JOSEPH NAVEH
Department of Ancient Semitic Languages
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905
Israel
The article suggests a new reading of the Aramaic inscription
from Failaka (Kuwait) and dates it, with the Greek inscriptions
found on the island, to the third century B.C. This date is
corroborated by the revision of the generally accepted view
of the latest use of the Lapidary Aramaic script.
RICHARD A. HORSLEY
Department of Classics and Religion
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02125
The innovative regional approach taken by Meyers, Strange,
and their associates to the excavation and interpretation
of Upper Galilean villages has generated a fresh perspective
as well as important new information for Galilee in late antiquity.
The results of their explorations also stimulate reassessment
of standard assumptions and concepts according to which both
archaeologists and textual scholars have constructed the culture
and the social world of Galilee. Further dialogue between
archaeologists and social historians may move toward more
critically established models and concepts through which both
material and textual evidence can be appropriately analyzed
and interpreted.
ERIC M. MEYERS
Department of Religion
Duke University
POB 90964
Durham, North Carolina 27708-0964
This response to Richard A. Horsley's call for dialogue
between archaeologists and text-oriented New Testament scholars
reflects the interest in such dialogue that has burgeoned
in recent years. The article points out that between the late
1960s and the 1980s, the state of the art has changed dramatically.
In the earlier period, archaeologists had little to guide
them in the way of ceramic chronology and there was little
history of scientific stratigraphic excavation--especially
for the later periods; nor was there significant infrastructure
in the region to facilitate their work. Much of that situation
has changed over time, as recent studies both of material
culture and of textual sources show more than adequately.
In light of the many changes in recent years, it is appropriate
for both text-oriented scholars and field archaeologists to
work together toward a common methodology that will enhance
the research agendas of both fields. This response is a beginning
at such a dialogue.
MORDECHAI HAIMAN
Israel Antiquities Authority
PO.B. 586
Jerusalem 91004
Israel
The Negev is an arid desert, where the natural conditions
do not allow for subsistence on agriculture. Nevertheless,
remnants of ancient agriculture, particularly a tremendous
network of terraced wadis, are scattered over an area exceeding
3000 km. According to recent studies, the well-preserved remains
of agricultural systems point to two waves of settlement.
One wave was in the Byzantine period (fifth to seventh century
C.E.), when settlements were dispersed along a strip extending
50 km south of the Beer Sheva Valley. The second wave, in
the Umayyad period (seventh to eighth century C.E.), extended
about 30 km beyond the Byzantine settlement. The expansion
of agriculture in the midst of the wilderness can be attributed
to two developments. One was imperial policy during the Byzantine
and Umayyad periods, which encouraged agricultural settlements
on the frontier. The other was an anticipated process known
to occur among seminomads living on the margins of permanent
settlements. In this process, the seminomads gradually shifted
from nomadism to spontaneous settlements, which culminated
in sedentarization by the state.
NAOMI E MILLER
University of Pennsylvania Museum
33rd and Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Aspalathus, a plant mentioned in Pliny the Elder's
Natural History, Dioscorides' De Materia Medica,
Theophrastus' Enquiry into Plants, and Ecclesiasticus
is most probably caper (Capparis sp.). It has an Akkadian
linguistic cognate, supalu. Ethnobotanical, archaeobotanical,
and linguistic evidence show that this plant has played a
role in the ancient, but ongoing cultural tradition in the
Near East.
In the same region [Cyprus] grows camel's thorn [aspalathos],
a white thorn of the size of a moderate-sized tree, with the
flower of a rose; the root is in request for unguents. People
say that any shrub over which a rainbow forms its arch gives
out a scent as sweet as that of the aspalathus, but that if
this happens in the case of an aspalathus a scent rises that
is indescribably sweet. Some call this shrub red scepter [erysisceptrum]
and others scepter. The test of its genuineness lies in its
fiery red colour, firmness to the touch and scent like that
of beaver-oil. It is sold for 5 denarii a pound (Pliny, Nat.
Hist. 12.52.10).
Aspalathus, some call Erysisceptron [i.e., red scepter].
It is a woody kind of shrub having many prickly thornes, growing
in Istrus, and Nisyrus, and Syria, and Rhodes, which the ointment-makers
use for the thickening of their ointments. That is good which
is heauie, and after it is barked about, enclining to a red
or a purple colour, thick, odoriferous, and bitter in the
taste (Dioscorides, De Materia Medica 1, 19).
I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and aspalathus, and I
yielded a pleasant odour like the best myrrh, as galbanum,
and onyx, and sweet storax, and as the fume of frankincense
in the tabernacle (Ecclesiasticus 24:15).
Now this is a general list of the plants used for perfumes:
cassia cinnamon cardamom spikenard nairon balsam of Mecca
aspalathos storax iris narte kostos all-heal saffron-crocus
myrrh kypeiron ginger-grass sweet-flag sweet marjoram lotos
dill. Of these it is the roots, bark, branches, wood, seeds,
gum or flowers which in different cases yield the perfume.
Some of them grow in many places, but the most excellent and
most fragrant all come from Asia and sunny regions. From Europe
itself comes none of them except the iris (Theophrastus, Enquiry
into Plants 9.7.3).
WILLIAM G. DEVER
Department of Near Eastern Studies
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
This article reviews a number of recent histories of ancient
Israel, both in terms of general historiographical issues
and of their use of archaeological data. The underlying questions
may be: (1) "Is it any longer possible to write a history
of ancient Israel based on texts alone?" and (2) "What kind
of history do we want, or think possible?"
Book Reviews
Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant,
by A. Gopher. American Schools of Oriental Research, Dissertation
Series 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. xviii + 325
pp., 116 figures, 29 tables. $47.50
I approached reviewing this monograph with some trepidation.
A title of Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant did not
exactly promise to be a page tumer; and the subtitle, "A Seriation
Analysis," did little to alleviate this fear. Fortunately,
I was pleasantly surprised, and the biggest criticism I have
is that the title should be changed to attract a wider readership.
The work is a slightly updated version of Gopher's 1985
Hebrew University Ph.D. dissertation. Gopher's principal task
was to " . . . attempt the development of a viable chronostratigraphic
framework for the period between 8500 B.C. and 4500 B.C. in
the Levant, using traditional research methods of relative
chronology (seriation, in this case multidimensional) combined
with the radiometric record" (p. 3). To accomplish his goal,
he pursued two primary objectives. The first was to build
a detailed chronological framework to aid in the construction
and interpretation of the sequence of Neolithic cultures in
the Levant (p. 22). The bulk of the work is devoted to that
aim. The second objective was to show the existence of a geographic-subregional
division among Neolithic populations in the Levant and to
trace the course of their development and relationships (p.
23). Gopher goes far in achieving these objectives; and even
if not all scholars will agree with all of his methodologies,
results, or conclusions, it is undeniable that he presents
a tremendous amount of information. The book consists of 9
chapters, 17 exhaustive appendixes, a bibliography, and an
index of sites.
Chapter 1 is a brief introduction to the Levantine Neolithic.
Here Gopher observes that despite tremendous advances in our
comprehension of the Neolithic, some studies have suffered
from not always having a reliable data base. He notes that
several fundamental problems of chronology, local and regional
stratigraphic and cultural sequences, developments in material
culture, and the interpretations of palaeobotanical and palaeontological
data have hampered resolution of many key Neolithic issues.
Gopher hopes to resolve some of these problems-particularly
the crucial one of chronostratigraphy-through a thorough examination
of one of the most common data sets of the various Neolithic
periods, that of "arrowheads" (or perhaps more properly, "projectile
points").
In chapter 2, Gopher provides a very useful discussion of
the history of Neolithic research in the Levant, dividing
the period into four chronological stages. The first was an
exploratory stage commencing with Buzy's 1928 definition of
the fuzzy concept of "Tahunian." Gopher does an admirable
job of showing the complexity that arose with this term. During
the 1950s, the second stage saw a tremendous amassing of new
and better-controlled data, with a principal objective of
defining fundamental problems associated with the "Neolithic
Revolution." Stage 3 flourished during the 1970s, when many
excavations were conducted at sites in an attempt to resolve
difficulties encountered from earlier studies. Additionally,
large-scale excavations were undertaken at several sites;
and much of the research was directed toward explanatory or
behavioral models. During Stage 4, in which we presently are
engaged, more problem-oriented projects are being pursued;
those often are of a smaller scale, concentrating on specific
geographic areas or particular issues.
Chapter 3 treats terminology. Gopher sets up the conceptual
framework of terms used throughout his research, which largely
follows Near Eastem consensus (if such can be said to exist).
He differentiates between "synchronic" and "diachronic" terminologies
and states the reasonable preference of using terms such as
"Pre-Pottery Neolithic" and "Pottery Neolithic" in a diachronic
sense, stressing the need for a uniform terminology applicable
throughout the Levant.
In chapter 4, Gopher defines the methodology used, as well
as his sources of data, defending his use of arrowheads as
the primary data analysis category. He classifies his large
data base into five levels composed of decreasing orders of
reliability. Level I consists of 9 stratified sites, Level
2 of 21 single-stratum sites, Level 3 of 8 systematic surface
collections, Level 4 of 10 "grab" samples, and Level 5 of
several problematic assemblages. Gopher then provides a thorough
typology of Neolithic arrowheads, defining several types.
