Trade and Politics: Ashkelon`s Balancing Act in the

Trade and Politics: Ashkelon's Balancing Act in the Seventh Century B. C. E.
Author(s): Daniel M. Master
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 330 (May, 2003), pp. 47-64
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357839 .
Accessed: 31/05/2012 12:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
http://www.jstor.org
Trade
and
Act
Politics:
in
the
Ashkelon's
Seventh
Century
Balancing
B.C.E.
DANIELM. MASTER
Department of Biblical and Theological Studies, Archaeology, and World Religions
Wheaton College
501 College Avenue
Wheaton, IL 60187
[email protected]
RecentexcavationsbytheLeonLevyExpeditiontoAshkelonhaveuncovereda wealth
of new information regarding ancient life in the southern Levant. Perhaps no era has
beenas successfullyilluminatedas the seventhcenturyB.C.E.where,as a majorMediterraneanportandfortifiedcity on the routebetweenAssyriaandEgypt,Ashkelonhad
a role in both the militaryand economicchanges that swept throughthe southern
Levant. This study examines the nature of Ashkelon's political connections to the mil-
itarypowerof the Neo-Assyrianempireandpresentsnew evidencethatoutlinesAshkelon's tradingconnectionswith Phoenicia as a majorfactor behindthe economic
growth of Ashkelon in the seventh century B.C.E.Specifically, the petrographic exami-
nationof Ashkelon'spotteryrevealslittleconnectionwiththeAssyrianprovincialsystemand considerableinteractionwiththe Phoenicianmaritimeeconomy.
INTRODUCTION1
aritimetradebeganat Ashkelonat least as
early as the fourth millennium B.C.E.,and
the emergence of the route between Egypt
and the Levantine coast in the Early Bronze Age
caused Ashkelon to thrive (Stager 1992: 40). After a
hiatus at the end of the third millennium, large-scale
sea trade between Byblos and Egypt resumed in the
Middle Bronze Age, and Ashkelon began to prosper
once again (Cohen 2002). Although Ashkelon could
offer neither the timbers required by Egypt nor the
luxury goods desired by Canaanitesto the north, the
wine and olive oil productionof the southernLevant
allowed Ashkelon to become an importantwaystation
1This paper is a distillation and revision of conclusions
reached in my recent doctoral dissertation (Master 2001). That
project was completed with generous funding from the Leon
Levy Expedition to Ashkelon and generous intellectual support
from Lawrence E. Stager, David Mitten, and J. David Schloen. In
addition, Yuval Goren and Sy Gitin were instrumentalin the revision of the original conclusions. All errors in this paper are
solely the responsibility of the author.
47
in trading cycles ultimately driven by larger international demands.
Although maritime trade was Ashkelon's raison
d'etre, the city was not merely an isolated port (fig.
1). With few geographic impediments, land routes
radiatedfrom Ashkelon to all points east. While the
coastal highway, the primaryinternationalroute, ran
just east of Ashkelon, David Dorsey's work identified as many as seven local land routes that stopped
in Ashkelon (Dorsey 1991: 59-66, 189-96). Some
of the routes, perhaps most of them, were a consequence of Ashkelon's role as an outlet to the sea
(Fargo 1979: 90-92, 238-41; Stager 2001), but the
abundance of land routes suggests that Ashkelon
could also be considered an importantpart of the inland economy as well.
Obviously, any major maritime outlet lies at the
intersection of land and sea, two very different geographic environments, but the cultural impact of this
geographic truism is often overlooked. According to
EdwardWhiting Fox's work on Frenchhistory, these
differences in coastal and inland geography produce
fundamentallydifferenteconomic and social worlds.
Fox's summaryof inland economies is quite helpful:
BASOR 330
DANIEL MASTER
48
j
/
•
,.
SX,
?
::•.
.
-_Y,,'
* T. Meiad'
Hashavyahu
Gezer.
0Jerusalem
Ashdod
Ashkelon
Gaza
-
Beth-shemeshW
Er
atm
..•.•Bethlehem
*4
,.
..
V,,
N
Tel-Hesi
.. ....
. Lachiix,
,
Hlebron
.1,
.
BeitMirsim
T.Jemmeh
T. Haror.
T eshSharia
'
SAW
T.
N s
IV
T•s-Saba
O
B.IBLICAL
.-,
U3ACKGROUNDS
.
,N
.
Fig. 1. Mapof Ashkelonand its neighbors(courtesyof James Monson,BiblicalBackgrounds).
If the perimeterof the village fieldsordinarilydid
notexceedthedistancea farmercouldwalkto work
each day,the marketradiusof the towndid not exceed the distancethe villagers could move their
produce.Andforpracticalpurposes,thisestablished
anotherfundamental
geographiclimit.In sucha simthe
principalcommoditieswere food,
ple society,
fuel, andbuildingmaterials.All werebulkyanddifficultto move;even themoresophisticated
products
suchas crockery,primitivetools,andsimpletextiles
did not lend themselvesreadilyto exchangeover
largeareas.(1971:24)
While 15th-century France and the Bronze and
Iron Age Levant are not completely analogous, Fox's
description still applies. Ancient transportationsystems, limited to donkey caravan, were too inefficient
to engage in substantial movement of bulk commodities. The increased price resulting from moving
bulk goods a few weeks' journey down the road
rarely compensated for the effort of the journey (for
a broader application of this pattern to the entire
ancient Near East, see Schloen 2001: 101-3).
In contrast, maritime traders utilized vastly more
efficient means. Fox again provides an excellent
summary:
Waterand land, in the formof riversand seas, or
plains andmountains,each providesdifferentpossibilities for, and obstaclesto, both transportand
travel.Until the recenthistoricalpast, man could
moveon landonlyby foot,on thebackof ananimal,
or in a vehicledrawnby one or moreanimals.Over
water,he hadthechoiceof someformof raftorboat
propelledby rivercurrent,oars,or wind.... Merely
to move acrosswater,exceptin the most primitive
fashion,involvedconsiderableinvestmentin ships,
not to mentionthe cost of a crew. Once in operation,however,watertransportprovideda relatively
cheapandeasy meansof movinggoodsin quantity,
thusradicallyalteringthe geographiclimitationson
economicproductivityandsocial organization.The
2003
TRADE AND POLITICS
resultwas a commercial,as distinguishedfromagricultural,society.(1971:34)
If Fox is correct, different potentials of land and
sea trade allowed for differing rates of economic expansion and produced fundamentally different economic goals. In an ancient agriculturaleconomy, the
productioncycle was linked to periodic harvests, and
the possibility for expansion was limited by the carrying capacities of the land. Rapid expansion could
be accomplished only through the conquest of more
land. In sharpcontrast,maritimetradersneeded open
markets and peaceful relationships to succeed in
their trading ventures.
