On the issue of, Alishaya.

[Wickerman]

Dr. Hopper.

Here's a question that might be right down your street.
Given your profession, might I be correct in assuming you will be familiar with the publication of the petrographic analysis by Goren, Finkelstein & Na'aman, of the Amarna Tablets about a decade ago?

As you must remember the chemical method used to help determine the provenance of those tablets was by Neutron Activation Analysis.
This method helps us determine where the clay originated, not, where pots or tablets are made, do you agree?

Given that clay was a known traded commodity since the 3rd millennium BCE, and that the clay could have been bought elsewhere and molded, baked & decorated, as & where applicable, why should anyone be so certain that petrographic analysis can reliably locate where the end product was made, never mind the location of ancient Alishaya?

Thanks, Jon S.

[DrHopper]

Dr. Hopper.

Here's a question that might be right down your street.
Given your profession, might I be correct in assuming you will be familiar with the publication of the petrographic analysis by Goren, Finkelstein & Na'aman, of the Amarna Tablets about a decade ago?

As you must remember the chemical method used to help determine the provenance of those tablets was by Neutron Activation Analysis.
This method helps us determine where the clay originated, not, where pots or tablets are made, do you agree?

Given that clay was a known traded commodity since the 3rd millennium BCE, and that the clay could have been bought elsewhere and molded, baked & decorated, as & where applicable, why should anyone be so certain that petrographic analysis can reliably locate where the end product was made, never mind the location of ancient Alishaya?

Thanks, Jon S.

Right down my street indeed, as petrographic analysis is a tool I use on a regular basis, either directly or by interpreting the work of others. I have to admit, the Amarna Tablets is a little out of my area of expertise, and I'm sadly not familiar with the paper (though I know of the great Finkelstein by reputation and his other work) but the science behind it is the same.

Ceramic petrography will, usually, give the point of origin for the clay source, broadly speaking using a variety of different methods. Often it is just identifying the constituent minerals, local to that place, that make it up, often by magnifying glass, or by Microscope (you wouldn't believe how many different rock fragments there are in a tiny sherd of pottery!). In this case, Neutron Activation Analysis was used, which is far more reliable. What they did was identify, as you correctly point out, the clay source, not where the tablet was made. Indeed, there would be no way of knowing where it was shaped and written, although it may be that each city state had a style of shaping the tablets that was unique, but you would have to ask an Assyriologist or a cuneiform specialist.
However, given that each city would have had their own clay sources (multiple ones, actually) to make their own pottery, bricks, wall coverings, loom wieghts, and the millions of other uses, I think it would be unlikely that they would use imported clay to make something so unimportant as a letter/tablet. Clay was traded, though rarely (easier to transport the finished product, and pottery really does travel far in pre/protohistory), amd would probably be used for something that had a bit of status about it - a type of pot, say, so that you can point to it and say "that was made from Babylonian clay". The relatively mundane items usually get mundane materials.
So, in answer to your question, obviously we cannot be absolutely 100% certain where the end product was made, but, on balance, it is very, very unlikely that the tablets were made using imported clay. So much so, that Goren et al decided to publish their results.
Hope that slightly long-winded answer helps. And just out of interest, what is your interest in the Armarna Tablets?
DrH

[Wickerman]

DrH.
I really appreciate your thoughtful reply.

My interest in the Amarna Tablets is the window they provide on the mid 2nd millennium Canaan and the contrary political intrigue's between city-states, all in the name of serving Pharaoh.

My principal interest is the fall of the Late Bronze Age and the pottery analysis which, in my opinion, is leading to a new interpretation. I'm hoping a new paradigm to repalce the old "Aegean Invasion" hypothesis.
I mainly follow Killebrew, but also read Kling, Sherratt, Baikai, etc. where I can obtain their papers.

Some time back I attempted to initiate a discussion on Furumark's analysis on the Mycenaean pottery, principally because I would like to know if anyone has given serious consideration to the Mycenaean IIIC:1b (Myc. Middle), and Philistine Bichrome being related to the much earlier Palestinian monochrome/Bichrome of c.1600 BCE.
I was astonished to read that the great Schachermeyr had made a similar observation but I have been unable to locate a discussion on the subject.

I guess Ripperology & the Late Bronze Age are strange bed partners, such is life

Best wishes, Jon S.

[DrHopper]

Wow, ok. That's more than a passing interest!
Mycenean stuff I know, but only through the interaction (invasion or influence) in the Late Minoan II/Post-Palatial periods. My speciality is Early to Middle Bronze Age Cretan (Minoan) pottery, mainly in the south of the island (any more information, and I shall be in danger of destroying my online anonymity!).
Having had a glass or two of wine plus a long day I shall delay my response until I have a clearer view!
I will say that I have a very rocky relationship with Furumark - he is very, VERY, exact in his typology and every site I have ever worked on has had pottery that does not fit exactly to his overall scheme. Not that that is meant as a criticism of his work, masterful as it is, rather that as a practical guide, it presents certain problems in the chronology, and does not reflect the slow-to-change and somewhat conservative tastes of people.

Yours,
DrH