NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, C.

1200 330 BCE

Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ben-Gurion University P.O.B. 653 Beer Sheva 84105 ISRAEL E-mail: gunnar.lehmann@gmail.com

Gunnar LEHMANN

An investigation of Phoenicians and their relationship with north Syria and Cilicia during the Iron Age and the Achaemenid period will have to define what one holds to be Phoenician and what is considered the area of the Phoenician homeland as opposed to its neighbouring areas such as north Syria and Cilicia. Phoenicians are elusive, in archaeology as well as in the historical record. Apparently, they never considered themselves to be Phoenicians and their own designations stress their regional city-state affiliations. Thus, with an emphasis on the political aspects, any relationship between Phoenicians with their neighbouring areas would in fact be the interaction of a particular Phoenician city-state with a foreign territory. In terms of economic aspects, these relationships are characterised by the marketing and distribution of specific Phoenician products or trade goods produced by others and shipped by Phoenicians. While it is difficult to identify such activities in the historical record, it is even more problematic with the archaeological record. Ethnicity is notoriously hard to identify in the archaeological record. In order discuss the mutual relationships of the Phoenician city-states with north Syria and Cilicia, however, one has to identify ethnic markers of Phoenician material culture in the stratigraphical record of excavations there. On the other hand, chronological connections between Phoenicia and Syria/Cilicia can often be reconstructed without specific ethnic markers of Phoenicians since during the Iron Age it is often Cypriote, not Phoenician, pottery that connects the archaeological records of both areas. Another problem arises from the state of archaeological research in north Syria and Cilicia. While there are an impressive number of important archaeological sites in these areas, there are unfortunately only a limited number of excavations with a sufficient stratigraphic record. Some of which, unfortunately, have never been published. The chronology of Iron Age Syria is currently based to a large extent on one excavation, Stefania Mazzonis expedition to Tell Afis. We are lacking more published stratified records and it is difficult to connect and to date the available archaeological evidence

138

G. LEHMANN

with the historical record although there is a large amount of historical data for north Syria during the Iron Age. This lack of archaeological research on the Iron Age is in stark contrast with the wealth of archaeological data we have today about the material culture of Bronze Age Syria. As a result, the chronology of archaeological evidence depends on well-dated finds from surrounding regions, especially Palestine. But whenever detailed research is available, especially in pottery studies, we realise that there are local Syrian traditions during the Iron Age that cannot be directly compared or dated with Palestinian material. This is why imports such as ceramics from Cyprus and Phoenicia are so important. The pottery provides a chronological bridge and the same material that was marketed in Palestine and other areas of the Levant can help to date levels and local pottery assemblages in Syria and Cilicia with such finds.

THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY The lack of archaeological excavations of Iron Age sites in Syria with continuous stratigraphies makes any chronological study of that period difficult. It is, however, possible to overcome some of these problems with a seriation analysis of sealed, but isolated archaeological loci such as tombs, shipwrecks or destruction levels. This method has been applied to establish a relative chronology for late Iron Age Syria.1 For the early Iron Age, the excavations at Tell Afis provided a data corpus for a number of summaries.2 As for a definition of the area of investigation, northern Syria is the region north of Phoenicia, between Anatolia and the Mesopotamian part of Syria. But where exactly is the northern border of Phoenicia? I follow the usual approach identifying Arwad as the northern most Phoenician city.3 Since the material culture of this important site remains almost completely unknown, the identification of this site as a Phoenician city rests exclusively on historical interpretations and linguistic considerations. Geographical and topographical features define all other limits of our investigation. The northern border is the Cilician plain as far west as the excavations at Mersin (Yumuktepe)4 and Karatepe in the north. The eastern borders include the city and the land of Zincirli (ancient Samal) and its lands south of Malatya (ancient Melid). The eastern borders are defined by Carchemish on the Euphrates and further south the Syrian desert down to the region of Hama.

1 2 3 4

Lehmann 1996 and 1998. Bonatz 1993; Mazzoni 2000. Elayi 2000. The site should be spelled Yumuktepe and Ymktepe; Caneva and Sevin 2004, p. 19, n. 1.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

139

The period that will be discussed here includes the time between 1200 and 332 BCE, i.e. the Iron Age and the Achaemenid (or Persian) period. It appears arbitrary to limit the notion of Phoenicia to the Iron Age. The city-states in Lebanon after c.1200 BCE were firmly rooted in their earlier history during the second millennium BCE. The conventional date of Phoenicians as an exclusive Iron Age phenomenon seems to be based mainly on the appearance of the epigraphy written in the Phoenician alphabet after c.1200 BCE. The material culture on the other hand emerged organically without a break from the second millennium BCE. The notion of the Persian Period for the last phase considered here is somewhat misleading in an archaeological context since there is only very limited influence of true Persian or Iranian material culture in Syria and Cilicia. Elayi5 is certainly right in insisting on a chronological terminology that reflects foremost the developments of the material culture.6 It seems best to adopt the current terminology systems of both Mazzoni and Elayi7 with a slight modification for Iron Age III:
Iron Age phases Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition Iron Age IA Iron Age IB Iron Age IC Iron Age IIA Iron Age IIB Iron Age IIIA Iron Age IIIB Mazzoni 2000 Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition IA IB IC IIA IIB III III / Persian Elayi 2000 Lehmann 1996

IIA IIB IIC III

The problem with the notion Iron Age IIIA and IIIB is that both periods are essentially very different in their material culture and the choice of the Roman number III is a compromise in order to apply, as much as possible, the existing terminology and not to introduce completely new notions. As already emphasised, the most important site for the establishment of a relative chronology of Iron Age Syria is Tell Afis, where Stefania Mazzoni has conducted excavations since 1986. This site, identified with ancient Hadrach/atarikka,8 provides a continuous stratigraphy for all periods of the Iron Age down to the seventh century BCE. In addition, the excavations of the University of Chicago in the Amuq plain

5 6 7 8

Elayi 2000, p. 328. Lehmann 1998, p. 30. Mazzoni 2000 and Elayi 2000. For references see Lehmann 2002, pp. 911.

140

G. LEHMANN

during the 1930s still remain unpublished.9 The few preliminary reports and the thesis of Swift10 give only hints regarding the importance of these excavations. The site would have doubtless served as the framework for the Iron Age chronology, had they been published. No other important sites in northern Syria provides the comprehensive chronological record that is so urgently needed, not Zincirli, not Ayn Dara,11 nor Tell Rifaat. IRON AGE I CERAMICS Ceramics remain the most important element of material culture for chronological studies. During the Syrian Iron Age IA a new style of painted pottery occurred. This category, Monochrome Painted Pottery, was found in northern Syria with some comparisons noted as far west as Tarsus.12 The painted decoration is mainly geometric, but a few figurative motifs such as palm trees or ibex representations occur. This pottery group appears first during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition and Iron Age IA. But it is best attested during Iron Age IB while it disappeared during Iron Age IC. In Ras Ibn Hani and Tell Kazel, a bichrome painted style with white slip was observed.13 Cooking pots and their typological developments are usually very useful tools in chronological research. For Iron Age I Syria, we have stratified evidence for the development of cooking pot types at Tell Afis. According to this evidence, the first Iron Age cooking pots in Afis levels E 9b8 are still similar to the Late Bronze Age traditions. The rim is a triangle often with a groove, while the body of the vessel is carinated. The imported pottery during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition and Iron Age IA is mainly characterised by Aegeanising styles of the Late Helladic IIIC (LH IIIC) tradition. The comparisons closest to these ceramics are of the stages LH IIIC, Early and Middle. But these terms of Aegean chronology are of limited precision, since the ceramics in question are in fact closest to Cypriot and not Aegean productions. Thus, the pottery that appears in Syria during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition is best compared to Late Cypriote IIIA vessels (White-Painted Wheelmade III or Mycenaean IIIC:1b in Cyprus).14 The Aegeanising ceramic styles of Iron Age IA are parallel to Late Cypriote IIIB including examples of Proto-White Painted. At least part of this Aegeanising pottery is apparently locally produced in Syria, imitating Cypriote models.
9 Publications of the Amuq excavations are now planned with a recently appointed team at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the University of Toronto. 10 Swift 1958. 11 Although Stone and Zimansky (1999) did what was possible to save and to publish some of the record. 12 Venturi 2000, pp. 513522. 13 At Ras Ibn Hani, Bounni, et al. 1979, pp. 252254; Badre 1983, p. 206; and Tell Kazel, Capet and Gubel 2000, p. 441 fig. 12. 14 Kling 1989; Venturi 2000, p. 522.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

141

Syrian Iron Age IB ceramics are characterised by the continuity of the local Monochrome Painted Pottery. In Afis, Levels E 76, the cooking pots were without triangular rims. The rim became a thickened bulge, but the vessel body is still carinated. There are also first examples of hole-mouth cooking pots. Among the imported pottery and the imitations of ceramic products outside of Syria, Aegeanising styles still dominate. The styles are best compared to Cypriote ceramics of the Cypro-Geometric IA period.15 In sites with Phoenician pottery, containers with monochrome-red circles appeared. In late Iron Age IB, early Phoenician Bichrome was found. During the Syrian Iron Age IC, Monochrome Painted Pottery disappears in northern Syria and there was less and less painted pottery. In Amuq Period Oa, vessels with a hand-burnished red slip occurred. From the end of Iron Age IB and especially in Iron IC, contemporary with Amuq Oa, there is evidence for some first signs of red-slipped, wheel burnished pottery. Hole-mouth vessels with a globular body now dominate the cooking pots in Afis levels E 53. The carinated bodies disappear. Hole-mouth cooking pots occurred apparently earlier along the Syrian coast. At Ras Ibn Hani, they were noted as cooking pots la steatite on the first Lower Level of the Iron Age I.16 Cypro-Geometric IB and II characterise the Cypriote styles during Iron Age IC. This includes mainly White-Painted III. Among the Phoenician productions, Phoenician Bichrome is dominant. IRON AGE II CERAMICS The ceramic repertoire of Iron Age IIA in northern Syria is characterised by a sharp decrease in painted vessels and an increase of orange fabrics. In addition, burnished decorations appeared and red-slip became the dominating pottery decoration during this period. The beginnings of red-slipped ceramics are much debated.17 Palestinian evidence seems to point to an early red-slip production already during the Palestinian Iron Age I, i.e. the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE.18 Red slip decoration appears in Phoenicia, in layers of Sarepta Area II-Y, Strata F-E and Tyre IX. In the Amuq region it appears in Phase Oa, a phase that begins probably during the Syrian Iron Age IB, but is mainly contemporary with Syrian Iron Age IC.19 Cypriote imports of the phase Cypro-Geometric III A dominate the non-Syrian pottery styles of Iron Age IIA. Greek Middle Geometric ceramics appeared in small
15 16 17 18 19

Venturi 2000, p. 513. Badre 1979, pp. 254255 and 1983, p. 206. Mazzoni 2000, p. 42. Mazar 1998. Swift 1958.

