim

256

Kheir’allah Plain Terra Rossa

15d LBII=10 LBIII=10

cooking pot) Fig.201:12 (WSI “milkbowl”) Fig.201:13 (Bbfa Type bowl)

115:16-9/62/1 Kom el-Ghaby

Alluvium Ruin-14.5d

LB/IR Fig 210:4 (everted rim cooking pot)

118:17-19/43/1 Khirbet Hureish

High Lands Brown Forest

Ruin, 1d

MBIIB=10 IAII=2

Fig 220:3 (bulbous rim bowl type)

137:16-19/60/1 es-Sirtassa

Rendzina, Terra Rossa & Brown Forest

Fort. Tell,15d

LBIII=5 LB survey pottery not shown.

158:18-19/30/1 El-Muntar (A)

Ras el-Aqra` Terra Rossa

Ruin 4.1d

LB=10

Fig.288:4 (simple rounded rim bowl) Fig 288:7 (everted rim cooking pot)

159:18-18/39/1 El-Muntar (B)

Rendzina & Brown Forest

Cairns4.8d

MBI =10 MBIIB=70

Fig 293:1 (bulbous rim bowl)

178:16-18/45/1 Khirbet Qarqaf

Wadi She`ir Nahal Shechem/ Alluvium

Fort. tell-80d

MBIIB=40, IA I=40

Fig 318:1 (upright cooking pot type)

190:17-18/14/4 `Ain Musa (A)

Terra Rossa & Brown Forest

Ruin-6d MBIIB=60 Fig. 339:2 (bulbous rim bowl)

193:17-18/03/2 Khirbet Qumy

Terra Rossa & Alluvium

Fort. tell=22d

LBI=15 Fig.342:3 (upright cooking pot) Fig.342:4 (everted cooking pot)

196:16-18/49/1 Abu Mizr

Sebastiyeh Region Rendzina & Terra Rossa

Ruin-2.1d

MBIIB-100 Fig. 346:2 (bulbous rim bowl)

204:16-18/99/1 Ras el-`Ain

Rendzina Ruin-2d LBII=15 LBIII=15

Fig 358:6 (everted cooking pot type) Fig 358:7 (everted compound rim cooking pot) Fig 358:8 (simple rounded rim bowl)

222:16-18/97/3 Khirbet Shreim

Rendzina Ruin-2.5d

LBI=3 LBII=3 LBIII=4

Fig. 381:4 (everted rounded rim bowl)

265:18-18/17/1 Jebel Thor

Yasid Heights TR & BF

Encl 1d

MBIIB=100 Fig 441:3 (bulbous rim bowl type)

272:17-18/32/1 El-`Aqqabah

Mount Ebal R & TR

Cem, 2d

IA I=20 Fig 450:5 (everted compound rim cooking pot)

Site Types: Fort. Tell=Fortified Tell; Cem= cemetery; Encl=enclosure

257

Table 3: Samaria Hill Country sites with Late Bronze Age pottery

(Compiled from Finkelstein, Lederman & Bunimovitz Survey, 1997)

Site # (Finkelstein) Site #-Appendix Map

Area Type /Size

Pottery Survey Reading (%)

Late Bronze Pottery

15-15/89/01 #3

SS Scatter 1d

MB=81 Fig. 8:38:3 (upright triangular jar) Fig. 8:38:4 (outcurved and rounded jar)

15-16/22/01 #4

FT Ridge, 6d

LB/ IAI=2.8%

Fig. 8:51:1 (upright and triangular cooking pot of LB/IR transition)

16-14/03/01 #12

SS Hill, 6d

MB=1.9 IA I=2.6

Fig. 8:95:1 (outcurved jar)

16-14/17/01 #5

SS Slope, 6d

MB=1.8 Fig. 8:98:1 (simple rounded rim bowl with straight side)

16-15/68/01 #13

SS Scatter,1.5d

MB=45.5 IA I=27.3

Fig. 8:141:2 (bulbous rim Bowl )

16-15/91/01 #14

SCR Scatter, 3d

MB=47 Fig. 8:149:1 (Bbfa type Bowl)

16-16/39/01 #15

NS Tell, 30d

MB=8 IA I=8

Fig. 8:163:1 (everted triangular cooking pot)

17-14/28/01 #17 Beitin/Bethel

SCR Tell, 22d

17-14/49/01 #19

SCR C

MB=100 Fig.8:207:1 (bulbous rim bowl) Fig.8:207:2 (bulbous rim bowl)

17-15/12/01 #21

SS Kh., 4d

MB=24 IA I=59

Fig. 8:218:7 (outcurved triangular cooking pot)

17-16/17/01 #24

NCR

Tell, 28

MB=37 LB=1.2 LB/IA =0.3

Fig. 8:240:23 (simple rounded rim bowl) Biblical Tappuah.

17-16/62/01 #26

NCR Scatter, 12d

MB=23 IA I=2

Fig. 8.256:8 (bulbous rim bowl)

17-16/72/01 #30

NCR

Tell 30d

MB, LB, IA I

Shiloh

17-17/52/01 #29

NCR Scatter, 1d

MB=35 IAI-II=1.7

Fig.8:273:2 (rounded rim bowl) Fig.8:273:3-4 (bulbous rim Bowl)

18-15/14/01 #42b

DF C LB EB cemetery reused in MB and LB.

18-16/55/01 #40

DF Ca, 4d

MB=24 IA I=6

Fig. 8:325:4 (bulbous rim bowl)

18-17/02/01 #44 Kh. el-`Urma

NCR Tell, 15d

MB=25 LB=9.5 IA I=9.5

Fig.8:326:13 (everted rounded rim cooking pot) Fig.8:326:16-17 (everted triangular cook pot) Fig.8:326:14 (everted compound cooking pot)

18-17/33/02 #46

NCR Kh., 5d

MB=8.7 IA I=4.3

Fig. 8:338:1 (bulbous rim bowl)

Area Codes: FT-Foothills, SS-South Slopes, NS-North Slopes, SCR-South Central Range, NCR-North Central Range, H-Hill, Ridg-Ridge, C-Cemetery, Kh=Khirbet, Ca=cave

258

Table 4: Late Bronze Age sites in the Shechem Valley (compiled from Campbell, 1991)

Site No. Site Name Site Type MB LB Iron I 1 Balatah SC X X X 2 Tanânîr I X X 3 `Irâq et-Tayyih C IB,IIA-B

7 Kh. Kefr Kûz S X 12 13

Sâlim Kh. esh-Sheikh Nasrallah

SWC 1sherd-LBIIA

15 Kh. Shuweihah

S IIB-C IA

16 Beit Dajan SWC X X X 17 Kh. Tânâ el-

Fôqâ SWC X

18 Kh. Tânâ et-Tahtâ

SWC IIA IA

23 Rûjeib SWC IIB/Iron sherd 26 Kh. el-`Urmeh SC IIB-C IB, IIA-B IA 27 Kh. Shurrâb S II X 31 Beit el-Khirbeh SIWC MBI X X 33 Kh. en-Nebi S MBII X IA 37 Jebel et-Tûr C LBIIB IA 40 Tell er-Râs I X 42 Kh. Sûr SC II IB,IIB IA 52 Tell Sofar SC IIA-B IA 54 Kûmeh S IB, IIA-B Site Type Codes: S-Settlement, I-Isolated Ruin, W-Work Area, C-Cemetery

259

Table 5: Late Bronze Age chronology at Shechem STRATUM DATE

(BCE) FIELD V FIELD VII FIELD IX FIELD XIII

XI 1200-1150/25

Temple 5700

Layers 3-4 Phase 11 Transitional

XII 1325-1200 Temple 5700

Post-Amarna

XIII 1400-1325 Temple 5700

Layer 6A Amarna

XIV 1450-1400 Temple 5700

Layer 6B Phase 13-14 Pre-Amarna

Abandon ment

Abandonment Abandonment Abandonment

XV 1600-1550 Migdol Temple

Layer 7 Phases 13-14 Terraced Housing

XVI 1650-1600 Phase 15 Terraced Housing

XVII 1675-1650 Phase 16 Areas 5-6 Adapted from Campbell (2002:8-9).

260

Table 6:Bowls submitted for petrographic thin-sectioning

SHERD # STRATUM BOWL

TYPE MACRO GROUP

PETRO GROUP

1 1.109.18792 LB-3a Baaa 3 F 2 2.97.18843 LB-2surf Baaa 3 F 3 2.54.16339 LB-1surf Baaa 3 F 4 4.190.20790 LB-2fill Baaa 3 F-L 5 4.167.20376 LB-3a Baaa 2 F-L 6 2.98.18858 LB-2surf Baaa 2 F 7 3.38.15751 LB-1surf Baaa 4 F 8 4.240.22319 LB-2Bfill Baaa 2 F-L 9 3.184.20281 LB-3a Bcga 3 F-L/1 10 2.92.17634 LB-2surfb Bcga 3 F-L/1 11 3.76.16905 LB-1surf Bcga 3 F-L 12 4.226.21979 LB-2Bfill Bcga 3 F-L 13 1.106.17867 LB-3a Bcha 2 F-L/1 14 1.98.17821 LB-2surf Bcha 2 F-L/1 15 3.86.16229 LB-1surf Bcha 2 F-L/1 16 4.234.22215 LB-2Bfill Bcha 16 F-L 17 4.167.20387 LB-3a Baaa 3 F-L 18 2.102.17961 LB-2surf Bcga 3 F-L 19 3.61.16261 LB-1surf Bcga 3 Slide too thin 20 4.262.23296 LB-2Bfill Bcga 16 Slide too thin 21 3.185.20292 LB-3a Baab 1 F 22 4.102.18222 LB-2surf Baaa 1 F-L 23 1.132.19762 LB-1dest Baaa 1 F 24 4.284.23665 LB-2Bfill Bcha 1 F 25 2.54.16336 LB-1surf Bcga 3 F-L 26 2.96.18973 LB-2surfB Baaa 3 F-L 27 2.93.17897 LB-2surfB Baaa 3 F-L 28 2.148.22844 LB-3a Baaa 3 F-L/1 29 3.247.24636 LB-3a Baaa 3 F 30 3.140.19278 LB-3a Bcga 3 F 31 3.86.16231 LB-1surf Bcga 3 F-L 32 3.78.16930 LB-1surf Bcha 3 F-L 33 3.63.16388 LB-1surf Baaa 3 F-L 34 3.227.23074 LB-3a Carinated 3 ? 35 4.66.16290 LB-2surf Bcga 3 F-L 36 4.299.23845 LB-1surf Baaa 3 F-L

261

Table 7: Cooking pots submitted for petrographic thin-sectioning

SHERD # STRATUM TYPE MACRO GROUP

PETRO GROUP

1 1.108.18774 LB-3a Ddea 6 C/1 2 1.93.17534 LB-2surf Ddja 5 C/1 3 1.111.18823 LB-3a Ddea 5 C/1 4 1.98.17794 LB-2surf Ddea-b 13 C/1 5 2.97.18847 LB-2surf Ddea 6 C/1 6 2.41.15671 LB-1surf Bdja 5 C/1 7 2.48.15742 LB-1surf Ddec 13 C/1 8 2.96.18970 LB-2surf Ddea 5 F-L 9 2.98.18912 LB-2surf Ddea 13 C/1 10 3.168.20174 LB-3a Ddka 6 C/1 11 2.62.16275 LB-1surf Ddea 16 C/1 12 3.62.16270 LB-1surf Ddea 6 F-L 13 3.65.16404 LB-1surf Ddea 6 C/1 14 3.106.17710 LB-2surf Ddea 6 C/1 15 3.106.17707 LB-2surf Ddea 6 C/1 16 3.79.26219 LB-1surf Ddha-b 6 C/1 17 4.318.24043 LB-3a Ddaa 5 C/2 18 4.147.19400 LB-3a Ddea 6 C/2 19 3.186.21289 LB-3fill Fdca 15 C/1 20 3.205.21409 LB-3fill Fdga 3 C/1 21 3.90.17660 LB-2surf Fdka 6 C/1 22 2.41.15699 LB-1surf Fdca 6 C/1 23 3.167.20160 LB-3a Fdca 6 C/1 24 2.41.15672 LB-1surf Faaa 3 C/1

262

Table 8: Petrographic Descriptions

Mineral Inclusions Lithic (%) Grainsize Core ColourSherd # Ceramic Stratum Petro (mm)

Type Group

foss lim opq qtz cc amp plag dol chert shl ss min max

20790 baaa LB-2f F-L 10 5 5 3f 1 - - - - - - 0.25 0.6 n ferr18222 baaa LB-2s F-L 10 3 1 5f 2 1 1 - - - - 0.02 1.1 n tan16290 bcga LB-2s F-L 15 7 1 3f - 1 - - - - - 0.05 0.7 n ferr16336 bcga LB-1s F-L 20 5 1 7f - 1 1 - - - - 0.05 0.7 n ferr23845 baaa LB-1s F-L 10 7 2 5f - 1 1 - - - - 0.18 1.2 n tan16231 bcga LB-1s F-L 15 7 - 3f 2 - - - - - - 0.05 0.75 n ferr20387 baaa LB-3a F-L 10 7 - 15f 3 - 1 - 1 - - 0.05 1.2 n tan17897 baaa LB-2s F-L 15 5 5 3f 1 - - - - - - 0.05 0.7 n tan18973 baaa LB-2s F-L 5 10 7 7f 3 2 - - - - - 0.05 0.6 y brn-tan16388 baaa LB-1s F-L 7 3 - 15f 1 1 - - 1 - - 0.05 0.65 y tan22215 bcha LB-2Bf F-L 10 7 1 3\5 2 2 1 - 3 - - 0.05 0.6 n tan16930 bcha LB-1s F-L 10 3 1 7 5 - - - - - - 0.05 0.6 n tan21979 bcga LB-2Bf F-L 10 7 1 10 3 1 1 - - - - 0.05 1.5 y brn20376 baaa LB-3a F-L 10 5 - 5 3 2 - - - - - 0.05 1 y tan22319 baaa LB-2Bf F-L 7 7 - 7 3 2 - - 1 - - 0.05 1.25 y tan16905 bcga LB-1s F-L 15 5 1 15f 3 2 1 - - - - 0.05 0.8 n tan17961 bcga LB-2s F-L 10 13 5 5 3 - 1 - - - - 0.05 0.85 n tan16270 Faaa LB-1s F-L 10 7 2 2 5 - - - 1 - - 0.02 0.6 n tan18970 Ddea LB-2s F-L 10 5 1 5 - 2 - - - - - 0.25 1.1 y gry

17867 bcha LB-3a F-L/1 20 3 3 7 3 1 1 10 1 - - 0.05 0.75 no tan17821 bcha LB-2s F-L/1 10 5 5 7 1 1 - 5 - - - 0.075 0.7 no tan16229 bcha LB-1s F-L/1 15 5 - 5\10 - 1 - 10 1 - - 0.02 0.6 no tan20281 bcga LB-3a F-L/1 30 5 3 7 - - - 30 1 - - 0.05 0.5 no ferr22844 baaa LB-3a F-L/1 7 5 2 2 - - - 10 - - - 0.1 0.85 no ferr17634 bcga LB-2s F-L/1 2 - 3 3 1 1 - 20 - - - 0.04 0.95 no ferr

19278 bcga LB-3a F 15 7 - 2\10 - - - - 1 2 3 0.02 1 n ferr20292 baab LB-3a F 7 4 - 5\10 - - - - 1 5 1 0.02 1.2 y ferr18858 baaa LB-2s F 2 5 - 5\10 1 1 - - 1 3 2 0.02 0.7 y ferr19762 baaa LB-1d F 5 7 3 5\10 - - - - - 3 3 0.02 0.75 y ferr18843 baaa LB-2s F 10 7 5 7f 3 - 1 - 2 - 1 0.02 1.1 y brn18792 baaa LB-3a F 15 7 3 7f 1 1 1 - - - 1 0.02 1.1 n brn24636 baaa LB-3a F 10 5 1 15f - 1 1 - 1 - 2 0.02 1.2 n ferr16339 baaa LB-1s F 10 10 - 7f - - - - 1 - 1 0.005 0.75 n tan23665 bcha LB-2Bf F 10 5 1 2\5 1 1 1 - - 1 - 0.02 1.2 n tan

Numbers below each mineral represents percentage of total petrofabric body. Minerals include: foss=fossiliferous material, lim=limestone, opq=opaques (iron oxides), qtz=quartz, cc=calcite, amp=amphiboles (hornblende), pyx=pyroxenes, plag=plagioclase, dol=dolomite, chert=chert, shl=shale, ss=siltstone, bio=biotite, grg=grog. Presence of core (y/n), sherd section colour in plane-polarized light. Colors include, ferr=ferruginous, brn=brown, tan=tan, red-brn=reddish brown, brn-tan. Grainsize represents minimum and maximum, and not mode.

