-
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, C.1200 330 BCE
Gunnar LEHMANNDepartment of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near
Eastern Studies
Ben-Gurion UniversityP.O.B. 653
Beer Sheva 84105ISRAEL
E-mail: [email protected]
An investigation of Phoenicians and their relationship with
north Syria and Ciliciaduring the Iron Age and the Achaemenid
period will have to define what one holds tobe Phoenician and what
is considered the area of the Phoenician homeland asopposed to its
neighbouring areas such as north Syria and Cilicia. Phoenicians are
elu-sive, in archaeology as well as in the historical record.
Apparently, they never consid-ered themselves to be Phoenicians and
their own designations stress their regionalcity-state
affiliations. Thus, with an emphasis on the political aspects, any
relationshipbetween Phoenicians with their neighbouring areas would
in fact be the interaction ofa particular Phoenician city-state
with a foreign territory. In terms of economicaspects, these
relationships are characterised by the marketing and distribution
of spe-cific Phoenician products or trade goods produced by others
and shipped by Phoeni-cians.
While it is difficult to identify such activities in the
historical record, it is even moreproblematic with the
archaeological record. Ethnicity is notoriously hard to identify
inthe archaeological record. In order discuss the mutual
relationships of the Phoeniciancity-states with north Syria and
Cilicia, however, one has to identify ethnic markers ofPhoenician
material culture in the stratigraphical record of excavations
there. On theother hand, chronological connections between
Phoenicia and Syria/Cilicia can oftenbe reconstructed without
specific ethnic markers of Phoenicians since during the IronAge it
is often Cypriote, not Phoenician, pottery that connects the
archaeologicalrecords of both areas.
Another problem arises from the state of archaeological research
in north Syria andCilicia. While there are an impressive number of
important archaeological sites in theseareas, there are
unfortunately only a limited number of excavations with a
sufficientstratigraphic record. Some of which, unfortunately, have
never been published. Thechronology 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
stratifiedrecords and it is difficult to connect and to date the
available archaeological evidence
-
with the historical record although there is a large amount of
historical data fornorth Syria during the Iron Age. This lack of
archaeological research on the Iron Ageis in stark contrast with
the wealth of archaeological data we have today about thematerial
culture of Bronze Age Syria.
As a result, the chronology of archaeological evidence depends
on well-dated findsfrom surrounding regions, especially Palestine.
But whenever detailed research is avail-able, especially in pottery
studies, we realise that there are local Syrian traditions dur-ing
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 marketedin
Palestine and other areas of the Levant can help to date levels and
local potteryassemblages in Syria and Cilicia with such finds.
THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
The lack of archaeological excavations of Iron Age sites in
Syria with continuousstratigraphies makes any chronological study
of that period difficult. It is, however,possible to overcome some
of these problems with a seriation analysis of sealed, butisolated
archaeological loci such as tombs, shipwrecks or destruction
levels. Thismethod has been applied to establish a relative
chronology for late Iron Age Syria.1 Forthe early Iron Age, the
excavations at Tell Afis provided a data corpus for a number
ofsummaries.2
As for a definition of the area of investigation, northern Syria
is the region north ofPhoenicia, between Anatolia and the
Mesopotamian part of Syria. But where exactlyis the northern border
of Phoenicia? I follow the usual approach identifying Arwadas the
northern most Phoenician city.3 Since the material culture of this
important siteremains almost completely unknown, the identification
of this site as a Phoeniciancity 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 theland of
Zincirli (ancient Samal) and its lands south of Malatya (ancient
Melid). Theeastern borders are defined by Carchemish on the
Euphrates and further south theSyrian desert down to the region of
Hama.
138 G. LEHMANN
1 Lehmann 1996 and 1998.2 Bonatz 1993; Mazzoni 2000.3 Elayi
2000.4 The site should be spelled Yumuktepe and Ymktepe; Caneva and
Sevin 2004, p. 19, n. 1.
-
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 limitthe notion of Phoenicia to the
Iron Age. The city-states in Lebanon after c.1200 BCEwere firmly
rooted in their earlier history during the second millennium BCE.
Theconventional date of Phoenicians as an exclusive Iron Age
phenomenon seems to bebased mainly on the appearance of the
epigraphy written in the Phoenician alphabetafter c.1200 BCE. The
material culture on the other hand emerged organically with-out a
break from the second millennium BCE.
The notion of the Persian Period for the last phase considered
here is somewhatmisleading in an archaeological context since there
is only very limited influence oftrue Persian or Iranian material
culture in Syria and Cilicia. Elayi5 is certainly right ininsisting
on a chronological terminology that reflects foremost the
developments ofthe material culture.6 It seems best to adopt the
current terminology systems of bothMazzoni and Elayi7 with a slight
modification for Iron Age III:
Iron Age phases Mazzoni 2000 Elayi 2000 Lehmann 1996
Late Bronze Age / Late Bronze Age /Iron Age Transition Iron Age
TransitionIron Age IA IAIron Age IB IBIron Age IC ICIron Age IIA
IIA IIAIron Age IIB IIB IIBIron Age IIIA III IICIron Age IIIB III /
Persian III
The problem with the notion Iron Age IIIA and IIIB is that both
periods areessentially very different in their material culture and
the choice of the Roman num-ber III is a compromise in order to
apply, as much as possible, the existing terminol-ogy and not to
introduce completely new notions.
As already emphasised, the most important site for the
establishment of a relativechronology of Iron Age Syria is Tell
Afis, where Stefania Mazzoni has conducted exca-vations since 1986.
This site, identified with ancient Hadrach/atarikka,8 provides
acontinuous stratigraphy for all periods of the Iron Age down to
the seventh centuryBCE. In addition, the excavations of the
University of Chicago in the Amuq plain
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 139
5 Elayi 2000, p. 328.6 Lehmann 1998, p. 30.7 Mazzoni 2000 and
Elayi 2000.8 For references see Lehmann 2002, pp. 911.
-
during the 1930s still remain unpublished.9 The few preliminary
reports and the the-sis of Swift10 give only hints regarding the
importance of these excavations. The sitewould have doubtless
served as the framework for the Iron Age chronology, had theybeen
published. No other important sites in northern Syria provides the
comprehen-sive chronological record that is so urgently needed, not
Zincirli, not Ayn Dara,11 norTell Rifaat.
