Typological Dating and Chronology

1. Typological Dating and Chronology

2. Goals for the Day • Understand how stratigraphy is used to separate out pottery • Understand the basics of ceramic typology • Understand how ceramic typology is used to compare strata from different sites • Hazor will be used as a “case study”

3. Stratigraphy and ceramic typology • Earlier we talked about stratigraphy • this is used to separate layers at a particular site • but we still need to compare strata from other sites • Ceramic typology allows for the relative chronology between different sites • We identify all of the pottery from different loci (or layers) from one stratum and compare with other strata

4. Our Goal: identify pottery in strata Modern Stratum Stratum I Stratum II

5. Step 1: pottery is cleaned

6. Step 2: pottery is sorted and labeled

7. Step 3: pottery is analyzed & drawn

8. Step 4: complete forms are studied

9. Step 5: comparison is made to other sites • start with pottery from identified strata at one site • after these forms are analyzed, then you compare with other sites • you want to identify similarities between strata at different sites • the similar strata allow you to construct a relative chronology

10. Ceramic Typology(Late Bronze pottery)

11. Evolution of the Cooking Pot • Example of Form • Example of Form Variant • Example of Ware • Example of Manufacture

12. Philistine Pottery • decoration • form • form variant • manufacture • ware

13. Form • “form” describes function • cooking pot • storage jars • milk bowl • beer jug • most forms occurs throughout history of tel • forms in Palestine / Israel are agrarian

14. Form Variant • assume that items develop over time • we see this in an automobile • we also see this in items like modern pots • forms develop over time (like cooking pot) • some are radical changes and some subtle

15. Decoration • Not as important in Palestinian / Israelite archaeology (but compare others) • Burnishing • in MB IIA: fine burnishing • in IA II: interior burnishing on wheel • Painting: esp. important in Philistine forms • Other incisions, etc.

16. Ware • appearance AND composition of clay • pottery skill varies over time • also includes study of provenance of clay

17. Manufacture • study of the method pottery was constructed • this is different from form • what are some of the inherent difficulties? • this study is also helpful for identifying workshops

18. Case Study: Hazor and Ceramic Typology • The article we read used Hazor as the site base for the relative chronology • The authors also constructed an absolute chronology: how and what does this mean? • We will go through their argument for the purpose of understanding how ceramic typology is used • our purpose is not to test their argument • N.B.: their argument will be challenged in the Tel Aviv low chronology

19. Aharoni and Amiran’s Chronology • X and IX: 950-875 B.C.E. • VIII: 875-841 B.C.E. • VII: 841-815 B.C.E. • VI: 815-765 B.C.E. • V: 765-732 B.C.E. • IV: end of 8th - early 7th

20. Comparison of different sites Cypro-Phonecian • after IA II • not clear • until IA III

21. Cooking pots: a clear distinction • Early Shallow Type: Hazor VIII and earlier • Late Shallow Type: Hazor VII and later • Deep Type: only in Judah • eighth century type (cf. Tell Beit Mirsim = Lachish Level III) • seventh century type (cf. Lachish Level II)

22. Early Shallow Types Hazor, Area A Stratum VIII Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum B3

23. Late Shallow Types:Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A1

24. Late Shallow Type:Hazor Strata VIII and later

25. Deep Type: Tell Beit Mirsim

26. Comparing Strata: conclusions