Analysis of Selected Pottery Reports in Israel-Palestine

Selection of material: In the following analysis, I focus on reports presenting material dated to periods close to the material from Tel Kinrot. This means that the majority of the reports I discuss present material from the Iron Age, though I have included some presentations of Late and Middle Bronze Age material, as well as one Iron Age II pottery typology, in order to widen the perspective. The analysis does not aim to be exhaustive, but to reach a fair picture of the state-of-the-art at the beginning of the 21^st century in terms of pottery presentations in Israel-Palestine. Therefore, recently published reports are in focus. I wanted to select reports from sites that have been considered especially important, such as Hazor and Megiddo. I also wanted to include reports that have varying authors from different universities and institu-tions as well as different publishers, in order to be able to discern trends that are common in Israel in general. The writers are all Israeli archaeologists, who naturally form the majority of archaeologists within the country. The few recent excavation reports of sites in Israel or Jordan published by American (Liebowitz 2003, final report of Yinʿam) or European (Fischer 2013, final report of Tell Abu al-Kharaz) institutions and authors I was able to find do not differ substan-tially from those by Israeli authors. The two reports mentioned above lack a detailed method-ological discussion about the typology building: Liebowitz includes a fairly short description of it (2003: 106–107), while Fischer only mentions that the criteria of classifying vessels are sub-jective (2013: 389, footnotes 70 and 72). The relatively few reports that I analyzed in detail include variability as well as coherence. Of the reports I chose to read closely, I selected to observe their structure; the content of the introductory part; the agency; the length; detail and formulation of type descriptions; the style, use of illustrations (drawings, photographs, and tables); and the themes included in the concluding discussion.

I chose the reports of Timnah II (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001) and Timnah III (Panitz-Cohen 2006) because both include highly concise discussions on methodology and descriptions of the process of pottery study (recording and typology building). This very same reason may, however, mean that they are not typical reports in this respect. I included the report of Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985), although not so recent, because it has served as a guideline for several other reports, as explicitly mentioned in Timnah reports (Mazar & Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006) and Megiddo IV (Arie 2006), and can be described as a pioneering work for

typo-logical pottery presentations (Mazar 1985: 1). Because of its pioneering character in establish-ing a type series for pottery in Israeli archaeology, it explains the material retrieval, the work process, and the method of typological analysis in relative detail.

I included the series of reports from Megiddo (III, IV, and V, by several authors) in the analysis because Megiddo is often considered to be a key site. With three reports published there is potential to see a development and variety of presentations within one site. The series of reports from the renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shean would have been a good alternative as well. However, I chose the series of Megiddo because this alternative gave more variation in terms of authors. The reports from Tel Beth-Shean were to a large extent written by the same authors as the Qasile and Timnah reports (Amihai Mazar and Nava Panitz-Cohen). In addition, the report series from Megiddo covers a longer period in time of publishing (from 2000 to 2013) than the publishing sequence of Tel Beth-Shean (2006–2009), and therefore I expected more variation.

The recent Hazor VI (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2012) excavation report is written by different au-thors and produced by a different publisher than those indicated above. In addition, Hazor is generally considered an important site, and the early reports by Yadin have served as a refer-ence for countless pottery presentations, including the report of Kinneret I (ed. by Fritz 1990).

Hazor is also situated close to Tel Kinrot, and therefore is also of interest for the Tel Kinrot typology in section 5.2. The report from Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit, an Iron Age II fort and village, was included as a report illustrating Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) publication practice. This is the only report that did not include Early Iron Age material in its typology, except for a few types that continue into Iron Age II, like cooking pots with a triangular rim and lamps (Gal &

Alexandre 2000: 40–42, 67). Thus, I ended up with eight excavation reports from five different sites, including altogether 13 pottery reports. The amount is not massive, and the selection obviously does not fulfill the requirement of being statistically representative for the popula-tion of pottery reports, even from the restricted area of Israel-Palestine. However, the fact that they derive from different projects and were written by different authors brings in enough variation to enable one to define trends that are shared by most recent reports. At some interesting points I have also included other reports than those included in the analysis throughout.

