References to discussions of the date, genre, and
historicity of this papyrus may be found in Sass 2002.



48 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Consequently, the southern Levantine littoral in
the Early Iron Age (fig. 1) is commonly divided into
two discrete entities: the “Sea People territories,”
stretching northward from the northern Negev; and

north of these, “Phoenicia.” The borderline between
the two is usually drawn north of the ºAkko Bay (e.g.,
Moscati 1988: 26; A. Mazar 1994: 41; Aubet 1993:
258 and fig. 3) or otherwise somewhere south of it,

Fig. 1. Main sites mentioned in text.

[image: image0.png]

2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 49

along the Carmel range (e.g., Stieglitz 1990: 9; Salles
1995: maps of Phoenicia on pp. 554, 555).3

To date, only the material culture associated with
the southerly “Sea People,” the Philistines, is well
known through extensive excavations, though its
interpretations vary. The prevailing consensus, even
among scholars who were quite skeptical at first,
is that the settlement of a foreign population may
be traced here (e.g., Bunimowitz and Yasur-Landau
1996). Indeed, this is the best explanation for a va-
riety of material culture traits in Early Iron Age
Philistia (see lately Yasur-Landau 2002; T. Dothan
2003).4 There is no real evidence, however, re-
garding the size of this new population or the extent
of the remaining indigenous one (e.g., Brug 1985:
134). As for the origin of the newcomers, the most
oft-quoted options are (various parts of) the Aegean
(A. Mazar 1990: 307; Stager 1995: 348; Yasur-Lan-
dau 2002; T. Dothan 2003), Anatolia (Singer 1988),
Cyprus (Brug 1985: 135), Cyprus and Anatolia
(Killebrew 2000: 243), and different combinations
thereof.5

In contrast, until recently, hardly any tangible ar-
chaeological evidence for northern “Sea People” has
been forthcoming. As a result, nearly all general
studies concerning “Sea People” in the Levant con-
centrate almost exclusively on the Philistines, men-
tioning the others only in passing—with very little
explicit concern for material culture (in major text-

books, see Sandars 1978: 170; A. Mazar 1990: chap.
8; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 210–11; Stager 1995).
Still, at ºAkko, “Myc IIIC” sherds were taken to rep-
resent the SHRDN (M. Dothan 1989; Dothan and
Dothan 1992: 213–15);6 and M. Bietak, for one
(1993: 301), stated that “Quantities of Myc. IIIC:1b
ware” at Tell Abu Hawam and at Tell Keisan make it
likely that the former served as a bridgehead for Sea
Peoples. A notable exception is E. Stern’s (2000b)
study, which concentrates on the material culture of
the “northern Sea People,” and which is referred to in
detail in this paper.

As for SKL material culture, allusions to Tel Zeror
in the Sharon Plain as a possible SKL settlement
were based mainly on the site’s location and not on
any analysis of material culture (e.g., Kochavi 1993:
1526; A. Mazar 1990: 326; Dothan and Dothan 1992:
211; the excavations at this site were only sketchily
published [Ohata and Kochavi 1966–1970]). There-
fore, excavations initiated by E. Stern at Tel Dor, on
Israel’s Carmel coast (the SKL stronghold according
to Wenamun), promised to be instructive. Based on
the Egyptian records, this is the only site that can
be directly associated with a non-Philistine “Sea
People,” and thus some distinct material culture was
anticipated. Early Iron Age horizons were indeed
extensively unearthed at Dor,7 but after two decades
of excavations, the sought-for foreign associations of
SKL material culture proved to be extremely elusive.
This paper proposes to investigate this phenomenon
in a wider context.

Phoenicia and Phoenicians in the Early Iron
Age, and Their Relations with “Sea Peoples”

In turn, the Early Iron Age in “Phoenicia” is still
annoyingly fuzzy. Phoenicia has long been consid-
ered one of the few areas that were least affected by
the dramatic demographic and other terminal Late
Bronze Age upheavals, and supposedly retained its
autochthonous, Canaanite inhabitants and sociopoliti-
cal structure. It is common practice to employ inter-
changeably the terms “Canaanite” and “Phoenician,”
the latter borrowed from Greek and Latin writers

3The biblical testimony—especially the descriptions of Asher’s
inheritance, from the Carmel range in the south to Tyre (Josh
19:24–31), and that of Manasseh, south of Asher, as far as the
Qanah Brook (Josh 17:7–14)—led to the traditional concept
whereby most of the region under investigation here (southern
Phoenicia) was part of the tribal inheritance (Aharoni 1979: 249,
map 18; see also Lemaire 1991: 136). Alternatively, Lemaire
(1991: 144), following others, suggested that the term “tribe” for
Asher is misleading, and that it was a geographical designation, re-
lating to the territory north of the Carmel at least from the Late
Bronze Age. The relatively late annexation of this region to the
Israelite ensemble is reflected in Asher’s pedigree—being a son of
one of Jacob’s concubines. For further discussions of the biblical
perspective, see Edelman 1992; G. Lehmann 2001: 88–89.

4Other than the abundant “foreign” pottery (including coarse
wares), there are, for example, “western” architectural affinities,
installations, Mycenaean or Cypriot-type figurines and loom
weights, new dietary habits, and possibly new flint artifacts, indi-
cating significant changes in various aspects of social behavior
(see summary in Barako 2000: 522–24).

5Early views regarding their origin in the Mediterranean and
beyond (mainly the Balkans) were mainly based on etymological
and historical considerations; cf., for example, Singer 1988: 241–
42, nn. 16–22; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 3–37; Drews 1993: 53–
72; Bryce 1998: 369–70.

6Lately, A. Zertal (2001) identified what he considers SHRDN
material culture in an altogether different region—at Tell el-
Akhwat in the ºIron Pass, which connects the Sharon Plain inland.

7See, especially, Stern 1990; 1991; 1993; 1999; 2000a: chap 3
and pp. 345–64; 2000b; Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Sharon and Gil-
boa in press; and references to preliminary reports. For a full bib-
liography on Dor, see http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/dor/.



50 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

of late antiquity. This is based on the widely held
conviction that the Phoenicians are merely the Iron
Age descendants of the (coastal) Late Bronze Age
Canaanites (e.g., Muhly 1970: 27; Baurain 1986).8

This situation is considered the context of the emer-
gence of the famed Phoenician commercial “em-
pire,” attested in the later Iron Age.

Textual evidence regarding the Phoenician Early
Iron Age is scarce. The Wenamun report (n. 1) de-
scribes Byblos as a thriving economic center with
a complex administration and extensive fleets, en-
gaged in commercial pacts with Egypt and others,
and also mentions Tyre and Sidon in passing. Assyr-
ian records have preserved testimony of expeditions
in the late 12th/early 11th centuries b.c.e. reaching
westward as far as Phoenicia, mentioning the lands
of Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad and a march to the city
of Samuru (Grayson 1976: 23, §§81–83; 47, §212;
55, §248; 56, §249).

But it is a statement preserved by Justin (Epitoma
XVIII, 3, 5) that proved the most intriguing. Accord-
ing to him, Tyre was founded by the Sidonians, in
flight from the Ascalonians, one year before the sack
of Troy (Katzenstein 1973: 59, n. 82). Though the
historical value of this statement is dubious, Katzen-
stein interpreted it as a reflection of a Philistine (i.e.,
“Sea People”) raid in Phoenicia. B. Mazar, on the
other hand (1967: 3–15), believed this encounter to
have occurred between the cities of Philistia and
Phoenicia. The primary importance of Justin’s state-
ment thus lies in the fact that for a number of schol-
ars it provided evidence of aggressive activity by
“Sea People” along the Phoenician coast.

Archaeological study of the Phoenician homeland
has been hampered by the dense overburden of late
construction on the ancient sites, as well as by recent
political conflicts, and archaeological data are dras-

tically scarcer than in Philistia. In general, the end
of the Late Bronze Age in the region investigated
here does indicate some signs of trauma, as in ex-
tensive regions of the eastern Mediterranean. The
Late Bronze Age temple at Tel Mevorakh ceased to
function (Stern 1984: 8–9). At Dor the situation is
yet unclear. The Late Bronze Age town has not
been located yet, and thus there are no grounds for
Stager’s (1995: 338) suggestion that it was violently
destroyed. It is clear, however, that the Early Iron
Age town was significantly larger than its predeces-
sor and was immediately fortified. Assessing the date
of this growth is crucial. Based on the limited data
at hand, this seems not to have happened at the
very beginning of the Iron Age, but at a time when
Philistine Bichrome pottery was already in existence
(Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 31). At Tel Nami, north of
Dor, trading activity comes to a halt at the close of
the Bronze Age, and the site is then deserted (Artzy
1995: 32). At Shikmona, south of the ºAkko Bay,
the sketchy published evidence indicates that a Late
Bronze Age building, apparently of public character
(Stratum 16), goes out of use in the Early Iron Age
(Elgavish 1994: 36, 47).

At Tell Abu Hawam, the Late Bronze Age public
buildings—the citadel and Temple 50—were indeed
abandoned or destroyed (this is Balensi’s Stratum Vc
early, in her latest treatment of the site’s stratigra-
phy; Balensi, Herrera, and Artzy 1993: 13). In the
first Iron Age stratum (Balensi’s Vc late), some of the
less imposing structures of the Late Bronze Age con-
tinue in use, but new ones are built and the acropolis
assumes a new layout. Whether all this happened in
a rapid sequence or after a lengthy gap (around the
mid-11th century) is yet indeterminable. At Tell Kei-
san, in the one small deep probe in Area B, there is
indeed a severe “Late Bronze Age destruction” (Stra-
tum 13; Humbert 1981: 389; 1988: 66) but one that
seals vessels of the LC IIIA typological horizon and
thus is later than most “classic” destruction events
of the southern Levant. Tyre and Sarepta, at least in
the excavated areas, continue without interruption,
architecturally, typologically, and functionally; there
are no destructions (for Tyre: Bikai 1978: 73; 1992:
133; for Sarepta: Anderson 1988: 423). At Beirut,
recent excavations have demonstrated that between
the end of the Bronze Age and the 10th century
b.c.e., the city was impressively refortified, but a
more precise date for this event and the nature of the
Late Bronze/Iron Age transition have not been elu-
cidated yet (e.g., Badre 1997: 50–66).

8For ancient associations between Chna (Canaan) and Phoe-
nicia, see, for example, Muhly 1970: n. 46; for a possible associ-
ation of Egyptian Fenkhu and Phoenicia, see Vandersleyen 1987;
and for a dismissal of any such connection, etymological or
geographical, see Muhly 1970: 31; Aubet 1993: 9. In Gen 9:18
Canaan is the son of Ham, and not of Shem. This attribution, in
spite of the obvious general Semitic descent of its population, was
explained by Aharoni as being due to the long association with
Egypt (Aharoni 1979: 7). In the Table of Nations (Gen 10; 1 Chr
1:1–23), usually attributed to an early phase of the Hebrew mon-
archy, Sidon, ºArqat, and Arvad are mentioned as Canaan’s de-
scendants. In contrast to the Philistines, for whom the Bible
clearly retains memories of a westerly origin, no such connotation
was attached to the people of Canaan.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 51

A survey conducted in ºAkko’s vicinity was in-
terpreted as indicating a sharp break in settlement
pattern in the plain between the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages, exemplified by a reduction in the
number of settlements and extent of settled area,
and a less pronounced settlement hierarchy. This
break was much more pronounced regarding small
settlements than large ones, and thus it was proposed
that the impression of continuity, usually gleaned
from the larger settlements on the tells, is mislead-
ing (G. Lehmann 2001: 76–87). It will be possible
to evaluate these suggestions only after the ceramic
criteria for distinguishing Late Bronze vs. Iron Age
settlements are published, and likewise, the criteria
for defining settlement size. (Previous surveys in
southern Phoenicia—Ronen and Olami 1978; 1983;
Frankel and Getzov 1997; Olami, Ronen, and Ro-
mano 2003—have produced only scant relevant data.)
Similarly, evidence for the nature of the Late Bronze/
Iron Age transition from such media as architecture,
glyptics, and other works of art is still very scarce.9

Early Iron Age stratigraphic/artifactual sequences,
crucial for the evaluation of the incipient Phoenician
culture, have been excavated chiefly in southern
Phoenicia—at Dor, Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Keisan,
Tyre, and Sarepta. The sites of ºAkko and Akhziv,
and sites farther to the north (Sidon, Khaldé, Beirut,
Byblos, Tell Arqa, and Arwad) have not yet pro-
duced comparative sequences and thus are not ex-
plicitly referred to in this paper. Curiously enough,
though the dearth of archaeological evidence has
been lamented by many a scholar, the available data,
in print for two decades or so, have not benefited
from any attempt at synthesis. Studies relating to the
Phoenician coast in this period are still based mainly
on historical and not archaeological considerations
(e.g., Muhly 1985: 178–79; Stieglitz 1990; and even
Bikai 1992).

Based mainly on the above-mentioned historical
records, scholarly opinions concerning the fate of
the Phoenician cities during the Early Iron Age have
varied. Especially divergent are the assessments of
the nature, extent, and duration of the Sea Peoples’
impact. Some scholars have indeed emphasized the
relative social and ethnic stability, especially when

compared with the coastal areas north and south of
Phoenicia. According to Moscati, for example (1988:
25), the Phoenician centers can be “negatively dif-
ferentiated,” i.e., those sites that were affected neither
by the establishment of the Hebrews and Aramaeans
nor by the invasions of the “Sea Peoples” (and sim-
ilarly Stern 1990: 30; Redford 1992: 299; Markoe
2000: 12). M. Heltzer is of the few scholars who
tried to explain this situation, suggesting that the rea-
son for the unparalleled endurance of the Phoenician
cities into the Iron Age was that, in contrast to the
surrounding polities, they did not suffer the social
disintegration that severely affected the latter toward
the end of the Bronze Age (Heltzer 1988: 15), but he
does not offer an explanation for this fortunate situa-
tion in Phoenicia (see similarly Yon 1992: 120).

Many scholars, however, hold a very different
view, namely, that the Phoenician cities did suffer
devastation by Sea People, but swiftly recuperated.
Katzenstein (1973: 59) found it surprising that the
Phoenicians managed to survive “the terrible destruc-
tions of their principal cities.” According to Stager
(1995: 336, 338), the Sea Peoples established bridge-
heads from Tarsus to Ashkelon. Bietak’s interpreta-
tion of “Myc IIIC” at ºAkko, Tell Abu Hawam, and
Tell Keisan as indicating Sea People bridgeheads has
already been cited (see also Dever 1992: 101, 103,
fig. 13.1), and some “Myc IIIC” fragments at Byblos
were similarly explained (Salles 1980: 35).

The prevailing opinion among these scholars is
that, subsequently, these coastal cities manifest a
Canaanite/Phoenician “revival,” meaning that, as op-
posed to other coastal sites, the detrimental impact of
the Sea People did not linger there (Stieglitz 1990:
10; Aubet 1993: 21). The reason (e.g., Singer 1988:
248, 250) is that the northern “Sea People” gradually
assimilated into the neighboring populations, which,
inter alia, accounts for the fact that, unlike the Phi-
listines, no remembrance of them has been preserved
in the Bible.

