19
ON THE EDGE OF EMPIRES - LATE BRONZE AGE (1500-1200 BCE)
Shlomo Bunimovitz
Explaining culture change in Late Bronze Age Palestine
The archaeology of the Late Bronze Age society in Palestine is an exemplary case of feast and famine. On the one hand, rich archaeological data from numerous excavations and a relative abundance of contemporary documentary records; on the other, a conspicuous scarcity of material culture studies explicitly concerned with sociocultural processes and change (for standard archaeological overviews of the period's culture-history see, e.g., Albright 1960: 96-109; Kenyon 1979: 180-211; Leonard 1989; Mazar 1990: 232-94; for documentary-based historical reviews see, e.g., Na'aman 1982: 173-255; Redford 1992: 125-237). This 'state-of-the-art' clearly reflects the bias of social archaeology in Palestine towards the field of prehistory and the study of unstratified, non-urban societies, leaving the more complex societies of the Bronze and Iron Ages to be explored by traditional, historically-oriented archaeology. No wonder then that written evidence tends to dominate interpretations of sociocultural change in these 'documented' societies, and ideographic rather than generalizing explanations are preferred. Taking the archaeological study of the Late Bronze Age as an example, one can readily see that patterns in the material culture and their changes over time are usually explained by historical events, ignoring the fact that these patterns were created by a social system - Canaanite society - whose behavior and adaptation to a changing socio-political and ideological environment is by no means unique. However, a combination of nomothetic and ideographic elements - namely, cross-cultural perspectives and a scrutiny of the specific historical/archaeological context under consideration - seems most imperative for explaining cultural processes and change. Furthermore, since change occurs along a variety of time scales, the necessity of studying it within different time frameworks should be recognized. Thus, both long-term sociocultural patterns (mainly recognized in the material data) and short-term, particular and unexpected changes (usually documented in written sources) are legitimate subjects for enquiry. The breach between 'historical' and anthro-
pological archaeology can, therefore, be bridged by a conscious dialogue between material and written evidence (Renfrew 1980; Yoffee 1982; Trigger 1984: 287-95; Adams 1984: 79-89; Bintliff 1991; Knapp 1992a, 1992c; Levy and Holl, this volume).
Using both archaeological and documentary data resources in a reciprocal examination of culture change in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age (Bunimovitz 1989; see also Knapp 1992b, 1992c), two fundamental sociopolitical patterns emerge:
1. Sociocultural changes at the end of the Middle Bronze Age reshaped the social landscape of Palestine and had a profound, long-term impact on Canaanite society.
2. The Late Bronze Age social fabric in Palestine was continuously changing due to dialectical relations between Canaanite society and Egyptian government.
In the following discussion the main political, social and economic changes that affected Canaanite society in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age will be concisely examined, in order to illustrate how the 'why?' questions concerning these changes can be elucidated by a close study of the above recognized patterns.
The transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age
During the Middle Bronze Age hundreds of urban and rural settlements had been established all over Palestine. This highly diversified and hierarchical pattern of I settlement signifies the zenith of Bronze Age settlement processes in Palestine, and faithfully reflects socio-political and economic developments within Canaanite society during the first half of the second millennium BCE (Broshi and Gophna 1986; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Dever 1987). At the end of the seventeenth century BCE and in the course of the sixteenth century BCE, however, this pattern of settlement changed profoundly, following a long line of destructions and abandonments that laid waste many sites. According to current hypotheses these destructions should be related to the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan by the first pharaohs of
322   Port IV * Canaan, Israel, and the Formation of the Biblical World * Shlomo Bunimovitz
the Eighteenth Dynasty. It has also been claimed that the geographical-chronological pattern of the destructions points to the southern and inland regions of Palestine as the principle centres of Hyksos power outside the Nile Delta (Weinstein 1981: 1-10). However, a careful examination of the transitional Middle Bronze-Late Bronze Age strata in many sites (Bunimovitz 1989: Chapter 1) reveals that destruction layers from the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries BCE were arbitrarily related to Ahmose or his successors, thus subjugating the archaeological facts to as yet vague historical data concerning Egyptian involvement in Palestine prior to Thothmes IH's early fifteenth century BCE campaigns (for the current debate about the interpretation of the Egyptian texts vis-a-vis the archaeological data see Hoffmeier 1991: Dever 1990; Weinstein 1991 and bibliography there).