142

G. LEHMANN

numbers in Syria.20 Contacts with Greece during this period seem to be still largely confined to Phoenicia,21 with northern inland Syria becoming involved in exchange with Greek pottery only at the end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA.22 During Iron Age IIB, there was an increasing craft specialisation and intensification in Syria. Economic growth in the region is reflected in the pottery production by standardisation and mass-production. Three major regions with distinct pottery styles replaced the many local styles characterising the Iron Age IIA pottery repertoire. The coast was dominated by pottery of Phoenician style. Inland Syria, west of the Euphrates, had its own distinct style and the trans-Euphrates regions of north-eastern Syria were influenced by Assyrian style ceramics.23 Decorated pottery along the coast and in inland Syria was characterised mainly by Red-Slip, but both regions developed their own distinct Red-Slip traditions. The imports during Iron Age IIB were mostly from Cyprus: Black-on-Red I(III) II(IV), Bichrome III-IV, and White-Painted III-IV.24 The transition from type III to IV takes place at the end of the eighth century BCE. These Cypriote styles are contemporary with the Cypriote periods Cypro-Geometric III B. At the very end of Iron IIB, the ceramic style of Cypro-Archaic I A began.25 Geometric pottery was imported from Greece, including only very few Middle Geometric II vessels; most of the imports were of Late Geometric I-II styles.26 Among the imports were Attic or Atticising, Cycladic and Euboean ceramics, including vessels with Pendant-Semi-Circle decoration27 and so-called Al Mina-Ware, a Levantine imitation of Greek ceramics.28 At the end of Iron Age IIB, Early Proto-Corinthian types, SOS-amphorae of the early type, Bird-Bowls, Late Geometric Rhodian pottery and vessels with wave-band decoration appeared.29 IRON AGE IIIA CERAMICS Many settlements occupied during Iron Age IIB were destroyed at the end of the period. These destructions were caused by the repeated campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. The destruction layers at these sites and their pottery
Coldstream 1968, pp. 313316. Note Middle or Late Proto-Geometric imports at Tyre (Coldstream and Bikai 1988) and Ras alBassit (Courbin 1993). 22 Kearsley concluded that very little of the pottery in the earliest levels of Al Mina, levels 108, goes back beyond the mid-eighth century BCE; Kearsley 1995, p. 67. 23 Mazzoni 2000, p. 54; Lehmann 1996, p. 85. 24 Gjerstad 1948; Birmingham 1963; Schreiber 2003. 25 Gjerstad 1948; Birmingham 1963. 26 For the early levels of Al Mina, see Kearsley 1995, Coldstream 1968. 27 Kearsley 1989. 28 Boardman 1959. 29 Coldstream 1968; Cook 1972; for Greek imports to Palestine cf. Waldbaum 1994 and Saltz 1978.
20 21

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

143

assemblages thus provide a chronological anchor, dating to the time between c.740 to 720 BCE. The beginning of the following period, Iron IIIA, is characterised by continuity as well as change. While the most significant changes are related to the loss of political independence of the Syrian states and restricted autonomy of the Phoenician city-states, the pottery and items of daily use continued in the tradition of the preceding Iron Age IIB period. The loss of political independence is marked by the disappearance of Syrian (or Aramean) monumental architecture, luxury products and artistic styles. The new political framework created by the Assyrians incorporated the former continental or inland Syrian states into a network of provinces. The Phoenicians still enjoyed some autonomy at the beginning of the period. The imperial restrictions, however, were somewhat compensated by new trade opportunities that benefited mostly the Phoenicians, but one can assume that the north Syrian cities also profited from the Pax Assyriaca of the first half of the seventh century BCE. The pottery repertoire of early Iron IIIA was still predominantly of local production. The local pottery assemblages were still clearly divided into coastal and inland assemblages. The coastal ceramic production was predominantly associated with the Phoenician city-states and was thus considered to be Phoenician. While the local fine ware was usually decorated in red-slip techniques, there are also vessels with monochrome and bichrome painted bands. At the end of Iron Age IIIA, during the sixth century BCE, the clear distinction between coastal and inland pottery production was increasingly blurred. The same pottery types begin to appear in significant numbers in both regions. In the past, a particular type of deep and wide bowls, called mortaria, was generally held to be exclusively of the Persian period. Excavations in the 1970s and 1980s corrected this view.30 The first mortaria began at the very end of Iron IIB and at the start of Iron IIIA. Towards the end of Iron IIIA mortaria were more and more common in Syria, introducing a Mediterranean style of pottery to the Syro-Palestinian kitchen. There is a wider range of types among the transport jars in Iron IIIA, as opposed to the preceding centuries. This development may reflect increasing trade connections in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Very frequent was a small jar with orange clay, which was the direct predecessor of a later type in the Persian period.31 The tradition of Basket-handle amphorae started during Iron IIIA. The first large types gave way to the more elegant ones of later date. Clay analyses have shown that the early Basket-handle amphorae of Iron IIIA were produced in Cyprus.32 Imitations of Mesopotamian types were a new feature during Iron IIIA. They occur in both coastal and inland assemblages. Although their actual number west of the

30 31 32

Salles 1985. Bettles 2003. Lehmann 1996, p. 443, Type 421a.

144

G. LEHMANN

Euphrates is limited, they had a wide distribution from north Syria, Cilicia south to Gaza region. With the decline of the Assyrian Empire, Assyrian pottery styles disappeared. In the Levant, at the periphery of the Assyrian Empire, Assyrianising ceramic styles were apparently objects of prestige, copying the life-style of the centre in Assyria. The variety and the wide distribution of imports from Cyprus and Greece can be differentiated into four pottery assemblages within the Syrian Iron Age IIIA.33 During the first phase, Gjerstads34 Cypriote pottery Types III and IV were still found together. During the late Iron IIIA, there were fewer Cypriote vessels, all of them now of Gjerstads Type V. This type belongs to Cypro-Geometric III B and Cypro-Archaic I A. The Greek imports of this phase include Late Geometric vessels such as Al Mina-Ware, Early Proto-Corinthian pottery, Bird-Bowls and Late Geometric Rhodian pottery. In the second phase, there is an increasing presence of Greek imports, among them Bucchero vessels, Early, Middle and the first Late Proto-Corinthian types, Bird-Bowls, SOS-amphorae and Samian bottles.35 During the third phase, the range of Greek imports increased further again and included now Wild-Goat Style, Bucchero and Fikellura vessels, Early and Middle Corinthian pottery, Rosette-Bowls, Bird-Bowls and Eye-Bowls, Vroulian pottery, Ionian Bowls,36 Chian chalices,37 SOS-amphorae of the late type,38 Samian bottles and the first examples of Attic Black-Figured pottery.39 The fourth phase is contemporary with the rule of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in Syria. During this period, the clear separation between coastal and inland types in the local pottery repertoire became less significant. There was also no specific Neo-Babylonian period pottery in Syria, at least not in the local ceramic repertoire. Most of the local pottery types simply continued. A distinct sixth century BCE pottery style is clearly visible in the Cypriote and Greek imports. Among the Greek imports of the fourth phase, Iron Age IIIA, there is Bucchero, Fikellura, Middle and Late Corinthian, Vroulian and Clazomenian pottery was found with Rosette-Bowls, Eye-Bowls and Ionian Bowls of Rhodian 6, 8, 10 and 11 type. Moreover, Chian chalices and Attic vessels are represented. Among the Attic imports, we find Black-Figured style as well as Lip-, Siana- and Droop-cups.40

Lehmann 1996 and 1998. Gjerstad 1948. 35 For Samian bottles, see Culican 1975. 36 Of types Rhodian 6, 8 and 9 (Hayes 1966), see now the recent research on Ionian Bowls from Miletus by Schlotzhauer 2000; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. 37 Anderson, et al., 1954, Mller 2000, pp. 136145. 38 Johnston, et al., 1978. 39 Boardman 1974. 40 Boardman 1974.
33 34

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

145

IRON AGE IIIB CERAMICS There is a distinct break in the local pottery traditions of Iron IIIA and IIIB. The earlier Iron Age types that continued into Iron IIIA ceased to be produced and new forms of which a few had already started during Iron IIIA41 dominated the Iron IIIB assemblage. In addition, it is now often impossible to distinguish between coastal and inland types of ceramics. Fine wares of East Greek appearance, were very frequent in the local repertoire.42 This group is decorated with horizontal painted bands, wave-bands and drop lines of paint. The vessels rarely occur in Greece or Ionia and were probably produced in the Levant, on Cyprus, in northern Syria or in Cilicia.43 Among the mortaria there are now examples with the typical high ring base of Iron IIIB. The lamps are flat at the base, and a relatively large part of the rim is folded inside, creating an oval shape viewed from above. At the end of Iron IIIA, during the sixth century BCE, a new type of cooking pot with a narrow neck appeared. This type developed into the typical cooking-pot of Iron Age IIIB, a form that continued into the centuries to come. This rather significant break with the earlier Iron Age traditions may reflect changes in the diet and food preparation. In general, the kitchenware became increasingly more Mediterranean. The main types of transport-jars during Iron IIIB are Basket-handle amphorae and the small transport jars with carinated shoulders.44 New types are long one-handled jars45 and elliptic jars with a narrow, funnel-like opening and very small handles.46 During most of Iron IIIB, Greek imports were almost exclusively Attic or Atticising and comprise Red-Figured and eventually Black-Glazed pottery.47

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY IRON AGE I There seem to be only two chronological cornerstones for the absolute chronology of the beginning of the Iron Age in the Levant. The first one is Ugarit that was apparently destroyed after 1194 or 1186.48 The second is Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean
41

Among these are most notable mortaria, Basket-Handle amphorae and cooking-pots with high Lehmann 2000 and 2005. Ashton and Hughes 2005. Bettles 2003. Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:2. Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:3. Perreault 1986; Boardman 1974; Boardman 1975; Gill 1986; Jehasse 1978; Jehasse 1981. Singer 1999, pp. 713715, 730.

neck.
42 43 44 45 46 47 48

146

G. LEHMANN

that should date to c.11901133 BCE according to the Egyptian evidence at the site. LH IIIC Middle vessels found in this level seem to fit best in a horizon which covers the later part of Level IIIa at Enkomi and perhaps also the early stages of Level IIIb.49 These dates are in accordance with radiocarbon dates from Cyprus that date the end of Late Cypriot IIC, to c.1200 BCE.50 Except for these two cornerstones of Iron Age I chronology, there is no consensus. It might be surprising that even after a century of archaeology in the Levant, and despite a unique concentration of research in the area, there is yet a major debate about the chronology of the Iron Age. While much of the focus of this debate is on the tenth century BCE,51 the controversy includes a Low Chronology option for the Philistine material culture as well.52 In the centre of the debate stands the question, whether or not there was a phase without Mycenaean IIIC: 1b pottery (= Philistine Monochrome) in southwest Palestine. According to the Middle Philistine Chronology,53 Mycenaean IIIB pottery was immediately replaced by Mycenaean IIIC after 1180 BCE. The fact that Mycenaean IIIC pottery does not appear in layers of important sites such as Lachish VI, Megiddo VIIA, Sera IX, and, most of all, in Miqne VIII, may be of no chronological significance according to some scholars.54 The data from Tel Miqne in particular, however, indicate that this phenomenon may be of chronological significance.55 At Miqne, ancient Ekron, one of the capitals of the Philistine pentapolis, an uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence from the Late Bronze Age through Iron Age I yielded an important and significant stratum (Stratum VIII with four sub-phases), in which Mycenaean IIIB and IIIC pottery was absent. This stratum was followed by another one (Stratum VII), in which Mycenaean IIIC pottery appeared suddenly and in large quantities. In addition, this type of Mycenaean pottery was manufactured locally.56 Thus, a Low Philistine Chronology seems possible, which has important implications for the Iron Age I in the Levant in general, re-dating the archaeological evidence some 50 years lower than the previous or traditional chronology. The Low Philistine Chronology creates, however, a number of problems. It dates for example the first appearance of Mycenaean IIIC at 1130 BCE, much later than

Mazar and Sherratt, forthcoming. Manning, et al., 2001. 51 See Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998; Finkelstein 2005 and Mazar 2005. Radiocarbon dates from Dor and Megiddo seem to favor the Low Chronology (Sharon, et al., 2005). Recently Mazar (2005) has opted for a High Chronology beginning of Palestinian Iron Age IIA around 980 BCE, but a Low Chronology end of the period around c.840/30 BCE. 52 Finkelstein 1995; Finkelstein 1998c; Ussishkin 1985, p. 223; Ussishkin1992, pp. 118119. 53 Mazar 1985; Mazar 1990; Mazar 1992; Singer 1985. 54 Bunimovitz and Faust 2001. 55 Killebrew 1998. 56 For the evidence at Tel Miqne, see Killebrew 1996.
49 50

