Content uploaded by Nava Panitz-Cohen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nava Panitz-Cohen on Dec 07, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Press Fribourg
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36
Series Archaeologica
Raz Kletter, Irit Ziffer, Wolfgang Zwickel
Yavneh II
The ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit
Fire Pans, Kernos, Naos, Painted Stands,
‘Plain’ Pottery, Cypriot Pottery, Inscribed Bowl,
Dog Bones, Stone Fragments, and Other Studies
With Contributions by Alon Amrani,
David Ben-Shlomo, Liora K. Horwitz,
Reinhard G. Lehmann, Dvory Namdar,
Kristiane Novotny, Nava Panitz-Cohen,
Joanna S. Smith, and Nicole Straßburger
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie;
detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Orientalische Altertumswissenschaft
Société suisse pour l’étude du Proche-Orient ancien
Swiss Society of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Publication subsidized by the Swiss Academy
of Humanities and Social Sciences
Camera-ready text prepared by the author.
Catalogue général sur internet:
Academic Press Fribourg: www.paulusedition.ch
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen: www.v-r.de
© 2015 by Academic Press Fribourg, Fribourg Switzerland
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen
ISBN: 978-3-7278-1775-5 (Academic Press Fribourg)
ISBN: 978-3-525-54400-6 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)
ISSN: 1015-1850 (Orb. biblicus orient.)
ORBIS BIBLICUS ET ORIENTALIS, Series Archaeologica 36
Founded by Othmar Keel
Published on behalf of the BIBLE+ORIENT Foundation
in cooperation with
the Departement of Biblical Studies, University of Fribourg Switzerland,
the Institute of Egyptology, University of Basel,
the Institute of Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology section, University of Berne,
the Institut romand des sciences bibliques, University of Lausanne,
the Institute of Religious Studies, University of Zurich and
the Swiss Society for Ancient Near Eastern Studies
by
Susanne Bickel, Thomas C. Römer, Daniel Schwemer and Christoph Uehlinger
Main authors
Raz Kletter (*1960) completed his PhD in 1995 at Tel Aviv University on material culture and borders of Iron Age Judah. Following a
post-doctoral year at Oxford, UK, he worked in the Israel Antiquities Authority as Deputy of Finds Department, Senior Archaeologist; and
in 2002-2007 as Head of the Scientific Processing Unit. Dr. Kletter directed and published excavations from varied periods and sites in
Israel and is currently Docent for Near-Eastern Archaeology, University of Helsinki. His main fields of study are Near Eastern Archaeology
(Bronze and Iron Ages); religion and cult; ancient economy; archaeological theory; and history of archaeology in Israel/Palestine.
Selected Publications
1996 The Judean Pillar Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
1998 Economic Keystones. The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2006 Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology. London: Equinox.
2013 “Archaeology in Israel 1948-1973: Selected Documents.” In: E. Pfoh & K. Whitelam (eds.), The Politics of Israel’s Past. The Bible, Archaeology and Nation-
Building. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, pp. 136-151.
Irit Ziffer is curator of the Ceramics and Metal pavilions at the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv. She trained in archaeology and ancient
Near Eastern cultures at Tel Aviv University and received her PhD in ancient Near Eastern art. In 1976-79, 1981-82 she was member
of the Aphek-Antipatris excavations team. In 1993-95, 2000-5 she taught at the Department of Archaeology, Tel-Aviv University. Dr.
Ziffer curated many exhibitions, including: “At that Time the Canaanites Were in the Land” (1990); “Islamic metalwork” (1996); “O
my dove that art in the clefts of the rock: the dove allegory in antiquity” (1998); “The corn spirit” (2002); “In the field of the Philistines:
cult furnishings from the favissa of a Yavneh temple” (2006-7); and “The Last Supper at Apollonia: The Final Days of the Crusader
Castle in Herzliya” (2011). During 2007-8 she was Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Art History at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York; and in 2012-13 a guest scholar with Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center in the Humanities and Jewish Studies,
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Selected Publications
1990 At that Time the Canaanites Were in the Land, Daily Life in Middle Bronze Age Canaan, 2000-1550 BCE (Exhibition Catalogue). Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.
1998 O My Dove that Art in the Clefts of the Rock. The Dove Allegory in Antiquity (Exhibition Catalogue). Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.
2007 with Raz Kletter) In the Field of the Philistines. Cult Furnishings from the Favissa of a Yavneh Temple (Exhibition Catalogue). Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.
Wolfgang Zwickel studied Protestant Theology, Prehistory, Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology in Munich, Tübingen,
Heidelberg and Kiel. He completed his PhD in 1989 at Kiel on incense cult and incense vessels in archaeological and biblical
sources, and his habilitation in 1993 on temple cult in Canaan and Israel from the Middle Bronze Age to the fall of the Kingdom of
Judah. Since 1998 he is Professor for Old Testament Studies and Biblical Archaeology at the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz.
Selected Publications
1990 Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte. Exegetische und archäologische Studien zum Räucheropfer im Alten Testament (OBO 97). Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1994 Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel. Ein Beitrag zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas (FAT 10). Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
1999 Der salomonische Tempel von seiner Gründung bis zur Zerstörung durch die Babylonier (Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 83). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern
(22011, Kamen: Spenner).
2002 Einführung in die biblische Landes- und Altertumskunde. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
2009 Das Heilige Land. Geschichte und Archäologie. München: C.H. Beck
2011 (with Michael Tilly) Religionsgeschichte Israels. Von der Vorzeit bis zu den Anfängen des Christentums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
V
CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ X
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... XII
Chapter 1: The Yavneh Fire Pans and the Biblical maḥtāh ........................................................................ 1
Raz Kletter and Irit Ziffer
1.1. The Fire Pans from Yavneh .................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Typology of the Yavneh Fire Pans ....................................................................................... 2
1.3. Comparisons from Israel/Palestine ....................................................................................... 3
1.4. Fire Pans throughout the Periods ......................................................................................... 4
1. Early Clay and Metal Fire Pans. — 2. Aegean Fire Pans – Second Millennium BC. —
3. Aegean Fire Pans in the First Millennium BC.
1.5. Fire Pans and Lamps ............................................................................................................ 8
1.6. Fire Pans in the Old Testament ............................................................................................ 10
1. The Old Testament Fire Pan. — 2. The Story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10). —
3. Korah and his Sect (Numbers 16–17).
1.7. The maḥtāh in Later Periods ................................................................................................ 13
Chapter 2: Experiment with Replicas of Fire Pans ....................................................................................... 22
Raz Kletter
2.1. Late Minoan Burners ........................................................................................................... 22
2.2. Experiment with the Yavneh Fire Pans ............................................................................... 22
Chapter 3: A Kernos ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Raz Kletter
3.1. The Kernos ........................................................................................................................... 24
3.2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 4: A Clay Shrine Model ..................................................................................................................... 28
Raz Kletter
4.1. The Yavneh Shrine Model ................................................................................................... 28
4.2. Typology of Levantine Shrine Models ................................................................................ 28
4.3. Catalogue of Shrine Models ................................................................................................ 32
1. Type A: Round Jar-Like Models. — 2. Type B: Phoenician/Cypriot Shrine Models.
— 3. Type C: “Jordanian” Shrine Models. — 4. Type D: Early Rectangular Shrine
Models. — 5. Type E: Box-Like Objects without Figures.
4.4. Definitions of Types A-E ..................................................................................................... 48
4.5. Date, Distribution, and Context ........................................................................................... 51
4.6. The Meaning of Shrine Models: General Treatments .......................................................... 52
4.7. Model C6: Yahweh and Asherah Side by Side? .................................................................. 53
4.8. Shrine Models and Volute Capitals ..................................................................................... 55
1. Volutes in Judah. — 2. Volutes in Northern Israel. — 3. Did the Assyrians Fall in
Love with Volute Capitals? — 4. Did the Assyrians Use Volute Capitals? — 5. Double
Standards. — 6. Volutes at Ramat Rahel: Up and Down. — 7. Early Volutes. —
8. Conclusion.
4.9. The Khirbet Qeiyafa Stone Model and the Biblical ‘Aron ................................................... 64
4.10. Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 68
Chapter 5: Zoomorphic Vessels ..................................................................................................................... 85
Raz Kletter
5.1. Nearly Complete Zoomorphic Vessel ................................................................................... 85
5.2. Fragments of Zoomorphic Vessels ...................................................................................... 85
5.3. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 86
VI
Chapter 6: Round Painted Pottery Stands .................................................................................................... 89
Raz Kletter
6.1. Description of the Painted Stands ........................................................................................ 89
6.2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 91
Chapter 7: The ‘Plain’ Pottery: Typological and Archaeological Aspects ................................................. 97
Nava Panitz-Cohen
7.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 97
7.2. Stratigraphic Summary ........................................................................................................ 97
7.3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 98
7.4. Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................................... 99
7.5. Surface Treatment ................................................................................................................ 101
7.6. Patterns of Burning .............................................................................................................. 102
7.7. Typology .............................................................................................................................. 103
1. Bowls. — 2. Chalices. — 3. Varia.
7.8. Technological Aspects of the Yavneh Chalices ................................................................... 107
1. Formation Techniques as Social Identity. — 2. Chalice Formation Techniques. —
3. Formation Techniques of the Yavneh Chalices.
7.9. Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 113
1. Typology, Regionality and Chronology. — 2. Technological Features – Production
Level, Group Identity, and Philistine Culture.
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Registration Codes . ..................................................................... 119
Chapter 8: Additional Petrographic Analysis ............................................................................................... 138
David Ben-Shlomo
Chapter 9: Cypriot Pottery ............................................................................................................................. 139
Joanna S. Smith
9.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 139
9.2. White Painted Items ............................................................................................................. 139
9.3. Black on Red ........................................................................................................................ 141
Chapter 10: Dog Remains ................................................................................................................................. 145
Liora K. Horowitz
10.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 145
10.2. Dog Remains ..................................................................................................................... 145
10.3. Other Dog ‘Burials’ ........................................................................................................... 146
10.4. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 147
Chapter 11: Animal Representation in the Yavneh Cult stands .................................................................. 150
Liora Kolska Horwitz
11.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 150
11.2. Animal Representation ...................................................................................................... 150
1. Carnivores. — 2. Bovines (Cattle). — 3. Caprides (Goats). — 4. Handle of a Fire
Pan.
11.3. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 155
Chapter 12: A Dedicatory Inscription ............................................................................................................ 158
Reinhard Lehmann (with Kristiane Novotny)
12.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 158
12.2. Epigraphical and Technical Analysis ................................................................................ 158
12.3. Palaeographical and Comparative Analysis ...................................................................... 160
12.4. Philological Analysis, Onomastics and Interpretation (by Kristiane Novotny) ................ 162
VII
Chapter 13: The Stone Objects ........................................................................................................................ 164
Wolfgang Zwickel
13.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 164
13.2. Catalogue ........................................................................................................................... 164
13.3. Reconstruction, Comparisons and Functions .................................................................... 170
Chapter 14: The World of Cult Stands ........................................................................................................... 178
Wolfgang Zwickel
14.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 178
14.2. “Snake Houses” ................................................................................................................. 178
14.3. Globular/Beehive-shaped Stands ...................................................................................... 180
14.4. Steeped Stands .................................................................................................................. 183
14.5. High, Nearly Square Stands .............................................................................................. 185
14.6. Shrines with Open Fronts .................................................................................................. 186
14.7. Altar-Like Stands .............................................................................................................. 189
14.8. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 190
Chapter 15: Supplementary Notes on the Cult Stands .................................................................................. 194
Irit Ziffer
15.1. Philistine Openwork .......................................................................................................... 194
15.2. Khirbet ‘Atarus and Yavneh ............................................................................................. 195
15.3. Stand CAT 37 .................................................................................................................... 196
15.4. Stands Attached to Wheels
................................................................................................. 196
15.5. Stand CAT 51 .................................................................................................................... 197
15.6. Comment on the ‘Opalîm .................................................................................................. 197
Chapter 16: Favissae in Israel/Palestine ......................................................................................................... 200
Nicole Strassburger
16.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 200
16.2. Identifying Favissae .......................................................................................................... 200
16.3. Criteria of Cult-Deposits and Favissae .............................................................................. 201
16.4. Favissae and Structured Deposits according to the Proposed Criteria .............................. 201
1. Late Bronze Age. — 2. Iron Age I. — 3. Iron Age IIB. — 4. Iron Age IIC. —
5. Persian Period.
16.5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 209
Chapter 17: Cult and Trade in Yavneh through the Study of Organic Residues ........................................ 214
Dvory Namdar, Alon Amrani and Raz Kletter
17.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 214
17.2. Materials and Methods ....................................................................................................... 214
1. Materials. — 2. Methods.
17.3. Results ............................................................................................................................... 215
17.4. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 219
17.5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 220
Chapter 18: Conclusions: Yavneh, Incense, Votive Objects and Philistine Ethnicity ............................... 224
Raz Kletter
18.1. Summary of Former Chapters ........................................................................................... 224
18.2. Bowls and Round Stands .................................................................................................... 230
1. Round Stands, Bowls, and Accumulation Period. — 2. The Status of Round Incense-
Burning Stands.
18.3. Yavneh, Incense and Arab Trade ........................................................................................ 231
1. Bowls and Chalices. — 2. Fire Pans. — 3. Painted and Fenestrated Round Stands. —
4. Organic Residue Analysis.— 5. Horned Incense Altars. — 6. Small Stone Incense
Altars. — 7. Written/Pictorial Evidence.
1. Juglets. — 2. Chalices.
VIII
18.4. The Biblical Mqṭrt
............................................................................................................. 240
18.5. Mt. Gerizim, Inscribed Votive Objects and Tel Dan
......................................................... 245
1. New Discoveries at Mt. Gerizim. — 2. Definitions of Votive Objects and Gifts to
the
Gods. — 3. Inscribed Votive Objects. — 4. Mt. Gerizim and Tel Dan.
18.6. Updates ................................................................................................................................ 248
1. A Model Shrine from Helike. — 2. Barrel Juglets. — 3. Other Studies.
18.7. Notes on Automatic Positioning ......................................................................................... 249
18.8. Philistine Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 250
Appendix 1: Excavation File – Daily Diary
Raz Kletter ....................................................................................................................................... 261
Index 1: Place Names ........................................................................................................................................ 274
Index 2: Persons and Divinities ....................................................................................................................... 279
Index 3: Biblical References ..................................................................................................................... ........ 287
Plates Color Plates ............................................................................................................................... Pls. 1-8
Black-and-White Plates ............................................................................................................ Pls. 9-63
CHAPTER 7
THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY –
TYPOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Nava Panitz-Cohen
7.1. INTRODUCTION
The present study comprises the second and final stage in the analysis of the ‘plain’ pottery from the Yavneh
‘Temple Hill’ favissa,1 joining the results of the initial research published in Yavneh I (Panitz-Cohen 2010). This
study was undertaken with the goal of presenting a more comprehensive picture of the favissa’s ‘plain’ ceramic
contents and to further examine formation processes of this unique context. The results show that the quantitative
and qualitative trends identified in the first stage of the study are maintained for the entire body of material. The
chronological and regional conclusions remain valid as well. In the present study, technological features were
closely examined in order to attempt to identify the level and mode of production, particularly of the numerous
chalices found in the favissa, which demonstrate a range of unique formation techniques and features. Study of this
variability has led to insights concerning production processes and consumption practices of the priests and patrons
of the temple, whom we surmise were the main agents in the creation of the favissa.