Phoenicians Conquering Sea People

E. Stern has offered a somewhat divergent in-
terpretation of events along the northern Canaanite
coast, based on his excavations at Dor. There, the
first part of the early Iron Age sequence terminates
with a conspicuous, probably site-wide destruction,
dated by him to ca. 1050 b.c.e. Following this de-
struction (but not immediately; see Gilboa and Sharon
2003: 33) are the first (and abundant) occurrences of

9For an attempt at assessing continuity/discontinuity between
Late Bronze Age “Canaan” and Iron Age “Phoenicia,” taking into
account language, script, toponyms, anthroponymes, religion, and
archaeological data (which has, however, led to ambiguous con-
clusions), see Röllig 1982.



52 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Phoenician Bichrome ware, the ceramic group often
considered the most conspicuous material mani-
festation of the early Phoenicians. Thus Stern sug-
gested that in the 12th century, among the coastal
areas north of Philistia, only the Carmel coast and
the ºAkko Plain were invaded by Sea People (SKL
and SHRDN). But in turn, Dor, ºAkko, and possibly
other towns in the vicinity (Akhziv, Tell Abu Ha-
wam, and Tell Keisan) succumbed to an aggressive,
economically motivated expansion of the Phoeni-
cians to the south, around the mid-11th century b.c.e.
(e.g., Stern 1990: 30). According to Stern, then, in
the beginning of the Iron Age, the ºAkko Plain and
the Carmel coast constitute part of the “Sea Peoples’
sphere,” and after their conquest they become part of
Phoenicia, when Phoenicians comprise the bulk of
the population (Stern 1991: 92). This model is most
clearly presented in Stern 2000b: 201, where the
Early Iron Age sequence at Dor is divided into two—
a “Sikilian” sequence (early and late) followed by a
“Phoenician” succession.

The concept of Phoenician military activism in
the 11th century b.c.e. gained quick approval (Negbi
1992: 611; Bikai 1992; Machinist 2000: 65; Markoe
2000: 30–31). Lately, M. E. Aubet based her entire
reconstruction of Tyrian involvement overseas on
the notion of coercive expansion, annexing port cit-
ies and agricultural territories, beginning with the
ºAkko Plain and the Carmel coast, as exemplified
at Dor (Aubet 2000: esp. p. 81). A parallel de-
struction is identified by her at ºAkko (Aubet 2000:
81–82).10

some methodological notes

Regional Definitions

Preliminary analysis (Gilboa 1998; now also Gil-
boa and Sharon 2003) suggested that the Sitz im
leben of the ceramic culture of Dor (like that of Tell
Keisan) and its commercial vista is the coast north
of it, including the very “heartland” of Phoenicia—
the Lebanese coast (and part of Israel’s northern
valleys), and that, on the other hand, these differ sig-
nificantly from those in Philistia. It was concluded
that, as far as ceramic culture and its evolution are
concerned, if a line has to be drawn at all, it should

be drawn somewhere around the Yarkon River or
somewhat north of it. Therefore, in the following
discussion, the Carmel coast and ºAkko Plain are
clustered with the coastal territories north of them—
discussed under the term “Phoenicia”—and are dis-
associated from Philistia. Regarding Phoenicia, my
northern scope ends somewhere near Sarepta, for
practical reasons: Early Iron Age sequences at more
northerly sites in Phoenicia are unknown.

Chronology

The absolute chronology of the early Iron Age in
Israel has been the subject of spirited controversy
following I. Finkelstein’s suggestion (1996) to lower
conventional absolute dates by 75–100 years. Dor
plays a prominent part in this debate, as Early Iron
Age 14C determinations obtained there support the
low chronology (references in Gilboa and Sharon
2003). However, this is still an unsettled issue, and
thus relative, archaeological terminology is employed
here, rather than absolute dates. As at this point I am
concerned mainly with processes, I do not consider
this a major drawback, though eventually the pro-
posed scenario will have to be pegged into a calen-
daric/historical framework. The purposely culturally
neutral chronological terminology employed here is
the one suggested in Gilboa and Sharon 2003. It
divides the early Phoenician Iron Age into the fol-
lowing horizons:

LB|Ir. A transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age
horizon, paralleling A. Mazar’s (1990: 296) Iron
Age IA. Contexts in Phoenicia belonging to this
horizon are, for example, Sarepta (part of Stratum G
in Trench II/Y), Tyre (part of Stratum XIV), and Tell
Keisan Stratum 13. This horizon parallels LC IIIA in
Cyprus and dates to an unspecified time within the
12th century, starting no earlier than ca. 1180 b.c.e.

Ir1a (early and late). At Dor, these two horizons
are the ones termed by Stern “Sikilian,” the Ir1a
late being the horizon that terminates with the large
destruction. To this horizon belong Sarepta (parts of
Strata G and F in Trench II/Y), Tyre (part of Stratum
XIV), and Tell Keisan Strata 12–10 (probably part of
9c as well). They mainly parallel LC IIIB in Cyprus.
On conventional Levantine chronology, this horizon
dates to ca. 1160–1090 b.c.e. At Dor, radiometric
dates place the destruction around 1000 b.c.e.10But it is unclear which destruction is being referred to.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 53

A transitional Ir1a|b horizon, followed by Ir1b.
These are the earliest horizons that at Dor follow
the major destruction, and thus they are included in
Stern’s “Phoenician” sequence. Contemporary con-
texts are Sarepta (Stratum E2 in Trench II/Y), Tyre
(part of Stratum XIV, and Stratum XIII), Tell Keisan
(Strata 9a–b and possibly part of c), and Tell Abu
Hawam (Vc late, IV-1, and IV-2). In Cyprus the
contemporary horizons are CG IA and mid-CG I.
Traditionally, Ir1b (“the Megiddo VIA horizon”)
dates ca. 1050–980 b.c.e., and by the low chronol-
ogy mainly to the 10th century. (The entire Ir1a
early to Ir1b sequence conforms to A. Mazar’s Iron
Age IB.)

Transitional Ir1|2. This newly defined horizon
parallels such contexts as Sarepta E1, Tyre XII–X,
Tell Keisan 8c, Tell Abu Hawam IV-3, IV-4, and
Tell Mevorakh VIII. This is the last horizon of
Stern’s Phoenician sequence; it parallels CG IB–II
in Cyprus. Conventionally it should date to the early
tenth century b.c.e. (a “Davidic” horizon) and, by
the low chronology, to the early ninth.

Ir2a. This parallels (at least the beginning of)
conventional Iron Age IIA and early CG III in Cy-
prus. Conventional dates for its beginning are in the
early to mid-tenth century b.c.e., and low ones are
around the early to mid-ninth.

Aims and Methods

This paper attempts to offer another perspective
for reading the Early Iron Age material record of the
southern Levantine littoral, especially focusing on
the domains of the “northern Sea People,” and to in-
terpret the elusive SKL material culture as revealed at
Dor. It deals mostly with pottery. The shortcomings
of an investigation concentrating predominantly on
one medium are only too obvious, especially when
pottery is involved. This choice was dictated, on the
one hand, by the sort of data available (or rather, un-
available) for Early Iron Age sites along the northern
Canaanite coast but, on the other, by my conviction
that in this case at least pots provide useful clues
(other material culture phenomena are considered,
but are less useful).

We shall probably never be able to explain every
single artifact we encounter during excavation, and
therefore the focus is on ceramic phenomena, on

functional properties of pots and on their symbolic,
emic, and etic meanings. As identities are never ne-
gotiated in a vacuum, the elucidation of the “other”
in the contexts surveyed here is of prime impor-
tance.11 Thus an emphasis is put on the juxtaposition
of stylistic expressions in adjacent entities—in this
case, between the regions roughly north and south of
the Yarkon River.

The following is a synthesis of previous studies,
which have dealt, in a somewhat detached manner,
with the Phoenician Bichrome Group, early Cypro-
Geometric pottery in the Levant, Wavy-Band pithoi,
and Philistine Bichrome pottery in Phoenicia (re-
spectively, Gilboa 1999a; 1999b; 2001a; Gilboa,
Cohen-Weinberger, and Goren in press). Detailed
arguments regarding the interpretation of these pot-
tery groups and pottery illustrations referred to here
may be found in those papers, which are here sum-
marized only briefly (for additional illustrations, see
also Gilboa 1998; Gilboa and Sharon 2003; Sharon
and Gilboa in press: figs. 15–20). Figures 2 and 3
illustrate only pottery groups not presented in those
papers.

artifactual evidence a:

the lb|ir transition and ir1a

The Local Repertoire

As far as pottery is concerned, there is in Phoe-
nicia a conspicuous Late Bronze–Iron Age conti-
nuity, a phenomenon recognized and emphasized
by investigators of all relevant sites, both those in
“Phoenicia proper” and those in the ºAkko Plain/
Carmel coast (e.g., Humbert 1981: 375 and Burda-
jewicz 1994: 112 for Tell Keisan; Anderson 1988:
386, 423 for Sarepta). Significantly, the pottery in the
postulated SKL and SHRDN territories (respectively,
Dor, Tell Keisan, and ºAkko) clusters with that to the
north and east, and not with regions to the south. No
significant changes whatsoever may be observed in
the composition of the ceramic assemblages, parallel

11Cf. Hodder 1991: 143: “. . . the boundaries around a group of
similarities (such as a cultural unit) do not form the boundaries of
the context, since the difference between cultural units may be
relevant for an understanding of the meaning of objects within
each cultural unit.”



54 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

to those occurring, for example, in Philistia or the
highlands.12

Generally speaking, the assemblages are un-
decorated. This is especially conspicuous regarding
tablewares, which by and large were not deemed
worthy of embellishment. In contrast, commercial
containers—such as flasks, particular types of jars,
and strainer-spouted jugs—were almost systemati-
cally painted, indicating the commercial motivation
for this effort (Gilboa 1998). In form and ornament,
all these vessels are rooted in Canaanite tradition,
and the painted designs are but a very simplified and
cryptic version of their Late Bronze Age predeces-
sors. However, many flasks and some jars also re-
veal an association with Cypriot decorative concepts
(discussed below with the Cypriot-style wares).

Imports and Exports

Very few overseas imports occur in Phoenicia at
this stage. Fabric analyses have demonstrated a for-
eign origin for the “Myc IIIC” stirrup jar at Tell
Keisan 13 (Cypriot; Balensi 1981) and for the few
“Myc IIIC” fragments from ºAkko, some of which
are Cypriot, and one or two of which are apparently
Aegean (D’Agata et al. 2003). In Phoenicia, other
western-looking specimens, usually dubbed “Myc
IIIC” (mostly stirrup jars and open bowls/skyphoi)
were found at Byblos, Sarepta, Tyre, and Tell Keisan;
but they are few, and it remains to be determined
how many, if any, are actual imports, and whence
they come.13 Also, some of the Cypriot-style “Wavy-
Band pithoi” discussed below may be actual imports.

In Cyprus, however, the situation is entirely differ-
ent. Phoenician containers—jars and small flasks—
are represented in LC IIIA and even more so in LC
IIIB, in quantities that, relative to the paucity of such
contexts, seem significant (e.g., references in Gilboa
1998: 423). Moreover, there is evidence in Cyprus
for more than just trade: a local production of
“Canaanite” jars is in evidence in LC IIIA both at
Maa-Palaeokastro and at Hala Sultan Tekke, in sig-
nificant quantities (Hadjicosti 1988: 390, 393; Åström
1991; Fischer 1991). It should not come as a sur-
prise if future fabric analyses demonstrate that some
of the “Canaanite” flasks in Cyprus were also locally
produced.

In this period Dor also produced evidence of
intensive, probably maritime contacts with Egypt,
involving some commodity packed in Egyptian jars
(for complete specimens, see Stern 2000a: fig. 250);
however, in this respect Dor remains an anomaly on
the southern Levantine coast. It should be stressed
that we are not dealing with an odd Egyptian frag-
ment here and there. The easily recognizable Nile-
clay fragments are found at Dor in numerous LB|Ir
and Ir1a loci. In addition, a few Philistine Bichrome
(PhB) imports at Dor, Tell Keisan, and ºAkko, start-
ing in Ir1a, attest to contacts with the southern coast
and Shephelah (Gilboa, Cohen-Weinberger, and
Goren in press).

Cypriot-style Wares

“Wavy-Band Pithoi.” These pithoi (Gilboa 2001a)
also reveal close contacts with Cyprus. They are pro-
lific on the coast from Dor to Sarepta, and in its
hinterland, especially in Upper Galilee (and all but
nonexistent in the extensively excavated early Iron
Age sites in Philistia). Provenience analyses indicate
that the lion’s share of these pithoi were manufac-
tured locally, though a few were actually brought
from the island (Gilboa 2001a). In order to under-

12In Philistia, the main change is the introduction of signifi-
cant (but varying) quantities of decorated wares—the so-called
Philistine Monochrome/local Myc IIIC and then Philistine Bi-
chrome, alongside other, undecorated utilitarian shapes of “west-
ern” types, the most noteworthy being cooking pots (quantitative
data regarding these wares in Philistia are summarized in Gilboa,
Cohen-Weinberger, and Goren in press; for Tell Miqne-ºEkron,
see T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: table 1). In the highlands, an
opposite process is evident: a drastic reduction of the repertoire to
a few, mostly undecorated classes of pottery (Bunimovitz and
Yasur-Landau 1996).

13For Byblos, in the K Necropolis, see Warren and Hankey
1989: 163. At Sarepta, in Trench II/Y, a few LC III fragments
were reported by Anderson from Strata G and F, but only three are
illustrated (Anderson 1988: pls. 28:19; 29:2; 30:10; all of them ap-
parently skyphoi); in Trench II/X a few such fragments may be at-
tributed to Period V, which roughly parallels Strata F and G in
Trench Y (for example, Koehl 1985: cat. nos. 191, 192, 198, a
stirrup jar and two skyphoi), and others were found in contexts of
as yet unknown stratigraphy. In all, considering the extensive Late

Bronze and Early Iron Age exposures in this trench, quantities are
very modest. The so-called (single) “Myc IIIC” bowl from Tyre
was lately suggested by S. Sherratt to be a Greek Proto-Geometric
specimen (personal communication). Tell Keisan (Stratum 13, and
possibly 12b) produced, in addition to the Cypriot stirrup jar, two
skyphoi dubbed “Myc IIIC” (Burdajewicz 1994: pl. 15: 24), and
there are at least two unstratified skyphoi, which were associated
by Burdajewicz with the “Myc IIIC” of Cyprus (1994: pl. 35:12,
13); another, unstratified “Myc IIIC” stirrup-jar fragment was
found during the British excavations there (Briend and Humbert
1980: 229–30, fig. 56).



