The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age

261

BAAL, Hors-Série IX

Pp. 261-371

3. The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age

FRANCISCO J. NÚÑEZ

1. Introduction

This is the second report on the Iron Age ceram-ics recovered in the Phoenician cemetery of Al-Bass. Eight years have passed since the first publication, the preliminary report of 2004 (Núñez 2004b), where the initial approach to this complex material was undertaken. In the meantime, the general con-ception behind that analysis has remained almost the same, but soon it will be clear to the reader that cer-tain elements used in that study have been modified to some extend or have been completely changed.

Several factors have led to the maturation of con-cepts drawn from previous works on Phoenician pot-tery, to reconsider initial standpoints, ideas as well as perceptions, and to rework initial approaches. In the first place stands the experience gained during those years of research and the feedback from other members of the team and many colleagues as well as the amount of new material recovered in the site in the course of recent excavation seasons. Fresh data has led to a better understanding of the ceramic rep-ertoire and its characteristics in general; a standard funerary set has been recognized, the nature of the different ceramic types and forms has been better comprehended and peculiarities have been isolated; in addition, more consistent arguments can be held when comparing Al-Bass data with information from other sites.

Only contextualized materials, whether they come from tombs, assemblages or triangulation points recovered in 2002 and 2004 seasons will be analysed here. The number of contexts and, there-fore, of individuals to study has remarkably increased in comparison to the first publication (Fig. 3.1): 33 contexts were recognized during the 1997 season,

while in 2002 and 2004 the contexts recovered were 74 (17 and 57 respectively). Ceramics lacking a secure contextual origin will be analyzed some-where else.1 Furthermore, contexts that offer a se-cure sequential dating will be preferred in the discus-sion.2 In absolute terms, those contexts are 59 and most of them belong to Period IV (35), followed by Period II (14), III (7) and, finally, V (3).

It will be soon evident that the approach followed here shows some differences with regard to previous publications. In the first place, the reader will find a short explanation of the methodological background as well as the characterisation of the local and im-ported wares. The next chapter deals with the analy-sis of those materials. In it, local and imported wares are arranged in a sequential order to provide them with a diachronic dimension. In order to lighten the text, the mention of references and parallels will not be as exhaustive as it was in previous studies (see,

1997 Season 2002 Season 2004 Season

Fig. 3.1 - Comparison of contexts by seasons.

0!

10!

20!

30!

40!

50!

60!

Period II Period III Period IV Period V

1997! 2002! 2004!

Fig. 3.2 - Relation of safely dated contexts by excavation sea-son and sequential period.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 261 25/03/14 12:51

especially, Núñez 2004b and 2008a). On the con-trary, external references will be carefully chosen re-garding the quality and timeliness of the information they can provide for the discussion.

One important element remains unchanged: the typological approach focuses on the morphologi-cal features shown by the ceramics. Other aspects such as the characteristic of the fabrics or the surface treatment will be considered secondary, although susceptible of conforming an autonomous order-ing of the repertoire. Imports will be dealt with in a similar way; however, they have been separated now from the local wares given their special charac-ter (Fig. 3.3). These foreign wares, including pro-ductions from other Phoenician areas, do not excel by their amount, as they only reach up to 6.30% of

the whole repertoire. However, they appear to be perfectly integrated in the ceramic repertoire of the cemetery, so the relevance of these productions can-not be measured by their contribution from typologi-cal and, possibly, functional points of view (another question is their probable chronological repercus-sion). On the contrary, these wares stand out rather for their technical and decorative nature, aspects that may have certain social and economic implica-tions that lay beyond the scope of this paper.

2. The nature of Al-Bass ceramic repertoire

A preliminary consideration should be indicated in this context. The evidence recovered in Al-Bass is strongly influenced by several circumstances, which have conditioned the amount of the information as well as its quality: the particular technical character of the repertoire, an aspect that affects especially the local wares, the transformations that the ceramics experienced during the funerary ritual as well as their conservation throughout the centuries in a extremely wet environment (see Núñez 2004b: 281-282). As a consequence, many vases appear to have been in-tentionally broken or burnt, in other instances they have lost their original consistency, or their surfaces are now covered by thick layers of concretions that have deleted or blurred their surface treatments and decorations. Keeping all these determining factors in mind, the nature of the Al-Bass ceramic repertoire will be developed in the following paragraphs.

2.a. Local wares

Tyrian people involved in the organization of the funerary ritual preferred productions of neighbour-ing workshops, although they probably had no other choice. Thanks to this circumstance, the information on the nature of the Tyrian ceramic production will turn out especially consistent from a technical, typo-logical and sequential perspective.

The overall preference at Al-Bass for local wares is probably the normal situation, but the factors and mechanisms that led to this result remain in their most part unknown. Tyrian potters, as the rest of their colleagues, conceived and produced their ce-

262

The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age BAAL, Hors-Série IX

Fig. 3.3 - a: Proportions of wares by origin; b: Distribution of these wares by sequential period (absolute amount).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 262 25/03/14 12:51

ramics taking as a reference traditional, technical, functional, economic and social factors. The charac-teristics of their productions, and Al-Bass repertoire should not be an exception, have to be considered the outcome of a punctual combination of all these elements.

There are several relevant aspects to consider. Beside a general technical standardisation, a feature that can be applied also to their morphological as-pects, the overall quality of these productions is rath-er mediocre: low firings, inaccurately shaped vases, carelessly applied surface finish and decoration. At the same time, there is a relevant presence of de-formed and misfired vases, a general lack of traces of use and a number vases showing similar morpholog-ical and decorative features, which have been recov-ered either in the same tomb or distributed among several contemporary contexts.3 All these elements seem to indicate that at least a part of the repertoire was purchased, if not even produced, for this funer-ary use, whereas in other instances this was the final destination for certain products unsuitable for a do-mestic use (on this issue, see Núñez 2011b). How-ever, the door should remain open to other sources of supply. For example, certain number of vessels could in point of fact come from domestic and also industrial areas; this would be the case of some stor-age jars whose shoulders were cut off in order to allow a better placement of the human remains in it. On the other hand, imports may represent an alter-native supply source, although with stronger social repercussions.

Few differences, if any, can be set with regard to previous readings made on the ceramic repertoire. Local wares usually experienced oxidizing firings and show two main fabric qualities: common and fine.4 Briefly, common fabrics display heterogeneous ma-trices, usually including middle and small size inclu-sions. These common fabrics occur basically among the containers (see Formal Group I below) and a relevant part of the open forms (Formal Group III). On the contrary, the best quality fabrics are char-acterized by better levigated clays, and homogene-ous matrices provided with fewer and smaller inclu-sions. These fabrics can be observed mainly among the jugs (Formal Group II) as well as the cups and some plate types. A third fabric quality could be also recognized. Its features stand midway between the previous two fabrics and it can be observed in any of the three formal groups. At the same time, the ab-

sence of coarse fabrics is also interesting, as well as the general dearth of wares fired in reducing atmos-pheres. Precise references to the fabrics shown by each individual have been made in the descriptions offered in the general catalogue (see Chapter 2 in this volume).

Finally, other technical aspects such as the sur-face treatment and the decorative resources are ob-ject of a particular classification, whose general na-ture and organization will be presented later. These aspects, together with the quality of the fabrics, will be more precisely described and contextualized when the diverse ceramic types and their evolution are being discussed.

2.b. Imported wares

Unlike the previous edition of 2004, this analy-sis has tried to set a certain distance between the im-ported wares and the local ceramic repertoire.5 The intention behind this procedure would be to avoid misunderstandings or unwanted generalizations, even though in many cases morphological and even deco-rative connections between local and imported wares are obvious. Therefore, the typological codes used for local wares will not be applied in this context, favour-ing a more conventional terminology instead.

As indicated before, ceramics with an origin out-side Phoenicia are, from a purely ceramic perspec-tive, timely substitutes of local vases. Their integra-tion in the funerary contexts is perfect thanks to the fact that, beyond their foreign origin, they do not represent any kind of variation to the standard ce-ramic set. Imports represent around 6.30% of the complete assemblage recovered in 2002 and 2004 seasons (Fig. 3.4). This group includes all those wares produced in centres other than Tyre, whether Phoenician or not. However, it is important to call the reader’s attention on two relevant instances. In the first place, ceramics originated in other Phoeni-cian centres will be analyzed together with the local wares. Second, it has been traced the presence of ceramics produced outside Cyprus, which follow genuine Cypriot morphological and decorative pat-terns. However, this circumstance has not alter the fact that those materials have been included in this paragraph.

Ceramics produced in Cypriot centres or follow-ing Cyrpiot morphological and decorative directions

263

Francisco J. Nuñez BAAL, Hors-Série IX

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 263 25/03/14 12:51

represent 3.38% of the entire ceramic repertoire re-covered in 2002 and 2004 seasons at Al-Bass. How-ever, this rather meagre number becomes relevant as they embody 56.10% of all the imports. It is also noteworthy the predilection for containers, which are the best represented formal group (73.33%), followed by jugs (26.09%) and, finally, open forms (2.17%). Regarding the wares of Aegean origin, they amount to 18.29% of all the imports recovered in the 2002 and 2004 seasons at Al-Bass, that is, 1.10% of all the contextualized ceramics registered in those two campaigns. Unlike the previous instance, it is relevant the predominance of open shapes among them; the only exception could be a wall fragment, U74-4:19, that seems to come from a closed vessel.

3. Typological approach

The register counts with a relevant number of complete individuals and many other instances whose outline can be restored accurately. Obviously, this fact has led to consider the complete ceramic object as the centre of this typological approach. The ceramic vase is the sum of diverse morphologi-cal attributes whose relevance lies in their respective nature as well as their arrangement, two factors that function as defining elements of each level of the ty-pological hierarchy. These attributes, taken separate-ly, may be also susceptible of attention in a second level of analysis. On the contrary, surface treatment and decorative resources are considered secondary in this approach. The decorative conceptions used in Al-Bass tend to be relatively homogeneous and, at

the same time, they appear to be closely related to the typological nature of the vase as well as precisely adapted to its morphological characteristics.

The typological ordering is conceived here as an archaeological tool whose function is to ration-alize the ceramic repertoire and make it more suit-able for statistical purposes (see, for example, Rice 1987: 275; Dunnell 1971: 118). It consists of the codification of the ceramic repertoire starting from the analysis of a series of attributes that have been chosen on grounds of their relevance defining of the vase. Those selected attributes can vary from one vase to another, and are considered objective and sufficiently consistent to be the base of the typologi-cal arrangement. As indicated, their character and combination with other attributes will give place to a hierarchy, whose levels will be unequivocally defined (Adams-Adams 1991: 91).

As Sinopoli correctly points out (1991: 46; see also Dunell 1971: 118), any classification has to be replicable and verified by future analysis. For this reason, the typological approach followed here in-tends to be flexible and open: the scheme has been so designed to facilitate its adaptation to the real na-ture of the available repertoire. Only those attributes that play a relevant role in the definition of the differ-ent ceramic forms and their types have been chosen. The double character, flexible and open, has a fur-ther advantage: it is the best way to reach accurate definitions which may avoid any incongruity and, at the same time, allows its use in future analysis of similar ceramic corpora. Thus, morphological ele-ments observed in other Phoenician ceramic reper-toires have been used in this approach, especially when a particular ceramic form is poorly represent-ed in Al-Bass. However, there would be an aspect that should not be forgotten. The resulting typologi-cal arrangement has to be contextualized within the entire ceramic repertoire in general and its different components in particular. The reason seems to be simple. By codifying the objects and their parts we are implicitly identifying the potter’s own concepts (complete vases) and how the artisan made them real (their individual components).

The organisation of the whole repertoire follows lines already seen in previous studies on Al-Bass ce-ramics. In the first place, all the ceramic individuals, complete and fragmented, have been distributed in three main groups. This approach will be followed by an analysis of the particular surface treatment re-

264


Cyprus! Phoenician! Aegean! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.4- Proportion between imports recovered during 2002 and 2004 seasons.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 264 25/03/14 12:51

sources, which have been assorted as ceramic cat-egories, and the decorative techniques displayed by each ceramic form.

3.1. Formal Groups

The typological analysis, as indicated, focuses on the nature of the morphological attributes and their possible combinations (see Clarke 1984: 136 and 184). The ceramic artefact will be morphologi-cally defined and characterised by a precise number of physical attributes of different nature and specific disposition. Variation patterns and affinity levels be-tween individuals will lead to a staggered organization pattern, which ranges, after a series of successive lev-els, from general to precise definitions (Fig. 3.5).

The centre of the organisation is the ceramic form, defined as an artefact that shows a specific number of morphological attributes combined in a similar way. Related ceramic forms can be included in what is known as “Formal Groups”, the widest level of definition. Those groups are three: (I) jars, (II) jugs and (III) open forms. Both “Formal Group” and “Ce-ramic Form” are concepts and, therefore, abstract in nature (see Phillips 1958: 118; Smith-Willey-Gifford 1960: 332); however, subsequent definition levels become more specific gradually (Rouse 1960: 317). Only the next level, the “Ceramic Type”, which is de-fined by a series of key attributes (Clarke 1984: 136),

refers to an actual object for the first time. From this point onwards, the next level of specification is the “Subtype”, and the last one would be the “Variant”, which best represent the actual ceramic object. Ac-cordingly, the flexible character of the general ap-proach becomes fixedness in this context: every case and typological level will be precisely and unequivo-cally defined. Something similar would also happen to the morphological attributes taken separately.6

The proportion between Formal Groups shows that jugs and open forms are best represented, each one amounting to 40% of the total repertoire. On the contrary, containers only reach 17.86%, while the proportion of vases whose typological nature is uncertain represents only 2.14%.

It has been already mentioned that certain mor-phological attributes could be classified separately. This represents a second level of classification that intends to include in the analysis those relevant attrib-utes that could offer precious information: rims, bases and handles. The conception and procedure are simi-lar to that employed regarding the complete vases: a hierarchical structure which distributes the individuals among formal groups and organize them going from general concepts to particular circumstances.

The attention to morphological attributes sepa-rately answers to a request for prudence, especially because the typological approach has complete indi-viduals as a reference. At the same time, there are instances where certain ceramic types and forms share morphological attributes (for example, rims and bases), which display similar characteristics (Fig. 3.7).

A phenomenon like this, caused by technical fac-tors, may lead to erroneous typological ascriptions

265


Formal Group

Ceramic form

Type

Subtype

Variant

Ceramic category

Decorative resource

Surface finish

Fig. 3.5- Structure of the typological approach.

Formal Group I! Formal Group II! Formal Group III! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.6 - Proportion between Formal Groups.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 265 25/03/14 12:51

as well as to an evident over-dimension of some ce-ramic forms or types to the detriment of others. On the other hand, this approach should be understood as a complement for the classification of complete vases, which rather attends to the general charac-teristics of each individual. In fact, dealing with de-tails such as these at that stage may blur the whole classification. Finally, it is evident that the rims and handles of the complete vases will be also classified following the same typological parameters. In any case, the present study will apply this level of analy-sis only to the Open Forms given their relevance in the ceramic repertory.7 In order to lighten the text, the typological codes and the representativeness of the different ceramic forms over the sequence will be found enclosed in an appendix at the end of this chapter.

To finish this paragraph, a reference to terminol-ogy has to be done. It goes beyond any doubt the need for a general agreement on the terms desig-nating each of the objects analysed here, especially the ceramic forms and types, as well as their compo-nents. However, we face several problems, some of them of different nature. In the first place, few Phoe-nician terms referring ceramic forms are known (see especially Amadasi 1990), probably no more than five or six,8 and it is difficult to discern which ones

refer to particular vases (ceramic forms and types here) and which ones are, in fact, generic denomina-tions (our formal groups and to a certain extend also the ceramic forms). There would be other factors to be considered in this context: the probable existence of multifunctional objects side by side with certain ceramics that are intended for a precise purpose, possible changes in the meaning of certain terms throughout the years, the introduction of new forms and types that received already existing names, or the probable existence of local terms that refer in fact to the same kind of object.9 A possible solution to that problem could be the establishment of pos-sible correlations of these terms in Old Testament Hebrew with their translations in Septuagint Greek or Vulgate Latin; however, it seems that the infor-mation is too partial and inconclusive (Fig. 3.8).

In any case, it would be important to keep in mind a circumstance that is closely related to the previous arguments. Aspects such as object, term and function can only be comprehended if they are placed in their original context of use. However, in the same way as the concepts in the Phoenician pot-ters minds are difficult to discern, the use that the Tyrian people made of these ceramic productions and their functional, social, economic and ritual rel-evance remain in their most part obscure.

266


5 10 cm0

a

b c d

Figure 3.7 - a: rim fragment (U131-1:1, variant CP(br) 2b8); b: plate (U88-2, variant Pl 2b1); c: chalice (Chapman 1972: 113, fig. 22: 222, from Jouwaya); d: lamp (Chapman 1972: 116, fig. 23: 230, also from Jouwaya).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 266 25/03/14 12:51

Problems do not end just here. It is clear that the use of original Phoenician terms, as it is the case in Aegean archaeology, is impossible in this context. For that reason, other options have to be consid-ered. Among them, there may be approaches based descriptions (for example, trefoil jug) or functional factors (such as decanter); the use of codes formed from a combination of certain letters and numbers could also be added (for example, a certain type A1b), as well as a potential adaptation of terms employed in ancient ceramic repertoires produced in other cultural areas (in the same line of former examples, this could be the case of using the term oinochoe or, even, amphoroid crater). Experience has shown that the use of any of these possibilities could be appropriate in certain instances, while in others an alternative could be preferred. For ex-ample, a jug provided with an articulation in its rim in order to make it suitable, at least theoretically, for pouring liquids could be called either trefoil or pinched rim mouth jug depending on the character-istics of the mentioned articulation; however, in spite of their morphological peculiarities and assuming this supposed function as correct, one may desig-nate all those jug as decanters, or even use the term oinochoe, if an assimilation of this kind of jug to the Greek terminology is preferred. Nonetheless, other ceramic forms seem to be less “fortunate”. This could be the case of certain vases whose function seems to be less evident, for example, the so-called “neck-ridge jug”. In this case, terms designing this group of jugs can only be based on a distinctive mor-phological attribute, as their uncertain function does not allow any secure functional designation such as “unguent-jug”, or any match with the Greek term le-

kythos, which seems to be its counterpart based on general morphological similarities.

Given the situation created by a general lack of functional references and contextual particularities, the solution found in this study is the use of terms generally employed by most scholars writing in Eng-lish. Thus, priority has been given to those terms whose validity is based rather on their widespread use than on a supposed methodological orthodoxy. It is clear that this conventional terminology is the result of mixing functional and descriptive aspects together with certain linguistic borrowings from foreign ceramic cultures. However, the best way to make this rather odd combination work properly is following a practical sense as well as being coher-ent with those terms, their usage and what do they represent.

Keeping all these circumstances in mind, the pro-cedure here will be the use of a precise name for each ceramic form (for example, crater or decanter) matched by a fixed abbreviation (in this case, Cr and Jv respectively). Furthermore, types, subtypes and variations as well as their meanings will be recog-nized by a number, a letter and a further number re-spectively. As to the analysis of certain morphologi-cal attributes separately, it has already mentioned that this study will deal with the open forms only. In any case, the general approach designs each ce-ramic form by an abbreviation (“Vj” for the contain-ers, “Jr” for the jugs and “CP” for the open forms) followed by the attribute in question: rim (br), base (bs) and handle (as). Particular types, subtypes and variations will be designed with same combination of number and letters used for the complete objects.

267


Fig. 3.8- Phoenician terms referring ceramic forms, their correlation in Old Testament Hebrew, and their translations in the Sep-tuagint and the Vulgate: (1) Ex. 24: 6, Is. 22: 23, Cant. 7: 3; (2) Gen. 24 passim, IKings 17: 12-16 and 18: 34, Ecl. 12: 6, Judges 7: 16-19; (3) Gen. 51: 7 and 40: 11 passim, Ex 23: 32, IKings 7: 26, IIChron. 9: 20, Amos 6: 6, Jer 35: 5 and 51: 7, II Sam 12: 3; (4) Is. 22: 24 and 30: 14, Jer. 48: 11-12, Lam. 4: 2, IChron. 27: 27-28; (5) Is. 51: 17, 22.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 267 25/03/14 12:51

3.2. Ceramic categories

This paragraph refers to the surface treatment received by those ceramics, which is object of a parallel classification linked to the ceramic types that display them.10 The approach followed here differs somehow to that used in the 2004 publica-tion, which distinguished between plain, painted and slipped wares. Now every individual is charac-terised by its own features and classified through a staggered model that links each kind of surface treat-ment with a series of decorative resources, includ-ing the complete absence of decoration and, later, to the nature of the surface finish applied.

Three possibilities or categories have been rec-ognized and ordered after their respective degree of complexity: self-slip (Category A), wash (Category B) and slip (Category C). Briefly, the first one refers to a clay wash which does not change the colour of the surface and the matrix after firing; the second category consists of a thicker wash that provides the surface with a different colour after firing; finally, the third possibility is represented by the covering of the entire surface, or a part of it, with a dense clay preparation that produces a thicker coating, which is normally in red.

The before mentioned categories represent the basis of this particular classification, whereas the second level consists of the different decorative re-sources employed. It begins with the nature of the decoration itself, which in this case could be painted, incised, in relief or applied, followed by its patterns. It ends with the surface finish, which may vary from simple smoothing to a more complicated burnishing. Finally, as indicated, this corpus of information will be related directly to the typological data as a com-plement.

4. Sequential periods

The basic sequential framework presented in the first Al-Bass publication, better modelled and de-fined in ulterior works, is still valid now.11 Obviously, the different funerary contexts under study here have been sequentially characterised using those pa-rameters.

The structure of this analysis is twofold: syn-chronic and diachronic. On the one hand, the ap-proach offers a detailed examination of the char-

acteristics of each sequential stage recognized at Al-Bass. Materials will be organized in formal groups and the focus will be centred on their typological and decorative features, giving special relevance to as-pects such as the typological variability existing in each period. At the same time, potential readings and conclusions will be supported only with the most meaningful typological, sequential and chronologi-cal references.12 On the other hand, the diachronic analysis is centred on the evolution of the different formal groups in order to elucidate possible tenden-cies. This task will be supported by a series of tables that will display the typological characteristics of the different periods side by side.

Most part of the funerary contexts can be safely included in one of the sequential periods. However, some others instances do not offer enough informa-tion to make this ascription possible (Fig. 3.9).

In front of this situation, it is evident that this study will be centred on chronologically secure con-texts (Fig. 3.2). Doubtful contexts will be presented in a separate paragraph, whih will focus especially on their typological relevance.

4.a. Al-Bass Period II

The earliest funerary contexts recovered in Al-Bass are the following: TT61, TT72, TT73/74, TT97, TT98, TT107, TT108/109, TT110/111, TT112, TT130, TT131, TT148/149, TT163/164, Deposit 2, although it is possible that some of the materials recovered in Assemblage 1

268


0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

30!

35!

Fig. 3.9 - Sequential distribution of funerary context recov-ered in Al-Bass seasons 2002 and 2004.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 268 25/03/14 12:51

originally belonged to this one (see below), and De-posit 10. These fifteen contexts represent 19.74% of all the associations, that is, around 16.96% of all ceramic individuals.

4.a.1. Typological analysis

This period witnesses a predominance of open forms (40.43%), followed by jugs (35.22%) and con-tainers (21.74%). The remaining 2.61% correspond to instances whose typological ascription could not be defined.

Formal Group I

The ceramic forms represented in this period are the following: craters, stable amphorae, storage jars, cauldrons and cooking pots (Fig. 3.10). The same

data can be expressed as a histogram that highlights the proportions between ceramic forms and the rel-evance of imports (Fig. 3.11).

269


Fig. 3.10 - Formal Group I typological distribution in Period II.

Ceramic form Type Subtype Variant Ammount

1 1 a Cr 1 3 1

Craters – – 1

Cr 2 c 4 1

Cr C 8

Stable amphorae Ad C 3

Cauldrons Cl 1 a 2 1

Al 1 a – 1

a – 1 Storage jars Al 4 – – 2

Al – – 7

Cooking pots Oc 3 b 3 1

Vj 19 Undetermined jars Vj Imported – – 3

Formal Group I/al Bass Period II

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

16!

18!

20!

Craters! Stable

amphorae!

Storage

jars!

Cauldrons! Cooking

pots!

Uncertain!

Local! Imported!

Fig. 3.11 - Proportion between the members of Formal Group I recovered in Period II.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 269 25/03/14 12:51

270

5 10 cm0

a b

c d e

f

Fig. 3.12 - Amphoroid craters of Period II (a: U148-1, variant Cr 1a3; b: U72-1, variant Cr 1a1, local imitation of a Cypriot pro-totype; c: U73-1, Cypriot White Painted III ware; d: U108-1, Cypriot White-Painted III ware; e: U130-1, Cypriot White-Painted III ware; f: U111-1, Cypriot Bichrome IV ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 270 25/03/14 12:51

The most frequent ceramic form among the con-tainers of this Period II is the amphoroid crater (Fig. 3.12). Eight of them have a Cypriot origin (U.73-1, U.107-12, U107-13, U.108-1, U111-1, U.130-1, and U.131-1 and U164-1), and one local example have been produced after Cypriot parameters (U72-1). On the contrary, local amphoroid craters are in the minority, with only two ‘genuine’ examples (type Cr 1: U148-1, variant 1a3; U163-1).13 It is notewor-thy that all those examples, both local and imported, display similar morphological features: inverted pi-riform bodies, rounded shoulders as well as conical or open necks topped by rims that display exterior thickenings with a quadrangular or tapered section. It is also interesting to note the presence among the local examples of marked annular bases, although not as high as in the Early Iron Age.14 Regarding the Cypriot craters, most of them belong to the Cypro-Geometric III period (for instance, U73-1, U107-12, U108-1, U130-1 and U131-1, to which the local U72-1 could be added as well), whereas one may be placed in the Cypro-Archaic I period (U111-1; Fig. 3.12: f).15 All these imported craters belong to the White-Painted ware, except U111-1, which repre-sents the Bichrome wares. The decorative pattern used in all those instances is the so-called “zone-style” (Gjerstad 1948: 50), characterized by the presence of continuous motives on their neck or upper shoulder, which in the examples analyzed here can be high-lighted for their standardization. There would be also certain morphological differences between these jars that could have interesting sequential repercussions. Two main internal variations could be observed. On the one hand, some craters, probably the older ones, display a wider appearance and taller necks (U73-1 and U131-1);16 meanwhile, the second variant differs from the previous one by its lower neck (see the re-maining jars and, especially, U111-1).17 As to U72-1, its morphological and decorative parameters may place it in the Cypro-Geometric III.18

Regarding the characteristics of both the local and imported amphoroid craters, it results compli-cated to see which one influenced the other from a morphological and decorative perspective. Obvi-ously, the bigger share of the Cypriot jars may re-sult relevant in this sense; however, it seems that in this period, if not even before it, the local amphoroid craters started showing the standard morphological and decorative features that become typical on Late Iron Age examples.19

A local alternative to those amphoroid craters is represented by the neck-less craters (type Cr 2; Fig. 3.13).20 Only one example has been recovered, U109-1 (variant Cr 2c4). It displays a piriform body as well as an upright rim whose exterior oval thickening remind certain contemporary cooking pots.21 Even if the presence of those pots is not usual at Al-Bass (see, for example, U54-1 from 1997 season; Núñez 2004a: 190, fig. 105: 1), the possibility of U109-1 being the adaptation of the morphological concept of a cooking pot to a new function (that of cineray urn) should not be ruled out completely. Al-Bass has of-fered other proofs of this practice; the best example would be the presence of amphoroid craters provided of pointed bases that recall the presence of contem-porary storage jars whose shoulders had been cut off (U51-1; Núñez 2004a: 187, fig. 102: 1).22

From a quantitative perspective, the next ceramic form is the stable amphora (Fig. 3.14). All the ex-amples recovered in this period have a Cypriot ori-gin (U61-1, U97-1 and 107-1). These jars, which correspond to Gjertad’s belly-handled amphorae (Gjerstad 1960: 120, fig. 14), belong to the White-Painted III ware and also display the so-called “zone style”, with a wavy or straight horizontal line on its handle zone. Furthermore, even if they should be dated in the Cypro-Geometric III period, it seems that U97-1 could be the oldest of these three jars thanks to the absence of the typical C-G III protuber-ance below the rim (Gjerstad 1948: 55; idem 1960: 120).23 This relevant morphological feature is pre-sent in the other two jars, although U61-1 could be slightly earlier than U107-1 on grounds of the more oval outlook of its body and the higher placement

271


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.13 - Neck-less local crater (U109-1, variant Cr 2c4).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 271 25/03/14 12:51

of its handles; in fact, the more compact aspect of U107-1 and its shorter rim may result decisive in this respect (see Gjerstad 1948: fig. XX: 1).

Two remaining ceramic forms were used in this period as cinerary urns: storage jars and cauldrons. In the first place, of all the storage jars registered in Period II (fig. 3.15), only two examples had that func-tion: U74-1 and U110-1. The remaining examples were used as covers for the funerary gifts of other tombs: U61-4 and U98-5:3. Two types have been recognised (Fig. 3.15). The first one consists of jars with cylindrical bodies (type Al 1: U74-1, subtype 1a), while the second one is characterised by piriform bodies that can display a regular outline or rather a slight narrowing at the level of the handle (type Al 4: U98-1:3, U110-1 and, most probably, U61-4; sub-type Al 4a).24

Briefly, Type Al 1 evolves from certain storage jars provided with a triangular body, typical in contexts of the Early Iron Age (see, for example, Bikai 1978a: pl. XLI: 5, Tyre Stratum XIV, pl. XXXV: 11 and 13, both from tyre Stratum XIII-1). The only example of Type Al 1 in a context dated in Period II, U74-1, represents a relevant morphological change whereby the walls of

the body become straight, a phenomenon visible al-ready before (Bikai 1978a: pl. XXIX: 14, from Tyre Stratum XI). This Al-Bass storage jar could be identi-fied with Bikai’s type SJ 9, especially with an example recovered in Tyre Stratum IX (see Bikai 1978a: 45-46, pl. XXI: 11), a jar that displays a slightly more convex body, as well as a simple rim with an upright stance. Pedrazzi has classified the same jar in her subtype 11-1-2 (Pedrazzi 2007: 111-113, fig. 3.61), distinguisha-ble by a cylindrical body and a shoulder that is marked, not carinated.25 However, an alternative could be her variant 5-5-4 (Pedrazzi 2007: 81-82, figs. 3.32 and 3.33), characterized by cylindrical bodies whose maxi-mum diameter coincides with their shoulders, which are short and oblique. The bases of this subtype are rounded, while the variants are defined by the form of the rims, normally provided of a neck and displaying either a simple outline or thickenings on the outside. It is impossible to know which variant U74-1 may belong to, since this typological category is determined in Pe-drazzi’s approach by the shape of the rim.