7.2. STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY
The full stratigraphic details of the pit are presented in Kletter (2010a:23–24), and a brief summary of the location
of loci in the pit and field observations concerning the distribution of the pottery in these loci appears in Panitz-
Cohen (2010:111). For the readers’ convenience, the latter information is repeated here, in order to provide a con-
textual background for this chapter.
The non-horizontal nature of the deposition, along with the arbitrary sectioning of the pit into two parts,
made separation of layers difficult. However, it is clear that the upper layer of the pit included a large amount of
cult stands and chalices in reddish soil (Loci 12, 14); under it was a change in soil to a soft gray ashy layer (Loci
13, 15). The upper edge of Loci 13 and 15 sloped down from southwest towards the northeast. In the east Locus 13
reached the bottom of the pit, but in the west a change to reddish earth was noticed below Locus 15, in a shallow
area at the bottom of the pit, designated Locus 16. During the excavation it was noted that Loci 12 and 14 con-
tained a huge amount of broken chalices, as well as complete and restorable cult stands. Loci 13 and 15 contained
many bowls and fewer chalices, and also many fragments of cult stands, juglets and other vessels. Locus 16, the
lowest in the pit, included numerous fragments of cultic stands, but also regular pottery, mainly bowls. During
work on the finds, after the excavation, we have noticed that three baskets excavated under L14, just prior to its
closure, show the same nature of finds as of L15 and perhaps belonged to it, and not to L14. The ‘mix’ is probably
the result of the hurried, pressured mode of excavation. In order not to blur the distinct layers, we marked these
baskets as L14b (B7283, B7287, B7292).
The impression in the field, which was substantiated during the processing of the finds, was that the various
Loci and layers do not represent stratified deposition over a considerable time, but the result of the particular for-
mation process of the pit, which entailed deliberate dumping of the objects into the pit, most likely in a single epi-
sode (Kletter 2010b:48-54; Panitz-Cohen 2010:128-129).
1 The term favissa is employed in this chapter for the sake of convenience, although the designation “repository” is more
97
apt, see Kletter (2010b:110, no. 1).
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
7.3. METHODOLOGY
A total of 41 baskets from Loci 12-14, 14b and 15 (12,835 sherds) were examined and counted on a typological
basis in the present study (Table 7.1). These join 14 baskets from Loci 14-16 (6102 sherds) published in Yavneh I
(Panitz-Cohen 2010). Thus, 55 of the total 212 baskets recovered from the pit have been included in our analysis
(18,937 sherds). This sample, representing a little over a quarter (26%) of the total amount of baskets, is considered
representative of the entire assemblage, as it reflects all the contexts in the pit (except surface loci). The very high
degree of homogeneity in almost all aspects of typology and technology between the two stages of this study sup-
port the conclusion that this is a representative sample of the entire corpus of ‘plain’ pottery in the favissa.
Table 7.1: Distribution of Baskets per Locus (Total 12,835 Sherds)
Locus Basket No. of sherds registered
12 7160 308
7162 172
7164 207
7171 274
7173 274
7182 216
7190 153
7192 125
7195 240
7197 14
13 7206 527
7218 554
7227 560
7230 302
7232 615
7253 17
14 7271 345
7280 226
7281 437
14b 7283 243
7287 127
7292 365
15 7309 460
7314 351
7315 633
7316 381
7325 502
7326 128
7328 303
7329 340
7332 192
7335 196
7338 216
7345 479
7352 558
7354 976
7358 407
7360 412
98
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
The sherds from each basket were counted on a typological basis, utilizing the typology formulated for the
first stage of the research, to which a few newly defined types or subtypes were added. Surface treatment (slip,
burnish, painting) was registered, as was the size of the preserved rim circumference of the bowls and chalices in
order to attempt to reconstruct the amount of vessels in the favissa (see part 7.4 below). The same registration
codes used in the first stage (Panitz-Cohen 2010:135) were used in the present study, with few additions (see
Appendix A).
As in the first stage of the analysis, an attempt was made at restoration.2 However, lack of proper facilities to
simultaneously spread out the numerous sherds and especially the sheer quantity of thousands of similar small
sherds made restoration extremely difficult and in fact, its yield was very low. This does not necessarily mean that
each sherd represents a vessel; but rather points to the high degree of standardization of the pottery and homogenei-
ty of the types, as well as the breakage pattern.
7.4. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Quantitative analysis was conducted on the assemblage in the present study with the goal of attempting to recon-
struct the amount of vessels that had been discarded in the favissa. A total of 12,835 sherds were counted in the
present study, registered in a Microsoft Access Data Base (Table 7.2).3 Of these, 3572 were rims and only three
were complete vessels, 16 were almost complete vessels and six were complete profiles. This indicates the ex-
tremely fragmentary nature of the assemblage, identical to the situation in the first stage of the study (Panitz-Cohen
2010:110).
The amount of sherds counted in the first stage of the study was 6102 (Panitz-Cohen 2010:111; Table 7.1).
Together with the present count (12,835), a total of 18,937 sherds were counted from the favissa.4 Obviously, this
‘raw’ number does not reflect the true amount of vessels in the sample, particularly in light of the breakage pattern
of the main vessel types, the bowls and chalices, into numerous small pieces. In an assemblage of such a fragmen-
tary nature, where the sherds were often no more than 2-3 cm in size and restoration proved virtually impossible, a
raw count reflects the scope of breakage, but certainly not the actual amount of vessels.
In order to refine our estimate of the number of vessels in the favissa, we applied a method that was not
used in the previous stage of research, namely, the counting of the rim-circumference factor. This method entails
measuring each rim sherd against the reconstructed rim circumference of the vessel, which is divided into
eighths (Mazar 1985a: 2124; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:10-14). This method allowed us to divide the total rim
circumference count of the type by eight and thus to arrive at an estimated minimum number of vessels. The
circumference was measured by plotting the rim sherd on a pre-prepared drawing of rim circumference sizes
divided into ‘slices’ of eighths. Thus, for example, if we counted 150 rim sherds of a certain bowl type in one
basket, and the rim circumference factor added up to 280 eighths, we can say that these 150 sherds (which
theoretically could rep-resent 150 vessels) represent 35 complete bowls. This is a misleading figure, as one
assumes that the fragments that add up to 8/8 represent one bowl; however, this is not necessarily the case.
The results of the rim circumference factor count (Table 7.3) show that the 3572 rim sherds (bowls, chalices,
jugs, juglets, lamps) represent 652 vessels. This would be c. 18% of the total sherds counted, showing a ratio of one
vessel per c. 20 rim sherds. The breakdown (Table 7.3) shows that bowls were indeed dominant in Loci 13 and 15
(and also L14b); and much fewer in Loci 12 and 14, as was already noticed during the excavation. However, chal-
ices were numerous in both Loci 12 and 15.
The figure of 652 vessels culled from the rim circumference count is only a partial indicator of the total amount
of vessels in the favissa, as it is based on a count of 12,835 items, which comprises 68% of the sample of 18,935 items
in the two stages of the pottery study and 19% of the entire 212 baskets recovered in the excavation. If we assume that
652 vessels represent 19% of the entire pottery vessels, theoretically there could have been a total of c. 3250 vessels in
2 Restoration of almost all the ‘plain’ pottery was conducted by the late Gabi Gilboa.
3 This count does not include round decorated stands (Kletter, Chapter 6 in this volume).
4 While 26% of the Yavneh baskets were subjected to quantitative typological analysis, we cannot say that the 18,937 sherds
counted represent 26% of the total sherds, since each basket can contain a variable amount of sherds (see Table 7.1). However,
the huge amount of sherds counted within this partial framework can indicate that thousands of additional sherds, and associat-
ed amount of vessels, were present in the pit.
99
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
the pit. Using the ratio of 53% bowls and 45% chalices in the present count (see below), this means that there were
roughly 1720 bowls and 1400 chalices, with the rest of the sherds representing minority types, such as small juglets
and lamps.
On the level of class, bowls and chalices comprised the overwhelmingly dominant components of the assem-
blage (53% and 45% respectively), with a tiny amount of small closed vessels, mostly black juglets (2%), as well as
a few lamps (less than 1%). Only one small body sherd of a small closed Cypriot Black-on-Red (B.O.R.) vessel and
two small sherds of Cypriot White Painted juglets (possibly belonging to the same vessel: Fig. 7.3:13-14) were
identified, since all of the Cypriot imports were extracted from the loci during excavation and were all registered in
the database of the first volume. For a discussion of the imports see Smith (Chapter 8, in this volume).
Table 7.2: Quantitative Distribution, Vessel Classes per Locus (all Sherds)
Vessel
class
Locus 12
N %
Locus 13
N %
Locus 14
N %
Locus 14b
N %
Locus 15
N %
Total
N %
Bowls 66 3 1893 74 182 19 524 68 4206 64 6871 53
Chalices 1909 96 649 25 787 81 233 30 2243 34 5853 45
Juglets 1 - 24 1 3 - 4 1 60 2 92 2
Jugs 1 - 7 - - 2 - 12 - 22 -
Amphora/
Storage jar
1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - 4 -
Pyxis - - 1 - - - 1
Lamps 5 1 - 2 - 5 1 10 - 22 -
Cypriot - 1 - - - 2 3 -
Total 1983 2575 974 769 6534 12,835
Note: All sherds counted; percentages rounded off; percentages less than 1 not included.
Table 7.3: Quantitative Distribution, Vessel Classes per Locus (Rim Circumference Factor*)
Vessel
class
Locus 12 Locus 13 Locus 14 Locus 14b Locus 15 Total
N Rm/Cf N Rm/Cf N Rm/Cf N Rm/Cf N Rm/Cf N Rm/Cf
Bowls 66 108/8=
14
682 1042/8=
130
24 37/8=
5
262 382/8=
48
1927 2616/8=
327
2961 525
Chalices 229 483/8=
60
69 151/8=
19
51 95/8=
12
29 64/8=
8
206 364/8=
46
584 145
Jugs 1 4 1 3 - - 1 1 3
Juglets - 1 1 - - - 1
Amphora/
Storage jar
1 1 - - - - 1
Lamps 5 10/8=
1
- 2 10/8=
1
5 5/8** 10 10/8=
1
22 3
Total 302 20 753 153 77 18 296 56 2144 405 3572 652
Notes: N = registered rim fragments (codes 4, 8, 10, 11); Rm/Cf= rim circumference factor (in eighths).
*Does not include complete, almost complete or complete profiles.
100
**Not counted as a complete vessel.
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
7.5. SURFACE TREATMENT
The same trends in surface treatment identified in 2010 held true for the present analysis too (Tables 7.4-5).
Table 7.4: Distribution of Red Slip and Burnish per Type (Indicative and Body Sherds)
Slip & Burnish
type*/Type
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 3a 3b 3c 3d 4 Total
BL 580 85 3 66 140 31 - 46 1 187 97 3 160 1 1400
BL1 4 11 - 9 1 13 1 2 - - 5 1 2 - 49
BL2 - 1 - - 1 - 2 - - - - - 1 - 5
BL3 36 323 12 93 2 115 2 54 1 12 73 1 23 - 747
BL3a 5 118 2 42 2 77 - 11 - 1 28 - 12 - 296
BL5 1 2 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 4
BL6a 13 10 - 16 - 12 - 7 - - 5 - 6 - 69
BL6b 3 17 1 12 2 15 2 4 - 2 6 1 4 - 69
BL7 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 4
BL8 - 4 - - - 1 - - - 2 2 - - - 9
BL9 2 26 - 1 - 7 - - - 1 3 - - - 37
CH 47 58 - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - 108
CH1a - 2 - - 1 7 - - - - 2 - - - 12
CH1b 1 - - - 2 2 - - - - - - - - 5
CH1c - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 2
CH1d 1 10 - - 3 15 1 1 - - 3 - 1 - 35
CH2 1 4 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 7
CH4 3 2 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 6
JG - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1
JT 1 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 4
Total 699 674 22 241 156 300 8 125 3 206 225 6 209 2 2874
*Codes for slip/burnish type: 1a- red inside; 1b- red inside and outside; 1c- red outside; 1d- red inside and partially outside; 2a-
red and horizontal hand burnish inside; 2b- red and horizontal hand burnish inside and outside; 2c- red and horizontal hand
burnish outside; 2d- red and horizontal hand burnish inside and partially outside; 3- red and irregular burnish outside; 3a- red
and irregular burnish inside; 3b- red and irregular burnish inside and outside; 3c- red and irregular burnish outside; 3d- red and
irregular burnish inside and partially outside; 4- red and wheel burnish.
Table 7.5: Distribution of Painted Decoration per Type
Paint/
Type
Black
lines
Red
lines
Red and
Black design
Red hatches
on rim
Black hatches
on rim
Red band
on rim
BL 4 2 1 - - -
BL1 1 - - - - 1
BL3 2 - - - - 2
CH 1 - 3 - - -
CH1a - - - 1 - 1
CH1b - - 1 1 - -
CH1c - - 1 - - -
CH1d - - - - 1 1
CH2 2 - 2 - - -
JT 2
JG 1
PX - - 1 - - -
101
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Red slip was the most common surface treatment on the bowls, comprising 39% of all the bowls, with 37%
of these also burnished. Horizontal hand burnish was the most common (21%), followed by irregular burnish
(16%), while wheel burnish was negligible, found on only one bowl sherd and one juglet sherd (Table 7.4). Only
3% of the chalices were red-slipped, but not burnished.
The chalices also followed the same decorative patterns as in the initial study, with 52% covered with a
chalky white slip and a miniscule amount also painted in red and black on the white slip (Table 7.5; Fig. 7.3). An-
other painted vessel is a body fragment of a pyxis (Fig. 7.3:11).
7.6. PATTERNS OF BURNING
One of the parameters examined in the present study was the pattern of burning on the bowls and chalices,
with the aim of exploring possible deliberate acts that reflect either usage or deposition rites. This examination
shows that 26% of the sherds (3254 out of 12,835) are burnt. When breaking this down between bowls and
chalices, we see that 35.8% of the bowls are burnt (2460 of 6871) and 13.5% of the chalices are burnt (794 of
5853 chalices).
