NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, C.1200 330 BCE

Gunnar LEHMANNDepartment of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Ben-Gurion UniversityP.O.B. 653

Beer Sheva 84105ISRAEL

E-mail: gunnar.lehmann@gmail.com

An investigation of Phoenicians and their relationship with north Syria and Ciliciaduring the Iron Age and the Achaemenid period will have to define what one holds tobe Phoenician and what is considered the area of the Phoenician homeland asopposed to its neighbouring areas such as north Syria and Cilicia. Phoenicians are elu-sive, in archaeology as well as in the historical record. Apparently, they never consid-ered themselves to be Phoenicians and their own designations stress their regionalcity-state affiliations. Thus, with an emphasis on the political aspects, any relationshipbetween Phoenicians with their neighbouring areas would in fact be the interaction ofa particular Phoenician city-state with a foreign territory. In terms of economicaspects, these relationships are characterised by the marketing and distribution of spe-cific Phoenician products or trade goods produced by others and shipped by Phoeni-cians.

While it is difficult to identify such activities in the historical record, it is even moreproblematic with the archaeological record. Ethnicity is notoriously hard to identify inthe archaeological record. In order discuss the mutual relationships of the Phoeniciancity-states with north Syria and Cilicia, however, one has to identify ethnic markers ofPhoenician material culture in the stratigraphical record of excavations there. On theother hand, chronological connections between Phoenicia and Syria/Cilicia can oftenbe reconstructed without specific ethnic markers of Phoenicians since during the IronAge it is often Cypriote, not Phoenician, pottery that connects the archaeologicalrecords of both areas.

Another problem arises from the state of archaeological research in north Syria andCilicia. While there are an impressive number of important archaeological sites in theseareas, there are unfortunately only a limited number of excavations with a sufficientstratigraphic record. Some of which, unfortunately, have never been published. Thechronology of Iron Age Syria is currently based to a large extent on one excavation, Stefania Mazzonis expedition to Tell Afis. We are lacking more published stratifiedrecords and it is difficult to connect and to date the available archaeological evidence

with the historical record although there is a large amount of historical data fornorth Syria during the Iron Age. This lack of archaeological research on the Iron Ageis in stark contrast with the wealth of archaeological data we have today about thematerial culture of Bronze Age Syria.

As a result, the chronology of archaeological evidence depends on well-dated findsfrom surrounding regions, especially Palestine. But whenever detailed research is avail-able, especially in pottery studies, we realise that there are local Syrian traditions dur-ing the Iron Age that cannot be directly compared or dated with Palestinian material.This is why imports such as ceramics from Cyprus and Phoenicia are so important.The pottery provides a chronological bridge and the same material that was marketedin Palestine and other areas of the Levant can help to date levels and local potteryassemblages in Syria and Cilicia with such finds.

THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

The lack of archaeological excavations of Iron Age sites in Syria with continuousstratigraphies makes any chronological study of that period difficult. It is, however,possible to overcome some of these problems with a seriation analysis of sealed, butisolated archaeological loci such as tombs, shipwrecks or destruction levels. Thismethod has been applied to establish a relative chronology for late Iron Age Syria.1 Forthe early Iron Age, the excavations at Tell Afis provided a data corpus for a number ofsummaries.2

As for a definition of the area of investigation, northern Syria is the region north ofPhoenicia, between Anatolia and the Mesopotamian part of Syria. But where exactlyis the northern border of Phoenicia? I follow the usual approach identifying Arwadas the northern most Phoenician city.3 Since the material culture of this important siteremains almost completely unknown, the identification of this site as a Phoeniciancity rests exclusively on historical interpretations and linguistic considerations.

Geographical and topographical features define all other limits of our investigation.The northern border is the Cilician plain as far west as the excavations at Mersin(Yumuktepe)4 and Karatepe in the north. The eastern borders include the city and theland of Zincirli (ancient Samal) and its lands south of Malatya (ancient Melid). Theeastern borders are defined by Carchemish on the Euphrates and further south theSyrian desert down to the region of Hama.

138 G. LEHMANN

1 Lehmann 1996 and 1998.2 Bonatz 1993; Mazzoni 2000.3 Elayi 2000.4 The site should be spelled Yumuktepe and Ymktepe; Caneva and Sevin 2004, p. 19, n. 1.

The period that will be discussed here includes the time between 1200 and 332 BCE,i.e. the Iron Age and the Achaemenid (or Persian) period. It appears arbitrary to limitthe notion of Phoenicia to the Iron Age. The city-states in Lebanon after c.1200 BCEwere firmly rooted in their earlier history during the second millennium BCE. Theconventional date of Phoenicians as an exclusive Iron Age phenomenon seems to bebased mainly on the appearance of the epigraphy written in the Phoenician alphabetafter c.1200 BCE. The material culture on the other hand emerged organically with-out a break from the second millennium BCE.

The notion of the Persian Period for the last phase considered here is somewhatmisleading in an archaeological context since there is only very limited influence oftrue Persian or Iranian material culture in Syria and Cilicia. Elayi5 is certainly right ininsisting on a chronological terminology that reflects foremost the developments ofthe material culture.6 It seems best to adopt the current terminology systems of bothMazzoni and Elayi7 with a slight modification for Iron Age III:

Iron Age phases Mazzoni 2000 Elayi 2000 Lehmann 1996

Late Bronze Age / Late Bronze Age /Iron Age Transition Iron Age TransitionIron Age IA IAIron Age IB IBIron Age IC ICIron Age IIA IIA IIAIron Age IIB IIB IIBIron Age IIIA III IICIron Age IIIB III / Persian III

The problem with the notion Iron Age IIIA and IIIB is that both periods areessentially very different in their material culture and the choice of the Roman num-ber III is a compromise in order to apply, as much as possible, the existing terminol-ogy and not to introduce completely new notions.

As already emphasised, the most important site for the establishment of a relativechronology of Iron Age Syria is Tell Afis, where Stefania Mazzoni has conducted exca-vations since 1986. This site, identified with ancient Hadrach/atarikka,8 provides acontinuous stratigraphy for all periods of the Iron Age down to the seventh centuryBCE. In addition, the excavations of the University of Chicago in the Amuq plain

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 139

5 Elayi 2000, p. 328.6 Lehmann 1998, p. 30.7 Mazzoni 2000 and Elayi 2000.8 For references see Lehmann 2002, pp. 911.

during the 1930s still remain unpublished.9 The few preliminary reports and the the-sis of Swift10 give only hints regarding the importance of these excavations. The sitewould have doubtless served as the framework for the Iron Age chronology, had theybeen published. No other important sites in northern Syria provides the comprehen-sive chronological record that is so urgently needed, not Zincirli, not Ayn Dara,11 norTell Rifaat.

IRON AGE I CERAMICS

Ceramics remain the most important element of material culture for chronologicalstudies. During the Syrian Iron Age IA a new style of painted pottery occurred. Thiscategory, Monochrome Painted Pottery, was found in northern Syria with some com-parisons noted as far west as Tarsus.12 The painted decoration is mainly geometric, buta few figurative motifs such as palm trees or ibex representations occur. This potterygroup appears first during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition and Iron Age IA.But it is best attested during Iron Age IB while it disappeared during Iron Age IC. InRas Ibn Hani and Tell Kazel, a bichrome painted style with white slip was observed.13

Cooking pots and their typological developments are usually very useful tools inchronological research. For Iron Age I Syria, we have stratified evidence for the devel-opment of cooking pot types at Tell Afis. According to this evidence, the first Iron Agecooking pots in Afis levels E 9b8 are still similar to the Late Bronze Age traditions.The rim is a triangle often with a groove, while the body of the vessel is carinated.

The imported pottery during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition and Iron AgeIA is mainly characterised by Aegeanising styles of the Late Helladic IIIC (LH IIIC) tradition. The comparisons closest to these ceramics are of the stages LH IIIC, Early andMiddle. But these terms of Aegean chronology are of limited precision, since the ceram-ics in question are in fact closest to Cypriot and not Aegean productions. Thus, the pot-tery that appears in Syria during the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age Transition is best com-pared to Late Cypriote IIIA vessels (White-Painted Wheelmade III or MycenaeanIIIC:1b in Cyprus).14 The Aegeanising ceramic styles of Iron Age IA are parallel to LateCypriote IIIB including examples of Proto-White Painted. At least part of this Aegeanis-ing pottery is apparently locally produced in Syria, imitating Cypriote models.

140 G. LEHMANN

9 Publications of the Amuq excavations are now planned with a recently appointed team at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the University of Toronto.

10 Swift 1958.11 Although Stone and Zimansky (1999) did what was possible to save and to publish some of the

record.12 Venturi 2000, pp. 513522.13 At Ras Ibn Hani, Bounni, et al. 1979, pp. 252254; Badre 1983, p. 206; and Tell Kazel, Capet

and Gubel 2000, p. 441 fig. 12.14 Kling 1989; Venturi 2000, p. 522.

Syrian Iron Age IB ceramics are characterised by the continuity of the local Mono-chrome Painted Pottery. In Afis, Levels E 76, the cooking pots were without triangu-lar rims. The rim became a thickened bulge, but the vessel body is still carinated.There are also first examples of hole-mouth cooking pots.

Among the imported pottery and the imitations of ceramic products outside ofSyria, Aegeanising styles still dominate. The styles are best compared to Cyprioteceramics of the Cypro-Geometric IA period.15 In sites with Phoenician pottery, con-tainers with monochrome-red circles appeared. In late Iron Age IB, early PhoenicianBichrome was found.

During the Syrian Iron Age IC, Monochrome Painted Pottery disappears in north-ern Syria and there was less and less painted pottery. In Amuq Period Oa, vessels witha hand-burnished red slip occurred. From the end of Iron Age IB and especially inIron IC, contemporary with Amuq Oa, there is evidence for some first signs of red-slipped, wheel burnished pottery. Hole-mouth vessels with a globular body nowdominate the cooking pots in Afis levels E 53. The carinated bodies disappear. Hole-mouth cooking pots occurred apparently earlier along the Syrian coast. At RasIbn Hani, they were noted as cooking pots la steatite on the first Lower Level ofthe Iron Age I.16

Cypro-Geometric IB and II characterise the Cypriote styles during Iron Age IC.This includes mainly White-Painted III. Among the Phoenician productions,Phoenician Bichrome is dominant.