The evidence shown by Pedrazzi confirms the ar-gument offered here. Thirty storage jars have been classified in her subtypes 5-5-4 and 11-1-2 (25 and

272


5 10 cm0

a b c

Fig. 3.14 - Cypriot stable amphorae (a: U97-1; b: U61-1; c: U107-1; all of them belong to the White-Painted III ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 272 25/03/14 12:51

5 respectively). Of them, twenty-six come from Pal-estine, especially Tel Qasile (see Pedrazzi 2007: Ap-pendice 3), and all but one were recovered in Early Iron Age contexts; the exception would be a jar found in Hurbat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIa (Gal-Alexandre 2000: 117, fig. III.92: 7; Pedrazzi’s variant 5-5-4-1), which is contemporary to the second half of Al-Bass Period II (see below). Meanwhile, the four remaining jars have been recovered at Tyre and belong to the

subtype 11-1-2; two from strata that correspond to Al-Bass Period I (Bikai 1978a: pl. XXXV: 11, Stra-tum XIII-1; ibid: pl. 29: 14, Stratum XI) and the other two, including the example cited before, to the period II (Bikai 1978a: pl. XXVI: 13, Stratum X-2; ibid: pl. XXI: 11, Stratum IX).

On the other hand, the examples of type Al 4 recovered in Al-Bass may correspond to two of Pe-drazzi’s types: one of them, U61-4, may belong

273


5 10 cm0

U.61-4. TT02-II-5-1156 U.110-1.TT04-IV-3b-4525

a

b c d

Fig. 3.15 - Storage jars of Period II (a: U74-1, subtype Al 1a; b: U61-4, type Al 4; c: U98-5:3, type Al 4; d: U110-1, subtype Al 4a).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 273 25/03/14 12:51

to her subtype 16-3-1 (Pedrazzi 2007: 133-135, fig. 3.82), which corresponds to Sagona’s type 1 (A. Sagona 1982: 73-75, 91, fig. 1: 1). These jars are charaterised by piriform bodies provided with curved walls just below the handles, as well as slightly pointed bases. Actually, jars of type Al 4 seem to be an evolution of Al 1 examples and they appear for the first time in contexts contemporary to Period II (for example, Bikai 1978a: pl. XXI: 13, from Tyre Stratum IX; see also Sagona 1982: 73 and Pedrazzi 2007: 135, 220-221, fig. 4.9). On the other hand, the two remaining jars could be compared with some of the examples classified in Pedrazzi’s subtype 9-3-1 (Pedrazzi 2007: 103, 105-106, fig. 3.54), since her type 14-3 (Pedrazzi 2007: 125-127 y 219, fig. 4.8), a possible alternative, seems to be too baggy.26 Jars of that subtype 9-3-1 are charactised by piriform bodies and short shoulders whose transition is slightly angular. However, there seems to be a difference be-tween jars whose maximum diameter is to be found somewhere in the middle of the body (for example, Pedrazzi 1997: 105, fig. 3.53) and other examples in which this feature is placed in a lower spot (Pedraz-zi 2007: 106, fig. 3.54: c; see especially, Lamon-Shipton 1939: pl. 21: 122, from Megiddo Stratum V, and Rast 1978: 126-127, fig. 31: 2, from the Pe-riod IIB of the “Cultic Structure” at Taanach). All the examples said to be included in this subtype 9-3-1 come from iron Age IIA contexts in Palestine, which is contemporary with Al-Bass Period II.

Summing up, it seems that U74-1 represents one of the final examples of jars that were common in Early Iron Age contexts, while Al 4 representa-tives display a relevant typological change that will condition the characteristics of future storage jars (see below).

Cauldrons are represented by only one example, U98-1, which belongs to the variant Cl 1a2 thanks to its incurved shoulder, piriform body and upright rim (Fig. 3.16). It is also noteworthy the presence of a horizontal tubular handle below the shoulder, whose protuberances on its two extremes recall probable metallic prototypes. It is also interesting to note the absence so far of similar jars in contempo-rary contexts.27

The last ceramic form represented in this Period is the cooking pot, of which a small example has been recovered (U107-8, variant Oc 3a2). It is clear, from its morphological and technical characteristics, that this vase was produced as a true cooking pot.28

However, as its reduced size did not allow its use as cinerary urn, probably it played a precise ritual func-tion instead.

Regarding the technical and decorative aspects of the local jars repertoire of this period, the first element to highlight is a predominance of simple surfaces lacking any kind of special covering except self-slip (Fig. 3.17). However, there would be a small number of jars that display a compact wash, usually of a beige colour. The best examples would be the single example of neck-less crater (U109-1) and a wall fragment belonging to a jar of uncertain typological ascription (U107-2:2).

Surfaces are always more or less carefully

274


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.16 - Cauldron (U98-1, variant Cl 1a2).

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

16!

A! B! C! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.17 - Relation of surface treatment possibilities in For-mal Group I.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 274 25/03/14 12:51

smoothed, not burnished, and the decoration can be of two types: painted and appliqué (Fig. 3.18). The first resource appears on plain surfaces, and it con-sists of a lineal pattern painted in black and/or red. It is also possible to observe in its application a certain adaptation to the morphological character of the jar. Thus, the amphoroid crater registered, U148-1, al-ready displays the basic version of the scheme that will become common in future periods. It consists of a wide band on the shoulder followed on its lower side by two other bands; at the same time, the upper side of the rim and the handles are also covered by red paint. However, the decorative scheme changes on the cauldron. Here the tubular handle serves as a ref-erence and below it appears a red band flanked by

275


0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

Plain! Painted! Incised! Appliqué! Combined! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.18 - Relation of decorative possibilities in Formal Group I. al-Bass Period II

Fig. 3.19 - Formal Group II typological distribution in Period II.

Formal Group Type Subtype Variant Ammount

c 1 5 Ja 2 Neck-ridge jugs c – 1

Ja – – – 1

a 1 1 Jp 1 Spouted jugs b 1 1

Jp – – – 1

a 2 1

Jv 2 c 2 1

d 2 2

a 2 1

Decanters c 1 1 Jv 3 d 2 1

– – 1

Jv F – – 6

Jv C 1

Pilgrim flasks Ct 1 a 1 1

Indetermined jugs Jr F – – 55

Formal Group II/al Bass Period II

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 275 25/03/14 12:51

a pair of black fillets that were originally applied on a white background. At the same time, the narrow shoulder is marked by other three black fillets and the rim is painted in red. Finally, this jar also represents the only example of applied decoration in the form of the tubular handle and the before mentioned disc-like applications that are present on both extremes.

Formal Group II

The ceramic forms belonging to this formal group recovered in this Period II are: neck-ridge jugs, spouted jugs, decanters and pilgrim flasks (Fig. 3.19). There is also a relevant group of individuals

276


0!

10!

20!

30!

40!

50!

60!

Neck-ridge

jugs!

Spouted

jugs!

Decanters! Pilgrim

flasks!

Uncertain!

Local! Imported!

Fig. 3.20 - Relation between the members of Formal Group II recovered in Period II.

5 10 cm0

a b c

d

Fig. 3.21 - Neck-ridge jugs recovered in Period II (a: U74-3; b: U98-4; c: U110-2:2; d: U74-6:6; all of them belong to variant Ja 2c1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 276 25/03/14 12:51

that cannot be typologically characterised. Further-more, local wares predominate; the exception is represented by a handle belonging to a Cypriot de-canter (U74-4:7) as well as a wall fragment belong-ing to a closed form, most probably of Aegean origin (U74-4:19). The proportion between those ceramic forms is displayed in Fig. 3.20.

Neck-ridge jugs of this period are characterised by certain typological homogeneity that affects es-pecially the proportions between their bodies and necks, a combination of elements that give them a rather stylised outlook (Fig. 3.21). All the recov-ered and restored examples belong to subtype Ja 2c, easily recognisable thanks to their open rims; at the same time, the globular shape of their bodies may include them in the variant “1” (U61-1, U74-4, U98-4, U110-2:2, U131-3; U74-4:6 most prob-ably belonged to this variant as well). The ridge that articulates their necks has a marked rounded outline in almost all instances; it is generally placed above the upper connection of the handle, the only excep-

tion being U110-2:2, where both elements coincide. Three different rim types have been recognised. The first one is simple and has a rounded lip (U74-6:6), the second one has a rounded exterior that is com-pensated by an interior concavity (U110-2:2), while the third possibility, better represented, is charac-terised by a flattened lip with an upright or slightly bended stance, which counts with a tapered thicken-ing whether on its lower side (U98-4 and U131-3) or on both sides (U61-1 and U74-4). Finally, all the bases are annular and show vertical or open stances.

These jugs were classified in 1997 season as type Ja 1 (Núñez 2004b: 305-307).29 At Tyre, most jugs belonging to this ceramic type have been classified under Bikai’s type 10 (Bikai 1978a: 40, see especial-ly, pl. XXV: 14, from Stratum X-2), which, in fact, is related with shards displaying a concentric decorative pattern, as well as 8 and 9 (Bikai 1978a: 40, see pl. XXV: 7, from Stratum X-2, pl. XXIIA: 8, from Stratum IX, as well as pl. XX: 2 and 4, both from Stratum VIII).

Decanters are slightly better represented and also

277


5 10 cm0

a b c

Fig. 3.21 - Neck-ridge jugs recovered in Period II (a: U74-2, variant Jv 2c2 b: U109-2, variant Jv 2a2; c: U110-2:2; c: U61-5, variant

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 277 25/03/14 12:51

display a bigger typological diversity.30 In the first place, some jugs display long necks of vertical or slightly open walls (type Jv 2; Fig. 3.22), which can be combined with bodies that vary from inverted piri-form (subtype Jv 2d: U61-3 and U131-3), and piri-form with a carinated shoulder (subtype Jv 2c: U74-2) to globular (subtype Jv 2a: U109-2). The bases are annular in all instances, but there is also certain diver-sity among them. Thus, in some jugs they are rather low and wide (U61-1 and U74-2), while in other cases their height and open stance make them to resemble a conical foot instead (U109-2 and U131-3). Finally, all these jugs display trefoil mouths (variant “2”).

Decanters of type Jv 3 are characterised by their conical necks and their proportions are some-how more balanced than in the previous instance (Fig. 3.23). One of them has not preserved its body (U107-4:1), but the rest display three differ-ent shapes. The first one is globular (subtype Jv 3a: Dep2-5:1; a possible intrusive character of this jug cannot be ruled out), the second type is piriform

(subtype Jv 2c: Dep2-1), and the third one inverted piriform (subtype Jv 2d: U110-2:1). The rims also show divergences, as two of them are trefoil (vari-ant “2”: U110-2:1 and Dep2-5:1) and one pinched (variant “1”: Dep.2-1). Furthermore, the simple character of the trefoil rims, with their rounded or tapered sections, is broken by U110-2:1, because it shows an interior quadrangular thickening.31 Finally, the bases are whether annular (Dep2-1 and Dep2-5:1) or conical (U110-2:1).

All the spouted jugs that have been registered lately in Al-Bass belong to type Jp 1, which is char-acterised by a vertical handle that connects the shoulder to the neck and is placed at a right angle regarding the spout (Fig. 3.24). Morphological dif-ferences between those examples are evident, al-though they should rather be considered variations of a single concept. This fact is especially evident regarding the shape of the body, which has given place to two subtypes, one globular (subtype Jp 1a: U97-2),32 and the second inverted piriform (subtype

278


5 10 cm0

a b c

Fig. 3.23 - Decanters of type Jv 3 recovered in Period II (a: Dep2-5:1, variant Jv 3a2; b: Dep2-1, variant Jv 3c1; c: U110-2:1, variant Jv 3d2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 278 25/03/14 12:51

Jp 1b: Dep10-2), and the handles, which in U97-2 it is simple with a rounded section and in Dep10-2 triple. However, the remaining elements display simi-lar characteristics. Thus, in both instances the spouts are open on their upper side (variant “1”), they have been placed high on the respective bodies and always count with a strainer-like device at their bases. The respective necks have a similar behaviour, as both have straight walls that widen progressively towards the rim, a feature that in U97-2 is more evident. Fi-nally, both bases are annular, but they differ in their respective character, as U97-2 is short and straight, while in Dep10-2 it is taller and open.

The last ceramic form represented in this Period is the pilgrim flask, of which only one complete ex-ample has been recovered: Dep2-2 (Fig. 3.25). This jug is characterised by a lenticular body, a concave neck provided of an everted rim that is topped by a rounded lip, and two opposed handles placed on both narrow sides of the jug. All those features may charac-terise this example as belonging to the variant Ct 1a1.

Once presented the typological scenario of this period has been offered, it is time to attend their surface finish and decorative character (Fig. 3.26). Briefly, plain surfaces predominate also in this for-mal group, the application of a wash remains mar-ginal (its proportions are somehow similar to those shown by the containers) and there is a relevant

presence of red slip, which in this period is usually compact and thick. It is also noteworthy the distri-bution of all those technical possibilities among the different ceramic forms. Thus, simple surfaces are common to neck-ridge jugs, spouted jugs and, prob-ably, also pilgrim flasks. In fact, the wash is totally absent on those forms, and red slip is not frequent (see, for example, some neck-ridge jugs and spouted jugs analysed here).33 On the contrary, pitchers fa-

279


5 10 cm0a b

Fig. 3.24 - Spouted jugs recovered in Period II (a: U97-2, variant Jp 1a1; b: Dep10-2, variant Jp 1b1).

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.25 - Pilgrim flask recovered in Period II (Dep2-2, variant Ct 1a1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 279 25/03/14 12:51

vour those two options. Burnishing is common to all the before mentioned ceramic forms, but it is es-pecially frequent on neck-ridge jugs and pitchers, whether decorated or not. This burnishing consists of a series of longitudinal strokes whose applica-tion and covering are irregular: on neck-ridge jugs it reaches up to the ridge, while on decanters it goes up to the rim. On the contrary, the burnishing on spouted jugs is horizontal on the bodies and vertical on the neck.

Decorative resources are, again, of two types: painted and appliqué (Fig. 3.27). There is certain logic both in their character and execution. Thus, painted decoration seems to occur only on simple and washed surfaces. There are no instances of paint being applied on red slipped surfaces, but ap-plied decoration has been registered only on them, especially certain motives that recall metallic rivets on the rim of the decanters (for example, on U61-1 or U131-3), or just below the lower attachment of the handle (as on Dep10-2).

The above mentioned logic can be better ob-served on the painted decoration. There are three basic patterns: concentric, lineal and with metopes. The first one appears mostly on neck-ridge jugs (U61-6, U98-4 and U110-2:2) and pilgrim flasks (Dep2-2), the second is common to decanters (U74-2 and Dep2-1), and the third has been registered on another decanter (U109-2). The spouted jug U97-2 represents an interesting case. Its main decoration is lineal and appears on the lower half of its body; however, there is no trace of the typical metope dec-oration that most of these jugs display on the upper half of their bodies,34 although it is possible that this

situation is a consequence of the general bad condi-tions shown by the Al-Bass repertoire.

Regardless the pattern employed, all of them consist of a combination of bands, usually in red, and fillets, always in black. Other areas of the jug can receive further decoration, for example, the back of the handles, the base of the necks or, especially, the rims, which can appear whether completely covered with red paint (common on decanters), or marked by a series of transversal strokes (visible on some neck-ridge jugs, for example, U61-6 or U110-2:2).35 In other instances, normally where the topography of the jug allows it (especially on spouted and neck-ridge jugs) the combination of bands and fillets are also applied on the upper half of the neck. Finally, on the shoulders of the neck-ridge jugs is common the presence of geometric motives, such as hatched lozenges (see it on U98-4).36

Forma Group III

The ceramic forms belonging to this group that have been recovered in Period II are: plates, both local and imported, bowls with curved walls, lamps and, probably, imported skyphoi. In the first place, the main characteristics of complete or restorable in-dividuals will be offered, although with a mention to the typological nature of their rims and bases. Later, rim and base fragments will be analysed. The same data can be displayed in the histogram that appears in fig. 3.29.

Plates predominate in this period, both from a typological and numerical perspective. Three types

280


0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

30!

35!

Neck-ridge

jugs!

Spouted

jugs!

Decanters! Pilgrim

flasks!

Uncertain!

A! B! C! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.26 - Surface treatment possibilities in Formal Group II.

0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

30!

35!

Neck-ridge

jugs!

Spouted

jugs!

Decanters! Pilgrim

flasks!

Uncertain!


Fig. 3.27 - Decorative possibilities in Formal Group II.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 280 25/03/14 12:51

have been recognized: Pl 1, Pl 2 and Pl 5 (Fig. 3.30). The first one is the most abundant and is rep-resented by three subtypes. Subtype Pl 1c is char-acterised by direct rims that in this period are pre-dominantly thickened on their outside, and counts with a flat base (subtype Pl 1c1: U98-2, U107-10, U108-2:1 and U110-4); those thickenings are of two specific types: rounded (CP [br]1a5: U107-10 and U110-4) and quadrangular (CP [br]1a6: U98-2 and U108-2:1). The next subtype is Pl 1a, characterised by its simple rim. It counts also with five examples, but they are distributed into two dif-ferent variants depending on their bases: flat (vari-ant Pl 1a1: U107-5:2 and U107-7) and disc-like (variant Pl 1a3: U61-3, U110-3 and U163-2:5).

281



1 2 a 3 3

1 2 Pl 1 b 3 1

c 1 4

Plates d 2 1

a 6 1 Pl 2 b 1 1

1 1 a Pl 5 3 2

b 3 1

Curved wall bowls Cv – – – 2

Lamps Lc 2 c – 1

Uncertain CP F – – 22

Cypriot Plate Black-on-Red I or II 1

Imports Skyphoi? – 2 Aegean Plate PSC 1

Formal Group III/al Bass Period II

Fig. 3.28 - Typological distribution of Formal Group III in Period II.

0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

Plates! Curved wall

bowls!

Lamps! Skyphoi! Uncertain!

Local! Imported!

Fig.3.29 - Relation between the members of Formal Group III recovered in Period II.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 281 25/03/14 12:51

The rims associated to those plates of subtype Pl 1a are of four types: simple (CP [br]1a1: U107-7, to which the fragments U74-4:14 and U97-3:3 could be added; see below), tapered (CP [br]1a3: U61-3), simple topped by a transversal lip (variant CP [br]1a4: U163-2:5) and externally bevelled (CP [br]1a10: U107-5:2 and U110-3, to which U74-4:12 and U107-3:2 could also be added; see below). In the third place, plates with interior thickenings on

the rim are represented by the subtype Pl 1b, which counts with three examples that belong to two vari-ants. The first one displays flat bases (variant Pl 1b1: U107-11 and U112-2), while in the second variant these are disc-like (variant Pl 1b3: U107-9). At the same time, the rims of these plates display two dif-ferent sections, one with an angular thickening that gives place to a tapered section (CP [br]1b8: U107-11 and U107-9) and the other rounded (CP [br]1b5:

282


5 10 cm0

a b

c d e

f g h

i

Figure 3.30 - Plates of type Pl 1 (a: U107-10, variant Pl 1c1; b: U98-2, variant Pl 1c1; c: U107-5:2, variant Pl 1a1; d: U107-7, vari-ant Pl 1a1; e: U61-3, variant Pl 1a3; f: U107-11, variant Pl 1b1; g: U107-9, variant Pl 1b3; h: U112-2, variant Pl 1b1; i: U107/112, variant Pl 1d2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 282 25/03/14 12:51

U112-2, to which U97-3:1 and U131-2 could be added; see below). Finally, plates that count with a thickening on both sides of the rim correspond to subtype Pl 1d, which is represented by a single ex-ample that stands on a depressed base (U107/112, variant Pl 1d2). The rim of this plate may belong to type CP(br) 1d5.

Plates of type Pl 5 are characterised by their upright rims (Fig. 3.31). Two subtypes have been recognised. The first one displays a simple rim (Pl 5a) and counts with two variants on grounds of the shape of their bases: flat (variant Pl 5a1: U148-2) and disc-like (variant Pl 5a3: U61-2 and U98-3). The rims of those plates are of two types, one sim-ple topped by a rounded lip (CP [br]5a1: U98-3 and U148-2), while the other has a transversal flattened lip (CP [br]5a4: U61-2). The second subtype is char-acterised by an interior thickening on the rim (sub-type Pl 5b). Only one example has been registered,

and it stands on a depressed base (U131-5, variant Pl 5b3); furthermore, its rim has a slight thickening with an angular section and is topped by a tapered lip which is compensated on the exterior by a slight concavity (CP [br]5b8).

The third plate type, Pl 2, is characterised by their everted rims (Fig. 3.32). Two subtypes have been recognised in Period II, one with a simple rim (Pl 2a: U72-2) and the second with an interior thickening (Pl 2b: U110-5). Depending on the char-acteristics of those two rims, the first one may be-long to variant CP (br)2a1, while the second, with a quadrangular thickening, to the variant CP (br)2b6. Finally, these plates are associated to two different base types: irregular (variant Pl 2a6: U72-2) and flat (variant Pl 2b1: U110-5).

It is time now to turn the attention towards the rest of the open forms repertoire recovered in this period: bowls with curved walls (Cv) and the lamps

283


5 10 cm0

a b c

d

Fig. 3.31 - Plates of subtype Pl 5 (a: U148-2, variant Pl 5a1; b: U61-2, variant Pl 5a3; c: U98-3, variant Pl 5a3; d: U131-5, variant Pl 5b3).

5 10 cm0

a b

Fig. 3.32 - Plates of type Pl 2 (a: U72-2, variant Pl 2a6; b: U110-5, variant Pl 2b1)

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 283 25/03/14 12:51

(Lc), both poorly represented. In the first place, only two wall fragments of the former have been regis-tered (U72-4:3 and Dep2-5:2; not represented), and their fragmentary condition do not allow any secure typological ascription. On the other hand, lamps are represented by one fragment that displays an evert-ed rim with a convex outline (U148-3:17, subtype Lc 2c; not represented).

Now that the complete individuals have been an-alysed, it is time now to deal with the rim and base fragments found in chronologically secure contexts. First the rims, whose representation in Period II ap-pears in the table of Fig. 3.33. This evidence is also represented in the histogram of Fig. 3.34.

Rim fragments in this period do not change much the evidence offered by the complete open forms. They can be distributed into three types: CP (br)1, 2 and 5. The most popular are the direct rims, type CP (br)1, of which four subtypes have been rec-ognised (Fig. 3.35). The most abundant is the sub-type CP (br)1a, characterised by a simple section. It

counts with three main variants: one with a rounded lip (variant CP [br]1a1: U74-4:14 and U97-3:3), the second with lips that are bevelled on its lower side (variant CP [br]1a10: U74-4:12 and U107-3:2),

284


Formal Group III Type Subtype Variant Ammount

1 2

a 10 2

13 1

CP(br) 1 b 5 2

c 7 1

d 2 1

– – 3 Rims a 1 1

6 1 CP(br) 2 b 8 1

c – 1

1 1 CP(br) 5 a 3 3

CP(br) – – – 11

Fig. 3.33 - Typological ascription of rim fragments of Formal Group III.

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

CP (br)1! CP (br)2! CP (br)3! CP (br)4! CP (br)5! CP (br)6!

Fig. 3.34 - Typological ascription of rim fragment types of Formal Group III (2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 284 25/03/14 12:51

and the third with a flattened upper side (variant CP [br]1a13: U108-2:39). The following subtype shows interior thickenings on the rim (subtype CP [br]1b), of which only one variant that displays a rounded section has been registered (U97-3:1 and U131-2), while the third is represented by one example that counts with an oval thickening on its outside (U111-3, variant CP [br]1c7). The fourth subtype corre-sponds to rims provided with a thickening on both sides of the rim (subtype CP[br] 1d), a possibility that is represented by one fragment provided with an undetermined rim section (variant CP [br]1d2: U108-2:35). Finally, three rim fragments could not classified in any subtype (U74-5:15, U108-2:48 and U110-6:11).

The next type is characterised by upright rims (CP [br]5; Fig. 3.36), of which only examples with a simple section have been recognised (subtype CP (br)5a). However, the morphological differenc-es between them are relevant, as their lips can be rounded (variant “1”:U74-4:13),37 most probably belonging to a plate with an upright rim (type Pl 5; see above), or tapered (variant “3”: U107-14: 2, 4 and 7), which may represent the only example of an early flat bowl dated in Period II (belonging, prob-ably, to subtype Cc 1a).38

Finally, the rims of the third type display everted rims (CP [br]2; Fig. 3.37); three subtypes have been recognised on the basis of their section. The first one is simple and topped by a rounded lip (variant

CP [br]2a1: U72-4:2), while the second is provided with an interior thickening that can be whether quad-rangular (variant CP [br]2b6: U131-6:2), or angular (variant CP [br]2b8: U131-6:2). The last subtype cor-responds to an everted rim thickened on its outside, but the conditions of the single example recovered do not allow any further typological precision (U148-3:16, subtype CP [br]2c; not represented).

Regarding the base fragments belonging to ex-amples of the Formal Group III, their typological dis-

285


0 5 cm.

a b c

d e f

Fig. 3.35 - Rim fragments of type CP (br)1 (a: U97-3:3, variant CP (br)1a1; b: U74-4:12, variant CP (br)1a10; c: U108-2:39, variant CP (br)1a13); d: U.131-2 variant CP (br)1b5; e: U111-3, variant CP (br)1c7; f: U108-2:35, variant CP (br)1d2).

0 5 cm.

a

b c d

Fig. 3.36 - Rim fragments of type CP (br)5 (a: U74-4:13, vari-ant CP [br]5a1; b: U107-14:2, variant CP [br]5a3; c: U107-14:4, variant CP [br]5a3; d: U107-14:7, variant CP [br]5a3).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 285 25/03/14 12:51

tribution is displayed in Fig. 3.38. These bases also match the evidence observed on the complete exam-ples analysed above (Fig. 3.39). Three different base types have been recognised, among which the most abundant are, again, the flat and disc-like bases (CP [bs]1 and 2, with four and five examples respectively). The first one is further represented by two subtypes:

one with a simple profile (CP [bs]1a: U110-6:20, pro-vided of a flat interior, variant “1”; Dep-2-4:1, with a depressed interior, variant “2”; U110-6:2, with a irregular interior, variant “5”), and the second with a slight elongation on the outside (subtype CP [bs]1b: U74-4:16, with a flat interior, variant “1”). The type CP (bs)2 is characterised by disc-like bases and two subtypes have been also registered: one with a verti-cal profile (subtype CP [bs]2a: U110-6:12, provided of a flat interior, variant “1”) and the second with a projection on the outside (subtype CP [bs]2d; U164-2:5 and Dep2-3, both with a depressed interior, vari-ant “2”); two additional fragments may have belong to this base type, but their condition does not allow a better typological identification (U74-4.17 and U108-2:40). Finally, one base fragment may be classified as type CP (bs)4 on grounds of its convex outline (U72-4:4), but, again, it is impossible to know the subtype and variant it should belong to; however, it may have belonged to a carinated or curved bowl.

Regarding the surface treatment and decora-tive patterns that this formal group offers (including here, complete individuals and separate morphologi-cal attributes), the situation is similar to that of the jugs (Fig. 3.40). Simple surfaces predominate and there are again a reduced number of examples that display a wash, while the use of red-slip has similar characteristics and representation. In fact, red slip

286


0 5 cm.

a

b c

Fig. 3.37 - Rim fragments of type CP (br)2 (a: U72-4:2, variant CP [br]2a1; b: U131-6:2, variant CP [br]2b6; c: U131-6:1, vari-ant CP [br]2b8).

Formal Group III Type Subtype Variant Ammount

1 1

a 2 1

5 1

CP(bs) 1 b 1 1

– – 1 Bases a 1 1

CP(bs) 2 d 2 2

– – 1

CP(bs) 4 – – 1

CP(bs) – – – 2

Fig. 3.38 - Typological distribution of base fragment types in Period II.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 286 25/03/14 12:51

is observed mainly on some plates and bowls (see it on U107/112 or U107-9) provided with curved (see above) or carinated walls (see the examples of variant CP [br]5a9 above). This slip is also compact, thick and has experienced a horizontal stroke bur-nishing. There would be two possibilities regarding the extension of the slip. In the first place, it appears on the entire surface (as on U107-9), while in other instances it appears only on the inside, reaching just the lip or the upper part of the outside (for example, U107/112).

Most of examples lack any kind of decoration

and in those instances where it appears, its charac-teristics are very similar to those shown by the jugs (Fig. 3.41). Thus, painted decoration occurs on sim-ple surfaces and, it seems, exclusively on plates. The common pattern is concentric and similar to that ob-served especially on neck-ridge jugs. it consists of a combination of bands in red and black fillets (as seen on U98-2; U131-2 or Dep2-3). On the contrary, there are times when those fillets in black are miss-ing (as on U61-2 or U148-2, among others). Further-more, there is an instance where appliqué decoration occurs and, like on the jars, it is closely related to me-

287


a

5 10 cm0

b c

d e

Fig. 3.39 - Base fragments belonging to open ceramic forms from Period II (a: Dep2-4:1, variant CP [br]1a2; b: U110-6:2, variant CP[br] 1a5; c: U74-4:16, variant CP [bs]1b1; d: U110-6:12, variant CP [bs]2a1; e: Dep2-3, variant CP [bs]2d2).

0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

Plates! Curved

bowls!

Lamps! Rims! Bases! Uncertain!

A! B! C! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.40 - Surface treatment possibilities among the open forms in Period II.

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

16!

Plates! Curved

bowls!

Lamps! Rims! Bases! Uncertain!


Fig. 3.41 - Decorative possibilities in Formal Group II.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 287 25/03/14 12:51

tallic prototypes. It consists of a tubular handle placed on the rim of a plate of variant Pl 1b3 (U107-9).

Finally, contrary to the evidence shown by the jugs, some imports have been recognized among the open forms (they were absent in 1997 season). As indicated above, vases of Aegean origin predominate among them (Fig. 3.42). Especially relevant is the presence of an Euboean PSC plate, represented in this period by one example, U110-6:10. Any at-tempt to classify this ceramic type is difficult, so does the search of reliable typological and sequential ref-erences.39 In point of fact, no direct parallel for this fragment has been registered so far; however, follow-ing Nitsche’s directions, it is possible that U110-6:10 may belong to his Group D2 (Nitsche 1986/87: 32, fig. 8). Accordingly, similar examples have been re-corded in Tarsus (Hanfmann 1963: fig. 146: 1511). Beside that plate, two other rim fragments are taken into consideration here: U74-4:25 and U97-3:2. Both belong to a cup of some sort, most probably a skyphos, especially the second, which could even represent a PSC skyphos (see Kearsley 1985: 27, fig. 10: d, type 1?). On the contrary, the interior thickening of U74-4:25 seems to be unusual on this ceramic form, making its identification rather com-plicated. In any case, the presence of black paint all over their walls may place them somewhere in the Euboean Sub-Protogeometric Period.

Cypriot plates are represented in this period by one fragmentary example, U73-2, characterized by a short annular base that holds a convex wall topped by an upright rim with a rounded lip. A pierced horizon-tal knob-like handle is attached to the rim, although it

is uncertain if it was matched by a second one on the other side.40 Its surfaces are recovered with a careful-ly smoothed red slip and the same decorative scheme appears on both sides: on the inside, a group of black concentric fillets frame a circumference placed in the centre of the bowl, while on the outside the fillets ap-pear on the wall, and the central circumference has been substituted by a band that coincides with the base. Finally, the rim is painted on both sides.