This compendium will be a critical resource to researchers
in their attempts at classification. To build a relative chronology,
a major goal of Gopher's study was the seriation analysis
of the arrowhead assemblages; he concludes this chapter with
a brief, but comprehensive, discussion of seriation studies.
Chapter 5, a survey of the sites, is an extremely useful
source of information. This is an up-to-date summary of some
very difficult-to-access data, as well as information from
major sites. Since the emphasis is on arrowheads, this chapter
does not provide a complete summary of each site; some sites
are discussed more thoroughly than others. A more useful approach
would have been to provide a consistent pattern of information.
That is, for some sites we are given an idea of the entire
assemblage, but not for others. Nonetheless, this long and
well-illustrated chapter is a gold-mine of information. Certainly
one may quibble with some details, such as Gopher's frequent
jabs at some American researchers who worked on some of these
sites; but he has performed an invaluable service by summarizing
so much information.
Chapter 6 presents the results of the seriation analysis.
This is by far the most technical part of the monograph. I
must confess some stress at understanding all of the statistics
in sufficient manner, and cannot help but feel that figs.
6.3 and 6.4 resemble huge "smiley face" graphs. The arguments
Gopher makes, however, seem convincing and the results of
his analysis are likewise compelling. The seriation allows
Gopher to define five groups that are, presumably, chronological
in nature.
Chapter 7 assesses the seriation in relation to the absolute
chronology, based on radiocarbon determinations of several
of the sites. It is here that Gopher is perhaps a little too
conservative in his preference for "old fashioned" relative
dating techniques, which he sees as serving archaeologists
better (p. 226). Once again, however, Gopher provides a very
useful compendium of radiocarbon determinations (discussed
here and in detail in Appendix H). Certain to spark some debate
is Gopher's contention that Levantine Neolithic sites present
a ". . . picture of relatively short-term occupations" (p.
242). This is particularly provocative since Gopher believes
that not only were smaller sites in the and zones short-lived,
but that larger settlements such as Jericho also were. There
are many complications here; and although Gopher presents
an intriguing scenario, his evidence is not sufficiently compelling
to completely support it. Indeed, at large settlements in
westem Jordan, such as 'Ain Ghazal or Wadi Shu'eib, the evidence
points to long-term, continuous occupations. Gopher's conclusions
demand additional explanation and certainly this is fodder
for new investigations.
Gopher seems convinced of the existence of the "PrePottery
Neolithic C" (PPNC) as a transitional phase between the Pre-Pottery
and Pottery Neolithic. This is comforting, for I remember
Gary Rollefson and myself pondering the significance of this
previously undefined phase when its existence became apparent
at 'Ain Ghazal, and I jokedly suggested the term "PPNC"-which,
it appears, has stuck. The chapter concludes with the observation
that a good fit is generally obtained between the radiocarbon
determinations and the seriation.
Chapter 8 examines the geographic distribution of the sites.
Although short, it also is one of the most interesting chapters.
Here Gopher examines the interrelationships between the groups
of hunter/gatherers, agriculturalists, and pastoralists who
inhabited the Levant during the Neolithic. He does so by both
stylistic and diffusion analyses. Through the stylistic study,
Gopher divides the Neolithic into regional variants, and examines
the degree of uniformity among assemblages. In general, there
is a considerable degree of similarity, but this varies by
group. The diffusion analysis also yields some interesting
conclusions. In essence, Gopher believes ". . . that there
was a network of interrelationships over the entire Levant,
and in my opinion one cultural system with a high degree of
homogeneity was operating in these areas" (p. 252).
Gopher provides a provocative discussion in chapter 8, examining
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), Pre Pottery Neolithic
B (PPNB), and Pottery Neolithic A (PNA), sure to cause dissent
among some researchers. One conclusion I cannot readily accept
is that it was during the PPNA that the classic Near Eastem
dichotomy between sedentary settler/agriculturalists and nomadic
hunter/gatherers (and by implication pastoralists?) began.
Compelling evidence has come from recent research in Jordan
indicating that this division was later, during the end of
the PPNB.
Finally, chapter 9 is a brief summary. Gopher concludes
that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic developed in a regular and
continuous manner all over the Levant without major interruptions.
As with chapter 8, several of Gopher's conclusions here are
provocative. This is healthy, in my opinion. One conclusion,
that of short-term occupation of sites, has already been addressed.
Another example is Gopher's conclusion relating to the beginning
of urbanism during the Pottery Neolithic. This is a complex
issue, and certainly some researchers, believing in a general
cultural deterioration during the Pottery Neolithic, would
look elsewhere for the development of urbanism. Nonetheless,
these are the types of issues that current research may fruitfully
investigate; and Gopher has provided some intriguing claims
to test.
In conclusion, this is a very useful work whose interests
transcends its rather narrow title. It also is well assembled.
I noted few typographic errors, except for one rather unfortunate
misspelling on the second-to-last page, where Gopher refers
to the split between agriculturalists and pastoralists as
the ". . . desert and the sawn" (page 267), when clearly the
intended word was "sown."
Gopher has provided a thorough summary of a huge amount
of data, from which many researchers will benefit. Certainly
there are some difficulties with the work. One might have
wished for more thorough treatment of recently examined Jordanian
Neolithic materials, for example; but understandably Gopher
had to draw the line somewhere. This is an excellent example
of a dataoriented publication that offers a considerable amount
of contemporary explanation as well, even if not everyone
will agree with all of the conclusions.
Alan H. Simmons
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953:
Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart,
by Albert Leonard, Jr. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, vol. 50, edited by Eric M. Meyers and William G.
Dever. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. 121 pp. + 38 plates.
$40.00.
Scholars and students interested in the early settlement
periods of the Jordan valley will rediscover some old friends
and make some new ones in this volume. Soundings at seven
sites, including two well known ftom differ ent soundings
published by H. de Contenson, are presente in the light of
the original recorded observations of thei excavator, James
Mellaart. All of the sites are given ne meaning through the
fresh interpretations and dedicated la bors of Albert Leonard.
In 1953, in preparation for an irrigation project in th
Jordan Valley, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities sponsored
an extensive survey, which recorded over 10 sites. Soundings
were permitted at eight sites, six on th east bank of the
Jordan and two on the west bank. Th soundings were carried
out under the direction of de Con tenson and Mellaart (along
with Jordanian archaeologists e.g., Hasan Abu 'Awad at Tell
Shuneh Meshaweh) unde the overall supervision of G. Lancaster
Harding. De Contenson worked at one of the sites alone, Tell
es-Saidiyeh Tahta, and together with Mellaart at two others,
Tell esh Shuneh Meshaweh ("Shuneh North"), and Tell Abu Habil
although on separate parts of the mounds. Mellaart worke alone
at two sites on the West Bank, Tell el-Mafjar an Tell Jiftlik;
two on the East Bank, Tell Umm Hamad esh Sherqi and Tell el-Mefaliq;
and one in the Yarmuk Valley Tell Jamid. The results of de
Contenson's soundings wer published with pottery plates (1960).
Mellaart (1962 offered a preliminary report on the overall
survey, assess ing the importance of the various sites in
view of th planned irrigation projects. De Contenson (1964)
com pleted the early reports with added further comments an
brief description of artifacts from 11 sites in the Sout Yarmuk
Valley, 24 sites in the East Jordan Valley, and sites in the
West Jordan Valley. This volume provides closure to the 1953
efforts by summarizing the results of Mellaart's work at seven
sites with special emphasis on the pottery.
A similar, well-structured, basic format is followed in
the presentation of the materials from each site. Short introductions
describing the locations and shapes of the mounds are followed
by brief treatments of the stratigraphy (when available) and
thorough presentations of the ceramic objects. The pottery
is classified according to basic forms (bowls, cups, hole
mouth jars, etc.) with specific types designated usually by
morphological features. Where the recorded stratigraphy permits,
the ceramic assemblages are described level by level (Tell
Jamid), upper and lower strata (Tell Abu Habil), or earlier
and later (Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi). Each chapter includes an
artifact index listing the illustrated materials layer by
layer. Lithic assemblages at three of the sites (Tell el-Mafjar,
Tell Abu Habil, and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi) are briefly
treated. Figures include helpful site sketch maps locating
the soundings on the mounds (except for Tell Jiftlik), formal
plans for any substantial architecture, and section drawings
ranging from sketches to full descriptive renderings. The
artifacts are presented in 38 plates with full descriptions.
There is considerable variation in the number and size (not
always clearly indicated) of the soundings at these seven
sites. At Tell Jiftlik there was no actual sounding. Artifacts
were selected from a road-section cut. The approximate depth
of occupation was between I and 2 m. Small soundings were
made at Tell el-Mafjar (5 x 4.5 m x 2 m deep), Tell Abu Habil
(2 x 3 m x 2 m deep) and Tell el-Mefaliq (no size given).