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 55

stand the production of these pithoi on the main-
land (in the early Iron Age), we have to turn to
Cyprus, where the LC IIIA disruptions (Iacovou
1989: 54–56; 1994; Catling’s [1994: 134] “Indian
summer of the Cypriot Bronze Age”) terminated the
social and economic apparatus which both orga-
nized their production and constituted their main cli-
entele. (For considerations of the socioeconomic role
of large storage facilities, including pithoi, in sec-
ond-millennium Cyprus, see Keswani 1993; Knapp
1993; Webb and Frankel 1994; South 1995; for the
few post-LC IIIA pithoi known in Cyprus, see, for
example, Pilides 2000: e.g., 30–31, and references
in Gilboa 2001a.) Cypriot pitharades were thus
forced to seek new markets, and the thriving “pithoi-
consuming” centers of the nearby Phoenician coast
must have provided an obvious solution. The fact
that most of these pithoi were produced in that region
indicates that this new commercial strategy also in-
volved the movement of craftsmen, though whether
they permanently moved to the mainland or just
extended an existing itinerant mode of production
cannot be determined. For the interpretation of the
conspicuous wavy-band decoration on these pithoi,
recurring on nearly every specimen on the mainland
(as opposed to the situation in Cyprus), two alterna-
tives must be considered. If a specific message was
intended here (regarding contents, etc.), the target
audience could only have been Cypriot—i.e., Cypri-
ots on the mainland, as the “local” clientele had no
means of deciphering the significance of this design.
Alternatively, it is possible that no such specific mes-
sages were intended and that this, the most con-
spicuous decoration ever to adorn Cypriot pithoi,
was employed (extensively) as a means of express-
ing group affiliation—to be “read” by none other
than the potters themselves, and possibly in their im-
mediate surroundings (see Gilboa 2001a: 169–70).

Painted Flasks and Jars. Along the northern
coast, on numerous flasks (especially small ones)
and on many jars, a curious new introduction is ob-
servable in the decorative syntax. The Late Bronze
Age Canaanite predecessors of the flasks were deco-
rated primarily with concentric circles, which are
usually of the same width and more or less evenly
distributed on the faces of the vessels. Often, contin-
uous spirals were employed in their stead. In Phoe-
nicia in Ir1a, on numerous flasks, the concentric
circles are clustered into one or two clearly defined

groups, each of them comprising what I termed an
“enclosed bands decoration”: in each “group” the
outer circles are wider than the rest (concurrently,
“earlier” modes of paintings are still attested). The
origin of this decorative syntax could only have
been Cyprus, where such designs are prolific on con-
temporary and earlier ceramics, and indeed consti-
tute one of the hallmarks of Cypriot secondary
decorative motifs (for all these designs, see Gilboa
1999a: respectively fig. 15:3, 4, b; fig. 15:1, 2, a; fig.
8:4–6, c). Most significant is the fact that in Phoeni-
cia this configuration is employed exclusively on
commercial containers and is not attested on other
painted pots (though, admittedly, the latter are few).

Miscellaneous Vessels. Occasionally, other pot-
tery vessels along the northern littoral manifest sty-
listic links with Cyprus: At Tell Keisan, at least one
jug in the LB|Ir horizon (Stratum 13; see Burdaje-
wicz 1994: pl. 13:20) clearly echoes LC IIC/LC III
jugs in its morphology and decorations, but is appar-
ently not Cypriot made (Gilboa and Sharon 2003:
n. 4). At Dor, a painted amphoroid-krater and a
painted strainer-jug in the Ir1a late horizon (Gilboa
and Sharon 2003: figs. 2: 18; 5: 7; photographs in
Stern 2000a: pl. IX: 6; Sharon and Gilboa in press:
fig. 18), two of the very few vessels other than com-
mercial containers that anyone took the trouble to
decorate, reveal close stylistic affinities with LC IIIB
wares (but parallel designs may also be found in
Syria). Both were manufactured somewhere along
the Carmel coast, most probably at Dor itself (petro-
graphic analysis conducted by A. Cohen-Weinberger
and Y. Goren; it is not a Cypriot import, as deduced
in Barako 2000: table 1 and n. 10).

Other “Western” Ceramic Manifestations

“Myc IIIC.” The term “Myc IIIC” in the Levantine
context is an extremely problematic catch-all term for
all sorts of Early Iron Age ceramic fabrics and phe-
nomena (and often single sherds) and all kinds of
“western” associations. The Philistine aspect of this
phenomenon is embodied by the ceramic composi-
tions of such sites as Ashdod, Tell Miqne-ºEkron, and
Ashkelon, where locally produced “western-looking”
fine wares, comprising a variegated assortment of
shapes, some even manufactured by western-derived
techniques, constitute a significant portion of the
sites’ ceramic assemblages.



56 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

When quantities and the typological variety are
considered, it is immediately evident that nothing
like the “local Myc IIIC/Philistine Monochrome”
phenomenon of Philistia ever existed north of the
Yarkon River, in any of the Phoenician sites. The
“western-looking” specimens at Byblos, Sarepta,
Tyre, ºAkko, and Tell Keisan have already been re-
ferred to. As mentioned, for most of them the place
of production cannot yet be determined (at least
some may indeed be “local”); the few “Myc III”
sherds at ºAkko, most of them of deep bowls/sky-
phoi, were proven by fabric analysis to be of non-
local manufacture. But these vessels never became
part and parcel of the ceramic habitus of these sites,
which, of course, is what renders them so conspicu-
ous. At both Tell Abu Hawam and Dor, not a single
potsherd that can be dubbed Myc IIIC has ever been
uncovered.14 Moreover, at all these sites the typo-
logical variety is extremely limited and, in this re-
spect too, is totally incompatible with the Myc IIIC
and PhB (Philistine Bichrome) ensembles of Philis-
tia (though neither do the latter constitute “complete”
assemblages). In fact, there are only two dominant
types of vessels. The most prolific are stirrup jars,
which are also the most frequently encountered Myc
IIIC imports in other regions15 and should be under-
stood in a commercial context. Next come deep bowls/
skyphoi, a phenomenon addressed below.

This situation is, of course, “pardonable” for some
of these sites, as they were never considered Sea
People sites (though for all of them, some impact by
Sea People was envisioned by certain scholars), but
does come as a surprise for Dor which, as befits the
capital of the SKL, was expected to produce such

ceramic evidence, and likewise for ºAkko and Tell
Keisan, the SHRDN bases.

Philistine Bichrome (PhB) Ware. A similar di-
vergence, between Philistia and the regions north
of it, is evident regarding the slightly later PhB. In
Philistia this ware is geographically more widespread
than the local “Myc IIIC,” though relative quantities
at the various sites vary and often are difficult to
estimate (Brug 1985: 67–103; at Tel Miqne-ºEkron,
not included in Brug’s survey, quantities range be-
tween 15 and 50 percent [T. Dothan and Y. Garfinkel,
personal communications; T. Dothan and Zukerman
2004: table 1]). At Dor, PhB fragments were taken to
represent SKL material culture (e.g., T. Dothan 1982:
69; Stern 2000b: fig. 10.3). However, it is now evi-
dent that (a) their quantity there is miniscule, (b) they
comprise mostly containers, and (c) as demonstrated
by petrography, these containers indeed originate in
Philistia. PhB ware was definitely intrusive in Dor’s
ceramic environment, and the few fragments uncov-
ered probably embody commercial ties with some
Philistine site(s)—in this particular case, a rather
southern one. A similar situation is evident at Tell
Keisan and at ºAkko, where PhB vessels are rare and
comprise mostly small containers. In fact, the scar-
city of PhB pottery along the northern coast is per-
haps its most revealing characteristic. Considering
the ease of access between the regions north and
south of the Yarkon River, and the fact that PhB pot-
tery did travel to farther regions, it seems that PhB
ware was deliberately avoided by the inhabitants of
the northern coast (see Gilboa, Cohen-Weinberger,
and Goren in press).

The “Northern Skyphoi” Phenomenon. On the
other hand, one ceramic phenomenon in the north
stands out in its “western” association. At Tell Keisan,
and less so at Dor, significant numbers of deep bell-
shaped bowls, or skyphoi, are attested—a new form,
certainly of some “western” derivation. A. Mazar was
the first to point out that in the Early Iron Age, clumsy
and poorly decorated bell-shaped bowls are known
mainly from “Northern Palestine,” i.e., he recognized
them as a spatial phenomenon, rather than a tempo-
ral one as previously suggested by T. Dothan (she
related them to her late phase of Philistine pottery;
see A. Mazar 1985a: 90).

At the outset, it must be stated that on no account
can these skyphoi be confused with the “Myc IIIC/
PhB” pottery phenomena in Philistia. First, they are

14Regarding Tell Abu Hawam, this is a dangerous assertion,
as most of the pottery was discarded by Hamilton in the field.
Still, attractive, Mycenaean-looking sherds would probably count
among the pottery he would have kept (as were Late Bronze Age
Mycenaean sherds). No such pottery was found during later exca-
vations at the site (Balensi 1985: n. 18), but this absence at Tell
Abu Hawam may have a chronological reason: it is quite possible
that the site was not inhabited at the very beginning of the Iron
Age. Regarding Dor, this situation is conspicuous even if we pos-
tulate a gap (in the one currently excavated area that reached this
horizon) at the very beginning of the Iron Age (for this possibility,
see Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 56). After two decades of excava-
tion, not a single “Myc IIIC-resembling item” has come to light,
though both Middle and Late Bronze Age redeposited pieces, for
example, are prolific in Early Iron Age contexts.

15For example, at Beth Sheªan (S. Sherratt and A. Mazar, per-
sonal communication), and possibly also Dan (Ilan 1999: 95).



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 57

indeed the only significant group whose morphology
may be linked to the “west,”16 unlike the signifi-
cantly more variegated “western” repertoires of Phi-
listia. They also differ greatly in the quality of their
manufacture. Most of them are rather crude, not
much effort was invested in the treatment of their
surface, and they are very simply and haphazardly
adorned or altogether undecorated. The designs are
very simple linear ones, usually just a few horizon-
tal bands; in other cases they are limited to simple,
sketchy spirals. More intricate geometric designs, or
figurative ones like those produced by the proficient
painters of Philistia, are not attested.17 Also, there is
a large variability in the fabrics and surface treat-
ments of the “Northern Skyphoi.” At Dor (fig. 2;
mainly in Ir1a and then rapidly vanishing) hardly any
two fragments are really similar, though, as demon-
strated by petrography (A. Cohen-Weinberger and
Y. Goren, personal communication), most of them
were produced locally (on the Carmel coast or in
Dor itself ). In this they differ from the specialized,
often quite canonic production of Philistia’s deco-
rated wares, indicating a different mode of produc-
tion. This is also borne out by the relatively restricted
quantities of these skyphoi.

At Tell Keisan (fig. 3) some skyphoi in the as-
semblage, mostly the decorated ones, were discussed
under the “Philistine pottery” epithet (Burdajewicz
1994: 87), and others were dubbed “Myc IIIC” (see
above), but, as at Dor, they are generally of poor
quality, produced of a large array of fabrics, most of
them coarse (Burdajewicz 1994: 88), and only a few
are more delicate (for instance, Burdajewicz 1994:
pl. 25:12, 13 from Stratum 11 and pl. 33:1, 2 from
Stratum 10a). Burdajewicz (1994: 54–55) suggested
that they were modeled on Mycenaean skyphoi.

These bell-shaped painted bowls at Tell Keisan,
however, are not an isolated ceramic phenomenon
there. Numerous undecorated (and some once-deco-
rated but now plain) skyphoi are present there, labeled
by Burdajewicz with the culturally neutral designa-
tion Bol B.IV and discussed separately from the “Phil-
istine” and “Myc IIIC” specimens. B.IV bowls were
relatively frequent (17 percent) in Stratum 13, after
which the frequency dropped in Stratum 12 (2.5 per-
cent of all bowls) and increased again (9.33 percent in

Stratum 11; 10.72 percent in 10; see Burdajewicz
1994: table on p. 164). According to Burdajewicz,
these bowls are attested at Tell Keisan in unknown,
but apparently restricted numbers until Stratum 9 and
even in 8c (of the Ir1a|b, Ir1b, and Ir1|2 horizons), and
then they disappear. As will be argued below, the
separation of “Philistine” skyphoi on one hand and
“B.IV bowls” on the other obscures the cultural phe-
nomenon they epitomize.

At Sarepta, Anderson’s X-23 is a skyphos-shaped
bowl, occurring in Trench II/Y in Strata G2–E (Late
Bronze Age until Ir1b). At the close of the Late
Bronze Age, it accounts for 6.3 to 7 percent of all
the bowls in Strata G1 and F, and quantities are re-
duced to 4 percent in Stratum E, and then these
bowls disappear (calculations based on Anderson
1988: table 3; for quantities in Trench II/X, see Khal-
ifeh 1988: table 4). As at Tell Keisan, these skyphoi
are accompanied by simply decorated specimens,
which comprise a generous share of the (infrequent)
“Aegean-derived shapes”18 (dubbed “Late Helladic
IIIB late,” “Simple Style,” “Derivative Mycenaean,”
“Levanto-Mycenaean,” “Cypro-Mycenaean,” and “LH
IIIC”; see Koehl 1985: 109–22). Whether these are
imported or locally produced cannot yet be deter-
mined with certainty.

artifactual evidence b:

the ir1a|1b transition and 1r1b

The Iron 1a sequence at Dor ends with a seem-
ingly site-wide, though certainly not complete, de-
struction.19 If one seeks a parallel destruction at Tell
Keisan, one may possibly think of that identified by
Burdajewicz (1994: e.g., table V.2) at the end of Stra-
tum 10a.20 In contrast, contra Aubet’s (2000: 81–82)
suggestion, no such destruction has been identified
at ºAkko.21

16Some, vary rare, bell-shaped kraters occur as well.
17On the other hand, unadorned skyphoi like those in the north

are rare in Philistia (T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 18).

18Most of the other specimens are stirrup jars.
19As regards architectural continuation after the major de-

struction, Dor presents a complex picture. In Area B1 the post-
destruction epoch is characterized by new construction and further
expansion of the town. In Area G, the building devastated was
renovated, and the new builders seem to have been intimately ac-
quainted with the structure they renovated, implying that they
were the same people.

20For the chronological proximity of this stratum to the Ir1a
late horizon at Dor, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003: tables 11, 21.

21It is yet unclear whether this period is represented at Tell
Abu Hawam.



58 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Fig. 2. Selection of “Northern skyphoi”/deep bowls from Dor. Ir1a early horizon: nos. 1–6, 13; Ir1a late
horizon: nos. 7, 8, 17; Ir1a, subphase unclear: 10–12; Ir1a|b and Ir1b horizons: nos. 9, 16; unclear con-
text: nos. 14, 15. Scale 1:5. (Pottery drawings reproduced by permission of Professor Ephraim Stern.)

[image: image1.tif]

2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 59

Fig. 3. Selection of “Northern skyphoi”/deep bowls from Tell Keisan, after Burdajewicz
1994.1–5: pl. 25:10–14 (Stratum 11); 6–8: pl. 29:10–12 (Stratum 10); 9–13: pl. 33:1–5
(Stratum 10a); 14–16: pl. 35:1–3 (Stratum 9?). Scale 1:3. (Pottery drawings reproduced by
permission of Dr. Mariusz Burdajewicz.)

[image: image2.tif]

60 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

At Dor, E. Stern perceives a cultural dichotomy
between the early Iron Age layers pre- and post-dat-
ing the destruction, i.e., between his “Sikilian” and
“Phoenician” sequences (Stern 2000b: 201), between
the horizons designated here LB|Ir and Ir1a (early
and late) on the one hand, and Ir1a|b, Ir1b, and
Ir1|2 on the other. The Phoenician takeover of the
“Sikilian” town was deduced primarily by the appear-
ance, after the destruction, of significant quantities
of Phoenician Bichrome pottery. It seems, however,
that continuity, rather than divergence, is in evidence.

