ANTH.

340 / 640:
The Archaeology and History of the “Bible Lands”:
Ancient (Syria)-Palestine.
Notes & images compiled by Gregory Mumford © 2023

Lecture 5:
Early Bronze Age I (Part-1).
Table of contents:

1. Background to EB Age 4
2. Transition to EB Age: Chalcolithic to EB Age 15
3. EB Age I sub-divisions and varying terminology 23
4. EB I settlement patterns 27
5. EB I “Urban” planning (proto-urban) 37
6. EB I Burial customs 49
7. EB I material culture: Pottery 57
8. EB I material culture: Other finds 66
9. Origins of EB I culture 72
10. EB I: Trade and exchange relations with Egypt 81
(a). Overview of Egyptian items and influence in Palestine 93
(b). Overview of Levantine items and influence in Egypt 103
(c). What does it all mean? 107
11. Trade and exchange relations with Egypt: What is going on? 114
12. Trade and exchange relations with Egypt: Attraction for Egypt 118
13. Trade and exchange relations with Egypt: Comparative chronologies 120
14. Summary of main points 122
Instructor tips for lectures, etc.:
(1). Attend class regularly (& listen) …
→ Many clarifications, tips, announcements,
reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts.

(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

→ The act of writing down notes, even with
most course materials and instructions online,
serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on
a class topic and retaining information better.
https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/
(3). Complete the required textbook
readings, and/or review the ppt.,
prior to the specific class day …
→ This will provide greater clarity and
comprehension of the material, and will enable
asking focused questions where something
may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture).

(4). Ask questions during the class if

you are confused/wish more data
→ The class is an ideal place to ask for more
clarity or further information not contained in
the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody
asks questions, the lecture proceeds …).

(5). Complete optional materials:

→ Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus?
 Background to
Early Bronze Age:

3,300 – 2,300 BCE

(= overall EB Age range)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
• The transition between the
Chalcolithic & Early Bronze Age
is marked by significant changes
throughout the Near East, Egypt
(and elsewhere).
• In essence, the late 4th mill. to
early 3rd millennium BC MESOPOTAMIA
experiences the “beginnings”
EGYPT
of urban life, …
perhaps = more accurately
portrayed as a growing
intensification in urbanization
across particular landscapes,
especially Mesopotamia and A rise of urbanization
Egypt. & intensification in it
• “Proto-urban” stage …
across the Near East
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
• More importantly, this apparent
urbanization actually reflects
the initiation of new and more
complex forms of socio-
political, religious, and
administrative organization:
E.g., Early complex state
societies emerge in Egypt
and Mesopotamia,
E.g., Growing towns in Syria-
Palestine (& “collapse” of
semi-sedentary Ghassulian
culture)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EGYPT
→ One sees the emergence of
neighbouring complex
societies / early states:
• E.g., Large-scale organization
of labour implying administration
& a social hierarchy:
E.g., National irrigation projects
(= regional; with conscript
labour);
E.g., State through communal
construction: temples,
palaces, elite tombs, and
public structures (e.g.,
granaries).

Outside EB I Palestine
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
• OUTSIDE EB I Palestine:
• The emergence of writing,
especially regarding an
administrative control:
E.g., Long-distance instructions,
administering, accounting,
& related aspects involving
the elite & the re-dispersal
of materials, commodities,
livestock, labour, and other
resources.
• Other developments and/or
intensifications:
E.g., art, architecture,
literature,
etc.
Outside EB I Palestine
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Mesopotamia (Sumer):
• The process of state formation
and urbanization technically
began earlier & more gradually
in Mesopotamia:
- Ubaid period: 5th - 4th mill. BC
- Uruk – Jemdet Nasr
(proto-literate) periods:
ca. 3500 – 3000 BC.

- Uruk reaches 400 acres in

scale:
-8 x larger than Chalcolithic
T. el-Ghassul.
-13x larger than large Neolithic
towns in Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Mesopotamia (Sumeria):
- Massive temple complexes
being built & playing a key role
in Sumerian socio-political &
economic life.
- Early Dynastic Sumerian
city-states yield a wealth of
written materials and
archaeological evidence.
- Mesopotamia influenced
North Syria, which developed
a similar literate society.
(later subsumed by Akkad
empire).
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Egypt (pharaonic civilization):
• Naqada II (Gerzean) culture
flourishing with early “towns”:
3500-3200 BC. (= small towns)
• Naqada III Protodynastic
kingdoms & writing emerging:
ca. 3200-3000 BC.
• Early Dynastic (Archaic)
unified albeit still evolving state:
ca. 3000-2686 BC.
- Obtaining lumber, etc., from
the Levant.
Early Bronze II-IV: ca.2,700-2,000 BC
Egypt (pharaonic civilization):
• Old Kingdom (“pyramid age”):
consolidated state 2686-2160 BC.
- Mortuary-cultic texts, art,
sculpture, decoration, etc.,
improving over time.
- Major pyramid construction
Dyns.3-4
- Declining pyramid building
Dyns.5-6
• First Intermediate Period
(decline): ca.2160-2055 BC.
- Declining royal power Dyns.7-8
- Increasing provincial power
- Rise of southern & northern
kingdoms.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Syria-Palestine & neighbours:
• Hence, relations also intensified
between Syria-Palestine, Egypt,
and Mesopotamia in commercial
and other aspects.
- N. Syria became dominated by
its adjacent (Meso) neighbour:
a. Adopting aspects of
Mesopotamian language and
culture: e.g., Ebla used
the Sumerian script.
b. Serving as trade conduit
between East Mediterranean
& Mesopotamia. E.g., Byblos
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Syria-Palestine & neighbours:
- Palestine, southern Syria, &
Lebanon had varying, albeit
relatively more links with Egypt,
and enabled some contact
between Egypt, Anatolia, and
Mesopotamia.
- EB I: Initially sedentary
agrarian “towns” (proto-urban).
- EB II-III: Fully urbanized
city-states.
 Transition to
Early Bronze Age:

3,500 / 3,300 BCE

(Chalcolithic → EB Age)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:

• The decline & disappearance

of Ghassulian (Chalcolithic)
culture is still imperfectly
understood.
• However, it appears to arise
from multiple factors, which vary
by region:
1. Climate
2. Socio-political inflexibility
3. Economic/commercial factors
4. Warfare
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:
1. Climatic factors:
- Increasing aridity alters climate
closer to modern conditions, →
poss. changing rainfall, erosion,
& drainage patterns→destroyed
former fertile agricultural lands
in the northern Negev.
- Spring-reliant irrigation farming
in the Jordan Valley shifted,
i.e., losing the wetter conditions
sufficiently → former important
pig-raising largely disappears.
- Ghassulian culture seems
unable to adapt sufficiently in
these zones.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:
2. Socio-political inflexibility:
- Socio-political inflexibility within
Chalc.-populations may have
enabled their decline/disappearance
from specific peripheral regions
that shifted from fertile to
non-fertile zones:
- E.g., Northern Negev, poss.
lower Jordan Valley, and the
Transjordanian plateau.
- i.e., Multi-polity chiefdom system
across a broad area allowed much
interaction between neighbours,
BUT discouraged re-allocation of Collapse of Chalcolithic
separate populations, or resources, (Ghassulian) chiefdoms
to other less marginal localities.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:
3. Economic/commercial
factors:
- The apparent close commercial
ties between NE Egypt (Maadi)
and the Beer-Sheba region in
the Chalcolithic, may have
increased Egypt’s ‘desire’ for
copper ores & other imports Competition over resources/market?
sufficiently that → increased
external? competition to meet
this demand (i.e., it may have
speeded a decline in this area):
- E.g., Egypt later focuses on obtaining
copper & turquoise from South
Sinai, first indirectly → directly.
NEW DATA: Egypt in South Sinai during Dyn.1 (*texts)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?
3. Economic/commercial
factors:
• Possibly southern polities in
Predynastic Egypt competed
with both the Maadi (north) and
Beer-Sheba Chalc.-cultures’
economic arrangement to get
copper via South Sinai Bedu.
- OR, Predynastic Egyptians may
have pursued this later, after
the Chalcolithic collapse.
- Egypt eventually bypasses
locals & later pursues direct
mining of copper in S. Sinai.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:
4. Warfare:
- The appearance and increase
in producing copper, stone,
and other weaponry (e.g.,
mace-heads; bows) may Chalcolithic mace-heads
suggest a rise in conflict within
Palestine (i.e., civil strife
between tribes?).
- It is also possible that the
northern Predynastic Egyptians
and others may have led raids
into/within Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
Transition ca.3700-3500 BC / Later?:
4. Warfare:
- The latter idea (raids) remains
unproven for this early period,
but the finding of some Predyn.
Egyptian mace-heads in the Chalcolithic mace-heads
destruction level at the Gilat
shrine may suggest:
(a). increased Egyptian
contact at this time: trade?,
(b). possible Egy. raids into
Palestine (which may fall into
the later Naqada III phase).
(c). Local attack against Gilat
(which has contact with Egypt)
 Early Bronze Age:

EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,050 BCE
(subdivisions &
varying terminology)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Early Bronze Ia-b: 3500-3050 BC
•The EB I period yields new settlement
patterns and material culture at its
advent in EB 1a: ca.3500-3300 BC.
• There has been speculation whether
these changes reflect the appearance
of a new population?, but if this is the
case, from where did it originate???
• Other suggestions revolve around an
indigenous development? from the
preceding “Ghassulian” culture(s).
• There is continued debate over the
degree of continuity? between the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age,
which is further complicated by
different applications of terminology:
EB Ia-b new settlement patterns:
- New
Somepeople(s)?
excavatorsInternal
labelledchange(s)?
their findings • Different sites, areas, & densities.
“Late Chalcolithic,”
hybrid old and newwhile othersAnd/or
peoples? would • Different house types
apply factors
other the term…?
“Early Bronze I” → ??? • Etc.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Early Bronze Ia-b: 3500-3050 BC
• The EB I period yields new settlement
patterns and material culture at its
Differing
advent in EB 1a: ca.3500-3300 BC.
Terminology:
• There has been speculation whether
these changes reflect the appearance
of a new population, but, if this is the

“Late Chalcolithic”
case, from where did it originate???
• Other suggestions revolve around an
indigenous development from the
preceding “Ghassulian” culture(s).
Versus
• There is continued debate over the
degree of continuity between the
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age,
“Early Bronze I”
which is further complicated by
different applications of terminology:
- Some excavators labelled their findings
“Late Chalcolithic,” while others would What defines “EB I”
apply the term “Early Bronze I” → ???
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
• In 1958, Wright suggested including
prior publications of “Late Chalcolithic”
as “Early Bronze I.”E.g., Gray Burnished Ware

• He also argued for subdividing EB I

into three sub-phases: EB 1a, 1b, 1c,
following developments in pottery.
• Kenyon introduced “Proto-Urban A-C”
and Early Bronze I for Jericho, with
a. her Proto-Urban = Wright’s EB 1a-b,
b. her Early Bronze I = Wright’s EB 1c.
• P. de Miroschedji suggested adding a
“Proto-Urban D” to Kenyon’s system,
while other variants exist by region.
→The EB I is emerging as a period of
great diversity across Palestine, for
which it seems impossible to develop a
universal chronological terminology.
→EB I basically reflects “pre-urban” Pal.
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Settlement patterns:
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1a sites
Settlement patterns:
• EB I sites reveal both some similarities
& differences to preceding Chalcolithic
settlements:
- Like Chalc. sites, EB I settlements
were also unfortified.
- Unlike Chalc. sites, EB I settlements
mostly avoided … the Golan Heights,
Judean Desert, Teleilat el-Ghassul
region, and northern Negev, which
had been densely settled in Chalc.
- When EB I sites appear in these
areas, they are normally placed in
different locations than the former
Chalc. settlements.
- R. Gophna’s study reveals that 30%
of the known EB I sites re-occupy
localities formerly occupied in Chalc.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1b sites
Settlement patterns:
• EB I sites focus in more temperate
fertile areas in the northern plain, the
coastal plains, the Shephelah, the
central hill country, & Jordan Valley.
• Many sites emerge near water sources,
arable land, & along transit routes.
• These site location determinants are
retained when many of the EB I sites
develop into EB II urban centres.
- E.g., Megiddo
Beth Shean
Beth-Yerah (SW Sea of Galilee)
Tell Far‘ah North (Bib. Tirzah)
‘Ai
Yarmuth
Tel Halif
Arad
Bab edh-Dhra ‘ (E. of Dead Sea)
• Many other EB I sites are abandoned.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• Throughout Palestine’s history, the
economy has largely been driven by
agriculture & animal husbandry
(mainly sheep/goats; some cattle+pigs)
• The EB I settlement patterns reflect
an agricultural economy (i.e., crops)
rather than pasturage (i.e., flocks).
• New crops appear in the Early Bronze:
- Horticulture (especially in hill country)
- Grapes
- Figs
• In EB I, the now more semi-arid areas
in Palestine and Sinai are occupied by
nomadic pastoralists, whose presence
is attested by isolated cemeteries,
such as the Sinai nawamis and a huge
cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra‘
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• Throughout Palestine’s history, the
economy has largely been driven by
agriculture & animal husbandry
(mainly sheep/goats; some cattle+pigs)
• The EB I settlement patterns reflect
an agricultural economy (i.e., crops)
rather than pasturage (i.e., flocks).
• New crops appear in the Early Bronze:
- Horticulture (especially in hill country)
- Grapes
- Figs
• In EB I, the now more semi-arid areas
in Palestine and Sinai are occupied by
nomadic pastoralists,whose presence
is attested by isolated cemeteries,
such as the Sinai nawamis, and
a huge cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra‘
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• One oddity is the appearance of the
site of Jawa in a desolate basalt region
between Jordan and Iraq.
• A 22-acre fortified town emerged here
in the late 4th millennium BC.
• It maintained
22 acresits= existence
89,030.8 sq. m. this
within
= approx.
otherwise 298 x 298 mby
hostile environment
implementing ingenious water suppy
schemes: dams and reservoirs.
• The impetus behind this site and the
origin of its population remain elusive,
but one would assume that overland
trade had a significant role to play in
its formation, not unlike the appearance
of later isolated sites (caravanserai)
along major trade routes.
•Tall
GM:Jawa:it presumably forged an alternate
https://brill.com/view/book/9789004409101/BP000002.xml
overland trade link with Mesopotamia.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• One oddity is the appearance of the
site of Jawa in a desolate basalt region
between Jordan and Iraq.
• A 22-acre fortified town emerged here
in the late 4th millennium BC.
• It maintained its existence within this
otherwise hostile environment by
implementing ingenious water suppy
schemes: dams and reservoirs.
• The impetus behind this site and the
origin of its population remain elusive,
but one would assume that overland
trade had a significant role to play in
its formation, not unlike the appearance
of later isolated sites (caravanserai)
along major trade routes.
• GM: it presumably forged an alternate
overland trade link with Mesopotamia.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• One oddity is the appearance of the
site of Jawa in a desolate basalt region
between Jordan and Iraq.
• A 22-acre fortified town emerged here
in the late 4th millennium BC.
• It maintained its existence within this
otherwise hostile environment by
implementing ingenious water supply
schemes: dams and reservoirs.
• The impetus behind this site and the
origin of its population remain elusive,
but one would assume that overland
trade had a significant role to play in
its formation, not unlike the appearance
of later isolated sites (caravanserai)
along major trade routes.
• GM: it presumably forged an alternate
overland trade link with Mesopotamia.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• One oddity is the appearance of the
site of Jawa in a desolate basalt region
between Jordan and Iraq.
• A 22-acre fortified town emerged here
in the late 4th millennium BC.
• It maintained its existence within this
otherwise hostile environment by
implementing ingenious water suppy
schemes: dams and reservoirs.
• The impetus behind this site and the
origin of its population remain elusive,
but one would assume that overland
trade had a significant role to play in
its formation, not unlike the appearance
of later isolated sites (caravanserai)
along major trade routes.
• GM: it presumably forged an alternate
overland trade link with Mesopotamia.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Settlement patterns:
• One oddity is the appearance of the
site of Jawa in a desolate basalt region
between Jordan and Iraq.
• A 22-acre fortified town emerged here
in the late 4th millennium BC.
• It maintained its existence within this
otherwise hostile environment by
implementing ingenious water suppy
schemes: dams and reservoirs.
• The impetus behind this site and the
origin of its population remain elusive,
but one would assume that overland
trade had a significant role to play in
its formation, not unlike the appearance
of later isolated sites (caravanserai)
along major trade routes.
• GM: it presumably forged an alternate
overland trade link with Mesopotamia. and/or N-S link with Arabia(?)
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