263

Table 9: Petrographic Descriptions

Mineral Inclusions(%) Lithic (%) Grainsize Core ColourSherd # Ceramic Stratum Petro (mm)

Type Group

foss lim opq qtz cc amp pyx plag dol chert shl ss min max

21409 Fdga LB-3f C/1 - - 1 7 5 1 1 - - - - - 0.02 1.3 y tan

15742 Ddec LB-1s C/1 - 5 1 7 5 - 1 - - 1 - - 0.05 1 n ferr17660 Fdka LB-2s C/1 - - 2 7 10 - 1 1 - - - - 0.02 1 n brn15672 Faaa LB-1s C/1 - - 1 5 7 - - 1 - - - - 0.02 0.7 y ferr

20160 Fdca LB-3a C/1 - - 1 5 7 2 - - - - - - 0.02 0.65 n ferr15699 Fdca LB-1s C/1 - 1 - 7 7 1 1 - - - - - 0.02 0.75 n brn26219 Ddha LB-1s C/1 - 1 - 2&3 7 - - 1 - - - - 0.02 1.5 n ferr

17710 Ddea LB-2s C/1 - 5 2 10 7 - 3 1 - - - - 0.01 0.6 n tan16275 Ddea LB-1s C/1 - 1 1 3 7 - 1 - - 1 - - 0.02 1 y ferr20174 Ddka LB-3a C/1 - 3 - 5 7 3 1 1 - - - - 0.05 1 y brn

18912 Ddea LB-2s C/1 - - - 5 7 2 - - - - - - 0.02 0.34 n ferr

18774 Ddea LB-3a C/1 - - - 7 7 - - - - - - - 0.02 0.4 y ferr

16404 Ddea LB-1s C/1 - 1 - 7 10 1 - 2 - - - 0.02 1 y ferr

18823 Ddea LB-3a C/1 2 2 2 10 7 - 1 - - 1 - - 0.05 0.75 n brn17707 Ddea LB-2s C/1 - - 2 10 7 1 - - - 1 - - 0.02 0.3 n tan

17794 Ddea LB-2s C/1 - - - 5 7 1 1 - - - - - 0.02 0.65 y blk

17534 Ddja LB-2s C/1 1 1 1 7 7 - 1 1 - 2 - - 0.02 0.6 y ferr18847 Ddea LB-2s C/1 - - - 5 5 - - - - 1 - - 0.05 0.6 n ferr15671 Bdja LB-1s C/1 1 2 - ten 5 - 1 1 - - - - 0.25 0.5 n ferr

21289 Fdca LB-3f C/1 - - 1 10 7 - - - - 1 - - 5 1 y ferr

24043 Ddaa LB-3a C/2 1 - - ten 5 1 1 - - - - - 0.05 0.35 n red-brn

19400 Ddea LB-3a C/2 1 2 1 5 7 - - 2 - - - - 0.05 0.6 y brn

15751 baaa LB-1s M-L 2 5 5 7 1 - 2 1 3 3 - - 0.05 0.6 y red-brn

Numbers below each mineral represents percentage of total petrofabric body. Minerals include: foss=fossiliferous material, lim=limestone, opq=opaques (iron oxides), qtz=quartz, cc=calcite, amp=amphiboles (hornblende), pyx=pyroxenes, plag=plagioclase, dol=dolomite, chert=chert, shl=shale, ss=siltstone, bio=biotite. Presence of core (y/n), sherd section color in plane-polarized light. Colors include, ferr=ferruginous, brn=brown, tan=tan, red-brn=reddish brown, brn-tan. Grainsize represents minimum and maximum, and not mode.

264

Table 10: Macro-fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F-L

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

17,897 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

18,973 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

16,231 3519 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 3%.

16,930 3519 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 17 cm, 2%.

20,376 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

23,845 3758 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/3; 5YR8/2; 5YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 6%.

17,961 3360 LB-2surf

baab - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

18,222 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 10%.

21,979 3750 LB-2Bfillb

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 33 cm, 6%.

16,290 3739 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 4%.

16,905 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 2.5%.

16,231 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 34 cm, 6%.

16,388 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

16,336 3333 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/3; 5YR8/3; 5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 2.5%.

20,387 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ 3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0

265

- _ - ____- _

mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 2.5%.

20,790 3745 LB-2Bfillc

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 2.5%.

22,215 3750 LB-2Bfillb

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

16

10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; 2.5Y5/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 42 cm, 7.5%.

22,319 3750 LB-2Bfillb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/3; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 9%.

266

Table 11: Macro-fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F-L/1

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

17,634 3355 LB-2surfb

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10R6/6; 7.5YR5/2; 10R6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 5%.

17,867 3117 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 4%.

20,281 3537 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 6%.

16,229 3519 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

17,821 3114 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

22,844 3379 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

267

Table 12: Macro fabric groups assigned to Petrographic Group F

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

18,843 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 4%.

19,278 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10R5/3; 10R5/4; 10R5/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

20,292 3537 LB-3a baab - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

19,762 3100 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR4/1; 2.5Y5/1; 10YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 4%.

23,665 3771 LB-2Bfilla

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5Y7/3; 2.5Y7/1; 2.5Y7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 28 cm, 2.5%.

18,858 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Grey inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR5/2, Reddish Gray, 23 cm, 15%.

16,339 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

18,792 3121 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 9 cm, 1%.

24,636 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

268

Table 13: Macro-Fabric Groups (FG) in Field XIII at Shechem FG#1 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINE

RAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNES

S SORTING

1 Limestone <5,10 <0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Iron Oxide <5,10 <0.5-10 SA-SR Poor-Good 3 Voids 5-10 0.5-1.0 SA-SR, A Poor-Good FG#2 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Fair-Poor 2 Black <5,5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-A, SR Fair-Poor 3 Limestone 5-10 0.5-1.0 & 2.0 SR-SA, A Fair-Poor Sub-Group #2 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide <5 <0.5 R, SR-SA Poor-Fair 2 Black <5 <0.5 SA-SR Poor-Fair 3 Limestone <5 <0.5 SR-Sa Poor-Fair FG#3 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5,5-10 0.5-1.0 & 2.0 SA-SR,A Poor-Fair 2 Black <5,5-10 0.5-1.0 SA-A, SR Poor-Fair Sub-Group3.1 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone 20 <0.5 R Good 2 Black 5 <0.5 R Good Sub-Group 3.2 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5,5 <0.5 R Good 2 Gray/Black <5,5 <0.5 R Good FG#4 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone 5-20 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Iron Oxide 5-10 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair Sub-Group #4 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5,5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Iron Oxide <5,5 <0.5 SA-SR, A Poor FG#5 (Calcite Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone/white 5-10 0.5-1.0 A, SA-SR Poor-Fair, Good 2 Calcite/clear

sparkling 5-10 0.5-1.0 A Poor-Fair, Good

3 FG#6 (Calcite Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone/white 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Calcite/clear

sparkling 5-20 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor-Fair

269

3 Black/lithic 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A, SA-SR Poor-Fair FG#7 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Black 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 3 Voids 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor-Fair FG#8 (Quartz Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5,5 0.5-1.0 & 2.0 SA-SR Poor-Very Poor 2 Iron Oxide <5-10 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA Poor-Fair 3 Quartz/Clear

Sparkling <5,5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-A Poor-Very Poor

FG#9 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide <5-10 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Black 5-10 0.5-1.0 & 2.0 SA Poor-Fair Sub-Group #9 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR/MINERAL % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide <5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 A-SA, SR Poor-Very Poor 2 Black <5,5 0.5-1.0 & 2.0 A-SA, SR Poor FG#10 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Black 5 0.5-1.0 A-SA-SR Poor-Fair 2 Iron Oxide 5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 A-SA-SR Poor-Fair 3 Voids 5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor-Fair Sub-Group #10 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Gray/Black <5 <0.5 SR Poor 2 Iron Oxide <5 <0.5 SR Poor 3 Voids 5 <0.5 SA Poor FG#11 (Quartz Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone 5-20 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor 2 Quartz 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-R Poor 3 Voids 5-10% 0.5-1.0 SA-A Poor FG#12 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Black 5 0.5-1.0 A, SA-SR Poor-Fair FG#13 (Limestone Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone/white 5-10 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor-Fair 2 Voids 5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-A Poor-Fair FG#14 (Lithic Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Gray/Black 5-10 <0.5,0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor-Fair 2 Voids 5 0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor FG#15 (Calcite Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Gray/Black 5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A-SA, R Poor

270

2 Calcite/clear sparkling

5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor

FG#16 (Quartz Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone 5 <0.5 SR Poor 2 Gray/Black 5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor-Fair 3 Clear/Black

sparkling 5 <0.5 SR-R Fair

FG#17 INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Voids 5 0.5-1.0 SA Poor 2 Iron Oxide <5,5 <0.5 SA Very Poor FG#18 INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide 5 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor FG#19 (Quartz Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Iron Oxide 5 <0.5,0.5-1.0 A, SR Poor 2 Gray/Black <5,5 <0.5 SA Poor 3 Quartz 5 <0.5 A-SA Poor FG#20 (Quartz Group) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Voids 5 0.5-1.0 SA Poor 2 Quartz 5 0.5-1.0 SA Poor 3 Gray/Black 10 0.5-1.0 A Poor FG#21-Cypriot Base Ring (BRI/II) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5,5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor to Fair 2 Gray/Black <5,5-10 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-A Poor to Fair FG#22-Cypriote White Slip (WSI/II) INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Limestone <5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor to Fair 2 Mica (or) <5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 A-SA Poor to Fair 3 Quartz <5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SR Poor to Fair FG#23 Cypriote Red-on-Black INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Black <5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-A Poor to Fair 2 Limestone (&,or) <5,5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor to Fair 3 Iron Oxides <5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR Poor to Fair FG#24-Aegean/Mycenaean Ware INCLUSION COLOR % SIZE (MM) ROUNDNESS SORTING 1 Black <5,5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor to Fair 2 Limestone (&,or) <5,5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SR-SA Poor to Fair 3 Iron Oxides <5, 5 <0.5, 0.5-1.0 SA-SR Poor to Fair

271

Table 14: Fabric Group frequency in Strata XIV, XIII and XII

Stratum XIV XIII XII Fabric Group

1 7.77 4.94 6.2 2 28.26 23.91 26.45 3 33.56 28.18 26.04 4 3 3.54 4.72 5 5.47 3.6 6.07 6 4.24 7.74 10.25 7 2.82 3.6 4.04 8 0.53 1.4 4.31 9 1.76 2.13 4.85 10 3.88 4.74 2.56 11 0 0.133 0 12 0.88 1.13 0.134 13 0.35 1.67 3.23 14 0.706 1.06 0.53 15 2.12 1.87 0.134 16 0.35 4.74 0.53 17 0 0.133 0.134 18 0 0.46 0.269 19 1.76 1.87 0.269 20 0 0.46 0.134 21 0.706 1.53 1.88 22 0.706 0.93 3.23 23 0.88 0.06 0.134 24 0.176 0.06 0

Table 15: Imported wares in Strata XIV, XIII and XII

Stratum XIV XIII XII Totals Ware n % n % n %

Base Ring 4 9.75 23 56.09 14 34.14 n=41 White Slip 4 9.52 14 3.33 24 57.14 n=42 Red-on-

Black 5 83.3 1 16.66 0 0 n=6 Mycenaean 1 50 1 50 0 0 n=2

272

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

XIV XIII XII Basement

Stratum

Vessel Classes in Field XIIIOther

Aegean

Cypriot

Flasks

Chalices

Juglets

Jugs

Biconical

Holemouth

Jars

Kraters

Cooking Pots

Carinated

Bowls

Chart 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

XIV XIII XII Basement

Imported Wares in Field XIII

Mycen

R-on B

WS

BR

Chart 2

273

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%

XIV XIII XII Basement

Proportion of vessels with exterior slip

Slipped

Chart 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

%

XIV XIIII XII Basement

Exterior burnishing by stratum in Field XIII

Burnishing

Chart 4

274

0102030405060708090

100

%

XIV XIIII XII BasementStratum

Bowl Types in Field XIII

Other

Fcga

Faaa

Bbfa

Bcha

Bcga

Baaa

Chart 5

0102030405060708090

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Carinated Bowls in Field XIII

OtherDdaaDaaaCaaaBaaa

Chart 6:

275

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Cooking Pot Types in Field XIII

Other

Ddja

Ddha

Ddea

Ddaa

Bdea/Cdea

Bdka

Chart 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Krater Types in Field XIII

Other

Ddea

Ddaa

Cdga

Cdea

Caaa

Bdga

Bdea

Bbfa/b

Baaa

Chart 8

276

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Jar Types in Field XIII

Other

Bdja/Cdja

Bdha/Cdha

Bdga/Cdga

Bdea/Cdea

Chart 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XIIStratum

Holemouth Types in Field XIII

Other

Fdja

Fdha

Fdga

Fdea

Fdda

Fdca

Fdba

Chart 10

277

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Juglet Types in Field XIII

Faaa

Caaa

Bdea

Baaa

Chart 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

XIV XIII XII BasementStratum

Jug Types in Field XIII

Other

Cdha

Cdgc

Caaa

Bdja

Bdga

Baaa

Chart 12

278

Base Types in Field XIII by stratum

05

10152025303540

Roun

dFla

t

Flat d

isk

Conc

ave d

isk

Low

ring

High r

ing

Pede

stal-s

Pede

stal-f

Butto

nStu

mp

%

XIV

XIII

XIII

Basement

Chart 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

XIV XIII XII

Stratum

Macro fabrics per stratum in Field XIII

Limestone

Lithic

Calcite

Quartz

Iron-rich (FG 17/18)

Cypriote Wares

Mycenaean

Chart 14

279

Petrofabrics by Stratum (Bowls)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

F-L F-L/1 F M-L

Petrographic Group

(n=)

XIV

XIII

XII

Chart 15

Petrofabrics by Stratum (Cooking vessels)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

C/1 C/2 F-L

Petrographic Groups

(n=)

XIV

XIII

XII

Chart 16

280

Chaff Inclusions per Stratum (Surface Loci)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

XIV XIII XII

Strata (Field XIII)

(%)

Area 1

Area 3

Area 4

Chart 17

281

Figure 1: Cities, towns and regions in the northern Levant in the Late Bronze Age (Morris 2005, Fig. 30)

282

Figure 2: Egyptian bases in the southern Levant in the Nineteenth Dynasty (Morris 2005, Fig. 29)

283

Figure 3: Fields excavated at Shechem (Campbell 2002, Ill:2)

284

Figure 4: Plan of Stratum XVII, Field XIII (Campbell 2002, Ill.147)

285

Shechem, Section LL

Figure 5: Section LL, Field XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.167).

286

Shechem, Stratum XVB

Figure 6: Field XIII, Areas 2,4,5,6. (Campbell, 2002, Ill.149)

287

Shechem, Stratum XVA

Figure 7: Field XIII, Areas 2,4,5,6. (Campbell, 2002, Ill.150)

288

Shechem, Section FF

Figure 8: Section FF, Field XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill. 164).

289

Shechem, Field Section BB

Figure 9: Section BB, Field XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.162).

290

Shechem, Stratum XIV

Figure 10: Field XIII, Area 2. (Campbell, 2002, Ill.151)

291

Shechem, Stratum XIVA

Figure 11: Field XIII, Area 2, 5 (Campbell, 2002, Ill.153).

292

Shechem, Stratum XIV

Figure 12: Field XIII, Excavation Plan for Stratum XIV (Campbell, 2002, Ill.155).

293

Shechem, Stratum XIII

Figure 13: Field XIII, Excavation Plan for Stratum XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.156).

294

Shechem, Field Section CC

Figure 14: Section CC, Field XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.163).

295

Shechem, Field Section RR

Figure 15: Section RR, Field XIII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.172).

296

Shechem, Stratum XII

Figure 16: Field XIII, Excavation Plan for Stratum XII (Campbell, 2002, Ill.157).

297

Figure 17: Geological Map of Shechem Valley and surrounding area (Sneh, Bartov and Rosensaft, 1:200,000 Sheet 2) Legend: q - Alluvium (gravel, sand, clay, loess) Quarternary nqc – Conglomerate units, Neogene-Quarternary ebk – Bar Kokhbar Fm. (Limestone, 50m) Middle Eocene et – Timrat Fm., Meroz ,Yizre`el fms. (Limestone, chalk, chert, 350m) Low-mid Eocene ea – Adulam Fm., (Chalk, chert, 150m) Low-mid Eocene sp – Mount Scopus Group (Chalk, marl, clay, 280m) Senonian-Paleocene ca – Mishash Fm. (Chert, chalk, phosporite, limestone, 86m) Campanian t – Bina Fm. (Limestone, marl, dolostone, 171m) Turonian c3 – Weradim Fm., Tamar Fm. (Dolostone, 160 m) Cenomanian c2 – Bet Meir, Moza, Amminadav and Kefar Shaul fms. (Limestone, dolostone, marl, chalk, chert, 299m) Cenomanian c1 – Giv`at Ye`arim, Soreq and Kesalon fms. (Limestone, dolostone, marl, chalk, chert, 227m) Albian-Cenomanian

298

Figure 18: Petrographic Groups in Field XIII at Shechem (10x magnification-xpl)

a) Group F-L (Fossiliferous-Limestone)

b) Group F-L/1 (Fossiliferous-Limestone) (Dolomite rhombs)

299

c) Group F (Shale Group)

d) Group M-L (Micritic Limestone Group)

300

e) Group C/1 (Calcite group)

f) Group C/2 (Fossiliferous Calcite group)

Pottery Plates

Strata XIV, XIII and XII

Legend: Description =Interior munsell, core munsell, exterior munsell =Mineral descriptions =Slip, painted decoration, burnishing =Rim diameter (cm) and portion preserved (%).

Plate 1

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,155 3538 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

2 19,277 3538 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/2; 7.5YR6/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

3 20,172 3538 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR7/4; 10YR6/4; 2.5YR7/4; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

4 18,777 3117 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; Iron Oxides, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, 24 cm, 6%.

5 23,820 3774 LB-3b baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR8/4; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, 24 cm, 6%.

6 19,395 3745 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

8 22,844 3379 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

9 24,572 3545 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

10 23,066 3545 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, Ext self slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, 20 cm, 7.5%.