IRON AGE II CERAMICS

The ceramic repertoire of Iron Age IIA in northern Syria is characterised by a sharpdecrease in painted vessels and an increase of orange fabrics. In addition, burnisheddecorations appeared and red-slip became the dominating pottery decoration duringthis period. The beginnings of red-slipped ceramics are much debated.17 Palestinianevidence seems to point to an early red-slip production already during the PalestinianIron Age I, i.e. the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE.18 Red slip decoration appearsin Phoenicia, in layers of Sarepta Area II-Y, Strata F-E and Tyre IX. In the Amuqregion it appears in Phase Oa, a phase that begins probably during the Syrian Iron AgeIB, but is mainly contemporary with Syrian Iron Age IC.19

Cypriote imports of the phase Cypro-Geometric III A dominate the non-Syrianpottery styles of Iron Age IIA. Greek Middle Geometric ceramics appeared in small

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 141

15 Venturi 2000, p. 513.16 Badre 1979, pp. 254255 and 1983, p. 206.17 Mazzoni 2000, p. 42.18 Mazar 1998.19 Swift 1958.

numbers in Syria.20 Contacts with Greece during this period seem to be still largelyconfined to Phoenicia,21 with northern inland Syria becoming involved in exchangewith Greek pottery only at the end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA.22

During Iron Age IIB, there was an increasing craft specialisation and intensificationin Syria. Economic growth in the region is reflected in the pottery production by stan-dardisation and mass-production. Three major regions with distinct pottery stylesreplaced the many local styles characterising the Iron Age IIA pottery repertoire. Thecoast was dominated by pottery of Phoenician style. Inland Syria, west of the Euphrates,had its own distinct style and the trans-Euphrates regions of north-eastern Syria wereinfluenced by Assyrian style ceramics.23 Decorated pottery along the coast and in inlandSyria was characterised mainly by Red-Slip, but both regions developed their own dis-tinct Red-Slip traditions.

The imports during Iron Age IIB were mostly from Cyprus: Black-on-Red I(III) II(IV), Bichrome III-IV, and White-Painted III-IV.24 The transition from type III toIV takes place at the end of the eighth century BCE. These Cypriote styles are con-temporary with the Cypriote periods Cypro-Geometric III B. At the very end of IronIIB, the ceramic style of Cypro-Archaic I A began.25

Geometric pottery was imported from Greece, including only very few MiddleGeometric II vessels; most of the imports were of Late Geometric I-II styles.26 Amongthe imports were Attic or Atticising, Cycladic and Euboean ceramics, including vesselswith Pendant-Semi-Circle decoration27 and so-called Al Mina-Ware, a Levantineimitation of Greek ceramics.28 At the end of Iron Age IIB, Early Proto-Corinthiantypes, SOS-amphorae of the early type, Bird-Bowls, Late Geometric Rhodian potteryand vessels with wave-band decoration appeared.29

IRON AGE IIIA CERAMICS

Many settlements occupied during Iron Age IIB were destroyed at the end of theperiod. These destructions were caused by the repeated campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III,Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. The destruction layers at these sites and their pottery

142 G. LEHMANN

20 Coldstream 1968, pp. 313316.21 Note Middle or Late Proto-Geometric imports at Tyre (Coldstream and Bikai 1988) and Ras al-

Bassit (Courbin 1993).22 Kearsley concluded that very little of the pottery in the earliest levels of Al Mina, levels 108, goes

back beyond the mid-eighth century BCE; Kearsley 1995, p. 67.23 Mazzoni 2000, p. 54; Lehmann 1996, p. 85.24 Gjerstad 1948; Birmingham 1963; Schreiber 2003.25 Gjerstad 1948; Birmingham 1963.26 For the early levels of Al Mina, see Kearsley 1995, Coldstream 1968.27 Kearsley 1989.28 Boardman 1959.29 Coldstream 1968; Cook 1972; for Greek imports to Palestine cf. Waldbaum 1994 and Saltz 1978.

assemblages thus provide a chronological anchor, dating to the time between c.740 to720 BCE. The beginning of the following period, Iron IIIA, is characterised by conti-nuity as well as change. While the most significant changes are related to the loss ofpolitical independence of the Syrian states and restricted autonomy of the Phoeniciancity-states, the pottery and items of daily use continued in the tradition of the preced-ing Iron Age IIB period. The loss of political independence is marked by the disappear-ance of Syrian (or Aramean) monumental architecture, luxury products and artisticstyles. The new political framework created by the Assyrians incorporated the formercontinental or inland Syrian states into a network of provinces. The Phoenicians stillenjoyed some autonomy at the beginning of the period. The imperial restrictions, how-ever, were somewhat compensated by new trade opportunities that benefited mostly thePhoenicians, but one can assume that the north Syrian cities also profited from the PaxAssyriaca of the first half of the seventh century BCE.

The pottery repertoire of early Iron IIIA was still predominantly of local produc-tion. The local pottery assemblages were still clearly divided into coastal and inlandassemblages. The coastal ceramic production was predominantly associated with thePhoenician city-states and was thus considered to be Phoenician. While the local fineware was usually decorated in red-slip techniques, there are also vessels with mono-chrome and bichrome painted bands. At the end of Iron Age IIIA, during the sixthcentury BCE, the clear distinction between coastal and inland pottery production wasincreasingly blurred. The same pottery types begin to appear in significant numbers inboth regions.

In the past, a particular type of deep and wide bowls, called mortaria, was generallyheld to be exclusively of the Persian period. Excavations in the 1970s and 1980s cor-rected this view.30 The first mortaria began at the very end of Iron IIB and at the startof Iron IIIA. Towards the end of Iron IIIA mortaria were more and more common inSyria, introducing a Mediterranean style of pottery to the Syro-Palestinian kitchen.

There is a wider range of types among the transport jars in Iron IIIA, as opposed tothe preceding centuries. This development may reflect increasing trade connections inthe Mediterranean and the Middle East. Very frequent was a small jar with orangeclay, which was the direct predecessor of a later type in the Persian period.31 The tra-dition of Basket-handle amphorae started during Iron IIIA. The first large types gaveway to the more elegant ones of later date. Clay analyses have shown that the earlyBasket-handle amphorae of Iron IIIA were produced in Cyprus.32

Imitations of Mesopotamian types were a new feature during Iron IIIA. They occurin both coastal and inland assemblages. Although their actual number west of the

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 143

30 Salles 1985.31 Bettles 2003.32 Lehmann 1996, p. 443, Type 421a.

Euphrates is limited, they had a wide distribution from north Syria, Cilicia south toGaza region. With the decline of the Assyrian Empire, Assyrian pottery styles disap-peared. In the Levant, at the periphery of the Assyrian Empire, Assyrianising ceramicstyles were apparently objects of prestige, copying the life-style of the centre in Assyria.

The variety and the wide distribution of imports from Cyprus and Greece can bedifferentiated into four pottery assemblages within the Syrian Iron Age IIIA.33 Duringthe first phase, Gjerstads34 Cypriote pottery Types III and IV were still found together.During the late Iron IIIA, there were fewer Cypriote vessels, all of them now of Gjerstads Type V. This type belongs to Cypro-Geometric III B and Cypro-Archaic I A.The Greek imports of this phase include Late Geometric vessels such as Al Mina-Ware,Early Proto-Corinthian pottery, Bird-Bowls and Late Geometric Rhodian pottery.

In the second phase, there is an increasing presence of Greek imports, among themBucchero vessels, Early, Middle and the first Late Proto-Corinthian types, Bird-Bowls,SOS-amphorae and Samian bottles.35

During the third phase, the range of Greek imports increased further again andincluded now Wild-Goat Style, Bucchero and Fikellura vessels, Early and MiddleCorinthian pottery, Rosette-Bowls, Bird-Bowls and Eye-Bowls, Vroulian pottery, IonianBowls,36 Chian chalices,37 SOS-amphorae of the late type,38 Samian bottles and the firstexamples of Attic Black-Figured pottery.39

The fourth phase is contemporary with the rule of the Neo-Babylonian Empire inSyria. During this period, the clear separation between coastal and inland types in thelocal pottery repertoire became less significant. There was also no specific Neo-Baby-lonian period pottery in Syria, at least not in the local ceramic repertoire. Most of thelocal pottery types simply continued. A distinct sixth century BCE pottery style isclearly visible in the Cypriote and Greek imports.

Among the Greek imports of the fourth phase, Iron Age IIIA, there is Bucchero,Fikellura, Middle and Late Corinthian, Vroulian and Clazomenian pottery was foundwith Rosette-Bowls, Eye-Bowls and Ionian Bowls of Rhodian 6, 8, 10 and 11 type.Moreover, Chian chalices and Attic vessels are represented. Among the Attic imports,we find Black-Figured style as well as Lip-, Siana- and Droop-cups.40

144 G. LEHMANN

33 Lehmann 1996 and 1998.34 Gjerstad 1948.35 For Samian bottles, see Culican 1975.36 Of types Rhodian 6, 8 and 9 (Hayes 1966), see now the recent research on Ionian Bowls from

Miletus by Schlotzhauer 2000; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.37 Anderson, et al., 1954, Mller 2000, pp. 136145.38 Johnston, et al., 1978.39 Boardman 1974.40 Boardman 1974.

IRON AGE IIIB CERAMICS

There is a distinct break in the local pottery traditions of Iron IIIA and IIIB. Theearlier Iron Age types that continued into Iron IIIA ceased to be produced and newforms of which a few had already started during Iron IIIA41 dominated theIron IIIB assemblage. In addition, it is now often impossible to distinguish betweencoastal and inland types of ceramics.

Fine wares of East Greek appearance, were very frequent in the local repertoire.42

This group is decorated with horizontal painted bands, wave-bands and drop lines ofpaint. The vessels rarely occur in Greece or Ionia and were probably produced in theLevant, on Cyprus, in northern Syria or in Cilicia.43

Among the mortaria there are now examples with the typical high ring base ofIron IIIB. The lamps are flat at the base, and a relatively large part of the rim is foldedinside, creating an oval shape viewed from above. At the end of Iron IIIA, during thesixth century BCE, a new type of cooking pot with a narrow neck appeared. This typedeveloped into the typical cooking-pot of Iron Age IIIB, a form that continued intothe centuries to come. This rather significant break with the earlier Iron Age traditionsmay reflect changes in the diet and food preparation. In general, the kitchenwarebecame increasingly more Mediterranean.