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

147

the eighth year of Ramesses III (1177 BCE). What then characterises the initial settlement of the Philistines in the archaeological record of Palestine? The Low Chronology also has difficulty in explaining the occurrence of LH IIIC Middle ceramics in the well dated Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean that should date to c.11901133 BCE.57 Thus, at this point, there is in my view insufficient evidence for the Low Philistine Chronology. On the other hand, there are now significant changes in the chronological framework of the Levant during the end of the eleventh to the late ninth century BCE. Finkelstein58 claimed that the Palestinian Iron Age IIA, traditionally dated to the tenth century BCE, should be dated to the ninth century BCE. Mazar initially refuted this approach.59 In the meantime, Mazar himself has proposed substantial changes in the chronological framework. In recent publications, he dated the Palestinian Iron Age IIA between c.980 840/30 BCE.60 Additional research to break through this deadlock was conducted by Ayelet Gilboa, Ilan Sharon and Elisabetta Boaretto, their preliminary results too imply that archaeological strata of the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE have to be redated.61 Their research is based on an analysis of relevant radiocarbon dates. Their program involved most of the relevant sites in Israel with a careful selection of samples and their archaeological contexts. A significant number of radiocarbon samples from archaeological levels of the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE were analysed. The results of this research support a Low Chronology approach at least for the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE. In addition, Gilboa analysed the pottery typology of Iron Age I ceramics from northern Israel and Lebanon. Their research thus provided a comprehensive framework for the pottery development, the stratigraphy and the absolute date of the coastal region in the southern Levant. The low chronology dates in this paper are based on their results. Hence, most of the leading archaeologists in Israel are working now with variations of a Low or modified High Chronology. The traditional High Chronology that placed the Palestinian Iron Age IIA in the tenth century BCE exclusively is out of use. Except for the major changes in the dating of the eleventh through tenth century, there would be also some minor changes in the relative chronology. Tall Afis area E Str. 9a contains a number of LC IIIA sherds. If these were not just survivors of the preceding level, that level may have started as early as late LC IIIA. And if Afis area E Str. 7 contains Proto-White Painted sherds,62 then a slightly earlier date for that level
57 58 59 60 61 62

Finkelstein 1996, pp. 172180; Mazar and Sherratt, forthcoming. Finkelstein 1996. Mazar 1997. Mazar 2005. Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005. Mazzoni 2000, p. 35.

148

G. LEHMANN

might also be necessary; it might have started during late LC IIIB. If, however, Iacovou63 is right in denying any occurrences of Proto-White Painted at Afis at all, then those ceramics are probably best explained as White-Painted I without any necessity to push Afis area E Str. 7 closer to LC IIIB. In this paper, the Syrian Iron Age chronology is compared with the various current chronological frameworks outlined above (see chronology Tables 14).64 IRON AGE II The Low Chronology creates only a few modifications for Iron Age II, adjusting the beginning of the Syrian Iron IIA to a date around 850 BCE. Most other dates of the Syrian Iron Age II remain unchanged. The beginning of Syrian Iron Age IIA is determined by the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III with the ubiquitous Black-on-Red ware and the relevant radiocarbon dates published by Gilboa and Sharon.65 The high chronology places the beginning of Iron IIA in Syria around 900 BCE.66 In terms of the High Chronology, this date seems to be a little too late, since even according to the High Chronology, Black-on-Red ware started around the last quarter of the tenth century BCE.67 In the Low Chronology, the end of Iron Age IC and the beginning of IIA seem to be contemporary with King Hazael of Damascus (842800?), who was probably the most powerful ruler in the time and who may have caused major political changes and destructions levels in Syria. To date, the transition between Iron IIA and IIB to around 800 BCE is only a tentative guess. The end of Iron Age IIB is connected with Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. Destructions of Syrian sites caused by these kings are clearly observable in the archaeological record and provide a chronological anchor, dating the relevant levels between c.740 to 720 BCE. IRON AGE IIIA The first part of this period is characterised by the Assyrian domination of Syria that was stable until Assurbanipal (668627). After generations of war and military campaigns, Syria was firmly under Assyrian control and enjoyed a pax Assyriaca. Assyrian campaigns in the first half of the seventh century BCE were directed against Phoenicia, Cilicia and Egypt, but not against Syria anymore. After the decline of the
63 64 65 66 67

Iacovou (personal comunication). As established by Stefania Mazzoni 2000; see also Venturi 1998; Venturi 2000; Bonatz 1998. Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005. Mazzoni 2000. Schreiber 2003, p. 309.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

149

Assyrian Empire and a short struggle between Egypt and Babylonia, Syria was eventually seized by the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Destruction levels at several sites that are associated with Babylonian campaigns in the late seventh and early sixth century BCE provide a chronological point of reference. The archaeological period ended somewhere in the middle of the sixth century BCE. The pottery development did not follow closely with the political changes and there is no Neo-Babylonian pottery assemblage in Syria. Rather, the first part of Iron Age IIIA is characterised generally by a continuation and further development of the earlier Iron Age pottery traditions with increasing changes since c.650 BCE. Somewhere in the middle of the sixth century BCE, most of the previous Iron Age traditions ceased to be in use and were now replaced by new forms, decoration techniques and functional types. Greek pottery became the predominant pottery import during the sixth century BCE in Syria.68 IRON AGE IIIB This period is roughly contemporary with the Achaemenid Empire. The material culture started probably a few years earlier than the empire itself, in the middle of the sixth century BCE. The pottery development of early Iron Age IIIB is not a result of the political changes caused by the Achaemenids, but reflects an increasing influence of the Mediterranean cultures on Syria and Phoenicia during the sixth century BCE. Syria and Phoenicia became more and more integrated into the Mediterranean economy and were an integral part in this economy by 538 BCE. The end of Iron Age IIIB is roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Hellenistic period after Alexanders conquest in 333/2 BCE. There is, however, much continuity from the Achaemenid into the Hellenistic period. Again, politics was only one factor in the changes of the material culture.69

CILICIA The discussion above focused on northern Syria. Cilicia provides only a very limited archaeological record for the periods discussed. Only a few Iron Age sites were excavated here, most important Tarsus (Gzl Kule),70 Mersin (Yumuktepe),71 Kazanli72

68

For chronological details see the discussion of pottery assemblages 25 at Lehmann 1996 and See n. 67. Goldman 1956; Goldman 1963; zyar 2005; cf. Jean 2003, pp. 8283. Garstang 1953; Jean 2003, pp. 8384. Garstang 1937 and 1938.

1998.
69 70 71 72

150

G. LEHMANN

and Soloi (Soli Hyk at Mezitli).73 Kilise Tepe74 and Porsuk75 are already outside of the Cilician plain proper at the edge of the region. One of the most important sites is Kinet Hyk,76 where excavations are currently conducted by Marie-Henriette Gates of Bilkent University. This expedition exposed extensive and well stratified remains from Iron I through the Achaemenid period. In addition, there were only a few reconnaissance surveys in Cilicia.77 Intensive survey projects started only recently in the region. They are restricted to sub-regions of Cilicia and their results are not yet fully published. Since the publication of the Iron Age finds at Kinet Hyk has only begun, the Iron Age pottery typology and its relative and absolute chronology relies until today almost exclusively on the published evidence from Tarsus. The pottery development at Tarsus was divided into four main groups, Early and Middle Iron Age, Assyrian period and sixth century BCE. There are no stratified remains of the Achaemenid period. Unfortunately, the stratigraphy is not always undisturbed and some of the pottery assemblages are mixed. There is for example seventh century BCE pottery published as Early Iron Age.78 Nevertheless it is possible to isolate pottery assemblages and stratigraphic units that permit a reassessment of the stratigraphy of the site. Such attempts have modified the stratigraphy and its date only in some details.79 The beginning of the Early Iron Age levels is still difficult to date. They may start around 1100 BCE as Hanfmann thought, although pottery of the twelfth century BCE such as Late Helladic IIIC was found at Tarsus, unfortunately, however, out of context.80 The Middle Iron Age levels are contemporary with CG III and were dated between c.850 and 700 BCE, interestingly very much in agreement with the Low Chronology. The Cypriote pottery at the end of Middle Iron Age includes some CG IV ceramics and CG IV transitional types are not infrequent.81 Boardman has re-dated some of the levels and loci at the end of the Middle Iron Age.82 According to his results, some of these contexts continued until c.650, including the so-called Destruction Layer, attributed by the American expedition to Sennacheribs campaign in 696 BCE. There

73 74 75 76

Yagc 2001. Baker, et al., 1995; Hansen and Postgate 1999; Jean 2003, pp. 8486. Dupr 1983 and Crespin 1999. For bibliography of the site see the projects website at http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~arkeo/kinet2.

html. Gjerstad 1934; Seton Williams 1954. Hanfmann 1963, nos 300 and 311 on fig. 64. 79 Boardman 1965; Forsberg 1995; Lehmann 1996, pp. 256265. 80 Goldman 1956, p. 206; the Late Helladic IIIC material was published by French 1975 and Mountjoy 2005. 81 Hanfmann 1963, p. 116. 82 Boardman 1965.
77 78

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

151

is less debate on the later levels and a re-study of them generally confirmed Hanfmanns interpretations with only a few changes.83 Hopefully, the publication of the Iron Age levels at Kinet Hyk will help to refine the Cilician relative and absolute chronology. Charles Gates has recently summarised the Achaemenid period in Cilicia. Again, Kinet Hyk, ancient Issos, promises to be the key site for Cilicia during the Achaemenid period, providing the only stratigraphy in the region with three architectural levels and important stratified finds.84 A comprehensive study of Cilicia during the Achaemenid period focusing on the coins was recently published by Olivier Casabonne.85

ASPECTS OF PHOENICIAN MATERIAL CULTURE IDENTIFIED IN THE RESEARCH AREA The following is an examination of evidence for Phoenicians and their activity in the region against the background of the chronological framework for northern Syria and Cilicia as outlined above. Starting with epigraphy and textual evidence, it is remarkable how many remains of Phoenician inscriptions were found in south-east Anatolia or are related in some way to the region, especially Cilicia. These inscriptions outnumber by far the Phoenician epigraphic evidence found in northern Syria. In fact, nowhere else in the Levant, except for Phoenicia itself, were so many inscriptions found as in Cilicia and in the area of Zincirli. The following is a list of the relevant texts. INSCRIPTIONS Ninth Century BCE KAI 2486 Kilamuwa inscription, Zincirli,87 Turkey, c.825 BCE, on an orthostat, royal inscription. KAI 25 Scepter inscription of Kilamuwa, Zincirli, Turkey, c.825 BCE.

83 84 85 86 87

Lehmann 1996, pp. 256265. Gates 1999 and 2006. Casabonne 2004; see also Lemaire and Lozachemeur 1990. KAI = Donner and Rllig 196264, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. For all Zincirli inscriptions see now the new edition of the texts by Tropper 1993.