In the seventh century B.C.E.,Ashkelon participated in both the inland and maritimespheres. Assyrian texts record the military expansion of an inland
empire that dramatically reoriented Ashkelon's political world. Recent excavations of the Leon Levy
Expedition to Ashkelon have uncovered the maritime component which continued to drive Ashkelon's economy.
ASHKELON'S POLITICAL WORLD
Along with the rest of the southernLevant, Ashkelon was caught between the empire-buildingregions
of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Since Ashkelon is on the
southerncoast, Egypt was its dominantoverlord,ally,
and trading partner throughout most of the Bronze
and Iron Ages. The western expansion of the NeoAssyrian empire at the end of the eighth century
B.C.E., however, produced a dramatic change in the
balance of power, which presentedthe inhabitantsof
Ashkelon with a new reality.
The Assyrian texts recount a campaign against
Philistia in 734 by Tiglath-Pileser III (Tadmor 1994:
234; Blakely and Hardin 2002: 41-43) and followup attacks in the succeeding years which completely
overwhelmed Aram, Israel, and Philistia. The Assyrians turned Philistine cities like Ashkelon into
vassal states and required them to swear an oath of
loyalty and to provide various forms of tribute (Machinist 1992: 70; Parker 2001: 250). While the requirements placed on vassal states caused repeated
revolts throughout the Assyrian empire, the revolts
were constrained somewhat by the harsh Assyrian
response to such defiance (Parker 2001: 259-61).
Typically, the Assyrians reconquered the territory,
deported the populace, and removed any vestige of
political autonomy from the offenders. Already in
49
the late eighth century, the Assyrians responded to
Israelite revolts by conquering all Israelite cities and
killing or deporting all the Israelites (Tappy 2001:
558-74) and countered Judahite disloyalty by progressively conquering their lowland cities (Blakely
and Hardin 2002). In Philistia, however, when Ashkelon and its king Mitinti revolted against TiglathPileser III, the Assyrian reconquest resulted only
in the installation of a new king (Tadmor 1994: 83).
Sargon II dealt in a similar way with a Philistine revolt under Hanunu of Gaza in 720 and only temporarily removed the sovereignty of Ashdod following
a revolt in 712 (Oppenheim 1969: 283-84).2 In 701,
Sennacherib faced a revolt of the entire populace of
Ekron as well as of Hezekiah of Judah and Sidqia
of Ashkelon. In the case of the Judahites, Sennacherib massively depopulated the Judahitecountryside
and claimed more than 200,000 people as booty (Oppenheim 1969: 287; references to secondary literature in Blakely and Hardin2002: 52). Yet, in the case
of Philistine towns like Ashkelon that participated
in the same revolt, Sennacherib simply changed the
leadership. The Assyrians devastated the Judahites,
but expanded the territory of rebellious Philistine
cities.
During the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, the Assyrians developed a somewhat more benign relationship with their Philistine vassal states.
Although Esarhaddon's campaigns against Egypt
required him to pass through Philistia, his official
records do not mention the cities of this region, perhaps evidence that the Philistines remained loyal
(Tadmor 1966: 98-99). Ashkelon is briefly mentioned in the form of a query to the deity Shamash in
which the king asks if anyone will attackhis army as
he camps at Ashkelon (Tadmor 1966: 100). While
this evidence may indicate nothing more than Ashkelon's use as a staging camp for the Egyptian campaign in 671, the text mentions Ashkelon as the
object of the expedition, and some have argued that
Ashkelon revolted yet again (Elat 1978: 33-34,
n. 91). Whatever the short-termconnotations of Esarhaddon'sdivination, a later tribute list specifically
names Ashkelon as a loyal vassal of the Assyrian
empire (Oppenheim 1969: 291). Records from the
reign of Ashurbanipalalso list the Philistine kings
among the faithful vassals who facilitated campaigns
2Tadmorargues for a dual government with a provincial governor and a king (Tadmor 1966: 95).
50
DANIEL MASTER
against Egypt. From the political and military perspective, the texts make it clear that Assyria was the
dominant force in the region from 734 until the middle of the seventh century but that they allowed the
cities of Philistia to remain vassal states despite repeated rebellions.
The reason for the special treatment of the Philistine cities is not clear. In the history of Assyrian
westward expansion, several other cities within the
Assyrian empire were given similar leeway. Carchemish, for instance, was allowed to retain its independence far longer than were the other states
of North Syria (Grayson 1995: 964; Frankenstein
1979: 272), and Tyre remained independent while
nearby inland kingdoms were devastated. Like the
Philistine cities, Tyre revolted several times. Yet,
though Tyre was punished with heavy tribute, it was
not converted into a province (Markoe 2000: 39-43,
46-47). The Tyrians,however, were highly successful Mediterraneanmerchants, and, unlike land-based
empires, their maritime empire around the Mediterranean could not be so easily controlled. Even the
Assyrians were far-sighted enough to see that a vibrant Tyre was more valuable than an empty province (Oded 1974).
The same mercantile justification has been extended to Philistia. Moshe Elat argued that Ashkelon's role in Mediterranean trade allowed it to
avoid provincialization and deportation (Elat 1978:
33-34). The tributelists from Ashkelon describe it as
a plentiful source for highly prized Egyptian imports
(Elat 1978: 30-31; also Eph'al 1984: 87, n. 267), and
Jeremiah's description of the close relationship between Ashkelon and Tyre may hint at further mercantile prowess (Jer 47:4).
The Assyrian interest in extracting tribute from
the economy of Philistia is visible from the very beginning. When Tiglath-Pileser III conquered Gaza,
he set up a karum or marketplace at the "city of the
Brook of Egypt" (Ephcal1984: 101-8; Tadmor1994:
140-41, 178-79). The same sort of arrangementis
visible at Tyre, where a quay served as a sort of maritime karum (Elat 1978: 27). How exactly the Assyrians forced trading to occur in the locale they
specified is not clear unless, as at Tyre, they targeted
maritime transit points (Elat 1978: 27). In the NimrudPrism, Sargon II also records opening a karumon
the same Brook of Egypt in orderto enable Egyptian
and Assyrian trade (Tadmor 1958: 34).
The Assyrian interest in extracting revenue from
internationaltrade does not account for the simulta-
BASOR 330
neous growth of the land-locked site of Philistine
Ekron. While it is possible to see a broad "Philistine policy" in which Ekron would have received
special treatmentbecause of its association with the
ports of Ashkelon or Gaza, such an extension of
protection would be unique in the Assyrian practice.
Of the many vibrant Phoenician territories, for instance, only the island of Tyre survived the Assyrian
onslaughts.