Multiple soundings (trenches) were carried out at Tell Jamid
(two irregular trenches), Tell esh-Shuneh Mashaweh, three
trenches later combined into one L-shaped area, (5 x 10 m
plus 5 x 5 m) and Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi, three trenches
(5 x 5 m, 2 x 4 m, and 5 x 5 m). Assessed occupational ranges
vary from typical Ghassulian Chalcolithic (3800-3500 B.C.E.)
at Tell Jiftlik to Lake Chalcolithic (Tell el-Mafjar, Tell
Abu Habil) to Proto-Urban-EB I (Tell esh-Shuneh Meshaweb,
Tell Umm Hamad esh-Sherqi (with later EB material at both
sites), and EB I-II at Tell Jamid.
It is interesting that none of Mellaart's soundings appear
to have both Late Chalcolithic and Proto-Urban-EB I materials.
Cultural materials described as Late Chalcolithic in earlier
reports are here associated with ProtoUrban-EB 1. At Tell
esh-Shuneh Meshaweh, Mellaart's soundings were on the lower
westem side of the mound and did not encounter the Chalcolithic
remains found by de Contenson on the higher central area.
Moreover, the more recent soundings at this site have been
unable to establish a connection between the earlier Chalcolithic
materials and the EB levels (Baird and Philip 1994).
Some unusual painted sherds from Tell Abu Habil, especially
a bicolor sherd with red and black design on a cream slip,
are more fully explained in a later article by Leonard (1989)
on Chalcolithic "fine ware" from Kataret es-Samra. Similar
sherds have been reported from Tell eh-Shuneh 1, and Tell
Tsaf (Gophna and Sadeh, 1988- 1989, figs. 6-8; pl. 3; p. 34).
They represent an important regional variant of Chalcolithic
painted pottery traditions in the Jordan Valley.
There are numerous inconsistencies in the editing. Subtitles
are normally given for introductory material but are missing
in two chapters (pp. 34, 64). Chapter numbers are given in
the table of contents, but not used in the text. The term
"Late Chalcolithic" is indicated in a table, p. 95, although
the text refers to the material as PU-EB 1. A number (4) is
shown in fig. 13 (p. 65) but not explained in the caption.
Some drawings have no scale (p. 79). Plates are referred to
in Roman numerals (p. 69) instead of Arabic as on the plates
themselves. Palestine grid reference points, provided in the
original preliminary report by Mellaart, are lacking.
One of the strongest features of the volume is the extensive
listing of ceramic parallels in each chapter. Students of
this period will find these carefully chosen parallels an
excellent guide for their own comparative studies.
In summary, the material presented in this volume offers
the rediscovery of important materials that could easily have
been permanently lost. The dedication of the author in pursuing
these materials and bringing them to publication is highly
commendable. Thanks also are due to James Mellaart, who willingly
turned over these materials for publication. Those who use
this volume carefully will be made aware, if they were not
before, of the importance of the Jordan Valley for our understanding
of the earlier settlement periods in Palestine.
R. Thomas Schaub
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
REFERENCES
Baird, D., and Philip, G.
1994 Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season of Excavations
at Tell esh-Shuneh North. Levant 26: 11-34.
de Contenson, H.
1960 Three Soundings in the Jordan Valley. Annual of the Department
of Antiquities of Jordan 4-5: 19-28.
1964 The 1953 Survey in the Yarmuk and Jordan Valleys. Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 8-9: 30-46.
Gophna, R., and Sadeh, S.
1988-1989 Excavations at Tel Tsaf: An Early Chalcolithic Site
in the Jordan Valley. Tell Aviv 15-16: 3-36.
Leonard, A., Jr.
1989 A Chalcolithic "Fine Ware" from Kataret es-Samra in the
Jordan Valley. Bulletin the American Schools of Oriental Research
276: 3-14.
Mellaart, J.
1962 Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Survey in the
Yarmouk and Jordan Valleys. Annual of the Department of Antiquities
Jordan 6-7: 126-57.
The Uruk World System: The Dynamics
of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, by Guillermo
Algaze. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. xvii
+ 162 pp., 47 figures. $39.95.
This is an important book for anyone interested in the subject.
Earlier comments on Algaze's arguments are found in response
to the first presentation of his hypothesis to a wider public
in Current Anthropology (1989: 571-608).
The introduction to the current work provides an excellent
summary of the book's thesis. Sumerian civilization expanded
in the late Uruk period over a wide area (southwestern Iran
[Elam], northern Mesopotamia and Syria, southem Anatolia,
and western and central Iran). This ex pansion, driven by
a search for natural resources not available in southem Mesopotamia,
involved the contact of more complex cultures (the Sumerians)
with less complex cultures, represented a politically unstructured
form of empire, and was disruptive both to the Chalcolithic
cultures of greater Mesopotamia and to Sumer. This expansion
(and ultimate contraction) was the first expression of a rhythm
of intercultural engagement and disengagement between core
and periphery that characterizes all later Mesopotamian history.
Chapter 2 deals with the penetration of Uruk culture into
Elam. Algaze argues that this involves actual colonization
by Sumerians. The very close cultural connections between
the two regions, attested by their strikingly similar archaeological
assemblages, are, without question, remarkable. I am unable
to decide whether the Late Uruk phenomenon of Godin V emanated
from Elam or Sumer, so close are the relations between those
two regions in this period. Yet I hesitate to agree that the
data indicate a colonization of Elam by Sumerians. Where did
all the people of the third millennium who lived in Elan go?
Were they killed off like some native peoples in North America?
Were they driven east into the mountains as many North American
natives were driven west? Or did Khuzistanis simply take over
Sumerians culture in late Uruk times as the upper and upper
middle classes of many modem Near Eastem countries have taken
over westem material culture? We have excavated too few sites,
particularly small sites (i.e., nonelite), to have answers.
Chapter 3 deals with Uruk settlements in Syro-Mesopotamia
(northern Mesopotamia and north Syria), southem Anatolia,
and central westem Iran. Here are the core data for the argument:
that Late Uruk Mesopotamia established cultural and commercial
enclaves in these areas to acquire material resources unavailable
in Sumer. This expansion is a different form of empire than
observed in the Sumerian expansion into Elam. The parallel
is the penetration of India by The Honourable East India Company.
The goal was commercial exploitation with a minimum of political
responsibility.
Algaze argues that the pattern of the Sumerian penetration
of Syro-Mesopotamia and southem Anatolia was to establish
Uruk enclaves along the rivers. Geographically this makes
sense. I would ask, however, where are most of the sites we
have surveyed and dug in the last 15 years? They are primarily
on the rivers because almost all the sites dug are the result
of salvage archaeology, and such work is dictated primarily
by the location of modem dams. Until we are free to choose
sites for historical and not for modem economic reasons, the
full pattern of Uruk penetration into these regions cannot
be reconstructed.
Research on these matters in westem Iran was not dictated
by salvage requirements, but results are scanty. Here Algaze's
arguments suffer from a lack of experience on the ground.
The fort of Godin V is certainly not built "to local highland
canons" (p. 53): it looks more like the Temple Oval at Khafaje.
The stratification of Sialk IV does not permit the fine distinctions
Algaze makes. Godin V cannot postdate Susa Acropole 17. Movement
east to west across the Zagros is not easy and there are not
several routes. More important, I am convinced that the penetration
of Late Uruk culture onto the Iranian Plateau is quite different
from that documented at Habuba Kabira and some other sites
in Syria and southern Anatolia, and, therefore, that the relationships
between the lowlanders and the local cultures are quite different.
Algaze sees it as the same.
Chapters 4 to 6 contain the essence of Algaze's interpretations
of the nature and impact of the Late Uruk expansion. Chapter
4 deals with the function of the outlying Uruk settlements.
Aside from several small and not so small problems, such as
misunderstandings of Zagros geography and a failure to consider
some of the significant chronological problems associated
with Uruk influence on northern Mesopotamia (I am indebted
to Michael Roaf for drawing this to my attention), one major
problem deserves comment. After a excellent discussion of
the goods being imported to Sumer, Algaze observes that these
commodities had been being imported ". . . for centuries,
if not millennia, preceding the Uruk period" (p. 83), Exactly.
The reader has been wondering for some time how the author
will deal with the remarkable expansion of Ubaid and Ubaid-related
cultures long before the Uruk period began. The problem, however,
is disposed of with the comment that what was different about
the Ur-uk expansion was variety-and presumably quantity."
Nothing is said about why the social and political impact
of the Uruk-period contacts of Su mer with other parts of
greater Mesopotamia cannot simply be seen as a presumably
large-scale version of the kinds of social and political interplay
between core and periphery that had been a pattern since the
sixth millennium. Surely bv at least late Ubaid times southern
Mesopotamia was a more complex culture than, say, the cultures
of the contemporary central Zagros; and Sumer was already
having a profound cultural impact on other regions (cf. the
North Temple of Gawra XIII and the late Ubaid temples of Eridu).
In short, if we are to believe that Late Uruk expansion is
a "first time" example of the interplay of an advanced Mesopotamian
culture with less complex peripheral cultures, the Ubaid phenomenon
must be dealt with in detail-and dismissed in detail as not
comparable.
Chapter 5 deals with "The Late Chalcolithic Period in Syro-Mesopotamia."