152 Eighth Century BCE

G. LEHMANN

Cilicia, cylinder seal with bilingual inscription in Phoenician and Luwian, ninth or eighth century BCE (?), in the collection of H. T. Bossert. Dupont-Sommer reads the Phoenician as irow jhc, Seal of the Tyrian.88 Cilicia (?), group of six seals with Anatolian (Luwian) names, end of the eighth century BCE. The authenticity of some of the seals is debated.89 Lipinski considers them to be authentic, explaining problems with the palaeography with the nonSemitic Anatolian cultural environment in which the seals were produced. None of these inscriptions were, however, found in Cilicia or Anatolia. All seals were sold on the antiquities market. One was purchased far from Cilicia in Bagdad.90 Aleppo (?), another seal with Phoenician inscription, but of a different group, eighthseventh century BCE.91 atal Hyk area I square W15 level 6 (= IIId) (?), Amuq region. Phoenician inscription incised on a spindle whorl. There seem to be uncertainties about the stratification of the find. In the excavations records the citation of the level is followed by a question mark in parentheses. The level dates to the archaeological phase Amuq Oa, (High Chronology c.1000925 BCE, Low Chronology c.900850 BCE), the palaeography of the script form is late: ninth late eighth century BCE.92 ineky, 30 km south of Adana, Cilicia. Monumental bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription on a basalt sculpture of king Awarikas/Urikki (c.738709).93 KAI 26 Karatepe, bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription. The author Azatiwada identifies himself as a vassal of king Awarikas/Urikki, c.720 BCE. Royal inscription at the gates of the site. KAI 23 Hasan Beyli, Turkey, c.715 BCE, basalt.94 Ivriz, bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription on a fragmentary stela, discovered 1986. Written for king Muwaharna, son of Warpalawa, king of Tuwanuwa (Tyana) after c.710 BCE.95 Kinet Hyk, a Phoenician inscription incised on a jar before firing, late eighth century BCE.96

Dupont-Sommer 1950; Magnanini 1973, p. 148, no. 21; cf. Winter 1979, p. 139. Lebrun 1987, p. 24, n. 5; Lipinski 1983, p. 139, n. 48. 90 Lipinski 1983, p. 134139; cf. Avigad and Sass 1997, nos 714, 717, 718, 720, 722, 723; Lemaire 1977, p. 31, no. 2. 91 Levy 1869, pl. 2:3; Galling 1941, pp. 176177, no. 27; Magnanini 1973, p. 143, no. 3 (with bibliography). 92 Gevirtz 1967, 1316; Teixidor 1968, p. 369; Magnanini 1973, p. 59, no. 1. 93 Tekoglu and Lemaire 2002. 94 Lemaire 1983. 95 Dinol 1994, pp. 117128. 96 Gates 2004, pp. 408, 414, fig. 8.
88 89

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

153

Seventh Century BCE KAI 27 Arslan Tash incantation text, Syria, seventh century BCE, gypsum tablet. Arslan Tash, second incantation text, seventh century BCE, gypsum tablet.97 Cebelireis Dag: Mosca and Russell 1987 (discovered 1980 at Cebelireis Dag (Cebel Ires Dagi), 15 km east of Antalya, the inscription is dated to c.625600 BCE) Asia Minor (?), seal with Phoenician inscription, seventh-sixth century BCE, Collection de Luynes, Paris.98 Sixth-Fourth Century BCE KAI 28 Karkemish, short inscription, Syria, fourth century BCE, on a fragment of glazed frit, painted, found in the Kubaba temple. An Aramaic dedication inscription found at Brayj near Aleppo mentions the god Melqart of Tyre.99 The dedication seems to relate to a sanctuary of Melqart in the region,100 may be at Ayn at-Tall,101 at Brayj itself there are no Iron Age remains.102 The stela was erected by King Bar-Hadad, most probably a king of Arpad and son of Attarsumki I.103 The palaeography suggests a date around 800 BCE, which is well in accordance with the historical background of Bar-Hadad of Arpad. Pitard and Puech point out that although the inscription itself is Aramaic, the iconography of the relief and the style of the text are of Phoenician character.104 A sanctuary of the Tyrian god Melqart in this region could be related to the presence of Phoenicians here, may be traders conducting business with destinations further east in the direction of the Euphrates and Mesopotamia.105 PHOENICIAN POTTERY
IN

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA

Pottery that might be labelled Phoenician is extremely rare in northern Syria and Cilicia during the Syrian Iron Age IA and IB. The imported pottery in this area is

Gibson 1982, pp. 8892. Levy 1869, p. 53, pl. 2:11; Galling 1941, p. 192, no. 134; Magnanini 1973, p. 143, no. 3 (with bibliography). 99 For the inscription and the site cf. KAI no. 201 and Lehmann 2002, pp. 105106. 100 Pitard 1988, pp. 1516. 101 Lehmann 2002, p. 62; Pitard 1988, p. 16, looks for the sanctuary at Tall Muslimiyyah, for that site cf. Matthers 1981, pp. 1516, 435. 102 Matthers 1981, p. 12, no. 26; Lipinski 2000, p. 211. 103 Pitard 1988; Puech 1992, pp. 327334; Lipinski 2000, p. 215, for other interpretations, see Lemaire 1984; Sader 1987, p. 257; Dion 1997, p. 122. 104 Pitard 1988. 105 Kestemont 1985, p. 137.
97 98

154

G. LEHMANN

predominantly Cypriote and mostly of the Aegeanising style, being related to Late Helladic IIIC traditions. Future excavations may change the picture, so far only very few sites with Iron Age I levels have been excavated and even less have been published.106 The only evidence of Phoenician pottery that I know for Iron Age IA and IB are a few vessels in Tarsus. Among them are a small number of jugs, some with a spout that seems to belong to the group of Phoenician Monochrome ceramics.107 These vessels with a red or black monochrome painted decoration of bands or circles are typical for coastal assemblages contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age IA and IB.108 According to the High Chronology, they date to the eleventh century BCE, the Low Chronology would place them between c.975880 BCE. A transport jar from Tarsus109 seems to be of a distinctive type with a very flat shoulder that sometimes even sinks under the shoulder point of the vessel. The body is triangular and long, ending in a pointed, but still round tip.110 Most parallels were found in Dor,111 others occurred in Tyre,112 at Sarepta,113 Tell es-Saidiyah (Jordan)114 and Palaepaphos-Skales (Cyprus).115 This transport-jar, too, dates to the eleventh century BCE (High Chronology and accordingly to the tenth century for the Low Chronology). With the little evidence available it is, however, difficult to be certain, whether this transport jar is in fact a true Phoenician type. In late Syrian Iron Age IB, bichrome decoration appeared among the painted ceramics of Phoenicia. This style became dominant during Syrian Iron Age IC in Phoenicia.116 The earliest examples of what appears to be Phoenician Bichrome occurred in Syria in the Amuq region in phases Oa and Ob. But I have to stress that the excavations in the Amuq region are still unpublished and that my statement is based on an incomplete sample of pottery that I was able to study in Chicago. A few bichrome painted jugs and juglets that occurred in Cyprus in pre-CG III contexts117

Bonatz 1993. Hanfmann 1963, fig. 117, nos 171, 172, 175. 108 Gilboa 2001, pp. 368371. 109 Hanfmann 1963, fig. 119, no. 252. 110 Bikai 1978, p. 45, type Storage Jar 10; Raban 1980, pl. 26:8 and 14. 111 Dor G8/7, Gilboa 2001, pl. 5:14, JR 8a = pl. 5.25:6; Dor Harbor Area D, Raban 1995, pl. 9.24:7, 1819; complete vessels were found by divers in the sea off Dor, these are kept in the local museum and are apparently unpublished. 112 Tyre Stratum XIII1, Bikai 1978, pl. 35:12, type SJ10. 113 Sarepta Stratum D2, Anderson 1988, pl. 32:7; Pritchard 1975, fig. 24:6; Pritchard 1988, fig. 43:6 = 44:6). 114 Tell es-Saidiyah Tomb 101, Pritchard 1968, fig. 2:1. 115 Palaepaphos-Skales Tombs 58/2, 80/1 and 83/40, Bikai 1987, pl. 22:596, 599 and 602 with more references to these tombs. 116 Gilboa 1999; Gilboa and Sharon 2003, fig. 9:1214. 117 Bikai 1987, nos 19, 21 and 73113; cf. Dor Iron 1b and 1/2 horizon, Gilboa and Sharon 2003, fig. 9:1214 and 7 and fig. 11:5.
106 107

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

155

were found in atal Hyk in the Amuq area.118 It thus appears that during the Syrian Iron Age IC Phoenician pottery is extremely scarce in northern Syria and Cilicia. This is in striking contrast to the contemporary evidence from Cyprus119 and northern Israel,120 where Phoenician pottery occurred in larger numbers. Phoenician pottery remained scarce in northern Syria during Iron Age IIA. A few unpublished vessels were found in the Amuq area in layers of Phase Ob. Even at sites where large pottery assemblages were found, such as Tell Afis, the Amuq sites or Tell Rifaat,121 Phoenician decorated (Bichrome) pottery remains an exception. There are also no Phoenician transport jars and almost no Phoenician red-slipped vessels although they started to appear in Phoenicia during the Syrian Iron Age IIA. Among the few published ceramics in Syria is a globular jug that was found in a disturbed context of Hama Stratum E.122 More globular jugs from Hama were found in the Cemeteries III and IV.123 The earliest parallels to these jugs appeared in Cyprus in contexts contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age I, but a date for the Hama jugs in Syrian Iron IIA is more probable.124 Increasing evidence of Phoenician pottery in Cilicia and inland Syria appeared only at the very end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA and during Iron Age IIB. Contemporary with the epigraphic evidence at Zincirli, Brayj or atal Hyk there is now a slightly larger number of Phoenician pottery, mostly with red-slipped decoration. This is also the beginning of the small harbour at Al Mina, the maritime outlet of northern Syria in general and the Amuq region (ancient Pattina or Unqi) in particular. While the Greek evidence has been thoroughly emphasised, the early Phoenician pottery at Al Mina was somewhat neglected.125 Still, the Phoenician pottery appears only in very small numbers. Among them two juglets, for example, were found at Qalat Shayzar, near Hama, and Zincirli.126 These juglets are contemporary with the Salamis horizon of Phoenician pottery in Cyprus.127 Cypriote imports were still dominating Syrian Iron Age IIA and IIB and many vessels that were considered to be Phoenician are in fact Cypriote or of local production. This is the case, for example, for most of the Phoenician pottery noted at Tarsus.128
Swift 1958, fig. 45 (A1446) and fig. 46 (A2243), with no further information on the find-spot. Bikai 1987, Kouklia horizon. 120 Mazzoni 2000, 40, n. 39. 121 While the excavations remain unpublished, I have full access to the complete pottery record. 122 Hama E Areal K15, Fugmann 1958, fig. 344:4B828, cf. Lehmann 1996, p. 156, Fundstelle 81. 123 Riis 1948, p. 66, fig. 82. 124 Bikai 1987, nos 19 and 21. 125 For the evidence, see Taylor 1959 and Lehmann 2005. 126 Woolley 1921, fig. 44 and Luschan and Andrae 1943, pl. 28g. 127 Bikai 1987, p. 53. 128 The Phoenician pottery listed by Hanfmann 1963 under nos 651659 or 10681075 (cf. also Winter 1979, p. 138 n. 97) would not be considered Phoenician today. Hanfmann 1963, no. 1058 is most probably local. The only Phoenician vessel seems to be that documented in Hanfmann 1963, no. 670, an eighth century BCE juglet.
118 119

156

G. LEHMANN

There is no substantial presence of true Phoenician pottery at Tarsus;129 it is also very scarce at in Kinet Hyk.130 Black-on-Red, in particular is often called CyproPhoenician, which is in fact a Cypriote style.131 Map 3 shows the distribution of coastal (i.e. Phoenician) pottery types in Syria and Cilicia during the eighth century BCE.132 The map illustrates the presence and number of diagnostic types, not vessel numbers. The evidence published so far demonstrates that Phoenician pottery reached inland Syria only in areas near the coast and there, only in small numbers. Map 4 shows the distribution and the number of diagnostic types during the seventh century BCE.133 Both maps demonstrate that the Phoenician pottery distribution in inland Syria is restricted to small numbers and to a few sites in the Amuq valley and to Zincirli and its region. Karkemish and Tell Ahmar mark the eastern limits of Phoenician pottery on the way to Assyria.134 Only very few Phoenician vessels were found east of Karkemish, among them some Phoenician amphorae in Assyria.135 In Cilicia, Phoenician pottery was found only at Tarsus, Mersin and Kinet Hyk. Here too, it occurred only in small numbers. During the sixth through fourth centuries BCE, coastal pottery assemblages play an increasing role in inland Syria. Although there were still some particular inland traditions, the fine wares and the painted pottery is now often imported from the coast or imitating coastal ceramics. This reflects the increasing influence of the Mediterranean cultures on Syria and the successful transformation of the political map of Syria. The old borders drawn by the Neo-Hittite and Aramean kingdoms of the Iron Age were dissolved under the Assyrians. Syria was open to imperial rule from the east and economic impact from the west. The Phoenicians were among the major agents establishing this new political and economical structure within the Assyrian, Babylonian and the Achaemenid Empires.