The Local Repertoire

The general pottery assemblage at Dor exhibits a
continuous sequence before and after this destruc-
tion. This is also true for contemporary contexts at
Tell Keisan (Stratum 9) and also (naturally, some
would say) for Tyre (Stratum XIII) and Sarepta (Stra-
tum E2) (Gilboa 2001b: chaps. 6–9; Gilboa and
Sharon 2003: figs. 2–17, tables 2–20).

Imports and Exports

The (few) classes of imports that were attested in
the previous horizons are still present: chiefly Egyp-
tian jars (mostly at Dor, as before)22 and probably
also an unclear number of “Wavy-Band” pithoi.23 In
addition, some PhB was unearthed at Tell Keisan (in
Stratum 9), and one or two PhB fragments at Dor
may belong to this horizon (Gilboa, Cohen-Wein-
berger, and Goren in press).

But a new import is now attested in Phoenicia. At
Tyre (starting in Stratum XIII) and at Dor (starting in
the Ir1b horizon), Cypriot decorated fine wares ap-
pear, chiefly open shapes (mainly White Painted
[WP I]). At Dor, one or two “WP I” fragments seem
to have been locally produced.24 Early CG I imports

are now attested also outside Phoenicia (for example,
at Megiddo VIA) but are very rare. The difference
between Phoenicia and its immediate southerly
neighbor is again instructive. In early Iron Age con-
texts in Philistia, only a handful of early CG frag-
ments are attested, though exposures of this period
are by far more extensive than those in Phoenicia
(see also Barako 2000: 515–16). The restricted spa-
tial range of this import, coupled with the fact that
tablewares rather than containers dominate the Tyre
and Dor assemblages, indicate that these items should
be regarded as “personal belongings” of sorts, hint-
ing again at some presence of Cypriots on the Phoe-
nician coast (detailed discussions may be found in
Gilboa 1989; 1999b).

Ceramic exports from Phoenicia to Cyprus now
increase in number and may be characterized as
follows: They include, again, only containers—jars
and chiefly flasks and rounded jugs. In the begin-
ning (the Ir1a|b horizon; the LC IIIB/CG I transition
in Cypriot terms), the containers involved are by
and large the same as in the previous horizons, and
similarly decorated.25

Soon, however (in Ir1b, early to mid-CG I in
Cyprus), these are almost totally replaced by the
newly introduced Phoenician Bichrome containers.
As regards the scope of this export, these vessels
are attested in modest quantities in all the adjacent
regions—from Upper Galilee to Philistia, and far-
ther afield (sparsely) in Egypt (e.g., Aston 1996:
fig. 233:d, e; possibly also figs. 43:12, 233:a).26 But
nowhere are they better attested than in Cyprus,
where both Bichrome containers and earlier mono-
chrome ones, alongside jars, are amply represented
in early CG I contexts (references in Gilboa 1999a:
n. 7). Indeed, Cyprus seems to have been the main
destination of these containers (and, of course, their
contents). In contrast, contemporaneous exports
from Philistia to the island are yet unattested (cf.
Barako 2000).

Cypriot-style Wares

Cypriot-type Pithoi. These pithoi are still in evi-
dence at Tyre, Sarepta, and Dor (considerably less

22And a few fragments at Tell Abu Hawam (e.g., Balensi 1980:
349, pl. 12:6, perhaps also pl. 10:4, 5), possibly also at ºAkko (E.
Marcus, personal communication).

23E.g., Cohen-Weinberger and Wolff 2001: 651, cat. no. 66,
which originates from a post-destruction context, and not as des-
ignated there. However, in the post-destruction layers at Dor, only
fragments of such pithoi were uncovered, possibly redeposited.
Contemporaneous contexts such as Sarepta Y/E and Tyre XIII
yielded considerable amounts of Cypriot-style pithoi fragments,
but it is unknown whether they are actual imports.

24At other Phoenician sites, such as Sarepta, such Cypro-
Geometric (CG) imports are significantly fewer. CG imports un-
earthed recently at Beirut do not antedate Iron Age II (they are
mainly Type III vessels and later types; see Badre 1998).

25But morphologically they mirror the changes occurring in
Phoenicia; Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 65.

26Crete (Kommos included) has not yet produced evidence of
Phoenician ceramics of this horizon.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 61

frequently), but it is difficult to assess how many of
them still bear the wavy-band decoration.27

Tell Keisan’s “Levanto-Mycenaean IIIC Ware.”
In Stratum 9c at Tell Keisan (the Ir1a|b horizon),28 a
peculiar assemblage of small containers was uncov-
ered, dubbed by the excavators “Cypro-Mycenaean”
or “Levanto-Mycenaean IIIC ware” (Humbert 1981:
392; 1993: 864). They are of light brown–orange,
polished, occasionally hand-burnished fabric, deco-
rated in semi-lustrous light red–orange paint. Petro-
graphic analyses proved this group to be of
mainland manufacture. Technologically, the vessels
were of Canaanite tradition and were fired at a much
lower temperature than their alleged Mycenaean
prototypes (Courtois 1980: 354–58).

The group comprises pyxides (Briend and Hum-
bert 1980: pl. 70:1–1f), flasks (large lentoid, globu-
lar, and asymmetric ones; and small lentoid ones;
Briend and Humbert 1980: pls. 74–76); and jugs that
are rounded or (mostly) squat, occasionally biconical
(Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 70:2–4b).

The excavators first interpreted the group as of lo-
cal production in Mycenaean tradition, but most of
the parallels cited by them, especially for the jugs,
were Cypriot LC IIIB ones (Peuch 1980: 218). Later
on, Humbert (1981: 391) characterized the group as
a whole as an amalgamation of Cypriot, Mycenaean,
and Levantine elements, the Mycenaean elements
being the pyxides, the rounded jugs, and the painted
linear decoration; the Cypriot elements being the
shape of the jugs (which he dubbed “bilbil-shaped”)
and the somewhat more composite decorative de-
signs on the jugs; and the Levantine elements being
the flasks and the “biconical” jugs. Burdajewicz
(1994: 77) rejected the association with LC IIIB Cy-
prus on chronological grounds and instead suggested
that the Cypriot-looking jugs were imitation Base
Ring ones (see critique in Gilboa and Sharon 2003:
42).

In fact, there is nothing “Mycenaean” about this
group. All the decorations, like the vertical ladder

designs on the jugs, are of clear Canaanite origin.
The sole exceptions to this statement are the “en-
closed bands” configurations on some of the flasks
(e.g., Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 76:4a, 4b, 4k),
which, as argued here, are of Cypriot derivation. Re-
garding shape, the flasks also evolve from Late
Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age antecedents. Like-
wise, no (direct) Mycenaean impetus should be
sought for the pyxides, a shape well at home in the
Canaanite repertoire from the Late Bronze Age, as
recognized by Puech (1980: 221, 225). The jugs,
however, are indeed instructive of some nonlocal as-
sociation; they definitely echo the morphology of
Cypriot LC IIIB and CG I jugs (Gilboa and Sharon
2003: n. 6).

Thus, again, this group has nothing to do with the
“Myc IIIC phenomenon” and has no western associ-
ations beyond Cyprus. There is also a chronological
difference: Stratum 9c at Tell Keisan belongs to the
Phoenician Ir1a|b horizon, which is considerably
later than the “Myc IIIC-bearing” strata in Philistia.
If labels are required, rather than being a Levanto-
Mycenaean group, it had best be characterized as
(another . . .) Cypro-Phoenician one. Beyond that,
however, the meaning and function of this group is
difficult to interpret.29 This paper repeatedly argues
that whenever a special decorative initiative is evi-
dent in the early Iron Age ceramic industry of Phoe-
nicia, it involves containers, usually containers that
were employed in trade. The Tell Keisan vessels cer-
tainly fit this notion, and here too all the decorative
configurations on these containers are confined to
them alone. However, at present these vessels were
not recognized with certainty outside Tell Keisan.30

The importance of the Cypriot-derived jug shapes
at Tell Keisan is that they hint, again, at some very
close familiarity of their producers with the Cypriot
way of doing things. To date, no Cypriot jugs of
these shapes are known from Phoenicia, which may
have served as models for some local emulation.

The Phoenician Bichrome Group and Related
Wares. The most revealing Cypriot impact is that
evident on other small containers in Phoenicia: flasks/
rounded jugs and strainer-spouted jugs, including the27At Tyre, see Bikai 1978: fig. 93, upper right, and table 5; at

Sarepta, see Anderson 1988: table 8, Heavy Rolled Rims of Types
RR-1 and RR-2, which are apparently to be associated with such
pithoi; table 21, heavy body sherds with plastic decoration; and
table 16, B-17 (stump bases, also primarily associated with these
pithoi).

28For the somewhat problematic stratigraphic association of
these vessels, see Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 36–37.

29Most of these vessels were found in a pit (6067), and thus not
much may be deduced from their context.

30According to Burdajewicz (1994: 77), some flasks of com-
parable appearance are known at Beth Sheªan; one possible such
flask fragment was uncovered at Dor.



62 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

well-known “Phoenician Bichrome” ones. The as-
sessment of the ancestry of the Bichrome vessels is
especially crucial, as they were the major considera-
tion in Stern’s reconstruction of a Phoenician take-
over of the SKL and SHRDN seats. However, at all
the sites surveyed in this article, it can be shown that
this group develops locally (Gilboa 1999a; Gilboa
and Sharon 2003: fig. 17). Thus, by no means can
these vessels be taken as a new, “northern” introduc-
tion into the ºAkko Plain or Carmel coast from the
“Phoenician heartland.”

The function of the decorations on these vessels
has not changed. As before, these containers are the
only vessels in Phoenicia that are systematically
decorated—when the rest of the assemblages are
even more poorly adorned than before. This shows
that the sole purpose of this decoration was still a
functional/economic one—to promote their distribu-
tion (or rather their contents). For a short period of
time (within Ir1b), the decoration on these containers
exhibits a special energy input, an unparalleled phe-
nomenon in the Phoenician context. I termed this
stage “experimental” (Gilboa 1999a: 2), as various
methods of decoration are now employed, includ-
ing the “Phoenician Bichrome” style with its dis-
tinct decorative syntax—which in the later Iron Age
will emerge as the standard, indeed almost exclusive
method.31 In tandem, a new decorative vocabulary is
introduced on both Monochrome and Bichrome con-
tainers, part of the designs being of clear Cypriot
ancestry; and the very decorative syntax, especially
the use of the enclosed-bands configuration, is also
Cypriot-derived (Gilboa 1999a).32 This configura-
tion has long been considered by scholars the trade-
mark of Phoenician Bichrome vessels, which indeed
was also its function in the past. None of these deco-
rative innovations are ever encountered on any other
type of vessel in Phoenicia.

Other Vessels of “Western” Derivation

The “Northern Skyphoi.” At Tell Keisan (Stra-
tum 9) and at Sarepta (Area II/Y, Stratum E), sky-
phoi continue to be present in this horizon, in

significantly reduced quantities (see above). At Dor
they are rare, and shortly afterward disappear.

summary and interpretation

of ceramic indices along the

phoenician coast vis-a~ -vis philistia

The LB|Ir Transition and Ir1a

As in many other regions in the Levant, the col-
lapse of the Late Bronze Age trade system seems to
have terminated Phoenicia’s commercial ties with
most regions in the Mediterranean, including the
Aegean.33 In Phoenicia, however, this did not bring
overseas commercial activities to a halt, but it sub-
stantially transformed the scope of trade. Close com-
mercial contacts were maintained with Cyprus, and
both of these regions were also involved in mari-
time commercial exchanges with Egypt. In this ho-
rizon, the Phoenician commercial containers are the
main vessels to reveal definite Cypriot traits in their
decoration, and clear Cypriot stylistic impact is at-
tested in Phoenicia in the local production of “Wavy-
Band pithoi” and in a few other ceramic shapes and
decorative schemes. Concurrently, only a very small
quantity of PhB vessels (most notably, containers)
found their way to Phoenicia.

This Phoenician-Cypriot-Egyptian triumvirate
significantly excluded Philistia. No commercial links
involving pottery can be traced between the exten-
sively excavated sites in Philistia and Cyprus at this
stage, though such ties have been postulated on other
grounds by some scholars and are referred to be-
low.34 Likewise, local production of Cypriot-style
pithoi is unattested in Philistia, and imported pithoi
are practically nonexistent there.35

31Cf. Rathje’s (1975: esp. 415–16) suggested production–
distribution trajectory—from a “research and development” stage
to a “control mass replication and distribution” one.

32For some other examples of the enclosed-bands configura-
tion on Monochrome containers, see, for example, Gilboa and
Sharon 2003: fig. 9:10, 11.

33Renascent contacts with Greece (Euboea), probably in the
Ir1|2 horizon, are attested along the northern coast (Dor, Tyre, and
Ras el-Bassit) and in Israel’s northern valleys (Tel Hadar, Tel
Rehov) (Gilboa and Sharon 2003: 68–72) but not in Philistia.

34A possible exception to this statement is “Canaanite” jars in
LC IIC–IIIA contexts at Maa-Palaeokastro, which, by fabric
analysis, were suggested (with reservations) to originate in south-
ern Palestine (Jones and Vaughan 1988: 390). These authors ac-
knowledged the fact that comparative data from the southern
Levant at their disposal were extremely scarce. It thus seems that
their conclusions must await further corroboration.

35As are collared-rim jars. The question whether at this stage
the Syrian coast too was part of this commercial sphere deserves
a separate consideration (see, for example, Caubet 1992: 127, 130;
Mazzoni 2000: 34).



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 63

The second significant divergence between Philis-
tia and the regions north of the Yarkon River is the
lack of the “local Myc IIIC”/PhB phenomena in the
latter. No such phenomena can be associated with
the postulated SKL and SHRDN domains. If one
seeks “Sea People traits” along the northern coast
other than pottery, the following picture emerges:
at Tel Dor (only) the following items were found,
which are indeed similar to finds in Philistia: incised
scapulae, two bone handles of bimetallic knives, a
lioness-shaped cup, and an anthropomorphic juglet
resembling one found at Tell Qasile (Stern 2000b:
198–203). These were taken by Stern and others to
exemplify the Sea People nature of the SKL inhabi-
tants of Dor. (For specific comments on all these items
at Dor, see Sharon and Gilboa in press; some of them
originate at Dor in contexts that are stratigraphically
later than the big destruction, and thus are associ-
ated with Stern’s “Phoenician” sequence and not the
“Sikilian” one.) However, it is well established that
Philistia’s material culture in the Early Iron Age, in-
cluding that associated with ritual, was composed
chiefly of objects of local, Canaanite derivation (see
lately A. Mazar 2000). Thus, the fact that an item
may be found in Philistia is definitely not synony-
mous with a conclusion that it embodies some alien
introduction or practice. Some objects (such as the
zoomorphic cup) may equally be explained by pre-
vailing local traditions, whereas others (such as the
bimetallic knives) probably attest to trade, most prob-
ably with Cyprus, as suggested by S. Sherratt (1994;
for bimetallic knives in Greece and Crete, see Hoff-
man 2000: 102–5 with references). The significance
of these items can only be evaluated when viewed,
for each and every region, in the framework of the
local context (for Philistia, see n. 4).

How, then, is this difference to be interpreted?
Does this mean that the arrival of new populations
can be traced only (roughly) south of the Yarkon
River, excluding the postulated SKL and SHRDN
domains?

