Typological Dating and Chronology. Goals for the Day Understand how stratigraphy is used to separate...
-
Upload
johanna-dobb -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of Typological Dating and Chronology. Goals for the Day Understand how stratigraphy is used to separate...
Typological Dating and Chronology
Goals for the Day
Understand how stratigraphy is used to separate out pottery
Understand the basics of ceramic typology Understand how ceramic typology is used
to compare strata from different sites– Hazor will be used as a “case study”
Stratigraphy and ceramic typology
Earlier we talked about stratigraphy– this is used to separate layers at a particular site– but we still need to compare strata from other sites
Ceramic typology allows for the relative chronology between different sites
We identify all of the pottery from different loci (or layers) from one stratum and compare with other strata
Our Goal: identify pottery in strata
Modern Stratum
Stratum I
Stratum II
Step 1: pottery is cleaned
Step 2: pottery is sorted and labeled
Step 3: pottery is analyzed & drawn
Step 4: complete forms are studied
Step 5: comparison is made to other sites
start with pottery from identified strata at one site
after these forms are analyzed, then you compare with other sites
you want to identify similarities between strata at different sites
the similar strata allow you to construct a relative chronology
Ceramic Typology(Late Bronze pottery)
Evolution of the Cooking Pot
• Example of Form• Example of Form Variant• Example of Ware• Example of Manufacture
Philistine Pottery
• decoration• form• form variant• manufacture• ware
Form
“form” describes function– cooking pot– storage jars– milk bowl– beer jug
most forms occurs throughout history of tel forms in Palestine / Israel are agrarian
Form Variant assume that items develop over time
– we see this in an automobile– we also see this in items like modern pots
forms develop over time (like cooking pot) some are radical changes and some subtle
Decoration
Not as important in Palestinian / Israelite archaeology (but compare others)
Burnishing– in MB IIA: fine burnishing– in IA II: interior burnishing on wheel
Painting: esp. important in Philistine forms Other incisions, etc.
Ware
appearance AND composition of clay pottery skill varies over time also includes study of provenance of clay
Manufacture
study of the method pottery was constructed
this is different from form what are some of the inherent difficulties? this study is also helpful for identifying
workshops
Case Study: Hazor and Ceramic Typology The article we read used Hazor as the site
base for the relative chronology The authors also constructed an absolute
chronology: how and what does this mean? We will go through their argument for the
purpose of understanding how ceramic typology is used– our purpose is not to test their argument– N.B.: their argument will be challenged in the
Tel Aviv low chronology
Aharoni and Amiran’s Chronology
X and IX: 950-875 B.C.E. VIII: 875-841 B.C.E. VII: 841-815 B.C.E. VI: 815-765 B.C.E. V: 765-732 B.C.E. IV: end of 8th - early 7th
Comparison of different sites
Cypro-Phonecian
• after IA II• not clear• until IA III
Cooking pots: a clear distinction
Early Shallow Type: Hazor VIII and earlier
Late Shallow Type: Hazor VII and later Deep Type: only in Judah
– eighth century type (cf. Tell Beit Mirsim = Lachish Level III)
– seventh century type (cf. Lachish Level II)
Early Shallow Types
Tell Beit MirsimStratum B3
Hazor, Area AStratum VIII
Late Shallow Types:Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A1
Late Shallow Type:Hazor Strata VIII and later
Deep Type: Tell Beit Mirsim
Comparing Strata: conclusions