![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Large, deep bowls with wedge-shaped impressions have been discovered in excavations and surveys in the Samaria region and elsewhere in the southern Levant over the last 100 years. The bowls have typical Iron II forms, but the wedge-shaped incision is unique. These findings enable us to establish the chronology of the bowls, their geographic distribution and the nature of the sites in which they were found. In this article we show that most of the bowls date to the 7th–6th centuries BCE. Many were found at unfortified, single-period rural sites near valleys in the northern Samarian highlands. We introduce a petrographic study, which shows that the bowls were locally produced. We also examine their function and explore the similarities between these wedge-impressions and those found in bowls in Mesopotamia. Based on these considerations, we propose a historical explanation for their appearance, which we maintain is related to questions of ethnicity in the Assyrian period.
Acknowledgments
We extend our thanks to the Krauthaumer Chair in Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University for helping in the petrographic analysis, and to the Azrieli Institute for Israel Studies at Concordia University (Montreal) for their support. We thank Shaul Adam for creating the maps using GIS, Itamar Ben-Ezra for his graphic interpretation, and Naomi Baram-Itach for producing the bowl used in the grating experiment described in this article. We thank James Osborne for his helpful references. We are grateful to Stanley Klassen, Timothy Harrison and Edward Campbell for permission to cite data from Klassen’s unpublished ‘Preliminary Report on the Wedge Impressed Bowls from Tel Balaṭah (Tel Shechem)’; we especially thank Stanley Klassen for his kind cooperation in this matter.
Notes
1 Zertal (1988) also suggested that these bowls attest the origins of the Samaritans of the Second Temple period. This issue is beyond the scope of the present article.
2 The number following the name of each site refers to the number on the maps that follow.
3 Sherds of three wedge-incised bowls were uncovered in this stratum. These were restored, and one is now housed in the Louvre, one in the Jordan Archaeological Museum in Amman, and one in the École biblique et archéologique française in Jerusalem. We thank the École biblique for permission to photograph the bowl and take a sample from it for petrographic analysis. We thank Tom Powers for the information and for his persistent effort to find the bowl. This opportunity enabled us to compare this complete vessel with similar vessels found elsewhere in the Land of Israel and in Mesopotamia.
4 The stratigraphy of the relevant periods was published by Campbell (2002). The pottery has not yet been published, and data on the wedge-impressed bowls here is taken from an unpublished report by Stanley Klassen, Preliminary Report on the ‘Wedge Impressed Bowls’from Tel Balaṭah (Tel Shechem), 2016, cited with his kind permission.
5 The wall (Locus 1630) is attributed to Stratum VIII (Campbell Citation2002: 270–274). This stratum is dated as ca. 810–750 BCE.
6 An Irano-Scythian arrowhead was found, as was a bracelet engraved with a human figure, and pottery fragments incised with Aramaic letters that may indicate connections between Mesopotamia and the inhabitants of the site.
7 Ussishkin (Citation1995) argued, as did Faust (Citation2009), that there are no 8th century strata at the site and only one rather than two forts from the 7th century as the excavators suggested.
8 The single body sherd from Shechem is an exception, and the sherds from Tell el-Qudeirat and Tell el-Hammah may also pre-date the Assyrian conquest.
9 The wedge-incised fragment found at the single-period site of Hurvat ʿEres is from a single-period site. It clearly shows the continuity of this phenomenon into the Persian period.
10 In the Temple Mount Sifting Project, two very small bowl fragments were discovered. One of these is of the bowl type discussed above, while the other seems to be part of a different type of bowl, known from the Persian period, with wedge impressions on the outside (discussed in Stern and Magen Citation1984; Zorn Citation2001). Zertal (Citation1989: n. 2) suggested that the Persian period ‘wedge outside’ bowl developed from the ceramic tradition of the ‘wedge inside’ bowl discussed here.
11 Many of the sites we describe as farms or hamlets contain surface finds dated to the late Iron Age and Persian periods, suggesting a limited period of occupation.
12 In describing the surveys, we have used the term 'Late Iron II' to designate the 8th and 7th centuries. Zertal Citation2003: 380 used the term Iron 3 to describe pottery typical of the period after the Assyrian conquest.
13 Although Zertal called this a ‘fortified site’, he does not include it in his discussion of fortified sites in the region (2003: 395).
14 The sites are numbered 4, 13, 16, 22, 29, 32, 48, 60, 61, 67, 69, 77, 80, 87, 94, 96, 99, 112, 115, and 150 by Gibson and their location appears in Gibson Citation1972: 245, Fig. 5.
15 One of the regular (non-wedged) bowls sampled from Qrud (Sample Qrud 8) is made of different clay, characterized by a very high component of well-sorted silty angular quartz, and compact dark matrix (denoted as Group 4). This clay resembles central Shephelah fabrics, possibly derived from terra rossa soils.
16 A text from the Neo-Babylonian period, listing vegetables grown in Merodach-Baladan’s garden (BM 46226) shows that root vegetables were grown in southern Mesopotamia during this time. The terms used in these texts appear in earlier periods as well, showing that these vegetables were grown over the centuries. For discussion, see Dalley Citation2013: 46.
17 The wedge impressions are located on the lower inner part of the bowls where they were less visible, making a decorative explanation unlikely.
18 The limited numbers of bowls found in multi-period sites in the region north of Samaria (as well as in Transjordan) might possibly be explained by a more diffused process of influence: Assyrian officials, many of whom originated from southern Mesopotamia (as appears from their names) may have brought the idea of these bowls to these regions.
19 The specifically Babylonian origins of the settlers can be deduced from some of the names in the documents, as from their style. This tallies with the biblical reference in 2 Kings 17:24: “The King of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria, and dwelt in its cities”. The deportations appear not to have ended in the period of Sargon. Ezra 4:9–10 records further deportations from cities in the region of Babylon to Samaria, apparently in the early 7th century, in the reign of Esarhaddon or Ashurbanipal (for the identification of the cities listed in these verses, see Steiner Citation2006: 676–679).
20 This distinguishing function of the bowls may well have developed without specific intention to create separation.
21 We are grateful to Prof. Avi Faust for discussing the issue of ethnicity with us; see further in Jones Citation1997: 120. In regard to the disappearance of the foods, we can cautiously suggest that the root vegetables most suitable for this functional purpose were more commonly grown in southern Mesopotamia than in the hill country of the Land of Israel, where viticulture and olives predominate.
22 SAA XVII 82. Although the footnote obliquely mentions deportations of Ashdodeans, both the translation and the placement of the document indicate that it speaks of deportations to Ashdod. Based on the ductus, the linguistic style, and the contents of the letter, Dietrich considers that the writer was an official named Ana NabûTaklak, whom SAA XVII 1, 67, and 68 place in charge of the region of Borsippa and Babylon (Dietrich Citation2003: xv).
23 See discussion in Faust (Citation2008: 171) and Faust and Weiss (Citation2005: 74). Na’aman (Citation1987: 11) understands this growth as resulting from trade routes; Finkelstein (Citation1994: 178–184) sees this as resulting from Judah’s need for grain.