Similar bowls have been classified as Black-on-Red I and II wares, the difference between them being the presence in the examples of the first pe-riod of protuberances on both sides of the handle.41 Nevertheless, the existence of handles without those elements has been also registered in bowls dated in the Cypro-Geometric III period (Karageorghis 1983: 186, nr. 4, pl. CXX, Black-on-Red I ware).42 Regard-ing this situation and the tomb where the bowl was recovered (TT73/74), it should be classified in the Cypro-Geometric III period or in the early moments of the Cypro-Archaic I.

4.a.2. Chronological readings

Period II represents the substitution of typological and decorative resources common in the Early Iron Age by others that will characterise the Late Iron Age (Núñez 2008: 355-372; idem 2008b: 38-49;

288


0 5 cm.

a

b c

Fig. 3.42 - Imports of Aegean origin (a: U110-6:10, Euboean PSC plate; b: U74-4:25, Aegean skyphos?; c: U97-3:2, Aegean

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.43 - Cypriot plate (U73-2, Black-on-Red I or II ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 288 25/03/14 12:51

idem 2008/09). This transitional moment, gradual and accumulative, can be observed in Tyre Strata X to VI, Sarepta Sub-stratum D-2 and in the first half of Bikai’s “Horizon of Salamis”. . Besides, this pe-riod counts with two internal stages which result evi-dent in many contemporary sites, including Al-Bass.

From a typological perspective, this period wit-nesses the disappearance of certain ceramic forms and types dominant in the Early Iron Age. Such is the case of the spouted jugs or the pilgrim flasks. In other instances, certain types experiment a series of changes that will condition their future evolution. This would happen to the neck-ridge jugs, which dis-play two variants on grounds of the proportions of their morphological components: one shows larger necks and smaller bodies, while the other display larger bodies.43 Beside those changes, some other innovations are introduced in this moment, for ex-ample, new rim types whose typological and sequen-tial relevance will be soon evident. Thus, sometimes those rims display an open or everted stance, their section is simple and are topped by a rounded lip, wheareas in other instances those lips have a flat-tened outline with a more or less vertical disposition respecting the axis of the rim and tapered thicken-ings on its both sides or only one of them (some ex-amples have been shown before). Plates will undergo relevant modifications as well. The common upright rims of earlier times (similar to those shown by U61-2, of the variant Pl 5a3, and, especially, U148-2, of variant Pl 5a1),44 become direct now and can count with interior thickenings on the rim (plates of subtype Pl 1a and b here).45 Other open types also occur and they announce the presence of flat and hemispherical cups in later stages of this period.46 On the other hand, dippers replace the typical trefoil or pinched rims by rounded ones, while the bodies will keep a general cylindrical shape and a rounded base.47 Storage jars also display interesting modifica-tions. Early Iron Age types, characterised basically by cylindrical bodies whose maximum diameter coin-cides with the shoulder (for example, U74-1 of type Al 1), are gradually substituted by jars in which this attribute has moved to the lower half of the body (as on type Al 4: U64-1 and U110-1).48 Finally, it is also interesting the morphological and decorative consolidation experienced by the amphoroid craters, which will maintain the same inverted piriform bod-ies, marked necks and lineal decoration in later se-quential periods (see above).

There would be also a series of ceramic forms and types that make their first appearance now. One of the most representatives is the decanter, which seems to win their place at expense of other func-tionally related forms like the spouted jugs and the dippers.49 Those decanters, inspired in metallic pro-totypes, are mostly characterised by inverted piri-form bodies and conical or cylindrical necks (types Jv 2 and 3 here). Innovations also affect the surface treatment and decorative resources of many ceramic forms in this period. Thus, any possible manifesta-tion of concentric decorative patterns are gradually abandoned (Anderson 1988: 335-336, Style III), and red slip appears for the first time as a surface treatment, although its use is not widespread over the repertoire; it is rather relegated to certain ceram-ic forms that have been inspired by metallic proto-types. This could be the case of the decanters, some bowl types, neck-ridge jugs and, outside Al-Bass, some pilgrim flasks (see above).

Taking TT51 as one of the earliest of the earliest tombs recovered at Al-Bass so far, it is possible that TT97 was close in time or, even, contemporary. The same may happen with TT148. Other instanc-es such as TT61, TT98 or TT131 could be later in time, although it is really complicated to discern how much; TT72 and TT130 may be also in the same situation. It is clear that all those contexts are related to Tyre Strata X to VI and Sarepta Sub-stratum D-2, while in Palestine they would match Iron 2a levels like Megiddo Stratum VB, Hazor X, Tel Rehov V and VI, Samaria Pottery Periods 1 and 2 and, prob-ably, the Iron 2a levels at Dor. Similar ceramics have been also recovered in Cypriot funerary contexts like the Tombs 54, 55 and 63 at Palaepaphos-Skales (those probably belonging to the earlier part of the sequential stage; see Karageorghis 1983) or Lef-kandi Tomb 79A in the Aegean, where Phoenician materials appear in association with Early Geometric and Sub-Protogeometric I/II ceramics (Popham-Le-mos 1996, pls. 79, 103 and 109).

Besides, there would be some other contexts that seem to be somehow later than the above mentioned ones. Even if they follow the same directions enu-merated before, there are certain elements in them that clearly anticipate the new sequential stage that is about to start, that is, the Period III. One example would be the presence of decanters provided with globular bodies (U109-2), the presence of lineal dec-orative patterns on the body (sometimes combined

289


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 289 25/03/14 12:51

290


930 -

920 -

910 -

900 -

890 -

880 -

870 -

860 -

850 -

840 -

830 -

820 -

810 -

800 -

790 -

780 -

770 -

915

- 97

487

0 -

895

850

- 87

5

800

- 83

0

al -

Bass

2

780-

800

al -

Bass

3

934

842

851-

871

(19.

2 %

)89

5-92

4 (4

9 %

)R

ehov

VI

842

928

Reh

ov V

895-

918

(43.

4 %

)85

1-87

1 (2

4.8

%)

Reh

ov IV

894-

922

(41.

3 %

)84

9-87

5 (2

6.9

%)

933

840

815

1053

Meg

iddo

H-5

895-

999

(58.

4 %

)85

0-87

2 (9

.8 %

)

Haz

or IX

847

794

802-

830

(68.

2 %

)

836

920

893-

913

(28.

6 %

)84

6-87

7 (3

9.6

%)

Dor

8c

922

830

842-

905

(68.

2 %

)

901

830

Dor

8b

R. Z

ayit

869-

895

(37.

6 %

)83

5-85

5 (3

0.6

%)

800

837

806-

826

(68.

2 %

)

806

767

779-

801

(68.

2 %

)

Ham

mah

l.

Ham

mah

u.

900

790

795-

845

(68.

2 %

)T.

1/2

(V

III)

745

- 76

5760 -

750 -

740 -

IIIII

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

IV

IV

III IV

IV

V

Fig. 3.44 - Sequential horizons after Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2007 and 2009, with the addition of the proposed dates for Al-Bass Periods II and III, as well as the C14 date (GrA-34992) obtained from Al-Bass Tomb 1/2 of Sector VIII (context not included here).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 290 25/03/14 12:51

with triglyphs on the shoulder; as on the last exam-ple) or concentrated on the upper half of the neck. Some sites represent this sequential stage: Megiddo VA/IVB, Horbat Rosh Zayit IIa,50 or Amathus Tomb 194W (Tytgat 1995; Coldstream 1995a). Those contexts display the association of local ceramics characteristic of this transitional moment with im-ports dated in the Aegean Middle Geometric I, Sub-Protogeometric IIIa and some early Cypro-Archaic I ceramics. Further examples of the existence of this later sequential stage can be also observed in Phoeni-cia, for instance, in some materials recovered in the neighbourhood of Tyre.51 However, its correspond-ence with the stratigraphy of Tyre is rather compli-cated. One possibility would be to relate it with Tyre Strata VII and VI, or rather the latter. As to Sarepta, the best candidate could be its Sub-stratum D2, al-though this option should be left open.

This second sequential stage remained elusive at Al-Bass until the recovering of tomb TT73/74, which associates local ceramics typical of this transitional pe-riod with an amphoroid crater dated in the Cypro-Ge-ometric III (U73-1) and an original Black-on-Red I-II plate (U73-2), or, especially, the grouping that com-prises the tombs TT107, TT108/109, TT110/111 and TT112. Of them, Tomb TT110/111 is probably the best representative, as it counts with an ampho-roid crater that has to be dated in the Cypro-Archaic I period (U111-1, Bichrome IV ware).52 At the same time, two further contexts may also belong to this se-quential stage. One is TT163/164, with a jug shard decorated with a triglyph like decoration (U163-2:1), similar to that observed on U109-2; the other context would be Deposit 10, which has produced a spouted jug (Dep10-2) that finds a close parallel in Samaria Pottery Period 3 (Kenyon 1957: 111, fig. 5: 2), a level that is also contemporary to this second stage of Period II at Al-Bass.53

The absolute chronology of this complex sequen-tial period has been recently involved in a strong controversy. Diverse historical interpretations of the archaeological evidence have given place to two clearly defined and opposed possibilities: the con-ventional and the revised or low chronology. This is not a place to deal in depth with the origins of this controversy,54 or the reasons that led us to fa-vour the low chronology (the references have been offered before). On the contrary, it is preferable in this context to state that the chronological reference followed here is the succession of horizons described

by Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2007 and 2009; see also Gilboa et al 2008 and our Fig. 3.44). After this scheme, the transitional period that separates the Early and Late Iron Age started somewhere in the second half of the 10th century BC, and lasted until an advanced moment of the second half of the 9th century. Shoshenq’s campaigns against Pal-estine and the ascension of the kingdom of Israel could serve as a historical reference for its beginning (even for Phoenicia), while the Aramean campaigns against Israel would be of the same use for its end.

The above mentioned sequential coincidences between Al-Bass Period II and Iron 2a in Palestine could be also used in the chronological field. The starting point would be the dates of the end of the 10th century from Tel Rehov VI and the so-called “transitional level Iron 1/2” at Dor, which should be related, at least in part, with Tyre Stratum XI. The proofs for this equation would be, on the one hand, the significant growing of red slip in the last one and, on the other, the presence of Aegean Sub-Protoge-ometric imports (Bikai 1978a: 53-54, table 13 “im-port 3”; see also Núñez 2008b: 35-36). This date would be also consistent with the historical date of 879 BC (building anew of Samaria) and its relation-ship with its Pottery Periods 1 and 2, which should be older than this date. On the other sequential ex-treme, the above mentioned Aramean destructions in Israel may serve as a terminus post quem for the end of Al-Bass Period II and the beginning of the Phoenician Late Iron Age. One further context may point in this direction: Amathus Tomb 13 (Gjerstad et al. 1935: pl. XIX: 1), where a Phoenician red-slipped cauldron of type Cl 1a1 together with two decanters of types Jv 2d2 and Jv 3d2, as well as a neck-ridge jug, all they also covered with red slip, ap-peared in association with an Aegean pedestal crater typical of the Middle Geometric II period (see also below).

With the intention of obtaining chronologically useful data from Al-Bass contexts, 14C analyses were undertaken from samples recovered in three different contexts: U61-1, U74-1 and U2-1 from Sector VIII (not published here; Fig. 3.45). Only the third of them produced a result that seems to agree with the expected results (GrA-34992; see below in the paragraph devoted to this analysis): 2660±35 BP (calibrated: 833-801 BC at 1 σ and 895-790 BC at 2 σ).

Taking the characteristics of this tomb in this

291


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 291 25/03/14 12:51

292

TT04-VIII-3b-1952

U.1-1

TT04-VIII-3b-2295

U.1-2

TT04-VIII-3b-1945

U.2-1

TT04-VIII-3b-2292

U.2-1:1

TT04-VIII-3b-670

U.1/2-2

TT04-VIII-3b-667

U.1/2-1

TT04-VIII-3b-671

U.1/2-3

TT04-VIII-3b-2422

TT04-VIII-3b-2438

TT04-VIII-3b-2437

TT04-VIII-3b-2423 TT04-VIII-3b-2443

TT04-VIII-3b-2415 TT04-VIII-3b-2441

TT04-VIII-3b-2412

TT04-VIII-3b-2413.2414

TT04-VIII-3b-2442

TT04-VIII-3b-2416.2432.2440

0 10 cm.

Fig. 3.45 - Tomb TT1/2 from Al-Bass Sector VIII.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 292 25/03/14 12:51

context, its ceramic materials seem to find a better accommodation in the earlier moments of Period II, especially on the basis of the neck-ridge jug (U1/2-2), which may be related to examples typical of the later moments of the Early Iron Age (Núñez 2008b: 25, “Stage C” and pp. 35-38), the Cypriot ampho-roid crater, datable in the Cypro-Geometric III period (U2-1), the cylindrical storage jar provided of a but-ton-like base (U1-1), or the spouted jug with a long cy-lindrical neck (U1/2-1). To those relevant elements, there would be another one that should be added, namely. the presence of some wall fragments most probably belonging to two Cypriot Black-on-Red I (III) neck-ridge jugs (TT04-VIII-3b-2423 and 2443). In point of fact, these sherds may represent the old-est examples at Al-Bass of that ware considering the sequential nature of the context. However, it is neces-sary to consider the role of that 14C date may play in this context. Even if this date, taken its maximum chronological spectrum, that is, the entire 9th century BC, may match well with the supposed date of those ceramics, it is also true that the second half of that century counts with bigger statistical chances. How-ever, that time span is about half a century younger than expected and, therefore, may coincide with the second half of Al-Bass Period II (Fig. 3.44). The con-ventional date for the beginning of Cypriot Black-on-Red wares would be another issue. Its beginning is placed around 850 BC (Gjerstad 1948: 422-423 and 427), a date that seems to be somehow supported by low chronology followers, who may even accept a higher date, although never in the 10th century BC.55 In point of fact, this 14C result may support the traditional date, but only if local and even other imported wares from this tomb were not taken into consideration.56 There would be further elements that may support a date prior to the conventional 850 BC for the beginning of the Cypriot Black-on-Red ware. In the first place, Al-Bass is a Phoenician cemetery and the local ceramics recovered in this tomb should contextualize from a sequential perspective the im-ports and not the other way round. In the second place, it is noteworthy the presence of this ware in levels dated in the first half of the 9th century, such as Tyre Stratum X, Megiddo VB, Hazor X, Samaria Pot-tery Period 1 and 2, and the closely related Tel Far’ah (N) levels VIIb and VIIc (site identified as Tirzah, old Omride capital) or the foundation levels of Tel Jezreel (identified with Omri’s winter palace and build at the same time as Samaria). In this sense, the upper limit

should be Lefkandi Tomb 79A, cited above, where an early example of a small Black-on-Red barrel jug was recovered together with two Phoenician bichrome neck-ridge jugs in a Sub-Protogeometric I/II and Early Geometric context (see above and Núñez 2008a: 364; idem 2008b: 44-45). Summing up, it seems that the origin of the Cypriot Black-on-Red ware has to be sought somewhere high in the first half of the 9th century BC. However, given the actual circum-stances, it seems that the question must remain open an ready to be dealt with somewhere else.

4.b. Al-Bass Period III

Seven contexts belong to this Period: TT67/P23, TT88/89, TT141/142, TT159/160, TT167/168 and TT173/174. They represent 7.89% of all the contexts analysed here and 5.75% of all the ceramic materials recovered in the excavation season under consideration.

4.b.1. Typological analysis

This period witnesses a predominance of jugs (38.46%), followed by open forms (37.18%) and con-tainers (24.36%).

Formal Group I

This formal group is represented basically by am-phoroid craters and storage jars. Their typological character is synthesized in the Fig. 3.46. The same data appears represented in the Fig. 3.47.

Craters and, especially, the amphoroid type rep-resent the most abundant ceramic form in this group (Fig. 3.48). Eight local examples have been rec-ognised. They display inverted piriform bodies and most of them conical necks (variant Cr 1a2: U67-1, U141-1, U142-1, U160-1, U173-1 and U174-1); in the remaining jars this attribute is cylindrical (vari-ant Cr 1a1: U88-1 and U167-1). It is possible to ob-serve two changes regarding the craters of the previ-ous period. The first one affects the body outline, which becomes whether curved (U67-1) or angular (as on U160-1); at the same time, the necks become somehow shorter and sometimes narrower (U167-1) or, even, wider (U141-1, U142-1). A special

293


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 293 25/03/14 12:51

example would be U173-1, whose width provides it with a rather globular outlook. The second differ-ence is the better representation of depressed bases (as on U67-1 or U160-1, which has been pierced to turn it into some sort of strainer); nevertheless, annular bases still occur in a variety of forms and proportions. Otherwise, rims and handles keep the same characteristics seen in the previous period; the exception could be the presence now of tapered rims (U167-1 and U173-1, both provided of a heel-like projection on its back).

As regard to the Cypriot amphoroid craters, their number has decreased to only two examples (Fig. 3.49). The first one is P23 (Season 2002), a jar that belongs to the White Painted IV ware and displays the typical “zone style”, including the horizontal wavy band on the neck. Even if some of its charac-

teristics, especially its rounded shoulder and cylindri-cal neck, may be closely related with craters of the Cypro-Geometric III.57 A date in the Cypro-Archaic I period may be supported by its shorter neck and the compact rim, which embody actual innovations.58 At the same time, the poor condition of U89-1 does not allow to observe its decoration, but from a mor-phological perspective it would be related with the previous crater.

No examples of local or imported stable jars have been recorded in this period.59 Accordingly, there is only one storage jar, U159-1, whose mor-phological characteristics may place it in subtype Al 4b (Fig. 3.50). There would be other morphologi-cal features on this jar that are worth mentioning here. For example, the marked shoulder, the walls, which open themselves gradually from that shoulder to reach its maximum diameter in the lower half of the body, the pointed base (this element defines the jar as belonging to subtype “b”), or the reduced size of the handles and the curved outline of the shoul-der. This jar shows certain similarities with an exam-ple recovered in the sea and classified in Pedrazzi’s subtype 16-3-2 (Pedrazzi 2007: 134, fig. 3.83: a). The morphological differences between them are minimal and they affect only to the shape of the base, which in this second instance is less pointed. On the other hand, the rim on Pedrazzi’s example is simple and its stance is upright and slightly everted. Among the jars recovered in contexts that are con-temporary to Al-Bass Period III, it is possible to cite two examples registered in Tyre Stratum IV (Bikai 1978a: pl. XIV: 13 and 16). These two jars display clear differences with U159-1. The morphological

294



1 2 Cr 1 a Craters 2 6

Cr C 2

Storage jars Al 4 b – 1

Vj F – – 7 Undetermined jars Vj Im – – 1

Formal Group I/al Bass Period III

0!

1!

2!

3!

4!

5!

6!

7!

8!

Crater! Storage jar! Undetermined jar!

Local! Import!

Fig. 3.47 - Relation of members of Formal Group I recovered in Period III.

Fig. 3.46 - Typological distribution of Formal Group I in Period III.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 294 25/03/14 12:51

features of one of them (Bikai 1978a: pl. XIV: 16) can be related with jars found in older sequential moments (compare it with U17-1 from the 1997 season or, even U61-4), while the second vessels shows a lower body curved in an exaggerated man-ner. Finally, all these jars should be classified in Sagona’s type 1 (see above).

Turning now to the surface treatment and decora-tive characteristics of the local jars (Fig. 3.51), the first impression is that the same features observed in the previous period continue in this one. In the first place, simple surfaces predominate, the wash is a re-

sidual alternative and there is an absolute absence of red slip.

On the other hand, decorative resources occur only on craters and undetermined jars, and they fol-low the same lineal pattern already observed in Pe-riod II (Fig. 3.52).

Formal Group II

Only two ceramic forms are represented in this period: neck-ridge jugs and decanters. Their typo-logical character is synthesized in the Fig. 3.53.

295


5 10 cm0

TT04-VII-3b-4668

a b

c d

e

Fig. 3.48 - Local amphoroid craters of Period III (a: U67-1, variant Cr 1a2; b: U167-1, variant Cr 1a1; c: U88-1, variant Cr 1a1; d: U173-1, variant Cr 1a2; e: U160-1, variant Cr 1a2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 295 25/03/14 12:51

Neck-ridge jugs offer only one variant, charac-terised by open rims, cylindrical necks and globular bodies (variant Ja 2a1: U67-2, U142-4, U159-4 and U167-3; Fig. 3.54).60 One of the traits that better characterise those jugs is a reduction of the proportions between the two halves of the neck

and the diameter of the rim. This fact has relevant implications for the handle, which now becomes shorter, has a marked rounded outline, and keeps on connecting the shoulder with a point of the neck placed just below the ridge. The rims of all those jugs also display similar characteristics. Beside their open stance, all are topped by a simple vertical lip (U159-1). However, in some other instances they can display slight thickenings on one of its sides or in both (for instance, U67-2 and U167-3) or

296


a b

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.49 - Imported amphoroid craters of Period III (a: P23 of 2002 season, Cypriot White-Painted III ware; b: U89-1, Cypriot , uncertain ware)

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.50 - U159-1 (subtype Al 4b).

0!

1!

2!

3!

4!

5!

6!

7!


A! B! C! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.51 - Surface treatment possibilities in Formal Group I of Period III.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 296 25/03/14 12:51

replace those protuberances by a widening of the lip (U142-1). Evidently, those lip variations derive directly from examples observed in the previous period, as do the bases, which are predominantly annular and low. Finally, these jugs can be distrib-uted into two groups regarding their size: on the one side, U142-4 and U159-4, while, on the other, U67-2 and U167-3, to which the undetermined jug U174-4 could be added.

Likewise, decanters are also represented by one variant which is characterised by a conical neck, a globular body and a trefoil rim (variant Jv 3a2: U89-4, U142-3, U159-3 and U174-3; Fig. 3.55). The typological homogeneity of those jugs hides a se-ries of relevant differences between them. Hence, regardless the possible variations that their respec-tive bodies show, three examples display a rather stylised neck (U89-4, U159-3 and U174-3; the de-pressed body of U159-3 is noteworthy). Meanwhile, the remaining jug, U142-3, has a wider neck that is

combined with a globular body. Other attributes to be mentioned here are the handles, which in some instances show quadrangular sections provided of rounded extremes (U159-3 and U174-3), while in others they are geminated (U89-4 and U142-3). At the same time, the rims count with a tapered lip and the bases are annular and low. Finally, it is also evi-dent the presence of two sizes, although the smaller option seems to be more common.

Regarding the surface treatment possibilities (Fig. 3.56), simple surfaces still predominate, a situation that is contrasted by the representative presence of red-slipped surfaces. At the same time, there is again a close relationship between surface treatment and ceramic type. Thus, simple surfaces are typical on neck-ridge jugs, while decanters are covered with red slip (certainly on grounds of their metallic prototypes; see below), which is homogene-ous but not as compact and thick as in the previous period. As a rule, the complete jugs as well as most of the fragments display a stroke burnishing that dif-fers from the Period II in its application: horizontal on the body and vertical on the neck.

Similar associations can be established between types and decorative resources. All the neck-ridge jugs concentrate their decoration on the upper half of the neck and over the upper side of the rim. Bod-ies lack any decoration as also do other attributes such as the handles or the base of the neck. On the other hand, decanters continue to be loyal to the parameters of their metallic prototypes. Their basic decoration consists of a pair or three horizontal inci-sions on the shoulder, to which a step-like motive at the base of the neck could be added. Painted decora-tion has not been registered on the local decanters of this period so far.

297


0!

1!

2!

3!

4!

5!

6!

7!

8!



Fig. 3.52 - Decorative possibilities in Formal Group I of Pe-riod III.

Ceramic Form Type Subtype Variant Ammount

Ja – – – 1 Neck-ridge jug Ja 2 a 1 4

Decanter Jv 3 a 2 4

Undetermined jugs Jr F – – 21

Formal Group II/al Bass Period III

Fig. 3.53 - Typological distribution of Formal Group II in Period III.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 297 25/03/14 12:51

Formal Group III

The number of ceramic forms represented in this period is also reduced: plates, carinated bowls and lids. The data can be displayed in Fig. 3.58 and 59.

Plates represent the most abundant ceramic form among the open forms of this period. Two types have been recognised: Pl 2 and Pl 3. The best represented is Pl 2, which is characterised by an everted rim (Fig. 3.60). All the recovered ex-amples of this type display thickenings on the in-side of their rims (subtype Pl 2b) and their bases can be whether flat (variant Pl 2b1: U67-4:2, U88-2, U141-2, U142-2 and U174-2) or disc-like (vari-

ant Pl 2b3: U173-2). All the rims of those plates show similar characteristics, namely, the already cited quadrangular thickening (variant CP [br]2b6, to which the fragments U67-4:1 and U141-1:13 could be added). In point of fact, the difference between them affects basically the length of those thickenings (compare, for example, U67-4:2 with U173-2), the more or less rounded or quadrangu-lar outline of the lip (as on U141-2 and U142-2), o the characteristics of the interior step-like device that gives place to the rim (on U67-4:2 it is angular, while on U174-2 is rather a step).

The remaining type of plate is represented by U167-2, which displays a horizontal rim provided of an exterior thickening and a flat base, elements

298


5 10 cm0

a b

c d

Fig. 3.54 - Neck-ridge jugs of Period III (a: U142-4; b: U159-4; c: U67-2; d: U167-3; all these jugs belong to variant Ja 2a1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 298 25/03/14 12:51

that identify it as belonging to variant Pl 3c1. Fur-thermore, that thickening has an oval outline that ends in a wide rounded lip which is compensated by a ridge on the inside (variant CP [br]3c7).

Carinated bowls occur for the first time in this Pe-

riod, and they are represented by two types: Cc 1 and 3 (Fig. 3.62).61 The first one is characterised by a simple rim that tops a straight wall, and a de-pressed base (U174-5, variant Cc 1a5; the rim itself may belong to variant CP [br]1a1, while the base

299


5 10 cm0

a b c

d

Fig. 3.55 - Decanters of Period III (a: U89-2; b: U142-3; c: U159-3; d: U174-3; all they belong to variant Jv 3a2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 299 25/03/14 12:51

would belong to variant CP [bs]1a2). On the other hand, the example of type Cc 3, U160-2, displays a triangular rim placed directly on the carination that divides the vase into two halves, while the lower one stands on a disc-like base (variant Cc 3d4; the rim may belong to variant CP [br]1c3).62 Actually, this bowl seems to be a variant of certain carinated bowls provided of a triangular rim and whether long or shorter walls, which will become common in future periods (see below).63

The last ceramic form represented in this period is the lid, illustrated by an example, U159-2, that is provided with open walls, slightly curved, and ended in a direct rim that counts with a ridgelike device in-tended to fix it on the mouth of a jar. At the same

300


0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

neck-ridge jugs! decanters! undetermined jugs!

A! B! C! Uncertain!

Fig. 3.56 - Surface treatment possibilities in Formal Group II in Period III.

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

16!

18!

neck-ridge jugs! decanters! undetermined jugs!


Fig. 3.57 - Decorative resources in Formal Group II in Period III.


Cc 1 a 5 1 Carinated bowl Cc 3 d 4 1

1 5 Pl 2 b Plate 3 1

Pl 3 c 1 1

Lid Tp 1 a 1 1

Undetermined CP F – – 4

Formal Group III/al Bass Period III

Fig. 3.58 - Typological distribution of Formal Group III in Period III.

0!

1!

2!

3!

4!

5!

6!

7!

Plates! Carinated

bowls!

Lids! Uncertain!

Local! Imported!

Fig. 3.59 - Relation of members of Formal Group III recovered in Period III.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 300 25/03/14 12:51

time, the handle resembles a disc-like base (variant Tp 1a1, while the rim may belong to variant CP [br]1b8; Fig. 3.63).64

As to the rim types, five types have been recog-nised: CP (br) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Figs. 3:64 and 65).The predominant type in this context is CP (br)1, that is, rims with a simple rim, of which there are two subtypes in this moment: the first one shows a sim-ple section and a lip bevelled on its lower side (CP [br]1a10: U141-3:11), while the second, the most common, counts with exterior thickenings that can be rounded (variant CP [br]1c5: U89-3:8 and U141-3:12), oval (variant CP [br]1c7: U89-3:7) or angular (CP [br]1c8: U89-3: 6). The next type are represent-ed by everted rims. Two subtypes have been recog-

nised, one with a simple rim provided of a rounded lip (variant CP [br]2a1: U173-3:5) and a second possibility that counts with an interior quadrangular thickening (Variant CP [br]2b6: U67-4:1 and U141-3:13). The other types that have been recovered are represented by only one example each: U89-3:9 is a

301


5 10 cm0

a b c

d e

f

Fig. 3.60 - Plates of type Pl 2 of Period III (a: 67-4:2; b: U88-2; c: U141-2; d: U142-2; e: U174-2; f: U173-2; a-e, variant Pl 2b1, and f, variant Pl 2b3).

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.61 - Plate of type Pl 3 (b: U167-2, variant Pl 3c1).

5 10 cm0

a

b

Fig. 3.62 - Carinated bowls of types Cc1 (a: U174-5, variant Cc 1a5) and Cc 3 (b: U160-2, variant Cc 3d4).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 301 25/03/14 12:51

horizontal rim provided with an interior thickening of quadrangular section (variant CP [br]3b6), and U89-3:1 is a pendent triangular rim (CP [br]4c3).

At the same time, two types of base have been recovered (Fig. 3.66).The evidence matches what has been observed regarding the complete vases. Thus, two main base types have been recognised: flat and disc-like (Fig. 3.67). The first type is slight-ly more abundant. Beside one uncertain instance (U141-3:15), it is possible to distinguish between a simple and depressed interior (U89-3:15 and U141-3:14, variants CP [bs]1a1 and 2 respec-tively). Meanwhile, the second type is represented now by discs with a rounded exterior and a slightly convex interior (U173-3:1, variant CP[bs]2c4) that in the other instance become rounded on the exte-rior and depressed in the interior (U164-2:5, variant CP[bs]2d2).

Finally, almost all the individuals belonging to the Formal Group III in this Period show plain sur-faces. No examples provided with a wash have been recorded, and only one item has been covered with a red slip. Surfaces are finished by applying a more or less careful smoothing, especially on the inside. However, there are some instances where they

302


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.63 - U159-2 (variant Tp 1a1).

0 5 cm.

a b c

d e

f

Fig. 3.65 - Rim fragments types belonging to open forms (a: U89-3:8, variant CP [br]1c5; b: U89-3:7, variant CP [br]1c7; c: U89-3:6, variant CP [br]1c8; d: U173-3:5, variant CP [br]2a1; e: U67-4:1, variant CP [br]2b6; f: U89-3:9, variant CP [br]3b6).

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

CP (br)1 CP (br)2 CP (br)3 CP (br)4 Uncertain

Fig. 3.64 - Rim types belonging to open forms.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 302 25/03/14 12:51

have been burnished, most of them identifiable with the example of variant Cc 3d4 and two fragments of disc-like base (U173-3:1 and U164-2:6). As to the red-slip cup, this slip covers only the interior and the lip, leaving its outside free; it has been stroke burnished, horizontally on the outside and through

a combination of concentric and transversal strokes on the inside.