Both S. Gitin and N. Nalaman argue that more
far-sighted Assyrian economic interests are behind
Ekron's expansion (Gitin 1995: 61-63). They argue
that the Assyrians destroyed those places in the
southern Levant that had a "poor economic potential" (Nalaman 1993: 106). In reference to lower
Galilee, Gitin follows Na'aman in writing, "The
Assyrians did not repopulate this area with deportees from other regions since, apparently, it was
neither suitable for producing raw materials and surpluses, nor was it strategically located on one of
the major trade routes" (1997: 82). While it is certain that the Assyrians destroyed many places, it is
not clear that they contemplated the preservationof
agriculturallybased economies. Gitin asserts that Ekron was "targetedfor growth" (1997: 84) by the Assyrians. Such economic investment would be unique
in the history of Assyrian westward expansion. In
contrast to this proposed Philistine policy, Assyrian
texts elsewhere boast of the devastation of other
orchards and groves of equal economic potential to
those aroundEkron (Tadmor1994: 79, 163; Schloen
2001: 147, n. 18).
In North Syria, for instance, surely an economically viable region, the Assyrian kings showed almost no respect for the economic potential of any
area, and in those areas where they did allow the
economy to continue (Carchemish in the ninth century and Tyre in the eighth), they maintaineda handsoff policy and allowed the cities to continue their
earlier practices. In general, the economic consequences of contact with the Assyrian empire were
disastrous. I. M. Diakonoff summarizes Assyrian
policy in North Syria by describing a land that was
"laid totally waste,"a "vast but economically ruined"
Assyrian province (1969: 29). The only examples of
"development"under the Assyrians were the repopulations of areas that had already been completely
devastated (Pedfrkovi 1987: 175).
Given this apparentlack of interest on the part of
the Assyrians in economic investment, others have
explained Ashkelon continued independence as a
2003
TRADE AND POLITICS
result of Assyrian military concerns. Tadmorargues
that the Philistine cities were seen as a buffer between Egypt and Assyria. The Assyrians gave territory to each of the cities, creating a balance of power
among them so that no one city could become dominant (Tadmor1966: 97). As Benedikt Otzen pointed
out, the treatment of Ashkelon might find parallels
with the vassal states of Judah and the Transjordanian states, which were similarly never incorporated
into the empire (Otzen 1979: 256).3
Archaeologically, the building projects of the Assyrians point to military rather than economic concerns (Blakely and Hardin 2002: 44). Already in his
excavations in the 1930s, Flinders Petrie uncovered
Assyrian architecturalelements at Tell Abu Salima
(Petrie and Ellis 1937: 6, pls. 2, 10, 31). Based on its
location, R. Reich argued that this may be the site of
the karum established by the Assyrian kings. While
that designation is unlikely, Petrie did find an Assyrian-style military fortress (Reich 1984). Even more
substantialAssyrian remains were uncovered at Tell
Jemmeh, including a large vaulted building containing a large quantity of Assyrian Palace Ware. The
excavator is surely correct in suggesting that "the
typical Assyrian building plan, the style of vaulting
and the great quantity of palace ware suggest that
the building was built by Assyrians as the residence
of the Assyrian king, military governor, or other
ranking official" (Van Beek 1993: 672). Finds from
Tell esh-Sharia show a similar pattern.StratumVI is
a military outpost full of distinctively Assyrian material culture, including multiple Assyrian Palace
Ware bowls and a crescent-shaped bronze Assyrian
military standard(Oren 1993: 1333).
Tell Jemmeh and Tell esh-Sharia have more
Assyrian-style artifacts than do all the cities of Philistia. In addition, the architectureuncovered at all
three sites has a similar administrative-militaryfunction. The impression generated by the Assyrian architecturalremains is that their primaryconcern was
with securing passage for military campaigns. While
this level of control would have allowed the Assyrians to influence the economic life of the surrounding
3There are some importantnuances to these situations. First,
the repeated revolts of Philistia do not seem to be a problem in
the Transjordanianstates, so the relationshipbetween Assyria and
its vassal states in Transjordanmay be more benign. Also, Gitin
has pointed out that these states could equally well be an example
of the development of a peripheralarea, exactly along the lines he
constructs for Ekron (Gitin 1997).
51
regions, their primary concern appears to have been
political and military.
Eliezer Oren's excavations at the coastal site of
Ruqueish, a site 10 km west of Tell Jemmeh, illustrate the nature of Assyrian involvement. Oren describes the material culture as heavily influenced by
Phoenicia, but also containing Cypriote, Greek, and
Egyptian finds (Oren et al. 1986). This small trading
site took part in the maritime trade between Egypt
and Philistia and was ideally suited to engage in
caravan trade across the Sinai. Ruqueish is exactly
the type of site that could have been forcibly opened
to Assyrian intervention and taxation, and Oren has
argued that this site might just be the sealed karum
opened by Sargon. Still, little in the material culture
repertoirehas any connection with Assyria. Assyria
profited by leaving Ruqueish more or less alone,
apartfrom occasional tribute (see Eph'al 1984: 10111). If the archaeological pattern of Assyrian military emphasis is indicative of their overall policy,
it is reasonable to follow Tadmor in asserting that
Gaza and Ashkelon were left as a buffer against
Egyptian incursions (Tadmor 1966) and that Ekron,
as specifically articulated by Sennacherib, was left
to oppose Hezekiah's surviving Judahites (Oppenheim 1969: 287-88).
Assyrian military and political objectives dominated the settlement patterns of the seventh-century
Levant, and, consequently, the study of ancient Assyrian imperial intentions has dominated scholarly
reconstructions of seventh-century Philistia. While
Assyrian military goals may explain why Ashkelon's
inhabitants avoided destruction and deportation, it
appears to leave open the question of why Ashkelon's economy actually flourished in the time of Assyrian domination.
ASHKELON'S ECONOMIC WORLD
While Ashkelon's geographic position in the
southern Levant meant that its political world was
shaped by Neo-Assyrian conquest, its economy was
influenced by a different dynamic. To uncover this
economic world, the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, led by Lawrence Stager, excavated a seventhcentury marketand a seventh-centurywinery (Stager
1996a; 1996b) and has processed over 130,000 pottery fragmentsfrom the seventh-centurystratum.The
dominance of commercial jars in the assemblage
hints that the winery and marketare particularlywell
suited to answering questions of trade and economy
52
DANIEL MASTER
Seventh-Century
Ceramics at Ashkelon
BASOR 330
Petrographic Category to Nearest Percent
tabric
CookingPots
3%
StorageJars
50%
Bowls.
Chalices.
Kraters
30%
Lovsland
us
Negev LoessCypru
(.P
Terra 3
Rossa
?........S...
.
Sr
Svri
(iGreek
"0
,
........... .,, .,
Etgy
.Pt
,
Phoenician
Jars.Juglets
Bottles,and
Lamps
17%
5%..
Shephelah
Loess
?
94%
Brown/Red
"
Alluvial Soil
('oastalLoess
211%
Fig. 2. Vessel types at Ashkelon:A roughbreakdownof
frequencyusing rimfractionmeasurements(courtesyof
J. DavidSchloen,LeonLevyExpedition
to Ashkelon).