“Urban” planning
(Proto-urban):
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1b plan
Site plan & architecture: of Megiddo
• A few sufficiently excavated EB I sites
enable an assessment of their layouts:
- Megiddo Phases VII-IV & Str.XIX
- Yiftahel (Lower Galilee)
- ‘En Shadud (Jezreel Valley)
- ‘En Teo (Huleh Valley)
* Beth-Yerah (Sharon Plain)
- Meser (Sharon Plain)
* Aphek (Sharon Plain)
- Tel Kitan (Beth-Shean Valley)
- Hartuv (near Beth-Shemesh)
* Tel ‘Erani (Negev)
- Tel Halif (Negev)
- Tel Malhata (Negev)
- Arad (Negev)
- Jawa (Transjordan: E. Desert)
- Bab edh-Dhra‘(Transjordan)
- T.Umm Hamad(Jordan Valley)
* 12+ acres; (Others = small unfortified villages)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Site plan & architecture:
• Dwellings and structures in northern
Palestine usually exhibited circular,
elliptical, curvilinear, or apsidal forms.
(i.e., similar buildings in S. Lebanon).
• The curvilinear forms represent mostly
foreign designs than ones used in Chalc.,
suggesting a non-indigenous tradition.
• Foreign “Gray Burnished Ware” occurs Yiftahel: EB I oval-shaped dwelling
more frequently with such housing,
suggesting more foreign Syrian links. Apsidal building

• Aside from dwellings & public features,

only cultic structures dominate most
settlements, thereby excluding (later)
massive private dwellings that would
signify a greater social hierarchy: EB2+
• The cultic focal point suggests that
religion &/or the priesthood formed the
main controlling force in EB I society.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Site plan & architecture:
Megiddo temple (stratum XIX):
• Two broad rooms with a platform (altar)
in each, placed opposite the doorway
i.e., = axial approach. EB I

• The temple had a frontal courtyard with

flat stone paving.
• Several stones bore depictions of
animals and a man playing a lyre
(i.e., artwork = rare from EB I Palestine)
• This cultic structure reveals some
continuity with prior Chalc. shrines,
and later EB II-III religious buildings:
E.g., Chalcolithic En Gedi shrine.

See next slide for art

Chalcolithic
from EB 1 Megiddo altar
Megiddo: EB Age I art from shrine’s floor
Human figures: warriors, others, family?
• Presumably rituals benefitting individuals

SEE MORE IMAGES VIA:

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrnadk/Keinan_2013.pdf
Megiddo: EB Age I art from shrine’s floor
Incised stones stratum XIX pavement 4008:
Human figures: warriors, musician, others,
plus humans and animals (& additions):
Presumably part of rituals benefitting dedicant
Megiddo: EB Age I art from
shrine’s floor: Incised stones
stratum XIX pavement 4008:

Human figures: warriors,

hunters, others …
Animals: Mother & young,
Human & animals:
Animal attacking prostrate
human –slain hunter?
Presumably part of rituals
benefitting dedicant, or
commemorating event?
Art carved into the
shrine’s paving stones:
• Did the art works reflect
various priests (visions?),
visitor dedicants (wishes?),
artists (commissioned art),
combination? Or other? …
Megiddo: EB Age I art from shrine’s
floor: Incised stones stratum XIX
pavement 4008:
Animals: Various wild animals shown
in profile, perhaps reflecting hinterland
wildlife of importance to community:
Presumably part of rituals benefitting …
Megiddo: EB Age I art from
shrine’s floor: Incised stones
stratum XIX pavement 4008:

Animals: Various wild types,

including antelope, gazelles,
giraffe, elephant(?), felines,
and animal hunting/kills.
Fertility? Life cycle? Control nature?
Megiddo: EB Age I
art from shrine’s floor:
Incised stones from
stratum XIX pavement
4008:

Motifs: Various types,

including warrior,
fish, weapons (axes),
and more abstract
designs/items.

AIMS(?):
• Commemorating a
special event?
• Aiming to replicate
illustration (fertility?;
hunting success?;
victory in battle?; +)
• Aiming to prevent
something (illness?;
death?; danger; etc.)
• Other potential aims
behind illustrations …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Site plan & architecture:
Hartuv (near Beth-Shemesh):
• Contains a rare communal building
featuring a 5.10 x 15 m rectilinear room
with a longitudinal row of pillar bases.
• A line of standing stones lie along the
southern wall, perhaps reflecting
“sacred stones” (massebot):
- Different deities?
- Ancestor cult?
- Another usage?
• The focus on placing standing stones
in shrines is found in earlier isolated
open buildings, such as 5th to 4th mill.
BC structuresCult
in thewith
Negev & E. Sinai.
• The“Standing Stones”:
Hartuv shrine apparently began as
an open structure & evolved into an
Various poss. meanings
enclosed temple, paralleling the EB I
transition from pastoral to sedentary life
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Site plan & architecture:
Hartuv (near Beth-Shemesh):
• Contains a rare communal building
featuring a 5.10 x 15 m rectilinear room
with a longitudinal row of pillar bases.
Cult with
• A line of standing stones lie along the
“Standing
southern Stones”:
wall, perhaps reflecting
“sacred stones” (massebot):
= very long tradition …
- Different deities?
- Ancestor cult?
- Another usage?
• The focus on placing standing stones
in shrines is found in earlier isolated
open buildings, such as 5th to 4th mill.
BC structures in the Negev & E. Sinai.
• The Hartuv shrine apparently began as
an open structure & evolved into an
enclosed temple, paralleling the EB I
transition from pastoral to sedentary life
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Burial customs:
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
• Interments have provided most of
our knowledge about EB I.
• Many EB I populations used natural
caves or cut subterranean caves to
house multiple family burials over
several generations.
• Most of the bodies are disarticulated,
with skulls often being separated from
the pile of bones (continuing tradition?)
• Some groups placed bones in pottery
jars (like ossuaries/coffins): Tell Asawir
• Other populations deliberately kept
skulls in rows separate from the
bodies: E.g., Jericho.
• A few families may have practiced
cremation: e.g., Azor.
=varying practices (= diff. traditions).
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
• The bereaved family members also
provided various offerings for the dead:
- Pottery vessels (i.e., food & drink)
- Jewellery (i.e., personal adornment)
- Metal items (jewellery; tools; etc.)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
Bab edh-Dhra‘ cemetery EB Ia-b:
• It spans 2 phases (EB 1a to EB 1b: ca.
3500-3300 BC → ca.3300-3000 BC).
EB 1a:
• EB 1a contains 1000s of “shaft tombs”
which have a vertical shaft accessing
one or more subterranean caves.
• Each burial cave yielded up to 6-7
bodies, with the long bones being
placed in a heap on one side, end the
Initially
skulls being arranged in a row.
shaft tombs
• Defleshing appears to taken place by
at EB
boiling andI.A
mayBab
reflectedh-Dhra’
a nomadic
(nolifestyle
pastoralist settlement)
that would require
retaining & transporting the remains of
i.e.,
dead family members until returning to
= family
the nomadic pastoralists
burial ground: Bab edh-Dhra
• EB 1a lacks any nearby settlement.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
Bab edh-Dhra‘ cemetery EB Ia-b:
• It spans 2 phases (EB 1a to EB 1b: ca.
3500-3300 BC → ca.3300-3000 BC).
EB 1a:
• EB 1a contains 1000s of “shaft tombs”
which have a vertical shaft accessing
one or more subterranean caves.
• Each burial cave yielded up to 6-7
bodies, with the long bones being
placed in a heap on one side, and the
skulls being arranged in a row.
• Defleshing appears to taken place by
boiling and may reflect a nomadic
pastoralist lifestyle that would require
retaining & transporting the remains of
dead family members until returning to
the family burial ground: Bab edh-Dhra
• EB 1a lacks any nearby settlement.
Bab ed-Dhra‘:
East side of the Dead Sea:
EB 1.A shaft tomb (chamber
at base of shaft = “cave”)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
EB 1b: 3,300 BCE+
• EB 1b reveals a change in tomb design
at Bab edh-Dhra‘, with the construction
of circular mud-brick structures.
• These new structures also held the
mostly articulated remains of family
(or clan/tribal) members.
• The EB 1b continuation by the same
peoples who first began using the
Beb edh-Dhra‘ cemetery coincides with
foundation of a settlement in EB 1b.
• Hence, a change in lifestyle from a
Chalc.-EB 1a nomadic pastoralist life
to sedentary EB 1b lifestyle coincides
with a change in mortuary practice.
• (This community experiences a further
shift to a fortified settlement in EB II).
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Burial customs:
South Sinai:
• The late Chalcolithic nawamis in
South Sinai continue to be built as
circular stone superstructures with
interior corbelled roofing.
• These structures yield scanty finds,
but include jewellery, flint, and other
items.
• A few items indicate trade/contact with
Egypt, otherwise the extant evidence
suggests affiliations with Chalcolithic
& EB I populations in the northern
Beer-Sheba & Bab edh-Dhra‘ regions.

