Number 297 February 1995

ARTICLES
  • JOSEPH NAVEH: The Inscriptions from Failaka and the Lapidary Aramaic Script . . . . . 1
  • RICHARD A. HORSLEY: Archaeology and the Villages of Upper Galilee: A Dialogue with Archaeologists . . . . . 5
  • ERIC M. MEYERS: An Archaeological Response to a New Testament Scholar . . . . . 17
  • RICHARD A. HORSLEY: Response . . . . . 27
  • MORDECHAI HAIMAN: Agriculture and Nomad-State Relations in the Negev Desert in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods . . . . . 29
  • NAOMI E. MILLER: The Aspalathus Caper . . . . . 55
REVIEW ARTICLE
  • WILLIAM G. DEVER: "Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?" Archaeology and Israelite Historiography: Part I . . . . . 61
BOOK REVIEWS
  • AVI GOPHER: Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant (Alan H. Simmons). 81
  • ALBERT LEONARD, JR.: The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart (R. Thomas Schaub) . . . . . 82
  • GUILLERMO ALGAZE: The Uruk World System (T. Cuyler Young, Jr.).... 84
  • JOE D. SEGER: Gezer V: The Field I Caves (Patrick E. McGovern)... 86
  • FRANCES W. JAMES and PATRICK E. McGOVERN: The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII (Albert Leonard, Jr.) . . . . . 88
  • ERIC H. CLINE: Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late-Bronze Age Aegean (James M. Weinstein) . . . . . 89
  • PIOTR BIENKOWSKI, editor: Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (William G. Dever) . . . . . 91
  • ALAN MILLARD: The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 B.C. (T. C. Mitchell) . . . . . 93
  • LOWELL K. HANDY: Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Steve A. Wiggins) . . . . . 94

 

The Inscriptions from Failaka and the
Lapidary Aramaic Script

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.


Archaeology and the Villages of Upper
Galilee: A Dialogue with Archaeologists

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.


An Archaeological Response to
a New Testament Scholar

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.


Agriculture and Nomad-State Relations
in the Negev Desert in the Byzantine
and Early Islamic Periods

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.


The Aspalathus Caper

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).


"Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?"
Archaeology and Israelite Historiography:
Part I

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),