AbstrAct

Yitzhak Paz

‘Last but not Lost’new Vistas on CeramiCs of the Proto-urban

horizon (Latest ebib) - eVidenCe from a smaLL site at the CentraL Coast of the Land of israeL

One of the most important cultural horizons is situated right on the threshold of south Levantine urbanity. The Proto-Urban phase, as defined by the author,1 reflects the embryonic stage when the earliest concentrated and often fortified centers appeared, during late EBIB (ca. 3150-3050 BC). The themes of sites like Megiddo, Tel Shalem, Beth Shean and Aphek tells this very story.

The close examination of the pottery that characterizes the very final stage that preceded the well-known full-fledged urban EBII, reveals a curious picture of its own. The current paper reveals for the first time a phenomenon that was only recently recognized. A small EBIB site in the vicinity of Tel Aviv, called Rishpon 4, yielded, besides normative classic EBIB pottery, dozens of sherds of vessels made of fine orange-red colored, well fired clay, namely Metallic Ware.

Bearing in mind the common later (EBII) date for the onset of the type, some sherds from Rishpon 4 were examined petrographically. The result was astounding: all sherds were made from Lower Cretaceous clay, just like EBII-III NCMW, well defined by Greenberg and Porat.2 Thus, Rishpon 4 furnished us with a clear evidence for an earlier appearance of Metallic Ware, hence “Proto Metallic Ware” (PMW). Sherds and vessels that follow the same principles were detected at other sites, such as Bet Yerah, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz, Tel Aphek and the Slaughter-House hill site at Tel Aviv.

The evidences is yet to scanty, but one is obliged to the notion that the pottery revealed at Rishpon 4 must have parallels at larger and central EBIB sites. The study of this phenomenon has just began, but one may imagine its implications on our comprehension of various aspects of socio-political relations within southern Levant towards the full fledge Urban phases, namely EBII-III.

1 Paz 2002: 254-255.2 Greenberg, Porat 1996.

Yitzhak Paz80

MethodologicAl reMArks

northern Canaanite metallic ware that was a distinct ceramic tradition that encompassed every aspect from raw material sources to ideological meanings. The most important study of the phenomenon was conducted by Greenberg and Porat.3 they analyzed the clay from which MW vessels were made as belonging to a single petrographic group, where most common are shale fragments and quartz as well as iron oxides in various forms. They also concluded that the production center was located in the Hermon massif/Lebanon, where extensive outcrops of Hatira formations are found.4

The clear attribution of the phenomenon’s zenith to EBII is well attested. The decrease and demise of the NCMW production during EBIII is also well documented.5 what remained completely unknown was the earliest appearance of the phenomenon.

recent examination on eba pottery from past excavations resulted in the notion that the earliest appearance of ‘Metallic Ware’ must have occurred some-when during EBIB. The typical vessels that characterize that industry, that will be hence designated as “Proto-Metallic Ware” (PMW) will be discussed below.

The paper is a brief preliminary account of an on-going research and study of the EBIB sites of Rishpon 4 and Tel Aphek, in the central coastal plain of Israel. Other sites in this cluster where the PMW appear are the Slaughter-House hill (Tel Aviv) and the cemetery of Giva’tayim.

The summary of excavation is based upon the brief report published by the excavator H. Kaplan6 and previous publications by R. Gophna.7

Pottery sherds that seem to belong to the same phenomenon were found at other sites mainly along the Jordan Valley.

rishpon 4 : the site - setting And generAl Affinities

Rishpon 4, also known as ‘Ramat Aviv C site’ is located on the western slope of the eastern kurkar ridge to the east of the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway (see Fig. 1).

The site is located ca. 31 m. above sea level. It was surveyed in 1976 and published partially by Ram Gophna and others.8 Since it was accidentally encountered during construction works, it was excavated on and off for about 12 years since 1978.

the excAvAtion results At rishpon 4

The site was an oval basin, 13x8 m. dimensions and 1.50 m. deep towards east,

3 Greenberg, Porat 1996.4 Greenberg, Porat 1996: 18.5 Greenberg, Porat 1996: 12-13.6 Kaplan, Ritter-Kaplan 1993: 1452-1453.7 Gophna 1978; Gophna, Bunimovitz 1980; Gophna, Ayalon 1998.

