Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt.

• Author: Morris, Ellen
• Position: Book Review

By SUSAN L. COHEN. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant, vol. 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: EISENBRAUNS, 2002. Pp. ix + 168, illus. $39.95.

An outgrowth of Cohen's Harvard Ph.D. dissertation (2000), this book is a tightly focused study of the Middle Bronze IIA period. As the author states in her review of previous literature, scholars have long vacillated between contradictory views of Canaanite demographics in this period (urban vs. pastoral) and also of Canaan's status vis a vis Egypt (province vs. periphery). Equipped with a new and ostensibly improved ceramic chronology, Cohen reevaluates existing evidence for both of these issues.

In the early 1980s, P. Gerstenblith assigned relative dates to all known MB IIA sites, basing these upon three ceramic clusters observed primarily in Megiddo tomb groups. Cohen also undertakes this task; however, she instead utilizes a sequence of four ceramic phases defined at Tel Aphek. When it comes to analyzing survey data, it is certainly true that an organizational framework built around ceramics from settlement contexts is preferable to one focused upon grave goods. Yet the problem remains that Tel Aphek is only a single site--and thus not necessarily representative of trends evidenced countrywide. Further, as Cohen admits, the ceramic phases that she employs are rarely distinctly definable. For instance, all of the ceramics from phase one continue into phase two; similarly, the vast majority of the forms from phase three appear in phase four. If that weren't enough, phase two and phase three are impossible to distinguish at most sites. Since only 74 out of 133 sites can to any degree be assigned to these phases, it is disappointing that chronological divisions aren't more secure.

Problems inherent in the data aside, Cohen's step-by-step analysis of the evolving settlement patterns over the course of MB IIA is informative and also very well illustrated. Numerous maps plot the changing distribution over time of sites in general, of settlements with and without cemeteries, and of fortified towns. One of her most interesting conclusions is that cemeteries without associated habitation (often thought typical of semi-nomadic settlement patterns) are generally dated to the last two phases in her chronology. This is in opposition to traditional views, which hold that pastoral activity largely gave way to in creasing urbanism as MB IIA wore on. With almost all of these late, isolated cemeteries located...