In fact, the destructions present no discernible pattern and the settlement crisis at the end of the Middle Bronze
Age seems to be a continuous process, which had already begun at the end of the seventeenth century BCE and lasted to the end of the sixteenth century BCE. The early destructions, and at least some of the later ones, may therefore be related to internal instability and conflicts rather than to Egyptian military campaigns (see also Kenyon 1979: 180; Kempinski 1983: 222-3; Bienkowski 1986: 128). It should be remembered that many Middle Bronze sites were surrounded by huge earthen ramparts, sometimes crowned by walls. These were interpreted as formidable fortifications erected as defenses against a potential external threat - in anticipation of Egyptian emancipation from the Hyksos rule and concomitant assaults on the Hyksos 'backup systems' in Canaan {Dever 1985). However, as a social phenomenon (Bunimovitz 1992; Finkelstein 1992) already emerging during the Middle Bronze I (Kenyon/Dever terminology, see Window 1 p, 330), the defenses (better termed 'earth-
On the Edge of Empires - Late Bronze Age f J500- 1200 BCE] 323
."> i
J \ 1
com S -I
I
0.01-1-1--,--,-,----1-1-,-.....,-------,-,_,_.   .. ._,_
J       i     4   ; a 1 8SO 20     K   40 50 «0 300      500 1000
SETTLEMENT RANK
igure 2 Middle Bronze II —III and Late Bronze rank-size distributions ollhe southern Coastal Plain (RSI = Rank Size Index)
works') may point to internal strife and externalisation of roblems within the socio-political system. Indeed, traces i hostilities are known from a large number of sites, pecially in the Central Hill region, prior to their final destruction; other signs for growing insecurity in this region during the later part of the Middle Bronze Age are lso evident  (Bunimovitz  1994:   181-86). Obviously, owever, not all destructions were an internal Canaanite tter, and the Egyptian annihilation of Sharuhen (Tell el-jjul; but see now Rainey 1993) - the main Hyksos centre southern Palestine (Kempinski 1983: 146-8) - led to dramatic socio-political and economic changes in that egion (see Ilan, this volume).
Further insight into the settlement crisis and sociopolitical change in Palestine at the end of the Middle Bronze/beginning of the Late Bronze Age is gained by a icomparison of the politico-territorial organization in both periods. Contrary to common wisdom, according to which the politico-territorial organization in the Late Bronze Age inferred from contemporary documents (see Alt 1925 = 68 for a classical analysis) and projected backwards to e Middle Bronze Age, a reconstruction based on an analysis of the regional settlement systems' rank-size stributions in both periods seems preferable (presented in txtenso   in   Bunimovitz   1989:   Chapter  2;   see also unimovitz 1993 for a review and critique of current ethods for political reconstruction; Finkelstein 1992: 10-212 is another recent trial of Middle Bronze-Late ronze   Age   politico-territorial   reconstruction). This ethod enables the archaeologist to determine the socio-litical organization in an examined region - whether ntralizcd government or autonomous polities - by
10.00 ^
SETTLEMENT RANK
Figure 3   Middle Bronze ll-lll and Lote Bronze II rank-size distributions of the Central Hill region
detecting the level of integration in its settlement system (e.g., Johnson 1981; Kowalewski 1982; Paynter 1983).
In the southern Coastal Plain, the Middle Bronze II—m rank-size distribution (Figure 2) points to the existence of a large, comparatively integrated urban system - a united polity (cf. Dothan 1973: 14-17; Seger 1975: 44*-45*; Kempinski 1983: 60-4, 210-11, 222-3). This region was rapidly populated and urbanized during the Middle Bronze in (Gophna and Portugali 1988; Herzog 1989: 34-7), prospered economically, and shows the highest concentration of Hyksos royal name scarabs (Weinstein 1981: Figures 2-3) - probably an indication of administrative integration under Sharuhen. In contrast, the Late Bronze Age rank-size distribution, as well as the Amarna letters, testify to a low degree of socio-political integration - a cluster of semi-autonomous city-states. A similar situation of socio-political fragmentation prevailed also during the Late Bronze Age in the Jezree! Valley, but the rank-size distribution hints that in the Middle Bronze in the valley was more integrated, probably controlled by two main polities only: Megiddo and Shim'on (see also Finkelstein 1992: 212). In the Central Hill region the rank-size distributions (Figure 3) testify to diametrically opposite conditions, in which the settlement system was more integrated in the Late Bronze Age than in the Middle Bronze III (Bunimovitz, 1994: 187-93). Indeed, a locally-clustered pattern of Middle Bronze settlement has been identified in the central and northern parts of this region (Finkelstein 1985: 164-5; Zertal 1988: 188-90, 197), and Alt's perception of large Late Bronze Age territorial polities there (1925 = 1968) is fully supported by modern research (Na'aman 1986a, 1992).