Table 7.6: Location of Burning per Type (Bowls and Chalices)
Type/
Location
Inside Outside Inside &
outside
I
nside &
outer rim
Under
inner rim
Inner &
outer rim
Total
BL* 582 8 611 - - - 1201
BL1 18 - 23 9 - 1 51
BL2 1 - 2 - - - 3
BL3 130 9 602 15 - 5 761
BL3a 48 8 168 - - 4 228
BL4 - - 6 1 1 2 10
BL5 - - 5 - - - 5
BL6a 22 5 82 1 - - 110
BL6b 16 1 19 1 - 1 38
BL7 1 - 3 - - - 4
BL8 1 - 6 - - - 7
BL9 8 - 33 - - 1 42
CH* 442 22 48 - - - 512
CH1a 18 - 2 1 - - 21
CH1b 41 4 24 - 5 - 74
CH1c 50 1 8 1 7 - 67
CH1d 15 21 - - - - 36
CH2 38 3 12 5 - - 58
CH3 9 - 1 - - - 10
CH4 8 - 7 1 - - 16
Total 1448 82 1662 35 13 14 3254
*Typologically unindicative body sherds
Looking at the patterns relating to the location of the burning on the bowls, it can be seen that 33.6% (827 of the
2460 burnt bowls) are burnt inside only, 63.4% are burnt inside and outside (1560 of 2460), 1.3% (31 of 2460) are
burnt outside only, and only 1.1% (27 of 2460) are burnt on the inside and on the outer rim. Negligible amounts are
burnt on the rim top only. This conclusion is limited by the fact that the examined sherds are mostly small body or
rim sherds and do not necessary reflect the true pattern that would be obtained if complete vessels were being ex-
amined. However, it seems that this data can point to a general trend. Thus, it can be said that most of the bowls are
burnt on both the inside and the outside, while half that amount are burnt only on the inside. Looking at the patterns
relating to the location of the burning on the chalice bowls, it can be seen that most (78%) of the burnt chalices bear
102
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
traces of soot on the inside of the bowl (621 of the 794 burnt chalices), 3.9% are burnt on the outside of the bowl
(31 of 794), 12.8% are burnt on the inside and the outside (102 of 794) and negligible amounts are burnt on the in-
side and on the rim of the bowl, or just on the rim (inside and outside).5 Twelve chalice bowls of Types CH1b and
CH1c bore burning on the interior just under the rim, a pattern that was caused by some deliberate action and not
random burning. According to Namdar, Neumann and Weiner (2010:169), this action would have involved the
slow burning of plant oil or tallow mixed with fragrant substances, leaving traces only on the rim.
7.7. TYPOLOGY
All of the types that were defined in the first stage of this study were identified in the present analysis too, and will
not be discussed again here (see Panitz-Cohen 2010:115–121). Only two new bowl types (BL8, BL9) and two new
chalice bowl-types (CH3, CH4) were added to the corpus in the present analysis. A small number of variations of
existing types were identified, particularly related to the shape of the chalice foot (CHC). However, these new types
were not frequent and do not basically change the picture obtained in the previous stage of the analysis. All in all,
the corpus remains highly standardized and typologically homogeneous.
7.7.1. BOWLS
The bowl component of the assemblage remains the same as in the previous study, both in quantity and in quality.
Only two new bowl types (BL8 and BL9) were identified in this stage of the analysis; in fact, both were already
noted in the first stage of the study, but were represented there by only one or two examples each. In the present
study, although more were identified, these types remain relatively rare. These two types are described here. For
the other bowl types see Panitz-Cohen 2010:115-120).
The pattern of breakage is also very similar to that identified in the first stage of analysis, with most of the
bowls shattered into small pieces and body sherds outnumbering the indicative rim sherds. A relatively large
amount of bowl sherds were burnt, mostly inside or inside and outside (see Table 7.6).
The most common bowl type is BL3 and its subtype, BL3a, is the second most common type (Table 7.7).
Together, they comprise the overwhelming majority of the bowls in the present sample (82% of all the bowls), as
they did in the assemblage of the first stage of this pottery study (Panitz-Cohen 2010: Table 7.3). Other bowl types
were found in relatively miniscule amounts, with BL6a and BL 6b together being the next most common types,
followed closely by BL1. However, these were not nearly as frequent as BL3 and BL3a. It thus can be concluded
that there was one dominant type of bowl used as an offering in the favissa (BL3 and its subtype BL3a), be it for its
contents or for itself.
Bowl Type 8 (Fig. 7.1:1)
This is a shallow small to medium-sized bowl (12-15 cm rim diameter) with a carination just at or below mid-body.
The walls are thin and relatively delicate. The rim is plain, either round-topped or slightly tapering. The only com-
plete example (Fig. 7.1:1) has a wide rounded base, although parallels show that such a type could also have had a
small ring or disc base (i.e., Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 5:16; Shai and Maeir 2012: Pl. 14.2:7-8). The com-
plete example has irregular hand burnish inside and outside.
BL8 can be compared to the bowl shown in Panitz-Cohen 2010: Fig. 7.2:6, where it was designated as ‘varia’,
since only one such bowl was found. Only 15 examples of BL8 were found in the present study and thus, it re-
mains a very rare type in the assemblage. Comparisons cited in Panitz-Cohen (2010:119), point to a 9th-early 8th
century BCE date range (Arad Stratum XI, Gezer Stratum VI, Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3, Lachish Locus 4421).
Bowl Type 9 (Fig. 7.1:2)
This is a medium-sized bowl (15-19 cm diameter) with a thickened hammer-head rim, either horizontal or slightly
angled in. This type was designated as varia in the first stage of the analysis (Panitz-Cohen 2010: Fig. 7.2:9-10), as
only two examples were found. The present analysis identified 72 rim sherds that belong to this type.
103
In their residue analysis of the chalices, Namdar, Neumann and Weiner (2010:169) state that “no burning signs appear on the
items’ bases or body parts, however, soot remains were detected close to the rims, both in their inner and outer parts.” The
present study identified a high number of burnt bowl interiors too.
5
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Comparisons to this type of bowl, cited in Panitz-Cohen (2010:120), point to a 10th-9th/early 8th century
BCE date range (Lachish Strata V-IV and Locus 4421, Tel Batash/Timnah Stratum IV, Ashdod Strata X-IX, Gezer
Stratum VII, Kuntillat ‘Ajrud).
Table 7.7: Quantitative Distribution of Bowl Types per Locus*
Locus /
Type
Locus
12
Locus
13
Locus
14
Locus
14b
Locus
15
Total
N %**
BL1 10 56 13 1 85 165 5
BL2 3 6 - 1 8 18 -
BL3 19 607 11 182 1222 2041 64
BL3a 11 167 7 30 366 581 18
BL4 1 6 - 2 14 23 -
BL5 - 2 - - 5 7 -
BL6a 1 41 2 21 110 175 5
BL6b 5 37 3 11 55 111 4
BL7 - 5 - - 2 7 -
BL8 4 2 1 - 8 15 -
BL9 3 11 - 5 53 72 2
Total 57 940 37 253 1928 3215
Notes: *includes typologically indicative body sherds (code 12); **percentages rounded
off; less than 1% not included.
Bowl Type 3 – Decorated (Fig. 7.1:3)6
One example of BL3 was red-slipped and painted with horizontal black bands on the exterior. This kind of deco-
ration (or the type termed “Ashdod Ware” or “Late Philistine Decorated Ware”) was not found in the ‘plain’-
pottery assemblage in the favissa, aside from this one sherd, which might belong to this group (Panitz-Cohen
2010:114).
Bowl Varia (Fig. 7.1:4)
This is a wide round base and vertical sides of a small bowl that lacks its rim. It has red slip and horizontal hand
burnish inside. It may be compared to a similarly shaped complete bowl found in the first stage of this study (Pa-
nitz-Cohen 2010: Fig. 7.2:5); only several such profiles were found in the favissa altogether. Comparisons to this
shape (cited in Panitz-Cohen 2010:119) include Ashdod Strata X–IX, Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, Stratum A37 and possibly
an 8th-century BCE context at Beer Sheba.
Bowl Bases (Fig. 7.1:5-12)
The bowl bases found in the present sample were the same as those in the first stage of this study (Panitz-Cohen
2010: Fig. 7.1). They were mostly finely formed narrow ring bases, which demonstrated a small amount of varia-
tion, being either low or high (i.e., Fig. 7.1:8-9), and in the shape of the edge, being either tapering (i.e., Fig.
7.1:10) or rounded (i.e., Fig. 7.1:8-9). In about one quarter of the bowls with ring bases, the base had a sunken inte-
rior (i.e., Fig. 7.1:5-6). Disc bases were the second most common base type (i.e., Fig. 7.1:7). A small amount of
bases had both the depression in the interior, as well as a pronounced convex base bottom (i.e., Fig. 7.1.L10-11).
Several bases showed a technological feature that somewhat recalled that found on some chalices (see below): a
round-contoured thin layer of clay was added to the base interior, as though meant to reinforce the base. This layer
was often smeared on to the interior. In a few cases, this layer of clay contained a large amount of small sandy in-
clusions, making it rough. Another technical feature identified in a few bowl base interiors was scraping; this was
probably done in order to thin extra clay left when the bowl was formed. For some reason, in these bowls, the trac-
es of scraping were not smoothed over and remained visible in the bowl’s interior.
104
6 This sherd was found without a number, although it apparently should be attributed to basket 7309, Locus 15.
7 See also Shai and Maier 2012: Fig. 14.4:2, bowl Type 5, with a narrow ring base; only one example of such a bowl was
found in Stratum A3 at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath.
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.1:5: A narrow low ring base with a deeply depressed interior, making the bottom very thin.
Fig. 7.1:6: A narrow disc base with a depressed interior; s-crack in base interior.
Fig. 7.1:7: A wide low disc base; red slip and irregular hand burnish inside.
Fig. 7.1:8: A narrow high ring base of a large bowl.
Fig. 7.1:9: A narrow low ring base.
Fig. 7.1:10: A narrow ring base with a deep interior depression and convex base bottom.
Fig. 7.1:11: As 7.1:10, narrower and thicker.
Fig. 7.1:12: A rounded base with red slip and horizontal hand burnish inside (see Panitz-Cohen 2010: Fig. 7.2:8
for a possible comparison).
7.7.2. CHALICES
A somewhat wider range of variation was noted for the chalices as opposed to the bowls (Table 7.8). Two new
types were determined (CH3 and CH4), along with a number of minor variations in the formation of the foot
(CHB3 and CHC), and one bowl variation type. Only these new types are presented here (for the typological range
of chalice bowls and bases, see Panitz-Cohen 2010:121-123).
Table 7.8: Quantitative Distribution of Chalice Types per Locus*
Locus/
Type
Locus
12
Locus
13
Locus
14
Locus
14b
Locus
15
Total
N %**
CH1a 21 15 14 1 24 75 4
CH1b 53 12 20 12 36 133 8
CH1c 100 15 11 9 25 160 9
CH1d 3 12 5 - 72 92 5
CH2 51 6 32 4 35 128 7
CH3 27 8 2 - 2 39 2
CH4 8 6 - - 32 46 3
CHA1 197 55 52 35 133 472 27
CHA2 124 35 40 - 147 346 20
CHA3 25 2 5 4 20 56 3
CHA4 5 - - - - 5 -
CHB1 28 - 39 33 59 159 9
CHB2 9 2 3 - 8 22 1
CHB3 - - - - 4 4 -
CHC 3 - - - - 3 -
Total 651 168 223 98 597 1740
*includes typologically indicative body sherds (codes 12, 13, 16, 18, 19)
**percentages rounded off; percentages less than 1 not included.
As in the first stage of this analysis, the pattern of breakage of the chalices was such that almost no complete pro-
files were preserved and most of the chalice types are of the base and foot rather than of the rim (Table 7.7), since
the former apparently broke into more pieces. Most of the chalices bore traces of white chalky slip, a feature typical
of these vessels at other Iron IIA contexts as well (Panitz-Cohen 2010:114, examples from Ashdod Strata X–IX,
Tel Batash/Timnah Stratum IV, Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3, the City of David Stratum 14; see also Azor, Ben-
Shlomo 2012:128, Fig. 5.7:3). A few also bore traces of painted decoration in red and black (see further below).
The burn pattern on the chalice bowls shows that it is mostly located on the interior (Table 7.6).
Chalice Type 3 (CH3) (Fig.7.2:1)
The rim of the bowl has a slightly concave interior, with an inner protrusion on its top. Some examples of this
type rim appear similar to the base of Type CHB1 and their assignation to CH3 was based on traces of burning
and/or white slip on the bowl interior, since the base interior was generally not slipped nor burnt. The bowl of Fig.
7.2:1 has a sharp pinched carination at its bottom, above the join to the foot; this feature was found on only
two such chalices. Such a carination is found on several examples of CH2 (i.e., Panitz-Cohen 2010: Fig. 7.2:19).
CH3 is not common and only 39 examples were found.
105
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Chalice Type 4 (CH4) (Fig. 7.2:2)
The bowl of this chalice type has a low carination and an everted stance above; the rim top is rounded. It is similar
to BL2 in its general shape and to the upper part of CH2, although it differs in its lower bowl shape, lacking the
stepped profile of CH2. The only complete example has a unique foot in that it lacks the flaring, trumpet-shaped
bottom (Fig. 7.2:2). Apparently, the other chalice bowls attributed to this type do not have such a foot, as no other
similar shapes were found. CH4 is not common and only 46 examples were found.8
Chalice Type 1d (CH1d) (Fig. 7.2:3)
CH1d was identified and well represented in the first stage of this analysis (Panitz-Cohen 2010:122); this example
is included here as it bears unique incisions on its exterior.
Chalice Bowl Varia (Fig. 7.2:4-5)
Two chalice bowls are defined as varia, as they are the only representatives of this type, which is, in fact, a varia-
tion of CH1a. Instead of a flaring shelf rim, the rim has a gentle s-shaped flare and is a continuation of the body’s
wall. The bowl is relatively deep. One of these (Fig. 7.2:4) is exceptionally thick-walled and heavy, while the other
is more delicately made, with prominent wheel-marks on the exterior. Neither bears traces of white slip.
Chalice Base (CHC) (Fig. 7.2:6)
One new type of chalice base was identified in the present study: CHC, characterized by a thick ridge at the join of
the foot to the bowl. Only three examples of such a feature were found.
Fenestrated Chalices/Stands
Five cylindrical fragments that bear traces of triangular windows were found and identified as fenestrated chalice
bases or stands (see discussion in Panitz-Cohen 2010:123-124; Fig. 7.4). Both medium and large-sized examples
were found in the first stage of our study, while the five examples in the present study are not of the very large
type. Comparisons to such chalices were cited from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A39 and ‘En Hazeva (Panitz-Cohen
2010:123).
Painted Chalices
Ten chalice fragments that bore clear traces of red and black painted decoration on top of a white slip were found in
the present stage of analysis (Fig. 7.3:1-10). A small amount of chalice fragments bearing this type of decoration
were found in the first stage of the favissa pottery analysis as well (Panitz-Cohen 2010:114; Fig. 7.2:21-23, 26-27).
The white slip is patchy and the paint is rubbed away and barely discernible in many cases. It is most likely that
there were more such decorated chalices, but the paint did not survive, possibly due to it having been applied after
firing (Maier and Shai 2006:362), or due to the nature of the pigments.
The red and black color on a white-slipped background is a continuation of the Iron I Philistine Bichrome
decorative tradition (Shai and Maeir 2012:352) and the particular motifs on the Yavneh chalices reflect this as well.
One example of CH1c (Fig. 7.3.3) and one of CH1a (Fig. 7.3:1) have what might be the top of a lozenge pattern
under the rim exterior, although the triangles on the rim exterior of Fig. 3.3 suggests the possibility that these were
triangles and not lozenges.
Hatched lozenges are well known in the Iron I Philistine Bichrome repertoire (Dothan 1982:212-214). A
comparison to a connected-lozenge pattern below a chalice bowl rim exterior (filled with cross-hatching) can be
found on a complete chalice from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath, Stratum A3 (Shai and Maier 2012: Fig. 14.14:12). The fill in
the lozenges (or triangles) under the rim exterior of the Yavneh chalices is solid and not hatched. No comparisons
were found for the triangle pattern.