11 21,778 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/4; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 6%.

12 18,819 3117 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Poor sorting; 19 cm, 3%.

13 20,375 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- h

10

7.5YR7/4; 10YR8/3; 7.5YR8/3; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 5%. 6 cm, 20%.

14 20,373 3759 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- g

2

10YR6/2; 7.5YR7/1; 10YR6/2; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 19 cm, 35%. 8 cm, 80%.

302

Plate 1

20155 19277

20172 18777

19395

22844

24572 23066

23820

23823

2037520373

2177818819

0 2 4 6 8 10

12

3 4

5

8

9 10

11 12

13 14

6

7

303

Plate 2

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,199 3533 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 5YR7/4; Calcite, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

2 19,285 3536 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10YR8/3; 5YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Iron Oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Int self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 21 cm, 6%.

3 19,383 3745 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 3%.

4 20,376 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 10YR8/4; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Lithic, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

5 18,775 3117 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

6 20,388 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10 7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

7 19,208 3536 LB-3dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 6%.

8 25,880 3538 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

9 20,245 3539A LB-3sub

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/2; 5YR7/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, Ext Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 20 cm, 2.5%.

10 21,278 3533 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10 5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/1; 5YR7/6; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

11 22,863 3375 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR7/4; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 2.5%.

12 20,387 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 2.5%.

13 18,711 3117 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 4%.

14 24,574 3545 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/1; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/1; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 10 cm, 2.5%.

15 18,792 3121 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 9 cm, 1%.

304

Plate 2

1928520199

2037619383

21278

18792

18711

22863

20387

24574

2024525880

18775

20388

0 2 4 6 8 10

19208

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

1011

1213

1415

9

305

Plate 3

Figure No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,292 3537 LB-3a baab - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Iron Oxide, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

2 21,781 3763 LB-3a baac - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR5/6; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Dark Lithic, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

3 20,223 3528 LB-3a baae - __ - _ - ____- _

2.1

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, 25 cm, 3%.

4 23,758 3774 LB-3b baae - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/2; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR5/2, Brown, Ext self slip: 7.5YR5/2, Brown, 25 cm, 6%.

5 22,945 3545 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 4%.

6 19,392 3745 LB-3dest

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

14 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR8/3; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

7 23,072 3537 LB-3a baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

8 21,411 3533 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/6; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, 30 cm, 8%.

9 23,109 3533 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 10YR7/1; 5YR7/6; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

10 21,413 3533 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

11 21,435 3545 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

19

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

12 23,067 3545 LB-3fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR8/4; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

306

Plate 3

21781

20223

2143523067

20292

23758

22945 19392

23072

21411

23109 21413

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

3 4

5 6

7

8

9 10

1112

307

Plate 4

Figure No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,148 3379 LB-3a

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

2 20,087 3538 LB-3a

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/1; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

3 21,323 3537 LB-3a

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

4 21,324 3537 LB-3a

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

5 22,938 3545 LB-3fill

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; inclusion, 5%Limestone, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2%.

6 21,343 3537 LB-3a

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/2; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 32 cm, 5%.

308

Plate 4

20087

21323 21324

22938

21343

21148

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

3 4

5

6

309

Plate 5

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,204 3536 LB-3dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1 5YR6/6; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

2 19,384 3745 LB-3dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 7.5%.

3 20,197 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

13 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

4 20,202 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR8/4; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 19 cm, 7%.

5 20,403 3706 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR8/2; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 12.5%.

6 23,825 3774 LB-3b bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone, 20%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3.5%.

7 23,827 3774 LB-3b bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

19

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Quartz, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

8 24,636 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

9 25,817 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/3; 5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 10%.

10 25,818 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2 5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/3; 5YR7/4; Limestone, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

11 20,156 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

12 19,269 3536 LB-3dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/1; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

13 19,278 3538 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10R5/3; 10R5/4; 10R5/3; Limestone, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

310

Plate 5

19204 19384

20197 20202

20403

23825

2382724636

25817

25818

20156

19269

19278

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 2

3 4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

311

Plate 6 Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,281 3537 LB-3a bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 6%.

2 18,838 3122 LB-3a bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

4 5YR6/6; 10YR7/4; 5YR6/6; Iron oxides, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 4%.

3 18,836 3122 LB-3a bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

4 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 34 cm, 2%.

4 19,264 3536 LB-3dest

bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/6; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

5 23,038 3539 LB-3sub

bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 32 cm, 5%.

6 23,040 3539 LB-3sub

bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

9 5YR6/6; 10YR7/4; 5YR6/6; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

7 20,200 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR3/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 4%.

8 21,779 3763 LB-3a bcga - __ -_ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/2; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 4%.

312

Plate 6

20281

18838

18836

19264

23038

23040

20200

21779

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

313

Plate 7 Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,122 3546 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 7%.

2 23,123 3546 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 4%.

3 22,940 3545 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

19

5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR7/4; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 16 cm, 12%.

4 22,946 3545 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

18 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/3; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

5 21,347 3537 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 6%.

6 23,095 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting, 30 cm, 5%.

7 21,345 3537 LB-3a bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/6; 7.5YR8/6; 7.5YR8/6; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

8 21,274 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 32 cm, 4%.

9 21,265 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

4

7.5YR7/3; 10YR6/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Iron oxides, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/3, Pink, 35 cm, 4%.

10 21,412 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/6; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR7/6; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, 30 cm, 3%.

314

Plate 7

23122 23123

2294022946

21345

21347 23095

21274

21265

21412

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 2

34

5 6

7

8

9

10

315

Plate 8 Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,415 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR7/6; 5YR6/4; 5YR7/6; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, <0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting 24 cm, 3%.

2 21,270 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR8/2; 10YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, 25 cm, 5%.

3 20,144 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting 30 cm, 7%.

4 20,255 3533 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/6; 10YR6/4; 7.5YR7/6; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 22 cm, 6%.

5 21,454 3545 LB-3fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/6; 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/6; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 34 cm, 5%.

6 18,818 3117 LB-3a bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting 34 cm, 7%.

7 20,195 3533 LB-3fill

bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR8/3; 10YR7/2; 5YR8/3; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 7%.

8 18,837 3122 LB-3a bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

316

Plate 8

2141521270

20144

20255

21454

18818

20195

18837

0 2 4 6 8 10

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

317

Plate 9

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 24,633 3538 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

14 10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Lithic, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

2 18,709 3117 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 34 cm, 5%.

3 20,242 3539A LB-3sub

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 4%.

4 20,402 3706 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

5 23,822 3774 LB-3b bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/3; 10YR8/4; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

6 23,824 3774 LB-3b bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

10

2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Iron oxides, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR6/8, Light Red, 27 cm, 6%.

7 21,430 3545 LB-3fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

318

Plate 9

18709

20242

20402

21430

23822

23824

24633

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

319

Plate 10 Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,867 3117 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 4%.

2 18,820 3117 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R5/6; 10R5/6; 10R5/6; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

3 21,325 3537 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

4 23,760 3774 LB-3b bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

9 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 8%.

5 23,757 3774 LB-3b bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

9 10YR8/4; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/4; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 29 cm, 8%.

6 20,221 3528 LB-3a bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR7/3; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 3%.

320

Plate 10

17867

2132518820

23760

23757

20221

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2 3

4

5

6

321

Plate 11

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,241 3539A LB-3sub faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR5/2; 5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/2; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%,0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Iron oxides; 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/2, Weak Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/2, Weak Red, 40 cm, 4%.

2 22,918 3392 LB-3b faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

7

7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR4/1; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Dec: 7.5YR4/1, Dark Gray, Int/Ext H-Burn, 20 cm, 2.5%.

3 17,871 3117 LB-3a fcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R5/6; 10R5/6; 10R5/6; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting 12 cm, 2.5%.

4 19,295 3533 LB-3fill fcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Lithic, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, 24 cm, 4%.

5 22,865 3375 LB-3dest faad - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Lithic, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

6 22,860 3375 LB-3dest faad - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Lithic, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 12.5%.

322

Plate 11

20241

22918

19295

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

17871

22860

22865

323

Plate 12

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,305 3533 LB-3fill baaa - __ - c - ____- _

1

7.5YR6/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Rust Red, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 4%.

2 20,374 3763 LB-3a baaa - __ - c - ____- h

1

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR6/1; 2.5YR5/4; Rust Red, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 22 cm, 5%. 7 cm, 85%.

3 20,297 3537 LB-3a baaa - __ - b - ____- h

1

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Limestone, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 45%. 7 cm, 40%.

4 20,243 3539A LB-3sub baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

19

2.5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/4; Black, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz, 0%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 18 cm, 10%.

324

Plate 12

20243

20374

20297

0 2 4 6 8 10

4

193051

2

3

325

Plate 13

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,838 3117 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 5%.

2 17,869 3117 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 2%.

3 18,705 3117 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

4 18,821 3117 LB-3a caaa - __ - d - ____- _

4 10R5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

5 21,281 3533 LB-3fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR6/6; 10YR7/3; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

6 19,275 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

7 24,634 3538 LB-3a caaa - __ - b - ____- _

4 2.5YR7/4; 2.5YR7/4; 2.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 10%.

8 21,157 3379 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

9 23,826 3774 LB-3b caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 6.5%.

10 20,378 3763 LB-3a

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, Ext self slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, 15 cm, 4%.

11 21,155 3379 LB-3a

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

12 19,201 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

1

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 11 cm, 20%.

13 18,706 3117 LB-3a daaa - __ - b - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 8%.

14 19,243 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR7/4; 5YR6/6; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 14 cm, 5%.

326

Plate 13

18821

21157

23826

24634

1783817869

18705

19243

19201

1927521281

0 2 4 6 8 10

18706

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

14

12

13

20378 10

21155 11

327

Plate 14

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,837 3117 LB-3a cdgb - __ - b - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 15%.

2 21,335 3537 LB-3a daaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

3 21,154 3379 LB-3a caaa - __ - b - ____- _

3

10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 10 cm, 7.5%.

4 18,839 3122 LB-3a daaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10R5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 10%.

5 21,320 3537 LB-3a ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

6 20,154 3538 LB-3a bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting 20 cm, 6%.

7 19,240 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

4 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 24 cm, 3%.

8 23,132 3546 LB-3fill

caab - __ - _ - ____- _

4

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

9 17,860 3121 LB-3a 2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext Slip: 5YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR3/1 Dark Reddish Gray, 5YR5/6 Red.

328

Plate 14

23132

17837

21320

21335

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

8

5

18839 4

211543

20154 6

9 17860

7 19240

329

Plate 15

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,817 3774 LB-3b bdka - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 34 cm, 5%.

2 20,201 3533 LB-3fill

bdka - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR6/8; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR5/8; Calcite 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting;31 cm, 5%.

3 24,043 3753 LB-3a ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR6/3; 5YR6/3; 5YR5/2; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 16%.

4 21,147 3379 LB-3a ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 40 cm, 7.5%.

5 22,855 3375 LB-3dest

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/4; 5YR4/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 7.5%.

6 23,818 3774 LB-3b ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/1; 5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 27 cm, 7%.

7 18,774 3117 LB-3a ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 7.5%.

8 22,857 3375 LB-3dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR5/4; 7.5YR6/3; 5YR5/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 19 cm, 2.5%.

9 22,859 3375 LB-3dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR3/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 7.5%.

330

Plate 15

21147

22855

23818

18774

22857

22859

24043

0 2 4 6 8 10

23817

20201

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

331

Plate 16

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 22,858 3375 LB-3dest ddea - __ - b - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 7.5YR6/3; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

2 23,813 3774 LB-3b ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR6/2; 2.5YR3/1; 5YR7/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 9%.

3 17,865 3117 LB-3a ddja - __ - b - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

4 18,823 3117 LB-3a ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 2%.

5 19,307 3533 LB-3fill ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

15

7.5YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR5/2; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, 20 cm, 3%.

6 23,816 3774 LB-3b ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

4

2.5YR6/2; 10R4/2; 2.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 11%.

7 23,821 3774 LB-3b ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 2.5%.

8 21,149 3379 LB-3a ddfa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

332

Plate 16

19307

23816

23821

17865

18823

0 2 4 6 8 10

21149

22858

23813

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

333

Plate 17

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 22,866 3375 LB-3dest bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

2 19,323 3537 LB-3a cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/6; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

3 21,331 3537 LB-3a cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 33 cm, 7.5%.

4 25,816 3538 LB-3a ddaa - __ - _ - ebba- _

3

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/4; Grey inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 12.5%.

5 22,962 3545 LB-3fill ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

15 5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 2.5%.

6 20,158 3538 LB-3a ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 26 cm, 4%.

7 23,094 3533 LB-3fill bbfb - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/1; 5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

334

Plate 17

21331

25816

22962

19323

20158

22866

23094

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

335

Plate 18

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,028 3539 LB-3sub baad - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 6%.

2 17,866 3117 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

4

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, 25 cm, 7.5%.

3 23,024 3539 LB-3sub bdga - __ - b - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Grey inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 4%.

4 20,372 3763 LB-3a cdea - ba - b - acaa- h

2

5YR5/2; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 33 cm, 75%. 15 cm, 100%.

336

Plate 18

23028

17866

23024

20372

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

337

Plate 19

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,297 3536 LB-3dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR6/6; 5YR6/4; 5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 5%.

2 22,862 3375 LB-3dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

3 19,260 3536 LB-3dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/1; 10YR8/1; 10YR8/1; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 20%.

4 24,640 3538 LB-3a bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR6/4; 5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular Fair sorting; 12 cm, 7.5%.

5 20,256 3533 LB-3fill

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 10YR7/2; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

6 21,277 3533 LB-3fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR8/1; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

7 21,150 3379 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Grey inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12.5%.

8 23,011 3545 LB-3fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR8/1; 10YR8/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

9 17,868 3117 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _ 4

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

10 24,639 3538 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/3; 2.5YR7/4; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 11 cm, 7.5%.

11 21,452 3545 LB-3fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 10%.

12 18,766 3117 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 10%.

13 19,304 3533 LB-3fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 50 cm, 11%.

338

Plate 19

19297

19260

18766

21150

22862

24639

21277

21452

19304

23011

20256

24640

1

2

3

7

5

8

4

6

11 10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10

17868 9

13 20%

339

Plate 20

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 22,963 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

2 22,949 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

3 18,704 3117 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 17 cm, 18%.

4 19,394 3745 LB-3dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

19

10YR8/4; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

5 20,405 3706 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR6/2; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR6/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 13 cm, 40%.

6 21,135 3377 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 2.5%.

7 21,130 3377 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

8 23,031 3539 LB-3sub

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 7.5YR7/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 12.5%.

9 21,414 3533 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

10 22,935 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

12 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

11 21,431 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 17.5%.

12 19,203 3536 LB-3dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 10 cm, 15%.

13 21,333 3537 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 10%.

14 21,334 3537 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 6%.

340

Plate 20

18704

19394

2040521135

21130

21333 21334

3

4

5

6

7

13

214149

14

2143111

0 2 4 6 8 10

229492

23031

22935

8

10

22963

19203

1

12

341

Plate 21

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,030 3539 LB-3sub bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 17 cm, 11%.

2 19,263 3536 LB-3dest bdjb - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/3, Pink, 15 cm, 8%.

3 19,298 3536 LB-3dest bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 5YR7/2; 2.5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 10%.

4 23,023 3539 LB-3sub bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 12%.

5 20,254 3533 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 5YR6/1; 5YR7/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 12%.

6 21,417 3533 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/3; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, Ext self slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, 20 cm, 6%.

7 23,010 3545 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 14%.

8 21,451 3545 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/4; 5YR7/1; 10YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 19%.

9 19,273 3536 LB-3dest bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 19YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

10 24,630 3538 LB-3a bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 5YR6/1; 2.5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, Ext self slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red; 20 cm, 10%.

11 23,106 3533 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR8/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 25%.

12 23,093 3533 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR6/4; 10YR7/3; 2.5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 11%.

13 22,943 3545 LB-3fill bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

342

Plate 21

22943

2310623093

21451

13

23010 7 8

1112

0 2 4 6 8 10

230301 192632

19298 323023

4

192739 24630 10

2025421417

5 6

343

Plate 22

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,279 3533 LB-3fill

bdjb - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR7/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 12%.

2 22,941 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

3 21,394 3536 LB-3dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

19

5YR7/2; 5YR7/2; 5YR6/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

4 21,276 3533 LB-3fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR6/6; 5YR4/1; 5YR6/6; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 8%.

5 18,702 3117 LB-3a bdjb - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 30%.

6 21,264 3533 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR7/2, Pinkish Gray, Ext self slip: 7.5YR7/2, Pinkish Gray, 20 cm, 20%.

7 20,215 3538 LB-3a cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

8 19,306 3533 LB-3fill

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Int/Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/3, Reddish Brown; 15 cm, 6%.

9 20,244 3539A LB-3sub

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

10 21,432 3545 LB-3fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 5YR6/6; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 7.5%.

344

Plate 22

21432

18702

21279

21276

21394

20244

19306

1

4

3

5

9 10

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

212646

229412

202157

345

Plate 23

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,246 3539A LB-3sub caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 4

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

2 23,075 3537 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 10%.

3 20,294 3537 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 14

10YR6/3; 10YR6/3; 10YR6/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 8 cm, 10%.

4 18,764 3117 LB-3a cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 1

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting 15 cm, 15%.

5 20,214 3538 LB-3a cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 5%.

6 21,282 3533 LB-3fill cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 4

2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 10 cm, 5%.

7 19,290 3536 LB-3dest cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 2%.