Nomadic pastoralists
continue their trad. cemeteries
in arid, marginal regions:
E.g., Southeast Sinai
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Material culture:
E.g., Pottery …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Pottery:
• EB 1 tombs yielded many complete
pottery vessels, while settlements
produced other domestic+ potsherds.
• Study of the wares, forms & decorative
motifs have aided studies of the origins,
regional diversity, cross-cultural contact,
and foreign imports in EB 1 culture.
• Although certain EB 1 pottery forms
occur throughout Palestine, there are
many regional variants and types,
making it difficult to sub-divide EB 1
into broader chronological sequences.
• Stratified occupation sequences of
pottery are best for compiling temporal
subdivisions in this (and other periods). EB 1: Net-painted jar from
Ghor es-Safi.
• Palestine contains distinct northern
& southern pottery traditions in EB 1.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1B
Pottery:
• EB 1 tombs yielded many complete
pottery vessels, while settlements
produced other domestic+ potsherds.
North
• Study of the wares, forms & decorative
motifs have aided studies of the origins,
regional diversity, cross-cultural
South contact,
and foreign imports in EB 1 culture.
• Although certain EB 1 pottery forms
occur throughout Palestine, there are
many regional variants and types,
making it difficult to sub-divide EB 1
into broader chronological sequences.
• Stratified occupation sequences of
pottery are best for compiling temporal
subdivisions in this (and other periods).
• Palestine contains distinct northern Tell Abu al-Kharaz
& southern pottery traditions in EB 1.
http://www.fischerarchaeology.se/?page_id=33
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Early Bronze Age I pottery
Pottery:
• Some EB pottery retains Chalc. forms:
E.g., “hole mouth” cooking pot
• New forms & components in EB 1:
E.g., Ledge-handles (from cyl.-handles)
• Specific decoration & forms distinguish
between northern & southern traditions:
E.g., EB 1b northern Palestine adopts
wide rough brushstrokes of
red-brown paint on large jars:
= “grain wash” or “band slip.”
E.g., EB 1b northern Palestine also
yields various small vessels
with well-burnished red slip
(rare in domestic pottery).
- Series of vertical orange-red lines
on a white slip background.
- Incised lines on necks & handles
- Thumb-impressed clay bands. Northern culture: red slipped & burnished
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Early Bronze Age I pottery
Pottery:
• The burial assemblages of pottery
contained mostly small containers,
many of which were made specifically
as mortuary vessels:
- Rounded bowls (few depressed bases)
- Two-handled jars (amphoriskoi)
- Loop-handled cups
- Narrow-necked bottles with 2 handles
- “basket”-handled jar
- Jar with an elongated cylindr.-spout
- Jar with a “false” spout
- “teapot” with a bent spout
• Some forms occur throughout
Palestine.
• Other forms are particular to certain
regions.
• N. Palestine has > red-slipped forms
• S. Palestine has less red slip and is
seldom burnished. Southern culture: less red slip (< burnish)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Pottery:
• Central Palestine yields 2 mortuary
assemblages of pottery:
- “Proto-Urban A” & “Proto-Urban B”
- = Contemporary and related groups
• Proto-Urban A:
- Found at Jericho, Azor, Tell Farah (N)
- Unpainted types with red slip.
• Proto-Urban B:
MuchTell en-Nasbeh,
- Found at Jerusalem,
and Ai (in central hill country).
regional
- Also variance
in some burials at Jericho and at
Bab edh-Dhra‘ (= rare elsewhere).
in EB I
- Red-painted geometric designs laid
out in pottery formsweaving?).
thin lines (replicating
• Proto-Urban
and decoration
A and B:
- At some northern sites, such as Tell
→ Local
el-Far‘ah & Beth-Yerah,
sequences(!)
alongside
other EB 1 pottery.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Pottery:
• Central Palestine yields two mortuary
assemblages of pottery:
- “Proto-Urban A” & “Proto-Urban B”
- = Contemporary and related groups
• Proto-Urban A:
- Found at Jericho, Azor, Tell Farah (N)
- Unpainted types with red slip.
• Proto-Urban B:
- Found at Jerusalem, Tell en-Nasbeh,
and Ai (in central hill country).
- Also in some burials at Jericho and at
Bab edh-Dhra‘ (= rare elsewhere).
- Red-painted geometric designs laid
out in thin lines (replicating weaving?).
• Proto-Urban A and B:
- At some northern sites, such as Tell
el-Far‘ah & Beth-Yerah, alongside
other EB 1 pottery.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Pottery:
Gray Burnished Ware (= northern type):
• Also called “Esdralon culture”
• Kenyon’s “Proto-Urban C”
• It consists of open vessels,
• Manufactured locally in a gray fabric,
• A well-burnished, thick, dark gray slip.
• Shapes include large bowls and bowls
on a tall pedestal-foot (with openings).
• Often carinated & ornamented with
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Grey-Burnish-Ware-redrawn-from-Goren-and-
Zuckerman-2000-Figure-102_fig1_328812426

knobs and “rope”-like applications.