On the other hand, no decoration has been re-corded. The single exception is a circular groove on the interior of U173-3:1.

303


0 5 cm.a b

Fig. 3.66 - Base types belonging to open forms (a: U89-3: 15, variant CP [bs]1a1; b: U173-3:1, variant CP [bs]2c4).

Fig. 3.67 - Rim and base fragments recovered in Period III.

Attribute Type Subtype Variant Ammount

CP(bs) - - - 1

a 10 1

5 2 CP(bs) 1 c 7 1

Rims 8 1

a 1 1 CP(bs) 2 b 6 2

CP(bs) 3 b 6 1

CP(bs) 4 c 3 1

1 1

a 2 1 CP(bs) 1 – 1

Bases – – 1

c 4 1

CP(bs) 2 d 2 1

- - 1

Formal Group III/al Bass Period III

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 303 25/03/14 12:51

4.b.2. Chronological analysis

Al-Bass Period III corresponds to Tyre Strata V and part of IV, as well as probably part of Sarep-ta Sub-stratum D-1, and the second half of Bikai’s “Salamis Horizon” (Núñez 2008a: 372-377; idem 2008b: 49-58; idem 2008/09). From a purely se-quential perspective, this period represents the first stage of the Phoenician Late Iron Age, where the morphological and decorative changes observed in the previous period have been consolidated. Thus, it is possible to observe how the neck-ridge jugs are divided into two basic variants on the basis of the shape of their rims (everted and vertical; Núñez 2008a: 25, 305; idem 2008b: 25, “fase e”). De-canters display mostly globular bodies and conical necks, although a rather stylised appearance char-acterise the latter at this moment. Even if there are plates with direct rims (Bikai’s types 8 and 9; see above), the common type displays whether everted

or horizontal rims, mostly with interior thickenings (Bikai 1978a: 23, type 7). At the same time, there are bowls with curved walls (among them also Bikai’s type FWP 4; Bikai 1978a: 29) together with some carinated ones (Bikai’s types FWP 5, 6 and 7; Bikai 1978a: 28-29). As to the jars, beside the evolution experienced by the amphoroid craters following cer-tain lines already established in the previous period, it is noteworthy the dominance of storage jars whose maximum diameter is to be found in the lower half of their bodies (type Al 4), while their rims, not re-corded in Al-Bass, become direct and with an up-right stance.65

Certain surface treatments and decorative re-sources display a close relationship with determined ceramic types. For example, red slip appears now as a consolidated option, especially on decanters and bowls. On the other hand, painted decoration, usually bichrome and lineal, appears on neck-ridge jugs and jars, although it can occur on some jugs and

304



2 2 b Ad 1 3 3 Stable amphora c 1 1

Ad C 7

1 8

Cr 1 a 2 24 Crater 3 2

Cr C 6

Storage jar Al 5 – – 1

Al – – – 12

Cauldron Cl 1 b 2 1

Cooking pot Oc – – 1

Undetermined jar Vj F 57

VJ Im 1

Formal Group I/al Bass Period IV

Fig. 3.68 - Typological character of the Formal Group I in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 304 25/03/14 12:51

open forms. Finally, other decorative patterns com-mon in the previous period, for example, the con-centric one, have disappeared almost completely in any of its versions and typological applications.

The best context at Al-Bass that represents this sequential moment is TT45/46 (Núñez 2004a: 108-112, 180-182, figs. 95-97), of which TT159/160 is probably contemporary. Another paradigmat-ic context in the cemetery, especially thanks to the abundant material associated to it, would be TT55/56 (ibid: 118-123, 191-193, fig. 106-108), although at a certain sequential distance from the previous contexts. Other contexts would be in the same situation, for example, TT4/6 or TT39, both recovered in 1997, as well as TT67/P23, TT88/89, TT141/142 and TT167/168.

Outside the Metropolis, the context that best represents this sequential moment is Salamis Tomb 1 (Dikaios 1963; Coldstream 1963, Desborough 1963; Bikai 1987: 50). There it is possible to ob-serve the association of most of the above mentioned Phoenician types together with Cypriot Geometric III and mostly Archaic I ceramics as well as Aegean Middle Geometric II and Sub-Protogeometric IIIb im-ports. However, the above mentioned association of similar Aegean and Cypriot ceramics with Period II Phoenician vases in Amathus Tomb 13 should not lead to any confusion. This context has been men-tioned as representing the last stages of transitional stage between the Early and Late Iron age, while, on the other hand, it is important to recall now the accumulative character of the Phoenician sequence, in which sequential stages overlap rather than follow one to another.66 Other contexts that belong to this moment, but are somehow later, are Mount Carmel Tomb VII (Guy 1929: 52, pl. III; this one represent-ing the other extreme of the transitional period open by Amathus Tomb 13), Khalde Tomb 121 (Saidah 1966: 64-72), or the tomb recovered in Tambourit, close to Sidon (Saidah 1977). Outside Phoenicia, it is possible to observe coincidences with Hazor Stra-ta VIII and, probably, also VII.

The end of Al-Bass Period III is marked by the tomb TT3/5 (Núñez 2004a: 64-70, 137, 139-140, figs. 52, 54 and 55). This context offers two Cypriot stable amphorae, two local decanters of variant Jv 3a2 (U3-3) and Jv 2a1 (U3-4), a flat cup of variant Cc 1a5 (U3-5), three common plates belonging re-spectively to variant Pl 1a1 (U3-6), Pl 2b2 (U5-3) and Pl 3b1 (U3-2), and a hemispherical cup (U5-2,

variant Cv 1d1) that display burnished red-slip com-bined with concentric incised decoration on its base, a decorative resource that marks the beginning of Period IV in Al- Bass (Bikai 1987: 52, 54 and 56).

From a chronological perspective, it has been al-ready indicated that the transition between Al-Bass Period II and III should have taken place well into the second half of the 9th century BC, probably, in the last moments of this century if not in the very beginning of the 8th. Furthermore, following Finkel-stein and Piasetzky scheme (2007 and 2009), the connections with Hazor serve to place its Stratum VIII in the first quarter of the 8th century BC, a date that fits with the end of Hazor Stratum VI prob-ably destroyed by the earthquake that hit Palestine around 763 BC.67 It will be indicated later that Hazor VI represents the initial stages of Al-Bass Period IV. Therefore, Al-Bass Period III started about the last stages of 9th century BC and occupied mostly the first quarter of the 8th century BC.

4.c. Al-Bass Period IV

This is the best illustrated period in the cemetery. It counts with thirty five contexts, which represent 6.05% of all the registered associations recovered in the new excavation seasons, as well as 45.57% of all the contextualised ceramics. The contexts in ques-tion are: U.57-59, TT60/81, TT62/63, TT64/78, TT65/66, TT68, TT69, TT70/71, TT77, TT79, TT90, TT93/94, TT101-102, TT103/104, TT113, TT115/116, TT117/118, TT119/120, TT121/122, TT124/125, TT126/127, TT128/129, TT135, TT136, TT139, TT147, TT151/152, TT153/154, TT157/158, TT165/166, TT169/170, TT172, Dep6, Dep8 and Dep9.

4.c.1. Typological analysis

A bigger number of contexts lead, as a conse-quence, to a better typological variety. However, the relationship between formal groups remains almost the same. Thus, as in previous periods, open forms (38.67%) and jugs (38.51%) are more abundant than jars (20.39%).

305


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 305 25/03/14 12:51

Formal Group I

Five ceramic forms have been recognised in this period: amphoroid craters, stable amphorae, caul-drons, storage jars and cooking pots. Beside them, there are a relevant number of fragments whose ty-pological ascription is not possible.

The same data can be displayed on a histogram in order to evaluate the relationship between those ce-ramic forms, whether local or imported (Fig. 3.69).

Amphoroid craters dominate this formal group, especially the subtype provided with inverted piriform bodies (Cr 1a; Fig. 3.70). Three variants have been recorded depending the shape of their necks: coni-cal (variant Cr 1a2: U.62-1, U.63-1, U.66-1, U.68-1, U.79-1, U.101-1, U.103-1, U.113-1, U.115-1, U.116-1, U.119-1, U.120-1, U.121-1, U.124-1, U.125-1, U.126-1, U.127-1, U.129-1, U.129-2, U.129-3, U.136-1,U.147-1, U.151-1 and U.152-1; Fig. 3.70: e, g, h, i and j), cylindrical (variant Cr 1a1: U.59-1, U.81-1, U.102-1, U.104-1, U.122-1, U.128-1, U. U.154-1 and U.172-1; Fig. 3.70: a, b, c and k) and open (variant Cr 1a3: U69-1 and U135-1; Fig. 3.70: d, f). Beside these typologically relevant aspects, it is relevant to observe how the same parameters described for this ceramic type in Period II are still valid now. This fact is obvious de-spite the strong variability existing among those cra-ters, something no doubt favored by the number of instances recorded. Differences affect predominantly the outlines and the proportions of their bodies and necks: compare the relatively narrow necks of U59-1 or U104-1 with U122-1 and U128-1, where this at-

tribute is evidently wider (compare Fig. 3.70: a with b); at the same time, the rounded bodies of U81-1 or U154-1 contrast sharply with the more angular outline of U103-1 and U135-1 (Fig. 3.70:c and d). There are also variations regarding the shape of the handles, which in some instances have a rounded outline while in others it is more angular (compare, for example, U119-1 with U129-1). There are also differences among the rims, which always display an exterior thickening whose section can be whether quadrangular (U120-1, U124-1 or U69-1, this one with a downwards projection of its lip; Fig. 3.70: f), tapered (U104-1, U129-2 or U172-1; Fig. 3.70: g), beveled on its lower side (U68-1; Fig. 3.70: h), pointed (U115-1 and U151-1; Fig. 3.70: i and j) or rounded (U121-1; Fig. 3.70: k). Sometimes, even, this exterior thickening is compensated on its inside by a heel-like projection (as on U119-1 or U154-1). Finally, there are two main base types: annular and flat. The first ones are simple and relatively low, while their sections can be quadrangular (U102-1 or U62-1) or rounded (U69-1). Meanwhile, flat bases are al-ways depressed and usually display an omphalos-like protuberane on its centre that sometimes surpasses the stability line of the base.

Local amphoroid craters are complemented with the presence of individuals of Cypriot origin, although their relevance has dramatically decreased compared to previous periods. All the craters be-long to the Cypro-Archaic I period, and three wares are represented: White-Painted IV (U70-1, U71-1 and U118-1), Bichrome IV (U65-1) and Black-on-Red II (U170-1). From a typological perspective, U70-1 and U71-1 display almost identical char-acteristics and can be compared with P23 (2002 Season), analysed before. At the same time, U65-1 and U118-1 represent a well defined variation that display marked shoulders and short cylindrical necks.68 Furthermore, all those examples display the typical “zone style” and count again with the hori-zontal wavy band as central motive on their necks. The exception is U170-1, apparently a somehow depressed version of U65-1, and U118-1,69 which display a row of sets of concentric circles as a cen-tral motive on its shoulder (see below). Finally, urn U169-1 has to be added to these previous instances, although its characteristics raise certain doubts con-cerning its nature. This jar is definitively not local, but its origin remains an open question. It could have been produced whether in a previously not identified

306


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Local Imported

Fig. 3.69 - Relation of members of Formal Group I recovered in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 306 25/03/14 12:51

307

5 10 cm0

a

?

b c

d e f

g h i

j k

Fig. 3.70 - Local amphoroid craters recovered in Period IV contexts (a: U59-1, variant Cr 1a1; b: U128-1, variant Cr 1a1; c: U81-1, variant Cr 1a1; d: U135-1, variant Cr 1a3; e: U124-1, variant Cr 1a2; f: U69-1, variant Cr 1a3; g: U172-1, variant Cr 1a2; h: U68-1, Cr 1a2; i: U115-1, variant Cr 1a2; j: U151-1, variant Cr 1a2; k: U154-1, variant Cr 1a1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 307 25/03/14 12:51

308


5 10 cm0

a b

c d

e

Fig. 3.71 - Cypriot amphoroid craters recovered in Period IV (a: U70-1, White-Painted IV ware; b: U71-1, White-Painted IV ware; c: U65-1, Bichrome IV ware; d: U118-1, White-Painted IV ware; e: U170-1, Black-on-Red II ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 308 25/03/14 12:51

Cypriot center or in other foreign workshops follow-ing Cypriot prototypes.

Stable amphorae are the next ceramic form to be best exemplified in this period. In contrast to its pre-vious appearance in Period II, now it is represented

by local and imported individuals.70 As to the first ones, this ceramic form seems to appear in Al-Bass for the first time in this Period (including, probably, 1997 Season).71 One type has been recognised so far, Ad 1, which is characterised by inverted piri-

309


5 10 cm0

a

?

?

?

?

b

c d e

f

Fig. 3.72 - Local stable amphorae (a: U165-1, variant Ad 1b2; b: U166-1, variant Ad 1b2; c: U57-1, variant Ad 1b3; d: U93-1, vari-ant Ad 1b3; U94-1, variant Ad 1b3; e: U90-1, variant Ad 1c1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 309 25/03/14 12:51

form bodies (Fig. 3.72). At the same time, this type counts with two subtypes on the basis of the shape of their necks. The first one, Ad 1b, display coni-cal necks and is the most abundant (five instances), while the second is Ad 1c, which shows open necks (one example). Finally, the section of the rim has given place to three variants: simple (variant “1”: U90-1, Ad 1c1), triangular (variant “2”: U165-1 and U166-1, Ad 1b2) and externally thickened (vari-ant “3”: U57-1, U93-1 and U94-1, Ad 1b3).

From a morphological perspective, it is notewor-thy the existence of certain resemblance between these stable amphorae and the amphoroid craters: body and neck shape, bodies with broken outlines in their lower half, proportions between those two attributes, base types (annular and depressed) and, in some instances, the shape of the rim. In point of fact, it seems that the Tyrian potter employed simi-lar technical resources in order to produce different ceramic forms, a phenomenon that could also be ap-plied to some of the jug types. However, given that all the registered examples belong to this period, the homogeneity which those stable amphorae display results interesting, especially their tendency towards a somehow squat outlook. On the other hand, han-dles are placed on the shoulder and show two differ-ent dispositions: vertical and horizontal.

Those morphological aspects become relevant if those jars are compared with their imported coun-terparts. Foreign stable jars come once again from Cyprus and count with two variants: the first one, already registered before, displays a long neck (U64-1, U153-1 and U158-1; Fig. 3.73), which in the second variant becomes short and simple (U77-1, U78-1, U177-1 and U117-1; Fig. 3.74). All the examples registered are to be dated in the Cypro-Archaic I period, including U157-1, an incomplete example that cannot be identified with any of those two types.

Dealing in the first place with the long necked variety, Gjerstad defined the jars belonging to this period as vessels provided of oval shaped bodies and cylindrical necks (Gjerstad 1960: 120, fig. 14); however, only U64-1 fits in with this definition (com-pare it with Gjerstad 1948: fig. XXV: 13). The other two jars are evidently different. U153-1, which has a partner in the cemetery in the urn U22-1 (Núñez 2004a: 158, fig. 83:1), is a bigger jar with a propor-tionally smaller neck,72 while the third jar, U158-1, seems to be a smaller and depressed version of the former.73 Furthermore, the three jars coincide in the collar shape of their respective rims, which embody a direct evolution of their manifestations in Period II. It is also possible that the rim type that charac-

310


5 10 cm0

a b c

Fig. 3.73 - Cypriot long necked stable amphorae (a: U64-1, Black-on-Red II ware; b: U153-1, White-Painted IV ware; c: U158-1, White-Painted IV ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 310 25/03/14 12:51

terises the local stable amphorae of variant “2” is conceptually connected with it. Finally, two of these jars belong to the White-Painted IV ware (U153-1 and U158-1), while the third one to the Black-on-Red II (IV) ware (U64-1). In spite of the time that separates those three jars from the previous exam-ples and their respective wares, it is noteworthy that the three examples keep the so-called zone style as their main decorative pattern. Minor differences can be observed, especially on the rims. In two in-stances they appear covered with black paint (U64-1 and U158-1), while the third jar shows a wavy band (U153-1; see an earlier version on U97-1).

The second variation could be identified with Gjerstad’s jars with horizontal/vertical handles (Gjer-stad 1960: 112-113, fig. 4 and 5), which, as already indicated, is characterised by short and simple rims. Two of the jars belonging here, U77-1 and U78-1 (Fig. 3.74: a and b respectively), display almost identical morphological features, especially the in-verted piriform bodies with rounded shoulders and

the shape of the rim.74 Both belong to the Black-on-Red II(IV) ware and show the habitual “zone style”; however, certain differences could be observed. The handle zone of the two vessels is occupied by contin-uous motifs of different nature: U77-1 displays the repetition of a motif consisting of an inverted “T” made with four sets of concentric circles, and U78-1 shows double “X” motifs with a similar set of circles on each one of its four extremes.75 As to the third jar, U117-1, it stands out for the squat biconical shape of its body, the wide and rounded shoulder, as well as its upright rim, slightly bended inwards and topped by a beveled lip. Furthermore, the vessel counts with a ring base and the handles are gemi-nated and stand high on the shoulder. A somehow similar jar was recovered in the course of 1997 Sea-son, in a context dated in Period III (Núñez 2004a: 155, fig. 70: 1, U19-1, Bichrome IV ware).76 The jar belongs to the Bichrome IV ware, and displays a typical decorative scheme of the so-called “zone style”. It consists a row of sets of concentric circles in

311


5 10 cm0

a b

c

Fig. 3.74 - Cypriot short necked jars (a: U77-1, Black-on-Red II ware; b: 78-1, Black-on-Red II ware; c: U117-1, Bichrome IV ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 311 25/03/14 12:51

black which is flanked on its lower side by a double horizontal band in red. However, it seems that those bands divided the handle-zone into two separated parts, as it happens on U23-1, an amphora recov-ered in the 1997 Season (Núñez 2004a: 159, fig. 74: 1). Furthermore, the higher part of the shoulder shows two black horizontal fillets followed by a band in red that marks the transition towards the rim, which counts with a series of black fillets.

An alternative urn type, although marginal, is the cauldron, registered in Period II but not in III. Only one example has been recovered in a Period IV con-text, U60-1, an urn characterised, once again, by an inverted piriform body with incurved shoulders and a direct upright rim (variant Cl 1b2; fig 3.75).77 At the same time, it is possible to observe how the morphological features of this jar, with the only ex-ception of the missing neck, follow the same lines seen on the amphoroid craters and, especially, the stable amphorae. It is also noteworthy its strong dif-ferences respecting the example recovered in Period II. No apparent sequential reason exists for those dif-ferences, but it is verisimilar that U60-1 was actually the evolution of or a derivation from certain handle-less cauldrons clearly inspired in metallic prototypes; in this sense, the presence in U60-1 of rivet-like ap-plications on both sides of the handles should not be forgotten (see also below).78

Two further ceramic forms have been registered in this period. The first one is the storage jar, not used as a cinerary urn except for one instance: U58-1. All recognisable examples belong to type Al 5 (Dep9-1 to which, possibly, the already mentioned U58-1 and

U69-4 should be added), an evolution of type Al 4 characterised especially by its stylized aspect. Shoul-ders are still convex in this type, but shorter and are separated from the body by a neat carination; at the same time, these bodies are articulated through a waist-like concavity placed around its centre, the bases are pointed, and the handles are proportionally smaller, with a rounded outline and an oval section.

Type Al 5 corresponds to the so-called “torpe-do”, “sausage” or “crisp ware” jars (Bikai 1978a: 46-47, pl. XCIV), of which four types were recognized at Tyre on the basis of the characteristics of their rims: upright and with different collar-like thickenings on its outside (Bikai’s types SJ-5 to 7; see also Anderson 1988: 197-198, types SJ 15 to 17). Since Dep9-1 has not preserved its original rim, it is not possible to relate it with any of these types. However, this is not the case with A. Sagona’s classification: Dep9-1 could be related either with his type 2 or 3 (Sagona 1982: 75-79, fig. 1: 2 and 3).

The second remaining ceramic form is the cook-

312


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.75 - Cauldron (U60-1, variant Cl 1b2).

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.76 - Storage jar (Dep9-1, type Al 5)

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 312 25/03/14 12:51

ing pot, represented in this period only by a rim frag-ment whose condition does not allow any typologi-cal approximation (U94-8:1).

Once the typological character of the jars recov-ered in this period has been analysed, it is time to deal with its technical features, surface finish and decora-tive resources. Plain surfaces dominate once again, their covering with a wash is almost irrelevant and there is no trace of the employment of red slip so far (Fig. 3.77). At the same time, surfaces are simply smoothed and there is no hint of any other special treatment or finish.

Painted decoration is the principal ornamental re-source (Fig. 3.78). Lineal schemes continue to pre-dominate and, as it happened in previous stages, they

appear perfectly fitted in the morphological charac-ter of the vessel. Thus, amphoroid craters keep dis-playing the same patterns seen before, while on sta-ble amphorae it is possible to observe on necks and bodies certain designs that have evolved from typical Canaanite Bronze Age models,79 allthough updated (compare, for example, U59-1 or U62-1 with U93-1). One instance combines painted and appliqué dec-oration, U60-1, a cauldron that displays two rivet-like protuberances on both sides of the upper attachment of the handle and a series of horizontal incisions on the uppermost part of its shoulder. In point of fact, these grooves recall the presence on the same spot of certain sable amphorae of parallel painted fil-lets (see, again, U93-1). In this sense, it is relevant to keep in mind the morphological affinity existing between the three main urn types of this period: am-phoroid craters, stable amphorae and cauldrons. On the other hand, a shoulder fragment belonging to a storage jar, U154-5:1 (not illustrated), displays a pair of concentric incisions whose function could be in-formative rather than decorative.80

Formal Group II

The abundance of material in this period has led to the recognition of, at least, five or six ceramic forms: neck-ridge jugs, decanters, dippers, askoi, probably bottles, and Cypriot barrel jugs (Fig. 3.79 and 80).

The best represented ceramic form is the neck-ridge jug, especially the type characterised by hori-zontal rims (type Ja 3; Fig. 3.81), which account for eighteen out of twenty five recognisable individuals. At the same time, among the jugs of this type pre-dominate those provided with necks whose upper half is cylindrical (subtype Ja 3a: U65-4, U65-4, U94-4, U115-3, U119-3, U121/122-1, U166-4, U172-4 and Dep.6-7), although in six examples this attribute is rather conical (subtype Ja 3b: U90-4, U117/118-1, U121-3, U129-4, U170-4 and Dep8-5); finally, only two jugs display an open upper half of the neck (type subtype Ja 3c: U78-4 and U101-4:6). At the same time, globular bodies are common to almost all those individuals (variant “1”), as eleven instances are distributed among the subtypes Ja 3a and b (on the one hand, U94-4, U115-3, U119-3, U166-4, U172-1 and Dep6-3, while, on the other, U90-4, U117/118-1, U121-3, U129-4 and Dep8-5; Fig.

313


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A B C Uncertain

Fig. 3.77 - Surface treatment among the ceramic forms be-longing to Formal Group I in Period IV.

051015202530354045

Plain Painted Incised Appliqué Combined Uncertain

Fig. 3.78 - Decorative resources registered in Formal Group I in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 313 25/03/14 12:51

314



a 1 1

Ja 1 1 1 b 3 1

a 1 2 Ja 2 b 1 2

1 6

a 3 1 Neck-ridge jugs – 1

Ja 3 1 5 b 4 1

2 1 c – 1

– – 1

Ja F 13

Barrel jugs Jb C 1

Jv 2 a 2 1

2 13 a Decanters Jv 3 – 3

– – 1

Jv F 10

Op 1 b 2 1 Dippers Op – – – 1

Askoi As – – – 3

Bottles Bt – – 1

Jr F 160 Undetermined jugs Jr C 6

Formal Group II/al Bass Period IV

Fig. 3.79 - Typological representation of Formal Group II in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 314 25/03/14 12:51

3.81: a, b and d). The remaining jugs display bod-ies that can be either oval (variant “2”: U78-4; Fig. 3.81: f), piriform (variant “3”: U65-4; Fig. 3.81: c) or inverted piriform (variant “4”: U170-4; Fig. 3.81: e). With regard to U121/122-5, the outline of its shoulder seems to point towards a globular body; however, the data is not conclusive.

All the rims display similar characteristics. Beside their disposition regarding the neck, most of these examples show a curved outline which is topped by a lip that can be bevelled on its lower side (as on U78-4; Fig. 3.81: f), or flattened (see it on U119-3; Fig. 3.81: b); on the contrary, concave lips are scarce (U94-4; Fig. 3.81: a), the same as the tapered

315


5 10 cm0

a b c

d e f

Fig. 3.81 - Neck-ridge jugs of type Ja 3 recovered in Period IV (a: U94-4, variant Ja 3a1; b: U119-3, variant Ja 3a1; c: U65-4, variant Ja 3a3; d: Dep8-5, variant Ja 3b1; e: U170-4, variant Ja 3b4; f: U78-4, variant Ja 3c2).

020406080100120140160

Local Imported

Fig. 3.80 - Proportions between ceramic forms belonging to the Formal Group II in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 315 25/03/14 12:51

ones (Dep8-5; Fig. 3.81: d). Finally, the neck-ridge jugs of type Ja 3 were classified in the type Ja 3 in 1997 (Núñez 2004b: 310-314), whereas similar jugs as those presented here represent Bikai’s type 4, al-though in some other instances they could belong to her type 3 (Bikai 1978a: 33-35, pl. XCII).

The second type of neck-ridge jug is character-ised by the presence of open rims (type Ja 2). The same two subtypes have been recognised: one with conical necks (subtype Ja 2b: U79-3, U124/125-2), while in the second instance they are cylindrical in-stead (subtype Ja 2a: U71-3 and U126/127-3). At the same time, globular bodies continue to be com-mon among all those jugs (variant “1”). Rims have usually a straight or slightly curved outline on their

upper side, while their lips are flat and bevelled either on their upper (U71-3) or lower side (U124/125-2). Finally, U126/127-3 deserves special attention. Even if, strictly speaking, this jug should belong to this type Ja 2, the nature of its features may relate it rather with the neck-ridge jugs with a direct rim, a type that will be dealt with next.

The third type of neck-ridge jug registered in this period is characterised by the presence of a direct rim (type Ja 1). The same subtypes have been recog-nised, that is, one with a cylindrical neck (subtype Ja 1a: U62-1) and a second one in which this attribute displays a conical outline (subtype Ja 1b: U147-3 and U157-3). The necks of these jugs are topped either with a simple and slightly open rim (as on U62-3) or

316


5 10 cm0

a b

c d

Fig. 3.82 - Neck-ridge jugs of type Ja 2 recovered in Period IV (a: U71-3, variant Ja 2a1; b: U124/125-2, variant Ja 2a1; c: U79-3, variant Ja 2b1; d: U126/127-3, variant Ja 2b1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 316 25/03/14 12:51

an externally thickened one (U147-3 and U157-3). Finally, the bodies of these jugs are globular (variant “1”: U62-3 and U157-3) or piriform (variant “3”: U147-3). Summing up, these three jugs belonging to the subtype Ja 1b represent two main concepts. In the first place, U62-3 belongs to a family of neck-ridge jugs characterised basically by their cylindrical necks, of which other examples have been recorded in Al-Bass (U19-2; Núñez 2004a: 155, fig. 70: 2) and Tyre (Bikai 1978a: pl. XIV: 6, Stratum IV; ibid: pl. VI: 6, Stratum III-II). This family of jugs counts also with certain variations that not only affect the shape of their rims, but also the outline of the upper half of their necks, which in some instances becomes conical, although always keeping a cylindrical lower

half (see, for example, Núñez 2004a: 149, fig. 60: 3-4, from Al-Bass tomb TT9; Bikai 1978a: pl. V: 18, from Tyre Stratum III). The second group or family is characterised by conical necks. The different vari-ations on the shape of their bodies and rims have in certain instances clear sequential implications; how-ever, it is possible to observe the survival over time of a concept that seems to have appeared in the sec-ond half of the transitional period that separates the Early from the Late Iron Age.81 Other examples of this group have been recovered at Al-Bass (Núñez 2004a: 190, fig. 105: 3, from tomb TT54, a late example of this group that should be classified in type Ja 2) and, for example, Tyre (Bikai 1978a: pl XIV: 8, a jug very similar to U147-3 from Stratum IV, pl. VI:

317


5 10 cm0

a

b c

Fig. 3.83 - Neck-ridge jugs of type Ja 1 recovered in Period IV (a: U62-3, variant Ja 1a1; b: U157-3, variant Ja 1b1; c: U147-3, vari-ant Ja 1b3).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 317 25/03/14 12:51

318


0 5 10 cm

a b c

d

Fig. 3.84 - Decanters of type Jv 3 recovered in Period IV (a: U78-3; b: U154-3; c: U172-3; d: U120-3; all the jugs belong to the vari-ant Jv 3a2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 318 25/03/14 12:51

8 and 9, from Strata III and II respectively, pl. V: 1-8, excellent references for U157-3 from Stratum III).

Certain morphological elements are common to all the neck-ridge jugs. The most important one would be the ridge that articulates the neck, which tends to be marked and its outline rounded (U117/118-1) or sharp (U62-3 or U172-4). On the other hand, in two instances the ridge has been sub-stituted by a step-like element (U157-3 and Dep8-5, this one combined with a horizontal groove above it). Other morphological elements that keep the same characteristics of previous periods are the bases, still annular and low, and the handles, which usually display a curved outline and an oval section.

Decanters represent the next ceramic form in number of examples. In this case, it is noteworthy the strong homogeneity existing among them: most instances recorded belong to type Jv 3, especially to its variant Jv 3a2, which is characterised by a conical neck, a globular body and a trefoil rim. As it will be seen, the general picture is similar to that already ob-served in the previous period; however, there would be certain aspects that may individualize it. The first one refers to the neck, which displays different pro-portions from one example to the next. Stylised examples, similar to those that characterised the Al - Bass Period III (for example, U78-3; Fig. 3.84: a), come along with other examples whose base is markedly wider (U154-3 and probably also U157-3, U170-3 or Dep8-3; Fig. 3.84: b). On the other hand, the bodies keep a globular outline, although sometimes they have a somehow depressed aspect (as in U172-3; Fig. 3.84: c). Finally, U120-3 (Fig. 3.84: d) deserves special attention, as its dimension and proportions represent strong variations from the main corpus of jugs (see a morphologically simi-lar jug in Bikai 1987: pl. XVI: 399).82

Only one jug breaks this typological homogeneity existing among the decanters: U90-3, whose cylin-drical neck would include it in type Jv 2. This neck is very short in proportion to the size of the body, which is globular, and the rim has a trefoil outline (variant Jv 2a2; Fig. 3.85). At the same time, there is an obvious similarity between this jug and U120-3 of the former type.