The above observations make the great crisis at the end of the Middle Bronze Age more intelligible in terms of the socio-political structure that facilitated disintegration and collapse, disregarding its specific agents. Thus, negative
324   Part IV % Canaan, Israel, and the Formation of the Bib/ical World * Shlomo Bunimovitz
interaction (i.e., competition over natural and human resources; warfare) between the peer polities that shared the Central Hill country may explain the chronic insecurity and instability in this region as well as the 'domino effect' which marked the collapse there (cf. Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Concomitantly, the disintegration of the large southern Coastal Plain polity can be reasonably explained by the destruction of its political and administrative 'capital' - Sharuhen.
Settlement patterns
It is now well established that the most powerful class of data in sociocultural explanations is settlement pattern. This may be taken as a material manifestation of the entire mode of production, and as shown above, of the social and political organization. An examination of the Late Bronze Age settlement pattern in Palestine (see Figure 1) and any changes to it is, therefore, essential for a better understanding of society in this period. However, traditional approaches to the subject were qualitative and accompanied by an implicit assumption that the Late Bronze Age settlement pattern remained stagnant for almost 400 years. Gonen's (1984) quantitative study of Late Bronze settlement data was therefore a breakthrough, but due to its limited data base and methodological drawbacks (e.g., lack of regionality, chronological ambiguity, etc.), a more detailed analysis based on a larger data base seemed imperative (Bunimovitz 1989: Chapter 3). According to data gathered from excavations and surveys all over western Palestine, the minimum number of Middle Bronze HI sites is estimated at 550, presumably not all of them contemporaneous. Breaking the settlement map into subregions and examining the change in site number in each of them confirms the well known country-wide decrease in number of settlements during the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze transition, and discloses few distinct patterns of recovery during the rest of the period.
However, the full meaning of these patterns becomes clear only when one realizes the negative impact of current terminological concepts on our understanding of settlement processes in the Late Bronze Age. Thus, a perception of time as a series of discrete successive units - each possessing its unique cultural content - rather than a continuous flow (cf. Plog 1973: 189), is imposed on the material data from the end of the Late Bronze Age and creates dichotomies such as Late Bronze/Iron Age I, Canaanites/Israelites, Highlands/Lowlands. The result is an artificial splitting up of coherent and continuous cultural processes between the Late Bronze and Iron I periods (cf. Ussishkin 1985; Kempinski 1985; London 1989). In light of this insight, it is evident that many new settlements were established in most of the country's regions mainly during the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE. But it must be emphasized that this settlement growth was not the
culmination of a 'natural', continuous recovery process spanning the fifteenth to fourteenth centuries BCE (contra Gonen 1984), but rather a unique change related to cultural processes which characterized the last phase oi Egyptian dominance in Canaan (below).
Another important issue concerning settlement patterns and sociocultural change in Late Bronze Age Canaan is the relative share and importance of different sectors in the settlement hierarchy. According to recent claims the Late Bronze Age was a time of dramatic weakening of the urban fabric and a shift from urban centers to dispersed, small rural communities (Gonen 1984; London 1989). However, a close inspection of Middle Bronze Ill/Late Bronze settlement data, including information about rural settlements located in recent field surveys, renders a different interpretation of the evidence. Though it is true that many of the large urban centers which formed the backbone of settlement in Middle Bronze Age Canaan dramatically diminished in size, it should be emphasized that they remained urban in character.
Urbanism in the Late Bronze Age was, therefore, different in scale and appearance, and the period's settlement data obviously needs its own set of concepts and cultural criteria {other than size) for determining the function of sites. Separating the Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze settlements into 'urban' and 'rural' sectors, according to their respective sets of criteria, clearly demonstrates that despite the dramatic settlement crisis at the end of the Middle Bronze Age each sector kept its relative share within the overall number of sites and the total settled area. Obviously then, Palestine was no less urban in the Late Bronze Age than during the preceding period. However, further elaboration of these conclusions by an analysis of the regional urban/rural distributions of settlement sites brings into relief an essential social difference between the two periods. While in the Middle Bronze Age a few large urban centers dominated a wide rural hinterland, the moderate Late Bronze Age cities controlled a much diminished rural sector. Indeed, during most of this period hardly any rural settlements existed in the highlands and in few other regions of the country. Thus, contrary to current hypotheses about peasant movements and revolts during the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Mendenhall 1962; Gottwald 1979; Freedman and Graf 1983), the dichotomy epitomizing social relations in this period was not between city dwellers and peasants but between the sedentary (especially the sparse urban elite) and non-sedentary sectors of the population (below).
Politico-economic change
In a series of recent studies, the paradox of both prosperity and decline reflected in the Late Bronze Age material culture from Palestine has been addressed and debated (Bienkowski 1986: 136-55, 1989; Knapp 1989a, 198%).