Context: all of the studied pottery reports have been published as parts of an excavation report, or as a volume in a series of excavation reports. Thus, they are part of a larger, edited work with usually several authors and one to three editors in charge. Even unpublished Ph.D.

pottery typologies (Gilboa 2001, Ilan 1999) have been related to ongoing excavation publica-tion projects. In all cases, the pottery is presented after the architecture and stratigraphy, and this seems to be the norm in general for the reports that present the pottery as a separate section. In most reports, the “other finds” have been placed after the pottery, either sepa-rately for each stratum, like at Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000), or as a separate section, dealing with various finds from several strata, like in reports of Hazor VI (edited by Ben-Tor, Ben-Ami & Sandhaus 2012), Megiddo III, IV, and V (edited by Finkelstein, Ussishkin &

Halpern 2000, 2006; Finkelstein, Ussishkin & Cline 2013), and Timnah II and III (edited by Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen & Mazar 2006). Only in the report of Qasile were the various finds of differing materials placed before the pottery (Mazar 1985). Most excava-tion reports close with conclusions relating to chronological and historical themes: this is the case in the reports of Qasile (Mazar 1985), Timnah II & III (Mazar & Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006), Megiddo III, IV, and V (edited by Finkelstein et al. 2000, 2006; 2013), and Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000) – only in the Hazor VI report (ed. by Ben-Tor et al 2013) is such a concluding chapter absent. The pottery presentation always takes up a major part of the finds section, and actually covers a considerable part of the whole report, especially if the illustrations are regarded as a part of the pottery chapter. It is noteworthy that the pottery plays a major role in the dating of the strata at the sites. Therefore, the chronological emphasis of pottery typologies is natural.

TheStructure of the pottery presentations is rather clear cut: they all have some kind of in-troductory part, either as a section at the beginning of the pottery presentation or as a sepa-rate chapter before the typology. Introductions are the most varying part, both as to their length and contents (see below).

A description of types follows the introductory part. The types usually have codes and labels, and are commonly arranged by larger groups and divided, at least in some cases, into sub-types. The groups and types also serve as headings in the text. They form hierarchic taxono-mies of at least two levels, often of three, and sometimes even of four levels. The upper hier-archy is a division into classes that usually have a common postulated function, sometimes explicitly expressed in the label (“lamp”, “cooking pot”, “storage jar”), but sometimes only the use of a modern category implies some rather undefined function (“bowl”, “jug”). The divi-sions into types are to a large extent morphological, but also take into account, in varying degrees, the ware, surface treatment, and decoration. The pottery is presented in a rather fixed order from open vessels (bowls, chalices, kraters, and cooking pots) to closed vessels (storage jars, pithoi, jugs, and other small containers). Specific wares or decoration styles are treated separately. Such an order was also adopted by Ruth Amiran in her general introduc-tory book “Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land” (1969), which is often referred to in pottery reports, such as Megiddo IV, chapter 13 (Arie 2006), Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000:

27), Yoqneᶜam II (Zarzcecki-Peleg et al. 2005), and Tel Qiri (Hunt 1987). Amiran’s book covers the periods from the Neolithic to the end of the Iron Age II and aims at an overview.

In addition to the morphological types that are considered of local production, there are some distinctive wares that are defined according to ware, surface treatment, and decoration.

These classes have been considered as distinctive in their appearance and cultural or chrono-logical distribution, and they have a commonly accepted connection to a cultural (or ethnic) group. These wares, such as Phoenician bichrome, Black-on-Red, or Philistine wares, can in-clude functionally different forms as types and sub-types (Amiran 1969: 266–275; Dothan 1982: 94–96; Yasur-Landau 2010: 194–196). These wares are often treated separately in the pottery reports, especially if they are imported items. Vessels that have been interpreted as

local imitations of these specific wares are often described in conjunction with the imported wares, as in the reports of Qasile (Mazar 1985: 82–103), Megiddo V (Martin 2013: 395–396;

Yasur-Landau 2013) and Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000: 68–80).

Type descriptions are usually structured so that a type code and label (name) appear as a heading in the text. The heading has a distinctive formatting in larger font, ^CAPITALS,italics and/orbolding. A list of occurrences at the site typically appears directly below the heading, arranged according to strata: as in the reports from Qasile (Mazar 1985), Timnah II & III (Mazar

& Panitz-Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006), Megiddo IV chapter 13 (Arie 2006), and Megiddo V (Arie 2013b, Martin2013), while in Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit the list does not include all examples of the described type and does not include the stratigraphic assignment of the illustrated items (Gal & Alexandre 2000: 27). Such lists were not included in the Hazor VI, Megiddo III, or Megiddo IV, chapter 12 pottery presentations. The running text describing each type starts with a relatively short description (or definition) of the vessel type or vessels included in the type. The descriptions use both singular (for type) and plural (for vessels of a type). The de-scription may include measures of the vessel size or their capacities, either systematically for (almost) every type, as in Timnah II & III (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006), or less systematically for some types only, as in the report of Qasile (Mazar 1985); Megiddo IV, chapter 13 (Arie 2006); Megiddo V, chapters 10 and 13 (Martin 2013; Arie 2013b); while the vessel sizes appear seldom in the reports of Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000) and Hazor VI (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2013a, b; Ben-Ami et al. 2013). Size measures were fully absent from the pottery reports of Megiddo III (Ilan et al. 2000); Megiddo IV, chapter 12 (Gadot et al.

