Israel Finkelstein

Bene Israel

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
Founding Editor

M. H. E. Weippert
Editors-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider
Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P. J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 31

Bene Israel
Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein

edited by

Alexander Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

paper) 1. All rights reserved. Finkelstein. Title. 3. 2. I. printed in the netherlands . ISBN 978-90-04-15282-3 (alk. mechanical. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill. IDC Publishers. 7. III. 222 Rosewood Drive. Yasur-Landau. recording or otherwise. 6. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bene Israel : studies in the archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron ages in honour of Israel Finkelstein / edited by Alexander Fantalkin and Assaf Yasur-Landau.P19B45 2008 933—dc22 2008014960 ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978 90 04 15282 3 © Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV. IV. Excavations (Archaeology)—Middle East. photocopying. GN778. Iron age—Palestine. No part of this publication may be reproduced. or transmitted in any form or by any means. Suite 910. Palestine—Antiquities. Fantalkin. Leiden.32. Fees are subject to change. Assaf. v. Series. translated. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. p. Bronze age—Middle East. V. USA. Israel.This book is printed on acid-free paper. stored in a retrieval system. Middle East—Antiquities. 5. Alexander. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center. Iron age—Middle East. electronic. without prior written permission from the publisher. II. 4. Danvers. The Netherlands. 8. Hotei Publishing. 31) Includes index. Excavations (Archaeology)— Palestine. cm. Bronze age—Palestine. MA 01923. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East .

............................................... Norma Franklin Continuity and Change in the Late Bronze to Iron Age Transition in Israel’s Coastal Plain: A Long Term Perspective .................. Alexander Fantalkin Trademarks of the Omride Builders? ............................... List of Figures ....................... Urban Land Use Changes on the Southeastern Slope of Tel Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age ..... Eran Arie The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation ........................... Introduction ............................... Yuval Gadot Permanent and Temporary Settlements in the South of the Lower Besor Region: Two Case Studies ............................ Dan Gazit The Socioeconomic Implications of Grain Storage in Early Iron Age Canaan: The Case of Tel Dan .....................................CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................. Yitzhak Meitlis vii ix xv 1 17 45 55 75 87 105 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. David Ilan A Re-analysis of the Archaeological Evidence for the Beginning of the Iron Age I ..............................

............. Plates ....................................................................................................... Philistine................................vi contents Reassessing the Bronze and Iron Age Economy: Sheep and Goat Husbandry in the Southern Levant as a Model Case Study ... 113 135 165 197 213 231 247 .............. Aharon Sasson Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States ........ Amir Sumaka i Fink Desert Outsiders: Extramural Neighborhoods in the Iron Age Negev ........................................................................................................................................................ Alon Shavit Levantine Standardized Luxury in the Late Bronze Age: Waste Management at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) ..... and Cypriot Iconography and the “Orpheus Jug” ............................................................ Assaf Yasur-Landau Index .............................................. Yifat Thareani-Sussely A Message in a Jug: Canaanite..........................

F. Baruch Halpern and Ephraim Lytle have read the entire manuscript. Tsetskhladze has offered advice and help in a number of crucial points of the project. Cline and David Ilan have kindly commented on several papers. and Jennifer Pavelko from the Brill staff. A. Alon Shavit and Gocha R. helping immensely in preparation the manuscript for publication. kindly providing their valuable comments. Eric H. while Benjamin Sass.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As the editors of present volume. we would like to express our thanks to a number of colleagues who had contributed significantly to its accomplishment. We were privileged to have on our side Michiel Klein Swormink. We have greatly enjoyed working with such knowledgeable.-L. but perhaps most importantly. Mozina. we would like to thank the editorial board of Brill’s Culture and History of the Ancient Near East series. Finally. . reliable and responsive colleagues as have come together for the present volume. Michael J. whose professional and dedicated work made the usually complicated task of producing an edited volume considerably simpler. Likewise. Inbal Samet spared no effort. this project could never has been materialized without the enthusiastic participation of our contributors.Y. A.

.

................................ Fig. Fig................... relative to Stratum VI (Fig........................... 2) ....... Types of cooking-pots found at Aphek X12 and at Tell Qasille XII–X . Stratum V........................ Fig............................. Spatial distribution of the Middle Bronze tombs on the southeastern slope (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl..................................... 6................ The site of Tel Dan... Locally made Egyptian-styled vessels found at Aphek .......... Fig......... 3.................. Fig........... 2........... Samaria—the Omride Palace ............................... The Late Bronze-Iron Age transformation at Israel’s central Coastal Plain viewed as a furcative change .... Franklin Fig. Fig...... Ilan Fig.......... 2.. Gadot Fig........... 2) ......... Map of central Coastal Plain with settlements dated to Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods ....................... 2.............. 5........................................................................................... 249 250 251 251 252 253 254 254 255 256 257 257 258 259 259 ............... 2....... Note the small number of pits and large number of pithoi....... 1.... A plan of Area B. Philistine finds from Aphek that were manufactured at Ashkelon ........... 3. 1....................... Fig..................... The Mason’s Masks .... 1.......................................... Fig.. 7.............. Fig........... Reconstructed plan of Palace 4430 at Aphek ............ Iron Age I remains were found in all areas excavated ..... 1) ............ The transformation of sociopolitical order in the Yarkon-Ayalon basin ..... The excavated area on the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig.... The Megiddo—Palace 1723 ............. 3......... Fig... A plan of Area B.... 1.......... 4........ Note the large numbers of pits ......LIST OF FIGURES Arie Fig............. Fig........................... Stratum VI...

.............. Fig................. Fig.......................... 1......... 4............. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 7th century BCE .............................. Sites mentioned in the text .............. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Tel Miqne-Ekron region during the 10th century BCE ...... 5.. Fig......... Fig.... 4...... Fig....................... A stone-lined pit in Area B (L1225) containing a secondary deposit of refuse............................. 9............... 6............................... 2.................... Fig..................... Area B................ Fig.. Fig........................ Collared-rim pithoi ........... 10. Shavit Fig.................... Fig.......... Tel Dan Stratum IVB........ The southern Coastal Plain and the boundaries of the settlement complexes ................. most prominently fragmented ceramic vessels............... L4710: a possible feed bin abutting a wall (left) .. Sasson Fig..... 7......... 2....................... Unlined pits sunk into an earlier consolidated Late Bronze Age pebble fill .................... 5............................ Fig....... 7.... The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size .............................. 260 260 261 261 262 262 263 264 265 266 267 267 268 268 269 269 ................. Geographic regions of the Land of Israel ......... Fig........x list of figures Fig.......... 3................. 6.... The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size . A row of pithoi lining a wall—their most frequent position in Iron Age I sites .......................... Fig................. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size ...... “Galilean” pithoi ................. Fig.......... 1... This is of the more common cylindrical variety ...... 8.............. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size ...... A stone-lined pit in Area M (L8185) with the more unusual “beehive” shape ..........

........... A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashdod in the 7th century BCE ............ 11............................................. 12........ The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .... 17...... Fig...... Fig....................................... Fig............... The populated area in the region of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the different phases of the Iron Age II ..................... Fig..... 21......... The settled area at Tel afit-Gath and the surrounding sites during the various stages of the Iron Age II ...... The settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size ................ Fig...................... Fig........................... 8. 16............ The settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size ........................................ 20... 15... xi 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 275 275 276 276 ............................... The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .......... 14........................ 9..... The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size ........... 18..... A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon in the 7th century BCE ....... Fig.................................. Fig........ Fig.............. 13........... A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath in the 8th century BCE ................ 10.............................list of figures Fig...................... Fig..................... Fig... Fig.... The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size . The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to the settlement size ............... 19.............. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size ........ Fig........ A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin during the 10th century BCE ......................................

p....... Fig..... 25............. Fig......... 2..: Harvard University Press.....xii list of figures Fig..... 44). Fig......... Sumaka i Fink Fig... Copyright © 1939 by the president and fellows of Harvard College ........ 163. Struble) .............. Restroom 03-2092 during the excavation (photo by N.-L..................45 (Image by E............ 24.... Roberts) .. Fig... 24). Fig........ 4... Fig.. Wall 03-2091 (photo by N... 9.....-L. Roberts) .......... The west wing of Area 2: Local Phase 2 (Image by E.. Jug R03-1542 (photo by N... Roberts) .... A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Na al Besor basin during the 7th century BCE .. J.-L.-L..... 12......-L. Fig.......... Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London ................. 163..... 22......................................... Toilets in Nuzi (after Starr 1937–1939... Roberts) .. Fig....... 3....................................... 7...... J............ Struble) . The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size .... Fig........ 8.. 10. Plaster inside drain 03-2039 (photo by N..................... 5.... Cambridge. The Level IV palace at Tell Atchana......... Roberts) ....... Roberts) ........ Fig.... Fig.........-L....... 277 277 278 278 279 280 281 281 282 283 284 285 286 286 287 287 ........... 11.......... Rooms 03-2077 and 03-2092 in Square 44................. The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size ........ 1........... The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size ......... XXVa)... Fig...... Reprinted by permission of the publishers from Nuzi: Report of the excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk........ The Oriental Institute University of Chicago Expedition to Tell Atchana (Image by E.... Fig................ Fig.. 23... Drain 03-2039 (photo by N.... Struble) ........... Fig.......... The toilets in room 5 of the Level IV palace (after Woolley 1955 Pl.. Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London ..... J........... where Woolley excavated four restrooms and three bathrooms (after Woolley 1955: Fig........ Plate R03-1851 (photo by N........ 6.. Mass.........................

..... Tel Aroer—southern Arabian inscription from Area D bearing the letter ‫.. After Guy 1938: Pl... 4...... Fig............ 19: 2 .. 6..... Area D........ Fig...... After Aharoni 1975: Pl........... Fig.................... xiii 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 303 303 303 303 303 304 304 304 304 304 ... 3.. After Loud 1948: Pl............................ and Harding 1940: Pl...... 10. A krater from Lachish............. 13..... Fig. After Dothan 1982: Fig... Tel Aroer................. 1....... An inscribed jug from Lachish............ Area A—selected pottery .......... Area A—selected pottery . orvat Uza—general plan ... L... 6.......... Area D... Area D.. 1003 and 1411—pottery assemblages ... 4. 1.. 5............ Inge........ XLVIII: 250 . L...... Area D............... A jug from Azor.................. Fig. A LHIIIC stirrup jar from Kalymnos............ L..... 2....... 7....... Tel Aroer..... 39: 11 .... After Tufnell....... Tel Aroer.... 4. 5.. Fig........... After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig...... Fig............. 76: 1 .... 2....... Stratum VI....... Tel Aroer..... 14..... 1421—pottery assemblage .................................... 19: 3 ... Fig... After Dothan 1982: Fig.......... 1417—pottery assemblage ........... Tel Aroer...... Fosse Temple III. Area D........... 48 ...........list of figures Thareani-Sussely Fig. ח‬ Yasur-Landau Fig... After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig.... Area D.. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig................... Fig................................ Area D—general plan .... Fig... 134 ............. L........ L......... Fig...... Tel Aroer............ Area A—general plan . The “Orpheus Jug........... A bowl from Lachish Level VI.. 1............ A krater from Ashdod. 9... 5......... L...... 12...... A krater from Ekron...........” After Loud 1948: Pl.. Tel Aroer.. 3...... 15. 64: 4 . 2....... 464: 19 ... Area D..... Fig......... 1443—pottery assemblage .... After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Illustration 81 ... Map of Iron Age II sites in the Beersheba Valley ........ 29 . 8...... Tel Aroer—general plan .. Fig..................... 1.... A strainer jug from Tell Aitun.... Fosse Temple III... Fig... L. Tel Aroer....... Fig........ Tel Aroer......... Tel Aroer. 1421—pottery assemblage ... A jug from Megiddo....... Tel Aroer... 11....... 2.... 3............................ Stratum XIII... 1417—pottery assemblage ...................... 1443—pottery assemblage ...... A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIIB...

.... A pyxis from Tragana.............................. E.......... After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl....... 33 ... 643 ............ Fig.............. After Wedde 2000: No............ 1. A collar-necked jar from Kalymnos.................. After Iacovou 1988: 27 .................................... After Wedde 2000: No............................................ The lyre player on the “Orpheus Jug” ............... Fig.......... 655 . 1. 89 .. 2.............. 2.. Director of the Ashkelon Excavations ................................... 70 ............................... Stratum XII.. ..... 6.................................. A plate from Kouklia-Skales........... A figurine from Revadim................................................ After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Fig................ After Loud 1948: Pl... XCIXa ................ courtesy of Prof................ After Schumacher 1908: Pl................... Fig.............. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig............. 4................... 7.... 5.... A painted shard from Megiddo. 6. 7...... After Iacovou 1988: 72...................................... Ca .. 84: 5 ..... A stirrup jar from Syros..... 247: 7 .. A krater from Ashkelon...... After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl.................... A krater from Aradippo.......................... After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. 4.......... 644 ........ 24 .....xiv list of figures 304 304 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 6.. A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIA..... 3.... A zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo......... A figurine from Ashdod............ A tripod vessel in the Metropolitan Museum... A kalathos from Kouklia-Xerolimani T. After Iacovou 1988: 72... Ce ....................... A krater from Enkomi................. 7............. Stager. 3...... 4........................................ L............ 3........ After Wedde 2000: No.... Fig............ Cyprus......... 5..9:7.. 463: 14 .......... After Loud 1948: Pl........ A seal from Tiryns.....

it was not necessarily the main impetus for producing of this volume. historical interpretation or chronology. In essence. this Festschrift is born from and intends to honour Israel Finkelstein the teacher. While continuing to conduct new research. throughout the years Israel has done everything possible to hone the skills of his students. His pioneering work has been frequently recognized and widely acclaimed. Each of the twelve contributors to this volume was at one time a graduate student of Israel. Israel Finkelstein this collection of studies concerning the archaeology of Israel and the Levant. and meet the arduous task of organizing the Megiddo project. this lack of consensus is the best imaginable way to pay tribute to two of our teacher’s guiding principles: intellectual honesty and a healthy skepticism of communis opinio. publish excavation reports. His scholarly achievements will no doubt be honoured in due time by a more august array of international researchers. As a result. mostly at Tel Aviv University. Professor Finkelstein holds the Jacob M. Rather. . the first in his honour. however.INTRODUCTION We are honoured to present to Prof. encouraging each of us to find our own paths in the field and we have all benefited immeasurably from his focused guidance. Professor Finkelstein’s scholarship is not. It is a tribute to his integrity that Israel takes pride in the fact that some of his students’ views are overtly opposed to his own. it should come as no surprise if the authors of the papers in this volume not infrequently disagree with their teacher on matters of archaeological method. Israel never loses sight of his students. Likewise. Generous with his time and infectious with his energy. Alkow Chair in the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University. although the fact that Israel Finkelstein will celebrate his 60th birthday next year was doubtless taken into consideration. He is widely regarded not only as one of the leading scholars in the archaeology of the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages but also as a leader in the application of modern archaeological evidence to the reconstruction of biblical Israelite history. the genesis of this Festschrift.

Thareani-Sussely describes extramural neighborhoods not as the impoverished margin of the ancient city but as “a place of interaction between various population groups from different origins and social classes: merchants. Traces of walls. The complex sociopolitical reality in the area during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE allowed the development of extramural neighborhoods adjacent to settlements. is identified as a caravanserai. nomads. interpreted as houses for the family members of the garrisons stationed at the forts.” The concentration of a large number of people in a city created challenges of waste management. it calls for a reevaluation of the total areas of other Middle Bronze Age sites. which in turn could have a significant impact on population estimates for the period. the region held dearest by Israel Finkelstein. The discovery of an extramural neighborhood at Megiddo increases the estimated size of the site to 13. who point out that the evidence for extramural settlements during the Bronze and Iron Ages suggests a kind of urban sprawl in times of relative peace and stability.5–15 ha. masonry tombs. A different function is suggested for extramural structures at orvat Uza and Arad. Their geographic scope. Thareani-Sussely discusses the multicultural and multifunctional nature of extramural neighborhoods in the late Iron Age II in the Negev. caravaneers. however. Burying the deceased under the floors of buildings and courtyards was a common practice in the period. and the area became a neighborhood. and Sumaka i-Fink addresses the . is limited: they all focus on Israel and the Levant. from subsistence economies to the symbolic realm of iconography. but also pursue research across a broad spectrum of interests. solidly built structures outside the walls of Aroer are connected with commercial activities. Rather than serving squatters and the urban poor. and infant jar burials suggest that during this period there was a change in land use. Questions concerning city boundaries and their implications for our understanding of urban frameworks are investigated by both Arie and Thareani-Sussely. for example. the southeastern slope of Tell Megiddo was no longer used as an extramural cemetery. A case for change in land use is presented by Arie. one structure.xvi introduction The twelve articles contained within not only express a wide range of informed opinions. and local population—all integral parts of the ancient urban community. who argues that during Middle Bronze Age II–III. Moreover. It is possible that the area was reused as a cemetery when the urban area constricted during the Late Bronze Age.

following the traditional chronology and understanding of the Iron Age. it is nevertheless possible that some processes connected with the emergence of Israel started. He considers the similarity between the characteristics of Late Bronze material culture and those of Iron Age I. presents a comparative study of settlement activity in Iron Age IB and the Byzantine period. and ceramic tiles. who concentrates as a case-study on the storage facilities of Tel Dan (Strata VI–IVB). On the other hand. as evidence for a very early appearance of Iron Age I culture. state systems possessed complete territorial control over both cultivated and wilderness territories. in his opinion. the lack of Late Bronze architectural remains under most Iron Age I sites. can by explained by the political and economical gap that was formed in south Canaan after the breakdown of Egyptian administration in the final days of the 20th Dynasty. carefully applied plaster. which might have been a function . The presentation of several restrooms in various degrees of preservation at the site. will be of use for the identification of such installations at other sites. The role of toilets as “standardized luxury” and an integral part of elite architecture is seen in use of fine building materials such as orthostats. According to Gazit. as well as numerous parallels for different types of toilets from the Levant. the early phase at Tel Dan (Stratum VI) was characterized by a combination of many grain pits and some pithoi. “at an earlier phase than has been posited in the past. These changes may serve as a clear indicator of socioeconomic and political change at the site and in the region as a whole. Ilan points out that these facilities underwent significant changes over the course of Iron Age I. Indeed. and several cases in which Late Bronze pottery imports co-exist with Iron Age I pottery. as Meitlis suggests. based on the results of a survey undertaken south of the Lower Besor region. and continued for a much longer period than has been suggested.” The socioeconomic implications of grain storage in Iron Age I are discussed by Ilan. Whether or not one accepts his chronology for the earliest appearance of vessels typical of the Iron Age in the central highlands. followed by its disappearance after a period of some three generations.introduction xvii architecture of restrooms in the houses of the well-to-do residents of Alalakh. Meitlis investigates the beginning of Iron Age I culture in the highlands. the sudden appearance of the Iron Age IB settlement system in the Besor region during the second half of the 11th century BCE. during the Byzantine period. Gazit.

According to Sasson. based on his analysis of sheep and goat husbandry. Sasson suggests that the mechanism for coping with scarcity included maximizing subsistence security while reducing risks and minimizing fluctuations in the resource base. This pattern stands in contrast with theories on specialization in production of meat. In Stratum V. during the last phase (Stratum IVB). while other portions may have gone to a central storage place. and the demand for herd security maintained mostly by goats. points to a self-sufficient economy and optimal exploitation of subsistence resources. not surplus played a central role in the lives of ancient populations.e. part of the grain may have been stored in above-ground facilities that belonged to individual households. Ilan goes on to suggest that during this phase. The immediate goal of the survival subsistence strategy would have been to preserve flock and territorial size at an optimum level without endangering the ecological resource base (i. pits continued to be confined to one per household.xviii introduction of poor security. It is possible that such a combination may reflect an improvement in security conditions. This strategy pursued the optimal utilization of resources balanced by a minimization of risk in order to maintain longterm survival. According to Sasson. but pithoi became few again. according to Sasson. Based on the zoo-archaeological record of caprine (sheep and goats) from 68 Bronze and Iron Age southern Levantine sites. the relative frequency of sheep does not exceed 67% and this pattern occurs in all periods as well as all geographical regions in Israel. milk or wool in the Southern Levant and. according to Sasson. In most sites examined by him. zooarchaeological finds from the periods discussed point to a conservative household economy. most grain storage was transferred to above-ground containers (mostly pithoi). Likewise. the reason this strategy was employed is that scarcity. produced of sheep. Sasson recognizes an additional pattern of exploiting caprine for all of their products. Sasson reassesses the Bronze and Iron Age economies of the southern Levant. pasture) and. Gadot uses the “longue durée” approach to explore continuity and change in the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age transition in Israel’s central . This is believed to indicate increasing centralization of economic and political control during the last phase of the period.. water. On the other hand. while pits seem to have been limited to one per household. clearly a function of a survival subsistence strategy. it reflects a survival subsistence strategy that strived for balance between the demand for wool.

he addresses the apparent anomaly of the emergence of urban centers with almost no surrounding hinterland. Only when the Philistines immigrated into the region from the south was a new sociopolitical order established again. and Gaza. the development of such tombs is dated significantly earlier. imported by the Philistine migrants in the 12th century BCE had a long-lasting influence on the hinterlands of Tel Miqne-Ekron. According to Gadot. Fantalkin hypothesizes that the aggressive expansionist policy of Aram-Damascus. Tel Ashkelon. Based on parallels from the Late Bronze Aegean. the present scholarly consensus. This is an exceptional phenomenon in the landscape of ancient Israel. Shavit suggests that Aegean concepts of urban settlement. In his opinion. fails to explain the fact that these tombs are attested in the Judean core area only as early as the 8th century BCE. Tel afit-Gath. Fantalkin’s article deals with the appearance of burial practices connected to the use of rock-cut bench tombs in Iron Age Judah. Shavit describes the Philistine centers as “city-villages” or “quasi-cities. may have paved the way for Judah’s expansion into the . such as the Judean foothills (the Shephelah) and the Coastal Plain. the area was marginalized and no single centralized social group had control over the land. the initiation of a new social order was always brought about by an external political power taking advantage of fragmented local social groups in order to exploit the region economically. Gadot postulates that new sociopolitical organizations emerged along the Yarkon-Ayalon basin during the Late Bronze-Iron Age three times in succession. which sees these tombs as a phenomenon characterizing both the United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah. and with an economy that did not rely on a hinterland. when the Egyptian system came to a violent end. which resulted in the decline of Gath and the temporary weakening of the Northern Kingdom in the second half of 9th century BCE. Shavit presents an investigation of the urban landscape through the lens of regional studies. with inhabitants who subsisted mostly on agriculture. Following his survey of Iron Age sites in Philistia. Relying on a nuanced analysis of this lengthy period. Gadot concludes that in the area discussed. the first system was created by the Egyptians who turned Jaffa into one of their strongholds in Canaan. while in other areas.” isolated from their surroundings. and the plains along the Yarkon River into royal or temple estates. where urban settlement is usually a part of a multi-tiered settlement pattern. Tel Ashdod. However.introduction xix Coastal Plain.

the “Orpheus Jug”. both palaces share a distinctive set of architectural characteristics. The twelve authors included here. Two significant features present at both palaces are the use of specific masons’ marks and the utilization of the short cubit as the unit of measurement. Alexander Fantalkin Assaf Yasur-Landau Tel Aviv 25. YasurLandau argues that the figural iconography on the jug suggests that it is not purely Philistine in origin. highlights the fact that their construction may be safely dated to the 9th century BCE. However. which when view together with her re-analysis of the stratigraphy at Samaria and Megiddo.03. in Franklin’s view. Franklin investigates anew the well-known Iron Age palaces at Samaria and Megiddo. represent in fact only a fraction of Israel’s many students. According to her.xx introduction area of the Shephelah and the latter’s integration into the Kingdom of Judah. the topic of the scene is neither Cypriot nor Philistine. a clue to the identity of the builders. These traditions continued at Megiddo. Cypriot imagery may have influenced the style of the animal and human figures on the “Orpheus Jug. More “Bene” and “Benot” Israel indeed. unhindered. Yasur-Landau explores the iconographic message in what is arguably the most famous ceramic find from Megiddo. these provide.2008 . relating to Ashera or Astarte. a symbolic metaphor. an active manifestation of Canaanite cultural identity. while at Philistia representations of trees and animals were suppressed by the Philistine imagery of the bird. the widespread appearance of bench tombs throughout the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE may be seen as a sign of state formation as lowland elite burial practices were adopted by newly created Judahite urban elites. Professor Finklestein’s ongoing commitment to the training and guiding of students will no doubt continue to produce a steady flow of new archaeologists. symbol of an Aegean Goddess.” demonstrating new contacts with Cyprus at the end of the 11th century BCE. into the Iron Age. In this scenario. but belongs to a long tradition of Canaanite representations of sacred trees and animals.

Most research dealing with material from the Middle Bronze tombs in Megiddo ignored the tombs on the slope (Kenyon 1969. . Dever 1976: Chart 2. and spatial aspects of these tombs in order to understand what occurred on the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo during that period. architectural and historical problems which remained unsolved by former excavations” (Finkelstein et al. As a team member of this expedition I will suggest a solution for one of these problems. stratigraphic. The two main research questions are: 1. Hallote 2001). but you actually have to change them yourself . but they were never examined independently. Are we actually familiar with the extramural cemetery of the Middle Bronze II–III in Megiddo? . .URBAN LAND USE CHANGES ON THE SOUTHEASTERN SLOPE OF TEL MEGIDDO DURING THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE Eran Arie They always say time changes things. chronological. Gerstenblith 1983: 26). 2000: 3). Andy Warhol Introduction One of the goals set forth by the directors—one of which is Israel Finkelstein—of the Expedition of Tel Aviv University to Megiddo was to launch a “renewed investigation in areas previously excavated. intended to deal with stratigraphic. This article explores the chronological. Tufnell 1973. In other studies the latter were only partially investigated (Wright 1965: Chart 5. What were the land uses of the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age? 2.

and others were collected selectively and not systematically documented. Fig. Hallote 1994: 22). cf. the 1 The terminology used here is: Middle Bronze I: 2. some of the sparse architectural finds that were documented (ibid. 2). Gonen 1992a: 41.650. Bietak 2002: 41. Guy. It should be noted that during 1927. Fisher had excavated the southeastern slope for that purpose in 1925. after Ilan 1995: 298.800–1.000–1. Many finds were not published. O.) were never published. All activity that took place in this area from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age I and even later has always been considered funerary (Guy and Engberg 1938: 135. the well-known Early Bronze stages were revealed. and it seems that the architectural elements were overlooked. Due to the excavation methods that characterized the field work conducted in Palestine during the 1920s and the 1930s.2 eran arie The Excavations of the Southeastern Slope Prior to the beginning of the excavations at Megiddo by the University of Chicago Expedition. The finds were assigned to three strata distinguished from those of the tell by the prefix ES (Eastern Slope).650–1. Middle Bronze III: 1. . In addition to the tombs.800. 15. As described by Guy and Engberg: “there were few buildings or other remains of high interest in the area. S. Kempinski 1989: 189. Broshi and Gophna 1986: 75.000 m2 of the grounds used for the dump was excavated and approximately 125 tombs were discovered. The excavations of the University of Chicago Expedition on the slope concentrated mainly on the tombs. so the work went quickly” (Guy and Engberg 1938: 2). 87. Ever since the southeastern slope of the tell was excavated. 15. several architectural elements were found in Squares Q-S/15–16. C. Furthermore. it has been interpreted as part of the extramural cemetery of the city. enlarged the dump area in 1927 after debris had filled it (Fig. P. and his successor. The published plan of the dump grounds presents only about half of its area and the only documentation available for the rest of the area is an aerial photograph taken from the famous balloon (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. L. Middle Bronze II: 1. the results of the excavation of the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo are difficult to reexamine. In all. 1). an area of ca. while the northwestern part of the slope—where most of the Middle Bronze II–III1 tombs are concentrated—was being excavated. During the last expansion of this area between 1930 and 1932. an area was prepared for the depositing of debris from the excavations (Guy and Engberg 1938: 2).500.

I believe that this was the reason Guy and Engberg regarded the Middle Bronze burials of the slope as isolated tombs lacking architectural context. it is now clear that only nine pottery groups can really be identified in the ceramic evidence. Although the researches detected twelve ceramic phases in all. dealing only with the Middle Bronze I material. and therefore never represented coherent chronological strata. Since then. Despite the fact that some of the tombs dated by Gerstenblith to the Middle Bronze I were dated by Kenyon to the Middle Bronze II. Guy and his team were not aware of the widespread Middle Bronze Age burial custom of interring under house floors and courtyards. Kochavi and Yadin 2002: 196–225). Gerstenblith was able to point out only three real pottery groups in Megiddo (1/2. the area has been regarded as part of the Middle Bronze cemetery. Furthermore. Cohen 2002: 87. Kempinski (1974: 151). but Gerstenblith demonstrated that Cypriot vessels had already appeared in her earlier Group 4 (Gerstenblith 1983: 28). tombs and finds were grouped together solely according to their absolute levels (Loud 1948).changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo 3 Middle Bronze strata on the tell (in Area BB) with their wealthy tombs had not yet been explored. divided this long period into eight ceramic groups (A–H). At this stage of the excavations. Gerstenblith. who worked on the Middle Bronze II–III ceramic finds. In the report. see Beck 1985: 193. Kenyon (1969) and Gerstenblith (1983) reexamined the ceramic material from these tombs in order to gain stratigraphic and typological information. 3. Beck showed that in contrast to the four ceramic phases of Middle Bronze I in Aphek. argued that the two 2 The earliest phase at Aphek is missing in Megiddo. detected four ceramic phases (1–4) representing the emergence of the Middle Bronze urban culture. who dealt with Kenyon’s Groups F and G (Kenyon 1969: 34–35). 4) (Beck 2000: 239–254. which she then assigned to respective stratigraphic phases in Areas BB and AA. Pottery Groups of Middle Bronze Megiddo A major role in the construction of the Megiddo Middle Bronze pottery typology belongs to the finds retrieved from over two hundred tombs in Area BB by the Chicago Expedition. Kenyon. 2 Kenyon’s identification of Group D was based on the appearance of Cypriot import (Kenyon 1969: 31). these studies are the most important typological researches of the Middle Bronze pottery of Megiddo. .

644 and T. Although this examination is beyond the scope of this article. 3 Two additional tombs (T. 1938: 52–54). T. . are dealt with here (Fig. 2).252. those from the tombs in the southeastern slope were never studied systematically.46. Therefore. Once the chronology of the tombs was established. Two other tombs (T. several analyses. Hallote. these scarabs fit the chronological affiliation presented in Table 2 (Daphna Ben-Tor. which most likely date to the Middle Bronze Age. personal communication). Epstein 1965: 204–221. Division of the Slope Tombs according to Ceramic Groups The Chicago Expedition dated twenty-five tombs on the southeastern slope to the Middle Bronze Age (Guy and Engberg 1938: 140). T.244. Ilan. this assignation is far from being a straightforward one.255) were dated to the Middle Bronze Age intuitively because they were close to other accurately dated Middle Bronze tombs. Kenyon 1958: 51*–60*. three tombs (T.3 However. and Cline 2000: 186–222).4 eran arie should be combined into one group.50) were dated to the Middle Bronze Age according to pottery. only 18 tombs. in view of the main researches on the stratigraphy of Middle Bronze Megiddo (Loud 1948. Table 1 presents the nine pottery groups of Middle Bronze Megiddo in their stratigraphic context. 1938: 56–60). Furthermore.251.645) that were also dated to the Middle Bronze Age are not located on the southeastern slope and are therefore not examined here.258) to the Late Bronze Age (Gonen 1992: 88). When affiliating a ceramic group with a tomb was not possible since sufficient indicative pottery was not available. which were combined with stratigraphic and spatial investigations. T. each tomb of the slope was examined separately. T. Gerstenblith 1983. only a subdivision of the Middle Bronze Age was established. 4 While the Middle Bronze Age scarabs retrieved from Megiddo were examined several times.4 In order to reexamine the different land uses of the southeastern slope of Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age. See also Tufnell 1973: 69–82. but not a single vessel or sherd from them was published (Guy and Engberg. Gonen redated two tombs (T. Kenyon 1969: 25–60. although no indicative pottery was found in them (Guy and Engberg. made it possible to comprehend changes in land use on the southeastern slope of Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age. Ward and Dever 1994. and each tomb was affiliated with Kenyon and Gerstenblith’s pottery groups. Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973: 161–187.

cult chamber surrounded by stelae and Wall 3182 Area AA: Gate 4103 MB IIB: Palace 5051.changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo Table 1. XIVA: MB I: partly filled Temple 4040 and “Pavement” 4009 MB IIA: filled Temple 4040 and buildings around the sacred area MB IIA: filled Temple 4040 and buildings around the sacred area and Wall 3182 MB IIA: Western Palace. Phase N: PG–C MB I XIIIA XII MB II (1750– 1700) MB I–MB II XI MB II (1700– 1650) Phase O (AD*. AG*): last phase of MB II: PG–E. cult chamber and wall Area AA: rampart and Gate 4109 MB IIB (= MB IIC): Palace 5019 and earliest Temple 2048 Area AA: Building 2005 LB I: Temple 2048 and Palace 2134 Level F-10 Phase I: earliest phase of Temple 2048 Level F-12 Epstein 1965 5 Ilan et al. Phase J: MB I–MB II Phase K (AA*): MB II: PG–A. 1969 Phase G: EB–MB: partly filled Temple 4040 Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973 XIVB: EB IIIB: Temple 4040 and Altar 4017. AE*): PG–D Phase II: Level F-11 second phase of Temple 2048 MB II X MB II (1650– 1550) Phase P (AF*. F/G MB III IX MB II (1550– 1479) End of Phase P: PG–H LB I * Kenyon phases in Area AA PG – Pottery Group . Current 2000 terminology Area F IBA XIIIB MB I (1800– 1750) Phase 1/2: MB IA Phase 3: MB IB Phase 4: MB IC Phase H: MB I. Middle Bronze pottery groups in their stratigraphic context Stratum Loud 1948 XIV MB I (1850– 1800) Gerstenblith Kenyon 1983 1958. Phase L (AB*): PG–B Phase M (AC*): end of Temple 4040.

While in Table 2 the tombs are arranged according to their numeric order.6 eran arie Tables 2–3 present the division of the Middle Bronze tombs on the southeastern slope according to ceramic groups. Table 2. 4 (?) 911 D: 3 912 B: 1/2 912 D: 3 Burial type Shaft tomb Shaft tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Masonry chamber tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Masonry chamber tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Rock-cut pit tomb Jar burial Jar burial Simple pit tomb Jar burial Simple pit tomb Shaft tomb Shaft tomb Table 3. 4) (A. in Table 3 they are organized by ceramic groups and tomb types. 3. The tombs according to type and ceramic groups MB I MB II–III (Kenyon 1969) (Gerstenblith MB II MB II–III MB III 1983) (1/2. 24 42 43 44 45 49 51 53 56 233 234 247 253 254 257 868 911 912 Pottery group (Gerstenblith/ Kenyon) B E MB II–III MB II–III E F/G E–F/G E–F/G MB II–III E–F/G E–F/G E–F/G E–F/G MB II–III MB II–III E–F/G or LB I 911A1: 1/2. C. B. Database of the Middle Bronze tombs of the southeastern slope Tomb No. C) (A. (E. 3. F/G) F/G) Simple pit Rock-cut pit Jar burial Masonry chamber tomb Shaft tomb 2 Total 2 (11%) 11% 1 2 1 1 1 1 (6%) 5 (28%) 89% 1 5 2 1 1 2 7 3 2 4 Total 10 (55%) 18 (100%) 100% . E. B.

on the other hand. Megiddo being the most important to date. One of the most characteristic types is the jar burial. Intersite. When stratigraphic circumstances allowed. Masonry chamber tombs. I believe that the existence of intramural mortuary practices on the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo is an indicator to the similarity between land uses of this area and of the summit of the tell during the Middle Bronze Age II–III. mass-burial caves were the most common type of tomb in extramural cemeteries (Hallote 1995: 106). It is therefore unlikely that the greater part of the southeastern slope of Megiddo. Consequently. almost always. nearly all of these burials across Israel were excavated below walls. it seems that these were always built below floors of buildings (Ilan 1992: 122–124. cist tombs. and courtyards of buildings (Hallote 1994: 226–239. In the Middle Bronze II–III. floors. interments under floors and courtyards of private houses. Ilan 1996: 248).24). In both cases masonry chamber tombs. had it been the extramural cemetery of the site. . most were of individual interments and only some contained several skeletons. were found only in a limited number of sites (Gonen 1992: 153). and Diachronic Analyses of the Slope Tombs 7 Almost all of the Middle Bronze tombs that were excavated on the summit of the mound (in Area BB) were found below floors and courtyards of buildings. Kempinski 2002: 51–54). There is a resemblance between the tomb types dated to Middle Bronze II–III in the northwestern part of the southeastern slope (Squares Q–S 15–16) and those excavated on the tell. and jar burials were found. It is highly improbable that the southeastern slope of Megiddo should demonstrate a ratio between mass-burial caves and individual interments that is almost opposite to that of extramural cemeteries of most other sites. it looks as if the two tomb types reflect. They included a wide range of tomb types (Loud 1948: 119–132). Hundreds of tombs excavated in Israel shed light on the mortuary practices of the population of Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age.changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo Intrasite. The lack of rock-cut pit tombs on the tell is probably a result of the absence of bedrock levels on the artificial mound and does not symbolize social or cultural diversity. This comparison between the mortuary practices on the slope and those of Middle Bronze Canaan provides a second clue for the domestic nature of the slope during the Middle Bronze Age II–III. simple pit tombs. would have contained only one tomb of this type (T.

Table I). This remarkable phenomenon reinforces the assumption of different land usage on the slope during the Middle Bronze Age. 5 Some of which were reused during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I. In all three of them reexamination of the data may imply that the architectural elements situated in the vicinity of the Middle Bronze Age tombs has to be re-dated to the same period: Tomb 247 is a jar burial of an infant. Stratigraphy and Spatial Distribution of the Slope Tombs Only in three cases did the excavators of Megiddo examine the stratigraphic connections between tombs and architectural remains retrieved above them. and part of the jar was directly under the southeast corner of that room” (Guy and Engberg 1938: 57). The eighteen tombs dated to the Middle Bronze Age must be weighed against the more than fifty tombs of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Although the excavators proceed to argue that Room 238 dates to the Late Bronze Age. followed by an increase during the Late Bronze Age. Kempinski and Gonen noted this anomaly. The jar was found in an “extensive bed of rock chippings upon which Room 238 (in Stratum ES II) was built. Further evidence for the function of the area during the Middle Bronze Age is given by the fact that while the Intermediate Bronze and Late Bronze Ages tombs are distributed almost evenly over the excavated area. Kempinski tried to solve it by a cultural change he identified in the population of Megiddo during the Middle Bronze Age (Kempinski 1989: 192). . 2). suggests that there was another use for this area during the Middle Bronze Age.5 and a similar number of tombs that were ascribed to the Late Bronze Age (Guy and Engberg 1938: 139–141. while Gonen offered no explanation (Gonen 1992: 41). I propose that the decrease in the number of tombs in the transition from the Intermediate Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age. the Middle Bronze tombs are concentrated in only two main spots (see Fig.8 eran arie The number of tombs on the southeastern slope dated to Middle Bronze Age is significantly lower than the number of tombs from the Intermediate Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age found in the same area.

: 68). had the excavators known about Middle Bronze burial customs (especially of children) under the floors of houses they would have dated the house and the tomb to the same period. The excavators report that the roof of Room D in Tomb 911 had been broken when a cistern or a silo was built above it. 54) suggest that it was built alongside a wall. found underneath the center of a constructed room. Fig. Besides these three examples one more case should be mentioned: Tomb 51 is a masonry chamber tomb. and continued to exist until the end of the Middle Bronze III. the plan and photograph of the tomb (ibid. 2) also implies a change in land use during the Middle Bronze Age. where individual interments first appeared during the Middle Bronze II. These tombs date from the Middle Bronze I until the end of the Middle Bronze II (Kenyon Pottery Groups A–B). the infant in Tomb 247 was buried underneath the floor and walls of Room 238. Tomb 254 is a simple pit tomb of a child. This may imply that both the wall and the tomb were built at the same time. Furthermore. Although the excavators mentioned no stratigraphic relation to its superstructure. As aforementioned. They believed that this silo was abandoned and filled during the Middle Bronze II (ibid. Although Tomb 911 is located in the southern part of the excavated area. The second area is located on the northwestern part of the slope. three significant facts concerning the architectural elements on the northwestern part of the excavated area of the slope should be considered: .: Pl. Thus the wall that appears on the plan and photograph is probably a wall of the building into its floor Tomb 51 was excavated. 1. The excavators thought that “the occupation of the room and the burial of the child cannot be far in time. Middle Bronze III tombs appeared only in the northwestern part (almost all of individual interments). as was the case with many other jar burials of the Middle Bronze Age. perhaps the child was buried in its former home” (ibid. The spatial distribution of the tombs on the southeastern slope (Fig. The tombs are concentrated in two areas. The first is in the southern part of the excavated area. where mass-burial caves are concentrated. masonry chamber tombs were always built below floors of buildings. In my opinion. which must therefore be dated to the Middle Bronze Age as well.: 59). this is another example for a domestic use of the slope during the Middle Bronze II–III.changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo 9 it seems more reasonable that.

1). was not aware that he was digging through the Middle Bronze embankment. 10 m lower than the Middle Bronze strata excavated in the adjacent Area BB (Loud 1948: Figs.6 located on the terrace. . • The walls in Squares Q–S-15–16 are clearly parallel to the edge of the mound. was understood as the continuation of Wall 220 (Ilan. Wall 220. Guy dated this wall to the 10th century BCE. 14) (Fig. the borderline of the terrace must be drawn in a larger scale. Franklin. 2) was excavated on the southeastern slope (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. and the 6 Retaining wall 94/F/15 was dated to the Middle Bronze II on the basis of the latest pottery retrieved from the fill behind it (Loci 96/F/26 and 96/F/29) and dated to this period (Ilan. A retaining wall (Wall 94/F/15) dated to the Middle Bronze II that was unearthed by the renewed expedition of Tel Aviv University in Area F. Urban Developments and Land Use Changes Discussing land use on the slope of Megiddo. and Hallote 2000: 78). The construction of the lower city (the terrace) of Megiddo has recently been dated to the beginning of the Middle Bronze II (Ilan. If so. It seems that Guy. Franklin. bringing it to its present form and size (the upper mound reaching ca. excavating on the southeastern slope. A single tomb (T. 4 ha). though on what basis is unclear.10 eran arie • This excavated “corner” is the richest in architectural remains. 8 ha and the terrace. and interpreted as the foundation of an outer city wall built when the city was at its largest. one must mention the expansion of the city during its one of the most conspicuous period of urbanization. ca. and Hallote 2000: 80). Franklin.868) that was found on the southern part of the slope is probably one of the earliest tombs of the Late Bronze Age. when people started again to burry in this part of Megiddo after a gap during the Middle Bronze II–III. also referred to as Wall K (Guy 1931: Fig. This process shaped the tell. • This is the highest area excavated on the slope and it is only ca. and Hallote 2000: 83). Both walls were part of the infrastructure of the terrace and were built in order to support the considerable weight of the embankment. These vast earthworks enabled the expansion of the city toward tracts that had previously not existed. 398–401).

The three mass-burial caves from the Middle Bronze I–II. and the architectural remains in Area N of the renewed expedition (Peersmann 2006). This means that the Middle Bronze tombs found in Squares Q-S-15–16 were west of the retaining wall. as if the Middle Bronze II–III extramural cemetery of Megiddo has not yet been found. If we drew a virtual circumferential line around Tel Megiddo at this height.9).l. Following its construction. located on the southern part of the slope. If this reconstruction is indeed true.5 ha–1. reached approximately 13. only at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age was the area of the slope once again used as a cemetery. This calculation affects the size of the population proportionately.5 ha more than the accepted size of 12 ha. and. the retaining wall in Area F (Wall 94/F/15) (Ilan. . actually built on the terrace. Of four levels detected in the excavations. the cemetery was transferred to another location. thus. approximately 100 m to the north of the spring.changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo 11 connecting point between the lower city and the upper mound was in a southern point from the excavated area on the slope (as Guy’s reconstruction of the city during the 10th century BCE). may indicate that in the first phase of the Middle Bronze Age this area was used as part of the extramural cemetery of Megiddo. The urban land use of part of the slope during the Middle Bronze II–III as a neighborhood requires a short discussion of the actual size of Megiddo during this period. Furthermore. After the embankment was constructed. Franklin. and a living quarter was erected on the upper part of the embankment.s. and should be taken into account when dealing with urban rank-size hierarchy and population estimates (cf. 4. therefore. during the Middle Bronze III. Broshi and Gophna 1986: 86. Finkelstein 1992: 208). It looks. and Hallote 2000: Fig. 1). All three elements were built to an approximate height of 137 m a. the custom of multiple burials in caves ceased completely. habitation on slopes of mounds was probably a wide phenomenon. three were dated to the Middle Bronze III. most of the architectural remains excavated by the Chicago Expedition in Squares Q-S-15–16 should be interpreted as a living quarter constructed during the Middle Bronze II–III on the southeastern edge of the newly built terrace. Area N is located at the foot of the northwestern side of the tell. we would find that the size of Megiddo at its peak. Three anchors are relevant to this estimation: the retaining wall on the southeastern slope (Wall 220) (Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl.

12 eran arie Social and Cultural Significance Burial assemblages—when found sealed—represent cultural values and social organizations in the best manner. have social and cultural significance. In both cases.: 167–168. three tombs (Tombs 9. The fact that so many tombs were found in urban areas under living surfaces might shed light on the tight link between life and death. City Wall 415. A similar phenomenon was observed at Tel Lachish where poorly built walls of buildings were uncovered below the Middle Bronze rampart (Tufnell 1958: Pls. although their stratigraphic relationship is debated (Maeir 1997: 317–319.: 62). The importance of Middle Bronze burial assemblages is particularly noteworthy because of their extensive distribution and the abundance of finds they display (Hallote 1995: 93–94). 17) from the earliest phases of Middle Bronze II excavated at Beth-Shemesh were sealed by the city wall that was erected in a later phase (Grant 1929: 25–26). Under these walls three pit tombs (Tombs 145. I: 4). adding further meaning to the assemblages they yield. which was constructed during the end of the Middle Bronze I. 173) dated to the Middle Bronze I were unearthed (ibid. 13. the tombs found below architectural remains facilitate the identification and dating of this phenomenon. Pl. 5: 3–5. Diversity in burial types most probably reflects social variability (Ilan 1992: 133–135). contra Yadin 1972: 201–206). 1. sealed earlier rock-cut Burial Cave 2489 dated to the earliest phase of Middle Bronze I (Livneh and Ben-Tor 2005: 11–16). It seems that also in nearby Tel Ma amer three shaft tombs from the Middle Bronze I–II found during construction works near the tell were covered by a rampart (Druks 1982: 1. Underneath their floors three jar burials (Tombs 902b–902d) and a cist tomb (Tomb 23) were found (ibid. In addition. seals small domestic buildings that were part of a village (Ilan 1996: 163–164). which was dated to the Middle Bronze Age I. Earthworks that sealed earlier remnants dating to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age are identified at additional sites as well. 203–204). I believe that the land use changes that took place on the slope of Tel Megiddo. . because they reflect a frozen point in time (Chapman and Randsborg 1981). 90). It might also be that Tomb 1181 from Hazor was sealed by the fortification of the city. Fig. The strong rampart of Tel Dan. In Yoqne am. 157. after it had served as a cemetery for hundreds of years (until the construction of the ramparts in the beginning of Middle Bronze II).