Foreign
• Copied in brown or buff clay.
influences(?)
• Restricted to northern valleys:
and/or
E.g., Beth-Yerah, Megiddo, Beth-Shan
presence(?)
• Foreign shape & decoration!
within
- Parallels from northeastern Anatolia
Palestine
- Migrants from E. Anatolia assimilated
with local population (prod. trad. pots) Proto-Urban C
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Pottery:
Gray Burnished Ware (northern type):
• Also called “Esdralon culture”
• Kenyon’s “Proto-Urban C”
• It consists of open vessels,
• Manufactured locally in a gray fabric,
• A well-burnished, thick, dark gray slip.
• Shapes include large bowls and bowls
on a tall pedestal-foot (with openings).
• Often carinated & ornamented with
knobs and “rope”-like applications.
• Copied in brown or buff clay.
• Restricted to northern valleys:
E.g., Beth-Yerah, Megiddo, Beth-Shan
• Foreign shape & decoration! SE/E Anatolia
- Parallels from SE/eastern Anatolia
- Migrants from E. Anatolia assimilated
with local population (prod. trad. pots)
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Material culture:
E.g., Other finds …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Wadi Faynan
Other finds:
Copper:
• Early Bronze Age is also characterized
by adoption of copper for weapons
and implements:
a. Axeheads (related to Chalc. ones)
b. Tanged daggers (new)
Flint:
• Chalcolithic flints cease, but a NEW
form of flint blade is introduced:
The “Canaanean blade”
• This represents the primary flint tool
used in the Early Bronze Age.
Basalt:
• Basalt vessels (made in N. Palestine)
are still popular as in Chalc. Period.
• These basalt containers exhibit new
forms & ornamentation distinguishing
them from Chalc. examples.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/e-continuity-of-local-knapping-traditions-illustrations-provided-from-the-following_fig1_259248834
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Other finds:
Copper:
• Early Bronze Age is also characterized
by the adoption of copper for weapons
and implements:
a. Axeheads (related to Chalc. ones)
b. Tanged daggers (new)
EB Age “Canaanean” blade
Flint:
• Chalcolithic flints cease, but a new
form of flint blade is introduced:
The “Canaanean blade”
• This represents the primary flint tool
used in the Early Bronze Age.
Basalt:
• Basalt vessels (made in N. Palestine)
are still popular (as in Chalc. Period).
• These basalt containers exhibit NEW
forms & ornamentation distinguishing Generic image of a basalt vessel
them from Chalc. examples. (example here = actually Chalcolithic)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Cylinder seals:
• EB 1 Palestine yields cylinder seals &
cyl. seal impressions on storage jars.
• These seals began in 4th millennium
BC Mesopotamia and spread to the
Near East and Egypt.
• Seal impressed jars are absent in
Mesopotamia, but may have been
Syro-Mesopotamian Impressions in clay from cyl. seal
applied in this way in Syria-Palestine.
• Potterycylinder
seals may have seals
be of wood
- They may symbolize manufacturer’s
→ workshop), or
marks (i.e., pottery
appear inrepresent
- They likely EB 1the Palestine
owner
• Designs: geometric or animals in rows
and further south
• Parallels from Byblos indicate close
in Late
trading Predyn. Egypt:
relations.
= trade
• Seals &motifs,
rep. local influence(!)
but some seals
reflect Jemdet Nasr,Elamite, & Egy. art
Example of a cylinder seal
 Anatolia

Syria

Mesopotamia

Palestine

Sumer

EB Age Trade Routes

Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Cylinder seals:
• EB 1 Palestine yields cylinder seals &
cyl. seal impressions on storage jars.
• These seals began in 4th millennium
BC Mesopotamia and spread to the Jemdet Nasr style cylinder seals,
Levant and Egypt. plus impressions made by carved design
• Seal-impressed jars are absent in
Mesopotamia, but may have been
applied in this way in Syria-Palestine.
• Pottery seals may have been of wood
- They may symbolize manufacturer’s
marks (i.e., pottery workshop?), or
- They likely represent the owner
• Designs: geometric or animals in rows
• Parallels from Byblos indicate close
trading relations.
• Seals rep. local motifs, but some seals
reflect Jemdet Nasr, Elamite, & Egy. art
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Origins of EB Age
culture …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• EB culture displays distinct differences
from Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) culture:
a. Settlement patterns,
b. Population size and density,
c. Agriculture (i.e., more cultivation)
d. Trade relations Uruk (Mesopotamia)
e. Material culture
f. Artwork
• The material evidence has been
interpreted variously to indicate either
Many
a. Continuity btw. Chalc.-EB peoples
distinct
b. The appearancedifferences
of a new EB people
• Hennessy claimed
betweenProto-Urban A
reflected migrants from North Syria
EB I culture
and Cilicia.
& former
• Kenyon suggested Proto-Urban A Rise of “cities” (= proto-urban)
migrantsChalc.
from areas East of Palestine.
culture • i.e., Intensification of “urbanization”
= early ‘towns,’ albeit simpler …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• EB culture displays distinct differences
from Chalcolithic (Ghassulian)culture:
a. Settlement patterns,
b. Population size and density,
c. Agriculture (i.e., more cultivation)
d. Trade relations (broader; more)
e. Material culture (more complex) Beginning of ploughing in EB Age
f. Artwork
• The material evidence has been
interpreted variously to indicate either
a. Continuity btw. Chalc.-EB peoples
b. The appearance of a new EB people
• Hennessy claimed Proto-Urban A
reflected migrants from North Syria
Many distinct
and Cilicia. differences
→ NO(!)
• Kenyon
between EB Age
suggested I culture
Proto-Urban A
= migrants from areas East of
&Palestine.
former Chalcolithic
→ NO(!)
culture
Example of an Egyptian plough (plow)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• EB culture displays distinct differences
from Chalcolithic (Ghassulian)culture:
a. Settlement patterns,
b. Population size and density,
c. Agriculture (i.e., more cultivation)
d. Trade relations (broader; more)
e. Material culture (more complex)
f. Artwork
• The material evidence has been
interpreted variously to indicate either
a. Continuity btw. Chalc.-EB peoples
b. The appearance of a new EB people
• Hennessy claimed Proto-Urban A
reflected migrants from North Syria
and Cilicia. → “NO(!)” (but now?)
• Kenyon suggested Proto-Urban A
= migrants from areas East of Syria-Palestine & East Mediterranean:
Palestine. → “NO(!)” (but now?)
But now, DNA shows chalc. = mixed Chalc. DNA = local, Anatolia, & W. Iran
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• YET, Mesopotamia did exert some
influence in EB 1 (material) culture:
a. Pottery “teapots” with bent spouts
b. Cylinder seals
• Sumerian colonies had expanded into
the Upper Euphrates by late 4th mill. BC
E.g., Habuba Kabira. N. of Palestine
• The Mesopotamian influences, which
reach as far as Egypt, likely reflected
trade, but it remains uncertain whether
direct or indirect relations occurred.
• Arguments in favour of indigenous EB
development note continuity with Chalc.
E.g., Some EB 1 pottery forms
Some Metal items
Architecture of EB shrines
• Overall minor material continuity, but
human remains also reveal continuity. Syria: mound of Habuba Kabira
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• Mesopotamia did exert some influence
in EB 1 culture:
a. Pottery “teapots” with bent spouts
b. Cylinder seals
• Sumerian colonies had expanded into
the Upper Euphrates by late 4th mill. BC
E.g., Habuba Kabira.
• The Mesopotamian influences, which
reach as far as Egypt, likely reflected
trade, but it remains uncertain whether
direct or indirect relations occurred.
• Arguments in favour of indigenous EB
SE Anatolia
development note continuity with Chalc. Nos.1-2:
E.g., Some EB 1 pottery W.forms
Iran Habuba Kabira pottery
Syria metal items
Some
Architecture of EB shrines
• Overall minor material continuity, but
human remains
See DNA also for
studies reveal continuity.
Chalc.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• Mesopotamia did exert some influence
in EB 1 culture:
a. Pottery “teapots” with bent spouts
b. Cylinder seals EB I