An excellent discussion of chronology. which includes several
useful mini site reports, concludes that there was a continuous
development of local cultures going back well before the Late
Uruk enclaves (p. 92). This is followed by a discussion of
the nature of late Chalcolithic political and social integration,
and concludes (p. 96) that we have here "complex chiefdoms."
I do not believe we have any useful evidence on social or
political structures for late Chalcolithic Syro-Mesopotamia.
Then a discussion of the relations between the Uruk enclaves
and the local Chalcolithic cultures concludes that they were
primarily economic and not political (p. 97), which is logical,
with which I instinctively agree, and for which, again, we
have little evidence.
Chapter 6 deals with social change in Syro-Mesopotamia resulting
from the Late Uruk expansion and with the collapse of that
expansion. The argument has an appealing inherent logic to
it, but the data once again are not there. For example, at
Hammam et Turkman we have a bit of Mesopotamian-style crenellated
wall and, from the surface of the site, one Uruk-related jar
sealing. This is interpreted (pp. 100-101) as clear evidence
of the local elite adopting Sumerian social and political
structures. At Arslan Tepe we have some mass-produced local
pottery, and sealings (mostly stamp, but some cylinder, predominantly
from one room). This is taken as evidence of " . . . a collection
point for resources and tribute drawn from the surrounding
region, presumably for redistribution to palace-controlled
labor" [emphasis mine]. Our chiefs have become kings collecting
tribute because some ceramics are mass produced and goods
are sealed in some cases with cylinder seals that use Late
Uruk motifs.
As for the collapse of the Uruk expansion, one awaits further
excavations at, for example, Tell Brak, with extensive Jemdet
Nasr remains, to be able to judge just how completely the
pattems of relationships between Sumer and Syro-Mesopotamia
changed at the end of the Uruk period. In Iran, proto-Elamite
materials at Yahya and Tepe Sialk suggest that similar relationships
continued; but they were not channeled through Elam rather
than coming from Sumer directly. Discussions of possible connections
between changing settlement pattems in Late Uruk Sumer and
the enclave system (pp. 105-7) are issues for which there
is again little evidence, but which involve hypotheses worth
testing.
The final chapter, 7, "Conclusions," is a fine summary of
the argument, a good set of questions about the problem of
the Ubaid period (still not addressed), a useful discussion
of the need for more evidence and about how to get it, and
a consideration of the problems of applying theories developed
to explain modem capitalism to an understanding of events
in ancient westem Asia (p. 125-27). One is left wondering
whether Algaze is an historian or an anthropologist. Both,
I suspect; but then I have never recognized the distinction.
He is certainly an imaginative scholar, thoroughly familiar
with his data, and more than willing to take large speculative
risks that are useful contributions to academic discourse.
T. Cuyler Young, Jr.
Royal Ontario Museum
REFERENCE
Algaze, G.
1989 The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early
Mesopotamian Civilization. Current Anthropology 30: 571-608.
Gezer V. The Field I Caves,
by Joe D. Seger. Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, vol. 5, edited by J.
D. Seger and H. D. Lance. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1988. xv + 170 pp.
17 figs., 82 pis., 5 plans.
This volume is the last in the series of final reports on
Field I at Gezer, which was excavated by Hebrew Union College
and the Harvard Semitic Museum between 1964 and 1974. It reports
on two major burial caves, denoted 1.3A and I.IOA, that date
respectively to Early Bronze IA-B and Late Bronze IB-IIA.
Their investigation and the subsequent follow-up research
leading to the publication were carried out under the direction
of Joe D. Seger.
In accord with the nature of archeological materials and
modern scientific inquiry in general, this "field report"
is to be commended for its range of specialist studies. Moreover,
rather than relegate such studies exclusively to appendixes,
the author/primary editor has sought to integrate the findings
of this postexcavation research by cross-referencing throughout
the text and, particularly, in the synthetic "Cultural and
Historical Summary" for each cave. Sound archaeological methodology
and data presentation are evident in the detailed locus and
pottery descriptions, together with top and section plans.
The stratigraphy of each cave is bolstered by R. G. Bullard's
discussions of geomorphology and sedimentation, whether by
natural or human agencies. Better correlation of the complementary
discussions and definition of geological terms (Parts I.E.1
and II.E.1) would have helped to guide the reader through
a difficult but important component of archaeological research
and interpretation. For example, on pp. 37 and 127 (also see
pi. 80B), regional jointing and stress directions of the Maresha
Member of the Zor'a formation, dating to the Middle Eocene,
are described in relation to evidence for human excavation
and modification of the caves (e.g., chisel marks). When one
consults fig. 14 ("Regional correlation of the Upper Cretaceous-Tertiary
stratigraphy of the Shephelah of Israel"), however, the Zor'a
formation is shown as belonging to the Lower Eocene. Further
confusing matters, the Zor'a formation is not mentioned on
p. 37, where Eocene strata are implicitly associated with
Mesozoic and early Cenozoic incursions of the Tethyan Sea
but whose relative dating is not provided in the text or in
fig. 14. A modified version of fig. 14, placed at the beginning
of Part I.E. I and clearly readable and consistent with the
text, would have improved the presentation.
This example highlights a problem that is all too evident
throughout the geological discussions and illustrations. If
a major goal of an archeological field report is to be comprehensible
and accessible to specialist and nonspecialist alike, writers
and their editors must strive for clarity at several levels
of presentation. Where technical terminology is essential,
brief explanatory phrases will usually enable the nonspecialist
to follow the discussion and apply the general findings to
his/her own research. A phrase, such as "thanatacoenocic benthonic
foraminiferal detritus" (caption to pl. 80B), may be obvious
to the palaeontologically astute, but it conveys little to
others, including those who are scientifically literate in
a general sense.
One particularly difficult, yet crucial section of the Cave
I.IOA geological discussion is the special study of sedimentation
(Part II.E. I.c. 1-4; pp. 125-27). The reader is directed
to specific sedimentation layers on Plan V for clarification
and support of the interpretations presented; the plan is
provided as one of the large, unbound sheets in a pocket at
the front of the book. One is obliged to use a magnifying
glass to find many of the layers, which are unexplainably
labeled as units according to sequential numbers and/or layers
according to sequential small letters (large letters on pl.
56C) and superscripts. This reader was unable to locate layers
c2 and d2 on Section 12 of Plan V. The goal of this exercise
is to understand how Bullard's interpretation of the sedimentation
layers related to Seger's general synthesis in the cultural
and historical summary (Part II.A). Bullard presents no definitive
evidence that the cave was first used as a cistern and subsequently
adapted to be a burial cave. Any water-home sediments in Sump
10095 presumably can be explained as having been deposited
there in the natural course of dissolution of the limestone
at the lowest point in the cave and the washing in of surrounding
materials by groundwater percolation. Seger, however, envisions
a cistem phase (pp. 60-64) based on cuts in the walls of a
central shaft, which might have provided access for periodic
cleaning, and especially because of the pottery in the lowest
sediments, including cooking pots, that are said to predate
pottery associated with the burial phases (p. 73). An alternative
interpretation is that a natural solution cavity in the Gezer
bedrock was enlarged to be a burial cave from its inception.
Secondary entrances into tombs through vertical shafts are
attested: for example, this reviewer excavated an early Iron
Age burial cave (A4) in the Baq'ah Valley of Jordan that had
a rear entrance with steps cut into the bedrock (McGovem 1986:
59, pl. 15:a, b), and there is little likelihood that this
tomb was ever used as a cistem. In excavating such a cave
in antiquity and preparing level surfaces for burials, it
is also to be expected that some earlier pottery would be
introduced by natural or human agencies. The important point
is that the lowest sedimentation layers in Cave I.IOA also
yielded Late Bronze I pottery, which thus provide a terminus
post quem (not a terminus ad quem, apud Seger) for dating
the layers and the human activities and/or the geologic processes
associated with them.
Pottery typology and dating are the main staples of archaeological
field reports, and this monograph is no exception. Additionally
and in hopes of providing independent, absolute chronological
markers for the burial deposits, three radiocarbon samples-one
from Cave 1.3A and two from Cave 1. I OA-were run. The dates,
which are succinctly detailed by J. M. Weinstein (Parts I.E.3
and II.E.4), are clearly too early, because all the samples
included charcoal that probably derived from the inner core
of long-lived trees.
The relative dating of the Early Bronze IA-B potter from
Cave 1.3A, as discussed by W. G. Dever in Part I.C is fraught
with difficulties, because of the lack of well defined stratigraphic
sequences for the period, few synchronisms with Egypt, and
uncertainty about the degree t which the subphases (IA-C)
of the Early Bronze Age are geographic and/or chronological
variants. It is doubtful, however, that this discussion will
"cut the Gordion knot," as the writer confidently asserts
(p. 28). The main problem here is that the pottery types are
not well enough defined to support the proposed theoretical
reconstruction. Type 4 is denoted as amphoras in the text
(p. 22) and as mugs and amphoras(?) in the plate captions
(cf. pls. 1:34, 36; 2;34). Indeed, the Type 13 mugs have few
if any features that distinguish them from the "amphoras."
