A ‘Chaîne Opératoire’ Perspective on Iron Age II Judean Cooking Pots

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2459572/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A ‘Chaîne Opératoire’ Perspective on Iron Age II Judean Cooking Pots

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2459572/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 10 May, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The study presented here deals with the manufacturing technologies of cooking pots in Iron Age II Judah (ca. 1,000-586 BCE). This is the first comprehensive technological study carried out on Iron Age pottery in the Levant and one of the most extensive studies on ancient cooking ware. Two aspects were studied on an assemblage of ca. 500 cooking pots: paste preparation with a highlight on temper analyses as well as fashioning and finishing techniques. The research is conducted as a part of a substantial multi-disciplinary study of cooking ware in Iron Age Judah, combining technological, typological, petrographic, and chemical aspects. New cooking pot types appeared during the Iron Age II, with the apparent existence of regional production centers for cooking pots in this period. The results indicate that the cooking pots were made by three main fashioning techniques, reflecting a stable technical and technological continuity alongside the rise of specialized production in various regional production centers. Temper analysis carried out through petrography shows a slow shift from calcite-calcareous tempering towards quartz tempering (which may be partly or entirely naturally present in the clay selected). These results will also be discussed in relation to the morphological typology of the vessels and petro-fabrics identified in the more extensive study. Resting on several analytical methods, this paper aims to characterize the cooking pot production system, thus providing insights into Iron Age Judah's pottery craft organization.

Cooking pots

fashioning techniques

technology

temper

petrography

Iron Age

Judah

The study presented here deals with the manufacturing technologies of cooking pots in Iron Age II Judah (modern Israel). Until recently, the production, distribution, and consumption of ancient coarse wares in general, and cooking ware in particular, was neglected in ceramic studies in the Levant and the Mediterranean. In recent decades, a scholarly impetus was stimulated by developments of analytical approaches combining, inter alia “chaîne opératoire” based studies, ceramic petrography, and chemical analyses since they are of prime chronological and cultural significance and as sensitive markers to evaluate technological and social changes (Spataro & Villing 2015; London 2016; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008, Ben-Shlomo 2019a). In the same way, the study of manufacturing techniques of ancient pottery in the Southern Levant gained popularity in scholarly research, especially for the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods (Franken 1969; Roux 2003; 2017; 2019a and 2019b with references therein; Roux & Courty 2005; Roux & Miroschedji 2009; Roux & Rosen 2009; Roux et al. 2013; Roux & Harush 2022; Kleiman 2020). Yet almost no systematic technological analyses were carried out on the rich Levantine Iron Age II (1,000–586 BCE) ceramic repertoire.

The study presented here is the first comprehensive technological study carried out on Iron Age pottery in the Levant and one of the most significant studies on ancient cooking ware globally. From the Iron Age onwards, changes in cooking pot shapes and sizes and in cooking installations may indicate changes in culinary practices (see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008; Freud 2014; Danielson 2021, see below). This period also offers well-stratified pottery assemblages, including many cooking pots, as can be seen from published sites that produced comprehensive Iron II pottery assemblages, for example, Tel Lachish (Zimhoni 1997), Tel Arad (Singer-Avitz 2002), Tel Beersheba (Singer-Avitz 2016), Tel Malḥata (Freud 2015), Tel ‘Ira (Freud 1999), Tel ‘Aroer (Thareani 2011) and Tel Batash (Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001). Textual and archaeological sources illustrate a political and geographic unit of the Kingdom of Judah that existed at least from the 10th century BCE until its destruction by the Babylonian Empire during 586 BCE (the Iron Age II)¹. Its capital was Jerusalem, and its influence extended to the Judean Hills and the Shephelah regions in the north and the northern Negev and the Judean Desert in the south (see Fig. 1). Accordingly, the archaeological deposits analyzed here extend back to the 10th century BCE, the transition of the Babylonian/Persian period. This offers a better consideration of the longue durée development of cooking pot production and distribution during the Iron Age II.

Technologically, cooking ware production is known to have distinctive technological characteristics in various regions, cultures, and periods and represent distinct chaînes opératoires (Roux 2017; see, e.g., Shoval et al. 1993; Tite et al. 2001; Ben-Shlomo 2019a; Müller et al. 2014, 2015; ethnography, e.g., Skibo 1994; London 2016). Technological aspects could be reflected by (1) Clay procurement and preparation, which includes: selection and collection of clays, drying, pounding, sorting, hydrating, tempering (Livingstone Smith 2000; London 2016, 162–4), mixing, and wedging. (2) Fashioning or forming, in which the clay is shaped into the desired form. (3) Finishing, surface treatment, and decorative techniques include working on wet or leather-hard clay and applying the final decoration. (4) Firing, during which ceramics reach their final physicochemical properties. Most of these aspects can also be identified to a certain degree in the archaeological record.

Against this background, the ceramic technological analysis will constitute the keystone of our research by studying the ceramic assemblage based on the “chaîne opératoire” concept (see, e.g., Roux 2017; Arnold 1985; De Crits 1994; Gosselain 2002; Rice 1987; Sinopoli 1991) to determine the varieties of “chaînes opératoire techniques” and highlight possible different socio-economical groups responsible for the ceramic production (Lemonnier 1986, 1992; Sigaut 1994).

The sample of the current study includes 541 cooking vessels from 14 sites in Iron Age Judah (Fig. 1). All these were compositionally analyzed by thin section petrography (TSPA) with a selection analyzed chemically (NAA) (see Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022). A large proportion of the samples comes from Iron Age IIB-C levels of northern Negev/Beersheba Valley sites, a peripheral area of the Judean Kingdom. In contrast, the remaining samples are from the Judean Hills and Shephelah regions. It was attempted to sample and analyze all the main morphological types of Iron Age II cooking pots appearing at the sites.

This paper will focus on the technological analyses examining all these vessels' fashioning and finishing methods. For this purpose, the ceramic “chaîne opératoires” used by the Iron Age cooking pot makers in Judah will be described. The extent of centralized production and trade in cooking ware on both an intra- and inter-regional scale will be evaluated. We will examine relationships between different ceramic recipes, fashioning techniques, surface treatments, and different cooking pot types at the sites and phases of the Iron II. The aim is to investigate whether continuity or technical shift occurred in clay recipes and fashioning techniques during the Iron Age IIA and IIB-C until the Persian period and to assess the degree of variability/standardization and specialization in raw materials, pottery technology and cultural traditions in regional centers of productions. Finally, the evidence for diverse cultural traditions in the cooking ware production of Iron Age Judah will be discussed.

¹ According to archeological and historical considerations, the Iron Age II period is usually divided into Iron Age IIA (ca. 1,000–800 BCE) and Iron Age IIB (or IIB-C, ca. 800–586 BCE); followed by the Babylonian/Persian period (586-332 BCE).

A morphological typology has been created to provide a unified framework allowing easier technological and petrographical comparisons between sites as well as statistical analyses (based on Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015; Beit-Arieh & Freud 2015; Gitin 2015, all with references therein). Seven main morphological types of cooking vessels were identified for the Iron Age IIA (Types CPI–CPVII, while fourteen types (Types CP1–CP14) were defined for the Iron Age IIB-C in Judah Table 1). The morphological typology will only be summarized here in relation to the vessels analyzed in the study (Table 1, Figs. 2–3).

Iron Age II cooking pots in Judah and other regions of the Southern Levant show a certain continuity in general forms back from the Late Bronze Age II (1,550–1,200 BCE). They maintain general forms and sizes: an open carinated, or more globular body with changes mainly in the rim’s shape and orientation. During the Iron Age IIA, medium-sized and large cooking pots with a squat body, a wide mouth, and two loop handles, made of clay rich in white grits, were the commonest shapes (Types CP2, CP3, Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015). The typological differences are often in the rim form.