On file Edge of Empires - Late Bronze Age (1500- J 200 BCE) 325
0 >0m
igure 4   Late Bronze Age palaces (1 — 2. Megiddo), patrician houses -A. Tel Batash, 5. Tel Halif) and 'Governors' Residencies' (6. Befh-Bar,, 7. Tell el-Farah (S(, 8. Tel Aphek)
ow can the demographic and settlement crisis, analyzed ove, as well as the gradual degeneration in certain Xts of the period's material culture (Albright 1960: 01;Kenyon 1979: 199-200; Bienkowski 1986: 110-11, -2, 1989: 59; Knapp 1989a: 136-42) be reconciled th the remains of elaborate palaces and patrician houses ure 4; Oren 1992), temples (Figure 5; Mazar 1992: 9-83) and graves (Gonen 1992)? And how can one Jain the rich assemblages of Cypriot and Mycenaean ttery (Plate 1; Gittlen 1981; Leonard 1981) and other portant or locally-made luxury items (ivories, jewelry, ience vessels, etc.; Plate 2) unearthed in many Late onze governmental, religious and funerary contexts in
s of the cultural impoverishment envisaged? Two hypotheses have been put forward in order to wer these questions. According to Bienkowski (1986: 7-56, 1989), the main causes of decline in Late Bronze Canaan were the diversion of resources to pay for the keep of the Egyptian colonial administration and the ptian control of trade. This decline, however, was Sized due to the nature of Egyptian colonial presence: 'le key strategic areas under direct Egyptian control inly the densely populated Coastal Plain and northern leys) flourished, the more marginal areas of Palestine dTransjordan (especially the hill regions) - not receiving y substantial benefit from agricultural surpluses and de profits - were in economic recession.
n P
Figure 5 Late Bronze Age temples (1, 3—5. Hazor, 2. Tel Mevorakh, 6. Megiddo, 7, 8. Beth-Shean, 9. Lachish)
Knapp's explanation for the Late Bronze Age material culture decline in Palestine (1989a, 1989b, 1992b, 1992c) is couched in a more holistic approach to the politico-economic structure of the country and its changes during the Middle Bronze II-Late Bronze II periods. In his opinion, the Egyptian conquest of Canaan, and especially Thothmes Hi's administrative and military policy, altered the politico-economic and material base of the southern Levant profoundly: the formerly independent, economically-competitive polities became imperially dominated vassal city-states. Furthermore, the Middle Bronze Age complex network of hierarchical settlements and markets, dendritic rural hinterland and presumed gateway communities (see Han this volume, Chapter 18) had collapsed, leaving behind a few urban centers to function as nodes on the caravan routes of a major international trade system extending from western Asia to the eastern Mediterranean. During both periods, however, power relations ensured the flow of subsistence goods and luxury items into urban centers. But whereas peripheral Middle Bronze areas had retained sufficient wealth to ensure their livelihood, the Egyptian imperial demands on Late Bronze Age polities - aimed at extracting maximum possible tribute with the minimum effort - may have exceeded the productive capacities of all but the most resilient, self-sustaining urban centers. Thus, the archaeological record reveals an apparent collapse - abandonment of villages and decline in many urban centers - as well as prosperity in other urban centers.
326   Part IV & Canaan, Israel, and the Formation of the Biblical World % Shlomo Bunimovitz
Plate 1 Mycenaean pottery from Tel Dan. (© Te! Dan Expedition, The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem!
Seemingly contrasting, due to their different perspectives (specific/short-term us. holistic/long-term) and interpretation of Egypt's economic and imperial motives in Canaan, the above hypotheses would be better considered as complementing each other. Thus, while the economic aspects of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan and the burden imposed on the local rulers and population are stiil a matter of debate {Ahituv 1978; Na'aman 1981; see also Redford 1992: 209-13), Bienkowski's and Knapp's analyses reflect the complex pattern of economic decline and survival in Late Bronze Age Canaan. In this context, it seems that the costly palaces, temples and wealthy elite burials unearthed in the main urban centres should not be simplistically interpreted as symbols of localized prosperity, but as evidence for conspicuous consumption aimed to maintain power relations within an economically-impoverished and socially-unstable country (Plate 3; below).
Social organization
The most prominent features in the socio-political landscape of Palestine during the Late Bronze Age were the few urban settlements (such as Megiddo, Gezer, Lachish). Though much smaller and less impressive than the enormous Middle Bronze Age cities, contemporary texts leave no doubt that most of them were centers of petty kingdoms or city-states. Consequently, important insights concerning the material manifestation of their socio-political attributes can be gained from cross cultural research of city-states and small-scale states - a neglected field in anthropological archaeology until recently (see e.g., Griffeth and Thomas 1981; Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982).