Type 8 pitchers are described as jugs in the captions; but,
since they are represented only by bases, they might well
belong to some other type. The description of the rim types
of holemouth jars, holemouth kraters, and globular kraters
(Types 5-7, of very similar shape and size) is confusing and
inconsistent; what, for example, is a "cut rim" or an "everted
flanged rim"? The drawings provide little help in sorting
out the terminology. If the main categories and subtypes are
not clearly defined, the citation of parallels has little
value and the case for equating Early Bronze IC with the first
ca. 50 to 75 years of EB 11 is highly speculative. Moreover,
if there were a natural "cultural lag" before the "first truly
urban developments" took place in Palestine, why, as one example,
should hundreds of jars of Palestinian type be found in a
tomb of a Dynasty 0 ruler at Abydos in Egypt (Dreyer 1993)?
It is also very confusing to speak of an "EB IA/B" culture
at Gezer (p. 28) and yet show no overlap of the subphases
on the chronological chart (fig. 8).
The discussion of the Late Bronze IB-IIA corpus of pottery
from Cave I.10A (Part II.C) by J. D. Seger, in contrast to
that for Early Bronze IA-B, is more consistent and tightly
argued. Some slight inconsistencies may be noted here and
there-e.g., the vessels in pl. 31:4, 11, and 24 are described
differently in the text (p. 74) than in the plate captions;
the pyxis in pl. 21:14 is also referred to as a vase and a
bowl (p. 76); the bichrome painted sherd in pl. 11:15 is inexplicably
classified as imitation Mycenaean ware (p. 84); and so forth.
Drawing conventions can also be equivocal, as, for instance,
by always placing painted decoration to the left of the cross-section,
even if it is on the exterior of the vessel. The plate numbering
of pottery is highly irregular, and it is often difficult
to locate a particular example. The preliminary numbering
is visible on pl. 33, which is also missing the drawing for
no. 34. Such minor problems aside, the discussion of the local
assemblage, imported Cypriot, and other types provides an
important benchmark study.
The technology of Early Bronze IA-B and Late Bronze IB-IIA
pottery receives only passing mention in this volume. Two
short reports on a small group of pottery from Cave I.3A and
Sarcophagus 10071 from Cave I.10A, for which clay proveniences
were determined by neutron activation analysis, were submitted
as letters by A. Bieber, Jr., and edited by J. D. Seger as
Parts I.E.4 and II.E.5, respectively. No data or statistical
evaluation are presented to substantiate the local origin
of five Early Bronze IA-B bowls and a jar, as well as the
unique LB IB sarcophagus; but the Brookhaven National Laboratory,
where these analyses were carried out, has a large Palestinian
data base and these results would probably hold up under closer
scrutiny. An Early Bronze IA-B storage jar, decorated with
a reserve slip, appears to have been imported from el-Jib
(Gibeon) in the central Hill Country region.
Details of levigation, tempering, vessel manufacture, firing,
and surface decoration (slips, paints, washes, etc.) can be
gleaned to some degree from the plate captions and brief mentions
in the text, but are not systematically treated. Munsell color
readings are rarely cited in the text, where subjective terms,
such as "dusky red," are used. Munsell readings in the plate
captions and one of the locus indexes (Appendix A) curiously
insert the descriptive color names ("reddish brown," "olive
grey," etc.), which are provided in the Munsell charts, between
the hue and the value and chroma values; only Appendix B follows
the recommended conventions. There is also no indication in
the "plate and description section" (pp. 169-70) of where
on the freshly broken cross-section the Munsell reading was
taken, nor of what the lighting conditions were. If one is
to go to the trouble of recording such a vast quantity of
data, the exact procedure needs to be outlined. Only then
can inferences be made about original firing temperatures,
based on the known properties of red field and yellow limestone
clays and the colors of the fired pastes. Similarly, without
knowing how manufacturing techniques were determined, inclusions
identified and quantitatively measured (apparently without
any petrographic controls), or type of paint established,
such data cannot confidently be used. For example, many of
the paints are said to be "organic." To this reviewer's knowledge,
however, inorganic paints applied before firing are the rule
in Bronze Age Palestine, and, lacking compelling evidence,
I would reserve judgment. If organic paints were employed
at Gezer, they would probably have been applied after firing,
and should easily wash off with water. A subsidiary point
related to the Early Bronze IA-B pottery (above) is that some
vessels are said to be painted (e.g., a mug, cited on p. 24
and illustrated in pl. 3:18) or bumished (Type 11 Globular
Bowls, pp. 23-24), but this information is not provided in
the plate captions or shown on the drawings. By reverse calculation,
the percentages of painted, slipped, and slipped and bumished
pottery from Cave I.3A, as cited in fig. 7 are based on a
total of 120 Early Bronze IA-B pottery examples. Yet, 130
examples are illustrated in the plates (note also that the
number of slipped examples in fig. 7 is incorrect).
Cave I.10A yielded a marvelous array of special objects,
attesting to the international trade and high standard of
living in the 15th and 14th centuries B.C. Of the six scarabs
described by J. M. Weinstein in Part II.D.1, two bore the
name of Thutmose III, one that of Amenhotep II, and one that
of Amenhotep III, in accord with the pottery dating. R. Mersereau
(Part II.D.2) catalogues and discusses three seals with incised
motifs that are relatively common in Late Bronze Age Palestine.
A complete core-formed glass jar, with a yellow and turquoise
blue scalloped design on its neck over a dark blue base glass,
was associated with the last burial in the cave (nicknamed
Sarah), and is an Egyptian import of early Dynasty 18 date
according to D. Barag (Part II.D.3). Numerous weapons, jewelry
items, and single examples of armor scale and a fish hook
are detailed by K. E. Seger in Part II.D.4. As clearly outlined
by C. Clamer in II.D.5, two alabaster vessels in the tomb
one a two-part ta7za and the other a probable jar shape were
made of Egyptian calcite and imported into Gezer; a bowl fragment
was made of locally available gypsum. Two limestone kohl tubes,
which show finely carved baboons holding wicker baskets, have
good parallels at el-Amarna and might well have been made
there, according to J. D. Seger in Part II.D.8. Rounding out
the discussion of the objects from Cave I.10A are several
probable weights (A. Eran in Part II.D.6), a corroded silver
frontlet, an ivory comb, bone inlay from disintegrated wooden
boxes, faience and frit beads, and the unique sarcophagus
(J. D. Seger in Parts II.D.7 and II.D.9). The latter artifact,
which contained the remains of at least 12 humans of which
11 were infants and children, might well have been inspired
by Minoan prototypes. However, the proposal (pp. 52 and 114)
that Minoans actually settled at Gezer ca. 1500 B.C., as a
result of the Thera volcanic eruption, is belied by the physical
anthropological data, succinctly and clearly summarized by
D. J. Frankel in Part II.E.2, and by the absence of distinctive
jewelry or other special artifacts that would have been carried
by the newcomers and deposited with them in the tomb. More
likely, Canaanite seafarers and merchants from southern Palestinian
ports to the Aegean brought back the conceptual model of such
a sarcophagus; coffins were also familiar from Egyptian funerary
practice.
The finding of fish (A. J. Legge and M. Zeder in Part II.E.3.a),
even the skin of a Mediterranean fish (L. David in Part II.E.3.b),
as probable food offerings in Cave I.10A, points to the familiarity
of the Gezer inhabitants with the sea. Long bones of sheep
also suggest that they were intentionally slaughtered for
offerings, or, perhaps, sacrificed (cf. pp. 67-68). The several
fresh-water pelecypods (L. H. Feldman in Part II.E.3.c) were
often collected for their own sake, rather then being food
or nacre sources.
The final report of a major archaeological and scientific
investigation is a signal achievement, and one that is to
be welcomed by all students of Palestinian archaeology. The
author, editors, and contributors to this volume are to be
congratulated on bringing together and coherently presenting
a wealth of data that shed new light on the Early Bronze I
and Late Bronze IB-IIA periods of southern Palestine. One
can always ask for more, and the various lapses and problems
alluded to above are intended in the spirit of fostering even
better reports. We are yet to develop a totally effective,
workable format for integrating the multidisciplinary evidence
that COMPTises modem archaeological investigation, but we
are headed in the right direction.
Patrick E. McGovern
University of Pennsylvania
REFERENCES
Dreyer, G.
1993 Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen
Königsfriedhof. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 49: 23-62.
McGovern, P. E.
1986 The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan:
The Baqah Valley Project, 1977-1981. University Museum Monograph
65. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at
Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII, by Frances
W. James and Patrick E. McGovern. University Museum Monograph
85, Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania
in cooperation with the University of Mississippi, 1993. Volume
1, Text xxxii + 372 pp.; Volume 2, Illustrations 168 figures,
63 plates. $115.00.