The main types of transport-jars during Iron IIIB are Basket-handle amphorae andthe small transport jars with carinated shoulders.44 New types are long one-handledjars45 and elliptic jars with a narrow, funnel-like opening and very small handles.46

During most of Iron IIIB, Greek imports were almost exclusively Attic or Atticisingand comprise Red-Figured and eventually Black-Glazed pottery.47

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

IRON AGE I

There seem to be only two chronological cornerstones for the absolute chronologyof the beginning of the Iron Age in the Levant. The first one is Ugarit that was appar-ently destroyed after 1194 or 1186.48 The second is Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 145

41 Among these are most notable mortaria, Basket-Handle amphorae and cooking-pots with highneck.

42 Lehmann 2000 and 2005.43 Ashton and Hughes 2005.44 Bettles 2003.45 Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:2.46 Lehmann 1998, fig. 10:3.47 Perreault 1986; Boardman 1974; Boardman 1975; Gill 1986; Jehasse 1978; Jehasse 1981.48 Singer 1999, pp. 713715, 730.

that should date to c.11901133 BCE according to the Egyptian evidence at the site.LH IIIC Middle vessels found in this level seem to fit best in a horizon which coversthe later part of Level IIIa at Enkomi and perhaps also the early stages of Level IIIb.49

These dates are in accordance with radiocarbon dates from Cyprus that date the endof Late Cypriot IIC, to c.1200 BCE.50

Except for these two cornerstones of Iron Age I chronology, there is no consensus.It might be surprising that even after a century of archaeology in the Levant, anddespite a unique concentration of research in the area, there is yet a major debateabout the chronology of the Iron Age. While much of the focus of this debate is onthe tenth century BCE,51 the controversy includes a Low Chronology option for thePhilistine material culture as well.52 In the centre of the debate stands the question,whether or not there was a phase without Mycenaean IIIC: 1b pottery (= PhilistineMonochrome) in southwest Palestine. According to the Middle Philistine Chronol-ogy,53 Mycenaean IIIB pottery was immediately replaced by Mycenaean IIIC after1180 BCE. The fact that Mycenaean IIIC pottery does not appear in layers of impor-tant sites such as Lachish VI, Megiddo VIIA, Sera IX, and, most of all, inMiqne VIII, may be of no chronological significance according to some scholars.54

The data from Tel Miqne in particular, however, indicate that this phenomenonmay be of chronological significance.55 At Miqne, ancient Ekron, one of the capitalsof the Philistine pentapolis, an uninterrupted stratigraphic sequence from the LateBronze Age through Iron Age I yielded an important and significant stratum (Stra-tum VIII with four sub-phases), in which Mycenaean IIIB and IIIC pottery wasabsent. This stratum was followed by another one (Stratum VII), in which MycenaeanIIIC pottery appeared suddenly and in large quantities. In addition, this type ofMycenaean pottery was manufactured locally.56 Thus, a Low Philistine Chronologyseems possible, which has important implications for the Iron Age I in the Levant ingeneral, re-dating the archaeological evidence some 50 years lower than the previousor traditional chronology.

The Low Philistine Chronology creates, however, a number of problems. It datesfor example the first appearance of Mycenaean IIIC at 1130 BCE, much later than

146 G. LEHMANN

49 Mazar and Sherratt, forthcoming.50 Manning, et al., 2001.51 See Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998; Finkelstein 2005 and Mazar 2005. Radiocarbon dates from Dor

and Megiddo seem to favor the Low Chronology (Sharon, et al., 2005). Recently Mazar (2005) hasopted for a High Chronology beginning of Palestinian Iron Age IIA around 980 BCE, but a LowChronology end of the period around c.840/30 BCE.

52 Finkelstein 1995; Finkelstein 1998c; Ussishkin 1985, p. 223; Ussishkin1992, pp. 118119.53 Mazar 1985; Mazar 1990; Mazar 1992; Singer 1985.54 Bunimovitz and Faust 2001.55 Killebrew 1998.56 For the evidence at Tel Miqne, see Killebrew 1996.

the eighth year of Ramesses III (1177 BCE). What then characterises the initial set-tlement of the Philistines in the archaeological record of Palestine? The LowChronology also has difficulty in explaining the occurrence of LH IIIC Middleceramics in the well dated Stratum VI (S3) at Beth Shean that should date toc.11901133 BCE.57 Thus, at this point, there is in my view insufficient evidencefor the Low Philistine Chronology.

On the other hand, there are now significant changes in the chronological frame-work of the Levant during the end of the eleventh to the late ninth century BCE.Finkelstein58 claimed that the Palestinian Iron Age IIA, traditionally dated to the tenthcentury BCE, should be dated to the ninth century BCE. Mazar initially refuted thisapproach.59 In the meantime, Mazar himself has proposed substantial changes in thechronological framework. In recent publications, he dated the Palestinian Iron AgeIIA between c.980 840/30 BCE.60

Additional research to break through this deadlock was conducted by AyeletGilboa, Ilan Sharon and Elisabetta Boaretto, their preliminary results too imply thatarchaeological strata of the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE have to be re-dated.61 Their research is based on an analysis of relevant radiocarbon dates. Theirprogram involved most of the relevant sites in Israel with a careful selection of samplesand their archaeological contexts. A significant number of radiocarbon samples fromarchaeological levels of the eleventh through ninth centuries BCE were analysed. Theresults of this research support a Low Chronology approach at least for the elevenththrough ninth centuries BCE. In addition, Gilboa analysed the pottery typology ofIron Age I ceramics from northern Israel and Lebanon. Their research thus provided acomprehensive framework for the pottery development, the stratigraphy and theabsolute date of the coastal region in the southern Levant. The low chronology datesin this paper are based on their results.

Hence, most of the leading archaeologists in Israel are working now with variationsof a Low or modified High Chronology. The traditional High Chronology that placedthe Palestinian Iron Age IIA in the tenth century BCE exclusively is out of use.

Except for the major changes in the dating of the eleventh through tenth century,there would be also some minor changes in the relative chronology. Tall Afis area EStr. 9a contains a number of LC IIIA sherds. If these were not just survivors of thepreceding level, that level may have started as early as late LC IIIA. And if Afis area EStr. 7 contains Proto-White Painted sherds,62 then a slightly earlier date for that level

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 147

57 Finkelstein 1996, pp. 172180; Mazar and Sherratt, forthcoming.58 Finkelstein 1996.59 Mazar 1997.60 Mazar 2005.61 Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005.62 Mazzoni 2000, p. 35.

might also be necessary; it might have started during late LC IIIB. If, however,Iacovou63 is right in denying any occurrences of Proto-White Painted at Afis at all,then those ceramics are probably best explained as White-Painted I without anynecessity to push Afis area E Str. 7 closer to LC IIIB.

In this paper, the Syrian Iron Age chronology is compared with the various currentchronological frameworks outlined above (see chronology Tables 14).64

IRON AGE II

The Low Chronology creates only a few modifications for Iron Age II, adjusting thebeginning of the Syrian Iron IIA to a date around 850 BCE. Most other dates of theSyrian Iron Age II remain unchanged. The beginning of Syrian Iron Age IIA is deter-mined by the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III with the ubiquitous Black-on-Redware and the relevant radiocarbon dates published by Gilboa and Sharon.65 The highchronology places the beginning of Iron IIA in Syria around 900 BCE.66 In terms ofthe High Chronology, this date seems to be a little too late, since even according tothe High Chronology, Black-on-Red ware started around the last quarter of the tenthcentury BCE.67

In the Low Chronology, the end of Iron Age IC and the beginning of IIA seem tobe contemporary with King Hazael of Damascus (842800?), who was probably themost powerful ruler in the time and who may have caused major political changes and destructions levels in Syria. To date, the transition between Iron IIA and IIBto around 800 BCE is only a tentative guess. The end of Iron Age IIB is connectedwith Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II. Destruc-tions of Syrian sites caused by these kings are clearly observable in the archaeologicalrecord and provide a chronological anchor, dating the relevant levels between c.740to 720 BCE.

IRON AGE IIIA

The first part of this period is characterised by the Assyrian domination of Syriathat was stable until Assurbanipal (668627). After generations of war and militarycampaigns, Syria was firmly under Assyrian control and enjoyed a pax Assyriaca. Assyr-ian campaigns in the first half of the seventh century BCE were directed againstPhoenicia, Cilicia and Egypt, but not against Syria anymore. After the decline of the

148 G. LEHMANN

63 Iacovou (personal comunication).64 As established by Stefania Mazzoni 2000; see also Venturi 1998; Venturi 2000; Bonatz 1998.65 Gilboa and Sharon 2001; Sharon, et al., 2005.66 Mazzoni 2000.67 Schreiber 2003, p. 309.

Assyrian Empire and a short struggle between Egypt and Babylonia, Syria was eventu-ally seized by the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Destruction levels at several sites that areassociated with Babylonian campaigns in the late seventh and early sixth century BCEprovide a chronological point of reference. The archaeological period ended some-where in the middle of the sixth century BCE. The pottery development did not fol-low closely with the political changes and there is no Neo-Babylonian pottery assem-blage in Syria. Rather, the first part of Iron Age IIIA is characterised generally by acontinuation and further development of the earlier Iron Age pottery traditions withincreasing changes since c.650 BCE. Somewhere in the middle of the sixth centuryBCE, most of the previous Iron Age traditions ceased to be in use and were nowreplaced by new forms, decoration techniques and functional types. Greek potterybecame the predominant pottery import during the sixth century BCE in Syria.68

IRON AGE IIIB

This period is roughly contemporary with the Achaemenid Empire. The materialculture started probably a few years earlier than the empire itself, in the middle of thesixth century BCE. The pottery development of early Iron Age IIIB is not a result ofthe political changes caused by the Achaemenids, but reflects an increasing influenceof the Mediterranean cultures on Syria and Phoenicia during the sixth century BCE.Syria and Phoenicia became more and more integrated into the Mediterranean econ-omy and were an integral part in this economy by 538 BCE. The end of Iron Age IIIBis roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Hellenistic period after Alexandersconquest in 333/2 BCE. There is, however, much continuity from the Achaemenidinto the Hellenistic period. Again, politics was only one factor in the changes of thematerial culture.69

CILICIA

The discussion above focused on northern Syria. Cilicia provides only a very limitedarchaeological record for the periods discussed. Only a few Iron Age sites were exca-vated here, most important Tarsus (Gzl Kule),70 Mersin (Yumuktepe),71 Kazanli72

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 149

68 For chronological details see the discussion of pottery assemblages 25 at Lehmann 1996 and1998.

69 See n. 67.70 Goldman 1956; Goldman 1963; zyar 2005; cf. Jean 2003, pp. 8283.71 Garstang 1953; Jean 2003, pp. 8384.72 Garstang 1937 and 1938.

and Soloi (Soli Hyk at Mezitli).73 Kilise Tepe74 and Porsuk75 are already outside ofthe Cilician plain proper at the edge of the region. One of the most important sites isKinet Hyk,76 where excavations are currently conducted by Marie-Henriette Gates ofBilkent University. This expedition exposed extensive and well stratified remains fromIron I through the Achaemenid period.