IRON AGE I CERAMICS
Ceramics remain the most important element of material culture
for chronologicalstudies. During the Syrian Iron Age IA a new style
of painted pottery occurred. Thiscategory, Monochrome Painted
Pottery, was found in northern Syria with some com-parisons noted
as far west as Tarsus.12 The painted decoration is mainly
geometric, buta few figurative motifs such as palm trees or ibex
representations occur. This potterygroup 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. InRas 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 inchronological research. For Iron Age I Syria, we
have stratified evidence for the devel-opment of cooking pot types
at Tell Afis. According to this evidence, the first Iron Agecooking
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 AgeIA 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 andMiddle. But these terms of Aegean chronology are of
limited precision, since the ceram-ics in question are in fact
closest to Cypriot and not Aegean productions. Thus, the pot-tery
that appears in Syria during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age
Transition is best com-pared to Late Cypriote IIIA vessels
(White-Painted Wheelmade III or MycenaeanIIIC:1b in Cyprus).14 The
Aegeanising ceramic styles of Iron Age IA are parallel to
LateCypriote IIIB including examples of Proto-White Painted. At
least part of this Aegeanis-ing pottery is apparently locally
produced in Syria, imitating Cypriote models.
140 G. LEHMANN
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.
-
Syrian Iron Age IB ceramics are characterised by the continuity
of the local Mono-chrome Painted Pottery. In Afis, Levels E 76, the
cooking pots were without triangu-lar 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 ofSyria, Aegeanising styles still dominate. The
styles are best compared to Cyprioteceramics of the Cypro-Geometric
IA period.15 In sites with Phoenician pottery, con-tainers with
monochrome-red circles appeared. In late Iron Age IB, early
PhoenicianBichrome was found.
During the Syrian Iron Age IC, Monochrome Painted Pottery
disappears in north-ern Syria and there was less and less painted
pottery. In Amuq Period Oa, vessels witha hand-burnished red slip
occurred. From the end of Iron Age IB and especially inIron 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 nowdominate the cooking pots in Afis levels E 53. The
carinated bodies disappear. Hole-mouth cooking pots occurred
apparently earlier along the Syrian coast. At RasIbn Hani, they
were noted as cooking pots la steatite on the first Lower Level
ofthe 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 sharpdecrease in painted vessels and an increase
of orange fabrics. In addition, burnisheddecorations appeared and
red-slip became the dominating pottery decoration duringthis
period. The beginnings of red-slipped ceramics are much debated.17
Palestinianevidence seems to point to an early red-slip production
already during the PalestinianIron Age I, i.e. the twelfth and
eleventh centuries BCE.18 Red slip decoration appearsin Phoenicia,
in layers of Sarepta Area II-Y, Strata F-E and Tyre IX. In the
Amuqregion it appears in Phase Oa, a phase that begins probably
during the Syrian Iron AgeIB, but is mainly contemporary with
Syrian Iron Age IC.19
Cypriote imports of the phase Cypro-Geometric III A dominate the
non-Syrianpottery styles of Iron Age IIA. Greek Middle Geometric
ceramics appeared in small
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 141
15 Venturi 2000, p. 513.16 Badre 1979, pp. 254255 and 1983, p.
206.17 Mazzoni 2000, p. 42.18 Mazar 1998.19 Swift 1958.
-
numbers in Syria.20 Contacts with Greece during this period seem
to be still largelyconfined to Phoenicia,21 with northern inland
Syria becoming involved in exchangewith Greek pottery only at the
end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA.22
During Iron Age IIB, there was an increasing craft
specialisation and intensificationin Syria. Economic growth in the
region is reflected in the pottery production by stan-dardisation
and mass-production. Three major regions with distinct pottery
stylesreplaced the many local styles characterising the Iron Age
IIA pottery repertoire. Thecoast 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 wereinfluenced by Assyrian style ceramics.23 Decorated
pottery along the coast and in inlandSyria was characterised mainly
by Red-Slip, but both regions developed their own dis-tinct
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 toIV takes place at the end
of the eighth century BCE. These Cypriote styles are con-temporary
with the Cypriote periods Cypro-Geometric III B. At the very end of
IronIIB, the ceramic style of Cypro-Archaic I A began.25
Geometric pottery was imported from Greece, including only very
few MiddleGeometric II vessels; most of the imports were of Late
Geometric I-II styles.26 Amongthe imports were Attic or Atticising,
Cycladic and Euboean ceramics, including vesselswith
Pendant-Semi-Circle decoration27 and so-called Al Mina-Ware, a
Levantineimitation of Greek ceramics.28 At the end of Iron Age IIB,
Early Proto-Corinthiantypes, SOS-amphorae of the early type,
Bird-Bowls, Late Geometric Rhodian potteryand vessels with
wave-band decoration appeared.29
IRON AGE IIIA CERAMICS
Many settlements occupied during Iron Age IIB were destroyed at
the end of theperiod. 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
142 G. LEHMANN
20 Coldstream 1968, pp. 313316.21 Note Middle or Late
Proto-Geometric imports at Tyre (Coldstream and Bikai 1988) and Ras
al-
Bassit (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.
-
assemblages thus provide a chronological anchor, dating to the
time between c.740 to720 BCE. The beginning of the following
period, Iron IIIA, is characterised by conti-nuity as well as
change. While the most significant changes are related to the loss
ofpolitical independence of the Syrian states and restricted
autonomy of the Phoeniciancity-states, the pottery and items of
daily use continued in the tradition of the preced-ing Iron Age IIB
period. The loss of political independence is marked by the
disappear-ance of Syrian (or Aramean) monumental architecture,
luxury products and artisticstyles. The new political framework
created by the Assyrians incorporated the formercontinental or
inland Syrian states into a network of provinces. The Phoenicians
stillenjoyed some autonomy at the beginning of the period. The
imperial restrictions, how-ever, were somewhat compensated by new
trade opportunities that benefited mostly thePhoenicians, but one
can assume that the north Syrian cities also profited from the
PaxAssyriaca of the first half of the seventh century BCE.
The pottery repertoire of early Iron IIIA was still
predominantly of local produc-tion. The local pottery assemblages
were still clearly divided into coastal and inlandassemblages. The
coastal ceramic production was predominantly associated with
thePhoenician city-states and was thus considered to be Phoenician.
While the local fineware was usually decorated in red-slip
techniques, there are also vessels with mono-chrome and bichrome
painted bands. At the end of Iron Age IIIA, during the sixthcentury
BCE, the clear distinction between coastal and inland pottery
production wasincreasingly blurred. The same pottery types begin to
appear in significant numbers inboth regions.
In the past, a particular type of deep and wide bowls, called
mortaria, was generallyheld to be exclusively of the Persian
period. Excavations in the 1970s and 1980s cor-rected this view.30
The first mortaria began at the very end of Iron IIB and at the
startof Iron IIIA. Towards the end of Iron IIIA mortaria were more
and more common inSyria, 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 tothe preceding centuries. This development may
reflect increasing trade connections inthe Mediterranean and the
Middle East. Very frequent was a small jar with orangeclay, which
was the direct predecessor of a later type in the Persian period.31
The tra-dition of Basket-handle amphorae started during Iron IIIA.
The first large types gaveway to the more elegant ones of later
date. Clay analyses have shown that the earlyBasket-handle amphorae
of Iron IIIA were produced in Cyprus.32
Imitations of Mesopotamian types were a new feature during Iron
IIIA. They occurin both coastal and inland assemblages. Although
their actual number west of the
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 143
30 Salles 1985.31 Bettles 2003.32 Lehmann 1996, p. 443, Type
421a.