Two chalice bowls bear roughly executed checkerboard patterns (Fig. 7.3.1-2) on Chalice Type 2. The
checkerboard motif is well known in the Iron I Philistine Bichrome tradition (i.e., Dothan 1982: 214; cf. Mazar
1985a: Figs. 31.1, 32:7, 51:1; Ben-Shlomo 2012: Figs. 4.38:1; 4.72:2) and is also found on the aforesaid chalice
from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3. The other painted chalice fragments (Fig. 7.3:5-10) show that the foot and base
were decorated (with extant horizontal bands on the lower base). This feature was identified in only one base dur-
ing the first stage of this analysis. However, it is known on other painted chalices of the Iron II period in Philistia
8 Although it might be considered that examples of Chalice Type 4 were registered as Bowl Type 2 due to the similarity of the
bowl profile, this can for the most part be overruled, since the bowls are mainly red slipped and often burnished, and are gener-
ally somewhat smaller than the chalice profiles. The chalice fragments often bore tell-tale traces of white slip.
9 See also Maier and Shai 2012: Fig. 14.10, Chalice Type 3.1.
106
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
and the south (i.e., Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3: Shai and Maier 2009:362; 2012:352; Tel Batash/Timnah Stratum
II: Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:57; Tel Miqneh/Ekron Stratum IB: Gitin 1993:253, Fig. 5a; 1995: Fig. 4.5:19;
Ashdod Stratum VIII: Dothan 1971: Fig. 51:7).
Although they recall the early Philistine motifs and color scheme, the execution of these designs on the
Yavneh chalices are far from the quality of the earlier vessels. The red and black pigments painted on white slip
that is typical of Iron I Philistine pottery is usually much better preserved, suggesting that the latter was applied
with a different technique, probably pre-firing, than that used in the present assemblage. It is notable that the
Yavneh potters or artists chose to apply this retroactive mode of decoration that had been so typical on the Iron I
Philistine pottery types to the chalice, which is a shape of Canaanite origin; notably, most of the painted chalices
are of the type of chalice that developed in Philistia in Iron II (our CH2).
As Maier and Shai note (2006:363; see also Shai 2011:129; Shai and Maier 2012:353), this is a reflection of
the eclectic nature of Iron IIA Philistine culture, which, in fact, continued the same cultural pattern as in Iron I,
when different elements (Aegean and Levantine) were amalgamated in the Philistine Bichrome ware. It is most
likely due to symbolic and ideological reasons that the choice to repeat this decoration was made, despite the ap-
parent loss of technological and artistic knowledge over the years.
In the discussion of painted chalices in the Philistine tradition, related to the 7th century BCE chalice found at
Tel Batash/Timnah, it was claimed that:
“Though it may be proposed that they are a continuation of the painted chalice tradition of Philistia, there is a
‘missing link’ between the latest examples of the latter (10th century) and the 7th century chalices” (Mazar and Pa-
nitz-Cohen 2001:58).
The painted chalices in the Yavneh favissa fill this gap between the common chalices of the Iron I – early Iron IIA
Canaanite tradition, and those that were adopted into the late Iron IIB Philistine tradition, showing that this was a
continuous, albeit small-scale, phenomenon (see also Maeir and Shai 2006:352).
7.7.3. VARIA
The following figures show various other items:
Fig. 7.3.11: Body fragment of a box-shaped pyxis, painted with red and black horizontal bands; see Panitz-Cohen
2010:127; Fig. 7.5:23.
Fig. 7.3.12: A wide rounded base with a slight button-like protrusion on the bottom; possibly a storage jar base.
Fig. 7.3.13: A thick short spout, painted with narrow black bands on its base.
Fig. 7.3.14: A re-worked bowl-base that appears to have been used as a lid.
7.8. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE YAVNEH CHALICES
A striking feature of the numerous chalices in the Yavneh favissa is the special formation techniques10 with which
they were made. This parameter was examined in the present study in order to determine whether production was a
homogeneous and centralized act, as well as whether the process demonstrates specialization and standardization,
both criteria that point to the level of production and from this, to social and economic aspects of the people in-
volved with the Yavneh favissa.
7.8.1. FORMATION TECHNIQUES AS SOCIAL IDENTITY
Formation techniques are a critical component of the pottery-making process. They are:
“One of the most responsive reflectors of cultural identity and of the production process as a whole, even more
so than the shape of a vessel” (Dessel 1991:42).
The way that forming techniques and the accompanying motor habits are deeply embedded in the cultural identity
of the producers and are persistent over time has been demonstrated in numerous ethnographic studies, showing
this to be a cross-cultural feature (i.e., Foster 1965:47-52; Nicklin 1971:25-26; Balfet 1965, 1984; Arnold 1981:37-
10 These techniques are also called “fashioning” or “fabrication”.
107
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
38; Roux 1989; Sillar 1997:1-5; Bowser 2000; Arnold 2000:113; Gosselain 1998; 2000). While forming techniques
are essentially techno-functional and economically determined, they are also a symbolic feature that both creates
and enforces social practices and group identity (Franken 1974:16-17; Sillar 1997; Hegmon 1998; Stark 1999;
Gosselain 2000).
A forming technique is initially selected due to individual experience, which entails trial and error, imitation
of successful individuals, personal skill and a propensity to innovate, among other factors (Rice 1989:111). This
choice is then negotiated within the group framework, based on pragmatic variables of available raw materials and
technologies, function and economic feasibility, as well as on social identity, when the technique becomes the
hallmark of the group (Graves 1991; van der Leeuw 1993).
Once a technique is adopted and positively reinforced, it becomes deeply ingrained and the only way to do
things for the producing group. Deviation could mean economic failure (Foster 1965: 49; Arnold 1985; Schiffer
and Skibo 1987:598), as well as social ostracism (Nicklin 1971:31-32; Rice 1987:457). Sillar (1997:8) noted that
ceramic forming skill and knowledge is sometimes “as much a localized resource as the raw materials,” and that in
some areas in the Peruvian Andes there was a “cultural prohibition” against passing on technical knowledge to
other communities, or even for a potter to continue to use certain formation techniques if he/she moved to another
region. Ethnographic data points to situations in which technological knowledge, especially formation techniques
and clay recipes, is deliberately kept from others due to social boundaries (Hodder 1979).
The way in which technological features comprise social signaling is also termed “technological style”
(Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1993), wherein not only the shape of a vessel or its decoration conveys style, but each
of the technical acts involved in making pottery can be viewed as a style-bearing factor. Each of these acts entails
choice on the part of the makers and thus reflects the particular style of the individual or group (van der Leeuw
1991:23-24; Schiffer 1992:10-12; Stark 1998:6; Pool and Bey 2007:21-24). Even the purely functional aspect of an
artifact is socially and culturally embedded, so that the same object in different societies may not only be used dif-
ferently, but also perceived differently (i.e., van Wijngaarden 2002:28).
Ethnoarchaeological studies have shown how technological style is a viable and recognizable factor in pot-
tery exchange, as well as production and use (Costin 2000). Potters themselves, as well as consumers, have stated
that what allows them to differentiate each other’s work, or the work of an individual or a group of potters, was not
the decoration, but rather technological nuances between products (Foster 1965:45; Hodder 1979; 1982:1-2; Lon-
gacre 1991:102-103; Kramer 1997; Deal 1998:33; Stark 1999:37-40). This feature has implications for the use of
non-decorated ceramics to identify social groups and boundaries.
7.8.2. CHALICE FORMATION TECHNIQUES
Chalices are defined as high-footed bowls and a typological variety of such vessels is known in Canaan from the
Chalcolithic to the Iron Age II (Amiran 1969; Grutz 2005; Maier and Shai 2006:358-359). Various explanations
have been offered for their function, the two most common being incense burning within a ritual context or illumi-
nation, with a minority opinion postulating drinking (Grutz 2005:8-9). Chalices have been found in numerous con-
texts, including domestic, cultic, funerary and industrial. They are relatively common in the Late Bronze Age, peak
in the Iron Age I and continue in ample quantities until the end of Iron Age IIA, when they wane in Israelite and
Judean assemblages.
The composition of a bowl and a pedestal-like base or foot can be formed in two basic ways: as one unit
from base to rim or as two units, with the bowl and foot made separately and joined. Most of the Iron Age II chal-
ices from various sites that were personally examined by the author, as well as perusal of a selection of published
chalices from southern Iron Age sites,11 show that the most common technique was the latter, with the bowl and
foot made separately. This is often evidenced by this join being the breaking point. Not only is this a weak mechan-
ical point in the vessel, but it is possible that different drying rates of the bowl and foot caused them to separate
more frequently. No examples that were personally examined showed that the chalice was made on the wheel as
one unit; it is possible that some were, but this was not easily defined.
11 The chalices that were personally examined were from Tel Rehov, Tel Batash/Timnah and Tel Beth Shean. Published chal-
ices include: Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985:48–49), Azor cemetery (Ben-Shlomo 2012:127); Ashdod (Ben-Shlomo 2005: Figs.
3.69:22, 3.83:7-9; Dothan 1971: Figs. 51:7, 58:7, 10-11); Lachish (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 42:14-21); City of David (Bernick-
Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.5:2-3); Tell Beit Mirsim tombs (Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.74:92-93). Examination of Middle/Late
Bronze Age chalices in order to determine continuity or change in formation techniques is beyond its scope of the present
study.
108
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Most published discussions of chalices focus on typology and rarely is the technological aspect addressed.
An exception is Maier and Shai (2006:359-360, n. 5), who concur that chalices are made in two parts; they briefly
summarize two basic formation techniques that they identified for the joining of the bowl and the foot in the chalic-
es from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath:
1) The bowl has a protrusion (short or long) at its bottom that was inserted into the hollow foot (i.e., Maier and
Shai 2006: Fig. 7:4);
2) The two parts were attached without such a protrusion by simply placing the bowl on the foot (i.e., Maier
and Shai 2006: Fig. 7:9).
In some cases of the first technique, the peg-like protrusion is narrow and is distinctly separated from the walls of
the foot into which it was inserted (i.e., Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3 – Maier and Shai 2006: Fig. 7:4-5; Ashdod
Stratum X-IX – Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 3.83:8; Lachish Stratum V – Aharoni 1975: Pl. 42:15, 17; City of David,
Jerusalem – Bernick-Greenberg 2012: Fig. 5.5:2-3; Tell Beit Mirsim Tomb 1 – Ben-Arieh 2004: Fig. 2.74:93). In
other cases, the protrusion was so thick that it merged with the walls of the upper foot. Many published drawings of
Iron Age chalices show a thick join between the bowl and the hollow foot (i.e., Tell Qasile Strata X-IX – Mazar
1985a: Figs. 43:22; 52:15; Kh. Qeiyafa – Kang and Garfinkel 2009: Fig. 6.8:1). It is possible that this represents
such a wide peg in the bowl bottom. It must be stressed, however, that only personal examination of the formation
technique used for these chalices can substantiate this; it is possible that other techniques were used that created
this thick solid join. The breaking point between the bowl and the foot frequently takes place at the bottom of the
protrusion, when the bowl and its protrusion break apart separately from the hollow foot.
The second technique, where bowl and foot are simply joined, lacking a protrusion, is common. In these cases,
the break between the two parts usually takes place at the bottom of the bowl/top of the foot.
In addition to the observation of the basic and most commonly found formation techniques just described,
several technological features of the examined Iron Age chalices may be cited:
1) The foot often shows distinct spiral-like or horizontal coils on the interior, suggesting that this part was
wheel-thrown;
2) Examined chalice bowls show that they were either wheel-thrown or wheel-coiled;
3) Clay was often added to the exterior of the join of bowl to foot and vertically smeared (in rare cases, horizon-
tally smeared) in order to reinforce the join;
4) The attachment of the bowl to the foot is sometimes lopsided, i.e., the bowl rim does not lie on a horizontal
axis, but rather a diagonal one.
7.8.3. FORMATION TECHNIQUES OF THE YAVNEH CHALICES
In light of the above observations, the formation techniques used to make the chalices found in the Yavneh favissa
were examined. All evidence pointed to the vast majority of them having been made in two parts and in fact, only
one chalice profile (Fig. 7.9:5) was possibly wheel-thrown in one part.
The two main techniques identified in numerous other chalices from various sites (as described above) were
also identified in the Yavneh chalices: rarely, a protrusion on the bottom of the bowl inserted into the hollow foot
(i.e., Fig. 7.4:1–4) and, more commonly, a simple join of bowl to foot (i.e., Figs. 7.4:5–6; 9:1–6). However, almost
half of the chalices12 were made with several uncommon formation techniques related mostly to the join of the
bowl to the foot (below).
A. Foot-Peg Attachment
Among the special formation techniques identified, the more common was the attachment of the bowl and foot by
way of a short, solid, peg-like protrusion on top of the hollow foot (Pl. 28:1-4; Figs. 7.5-6). This peg, some 3 cm
long, is slightly narrower than the largest diameter of the foot and the bowl was set on top of it. The bowl bottom
had only a thin veneer of clay (Pl. 28:5-6; Figs. 7.6:5-7; 7), or rarely, was left open to accommodate the top of the
peg. The bottom of the bowl was often shaped so as to accommodate the peg in the latter case (Pl. 28:5-6). Often,
an additional thin layer of clay was smeared into the bowl bottom interior, apparently meant to thicken and rein-
force the thin bottom; finger smear marks are generally visible in this layer (Pl. 29:1-2; Fig. 7:3-4). This layer of
clay sometimes contained sand and was distinctly different from the clay composition around it. This phenomenon
was noted inside some of the bowls as well. Since the bottom of the bowl was so thin, the pressure of the bowl onto
the peg during their join left a rounded contour in the center of the bowl’s interior and this often was also the line of
breakage, as it was a weak point in the vessel (i.e., Pl. 28:3-4; Fig. 7.5:1-3).
12 This count was made from those chalice fragments that included the join (Appendix A: codes 13, 16, 18-20).
109
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
It thus seems that the basic order of actions, or la chaîne opératoire (see below for discussion of this concept
and a replication), when forming the chalices with the peg on top of the foot was: 1) forming the foot and bowl
separately on a fast wheel; the bowl was made with a thin or open bottom and the foot was hollow up to the solid
top 2) attaching the bowl to the top of the foot by pressing down on the peg; just a thin layer was left at the bowl’s
bottom at the point of contact or the bowl bottom was left open; 3) in some cases, adding extra clay to the bowl
bottom interior, then smearing it with fingers; 4) adding clay around the external join of the bowl and the foot to
reinforce the join and to bring the narrower peg back to the same diameter as the rest of the upper foot (i.e., Pl.
28:2; 5) drying and firing.
B. Inserted-Disc Attachment
A less common mode of joining the bowl to the foot was the insertion of a thick small disc into the opening at the
top of the hollow foot, which in turn, was inserted into the bottom of the bowl (Pl. 30:1-4; Fig. 5:4). Clay was then
added around the disc to fill in the gap between it and the top of the hollow foot (Pl. 30:2). The bottom of the disc,
which is visible inside the top of the hollow foot, was sometimes pressed in and smoothed (Pl. 30:4). This must
have been done before the foot was attached, since a finger could not have reached this point after the attachment
of the long foot was done. Thus, it seems that the order of actions (la chaîne opératoire) was:
1) The bowl and foot were made separately on the fast wheel; the bowl was made with an opening on its bottom
and the foot was hollow;
2) The disc was inserted into the opening in the bowl bottom and pressed on one or both ends;
3) The foot was attached and reinforced around the disc with clay;
4) Clay was rarely added to the bowl interior to cover the disc;
5) Drying and firing.