In addition, there were only a few reconnaissance surveys in Cilicia.77 Intensive sur-vey projects started only recently in the region. They are restricted to sub-regions ofCilicia and their results are not yet fully published.

Since the publication of the Iron Age finds at Kinet Hyk has only begun, theIron Age pottery typology and its relative and absolute chronology relies until todayalmost exclusively on the published evidence from Tarsus. The pottery developmentat Tarsus was divided into four main groups, Early and Middle Iron Age, Assyrianperiod and sixth century BCE. There are no stratified remains of the Achaemenidperiod.

Unfortunately, the stratigraphy is not always undisturbed and some of the potteryassemblages are mixed. There is for example seventh century BCE pottery publishedas Early Iron Age.78 Nevertheless it is possible to isolate pottery assemblages andstratigraphic units that permit a reassessment of the stratigraphy of the site. Suchattempts have modified the stratigraphy and its date only in some details.79 The begin-ning of the Early Iron Age levels is still difficult to date. They may start around 1100BCE as Hanfmann thought, although pottery of the twelfth century BCE such as LateHelladic IIIC was found at Tarsus, unfortunately, however, out of context.80 TheMiddle Iron Age levels are contemporary with CG III and were dated between c.850and 700 BCE, interestingly very much in agreement with the Low Chronology. TheCypriote pottery at the end of Middle Iron Age includes some CG IV ceramics andCG IV transitional types are not infrequent.81 Boardman has re-dated some of the lev-els and loci at the end of the Middle Iron Age.82 According to his results, some ofthese contexts continued until c.650, including the so-called Destruction Layer,attributed by the American expedition to Sennacheribs campaign in 696 BCE. There

150 G. LEHMANN

73 Yagc 2001.74 Baker, et al., 1995; Hansen and Postgate 1999; Jean 2003, pp. 8486.75 Dupr 1983 and Crespin 1999.76 For bibliography of the site see the projects website at http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~arkeo/kinet2.

html.77 Gjerstad 1934; Seton Williams 1954.78 Hanfmann 1963, nos 300 and 311 on fig. 64.79 Boardman 1965; Forsberg 1995; Lehmann 1996, pp. 256265.80 Goldman 1956, p. 206; the Late Helladic IIIC material was published by French 1975 and

Mountjoy 2005.81 Hanfmann 1963, p. 116.82 Boardman 1965.

is less debate on the later levels and a re-study of them generally confirmed Hanf-manns interpretations with only a few changes.83 Hopefully, the publication of theIron Age levels at Kinet Hyk will help to refine the Cilician relative and absolutechronology.

Charles Gates has recently summarised the Achaemenid period in Cilicia. Again,Kinet Hyk, ancient Issos, promises to be the key site for Cilicia during theAchaemenid period, providing the only stratigraphy in the region with three architec-tural levels and important stratified finds.84 A comprehensive study of Cilicia duringthe Achaemenid period focusing on the coins was recently published by OlivierCasabonne.85

ASPECTS OF PHOENICIAN MATERIAL CULTURE IDENTIFIED IN THE RESEARCH AREA

The following is an examination of evidence for Phoenicians and their activity inthe region against the background of the chronological framework for northern Syriaand Cilicia as outlined above. Starting with epigraphy and textual evidence, it isremarkable how many remains of Phoenician inscriptions were found in south-eastAnatolia or are related in some way to the region, especially Cilicia. These inscriptionsoutnumber by far the Phoenician epigraphic evidence found in northern Syria. In fact,nowhere else in the Levant, except for Phoenicia itself, were so many inscriptionsfound as in Cilicia and in the area of Zincirli. The following is a list of the relevanttexts.

INSCRIPTIONS

Ninth Century BCE

KAI 2486 Kilamuwa inscription, Zincirli,87 Turkey, c.825 BCE, on an orthostat, royalinscription.

KAI 25 Scepter inscription of Kilamuwa, Zincirli, Turkey, c.825 BCE.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 151

83 Lehmann 1996, pp. 256265.84 Gates 1999 and 2006.85 Casabonne 2004; see also Lemaire and Lozachemeur 1990.86 KAI = Donner and Rllig 196264, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften.87 For all Zincirli inscriptions see now the new edition of the texts by Tropper 1993.

Eighth Century BCE

Cilicia, cylinder seal with bilingual inscription in Phoenician and Luwian, ninth oreighth century BCE (?), in the collection of H. T. Bossert. Dupont-Sommer readsthe Phoenician as irow jhc, Seal of the Tyrian.88

Cilicia (?), group of six seals with Anatolian (Luwian) names, end of the eighth cen-tury BCE. The authenticity of some of the seals is debated.89 Lipinski considersthem to be authentic, explaining problems with the palaeography with the non-Semitic Anatolian cultural environment in which the seals were produced. Noneof these inscriptions were, however, found in Cilicia or Anatolia. All seals weresold on the antiquities market. One was purchased far from Cilicia in Bagdad.90

Aleppo (?), another seal with Phoenician inscription, but of a different group, eighth-seventh century BCE.91

atal Hyk area I square W15 level 6 (= IIId) (?), Amuq region. Phoenician inscrip-tion incised on a spindle whorl. There seem to be uncertainties about the stratifica-tion of the find. In the excavations records the citation of the level is followed by aquestion mark in parentheses. The level dates to the archaeological phase AmuqOa, (High Chronology c.1000925 BCE, Low Chronology c.900850 BCE), thepalaeography of the script form is late: ninth late eighth century BCE.92

ineky, 30 km south of Adana, Cilicia. Monumental bilingual Phoenician-Luwianinscription on a basalt sculpture of king Awarikas/Urikki (c.738709).93

KAI 26 Karatepe, bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription. The author Azatiwadaidentifies himself as a vassal of king Awarikas/Urikki, c.720 BCE. Royal inscrip-tion at the gates of the site.

KAI 23 Hasan Beyli, Turkey, c.715 BCE, basalt.94

Ivriz, bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription on a fragmentary stela, discovered 1986.Written for king Muwaharna, son of Warpalawa, king of Tuwanuwa (Tyana) afterc.710 BCE.95

Kinet Hyk, a Phoenician inscription incised on a jar before firing, late eighth cen-tury BCE.96

152 G. LEHMANN

88 Dupont-Sommer 1950; Magnanini 1973, p. 148, no. 21; cf. Winter 1979, p. 139.89 Lebrun 1987, p. 24, n. 5; Lipinski 1983, p. 139, n. 48.90 Lipinski 1983, p. 134139; cf. Avigad and Sass 1997, nos 714, 717, 718, 720, 722, 723; Lemaire

1977, p. 31, no. 2.91 Levy 1869, pl. 2:3; Galling 1941, pp. 176177, no. 27; Magnanini 1973, p. 143, no. 3 (with bib-

liography).92 Gevirtz 1967, 1316; Teixidor 1968, p. 369; Magnanini 1973, p. 59, no. 1.93 Tekoglu and Lemaire 2002.94 Lemaire 1983.95 Dinol 1994, pp. 117128.96 Gates 2004, pp. 408, 414, fig. 8.

Seventh Century BCE

KAI 27 Arslan Tash incantation text, Syria, seventh century BCE, gypsum tablet.Arslan Tash, second incantation text, seventh century BCE, gypsum tablet.97

Cebelireis Dag: Mosca and Russell 1987 (discovered 1980 at Cebelireis Dag (CebelIres Dagi), 15 km east of Antalya, the inscription is dated to c.625600 BCE)

Asia Minor (?), seal with Phoenician inscription, seventh-sixth century BCE, Collec-tion de Luynes, Paris.98

Sixth-Fourth Century BCE

KAI 28 Karkemish, short inscription, Syria, fourth century BCE, on a fragment ofglazed frit, painted, found in the Kubaba temple.

An Aramaic dedication inscription found at Brayj near Aleppo mentions the godMelqart of Tyre.99 The dedication seems to relate to a sanctuary of Melqart in theregion,100 may be at Ayn at-Tall,101 at Brayj itself there are no Iron Age remains.102

The stela was erected by King Bar-Hadad, most probably a king of Arpad and son ofAttarsumki I.103 The palaeography suggests a date around 800 BCE, which is well inaccordance with the historical background of Bar-Hadad of Arpad. Pitard and Puechpoint out that although the inscription itself is Aramaic, the iconography of the reliefand the style of the text are of Phoenician character.104 A sanctuary of the Tyrian godMelqart in this region could be related to the presence of Phoenicians here, may betraders conducting business with destinations further east in the direction of theEuphrates and Mesopotamia.105

PHOENICIAN POTTERY IN NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA

Pottery that might be labelled Phoenician is extremely rare in northern Syria andCilicia during the Syrian Iron Age IA and IB. The imported pottery in this area is

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 153

97 Gibson 1982, pp. 8892.98 Levy 1869, p. 53, pl. 2:11; Galling 1941, p. 192, no. 134; Magnanini 1973, p. 143, no. 3 (with

bibliography).99 For the inscription and the site cf. KAI no. 201 and Lehmann 2002, pp. 105106.100 Pitard 1988, pp. 1516.101 Lehmann 2002, p. 62; Pitard 1988, p. 16, looks for the sanctuary at Tall Muslimiyyah, for that

site cf. Matthers 1981, pp. 1516, 435.102 Matthers 1981, p. 12, no. 26; Lipinski 2000, p. 211.103 Pitard 1988; Puech 1992, pp. 327334; Lipinski 2000, p. 215, for other interpretations, see

Lemaire 1984; Sader 1987, p. 257; Dion 1997, p. 122.104 Pitard 1988. 105 Kestemont 1985, p. 137.

predominantly Cypriote and mostly of the Aegeanising style, being related to LateHelladic IIIC traditions. Future excavations may change the picture, so far only veryfew sites with Iron Age I levels have been excavated and even less have been pub-lished.106

The only evidence of Phoenician pottery that I know for Iron Age IA and IB are afew vessels in Tarsus. Among them are a small number of jugs, some with a spout thatseems to belong to the group of Phoenician Monochrome ceramics.107 These vesselswith a red or black monochrome painted decoration of bands or circles are typical forcoastal assemblages contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age IA and IB.108 Accordingto the High Chronology, they date to the eleventh century BCE, the Low Chronologywould place them between c.975880 BCE.