A misunderstanding of the evidence perpetuated by Winter 1979, p. 138 n. 97; Pitard 1988, p. 14 and Lebrun Cilicie in, Dictionnaire de la civilisation phnicienne et punique. Turnhout: Brepols 1992, p. 112. 130 Lehmann 1996, types 306 and 381 are among the few vessels that may be considered Phoenician. An incomplete list of Phoenician pottery at Tarsus would include: Hanfmann 1963, Early Iron, nos 171, 172, 173(?), 174(?), 175, 252; Middle Iron, nos 445, 670, 817, 818, 842(?). As for Kinet, Gates kindly informed me that recent clay analysis of red burnished pottery that resembles Phoenician pottery (with shapes such as Hanfmann 1963, Tarsus III no. 829 note that this vessel is not red burnished) confirmed that it was locally made. 131 Gilboa and Sharon 2003, p. 67; Schreiber 2003, pp. 221280. One wonders why Schreiber correctly identified Black-on-Red as Cypriote and not Phoenician and still titled her book, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery, contributing to the ongoing confusion. 132 For the full and detailed evidence, see Lehmann 1996, Assemblage 1. 133 For the full and detailed evidence, see Lehmann 1996, Assemblages 3 and 4. 134 Lehmann 1996 and Jamieson 1999, fig. 8:1, 3, 4, 6. 135 For example an unpublished amphora in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1954.32, cf. Lehmann 1996, p. 434.
129

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

157

PHOENICIAN TRADE CONNECTIONS THE EZEKIEL ORACLE Apparently, the oracle against Tyre of Ezekiel 27 describes this new world order and Phoenicias place in it. Although there were attempts to date this text as early as the tenth and ninth century BCE,136 there is now an increasing consensus that it dates to the early sixth century with the possibility of perhaps using earlier material going back to the eighth century BCE.137 The text mentions three locations in Anatolia relevant for the discussion here, Tarshish (wiwrh), Tubal (lbh) and Beth Togarmah (emrgvh hib). Most authorities agree today that Tarshish is not ancient Tarsus, but either Tartessos in Spain or situated somewhere in the western Mediterranean.138 Tubal is most probably Tabal in Assyrian and other ancient sources, an area northwest of Cilicia.139 There is no consensus on Beth Togarmah. While Lipinski and Diakonoff140 propose to read emdgh (Tgdmh), others prefer the traditional reading and identify the location with Hittite Takarma141 and Assyrian Til-Garimmu142 near modern Grn in Cappadocia.143 As to trade goods, the text mentions slaves and bronze utensils from Tubal/Tabal and horses and mules from Beth Togarmah.144 Ezekiel mentioned three more toponyms that may be located in Syria, Harran, Eden and Canneh.145 There is no doubt among scholars that Harran is the city in southeast Turkey with the same name throughout its history.146 There is no consensus, however, as for Eden and Canneh. Lipinski located the Eden at Khindanu that he identified with original Iddan or Ghiddan near the modern Syro-Iraqi border.147 Diakonoff emphasised the occurrence of Sheba in this verse and has proposed to look for Eden in south Arabia.148 Lemaire pointed out the particular form of the toponym that is written here with a segol.149 In this form Eden appears three times in the Bible in a context with Harran.150 He is thus confident that Eden in this writing is to be

Cf. Liverani 1991, p. 66, n. 5. Cf. Liverani 1991; Diakonoff 1992; Corral 2002. 138 Ezekiel 27, 12 and 25; cf. Astour 1976, p. 569; Elat 1982; Liverani 1991; Diakonoff 1992. 139 Ezekiel 27, 13; cf. Astour 1976, p. 569; Wfler 1983; Liverani 1991, p. 174, n. 29; Diakonoff 1992, p. 69; Hawkins 1995, pp. 9899. 140 Ezekiel 27, 14; Lipinski 1985; Diakonoff 1992, p. 178, n. 48. 141 Monte and Tischler 197892, pp. 383384. 142 Parpola 1970, pp. 353354. 143 Astour 1976, p. 569; Liverani 1991, p. 69, n. 12; Parpola and Porter 2001. 144 Horses and mules could have been used for caravans to Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia. 145 Ezekiel 27, 23. 146 Kestemont 1985, p. 145 n. 46; Liverani 1991, p. 69; Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191. 147 Lipinski 1976, pp. 5961; Kestemont 1985, p. 145, n. 46, accepted Lipinskis identification. 148 Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191; as for a contact of the Harran region with south Arabia, cf. Pliny, Natural History 12, 40 were Arabs are mentioned that are trading with aromatic wood of the strobum tree as incense and opened a nundinarium or emporium at Harran. 149 Lemaire 1981, pp. 317, 324325. 150 2 Kings 19, 12; Isaiah 37, 12 and Ezekiel 27, 23.
136 137

158

G. LEHMANN

identified with Bit-Adini in Assyrian sources.151 Bit Adini is the Euphrates area around the cities Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar) and Arslan Tash. The third location, Canneh, was located at Assyrian Kannu near Assur by Kestemont.152 Lipinski doubted this identification and discussed the possibility of Canneh being a misspelling of Kalne, an identification that is, however, ruled out by Diakonoff.153 In a context with Harran and Bit-Adini, I would expect another major city such as Kalne (Kullania, modern Tell Tayinat) the capital of Patina/Unqi and not a small town in the vicinity of Assur. In my view, all three locations may be located in northern Syria. According to Ezekiel, Harran, Eden and Canneh, together with Assur and Kilmad (?), were trading with purple and embroidered robes. Thus, in our reading, Ezekiel 27 mentions important economic contacts of Tyre with Anatolia and northern Syria. While some of the major cities of northern Syria are mentioned, the Anatolian locations, Tabal and Beth Togarmeh, are remote areas at the end of the Phoenician trade routes. No place in Cilicia is explicitly mentioned. This is somewhat surprising since many scholars assume that there were Phoenician trading colonies such as the city of Myriandros in Cilicia. PHOENICIAN PRESENCE IN NORTHERN SYRIA AND CILICIA The evidence for Phoenician trading colonies is scarce. The oldest clear textual evidence for such a trading location is Myriandros in the Bay of Iskenderun. The city is mentioned by Xenophon, around 400 BCE, as a Phoenician emporium.154 It is documented again in the fourth century BCE by the Pseudo-Skylax as Myriandos of the Phoenicians. The last reference to the city occurs in the early Byzantine period.155 The location of Myriandros is under debate. Two solutions are discussed. The first one assumes that it was the predecessor of Alexandreia kat Isson, modern Iskenderun. The most probable location of this ancient settlement would be the modern quarter of Esen Tepe in Iskenderun.156 The alternative is that Myriandros was indeed 80 stadia (c.1314 km) further to the southwest, as the Stadiasmos has it. Ada Tepe (Ayn elHaramiyah) was suggested as a possible site for Myriandros in this area. A preliminary archaeological survey in the area, however, confirmed that there are apparently no preHellenistic remains at Ada Tepe. There is also no suitable harbour at the site.157
On Bit-Adini see Sader 1987, pp. 4798. Kestemont 1985, pp. 144145 nos 4546. 153 Lipinski 1976, pp. 5960, cf. Lipinski 1991, p. 70 n. 19; Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191. 154 For references, see Honigmann 1933; Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, pp. 362363. 155 Stephanus of Byzantium p. 463. 156 Dittberner 1908, pp. 108111; Newell 1920. For a description of the archaeological remains, see Hellenkemper and Hild 1986, pp. 112114, who do not locate Myriandros here. 157 The survey was conducted by a team of Bilkent University, Pennsylvania State University and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, under the direction of M. H. Gates, A. E. Killebrew and the author.
151 152

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

159

Strabo 14, 21 seems to imply that Myriandros and Alexandreia were two different poleis in the bay. After careful examination of the text, it appears that it is somewhat confused.158 Nicopolis for example is identical with Issus thus listed twice. And Mopsuhestia is not at all located on the Bay of Iskenderun. Given these confusions in Strabos text, it does not seem to be impossible to locate Myriandros at Iskenderun. Even more important are, however, geographical considerations. The harbour of Iskenderun provided enough space for merchant ships lying at anchor there (Xenophon) and it was located on the way to the pass over the Amanus to Syria. It would not make much sense to march 1314 km past the excellent harbour of Iskenderun to the location of Ada Tepe that did not provide a sheltered harbour. In addition, Xenophon would have had to march back to Iskenderun in order to pass over the Amanus to Syria because there was no pass in the area of Ada Tepe. At this point, it seems reasonable to locate Myriandros at Iskenderun.159 The above-mentioned archaeological survey in the area will investigate Iskenderun in autumn 2006 and it is hoped to find some more archaeological evidence for the past of this city. There seems to be no evidence for Myriandros before the fourth century BCE. A historical episode mentioned by Esarhaddon may shed some light on the situation in the Bay of Iskenderun during the seventh century BCE. Esarhaddon mentioned a coalition between Sanduarri, king of Kindu and Sissu in Cilicia, and Abdi-Milkutti, king of Sidon.160 This coalition in itself is telling evidence for Phoenician interests in Cilicia during the seventh century BCE. Bing, identifying Sissu with Issos161 in the Bay of Iskenderun, argues that the coalition may suggest that Issos/Sissu was the coastal terminal for the Phoenician trade route into Anatolia during the Iron Age.162 In this scenario, Myriandros would have become an important harbour only during the later centuries. A very vague hint for an additional Phoenician site in the Bay of Iskenderun may be found in the article on Aiga in Stephanus of Byzantiums Ethnika. In this text, Stephanus called Aiga a polis of the Phoenicians, quoting Hekataios of Miletus (sixth century BCE). This Aiga is located at Aeolia, but there are otherwise no records for a Phoenician settlement there. Could this be, instead, the Cilician Aigai in the Bay of Iskenderun? Without more evidence, however, this additional Phoenician site in the bay remains elusive.163
Strabo: After Aegaeae, one comes to Issus, a small town with a mooring-place, and to the Pinarus River. It was here that the struggle between Alexander and Dareius occurred; and the gulf is called the Issic Gulf. On this gulf are situated the city Rhosus, the city Myriandrus, Alexandreia, Nicopolis, Mopsuestia, and Pylae, as it is called, which is the boundary between the Cilicians and the Syrians. 159 So also Dussaud 1927, pp. 443444; Smith 1939. 160 Borger 1956, pp. 4950 (Ninive A, III 2038), 110111 (Fragment B, Rckseite 1314), 123 (Chronik 676/5). 161 For different identifications of Sissu, see Bing 1985, p. 101, n. 17; Parpola and Porter 2001, p. 16. 162 Bing 1985, p. 104. 163 Stephanus of Byzantium p. 38. So far archaeological investigations at Aigai (modern Ayas) have did not yield any pre-Hellenistic finds; Seton Williams 1954, p. 149. The evidence, thus, is interesting, but very vague.
158