C. Perforation between Bowl and Foot
A notable feature found on only 40 chalices13 was a perforation in the bottom of the bowl that penetrated through
the join to the hollow part of the foot. Two types of perforation were identified: narrow and wide. The chalices that
had the small holes were made with different formation techniques: simple join, foot-peg join and disc join; while
the chalices with the wide holes were made with the simple join technique. There is no correspondence between
any particular chalice type and the holes.
The narrow hole was usually very small, with a diameter ranging from 0.2-0.4 cm, and was punched before
firing, from the bowl towards the foot (Pls. 30:5-32:2; Figs. 7.8; 7.9:1). Two chalices had partially perforated holes.
In some cases, the hole was not centered (i.e., Pl. 30:5-6). Twenty of the chalices with a narrow hole had a small
plug made of fired clay inserted into the opening (Pl. 32:3-4). In most cases, this plug was inserted and fired to-
gether with the vessel, so that it was an integral part of it. In a few cases, it could be seen that the fired clay plug
was inserted after firing. In fact, three such plugs were found when examining the contents of the baskets registered
(see Panitz-Cohen 2010: Pl. 167:1-2, 5). This suggests that there had been plugs for all the chalices with narrow
holes, which would have made their use as closed bowls possible, despite the perforation. This might indicate that
the chalices could have been used with a liquid content, since if they held just coals or other dry substances for
burning, the hole would not have mattered.
Twenty-three chalices had a wide hole, ranging 0.6-0.9 cm in diameter (Pl. 32:5-6; Fig. 7.9:2-6). In most
cases, this hole was formed before firing, but in two chalices, the hole was drilled after firing (Fig. 7.9:2). This hole
effectively prevented any liquid content to be poured into the chalice bowl, as it would have simply flowed right
through the opening. This size of hole suggests that if coals were placed in the bowl (on top of which the incense
was placed), they would have been larger than the hole. The purpose of these holes is not clear, although they cer-
tainly must have affected the use of the chalice. It was thought that the purpose of the small hole might have been
to improve the firing of the thick join between bowl and foot, but this does not seem viable, as only a portion of the
thick joins are so punctured and, in any event, such a hole certainly affected the use of the chalice as opposed to
those that were not punctured. Since it was a pre-meditated feature, the perforation cannot be viewed as a way to
annul or invalidate the vessel. It is possible that it served as a kind of marker, perhaps related to a function that dif-
fered from the other chalices.
13 This count was made from those fragments that included the join, cf. note 12.
110
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
D. General Technological Observations
For the most part, there is no correlation between the formation techniques and the bowl or foot type and they were
interchangeable for all types. It seems that both the foot and the bowl were wheel-thrown and both were made of
the same clay fabric.
An interesting feature noted in many cases is that the rim of the bowl is virtually identical to the ‘rim’ of the
base of the foot. For example, the rim of types CH1c and CH3 is very similar to bases of type CHA2 and the rim of
type CH1a is similar to the edge of base types CHA1, CHA3 and CHB1. The diameter of the base and the rim is
identical and often, the criterion for determining it as a bowl rather than a base was the presence of white slip
and/or burning on the interior; base interiors were not burnt and usually, lacked white slip as well. This trait points
to a large degree of production modularity and regularity, as well as economical mass production. Studies have
shown that specialized potters in antiquity had an accurate sense of proportion when making standardized vessels
and were able to achieve a high degree of homogeneity in matters such as the rim and base similarity, without using
sophisticated measuring devices or precisely pre-measured or pre-weighed amounts of clay (Longacre 1999). As
Kramer (1997:77) noted, although professional potters in Rajasthan, India, do not use measuring devices, the re-
sulting vessels vary by no more than one centimeter. This is due to the “conceptualization of vessel volumes – by
both the potters and the users of pots – as standardized.”
E. Reconstruction of La Chaîne Opératoire
A key methodological concept used in the attempt to recreate the organization of production and its relationship to
ceramic variability (both temporally and spatially), was adopted from the French ‘techniques et culture’ school into
archaeological analysis by Lemonnier (1993) – “la chaîne opératoire” – or, the manufacturing sequence. This may
be defined as the series of operations that transform raw material into a finished product, either a consumption ob-
ject or a tool (Creswell 1983).
The concept of la chaîne opératoire contends that while each step in the production sequence is inherently
material, technical and economic (i.e. choice of raw materials, location of workshops, distribution of labor, etc.), it
is also culturally conditioned (i.e. learning and transmission of the technology, beliefs surrounding production,
etc.). Each technical step in the production process is open to several possible alternatives that are guided by human
choice (“decision-making behavior”; van der Leeuw 1984, 1993; Schiffer and Skibo 1997:31-32; M. Stark 1998:2;
Pool and Bey 2007:22-24). Thus, identifying the technological choices made for each individual production step,
and then as parts of the entire process as a whole, can potentially provide valuable information about cultural affili-
ations, ranging from economic organization to behavior and beliefs (Lemonnier 1993; Stark 1998:8-9). In fact, it is
deemed important not only to identify the choices that were made, but also the alternatives that were rejected (Tor-
rence and van der Leeuw 1989:8; van der Leeuw 1993; Crown 2000; Killick 2004:571).
In order to better understand these manufacturing steps, the chalices made with a simple bowl-foot attach-
ment and those made with peg attachments on the top of the foot were reconstructed by a professional potter,
Daphna Zuckerman.14 Experimental replication allows us to explore the relationships between behavior and poten-
tially observable material traces of that behavior, and thus to test beliefs about past cultural behavior (Ascher 1961;
Saraydar 2008).
The aims of this replication were to corroborate whether the conclusions reached concerning formation tech-
niques based on visual examination of the chalices are viable, to assess how labor intensive they are, and to explore
whether there was any particular advantage to the foot-peg formation technique chosen by many of the Yavneh pot-
ters when making these chalices.
The reconstruction did not attempt to emulate the original clay recipe used for the chalices (Ben-Shlomo
2010), nor did it entail the initial steps of clay procurement and preparation or the final steps of drying and firing. It
focused on the actual motor patterns and actions used to form the chalice.
No attempt was made to recreate the size or exact shape of the original chalices, although the general propor-
tions between bowl and foot size were adhered to. The operations that were replicated include: formation of the
bowl, formation of the foot with a peg and without a peg, attachment of the bowl to the foot; perforation between
the bowl and the foot (narrow and wide).
14 The replication was conducted in Daphna Zuckerman’s private studio in Jerusalem. The photographs of the process were
made by Medad Socholovsky.
111
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
F. Formation of the Bowl
The bowl was manufactured on the fast wheel from a hump of clay (Pl. 33:1-4) and set aside during the manufac-
ture of the foot.15
G. Formation of the Foot – with and without Peg Attachment
The foot was also made on the fast wheel from a hump of clay, formed by opening the hump from the top, pressing
fingers in to form the hollow and leaving the bottom solid. The piece was then removed from the wheel and turned
over to rest on its base (Pl. 34:1-2). The solid top was then trimmed while the wheel turned to narrow it to a peg
(Pls. 34:3-4). The same process of throwing the foot from a hump on the fast wheel was followed to form the
foot without the peg, but lacking the stages of turning upside down and of trimming the top, which was left
straight (Pl. 36).
H. Attachment of the Bowl to the Foot with Peg
Following the formation of the foot with the peg on top, the bowl was attached to the foot (Pls. 37-38). The bottom
of the bowl and the top of the peg were etched and covered with wet slip to enhance adhesion (Pl. 37:1). The bowl
was then placed on the peg and light pressure was applied (Pl. 38:2-4). It should be noted that in one of the trials,
the pressure of the bowl on the foot caused the foot to collapse (Pl. 37:5); this implies that a certain drying time was
perhaps necessary after the foot was made to ensure that it would be sturdy enough to bear the pressure.16 This
could have been easily achieved in an assembly line set up involvement, when each component sits for a short
while until they are joined, allowing some drying time.
Comparison of the replica to a peg-footed chalice from the favissa (Pl. 38:1) shows how the faint circle of-
ten seen inside the bowl was formed by the pressure of the thin bowl bottom onto the peg. Attachment of the
bowl to the foot without the peg attachment (simple join) was done in the same manner, with etching, slip and
light pressure.
I. Reinforcement of the Join between Bowl and Foot
The next and final phase of formation in the replica (aside from those instances where a hole was perforated be-
tween bowl and foot; see below) was the reinforcement of the join by adding clay on the exterior, done when the
chalice was turned upside down to rest on the bowl rim (Pl. 38:1).
Daphna Zuckerman chose to add a ring of clay around the join and to smear it horizontally (Pls. 38:2-6); ver-
tical smearing is more commonly seen on the exterior of chalice joins in the Yavneh assemblage.
J. Puncturing a Hole between Bowl and Foot
A small perforation between the bowl and the foot was replicated by puncturing the bowl bottom down to-
wards the foot through the peg, using a small sharp instrument (the pointed end of a paintbrush) (Pl. 39). The
same process was carried out for the wide hole, conducted on a chalice replica with a simple bowl-foot join
rather than a peg (Pl. 40), since this is the type of most of the chalices that have wide holes. The wide hole
needed to be perforated during several trials, as opposed to the narrow perforation with a sharp instrument that
went right through.
7.9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
7.9.1. TYPOLOGY, REGIONALITY AND CHRONOLOGY
The contribution of this second phase of the study of the ‘plain’ pottery in the Yavneh favissa is mainly in its cor-
roboration of the results of the first phase, emphasizing the homogeneous nature of the assemblage and substantiating
the huge amount of shattered pottery that was deposited into this pit. At the end of the first stage of our analysis,
we stated that “we hope to be able to study a much larger sample of pottery in the next stage of research, which
15 It stands to reason that in a mass-production set-up such as we surmise existed for the production of the Yavneh chalices,
there was one production line making the bowl and another making the foot simultaneously. This would have ensured a more
homogeneous drying rate and thus, a better suitability between the two joined parts of the vessel.
16 Although only a few samples were made, it should be noted that it was a pegged foot that collapsed when the bowl was at-
tached, while a flat-topped foot did not. It is possible that the peg made the foot less sturdy during manufacture, being narrower
than the rest of the foot and thus, possibly a point of weakness.
112
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
may provide more accurate results” (Panitz-Cohen 2010:130). The results of the second stage, obtained from the
typological quantification, as well as from comparison to a major assemblage that has since been published, that of
Stratum A3 at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath (Shai and Maier 2012), support the chronological and regional conclusions reached
in the first stage of this study (Panitz-Cohen 2010:127-131).
The Yavneh assemblage most likely dates to the mid-9th to early 8th centuries BCE, the transition between
Iron IIA and Iron IIB. It is typical of the southern coastal plain (Philistia) at that time, with a lesser affinity to Iron
IIA pottery from the Judean Shephelah and Negev. Comparisons of the bowls and chalices, the main vessel types in
the favissa, to other such types in assemblages at nearby sites, show that the secure parallels come from Ashdod
Strata X-VIII, Tell Qasile Strata X-VIII, Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath Stratum A3, Tel Batash/ Timnah Strata IV-III and Tel
Miqneh/Ekron Strata III-II, while fewer comparisons come from Judean sites, such as Beth Shemesh Stratum IIb
and Lachish Strata V-IV (Panitz-Cohen 2010:130).
The conclusions reached concerning depositional patterns and formation processes were based on the nature
of the finds in the repository pit, including quantities, breakage patterns and distribution of types per Locus (Panitz-
Cohen 2010:127-129). The present study corroborated those conclusions. It seems likely that the episode of deposi-
tion was relatively short-lived and intentional, based both on the stratigraphic picture and on the limited chronolog-
ical and typological range of the pottery. It is more difficult to determine formation processes that would have cre-
ated the extremely fragmentary nature and sheer abundance of the sherds. This abundance can be explained either
by a long period of use of the temple, during which these numerous offerings were accumulated, or by a large tem-
ple, in which many worshippers and officials collected so many objects over a short period of time. The very small
sherds into which the bowls and most of the chalices had been broken may be understood as having what Orton,
Tyers and Vince (1993:168) called “the same post-depositional history”, indicating archaeological homogeneity.
This is borne out by the typological homogeneity of the assemblage as well, again serving to support the scenario
of deliberate breakage and casting into the pit during a short period of time.
The people who made, used and discarded these vessels obviously did so for reasons related to the function
of the temple, but the precise scenario remains obscure, as does the scope and nature of the temple itself. The huge
volume of pottery, along with the numerous special cult stands (Kletter 2010a-b; Ziffer 2010) and other objects,
such as the fire pans, point to this having been an institution with a major impact on the community it served, both
on the level of ritual consumption and on the level of production.
7.9.2. TECHNOLOGICAL FEATURES – PRODUCTION LEVEL, GROUP IDENTITY, AND PHILISTINE
CULTURE
The technological study of the chalices, focusing on their formation techniques, has shown that there was a very
specialized and centralized mode of production that most likely had catered exclusively to the needs of the temple.
In the first stage of the ceramic analysis, it had been suggested (Panitz-Cohen 2010:112-113) that the vessels
reached the temple in two different ways: either selected from a typical household repertoire and brought as offer-
ings or receptacles for offerings, or specially made for the temple in a centralized and controlled workshop (or a
combination of both). The results of the present technological study of the chalices support the latter scenario of a
specialized workshop that operated under the close supervision of the temple authorities.17
The formation techniques of the chalices18 (as seen in the bowl and foot attachments, as well as in the perfo-
rated joins, which would have also affected the chalices’ use), along with the overwhelming homogeneity of clay
fabric, firing temperature and surface treatment (white slip), point to a high level of centralization and specializa-
tion. Various types of specialization have been defined for pottery production, including site, producer and resource
specialization (Rice 1989:110). Site specialization entails
“Areas of limited or intensive activity, in which certain goods were produced, generally in large amounts, and
mainly for the self-consumption of the producing group” (Costin 1991:3).
17 It is possible that the bowls were also made in such premises, but more in-dept study is needed of their formation techniques
to say so.
18 Six chalices (one almost complete, the others fragments) from Iron IIB Tel Hadid were made with techniques similar to
Yavneh – with a peg on top of the foot. Their fabric is totally different, though. I thank Debi Ben-Ami, Curator of the Iron
Age, IAA, for this reference and for her help in examining these chalices. Another possible analogy is a chalice foot from Ash-
dod Stratum VIII (Dothan 1971: Fig. 44:5), with a solid narrow peg on its top. The description of its fabric – “brown clay, gray
core, white grits” – does not help to compare it to the fabric of the Yavneh chalices.
113
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Producer specialization entails the amount of time, skill and training invested in producing goods, assuming that
specialists make pottery year-round and that it is their main source of income (Arnold 1985:18; Rice 1989). Re-
source specialization entails the selection of particular clays and tempers for special functions. It can be concluded
that the potters who supplied the favissa related temple with the chalices were operating according to all three types
of specialization. This fact points to a high level of economic and social complexity.
