II. The Western Cemetery; Tombs 1, 2 and 3 (continued)

4. The Pottery and Chronology of Tomb 1 (figs. 13:1-13;14-16,19-35)

Pottery vessels constitute the largest class of burial deposits, numbering approximately 2800 pieces in the categories of lamps, bowls, jugs, dipper jugs, juglets, dipper juglets, pyxides, flasks, kraters, pots, strainer pots, jars, jar stands, storage jars, funnels, vases, stirrup cups, zoormorphic vessels, kernoi rings, chalices, cooking pots, pitchers and bowl stands (fig. 13: a-c). It should be noted that these categories represent the vessel nomenclature of the Dothan field records. Vessel designations will be refined in the final report, most importantly in the categories of jug, dipper jug, pot, jar, jar stand, vase, pitcher and bowl stand. For an assemblage of selected pottery types from each of the five levels of Tomb 1, see the Thumbnail Index.

The following chart provides numerical details, level by level, for those vessel types that are attested by more than ten examples. The vessel nomenclature represents that utilized in the field records and pottery register. These tabulations are based on the numerical summaries as recorded in the field reports and pottery register.

Pottery

Vessel categories represented by less than ten examples throughout the five levels of the tomb include: jar, funnel, vase, milkbowl, strainer, bilbil, stirrup jar, cooking pot, incense burner, kernoi ring, special lamp forms and anthropomorphic vessels.

The pottery plates (figs. 19-35) present a representative assemblage of selected vessel types for the five levels of Tomb 1 (pyxides, biconical jars, chalices, krater-mugs and lamps), together with examples of unique and unusual forms such as multi-handled kraters and stirrup jars. The plates do not represent the range of vessel types that are present in this tomb or the many variations of form that are attested within the vessel categories that are depicted and discussed below. Discussion will focus on the typological distinctions of the various vessel types as they evolve through the five distinct levels of the tomb, together with some reference to comparative examples. These observations should be regarded as preliminary and tentative. The final report on the western cemetery will present the full range of pottery from Tombs 1to 3 together with comparative and typological studies and complete technical description.

a. Pyxides

The five levels of Tomb 1 produced more bowls than any other vessel type (607), followed by lamps (578) and pyxides (567). The pyxides of this tomb are a particularly rich and interesting assemblage with discernible evolution of form through the five levels of this burial context. The numbers are significantly greater in Levels 1to 3 (173, 196 and 129 respectively) with 52 pyxides from Level 4 and only 17 from the earliest level. A selection of pyxides are presented here as listed in the table below. These figures present a representative selection of the main pyxides types for each level of Tomb 1, though variations abound in each level.

As one studies the level-by-level arrangement of pyxides at Saint George's College in Jerusalem - the largest collection of this vessel type - the most obvious observation with respect to the evolution of this form is that the disk base predominates in the later levels of the tomb (Levels 1 and 2: figs. 19:2-12; 24:4-9,11) and a rounded bottom characterizes the majority of vessels in the earlier levels (Levels 4 and 5: fig. 32:1-4, 6, 7; 35:1-4). Level 3 pyxides are fairly evenly divided between these two categories (fig. 28:1-4, 6, 7 with disk base; fig. 28:5, 8-12 with rounded bottom). A few rounded bottoms are attested in Levels 1 (19:1) and 2 (24:10, 12). Note the flat base of fig. 32:5 (Level 4). The rounded bottom of pyxides in Levels 3 to 5 should be characterized as slightly rounded, though some forms have bottoms that are sharply rounded (figs. 28:9, 11; 32:2; 35:6).

There are few significant variations in the body profile of Level 1 pyxides. The most common profile is illustrated by the vessels depicted in Fig. 19:1-12 (Cf. Guy 1938: pl. 62:19 with vertical loop handles; Loud 1948: pls. 77:7; 84:9; [fig. 24:12]; Guy 1938: pl. 69:2 [fig. 19:2 here]; pls. 14:5; 35:26 [fig. 19:4 here]; pl. 30:12 [fig. 19:9, lower body profile only]; McGovern 1986: fig. 53:48 [fig. 19:1 here]). As a general impression, the body shape of the pyxides in subsequent levels tends increasingly to become bottom heavy, that is, the lowest of the two body carinations drops with respect to the base (figs. 24:1, 2, 4, 8 - 10, 12; 28:5, 7, 10 - 12; 32:1, 3, 4, 6; 35:1-4; cf. Guy 1938: pls. 62:19; 69:2 with flat base; Tufnell 1958: pl. 82: 927, 928 [fig. 24:1, 2, 12 here]; Guy 1938: pls. 14:5; 62:18 [fig. 24:4 here]; Tufnell 1958: pl. 82: 922 [figs. 24:10 here]; 82:923 [fig. 28:9, 10-12 here]; Pritchard 1963: figs. 8:23; 12:66 [fig. 24:2 here, with unusual decoration; cf. 24:11 with ring base]). As is clear in these examples, the vessel takes on a squat appearance compared to the more upright body profile of Level 1 forms. The lower body profile of figs. 24: 9, 12 is common in Levels 2 and 3 (cf. fig. 28:1 from Level 3) with parallels in imitation Mycenaean pyxis forms from Tell es-Sa'idiyeh (Pritchard 1980: fig 37:2) and Megiddo (Guy 1938: pl. 30:12; 62:18).