Provenience Breakdown to Nearest Percent
(fig. 2). It is striking, however, to note the absence of
objects that might show an economic connection
with the Assyrians.
In orderto refine the understandingof Ashkelon's
seventh-centurytrade,a comprehensive petrographic
analysis has been carried out over the last several
years. Beginning in the summerof 1998, a set of 186
ceramic samples was gathered for petrographicexamination.4All of the samples came from seventhcentury layers and features sealed by the thick debris
of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction, assuring that each
fragment predated December, 604 B.C.E. (Stager
1996a). The petrographic sample was based on extensive stylistic sorting done by J. David Schloen
(Stager and Schloen in press). From the types designated by Schloen's team, petrographicsamples were
4This study is fundamentally different from most previous
petrographicanalyses, both in the numberof samples used and in
the manner in which the petrographicconclusions drive the categorization and statistical analysis. In most other studies, just a
few odd sherds are selected for analysis, and the results are not
systematically integrated into the overall analysis. The recent
work on Beersheba, for instance, only tested a very limited set of
vessels for analysis and did not utilize even those limited petrographic results to reinterpretthe presumed, and in some cases demonstrably incorrect, stylistic categories (Singer-Avitz 1999). In
the Beersheba study, "Edomite" vessels were made with Shephelah clays (Singer-Avitz 1999: 34), and "Coastal" vessels were
made with Judaean clays (Singer-Avitz 1999: 22). The petrographic work in the Beersheba study is excellent, but it was not
used in the final categorization or in the final analysis. Similarly,
the recent publication of Batash included some petrographic descriptions of fabric types, but petrographicanalysis was only performed on scattered fabric types and cannot be integratedinto the
larger statistical analyses of the pottery (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen
2001: 15-22). In both cases, Yuval Goren's accuratepetrographic
work has not been put to any substantialuse. In contrast, our petrographic analysis covers a wide range of types and is the direct
basis for determining the provenience of vessel types.
NegeC
3%
Phoenicia
shephelah7
Aegean
CyprusiN.Syria
(
1%
Nile
I.ocal
7Q
Fig. 3. Breakdownof the ceramics at Ashkelon.These
results are a combinationof petrographicsamplingand
stylistic analysis (using rim fractionmeasurements)to
presentestimatesof the overallfrequencyof localand importedwaresat Ashkelon.
taken which spanned the range of forms and contained multiple samples of common ware types. The
samples were then tested using the petrographictechniques described by Ian Whitbread (1995) and indexed with the results of Yuval Goren (1995; 1996;
personal communication).The technical petrographic
assessments (Master 2001) were further refined using reference material from the eighth- and seventhcentury Ashdod kilns and the author's extensive
collection of thin sections from seventh-century Ekron.5 The petrographic results were then correlated
with sherd and rim fraction counts to provide an
overall view of pottery provenience at the site. Figure 3 shows a summary of these results by soil type
and by geographic region, and figure 4 shows representative photomicrographsof these fabrics.
SThe samples from Ashdod were analyzed with the permission of Trude Dothan and the Israel Antiquities Authority. The
samples from Ekron are part of an ongoing joint research project
between the author and Sy Gitin.
TRADE AND POLITICS
2003
CoastalAlluvialSoil
CoastalLoess
ShephelahLoess
Negev Loess
ShephelahTerraRossa
Cooking Pot Fabric
CommonCeramic
Fabrics in the Seventh
Centuryat Ashkelon
All Photomicrographs
in
Cross-Polarized
Light
500 Microns
Fig. 4. Photomicrographsof Ashkelon's ceramic fabrics.
PhoenicianCoastal Fabric
53
54
DANIELMASTER
BASOR330
2
13
5
7
4
6
8
1- 50.58 L262 (13)
2- 50.49 L418 (6)
3- 50.48 L453 (2)
4- 50.59 L449 (16)
5- 50.58 L318 (53)
10cmm
6- 50.48 L439 (19)
7- 50.49 L453 (38)
8- 50.48 L393 (16)
Fig. 5. Typical ceramics made from local alluvial clays (drawings courtesy of Leon Levy
Expeditionto Ashkelon).
CLAY TYPES
Brown/RedAlluvial Soil, Coastal Inclusions. The
most common clay at Ashkelon is an isotropic, noncarbonaticclay with a brown to black core and black
to red fabric on the edges. While the pottery-making
process obscures the parent soil to some extent, it is
likely from a dark brown grumusol (brown xererts
[Brady and Weil 2002: 100-102]). These samples
are dominated by coarse, sand-sized, roundedquartz
fragments (beach sand), accompanied by smaller an-
gular fragments of silt-sized quartz and a variety of
birefringent accessory minerals.6 This local fabric,
in addition to being the most common at Ashkelon
(fig. 5), is also found at Ashdod in pottery taken
6These accessory minerals (amphiboles, pyroxenes, feldspars)
have been described in detail by Nachmias (1969), who saw some
geographic significance to their distribution.In the Ashkelon thin
sections, these fragments were too small to identify precisely
enough to allow use of Nachmias's more nuanced geographic
conclusions.
2003
TRADE AND POLITICS
55
while this soil is typical of the highlands (Goren,
Kamaiski, and Kletter 1996), an unpublished study
Loess Soil. This highly carbonatic soil has been of the petrographyof the LMLKjars and clay samstudied extensively by Goren and others (Goren pling of the Lachish and Tel Socho areas revealed
1995: 301-2; 1996: 54; Levy and Goldberg 1987; that this clay type was also alluvially transported
Melson and Van Beek 1992). While this type is throughout at least the eastern Shephelah (Goren,
found throughout the Negev and southern Sheph- personal communication). The terra rossa clay matrix is mixed with inclusions of windblown coastal
elah, Goren has demonstrated that the provenience
can be refined through a description of the inclu- sand, Eocene chalks, and cherts. The triangulation
sions. In the Ashkelon assemblage, three inclusion of the parent soil and the inclusions point to clay
suites were defined. Coastal Loess is the most com- sources in the Shephelah (Goren in Mazar and
mon loessial soil (fig. 6.1-4), and the inclusions in Panitz-Cohen 2001: 19).
the clay match Goren's "coastal matrix" (Goren in
Cooking-Pot Fabric. This fabric is probably a
Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 18; Goren, Finkel- subset of the brown/red alluvial soils that characstein, and Na aman in press), including beach sand terize much of the local pottery at Ashkelon. The
and abundant heavy minerals. An Ashdod waster cooking-pot fabric is orange in color, has coastal in(Dothan 1971: pl. 39.5) that was analyzed as part clusions (beach sand and accessory minerals), and is
of the reference collection also falls into this cate- characterized by a large number of parallel cracks
gory. Shephelah Loess has the same carbonatic soil surrounding the inclusions. It is important to note
but is dominated by the chalk and chert inclusions that while this is probably a subset of the common
typical of the southern Shephelah (fig. 6:5-6; Goren local fabric, its transformation into a cooking pot
1996: 54). Negev Loess is a broader category, and (fig. 6:10) and subsequentrepeatedheating and coolthe Ashkelon samples may reflect several clay ing have dramatically changed its petrographic,and
sources (note the variability in Goren's "western possibly chemical, properties.