8 20,162 3538 LB-3a cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

10YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 5%.

9 17,870 3117 LB-3a cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 7

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 8%.

10 20,222 3528 LB-3a cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 4

5YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

11 19,385 3745 LB-3dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/3, Reddish Brown, Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/3, Light Brown, 20 cm, 10%.

346

Plate 23

20246

20294

23075

20162

17870

18764

20214 21282

19290

1

3

2

4

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

5

8

9

2022210

1938511

347

Plate 24

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,266 3533 LB-3fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/6; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

2 19,261 3536 LB-3dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR6/4; 10YR7/1; 7.5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 4%.

3 19,242 3536 LB-3dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/4; 10YR6/4; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 3%.

4 20,381 3763 LB-3a bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 7.5%.

5 19,299 3536 LB-3dest

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/1; 7.5YR3/1; 10YR7/1; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

6 20,258 3533 LB-3fill

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10R6/4; 10R6/6; 10R6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 3%.

7 23,814 3774 LB-3b cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR6/2; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR7/3, Pink, 14 cm, 10%.

8 21,319 3537 LB-3a cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

9 21,312 3533 LB-3fill

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

10 23,819 3774 LB-3b cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

4

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, 14 cm, 12.5%.

348

Plate 24

2131923814

23819

19242

19299 20258

21312

20381

8

5

7

6

3

9

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

19261

212661

2

10

349

Plate 25

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,308 3533 LB-3fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 14 cm, 7.5%.

2 22,947 3545 LB-3fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 10YR6/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

3 19,270 3536 LB-3dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

4 20,173 3538 LB-3a cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 2.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

5 23,065 3545 LB-3fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/2; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR8/2; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

6 17,864 3117 LB-3a cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 10%.

7 18,765 3117 LB-3a cdjb - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 6%.

8 21,344 3537 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 16%.

9 19,310 3533 LB-3fill

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 37 cm, 4%.

350

Plate 25

19308

18765

19310

19270

17864

20173

21344

1

3 4

6

7

9

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

22947 2

230655

351

Plate 26

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 22,870 3375 LB-3dest

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/3; 5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

2 24,629 3538 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

3 22,867 3375 LB-3dest

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

1 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 7.5%.

4 21,156 3379 LB-3a bdab - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 22 cm, 7.5%.

5 21,272 3533 LB-3fill

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

1 10YR8/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting;15 cm, 7%.

6 20,287 3537 LB-3a bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

7 20,178 3538 LB-3a ____ - __ - b - ____- _

1

5YR7/3; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

8 18,786 3117 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - auab- _

3

5YR6/1; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/1; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Very Good sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/3 Pink, Ext Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, Ext H-burn.

9 22,875 3375 LB-3dest

____ - __ - b - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Ext self slip: 7.5YR8/3, Pink, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

10 17,863 3121 LB-3a 10 5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R4/6, Red.

11 21,151 3379 LB-3a 2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/3, Light Reddish Brown and 2.5YR4/1, Dark Reddish Gray.

12 25,883 3538 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - auab- _

3

2.5YR5/4; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext V-Burn, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/6, Red.

13 17,881 3117 LB-3a ____ - __ - b - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 5YR7/3, Pink, Ext Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

14 21,152 3379 LB-3a 3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown, Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/3, Light Reddish Brown.

352

Plate 26

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

7

24629

3

2

22867

21272

21156

5

4

202876

20178

818786

9 22875

10 1786311 21151 12 25883

1317881

14 21152

353

Plate 27

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,829 3774 LB-3b bdea - __ - _ - acab- _

4

7.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Very Good sorting; 10 cm, 1%.

2 23,113 3533 LB-3fill

bdaa - __ - _ - adab- _

17 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

3 23,103 3533 LB-3fill

faaa - __ - _ - adab- _

13 7.5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 6 cm, 5%.

4 25,823 3538 LB-3a baaa - __ - _ - adaa- _

19

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 6 cm, 10%.

5 20,296 3537 LB-3a faaa - __ - _ - adaa- _

13 10YR8/3; 10YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 6 cm, 2%.

6 21,287 3533 LB-3fill

faaa - __ - _ - adaa- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 7 cm, 2%.

7 23,025 3539 LB-3sub

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

8 23,027 3539 LB-3sub

bbfa - __ - c - ____- _ 14

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 10%.

9 20,163 3538 LB-3a bdha - __ - _ - ____- _ 13

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 10 cm, 6%.

10 25,878 3538 LB-3a bdga - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 12%.

11 25,879 3538 LB-3a bdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 2

10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR6/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 12 cm, 6%.

354

Plate 27

23829

23113

23103

20296

25823

21287

1

2

34

56

0 2 4 6 8 10

23025 7 23027

8

20163 9

25878 1025879

11

355

Plate 28

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,296 3533 LB-3fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/3; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

2 21,346 3537 LB-3a fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

5

10YR4/1; 2.5YR3/1; 10YR4/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

3 21,332 3537 LB-3a fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

15 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 27 cm, 7.5%.

4 20,218 3533 LB-3fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

5 21,280 3533 LB-3fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR5/2; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR5/2; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 4%.

6 23,107 3533 LB-3fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR6/3; 5YR4/1; 5YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

7 20,160 3538 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR4/1; 5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 10%.

8 21,268 3533 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

15 5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 8%.

9 18,835 3122 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Quartz 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 4%.

356

Plate 28

21332

20218

21346

21280

23107

19296

20160

18835

0 2 4 6 8 10

21268

12

3

4

5

6

7 8

9

357

Plate 29

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,336 3537 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 5%.

2 23,003 3539 LB-3sub

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/3; 2.5YR7/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 2.5%.

3 24,571 3535 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

4 24,631 3538 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

15 2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR4/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 2.5%.

5 24,632 3538 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/3; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

6 25,814 3538 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR3/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 12.5%.

7 22,936 3545 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR4/1; 5YR5/4; 5YR5/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

8 21,416 3533 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR6/3; 5YR5/2; 5YR6/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 3%.

9 21,269 3533 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

15 5YR5/4; 5YR5/4; 5YR5/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 4%.

358

Plate 29

0 2 4 6 8 10

21336

23003

24571

24631

24632

25814

22936

21416

21269

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

359

Plate 30

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 21,418 3533 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

15 7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, 30 cm, 4%.

2 23,096 3533 LB-3fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

15 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, 32 cm, 4%.

3 18,794 3121 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR3/2; 2.5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 32 cm, 6%.

4 18,790 3121 LB-3a fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown, Ext Slip: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown, 25 cm, 4%.

5 23,110 3533 LB-3fill

fdda - __ - b - ____- _

5

5YR5/1; 5YR3/1; 5YR3/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 10%.

6 21,410 3533 LB-3fill

fdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 10%.

7 19,382 3745 LB-3dest

fdha - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR6/1; 5YR4/1; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

8 22,944 3545 LB-3fill

fdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 3%.

360

Plate 30

0 2 4 6 8 10

21418

23096

18794

18790

23110

21410

19382

22944

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

361

Plate 31

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,834 3122 LB-3acaaa - __ - _ - ____- _

21

5YR7/4; 5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext V-Burn; Ext Slip: 5YR5/2, Reddish Gray, 9 cm, 15%.

2 20,390 3763 LB-3a____ - __ - _ - fubc- _

21 7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR7/1; 7.5YR4/2; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR4/2, Brown, Ext self slip: 7.5YR4/2, Brown, Ext H-Burn.

3 23,032 3539 LB-3sub

____ - __ - _ - auaa- _

21 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR4/1; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR4/1, Dark Gray.

4 20,393 3763 LB-3a____ - __ - b - ____- _

21 10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 7.5YR4/2; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR4/2, Brown.

5 25,826 3538 LB-3a 23

10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn; Int Slip: 2.5YR4/1, Dark Reddish Gray, Ext Slip: 2.5YR4/1, Dark Reddish Gray, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

6 20,191 3539 LB-3sub 23

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn; Int Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, Ext Slip: 10YR2/1, Black; Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red.

7 20,193 3539 LB-3sub 23

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn; Int Slip: 10YR2/1, Black, Ext Slip: 10YR2/1, Black; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

8 21,426 3533 LB-3fill

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

23

7.5YR7/2; 10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext /Int H-Burn, Int Slip: 2.5YR3/1, Dark Reddish Gray, Ext Slip: 2.5YR3/1, Dark Reddish Gray, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/2, Weak Red, 25 cm, 4%.

9 20,203 3533 LB-3fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 2.5YR6/3; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 13 cm, 3%.

10 20,392 3763 LB-3abdgd - __ - _ - ____- _

22 10YR8/1; 7.5YR5/6; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, Int/Ext H-Burn, 13 cm, 5%.

11 21,153 3379 LB-3a 22 10YR8/1; 10YR4/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Mica inclusion, <5%, <0.5mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5Y5/3, Light Olive Brown.

12 20,391 3763 LB-3a 22

10YR8/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, <5%, <0.5mm, Sub-rounded, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/2 Brown, Int/Ext H-Burn.

13 19239 3534A LB-3fill 24

10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxide, <5%, <0.5mm, Sub-rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5Y8/2, Pale Yellow, Ext Slip: 2.5YR8/2, Pale Yellow, Ext Dec:, 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown, 2.5YR6/8, Light Red, Int/Ext H-Burn, 6 cm, 10%.

14 23,033 3539 LB-3sub

____ - __ - _ - ____- g

3 10YR6/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, 5 cm, 40%.

362

Plate 31

18834

220390 23032

2039325826

20191 20193

21426

2039121153

2020320392

0 2 4 6 8 10

13

45

6 7

8

910

11 12 1319239

1423033

363

Plate 32

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,145 3533 LB-3fill

bdaa - __ - b - ____- _ 13 5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; White inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair

sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

2 23,039 3539 LB-3sub

bdaa - __ - b - ____- _ 2

2.5YR7/4; 2.5YR7/4; 2.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 8 cm, 10%.

3 19,300 3536 LB-3dest

caac - __ - _ - ____- _ 10

7.5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, <0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 4%.

4 19,271 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 1

5YR8/4; 2.5YR5/8; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; ; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 15 cm, 3%.

5 19,214 3536 LB-3dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 2

5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting 15 cm, 2.5%.

6 20,285 3537 LB-3a cdga - __ - _ - ____- _ 1

10YR6/1; 10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting;15 cm, 2%.

7 21,321 3537 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR6/6; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 7.5%.

8 25,882 3538 LB-3a caaa - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 10 cm, 7.5%.

9 20,204 3533 LB-3fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _ 2

2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

10 19,319 3537 LB-3a cdga - __ - _ - ____- _ 1

5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, <0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 10 cm, 11%.

11 24,637 3538 LB-3a cdja- __ - _ - ____- _ 3

5YR8/4; 5YR8/3; 5YR8/3; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int/Ext Dec: 5YR8/4, Pink, 13 cm, 12.5%.

12 21,288 3533 LB-3fill

____ - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR4/1; 10Yr8/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/1, Reddish Gray, 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White

13 21,132 3377 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - ____- _ 2

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/3; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R5/4, Weak Red

14 18,824 3117 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - ____- _ 4

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn; Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red.

15 18,787 3117 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - ____- _ 2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4 Reddish Brown, Ext H-Burn.

16 17,861 3121 LB-3a ____ - __ - _ - ____- _ 3

2.5YR7/6; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

364

Plate 32

20145

23039

19300 19271

17214

20285

2132125882

20204

19319

1

2

34

56

78

910

0 2 4 6 8 10

1321132+21133

12 21288

11

14 18824 15 1878716 17861

24637

365

Plate 33

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,897 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

2 17,895 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

7

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 12.5%.

3 18,290 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 17.5%.

4 20,764 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 10YR8/3; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 30%.

5 18,222 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 10%.

6 18,184 3744 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 30%.

7 18,223 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, , Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 17 cm, 11%.

8 18,858 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR5/2, Reddish Gray, 23 cm, 15%.

9 18,292 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, , Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, , Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 10%.

10 20,343 3752 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 4%.

11 15,195 3735 LB-2dest b

baaa - __ - _ - ____- h

1

5YR7/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 100%. 8 cm, 100%.

12 18,216 3744 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- h

2

10R6/4; 2.5YR5/1; 10R6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 19 cm, 100%. 8 cm, 40%.

366

Plate 33

17897 17895

2076418290

18222

18223

18292

18184

18858

1519518216

20343

1 2

3 4

5

6

78

910

11 12

0 2 4 6 8 10

367

Plate 34

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,846 3355 LB-2surfb

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 7%.

2 20,779 3745 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 8.5%.

3 17,275 3736 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, 23 cm, 12%.

4 17,585 3114 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR6/4; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn, 25 cm, 4%.

5 17,713 3526 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 15%.

6 18,861 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 5%.

7 17,993 3361 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

8 15,200 3735 LB-2dest b

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 28 cm, 6%.

9 15,232 3735 LB-2dest b

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

10 18,183 3744 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- m

6

5YR7/6; 7.5YR6/2; 2.5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Int/Ext H-Burn, 26 cm, 12%. 12 cm, 7%.

11 18,343 3744 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- f

2

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 35%. 5 cm, 100%.

368

Plate 34

18846

17993

20779

17275 17585

18861

18343

17713

15232

18183

12

34

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

369

Plate 35

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,361 3740 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 19 cm, 8%.

2 18,890 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 28 cm, 6%.

3 17,997 3361 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2%.

4 17,733 3526 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

5 17,931 3348 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; 5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

6 17,928 3348 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

7 17,580 3114 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR6/2; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 6%.

8 18,903 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

18 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; 2.5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, Ext H-Burn, 20 cm, 5%.

9 18,974 3355 LB-2surfb

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

10 17,738 3526 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown, Int H-Burn, 28 cm, 20%.

11 18,356 3640 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- j

3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 7%. 7 cm, 90%.

370

Plate 35

18356

18890

17931

17733

17928

17580

17997

18903

17738

17361

18974

1 2

3 4

56

7 8

9

10

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

371

Plate 36

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,718 3526 LB-2surf

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

2 18,294 3745 LB-2surf

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 5%.

3 18,003 3361 LB-2surfa

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR8/2; 5YR6/3; 5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, <0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

4 17,961 3360 LB-2surf

baab - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

5 18,869 3356 LB-2surfa

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

6 18,087 3525 LB-2fill

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/3; 7.5YR6/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown, 23 cm, 4%.

7 18,082 3526 LB-2surf

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

19

10YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

8 19,155 3525 LB-2fill

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR6/2; 10YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

9 22,405 3771 LB-2filla

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

19

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; Int Slip:10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, 25 cm, 6%.

10 17,098 3526 LB-2surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron Oxides inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext Slip:7.5YR8/3, Pink, Int/Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 20 cm, 7.5%.

11 18,859 3356 LB-2surfa

baab - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 7.5YR5/1, Gray, 23 cm, 9%.

12 17,708 3526 LB-2surf 3

10YR8/1; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/1; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting Int/Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int Dec: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red and 5YR5/2, Reddish Gray.

372

Plate 36

1771818294

18003

18869

1808219155

22405

17961

18087

12

3

4

56

7 8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

1709810

1885911

12 17708

373

Plate 37

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,634 3355 LB-2surfb

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10R6/6; 7.5YR5/2; 10R6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 5%.

2 17,712 3526 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; 10YR8/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 8%.

3 18,039 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

4 20,679 3766 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR6/4; 10YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2%.

5 17,537 3114 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

6 17,576 3114 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/3; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting 24 cm, 4%.

7 17,814 3114 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR6/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 23 cm, 3%.

8 19,163 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5YR6/6; 10YR6/1; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

9 19,159 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

10 17,085 3350 LB-2dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2.5%.

11 17,095 3526 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

12 19,154 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/2; 2.5YR6/8; 5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting 35 cm, 3%.

374

Plate 37

17634 17712

17095

18039

17537

20679

17085

17576

17814 19163

19154

19159

12

34

56

78

9

10

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10

375

Plate 38

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,862 3356 LB-2surfa

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 15%.

2 17,698 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

3 17,567 3114 LB-2surf

bcge - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 5YR5/6; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 8%.

4 20,661 3766 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

5 18,867 3356 LB-2surfa

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

6 19,156 3525 LB-2fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

7 15,225 3735 LB-2dest b

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 25 cm, 1%.

8 19,227 3525 LB-2surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

376

Plate 38

15225

1769818862

18867

17567

19227

20661

12

3

4

5

191566

7 8

0 2 4 6 8 10

377

Plate 39

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,254 3525 LB-2fill

bcka - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR6/4; 2.5YR5/1; 10YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 7.5%.

2 19,192 3525 LB-2fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

3 17,550 3114 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR4/6; 5YR8/4; 2.5YR4/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR4/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR4/6, Red; Int/Ext H-Burn, 27 cm, 5%.

4 18,690 3119 LB-2dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR5/3; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 4%.

5 17,607 3353 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 12.5%.

6 18,680 3119 LB-2dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

7 17,797 3114 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

4

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, 25 cm, 4%.

8 18,362 3640 LB-2dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, <0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 20 cm, 6%.

9 19,165 3525 LB-2fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 27 cm, 5%.

10 17,363 3740 LB-2dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

9 2.5YR5/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

11 18,049 3525 LB-2fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/3; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting 35 cm, 5%.

12 17,808 3114 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/1; 10YR8/4; 10YR7/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

13 22,469 3771 LB-2filla

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR8/2; 10YR5/1; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, 26 cm, 7.5%.