‘Last but Not Lost’ 81

deeper from west to east. Throughout the basin were hearths covered by deposits of dark, cohesive, clayish sand and lighter colored sandy clay sediments, formed, due to the excavator, by seasonal flooding.

The finds at the site included much pottery, all belong to EBIB horizon (see discussion below). Large amounts of flint waste as well as tools like scrapers, cores and sickle blades, were also found. Other finds were basalt bowl fragments and large amounts of sea shells.

the pottery of rishpon 4

Plain Local Non-Metallic Pottery

The vast majority of the pottery from Rishpon 4 is typical to the northern regions of the EBIB, mainly to Jordan Valley sites like Tell Abu el-Kharaz, Tel Shalem and Tel Bet Shean.9

The most common vessels were hole-mouth jars, forming no less than 41% of the whole assemblage. The most popular hole-mouth sub-type had ribbed and ridged rim, no less than 88% of the hole-mouth vessels had this rim.

EBIB Proto Metallic Ware

The pottery assemblage of Rishpon 4 reflects one of the most curious issues that is connected to chronological and cultural aspects: the appearance of rather large quantities of pottery that has the affinities of Metallic Ware, similar in clay and firing to the well defined EBII,10 but different in other respects, as will be described below.

The 30 indicative Metallic Ware sherds that were found at the site represent 4.3% of the whole assemblage (700 indicative sherds), a rather high proportion in EBIB site. In comparison, only few sherds of MW were found within EBIB contexts at Beth Yerah (not all of them in secure EBIB context), while thousands of ‘normative’ EBIB sherds were analyzed. The same can be said also for other sites, like Tel Shalem.11

Some technological affinities should be noted:− Clay - the pink/orange clay that characterizes NCMW was well attested

at Rishpon 4. Petrographic analyses (Fig. 7), made by Mark Iserlis on three vessels (two jars and a bowl) yielded an unequivocal result: the clay originated in Lower Cretaceous formations, found in the Hermon massif, the exact resource of NCMW.12

− Manufacture techniques - all PMW vessels were handmade, and that includes all types of vessels and all of their components. This stands in

8 Gophna 1978; Gophna, Bunimovitz 1980; Gophna, Ayalon 1998.9 Fitzgerald 1935; Eisenberg 1996; Fischer 2000.10 Greenberg, Porat 1996.11 Eisenberg 1996: 12.12 Greenberg, Porat 1996.

Yitzhak Paz82

contrast to EBII NCMW where in many cases jar rims were finished on potter wheel (see Greenberg and Porat 1996: 10). Another sharp contrast in relation to EBII NCMW was the complete absence of combing in Rishpon 4 vessels, versus pattern-combing that was so common EBII assemblages.13

− Shapes - the various pottery types will be discussed below, but one should note that PMW pottery types from Rishpon represent EBIB forms only. No platters, jugs or pithoi were found created from MW in Rishpon 4 (pithoi were exclusively created from the local clay and were crude heavy vessels, in the well known EBI tradition). As a rule, the vessels that were created in PMW represent two main groups: bowls and small-medium size jars.− Plain rim bowls (Fig. 5, 1-3) - The most common type of bowls.

They were either shallow or hemi-spheric, with a slight carination just below the rim. Both sub-types had soot marks in many of the sherds, a hint for their usage as lamps. Most of the vessels of this type were found at Rishpon 4 in common local ware (see below).

− Carinated bowl (Fig.5, 4-7) - one specimen that resembles the Aphek ‛family’14 was found at Rishpon 4, but its general appearance and rather non accurate way of manufacture make him quite outstanding.

− Splayed rim bowl (Fig. 5, 8) - one specimen of this vessel was found at Rishpon 4. it was a large shallow vessel, that had a splayed rim. It seems that this type of rims was common both in ebib15 and EBII.16 the oddity lies on the fact that this type of bowls was never made of MW, neither in EBIB nor in EBII and thus the Rishpon 4 specimen is quite not common.

