ABSTRACT
In these final paragraphs I do not intend to summarise the contents of the preceding papers nor comment upon the opinions expressed by the various authors. Still less do I propose to present my own interpretation of the archaeological evidence from the latter part of the third millennium in the Levant, making yet another contribution to the debate about conditions prevailing there at this time of cultural transition; this I shall postpone until the relevant material from my own excavations at Tell Nebi Mend (where there is a well stratified sequence covering these centuries) has been fully analysed. Rather, I want to focus on just one aspect of the matter which, although commented upon many times before (see, for example, the summaries in Gerstenblith 1983, 2–3 or Ahlström 1993, 134–135) and now perhaps considered somewhat hackneyed, seems to me to be still a hindrance to our understanding of the period, namely that of nomenclature. As is well known, over the course of time terms such as ‘Copper Age’, ‘Caliciform culture’, ‘EB IV’ (sometimes divided into ‘EB IVA’ and ‘EB IVB’), ‘MB I’, ‘EB IV-MB I’, ‘Intermediate EB-MB’, and ‘Intermediate Bronze Age’(IB A) have all been employed in relation to this phase, and although some of these terms have now dropped out of use (and only two, EB IV and IBA, have retained favour with the contributors to this volume), most are to be found in the still relevant literature. Many scholars, including some writing in this volume, have remarked upon the resulting confusion, and the table provided by Gerstenblith shows how justified is Mazar’s use of the word ‘chaos’ to describe the situation (Mazar 1990, 152). If these were merely alternative terms for the same thing it perhaps would not matter too much, but they are not. On the contrary, reading the papers published in this volume, and referring to other literature cited, one soon realises that each of these terms can mean something different to different authors. One cannot help but be reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s famous words to Alice: ‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less’ (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6). The problem is not, of course, confined to this period. Many years ago, one of our contributors, Rupert Chapman, in the course of a detailed and perceptive study of the ‘Three Age’ nomenclature as used in Levantine archaeology, drew attention to the ambiguities that have arisen from the use of inappropriate terminologies in other contexts, and proposed some solutions to the problem (Chapman 1989; 1990). My aim is less ambitious. I do not propose to rehearse old arguments, but I feel that some brief examination of the terms relating to the late third millennium — not to assess their appropriateness but simply to remind ourselves of the original criteria on which they were based — may help clarify matters and so also help avoid the danger of imprecision of language leading to imprecision of thought.