-
Euphrates is limited, they had a wide distribution from north
Syria, Cilicia south toGaza region. With the decline of the
Assyrian Empire, Assyrian pottery styles disap-peared. In the
Levant, at the periphery of the Assyrian Empire, Assyrianising
ceramicstyles 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 bedifferentiated into four pottery assemblages within
the Syrian Iron Age IIIA.33 Duringthe 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 themBucchero 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 andincluded now Wild-Goat Style, Bucchero and
Fikellura vessels, Early and MiddleCorinthian pottery,
Rosette-Bowls, Bird-Bowls and Eye-Bowls, Vroulian pottery,
IonianBowls,36 Chian chalices,37 SOS-amphorae of the late type,38
Samian bottles and the firstexamples of Attic Black-Figured
pottery.39
The fourth phase is contemporary with the rule of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire inSyria. During this period, the clear
separation between coastal and inland types in thelocal pottery
repertoire became less significant. There was also no specific
Neo-Baby-lonian period pottery in Syria, at least not in the local
ceramic repertoire. Most of thelocal pottery types simply
continued. A distinct sixth century BCE pottery style isclearly
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 foundwith 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
144 G. LEHMANN
33 Lehmann 1996 and 1998.34 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.
-
IRON AGE IIIB CERAMICS
There is a distinct break in the local pottery traditions of
Iron IIIA and IIIB. Theearlier Iron Age types that continued into
Iron IIIA ceased to be produced and newforms of which a few had
already started during Iron IIIA41 dominated theIron IIIB
assemblage. In addition, it is now often impossible to distinguish
betweencoastal 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 ofpaint. The vessels rarely occur in
Greece or Ionia and were probably produced in theLevant, on Cyprus,
in northern Syria or in Cilicia.43
Among the mortaria there are now examples with the typical high
ring base ofIron IIIB. The lamps are flat at the base, and a
relatively large part of the rim is foldedinside, creating an oval
shape viewed from above. At the end of Iron IIIA, during thesixth
century BCE, a new type of cooking pot with a narrow neck appeared.
This typedeveloped into the typical cooking-pot of Iron Age IIIB, a
form that continued intothe centuries to come. This rather
significant break with the earlier Iron Age traditionsmay reflect
changes in the diet and food preparation. In general, the
kitchenwarebecame increasingly more Mediterranean.
The main types of transport-jars during Iron IIIB are
Basket-handle amphorae andthe small transport jars with carinated
shoulders.44 New types are long one-handledjars45 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 Atticisingand 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 chronologyof the beginning of the Iron Age in the Levant.
The first one is Ugarit that was appar-ently destroyed after 1194
or 1186.48 The second is Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 145
41 Among these are most notable mortaria, Basket-Handle amphorae
and cooking-pots with highneck.
42 Lehmann 2000 and 2005.43 Ashton and Hughes 2005.44 Bettles
2003.45 Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:2.46 Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:3.47
Perreault 1986; Boardman 1974; Boardman 1975; Gill 1986; Jehasse
1978; Jehasse 1981.48 Singer 1999, pp. 713715, 730.
-
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 coversthe 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 endof 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, anddespite a unique
concentration of research in the area, there is yet a major
debateabout the chronology of the Iron Age. While much of the focus
of this debate is onthe tenth century BCE,51 the controversy
includes a Low Chronology option for thePhilistine 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 (=
PhilistineMonochrome) in southwest Palestine. According to the
Middle Philistine Chronol-ogy,53 Mycenaean IIIB pottery was
immediately replaced by Mycenaean IIIC after1180 BCE. The fact that
Mycenaean IIIC pottery does not appear in layers of impor-tant
sites such as Lachish VI, Megiddo VIIA, Sera IX, and, most of all,
inMiqne VIII, may be of no chronological significance according to
some scholars.54
The data from Tel Miqne in particular, however, indicate that
this phenomenonmay be of chronological significance.55 At Miqne,
ancient Ekron, one of the capitalsof the Philistine pentapolis, an
uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence from the LateBronze Age
through Iron Age I yielded an important and significant stratum
(Stra-tum VIII with four sub-phases), in which Mycenaean IIIB and
IIIC pottery wasabsent. This stratum was followed by another one
(Stratum VII), in which MycenaeanIIIC pottery appeared suddenly and
in large quantities. In addition, this type ofMycenaean pottery was
manufactured locally.56 Thus, a Low Philistine Chronologyseems
possible, which has important implications for the Iron Age I in
the Levant ingeneral, re-dating the archaeological evidence some 50
years lower than the previousor traditional chronology.
The Low Philistine Chronology creates, however, a number of
problems. It datesfor example the first appearance of Mycenaean
IIIC at 1130 BCE, much later than
146 G. LEHMANN
49 Mazar and Sherratt, forthcoming.50 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) hasopted for a High Chronology
beginning of Palestinian Iron Age IIA around 980 BCE, but a
LowChronology 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.
-
the eighth year of Ramesses III (1177 BCE). What then
characterises the initial set-tlement of the Philistines in the
archaeological record of Palestine? The LowChronology also has
difficulty in explaining the occurrence of LH IIIC Middleceramics
in the well dated Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean that should date
toc.11901133 BCE.57 Thus, at this point, there is in my view
insufficient evidencefor the Low Philistine Chronology.
On the other hand, there are now significant changes in the
chronological frame-work 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
tenthcentury BCE, should be dated to the ninth century BCE. Mazar
initially refuted thisapproach.59 In the meantime, Mazar himself
has proposed substantial changes in thechronological framework. In
recent publications, he dated the Palestinian Iron AgeIIA between
c.980 840/30 BCE.60
Additional research to break through this deadlock was conducted
by AyeletGilboa, Ilan Sharon and Elisabetta Boaretto, their
preliminary results too imply thatarchaeological strata of the
eleventh through ninth centuries BCE have to be re-dated.61 Their
research is based on an analysis of relevant radiocarbon dates.
Theirprogram involved most of the relevant sites in Israel with a
careful selection of samplesand their archaeological contexts. A
significant number of radiocarbon samples fromarchaeological levels
of the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE were analysed.
Theresults of this research support a Low Chronology approach at
least for the elevenththrough ninth centuries BCE. In addition,
Gilboa analysed the pottery typology ofIron Age I ceramics from
northern Israel and Lebanon. Their research thus provided
acomprehensive framework for the pottery development, the
stratigraphy and theabsolute date of the coastal region in the
southern Levant. The low chronology datesin this paper are based on
their results.