It seems logical that the people who were buried in these tombs were not ancestors of these elites. The builders of the great Middle Bronze ramparts invested essential resources such as time. which can now be explained against the background of competition between Canaanite city-states as part of peer polity interaction. and allocation of the limited resources available. the existence of a central authority that controlled the gathering. In both cases. it seems that sealing the tombs. reinforces the assumption that the construction of these earthworks was imposed on their builders by social elites. and labor in their construction. the covering and sealing of the tombs by the Middle Bronze ramparts must be reexamined. thus keeping them from being accessed. The construction of earthworks contributed to the integration of social solidarity of the different groups in the cities. parts of these cemeteries were covered. enabled the development of stratified urban societies (Bunimovitz 1992: 228). In light of this context. concentration. while constructing the huge earthworks. which.changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo 13 It should be noted that while the examples from Dan and Lachish illustrate a situation of earthworks covering domestic buildings under which tombs were dug. Finkelstein 1992: 212–214). The sealing of the tombs is further evidence for the irrationality of the construction of these earthworks. fortifications from the Middle Bronze Age sealed isolated burials that were part of extramural cemeteries. and perhaps at Hazor. This was manifested in the form of massive constructions motivated by the desire for control and domination. Bunimovitz and Finkelstein defined these earthworks as a symbol of power and a testimony to conspicuous consumption (Bunimovitz 1992: 225–228. The military role of these structures was called into question and they were interpreted as a mark of social and political status. at Megiddo. BethShemesh. once again. while neglecting the dead. Tel Ma amer. in turn. once the earthworks had been constructed. New habitation at the time of the recently erected rampart (during the Middle Bronze . During the enlargements of these cities. raw material. In my opinion. Yoqne am. and to the intensification of the power of social elites. and it emphasizes. The land use change that took place in Megiddo during the Middle Bronze II—from a cemetery to a domestic neighborhood—testifies to social elites competing over and aspiring to political power. access to the tombs was denied and they were neglected until revealed in the archaeological excavations.

During the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.14 eran arie II–III) probably attests to another phenomenon relating to the demographic growth in Middle Bronze population. when the population of Megiddo was reduced and the size of the city had decreased respectively. . the southeastern slope was once again used as a cemetery.

2000. Ussishkin. In: Cross. M. A. 1992. Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. Winona Lake. Dunayevsky. 1986. Approaches to the Archaeology of Death. R. Megiddo Tombs (Oriental Institute Publications 33). Haverford. Middle Bronze Age ‘Fotifications’: A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formation. Cambridge: 1–24. 1994. Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present State of Research. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. D. W.. R. 1976. 1992a. 2001. P. Dever. Hallote. P. Gonen. eds. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8. Tel Aviv 12: 181–203. The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. An Interpretation of the Megiddo Sacred Area during Middle Bronze Age II. ed. 1973.. ed. Ernest Wright. ——. Guy. E. 1972–1984: First Summary. D. eds. Cult. In: Kempinski. Tel Aviv 19: 201–220.. and Engberg. M. ——. eds. E. 1995. Bunimovitz. O. Tel Aviv 19: 221–234.. Garden City: 3–38. Early Tombs at Tell Amr.. and Randsborg.1: 93–122. B. R. Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. I. L. Lemke. The Archaeology of Death (New Directions in Archaeology). and Connections: The Relationship of Middle Bronze Age IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt. Finkelstein. Introduction: The Megiddo Expedition.... E.. D. Mortuary Archaeology and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant. In: Wolff. and Yadin. B. 1965. 1985. 1981. The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine. Gerstenblith. Tel Aviv: 1–13. eds. Grant. 1983. 2000.. IA. Broshi. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. and Chronology: A Reexamination of the Middle Bronze Age Strata of Megiddo. Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B.. P. Vienna: 29–42. In: Bietak. C. S. The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. and Reich. and Miller. ——. Chicago. Kinnes. A. L. K. 2002. Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 8: 1–6 (Hebrew with English summary). P. University of Chicago). Guy. S. 24th of January –28th of January 2001. 1992. 1931. Finkelstein. M. ——. The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek. F. L. Chicago.. Tel Aviv: 239–254. and Kempinski. Mortuary Practices and Their Implications for Social Organization in the Middle Bronze Southern Levant (Ph. BASOR 261: 73–90. Chicago. In: Finkelstein. Philadelphia. S. Chronologies. Bietak. Chapman. 1929.. and Randsborg. Epstein. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and . and Gophna. IN. Structural Tombs in the Second Millenium BC. P. M. G.. I. P. In: Kochavi. S. I. Vienna. The 1972–1976 Seasons. dissertation. R. Ussishkin. 2002. I. R. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. and Halpern. 1982. O. ZDPV 89: 161– 187. 1938. M. Cohen.D. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. The Megiddo Temples. R. 18). R. W..changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo References 15 Beck. I. eds. Druks.. IEJ 15: 204–221. Jerusalem: 151–160. The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery Repertoire: A Comparative Study. New Light from Armageddon: Second Provisional Report (1927–29) on the Excavations at Megiddo in Palestine (Oriental Institute Publications 9). Beck. Canaanites. In: Chapman. 1992b. M. R. Tombs.. and Halpern. A. The Middle Bronze Age Fortifications in Palestine as a Social Phenomenon. K. Winona Lake.

(Ph. Levant 1: 25–60.. eds. Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. Tel Aviv: 35–54... Area C. In Memory of Douglas L. 2002. eds. and Halpern. A. D. D. Yadin.. In: Biran. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Ussishkin. the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. ——. R. and Dever. The Dawn of Internationalism: The Middle Bronze Age. Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Jerusalem: 295–340. O. G. S. Hazor V: An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation. Maeir. 1972. Ben-Ami. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo. Hebrew University). ——.. 18).. E. 2002. and Ben-Tor. eds. eds. S. 1973. G. ed.. D. 2005. H. In: Finkelstein. The Middle Bronze Age Tombs.. In: Levy. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material. In: Scheftelowitz. W. Chicago and Atlanta: 199–214.. 1969.. B. 1994. 1650–1550 B. A. and Bonfil. D. Wright. I. ASOR Books 5). Loud. In: Finkelstein. Kochavi. Birmingham 9–11. 24). E. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. G. ed. Ussishkin. B. 2006. Ilan. ed. A. The Archaeology of Palestine. In: Bietak. Area F. Ward.. ——. R. K. 1995. 1958.. A. 24th of January –28th of January 2001. A. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area F. N. 2000. M. D. R. Area N. J.. S. Tel Aviv: 75–103. 1968. 2000. B. Franklin. In: Ben-Tor.. eds. eds. 1996. A.. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Chicago. In: Ben-Tor. Garden City: 85–139. M. M. The Middle Bronze Age Scarab-Seals from Burials on the Mound at Megiddo. E. Jerusalem (Hebrew). ——. Yoqne am III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages. R. 1948. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988) (Qedem Reports 7). D. T.. and Green. D. and Hallote. eds.C. the Pottery Neolithic. and Oren. 18). 1965.. Hallote. Jerusalem: 11–39. M. G. EI 5: 51*–60*. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. I.. Kempinski. Tufnell. dissertation. and Yadin. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). 1992. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Typological Analysis of the MBIIA Pottery from Tel Aphek According to Its Stratigraphic Provenance. 20). Ussishkin. Jerusalem: 161–267. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: Annual Meeting of the British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology. A. and Livneh. Esse (SAOC 59. Peersmann. 1997. Kenyon.. .1990 (Oxbow Monograph in Archaeology 51) Oxford: 117–139. Hazor: The Head of all Those Kingdoms (Schweich Lectures 1970). Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology. In: Finkelstein.. London. and Cline. Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations.16 eran arie Neighboring Lands.. Mortuary Practices at Tel Dan in the Middle Bronze Age: A Reflection of the Canaanite Society and Ideology. Tel Aviv. Vienna: 189–225. Some Notes on the Early and Middle Bronze Age Strata of Megiddo. E. A. Munich. ——. Y. San Antonio. Ilan. Ilan. Canaan (Syria-Palestine) during the Last Stage of the MB IIB. and Halpern. In: Wright. London: 297–319. I. Levant 5: 69–82.. A. In: Campbell. 1989.D. Tomb 1181: A Multiple-Interment Burial Cave of the Transitional Middle Bronze Age IIA–B. A. 1974. N. and Halpern. Vienna. London. 1958. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Middle Bronze Age. Livneh. Tel Aviv: 186–222. ed. E.. ——.11.

e. Such a reconstruction. in my view. 2 For a number of alternatives and different perspectives. the archaeological data collected so far supply. Handy 1997. Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006. Gitin et al. . I will point out several factors that agree with the archaeological record and which may also be interpreted as reliable signs of statehood in Iron Age Judah. Vaughn and Killebrew 2003. characterizing both the United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah. The main issue I wish to concentrate on is the appearance of burial practices connected with the use of so-called bench tombs in Iron Age Judah.2 In what follows. The consensus among most scholars is that rock-cut bench tombs are a Judahite phenomenon. no clear evidence for the existence of a fully developed state in Judah before the late 9th–early 8th centuries BCE.1 Although the matter is still debated.THE APPEARANCE OF ROCK-CUT BENCH TOMBS IN IRON AGE JUDAH AS A REFLECTION OF STATE FORMATION Alexander Fantalkin Introduction The emergence of statehood in Judah has been the subject of numerous studies over the last few decades. 1998. Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006. Cahill 2003. Na aman 2002.. fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the fact that bench tombs in the Judean core area (the Jerusalem Hills) appear only in the 8th century BCE. Fritz and Davies 1996. 2006. Levy 1995. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004. while in other areas such tombs arrive significantly earlier. Jameson-Drake 1991. however. Is there a connection between the appearance of bench tombs throughout the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE and its emergence as a fully developed state? I argue that the widespread appearance of 1 References regarding the emergence of statehood in Judah are numerous. also Finkelstein and Silberman 2001. Lipi…ski 1991. see. cf. see. Finkelstein 1999. Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004. Mazar 2005. Halpern 2001. Na aman 2007.g. Finkelstein and Na aman 1994. Routledge 2004: 114–132. for collections of essays addressing the subject.

Suriano 2007). The first attempt to demonstrate continuity in development between the different types of bench tombs was made by Loffreda who discerned five basic types and three sub-types. Bloch-Smith 1992a. the simultaneous existence of several typological-architectural groups probably attests to regional differences as well (Yezerski 1999).g. Yezerski 1995). Schmidt 2000. and archaeology is likely to increase this number. Osborne 2007. the typological differences between bench tombs are insignificant. But despite architectural differences. which offer a wide range of chronological.. as well as of relevant biblical sources. provides considerable information regarding burial customs of the inhabitants of Judah during the monarchic period. According to Barkay (1994: 162. Friedman and Overton 2000. since all cases (including so-called arcosolium type) share a common concept of a bench on which the deceased was laid. From a typological perspective. rock-cut bench tombs most probably reflect an identical conceptualization of the afterlife (cf. developed since the undertaking of the Survey of Western Palestine in the 1870s.18 alexander fantalkin bench tombs throughout the Kingdom of Judah during the Iron Age IIB is a reflection of state formation. . as well as the social status of those interred. see Yezerski 1999). Ribar 1973. has resulted in numerous summaries. Abercrombie 1979. Lewis 1989. the typological differences between rock-cut bench tombs may reflect various dwelling types in Judah. who apparently adopted this burial practice. But first a few introductory notes are necessary. Brichto 1973. Barkay 1994. Wenning 2005).3 The absolute dates of the bench tombs are based on limited ceramic finds. This extensive database. Loffreda 1968. architectural and sociological viewpoints (e. arranged typologically and chronologically from the simplest to the most complex (Loffreda 1968: 265–287).g. those discovered looted are dated by stylistic comparison with 3 For the purpose of the present article. In addition. Yezerski 1999. 1999). Borowski 1994: 46). The intensive research of rock-cut bench tombs in Iron Age Judah. Spronk 1986.. Loffreda’s evolutionary scheme is misleading since it has been shown that some types existed simultaneously (e. However. Recent summaries include nearly 300 rock-cut bench tombs dated to that period (Barkay 1994. Burkes 1999: 9–33. bench tombs may be divided into several main groups (for the most up-to-date summary. Ussishkin 1993. accompanied by the creation of new elites.

see Barkay 1994: 114. Hadley 1987. to the territory of Judah at that time (Yezerski 1999). A number of similar elements in the funerary architecture of neighboring countries may provide additional information for the absolute chronology of bench tombs in Judah (Ussishkin 1993: 303–316). Meqabelein. Lemaire 1976. Cross 1970. Discussion Can Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah Serve as an Indicator of Social Rank? Any scientific investigation of the burial customs of ancient societies should first consider the finds themselves (the tombs and their contexts) as well as historical sources.5 Concentrations of a number of burial caves from the same period in one place may indicate cemeteries.. the remnants of which have disappeared over time. on the whole.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 19 securely dated tombs. sometimes a single cave is found in the hinterland. . Sahab. On the other hand. and Dhiban) is of minor significance compared to that in the Cisjordan and does not weaken Yezerski’s main argument.4 The distribution of bench tombs. These have been discovered proximate to large and medium-sized settlements. should most likely be attributed to farms.g. where the density of burial caves is the largest. 5 The presence of bench tombs in Transjordan (e. Such caves. if such exist.. Mathys 1996). as Barkay (1994: 105) points out. unaccompanied by any other architectural remains. Such evidence is obviously not sufficient to create a complete picture of the significance and implications of an ancient society’s burial customs. Their chronology and paleography have been discussed sufficiently elsewhere (e. at least during the 8th–7th centuries BCE. Ussishkin 1993: 241–254. 55 with earlier references). bench tomb cemeteries are known from numerous other Judahite sites (for the list of cemeteries. In addition to Jerusalem. corresponds. A few inscriptions that were found in several caves may serve as further supporting evidence for the accepted chronology. n.g. It is a difficult task to analyze funeral finds in an attempt to uncover what light they may shed on societies with complex social and economic hierarchies 4 Parker’s (2003) recent suggestion that it is possible to interpret a considerable part of Iron Age graffiti found in caves in Judah as expressions of refugees hiding away from enemies does not diminish the chronological value of these inscriptions in establishing the absolute chronology of the bench tombs. Zevit 1984. Naveh 1963. Dever 1969–1970.

Barkay 1999: 100). according to Barkay (1990: 103). and so far it has been found only at Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 171–249). may provide a good parallel for communal burial pits that presumably existed in the vicinity of Jerusalem. however. The existence of this custom is firmly attested in the Bible (e. only four sites in Jerusalem from this period have yielded a limited number of simple pit graves. . 26: 23. especially for Jerusalem. and see in general Pearson 1999). there is still an enormous gap between the number of preserved caves and the estimated number of inhabitants. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the reliability of methods for estimating population size based on archaeological finds (cf. Morris 1992: 42). Na aman 2007 with earlier references). rock-cut bench tombs discovered in Jerusalem represent. It is very likely that the majority of the population of Iron Age Judah used simple pit graves. 8 These simple pit graves should not be confused with the so-called Qumran-type graves (Schultz 2006 with further references).8 6 This is based upon Broshi’s estimates (1974. cf. When dealing with burial practices in complex societies. confirmed by literary sources and archaeology (Hopkins 1983: 207–210.g. From an archaeological perspective this practice may be observed in the case of Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 193–194). 2 Kings 23: 6. 1990. 1977. even if Broshi’s estimates. 1992. the evidence for this practice is scarce. where the communal burial pits were located within the dwelling units. These may have been used at times of exceptional mortality brought on by epidemics. Morris 1987. earthquakes. Hopkins 1996: 129–132.20 alexander fantalkin (cf. since a similar pattern is attested toward the end of the Second Temple period.5 m deep (Kloner 1980: 244).6 It seems that most of Jerusalem’s population (most probably consisting of the lower classes). are exaggerated (cf. although. or significant military conflicts. Lipschits 2003). were buried in simple pit graves. these remains might represent only a small portion of an ancient population. but in fact. see also Broshi and Finkelstein 1992). n. Spronk 1986: 239. recently discovered at Beth Zafafa (Zissu and Moyal 1998. these mass burials should be connected to the assault of Sargon II (Bachi and Ben-Dov 1971: 92–94. consisting of a shallow pit ca. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 149–150. 7 It should be noted that some of these biblical references may also point to the existence of mass burials in the vicinity of Jerusalem. 18). The limited survival of such practices in the archaeological record should not come as a surprise.5% of all the deceased in the city during the Monarchic period. where the number of known burials is impressive.7 From an archaeological perspective. Chapman and Randsborg 1981. only about 1. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001: 250.. Jer. Binford 1971. The existence of collective burial pits outside the city of Rome (so-called puticuli). Hachlili 2000). Thus. An additional example of mass burials attested at Area D in Ashdod. remains unclear. particularly in cases such as Iron Age Judah. 0. also Puech 1998. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 29. So far. most probably. which left no trace in the archaeological record (De Vaux 1965: 58. 31: 39–40). as in other parts of the Land of Israel. on the other hand. one should always keep in mind that despite their visibility in the archaeological record.

while the majority of the population. see Regev 2000.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 21 Even though it is obvious from a demographic point of view that most of the ancient population must have used archaeologically invisible pit graves.e. Saxe’s attempt to construct a body of theory about the sociological significance of burial. that mainly the aristocracy practiced this burial custom.” According to Saxe (1970: 119). . such groups will maintain formal disposal areas for the exclusive disposal of their dead. and Pearson 1999: 29–30). The scarcity of rock-cut tombs.9 The assumed simultaneous existence of many simple pit graves and the concentration of groups of rock-cut bench tombs in the vicinity of numerous Judahite cities during the Late Iron Age (8th–7th and the beginning of 6th centuries BCE) may be examined in accordance with Saxe’s “Hypothesis 8. is likely to have been buried in simple pit or cist graves. While I accept this postulate. they are always only one among many arguments being voiced about funerary behaviour” (1991: 148). will symbolize and ritualize aspects of their organization in precisely the same way” (1979: 61). the major problem found in the applications of “Hypothesis 8” is “the low probability that certain groups. and conversely. most probably accompanied 9 For additional discussion. For instance. unable to purchase a family rock-cut tomb and ossuaries. see Morris 1991 with earlier references.” Saxe’s method was modified by Goldstein. concerning burial practices near the end of the Second Temple period. Hachlili 1994: 187). suggests. I still find it appropriate to scrutinize the emergence of Judahite rock-cut bench tomb cemeteries. lineal ties to ancestors). this fact is often overlooked during discussions of burial customs. In line with trends in New Archaeology. however. in comparison to the assumed population size. even when in similar economic and environmental conditions. The general outcome of this critique was expressed by Morris in the following manner: “while Saxe’s theories clearly have relevance. formulated as a set of eight hypotheses tested by statistical method. several scholars believe that the gathering of bones in ossuaries was a ritual practiced by the Jewish nation as a whole (Kloner 1980: 252. “to the degree that corporate group rights to use and/or control crucial but restricted resources are attained and/or legitimized by means of lineal descent from the dead (i. received a great deal of attention from the postprocessual critics of the 80s (for a recent summary. reopening the previous debate. Peleg 2002. who had already pointed out that considering the wide range of variability in cultures.

as a good indicator of social rank (Tainter 1978. 21: 14. it may be suggested that the emergence of formal cemeteries consisting of simple pit graves was inspired by the elites buried in rock-cut bench tombs in an attempt to organize the immediate space. McHugh 1995: 8–13 and Pearson 1999: 10 For a wide range of material and social issues. e. It is most probable that unlike the former group. however.22 alexander fantalkin by simple pit graves (not always necessarily in the immediate vicinity of the rock-cut caves). were monopolized by the population buried in rock-cut bench tombs. 2 Sam. funeral duration.11 This brings us to the conclusion that every possible reconstruction concerning burial customs during the period of the Late Monarchy. based on the database of rock-cut bench tombs. Such an observation appears to be in accordance with Tainter’s conclusions regarding the importance of energy expenditure in mortuary practices (i.. 23: 30) and the archaeological evidence for prolonged use of rock-cut bench tombs agree with the assumption that monopolization of power was achieved through inheritance. must take into account the assumption that they mostly reflect the customs of a wealthy elite population. Morgan and Coulton 1997. 2 Kings 14: 20. there may be even a deliberate semantic distinction between the use of the two plural forms for the word “grave” in the Bible.10 The biblical tradition of family burials (cf. at least within city limits. and proximity to kin and social equals.e. consisted of simple pit graves. 11 According to Tubul (2007: 195–196). the second. the archaeological evidence of which is scarce. It is reasonable to assume that this spatial organization points to monopolization of crucial but limited resources by the members of the group buried in rock-cut bench tombs. which might have appeared because of the population’s agglomeration within the cities. Assuming that crucial yet restricted resources. On the other hand. in the light of several of Saxe’s claims. grave construction. and were further limited by their necessary proximity to the city. disposal of this group’s dead in well-defined bounded areas was not related to lineal descent. In this case such linkage. which function as formal cemeteries. including body treatment. In both cases there is a clear tendency toward exclusive disposal of the group’s dead by creating well-defined areas. shared by both groups. These limited resources included the land and the water. see. was probably more generalized: All those buried in a particular field belonged to a distinct group connected by “mythological” ancestors (Patriarchs? Eponyms? Heroes?). if it existed at all. much larger group.g. 17: 23. and material contributions to the funeral). the overall amount of energy expended on disposing the body. Fletcher 1995. management of waste. . see. as well as the bedrock suitable for hewing tombs. such as access to natural resources.

to an elite one near the end of the 8th and during the 7th centuries BCE was demonstrated in two extensive studies (Halpern 1991. while nuclear families dwelt in most of the small four-room houses in the urban sector. To sum up. the numerous rock-cut bench tomb cemeteries attested near Judahite cities during the Late Iron Age may reflect the high “vertical” position of the deceased. the emergence of the monotheistic urban elite. the extended family now cared individually for its own dead” (Halpern 1996: 326). see De Vaux 1965: 58. 12 . however.12 The transformation of traditional Judahite culture of the 10th–9th centuries BCE. which gained ascendancy in Judah under Kings Hezekiah.13 According to Halpern. and as a result of it a “group” collective mentality of the tribal and early Monarchic period was replaced by a more individualistic way of thinking toward the end of the monarchy and thereafter.” In the 7th century BCE this type was replaced by a single-chambered type. Faust (1999a) suggested that extended families are represented in the rural sector. though the importance of this fact is not always clearly acknowledged. his suggestion regarding the change in burial practices in the 7th century BCE lacks evidence in the archaeological record. see also Simkins 2004). the establishment of the monarchy led to increased social differentiation.14 I agree with Halpern’s suggestion that 8th–7th-century Judahite bench tombs mainly reflect newly created urban elites. According to him. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 149. 14 For a view that in both the urban and rural environments these tombs might have represented extended families. with space for at least four generations. where “the old clan sections were breaking down as tomb groups. Can Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah Serve as an Indicator of State Formation? The affiliation of 8th–7th-century Judahite bench tombs (at least those near the cities) with urban elites is of particular significance. and Josiah. see Barkay 1999. According to him. Spronk 1986: 239. Carr 1995). quite a similar approach may be detected already in Causse’s works (1934. Manasseh. Kletter 2002: 38. 74–5). characterized by patrilineal and individual kinship. which in turn reveals their “horizontal” social position (cf. united by belonging to elite status “corporate” groups.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 23 31. Firstly. 13 In fact. and as such. 1996. it is hard to accept Faust’s reconstruction regarding the differences in family structure between cities and villages during the Iron Age II. 1937). may reflect what he calls “clan section. Halpern notes that Israelite rock-cut tombs prior to the 7th century BCE were multichambered. is reflected inter alia in Israelite burial customs. it is virtually impossible to differentiate typologically between Iron Age burial caves of the 8th For the general acceptance that rock-cut tombs probably reflect the higher classes.

maintaining the Late Bronze tradition. since the skeletons were removed to the so-called repositories. it is a well-known fact that the vast majority of the single-chambered tombs were used by many generations. my main objective is to find a reasonable explanation for the striking dissimilarity in the appearance of burial practices 15 Bloch-Smith’s critique of Kletter’s suggestion is not convincing since the number of Iron Age I burials attested in the central highlands and gathered by her is extremely small (Bloch-Smith 2003: 424. Halpern is correct in pointing out that there is a change in Judahite burial practices during the final stages of the Iron Age. Faust (2004). Ètienne Monastery in Jerusalem. Thus. this is a meaningful phenomenon. Those caves. but between the lack of rock-cut bench tombs in the central highlands during the Iron Age I and IIA and their sudden appearance during the Iron Age IIB (8th–7th centuries BCE). 1999: 97). The lack of burials in the central highlands of Palestine during the Iron Age I has recently been addressed by Kletter (2002). n. 297. suggests that the lack of Iron Age I burials in the central highlands points to an ideology of simplicity and egalitarianism among the “proto-Israelites.15 In fact. In what follows. mid-late 10th–9th centuries BCE.24 alexander fantalkin and 7th centuries BCE (Yezerski 1999: 263). especially in the area of Jerusalem. established toward the end of the Iron Age. in the elaborate tombs of St. have nothing to do with the “proto-Israel” of the Iron Age I or inhabitants of Judah of the Iron Age IIA. yielded the remains of about 100 individuals (Barkay 1992: 371. the repository of one of the caves at Ketef Hinnom. 17). see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004. 2004). Halpern apparently confused his attribution of multichambered Late Bronze/Iron Age I caves with the Israelite clan sections (Halpern 1996. on the other hand. . Ample demonstration of this practice may be seen.” 16 For suggested chronology. the same lack of burials is attested during the Iron Age IIA. However. which together with the change in settlement patterns and diet habits may serve as an additional indicator of a radical change in the central highlands between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I. Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006. According to him. Besides this. the real change is not in the shift between multichambered rock-cut tombs to single-chambered ones. for instance. Secondly. multichambered bench tombs are attested toward the end of the Iron Age.16 at least in the Judean Highlands. for instance. Another example comes from a 7th-century-BCE cave on the western slope of Mount Zion where the remains of 43 individuals were identified (Arensburg and Rak 1985). Despite this.

also Amit and Yezerski 2001: 192). all excavated and published tombs from Tel alif are dated exclusively to the Iron Age IIA–IIB. .17 This evidence It seems that a similar situation may have existed at Tel alif. the kingdom’s capital. Mazar 2000).) (Yezerski 1999: 257.F. It seems that from a factual perspective it is difficult to accept these statements. So far.). Unlike the Judean core area. . however. A. though they are admittedly outside the proper Judean core area. as well as no link can be found between those in Judah and those in other regions of the country where the neighboring kingdoms existed” (1994: 162. A. must be seen as a part of the United Monarchy. The most important point. but also along the coast (ibid. it is impossible to pinpoint a continuous typological development of the burial caves. is that sites like Tell Eitun in the Shephelah reveal clear continuity between rock-cut bench tombs of the Late Bronze Age and those of the Iron Age (Ussishkin 1973. the Shephelah. that would imply that already in the 10th century BCE the use of rock-cut bench tombs was attested in the areas ruled from Jerusalem. fail to explain this dissimilarity. the architectural tradition of burial caves was quite well-established in Judah at the beginning of Iron Age II” (i. according to Barkay: “Judah had its own development in this field (bench tombs. These occur mostly at sites in the Shephelah (Bloch-Smith 1992a: 41–52). their initial appearance in 17 . in accord with biblical testimony. based on scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of the United Monarchy in the days of David and Solomon. while in the coastal area—the Shephelah and even the northern Negev—this practice was adopted considerably earlier? Previous explanations.. A. which was occupied continuously from the Late Bronze Age until the Late Iron Age (Seger 1993: 557–559). it seems that besides the most general connections. Edelstein and Aurant 1992 with earlier references). Thus. The main question that should be addressed is why bench tombs in the Judean core area (the Jerusalem Hills) do appear only during the 8th century BCE. translated from Hebrew. and even as early as the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I.).appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 25 connected with the use of rock-cut bench tombs throughout different parts of the Land of Israel. for instance. however. According to these explanations.e. cf. Indeed the numerous examples of bench tombs seem to be quite well established at the beginning of the Iron Age IIA. A similar opinion is expressed by Yezerski.F.F. already in the 10th century BCE. Badhi 2000. In turn. according to whom the distribution of bench tombs within the borders of Judah suggests that “. which contradict available archaeological data.

The presence of possible 9th century BCE bench tombs at Tel Ira (Beit-Arieh et al. Though acknowledging the fact that there is a clear continuity in burial practices from the Late Bronze Age through the Iron Age I and II. have suggested that the rock-cut bench tomb. at least in the southern coast and the Shephelah there is no other alternative but to see the vast majority of 8th–7th centuries BCE bench-tombs as the clear Judahite type (cf. which were exposed at Cemetery 500 at Tell el-Far ah (S). however. Spronk’s theory. despite the differences in their approaches.26 alexander fantalkin accords well with the first appearance of bench tombs during the Late Bronze Age (14th–13th centuries BCE) in the region discussed. 2002: 123). Stiebing (1970) and Gonen (1992: 22–23. . Tel alif is attested from at least the 9th century BCE (Biran and Gophna 1970. appears to be unacceptable. Lachish. Despite the continuity between the Late Bronze and Iron Age burial practices. 18 It should not be forgotten that there is disagreement over the appearance of rockcut bench tombs within the context of the Palestinian Late Bronze Age. given their limited distribution in areas of the southern Coastal Plain (Tell el. Bloch-Smith apparently considers the 10th–9th BCE Shephelah within the boundaries of the United Monarchy (1992a: 15. Tell Eitun. According to Spronk. 1992b: 217). Borowski 1992. and Khirbet Za aq (ibid. at least in the regions of the Shephelah and the southern coast. The available data. Finkelstein 1999). 124–130). as a type. 124–130).18 In Barkay’s opinion it is impossible to find a direct and continuous link between these Late Bronze rock-cut bench tombs and those that begin to appear in Judah from the 10th century BCE. trapeze-shaped bench tombs with dromoi. however. 1999: 129–169). and Tell el-Far ah [S]) (Gonen 1992: 22–3. however. orbat Anim (Yezerski and Lender 2002). were inspired by Aegean (Mycenaen) prototypes. fail to explain why bench tombs began to appear in the Judean Highlands during the 8th century BCE and not sooner. 137. 19 Bloch-Smith’s views should not be confused with those of Spronk (1986). suggests that there is a link between the adoption of this custom by newly emerged 8th-centuryBCE Judahite elites and the conversion of Judah from a dimorphic chiefdom to a fully developed state (cf. originated in Cyprus and its appearance in Late Bronze Palestine shows Cypriot influence (see also Gilmour 1995). Yezerski 1999). and see below.19 Both Barkay and Bloch-Smith. Conversely. According to Waldbaum (1966). Zahiriyye (Yezerski 1999: 258 with earlier references).Ajjul) and the Shephelah (Gezer. Bloch-Smith suggests that all the elements of the standard Iron Age IIB bench-tomb type were already present in the region toward the end of the Late Bronze Age (1992a: 41–52. 1992b. 1994). there are no typical Israelite graves even in the Iron Age II.: 257–258) is in line with the assumption that during the Iron Age IIA this burial practice was concentrated outside the proper Judean core area. since this burial custom developed in Judah independently (1994: 163).

1998. Finkelstein 2001: 108).appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 27 Scholars who recognize the appearance of bench tombs as a purely Judahite phenomenon. however. in the days of David and Solomon and up to the late 9th – early 8th centuries BCE. the supposed core of the “border approach. at Tel Beth Shemesh. for instance. Finkelstein 2002a). Spencer 1998: 17). In this regard. which supposedly existed in Judah by the 10th century BCE. passim) would not . which shifts the focus from the problematic core of the Judahite polity. cf. Pushing their evidence still further.e. characterizing both the United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah. located at the border zone with Philistia. In Barkay’s words: “in more than 120 years of archaeological investigation in Jerusalem. the tenth century BCE” (1992: 371). offers no real help. that applying the “border approach” to Iron Age IIA Judah would be avoiding the real question. the kingdom’s capital. cf. Schloen 2001: 49–73. early Iron Age IIA Jerusalem is represented merely by meager pottery and possibly also by the stepped stone structure found in the City of David (Steiner 2001: 42–53. including growing social inequality. characterized by hierarchically organized administrative specialization (cf. also Blakely 2002). In fact. It seems. Bunimovitz and Lederman argue that this may indicate that the emergence of governmental organization in Judah took place much earlier than the 8th century BCE (2001: 145. Master 2001. Spencer 1990). one might suggest that the early appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in the Shephelah is in line with the assumption that the earliest traces of statehood. Jerusalem.” is no longer terra incognita. the same holds true not just for the tombs: archaeologically. will be particularly visible at the borders. cf. Na aman 2007). Jerusalem in the early Iron Age IIA. i. the crystallization of the United Monarchy during the reigns of David and Solomon may be detected in monumental building activity revealed. Wright 1977. Archaeological evidence concerning Jerusalem. 360. tend to disregard the archaeologist’s inability to pinpoint a political entity that fits the definition of a state in anthropological-sociological terms (cf. not one tomb has been found that may be dated to the golden age of the Israelite monarchy. to its periphery. and has not been so for some time (Ussishkin 2003a. has so far revealed data insufficient to support the existence of a developed state. According to this approach. it is worth mentioning that applying Max Weber’s “patrimonial model” to the emergence of the United Monarchy in the Land of Israel (Stager 1985. A recently suggested “view from the border” (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001: 144–147 with earlier references.

with earlier references). 2003. Knauf 1991. Kletter 2004. implying the necessity of establishing a permanent core-base. Steiner 1998. for the opposite view. 22 The reference to the “House of David” in the Tel Dan inscription (Biran and Naveh 1993. Finkelstein 1993. middle-way approach. 2001. The administration of this early medieval empire was focused on a series of palaces (such as Aachen. one should look for an alternative explanation. the royal government was increasingly based at Aachen (ibid. see Gmirkin 2002 with earlier references). local chiefs/kings/rulers. as well as possibly on the Mesha Stele (Lemaire 1994). Na aman 1992. definitely point to the existence of a political entity of some sort in the Judean Highlands already during the 10th–9th centuries BCE. especially during the glorious reign of King Solomon. 2001. different scholars have reached opposite conclusions concerning the status of Jerusalem (for a rather minimalist. Lehmann 2003). Paderborn.20 It seems that.21 This does not negate or deny the existence of a political entity of some sort in the central highlands during the 10th and the better part of the 9th centuries BCE. Mazar 2005). 1996). Most probably.22 but it does limit its scope. who stood at the heart of a system of patronage. already during the reign of Charlemagne (768–814 CE). as in previous periods (cf. which the emperors. In my opinion. the biblical narrative describes Jerusalem as being a capital of the kingdom already during the reign of King David. given the present state of research. 2007. 2006. Finkelstein 1999. This parallel. . Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 238–240). due to the fact that. it does not explain the lack of archaeological evidence for the existence of even a patrimonially operated state that ruled over vast territories from Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE. the available archaeological data suggests that there is no clear evidence for the existence of a fully developed state in Judah before the late 9th–early 8th centuries BCE. Although this explanation may fit numerous cases in the ancient Near East. Faust 2005. Finkelstein 1999. and as a large and rich city. however. inter alia. Ussishkin 2003a. and Ingelheim). Na aman 1996a. which included a few agricultural hamlets. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001. 1996a. see Jameson-Drake 1991. 2003. 1995). visited as part of their peripatetic routine (Moreland 2001: 396). ruled from a few small mountain strongholds (such as early Davidic rulers in Jerusalem) over the sparsely inhabited surrounding region (Ofer 1994. 20 Perhaps the most suitable parallel that could bridge the gap between the idea of a great United Monarchy and the lack of archaeological evidence in Jerusalem may come from the Carolingian Empire. should not be examined cautiously with regard to the historicity of the United Monarchy. Bunimovitz 1989.28 alexander fantalkin be of help either. while the majority of the population consisted of pastoral or semi-pastoral groups (Zadok 1996: 722. But even in this case. see Cahill 2003. Niemann 1993. 21 It should be noted that based on various interpretations of the same archaeological data. 2001. The suspicions raised by some that the Tel Dan inscription is fabricated are not convincing (for the latest attempt.

Bloch-Smith 1992a: 168–169) and Tell en-Na be (Badé 1931. then.). Based on the archaeological evidence alone. Perhaps what we see here is the renewal of a “New Canaan” of Philistia and the Shephelah. which began to appear only later on. 23 It is worth noting that unlike in the Judean Highlands a modest number of Iron Age IIA rock-cut caves are attested to the north of Jerusalem in the Benjamin Plateau.25 It would be logical. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 195–196. which may have started during the early Iron Age IIA. for the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE. 2002b.24 In any case. upper classes. however. that on the whole this observation appears to be correct during the Iron Age IIA as well. Kletter has recently pointed out that it “may indicate a relatively poor society. Therefore. Indeed. A few examples were reported from Gibeon (Dajani 1953. McCown 1947: 77–100. 25 The term “New Canaan” here is in accordance with a reference to the “New Canaan” that lasted in the northern valleys until Shoshenq’s campaign (Finkelstein 2001: 108. is that the assumed accumulation of power through the hands of the highland chiefs in Jerusalem. however. It is tempting to explain such an “early” appearance of these tombs in this particular area with the rise of the early Israelite polity which was concentrated around Gibeon (Finkelstein 2002b). 207). only that distances between ranks were not large” (2002: 39). According to Finkelstein (ibid.23 We do not know how the Tell Eitun or Tel alif inhabitants defined themselves in the 10th–9th centuries BCE: maybe it was as tribes of Judah or Simeon. which lasted at least through the better part of the 9th century BCE. 24 Bloch-Smith (1992a: 51–52): “It is unclear how early the bench tomb was adopted by the Judahites or when the bench burying population in the southern highlands first identified itself as Judahite. their affiliation with the authority ruling in the area of the Jerusalem Hills looks problematic. it is a well-known fact that a certain degree of inequality is inherent even in the most egalitarian groups (Hamilakis 2002: 14 with earlier references). without a developed class structure and consolidation of wealthy. was not accompanied by the appearance of rock-cut tombs.” It seems. this presumably Saulide polity was assaulted by Shoshenq I in the late 10th century BCE.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 29 With regard to the absence of Iron Age I highland burials. the burial evidence illustrates only that the cultural group burying in bench tombs was concentrated in the Tell Aitun to Tell Halif region of the Shephelah. 409–410). What appears to be of particular importance. Thompson 1992: 292. with possible extension to the northern Negev. . It does not mean complete lack of classes. or perhaps their true names were entirely different. 2003). the elite population of the southern Shephelah apparently continued to be buried in rock-cut bench tombs following the tradition prevalent in these areas since the Late Bronze Age. to assume that the integration of the southern Shephelah into the Kingdom of Judah did not take place before the end of the 9th century BCE (cf.

According to him. as with 10th-century-BCE Jerusalem.: 106). and a few other occupational remains to the 9th century BCE (cf. which might have been affiliated with the Judahite state. Moreover. nevertheless. 113–116). these elements are insufficient evidence for the existence of a capital of a large state (Steiner 2001: 42–53. one may attribute Jerusalem’s stepped stone structure. Thus. I accept that the transformation from an Amarna-type dimorphic entity to the Judahite state was sudden and rapid (cf. 2002a.26 It seems that in order to bridge the gap between the establishment of Lachish IV. both with earlier references). Finkelstein states that even an (early?) 8th-century-BCE date for the stepped stone structure is plausible (2001: 106). and Arad XI. and the two contrasting archaeological pictures in the history of Jerusalem (the meager remains from the 10th–9th centuries versus the impressive remains from the 8th–7th centuries BCE). 2007). the meager archaeological remains for 9th-century-BCE Jerusalem make it difficult to accept Jerusalem’s control over the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley during the better part of the 9th century BCE. there must have been a transition phase between the two stages: the sparsely settled tenth century and the densely settled late-eighth century” (ibid. Beer-sheba V. If this was the case. Finkelstein’s main reasoning in looking for the transitional phase in the history of Judahite statehood is based on the reasonable assumption that “it is illogical that Judah sprang into life from a void. this transition phase was achieved within a few decades in the first half of the 9th century BCE. He states that there is no alternative but to attribute the massive building activity of Lachish IV. for believing that this 26 Using the Low Chronology perspective (Finkelstein 1999. one should look for a stronger hypothesis than those previously suggested.: 110–112). the “missing link” in Judah’s state formation may be found in the 9th-century-BCE Shephelah and in the Beersheba Valley (Finkelstein 2001). There are several reasons. under Omride dominance.30 alexander fantalkin According to Finkelstein. Beer-sheba V. however. and as an outcome of Omride political and economic ambitions (ibid. Reich et al. It seems to me that the same argument made for the case of 10th-century-BCE Jerusalem should apply to the 9th century BCE as well. a small part of a casemate wall. and Arad XI to the Kingdom of Judah. Although such a reconstruction might be possible (Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 28–30). it still takes us back to the “view from the border” (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001). however. Barfield 2001: 36–38). the periphery of the kingdom had already shown signs of statehood prior to the 8th century BCE. .

It seems that the aggressive expansionist policy of Aram-Damascus. apparently in the days of Jehoash. 4). The assumed growth in the number of settlements in the hill country to the south of Jerusalem in the 9th century BCE (Ofer 1994: 102–104) provides additional corroboration for this suggestion. however.” 28 A major destruction layer recently uncovered at Gath (final Stratum A3) points to the late-9th. The second is new developments in the region of the Shephelah. The first is the short period of decline for the Northern Kingdom.” . 2002b: 116). when Israel was pressed by Aram-Damascus. 2005). Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001: 242 with earlier references. Knauf ’s suggestion (ibid. I cannot accept. Maeir 2004. In this regard one should also reconsider the historical role of Amaziah and Uzziah in the establishment of Jerusalem’s rule over the territories of the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 31 transformation was achieved not at some time during the first half of the 9th century BCE but rather near the end of that century. resulting in the decline of Gath and the temporary weakening of the Northern Kingdom. should be placed in Philistia (Knauf 2000: Fig. 29 The historicity of the conquest of Gath by Hazael king of Aram Damascus (2 Kings 12: 17) is accepted by many scholars (Na aman 1996b: 176–177.century-BCE horizon and was reasonably assigned to Hazael’s campaign (Shai and Maeir 2003. but as an independent Judahite move. However. at least during the 10th and perhaps most of the 9th centuries BCE. fully exploiting a new opportunity. 1997: 127. see also Schniedewind 1998).: 85) that during the early Iron Age II “Jerusalem should have prospered under the conditions of the Rift Valley trade system together with Philistia. If one looks for the core—periphery relationships in the southern part of the Land of Israel. as rightly pointed out by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001: 242): “A reconstruction of a wide-scale Hazael campaign in the south should await additional support. it is most plausible that Gath controlled the area of the Shephelah and maybe the Beersheba Valley as well. historical and/or archaeological. throughout the days of Jehu and Jehoahaz. the core.29 the Judahite expansion into the area of the Shephelah might be seen not as the outcome of Omride policy. Two major factors seem to contribute to this significant event. which created a new paradigm shortly thereafter. at least until its destruction. During the 10th century BCE. may have paved the way for Judah’s expansion and transformation into 27 In both cases it is plausible that their power spread in the north up to the Yarkon area. Thereafter. Ackermann et al. perhaps in the course of Shoshenq’s campaign (Finkelstein 2001: 111. this area seems to have been dominated by Ekron.27 at least until the decline of Gath in the course of Hazael’s campaign.28 If the historicity of this event is accepted.

according to Aharoni (1975: 12. If this assumed Judahite expansion actually took place. It seems.30 In archaeological terms. in the early 8th century BCE. would undermine Faust’s reconstruction as well. for instance. then. Moreover. Most recently. the level of social complexity peaked around 1000 BCE with the formation of the United Monarchy. Level V might be placed in the first half of the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 2002a.31 One may infer. that even using the conventional chronology. however. However. it is necessary to hypothesize a possible confrontation with Ashdod for control over the southern trade network. Finkelstein states. Remains of the destruction were also reported from Area S (Ussishkin 1997: 319. which Judah apparently won. Ussishkin 2004: 78. Moreover. and required a new elaborate treatment of vessels used for “masculine” activities (see also Joffe 2002: 442–443 with earlier references. that the possible destruction of Level V is connected with the expansion of the Kingdom of Judah. who attributes the appearance of the red burnished pottery to the emergent “royal” culture in the 10th century BCE). which may have taken place in the last third of the 9th century BCE. that in any event Lachish became 30 If there is any validity to the story portrayed in 2 Chron. . that both Levels V and IV must be affiliated with Judah. 31 Such a scenario would make it impossible to accept Faust’s suggestion to connect the massive appearance of slip and burnish on pottery vessels used for food consumption with the formation of the United Monarchy (2002). which is the forerunner of the impressive late-8th-century-BCE Judahite city of Level III (Finkelstein 2001: 109).32 alexander fantalkin a real regional power (cf. however. Ussishkin (2004: 77) has suggested that the ash remains uncovered in Area S are the product of domestic activity rather than traces of destruction. Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 30–32). 41). was not integrated within the Kingdom of Judah. 59). 26–32. According to him. according to him. According to him. the cult room discovered at Lachish V was found destroyed. This process deepened the gender inequalities. such a scenario would mean that Lachish V. without interruption. the destroyed sanctuary discovered at Level V is Aharoni’s fanciful reconstruction and no such structure existed (Ussishkin 2003b). into the fortified city of Level IV. however. There are more reasons to believe that it was under Gath’s jurisdiction. there is no basis for Faust’s main claim that the use of slipped and burnished pottery reached its peak at some point during the 10th century BCE. the wide distribution of slipped and burnished pottery all over the southern Levant. 26:6 (Finkelstein 2002c: 139 with earlier references) it would corroborate the assumed confrontation with the Philistines for control over the southern trade network in the days of Uzziah. Lachish V developed. It seems. n. however. 2004: 77). Lehmann 1996) and Philistine milieu (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2001: 146. Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006: 21–22). including the Phoenician (Bikai 1978. In view of the Low Chronology.