Table 1

Types of Iron Age II cooking pots analyzed (Figs. 2–3)
Type	Description	Period	Selected references	Notes	Number sampled
CP-I	In-turned oblong or elongated rim	Iron IIA	Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015, Pl. 2.4.3:1	Continues from Iron I	13
CP-II	Single-grooved thickened rim	Iron IIA	Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015, Pl. 2.4.3:2		21
CP-III	Multiple-grooved vertical rim	Iron IIA	Singer-Avitz 2016, 489		5
CP-IV	Rim with a triangular section and carinated body	Iron IIA	Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015, Pl. 2.4.3:3		6
CP-V	Straight vertical neck, carinated rim	Iron IIA	Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015, Pl. 2.4.3:5		17
CP-VI	Cooking jug with one handle	Iron IIA	Singer-Avitz 2016, 492, CP-V		18
CP-VII	Short, up-turned neck, straight, thickened rim	Iron IIA	Freud 2015 Fig. 4.157: 7		3
CP1	Closed cooking pot with straight rim, ridged neck, and globular body	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, 608–609, CP7		62
CP2	Open cooking pot with thickened, ridged rim	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, 605–606, CP2		47
CP3	Open cooking pot with up-turned grooved rim	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, 606–608, CP3		60
CP4	Open cooking pot, neckless with an everted grooved rim and slightly squat body	Iron IIC			58
CP5A	Closed cooking pot, out-splayed rim, ridged neck	Iron IIC	Amiran 1969: 232		57
CP5B	Sharp ridge on the neck	Iron IIC	Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001, 82, 85–86, Type CP 9		15
CP6	Grooved neck and globular body	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, CP9		2
CP7	Cooking jug, rounded rim	Iron IIB-C	Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2015, 216		9
CP8	Stepped rim and an out-flaring neck	Iron IIC	Singer-Avitz 2002, 140, Fig. 14, CP5		12
CP9	Holemouth cooking pot with simple rim and no handles	Iron IIC	Freud 2015, 196, CP2	Edomite type	12
CP10	Broad cooking pot with a ridged rim, no or short neck	Iron IIB-C	Freud 2015, 194–95, CP1	‘early Edomite’ type	27
CP11	Open cooking pot with elongated ridged rim, sharply carinated wall	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, 608, CP5		10
CP12	Cooking pot with flat base	Iron IIB-C	Singer-Avitz 2016, 610–11, Type CP ‘Negbite’	“Negbite” hand-made type	0
CP13	Cooking pot with white surface and ridged rim	Iron IIB-C	Freud 2015, 198, CP4		21
CP14	Cooking jug with ring-base	Iron IIB-C	Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001, 113–114; Fig. 7: JG16		3
Other		Iron IIB-C			14

During the Iron IIB, a new type of cooking pot appears in Judah. The vessels are smaller and more globular, thinner-walled, and have a narrow upright neck, termed ‘closed cooking pots’ (Types CP1, CP5, Herzog & Singer-Avitz 2015). This form, limited in its distribution to Judah, started its appearance during the 8th century BCE, becoming increasingly popular in the later 8th and 7th century BCE (e.g., Amiran 1969, 232; Mazar & Panitz-Cohen 2001, 24, 85). The appearance of these closed, smaller cooking vessels in late Iron Age Judah may be related to changes in culinary practices during this period, although there is no other evidence for this. During the second part of the 7th century, different shapes appeared, such as CP8, generally referred to as the ‘coastal’ cooking pot (Singer-Avitz 2002, 140, Fig. 14, CP5). During the Iron IIB and throughout the Iron Age IIC, especially in south Judah and the Negev, there is also evidence for different types of cooking pots linked to specific ethnic groups such as the ‘Edomite’ (Types CP9, CP10, see, e.g., Singer-Avitz 1999; Freud 2014) and the ‘Negbite’ (Type CP12, not sampled in this study, see, Martin & Finkelstein 2013) cooking vessels. Nevertheless, open carinated forms or those with a globular body continue to be common, with changes mainly in the rim shape and orientation (mainly Types CP2 and CP3).

Acquisition of the Raw Material

Relying on ethnographic and archaeological data, it has been assumed that potters select their raw materials — both clay and temper — from a limited distance around the production area (with an average distance of less than 7 km for clays and between 6 and 9 km for temper, e.g., Arnold 1985, 50–52). Hence, drawing a circle with a radius of 10 km around any given site can establish its possible exploitable territory for clay and temper resources (Goren et al. 2004, 8), allowing the identification of a clay source according to petrographic analysis (or chemical analysis) and by extension of the location of the center of production. Raw material procurement strategies can be non-discriminatory, resulting in high variability of petrographic groups (petro-fabrics) in a given assemblage. At the same time, a discriminatory strategy is characterized by a certain uniformity in the paste used and may point toward a centralized production. The specialized strategy is defined by using different types of clay for different vessels. The composite strategy reflects the mixing of different pastes for the same production. Finally, importing clays from a source beyond the preferred exploitable territory can be another strategy, despite its relative rarity (Santacreu 2014, 245–6 with references therein). Lacking localized excavated pottery workshops in the region during the Iron Age II and based on the compositional results (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022, summarized here in Table 2, Fig. 4), it seems that both the discriminatory and specialized strategies can be considered for the production of Iron Age IIB-C cooking pots in Judah. The petrographic results indicate that a specific recipe was used for cooking pot production, indicating a specialized/ discriminatory strategy undertaken by potters within the same workshop or in a different one specialized in cooking ware production. It is especially the case at sites in the Beersheba Valley (Ben-Shlomo & Bouzaglou, forthcoming). While marl and rendzina soils were widely available in the Shephelah, terra rossa and loess clays were almost exclusively used in Judah (Fig. 5), while hamra and brown clays were selected for the coast. The extensive use of terra rossa soil (petro-fabric 1) as the raw material of choice for cooking vessels possibly relates to the fact that ferruginous soils produce non-refractory material, probably more suitable for cooking.

Table 2

Main Cooking Pot Petro-fabrics Identified (from Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022)
Petro-fabrics	Description: related soil or formation	Reference	Geographic provenance and comments
1	Terra rossa (Fig. 4:1)	Singer 2007, 90–2; Ben-Shlomo 2019b, 173-9	Central hills, high Shephelah, Galilee, Mt. Carmel
2	Loess (Fig. 4:2)	Goren et al. 2004, 287–8	Southern Shephelah, coastal plains, northern Negev
3	Brown/alluvial soil	Ben-Shlomo 2009, 164, Group 1	Southern coastal plains
4	Hamra (Fig. 4:3)	Goren et al. 2004, 292–3	Coastal plains: between Ashdod and Akko
5	Moẓa/Taqiye marl	Ben-Shlomo 2019b, 193-5,232–3; Goren et al. 2004, 256-8	Central hills
6	Ḥazeva formation (sandstone and shale) (Fig. 4:4)	Cohen-Weinberger 2011; Freud 2015, 194–6, Types CP1-CP2	Eastern Negev, northern Arava

Preparation of the Raw Material

Following the collection of the raw materials necessary for making a paste suitable for ceramic production, several operations are divided between the modification of the material and its processing composed of the preparation of the paste (Roux 2019a, 30–40). The preparation of the clay relies on the characteristics and properties of the raw material. It comprises the following operations: fragmentation, granulometric sorting, hydration, removal of coarse elements, addition of tempers, mixing of clay materials, and homogenization (Roux 2019a, 30; Santacreu 2014, 47; Roux 2019a, 32). Blending raw materials according to a specific paste is generally done to improve its fashioning, drying, and firing (Quinn 2013, 156). In some cases, silt is mixed with well-levigated clay, and this protects the pot from cracking when it is kept for drying. The silt acts as a temper preventing excessive shrinkage of the vessels. This is especially visible in terra rossa clay petro-fabric 1 (1D and 1F, see Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022), where the quartz silt constitutes the primary or only non-plastic component of the well-levigated clay after the removal of coarse elements. The same levigation process can be observed for the preparation of petro-fabric 2E, only used for the production of CP13 at Malḥata. Granulometric sorting was also carried out for several petro-fabrics presenting a bimodal textural in the paste, the result of the distribution of the addition of well-strandardized grain-size temper within a lean clay matrix.