Another common body profile in Levels 2 and 3 is that represented by figs. 24:11 (Guy 1938: pl. 20:5; Loud 1948: pl. 64:6) and 28:3 (Pritchard 1980: fig. 43:1, though with different rim profile). Beginning in Level 3, the body profile becomes slightly more angular between the two body carinations as in fig. 28:2, 3, 7 (cf. Guy 1938: pl. 35:26). The pyxis presented in fig. 32:2 from Level 4 represents the earliest example of the bag-shaped body profile that is attested in all later levels of the tomb. The form is paralleled by other imitation Mycenaean pyxides, dating from Late Bronze II into the Iron I period (Pritchard 1980: figs. 8:2; 23:5; Tufnell 1958: pl. 82:925, 926; deVaux 1952: p. 563, fig. 6:8; Loud 1948: pls. 68:9; 73:12; 77:7, 9; Yadin 1961: pl. 201:28). The vessel wall of earlier level pyxides at Tell Dothan is more angular between the two body carinations (figs. 28:2, 3, 5, 7 - 9; 32:6, 7; 35:2; cf. Pritchard 1980: fig. 31:1 [fig. 28:7 here] with vertical loop handles).

A simple or straight rim (vertical to slightly everted) is one of the most common rim profiles in all levels of the tomb (figs.19: 1, 2, 4, 12; 24:1, 3-7, 11-12; 28:3-6, 8, 11; 32:1, 2, 4; 35:1-3, 6), though the vessels of Levels 4 and 5 tend to have shorter and more sharply everted necks (fig. 24:10). Although it has many subtle variations, a small triangular rim is also common in the three latest levels (figs. 19:5, 8 - 10; 24:2, 8; 28:2, 12) with a few examples in Levels 4 (fig. 32:3) and 5 (fig. 35:4). Note the grooved rim of fig. 19:7 which may also be characterized as triangular. Unusual and unique rim profiles are depicted in figs. 19:9, 11; 24:9 and 32:5-7.

Levels 1-3 produced both small and large pyxides, with the majority of forms classified in the small -to-medium range. Levels 4 and 5 produced very few large pyxides. Figs. 32:1-4 and 35:1-4 are illustrative of the typical vessel size of these earlier levels.

Decoration is attested in all levels of the tomb, though more common in Levels 1 to 3. The pottery plates are not representative at this point, depicting mostly painted forms for these levels and few plain vessels. The latter are attested in significant numbers. While the most common pattern in all levels consists of two clearly defined registers around the body of the pyxis with diagonal or vertical lines within the registers, there are discernible differences between the earlier and later patterns. The pyxides of Level 1 are quite consistent in the painted patterns as described above. In most examples, the two registers are of roughly equal size, though a few exceptions are attested. In fig. 19:1, 6 and 7, the lower register is larger than the upper register. The same patterning prevails in the pyxides of Levels 2 and 3, though there is greater variation in the size of the registers. In some pyxides of both levels, the upper register is smaller (figs. 24: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8; 28:12); whereas in other examples it is larger (fig. 28:1, 3, 4, 8, 9). A smaller upper register is more frequent in Levels 4 and 5 (figs. 32:1, 3, 4; 35:6), though the larger upper register is attested as well (fig. 32:2). Less frequent or unique decorations include those depicted in figs. 19:10, 11 (cf. Guy 1938: pl. 62:17); 24:2; 28:6, 10 and 35:1. Painted (rounded) bottoms (figs. 24:2, 4; 28:10, 12; 32:3, 4) and handle decoration (figs. 19: 1, 3, 4, 6; 24:2; 28:1, 3, 6, 8, 9; 32:3, 4; 35:1, 6) are attested but not with any discernible frequency or distribution.

b. Biconical Jars

Biconical jars are evenly distributed through Levels 1-4 with few examples attested in Level 5 (see table below).