From a purely morphological perspective, there are some elements that are common to all the de-canters. In the first place stands the handles, which still show two types, one simple with a quadrangular section that can count with rounded extremes, and

a second variety with a geminated section that joins two narrow straps with a rounded section. The sec-ond element is the base, which is always annular and relatively low.

The rest of ceramic forms registered in this pe-riod are poorly represented. The first one would be the dipper, of which only one restorable example

319


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.85 - U90-3 (variant Jv 2a2).

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.86 - U59-3 (variant Op 1b2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 319 25/03/14 12:51

has been recovered, U59-3 (Fig. 3.86). Its mor-phological features, namely, a rounded rim, piriform body, and an unstable base provided with a cen-tral protuberance, may classify it in the variant Op 1b2.83 On the other hand, the fragment U113-3:3 may belong to the same subtype and variant.

Askoi have been recovered only in a fragmen-tary condition. Three fragments belong to contexts dated in the Period IV (U70-3:6, U78-6:36 and U101-4:5). Of all them, only one instance allows a hypothetical reconstruction of its original shape (Fig. 3.87). In the first place, U101-4:5 consists of a series of fragments that were registered inside the urn U101-1. Their state of conservation is bad, but it was possible to recognise a conical body that stood on a slightly depressed base, while a sharp carination marked its shoulder. These features recall an exam-ple recovered in a tomb at Akhziv (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 141, fig. 5.16: 3; Fig. 3.87).

Bottles are probably represented by U166-6:35, the rim and part of the neck found in a context dated

320


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.87 - Hypothetical reconstruction of U101-4:5.

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.88 - Probable rim of a bottle (U166-6:35).

Fig. 3.89 - Cypriot Black-on-Red II (IV) barrel jug (U103/104-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

A B C Uncertain

Fig. 3.90 - Surface treatment possibilities recorded in Formal Group II in Period IV.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Fig. 3.91 - Ornamental resources observed in Formal Group II ceramic forms in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 320 25/03/14 12:51

321


1 1 a Cc 1 5 1

c 1 1

4 5 a Carinated bowls – 3 Cc 3 b 4 1

d 4 1

Cc 4 a 4 1

Cc – – – 1

1 2 2 1 a 4 1 Cv 1 Curved bowls – 1

1 3 b – 2

Cv – – – 1

1 3 a 3 1

1 5 Pl 1 b 3 1

6 2

c 1 3

1 6 Plates Pl 2 b 2 7

6 8

1 5 Pl 3 b 2 2

Pl 4 b 3 1

Pl 5 a 3 1

a – 1 Lc 2 Lamps b – 1

Lc 3 b – 2

Uncertain CP F 47

Imports Sk G 1

Formal Group III/al Bass Period IV

Fig. 3.92 - Formal Group III in Al-Bass Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 321 25/03/14 12:51

in the Period IV, although it could have also belong to an askos.

The last ceramic form belonging to the Formal Group II represented in this period is the barrel jug. The single example recovered is of Cypriot origin, U103/104-2, which has lost its neck and handle, but displays a cylindrical body which is depressed on its extremes. Its surfaces are covered by a burnished red slip that serves as background for a concentric decoration on both sides of the body. All those fea-tures, especially the morphological ones, may place this jug in the Black-on-Red II(IV) ware.

Regarding the technical aspects, especially the surface treatment and the ornamental resources observed in this formal group, there are a series of aspects that deserve attention. In the first place, two main surface types stand out among these jugs: plain and red-slipped surfaces; on the contrary, the application of a wash is a rather infrequent solution (Fig. 3.90). There is again a relationship between certain surface treatments and some particular ce-ramic forms. Thus, plain surfaces dominate among neck-ridge jugs and dippers, whereas red slip, whose character is similar to that observed in Period III, is most frequent on decanters and askoi. In this sense, the absence of red-slip on U154-3 is an oddity. On the other hand, it is interesting to observe how the proportion of plain and red-slipped surfaces among the typologically undetermined fragments is some-how similar to that shown between neck-ridge jugs and decanters. Finally, those two ceramic forms are always burnished, a resource that is applied using the same directions observed in the previous period.

There is also a relationship between certain ceram-ic forms and some decorative resources (Fig. 3.93). Painted decoration occurs basically on neck-ridge jugs, and at a lesser extend on decanters. Decoration on the former follows the same directions already es-tablished in Period III, that is, a symmetrical combina-tion of bands and fillets on the upper half of the neck and the upper side of the rim (Fig. 3.81, 82 and 83: a and c). The exception is U157-2 (Fig. 3.83: b), in which these areas appear completely covered by red paint and also counts with a horizontal band in red on the body, an element that does not occur in the rest of individuals. Painted decoration is not common among decanters, especially on those provided with a conical neck and does not occur at all on red-slipped examples. Only two related trefoil jugs show this kind of ornamentation: U90-3 and U120-3 (Fig. 3.84: d

and 3.85) and their respective patterns follow those of most amphoroid craters. Finally, regarding the rest of the decanters, if they are decorated, they display the same grouping of incisions on the shoulder and the step-like elements at the base of their necks seen on individuals of Period III. Finally, dippers and askoi do not display any kind of decoration.

Formal Group III

The number of contexts recovered has also led to an interesting typological variety within this for-mal group. The ceramic forms that have been recog-nised are: plates, carinated and curved bowls, lamps and skyphoi (Fig. 3.92). To these can be added a relevant number of rim and base fragments.

Plates represent the most numerous ceramic form also in this period. Five types have been registered: Pl 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Type Pl 2 is again the best rep-resented among them, with twenty one out of forty five examples. Furthermore, only one subtype has been registered, Pl 2b, characterised by an interior thickening on the rim, whereas the variety of base types has given place to three variants: flat (variant Pl 2b1: U59-2, U66-2, U70-3:1 U70-3:3, U135-2 and U147-2; Fig. 3.94: a-c), depressed (variant Pl 2b2: U68-2:2, U68-2:5, U90-2, U93-2, U101-2, U113-2 and U158-2; Fig. 3.94: d-f) and irregular (variant Pl 2b6: U68-2:1, U70-3:2, U77-2, U121-2, U122-3:1, U153-2 and U154-2; Fig. 3.94: g-i).

The second best represented plate type (sixteen examples) is Pl 1 which, as already mentioned be-fore, is characterised by direct rims. Three subtypes

322


Fig. 3.93 - Typological distribution of Formal Group III in Pe-riod IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 322 25/03/14 12:51

323

5 10 cm0

a b c

d e f

g h i

Fig. 3.94 - Plates of type Pl 2 from Al-Bass Period IV (a: U66-2, variant Pl 2b1; b: U135-2, variant Pl 2b1; c: U147-2, variant Pl 2b1; d: U90-2, variant Pl 2b2; e: U101-2, variant Pl 2b2; f: U68-2:2, variant Pl 2b2; g: U68-2:1, variant Pl 2b6; h: U121-2, variant Pl 2b6; i: Dep9-2, variant Pl 2b6).

5 10 cm0

a b c

d

e

f

g h i

Fig. 3.95 - Plates of type Pl 1 from Al-Bass Period IV (a: U103-2, variant Pl 1a1; b: U115-2, variant Pl 1a1; c: U94-7, variant Pl 1a3; d: U102-2, variant Pl 1b1; e: U129-5, variant Pl 1b3; f: U70-2, variant Pl 1b6; g: U104-2, variant Pl 1c1; h: U120-2, variant Pl 1c1; i: U64-2, variant Pl 1c1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 323 25/03/14 12:51

have been recognised on the basis of the nature of their rims: simple (subtype Pl 1a: U97-7, U103-2, U115-2 and U116-2; Fig. 3.95: a-c),84 with an interior thickening (subtype Pl 1b: U63-2, U70-2, U78-2, U102-2, U119-2, U122-3:2, U129-5 and U172-2; Fig. 3.95: d-f) and with an exterior thick-ening (subtype Pl 1c: U64-2, U104-2 and U120-2; Fig. 3.95: g-i). As to their base types, there are three possibilities: flat, the most common base type among these plates (variant “1”: U103-2, U115-2 and U116-2 for subtype Pl 1a; U78-2, U102-2, U119-2, U122-3:2 and U172-1 for subtype Pl

1b; U64-2, U104-2 and U120-2 for subtype Pl 1c), disc-like (variant “3”: U94-7 for subtype Pl 1a; U129-5 for subtype Pl 1b) and irregular (variant “6”: U63-2 and U70-2, both for subtype Pl 1b). On the other hand, it is obvious that U129-5 stands out for its dimension, which may recall the serving dish of a daily set of dishes.

Plates of type Pl 3 stand in the third place with seven examples. They are characterised by rims of horizontal stance and all belong to the same subtype Pl 3b, which displays interior quadrangular thicken-ings. Two variants have been registered from the na-

324


5 10 cm0

a b c

d e

f g

Fig. 3.96 - Plates of type Pl 3 from Al-Bass Period IV (a: U57-2, variant Pl 3b1; b: U62-2, variant Pl 3b1; c: U68-2:3, Pl 3b1; d: U124-2, variant Pl 3b1; e: U152-2, variant Pl 3b1; f: U166-2, variant Pl 3b2; g: U169-1-3:1, variant Pl 3b2).

5 10 cm0a b

Fig. 3.97 - Plates of type Pl 4 (a: Dep9-3, variant Pl 4b3) and Pl 5 (b: U69-2, variant Pl 5a3).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 324 25/03/14 12:51

ture of their bases: flat (variant Pl 3b1: U57-2, U62-2, U68-2:3, U124-2 and U152-2; Fig. 3.96: a-e) and depressed (variant Pl 3b2: U166-2 and U169-3:1; Fig. 3.95: f and g).

The two remaining plate types, Pl 4 and 5, are rep-resented only by one example respectively. On the one hand, Pl 4 is characterised by a pendent rim that, in the recovered example (Dep9-3), displays a quadrangular interior thickening and a disc-like base (variant Pl 4b3; Fig. 3.97: a). On the other side, plates of type Pl 5 are defined by an upright rim which in the single example registered (U69-2) is simple and also counts with a disc-like base (variant Pl 5a3; Fig. 3.96: b).

Carinated bowls follow in order of importance in this Period. Three types have been recognised, of which Cc 3 is the most popular so far. This type is characterised by triangular rims and it counts with three different subtypes defined on the basis of the shape of the upper half of their walls. Thus, that at-tribute can be straight (subtype Cc 3a: U60-2, U65-2, U135-3:25, U157-5:1 and U172-5; Fig. 3.98: a-d), concave (subtype Cc 3b: and U169-2; Fig. 3.98: e-f) or rather be absent, therefore, the rim stands directly on the carination (subtype Cc 3d: Dep8-2; Fig. 3.98:

g). Furthermore, all those examples, notwithstand-ing the subtype they may belong to, show disc-like bases, an aspect that places all of them in the variant “4”. Finally, there is a number of bowls that have lost their bases but preserve the characteristic carination (U101-4:68, U113-3:5 and U135-3:4).

Carinated bowls of type Cc 1 stand in the second place (five examples). They are characterised by di-rect rims and, as in the previous instance, subtypes are defined through the shape of their walls. Thus, two examples display straight outlines (subtype Cc 1a: U78-5 and Dep8-1; Fig. 3.99: a and b), whereas in other two bowls this attribute is rather convex (subtype Cc 1c: U101-4:58 and U147-4; Fig. 3.99: c). As to the bases, whose outline also defines the variant to which these bowls belong to, it is rounded in two instances (variant “1”: U78-5 and U147-4), while in a third one it is narrow, de-pressed and also counts with a central protuberance that surpasses its stability line (variant “5”: Dep8-1). The base of U101-4:58 is not preserved. Finally, the third carinated bowl type is Cc 4, defined through its quadrangular rim. Only one example of this type has been recorded so far (U122-2; Fig. 3.99: d); its wall

325


5 10 cm0

a b

c d e

f g

Fig. 3.98 - Carinated bowls of type Cc 3 from Period IV (a: U172-5, variant Cc 3a4; b: U60-2, variant Cc 3a4; c: U65-2, variant Cc 3a4; d: U135-3:2.5, variant Cc 3a4; e: U157-5:1, variant Cc 3a4; f: U169-2, variant Cc 3b4; g: Dep8-2, variant Cc 3d4).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 325 25/03/14 12:51

326


5 10 cm0

a b c

d

Fig. 3.99 - Carinated bowls of type Cc 1 (a: U78-5, variant Cc 1a1; b: Dep8-1, variant Cc 1a5; c: U147-4, variant Cc 1c1) and Cc 4 (d: U122-2, variant Cc 4a4).

5 10 cm0

a b c

d

e

a

f g

Fig. 3.100 - Bowls with curved walls recovered in Period IV (a: U101-3, variant Cv 1a1; b: U104-3, variant Cv 1a1; c: U66-3, variant Cv 1a2; d: U121-4, variant Cv 1a4; e: U154-4, variant Cv 1b1; f: U166-5, variant Cv 1b1; g: Dep8-4, variant Cv 1b1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 326 25/03/14 12:51

has a straight outline and it stands on a disc-like base (variant Cc 4a4).

Bowls of curved walls are represented in this pe-riod by only one type, Cv 1, characterised by their simple rims. Two subtypes have been recognised, the first one displays right rims (subtype Cc 1a: U66-3, U101-3, U104-3, U121-4 and U170-5; Fig. 100: a-d), which become incurved in the second (subtype Cc 1b: U62-5:1, U154-4, U157-4, U166-5 and Dep8-4; Fig. 100: e-f). Most preserved bases display curved outlines (variant “1”: on the one side, U101-3 and U104-3, while, on the other, U154-4, U166-5 and Dep8-4), although in some other instances they can be either flat (variant “2”: U66-3) or disc-like (variant “4”: U121-4; its curved interior makes of this example a hybrid, as it mixes the features of a curved and disc-like base).85 Finally, the bases of some bowls belonging to subtype Cv 1a (U170-5) and Cv 1b (U62-5:1 and U157-4) are not preserved.

The last local ceramic form recognised in this pe-riod is the lamp, which is represented by two types. The first one is characterised by its open rims (Lc 2), of which a simple and a tapered version have been registered (subtypes Lc 2a, U78-6:35, and Lc 2b, U153-6:4; Fig. 3.101: a and b). Similar lamps have

been recovered in Jouwaya, near Tyre (Chapman 1972: 116, fig. 23: 227), while similar rims have been classified in Sarepta in the type L-5A (Anderson 1988: 230, pl. 51). Meanwhile, the second type dis-plays horizontal rims and, in this instance, a tapered section (subtype Lc 3b: U154-5:61 and U157-5:3; Fig. 3.101: c and d). Tyre Stratum III seems to offer a similar lamp (Bikai 1978a: pl. VII. 5), as well as Jouwaya, where a complete example provided with a comparable rim was also found (Chapman 1972: 116, fig. 23: 285). Meanwhile, in Sarepta both ex-amples probably may belong to type L-9 (Anderson 1988: 232, pl. 51). None of the examples analysed here has preserved their base.

The single example of an imported open form is a

327


a b

c d

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.101 - Lamps recovered in Period IV (a: U78-6:35, subtype Lc 2a; b: U153-6:4, subtype Lc 2b; c: U157-5:3, subtype Lc 3c; d: U154-5:61, Subtype Lc 3c ).

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.102. Base belonging probably to a Aegean skyphos (U125-2:16.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 327 25/03/14 12:51

ring base fragment, U125-2:16 (Fig. 3.102). Note-worthy are its open stance, the projection on its out-side and its height. It is complicated to relate this frag-ment to a precise ceramic form. In any case, similar features are displayed both by PSC plates (see, for ex-

ample, Coldstream 1995a: 189, fig. 2: 4, and Pop-ham-Lemos 1996: pl. 103: 79, 6) and most prob-ably by skyphoi of the same ware, especially those of Kearsley’s type 5 (Kearsley 1989: 95-101).

Together with the ceramic forms just analysed

328



a 10 4

1 1

5 1 b 6 3 1 8 3

4 1

c 5 2

7 1

1 3 a 2 1

2 6 17 b CP(br) 8 3

– – 1

5 1

b 6 9

3 8 2

c 3 2

– – 1

1 2 a 5 3 2

– – 4

6 a 1 1

– – – 15

Formal Group III-2/al Bass Period IV

Fig. 3.103 - Typological variations of Formal Group III rim fragments in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 328 25/03/14 12:51

before, there are a relevant number of rim fragments belonging to uncertain members of this formal group (Figs. 3.103 and 104).

These fragments, which evidently correspond to diverse ceramic forms, belong to five different rim types: direct (CP [br]1), everted (CP [br]2), horizontal (CP [br]3), upright (CP [br]5) and incurved (CP [br]6). Three types stand out especially: direct, everted and horizontal and, among them, those subtypes char-acterised by interior thickenings (subtype “b”) with a quadrangular section (variant “6”; Fig. 3.105: a, d, h and i). There are instances where the upper outline of the rim is concave and leaves a rounded or angular step that separates the wall from the rim itself (variants “8” and “5” respectively; Fig. 3.105: b, c, e, j, k). This detail is relevant from a sequential

329


0

5

10

15

20

25

CP(br)1 CP(br)2 CP(br)3 CP(br)5 CP(br)6 Uncertain

a b c d uncertain

Fig. 3.104 - Proportions of the typological variations of For-mal Group III rim fragments in Period IV.

a

0 5 cm.

b c

d e f g

h i j k

Fig. 3.105 - Rim fragments of the types CP (br)1, 2 and 3 (a: U94-2, variant CP [br]1b6; b: U113-3:4, variant CP [br]1b5; c: U136-5, variant CP [br]1b8); d: U165-2, variant CP [br]2b6; e: U153-6:2, variant CP [br]2b8; f: U101-4:52, variant CP [br]2a1; g: U166-6:15, variant CP [br]2a2; h: U113-3:7, variant CP [br]3b6; i: U118-2:1, variant CP [br]3b6; j: U154-5:59, variant CP [br]3b5; k: U136-6:1, variant CP [br]3b8).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 329 25/03/14 12:51

perspective, given that it shows a tendency already seen in the previous period. On the other hand, it is evident that most of the examples belonging to those three rim types in question have to be related with the already analysed types Pl 1b, 2b and 3b, which are furthermore characterised in this period

by their quadrangular interior thickenings. At the same time, some of the everted examples with a simple outline that apparently lack any thickening (variant CP [br]2a1; Fig. 3.105: f), may be also in-cluded in this group of plate types; however, rims with those features occur also on chalices (see, for

330


a

0 5 cm.

b c d

e

Fig. 3.106 - Rim fragments of types CP (br)1 (a: U113-3:6, variant CP [br]1a10; b: U136-2, variant CP [br]1c4; c: Dep6-1, variant CP [br]1c5; d: U113-3:8, variant CP [br]1c7; e: U78-6:24, variant CP [br]1b8).

a

0 5 cm.

b c d

e f

Fig. 3.107 - Rim fragments of types CP (br)3, and 5 (a: U101-4:70, variant CP [br]5a1; b: U101-4:58, variant CP [br]5a1; c: U101-4:59, variant CP [br]5a3; d: U125-2:5, variant CP [br]5a3; e: U125-2:17, variant CP [br]3c3; f: U154-5:60, variant CP [br]3c3).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 330 25/03/14 12:51

example, Amiran 1970: 214-215, pl. 68; see also Fig. 3.7). This would not be the case of the single example provided of an everted rim and an unde-termined exterior thickening (variant CP [br]2a2: U166-6:15; Fig. 3.105: g); evidently, its typologi-cal ascription should be left open.

On the contrary, direct rims without any thicken-ing are scarce in this period (subtype CP [br]1a) and the existing examples display lips that are bevelled on their lower side (variant “10”; Fig. 3.106: a). To those rims, common especially in Periods II and III, could be added the presence of some examples pro-vided with thickenings on the outside (subtype CP [br]1c), whose section can be rounded (variant “5”; Fig. 3.106: c), oval (variant “7”; Fig. 3.106: d) or

that gradually spreads towards the lip, which is flat and transversal to the axis of the wall (variant “4”; Fig. 2.106: b). As mentioned, all those variants can be related with plates common in previous periods; however, it is also noteworthy the presence of com-plete examples in this Period IV which display rims that could be classified in the type CP (br)1c4 (see, for example, U103-2; meanwhile, the rim of U104-2 could be rather related with the type CP [br]1c8). Another variant whose typological adscription could be traced is CP (br)1b8. The similitude of some of its examples (especially U78-6:24 and U101-4:61; Fig. 3.106: e) with the rim of the lid U159-2 (type Tp 1a1; see above), would point to the same typo-logical origin.

331



1 1

a 3 1

1 5 1

b 1 1

– – 1

1 3 a 3 1

2 4 2 b CP (bs) 4 2

c 1 2

d 2 1

3

c 2 1

– – 1

a – 2

4 b – 1

– – 8

– – – 5

Formal Group III/al Bass Period IV

Fig. 3.108 - Base fragments recovered in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 331 25/03/14 12:51

Among the upright rims that can be better typo-logically defined (type CP [br]5), there is a prefer-ence for simple sections topped by lips that can be rounded (variant CP [br]5a1; Fig. 3.107: a and b) or tapered (variant CP [br]5a3; Fig. 3.107: c and d). Obviously, these variants can be linked with cari-nated bowls of type Cc 3 and Cc 1 respectively or, even, the subtype Cv 1 (Fig. 3.107: a). At the same

time, the only example of an incurved rim (U129-6:1; not illustrated), displays a simple rim that may be classified in the variant CP (br)6a1 (given the ac-tual circumstances, its probable connection with sub-type Cv 1b has to be left open). Something similar may happen with the recorded examples of horizon-tal rims with a tapered section (variant CP [br]3c3; Fig. 3.107: e and f). They could be tentatively linked to the bowls of type Cc 3; however, almost all the examples of this type display rims that should be rather classified in type CP (br)4.

Regarding the base fragments recovered this Pe-riod IV, four different types have been recognised (Figs. 3.108 and 109): flat (CP [bs]1), disc-like (CP [bs]2), annular (CP [bs]3) and rounded (CP [bs]4).

The data seems to contradict what has been ob-served on the complete forms. Thus, the common type is the disc-like base (type CP [bs]2), which is es-pecially frequent in carinated bowls and some plate types. Four subtypes have been further registered on the basis of their outline: vertical (CP [bs]2a), with two variants depending on the form of its lower side, one flat (“1” U101-4:62, U154-5:62 and U166-6:20; Fig. 3.110: a and b), and the second convex (“3” U153-5; Fig. 3.110: c). The second subtype

332


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CP(bs)1 CP(bs)2 CP(bs)3 CP(bs)4 uncertain

Fig. 3.109 - Proportions of the different base type recovered in Period IV.

a

0 5 cm.

b c

d e

f g

Fig. 3.110 - Base fragments of type CP (bs)2 recovered in Period IV (a: U101-4:62, variant CP [bs]2a1; b: U154-5:62, variant CP [bs]2a1; c: U153-5, variant CP [bs]2a3; d: U78-6:27, variant CP [bs]2b2; e: U101-4:65, variant CP [bs]2b4; f: U101-4:60, variant CP [bs]2c1; g: U78-6:26, variant CP [bs]2d2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 332 25/03/14 12:51

displays bended exterior outlines (CP [bs]2b), and it counts with variants whose lower side is depressed (“2” U78-6:29, U78-6:30, U78-6:27 and U78-6:28; Fig. 3.110: d),86 or convex (“4” U69-5:2 and U101-4:65; Fig. 110: e). The third possibility displays rounded exterior outlines (CP [bs]2c), and counts with only one recognised variant, “1”, de-fined by its flat lower side (U101-5:65 and U154-5:65; Fig. 3.110: f). Finally, the last subtype counts with a projection on its outside (CP [bs]2d), and a depressed lower side (“2’U78-6:26; Fig. 3.110: g).

Bases with a convex outline follow in impor-tance (eleven instances), although most of the ex-amples cannot be typologically ascribed with preci-sion (eight). These bases are of two subtypes on the basis of their width: CP (bs)4a (wide: U121-5:9 and U154-5:66; Fig. 3.111) and b (narrow: U121-5:8; not illustrated). It is easy to relate the first subtype with the carinated bowls provided of a wide base, while the second should be linked to the bowls with curved walls. As to the uncertain members of this base type, they could be related to any of those two subtypes, although it is also possible that some of them may belong to the lower half of a carinated bowl provided of a stable base.

Flat bases, CP (bs)1, come in the third place and counts with two variants: simple (“a”) and raised (“b”). Furthermore, the first of these subtypes counts with three variants depending on the outline of its lower side: simple (“1”: U113-3:21; Fig. 3.112: a), convex (“3”: U78-6:32; Fig. 3.111: b) and irregu-lar (“5”: U166-6:18; Fig. 111: c). Meanwhile, only one variant has been recognised for the second sub-type: simple (“1”: U166-6:19; Fig. 3.111: d). This type is common among the plates, and there would be two relevant issues to consider. In the first place, flat bases are normally linked to common wares, whereas disc-like bases are rather associated to bet-ter quality ones. On the other hand, the presence of a convex lower side, especially on disc-like bases, but

also among the flat ones, is closely related with the use of the plate (for example, Dep9-3) or bowl (as U65-2 and U121-3) as a lid.

Finally, only one fragment of an annular base has been recorded (U65-5:1; Fig. 113). Its stance is ver-tical and the section tapered (variant CP [bs]3c2). In this case, the similarity existing between the single example recovered and some disc-like bases provid-ed with a depressed lower side (for example, U94-2 or U135-1:2.5) may demonstrate the existence of a close relationship between them.

Now turning our attention to the technical as-pects and surface finish of this Formal Group in Pe-riod IV (Fig. 3.114), it is possible to observe a pre-dominance of plain surfaces among the plates, while red slip is common among all types of carinated and curved walls bowls, although its application varies from one type to the next. Thus, on the examples of carinated bowls with direct and externally thickened rims, the red slip covers the interior and the eteri-

333


0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.111 - Base fragment of type CP (bs)4 (U154-5:66, sub-type CP [bs]4a).

a

0 5 cm.

b

c d

Fig. 3.112 - Base fragments of type CP (bs)1 (a: U113-3:21, variant CP [bs]1a1; b: U78-6:32, variant CP [bs]1a3; c: U166-6:18, variant CP [bs]1a5; d: U166-6:19, variant CP [bs]1b1).

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.113 - Fragment of an annular base (U65-5:1, variant CP[bs]3c2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 333 25/03/14 12:51

or of the individual down to the carination (Cc 1, 3 and 4; see its relevance also among the rim types CP[br]6 and 8, as well the bases of type CP[bs]4). At the same time, cups provided of unstable bases display frequently concentric bands of red slip, an ornamental resource also known as “reserved slip” (Bikai 1978a: 26; Anderson 1988: 348-350). It is also noteworthy the possible presence of a lamp fragment also covered with red-slip (U154-5:61). On the other hand, the finish of all those surfaces is closely related with the specific ceramic form or type. Thus, while carinated and curved bowls, as well as the best quality plates are stroke burnished, most of plate types or lamps are simply smoothed.

Two kinds of decorative resources have been registered in this period: painted and incised (Fig. 3.115). As to the first one, concentric bichrome decoration has almost disappeared; only three ex-amples have been recognised (U65-5:1, U115-2 and U116-2), although these count with certain sequential relevance (see below). Zone decoration is more common at this stage, especially on curved bowls provided of simple rims, either provided with a slip or not (see, for example, U104-3, U154-4 or U170-5). In fact, the combination of red-slip surfaces and black decoration on local open forms becomes in this moment more evident, and may represent the true Phoenician Black-on-Red, which displays a conception and decorative manifesta-tions that clearly depart from the Cypriot standards. The second possibility is represented by the incised decoration, which is concentrated on the exterior of the bases of some untable carinated and curved

cups (see, for example, U78-5, U121-3 and U166-4). It consists basically of a succession of concentric grooves that are concentrated half way the radius of the base, and it is closely related to the already men-tioned “reserved slip”. Furthermore, this ornamen-tal resource can appear in combination with black painting that is usually applied on the rim (see it on U121-4, of variant Cv 1a4, and on P21-3 of 2002 Season, classified as variant Cc 1a1).

4.c.2. Chronological readings

Al-Bass Period IV corresponds to the final stages of Tyre Stratum IV and III in its entirely, as well as probably the last part of Sarepta Sub-stratums D-1 and C2 in its entirely,and Bikai’s “Kition Horizon”.87 From a sequential perspective, this stage represents the climax of the Phoenician Late Iron Age or, in other words, its classical period. Morphological and decorative parameters, already settled in the previ-ous stage, appear now at their best and, at the same time, they will serve as a starting point for future Phoenician colonial ceramic productions, especially in the central and western Mediterranean.

As already seen in previous pages, most ceramic forms and types represented in Period IV already appear in Period III, but hey display now evident modifications. For example, most decanters still be-long to variant Jv 3a2, although now the bases of their necks are wider and the shape of their bod-ies show a certain variability. At the same time, dippers usually count with rounded rims, the lower

334


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A B C Uncertain

Fig. 3.114 - Proportions of the different surface treatment possibilities registered in Period IV in the Formal Group III.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Fig. 3.115 - Proportions of the different decorative resources in theFormal Group III in Period IV.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 334 25/03/14 12:51

half of their bodies becomes wider and the centre of their bases displays a protuberance. Among the plates, examples with everted or horizontal rims dominate (Bikai’s type 7; Bikai 1978a: 23), while instances provided with of a better technical qual-ity tend to show wider rims. Carinated bowls show better defined carinations and certain variability in the shape of their rims (Bikai’s types FWP 2, 5 and 7; Bikai 1978: 26-28), while curved wall examples still display for their most part direct rims and un-stable bases (Bikai’s type FWP 4; Bikai 1978a: 28). Turning to Formal Group I, the typical storage jars of this period have evolved from the examples of Period III. Their shoulders are now marked and are counterbalanced by bodies that show a more or less marked narrowing on their middle part and a protu-berant lower half; meanwhile, rims are still upright and are provided mostly of a horizontal ridge or an exterior thickening (type Al 5 here; Bikai’s types SJ 4 to 7; Bikai 1978a: 46-48).

Nevertheless, the best sequential guide is still the neck-ridge jug. Typical examples of Period III dis-played globular bodies, a marked ridge on the neck and open rims (never horizontal) topped by a verti-cal, flat lip. Taking all those traits as a reference, it seems that the evolution of the jugs of Period IV starts with examples that are provided of necks with an open stance (as on U78-4 or U172-4),88 which later become cylindrical (U65-4, U71-3, U94-4, U119-3 and Dep6-3)89 and, finally, conical (U79-3, U90-4, U139-2 and Dep8-5).90 Besides, there would be some jugs that could be transitional be-tween those representative groups. In some in-stances their features stand midway between the examples with open and cylindrical necks (as U115-3 or U124/125-3),91 and some other jugs share traits with jugs with cylindrical and conical ones (see U117/118-2, U121-2, U129-3 or U170-4).92 All these jugs display horizontal or pendent rims, al-though there would be some everted instances as well (for example, U78-4, U71-3 or U79-3); mean-while, lips, which are straight in the earliest stages, become concave in a second moment and rounded thereafter. Something similar happens regarding the ridges on the necks, which evolve from well defined rounded outlines to be subsequently sharp and, finally, become a simple step or a horizontal groove (as on Dep8-5).

