Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of
Presence
Author(s): Jane C. Waldbaum
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 305 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-17
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357743 .
Accessed: 29/02/2012 17:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
http://www.jstor.org
Greeks
the
in
Problems
in
East
or
the
Greeks
Definition
of
and
and
the
East?
Recognition
Presence
JANE C. WALDBAUM
Department of Art History
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201
[email protected]
This article considers the question of Greek presence in the Levantfrom a number
of viewpoints. It first surveys the attitudes of both classical and biblical archaeologists towards Greek imports in the Levant, examining the extent to which expectations have driven interpretation. It then addresses the problem of identifying the
users of Greek pottery in the Levant and the criteria used to identify them. Such matters as quantities of imports, preferred shapes, shapes intendedfor special uses, and
other elements of material culture such as architecture, burial customs, and inscriptions are discussed to see whether they can be used to help us identify Greeks in the
East, or even whether they shed light on relations between Greece and the East.
the presenceof Greeksin the Le-
SCHOLARSHIP
Although
vant is hotly debated, the presence of Greek
imports in the Levant is not in doubt. PreHellenistic Greek pottery in varying quantities, dating from the tenth century B.C. through the Persian
period (late sixth-fourth centuries B.C.) has been
found all along the coastal Levant from Cilicia in
the north to the Egyptian Delta in the south (fig. 1).
This article will address the problem of what Greek
pottery in the East can, or cannot, tell us about its
users. I will examine this issue within the framework of four key questions: To what extent has the
nature of scholarship on the subject colored our understandingof the archaeological evidence in different regions? Do large quantities of imported pottery
signify-ipso facto-the presence of people from
the region in which it was manufactured?What are
the criteria by which we may identify the presence
of Greeks (or anyone) in an archaeological setting?
Given the evidence at hand, what can we say about
contacts between Greeks and the Levant before the
Hellenistic period: specifically, who were the users
of imported Greek pottery?
Despite its widespread distribution, Greek pottery in the East has been subjected to varying degrees of scholarly attention, depending on the region
in which it was excavated and who was digging it
up. For example, Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta
was excavated initially in 1884-1885 by Sir W. M.
Flinders Petrie, a British archaeologist who specialized in Egypt and Palestine (Boardman 1980: 118).
Naukratis is known from Herodotus (11.178-179)
to have operated as a Greek commercial concession, given to Greek merchants by the Egyptian
pharaoh. Excavations there have uncovered several
Greek sanctuaries, inscriptions, and abundantsmall
finds in addition to imported and possibly locally
made Greek pottery. Because of the wealth and
variety of Greek material there, as well as the testimony of Herodotus, Naukratis has rightly been
treatedin the scholarly literatureas a primarilyGreek
enclave on Egyptian soil; most of the excavation
and study of the site after Petrie have been by classical scholars.
1
2
JANE C. WALDBAUM
BASOR 305
Mina
Al
Rasel-Bassit
Tal
Sukas
Byb
Mediterranean
Khaldeh
Sidon
Sea
Naukratis
Tyre
Rachidieh
Akko
0 Kabri
Atlit TellAbuHawam
Dor
Mikhmoret
TelMichal
Hashavyahu
Mesad
"
TelBatash
Ashdod
TelMiqne
(Ekron)
Ashkelon
o
Lachish
Ashk*el
*
El Hesi
Tel
designed
by
SCartographic
Services
Fig. 1. Map of the coastal Levant showing sites mentioned in the text. Prepared courtesy University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeCartographicServices.
North Syria, like Naukratis, has also attractedthe
notice of classicists, but for quite different reasons.
As at Naukratis, the principal site, Al Mina, was
excavated by a British archaeologist, C. Leonard
Woolley, whose primary training and experience
were in the ancient Near East (Moorey 1991: 7879). Working in the late 1930s, Woolley was specifically looking for a Bronze Age port that could
be associated with his major inland site of AtchanaAlalakh, so that he might trace the "connexions, if
such existed, between the early civilizations of the
Aegean, in particularthat of Minoan Crete, and the
more ancient cultural centres of hither Asia" (Woolley 1938: 1). Instead he unearthed the remains of
an Iron Age town, which throughoutits history from
the ninth through the fourth century B.C., was supplied with significant quantities of imported Greek
pottery. Woolley was disappointed in his main aim,
however, and he went to great lengths to rationalize
the supposed washing away from the site of all
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
1997
3
,t,.,
.
X"i ?':
,:":
... ...
I....... . . •.•.t
S
.•
,+ I.
?,
?
.
?.
i l
<
,
....
"?
'J .
ri'
:,z•
; •i •
i...
;:
"?. ?
? : ...
I7
•i
• ib
'-.#
,..)J
+-,,
... .
"....'•
i: ',
•-t..
. ,_
• •:~
I..
z•;.
s*
.
r.+•
..
"-, ::".... + l !
•.:
i~
i
?........
....". ;"
4.. .
:.-.../
.
i
'
-!
"-,;" : ........
•
. ........
,
• . "
7
....
- , " .. ..r".
• :.
:
....• . ...."...........
. " '.:;
.....
''•,'.:,-Y
..
" 7.
"< ' "- .,
"•:
..... ...:-: . ...
..... ;•__.... "•....
...
..•~.
".,>?
• ! .....
i-",._
"':
lk>"
: ....
•
<:
,
...-.
'.
'>
,
!
i
1
Fig. 2. Reconstruction of
the "Greek Warehouses"
at Al Mina, Level III(after
Woolley 1938: 14, fig. 3).
Bronze Age remains (Woolley 1938: 7-8). At times,
his disdain for what he did find gets the better of
his scholarly objectivity, as when he describes the
character of the town: "Had this been a residential
town, we should have judged it, on the evidence of
its buildings, to have been poor, if not barbarous;
mere huts of mud brick, of one storey, with mudplastered walls and with no pretence to architectural
style or decoration, would.seem to call for no more
flattering description" (Woolley 1938: 11).
Making the best of a bad situation, however,
Woolley transposed his original assessment of the
town as a Bronze Age port to the conditions at hand
and interpreted the same buildings thus: "The fact
is that it was not a residential town, and its buildings,
which would have been poor as private houses, were
perfectly adequate to their purpose; what we have
here are the stores and business premises of merchants engaged in the import and export trade be-
tween Asia and the Aegean" (Woolley 1938: 11).
He added categorically, "(t)hose merchants must
have been Greeks" (Woolley 1938: 15). He argued
strenuously, despite geographical and topographic
difficulties, that Al Mina should be identified with
Posideion, a Syrian site that could be associated
with a Greek foundation legend and whose Greek
name was preservedin Greek sources (Woolley 1938:
28-30).'
Once the site was interpreted as a Greek mercantile establishment, the "mere huts"disparagedby
Woolley were restoredby his architect as substantial
warehouses (fig. 2), even with second stories that
were specifically ruled out in Woolley's description.
Those warehouses, which date to a late period of the
site, are frequently reproducedto illustrate the general characterof Al Mina, even in earlier periodsa practice encouraged by Woolley's attempt to relate the architecture from earlier and later levels:
4
JANE C. WALDBAUM
"For the earlier levels the remains are too fragmentary for us to do more than argue to their character
from the analogy of the higher levels. .. ." (Woolley
1938: 12). He does, however, urge caution in pressing this analogy too far (Woolley 1938: 12, n. 14).