McGlade and van der Leeuw 1997. However. which is the core of the “synergetics” approach. It seems that unlike Arad X.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 33 part of the Kingdom of Judah not before the foundation of Level IV. n. see Nicolis and Prigogine 1977. it appears that the integration of the southern Shephelah into the Kingdom of Judah near the end of the 9th century BCE led to the dispersion of rock-cut bench tombs throughout the kingdom and their rapid adoption as the accepted Judahite custom. i. started only in Level IV. Such an observation appears to be in line with some of Portugali’s theoretical speculations on the emergence of statehood in Judah (1994). let us return to the starting point. and that these tombs characterized mainly a wealthy (elite) Judahite population from the 8th to the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE. n. the sudden appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in the Judean core-area. Weidlich 1988.e. it could have been dominated by Gath. the pottery of Stratum X is remarkably different from that of Stratum XI (ibid. Schloen 2001: 57–58. Moreover. whose attribution to the Kingdom of Judah must be certain. 16). Using the “evolutionary” approach of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981). Now..33 It seems that the establishment of the administrative centers at Lachish IV. 33 It should be emphasized that though the fort of Arad X is similar in size to Arad XI. 1997: 319).35 he suggests 32 Such a reconstruction agrees with the suggestion that the Lachish palace (on Podia A and B) was first built in Level IV (Aharoni 1975: 41. see Allen 1982. and the fortress of Arad XI and their affiliation with the Kingdom of Judah. the erection of the temple. however. A new architectural plan.34 Keeping in mind the proposed reconstruction. 1997. the Kingdom of Judah (Ussishkin 2004: 82). For the implications of applying this method to archaeology. It should be noted. Ussishkin 1996: 35. may reflect a system of higher-level administrative control. 4. Prigogine and Stengers 1984. . the suggested status of Arad XI should be examined with caution. the new architectural plan that continued to Level III. may be placed sometime within the last third of the 9th century BCE. Singer-Avitz 2002). 34 If the fortified administrative center of Beer-sheba V was founded earlier than Lachish IV and Arad XI (Zimhoni 1997: 206–207. that even if Podium A was built in Level V (Tufnell 1953: 52–53). except for the new masters. a certain similarity between the pottery of Lachish V and IV (Zimhoni 1997: 171) may suggest that. Finkelstein 2001: 112. and the construction of a water system (Herzog 2002).32 The same scenario most likely accounts for the foundation of the fort of Arad XI. at least until Gath’s decline toward the end of the 9th century BCE. it differs in numerous details: the architectural layout. 35 For definition and theoretical framework of the “self-organization” paradigm. as well as Haken’s “synergetics” approach (1985). the type of fortifications.e. the local population around Lachish did not change. beginning at Lachish IV and continuing through Level III. i. the fortification system at Beth-shemesh.

seem to be useful with regard to state formation in Judah as well. ibid.37 It seems that the appearance of numerous rock-cut bench tombs in the Judean Hills during the 8th–7th centuries BCE. Thus. 59). Finkelstein 2000. In light of recent understanding. Perhaps the Assyrian destructions of the late 8th century BCE halted the crystallization of standard burial practice in the Kingdom of Israel (Bloch-Smith 1992a: 143–144. is accompanied by the appearance of elaborate rock-cut funerary caves. were adapted to the newly created system of the national state. the adoption of bench tombs by Judah’s new urban elites may be seen as an imitation/mutation of burial practices existing among the urban elites in the neighboring Canaanite and Philistine city-states. during the 9th century BCE. In this reconstruction. may be explained by hypothesizing the formation of a wealthy social class composed of new executive cadres (high-level positions such as the king. It becomes particularly clear if one employs the Low Chronology (cf. borrowed from city-states. may reflect a multi-ethnic society with a variety of burial practices (Faust 2000. n. ministers. 2000.34 alexander fantalkin that the emergence of a monarchy in Iron Age Judah might be seen as a socio-spatial mutation of the Canaanite and Philistine system of city-states. 7 with earlier references. Kletter 2002: 30). creating a more complex and hierarchical system than its prototype (cf. It is hard to explain. However. Braun 2001). however. however. one can always suggest that since the use of rock-cut bench tombs in the Canaanite and Philistine milieu is not connected to state formation there is no such a linkage in Iron Age Judah. Thus. n. 38 Interestingly. These burial practices. of course modifying and standardizing it. this theory would apply rather to the establishment of the Northern Israelite Kingdom during the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 1999.38 36 It should be noted that Faust’s (1999b) analysis of the abandonment of the Iron Age I rural sites in the hill country north of Jerusalem may apply to the rise of the Kingdom of Israel rather than to the establishment of the United Monarchy. the Northern Kingdom. king’s family.). office heads. 37 In Israel. i. following the conquest of the Shephelah. the emergence of statehood in Urartu. despite their modest numbers (Kletter 2002: 30. the situation appears to have been different. Frick 1985. if we employ Portugali’s approach. Portugali apparently refers to the establishment of the United Monarchy.36 His basic conclusions. executive officials. which. the traditional Israelite societates were “enslaved” by the newly emerged urban civitas. why the urbanization of the Kingdom of Israel was not accompanied by the emergence of rock-cut tomb cemeteries. On the other hand. served high-level officials (Burney 1995). especially around Jerusalem. Gottwald 2001).e. apparently. because the major urban centers emerged during the 9th century BCE. The known Iron Age II burials from the area of the Kingdom of Israel. as occurred in the Kingdom of Judah in the 8th century. etc.: 25. the homogenous Judahite elite quickly adopted the bench tomb burial practice. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 149–195). Vitto 2001. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 191–194). .

the spatial distribution of the material finds clearly identified as Judahite (cf. these headrests were shaped like the hairstyle of the Egyptian goddess Hathor (1994: 150–151). also rapidly adopted these burial practices (Halpern 1996. Ètienne Monastery in Jerusalem. This tomb appears to have been a result of pure Egyptian inspiration (Ussishkin 1993: 319). Barkay 1999). It can be reasonably assumed that in both cases the imitation of Egyptian elements by the local elite was the source for inspiration (so-called elite emulation.39 It can be reasonably assumed that the representatives of the peripheral Judahite cities (local elites). Na aman 1991. a parallel trend. Kletter 1999). In Barkay’s opinion. I see no basis whatsoever for Bloch-Smith’s (2002: 129) suggestion to attribute the tomb of “Pharaoh’s Daughter” to the 9th century BCE. 39 . and see Higginbotham 2000: 6–16 for a general explanation of this phenomenon). as well as wealthy farmland owners. including imitation of certain architectural elements in funerary architecture at the end of the Iron Age. on the whole. Accepting this explanation. 2 at St. may be attested as well. the style of the “Pharaoh’s Daughter” tomb includes Egyptian elements such as an Egyptian cornice and pyramid. however. Thus. Further examples illustrating Egyptian inspiration are the headrests in Cave No. Although the uncertainty of this reconstruction should be definitely emphasized. n. Miller and Hayes 1986: 38. 79.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 35 Their appearance serves as the clearest indicator of a newly created social hierarchy. that the appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in Iron Age Judah does not itself indicate state formation. It should be considered rather as In addition to the widespread adoption of this burial practice. In this paper I have tried to point out several features that allow us to make a connection between the widespread appearance of rock-cut bench tombs throughout the Kingdom of Judah from the 8th century BCE until the Babylonian conquest and Judah’s emergence as a fully developed state with a material culture of its own. bearing in mind that during that period Judah became an Egyptian vassal following Assyrian withdrawal from the region (Freedy and Redford 1970: 478. perhaps we are able to date the above examples more precisely to the last quarter of the 7th century BCE. Conclusions It has been emphasized that bench tombs can serve as a reliable indicator in attempting to reconstruct the boundaries of the Kingdom of Judah near the end of the Iron Age (Yezerski 1999). Their distribution throughout the kingdom near the end of the Iron Age matches. Fantalkin 2001: 128–147). It should be clearly stated. I suggested that Judah’s expansion into the area of the Shephelah and the latter’s integration into the Kingdom of Judah near the end of the 9th century BCE might be seen as a major event in Judah’s transformation into a fully developed state.

Any responsibility for the ideas expressed here is mine alone. was characterized by uniformity in both the belief in the afterlife and the material expression thereof. Halpern. C. as such. and I. Morgan. N. B. Thereafter. this modified burial practice became normative and ritualized and. Yezerski for their valuable comments on this article. Lytle. S. the elites of the newly emerged Judahite state adopted this type of burial. etc. O. (cf. D. urbanization. Acknowledgments I wish to express my gratitude to E. Bunimovitz. as I have argued that during the formative stages. Thus.36 alexander fantalkin just one of the signs of statehood in Iron Age Judah. widespread writing. Tal. E. Greenberg. Bloch-Smith. Finkelstein 2002b with earlier references). . Na aman. literacy. Finkelstein. Ussishkin. in addition to the appearance of monumental architecture. I. R.

Bachi. Burial Caves and Dwellings in Judah during the Iron Age II. Barfield. ——. L. In: Dothan. eds. A. Aharoni. Arensburg. Cemetery and Wine Presses at an-Nabi Danyal. 1990. The Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation along the ChineseNomad Frontier. 1999. A. ed. Material Culture. 1995. A Unique Human-Made Trench at Tell e-Safi/Gath.. 2001. Biran. M. and McGlade. A.. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. G. New Haven and London: 302–373. In: Singer.. 1971. IEJ 51: 171–193. P. eds. Jerusalem: 96–164 (Hebrew). Bruins. Freud. L. R. G. K. D. Jewish Skeletal Remains from the Period of the Kings of Judea. 1931. T. 1999. 1978. eds. R. In: Alcock.. S. I.. M. Biran. In: Renfrew. N. G. Bikai. C. Amit. 1970. J. P. Jerusalem in the Days of the First Temple. Berkeley. J. Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. 1985. IEJ 43: 81–98. Cambridge and New York: 10–41. Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. S. Israel: Anthropogenic Impact and Landscape Response. Washington: 11–22.. 1992. and Goren. 1979. The Iron Age II–III. I. An Iron Age Burial Cave at Tel Halif. M. Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. D. P. eds. B. M. Y. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. and Yezerski. Ramat Gan: 96–102 (Hebrew). R. ed. M. Tel Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 2005. In: Brown. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Potential. Atiqot 39: 7*–12* (Hebrew with English abstract). Models of Creativity: Toward a New Science of History. M. M. In: Beit-Arieh. IEJ 20: 151–169. and Segraves. Allen. Some Tombs of Tell en-Nasbeh Discovered in 1929 (Palestine Institute Publication 2). F. W. H.. In: van der Leeuw. 4). A. and Baron. A. 15). Process and Structured Transformation in Archaeology. 1965 ( Atiqot 9–10). The Cemetery.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah References 37 Abercrombie. Badè. T. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25). and Rak. R. Geoarchaeology 20: 303–327. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. and Ben-Dov... A. Time. New York: 347–374. 1993.D. The Cemeteries of Jerusalem in the Days of the First Temple Period. Jeruslaem: 86–94. Barkay. A.. and Naveh. Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. ——. Tel Aviv: 129–169. University of Pennsylvania). Y. and Maeir. C. dissertation. In: Amit. A. A. PEQ 117: 30–34. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Season of Excavations 1963. Badhi. Philadelphia. In: Ben-Tor. J.. Binford. J. and Maeir. In: Faust. eds.. ed. Beit-Arieh. B. IEJ 45: 1–18. J.. 2000. ed. Morrison.. An Iron Age Burial Cave at Baqa el-Gharbiya. 1971. Jerusalem: 102–123 (Hebrew). An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. I. Allen. The Genesis of Structure in Social System: The Paradigm of SelfOrganization. The Pottery of Tyre. Ackermann. R. Palestinian Burial Practices from 1200 to 600 BCE (Ph. 1994.. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. D. I. E. D’altroy. E. . 2001. Warminster. Tel Aviv. O. and Sinopoli. Area D: Stratigraphy and Building Remains.. Rowlands. ——. 1997. J. 1982. ——. and Gophna. ed.. London and New York: 39–56...

Atiqot 42: 171–182. Borowski. S. E. Carr. I. S. K. ——. J. Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead. Sheffield. 1994. 2001. C. Death in Koheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 170). Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel. I. K. M. 2002. Burney.D. Causse. Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. 1990. 1992b. JBL 111: 213–224. and Physical Determinants. Princeton. Du groupe ethnique à la communauté religieuse: Le problème sociologique du judaïsme. A. eds. 1981. Kinnes. JBL 122: 401–425. A. H. 1995. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. and Randsborg. 1992. ADAJ 2: 66–74. 1937. 1992. C.. D. ed.. Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon. Atlanta: 13–80. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead ( JSOT. In: Chapman. In: Campbell. ——. dissertation. Philosophical-Religious. Broshi. Oxford: 205–208. M. 2001. W. 2004. Finds from the Iron Age Cemetery at Tel Halif. ——. R. Atiqot 25: 45–62. Jerusalem: 65–74 (Hebrew). Land and Afterlife. J. IEJ 54: 77–91. 1934.. Brichto. Dajani. E. Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence. ——. In: Vaughn. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 105–200. The Cave Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei. The Archaeology of Death. The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. and Gonen. The Iron Age Cemetery at Tel Halif. EI 23: 14*–20*. 1970. IEJ 24: 21–26. Population of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Lower Galilee. Approaches to the Archaeology of Death. 2003. eds. M. Atlanta. eds. 2002. Kin.. Burkes. Bloch-Smith. 1965. 1974. A. The Counting of the Inhabitants of Ancient Jerusalem. M. L. . 1989. Resurrecting the Iron I Dead. Circumstantial. and Lederman. ——. Jerusalem in the Days of the First Temple. In: Amit. and Randsborg. R. Z. R. NY: 299–306. Mortuary Practices: Their Social.. eds. J. Iron Age II Burials and Archaeological Investigations at orbat Menorim (El-Manara). A. K. The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains. A. Broshi. Cross. Urartian Funerary Customs. Hebrew Union College Annual 44: 1–54. In: Broshi. New York and Toronto.. Braun. Tel Aviv University). Cult. Ancient Israel I: Social Institutions. Cahill. Du groupe ethnique à la communauté religieuse: Le problème sociologique de la religion d’Israël (Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 33). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English abstract). The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-Cultural Change in a Complex Society (Ph. NEA 65: 120–130.. ——. Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 14: 285–335. An Iron Age Tomb at Al-Gib. 1977. 2003.38 alexander fantalkin Blakely. 1973. The Iron Age Fortifications of Tel Beth Shemesh: A 1990–2000 Perspective. Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon: Studies in the History. R. ed. 1999. 1995. BASOR 287: 47–60. G. E. IEJ 51: 121–147. ——. S.. Paris. A. Supplement Series 123). In: Sanders. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Garden City. A. C. Cambridge and New York: 1–24. 1992a. N. Cavalli-Sforza. and Finkelstein. S. 1953. M. O. 1979.. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. ——. Bunimovitz. and Green. De Vaux. and Feldman. and Killebrew. Jerusalem: 63–67 (Hebrew). Bunimovitz. BASOR 327: 49–54. Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Israel’s History. F. Chapman. L.

ZDPV 116: 114–138. eds. 2002a. ——. State Formation in Israel and Judah. 1995. Mortuary Practices. and Aviram. 2000. A. Finkelstein. Finkelstein. City-States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries BCE. 1985.. Ashdod Revisited. ——. 2001. The Limits of Settlement Growth: A Theoretical Outline. S. Symbiosis. Omride Architecture. Hebrew Union College Annual 40–41: 139–204. 2000. 1993. The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical. Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages in Iron Age II. Tel Aviv 26: 233–252. 1990. The Settlement of Jerusalem’s Western Hill and the City’s Status in Iron Age II Revisited. 1969–1970. and Neusner. G. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 35–52. IN: 75–83. Finkelstein. Society and Ideology: The Lack of Iron Age I Burials in Highlands in Context. A. ——. A. and Gitin. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second Millennium BCE. 1994. E. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. ——. G. R. I. In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. and Overton. 1992. Jerusalem: 119–131. Fletcher. ZDPV 118: 109–135. Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Köm. J. J. Friedman. ——. Production and Power. . Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 1–32. Frick. ——. New York. Fantalkin. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15: 53–73. L. PEQ 132: 2–27. F. D. 2000. and Finkelstein. Atiqot 21: 23–41.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 39 Dever. and Singer-Avitz. eds. 2006. New York. 2001. 2002. Winona Lake. Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence. JAOS 90: 462–485. N. ——. 1999a. ——. 1970. and Redford. Finkelstein. G. Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in Iron Age Israelite Society. 2001. Faust. I. S. The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. Fantalkin. Biblical Archaeology Today. From Hamlets to Monarchy: A View from the Countryside on the Formation of the Israelite Monarchy. Symbolism and the Power of the Past. I. Leiden: 35–59. 2004. S. Chronological Rejoinders. S. ——. In: Biran. I. Cambridge and New York. 1999. A. ——.. Jerusalem. Babylonian and Egyptian Sources. 2001. R. ZDPV 121: 97–118. A. Pre-Congress Symposium: Population. eds. The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective. K. 1996. Tel Aviv 28: 3–165. 2006. Edelstein. David and Solomon.. 1999b. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories. ——. eds. 2005. D. Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during the Iron Age II. S. PEQ 134: 118–129. 2003. JSOT 27: 131–167. ——. The “Philistine” Tomb at Tell Eitun. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. ——. W. and Silberman. N. In: Dever. B. A. 2002c. Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Handbook of Oriental Studies 49). I. Freedy. Sheffield. W. Cathedra 94: 7–32 (Hebrew with English abstract). The Campaign of Shoshenq I to Palestine: A Guide to the 10th Century BCE Polity. Levant 33: 105– 115. IEJ 54: 174–190. J. and Aurant. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. and Na aman. Me ad ashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background. The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century-BCE Earthquake—More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I–IIA. In: Avery-Peck. 2002b. Tel Aviv 28: 231–259. ——. Tel Aviv 33: 18–42..

Hamilakis.. One-Dimensional Archaeology and Multi-Dimensional People: Spatial Organization and Mortuary Analysis. and Davies. Louisville. W.. Cambridge. G. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. IN: 291–338. April 1995 in Honour of Professor T. Gottwald. Winona Lake. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States ( JSOT. 1991. Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 173–189 (Hebrew).. The Archaeology of Death.. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach ( JSOT. Supplement Series 228). In: Schiffman. Hopkins.. Hadley. . ed. Cambridge and New York. Tov. Handy. Dothan. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. D. 2000. eds. I. Y. K. 1994. Jerusalem: 661–672. In: Halpern. 1991. Sheffield. Herzog. K. L. R. Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. P. and Schwartz.. Traitor. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States ( JSOT.40 alexander fantalkin Fritz. 1987. and Davies. Messiah. Supplement Series 228). Murderer. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century BCE. S. ed. Oxford: 155–170. The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription. R. Sheffield... The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel ( JSOT. Sheffield: 121–139. L. eds. P. 1983. Tools Slippage and Tel Dan Inscription. In: Campbell. Herzog. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan (AASOR Dissertation Series 7). S. ed.. Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Economics of Ancient Israel. 2000. Mazar.. ——. M. R. Jerusalem. In: Singer. Winona Lake. 1996. D. In: Portugali. Haken. Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’ Archaeology. Oxford: 2–28. Synergetics—An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Phenomena of Self-Organization. ——. C. V. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16: 293–302. Changes in Burial Practices in the Late Second Temple Period: The Evidence from Jericho. K. Halpern. and Hobson. In: Hamilakis. 2002. KY. K. Leiden. Hopkins. eds. 2001. and Vanderkameds. David’s Secret Demons.. Oxford: 205–211. The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report. Aegean Influence in Late Bronze Age Funerary Practices in the Southern Levant. and Stern. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Tel Aviv 29: 3–109. L. 1979. ed. M. eds. N. and Singer-Avitz. Leiden. Kinnes. Papers of the First International Symposium Held by the Philip and Muriel Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology. IN. In: Cooper. W. and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the 8th–7th Centuries BCE. B. H. Tel Aviv 31: 209–244. Hachlili... A. eds. S. 1995. R. Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability. C. Cambridge and New York: 53–70. Gonen. R. Kinship. 1997.. or the Two Nations? Archaism. L. and Green. E. Jamieson-Drake. Supplement Series 124). Z. Sybil. I. 2002. Goldstein. Y.. eds. 2001. 1985. 1996. J. Sheffield: 11–107. In: Fritz. 2002. VT 37: 50–62. Qumran Cemetery: A Reconsideration. J. R. In: Chapman. Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. What Future for the ‘Minoan’ Past? Re-thinking Minoan Archaeology. E. 1992. and Randsborg.. D. Gmirkin. Death and Renewal. Higginbotham. J. eds. J... H. A. eds. Gitin. Links between the Natural and Social Sciences: A Special Theme Issue of Geoforum 16/2. MA. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery 1947–1997. B. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. 1997. King. V. G. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress. 1998. Alienation. 1996. ——. Z. Gilmour. The Politics of Ancient Israel. July 20–25. 2004. Supplement Series 109).

Levy. Time. 1980. A. A. JNES 60: 117–131. ——. 1968. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History. Process and Structured Transformation in Archaeology. Jerusalem (Hebrew with English abstract). Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. E. 2003. J. Loffreda. A. ——. and Killebrew. Maeir. E. Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. E. Lipschits. A. Fenicios y territorio. Mazar. ed. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5). Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Alicante: 189–225. and Blenkinsopp. 1994. 1995. I: Archaeological and Historical Results. Burial Practice in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period (Ph. eds. McHugh. ——. 9–11 de abril de 1999.. E. and van der Leeuw. eds. 1976. C. G. S. In: Prats. Introduction: Archaeology and Non-Linear Dynamics—New Approaches to Long-Term Change. J. Tel Aviv 27: 75–90. J. Atlanta. D. Phoenicia and the Bible. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Harvard Semitic Monographs 39). London and New York: 1–31. 720 bis 300 v. and McGlade. M. C. A. H. J. eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology. and Higham. Atlanta: 117–162. Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age: A Proposal. IEJ 52: 28–48. Philadelphia. and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE. the Current Situation. Liber Annuus 18: 244–287. RB 83: 558–568. ——. Erwägungen zu einer neu edierten Inschrift. Leuven. In: Lipschits. A. Oxford. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. ed. Lemaire. T. “House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription.D. O. McCown. Prières en temps de crise: les inscriptions de Khirbet Beit Lei. R. Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE. H. 1997. Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Lehmann. Knauf. M. IN: 323–376. A Methodological Review. Hebrew University). Lewis.. J. People Without Burials? The Lack of Iron I Burials in the Central Highlands of Palestine. 2001. G. A. The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant. Kloner. London: 15–30. 2002. State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel. Mazar. 2004. New York. Phoenicia and the Bible. McGlade.. E. VT 54: 319–334. G. dissertation. In: Vaughn. BASOR 314: 19–54. Leuven: 167–186.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 41 Joffe. 2004. ed. angeblich aus Hirbet el-Qōm. 1991. 1999. O. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. Lipiński. Low Chronology and United Monarchy. F. In: Levy. 1989. E. 2003. Kletter. Text and Science. Biblische Notizen 84: 51–53. T. T. Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practices (BAR International Series 785). Tell en-Nasbeh. eds. F. ZDPV 120: 13–54. T.. Berkeley. 2002. 1996. Typological Sequence of Iron Age Rock-Cut Tombs in Palestine. 1991. and Hayes. S. The Historical Background and Dating of Amos IV 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath. A. Vol. Judah. Actas del II Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios. . In: van der Leeuw. 1947. J. In: Lipiński.Chr. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3: 30–37. Master. ed. E. and a Suggested Resolution. The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem. Winona Lake. 1995. 2005. 1996. Münster. E. Miller.. 2000. Phoenician Family Tombs at Achziv: A Chronological Typology (1000–400 BCE). Guardamar del Segura. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45: 425–467. ——.. 2000.. E. S. M.. 1986. Mathys. A.

R. The Monarchic Period in the Judaean Highland: A Spatial Overview. In: Finkelstein. Morgan. D’altroy.. Naveh. New York. The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited.. PEQ 133: 39–49. Regev. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291. Osborne. 1993. In: Mazar. eds. and Prigogine. The Individualistic Meaning of Jewish Ossuaries: A Socio-Anthropological Perspective on Burial Practice. Cambridge and New York. 1984. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. M. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 147–169. 1963. The Archaeology of Death and Burial (Texas A & M University Anthropology Series 3). and Sinopoli. Nicolis. A. Cambridge and New York: 392–418. and Stengers. ed. 2001. J. J. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States ( JSOT. The Bench Tomb in Iron Age Judah: Secondary Mortuary Practice and Social Values. M. ——. ——. E. The Past that Shapes the Present. 1994. 1997. B. 1999.. 2001. P. J.. I. Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Morrison. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State.. Herrschaft. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Cambridge and New York. A. Supplement Series 228). M. November 14–17. Tel Aviv 18: 1–69. ——. 2000. É. H. The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4). Y. ——. 1987. The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE. 1992. Peleg. Sources and Composition in the History of David. Theoretical Speculations on the Transition from Nomadism to Monarchy. I. eds. When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE. T. eds. Order out of Chaos. Texas. J. Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations. D. C. ——. I. 2003. N. and Coulton.. Morris. Graves. ——.. Niemann. 1977. BASOR 347:21–56. 2007. Portugali. Königtum und Staat: Skizzen zur soziokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen Israel. 1998. H. 2002. The Carolingian Empire: Rome Reborn? In: Alcock. The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and after the Downfall. The ASOR Annual Meeting. BASOR 312: 21–36. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Sheffield: 170–186. IEJ 13: 74–92. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. ‘All the Hill Country of Judah’: From a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy. 1992. Canaanite Jerusalem and Its Central Hill Neighbours in the Second Millennium BCE. N. Parker. S. M. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. C. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1996a. ed. . Jerusalem: 92–121. 1991. 2002.. Toronto and New York. 1994. San-Diego. Prigogine. Jerusalem: 92–121.. G.42 alexander fantalkin Moreland. BASOR 304: 17–27. In: Hansen. N. ——. Gender and Ossuaries: Ideology and Meaning. In: Finkelstein. 1991. Caves. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel. Copenhagen: 87–144. ——. eds. BASOR 325: 65–73. and Refugees: An Essay in Microhistory. 2007. Tel Aviv 24: 122–128. JSOT 27: 259–288. Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave. I. I. 1997. Sheffield: 14–37. E. Na aman. P. Tübingen. I. K. and Davies. 2007. 1996b. S. The Polis as a Physical Entity. N. V. Puech. and Na aman. In: Fritz. J. ——. J. The Necropolises of Khirbet Qumrân and Ain el-Ghuweir and the Essene Belief in Afterlife. Pearson. CA. and Na aman. Ofer.

University of Michigan).. W. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2). dissertation. 1970. R. Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: 553–559. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. ——. 2006. A. 1992. Halif. M. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. L. K. Death Cult Practices in Ancient Palestine (Ph. Cultural Dynamics 10/1: 5–20. Routledge. 2004. 3: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Copenhagen International Series 9). E. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Leiden: 87–100. L. Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeology Review 24/4: 26–33. Judaism in Late Antiquity IV (Handbook of Oriental Studies 49). Ribar. Stager. It’s Not There. IN. Polity. J. New York: 123–175. 2007. On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation: Neoevolutionism Reconsidered. R. Qadmoniot 133:32–40 (Hebrew). Schultz. San-Diego. Nouns with Double Plural Forms in Biblical Hebrew. M. Stager. Michigan. eds. Suriano. J. H.D.appearance of rock-cut bench tombs in iron age judah 43 Reich. Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded “Death after Death” in Ancient Israelite Society. and Maeir. The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath. Schniedewind. 2003. L.edu/doi/pdf/10. W. L. 1998. A. Spencer. Journal of Semitic Studies 52: 189–210. E. 1970. 1998. ——. eds. J. In: Avery-Peck. T. E. Shukron. NEAEHL 2. Winona Lake. Toronto. ASOR Annual Meeting. dissertation. 2007. Archaeology Proves a Negative. The Marginality of the Dead: Funerary-Rites and the Concept of the Afterlife in an Ancient Israel. Jr. D. 2007. Another Look at the Origin of the Philistine Tombs at Tell el-Far a (S). 1998. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (Ph. W. Vol. M. New Discoveries at the City of David. Tainter. 1993. C. BASOR 309: 69–77. Pre-LMLK Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. Steiner. Kevelaer. and Killebrew. Philadelphia. Tubul. Thompson. D. E. M. Tel. Archaeology. 2001. A. November 14–17. ——. Shai. Simkins. In: Vaughn. I. Singer-Avitz. A. The Qumran Cemetery: 150 Years of Research. 2007. 2004. 1985. O. The Bible and Critical Theory 1 (http://publications. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 219). E.D. Spronk. M. Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages. Tel Aviv 30: 108–123. Excavations by Kathleen M. B.A. M. B. University of Michigan). Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. A. 2003. 62–63. The Oxford History of the Biblical World.epress. and Lernau. J. and Neusner. L. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 1–30. Family in the Political Economy of Monarchic Judah. Schloen.2104/ bc040006). BASOR 260: 1–35. David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality. In: Coogan. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. G.monash. AJA 74: 139–144. S. 2001. 2000. J. D. ed. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 105–141. Schmidt. CA. J. 2002. 1973. A Mathematical Model of Primary State Formation. The Evidence from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay. 1990. . Stiebing. Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony. Saxe. 1986. Atlanta: 347–364. 1978. Tel Aviv 29: 110– 214. Dead Sea Discoveries 13: 194–228. Seger. Leiden.. R. Michigan.. 1998..

. eds. 1996. eds. B. Recent Research on the Origin of the State. ESI 18: 94–95. Yezerski.. Geburstag (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 302). 22). I. A. C. Burial Caves in the Land of Judah in the Iron Age: Archaeological and Architectural Aspects (M. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. J. 1993. 2001. E. Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie. 3. R. Hübner. C. G. Atiqot 42: 159–169. 2004. ed. Beit Safafa (West). eds. Z. 1974. D. 2003. In: Meyers. An Iron Age Burial Cave in Nazareth. S. 2). Vitto. 2003a. Ussishkin. ed. Jerusalem. 2003b.44 alexander fantalkin Tufnell. Archaeological and Chronological Aspects (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Lachish. W. M. Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English abstract).. ——. London. 1999. T. The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Tel Aviv University). Atiqot 43: 57*–73* (Hebrew with English abstract). A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical. BASOR 255: 39–47. Zissu. 1995. and Lender. ed. Lachish III (Tell ed-Duweir): The Iron Age (Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East 3). Saxa Loquentur. Annual Review of Anthropology 6: 379–397. Notes on Syro-Palestinian History. 2002. ——.. and Killebrew. . AJA 70: 331–340. I. ——. H. Zevit. ——. thesis. New York: 317–323. E. Vol. O. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. 1997. Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Tübingen: 109–150. A. 1966. Wenning. D. Toponymy and Anthroponymy. Atlanta. 1998. A. O.. 1977. Tel Aviv 23: 3–60. Vaughn. In: Ussishkin. Stability and Cyclicity in Social Systems. Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward the End of the Iron Age. 1988. The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription Mentioning a Goddess. Chronological and Historical Issues. In: Den Hertog. A. and Münger. F. 2005. “Medien” in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda? In: Frevel. and Moyal. Yezerski.A.. Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels. Weidlich. Ussishkin. ——. Excavations and Restoration Work at Tel Lachish 1985–1994: Third Preliminary Report. G. Münster: 205–211. Wright. The Level V Sanctuary and High Place at Lachish: A Stratigraphic Analysis. D. Waldbaum. G. U.. Philistine Tombs at Tell Far a (S) and Their Aegean Prototypes. Tel Aviv: 50–122. Tel Aviv. 1997. Tel Aviv 1: 109– 127. 1996. Zadok. Y. Tel Aviv 26: 253–270.. Zimhoni. and Killebrew. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological. Behavioral Science 33: 241–256. Atlanta: 103–116. Jerusalem. H. 1953. In: Vaughn. Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel Eton. 1984. R. An Iron Age II Burial Cave at Lower Horbat Anim. ——. E. Solomon’s Jerusalem: The Text and the Facts on the Ground. Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 721–749.

Schumacher. 1924: 35. Franklin 2004a: 189–202).TRADEMARKS OF THE OMRIDE BUILDERS? Norma Franklin Two 9th-century sites hold the key to the chronological conundrum of the period: Samaria. 1942). who had just terminated his excavation at Megiddo. 60–61). The Harvard Expedition was intent on revealing the city founded by Omri and so they concentrated their excavation on the summit. . G. Fisher. was directed by J. was appointed excavation architect. There they revealed a monumental building. 880 BCE. The Joint Expedition accepted the overall stratigraphic interpretation offered by the Harvard Expedition agreeing that there was no monumental architecture prior to the “Palace of Omri. Kenyon who continued excavations on the summit (Crowfoot et al. first developed in the Early Iron Age as a lucrative oil and wine production center (Stager 1990: 93–107. W. Its earliest monumental buildings were erected by Omri in ca. the Joint Expedition (1931–1935). who later became the first director of the Oriental Institute’s expedition to Megiddo. which they immediately identified as the 9th-century “Palace of Omri” on the basis of the passage in 1 Kings 16: 23–24 (Reisner et al. C. The Harvard Expedition (1908–1910) first excavated the site. Reisner assumed the position in 1909. but it was K.: 7). its sentinel emporium. The second expedition to Samaria.” which they renamed Building Period I (ibid. when he chose this economic hub as the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16: 23–24). the royal capital. initially served as the temporary director until G. and Megiddo. Together they epitomize the power of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the 9th century BCE. Samaria Samaria. a rocky hill-top site. Crowfoot.

The second expedition was instigated by the Oriental Institute of Chicago (1925–1939). while immediately below the Omride palace two subterranean tombs where hewn into the bedrock. a new regime during which time the summit of Samaria became a strictly administrative center (see Addendum). Lamon and Shipton 1939). when viewed together. was revealed in the south of the tell (Guy 1931. These tombs have recently been recognized as belonging to the Omride kings (Franklin 2003: 1–11). and execution of an unfinished Building Period I blueprint. the natural rocky summit of Samaria delimited a royal compound—the “Palace of Omri”—isolated from its surroundings. It was during Guy’s tenure that a monumental building. during Building Period I. Fisher (who had served as the architect for the Harvard Expedition to Samaria) until he was forced to retire due to ill health. the following period. That is. These elements. Building Period II. rather it signified a new era. Following a re-analysis of the data it has become apparent that there was no premise for establishing Stratum IVB as a separate stratum. Palace . Megiddo Megiddo is a multilayered tell occupied continuously from the 3rd millennium BCE until the Persian period. To the west of the royal compound there were other Building Period I ancillary buildings. Stratum IVB (to which the palace was attributed) had been amalgamated by Albright with Stratum VA to form the composite Stratum VA–IVB (Albright 1943: 2–3). testify to Building Period I having been of a longer duration than previously thought. Palace 1723. G. embellishment.46 norma franklin In fact. Accordingly. was not the continuation. Guy (1927–1935). In addition. L. irrespective of whether it is paired with Stratum VA or not. spanning the Omride dynasty in its entirety and at least a part of the Jehu dynasty (Franklin 2004a: 189–202). The Chicago Expedition originally attributed Palace 1723 to the early part of the 10th century BCE but it was later down dated slightly by Yadin who associated it with the building activities of Solomon (Yadin 1960: 62–68). Schumacher was the first to excavate the site (1903–1905) and expose the Iron Age levels (Schumacher 1908). and succeeded by P. the architecture from Stratum IVB has now been reassigned to either one of the phases of Stratum V or to Stratum IV (IVA). O. on top of a 4-m-high artificial rock-cut scarp. directed initially by C.

16: 20. storehouses. 90f. 17.trademarks of the omride builders? 47 1723 is now recognized as belonging to one of the earliest phases of Stratum V (Franklin 2006). or II. Eventually. That is. The marks are always inscribed on large. 1924: 119–120.1 These 1 Only one ashlar inscribed with a masons’ mark has marginal drafting. The Omride Palace at Samaria and Palace 1723 at Megiddo The Masons’ Marks (Fig. Only two of the inscribed ashlars were discovered in situ located in the foundation course of the Building Period I palace. . and buried by the builders of Stratum IV. all of which were located in the foundations of Palace 1723 (including Porch 1728). 1942: 34–35). It is an ashlar used as a “strengthening corner” on the western foundation pier of Gate 1576. 44 different masons’ marks out of a total of the 73 excavated examples. twenty ashlars inscribed with distinctive masons’ marks have been excavated (Reisner et al. The remaining inscribed ashlars were found in secondary use in buildings from Strata IV. Crowfoot et al. Fig. was partially dismantled . At Megiddo some 52 ashlars inscribed with masons’ marks have been recorded (Schumacher 1908: Tafel XXXe. Lamon and Shipton 1939: 13. 1) At Samaria. or 8 out of the 17 basic known characters have been recorded at both sites (Franklin 2001: 110–111. It is significant that Samaria and Megiddo are the only sites with these particular types of masons’ marks (contra Shiloh 1979). roughly hewn ashlars devoid of marginal drafting. Figs. The other inscribed ashlars were found in secondary use in Building Period II or later architecture (Shiloh 1979. Yadin 1972: 164. Yadin 1970: 92. 32. The ashlar is in secondary use and acquired its marginal drafting as an aid in aligning the structure correctly. Franklin 2006). Fig. and courtyards. 1). 47. Fig. all contained within a city wall and built according to a specific blueprint (see Addendum. 90e. Shiloh 1979. III. Franklin 2004a: 201). Stratum V including Palace 1723. The Stratum IV city became a vast commercial center with stables. Pls. topography. Only 19 of the inscribed ashlars were discovered in situ. 26: 25. Franklin 2001: 108). and function. and a new city arose with a very different layout.

However. In Caria there were at least five regional Carian alphabets (Ray 1982a: 78). This alphabet is composed of some 48 letters. the Carians borrowed their alphabet (or more precisely: local alphabets) directly from some archaic Semitic writing system. Eighteen of the twenty masons’ marks appear in the established Carian alphabet and two match Carian quarry marks from Egypt (Gosline 1992). roughly hewn ashlars (with no interspersed fieldstones) were the standard type of ashlar used in the foundation courses of the monumental buildings there. Apparently. inscribed with the distinctive masons’ marks. They differ from the Building Period II (Samaria) and Stratum IV (Megiddo) ashlars. have been recorded in the area of ancient Caria (Shevoroshkin 1994: 131). where it predates the examples in Asia Minor by two or three centuries (Ray 1988: 150). 1990: 56). however there are too many dissimilarities for them to be directly related to the Phoenician alphabet. for the Carian alphabet has elements of both North and South Semitic scripts (Shevoroshkin 1991–1992: 117–134). originate in the Stratum V palace (1723) at Megiddo and the Building Period I palace at Samaria. 2006). written between the 7th and the 4th centuries BCE. if the masons’ marks are related to the Carian alphabet then they predate by some two hundred years the first known use of the Carian alphabet. in Egypt the Carian alphabet is known to have varied greatly over time (Ray 1982b: 181). In fact these “plain” ashlars are the typical building blocks used by the Building Period I (Samaria) and the Stratum V (Megiddo) builders. had the masons’ . it has been noted that the closest match for the masons’ marks is with the Carian alphabet (Franklin 2001: 107–116). Additionally. Therefore. although it is thought that only 25 of them were actually used at any one time or in any one place (Ray 1987: 99. and no masons’ marks are known from that region. The Derivation of the Masons’ Marks The Harvard Expedition noted that some of the marks resembled ancient Hebrew (Sukenik 1957). Until now the earliest known use of the Carian alphabet was in Egypt. rather than in Caria.48 norma franklin plain. an analysis of the findspots of the inscribed ashlars when viewed together with the stratigraphic information at both sites confirms that these ashlars. Tantalizingly. It would be logical to suppose that the masons’ marks derived from a Phoenician tradition. In short. Some three hundred inscriptions. which were often embellished with drafted margins (Franklin 2004a.

as opposed to the Omride Palace which was built on bedrock. the use of “Carian-related alphabetic marks” as masons’ marks may suggest an ongoing vocational link rather than an ethnic link. .trademarks of the omride builders? 49 marks been derived from an early form of the Carian alphabet they would have also exhibited chronological or regional variation. 22.2 When dealing with the layout of a building it is the exterior measurements that are the crucial ones (Miroschedji 2001: 465–491). 2 There is a greater discrepancy regarding the application of the short-cubit to the palace at Megiddo in contrast to Samaria. and the use of the short cubit of 0. For example.45 m as the unit of measurement. they may have served an atropaic purpose or echoed the practices and origin of foreign construction workers. at both Samaria and Megiddo.975 m. However. Fig. 29). implies a brief time period. their apparent concurrent use. for some of the masons’ marks reappear over a long period of time and are found in southwest Anatolian. the northern foundation wall of Palace 1723 has “setting-out” marks incised into the outermost ashlars in the foundation course (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 20. Megiddo—Palace 1723 (Fig. and Persian contexts (Franklin 2001: 107–116). 22.45 m The foundations of both the Omride palace at Samaria and Palace 1723 at Megiddo were laid out using the short cubit of 0. Egyptian. The Use of the Short Cubit of 0.45 m is most noticeable when the ground plan of Palace 1723 is studied. Furthermore. which was built on accumulated Tel debris. The function of these unique marks is unknown. This may be due to the settlement of Palace 1723. • The northern wall of the palace is 50-short-cubits long (ca. • The western wall of the palace is also 48-short-cubits long. 2) • The southern wall of the palace is 48-short-cubits long (ca.25 m.6 m = 48 cubits = 4 rods). for the foundations of the palace were preserved in their entirety and the complete plan of the building is known. 21. which can be further broken down into six lengths of 8 short cubits or three lengths of 16 short cubits. 21. In any event the short-cubit is the measurement that produces the least discrepancy when applied to these buildings.50 m = 50 cubits) (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 18: note 10).

eight. 7. 27 m. 27 m = 60 cubits = 1/2 rope).8 m = 24 cubits = 2 rods) by 48 short cubits (ca. 5.50 norma franklin • The northern wall of the platform of the palace (Platform 1728) is 16-short-cubits long (ca. 7. The platform is then set back by 6 short cubits and the east wall continues south for 16 short cubits. 7. • The southern section of the west face extends as far as the southern scarp a distance of 16 short cubits (ca. particularly multiples of six. • The building has an enclosed rectangular courtyard. The Egyptian short cubit eventually went out of use following the Third Intermediate Period and was superseded by the royal cubit (Iversen 1975: 16. 7. • The eastern wall of the palace is formed by Platform 1728. 7. 11 m. The northern section of the west face (still partially preserved but hidden below later monumental architecture) appears to have reached the northern scarp. The short cubit was also known as the Egyptian short cubit.2 m = 16 cubits).5 m.2 m = 16 cubits) (ibid.4 m = 12 cubits = 1 rod) in the north.7 m. now by 10 short cubits. The platform is then once again set back. Shaw . and the east wall of the platform is finally exposed for 16 short cubits before being recessed by 2 short cubits for a length of 8 short cubits. 10. is also evident in the ground plan of the palace at Samaria.5 m. and ten short cubits. and by 16 short cubits (ca.45 m (Franklin 2004b: 83–92). situated 100 short cubits to the north. 24 short cubits (ca.2 m = 16 cubits) in the south. 7. 3) The use of the short cubit.: 18).5 m. It extends the line of the northern wall by a length of 16 short cubits. the fact that the palace was built on top of an artificially prepared 4-m-high rock scarp enables the extent of the palace to be defined (Franklin 2004a): • The long west wall of the palace scarp is 60-short-cubits long (ca. Although most of the ashlar masonry did not survive. 21. Then the east wall runs south for a length of 8 short cubits.25 m. Samaria—The Omride Palace (Fig. as it consisted of six palms and needed to be differentiated from the more common royal cubit of seven palms (Ben-David 1987: 27–28). • The scarp projects out from the main building line by 12 short cubits (ca.6 m = 48 cubits = 4 rods). 5. 21. The palaces in Samaria and in Megiddo appear to be unique regarding the use of the short cubit of 0.

1924: 103–107. most of which is in secondary use. The Assyrian cubit is close to the present-day metric standard and thus tends to conform to modern plans. 37. making it the most easily recognized of all the ancient measures. This square unit of measurement is an Assyrian agricultural land measurement known as an iku. king of Lagash. These guide lines were often preserved on the ashlar foundation courses and observed by the excavation teams at both sites (Reisner et al. 30. Crowfoot et al. the load-bearing walls and corners were built of integrated ashlars and fieldstones. was aligned with the aid of a drafted margin—a three-sided frame drafted in situ. 1942: 12. Addendum Samaria Building Period II and Megiddo Stratum IV The ground plan of the monumental architectural elements of Building Period II (Samaria) and Stratum IV (Megiddo) were constructed using the popular Assyrian cubit of 0. were built using lengths of 8. Loud 1948: 48). 60. the ashlar masonry used in these strata at both sites. both measure 120 by 120 Assyrian cubits. Courtyard 977 (the Southern Stable courtyard) and Courtyard 1693. 26. 111. and the stable units. and 120 Assyrian cubits. there was a casemate wall system and the “Ostraca House.” both built using the Assyrian cubit of 0. and it continued in use into the Assyrian period. Furthermore. In addition. 98. 30. This cubit was first attested on a statue of Gudea. the alignment of these ashlars was facilitated by the use of red guide lines.495 m. all the Megiddo Stratum IV monumental architecture: City Gate 2156. Moreover. City Wall 325. and 50 (Franklin 2004b: 83–92). Figs. 40.trademarks of the omride builders? 51 and Nicholson 1995: 174). often constructed in the . 2170 BCE (Dilke 1987: 25). At Samaria Building Period II while there were no stable complexes or city gates. with multiples of 2. Guy 1931: 37. In addition. It should be noted that the second dynasty belonging to that period is the 22nd “Libyan” Dynasty (Kitchen 1986: 334–337).495 m. The two Megiddo Stratum IV courtyards. 10. Crowfoot et al. 12.). 4. 1942: 99. at ca. 36. The evidence for this final marginal drafting was a layer of limestone chips deposited at the base of these walls (Loud 1948: 47. 25. which partially coincides with the Israelite Omride dynasty that is credited with inaugurating Building Period I at Samaria.

This hypothesis is strengthened when the monumental buildings in the subsequent strata at both sites are seen to exhibit very different structural techniques and are built using a different unit of measurement. Is it possible that this unique set of trademarks was left by prisoners of war who were used as a labor force by the Omride dynasty.52 norma franklin Telalio pattern for added strength (Franklin 2006). but its use on two palatial buildings that also have a unique set of masons’ marks must alert us to the fact that we have tangible evidence for the existence of a group of skilled foreign craftsmen working in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 9th century BCE. Na aman 1997: 123). and the Omride dynasty is also recorded as having used prisoners of war to further their building projects (Na aman 1997: 123). and noticeably different from the techniques used in the previous strata at both sites. or were the builders a group of skilled craftsmen commissioned by the Omride dynasty to build these two palatial buildings? . All these techniques: the Assyrian cubit. Conclusion The use of the Egyptian short cubit as the unit of measurement is not unique. The Assyrians routinely subjugated to servitude their prisoners of war (Zaccagnini 1983: 260). the marginally drafted ashlars. the red guide lines. The question must be raised: Is the simultaneous use of masons’ marks and the Egyptian short cubit the trademark of a foreign workforce? The Mesha Stele records that Israelite prisoners of war were employed as construction workers in Moab (Ahlström 1982: 15. and the Telalio wall construction are peculiar to Building Period II at Samaria and Stratum IV at Megiddo.