− Small-medium storage jars (Fig. 5, 9-16; Fig. 6) - the second common vessel type produced in mw were small to medium storage jars, some could fit to be jugs in means of size (the sherd fragments were not sufficient to confirm this assumption). All jars had plain averted rims, shorter or longer. In general, those shapes were well attested at the site in local ware also (see above). One similar rim sherd of the same type was found in the tel aviv site of the Slaughter-House, also excavated by Kaplan in 1950-1952.17 The only MW jar found at Tel Shalem in EBIB context may belong to this type.18

13 Greenberg, Porat 1996: 10.14 Beck 1985.15 St. V at Tel Dalit, Gophna 1996: Fig. 39: 7; at Lod, see Paz et. al. 2005: Fig. 23: 2.16 A more elaborate version of the splayed rim, with a ‘channel’, at sites like Leviah: Paz 2003: Fig. Tel

Qashish; Zuckerman 1996: Fig. X: 19.17 Gophna, Paz forthc.18 Eisenberg 1996: Fig. 17: 6.

‘Last but Not Lost’ 83

− Amphoriskoi (Fig. 5, 18-19) - two sherds of what can be amphoriskoi were also found at the site. The small fragments can not suffice to further relate to the vessels.

Vessel with horizontal handle (Fig. 5, 17) - fragment of the lower part of a unique vessel, yet unknown form, was found at the site. It seems to have been a large vessel, made of red MW, with a horizontal loop handle adjacent to the base. Traces of white lime wash were presented. The vessel has no parallels to date.

discussion And concluding reMArks

Two outstanding phenomena characterize the EBIB pottery at Rishpon 4: first, the close similarity between the assemblage from the site to those from Jordan Valley sites such as Tel Shalem, Beth Shean, TAH, TUH, and Beth Yerah. Even though most vessel shapes are also found at the same region in central Israel, at sites like Shoham, Lod and Aphek, the resemblance to Jordan Valley sites is well attested.

The second phenomenon, that may be connected to the first one, is the rather high proportion of PMW at Rishpon 4.

the appearance of metallic ware in ebib contexts were reported to date from four sites (excluding newly discoveries from the central coastal plain, such as Rishpon 4 see below), all of them located along the Jordan Valley: Tel Yaqush, Tel Shalem, tah19 and recently, from Beth Yerah.20

The evidence from Tel Yaqush is by no means clear. Even though it is reported that ‘Grain Wash’ and MW jars were found side by side,21 since the excavation was not fully reported, one can not exclude the possibility that the Grain Wash vessel was more a band painted decorated jar that continues well into EBII.22 another curious fact that could support this possibility was that the MW jar from Yaqush that was found side by side with the ‘grain washed’ jar was “fully developed, combed MW jar”.23 One should keep in mind the limited repertoire, non combed PMW found in Rishpon 4 for this respect.

The few MW sherds reported from Tel Shalem included also combed jar24 and again can not be considered as decisive evident. An examination made by the author resulted in the notion that they are also fully developed NCMW, more at home in EBII context. Their appearance at EBIB Tel Shalem is rather curious.

The pottery from Tell Abu el-Kharaz presents a more reliable picture, where a complete jug of ‛Early Metallic Burnished Ware’ was found.25 the shape of the vessel

19 Fischer, Toivonen-Skage 1995; Fischer 2000; Milevski 2005: 63.20 Paz 2006: 283.21 Esse 1993: 1503.22 See complete vessels from Beth Yerah, e.g. Greenberg - Eisenberg 2006: Fig. 5.79.23 Esse 1993: 1503.24 Eisenberg 1996: 12.25 Fischer 2000: 208, Fig. 12.2, 10.

Yitzhak Paz84

as well as its manufacturing technique is much more EBIB than EBII, what resembles Rishpon 4 PMW assemblage. The material from TAH was discussed in length26 and one may find it plausible that PMW did exist at the site.

A similar phenomenon appears at Bet Yerah. The 1967 excavation at the site yielded, within secure EBIB locus, a large fragment of ‘Crackled Ware’ shaped bowl, a well known hole-mark of EBIB at this region. The curious fact was that the sherd was made of MW! The author used the term ‘proto-Metallic’, to describe the fact that the vessel presents a kind of hybrid form between late EBIB shape and very early EBII clay and firing technique.27

The intriguing fact about Bet Yerah is the almost complete absence of the PMW from the assemblages of all excavations at this large site. The few known sherds from the site versus tens of thousands of local normative EBIB sherds, a proportion that stands opposite to the one noted at Rishpon-4, mainly since Bet Yerah is much closer to the production center of MW.