Neck-ridge jugs provided of direct rims deserve a special attention. Of all the registered examples,

U62-3 seems to be the oldest one, especially on grounds of its evident connections with U19-2 of the 1997 campaign, which is dated in Period III,93 and the miniature U42-7:6.94 A similar situation may af-fect regarding U147-3, a jug that counts with a close parallel in Tyre Stratum IV (Bikai 1978a: pl. XIV: 8), although the rest of materials associated in its origi-nal context seem to be somehow later, even datable in the final stages of this period (see especially the plate U147-2). On the other hand, U157-3 would be even later than the other two examples already mentioned. It counts with parallels in Tyre stratum III (Bikai 1978a: pl. V: 1-8) and, seen the width of the plates recovered in the same context (U157-1:2 and U158-2), as well as the neck of the decanter (U157-2), it could also stand in an advanced moment of Pe-riod IV.95 Finally, it has been already indicated that U126/127-2 represents a special issue. Its rim has an open instance that may classify it in type Ja 2; however, it is rather short and displays a thicken-ing on its lower side, traits that evidently link this jug with the group under discussion now.96

It is noteworthy to observe how the evolution of the neck-ridge jugs is somehow linked to the changes experienced by other ceramic forms and types. One example could be represented by the decanters, which in the first stages of Period IV kept many of the morphological characteristics previously seen in Period III (for example, U78-3). Later on, some jugs started showing the above mentioned widen-ing of the base of their necks, a phenomenon that is sometimes counterbalanced also on its uppermost part (as on U170-3).97 However, there would be in-stances where this situation does not occur, as on U136-3 or U154-3. Another relevant phenomenon is the presence of incised decorations on the base of unstable bowls, something that witnessed the transi-tion between Period III and IV. Thus, it appears in contexts that should theoretically correspond to the initial stages of Period IV (especially TT64/78 or also on TT16/18 and TT28/29, recovered in 1997)98, and continue in later moments in contexts such as TT121/122 and, probably, TT165/166.99 It seems that the last appearance of this decortative resource took place in an even later stage (TT53/53).100

On the other extreme would stand other ceram-ic forms and types that do not seem to show major changes respecting previous sequential moments. The best example could be the amphoroid craters, which, in spite of their evident variability due to a big-

335


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 335 25/03/14 12:51

ger number of examples, keep almost the same fea-tures seen in Period III.

From a chronological perspective, the end of Hazor Stratum VI should mark the terminus ante quem for the beginning of Al-Bass Period IV. It has been already indicated that the materials associated to this stratum display the typical features of the ear-liest stages of this period, especially visible on the storage jars of our type Al 5. At the same time, the ceramics associated in Ayia-Irini Tomb 28, prob-ably contemporary of the before mentioned stra-tum, has clear connections with Tyre Stratum IV.101 Sequentially speaking, this Cypriot tomb shows the presence, on the one side, of a jug whose character-istics are similar to those displayed by our U65-4, including the painting on the back of the handle.102 Meanwhile, on the other, associated to this jug, a Cypriot skyphos was recovered whose morphologi-cal features seem to be inspired by Aegean ceramic productions of the end of the Middle or early Late Geometric period, especially its long and upright rim, the marked shoulder and the flat base; as to its decoration, it is typically Cypriot.103

The search for new sequential references leads to Ayia-Irini Tomb 46, where another Cypriot skyphos provided with a typical Aegean Middle Geometric II decoration but Late Geometric morphological traits, appeared in association with a typical neck-ridge jug of our variant Ja 3c3.104 A tomb recovered in Khalde offers a similar association, where a morphologically similar skyphos accompanied two neck-ridge jugs of our variants Ja 2c3 and Ja 3a3, as well as a plate of our variant Pl 1c1.105

The end of the period could be represented by Megiddo Stratum IVA, where a neck-ridge jug of the

variant Ja 3b1 was recovered (Loud 1948: pl. 91: 4). Relevant are some of the features of this jug; for instance, the cylindrical lower half of its neck, the ridge transformed into a step and the pendent lip. In any case, the date of the destruction of this stratum, placed around 732 BC, may serve as a reference for similar jugs recovered in Tyre Stratum III (Bikai 1978a: pl. V: 147-17) and, in Al-Bass, for Dep8-5. Furthermore, the last mentioned stratum also witnessed the first appearance of certain types that will become typical of Al-Bass Period V, for example the piriform neck-ridge jugs whether provided of a carinated shoulder (Bikai 1978a: pl. V: 19-23) or an oval body (ibid: pl. V: 14).

Summing up, Al-Bass Period IV started before 763 BC, most probably somewhere in the earliest part of the second quarter of the 8th century, while its end has to be sought after 732 BC, although well before 700 BC, as it will be indicated below.

4.d. Period V

Only three secure contexts belonging to this pe-riod have been recovered in the course of the new excavation seasons: TT143/144, TT145/146 and Dep11. They represent only 3.95% of all the contexts and 1.84% of the materials under analysis here.

4.d.1. Typological analysis

Formal Group II is the best represented group in this Period (52%), followed by the containers (32%).

336



Cr 1 a 2 2 Craters Cr C 2

Storage jars Al F – – 1

Cauldrons Cl 2 a 3 1

Undetermined Vj F – – 2

Formal Group I/al Bass Period V

Fig. 3.116 - Typological distribution of Formal Group I in Period V.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 336 25/03/14 12:51

However, the relative scarcity now of open forms (16%) may seem more relevant in this context.

Formal Group I

Eight jars represent this formal group and two of them are Cypriot imports. Their typological distribu-tion appears in Fig. 3.116.

Four of those jars are amphoroid craters, includ-ing the mentioned Cypriot imports. The local ex-amples belong to the variant Cr 1a2 (U143-1 and Dep11-1; Fig. 3.117: a and b), which has been seen as the common choice in previous periods. The morphological homogeneity observed then is re-

peated now. In both instances the neck has lost rel-evance, especially on U143-1,106 the handles have an oval section, although the outline of Dep11-1 is somehow more open, and the rims are variations of the scheme that consists of an exterior tapered thickening counterbalanced by a heel-like projection on the inside. However, their bases are evidently dif-ferent. Dep11-1 has lost it, but on grounds of the outline of the lower part of the wall, it would be possible that it was depressed. On the other hand, U143-1 has a wide annular base with an exterior rounded projection.

A pair of Cypriot amphoroid craters was recov-ered in the same funerary context: U145-1 and U146-1, both belonging to the Bichrome IV ware

337


5 10 cm0

a b

c d

Fig. 3.117 - Amphoroid craters of Period V (a: U143-1, variant Cr 1a2; b: Dep11-1.4, variant Cr 1a2; c: U145-1, Cypriote Bichrome IV ware; d: U146-1, Cypriote Bichrome IV ware).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 337 25/03/14 12:51

(Fig. 3.117: c and d). The morphological features of these craters are almost identical. It is notewor-thy their smaller size, the biconical bodies provided with rounded shoulders and the narrow cylindrical necks. The rims show exterior quadrangular thick-enings with a horizontal stance, and two opposite vertical handles with a wide oval section connect those rims with the shoulder. Similar jars have been saved from clandestine excavations made in Al-Bass (Seeden 1991: 54-56, nrs. 2 and 3, figs. 3 to 6), although other references have been registered in Amathus (Gjerstad et al. 1935: 32, nr. 12, pl. XI.2, Bichrome IV ware) and in the cemetery of Ras el- Bassit, on the Syrian coast (Courbin 1993: 28, 40, 62-63 and 172, fig. 14: 1 and 3, pl. 16: 3 and pl. 30: 2, both belonging to the Bichrome IV ware). The decorative patterns remain essentially almost the same of previous periods. Thus, the “zone style”

remains as the favorite scheme, although it is rep-resented by a variant that counts with a row of sets of concentric circles, visible on the neck and shoul-der of U145-1 (compare it with Seeden 1991: 62, nr. 9, figs. 17-18). At the same time, U146-1 would represent a hybrid model that combines the pattern just described with the more traditional presence of a pair of bands on the neck, one wavy and the second straight.

The second ceramic form represented in this pe-riod is the cauldron. One example has been recov-ered, U144-2, and its characteristics may classify it as Cl 2a3: biconical body, direct and geminated rim, an annular base with a rounded outline and two ver-tical handles placed in the central part of the upper half of the body. Those handles are compact, its out-line curved and the section is rounded. This jar has obvious connections, on the one hand, with metallic prototypes,107 and, on the other, with the craters of type 2 (see above). In fact, the red slip that covers its surfaces has been inspired by the surface of those metallic vases, in the same way that the sharp cari-nation of its body and the outline of the rim. How-ever, all those traits seem to be somehow archaizing in this sequential context.

Regarding the three remaining jars, one belongs to an undetermined type of storage jar (U146-4:6) and the other two could not be identified (U143-6 and U146-4:2).

The characteristic of the surfaces and decora-tive patterns of the local jars are similar to those al-ready seen in previous periods. Simple surfaces pre-dominate, especially on the two amphoroid craters, which seem to represent two different variations of a decorative scheme based on a combination of hori-

338


5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.118 - Cauldron U144-1 (variant Cl 2a3).


3 2 Neck-ridge jugs Ja 3 b – 1

Decanters Jv 3 a 2 3

Jr F – – 6 Undetermined Jr C 1

Formal Group II/al Bass Period V

Fig. 3.119 - Typological distribution of Formal Group II in Period V.

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 338 25/03/14 12:51

zontal bands in red. At the same time, the cauldron is completely covered by a homogeneous red slip that has been horizontally burnished on its lower half and vertically on the upper one.

Formal Group II

Only two ceramic forms have been recognised in this period: neck-ridge jugs and decanters (Fig. 3.119).

Neck-ridge jugs of this period belong to the sub-

339


5 10 cm0a b c

Fig. 3.120 - Neck-ridge jugs of Period V (a: U146-3, variant Ja 3b3; b: U143-3, subtype Ja 3b; c: Dep11-3, variant Ja 3b3).

5 10 cm0a b c

Fig. 3.121 - Decanters of Period V (a: 143-2; b: U145-3; c: Dep11-2; all of them belonging to variant Jv 3a2).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 339 25/03/14 12:51

type Ja 3b, characterised by the presence of hori-zontal rims and conical necks. The variant, defined by the shape of the body, has given place to two possibilities. The first one is clear and consists of piriform bodies with or without a carination on the shoulder (variant “3”: U146-3 and Dep11-3; Fig. 3.120: a and c), while the second one (U143-3; Fig. 3.120: b) could correspond to an ovoid body (variation “2”), although a narrow piriform variation could be an alternative.108 Furthermore, it is note-worthy to observe the similitude existing between the shape of the rims of those three jugs, although their sections are not identical. Something similar happens regarding the particular features of the pre-served bodies. In previous studies, carinated piriform neck-ridge jugs were distinguished from examples provided with rounded shoulders. Thus, the first one was classified as type Ja 3b, while the second was conceived as a variation of the not-carinated jugs, either provided of globular bodies or not (Ja 3a; see Núñez 2004b: 311). This approach, similar to Bi-kai’s, who classified carinated neck-ridge jugs as type 5 (Bikai 1978a: 33-35, pl. XCII), has been changed now, given that these two shoulder outlines repre-sent nothing more than two variations of the same concept.

However, some relevant differences can be es-tablished regarding the outline of their respective necks. Two jugs display a cylindrical lower half combined with a conical upper half (U146-3 and Dep11-3), whereas the third example displays a clear biconical neck (U143-3). Those differences are implemented by the outline of the respective ridges, which in one instance shows a rounded con-tour (U143-3), whereas in the other two jugs this attribute has become whether a mere step (U146-3) or a groove (Dep11-3).

Three decanters have been also registered and all of them belong to the variant Jv 3a2 (U143-4, U145-3 and Dep11-2; Fig. 121: a-c, respective-ly): conical necks, globular bodies and trefoil rims. Those jugs are two clear variations of one basic scheme. On the one hand, there is two almost iden-tical examples (U145-3 and Dep11-2), which dis-play globular bodies that have to adjust themselves to the now larger width of the base of their respec-tive necks. As to the remaining jug (U143-4, prob-ably an import from another Phoenician centre),109 its body is rather squat and its neck proportionally higher than in the previous examples; these features confer the jug a stylised appearance. On the other hand, there is no relationship between the charac-teristics of their handles and the mentioned morpho-logical variations. These handles are either simple (Dep11-2) or geminated (U143-4 and U145-3). Finally, the remaining elements are common to all the jugs: trefoil rims provided of tapered or rounded rims, and low annular bases.

Regarding the examples that lack a secure typo-logical adscription, only Dep11-5 (not illustrated) deserves some attention, as it may be a Cypriot im-port.

Finally, the presence of red-slip surfaces equals for the first time the plain ones.110 The distribution of both resources is clear: red slip is still closely related to the decanters and plain surfaces are common on neck-ridge jugs, which usually display surfaces cov-ered with red slip. There would be an exception: the carinated neck-ridge jugs. At the same time, the sur-face finish remains the same in all instances: a hori-zontal stroke burnishing on the body that becomes vertical on the neck.

The presence or not of decoration also follow the same directions already seen in previous peri-

340


Fig. 3.122 - Typological character of Formal Group III in Period V.


Carinated bowls Cc 1 c 1 1

Pl 2 b 1 1 Plates Pl 3 b 3 1

Rims CP (br)2 b 6 1

Formal Group III/al Bass Period V

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 340 25/03/14 12:51

ods. Thus, painted decoration appears on simple surfaces, and consists of a combination of bands and fillets in red and black (probably U143-5 has lost its original ornamentation). Furthermore, paint-ed decoration continues to be absent on red-slipped surfaces, which still display a predilection for incised decorations.

Formal Group III

IAs mentioned, this is the worst represented for-mal group of the period. It counts only with two for-mal groups: plates and carinated bowls (Fig. 3.122).

This period has produced only two plates that were found in the same context. These examples can be classified in the types Pl 2 (U143-5; Fig. 3.123: a) and Pl 3 (U143-4; Fig. 3.123: b) thanks to their respective everted and horizontal rims, which, furthermore, display an elongated quadran-gular interior thickening. Those two plates stand on two different types of base. In one instance, U143-4, it consists of a disc marked on its upper side by a step that separates it from the wall (variant Pl 3b3), whereas, on the other, it is flat (variant Pl 2b1). Fur-thermore, these bases belong to the variants CP (bs)1a1 and 2b1 respectively.

Together with those two plates, a rim fragment has been registered, U146-2, whose morphologi-cal features place it in the variant CP (br)2b6 (Fig. 3.124). It is evident that this rim belonged to a plate of similar characteristics than U143-4 and U143-5, whose rims belong to variants CP (br)2b6 and 3b6 respectively. Finally, it is noteworthy from a sequen-tial perspective that all those rims have experienced in this period an evident elongation.

Only one carinated bowl has been registered in Period V: U145-4 (Fig. 3.125). It consists of a wide exemplar that displays a convex upper wall topped by a tapered rims and a convex base (variant Cc

1c1). Taken separately, its rim may belong to variant CP (br)5a3s and its base to subtype CP (bs)4a.

The distribution of surface treatment possibilities among the ceramic forms of this period is the same one already seen in previous periods. Thus, plates offer simple surfaces, while red slip covers the cari-nated bowl. At the same time, the surfaces of all the examples have been stroke burnished and lack any painted decoration.

4.d.2. Chronological readings

Al-Bass Period V represents the third stage of the Late Iron Age and it is contemporary of Tyre Strata II and I, Sarepta C1 and B, as well as the second half of Bikai’s “Kition Horizon” as well as the entire “Amathus Horizon”.111 It is a long period

341


5 10 cm0 ba

Fig. 3.123 - Plates of type Pl 2 (a: U143-5, variant Pl 2b1) and Pl 3 (b: U143-4, variant Pl 3b3).

0 5 cm.

Fig. 3.124 - Rim fragment U146-2 (variant CP [br]2b6).

5 10 cm0

Fig. 3.125 - Carinated bowl (U145-34, variant Cc 1c1).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 341 25/03/14 12:51

of time in which the Phoenician ceramic repertoire experiments a series of changes that will lead to its almost complete transformation in Persian times. The available data, old and new, does not allow the recognition of any internal phase in this period (see Bikai 1987: 58). This situation does not seem to derive from its presumed long duration, but rather from the nature of the Phoenician ceramic reper-toire itself and its pace of change. The lack of con-texts and their general limited representativeness make it complicated to deepen in an accurate defi-nition of the particular nature and evolution of this period.

In any instane, Period V shows the consequenc-es of a further development of the parameters al-ready observed in Period IV. It is no convenient, therefore, to speak of decadence, but rather of the mature stage of an evolutionary line that started some centuries ago. Accordingly, the general char-acter of this dynamic went to an end in conjunction with the arrival of the Persian dominance on the Levant, or maybe as a consequence of this phe-nomenon.112

Changes do not affect the entire repertoire in the same way and intensity. It is not possible now to distinguish big transformations on certain ceram-ic forms and types such as the amphoroid craters, cooking pots or common ware plates, especially those used in Al-Bass as lids. However, other forms like the neck-ridge jugs, decanters, storage jars, and better quality plates or bowls have undergone more or less sensible changes in their respective morpho-logical and/or decorative features. Thus, neck-ridge jugs display now a general preference for piriform bodies and wide rims topped by rounded or tapered lips. At the same time, decanters adopt whether a general biconical outlook, as their maximum diam-eter coincides with the higher part of their body, or their bodies become rather oval; meanwhile, their rims are now narrower.113 Storage jars reflect very well the effects of the before mentioned transforma-tion dynamics. The examples belonging to this pe-riod tend to exaggerate the compression at the mid-dle part of their bodies, giving place to a waist-like outlook that is generally accompanied by strongly carinated shoulders and compact rims.114 The best quality plates, among which there are also some examples covered with red slip, as well as some of the common ware varieties, display the tendency to-wards larger rims also observed on neck-ridge jugs;

in point of fact, those rims become larger with the pass of time. Other open forms such as the carinat-ed bowls provided of simple rims and unstable bases, become now deeper and narrow.115 However, this transformation is not visible in those carinated ex-amples that count with triangular rim, a type that still display the same two variations already seen in Pe-riod IV.116 At the same time, it is possible to observe how some curved bowls adopt now thickened rims, which in occasions are similar to the previous ones, and stable bases.117

On the basis of the recorded evidence, it seems that the earliest stage of this period may stand be-tween Tyre Strata III and II. Two factors make evi-dent the presence of this hiatus in Tyre stratigraphy. The first one is the presence of a stage represented by the so-called Level of Abandonment in Beirut (Bey 003; Badre 1997: 72-76, figs. 36, 3738, 39). This level is characterised, among other materials, mainly by evolved neck-ridge jugs, stylised decant-ers of our type Jv 3a, plates provided of wider rims and the first examples of curved bowls with thick-ened rims. Furthermore, those local types appear in association with to Aegean Late Geometric (includ-ing the so-called Al-Mina ware) and Cypro-Archaic I imports. This level at Beirut has a contemporary context in Cyprus: Salamis Tomb 23 (Karageorghis 1970: 47-52, pls.CI-CV, CCXIX, CCXX and CCXXI). Among the materials recovered there, it is noteworthy to mention the presence of two local ko-tylai probably inspired in Corinthian Late Geometric prototypes,118 which appeared in association with a piriform and long rimmed neck-ridge jug (Kara-georghis 1970: pl. CCXIX: 16; Bikai 1987: 23, nr 263, pl. 260), which also counts with an almost exact parallel in Pithecussai Tomb 545 associated to a Thapsos skyphos (Buchner-Ridgway 1993: 541-542, fig. 161).

Besides, there would be other facts that may also prove the existence of that hiatus between Tyre strata III and II. In the first place, Tyre Stratum III has not produced materials that can be equated to those just cited. Secondly, the existence of a “walk-on level” that clearly separates it from Stratum II (Bikai 1978a: 13). Finally, the recovering above it of a wall fragment belonging to an Egyptian alabas-ter vase (Bikai 1978a: 13, pl. XIII), which was origi-nally dated after 700 BC (Ward 1978), a dated that has been confirmed thereafter through independent means.119

342


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 342 25/03/14 12:51

With all this data at hand, it is difficult to infer how much time separates these two strata. Howev-er, the materials recovered in Tyre Stratum II adjust themselves to the before mentioned characteristics of Al-Bass Period V. There would be an additional element that may support this sequential conclusion: a wall fragment probably belonging to a Corinthian Early or Middle Protogeometric kotyle (Bikai 1978a: pl. XI: 24; Coldstream-Bikai 1988: 41) and a rim fragment that was tentatively identified as Cypriot (Bikai 1978a: pl. X: 27), but whose morphological and decorative also resemble those of a similar Ae-gean vase. At the same time, other contexts such as Sarepta Stratum C1, Tel Keisan Level 5 and Idalion Tomb 1 (Karageorghis 1964), display similar reper-toires, although it is possible that Tyre Stratum II is somehow older than them.

It is also complicated to find an accurate place for most of the contexts that belong to this Period V. One probable exception could be the tomb TT8 (Núñez 2004a: 74-75, 143, fig. 58), where a styl-ised piriform neck-ridge jug was found in association with an Cypriot amphoroid crater that is datable in an advanced stage of the Cypro-Archaic I period, and an Aegean vase (Núñez 2004b: 348-349).120 Turning to the local materials recovered in that tomb, it is noteworthy the presence of similar neck-ridge jugs in Amathus Tomb 321 in association with Cypro-Archaic materials and a Rhodian “bird-bowl” dated somewhere between 650-600 BC.121 Further-more, the continuity of this sequential period seems to be represented by Akhziv Tomb ZR XVII (Daya-gi-Mendels 2002: 65-67, fig. 4.14), where similar materials appeared associated with a Ionian cup that should be dated in the last moments of the 7th century BC or the earlier decades of the 6th (Núñez 2008b: 67-68). The sequential relationship of TT8 with Tyre Stratum I is not clear, but it is possible that both were contemporary.

The characteristics of the material recovered in Al-Bass Tomb 54 make of this tomb probably the latest context found so far in the cemetery (Núñez 2004a: 118, 190, fig. 105). Among its ceramics, the neck-ridge jug stands out especially, as it repre-sents an evolved version of U157-3, as also does the lid that covered the urn, which is a derivation of pre-vious plates provided of an everted rim and a quad-rangular thickening on the inside.122 Other elements recovered in this tomb support its late date. The first one would be an Egyptian scarab made in Naukratis

and dated after 600 BC (Gamer-Wallert 2004: 410-413). The second, a 14C date that cover in part this time span (Beta-175294; Aubet 2004: 469, 471; Núñez 2004b: 366; idem 2008a: 387; idem 2008b: 68, 81-82). It is mot certain that Sarepta B and Tel Keisan Level 4, this one with fragments of Corinthian “Wild-Goat” style vases,123 may repre-sent the latest sequential stages of Al-Bass Period V, while some contexts in Akhziv may be illustrating its very end.124

Summing up, it seems that Al-Bass Period V started somewhere in the last third of the 8th Cen-tury BC and lasted until an uncertain moment of the central decades of the 6th Century BC.

4.e. Contexts of uncertain chronology

The ceramic and sequential character of the dif-ferent periods recognised at Al-Bass have been ana-lysed on the basis of the well dated contexts found there. Now it is time to look briefly at those instances whose chronology is not secure. It is evident that the relevance of their materials is typological and their sequential and chronological use is limited.

4.e.1. Contexts datable in Periods II or III

Three contexts could be dated whether in Period II or III: TT132/133 and Dep5, TT155 as well as TT156.

The association of two probably related contexts, TT132/133 and Dep5 (Figs. 2.51 and 52), of-fers a contradictory association of materials. Some of them could support a rather early date in Period II, especially two fragments of Cypriot amphoroid crater that belong to the initial stages of the Cypro-Geometric III (Dep5-4 and Dep5-21),125 to which the fragment of a pilgrim flask (Dep5-1; not illustrat-ed) and a plate rim fragment of variant CP (br)2b8 (Dep5-45) should be added. However, the presence of a wall fragment belonging to a storage jar of type Al 4 (U132-1; most probably a Sidonian import) as well as the fragments of a conical-necked decanter (Dep5-25, subtype Jv 3a), the rounded rim topped by a vertical lip of a undetermined jug (Dep5-8) or a rim fragment of variant CP (br)2b8 (Dep5-47) may lead to a date in the very final stages of Period II or even in Period III. Therefore, it is most probable that

343


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 343 25/03/14 12:51

344


this grouping displays the remains of at least two burials, one of the very beginning of Period II and the second to the very end of this period or the (ini-tial?) stages of Period III.

TT155 is characterised by the lack of ceramic gifts accompanying the urn, something that is coun-terbalanced by the abundance of fragments recov-ered inside it (Fig. 2.66). In the first place, the urn, U155-1, is a Cypriot White-Painted III ware am-phoroid crater datable to the Cypro-Geometric III period.126 The lid of the urn, U155-2, was a plate of variant Pl 1b6 with a quadrangular thickening on the inside of the rim; to the same type belongs a sec-ond complete plate recovered in the interior of the urn (U155-3:1). Beside this plate, some relevant ce-ramic fragments were recorded inside the urn. One of them is a rounded rim fragment belonging to a jug, U155-3:2, which displays a flattened lip slightly thickened on its lower side. It is also remarkable the presence of some rim fragments belonging to the variants CP (br)2b8 (U155-3:21) and CP (br)1c5 (U155-3:22), which may originally belong to a plate and a chalice respectively. Also noteworthy are four fragments of the subtype CP (br)5a: U155-3: 24, 25, 27 and 28) that could belong to other four cari-nated bowls, probably of the subtype Cc 1a, and an incurved rim of variant CP (br)6a1 (U155-3:29) that may come from a bowl with curved walls (subtype Cv 1d?).

All these elements lead to think of a date for this tomb in an advanced moment of Period II, although the beginning of the Period III should not be disre-garded. Typical of the first one would be the men-tioned rim fragment of a jug, which may have belong to a neck-ridge jug provided with an open neck (see, for example, U74-3), as well as the rim fragment-sof a bowl provided with an angular interior thick-enings. However, the presence of the carinated and curved bowls fragments as well as the plates U155-2 and U155-3:1, may point to the second possibil-ity. In this sense, the presence of four fragments of Euboean PSC plates (U155-3: 26, 40 to 43) do not help much, as they could be dated in the same way. Thus, U155-3:26 may be placed somewhere between Nitsche’s Groups A2 and B2 (Nitsche 1986/87: 32, 34), whereas U155-3: 42 could be related with that author’s Group C2 (Nitsche 1986/87: 32, fig. 8).127 Finally, the base fragment U155-3:43 corresponds to a high ring base with an open stance that is completely covered with black

paint. Certain elements may relate it to a PSC plate. In the first place, some complete examples show similar bases (see, for example, Nitsche 1986/87: 33, fig. 9: 1; Coldstream 1995a: 189, fig. 2: 3; idem: 1995b: 201, fig. 1: 1); on the other hand, the fragment was recovered in association with the frag-ments just mentioned before. Accordingly, the be-fore mentioned Amathus Tomb 2, with its parallel to U154-1, offers some interesting materials like a red-slipped cauldron (Gjerstad et al 1935: 12, pl VI.2, nr 49; Bikai 1987: 35, nr. 430) that recalls a similar example recovered in the also mentioned Amathus Tomb 13, which may be considered as transitional between Al-Bass Period II and III. Therefore, tomb TT155 should be dated whether in the final stages of Al-Bass Period II or in the transition towards the Period III.

Finally, TT156 has offered a reduced number of findings (Fig. 2.67). It gather a local amphoroid cra-ter, U156-1 (variant Cr 1a2) and a plate used as a lid, U156-2 (variant Pl 1a2; its rim may belong to the variant CP [br]1a1 and its base to CP [bs]1a2). Furthermore, inside the urn two ceramic fragments were recovered (not illustrated): one is a rim frag-ment belonging to an open form (U156-3:2, type CP [br]2) and the other a wall fragment. Obviously, the information is not enough to give a secure chro-nology for this context. Nevertheless, the presence of a plate with a direct rim and the everted rim frag-ment may point to both Period II or III.

4.e.2. Period III or IV

Two contexts may fall in this group: U138 and Dep1 (Figs. 2.56 and 80). Dep 1 probably con-tains the remains of more than one burial, although it is also possible that this context was related to Dep2 (Fig. 2.79).

Formal Group I is represented by a local ampho-roid crater (Dep1-1; variant Cr 1a2), a neck and shoulder fragment of a second exemplar (Dep1-4; variant Cr 1a1), and a Cypriot stable amphora of the Black-on-Red II (IV) ware (Dep1-5). Besides, there are some shoulder fragments belonging to storage jars (Dep1-2:1 and Dep1-8). Formal Group II members consists of the pinched rim of a dipper (Dep1-14), some fragments belonging to the body and neck of an undetermined jug (Dep1-6), and a wall fragment belonging to a Cypriot jug decorated

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 344 25/03/14 12:51

345


with painted concentric circles (Dep1-11; not illus-trated). Finally, Formal Group III offers a plate of the variant Pl 3b1 (Dep1-1:1) provided with a quad-rangular interior thickening (variant Cp [br]3b6), as well as a series of rim fragments of which stand out three everted examples provided of interior thick-enings: one is rounded and it is decorated on the outside with three horizontal fillets in black and the lip is painted in red (Dep1-13, variant CP [br]2b8), the second one shows a quadrangular thickening (Dep1-3, variant CP [br]2b6) and the third has a tapered exterior thickening (Dep1-1:4, variant CP [br]4c3).

Those materials could place this deposit, or at least a part of it, in the final stages of Period III or, even, in the initial moments of Period IV. Clear from a sequential perspective could be the triangular rim fragment and the jug body fragment Dep1-6, which could have originally belonged to a neck-ridge jug of Period III. However, the storage jar fragments may correspond to an exemplar dated in the early Period I. A similar date could be propossed for the plate with a horizontal rim. Besides, the dipper rim frag-ment and the bowl fragment Dep1-13 seem to be even earlier than the rest of materias recovered in this assemblage. The trefoil rim of the dipper could be definitive in this regard. Therefore, the relation of these two fragments with the neighbouring As-semblage 2 should not be disregarded (see above).

4.e.3. Period IV or V

The date of two contexts, TT75/76 and TT161/162, may correspond whether to Period IV or V.

The materials of TT75/76 are badly preserved, as the tomb was perturbed in later times (Fig. 2.18). The context offers the remains of two local urns: an amphoroid crater (U76-1, variant Cr 1a2) and a stable amphora (U75-1, variant Ad 1c2). Besides, the lid of the first mentioned jar is a plate of the variant Pl 2b3 (U76-2), whose rim stands out for its width and its flat-convex base provided of a circular groove. Furthermore, inside U75-1 were few frag-ments recovered, of which only deserves mention a wall fragment belonging to a curved bowl (U75-2:2; not illustrated).