J. 1982a. An Outline of Carian Grammar. V. Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art (2nd edition).. 1–2 (Harvard Semitic Series). S. Leiden. In: Wolff. Carian Quarry Markings on Elephantine Island. Masons’ Marks from the 9th Century BCE Northern Kingdom of Israel: Evidence of the Nascent Carian Alphabet? Kadmos 40: 107–116. P. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavation of Tel Jezreel. Vol. Reisner. 1987. On Carian Language and Writing. Kadmos 29: 54–58. P. Fisher. In: Pearson. 2001. Gosline. 1942. ASOR Books No. G. and Sukenik. 2004b. British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. VA: 117–135. C. The Egyptian Approach to Carian. Kadmos 31: 43–50. London. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68: 181–198. . and Nicholson. 7). S. F. 1987. Kenyon. L. A. W. 1 ( Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph No. Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Lamon. N. Tell el-Mutesellim. A. Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen verein zur Erforschung Palästinas versanstalteten Ausgrabungen. ed. Metrological Investigations at 9th and 8th c. Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4/2: 83–92. W. ——. E. 1982b. K. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34. 1948. Schumacher. R. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (110–650 BC) (2nd edition). Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. 5). Shaw. Vol. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 208/28: 77–89. N. 1990. P. Iversen. 1975. Kadmos 26: 98–103. Perspectives on Indo-European Language. 1). Israel. G. de Miroschedji. Kitchen. G. Chicago. W. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. ——. and Shipton. 1991/92. W. 1986. Na aman. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. ——. Warminster. BASOR 342: 95–111. ZDPV 119/1: 1–11. ed. 1992. Chicago: 465–491. S. Samaria: From the Bedrock to the Omride Palace. 1995. E.. Dilke. Band I: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. PEQ 110: 27–28. L. 1924. ——. I. Leipzig. 1987. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). 1982. J. Crowfoot. and Lyon. Ben-David. 1939. ——. Esse (SAOC 59. Loud. ——. Warminster. Franklin. R. The Buildings at Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste No. New Light from Armageddon: Second Provisional Report (1927–1929) on the Excavations at Megiddo in Palestine (The Oriental Institute Communications 9). Albright. K. MA. R. Polomé. 2004a.trademarks of the omride builders? References 53 Ahlström. 2006. The Tombs of the Kings of Israel: Two Recently Identified 9th Century Tombs from Omride Samaria. 1931. Levant 36: 189–202. Ray. M. D.. Tel Aviv 24: 122–128. O. G. Samaria and Megiddo. Vols. M. Ussollos in Caria. 1943. D. ——.. Kadmos 27: 150–154.. Berkeley. L. Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and the Birth of Architecture in Ancient Palestine. G. Chicago. McLean. 1997. Chicago. Guy.. Cambridge. London. 2001. The Carian Script. 1988. A. 2003. G. Strata I–V (Oriental Institute Publications 42). The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt. The Hebrew-Phoenician Cubit. Mathematics and Measurement. New Haven. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. V. Shevoroshkin. 1908. O. ——. 3: The Iron Age (AASOR 21–22: 2–3). A.

. BASOR 277–278: 93–107. ——. Jerusalem. M. M. Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy... Y. 1957. Crowfoot. 3). Carian—Three Decades Later.. 1970. L. 1983. Roma: 131–166. and Kenyon. Stager. 1979. J. JNES 42: 245–264. E. 1960. Sukenik.. New Light on Solomon’s Megiddo.54 norma franklin ——. In: Crowfoot. Y. Serie Scienze umane e sociali). Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen. Yadin. BA 33: 66–96. M. 1972. et al. Gusmani. L. eds. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11). G. La decifrazione del Cario (Monografie Scientifiche. R. London: 34. Shemer’s Estate.. BA 23: 62–68. The Objects from Samaria (Samaria-Sebaste No. London. 1970). 1994. W. 1990. In: Giannnotta. . K. Zaccagnini. C. Shiloh. Megiddo and the Kings of Israel. ——. E.

There is still dispute over the date for the end of one period and the beginning of the next. Dever 1992: 99–110. as opposed to Mazar (1990: 290) who ends the Late Bronze Age in the more traditional date of 1200 BCE. Ussishkin 1985: 213–230.G. 1939: 11–23. 1993a: 706–724. Introduction More then eighty years of intense research have passed since the founders of modern Near Eastern archaeology gathered in Jerusalem to crystallize the periodization of ancient Israel (Palestine Exploration Fund 1923). Albright 1931: 120–121. The scores of papers discussing the transition between the Late Bronze and the Iron Ages that have been published in the elapsed time (e.1 and there is no agreement on the 1 See. Wright 1961: 114. for example. . Ussishkin (1985) who claims that the end of the Late Bronze Age should be dated to the collapse of the Egyptian control over the land at 1150 BCE.CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN THE LATE BRONZE TO IRON AGE TRANSITION IN ISRAEL’S COASTAL PLAIN: A LONG TERM PERSPECTIVE Yuval Gadot Dedicated to the scholar who turned “longue durée” into a Hebrew term.. Kempinski 1985: 399–407. The accumulated mass of unsynthesized archaeological evidence convinced scholars like Albright that it was time to offer a broad and unified periodization for the country such that would avoid “confusion that could lead only to chaos unless the use of centuries was substituted for that period [Iron Age. 2003: 189–195) demonstrate how far we are from a broadly accepted scheme so optimistically envisioned by Albright and his colleagues. Y.g. Oren 1985: 37–56. Finkelstein 1995: 213–239. 1993b: 25–35.]” (Albright 1949: 112). although he acknowledges the continuation of the Egyptian hegemony over the land for another fifty years.

and diachronically. and political structures existing in the region. In the first he claimed that “these changes were so varied from site to site that a regional approach is necessary. Tel Gerisa). See. and finally an evaluation offered of its implications for the way this transition should be envisioned. 1990. In the second lecture he added a proposal for future research: We can make a start by comparing presumably early Israelite sites with early Iron I sites that are demonstrably Philistine. Dever 1987. Against this historical-political reconstruction. to explore the way different cultural groups interacted and influenced each other. An explanation for these contradicting trends will be sought. Tell Qasile) settlements existed side by side simultaneously. and Philistine (Aphek. . as well as those that appear to represent continuing Canaanite influence and culture. to follow the changes that occurred in the region between the 13th and the 10th centuries BCE. The accepted view is that in the period under discussion the region passed from Canaanite to Egyptian.2 Dever has summarized the state of affairs in two public lectures. let alone an accepted reconstruction of the process or the chain of events leading to the transition between the two periods. Against an environmental background I will present seemingly contradicting trends of continuity and change in the material culture and the economical. social. Tel Gerisa. the discussion over the Middle Bronze Age-Late Bronze Age transition: Seger 1975. In this article I aim to pursue the latter. and then to Philistine control. Aphek. Tel Gerisa). Bunimovitz 1992. Israelite ( Izbet artah). (Dever 1993a: 718) Israel’s central Coastal Plain (The Yarkon-Ayalon basin) is a case in point: It is a confined geographical region in which Canaanite (Aphek. for example. Wood 1985: 553). 2 The state of art in the debate over the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I is not unique. This cultural and ethnical meeting point in a geographically confined unit can be studied in two ways: synchronically.56 yuval gadot differences in material culture (Kempinski 1985. no single typology or paradigm will comprehend the overall shift from Bronze to Iron Age” (Dever 1992: 107–108). Egyptian and Egyptianized ( Jaffa. the material culture typifying the sites in the region shows many lines of continuity.

: 11–17). 1980: 25–54.3 The large volume of water flowing through the converged river also caused considerable erosion along its banks 3 For a description of the hazards of the Yarkon. the area would have been highly fertile. Hodder 1987). The springs at Aphek are the second most prominent and stable water source in western Israel after the Jordan River. If care was taken to ensure adequate drainage. 1995b). see Raban 1990–1993: 100. Knapp 1992. which merges with the Ayalon River three km east of its outlet to the sea. The three-hundred-year span reviewed here should be considered a middle-term time range.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age The longue durée Approach 57 Studying changes that took place over long periods of time in a regional context calls for use of the longue durée approach in the spirit of the Annales School (Braudel 1972. The long-term review will help to expose the way the natural habitat affected human living conditions and how this effect was manifested in changes of the social order of the area. The alluvium soils located both at the foot of the Samarian Hills and around the Ayalon River in the south were considered to be highly suitable for the cultivation of many kinds of crops. The Ayalon River has a drainage area of approximately 800 km2 (Grober 1969). . For a large swamp located east of Jaffa.and short-term events reviewed later in this paper (Marfoe 1979. but large seasonal pools and swamps were easily created at their foot. Conceptualizing the region from this point of view allows us to notice cyclical processes occurring over hundreds of years. similar to those existing just fifty years ago east of Jaffa. The main characteristic of the natural environment of the central Coastal Plain (Fig. see Avitsur 1957: 184–197. Finkelstein 1994. thereby creating a framework and enabling better comprehension of the middle. 1993. The kurkar ridges farther west were used mainly as grazing land and for viticulture. Avitsur has shown that in the past the outflow from the springs reached as much as 220 million m3 per year (Avitsur 1957: 24). 1) is the relative abundance of water. The water from the springs together with precipitation runoff from the hills of Samaria are drained naturally by the Yarkon River (ibid. the ability of human settlers to utilize the landscape was determined primarily by their ability to control the abundance of water flow (Amiran 1953: 198). Clearly.

58 yuval gadot and overflow in other places. 2001: Fig. and even small industrial installations located outside the settlements proper. it was home for pastoral groups and other marginal elements of society. when the area became a frontier zone. 7 For Aphek and its hinterland during the Middle Bronze IIa. See also Kletter and Gorzalczany 2001 for a description of pottery workshops that were located outside the main settlements. during times when no effort was made to manage the water resources. 6 During the Early Bronze II. In turn. The first urban system to exist in the area was during the Early Bronze Ib period. and the land virtually became a wasteland. farmsteads. for the rural settlements found around Aphek.5 After its collapse. Getzov et al. swamps and seasonal pools quickly formed. Bunimovitz (1994) has used the longue durée approach when analyzing changes that took place during the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition and suggested that understanding changes that took place in Israel’s lowlands should be done against the background of the ‘shifting boundaries’ model. Gophna and Portugali 1988. the Coastal Plain was governed by a strong and integrated social power and the sedentary population flourished. . Previous studies of other regions in the country have demonstrated the fact that managing and controlling the natural environment—in this case the flow of water and their drainage—is dependent upon social and political conditions: while well-integrated social units have the ability to execute public projects that ensure long-term maintenance of the natural and cultivated habitat. Therefore. see Gophna and Beck 1981. the worsened conditions accelerate social fragmentation.7 This flourishing settlement system completely disintegrated by the Late Bronze Age and the area 4 The first to emphasize the connection between social order and the natural conditions in the Levant was Marfoe in his integrative model (1979). villages. diseases were spread. 5 For the settlement pattern of the area during the Early Bronze Ib. see Kochavi 1989: 54. cf. 11. most of the area became void of sedentary settlements for nearly a thousands years. see Gophna 1996: Fig. Finkelstein 1995c). at other times. 74. See also Greenberg 2002.4 This process has been known to lead to the creation of cyclic shifts between periods: At times. in times of social disintegration the natural conditions quickly deteriorate. surrounded by numerous settlements among them fortified towns like Tel Gerisa and Tell Kana.6 In the Middle Bronze IIa the great city-state of Aphek was established. the only settlements to exist in the area were sites like Tel Dalit—located at the low hills to the east of the plain—while the plains were left uninhabited. Broshi and Gophna 1984. It seems that these settlements should be viewed as the western edge of the settlement system that existed in the highlands at that time (Gophna 1974: 159.

will now serve as a background upon which the specific short-term events that took place during the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron I periods will be evaluated. . Aphek was the first city to surrender peacefully to the king on his march northward (Frankel and Kochavi 2000: 17). swamps and seasonal pools were drained. Gadot 2003: 183–187). In the midst of the 19th century. three decades later. The attested cyclic pattern of sociopolitical transformation. Jaffa turned into a gateway for western influence and for Egyptian immigrants. According to the annals of Amenhotep II. Petrographic examinations conducted on the vessel from Aphek proved that though stylistically the vessel is Egyptian.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 59 was again marginalized and utilized by nomadic groups (Bunimovitz 1994: 181–186.8 Archaeological evidence for Egyptian presence in these early stages is scarce.7: 14. 8 Following Wente and Van Siclen’s chronology 1977. forthcoming. and at Aphek Stratum X14. It is from this period on that we have clear historical and archaeological evidences for strong Egyptian presence. the Yarkon basin was nearly empty of sedentary population (Grossman 1994: 154–156. Egyptian-shaped vessels were found at Tel Michal Stratum XV. for Thutmose III’s campaigns. and diseases were thus controlled (Grossman 1994: 154 and references there). Similar cyclic processes can be discerned in later periods too. that the Egyptians imposed direct control over the region. 5. see Martin et al. It was only after Amenhotep II’s third campaign. 9 For Tel Michal. see Redford 2003 and earlier references there. see Negbi 1989a: Fig.9 Both contexts are dated to the Late Bronze Ib or to the beginning of the Late Bronze II. For Aphek. Using modern technology. 1475 BCE). Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977). which characterizes the region throughout history. During most of the Ottoman period (16th–19th centuries CE). the clay that was used is local. This had triggered off changes in the settlement pattern of the area. The First System: The Egyptian Dominance Egyptian involvement in Israel’s central Coastal Plain probably began after Thutmose III’s military campaign to Canaan (ca.

In both strata the acropolis of the site was occupied by an edifice. the wife of Amenhotep III. This center included a large granary (EA294) in which corveè workers. were employed. both were parts of two fortresses that existed in succession (Kaplan and Riter-Kaplan 1993: 656–657).5. included a large paved courtyard. Herzog. Jaffa continued to serve as an Egyptian political and administrative stronghold (Ahituv 1984: 121). first by J. Palaces similar in plan are rare in second-millennium-BCE 10 For Area X. 2004: 320–25). 1. which extended in front of a room complex (Fig. The earliest structure found in the excavation is the so-called Lion Temple dated by Kaplan to the beginning of the Iron I period (Kaplan and Riter-Kaplan 1993: 658). Excavations conducted at the site of ancient Jaffa. namely Papyrus Anastasi I. describe Jaffa as an Egyptian administrative center (Moran 1992. 2000: Fig. his renewed excavations at the site have proven that the Lion Temple should in fact be redated to the 14th century BCE. EA296.10 while the rest of the site was uninhabited. Literary evidence from the days of Ramesses II. Palace 4430 of Stratum X13. the larger but less preserved of the two buildings. Above the Lion Temple he unearthed the remains of a gate and a fortification wall. and maybe EA138 and EA365. This fortress was heavily burnt and a new fortress was then built on top of its ruins. . an inscription mentioning the name of Ramesses II was found. Goren et al. see Kochavi et al. and are probably the remains of a colonnade decorating its entrance. Kaplan and recently by Z. found in the Amarna archive. Herzog (personal communication). According to Z. show that during this era.60 Jaffa yuval gadot Letters EA294. Two rows of pillar bases were found to the north of the courtyard. sent from neighboring citystates. unearthed ample finds that support the historical evidence. The city-states were also obliged to send guards to serve at the gate of the fort (EA296). 2). On a fragment of the jamb of the earlier gate (Stratum IVb). Inside the temple Kaplan found a lion skull with a scarab bearing the name of Queen Tiy. Aphek Substantial evidence for Egyptian presence at Aphek was found in Strata X13 and X12.

a small garrison. as they both consist of a courtyard extending in front of the room complex. It seems then that the palace was built in a foreign tradition. possibly Egyptian. which resembles Aphek Palace 4430. . at the two large winepresses located northwest of the building (Frankel and Gadot forthcoming). Kochavi 1990). 1990. It can be speculated on the basis of similarities of the ground floor that the 11 Both the use of a colonnade and the location of the court at the front of the edifice are known in Egyptian New Kingdom architecture. military. 13 For a detailed discussion of the finds from Building 1104 and its roll. where most of the palaces were built around an inner court (Oren 1992: 105–120). 1997: 183). The ethnic affiliation of the building’s owner can be inferred from the many Egyptian features evident in the material culture yielded from it: the overall architectural plan. Excavations at the tell. a vintner in charge of the production of white wine. see Kochavi 1978: 1–7. see Gadot 2003: 203–214. for example. and economical purposes simultaneously. Herzog. exposed a Late Bronze II–III edifice located at the center of the site (Herzog 1993: 482–483. and perhaps other kinds as well. bureaucratic. a new public structure was built on top of it: Palace 1104—better known as the Egyptian Governor’s residency. the numerous locally made Egyptian-style pottery vessels (Fig. directed by Z.11 When palace 4430 went out of use. Daviau 1993: 421–422. and laborers executing the hard work that was required (Gadot 2003: 217). See.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 61 Canaan. Gadot forthcoming a. see Oren 1984: 49–50. Badawy 1968. 12 For previous publications of the palace. Lacovava 1997. Tel Gerisa Tel Gerisa is located near the southern bank of the Yarkon River.13 The building must have housed a scribe who was responsible mainly for recording agricultural surpluses stored at the place and maybe even for international correspondence. 3). Higginbotham 2000: 289–290. and the unique faience tablet that must have originated from a foundation deposit of the building (Giveon 1978b.12 A detailed analysis of the finds from within the building and from the open spaces next to it has shown that the building served political. The only palace built in a manner similar to the one at Aphek was found at neighboring Tel Gerisa. for a discussion of its architectural layout and its Egyptian features. Leick 1988. the use of blue plaster to decorate the upper floor mudbricks. The use of a colonnade is also rare.

It seems that while the social and political elite governing the estate was culturally Egyptian. which had turned into a governing stronghold. As the scarab was found in a later pit. Tel Gerisa too was home to an Egyptian estate. jewelry. A full reconstruction of its nature awaits final publication. 14 15 . see Na aman 1981.15 other parts of society consisted of a local Canaanite population that kept its traditional way of life. never to be rebuilt. the Egyptians decided to annex the territory of the central Coastal Plain from Canaanite control and turn these lands into official estates. It seems then. Merneptah. and maybe Gerisa were violently destroyed.14 But Egyptian dominance over the area did not wipe out Canaanite presence. see Gadot forthcoming b. it can only prove that Aphek existed during the time of Ramesses IV or later. that like Aphek. The picture that emerges from the three sites excavated in the Yarkon basin vis-à-vis the available written sources.62 yuval gadot palace at Tel Gerisa was also built in an Egyptian tradition. they could also have been locals who had emulated Egyptian culture (Higginbotham 2000). 17 For Izbet artah. 1). The view of the present author is that scarabs should be used in dating Stratum X11. The territory was governed from Jaffa. On the contrary. Aphek. most of the material evidence found during the excavation such as ceramic vessels. Aphek and Gerisa were turned into royal or temple estates each assuming both economical and political duties. which post-dates the Egyptian center of Stratum X12. the settlement pattern around the Yarkon-Ayalon basin had completely changed (Fig. shows that during the second part of the Late Bronze Age. 16 A single scarab of Ramesses IV was found at Aphek (Giveon 1978a). For Aphek. This does not necessarily mean that they were born in Egypt.17 Both places For similar royal estates located at the Jezreel Valley. and figurines is of the local Canaanite tradition.16 In only two of the excavated sites in the region were remains dating to this period found— Izbet artah III and Aphek X11. see Finkelstein 1986. It can therefore be speculated that the Egyptian system around the Yarkon River collapsed at the end of Ramesses II’s reign or during the early days of his successor. The Second System: No Man’s Land By the time of the 20th Dynasty in Egypt. The Egyptian centers at Jaffa. The latest datable finds originating from the three centers are from the time of Ramesses II.

continued to evolve uninterrupted. The nearest political entity at that time was probably at Gezer. flasks. and by the appearance of Philistine-related Bichrome pottery at all sites dated to this phase. reflecting daily activities of the local population.18 but here too. like simple open bowls. The harsh natural conditions. no public architecture or wealth accumulation can be discerned. 1). and storage jars. there are no signs to suggest that Gezer actually exercised political power over the region. and 20. cooking-pots. Finkelstein 2002: 281). pottery types 1. These changes are indicated mainly by the shift seen in the settlement pattern (Fig. which became an Egyptian stronghold during the days of the 20th Dynasty (Singer 1985: 116–117. Swamps and seasonal pools spread and brought with them diseases. The lack of central authority led to the deterioration of environmental conditions as the overflow of water from the natural springs was not drained. Gadot 2003: 144). 2. Even so. The disappearance of Egyptian hegemony left a political void in the region. There are clues that Azor was also settled. . other clay vessels styled in local tradition. we know today that the Philistines initially immigrated only to the southern 18 For Late Bronze/Iron Age finds at Azor. see Gophna and Busheri 1967. exploiting it for their needs and pushing the more stabilized groups out. The Third System: Philistine Exploitation The sociopolitical order within the area and the ethnic make-up of the population changed once again with the arrival of the Philistines. in their turn. Apparently. continued to be manufactured with minimal stylistic changes (Finkelstein 1986: 198. Bunimovitz 1988–1989. Nomads and other marginal elements of society moved into the region. escalated social disintegration. Continuation can be seen mainly in the ceramic tradition. Not all components of material culture changed with the collapse of Egyptian hegemony.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 63 were modest villages lacking public architecture. Based on material culture. changes in the sociopolitical order affected only some aspects of material culture—mainly those reflecting Egyptian presence or influence. While the Egyptianized pottery vessels disappeared from the assemblages altogether. Other parts. Maeir 1988–1989. 1986–1987.

Mahler-Slasky and Kislev forthcoming. 5 compares Late Bronze cooking-pots found at Aphek and Iron I cooking-pots found at Tell Qasile. The lack of a central governing power and social fragmentation were used by the Philistines who exploited the region for their economic needs. These changes should be viewed as For a detailed description of the finds at Philistine Aphek. among them a threshing floor occupying most of the upper tell. like the Yarkon region (Mazar 1985a: 119–120. But the marked change in settlement pattern and the sudden appearance of the Philistine Bichrome tradition tells only part of the story. see Gadot 2003: 224–230. for similar results of examinations of finds from Tell Qasile. Gadot 2006). Ashdod. Gadot forthcoming b). 19 .64 yuval gadot Coastal Plain. 4). The town was preplanned with a temple occupying its center. Small farmsteads were established at places like Tel Gerisa and Aphek (Herzog 1993: 483. to places like Ashkelon. the vessels stayed morphologically similar over the years. and the only differences are stylistic changes in the shape of the rim. All of these are indications of wealth accumulation and social stratification. Singer 1985. 2006. It can be speculated that the social elite at Tell Qasile served as a mediator between the small farmsteads located next to the Yarkon River. Apparently. 20 See Yasur-Landau 2002: 413. large courtyard houses surrounding it. The finds from Aphek. Continuity of tradition can be observed spanning the entire range of the material culture: from features pertaining to daily life activities to the design of the temples: Cooking-Pots Fig. where agricultural surplus was produced. A larger settlement was built at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1980.20 thus indicating strong ties between Ashkelon and Aphek. Stager 1995). 1985a). and smaller four-room houses at the outskirts of the site. and the large city-states to its south. see Yellin and Gunneweg 1985. Only several decades later did they turn their attention to areas surrounding their new homeland. As in the two earlier periods. at the heartland of the Philistine territory (Gadot 2006).19 teach us that it was a small agricultural center responsible for the production and organization of nearby agricultural fields. Examination of the provenance of cultic and administrative finds from Aphek show that they were made at Ashkelon (Fig. the material culture shows strong ties mainly with the Canaanite tradition. and Ekron (Mazar 1985b.

A. being the first supposedly Philistine temples to be unearthed. but soon after their arrival. see Killebrew 1999.23 In any case.21 Cookingpots were used for food preparation and that they did not change in the course of time reflects the fact that no major change in food preparation and consumption habits occurred. 21 22 . local traditions began influencing their repertoire of decorative motifs (Dothan 1982: 215.: 95. 54). the vessels have varied cultural origins. As Mazar shows. Mazar’s in-depth study of the temples and their cultural origins has shown that the origins of the architectural plan of these temples and of the cult vessels found in them are not rooted in any specific culture For a comprehensive study. for cooking-pots from Aphek. but most of them continue local Canaanite traditions in their shape and decoration (ibid. see Gadot 2003: 123. alien to local traditions. This notion is true also for the assemblage of cult vessels found in association with the temple (Mazar 1980: 78–121). see Mazar 1985a: Type CP2 and CP3. For philistine cooking-pots found at Tell Qasile. There is more than one way to explain how Canaanite motifs found their way into the Philistines’ repertoire: from simple influence of neighboring cultures to the possibility that a certain percentage of the Philistine population was actually of local origin. The limited number of Philistine cooking-pots found both at Tell Qasile and at Aphek22 further supports this claim.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 65 evolutionary and have no known functional implication. Analysis of the decorative motifs found on the pottery assemblage from Tell Qasile has shown that it represents mainly local traditions (Mazar 1985a: 103). Mazar 1985b: 106). 119). it is clear that the Canaanite culture and its bearers in the southern and central Coastal Plain of Israel did not disappear following the Philistine take-over of the land. 23 See Ellenblum 1998: 277 for a similar reconstruction of the Christian population in the country during the Crusader period and the differences between foreign “crusaders” and local “Franks”. Killeberw (above n. Pottery Vessel Decoration The Philistines brought with them a whole range of decorative designs. Temples The Tell Qasile temples of Strata XII–X have always attracted scholarly attention.

and founded city-states. Similar to decorative motifs previously discussed.g. evolving Philistine culture shows that the Canaanite culture did not disappear following the arrival of the Philistines. None of the social elements occupying the region were organized enough to keep environmental conditions stabilized. settlement patterns. the appearance and disappearance of Egyptianized pottery. Bunimovitz 1990: 214). and the appearance of Philistine Bichrome pottery). Approximately a century later offshoots from Philistine Ashkelon migrated into the area and established a new sociopolitical order. but the fact that Canaanite traditions found their way into the new. The first to do so were the Egyptians who turned Jaffa into one of their strongholds in Canaan and turned the plains along the Yarkon River into royal or temple estates. Between these two colonizing systems the area had been marginalized and no single centralized social group had control over the land. see also Negbi 1989b: 215–219.. While some aspects of the material culture changed radically (e. 2000: 216. Twice the initiation of the new social order was brought about by an outside political power that had taken advantage of fragmented local social groups in order to exploit the region economically. The Egyptian colonizing system ended violently. swamps and seasonal pools formed.66 yuval gadot and demonstrate many Canaanite features (Mazar 1985a: 68. others show strong ties with the local Canaanite tradition and the changes they display are only small stylistic evolutions. The illustration in Fig. thus. 6 does not represent the full complex picture of continuity and change and an . But the discontinuity of the sociopolitical order is only one side of the story. these Canaanite features could be the result of cultural influence. Discussion New sociopolitical organizations had emerged along the Yarkon-Ayalon basin during the Late Bronze–Iron Age three times in succession. spreading diseases that eventually pushed sedentary population out of the region. 6). One fact that stands out in the discussion is the clear discontinuity between the three social entities (Fig. The second were the Philistines who immigrated into the region from the south in order to exploit it. Following this break a new social system emerged characterized by weak social institutions. Nomads and other marginalized groups moved into the now-vacant area.

2000: 79–80).continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 67 alternative model should be sought. systems tend to exhibit long periods of stability followed by short periods of strong fluctuations and chaos.” existing in the larger system will interfere with the struggle over dominance in the sub-system and enslave it. Out of the instability a new stabilized order emerges until it too collapses. In a recent article Portugali offered to employ self-organization theory. The theory of selforganization presumes that the “order parameter” grows from within the system and enslaves it. Portugali recognizes three levels of systems (Portugali 1994: 211. rival forces—“order states”—compete between themselves until at one point a new “order parameter” emerges and enslaves the other competing orders. It has to be remembered that the sociopolitical system that existed in the Coastal Plain did not exist in isolation. and the local sub-system: Israelites. During this time. the system is governed by an “order parameter”. Canaanites. In fact. but Israel’s Coastal Plain is a sub-system within a greater system. . the regional sub-system existing in the Land of Israel. When dealing with the emergence of ancient Israel. Being open systems it has to be remembered that they interacted constantly. During the second part of the Late Bronze Age. the Egyptians subdued the sociopolitical system existing in the region. to analyze changes in the social order of ancient Israel (Portugali 1994. The social structure in Israel’s central Coastal Plain should certainly be viewed as an open and complex system and as such the rules of self-organization may be applied in order to describe changes that took place at this region. the central Coastal Plain should be viewed as a sub-system within other systems—larger in scale. developed by physicians in order to understand the mechanism of changes in complex and open systems. 2000). and Philistines.” The region entered a long period 24 An open system is one that is “in constant interaction with its environment. the global system of the Late Bronze Age.” Complex systems are systems in which their “parts are so numerous that there is no way to establish casual relations among them” (Portugali 1994: 209). thus stabilizing the system (Portugali 2000: 70–81). after a period of fluctuation and political fragmentation. and events in one system influenced the development of the other systems. when it disintegrates the system enters a period of instability. it is not impossible that an external “order parameter.24 According to this theory. During the long period of stability. As such. establishing their own hegemony as an “order parameter.

This model was offered because earlier literature emphasized the changes that took place rather than continuity trends (see. It is apparent then that the transition between the Late Bronze and the Iron Age I in the central Coastal Plain is characterized by both continuity and change. Conclusion The Egyptians captured and enslaved the Canaanite central Coastal Plain. Wright 1961: 114). This enslavement can take physical and material forms.): the sociopolitical order changes from one stabilized position to another with a short period of instability in between. becoming the dominant sociopolitical order. A period began during which no “order state” was able to subjugate the whole region. they do not cease to exist but merely become incorporated into the new system (Fig. Albright 1949: 10. For reasons beyond the scope of this paper Egyptian hegemony ended. as it offers a number of models that explain changes (Portugali 2000: 81 ff. Using the terms offered by the selforganization theory. 7). but they did not wipe out earlier local culture (Fig. If so. but it can also be a cognitive one. The regional approach to dealing with the question of the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition has led researchers to recognize the diverse . changes that took place during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in the central Coastal Plain are to be viewed as furcative changes (Portugali 2000: 82–83). 7). for example.68 yuval gadot of stabilization. leaving the earlier culture in the collective historical memory. during which a few “order states” competed over hegemony in the region the Philistines became the dominant power in the area. what did happened to it? Or in terms of selforganization theory: What happened to the competing “order states” when the new “order parameter” emerged? According to the theory. again only subjugating the local culture. After a period of instability. Out of the chaotic conditions a new “order parameter” emerged. Self-organization theory also helps to understand the continuation seen in the local Canaanite tradition. during the Late Bronze Age. The transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age I was normally viewed by scholars as a stratigraphical change (ibid. The earlier order vanishes completely with the establishment of the new order. This was the Philistines who took over the region and created stable political and environmental conditions. The identification of cultural continuity proves that the earlier social formation did not vanish.).

explaining the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 69 and fragmented history of the country. These diverse and fragmented regional pictures will eventually create a large detailed mosaic of the country as a whole. . If we wish to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the social transformation that took place at the close of the second millennium.25 The natural environment of the central Coastal Plain is unique. see Greenberg 2002. human attitudes toward these natural conditions are also unique. 25 For a similar approach for understanding the birth of urbanism. we must first recognize the different cultural regions making up ancient Israel at that time and acknowledge that each had its own local and environmental histories. Hence.

I. In: Biran. Oxford. K. H. ——. W. M. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. ——. and Na aman. 1949. J. 1992. . An Egyptian ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Gezer? Another Suggestion. Hyksos. and Proto-Israelites. 1992. 1998. On History (translated by Sarah Matthews). R. I. ——. M. BASOR 253: 41–54. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 149–177. and Sharp-Joukowsky. The Third Campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim and Its Historical Results. Problems in the “Ethnic” Identification of the Philistine Material Culture. Biblical Archaeology: Death and Rebirth. Izbet artah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha ayin. Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze–Iron I Transition. and Aviram. 1993a. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century BC from beyond the Danube to the Tigris. G. Israel (BAR International Series 299). and Gophna. Jerusalem. N. Bunimovitz. eds. F. 1984. 3: The Empire (The New Kingdom). Finkelstein. Jerusalem: 179–202. Tel Aviv 15–16: 68–76. eds. 1931. ——. EI 23 (Avraham Biran Volume): 21–25 (Hebrew with English summary). A. Braudel. 1990. 1957. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. eds. and Na aman. The Yarkon: The River and Its Environment. Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents.. In: Ward. ——. The Settlement and Population of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age II–III. Vol. S. London. F. In: Finkelstein. BASOR 74: 11–23. ——. Egyptian Destruction and the End of the Palestinian Middle Bronze Age. ‘Sea Peoples’. Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. 1993b. 1980. 1986. 1995a.. A.70 yuval gadot References Ahituv. Broshi. 1939. 1987. R. N. ——. Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Levant 22: 75–81. Dubuque: 99–110. S. ——. Amiran. 1994. 1972. S. W. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. 1994. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1988–1989. New Haven. The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine. W. A History of Egyptian Architecture. I. 1968. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Cambridge. Badawy. Dever. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. IEJ 3: 192–209. M. The Late Bronze–Early Iron I Horizon in Syria-Palestine: Egyptians. New York. Sheffield. Albright.. Avitsur. 1993. ——. M. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 11: 105–129. A. 1990.. Jerusalem: 706–724. In: Finkelstein. T. Jerusalem: 150–178. ——. 1982. The Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine. 1953. What Remains of the House that Albright Built? Biblical Archaeologist 56: 25–35. The Archaeology of Palestine. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Tel Aviv 17: 210–222. The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Daviau. The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia BCE. eds. Middlesex. ——. Tel Aviv 22: 213–239. P. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Ellenblum. D. ——. Dothan. Canaanites. 1984.

eds. Forthcoming a. 1981. P. E. Gadot. eds. Gophna. 1995b. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 21: 7–8. 2001. London and New York. 2006. Pazz. N. N. 1969. Greenberg. Forthcoming. Fouilles et travaux de l’Université de Tel-Aviv: découvertes égyptiennes récentes. BASOR 341: 21–36.. and Yadin. T. R. Y. ed. Forthcoming b. The Western Ayalon Basin. . Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Gophna. 2004. BASOR 269: 11–28. In: Kochavi. Gadot. 2003. 13). R. Y. ——. Tel Aviv. Y. Frankel. Tel Aviv University). Finkelstein. Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Perspective. 1978a. E. Tel Aviv: 16–38. Aphek II: The Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Y. and Portugali. 2000. 1997. 1974. 1988. 1996. ——. Beck. Y. ——. Gerisa. Two Notes on Early Bronze Age Urbanization and Urbanism. Tel. dissertation.. Goren. The Drainage System and the Exploitation of Water Resources. Tel Aviv.. The Rural Aspect of the Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II. Tel Aviv: 32–48 (Hebrew). M.. Frankel. Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 2002. Z. 1995c. M. Getzov. 1994. In: Levy. Gezer Revisited and Revised.. Gadot. Aphek Antipatris I: Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972–1976 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Tel Aviv 8: 45–80. Grober. eds. ——. 2002. M. S.. Herzog. Tel Aviv. Gadot. London: 349–365. E. In: Kochavi. NEAEHL 2: 480–484. EI 27 (Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume): 189–195 (Hebrew with English summary). Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. New Canaan. Tel Aviv.D. eds.. D.. and Gophna. ed. Iron Age Stratigraphy Strata X11–X6 In: Kochavi. M. In: Kochavi. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. Tel Aviv 22: 47–69... I. R. Tel Aviv 5: 188– 191. Y.. Tel Aviv. ——.. The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel during the Early Bronze Age (Ph. Two Unique Egyptian Inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Aphek in the Sharon and the Philistine Northern Frontier.. M. Stratigraphy of the Late Bronze Strata X14–X12. Gophna. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and Its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine. Y. 23). ——. The Great Transformation: The ‘Conquest’ of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States. History of Aphek-Antipatris. Aphek II: The Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University).D. The Archaeology of the City: Architectural and Social Aspects of Urbanization (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. S. Giveon. P. 2003. Gophna.. Bulletin de la Societé Francaise d`Égyptologie 81: 6–17.. The Winepresses in Area A.. and Yadin. Y. Azor. E. and Beck. and Na aman. ——. Aphek II: The Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). R. and Busheri. and Kochavi. Tel Aviv University).continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 71 ——. R. and Gadot. R. ——. Excavations at Tel Dalit: An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. 19). Grossman. 1967. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). R. ——. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land.. dissertation. 1993. In: Morton. M. 1978b. Tel Aviv. and Yadin. E.. Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Central Coastal Plain (Ph. Tel Aviv 29: 262–296. and Yadin. R. Y.

The New Kingdom Royal City. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 108). E. Aphek Antipatris I. EI 18 (Nahman Avigad Volume): 399–407 (Hebrew with English summary). 1985. Sheffield. 8). Erlangen.. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). W. 1978. ——. eds. Y. ed. Jr. Tel Aviv. The Amarna Letters.. ——. 1989a. ed. The Contribution of the Long Term.. Knapp. ——. Levant 33: 95–104. The Overlap of Cultures at the End of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age. Archaeology. and Goren. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture.. E. A. The Archaeological Context of the Aphek Inscriptions... Tel Aviv: 1–7.. . History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Baltimore.. Excavations at Tell Qasile II: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds. R.. Tel Aviv. 1988–1989. London and New York. Negbi. 1993. Aphek-Antipatris 1974–1977: The Inscriptions. ed.. Atlanta: 83–126. Singer. 2000. I. Jerusalem. Aphek II: The Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). A. Y. Kochavi. Aphek-Antipatris: Five Thousand Years of History.. London and New York. Y. Remarks on a Supposed Egyptian Residency at Gezer. Annales and Ethnohistory. Jaffa. A.72 yuval gadot Higginbotham. The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria. H.. M. New York. Gadot. M. 1992. M. and Demsky. ed. D. O.. Rapp. Appendixes (Qedem 20). 1992. Kletter. Tel Aviv 15–16: 65–67. Martin. Moran. 1988. 1987. A. D. 312). ——. M. N... In: Kochavi. L. G. G. A. The Temples and Cult of the Philistines. T. Mahler-Slasky. R. M. Y.. NEAEHL 2: 655–659. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Archaeology. E. In: Kochavi. Na aman. 2001. Marfoe. Hütteroth. Z. O.. 2000. The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture. I. 19). 1997. Jerusalem. 1977. M. Technological. Y. A Middle Bronze Age II Type of Pottery Kiln from the Coastal Plain of Israel.. I. and Gorzalczany. eds. In: Hodder. eds. Mazar.. eds. and Kislev.. 1990. ——. IEJ 31: 172–185. and Yadin. A. 1990. Food Remains from Area X. Excavations at Tell Qasile I: The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects (Qedem 12). 2000. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible.. Killebrew. Cambridge. and Functional Study. Gadot. 1989. Excavations at Tel Michal. Aphek II: The Acropolis (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). M. Leick. S. 1999. Society and Polity at Bronze Age Pella: An Annales Perspective. B. 1981. E. Excavation of Areas A and B: The 1972–1976 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Late Bronze and Iron I Cooking Pots in Canaan: A Typological. 1985b. Archaeology as Long Term History. and Yadin. Rainey. 1985a. ——. E. Jerusalem. In: Oren. Glock. Kaplan. P.. Israel (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. K. Aphek in Canaan: The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds (Israel Museum Catalogue No. P. W. Tel Aviv: 43–63. Forthcoming. Lacovava. eds. Hodder. The Egyptian and Egyptianized Pottery Assemblage from Tel Aphek. 1993. In: Kochavi. Leiden. Kempinski. and Ritter-Kaplan. Bronze Age Pottery (Strata XVII–XV). Maeir. L. BASOR 234: 1–42. Philadelphia: 213–232. M. Beck. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. In: Kapitan. and Yadin. A. Gadot. the Pottery. Cambridge: 1–8. In: Herzog. and Negbi. Conclusions. A. A. E. 1979. Tel Aviv. ——. IEJ 35: 95–107. J. Historical Geography of Palestine. and Abdulfattah. Forthcoming. 1980. Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. Kochavi. C.

Garden City: 85–139. Yellin. C. A. The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE).D. and Reich. X.. B. E. Berlin. and Gunneweg. eds. E. 1994. The Archaeology of Palestine. Hughes (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Chicago: 217–261.. J. ed. XI and XII. L. E. J. Stager. F. 1992. D. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. In: Mazar. In: Tubb. 1985. In: Kempinski. EI 20: 215–219. G. Toronto. and Na aman. ——. The Temples at Tell Qasile—Additional Comments on Their Architecture and Cultic Affinities. Studies in Honor of George R. ——. 1985. 1985. Singer. University of Toronto). 1975. Israel People and Land: 7–8: 95–113 (Hebrew with English summary). Leiden. Yasur-Landau. Palaces and Patrician Houses in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.. A. Jerusalem: 203–217. London: 213–230. J.D.continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 73 ——. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. Jerusalem: 105–120. Jerusalem: 111–117. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Raban. Appendixes (Qedem 20). A. 1977. T. ed. E. Seger. J. I. 1990–1993. the Pottery. In: Levy. Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: An Investigation of the Terminal LB IIB Phase (Ph. EI 12: 34*–45*. The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia. A Chronology of the New Kingdom. 2000. London: 332–348.. 2003. D. In: Finkelstein. 1995. J. H. 1923: 54–55. 1985. Notes and News. Palestine Exploration Fund. Provenience of Pottery from Tell Qasile Strata VII. The Bible and the Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. The Ancient Harbors of Jaffa. and Wente. eds. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. dissertation. The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Conclusions. F. 2002. 1989b. Ussishkin. A. An Egyptian “Governor’s Residency” at Gezer? Tel Aviv 13: 26–31. ed. Self Organization and the City. J. Portugali. Wente. I. E. ‘Governors’ Residencies in Canaan under the New Kingdom: A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. In: Wright. E. Social Aspects of Aegean Settlement in the Southern Levant at the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE (Ph.. eds. N. Tel Aviv University). ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Tel Aviv. E. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Journal of Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14: 37–56. 1961. D. 1985. 1986–1987. R. . Theoretical Speculations on the Transition from Nomadism to Monarchy. G. and Van Siclen. Wood. 1923. ——. In: Johnson. N. Wright. Tel Aviv 12: 109–122. The MBII Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective. Oren. Excavations at Tell Qasile II: The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds. D. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement April. Redford.. dissertation. C. G.

.

The Byzantine period (Gazit 1994). 13: 19 Introduction The south of the Lower Besor region is located in the semi-arid climatic zone of southern Israel (Shachar et al. . The natural climatic circumstances of the region and its soils form conditions suitable for the growth of dense annual shrubbery. 1995: 27). and what cities they be that they dwell in. . The rainfed agriculture borderline—the 250 mm annual average isohyet2—cuts across its center from east to west (Gazit 1986: 39–49). .PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SETTLEMENTS IN THE SOUTH OF THE LOWER BESOR REGION: TWO CASE STUDIES1 Dan Gazit . or in strongholds . 2 The isohyet is a line on a map connecting points that receive equal amounts of annual rainfall. Meshel 1977. Arrays of permanent settlements were established in the heart of the Besor region plains during three distinct periods: The Iron Age IB (Gazit 1995). whether in tents. . characterized throughout the ages by its pastoralist lifestyle. Cohen 1991). 1 The spatial approach to the phenomena presented here was formulated during a series of discussions with Ram Gophna in which an attempt was made to delineate the borderline between cultivated land and wilderness in the Besor region from the protohistoric periods to the Late Bronze Age. Tell Jemme and Sharuhen) emerged in the beginning of the Middle Bronze II. Num. . followed by clusters of settlements founded along strategically located roads and trade routes (Gihon 1975. near permanent water sources. Tel Haror. and the turn of the 19th century BCE (Gazit 2000). and set the anthropological background for the southern population of the region. It was in these territories of semi-nomadic populations that four fortified settlements (Tel Sera .

and occasional farming (Gazit 2003). which lie at the edge of the North-Sinai Massive (Rosnen 1953). The dominant geographic element of the Map of Urim area is a loess-covered plateau: The channel of Na al Besor cuts across the length of the western edge of the map and a strip of badlands runs along the eastern bank of the stream. parallel ridges. climate. This data illustrates a gradual southward decline in annual precipitation of 5 mm per km within the limits of the surveyed area. Combined. The southern boundary of the map (latitude coordinate 070) is the northern geographic border of the alutza sand dunes. and the aforementioned rainfed agriculture borderline (latitude coordinate 080) demarcates its northern boundary. are active mostly during wintertime. A topographic rise above the plateau. The dunes form long. located in the channel. and 20 km long from north to south: The northern part of this narrow strip lies at the fringes of a climatic zone that enables subsistence on traditional rainfed agriculture during approximately 70% of the rainy seasons (Gazit 1986: 41). 10 km wide. 1999. this strip of land. The center of the strip overlaps the 200 mm annual average isohyet (latitude coordinate 070). constituting a typical transition zone between the permanent settlements . see Gazit 1988. In terms of geography. The area surveyed is located in the south of the Besor region. The survey for the Map of Ze elim area—adjacent to the Map of Urim area from the south—was completed by the end of 2001 and its results have been handed in to the Israel Antiquities Authority for processing and publication (for preliminary reports. creates a 20 m high geologic terrace. Remains from all periods provide proof to human activity that took place at the fringes of these valleys—hunting. along the eastern edges of the map. the two survey maps create a 200-km2 strip of land. 2002). and in the southern border of the strip (latitude coordinate 060) annual average rainfall is approximately 150 mm. and cover most of the area of the Map of Ze elim (apart from the northeastern corner of the map). animal husbandry. and valleys of up to hundreds of meters wide stretch between them.76 dan gazit Survey Maps The Map of Urim was published as part of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (Gazit 1996). there is no substantial difference between present precipitation levels and those of the past three millennia (Goodfriend 1990: 130). and settlement. According to recent data gathered during paleoclimate research carried out in the Negev. Several springs.

offering the term a erim to describe its sites based on the biblical terminology for settlement hierarchy: City. Gophna was the first to recognize this new settlement wave (Gophna 1961). Thorough archaeological excavations have not yet been undertaken in such a erim. Iron Age IB There are 36 large Iron Age IB sites3 known in the Besor region: 27 in its south. towns (banot).permanent and temporary settlements 77 to its north and the temporary sites to its south. with her towns and her villages. 15: 47: “Gaza. and analyses of pottery and settlement distribution lead to the following conclusions (Gazit 1995: 82–88): 3 A large site is defined as one in which remains are spread consecutively over an area of at least 2500 m². near Na al Besor and on the plains (five of which are in the north of the alutza sand dunes). The sites in the Map of Ze elim area will be introduced in the Map of Ze elim survey publication.4 The appearance of a dense array of sites is notable in comparison to the sparse settlement pattern of the previous period: Only two small Late Bronze Age unfortified sites have been identified in this area. possibly seasonal. Several points in the badland area of the stream and some close to campfire remains in the south of the region yielded a small number of Iron Age IB sherds. Approximately one third of the sites is situated in the examined strip of land. The results of probing.”). and smallscale probing was conducted only at a small number of sites. the assessment of the nature of these settlements is based chiefly on survey results (Gazit 1986: 111). Josh. Gophna. surveys. Two additional sites were recently discovered as a result of archaeological inspection. thus. In order to do so. unwalled site. eight sites on Bronze Age tells in the heart of the region.. see Gazit 1995. we will test two settlement arrays that existed within this zone during two periods: the Iron Age IB and the end of the Byzantine period.g. and villages ( a erim) (e. These sites are all unfortified. One of the sites is to be published as part of the Map of Mivta im (114). conducted under the supervision of Lehmann (Lehmann forthcoming). 4 For a summary of finds known until 1995. can serve as an effective paradigm for examining the conduct of a population in relation to the nature of its settlements—from campsites to urban settlements. as well as others. . and one site in its north. believes that the biblical a erim refers to the lowest ranking settlement in this hierarchy: a small.