According to the Amarna Letters, in the fourteenth century BCE Palestine seems to have been divided between 15-17 major city-states. Almost all of these central places
are identifiable, and by employing both a variety of documentary sources (the Amarna Letters; other Egyptian texts; biblical descriptions of Israelite tribal allotments) and archaeological data, their territories were ingeniously delineated by Na'aman (1986a, 1988, 1992). This reconstructed politico-territorial map brings into relief two interesting spatial qualities:
1. The average on-ground distance between each of the main city-states and its nearest peers is about 35 km.
2. The territories of these polities are roughly of the same size range, well below 1000 km2.
These qualities, as well as the small number of main political centers, concur with the Early State Module (ESM) pattern that has been observed in many early civilizations - a cluster of 10-20 autonomous centers with a mean distance of about 40 km between them, each dominating a modular area of approximately 1500 km2 or less (Renfrew 1975: 12-18; Figure 6). According to the politico-territorial reconstruction presented earlier, it seems that the Late Bronze Age ESMs in Palestine crystallized during the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries BCE, following the socio-political upheavals at that time (contra Finkelstein 1992: 212).
The limited territorial extent of the ESMs was attributed either to increasing costs of administration with increasing distance from the central place (Cherry 1978: 424-5), or to the ability of rural populations to avail themselves of center services (Johnson 1987: 115-16). In any case, a radius of about 20 km (a one day round-trip distance in the pre-automobile era) apparently formed in early complex societies the boundary both for direct administrative control of rural populations, and for the participation of such populations in the central places' economic and social activities. It seems that in Late Bronze Age Palestine, where lesser city-states and even towns could enjoy political autonomy within a distance of a few hours' ride from the major city-states (Na'aman 1986a, 1992), the reduced scale of the ESMs is a faithful reflection of the social constraints that inhibited territorial and organizational growth - demographic decline, sparseness of rural1 settlements and a contracted urban elite.
Indeed, population shortage seems to have troubled the Canaanite city-states during the Late Bronze Age. Since early complex societies relied on human resources as the:: main means of production and source of income (e.g., Claessen 1978: 549-54), the dearth of sedentary population coupled with the compulsory need to share its meagre labor resources with the Egyptian government (Na'aman 1981: 178-9), presented a serious problem for the Canaanite urban elite and generated a vicious circle. In order to maintain rule and status, great material investments were needed (for the connection between power, ideology and material culture see, e.g., Miller and Tilley 1984; Whitelam 1986; Trigger 1990) and thus the
On the Edge of Empires - Late Bronze Age (1500- 1200 BCE) 327
12   An ivory plaque from the Late Bronze Age palace at Megiddo (© Israel Antiquities Authority)
irden imposed on the subjects became heavier; these )jects, in turn, reacted time and again by deserting the ablished social system - thereby depleting it. Under these circumstances, political and economic power meant laving control of as many human resources as possible, I this seems to have been the prime motive behind the adless attempts at territorial expansion, border disputes od ad hoc coalitions which epitomized the interaction n the Canaanite city-states (cf. Marfoe 1979: 16-
he Shifting Frontier Model
contrast to the maximization and stabilization strategy idertaken by the urban elite in order to survive, other ;ors of Canaanite society responded more flexibly to the ilitical and economic changes that took place in Palestine ing the Late Bronze Age. Their adaptational strategy its dialectical relations with local power and Egyptian TCrnmental policy in Canaan can be described and Jained by what I have termed 'The Shifting Frontier ■f (Bunimovitz 1989: Chapter 5, 1994: 193-202. Following Owen Lattimore's (1940) and Robert Adams' 74,   1978)   frontier   researches   in    China and iesopotamia, it should be recognized that the ecological social frontier of Palestine can oscillate within very ad limits, depending on the strength of the central ruling er. A panoramic view over the country's history reveals in times of public security and development the frontier pushed southward and eastward, and the lowlands iyed settlement stability and prosperity. However, in the nice of such conditions, they rapidly became frontier I populated by nomads and other non-sedentary raps (see e.g., Amiran 1953: 192-209; Amiran and Ben-ieh 1963: 162-6; Hutteroth 1975; for an analogous rion in Syria and Jordan during the nineteenth century I, see Lewis 1955, 1987). The collapse of the socio-ical system in Palestine (especially in the Central Hill try) at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the iver of Canaan by the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty
Plate 3 A bronze plaque from Hazor depicting a Canaanite noble or king (© Hazor Expedition, Hebrew University)
brought about far reaching changes in the socio-political structure and in settlement patterns: the frontier 'came down' from the hilly regions to the Coastal Plain, the Shephela and inner valleys, and bands of 'Apiru - outcasts and various groups of nomads/pastoralists (for the derogatory meaning of this term in the Amarna Letters, see Na'aman 1986b: 275-6; Marfoe 1979: 9-10) - which descended from the hills, roamed there without interference (Na'aman 1982: 235-6; Marfoe 1979: 15). This situation
328    Port /V $ Conaan, Israel, and the Formation of the Biblical World H$ Shlomo Burtimovitz
Figure 6 The spatial configuration of the Late Bronze Age city-states in Palestine compared to Renfrew's ESMs model
completely changed following the revolution in both the nature and extent of Egyptian involvement in Canaan during the reign of the Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties. A close examination of historical analogies (e.g., Lewis 1955, 1987), Egyptian sources, and archaeological data suggests that, as a consequence of the vigorous measures taken by the pharaohs of these dynasties (annexation and direct rule - Figure 7; erection of a network of 'Governor's Residencies' in the main city-states - see Figure 4, Plate 4; punitive expeditions against non-sedentary groups - Plate 5; economic exploitation of the country, etc. see, e.g., Weinstein 1981: 17-23; Singer 1988 and bibliography there), public security was restored, the frontier retreated, and non-sedentary groups resettled in the lowland regions, the piedmont and the hill country. Some of these newly-
Figure 7   The Egyptian capture of Ashkelon by Ramesses II or Merenptah
founded settlements (e.g. 'Izbet Sartah - Finkelstein 1986; Tell Beit Mirsim Bl-2 - Greenberg 1987) have usually been attributed to the Israelite Settlement.