A transport jar from Tarsus109 seems to be of a distinctive type with a very flatshoulder that sometimes even sinks under the shoulder point of the vessel. The bodyis triangular and long, ending in a pointed, but still round tip.110 Most parallels werefound in Dor,111 others occurred in Tyre,112 at Sarepta,113 Tell es-Saidiyah (Jordan)114

and Palaepaphos-Skales (Cyprus).115 This transport-jar, too, dates to the eleventh cen-tury BCE (High Chronology and accordingly to the tenth century for the LowChronology). With the little evidence available it is, however, difficult to be certain,whether this transport jar is in fact a true Phoenician type.

In late Syrian Iron Age IB, bichrome decoration appeared among the paintedceramics of Phoenicia. This style became dominant during Syrian Iron Age IC inPhoenicia.116 The earliest examples of what appears to be Phoenician Bichromeoccurred in Syria in the Amuq region in phases Oa and Ob. But I have to stress thatthe excavations in the Amuq region are still unpublished and that my statement isbased on an incomplete sample of pottery that I was able to study in Chicago. A fewbichrome painted jugs and juglets that occurred in Cyprus in pre-CG III contexts117

154 G. LEHMANN

106 Bonatz 1993.107 Hanfmann 1963, fig. 117, nos 171, 172, 175.108 Gilboa 2001, pp. 368371.109 Hanfmann 1963, fig. 119, no. 252.110 Bikai 1978, p. 45, type Storage Jar 10; Raban 1980, pl. 26:8 and 14.111 Dor G8/7, Gilboa 2001, pl. 5:14, JR 8a = pl. 5.25:6; Dor Harbor Area D, Raban 1995,

pl. 9.24:7, 1819; complete vessels were found by divers in the sea off Dor, these are kept in the localmuseum and are apparently unpublished.

112 Tyre Stratum XIII1, Bikai 1978, pl. 35:12, type SJ10.113 Sarepta Stratum D2, Anderson 1988, pl. 32:7; Pritchard 1975, fig. 24:6; Pritchard 1988,

fig. 43:6 = 44:6).114 Tell es-Saidiyah Tomb 101, Pritchard 1968, fig. 2:1.115 Palaepaphos-Skales Tombs 58/2, 80/1 and 83/40, Bikai 1987, pl. 22:596, 599 and 602 with

more references to these tombs.116 Gilboa 1999; Gilboa and Sharon 2003, fig. 9:1214. 117 Bikai 1987, nos 19, 21 and 73113; cf. Dor Iron 1b and 1/2 horizon, Gilboa and Sharon 2003,

fig. 9:1214 and 7 and fig. 11:5.

were found in atal Hyk in the Amuq area.118 It thus appears that during the Syr-ian Iron Age IC Phoenician pottery is extremely scarce in northern Syria and Cilicia.This is in striking contrast to the contemporary evidence from Cyprus119 and north-ern Israel,120 where Phoenician pottery occurred in larger numbers.

Phoenician pottery remained scarce in northern Syria during Iron Age IIA. A fewunpublished vessels were found in the Amuq area in layers of Phase Ob. Even at siteswhere large pottery assemblages were found, such as Tell Afis, the Amuq sites or TellRifaat,121 Phoenician decorated (Bichrome) pottery remains an exception. There arealso no Phoenician transport jars and almost no Phoenician red-slipped vesselsalthough they started to appear in Phoenicia during the Syrian Iron Age IIA. Amongthe few published ceramics in Syria is a globular jug that was found in a disturbedcontext of Hama Stratum E.122 More globular jugs from Hama were found in theCemeteries III and IV.123 The earliest parallels to these jugs appeared in Cyprus incontexts contemporary with the Syrian Iron Age I, but a date for the Hama jugs inSyrian Iron IIA is more probable.124

Increasing evidence of Phoenician pottery in Cilicia and inland Syria appeared onlyat the very end of the Syrian Iron Age IIA and during Iron Age IIB. Contemporarywith the epigraphic evidence at Zincirli, Brayj or atal Hyk there is now a slightlylarger number of Phoenician pottery, mostly with red-slipped decoration. This is alsothe beginning of the small harbour at Al Mina, the maritime outlet of northern Syriain general and the Amuq region (ancient Pattina or Unqi) in particular. While theGreek evidence has been thoroughly emphasised, the early Phoenician pottery at AlMina was somewhat neglected.125 Still, the Phoenician pottery appears only in verysmall numbers. Among them two juglets, for example, were found at Qalat Shayzar,near Hama, and Zincirli.126 These juglets are contemporary with the Salamis horizonof Phoenician pottery in Cyprus.127

Cypriote imports were still dominating Syrian Iron Age IIA and IIB and many ves-sels that were considered to be Phoenician are in fact Cypriote or of local production.This is the case, for example, for most of the Phoenician pottery noted at Tarsus.128

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 155

118 Swift 1958, fig. 45 (A1446) and fig. 46 (A2243), with no further information on the find-spot. 119 Bikai 1987, Kouklia horizon.120 Mazzoni 2000, 40, n. 39.121 While the excavations remain unpublished, I have full access to the complete pottery record.122 Hama E Areal K15, Fugmann 1958, fig. 344:4B828, cf. Lehmann 1996, p. 156, Fundstelle 81.123 Riis 1948, p. 66, fig. 82.124 Bikai 1987, nos 19 and 21.125 For the evidence, see Taylor 1959 and Lehmann 2005.126 Woolley 1921, fig. 44 and Luschan and Andrae 1943, pl. 28g.127 Bikai 1987, p. 53.128 The Phoenician pottery listed by Hanfmann 1963 under nos 651659 or 10681075 (cf. also

Winter 1979, p. 138 n. 97) would not be considered Phoenician today. Hanfmann 1963, no. 1058 ismost probably local. The only Phoenician vessel seems to be that documented in Hanfmann 1963, no.670, an eighth century BCE juglet.

There is no substantial presence of true Phoenician pottery at Tarsus;129 it is also veryscarce at in Kinet Hyk.130 Black-on-Red, in particular is often called Cypro-Phoenician, which is in fact a Cypriote style.131

Map 3 shows the distribution of coastal (i.e. Phoenician) pottery types in Syria andCilicia during the eighth century BCE.132 The map illustrates the presence and num-ber of diagnostic types, not vessel numbers. The evidence published so far demon-strates that Phoenician pottery reached inland Syria only in areas near the coast andthere, only in small numbers. Map 4 shows the distribution and the number of diag-nostic types during the seventh century BCE.133 Both maps demonstrate that thePhoenician pottery distribution in inland Syria is restricted to small numbers and to afew sites in the Amuq valley and to Zincirli and its region. Karkemish and Tell Ahmarmark the eastern limits of Phoenician pottery on the way to Assyria.134 Only very fewPhoenician vessels were found east of Karkemish, among them some Phoenicianamphorae in Assyria.135 In Cilicia, Phoenician pottery was found only at Tarsus,Mersin and Kinet Hyk. Here too, it occurred only in small numbers.

During the sixth through fourth centuries BCE, coastal pottery assemblages play anincreasing role in inland Syria. Although there were still some particular inland tradi-tions, the fine wares and the painted pottery is now often imported from the coast orimitating coastal ceramics. This reflects the increasing influence of the Mediterraneancultures on Syria and the successful transformation of the political map of Syria. Theold borders drawn by the Neo-Hittite and Aramean kingdoms of the Iron Age weredissolved under the Assyrians. Syria was open to imperial rule from the east and eco-nomic impact from the west. The Phoenicians were among the major agents establish-ing this new political and economical structure within the Assyrian, Babylonian andthe Achaemenid Empires.

156 G. LEHMANN

129 A misunderstanding of the evidence perpetuated by Winter 1979, p. 138 n. 97; Pitard 1988, p. 14 and Lebrun Cilicie in, Dictionnaire de la civilisation phnicienne et punique. Turnhout: Brepols1992, p. 112.

130 Lehmann 1996, types 306 and 381 are among the few vessels that may be considered Phoeni-cian. An incomplete list of Phoenician pottery at Tarsus would include: Hanfmann 1963, Early Iron,nos 171, 172, 173(?), 174(?), 175, 252; Middle Iron, nos 445, 670, 817, 818, 842(?). As for Kinet,Gates kindly informed me that recent clay analysis of red burnished pottery that resembles Phoenicianpottery (with shapes such as Hanfmann 1963, Tarsus III no. 829 note that this vessel is not red bur-nished) confirmed that it was locally made.

131 Gilboa and Sharon 2003, p. 67; Schreiber 2003, pp. 221280. One wonders why Schreiber correctly identified Black-on-Red as Cypriote and not Phoenician and still titled her book, The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery, contributing to the ongoing confusion.

132 For the full and detailed evidence, see Lehmann 1996, Assemblage 1.133 For the full and detailed evidence, see Lehmann 1996, Assemblages 3 and 4.134 Lehmann 1996 and Jamieson 1999, fig. 8:1, 3, 4, 6.135 For example an unpublished amphora in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1954.32, cf. Lehmann

1996, p. 434.