378

Plate 39

19192

1755018690

1868017607

17797

17808

1916517363

18049

18362

22469

192541 2

3

4

5 6

78

9 10

11

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10

379

Plate 40

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,219 3735 LB-2dest b

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR4/1; 10YR4/1; 7.5YR4/1; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

2 17,954 3360 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/6; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 50 cm, 22%.

3 19,152 3525 LB-2fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/3, Very Pale Brown; Ext H-Burn, 40 cm, 4%.

4 17,806 3114 LB-2surf

faae - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

5 15,217 3735 LB-2dest b

faae - __ - _ - ____- _

3

2.5YR5/6; 5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red; Int/Ext H-Burn, 25 cm, 5%.

6 17,821 3114 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

7 17,705 3526 LB-2surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR4/4; 10YR3/2; 10YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 10R4/6, Red, 5YR8/1, White; 20 cm, 7%.

380

Plate 40

17954

17821 17705

1780615217

152191

2

191523

4 5

6 7

0 2 4 6 8 10

381

Plate 41

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,277 3736 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - b - ____- _

7

7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

2 15,212 3735 LB-2dest b

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting 23 cm, 15%.

3 21,681 3739 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - c - ____- _

10

2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, 18 cm, 18%.

4 18,581 3744 LB-2dest

caaa - __ - d - ____- _

4 5YR6/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/4; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 19 cm, 20%.

5 17,801 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

6 17,893 3355 LB-2surfb

caaa - __ - c - ____- _

2

10R5/4; 10R5/4; 10R5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 12.5%.

7 17,724 3526 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

8 17,813 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7%.

9 18,673 3119 LB-2dest

caaa - __ - c - ____- j

1

7.5YR7/6; 5YR5/6; 7.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2%. 9 cm, 100%.

10 19,009 3360 LB-2surfa

caaa - __ - b - ____- j

2

5YR7/8; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/8; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 100%. 8 cm, 100%.

382

Plate 41

17277 15212

21681

18581

17801

1867319009

17893

17724 17813

1 2

3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10

0 2 4 6 8 10

383

Plate 42

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,722 3526 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

2 17,545 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2%.

3 19,223 3525 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

16

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 6%.

4 17,807 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR4/1; 5YR4/1; 10YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 11%.

5 17,986 sub-3355

LB-2surfb

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9 5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 19 cm, 3%.

6 17,850 3119 LB-2dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 6%.

7 17,817 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

8 15,228 3735 LB-2dest b

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR6/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

9 18,080 3525 LB-2fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/1; 7.5YR8/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

10 17,849 3119 LB-2dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/1, Gray, 25 cm, 5%.

11 17,100 3525 LB-2surf

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR6/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown, Ext H-Burn, 25 cm, 7%.

384

Plate 42

17722 17545

1780719223

17986 17850

17817 15228

18080

17849

17100

12

34

5 6

7 8

910

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

385

Plate 43

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,885 3356 LB-2surfa

bcha - __ - b - ____- _

8

10YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

2 19,160 3525 LB-2fill

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

3 17,362 3740 LB-2dest

bcha - __ - b - ____- _

1

2.5YR5/2; 7.5YR6/1; 2.5YR5/2; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 8%.

4 17,287 3736 LB-2dest

caac - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

5 20,668 3766 LB-2fill

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

5 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 5%.

6 20,678 3766 LB-2fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/3, Pink, 30 cm, 1%.

7 20,675 3766 LB-2fill

daaa - __ - _ - ____- _

19

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/3; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; Ext self slip: 7.5YR8/3, Pink, 30 cm, 3%.

8 17,578 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

386

Plate 43

20675

20678

20668

17578

1916018885

1736217287

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

387

Plate 44

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,043 3339 LB-2sub

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR4/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: Molded, 25 cm, 1%.

2 17,342 3740 LB-2dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/6; 10YR2/1; 5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Grey inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Ext Dec: Molded, 36 cm, 3%.

3 18,375 3744 LB-2dest

bdea - __ - b - ____- _

6

5YR6/6; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

4 15,227 3735 LB-2dest b

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 10YR7/3; 5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

5 18,969 3355 LB-2surfb

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

6 18,967 3348 LB-2dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/2; 5YR5/2; 2.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

7 15,198 3735 LB-2dest b

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/6; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 25%.

388

Plate 44

18375

17043

17342

15227 18969

18967

15198

1

2

3

45

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

389

Plate 45

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,843 3119 LB-2dest

ddaa - __ - b - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/2; 10YR4/2; 7.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 30%.

2 18,079 3525 LB-2fill

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

19

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

3 20,761 3745 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

20

5YR6/4; 5YR3/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 12.5%.

4 17,329 3740 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

3

2.5YR5/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR6/3, Light Reddish Brown, 15 cm, 17%.

5 22,400 3750 LB-2filla

ddea - __ - c - ____- _

15 7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/1; 10YR6/3; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 17.5%.

6 22,472 3771 LB-2filla

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR5/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 26 cm, 12%.

7 17,794 3114 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

13

5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 12%.

390

Plate 45

17843

18079

20761 22400

22472

17329

17794

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

391

Plate 46

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,955 3360 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 27 cm, 20%.

2 22,402 3750 LB-2filla

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

15 2.5Y7/4; 10YR5/1; 2.5Y7/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 12%.

3 18,912 3356 LB-2surfa

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

13

2.5YR6/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 11%.

4 17,707 3526 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 8%.

5 17,710 3526 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR3/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 7%.

6 17,270 3736 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 6%.

7 17,281 3736 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 41 cm, 4%.

392

Plate 46

17955

22402

18912

17707

17710

17270

17281

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

393

Plate 47

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,971 3355 LB-2surfb

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR4/6; 5YR4/6; 5YR4/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 7%.

2 18,914 3356 LB-2surfa

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

3 18,968 3355 LB-2surfb

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR4/4; 5YR4/4; 5YR4/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 12%.

4 15,222 3735 LB-2dest b

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 10YR7/4; 5YR6/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

5 18,970 3355 LB-2surfb

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR6/4; 5YR4/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 6%.

6 18,849 3355 LB-2surfb

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR4/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 1%.

7 22,408 3750 LB-2filla

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/4; 10YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 2.5%.

8 17,366 3740 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - c - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

9 17,846 3119 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR6/6; 5YR4/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 28 cm, 3%.

10 18,005 3361 LB-2surfa

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

11 19,225 3525 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/3; 10YR6/2; 7.5YR6/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 3%.

12 19,224 3525 LB-2surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 43 cm, 3%.

13 17,926 3348 LB-2dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 10R5/3; 7.5YR7/4; 10R5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

394

Plate 47

18971

18968

18970 18849

17366

22408

17846

15222

17926

18005

19224

19225

189141

2

3 4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10

395

Plate 48

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,533 3114 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - e - ____- _

5 5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 26 cm, 18%.

2 18,433 3745 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - b - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR3/1; 7.5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

3 17,659 3525 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

8

5YR5/4; 7.5YR5/2; 5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

4 17,279 3736 LB-2dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR7/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 33 cm, 5%.

5 22,401 3750 LB-2filla

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

15 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/6; 7.5YR7/2; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 33 cm, 8.5%.

6 17,534 3114 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR6/6; 2.5YR4/8; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 36 cm, 8%.

7 17,957 3360 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 10YR7/1; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 10%.

8 15,230 3735 LB-2dest b

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR5/2; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

396

Plate 48

18433

17533

17659

17279

22401

17534

15230

17957

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

397

Plate 49

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,316 3740 LB-2dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR5/1; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 15%.

2 18,347 3744 LB-2dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR7/2; 2.5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 2.5%.

3 18,364 3640 LB-2dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 7%.

4 18,911 3356 LB-2surfa

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 10YR6/2; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 11%.

5 18,913 3356 LB-2surfa

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/4; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 32 cm, 5%.

6 15,610 3735 LB-2dest b

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR5/1; 5YR6/3; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

7 18,434 3745 LB-2surf

ddha - __ - b - ____- _

2

5YR6/6; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 10%.

8 17,888 3309 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 2.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 3%.

398

Plate 49

1731618347

15610

18364

18913

18911

17888

18434

12

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

399

Plate 50

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,962 3353 LB-2surf

bdgb - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR7/3; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 34 cm, 5%.

2 17,844 3119 LB-2dest

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 37 cm, 4%.

3 17,568 3114 LB-2surf

bdgb - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

4 18,377 3744 LB-2dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 36 cm, 2%.

5 17,487 3740 LB-2dest

bdec - ba - b - acab- h

1

5YR6/3; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 28 cm, 60%. 19 cm, 32%.

400

Plate 50

18962

17844

17568

17487

18377

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

401

Plate 51

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,315 3740 LB-2dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR8/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 7%.

2 18,435 3745 LB-2surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

3 18,582 3744 LB-2dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR6/4; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 8%.

4 18,130 3740 LB-2dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 29 cm, 28.5%.

5 17,469 3740 LB-2dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 10YR7/3; 5YR7/6; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 6%.

402

Plate 51

17315

18435

18130

17469

18582

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

403

Plate 52

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,450 3745 LB-2surf

cdea - ba - b - acab- _

1

10YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Ext H-Burn, 35 cm, 8%.

2 17,367 3740 LB-2dest

cdea - __ - _ - acab- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 33 cm, 17%.

3 20,759 3745 LB-2surf

caae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/1; 7.5YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 30 cm, 5%.

4 20,663 3766 LB-2fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR6/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 3%.

5 17,584 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 3%.

6 17,732 3526 LB-2surf

ddaa - __ - c - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 12%.

404

Plate 52

18450

17732

17367

20759

20663

17584

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

405

Plate 53

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,440 3745 LB-2surf

bbfb - __ - _ - acab-_

3 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 46 cm, 7%.

2 18,344 3744 LB-2dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR8/3; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 61 cm, 7%.

406

Plate 53

0 2 4 6 8 10

18440

18344

1

2

20%

407

Plate 54

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,582 3114 LB-2surf

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 8%.

2 17,902 3355 LB-2surfb

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR5/1; 10YR4/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 10 cm, 7%.

3 15,211 3735 LB-2dest b

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/3; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 50%.

4 17,333 3740 LB-2dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/1; 2.5YR5/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

5 15,612 3735 LB-2dest b

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 8%.

6 17,951 3358 LB-2surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 7.5YR6/4; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 18%.

7 15,214 3735 LB-2dest b

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/3; 10YR5/2; 5YR6/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 12%.

8 17,995 3361 LB-2surfa

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 12 cm, 15%.

9 18,131 3740 LB-2dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR74; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, 12 cm, 31%.

10 18,871 3356 LB-2surfa

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 20%.

11 18,864 3356 LB-2surfa

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/8; 2.5YR5/3; 7.5YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

12 17,320 3740 LB-2dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR4/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 8 cm, 11%.

13 17,725 3526 LB-2surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12%.

408

Plate 54

1758217902

15211

15612

17333

17951

1521417995

17320

18131

18871

18864 17725

12

34

56

78

9

10

11

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10

409

Plate 55

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,166 3525 LB-2fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/6; 5YR6/1; 2.5YR6/6; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 6%.

2 20,672 3766 LB-2fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext self slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 15 cm, 10%.

3 18,083 3526 LB-2surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/6; 10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

4 17,845 3119 LB-2dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

5 17,819 3114 LB-2surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 7.5%.

6 18,897 3356 LB-2surfa

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 7.5YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

7 18,875 3356 LB-2surfa

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

8 17,140 3526 LB-2surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; Dark Red inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 8%.

9 18,259 3745 LB-2surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12.5%.

10 18,022 3525 LB-2fill

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 20%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 24 cm, 7%.

11 18,033 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/3; 5YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 4%.

410

Plate 55

18083

17140

17845

18875

1889717819

19166

18033

18022

20672

10

11

3 4

56

7

8

18259

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

2

9

411

Plate 56

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,721 3526 LB-2surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7%.

2 20,399 3706 LB-2surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 16 cm, 12.5%.

3 19,189 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/4; 10YR5/1; 5YR6/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 4%.

4 18,086 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/2; 2.5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

5 18,062 3525 LB-2fill

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Int self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 17 cm, 20%.

6 19,178 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/4; 10YR4/1; 10YR8/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

7 18,032 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 25%.

8 18,054 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 20%.

9 17,665 3525 LB-2surf

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

19

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 11%.

10 17,915 3355 LB-2surfb

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR4/1; 5YR3/1; 5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 12.5%.

11 19,187 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/6; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 11%.

12 19,191 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7%.

13 19,188 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/1; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

14 20,669 3766 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext self slip:

412

10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 16 cm, 14%.

413

Plate 56

17721 20399

18086

19189

18062 19178

17665 17915

18032 18054

19187

19188

19191

20669

1 2

34

5 6

78

9 10

11

12

13 14

0 2 4 6 8 10

414

Plate 57

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,042 3339 LB-2sub

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/3; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

2 15,224 3735 LB-2dest b

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/3; 5YR7/4; 5YR7/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

3 18,863 3356 LB-2surfa

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 8%.

4 19,133 3525 LB-2surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR5/1; 10YR6/2; 10YR6/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

5 18,225 3745 LB-2surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

6 17,911 3355 LB-2surfb

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/3; White inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, 13 cm, 11%.

7 18,025 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/3; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

8 19,252 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

9 18,976 3355 LB-2surfb

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 10%.

10 19,250 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 15 cm, 7%.

11 17,271 3736 LB-2dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, Ext self slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, 25 cm, 8%.

12 20,662 3766 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; White inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 3%.

415

Plate 57

18976

19133

17911 1802518225

17271

17042 15224

18863

19252

19250

20662

1 2

34

5 67

8

9 10

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10

416

Plate 58

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,975 3355 LB-2surfb

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR4/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Painted decoration: 10R4/4, Weak Red, 15 cm, 4%.

2 18,019 3525 LB-2fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

3 18,040 3525 LB-2fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

4 18,037 3525 LB-2fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 7.5%.

5 15,229 3735 LB-2dest b

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

6 18,065 3525 LB-2fill

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

7 17,341 3740 LB-2dest

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 40%.

8 17,802 3114 LB-2surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

4

7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting;; 15 cm, 6%.

9 17,905 3355 LB-2surfb

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12.5%.

10 17,102 3525 LB-2surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 15%.

11 20,667 3766 LB-2fill

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 10 cm, 15%.

12 21,682 3739 LB-2surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 5YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 7%.

417

Plate 58

18040

18975

17905

18019

18037

15229 18065

17102 20667

17341

21682

17802

1 2

3 4

5 6

78

910 11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10

418

Plate 59

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,662 3525 LB-2surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4

10YR8/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 22.5%.

2 17,659 3525 LB-2surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 10YR6/4; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 15%.

3 17,734 3526 LB-2surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

4 18,677 3119 LB-2dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR8/4; 10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

5 17,569 3114 LB-2surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR8/4; 10YR8/6; 10YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 20%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 18 cm, 14%.

6 19,251 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

7 17,818 3114 LB-2surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4

5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2%.

8 19,249 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 5YR6/4; 7.5YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

9 19,164 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 2%.

10 19,158 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/6; 2.5YR6/4; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 2%.

11 18,064 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

12 17,701 3525 LB-2fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

13 20,665 3766 LB-2fill cdja 3

5YR8/3; 7.5YR6/1; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

419

Plate 59

20665

17569

17818

19249

19251

1916419158

17701

18064

1766217659

1773418677

1 2

34

5 6

78

910

11

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10

420

Plate 60

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,221 3735 LB-2dest b

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 10YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 45 cm, 10%.

2 17,912 3355 LB-2surfb

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 10%.

3 17,538 3114 LB-2surf

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4

10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 6%.

4 17,697 3525 LB-2fill

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 40 cm, 5%.

5 17,739 3526 LB-2surf

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR6/3; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

6 17,962 3360 LB-2surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

7 18,870 3356 LB-2surfa

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 10%.

8 17,535 3114 LB-2surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/6; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 11%.

9 20,680 3766 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

19

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Quartz inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Good sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

421

Plate 60

17697 17739

17535

17912 17538

152211

2 3

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

18870

17962

20680

67

8

9

422

Plate 61

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,364 3740 LB-2dest

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int/Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 10R4/3, Red and 10YR6/1, Gray, 30 cm, 6%.

2 17,357 3740 LB-2dest 7

5YR7/4; 5YR7/1; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR7/4, Pink, Ext Dec:10R4/4, Weak Red and 10YR4/1, Dark Reddish Gray.

3 15,210 3735 LB-2dest b

3

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray.

4 17,328 3740 LB-2dest 13

10YR7/2; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Dec: 10R4/4, Weak Red and 5YR4/1, Dark Gray.

5 18,193 3744 LB-2dest 6

10YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

6 18,185 3744 LB-2dest 3

10YR8/2; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR8/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR8/4, Pink, Ext Dec: 10R5/3, Weak Red and 5YR5/1, Gray.

7 17,473 3740 LB-2dest 3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Dec: 10YR4/1 Dark Gray.

423

Plate 61

0 2 4 6 8 10

3 15210

417328

518193

6 18185

17357

117364

17473

2

7

424

Plate 62

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,966 3348 LB-2dest

bdaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 10R6/4; 2.5YR5/1; 10R6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

2 17,796 3114 LB-2surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR8/4; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor Sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R4/3, Weak Red, 14 cm, 2%.

3 15,194 3735 LB-2dest b

bdea - aa - b – ahab- h

3

10YR7/4; 10YR5/2; 5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, Ext H-Burn, 9 cm, 60%. 8 cm, 70%.

4 17,046 3339 LB-2sub

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 1%.