The biconical jars of Level 1 evidence great variety in rim profiles unlike the biconicals in earlier levels of the tomb (fig. 20:1-5, 7; cf. Yadin 1960: pl. 134:5 [20:3 here]). There are two dominant rim profiles in Level 2 vessels: rectangular rim with a groove and near vertical stance (fig. 25:5, 6) and triangular rim with groove and near vertical or slightly everted stance (fig. 25: 1-4; cf. Pritchard 1980: fig. 11:2 [25:3 here]; Yadin 1960: pls. 120:15; 134:4). The triangular grooved rim of Level 2 continues into Level 3 (fig. 29:6), though sometimes without a groove (fig. 29:4). The rectangular grooved rim is also attested (fig. 29:3, 5). A new and dominant rim profile is represented by the biconicals of fig. 29: 1, 2 (Guy 1938: pl. 17:12; Yadin 1960: pls. 134:5; 152:5; fig. 9:15 for rim profile and body carination only). Note the similar rim profile and stance of the Level 1 biconical jar in fig. 20:3, though the body carination is higher and slightly less sharp. Level 4 rim profiles vary (fig. 32: 8, 9; 33:1), though few examples of the rectangular and triangular grooved rims were found in that level (Loud 1948: pls. 58:3 [32:8 here]; 63:7 [33:1 here]; Yadin 1960: pl. 134:11 [32:8 here]). Flat and shallow-to-moderate disk bases are attested in all levels. As a general impression, the body carination that characterizes this vessel type tends to be more pronounced in Levels 3 to 5 (cf. figs. 20:1, 2, 7; 25: 2-6 [Levels 1 and 2] with figs. 29:1-6; 32:8, 9; 33:1, 2 [Levels 3 and 4]). There is consistency through all levels of the tomb in terms of point of handle attachment. Biconicals with one or two handles are documented in all levels. The biconical spouted vessel with basket handle shows little change through the tomb levels (fig. 20:6 and 33:2).

c. Lamps

Tomb 1 produced nearly 600 lamps with significant numbers in each level of the tomb. The distribution is fairly uniform in Levels 1, 3 and 4 but with significantly higher numbers in Level 2 and slightly lower numbers in Level 5. The characteristic MB II-LB I lamp with lightly pinched mouth is not attested. The lamps of Level 5 are closer to the typical LB II form: sharply-pinched mouth; shallow to moderately deep bowl and definite rim, though many lamps are without a rim. The lamps of Levels 2 to 4 are quite uniform in these basic typological features. Figure 26:7 depicts the most common Level 2 form; the lamp of fig. 31:6 is typical of Level 3; and fig. 34:1 preserves the characteristic features of the Level 4 horizon. Although not depicted in the plates, minor variations are attested. Fig. 26:9 is unusual in the repertoire of Levels 2 to 4. By way of comparison with the lamps of Levels 1 and 5, the forms of Levels 2 to 4 have deeper bowls and more sharply pinched mouths. Many examples are attested in which the pinch almost closes the folded-over flaps, and most lamps have a definite rim. The typical lamp of Levels 2 to 4 preserves the basic typological features of the form in the LB II period. Lamp typology for these levels of Tomb 1 appears to be uniform with no typological distinctions discernible. Level 1 lamps appear to fall into two categories: a smaller lamp with definite rim, moderately deep bowl and a slightly less pronounced pinch in the mouth and a form that preserves the features described above for the form in Levels 2 to 4. In many examples in both categories, the rim tends to be slightly wider than in previous levels. Level 1 lamps have rounded bases. The flat base of Iron I is not attested.

d. Chalices

Chalices are well-attested in the levels of Tomb 1 except for Level 5 (see table below) and subtle typological distinctives are observable between the levels, especially between Levels 1 and 4.

The rims of Level 1 chalices are triangular and inverted, frequently with a pronounced or slight ridge (21:1,2; cf. Loud 1948: pl. 72: 11-13). The triangular rim is occasionally elongated, as in Fig. 21:2. The flared foot is common in early Iron I (Guy 1938: pls. 8:3; 16: 9, 10; 19:17; 71:17). The ridge continues into Level 2 forms (fig. 26: 2, 3; Loud 1948: pl. 67:5 for the former) with as many rims evidencing a slight to pronounced groove (fig. 26:4-6). The triangular rims of this level are both inverted (fig. 26:6) and everted (fig. 26:5).Figure 26:1 represents a slight variation in the profile of the ridged rim (cf. Yadin 1960: pl. 118:24), though the stepped foot is attested in chalices of early Iron I (Guy 1938: pl. 8:14). The inverted, triangular grooved rim is the most common profile in Level 3, and the groove is usually pronounced (fig. 30: 4-5; Guy 1938: pls. 16:9; 19:17; Yadin 1960: pl. 141:20). Everted rims with groove are also attested in this level (fig. 30:3, 6) as are triangular ridged rims (30:1). The chalices of Level 4 perpetuate the rim profiles of the previous level (fig. 33:3-5), though more pronounced. Level 5 produced only six chalices, one with the unusual profile of fig. 35:7.