160

G. LEHMANN

Al Mina, south of the Bay of Iskenderun, is usually discussed as a trading port with Greek influence. In a recent study, I have argued that Phoenician pottery is present at the site almost from the beginning of the settlement here.164 Phoenician pottery never occurred in very large numbers at Al Mina, but it appeared as early as c.800 BCE. Al Mina was the natural harbour of the state of Patina or Unqi, the modern Amuq plain, the hinterland of Antiochia (Antakya). As such it was the most important harbour for all imports entering northern Syria en route to Mesopotamia. There is no evidence for a Phoenician emporium here, but a Phoenician presence in some form or another is clearly possible from c.800 BCE. As for northern Syria, the mention of the Tyrian god, Melqart, in the Brayj inscription (see above) was taken as evidence for a possible sanctuary somewhere in that area.165 Kestemont has collected evidence for a Phoenician presence on the Euphrates.166 The fact that Shalmaneser III collected tribute from the kings of the seashore at Til-Barsip points, according to Kestemont, to a Phoenician representation on the Euphrates.167 Even if postulating a Phoenician emporium here is probably not supported by the text, it shows at least that Til-Barsip was a most important centre of Assyrian power in the west at this time. Another text, A.0.101.30, by Ashurnasirpal II,168 lists Tyre and Sidon between Sukhu, Khindanu and Patinu on the one side, and Gurgumu, Malidu, etc., on the other. Kestemont takes this as evidence that as far as the Assyrian administration was concerned, the Phoenicians were located on the Euphrates and the Assyrians were in contact with them there. These two texts are probably not evidence enough for Kestemonts Phoenician trade installation during the ninth century BCE. The texts may be, however, evidence that Phoenicias influence began to appear on the Euphrates. The presence of the Phoenician Arslan Tash ivories during the eighth century BCE are indicative of increasing contacts between Phoenician trade and Assyrian administration in the Euphrates region.169 The ivory finds at Karkemish, Sultantepe and Arslan Tash as well as Phoenician influence on the art of Karatepe was interpreted as cultural impact on Syria and Anatolia, and not as evidence for the presence of Phoenician artisans or workshops located there.170

164 165 166 167 168 169 170

Lehmann 2005. Pitard 1988, pp. 1516. Kestemont 1985, pp. 137139. Grayson 1996, p. 19, A.0.102.2, ii 39. Grayson 1996, p. 293, A.0.101.30, lines 143147. Barnett 1982, p. 46. Cf. Winter 1979, pp. 120124; Akurgal 1981, pp. 131141.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

161

CONCLUSIONS Recent excavations in Syria provide a framework for the relative chronology of the Iron Age. For Cilicia, the only comprehensive studies available today are the publications of the Tarsus excavations. This will hopefully change with the future publication of the excavations at Kinet Hyk that have the potential to complement and to improve the chronological framework of Tarsus. These recent studies allow a new discussion of the Phoenician evidence in northern Syria and Cilicia. There are, however, still major problems with the absolute chronology, especially with the eleventh through ninth century BCE in the Levant. During the Iron Age, Phoenician pottery never occurred in large numbers in northern Syria or Cilicia. Until the seventh century BCE, Cypriote imports were more numerous and ubiquitous in the area. Since the same imports occurred also in Palestine and Phoenicia, Cypriote ceramics are generally more significant for the chronology of Syria and Cilicia than Phoenician pottery. Phoenician pottery is especially scarce in the Syrian Iron Age I and occurred mainly in settlements near the coast. In Syria and Anatolia, the distribution of Phoenician pottery in inland sites was very limited in this period. This is in contrast with the quantity of Phoenician evidence found in northern Palestine171 and Cyprus in sites contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age I.172 Was there no significant Phoenician influence in northern Syria or Cilicial, or did it remained for some reason invisible?173 This changed to some extent during the Syrian Iron Age IIA and even more so during Iron IIB. Phoenician pottery appeared in larger quantities during the ninth and eighth century BCE. This increasing Phoenician influence is also confirmed by the appearance of Phoenician inscriptions that are dated independently by palaeography and the historical context. The earliest inscriptions were found in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia (Zincirli) and belong to c.825800 BCE. The number of inscriptions increased during the eighth century BCE and appeared especially in Cilicia. During the seventh century BCE, Phoenician inscriptions became less and less frequent in northern Syria and Cilicia and occurred only rarely after c.600 BCE. Phoenician was by then replaced by Aramaic as the standard language for official documents in the area.

The increasing distribution of Phoenician Monochrome pottery may be evidence for a Phoenician expansion into the Akko Plain during the later part of the Syrian Iron Age IA = Palestinian Iron Age IB. According to the low chronology, this would have taken place during the tenth century BCE and may have been connected to an early expansion of Tyre under the legendary Hiram. 172 Evidence for ninth century BCE Phoenician influence seems to be now firmly established for Cyprus; cf. the summary of Lipinski 1997, p. 109. 173 Note, for example, the lack of Assyrian material culture in the Assyrian trading colonies of Middle Bronze Age Anatolia.
171

162

G. LEHMANN

Similarly, Phoenician influence on local arts flourished especially during the eighth century BCE. In Cilicia and southeast Anatolia, Phoenician epigraphic evidence is especially well documented during the eighth century BCE. Here, Phoenician writing and language appeared in areas with native Aramean or Luwian languages. Phoenician was probably a language useful in international contacts and easier to write than the local systems. It was applied in an administrative context in official inscriptions, sometimes bilingual along with Luwian. Local scribes apparently wrote these inscriptions and the texts are not evidence for Phoenician presence in the realm of the local administration. The Phoenician epigraphy in Cilicia demonstrates the diffusion of writing during the ninth and eighth centuries BCE on a land route. Writing, thus, spread not only westward by sea. Even though there is limited evidence for Phoenician artefacts from the seventh century BCE, one has to be aware that Phoenicians were probably still massively involved in trade and economic exchange with Anatolia and northern Syria during the seventh through fourth centuries BCE. Their presence is simply less visible in terms of material culture. A Phoenician emporium at Myriandros in the Bay of Iskenderun is historically attested during the fourth century BCE. And as they may have been the main vendors of Cypriote pottery during the Iron Age, Phoenicians were probably now marketing Greek (especially Attic) pottery during the Achaemenid period. What was the reason for the Phoenician presence in northern Syria and Cilicia? As Ezekiel demonstrated during the sixth century BCE, the Phoenicians were as active in maritime trade as in overland caravan routes through Syria, Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Due to nature of his writings, Ezekiel is somewhat vague and imprecise in his description of the trade goods. Apparently, metals, slaves and textiles played an important role in Phoenician trade. Maps with metal ore resources in Anatolia demonstrate to where Phoenician economic interests were directed (Fig. 4).174 Another resource important for Phoenicians might have been timber from the Amanus.175 The currently available evidence, thus, points to an increasing Phoenician interaction with northern Syria, and especially with Cilicia from the second half of the ninth century BCE. Economic and political interests characterised the Phoenician presence there. Traders may have established Phoenician colonies and emporia as early as the late ninth century BCE. Their interaction with the local population and their advanced writing at this time, lead Cilicians to adapt Phoenician writing and language that, for some 100 to 150 years, ran parallel to their local writing system.
174 For maps of metal resources in Turkey, see Wfler 1983, fig. 3 and Archologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Wrttemberg 200, pp. 356357, 369372; cf. also Genesis 4, 22. For metal resources see also Gm 1963 and Nishiwaki 1970. 175 Watson-Treumann 200001.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

163

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AKURGAL, E. 1981 Aramaean and Phoenician stylistic and iconographic elements in Neo-Hittite art, in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 1416 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, pp. 131139. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. ANDERSON, J., HOOD, M. S. F. and BOARDMAN, J. 1954 Excavations of the Kofin Ridge, Chios. Annual of the British School of Archaeology in Athens 49: 123182. ANDERSON, W. P. 1988 Sarepta 1: A Stratigraphic and Ceramic Analysis of the Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Sounding Y at Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon). Beirut: Publications de lUniversit Libanaise. ARCHOLOGISCHES LANDESMUSEUM BADEN-WRTTEMBERG (editor) 2001 Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung Troia Traum und Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart: Theiss. ASHTON, S. A. and HUGHES, M. 2005 Large, late and local? Scientific Analysis of Pottery Types from Al Mina, in The Greeks in the East, British Museum Research Publication 157, edited by A. Villing, pp. 93104. London: British Museum. ASTOUR, M. C. 1976 Ezekiels prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin. Journal of Biblical Literature 95: 567579. BADRE, L. 1983 Les peuples de la mer Ibn Hani, in Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma 1979, edited by P. Bartoloni, pp. 203209. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. BAKER, H. D., COLLON, D., HAWKINS, J. D., et al. 1995 Kilise Tepe 1994. Anatolian Studies 45: 139191. BARNETT, R. D. 1982 Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14: Jerusalem: Hebrew University. BEN-TOR, A. and BEN-AMI, D. 1998 Hazor and the archaeology of the tenth century B.C.E. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 137. BETTLES, E. A. 2003 Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A Multi-Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539332 BC), British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1183. Oxford: Archaeopress. BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Philipps. 1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Leventis. BING, J. D. 1985 Sissu/Issus, and Phoenicians in Cilicia. American Journal of Ancient History 10(2): 97123. BIRMINGHAM, J. 1963 The chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot sites. American Journal of Archaeology 67: 1542.

164

G. LEHMANN

BOARDMAN, J. 1959 Greek potters at Al Mina? Anatolian Studies 9: 163169. 1965 Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek chronology. Journal of Hellenic Studies 85: 515. 1974 Athenian Black Figure Vases: a Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. 1975 Athenian Red Figure Vases: the Archaic Period: a Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. BONATZ, D. 1993 Some considerations on the material culture of Coastal Syria in the Iron Age. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 16: 123158. 1998 Area E1: Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age III: imported pottery, in Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sullacropoli 19881992: the 19881992 Excavations on the Acropolis, edited by S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni, pp. 211229. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. BORGER, R. 1956 Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Knigs von Assyrien, Archiv fr Orientforschung, Beiheft 9. Graz: Selbstverlag E. Weidner. BOUNNI, A. et al. 1979 Rapport prliminaire sur la 3me campagne de fouilles (1977) Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria 56: 217291. BUNIMOVITZ, S. and FAUST, A. 2001 Chronological separation, geographical segregation, or ethnic demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age low chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322: 110. CANEVA, I. and SEVIN, V. 2004 Mersin-Yumuktepe: a Reappraisal, Universit di Lecce, Dipartimento di Beni Culturali, Collana del Dipartimento 12. Galatina: Congedo. CAPET, E. and GUBEL, E. 2000 Tell Kazel: six centuries of Iron Age occupation (c.1200612 B.C.), in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement Series 7, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 425457. Louvain: Peeters Press. CASABONNE, O. 2004 La Cilicie lpoque Achemenide, Persika 3. Paris: Boccard. COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. London: Methuen. COLDSTREAM, J. N. and BIKAI, P. M. 1988 Early Greek pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: some preliminary comparisons. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988, pp. 3543. COOK, R. M. 1972 Greek Painted Pottery, second edition. London: Methuen. CORRAL, M. A. 2002 Ezekiels Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations, Biblica et Orientalia 46. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. COURBIN, P. 1993 Fragments damphores Protogometriques grecques Bassit (Syrie). Hesperia 62: 95113. CRESPIN, A. S. 1999 Between Phrygia and Cilicia: the Porsuk area at the beginning of the Iron Age. Anatolian Studies 49: 6171. CULICAN, W. 1975 Sidonian bottles. Levant 7: 145150. Reprinted in W. Culican 1986 Opera Selecta: from Tyre to Tartessos, pp. 125132. Gteborg: strms Frlag.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