• Sumerian colonies had expanded into

the Upper Euphrates by late 4th mill. BC
E.g., Habuba Kabira.
• The Mesopotamian influences, which
reach as far as Egypt, likely reflected
trade, but it remains uncertain whether
direct or indirect
Beit Yareh: EBrelations occurred.
1A pottery
• Arguments in favour of indigenous EB
development note continuity with Chalc.
E.g., Some EB 1 pottery forms
Some metal items
Architecture of EB shrines
Chalcolithic
• Overall = minor material continuity, but
human remains also reveal continuity.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• Early Bronze I culture in Palestine
apparently adopted multiple elements:
a. Syria,
b. Anatolia,
c. Mesopotamia,
d. Chalcolithic (Ghassulian).
• The EB Age I peoples may reflect:
- a mixing of indigenous Chalcolithic
and foreign migrants (mostly Syrian),
to form a new culture that retained
regional variations.
- The lack of overly apparent warfare
alongside climatic change & different
settlement patterns suggests that the
Chalc. population may have shifted
subsistence & settlement strategies
to forge a new peoples and culture Multiple cultures/areas affected the
(few peoples are ever fully destroyed) development of Early Bronze Age
Plus: DNA from Chalc. = mixed culture: e.g., Indigenous & foreign
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Late Chalcolithic
Origins of Early Bronze I culture: ca.3500 BC
• Early Bronze I culture in Palestine
apparently adopted multiple elements:
a. Syria,
b. Anatolia,
c. Mesopotamia,
d. Chalcolithic (Ghassulian).
• The EB Age I peoples may reflect:
- a mixing of indigenous Chalcolithic
and foreign migrants (mostly Syrian),
to form a new culture that retained
regional variations.
- The lack of overly apparent warfare,
alongside climatic change & different
settlement patterns, suggests that the
Chalc. population may have shifted
subsistence & settlement strategies
to forge a new peoples and culture
(few peoples are ever fully destroyed)
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• In EB I, Sumer (= S. Mesopotamia)
had many ties with Naqada II-III and
Dynasty 1 period Egypt via 2 routes:
West: N.Mes. → Syria → Pal. → Egy.
SW(?): Elam,Arabia,→Red Sea→Egy.
• It is during EB 1, ca.3500-3000 BC,
that Southwest Palestine and N. Sinai
appear to have particularly strong ties,
perhapsWhat route(s)
as part of the broader trade
networks linking Mesopotamia & Egypt
facilitated contact
• During Egypt’s Naqada II period, also SYRIA
between
termed Gerzean (ca.3500-3200 BC),
Egyptian pottery, flint blades, and other
Egypt and
items occur at EB 1a sites in Palestine.
S. Mesopotamia?
• In Naqada III (Protodynastic/Dyn.0) to
early Dyn.1, 3200-3000 BC, however, RED
Egyptian contact intensifies greatly at SEA
Increasing evidence for
EB 1b sites in Palestine. ? Red Sea trade (*regional)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB 1a = ca.3500-3200 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• During EB I, Sumeria (S.Mesopotamia)
had many ties with Naqada II-III and
N. Sinai = very strong ties
Dynasty 1 period Egypt via 2 routes:
with Egypt in EB Ia+
West: N.Mes. → Syria → Pal. → Egy.
SW(?): Elam,Arabia,→Red Sea→Egy.
N. SINAI ROUTE
• It is during EB 1, ca.3500-3000 BC,
that Southwest Palestine & N. Sinai
appear to have particularly strong ties,
perhaps as part of the broader trade
networks linking Mesopotamia & Egypt
Egyptian flint
• During Egypt’s Naqada II period, also
termed Gerzean (ca.3500-3200 BC),
Egyptian pottery, flint blades, and other
items occur at EB 1a sites in Palestine.
• In Naqada III (Protodynastic/Dyn.0) to
early Dyn.1, N. Sinai BC, however,
3200-3000
=Egyptian contacttrade
probable intensifies greatly at
conduit
EB 1b sites in Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1b = ca.3200-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• During EB I, Sumeria (S.Mesopotamia)
N. Sinai and SW Palestine
had many ties with Naqada II-III and
Dynasty 1=period
dominated
Egypt via 2 routes:
West:by Egypt
N.Mes. in →EB
→ Syria Pal.Ib
→ Egy.
SW(?): Elam,Arabia,→Red Sea→Egy. EB 1B
• It is during EB 1, ca.3500-3000 BC, N. SINAI ROUTE
that Southwest Palestine and N. Sinai
appear to have particularly strong ties,
perhaps as part of the broader trade
networks linking Mesopotamia & Egypt
• During Egypt’s Naqada II period, also
termed Gerzean (ca.3500-3200 BC),
Egyptian pottery, flint blades, and other
items occur at EB 1a sites in Palestine.
• In Naqada III (Protodynastic/Dyn.0) to
early Dyn.1, 3200-3000 BC, however,
Egyptian contact intensifies greatly at
EB 1b sites in Palestine (& S. Sinai).
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Aside from Mediterranean shipping,
North Sinai has produced evidence
for intense overland contact btwn
Egypt and Palestine during EB 1:
• Oren’s 1967-1982 surveys of North
Sinai revealed 14 groupings of EB 1 (ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
sites in the 180 km stretch across this
region: Typically an 8-10 day journey.
• The site clusters held potsherds from
campsites and transitory settlements:
- 80% = Egyptian Dyns.0-1 pottery,
- 20% = EB 1 Palestinian pottery.
→ Hence, Egypt apparently dominated
the North Sinai route, and extended
this influence into SW Palestine.

N. Sinai = dominated
by Egypt –esp. in EB Ib
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC (ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
EB I relations with Egypt:
• In SW Palestine, EB 1 sites have also
produced abnormally high % of
Egyptian influence, reaching dominant
levels in some locations that suggests
a definite Egyptian presence in this
region versus simple trade connections
• Tel Erani, the largest EB 1 site in
Palestine (20 hectares), is located in
the coastal plain of SW Palestine and Athlit: Submerged Egyptian jar containing
18 Aspatharia Rubens (Nile mollusc)
is dominated by Egyptian material
culture for much of its 7 occupation
phases (strata XII-V).
• An Egyptian presence and influence N. Sinai and SW Palestine
is evidenced through much pottery, = dominated
stone vessels, and other remains,
including a jar bearing the name of
by Egypt in EB Ib
King Narmer, one of several Egyptian (ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
pharaohs attested along the EB 1 route
linking Egypt with Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
Tel
• In SW Palestine, EB 1 sites have also Erani
produced abnormally high % of
Egyptian influence, reaching dominant
levels in some locations that suggests
a definite Egyptian presence in this
region versus simple trade connections
• Tel Erani, the largest EB 1 site in
Palestine (20 hectares), is located in
the coastal plain of SW Palestine and
is dominated by Egyptian material
culture for much of its 7 occupation
phases (strata XII-V).
• An Egyptian presence and influence
N. Sinai and
is evidenced SW
through Palestine
much pottery,
stone vessels, and other remains,
= dominated
including a jar bearing the name of
by Egypt
King Narmer, one ofin EB Ib
several Egyptian
pharaohs attested–along
(ca. 3200 3000 theBCE)
EB 1 route
linking Egypt with Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• In SW Palestine, EB 1 sites have also
produced
N. Sinaiabnormally
and SW high % of
Palestine
Egyptian influence, reaching dominant
= dominated
levels in some locations that suggests
byEgyptian
a definite Egyptpresence
in EB in Ibthis
region versus
(ca. 3200 – 3000
simple trade connections
BCE)
• Tel Erani, the largest EB 1 site in
Palestine (20 hectares), is located in
the coastal plain of SW Palestine and
is dominated by Egyptian material
culture for much of its 7 occupation
phases (strata XII-V).
= late Dyn.0
• An Egyptian presence and influence
(pre-Dyn.1)
is evidenced through much pottery,
stone vessels, and other remains,
including a jar bearing the name of
King Narmer, one of several Egyptian
pharaohs attested along the EB 1 route
linking Egypt with Palestine.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Late Naqada III -
EB I relations with Egypt: Advent of Dyn.1
• Other northern Negev settlements Ca. 3200+ BCE
have produced Egyptian pottery and
other items (including Narmer’s name):
E.g., Arad
Tel Malhata
Tel Halif
Maahaz
Rafiah
Afridar (near Ashkelon)
• ‘En-Besor is another important site in
Egypt:
this region, along the Besor Brook.
Dyn.0,
• It contains much Egyptian material:
King
- Dynasty 1 clay jar stoppers with seals
Narmer
- Egyptian-style buildings
founds
unified
Egypt
(near
end of
reign?)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Other northern Negev settlements
have produced Egyptian pottery and
other items (including Narmer’s name):
E.g., Arad
Tel Malhata
Tel Halif
Maahaz
Rafiah
Afridar (near Ashkelon)
• ‘En-Besor is another important site in
this region, along the Besor Brook.
• It contains much Egyptian material:
- Dynasty 1 clay jar stoppers with seals
- Egyptian-style
EB buildings
I.B
(ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Other northern Negev settlements
have produced Egyptian pottery and
other items (including Narmer’s name):
E.g., Arad
Tel Malhata
Tel Halif
Maahaz
Rafiah
Afridar (near Ashkelon)
• ‘En-Besor is another important site in
this region, along the Besor Brook.
• It contains much Egyptian material:
- Dynasty 1 clay jar stoppers with seals
- Egyptian-style buildings