5 17,996 3361 LB-2surfa

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

7

7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 20 cm, 12%.

6 18,972 3355 LB-2surfb

bdab - __ - _ - ____- _

3

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Painted Dec: 2.5YR5/6, Red; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink; Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, 21 cm, 8%.

7 15,216 3735 LB-2dest b

bdab - __ - _ - ____- _

2 5YR7/4; 5YR6/6; 5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2%.

8 17,593 3114 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/3; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray.

9 17,594 3114 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R5/6, Red.

10 17,662 3525 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/3; 10YR8/1; Iron Oxides inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 5YR6/1, Gray.

11 19,231 3525 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR7/3; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Very Good sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/6, Red.

12 17,049 3339 LB-2sub

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Iron Oxides inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red and 10YR6/1, Gray.

13 18,926 3356 LB-2surfa

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown and 7.5YR5/1, Gray.

425

Plate 62

18966

15194

15216

17996

17046

1

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

18972

7

1759389 17594

10

11 19231

12 17049

18926

177962

17662

13

426

Plate 63

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,351 3744 LB-2dest

bdea - __ - _ - acab- _

7

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

2 18,674 3119 LB-2dest

caab - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/8; 10YR8/6; 10YR8/6; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 25%.

3 19,161 3525 LB-2fill

caac - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/3; 10R4/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 8%.

4 22,411 3750 LB-2filla

faaa - __ - _ - acaa- _

2

2.5Y7/4; 10YR7/2; 2.5Y7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 3 cm, 25%.

5 17,283 3736 LB-2dest

caac - __ - _ - adaa- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR7/2, Pinkish Gray, Ext self slip: 7.5YR7/2, Pinkish Gray, 6 cm, 50%.

6 17,541 3114 LB-2surf

faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR7/4; 5YR7/3; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 8 cm, 11%.

7 19,008 3361 LB-2surfa

---- - ab - b - acaa- a

3

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn, 2 cm, 100%.

427

Plate 63

18351

18674

22411

17283

19008

17541

19161

1

2

3

45

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

428

Plate 64

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 20,659 3766 LB-2fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

19

5YR5/3; 5YR5/4; 5YR5/3; Quartz inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7%.

2 19,177 3525 LB-2fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 10YR3/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 33 cm, 6%.

3 19,181 3525 LB-2fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/2; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

4 19,151 3525 LB-2fill

fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 3%.

5 18,055 3525 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

6 20,666 3766 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR6/3; 10YR4/1; 7.5YR6/3; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 3%.

7 20,660 3766 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 48 cm, 4%.

429

Plate 64

20659

19177

19181

19151

18055

20666

20660

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

20%

430

Plate 65

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,179 3525 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 7%.

2 19,153 3525 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR7/3, Very Pale Brown, 40 cm, 4%.

3 17,696 3525 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR7/3; 10YR5/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 45 cm, 3%.

4 18,047 3525 LB-2fill

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 5YR5/4; 5YR5/6; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 6%.

5 19,248 3525 LB-2fill

fdda - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

6 18,061 3525 LB-2fill

fdda - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 47 cm, 5%.

7 18,688 3119 LB-2dest

fdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/8; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Slip: 7.5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow; Int/Ext H-Burn, 25 cm, 4%.

8 17,717 3526 LB-2surf

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/6; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 6%.

9 17,952 3358 LB-2surf

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/3; 5YR4/2; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 3%.

10 17,668 3525 LB-2surf

fdda - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

431

Plate 65

19179

19153

17696

18047

17668

19248

18061

17717 17952

18688

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

20%

432

Plate 66

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,331 3740 LB-2dest

faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, <5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxide inclusion, <5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 5YR4/2, Dark Reddish Gray, 17 cm, 6%.

2 17,553 3114 LB-2surf

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

22

2.5YR8/2; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, <5%, 0.5-1.0mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Ext Slip: 2.5YRr8/2, Pinkish White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 5YR3/5, Dark Reddish Gray,17 cm, 12.5%.

3 17,923 3348 LB-2dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR7/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR4/3, Brown, 20 cm, 3%.

4 17,570 3114 LB-2surf

faac - __ - _ - ____- _

22

5YR5/3; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR4/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron oxides inclusions, <5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 2.5YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR3/2, Dark Brown and 7.5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, 19 cm, 4%.

5 17,932 3348 LB-2dest

____ - __ - _ - fubf- _

22

7.5YR7/2; 5YR5/4; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/2, Pinkish Gray,

6 15,208 3735 LB-2dest b

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/2; 2.5YR5/6; 10R8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusions, <5%, 0.5-1.0mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/2, Brown, 15 cm, 1%.

7 15,209 3735 LB-2dest b

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 5YR5/6; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusions, <5%, 0.5-1.0mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/2, Brown.

8 17,554 3114 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/2; 10YR5/3; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/4, Brown.

9 17,566 3114 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR7/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR6/1, Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR6/1, Gray, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow.

10 17,706 3526 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR7/1; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Dec: 7.5YR6/4, Light Brown.

11 16,293 3739 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

24

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Quartz, <5%, <0.5mm, Sub-rounded, Poor sorting; Iron oxides, <5%, <0.5mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/4, Very Pale Brown, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/8, Red, 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 7.5YR4/1, Dark Gray.

433

Plate 66

1733117553

1792317570

1793215208

1

2

3 4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

16293

15209

0 2 4 6 8 10

1:2

7 175548 917566y

10

11

17706

434

Plate 67

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,715 3526 LB-2surf

faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

21

2.5YR5/8; 2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/8, Red, Ext Slip: 7.5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, 20 cm, 12%.

2 17,546 3114 LB-2surf

caaa - __ - c - ____- _

21

7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR4/1; 10YR2/1;Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 7.5YR5/2, Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR2/1, Black, 15 cm, 2%.

3 18,857 3356 LB-2surfa

baaa - __ - b - fkbc- _

21

5YR4/2; 5YR6/4; 5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 10YR3/2, Very Dark Grayish Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR3/2, Very Dark Grayish Brown, 19 cm, 9%.

4 17,321 3740 LB-2dest

bcja - __ - _ - ____- _

21

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/4; 5YR7/6; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, 13 cm, 7%.

5 18,727 3104 LB-1dest

baab - __ - b - ____- _

21

2.5YR5/6; 2.5Y5/1; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 2.5Y4/1, Dark Gray, Ext Slip: 2.5Y4/1, Dark Gray, 17 cm, 8%.

6 17,273 3736 LB-2dest

cdka - __ - _ - ____- _

21

5YR6/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, Ext Slip: 5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, 9 cm, 22%.

7 17,673 3525 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- h

21

10YR6/1; 10YR4/1; 10YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 7.5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, 5 cm, 23%.

8 17,086 3350 LB-2surf

cdka - __ - _ - ____- _

21

7.5YR4/4; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 7.5YR4/4, Brown, Ext Slip: 7.5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, 9 cm, 22.5%.

9 17,611 3353 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- j

21

5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 7.5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, 6 cm, 13%.

10 17,299 3736 LB-2dest

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21

5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext slip: 5YR4/1, Gray; Ext Dec: 2.5YR8/2, Pinkish White

11 18,919 3356 LB-2surfa

____ - __ - _ - agac- _

21 5YR7/2; 5YR7/1; 5YR5/8; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 5YR5/6, Yellowish Red.

12 17,953 3358 LB-2surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21 10YR7/2; 10YR7/1; 5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 5YR5/6, Yellowish Red.

435

Plate 67

17715

17546

17321

17273

18857

17086

17673

17611

1

2

3

4

6

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

17299 11

12 17953

7

1891910

5 18727

9

436

Plate 68

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 17,573 3114 LB-2surf

bcgb - ab - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown and 10YR5/1, Gray, 6 cm, 25%.

2 17,581 3114 LB-2surf

bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

13

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Int Dec: 2.5YR3/2, Dusky Red, 5YR5/1, Gray. Ext Dec: 2.5YR3/2, Dusky Red and 10YR8/6, Yellow (not shown), 12 cm, 7.5%.

3 18,035 3525 LB-2fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR7/3; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 10%.

4 17,595 3114 LB-2surf 3

7.5YR8/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 10R4/3, Weak red.

5 17,829 3114 LB-2surf 13

10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 5YR6/4 Light Reddish Brown.

6 18,697 3119 LB-2dest

____ - __ - _ - ahab- _

2

5YR6/6; 7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; Iron oxide inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec:10YR3/6 Dark Yellowish Brown.

7 15,257 3735 LB-2dest b

2

2.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 2.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown and 5YR4/1, Dark Gray.

8 18,154 3744 LB-2dest 2

5YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/2; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown and 5YR5/1, Gray.

437

Plate 68

17573

0 2 4 6 8 10

50%

17581

18035

17829

18697 +18675

17595

5

6

7 152578

18154

12

3 4

438

Plate 69

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,564 3517A-C

LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

2 15,585 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR8/2; 5YR6/1; 5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 4%.

3 15,832 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

14

10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

4 16,232 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

5 16,878 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 2%.

6 16,799 3333 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 2.5%.

7 19,622 3100A LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 11%.

8 16,779 3333 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

17 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/1; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 4%.

9 16,847 3333 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 9%.

10 20,093 3509 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 8%.

11 15,936 3105 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10YR8/4; 2.5YR8/2; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 6%.

12 18,307 3736 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 10YR8/2; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 25%.

439

Plate 69

15564

15832

16878 16799

15585

15936

16847

16779

16232

20093

18307

19622

1

2

3 4

5 6

78

910

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10

440

Plate 70

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,898 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 10%.

2 16,339 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 18 cm, 5%.

3 19,408 3757 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4

5YR5/2; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

4 15,579 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

5 15,554 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 20 cm, 6%.

6 19,739 3100 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

7 15,565 3517A-C

LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7.5%.

8 16,230 3519 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

9 15,754 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

10 23,847 3758 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

14 5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 2%.

11 16,093 3108 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 5YR7/1; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR4/1, Dark Gray, 22 cm, 4%.

12 19,462 3757 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR6/2; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 18 cm, 4%.

13 15,715 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

14 18,932 3343 LB-1fill

baab - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 3%.

441

Plate 70

1689816339

19408 15579

15554

23847

19739

19462

15565

15754

16093

16230

15715

18932

12

3 4

56

78

9 10

11 12

13

14

0 2 4 6 8 10

442

Plate 71

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 23,845 3758 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/3; 5YR8/2; 5YR8/3; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 6%.

2 16,182 3519 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

3 16,183 3519 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 5%.

4 16,802 3333 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 10YR6/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 4%.

5 20,101 3509 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 7.5%.

6 16,177 3519 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

7 18,951 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

8 16,341 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

9 16,131 3105 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

10 16,094 3108 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

11 17,784 3116 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2%.

12 15,582 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/3; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

13 15,810 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9 5YR8/4; 10YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 21 cm, 7%.

14 18,954 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 5%.

443

Plate 71

15582

18954

23845

16183

16182

17784

16802

16341

1609416131

18951

20101

15810

16177

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

1314

0 2 4 6 8 10

444

Plate 72

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,333 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10YR7/4; 7.5YR7/3; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 34 cm, 4%.

2 15,696 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 3%.

3 15,352 3104 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10R6/2, Pale Red, Ext Slip: 10R6/2, Pale Red, 15 cm, 15%.

4 16,335 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 19 cm, 6%.

5 15,578 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 5YR6/4; 5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

6 19,762 3100 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR4/1; 2.5Y5/1; 10YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 4%.

7 15,583 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

8 18,945 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 6%.

9 15,751 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

10 15,166 3729 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

13 2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

11 20,057 3509 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- g

2

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 1%. 5 cm, 100%.

445

Plate 72

16333 15696

1535216335

15578

20057

19762

1575115166

18945

12

34

56

7

8

910

11

15583

0 2 4 6 8 10

446

Plate 73

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,367 3104 LB-1surf

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 7.5%.

2 16,400 3518 LB-1surf

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR8/3; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 5%.

3 16,373 3331 LB-1dest

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R6/4; 7.5YR8/2; 10R6/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 7.5%.

4 18,936 3343 LB-1fill

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/1; 7.5YR7/4; 2.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 10%.

5 16,292 3699 LB-1surf

baad - __ - _ - ____- _

8

2.5YR5/2; 2.5YR6/1; 2.5YR5/2; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

6 16,316 3333 LB-1surf

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/2; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10R4/3, Weak Red, Ext Slip: 10R4/3, Weak Red; Int/Ext H-Burn, 22 cm, 3%.

7 16,291 3699 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/2; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 3%.

8 15,140 3317 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 3%.

9 16,193 3518 LB-1surf

bbfb - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR6/2; 10R5/4; 10YR7/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, 24 cm, 8%.

10 16,267 3518 LB-1surf

bbfb - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR7/2; 2.5YR6/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext self slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 35 cm, 5%.

447

Plate 73

15367

16400

16373

16292

16267

16193

18936

16921 15140

16316

12

3 4

56

7 8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

448

Plate 74

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,938 3105 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

8

5YR8/4; 10YR7/3; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

2 16,266 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 37 cm, 3%.

3 16,268 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/3; 2.5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 31 cm, 5%.

4 15,580 3517 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 6%.

5 15,778 3517 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR6/6; 10YR7/3; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Slip: 5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, Int/Ext H-Burn, 25 cm, 2%.

6 16,875 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

7 16,336 3333 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/3; 5YR8/3; 5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 2.5%.

8 19,759 3100 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 8%.

9 16,261 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR8/4; 5YR8/1; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 9%.

10 18,940 3343 LB-1fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10YR7/1; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

11 16,744 3317 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/1; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

12 15,818 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, Ext Slip: 5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow, Int/Ext H-Burn, 35 cm, 3%.

449

Plate 74

15938

16336

15580

16261

16875

15778

19759

18940

16744 15818

16266

16268

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

910

1112

0 2 4 6 8 10

450

Plate 75

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,730 3333 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR8/3; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 5%.

2 16,129 3105 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 2.5%.

3 18,933 3343 LB-1fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR7/4; 10YR5/2; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 8%.

4 20,094 3509 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 5YR6/6; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 20%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Good sorting; 21 cm, 7.5%.

5 16,228 3333 LB-1fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 8%.

6 16,169 3519 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR8/3; 10YR7/4; 10YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

7 15,061 3517 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/6; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

8 16,317 3333 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

9 15,144 3317 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR7/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 1%.

10 16,804 3333 LB-1fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

11 17,855 3120 LB-1fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5Y7/2; 2.5YR6/2; 2.5Y7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 7.5%.

12 17,625 3346 LB-1fill

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR8/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 25 cm, 3%.

13 17,127 3517A-C

LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/4; 10YR6/3; 10YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 30 cm, 3%.

14 16,231 3519 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 3%.

451

Plate 75

15144

15061

16228

16231

20094

17625

18933

16317

16169

17127

16129

17855

16804

157301 2

34

5

6

78

9 10

11

12

13

140 2 4 6 8 10

452

Plate 76

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,318 3333 LB-1surf

bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10R6/6, Light Red, Ext Slip: 10R6/6, Light Red, 22 cm, 3%.

2 16,196 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

9 10YR7/3; 10YR8/4; 10YR7/3; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

3 15,809 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 6%.

4 16,216 3333 LB-1fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR8/3; 7.5YR6/2; 5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 9%.

5 15,808 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR7/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

6 16,229 3519 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

7 15,750 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 7.5YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

8 20,091 3509 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/2; 2.5YR6/1; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 38 cm, 5%.

9 18,938 3343 LB-1fill

bcgb - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR6/2; 7.5YR5/2; 10YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 8%.

453

Plate 76

16318

18938

16216

16196

15809

15808

20091

15750

16229

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

1

454

Plate 77

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,930 3519 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 10Yr7/2; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 17 cm, 2%.

2 19,409 3757 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

10

10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

3 15,682 3333 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 8%.

4 15,550 3517 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

5 17,767 3118 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, Ext Slip: 7.5YR7/4, Pink, 14 cm, 6%.

6 16,915 3518 LB-1surf

bchc - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR6/6; 5YR7/4; 5YR6/6; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 7.5%.

7 15,060 3517 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/2; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

8 15,371 3104 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

8

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 10%.

9 16,804 3333 LB-1fill

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

10 15,145 3317 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 10YR4/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

11 15,820 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

7

5YR7/3; 5YR6/4; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 4%.

12 15,758 3517 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10YR8/2; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2.5%.

13 16,192 3518 LB-1surf

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 3%.

455

Plate 77

16930 19409

15371

15682

16804

15550

15820

15145

15060

1691517767

15758

16192

1 2

34

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10

456

Plate 78

Figure No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,771 3333 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 2.5Y2.5/1; 2.5Y2.5/1; 2.5Y2.5/1; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

2 15,364 3104 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR8/2; 5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

3 19,410 3757 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, 14 cm, 6%.

4 18,944 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/2; 2.5YR6/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

5 15,670 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR7/2; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 7.5%.

6 16,289 3699 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR8/3; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR8/3; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 19 cm, 6%.

7 17,780 3116 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 5%.

8 15,944 3105 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10R4/8; 5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10R6/4, Pale Red, Ext Slip: 10R6/4, Pale Red, 10 cm, 7%.

9 15,776 3517 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9.1

7.5YR8/3; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 6%.

10 17,627 3346 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

7.5YR7/2; 10YR7/3; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 26 cm, 3%.

11 15,171 3729 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/2; 2.5YR5/1; 5YR7/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Grey inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 11 cm, 7%.

12 16,287 3699 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 5YR8/4; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 23 cm, 4%.