Temper Addition

Tempers consist of coarse (sand-sized or larger) mineral material such as quartz, flint, feldspar, limestone, basalt, salt, etc.; organic matters such as bones, shells, plants, etc.; as well as siliceous or carbonated ash, as well as fragmented ceramic material (grog) (Roux 2019a, 34). Although it is not always possible to determine whether these particles were deliberately added or were natural coarse particles within the raw material used for cooking pot production (Rice 1987, 409–411), the angularity and size of some calcareous inclusions (calcite, limestone, chalk, or dolomite, etc.) may indicate intentional crushing (Santacreu 2014, 72). The addition of tempers is linked to resistance to thermal shocks as tempered pastes display better thermal conduction and a greater capacity not to fracture when fissured (Kilikoglou et al. 1998). Clays with a high coarse calcareous component are widespread in the Southern Levant (Ben-Shlomo 2019a, *15–*7, with references therein). But, while calcareous temper increases the heat resistance of the clay (Shoval et al. 1993, 271–2), its properties, when subjected to high temperature (between 650°C and 800°C), changes and alter the vessel’s surface (e.g., Tite et al. 2001, 322). On the other hand, quartz-tempered pottery increases the ceramics' toughness when fired up to 900°C (Tite et al. 2001, 307–9; Kilikoglou et al. 1998, 261–279).

A clay recipe including a high coarse calcareous component has been typical for cooking ware for several millennia in the Southern Levant, as the calcareous (especially calcite) temper increases the resistance of the clay to thermal shocks and dissipates crack propagation (e.g., Shoval et al. 1993, 271–2; London and Shuster 2011). Calcite is a primary form of limestone. Primary calcite usually appears in older limestone deposits of the central highlands but does not appear on the coast. It is also absent from the younger soft limestone formations in the Shephelah foothills. Calcite can be found, however, in small quantities with some outcroppings of the Moẓa formation and appears in a pure form in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Hence, in some cases, this temper might have been imported to production centers.

In previous research, Gloria London has defined a “break in ceramic tradition” during the Iron II, represented by a shift to small pots tempered with quartz, grog, or ground calcite (London 2016, 211–3). London and Shuster’s study (2011) of Iron Age cooking pots from Tell Hisban, Jordan, indicated that during the Iron II, more vessels were quartz-tempered than in previous periods, while the vast majority of the post-Iron Age cooking pots were quartz-tempered and wheel-thrown (London & Shuster 2011, 241–2).

To examine this, 713 Iron II cooking pots from Judah were analyzed for temper counting (Table 3). The data was obtained by petrographic analysis (see also Ben-Shlomo 2019a; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022). Main sand-sized non-plastics were counted in the petrographic slides according to visual examination. These were classified as small (sized below 100µm), medium (sized between 100–400µm), and large (sized above 400µm), and were classified as quartz, various calcareous inclusions (limestone, calcareous concentrations, chalk, calcite, etc.) and other (mostly feldspar). Summarized results of temper counting from several main Judean sites are presented in Table 3. The use of grog or chaff to temper cooking pots was not identified within our assemblage. Only samples of 10 counts or more of calcareous inclusions or quartz were counted; thus, many cooking pots are neither calcareous nor quartz-tempered as not enough sand grains were counted. Many of these are made of terra rossa-type clay containing large quantities (20–35% in slide area) of silt-sized quartz (mainly naturally originating from dust).

These results present a rather complex picture, that may be related to geographic and chronological parameters. In Jerusalem, especially at the Ophel site, during the Iron Age IIA, almost 60% of the cooking pots were quartz-tempered; more quartz-tempered pots were also identified at the City of David. In several Iron Age IIA contexts, more calcareous-tempered than quartz-tempered were identified. At Lachish during the Iron Age IIA, there were slightly more quartz- than calcareous-tempered cooking pots, while during the Iron Age IIB and IIC, there were fewer tempered pots; this is due to the fact that almost all cooking pots in this period were made from terra rossa-type clay with only silt-sized quartz (see above). A similar pattern was observed in the southern Iron Age IIB-C sites of Beersheba, Arad, and Malḥata.

Therefore, the general tendency is that during the Iron IIA, there was a mixture of calcareous-tempered and quartz-tempered cooking pots, the former representing the long-lasting tradition of calcite-tempered pots from the 2nd millennium BCE in the Southern Levant. During the Iron Age IIB-C, there was a rather distinct rise (though highly site-dependent so far) of non-tempered cooking pots (usually rich in silt-sized quartz). However, both calcareous-tempered and quartz-tempered pots still appear in various quantities.

The practice of calcite tempering is rare in loess-type clay (see Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022, petro-fabric 2G); most of the loess was tempered with other calcareous inclusions or, to a lesser extent, with crushed shells (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2022, petro-fabric 2D). Ferromagnesian minerals associated with quartz temper were found essentially on cooking pots made with petro-fabric 6, interpreted as coming from the central and northern Arava Valley and in numerous synclines of the northern Negev.

Table 3

Temper counts in Iron Age II cooking pots from selected Judean sites
Site	Period	Total CP analyzed	Calcareous- tempered	Quartz- tempered
Jerusalem (Ophel)	Iron IIA	50	15	29
Jerusalem (City of David)	Iron IIB-C	24	2	5
Jerusalem (Jewish Quarter)	Iron IIB-C	9	3	1
Moẓa	Iron IIA	10	5	3
Qeiyafa	Iron IIA	9	2	2
‘Arai	Iron IIA	12	6	0
Lachish	Iron IIA	67	13	16
Lachish	Iron IIB	56	4	3
Lachish	Iron IIC	30	5	4
Beer-Sheba	Iron IIB-C	69	11	8
Arad	Iron IIB-C	75	11	5
Malḥata	Iron IIB-C	86	14	32

The manufacturing techniques defined in a chaîne opératoire (as defined by Roux 2019a, 41–3) include the following terms: 1. Method: The complete sequence of functional operations; 2. Phase: Fashioning of different vessel parts (e.g., base, body [lower and upper part] or opening [neck, rim]); 3. Stage: Specific operational steps within a method (e.g., roughing out and shaping [pre-form]). These include the fashioning or shaping stage, the finishing stage, the decoration stage, and the firing stage.

Fashioning (also termed forming or shaping) stage and techniques: The forming or shaping step comprises two operations: the shaping of the roughing-out followed by the shaping of the pre-form (Gosselain 2002, 83; Roux 1994, 46–7; 2017; 2019a; 2019b). The roughing-out corresponds to a hollow volume that does not have the final geometric characteristics of the container or vessel. A vessel with its final shape and dimensions is referred to as a pre-form before it has undergone the finishing operations (Roux 1994, 46–47; 2019a, 41). The ceramics' manufacturing process was analyzed by observation of the sherds with a stereomicroscope. The interpretation of those traces leads to the reconstruction and identification of different techniques to shape the ceramics’ body. The classification is complemented by typological and petrographic analysis (see above). Determining indicative features for each method follows Valentine Roux’s methodology for ceramic technology (2019a).

Finishing stage techniques: The finishing stage takes place after the pre-forming stage. Finishing techniques are operated on wet clay (smoothing) or leather-hard clay (brushing, smoothing). The treatment of the surface is either rubbing (softening, burnishing/polishing, shining) or coating (slips, glazes, organic material, graphite, silica, carbon) (see Roux 2019a; Santacreu 2014, 83–86).

Decoration stage: As the assemblage of Iron Age cooking pots analyzed was mostly undecorated, this category is irrelevant to the analysis.

