THE EGYPTIANIZED POTTERY VESSELS OFEARLY BRONZE AGE MEGIDDO

Omit Han and Yuval Goren

AbstractThe renewed excavations of the Early Bronze cultic compound (AreaJ) at TelMegiddorevealed a cache of 16 Egyptian-looking vessels, dated either to the EB lor the EBIII. This discovery calls to mind the Egyptian-looking jar unearthed on the easternslope of the tel by the Oriental Institute team some 70years ago. The typological andtechnological study of this vessel, in the context of the new find, supplies additionalsupport for dating the cache to the EB lB.

INTRODUCTION

Renewed excavations of the Early Bronze cultic compound (Area J) at TelMegiddo revealed a cache of 16 broken Egyptian-looking vessels (Finkelsteinand Ussishkin 2000c:65-67). The stratigraphic situation of the cache was unclear.One possibility is that it was associated with the large Level J-4 building (Chicagoexpedition Stratum XVIII), apparently a temple that dates to Early Bronze I. A secondpossibility is that the cache belongs to Level J-5 (Chicago expedition Stratum XVII),an overlying stratum of a domestic nature, which dates to Early Bronze III. Since thecultic compound was apparently abandoned during Early Bronze II, the possibilitythat the cache dates to this period has been ruled out.

Finkelstein and Ussishkin favoured the assignment of the cache to Level J-5 of theEB I period. Joffe (2000), who published the vessels, preferred dating them to the EBI, based on typological comparisons with vessels in Egypt. Nevertheless, Joffe doesnot exclude the possibility of the later date proposed by the excavators-early EBIII, parallel to the 3rd or 4th Dynasties in Egypt (Joffe 2000:174). One of the presentauthors executed a petrographic analysis of the group and found that its componentswere produced in the northern part of Israel, most likely at Megiddo itself (Goren2000:499). He, too, prefers a late EB IE date for the cache. Both Goren and Joffe viewthe cache as related to the Egyptian presence in Canaan, particularly in the south-west. Goren has further remarked that an EB III date is problematic, since there is noevidence for the production or even import of Old Kingdom Egyptian ceramics intoCanaan.

Further stratigraphic data that might help elucidate the stratigraphy and date of theEgyptian cache was uncovered in the 1998 and 2000 excavation seasons and has nowbeen summarized by Finkelstein and Ussishkin (2003). Both excavators now stronglybelieve that the cache dates to the last period of use of the Level J-4 temple, now

42

Ilan and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

termed Level J-4a, which dates to the EB I. Nevertheless, from a purely stratigraphicstandpoint, the possibility that the cache should be assigned to Level J-5 of the EarlyBronze III cannot be ruled out.

The aim of this study is to delve deeper into the question of the date of theEgyptianized pottery. First, we will reexamine the Egyptianized vessels typologically.Next, we will present another Egyptianized vessel discovered on the eastern slope ofthe mound, some 80 m. from the location of the cache.

The Egyptianized Cache

Joffe (2000: 171) divides the vessels in the cache into five forms:

1. 'Lotus-shaped' bowls (here also called 'flower pots'; ibid. 172, Figs. 8.6: 1-6).

2. Concave bowls with rounded and smoothed everted rims (here called 'lids', ibid.173, Figs. 8.7: 1-3).

3. Tall bowls with rounded bases and grooved rims (ibid. 173, Figs. 8.7: 4-6).

4 Tall jars with pointed bases, simple smoothed rims and thick walls that taperupward (here called 'bottles', ibid. 173, Figs. 8.7: 9-10).

5. Rolled-rim storage jars (ibid. 173, Figs. 8.7: 9-10).

According to Joffe, Forms 1 and 5 have many parallels both in Predynastic Egyptand in the EB IE sites of south-western Canaan; Form 2 has parallels only in OldKingdom Egyptian assemblages, and Forms 3 and 4 have no parallels in Egypt or inCanaan. Reexamination of the collection reveals that probably all these forms havecounterparts in late Predynastic Egyptian assemblages, though some types are indeedscarce.