EB I.B
(ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Other northern Negev settlements
have produced Egyptian pottery and
other items (including Narmer’s name):
E.g., Arad
Tel Malhata
Tel Halif
Maahaz
Rafiah
Afridar (near Ashkelon)
• ‘En-Besor is another important site in
this region, along the Besor Brook.
• It contains much Egyptian material:
- Dynasty 1 clay jar stoppers with seals
- Egyptian-style buildings

EB I.B
(ca. 3200 – 3000 BCE)
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
overview of Egyptian
items & influence in Pal.
Predynastic
Egyptian
influence
in EB I South
Palestine (late
Predyn.-Dyn.1):
“Egyptian”-style
buildings at
(a) En-Besor &
(b) Tel Erani
Trade vs. Colony

Mound of En-Besor
Predyn. Egyptian products in Chalcolithic
and EB I (Predyn.-Dyn.1) South Palestine:
Egyptian pottery
• Locally-made Egyptian pottery (+domestic)
• Hybrid Egy.-Palestinian forms
• Pottery incised with Egyptian serekh-names
(Ka; Scorpion?; Narmer; Aha; Den?).
Predynastic
Egyptian
products in
Chalcolithic
and EB I
S. Palestine:

Egyptian-style
flint tools

Chalcolithic = much of Predynastic.

EB I = Early Bronze Age I in Syria-Palestine

contemporary with late Predyn.- Dyn.1

EB II = Early Bronze Age II (late Dyn.1 – Dyn.2)

Predynastic
Egyptian
products in
Chalcolithic
and EB I-II
S. Palestine:

Egyptian-style
copper tools
Predynastic
Egyptian
products in
Chalcolithic
and EB I
S. Palestine:

Egyptian-style
Stone palettes

Chalcolithic = much of Predynastic.

EB I = Early Bronze Age I in Syria-Palestine

contemporary with late Predyn.- Dyn.1

EB II = Early Bronze Age II (late Dyn.1 – Dyn.2)

Predynastic
Egyptian
Products
in Chalcolithic
and EB I South
Palestine:

• possibly Egy-
type calcite
(“alabaster”)
maceheads

Note: debated
origin for
pear-shaped
maceheads.
Predynastic
Egyptian
Products
in Chalcolithic
and EB I South
Palestine:

Egyptian-type
jewellery

Chalcolithic = much of Predynastic.

EB I = Early Bronze Age I in Syria-Palestine

contemporary with late Predyn.- Dyn.1

EB II = Early Bronze Age II (late Dyn.1 – Dyn.2)

Predynastic
Egyptian
Products
in Chalcolithic
and EB I South
Palestine:

Egyptian/Nile
molluscs
(Aspatharia
rubens)

Nile catfish
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Although Egyptian material items and
influence concentrate in SW Palestine,
Egyptian Protodynastic and Dyn.1
artifacts = emerging at various sites
throughout Palestine, attesting to a
broader trade network than previously
suspected.
• In contrast, Palestinian EB 1 pottery
Trade
appears in /Egypt’s
Raid East
/ Colony
Delta, ?
suggesting the exportation of olive oil,
wine, and unguents to Egypt during
the late Predynastic to Dynasty 1.

NEXT IMAGE
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
overview of Levantine
items & influence in Egypt.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Although Egyptian material items and
influence concentrate in SW Palestine,
EB 1b Syro-Palestinian
Egyptian Protodynastic and Dyn.1
artifactscontacts with
= emerging at various sites
throughout Palestine,
Egypt attesting to a
broader trade network than previously
i.e., trade relations …
suspected.
• In contrast, Palestinian EB 1 pottery
appears in Egypt’s East Delta,
suggesting the exportation of olive oil,
wine, and unguents to Egypt during
the late Predynastic to Dynasty 1.

NEXT IMAGE
Palestinian Products
In Predyn. - ED Egypt:

• Goatskin-like vessel
(F-ware; Chalc-EB I)
• Knobbed bowls
(F-ware; EB I)
• Palestinian jars (N2c)
• ‘Ghassulian’ beakers
(N3-Dyn.1)
Palestinian Products
In Predynastic Egypt:

Hierakonpolis Tomb 11:

• Hybrid Egyptian-Palestinian
wavy-handled vessels
Abydos Tomb U-j:
• Over 400 Palestinian-style
jars (NAA = local clays[!]).
→ reveals > INFLUENCE
What does it all mean?
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• The few centuries of intense Egyptian
activity in SW Palestine has been
explained variously:
• 1. Trade relations:
- Some scholars have suggested that
the presence of Egyptian materials,
and local copies, in this region is
only indicative of trade relations,
which could include resident Egyptian
traders in an otherwise Palestinian
controlled environment.
• 2. Colonization:
- The intense % of Egyptian materials,
which dominate SW Palestine, have
TRADE?
led others to suggest that Egyptians
colonized this region (perhaps
i.e., trading enclaves
infiltrating slowly by more peaceful
means), interacting with local peoples.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• The few centuries of intense Egyptian
activity in SW Palestine has been
explained variously:
• 1. Trade relations:
- Some scholars have suggested that
COLONIZATION?
the presence of Egyptian materials,
and local copies, in this region is
i.e., larger Egyptian-
only indicative of trade relations,
which could include resident Egyptian
type settlements
traders in an otherwise Palestinian
controlled environment.
• 2. Colonization:
- The intense % of Egyptian materials,
which dominate SW Palestine, have
led others to suggest that Egyptians
colonized(?) this region (perhaps
infiltrating slowly by more peaceful?
means), interacting with local peoples.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC CONQUEST?
EB I relations with Egypt:
• 3. Military conquest:
- Another theory involves an Egyptian
military conquest & occupation of
this region: e.g., Tel Erani = HQ(?).
- The Narmer palette and other early
Dynasty 1 records note Egyptian
raids upon “Asiatics” & “northerners,”
which may have begun earlier in the
Naqada II-III periods?
- The palette depicts the conquest of
fortified settlements, which might =
northern Egyptian and Asiatic places.
- Perhaps, as in other periods of
TelEgyptian strength, Egypt sent troops
Erani
beyond the Nile Valley to seize
direct control of resource areas &
trade routes, minimizing the higher
costs of receiving goods via traders.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC CONQUEST?
EB I relations with Egypt:
• 3. Military conquest:
- Another theory involves an Egyptian
military conquest & occupation of
this region: e.g., Tel Erani = HQ(?).
- The Narmer palette and other early
Dynasty 1 records note Egyptian
raids upon “Asiatics” & “northerners,”
which may have begun earlier in the
Naqada II-III periods?
- The palette depicts the conquest of
fortified settlements, which might =
northern Egyptian and Asiatic places.
- Perhaps, as in other periods of
Egyptian strength, Egypt sent troops
beyond the Nile Valley to ‘seize’(?)
direct control of resource areas &
trade routes, minimizing the higher
costs of receiving goods via traders.
Naqada III/Dyn.0 (Protodynastic period): Ca. 3,200 – 3,000 BC.
7. KING Narmer
• Narmer The “Striking/nasty catfish” Narmer name distribution:
• Placement Precedes King Aha Tell Erani
a. Sealings of Den & Qaa Tell Arad
provide sequence of rulers Buto Nahal Tillah
b. Abydos tomb sequence M. Abu Omar
Z. el-Aryan
• Kingdom/ Serekh in Egypt & S.Palestine
Tura
influence Helwan
• Identification Is he Manetho’s “Menes”? Tarkhan
Menes later cited as unifying W. Qash
Upper & Lower Egypt.
Narmer’s other names = ???
ABYDOS
Naqada
Hierakonpolis
Early Dynastic period: Dynasty 1 (3,000-2,890 BC): King Den.
5. KING Den. “Horus who strikes”
Excerpts from Manetho: SW Palestine
• assign 20 years to Den