Bridging the divide
The foregoing analysis aspired to exemplify, through the specific case study of the Late Bronze Age society, that archaeological research of 'documented' complex societies in Palestine can go beyond the limits of descriptive culture-history set by former generations of researchers. However, as already emphasized, anthropologically-oriented explanations, usually based on cross-cultural analogies or general models, should be context related. For Syro-Palestinian archaeologists, the post-processual battle-cry: 'back to historical context' actually depicts a familiar, daily reality; but unfortunately, the tyranny of the historical context in this field of study has been so powerful that broader, cross-cultural or long-term perspectives were denied. This seems to be the main reason for the provinciality of Levantine archaeology - namely, its persistent reluctance to take advantage of its tremendously rich archaeological, historical and ethnographic data in order to produce, test and improve general, worldwide archaeological models and theories. As shown above, certain anthropological conjectures concerning social processes such as socio-political disintegration of early states (Cowgill 1988), formation of secondary states via historical succession (Price 1978), continuous construction of social boundaries (Eisenstadt 1988), etc., can be examined in light of the specific socio-cultural changes taking place in Palestine during the Late Bronze
On the Edge of Empires - Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE)
I (ate 4   The 'Governor's residency' ot Tel Aphek (© Tel Aphek ipedition, Tel Aviv University)
l{e. It seems, therefore, that CoJin Renfrew's optimistic ision (1980: 297), addressed over a decade ago to imerican archaeologists, carries also a message for Syro-lestinian archaeology:
when the interest is in general processes of change, [the Ancient World's] data are exceptionally rich. There is therefore a brilliant opportunity for anyone who can command the data and scholarship of the Great Tradition while employing the problem-orientation and research methods of current anthropological archaeology. There is no doubt in my mind that the principal development in at least the earlier part of the next century . . , will be the incorporation of some of the new strengths of anthropological archaeology into the Great Tradition, thereby bridging the Divide [between the two], to the great benefit of both sides.
Plate 5 A victory stele of Sefi I from Beth-Sheon Height = 2.45 m (© Israel Antiquities Authority!
330
WHEN DID THE LATE BROIS/E AGE BEGIN? - PROBLEMS IN DEMARCATION AND TERMINOLOGY
■' he teg nning of §jj Late Bronze Ace was dated by flfipt (I960: 84, 96-9}::tg ca. 1 550 BCt on both histcipl and archaeological grounds - the occupat on e* Canaan by the ty and the first appearance in ;. h ĺ a c v e   acre nirtrt to 6.ľ. , '/), the m ate result u re typicalpí ppeared at onjpíá. 1500 ßf tfívtore recently! J.