A key concept in the perception of craft specialization is the definition of the social and economic associa-
tion of the producer, along with the scale of production; this is designated ‘attached or independent specialists’ (or
craftsmen) (Rice 1987:186, 1989:110; Stein 1996; Earle 2002:128-130). Attached specialists/craftsmen entail some
central authority/institution or interest group (i.e., elite entrepreneurs, temples, local governors) that exercises some
control, sponsorship or patronage over production and in some way is able to manipulate production and demand
(Costin 1996; Sillar 1997). These elites supply the specialists with raw materials, work facilities and “return pay-
ment” in the form of goods (Stein 1996:25). This control creates a dependency of the specialists on the elites, grant-
ing the former monopolizing power that is an integral part of their rule. Such control allows the elites to generate
income to finance institutional projects, to enhance political and economic ascendancy, and to dominate the sym-
bols used to legitimize their power (Costin 1996:210; Schortman and Urban 2004).
Costin (1996:211-212), noting the diversity of attached specialization, further sub-divided it into modes: “in-
dividual retainers” (individual artisans working full-time within an elite/government setting, i.e. palace or temple),
“nucleated corvée” (part-time labor that is commissioned by an elite/ government institution working in a special-
ized facility) or “retainer workshops” (large-scale operations with full-time artisans working for an elite or official
institution within a highly specialized facility).
It seems that the most likely scenario for the production of the Yavneh chalices was the “retainer work-
shop” mode, with a technical tradition that developed specifically within the framework of production for the
temple’s needs and under its strict auspices. Although made of different formation techniques (and hence proba-
bly in a different workshop, certainly by different craftsmen), the cult stands from the favissa are part of this
intense high-level specialization controlled by a central authority. Both modes of production were part of a well-
developed artistic, ritual and cultural tradition that operated on an industrial (and profitable) level, within a
well-integrated society.
The potters who made the chalices were aware of the accepted formation techniques used to make chalices
and used them for a portion of the chalices. However, they also adopted formation techniques that differed from
these well-known methods, which points to a separatist identity of the producers (and consumers). It is possible that
the uncommon methods (foot-peg and disc attachments) were used concurrently with the simple-attachment tech-
nique, or it is possible that there is a chronological difference (with all finding their way together discarded into the
pit). In any event, the different methods that these potters adopted and used were not necessarily advantageous
compared to other known methods, as the replication proved. In other words, this is a case par excellence of tech-
nological style, wherein the choices made by the potters became the defining feature of their group and were meant
to individualize their production and to dissimilate it from other producing groups.
This attitude may be contextualized within the realia of late 9th-early 8th century BCE Philistia, which is un-
derstood to have been characterized by a process of hybridization or “creolization”, intertwining various aspects of
both the Western source of Philistine culture and the local Levantine culture (Ben-Shlomo et al 2004; Shai 2011;
Maeir, Hitchcock and Horowitz 2013). The complex situation in Iron II Philistia shows that the Philistine
identity known from their heyday in Iron I was constantly being negotiated vis-à-vis this cultural spectrum,
affected by political developments as well, such as the question of Judean dominance versus Philistine
autonomy (Shai 2011).
The chalice is a vessel closely identified with Canaanite and then Israelite society, having a long life and
great popularity within these cultures (Amiran 1969; Grutz 2005). As noted above, the popularity of the chalice
waned at the end of Iron IIA in Judah and Israel, which is just the time it was introduced into the late Philistine cul-
tural and ritual realm, where it is found in such abundance in the Yavneh favissa. This could have been the result of
the long-term process of ceramic hybridization that began at an early stage (Mazar 1985b), but also could be under-
stood as a deliberate symbolic act. Was this the product of cultural and social amalgamation, perhaps due to inter-
marriage or living in joint settlements? Or, by adopting a typical Canaanite/Israelite ceramic form into their ritual
world, were the Philistines making a statement about identity or dominance?
A related question is whether the chalice was used in the Philistine realm as it was in the Levantine realm.
Since it is most likely that the chalice was used as a ritual vessel, what process took place when this vessel was
adopted into the Philistine ritual at the Yavneh temple and elsewhere (i.e., a cultic corner at Tel eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath: Shai
2011:124)? It is possible that it underwent “recontextualization” (van Wijngaarden 2002:28), wherein a vessel or
object is imported and new meanings are added on by the recipient society, as opposed to a locally-made object,
114
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
whose meaning is culturally built-in (Appadurai 1986; Lemonnier 1993:4-6; Steel 2002; Sherratt and Sherratt
[2001] call this “meaningful consumption”).
This cultural process is best reflected in the assemblage of cult stands found in the Yavneh favissa, incorpo-
rating a wide range of cultural elements into ritual objects used in a specific context (Ziffer 2010). When examining
this question, the technological style of the Yavneh chalices is pertinent. It is possible that some of the Philistine
potters did not know or could not master the most commonly used formation technique used by Canaanite and Isra-
elite potters when joining the bowl to the foot and thus, invented one of their own. However, since the simple-join
technique was used too, it seems that they were aware of the existing technology, but deliberately chose to develop
an alternative method so as to dissimilate themselves – and thus perhaps also the function of the vessel within the
ritual – from their Israelite and Judean counterparts. Even if the function of the vessel remained the same, which it
most likely did, differentiation through technological style was a statement that was initiated by the producer and
could have been acknowledged by the consumer.
Discussions of chalices in Iron Age II Philistia have focused mainly on stylistic features, particularly on the
employment of typical Iron I Philistine painted motifs and their development (Maier and Shai 205; Maier, Hitch-
cock and Horwitz 2013:15). The glimpse ‘behind the scenes’ into the technology employed to make the Yavneh
chalices adds another dimension to our analysis and attempts to understand the intricate cultural processes that the
Philistines underwent.
Note: Two pottery items are added here. One is a foot and lower bowl of a chalice from L15, B7148/4 (Pl.
63:1-2). The unusual feature is the three additional crude perforations, made from the outside of the bowl to its in-
side before firing. The reason for these perforations is unknown. There might be an affinity to the perforated fire
pans, although in chalices, such perforations are unique. The second item is a quite large wheel-made bowl-like
fragment with a round central perforation made before firing in its ‘base’ (Pl. 63:3). Apparently it is not a bowl of a
chalice, since there are no traces that indicate such joins. It seems that it was not related to the wheel-made round
stands too; since we do not have a stand that can fit this item. Perhaps it was made to be used as a funnel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My thanks are extended to Daphna Zuckerman for the replication of the vessels from the favissa; to Yulia Rodman
for the drawings of the painted pottery; and to Avshalom Karasik and the Computerized Archaeology Laboratory at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for the other drawings. I would also like to express my appreciation to the
late Gabi Gilboa, who patiently searched for joints among thousands of sherds.
REFERENCES
Aharoni, Y. 1975. Lachish V. The Sanctuary and the Residency. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Amiran, R. 1969. The Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: IES.
Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In: Appadurai, A. ed. The Social Life of
Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University: 3-63.
Arnold, D.E. 1981. A Model for the Identification of Non-Local Ceramic Distribution: a View from the Present. In:
Howard, H. and Morris, E.L. eds. Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. Oxford: BARIS 120:
31-44.
Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Arnold, P.J. 2000. Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. JAR 8/2: 105-133.
Ascher, R. 1961. Experimental Archaeology. American Anthropologist 63: 402-403.
Balfet, H. 1965. Ethnographic Observations in North Africa and Archaeological Interpretations: The Pottery of the
Maghreb. In: Matson, F.R. ed. Ceramics and Man. Chicago: Aldine: 161-177.
Balfet, H. 1984. Methods of Formation and the Shape of Pottery. In: van der Leeuw, S.E. and Pritchard, A.C. eds.
The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam: 171-191
Ben-Arieh, S. 2004. Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. Jerusalem: IAA Reports 23.
115
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Ben-Shlomo, D., Shai, I., and Maeir, A.M. 2004. Late Philistine Decorated Ware (Ashdod Ware): Typology, Chro-
nology, and Production Centers. BASOR 335: 1-35.
Ben-Shlomo, D. 2010. Petrographic Analysis. In: Kletter, R., Ziffer, I. and Zwickel, W. eds. Yavneh I. The Excava-
tion of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO SA 30). Fribourg: Academic Press: 148-
166.
Ben-Shlomo, D. 2012. The Azor Cemetery. Moshe Dothan’s Excavations, 1985 and 1960. Jerusalem: IAA Reports
50.
Bowser, B.J. 2000. From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity,
and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian. JAMT 7/3: 219-248.
Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting and Explaining the Organization of Pro-
duction. In: Schiffer, M.B. ed. Archaeological Method and Theory 3. Tucson: University of Arizona: 1-56.
Costin, C.L. 2000. Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of ceramic Production. JAMT 7: 377-
403.
Cresswell, R. 1983. Transfers de techniques et chaînes opératoire. Techniques et Cultures 2: 143-163.
Crown, P.L. 1999. Socialization in American Southwest Pottery Decoration. In: Skibo, J.M. and Feinman, G.M.
eds. Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah: 25-43.
Deal, M. 1998. Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
Dessel, J.P. 1991. Ceramic Production and Social Complexity in Fourth Millennium Canaan: A Case Study from
the Halif Terrace. PhD Thesis: University of Arizona.
Dothan, T. 1982. The Material Culture of the Philistines. Jerusalem: IES.
Earle, T.K. 2002. Bronze Age Economics. Colorodo: Westview Press.
Foster G.M. 1965. The Sociology of Pottery: Questions and Hypotheses Arising from Contemporary Mexican
Work. In: Matson, F.R. ed. Ceramics and Man. Chicago: Aldine Press: 43-62.
Franken, H.J. 1974. In Search of Jericho Potters, Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithic. Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing.
Gitin, S. 1993. Seventh Century BCE Cultic Elements at Ekron. In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J. eds. Biblical Archae-
ology Today 1990. Jerusalem: IES: 248-258.
Gitin, S. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century BCE: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultur-
al Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State. In: Gitin, S. ed. Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to
the West. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt: 61-79.
Gosselain, O.P. 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In: Stark, M.T. ed. The Archaeology of
Social Boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution: 78-106.
Gosselain, O.P. 2000. Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. JAMT 7/3: 187-217.
Graves, M. 1991. Pottery Production and Distribution among the Kalinga: A Study of Household and Regional Or-
ganization and Differentiation. In: Longacre, W.A. ed. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Tucson: University of
Arizona: 112-143.
Grutz, R. 2005. Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel. BARIS 1671. Oxford: Archaeo-
press.
Hegmon, M. 1998. Technology, Style and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In: Stark, M.T. ed. The
Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution: 264-279.
Hodder, I. 1979. Pottery Distribution: Service and Tribal Areas. In: Millet, M. ed. Pottery and the Archaeologist.
London: Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publication 4: 7-23.
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action, Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity.
Kang, H-G. and Garkfinkel, Y. 2009. The Early Iron Age IIA Pottery. In: Garfinkel, Y. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1.
Excavation Report 2007-2008. Jerusalem: IES: 119-149.
Killick, D. 2004. Social Constructionist Approaches to the Study of Technology. World Archaeology 36/4: 571-
578.
Kletter, R. 2010a. Chapter 2: The Excavation of the Repository Pit. In: Kletter, R., Ziffer, I. and Zwickel, W. eds.
Yavneh I. The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO SA 30). Fribourg:
Academic Press: 14-24.
Kletter, R. 2010b. Chapter 4: Disposal and Breakage Patterns of the Stands. In: Kletter, R., Ziffer, I. and Zwickel,
W. eds. Yavneh I. The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO SA 30). Fri-
bourg: Academic Press: 46-60.
Kramer, C. 1997. Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian Cities. Washington: Smithsonian Institu-
tion.
116
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Lechtman, H. 1977. Style in Technology – Some Early Thoughts. In: Lechtman, H. and Merrill, R. eds. Material
Culture. Styles, Organization and Dynamics of Technology. St. Paul: West Publishing: 3-20.
Lemonnier, P. ed. 1993. Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. New
York: Routledge.
Longacre, W.A. 1991. Sources of Ceramic Variability among the Kalinga. In: Longacre, W.A. ed. Ceramic Ethno-
archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona: 95-111.
Longacre, W.A. 1999. Standardization and Specialization: What’s the Link? In: Skibo, J.M. and Feinman, G.M.
eds. Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah: 44-58.
Maier, A.M. and Shai, I. 2006. Iron Age IIA Chalices from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath. In: Czerny, E. et al. eds. Timelines.
Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak Vol. 2 (OLA 149). Leuven: Peeters: 357-366.
Maier, A.M., Hitchcock, L.A. and Horwitz, K.L. 2013. On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identi-
ty. OJA 32/1: 1-32.
Mazar, A. 1985a. Excavations at Tel Qasile, Part Two: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Con-
clusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.
Mazar, A. 1985b. The Emergence of Philistine Material Culture. IEJ 35: 95-107.
Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem
42. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.
Nicklin, K. 1971. Stability and Innovation in Pottery Manufacture. WA 3: 13-48.
Panitz-Cohen, N. 2010. The Pottery Assemblage. In: Kletter, R., Ziffer, I. and Zwickel, W. eds. Yavneh I. The Ex-
cavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO SA30). Fribourg: Academic Press:
110-147.
Pool, C.A. and Bey, G.J. 2007. Conceptual Issues in Mesoamerican Pottery Economics. In: Pool, C.A. and Bey,
G.J. eds. Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica. Tucson: University of Arizona: 1-38.
Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Rice, P.M. 1996. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style and Origins. JAR 4/2: 133-163.
Roux, V. 1989. Le tour du potier. Spécialization artisanale et compétences techniques. En collaboration avec D.
Corbetta. Paris : Monographie du CRA No. 4.
Saraydar, S.C. 2008. Replicating the Past. The Art and Science of the Archaeological Experiment. Illinois: Wave-
land.
Schiffer, M.B. 1992. Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Schiffer, M.B. and Skibo, J.M. 1987. Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current An-
thropology 28: 595-622.
Shai, I. 2011. Philistia and the Philistines in Iron IIA. ZDPV 127: 119-134.
Shai, I. and Maier, A.M. 2012. The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3. In: Maier, A.M. ed.
Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath I: The 1996-2005 Seasons (ÄUAT 69). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 313-364.
Schortman, E.M. and Urban, P.A. 2004. Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies.
JAR 12/2: 185-226.
Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S. 2001. Technological Change in the East Mediterranean Bronze Age. In: Shortland, A.J.
ed. The Social Context of Technological Change, Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 B.C. Oxford: Oxbow:
15-38.
Sillar, B. 1997. Reputable Pots and Disreputable Potters: Individual and Community Choice in Present-day Pottery
Production and Exchange in the Andes. In: Cumberpatch, C.G. and Blinkhorn, P.W. eds. Not So Much a Pot,
More a Way of Life. Oxford: Oxbow Monographs 83: 1-20.
Stark, M.T. 1999. Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions. In: Chilton, E.S. ed. Ma-
terial Meanings. Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah: 24-43.
Steel, L. 2002. Consuming Passions. A contextual Study of the local Consumption of Mycenaean Pottery at Tell el-
Ajjul. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15/1: 25–51.
Stein, G.J. 1996. Producers, Patrons and Prestige: Craft Specialists and Emergent Elites in Mesopotamia from
5500-3100 B.C. in: Wailes, B. ed. Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon
Childe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania: 25–38.