Negev cluster" in Gilead and Goren 1989: 8, fig. 2).
InternationalImports.Phoenicianclays were charThe inclusion suite consists of the angular quartz
acterized by biomicritic sand in a highly calcareous
fragmentstypical of loessial parent soils and argillaceous rock fragments of unknown composition. The orange clay matrix. The presence of Amphiroaalgae
vessels in this category (fig. 6:7-9) are either Assyr- among other microfossils points to a provenience
ian bottles or have the white-green fabric typical of on the coast of northernIsrael or southern Lebanon
Iron II ceramics of the Negev (repeatedmention and (Sivan 1996; Buchbinder 1975; Group B: Rendzina
references in Freud 1999), suggesting a provenience soil or alluvial clay with coastal bioclasts, chalk, and
in the northwesternNegev. No clear match for this chert, in Goren and Cohen-Weinbergerin press). The
North Syrian/Cypriote clay types were found in a
clay type has been found in the reference material
that was examined, and so no precise provenience is numberof forms that are stylistically from the northeast Mediterranean(fig. 7), including basket-handled
possible.
amphorae (Lehmann 1996: Taf. 72.421b/1; GunTerraRossa. Several samples in this study conneweg and Perlman 1991), mortaria (Blakely and
tained clays derived from the terrarossa soils typical Bennett 1989:
56; Blakely, Brinkman, and Vitaliano
of the highlands (fig. 6:11-12). Gorenhas shown that
1992), and North Syrian cooking pots (Lehmann
1996: Taf. 83.440/1). Several categories of Greek
7At Ekron, this soil is accompanied by Eocene chalks and pottery were identified (Master 2001) according to
cherts. If this is the same as Fabric Group lb at Batash, it is dethe types established by Whitbread (1995). Ashscribed as a Hamra(Rhodoxeralf) by Goren (in Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 16), but this connection is tentative. Goren further kelon has almost all the forms illustrated by Alexargues, following the finds at the Revadim Quarry(Marderet al. ander Fantalkin for Mezad Hashavyahu (Fantalkin
1999), that Hamraoutcrops might have been exposed near Ekron. 2001), although as a much smaller percentage of the
It must be noted, however, that the soil deposited above the Hamra overall
assemblage. Egyptian clays were recognizcontained Lower Palaeolithic artifacts(Marderet al. 1999: 28-29)
able
to
the
naked eye as the "Nile C" fabric of the
showing that it has been some time since the Hamra was exVienna
system (Nordstrom and Bourriau 1993: 170,
posed in this specific area;Goren's general observation, however,
2:f,
The
i), and thin-section analysis confirmed this
still
be
delineation
of
Hamra-based
and
correct.
may
clays
pl.
Grumusol-basedclays in this region requires further study.
assessment.
from Iron II kiln loci (Dothan 1971: pls. 41.9, 11;
43.3).7
56
DANIEL MASTER
1
BASOR 330
2
6
3
7
4
8
i
5
9
10cm
10
-
12
1- 50.58 L262 (22)
2- 50.58 L439 (18)
5- 50.48 L405 (4)
6- 50.58 LF 252 (3)
9- 50.49 L453 (37)
10- 50.58 L262 (9)
3- 50.48 L453 (59)
4- 50.49 L452 (14)
7- 38.64 L785 (6)
8- 50.58 L262 (23)
11- 50.48 L453 (116)
12- 50.48 L453 (112)
Fig. 6. Typicalceramics made from Coastal Loess (1-4), Shephelah Loess (5-6), Negev Loess (7-9), Cooking Pot Fabric (10), and TerraRossa (11-12) (drawingscourtesy of Leon Levy Expeditionto Ashkelon).
Nothing arrived directly from the highlands around
Samaria or Jerusalem. In political terms, Ashkelon
The petrographicexamination illuminates the ac- imported nothing from the Assyrian provinces, near
tive trade routes surrounding Ashkelon. Using the or far. Some imports probably came from Assyrian
petrographic results, and speaking in the broadest centers such as Tell Jemmeh, but Ashkelon was not
sense, patterns of presence versus absence emerge heavily integrated into any Assyrian provincial network. Were it not for the overwhelming textual evi(fig. 8).
Several well-known trade routes are not visible dence demonstrating the dominance of Assyrian
in the Ashkelon assemblage. Nothing arrived from military power, there would be little if any evidence
the northern extension of the coastal highway, that a Mesopotamian empire.was in control of the
nothing from Megiddo nor from the Jezreel Valley. region of Philistia.
DISCUSSION
2003
57
TRADE AND POLITICS
1
2
3
4
1- 50.67 L61 (2)
10cm
2-50.58L318(50)
3- 50.58 L318 (49)
4- 50.49 L418 (8)
Fig. 7. Typicalceramics made from North Syrian and Cypriote clays (drawings courtesy of Leon
Levy Expeditionto Ashkelon).
The trade routes that are visible in Ashkelon's
ceramic assemblage paint an interesting picture of
the local economy. As is true at most sites with premodern transportation systems, local ceramic production is dominant. In this case, "local" must be
defined according to a relatively broad region including Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod, since it is not
possible to distinguish petrographicallyamong these
cities. To the east, Ashkelon's exclusive trading
partners are found in the Shephelah and northwest
Negev, while to the west, Ashkelon was heavily invested in the Mediterraneaneconomy of the Phoenicians. The active trade routes provide insight into
the economic ratherthan the political world of Ashkelon. Just as in the third and second millennia, the
first millennium emergence of Ashkelon appears to
be linked to the sea.
In the eastern Mediterranean,the dominant maritime powers of the first half of the first millennium
were the Phoenician cities. During this period, merchants from Tyre and Sidon expanded into Cyprus
and North Syria and later into the Aegean, North
Africa, and beyond (Markoe 2000: 30-31, 37-39,
170-86). Beyond this expansion of traditionaltrade,
however, the Phoenician ports began to transport
commodities that they neither produced nor consumed. Their new commercial economy was wholly
reliant on their role as intermediaries between producers and consumers. There was very little to export that was not imported, no homegrown material
resource. The Phoenicians' role as middlemen allowed them to create a flexible and lucrative commercial economy that used treaties with established
powers and beachheads on distant seashores to move
goods anywhere in the Mediterranean (Bartoloni
1997a). As Fox suggests, such merchants could
make a fortune faster than even the most industrious
farmer.
58
DANIEL MASTER
BASOR 330
Limitsof LocalTrade
* T. Mezad
Hashavyahlu;
z
m na
.