A recent discovery was made during the study of the EBA pottery from Area G at Tel Aphek. Here, within clear EBIB loci, some sherds that were suspected as PMW were petrographically examined and indeed turned to be such!

Another striking notion was made while examining the many dozens complete vessels, found at the EBIB cemetery at Givaatayim, excavated by Kaplan in 1961. While examining the vessels, many of them made of dark reddish clay with thin walls, the possibility that at least some of them were made of lower cretaceous clay came to mind. Petrographic analyses made in two of them, a small jar and an amphoriskos, confirmed this possibility. It seems, than, that at least some of the EBIB pottery from mortuary context such as Givaatayim, was in fact PMW. This possibility bares great implications if we note that burial sites like H. Gilan (near Ein Assawir) yielded thousands of complete EBIB vessels.

The four sites (Rishpon-4, Slaughterhouse hill, Aphek and Givaatayim) represent a cluster that is connected to the Yarkon river.

What remains obscure is the question why was so small site like Rishpon 4, located far away from the production center of MW (at least 160 km.), so rich in MW? It seems that this question will remain open until other new close analyzes of pottery assemblages of other EBIB contexts will be conducted, and new evidence for Proto-Metallic ware will emerge.

Another intriguing question relate to the almost complete absence of EBIB sites at the hard-core of the production area of MW, what stands in sharp contrast to the settlement growth and urbanization that took place during EBII.28 Major sites like Tel Dan, Hazor and the most important ‘candidates’ for the production of MW in the Hermon vicinity - Ein Kuniyeh and Ein El-Rahman seem to have been occupied no

26 Fischer 1994; Fischer, Toivonen-Skage 1995.27 Paz 2006: 283; fig. 7.21: 11.28 Greenberg 1987; 2002.

‘Last but Not Lost’ 85

earlier than EBII.29

In that case, there lies the question as for the nature and identity of the earliest producers of MW, that seem obscure in archaeological terms.

In any case, the rather large amounts of PMW pottery found at Rishpon 4 were brought to the site from the northern Jordan valley. If the vessels traveled in land routs, they must have been known at sites located along the main trading routs of the period. I. Milevski30 stated, referring to EBII NCMW, that the distribution line of the vessels from their production center passed through the coastal plain and the Shephelah, rather than the Jordan Valley. If we assume that earlier settlement system of EBIB used more or less the same routs, such a reconstruction is plausible. One thus must seek for clues at sites like Tel Megadim, located on the coastal plain, where rich EBIB assemblages were found as well as EBII NCMW.31

Still, the appearance of proto-MW sherds at Jordan Valley sites and the close resemblance between Jordan Valley sites and the coastal plain cluster presented above is problematic in this sense.

To conclude, the appearance of a Proto-metallic industry, very restricted in forms, not fully developed, and completely ‘EBIB’ in typological affinities at Rishpon 4 shed new light on the phenomenon and strengthens the possibility that lower Cretaceous formations were known and have been used before they were overtaken and controlled by full-fledged urban entities.32

How and in which ways could this proto-MW phase coincide with the ‘proto-urban’ phase, also began along the Jordan Valley,33 or could it define a separate, transitional phase between late EBIB and the very first days of EBII?

It is clear that the results of the current research will have considerable implication on the way we reconstruct and understand most aspects of the socio-political situation at the southern Levant during the final ‘proto-urban’ stage, where large number of communities crossed along the threshold of urbanization during the last century of the fourth millennium BC. This is one of the foci of an on-going research, that lies beyond the scope of the current paper.

AcknowledgeMent

The Author would like to thank M. Iserlis for his help doing the petrographic analyses and for his good advises concerning various technological aspects of pottery production.

Gratitude should be also sent to Prof. R. Gophna and Dr. R. Greenberg for their support and good advises.

29 Greenberg 2002: 73-79.30 Milevski 2005: 64.31 Wolff 1998.32 Greenberg 2001.33 Paz 2002.

Yitzhak Paz86

Bibliography

Beck, P.1985 An Early Bronze Age ‘Family’ of Bowls from Tel Aphek: in Tel Aviv 12, pp.