ßever(19S7: 14-9) claimed that the rlflaeologlcal demarcation linehftween the Ute BrOhze Ages should be lowered further -bothmes II. Deve' even suggested that botr
hould be renamed 'Middle e mtforical/archaeological subdivision of the Middle Bronze Period: Midd.e Bronze I = Ěariy Bronze IV, Middle Bronze ľA f» Middle Bronze [I, 'Middle
Egyptian Eighteenth Ryna ^Palestine of. Sichrome Wa Wright UjSp : 91, Charts I ate Bronze Seqer(1975: A^Xand historical and Middle and U ■|o the reign o Middle Bronz
and Late Bron2t ponding to a rev
Bronze hC—J_ate Bronze l = !■ r. :o"espordence with Ken; e bd ateo (and c 'Transitional Middle Bronz MSG BCE (1990 espeoau-following the currently lav '992: Tor the recent deba: Bronze chronology vis-a-vi 1991; fever 1E^>!i:|S
Shoe other scholar: Kempinskt 1983. 223 <
Te Bronze 111 (1937: 149-50), 1966 53, r 5! He furt! "r ted) his terrnjiliagy by suggesting a II :W/I ate Bronze 1A Phase', ca. 1550-ater redated to ca. 1 500fs 1 150, iwer' Egyptian chronology(Dever •rniiiq Syro-Palcstinian, Middle
Ipg-Tuffneffli i|) prefer to beg
pology
ä: fi,67 the lat
also Bietak
Kantor 196f ; Bronze Ago
1 COO BCF, more than 100 years earlier th|n Dever, the i'< ate at tn- Uijp Bionze/Late jionzc ',r,m_i ■ on seems t reach* tr prfcedented oea>- !+or comoarsvve chron charts see Leonard 1989 6-7. Dever 1992 HigVe 1).t> the validity ottraditurat archae logical criteria for dem .beginning of the.ytte Bronze Age mainly pottery arj j: i iettlementi is suipect and should.be i < i onsideree
Ingth
ttem
Plate 1.1 Local Canaanite pottery from Tel Aphek (© The Israel Museum, Jerusalem)
Plate 1.1   A group of Late Bronze Age I local and Cypriot pottery from a burial near Shechem (© Israel Antiquities Authority)
Potfery   As local pottery exemplifies undisturbed continuity between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Plate 1.1); new types of pottery (mainly imported) - 'Chocolate-o'n-White' (Plate 1 2) and Ehovqrne Wares, Gray/Black Lustrous jug lets, and certain types of Cypriot pottery - serve to ndicate the beginning of Late Eronze1 \:y\.    1 J). However, a §|pse examination of these fossrfes di.fgcteurs reveal that their appearance in Canaan is not accompanied by any notrceable culturalchange. Moreover, it seems that the I importation/! ocal production of all 'fine' -wares is another manifestation of the commercial anqculrura! prosperityidf Palestine dunrg 'he "con of the fifteenth CHfksos') Dynasty(f#convenient discussions concerning the above pottery types, mpsJiLbf which 'appeared before the end of th,| Middle Bronze AgCsee Leonard : J,9S9:"j10— 11, Oren 1969, Gittler. 1981: 49~5:|1,
Pattern of settlement   Because of the cu teal continuity betweert the Middle and Late Bronze Agassslt has been claimed that the . destruct ons arid manges n settlement patterns »• allegedly resulting from thai conquest of Palestine by the Egyptian r. i h tee nth Dynasty - should nri cato the beginning of i he I ate Bronze Age However,,as argued elsewhere in this chapter, this settlement crisis - whatever its causes - was a prolonged process, starting in the late seventeenth century §£E and continuing into the reigfiiof Thothmes 111 therefore,.fixing the begmn rg t ii period at a certain point within these time limits seems to be arbitrary.
Since neither 1:600/1 550 nor 1 500 BCE marks an unequivocal cultural .- ,an jc '.hat merits special des nna*ion from an arena::: ofogical jioiii: ai i/iew, a different solution to the probiemyof demarcation and terminology concerning the M cidle and |||e Bronze Ages is sugy esled in accordance with'current practical ass of limited chronological/cultural frameworks n the stud* of the Iron AgejccPaieStine (e.g , the tenth, ••aahth centuries BCE, eic ,\ the hi|!sro)/y-based terminological fjlifieworkof the Late Bronze Age should be set aside'. Reference to archaeological entities "typical of the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries BCE etc., w:il thus prevent the artificial separation of cultural processes into 'periods' i"- posed on the mater .j, cu re fe. To achflse this aim, Ho: study of:;'; the Late Br.;n.-e Age material cultureypciuding tieia research and publication) should beintensified.i::.!';' I :8l
TV BRONZE AGE BURIAL CUSTOMS
neiArchaeologyot Death' - thestudyof mortuaty practices of past uitiap societies - accompanies the diseipiinethrougbput its evelopmgr-t. I" rece-nclc-cadus however, an unprecedented rtsrestin the soc-si aspectsof mortuary practices - eSpec.aiiy in the is! correlates of funterary.rgaterial remains - became one of the t ccnsDii^cusresearch fields of s.odal archaeology (for an erviewand bibliography see, e.g.. Chapman and Rundsborg 198' 5. in Palestine, Late Bronze Age Burials were usually considered as a Imary source of';data,:for burial customs, as well as for temporary material culture, e.g., pottery, metal artifacts, el.y,etc More ambrtiously, a recent study (Gpnen 1392) : 'eavbred to analyze synchronic ana diachronic burial patterns in Bronze Age C$fW m order to .dent fy and interpret spatio-::*poraiculttiral processes.