457

Plate 78

19410

17780

15364

16289

15944

15670

18944

1762715776

16771

15171 16287

12

34

5 6

7

8

910

11 12

0 2 4 6 8 10

458

Plate 79

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,757 3517 LB-1dest

bcha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 8%.

2 16,375 3331 LB-1dest

bcga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 5%.

3 16,127 3105 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR6/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

4 16,342 3333 LB-1surf

baab - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; 10YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

5 15,546 3517 LB-1dest

baae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

6 17,034 3333 LB-1fill

fdja - __ - _ - ____- _

7

7.5YR7/2; 2.5Y5/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 24 cm, 7%.

7 19,461 3757 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR6/4; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 16%.

8 15,596 3518 LB-1surf

baab - __ - _ - ____- c

2

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 21 cm, 6%. 10 cm, 20%.

459

Plate 79

17034

15757

15596

16375

16127 16342

15546

12

3 4

5

6

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

19461 7

460

Plate 80

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,165 3729 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - b - ____- _

7

2.5YR6/2; 2.5YR6/1; 2.5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 20 cm, 7%.

2 18,308 3736 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - c - ____- _

2

5YR5/2; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 17.5%.

3 18,937 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - b - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 5%.

4 19,407 3757 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

13 7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/4; 10YR8/4; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

5 15,775 3517 LB-1dest

baac - __ - c - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust-Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 6%.

6 15,752 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

8

5YR7/4; 10R7/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

7 16,900 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 19 cm, 4%.

8 17,857 3120 LB-1fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

9 16,745 3317 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/2; 5YR5/2; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2%.

10 16,908 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

11 15,146 3317 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 2.5YR6/6; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 1%.

12 18,809 3120 LB-1fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 6%.

461

Plate 80

15775

1830815165

18937

16745

18809

16900

15752

17857

16908

15146

19407

12

34

5

6

7 8

9 10

1112

0 2 4 6 8 10

462

Plate 81

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,238 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink, 19 cm, 5%.

2 15,819 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

3 16,739 3317 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R4/1; 2.5YR6/8; 10R4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

4 16,606 3104 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9 7.5YR8/2; 10YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

5 16,125 3105 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR5/8; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/6, Red; Int/Ext H-Burn, 18 cm, 6%.

6 16,746 3317 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

7 15,683 3333 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 2.5Y5/1; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

8 16,907 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

9 17,628 3346 LB-1fill

caac - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn, 20 cm, 2%.

10 16,929 3519 LB-1surf

caac - __ - _ - ____- _

1 5YR6/4; 5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 2%.

11 15,817 3518 LB-1surf

caae - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/4; 5YR7/2; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

12 16,119 3104 LB-1surf

caac - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR5/8, Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR5/8, Red, 20 cm, 6%.

13 18,806 3120 LB-1fill

cdga - __ - d - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 5YR7/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 10%.

14 15,811 3518 LB-1surf

caae - __ - _ - ____- _

10 5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

463

Plate 81

16125

16907

1762816929

16119

15683

16746

15811

15817

18806

15819

16739 16606

162381 2

3 4

56

7 8

9

10

1112

1314

0 2 4 6 8 10

464

Plate 82

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,172 3729 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

2

5YR5/2; 2.5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 15 cm, 8%.

2 16,269 3518 LB-1surf

bcga - __ - c - ____- _

7

5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 13%.

3 16,092 3108 LB-1fill

caac - __ - b - ____- _

3 10R5/6; 5YR7/1; 5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

4 16,338 3333 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 2.5%.

5 19,736 3100 LB-1dest

bdga - __ - c - ____- _

5 5YR6/3; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

6 15,553 3517 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/3; 7.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

7 15,556 3517 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 8%.

8 18,805 3120 LB-1fill

caaa - __ - b - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 5YR7/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 25%.

9 15,698 3333 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 8 cm, 15%.

465

Plate 82

16338

15172

16269

16092

19736

15553

15556

1569818805

12

3 4

5

6

7

89

0 2 4 6 8 10

466

Plate 83

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,411 3757 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 10YR2/1; 2.5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Very Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7%.

2 19,740 3100 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR6/2; 10YR4/1; 10YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 12%.

3 15,136 3317 LB-1dest

bdec - __ - _ - ____- _

13

5YR5/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/8; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

4 15,717 3333 LB-1surf

bdec - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 3%.

5 17,782 3116 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 10R3/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

6 15,709 3333 LB-1surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 20 cm, 7.5%.

7 16,879 3518 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13

5YR5/2; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

8 17,519 3111 LB-1fill

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR6/3; 5YR3/1; 7.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

9 16,121 3105 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR6/1; 10YR4/1; 10YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, 35 cm, 5%.

10 19,735 3100 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR4/6; 2.5YR5/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 29 cm, 8%.

11 15,813 3518 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 3%.

12 16,125 3105 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

13

5YR7/4; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 27%.

467

Plate 83

17782

1941119740

15709

1571715136

16125

19735

1 2

3 4

5 6

17519

16121

16879

15813

7

8

9

10

11

120 2 4 6 8 10

468

Plate 84

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,332 3333 LB-1surf

cdec - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/3; 7.5YR3/1; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 2.5%.

2 16,402 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/3; 5YR5/4; 7.5YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

3 16,370 3331 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 34 cm, 12.5%.

4 15,720 3333 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10R5/6; 2.5YR3/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2%.

5 16,271 3518 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 36 cm, 4%.

6 23,843 3758 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/2; 5YR5/6; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 2.5%.

7 20,553 3757 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/6; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR5/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 9%.

469

Plate 84

16402

16370

16271

15720

16332

20553

23843

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

470

Plate 85

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,363 3333 LB-1surf

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR5/4; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 19 cm, 3%.

2 17,856 3120 LB-1fill

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

5

7.5YR6/4; 2.5YR3/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 27 cm, 6%.

3 16,906 3518 LB-1surf

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 4%.

4 16,238 3519 LB-1surf

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR4/4; 7.5YR5/4; 7.5YR4/2; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 22 cm, 3%.

5 15,756 3517 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR6/3; 10YR4/1; 10YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

6 15,772 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

8

7.5YR5/4; 10YR3/1; 7.5YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 9%.

7 15,544 3517 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 37 cm, 10%.

471

Plate 85

15772

15756

15544

5

6

7

16238

16363 17856

16906

1 2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

472

Plate 86

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,942 3343 LB-1fill

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR/6; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 7%.

2 19,633 3100A LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

5YR7/2; 2.5YR6/4; 10YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

3 18,735 3104 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/2; 5YR6/4; 7.5yr5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 26 cm, 4%.

4 16,226 3333 LB-1fill

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR4/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; 26 cm, 2.5%.

5 15,242 3734 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 33 cm, 3%.

6 16,404 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/2; 5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 4%.

7 18,724 3104 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10R6/4; 5YR6/2; 7.5YR4/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 33 cm, 4%.

8 15,567 3517A-C

LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 40 cm, 1%.

9 19,734 3100 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/3; 10YR5/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 11%.

473

Plate 86

18724

18735

16226

16404

15567

19633

18942

15242

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

197349

0 2 4 6 8 10

474

Plate 87

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 19,626 3100A LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5

2.5YR6/2; 7.5YR8/2; 2.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, 16 cm, 15%.

2 17,854 3120 LB-1fill

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR5/6; 10Yr3/2; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 25 cm, 10%.

3 17,773 3116 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 27 cm, 6%.

4 16,117 3105 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/6; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 9%.

5 16,116 3105 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

1

5YR4/1; 5YR4/1; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 6%.

475

Plate 87

19626

17854

17773

16117

16116

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

476

Plate 88

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,581 3517 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 18 cm, 4%.

2 15,814 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

7

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 3%.

3 16,384 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR5/3; 5YR3/1; 5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

4 16,741 3317 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR6/3; 10YR5/2; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 24 cm, 5%.

5 15,595 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 3%.

6 16,128 3105 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR5/4; 7.5YR5/4; 5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 4%.

7 17,783 3116 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10R5/6; 10R3/6; 2.5YR3/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 32 cm, 3%.

8 16,904 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/3; 10YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 3%.

9 16,270 3518 LB-1surf

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR7/3; 10R4/8; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 3%.

10 16,225 3333 LB-1fill

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5YR7/2; 10YR3/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

477

Plate 88

16225

16384

17783

16270

16741

16128

15814

15595

15581

16904

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

478

Plate 89

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,122 3105 LB-1dest

ddec - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/2; 10YR4/2; 5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 22 cm, 6%.

2 15,742 3333 LB-1surf

ddec - __ - _ - ____- _

13

10R6/1; 2.5YR3/1; 10R6/1; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 2.5%.

3 19,635 3100A LB-1dest

ddec - __ - _ - ____- _

5

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 5%.

4 15,356 3104 LB-1surf

ddec - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 4%.

5 15,355 3104 LB-1surf

ddec - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/8; 5YR5/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 29 cm, 5%.

6 26,206 3519 LB-1surf

ddha - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 8%.

7 26,219 3519 LB-1surf

ddha - __ - b - ____- _

6

7.5YR5/3; 7.5YR3/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 20%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 6%.

479

Plate 89

15742

15356

15355

16122

19635

26206

26219

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

480

Plate 90

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,549 3517 LB-1dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR5/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 22 cm, 5%.

2 16,932 3519 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR5/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 21 cm, 15%.

3 15,816 3518 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7%.

4 18,948 3343 LB-1fill

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 7.5Yr5/6; 7.5YR3/1; 7.5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 2%.

5 16,417 3517 LB-1dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/2; 5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

6 16,223 3333 LB-1fill

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10YR6/3; 10YR5/3; 10YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 6%.

7 16,601 3104 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR3/1; 2.5YR3/1; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 5%.

8 17,077 3346 LB-1fill

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR5/4; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 36 cm, 3%.

9 17,076 3346 LB-1fill

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/3; 5YR5/3; 5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

481

Plate 90

15549

15816

16601

16932

18948

17076

17077

16417

16223

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

482

Plate 91

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,710 3333 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR4/2; 10YR6/2; 5YR5/3; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

2 15,568 3517A-C

LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10R4/6; 7.5YR5/1; 10R4/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

3 26,210 3519 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 7%.

4 19,743 3100 LB-1dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 31 cm, 6%.

5 16,123 3105 LB-1dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

9

10YR4/4; 10YR5/4; 10YR4/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Grey inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 23 cm, 3%.

6 15,584 3517 LB-1dest

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR6/6; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Grey inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 4%.

483

Plate 91

15568

15710

26210

16123

19743

15584

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

484

Plate 92

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,563 3517A-C

LB-1surf

bdgb - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/3; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, Ext self slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 25 cm, 7.5%.

2 15,362 3104 LB-1surf

cdec - __ - _ - ____- _

9

5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 40 cm, 4%.

3 15,173 3729 LB-1dest

bdab - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR5/3; 5YR4/1; 5YR6/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 4%.

4 19,628 3100A LB-1dest

cdec - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 35 cm, 5%.

5 19,742 3100 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 38 cm, 3%.

6 16,843 3333 LB-1fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 5%.

7 16,899 3518 LB-1surf

ddja - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR4/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 5%.

8 15,186 3723 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 7.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 24 cm, 6%.

9 15,134 3317 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - _ - ____- _

5 10YR7/4; 10YR4/2; 10YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 26 cm, 2%.

485

Plate 92

15563

15362

15134

19628

15186

15173

16899

16843

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

19742

486

Plate 93

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,897 3518 LB-1surf

bbfb - __ - b - ____- _

3

5YR5/3; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR8/2, Pinkish White; 28 cm, 8%.

2 16,873 3518 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - b - adab- _

6

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 40 cm, 10%.

3 15,184 3723 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13

5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 31 cm, 13%.

4 16,374 3331 LB-1dest

ddea - __ - b - ____- _

13

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR4/2; 7.5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 38 cm, 4%.

487

Plate 93

16873

16897

15184

16374

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

488

Plate 94

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,946 3343 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 9 cm, 8%.

2 16,869 3518 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

3 20,062 3509 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/4; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12%.

4 16,311 3333 LB-1surf

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 2%.

5 15,141 3317 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/4; 7.5YR4/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 7%.

6 15,566 3517A-C

LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 8%.

7 16,924 3519 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

8 16,371 3331 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 10YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 15%.

9 16,599 3104 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR6/6; 5YR5/1; 5YR6/6; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, 10 cm, 9%.

10 16,401 3518 LB-1surf

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

11 17,117 3517A-C

LB-1surf

bded - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR8/3; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 15 cm, 13%.

489

Plate 94

16311

18946 16869

20062

15141

15566

1640116599

1637116924

17117

1 2

3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

490

Plate 95

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,593 3518 LB-1surf

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 10 cm, 23%.

2 16,742 3317 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

3 15,678 3333 LB-1dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 2.5Y5/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

4 16,416 3517 LB-1dest

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/1; 5YR6/1; 10YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext self slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 20 cm, 6%.

5 16,803 3333 LB-1fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

6 15,187 3734 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR4/1; 7.5YR5/1; 5YR4/1; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 11%.

7 16,383 3518 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

8 19,741 3100 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR4/1; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, 24 cm, 5%.

9 17,520 3111 LB-1fill

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR8/3; 5YR7/1; 5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 7.5%.

10 15,753 3518 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR8/4; 5YR8/1; 5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

11 18,943 3343 LB-1fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR6/6; 5YR4/6; 5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 16 cm, 2%.

491

Plate 95

18943

15593

15678

16383

15187

16742

17520

19741

15753

16803

16416

12

34

5 6

7 8

910

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

492

Plate 96

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,240 3734 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 10YR3/2; 7.5YR6/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Very Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int self slip: 7.5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, Ext self slip: 7.5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, 20 cm, 5%.

2 15,138 3317 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1 5YR4/1; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

3 16,740 3317 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7.5%.

4 17,778 3116 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

13 7.5YR6/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

5 15,552 3517 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2 5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/2; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12%.

6 16,309 3333 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR4/1; 5YR4/1; 5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 8%.

7 15,713 3333 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

7 10YR8/3; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 7%.

8 16,126 3105 LB-1dest

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR5/6; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; 12 cm, 7.5%.

9 15,724 3333 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 2.5Y6/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown, 10 cm, 10%.

10 16,312 3333 LB-1surf

bdhc - __ - _ - ____- _

2 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR8/3; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 9 cm, 12%.

11 15,711 3333 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2 5YR5/3; 2.5YR4/3; 5YR5/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 6%.

12 17,524 3111 LB-1fill

bdhc - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/4; 10YR6/2; 7.5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; 10 cm, 17%.

13 17,617 3346 LB-1fill

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, 10 cm, 11%.

14 16,258 3518 LB-1surf

bdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1 5YR4/1; 10R5/3; 5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 12%.

493

Plate 96

16740

15240

15552

15713

15138

17778

16309

15724

16126

15711

16312

17617

17524

16258

12

34

5 6

78

9 10

1112

1314

0 2 4 6 8 10

494

Plate 97

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,135 3105 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White, 10 cm, 11%.

2 16,800 3333 LB-1fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 2.5YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7%.

3 26,212 3519 LB-1surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR5/2; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 7%.

4 20,098 3509 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

2.5YR7/6; 10YR6/4; 2.5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, 15 cm, 6%.

5 16,314 3333 LB-1surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR6/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR6/1; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

6 15,551 3517 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/3; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

7 16,794 3333 LB-1fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR8/1; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 12%.

8 16,218 3333 LB-1fill

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; 11 cm, 5%.

9 15,353 3104 LB-1surf

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Ext Slip: 5YR8/2, Pinkish White, 21 cm, 11%.

10 17,639 3517A-C

LB-1surf

bdjb - __ - _ - ____- _

1

10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 7.5YR6/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR6/6, Reddish Yellow, 19 cm, 7.5%.

11 16,124 3105 LB-1dest

bdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 2.5YR4/1; 7.5YR6/2; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 9%.

495

Plate 97

15353

26212

16135

20098

15551

16800

16794

17639

16314

16124

16218

12

34

5 6

78

9

10

11

0 2 4 6 8 10

496

Plate 98

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,940 3105 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

8

10YR8/3; 5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 6%.

2 17,620 3346 LB-1fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 9%.

3 19,632 3100A LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 12 cm, 5%.

4 15,679 3333 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

5 16,331 3333 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

4 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 11%.

6 17,068 3346 LB-1fill

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

7

2.5YR6/6; 2.5YR4/1; 10R5/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 21 cm, 9%.

7 16,767 3333 LB-1fill

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/2; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 6%.

8 20,096 3509 LB-1dest

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/3; Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 4%.

9 20,100 3509 LB-1dest

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 5YR6/6; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

10 16,798 3333 LB-1fill

cdga - __ - _ - ____- _

3

2.5YR6/4; 10YR7/3; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red; Int/Ext H-Burn, 10 cm, 12.5%.

11 16,119 3105 LB-1dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/2; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7%.

12 16,120 3104 LB-1surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

1

5YR8/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR8/1, White, 25 cm, 3%.

497

Plate 98

15679

17620

17068

16767

2010020096

16119

16120

16798

19632

16331

1594012

34

5

6

7

8 9

11

12

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

498

Plate 99

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,941 3105 LB-1dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

8

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Clear/Sparkling inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 13 cm, 7%.

2 16,902 3518 LB-1surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR7/6; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 11 cm, 11%.

3 16,362 3333 LB-1surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

4 16,385 3518 LB-1surf

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 11 cm, 10%.