PHOENICIAN TRADE CONNECTIONS THE EZEKIEL ORACLE

Apparently, the oracle against Tyre of Ezekiel 27 describes this new world order andPhoenicias place in it. Although there were attempts to date this text as early as thetenth and ninth century BCE,136 there is now an increasing consensus that it dates tothe early sixth century with the possibility of perhaps using earlier material going backto the eighth century BCE.137 The text mentions three locations in Anatolia relevantfor the discussion here, Tarshish (wiwrh), Tubal (lbh) and Beth Togarmah (emrgvhhib). Most authorities agree today that Tarshish is not ancient Tarsus, but eitherTartessos in Spain or situated somewhere in the western Mediterranean.138 Tubal ismost probably Tabal in Assyrian and other ancient sources, an area northwest of Cili-cia.139 There is no consensus on Beth Togarmah. While Lipinski and Diakonoff140

propose to read emdgh (Tgdmh), others prefer the traditional reading and identify thelocation with Hittite Takarma141 and Assyrian Til-Garimmu142 near modern Grn inCappadocia.143 As to trade goods, the text mentions slaves and bronze utensils fromTubal/Tabal and horses and mules from Beth Togarmah.144

Ezekiel mentioned three more toponyms that may be located in Syria, Harran,Eden and Canneh.145 There is no doubt among scholars that Harran is the city insoutheast Turkey with the same name throughout its history.146 There is no consensus,however, as for Eden and Canneh. Lipinski located the Eden at Khindanu that heidentified with original Iddan or Ghiddan near the modern Syro-Iraqi border.147

Diakonoff emphasised the occurrence of Sheba in this verse and has proposed to lookfor Eden in south Arabia.148 Lemaire pointed out the particular form of the toponymthat is written here with a segol.149 In this form Eden appears three times in the Biblein a context with Harran.150 He is thus confident that Eden in this writing is to be

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 157

136 Cf. Liverani 1991, p. 66, n. 5.137 Cf. Liverani 1991; Diakonoff 1992; Corral 2002.138 Ezekiel 27, 12 and 25; cf. Astour 1976, p. 569; Elat 1982; Liverani 1991; Diakonoff 1992.139 Ezekiel 27, 13; cf. Astour 1976, p. 569; Wfler 1983; Liverani 1991, p. 174, n. 29; Diakonoff

1992, p. 69; Hawkins 1995, pp. 9899.140 Ezekiel 27, 14; Lipinski 1985; Diakonoff 1992, p. 178, n. 48.141 Monte and Tischler 197892, pp. 383384.142 Parpola 1970, pp. 353354.143 Astour 1976, p. 569; Liverani 1991, p. 69, n. 12; Parpola and Porter 2001.144 Horses and mules could have been used for caravans to Anatolia, Syria and Mesopotamia.145 Ezekiel 27, 23.146 Kestemont 1985, p. 145 n. 46; Liverani 1991, p. 69; Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191.147 Lipinski 1976, pp. 5961; Kestemont 1985, p. 145, n. 46, accepted Lipinskis identification.148 Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191; as for a contact of the Harran region with south Arabia, cf. Pliny,

Natural History 12, 40 were Arabs are mentioned that are trading with aromatic wood of the strobumtree as incense and opened a nundinarium or emporium at Harran.

149 Lemaire 1981, pp. 317, 324325.150 2 Kings 19, 12; Isaiah 37, 12 and Ezekiel 27, 23.

identified with Bit-Adini in Assyrian sources.151 Bit Adini is the Euphrates area aroundthe cities Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar) and Arslan Tash. The third location, Can-neh, was located at Assyrian Kannu near Assur by Kestemont.152 Lipinski doubtedthis identification and discussed the possibility of Canneh being a misspelling ofKalne, an identification that is, however, ruled out by Diakonoff.153 In a context withHarran and Bit-Adini, I would expect another major city such as Kalne (Kullania,modern Tell Tayinat) the capital of Patina/Unqi and not a small town in the vicinityof Assur. In my view, all three locations may be located in northern Syria. Accordingto Ezekiel, Harran, Eden and Canneh, together with Assur and Kilmad (?), were trad-ing with purple and embroidered robes.

Thus, in our reading, Ezekiel 27 mentions important economic contacts of Tyrewith Anatolia and northern Syria. While some of the major cities of northern Syria arementioned, the Anatolian locations, Tabal and Beth Togarmeh, are remote areas at theend of the Phoenician trade routes. No place in Cilicia is explicitly mentioned. This issomewhat surprising since many scholars assume that there were Phoenician tradingcolonies such as the city of Myriandros in Cilicia.

PHOENICIAN PRESENCE IN NORTHERN SYRIA AND CILICIA

The evidence for Phoenician trading colonies is scarce. The oldest clear textual evi-dence for such a trading location is Myriandros in the Bay of Iskenderun. The city ismentioned by Xenophon, around 400 BCE, as a Phoenician emporium.154 It is docu-mented again in the fourth century BCE by the Pseudo-Skylax as Myriandos of thePhoenicians. The last reference to the city occurs in the early Byzantine period.155

The location of Myriandros is under debate. Two solutions are discussed. The first oneassumes that it was the predecessor of Alexandreia kat Isson, modern Iskenderun. Themost probable location of this ancient settlement would be the modern quarter ofEsen Tepe in Iskenderun.156 The alternative is that Myriandros was indeed 80 stadia(c.1314 km) further to the southwest, as the Stadiasmos has it. Ada Tepe (Ayn el-Haramiyah) was suggested as a possible site for Myriandros in this area. A preliminaryarchaeological survey in the area, however, confirmed that there are apparently no pre-Hellenistic remains at Ada Tepe. There is also no suitable harbour at the site.157

158 G. LEHMANN

151 On Bit-Adini see Sader 1987, pp. 4798.152 Kestemont 1985, pp. 144145 nos 4546.153 Lipinski 1976, pp. 5960, cf. Lipinski 1991, p. 70 n. 19; Diakonoff 1992, pp. 190191.154 For references, see Honigmann 1933; Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, pp. 362363.155 Stephanus of Byzantium p. 463.156 Dittberner 1908, pp. 108111; Newell 1920. For a description of the archaeological remains, see

Hellenkemper and Hild 1986, pp. 112114, who do not locate Myriandros here.157 The survey was conducted by a team of Bilkent University, Pennsylvania State University and

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, under the direction of M. H. Gates, A. E. Killebrew and theauthor.

Strabo 14, 21 seems to imply that Myriandros and Alexandreia were two differentpoleis in the bay. After careful examination of the text, it appears that it is somewhatconfused.158 Nicopolis for example is identical with Issus thus listed twice. AndMopsuhestia is not at all located on the Bay of Iskenderun. Given these confusions inStrabos text, it does not seem to be impossible to locate Myriandros at Iskenderun.

Even more important are, however, geographical considerations. The harbour of Isk-enderun provided enough space for merchant ships lying at anchor there (Xenophon)and it was located on the way to the pass over the Amanus to Syria. It would not makemuch sense to march 1314 km past the excellent harbour of Iskenderun to the loca-tion of Ada Tepe that did not provide a sheltered harbour. In addition, Xenophonwould have had to march back to Iskenderun in order to pass over the Amanus to Syriabecause there was no pass in the area of Ada Tepe. At this point, it seems reasonable tolocate Myriandros at Iskenderun.159 The above-mentioned archaeological survey in thearea will investigate Iskenderun in autumn 2006 and it is hoped to find some morearchaeological evidence for the past of this city.

There seems to be no evidence for Myriandros before the fourth century BCE. A his-torical episode mentioned by Esarhaddon may shed some light on the situation in theBay of Iskenderun during the seventh century BCE. Esarhaddon mentioned a coalitionbetween Sanduarri, king of Kindu and Sissu in Cilicia, and Abdi-Milkutti, king ofSidon.160 This coalition in itself is telling evidence for Phoenician interests in Ciliciaduring the seventh century BCE. Bing, identifying Sissu with Issos161 in the Bay of Isk-enderun, argues that the coalition may suggest that Issos/Sissu was the coastal terminalfor the Phoenician trade route into Anatolia during the Iron Age.162 In this scenario,Myriandros would have become an important harbour only during the later centuries.

A very vague hint for an additional Phoenician site in the Bay of Iskenderun maybe found in the article on Aiga in Stephanus of Byzantiums Ethnika. In this text,Stephanus called Aiga a polis of the Phoenicians, quoting Hekataios of Miletus(sixth century BCE). This Aiga is located at Aeolia, but there are otherwise no recordsfor a Phoenician settlement there. Could this be, instead, the Cilician Aigai in the Bayof Iskenderun? Without more evidence, however, this additional Phoenician site in thebay remains elusive.163

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 159

158 Strabo: After Aegaeae, one comes to Issus, a small town with a mooring-place, and to the PinarusRiver. It was here that the struggle between Alexander and Dareius occurred; and the gulf is called the IssicGulf. On this gulf are situated the city Rhosus, the city Myriandrus, Alexandreia, Nicopolis, Mopsuestia,and Pylae, as it is called, which is the boundary between the Cilicians and the Syrians.

159 So also Dussaud 1927, pp. 443444; Smith 1939.160 Borger 1956, pp. 4950 (Ninive A, III 2038), 110111 (Fragment B, Rckseite 1314), 123

(Chronik 676/5).161 For different identifications of Sissu, see Bing 1985, p. 101, n. 17; Parpola and Porter 2001, p. 16.162 Bing 1985, p. 104.163 Stephanus of Byzantium p. 38. So far archaeological investigations at Aigai (modern Ayas) have

did not yield any pre-Hellenistic finds; Seton Williams 1954, p. 149. The evidence, thus, is interesting,but very vague.

Al Mina, south of the Bay of Iskenderun, is usually discussed as a trading port withGreek influence. In a recent study, I have argued that Phoenician pottery is present atthe site almost from the beginning of the settlement here.164 Phoenician pottery neveroccurred in very large numbers at Al Mina, but it appeared as early as c.800 BCE. AlMina was the natural harbour of the state of Patina or Unqi, the modern Amuq plain,the hinterland of Antiochia (Antakya). As such it was the most important harbour forall imports entering northern Syria en route to Mesopotamia. There is no evidence fora Phoenician emporium here, but a Phoenician presence in some form or another isclearly possible from c.800 BCE.

As for northern Syria, the mention of the Tyrian god, Melqart, in the Brayj inscrip-tion (see above) was taken as evidence for a possible sanctuary somewhere in thatarea.165 Kestemont has collected evidence for a Phoenician presence on theEuphrates.166 The fact that Shalmaneser III collected tribute from the kings of theseashore at Til-Barsip points, according to Kestemont, to a Phoenician representationon the Euphrates.167 Even if postulating a Phoenician emporium here is probably notsupported by the text, it shows at least that Til-Barsip was a most important centre ofAssyrian power in the west at this time. Another text, A.0.101.30, by AshurnasirpalII,168 lists Tyre and Sidon between Sukhu, Khindanu and Patinu on the one side, andGurgumu, Malidu, etc., on the other. Kestemont takes this as evidence that as far asthe Assyrian administration was concerned, the Phoenicians were located on theEuphrates and the Assyrians were in contact with them there. These two texts areprobably not evidence enough for Kestemonts Phoenician trade installation duringthe ninth century BCE. The texts may be, however, evidence that Phoenicias influ-ence began to appear on the Euphrates.