Firing stage: Firing in open firings or kilns constitutes the last stage of the chaîne opératoire. The firing parameters include temperature, heating rate, exposure to oxygen, time of exposure, and firing atmosphere. While the firing stage is critical in the chaîne opératoire of pottery production, it will not be discussed in detail here. Very few pottery kilns were discovered in Iron Age Judah and generally in the Southern Levant. Thus, whether most ceramics were fired in kilns or open firing areas cannot be ascertained. The cooking pots are generally well-fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Firing temperatures were estimated based on the optical activity of the analyzed sample, considered as optically inactive when fired at temperatures of 850°C and above (according to the decomposition of calcareous minerals: Rice, 1987, pp. 92, 98, 431). Overall, most samples present an optically active paste, which indicates a medium firing temperature between 700–850°C. This low temperature prevented damage or breaking of the pots.

Sampling (Diagnostic Pieces and Methodological Bias)

Several fashioning methods were identified on the 478 Iron Age II cooking pots examined (Methods A-D, Figs. 6–11). For identifying composite methods such as molding and wheel-coiling, the nature of the sherd can be decisive. Since the assemblage also includes many rim sherds and not only complete vessels, only the wheel-coiling method could be identified in many samples. Molding, for example, was used to shape the base of the vessel and can only be visible on this part. Henceforth, many of the sherds ascribed to Method B1, “wheel-coiling,” may have belonged to Method A1, “Molding and Wheel-coiling,” or Method C, “Horizontal Molding” (see below). In this specific case, a reexamination of the manufacturing technique according to the shape of the cooking pot, the petro-fabric, and the orientation of the clay mass might help to determine a composite technique based on the ceramic fragment. In any case, rim sherds assigned to Method B1 will not be included in the statistical analyses, and only complete vessels made with this technique are statistically significant (i.e., 374 vessels). In the same way, cooking pots assigned to Method A2 and B2 can present the same methodological bias. Hence, we will discuss them together when not dealing with complete vessels.

Method A: Horizontal Molding and Coiling

Method A – molding and wheel-coiling – can be divided into two sub-methods: Method A1, where the upper part of the vessels was wheel-coiled, and Method A2, where the upper part of the vessel was coiled and beaten (Figs. 6–8).

Method A1: Horizontal Molding and Wheel-coiling (Figs. 6–8, Table 4)

Fashioning stages: The first technological step consists of the molding of the base and body of the vessel (molding by percussion) (Stage 1) (Fig. 6:1). For this, the potter may have used a stone or pottery bowl (see also, jar base) as a convex or concave mold or may have dug out the desired shape in the soil (Roux 2019a, 48). The potter would then place a circular (thin) slab of clay, spiral coils, or a lump into the mold, slightly pressed into shape and smoothed to retain an overall equivalent thickness (Figs. 6:2, 7d–f). The spread-out and thinning operations were carried out by percussion on humid clay, likely by hand or with a rigid tool (Fig. 8a–b, Roux 2019a, 61–4). Straw, ash, or sand was used as an anti-adhesive to prevent the clay from sticking to the mold (Roux 2019a, 61). This action is evident in the radial section through the elongated and subparallel voids and on the horizontal cracks showing the superposition of the flat base and the spiral coils (see Fig. 11a–b).

The next stage is wheel-coiling (Stage 2, Fig. 6:2): Subsequently, on top of the molded ‘galette,’ likely while still in the mold and placed on a wheel, several clay coils of various thicknesses were added to construct the upper body (Stage 3, Fig. 6:3). The shape was fashioned by turning on a wheel (Franken 1969, 88–9; London 1999, 76). During the same operation, the rim might have been shaped. Alternatively, wheel-coiling can also be used to shape only the neck and rim of a previously shaped vessel. The vessel is left to dry until it reaches leather-hard consistency and is then positioned on the wheel. To create the neck, the opening is incised and coated with clay slurry. A coil is then placed, thinned, and shaped with RKE (Stage 4, Figs. 6:4, 7d). The separate elements as handles are fashioned and affixed on the vessel when it is wet or leather-hard (Stage 5, Fig. 6:5)

Method A2: Horizontal Molding, Coiling and Beating

Fashioning stages: Stages 1 and 5 are the same as Method A1 (Fig. 6). Subsequently, on top of the molded base (Stage 1), several clay coils of various thicknesses were added to construct the upper body walls (Stage 2). The walls were thinned with a paddle and anvil to achieve a uniform thickness (Stage 3). The rim was created with an additional coil, and then the interior walls were intentionally scraped to bind

Table 4

Indicative features of Method A
Fashioning stage	Indicative features
Molding by percussion Stage 1	Compressed paste following molding operations; relatively thin and equal relief of the body; fine elongated fissures visible in the section alongside a coarse grain fraction, usually subparallel to the compression points of the clay mass; preferential fracture at the connection between the lower and the upper part; presence of percussion cupules on the external or internal surfaces; imprints of organic matter on the external or internal surface used as anti-adhesive matter (Roux 2019a)
Wheel-coiling Stage 2 Method A1	Fluid topography with prominent grains and horizontal striations at the internal and external surface; elongated voids subparallel to the walls; fissure located on compression zones, sometimes curvilinear; band shape undulations resulting from thinning operations on coils with RKE (Roux 2019a)
Coiling and Beating Stage 2–3 Method A2	Micro-pullouts (Figs. 8a–b,12f); inserted grains on the surface, compact microtopography; percussion cupules with irregular contours; fissures due to vertical external percussion on a heterogeneous base and presence of anti-adhesive (Roux 2019a)

This technique, already in use since the Middle Bronze Age, constitutes the large technical occurrence of our assemblage (50%) in all studied sites and throughout the Iron Age until the Persian period (see Fig. 15–16) in all Iron Age IIB-C types. This method goes back to the Neolithic period when first identified in cooking dishes from Greece (Dimoula et al. 2019). Method A is probably the most common method for cooking pot manufacture used in this region since the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (see, e.g., Kleiman 2020, 247; Magrill & Middleton 2004, 2527–2533) and continuously throughout the Iron Age until at least the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Franken 1969, 118–120). This method has been observed equally in cooking pot assemblages from Transjordan (at Tell Deir ʻAlla, see Franken 1969, 88; see also Groot 2011, 165, Fig. XII.2).

Method A1 was primarily affiliated with the production of types CP1, CP4–CP8, and CP13 (Fig. 16). These cooking pots are all closed types with globular or squat body. This composite method was rarely identified on cooking pots dating to the Iron Age IIA, except for CP-VI, a globular cooking jug. Method A2 was quite rare and mainly identified to produce CP7, CP9, and CP10 pots found in the Beersheba Valley sites (Fig. 16). This method strongly connects with terra rossa petro-fabric 1 (see Fig. 17).

Method B: Coiling, with and without RKE (Fig. 9, Table 5)

Method B can be divided between Method B1, “Wheel-Coiling,” and Method B2, “Coiling and Beating.”

Method B1: Wheel-Coiling

Fashioning stage: Coiling (Stages 1–3, Fig. 9:1): The rough-out for the body of the vessel was assembled upside down, using several superimposed coils, without the use of RKE (Fig. 9:1–3, 11d; see Roux, & Courty 1998, 752, Roux 2019a, 178–9). The base was modeled from a ball of clay flattened by percussion until reaching the required thickness. The shape of the base is a disc with variable thickness connected to the body, with an internal coil placed at the junction between the peripheral coil and the first part of the body on the inner surface. The coils are joined and thinned by discontinuous pressures. Each coil is subjected to grooving at one of its sides before being added to the previously formed part. On the inner surface at the connection between body and base cavities and clay slurry indicate the addition of clay to reinforce the junction. Wheel-Coiling (Stages 4/5), as well as Stage 6 (assembled elements), are similar to Method A1.

Method B2: Coiling and Beating

Fashioning stage: This method is like Method B1, but the rough-out for the body of the vessel was assembled upside down, using several superimposed coils, without the use of RKE (Stages 1–3). The walls were thinned with a paddle and anvil to achieve a uniform thickness (Stage 4). The rim was created with an additional coil, and the interior walls were intentionally scraped to bind the coils (Stage 5). Stage 6 (assembled elements) is similar to Methods A1 and B1.