165

DIAKONOFF, I. M. 1992 The naval power and trade of Tyre. Israel Exploration Journal 42: 168193. DION, P. E. 1997 Les Aramens lge du Fer: Histoire Politique et Structures Sociales, tudes Bibliques 34. Paris: Gabalda. DITTBERNER, W. 1908 Issos: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen. Berlin: Georg Nauck. DONNER, H. and RLLIG, W. 19621964 Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DUPONT-SOMMER, A. 1950 Deux nouvelles inscriptions smitiques trouves en Cilicie. Jahrbuch fr Kleinasiatische Forschungen 1: 4347. DUPRE, S. 1983 Porsuk 1: La Cramique de lge du Bronze et de lge du Fer. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mmoire 20. DUSSAUD, R. 1927 Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et mdivale, Bibliothque Archologique et Historique 4. Paris: Geuthner. ELAT, M. 1982 Tarshish and the problem of Phoenician colonization in the western Mediterranean. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 13: 5569. FINKELSTEIN, I. 1996 The archaeology of the united monarchy: an alternative view. Levant 28: 177187. 2005 The low chronology update, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. E. Levy and T. Higham, pp. 3142. London, Oakville: Equinox. FORSBERG, S. 1995 Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern Iron Age Chronology: Archaeological and Historical Studies: The Cases of Samaria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus (696 B.C.), Upsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 19. Upsala: Universitatis Upsaliensis. FRENCH, E. B. 1975 A reassessment of the Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus. Anatolian Studies 25: 5375. FUGMANN, E. 1958 Hama 2.1: Larchitecture des Priodes Pr-hellenistiques. Fouilles et recherches de la fondation Carlsberg 19311938, Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Strre Beretninger 4. Copenhague: Nationalmuseet. GALLING, K. 1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palstina. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 64: 121202. GARSTANG, J. 1937 Explorations in Cilicia: the Neilson Expedition: preliminary report. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 24: 5268. 1938 Explorations in Cilicia: the Neilson Expedition: preliminary report II. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 25: 1223.

166
1953 GATES, C. 1999 2006

G. LEHMANN

Prehistoric Mersin: Ymk Tepe in Southern Turkey: The Neilson Expedition in Cilicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kinet Hyk 19921997: the Achaemenid Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Olba 2(2): 323332. The place of the Achaemenid Persian Period in archaeological research in Cilicia and Hatay (Turkey), in LArchologie de lEmpire Achmnide: Nouvelles Recherches, Persika 6, edited by P. Briant and R. Boucharlat, pp. 4970. Paris: De Boccard.

GATES, M. H. 2004 The 2002 season at Kinet Hyk (Yeil-Drtyol, Hatay). Kaz Sonular Toplants 25(1): 405416. GEVIRTZ, S. 1967 A spindle whorl with Phoenician inscription. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26: 1316. GILBOA, A. 1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery: a view from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316: 122. 2001 Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age IIIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. GILBOA, A. and SHARON, I. 2001 Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for Phoenicia, and beyond. Radiocarbon 43(3): 13431352. 2003 An archaeological contribution to the Early Iron Age chronological debate: alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332: 780. GILL, D. W. J. 1986 Attic Black-Glazed Pottery in the 5th Century B.C.: Workshops and Export. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford. GJERSTAD, E. 1934 Cilician studies. Revue Archologique 1934: 155203. 1948 The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods, Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.2. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. GOLDMAN, H. (editor) 1956 Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus, volume II: from the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1963 Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus, volume III: The Iron Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. GRAYSON, A. K. 1987 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, volume 1. From the Beginnings to Assur-resa-isi I (to 1115 B.C.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (1114859), volume 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1996 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (858745 B.C.) volume 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. GM, A. 1963 Iron ore deposits of Turkey, in Proceedings of a Symposium on Iron Ore Held in Isphahan, Iran, October 25, 1963, pp. 6180. Ankara.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

167

HANFMANN, G. M. A. 1963 The Iron Age pottery of Tarsus, in Excavations at Gzl Kule: Tarsus III: The Iron Age, edited by H. Goldman, pp. 18332. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. HANSEN, C. K. and POSTGATE, J. N. 1999 The Bronze to Iron Age transition at Kilise Tepe. Anatolian Studies 49: 111121. HAWKINS, J. D. 1995 The political geography of north Syria and south-east Anatolia in the NeoAssyrian Period, in Neo-Assyrian Geography, Universit di Roma La Sapienza, Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dellAntichit, Quaderni di Geografia 5, edited by M. Liverani, pp. 87101. Roma: Universit di Roma La Sapienza. HAYES, J. 1966 Black glazed cups, in Excavations at Tocra 1963 1965: 1. The Archaic Deposits, edited by J. Boardman et al., pp. 111134. London: Thames and Hudson. HELLENKEMPER, H. and HILD, F. 1986 Neue Forschungen in Kilikie Verffentlichungen der Kommission fr die Tabula Imperii Byzanti 4, Denkschriften der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 186. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. HILD, F. and HELLENKEMPER, H. 1990 Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien und Isaurie, sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Denkschriften 215. Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. HONIGMANN, E. 1933 Myriandros. Pauly-Wissowa: Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 16(1): 10901091. JAMIESON, A. S. 1999 Neo-Assyrian pottery from Tell Ahmar, in Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the International table ronde at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborw (1997) and other Contributions, Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 10, edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 287308. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. JEAN, E. 2003 From Bronze to Iron Ages in Cilicia: the pottery in its stratigraphic context, in Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Age in Anatolia and its Neighboring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, November 89, 2002, edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, E. Jean and K. Kroglu, pp. 7991. Istanbul: Trk Eskiag Bilimleri Enstits. JEHASSE, L. 1978 Salamine de Chypre 8: La ceramique a Vernis Noir du Rempart Meridional. Paris: Boccard. 1981 La ceramique attique a vernis noir de Kition de la fin du 6e, a la fin du 4e siecle avant J.-C., in Excavations at Kition, volume 4. The Non-Cypriote Pottery, edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 7599. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities for the Republic of Cyprus. JOHNSTON, A. W. and Jones, R. E. 1978 The SOS Amphora. Annual of the British School at Athens 73: 103141.

168

G. LEHMANN

KEARSLEY, R. A. 1989 The Pendant Semi-Circle Skyphos, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, Supplement 44. London: University of London. 1995 The Greek Geometric wares from Al Mina Levels 108 and associated pottery. Mediterranean Archaeology 8: 781. KERSCHNER, M. and SCHLOTZHAUER, U. 2005 A new classification system of East Greek pottery. Ancient West and East 4.1: 156. KESTEMONT, G. 1985 Les phniciens en Syrie du Nord, in Phoenicia and Its Neighbours, Studia Phoenicia 3, edited by E. Gubel and E. Lipinski, pp. 135161. Leuven: Peeters. KILLEBREW, A. E. 1996 Tel Miqne Ekron: Report of the 19851987 Excavations in Field INE: Areas 5, 6, 7: The Bronze and Iron Ages: Text and Data Base, The Tel Miqne Ekron Limited Edition Series. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute. 1998 Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: The Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style, and Cultural Diversity. Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University. KLING, B. B. 1989 Mycenaean IIIC: 1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 87. Gteborg: Paul strm. LEBRUN, R. 1992 Cilicie, in Dictionnaire de la Civilization Phnicienne et Punique. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 108112. LEHMANN, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur spten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr, Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. 1998 Trends in the local pottery development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B.C. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311: 738. 2000 East Greek or Levantine? Band-decorated pottery in the Levant during the Achaemenid Period. Transeuphratne 19: 83113. 2002 Bibliographie der archologischen Fundstellen und Surveys in Syrien und Libanon, Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Orient-Archologie 9. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. 2002 Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Hinterlands von Akko (Israel) in der Eisenzeit: Erste Ergebnisse einer archologischen Landesaufnahme, in Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient I, Deutsches Archologisches Institut, OrientAbteilung, Orient-Archologie 5, edited by R. Eichmann, pp. 4978. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf. 2005 Al Mina and the east: a report on research in progress, in The Greeks in the East, British Museum Research Publication 157, edited by A. Villing, pp. 6192. London: British Museum. LEMAIRE, A. 1977 Essai sur cinq sceaux phniciens. Semitica 27: 2940. 1981 Le pays dEden et le Bit-Adini: aux origines dun mythe. Syria 58: 313330. 1983 Linscription phnicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsidre. Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 919. 1984 La stle aramenne de Barhadad. Orientalia 53: 337349.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

169

LEMAIRE, A. and Lozachemeur, H. 1990 La Cilicie lpoque perse: recherches sur les pouvoirs locaux et lorganisation du territoire. Transeuphratne 3: 143157. LEVY, M. A. 1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit Aramischen, Phnizischen, Althebrischen, Himjarischen, Nabathischen, und Altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter. LIPINSKI, E. 1976 Apladad. Orientalia 45: 5374. 1983 Notes dpigraphie phnicienne et punique. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 14: 129165. 1985 Phoenicians in Anatolia and Assyria, 9th6th Centuries B.C. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16: 8190. 1992 Chypre, in Dictionnaire de la Civilization Phnicienne et Punique, pp. 108112. Turnhout: Brepols. 2000 The Aramaeans: their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100. Leuven: Peeters. LIVERANI, M. 1991 The trade network of Tyre according to Ezek. 27, in Ah, Assyria Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33, edited by M. Cogan and I. Ephal, pp. 6579. Jerusalem. LUSCHAN, F. VON and ANDRAE, W. 1943 Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli 5: Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen 15. Berlin: De Gruyter. MANNING, S. W., WENINGER, B., SOUTH, A. K., KLING, B., KUNIHOLM, P. I., MUHLY, J. D., HADJISAVVAS, S., SEWELL, D. A. and CADOGAN, G. 2001 Absolute age range of the Late Cypriot IIC Period on Cyprus. Antiquity 75: 328340. MATTHERS, J. (editor) 1981 The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and its Catchment: Studies arising from the Tell Rifaat Survey 197779, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 98. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. MAZAR, A. 1997 Iron Age chronology: a reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant 29: 157167. 1998 On the appearance of red slip in the Iron Age I Period in Israel, in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Trude Dothan, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 368378. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2005 The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: its history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. E. Levy and T. Higham, pp. 1530. London, Oakville: Equinox. MAZZONI, S. 2000 Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age: a cross-cultural perspective, in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement Series 7, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 3160. Louvain: Peeters Press. MLLER, A. 2000 Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

170

G. LEHMANN

MONTE, G. F. DEL and TISCHLER, J. 19781992 Die Orts- und Gewssernamen der hethitischen Texte, Tbinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B7: RGTC 6, Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert 1978, Supplement. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert 1992. MOSCA, P. G. and RUSSELL, J. 1987 A Phoenician inscription from Cebel Ires Dagi in rough Cilicia. Epigraphica Anatolica 9: 127. MOUNTJOY, P. 2005 The Mycenaean pottery from the 19341939 excavations at Tarsus, in Field Seasons 20012003 of the Tarsus-Gzlkule Interdisciplinary Research Project, edited by A. zar, pp. 69134. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar. NEWELL, E. T. 1920 Myriandros, Alexandria Katisson. New York: American Numismatic Society 1920. Reprinted from the American Journal of Numismatics 53(2): 142. Nishiwaki, C. 1970 Iron deposits in the Middle East, in Survey of World Iron Ore Resources: Occurrence and Appraisal: Report of a Panel of Experts Appointed by the Secretary General. New York: United Nations Document: ST/ECA/113. ZYAR, A. (editor) 2005 Field Seasons 20012003 of the Tarsus-Gzlkule Interdisciplinary Research Project. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari. PARPOLA, S. 1970 Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 6: NeukirchenVluyn, Kevelaer: Neukirchener Verlag/Verlag Butzon and Bercker. PARPOLA, S. and PORTER, M. (editors) 2001 The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Helsinki: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute and the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. PERREAULT, J. Y. 1986 Ceramique et echanges: les importations attiques au Proche-Orient du 6e au milieu du 5e siecle avant J.-C.: les donnes archeologiques. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 110: 145175. PITARD, W. T. 1988 The identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart stela. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272: 321. PRITCHARD, J. B. 1968 New evidence on the role of the Sea Peoples in Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age, in The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of the Mediterranean Civilizations. Archaeological Symposium at the American University of Beirut, 1967, edited by W. A. Ward, pp. 99112. Beirut. 1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age: Excavations of the University of Pennsylvania, 19701972, University Museum Monographs. Philadelphia: University Museum. 1988 Sarepta 4: the Objects from Area II, X. Beirut: Publications de lUniversit Libanaise. PUECH, E. 1992 La stle de Bar-Hadad Melqart et les rois dArpad. Revue Biblique 99: 311334. RABAN, A. 1980 The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence for Interconnections amongst the Biblical Lands. Ph.D. Hebrew University Jerusalem 1980 (Hebrew, English summary).