Given the limited sequential repercussion of the amphoroid craters and stable amphorae during the

Late Iron Age, it is difficult to discern if the context belongs to the Period IV or V. The dimensions of the rim of U76-2 may point towards the later possibil-ity; however, its resemblance with certain plates with convex bases may favor the first option.

The tomb TT161/162 (Figs. 2.70 and 71) of-fers two local stable amphorae (U161-1 and U162-1, variants Ad 1b2 and 1c1 respectively). Both urns were covered by two similar plates that, in point of fact, belong to two different variants: U161-2 (vari-ant Pl 2b2) and U162-2 (variant Pl 1b3). Besides, there is a neck-ridge jug of the variant Ja 2b3 that stands out especially by its piriform body with a carinated shoulder, a neck articulated through sharp ridge and a short open rim ended in a tapered lip. Also relevant is the combination in it of red slip on the body and lower haf of the neck and painted decoration on the upper half of that neck. Together with this jug, the tomb also produced a decanter be-longing to the variant Jv 3a2 that displays a short neck, and a flat cup provided with a low annular base that belongs to variant Cc 1a3.

Doubts concerning the date of this tomb appear when the existence of some sort of contradiction between its components become evident. On the one side, the neck-ridge jug may belong to the initial stages of Period V,128 while the body and neck of the decanter recall some similar jugs recovered in Cy-prus.129 One of those Cypriot jugs (Bikai 1987: 32, nr. 393, pl. XV) comes from Philia-Aeras-Vassiikou Tomb 6, and in the same context was recovered an-other neck-ridge that may belong to the variant Ja 1b1 (ibid: 28, nr. 332, pl. X). It is provided with a triangular thickening on the outside of the rim, and lineal decoration that is bichrome on the neck and monochrome on the shoulder. This jug may represent a variation of U147-3 and U157-3. How-ever, it is especially relevant the resemblance exist-ing between the neck of U162-3 and one of Bikai’s jugs (nr. 332). Similar jugs have been recovered in Ayia-Irini Tomb 3, where one example appears associated to two other jugs (Pecorella 1977: 17-18, nrs 1, 4 y 5, pls. 15, 18 y 19 respectively),130 whose morphological and decorative features also resemble those of U162-3. Finally, Nicosia Tomb 3 (Florentzos 1982) offers a similar jug, including the conical neck and the direct rim, as well as a jug of variant Ja 3b1, which counts with a short tapered rim and bichrome decoration on the upper half of the neck.131

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 345 25/03/14 12:51

346


On grounds of those information, this context could be dated whether in Al-Bass Period IV or, better, in the earliest moments of Period V, that is, contemporary of the so-called “Level of Abandon-ment” of Beirut (Bey 003), and Salamis tombs 21 and 105 (see above). However, the morphological features of the flat cup U161-4 seem to be out of context here. This contradiction refers basically to the lack of a clear carination, the internally bevelled rim and the low annular base. Those traits recall certain cups recovered in Period III contexts,132 al-though similar bowls may have endured until the initial stages of Al-Bass Period IV side by side with carinated examples.

Summing up, few problems would arise dating this context in the initial moments of Al-Bass Period V; however, it is more cautious to leave open the Period IV option.

4.e.4. Period III to V

There is a relevant number of tombs whose char-acteristics may seem common to any of the three stages of the Late Iron Age: TT91/92 (Fig. 2.23), TT95/96 (Fig. 2.25), TT99 (Fig. 2.28), TT114 (Fig. 2.40), TT123 (Fig. 2.45), TT137 (Fig. 2.55), Dep4 (Fig. 2.81) and Dep7 (Fig. 2.82). Their re-spective repertoires do not allow an accurate chrono-logical characterisation, especially because many of them consist of contexts that whether have been re-covered incomplete or provided of only one urn and void of the standard ceramic gifts. In point of fact, in most instances those gifts consist only of plates or rim fragments belonging to open forms, which can-not provide any precise chronological information by themselves. The exception could be TT138, which stands out for the presence of a more numerous and varied repertoire; some of its contents show links with other chronologically secure contexts (compare, for example, U138-3:69 with U69-2 from tomb TT69, dated in Period IV). However, a more cautious attitude has been chosen in this regard.

4.e.5. Uncertain period

Only one context, TT100, probably incomplete, does not allow any chronological approach.

5. Last readings

Once the analysis of the typological and chrono-logical character of this material has been achieved, it is time to state that its nature matches that of the repertoire recovered in 1997. One of the most rel-evant aspects could be its lineal and coherent charac-ter. This is the outcome, no doubt, of four contiguous sequential stages in which technical, morphological and decorative parameters change over time show-ing different paces, intensity and an accumulative na-ture. It is not possible to talk about major breaks, not even in Period II.

This dynamic has been termed somewhere as “constant transition” (Núñez 2008b: 70). It goes beyond any doubt that an approach based on the characteristics of the materials gives place to a better comprehension and contextualization of their sub-sequent transformations. Something similar occurs regarding the framework of other sequences, for ex-ample, the Aegean. In any case, the Phoenician ce-ramic sequence is a phenomenon that remains open to study and keeps its relevance from a typological, decorative, cultural, sequential, chronological, even historical and social perspective. Therefore, and in order to arrive to coherent and contrastable conclu-sions, it is necessary to continue the analysis of old and new data.

Appendix to chapter 3

A. Formal Group I

The ceramics included in this group are middle to big size jars which served in their most part as ciner-ary urn in the cemetery. Five ceramic forms have been recognised: craters (Cr), stable amphorae (Ad), storage jars (Al), cauldrons (Cl), and cooking pots (Oc). A certain number of individuals that cannot be included in any of these forms can be added; these cases have been classified as “uncertain” (Vj).

1. Crater (Cr): big or medium-sized container characterised by the presence of two opposite han-dles that connect the shoulder with the rim (Núñez 2004b: 286-295; idem 2008a: 129-147).

2. Stable amphora (Ad): closed container of medi-um-sized that counts with a marked neck, two han-

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 346 25/03/14 12:51

347


dles placed on opposite sides of the shoulder and a stable base (in former studies also known as “deco-rated storage jar”; see Núñez 2004b: 294-297; idem 2008a: 149-150).3. Cauldron (Cl): jar characterised by two main features: the lack of a neck and the existence of morphological and decorative attributes inspired in metal prototypes; the presence of handles is pos-sible, but not essential. Whenever these occur, they are usually placed on the body, never on the rim (not described in previous studies).

4. Storage jar (Al): jar with a closed body that dis-plays a marked shoulder, unstable base and two ver-tical handles placed in opposite sides of the body, just below the shoulder (Núñez 2004b: 300-303; idem 2008a: 156-162)

5. Cooking pots (Oc): compact vessel provided of an unstable base and a marked rim, generally pro-vided of a concavity on the inside to fit a lid. The presence of handles is not a typological prerequisite (Núñez 2004b: 303-304; idem 2008a: 162-164).

B. Formal Group II

The second formal group includes all kinds of vessels designed to contain and serve liquids.

1. Neck-ridge jug (Cr): jug characterised mainly by the presence on its neck of a horizontal ridge-like protuberance that divides it into two separate parts. Generally, a single handle connects the shoulder

Ceramic form Type Subtype Variant

a (max. diam. upper half) 1 (cylindrical neck)

1 (amphoroid) b (max. diam. centre) 2 (conical neck)

c (max. diam. lower half) 3 (open neck) Cr (crater) 1 (direct rim) a (globular body 2 (cylindrical rim) 2 (neckless) b (hemispherical body) 3 (open shoulder) c (piriform nody) 4 (closed shoulder)

Typological parameters applied to the craters

Relation of ceramic forms along the sequence (including typologically uncertain individuals).

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 347 25/03/14 12:51

with a point of the neck that coincides with this ridge or slightly below it (Núñez 2004b: 305-318; idem 2008a: 169-181).

2. Decanter (Jv): jug characterised by the pres-ence of a rim provided with a beck whose nature

varies from one type to another; furthermore, a vertical handle placed on the opposite side of that beck connects the rim with the shoulder. In previ-ous studies this ceramic form was known as “pitch-er” (Núñez 2004b: 316-323; idem 2008a: 181-188).

348


Distribution of the different types along the sequence

Ceramic form

Type Subtype Variant Period II Period III Period IV Period V

1 1 2 8 0

2 0 6 24 2

1 3 1 0 2 0

Cr b – 0 0 0 0

c – 0 0 0 0

– – 1 0 0 0

2 c 4 1 0 0 0

Distribution of the variants along the sequence (absolute values)


1 (inverted piriform body) a (cylindrical neck) 1 (simple rim) Ad (stable amphora) 2 (globular body) b (conical neck) 2 (triangular rim)

3 (piriform body) c (open neck) 3 (elongated rim)

Typological parameters applied to the stable amphorae

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 348 25/03/14 12:51

349



Ceramic form


2 0 0 2 0 b 1 3 0 0 3 0

Ad c 1 0 0 1 0

2 – – 0 0 0 0

3 – – 0 0 0 0



a (piriform body)

1 (incurved shoulders) b (inverted piriform body) 1 (simple rim) c (globular body)Cl (cauldron) 2 (rim with vertical or everted thickening) a (direct rim) 3 (rim with geminated thickening) 2 (biconical body) b (rim with upright stance)

c (rim with open stance)

Typological parameters applied to the cauldrons


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 349 25/03/14 12:51

3. Spouted jug (Jp): jug provided of a distinct neck and a spout on its shoulder (Núñez 2004b: 326-327: idem 2008a: 193-197).

4. Dipper (Op): small jug characterised by a direct neck, an unstable base and a handle that connects the shoulder and the rim (Núñez 2004b: 323-325; idem 2008a: 188-190).

5. Pilgrim Flask (Ct): jug characterized by a lenticu-lar body, a marked neck and two opposed handles connecting the shoulder to the neck that are placed on the narrow sides of the body.

6. Askoi (As): small sized jug characterized by a stable and closed body that displays a wide shoul-der which is separated from the body through a

350



Ceramic form


a 2 1 0 0 0 1 Cl b 2 0 0 1 0

2 a 3 0 0 0 1



1 (cylindrical body)

2 (ovoid body) a (rounded base) 1 (direct rim) Al (storage jar) 3 (triangular body) b (pointed base) 2 (provided with a neck) 4 (piriform body) c (button-like base)

5 (waisted body)

Typological parameters applied to the storage jars

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 350 25/03/14 12:51

more or less sharp break of the outline. One or two spouts, usually displaced from the axis of the jug, stand together with a vertical handle on this shoulder (Núñez 2008a: 197-199). No complete examples have been recovered so far at Al-Bass,

only some fragments in Period II, III and IV con-texts. Given that the number of complete examples found in other sites is also reduced, no definitive ty-pological parameters have been developed for this ceramic form.

351



Ceramic form


1 a – 1 0 0 0

– – 2 0 0 0

Al 4 a – 1 0 0 0

b – 0 1 0 0

5 – – 0 0 1 0



a (provided with a neck)

b (upright rim) 1(simple rim) 1 (globular body) c (everted rim) 2 (internally thickened rim) Oc (cooking pot) 2 (oval body) d (horizontal rim) 3 (externally thickened rim) 3 (piriform body) e (pendent rim) 4 (‘T’-shaped rim)

f (incurved rim)

Typological parameters applied to the cooking pots

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 351 25/03/14 12:51

352



Ceramic form


Oc 3 b 3 1 0 0 0


Relation of ceramic forms along the sequence (including typologically uncertain individuals)


1 (globular body) 1 (direct rim) a (cylindrical upper neck) 2 (oval body) Ja (neck-ridge jug) 2 (everted rim) b (conical upper neck) 3 (piriform body) 3 (horizontal rim) c (open upper neck) 4 (inverted piriform body)

Typological parameters applied to the neck-ridge jugs

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 352 25/03/14 12:51

353



Ceramic form


a 1 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 0 1 0 b 3 0 0 1 0

a 1 0 4 2 0

b 1 0 0 2 0 2 – 1 0 0 0 c 1 5 0 0 0

– – 0 0 1 0

Ja – 0 0 1 0

a 1 0 0 6 0

3 0 0 1 0

– 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 0 b 3 0 0 0 2

4 0 0 1 0

– 0 0 1 0 c 2 0 0 1 0


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 353 25/03/14 12:51

354



a (globular body) 1 (neckless) b (vertically oval body) 1 (pinched rim) Jv (decanter) 2 (vertical neck) c (piriform body) 2 (trefoil rim) 3 (conical neck) d (inverted piriform body)

Typological parameters applied to the decanters

Ceramic form


a 2 1 0 1 0

2 c 2 1 0 0 0

d 2 2 0 0 0

– – 1 0 1 0 Jv – 0 0 3 0 a 3 2 1 4 13 3

c 1 1 0 0 0

d 2 1 0 0 0



cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 354 25/03/14 12:51

355



1 (handle from shoulder to neck) a (globular body) 1 (open spout) Jp (Spouted jug) 2 (handle from rim to shoulder) b (inverter piriform body) 2 (tubular spout) 3 (basket handle)

Typological parameters applied to the spouted jugs


Ceramic form


Jp

1 a 1 1 0 0 0

b 1 1 0 0 0



a (cylindrical body

b (piriform body) 1 (rounded base) 1 (rounded rim) Op (dipper) c (inverted piriform body) 2 (button-like base) 2 (pinched/trefoil rim) e (oval body) 3 (pointed base)

f (globular body)

Typological parameters applied to the dippers

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 355 25/03/14 12:51

356




a (simple rim) 1 (open rim) b (cut rim) 1 (rounded handle) Ct (pilgrim flask) 2 (short upright rim) c (pointed rim) 2 (square handle) e (thickened rim)

Typological parameters applied to the pilgrim flasks

Ceramic form


Op 1 b 2 0 0 1 0



cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 356 25/03/14 12:51

357


Ceramic form


Ct 1 a 1 1 0 0 0


Relation of ceramic forms along the sequence (including typologically uncertain individuals)


1 (direct rim) 1 (flat base)

2 (everted rim) a (simple rim) 2 (depressed base)

3 (horizontal rim) b (internally thickened rim) 3 (disc base) Pl (plate) 4 (pendent rim) c (externally thickened rim) 4 (annular base)

5 (upright rim) d (rim thickened on both sides) 5 (convex base)

6 (incurved rim) 6 (irregular base)

Typological parameters applied to the plates


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 357 25/03/14 12:51

C. Formal Group III

The third formal group includes all open forms.1. Plates (Pl): ceramic form that counts with open walls with a straight or convex outline whose depth is about a third of the diameter of the rim (Núñez 2004b: 333-345 and 349-350; idem 2008a: 209-220, 224-228, 233-234).

2. Carinated bowls (Cc): This ceramic form is characterised by the presence of a more or less sharp break on the outline of their walls that divides it into two distinct parts. Generally, the height of the upper half of the wall is usually less than one fourth the diameter of the rim, conferring the bowl a wide appearance (Núñez 2004b: 327-331, 340-341 and 345-346; idem: 201-206).

358


Ceramic form


1 2 0 3 0 a 3 3 0 1 0

1 2 0 5 0

1 b 3 1 0 1 0

6 0 0 2 0

c 1 4 0 3 0

d 2 1 0 0 0

a 6 1 0 0 0

1 1 5 6 1

2 2 0 0 7 0 b Pl 3 0 1 0 0

6 0 0 8 0

1 0 0 5 0

b 2 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 1

c 1 0 1 0 0

4 b 3 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 0 0 a 3 2 0 1 0 5 b 3 1 0 0 0

c 1 0 1 0 0


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 358 25/03/14 12:51

359



1 (simple rim) 1 (rounded base) a (straight upper wall) 2 (flat rim) 2 (flat base) b (concave upper wall) Cc (carinated bowl) 3 (triangular rim) 3 (annular base) c (convex upper wall) 4 (quadrangular rim) 4 (disc base) d (direct rim) 5 (‘T’-shaped rim) 5 (depressed base)

Typological parameters applied to the carinated bowls


Ceramic form


a 1 0 0 1 0

1 – 5 0 1 1 0 c 1 0 0 1 0

Cc – 0 0 3 0 a 4 0 0 5 0 3 b 4 0 0 1 0

d 4 0 1 1 0

4 a 4 0 0 1 1


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 359 25/03/14 12:51

360



1 (open walls) a (direct rim) 1 (disc handle) Tp (lid) 2 (conical outline) b (everted rim) 2 (knob handle) 3 (hemispherical outline) c (horizontal rim)

Typological parameters applied to the lids


a (upright rim) 1 (rounded base) 1 (simple rim) b (incurved rim) 2 (flat base) Cv (curved bowl) 2 (flat rim) c (horizontal rim) 3 (annular base) 3 (‘T’ shaped rim) d (everted rim) 4 (disc base)

Typological parameters applied to the curved bowls


Ceramic form


– – – 2 0 1 0

– 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 2 0 a Cv 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 0

– 0 0 2 0 b 1 0 0 3 0


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 360 25/03/14 12:51

361



Ceramic form


Tp 1 a 1 0 1 0 0



1 (direct rim) a (simple rim) 1 (flat base)

Lc (lamp) 2 (everted rim) b (tapered rim) 2 (string-cut rim)

3 (horizontal rim) c (convex rim) 3 (disc base)

Typological parameters applied to the lamps


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 361 25/03/14 12:51

362


Ceramic form


a – 0 0 1 0

2 b – 0 0 1 0 Lc c – 1 0 0 0

3 b – 0 0 2 0



Morphological attribute Type Subtype Variant

1 (simple)

2 (indeterminate thickening)

3 (tapered)

4 (transversal) 1 (direct rim) 5 (rounded thickening) 2 (everted rim) a (simple) 6 (quadrangular thickening) 3 (horizontal rim) b (interior thickening) CP (br) 7 (oval thickening) 4 (pendent rim) c (exterior thickening) 8 (angular thickening) 5 (upright rim) d (int./ext. thickening) 9 (internally bevelled) 6 (incurved rim) 10 (externally bevelled)

11 (convex rim)

12 (‘T’ shaped rim)

13 (flat)

Typological parameters applied to the rims of open forms

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 362 25/03/14 12:51

363


Attribute Type Subtype Variant Period II Period III Period IV Period V

– – 3 0 0 0

1 2 0 0 0

a 10 2 1 4 0

13 1 0 0 0

1 0 0 1 0

5 2 0 1 0 b 1 6 0 0 3 0

8 0 0 3 0

4 0 0 1 0

5 0 2 2 0 c 7 1 1 1 0

8 0 1 0 0

d 2 1 0 0 0

– – 0 0 1 0

CP (br) 1 1 1 3 0 a 2 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 2 17 1 b 8 1 0 3 0

c – 1 0 0 0

– – 0 0 1 0

5 0 0 1 0

3 b 6 0 1 9 0

8 0 0 2 0

c 3 0 0 2 0

4 c 3 0 1 0 0

– – 0 0 4 0

5 1 1 0 2 0 a 3 3 0 2 0

6 a 1 0 0 1 0


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 363 25/03/14 12:51

364


Morphological attribute Type Subtype Variant

a (simple) 1 (flat base) b (elongated) 1 (flat) a (vertical) 2 (depressed)

b (bended) 3 (convex) 2 (disc-like base) c (rounded) 4 (recto-convex) CP (bs) d (projected) 5 (irregular)

a (quadrangular) 1 (vertical) 3 (anular base) b (rounded) 2 (opepn) c (tapered)

a (wide) 4 (convex base) b (narrow)

Typological parameters applied to the rims of open forms


3. Curved bowls (Cv): bowls characterised by curved walls, which show a continuous outline from the base up to the rim. The depth of these bowls is about half the diameter of their rims, although there could be variations. This feature provides the vase a half spherical appearance regardless of their type (Núñez 2004b: 331-333; idem: 206-209).

4. Lids (Tp): open form that display certain mor-phological items that considered belonging to a lid. Among these attributes in question, for example,

could be emphasized a rim modelled in order to be fit on the mouth of a container or the presence of one or more handles.133

5. Lamps (Lc): a plate with a pinched rim.

6. Morphological attributes (only refered to the open forms):

6.1. Rims (CP [br]): the scheme takes the stance of the rim as a primary reference, then the nature of

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 364 25/03/14 12:51

that rim. In some instances, the precise character-istics of the lip and, in others, their thickenings will adjust the classification.

6.2. Bases (CP [bs]): the scheme followed is simi-lar to that employed with the rims. Thus, subtypes and variants are not common to all the types, but in some instances they vary from one instance to another; in one case, even, no variants have been designed.

BibliographyAdams, W. Y. & Adams, E. W. 1991. Archaeological

typology and practical reality. A dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Albright, W. F. 1961. The archaeology of Palestine. Penguin, Baltimore.

Almagro Gorbea, M. 1972. Los dos jarros paleopúnicos del Museo Arqueológico Nacional hallados en la Casa de la Viña (Torre del Mar), Madrider Mitteilungen 13: 172-183.

Amiran, R. 1970. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N. J.

Anderson, W. P. 1988. Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y, Section des Études Archéologiques II. Publications de l’Université Libanaise, Beirut.

Aubet, M. E. 2004. The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al

365


Ceramic form


– – 1 0 1 0

– 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 0

1 a 2 1 1 0 0

3 0 0 1 0

5 1 0 1 0

b 1 1 0 1 0

– – 3 0 0 0

1 1 0 3 0 a 3 0 0 1 0 CP (bs) 2 0 0 4 0 2 b 4 0 0 2 0

1 0 0 2 0 c 4 0 1 0 0

d 2 2 0 1 0

– – 0 0 1 0 3 c 2 0 0 1 0

– – 1 0 8 0

4 a – 0 0 2 0

b – 0 0 1 0


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 365 25/03/14 12:51

Bass. Excavations 1997-1999, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série 1. Direction Générale des Antiquités, Beirut.

Aubet, M. E. & Núñez, F. J. 2008. Cypriote imports from the Phoenician cemetery of Tyre, Al-Bass, in Doumet-Serhal, C. (ed.) Networking patterns of the Bronze and Iron age Levant. The Lebanon and its Mediterranean connections, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon, Special Edition. The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, Beirut: 71-104.

Aznar, C., Balensi, J. & Herrera, M. D. 2005. Las excavaciones de Tell Abu Hawam en 1985-1986 y la cronología de la expansión fenicia hacia Occidente, Gerion 23: 17-38.

Badre, L. 1997. Bey 003 preliminary report. Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993-1996, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2: 6-94.

Benson, J. L. 1973. The necropolis of Kaloriziki, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 36. Paul Åström Förlag, Gotemburg.

Bikai, P. M. 1978a. The pottery of Tyre. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

––––––––– 1978b. The late Phoenician pottery complex and chronology, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229: 47-56.

––––––––– 1987. Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Leventis Fundation, Nicosia.

Briend, J. & Humbert, J.-B. 1980. Tell Keisan. Une cite phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1, Friburg.

Briese, Ch. 1985. Früheisenzeitliche bemalte phönizische Kannen von Fundplätzen der Levanteküste, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 12: 7-118.

Buccholz, H. G. 2001. Siebkannen, Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 107-150.

Buchner, G. & Ridgway, D. 1993. Pithecussai I. La necropoli: tombe 1-723, scavate dal 1952-1961, Monumenti Antichi 55, Serie Monografica 5. G. Bretschneider, Rome.

Chapman, S. V. 1972. A catalogue of Iron Age pottery from the cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qraye and Qasmieh of South Lebanon, Berytus 21: 55-194.

Chéhab, M. 1940. Tombes phéniciennes, Majdalouna, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 4: 37-53.

Clarke, D. L. 1984. Arqueología analítica. Bellaterra, Barcelona.Coldstream, J. N. 1963. Appendix I: The chronology of the

Attic geometric vases : Achäologischer Anzeiger 5: 199-204.––––––––– 1979. Geometric skyphoi in Cyprus : Reports of the

Direction of Antiquities of Cyprus: 255-269.––––––––– 1987. The Greek Geometric and Archaic imports,

en V. Karageorghis, O. Picard y Chr. Tytgat, La Nécropole d’Amathonte. Tombes 113-367. II. Céramiques non chypriotes, Études Chypriotes VIII. Service des Antiquités de Chypre, Nicosia: 21-31.

––––––––– 1995a. Amathus tomb NW 194: the Greek pottery imports, Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 187-198.

––––––––– 1995b. Greek geometric and archaic imports from the tombs of Amathus-II, Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 199-214.

Coldstream, J. N. & Bikai, P. M. 1988. Early Greek pottery in

Tyre and Cyprus: some preliminary comparisons, Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 35-43

Courbin, P. 1982. “Une assiette cycladique à Ras el Bassit” Archéologie au Levant. Recueil à la mémoire de Roger Saidah. Collection de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 12, Série archéologique 9. Maison de l’Orient, Lion: 193-204.

––––––––– 1993. Fouilles de Bassit. Tombes du Fer. Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations, Paris.

Christou, D. 1978. Amathus tomb 151, Reports of the Direction of Antiquities of Cyprus: 132-148.

Culican, W. 1973. The graves at Tell er-Requeish, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology II.2: 66-105.

––––––––– 1982. The repertoire of Phoenician pottery, in Niemeyer, H. G. (ed): The Phönizer im Westen, Madrider Beiträge 8. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhin: 45-82.

Dayagi-Mendels 2002. The Akhziv cemeteries. The Ben-Dor excavations, 1941-1944, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 15. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Desborough, V. R. d’A. 1963. Appendix II: Low footed skyphoi with pendent semicircles, Achäologischer Anzeiger 5: 204-206.

––––––––– 1980. The Dark Age pottery (SM-SPG III) from settlement and cemeteries, in M. R. Popham, L. H. Sackett and P. G. Themelis (eds.): Lefkandi I: the Iron Age, British School at Athens Supplementary, Volume 1. Thames and Hudson, London: 281-354.

Deshayes, J. 1963. La nécropole de Ktima. Mission Jean Bérard 1953-55, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique LXXV. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris.

Dikaios, P. 1963. A “royal” tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, Achäologischer Anzeiger 5: 125-198.

Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and their material culture. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dothan. T. & Zukkerman, A. 2004. A preliminary study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333: 1-54.

Dunnell, R. C. 1971. Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, Nueva York.

Finkelstein, I. & Piasetzky, E. 2007. Radiocarbon, Iron IIa destructions and the Israel-Aram Damascus conflicts in the 9th Century BCE, Ugarit Forschungen 39: 261-276.

––––––––– 2009. Radiocarbon-dated destruction layers: a skeleton for Iron Age chronology in the Levant, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28/3: 255-274.

Flourentzos, P. 1981. Four Early Iron Age tombs from Nicosia Old Municiality, Reports of the Driection of Antiquities of Cyprus: 115-128.

Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean III C pottery and its relation to Cypriote fabrics, Opuscula Atheniensia 3: 194-265.

––––––––– 1972. The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 4º, XX: 1 Stockholm.

Gal, Z. & Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age storage fort and village, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Gamer-Wallert, I. 2004. The scarabs , in Aubet, M. E. (ed.), The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997-1999, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture

366


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 366 25/03/14 12:51

Libanaises, Hors-Série 1. Direction Générale des Antiquités, Beirut : 397-413.

Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. & Boaretto, E. 2008. Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician “Pre-colonisation” stages, in Sagona, C. (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Peeters, Leuven: 113-204.

Gjerstad, E. 1944. The initial date of the Cypriote Iron Age, Opuscula Orientalia 3: 73-106.

––––––––– 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Finds an resultsof the excavations in Cyprus, 1927-1931, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV/2. Stockholm.

––––––––– 1960. Pottery Types. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical, Opuscula Atheniensa 3: 105-122.

Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjöqvist, E. & Westholm, A. 1935. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, II. Stockholm.

Guy P. L. O. 1924. An early Iron Age cemetery near Haifa, excavated September, 1922, Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem 5: 47-55.

Hadjicosti, M. 1997. The family tomb of a warrior of the Cypro-Archaic I period at Mari, Reports of the Direction of Antiquities of Cyprus: 251-266.

Hadjisavvas, S. 1989. Two Cypro-Archaic I tombs at Alassa-Kampos, Reports of the Direction of Antiquities of Cyprus: 95-108.

Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1963. The Iron Age pottery of Tarsus, in H. Goldman (ed.): Excavations at Gözlü Küle, Tarsus III. The Iron Age. Princeton, New Jersey: 18-332.

Karageorghis, V. 1964. Excavations in the necropolis of Idalion. Direction of Antiquities of Cyprus, Nicosia.

––––––––– 1967. Salamis vol. 3, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I. Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, Nicosia.

––––––––– 1970. Salamis vol. 4, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II. Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, Nicosia.

––––––––– 1983. Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus, Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3. Universitätsverlag, Konstanz.

Kearsley, R. 1989. The pendent semi-circle skyphos. A study of its development and chronology and an examination of it as evidence for Euboean activity at Al Mina, Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement 44. University of London, London.

Kenyon, K. M. 1957. Israelite pottery 1. Stratified groups, en J. W. Crowfoot, G. M.Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon (eds.) Samaria-Sebaste III. The objects from Samaria. Palestine Exploration Fund, London: 94-134.

Kling, B. 1988. Mycenaean IIIC: 1b and related pottery in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology LXXXVII. Götemburg.

Kotsonas, A. 2008. The archaeology of tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna. The Iron Age Pottery. Publications of the University of Crete, Athens.

Lehmann, G. 1996. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr., Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, Archäologische Studien zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients 5. Münster.

––––––––– 1998. Trends in the local pottery development of

the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B. C., Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311: 7-37.

Levy, T. E. & Higham, T. 2005. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. Equinox Publishing, Londres-Oakville.

Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39, Oriental Institute Publications 62. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Mazar, A. 2004. Greek and Levantine Iron Age chronology: a rejoinder, Israel Exploration Journal 54: 24-36.

Nitsche, A. 1986/87. Bemerkungen zu Chronologie und Herkunft der Protogeometrischen und Geometrischen Importkeramik von Tyros, Hamburger Beiträge zur Arachäologie 13/14: 7-49.

Núñez, F. J. 2004a. Catalogue of urns, in Aubet Semmler, M. E. (ed.), The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997-1999, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série 1. Direction Générale des Antiquités, Beirut: 63-203.

––––––––– 2004b. Preliminary report on ceramics from the Phoenician necrópolis of Tyre-Al Bass. 1997 campaign, in Aubet Semmler, M. E. (ed.), The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997-1999, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série 1, Direction Générale des Antiquités, Beirut: 281-373.

––––––––– 2008a. Estudio cronológico-secuencial de los materiales cerámicos de la necrópolis fenicia de Tiro-al Bass (Líbano). Campaña de 1997, Ph.D. dissertation presented at the Intituto Universitario de Historia Jaume Vicens Vives, Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (http://www.tdx.cat/TDX-0124108-190519).

––––––––– 2008b. Phoenicia, in Sagona, C. (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Peeters, Leuven: 19-96.

––––––––– 2008/09. A snapshot of the Phoenician ceramic sequence: the neck-ridge jug from Tell el Ghassil at the AUB Museum, Berytus 51: 47-70.

––––––––– 2011a. Tyre-al Bass. Potters and cemeteries, en Sagona, C. (ed.), Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic world: collected essays (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 36). Peeters, Lovaina: 277-296.

––––––––– 2011b. Referencias secuenciales del repertorio cerámico fenicio metropolitano de la Edad del Hierro Tardío, in Nigro, L. (ed.), Motya and the Phoenician ceramic repertoire between the Levant and the West. 9th-6th Century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010, Qaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica V. Rome: 49-83.

Núñez 2013. De Tiro a Almúñecar. Conexiones metropolitanas de un contexto colonial fenicio, Madrider Mitteilungen 54: 27-88.

––––––––– in press a. La cronología de los estratos V a I de Tiro, in Acts of the VII Internacional Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies, Tunis, November 2009.

Núñez, F. J. & Aubet, M. E., 2009. Tyre al-Bass-Imported material / Typology and results, en Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série 6, Direction Générale des Antiquités, Beirut: 403-417.

367


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 367 25/03/14 12:51

Orton, C. R., Tyers, P. & Vince, A. 1997. La cerámica en Arqueología. Crítica, Barcelona.

Peccorella, P. E. 1977. Le tombe dell’Età del Bronzo Tardo della necropoli a mare di Ayia Irini “Paleokastro”, Biblioteca di antichità cipriote 4*. Consiglio Nazionalle delle Ricerche, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome.

Pedrazzi, T. 2007. Le giare da conservaziones e transporto del Levante. Un studio archeologico dell’economia fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400-900 a.C.), Richerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 2. Edizioni ETS, Pisa.

Peserico, A. 1996. Le broche a fungo fenicie nel Mediterraneo. Tipologia e cronología, Collezione di Studi Fenici 36. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome.

Phillips, P. 1958. Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley taxonomy to Eastern ceramics, American Antiquity 24/2: 117-125.

Popham, M. R. & Lemos, I. S. 1996. Lefkandi III. The Toumba Cemetery: the Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986, 1992-4, British School at Athens Supplementary Volume, 29. Athens.

Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis. A sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Rocchetti, L. 1978. Le tombe del periodi Geometrico ed Arcaico della necropolis a mare di Ayia Irini “Paleokastro”, Biblioteca di Antichità Cipriote 4**. Consiglio Nazionalle delle Ricerche, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Rome.

Rouse, I. 1960. The classification of artefacts in archaeology, American Antiquity 25/3: 313-323.

Sagona, A. 1982. Levantine storage jars of the 13th to 4th century B.C., Opuscula Atheniensia 14, 7: 77-110.

Saidah, R. 1966. Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961-1962), Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 19: 51-90.

––––––––– 1971. Objectes grecs d’époque géométrique découverts récemment sur le litoral libanais (à Khaldé près de Beyrouth), Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 21: 193-198.

––––––––– 1977. Une tombe de l’âge du Fer à Tambourit (Régionde Sidon), Berytus 25 :135-146.

Schaefer, C. F.-A. 1949. Ugaritica II. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris.

Seeden. H. 1991. A tophet in Tyre?, Berytus 39: 39-82.Sinopoli, C. M. 1991. Approaches to archaeological

ceramics. Plenum Press, Nueva York y Londres.Smith, R. E., Willey, G. R. & Gifford, J. C. 1960. The Type-

Variety concept as a basis for the analysis of Maya pottery, American Antiquity 25/3: 330-340.

Tytgat, O. 1989. Les nécropoles sud-ouest et sud-est d’Amathonte. I. Les tombes 110-385, Études Chypriotes XI. Service des Antiquités de Chypre, Nicosia.

––––––––– 1995. La tombe NW 194 de la nécropole nord d’Amathonte, Reports of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 137-185.

Vandenabeele, F. 1985. Un depot de céramique archaïque chypriote dans un silo à Amathonte, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 109/2: 629-655.

Ward, W. 1978. The Egyptian objects, appendix in Bikai 1978a: 83-87.

Yadin, Y. 1958. Hazor I. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Ben-Tor, A., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I., Geva, S. & Stern, E. 1961. Hazor III-IV. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem.

Notes

1- This chapter is a reduced version of a monographic volume, The ceramic of Al-Bass (to be published in the series Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea), which deals with all the Iron Age ceramic repertoire recovered so far in the cemetery.2- The elements that characterize those sequential periods have been presented in extension in other places (see, especially, Núñez 2004b, idem 2008a, idem 2008b and idem 2011).3- This aspect can be better observed among the urns. See, for example, the craters U.16-1 and U.18-1, or U.26-1 and U.27-1, all of 1997 season (Núñez 2004a: 152, fig. 67: 1, p. 154, fig. 69: 1, p. 162, fig. 77: 1 and p. 163, fig. 78: 1) or the morphological and decorative similarities existing between the urns U.62-1, U.63-1 (both found in the same tomb), U.79-1 and U.151-1.4- A first approach to this subject can be seen in the Appendix D in this volume.5- Imports recovered at Al-Bass have been analysed in depth in some recent articles (Aubet-Núñez 2008; Núñez-Aubet 2009).6- The reference followed here is Anderson 1988: 453-463.7- Morphological attributes belonging to other Formal Groups are dealt with in the before mentioned monographic volume.8- The number of terms referred to ceramic objects increases dramatically in Old Testament Hebrew (see, for example, Honeyman 1939, Kelso 1948 or Bonnard 1967); however, only some of them can be correlated with known Phoenician ones (see, again, Amadasi 1990).9- The rich terminology that appears in the Old Testament supports this possibility.10- The terminological reference used here is again Anderson 1988: 315-363.11- Núñez 2004b: 352-366; idem 2008a: 346-392; idem 2008b; idem 2008/09; idem in press a12- Despite the evident typological differences visible in this approach with regard to the 2004 publication, the exhaustive listing of references offered there (revised in Núñez 2008a) can be hold true in its most part now.13- On the origin and evolution of the Phoenician amphoroid craters, see Núñez 2011a: 52-56. Note the different approach used in the study of 1997 season (Núñez 2004b: 287-291).14- See, for example, Bikai 1978: pl. XLI: 7, Tyre Stratum XIV; Chapman 1972: 108, fig. 19: 212, from Jouwaya; Saidah 1966: 77, nr. 47, from Khalde Tomb 21-23. One base of this type was also recovered in 1997 at Al-Bass (Núñez 2004a: 196, fig. 111: P28).15- A jar similar to U111-1 comes from the tomb 31 of Salamis (Karageorghis 1967: 60, nr. 47, y p. 64, nr. 88 pls. LVIII y CXXX, also belonging to the Bichrome IV ware).16- For the typological parameters typical of Cypriot amphoroid craters of this period, see Gjerstad 1960: 119-120. Furthermore, among the materials recovered from clandestine excavations at Al-Bass there would be an example of this variant (Seeden 1991: 61, nr. 8, figs. 15-16), to which U44-1 and U49-1, registered in the 1997 season, could be added (Núñez 2004a: 179, fig. 94: 1 and p. 185, fig. 100: 1).17- Gjerstad 1948: 55, fig. XX: 5, White-Painted III ware, fig. XXIV: 2, Bichrome III ware, fig. XXVI: 2, Black-on-Red I ware; idem 1960: 119.18- Compare it with Gjerstad et al. 1935: 12, nr. 47, pl. VI.2, where the straight band on the neck of U72-1 has been substituted for by a wavy band.

368


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 368 25/03/14 12:51

19- This possibility is further supported by the characteristics of other local amphoroid craters previously recovered in Al-Bass, for example U31-1, which is also provided of a depressed base (see Núñez 2004a: 166, fig. 81: 1).20- Only one fragmentary example of this type was recovered in 1997 (Núñez 2004a: 203, fig. 118: P.2:2, which may be classified as Cr 2b4).21- True cooking pots displaying similar morphological features have been registered in Tyre Stratum X-2 (Bikai 1978a: pl. XXVII: 7, 9 and 11) and IV (ibid: pl. XVII: 4).22- On this phenomenon see Núñez 2011a.23- Compare it also with Gjerstad et al. 1935: 106, nr. 6, pl. XXIV.1, White-Painted II ware, from Amathus Tomb 18, or ibid: 122, nr. 30, pl. XXVIII.1, also of the White-Painted II ware, from the Tomb 22 of the same necropolis).24- U17-1, form Al-Bass 1997 season, belongs to this type Al 4 and seems similar to U61-4 (Núñez 2004a: 153, fig. 68: 1).25- This author may classify U74-1 here (personal communication).26- In fact, these examples may fit better in Pedrazzi’s form “15”. However, since this form seems to have an Egyptian origin this option has to be ruled out.27- Two similar, but evolved examples were recovered in a tomb next to Tambourit (Saidah 1977: 138-139, nr. 4 and 5), which is contemporary to Al-Bass Period III.28- Bikai 1978a: pl. XXIII: 14 and 15, type CP 8, Tyre Stratum X-1; see also Anderson 1988: 226, pl. 33: 15, type CP 15A, most frequent in Stratum D1 (ibid: 501).29- On this ceramic form, see especially Núñez 2008a: 305-348, idem 2008b. Given the special character of this ceramic form, references from other sites and contexts will be indicated in the paragraph devoted to the sequential and chronological readings.30- Observe that the typological approach of this ceramic form differs with regard to the analysis of 1997 material (Núñez 2004b: 316-323). 31- Probably comparable with Anderson’s type DJ-12 (Anderson 1988: 210, pl. 49), although the presence of this rim type is somehow earlier (ibid: 494-495, tables 10A and B).32- This jug seems to be a rather squat version of U25-3 (Núñez 2004a: 161, fig. 76: 3; see also idem 2004b: 326-327).33- Some red slipped pilgrim flasks have been recovered in the neighborhood of Tyre (Chapman 1972: 102, fig. 16), but this possibility has not been recorded at Al-Bass so far.34- This pattern corresponds to Anderson’s Style I (Anderson 1988: 335). Remains of this pattern are visible on U25-3 (Núñez 2004a: 161, fig. 76: 3).35- Other examples were registered in 1997 (Núñez 2004a: 178, fig. 93: 4 and p. 185, fig. 100: 5 and 6).36- This practice corresponds to Anderson’s Style II (Anderson 1988: 335), and has been registered also in 1997 (see the previous note).37- A somehow similar plate is Bikai 1978a: pl. XXIII: 4, from Tyre Stratum X-I.38- See Bikai 1978a: pl. XIX: 2-7, from Tyre Strata VIII and IX.39- See some classificatory attempts in Courbin 1982, Nitsche 1986/87, as well as the commentaries by Coldstream 1995a and 1995b.40- For an example with only one handle, see Deshayes 1963: 134 and 205, nr 5, pl. XXIII: 19, from the Tomb VIII of Ktima, and classified as Black-on-Red II (IV).41- Compare Karageorghis 1983: 47, nº 15, pl. XLVI, Blak-on-Red I ware, with the before cited example recovered at Ktima. See also ibid: 144, nº 128, pl. XCVIII, Black-on-Red I ware, and confront it with nr. 127 and 129, also present on the pl. XCVIII, and both belonging to the Black-on-Red II ware.

42- This bowl was associated to a similar example (Karageorghis 1983: 186, nr 25, pl. CXX) that counts with those protuberances and has been also classified as Black-on-Red I(III) ware.43- The prototypes would be the jugs recovered in tomb TT49 (Núñez 2004a: 185, fig. 100: 4-6), which represent the so-called “stage D” of this ceramic form (Núñez 2008a: 305-309; idem 2009b: 25, fig. 4).44- Those plates correspond to Bikai’s types 12 and 13 (Bikai 1978a: 25), and Anderson’s X-27 and 28 (Anderson 1988: 160-161).45- In this respect, U131-5 is interesting. This plate displays an internally thickened rim with a upright stance. Plates with interior thickenings corrspond to Bikai’s type 12 (Bikai 1978a: 25; however, her pl. XIX: 26 has been classified as “miscelaneous”; furthermore, Anderson 1988, 160 and 283, note 111, equates his type X-27 with Bikai’s types 11, 12 and 13), whereas the plates provided of direct rims correspond to her types 8 and 9 (Bikai 1978a: 23-24), which can be correlated to Anderson’s types X-11 and 15 (Anderson 1988: 150-152). Al-Bass examples such as U97-3:1 or U98-2 could be related to Bikai’s type 10, which would stand midway between her types 11-13 and 8-9 (Bikai 1978a: 24; Anderson 1988, 152-153, 282, note 73, relates his type X-15 to Bikai’s types (8), 9, 10 and 11).46- Compare U98-3 with Bikai 1978a: pl. XXVI: 7, from Tyre Stratum X-2. At the same time, Bikai’s type FWP 8 (ibid: 29) actually encompasses different examples susceptible of representing more than one type (see it on ibid: pl. XIX: 1-6 and 8). Any correlation with Anderson’s typology becomes complicated as this author seems to recognize only one type, F-3 (Anderson 1988, 165-16647- Compare U43-2 with U49-3 (Núñez 2004a: 178, fig. 93: 3 and p. 185, fig. 100: 3).48- This phenomenon appears perfectly illustrated in Gilboa et al 2008.49- Note that Bikai includes the decanter among the typical forms of her “Kouklia Horizon” (Bikai 1987: 59); however, there is no evidence so far of a consolidated presence of this form in that moment.50- Finkelstein-Pisaetzky 2007 and 2009 place the end of this stratum somewhere in the central decades of the 9th century BC; however, attending to their materials and, the especially growing presence of Cypriot imports of the Cypro-Archaic I period, this moment should be moved to the second half of that century, probably not too far from the end of Megiddo VA/IVB and the destruction of the Omride palace at Tel Jezreel.51- Champan 1972: 82, fig. 8, p. 87, fig. 10: 15, 16 and 18, as well as p. 89, fig. 11, and the ceramics recovered in Qasmieh, p. 146, fig. 32.52- See especially Salamis Tomb 31, where a tripod cauldron displays a similar central motive (Karageorghis 1967: pl. CXXX: 47), while other vessels found in this tomb represent clear Cypriot version of Phoenician types of Al-Bass Period II (ibid: pl. CXXI: 20, 48, 52 and 57).53- Note the presence in this level at Samaria of two neck-ridge jugs of the same evolved type found in the before mentioned sites (Kenyon 1957: 111, fig. 5: 1 and p. 166, fig. 22: 5).54- It has been perfectly presented in Levy-Higham 2005.55- Gilboa-Sharon 2003: 62-64; see, however, Gilboa et al 2008; see also Coldstream 1999 on a revision of the chronology of the Cypro-Geometric III period. On the other hand, high chronology postulates a date within the 10th century for the same levels cited before (Megiddo VA/IV, Hazor X-IX, Rehov VI and V, not IV), something that affects Black-on-Red directly (on this, see especially Schreiber 2003).56- The Cypriot amphoroid crater U2-1 (VIII) belongs to the same type of U73-1, whose context seems to correspond to the transition between the two sequential stages of Period II (see above).57- See, for example, Gjerstad et al. 1935: 12, nr. 47,, pl. VI.2,

369


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 369 25/03/14 12:51

White-Painted III ware, from Amathus Tomb 2, which contains burials from the early stages of the Cypro-Archaic I period to the Cypro-Archaic II; ibid: 26, nr. 34, pl. VIII.1, White-Painted III ware, from the Tomb 5, where burials of the Cypro-Geometric III and Cypro-Archaic I period were recovered; ibid: 32, nr. 2, White-Painted III ware, from the Tomb 7, whose funerary deposits have to be dated between the Cypro-Geometric II and the Cypro-Archaic I.58- See some examples in Amathus (Vandenabeele 1985: 639-640, fig. 34) and Kaloriziki (Benson 1973: 91, K444, pl. 32).59- However, three Cypriot examples were registered in 1997: U3-1 (Núñez 2004a: 137, fig 52: 1, Black-on-Red II ware), U5-1 (ibid: 139, fig. 54: 1, Black-on-Red II ware) and U19-1 (ibid: 155, fig. 70: 1, Bichrome IV ware).60- Those jugs were classified in previous studies as type Ja 2 (Núñez 2004b: 307-310; idem 2008a: 173-174).61- This ceramic form was probably represented already in Period II in 1997 season (U17-4, Núñez 2004a: 153, fig. 68: 4), although the consistency of this context is rather doubtful.62- These bowls are classified in Bikai’s type FWP 7 (Bikai 1978a: 27-28, pl. XCI), which appears for the first time in Tyre Straum V. In Sarepta it corresponds to Anderson’s type X-10 (Anderson 1988, 149-150), which appears for the first time there in its sub-stratum D-263- The first appearance in a context of Period III at Al-Bass is in the tomb TT45/46 (Núñez 2004a: 182, fig. 97: 28). These bowls correspond to Bikai’s type FWP 5 (Bikai 1978a: 27-28), which also appeared for the first time in Tyre in its Stratum V. 64- A somehow similar lid was recovered in a context contemporary to Al-Bass Period V found at Idalion (Karageorghis 1964: 44 and 46, fig. 12: 12, Tomb 1).65- Bikai 1978a: pl XVIII: 12 and 14, pl. XIV: 13 and 16; these rim types may correspond, broadly, to Anderson’s types 11-13 (Anderson 1988: 195-196, pl. 49).66- It should be remembered that Salamis Tomb 1 contains two burials close in time , one of them coinciding with the transition between Al-Bass Period II and III. As the presence there of some Phoenician ceramics displaying bichrome concentric decorative patterns typical of Period II may demonstrate (Bikai 1987: 16-17, nrs. 155-157 and 173-174, pls. IX and X). 67- See Aznar et al. 2005 for the use of this natural phenomenon for the dating of Tell Abu Hawam Stratum III, although the sequential repercussions expressed there are somehow different to those expressed here.68- Amathus offers again some of the best references for these two craters (Gjerstad et al. 1935: 30, nr. 1 and p. 33, nr. 30, pl. XI.2, Bichrome IV and White-Painted IV respectively, both from Tomb 7), as well as Kaloriziki (Benson 1973: 93, pl. 32: K477, White-Painted IV-V ware), Alassa-Campos (Hadjisavvas 1989: 97, nr. 1, pl. XII: 1, Bichrome IV ware, from Tomb 9) and Mari (Hadjicosti 1997: 256 and 258, pl. LII: 13 and 33, Bichrome IV ware).69- Compare this example with a jar also recovered in tomb 31 at Salamis (Karageorghis 1967: 63, nr. 72, pls. LVIII and CXXX, Bichrome IV ware).70- This ceramic form was designed as “decorated storage jar” in previous studies (see Núñez 2004b: 294-297; idem 2008a: 149-150). The change can be reasonably explained by the presence of true storage jars that display decoration and, especially, to avoid any terminological incongruence if a plain individual of this form is registered in the future. 71- There are some doubts concerning the chronology of U38-1 (Núñez 2004a: 173, fig. 88: 1), as it appeared displaced next to tomb TT8 (Aubet 2004: 50, fig. 41; Núñez 2004a: 143, fig. 58), dated in Period V, and some materials that may be dated in Period III, especially the jug P20/P21:1 (Núñez 2004a: 200, fig. 115). It could

be possible that, in fact, TT8 disturbed a previous tomb to which U38-1 and P20/P21:1 belonged.72- Several Cypriot funerary contexts have offered similar jars, for example, Mari (Hadjicosti 1997: 256, nr. 14, pl. LII: 14, White-Painted IV ware), Alassa-Kampos Tombs 9 and 11 (Hadjisavvas 1989: 97, nr. 5, pl. XI, White-Painted IV ware, pp. 102-104, nr. 1 and 23, both belonging to the White-Painted IV ware), and Amathus Tomb 151 (Christou 1978: 138, nr. 3, pl. XII, White-Painted IV ware). Finally, Christou 1978; 143, nr. 52, pl. XII, also belonging to the White-Painted IV ware, could also be compared to the Al-Bass vessel73- Parallels to this vessel have been registered at Amathus (Gjerstad et al 1935: 50, nr. 46, pl. XIII: 2, White-Painted IV ware, from the Tomb 8; ibid: 98-99, nrs. 60, 114 and 115, pl. XXI.1, all recovered in the Tomb 16 and belonging to the White-Painted IV ware), Alassa-Kampos, Tomb 1 (Hadjisavvas 1989: 104, nr. 25, pl. XVI, White-Painted IV ware), and Mari (Hadjicosti 1997: 256, nr. 17, pl. LII, White-Painted IV ware).74- Gjerstad has published similar examples without context (for instance, Gjerstad 1948: fig. XLI: 1, Bichrome IV ware), and further parallels have been registered at Stylli (Gjerstad et al 1935: 165, nr. 4, pl. XXXIII.2, Black-on-Red II, from the Tomb 11), Kaloriziki (Benson 1973: 26, K 725, pl. 35, Black-on-Red I ware, from the tomb 81), and Alassa-Kampos (Hadjisavvas 1989: 100, nr. 49, pl.. XI and fig. 3, Black-on-Red II ware).75- See a similar motif on a Bichrome III ware jar in Gjerstad 1948: XXII: 1.76- Gjerstad published an example with similar morphological features but lacking a secure context of origin (Gjerstad 1948: fig. XLI: 2, Bichrome Red I ware). Other references have been registered in Marion (Gjerstad et al 1935: 213-214, nr. 32m pl. XXXIX, White-Painted IV ware, from the Tomb 10), and Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983: 209, nr. 84, Black-on-Red II, from the Tomb 75), to which a jar with horizontal handles found in Marion could be added (Gjerstad et al 1935: 405, nr. 19, pl. LXXVIII.1, Bichrome IV ware, from the Tomb 75).77- A somehow similar jar was saved from clandestine excavations at Al-Bass (Seeden 1991: 60, nr 7, figs. 13 and 14).78- See, for instance, Bikai 1978a: pl. XXVII: 1, from Tyre Stratum X-2, or pl. XVIII: 7, from Stratum V; idem 1987: pl. VIII: 130, from Amathus Tomb 111, placed by this author in her “Salamis Horizon”. Furthermore, that necropolis is also the origin of some other examples that could be contemporary to Tyre Stratum V (Gjerstad et al. 1935: pl. VI.2, nr 49, Tomb 3, and pl. XIX.1: 36, Tomb 13).79- See, for example, Bikai 1978a: pl. XXXIV: 10, from Tyre Stratum XIII-1, or Yadin 1958: pl. LXXXVI: 8 y 9, pl. CIX: 2, 3 y 5, pl. CXXIX from Hazor.80- Similar examples have been recorded in Tyre, although their chronology is contemporary to Al-Bass Period V (Bikai 1978a: pl. III: 6 and IV: 5, both from Stratum II).81- On these jugs with conical necks, see Núñez 2008/09.82- Other two jugs displayed in the same work, Bikai 1987: pl. XVI: 381 and 382, may represent a variation.83- Compare this jug with some of the examples recovered in Tyre Stratum III (Bikai 1978a: pl. XII: 1-23, juglet type 1, see ibid: 41-42).84- It is highly possible that U94-7, as well as the jug U94-6, were actually an intrusion in this context.85- A similar feature can be observed on some carinated bowls recovered in Cyprus (Bikai 1987: pl. XIX: 497).86- All these fragments seem to belong to different individuals.87- Núñez 2008a: 377-384; idem 2008b: 58-65; idem 2013; idem in press a.88- Jug U20-4 from tomb TT20/21 of 1997 may belong to this group (Núñez 2004a: 156, fig. 71: 4).

370


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 370 25/03/14 12:51

89- Jugs U22-3 from tomb TT16/18 (Núñez 2004a: 158, fig. 83: 3), U23-2 of tomb TT23, provided of a piriform body (ibid: 159, fig. 74: 3) and U42-3 from tomb TT42 (ibid: 177, fig. 92: 3) may belong to this group.90- Jugs U27-3 from tomb TT26/27 (Núñez 2004a: 163, fig. 78: 3), U48-2 from tomb 47/48 (ibid: 184, fig. 99: 2) and U52-3 from tomb TT52/53 (ibid: 188, fig. 103: 3) may belong to the same group.91- U29-3, from tomb TT28/29, with a piriform body (Núñez 2004a: 165, fig. 80: 3), may belong to this group.92- U13-2, from tomb TT12/13 may be included here (Núñez 2004a: 149, fig. 64: 2).93- Núñez 2004a: 155, fig. 70: 2.94- Núñez 2004a: 177, fig. 92: 9.6.95- U9-3.4 of 1997 could be somehow earlier than this jug (Núñez 2004a: 145, fig. 60: 3-4).96- Comparing this jug with some other examples recovered in Tyre, it would stand midway between a jug with a cylindrical neck recovered in its Stratum II/III (Bikai 1978a: pl. VI: 6) and a second example from Stratum III provided of a conical neck and a rounded rim (ibid: pl. V: 18).97- The same phenomenon can be observed on U20-3 or U26-3, recovered in 1997 (Núñez 2004a: 156, fig. 71: 3 and p. 162, fig. 77: 3 respectively). Regarding the tomb TT20/21, the association in it of the mentioned decanter together with a neck-ridge jug provided of an open neck may be a challenge to the scheme presented here. However, it should be kept in mind the general character of the sequence, in which subsequent stages overlap (see below).98- Núñez 2004a: 152, 154, figs. 67 and 69, and pp.164-165, figs. 79-80).99- Jug 166-4 is a neck-ridge jug of the variant Ja 3a1 whose bad preservation didn’t allow its graphic recording.100- Núñez 2004a: 188-189, figs. 103 and 104.101- Compare, especially, Rocchetti 1978: 51, fig. 28: 2 with Bikai 1978a: pl. XIV: 6.102- Rocchetti 1978: 53, fig. 38: 8. Note further the presence of a similar example in Idalion Tomb 1 (Karageorghis 1964: 44 and 46, fig. 12: 20), although this context could be somehow later (see below). It is also noteworthy the presence there of a Cypriot amphoroid crater similar to our U65-1 (ibid: 43 and 46, fig. 12: 20).103- Rocchetti 1978: 51, fig. 28: 3.104- Rocchetti 1978: 77, fig. 46: 2 y fig.46: 4; as to the skyphos, see also Coldstream 1979: 259-260, nº 4, fig. 1: b.105- Saidah 1971: 194, 197, “c”, “d”, “e” y “f”. Compare the last example to our U.103-2, U.115-2 or U.116-2. Furthermore, the rim of the plate would correspond to our variant CP (br) 1c4.106- It is possible that the height of U143-1 was actually lower that represented in the illustration.107- See, especially, an example recovered in Tel Jatt (Artzy 2006: 32, fig. 2.3: 1a).108- Compare it with U8-2 of 1997 (Núñez 2004a: 143, fig. 58: 2).109- Only one comparable jug has been found so far. It was recovered in Akhziv tomb ZR XXXVI (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 92, fig. 2.27: 14).110- The reduced number of examples makes it unnecessary to display the data on a histogram.111- Núñez 2008a: 384-387; idem 2008b: 65-69; idem 2013; idem in press a.112- See Lehmann’s opinion concerning the homogenization and reduction of the ceramic repertoire in the Levant as a consequence of this Persian dominance (Lehmann 1996; idem 1998)113- To the examples already offered in previous pages it would be possible to add a jug recovered in Al-Bass Tomb TT40 (Núñez 2004a: 175, fig. 90: 2), or some of the examples registered in the necropolis

of Akhziv (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 58, fig. 4.10: 4, Tomb ZR XII or p. 92, fig. 4.27: 16, Tomb ZR XXXVI) and in Cypriot contexts (Bikai 1987: pl. XVI: 373, 374, 384, 388).114- Changes visible at Tyre (Bikai 1978a: pl. II, III and IV) and Sarepta (Anderson 1988: pl. 37: 11 and 13.115- Anderson 1988: pl. 38: 4, from Sarepta Stratum C1; see also Briend-Humbert 1980: pl. 40: 12, from Tel Keisan Level 5.116- See, for example, the rich register of this form made in Tel Keisan Level 5 (Briend-Humbert 1980: pl. 39 and pl 40: 1-5).117- One example is visible in Sarepta Stratum C1 (Anderson 1988: 639, pl. 38: 9) or in Tel Keisan Level 5 (Briend-Humbert 1980: pl. 40: 6).118- Compare Karageorghis 1970: pl. CCXXI: 19 and, especially, 28 with Coldstream 1995b: 208, fig. 5:18.119- Prof. I. Gamer-Wallert has confirmed this date in a kind personal communication.120- Prof. J. N. Coldstream kindly suggested two possibilities.: either a skyphos, our initial identification, or more probably an amphoriskos. Recently, Kotsonas 2008, 287-288, has identified it as a necked pixys of Cretan origin, dated at the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century B.C.121- Tytgat 1989: 202; Bikai 1987: 21, nrs. 234-237 and p. 24, nr. 290; Coldstream 1987: 29, nr. 23, pls. IX and XV).122- Núñez 2004a: 190, fig. 105: 2; idem 2004b: 345; idem 2008a: 227-228; Bikai 1978a: 20, 22, type 1; Anderson 1988: 149, type X-9; Humbert-Briend 1980: pl. 38.123- Humbert-Briend 1980: pl. 32: 1 y 2; pl. 35: 10.124- See, for example, Tomb ZR V (Dayagi-Mendels 2002: 44, fig. 4.4) or ZR XI (ibid: 56, fig. 4.9).125- Among the possible parallels for Dep5-21, see especially Karageorghis 1983: 108, nr. 7, pl. LXXIX, White-Painted II ware, from Palaepaphos-Skales Tomb 55, or ibid: 197, nr. 32, pl. CXXII, White-Painted III ware, from Tomb74.126- A close parallel appeared in Amathus Tomb 2 (Gjerstad et al 1935: 12, pl. VI.2, nr 47)127- Other similar examples could be found in the Tomb 194W of Amathus (Coldstream 1995a: 189, fig. 2: 4 and 5) or in Lefkandi (Popham-Lemos 1996: pl. 102: 4, from the Pyre 21, dated somewhere in the Sub-Protogeometric II/IIIa; see also ibid: pl. 103: 1, from the Pyre 14, dated in the Sub-Protogeometric IIIa).128- In this sense, in Salamis Tomb 105 similar jugs (Karageorghis 1970: pl. CCLIII: 11, 14, 30, 46, 48 and 65) appeared in association with a local kotyle decorated with wavy triglyphs (ibid: pl. CCLIV: 27), a motive that recalls some “al-Mina ware” exemplars recovered in typical contexts of this earliest stage of Al-Bass Period V (see, especially, Badre 1997: 77, fig. 38: 1, 2 and 4).129- Bikai 1987: 32-34, nrs. 393, 394, 396, 400 and 406, pl. XV (note the archaizing detail on the rim of nrs. 396 and 400). The author dates them in her “Kition Horizon” (ibid: 62).130- Jug nr 4 appears in Bikai 1987: 27, nr. 310, pl. XIII.131- Flourentzos 1981: 122, nrs. 10 and 21 respectively; those jugs have been also recorded by Bikai (1987: 23 and 28, nrs. 265 and 333, pls. X and XII).132- Núñez 2004b: 328, fig. 191, classified then as subtype CP 1a. In point of fact, following the same typological parameters used here, those cups may belong to the same variant as U161-4.133- It results obvious from the arguments presented before and now that the parameters employed for the lids have changed regarding previous studies (cfr. Núñez 2004b: 349-350; idem 2008a: 233-234)

371


cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 371 25/03/14 12:51

cap 3 BAAL 9.indd 372 25/03/14 12:51

The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age

Documents

Transcript of The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age