1. Martin, Mario A. S. (2011) Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant. With
contributions by Yaniv Agmon, John D.M. Green, Karin Kopetzky, Nava Panitz-Cohen, Valentine
Roux, Yossi Salmon and Ragna Stidsing. (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean Volume XXIX). Edited by Manfried Bietak and Hermann Hunger.
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vienna. 68 Pottery Plates, 121 Figures, 117 Tables.
The intended purpose of this monograph is to provide chronological correlations between New Kingdom
Egypt and the southern Levant using the Egyptian-type or Egyptian-inspired pottery types excavated at
numerous Levantine sites. While the study does not add significantly to our understanding of chronology
in the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B.C.E), it does for the first time amass a large amount of ceramic data
on the Egyptian types and fabrics found at Levantine sites and more importantly, broadens our
understanding of Egyptian and Levantine ceramic technological traditions. Egyptian-type or Egyptian-inspired
pottery is found in large quantities in the Late Bronze IIB and Iron 1, corresponding to the the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties at Egyptian garrison or administrative sites in the Levant and was
manufactured using local Levantine clays in shapes that are commonly excavated in Egypt. Prior to this
study, discussions of Egyptian pottery were site-specific and inconsistent in fabric and technological
details.
Part I of the study broadly describes the morphological types that comprise the Egyptian-type pottery
assemblage found in the Levant which includes bowls, jars, amphorae and luxury wares such as pilgrim
flasks and zoomorphic vessels. Martin states from the outset that the typological framework places vessel
form above fabric in order to include both locally made and imported forms (24), as imported forms
generally fall into a single ceramic type – storage containers. By far, Egyptian-type bowls with flat bases
appear to comprise the majority of the vessels in the Late Bronze Age Levant, in contrast to the
occurrence of this vessel type with rounded bases in Egypt during the Ramesside period (28). Another
morphological type of note is the perforated Egyptian beer jar which is found in large quantities at
Levantine sites in the Ramesside Period. While the function of these jars is debated, Mesopotamian texts
may provide a clue with mention of how beer drips out of perforated fermentation vessels (Homan 2004:
89)
Part II, entitled Fabrics, Formation Techniques and Decoration provides the most interesting section for
ceramicists with a comprehensive study of the fabric and technology of Egyptian-inspired ceramics in the
southern Levant, which tend to reflect a domestic assemblage. They are manufactured using local
Levantine clays, which Martin suggests are meant to imitate the coarse and brittle Nile clays. Imported
container vessels and smaller jars and cups from Egypt are manufactured in Marl clays or mixed marl-and-
silt clays during the Ramesside Period. This trend changes in the Iron Age Levant when Nile clay
vessels are actually imported into the region (97).
Martin explores the question of Egyptian ethnicity by looking to aspects of the manufacturing process or
chaînes opératoire that reflects Egyptian potting traditions. A widely-held perception is that straw temper
in pottery signifies an Egyptian technological trait, but Martin correctly states that this is also a Canaanite
tradition that has deep roots in the Southern Levant. In addition, straw has functional properties that make
the clay easier to work with by raising its plasticity, reducing shrinkage during drying and reducing firing
time, thus saving on fuel. What is significant is that at several sites – Tel Beth-Shean, Tel Mor and Tel
Sera` in strata corresponding with the increased Egyptian presence in the region, an ever-increasing

2. quantity of straw temper emerges in the thirteenth to mid-twelfth centuries BCE , with Egyptian-inspired
vessels showing more straw temper than their Canaanite counterparts (98-99). This data leads Martin to
conclude that temper can be considered a marker of Egyptian potters or Egyptian potting influence at
these sites. The pots-equals-people scenario is not as clear-cut as Martin would suggest and there is
contradicting ceramic evidence, as I have suggested in my Ph.D. dissertation (Duff 2010) from other sites,
namely Lachish and Ashkelon, where Egyptian influence was evident but show no discernible differences
in straw temper in Canaanite or Egyptian-inspired ceramics.
An important technological trait visible on Egyptian-inspired bowls in the southern Levant is the
secondary trimming in the leather-hard state, which erased signs of the vessel being string cut from the
turning device. Secondary trimming is well-known in the Canaanite potting tradition and was only
introduced in Egypt in the Seventeenth Dynasty, according to Egyptian ceramicist Dorothea Arnold in the
manual on the Egyptian potting tradition entitled An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (1993:63,
66).