The combination of coiling and wheel was used since the Late Bronze Age to produce larger shapes such as storage jars and cooking pots (Landgraf & Rye 2021, xxii). Method B1 was distributed all over the regions studied at every site. It was affiliated with the production of Types CP1 and CP5–CP8 (Fig. 16). It is linked to similar petro-fabrics as Method A (Fig. 17).

Method B2 (with Method A2) was identified on Types CP9 and CP10 at Beersheba Valley sites (Fig. 16); additionally, a small quantity of CP11 was made using this method. These types are associated with the Edomite culture (and were imported from the eastern Negev or ‘Arava regions, petro-fabric 6, Fig. 5). Thus, this is a crucial result possibly linking a shaping technique and a specific ethnic or social group (see below).

Table 5

Indicative features of Method B
Fashioning stages	Indicative features
Coiling Stage 1 Method B1 and B2	Microstructure showing a random organization of clay domains, characteristic of the weakly transformed internal part of the coil; fine fissures with a sub-parallel orientation; poorly deformed coils with a mesostructure in an S-shape (Fig. 11d)
Wheel-Coiling Stage 2 Method B1	See Table 4: Method A1
Beating Stage 2 Method B2	See Table 4: Method A2

Method C: Horizontal Wheel Molding (Figs. 10,11)

Fashioning Stages: In this method, both the lower and upper parts of the vessel are molded by percussion (Stage 1, Fig. 10:1). Possibly, as in Method A, the potter may have used a stone or pottery bowl as a convex or concave mold or may have dug out the desired shape in the soil (Roux 2019a, 48). A circular (thin) slab of clay [Method C1], spiral coils [Method C2], or a lump was then slightly pressed into shape and smoothed to retain an overall equivalent thickness (indicative features are same as in Method A, Table 4). The spread-out and thinning operations were carried out by percussion on humid clay, likely by hand or with a rigid tool (Roux 2019a, 61–4). Straw, ash, or sand was used as an anti-adhesive to prevent the clay from sticking to the mold (Roux 2019a, 61).

In the next stage of joining procedures (Stage 2, Fig. 10:2–3), the upper mold is generally placed on the lower mold when the clay reaches a leather-hard consistency. Two options are possible for joining two molded parts; first by incising and then coating with clay slurry the edges of the two parts or by applying a paste surplus to join both parts together (Fig. 11a–b, Roux 2019a, 64). For the latter purpose, clay was either pinched from the edges or added by a coil, placed on the edge of the lower part, and subsequently stretched to the upper part. Stages 3 and 4 are similar to Method A.

Method C was used to produce most of the cooking pots during the Iron Age IIA, potentially due to their biconical shapes, thus made in two halves. This method was therefore adapted to the physical properties of the pot. Most Iron IIA cooking pots were made with Method C (57%, see Fig. 15; Types CP-I–CP-V). The method was also used to produce several CP2, CP3, and CP4 (corresponding to open cooking pots with a rounded base and a sharply carinated wall at the bottom of the vessel). Most pots using Method C were made of petro-fabrics 1 and 2 (terra rossa and loess soils, see Fig. 17).

Method D: Wheel-Throwing

Fashioning stages: The “wheel-throwing” method is characterized by partially or entirely shaping the recipient from a lump of clay on a wheel that rotates at a minimum speed of 150 rotations per minute or more (Roux & de Miroschedji, 2009, 162).

Table 6

Indicative Features of Method D
Fashioning stages	Indicative features
Wheel-throwing	Random distribution of inclusions and orientation of the coarse fraction; homogeneous microstructure and mesostructure; parallel concentric striations on the external and internal surfaces; undulating relief from the base to the upper body; compression folds; ellipsoidal striations on the outer base; tears; presence of several elongated vesicles parallel to the walls (Roux 2019a)

Wheel-throwing in the Southern Levant was reported during the Middle Bronze Age but had seemingly disappeared during the Late Bronze Age (see Roux & de Miroschedji, 2009, 155–176; Baldi & Roux 2016, 136–153, with references therein).² Several fine wares are also reported during the Iron II period (Franken & Steiner 1991, 75, 80; London 1989, 77–8; Amiran 1969, 291). Our observations indicate that this method is probably scarce, if not inexistent, in producing cooking pots during the Iron Age II. Both wheel-throwing and wheel-coiling methods produced comparable surface features due to the manufacturing process. Therefore, the presence of horizontal parallel striations and concentric or spiral undulations, often used by previous studies to identify wheel-throwing, are not exclusively diagnostic of the wheel-throwing technique.

When identified here, the method was used in conjunction with clay devoid of inclusions to allow the throwing on the wheel (Table 6). Yet, this method may be underdiagnosed within the assemblage or, on the contrary, not existent for the period relevant to our study. Technological reasons may explain the absence of wheel-thrown cooking pots. Forming of cooking pots by the wheel-throwing method could have produced inferior cooking pots; as they are put on the fire or heated, these vessels may need a thick, massive base combined into the vessel body. This is why the base is always molded or wheel-coiled.

The only three vessels possibly made by this method are closed shapes, both from the late Iron Age IIA (CP-VI, Lachish 162) and from the Iron Age IIB-C (CP14, Malḥata 157, Strata IV–III, and CP1, Beersheba 224, Stratum II). Out of the three vessels possibly showing technological features of wheel-throwing, two were made out of petro-fabric 5 and one of petro-fabric 2.

² It should be noted that fashioning techniques studies focusing on Iron Age assemblages in the Levant are rare.

Finishing Stages

Finishing stages mainly comprise smoothing operations usually carried out with RKE. According to the indicative traces, five diagnostics combinations can be observed (Fig. 12, see also Roux 2017 for visual examples based on experimental data). Smoothing with RKE on wet clay paste with wet tools produced concentric parallel ribbed striations combined with fluid microtopography. On the other hand, smoothing on leather-hard clay paste with wet tools created a combination of compact and fluid zones with ribbed striations alongside embedded grains and scalloped over-thicknesses. In some cases, the surface can be brushed on leather-hard clay, but this surface treatment remains minor.

Surface Treatments

Coating techniques imply using a natural or manufactured organic coating on the pottery's hot surfaces. When organic products are liquid, they are applied by soaking, spraying, or rubbing (Gosselain 1992, 2002). Surface treatment by clay coating consists of a thick grainy slip obtained by adding water to the clay paste (Fig. 12f). Clay coating can be applied to pastes with different degrees of hygrometry such as wet to leather-hard clay with soft or hard tools (Fig. 12e, Roux 2019a, 99–100). Clay coating can be applied either to regularize the vessel’s walls or to give it a grainy surface (e.g., stuccoing operation). For cooking pots, the main aim was to diminish thermal spalling and cracking by protecting and reinforcing these vessels, as their external surface is exposed to thermal or mechanical shocks (Roux 2019a, 100). Therefore, as clay coating, cooking pots were generally coated with clay slurry to protect the outer face from thermal shocks (see Fig. 12a-b, also Roux 2019a, 99–100). The presence of clay slurry can also be indicative of different procedures for joining two molded parts; first by incising and then coating with clay slurry the edges of the two molded parts or alternatively by applying a paste surplus to join both pieces together (Fig. 12c–d; Roux, 2019a, 64). Applying clay slurry can be done by hand, with a cloth or paintbrush, or by soaking or pouring. A rare example from Ramat Raḥel (Iron Age IIC/ Babylonian and Persian periods) shows extensive use of clay slurry on the molded bases (Fig. 12a–b). Crests, threaded or ribbed striations, and edges are characteristic of clay slurry. At the same time, over-thickness, irregular topography combined with fluid microtopography, and clusters of floating grains are diagnostic of a clay coating.