The lotus-shaped bowls (Form 1, ibid. 172, Fig. 8.6) are morphologically identicalto one another but they come in two size-groups: four are small (height 9.5-10.5 em.,diameter 19.5-22 em.) and two are very large (height 30 em., diameter 63 and 67 em.).This type of bowl is common in the EB IB sites of south-western Canaan, includingexamples very similar to the small bowls of Megiddo: Tel cErani (Yeivin 1967: Fig.18:9; Brandl 1989: Fig. 12:12), cEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1995:73, Fig.! :4), TelMa'ahaz (Beit-Arieh and Gophna 1999: Fig. 9:5-7) and Gezer (Brandl 1992: Fig. 3:10). The very large bowls have absolutely no parallels in Canaan.

Petrographic analysis conducted by Porat (1989) revealed that the great majorityof the lotus-shaped bowls found in Canaan were probably produced locally. This istrue for all the bowls of this type found at CEnBesor (Gophna 1995: 73, Fig. 1) and atTel cErani (Brandl1989:378, Fig. 12:12).

In Egypt, lotus-shaped bowls similar to the Megiddo small bowls are dated to Late

43

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

Naqada III (Petrie 1921: PI.XXXVIII: R26A [SD 78-79], PI. XLVI: 26H [Late Ware];Petrie 1953: PI. I: 3g [SD 77-79]). They are found in both Upper and Lower Egypt,e.g., at Buto (Kohler 1998: Tafel 33:8, 10), at Hierakonpolis (Adams 2000: 139, Fig.20:272,273) and at Abu Zaidan (Needler 1984: Fig. 24:22). We have failed to findvery large lotus-shaped bowls such as those from Megiddo in the Nile Valley; thelargest ones rarely exceed a diameter of 40 em.

Form 2 vessels (Joffe 2000: 173, Figs. 8.7: 1-3) were designated by Joffe 'bowls'and as such they do not seem to have good analogues in Egypt. However, their conicalforms raise the possibility that they are lids. In fact, as bowls they are useless sincethey are unable to stand freely and are too small and shallow to be placed on stands.

A few convex lids dated to the end of Naqada III are known in Egypt: two fromDiospolis Parva (Petrie 1901: PI. XIX: 59m, 59n; 1921: PI. LI: 75m, 75n), one fromAbusir El-Meleq (Scharff 1926: Tafel 21:155) and one probably from El-Adaima(Needler 1984:227,229, PI. 25:94). When placed in the mouths of rolled-rim jars theyfit quite well. Different kinds of lids have been identified in EB I contexts in Canaan(Tadmor 1992).

The tall bowls (Form 3, Joffe 2000:173, Figs. 8.7: 4-6) are unusual in latePredynastic assemblages. They seem to be derived from types known at Hierakonpolisas R81b and R81c, dated from Naqada IIb to Naqada IIdl (= late EB lA-early EBIE; Quibell and Green 1902: PI. LXIX: 6, 7; Adams 1974:89 (l05), 100 (535-537);Crowfoot-Payne 1993: Fig. 33:683-684). A good parallel from a later context(Late Naqada III) was found at Tarkhan (Petrie 1914: PI. XXIX: 54£) where it isuncommon. Another similar specimen from the El Kab Naqada III cemetery has beenpublished (Hendrickx 1994:92-93, PI. XX: H498). A later form derived from this type(Hendrickx's Type RSJ 2) is the Old Kingdom 'offering jar' intended for beer. Likethe small lids described above, this vessel, too, may have been used as both a cup anda lid.! Once again, this type has not been found (or, at least, is not yet published) inCanaanite assemblages.

The tall jars (Form 4, Joffe 2000: 173, Figs. 8.7: 7-8), no counterparts of whichare found in other Canaanite sites, are uncommon in Egypt as well. In Egypt, theyseem to be part of a small class of vessels that were found in Upper Egypt and Nubiain Late Predynastic contexts.2 The Egyptian specimens have pointed, rounded or verysmall bases, slightly swollen bodies (in the lower or middle part of the vessel) anda simple, holemouth rim. They are 12-30 em. high. Examples can be viewed from

This was suggested by Galit Litani, curator of the Cha1colithic and Bronze Age collections at theRomema storerooms of the Israel Antiquities Authority. We take this opportunity to thank Galitfor her continuing help.A nice parallel to the Megiddo vessels, though smaller and with a minute base, was found in theDelta region at Buto (von der Way 1997: 186, Tafel 36:6), but this bottle is dated to the earlierButo-Maadi culture (=EBIa), earlier than the Megiddo cache.