Hence, most of the leading archaeologists in Israel are working
now with variationsof a Low or modified High Chronology. The
traditional High Chronology that placedthe 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 EStr. 9a contains a number of
LC IIIA sherds. If these were not just survivors of thepreceding
level, that level may have started as early as late LC IIIA. And if
Afis area EStr. 7 contains Proto-White Painted sherds,62 then a
slightly earlier date for that level
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 147
57 Finkelstein 1996, pp. 172180; Mazar and Sherratt,
forthcoming.58 Finkelstein 1996.59 Mazar 1997.60 Mazar 2005.61
Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005.62 Mazzoni 2000, p.
35.
-
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 anynecessity to push Afis
area E Str. 7 closer to LC IIIB.
In this paper, the Syrian Iron Age chronology is compared with
the various currentchronological frameworks outlined above (see
chronology Tables 14).64
IRON AGE II
The Low Chronology creates only a few modifications for Iron Age
II, adjusting thebeginning of the Syrian Iron IIA to a date around
850 BCE. Most other dates of theSyrian Iron Age II remain
unchanged. The beginning of Syrian Iron Age IIA is deter-mined by
the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III with the ubiquitous
Black-on-Redware and the relevant radiocarbon dates published by
Gilboa and Sharon.65 The highchronology places the beginning of
Iron IIA in Syria around 900 BCE.66 In terms ofthe High Chronology,
this date seems to be a little too late, since even according tothe
High Chronology, Black-on-Red ware started around the last quarter
of the tenthcentury BCE.67
In the Low Chronology, the end of Iron Age IC and the beginning
of IIA seem tobe contemporary with King Hazael of Damascus
(842800?), who was probably themost 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 IIBto around
800 BCE is only a tentative guess. The end of Iron Age IIB is
connectedwith Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III,
Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. Destruc-tions of Syrian sites caused
by these kings are clearly observable in the archaeologicalrecord
and provide a chronological anchor, dating the relevant levels
between c.740to 720 BCE.
IRON AGE IIIA
The first part of this period is characterised by the Assyrian
domination of Syriathat was stable until Assurbanipal (668627).
After generations of war and militarycampaigns, Syria was firmly
under Assyrian control and enjoyed a pax Assyriaca. Assyr-ian
campaigns in the first half of the seventh century BCE were
directed againstPhoenicia, Cilicia and Egypt, but not against Syria
anymore. After the decline of the
148 G. LEHMANN
63 Iacovou (personal comunication).64 As established by Stefania
Mazzoni 2000; see also Venturi 1998; Venturi 2000; Bonatz 1998.65
Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005.66 Mazzoni 2000.67
Schreiber 2003, p. 309.
-
Assyrian Empire and a short struggle between Egypt and
Babylonia, Syria was eventu-ally seized by the Neo-Babylonian
Empire. Destruction levels at several sites that areassociated with
Babylonian campaigns in the late seventh and early sixth century
BCEprovide a chronological point of reference. The archaeological
period ended some-where in the middle of the sixth century BCE. The
pottery development did not fol-low closely with the political
changes and there is no Neo-Babylonian pottery assem-blage in
Syria. Rather, the first part of Iron Age IIIA is characterised
generally by acontinuation and further development of the earlier
Iron Age pottery traditions withincreasing changes since c.650 BCE.
Somewhere in the middle of the sixth centuryBCE, most of the
previous Iron Age traditions ceased to be in use and were
nowreplaced by new forms, decoration techniques and functional
types. Greek potterybecame 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 materialculture started probably a few years earlier than the
empire itself, in the middle of thesixth century BCE. The pottery
development of early Iron Age IIIB is not a result ofthe political
changes caused by the Achaemenids, but reflects an increasing
influenceof the Mediterranean cultures on Syria and Phoenicia
during the sixth century BCE.Syria and Phoenicia became more and
more integrated into the Mediterranean econ-omy and were an
integral part in this economy by 538 BCE. The end of Iron Age
IIIBis roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Hellenistic
period after Alexandersconquest in 333/2 BCE. There is, however,
much continuity from the Achaemenidinto the Hellenistic period.
Again, politics was only one factor in the changes of thematerial
culture.69
CILICIA
The discussion above focused on northern Syria. Cilicia provides
only a very limitedarchaeological record for the periods discussed.
Only a few Iron Age sites were exca-vated here, most important
Tarsus (Gzl Kule),70 Mersin (Yumuktepe),71 Kazanli72
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 149
68 For chronological details see the discussion of pottery
assemblages 25 at Lehmann 1996 and1998.
69 See n. 67.70 Goldman 1956; Goldman 1963; zyar 2005; cf. Jean
2003, pp. 8283.71 Garstang 1953; Jean 2003, pp. 8384.72 Garstang
1937 and 1938.
-
and Soloi (Soli Hyk at Mezitli).73 Kilise Tepe74 and Porsuk75
are already outside ofthe Cilician plain proper at the edge of the
region. One of the most important sites isKinet Hyk,76 where
excavations are currently conducted by Marie-Henriette Gates
ofBilkent University. This expedition exposed extensive and well
stratified remains fromIron I through the Achaemenid period.
In addition, there were only a few reconnaissance surveys in
Cilicia.77 Intensive sur-vey projects started only recently in the
region. They are restricted to sub-regions ofCilicia and their
results are not yet fully published.
Since the publication of the Iron Age finds at Kinet Hyk has
only begun, theIron Age pottery typology and its relative and
absolute chronology relies until todayalmost exclusively on the
published evidence from Tarsus. The pottery developmentat Tarsus
was divided into four main groups, Early and Middle Iron Age,
Assyrianperiod and sixth century BCE. There are no stratified
remains of the Achaemenidperiod.
Unfortunately, the stratigraphy is not always undisturbed and
some of the potteryassemblages are mixed. There is for example
seventh century BCE pottery publishedas Early Iron Age.78
Nevertheless it is possible to isolate pottery assemblages
andstratigraphic units that permit a reassessment of the
stratigraphy of the site. Suchattempts have modified the
stratigraphy and its date only in some details.79 The begin-ning of
the Early Iron Age levels is still difficult to date. They may
start around 1100BCE as Hanfmann thought, although pottery of the
twelfth century BCE such as LateHelladic IIIC was found at Tarsus,
unfortunately, however, out of context.80 TheMiddle Iron Age levels
are contemporary with CG III and were dated between c.850and 700
BCE, interestingly very much in agreement with the Low Chronology.
TheCypriote pottery at the end of Middle Iron Age includes some CG
IV ceramics andCG IV transitional types are not infrequent.81
Boardman has re-dated some of the lev-els and loci at the end of
the Middle Iron Age.82 According to his results, some ofthese
contexts continued until c.650, including the so-called Destruction
Layer,attributed by the American expedition to Sennacheribs
campaign in 696 BCE. There
150 G. LEHMANN
73 Yagc 2001.74 Baker, et al., 1995; Hansen and Postgate 1999;
Jean 2003, pp. 8486.75 Dupr 1983 and Crespin 1999.76 For
bibliography of the site see the projects website at
http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~arkeo/kinet2.
html.77 Gjerstad 1934; Seton Williams 1954.78 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.
