Revising the Chronology and Typology of Gaza Ware, a Hallmark of Late Islamic Palestinian Pottery

Abstract

Gaza Ware, one of the hallmarks of Palestinian pottery in Late Islamic/Ottoman times, was produced in the southern Coastal Plain and is characterised by dark-coloured fabric and a large variety of vessel forms. Although most scholars agree that Gaza Ware was already in use in the 18th century and continued into the 20th century, the earliest appearance of this pottery is still under debate. This article offers new insights into Gaza Ware typology and chronology, based on published and unpublished ceramic assemblages from excavated contexts in southern and central Palestine. More specifically, it is suggested here that the advent of Gaza Ware can be traced back to the 17th, if not the 16th, century, and morphological and fabric criteria to discern between ‘early’ and ‘late’ variants of certain vessel types are presented. This fresh look at Gaza Ware will hopefully assist archaeologists and ceramic specialists dealing with Late Islamic Southern Levantine contexts to fine-tune the chronology of contemporaneous ceramics and excavated remains.

Keywords:

• Ottoman and British Mandate periods
• Late Islamic pottery
• Gaza Ware
• Revised chronology
• Updated typology
• Palestine
• Islamic archaeology

Acknowledgements

Some of the pottery illustrated in this article was 3D-scanned by Avshalom Karasik and Argita Gyermen-Levanon (IAA). The rest was drawn by Itamar Ben-Ezra (Institute of Archaeology, TAU), who also prepared the plates. The photographs of the pottery are by Pavel Shrago (TAU), Clara Amit (IAA) and the author. I wish to thank Yuliya Gumenny (IAA) for preparing the location map, Susan Holzman for editing the English text, and the various IAA and TAU researchers mentioned above for permission to use the materials from their excavations.

Disclosure statement

The author reports that there are no competing interests to declare.

Notes

1 Chronologically speaking, the Late Islamic period corresponds with the 15th–early 20th centuries, namely the late Mamluk, Ottoman and British Mandate periods (see Walker 2017: 346–347; Walker and LaBianca 2003: 447–448, Table 1, who divide the period into Late Islamic I/1400–1600 CE, Late Islamic IIa/1600–1800 CE and Late Islamic IIb/1800 CE–early 20th century). As most of the (culturally-defined) Late Islamic period overlaps the (historically-defined) Ottoman period, in the present article the terms ‘early Ottoman’ and ‘late Ottoman’ roughly refer to the 16th–18th centuries and to the 19th–early 20th centuries, respectively. This somewhat rough periodisation coincides with the common opinion among historians of the Middle East, who identify the period between 1799 CE and the first half or middle of the 19th century as the transition from the ‘pre-modern’ to ‘modern’ era (see Ben-Arieh 2020: 3–46; Ze<evi 2004).

2 See https://www.levantineceramics.org/wares/55-palestinian-grey-black-gaza-ware.

3 Milwright (2000: 192) doubted Ziadeh’s dating of Stratum 6 at Tiʿinnik and redated it to the 13th through early 17th centuries. Still, this revision does not contradict the dating of the Gaza Ware vessels found at Tiʿinnik to as early as the beginning of the 17th, if not the 16th, century.

4 De Vincenz herself (2020b: 324) noted that ‘The Yafo Gaza Ware was produced between the seventeenth and early twentieth centuries, its frequency increasing in the eighteenth century and peaking in the nineteenth century’, though the great majority of Gaza Ware finds that she published from Jaffa do not predate the 18th or 19th century, alongside some earlier examples (see below).

5 For instance, in his review of Ottoman-period pottery in Jordan, Mahamid (2022: 130) claims that ‘(t)he manufacture of Gaza pottery continued from the early 16th century to the mid-20th century,’ but nevertheless discusses it only in relation to mid-19th- to early 20th-century types in that region.

6 The excavations were directed by the late Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck, and thus far only the remains dated to the Bronze and Iron Ages have been published in full (see, e.g., Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000, with an introduction to the later periods). The architectural and functional contexts of the Ottoman fortress have been discussed in various publications by Andrew Petersen (most recently, Petersen 2012: 39–42). The publication project of the Hellenistic- to Ottoman- period remains has been headed by the late Moshe Fischer, Miriam Pines and the present author.

7 For translation and interpretation of the 16th- and 17th-century Ottoman documents, see Heyd 1960: 105–110, 126–127, 190, Nos. 57–61, 76. An updated, comprehensive historical study of Ottoman-period Aphek-Antipatris, written by Roy Marom, will be included in the final excavation report.

8 The better chronologically-defined glazed ceramics include open and closed Turkish Iznik Ware, Syrian Polychrome Ware (Iznik Ware imitation), various Italian maiolicas and Chinese Ming-period porcelain vessels. The smoking pipes from the site are dominated by types dated to the 17th and 18th centuries, with the remaining dated to the 18th–19th and to the 19th–early 20th centuries.

9 A similar observation was made by Avissar (2009: 9) with regard to the ‘early Grey Wares’ from Jerusalem.

10 The IAA excavations were directed by Elie Haddad and Nathan Ben-Ari, and the TAU excavations by Boaz Gross, Yoram Haimi and Aharon Tavger. The Middle and Late Islamic pottery from both excavations was studied by the present author and will be published within the framework of the joint final report. This report will also include a historical study of the village of ʿAin Shams by Roy Marom. Another salvage excavation, directed by Nathan Ben-Ari on behalf of TAU, was carried out in 2013 within the Abū Meizar shrine complex. The pottery from this excavation was also studied by the present author, but is only randomly mentioned here.

11 The excavation was directed by Nir-Shimson Paran and the author (for a preliminary report, see Taxel et al. 2019), and the final report will include a historical study of the village of Ḥammama by Roy Marom (for preliminary publications, see Marom and Taxel 2023; in press).

12 The excavation was directed by Tal Kayesar; the Ottoman-period ceramics were studied for the final publication by the present author and the coins were preliminarily studied by Lior Sandberg.

13 The excavation was directed by Noé David Michael, and the Ottoman-period ceramics were studied for the final publication by the present author.

14 As a rule, virtually all of the Gaza Ware storage jars discussed in this study have a bag-shaped, partially ribbed body with a rounded base and two loop handles at the body-neck junction; the exceptions are the large zīr-type jars.

15 Another rim of this jar type was found in the 2013 TAU excavation of the Abū Meizar complex in a refuse pit associated with the shrine’s earliest phase of existence. A coin of Sultan Ahmad I (1603–1617 CE) found at the shrine’s foundations provides a terminus post quem for this phase, which apparently lasted into the 18th century.

16 Additional abrīq made of pale gray fabric which seem to represent one or more of the early variants (their rims are missing) were found in the above-mentioned 17th- or 18th-century refuse pit excavated in 2013 within the Abū Meizar complex.

17 Stern (2017: 15–16) suggested that the Mamluk-period ceramic assemblage from Givʿat Dani should be re-dated to the early Ottoman period (16th century) due to the mention of this site in the 1596 CE Ottoman tax registers. This mention, however, does not preclude a (late?) Mamluk phase at the site as well, and at any rate would suggest slightly expanding the chronology of the local Ottoman phase until the early 17th century. It should also be noted that Stern (2017: 16) attributed the Gaza Ware vessels from Givʿat Dani to the late Ottoman period (19th century), although, as shown in the present study, these may be dated considerably earlier.

18 For example, material from past and ongoing major excavations in Jerusalem, as hinted by Avissar (2009: 9) and Cytryn-Silverman (2021: 66, n. 15).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Itamar Taxel

Itamar Taxel: Israel Antiquities Authority;