Of particular significance in Martin’s monograph is Chapter 9B, which details the results of a pilot study
of fifty vessels that were analyzed according to the method of manufacture by Valentine Roux from the
CNRS, University of Paris. Egyptian-inspired, like their Canaanite counterparts were wheel coiled. This
involves an initial coil of clay to form the base with subsequent coils used to build up the height of the
vessel walls, while wheel turning permitted the thinning and shaping of the vessel. After reaching a
leather-hard state the vessel was placed back on the turning device for secondary trimming and smoothing
of the exterior walls and base (114). A difference was noted in the smaller size of the coils with Canaanite
bowls having coils measuring 0.5 cm high and placed in a beveling fashion as opposed to the horizontal
placement of coils in Egyptian-inspired vessels. These findings contradict earlier assumptions that suggest
Egyptian bowls were mass produced and thrown on a fast wheel while Canaanite vessels were wheel-coil
or even handmade. Martin concludes that the distinctiveness in the size and placement of coils in addition
to the secondary smoothing of the exterior vessel walls on Canaanite bowls reveals that Egyptian and
Canaanite potters were working at Ramesside Tel Beth-Shean. The co-existence of craftspeople in
antiquity, who originate from different regions is supported by the textual evidence. Cuneiform texts from
Kültepe in Anatolia mention coppersmiths bearing Assyrian and Anatolian names who work at the k ārum
or commercial district during the height of the Assyrian copper trade the 19th century BCE (Derckson
1996: 71)
Part III of the study assembles all of the Egyptian-inspired and imported vessels found in Southern
Levantine sites in the Late Bronze Age and Iron I Periods within their stratigraphic contexts. By
analyzing the large quantity and variety of pottery from sites like Tel Beth-Shean, Megiddo, Tel Aphek,
Tel Mor, Ashkelon, Deir el-Balah, Lachish, Tell el-`Ajjul, and Tell es-Sa`idiyeh, Tel Sera` and Tell el-
Far`ah (south), Martin explores the nature of Egyptian involvement in the Southern Levant at the height
of Egyptian influence during the Ramesside Period. Martin draws some welcome conclusions about the
dynamic nature of this relationship rather than try to fit the data naively into a narrative that sees an
Egyptian presence as signifying total cultural domination or hegemony. Instead, he observes correctly that
the full range of Canaanite vessels also appear at Egyptianized sites in the southern Levant, leading him to
conclude that the Egyptian-inspired forms were intended to supplement the local Canaanite assemblage,
perhaps to meet the needs of Egyptians who resided at specific garrison sites (256).

3. While this technological study provides interesting insights into how indigenous peoples and Egyptians
engaged with one another and their material world in the southern Levant, the study falls short especially
in light of recent scholarship on the relationship between technology and society and how technology can
construct or contest existing social relationships. This is partly due to Martin’s adherence to a widely-popular
techno-functionalist approach which views aspects of technology as being constrained or limited
by the environment, while social meaning is seen to reside mainly in decorative features (Berg 2007:235).
While the study engages aspects of the chaînes opératoire or production sequence, it never fully explores
the wide range of options available to the potter within the production cycle, whereby social meaning is
reflected, reproduced and negotiated. For example, distinct technological differences that were noted in
the size and placement of clay coils in Egyptian versus indigenous vessel construction can signify group
identity and ethnicity since primary forming techniques reflect specialized skills and motor habits that are
least resistive to change (Gosselain 2000 and Berg 2007). In contrast, the selection of similar local temper
and clays and secondary forming techniques for both Egyptian- inspired and indigenous vessels are
aspects of the chaînes opératoire that are easily visible to other potters and therefore, likely to be
influenced by economic and social practices.
Arnold, Dorothea and Janine Bourriau
1993 An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Berg, Ina
2007 “Meaning in the Making: The Potter’s Wheel at Phylakopi, Melos (Greece).
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:234-252.
Derckson, Jan Gerrit.
1996 The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut.
Duff, Catherine
2010 Ceramic Continuity and Change at Shechem (Tell Balatah): Assessing the Impact
of Egyptian Imperialism in the Central Hill Country. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Toronto.
Gosselain, Olivier P.
2000 “Materializing Identities: An African Perspective.” Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7(3): 187-217.
Homan, Michael
2004 “Beer and its Drinkers: An Ancient Near Eastern Love Story.” Near Eastern
Archaeology 67(2): 84-95.