This multi-disciplinary study's compositional, technological, and chemical results indicate that during the Iron II, specialized regional production centers for cooking pots existed: in the Jerusalem region and several others in the northern and southern Shephelah. These centers produced pots from clay derived from terra rossa soils (petro-fabric 1) not available in the southern part of Judah and the northern Negev. Other centers existed in the coastal plains and eastern Negev (see Figs. 13–14 for a visualization of some centers of production)

The choice of the raw material seems to be standardized for some morphological types and during specific periods. The assemblage shows a high level of standardization in the clay procurement practices and preparation and the fashioning techniques involved in their respective productions. In this sense, molds are associated with more standardized vessels and permit a reduction in manufacture time (Rice 1987, 126). The use of molds to form at least part of the vessel body, usually the base, is well documented in the ethnographic literature (Rice 1987, 125). It is also likely that having a thick molded base for cooking pots was necessary for their technical function, such as absorbing heat at the bottom of the vessel and protecting this part more exposed to heat and flames. Following the same reasoning, the systematization of the wheel-coiling allowed this technical specialization, although without the use of the fast wheel.

It is plausible that different modes of production co-existed, such as specialized workshops for cooking ware and workshops producing other shapes, yet, at least for Iron Age II Judah, the specialization for cooking pot production was more distinct. One workshop could have also produced more than one type of cooking wares, hence explaining the homogeneity of specific clay recipes for various types (such as petro-fabric 1). This phenomenon already started during the Iron Age IIA. Still, despite some technological regionalities, it is especially visible during the Iron Age IIB-C with a low variability of petro-fabrics and chemical grouping per type. This may also be related to the appearance of new cooking pot types in this period, exclusively appearing in Judah. Both specialization and normalization of cooking ware are visible. Technological analyses of cooking pots showed that a similar chaîne opératoire was used for all production centers even when sources and clay recipes changed. This similarity demonstrates a common ground regarding fashioning techniques and a certain stability in potting practices.

As new cooking pot types were introduced during the Iron Age IIB, we see a continuity of the ‘way of doing,’ which remained stable throughout the Iron Age. The stable manufacturing tradition probably reflects a cultural continuity in the potters’ communities of Judah through the Iron Age and the generally conservative nature of pottery production. The fashioning stages involved in the chaîne opératoire are considered the most stable within the technological repertoire since this motoric ability requires more learning and direct transmission from a tutor to the apprentice (Gosselain 2000; Roux 2019a). Cooking wares are more constrained by functional parameters than other vessel types, possibly limiting the ability of innovations (Santacreu 2014, 255). Yet, the shift from sharp or smoothed carinated forms (during the Iron Age IIA) to closed, more rounded cooking pots in the Iron Age IIB-C may have led to an existent, although limited diversification of the methods used to produce cooking pots (from Method C to Method A1, see above).

The technological, typological, and petrographic analyses of Iron Age cooking ware from Judah highlight continuity in the technological tradition from one period to another since significant changes or disruptions in the local production have not been attested; this is despite the appearance of new forms and possible political changes during this period (as the Neo-Assyrian influence and control, see below). The existence of different fabric groups could reflect various ceramic workshops that co-existed and produced pottery during the different phases of the Iron Age.

While the fashioning repertoire is relatively stable, technological changes can be affiliated with changes in temper practices, for example. This study shows that calcite tempering was very common during the Iron Age II (at least when used in conjunction with terra rossa clay and, to a lesser extent, with loess). However, towards the end of this period, there was an increase in quartz-tempered clays (probably natural), especially with the use of well-levigated clays with quartz silt during the Iron Age IIB-C. During the Persian period, it has been assumed that potters transitioned from using terra rossa soil tempered with calcite to hamra tempered with coastal sand for cooking pot production (Goren 1996, 109; London & Shuster 2011; Landgraf & Rye 2021, 15). This change in the fabric may have been motivated by technical reasons allowing the cooking vessels to resist more efficiently repeated cycles of fast heating and cooling without cracking (Landgraf & Rye 2021, 15). Yet, a continuity of the late Iron Age potting practices for culinary ceramics is visible during the Persian period at some sites as well (see, e.g., at Nahal Tut, Gorzalczany 2006, 194; at Khallat es-Sihrij for example, Bouzaglou, forthcoming; and at Ramat Raḥel). Indeed, the continuity of using calcite-tempered terra rossa alongside quartz-tempered hamra for cooking vessels during the Persian period was more widespread than commonly assumed.

It has been suggested that a clear transition to the extensive of quartz-tempered clays may have coincided with the use of wheel-throwing, possibly, related to the smaller size and the thinner walls of the late Iron II cooking pots (Ben-Shlomo, 2019a, *26, with references therein). According to previous research, the use of the wheel-throwing technique (or use of the “fast wheel”) for cooking ware manufacture begins relatively late. It is not documented for periods prior to the Iron Age (London 2016, 91). Our study has shown that there was very minimal use of the wheel-throwing (Method D) during the Iron II in Judah, despite the centralized production and introduction of smaller, thinner-walled cooking pots. While this method was reported for cooking pots in previous studies (e.g., at Deir ‘Allā, Groot 2011, 211, type VII.CP.7), as noted above, wheel-throwing may be misidentified in some studies.

The later generalization of the fast wheel use during the Hellenistic and Roman periods coincides with the absence of temper within the ceramic body. During modern times, Gaza potters tended to use clay without temper to produce wheel-thrown cooking ware (Langraf & Rye 2021, 239–40). While most of the cooking pots of the Iron Age IIB-C were devoid of inclusions, they were, however, not fashioned on the fast wheel; it seems that the wheel-throwing method was not introduced to produce cooking pots, even during the Persian period. As noted above, there could be a functional reason to produce cooking pots by wheel-coiling even after wheel-throwing was used for other forms.

Ethnographic studies have shown that cooking pots are often exchanged because of their specific technical and functional requirements (Quinn 2013, 143). This indicates that it was probably not the lack of skill that determined the importation of cooking pots from distant locations but rather the demand of the users, who may have preferred a higher-quality product unattainable with local soils (see also Ben-Shlomo 2019a, *23). This type of trade was reported already during the Early Bronze Age II period with the importation of cooking pots tempered with granite from the Sinai Peninsula to Arad (Amiran 1978, 48). This study demonstrated that this material category constitutes an important information source on pottery production and trade networks in ancient Judah. Similar exchange patterns may also be seen through ethnographic studies of the Palestinian trade of cooking pots. During the twentieth century AD, the large manufacturing center of cooking pots at Al Jib –between Ramallah and Jerusalem- was selling its products to far more distant regional centers, as far away as Gaza or even Amman (Landgraf & Rye 2021, 19). The importance of this production center was related to the presence of high-quality clay and abundant calcite outcropping in the region. Against this background, the compositional characterization of 293 cooking pots from the Beersheba Valley and its comparison with published data has revealed the existence of several regional pottery workshops operating in the Judean Hills, the Shephelah, the southern coastal plain and the ‘Arava valley, the eastern Negev and even Edom (Figs. 13–14), distributing their products within the surrounding landscape and beyond alongside a minor local production (Ben-Shlomo & Bouzaglou forthcoming). About 80% of the cooking pots analyzed in some sites were imported from other regions.

Another interesting result from the Beersheba Valley assemblage is that although most pots were made of a similar paste (petro-fabric 1) and similar fashioning method (Method A1), a specific group of the so-called Edomite cooking pots (Types CP9 and CP10) was made of a different paste with a different provenance (petro-fabric 6, east Negev/Arava, Fig. 14) and also by a different fashioning technique (Methods A2 and B2, see Fig. 16). This is a good example where an almost entirely distinct chaîne opératoire (choice of raw material, fashioning method, morphological type) is linked with a specific geographic region, and probably a specific tribal or ethnic tradition (see also, e.g., Thareani 2010; Tebes 2011; Danielson 2021 for the issue of ‘Edomite pottery’). Edomite pottery appears mainly in the Negev and Arava regions of Israel and south Jordan during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. It includes several forms (especially bowls and kraters), sometimes decorated in red and black patterns, and cooking pots. Interestingly, of this group, only the cooking pots were imported from Edom in the Beersheba Valley sites (see Thareani 2010 Tebes 2011, 80, 85–6; Freud 2014). Thus, the question arises whether these technological differences also reflect distinct culinary practices (see Danielson 2021), yet this is not necessarily the case.³

The study reveals a pattern of several regional production centers distributing their goods to large sites, small villages, and fortresses and competing for rural markets within Judah’s territory and further on. Cooking pots were manufactured by numerous production centers and locally at the consumption site, which is different from the Bronze Age pattern. The compositional and technological evidence offered by the cooking pots indicates that some workshops probably continued to produce cooking pots throughout the period, with no major changes, distributing to regional sites, particularly to the Beersheba Valley region. This also indicates that despite the Neo-Assyrian tributarization of the region and destructions that occurred at some sites, the production, circulation, and trade remained largely active due to the important trade route which connected Arabia and Transjordan via the Beersheba Valley with the Mediterranean ports and the international road of the southern coastal plain.