-
is less debate on the later levels and a re-study of them
generally confirmed Hanf-manns interpretations with only a few
changes.83 Hopefully, the publication of theIron Age levels at
Kinet Hyk will help to refine the Cilician relative and
absolutechronology.
Charles Gates has recently summarised the Achaemenid period in
Cilicia. Again,Kinet Hyk, ancient Issos, promises to be the key
site for Cilicia during theAchaemenid period, providing the only
stratigraphy in the region with three architec-tural levels and
important stratified finds.84 A comprehensive study of Cilicia
duringthe Achaemenid period focusing on the coins was recently
published by OlivierCasabonne.85
ASPECTS OF PHOENICIAN MATERIAL CULTURE IDENTIFIED IN THE
RESEARCH AREA
The following is an examination of evidence for Phoenicians and
their activity inthe region against the background of the
chronological framework for northern Syriaand Cilicia as outlined
above. Starting with epigraphy and textual evidence, it
isremarkable how many remains of Phoenician inscriptions were found
in south-eastAnatolia or are related in some way to the region,
especially Cilicia. These inscriptionsoutnumber by far the
Phoenician epigraphic evidence found in northern Syria. In
fact,nowhere else in the Levant, except for Phoenicia itself, were
so many inscriptionsfound as in Cilicia and in the area of
Zincirli. The following is a list of the relevanttexts.
INSCRIPTIONS
Ninth Century BCE
KAI 2486 Kilamuwa inscription, Zincirli,87 Turkey, c.825 BCE, on
an orthostat, royalinscription.
KAI 25 Scepter inscription of Kilamuwa, Zincirli, Turkey, c.825
BCE.
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 151
83 Lehmann 1996, pp. 256265.84 Gates 1999 and 2006.85 Casabonne
2004; see also Lemaire and Lozachemeur 1990.86 KAI = Donner and
Rllig 196264, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften.87 For all
Zincirli inscriptions see now the new edition of the texts by
Tropper 1993.
-
Eighth Century BCE
Cilicia, cylinder seal with bilingual inscription in Phoenician
and Luwian, ninth oreighth century BCE (?), in the collection of H.
T. Bossert. Dupont-Sommer readsthe Phoenician as irow jhc, Seal of
the Tyrian.88
Cilicia (?), group of six seals with Anatolian (Luwian) names,
end of the eighth cen-tury BCE. The authenticity of some of the
seals is debated.89 Lipinski considersthem to be authentic,
explaining problems with the palaeography with the non-Semitic
Anatolian cultural environment in which the seals were produced.
Noneof these inscriptions were, however, found in Cilicia or
Anatolia. All seals weresold on the antiquities market. One was
purchased far from Cilicia in Bagdad.90
Aleppo (?), another seal with Phoenician inscription, but of a
different group, eighth-seventh century BCE.91
atal Hyk area I square W15 level 6 (= IIId) (?), Amuq region.
Phoenician inscrip-tion incised on a spindle whorl. There seem to
be uncertainties about the stratifica-tion of the find. In the
excavations records the citation of the level is followed by
aquestion mark in parentheses. The level dates to the
archaeological phase AmuqOa, (High Chronology c.1000925 BCE, Low
Chronology c.900850 BCE), thepalaeography of the script form is
late: ninth late eighth century BCE.92
ineky, 30 km south of Adana, Cilicia. Monumental bilingual
Phoenician-Luwianinscription on a basalt sculpture of king
Awarikas/Urikki (c.738709).93
KAI 26 Karatepe, bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription. The
author Azatiwadaidentifies himself as a vassal of king
Awarikas/Urikki, c.720 BCE. Royal inscrip-tion 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) afterc.710 BCE.95
Kinet Hyk, a Phoenician inscription incised on a jar before
firing, late eighth cen-tury BCE.96
152 G. LEHMANN
88 Dupont-Sommer 1950; Magnanini 1973, p. 148, no. 21; cf.
Winter 1979, p. 139.89 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 bib-
liography).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.
-
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 (CebelIres Dagi), 15 km east of Antalya, the
inscription is dated to c.625600 BCE)
Asia Minor (?), seal with Phoenician inscription, seventh-sixth
century BCE, Collec-tion de Luynes, Paris.98
Sixth-Fourth Century BCE
KAI 28 Karkemish, short inscription, Syria, fourth century BCE,
on a fragment ofglazed frit, painted, found in the Kubaba
temple.
An Aramaic dedication inscription found at Brayj near Aleppo
mentions the godMelqart of Tyre.99 The dedication seems to relate
to a sanctuary of Melqart in theregion,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 ofAttarsumki I.103 The palaeography suggests a date
around 800 BCE, which is well inaccordance with the historical
background of Bar-Hadad of Arpad. Pitard and Puechpoint out that
although the inscription itself is Aramaic, the iconography of the
reliefand the style of the text are of Phoenician character.104 A
sanctuary of the Tyrian godMelqart in this region could be related
to the presence of Phoenicians here, may betraders conducting
business with destinations further east in the direction of
theEuphrates and Mesopotamia.105
PHOENICIAN POTTERY IN NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA
Pottery that might be labelled Phoenician is extremely rare in
northern Syria andCilicia during the Syrian Iron Age IA and IB. The
imported pottery in this area is
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 153
97 Gibson 1982, pp. 8892.98 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.
-
predominantly Cypriote and mostly of the Aegeanising style,
being related to LateHelladic IIIC traditions. Future excavations
may change the picture, so far only veryfew sites with Iron Age I
levels have been excavated and even less have been
pub-lished.106
The only evidence of Phoenician pottery that I know for Iron Age
IA and IB are afew vessels in Tarsus. Among them are a small number
of jugs, some with a spout thatseems to belong to the group of
Phoenician Monochrome ceramics.107 These vesselswith a red or black
monochrome painted decoration of bands or circles are typical
forcoastal assemblages contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age IA and
IB.108 Accordingto the High Chronology, they date to the eleventh
century BCE, the Low Chronologywould place them between c.975880
BCE.
A transport jar from Tarsus109 seems to be of a distinctive type
with a very flatshoulder that sometimes even sinks under the
shoulder point of the vessel. The bodyis triangular and long,
ending in a pointed, but still round tip.110 Most parallels
werefound 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 cen-tury BCE (High Chronology and accordingly
to the tenth century for the LowChronology). 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 paintedceramics of Phoenicia. This style became dominant during
Syrian Iron Age IC inPhoenicia.116 The earliest examples of what
appears to be Phoenician Bichromeoccurred in Syria in the Amuq
region in phases Oa and Ob. But I have to stress thatthe
excavations in the Amuq region are still unpublished and that my
statement isbased on an incomplete sample of pottery that I was
able to study in Chicago. A fewbichrome painted jugs and juglets
that occurred in Cyprus in pre-CG III contexts117
154 G. LEHMANN
106 Bonatz 1993.107 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 localmuseum 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.