As attested by ample examples, both in the ar-
chaeological and anthropological literature, more
often than not migrating peoples or individuals do
not transfer all components of their material culture
to their new homelands (e.g., references in Schwartz
1970: 183; contra, for example, Hill 1978: 246; Sher-
ratt 1998: 298), and sometimes they bring none at all.
Cases in point are, for example, the Ngoni and Sotho
movements into south-central Africa in the early
19th century c.e. Though the two groups had quite a

similar history of migration/settlement, the pattern of
change in their new homelands was different. In the
area settled by the Ngoni, a significant change was
observed in settlement organization, but their tradi-
tional pottery was not introduced to the region. The
Sotho, on the other hand, brought about a conspicu-
ous change in ceramics (Collett 1987). The selection,
inter alia, depends on the symbolism that various as-
pects of material culture convey to its bearers (or
the lack thereof).36 In Philistia (or at least in certain
parts of it), the very fact that a new population in-
flux in the Early Iron Age is recognizable is chiefly
due the “local Myc IIIC” pottery phenomenon ac-
companying their settlement but is corroborated to-
day by a variety of other material media. This simple
fact demonstrates that pottery, comprising mostly
tableware, played an important role in maintaining
and advertising the newcomers’ group identity, and
in this case, ethnicity as well, conveying very spe-
cific and meaningful messages to its producers and to
(most of?) its users and their surroundings. The pro-
duction of this pottery and its costly decoration must
also have required a complex mechanism (ethno-
graphical observations indicate that the decoration
of hand-painted pots amounts to 20 to 30 percent of
the total time invested in their production; see, e.g.,
DeBoer 1991: 144 and references).

The same symbolic intent and function should
be read into the subsequent PhB pottery as well,
though at this stage the identity negotiated by the
pottery may have been quite different from that of
the “local Myc IIIC” (for an elaboration on all these
issues, see Gilboa, Cohen-Weinberger, and Goren in
press). These wares were not part of the symbolic
expressions along the Levantine coastal stretch north
of the Yarkon River. Moreover, regarding PhB, so-
cial dialectics seem to have instigated a purposeful
rejection.

But here is where we must consider the “northern
skyphoi.” As a phenomenon these crude, mostly lo-
cally produced drinking vessels, surely of “western”
stylistic derivation, cannot be explained away as
trade items or as a replacement of a no-longer-avail-
able imported commodity. It is also hard to perceive

36Additional instances of selective transference of material
culture traits during migrations are surveyed in Burmeister 2000.
Cf. Yasur-Landau (2002: 33), who suggested that only a change in
several behavioral patterns can be considered evidence for migra-
tion. For the difference in stylistic behavior between migrating in-
dividuals and small groups and mass migrations, see also Roe
1995: 51.



64 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

them as some sudden emulation of overseas custom.
They embody the introduction of (feasting?) habits
and their associated paraphernalia, which were not
there before. It seems very likely that the (few)
“imported Myc IIIC” and PhB skyphoi found in
early Iron Age Phoenicia, like those of ºAkko, were
meant to satisfy the same habit.37 To my mind, then,
these skyphoi provide a clear hint that some foreign
population should also be sought north of the Phil-
istine coast.38 This interpretation is strengthened by
the local “Wavy-Band pithoi” production and by the
other manifestations of Cypriot concepts in the local
pottery production.

So, how should this difference—a variegated and
abundant “western” ceramic repertoire south of the
Yarkon, vs. skyphoi and a few other Cypriot-derived
pots (revealing totally different modes of production)
to its north—be understood? A schematic solution—
and, moreover, one that complies with the prevail-
ing concept regarding the Sea People—would be to
state that indeed this difference stems from the dif-
ferent origin/ethnicity of the various Sea People con-
tingents. That is, the introduction of local Myc IIIC
and later PhB (alongside other new material compo-
nents evident in the south) is indeed to be equated
with the Philistines alone, while the ceramic input
of the SHRDN and SKL was different, comprising
crude skyphoi, “Wavy-Band pithoi,” and some other
Cypriot-derived decorative patterns recognizable on
some flasks, jars, and occasionally other pots. Such
an approach, however, would miss the point entirely,
because it has no explanatory potential (why, then,
after all, are the ceramic assemblages of all these “in-
vaders” so different in their composition?) and be-
cause it does not address the crucial issue: what were
the functions of all these “special” groups of pottery.

The answer may be sought in the number of the
people involved and, even more so, in the social and
economic matrix into which they were absorbed. The
differences in the extent and selection of foreign
material media that migrants elect to reproduce in
their new surroundings is dictated by the sort of so-
cial discourse they choose to implement, either vis-

à-vis their surroundings or among themselves (or,
oftentimes, both).

If indeed one accepts that the disintegration of
the Late Bronze Age systems involved, inter alia,
population movements, surely of various composi-
tions and scales and driven by diverse motivations,
the following nuances may be traced along the
Levantine coastal stretch surveyed in this paper: On
the southern part of the coast (“Philistia”), the popu-
lation of newcomers was large enough to transplant
at least part of its ceramic habits in the new sur-
roundings, establish the suitable production appara-
tus, and maintain such a production for about two
centuries. But perhaps quantities are not the crucial
factor here, and more emphasis should be put on sta-
tus—social and perhaps political. Several scholars
have suggested that the newcomers to Philistia quite
rapidly achieved high status and formed at least part
of the region’s elite (A. Mazar 1985b: 106; Bunimo-
vitz 1990: 212; Stone 1995: 7, among others). The
bold assertion of their foreignness, exemplified to
date mainly by their conspicuously foreign-looking
pottery, provides important corroboration to these
notions. This situation in Philistia must be investi-
gated in the context of the disintegration of the Egyp-
tian political, social, and economic framework in the
early to mid-12th century b.c.e., probably affecting
chiefly the elites of southern Canaan (Sharon 2001:
600–601; Gilboa, Cohen-Weinberger, and Goren in
press).39

In contrast, the newcomers on the northern part
of the coast seem to have faced a more stable social
realia, and possibly were less numerous. Whether
we are dealing here with just families or some larger
lineal or other social groups—perhaps people of very
specific trades, like the pitharades—cannot yet be
determined. These people never established the sort
of production evidenced in Philistia. There may have
been many reasons. Perhaps being a smaller fragment
of the population and not of elevated status, conspic-
uous foreign practices may have been deemed in-
advisable or maladaptive; or perhaps the production
mechanism was too complex, or there were just not
enough potters among them skilled to the task. Ce-
ramically, then, they were satisfied mainly with the
production of (usually quite crude) drinking vessels,
in less specialized production modes, and also ac-

37And, as attested at Sarepta, it is quite plausible that the sky-
phoi phenomenon already starts, at least in some places, at the
close of the Late Bronze Age.

38Space does not permit me to deal with other possible regions
in the Levant in which similar “skyphoi phenomena” may be
traced. One such region is Syria—for example, at Tell Afis and the
Amuq sites (see Bonatz 1998; Pedrazzi 2002, esp. 35–36 and ref-
erences, fig. 23).

39On social aspects of Canaanites under Egyptian rule, de-
duced from the archaeological evidence, see lately Higginbotham
2000; Steel 2002.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 65

quired some in neighboring regions and overseas. A
very restricted production of other traditional vessels,
chiefly containers, is also attested. Especially note-
worthy is the association, embodied on the flasks and
on some jars, between Cypriot decorative vocabulary
and commercial containers. This association is even
more evocative in the later early Iron Age.

This scenario does not explain the different fates
of the coastal areas roughly north and south of the
Yarkon. Above, a suggestion was offered that the so-
cial factors resulting from Egypt’s withdrawal may
prove instrumental in explaining these phenomena.
Likewise, another phenomenon that needs to be ac-
counted for is the significant growth of the town at
Dor, starting, on present evidence, in the early Ir1a
horizon.40

As regards the place of origin of the newcomers
to the northern coast, it seems that it should not be
sought farther away than Cyprus, where, during late
LC IIIA and LC IIIB, the well-documented disar-
ticulation of the Bronze Age social and demo-
graphic fabric probably also resulted in emigrations
to the nearby thriving coast. In this context, it seems
reasonable to trace the “skyphoi phenomenon” to
Cyprus.41

The Ir1a|b Transition and 1r1b

In all the regions discussed here, no transforma-
tion of the ceramic culture is evident. As in the ear-
lier Ir1a horizons, both the Carmel coast and the
ºAkko Plain cluster with regions to their north and
east, the Lebanese coast and Israel’s northern valleys
(see, for example, the comparative tables in Gilboa
and Sharon 2003). In Philistia, for example at Tell
Qasile X,42 a significant change in the method of
decoration now occurs—red slip and burnish, often

further elaborated by the addition of black paint, be-
comes the preferred method of decoration, gradually
replacing the traditional PhB designs (for example,
A. Mazar 1985a: tables 6–7 on p. 86). But though
methods of decoration changed, their functions did
not. Tablewares, including many open shapes, were
the main medium on which this new decoration was
employed—as it was in the earlier “Myc IIIC” and
PhB phases (for the meanings of this change, accul-
turation as opposed to assimilation, see Stone 1995).

Nothing like this happens in Phoenicia (the Car-
mel coast and ºAkko Plain included), perhaps con-
trary to mistaken impressions that the origin of red
slip is to be associated with Phoenicia. There, red
slip in general, and especially on open shapes, re-
mains a rarity until Iron Age IIA (and even then is
much less common than in other regions),43 and most
tablewares are still considered as undeserving of dec-
oration. As before, whenever a decorative input is
attested on pottery, it has a different function and in-
tent. In Phoenicia, then, significant change regarding
ceramic production and decoration involves only the
gradual elaboration of commercial containers—for
which an economic explanation must be offered. As
in the Ir1a horizon, but more compellingly now, a
link is embodied in the Phoenician context among
commercial enterprise, trade relations with Cyprus,
and Cypriot decorative concepts. This indicates some
measure of involvement by Cypriots, residing on the
Phoenician coast, in these commercial endeavors and
in at least part of their infrastructure. This contact
is further corroborated by the occurrence of Cypriot
tablewares at Tyre and Dor.

Phoenician exports to Cyprus continue to follow
the same pattern as before—involving only jars and
small containers—but they are now much better at-
tested. Whether this reflects an intensification of
exports or is the result of our better acquaintance
with early CG I assemblages (especially at Skales),
as opposed to LC IIIB ones, is difficult to tell. This,
then, is the economic process for which the term
“Cypro-Phoenician” is appropriate.

A glimpse at the later fortunes of the Phoenician
Bichrome style is also instructive here. The situation
whereby this decorative scheme is employed solely
on containers is about to change. Gradually, in the
Ir1|2 and Ir2a horizons and much more so later on,
the “Phoenician Bichrome syntax” spread to other

40It would be a mistake, however, to attribute uncritically any
urban growth along the Early Iron Age Canaanite coast to the Sea
Peoples’ “urban imposition” (a term coined by L. Stager [1995:
346]). Such a significant growth has indeed been demonstrated for
Tell Miqne-ºEkron and possibly Ashkelon (and not for Ashdod),
but is manifested, for example, also in Beirut.

41Another possible place of origin to which we should address
our attention in this context is coastal Syria. If indeed it turns out
that the late 13th/early 12th century b.c.e disruptions in this re-
gion were as detrimental as seems the case on present evidence,
and that significant revival is not attested until Iron Age II, this
would have far-reaching implications for other parts of the eastern
Mediterranean coast, especially Phoenicia.

42And somewhat earlier: see A. Mazar 1998 contra Holladay
1990.

43For Sarepta, for example, see Anderson 1988: 393, tables 21,
37; for Tyre, see Bikai 1978; table 1 on p. 19.



66 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

vessels, which were definitely not commercial con-
tainers, and in the late Iron Age it became prolific on
funerary containers in Phoenicia and Phoenician
communities overseas (see Gilboa 1999a). In these
later stages, then, the “Phoenician commercial trade-
mark” assumed additional functions and symbolic
meanings, to use familiar Binfordian terms—it spread
from the technomic realm to the sociotechnic. The
commercial activities embodied by the Bichrome
containers now became part of an asserted con-
sciousness or identity.44

A possible explanation for this phenomenon is
that those individuals (Cypriots on the Phoenician
coast)—who, on the one hand, did not form part of
its traditional economic composition and, on the
other, originated in a milieu with a well-established
tradition of non-institutionalized overseas ventures,
dating back to the Late Bronze Age (Sherratt 1994:
67; Artzy 1997)—were economically more flexible,
were certainly more aware of regional opportunities,
and possibly did not have that much choice.

As a parallel situation one may cite F. Hole’s ob-
servations regarding the socioeconomic structure in
Deh Luran, Iran, in the 20th century c.e. There, new-
comers explore avenues of subsistence other than the
prevailing traditional one—agriculture, as they do
not own land—and gradually are becoming econom-
ically powerful. His suggestions are worth quoting,
as they almost seem to describe the processes dis-
cernible in Early Iron Age Phoenicia: “I would argue
that the motivation for some entrepreneurial activity
thus lies in the scarcity of landed resources, which
forces some persons out of the traditional livelihood,
and in political situations which introduce ‘outsiders’
into a system in which they have no traditional rights
. . . entrepreneurial activity (which may eventually
develop wide ramifications) is an effective solution
to the dilemma of survival” (Hole 1974: 153).45

synthesis

When all is said, ceramics suggest the existence
of two different cultural patterns, roughly south and

north of the Yarkon River. In the south, in the 12th
century b.c.e., a new population may be traced to
whom the traditional, highly decorated tableware car-
ried a crucial symbolic significance, probably in main-
taining and expressing group identity and status—an
emblemic style (e.g., Wiessner 1990: 107–8). This is
the so-called local Myc IIIIC or Philistine Mono-
chrome ware, which later undergoes various permu-
tations. In the north, Cypriots (and possibly refugees
from the Syrian coast?), possibly less numerous and
surely of less elevated social status, are in evidence
starting in the 12th century, but mainly from the 11th
century and later. In contrast to the south, this appar-
ently was not a unidirectional flow, but the situation
in Cyprus is not discussed here. Nearly all the early
Iron Age decorated groups in Phoenicia are stylisti-
cally linked one way or the other with Cyprus, but in
total contrast to the south, the motivation for adorn-
ing them was economic/commercial. In the early
Iron Age, hardly any pottery of emblemic properties,
comparable with that in Philistia, is in evidence in
the north. Crudely put, as regards ceramic ornamen-
tation, the people in the south invested in group iden-
tity and prestige, and the northerners, in business.

Scholars who recognize that the Late Bronze/
early Iron Age upheavals around the Mediterranean
involved significant population dislocations must con-
sider the complexity of this process. For one thing, it
was certainly a lengthier process than is usually en-
visioned (perhaps more in keeping with D. Anthony’s
“chain migration” model [1997: 26–27]). But above
all, regarding the southern Levantine littoral, the
“three bridgeheads” model—the notion of Philis-
tines, SKL, and SHRDN as discrete ethnic groups,
each settling on a discrete part of the coast, implying
per force some wondrous coordination of the Sea
Peoples’ Joint Chiefs of Staff—must be abandoned
(see similarly Liverani 1995: 50).46 The Canaanite
coast (and very likely not only the coast) witnessed
the arrival of various populations, of various scopes,
from various regions, for a plethora of reasons and
goals, which surely intermingled (similarly Brug
1985: 201–5; Artzy 1997; 1998; Barako 2000: 526;
Sharon 2001: 601). The likely origin of the newcom-
ers at Dor and at other regions in the north is Cyprus;
but very plausibly, at least part of the new population
in Philistia was of the very same stock (contra, for

44Concurrently, Cypriot tablewares continue to be prolific at
Dor and at Tyre (Gilboa 1999b: 123–26).