³ The analysis also highlighted a unique technological feature, identified only for Type CP13 cooking pots from Tel Malḥata (“Hill of the Salt” in Arabic). The vessels are characterized by a whitish color of the surface and fabric, completely different from the rest of the cooking ware repertoire at the site and in Judah in general (Freud 2015, 198). They were made of well-levigated local loess soil (petro-fabric 2E). This whitish color was likely related to the firing process and was possibly a result of the addition of salt. This technique has been identified in modern-time cooking pots from Hebron, Jericho, Ramallah, and ‘Irtah (Landgraf & Rye 2021, 164). The benefits of salt addition to calcareous clay are twofold: first, the prevention of damages occurring in the firing stage due to lime spalling, and second, it enables the possibility to fire the pots in rapid cycles without breakage (Rye 1981, 106–37). This addition constituted a specific way of doing used for a specific local type by Tel Malḥata potters and was almost not exchanged outside the site’s boundaries.

This first comprehensive, multi-disciplinary study of Levantine cooking pot production offers several new perspectives regarding pottery craft organization in Iron Age Judah. We have examined a large diachronic assemblage of cooking pots and their technological properties from a variety of sites in the region to shed light on diachronic trends, supply sources, paste recipes, and fashioning techniques. During the Iron Age IIA, more considerable variability of clays used for the production of cooking ware was observed compared to the Iron Age IIB-C homogeneous assemblages, both in terms of clay selection and preparation, morpho-functional traits, and fashioning techniques. During this period, the standardization level of cooking pots remained stable and raw materials and paste recipes were homogenized. However, the transition towards standardization and specialization of cooking ware production was gradual and well-established during the Iron Age IIC and the Persian period. Although most cooking pots were produced in regional centers and, to a lesser extent, locally at the various sites included in the analysis, their fashioning techniques remain stable. Some fashioning methods were more adapted to the new closed cooking pot shapes of the Iron Age IIB-C. Additionally, no shift towards the use of the fast wheel nor dramatic changes in clay preparation and tempering occurred since calcareous tempering persists alongside the use of composite techniques combining molding and wheel-coiling operations. This reflects the conservative nature of ceramic production when more large-scale, specialized, and standardized production is introduced. This pattern may be stronger for cooking pot production as their functional parameters constrained changes in fashioning more than for other vessel types. This fact may have limited the ability of innovations. While the technological repertoire remains relatively stable, the standardization mechanism may have been the result of socio-economic changes and should therefore be noticed and further investigated in the future.

Acknowledgments

This project is funded by the Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 208/19, granted to one of the authors (DBS). We wish to thank the archaeologists for allowing us to sample their published vessels: Yossi Garfinkel (Lachish), Lily Singer-Avitz (Tel Arad and Tel Beer-Sheba), Liora Freud (Tel ‘Ira, Tel Malḥata, Ramat Raḥel,), Eli Itkin (Ḥurvat Tov) and Yifat Thareani (Tel ‘Aroer), and to use some of the published drawings in this article. We thank Debby Ben-Ami for her assistance in sampling the vessels in the IAA storerooms.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Funding

This project is funded by the Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 208/19, granted to one of the authors (DBS).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Not applicable: Ethics declarations, consents to participate or publication, code availability

Authors contributions

LB examined visually and categorized the fashioning techniques marks on the vessels. Both authors, LB and DBS, contributed to the study conception, writing and design of the article.