.,
'Beth-shemesh
ALLUVIAL
SOIL
"
2
"SHEPHELAH
-TERRA
ROSSA#
::
-----.-.--
.
.,.
..
Ashdod
Ashkelon
er•
4,1
S'Hebron
"
f.........
/ "
.
"<..
za'- SHEPHELAH LOESS
'
"-"•
'
NEGEVLOESS
T;Beit
T. Jemm eh
i/,R,
Haror
Har
T.
esh
.
',
.K
-Sharia,
.'.T.
..~~
B
... - , ....,,
"\
....
.
,. -
N,
.,
Mirsim
4v
-•,, a-
a
T- .,dsSaba
_,? "'7;I?E--'-.....
Hebron
-m
.
".....""
c
C,.,,.,
-.."
:"
.
.•..-..,,x."
,
",
•.;
.
"_.....
...
,5
,
,,
Fig. 8. Summary map of petrographicproveniences (base map courtesy of James Monson, BiblicalBackgrounds).
The archaeological record at Ashkelon reveals
that these same Phoenicians were heavily involved
in Ashkelon's seventh-century economy. Ashkelon
importedtwo majortypes of vessels (fig. 9) thathighlight the nature of the Phoenician economy. Most
Phoenician vessels found at Ashkelon are storejars.
While petrographyshows thatthe "Phoenician"storejars were constructed on the Phoenician coast, the
jars could easily have been carryingcargo from other
places in the Mediterranean. Two recently discovered eighth-centuryPhoenician8ships off the coast of
Ashkelon each carried almost 400 wine amphorae
made on the Phoenician coast, even though the Phoe8The issues surroundingPhoenician shipping are more fully
addressed in the recent article cited here (Ballard et al. 2002). The
59
TRADE AND POLITICS
2003
2
3
6
5
4
1- 50.49 L453 (18)
2- 50.58 L262 (20)
3- 50.49 L451 (32)
4- 50.48 L453 (118)
10cm
5- 50.58L262 (8)
6- 50.58 L262 (7)
Fig. 9. Typicalceramics made from Phoenician clays (drawings courtesy of Leon Levy Expeditionto
Ashkelon).
nicians themselves did not produce wine (Ballard et
al. 2002). This commercial economy is described by
Ezekiel (27:19) who records that the Phoenicians of
the sixth century imported large pithoi of wine from
Helbon and Izalla and then rebottled and exported
this wine to points throughout the Mediterranean
(Diakonoff 1992). It appearsthat the contents of the
seventh-century"Phoenician"jars at Ashkelon could
have been imported from anywhere in the northeast
Mediterranean.
The other notable imports from Phoenicia are
Phoenician Fine Warebowls and platters,red slipped
and highly polished. This ceramic type is a common
markerof Phoenician trade throughoutthe Mediterranean (Bartoloni 1997b: 562-63), but, again, characteristic of new Phoenician commercial economy,
no distinctive Phoenician natural resource was necessary for constructing this pottery. The key ingredients were the knowledge of how to levigate the clay,
two ships, Tanit and Elissa, carry Phoenician-madecargo containers, Phoenician-made galley instruments, Phoenician religious
objects, and cargo matching Sidonian ships described in the bills
of lading deciphered by Yardeni (1994). These two ships are the
best examples of Iron Age Phoenician shipping yet discovered.
attach the slip, polish the vessel, and fire the finished
product. Knowledge of these ingredients may have
been somewhat restricted, but petrographic examinationrevealed that by the seventh centurythe potters
of Ashkelon had learned how to make "Phoenician
Fine Ware" pieces which were (and are) indistinguishable with the naked eye from the true Phoenician imports.
Equally as important, Phoenician traders also
received Ashkelon's goods and distributed them
throughout their networks to the west, to Cyprus,
Carthage, and even Spain (Niemeyer and Schubart
1975: Taf. 18.631). A Phoenician shipwreck discovered in 1993 off the coast of Spain contained both
the red-slipped platters and bowls of the Phoenicians and the typical ovoid storejars of Ashkelon
and Ekron. The ovoid storejar was the most frequently occurringimported storejartype in the Spanish shipwreck assemblage (Negueruela et al. 1995:
193, fig. 5). The Phoenicians transported and sold
the olive oil of Ekron and the wine of Ashkelon
throughoutthe entire Mediterranean.
The Phoenicians nicely reflect Fox's ancient commercial economy. In the maritime world, a much
larger distance did not requirea great increase in cost
DANIEL MASTER
60
of transportation.The goods were loaded; the wind
did the work. Phoenician connections around the
Mediterranean gave them access to exponentially
greater profits, and, just as in earlier periods, all of
Philistia benefited from this trade. The Phoenicians
not only sold a substantial number of goods at Ashkelon, but their maritime connections were also capable of consuming as much wine and olive oil as the
southern Levant could produce. The combination of
a vibrant Phoenician economy and Ashkelon's close
relationship to that economy leads us to argue that
Ashkelon's economic expansion in the seventh century was closely tied to its participation in Phoenician maritime exchange, providing further support
for the long-term correlationbetween maritimetrade
and Ashkelon's economic power.
CONCLUSION
Ashkelon's position on the southern Levantine
coast thrust it into the center of many of the key
commercial and political events of the seventh century. The seventh century was a time of extreme
dislocation, as Mesopotamian armies destroyed or
relocated whole states and Phoenician merchants
changed the economy of the Mediterranean. Ashkelon participated in both of these processes simultaneously, in the end failing to understand the
intentions of Babylon. But before its destruction,
Ashkelon was a dynamic player in the trading world
of the seventh century.
Politically, Ashkelon was caught between Assyria
and Egypt, and the life of the city was gambled on
every political move. But the very geographic position that created such tension seems to have kept
Assyria from destroying this rebellious border city.
Assyrian "generosity"meant that Ashkelon survived
unscathed while other cities were devastated. Ashkelon was economically successful first and foremost because the Assyrians left it alone. More than
that, while Assyrian styles may have influenced the
pottery forms, the Assyrian empire had little visible
trade with Ashkelon.
Economically, the age-old links to the sea enriched Ashkelon as the Phoenicians sought new products and new markets. The Phoenician commercial
economy in the Iron Age was ahead of its time, with
innovations in distributionand transportationunsurpassed until the early Roman emperors pacified the
Mediterranean(Ballard et al. 2002), and Ashkelon
BASOR 330
flourished as a meeting point for imports and exports
from both the land and sea. The Phoenician pottery
at Ashkelon highlights the role of the Phoenicians as
experts in understandingthe productsand marketsof
coastal cities. Syrian wines in Phoenician bottles and
other imports transshipped from Cyprus and North
Syria all added diversity to the ceramic repertoireat
Ashkelon.