45For similar observations concerning traditional communities
in the Guatemalan highlands, see Reina and Hill 1978: 19. Like-
wise, Champion (1986) assigns entrepreneurial activity bringing
social change in Iron Age Europe to elements from outside the
local elites.

46For a totally opposite view, see lately D. O’Connor 2000:
e.g., 97, 99. He also suggests that the leader of the Sea People con-
federation may be identified in the Medinet Habu reliefs.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 67

example, Redford’s [1992: 292 and n. 39] “ethnic
bifurcation” between Philistia and the north).

The Philistine vs. SKL/Phoenician dichotomy as
outlined here, though certainly instrumental as a
heuristic construct, is surely also a crude oversimpli-
fication of an infinitely more complex realia. But it
probably brings us somewhat closer to elucidating
how it actually was. As has been lately done regard-
ing the crystallizations of other Iron Age entities in
this region, it would be beneficial if we pay more
attention to their specific, local contexts.

Regarding the Carmel coast and ºAkko Plain, I
would thus reject the model suggested by Stern of
“Phoenicians conquering Sea Peoples,” and also the
concomitant reconstruction of Phoenician military
conquests as the mechanism underlying early Iron
Age Phoenician commercial ventures, as advocated
by Aubet. “Sea People” and Phoenicians at Dor and
at other “northern” sites cannot be ethnically segre-
gated. These designations, at most, may be used to
define different stages in the social and economic
milieu and concomitant group awareness of the in-
habitants of the northern coast. In addition to the
local Canaanites, Cypriots residing on the Phoeni-
cian coast formed an important component in this
context, as did continuous and multifaceted contacts
with Cyprus.

So what did the Egyptians have in mind when
they wrote SKL? Based on the preceding analysis,
it seems that they were referring to the mixed, but
largely autochthonous population of the Phoenician
coast.47 This, of course, poses a problem for the gen-
eral “foreign” association offered for this term in the
Egyptian records.48 But an investigation of the Egyp-
tian records is definitely not the issue here. Rather,
the archaeological analysis should be taken into con-

sideration when conducting such an inquiry. Regard-
ing the SKL, a “local coastal” character for them has
been suggested, for example, by H. Goedicke, who
concluded that the term SKL was a geographical one,
i.e., designating “people within a country specified,”
referring “[not to a] migratory people, but rather to
an established defined political realm” (Goedicke
1975: 176, also 180, 184, n. 4), and also, based on the
Wenamun papyrus, that “Zeker [SKL] as a geograph-
ical term refers to the area dominated by the merchant
cities and should be taken as a self-designation of
what later became denoted as Phoenicia (Goedicke
1975: 182–83; similarly Bikai 1992: 135–36; Drews
1993: 53).49

alternative suggestions:

“sea people” ceramics as an

economic phenomenon and

philistine maritime dominance?

The main alternative explanation suggested thus
far for the appearance of “Aegean/Cypriot-derived”
ceramics on the coast of the southern Levant must
now be considered. In a series of papers, Susan Sher-
ratt (1998; also 2003; A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt 1991;
S. Sherratt and A. Sherratt 1993) promoted a model
of the Sea People as a structural, socioeconomic phe-
nomenon (that may also have been accompanied by
population movements, but not necessarily so). This
well-articulated and extremely elegant formulation,
which furthermore is very much in keeping with still
prevailing anti-diffusionist attitudes, has proved very
influential (for example, Bauer 1998; Dessel 2000):
Second-millennium overseas trade, which was largely
a state-administered, elite-controlled business, was
engaged mainly with prime value commodities, and
with added-value (“prestige”) products, such as metal
objects and textiles. In the “interstices” (Sherratt’s
term) of this highly organized and tightly controlled
system, enterprises of a different sort emerged: trans-
actions of a “private” nature, carried out by the offi-
cial state merchants, seamen, and the like, leading
to the growth of an independent class of trades-
men. The products involved in this sort of trade were
chiefly non-elite in nature, primarily ones whose main

47An equation has been suggested between the SKL and the
Late Bronze Age Sikalayu of Ugarit (RS 34.129). They are de-
scribed there as living on boats but, by the determinative accom-
panying their name, were possibly associated with a specific
territory (Dietrich and Loretz 1978; G. A. Lehmann 1979; Rainey
1982: 134; Drews 1993: 52, n. 13; Hoftijzer and Van Soldt 1998:
343). There is another, even earlier possible occurrence of this
ethnicon in the Late Bronze Age. Tkr, possibly to be identified
with SKL, were listed by Thutmosis III at Karnak (Gardiner 1947:
200*; see Scheepers 1991: 72 and nn. 392–94; Vandersleyen
1985: 52 and references).

48Associated with Teucrians and the Troad, Sagalessos, the
Homeric Sikeloi and Sicily, Zakro in Crete (and more), e.g.,
Scheepers 1991: 72 and n. 358. For the SHRDN, mentioned in the
Levant in the Late Bronze Age much more than in the Iron Age,
see, e.g., Loretz 1995 and Appendix there by J. Kahl.

49For other denials of “western” associations of the SKL, see
Scheepers 1991: 73, nn. 403–8. But similar suggestions were ex-
pressed, of course, regarding other “Sea Peoples” as well—for
example, Brug 1985: 20.



68 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

worth was added value (such as attractive pottery),
the circulation of which was not controlled by the
elites/authorities. As the raw materials for these
goods are available over extensive regions, they are
dangerously imitation-prone. Concomitantly, a mar-
ket for sub-elite commodities emerged and was ac-
tively maintained by these traders. Inter alia, mass-
produced pottery of both traditional and Aegean
shapes, especially in the coastal urban centers of Cy-
prus, was intended to keep the mechanism going; it
was marketed far and wide, and gradually, along with
other industries (such as utilitarian iron), became the
basis for the economic and political powers of these
coastal centers. The mass-produced “Aegean” pot-
tery, and other facets of these new production modes,
are the symptoms conventionally taken as evidence
of a western imposition on the island—the “Sea Peo-
ple phenomenon.” In the 12th century, the coastal
urban centers of the southern Levant (“. . . of the
Philistine strip, of the area around the Bay of Acco,
and of the coast at least as far up as Ras Ibn Hani”
[Sherratt 1998: 302]) are envisioned as part of the
same industrial and economic process, i.e., produc-
ing Aegean-type pottery (according to Sherratt, a
Cypriot version of it) as an import substitution and
not as some expression of group affiliation. Thus
the arrival at the shores of the southern Levant of a
new population in any substantial numbers, accord-
ing to Sherratt, is an illusion, as it is on Cyprus.50

According to Sherratt, this political and economic
structure is the one that, in the Iron Age, we came to
define as Phoenician. Based on this model, Bauer
(1998: 162), emphasizing the “strong Sea People link
of Tell Abu Hawam, Tell Keisan, and Dor,” wrote: “If
we consider that the Phoenicians emerge as maritime
traders in the eleventh century, and the ‘Sea Peoples/
Philistines’ are the same in the twelfth century—
taken together with the archaeological evidence that
some of the earliest examples of Phoenician or

Cypro-Phoenician pottery appear at sites that are
either ‘Philistine’ or related to ‘Sea Peoples’—we
may reasonably conclude that they are both function-
ing within the same structure of interconnections.”

Regarding the situation on the eastern shore of the
Mediterranean, I would take issue with Sherratt’s
suggestions, on three major points: (1) It treats the
entire coast as one entity, with not enough resolution
to detect subphenomena within it;51 (2) it does not
pay enough attention to quantitative aspects; and (3)
it is, to my taste, too materialistic; symbolic mean-
ing, which always mediates between objects, their
producers and users, is ignored.52

As must be evident from the foregoing discussion,
the “western pottery phenomenon” along the Levan-
tine coast is not a monolithic one, and for a very long
stretch of it, from the environs of the coast of the
Sharon to Ras Ibn Hani, the “Sea People pottery phe-
nomenon,” as defined by Sherratt, is practically non-
existent. This fact alone suffices to undermine her
reconstruction. If indeed “local Myc IIIC” and en-
suing PhB were manufactured locally as import
substitutes, purchased by any Canaanite who could
afford to do so (Drews 1998: 45), why are they miss-
ing (in any meaningful quantities) from thriving
early Iron Age centers such as Dor, Tell Abu Hawam,
Tell Keisan, Tyre, and Sarepta, and for that matter, in
any meaningful extent, from inland sites such as
Megiddo, Kinneret, and many more (similarly Ba-
rako 2000: 524)? Residents at these sites indeed
consumed both Cypriot and “Mycenaean” pottery in
the Late Bronze Age (cf. Barako 2000: fig. 2). Was
the need for a substitute, once the imports were no
longer available or cheaper and more accessible “imi-
tations” were circulating nearby, not felt in these
towns?

Also, the association suggested by Sherratt, be-
tween the “western-style ceramic phenomenon” and
Phoenician mercantile activities as parts of a con-
tinuum of an economic (primarily mercantile) and
political transformation, must be modified. The two,
geographically, simply do not overlap. As far as may
be deduced from present data, Philistia’s overseas

50Similarly, Brug (e.g., 1985: 135) explains the Aegean-
derived pottery in Philistia as “a result of the creative recombina-
tion of various ceramic ideas available to them by a potter or
group of potters . . . ,” an industry of luxury ware, intended to re-
place the luxurious imported Mycenaean pottery that was no
longer available (likewise Bunimovitz 1990: 212–13). Implicitly,
this is also the main line of thought dictating I. Finkelstein’s “low
chronology” for both Myc IIIC and Philistine Bichrome (e.g.,
Finkelstein 1998). If all contemporaneous inhabitants of the re-
gion are expected to have used this pottery, the concomitant con-
clusion is that Iron Age I levels that lack them must predate both
these pottery groups.

51Indeed, in a forthcoming paper, Sherratt (personal commu-
nication) emphasizes the fact that the “big picture” she outlined
will have to be broken down into localized phenomena, dependent
on differing economic and sociopolitical circumstances.

52For a consideration of symbolic factors in Mediterranean
trade of these periods, see, for example, Melas 1991: 389, 393,
395.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 69

commercial contacts throughout the early Iron Age
are extremely scant, even with Cyprus; no LC IIIA
ceramics have been identified there (but possibly
[surely few] such instances were obscured by the
large “Aegeanized” local assemblages), and only very
few LC IIIB and Cypro-Geometric pots account for
later commercial contacts (see Gilboa 1989; 1999b:
120–23). Philistine products overseas are unattested,
with the possible exception of the LC IIC–IIIA “Ca-
naanite” jars at Maa (see n. 34);53 and none are
known from the later early Iron Age (see also Barako
2000: 516). (For other critiques of Sherratt’s model,
see mainly Barako 2000; also Sharon 2001: 593–94;
T. Dothan and Zukerman 2003: 51, n. 46.) Even
within the Levant, the Philistine “Myc IIIC” hardly
left the sites in which it was produced. In fact, as
has been demonstrated in this paper, these two phe-
nomena—the “Sea People pottery phenomenon” (or
rather, the Philistine version thereof) on the one
hand and clear evidence for maritime commercial
enterprise in the early Iron Age on the other—are
practically mutually exclusive. As an explanation
for the occurrence of “Philistine” pottery groups on
the Levantine coast, Sherratt’s suggestions cannot be
upheld.

Likewise, it is time to deconstruct another concept.
Notions of extensive Philistine maritime activity (in-
cluding piracy)—to the point of envisioning a Philis-
tine maritime empire or thalassocracy in the early Iron
Age, until their defeat ca. 975 by an Israelite–Tyrian
coalition—are still widespread, having first explicitly
been formulated by Albright (e.g., 1975: 515, 525).
Aubet (1993: 21, 25, 26) asserted that “the Philistine
fleet blockaded the main ports and reduced the possi-
bility of an immediate naval and mercantile recovery
between 1050 and 975 b.c.e. . . . Between the years
1050 and 975 b.c.e. the Philistines and other groups
of pirates issuing from the incursions of the so-called
‘Sea Peoples,’ controlled all the coast between Gaza
in the south and the territory of Mount Carmel and
Tyre in the north, from time to time hampering ship-
ping as far as Sidon itself. . . . In Wen Amun’s account
the Phoenician coast appears to be dominated by the
Tjekker pirates” (similarly Stager 1995: 345).

These convictions are mostly deduced from the
maritime power of the SKL (the Philistines’ “kins-

people”)—as manifested in the Wenamun report.54

As in my mind, the Dor-based maritime activities of
the SKL embody the “Phoenician” realia and have
nothing to do with Philistia; and in light of the ar-
chaeological evidence presented here, I propose to
reject these views. It would certainly be simplistic
(and wrong) to claim that no “Philistine” vessel left
the shore, say, of Ashkelon in a westerly (or any other)
destination,55 but to date there is clear evidence for a
Phoenician maritime phenomenon; regarding Philis-
tia, evidence for a comparable phenomenon has yet
to be presented, not to mention a Philistine maritime
empire hampering Phoenicia’s (and others’) overseas
ventures.56

concluding remarks

To a certain extent, then, parts of the model of-
fered by Sherratt are indeed convincing. While this
paper rejected the model as an explanation for the
“Sea People ceramic phenomenon” in Philistia, and
also the notion that any substantive overseas enter-
prises can be attributed at present to that region in
the early Iron Age, Sherratt’s suggestions are defi-
nitely compatible with the more northerly parts of
the Canaanite coast. There, newcomers, chiefly from
Cyprus, had a decisive role in early Iron Age mer-
cantile activity. The suggestion that this period also
witnessed a gradual transition from largely adminis-
tered to largely entrepreneurial trade (above and,
e.g., A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt 1991: 376; also
Artzy 1998: 445) may also be applicable, if only for
part of the Levantine coast (the “Phoenician” part of
it), but definitely begs for further research. The need
to promote the marketing of Phoenician containers,

53S. Sherratt (1998: 305) suggests that textiles may have been
exchanged between Cyprus and Philistia and also views the bime-
tallic knives primarily as objects of trade.

54Cf. Markoe 2000: 25; Knauf 2001: 15, n. 4. On the other
hand, Dothan and Dothan (1992: 125) expressed their second
thoughts regarding the maritime character of the Philistines.

55In addition to the few possible attestations of artifacts ex-
changed between Cyprus and Philistia, whether directly or indi-
rectly, direct contacts (but not commercial ones) are attested by
parallel stylistic developments of the “Myc IIIC” assemblages
(S. Sherratt 2003: 46; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004). Philistine
iconography includes two known examples of ships (on pottery;
Wachsmann 2000: fig. 6.29; T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: fig.
35:10).

56For some scholars, the idea that Phoenician maritime activ-
ity was dormant until its “delivery” from Philistine rule of the seas
by David, formed the very basis of dating the beginning of Phoe-
nician long-range mercantile activity (e.g., Aubet 1993: 170–72;
Markoe 2000: 35; other scholars are cited in Ehrlich 1996: 34,
n. 64).