Amiran R (1969) Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/The Israel Exploration Society. (Hebrew)
Arnold DE (1985) Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge University, Cambridge Baldi J. & Roux V (2016) The Innovation of the Potter’s Wheel: a Comparative Perspective Between Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant. Levant 48.3:236–253
Beit–Arieh I & Freud L (2015) Tel Malḥata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev I. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 32. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University
Ben-Shlomo D (2009) Petrographic Analysis of Iron Age Pottery. In Y Garfinkel & S Ganor (eds) Khirbet Qeiyafa 1 Excavation Report 2007–2008: 161–173. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
Ben-Shlomo D (2019a) Cooking Pot Production in Judah during the Iron Age II. Judea and Samaria Research Studies 28/1:5*–36*
Ben-Shlomo D (2019b) The Iron Age pottery of Jerusalem: A Typological and Technological Study, Ariel University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 2, Ariel: Ariel University Press
Ben-Shlomo D & Bouzaglou L (forthcoming). Mobility Patterns of Cooking Pots in the Beersheba Valley during the Iron Age II
Ben-Shlomo D, Shai I, Zukerman A, & Maeir AM (2008) Cooking Identities: Aegean-Style Cooking Jugs and Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Philistia and Neighboring Regions. American Journal of Archaeology 112(2):225–246
Ben‐Shlomo D, Bouzaglou L, Mommsen H & Sterba JH. (2022) Production Centers of Cooking Pots in Iron Age Judah. Archaeometry early view. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12807
Bouzaglou L (forthcoming) Petrographic Results of Selected Iron Age and Persian Pottery Vessels from Khallat es-Siḥrij In Itach G (ed) The Excavations at Khallat es-Siḥrij– A Late Iron Age Rural Site Near Rosh Ha-ʻAyin, Israel
Cohen-Weinberger A (2011) Provenance of the Clay Artifacts from the Favissa at ‘En Ḥaseva. ‘Atiqot 68:185–189
Danielson AJ (2021) Culinary Traditions in the Borderlands of Judah and Edom during the Late Iron Age. Tel Aviv 48/1:87–111
De Crits E (1994) Style et technique : comparaison interethnique de la poterie subsaharienne. Terre cuite et société : la céramique, document technique, économique, culturel. Juan-les-Pins: Éditions APDCA, 343–350
Dimoula A, Tsirtsoni Z, Yiouni P, Stagkidis I, Ntinou M, Prevost-Dermarkar S, Papadopoulou E & Valamoti S-M (2019) Experimental Investigation of Ceramic Technology and Plant Food Cooking in Neolithic Northern Greece. STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 5:2:269–286, DOI:10.1080/20548923.2020.1762370
Franken HJ (1969) Excavations at Tell Deir ’Alla 16. Brill Archive
Franken HJ & Steiner ML (1991) Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967 II. The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 2 Oxford: University Press
Freud L (1999) Pottery. In I Beit–Arieh (ed) Tel cIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Monograph Series 15, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology 2, pp 189–289
Freud L (2014) Local Production of Edomite Cooking Pots in the Beersheba Valley: Petrographic Analyses from Tel Malḥata, Ḥorvat ᶜUza and Ḥorvat Qitmit. In JM Thebes (ed) Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age (pp. 283–306). Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 45. Leuven: Peeters
Freud L (2015) The Pottery of Strata V-III. In I Beit-Arieh & L Freud Tel Malḥata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev. Archaeology Monograph Series 35. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp 153–479
Gitin S (2015) The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
Goren Y (1996) The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petrographic Perspective. BASOR 303:33–72
Goren Y, Finkelstein I, & Naaman N (2004) Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv University 23, Tel Aviv
Gorzalczany A (2006) Petrographic Analysis of the Pottery from Nahal Tut. ‘Atiqot 52:191–195
Gosselain OP (1992) Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery among Bafia Cameroon, Man 27(3):559–586
Gosselain OP (2000) Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3):187–217
Gosselain OP (2002) Poteries du Cameroun méridional: styles techniques et rapports à l'identité. Paris, CRNS Editions
Groot NCF (2011) All the Work of Artisans. Reconstructing Society at Tell Deir ‘Allā Through the Study of Ceramic Traditions: Studies of Late Bronze Age Faience Vessels and Iron IIc-III Ceramics from Tell Deir ‘Allā, Jordan. Zutphen, Netherlands: CPI
Herzog Z & Singer Avitz L (2015) Iron Age IIA-B: Judah and the Negev. In S Gitin (ed), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp 213–255
Itkin E (2020) Horvat Tov: A Late Iron Age Fortress in the Northeastern Negev. Tel Aviv 47(1):65–88
Kilikoglou V, Vekinis G, Maniatis Y, & Day PM (1998) Mechanical Performance of Quartz Tempered Ceramics: Part I, Strength and Toughness. Archaeometry 40:261–279
Kleiman S (2020) The Potters of the Shephelah: Between Tradition and Innovation. Pottery Technology and Distribution as a Reflection of Social and Economic Order During the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University
Landgraf J & Rye O (eds) (2021) Palestinian Traditional Pottery: A Contribution to Palestinian Culture. A Fieldwork Study, 1972–1980. 3. Leuven: Peeters Publishers
Lemonnier P (1986) The Study of Material Culture Today: Towards an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Research 5:147–186
Lemonnier P (1992). Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers 88. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan
Livingstone Smith A (2000) Processing Clay for Pottery in Northern Cameroon: Social and Technical Requirements. Archaeometry 42:21–42
London GA (1989) On Fig Leaves, Itinerant Potters, and Pottery Production Locations in Cyprus. In P McGovern (ed) Cross-craft 878 B. Mcloughlin and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics. Proceedings of a Society Symposium on Ceramic History and Archaeology at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society, April 27–28, 1987. Pittsburgh, Westerville, pp. 65–80
London GA (1999) Central Jordanian Ceramic Traditions. Ancient Ammon:76–91
London GA (2016) Ancient Cookware from the Levant: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Sheffield: Equinox
London GA & Shuster RD (2011) Calcite: A Hard Habit to Break. In MS Chesson (ed) Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E Rast and R Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, pp 233–246
Magrill P & Middleton A (2004) Late Bronze Age Pottery Technology: Cave 4034 Revisited. In D Ussishkin (ed) The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994): 2514-2549. Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp 2514–2549
Martin MAS & Finkelstein I (2013) Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and Historical Implications, Tel Aviv 40(1):6–45
Mazar A & Panitz–Cohen N (2001) Timnah (Tel Batash) II: The Finds from the First Millennium BCE. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archeology/Hebrew University, pp 24–85
Müller NS, Kilikoglou V, Day PM & Vekinis G (2014) Thermal Shock Resistance of Tempered Archaeological Ceramics. In M Martinón-Torres (ed) Craft and Science: International. Perspectives on Archaeological Ceramics. Doha, Qatar: Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation: pp 63–70
Müller NS, Kilikoglou V & Day PM (2015) Home-made Recipes: Tradition and Innovation in Bronze Age Cooking Pots from Akrotiri, Thera. In M Spataro & A Villing (eds) Ceramics, Cuisine and Culture: The Archaeology and Science of Kitchen Pottery in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow, pp 37–48
Quinn PS (2013) Ceramic Petrography. The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Archaeopress: Oxford
Rice PM (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London
Roux V (1994) La technique du tournage: définition et reconnaissance par les macrotraces. Terre cuite et société. Document Technique, Economique, Culturel, Juan-les-Pins, APDCA, pp 45–58
Roux V (2003) A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10:1–30
Roux V (2017) Ceramic Manufacture: The Chaîne Opératoire Approach. In A Hunt (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis Oxford: University Press, pp 101–113
Roux V (2019a) Ceramics and Society. A Technological Approach to Archaeological Assemblages, Berlin
Roux V (2019b) The Ghassulian Ceramic Tradition: A Single Chaîne Opératoire Prevalent throughout the Southern Levant. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7:23–43
Roux V & Courty M-A (2005) Identifying Social Entities at a Macro-Regional Level: Chalcolithic Ceramics of South Levant as a Case Study. In A Livingstone Smith, V Roux, M-A Courty, G Dollfus, J Lovell, D Bosquet & R Martineau (eds), Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 1349, pp 201–214
Roux V, & de Miroschedji P (2009) Revisiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant. Levant 41(2):155–173
Roux V & Harush O (2022) Unveiling the Sign Value of Early Potter’s Wheels Based on a 3-D Morphometric Analysis of Late Chalcolithic Vessels from the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 45
Roux V & Rosen S (2009) Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto–Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant. Paris: De Boccard
Roux V, Van Den Brink EC & Shalev S (2013) Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) Between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi'in “Deep Deposits" Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study. Paléorient: 63–81
Rye OS (ed) (1981) Pottery Technology. Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology. Washington DC: Taraxacum Press
Santacreu DA (2014) Materiality, Techniques and Society in Pottery Production. The Technological Study of Archaeological Ceramics through Paste Analysis. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open Poland
Shoval S, Gaft M, Beck P & Kirsh Y (1993) Thermal Behavior of Limestone and Monocrystalline Calcite Tempers during Firing and Their Use in Ancient Vessels. Journal of Thermal Analysis 40:263–273
Sigaut F (1994) L'évolution des techniques est-elle autonome? Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 49(4):905–906
Sinopoli CM (1991) Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Boston MA: Plenum Press.
Singer A (2007) The Soils of Israel. Berlin: Springer
Singer-Avitz L (1999) Beersheba–A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century BCE. Tel Aviv 26(1):3–75
Singer–Avitz L (2002) Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 29(1):110–214
Singer-Avitz L (2016) Pottery from Strata III–I. In Z Herzog & L Singer-Avitz (eds). Beer-Sheba III: The Early Iron IIA Enclosure Settlement and the Late Iron IIA-Iron IIB Cities. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 33. Tel Aviv, pp 583–991
Skibo JM (1994) The Kalinga Cooking Pot: An Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Study of Technological Change. In WA Longacre & JM Skibo, Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp 113–126
Spataro M & Villing A (2015) Ceramics, Cuisine, Culture: The Archaeology and Science of Kitchen in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Thareani Y (2010) The Spirit of Clay: ‘Edomite Pottery’ and Social Awareness in the Late Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 359:33–55
Thareani Y (2011) Tel ‘Aroer: The Iron Age II Caravan Town and the Hellenistic–Early Roman Settlement: The Avraham Biran (1975–1982) and Rudolph Cohen (1975–1976) Excavations. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology VIII, HUC. Jerusalem.
Tebes JM (2011) The Potter’s Will: Spheres of Production, Distribution and Consumption of the Late Iron Age Southern Transjordan-Negev Pottery. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 29:69–101
Tite M, Kilikoglou V & Vekinis G (2001) Strength, Toughness and Thermal Shock Resistance of Ancient Ceramics, and their Influence on Technological Choice. Archaeometry 43(3):301–324
Zimhoni O (1997) Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological Archaeological and Chronological Aspects. Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 2. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University/Institute of Archaeology

No competing interests reported.

datasetforIACP1.23AAS.pdf

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 10 May, 2023

Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences →

Editorial decision: Major revision
13 Feb, 2023
Reviews received at journal
06 Feb, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
25 Jan, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
24 Jan, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
24 Jan, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
23 Jan, 2023
First submitted to journal
09 Jan, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

A ‘Chaîne Opératoire’ Perspective on Iron Age II Judean Cooking Pots

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Typology Of Iron Age Ii Cooking Pots In Judah

3. Clay Acquisition, Preparation And Tempering

4. Methodology: Defining Chaîne Opératoire

5. Results: Fashioning Methods

6. Finishing Stages

7. Discussion: Standardization In Production, Stability In Methods, And Trade Patterns

8. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1