5 15,801 3517 LB-1dest

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

2

5YR5/2; 7.5YR8/4; 5YR5/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

6 17,616 3346 LB-1fill

cdha - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR6/1; 5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 29 cm, 9%.

7 16,420 3518 LB-1surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 33 cm, 6%.

8 17,768 3118 LB-1surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR5/2; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR5/2; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 17 cm, 5%.

499

Plate 99

15941

16362

17616

16902

16385

15801

12

3 4

5

6

16420

177688

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

500

Plate 100

Fig. No.

Sherd No Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,725 3333 LB-1surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 7.5%.

2 17,776 3116 LB-1dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 17.5%.

3 17,623 3346 LB-1fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 12 cm, 10%.

4 15,139 3317 LB-1dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/2; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

5 15,837 3518 LB-1surf

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 10YR4/1; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 1%.

6 16,846 3333 LB-1fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/2; 10YR5/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 17 cm, 7%.

7 18,416 3736 LB-1fill

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/3; 7.5YR7/1; 10YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown; 15 cm, 13%.

8 18,734 3104 LB-1dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-1.0 mm, 11 cm, 11%.

9 15,180 3723 LB-1dest

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

10

5YR7/4; 10YR7/2; 5YR7/4; Gray inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 20%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 8 cm, 7%.

10 16,922 3519 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9

5YR7/6; 5YR6/2; 5YR7/6; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR7/4, Pink, Ext Slip: 5YR7/4, Pink, 13 cm, 2%.

11 15,830 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 27.5%.

12 16,387 3518 LB-1surf

daaa - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/2; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 23 cm, 5%.

13 17,521 3111 LB-1fill

fdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10R6/3; 2.5YR5/6; 10R5/3; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 5%.

501

Plate 100

15725

17776

1762315139

15837

18416

18734

16846

1

2

34

5 6

78

16387

16922

151809

17521

1583010

11

1213

0 2 4 6 8 10

502

Plate 101

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,777 3333 LB-1fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

13

5YR7/3; 5YR5/1; 5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Dec: 5YR3/4, Dark Reddish Brown, 28 cm, 4%.

2 16,896 3518 LB-1surf

bbfa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR7/4; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 30 cm, 7%.

3 20,095 3509 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13 10YR8/4; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 35 cm, 3%.

4 16,126 3105 LB-1dest

cdja - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 2.5YR4/2; 7.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 50 cm, 6%.

503

Plate 101

16777

16896

20095

16126

1

2

3

4

0 2 4 6 8 10

504

Plate 102

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,024 3108 LB-1fill

ddaa - __ - _ - ____- _

9 7.5YR7/4; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/3; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 25 cm, 2.5%.

2 15,726 3333 LB-1surf

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR6/6; 2.5Y7/1; 2.5YR6/6; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 10%.

3 16,766 3333 LB-1fill

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

1

2.5YR5/4; 10YR5/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; 12 cm, 7.5%.

4 18,717 3104 LB-1dest

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR4/1; 10R4/8; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 13 cm, 9%.

5 16,713 3317 LB-1dest

bdad - __ - _ - ____- _

7

10YR8/1; 10YR7/1; 7.5YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 5%.

6 17,785 3116 LB-1dest

bdab - __ - d - agaa- h

3 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; 7.5YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 6 cm, 1%. 3 cm, 100%.

7 18,314 3736 LB-1fill

____ - __ - _ - ajab- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 10YR8/3; 2.5YR6/8; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/8, Light Red, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/8, Red and 5YR4/1, Gray.

8 16,201 3518 LB-1surf 2

10YR8/3; 10YR7/1; 10YR7/4; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Dark Grey inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext H-Burn; Ext Slip: 10YR7/4, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/3, Brown.

9 18,316 3736 LB-1fill 2

10YR7/2; 10YR6/1; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

10 17,518 3111 LB-1fill 2

10YR6/3; 5YR7/1; 10YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R5/3, Red.

505

Plate 102

1602415726

16713

1871716766

17785

12

34

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

162018183169

17518

7 18314

10

506

Plate 103

Figure No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 18,934 3343 LB-1fill

faaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 7 cm, 10%.

2 16,122 3104 LB-1surf

faaa - __ - _ - adaa- _

2

5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; 5YR7/6; Dark Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10R5/6, Red, 2 cm, 27%.

3 21,729 3667 LB-1surf

bdeb - __ - _ - ____- _

4.1 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; 2.5YR7/6; Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 5 cm, 30%.

4 16,023 3108 LB-1fill

bdea - ab - _ - _ 3

5YR6/1; 5YR6/1; 5YR6/1; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Rounded, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR6/2, Pinkish Gray, 3 cm, 60%.

5 18,736 3104 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

13 5YR7/3; 5YR6/2; 7.5YR8/2; White inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 4 cm, 17%.

6 16,780 3333 LB-1fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR7/4; 5YR6/2; 5YR7/4; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; 5 cm, 25%.

7 16,337 3333 LB-1surf

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10R6/6; 7.5YR5/1; 10R6/6; White inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 9 cm, 15%.

8 20,112 3509 LB-1dest

bdga - __ - _ - adab- _

3 10YR8/2; 7.5YR6/4; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 10 cm, 8%.

9 16,027 3108 LB-1fill

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; 5YR4/3; White inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR7/4, Pink, 3 cm, 12.5%.

10 15,148 3317 LB-1dest 3

10YR7/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; White inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown.

507

Plate 103

18934 16122 21729

16023

16337

1873616780

20112

16027

12

3

4

56

78

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

10

50%

508

Plate 104

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 16,421 3518 LB-1surf

faae - __ - _ - ____- _

6

7.5YR6/4; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/4; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

2 16,118 3105 LB-1dest

fdaa - __ - _ - ____- _

8

5YR7/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR7/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Quartz inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 25 cm, 6%.

3 17,260 3111 LB-1fill fdba - __ - _ - ____- _

6

2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR4/1; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Good sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Good sorting; 50 cm, 6%.

4 16,217 3333 LB-1fill fdca - __ - _ - ____- z

2

10YR8/3; 5YR7/1; 5YR8/2; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 1%.

5 15,137 3317 LB-1dest

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR5/2; 5YR4/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 30 cm, 3%.

6 19,624 3100A LB-1dest

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5 10YR6/2; 10YR4/1; 10YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Very Angular, Fair sorting; 0.5-3.0 mm, 36 cm, 4%.

7 16,867 3518 LB-1surf

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/3; 10YR6/4; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 41 cm, 4%.

8 16,174 3519 LB-1surf

fdda - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/6; 5YR6/6; 2.5YR6/6; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 2.5YR6/6, Light Red, Ext H-Burn, 35 cm, 3%.

9 16,778 3333 LB-1fill fdha - __ - _ - ____- _

4 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 26 cm, 4%.

509

Plate 104

16421

16118

17260

16217

15137

19624

16867

16174

16778

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10

20% scaled

510

Plate 105

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,942 3105 LB-1dest

fdga - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR6/4; 10YR5/1; 10R6/3; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 6%.

2 15,594 3518 LB-1surf

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5 2.5YR5/4; 7.5YR4/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 40 cm, 9%.

3 15,699 3333 LB-1surf

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

6

5YR6/4; 5YR6/2; 5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

4 16,372 3331 LB-1dest

fdca - __ - _ - ____- _

5 5YR7/4; 2.5YR4/1; 5YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; 16 cm, 7.5%.

5 15,359 3104 LB-1surf

fdea - __ - _ - ____- _

9

7.5YR8/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR8/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; 14 cm, 8%.

6 15,939 3105 LB-1dest

fdga - __ - _ - ____- _

6

10R6/2; 10YR4/1; 10R5/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Calcite inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 20 cm, 5%.

7 16,376 3331 LB-1dest

fdha - __ - _ - ____- _

5 10YR7/3; 10YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Calcite inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 19 cm, 4%.

511

Plate 105

15594

15699

16372

15359

15939

16376

159421

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10

512

Plate 106

Fig. No.

Sherd No. Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,708 3333 LB-1surf/ dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

2.5YR5/4; 2.5Y5/1; 2.5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/3, Very Pale Brown, 15 cm, 6%.

2 20,061 3509 LB-1dest

bbfb - __ - _ - ____- _

3 5YR8/4; 10YR7/2; 7.5YR8/4; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 15%.

3 15,241 3734 LB-1dest

bdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR6/2; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/2; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Dark Gray inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 15 cm, 12%.

4 17,528 3111 LB-1fill

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

5YR7/4; 2.5YR6/1; 5YR7/6; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; 14 cm, 8%.

5 15,815 3518 LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

2

7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/4; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/3, Reddish Brown, 10 cm, 10%.

6 17,641 3517A-C

LB-1surf

caaa - __ - _ - ____- _

3

10YR8/6; 10YR8/1; 10YR8/2; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/6, Yellow, Ext Slip: 10R4/3, Weak Red; Int/Ext Dec:10R4/3, Weak Red, 22cm, 4%.

7 15,707 3333 LB-1surf

caac - __ - b - ____- _

2

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Rust Red inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 5YR8/1, White, 20 cm, 4%.

8 15,777 3517 LB-1dest

caae - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/4; 10YR8/2; 10YR8/4; Rust Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; 28 cm, 2%.

9 15,943 3105 LB-1dest

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

13

10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int/Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Int/Ext Dec: 10R4/3, Weak Red.

513

Plate 106

15241

20061

15708

15707

15777

17528

12

34

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

5 15815

176416

9 15943

514

Plate 107

Figure

Number Sherd

Number Locus Phase Coded Type Ware Description

1 15,574 3517A-C

LB-1surf

baac - __ - _ - fkba- _

22

10YR8/2; 5YR5/4; 10YR8/2; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 5YR4/2, Dark Reddish Gray, 22 cm, 2%.

2 16,330 3333 LB-1surf

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 2.5YR6/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 7.5YR3/2, Dark Brown, 21 cm, 5%.

3 17,771 3116 LB-1dest

baaa - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 5YR5/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR3/3, Dark Reddish Brown, 20 cm, 4%.

4 18,737 3104 LB-1dest

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/2; 2.5YR5/6; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded,, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/2, Weak Red, 17 cm, 2.5%.

5 15,575 3517A-C

LB-1surf

baac - __ - _ - fkbf- _

22

10YR8/2; 10YR4/2; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR4/2, Brown, 22 cm, 4%.

6 15,378 3104 LB-1surf

baac - __ - _ - fkbb- _

22

5YR8/1; 10R4/3; 5YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 5YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: Weak Red, 25 cm, 5%.

7 16,265 3518 LB-1surf

baac - __ - _ - ____- _

22

10YR8/1; 7.5YR6/1; 7.5YR6/1; Mica inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Int/Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 2.5YR6/1, Reddish Gray,15 cm, 7%.

515

Plate 107

15574

16265

17771

16330

15575

1

7

3

2

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

16265.1

153786

187374

516

Plate 108

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Ware Description

1 16,405 3518 LB-1surf 22

10YR8/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR4/2, Dark Reddish Gray

2 16,613 3104 LB-1surf 22

2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/1; 2.5YR5/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/1, Reddish Gray

3 17,790 3116 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/1; 5YR5/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR3/3, Dark Reddish Brown.

4 16,815 3340 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/1; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 10%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR4/2, Dark Reddish Gray.

5 18,961 3343 LB-1fill 22

7.5YR8/1; 2.5YR4/1; 7.5YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR4/3, Reddish Brown.

6 50,000 3517A-C

LB-1surf 22

10YR8/1; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/1; Mica inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR4/2, Dark Reddish Gray.

7 17,791 3116 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/1; 5YR5/1; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 5YR3/3, Dark Reddish Brown.

8 16,239 3519 LB-1surf 22

10YR8/1; 7.5YR5/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, < 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR7/2, Light Gray, Ext Dec: 7.5YR4/3, Brown.

9 16,172 3519 LB-1surf 22

10YR8/1; 10YR6/2; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, <5%, <0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, <5%, <0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR7/6, Reddish Yellow and 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

10 17,133 3517A-C

LB-1surf 22

10YR7/1; 10YR6/1; 10YR7/1; Mica inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR4/4, Brown.

11 18,760 3104 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/1; 5YR7/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Slip: 10YR7/1, Light Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 7.5YR5/3, Brown.

12 18,756 3104 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/2; 5YR7/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 5YR6/4, Light Reddish Brown.

13 18,755 3104 LB-1dest 22

10YR8/1; 5YR7/1; 10YR8/2; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/2, Very Pale Brown, Ext H-Burn, Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/2, Weak Red.

517

Plate 108

16405

5000016815 18961

17790

17791

16172x

16239x

16613

0 2 4 6 8 10

50%

17133

1 2 3

4 5 6

78

9

10

1876011

12 1875613 18755

518

Plate 109

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,142 3317 LB-1dest

baab - __ - b - ____- _

21

5YR6/6; 5YR6/1; 10YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 10YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, 21 cm, 3%.

2 26,213 3519 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- h

21

7.5YR6/3; 5YR5/1; 5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 5YR4/1, Dark Gray, 4 cm, 95%.

3 15,729 3333 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- j

21

10YR3/1; 10YR5/1; 10YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Int/Ext H-Burn, Int Slip: 10YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, Ext Slip: 10YR3/1, Very Dark Gray, 6 cm, 75%.

4 15,379 3104 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - agac- _

21

2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR4/1; 10YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Good sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Mixed Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 10YR3/1, Very Dark Gray.

5 18,929 3343 LB-1fill

cdka - ac - _ - ____- _

21

7.5YR6/4; 5YR5/1; 5YR5/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Molded Decoration, Ext Slip: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown, 9 cm, 40%.

6 17,131 3517A-C

LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - auad- _

21

5YR3/1; 10YR7/4; 5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Black inclusion, 0%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Good sorting; Ext V-Burn, Ext Slip: 5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray.

7 16,996 3736 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21

7.5YR5/1; 10YR5/1; 7.5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Mixed Ext Burn, Ext Slip: 7.5YR4/1, Dark Gray, Ext Dec: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish white

8 20,115 3509 LB-1dest

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21 7.5YR6/2; 5YR6/1; 7.5YR3/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext Dec: 7.5YR8/2, Pinkish White.

9 16,179 3519 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR5/1; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 20%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Very Angular, Poor sorting; Ext H-burn, Ext Slip: 10YR5/1, Gray, Ext Dec: 10YR8/1, White.

10 17,265 3111 LB-1fill

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21

5YR7/1; 5YR7/1; 7.5YR4/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext H-Burn, Ext Slip: 7.5YR4/1, Dark Gray, Ext Dec: 5YR8/2, Pinkish White.

11 17,038 3333 LB-1fill

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21 2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; 2.5YR6/4; Limestone inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Very Poor sorting; Mica inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown.

12 15,381 3104 LB-1surf

____ - __ - _ - ____- _

21

2.5YR6/8; 2.5YR5/8; 2.5YR4/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Very Good sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Black inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext H-burn, Ext Slip: 5YR3/1, Very Dark Gray.

519

Plate 109

15142

26213 15729

0 2 4 6 8 10

15379

15381

16179x

18929

1726520115

17131

16996

17038

1

2 3

45

67

8 9 10

11 12

50%

520

Plate 110

Figure Number

Sherd Number Locus Phase Coded

Type Ware Description

1 15,548 3517 LB-1dest

cdea - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR8/1; 7.5YR5/1; 10YR8/1; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int/Ext Slip:10YR8/1, White, Ext Dec: 2.5YR4/4, Reddish Brown,30 cm, 3%.

2 17,517 3111 LB-1fill

bdga - __ - _ - ____- _

2

10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; 10YR7/2; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, < 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Angular, Fair sorting; Int/Ext Slip: 5YR8/2, Pinkish White, Ext Dec: 10R3/3, Dusky Red and 7.5YR5/3, Brown, 12 cm, 25%.

3 17,134 3517A-C

LB-1surf 1

10YR7/2; 5YR5/1; 10YR7/4; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Red inclusion, 5%, 0.5-3.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Good sorting; Voids inclusion, 5%, 0.5-2.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Good sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR7/4, Very Pale Brown, Ext Dec: 5YR5/1, Gray and 2.5YR5/8, Red.

4 16,880 3518 LB-1surf 3

10Y7/2; 10YR7/1; 10YR8/3; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Angular, Fair sorting; Int Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext Slip: 7.5YR8/4, Pink; Ext Dec: 2.5YR3/4, Dark Reddish Brown.

5 17,135 3517A-C

LB-1surf 3

7.5YR6/3; 7.5YR5/2; 10YR8/1; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Black inclusion, 10%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Ext Slip: 10YR8/1, White, Ext H-Burn; Ext Dec: 10R4/4, Weak red.

6 15,589 3517 LB-1dest 3

5YR8/1; 7.5YR5/1; 7.5YR6/1; Limestone inclusion, 10%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 2.5YR5/3, Reddish Brown.

7 15,823 3518 LB-1surf 3

5YR7/4; 10YR7/3; 5YR8/3; Black inclusion, 5%, < 0.5 mm, Sub-Rounded, Fair sorting; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Rounded, Poor sorting; Ext Dec: 10R4/2 Weak Red and 2.5YR5/1 Reddish Gray.

8 15,822 3518 LB-1surf 2

10YR8/3; 10YR7/3; 10YR8/3; Limestone inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Gray inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Iron Oxide inclusion, 5%, 0.5-1.0 mm, Sub-Angular, Poor sorting; Int Dec: 5YR5/4, Reddish Brown.

521

Plate 110

0 5 10 15 20 25

17517

15548

17134

16880

1582215823

17135

15589

1

2

3

4

5

67 8

1:1

522