The burial %pes of Late Bronze Age Canaan fell into tWQ.main I'egories: indige.nousand foreign. The first category, which presents the local copulation is by far the 'daminant'orte ' both lumber and distribution' ft includes cave burials for multiple I'ermerits, pit burials for r dividual interment (figure 2,1), and frami,rai burials; The second category is comprised"of vaticus, ||v .r burials, each umrte^.n mimb»r and geographical s*r:bjtion.ia:he introduction cfifpreign burial customs is:§elte|ed :oe omv incidental wtrt little beanr-g on the ma',or bunattrends in isriaan during the Late:Brpnze.:! Ac .or ji' g to Gonen s analysis, trie naigenous ounai customs of -pLate Bronze Age show a clear reg.onal differentjstjon: while in k mountainous regions and western foothills of The country cave U'Sis fo'm^it pie-r ferment were preferred, oit burials for. BiV'fitk'l nterment;vvere the r est common 'burial type in the iostai Plain. The inner vaileysiandmaihurban centres are ,. i oracfenze.d try a m.*tur* of bunai customs. A spatio temporal ■■ iammat'on of the above two maiorbuna- customs practised rn aan curing the I ate Bronze Age reveals two parallel tferds -Spread of p.: burialsa'ong tne Coastal Piain and into the inner ays. the receding of cave buna's into the hill regions. As ah explanation for these cultural processes, Gonen put rtvfrd tnt t ypttthesis.t'h«t t'ta socip-religio us values in Canaan irg the ■ ate Bronze Age were a**ected by .Egyptian cultural 'sducto the long, intensive period gf Egyptian rule in ftaan. she further suggested that the receptivity of the local < "pulation. to The Egyptian values and norms depended on the egree of regional accessibility. Thus, the Egyptian cultural' act seems to be felt most strongly aidngThe 'and communi-on'outes bstvveen Egypt and the regions to the north and thsast of fjlest'se, i.e. in the Igw'ands yvhic.n Ae:e uric tr turn piiian control. Adopting essentia' comoopentsot the Egyptian "al 'customs, the lowlands population gave-up tne :ong sensed communal buna's in favor c' individual Interment in
CH3tempGr|neous!y with the/progressive^. trends evidenced !ne Coas'al Plain and inner valeys, the mountam-nwelling pie of Canaan continued tbbury their dead, according to the customs ct their ancestors. They did not replace cave burials'"' Ll''c!e interments, ardne other custom penetrated the biliy 0:is. Due to tneir poor accessibi'ny these areas renia red iistie.thespneraof Hgyptian intiuehceand became strongho'i.'s ' Iraditionalisrn and resistarice to change.
Another process noticed oyíšonen is tne dwindling and disaopnarance of mtamurti bursa's This indigenous custom, mamiy practised mthe urban centers o' Canaan dur>g tne Middle, Bronze Age, was replaced imthe Late Bronze period by format"' cefyieter.ies outside sdfflements.i
The analysis of Late Bronze Age buriai customs in Canaan raises mariy intriguing questions concerning culture change durmglh.s period. Since Egyptian burals in Canaan - mainly ofthe anthropoid coffins type (see chapter opening photograph) - are Known ohiy from Egyptian governmental center; such as Dei; el-Balab, sofetH of Gaza, ard Beih-Shean (-chougii a f««y more examples are Known from Lačhish and Pe!ia),how they came to affect the indigenous bursal customs is far from self evident Egyptian mortuary practices' and ideas, however, may nave diffused inter Palestine va the expelled "Semites ('Hyksos') or through the Egyptian indoctrination of Canaanite princes {Redford 1992 198) the soc al upheavals in Canaan at the end of the Middle Bronze Age/beginning of the bete Bronze Age most p'obafcly also affected traditional burial customs, thus the shift from collective family chamber tombs to individual interments seems.to be a normal response to changing circumstances destruction and abandonment of maniy settlements, dernographicdecline, social disintegration, cisorder^andl growing nuhfibtf of uprooted and other parasocisl elements within the lowlands. !n such a sorta! atmosphere, when many were : dispossessed of the" forefathers' tomes, people must have ueen less.as.'iured ot iheir security or" habitation and less intl'med to cut new family tombs ici Men add Cavanagh 1984, *=.7—61 J. If is of great interest, however, that/the two contrasting sectors withirtibe Late Bronze Age Canaanite society - the urban eiite'and the sem nemad c pastorďists of the mountainous regions;— both of wlmcři seem to be alert to them geneoiogfc$! succession, continued to bury ■ their dead in communal famiiytomos thrOughout'the period.
I Figure 2.1 A pit burial from Tell Abu Hawam (© Israel I   Antiquities Authority)