Levels VII and VIII, the major Late Bronze Age strata at
Beth Shan, were excavated by Allan Rowe and Gerald FitzGerald
for the University Museum (Philadelphia) between 1921 and
1934. Although they published their findings promptly, the
reports were very incomplete. Many of their conclusions were
drawn subjectively and presented with insufficient supporting
material. Coupled with the method of excavation and recording
of the day, these early excavations have produced a legacy
of confusion for the many Syro-Palestinian, Egyptian, Cypriot,
and Aegean archaeologists who have attempted to utilize this
important site in their research. Fortunately, the clarification
of the stratigraphy at Beth Shan became one of the driving
elements in the research of Frances James. Her early work
(James 1966) had already brought order to the Iron Age sequence
at the site, and she was deeply involved in a similar clarification
of the Late Bronze Age strata at the time of her unexpected
death in December 1985. Subsequently, the project was taken
over by McGovem with the help and support of a variety of
scholars (pp. xxvii-xxviii). The result of their work is a
pair of handsome volumes that offer a very complete presentation
of Beth Shan Levels VII and VIII, with the more enigmatic
(and decidedly mixed) Level IX only slightly touched upon
in places (P. xxvii).
A foreword (by Edward B. Sisson) and a preface (by McGovern)
remind the reader of the history of the excavations. as well
as the tremendous debt that is owed to the driving energies
of Frances James. The material is presented in I I chapters
(by McGovern/James except where otherwise noted).
Chapter 1, The Stratigraphic Framework, presents new plans
of the Late Bronze Age levels (Maps I and 2) that were reconstructed
after a locus-by-locus reanalysis of the original records
and artifacts. The material is arranged by level, type of
deposit, and specific locus, complete with references to relevant
recent publications. Where appropriate, convenient summaries
of suitable Egyptian parallels are conveniently woven into
the chapter (pp. 25, 53, 57, etc.).
Chapter 2, The Pottery: Typology and Technology, constructs
corpora of the ceramic material from Levels VII and VIII by
starting with a critical analysis of the most secure deposits
and then expanding to those deposits with less stratigraphical
integrity. The typology, arranged basically by shape with
appropriate published comparanda, is followed by sections
on Ware Composition, Pyrotechnology, and Surface Treatment
(with Garman Harbottle and Joan Huntoon, pp. 80-94), as well
as Fabrication Methods (with William D. Glanzman and Stuart
J. Fleming, pp. 94-102).
Chapter 3, The Mycenaean Pottery (by Vronwy Hankey), offers
a catalogue of the "Late Helladic" imports arranged according
to the typology for such wares determined by Furumark (FS
= Furumark Shape, FM = Furumark Motive), thus making the material
more accessible to Aegean specialists. Thoughts on the position
of the Beth Shan imports in the total scope of Aegean-Levantine
commerce are included, as well as a note on chronology and
an addendum on the small collection of Aegean imports found
in Level IX.
Chapter 4. The Cypriot Pottery (by Barry M. Gittlen), collects
another major group of imports and discusses them according
to the nomenclature familiar to Syro-Palestinian archaeologists
and also the classification devised by Aström. In this
classification, for instance, a Base Ring II juglet can also
be discussed as a"IXBlb" (p. 112), which makes the study more
easily accessible to Cypriot archaeologists. A detailed commentary
on the individual shapes and decoration puts the material
in its ceramic and historical perspective and is followed
by a catalog (also arranged by level) of the Cypriot pieces
that appear in the field records.
Chapter 5, The Jewelry and Silicate Objects: Typology and
Technology, presents these groups by object type (pendants,
beads, etc.) and by fabric type (glass, faience, glazed pottery),
as well as including a detailed study of Silicate Technology
(with Charles P Swan) that traces the use of these distinctive
materials across large spectra of time and geography (pp.
152-63).
Chapter 6, The Special Objects, discusses an eclectic group
of specialty artifacts (anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines,
kemoi, stands, and wands, to name a few), while Chapter 7,
Other Objects, Lithics, Bones, an Shells, treats a similarly
wide range of faunal material, both with the same detail and
thoroughness that characterizes every page of this volume.
Chapter 8, The Typology and Archaeometallurgy of the Copper-base
Artifacts (by Anne G. Bonn, Heidi Moyer, and Michael R. Notis),
reports a variety of "scientific" analyses conducted on a
wide array of metal objects, including those of a personal
nature (kohl sticks, cosmetic spoons), as well as those with
domestic (needles), agricultural (hoes, sickle blades), craft
(awls, chisels) and military (arrow and spearheads) functions.
Chapter 9, The Scarabs, Plaques, Seals and Rings (by James
M. Weinstein), deals with the smaller Egyptian objects in
each level, including some pieces that were previously unpublished,
and offers a convenient concordance of published items not
included in this chapter. The importance of the Egyptian pieces
for establishing the chronological parameters of each level
is added in a summary.
Chapter 10, The Cylinder Seals (by Mary K. Dabney), reviews
this important class of material which, although previously
published, is here presented according to the stylistic classes
(Old Babylonian, Mitannian, etc.) of the individual seals.
The study is brought up to date and made more useful by the
incorporation of the results of a great deal of recent research.
Chapter 11, Historical and Cultural Synthesis, pulls this
volume together making easy sense of the broad range of studies
that it contains by presenting Late Bronze Age Beth Shan as
the important cosmopolitan center it was.
In summary, the efforts of McGovem and those who contributed
to this volume have succeeded admirably in fulfilling his
desire (page xxvii) that the work might stand as a fitting
memorial to the scholarship of Frances James. In doing so,
however, he has also presented us with a model for how important
information can be derived from the sensitive, interdisciplinary
examination of a previously published site.
Albert Leonard, Jr.
University of Arizona
Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: lnternational
Trade and the Late-Bronze Age Aegean, by Eric H. Cline.
BAR International Series 591. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1994.
xxii, 316 pp., 24 figures, 10 plates, 70 tables, 4 maps. £34
paper.
Maritime commerce played an important role in the economic
life of the Aegean world during the Late Bronze Age. Mainland
Greece and Crete in particular relied on sea trade with Egypt,
Cyprus, and the Near East for numerous raw materials as well
as a variety of finished goods. Although archaeologists rarely
find those raw materials on Aegean sites, the containers in
which many of them traveled, as well as the finished products,
are fairly common. Those items--together with Aegean objects
discovered in foreign contexts--help Aegean prehistorians
to reconstruct the history of foreign contacts in the Late
Bronze Age and provide critical evidence for the relative
and absolute chronologies of the region. Accordingly, thev
are a popular topic in the literature on the Late Bronze Age
Aegean: recent book-length treatments of this material include
works by Warren and Hankey (1989), Lambrou-Phillipson (1990),
and Phillips (1991).
The book reviewed here is a revised version of a Ph.D. dissertation
submitted in 1991 to the Department of Ancient History at
the University of Pennsylvania. It contains an extensive treatment
of the Egyptian, Near Eastern, Cypriot, Anatolian, Central
and Western Mediterranean objects, and artifacts possibly
of European origin, that have been found in the Late Bronze
Age Aegean. The text has four major sections; Introduction;
Trade during the Late Bronze Age; Trade and Transactions;
and the Epilogue. There are also two catalogs (Literary and
Pictorial Evidence for International Trade and the LBA Aegean;
Orientalia and Occidentalia in the LBA Aegean) and three appendixes
(Raw Materials, Problematic Objects, and Disputed Contexts).
Catalog I presents a corpus of the textual and pictorial
evidence from Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia
for relations with the Aegean world, as well as references
in the Linear B tablets to Egypt, Cyprus, and Westem Asia.
Each entry has a brief description of the inscription or scene
or both, a copy or transliteration of the inscription as well
as a translation, and a list of published references. Cline
relies on the translations of other scholars for the inscriptions
in this catalog and on the objects in catalog 11, a situation
that sometimes produces less than optimal results.
By far the most valuable feature of the volume is its comprehensive
corpus (catalog 11) of imported goods in the Late Bronze Age
Aegean. This catalog organizes the material typologically,
making it easy to find every item in a particular category:
tables 63-70 cross reference the finds from each region in
order by date and site. Each entry includes the identification
and description of an item, its museum number, area of origin,
place of discovery, contextual and typological dating, additional
comments, and prior publications. Illustrations are provided
for a small number of entries. (An erratum sheet accompanying
the volume provides corrections for a number of the illustration
captions.) In general, the objects that appear most frequently
in the catalog are what one would expect: Canaanite amphoras
form the largest single group of imports in the Aegean, Cypriot
"milk-bowls" the second largest (p. 95). Among Egyptian imports,
the principal objects are alabaster and faience vessels, followed
well back by scarabs (table 26). That one should consider
the 942 objects in Cline's catalog (p. xxi) as only a minuscule
percentage of the total number of foreign goods that must
have reached the Aegean world during the Late Bronze Age is
evident from the fact that 277 of those objects (nearly 30
percent) come from the excavation of the Uluburun shipwreck
(tables 61-62).
Cline has some interesting observations to make on trade
routes and changes in trade pattems over the course of the
Late Bronze Age, though not all are convincing. Nearly all
Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian imports found in 16th and 15th
century B.c. contexts, for example, are on Crete or in the
Cyclades, whereas 14th and 13th century B.C. imports from
the Levant and Egypt appear mostly on the Greek mainland (pp.
41, 49). The paucity of LH IIIB pottery in North Syria is
attributed to the presence or influence of the Hittites in
that area (pp. 73-74); similarly, a Hittite embargo against
the Mycenaeans in Central Anatolia is suggested as the cause
for a lack of Hittite objects in the Aegean (p. 74). While
I cannot offer a better explanation for the latter situation,
I do take issue with the interpretation for inland Syria.