More contemporary ancient sources:

Abu Roash
• more likely over 30+ years
Helwan
• Vessel fragment notes Den celebrated a 2nd
Saqqara
Sed festival (re-affirming right to rule and
rejuvenation rites; after 30 years of rule)
• 40 year reign (Palermo Stone)

Name distribution:
• Throughout Egypt and in SW Palestine. Abydos
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
WHAT is going on? …
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Motivations for trade or conquest:
- Southwest Palestine had contained
Chalc. copper processing sites along
a route from the copper mines in
Wadi Faynan, with earlier direct
contact with and a Palestinian
presence at Maadi in Naqada I-II.
-The reversal of the situation, from an
apparent Chalc. domination of trade
with NE Egypt in Naqada I-II, to an
Egyptian domination of trade/+ with
Palestine in Naqada II-III (and Dyn.1), Cu
is highly suggestive.
Cu
- Various questions remain:
Motivations
For instance, formove
did Egypt simply
into a vacuum created by the EB 1a
trade and/or conquest
abandonment of Chalc. sites in the
in EB I or
N. Negev?, (esp. EB
did Egypt Ib)
help …
destroy
these sites? →still UNCERTAIN!
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Motivations for trade or conquest:
- Southwest Palestine had contained
Chalc. copper processing sites along
Opportunistic
a route from the coppertraders?
mines in
Wadi Faynan, with earlier direct
(entrepreneurs?)
contact with and a Palestinian
presence atversus
Maadi in Naqada I-II.
- The reversal of the situation, from an
Military conquerors?
apparent Chalc. domination of trade
(more coercion?)
with NE Egypt in Naqada I-II, to an
Egyptian domination of trade with
Palestine in Naqada II-III (and Dyn.1),
is highly suggestive.
- Various questions remain:
For instance, did Egypt simply move
into a vacuum created by the EB 1a
abandonment of Chalc. sites in the
N. Negev?, or did Egypt help destroy
these sites? →still UNCERTAIN(!)
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Egypt did take POWs,
But “slavery” = rare in ED--OK
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Motivations for trade or conquest:
- Other materials that might have
attracted Egypt’s interest include:
E.g.,-Turquoise from South Sinai
- Bitumen from the Dead Sea
- Agricultural products from Pal.
- Labour & livestock from Pal.
- Taking control of a region that
facilitated trade with Syria and
Mesopotamia.
• One of the greatest obstacles to
resolving some of these issues is
the crucial question of timing:
- Obtaining absolute dates & matching
the strata between Egypt & Palestine
is very difficult beyond a broader
time span of 100 years or so.
- It would be ideal to have various
events pinned down within a decade!
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
summary of Egyptian
attraction to Palestine.
PALESTINE / CANAAN (SW LEVANT):
Agricultural produce: e.g.,
-Olive oil Summary of
-Wine
-Resins attractive resources
-Livestock & by-products within & via Palestine
Minerals, etc.: e.g.,
-Bitumen (Dead Sea)
-Salt
-Sulphur
Metals: e.g.,
-Copper (Wadi Feinan, N. Arabah)

Finished products: e.g.,

-Stone vessels (EB I)
-Flints
-Pottery vessels (containers for other items)
Security: e.g.,
-Subduing foes: “Asiatic” Bedouin&city states
Trade routes:
-Eliminate costly “middleman”: reduce ‘tariffs’
Personnel: e.g.,
-Captives / “slaves” → added labour source
 EB Age I:
3,500/3,300 – 3,000 BCE

Trade & Exchange:

Relations with Egypt …
Comparative
Chronologies ...
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
EB I relations with Egypt:
• Early Bronze 1a is equated with late
Predyn. Egypt (Gerzean / Naqada II):
ca.3500 –3200 BC (Shaw 2000)
ca.3550 –3200 BC (Adams et. al. 1997)
• Early Bronze 1b is equated with
Protodynastic to (early) Dyn.1 Egypt
(Naqada III/Dyn.0 – early Dynasty 1):
ca. 3200 –3050 BC (Naqada III/Dyn.0)
ca. 3050 –2890 BC (Dyn.1)
• Early Bronze II pottery appears in
Egypt in mid-Dynasty 1 tombs dating
to the reign of King Djer (and later),
thereby occurring sometime around ca.
3000 BC, approximately 50 years into
Dynasty 1 around the time of this king.
• Despite radiocarbon dating, the dates
for the Chalc.-EB II and Predyn.-Dyn.1
remain only approximate.
SUMMARY
OF MAIN
POINTS:
E. Early Bronze Age I :

- Date: ca. 3,500 – 3,000 BC

- Lifestyle: Drier climate, part of a continuing trend
Intensifying urbanization (mostly unfortified)
with temple-dominated settlements
Settlements focusing more in fertile, temperate regions
Dwellings vary within and by region: circular, elliptical,
apsidal, rectilinear, etc.
More focus on agriculture (agrarian settlements)
Added focus on horticulture: grapes (wine), figs, etc.
Much less focus on livestock (aside from
peripheral regions with pastoralists)
Some marginal areas with pastoralism:
E.g., Bab ed-Dhra: EB 1a semi-nomadic
→EB 1b settlement (EB1a-b change in burials)
- Religion: Temples derived from Chalcolithic “broad-room”-style
shrine with courtyard
Focal point = standing stones (found earlier & later)
E. Early Bronze Age I :

- Technology:
More regional pottery traditions (North versus South)
Flint becomes less common: characteristic
“Canaanean” blade (= a MARKER)
The plough is definitely adopted by end of EB Age I
(if not before).
Copper-working continues, but = a shift to South Sinai
copper mines
Arad becomes a major hub in copper ore trade
from South Sinai → Pal., Egypt, etc.

- Trade: Syro-Mesopotamian cylinder seals & influence

SW Palestine: Egyptian housing, pottery, royal-names (on
pottery), stone vessels, weaponry (mace-heads),
copper items, flint tools, slate palettes, jewellery,
molluscs, Nile catfish, etc.
- Burials: Cemeteries: shaft-tombs with burial chambers,
disarticulated burials, possessions, etc.