Torrence, R. and van der Leeuw, S.E. eds. 1989. What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. Lon-
don: Unwin Hyman.
van der Leeuw, S.E. 1993. Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery Techniques. In: Lemonnier,
P. ed. Technological Choices. Transformations in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge:
238-288.
117
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
van Wijngaarden, G.J. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca.
1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.
Ziffer, I. 2010. The Iconography of the Cult Stands. in: Kletter, R., Ziffer, I. and Zwickel, W. eds. Yavneh I. The
Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO SA 30). Fribourg: Academic Press:
62-104.
118
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
APPENDIX A:
ABBREVIATIONS AND REGISTRATION CODES OF THE DATABASE
Abbreviations (in alphabetical order)
BKJT- black juglet; BL- bowl; BOR- Black on Red (juglet); BT- bottle; CH- chalice; FL- flask; JG- jug; JT- juglet;
PX- pyxis; SJ- storage jar; ST- fenestrated stand/chalice; PFL- white painted barrel flask. WPJT- white painted
juglet.
Quantitative Registration Codes
1 – complete
2 – complete profile
3 – almost complete
4 – rim and body
5 – base and body
6 – base
7 – handle
8 – rim
9 – neck and handle
10 - rim, neck and handle
11 – rim and neck
12 – body sherd
13 – chalice join
14 – chalice foot with base
15 – chalice semi-circle foot
16 – chalice join and almost complete foot
17 – chalice foot, no base
18 – chalice join and bowl bottom
19 – chalice foot and bowl bottom
20 – complete chalice foot up until join to bowl
21 – join and most of bowl
22 – join and complete bowl
Slip
1a – red inside
1b – red inside and outside
1c – red outside
1d – red inside and partially out
2a – red and horizontal hand burnish inside
2b – red and horizontal hand burnish inside and out-
side
2c – red and horizontal hand burnish outside
2d – red and horizontal hand burnish inside and par-
tially out
3 – red and irregular burnish
3a – red and irregular burnish inside
3b – red and irregular burnish inside and outside
Slip (continued)
3c – red and irregular burnish outside
3d – red and irregular burnish inside and partially
outside
4 – red and wheel burnish inside and outside
4a – red and polished burnish inside and outside
4b – red and polished burnish inside
4c – red and polished burnish outside
5 – black and vertical burnish outside
6 – black and polished burnish outside
7 – black and irregular burnish outside
8 – black with no burnish outside
9 – white
10 – self slip
10a – self slip and irregular burnish inside and out-
side
Painting
1 – black horizontal line
2 – Cypriot Black on Red
3 – Cypriot White Painted
4 – black design
5 – red lines
6 – black and red
Plastic Decoration
1 – knobs
2 – petals
Burnt
1 – inside
2 – outside
3 – inside and outside
4 – inside and rim exterior
5 – under rim interior
6 – inner and outer rim
119
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.1: Bowls
No. Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 BL8 7283/2 14b Red slip and irregular hand
burnish inside and outside
2 BL9 7283/55 14b
3 BL3 No number Red slip on interior and
exterior and black painted
lines on exterior
4 BL 7309/55 15 Red slip and horizontal hand
burnish inside
5 BL base 7332/1 15
6 BL base 7332/3 15 S-crack in base interior
7 BL base 7315/17 15 Red slip and irregular hand
burnish inside
8 BL base 7243/60 13
9 BL base 7309/61 15
10 BL base 7358/48 15
11 BL base 7358 15 Red slip and irregular hand
burnish inside and partially
outside
12 BL base 7309/55 15 Red slip and horizontal hand
burnish inside
120
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.1: Bowls
121
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.2: Chalices
No. Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CH3 7192/23 12
2 CH4 7171/50 12
3 CH1d 7292/61 14 Incised lines on exterior
4 CH 7173/513 12 Large, heavy
5 CH 7160/97 12 Prominent ribbing on exterior
6 CHC 7190/2 12
7 Fenestrated
chalice
7219/1 12 Not in database
8 Fenestrated
chalice
7410/6 15 Not in database
9 Fenestrated
chalice
7280/6 14 Not in database
10 Fenestrated
chalice
7410/8 15 Not in database
11 Fenestrated
chalice
7410/7 15 Not in database
122
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.2: Chalices
123
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.3: Decorated Chalices and Varia
No. Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CH2 7280/8 14
2 CH2? 7280/7 14
3 CH1c 7280/10 14
4 CH1d 7328/3 15
5 CH2 7370 15
6 CHB2 7446/1 15
7 CHA1 7338 15
8 CHA1 7332/29 15
9 CHA1 7446/3 15
10 CHA4 7326/4 15
11 Pyxis 7380/9 14
12 Storage
jar base?
7283/16 14
13 Spout 7195 12
14 Lid 7195/22 12 Reworked bowl base
124
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.3: Decorated Chalices and Varia
125
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.4: Chalices – Bowls with Pegs and Simple Bowl-Foot Attachments
No. Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 - 7192/110 12 Bowl with inserted peg
2 CH1c 7197/2 12 Bowl with inserted peg
3 - 7218/75 13 Bowl with inserted peg
4 - 7206/5 14 Bowl with inserted peg
5 - 7162/5 12 Bowl-foot simple attachment
6 CH3 7192/23 12 Bowl-foot simple attachment;
see Fig. 2:1
126
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.4: Chalices – Bowls with Pegs and Simple Bowl-Foot Attachments
127
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.5: Chalices – Foot Peg
Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CHA1 7173/6 12 Pl. 27:1-2
2 CHB2 7172/1 12
3 CH4 7171/50 12 See Fig. 7.2:2
4 CHB1 7162/1 12
128
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.5: Chalices – Foot Peg
129
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.6: Chalices – Foot Peg Attachment: 1–5; Inserted Disc: 6–7
Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CHB1 7160/9 12
2 CHB1 7192/25 12
3 CHA1 7160/15 12
4 CH1b 7173/10 12
5 CH1b 7173/513 12
6 - 7160/28 12 Pl. 29:1-2
7 CHA1 7160/10 12
130
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.6: Chalices – Foot Peg Attachment: 1–5; Inserted Disc: 6–7
131
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.7: Chalices – Foot Peg Attachment, Smeared Interior
Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 - 7218/76 13
2 - 7230/73 13
3 CH1c 7206/6 14
4 CH2 7171/2 12
132
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.7: Chalices – Foot Peg Attachment, Smeared Interior
133
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.8: Chalices – Foot Peg and Simple Attachment with Hole
Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CHB2 7197/8 12
2 CHC 7190/2 12
3 CHC 7162/512 12
4 CHA1 7192/27 12
5 CHA1 7182/6 12
6 CHA1 7160/15 12
134
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.8: Chalices – Foot Peg and Simple Attachment with Hole
135
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.9: Chalices – Simple Attachment with Hole
Type Reg. No. Locus Comments IAA No./location
1 CH1b 7190/4 12
2 CH2 7160/7 12
3 CH2 7195/52 12
4 - 7190/3 12
5 CHA3 7162/34 12
6 CHB1 7195/28 12
7 - 7172/5 12
136
CHAPTER 7: THE ‘PLAIN’ POTTERY
Fig. 7.9: Chalices – Simple Attachment with Hole
137
Plate 27
1. Painted stand 4 2. Painted stand 4
3. Painted stand 5
5. Painted stand 6
4. Painted stand 7
Plate 28
1. (Left): Foot with peg attachment, L12 B7173/6.
2. (Top): Close up; note extra clay added around join.
3. (Left middle): Chalice foot with solid peg 7190/8.
4. (Below): Close up, note remnants of clay at join of
bowl. Peeled away surface where extra clay existed to
reinforce the join.
6. Close up of No. 5 5. Join of bowl to foot peg, L12 B7156/57
Plate 29
1. Layer of extra clay with smear marks; note burnt interior; L12 B7271/1
2. Close up of interior
Plate 30
1. Top of disk inserted between join of bowl
and foot; view from inside bowl; B7160/28
3. Disc inserted into join of bowl to foot, B.7345/91 4. Disc inserted into join, view from foot, B7345/100
5. Small hole punched through bowl to foot; 6. Same item, view from foot
note smears of extra clay on bowl interior; B7136/6
2. Same, bottom of disk, view from foot
Plate 31
1. Small hole punched from bowl to foot, view from inside bowl; L12 B7171/2.
2. Same item, view of hole from the direction of the foot (the foot is missing)
Plate 32
1. Perforated hole; simple bowl attachment, B7345/4
3. Small plug in hole, view from bowl, B7182/54. Small plug in hole, view from foot, B7173/6.
5. Wide hole, view from bowl, L12 B7190/3 6. Same, view from foot
2. Same, view from foot
Plate 33: Formation of the bowl
1. Centering the hump and starting to trim the base 2. Trimming the base
3. Removing the finished bowl from the wheel
4. View of the wheel-formed base
Plate 34: Formation of the foot with peg
1. Removing the hollow foot from the wheel 2. Comparison of untrimmed foot and Yavneh peg
3.
3.-4. Trimming the top of the foot to form a peg
Plate 36: Formation of the foot without peg
1. Centering the hump of clay on the wheel 2. Drawing up and creating the hollow
3. Complete height of foot 4. Starting to form the flaring base
5. Flaring base formed 6. Comparison of replica and Yavneh chalice foot
Plate 37: Attachment of bowl to foot
1. Enhancing adhesion of join with etching & slip 2. Placing the bowl on the peg of the foot
3.-4. Lightly pressing the bowl onto the foot
5. Collapse of foot when bowl pressure was applied
Plate 38: Attachment of bowl to foot (continued)
1. Comparison of replica and Yavneh Chalice 2. Chalice sitting on its bowl, clay ring prepared
3. Application of ring at join of bowl and foot
5. Smearing of clay ring 6. Clay ring smoothed
4. Vertical smearing of clay ring
Plate 39: Perforation of narrow hole
1. Puncturing the bowl 2. Hole through the base, view from bowl
3. Hole through the base, view from foot
4. View of the hole; replica sectioned in the middle
Plate 40: Perforation of wide hole
1. Perforation of wide hole from inside the bowl
2. Continuing to perforate the wide hole
3.-4. Comparison of replica with a Yavneh Chalice (Left – view from bowl; Right – view from foot)
Plate 63
1.-2. Perforated leg of chalice, L15 B7418/4
3. Perforated wheel-made vessel, L15 B7328
ORBIS BIBLICUS ET ORIENTALIS
Lieferbare Bände
Bd. 215 SÉAMUS O’CONNELL: From Most Ancient Sources. The Nature and Text-Critical Use of Greek Old
Testament Text of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible. XII–188 pages. 2006.
Bd. 216 ERIKA MEYER-DIETRICH: Senebi und Selbst. Personenkonstituenten zur rituellen Wiedergeburt in
einem Frauensarg des Mittleren Reiches. XII–412 Seiten, 26 Tafeln. 2006.
Bd. 217 PHILIPPE HUGO: Les deux visages d’Élie. Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne
du texte de 1 Rois 17-18. XX–396 pages. 2006.
Bd. 218 STEFAN ZAWADZKI: Garments of the Gods. Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar
according to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive. XXIV–264 pages. 2006.
Bd. 219 CARSTEN KNIGGE: Das Lob der Schöpfung. Die Entwicklung ägyptischer Sonnen- und Schöpfungshymnen
nach dem Neuen Reich. XII-372 Seiten. 2006.
Bd. 220 SILVIA SCHROER (ed.): Images and Gender. Contributions to the Hermeneutics of Reading Ancient Art.
392 pages, 29 plates. 2006.
Bd. 221 CHRISTINE STARK: «Kultprostitution» im Alten Testament? Die Qedeschen der Hebräischen Bibel und
das Motiv der Hurerei. 262 Seiten. 2006.
Bd. 222 DAGMAR PRUIN: Geschichten und Geschichte. Isebel als literarische und historische Gestalt. XII–424
Seiten. 2006.
Bd. 223 PIERRE COULANGE: Dieu, ami des pauvres. Etude sur la connivence entre le Très-Haut et les petits. 304
pages. 2007.
Bd. 224 ANDREAS WAGNER (Hrsg.): Parallelismus membrorum. 320 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 225 CHRISTIAN HERRMANN: Formen für ägyptische Fayencen aus Qantir II. Katalog der Sammlung des
Franciscan Biblical Museum, Jerusalem und zweier Privatsammlungen. 176 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 226 JENS HEISE: Erinnern und Gedenken. Aspekte der biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit.
IV–396 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 227 HENRIKE FREY-ANTHES: Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzgänger. Vorstellungen
von Dämonen im alten Israel. 384 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 228 BOB BECKING: From David to Gedaliah. The Book of Kings as Story and History. XII–236 pages. 2007.
Bd. 229 ULRIKE DUBIEL: Amulette, Siegel und Perlen. Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und
Mittleren Reich. 250 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 230 MARIANA GIOVINO: The Assyrian Sacred Tree. A History of Interpretations. VIII–314 pages. 2007.
Bd. 231 PAUL KÜBEL: Metamorphosen der Paradieserzählung. X–246 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 232 SARIT PAZ: Drums, Women, and Goddesses. Drumming and Gender in Iron Age II Israel. XII–156 pages.
2007.
Bd. 233 INNOCENT HIMBAZA / ADRIAN SCHENKER (éds.): Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible. Du texte
à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J.-C. X–158 pages. 2007.
Bd. 234 RICARDO TAVARES: Eine königliche Weisheitslehre? Exegetische Analyse von Sprüche 28–29 und
Vergleich mit den ägyptischen Lehren Merikaras und Amenemhats. XIV–314 Seiten. 2007.
Bd. 235 MARKUS WITTE / JOHANNES F. DIEHL (Hrsg.): Israeliten und Phönizier. Ihre Beziehungen im Spiegel
der Archäologie und der Literatur des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. VIII–304 Seiten. 2008.
Bd. 236 MARCUS MÜLLER-ROTH: Das Buch vom Tage. XII–644 Seiten. 2008.
Bd. 237 KARIN N. SOWADA: Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom. XXIV–312 pages, 48
figures, 19 plates. 2009.
Bd. 238 WOLFGANG KRAUS (Hrsg.) / OLIVIER MUNNICH (éd.): La Septante en Allemagne et en France /
Septuaginta Deutsch und Bible d’Alexandrie. XII–316 Seiten. 2009.
Bd. 239 CATHERINE MITTERMAYER: Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata. Ein ungleicher Wettstreit. VI–426
Seiten, XIX Tafeln. 2009.
Bd. 240 ELIZABETH A. WARAKSA: Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct. Context and Ritual Function. XII–
252 pages. 2009.
Bd. 241 DAVID BEN-SHLOMO: Philistine Iconography. A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. XII–236 pages. 2010.
Bd. 242 JOEL M. LEMON: Yahweh’s Winged Form in the Psalms. Exploring Congruent Iconography and Texts.
XIV–244 pages. 2010.
Bd. 243 AMR EL HAWARY: Wortschöpfung. Die Memphitische Theologie und die Siegesstele des Pije – zwei Zeugen
kultureller Repräsentation in der 25. Dynastie. XIV–532 Seiten. 2010.