• Most of the settlements of the system were abandoned between 1000–990 BCE. evident that each site comprised 15–25 densely grouped 5 There is need for further inquiry in order to assess whether or not Haiman’s definition is valid for areas outside the Negev Highlands. Structural remains play a principle role in the description of the character of the sites. or whether there were mudbrick buildings at these sites. • The material culture at all sites is notably poor and seems to represents a minimal assemblage required for survival. It was. Patish. and at five additional sites on the plain. Until now. who conducted several surveys in the Negev Highlands. • Pottery sherds found at sites located on tells. excavations began at an Iron Age IB site near Gilat (directed by P. . The presence of structures is an important factor in defining the function of a site: Haiman. no structure remains have been detected in surveys of sites located further away from the streams. So far. rectilinear structures and access to water sources” as a “campsite” or a “temporary settlement” (Haiman 1993: 53).78 dan gazit • All settlements were inhabited for short periods of no longer than a generation. are discernable at sites located near the streams. Gerar. made mainly of pebbles. Only archaeological excavations will reveal whether this was indeed the case.” is located on the border between the two survey maps (latitude coordinate 070. • The time span of the settlement system is estimated at 50–60 years. Ofakim. 47–48). Stones suitable for building can only be found on ground surface in the channels of streams that cut through the Besor region (Besor.5 The southernmost site in the examined strip of land. Nahshoni on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority). defines a settlement with no “solid construction of large stones. and Hatzerim). in which “solid construction” was detected. Gophna 1966: 44. five sites located in the area of the Map of Ze elim were surveyed. which did not leave traces at surface level. densely built stone structures have been unearthed and two cultic vessels found underneath one of the floors. and contours of walls and stone-built installation. and its formation was the result of a process of three consecutive steps. Recently. To its south. attest to scanty occupation that continued into the Iron Age II. and found to be devoid of structural remains. and which fits Haiman’s definition of a “permanent settlement. on the other hand.

indicating the existence of a tight municipal governing system that is beyond spontaneous development. The pottery assemblages of the Map of Ze elim area sites resemble those of the sites of the Map of Urim area. which are spread over three levels of the naturally terraced banks of Na al Besor. Densely constructed stone structures were found on the middle terrace and west of them the remains of a church with a water well next to 6 These settlements include facilities. an artificially depressed open space designed for public gathering. 9 On the Map of Ze elim the serial number of the site is 122+129. Erikson-Gini. outside the extents of the examined strip.permanent and temporary settlements 79 tent compounds. the assemblages of the Map of Ze elim area sites exhibit handmade Negev Ware. a theatre (?). . Gat during the Map of Patish survey. additional sites are located further along the axis.5 km (30 stadia?). remnants of mosaic floors. dressed-stone buildings. a complex of water-holes.9 Remains of impressive stone structures were discovered on the uppermost terrace and burials were detected south of them.6 The northern border of the strip abuts orvat Malta a. an aqueduct.8 South of the site are remains of a cemetery (Gazit and Lender 1993). 7 The site was surveyed a second time by A. where remains were found of two churches. water wells. At the center of the Map of Urim area lies orvat Be er Shema (Khirbet el-Far). these are nearly absent from the Map of Urim area sites. attributed to nomads (Cohen 1979: 47–49). with two variations: In the southern sites there are mostly sherds of cooking-pots and containers ( jars and pithoi). large structures. The Byzantine Period Three vast settlements of urban nature are located in the area of the examined strip—aligned on a north–south axis. Four of the five sites are positioned along an axis that diagonally crosses the map from southeast to northwest. 22). and a large winepress. In addition. in intervals of ca. sherds of fine decorated ware are rare. public buildings.7 Remains of a cemetery were detected south from orvat Malta a (Gazit 1996: Sites 18. where there are remains of a church. It is not clear whether the ruins had an Arabic name. In the south of the Map of Ze elim area lie the remains of a vast settlement. 5. cisterns. and a winepress. a water well. 8 Further excavations were conducted during summer 2006 by T. a monastery. and high-standard water systems. a fortress.

Discussion The results of this thorough archaeological survey are exceptional in that they provide us with a view of a climatic transit zone that dictates a pastoralist lifestyle for its population. furnaces. and baking stones [tabune]). On the bottommost terrace are the remains of a sophisticated water system designed to capture floodwater from the stream.80 dan gazit it. Did the conduct of the local populations of the two case studies match the accepted scheme? How did the geopolitical background of each period affect this conduct? During the Iron Age IB. located next to campfire remains. pottery sherds (mainly body sherds of containers and cooking vessels).11 and containing burnt stone. and in almost all sites there is indication of Bedouin presence over the last generations (contra Finkelstein and Perevolotsky 1990). In most campsites finds point to more than a single period of occupation. some flint tools.10 Apart from two stone structures. and a small amount of stone implements (mallets. But in many cases the situation is no different in sites rich in pottery finds. there was a vast spread of sites containing stone structures in the north of the examined strip. as well as structures. . Several farm complexes are scattered in the areas between the three settlements. During the Byzantine period. and in its south there was a band of sites that ran southeast-northwest. East of the structures are graves and leveled flowerbeds surrounded by constructed water cannels. grinding stones. The settlement in the north of the Map of Ze elim area is located at the edges of the alutza sand dunes. and east of the cannels are furnaces. the Chalcolithic period and the Iron Age IB (as described in the paper). such as the large sites. 11 Clusters of campfire remains attesting to large-community campsites are known during three periods only: the Epipaleolithic period. all of the above-mentioned sites are remains of short-term campsites. where no 10 I am aware of the problems associated with dating the small amount of pottery collected in 7th-century campsites to the end of the Byzantine period or to the beginning of the Islamic period. installations. there was attested human activity in approximately one third of 400 recorded sites in the part of the alutza sand dunes region that lies within the area of the map (Gazit 1999). and deposits of pottery sherds dating to the Byzantine period found in connection with capacious campsites and agricultural plots.

along Upper Na al Shunra. The sudden appearance of this system of sites in the Besor region. its paucity is evident in the southern area of the strip as well. and was created at a nearby center of workshops. Comparisons between pottery assemblages of the two site types indicate that their inhabitants belonged to the same population. in a path that bypasses alutza. and its disappearance after a period of three generations fit well into the political and economic gap that was formed in south Canaan between the final breakdown of the Egyptian administration in the last days of the 20th Dynasty. and the formation of the new ethnic state in the northeast. nor typically Philistine. The size of both types of sites is similar.12 from which the local population purchased it (Gazit 1995). This axis originates in the southeast. Pottery assemblages from nomad sites may demonstrate a range of types more limited than assemblages of a rural origin” (Rosen 1998: 34). in the days of Saul and David (Finkelstein 1985: 375). The pottery that was in use at the sites is neither typically Judean. specialized in supplying food for the merchant caravans. With the retreat of the Egyptian Empire the autochthonic nomadic population assumed its position in the desert trade routes system (Finkelstein 1988). it demonstrates a synthesis of both influences. or a nomad site. In the southern area of the examined strip. during the second half of the 11th century BCE. campsites were set up along the trade routes. This center was probably located at Tel Haror (Oren et al. rather. 12 13 . The traditional pastoralist balance seems to have been regained. which receives more precipitation.permanent and temporary settlements 81 structures were detected. The system collapsed—perhaps violently (1 Sam. making use of the great innovation of the period—the domestication of the camel. 1991). and each comprises no more than 25 dwelling units. Rosen’s words can be applied to these differences: “Pottery too can be a characteristic of a temporary settlement. The collapse of the Iron Age IB settlement system is clearly apparent from the archaeological evidence: Iron Age II pottery was found in meager quantities in a handful of sites located in the north of the examined strip. 14: 47–48)—when a new polity with aspirations to control the desert routes entered the arena and closed the existing political gap.13 seasonal and permanent settlements founded in its north. the variances in quantities of different forms of vessels derive strictly from matters of functionality.

The short distance (13 km. on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. . Its architectural elements are identical to those of the press found near alutza. alutza functioned as the capital of the provincia. Clear evidence of the special technological relations between the northern sites and the Besor region sites was recently revealed through the Map of Patish survey:15 a winepress. similar to the public winepresses unique to the northern Negev Highlands (Mazor 1981). 15 I wish to express my gratitude to Amnon Gat for granting permission to his make note of his discovery here. a mosaic floor in the church of St. indicate an economic.14 and the location of both on the fringes of the sands area. 408–416. socially and economically linked to them (Rubin 1990: 128–131). was surveyed In Khirbet Irq (Gazit 1994: 173). being a border zone. and anthropologic systematic connection between them. The campsites between the large sites and in nearby stretches of sand were an integral part of the complex socioeconomic system of the northern Negev during the Byzantine period (Gazit 1996: 16*). During renewed excavations at orvat Be er Shema . In addition to the integration of these settlements and their surroundings into the governing and economy systems of the province. the three largest settlements in the examined strip were included in the Gerar Estate (Saltus Gerariticus). Erikson-Gini. or as an independent nomadic system. a half-day walk) between the southernmost settlement in the examined strip and the large settlement near alutza. receiving support from both the imperial military system and from the Church (Dan 1982: 290.82 dan gazit All settled parts of Palestine in the Byzantine period were organized in “municipal areas” and “royal estates” in order to enable tax collection and control (Avi-Yonah 1979: 127). another winepress was discovered. Pottery that was in use at these campsites is similar to that created in the adjacent permanent settlements (Tubb 1986) and they should be seen as pastoralist extensions of those settlements. Rubin 1990: 54). During part of the period. the entire area was treated in a special manner. directed by T. cultic. Stephens 14 alutza is the most northwestern of seven large Byzantine period settlements located in the northern Negev Highlands. In the framework of this administrative division. and also the largest. located on the border between two provinces: Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Tersiasive Salutaris (Avi-Yonah 1979: 125. Either way. The strip thus becomes a link between the settlement complex of the northern Negev Highlands and the harbors of the Gaza region—the destination of the desert trade routes (Gazit 2001) and the starting point of several Christian pilgrim roads to Sinai (Mayerson 1987: 37). 148).

located in the heart of the examined area. The mosaic presents a harmonious array of churchgoers. The conduct of the population pertaining to the nature of its dwelling (temporary camps. farmers. in which the population depends on cattle breeding. cattle breeders. and the given economic constraints and temptations. . is a geographic one rather than an anthropological one. plays a crucial role affecting decisions it makes concerning types of settlement. During the Iron Age IB. permanent camps. seasonal settlements. and permanent settlements) is not spontaneous. making the best of both socioeconomic systems. The political system in which a community operates. During the Byzantine period. dark skinned Africans. Summary The definition of a transition zone between the area in which rainfed agriculture is possible during most years and the desert and pasture area.permanent and temporary settlements 83 in Be er Shema. and shepherds. caravan leaders. serves an exceptional testimony to these relations (Gazit and Lender 1993). there was a shift in preference: from settlement dictated by the potential of territories to serve as pastureland to settlement dictated by the existence of trade routes. state systems possessed complete territorial control of both cultivated and wilderness territories.

1995.. Ben Gurion University. M. 1979. Cohen. 2001. R. The Spice Roads. dissertation. 1993.. eds. Map of Ze elim. Survey. Y. Qadmoniot 46–47: 38–50 (Hebrew). D. 1988.. Abstracts. 1996. Z. A. Ancient Settlement Patterns in the Negev Highlands—Analysis of the Finds of the Emergency Survey in the Negev 1979–1989 (Ph. Sedentary Processes in the Besor Region at the Age of the Sultan Abdelhamid II. S. ——.D. 1986. Sde Boker: 28–77 (Hebrew). ed. and Tsafrir. Map of Mivta im (114) (Archaeological Survey of Israel). Eretz VaTeva 71: 64–66 (Hebrew). M. eds. 1991. Ancient Churches Revealed. Abstracts. 1999. Hebrew University). In: Baras. a Historical Geography. The ‘Fortresses’ of the Negev Highlands during the Iron Age— Settlement Sites of the Desert Nomads. The Land of Israel.. Hebrew University). EI 12: 149–166 (Hebrew). ——. JNES 47: 241–252. Planar Geometry. The Besor Region in the Iron Age I according to Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIII at Tel Sera (M. Gihon. 1987. Michigan. The Limes Sites of the Negev. and Lender. and Perevolotsky. Jerusalem. Gazit. On the Development of Pottery Forms during the End of the Iron Age I in Pleshet and in the Judean Shephela (M. G. Studies in Stable Isotopes for the Reconstruction of the Paleoclimate of the Negev during the Late Quaternary. P. Palaestina Tertia—Pilgrims and Urbanization. 1979. The Besor Region in the Byzantine Period. . M. ——. ——. In: Orion. Y. ——. The Holy Land. Safrai. ——. 2000. Lehmann. The “ a erim” in Southern Pleshet during the Iron Age I. The Church of St. I. ——. Gophna. Jerusalem (Hebrew). forthcoming. 1993. Beer Sheva: 2 (Hebrew). M. ——. I. R. Man and Environment. Y. ——. The Annual Convention of the Prehistoric Society. 1982. Haiman. ESI 110: 99*. The Annual Convention of the Prehistoric Society.. 2002. Map of Urim (125) (Archaeological Survey of Israel). 1975. Mayerson. Dan. Meital. thesis. In: Rosen. 1961. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1990. Jerusalem: 273–276. The Ancient Roads from Petra to Gaza in Light of the New Discoveries. Survey of Prehistoric Sites near Ze elim. Stephen at Horvat Be er-Shema . In: Tsafrir. Finkelstein. Y. E. A.. Y. and Eini. 1998. Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev. from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Occupation. Vol. Y. Qadmoniot 91–92: 129–130 (Hebrew). Atiqot 3: 44–51 (Hebrew). 1985. The Halutza Sands Getting Their Drift. Ben Gurion University... Arabian Trade and Socio-political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth– Eleventh Centuries BCE. S. Beer Sheva: 12 (Hebrew). The Land of Israel in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries: The Byzantine Administration in the Land of Israel. Finkelstein. Tel Aviv University). thesis. D. ——.. Ben Gurion University. Cathedra 45: 19–40 (Hebrew). EI 18: 366–379 (Hebrew). 1966.A. 2003. BASOR 279: 67–88. Book of Abstracts. and Ze evi. G. The Israelite Fortresses in the Negev Highlands. Eretz Magazine 86: 16–17. D. In: Gradus. Jerusalem. Ottoman Beer Sheva Centenary. S. Jerusalem: 265–299.A. 1990. Gazit. 1994. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). In: Rosen. Goodfriend.. ——. Ariel 100/1: 172–178 (Hebrew). eds. 387–418 (Hebrew).. ed. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Beer Sheva: 12.84 dan gazit References Avi-Yonah. Stern. Campsites at the alutza Sands—Land Occupation Strategy. Y. ——. ed. The Besor Region.

Tubb. Cathedra 4: 43–50 (Hebrew). 1998. Urbanization and Settlement in the Desert in the Byzantine Period. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Rubin. Directions of the Sief Sands and the Wind Direction in Sinai and in the Negev.. EI 2: 78–81 (Hebrew). Yekutieli. Y.. Rosen. 1990.. Nahshoni.. N. The Pottery from a Byzantine Well near Tell Fara. The Negev as Settled Land. ed. eds. 1991. S. S.. P. N. 1953. Meshel. R. E. In: Ahituv. Oren. The New Atlas of Israel. A. Qadmoniot 93–94: 2–19 (Hebrew). J. et al. 1977. Rosnen. Studies in Nomadic Archaeology in the Negev and in Sinai. 1995. The Wine-Presses of the Negev. . R. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). The Archaeology of Pastoral Nomadism. Qadmoniot 53–54: 51–60 (Hebrew). PEQ 118: 51–65. A. Beer Sheva: 27–41 (Hebrew). Tel Haror—After Six Seasons. Z. 1981. The Negev during the Persian Period. 1986. G. Aspects of the Archaeological Finds.permanent and temporary settlements 85 Mazor. and Feinstein. Shachar.

.

The pits of Iron Age I Tel Dan—their construction. and their contents—allow us to arrive at a number of historical and socioeconomic inferences.THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF GRAIN STORAGE IN EARLY IRON AGE CANAAN: THE CASE OF TEL DAN David Ilan The way people store their yields in traditional agricultural societies can be an important indicator of social and economic organization. less in Stratum V (Fig. All the Iron Age I levels contained pits—more in Stratum VI (Fig. Concerning Pits Iron Age I remains were found in all excavation areas at Tel Dan (Fig. Of course. public) storage facilities like the famous . Having additionally benefited from Israel’s careful guidance as my dissertation advisor. 1). The first step is to establish a hypothetical framework that will enable us to invalidate or substantiate various interpretive options. Below are several possible pit functions and expectations for evidence that might support each interpretation: Grain storage: For the most part pits are considered grain-storage facilities. 3) and even less in Stratum IVB (Ilan 1999: Plan 6). it is with great pleasure that I contribute this study to a festschrift in his honour. distribution. People dig pits for a number of reasons and several hypotheses can be forwarded for the function of pits in the Iron Age I context (Currid and Navon 1989 and further literature there). 2). In Borowski’s typology of grain-storage facilities those most commonly found in Iron Age I contexts are “grain pits.” while only the much larger (and by inference. The starting point for the following study was Israel Finkelstein’s discussion of pits and grain storage in his classic work The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Finkelstein 1988: 264–269). a given pit may have been subject to more than one use.

it seems unlikely that more than two or three pits for this purpose per extended household would be found. short-term water storage (of which no signs will remain except for basal sedimentation that cannot be differentiated from post-use water-deposited silting). I accept the grain-pit interpretation as the likely one for most. Aphek. Given ethnographic and literary evidence such pits are usually identified as grain pits. see Finkelstein 1986: 79. However. Gadot 2003: 80–82). if broken. . and Aphek Stratum 8 (the later being an early Iron Age IIA context. though perhaps not all pits. Otherwise. for example. while the owner is absent): In this case. It is documented. Borowski’s definitions are adopted here. Currid and Navon 1989: 70–71. one would expect to find assemblages that are restorable. but I know of no investigation yet carried out in the Levant with this goal in mind. In the making of silage. Perhaps phytolithic analysis can detect high proportions of fodder plants. at all periods. Rubbish Disposal: This was certainly the final use of some of the Iron Age I pits at Tel Dan. Tell Keisan Stratum 9a (probably coeval with Dan Stratum IVB). Silos 1400 and 1462. Finkelstein 1986: 126 and references there). into complete objects. and Sasa (see 1 These are just some examples. residues of lactic acid might form. Subfloor Storage of Other Commodities: Many commodities would not have left obvious traces. coeval with Dan Stratum IVA) (Kislev 1980.1 Storage of Household Items (pottery in particular. one has no expectation of fodder plants being preserved in the archaeological record and an empty pit is to be expected. which could be detected if looked for (Reynolds 1979: 78). Despite the dearth of unequivocal evidence. Borowski 1987: 72). Lederman and Finkelstein 1993: 47–48. with no missing parts. carbonized grain in the requisite quantities has been found (and reported) at only a few Iron Age I sites: Shiloh Stratum V. 1993: 354. for others.88 david ilan example at Megiddo Stratum III receive the appellation “silo” (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 66–68. Other possibilities are salted meat (for which chemical analysis of side or base material could detect higher salt levels than is normal). and a few at Shechem. that pits are often used to store fodder and make silage (Reynolds 1979: 77–79. Moreover.

see Hoffner 1967. The large quantities of pottery and animal bones attest to this. and the fact that they are often empty but sometimes contain a secondary deposit of rubbish. 2 3 . as does the variety of vessels represented among the sherds. The archaeological and textual evidence for cultic pits associated with such phenomena is prodigious. Indeed. the construction technique. and fills above them. Composting: One would be hard pressed to demonstrate such a use since the pit would be empty with the lapse of time. For textual references. rather than being widely distributed. Finkelstein 1996: 127. benches. the ethnographic record. this would most often be the case. Synthetic treatments of Iron Age I archaeology unanimously consider the plethora of pits that agglomerate in excavated sites a hallmark of Cf. Such places may have some surface manifestation of ritual activity as well. including the Hebrew Bible.2 But quantities and typological variety are not enough. for example. Ritual Use ( favissa. Perhaps one should search for a thin black line of organic material at the bottom of the pit similar to what is left when contaminated grain decays. 266–267). bothros. This may take the form of organic materials that leave little or no discernible traces.4 I concur with the opinion that most of the pits in the Iron Age I levels at Tel Dan are grain pits (Finkelstein 1988: 102. Though instances where such constructions actually contain grain are confined to the few examples cited above. or biblical ob): In this case one might expect a standardized repertoire of objects and materials left as offerings. However. see Hoffner 1967 and references there. The key to identifying rubbish-disposal pits is that the sherds they contain can be joined to sherds found on floors.3 One would also expect them to be concentrated in places imbued with cultic or spiritual meaning. 4 For archaeological manifestations see. if the ancient texts are any indication. Intact pits that contain large sherds that join to form incomplete vessels are an even better indication.the case of tel dan 89 below). The discussion below proceeds under this assumption. the investment in the regular shape and stone lining of some of these pits suggests that their original. all point to their probable first use as grain pits. primary purpose was something other than sumps or garbage receptacles. Ilan 1991 and references there.

. Greenberg 1987). However. Those that are not stone lined are usually inserted down into the hard-packed pebble fill of the Late Bronze Age (Fig. particularly in defense of rodents and insects. When stone-lined and intact. When this fill was missing. Often. mixing pottery from different contexts. the upper sections tend to collapse inward. though many contained ash that could be interpreted as such (Currid and Navon 1989: 75). None showed unequivocal evidence of firing (a means of fumigation). a stone lining was provided—a sort of patch. sometimes. Some pits are stone lined but most are not. 2. sometimes fired hard. pits are fairly easy to detect. 4). 5). At Tel Dan the lower sections of most pits in Area B-west were easily discerned because they were inserted into the hard-packed Late Bronze pebble layer (Fig.. when the top has been lopped off. but these may not be detected by the excavator (Currid and Navon 1989: 70. the diachronic aspect is less clear (Zorn 1993: 103–113). This supplies a good opportunity for diachronic analysis that is matched perhaps only by Izbet artah and Tell Beit Mirsim (Finkelstein 1986. 5 The Iron Age I context with the greatest number of pits uncovered thus far (a total of 198) is Tell en-Na beh Stratum IV. however.g. as it were (Fig. or if their contents have burned away in conflagration. Rosen 1994: 343–344. the upper sections were not so easy to make out and it is now clear that in several cases material from a pit was excavated together with material from an earlier floor or debris level. Reynolds 1979: 72–76). it is hard to know which is which. If not of stone. Mazar 1992: 289. Finkelstein 1988: 264–269. which must have served the same purpose as the stone lining. 5) while a very few are beehive shaped (Fig. 5). Bloch-Smith and Alpert Nakhai 1999: 75–76). The stone lining is generally considered a means of isolating the contents of the pit or silo from the soil beyond. the lining may originally have been of basketry or mud plaster.5 Pit Construction The great majority of pits at Tel Dan are cylinder shaped (Figs. The large number of pits excavated in successive Iron Age I contexts at Tel Dan were done so with a relatively high degree of stratigraphic control. Particularly when empty.90 david ilan the material culture of the period (e. 4. 6).

Tel Dan is one of only a few Iron Age I sites where this is so (Fig. Shechem. as I do below for Tel Dan. pottery from pits could be restored with pottery from surfaces. some fragments were missed and ended up on floors. As it turns out. 4). Golani and Yogev 1996. did contain complete. . Why were the floors cleared rather than the debris being simply leveled down and built upon? The answer is probably twofold: The inhabitants wished to reuse their old architecture as much as possible. either by natural or human agents. often a surface. Currid and Navon 1989: 69–70.the case of tel dan 91 It is not clear how the pits were sealed in the period of their initial use. though Late Bronze ceramics can make up the majority. see Ilan 1999. benches. only sherds dating to the Late Bronze Age or earlier from the sides and bases of the pits. But since all of the pits seem to have been emptied of their original contents. Currid and Navon 1989: 71). and large quantities of animal bones and destruction debris. so they cleared the destruction debris out. we would not expect to find the sealing intact unless it is a feature. clay and stones. of the following occupation. In many cases at Tel Dan. or a combination of these (Currid and Navon 1989: 70. The others that I have located are Hazor. Late Bronze levels were penetrated. It has been suggested that such finds represent rubbish rather than the original intended use of the pits (Finkelstein 1988: 267.6 While most of the debris was discarded into the pits. Gadot 2003. respectively). The few pits of Strata V and IVB always contained at least some Iron Age I pottery. and Sasa (L5) (Ben-Ami 2001. and some of that comes from the penetrated earlier layers. and other features of the subsequent occupation. Aphek (Stratum X8). At least nine Stratum VI pits contained no Iron Age I pottery whatsoever. This implies that the material in the pits is refuse from cleared floors. since here too. restorable pottery vessels. Some pits however. but it must be proven and explained. 72). Ethnographic and other archaeological data indicate that a variety of capping techniques could be used: animal dung. Pit Contents and Their Implications Many pits contain almost nothing aside from fill. this hunch is correct. They also wished to build over areas that had once been 6 For detailed contexts.

How did the grain pits get empty enough (down to their bases) until it was possible to fill them with what are clearly the fractured contents of living floors? Were their contents first emptied en masse and the erstwhile pits left open? One possible explanation is that the grain had already been consumed entirely. the 7 Another factor to keep in mind is that a series of terraces was constructed on the inner slopes of Tel Dan (which has a crater-like shape) in what appears to have been a unified preparation for house construction. and basal matter were not sampled for phytolithic or other microanalysis. It does not seem likely that the grain contents burned in conflagration since no recognizable quantities of carbonized grain were discerned (when the contents of a full grain pit burn. Flotation was carried out in only a few cases and sealing materials. which must have been empty and visible. This remains a project for the future. that the open. 70 pits in an area of ca. Moreover. In this case. 2] and Area M). 1000 m2). pit-bearing areas were left neglected for some period of time. . most of the pits were simply filled with soil and outdoor rubbish. 2) is similar to that encountered at Izbet artah Stratum II (43: 1275 m2) and Hazor Strata XI–XII (ca. though difficult to demonstrate at this point. especially in the retrospective light of the questions raised here. Fig. the “primary” and “secondary” infilling mechanisms described by Schiffer (1987: 218–220) would apply. a certain portion at the core will be preserved in carbonized form [Zohary and Hopf 1994: 3–4]). a major implication is that the inhabitants no longer wished to make use of the pits—at least not these. For both these reasons the builders cleared the debris from the destroyed houses and filled in the troublesome pits. to provide a level surface for planned construction. would not at least several pits have been forgotten or otherwise preserved with their contents intact? It is only fair at this juncture to remark that the excavation techniques used at Tel Dan were not as precise as one might desire.7 The fact that so few pits contained household rubbish can be correlated to the sparseness of Stratum VI architecture. Intrasite Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Pits The ratio of pits to excavated area in Stratum VI (45: 975 m2. It is also conceivable. perhaps in time of famine. In any event. wall linings.92 david ilan densely arrayed with grain pits (Area B-west [Fig.

which is reserved for seed. It therefore seems likely that Finkelstein is correct in asserting that Area B-west was a sector devoted to grain storage in Stratum VI—a sort of subsurface granary (Finkelstein 1988: 266)—much like the grain-pit fields of Izbet artah. Unlike Areas Y. logic also dictates that they may have been labeled with additional information—date of harvest. Ben-Ami 2001: 151–156). 8 Currid and Navon (1989: 68) note that the Bedouin of the southern Shephelah identified their grain pits by stone markers. Shiloh Stratum V [Lederman and Finkelstein 1993: 46–48]).8 Because there are so many pits that appear to be at least partly contemporaneous. cf. which commodity is contained (wheat. Numbers of pits relative to excavated area in Stratum VI and Stratum V Area B-east B-west H M Y Totals Stratum VI 4 28 1 7 5 45 Excavated area (m2) 350 475 30 65 55 975 Stratum V 1 3 0? 0 0 4 Excavated area (m2) 400 550 30 85 70 1135 In Areas B-west and M there are many more pits relative to their excavated areas than there are in the other areas. The Tel Dan ratios break down by area as follows: Table 1. and Tel Zeror. and perhaps T.the case of tel dan 93 sites and horizons with the densest array of pits reported until now (Finkelstein 1986. B-east. The implication is that they were largely contemporaneous and were somehow marked. Plainly. Hazor. almost in rows (this is mainly true of Area B-west [Fig. the former areas also display little or no architecture in Stratum VI. a number are placed abutting each other. In fact. and perhaps the family to which the pit belonged. Very few of the pits at Dan overlap or disturb each other. these underground granaries were all outdoors. or other). . barely. 2].

the difficulty in isolating Stratum VI dwelling units from within the Stratum V agglomeration makes it hard to assign a particular array of grain pits to a particular structure or complex.94 david ilan The Implications of Grain Pits for Production and Social Organization The analysis of Iron Age I social structure and the architectural layout at Tel Dan lead us to expect that certain grain pits belonged to certain families (batei av in the biblical parlance [Stager 1985]). ignoring the probability that at a given point in time only a portion of the pits were in use. similar to that of the excavated areas. Such calculations may be useful as a heuristic device. for example (Mazar 1981. suggest that storage was organized by multiple-family households. Finkelstein attempted to estimate the number of grain pits per dunam. but their accuracy is questionable. By “families” do we mean multiple-family. there remain many unknown values. Finkelstein himself has suggested that many sites may have specific areas designated for grain storage. extended. Finkelstein 1986). for example). and perhaps even by patrilineal clans that occupied a segment or neighborhood of the settlement (Gottwald 1979: 316). and the total tonnage of grain harvested by the inhabitants of Izbet artah (Finkelstein 1986: 127–128). While Rosen (1986: 172–173) did try to establish statistical limits to reduce the element of uncertainty in the above Izbet artah calculations. However. The question is how these holdings were defined and whether it is possible to identify them in the archaeological record. (b) a fixed measure of the pits’ contemporaneity. however. (c) that all the pits were used to store grain. With regard to the Tel Dan pits. . and on what level within the family was storage organized? The dense agglomerations of pits in Area B-west (and those from Izbet artah Stratum II. the total number of grain pits. as noted above. Such might be the case at Giloh or Izbet artah. Such calculations presuppose: (a) an average distribution of pits throughout the site. One would also expect that a given family’s holdings would be well-defined and recognized by the inhabitants of the settlement. or nuclear households. When primordial Iron Age I levels are excavated and their layouts distinguished. the hypothetical holdings of compounds can be inferred because household units are individuated.

While there is logic in this.9 I feel these patterns can be explained by a combination of demographics and security concerns (elaborated below). this trend should be understood as reflecting social and economic change. Rosen 1994: 344. and Stratum I. Stratum II many (43).the case of tel dan 95 Throughout.g. 10 Revised to some degree to include population elements with other origins in Finkelstein and Na aman 1994: 13. Why Did Iron Age I Inhabitants Store Grain in Pits? Most of the few detailed studies of Iron Age I pits have focused on determining their use and on their storage efficacy. Finkelstein’s criterion for assigning them to Stratum II is that they lack a light-colored brick debris that filled most of the Stratum III grain pits—not a criterion that inspires certainty. The question of why pits. the second part of the hypothesis deserves equal attention. and references in these). Surely. and this bears directly on the question of economic processes reflected by grain-pit distribution. Most Iron Age I sites lack both the diachronic resolution and aerial extent of the Tel Dan excavations. Currid and Navon 1989.10 his emphasis was on the first part of the statement—that concerning settling nomads. plastered. once again. only Izbet artah shows a clear process of changing priorities: Stratum III has a few pits (7). 3–5). Tel Dan Stratum VI has many more pits than do the two later Iron Age I strata. . few (10). rather than other means. both in absolute numbers and relative to the extent of excavation (Table 1). were chosen to store grain in this period has been touched upon. and sealed pits are an efficient means of storing grain and other perishable produce (e. In Finkelstein’s view pit-digging is a “characteristic feature of populations in the process of sedentarization or of rural communities [my italics]” (Finkelstein 1986: 126 and see references there). Reynolds 1979: 71–82. Pit construction has been equally prevalent amongst farmers with long 9 These numbers assume that Finkelstein’s stratigraphic attributions for the grain pits are correct. In the context of his hypothesis that the settlement process was primarily an outcome of sedentarizing nomads. The great majority are sited in an open area between the large central structure and the outer band of buildings (Finkelstein 1986: Figs. but not sufficiently. Aside from Tel Dan.. There can be no doubt that stone-lined. Many could be either Stratum III or Stratum I grain pits or belong to any combination of strata.

41: 8. Indeed. There is perhaps another correlate of complex. But it would be easier and equally efficient to store grain in pithoi.11 Rosen has remarked that grain pits were constructed “to the very minimum. One imagines that some grain pits were sited purposely in even more obscure. this is probably what happened in Tel Dan Stratum V). e. is an important reason for subterranean storage. (indeed. in the Late Bronze Age or during the Iron Age II. references in Currid and Navon 1989: notes 2. unplundered. sophisticated administration that may better explain the use of the grain pit when such an administration does not exist or is perceived to be hostile. this. 17: 15–20. Apparently. The Iron Age I is documented as a period of social and political turbulence. Judg. just-in-case. Currid and Navon 1989). Hence. Even if some of the grain pits were uncovered and their contents taken by an adversary. or from other enemies (see. He called this “‘value engineering’—calculated and conscious saving in building activity. the government tax collector. more complex administration. 11 Multiple grain pits found in the recent excavations at the Iron Age II site of Mo a require that this statement be moderated somewhat (De-Groot and Greenhut 2005). Kislev and Melamed 2000). above-ground facilities. but they can be quickly “unmarked” and therefore safeguarded. he reasons. subterranean grain storage was a matter of expediency rather than the ideal method. more distant locations. or in jars.96 david ilan traditions of permanent residence and land ownership both in Palestine and without.. are characteristic of periods of sophisticated. it can be asserted.g. 6: 1–4). . We have noted that grain pits were probably marked. One of the primary reasons grain is stored in subterranean facilities is to hide it—from robbers. 3). it was not a common practice either before or after the Iron Age I. 2 Sam. local farmers were obliged to provide the Egyptian garrisons and functionaries with grain (Redford 1992: 211. such as have been found in 10th-century-BCE orbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 21–22.” Larger. 1973 and Ilan 1974 in Finkelstein 1986: 127. that is.” that is. the Bible refers to grain storage mainly in metaphors of insecurity and refuge ( Jer. other pits would go undetected and thus. citing Sethe 1907: 719). so as to expend the least effort for the most benefit (Rosen 1994: 344). The Egyptians often timed military campaigns with the harvest and in the Late Bronze Age at least. in ancient times and until the not-very-distant past (see references to Hyde et al.

14 It is also likely that the use of smaller but more numerous pits was a means of reducing risk of spoilage: If a small pit is penetrated by moisture or vermin.: 127). . they were hewn into limestone bedrock (Zorn 1993: 104–105). 13 cf. extended. 70). whether a nuclear. was calculated by experience to match a given rate of consumption. but it is usually difficult to date and assign a function to rock-cut features.8–2. for example. must have harvested much more than the contents of a single grain pit. Rock-hewn pits are found at Beer-sheba (attributed to Stratum IX) and at Tell el-Ful (Lapp 1981: 56–62.13 Once a grain pit was opened. Thus. or spoiled by bacterial or fungal activity. the volume of a grain pit. Herzog 1984: 8–11. that the Izbet artah Stratum II pits were shallow and more numerous than at other sites for this reason (ibid. more are made where there is soil underfoot. A larger silo would mean more grain exposed to moisture. and vermin for a longer time. perhaps an indication of insecurity. or multiple-family household. its contents were removed in their entirety and stored short-term in bins or jars—also vermin proof—located inside the home. 14 And from that point on. This is clear from Finkelstein’s survey of pits in Iron Age I sites (Finkelstein 1986: 124–128). Where the site is founded at or near bedrock. only a small quantity is lost. particularly if the bedrock is hard limestone or dolomite rather than chalk. Why did the inhabitants not make larger grain pits? After all. each family. At Tell en-Na beh however. and a household will consume only so much grain at a time. 12 Chalk would have been a positive byproduct for enhancing agricultural yields and for lime plaster. Zorn 1993: 104–105 concerning the averages and variation of capacity at Tell en-Na beh. The answer is probably that grain keeps best when undisturbed. with the largest number of Iron Age I grain pits excavated anywhere.12 The depth of a pit may also have been affected by the depth of soil above bedrock.the case of tel dan 97 Although it is true that pits are found in Iron Age I “settlement” sites from the northern Negev to the Upper Galilee. there are usually few or none. Finkelstein suggests.5 m3). see Rosen 1994: 343. blight. which is surprisingly uniform across the country (generally averaging 1.

Reynolds gives the following explanation for a farmer abandoning his pit: Apart from ritual reasons which we shall never be able to establish by excavation. which is not enhanced by the accompanying ill odour. (Reynolds 1979: 76) This one example illustrates how individual pits might remain unused. dull browns and violent greens. Finkelstein has asserted that settlements with small numbers of pits could not have produced the quantities of grain sufficient for subsistence and must therefore have depended on exchange with better grain-producing areas to make up the difference (Finkelstein 1988: 269). The process of pits going out of vogue may be reconstructed in three stages: 15 Carrying-capacity analysis is a better tool and its results depend on how much of the slopes were terraced—almost impossible to gauge at this stage. pits may never have been hewn to begin with.98 david ilan Why Grain Pits Went Out of Vogue In some locations. In these places we may hypothesize that pithoi may have been used (although I do not know of an Iron Age I pithos containing charred grain). and empty. by itself. But the presence or absence of pits (“silos”) cannot be the criterion.15 It is almost certain that grain pits (and pits with other functions) went out of use from time to time. . One experiment in operation at present is to monitor its disintegration. the grain should rot down to nothing more than a thin black layer. karstic bedrock. such as shiny reds. visible. The fungal and bacterial infestation can cause strange and weird colourations. In fact. The sites of the Upper Galilee Highlands show relatively few pits. the only possible cause for abandoning a pit is the farmer’s reaction to failure. Yet there is nothing wrong at all with the pit itself. particularly where a settlement was established directly on hard. Such layers have been recorded but never analysed. only with the stored grain. the effects are remarkable. while others were filled. Pits did continue to be used. the whole process of grain pits going out of style was probably a gradual one. When the stored grain is affected by water. no farmer could be blamed for digging a new pit and abandoning the old to the evil spirits. By way of example. for such a judgment. in Strata V and IVB at Tel Dan. and even to be dug. Ultimately. The same holds true for Izbet artah Stratum I. Faced with such a prospect.

We can summarize the change in grain storage techniques with the following diagram: . For one thing.g. more densely populated and builtup settlement. beit av economics (the domestic mode of production) were gradually supplanted by an increasing centralization of production and storage. but not substantially more than in Stratum V. there developed a problem in keeping track of grain pits in a larger. it was found preferable to store grain in pithoi and jars. At some point. of which there are prodigious numbers in Stratum V. better “value engineered. that is. Perhaps central storage facilities were established (real “silos” in Borowski’s terminology [Borowski 1987: 72]) in lieu of erstwhile household facilities. Perhaps too. in sealed pithoi. Gal and Alexandre 2000). probably well-advanced by the destruction of Stratum IVB. misplacement. such as those located in contemporaneous and slightly later contexts (e.” to quote Rosen [1994: 344]) and less prone to spoilage. spontaneous combustion. There is only negative evidence for this at Tel Dan. Part of the grain may have been stored in above-ground facilities that belonged to individual households—those chambers without doorways (see below). and given the disadvantages of underground storage. in Stratum IVB the numbers of pithoi (and pits) are much lower than in Stratum V. It is hard to imagine that yields were significantly less. 3. as suggested above.the case of tel dan 99 1. under a roof. the number of vermin expanded with increased population density and pithoi were deemed better protection against pests. though none has been found yet at Dan. and theft. as soon as you were not afraid of someone taking your stores. Tel Hadar Stratum IV. poor winter drainage. Horbat Rosh Zayit) (Kochavi 1998. or that all the grain was stored in storage jars. perhaps problems with high groundwater. Moreover. And perhaps. Political stability increased and security conditions improved. of which there are many. 2. perhaps grain was now more frequently transported as an exchanged commodity and better access was required. and pit plugs being removed by rainfall and runoff made it much more sensible to store grain above ground. Under these new conditions. These allowed the consideration of other storage methods that were less arduous (i. Other portions may have been going to a central storage place or facility.e..

100 Stratum VI Stratum V Stratum IVB

david ilan > many grain pits and some pithoi > many pithoi, few pits and bins > large above-ground household silos, few pits and bins, few pithoi

A similar scenario for diachronic changes in methods of grain storage, albeit better documented in all its stages, has been reported at Early Bronze Age Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996: 145–147). Pithoi and Their Distribution In Stratum V pithoi were generally found propped up against walls (Fig. 7) and, lacking evidence to the contrary, we can only presume that the same would have been true for Stratum VI—even in the unlikely event that the walls were made of reeds.16 The pits of Stratum VI contain both classic collared-rim and “Galilean” pithoi, fragmentary and complete, in approximately equal numbers.17 But they seem to occur in segregated groups and are not often mixed as whole vessels. Where more than one pithos occurs in a room or pit, the types almost always group together: either “Galilean” pithoi (Fig. 8) or collared-rim pithoi (Fig. 9). This may be an indication of commodity separation and identification, or perhaps it is a question of cultural preference, a point that is dealt with elsewhere (Ilan 1999: 81–85). Silos No feature could be identified unequivocally as a large, central grain storage facility like that of Tel Hadar Stratum IV or Megiddo Stratum III. One of the characteristics of such facilities is a lack of doorways; if anything, smaller openings are the rule. One chamber in Tel Dan Stratum IVB—Locus 605 in Squares B –C/19–20—was a small, completely closed-off room, 1.8 × 2 m in size. No carbonized grain
Cf. Geva 1984. In at least two cases, however, in Stratum VI (Area B-west L7140 and L7183), pithoi were deeply sunk into the ground (when pithoi are sunk they are clearly in situ). 17 For the different types, see Biran 1989; Ilan 1999.
16

the case of tel dan

101

was noted by the excavators, but it is hard to come up with another explanation. In any event, Stratum IVB is the first Iron Age I context where such a closed chamber was encountered, and this at a time when other bulk storage features (pits, pithoi, and bins) were much fewer than in the previous two strata. The circumstantial evidence points to concentrated bulk storage taking place in locations other than where it had been focused before. Bins or Troughs In several places, semi-circular bins were found built up against walls (e.g., Square U18, L4710 in Fig. 10). Obviously, these represent ground floor installations; since they would not have been found intact had they collapsed from an upper floor. Perhaps the best explanation for them is that they were animal feed troughs (Stager 1985: 13–15). At least one also had a large stone basin next to it (again, in Area B-west, L4710). However, they also had the capacity to contain a complete vessel or two: a cooking-pot in Area Y, L3175 and a storage jar in Area B-west, L4710. Hence they may also have served as temporary, ad hoc storage. Summary and Conclusions The storage facilities of Iron Age I Tel Dan underwent marked change from the early part of the period (Stratum VI) to its late part (Stratum IVB). This change is a clear indication of socioeconomic and political change at the site and in the region as a whole. Bulk storage in the early phase (Stratum VI) was characterized by a combination of pit and pithos containers, prevalent throughout the site, but with pit concentrations in open areas. In Stratum V pithoi occur in large numbers while pits seem to have been limited to one per household. In both of the above phases above-floor bins and troughs occur in households as well. In the last phase (Stratum IVB) pits continued to be confined to one per household, but pithoi too are few—again: one or two per household. Bins and troughs are apparently also markedly less frequent. I have suggested that the storage of grain in pits was initially and primarily a function of poor security, not simply a matter of efficacy.

102

david ilan

When security improved, most grain storage was transferred to aboveground containers, perhaps mainly pithoi. In the final Iron Age I stage of Tel Dan, Stratum IVB, grain storage and livestock appear to have been concentrated elsewhere, not in private homes. This is held to indicate increasing centralization of economic and political control.

the case of tel dan References

103

Amiran, R. and Ilan, O. 1996. Early Arad II. Jerusalem. Ben-Ami, D. 2001. The Iron I at Tel Hazor in Light of the Renewed Excavations. IEJ 51: 148–170. Biran, A. 1989. The Collared-Rim Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W. G., eds. Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (AASOR 49) Winona Lake, IA: 71–96. Bloch-Smith, E. and Alpert Nakhai, B. 1999. A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 62–92, 101–127. Borowski, O. 1987. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IA. Currid, J. D. and Navon, A. 1989. Iron Age Pits and the Lahav (Tell Halif ) Grain Storage Project. BASOR 273: 67–78. De-Groot, A. and Greenhut, Z. 2005. Mo a, 2041-A. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 117: 83. Finkelstein, I. 1986. Izbet artah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha ayin, Israel (BAR International Series 299). Oxford. ——. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. and Na aman, N. 1994. Introduction. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 9–17. Gadot, Y. 2003. Continuity and Change: Cultural Processes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Israel’s Central Coastal Plain (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem. Geva, S. 1984. The Settlement Pattern of Hazor Stratum XII. EI 17: 158–161 (Hebrew). Golani, A. and Yogev, O. 1996. The 1980 Excavations at Tel Sasa. Atiqot 28: 41–58. Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. New York. Greenberg, R. 1987. New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim. BASOR 265: 55–80. Herzog, Z. 1984. Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 7). Tel Aviv. Hoffner, H. 1967. Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew Ob. JBL 86: 385–401. Hyde, M. B., Baker, A. A., Ross, A. C., and Lopez, C. O. 1973. Airtight Grain Storage (Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 17). Rome. Ilan, D. 1991. A Middle Bronze Age Offering from Tel Dan and the Politics of Cultic Gifting. Tel Aviv 19: 247–266. ——. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. Ilan, S. 1974. The Traditional Arab Agriculture, Its Methods and Its Relationship to the Palestinian Landscape during the End of the Ottoman Period (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. Kislev, M. 1980. Contenu d’un silo a blé de l’époque du fer ancient. In: Briend, J. and Humbert, J.-H. Tell Keisan, 1971–976: Une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg and Paris: 361–379. ——. 1993. Food Remains. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 10). Tel Aviv. Kislev, M. E. and Melamed, Y. 2000. Ancient Infested Wheat and Horsebean from Horbat Rosh Zayit. In: Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem: 206–220.

104

david ilan

Kochavi, M. 1998. The Eleventh Century BCE Tripartite Pillar Building at Tel Hadar. In: Gitin, S., Mazar, A., and Stern, E., eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: 468–478. Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V (Oriental Institute Publications 42). Chicago. Lapp, N. L., ed. 1981. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 (AASOR 45). Cambridge, MA. Lederman, Z. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Area D: Middle Bronze Age Stone and Earth Works, Late Bronze Age Dumped Debris and Iron Age I Silos. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 10). Tel Aviv: 35–48. Mazar, A. 1981. Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem. IEJ 31: 1–36. ——. 1992. The Iron Age I. In: Ben-Tor, A., ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven and London: 258–301. Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Reynolds, P. J. 1979. Iron Age Farm: The Butser Experiment. London. Rosen, B. 1986. Subsistence Economy of Stratum II, In: Finkelstein, I. Izbet artah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha ayin, Israel (BAR International Series 299). Oxford: 156–185. ——. 1994. Subsistence Economy in the Iron I. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 339–351. Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albequerque. Sethe, K. 1907 (republished 1984). Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Text der Hefte 9–12 (Urkunden des Agyptisches Altertums IV). Berlin. Stager, L. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35. Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 1994. Domestication of Plants in the Old World (2nd ed.). Oxford. Zorn, J. R. 1993. Tell en-Na beh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley). Berkeley.