The chalice base in Levels 1-3 evidences several forms: straight (figs. 21:1; 26:2; 30:5) and slightly to moderately stepped or flared (figs. 21:2; 26:3, 4, 6; 30:2, 3). The chalices of Level 4 have a more pronounced flare (fig. 33:3-5; cf. fig. 35:7). Unusual base profiles are represented by the forms of fig. 26:1, 5. Each level yielded forms with shallow and deep bowls as well as low and high bases.

e. Krater-Mugs

The so-called krater-mug (figs. 21:3; 31:1-3 and 33: 6-7) is attested in small numbers in Levels 3 and 4 of Tomb 1 (less than 15 examples in each level) with one to three examples each in Levels 1, 2 and 5. In Levels 3 and 4, the form is quite uniform in appearance (cf. the Level 3 forms of 31:1-3 with the Level 4 examples of 33: 6, 7). The only variations in evidence for the krater-mugs of these two levels are the sharpness of the body carination and the type of base, though flat and disk bases are attested in both levels. With the exception of the rim in fig. 21:6, this Level 1 example is very close to the krater-mugs of earlier levels. Precise parallels are unknown, though certain features (such as the pronounced body carination and the high vertical rim) are reminiscent of similar features on other vessel types from MB II, Late Bronze and early Iron Ages, as well as local imitations of Late Bronze Cypriot imports (Guy 1938: pls. 31:4; 32:22, 23; 34:8, 10; 59: 8; 60:35; 64:34, 35; 68:3; 70:12-17; 71:1; 73:3; Yadin 1960: pl. 116:11).

f. Multi-Handled Kraters, Stirrup Jars and Flasks

Tomb 1 produced a remarkable assemblage of multi-handled kraters of which only a small selection has been presented in the pottery plates. It must be emphasized that the forms depicted in the plates are not predominant types, nor are they representative for the levels in which they are attested. The majority of the multi-handled kraters and some of the most interesting forms were uncovered in the later levels of the tomb. The kraters of figs. 21:6; 22:1-3 and 23:1, 2 are from Level 1; those depicted in 27:1-3 are from Level 2. The vessel pictured in fig. 34:5 is from Level 4. Level 1 kraters have numerous parallels in the Iron I period (Guy 1938: pls. 8:9 [22:1 here]; 68:16 [22:2 here]; 70: 13; 73: 3 [22:3 here, with fenestrated pedestal]; 70:15 [23:1 here]; Loud 1948: pl. 69:14). For Level 2 multi-handled kraters, see Guy 1938: pl. 68:3 [27:1 here]; 68:16 [27:3 here]); McGovern 1986: fig. 51: 24, 25, 27, 28. The final report will provide a detailed study of this important and unique vessl type.

Tomb 1 yielded less than ten stirrup jars, the majority from Levels 3 and 4 (figs. 30:7 and 34:4 respectively). The closest parallels come from Late Bronze II contexts, and included several from Late Bronze IIB, the period of Mycenaean IIIB (for parallels to the Level 3 stirrup jars, see Pritchard 1980: fig. 10:3; 53:10; Guy 1938: pls. 14:7; 34:22; Yadin 1960: pl. 137: 11, 12; Baramki 1959: p. 133: 5, 8, 10, 11; p. 135: 14, 15, 21 [though the Sarepta imports are more angular in body profile]; for Level 4, see Pritchard 1980: figs.13:6, 7; 21:10; Loud 1948: pl. 62:9; Hankey 1974: 139, fig. 7: 81-83).

The ring flask of fig. 30:8 (and several other closed-form flasks of Level 3) find many close parallels in Late Bronze IIB contexts: Lachish (Tufnell 1958: pl. 84: 955); Megiddo (Guy 1938: pl. 14:6; 34:13); Tell es-Sa'idiyeh (Pritchard 1980: figs. 12:2; 13:9; 18:2); Tell el-Far'ah (deVaux 1951: 570, fig. 3:6); Hazor (Yadin 1960: pl. 130: 8-13); Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: fig. 8:25); Beth Shean (Oren 1973: pls. 50:3; 48b: 32; 44b: 31); Sarepta (Baramki 1959: p. 137: 27-29, 31).

g. Suggested Chronology

Figures 19-35 and the accompanying preliminary observations only begin to explore the incredible wealth of this tomb's pottery traditions. The combination of a clearly stratified burial context in five levels and nearly three thousand vessels holds great promise for the study of pottery typology for the period in which the western cemetery was in use at Dothan. Based on the pottery and other material remains, the following chronology is suggested for the five levels of Tomb 1:

Although some chronological refinement for the individual levels is possible in the final publication of the western cemetery, Tomb 1 dates between the 14th and 12th centuries B.C.E.