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

171

1995

Dor-Yam: Maritime and Coastal Installations at Dor in their Geomorphological and Stratigraphic Context, in Excavations at Dor, Final Report. volume I B: Areas A and C: The Finds, Qedem Reports 2, edited by E. Stern, pp. 285354. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Hama: Fouilles et recherches 19311938. Volume 2.3 Les cimetires crmation.I, Nationalmussets Skrifter, Strre Beretninger 1. Copenhague: Nationalmuseet.

RIIS, P. J. 1948

SADER, H. S. 1987 Les etat aramens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu leur transformation en provinces assyriennes, Beiruter Texte und Studien 36. Beirut: Harrassowitz. SALLES, J. F. 1985 Cuvettes et mortiers du Levant au 1er millenaire avant J.-C. in De lIndus aux Balkans: Recueil la mmoire de Jean Deshayes, edited by J. L. Huot, M. Yon, Y. Calvet, pp. 199212. Paris: ditions Recherches sur les Civilisations. SALTZ, D. 1978 Greek Geometric Pottery in the East: The Chronological Implications. Ph.D. Harvard University. SCHLOTZHAUER, U. 2000 Die sdionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen und Entwicklung der sogenannten Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit, in Die gis und das westliche Mittelmeer, Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. V. Chr. Akten des Symposions Wien, 24. bis 27, Mrz 1999 (Archologische Forschungen 4), edited by F. Krinzinger, pp. 407416. Wien: sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. SCHREIBER, N. 2003 The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 13. Leiden and Boston: Brill. SETON-WILLIAMS, M.V. 1954 Cilician survey. Anatolian Studies 4: 121174. SHARON, I., GILBOA, A., BOARETTO, E. and JULL, A. J. T. 2005 The Early Iron Age dating project: introduction, methodology, progress report and an update on the Tel Dor radiometric dates, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. E. Levy and T. Higham, pp. 6592. London, Oakville: Equinox. SHERRATT, E. S. and MAZAR, A. (In preparation) Mycenaean IIIC and Related Pottery from Beth Shean, in Philistines and Other Sea Peoples: Aegean-style Material Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 12th Century BCE. Papers of an International Symposium in Honor of Professor Moshe Dothan, Series of the Society of Biblical Literature, edited by A. Killebrew and G. Lehmann. SINGER, I. 1985 The beginning of Philistine settlement in Canaan and the northern boundary of Philistia. Tel Aviv 12: 109122. 1999 A political history of Ugarit, in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 39, edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 603734. Leiden: Brill. SMITH, S. 1939 H Myriandiks Klpos h prs Phoinke Kemenos, in Mlanges Syriens offerts Monsieur Ren Dussaud, Bibliothque Archologique et Historique 30, pp. 2731. Paris: Geuthner.

172

G. LEHMANN

STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM 1958 Ethnika. Stephani Byzantii ethnicorum quae supersunt ex recensione Augusti Menekii. Berlin: Reimer 1849. Reprinted in Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt 1958. STONE, E. C. and ZIMANSKY, P. 1999 The Iron Age Settlement at Ain Dara, Syria: Survey and Soundings, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 786. Oxford: Archaeopress. SWIFT, F. G. 1958 The Pottery of the Amuq Phases K to O, and its Historical Relationships. Ph.D. University of Chicago. TAYLOR, J. DU PLAT 1959 The Cypriot and Syrian pottery from al Mina, Syria. Iraq 21: 6292. TEKOGLU, R. and LEMAIRE, A. 2002 La bilingue royal louvito-phnicienne de ineky: texte hiroglyphique: inscription phnicienne: avec un introduction par Ismet Ipek et A. Kazim Tosun, muse dAdana. Compte rendus des seance de lAcademie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000, edited by, pp. 9611006. Paris: De Boccard. TEIXIDOR, J. 1968 Bulletin dpigraphie smitique. Syria 45: 369370. TROPPER, J. 1993 Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phnizischen, samalischen und aramischen Textkorpus. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas 6. Mnster: Ugarit Verlag. VENTURI, F. 1998 Area E1: The Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age I Levels, in Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sullacropoli 19881992: the 19881992 Excavations on the Acropolis, edited by S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni, pp. 123162. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. 2000 Le premier ge du Fer Tell Afis et en Syrie septentrionale. in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement Series 7, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 505536. Louvain: Peeters Press. WFLER, M. 1983 Zu Status und Lage von Tabal. Orientalia 52: 181193. WALDBAUM, J. C. 1994 Early Greek contacts with the southern Levant, ca. 1000600 B.C.: the eastern perspective. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293: 5366. WATSON-TREUMANN, B. 20002001 Beyond the Cedars of Lebanon: Phoenician Timber Merchants and Trees from the Black Mountain. Welt des Orients 31:7583. WINTER, I. J. 1979 On the problems of Karatepe: the reliefs and their context. Anatolian Studies 29: 115151. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1921 La Phenicie et les peuples egens. Syria 2: 177194. YAGCI, R. 2001 The Importance of Soli in the Archaeology of Cilicia in the Second Millenium B.C. in Actes de la Table ronde internationale dIstanbul, 25 novembre 1999, Varia Anatolica 13, edited by E. Jean, A.M. Dincol, S. Durugonul, pp. 159166. Institut Francais dEtudes Anatoliennes Georges Dumezil, Istanbul. Paris: De Boccard.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

173

Map 1. Archaeological sites in Syria and Cilicia during the Iron Age and the Achaemenid period.

174

G. LEHMANN

Map 2. Coastal and Inland Pottery Assemblages in Syria and Cilicia during the eighth century BCE. Distribution and quantity of diagnostic types.

Map 3. Coastal and Inland Pottery Assemblages in Syria and Cilicia during the seventh century BCE. Distribution and quantity of diagnostic types.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

c. 1200330

BCE

175

Map 4. Metal resources in Anatolia (after Waefler 1983, fig. 3).

Palestine Mazar1 Palestine Finkelstein2 Syrian Periods4 Cypriot Periods Megiddo Dor3

Iron I A 1200 1140/30 1180-1130 1130-1080

Iron I B 1140/30 980 1080-980 Iron I A 1150/25-1050 LC IIIB

(+ early CG IA?)

Iron II A 980 840/30

176

980-900 Iron I B 1050-1000 CG IA mid CG I VI A Iron 1b - 880 B-10? 9b D2-11 9 G-7 9b 9a XIII-2 XIII1 E oor I

900-835 Iron I C 1000-9255 CG IB CG II gap? VB Iron 1/2 880-850 B-9a D2-8c G-6b 8c? XII XI X? gap? Iron IIA 925-800? CG III A V A IV B Iron 2a 850-? B-8 D2-8b G-6a 8b 8a X?-IX D2

Late Bronze Age Iron Age Transition 1190-1150/25 LC IIIA VII A Transitional Late Bronze / Iron Age B-14? G-late 11?

gap? Iron 1a B-13 12 G-10 9 12 10 XIV

Tall Kaysan Tyre Sarepta II/Y Ras Ibn Hani Kition Area I & III Enkomi (Kling) Enkomi (Iakovou) Amuq T. As (Area E) 4 Hama Tarsus

? 13

VI B Iron 1 a/b 975 B-11-10? D2-12 G-8? 9c

G. LEHMANN

Late G Lower Floor oors IV IIIA III III A III A B C N Early 9b G1 unstratied pottery

F Upper Floor oor II III B C N Middle 9a N Late 8 Cimetires I F2

Oa 7-6 5-3 Cimetires II F1 Gate I

Early Iron Age

Ob 2-1 Cimetires III E2 Buildings II-III Middle Iron

1 Mazar 2005; Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar 2003. 2 Finkelstein 1995 acentury BCEnd 1996; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001. 3 Gilboa 2001; Gilboa and Sharon 2001 and 2003. 4 Mazzoni 2000 and 2006 personal communication; Venturi 2000. 5 Mazzoni dates the end of Iron IC to ca. 900 BCE, I propose to date it to ca. 925 BCE.

Syrian Periods Cypriot Periods Pottery (Aegean)

Late Bronze Age Iron Age Transition 1190-1150/25 LC IIIA Group 3 and 4 (see text) LH III C Early and Middle

Iron I A 1150/25-1050 LC IIIB

(+ early CG I?)

Iron I B 1050-1000 CG IA mid CG I

Iron I C 1000-925 CG IB CG II

Iron IIA 925-800? CG III A

Pottery (Cypriot) Pottery (Levant)

Group 5 (see text) LH IIIC Middle and Late Submycenaean Granary Ware White-Painted Wheelmade III Proto-White Painted (Mycenaean IIIC:1b) at end of phase: rst White-Painted I Collared-Rim Jars in Palestine Wavy Band Pithoi Early Philistine Philistine Bichrome Bichrome Containers decorated with monochrome-red circles

Euboean Euboean Middle-Late Sub-PG I Proto-Geometric Sub-PG II-III White Painted I White-Painted I II White-Painted III rst Black-onRed

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA,

Late Philistine Bichrome? Phoenician Monochrome and early Phoenician Bichrome Phoenician Bichrome dominant Phoenician Bichrome and rst Red-Slip in Phoenicia Amuq Ob: Red-Slipped hand-burnished and rst wheelburnished.

c. 1200330
BCE

Amuq Oa: rst RedSlipped hand-burnished.

Table 1. Iron Age I, Levant

177

178

Syria High Chronology Low Chronology Political Periods Al Mina Amuq atal Hyk Area I Cudeide Tayinat Building Period As Hama Tarsus Cyprus Pottery Assemblages (Lehmann 1998)

Iron IIA 925 800?

Iron IIB 800? 740/20

Iron IIIA 740/20 550

Iron IIIB 550 330

850 800? Aramean kingdoms ?10 Ob 5 7 1 E21 E2 Cimtieres III Buildings II III Middle Iron Age CG III A CG III B 1 9 Oc 4 6 2 D76 D54 G 8b 8a E1 Cimtieres IV Destruction Assyrian Level CA I 2 3 4 6th century CA II 5 6 gap? CC I 7 CC II 8 8 Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires 7 6 5 gap Od 3 5 3 D31 gap 4 graves 5 4 Achaemenid Empire 432 P gap 3

graves
G. LEHMANN

Table 2. Syrian Iron Age II-III