The presence of the Phoenician Arslan Tash ivories during the eighth century BCEare indicative of increasing contacts between Phoenician trade and Assyrian adminis-tration in the Euphrates region.169 The ivory finds at Karkemish, Sultantepe andArslan Tash as well as Phoenician influence on the art of Karatepe was interpreted ascultural impact on Syria and Anatolia, and not as evidence for the presence of Phoeni-cian artisans or workshops located there.170

160 G. LEHMANN

164 Lehmann 2005.165 Pitard 1988, pp. 1516.166 Kestemont 1985, pp. 137139.167 Grayson 1996, p. 19, A.0.102.2, ii 39.168 Grayson 1996, p. 293, A.0.101.30, lines 143147.169 Barnett 1982, p. 46.170 Cf. Winter 1979, pp. 120124; Akurgal 1981, pp. 131141.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent excavations in Syria provide a framework for the relative chronology of theIron Age. For Cilicia, the only comprehensive studies available today are the publica-tions of the Tarsus excavations. This will hopefully change with the future publicationof the excavations at Kinet Hyk that have the potential to complement and toimprove the chronological framework of Tarsus. These recent studies allow a new dis-cussion of the Phoenician evidence in northern Syria and Cilicia. There are, however,still major problems with the absolute chronology, especially with the elevenththrough ninth century BCE in the Levant.

During the Iron Age, Phoenician pottery never occurred in large numbers in north-ern Syria or Cilicia. Until the seventh century BCE, Cypriote imports were morenumerous and ubiquitous in the area. Since the same imports occurred also in Pales-tine and Phoenicia, Cypriote ceramics are generally more significant for the chronol-ogy of Syria and Cilicia than Phoenician pottery.

Phoenician pottery is especially scarce in the Syrian Iron Age I and occurred mainlyin settlements near the coast. In Syria and Anatolia, the distribution of Phoenician pot-tery in inland sites was very limited in this period. This is in contrast with the quantityof Phoenician evidence found in northern Palestine171 and Cyprus in sites contempo-rary with the Syrian Iron Age I.172 Was there no significant Phoenician influence innorthern Syria or Cilicial, or did it remained for some reason invisible?173

This changed to some extent during the Syrian Iron Age IIA and even more so dur-ing Iron IIB. Phoenician pottery appeared in larger quantities during the ninth andeighth century BCE. This increasing Phoenician influence is also confirmed by theappearance of Phoenician inscriptions that are dated independently by palaeographyand the historical context.

The earliest inscriptions were found in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia(Zincirli) and belong to c.825800 BCE. The number of inscriptions increased dur-ing the eighth century BCE and appeared especially in Cilicia. During the seventhcentury BCE, Phoenician inscriptions became less and less frequent in northernSyria and Cilicia and occurred only rarely after c.600 BCE. Phoenician was by thenreplaced by Aramaic as the standard language for official documents in the area.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 161

171 The increasing distribution of Phoenician Monochrome pottery may be evidence for a Phoeni-cian expansion into the Akko Plain during the later part of the Syrian Iron Age IA = Palestinian Iron AgeIB. According to the low chronology, this would have taken place during the tenth century BCE andmay have been connected to an early expansion of Tyre under the legendary Hiram.

172 Evidence for ninth century BCE Phoenician influence seems to be now firmly established forCyprus; cf. the summary of Lipinski 1997, p. 109.

173 Note, for example, the lack of Assyrian material culture in the Assyrian trading colonies of Mid-dle Bronze Age Anatolia.

Similarly, Phoenician influence on local arts flourished especially during the eighthcentury BCE.

In Cilicia and southeast Anatolia, Phoenician epigraphic evidence is especially welldocumented during the eighth century BCE. Here, Phoenician writing and languageappeared in areas with native Aramean or Luwian languages. Phoenician was probablya language useful in international contacts and easier to write than the local systems.It was applied in an administrative context in official inscriptions, sometimes bilingualalong with Luwian. Local scribes apparently wrote these inscriptions and the texts arenot evidence for Phoenician presence in the realm of the local administration. ThePhoenician epigraphy in Cilicia demonstrates the diffusion of writing during theninth and eighth centuries BCE on a land route. Writing, thus, spread not only west-ward by sea.

Even though there is limited evidence for Phoenician artefacts from the seventhcentury BCE, one has to be aware that Phoenicians were probably still massivelyinvolved in trade and economic exchange with Anatolia and northern Syria during theseventh through fourth centuries BCE. Their presence is simply less visible in termsof material culture. A Phoenician emporium at Myriandros in the Bay of Iskenderunis historically attested during the fourth century BCE. And as they may have been themain vendors of Cypriote pottery during the Iron Age, Phoenicians were probablynow marketing Greek (especially Attic) pottery during the Achaemenid period.

What was the reason for the Phoenician presence in northern Syria and Cilicia? As Ezekiel demonstrated during the sixth century BCE, the Phoenicians were asactive in maritime trade as in overland caravan routes through Syria, Anatolia andMesopotamia. Due to nature of his writings, Ezekiel is somewhat vague and impre-cise in his description of the trade goods. Apparently, metals, slaves and textilesplayed an important role in Phoenician trade. Maps with metal ore resources in Ana-tolia demonstrate to where Phoenician economic interests were directed (Fig. 4).174

Another resource important for Phoenicians might have been timber from theAmanus.175

The currently available evidence, thus, points to an increasing Phoenician interac-tion with northern Syria, and especially with Cilicia from the second half of the ninthcentury BCE. Economic and political interests characterised the Phoenician presencethere. Traders may have established Phoenician colonies and emporia as early as thelate ninth century BCE. Their interaction with the local population and theiradvanced writing at this time, lead Cilicians to adapt Phoenician writing and languagethat, for some 100 to 150 years, ran parallel to their local writing system.

162 G. LEHMANN

174 For maps of metal resources in Turkey, see Wfler 1983, fig. 3 and Archologisches Landesmu-seum Baden-Wrttemberg 200, pp. 356357, 369372; cf. also Genesis 4, 22. For metal resources seealso Gm 1963 and Nishiwaki 1970.

175 Watson-Treumann 200001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AKURGAL, E. 1981 Aramaean and Phoenician stylistic and iconographic elements in Neo-Hittite

art, in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquiumin Honor of the Centennial of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Jerusalem, 1416 March 1977, edited by A. Biran, pp. 131139.Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew UnionCollege-Jewish Institute of Religion.

ANDERSON, J., HOOD, M. S. F. and BOARDMAN, J.1954 Excavations of the Kofin Ridge, Chios. Annual of the British School of

Archaeology in Athens 49: 123182.ANDERSON, W. P.

1988 Sarepta 1: A Stratigraphic and Ceramic Analysis of the Late Bronze and Iron AgeStrata of Sounding Y at Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon). Beirut: Publications de lUniversit Libanaise.

ARCHOLOGISCHES LANDESMUSEUM BADEN-WRTTEMBERG (editor) 2001 Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung Troia Traum und

Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart: Theiss.ASHTON, S. A. and HUGHES, M.

2005 Large, late and local? Scientific Analysis of Pottery Types from Al Mina, inThe Greeks in the East, British Museum Research Publication 157, edited by A. Villing, pp. 93104. London: British Museum.

ASTOUR, M. C. 1976 Ezekiels prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin. Journal of

Biblical Literature 95: 567579.BADRE, L.

1983 Les peuples de la mer Ibn Hani, in Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale diStudi Fenici e Punici, Roma 1979, edited by P. Bartoloni, pp. 203209. Rome:Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

BAKER, H. D., COLLON, D., HAWKINS, J. D., et al.1995 Kilise Tepe 1994. Anatolian Studies 45: 139191.

BARNETT, R. D. 1982 Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14: Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

BEN-TOR, A. and BEN-AMI, D. 1998 Hazor and the archaeology of the tenth century B.C.E. Israel Exploration

Journal 48: 137.BETTLES, E. A.

2003 Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: AMulti-Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the PersianPeriod (539332 BC), British Archaeological Reports, International Series1183. Oxford: Archaeopress.

BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Philipps.1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Leventis.

BING, J. D. 1985 Sissu/Issus, and Phoenicians in Cilicia. American Journal of Ancient History

10(2): 97123.BIRMINGHAM, J.

1963 The chronology of some Early and Middle Iron Age Cypriot sites. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 67: 1542.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 163

BOARDMAN, J. 1959 Greek potters at Al Mina? Anatolian Studies 9: 163169.1965 Tarsus, Al Mina and Greek chronology. Journal of Hellenic Studies 85: 515.1974 Athenian Black Figure Vases: a Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson.1975 Athenian Red Figure Vases: the Archaic Period: a Handbook. London: Thames

and Hudson.BONATZ, D.

1993 Some considerations on the material culture of Coastal Syria in the Iron Age.Egitto e Vicino Oriente 16: 123158.

1998 Area E1: Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age III: imported pottery, in Tell Afis(Siria): Scavi sullacropoli 19881992: the 19881992 Excavations on the Acrop-olis, edited by S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni, pp. 211229. Pisa: EdizioniETS.

BORGER, R. 1956 Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Knigs von Assyrien, Archiv fr Orientforschung,

Beiheft 9. Graz: Selbstverlag E. Weidner.BOUNNI, A. et al.

1979 Rapport prliminaire sur la 3me campagne de fouilles (1977) Ibn Hani(Syrie). Syria 56: 217291.

BUNIMOVITZ, S. and FAUST, A. 2001 Chronological separation, geographical segregation, or ethnic demarcation?

Ethnography and the Iron Age low chronology. Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 322: 110.

CANEVA, I. and SEVIN, V. 2004 Mersin-Yumuktepe: a Reappraisal, Universit di Lecce, Dipartimento di Beni

Culturali, Collana del Dipartimento 12. Galatina: Congedo.CAPET, E. and GUBEL, E.

2000 Tell Kazel: six centuries of Iron Age occupation (c.1200612 B.C.), in Essayson Syria in the Iron Age, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement Series 7,edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 425457. Louvain: Peeters Press.

CASABONNE, O.2004 La Cilicie lpoque Achemenide, Persika 3. Paris: Boccard.

COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery. London: Methuen.

COLDSTREAM, J. N. and BIKAI, P. M. 1988 Early Greek pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: some preliminary comparisons.

Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 1988, pp. 3543.COOK, R. M.

1972 Greek Painted Pottery, second edition. London: Methuen.CORRAL, M. A.

2002 Ezekiels Oracles against Tyre: Historical Reality and Motivations, Biblica et Ori-entalia 46. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

COURBIN, P. 1993 Fragments damphores Protogometriques grecques Bassit (Syrie). Hesperia

62: 95113.CRESPIN, A. S.

