Typological Dating and Chronology

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”

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

Our Goal: identify pottery in strata

Modern Stratum

Stratum I

Stratum II

Step 1: pottery is cleaned

Step 2: pottery is sorted and labeled

Step 3: pottery is analyzed & drawn

Step 4: complete forms are studied

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

Ceramic Typology(Late Bronze pottery)

Evolution of the Cooking Pot

• Example of Form• Example of Form Variant• Example of Ware• Example of Manufacture

Philistine Pottery

• decoration• form• form variant• manufacture• ware

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

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

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.

Ware

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

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

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

Aharoni and Amiran’s Chronology

X and IX: 950-875 B.C.E. VIII: 875-841 B.C.E. VII: 841-815 B.C.E. VI: 815-765 B.C.E. V: 765-732 B.C.E. IV: end of 8th - early 7th

Comparison of different sites

Cypro-Phonecian

• after IA II• not clear• until IA III

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)

Early Shallow Types

Tell Beit MirsimStratum B3

Hazor, Area AStratum VIII

Late Shallow Types:Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A1

Late Shallow Type:Hazor Strata VIII and later

Deep Type: Tell Beit Mirsim

Comparing Strata: conclusions