-
were found in atal Hyk in the Amuq area.118 It thus appears that
during the Syr-ian 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 north-ern
Israel,120 where Phoenician pottery occurred in larger numbers.
Phoenician pottery remained scarce in northern Syria during Iron
Age IIA. A fewunpublished vessels were found in the Amuq area in
layers of Phase Ob. Even at siteswhere large pottery assemblages
were found, such as Tell Afis, the Amuq sites or TellRifaat,121
Phoenician decorated (Bichrome) pottery remains an exception. There
arealso no Phoenician transport jars and almost no Phoenician
red-slipped vesselsalthough they started to appear in Phoenicia
during the Syrian Iron Age IIA. Amongthe few published ceramics in
Syria is a globular jug that was found in a disturbedcontext of
Hama Stratum E.122 More globular jugs from Hama were found in
theCemeteries III and IV.123 The earliest parallels to these jugs
appeared in Cyprus incontexts contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age
I, but a date for the Hama jugs inSyrian Iron IIA is more
probable.124
Increasing evidence of Phoenician pottery in Cilicia and inland
Syria appeared onlyat the very end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA and
during Iron Age IIB. Contemporarywith the epigraphic evidence at
Zincirli, Brayj or atal Hyk there is now a slightlylarger number of
Phoenician pottery, mostly with red-slipped decoration. This is
alsothe beginning of the small harbour at Al Mina, the maritime
outlet of northern Syriain general and the Amuq region (ancient
Pattina or Unqi) in particular. While theGreek evidence has been
thoroughly emphasised, the early Phoenician pottery at AlMina was
somewhat neglected.125 Still, the Phoenician pottery appears only
in verysmall numbers. Among them two juglets, for example, were
found at Qalat Shayzar,near Hama, and Zincirli.126 These juglets
are contemporary with the Salamis horizonof Phoenician pottery in
Cyprus.127
Cypriote imports were still dominating Syrian Iron Age IIA and
IIB and many ves-sels 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
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 155
118 Swift 1958, fig. 45 (A1446) and fig. 46 (A2243), with no
further information on the find-spot. 119 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 ismost probably local. The only
Phoenician vessel seems to be that documented in Hanfmann 1963,
no.670, an eighth century BCE juglet.
-
There is no substantial presence of true Phoenician pottery at
Tarsus;129 it is also veryscarce at in Kinet Hyk.130 Black-on-Red,
in particular is often called Cypro-Phoenician, which is in fact a
Cypriote style.131
Map 3 shows the distribution of coastal (i.e. Phoenician)
pottery types in Syria andCilicia during the eighth century BCE.132
The map illustrates the presence and num-ber of diagnostic types,
not vessel numbers. The evidence published so far demon-strates
that Phoenician pottery reached inland Syria only in areas near the
coast andthere, only in small numbers. Map 4 shows the distribution
and the number of diag-nostic types during the seventh century
BCE.133 Both maps demonstrate that thePhoenician pottery
distribution in inland Syria is restricted to small numbers and to
afew sites in the Amuq valley and to Zincirli and its region.
Karkemish and Tell Ahmarmark the eastern limits of Phoenician
pottery on the way to Assyria.134 Only very fewPhoenician vessels
were found east of Karkemish, among them some Phoenicianamphorae 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 anincreasing role in inland Syria. Although there
were still some particular inland tradi-tions, the fine wares and
the painted pottery is now often imported from the coast
orimitating coastal ceramics. This reflects the increasing
influence of the Mediterraneancultures on Syria and the successful
transformation of the political map of Syria. Theold borders drawn
by the Neo-Hittite and Aramean kingdoms of the Iron Age
weredissolved under the Assyrians. Syria was open to imperial rule
from the east and eco-nomic impact from the west. The Phoenicians
were among the major agents establish-ing this new political and
economical structure within the Assyrian, Babylonian andthe
Achaemenid Empires.
156 G. LEHMANN
129 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:
Brepols1992, p. 112.
130 Lehmann 1996, types 306 and 381 are among the few vessels
that may be considered Phoeni-cian. 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
Phoenicianpottery (with shapes such as Hanfmann 1963, Tarsus III
no. 829 note that this vessel is not red bur-nished) 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.
-
PHOENICIAN TRADE CONNECTIONS THE EZEKIEL ORACLE
Apparently, the oracle against Tyre of Ezekiel 27 describes this
new world order andPhoenicias place in it. Although there were
attempts to date this text as early as thetenth and ninth century
BCE,136 there is now an increasing consensus that it dates tothe
early sixth century with the possibility of perhaps using earlier
material going backto the eighth century BCE.137 The text mentions
three locations in Anatolia relevantfor the discussion here,
Tarshish (wiwrh), Tubal (lbh) and Beth Togarmah (emrgvhhib). Most
authorities agree today that Tarshish is not ancient Tarsus, but
eitherTartessos in Spain or situated somewhere in the western
Mediterranean.138 Tubal ismost probably Tabal in Assyrian and other
ancient sources, an area northwest of Cili-cia.139 There is no
consensus on Beth Togarmah. While Lipinski and Diakonoff140
propose to read emdgh (Tgdmh), others prefer the traditional
reading and identify thelocation with Hittite Takarma141 and
Assyrian Til-Garimmu142 near modern Grn inCappadocia.143 As to
trade goods, the text mentions slaves and bronze utensils
fromTubal/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 insoutheast 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
heidentified 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 lookfor Eden in south Arabia.148 Lemaire pointed
out the particular form of the toponymthat is written here with a
segol.149 In this form Eden appears three times in the Biblein a
context with Harran.150 He is thus confident that Eden in this
writing is to be
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 157
136 Cf. Liverani 1991, p. 66, n. 5.137 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 strobumtree 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.
-
identified with Bit-Adini in Assyrian sources.151 Bit Adini is
the Euphrates area aroundthe cities Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar)
and Arslan Tash. The third location, Can-neh, was located at
Assyrian Kannu near Assur by Kestemont.152 Lipinski doubtedthis
identification and discussed the possibility of Canneh being a
misspelling ofKalne, an identification that is, however, ruled out
by Diakonoff.153 In a context withHarran 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
vicinityof Assur. In my view, all three locations may be located in
northern Syria. Accordingto Ezekiel, Harran, Eden and Canneh,
together with Assur and Kilmad (?), were trad-ing with purple and
embroidered robes.