A RE-ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE I* Yitzhak Meitlis How do archaeologists determine the end of one period and the beginning of another? Do cultural entities and chronologies necessarily coincide? We assume that major changes in pottery forms, settlement patterns, architecture, burial customs, and diet mark the beginning of a new period—a new chronological entity. However, when several new forms first appear at a time that otherwise exhibits continuity of material culture, we call the period “transitional” and postulate cultural overlap. The Late Bronze—Iron Age I transition is a classic case in point, as Kempinski has previously noted (Kempinski 1985: 399–407). In a series of papers written over the last two decades, Finkelstein suggests lowering the onset of Iron Age I (e.g., Finkelstein 1988: 109; 1995). He deals mostly with the lowlands and with the interaction between the Philistines, Canaanites, and Egyptians, living in the Coastal Plain and the Shephelah. In this paper I will reexamine the chronology of the highlands through concurrence of different pottery types, and conclude that the beginning of Iron Age I should, in fact, be dated earlier than commonly accepted. My first argument concerns the collared-rim jars, usually associated with the Iron Age I, that have been found in assemblages otherwise typical of the Late Bronze Age, e.g., at Aphek,1 Tel Nami,2 and Mana at.3

* I am grateful to David Ilan for his significant contribution and helpful advice throughout the preparation of the manuscript. 1 At Aphek, near Rosh ha- Ayin, collared-rim jars were found in a stratum that is Canaanite in character and dated to the 13th century BCE; see, for example, Kochavi 1981. 2 At Tel Nami a collared-rim jar was found together with Canaanite vessels dated to the 13th century BCE (Artzi 1990). 3 In Area 1000 at Mana at collared-rim jars with reed impressions on their rims were found. These are known to us from various sites in the highlands, such as Shiloh. At the same building 19th-Dynasty scarabs were also found, as well as a Canaanite cooking-pot (Edelstein et al. 1998).

106

yitzhak meitlis

Subsequently, Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels typical of the Late Bronze Age have been found at central highlands sites assigned to the Iron Age I. Mycenaean vessels are the main chronological anchor for the Late Bronze Age. When found in Iron Age I contexts, and when no Late Bronze architecture is discerned, this Late Bronze material is assumed to be residual or not in situ (see below). I propose here that the Iron Age I pottery and Late Bronze pottery are contemporaneous. The following is a list of sites in which finds attributed to the Late Bronze were found in Iron Age I contexts, lacking stratigraphic or architectural associations. Mount Ebal Mount Ebal is one of the most outstanding Iron Age I sites. While there is an argument over its nature (Kempinski 1986; Na aman 1986; Zertal 1986–1987: 137; Coogen 1987), all are in agreement about it being a single-period site of this period. Two small Mycenaean vessel fragments were found, both in Stratum II: One is part of a jar or amphoriskos slipped and burnished with a light-brown decoration while the second has a lateral dimension of only 3 mm. Both were classified by the excavator as Mycenaean IIIB–C. Other Late Bronze types found are a bi-conical jar, particularly widespread during the 14th century BCE, as well as two bowls, and a chalice, both typical of the 13th century BCE. In addition, two scarab seals attributed to the reign of Ramesses II were found (Zertal 1986–1987: 137). Since there was no Late Bronze stratum in this isolated site and none in its vicinity, it must be concluded that it existed during the 13th century BCE. Tell en-Na beh Late Bronze vessels were found at this site, also dated to the Iron Age. McCown notes Cypriot sherds (1947: 180), but unfortunately they are not included in the report on the pottery. Nonetheless, the pottery report does present local wares typical of the Late Bronze Age, such as a dipper juglet (Wampler 1947: Pl. 40: 756), a cooking-pot (ibid.: Pl. 46: 979), and carinated bowls (ibid.: Pl. 53: 1156, 1163).

a re-analysis of the archaeological evidence Beth-Zur

107

In the Iron Age I assemblages from various areas, locally manufactured Late Bronze pottery, Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels, and scarab seals attributed to Ramesses II were found (Sellers 1933: 33, Fig. 26; Funk 1968: 36). In the 1933 excavation report Sellers emphasizes that there was no Late Bronze settlement in the excavated areas, and notes, for example, the Ramesses II scarab seal found in Locus 90 (Sellers 1933: Fig. 51)—a clear Iron Age I context. In the 1968 report as well, an Iron Age I storehouse is noted, in which no Late Bronze finds occurred, with the exception of two late Mycenaean vessels. The excavator wrote: “We may be certain that there was no Late Bronze occupation of the excavated area” (Sellers 1933: 35). Tel Sasa A refuse pit unearthed during the 1980 excavations at Tel Sasa, in the Upper Galilee, contained animal bones and Iron Age I sherds. The main assemblage consisted of 17 pithoi, among them “Galilean” pithoi and “Tyrian” pithoi (Golani and Yogev 1996). The combination of these two types of pithoi led Finkelstein to date this stage to the end of the 12th or the onset of the 11th century BCE (Finkelstein 1988: 109–110). But in the 1993 excavations at the same site, Y. Stepansky found Late Bronze vessels together with Iron Age I cooking-pots and collared-rim jars in the same stratum, representing a destruction layer. The dating of the destruction on the basis of three 14C tests of roof beams yielded from this layer produced a chronological range spanning the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 12th centuries BCE (Stepansky et al. 1996). These tests are in line with the presence of Late Bronze vessels found at the site, and indicate the existence of settlement during the Iron Age I, in the 13th century BCE.4

4 See the analysis of the excavation that was made by Ilan (1999). He also emphasizes that “it is significant that there are at least two Iron Age I architectural phases after the one dated radiometrically” (ibid.: 175–184).

108

yitzhak meitlis

Available data clearly indicate the presence of vessels of a new type, concentrated primarily in the highlands, by the 13th century BCE, while Late Bronze culture carried on uninterrupted. Up until this point we have discussed the coexistence of Iron Age I and Late Bronze material from the 13th century BCE (see also Wengrow 1996). However, the Iron Age I type pottery may date even to as early as the 14th century BCE. The best evidence for this has been found at Shiloh, one of the largest excavated Iron Age I sites in the central highlands. Shiloh Aharoni, Fritz, and Kempinski suggested that the onset of Iron Age I be dated to the 14th century BCE (Aharoni et al. 1975), noting that the excavations of the Danish expedition at Shiloh uncovered Late Bronze vessels in Iron Age I assemblages (Buhl and Holm-Nielsen 1969: 34–35, 60). Following later excavations conducted by the Bar-Ilan University Expedition, under the direction of I. Finkelstein, the excavator concluded that this Late Bronze pottery originated in a separate Late Bronze stratum, rather than in the Iron Age settlement. The Late Bronze finds are concentrated in Area D (Finkelstein et al. 1993). A large number of sherds of local and imported vessels were found in this area, some intentionally buried together with ash and animal bones, but no building remains from this period were discerned. According to the excavator, there must have been a cult place at Shiloh, but its location is unknown because of later construction that covers the central part of the tell. A careful examination of the loci lists shows that some of the Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels characteristic of the 14th century BCE were found in clean Iron Age I loci in Area D and also in Areas C and J (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993).5 Bunimovitz notes that the local pottery, most of which was found in Area D, continues Middle Bronze traditions and should be dated to Late Bronze Age I. However, some of the imported Cypriot wares as well as the Mycenaean vessels are later, and dated to Late Bronze Age II (14th century BCE) (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: 129–136). No obvious Late Bronze

5 Other Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels were found in loci defined by the excavators as mixed (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993).

a re-analysis of the archaeological evidence

109

I imports, such as White-Slip I ware, were found. The Cypriot pottery includes White-Slip II bowls, Monochrome bowls, Base-Ring I vessels, and Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware. The Mycenaean pottery includes only four sherds, which appear to be parts of a small piriform jar or possibly a piriform stirrup jar, and a small body sherd that may have belonged to a small pyxis. All these sherds date to Mycenaean IIIA: 2; this would imply that the Mycenaean and Cypriot imports are later than the local vessels (For the date of Cypriot vessels, see Eriksson 2001). Since the differential dating above is illogical, we may conclude that the local Iron Age I pottery was coeval with the Mycenaean and Cypriot imports. It may still be maintained that one cannot learn about an entire region from a single site. However, another site, Tell Qiri in the Jezreel Valley, demonstrates a similar pattern. Tell Qiri Tell Qiri shows that the presence of imports dating to the 14th century BCE in Iron Age I loci is not an anomaly. No Late Bronze settlement strata were found at Tell Qiri; however, Late Bronze vessels dating to the end of the 15th and to the first half of the 14th centuries were found in various loci in Strata IX–VIII, which date to the Iron Age I. The excavators found it difficult to explain this phenomenon, particularly in such cases where luxury vessels, such as Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels, as well as those of alabaster and faience, were involved. They offered two possible explanations: Either the architectural traces of the Late Bronze Age have disappeared, or the vessels were brought from a nearby site. But concluding the discussion of this matter, they admit that it is “difficult to offer a convincing explanation for this occurrence” (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 257–258). Conclusions For the most part, the lack of Late Bronze architectural remains at the sites under discussion has been attributed to poor preservation or destruction. But another option exists: The combined data from the above-mentioned sites indicates that over a long period of time Late Bronze pottery—imported wares being the most conspicuous—and

110

yitzhak meitlis

Iron Age I pottery coexisted.6 The only reasonable conclusion is that the earliest appearance of the vessels typical of the Iron Age in the central highlands occurred in the 14th century BCE. This conclusion may be supported by the 14C tests of carbonized wood from Strata VI and V at Tel Dan, which are dated by the excavator to the Iron Age I. Of the 28 samples tested at the Groningen laboratory, four were dated with a high degree of probability to the 14th century BCE and eight more to the first half of the 13th century BCE (Ilan 1999: 138–144). I am aware of the fact that it is problematic to date archaeological evidences on the basis of samples taken from beams of wood, and that short-lived samples provide more accurate results, but these results cannot be ignored. This explanation may also clarify a notable phenomenon in the excavations at Tel Taanach, where it is evident that the Late Bronze settlement was destroyed in the 15th century BCE and renewed only at the onset of the Iron Age I. Nevertheless, the excavators note the discovery at the site of Mycenaean IIIA: 2 vessels (dating to the 14th century BCE). They offer no explanation for the occurrence of imported pottery at a site, which in their view, was abandoned during the same period the pottery is ascribed to (Glock 1993). If we accept the approach that Iron Age I vessels appear as early as the 14th century BCE, we can attribute the Mycenaean wares to the Iron Age I strata. The major changes in material culture characteristic of the Iron Age I, such as small settlements with four-room houses, grain-storage pits, and new pottery types, first occurred in the highlands, away from the traditional urban centers. Although these changes reflect cultural differences, the occurrence of “Late Bronze” pottery and other objects in “Iron Age I” contexts highlights the fact that isolation between the two sociocultural entities was not total. The debate over the reasons for the rise of a new culture in the highland region is beyond the scope of the present paper. Be the explanations as they may, I suggest that these processes began at an earlier phase than has been posited in the past, and continued for a much longer period than has been suggested.

6 The possibility of local Late Bronze I vessels found at Shiloh reflecting activity earlier than the Iron Age I is not to be ruled out.

Funk. Tel Aviv 2: 97–124. 1974. P. The Bronze Age—Iron I Pottery. dissertation. and Portugali. R. Funk.. Tell Qiri. S. Buhl. Zertal. 1990. Kempinski. and Aurant. Jerusalem. Golani. ed. Z. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Finkelstein. Nami Land and Sea Project. Eriksson. Jerusalem 1987–1989 (IAA Reports 3). In: Åström. M. M. The Citadel of Beth-Zur. 1969. C. I.D. Stockholm May 18–19. A Village in the Jezreel Valley: Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975–1977 (Qedem 24). Berkeley and New Haven. MA: 35–53. 1988. History and Antiquities. Artzi. M. Y. I. 2001. M. A. and Finkelstein. An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982–1987. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No.... D. Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives (Ph. D. E. and Lederman. 1947. Villages. I. Cypriot Ceramics in Egypt during the Reign of Thutmosis III: The Evidence of Trade for Synchronizing the Late Cypriot Cultural Sequence with Egypt at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 1995. McKenzie. Tel Aviv. BA 44: 75–86. 10). Y. 1986. S. Wampler. P. Jerusalem. S. Kochavi. 2000.. Ben-Tor. Tel Aviv 13–14: 105–165. Edelstein. ——. Levant 28: 177–187. Migdal-Shechem and the ‘House of El-Berith’. R. V. D. and Yogev. Cambridge. C. The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy: Letters. A. McCown. A.. Berkeley and New Haven. Glock. N. O. 1996.. J.. Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv: 81–196. 1968. In: Sellers. Atiqot 28: 63–76. Egyptian Taskmasters and Heavy Burdens: Highland Exploitation and the Collared-Rim Pithos of the Bronze/Iron Age Levant. Philadelphia. I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. O. I. Shiloh. and Carmi. L. Fritz. W. 1947. Tel Aviv 22: 213–239. C. O. K. . The 1957 Excavations at Beth-Zur (AASOR 38). Milevski. Pottery. PEQ 119: 1–8. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Biblical Archaeology Review 12/1: 42–49.): 399–407 (Hebrew). Lapp. 1993. 1986. Copenhagen. A.. Wengrow. 1987. J. Jerusalem. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural. Y. Stepansky. R. 1985. I. Taanach. 1993. Bunimovitz. 1999. Bunimovitz. Sellers. In: Finkelstein. The 1980 Excavations at Tel Sasa. Stockholm: 51–68. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15/1: 307–326. I. The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. and Holm-Nielsen. ——.a re-analysis of the archaeological evidence References 111 Aharoni. A. 1996. G.. and Kempinski. and Lapp. 1986–1987. Z. Finkelstein. Atiqot 28: 41–58. 1996. Bunimovitz. R. Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Mana at. 1981.. Finkelstein. NEAEHL 4. O. Excavations at Tel Masos (Khirbet elMeshash): Preliminary Report on the Second Season. The 1993 Sounding at Tel Sasa: Excavation Report and Radiometric Dating. IEJ 40: 73–76.. Tel Aviv. Tell en-Na beh I: Archaeological and Historical Results. 1998. 1993. 10). A. W. 1996. N. Ilan.. The History and Archaeology of Aphek-Antipatris: A Biblical City in the Sharon Plain. Na aman. L. Tell en-Na beh II: The Pottery. “Joshua’s Altar”: An Iron Age I Watchtower. Zion 51: 259–280 (Hebrew). 1975. and Lederman. S. The Overlap of Cultures at the End of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age. Coogen. 1993. Segal. Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretations of Archaeological Evidence... D. S. 1987. EI 18 (Nahman Avigad Vol. Jerusalem: 1428–1433.

.

Many scholars have discussed the economy of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Levant. his integrity. Animal bones are. Since then I have been fortunate to have him as my mentor while writing papers submitted in the course of undergraduate (B.). Introduction Caprine (sheep and goats) have predominated livestock herds in most sites in the Levant from the time of their domestication until premodern times (Sasson 1998: 3–51. His skillful scholarship. furthermore. in most cases. Finkelstein was already motivating students like myself to investigate socioeconomic processes utilizing an anthropological approach. the second most common find in archaeological sites.D. Buitenhuis 1990: 198–199.A. Relative frequency of species and their mortality profile reflect the economy of ancient sites and. It is frequently argued by archaeologists and zooarchaeologists that caprine and their products were traded as part of the prevalent market economy of the Bronze and Iron Ages .) and graduate studies (M. and Ph. and his love of Israel remain sources of inspiration. O’Connor 2000: 151). Crabtree 1990).A. Before becoming the chief architect of the current chonological debate. point to the subsistence strategy of their inhabitants (Hesse 2003.REASSESSING THE BRONZE AND IRON AGE ECONOMY: SHEEP AND GOAT HUSBANDRY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT AS A MODEL CASE STUDY Aharon Sasson The first article by Israel Finkelstein I had the pleasure of reading was The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev (Finkelstein 1984). The aim of this paper is to reassess economic strategies practiced in Bronze and Iron Age sites as revealed by zooarchaeological finds of sheep and goats. As a young student I was impressed by such a well-articulated paper and during the following year I enrolled in all courses taught by Professor Finkelstein.

1998: 120). Holladay 1995: 392. Fall et al. for instance. will consequently be presented. new clothing. Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 115–118). or wealth. in their discussion of the economy of two Bronze Age sites in the Jordan Valley state that “several clear trends of enhanced production of marketable commodities (especially olive oil. The term economic strategy rather than merely economy will be applied to describe . and sheep wool) suggest that the farmers of Tell el-Hayyat increasingly adapted their crop cultivation and animal management to meet the demands of emerging mercantile exchange and consumption in Middle Bronze Age towns and cities” (Fall et al. Grigson. Surplus need not necessarily be associated with market economy. proclaims that “the extent to which animals are used for the direct subsistence of the communities which own them or as segments of exchange systems with other communities. rare prestige items or simply consume more food” (Herzog 1997: 9). see also 1957b: 250–255). particularly urban ones. they directed it to the improvement of standards of life (i. based on the zooarchaeological record. The subject of surplus in ancient economies should be elucidated. Hesse and Wapnish 2001: 253–258. A different point of view of the ancient economy. is likely to be of increasing relevance within the context of the proto-urban and early urban societies that characterize the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods” (Grigson 1995: 248). when blessed with plentiful harvests. In other words. bread wheat. trade. Halstead 1993: 63–64). This implies that sheep and goats were bred for self-consumption and as market-oriented products. surplus of animals and animal products was produced not necessarily as a commodity designated for “export” to the market or for gaining wealth. creating surplus. Herzog advocated the idea that when farmers produced more than they consumed. namely “risk-free trading” or “nonmarket trade” (Polanyi 1957a: 19. would like to improve their own standard of living and therefore invest in more comfortable housing. Polanyi referred to non-profit exchange meaning that people did not make a living from profit derived from buying and selling. better working tools.114 aharon sasson (Wapnish and Hesse 1991: 34. The immediate goal of an ordinary household for accumulating stock could have been providing security and coping with environmental fluctuations and other unexpected hazards (Ingold 1980: 134. Dever 1992: 89. in her review of the early economy. prosperity): “It would be more realistic to assume that such farmers. Sometimes the surplus was banked and at other times it was exchanged to maintain the limited demands of the domestic group.e.

which included applying long-term planning. According to Jongman and Dekker. not surplus. water. The analysis of zooarchaeological results derived from 68 sites and strata in Israel and Jordan points to a different economic strategy. The mechanism for coping with scarcity included maximizing subsistence security while reducing risks and minimizing fluctuations in the resource base ( Jochim 1981: 91. would have been to preserve flock and territorial size at an optimum level in order to maintain the household requirements but not beyond that point (Ingold 1980: 134). They explain the logic in risk avoidance and note that the distress of losing a hundred pounds that are spent on luxury is far less than the distress of losing the last one hundred pounds necessary for physical survival. The premise presented in this paper is that the majority of the Bronze and Iron Age population (nomadic. This stands in contrast with the market economy strategy that could be described as a specialized economy aiming at surplus production in order to expand flock size or territory. and perhaps to attain wealth or political power additionally. pasture. and optimal yet controlled utilizations of resources (e. and livestock).reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 115 a long-term. The immediate goal of the survival subsistence strategy. the pain of losing one hundred pounds (or one hundred caprine heads. rural. in our case) is larger than the satisfaction of gaining them. Since zooarchaeological .. Redding 1993: 80). This hypothesis was tested through quantitative analysis of faunal remains from archaeological sites. and they tend to organize into cooperative social units in order to minimize any uncertainty associated with the dynamics of their social and ecological environments” (Binford 2001: 193). This strategy was employed because scarcity. Therefore. and urban) maintained a survival subsistence strategy. My hypothesis is that the chief goal of a household in the Bronze and Iron Ages was primarily survival. played a central role in antiquity (Halstead and O’shea 1989: 6). This will be referred to as the survival subsistence strategy. According to Jongman and Dekker.g. in the preindustrial world stable income was preferable to an income that was highly variable but with identical mean. minimization of risks and fluctuations. planned economy that effected all aspects of life of ancient households. Binford described the survival subsistence strategy in these words: “Humans tend to organize their labor and their activities in a way that reduces the risk associated with accessing critical resources. Their focus was on preserving their subsistence resources in order to sustain their overall survival. the majority of the population in the preindustrial world lived very near subsistence level ( Jongman and Dekker 1989: 116–117).

an animal census carried out in 1943 by the British Mandatory Government of Palestine (Table 2) (Government of Palestine 1943.1 Research Data and Methods The relative percentage of sheep in a caprine herd and data regarding mortality profiles and caprine products were derived from 68 sites and strata (Table 1. For instance. The diverse zooarchaeological results from Tell Hesban. Ethnographic data on the relative frequency of livestock in premodern times was included in the quantitative analysis. 2. and the production and utilization of caprine products (meat. 2). Number of Identified Specimens. located on the desert fringe in Jordan (Fig. The data was retrieved from: a. see also Sasson 2006). the Coastal Plain. Statistics regarding the frequency of sheep in four districts were combined in the quantitative analysis. The majority of sites date to the Bronze and Iron Ages. representing the central hill region and the districts of The ratio of caprine to cattle is discussed in Sasson 2005a. Sefad District. The sites are located in various geographical regions in Israel: the Galilee. and Islamic periods were also included in the analysis to broaden the spectrum of sites examined. the northern Negev. 3. 1). Fig. Two parameters related to caprine were tested: The ratio between sheep and goat bones. the northern valleys. the Central Hill.116 aharon sasson finds are found in sedentary sites for the most part the discussion focuses on sedentary population. Roman. 1). and wool). the percentage of sheep for this site would be calculated at 60%. milk. see Reitz and Wing 1999: 191–194. Ray 2001). and the southern Negev (Fig. 1 2 . Hebron District. the Shephelah. Sites dating to the Persian. For discussion on this counting method. representing the Galilee region. 1. if the bone assemblage at a certain site comprised 60 identified sheep bones and 40 goat bones. The frequency of sheep was derived (in percentage) by dividing the NISP2 values for sheep bones by the total NISP values of identified sheep and goat bones. were included in the analysis too (LaBianca 1995b.

meat and milk). i. relate directly to the survival subsistence strategy. The question arising is whether one should expect a particular ratio between these two species and what the implications of such a ratio would be. However. the herders attain efficient utilization of their limited grazing resources (Tchernov and Horwitz 1990: 207–208. optimal utilization of subsistence resources and risk minimization.7 (50 to 63% sheep in a mixed herd).reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 117 Gaza and Lod. goats normally browse. . and herd security. Halstead 1996). The Sheep/Goat Ratio It is not surprising that sheep and goats were bred and exploited in a mixed herd by most pastoralists. b.: 233–234). 1). He argued that if the goal of subsistence herding was energy (or protein). the expected ratio between sheep and goats would be 5: 1 (i. Consequently. representing the Coastal Plain and Shephelah regions (Fig. Redding addressed this issue (Redding 1984) and suggested possible goals for sheep/goat herding that included maximizing energy (calories) or protein intake (through their products. The figures derived from both censuses are numbers of animals and not of bones. an animal census carried out by LaBianca’s team at the village of Hesban in Jordan in 1970 (LaBianca 1995b). the expected ratio is between 1: 1 and 1: 1. (b) Mixed herds reduce the risk of overall loss through disease (Smith 1978: 85. because of the aforementioned difference in reproduction rate. 83% sheep in a mixed herd) (ibid. Redding 1984: 234. if the main goal is security and minimizing fluctuations in herd size. Dahl and Hjort 1976: 251). On the other hand.e. see Dahl and Hjort 1976. and since the reproduction rate of goats is higher than that of sheep.e.3 Redding concluded that “the goal of subsistence 3 For growth rates of sheep and goats. Both advantages. the sheep/goat ratio should be as close as possible to 1: 1. Two major advantages may be pointed out for mixed herds: (a) Sheep and goats are able to exploit different portions of the same pasture area: While sheep normally graze.

frequent watering. had wool not been a prime raw material for fibers. Sherratt (1981: 282–283). Goats can function even after losing 30% of their body weight. wool replaced linen as the main textile fiber after the domestication of sheep (McCorriston 1997: 518). after sheep were domesticated they outweighed goats in caprine herds. Clutton-Brock 1987: 57. their sweating is limited. Killen discussed this in regard to Late Bronze Age Mycenaean texts (Killen 1993: 209–218).118 aharon sasson herding in the Middle East was probably not energy or protein. Furthermore. and high labor inputs.: 522–525). McCorriston stressed the fact that flax plants were domesticated earlier than sheep and that linen was the primary textile fiber at that time. According to Ryder. She also noted that producing fiber of wool was more efficient than linen fiber production. 147. Many scholars have stressed the value of sheep for textile manufacturing. one should discuss the unique attributes for each species. Adams (1981: 149–150). while a 15% weight loss is considered lethal for most other mammals (Swift 1973: 73. see also Shamir 2002: 21). What made sheep favorable in the ancient world was. Besides their higher reproduction rate. In conclusion. although goats . 1980). Shkolnik 1988: 487–496). Fewer herders could tend more sheep for a greater fiber volume than could be generated by the same people growing flax (ibid. their dark coat allows them to cope successfully with cold weather and reduction in metabolic rates (Finch et al. Davis 1987: 186). Their panting rate (respiratory cooling) is only about half of that of sheep. but herd security” (Redding 1984: 239). and Stepien (1996: 40–48). see also Ryder 1984: 79–81. In addition. Before testing Redding’s theory. in my opinion. primarily their wool. and King and Stager stated that wool was a major class fiber in the ancient Near East and that sheep were raised primarily for their wool (King and Stager 2001: 113. goats are remarkably adaptive to harsh climates. The significance of sheep for wool production in Mesopotamia was discussed by Van De Mieroop (1993: 165). Ochsenschlager (2004: 203) provided a similar observation from premodern Iraq. by virtue of its wool (Ryder 1993: 10). and their water loss through feces and urine is low as well. Although sheep’s meat and milk is richer in fat and proteins compared to goats (Sasson 2006: Table 1). the relative number of sheep per household unit would have been smaller. Cultivating and processing of flax for fiber require prime agricultural land. Sherrat suggested that wool was introduced to North-Central Europe in the mid-3rd millennium and was used in conjunction with linen until it became the dominant textile fiber during the second millennium (Sherratt 1983: 93.

the herd would consist of 100% goats. as that advocated by Horwitz and Tchernov. sheep were favored for their wool despite their relative vulnerability to environmental stress. if security was the goal.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 119 did not produce wool. as Redding had pointed out (Redding 1984). The rationale behind a mixed herd of approximately two-thirds sheep and one-third goats was gaining satisfactory wool production on one hand and maintaining herd security on the other hand. Herzog 1997: 13. This leads us back to the question: How are economic strategies reflected in the ratio between sheep and goats? Sheep/Goat Ratio: Results Numerous zooarchaeological reports were examined. Furthermore. they were favored for their survival adaptations. Modifying Redding’s model we may establish the following equation: If energy and wool production were the main goals of early herders. be supported? . Their argument should be reevaluated. In 76% of the sites and strata that were reviewed the relative frequency of sheep bones (out of sheep and goats) did not exceed 67% (Table 1). however. however. especially in light of the fact that it was established on a significantly small sample of only five sites. Breeding both species in mixed herds attained these two attributes in addition to others that were mentioned above. 1). The questions addressed were whether we could observe a higher proportion of sheep in urban sites governed by ruling classes (Hopkins 1996: 128. In this study sheep frequency from 57 sites and strata was tested statistically against three variants: settlement type (urban or rural). in view of the political power wielded through control over natural resources such as water and pasturelands. which focused on herd security and risk minimization. data on the sheep/goat ratio could be derived from merely 57 sites and strata (Fig. The pattern observed in various sites indicates that caprine herd management was a planned strategy. could a regional pattern in the relative frequency of sheep. geographical location. one would expect to find 100% sheep. LaBianca 1999: 21). and the combination of both. Tchernov and Horwitz (1990: 212) concluded that a regional pattern in the sheep/goat ratio can be detected and that the frequency of goat bones increased from northern to southern regions in Israel (see also Horwitz and Tchernov 1989).

To conduct the test. A study of the enumeration of livestock carried out by the British Mandatory government of Palestine in 1943 (Government of Palestine. 4 For elaboration on the censuses carried out by the British government and the valuable date they provide. 58%). and geographical location ( p = 0.120 aharon sasson The statistical test (two-way ANOVA) was carried out on arcsin √p.148).4 Sheep comprised only 39% of the 700. Likewise.825) nor between sheep proportion and geographical region ( p = 0. Jacobson and Smith 2001: 41–44). 2006. 2). Samaria. a significant number of sites comprising mixed caprine herds. 1. a higher proportion of sheep was observed in the lowlands. The reason for this is that the carrying capacity in Israel (i. a regional pattern in the sheep/goat ratio can be detected: In the mountainous districts (Galilee. These data can be interpreted in light of the survival subsistence strategy. pasturage measure) is higher for sheep in the lowlands than in the highlands (Seligman et al. no pattern regarding the type of settlement is evident. 2) the frequency of sheep is significantly lower (33–40%) compared to the Coastal Plain region (Lydda district. Sasson 1998. Likewise. where sheep comprised 36% of all caprine (Hirsch 1933: 7). Low proportion of sheep in most regions is observed after wool lost its significance for textile manufacturing being displaced by cotton and other modern substitutes following the industrial revolution (Donnell 1872: 7. is observed in rural as well as urban sites. and Jerusalem. where p stands for the sheep proportion at the site (in order to reach a normal division).000 caprine heads counted in Mandatory Palestine. I joined the site of Tell Hesban ( Jordan) together with the northern Negev sites. settlement type. no interaction was found between sheep proportion. the Coastal Plain and the northern valleys sites—were treated as one geographical region (Figs. Wool having been removed from the equation. Hirsch reported similar statistics from an animal census carried out in 1930. see Fig. . the low land regions—the Shephelah. herd security became the primary strategy. Consequently. a higher frequency of goats was obtained in caprine herds. 1943) reveals noteworthy statistics (Table 2). Nevertheless.e. Furthermore. This clearly indicates that a regional pattern related to sheep/goat ratio cannot be traced. No significant difference was found between sheep proportion and settlement type ( p = 0. see Finkelstein 1992: 47–52. of which approximately two-thirds were sheep.925). In addition.

. Tel Aphek. This may mean that in the earlier period small ruminants were raised mainly for their meat. He asserts that a high frequency of sub-adult caprine bones in a zooarchaeological assemblage points to the utilization of the herd for meat production: “If meat production is the aim. (1986: 120) in Syria. and Abu Rabia among the Bedouins of the northern Negev (Abu Rabia 1994: 55). Croft 2004: 2268). Wapnish and Hesse 1988: 81–94. Cribb (198: 164) in Turkey. and hides) (Payne 1973: 281–303. or wool (Payne 1973). see also Davis 1987: 157–160. only few being kept for breeding” (ibid. Davis 1987: 157–160. This strategy is also observed through sheep/goat ratio in various types of settlements and geographic regions Utilization of Caprine and Their Products (Meat. one important comment should be made: Slaughter of sub-adults is widespread among pastoral groups. Hence. Brown (1971: 96) in Africa. The analysis of data from the British census indicates that the survival subsistence strategy was extremely fundamental in the life of pastoralists throughout time: from the days of caprine domestication to premodern times. each reflects utilization of caprine for meat. hides—were more important to the population in the later period” (Hellwing and Gophna 1984: 51. milk. Payne. Milk.: 281). describes three mortality profiles of caprine. Hellwing and Gophna studied the animal bones from Bronze Age sites. in his pioneering work from 1973. whereas the secondary products of these animals—milk. most of the young males are killed when they reach the optimum point in weight-gain. Many others followed Payne’s model. Zeder 1991: 33–44). Thomson et al. see also Sasson 2005a). and Tel Dalit and they noted: “For sheep and goat population however more young animals were killed in the Early Bronze Age (5.4%). Hesse (1984: 250) in Iran. wool. rearing sheep in higher proportions in the lowlands did not compromise herd security. Perevolotsky describes this pattern in Peru (Perevolotsky 1986: 291).8%) than in the Middle Bronze Age (3.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 121 1959: Table 8. and Wool) Many scholars have discussed the kill-off patterns in caprine herds and their projection on utilization of caprine for prime (meat) and secondary products (milk. Before discussing the rationale behind the slaughter of sub-adult males. wool.

1996 Sade 1988 Hellwing 1993 Hellwing 1993 Davis 1988 Sade 1988 Hesse-Wapnish 2001 Wapnish-Hesse 2000 Hellwing 1984 Hesse-Wapnish 2001 Horwitz-Raphael 1995 Hesse-Wapnish 2001 Wapnish-Hesse 2000 Davis 1985 Zeder 1990 Lev-Tov 2000 Tchernov-Drori 1983 Zeder 1990 LaBianca 1990 + 1995a Horwitz 1987 (continued on next page) .Table 1. Frequency of sheep and goats in Mandatory Palestine (based on: Government of Palestine 1943) 122 Site and Strata Period Region Mortality Sheep in % Type of profile and (out of total Settlement caprine caprine) products* Reference** aharon sasson Izbet Zarta Shiloh Dalit Uza Shiloh Shiloh Yarmouth Arad XII–VI Yaqush Megiddo Beer-Sheba IX–VI Yaqush Qitmit Yaqush Megiddo Qasile Halif Miqne Masos Halif Hesban XV–XVII Sasa (Tomb) IA LB EB II IA II IA I MB II–III EB IA II EB III EB I IA I EB II IA II EB I EB III IA I IA II IA II IA I EB III IA II MB II Coastal Plain Central Hill Shephelah Northern Negev Central Hill Central Hill Central Hill Northern Negev Northern Valleys Northern Valleys Northern Negev Northern Valleys Northern Negev Northern Valleys Northern Valleys Coastal Plain Northern Negev Shephelah Northern Negev Northern Negev Jordan Galilee Rural Rural Urban Fortress Rural Urban Urban Fortress Rural Urban Rural Rural Sacred Rural Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban Rural Burial 100 92 87 82 77 77 75 75 74 73 72 72 72 71 67 67 66 65 65 63 62 60 x Young All All All Young All All All All All All Young All Young All All All All Young All All Hellwing 1986 Hellwing 1993 Horwitz et al.

Table 1 (cont.) Region Reference** Central Hill Northern Negev Northern Negev Jordan Coastal Plain Central Hill Northern Valleys Jordan Northern Negev Northern Valleys Shephelah Central Hill Southern Negev Southern Negev Northern Negev Central Hill Southern Negev Northern Valleys Shephelah Shephelah Jordan Shephelah Rural Rural Burial Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Urban Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Rural Urban 58 58 58 57 57 56 56 56 55 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 47 47 47 x x Young All All All All All All All All Young All All All x All x All Urban Urban Urban 60 60 59 All All All Mortality Sheep in % Type of profile and (out of total Settlement caprine caprine) products* Site and Strata Period reassessing the bronze and iron age economy City of David Ira Arad Roman IA II EB Hesban XI–XIV Lod (District) Qa aqir (Tomb) Dan (Tel) Hesban XVIII–XXI Beer-Sheba II Dan (Tel) Miqne City of David Avnon Be er Resisim Halif Ai-Raddana Ein Ziq Qiri Lachish VI Harasim IVb Hesban II–III Miqne Roman 1943 MB I EB II–III IA I IA II IA II IA I IA II MB I MB I LB IA I MB I IA II LB IA II Mamluk LB Horwitz 1996a Dayan + Horwitz 1999 Davis 1976 + Lernau 1978 LaBianca 1990 + 1995a Gov. of Palestine 1943 Horwitz 1987 Wapnish-Hesse 1991 LaBianca 1990 + 1995a Sasson 2004 Wapnish-Hesse 1991 Lev-Tov 2000 Horwitz 1996a Hakker-Orion 1999 Hakker-Orion 1999 Zeder 1990 Hesse 1999 Hakker-Orion 1999 Davis 1987 Drori 1979 Maher 1999 LaBianca 1990 + 1995a Lev-Tov 2000 (continued on next page) 123 .

of Palestine 1943 Gov.Table 1 (cont. of Palestine 1943 Drori 1979 Horwirz 2002 Drori 1979 Horwitz 1996a LaBianca 1995b Horwitz 1998 Nachlieli 1999 Nachlieli 1999 Sade 2001 Sade 2001 Hellwing-Feig 1989 Hellwing-Feig 1989 Hellwing-Feig 1989 Hellwing-Feig 1989 Maher 1998 Hellwing 1988/9 Hellwing 1988/9 Horwitz 2002 Horwitz 1996b . of Palestine 1943 Gov.) 124 Site and Strata Reference** Period Region Mortality Sheep in % Type of profile and (out of total Settlement caprine caprine) products* aharon sasson M. Ebal Timna Hebron (District) Gaza (District) Safed (District) Lachish VIII Kabri Lachish III–IV City of David Hesban Eilot Nahal La’anah Nahal Omer Gerisa Gerisa Michal Michal Michal Aphek Harasim IVd Kinrot Kinrot Kabri Dan (Tomb) IA I LB 1943 1943 1943 MB EB IA II IA I 1970 Islamic Islamic Islamic IA I LB I–II IA Persian LB MB II IA II EB LB IA II MB Central Hill Southern Negev Central Hill Coastal Plain Galilee Shephelah Coastal Plain Shephelah Central Hill Jordan Southern Negev Southern Negev Southern Negev Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Shephelah Northern Valleys Northern Valleys Coastal Plain Northern Valleys Sacred Sacred Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban? Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban? Urban? Fortress Burial 44 44 39 39 39 38 32 26 25 22 0 less less x x x x x x x x x x x x Young x x x x All x All x All x x All All All All All All All All All All All Horwitz 1986/7 Lernau 1988 Gov.

Sherratt 1981: 283–284. preserving the resource base is one of the strongest selective pressures operating on human behavior (Redding 1993: 80). they are ideal for culling since they reach 70% of their optimal body weight between the ages of one and three (Lernau 1978: 83. the herders attain significant improvement in milk productivity. The logic behind sub-adult culling lies within the survival subsistence strategy that strives for minimizing fluctuations in the resource base.5 furthermore. 5 For a detailed discussion and bibliography on culling practices. They found a differential effect of poor environmental conditions on bone metabolism in ewes. He found that by increasing the slaughter of sub-adults. Hesse 1999: 107).” Furthermore. once culled. Cribb conducted a computer simulation in order to examine the various strategies of kill-off (i. and related it to the additional stress imposed on females by gestation and lactation. and wool productivity remains high (Cribb 1984). Two issues should be addressed: why mostly males are culled and why the sub-adult age group is generally chosen for this purpose. see Sasson 1998.e. Borowski 1998: 57. Therefore. see Sherratt 1981: 283–284). . their mothers’ milk is directed to the consumption of the household rather than for the feeding of juvenile animals. Horwitz and Smith studied the effect of nutrition on sheep bone mass (Horwitz and Smith 1990: 655–664). According to Redding. the level of meat productivity improves as well. culling) in caprine herds. If one accepts these premises. the majority of households in these periods practiced self-sufficient economy. The preference for culling males over females stems from the male negligible contribution to herd reproduction and milk production. also on this subject regarding cattle. a different interpretation for the sub-adult culling should be considered. some components of the caprine herd must have been culled in order to free pasture forage for females that had a crucial role in reproduction and milk production (Dahl and Hjort 1976. I pointed out that animal products in the Bronze and Iron Ages in Israel were not market oriented nor were they designated for “export. The recourse base in the suggested model is pasturelands for caprine. Moreover.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 125 Earlier.

Thus. An example supporting this model is described by Khazanov regarding the stable population of livestock among the Hsiung-nu in Mongolia (Khazanov 1994: 71. At first glance. in turn. and urban) (Sasson 1998. together with preservation of the resource base (pasture) for females that generate milk and render continuity to the herd. pastoralist groups favored a stable population. It is a coherent pattern in the survival subsistence strategy. Marlow 2005: 58–59). Most zooarchaeologists that analyze caprine bone remains sketch a mortality profile and provide conclusions concerning . Caprine Products: Results Data on exploitation of caprine for meat. milk. Binford refers to this model and states that “the amount of food that is available during the least productive period of the year will limit the level of sustainable population within an area” (Binford 2001: 175).126 aharon sasson To conclude. for other examples see also Fortier 2000: 116. However. This model also implies that the early pastoralists were longterm planners. The information presented in Table 1 under the column of mortality profile and caprine products is based on the interpretation of the zooarchaeologists that analyzed the faunal remains at that site. over expanding their population size. or wool was compiled from zooarchaeological reports. rural. in light of the survival subsistence strategy. and minimum fluctuations. 2004. this strategy has a pronounced weakness: Caprine and their products constituted significant components of the diet and self-sufficient economy of all societies in the southern Levant (nomadic. but rather by the minimum amount of resources available (Liebig 1842). a stable flock size. stabilizing the sizes of their herds in order to preserve their water resources and pasture. Von Liebig propounded in 1842 the “Law of the Minimum. the potential growth of the populations depending on them for subsistence. stable subsistence resources. 2006). or gaining wealth ( Jochim 1981: 181).” This law has been extended to biological populations suggesting that the growth of a biological population is limited not by the total amount of resources available. maintenance of flocks’ stable size limits. which consists of optimal exploitation of caprine for meat and milk. slaughtering sub-adult males is not necessarily related to “meat export” or market forces.

had a specialized economy of caprine products been practiced.e.” while sites in which high frequency culling of young caprine was noted. Stratum II (8th century BCE) point to a food maximizing strategy. milk. wool) in order to practice a self-sufficient economy. other aspects were examined elsewhere: (1) Taphonomic analysis and body part representation of caprine and cattle in Tel Beer-sheba. Apart from the comparative analysis presented in this paper.g. the zooarchaeologist determined that caprine was utilized for a whole range of products rather than for specialized production of a particular product. or wool production was not prevalent in the southern Levant. This pattern occurs in all periods of the Bronze and Iron Ages as well. meat bearing body parts) (Sasson 2004: 31–51. or wool production. milk. from the northern valleys through the Central Hill and to the northern Negev (Fig.. meat. wool. one would expect to find diverse patterns that point to various specializations. sites in which the zooarchaeologist determined that caprine were exploited for all their products (i. (3) A comparative analysis of caprine/cattle ratio from seventy archaeological . and wool) are marked as “All. Although Tel Beersheba was an urban site at that time. in preparation). Valuable (meaty) animal body parts and less valuable body parts were scattered throughout all parts of the tell and were found mixed in numerous loci (ibid. or all of the above. and across all geographical regions in Israel.g. (2) Spatial distribution analysis of body parts in Stratum II at Tel Beer-sheba also showed no indications of social stratification.. In other words. This evidently indicates that a specialized economy in meat. milk.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 127 the extent of exploitation of these animals for meat. were marked as “Young. no indications for selective exploitation of body parts were traced (e. and the strive for minimizing risks and fluctuations of the resource base in order to maintain a long-term survival. livestock.” The data show that in 45 of 54 sites (83%). which might have settled an elite population. Conclusions Two forces induced the life of the early households: the demand for agricultural lands. milk. 2005b). which is associated with a market economy. This model was defined here as the survival subsistence strategy and was established upon diverse zooarchaeological finds.: 63–77. and raw materials (e. In Table 1. 2). in meat.

This pattern stands in contrast with the argument regarding specialization in production of meat. It was established on optimal utilization of resources and minimization of risk in order to maintain long-term survival. they were bred in relatively low numbers to satisfactory levels for ploughing requirements. Moreover. a pattern of exploiting caprine for all of their products was recognized. the zooarchaeological finds presented here point to a conservative household economy which we refer to as a survival subsistence strategy. milk. I thank all my colleagues at the department for their friendship. the frequency of goats was increased in order to increase herd security. The survival subsistence strategy was still maintained. thus. Considering cattle were essential for ploughing at sedentary sites. The pattern occurs in all periods of the Bronze and Iron Ages and in all geographical regions in Israel. Many thanks to Haya Golan-Sasson for her help in generating the maps on figures one and two. This pattern was underlined by removing wool from the equation. In summary. did not endanger the ecological equilibrium (pasture and water) (Sasson 2005a). The pattern occurs in all periods of the Bronze and Iron Ages as well as is all geographical regions in Israel and points to a self-sufficient economy and optimal exploitation of subsistence resources. Acknowledgements This paper was written while I was a visiting scholar at the Department of Anthropology of the University of California. and subsequently. We may assume that in premodern mandatory Palestine wool was displaced by cotton and was no longer vital for fiber manufacturing. San Diego. maintained mostly by goats. and particularly Tom Levy for his warm hospitality and for generously lending me his office during my stay. .128 aharon sasson sites and strata in Israel points to a pattern in the proportion of cattle bones in the hill country and the northern Negev—approximately 15%. In most sites the relative frequency of sheep did not exceed 67%. The conclusions of the latter study are compatible with the results presented here. or wool in early Israel. It reflects a survival subsistence strategy that strived for balance between the demand for wool—a product of sheep herding—and the demand for herd security.

ed. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1987.. The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Rearing. A. 1998. Adams. J. 1976. Dahl. Chicago. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Entjes-Nieborg.A. Jerusalem: 148–151. Early Herders and Their Flocks (BAR International Series 202). P. Tel Aviv: 2254–2348. Madison: 83–92. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. eds. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Tell Qiri. Paris: 143–149. Tel Lachish: Subsistence and Natural Environmental during the Middle Bronze. Oxford. Biological Conservation 3/2: 93–100. 2001. 22). B. In: Bar-Yosef. Brown. Walnut Creek. W. Yarmouth 1: Raport sur les trois premieres campagnes de fouilles a Tel Yarmouth (Israel) 1980–1982. Archaeozoological Aspects of Late Holocene Economy and Environment in the Near East. L. 1981... Cribb. Lines.. L. In: Beit-Arieh. E. R. 1987. ed. and Grigson. T. ——.. P. 1998. Faunal Remains: Areas A–G. Seeds of Civilization: Bronze Age Rural Economy and Ecology in the Southern Levant. Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade. W. Drori. O. O. and Portugali Y. The Faunal Remains from Tell Qiri. 1985. eds. Computer Simulation of Herding Systems as an Interpretive and Heuristic Device in the Study of Kill-Off Strategies. Croft. Dever. E. 1988. Stockholm. 1979. The Large Mammal Bones. 1976. Crabtree. thesis. H. Pastoralism and the End of Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine. M. Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy. G. M. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. 1992. 1990. The Mammal Bones: Tel Yarmouth 1980–1982. D. Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods (M. A. In: Bottema. In: Ussishkin. M. New Haven and London. 2004. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. L. Pastoralism in the Levant. 1971. Dayan. 1994. J.. In: Ben-Tor. Archaeological Method and Theory. In: Schiffer. C. Oxford: 161–170.. J. Rotterdam: 195–206. Tel Aviv University). Social Status and Ethnicity. and Hjort. Chronological and Statistical History of Cotton. I. 1999. H. Donnell. R. The Biology of Pastoral Man as a Factor in Conservation. J. L. In: Mazar. and Van Zeit. A. 1984. ——. S. In: de Miroschedji. 1987. . 1872. S. I. Tel Aviv: 480–487. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88/1: 107–125. The Archaeology of Animals. P. A. G. Borowski. Cambridge. 1990. Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy References 129 Abu Rabia. In: Clutton-Brock. Binford. and Khazanov. A Village in the Jezreel Valley. London. New York. Jerusalem: 248–251... Tel Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. G. Davis. Journal of Archaeological Science 3: 137–152. and Falconer. Clutton-Brock.. Tuscon: 122–205. Buitenhuis. W. Fall. ed... 15). J. A.. Mammal Bones from the Early Bronze Age City of Arad. P. eds. eds. ——. Archaeozoological Studies Section A: The Osteological Remains (Mammalian and Avian). ed. Animals and Archaeology: 3. S. CA. ——. Northern Negev Israel: Some Implications Concerning Human Exploitation.

Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. S. Oxfrod: 141–155. S. 1995. Cambridge: 103–118. 1980.. Hellwing. In: Lederman. eds. D. and O’shea. Animals and Archaeology: 3. In: Levy. 2000.. and Negbi. 1993. 2001. Monkey’s Thigh is the Shaman’s Meat: Ideologies of Sharing among the Raute of Nepal. 2003. World Archaeology 28/1: 20–42. Why Black Goats in Hot Deserts? Effects of Coat Color on Heat Exchanges of Wild and Domestic Goats. Israel (BAR International Series 299). V. Tel Aviv 11: 48–58. B.. N. Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. In: Wenzel. 1999. Vol.. London: 245–268. In: Richard.. Fortier. 13). R. ——. 1 (IAA Reports 6). Tel Aviv 15–16: 212–220. 1989. R. 1989. New York. 1985. Animal Bones. dissertation. Hellwing. Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant. The Animal Remains from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Tel Aphek and Tel Dalit: A Comparative Study. IA: 17–26. O. 1997. In: Cohen. I. Israel (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev: The Chalcolithic Period. ed. I.. G. S. and Taylor. Excavations at Tel Michal. Faunal Remains. Osaka: 113–148. These Are Our Goats: The Origins of Herding in West Central Iran. Archaeozoology. eds... J. P. S.. The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers (Senri Ethnological Studies 53). and Feig. Z. Tel Aviv and Minneapolis: 236–247.. In: Finkelstein. Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. Oxford: 243–264. G. P. ——. C. 1984. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. 1986. G. and Kishon. and Lederman.D. ed.. 1993. Animal Bone Archaeology from Objectives to Analysis. J. Cambridge: 1–7.. Enumeration of Livestock.. Hesse. A. In: Herzog. R. Winona Lake. 10).130 aharon sasson Finch. Boxman. M. C. Jerusalem. Architecture of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Faunal Remains from Middle Bronze Age I Sites in the Negev Highlands. Harvard University). An Early Iron Age Village at Khirbet Raddana: The Excavation of Joseph A.. Hellwing.. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 63–75. eds. Tel Aviv. J. Tel Aviv: 309–350. Washington. 1984. V. I. and Grigson.. 1999. Callaway (Ph. Rapp. ——. R. Physiological Zoology 53/1: 19–25. PEQ 122: 47–52. T. Faunal Remains from the Early Bronze and Late Bronze Ages at Tel Kinrot. Sade. Herzog. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Hovelsrud-Broda. Z. Pastoralism or Household Herding: Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry. Dmi’el. and Wapnish. Finkelstein. A Few Notes on Demographic Data from Recent Generations and Ethnoarchaeology. E. eds. Z. Z.. Halstead. A. ed. P.. P. S. Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. ——. and Gophna. ed. Hakker-Orion. I. and Kishigami. Finkelstein. B.. In: Clutton-Brock. Animal Bones. Government of Palestine. A. Animal Bone Analysis. Bunimovitz. N. 8). 1988–89.. and Silberman. 1996. .. Hellwing. In: Finkelstein. the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I. 1943. N. Jerusalem: 327–335 (Hebrew). Early Herders and Their Flocks (BAR International Series 202). Shkolnik. and O’shea. Hesse. Jr. Grigson. J. Banking on Livestock: Indirect Storage in Greek Agriculture. S. 1992. Halstead. Izbet artah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha ayin. C. In: Halstead. R.

and O’shea. In: Beit-Arieh. and Oren. London: 368–398. Atiqot 36: 27–35. Animal Bones from the Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Tel Dan. D. 1990. S. 1987. and Stager. and Tchernov. Tel Aviv: 395–408. Crookenden. orvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Faunal Remains. D. In: Gophna. A. K. Jochim. Tel Aviv: 193–216. L.. 1998 Animal Exploitation during the Early Islamic Period in the Negev: The Fauna from Elat-Elot. 1995. Sheep and Goats in Palestine. and Smith. R. P. Animal Offerings from Two Middle Bronze Age Tombs. C. 1993. 1996. A. T. KY. R. K. T. the Pottery Neolithic. Faunal Remains from Areas A. LaBianca. Hirsch. E. Michigan. eds. Ilan. and Greenberg.. Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age Site on Mount Ebal. Tel Aviv 13/14: 173–189. Tel Aviv. O. 1990. Cambridge: 114–122. 1989. and Dekker. 1986–1987. A. Jerusalem: 268–276. Tel Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Hellwing. V. 1996b. Horwitz. W. ——. K. Ø. Hunters Pastoralists and Ranchers. 1980. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985. eds. H and K. G. 1996.. 20). Khazanov. L‘urbanisation de la Palestine a` l’âge du Bronze Ancien (BAR International Series 527). Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. R. 1989. Nomads and the Outside World (second edition. Madison. In: Ariel. Esee. L. Cambridge. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. ——. Life in Biblical Israel1. A. 1994. D. . E. L.. Faunal Remains: Areas L and M. IEJ 37: 251–255. S. Ingold. Patterns of Animal Exploitation at Early Bronze Age Tel Dalit. Cambridge. L. ed.. ed. Reindeer Economics and Their Transformation. S. L. eds.. Jacobson. 1000–750 BCE).. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Public Intervention in the Food Supply in PreIndustrial Europe. 2002. Jerusalem: 302–317. 1995. 1993. Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations. and Davis. Tel Aviv: 287–302. K.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 131 ——. Atlanta: 251–282. and Smith. P. In: Beit-Arieh. ——. E. Sedentarization and Nomdization: Food System Cycles at Hesban and Vicinity in Transjordan. Horwitz.. Sheffield: 121–141. Excavations at Tel Dalit. D. ——. Jongman. J. Horwitz. New York. 15). S. M. eds.. P. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 655–664. and de Groot. Louisville. In: Wolff. R. King. 2001. R. Cotton’s Renaissance: A Study in Market Innovation. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No.. In: Biran. A Radiographic Study of the Extent of Variation in Cortical Bone Thickness in Soay Sheep. Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context. J. E. Holladay. and Tchernov... Commodities and Cuisine: Animals in the Early Bronze Age of Northern Palestine. ed. D. translator). In: Fritz. I. J. Vol. In: Levy. S. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. UK. N. P. 2001. ed. the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. In: Halstead. Archaeozoological Remains Animal Bones. M. Killen. 1981. 1999. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 209–218. B. 2001. In: de Miroschedji. K. R. P. Bare Bones: The Economics of Ancient Israel. Hopkins. In: Scheftelowitz. ——. T. and Raphael. ed. 4 (Qedem 35). Horwitz. T. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron II A–B (ca. ed. Oxford: 279–296: 1989. 1996a. Records of Sheep and Goats at Mycenaean Knossos and Pylos. Tel Aviv: 488–494. J. ——. L. J.. Horwitz. Animal Exploitation in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant.

Tel Aviv: 13–25. Ø. ——. Knoxville). Ethnoarchaeological and Taphonomical Investigation in the Village of Hesban. Current Anthropology 38: 517–549. Chemistry in Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology. S. In: LaBianca. Marlowe. E.. C. Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303. Payne. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues. E. M. Early Herders and Their Flocks (BAR International Series 202).. H. 1999. ed.. C. Sheep and Goat Husbandry with Particular Reference to Textile Fiber and Milk Production. O’Connor. R. Iraq’s Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden. Stroud. ed. 2000. Perevolotsky. K. dissertation. London: 246–253. Ryder.. Written Records and Wool Measurements. The Negev between the 7th and 11th Centuries CE in Light of Archaeological Findings and Historical Research (Ph. 1986. eds. Mammalian Remains. In: Clutton-Brock. Polanyi. 1993. and Younker. In: Givon. S. Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution. ——.D. The Economy as Instituted Process. Cambridge. University of Tennessee.. 1988. Strata III–I.. Ø. S. eds. W. C. Marketless Trading in Hammurabi’s Time.S. and Grigson. W. S. Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. S. E. von. 1973. Philadelphia. Faunal Remains. H. 2001. L. Glencoe: 243–269. Nachlieli. The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification.. MI.D. J. 1957b. and Pearson. Reitz. Jerusalem (Hebrew). eds. 1998. Jordan. Hebrew University). Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: Mandibles from Asvan Kale. P. dissertation. A. S. 1999. 1995a. Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. 1984. Liebig. eds. In: Rothenberg. W. Salient Features of Iron Age Tribal Kingdom. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna. M. Philistines and the Ancient Animal Economy of Ekron from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age II (Ph. Animals in Archaeology: 3. C.. In: Givon. H. ——. Final Report on the Zooarchaological Investigation of Animal Bone Finds From Tell Hesban. ——. In: LaBianca.. Ray. and Grigson. Tel Aviv: 27–44.. A. Oxford: 223–241. J. ed. Glencoe: 12–26. Subsistence Security as a Selective Pressure Favoring Increasing Cultural Complexity. 2000. Ancient Ammon. A. Sheep Representation. 1842. 1997. 1995b.132 aharon sasson ——. Archaeozoology. Redding. Jerusalem: 83–113. Human Ecology 14/3: 287–310. ——. L. and von den Driesch. In: Polanyi. Michigan: 17–32. 1984. Early Arad. F. Arensberg. News. T. Lev-Tov. D. R. J. Alienation. R. M. In: Amiran. The Ninth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1998. E. and Reviews 14: 54–67. Iron Age Exploitation at Tel Harasim. Iron Age Fauna from Tel Harasim Excavation 1996. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 9–32. Berrien Springs. In: MacDonald. J. Oxford: 69–82. Maher. eds. 2005. Early Herders and Their Flocks (BAR International Series 202). McCorriston. 1999. eds. W.. To Sell or Not to Sell—A Pastoralist’s Dilemma: A Lesson from the Slaughterhouse. ——. 1978.. Leiden: 19–29. Ochsenschlager. ——. The Eighth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1997. Faunal Remains. E. In: Clutton-Brock. and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia. B. J. Pigs. 2004.. Jr. P. Tell Hesban and Vicinity in the Iron Age (Hesban Final Reports 6). Faunal Remains. 1999. Knoxville. Arensberg. Animals in Archaeology: 3. 1993. . London. In: Polanyi. K.. The Archaeology of Animal Bones. F. and Pearson. 1957a. Theoretical Determinations of a Herder’s Decisions: Modeling Variation in the Sheep/Goat Ratio.. and Wing. Michigan: 67–108. K. J. J. eds. and von den Driesch. ed. B. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 77–98. W. Lernau.

. J. W.. Wiesbeden: 213–224.. E. M. F. and Horwitz. Cambridge: 261–305. 2002. a Case Study from Tel Beer-sheba. dissertation. Rotterdam: 207–218... Thermanini. H. Thomson. Katzenelson.. A. M. Social. and Kempinski. Economic Patterns and Environmental Conditions at Hirbet el-Msas during the Early Iron Age. Vegetation. 1993. and Drori. Herd Management in the Past and Its Impact on the Landscape of the Southern Levant. . 1981. Animal Husbandry and Diet in Pre-Modern Villages in Mandatory Palestine. Sherratt. Tel Aviv.. Philadelphia. H. Isaac.D. 1959. eds. Tel Aviv University). 1983. Availability of Home-Produced Wheat. G.W. L. Seligman. 1990. eds. In preparation. 1988. Disaster and a Sahelian Nomad Economy. Economic Strategies and the Role of Cattle in the Southern Levant in the Bronze and Iron Age. Sheep and Goat Herding according to the Old Babylonian Text from Ur. A. and Tchernov. ed. Tel Beer-Sheba. Bethesda. Textile Production in Eretz-Israel. E. ——. 1978. A GIS Spatial Analysis of Faunal Remains from Stratum II. M. G. F. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). K. R.. eds. Van De Mieroop. Y. ——. Swift.. Animal Husbandry (Caprine and Cattle) in Eretz Israel in Light of Zooarchaeological Research in Stratum II (8th Century BCE) at Tel Beer-Sheba (Ph. In: Yom-Tov. Tel Aviv University). O. Groningen: 208–221. The Hague: 75–96. In: Hodder. Drought in Africa: Report of the 1973 Symposium. Martin. In: Dalby. MD.. A. 1983. Z. A. In: Buitenhuis. London: 71–78. and Church. The Pastoral Component in the Economy of Hill Country Sites in the Intermediate Bronze and Iron Ages: Archaeo-Ethnographic Case Studies. and Mashkour. 1996. dissertation. Tchernov. 2004. N. Rosensaft. ——. ——.. S. and Van Zeit. Tel Aviv... Boston: 487–496. Taphonomic Study in Tell Site.. M. eds. I. ——. Bahhady. The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World. According to Ethnographic Data. World Archaeology 15: 90–104. Bartosiewicz. Israel (8th Century BC).. Shkolnik. Milk Products and Meat to Sheep Owning Families at the Cultivated Margin of N. E. 2006. Animal Husbandry in the Ancient near East: A Prosopographic Study of Third-Millennium Umma. M. 2005a. Israel (AASOR). N. J. S.. E.. eds.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 133 Sade. The Environmental Adaptation of Nomads in the West African Sahel: A Key to Understanding Prehistoric Pastoralists. Tchernov. I. J. D. Pattern of the Past. and Naveh. 2001. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen Aur der Hirbet el-Msas (Tel Masos) 1972–1975. Entjes-Nieborg. Carrying Capacity and Improvement. Michmanim 16: 19–32. ed. Shamir. Tadmor. In: Maltby. In: Weissleder. eds... The Zoogeography of Israel. M. and Hammond. In: Bottema. Smith.. 1973. M. L. A. In: Fritz. Stepien. Economic and Environmental Aspects of the Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I Based on Archaeozoological Findings in Eretz-Israel (Ph. J. N. and Mokbel. 1986. Oxford: 33–40. The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African-Asian Deserts and Steppes. V. Syrian Steppe. 2005b. Integrating Zooarchaeology. Sasson. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7: 161–182. Archaeozoology of the Near East VI: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (ARC-Publicatie 123).. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 19: 113–121. ——. Choyke.. W. A. Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Product Revolution. L. Tel Aviv 25: 3–51.. 1998. Natural Pasture of Israel.D. Z. E. Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Physiological Adaptations to the Environment: The Israeli Experience.

. Zeder. Tel Aviv: 429–462. 1988. Animal Exploitation at Tell Halif..134 aharon sasson Wapnish. 18). Faunal Remains from Tel Dan: Perspective on Animal Production at a Village. ——. 1990. Ussishkin. and Hesse. BASOR Supplement 26: 24–32. eds. In: Finkelstein. JNES 47/2: 81–94. ——. Washington. ——. B. Mammal Remains from the Early Bronze Sacred Compound. D. Urbanization and the Organization of Animal Production at Tell Jemmeh in the Middle Bronze Age Levant. 2000. Feeding Cities. Urban and Ritual Center. Archaeozoologia 4/2: 9–86. M. P.. 1991. B.. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. I. and Halpern. 1991.

that is. we should compare them to the following relevant settlement complexes: • settlement patterns prior to the settling of the Philistines in the research region at the end of the Late Bronze Age. • settlement patterns in the Aegean world at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF PHILISTINE CITY-STATES Alon Shavit An analysis of a regional study conducted in Israel’s southern Coastal Plain (Shavit 2003) showed that the settlement pattern of most of the cities in Philistia. 1). • other settlement patterns in the Land of Israel. Diagnosing the settlement pattern that characterized Philistia throughout most of the Iron Age and defining its cultural sources are important instruments for defining the cultural identity of urban centers in Philistia. as could be expected in a system of “mature” settlements. was characterized by urban centers and by an almost total absence of a rural hinterland. and for understanding the mutual relationships between the centers themselves and between them and nearby political entities. the absence of a hierarchal settlement complex in the vicinity of the cities. The reconstruction work combined a critical study of finds from 63 . A Survey of Israel’s Southern Coastal Plain during the Iron Age II This study is based on the reconstruction of the settlement patterns that existed in the southern Coastal Plain during the Iron Age II (Fig. from the beginning of the Iron Age until the 8th century BCE. contemporary with those in the Philistia region. from the beginning of the Iron Age onward. In order to examine the cultural sources of the settlement complexes of the important urban centers in Philistia.

The presupposition of the present study. 248 sites have been dated to the Iron Age II in the southern Coastal Plain. and consequent reconstructions of ancient settlement patterns. the results of previously conducted surveys. They are spread across 3. a period about which information is so scarce. The following evaluations refer to the populated area of each site in every sub-period. beach sand in coastal areas. As of today. the number of times it was abandoned and resettled during one period of time.260 km2. adopting the methodology of regional archaeology.1 Below are some of the problems encountered during this study: It is hard to estimate the life span of a settlement. and from the Judean Shephela in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. as well as gathering of substantial information from researches and archive reports that have not yet been published. silt deposits in riverbeds. and whether or not it was inhabited simultaneously with other sites. 1 . Subjective evaluations made by the surveyor play an important role in interpreting this data. stretching from the Yarkon River in the north to Na al Besor in the south. is that sites that yielded finds from a particular period were populated during at least a part of that period. Geological and geomorphological processes impede fieldwork.136 alon shavit excavated sites. see Portugali 1988. a field survey of approximately 240 days. and layers of loess covering short-lived sites obscure site remains thus For the methodological problems of regional studies in ancient periods. Methodological Remarks A regional study of settlements in ancient periods cannot be based solely on data obtained through fieldwork. 2 For a discussion of problems involved in demographic evaluations based on this assumption. For example. see Schacht 1984. yet these distinctions are significant for demographic estimates. This is particularly true in research dealing with the Iron Age II. result analysis. and to the population density of each site.2 Differences in survey intensity of different areas may affect the reconstruction of the settlement picture.

settlement patterns of philistine city-states

137

distorting results pertaining site characterization3 and obstructing the settlement image arising from the survey. When sites or findspots were discerned and it was unclear whether or not they represent an Iron Age II settlement, they were deemed as settlements of 0.1 ha. While this might have altered the count of tiny villages in the region under discussion, it must be taken into account that remains of small settlements and farms are generally hard to locate through survey methods, and it is possible that some of these sites have not been found and recorded. It is thus difficult to assess whether the method we used caused a distortion of the number of settlements in this category. However, estimating the size of these findspots at a mere 0.1 ha ensures that they have no remarkable influence on general demographic assessments. In some cases we found no sherds at a site that had previously been surveyed and attributed to the Iron Age II. When this happened and data from former surveys were proven to be well based, the site was included in the study, but not in the analysis of the periodical settlement patterns. Although objective characterization and quantification methods were used in the sorting of finds, high similarity between pottery assemblages from the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, and between those from the 8th and 7th centuries BCE made it impossible to date some of the collected sherds to a specific period. In these cases, sites where the sherds were found were dated to two consecutive centuries, even in the case of short-lived sites; hence the similarity found between the settlement patterns of the 10th and 9th BCE, and between those of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. The sorting of the pottery by centuries may have also lead to misrepresentations. For instance, sherds that were dated according to comparison to Level III at Tel Lachish were generally attributed to the

3 Neev and Bakler (1978: 9–30) surveyed the ancient sites on the Tel Aviv and Ashdod shorelines. These were established as inland sites, but nowadays they are submerged in water. Sinking processes of coastal sands have occurred until ca. 1,400 years ago (see Netzer 1994). The sinking processes of the aeolic loess had a minor influence on the landscape throughout the historical periods, yet in certain regions in the northwestern Negev loess sedimentation has accumulated to a height of ca. 20 cm from the Iron Age and until today (see Dan and Yaalon 1976). Rosen suggested that alluvial sedimentation took place in the Late Roman period in the valleys around Tel Lachish (Rosen 1996), which is why the surveyors could not observe its satellite sites.

138

alon shavit

8th century BCE, although the excavators of this site attribute this level to the end of the century.4 Some demographic processes occurred toward the end of a century. For instance, the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel in 732 BCE created suitable conditions for populating the southern frontier of the kingdom (Na aman 1986a: 11). New settlements were indeed founded during the last quarter of the 8th century BCE, but ascribed in this study to the whole century because of the chosen analysis methods. Settlement Patterns around the Philistine City-States Several settlement complexes dating to the Iron Age II were detected in the study region. Lacking historical information and clear-cut archaeological criteria that would allow relating each site to one of the complexes, the area of each settlement complex was determined by general evaluation, considering the following factors: Satellite sites had to be within a half-day waking distance from central sites, to allow village residents to make their way to and from the central site in a day. Therefore, the distance between them could not exceed 10–15 km. These conditions are necessary for sustaining continuous commercial relations between a central settlement and the surrounding villages (Bunce 1982; see also Johnson 1987: 115). Landscape and geographic complexes, such as ridges and rivers, may affect relations between settlements. Although the topography of the southern Coastal Plain is mild and there are no natural obstacles that hinder traveling, in some instances topographic criteria were used to define the borders between adjacent settlement complexes. A study of the El-Amarna letters of the Late Bronze Age and of the biblical border description (e.g., Josh. 19), demonstrates the importance of topographic considerations in outlining borders (Na aman 1986c). This essay presents five settlement complexes that include the five urban centers of Philistia. In every complex each sub-period is studied and discussed separately. Through a comparative study, I wish to discern the processes and the tendencies that characterize every complex.

4 Zimhoni (1977: 173) dated the assemblage from Level III at Lachish to the second half of the 8th century BCE.

settlement patterns of philistine city-states The Na al Soreq Basin: Tel Miqne-Ekron and Its Region

139

During most periods, Tel Miqne-Ekron’s settlement outline overlapped the outline of the Na al Soreq basin. Exceptions are Iron Age II sites that lie in the Coastal Plain, north and south of the Soreq estuary. These sites are distanced ca. 20 km from Tel Miqne-Ekron, and it appears that their relations with the city were loose. No developed settlement complex existed in the Tel Miqne-Ekron region during the 10th–8th centuries BCE (Fig. 2). In view of the evaluation of the Na al Soreq basin settlement pattern, it seems doubtful that Ekron was perceived as an urban center for surrounding settlements at that time. It is more likely that residents of this region had an affinity with other nearby central settlements, such as Gezer, Tel afit-Gath, and Tel Ashdod. During the 10th century BCE, only ten settlements existed in the Na al Soreq basin. Their estimated populated area is 16.7 ha overall, and their population is estimated at ca. 3,400. On average, each settlement covered 1.7 ha and had 340 inhabitants. At that period, the settled area of Tel Miqne-Ekron is estimated at ca. 4 ha.5 Tel Shalaf that lay north of it and Tel arasim, lying halfway between Tel afit-Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron both had a similar estimated populated area of ca. 4 ha. The extension of these three middle-sized settlements reflects a lack of unity in settlement complexes surrounding large urban centers. This is evident also in the analysis of settlement distribution (Fig. 3).6
5 Gitin dated the main decrease in the area of Tel Miqne-Ekron to the second quarter of the 10th century BCE (Gitin 1989: 25). In this essay, I prefer the affinity with Stratum III at Tel Miqne-Ekron, because the large city of Stratum IV reflects archaeological and historical processes that are largely related to the Iron Age I (despite the fact that the end of Stratum IV occurred during the course of the 10th century BCE). Finkelstein suggested setting the destruction date of Stratum IV at Tel Miqne-Ekron at the time of Shishak’s campaign, based on the “Low Chronology” (see Finkelstein 2002a). According to this proposal, during the course of the 10th century BCE the city covered ca. 20 ha. 6 Fig. 3 presents an analysis of the settlement complex in the study area, based on the rank-size rule. This analysis measures the unity of the settlement complex: The settlements are shown along a logarithmic diagram, in which the y axis represents the size of the settlement (or the number of its inhabitants), and the x axis represents the settlements on a size scale, from the largest (1) to the smallest (whose number equals the total number of settlements in the complex). A normal curve (which approximates a 45° angle from the top of the y axis at the bottom of the x axis) reflects a unified settlement pattern. A convex curve represents a pattern of one large settlement with a restricted settlement complex. A concave curve represents a combination of several settlement complexes, independent of each other, spread across a given area, or

140

alon shavit

Several modifications appeared in the 9th century BCE on the settlement map of the Na al Soreq basin (Fig. 4). In this phase of the Iron Age II the region also comprised ten settlements: Some settlements were abandoned (the sites T.P. Z102, Khirbet Man am, and Yavneh Camp), while new ones were populated (Tel Ma oz, Palma im,7 and the Mgha’ar Hills). The overall populated area during the 9th century BCE is estimated at 19.3 ha, an increase of 15% compared to the 10th century BCE. Hence, during this period, ca. 4,000 inhabitants lived in the Na al Soreq basin region. During the 8th century BCE, there was a significant increase in the number of settlements in the Na al Soreq basin (Fig. 5). A total of 18 settlements was detected: an increase of 80% compared to the 9th century BCE. The overall populated area covered 25.3 ha, and the estimated population was over 5,000: an increase of 31% compared to the 9th century BCE. Tel Miqne-Ekron reached the peak of prosperity and development during the 7th century BCE, but the increase in settlement number and population size at the end of the 8th century BCE reflects the beginning of this process as early as then. During the 7th century BCE, Tel Miqne-Ekron emerged as one of the largest olive oil producers of the ancient world (Gitin 1989; Eitam 1996), while major demographic changes occurred in its surroundings. At this time the number of settlements in the Na al Soreq basin reached 20 (Fig. 6), increasing by 11% compared to the 8th century BCE. The overall populated area of these settlements is estimated at ca. 41 ha, with a population of ca. 8,200: an increase of 62% compared to the 8th century. Tel Miqne-Ekron itself covered ca. 20 ha, and its population is estimated at 4,000. Eitam estimates the overall area of Tel Miqne-Ekron at the end of the Iron Age at 30 ha (Eitam 1996), but since this evaluation includes areas outside the living quarters of the city, it cannot be used for demographic calculations.
a study area that lies at the margins of a ramified settlement complex. In both cases, the analysis points to a low settlement unity. This analysis method was first used in urban-geographical studies, and was then adapted to the analysis of ancient settlement complexes. A rank-size rule analysis was used in many studies of Israel’s regional archaeology (Sharon 1983: 6; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Portugali 1988; Bunimovitz 1989; Maeir 1997; Lehmann 2001; Ofer 2001) following similar studies conducted worldwide (see, for example, Johnson 1981; 1987). For the theoretical foundation of this rule relating to ancient settlement patterns, see Hodder and Orton 1976; Carter 1983. A summary of the research history of the rank-size rule, including the theoretical foundation and the drawbacks of the method, are included in Maeir 1997. 7 I believe this site was used for burial purposes only.

settlement patterns of philistine city-states

141

It appears that for the first time, during the 7th century BCE, the settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron and its surroundings reached a stage of maturity, achieving a unity between the main city and its satellite settlements and villages. The curve that describes the settlement complex in the area of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 7th century BCE according to the rank-size rule8 is slightly convex (Fig. 7), yet it also deviates only slightly from the normal log (an analysis of the curve of settlements larger than 0.5 ha). The diagram indicates a high degree of unity, compared to the diagram describing the settlement complex in the area during the 10th century BCE (Fig. 3). However, there seems to be a lack of correlation between the size of Tel Miqne-Ekron and the size of its satellite settlements, hence the appearance of a concave distribution tendency. Such a tendency is sometimes attributed to immature settlement patterns. It thus seems that the fast growth of Tel Miqne-Ekron did not stem from a significantly more moderate growth of its satellite settlements. Fig. 8 describes the demographic tendencies of the Na al Soreq basin settlement pattern throughout the Iron Age II. This pattern exhibits moderate growth during the 10th and 8th centuries BCE. A notable growth of the populated area is observed along with the significant growth of Tel Miqne-Ekron at the beginning of the 7th century BCE.

8 Studies that analyze settlement patterns and make use of the rank-size rule frequently analyze groups of settlements that have areas or populations larger than a certain specified limit. Maeir conducted analyses of settlements the areas of which were above 1 ha (Maeir 1997). The inclusion of farms and tiny villages in the analyses and diagrams creates a constant distortion, reflected in the “tail” of the diagram below the normal log. Apparently, it may be concluded that in a normal settlement pattern, one may expect an abundance of tiny villages, some of which may escape the eye of the surveyor. However, an examination of settlement patterns in modern times indicates that even such complexes, characterized by a high unity, do not exhibit a large number of tiny villages (see Grossman and Sonis 1989: 91).

142

alon shavit Tel afit-Gath9 and Its Region

The settlement complex of Tel afit is located in the eastern part of the Na al Lachish basin. In this complex we detected Iron Age settlements distanced ca. 5 km from Tel afit-Gath to the east, north, and west. Most of the settlements detected were to the south of Tel afitGath, and the southern boundary of the settlement complex was set at a distance of 15 km from the tell. It seems that due to the proximity of Tel Miqne-Ekron to Tel afit-Gath, the settlement complex of the latter evolved mostly southward. During the 10th century BCE, only three settlements emerged in the Tel afit-Gath complex. I estimate the overall populated area at ca. 7.5 ha (Shavit 2003: 180). The Tel afit excavation team conducted by A. Maeir has excavated the eastern slope of the site to date (Maeir 2001; Maeir and Erlich 2001). In view of the first findings from these excavations, Temporary Stratum 5 at Tel afit-Gath was paralleled to Stratum IV at Tel Miqne-Ekron. Although the final stages of both these strata are ascribed to the beginning of the 10th century BCE, it seems that they comprise mostly remains of cities that existed during the 11th century BCE, i.e. during the Iron Age I. Temporary Stratum 4 at Tel afit-Gath was dated by the excavators to the 9th century BCE. I believe that during most of the 10th century BCE Tel afit-Gath’s area was relatively smaller than that of the 9th century BCE (Fig. 9).10

New excavations have been carried out at the site since 1996 (Maeir 2001; 2003; Maeir and Ehrlich 2001; Uziel and Maeir 2005). Maeir and Erlich reviewed previous studies that identify Gath at Tel afit. Only 0.12 ha of the tell have been excavated: strata dated to the 13th–8th centuries BCE. So far, only preliminary reports have been published. 10 Uziel estimated the populated area of Tel afit during various periods based on the datable ceramic finds discovered on the surface. He stated that there are factors that influence the distribution of potsherds over a relatively large area, compared to a populated area, and emphasized that his estimates are maximal (Uziel 2003: 27). Despite his hesitation, the excavation team adopted his area estimates. Although the survey we conducted on the tell was very limited in comparison to Uziel’s work, I believe Uziel’s method has some shortcomings deriving from its inclusive treatment of finds from all terrains. Thus, many findspots of sherds located on the northern and western slopes of Tel afit, facing Na al Ela, have been included in the area of the tell although the steep topography might indicate that the site had more limited boundaries. It is possible that the lack of finds from Strata 6, 5, and 3 in Area E is not a random phenomenon, but rather points to the fact that at the periods in question the eastern boundary of the settlement was located at the margins of Area A. However, Uziel ignores the excavations results, which hold a higher value than those of the survey, and assumes that the site extended far to the east of Area E. I believe the excavation
9

allow adopting a more restricted territorial estimate. The size of Tel afit-Gath greatly increased during the 9th century BCE. Na aman believes that Amos’s description reflects the position of Gath prior to the prophet’s time. During the 9th century BCE it appears that there was a population gap at Tel Zayit. each with an estimated populated area of ca. . while in the surroundings of Tel afit-Gath only three settlements existed: Tel Erani. signs of severe destruction were detected and ascribed to the end of the 9th century or the beginning of the 8th century BCE (Maeir 2001: 114. the excavation team examined a siege system that stretches across ca. 14 ha.11 and its population reached ca. Gath is mentioned alongside Calneh and Hamat as an example of a powerful kingdom (Amos 6: 2). and east of Area E. An extraordinary phenomenon. note 10. their affinity with it cannot be clearly established. The findings from these soundings will either support Uziel’s conclusions. Since both rural settlements are quite distant from Tel afit-Gath. I estimate the overall populated area of Tel afit at ca. In the prophecy of Amos. the city no longer maintained its past position. and it is probable that by the end of the 8th century BCE.1 ha. The villages at Khirbet Boten and at Wadi Luzit (east). It seems that this estimate covers not only the continuously populated area of the tell. and Wadi Luzit (East). which might be attributed to the settlement pattern characteristic of the Philistine settlement during the Iron Age I. 0. reaching an area of ca. 121–126. Calneh and Hamat (Na aman 2002). Furthermore. 2. The sections produced in this system and team should conduct several random soundings at the areas between the slopes of the tell to Na al Ela. 2 km. my objections to Uziel’s method). or conversely. During the renewed excavations at Tel afit-Gath.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 143 The settlements of Tel Erani and Tel Zayit that were located in the surroundings of Tel afit-Gath at that period each comprised a populated area of only ca. 20 ha. conforming to the conclusions presented here. is that the significant growth of this settlement found no expression in the surrounding settlement complex. 12: 17) in 835 BCE. Na aman further stressed that in the Assyrian sources Gath is not mentioned as a city-state. 2003: 244). 11 Maeir asserted that Tel afit covered a maximum of 40–50 ha (Maeir 2001: 113). 0. which lay close to Tel afit-Gath. Khirbet Boten. by a parallel to similar processes occurring at the end of the 9th century BCE at the Syrian cities. were also populated during the 10th century BCE. He attributed the downfall of the city to the conquests of Hazael the Aramean (2 Kings. but also various vestiges in its surrounding that do not belong to residences and their annexes (see above. the time of the Assyrian conquests.800.1 ha.

9 ha. uncovered at the site by Bliss and Macalister. Maeir and Na aman attributed the aforementioned archaeological evidence to the occupation of Gath by Hazael. is described in 2 Chron. Although the reliability of this source is uncertain. an overall populated area of 26. Fuchs 1994: 131). if it is to rely only on the finds of stamped jar handles. 10). the supposition that Gath was annexed to Judea at that time is problematic. A fragment of an Assyrian stele. 26: 6. . The average size of a settlement in this complex was 1. This complex comprised 17 settlements. found in most of the sites appearing in the aforementioned list.12 It is possible that the growth of the settlement complex at the Tel afit-Gath area is related to processes in the surroundings of Tel Miqne-Ekron. which is mentioned among Rehoboam’s fortifications (1 Chron. as evidence.6 ha. such stamps were also found at other sites outsides the Judean kingdom. The Assyrian sources indicate that during the days of Sargon II Gath was under the rule of Ashdod (Pritchard 1950: 286. 5.144 alon shavit the finds uncovered therein indicate that both the construction of the system and its sealing should be dated to the Iron Age II (Maeir 2003: 245). At Tel afit-Gath six such stamps were uncovered (Vaughn 1999: 166).400 inhabitants. Furthermore. It is unlikely that the Assyrians would want to commemorate their activity by erecting a stele in a city that stopped functioning as a major urban center centuries earlier. with further references pro and con the reliability of the passage). might shed some light on the events of the time of Sargon II (Bliss et al. given that many such finds were unearthed at Tel Gezer. The Tel afit-Gath settlement complex emerged at a time when the population of its central settlement decreased. some regard it as a trustworthy historical description ( Japhet 1993: 877. The first appearance of a settlement complex around Tel afitGath occurred during the 8th century BCE (Fig. 11: 5–12). Na aman ascribed the fortifications of Tel afit-Gath. with an average population of 320. The conquest of Gath by Uzziah. for instance at Tel Miqne-Ekron. a city conquered by the Assyrians prior to Sennacherib’s time. It is however possible that Tel afit-Gath declined with the expansion of Judea. 1902: 41). Tel Batash. north of Tel afit-Gath. to the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign in the days of Hezekiah (Na aman 1986b). and Tel Ashdod (see Vaughn 1999). and brought lmlk stamps. and ca. king of Judea. However. Maeir claims that a “seesaw” 12 Na aman’s suggestion to relate the distribution of lmlk-stamped jars to Hezekiah’s preparation for war against the Assyrians is likely. He concluded that Hezekiah had overtaken Gath and other areas at the border of Philistia.

This development was. covering an overall area of 15. and the size of its satellite settlements is evident. The population peak of Tel afit-Gath occurred at some point between the 10th and the 8th centuries BCE.14 It should be noted that despite the low point that Tel afit-Gath’s power had reached and the number of its inhabitants. it was Tel Miqne-Ekron that prevailed. a result of the geographical proximity between the two Philistine cities. Maeir on January 10. The biblical description reflects an accumulated historical memory. in Maeir’s view.300 inhabitants (Fig. and it comprised an average of 200 inhabitants. on behalf of Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and the Israel Antiquities Authority. 14 A survey conducted at Tel afit yielded no sherds that could be dated with certainty to the 7th century BCE. Figs. did not constitute a pentapolis.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 145 relationship existed between Tel afit-Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron. at a conference dedicated to the Iron Age II. The estimate of the populated area of the site is based on Maeir’s description: “There is very little evidence for a settlement during the 7th century BCE” (Maeir 2001: 114). The five city-states. The limited area in which they existed made their simultaneous flourish impossible. 2001. It was only after the decline of Tel afit-Gath at the end of the 8th century BCE that Tel Miqne-Ekron flourished.5 ha with an estimated population of ca.13 It is therefore more probable that the settlements in the vicinity of Tel afit-Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron belonged to a single settlement complex. During the 7th century BCE. during the 8th century BCE.000 people inhabited the city. 16 settlements existed in the vicinity of Tel afit-Gath. . and less than 1. The average size of a settlement in this complex was ca. whose center wandered from one city to the other. therefore. During this period. each enjoyed a central status at a different period (Finkelstein 2002a). despite the flourishing noticed in the area. the central city. It appears that the settlements in the surroundings of Tel afit-Gath maintained close contacts with neighboring Tel 13 Based on a lecture held by A. the populated area of Tel afit-Gath declined to a mere 4 ha. Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel afit-Gath never functioned as urban and political centers at one and the same time. 10 and 11 indicate an immaturity of the settlement complex in the vicinity of Tel afit-Gath during the 8th century BCE. 1 ha. there is hardly any evidence indicating that damage was caused to its economicagricultural hinterland. The discrepancy between the size of Tel afit-Gath. 12). 3.

At places where no vestiges were spotted in the datum point given by Dagan’s report we surveyed a radius of 200 meters around the datum point. On the other hand. at a distance of up to 4 km from Tel afit-Gath (Dagan 1992. The sites were located using a map of 1: 20. During the field survey we conducted. The archaeological finds do not enable us to determine whether during the 7th century BCE Tel afit-Gath had an affinity with Judea or with Philistia. 2000). are almost complete” (Finkelstein 1996: 233). It is not mentioned in the list of cities in Josh. which was not the subject of his study. the renewed survey uncovered no datable finds. I believe that Finkelstein’s assertion is untenable. A similar phenomenon can be discerned in the settlement complex of Tel Gezer. it appears that during the Iron Age II. who inspected each site for over 40 minutes. In four of the sites described in Dagan’s report. but the sites yielded no sherds that could be dated to the Iron Age II. therefore. which is dated to the 7th century BCE (Alt 1953: 276–278. but rather than being a part of Judea it had an affinity with Tel Miqne-Ekron (Finkelstein 2002b). seven of these sites were examined. the inconsistency between his finds and the finds of the renewed survey may be explained through errors that occurred in the datum points of sites he surveyed. yet the renewed survey found no evidence for such. however.16 In the case of two other sites Dagan’s description matched the finds of the renewed survey. sherds from this period were uncovered in the south and east of Khirbet Boten. despite the fact that their own center had lost its position. In his study of the hinterland of the Philistine settlement. Rosette stamps. Uziel 2003: 49). considered typical of the 7th century BCE (Kletter 1999). 15 All seven sites were surveyed by an experienced unit of three to four surveyors. Dagan documented many Iron Age II sites located at the borders of the region discussed herein. Finkelstein stated: “It should be noted that this area was fully combed by Dagan. Dagan mentioned a significant number of finds from the Iron Age in the description of several sites.146 alon shavit Miqne-Ekron. which is based.15 and finds of both surveys were compared (Shavit 2000: 185). 16 We have been unable to examine finds from Dagan’s survey. the field data. were uncovered at Tel afit-Gath (Maeir 2003: 244. supplying it with crops. Na aman 1991). 15. In view of this. yet the excavators of the site remain doubtful that it was settled during the time. It is possible that in some instances Dagan was wrong in his dating of sherds. among other sources. . Tel Miqne-Ekron’s flourishing economy ensured the continuing prosperity of Tel afit-Gath’s satellite villages. Finkelstein suggested that a small settlement did exist at Tel afit-Gath. mainly olives for oil production. on finds from the survey conducted by Dagan.000 and a GPS system. even though the difference in the information regards mainly the Iron Age II.

These two sites are located ca. Tel Ashdod achieved demographic stability. This estimate is based on the assumption that at the time. at Tel Zippor and at Karatiya. During that period. their population is estimated at only ca.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 147 the settlement at this site was much smaller that the one that existed there at its peak during the Hellenistic period and maybe also during the Byzantine period.17 The present study indicates that during the 10th century BCE. only the upper part of the mound. 200 inhabitants in all. 13).000 inhabitants. an area of ca. During the 9th century BCE. and its population was less than 2. and yet the survey shows that only two tiny villages remained in the surroundings of the city: at Tel Poran and at Nitzanim beach. and even over the plain southwest of the mound. were not included in the settlement complex discussed in the present study. 7 ha. and its roots probably lie in the settlement pattern of the Iron Age I. was settled. . the rural settlement in the surroundings of Tel Ashdod was very sparse: Only four villages have been detected in its area. 17 Two settlements in the area of the Na al Lachish basin. Tel Ashdod and Its Surroundings and the Lower Part of the Na al Lachish Basin The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod stretches over the western part of the Na al Lachish basin. Tel Ashdod covered less than 10 settled ha (Fig. 100 inhabitants. It was in this period. 1 ha. 15 km from Tel afit-Gath and from Tel Ashdod. and their population is estimated at ca. spreading out over the entire lower tell. Tel Ashdod reached its peak (Fig. it had almost no rural hinterland. and their affinity with one of the urban centers or with a different central settlement is not clear. The results of excavations at Tel Ashdod indicate that although the 10th-century-BCE city that occupied the site was relatively large. for the first time. During the 8th century BCE. 14). The area of Khirbet Boten during the Iron Age II is estimated at only ca. and most of its settlements lie at a distance of up to 10 km from Tel Ashdod. that the settled area of the city extended outside the upper part of the mound. The same phenomenon is noticed in regard to Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel afit-Gath and their settlement complex.

located approximately halfway between Tel Ashdod and Tel Ashkelon.148 alon shavit I estimate the settled area of Tel Ashdod at 28 ha18 and its population at ca. and while they appear as two different sites. and are integrated into the original settlement once they have fully developed. These sites. In other cases. and an estimated population of 3. An important settlement in the hinterland of Tel Ashdod during the 8th–7th centuries BCE comprised two sites: Tel Poran and Tel Poran (west).19 The flourishing of Tel Ashdod can clearly be seen through the settlement complex that developed around it for the first time: It comprised 15 settlements. and the international road must have passed in their vicinity. This type of process is often the result of a settlement forming around two clan centers. The joined populated area of Tel Poran and Tel Poran (west) is estimated at ca.600 inhabitants. 7 ha. the size of Tel Ashkelon during the Iron Age II cannot be determined. more recent phenomenon of “cluster settlements. It ought to be noted that if indeed Tel Poran and Tel Poran (west) constituted a single community system. with an overall estimated settled area of 16. 19 To date. it is possible that their inhabitants considered themselves as belonging to a single community.300 inhabitants. lie on the borderline between the marzevah “trough” and the coastal dunes. The size of Tel Ashdod during this time is unparalleled to the size of any other Philistine town throughout the Iron Age. indicating disproportion between the size of the city and the size of the settlement complex surrounding it. Only several hundreds of meters separate the two settlements.5 ha. 1. secondary nuclei are formed due to lack of arable soils. the settled area of Tel Ashdod decreased notably (Figs. 15. and was inhabited by ca. During the 7th century BCE. the size of this settlement during the 7th century BCE was equivalent to that of the contemporaneous settlement at Tel Ashdod. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz estimated the settled area of Tel Ashdod during the 8th century BCE at 30 ha (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001).” characteristic of rural Arab settlement patterns in Palestine (Grossman 1991): Two or more historical settlement nuclei evolve into a single village. Only 13 settlements remained in the settlement complex of Tel Ashdod. 18 . 8 ha.500 inhabitants. 60% of the town’s population. It appears that at this period the city covered only ca. The number of inhabitants in Tel Ashdod’s rural hinterland reached only ca. 5. 16). Grossman discussed a similar.

While one cannot ignore the faults of the earlier reports. Most of the sites in this complex. its economic and political importance and centrality decreased dramatically. If this was the case. Tel Ashkelon and Its Surroundings The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon lies in the western region of the Shiqma basin. the mention of Ashdod in the Assyrian sources from the 7th century BCE refers to Ashdod-Yam. which is located ca. lie south of Tel Ashkelon. This prompted Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz to argue against the stratigraphic and chronological conclusions offered by the excavators of the site. . 15 km northeast of it. The border between these two settlement complexes may have migrated throughout the periods. at times when one 20 For additional criticism concerning errors in plan drawing and excavation methods. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz concluded that during the 7th century BCE. see Ussishkin 1990. within a ca. Ben-Shlomo 2003. is estimated at ca. which was not settled at that period (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001). the recently published results of excavation seasons 1968–1969 (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). a coastal center that was probably founded at the initiative of the Assyrians. Ashdod-Yam replaced Tel Ashdod. The average populated area of a settlement in this complex. The average number of inhabitants is estimated at 240. A plausible explanation for this southward development is the proximity of Tel Ashkelon to Tel Ashdod. 10 km radius from it. 1. for example. discerned also in our survey. I believe that while Tel Ashdod was still a large settlement in the Na al Lachish basin complex in the 7th century BCE. during which most of Area H was excavated.20 it seems that Finkelstein and SingerAvitz’s conclusion are somewhat harsh. Tel Ashdod excluded. The excavation reports of Tel Ashdod displayed some errors in plan drawings and shortcomings in excavation methods and in registration techniques. Ben-Shlomo rejected their criticism claiming that it was based on partial data that were available at the time (Ben-Shlomo 2003) and did not consider.000 inhabitants—a decrease of 9% from the 8th century BCE.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 149 with an overall populated area of 15 ha and a population of ca.2 ha. 3. According to this supposition.

with almost no rural hinterland. and maybe limited areas outside it as well. 11 new villages were founded in the vicinity of Tel Ashkelon.2 ha. 18. and their settlement complexes. Tel Ashkelon exhibits the same phenomenon mentioned above: a Philistine urban center. The villages at Netiv ha. a small site no bigger than 0.000 inhabitants at this time too. there was no substantial change in the number of settlements surrounding Tel Ashkelon. the area of which is estimated at less than 1 ha (Yasur-Landau and Shavit 1998. The population of Tel Ashkelon itself shows stability throughout the Iron Age II. Finds datable to this time span have been uncovered at two sites south of Tel Ashkelon: Netiv ha. comprising ca.000 inhabitants. Tel Ashkelon became a central seaport (Stager 1996a. This estimate is based on the assumption that during the Iron Age II. and it is estimated at ca.Asara. and consisted mostly of tiny villages or farms. and its economic and industrial activity. Shavit and Yasur-Landau 2005).1–0. Therefore. 5 ha. Master 2001). 1. 2. It was not a consolidated complex. In the 8th century BCE. During the 7th century BCE. the populated area of Tel Ashkelon covered an estimated area of 10 ha. and the village population is estimated at ca. The overall populated area of its sites covered ca.Asara. Detailed reports of the results of excavations at Tel Ashkelon have not yet been published. thus creating for the first time in the Iron Age II a true settlement complex (Fig. It is likely that during the 7th century BCE. and yet the settlement complex during this period seems more consolidated than that of the 8th century (Figs. and Erez.000 inhabitants. During the 10th–9th centuries BCE. and the nature of relations between the city and the two mentioned villages is not clear. and the population of each is estimated at several . 17). the city of Ashkelon covered mainly the top area of the mound. and Yad Mordechai became secondary centers at the southern part of this complex. It appears that during the 10th–9th centuries BCE. its commercial relationships.150 alon shavit of the cities enjoyed a more prominent status it could have functioned as an urban center for the satellite settlements of the other city—a process similar to the one offered for neighboring cities Tel afit-Gath and Tel Miqne-Ekron. Beit Jirjia. 19). 2. there is sparse information pertaining to the size of the Iron Age II city. Tel Ashkelon was not surrounded by a mature rural complex. In its vicinity only two villages existed. while Tel Ashdod lost some of its status and decreased in size.