The architecture and most of the finds at Al
Mina are distinctly un-Greek in character, and most
of this material remains unpublished, except in
cursory form. However, Woolley enlisted two distinguished classicists, Martin Robertson and John
Beazley, to publish respectively the early Greek
and the Red Figured pottery.2 Their publications
appeared promptly in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, a journal directed primarily at classical scholars
(Beazley 1939; Robertson 1940),3 and Al Mina
entered the literature as an essentially Greek site,
forming the chief point of contact between Greece
and the Near East, controversial only as to the date
of its foundation and the intensity of early Greek
occupation. Dunbabin's well-known study of 1957,
The Greeks and Their Eastern Neighbours, credits
Woolley with "that flair which amounts to genius"
for his selection of Al Mina as a site to illustrate his
theories on East-West relations, and summarizesthe
accepted wisdom of his time on Al Mina: "The earliest remains belong to the eighth century and show
that the site was then that of a Greek town. There is
nothing among the finds from the lowest level that
appears to belong to any Asiatic people; in this respect there is nothing to differentiatethe place from
one of the many Greek colonies in Italy or Sicily or
on the Black Sea coast" (Dunbabin 1957: 25). It was
not until much later, with the publication of the nonGreek pottery from the site by Taylor(1959), and the
discovery of early Greek pottery at other Syrian sites
such as Tall Sukas (Riis 1970; 1979; Ploug 1973;
Lund 1986) and Ras el-Bassit (Courbin 1978; 1986;
1990) that this assessment of Al Mina was called
into question.
Chief among the critics is D. Saltz (1978), whose
doctoral dissertation (unfortunately unpublished)
provides a cogent critique both of Woolley's methodology and of later interpretations of the early
levels that followed from it. Graham (1986) independently came to many of the same conclusions as
Saltz. Elayi (1987) questions even the hitherto less
controversialidentificationof Persianperiod Al Mina
as a Greek town. She demonstrates the very mixed
characterof the finds from the "warehouses"of this
period and shows that, as in earlier levels, the majority of objects found in the Persian period levels
were locally made and similar in characterto those
BASOR 305
from other sites in the region (Elayi 1987: 259). Adding insult to injury,Ras el-Bassit stole pride of place
from Al Mina by the recognition that it and not Al
Mina was Posideion (Riis 1970: 137-38; Courbin
1978; 1986: 187-88; 1990: 505).4 Al Mina was reduced to one of several Syrian sites for which an
importantGreek presence among a local population
was maintained, although its status as primus inter
pares is still upheld by many scholars, Boardman
(1990) chief among them.
Classicists remain strongly interested in Greek
contacts with Syria to the north and Egypt to the
south, no doubt because the main sites in question
can in some way be claimed as Greek "turf."5That
they have been less interested in the southern Levant, the area that lies geographically between these
two regions, may be partly because the peoples who
inhabited this region-Phoenicians and Israelites
in particular-were better known through literary
sources than were the somewhat vaguely defined
Aramaeans who inhabited North Syria; there was
less latitude for classicists to stake their claims here.6
Certainly,the powerful influence of biblical scholarship on the local archaeology left little room for
Greeks to make their mark, at least in the scholarly
imagination.7
With respect to Phoenicia, attention has tended
to focus on the ventures of the Phoenicians westward and on their possible encounters with Greeks
in the Aegean and western Mediterranean (e.g.,
Frankenstein 1979; Coldstream 1982; Morris 1992:
124-49; Aubet 1993; see also papers by G. Markoe,
G. Kopcke, and M. Hudson in Kopcke and Tokumaru
1992). While Greek pottery has been found in some
quantity at several Phoenician sites, particularly at
Tyre (Bikai 1978; Coldstreamand Bikai 1988; Elayi
1988 for Persian period sites with Attic pottery), the
reputation of the Phoenicians as tradersin their own
right has obviated the impulse to attribute these
imports to Greek settlers.8
If classical archaeologists, with a few exceptions
(e.g., Weinberg 1971), have shown little interest in
Greek remains in Palestine, their Near Eastern colleagues have displayed equal indifference. Archaeologists working in Palestine, often theologically
trained, have traditionally approached excavation
with a view to its utility in elucidating biblical history (Silberman 1982; Moorey 1991). While recent
scholars have expanded their interests to include
more secular concerns (Mazar 1990: 31-32), and
while newer interdisciplinaryand theoretical surveys
are beginning to appear(e.g., Levy 1995), it is signif-
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
icant that two of the most recent surveys of archaeology in Palestine conclude their discussions with
the Iron Age. A. Mazar'sArchaeology of the Land of
the Bible (1990) ends in 586 B.C., the date of the
fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians; A. Ben-Tor's
The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (1991) comes
down to the end of the sixth century B.C. The Persian period, the time of the greatest commerce between the Levant and the Aegean since the Bronze
Age, has been given shortershrift, considered at best
a "biblical interregnum."The fact that this same
period coincides with the late Archaic and Classical
periods in Greece itself, which many, if not most,
classicists consider the acme of Greek civilization,
only adds to the sense of disjunction between scholars of these two quite different worlds.
There is one comprehensive archaeological study
of the Persian period in Palestine, E. Stern's Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian
Period: 538-332 B.C. The English edition, published
in 1982, is a translationof the 1973 Hebrew edition
updated only through 1978 (Stern 1982a: viii). As
Stern points out, not only did Persian period remains in the country suffer from the intrusion of
massive Hellenistic and Roman construction over
them, but "Specialization in research has led to a
furtherneglect of the Persian Period; some scholars
have devoted themselves to the earlier First Temple
Period and some to the later period of the Second
Temple, whereas this period, intermediate as it is,
has been left in the dark. It has taken quite a few
years to put the period into its proper perspective"
(Stern 1982a: vii).9 It is encouraging that Stern is
now working on an archaeological history that will
take up where Mazar and Ben-Tor left off.
The subject of Greek imports in Palestine has
not gone totally unnoticed by scholars who work
there. Over the years, scholars including J. H. Iliffe
(1932), C. Clairmont (1955; 1957), E. Stern (1982a:
283-86), and R. Wenning (1991; 1994) have documented increasing quantities of imported Greek
pottery found at increasing numbers of sites as archaeological excavation of the appropriateperiods
has intensified (Waldbaum[1994a: 54] discusses this
phenomenon in detail). The growing numbers of
Greek finds reportedin these and other sources, however, are by no means complete. Not all Greek
material has been published and much is inaccessible for study. It is probably safe to say, however,
as W. E Albright did (1960: 143)-based on much
less evidence-that Greek "vases and sherds turn
up in every excavated site of (the Persian) period,"
5
although it is a gross exaggeration to conclude from
this, as Albright did in 1957, that "As early as the
sixth century B.C. the coasts of Syria and Palestine
were dotted with Greek ports and trading emporia,
several of which have been discovered during the
past five years" (Albright 1957: 337). Albright here
demonstratesonly his own broadinterests;he did not
starta trend,at least as far as Palestine is concerned.10
A comparison of interpretationsof Greek imports
in Syria and Palestine is revealing. In Syria, the
Greek imports appearto be concentratedat relatively
few sites (Al Mina, Tall Sukas and Ras el-Bassit
chief among them), whose history for the most part
is not known in other than archaeological terms.
Here, scholars have overwhelmingly favored identifying a strong Greek presence though most have
backed off somewhat from the early enthusiasm for
colonies and are willing to settle for "tradingposts"
(e.g., Boardman 1990: 170, 186). In Palestine, on the
other hand, Greek imports seem to be distributed
among a greater number of sites. The history of
most of these sites, however, is sought in a biblical
rather than a Hellenic context, and scholars have
been less eager to recognize actual Greek settlers (or
perhaps are simply less interested in the possibility). The only site in Palestine-of any periodthat has been called a Greek settlement is the small
coastal fortress of Mesad Hashavyahu (otherwise
unknown from biblical or other sources), which produced quantities of East Greek pottery of the late
seventh century B.C.,including some domestic wares
(Naveh 1962b; Reich 1989). The site has been interpreted as a settlement of Greek mercenariespossibly
in the employ of the Egyptian Pharaoh Psammetichus (Psamtik) I, though no Egyptian material was
found there (Naveh 1962b: 98-99). That it was not
an exclusively Greek settlement, if it was one at all,
is attested to by the presence of locally made pottery
and several Hebrew ostraca (Naveh 1960; 1962a;
1962b: 96-97; Reich 1989).
THE QUESTION OF QUANTITY
So far, the question of a Greekpresence in the Levant has been taken as equivalent to presence of
Greek pottery.That raises the question of how meaningful quantity of pottery is in determiningthe presence of a specific groupof users. Or put more simply,
how many sherds make a Greek?
Absolute numbersof sherds, of course, vary from
site to site. Where reliable figures are known, however, imported pottery usually represents a small
6
JANE C. WALDBAUM
proportion of the total pottery from any given site.
In Israel, at major port sites like Ashkelon and Akko
(both of which are still largely unpublished), registered Greek sherdsnumberseveral hundredeach and,
if every black-glazed body scrap were counted, they
might number in the thousands. The final publication of Attic pottery from Areas A and C at Dor includes ca. 850 sherds of an unspecified larger total
of Attic imports referred to as "a vast assortment"
(Stern et al. 1995: 127). The local Persian period
pottery is unquantified (Stern et al. 1995: 51-69).
Yet imports are still no more than a drop in the pottery bucket compared with the amount of local pottery recovered from a site.11 At the much smaller
coastal site of Mikhmoret, nearly 400 pieces of imported Greek pottery of the Persian period were
recovered, representing a very small percentage of
the total pottery found.12 Tel Michal, another small
coastal site, produced about 600 imported Persian
periodGreeksherds,of which only 44 were published
(and no figures given aboutoverall proportions)(Herzog, Rapp, and Negbi 1989: 145-52). These figures
might be regarded as representing high concentrations of importsin ports of entry;however, at Tell elHesi, a small inland site believed by the excavators
to have functioned as a Persian military or governmental supply center (Bennett and Blakely 1989:
355), 638 sherds of Greek fine wares were catalogued of which 242 were published (Risser and
Blakely 1989). While the total amount of pottery recovered is not known, the published imports represent nearly 25 percent of all published pottery from
the site (Bennett and Blakely 1989: 139). This figure,
however, seems to reflect more what was considered
by the excavators worth saving, rather than actual
proportionsof different kinds of pottery found.13
For Syria, Boardman'srecent article on "Al Mina
and History" (1990) elaborates in detail on the quantities of Greek Geometric pottery found at Al Mina
relative to amounts from other Near Eastern sites
such as Tarsus, Tell Tayinat, Ras el-Bassit, Tall Sukas, and Tyre. He also includes, where known, the
size of the excavated area and the quantity of contemporary local pottery. The main difficulty is that
for Al Mina itself many of the data are missing:
the counts of Greek pottery are based only on what
pieces have been removed from Syria (now Turkey)
and reside primarily in British and Australian collections. Less of the local material had been dispersed and more remained in Antakya, but it is not
known how much of either Greek or local pottery is
there. It is also not known how much, particularly
BASOR 305
of local undecorated pottery, was simply thrown
away. While the total number of early Greek sherds
from the relevant levels (X-VII) known to Boardman seems large (ca. 820 pieces), there is no way of
accurately assessing just what this represents in
terms of the site as a whole. Nevertheless, this appears to be the largest numberof Greek pieces found
in the East for the period (ninth/eighth century B.C.)
and as such may have some significance. On the
other hand, P. J. Riis' figures for a later period at Tall
Sukas, where he also claims a degree of Greek settlement, should provide a note of caution: ". . . it
would be a rather heavy job to estimate the total
number of the Phoenician vessels. But my general
impression is that the Greek pottery is of course
not 50% at Sukas. The 4425 eastern Greek sherds of
the 6th century may be rather less than 10%" (Riis
1982: 259). Characteristically, every Greek sherd
had been counted, while the far vaster quantity of
local pottery had simply been estimated. At Bassit,
where there is legendary support for a Greek foundation, the proportionof early Greek pottery seems
to be even smaller, and only one of the contemporary tombs that were discovered contained Greek
pottery (Courbin 1986; 1990). Quantity of pottery,
then, in the absence of other criteria, is a poor indicator of the presence of Greeks (or anyone else) in
a foreign setting.14
CRITERIA FOR DEFINING PRESENCE
This raises the third question: if presence of
imported pottery alone is not sufficient to identify
the presence of Greeks, what criteria should be
used? That is, how do we differentiatebetween resident Greeks who have a preference for products
from home and well-to-do natives who have a taste
for the exotic? Here it is necessary to examine a
broader range of cultural considerations, including
preferredshapes of pottery, shapes intended for special uses, inscriptions, and other elements of material culture such as architectureand burial customs.
Preferred Shapes and Shapes for Special Use
As earlier scholars have observed, most of the
fine imported Greek pottery in Palestine (and also in
Syria) falls into two categories: perfumed oil flasks,
such as lekythoi (fig. 3) and amphoriskoi, and vessels appropriatefor wine service-cups, skyphoi, and
bowls for drinking (fig. 4), and kraters for mixing
wine (fig. 5). Exceptional in the seventh century B.C.
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
7
..
. .....
.i .:.!::!i .
.....
......
.
..
?
"?:
, .
-• x
.......
MM::.
l
_MM"t
j~
:u
x
,:
v. p-&I...•
•..
""
r? -':
.
........
?-
...u,s
2m
,..1
..U
.
...
.:f.
-. .s
i ..
......
mt
Il
"1ti
7•it ......
:
h
;
9t%
oo
'
.
.... .........
..,.
Fig. 3. Attic black figure lekythos sherd from Gezer (Macalister 1912: pl. 177.23). Dionysus. Class of Athens 581,
early fifth century B.C. (Beazley 1956: 493). Rockefeller
Museum,Jerusalem, P195. Courtesy Israel Antiquities
Authority.
repertoire are East Greek oinochoai or jugs, found
at several sites, but most prominently at Mesad
(Naveh 1962b; cf. Waldbaum 1994a:
.Hashavyahu
9). A few examples each of several other shapes
fig.
for various uses have been found. Nowhere, however, do we see the range of shapes designed to serve
a multiplicity of functions that can be found at Greek
mainland sites or at known colonies elsewhere. In
general, except for lekythoi, there are few closed
shapes of any kind. Conspicuously absent from the
repertoire are funerary vessels such as polychrome
white-ground lekythoi, vessels specifically associated with women's roles such as the epinetra and
wedding lebes,15 and even the ordinary water jar or
hydria (cf. Wenning 1981: 43-44; 1994).
Until recently, scholars have commonly assumed
that Greek pottery was imported exclusively for
Greek use. Thus, P. J. Riis says, "It has rightly been
emphasized by Professor R. M. Cook that the Orientals did not care for Greek pottery, and that where
it occurs in the East it is a sign of Greeks living
there, as merchants or mercenaries. Above all, this
Fig. 4. Attic black figure cup fragments from Tell Jemmeh
(Petrie 1928: pl. 46.5, 7). Haimon/Laricut
Group, early fifth
century B.C. (Beazley 1956: 579, erroneously ascribing
P2317 to Ascalon). Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem, (top)
P2352; (middle R.) P2339, (L.) P2345, (bottom R.) P2317,
(L.) P2354). Author's photo. Permission to publish Courtesy Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.
may have held true of the drinking cups, betraying
Greek owners just as wine-glasses in the modem
Orient indicate the presence of Occidentals in some
way or other" (Riis 1970: 129). Greek pottery has,
however, turned up at several sites that cannot be
claimed as Greek settlements, appearingin early levels at Tyre, a major Phoenician capital (Bikai 1978;
Coldstream and Bikai 1988), and in some Phoenician tombs at Khaldeh and Rachidieh (Coldstream
and Bikai 1988: 36). While it might be appealing
to picture bands of Greek adventurers toting their
favorite cups, like erstwhile coffee mugs, to remind
them of home in far-off lands, lugging a krater for
personal use might be a little more cumbersome.
Other, more plausible explanations for the limited
number of forms have been suggested. J. Luke, for
8
JANE C. WALDBAUM
BASOR 305
iii.:le3~'
.i:lii%:::
.......
......
it
is
Ic??i.
I:-;i'~t
:
=0
..::::::
.....'.......
is :
i
:v f: 4::
.
??:.. E??...Ii~i(::ili::gi~jj~l/iiljjpj:/
:~-:::IB....:I1C_'~I
C"~""~
R~4i...........!l~mt
t isi
ft,--~ 9i3;~~~*~r~~!~~d~~~i~i~l
s
::.:
Iiiiiii~~~t~lii~
li~P~l!~fi;~li
MI??
::-t:
sit'
~
IMI:
-~iis
-illEf?
S
isi:::
:.:.:
rt:5,.Y~f
l~i
s?is
?WuE
+i?
iiri,
its;'?
''?H
Fig. 5. Atticred figure kraterfragmentfrom Mikhmoret,M300-157. Satyr pursuingmaenad. Modica Painter,late fifthcentury B.C.(Beazley 1963: 11.1708).Author'sphoto. Permission to publish Courtesy Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.
example, recently proposed that the restricted number of early Greek shapes found in the East does
not demonstrate a distaste for these wares, but instead directly reflects local practice. She suggests
that Greek cups in particular were imported specifically to satisfy local demands relating to Near
Eastern feasting and drinking customs (Luke 1992).
K. De Vries (1977) made similar observations for
the Persian period; wine-drinking vessels comprise
the majorityof Greek imports in the Hellenistic East
as well (Rotroff 1997).
It has also been suggested that the presence of
imported cooking pots denotes the presence of
Greek users familiar with the type. The implication,
of course, is that no one would bother importing
foreign household or coarse ware that they could as
easily provide for themselves.16
More than 15 imported cooking pots have been
found at Mesad IHashavyahu, where they have
helped to define the site as a Greek settlement of the
late seventh century B.C. (Naveh 1962b: 97, fig. 6.7,
8; cf. Wenning 1981: 36). Fragments of a couple of
identical ones have also been identified at the site
of Tel Batash, a little way inland and up the Sorek
Valley from Mesad IHashavyahu(Waldbaum and
Magness 1997: 31-32, fig. 10). The Batash cookingpot fragments belong to only a handful of Greek
pottery from the site and no one has suggested the
presence of actual Greeks there. Several more sherds
of the same type and date have been found at Ash-
kelon17 (Stager 1996: 67*; Waldbaumand Magness
1997: 31, fig. 11) and at Kabri (Niemeier 1990:
XXXVI, fig. 22.4; 1994: 33, fig. 19:10; Kempinski
and Niemeier 1993: 259). From the Persian period,
a few fragments of Greek cooking pots have turned
up at Ashkelon (Stager and Esse 1987: 70; Stager
1993: 109; Adelman 1995: 305); one has been published from Tel Michal (Herzog, Rapp, and Negbi
1989: 120-21, fig. 9.2.5), Wenning (1991: 212) refers to one from Shiqmona, and I have identified
three more from Mikhmoret (fig. 6). This is, however, a very thin repertoireif we are going to associate them with residentGreeks who show a preference
for their own domestic ware. To my knowledge, none
has been identified at Al Mina; however, since only
decorated importedpottery was published, and since
imported cooking ware is not always recognized,
particularlyin the earlier reports,nothing conclusive
can be said about its presence or absence there. No
Greek cooking ware has been published from either
Tall Sukas or Bassit; Riis (1982: 258) is of the opinion that the cooking ware from Sukas is Phoenician.
Inscriptions
While inscribed Greek pottery is rarein Palestine,
some has been found at several sites. Few examples have been published, and to date there has been
no comprehensive study of them; it is difficult to
assess whether Greek or Semitic inscriptions pre-
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
1997
9
. ......
.?. .
:
....
.
....
iii
!i!~
',.:zi2.':::?i::
N
...
" ........
l
'?
:
.);:
n":!•
?:i•CI"
*~~~~"7
:i-'i'i:rP:-~.
LT:L:•,
,.':.~
-:t,:
U ,
ji;i'"
4 A ?F?:Nmm
?i
.???
:f"?if
t "a
u, ?.
:.....
.
.....
fitfif
to?-;i ... ...
_,:i,?.
..
,
r
!,MN
,ll
?:?,
•,..
.AN.
-- -
R
Atf~i~~
Fig. 7. Underside of Attic bolsal with Greek graffitofrom
Mikhmoret,M300-7. Possibly a price mark.Author'sphoto.
Permission to publish courtesy Emeq Hefer Archaeological Research Project and Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.
Fig. 6. Greek cooking pot (griddle) sherds from Mikhmoret. (Top) M400-85; (Bottom L.) M2043 N118; (bottom
R.) M400-83. Author'sphoto. Permission to publish courtesy Emeq Hefer Archaeological Research Project and Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.
.?,
.~~~~
?? -???..x%;..
,?~??oiB,
(g
.-???3
-*
~C'
dominate, although both are present. Published vessels with Greek inscriptions turn up at Dor (British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem1924: pl. 3.3; and
see Stern 1993: 40), Tell el-Hesi (Risser and Blakely
1989: 114, figs. 80.116, 120.116), Tel Michal (Herzog, Rapp, and Negbi 1989: 149, fig. 10.2.8), and
Ashdod (Dothan and Porath1982: 45, fig. 32.7). Others are at Mikhmoret(fig. 7), Ashkelon, and Tell Abu
Hawam. Phoenician graffiti appear at several of the
same sites (e.g., fig. 8, from Dor)18 and also at Akko
(Wenning 1981: 45). Inscriptions on imported vessels are usually graffiti,scratchedon the undersideof
the pot after firing. The question is, how long after?
Phoenician inscriptions (e.g., fig. 8) were certainly
added sometime afterthe pots arrivedin Palestine and
could representeither owners' marks or simply random graffitiafter the vase had become a sherd. Greek
graffiti could have been written any time after the
vessels in question were removed from the kiln. They
id'
'?'ii..liii?
Fig. 8. Underside of Atticskyphos with Phoenician graffito
fromTanturah(Dor) (BritishSchool of Archaeology in Jerusalem 1924: 42, pl. 111.2).Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem,
P3013. Courtesy Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.
may representanything from manufacturers'or merchants' markings, such as trademarksor price marks,
to signs of ownership, and may or may not indicate
anything about who used them in Palestine. Thus,
even when we have language preserved in context
with importedpottery, several possibilities for interpretation exist.
10
JANE C. WALDBAUM
Somewhat more informationis available for Syria
than for Palestine although, again, it is hardly complete. At Al Mina, Woolley implies that all inscriptions found there, including graffiti on vases, are
Greek (Woolley 1938: 15). A single inscribed sherd,
dating to the late eighth or seventh century B.C.,
is, indeed, an early example of Greek writing from
the site. The inscription is possibly a personal name,
though this identification is uncertain (Boardman
1982). Beazley (1955: 205-6) published another in
Greek from the late fifth or fourth century B.C. It is
an East Greek owner's name scratched on an Attic
skyphos. Apart from this, however, only 1 graffito,
of some 50 studied recently from the late fifth and
fourth centuries B.C., is Greek; the rest are Phoenician (30), Aramaean(6), or indeterminate(13) (Bron
and Lemaire 1983). OtherGreek inscriptions include
a few stamps on amphorae, which were, by definition, created at the time of manufacture,and a fragment of a marbleinscription of Roman date from the
surface of the site (Graham 1986: 55).
At Sukas, a spindle whorl in local clay carries a
Greek owner's graffitodated by letter style to ca. 600
B.C. (Riis 1970: 158, fig. 53.d; Ploug 1973: 90, fig.
g.424a). Several vases dating to the first half of the
sixth century B.C., including some in local fabric,
also carry Greek graffiti, though some have Semitic
ones (Ploug 1973: 54, 84-85, fig. g). At Bassit, at
least two Greek graffiti transcribingIonian personal
names and dated ca. 600 B.C., have been foundone on a local torpedo jar, one on the base of an
Ionian cup (Courbin 1990: 508, pl. 48.1; 1978: 58).
Phoenician inscriptions are also known from the
site (Courbin 1978: 58).
The evidence from North Syria shows that a few
Greek personal names appearat all three major sites;
Sukas and Bassit, however, appear to have a more
impressive array of early Greek graffiti than Al
Mina. Some of the graffiti from both sites are on
local pots, while the spindle whorl from Sukas is the
only object of daily use yet known from the Levant
to bear a Greek inscription. In every case, local
Semitic graffiti are also present, at Al Mina far outnumbering the Greek.
BASOR 305
of round (but unfluted) drums in the Persian period
"Residency" at Lachish is a Greek feature. He reports, "Although these columns are not topped with
Greek or Persiancapitals, there is no doubt that here,
for the first time in Palestine, columns appear composed of round drums along the entire length in pure
Greek style" (Stern 1982a: 60; see also Tufnell 1953:
1.131-35 for excavation of the Residency; 1953:
II. pl. 119 for plan). The building itself, however, is
purely Near Eastern in plan and functioned as a
provincial Persianpalace (Stern 1982a: 57). Whether
the columns can be attributed to direct Greek participation in construction of the building, as happened in Persia proper, or whether they are simply a
local reflection of Persian style, is not known.
At Dor Stem excavated a pit, which he interpreted as a favissa (bothros), dated to the late fifth
century B.C.;it contained predominantlyGreek pottery as well as some terracotta figurines of possibly Greek style. From this he concluded that the
vessels represented discards from a nearby Greek
temple that has not itself been located.19 In an article entitled, provocatively, "The Beginning of the
Greek Settlement in Palestine in the Light of the
Excavations at Tel Dor," Stern concludes: "The finds
at Dor-if our interpretation of them is indeed
correct-can serve as additionalevidence of a Greek
settlement on the coasts of Israel and Phoenicia at
the end of the Iron Age during the Persian period.
This evidence can now be added to a complete chain
of discoveries, both old and new, from various sites
along these coasts" (Stern 1989: 116; see also Stern
1994: 169).20 He does not give a breakdown of
relative quantities of Greek to local pottery in the
pit, nor has anything resembling a Greek temple
yet been found-at Dor or anywhere else. While the
idea of a Greek sanctuaryis intriguing-even tempting-one hesitates to accept it based on pottery
alone, especially when the pottery in question does
not differ in kind from that found in other contemporaneouscontexts.21
For Syria the architecturalremains are not very
revealing either. At Al Mina, as noted above, the
warehouses that Woolley attributed to Greek merchants are strictly Near Eastern in character; and
the buildings are rather nondescript despite BoardArchitecture
man's characterizationof the Persian period town as
To date, no structurebuilt in Greek style has been a "wholly Greek establishment" (Boardman 1980:
identified in Palestine before the Hellenistic period, 53). There are no monumentalstructuressuch as temnor can any be positively associated with Greek use. ples or other public buildings that might be readily
According to Stern, the use of columns composed identifiable with any distinctive cultural style. Few
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
of the architecturalremains at Ras el-Bassit from the
relevantperiods have been published.Only at Tall Sukas is theresome possible evidence of Greekpractice.
Although Periods G3-1 at Tall Sukas in Syria are
referred to by the excavators as the first, second,
and third Greek building phases respectively, no
houses were specifically identified as having Greek
occupants, although Greek pottery was found in several units (Lund 1986). A small rectangular building, constructed over an earlier hearth and dated to
the seventh century B.C.,was identified, however, as
a Greek temple (Riis 1970: 54-59). Although not
much in its earliest phase supports the attribution,
the sixth century reconstruction included fragments
of terracottaroof tiles-a more Greek than eastern
feature. A couple of fragments of possible unfluted
column drums were found in medieval layers outside the temple but restored as belonging to it (Riis
1970: 54-56, 66-68). Some of the roof tiles were
incised with Greek graffiti (Riis 1970: 68-69; Ploug
1973: 95). While the evidence is not entirely compelling,22 it is thus far our only tangible candidate
for Greek architecturein all of Syria-Palestine.
Tombs
To my knowledge no unequivocally Greek tombs
have been found in Palestine or Syria. Greek pottery has been recovered among the finds from local
burials at several sites. At other sites, however, no
Greek pottery was found in tombs, even when samples were found in occupation debris at the same
sites.23 It is not possible to include an exhaustive
survey, but a few representative examples will be
provided, the subject was discussed in greater detail
by Waldbaum(1994b). In Palestine, a Persianperiod
cemetery at Tel Michal contained 111 graves but
no Greek pottery (Herzog, Rapp, and Negbi 1989:
153-64) although several hundred sherds of Greek
pottery were found elsewhere at the site (Herzog,
Rapp, and Negbi 1989: 145-52). The same was true
for a Persian period cemetery at Tell el-Hesi, which
had more than 40 burials (Risser and Blakely 1989:
135; Bennett and Blakely 1989: 325-34). By contrast, at the coastal site of CAtlit,the excavator assumed that shaft graves containing Greek pottery
belonged to Greek mercenaries(Johns 1932: 56-57).
The finds, however, were very mixed, including objects of Egyptian, Phoenician, and local manufacture in addition to Greek (Johns 1932: 44), and the
tomb types were Phoenician (Stern 1982a: 70-72).
11
At Mikhmoret, a group of rock-cut shaft tombs,
partly eroded by the sea, but similar in type to those
at CAtlit,contained a mix of local, Phoenician, and
Greek grave goods, including the cooking pot fragments noted above (fig. 6). Greek pottery in Phoenician tombs in Phoenicia properis known from the
time of its earliest arrivalin the Levant (Coldstream
and Bikai 1988: 36).
In Syria, graves have been found at Al Mina, Tall
Sukas and Ras el-Bassit. At Al Mina, the graves
were confined to the Persian period and consisted of
intramural inhumation burials in stone coffins, or
stone-lined cists, underneaththe floors of buildings
(Woolley 1938: 13, 155-57). None contained Greek
pottery. At Sukas, Riis identified 34 graves, including both urn burials and inhumations; in the
latter, the body was laid directly in the grave. The
burials began in the seventh century B.C. and lasted
until the early fourth. The inhumations were in simple pit graves or in clay-lined pits; the urns contained either burned or unburnedbones (Riis 1979:
30-31). Both Greek and Phoenician pottery was
placed in many of the burials. The Phoenician vessels comprised storejars, jugs, andjuglets; the Greek
included drinkingcups, amphorae,jugs, and kraters,
thus showing a bias for Greek drinking sets (Riis
1979: 32). In the stray finds that might have been associated with eight of these burials-both clay-lined
pits and urn burials-were some fragmentaryterracotta roof tiles. None was in situ but Riis suggests
that these reflect Greek practice of setting protective
tiles over the grave (Riis 1979: 31; see also Riis
1982: 249-50; Kurtzand Boardman 1971: 192). Riis
favors the idea that at least some Greeks were buried
in this cemetery. However, the tomb types and most
of the customs observed in the Sukas cemetery, including the penchant for Greek drinkingparaphernalia, are equally at home in a Phoenician setting. Only
the roof tiles, which are not conclusively associated
with the graves in question, suggest a predominantly
Greek practice. At Bassit, from the tenth centuryB.C.
on, both intramuraland extramuralburial was practiced, and both were always cremation. Only one
relatively late grave from the sixth century B.C.contained Greek pottery; the rest contained local, Phoenician, and Cypriot pottery (Courbin 1986: 190-93,
198, 201; 1990: 506-7). Funerary remains in both
Palestine and Syria are ambiguous at best; neither
tombs nor their contents provide conclusive evidence
of Greek practice or presence, although the possibility remains open.
12
JANE C. WALDBAUM
GREEK POTTERY AND ITS USERS
Given the scarcity of Greek remains other than
pottery in either Syria or Palestine, can we say
anything about relations between Greece and the
Near East, and specifically about whom the users of
Greek pottery were? I think we can reject Clairmont's (1955) conclusion that trade relations between Greece and the Near East probably did not
exist at all. If the quantities of imported pottery up
and down the coast show nothing else, they do speak
for commerce. Similarly, Albright's(1957) more optimistic picture of a coast "dotted with" Greek settlements seems somewhat overblown since there is
nothing in the remains at any site to suggest that a
Greek way of life was widely practiced there. Given
the lack of firm evidence for distinctly Greek architecture and burial types, the sporadic inscriptions, and the limited range of imported pottery
shapes used primarily as wine-drinking apparatus
and as perfume containers, we do not have evidence for a fully Greek cultural context at any site
in either Syria or Palestine. Whoever the merchants
were, it seems that Phoenicians or other peoples of
the Levant enjoyed a penchant for elegant imported
pottery.
This is not the place to discuss in detail the whole
vexed question of East-West trade in the Iron Age
or Persian period. It is not yet clear whether Phoenicians at the eastern end or Greeks at the western
end had primary control over shipping, or whether
we should adopt a model closer to the one Bass et al.
(1989: 26) have proposed for the Late Bronze Age,
envisaging a kind of cyclical movement of ships,
goods, and the personnel-sailors and merchantsnecessary to keep things moving.24 New evidence,
in fact, suggests that in the Persian period at least,
both Greek and Phoenician ships were plying the
Mediterraneanwith varied cargoes. A newly deciphered Aramaic text from Elephantine in Egypt records customs duties imposed on both Phoenician
and Ionian ships calling at an Egyptian port during
the year 475 B.c. The cargo of the Ionian ships consisted of gold, silver, Ionian wine, oil, and empty
jars; the Phoenician ships carried Sidonian wine,
cedar wood, iron, wool, copper, tin, and clay (Yardeni 1994). The shipments of Ionian and Phoenician
wines on vessels under Ionian or Phoenician flags,
respectively, imply that in all likelihood these wines
were contained in transportamphorae of Ionian or
BASOR 305
Phoenician origin. Whetherthis national consistency
of cargo would hold true for any fine wares that
might have traveled along as minor freight (Gill
1991: 29-47)25 is another question entirely. Whoever the merchants were, the rich assortment of
Greek wares in the Levant and their distribution
have much to tell us about trade, not only from West
to East, but also within the Levant since the routes
inland from the coast are marked by the presence
of Greek pottery. Given the cosmopolitan and polyglot nature of such major ports as Ashkelon, Dor,
and Akko, and even smaller ones, such as Al Mina
and Mikhmoret, one would not be surprised to find
that their mixed populations included at least some
Greeks, although they probably comprised only a
small minority within the local population. The occasional fleeting glimpses of actual people afforded
by such objects as the inscribed spindle whorl from
Tall Sukas, and the possible burials and temple at
that site, help to establish a sense of their presence
for us. This perception is no doubt reassuring to the
classical or western-oriented scholar and may provide some justification for rummaging around in
unfamiliar Levantine debris. More important, however, than the impressionthey make on modernwesterners is the interaction between these transplanted
Greeks and their eastern hosts. Did Greeks in the
East make their presence felt in any significant way,
other than as purveyors of attractive tableware and
other commodities? Or did the sophisticated easterners simply ignore them as western barbarians?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This articleis a partialresultof twoyearsspentas a researchfellow at the W. E AlbrightInstituteof Archaeological Research.From 1989 through1990 I was NEH
Fellowandfrom1990to 1991I was DorotResearchProfessor workingon the generalproblemof Greekimports
in the southernLevant.I wantto thankthe Trusteesof the
AlbrightInstitutefor awardingme both fellowships,and
Dr. SeymourGitinand the staff of the AlbrightInstitute
for doing everythingin theirpower to facilitatemy research.ManyAmericanand Israelicolleaguesalso provided invaluableassistanceat all stages of the work. I
thankthem all. I am also gratefulto Drs. S. Gitin,L. E.
Stager,C. M. Adelman,andR. Haakfor readinga draftof
this articleandcontributing
manyhelpfulsuggestions.
An earlierversionof thispaperwas presentedat a colloquiumon "Greeksand Barbarians:The ClassicalOriatCornellUniversityin April1993.
ginsof Eurocentrism,"
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
13
NOTES
1Woolley's propensity to overinterprethis discoveries
is documented also at Ur in Mesopotamia (Moorey 1991:
79-80).
2Publication even of the Greek pottery left something
to be desired. The Attic black figure pottery was never
published, deemed by Beazley "scanty, poor, and no older
than the earliest red-figure sherds" (1939: 1). Beazley did
include a few black figure pieces in Attic Black-Figure
Vase-Painters (1956: 717). Perreault (1986: 148), however, notes nearly 300 unpublished black figure sherds in
the British Museum and Ashmolean alone, of which the
earliest dates ca. 540-530. Beazley also made no effort to
relate the red figure sherds to their original findspots or
even to their levels, treating his publication entirely as
an exercise in connoisseurship. Robertson did take the
archaeological relations of the early Greek pottery more
into account, but he too was highly selective of what he
published, confining himself to "a small proportion" of
what had been brought back to England and providing no
quantitativeinformation even of that material.
3Woolley's reportsand those of Robertson and Beazley
were published in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, while
the Cypriot and local pottery was published 20 years later
in Iraq by J. du Plat Taylor, thus guaranteeing a split in
the audience who would naturally see them.
4The identification of Ras el-Bassit with Posideion, in
fact, goes back before Woolley's excavation of Al Mina,
but Woolley discounted it, observing that "surfaceremains
(at Bassit) show nothing earlier than Roman.... " (Woolley 1938: 29). This has been proved wrong by Courbin's
excavations.
5Rotroff (1997) presents a related discussion of scholarly eurocentrism as applied to the Hellenistic era.
6A fairly typical attitude is Boardman's dismissal of
Phoenicia and Palestine as "cultures [whose] influence on
the Greeks are not always readily distinguishable from
those of North Syria.... " (Boardman 1980: 38).
7A number of the archaeologists working in Palestine
in the early part of the 20th century were trained as classical scholars, e.g., D. Mackenzie, H. Thiersch, and W. A.
Heurtley. Their interests, however, were primarily in the
possible Mycenaean relations of the biblical Philistines,
not in the later Greeks (Dothan and Dothan 1992: 32-42,
49-55).
8The earliest Greek pottery at Tyre predates that at
Al Mina by more than a century (Coldstream and Bikai
1988: 39, 43).
9This attitude is reflected in the archaeology curriculum at modern Israeli universities, where "classical archaeology" pertains primarily to the Hellenistic, Roman,
and Byzantine eras, while the Persian period is treated
as the stepchild of the Iron Age and not taught in much
detail by anyone.
10Writing at about the same time as Albright, Clairmont took almost the opposite view of the available evidence. Speaking of the 158 pieces of pottery that he was
able to document (apparentlyonly in museum collections,
not from excavation stores) he concludes that "(t)he scarcity of the finds from the Phoenician-Palestinian coast
makes it doubtful if there existed any trade relations at all
between Greeks and those areas" (Clairmont 1955: 90).
Elsewhere, speaking of the Near East in general, he states
that, aside from Naukratis, "the present picture suggests
that the trade relations of the Greeks were limited to export to their own countrymenresiding abroad"(Clairmont
1955: 87), though for what purpose-if not for tradeGreeks would be residing abroadhe does not speculate.
11It is difficult to estimate real proportions,since every
excavation has differentcriteria for saving and accounting
for what is kept or discarded; however, we are probably
talking about less than 1 percent overall, although certain
contexts may have greater or lesser quantities of imports.
Adelman (1995), for example, estimates Attic imports at
ca. 0.4 percent of the total pottery of the Persian period at
Ashkelon.
121am currentlyworking on the final publication of the
Greek pottery from Mikhmoret.
13Thecriteriafor saving sherds at Tell el-Hesi are fairly
typical and help to explain why Greek pottery may appear
disproportionatein the final counts. Bennett and Blakely
(1989: 139) report, "In this process all excavated sherds
were collected, examined for inscriptions,cleaned, and presented for preliminaryidentification.Unless reconstruction
was considered likely, in which case all sherds were retained, only indicator sherds were saved-indicator sherds
usually being rims, bases, handles, and decorated pieces."
Since even a small body scrap of Greek fine ware, with its
distinctive black, glossy surface, may be considered "decorated,"and therefore "diagnostic,"such pieces tend to be
saved, even if analogous sherds of local ware are likely
to be discarded.The numberof vessels thatthese might represent is usually difficult, if not impossible, to determine.
14Catling (1964: 36-44) made similar observations
with respect to quantities of Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus.
15One lebes gamikos fragment was identified by
Beazley among the red figure sherds at Al Mina (Beazley
1939: 23).
160ne might observe, however, the variety of imported
cooking ware from such places as Scandinavia, France,
Mexico, and elsewhere that appears in a well-equipped,
contemporarykitchen in the United States. Ancient pottery
that developed a reputationfor having desirable properties
14
JANE C. WALDBAUM
or imparting a special flavor to food might equally have
been in demand among the cognoscenti.
17Not fully published. Permission to mention them
courtesy of Professor L. E. Stager, director of the Leon
Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. C. M. Adelman and I will
publish the Greek pottery from the late seventh century
B.C. at Ashkelon.
18Clairmont(1955: 136 no. 371, pl. 31.10 calls this a
"fragmentof a fishplate, Apulian?" but this is clearly not
the case.
19Similarfavissae excavated earlier, and with more diverse contents but including at least some Greek pottery,
have been ascribed to Phoenician sanctuaries (Stern 1989:
107-8; 1982b).
20Stern also claims a "Hippodamic"(sic) plan for Persian period Dor. He notes, however, that the orthogonal
arrangementof streets at Dor begins in the late sixth cen-
BASOR 305
tury B.C., which predates the traditionaldate for Hippodamus and may have influenced him (Stern 1993: 46-47). It
is not clear whether Stern attributesthis style of planning
to Greeks or Phoenicians living in Dor.
21In a popular article on the subject Stern drops reference to the favissa altogether. He writes (1993: 44), "We
have now uncovered partof a Greek temple at Dor that apparently served the city's Greek population."
22A somewhat skeptical assessment of this building is
provided in the reviews of Riis's volume (Boardman 1972;
Coldstream 1975).
23For a discussion of Persian period tomb types and
distributionin Palestine, see Stern (1982a: 68-92).
24For a useful and up-to-date review of the problem of
East-West trade, see Morris (1992: 125-49).
25Boardman (1988: 27-33) views the trade in Greek
fine wares as more intrinsically important.
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. M.
1995
Greek Pottery from Ashkelon, Israel: Hints of
Presence? American Journal of Archaeology
99: 305 (Abstract).
W.
Albright,
E
1957
From the Stone Age to Christianity:Monotheism and the Historical Process. 2nd rev. ed.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
The Archaeology of Palestine. Rev. ed. Har1960
mondsworth:Penguin.
Aubet, M. E.
The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colo1993
nies and Trade. Trans. M. Turton,from Spanish. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity.
Bass, G. E; Puluk, C.; Colon, D.; and Weinstein, J.
The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986
1989
Campaign. American Journal of Archaeology
93: 1-29.
J.
Beazley, D.
Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia III. The Red1939
Figured Vases. Journal of Hellenic Studies 59:
1-44.
Ten Inscribed Vases. Archaiologike Ephemeris
1955
1953-1954, part 1: 200-206.
Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford:
1956
Clarendon.
Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters.2nd ed. 3 vols.
1963
Oxford: Clarendon.
Bennett W. J., Jr., and Blakely, J. A.
Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V).
1989
Joint Archaeological Expeditionto Tell el-Hesi,
vol. 3, eds. K. G. O'Connell, S. J., with E L.
Horton, Jr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Ben-Tor, A., ed.
The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Trans.
1992
R. Greenberg,from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale
University.
Bikai, P. M.
The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and
1978
Phillips.
Boardman, J.
Review of Sikdis I: The North-East Sanctuary
1972
and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and
Palestine, by P. J Riis. Gnomon 44: 214-17.
The Greeks Overseas. 3rd ed. New York:
1980
Thames and Hudson.
An Inscribed Sherd from Al Mina. Oxford
1982
Journal of Archaeology 1: 365-67.
1988
Trade in Greek Decorated Pottery. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 7: 27-33.
Al Mina and History. Oxford Journal of Ar1990
chaeology 9: 169-90.
British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem
Tanturah(Dora). Bulletin No. 4: 35-45.
1924
Bron, E, and Lemaire, A.
1983
Inscriptions d'Al-Mina. Pp. 677-86 in Atti del
I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e
Punici, Roma, 5-10 Novembre 1979, vol. 3,
eds. P. Bartolini, S. E Bondi, G. C. Polselli,
M. T. Francisi, E Mazza, G. Petruccioli, and
P. Xella. Collezione di studi fenici 16. Rome:
Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.
Catling, H. W.
1964
Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World.
Oxford Monographson Classical Archaeology.
Oxford: Clarendon.
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
Clairmont, C.
1955
GreekPotteryfrom the Near East. Introduction.
Berytus 11: 85-141.
1957
Greek Pottery from the Near East II. Black
Vases. Berytus 12: 1-34.
Coldstream, J. N.
1975
Review of Sakas I: The North-East Sanctuary
and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and
Palestine, by P J. Riis, and Sakas II: The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern Greek Pottery
and Terracottas,by G. Ploug. American Journal of Archaeology 79: 155-56.
1982
Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean. Pp.
261-75 in Phdnizier im Westen: Die Beitriige
des Internationalen Symposiums iiber "Die
ph6nizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum"in K5ln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979,
ed. H. G. Niemeyer. Madrider Beitrige 8.
Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.
Coldstream, J. N., and Bikai, P. M.
1988
Early Greek Pottery in Tyre and Cyprus: Some
Preliminary Comparisons. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1988, Part 2:
35-44.
Courbin, P.
A-t-on retrouve l'antique Posideion 'a Ras el
1978
Bassit? Archeologia 116 (March): 48-62.
1986
Bassit. Syria 63: 175-220.
Bassit-Posidaion in the Early Iron Age. Pp.
1990
503-9 in Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour
of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall. Sydney
9-14 July 1985, ed. J.-P.Descoeudres. Oxford:
Clarendon.
De Vries, K.
Attic Pottery in the Achaemenid Empire.
1977
American Journal of Archaeology 81: 544-48.
Dothan, T., and Dothan, M.
1992
People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan.
Dothan, M., and Porath, Y.
Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. The
1982
Fortifications of the Lower City. Atiqot 15.
Jerusalem:The Departmentof Antiquities and
Museums.
Dunbabin, T. J.
The Greeks and Their Eastern Neighbours:
1957
Studies in the Relations Between Greece and
the Countries of the Near East in the Eighth
and Seventh Centuries B.c. Chicago: Ares (reprint 1979).
Elayi, J.
Al-Mina sur l'Oronte 'a l'6poque perse. Pp.
1987
249-66 in Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and
the East Mediterraneanin the First Millennium
15
B.C., ed. E. Lipiriski. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 22. Leuven: Peeters.
Pendtration grecque in Phinicie sous l'empire
perse. Nancy: Universitaires de Nancy.
Frankenstein, S.
1979
The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function
of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. Pp. 263-94 in
Power and Propaganda. A Symposiumon Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia.
Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk.
Gill, D. W. J.
1991
Pots and Trade: Spacefillers or Objets d'Art?
Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 29-47.
Graham, A. J.
1986
The Historical Interpretationof Al Mina. Dialogues d'Histoire Ancienne 12: 51-65.
Herzog, Z.; Rapp, G., Jr.; and Negbi, 0., eds.
1989
Excavations at TelMichal, Israel. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Iliffe, J. H.
1932
Pre-Hellenistic Greek Pottery in Palestine.
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in
Palestine 2: 15-26.
Johns, C. N.
1932
Excavations at CAtlit(1930-1). Quarterly of
the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2:
41-104.
Kempinski, A., and Niemeier, W.-D.
1993
Kabri, 1993. Israel Exploration Journal 43:
256-59.
Kopcke, G., and Tokumaru,I., eds.
Greece between East and West: 10th-8th Cen1992
turies BC. Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, March
15-16, 1990. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.
Kurtz, D. C., and Boardman, J.
Greek Burial Customs. Ithaca: Cornell Uni1971
versity.
Levy, T. E., ed.
The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land.
1995
New York: Facts on File.
Luke, J.
Greek-EastRelations in the Geometric Period.
1992
Paper presented to the Classical Association
Conference, Oxford.
Lund, J.
1986
Sikas VIII: The Habitation Quarters. Publications of the CarlsbergExpedition to Phoenicia
10. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Macalister, R. A. S.
The Excavation of Gezer: 1902-1905 and
1912
1907-1909. 3 vols. London: Murray.
Mazar, A.
1990
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000586 B.C.E.New York: Doubleday.
1988
16
JANE C. WALDBAUM
Moorey, P. R. S.
A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Louisville:
1991
Westminster/JohnKnox.
S.
P.
Morris,
Daidalos and the Origins of GreekArt. Prince1992
ton: Princeton University.
Naveh, J.
A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century
1960
B.C.Israel Exploration Journal 10: 129-39.
1962a More Hebrew Inscriptions from Mesad Hashavyahu. Israel Exploration Journal 12: 27-32.
1962b The Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal
12: 89-113.
Niemeier, W.-D.
1990
The Greek Pottery.Pp. XXXIV-XXXIX in
Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of
1989 Season 4, eds. A. Kempinski and W.-D.
Niemeier. Tel Aviv: KabriExpedition, Tel Aviv
University.
Greek Pottery:Evidence for GreekMercenaries
1994
at Kabri.Pp. *31-*38 in Excavations at Kabri:
Preliminary Report of 1992-1993 Seasons 78, eds. A. Kempinski and W.-D. Niemeier. Tel
Aviv: Kabri Expedition, Tel Aviv University.
Perreault,J.
1986
C6ramique et 6changes: les importations attiques au Proche-Orientdu VIe au milieu du Ve
siecle avant J.-C.: Les donn6es archeologiques.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellinique 110:
145-75.
Petrie, W. M. F
Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt
1928
and Egyptian Research Account 43. London:
Quaritch.
Ploug, G.
1973
Siikis II: The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern
Greek Pottery and Terracottas.Publications of
the CarlsbergExpeditionto Phoenicia 2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Reich, R.
A Third Season of Excavations at Mesad
1989
Hashavyahu. Eretz-Israel 20 (Yigael Yadin
volume): 228-32 (Hebrew), 203* (English
summary).
Riis, P. J.
Si~kds I: The North-East Sanctuary and the
1970
First Settling of Greeks in Syria and Palestine.
Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to
Phoenicia 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Sikas VI: The Graeco-Phoenician Cemetery
1979
and Sanctuary at the Southern Harbour. Publications of the CarlsbergExpedition to Phoenicia 7. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Griechen in Phionizien. Pp. 237-60 in Phon1982
izier im Westen: Die Beitriige des Internationalen Symposiums iiber "Die phanizische
BASOR 305
Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum" in
KOln vom 24. bis 27. April 1979, ed. H. G.
Niemeyer. Madrider Beitrdige 8. Mainz am
Rhein: von Zabern.
Risser, M. K., and Blakely, J. A.
1989
Imported Aegean Fine Ware in the First Millennium B.C.E.Pp. 69-137 in Tell el-Hesi: The
Persian Period (Stratum V), by W. J. Bennett,
Jr., and J. A. Blakely. Joint Archaeological
Expedition to Tell el-Hesi, vol. 3, eds. K. G.
O'Connell, S. J., with E L. Horton, Jr. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Robertson, M.
The Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia IV. The
1940
Early Greek Vases. Journal of Hellenic Studies
60: 2-21.
Rotroff, S.
The Greeks and the Other in the Age of Alex1997
ander.In Greeksand Barbarians: Essays on the
Interactions between Greeks and Non-Greeks
in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism, eds. J. E. Coleman and C. A. Walz.
Occasional Publications of the Department of
Near Eastern Studies and Jewish Studies, Cornell University, No. 4. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
Saltz, D. L.
1978
Greek Geometric Potteryin the East: The Chronological Implications.Ph.D. Dissertation,Harvard University.
Silberman, N. A.
1982
Digging for God and Country: Exploration,
Archeology and the Secret Struggle for the
Holy Land 1799-1917. New York: Knopf.
Stager, L. E.
Ashkelon. Pp. 103-12 in The New Encyclope1993
dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land, vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction:
1996
Kislev 604 BCE.Eretz-Israel 25 (Joseph Aviram Volume): 61*"-74*.
Stager, L., and Esse, D.
1987
Ashkelon, 1985-1986. Israel ExplorationJournal 37: 68-72.
Stern, E.
1982a Material Cultureof the Land of the Bible in the
Persian Period 538-332 B.C.Warminster:Aris
and Phillips.
1982b A Favissa of a Phoenician Sanctuaryfrom Tel
Dor. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 35-54.
The Beginning of the Greek Settlement in Pal1989
estine in the Light of the Excavations at Tel
Dor. Pp. 107-24 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.
1997
GREEKS IN THE EAST OR GREEKS AND THE EAST?
17
The Many Masters of Dor. Part 3. The Persis- Weinberg, S.
Post-Exilic Palestine: An Archaeological Retence of Phoenician Culture. Biblical Archae1971
port. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciology Review 19, no. 3: 38-49.
ences and Humanities 4 (1969-1970): 78-97.
Dor: Ruler of the Seas. Jerusalem: Israel Ex1994
R.
Wenning,
Society.
ploration
Griechische Importe in Palastina aus der Zeit
1981
Stern, E.; Berg, J.; Gilboa, A.; Guz-Zilberstein,B.; Raban,
vor Alexander d. Gr. Vorbericht tiber ein ForA; Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R;, and Sharon, I.
Excavations at Dor, Final Report Volume lB.
1995
schungsproject.Boreas: Miinstersche Beitriige
Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Reports 2.
zur Archdologie 4: 29-46.
Nachrichten tiber Griechen in Palastina in der
1991
Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The HeEisenzeit. Pp. 207-19 in Proceedings of the
brew University of Jerusalem.
First International Congress on The Hellenic
Taylor, J. du Plat
The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina,
1959
Diaspora from Antiquity to Modern Times I:
From Antiquity to 1453, ed. J. M. Fossey.
21:
62-92.
Syria. Iraq
McGill University Monographsin Classical ArTufnell, O.
Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir): The Iron Age.
1953
chaeology and History 10. Amsterdam:Gieben.
The Greek Imports in Palestine: Aspects of
1994
2 vols. New York: Oxford University.
Function and Decoration. Paper presented at
J.
C.
Waldbaum,
the annualmeeting of the Archaeological Insti1994a Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Letute of America, Atlanta. (Abstractpublished in
vant, ca. 1000-600 B.c.: The Eastern PerAmerican Journal of Archaeology 99 [1995]
spective. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 293: 53-66.
305.)
1994b Greeks and Graves in the Coastal Levant. Woolley, C. L.
The Excavations at Al Mina, Suedia I, II: The
1938
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Atlanta.
Institute
of
America,
Archaeological Report. Journal of Hellenic
Archaeological
Studies 58: 1-30; 133-70.
(Abstract published in American Journal of
Yardeni, A.
Archaeology 99 [1995] 306.)
Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an
1994
Waldbaum, J. C., and Magness, J.
Erased Customs Account from 475 B.C.E.on
The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: New
1997
the Ahiqar Scroll from Elephantine.Bulletin of
Evidence from Seventh-Century B.C. Destructhe American Schools of Oriental Research
tion Levels in Israel. American Journal of
293: 67-78.
Archaeology 101: 23-40.
1993