1999 Between Phrygia and Cilicia: the Porsuk area at the beginning of the IronAge. Anatolian Studies 49: 6171.

CULICAN, W.1975 Sidonian bottles. Levant 7: 145150. Reprinted in W. Culican 1986 Opera

Selecta: from Tyre to Tartessos, pp. 125132. Gteborg: strms Frlag.

164 G. LEHMANN

DIAKONOFF, I. M. 1992 The naval power and trade of Tyre. Israel Exploration Journal 42:

168193.DION, P. E.

1997 Les Aramens lge du Fer: Histoire Politique et Structures Sociales, tudesBibliques 34. Paris: Gabalda.

DITTBERNER, W. 1908 Issos: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen. Berlin: Georg

Nauck.DONNER, H. and RLLIG, W.

19621964 Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.DUPONT-SOMMER, A.

1950 Deux nouvelles inscriptions smitiques trouves en Cilicie. Jahrbuch frKleinasiatische Forschungen 1: 4347.

DUPRE, S. 1983 Porsuk 1: La Cramique de lge du Bronze et de lge du Fer. Paris: ditions

Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mmoire 20.DUSSAUD, R.

1927 Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et mdivale, BibliothqueArchologique et Historique 4. Paris: Geuthner.

ELAT, M. 1982 Tarshish and the problem of Phoenician colonization in the western

Mediterranean. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 13: 5569.FINKELSTEIN, I.

1996 The archaeology of the united monarchy: an alternative view. Levant 28:177187.

2005 The low chronology update, in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating:Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. E. Levy and T. Higham, pp.3142. London, Oakville: Equinox.

FORSBERG, S. 1995 Near Eastern Destruction Datings as Sources for Greek and Near Eastern

Iron Age Chronology: Archaeological and Historical Studies: The Cases ofSamaria (722 B.C.) and Tarsus (696 B.C.), Upsala Studies in AncientMediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 19. Upsala: UniversitatisUpsaliensis.

FRENCH, E. B. 1975 A reassessment of the Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus. Anatolian Studies 25:

5375.FUGMANN, E.

1958 Hama 2.1: Larchitecture des Priodes Pr-hellenistiques. Fouilles et recherchesde la fondation Carlsberg 19311938, Nationalmuseets Skrifter, StrreBeretninger 4. Copenhague: Nationalmuseet.

GALLING, K.1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Vornehmlich aus

Syrien und Palstina. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 64:121202.

GARSTANG, J. 1937 Explorations in Cilicia: the Neilson Expedition: preliminary report. Liv-

erpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 24: 5268.1938 Explorations in Cilicia: the Neilson Expedition: preliminary report II.

Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 25: 1223.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 165

1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Ymk Tepe in Southern Turkey: The Neilson Expedition inCilicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

GATES, C. 1999 Kinet Hyk 19921997: the Achaemenid Persian and Hellenistic Periods.

Olba 2(2): 323332.2006 The place of the Achaemenid Persian Period in archaeological research in

Cilicia and Hatay (Turkey), in LArchologie de lEmpire Achmnide: NouvellesRecherches, Persika 6, edited by P. Briant and R. Boucharlat, pp. 4970. Paris:De Boccard.

GATES, M. H. 2004 The 2002 season at Kinet Hyk (Yeil-Drtyol, Hatay). Kaz Sonular

Toplants 25(1): 405416.GEVIRTZ, S.

1967 A spindle whorl with Phoenician inscription. Journal of Near Eastern Studies26: 1316.

GILBOA, A. 1999 The Dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery: a view from Tel Dor.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316: 122.2001 Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age IIIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations:

The Evidence of Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University,Jerusalem.

GILBOA, A. and SHARON, I. 2001 Early Iron Age radiometric dates from Tel Dor: preliminary implications for

Phoenicia, and beyond. Radiocarbon 43(3): 13431352.2003 An archaeological contribution to the Early Iron Age chronological debate:

alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprusand Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 332: 780.

GILL, D. W. J. 1986 Attic Black-Glazed Pottery in the 5th Century B.C.: Workshops and Export. Ph.D.

thesis, Oxford.GJERSTAD, E.

1934 Cilician studies. Revue Archologique 1934: 155203.1948 The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods, Swedish

Cyprus Expedition 4.2. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.GOLDMAN, H. (editor)

1956 Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus, volume II: from the Neolithic through theBronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

1963 Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus, volume III: The Iron Age. Princeton, New Jer-sey: Princeton University Press.

GRAYSON, A. K. 1987 Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, volume 1. From the Begin-

nings to Assur-resa-isi I (to 1115 B.C.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (1114859), volume 2. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.1996 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (858745 B.C.) volume 3.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.GM, A.

1963 Iron ore deposits of Turkey, in Proceedings of a Symposium on Iron Ore Held inIsphahan, Iran, October 25, 1963, pp. 6180. Ankara.

166 G. LEHMANN

HANFMANN, G. M. A. 1963 The Iron Age pottery of Tarsus, in Excavations at Gzl Kule: Tarsus III: The

Iron Age, edited by H. Goldman, pp. 18332. Princeton, New Jersey: Prince-ton University Press.

HANSEN, C. K. and POSTGATE, J. N. 1999 The Bronze to Iron Age transition at Kilise Tepe. Anatolian Studies 49:

111121.HAWKINS, J. D.

1995 The political geography of north Syria and south-east Anatolia in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in Neo-Assyrian Geography, Universit di Roma La Sapienza,Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dellAnti-chit, Quaderni di Geografia 5, edited by M. Liverani, pp. 87101. Roma:Universit di Roma La Sapienza.

HAYES, J. 1966 Black glazed cups, in Excavations at Tocra 1963 1965: 1. The Archaic Deposits,

edited by J. Boardman et al., pp. 111134. London: Thames and Hudson.HELLENKEMPER, H. and HILD, F.

1986 Neue Forschungen in Kilikie Verffentlichungen der Kommission fr die TabulaImperii Byzanti 4, Denkschriften der sterreichischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 186. Wien: Verlag der sterre-ichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

HILD, F. and HELLENKEMPER, H. 1990 Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien und Isaurie, sterreichische Akademie der

Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Denkschriften 215. Wien:Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

HONIGMANN, E. 1933 Myriandros. Pauly-Wissowa: Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissen-

schaft 16(1): 10901091.JAMIESON, A. S.

1999 Neo-Assyrian pottery from Tell Ahmar, in Iron Age Pottery in NorthernMesopotamia, Northern Syria, and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at theMeetings of the International table ronde at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborw(1997) and other Contributions, Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 10,edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 287308. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.

JEAN, E. 2003 From Bronze to Iron Ages in Cilicia: the pottery in its stratigraphic context,

in Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Age in Anatolia and itsNeighboring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, Novem-ber 89, 2002, edited by B. Fischer, H. Genz, E. Jean and K. Kroglu, pp.7991. Istanbul: Trk Eskiag Bilimleri Enstits.

JEHASSE, L. 1978 Salamine de Chypre 8: La ceramique a Vernis Noir du Rempart Meridional. Paris:

Boccard.1981 La ceramique attique a vernis noir de Kition de la fin du 6e, a la fin du 4e

siecle avant J.-C., in Excavations at Kition, volume 4. The Non-Cypriote Pottery,edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 7599. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities forthe Republic of Cyprus.

JOHNSTON, A. W. and Jones, R. E. 1978 The SOS Amphora. Annual of the British School at Athens 73: 103141.

NORTH SYRIA AND CILICIA, c. 1200330 BCE 167

KEARSLEY, R. A. 1989 The Pendant Semi-Circle Skyphos, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology,

University of London, Supplement 44. London: University of London.1995 The Greek Geometric wares from Al Mina Levels 108 and associated

pottery. Mediterranean Archaeology 8: 781.KERSCHNER, M. and SCHLOTZHAUER, U.

2005 A new classification system of East Greek pottery. Ancient West and East 4.1:156.

KESTEMONT, G. 1985 Les phniciens en Syrie du Nord, in Phoenicia and Its Neighbours, Studia

Phoenicia 3, edited by E. Gubel and E. Lipinski, pp. 135161. Leuven: Peeters.KILLEBREW, A. E.

1996 Tel Miqne Ekron: Report of the 19851987 Excavations in Field INE: Areas5, 6, 7: The Bronze and Iron Ages: Text and Data Base, The Tel Miqne EkronLimited Edition Series. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute.

1998 Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: The Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style, and Cultural Diversity. Ph.D.thesis, Hebrew University.

KLING, B. B. 1989 Mycenaean IIIC: 1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean

Archaeology 87. Gteborg: Paul strm.LEBRUN, R.

1992 Cilicie, in Dictionnaire de la Civilization Phnicienne et Punique. Turnhout:Brepols, pp. 108112.

LEHMANN, G. 1996 Untersuchungen zur spten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und

Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr, Altertumskunde des VorderenOrients 5. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.

1998 Trends in the local pottery development of the Late Iron Age and PersianPeriod in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B.C. Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 311: 738.

2000 East Greek or Levantine? Band-decorated pottery in the Levant during theAchaemenid Period. Transeuphratne 19: 83113.

2002 Bibliographie der archologischen Fundstellen und Surveys in Syrien und Libanon,Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Orient-Archologie 9.Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

2002 Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Hinterlands von Akko (Israel) in der Eisenzeit:Erste Ergebnisse einer archologischen Landesaufnahme, in Ausgrabungen undSurveys im Vorderen Orient I, Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Orient-Archologie 5, edited by R. Eichmann, pp. 4978. Rah-den/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

2005 Al Mina and the east: a report on research in progress, in The Greeks in theEast, British Museum Research Publication 157, edited by A. Villing, pp. 6192.London: British Museum.

LEMAIRE, A. 1977 Essai sur cinq sceaux phniciens. Semitica 27: 2940.1981 Le pays dEden et le Bit-Adini: aux origines dun mythe. Syria 58: 313330.1983 Linscription phnicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsidre. Rivista di Studi

Fenici 11: 919.1984 La stle aramenne de Barhadad. Orientalia 53: 337349.

168 G. LEHMANN

LEMAIRE, A. and Lozachemeur, H. 1990 La Cilicie lpoque perse: recherches sur les pouvoirs locaux et lorganisation

du territoire. Transeuphratne 3: 143157.LEVY, M. A.

1869 Siegel und Gemmen mit Aramischen, Phnizischen, Althebrischen, Himjari-schen, Nabathischen, und Altsyrischen Inschriften. Breslau: Schletter.