Few Late Bronze Age sites and strata in inland Syria have
been excavated. Considering the enormous size of some of these
sites and the fact that coastal sites such as Ras Shamra,
Ras Ibn Hani, and Tell Sukas and inland sites like Alalakh
and Qatna have yielded Mycenaean pottery, the discovery of
so much more LH IIIB pottery in the southem Levant than in
the north is probably the result of nothing more than the
substantially larger number of excavations in the south. The
book has a couple of serious weaknesses. The principal one
is the lack of a critical analysis of the individual objects
and texts in the catalogs. The typological dates given in
the object catalog, for example, are consistently those provided
by the original excavator or some later authority. It is disappointing
that the date (sometimes dates) attributed to virtually every
item in the catalog comes from some other publication or source;
and only rarely is there an explanation of the basis for each
object's date. Also, there are no comparanda or critical evaluations
of conflicting opinions on individual items. Even the dates
given in the catalog can be confusing. For example, the author
gives "LB 11 (15th-14th century B.c.)" as the date for some
of the Levantine amphoras (catalog entries 296, 298-301, 303-5),
but no explanation why the LB 11 period in Syria-Palestine
should go back to the 15th century B.C.; I suppose that the
author meant to say "LB IB-IIA (15th-14th century B.c.)" for
these items.
The book's other major flaw is its large number of speculative
interpretations. Note, for example, the author's discussion
on p. 39 of 14 items inscribed with the name of Amenhotep
Ill or Queen Tiye (listed under catalog 11, entries 96-98,
119-20, 123, 125, 128, 132, 142, and 734) that have been found
at various sites in the Aegean area. Though about half of
the items (see entries 96-98, 119, 120) are from contexts
that postdate the king's reign by up to a century or more,
the author says that "it seems likely that all of these royally
inscribed items arrived together, in a single voyage." How
he arrives at that explanation is not explained (the idea
first appeared in Cline 1987), and I see no obvious reason
to believe it. Important Levantine and Egyptian sites often
yield objects naming Amenhotep Ill/ Tiye in contexts dating
many years after the king's reign. One has to consider a variety
of explanations for the appearance of such items in later
contexts: heirlooms, later issues, trade in outdated trinkets
by people who had no idea what the hieroglyphic signs on the
objects read, the enduring popularity of objects naming famous
royal figures, and so forth. This is especially important
in the case of items naming Amenhotep III, since pieces naming
that king are among the most common royal-name objects found
outside Egypt (to my knowledge, only artifacts mentioning
Thutmose Ill and Ramesses Il are more common).
Page 39 also contains a discussion of a scene in a wall
painting from Room 31 at Mycenae. This scene shows two small
figures-one red, the other black-above a ground line on which
stand a pair of much larger facing female figures (probably
goddesses). Having previously suggested that there was an
Egyptian embassy at Mycenae, Cline asks, "Could these [figures]
be representations of the Egyptian embassy sent to Mycenae?"
and, "Is this perhaps a schematic representation of the Red
Land and the Black Land in Egypt?" Since there is no direct
archaeological or textual evidence for such an embassy (though
on p. 50 Cline takes it as fact), no clear indication that
the crude, naked figures represent Egyptians, and no mention
at all of Crete or the Greek mainland in the Amarna Letters,
such speculation is premature at best. (Immerwahr [1990: 120-
21] and Marinatos [1988: 247-48] suggest an identification
of these peculiar individuals as souls or spirits.)
On pp. 41-42, in discussing the nature of Egypt's relations
with Mycenae, Cline links the switch in distribution of Egyptian
imports from Minoan Crete to the Greek mainland in the LH/LM
IIIB period to Egypt possibly "having granted Mycenae 'most
favored nation' trading status" and having given "a 'helping
hand' to the Mycenaeans," the goal of all this supposedly
having been to cement a treaty designed to confront Hittite
expansion into the Aegean world. Again, this is all conjecture.
Theories and speculation such as the above abound in this
book. While some of these ideas could be correct, I find it
hard not to conclude that a more restrained approach to the
interpretation of archaeological and historical data is needed
at this stage of our knowledge of Egyptian-Aegean relations.
Cline (p. 42) rightly dismisses many of the wilder views of
Martin Bernal about alleged Egyptian hegemony over the Aegean
world and invasions in the Late Bronze Age, but he himself
often offers interpretations of archaeological and textual
data that strain the limits of reasonable explanation.
In summary, the basic data in this book provide an invaluable
foundation for future research. Cline has done an enormous
amount of work in creating his catalogs and putting the information
in tabular, easy-to-understand form. Researchers will save
considerable time and effort in their own studies by consulting
the catalogs, appendixes, tables, and figures. (I have already
found that to be the case.) At the same time, the author's
typological dates and interpretations must be approached with
caution. A proper evaluation of the data requires the expertise
of more than an ancient historian: it involves input from
authorities in Aegean prehistory, Syro-Palestinian and Mesopotamian
archaeology, and Egyptology. Cline's inability to control
much of the primary source material and his penchant for speculating
on the basis of minimal or equivocal evidence left me leery
of a number of his ideas and interpretations. Nonetheless,
this is a very useful book, and one that will serve as a handy
reference work for anyone interested in s Aegean foreign relations
during the Late Bronze Age.
James M. Weinstein
Cornell University
REFERENCES
Cline, E. H.
1987 Amenhotep Ill and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean
Relations in the 14th Century B.C. Orientalia 56: 1-36.
Immerwahr, S. A.
1990 Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University.
Lambrou-Phillipson, C.
1989 Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze
Age Aegean ca. 3000-1100 B.C. plus Orientalia: A Catalogue
of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mitannian, Syro-Palestinian, Cypriot
and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean. Göteborg:
Astrom.
Marinatos, N.
1988 The Fresco from Room 31 at Mycenae: Problems of Method
and Interpretation. Pp. 245-48 in Problems in Greek Prehistory:
Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British
School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, eds.
E. B. French and K. A. Wardle. Bristol: Bristol Classical.
Phillips, J.
1991 The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing
Objects found in Bronze Age Crete ca. 3000-ca. 1100 B. C.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Warren, P. M., and Hankey, V.
1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical.
Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning
of the Iron Age in Southem Jordan, edited by Piotr
Bienkowski. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7. Sheffield:
J. R. Collis Publishers, 1992. xiii + 202 pp., 86 figures,
18 tables. £30.00.
This volume contains the proceedings of a symposium held
at Merseyside Maritime Museum in Liverpool, England, 9-12
May 1991, and edited by the former editor of Levant. The principals
include many of the intemational archaeologists who have been
excavating in Jordan in recent years.
A brief review cannot do justice to the moveable feast provided
by the 16 essays here, which, although necessarily somewhat
uneven and disjointed, nevertheless provide us with a timely
first attempt at a synthesis of the archaeology of Jordan
in the Early Iron Age. P. Bienkowski (chapter 1) leads off
with an overview that, despite cautions due to the lack of
final publication for most sites, is a valuable and judicious
summary. J. Bartlett (chapter 2) competently surveys the scant
biblical data. K. A. Kitchen focuses on the Egyptian date
with characteristic authority (chapter 3), despite some rather
caustic criticisms of other leading scholars (not entirely
unwarranted). A. Millard looks at Assyrian involvement in
Edom (chapter 4). Edom plus the Hejaz is treated by R J. Parr
(chapter 5), who summarizes a number of his earlier treatments
with admirable candor. E. A. Knauf, provocative as always,
offers perhaps the most intellectually sophisticated chapter
(chapter 6) in this volume, on "secondary state formation"
in Moab and Edom, full of quotable bons mots that we must
forego here. G. L. Mattingly's essay on a "culture-historical
approach" to Moabite origins (chapter 7) is equally stimulating,
and it is the only chapter in this volume to deal with current
archaeological theory, especially that of the "post-processual"
school. J. A. Dearman deals judiciously with settlement patterns
and the beginnings of the early Iron Age in Moab (chapter
8). J. M. Miller follows this (chapter 9) with a treatment
of the rise of the monarchy in Moab, concluding that there
is insufficient evidence to support the widespread notion
of an early, unified monarchy. S. Hart looks at Iron Age settlement
in Edom (chapter 10), noting the difficulties of dating the
limited survey and excavated pottery now available. P. Bienkowski's
subsequent treatment of sedentary occupation in Edom (chapter
I 1) is related: but it also provides a valuable, detailed
analysis of the stratigraphy and ceramic sequences of such
sites as Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan, and Buseirah. B. MacDonald
summarizes the evidence from his own and other surveys of
the Wadi el-Hasa and southern Ghor areas (chapter 12). M.
Linder's chapter (chapter 13) is related, presenting survey
data from the Petra area, complemented by J. P. Zeitler's
chapter (chapter 14) on "Edomite" pottery from this region.
R. Abrams' contribution (chapter 15) is a reanalysis of Glueck's
surveys of southern Transjordan based on recent surveys in
the Wadi Fidan. D. Hom6s-Fredericq presents excavated Late
Bronze-Iron Age material from Lehun in Moab (chapter 16).