Bd. 244 STEFAN H. WÄLCHLI: Gottes Zorn in den Psalmen. Eine Studie zur Rede vom Zorn Gottes in den Psalmen
im Kontext des Alten Testaments. 200 Seiten. 2011.
Bd. 245 HANS ULRICH STEYMANS (Hrsg.): Gilgamesch. Ikonographie eines Helden. Gilgamesh: Epic and Iconog-
raphy. XII–464 Seiten, davon 102 Seiten Abbildungen. 2010.
Bd. 246 DONNA LEE PETTER: The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments. XXVI–208 pages. 2011.
Bd. 247 ERIKA FISCHER: Tell el-Farcah (Süd). Ägyptisch-levantinische Beziehungen im späten 2. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. X–442 Seiten, davon 100 Seiten Abbildungen. 2011.
Bd. 248 THIERRY PETIT: Œdipe et le Chérubin. Les sphinx levantins, cypriotes et grecs comme gardiens d’Immortalité.
X–390 pages. 90 pages d’illustrations. 2011.
Bd. 249 WALTER DIETRICH (Hrsg.): Seitenblicke. Literarische und historische Studien zu Nebenfiguren im zweiten
Samuelbuch. 472 Seiten. 2011.
Bd. 250 JEAN-MARIE DURAND / THOMAS RÖMER / MICHAEL LANGLOIS (éds.): Le jeune héros. Recherches
sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-Orient ancien. 376 pages. 2011.
Bd. 251 MARGARET JAQUES (Hrsg.): Klagetraditionen. Form und Funktion der Klage in den Kulturen der Antike.
120 Seiten. 2011.
Bd. 252 MICHAEL LANGLOIS: Le texte de Josué 10. Approche philologique, épigraphique et diachronique. 278
pages. 2011.
Bd. 253 PAUL BÉRÉ: Le second Serviteur de Yhwh. Un portrait exégétique de Josué dans le livre éponyme. XVI–284
pages. 2012.
Bd. 254 GODEFROID BAMBI KILUNGA: Prééminence de YHWH ou autonomie du prophète. Etude comparative
et critique des confessions de Jérémie dans le texte hébreu massorétique et la «Septante». XVI–224 pages.
2012.
Bd. 255 MAYER GRUBER / SHMUEL A .
HITUV / GUNNAR LEHMANN / ZIPORA TALSHIR (eds.): All the Wis-
dom of the East. Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren. XXVIII–568
pages. 2012.
Bd. 256 CATHERINE MITTERMAYER
/
SABINE ECKLIN (Hrsg.): Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal
Attinger. mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ˆ ga2- ˆg a 2-de3. XVIII–458 Seiten. 2012.
Bd. 257 JEAN-MARIE DURAND, THOMAS RÖMER et JÜRG HUTZLI (éds.): Les vivants et leurs morts. X–294
pages. 2012.
Bd. 258 RICHARD JUDE THOMPSON: Terror of the Radiance. Aššur Covenant to Yhwh Covenant. X–296 pages.
2013.
Bd. 259 JULIA M. ASHER-GREVE / JOAN GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ: Goddesses in Context. On Divine Powers,
Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources. XII-460 pages, including 155
figures. 2013.
Bd. 260
STEFAN ZAWADZKI:
Garments of the Gods. Vol. 2: Texts. XIV–768 pages. 2013.
Bd. 261
EVA ANDREA BRAUN-HOLZINGER:
Frühe Götterdarstellungen in Mesopotamien. VIII–238 Seiten mit
46 Bildtafeln. 2013.
Bd. 262 JOSHUA AARON ROBERSON: The Awakening of Osiris and the Transit of the Solar Barques. Royal Apoth-
eosis in a Most Concise Book of the Underworld and Sky. XII–184 pages. 2013.
Bd. 263 DAVID T. SUGIMOTO (
ed.
): Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite. XIV–234 pages
with 124 illustrations. 2014.
Bd. 264
LUDWIG D. MORENZ: Anfänge der ägyptischen Kunst. Eine problemgeschichtliche Einführung in ägyptolo-
gische Bild-Anthropologie. 288 Seiten, 164 Abbildungen. 2014.
Bd. 265 JEAN-MARIE DURAND
/
THOMAS RÖMER
/
MICAËL BÜRKI (éds.): Comment devient-on prophète?
Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 4-5 avril 2011. XII-236 pages. 2014.
Bd. 266 PATRICK M. MICHEL: Le culte des pierres à Emar à l’époque hittite. VIII-320 pages, 14 figures. 2014.
Bd. 26
7 CHRISTIAN FREVEL / KATHARINA PYSCHNY / IZAK CORNELIUS (eds.): A «Religious Revolution» in
Yehûd? The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case. X-450 pages with 287 illustrations. 2014.
Bd. 268
ERIKA BLEIBTREU / HANS ULRICH STEYMANS (Hrsg.): Edith Porada zum 100. Geburtstag. A Centenary
Volume. X-658 Seiten mit zahlreichen Abbildungen. 2014.
Bd. 269 ANGELIKA LOHWASSER (Hrsg.):
Skarabäen des 1. Jahrtausends.
Ein Workshop in Münster am 27. Oktober
2012. VIII-208 Seiten mit zahlreichen Abbildungen und 6 Farbtafeln. 2015.
Bd. 270 ANDREAS WAGNER (Hg.):
Göttliche Körper – Göttliche Gefühle.
Was leisten anthropomorphe und
anthropopathische Götterkonzepte im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament? X-286 Seiten. 2014.
Bd. 271
JEAN-GEORGES HEINTZ: Prophétisme et Alliance. Des Archives royales de Mari à la Bible hébraïque.
XXXIV-374 pages. 28 illustrations. 2015.
Bd. 272 ELISABETH VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN: Untersuchungen zur Geflügelwirtschaft im Alten Orient.
XVI-676 Seiten, 245 Abbildungen, 14 Karten, 25 Tabellen, 29 Grafiken. 2015.
Bd. 273 MARGARET JAQUES: «Mon dieu qu’ai-je fait?» Les diˆgir-šà-dab(5)-ba et la piété privée en Mésopotamie.
Mit einem Beitrag von Daniel Schwemer. Env. XIV-500 pages. 2015.
Bd. 274 JEAN-MARIE DURAND / MICHAËL GUICHARD / THOMAS RÖMER (éds.): Tabou et transgressions.
Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 11-12 avril 2012. XII-324 Seiten. 2015.
Sonderbände
CATHERINE MITTERMAYER, Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte. XII–292 Seiten.
2006.
SUSANNE BICKEL / RENÉ SCHURTE / SILVIA SCHROER / CHRISTOPH UEHLINGER (eds.): Bilder als
Quellen / Images as Sources. Studies on ancient Near Eastern artefacts and the Bible inspired by the work of Oth-
mar Keel. XLVI–560 pages. 2007.
ACADEMIC PRESS FRIBOURG
VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN
Bd. 1 JACQUES BRIEND / JEAN-BAPTISTE HUMBERT (éd.): Tell Keisan (1971–1976), une cité phénicienne en
Galilée. 392 pages, 142 planches, 1980.
Bd. 2 BERTRAND JAEGER: Essai de classification et datation des scarabées Menkhéperré. 455 pages avec 1007
illustrations, 26 planches avec 443 figures. 1982.
Bd. 3 RAPHAEL GIVEON: Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of the British Museum.
202 pages, 457 figures. 1985.
Bd. 4 SEYYARE EICHLER / MARKUS WÄFLER: Tall al-Hami
˙
¯di
˙
¯ya 1. Vorbericht 1984. 360 Seiten, 104 Tafeln,
4 Seiten Illu strationen, 4 Faltpläne, 1 vierfarbige Tafel. 1985.
Bd. 5 CLAUDIA MÜLLER-WINKLER: Die ägyptischen Objekt-Amulette. Mit Publikation der Sammlung des
Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, ehemals Sammlung Fouad S. Matouk. 590 Seiten,
40 Tafeln. 1987.
Bd. 6 SEYYARE EICHLER / MARKUS WÄFLER / DAVID WARBURTON: Tall al-Hami
˙
¯di
˙
¯ya 2. Symposium
Recent Excava tions in the Upper Khabur Region. 492 Seiten, 20 Seiten Illustrationen, 2 Falttafeln, 1 vierfar-
bige Tafel. 1990.
Bd. 7 HERMANN A. SCHLÖGL / ANDREAS BRODBECK: Ägyptische Totenfiguren aus öffentlichen und pri-
vaten Sammlungen der Schweiz. 356 Seiten mit 1041 Photos. 1990.
Bd. 8 DONALD M. MATTHEWS: Principles of composition in Near Eastern glyptic of the later second millennium
B. C. 176 pages, 39 pages with drawings, 14 plates. 1990.
Bd. 9 CLAUDE DOUMET: Sceaux et cylindres orientaux: la collection Chiha. Préface de Pierre Amiet. 220 pages,
24 pages d’illustrations. 1992.
Bd. 10 OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit. Einleitung. 376 Seiten mit 603 Abbildungen im Text. 1995.
Bd. 11 BEATRICE TEISSIER: Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age.
XII-224 pages with numerous illustrations, 5 plates. 1996.
Bd. 12 ANDRÉ B. WIESE: Die Anfänge der ägyptischen Stempelsiegel-Amulette. Eine typologische und religionsge-
schichtliche Untersuchung zu den «Knopfsiegeln» und verwandten Objekten der 6. bis frühen 12. Dynastie.
XXII-366 Seiten mit 1426 Abbildungen. 1996.
Bd. 13 OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen
bis zur
Perserzeit. Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Fara˘g bis ‘Atlit. VIII–808 Seiten mit 375-Phototafeln.
1997.
Bd. 14 PIERRE AMIET, JACQUES BRIEND, LILIANE COURTOIS, JEAN-BERNARD DUMORTIER: Tell el
Far‘ah. Histoire, glyptique et céramologie. 100 pages. 1996.
Bd. 15 DONALD M. MATTHEWS: The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria.
368 pages, 18 plates. 1997.
Bd. 16 SHUA AMORAI-STARK: Wolfe Family Collection of Near Eastern Prehistoric Stamp Seals. 208-pages. 1998.
Bd. 17 OLEG BERLEV / SVETLANA HODJASH: Catalogue of the Monuments of Ancient Egypt. From the Museums
of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Bielorussia, Caucasus, Middle Asia and the Baltic States. XIV-334 pages,
208 plates. 1998.
Bd. 18 ASTRID NUNN: Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens, Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum
4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. XII-280 Seiten, 78 Seiten Tafeln, 1 Karte. 2000.
Bd. 19 ANDREA M. BIGNASCA: I kernoi circolari in Oriente e in Occidente. Strumenti di culto e immagini
cosmiche. XII-328 Seiten. Tafeln und Karten inbegriffen. 2000.
Bd. 20 DOMINIQUE BEYER: Emar IV – Les sceaux. Mission archéologique de Meskéné-Emar. Recherches au pays
d’As˘tata. XIV–512 pages de texte, 72 planches. 2001.
Bd. 21 MARKUS WÄFLER: Tall al-H
.amı¯dı¯ya 3. Zur historischen Geographie von Idamaras
. zur Zeit der Archive von
Mari(2) und S
˘ubat-enlil/S
˘eh
˘na¯. Mit Beiträgen von Jimmy Brignoni und Henning Paul. 304 Seiten. 14 Karten.
2001.
ORBIS BIBLICUS ET ORIENTALIS, SERIES ARCHAEOLOGICA
Bd. 22 CHRISTIAN HERRMANN: Die ägyptischen Amulette der Sammlungen BIBEL+ORIENT der Universität
Freiburg Schweiz. X–294 Seiten, davon 126 Bildtafeln. 2003.
Bd. 23 MARKUS WÄFLER: Tall al-H
.amı¯dı¯ya 4. Vorbericht 1988-2001. 272 Seiten. 20 Pläne. 2004.
Bd. 24 CHRISTIAN HERRMANN: Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Band III. XII–364 Seiten, davon
107 Seiten Bildtafeln. 2006.
Bd. 25 JÜRG EGGLER / OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien. Vom Neolithikum bis zur
Perserzeit. XVIII–518 Seiten. 2006.
Bd. 26 OSKAR KAELIN: «Modell Ägypten». Adoption von Innovationen im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.
212 Seiten. 2006.
Bd. 27 DAPHNA BEN-TOR: Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections. Egypt and Palestine in the Second
Intermediate Period. XII–212 pages text, 228 plates. 2007.
Bd. 28 JAN-WAALKE MEYER: Die eisenzeitlichen Stempelsiegel aus dem ‘Amuq-Gebiet. Ein Beitrag zur
Ikonographie altorientalischer Siegelbilder. X–662 Seiten. 2008.
Bd. 29 OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit. Katalog Band II: Von Bahan bis Tel Eton. XIV–642 Seiten, davon 305 mit Fotos und Zeichnungen.
2010.
Bd. 30 RAZ KLETTER, IRIT ZIFFER, WOLFGANG ZWICKEL: Yavneh I. The Excavation of the «Temple Hill»
Repository Pit and the Cult Stands. XII-298 pages, 29 colour and 147 black and white plates. 2010.
Bd. 31 OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit. Katalog Band III: Von Tell el-Farca Nord bis Tell el-Fir. VIII–460 Seiten, davon 214 mit Fotos und
Zeichnungen. 2010.
Bd. 32 KARIN ROHN: Beschriftete mesopotamische Siegel der Frühdynastischen und der Akkad-Zeit. 368 Seiten +
74 Seiten Tafeln. 2011.
Bd. 33 OTHMAR KEEL: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit. Katalog Band IV: Von Tel Gamma bis Chirbet Husche. Mit Beiträgen von Baruch Brandl, Daphna
Ben-Tor und Leonardo Pajarola. XVI–720 Seiten, mit Fotos und Zeichnungen. 2013.
Bd. 34 AMIR GOLANI: Jewelry from the Iron Age II Levant. XII-336 pages incl. 35 plates with numerous figures.
2013.
ACADEMIC PRESS FRIBOURG
VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN
Summary
Yavneh II is the second and last excavation report on the dramatic favissa/genizah
pit full of Philistine votive objects, discovered by Raz Kletter in the city of Yavneh,
Israel, near the Mediterranean coast (south of Tel Aviv). The first volume, Yavneh I
(OBO.SA 30, 2010) included studies on the history and archaeological exploration of
Yavneh, the excavation, the stratigraphy and the interpretation of the pit as a favissae
of votive objects that originate from a public temple; but especially on the mysteri-
ous cult stands, which number more than a hundred and include many stands with
zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures. In the present volume we publish many
additional cultic finds, including fire pans or shovels that could be used for moving
hot coals and for burning incense (comparable to the biblical mah
.t-
ah); a rectangular
shrine-model (naos) with detached pillars; zoomorphic vessels; a larger sample of
pottery with statistical analysis; imported Cypriot pottery; dog bones (probably related
to ritual); an inscription on a bowl; fragments of worked stones (perhaps from altars);
and chemical residues from juglets and chalices, which seem to indicate presence of
hallucinatory and incense materials. In addition, we offer an update on the iconog-
raphy of the Yavneh cult stands and a study of the larger world of cult stands in the
southern Levant; criteria for identifying favissae and their appearance from the Late
Bronze Age to the Persian Period in Palestine; and a concluding discussion on Yavneh,
incense, and Philistine ethnicity.
