Toward the identification of social signatures in ceramic production – An archaeological case study

Ceramic analysis has been concerned with categorizing types according to vessel shape and size for describing a given material culture at a particular time. This analysis’ long tradition has enabled archaeologists to define cultural units across time. However, going into the analysis of sub-typological variations is rarely done, although their meanings bear significant consequences on the understanding of ties between individuals and social units. This study, aiming to assess whether it is possible to identify social signatures, focuses on a single archaeological ceramic type. For this propose, we selected a corpus of 235 storage jars from two distinct periods: storage jars from the Intermediate Bronze Age (the 25th -20th century BCE); and the Oval Storage Jar type (hereafter: OSJ) from the Iron Age II (the late 9th–early 6th century BCE). The vessels selected were 3-D scanned to extract accurate geometric parameters and analyzed through an advanced shape analysis. The study results show that integrating computational and objective analysis methods, focusing on the “minute variation” within a single ceramic type, yields substantial insights regarding the relationship between variability and social units. In addition to the methodological guidelines and the suggested “work protocol” for further studies, the results shed light on the social organization of the Intermediate Bronze Age and the Iron Age II in Southern Levant.

Royal Architecture in the Iron Age Levant

In the Iron Age II, during the 10th to 6th centuries BCE, the local rulers of the Levant developed an elite style of architecture. The aim of this study is to define this phenomenon, summarize the data, and evaluate the appearance and distribution in the Levant of this architectural style. The six prominent characteristics of the royal style are recessed openings of doors and windows, rectangular roof beams, ashlar stone masonry, volute (proto-Aeolic) capitals, window balustrades, and decorated bases.

The Iron Age I–II Transition in the Northern Levant: An Emerging Consensus?

The development of a refined, and widely accepted, chronological and cultural sequence has eluded the study of the Iron Age Northern Levant, despite more than a century of archaeological exploration and research. The renewed investigations at Tell Tayinat (ancient Kunulua), capital of the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Palastin/Walastin and scene of large-scale excavations by the Syrian-Hittite Expedition in the 1930s, have resulted in a tightly constructed stratigraphic and chronological cultural sequence, or “local history,” for this period. This refined “Amuq Sequence” indicates a number of culturally and historically significant transitions, including the transition from the Iron Age I to the Iron Age II, ca. 900 BCE, and it offers the prospect of forging a consensus regarding the cultural and chronological periodization of the broader Iron Age Northern Levant and Southeast Anatolia.

The “United Monarchy” on the Ground: The Disruptive Character of the Iron Age I–II Transition and the Nature of Political Transformations

It is commonly agreed that the Iron Age I–II transition was gradual and that processes of social complexity initiated in the Iron Age I simply matured in the Iron Age II. The emergence of Levantine kingdoms – whether the so-called “United Monarchy” (i.e., the highland polity) or other polities – was therefore seen as an outcome of this gradual maturation, even if the date of their emergence is hotly debated. The present paper challenges both the perceived gradual nature of Iron Age complexity and the dated understanding of state formation processes that lies behind the common scholarly reconstructions of Iron Age political developments. Instead, the paper shows that the Iron Age I–II transition was troubled and was accompanied by drastic changes in many parameters, whether settlement patterns, settlement forms, or various material traits. Acknowledging these transformations is therefore the first step in understanding the process through which local kingdoms emerged.

Single-layer multi-periods? A Case Study of the Enclosure Site of Khirbet el Mastarah, Jordan Valley

<p>Dating of desert enclosure sites is challenging, as they have minimal diagnostic elements. Moreover, these sites are composed primarily of a single layer, which raises the question of whether they are of single or multi-period settlements. </p><p>The current research aims to answer this question by assessing a group of enclosures in the Jordan Valley. The sites were previously surveyed and dated to the early Iron Age (ca. 1200–1000 BCE), and linked to tribes of Israelite settlement in the region. We present new excavations and OSL ages from Khirbet el Mastarah that indicate several periods of usage, and the possible construction and occupation of the enclosures during the following periods: </p><p>Iron Age II (2570±220 yr), Late Hellenistic or Early Roman periods (2090±150 yr and 2120±160 yr), Late Byzantine (1410±200 yr, 1370±150 yr), Early Islamic and Islamic/Abassid periods (1000±90 yr and  1080±110 yr). Another indication that emerges from the results is that different enclosures were used at various locations during various periods, and are still used by local herders. Therefore, the site has horizontal chronology rather than vertical stratigraphy, and is characterized by a single-layer with multi periods of spatial usage.</p>