44

Han and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

El Ma)amariya (Needler 1984: PI. 26: 99), Hierakonpolis (Friedman 1994: 712, Fig.9.63: I-Pib) and from A-Group sites in Nubia (Nordstrom 1972:83, PIs. 37:3, 38:9 [Types Ale3, AIe9]). Friedman designates the Hierakonpolis examples 'bottles', aterm we prefer over 'jars'.3

A group of vessels with an even greater resemblance to the Megiddo bottles wasfound at Qustul Cemetery L, in Nubia, dated to the very end of the Predynastic period.This group, designated Fonn Group Ie, is abundant in the cemetery (Williams 1986:27, Fig. 118:a, b, e, f, i, j, k). However these vessels' surfaces are densely covered withpainted designs while the Megiddo bottles are plain.4

The rolled-rim j ars (Form 5, Joffe 2000: 173, Figs. 8.7: 9-10) are parallel to Petrie'sTypes 91c (SD 80-81 =Late Naqada III-beginning of Dyn. I) and 91d (SD 77-80=LateNaqada III; Petrie 1953: PI. XXVII: 91c, 91d; Wilkinson 1996: 38, 109, Fig. 2 [Turagrave T356]; 43, Ill, Fig. 6 [Tarkhan grave TK 0261]). This type is found in EB IECanaanite assemblages at CEn Besor (Gophna 1995:28, Fig. 6:3; ibid. :84, Fig. 9: 1-2)and at Tel cErani (Brandl 1989: Fig.14:6) where they are reported to be locally made(Gophna 1995:269, Fig. 6:2).

Description and Petrography of Another Egyptianizing Jar from Megiddo

Additional support for dating the cache to the EB IE comes from a jar unearthedon the eastern slope of the tel by the Oriental Institute team some 70 years ago (IAANo. 34.2652, Fig. 1). The vessel was discovered in Stage IV (Engberg and Shipton1934:21, Fig. 6: 28E), which seems to be the final EB IE phase in the Stages'sequence (Kempinski 1989: 19).5 Stage III, which is probably of the early EB III,is superimposed on Stage IV6 The latter and Level J-5 are thus situated in similarstratigraphic positions and it is likely that they belong to the same phase.

The samples from Hierakonpolis are fragmentary, preserving only the lower parts ofthe vessels.No complete bottle from a reliable context was retrieved at Hierakonpolis (Friedman 1994:712).Nevertheless, one ofthe samples (Fig. 9.63: I-PIb, the upper specimen) is a good parallel for theMegiddo bottles as it has a pointed base and a carination close to it that is not found in any of theother parallels we have come upon.One specimen of the Qustul group is red-slipped and burnished (Williams 1986: Fig. 136:b, PI.8: f) but such surface treatment is uncommon there.In the chart published by Engberg and Shipton (1934), and in their references to the pottery fromthe Stages (ibid.: 42--44) it seems clear that Stages V-IV represent a homogenous assemblageof the EBIb (for Stage IV: ibid: Figs. 3:8C; 4: I2P; 6: 17A, 18A, 18B, 23A, 23C, 23D, 24, 26; 8:F,G, 1). Also, Engberg and Shipton (ibid: 23, Fig. 7) date Tomb 1128 to Stage IV on the groundsof the similarity between its vessels and those of Stage IV. The vessels of Tomb 1128 are clearlyEB IE (see also Guy 1938: PI. 5: 8-14, PI. 84: 17-25).Engberg and Shipton (1934:44) state that Stages III-I show "reiterated sameness" (exemplifiedin the chart). The published pottery of Stage III includes clear EB III types (ibid.: Figs. 3: IB,!D, 4A, 5B, 8A; 4: 12Q; 6:22B).