17-28.Eisenberg, E.1996 Tel Shalem - Soundings in a Fortified Site of the Early Bronze Age IB: in

‘Atiqot 30, pp. 1-24.Esse ,D.L.1993 Yaqush: in NEAEHL 4, pp. 1502-1504.Fischer, P.M.1994 Tell Abu al-Kharaz. The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1992. Third Season

Excavation Report: in ADAJ 38, pp. 127-145.2000 The Early Bronze Age at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: a Study of Pottery

Typology and Provenance, Radiocarbon Dates, and the Synchronization of Palestine and Egypt during Dynasty 0-2: in G. Philip, D. Baird (eds), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, Sheffield, pp. 201-232.

Fischer, P.M., Toivonen-Skage, E.1995 Metallic Burnished Early Bronze Age Ware from Tell Abu al-Kharaz: in

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5, pp. 587-596.Fitzgerald, G.M.1935 The Earliest Pottery of Beth-Shan: in The Museum Journal 24, pp. 5-22.Gophna, R.1978 The Archeological Survey in the Central Coastal Plain, 1977. Preliminary

Report: in Tel Aviv 5, pp. 136-147.1996 Excavations at Tel Dalit, Tel Aviv.Gophna, R., Ayalon, E.1998 Map of Herzeliya. (69) (= Archaeological Survey of Israel), Jerusalem.Gophna, R., Bunimovitz, S.1980 Seasonal Camps of the Early Bronze Age I in South-Western Sharon: in

Qadmoniot 13, pp. 87-88.Gophna, R., Paz, Y.Forthc. Rishpon 4.Greenberg, R.1987 The Settlement of the Huleh Valley in EBII-III. (MA Thesis), Jerusalem.2001 eb ii-iii Palestinian Cylinder seal impression and the north Canaanite

Metallic Ware. In: Wolff, S.R. (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (studies in ancient Oriental Civilization 59), Chicago, pp. 189-197.

2002 Early Urbanizations in the Levant, a Regional Narrative, London-new York.

‘Last but Not Lost’ 87

Greenberg, R., Eisemberg, E.2006 Chapter 5: Area Bs: the Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951-1953: in

R. Greenberg et al. (eds), Bet Yeraï. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume I. Excavation Reports, 1933-1986 (= IAA Reports 30), Jerusalem, pp. 117-234.

Greenberg, R., Porat, N.1996 A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Center: Typology,

Petrography, and Provenance of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions: in BASOR 301, pp. 5-24.

Kaplan, J., Ritter-Kaplan, H.1993 Tel Aviv: in NEAEHL 4, pp. 1451-1457.Milevski, I.2005 Local Exchange in Early Bronze Age Canaan (Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel

Aviv.Paz, Y.2002 Fortified Settlements of the EBIB and the Emergence of the First Urban

System: in Tel Aviv 29 (2), pp. 238-261.2003 The Golan Enclosures and the Urbanization Process of Central and Southern

Golan during the Early Bronze Age (Ph.D. Dissertation), Tel Aviv.2006 Chapter 7: Area UN: The Ussishkin-Netzer Excavation, 1967: in Greenberg,

Eisemberg 2006, pp. 277-338.Paz, Y., Rosenberg, D., Nativ, A.2005 Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian

Presence in the Early Bronze Age: in Salvage Excavation Report 2, pp. 114-158.

Wolff, S.1998 Tel Megadim (Tel Sahar): in Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108, pp. 31-33.Zuckerman, S.1996 Pottery of Tel Qashish and Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age (ma

Thesis), Jerusalem.

Yitzhak Paz88

Fig.1: Location of the site of Rishpon 4 (Ramat Aviv C site).

‘Last but Not Lost’ 89

Figs

2-3

: Loc

al E

BIB

pot

tery

from

Ris

hpon

4.

Yitzhak Paz90

Fig.

4: L

ocal

EB

IB p

otte

ry fr

om R

ishp

on 4

.

Fig.

5: P

roto

Met

allic

War

e fr

om R

ishp

on 4

.

‘Last but Not Lost’ 91

Fig. 6: PMW jars that were examined petrographically.

Fig. 7: Petrographic analysis of PMW jar from Rishpon 4.

Yitzhak Paz92

Fig. 8: EBIB sites mentioned in the paper.