70 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

evidenced by the outstanding effort invested in their
embellishment and unattested on any other compo-
nent of the early Phoenician ceramic complex, may
indeed hint at such a transition. Philistia was ex-
cluded from this complex and ongoing formation of

economic bonds with Cyprus. The various groups of
Philistine pottery are part of a related, but signifi-
cantly different story.

I wish to express my gratitude to Ephraim Stern, the di-
rector of the last two decades of excavations at Dor and the
instructor of my Ph.D. dissertation, in the framework of
which many of the ideas expressed here were formulated;
and to Ilan Sharon, my codirector at the Tel Dor excava-
tions, for continuous support and numerous insights. This
research has been funded by two grants of the Israel Sci-
ence Foundation of the Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities: no. 812/97 awarded to Sharon and myself;
and no. 778/00 awarded to Sharon, Elisabetta Boaretto,

head of the 14C laboratory at Weizmann Institute, and my-
self; and by a doctoral grant from the Memorial Founda-
tion of Jewish Culture in New York. Amihai Mazar and
Susan Sherratt kindly sent me drafts of unpublished pa-
pers, Maria Eugenia Aubet discussed with me aspects of
Phoenician expansion, and Marius Burdajewicz allowed
me to use data from his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation on
Tell Keisan. Svetlana Matskevitch and Talia Goldman from
the Hebrew University took care of the graphics. The Tel
Dor pottery was drawn by Vered Rosen.

acknowledgments

references

Aharoni, Y.
1979 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography,

ed. A. F. Rainey. 2nd ed. rev. and enl. London:
Burns and Oates.

Albright, W. F.
1975 Syria, the Philistines and Phoenicia. Pp. 507–36

in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 2, Part
2: The Middle East and the Aegean Region, c.
1380–1000 bc, eds. I. E. S Edwards, C. J. Gadd,
N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger. 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Anderson, W. P.
1988 Sarepta I: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata

of Area II, Y. Publications de l’Université liba-
naise, Section des études archéoloqiques 2.
Beirut: Université libanaise.

Anthony, D.
1997 Prehistoric Migration as Social Process. Pp.

21–32 in Migrations and Invasions in Archae-
ological Explanation, eds. J. Chapman and
H. Hamerow. BAR International Series 664.
Oxford: Archaeopress.

Artzy, M.
1995 Nami: A Second Millennium International

Maritime Trading Center in the Mediterranean.
Pp. 17–40 in Recent Excavations in Israel, A
View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami,
Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon, ed. S. Gitin.

Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia
& Conference Papers 1. Dubuque, IA: Ken-
dall/Hunt.

1997 Nomads of the Sea. Pp. 1–16 in Res Maritimae:
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from
Prehistory to Late Antiquity, eds. S. Swiny,
R. L. Hohlfelder, and H. W. Swiny. American
Schools of Oriental Research, Archaeological
Report 4; Cyprus American Archaeological Re-
search Institute, Monograph Series 1. Atlanta:
Scholars.

1998 Routes, Trade, Boats and “Nomads of the Sea.”
Pp. 439–48 in Mediterranean Peoples in Tran-
sition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries
bce: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds.
S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.

Aston, D. A.
1996 Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and

Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth–Seventh
Centuries bc): Tentative Footsteps in a For-
bidding Terrain. Studien zur Archäologie und
Geschichte Altägyptens 13. Heidelberg: Heidel-
berger Orientverlag.

Åström, P.
1991 Canaanite Jars from Hala Sultan Tekke. Pp.

149–51 in Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterra-
nean: Papers Presented at the Conference held



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 71

at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989,
ed. N. H. Gale. Studies in Mediterranean Ar-
chaeology 90. Jonsered: Åström.

Aubet, M. E.
1993 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colo-

nies and Trade. Trans. M. Turton, from Span-
ish. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

2000 Aspects of Tyrian Trade and Colonization in the
Eastern Mediterranean. Münsterche Beiträge
zur antiken Handelgeschichte 19: 70–120.

Badre, L.
1997 Bey 003 Preliminary Report. Bulletin d’Arché-

ologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2: 6–94.
1998 Late Bronze and Iron Age Imported Pottery from

Urban Beirut. Pp. 73–86 in Eastern Mediterra-
nean – Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete 16th–6th
cent. b.c., eds. V. Karageorghis and N. Chr.
Stampolidis. Athens: University of Crete.

Baines, J.
1999 On Wenamun as a Literary Text. Pp. 209–33 in

Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und
ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagung
zum Gedenken an Georges Posener, 5.–10.
September 1996 in Leipzig, eds. J. Assmann
and E. Blumenthal. Bibliothèque d’étude 127.
Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Balensi, J.
1980 Les Fouilles de R. W. Hamilton à Tell Abu-

Hawam, Niveaux IV & V (1650–950 environs
av. J. C.). Ph.D. dissertation, Université des
Sciences Humaines, Strasbourg.

1981 Tell Keisan, Témoin Original de l’Apparition
du “Mycénien III C1a” au Proche-Orient. Re-
vue Biblique 88: 399–401.

1985 Revising Tell Abu Hawam. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 257:
65–74.

Balensi, J.; Herrera, M. D.; and Artzy, M.
1993 Abu Hawam, Tell. Pp. 7–14 in The New Ency-

clopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Barako, T. J.
2000 The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phe-

nomenon? American Journal of Archaeology
104: 513–30.

Bauer, A. A.
1998 Cities of the Sea: Maritime Trade and the Ori-

gin of Philistine Settlement in the Early Iron
Age Southern Levant. Oxford Journal of Ar-
chaeology 17: 149–68.

Baurain, C.
1986 Portées chronologique et géographique du terme

“Phénicien.” Pp. 7–28 in Religio Phoenicia, eds.
C. Bonnet, E. Lipinski, and P. Marchetti. Studia

Phoenicia 4; Collection d’études classiques 1.
Namur: Société des études classiques.

Bietak, M.
1993 The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyptian

Administration in Canaan. Pp. 292–306 in Bib-
lical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of
the Second International Congress on Biblical
Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, eds.
A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society.

Bikai, P. M.
1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and

Phillips.
1992 The Phoenicians. Pp. 132–41 in The Crisis

Years: The 12th Century b.c.: From Beyond
the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A. Ward and
M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Bonatz, D.
1998 Imported Pottery. Pp. 211–29 in Tell Afis

(Siria): Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992 = The
1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis, eds.
S. M. Cecchini and S. Mazzoni. Recerche di
archeologia del Vicino Oriente. Pisa: Edizioni
ETS.

Briend, J., and Humbert, J.-B.
1980 Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne

en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series
Archaeologica 1. Fribourg, Switzerland: Édi-
tions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse.

Brug, J. F.
1985 A Literary and Archaeological Study of the

Philistines. BAR International Series 265.
Oxford: B.A.R.

Bryce, T.
1998 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon.

Bunimovitz, S.
1990 Problems in the “Ethnic” Identification of the

Philistine Material Culture. Tel Aviv 17: 210–22.
Bunimovitz, S., and Yasur-Landau, A.

1996 Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative
Approach to the Question of Pots and People.
Tel Aviv 23: 88–101.

Burdajewicz, M.
1994 La céramique palestinienne du Fer I—La con-

tribution de Tell Keisan, site de la Galilée mar-
itime. Ph.D. dissertation, Warsaw University.

Burmeister, S.
2000 Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an

Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current
Anthropology 41: 539–67.

Catling, H. W.
1994 Cyprus in the 11th Century b.c.—An End or a

Beginning? Pp. 133–40 in Proceedings of the
International Symposium “Cyprus in the 11th
Century b.c.,” Nicosia, 30–31 October, 1993,



72 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

ed. V. Karageorghis. Nicosia: University of
Cyprus.

Caubet, A.
1992 Reoccupation of the Syrian Coast after the De-

struction of the “Crisis Years.” Pp. 123–31 in
The Crisis Years: The 12th Century b.c.: From
Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A.
Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.

Champion, T. C.
1986 Review of Farms, Villages and Cities, by P.

Wells. Man 21: 554.
Cohen-Weinberger, A., and Wolff, S. R.

2001 Production Centers of Collared-Rim Pithoi
from Sites in the Carmel Coast and Ramat
Menashe Regions. Pp. 639–57 in Studies in the
Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands
in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff.
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59;
ASOR Books 5. Chicago: Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago.

Collett, D.
1987 A Contribution to the Study of Migration in the

Archaeological Record: The Ngoni and Kololo
Migrations as a Case Study. Pp. 105–16 in Ar-
chaeology as Long-Term History, ed. I. Hodder.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Courtois, L.
1980 Examen pétrographique et caractérisation

matérielle de quelques céramiques de Tell
Keisan. Pp. 353–60 in Tell Keisan (1971–
1976): Une cité phénicienne en Galilée, by
J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Fribourg,
Switzerland: Editions Universitaires Fribourg
Suisse.

D’Agata, A.-L.; Goren, Y.; Mommsen, H.; Schwedt, A;
and Yasur-Landau, A.

2003 LH IIIC Imports in the Levant and the End
of the Late Bronze Age. Paper presented in
the Tenth International Conference: Emporia–
Aegean in the Eastern Mediterranean, Athens,
April 14th–18th, 2004.

DeBoer, W. R.
1991 The Decorative Burden: Design, Medium and

Change. Pp. 144–61 in Ceramic Ethnoarchae-
ology, ed. W. A. Longacre. Tucson: University
of Arizona.

Dessel, J. P.
2000 Review of Mediterranean Peoples in Transi-

tion, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries bce:
In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. S.
Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 318:
73–74.

Dever, W. G.
1992 The Late Bronze–Early Iron I Horizon in Syria-

Palestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, “Sea Peo-
ple,” and Proto-Israelites. Pp. 99–110 in The
Crisis Years: The 12th Century b.c.: From Be-
yond the Danube to the Tigris, eds. W. A.
Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.

Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O.
1978 Das ‘seefahrende Volk’ von Sikila (RS 34.129).

Ugarit-Forschungen 10: 53–56.
Dothan, M.

1989 Archaeological Evidence for the Movement
of the Early “Sea Peoples” in Canaan. Pp. 59–
70 in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies
in Iron Age Archaeology, eds. S. Gitin and
W. G. Dever. Annual of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 49. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.

Dothan, M., and Porath, Y.
1993 Ashdod V, Excavation of Area G: The Fourth–

Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968–1970. ºAtiqot
23. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dothan, T.
1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture.

New Haven: Yale University.
2003 The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions.

Pp. 189–213 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the
Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and
Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age
through Roman Palaestina, eds. W. G. Dever
and S. Gitin. Winona Lake: IN: Eisenbrauns.

Dothan, T., and Dothan, M.
1992 People of the Sea: The Search for the Philis-

tines. New York: Macmillan.
Dothan, T., and Zukerman, A.

2004 A Preliminary Study of the Myc IIIC:1 Pottery
Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ash-
dod. Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-
ental Research 333: 1–54.

Drews, R.
1993 The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in War-

fare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 b.c. Prince-
ton: Princeton University.

1998 Canaanites and Philistines. Journal for the
Society of the Old Testament 81: 39–61.

Edelman, D. V.
1992 Asher. Pp. 482–83 in The Anchor Bible Dictio-

nary, Vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York:
Doubleday.

Ehrlich, C.
1996 The Philistines in Transition: A History from

ca. 1000–730 b.c.e. Studies in the History and
Culture of the Ancient Near East 10. Leiden:
Brill.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 73

Elgavish, J.
1994 Shiqmona: On the Coast of Mount Carmel. Tel

Aviv: Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I.

1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An
Alternative View. Levant 28: 177–87.

1998 Philistine Chronology: High, Middle or Low?
Pp. 140–47 in Mediterranean Peoples in Tran-
sition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries
bce: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds.
S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.

Fischer, P. M.
1991 Canaanite Pottery from Hala Sultan Tekke:

Analysis with Secondary Ion Mass Spectrome-
try. Pp. 152–61 in Bronze Age Trade in the Med-
iterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference
held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December
1989, ed. N. H. Gale. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 90. Jonsered: Åström.

Frankel, R., and Getzov, N.
1997 Map of Akhziv (1), Map of Hanita (2). Jerusa-

lem: Israel Antiquities Authority (Hebrew and
English).

Gardiner, A. H.
1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Vol. 1. London:

Oxford University.
Gilboa, A.

1989 New Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of
Cypro-Geometric Pottery Import to Palestine.
Israel Exploration Journal 39: 204–18.

1998 Iron I–IIA Pottery Evolution at Dor—Regional
Contexts and the Cypriot Connection. Pp. 413–
25 in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,
Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries bce: In
Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, eds. S. Gitin,
A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society.

1999a The Dynamics of Phoenician Bichrome Pottery:
A View from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 316: 1–22.

1999b The View from the East—Tel Dor and the
Earliest Cypro-Geometric Exports to the Le-
vant. Pp. 119–39 in Cyprus: The Historicity
of the Geometric Horizon, eds. M. Iacovou
and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of
Cyprus.

2001a The Significance of Iron Age “Wavy-Band”
Pithoi along the Syro-Palestinian Littoral, with
Reference to the Tel Dor Pithoi. Pp. 163–73 in
Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neigh-
boring Lands in Memory of Douglass L. Esse,
ed. S. R. Wolff. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: Ori-
ental Institute of the University of Chicago.

2001b Southern Phoenicia during Iron I–IIA in the
Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evi-
dence of Pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem.

Gilboa, A.; Cohen-Weinberger, A.; and Goren, Y.
In press Philistine Bichrome Pottery: The View from

the Northern Canaanite Coast: Notes on Prove-
nience and Symbolic Properties. In “I Will
Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (Abiah
chidot minei-kedem—Ps. 78:2b): Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai
Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birth-
day, eds. A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gilboa, A., and Sharon, I.
2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early

Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative
Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects
on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research
332: 7–80.

Goedicke, H.
1975 The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore: John Hop-

kins University.
Grayson, A. K.

1976 Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Part 2: From
Tiglath-pileser I to Ashur-nasir-apli II. Rec-
ords of the Ancient Near East 2. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Hadjicosti, M.
1988 Canaanite Jars from Maa-Palaeokastro. Pp.

340–96 in Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro
1979–1986, by V. Karageorghis and M. Demas.
Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.

Heltzer, M.
1988 The Late Bronze Age Service System and Its

Decline. Pp. 7–18 in Society and Economy in
the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.):
Proceedings of the International Symposium
held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of
April to the 2nd of May 1985, eds. M. Heltzer
and E. Lipinski. Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
lecta 23. Leuven: Peeters.

Higginbotham, C. R.
2000 Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Rames-

side Palestine. Culture and History of the An-
cient Near East 2. Leiden: Brill.

Hill, J. N.
1978 Individuals and Their Artifacts: An Experimen-

tal Study in Archaeology. American Antiquity
43: 245–57.

Hodder, I.
1991 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to In-

terpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University.



74 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Hoffman, G. L.
2000 Imports and Immigrants: Near Eastern Con-

tacts with Iron Age Crete. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan.

Hoftijzer, J., and Van Soldt, W. H.
1998 Texts from Ugarit Pertaining to Seafaring. Pp.

333–44 in Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in
the Bronze Age Levant, by S. Wachsmann. Col-
lege Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

Hole, F.
1974 Comments on “Anthropological Perspectives

on Ancient Trade,” by R. McC. Adams. Current
Anthropology 15: 251.

Holladay, J. S.
1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway

at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 277/278: 23–70.