Archaeology in Jordan has enjoyed a remarkable florescence
in the past 20 years, under the aegis of the Jordanian Department
of Antiquities, universities in Amman and Yarmouk (Irbid),
and the burgeoning Jordanian 1, national school," as well
as in cooperation with a large group of international excavators
and surveyors. The latter are affiliated with flourishing
foreign research institutes in Amman, including British, German,
and ASOR's own American Center of Oriental Research. Yet it
is difficult for Syro-Palestinian archaeologists working in
Israel--the "other half of ancient Palestine"--to keep up
with the flow of new data. Several international symposia
sponsored by the Jordanian government, published as Studies
in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vols. 1 to 4 (1982-1992)
have been extremely helpful, as have innumerable preliminary
survey and dig reports in the Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan. An early compendium by R. Domemann,
The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron
Ages (1983), summarized much factual data. And Moab and Edom,
in particular, have been treated more recently in surveys
published by Miller (1991) and MacDonald (1992), as well as
in collected studies by Sawyer and Clines (1983), Dearman
(1989), and Bartlett (1989). Alongside these works by competent
archaeologists and historians, however, there are still anachronistic
works of a few biblical scholars like R. G. Boling, whose
The Eariv Biblical Community in Transjordan (1988) is flawed
by theological biases that seriously distort the archaeological
evidence for the Late Bronze-Iron I transition in Jordan.
Early Edom and Moab goes a long way toward giving
us for the first time an authoritative, if still provisional,
synthesis of Transjordan in the Iron Age. Piotr Bienkowski
and his redoubtable colleagues have produced a timely, provocative,
richly documented study, a landmark in the modern archaeological
recovery of the ancient kingdoms and tribal entities of Transjordan
for which scholars in many fields will be grateful.
William G. Dever
University of Arizona
REFERENCES
Bartlett, J. R.
1989 Edom and the Edomites. Sheffield: Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament.
Boling, R. G.
1988 The Early Biblical Communi in Transjordan. Sheffield:
Almond.
Dearman, J. A., ed.
1989 Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: Scholars.
Dornemann, R.
1983 The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum.
MacDonald, B.
1992 The Southern Ghor and Northeast 'Arabah Archaeological
Survey. Sheffield: Collis.
Miller, J. M., ed.
1991 Archaelogical Survey of the Kerak Plateau. Atlanta: Scholars.
Sawyer, J. E A.; and Clines, D. J. A., eds.
1983 Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology qf
Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia. Sheffield:
JSOT.
de Vries, B.
1993 The Umm el-Jimal Project, 1981-1992. Annual of the Department
of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 433-60.
The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire
910-612 B.C., by Alan Millard. State Archives of Assyria
Studies 11, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994.
xvi + 153 pp., 20 plates.
One of the valuable sources for reconstructing the chronology
of the ancient Near East is the information found in Assyrian
texts concerning the officials who year by year held the office
of limmu, "eponym," and by whose names years were designated.
The limmus included the king at the beginning of his reign,
certain high state officials, governors of provinces, and
others, in sequence. Tablets containing lists of these limmus
were already noticed in the Kuyunjik collection at the British
Museum by Henry Creswick Rawlinson in the middle of the last
century, and some of the main texts were published in lithographed
plates in 1866 in volume 2 of Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia prepared by him and Edwin Norris. In 1870, volume 3,
prepared in conjunction with George Smith of the staff of
the British Museum, included a more complete copy of one of
the main tablets, incorporating fragments published separately
in volume 2 with others subsequently identified. Transliterations
and translations of these tablets were included by Eberhard
Schrader in 1872 in his well-known volume Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament, and English translations were made
available in 1875 by Smith in his volume, The Assyrian Eponym
Canon with discussion of their bearing on Hebrew chronology;
the full subtitle of the volume was, "containing translations
of the documents, an account of the evidence, on the comparative
chronology of the Assyrian and Jewish kingdoms, from the death
of Solomon to Nebuchadnezzar." This was a handy reference
book for students of that time, though it consisted only of
translations; but the data were again offered with transliterations
and translations in the second edition of Schrader's Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament in 1883, which appeared in an English
translation (by O. C. Whitehouse) in 1885 (the third edition,
1903, was completely recast and no longer included this material;
in p. 2 n. 8 of the present volume the reference should therefore
be to "2nd ed." not "3rd ed."), and also in 1889 in volume
I of Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, in 1912 in
R. W. Rogers's Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, and
in 1927 in volume 11 of D. D. Luckenbill's Ancient Records
of Assyria and Babylonia. Luckenbill was able to include the
evidence of some additional tablets found dur ing the German
excavations at Assur and published by Otto Schroeder in 1920
in Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. These
and other handy sources were replaced in 1938 by the definitive
article "Eponymen" by Arthur Ungnad in the Reallexikon der
Assyriologie, 2, pp. 412-57, which has been the authoritative
reference for the last half century. It has however been inconvenient
in being merely an article in a multivolume encyclopedia,
and with the passing years the user has had the uneasy feeling
that more recent discoveries may have put some details out
of date.
The appearance of the present volume is therefore welcome
on the ground of convenience, but more particularly because
it takes account of the most recent evidence available.
The texts fall into three main categories: simple lists
of the names of the eponyms--"Eponym Lists"--which cover the
years 910 to 649 B.C.; lists with "historical notices" (Smith),
"Beischriften" (Schrader), "Notes" (Rogers), "Erganzungen"
(Ungnad), designated "Eponym Chronicles" by Millard, a term
already used for instance by Hugo Winckler in his Keilinschriftliches
Textbuch, which cover the years 858 to 699 B.C. with gaps;
and individual letters, administrative documents, etc., dated
by the names of eponyms.
Ungnad had listed twenty manuscripts of the first two types
of list. Two of these, his Ce from Assur and Cf from Bogazkoi,
relate to the second millenniUM B.c., and are therefore excluded
from the present volume; and one, his Cbg, is too illegible
to include. Millard's volume includes all of the remaining
17, 4 of them not available in published copies in Ungnad's
time (copies of two published by J. A. Brinkman in 1989),
but included here in new copies, and two from Sultantepe in
southem Turkey, published in 1953 by O. R. Gumey, making a
total of 19. These consist of nine main cuneiform manuscript
sources for the "Lists" and ten for the "Chronicles," most
made up of fragments or being themselves merely fragments,
six and nine respectively from Nineveh, two "Lists" from Assur,
and a useful additional tablet of each type from the excavations
at Sultantepe. Millard supplies copies of all 19 texts, those
from Assur reproduced (with adjustments) from Schroeder's
copies, those from Sultantepe from Gumey's copies, and those
from Kuyunjik, many of which have previously been available
only in 19th century lithographed form, recopied by him from
the originals in the British Museum.
Previous publications have presented the material either
in the form of eclectic texts without specific indication
of which parts come from which manuscripts, or in some cases
transliterations of individual fragments. The present monograph
presents the material in combined form year by year in terms
of the Julian calendar (to which the sequence is pegged by
the mention of the solar eclipse of 763 B.C. in the eponymy
of Bur-Saggile (pp. 41, 58); each manuscript has text appropriate
to an individual year transliterated under it. For instance
under the year 740 B.C., the name of the limmu Nabu-etiranni
is given, followed by transliterations of the appropriate
lines from four "Lists" (three from Kuyunjik and one from
Assur), giving simply his name, and one "Chronicle" (from
Kuyunjik) which gives the additional information that he held
the office of rab shaqê and that there was a
campaign to Arpad in that year. It is convenient having all
the available evidence separately indicated and gathered together
in this way; but it is a pity that, thanks presumably to the
desire of the publishers to save space, the extracts are compressed
into two columns, making it less easy to compare the details.
This section, headed "Text Score," is followed by an English
translation combining all the data from the Lists and Chronicles,
together with information from other sources.
George Smith (1875) had included some data of the third
type from dated texts arranged chronologically, and Ungnad
(1938) had included an alphabetical list of eponyms with their
dates and a summary of what was known about them, thereby
providing an index to the lists. Millard gives a "Catalogue
of Eponym-Dated Texts" (pp. 79-125), making up a substantial
part of the monograph, which likewise lists all the limmus
in alphabetical order, with their dates and references to
and transliterations of the significant parts of all the dated
texts he has been able to identify fOT each. This is a valuable
part of the monograph, and it includes the names of the (postcanonical)
limmus who held office after 649 B.c., the last year in the
lists. References to many texts dated to these officials had
been collected in 1956 by Maria Falkner, and on their basis
she had worked out a sequence and individual dates for them.
This was a very creditable effort, but in the present monograph,
Robert Whiting has contributed a chapter on the postcanonical
and extracanonical (post-612) eponyms, showing, on the basis
of additional information not available to Falkner, that there
are considerably more names than years and that it is not
really possible to assign dates to most o them, though in
some instances the sequence of a few can be worked out.
The volume concludes with indices of Divine, Personal and
Geographical Names; Titles of Eponyms and Other Akkadian Words;
and Excavation, Museum and Publication Numbers (not including
the Eponym Lists). Those familiar with the usual sequence
of British Museum numbers-K(uyunjik), Sm(ith), D(aily)T(elegraph),
|