Thus, in our reading, Ezekiel 27 mentions important economic
contacts of Tyrewith Anatolia and northern Syria. While some of the
major cities of northern Syria arementioned, the Anatolian
locations, Tabal and Beth Togarmeh, are remote areas at theend of
the Phoenician trade routes. No place in Cilicia is explicitly
mentioned. This issomewhat surprising since many scholars assume
that there were Phoenician tradingcolonies 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 evi-dence for such a trading location is
Myriandros in the Bay of Iskenderun. The city ismentioned by
Xenophon, around 400 BCE, as a Phoenician emporium.154 It is
docu-mented again in the fourth century BCE by the Pseudo-Skylax as
Myriandos of thePhoenicians. 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 oneassumes that it was the predecessor of
Alexandreia kat Isson, modern Iskenderun. Themost probable location
of this ancient settlement would be the modern quarter ofEsen 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 el-Haramiyah) was suggested as a possible site
for Myriandros in this area. A preliminaryarchaeological survey in
the area, however, confirmed that there are apparently no
pre-Hellenistic remains at Ada Tepe. There is also no suitable
harbour at the site.157
158 G. LEHMANN
151 On Bit-Adini see Sader 1987, pp. 4798.152 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 theauthor.
-
Strabo 14, 21 seems to imply that Myriandros and Alexandreia
were two differentpoleis in the bay. After careful examination of
the text, it appears that it is somewhatconfused.158 Nicopolis for
example is identical with Issus thus listed twice. AndMopsuhestia
is not at all located on the Bay of Iskenderun. Given these
confusions inStrabos text, it does not seem to be impossible to
locate Myriandros at Iskenderun.
Even more important are, however, geographical considerations.
The harbour of Isk-enderun 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 makemuch sense to
march 1314 km past the excellent harbour of Iskenderun to the
loca-tion of Ada Tepe that did not provide a sheltered harbour. In
addition, Xenophonwould have had to march back to Iskenderun in
order to pass over the Amanus to Syriabecause there was no pass in
the area of Ada Tepe. At this point, it seems reasonable tolocate
Myriandros at Iskenderun.159 The above-mentioned archaeological
survey in thearea will investigate Iskenderun in autumn 2006 and it
is hoped to find some morearchaeological evidence for the past of
this city.
There seems to be no evidence for Myriandros before the fourth
century BCE. A his-torical episode mentioned by Esarhaddon may shed
some light on the situation in theBay of Iskenderun during the
seventh century BCE. Esarhaddon mentioned a coalitionbetween
Sanduarri, king of Kindu and Sissu in Cilicia, and Abdi-Milkutti,
king ofSidon.160 This coalition in itself is telling evidence for
Phoenician interests in Ciliciaduring the seventh century BCE.
Bing, identifying Sissu with Issos161 in the Bay of Isk-enderun,
argues that the coalition may suggest that Issos/Sissu was the
coastal terminalfor 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 maybe 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
recordsfor a Phoenician settlement there. Could this be, instead,
the Cilician Aigai in the Bayof Iskenderun? Without more evidence,
however, this additional Phoenician site in thebay remains
elusive.163
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 159
158 Strabo: After Aegaeae, one comes to Issus, a small town with
a mooring-place, and to the PinarusRiver. It was here that the
struggle between Alexander and Dareius occurred; and the gulf is
called the IssicGulf. 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.
-
Al Mina, south of the Bay of Iskenderun, is usually discussed as
a trading port withGreek influence. In a recent study, I have
argued that Phoenician pottery is present atthe site almost from
the beginning of the settlement here.164 Phoenician pottery
neveroccurred in very large numbers at Al Mina, but it appeared as
early as c.800 BCE. AlMina 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 forall imports
entering northern Syria en route to Mesopotamia. There is no
evidence fora Phoenician emporium here, but a Phoenician presence
in some form or another isclearly possible from c.800 BCE.
As for northern Syria, the mention of the Tyrian god, Melqart,
in the Brayj inscrip-tion (see above) was taken as evidence for a
possible sanctuary somewhere in thatarea.165 Kestemont has
collected evidence for a Phoenician presence on theEuphrates.166
The fact that Shalmaneser III collected tribute from the kings of
theseashore at Til-Barsip points, according to Kestemont, to a
Phoenician representationon the Euphrates.167 Even if postulating a
Phoenician emporium here is probably notsupported by the text, it
shows at least that Til-Barsip was a most important centre
ofAssyrian power in the west at this time. Another text,
A.0.101.30, by AshurnasirpalII,168 lists Tyre and Sidon between
Sukhu, Khindanu and Patinu on the one side, andGurgumu, Malidu,
etc., on the other. Kestemont takes this as evidence that as far
asthe Assyrian administration was concerned, the Phoenicians were
located on theEuphrates and the Assyrians were in contact with them
there. These two texts areprobably not evidence enough for
Kestemonts Phoenician trade installation duringthe ninth century
BCE. The texts may be, however, evidence that Phoenicias influ-ence
began to appear on the Euphrates.
The presence of the Phoenician Arslan Tash ivories during the
eighth century BCEare indicative of increasing contacts between
Phoenician trade and Assyrian adminis-tration in the Euphrates
region.169 The ivory finds at Karkemish, Sultantepe andArslan Tash
as well as Phoenician influence on the art of Karatepe was
interpreted ascultural impact on Syria and Anatolia, and not as
evidence for the presence of Phoeni-cian artisans or workshops
located there.170
160 G. LEHMANN
164 Lehmann 2005.165 Pitard 1988, pp. 1516.166 Kestemont 1985,
pp. 137139.167 Grayson 1996, p. 19, A.0.102.2, ii 39.168 Grayson
1996, p. 293, A.0.101.30, lines 143147.169 Barnett 1982, p. 46.170
Cf. Winter 1979, pp. 120124; Akurgal 1981, pp. 131141.
-
CONCLUSIONS
Recent excavations in Syria provide a framework for the relative
chronology of theIron Age. For Cilicia, the only comprehensive
studies available today are the publica-tions of the Tarsus
excavations. This will hopefully change with the future
publicationof the excavations at Kinet Hyk that have the potential
to complement and toimprove the chronological framework of Tarsus.
These recent studies allow a new dis-cussion of the Phoenician
evidence in northern Syria and Cilicia. There are, however,still
major problems with the absolute chronology, especially with the
elevenththrough ninth century BCE in the Levant.
During the Iron Age, Phoenician pottery never occurred in large
numbers in north-ern Syria or Cilicia. Until the seventh century
BCE, Cypriote imports were morenumerous and ubiquitous in the area.
Since the same imports occurred also in Pales-tine and Phoenicia,
Cypriote ceramics are generally more significant for the
chronol-ogy of Syria and Cilicia than Phoenician pottery.
Phoenician pottery is especially scarce in the Syrian Iron Age I
and occurred mainlyin settlements near the coast. In Syria and
Anatolia, the distribution of Phoenician pot-tery in inland sites
was very limited in this period. This is in contrast with the
quantityof Phoenician evidence found in northern Palestine171 and
Cyprus in sites contempo-rary with the Syrian Iron Age I.172 Was
there no significant Phoenician influence innorthern 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 dur-ing Iron IIB. Phoenician pottery appeared in
larger quantities during the ninth andeighth century BCE. This
increasing Phoenician influence is also confirmed by theappearance
of Phoenician inscriptions that are dated independently by
palaeographyand 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 dur-ing the eighth century BCE and
appeared especially in Cilicia. During the seventhcentury BCE,
Phoenician inscriptions became less and less frequent in
northernSyria and Cilicia and occurred only rarely after c.600 BCE.
