2 Goals for the DayUnderstand how stratigraphy is used to separate out potteryUnderstand the basics of ceramic typologyUnderstand how ceramic typology is used to compare strata from different sitesHazor will be used as a “case study”
3 Stratigraphy and ceramic typology Earlier we talked about stratigraphythis is used to separate layers at a particular sitebut we still need to compare strata from other sitesCeramic typology allows for the relative chronology between different sitesWe 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 StratumStratum IStratum II
9 Step 5: comparison is made to other sites start with pottery from identified strata at one siteafter these forms are analyzed, then you compare with other sitesyou want to identify similarities between strata at different sitesthe similar strata allow you to construct a relative chronology
13 Form “form” describes function cooking potstorage jarsmilk bowlbeer jugmost forms occurs throughout history of telforms in Palestine / Israel are agrarian
14 Form Variant assume that items develop over time we see this in an automobilewe also see this in items like modern potsforms develop over time (like cooking pot)some are radical changes and some subtle
15 DecorationNot as important in Palestinian / Israelite archaeology (but compare others)Burnishingin MB IIA: fine burnishingin IA II: interior burnishing on wheelPainting: esp. important in Philistine formsOther 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 formwhat 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 chronologyThe 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 usedour purpose is not to test their argumentN.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-Phonecianafter IA IInot clearuntil IA III
21 Cooking pots: a clear distinction Early Shallow Type: Hazor VIII and earlierLate Shallow Type: Hazor VII and laterDeep Type: only in Judaheighth 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
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.