2006); and Megiddo V, chapter 12 (Arie 2013a). However, even in these reports the sizes can be deduced from the line-drawings that illustrate the vessels.

All reports also refer to ‘parallels’ or ‘comparanda’ to the described vessels. Most reports list these parallels (similar or reminiscent vessels from other sites) after the type descriptions, either as a list, as in Timnah III (Panitz-Cohen 2006), or Megiddo V, chapters 12 and 13 (Arie 2013a, b), or as a table after the description, as in Megiddo V, chapter 10 (Martin 2013), or included in the tables that accompany the illustrations, as in Hazor VI, chapters 5 and 6 (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2013b; Ben-(Ben-Ami et al. 2013), or as running text, as in the earliest reports under study: Qasile, Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit, and Timnah II (Mazar 1985; Gal & Alexandre 2000; Mazar &

Panitz-Cohen 2001). Earlier interpretations of similar vessels are discussed in conjunction with the parallels.

There is always some kind of concluding discussion, although its placement within the exca-vation report varies. The summary and conclusions drawn from the presented pottery appear in three different positions. It often appears 1) as a distinctive section at the end of the pottery chapter, as in Hazor VI, chapters 1 and 6 (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2013a; Ben-Ami et al. 2013);

Megiddo IV, chapter 13 (Arie 2006); Megiddo V, chapters 10, 12, and 13 (Martin 2013; Arie 2013a, b). More or less as commonly it appears 2) as a separate chapter after the pottery typology (Mazar 1985), which often at the same time is at the end of the whole excavation report, as in Timnah II & III (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006) and Ḥorbat Rosh

Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000). As a third option, the conclusions may appear as short, separate sections within the pottery report, as in Megiddo III, chapter 9 (Ilan et al. 2000); Hazor VI, chapter 5 (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2013b). The concluding discussions always discuss chronology.

In addition, they include themes like 1) geographical setting, 2) economics, 3) commercial con-tacts, 4) social structures, and 5) ethnicity.

Introductionsare the most varying part of the pottery reports. The themes that most com-monly appear in the introduction are: 1) a general characterization of the assemblage, 2) its archaeological context, 3) a description of the retrieval and selection of pottery material, 4) the registration method, 5) quantification procedures, 6) a key to the presentation of the plates, 7) an understanding of the nature of the types, and 8) tables of the distribution of different types.

Those authors who provide a reflection on typology building do it in the introductory part of the typology. It is included in a section discussing methodology – which commonly appears as the heading. Such a section is relatively common, and appears in the reports from Qasile (Mazar 1985), Timnah II & III (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001; Panitz-Cohen 2006), and Megiddo IV, chapter 13 (Arie 2006). A similar placement of such a section can be observed in other reports as well, such as the reports from ʿIzbet Sartah (Finkelstein 1986), Tel Qiri (Hunt 1987), and Beth-Shean I (Mazar 2006: 313–314) and II (Maier 2007: 242; Mullins 2007: 391). In re-ports from the time before the late 20^th century such reflections are more often absent, while they grow in number after the linguistic turn in the humanities in western academia in the 1970’s (Clark 2004: 62; 145). However, the lack of such a reflection is not exceptional in later reports either, as in Kinneret I (Fritz 1990) and the more recent Hazor reports (Bonfil 1997;

Ben-Tor & Ben-Ami 2012). A description of the difficult spots or problems in the practical work, or the principles used in typology building, is sometimes included in the introduction, or in the description of the types that were considered difficult to classify, such as certain bowls or jugs in general in the Qasile typology (Mazar 1985: 37, 61).

Classificatory work routinely hides the variety within the things classified together, and thus creating homogeneity in the materials. It is assumed that the materials carry consistent mean-ing(s) in different contexts. Classifications tend to focus on central tendencies and ignore gra-dients (Gero 2007: 320–321). Dichotomies are inherent to typological work: belonging to one group precludes belonging to other groups. This removes interpretative ambiguity from the scene (see also Gero 2007: 320; Langin-Hooper 2011). A vessel cannot be both a bowl and a krater – it can only be classified once (within one system). The ambiguity of types, type bor-ders, and a vessel belonging to one or another type is sometimes included in the type descrip-tions (e.g. Mazar 1985) or in the general introduction (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001: 11). Re-lating to archaeological work, Joan Gero has suggested that for archaeology it is “critical that the chains of decision making – become public and visible, showing where/why some data are – deemed ambiguous (or – determinant) – and others not” (Gero 2007: 324). Such reflective writing is not well represented in the pottery typologies in Israel-Palestine. However, there are notable exceptions, and such reflections are essential for communicating the varieties

within classified materials. In the introduction to the pottery analysis of Qasile, Mazar ex-pressed the difficulty of typology building on a general level:

The next step was the building-up of a type-series for the pottery of str. XII-VIII. Such a series would facilitate the classification, discussion of the pottery as a whole and description of that pottery which was not to be illustrated. However, establishing a type-series was not an easy task; while in certain classes, there are homogeneous types, found in large numbers – in other classes there are many var-iations in profile, and sometimes it was impossible to find two similar vessels. […] Though effort was made to include most of the pottery in the typological classification, we found a good number of forms which appear only once or are exceptional. These were included as ‘exceptional’ or ‘variations’ in the discussion of the various forms. In other cases the fragment wastoo small or too insignificantto be included in the typological seriation. (Mazar 1985: 21–22, emphasis mine.)

The experience of similar difficulty has been expressed in the reports of Timnah II (Mazar &

Panitz-Cohen 2001: 11–12) and Megiddo V, chapter 13, both discussing Iron Age II pottery (Arie 2013b: 672). The pottery report of the Late Bronze Age III and Iron Age I from Megiddo V, chapter 12 improves and updates an earlier report by the same author (Arie 2013a; Arie 2006). In the latter report, there is a rare chance to read how the typologist reconsidered some of his own earlier assignments and flaws (Arie 2013a: 485, 487, 490). There is an inter-esting feature that any (pottery) item can possess, and that affects its fate in the research process: itssignificance. If an item is considered to be significant, that is a reason to include it in the analysis (Mazar 1985: 22; Arie 2013a: 494), but unfortunately this central concept has not been defined. In the appendix of the Megiddo V, chapter 10 report of the Late Bronze Age IIB pottery, there is a revealing notion that “rims that were smaller than 3 x 3 cm were omitted from the count, first, because such rims may often originate from brick material and may thus be intrusive, and second, the classification of such small pieces is often impossible” (Martin 2013: 444). Similar reasoning appears in the chapter discussing methodology in Gezer III: “if a sherd is of sufficient size and has distinct characteristic points, its form and some of its other attributes can be classified” (Gitin 1990: 42). It seems that the ability of the typologist to assign an item to a class forms a criterion for an item to be significant.

The style of the reports is rather uniform. The descriptions of the vessels use the same con-cepts. The verbs that dominate the texts are those of ‘being’, ‘belonging’, and ‘having.’ In ad-dition, vessels and vessel types ‘appear’, ‘occur’, ‘continue’, and ‘disappear’. Vessels appear mostly in plural, while types are described in singular. Vessels are considered as being ‘repre-sentatives’ of a type or ‘belonging to a type.’ Types are generally written with capital initials, as proper names. Types appear on a textual level as something real. This is in tension with the general acknowledgment made in nearly all reports, that typologies are subjective, e.g. in the reports from Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit (Gal & Alexandre 2000:26), Timnah II (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001: 11–12), and Hazor VI, chapter 5 (Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2012b: 411).

The agencyin the reports tends to be hidden. Most pottery reports were written using the passive voice in the introduction and any possible conclusions. The active voice is well present in the descriptions of the vessels, where the active ‘agents’ are almost exclusively vessels, and possible other actions appear in the passive. However, the active ‘I’ or ‘we’ appear in several

introductory sections alongside the passive (Qasile, Timnah II & III; Megiddo IV, chapter 12).

The active researcher is present, especially in the sections that discuss the typology building.

This action is often expressed with words that indicate the activity of the typologist, even if passive, like ‘building’ (Qasile, Mazar 1985: 21; Megiddo IV, chapter 13, Arie 2006: 191; Me-giddo V, chapter 10: Martin 2013: 344), ‘establishing’ (Qasile, Mazar 1985: 21), ‘creation’

(Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001: 11), and choosing criteria for classification (Hazor VI, chapter 5, Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2012:411). Arie writes in the active voice throughout the Megiddo V re-ports, both for himself as the author and for the vessels in the type descriptions; however, this is alongside the passive voice, which is common as well (Arie 2013a and 2013b).

(Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001: 11), and choosing criteria for classification (Hazor VI, chapter 5, Ben-Ami & Ben-Tor 2012:411). Arie writes in the active voice throughout the Megiddo V re-ports, both for himself as the author and for the vessels in the type descriptions; however, this is alongside the passive voice, which is common as well (Arie 2013a and 2013b).