Phoenician was by thenreplaced by Aramaic as the standard language
for official documents in the area.
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 161
171 The increasing distribution of Phoenician Monochrome pottery
may be evidence for a Phoeni-cian expansion into the Akko Plain
during the later part of the Syrian Iron Age IA = Palestinian Iron
AgeIB. According to the low chronology, this would have taken place
during the tenth century BCE andmay 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 forCyprus; cf. the summary of Lipinski
1997, p. 109.
173 Note, for example, the lack of Assyrian material culture in
the Assyrian trading colonies of Mid-dle Bronze Age Anatolia.
-
Similarly, Phoenician influence on local arts flourished
especially during the eighthcentury BCE.
In Cilicia and southeast Anatolia, Phoenician epigraphic
evidence is especially welldocumented during the eighth century
BCE. Here, Phoenician writing and languageappeared in areas with
native Aramean or Luwian languages. Phoenician was probablya
language useful in international contacts and easier to write than
the local systems.It was applied in an administrative context in
official inscriptions, sometimes bilingualalong with Luwian. Local
scribes apparently wrote these inscriptions and the texts arenot
evidence for Phoenician presence in the realm of the local
administration. ThePhoenician epigraphy in Cilicia demonstrates the
diffusion of writing during theninth and eighth centuries BCE on a
land route. Writing, thus, spread not only west-ward by sea.
Even though there is limited evidence for Phoenician artefacts
from the seventhcentury BCE, one has to be aware that Phoenicians
were probably still massivelyinvolved in trade and economic
exchange with Anatolia and northern Syria during theseventh through
fourth centuries BCE. Their presence is simply less visible in
termsof material culture. A Phoenician emporium at Myriandros in
the Bay of Iskenderunis historically attested during the fourth
century BCE. And as they may have been themain vendors of Cypriote
pottery during the Iron Age, Phoenicians were probablynow 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 asactive in maritime trade as in overland
caravan routes through Syria, Anatolia andMesopotamia. Due to
nature of his writings, Ezekiel is somewhat vague and impre-cise in
his description of the trade goods. Apparently, metals, slaves and
textilesplayed an important role in Phoenician trade. Maps with
metal ore resources in Ana-tolia demonstrate to where Phoenician
economic interests were directed (Fig. 4).174
Another resource important for Phoenicians might have been
timber from theAmanus.175
The currently available evidence, thus, points to an increasing
Phoenician interac-tion with northern Syria, and especially with
Cilicia from the second half of the ninthcentury BCE. Economic and
political interests characterised the Phoenician presencethere.
Traders may have established Phoenician colonies and emporia as
early as thelate ninth century BCE. Their interaction with the
local population and theiradvanced writing at this time, lead
Cilicians to adapt Phoenician writing and languagethat, for some
100 to 150 years, ran parallel to their local writing system.
162 G. LEHMANN
174 For maps of metal resources in Turkey, see Wfler 1983, fig.
3 and Archologisches Landesmu-seum Baden-Wrttemberg 200, pp.
356357, 369372; cf. also Genesis 4, 22. For metal resources seealso
Gm 1963 and Nishiwaki 1970.
175 Watson-Treumann 200001.
-
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 Colloquiumin 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 UnionCollege-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 AgeStrata 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, inThe 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 diStudi 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: AMulti-Disciplinary Investigation into
Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the PersianPeriod (539332 BC),
British Archaeological Reports, International Series1183. 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. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 67: 1542.
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 163
-
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 Acrop-olis, edited by S. M. Cecchini
and S. Mazzoni, pp. 211229. Pisa: EdizioniETS.
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
AmericanSchools 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 Essayson 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 Ori-entalia 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 IronAge. 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.
164 G. LEHMANN
-
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, tudesBibliques 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 frKleinasiatische 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,
BibliothqueArchologique 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 ofSamaria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus (696 B.C.), Upsala Studies in
AncientMediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 19. Upsala:
UniversitatisUpsaliensis.
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 recherchesde la fondation Carlsberg 19311938,
Nationalmuseets Skrifter, StrreBeretninger 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. Liv-
erpool 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.
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 165
-
1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Ymk Tepe in Southern Turkey: The
Neilson Expedition inCilicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
GATES, C. 1999 Kinet Hyk 19921997: the Achaemenid Persian and
Hellenistic Periods.
Olba 2(2): 323332.2006 The place of the Achaemenid Persian
Period in archaeological research in
Cilicia and Hatay (Turkey), in LArchologie de lEmpire Achmnide:
NouvellesRecherches, 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 Studies26: 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, Cyprusand 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 theBronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
1963 Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus, volume III: The Iron Age.
Princeton, New Jer-sey: Princeton University Press.
GRAYSON, A. K. 1987 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian
Periods, volume 1. From the Begin-
nings 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 inIsphahan, Iran, October 25, 1963, pp. 6180.
Ankara.
166 G. LEHMANN
-
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: Prince-ton 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 Neo-Assyrian Period, in Neo-Assyrian Geography,
Universit di Roma La Sapienza,Dipartimento di Scienze storiche,
archeologiche e antropologiche dellAnti-chit, 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 TabulaImperii Byzanti 4, Denkschriften der
sterreichischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften,
philosophisch-historische Klasse 186. Wien: Verlag der
sterre-ichischen 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 Altertumswissen-
schaft 16(1): 10901091.JAMIESON, A. S.
1999 Neo-Assyrian pottery from Tell Ahmar, in Iron Age Pottery
in NorthernMesopotamia, Northern Syria, and South-Eastern Anatolia:
Papers Presented at theMeetings 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 itsNeighboring Regions. Proceedings of the
International Workshop, Istanbul, Novem-ber 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 forthe Republic of Cyprus.
JOHNSTON, A. W. and Jones, R. E. 1978 The SOS Amphora. Annual of
the British School at Athens 73: 103141.
NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 167
-
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: Areas5, 6, 7: The Bronze and Iron Ages: Text and Data
Base, The Tel Miqne EkronLimited 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
VorderenOrients 5. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
1998 Trends in the local pottery development of the Late Iron
Age and PersianPeriod in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B.C.
Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 311: 738.
2000 East Greek or Levantine? Band-decorated pottery in the
Levant during theAchaemenid 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 undSurveys im Vorderen Orient I,
Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung,
Orient-Archologie 5, edited by R. Eichmann, pp. 4978.
Rah-den/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
2005 Al Mina and the east: a report on research in progress, in
The Greeks in theEast, 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.
168 G. LEHMANN
-
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, Himjari-schen, Nabathischen, und Altsyrischen
Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter.