Peter M. Fischer
Austrian Academy, Vienna, and Gothenburg University
Tuesday November 5 2002,
Venue:
Lecture Theatre G05,
Department of Geography, UCL,
26 Bedford Way
London, WC1H 0AP
- Attendance is free and open to all interested -
Abstract
The material from the first two seasons of the renewed excavations at Tell el-cAjjul offers an excellent opportunity to study a large variety of well-stratified imports from all over the Eastern Mediterranean. 941 ceramic imports mainly from Cyprus but also from the Jordan Valley/Southern Lebanon, Egypt, the Middle Euphrates/North Syria and the Mycenaean sphere of culture have been discovered. The analysis of the distribution of the imported material and its synchronization with the major cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean allows quite reliable but still preliminarily refined conclusions concerning the relative chronology of the different occupational layers of the site. These extend roughly from the second part of Middle Bronze Age II to the first half of Late Bronze Age II.
Eight occupational horizons have been found, i.e. H1-8. Forty-eight samples of pumice could be collected from H1 down to H5. It has been demonstrated that flotation of soil in order to recover botanical remains also resulted in a number of pumice samples additional to the samples from the excavations. So far pumice could not be detected in H6 - H8. Provenance studies with neutron activation analysis have shown that all pumice from H5 (i.e. 23 samples or 56% of all stratified samples) derives from the "Minoan" eruption of Thera. These results may favour the hypothesis that Thera erupted at the end of H6 or transitional H6/5 or at the beginning of H5. One should, however, await the results of the continued excavations before any definite conclusion can be drawn. It is, however, beyond any reasonable doubt that H5 and all subsequent horizons are "post-Minoan" eruption occupational layers.
The unparalleled hoards of goldwork excavated earlier together with two items of gold jewellery from the renewed excavations and other luxury items, point to exceptional wealth which was certainly based on trade (not only limited to luxury items). The vast amount of Cypriot imports, the number of which cannot be equalled by any other site in the Eastern Mediterranean, demonstrates that Tell el-cAjjul functioned as the main trading centre in the area because of its geographical and topographical position. It is not unlikely that Tell el-cAjjul had a monopoly of the trade with certain major Cypriot production/trading centres from the end of the Middle Bronze Age and onwards, whoever ruled at Tell el-cAjjul: a sovereign "king", or a Hyksos(-dependent) ruler or - during the Late Bronze Age - "governors" under the regime of the 18th Dynasty. It was certainly in the interest of the rulers of the 18th Dynasty not to disturb the trading traditions between Tell el-cAjjul and Cyprus.
In consequence, goods were distributed from there to all over the Southern Levant and Egypt including Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi. It is therefore evident that Tell el-cAjjul and Tell el-Dabca/cEzbet Helmi are key sites in connection with the intense ongoing discussion of relative and absolute chronology and of synchronism, which has mainly been and still is based on the occurrence and the spatial and stratigraphic distribution of Cypriot pottery, and on radiocarbon dates, and which now can benefit from the results of scientific analysis of finds of pumice at different sites. We are therefore dependent on material from many more stratified and reliable contexts not only from these two sites but from all over the Eastern Mediterranean.
There are numerous contexts which have been dated in accordance with the Cypriot chronology which in turn and to a not inconsiderable extent relies on finds from other sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is the belief of the present author that the prime task of the renewed excavations at Tell el-cAjjul is to establish an unbiased, reliable and repeatable stratigraphic sequence. The much debated conclusions of Petrie and his assistants and the "need" to fit in with the Cypriot chronological sequence so far established should not guide the interpretation of the new evidence. There are still many problems to be solved as regards the refinement of the relative Cypriot chronology.