45

TELAVIV30 (2003)

The vessel is hand made, and has a rough pinkish surface and a visible coilingtechnique. The clay is tempered with chaff and comparatively large grits. The openingis somewhat holemouthed, the rim is simple, the straight shoulders taper down and,at the sharp juncture with the somewhat cylindrical body, an incised groove, madeprior to firing, runs around the circumference. The base is flat and in its centre is aperforation 0.8 mm. in diameter, probably made after firing. The jar is 44 cm. high.

Engberg and Shipton (1934:21) noted the jar's singularity in the Stagesassemblage, but it was Amiran who actually identified it as Egyptian, albeit withoutgiving parallels (Amiran 1974:8, Fig. 2: 11).This type is known in Egypt as a 'granaryjar' (Wilkinson 1996:108 [his Type P126]; Adams 2000: 143). The various subtypesall have incised grooves at the juncture of the shoulder and the body; they differ fromone another mainly in the shape of their necks (Petrie 1921: PI. XLVII: 34a, 34b;Petrie 1953: Pl.XVII: 70L, 70m, 70n, 700, 70p, 72d, 72g). A complete 'granary jar',similar to the Megiddo jar but slightly smaller, was found at Tel Ma'a1:lazand is datedto late EB IE (Beit-Arieh and Gophna 1999: Figs. 10:9,12:1)7 and another fragmentwas encountered at Tel cErani (Brandl 1989· Fig. 14:5).

The earliest examples of the 'granary jar' in Egypt are dated to the beginning ofNaqada III (SD 65; Petrie 1921: PL. XLVII: 34a), but most of the jars are from thelatter part of that period (Wilkinson 1996).8 The best parallels for the Megiddo jarseem to be those from Hierakonpolis: at the Fort Cemetery (Type PI26: 70m in TombsHI07 and HI46, dated to late Naqada III [Wilkinson 1996: 56,117-119, Fig.14]); inthe Locality 6 CemetelY (Adams 2000:143, Fig. 17:134,284, PI. XLIIc, also datedto late Naqada III); and in a pit in Locality HK29A (Friedman 1994:729, Fig. 977:e,dated to Dynasty 1).

The petrographic analysis reveals the following features (Fig. 2): The matrix issilty (2-5 percent) carbonatic clay loam. The silt component includes mostly quartzbut also minor quantities of accessory minerals. These include pyroxene, olivine,iddingsite and plagioclase. The microstructural pattern, therefore, vividly shows theconsiderable contribution of aeolian dust to the soil material. The matrix also includesspherical bodies of reddish, femlginous, silty soil (terra ross a). The potter presumablyintentionally mixed the main source of the clay with terra rossa soil. This soil unit

This vessel is pati of the material collected by Y. Divon at the site in the early 1960s (Beit-Ariehand Gophna 1999:191, 197).For example: at Tura, granary jars of subtypes 700, 70p or 700/p were found in Tombs T034,T113, T193, T204, T266, dated to Tura Phase 1 (S.D. 78=Late Naqada III) and Phase 2 (S.D.78-80=Late Naqada lll, Wilkinson 1996: 38, 109. Fig. 2). At Tarkhan, granary jars of Subtypes72 and 72g were found in Tombs TK0412, TK0414, TK 0419, TK0802 and TK1061, dated toTarkhan Phase 1 (S.D. 77-78=Late Naqada III, Wilkinson 1996: 43, 110-112, Fig. 6). At the FortCemetery of Hierakonpolis granary jars of Subtype 70m were found in Tombs HI07 and H146,dated to Hierakonpolis Phase 3 oflate Naqada III (Wilkinson 1996:56, 117-119, Fig. 14).

46

Ilan and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

Fig. 1. Egyptianizedjar (lAA34.2652) unearthed by the Oriental Institute excavations.

occurs in the hilly area of Israel where a Mediterranean climate prevails. The parentmaterial is hard limestone, dolomitic limestone or dolomite. The hard carbonate rocksdo not contain silt-size grains. It is clear, therefore, that the aeolian dust, from anexternal source, together with the rock-derived material, are the constituents of thesoil materia!.