Humbert, J.-B.
1981 Récent travaux à Tell Keisan (1979–1980). Re-

vue Biblique 88: 373–98.
1988 Tell Keisan entre mer et montagne: L’archéol-

ogie entre text et context. Pp. 65–83 in Archéol-
ogie, art et histoire de la Palestine, ed. E.-M.
Laperrousaz. Paris: Cerf.

1993 Keisan, Tell. Pp. 862–67 in The New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land, Vol. 3, ed. E. Stern. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Iacovou, M.
1989 Society and Settlement in Late Cypriot III. Pp.

52–59 in Early Society in Cyprus, ed. E. Pelten-
burg. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

1994 The Topography of 11th Century b.c. Cyprus.
Pp. 149–65 in Proceedings of the International
Symposium “Cyprus in the 11th Century b.c.,”
Nicosia, 30–31 October, 1993, ed. V. Kara-
georghis. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Ilan, D.
1999 Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural,

Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives.
Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.

Jones, R. E., and Vaughan, S. J.
1988 A Study of Some “Canaanite” Jar Fragments

from Maa-Palaeokastro by Petrographic and
Chemical Analysis. Pp. 386–96 in Excavations
in Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–1986, by V. Kara-
georghis and M. Demas. 3 vols. Nicosia: De-
partment of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Katzenstein, H. J.
1973 The History of Tyre. Jerusalem: Shocken Insti-

tute for Jewish Research.
Keswani, P. S.

1993 Models of Local Exchange in Bronze Age
Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 292: 73–83.

Khalifeh, I. A.
1988 Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Pe-

riods of Area II, X. Publications de l’Université
libanaise, Section des études archéologiques 2.
Beirut: Université libanaise.

Killebrew, A. E.
2000 Aegean-Style Early Philistine Pottery in Ca-

naan during the Early Iron Age: A Stylistic
Analysis of Mycenaean IIIC:1b Pottery and
Its Associated Wares. Pp. 233–53 in The Sea
Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, ed.
E. D. Oren. University Museum Monograph
108; University Museum Symposium Series
11. Philadelphia: University Museum, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.

Kitchen, K. A.
2000 Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient

Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): The Historical
Chronology of Ancient Egypt, a Current As-
sessment. Pp. 39–52 in The Synchronisation of
Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in
the Second Millennium b.c.: Contributions to
the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean,
ed. M. Bietak. Denkschriften der Gesamtakad-
emie 19. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften.

Knapp, A. B.
1993 Social Complexity: Incipience, Emergence,

and Development on Prehistoric Cyprus. Bulle-
tin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 292: 85–106.

Knauf, E. A.
2001 Saul, David, and the Philistines: From Geogra-

phy to History. Biblische Notizen 109: 15–18.
Kochavi, M.

1993 Zeror, Tel. Pp. 1524–26 in The New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land, Vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Koehl, R. B.
1985 Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age

Wares from Area II, X. Publications de l’Uni-
versité libanaise, Section des études archéolo-
giques 2. Beirut: Université libanaise.

Lehmann, G.
2001 Phoenicians in Western Galilee: First Results

of an Archaeological Survey in the Hinterland
of Akko. Pp. 65–113 in Studies in the Archae-
ology of the Iron Age in Israel, ed. A. Mazar.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 31. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic.

Lehmann, G. A.
1979 Die Sikalaju: Ein neues Zeugnis zu den

“Seevölker”-Heerfahrten im späten 13 Jh. v.



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 75

Chr. (RS 34.129). Ugarit-Forschungen 11:
481–94.

Lemaire, A.
1991 Asher et le Royaume de Tyr. Pp. 135–52 in

Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the
Conference held at the University of Leuven on
the 15th and 16th of March 1990, ed. E. Lipin-
ski. Studia Phoenicia 11; Orientalia Lovanien-
sia Analecta 44. Leuven: Peeters.

Liverani, M.
1995 Le royaume d’Ougarit. Pp. 47–54 in Le pays

d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., eds. M. Yon,
M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil. Ras Shamra-
Ougarit 11. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.

Loretz, O.
1995 Les Serdanu et la fin d’Ougarit: A propos des

documents d’Égypte, de Byblos et d’Ougarit
relatifs aux Shardana. Pp. 125–36 in Le pays
d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., eds. M. Yon,
M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil. Ras Shamra-
Ougarit 11. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.

Machinist, P.
2000 Biblical Traditions: The Sea People and Is-

raelite History. Pp. 53–83 in The Sea Peoples
and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D.
Oren. University Museum Monograph 108;
University Museum Symposium Series 11.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.

Markoe, G. E.
2000 Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of Califor-

nia.
Mazar, A.

1985a Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two: The Phil-
istine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery,
Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusa-
lem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem.

1985b The Emergence of the Philistine Material Cul-
ture. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 95–107.

1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–
586 b.c.e. New York: Doubleday.

1994 The 11th Century b.c. in the Land of Israel. Pp.
39–57 in Proceedings of the International
Symposium “Cyprus in the 11th Century b.c.,”
Nicosia, 30–31 October, 1993, ed. V. Kara-
georghis. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

1998 On the Appearance of Red Slip in the Iron Age
I Period in Israel. Pp. 368–78 in Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries bce: In Honor of Professor Trude
Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2000 The Temples and Cult of the Philistines. Pp.
213–32 in The Sea Peoples and Their World:
A Reassessment, ed. E. D. Oren. University
Museum Monograph 108; University Museum
Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Mazar, B.
1967 The Philistines and the Rise of Israel and Tyre.

Pp. 1–22 in Proceedings of the Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1. Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Mazzoni, S.
2000 Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A

Cross-Cultural Perspective. Pp. 31–59 in Es-
says on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7.
Louvain: Peeters.

Melas. M.
1991 Mediterranean Trade in the Bronze Age—A

Theoretical Perspective. Pp. 387–98 in Bronze
Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Pre-
sented at the Conference held at Rewley House,
Oxford, in December 1989, ed. N. H. Gale.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90.
Jonsered: Åström.

Moscati, S.
1988 The Phoenicians. Venice: Bompiani.

Muhly, J. D.
1970 Homer and the Phoenicians: The Relations be-

tween Greece and the Near East in the Late
Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Berytus 19: 19–64.

1985 Phoenicia and the Phoenicians. Pp. 177–91 in
Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of
the International Congress on Biblical Archae-
ology. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Negbi, O.
1992 Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterra-

nean Islands: A Reappraisal. American Journal
of Archaeology 96: 599–615.

O’Connor, D.
2000 The Sea Peoples and the Egyptian Sources. Pp.

85–102 in The Sea Peoples and Their World: A
Reassessment, ed. E. D. Oren. University Mu-
seum Monograph 108; University Museum
Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Ohata, K., and Kochavi, M.
1966–
1970

Tel Zeror, Vols. 1–3. Tokyo: Society for Near
Eastern Studies in Japan.

Olami, Y.; Ronen, A.; and Romano, A.
2003 Map of Haifa—West (22). Jerusalem: Israel

Antiquities Authority (Hebrew and English).
Pedrazzi, T.

2002 Area E: L’occupazione del Bronzo Tardo II—
Ferro I. II settore Nord. Pp. 33–39 in Tell



76 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Afis, Syria—2000–2001, by S. Mazzoni. Pisa:
Plus.

Pilides, D.
2000 Pithoi of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: Types

from the Major Sites of the Period. Nicosia:
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Puech, É.
1980 Céramique des niv. 9c–11. Pp. 216–34 in Tell

Keisan (1971–1976): Une cité phénicienne en
Galilée, by J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1.
Fribourg, Switzerland: Éditions Universitaires
Fribourg Suisse.

Rainey, A. F.
1982 Toponymic Problems. Tel Aviv 9: 130–36.

Rathje, W. L.
1975 The Last Tango in Mayapán: A Tentative Tra-

jectory of Production-Distribution Systems. Pp.
409–48 in Ancient Civilization and Trade, eds.
J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Redford, D. B.
1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.

Princeton: Princeton University.
Reina, R. E., and Hill, R. M. II

1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. Austin:
University of Texas.

Roe, P. G.
1995 Style, Society, Myth and Structure. Pp. 27–76

in Style, Society and Person: Archaeological
and Ethnological Perspectives, eds. C. Carr and
J. E. Neitzel. New York: Plenum.

Röllig, W.
1982 On the Origin of the Phoenicians. Pp. 79–93 in

Phönizier im Westen: Die Beiträge des Interna-
tionalen Symposiums über “Die phönizische
Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum” in
Köln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979, ed. H. G.
Niemeyer. Madrider Beiträge 8. Mainz: von
Zabern.

Ronen, A., and Olami, Y.
1978 ºAtlit Map. Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey

of Israel (Hebrew and English).
1983 Map of Haifa: East (23), 15–24. Jerusalem: Ar-

chaeological Survey of Israel (Hebrew and En-
glish).

Salles, J.-F.
1980 La nécropole “K” de Byblos. Recherche sur

les grandes civilisations, Mémoire 2. Lyon:
Éditions ADPF.

1995 Phénicie. Pp. 554–82 in La civilisation Phé-
nicienne et Punique: Manuel de recherche, ed.
V. Krings. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 1,
Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 20. Leiden: Brill.

Sandars, N. K.
1978 The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Med-

iterranean, 1250–1150 b.c. London: Thames
and Hudson.

Sass, B.
2002 Wenamun and His Levant—1075 b.c. or 925

bc? Ägypten und Levante 12: 247–55.
Scheepers, A.

1991 Anthroponymes et toponimes du récit d’Ou-
namon. Pp. 17–83 in Phoenicia and the Bible:
Proceedings of the Conference held at the
University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of
March 1990, ed. E. Lipinski. Studia Phoenicia
11; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44. Leu-
ven: Peeters.

Schwartz, D. W.
1970 The Post-Migration Culture: A Base for Archae-

ological Inference. Pp. 175–93 in Reconstruct-
ing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, ed. W. A.
Longacre. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico.

Sharon, I.
2001 Philistine Bichrome Painted Pottery: Scholarly

Ideology and Ceramic Typology. Pp. 555–609
in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and
Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L.
Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Studies in Ancient Orien-
tal Civilization 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Sharon, I., and Gilboa, A.
In press The SKL Town: Dor in the Early Iron Age.

In Philistines and Other Sea Peoples, eds.
M. Artzy, A. E. Killebrew, and G. Lehmann.
Leiden: Brill.

Sherratt, A., and Sherratt, S.
1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of

Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems.
Pp. 351–86 in Bronze Age Trade in the Medi-
terranean: Papers Presented at the Conference
held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December
1989, ed. N. H. Gale. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 90. Jonsered: Åström.

Sherratt, S.
1994 Commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical

Innovation in 12th–11th Century Cyprus. Pp.
59–107 in Proceedings of the International
Symposium “Cyprus in the 11th Century b.c.,”
Nicosia, 30–31 October, 1993, ed. V. Kara-
georghis. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

1998 “Sea Peoples” and the Economic Structure of
the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Pp. 292–313 in Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries bce: In Honor of Professor Trude



2005 AN INTERPRETATION OF SIKILA (SKL) MATERIAL CULTURE 77

Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2003 The Mediterranean Economy: “Globaliza-
tion” at the End of the Second Millennium
b.c.e. Pp. 37–62 in Symbiosis, Symbolism,
and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient
Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late
Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, eds.
W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.

Sherratt, S., and Sherratt, A.
1993 The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in

the Early First Millennium bc. World Archae-
ology 24: 361–78.

Singer, I.
1988 The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settle-

ment on the Coast of Canaan. Pp. 239–50 in
Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.): Proceedings of the
International Symposium held at the University
of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of
May 1985, eds. M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 23. Leuven:
Peeters.

South, A. K.
1995 Urbanism and Trade in the Vasilikos Valley in

the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 187–97 in Trade,
Contact, and the Movement of Peoples in the
Eastern Mediterranean: Studies in Honour
of J. Basil Hennessy, eds. S. Bourke and J.-P.
Descoeurdes. Mediterranean Archaeology
Supplement 3. Sydney: Meditarch.

Stager, L. E.
1995 The Impact of the Sea Peoples (1185–1050

bce) in Canaan. Pp. 332–48 in The Archaeol-
ogy of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy.
London: Leicester University.

Steel, L.
2002 Consuming Passions: A Contextual Study of

the Local Consumption of Mycenaean Pottery
at Tell el-ºAjjul. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 15: 25–51.

Stern, E.
1984 Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976),

Part Two: The Bronze Age. Qedem 18. Jerusa-
lem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem.

1990 New Evidence from Dor for the First Appear-
ance of the Phoenicians along the Northern
Coast of Israel. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 279: 27–34.

1991 Phoenicians, Sikils and Israelites in the Light
of Recent Excavations at Dor. Pp. 85–94 in
Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the

Conference held at the University of Leuven on
the 15th and 16th of March 1990, ed. E. Lipin-
ski. Studia Phoenicia 11; Orientalia Lovanien-
sia Analecta 44. Leuven: Peeters.

1993 The Many Masters of Dor, Parts I, II, III. Bib-
lical Archaeology Review 19, no. 1: 22–31; 19,
no. 2: 18–29; 19, no. 3: 38–49.

1999 New Finds from Dor concerning the Establish-
ment of the First Phoenician City-State at the
Site Eretz-Israel 26 (Frank Moore Cross vol-
ume): 176–85 (Hebrew, with English summary,
pp. 234*–35*).

2000a Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Ex-
cavations at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor
Town on the Carmel Coast. Rev. and exp. ed.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2000b The Settlement of the Sea Peoples in North-
ern Israel. Pp. 197–212 in The Sea Peoples
and Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D.
Oren. University Museum Monograph 108;
University Museum Symposium Series 11.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.

Stieglitz, R. R.
1990 The Geopolitics of the Phoenician Littoral in

the Early Iron Age. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 279: 9–12.

Stone, B. J.
1995 The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture

Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 298: 7–32.

Vandersleyen, C.
1985 Le dosssier Égyptien des Philistins. Pp. 39–54

in The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civiliza-
tions, ed. E. Lipinski. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 19. Leuven: Peeters.

1987 L’étymologie de Phoïnix, “Phénicien.” Pp. 19–
22 in Phoenicia and the Eastern Mediterranean
in the First Millennium b.c.: Proceedings of the
Conference held in Leuven from the 14th to the
16th of November 1985, ed. E. Lipinski. Studia
Phoenicia 5; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
22. Leuven: Peeters.

Wachsmann, S.
2000 To the Sea of the Philistines. Pp. 103–43 in The

Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment,
ed. E. D. Oren. University Museum Monograph
108; University Museum Symposium Series
11. Philadelphia: University Museum, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.

Warren, P., and Hankey, V.
1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol:

Classical.

spread one pica short



78 AYELET GILBOA BASOR 337

Webb, J. M., and Frankel, D.
1994 Making an Impression: Storage and Surplus

Finance in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 7: 5–26.

Wiessner, P.
1990 Is There a Unity to Style? Pp. 105–12 in The

Uses of Style in Archaeology, eds. M. W. Con-
key and C. A. Hastorf. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.

Yasur-Landau, A.
2002 Social Aspects of Aegean Settlement in the

Southern Levant in the End of the 2nd Mil-

lennium bce. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv
University.

Yon, M.
1992 The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit. Pp. 111–22

in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century b.c.:
From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, eds.
W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Zertal, A.
2001 Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel. Biblical

Archaeology Review 28, no. 3: 18–31, 60–61.