Fartherto the east, Ashkelon's connections with
the inland cities demonstratesome of the constraints
of a land-based economy. If there were commodities
that were traded between inland kingdoms such as
Judah and the port of Ashkelon, the ceramic trade
was not direct. In all probability, "down-the-line
trade" (Renfrew 1975) was taking place, mediated
by the cities of the Shephelah. While there may have
been a whole host of perishable products in perishable containers, this trade is hidden from archaeological investigation. Conversely, some evidence of
direct trade from Ashkelon may be visible in the
highland distributionof coastal productssuch as East
Greek Pottery (Stem 2001: 214, 216) or Mediterranean foodstuffs (Lernau and Lernau 1992: 132-35),
but inland exports from Ashkelon probably moved
east in stages as well.
All of the international connections at Ashkelon
are overshadowed in the ceramic record by the local
production. Even in this most commercial of southern Levantine cities, local pottery productionwas the
norm. In some cases, production in the southern Levant mimicked imported styles. The Assyrian bowls
and bottles made south of Ashkelon replicate styles
from the Assyrian heartland, and locally made fine
ware platterscopy Phoenician textures. But the sheer
weight of ceramics strongly inhibited their transport
over long distances.
The combination of text and petrographyat Ashkelon reveals several types of routes superimposed
on one another, each corresponding to a separate
sphere of society. The Assyrian texts describe the
movements of armies down the north-south coastal
highway. While this route was the most important
route in the country militarily, from the petrographic
perspective, the perspective of ceramic trade, it
brought nothing to Ashkelon. The economic routes,
those used for the transportof goods for trade, radiated east from the sea. Even along these land
routes, the limits of land transportforced goods to
move in steps, from the hill country to the Shephelah, and from the Shephelah to the coast until they
2003
TRADE AND POLITICS
arrived at the Mediterranean superhighway where
they were efficiently transportedthroughoutthe maritime world.
At the end of the seventh century, the intricate
economic patterns were disrupted again when Nebuchadnezzardestroyed Ashkelon in 604 B.C.E.Nebuchadnezzar claims to have made the site "a tell,"
and recent archaeological excavations have shown
61
that he accomplished his goal. In the end, while
Ashkelon participatedin both the economic and political life of the southernLevant, the power of Mediterraneantrade was no match for the armies of an
inland empire. As archaeologists excavate the ruins
of Ashkelon, they continue to discover the delicate
balancing act played by the inhabitantsof Ashkelon
throughout antiquity.
REFERENCES
Ballard, R. D.; Stager, L. E.; Master, D.; Yoerger, D.;
Mindell, D.; Whitcomb, L. L.; Singh, H.; and
Piechota, D.
2002
Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel. American Journal of Archaeology 106: 151-68.
Bartoloni, P.
1997a Commerce and Industry. Pp. 92-100 in The
Phoenicians, ed. S. Moscati. 2nd ed. New
York: Rizzoli.
1997b Pottery. Pp. 562-79 in The Phoenicians, ed.
S. Moscati. 2nd ed. New York: Rizzoli.
Blakely, J. A., and Bennett, W. J., Jr.
1989
Levantine Mortaria of the Persian Period. Pp.
45-65 in Analysis and Publication of Ceramics: The ComputerData-Base in Archaeology,
eds. J. A. Blakely and W. J. Bennett. BAR
InternationalSeries 551. Oxford: B.A.R.
J.
Blakely, A.; Brinkman, R.; and Vitaliano, C. J.
Roman Mortaria and Basins from a Sequence
1992
at Caesarea:Fabrics and Sources. Pp. 194-213
in Caesarea Papers: Straton's Tower,Herod 's
Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea,
ed. R. L. Vann. Ann Arbor:Journalof Roman
Archaeology.
Blakely, J. A., and Hardin, J. W.
2002
Southwestern Judah in the Late Eighth Century B.C.E.Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 326: 11-64.
Brady, N. C., and Weil, R. R.
The Nature and Properties of Soils. 13th ed.
2002
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Buchbinder, B.
1975
StratigraphicSignificance of the Alga Amphiroa in Neogene-Quaternary Bioclastic Sediments from Israel. Israel Journal of Earth
Sciences 24: 44-48.
Cohen, S.
2002
Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections:
The Relationship of Middle Bronze Age IIA
Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. Studies in
the Archaeology and History of the Levant 3.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Diakonoff, I. M.
Main Features of the Economy in the Monar1969
chies of Ancient Western Asia. Pp. 13-32 in
Troisiemeconference internationale d 'histoire
economique, ed. M. I. Finley. Paris: Mouton.
The Naval Power and Trade of Tyre. Israel
1992
Exploration Journal 42: 168-93.
Dorsey, D. A.
The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel.
1991
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Dothan, M.
Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons
1971
of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in
1967. 'Atiqot 9-10. Jerusalem: Department of
Antiquities.
Elat, M.
The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian
1978
Empire with Egypt. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 98: 20-34.
I.
EphCal,
The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of
1984
the Fertile Crescent, 9th-5th Centuries B.C.
2nd rev. reprint.Jerusalem:Magnes.
Fantalkin, A.
2001
Its Material Culture and
Mezad
.Hashavyahu:
Historical
Background. TelAviv 28: 3-165.
Fargo, V. M.
Settlement in Southern Palestine during Early
1979
Bronze III. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Fox, E. W.
1971
History in Geographic Perspective: The Other
France. New York: Norton.
Freud, L.
The Iron Age. Pp. 189-289 in Tel 'Ira: A
1999
Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, ed. I. BeitArieh. Institute of Archaeology Monograph
62
DANIEL MASTER
Series 15. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology,
Tel Aviv University.
Frankenstein, S.
The Phoenicians in the FarWest: A Function of
1979
Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. Pp. 263-94 in
Power and Propaganda: A Symposiumon Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia
7. Copenhagen: Akademisk.
Gilead, I., and Goren, Y.
1989
Petrographic Analyses of Fourth Millennium
B.C.Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5-14.
Gitin, S.
Tel Miqne-Ekronin the 7th CenturyB.C.E.:The
1995
Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign
Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal
City-State. Pp. 61-79 in Recent Excavations in
Israel: A View to the West, ed. S. Gitin. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
The Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Western
1997
Periphery:The Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron. Pp. 77-103 in Assyria 1995, eds.
S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: The
Project.
Goren, Y.
Shrines and Ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel:
1995
The View through the Petrographic Microscope. Archaeometry 37: 287-305.
The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age
1996
IV: The Petrographic Perspective. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research
303: 33-72.
Goren, Y., and Cohen-Weinberger, A.
In press Levantine-Egyptian Interactions: Preliminary
Petrographic Study of the Canaanite Pottery
from Tell el-DabCa.In Tell el-Dab'a VIII, ed.
M Bietak. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Goren, Y.; Finkelstein, I.; and Na'aman, N.
In press Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the
Amarna Letters. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.
Goren, Y.; Kamaiski, E.; and Kletter, R.