The inclusions include extremely high quantities of chopped grassy material orstraw that were mixed with the matrix, leaving elongated voids that are commonlyfilled with phytoliths. It is unclear whether it was chopped straw or animal manurethat was added, since no druzes or spherulites were observed in any of the thinsections. The vegetal matter, or its remaining voids, may form as much as 20 percentof the field. In addition, rounded grains of sparitic and micritic limestone, travertine,chalk and scarcely alkali-olivine basalt appear as secondary inclusions.

In terms of petrographic equivalents, this jar is identical to the assemblage ofvessels from the above-mentioned cache found in the current excavations in Megiddo(Goren 2000). In both cases, this pottery is not comparable to any type of Egyptianpetrofabric known from Egyptian contexts. It is different from all the categories of

47

TEL AViV 30 (2003)

Fig. 2. View of a sample of the Granary Jar in thin section under the petrographic microscope,crossed polarisers. White bar size: 0.5 mm. The matrix is silty (white specks), with elongatedvoids of vegetal material (centre left, bottom), limestone inclusion (centre) and a lump ofterra rosa (bottom right, dark).

Nile silt and the so-called Egyptian marly clay. Moreover, this petrofabric does notcorrespond to any of the 'Egyptianized' ceramics thus far known from Israel. Thelatter were routinely made of the loess soil of southern Israel, though here, too, arather silty loam was selected, perhaps for the same reason as in the southern Israelisites (to imitate Egyptian Nile mud). In any case, this matrix definitely does not fallwithin the 'loess' category.

The inclusions may hint to at least the general origin of the ware. Basalt is practicallynonexistent in southern Israel, while basalt and calcareous rocks are common in theLower and Eastern Galilee. Thus a northern Israeli origin may be suggested. Thislithology also typifies the surroundings ofMegiddo itself. Petrographically-examinedIron Age pottery from Megiddo (by Goren) is characterized by a similar set ofinclusions.

From the point of view of technology, it is clear that the potter who created thevessels attempted to imitate Egyptian techniques as well. Apart from the adoption ofsilty soils (as opposed to the common use of marl and ferruginous clays in Canaanite

48

Han and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

Early Bronze Age contexts), the admixture of vast quantities of chaff is extremely rarein Canaanite Early Bronze Age pottery but very common in Egyptian wares. In theserespects the Megiddo assemblage (including the jar in question) can also be definedas 'Egyptianized'.

Conclusions

Our typological study fixes the cache's 16 vessels in the late EB IE period (LateNaqada III-beginning of 1st Dynasty). The granary jar found in a late EB IE context(Stage IV), ca. 80 m. to the east, complements this date; such granary jars arecommon in Egypt in the Late Predynastic period. The Megiddo Stage IV exampleis petrographically identical to the cache vessels. It is clear that the 17 Egyptianizedvessels were manufactured in the same atelier, most probably located at Megiddo orin its immediate vicinity.

The cultural and political significance of these finds in their stratigraphiccontext are discussed in detail by Finkelstein and Ussishkin in this issue of Tel Aviv(2003).

As noted, the granary jar was also found in a late EB IE phase, Stage IV. We areunable, however, to determine if Stage IV is contemporaneous with Level J-4 or withLevel J-5.

Whether heirlooms of Level J-4 or products of Level J-5, the Egyptianized vesselsfrom Megiddo belong to the late EB IE horizon, as does the Egyptianized pottery ofmany other settlements in southern Canaan and CAinAssawir in northern Canaan(Gophna 2000, Yannai and Braun 2001). That having been said, the Megiddo group isunique in the following ways:

• It is the only large group of Egyptianized vessels to be found outside the boundariesofthe so-called 'Egyptian colony' deliminated to the south and north by the Besor andYarkon Rivers and to the east by the hills ofthe upper Shephelah (Andelkovic 1995:69-72; Brandl 1992; Porat 1992).9Megiddo is ca. 80 kIn. north of this territory.

• In the 'colony', Egyptianized vessels are found together with real Egyptianvessels, while outside the 'colony' all the Egyptian-looking vessels are importsfrom the Nile Valley (Porat 1992:435). Megiddo does not fit this pattern: It islocated outside the 'colony' and has Egyptianized but no Egyptian vessels.1O

• No Egyptianized vessels have been found in a cache at any site other than Megiddo.

