1. Typological Dating and Chronology

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

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

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

5. Step 1: pottery is cleaned

6. Step 2: pottery is sorted and labeled

7. Step 3: pottery is analyzed & drawn

8. Step 4: complete forms are studied

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

10. Ceramic Typology (Late Bronze pottery)

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

12. Philistine Pottery
decoration
form
form variant
manufacture
ware

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Aharoni and Amiran’s Chronology
X and IX: B.C.E.
VIII: B.C.E.
VII: B.C.E.
VI: B.C.E.
V: B.C.E.
IV: end of 8th - early 7th

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

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

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

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

24. Late Shallow Type: Hazor Strata VIII and later

25. Deep Type: Tell Beit Mirsim

26. Comparing Strata: conclusions