The Technology and Provenience of the Figu1996
rines from the City of David: Petrographic
Analysis. Pp. 87-89 in Excavations at the City
of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh,
Vol. 4: Various Reports, eds. D. T. Ariel and
A. De Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem:Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Grayson, A. K.
1995
Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territoryin Ancient WesternAsia. Pp. 959-68 in Civilizations
BASOR 330
of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2, ed. J. M.
Sasson. New York: Scribner's.
Gunneweg, J., and Perlman, I.
The Origin of "Loop-Handle Jars" from Tell
1991
Keisan. Revue Biblique 98: 591-99.
Kuhrt, A.
1995
The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 Bc. London: Routledge.
Lehmann, G.
1996
Untersuchungenzur spditenEisenzeit in Syrien
und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. Miinster:
Ugarit.
Levy, T. E., and Goldberg, P.
The Environmental Setting of the Northern
1987
Negev. Pp. 1-22 in ShiqmimIPStudies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982-1984), ed. T. E. Levy.
BAR InternationalSeries 356. Oxford: B.A.R.
Lernau, H., and Lernau, O.
Fish Remains. Pp. 131-48 in Excavations at the
1992
City of David 1978-1985, Directed by Yigal
Shiloh, Vol. 3: Stratigraphical,Environmental,
and Other Reports, eds. A. De Groot and D. T.
Ariel. Qedem 33. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Machinist, P.
1992
Palestine, Administration of (Assyro-Babylonia). Pp. 69-81 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York:
Doubleday.
Marder,O.; Gvirtzman,G.; Ron, H.; Khalaily, H.; Wieder,
M.; Bankirer,R.; Rabinovich, R.; Porat,N.; and
Saragusti, I.
The Lower Paleolithic Site of Revadim Quarry,
1999
PreliminaryFinds. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28: 21-53.
Markoe, G.
2000
The Phoenicians. London: British Museum.
D.
Master,
2001
The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE:A PetrographicStudy. Ph.D. dissertation, HarvardUniversity.
Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N.
Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the
2001
First Millennium BCE.2 vols. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Melson, W. G., and Van Beek, G. W.
1992
Geology and the Loessial Soils, Tell Jemmeh,
Israel. Geoarchaeology 7:121-47.
Nachmias, J.
Source Rocks of the Saqiye Groups Sediments
1969
in the Coastal Plain of Israel-A Heavy Min-
2003
TRADE AND POLITICS
eral Study. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 18:
1-16.
Na'aman, N.
1993
Population Changes in Palestine following
Assyrian Deportations. TelAviv 20: 104-24.
Negueruela, I.; Pinedo, J.; G6mez, M.; Mifiano, A.;
Arellano, I.; and Barba, J. S.
1995
Seventh-Century BC Phoenician Vessel Discovered at Playa de la Isla, Mazarron, Spain.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
24: 189-97.
Niemeyer, H. G., and Schubart, H.
1975
Trayamar: Die Phenizischen Kammergriber
und die Niederlassung an der Algarrobo-Miindung. Madrider Beitriige 4. Mainz am Rhein:
von Zabern.
Nordstrom, H.-S., and Bourriau, J.
Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics. Pp.
1993
143-90 in An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian
Pottery, eds. D. Arnold and J. Bourriau. Deutsches ArchdiologischesInstitut,AbteilungKairo,
Sonderschrift17. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.
Oded, B.
The Phoenician Cities and the Assyrian Empire
1974
in the Time of Tiglath-pileser III. Zeitschrift
des deutschen Paldistina-Vereins90: 38-49.
Oppenheim, A. L.
1969
Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. Pp.
265-317 in Ancient Near Eastern TextsRelating to the Old Testament,ed. J. B. Pritchard.
3rd ed. with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton
University.
Oren, E. D.
1993
Sera', Tel. Pp. 1329-35 in TheNew Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, Vol. 4, ed. E. Stem. New York:Simon &
Schuster.
Oren, E.; Fleming, N.; Korenberg, S.; Feinstein, R.; and
Nahshoni, P.
A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of
1986
Egypt. Qadmoniot 19/3-4: 83-91 (Hebrew).
Otzen, B.
Israel under the Assyrians. Pp. 251-61 in
1979
Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on
Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk.
Parker, B. J.
2001
The Mechanics of Empire: The Northern Frontier of Assyria as a Case Study in Imperial
Dynamics. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Pe~frkovai,J.
The AdministrativeMethods of Assyrian Impe1987
rialism. Archtv Orientdlni 55: 162-75.
63
Petrie, W. M. E, and Ellis, J. C.
1937
Anthedon, Sinai. Publications of the British
School of Archaeology in Egypt and the Egyptian Research Account 58. London: Quaritch.
Reich, R.
The Identification of the "Sealed Kiru of
1984
Egypt." Israel Exploration Journal 34: 32-38.
Renfrew, C.
Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of In1975
tegration and Communication.Pp. 3-59 in Ancient Civilization and Trade,eds. J. A. Sabloff
and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky.Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico.
Schloen, J. D.
The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol:
2001
Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient
Near East. Studies in the History and Archaeology of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Singer-Avitz, L.
Beersheba-A Gateway Community in South1999
ern ArabianLong-Distance Tradein the Eighth
Century B.C.E.TelAviv 26: 3-74.
Sivan, D.
1996
Paleography of the Galilee Coastal Plane during the Quaternary.Jerusalem:Israel Geological Survey (Hebrew with English summary).
Stager, L. E.
The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic
1992
through Early Bronze Times. Pp. 22-41 in
Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed.
R. Ehrich. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
1996a Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction:
Kislev 604 BCE.Eretz-Israel 25 (Joseph Aviram volume): 61*"-74*.
1996b The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. Biblical Archaeology Review 22, no. 1: 56-69, 76-77.
2001
Port Power in the Early and the Middle
Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime
Trade and Hinterland Production. Pp. 625-38
in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and
Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L.
Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 59. Chicago: Oriental
Institute.
Stager, L. E., and Schloen, J. D., eds.
In press Ashkelon III: The Seventh Century B.C. Cambridge, MA: HarvardSemitic Museum.
Stern, E.
2001
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 2:
The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 BCE.New York:Random House.
64
DANIEL MASTER
Tadmor, H.
The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chro1958
nological-Historical Study. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12: 22-40.
Philistia under Assyrian Rule. Biblical Archae1966
ologist 29: 86-102.
The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King
1994
of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities.
Tappy, R.
The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Vol. 2:
2001
The Eighth Century BCE.Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Van Beek, G. W.
1993
Jemmeh, Tell. Pp. 667-74 in TheNew Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
BASOR 330
Holy Land, Vol. 2, ed. E. Stern. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Whitbread, I. K.
Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological
1995
and Archaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory
Occasional Paper 4. Athens: British School at
Athens.
Yardeni, A.
Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an
1994
Erased Customs Account from 475 B.C.E. in
the Ahiqar Scroll from Elephantine.Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research
293: 67-78.