'Ain Assawir is the other exception, but the finds at 'Ain Assawir come from a tomb and theynumber only one or perhaps two vessels (Yannai and Braun 2001: 45-48, Figs. 3: 1-2).

10 Again, at 'Ain Assawir two Egyptian vessels were found alongside the Egyptianized ones(Yannai and Braun 2001:45-48, Figs. 3:3-4,4:1-2). For the role played by that site in the lateEBIb see below.

49

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

• The cache is the only Egyptianized group of vessels to be found in what seems tohave been a sacred compound. II

• Three of the Megiddo vessel types-the granary jar, the small lotus-shaped bowlsand the rolled-rim jars-are found in the 'colony' area as well and, like those fromMegiddo, many were made locally. On the other hand, the lids, the deep bowls andthe bottles are absent in Canaan and rare in Egypt, and the very large lotus-shapedbowls are found nowhere but at Megiddo. Moreover, many of the Egyptianizedvessel types found in the 'colony' are not found at Megiddo: large jars, breadmoulds, basins and various types of small bowls and small closed vessels (cf.Gophna 1995: 268-269, Figs. 5:5-10, 6:1-5). This, too, may hint at the culticnature of the Megiddo group.

The Egyptianized assemblage seems to be inspired by Late Predynastic traditions ofupper Egypt, perhaps from the very area ofHierakonpolis, the royal centre presumablythe capital city of Narmer. The Egyptianized pottery is just one of several Egyptiancomponents in the material culture ofEB IE Megiddo. Jewelry, alabaster, metal objectsand incised drawings are all part of the bigger picture that needs to be treated seperately.As an assemblage, these artefacts have much to say about Egypt's role in Canaan andabout Megiddo's place in the geopolitical framework regnant at the time. Was Megiddoruled by 'Canaanites' or 'Egyptians'? Should the 'colony' be regarded as much largerthan previously assumed, including Megiddo within its boundaries?

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Han for his valuable comments, Nogah Zeevi fordrawing Jar 34.2652 and Mariana Salzberger of the Israel Antiquities Authority forphotographing it.

11 In this context it is interesting to note that no cultic precincts have been identified thus far in theterritory of the 'colony'.

50

Han and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

REFERENCES

Adams, B. 1974. Ancient Hierakonpolis and Supplement. Warminster.Adams, B. 2000. Excavations in the Locality 6 Cemetery at Hierakonpolis 1979-

1985. Egyptian Studies Association Publication NO.4, London.Amiran, R. 1970. The Egyptian Alabaster Vessels fromAi.IEJ20:l70-l79.Amiran, R. 1974. An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad.

IEJ24:4-l2.Amiran, R., Paran, U., Shiloh, Y., Brown, R., Tsafrir, Y. and Ben-Tor, A. 1978. Early

Arad 1: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City, First-Fifth Seasonsof Excavations, 1962-1966. Jerusalem.

Andelkovic, B. 1995. The Relations between Early Bronze Age 1 Canaanites andUpper Egyptians. Belgrade.

Beit-Arieh, I. and Gophna, R. 1999. The Egyptian Protodynastic (Late EBIb) Site atTel Ma'ahaz: A Reassessment. TelAviv 26: 191-207.

Brandl, B. 1989. Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani. In:Miroschedji, P. de ed. L'urbanisation de la Canaan a I 'age du Bronze ancien,BAR International Series 527 (ii). Oxford: 357-387.

Brandl, B. 1992. Evidence for Egyptian Colonization in the Southern CoastalPlain and Lowlands of Canaan during EBI Period. In: van den Brink,E. ed. The Nile Delta in Transition: 4'h_3rd Millennium B. C. Tel Aviv:441-477.

Crowfoot-Payne, J. 1993. Catalogue of the Predynastic Collection of the AshmoleanMuseum, Oxford.

Engberg, R.M. and Shipton, G.M. 1934. Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early BronzeAge Pottery of Megiddo. Chicago.

Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2003. The Cache of Egyptianized Vessels fromMegiddo: A Stratigraphical Update. TelAviv 30:27-41.

Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2000a. Chapter 3: Area J. In: Finkelstein, I.,Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo 111: The 1992-1996 Seasons.Vol. I. Tel Aviv: 25-74.

Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2000b. Chapter 24: Archaeological and HistoricalConclusions. In: Finkelstein, I. Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo 111:The 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv: 576-605.

Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. 2000c. Chapter 1: Introduction: TheMegiddo Expedition. In: Finkelstein, I. Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds.Megiddo 111. The 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. I. Tel Aviv: 1-13.

Friedman, R.F. 1994. Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: AComparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada and Hierakonpolis.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California. Berkeley.

51

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

Garfinkel, y. 1994, Ritual Burial of Cultic Objects: the Earliest Evidence. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 4: 159-88.

Gophna, R. 1995. Excavations at En Besor. Tel Aviv.Gophna, R. 2000. Egyptian Settlement and Trade in Canaan at the Waning ofthe Early

Bronze Age I: New Discoveries and Old Questions. In: Cialowicz, K.M. andOstrowski, J.A. eds. Les Civilisations du Bassin Mediterraneen. Hommages aJoachim Sliwa. Cracow: 99-104.

Goren, y. 2000. Technology, Provenience and Interpretation of the Early BronzeAge Egyption Ceramics. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds.Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv: 496-501.

Guy, P.L.O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. (Oriental Institute Publication 33.) Chicago.Halpern, B. 2000. Center and Sentry: Megiddo's Role in Transit, Administration and

Trade. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo III: The1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv: 535-575.

Hendrickx, S. 1994. Elkab V,The Naqada III Cemetery. (Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Publications du Comite des Fouilles Belges en Egypte.) Brussels.

Hoffman, M.A. 1979. Egypt Before the Pharaohs: The Prehistoric Foundations ofEgyptian Civilization. Austin.

Ilan, O. 2000. Image and Artifact: Treasures of the Rockefeller Museum. Jerusalem.Joffe, A.H. The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin,

D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. I. TelAviv:161-185.

Kempinski, A. Megiddo, A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Munich.Kohler, E.C. 1998. Die Keramik von der spiiten Naqada-Kultur bis zum friihen Alten

Reich (Schichten III bis VI). Mainz.Needler, W. 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. New

York.Nordstrom, H.-A. 1972. Neolithic and A-Group Sites. The Scandinavian Joint

Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publication. Vols. 3:2, 3:3. Copenhagen.Petrie Flinders, WM. 1901. Diaspolis Parva, The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu

1898-9. London.Petrie Flinders, WM. 1914. Tarkhan II. London.Petrie Flinders, W.M. 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery. London.Petrie Flinders, WM. 1953. Corpus of Proto-Dynastic Pottery. London.Porat, N. 1989. Composition of Pottery-Application to the Study of the Interrelations

between Canaan and Egypt during the 3rd Millennium BC. Ph.D. Thesis, TheHebrew University. Jerusalem.

Porat, N. 1992.An Egyptian Colony in Southern Palestine during the Late Predynastic-Early Dynastic Period. In: van den Brink, E. ed. The Nile Delta in Transition:4th_3ld Millennium B.C. Tel Aviv: 433-440.

52

Han and Goren: Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo

Quibell, J.E. and Green, F.W. 1902. Hierakonpolis II. London.Scharff, A. 1926. Die Archaologischen Ergebnisse des vorgeschichtlichen

Graberfeldes von Abusir EI-Meleq: Nach den Aufzeichnungen Georg MoIlers.(Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 49.)Leipzig.

Tadmor, M. 1992. On Lids and Ropes in the Early Bronze and Chalco lithic Periods.EI23:82-91. (Hebrew.)

von der Way, T. 1997. Tell el-Farain. Buto I: Ergebnisse zumfriihen Kampagnen derJahre 1983-1989. Mainz.

Wilkinson, T.A.H. 1996. State Formation in Egypt, Chronology and Society (BARInternational Series 651.) Oxford.

Williams, B.B. 1986. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. TheUniversity of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Vol. III: Part 1.Chicago.

Yannai, E. and Braun, E. 2001. Anatolian and Egyptian Imports from Late EEl atAinAssawir, Israel. BASOR 321:41-65.

53