The city of Gaza. it is worth noting that whereas in the 10th–9th centuries BCE Tel Ashkelon had almost no rural hinterland. particularly maritime trade (Stager 1996b. Tel Ashkelon. in view of the insufficiency of its hinterland. Like Stager. to the fact that the city lay on a crossroad of international commercial highways. economic. both land and maritime. However. In the full course of the Iron Age II Tel Ashkelon never exhibited a true demographic pool of the kind that usually serves a central city in order to actualize its economic and political force. The overall populated area of a dozen settlements in the vicinity of Tel Ashkelon is estimated at ca. 1. its overall population was still smaller than the population of the center. Most of these settlements were tiny villages of an average size of 0. the largest and most prominent in this area.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 151 hundreds. a mature settlement complex was never created in the vicinity of Tel Ashkelon. 7. and the city did not have a stable rural hinterland to rely on. this indicates the immaturity of this settlement complex. 125 (not including Tel Ashkelon). 10 ha. However. Although there was a noticeable increase of the population of this village complex by 50% in comparison to the 8th century BCE. and to international commercial relationships (Stager 1996a. Allen described the settlement complex pattern of Tel Ashkelon as “access resources” (Allen 1997).500 inhabitants. and cultural center. The Assyrian documents further attest the importance of the city and its central position. basing his assertion on the finds uncovered at the site attesting to industrial and commercial activity. in the 8th–7th centuries BCE a limited rural settlement complex did evolve around the city. he attributed the strength of the city. 2001). covered an estimated area of ca. and their population is estimated at ca. But the small scale of this complex supports Stager’s supposition that Tel Ashkelon’s strength was based mainly on its “port power” and it relied on international commerce. 1996b).6 ha and a population of ca.5 ha. Stager described Tel Ashkelon as a major political. and had a population of . The botanical finds also indicate the ties of the city with many regions of the country at the end of the Iron Age (Weiss and Kislev 2004). Gaza and the Na al Besor Basin This group of settlements includes all Iron Age II sites in the Na al Besor basin.

J. and it is close to most of the rural settlements located along Na al Besor. When analyzing the settlement complex of the region according to the rank-size rule the curve appears slightly concave. 15 settlements existed in the Na al Besor basin (Figs. and the population at this period is estimated at ca.800 inhabitants. indicating a settlement complex with a low level of unity. 1 ha. most even at a distance of over 20 km.21 However. with a population of ca. 20.152 alon shavit ca. 21). Their overall populated area is estimated at 24. and its population is estimated at ca. 4. 200 (excluding the city of Gaza). all the other settlements of this complex were located at a distance of more than 12 km from it. Tell el-Far ah (S). settlement stability was maintained to a certain extent. but his first published reports do not touch upon the area evaluations of the mound during this period (Humbert 2000). 4 ha. Qubur el-Walaida. Therefore. a study of the settlement distribution in this area shows that with the exception of Blakhiyeh that lay near Gaza. that functioned as the center for the Na al Besor basin settlement complex. and Urim. There is no doubt that Gaza was a central city. 800 inhabitants. The estimate of the populated area of the mound is based on the evaluation of the excavator (Pythian-Adams 1923)—who stated that Tel Gaza was larger than the higher Tel Ashkelon—and on an analysis of the excavation finds. The average size of each settlement was ca. This enabled Tell Jemmeh to maintain steady and continuous contacts with the surrounding settlements. as well as a port and the most important southern station on the main road that passed along the coastal strip of the Land of Israel.2 ha.000 inhabitants. Yet it would seem that similarly to Tel Ashkelon. A survey conducted by Gazit in this region revealed an upsurge in settlement during the Iron Age I (Gazit 1996). the population reached an estimated 700–800 inhabitants. and it seems that during the 10th century BCE.Ajjul. At four middle-sized villages in the area. During the 10th century BCE. . Gaza too relied on its “port power” and on international maritime and land trade. Tell el. In the course of the Iron Age II this settlement covered ca. Recently. The mound lies on a central crossroad (Aharoni and AviYonah 1993). 2. it is unlikely that the inhabitants of the villages in the Na al Besor basin visited Gaza regularly. but rather the large settlement at Tell Jemmeh. Hence the assumption that it was not Gaza. 21 Tel Gaza was not included in the survey we conducted. Humbert conducted excavations at Tel Gaza and uncovered finds dating to the Iron Age.

Their overall area is estimated at ca. 25): Fifteen villages have been dated to this period—an increase of 36%. New villages were also founded. This brought the overall populated area of the settlements in the region to ca. including the ones at Ruwibi and at Na al Besor. Although Gaza probably exhibited demographic stability. Their overall populated area is estimated at ca.200 inhabitants (an increase of 13%). evident in historical sources.000 inhabitants. 24).4 ha. 11 settlements existed in the Na al Besor basin (Figs. Particularly noteworthy is the disappearance of most of the tiny villages. The main turning point was the resettling of several villages that were probably not populated during the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. an increase of ca. served as a stimulus for the emergence of a hinterland. 35% compared to the 9th century BCE. During the 7th century BCE. resurgence occurred in the settlement complex of the area (Fig. . Tell er-Ruqeish. 22). and the development of commercial activity in the area. The founding of the centers at Tel Jemmah. and Blakhiyeh. founded at the end of the 8th century BCE. At the end of the century. The rest of the settlements in the Na al Besor basin. 27. Among these are the villages at Tell el-Far ah (S) and at Qubur el-Walaida (the latter did not recover its previous size). and concave on its lower part. On the other hand. and their population is estimated at ca. throughout the rest of the region there was a decrease in population by an estimated 27%. and their population at ca.4 ha. in the proximity of Tell Jemmeh. the number of settlements in the region decreased to seven (Fig. During the 8th century BCE. 6. but a slight variation from the normal log is apparent.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 153 During the 9th century BCE. 23. remained small and poorly populated. all middle-sized villages (1–3 ha) ceased to exist with the exception of the settlement at Blakhiyeh. 22 ha. 24 represents this development (in particular when compared to Fig. Fig. 20. 4. It is likely that the increase in settlement number at the Na al Besor basin is related to the development of the Gaza Coastal Plain under Assyrian rule. The overall populated area of the coastal settlements at Blakhiyeh and Tell er-Ruqeish reached an estimated ca. a settlement was founded at Tell er-Ruqeish with an estimated area of 10 ha. 21): The curve is convex on its upper part. 31 ha.

was characterized.154 alon shavit The Aegean Sources for the Formation of the Philistine City-State The settlement complex22 of most of the cities of Philistia. the absence of a settlement rank expected in a mature settlement complex. . it is difficult to estimate the populated area of Gaza during the Iron Age. 22 Tel Ashdod was not an urban center until the 8th century BCE. In view of the archaeological data available to date. by large urban centers and an almost complete absence of a hinterland. Urban centers in this region were few. during the Iron Age I. from the beginning of the Iron Age onward. preceding the arrival of the Philistines • Contemporary settlement complexes from all of the Land of Israel • Settlement centers in the Aegean world at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age The Settlement Complex of the Southern Coastal Plain during the Late Bronze Age Bunimovitz noticed sparse settlement at the Coastal Plain during the Late Bronze Age (Bunimovitz 1989). at the end of the Late Bronze Age. the hinterland of the cities was severely reduced. from its beginning until the 8th century BCE. Hence. it is unlikely that the size of the Philistine cities during the Iron Age I and the lack of a settlement hierarchy in this period are to be attributed to the Canaanite culturalcivic tradition. thus resulting in a lack of settlement hierarchy. the Coastal Plain was characterized by a settlement rank of at least three size categories (Finkelstein 1996: 231). Despite the small size of its population during the Late Bronze Age. Therefore. as per Singer’s view (Singer 1994). In order to examine the cultural sources of the main settlement complexes in Philistia. as described above. Conversely. and each of them covered a populated area no bigger than 5 ha. we must compare them with the following: • The state of settlement in the study area.

Exceptions are the settlement complexes in the vicinities of Gezer.: 90). The same is true for periodical population estimates per site.1–3 ha. Gezer was smaller than most Philistine urban centers (the size of Gaza and Tel Ashkelon at the time is not clear). and Megiddo. during the Iron Age I. In its proximity lay five settlements of 1. and 54 villages datable to this period were counted. Despite the geographical similarity between the southern and northern Coastal Plain. belonging to the three smallest size categories are dated to the Iron Age I. yet while the settlement complexes of the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age II are characterized by curves nearing a straight line. 20 km radius around the city and an area of 650 km² in all. This impedes attempts to estimate settlement sizes. and examine population and demographic changes according to sub-periods. the settlement complex in the Akko Valley started to flourish: There was a 150% increase in population. the population in the Akko Valley decreased by ca. 10%–20%. and its settlement complex included 41 settlements. we encounter some methodical difficulties: In most studies material distinctions between sub-periods of the Iron Age are overlooked (Dagan 1992. In the Late Bronze Age. and population sizes estimated During the Iron Age I. where finds from surveys were sorted by sub-periods. Hazor. A preliminary report of a survey conducted by Lehmann in the Akko Valley (Lehmann 2001) sheds light on the settlement complex of Akko and its surroundings: a ca. while 38 settlements in the surveyed region. the populated area of Akko covered over 10 ha. the Iron Age I is characterized by a more concave curve.settlement patterns of philistine city-states The Settlement Patterns in Israel at the Beginning of the Iron Age 155 When attempting to compare settlement patterns in the region of Philistia to those in contemporary complexes in other parts of the country. Similar processes were observed by Lehman in the Lower Galilee (ibid. Gezer alone covered over 10 ha. Akko. Akko ceased to be a large and central city. the region of Akko underwent processes unlike the ones that took place . but unlike other centers it relied on a mature and hierarchical settlement complex (Shavit 2000: 211–215). Analyses of the settlement complexes according to the rank-size rule show convex curves in all periods. Stepansky 1999). During the Iron Age II. indicating little unity of the settlement complex. in view of the survey. The most significant change in the region. and eight more villages and hamlets. was the collapse of the settlement complex during the Iron Age I. During the Iron Age I.

In this region. Among the sites were also six middle-sized settlements (1. while the hinterland diminished severely. Mazar and Stager maintained that the careful planning displayed by the Philistine cities. the Canaanite culture remained dominant in this region.156 alon shavit in Philistia. The Settlement Pattern in the Aegean World at the End of the Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Iron Age It is generally agreed that during the period under discussion. and no settlement complexes similar to the ones in Philistia evolved. Processes similar to the ones observed in the Akko Valley occurred also at Hazor and in its surroundings (Ilan 1999: 166–171. It seems that although the Sea Peoples settled also in the northern Coastal Plain (Lehmann 2001 with further references). While the urban centers diminished. settlement patterns and urban planning in Israel’s southern Coastal Plain were highly affected by Aegean forms and concepts. indicate Aegean concepts of settlement planning (Mazar 1990. 11 ha. The settlement complex in this region maintained its stability compared to the Late Bronze Age. and Hazor. evolving into low-unity settlement complexes.6 ha. yet no central city dominated the area. standing at the head of a small settlement complex comprising three large cities. During the Late Bronze Age. 34. Akko. the rest were small villages. four middle-sized settlements. which ranges over 600 km². and its populated area at the time is estimated at only ca. as well as their size. the major being Megiddo with a populated area of ca. Similar processes may be noted in the regions of Megiddo. Their overall populated area is estimated at ca. Stager 1995: 345). Thirty-eight settlements in the Jezreel Valley and on the surrounding ridges have been dated to the Iron Age I. Megiddo also underwent a decrease in size during the Iron Age I. Bunimovitz argues that a process of . and eight small settlements or farms. These processes are opposite to the ones that took place in Philistia. a region where the urban centers increased in size. the settlement complexes maintained their size and strength. 6 ha. 211–214). Finkelstein and Halpern studied the settlement complex of Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley (Finkelstein and Halpern 1995). a decrease of 11% compared to the Late Bronze Age. Hazor was a large urban center. 37 sites datable to the Late Bronze Age have been located. During the Iron Age I. the number of settlements in the region rose to 25.1–4 ha).

and during LH III in particular (Bennet and Shelmerdine 2001: 136–137). Finkelstein ascribed this process to a limited number of Aegean newcomers that came from an urban society and had a technological and demographic edge over the local population (Finkelstein 1996: 236). Finds of animal bones constitute additional evidence that may shed light on the urban life patterns in Philistia and on their Aegean origins. suggesting the possibility of synoecism (Rutter 1992: 70. were destroyed or abandoned at the end of LH IIIB or at the beginning of LH IIIC (Kilian 1990: 446). In other areas hierarchical settlement patterns were annihilated. one encounters processes similar to the ones observed in the southern Coastal Plain. During the transition period from the Palatial to the post-Palatial era in the Aegean world. Tiryns and Midea—both fortified acropoli in LH IIIB (Shelmerdine 1997: 552)—displayed an increase of population at the beginning of LH IIIC while the countryside of the Argolid remained almost completely empty. Zakros. along with most of its satellites. where no settlement hierarchy is evident. A process of nucleation can also be discerned in protoPalatial East Crete. 435–437). For example. Such is the case for the kingdom of Pylos (Small 1998: 285): In western Messenia the beginning of the LH III is marked by the abandonment of earlier sites (as opposed to the Argolid where new sites were founded). such as Berbati. Some of the closest parallels come from the Argolid: Central sites remained settled during LH IIIC. towns.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 157 synoecism resembling the situation at the LH IIIC Peloponnese is seen clearly at Tel Ashdod. In Tel Ashkelon pig bones constituted 4% of the overall animal finds in a level dated to the 13th century BCE. and Tel Ashkelon (Bunimovitz 1998). Hesse noticed a major increase in finds of pig bone during the Iron Age I in excavations of Philistine cities compared to the Late Bronze Age (Hesse 1990). At Tel Miqne-Ekron too there was an increase in these finds from 8% during the earlier period . when the main site was either destroyed or abandoned. Schallin 1996: 173). Pylos increased in size and power throughout the LH. This may be connected with the rise of Pylos as a strong center (Shelmerdine 1997: 553). and villages. while Yasur-Landau perceived more substantial Aegean migration and colonization as the most plausible explanation for these similarities (Yasur-Landau 2002: 387–388. and Iria. while in a 12th-century-BCE level they constituted 19%. Prosymna. while secondary sites. At this time Petras. and Palaikastro were large towns and all sites in their surroundings were single houses and farms (Driessen 2001: 61). Tel Miqne-Ekron.

While at Tel Miqne-Ekron the decrease in pig bone finds began already at Stratum IV. about two centuries later.158 alon shavit to 18% during the later period. where the Philistines originated. Yasur-Landau believes that the dominance of cattle and pig in the Philistine livestock was a result of the need to consolidate the livestock farming in the vicinity of urban settlements. Lev-Tov performed an analysis of animal bones at Tel Miqne-Ekron based on a much larger sample than the one used by Hesse (Lev-Tov 2000). where there is a preference for cattle raising. • pigs are more typical of rural farms than of urban farms. a tendency that persisted in Philistine sites for ca. • pig farming characterizes lower strata of society. and not of intensive agriculture. Lev-Tov rejected the interpretation offered by Hesse and Wapnish according to which pig farming indicates a society of immigrants (Lev-Tov 2000). which is characteristic of most of the Philistine population from the beginning of its settlement in Canaan and up to the 8th century BCE. These characteristics comply with the Philistine settlement pattern: an immigrant society that could not base its livestock farming on an existing hinterland. • pig herds are more easily moved and acclimatized to a new surrounding. and therefore constitute an important component in the economy of immigrants seeking an available and immediate protein source that is independent of their changing surroundings. located at a . as opposed to an urban one. He pointed out that pigs had already constituted a large portion of livestock in the Aegean sites. Hesse also noticed an increase in cattle bones compared to caprine bones. as there were hardly any villages left in the vicinity of the cities in Philistia at the time. According to Hesse and Wapnish (Hesse and Wapnish 1997: 240–253) the characteristics of farmsteads that rely on pig farming are as follows: • Pig farming is characteristic of pastoral agriculture. which is the reason for a significant decrease in pig farming once the settlement complexes developed and their economies became specialized. the settlement complex surrounding Tel Miqne-Ekron began to mature only at the end of the 8th century BCE. 200 years after the migration of the Sea Peoples to Canaan. These conclusions contradict the results of the present study. where they constitute 5% of the overall animal bone finds. His study indicated a dramatic increase in the presence of pig bones at Tel Miqne-Ekron: In Stratum V pig bones made up 24% of all animal bone finds. In Lev-Tov’s view pig raising is characteristic of family farming. Hesse and Wapnish related pig farming to a rural society.

water wells. and lacking hinterland (YasurLandau 2002: 391). the “proto-city” (Mumford 1960: 230. and in which the land is only partly arable and building materials are scarce. e. and a sewage system • A high level of masonry atypical of rural settlements • A temple or an unroofed cultic site. These data indicate that the component of livestock in the Argolid was similar to the one found in Philistine sites. which may serve as an indication for Aegean settlement patterns in those sites. serving a main source of attraction for its inhabitants. “Quasi-cities” are usually isolated from their surroundings.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 159 relatively restricted area on the plain. Their conservative nature hinders processes of change. most of their inhabitants subsist on agriculture and their economy does not rely on a hinterland.. The more intricate the . at Tiryns. and sometimes a mature rank evolves between them.g. but also the formation of a unique model of “city-villages” in the urban centers in Philistia. I believe that the reason pig farming was preferred over animal husbandry in Philistine settlements is not only lack of hinterland. In the “proto city” there is a stable formation of heterogenic population. The components and characteristics of this “city-village” or “quasi-city” have been specified by Andreev (1989: 169–170): • A full or partial fortification system • Dense urban fabric leaving almost no open spaces for animal enclosures • A planned city outline including street alignment • Public infrastructure including paved streets. such as those of agricultural specialization. They are characterized by social homogeneity. and therefore contain no noble residences.). Yasur-Landau presented data from excavations conducted in Greece. or a complex that includes both Andreev stated that such settlements usually evolve in areas that are sparse in water and lacking wood resources for construction. at the transition from LH IIIB to LH IIIC (ibid.” the “proto-city” is a settlement center for the surrounding villages. By Mumford’s definition this is a highly populated village that has a cultic site in its center. The special characteristics of a settlement of the “quasi-city” type are accentuated when compared to another type of settlement. which in turn create social stratification. Renfrew 1972: 402). Unlike the “quasi-city. most of which does not deal directly with agriculture.

160 alon shavit settlement complex of the “proto-city” is. and the more evident the social heterogeneity becomes (Andreev 1989: 171). yet it has parallels in Aegean settlement complexes dating to the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. fortifications and public buildings constitute most of the vestiges uncovered at Philistine cities. Tel Ashdod. In the absence of a hinterland. Due to vigorous urbanization the relationships between social strata in the large cities were fairly limited. the dwellers of these cities turned to a specialized economy. and Gaza. the more numerous the social roles that evolve in it. These relationships made it possible for the city dwellers to attain a supply of basic natural products. The settlement pattern emerging from our survey bears relevance to the economic situation of the Philistine cities. The emergence of urban centers with almost no surrounding hinterland is an exceptional phenomenon in the landscape of ancient Israel. and enabled diversity and expansion of the markets for products manufactured in the cities. Tel Miqne-Ekron. Tel Ashkelon. and prevailing living conditions and infrastructures resembled those of rural areas. and the elites did not hold a powerful control over the lower social strata. If indeed a settlement pattern of urban “city-villages” emerged in Philistia with no hinterland. Conclusions It seems that the settlement pattern that evolved in Philistia from the beginning of the Iron Age I and until the end of the 8th century BCE was influenced by a culture originating in the Aegean World. Today. this population supplied the elementary needs of the elite. Tel afit-Gath. the majority of the population in these “city-villages” was rural. Hence. For instance. in the vicinity of Tel Gezer and Tell el-Far ah (S). Lacking a traditional hinterland. the products of which were marketed to distant geographical districts. Lacking a hinterland. Only once a sufficient number of living quarters is excavated at these sites. pottery manufactured in the region of Tel Ashkelon was marketed to sites as far away as the settlement at Tel Malot (Shavit forthcoming). the inhabitants of the Philistine cities probably also developed a reciprocal relationship with the Canaanite rural settlements that still remained within the borders of Philistia. will it be possible to understand their socioeconomic fabric. it was an extraordinary model in the settlement landscape of the country. .

and Heltzer. J. Ashdod Revisited. The Formation and Distribution of Soils and Landscapes in Philistia. K. ed. Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv University). ed. 1996. The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study for Sociocultural Change in a Complex Society (Ph. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1859–1937. New York. 1997.. Mazar. 1989 Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type-Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period. IEJ 46: 3–4.). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1995.. A.. Vol. 1902. An Introduction to Urban Historical Geography. 2002b. 2005. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). 1982. Gezer Revisited and Revised. I. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8: 167–177. Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: A Comparative Study of Immigration Processes. The Survey of the Megiddo Countryside (Lecture at a Special Session on the Archaeology of Megiddo). and Safrai.settlement patterns of philistine city-states References 161 Aharoni. A. Y. Die Inschriften Sargons: II: aus Khorsabad. Allen. K. E. S. Vol. Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (AASOR 49). 2000. Sheffield: 135–140. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. F. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. and Yaalon. Tel Aviv 28: 231–259. and Stern. Ashdod VI. 1996. Carter. The Settlement in the Judean Shephela in the Second and First Millennia BC: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region (Ph. dissertation. A. Dagan. Ben-Shlomo. R.. Winona Lake. D. 1989. dissertation. Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod Tel Aviv 30: 83–107. Gitin.. and Dever. The Olive Oil Industry at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Late Iron Age. The Philistines in the Bible: A Late Monarchic Perspective. 2001.D. In: Gitin. Rural Settlement in an Urban World. In: Eitam. and Avi-Yonah.D. J. Studies in the Geography of Eretz-Israel 9: 36–74 (Hebrew). Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from the Neolithic to the Early Arab Period (History of the Ancient Near East Studies. Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Urim (125).D. Not the Palace of Nestor: The Development of the ‘Lower Town’ and Other Non-Palatial Settlements in LBA Messenia. Y. S. Contested Peripheries: Philistia in the Neo-Assyrian World-System (Ph. Philadelphia. M. A. Finkelstein. 1993. dissertation. Urbanization as a Phenomenon of Social History. V. Finkelstein. 007) Padova: 167–196. I. Bennet. Bliss. A. The Macmillan Bible Atlas (revised 3rd edition by Rainey. and Ben-Shlomo. W. B. H. M. D. IA: 23–58.. 1996. thesis. 2. Finkelstein. The Judean Shephela during the Monarchy Period in the Light of the Excavations and the Archaeological Survey (M. S. Alt. 225–242. History and Hierarchy: Preliminary Observations on the Settlement Pattern of Minoan Crete. C. Jerusalem. M. London. G. R. Dothan. November 1995. Bunce. . Munich. Eitam. J.. M. Jerusalem: 103–113. eds. J. The ASOR/SBL Annual Meeting. D. Y. W. London. In: Branigan. The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969) Moshe Dothan and David Ben-Shlomo (IAA Reports 24). D. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Philadelphia. London. 1976. and Shelmerdine. Macalister. S. ——. Gazit. UCLA). 2003. D. Tel Aviv 29: 262–296. The Routes in Palestine. Tel Aviv University). 2002a. eds. Bunimovitz. 1998.. M. D. JSOT 27/2: 131–167. Z. Driessen. and Halpern.A. California. I. Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. F. ——. In: Branigan. Fuchs. L. Y. and Singer-Avitz. S. The Philistine Countryside. 1989. 1994. 1983. 2001. Jerusalem. Andreev. Sheffield: 51–71. 1953. Göttingen. 1992. and Wünsch. eds.. ——. In: Gitin. ——. 2001. Dan.

E. City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. M. Sheffield: 65–112. Le Monde de la Bible 127: 7–13. and Small. The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. I. G. Knoxville. ed. R. 9–14 July 1985. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. E. C. 1990. Journal of Ethnobiology 10/2: 195–225. and Wapnish. Canberra: 445–467. I. Japhet. S. ed. The Changing Organization of Uruk Administration on the Susiana Plain. 1981. M. The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. K. A. Sydney. Johnson. Lehmann. IEJ 53/2: 237–246. Phoenicians in Western Galilee: First Results of an Archaeological Survey in the Hinterland of Akko. Vol. 1987. D. and Adams. BASOR 269: 11–28. 2. 1999. A. Processes and Factors Influencing Traditional Settlement Patterns in Israel. 1991. Y. Hesse. In: Kraeling. J. Amsterdam: 144–187. J. Hebrew University). KY.162 alon shavit Gophna. 1990. BASOR 314: 19–54. In: Hole. B. Sheffield: 238–270..-P. MA. and Portugali. Cambridge. A. 2001. 2001. J. TN. A. B. December 4–7. Monitoring Complex System Integration and Boundary Phenomena with Settlement Size Data. eds. Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology. 2003. A Reinterpretation of Rank Size Rule: Examples from Western England and Southern Israel. C.D. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I: Cultural Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives (Ph..D. In: Katz. 1993. eds. and Baruch. eds. Notes and News: Tell es-Safi.. Lev-Tov. Maeir. 1988. H. 2000.. Geography Research Forum 9: 67–108. Hodder. dissertation. ——. Mazar. Settlement.. G. and Ehrlich. In: van der Leeuw. Jerusalem. N. 1990. dissertation. Y. dissertation. ed. In: Mazar. A. Master. ed. In: Maeir. 1997. A.000–586 BCE. Tel Aviv. 1989. D. Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. New York. Cambridge. E. Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity.. D. University of Tennessee). . 2001. ——. and the Ancient Animal Economy of Ekron from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II (Ph. The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: A Petrographic Study (Ph. D. Studies in Historical and Demographic Geography of Eretz-Israel. eds. 2001.. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology (New Studies in Archaeology 1). In: Descoeudres. The Philistine Culture in Transformation: A Current Perspective Based on the Results of the First Seasons of Excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath. 1–2 (Ph. Ben-Arieh. L. Hesse B. Mumford. R. Pigs. Philistines. M. S. S. Kilian. ——. M. 1958. Chicago: 224–248. Interpreting the Present ( JSOT Supplement Series 237).. Grossman. M. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10. Jerusalem: 28–47 (Hebrew). dissertation. Concluding Address.. Washington DC: 107–139. Harvard University). Kletter. Pots and Polities: Material Remains of Late Iron Age Judah in Relation to Its Political Borders. and Kaniel. The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past. Gaza: les richesses d’un antique carrefour.D. Humbert. C. Mycenaean Colonization: Norm and Variety. Maeir. 1960. Excavating Philistine Gath: Have We Found Goliath’s Hometown? Biblical Archaeology Review 27/6: 22–31. Civilization and Culture: Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon. Louisville.. Can Pig Remains Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East? In: Silberman. 1999. 1976. Grossman D. Tel Aviv University). Ilan. Y. 1997. Vols. Ramat Gan: 111–129 (Hebrew). and Sonis.D. S. Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Production. E. F. R. and Orton. P.

A. Atiqot. ——. 1991. 1996. 1997. D. A. 1986a. Salvage Excavation at Tel Malot. and Sharp-Joukowski. R. Tel Aviv 27: 189–230. Jerusalem: 6. Settlement Patterns in Israel’s Southern Coastal Plain during the Iron Age II (Ph. A. Renfrew. and Yasur-Landau. M. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Rosen. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Sharon. IA: 61–78. 1972. Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Dubuque. dissertation. Portugali. Environmental Change and Settlement at Tel Lachish. ed. 1988. Tarbitz 55: 463–488. Neev.Asara. Tel Aviv: 4–38 (Hebrew). W. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Netzer. B. M. A. Pythian-Adams. Population and Economy in Israel During Antiquity: Congress in Memory of Prof. 2001. 1978. ——. Tel Aviv University). S. and Na aman. and Stern. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the lmlk Stamps. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Schallin. A. Y. Schacht. eds. American Antiquity 49: 678– 695. 1996. Settlements. eds.. 1986b. I. eds. eds. A. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 56: 18–30. . The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B. A. 1983. IEJ 52/2: 200–224. M. N... Ramat Gan (Hebrew). The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990.. Ofer. A. ——. B.. Young Tectonic Activities along the Israeli Coastline. and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel. and Kasher. W. Bar-Ilan University). Second Report on Soundings at Gaza. J. 2003. ed. Shavit.settlement patterns of philistine city-states 163 Na aman. 2002. ——. C. Pritchard. 1923. Population and Settlement Theories and Their Relevance to Demographic Studies in Israel. I. Canaanites. 1994. The Complex of Canaanite Kingdom Cities during the Late Bronze Age and the Israeli Inheritance.. In: Bunimovitz. Rutter. 1992. The Monarchic Period in the Judaean Highland: A Spatial Overview. M. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. and Bakler. Forthcoming. Climate Changes during the Holocene and Their Impact on Landscape Formation in the Dan Region and on Human Settlement in the Area (Ph. Shelmerdine. In: Wells. E. The Berbati-Limnes Survey: The Late Helladic Period. Jerusalem: 283–291. BASOR 261: 5–21. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours. Jerusalem: 282–338. A. A. Princeton.. In: Mazar. Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages. D. ——. The Rank of Sites in Eretz Israel. 1984. S. 2000. 6 March 1985. N. 1998. Small. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. The Tenth Archaeological Congress in Israel: Lecture Abstracts. Kochavi. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century BC: From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Jerusalem. J. American Journal of Archaeology 101: 537–585. W.. 2005. 1986c.. In: Various Authors. Sheffield: 14–37. A Bronze and Iron Age Settlement at Netiv Ha. C. Cultural Novelties in the Post-Palatial Aegean World: Indices of Vitality or Decline? In: Ward. N. In: Gitin. Surviving the Collapse: The Oikos and Structural Continuity between Late Bronze Age and Late Greece. Israel. Shavit. B. BASOR 263: 55–60. E. Tel Aviv. J. London. L.C. Stockholm: 123–175. A. ed. Egyptians.D. Finkelstein. 1950. Yohanan Aharoni. The Contemporaneity Problem. dissertation. Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland. From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Mazar.. Salvage Excavation Reports 2: 59–92.D. Singer. 1994. ——. Coast and Sea: Articles and Lectures.

ed. ——. Yasur-Landau.. thesis. Tel Aviv University). ed. A. Yasur-Landau. Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Surface Survey. and Shavit. Esse. ——. . The Periphery of Hazor during the Bronze Age.A. 1997. O. L. 1999. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 110: 102–104. Plant Remains as Indicators for Economic Activity: A Case Study from Iron Age Ashkelon. Ramat Gan. History. 1995. ——. Port Power in the Early and the Middle Bronze Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hinterland Production. 1998. Tel Aviv. In: Levy. The Tell es-Safi Archaeological Survey (M. S. E. the Iron Age and the Persian Period: A Regional-Archaeological Study (M. Netiv Ha. 2).A. J. and Chronological Aspects (Tel Aviv Journal Occasional Publications No. Zimhoni. and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. and Kislev. Vaughn. M. A. G. Tel Aviv. M. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE. Tel Aviv.164 alon shavit Stager. A. Tel Aviv 32: 50–75. Social Aspects of the Aegean Migration to the Levant in the Late Second Millennium BCE (Ph. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. E. Gezer. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological. GA. thesis. In: Wolff. Biblical Archaeology Review 22/1: 56–68. Chicago: 625–638. 2005. Archaeological. and Maeir. London: 332–348. Ussishkin. T. BASOR 277–278: 71–91. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L.Asara. E. J. dissertation. Tel Aviv University). 1996a.. 76–77. 2003. Stepansky. D. 1996b. EI 25: 61*–74*. Bar-Ilan University). Atlanta. 2002. Notes on Megiddo. A. The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE). 2004.D. Uziel. Ashdod and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries BC. Y. Theology. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1–13. R. Weiss. A. 1999. Uziel. 1990.

It is most probable that Varı lı stands for the Arabic Marouche. but on the whole Atchana seems the more generally employed” (Woolley 1936: 128. In the following year he conducted the first season at the site of Tell Atchana. The original Arabic name is transliterated as A šäna.” or even “desirous.” “thirsty. . now commonly written in Turkish as Aççana or Açana. perhaps reflecting a pre-modern notion 1 The spelling of the name Atchana is French.  רבי יוסי אומר כל שיש לו בית‬ (‫הכסא סמוך לשולחנו )בבלי שבת כ"ה ע"ב‬ When Sir Leonard Woolley decided in 1935 to launch a field project in the northern Levant he surveyed forty mounds along the Amuq and the Orontes Delta. Marouche is the name of a somewhat larger village half a mile away. Some of the names are translations from Arabic or Turkish names. noting that “on the French maps the mound is named Marouche and the tiny hamlet on its eastern end is called Atchana. Local use is divided between the two names. “thirsty” Atchana is just 800 meters away from Tell Ta yinat. used today to denote the Atchana village as well as a larger village across the main road. Having selected four sites. The Arabic َْ name is the feminine singular form of ‫ .” Furthermore.LEVANTINE STANDARDIZED LUXURY IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE: WASTE MANAGEMENT AT TELL ATCHANA (ALALAKH) Amir Sumaka i Fink ‫תנו רבנן איזה עשיר .1 Given the proximity of the site to the Orontes River it is surprising that the word Atchana literally means “parched with thirst. he received permission to excavate one of them (al-Mina) and to dig sondages at three others including at Tell Atchana (Woolley 1937: 3–4). . I believe that this is the case with the Turkish name Varı lı. . Note 2). north of the Antakya-Aleppo highway. It was during that period of time that Woolley gave attention to the name of the site. a short ten-day mission in which two trenches were excavated. homophonic to the Arabic name.ﻋﻄﺸﺎن‬Many of the sites in the Amuq (Amik in Turkish) carry both Turkish and Arabic names. a site whose name possibly derives from the Arabic word for spring or water source.

and plans of the Oriental Institute excavations at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) appearing in this paper were previously published in the articles listed in the reference list and/or in the of the 2004 and 2005 Kazi Sonuçlari Toplantisi. This restroom sheds further light on the ones previously excavated. Yener was the director of the project with J. D. assignment. allotment.166 amir sumaka i fink of how widely divergent the nature of these two nearby large mounds was. while that pumped right by Atchana is considered to be bad water. Tel Aviv University. K. and a “bathroom” in which bathing or washing takes place. stipulation. 4). . data. more so than in any other excavated Levantine site. food. The terms lavatory and latrine are used in some of the literature interchangeably to describe the toilet installation.3 With the exception of the Level IV palace bathrooms and restrooms. as well as related general plans (including some photos) in his final excavation report (Woolley 1955. ration. 2004 and 2005 ASOR Annual Meeting. Schloen as the associate director and the present author as the senior field supervisor. apportionment.” Interestingly. Following a brief review of restrooms and toilets excavated throughout the Near East. All information. 4 I use the term toilet to describe the installation. in many of their residences. appropriation. In this paper. The vast majority of these Late Bronze Age restrooms were excavated by Woolley during the 1930s and 1940s. 2004 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Archaeology. there is reason to believe that not only were the inhabitants of ancient Alalakh far from thirsty. َﻋ ْﲔ‬Nevertheless. and the 2005 AIA Annual Meeting. see Appendix for detailed references). I discuss the blueprint and structure of these facilities as they pertain to Tell Atchana. they were also confident in the constant supply of water. so much so that they included bathrooms and restrooms. 2004a: 2. equipped with flush toilets. I distinguish between a “restroom” in which the toilet is located. hence the unique significance of the recently excavated restroom. 2005: 48.2 Yet. water pumped from a well located at the foothills of Ta’yinat is considered drinkable by the villagers. allocation. Fig.4 At the center of my paper are restrooms. and he provided short descriptions of them. What may well be an additional restroom was unearthed in 2003 by the Oriental Institute. 2 ‫ . Wehr Dictionary defines it as plural of ‫ ﺗَ ْﻌﻴِﲔ‬meaning “nomination. 2004b: 28–29. all of the restrooms excavated by Woolley were either removed or destroyed when a farmhouse was built on the excavation site following the completion of Woolley’s project. photos. and especially the restroom excavated there during the 2003 season. University of Chicago Tell Atchana (Alalakh) Expedition (Yener et al. appointment. and serves as an excellent point of departure for discussing these rooms and their function. I did not check whether both wells are of the same depth and nature. A. 3 The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago conducted full-scale excavations at Tell Atchana during the summers and falls of 2003 and 2004.

Indeed.5 and cesspits. they need to use appropriate hydraulic plaster or bitumen in order that the waste water does not end up damaging the walls and floors (Forbes 1964: 74–80). and to prevent the drain system from clogging. The few instances in which such “bathroom codes” have come down to us—through ethnoarchaeology or textual records—make it clear that it would be an extremely difficult task to figure out many of the intentions of the ancients regarding the respective location of the toilet. and superstitions. Ragette recounts the twelve rules in a Muslim legal pronouncement ( fatwa) about toilets (Ragette 2003: 73). especially without polluting a nearby well. These might have included religious conventions. Moreover. building restrooms entails considerably detailed planning before the construction of the building can take place. and an understanding of the nature of local soils. For instance. Furthermore.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) 167 not bathrooms. Obviously. idiosyncratic traditions. constructing a restroom necessitates an intimate knowledge of engineering and building materials. only certain soils are adequate to carry a cesspit. emphasizing that “they clearly address themselves to life in a non-built environment and contain pre-Islamic elements: 5 This is the term used by Woolley to describe the two parallel brick-plastered footstools on which one would squat while using these toilets (Woolley 1955: 118). for most of the washing facilities found in Tell Atchana clearly functioned as restrooms (whereas flush-toilet restrooms may have functioned also as bathrooms. toilet basins or foot-stands. The construction of a restroom or a bathroom requires several technological capabilities in addition to some manipulation of water supply for washing. and flushing purposes. cleaning. channels running under floors and through walls. Finally. the way the ancients conceptualized hygiene. owing to the special architectural features that characterize them. They also have to see to it that the floor and drain pipes are sufficiently sloped for the sewage to drain off the floor. bathtubs. the latter are less likely to have functioned as restrooms). . a host of additional considerations must have guided the ancient builder. Builders need to ensure that at least one of the walls of the room is an external one or else to rely on an advanced sewage system that drains the water under the floors or through several walls. namely a drain. waterproof walls and floors. many of which are unknown to us—the excavators of ancient toilets.

who considers the text to be the “protocol of the king’s wastes. wherever they may be.100 rev. [fix them] and have all of (their bottoms) paved with stone and make them smooth and stable. Do not remo[ve the excrements either] into the [city of Hatt]uša. 8–10 as follows: Be ye very careful with regards to the matter of (royal) defecation! Let not the king [relieve himself (?)] up in Hattusha. [ Now be] very diligent in matters of defecation. up [there you may defecate(?)]. opening the door to different interpretations. whatever water containers there may be [in the area of ] the palace. Rather let the king [go] down to the great huššili! (Hoffner 1972: 131) Whereas Hoffner understands this text to constitute a religious ban on locating a restroom in the royal palace at Hattusha. [Let them] turn/carry all [the excrement(??)] to the orchards(?). Carry (the content of ) the hearths down to the big clay pit. The text is in poor condition.168 amir sumaka i fink Do not squat in the view of people Do not squat over a container Do not face the quibla Do not turn your back towards Mecca Do not squat against the sun or the moon Do not turn the back against the sun or the moon Remain silent Do not spit Do not blow your nose Use a stone only three times (in place of water or sand) Clean yourself with the left hand Do not observe your excrement. More contemporaneous with the Tell Atchana toilets is a Hittite instruction text that deals with human excrement (KUB 31.” translates KUB 31. (Ünal 1993: 131–134) . Hoffner. Whatever vineyards and orcha[rds you own].100). [ Moreov]er do not e[mpty] (the ashes of ) the hearths into the city of Hattuša. Ünal suggests that the text provides guidelines to the use of all excrements for fertilization rather than disposing of them in the city: [Let them] not [go up] to the mountain [and] de[fecate there] into [the big clay pi]t(?). Moreover.

9 The Hebrew University Expedition at Tel Hazor excavated in Area M a complex installation with several cesspits. Less clear-cut cases include an example from Nuzi (Fig. Petrie also reports on finding a toilet seat out of context in Palace I (Petrie 1932: 3–4. Tell es-Sa idiyeh.6 sitting toilets are known from various pre-Roman sites. 105. What may well be a toilet seat was found nearby ex situ. The same consideration should be made for the toilets excavated in Ešnunna. XLIII). Lebeau 2005: 101. Pls. As for Middle and Late Bronze Ages examples: These are probably attested in the Level VII palace at Tell Atchana (see Appendix). which may suggest that they predated squat toilets. Although most of the ancient Near Eastern toilets were squat toilets. Angelakis et al. XLVI. Some of the best examples of the former were unearthed in Tell Beydar and Tell Asmar.7 While squatting is a more natural posture. apparently. Only the one in Palace II was clearly equipped with a toilet: “On the south side of the room was the cesspit. 7 See the detailed discussion and bibliography of third-millennium Mesopotamian sitting toilets in Van der Stede 2003: 189–202. Before the Roman period almost all restrooms were found in palatial contexts or in buildings that imitate regal luxury. Cahill et al. 2005: 213–214). 2005: 6 Squatting is the natural toilet posture for all healthy human beings. XLV. as ancient as thrones. Krafeld-Daughetry 1994: 94–117. and their existence and evolution are clearly connected with the development of complex societies ( Jansen 1989.45 m high and 0. and Knossos (Krafeld-Daughetry 1994: 97–109. which were connected by drains. 8 Petrie reports two bathrooms: one in Palace I and the other in Palace II.1–0.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Sitting Toilets and Squat Toilets 169 Bathrooms and toilets are widely attested in the ancient Near East from the third millennium BCE on. and many of the third millennium BCE Mesopotamian restrooms included sitting toilets. There had evidently been a stone seat here. Once toddlers can squat. squatting becomes their main toilet position.9 Iron Age Levantine examples are found at Jerusalem. Tubb and Dorrell 1993: 55–56). sitting toilets are. in which the foot-stands are 0. 1). there can be little doubt that these are squat toilets. 1: 61.15 m apart (Starr 1937–39: Vol. Angelakis et al.4–0. Sometime it is impossible to determine whether a toilet built of two foot-stands and a draining channel was used as a squat or sitting toilet. 163). In cases where the foot-stands are low. and at Buseirah (Bennet 1974: 8–9. . I am grateful to S. 1991. at Tell el Ajjul. It is only through the process of toilet training that most toddlers in the western world learn to sit while using the toilet. as the marks of it remain” (Petrie 1932: 4). Zuckerman for this information (personal communication).8 and recently at Hazor. Tellō.

14 I am not suggesting here that all the buildings/houses in Alalakh were equipped with baths and/or toilets. structure..10 Examples of squat toilets were found in third-millennium layers at Tell Asmar and Hamoukar (Hill 1967: 144. (2005) suggest that the Knossos toilet “is probably the first flush toilet in the history. all of similar design and apparatus.170 amir sumaka i fink 212–213). 11 I thank Dr. and Tell ed-Der.” Obviously. Isin-Larsa. C. Yon 1992: 29). Fig. . 70. 12 It is likely that both in Hazor and in Ugarit the toilets were placed underneath or near the stairs. and Naumann 1971: 197–203. 1: 61. salle à ablutions. Ur. This unique state of affairs can be explained. and nature of finds. At Alalakh Levels VI-I there was a single standard for bathrooms and restrooms.12 Nuzi (Starr 1937–1939: Vol. many of Alalakh’s “private” houses resemble small palaces. Margueron 1982: 398. since only the floors and drains were preserved. Angelakis et al. III/2. the “private” houses of Alalakh are on average almost twice as big as the average excavated domestic structure in any other “North Syrian” site. see Oates et al. Reichel of the Oriental Institute for sharing with me photos of unpublished third-millennium BCE squat toilets excavated at Hamoukar in 1999. and at other sites (e. sanitaires. and in upscale private houses.13 The Toilets Excavated by Woolley The number of well-preserved bathrooms and restrooms at Tell Atchana is extraordinary in comparison to that found at any other Middle or Late Bronze Age Levantine site.g. Krafeld-Daughetry 1994: 109–117). Vol. As shown by McClellan (1997). latrines. Pls. temples. many of the Mesopotamian examples are earlier in date. imitating it to the level that each builder could afford. or both. see also the index in Margueron 1982 under installations hygiéniques.11 They are also attested in second-millennium palaces and private houses in Mari (Parrot 1936: Pl. Krafeld-Daughetry 1994: 111). restrooms. well attested in sites such as Abu Salabikh. Could this be instrumental to understanding the description of the palace of the king of Moab in Judges 3:20–25. 272). 13–15). whether fictional or true? 13 Ablution Room 3 at the Mitanni palace of Tell Brak may fall under this definition. In some of the sites it is impossible to determine whether the room functioned as a bathroom. I believe it is more likely that this “seat” functioned as a squatting board rather than as the seat of a sitting toilet. restroom. and toilets (Fig. 163. In size. see Postgate 2000: 251. of which 14 were equipped with toilets. which was used ubiquitously: in palaces. At least 16 of them were excavated by Woolley. Ugarit (Calvet and Geyer 1987: 135–147. 2: Pls.14 Aspects of building that 10 The Minoan toilets consist of a wooden or stone “seat. 175. This practice is a long-standing tradition. This standard closely followed that of the palace bathrooms. 1997: 4–6. salle de bains—d’eau. 2).” which was set parallel to a back wall. 75.

unless Alalakh was originally considerably bigger than we are currently able to tell. the latter was connected also to a third room. Unique among the excavated bathrooms and restrooms at Tell Atchana is the earliest one. the structure of the walls and floors of these rooms. one would have to pass through the bathroom. rooms 25 and 26. which is subject to annual flooding. the second-best location in the city. 2. 3). . as well as the way toilets and drains were designed. In view of Tell Atchana’s location in the midst of the alluvial plain of the Orontes River.15 The lack of running water meant that for all bathrooms and restrooms. and (2) rooms 5 and 14 in the Niqmepa Palace. a fact well emphasized in Woolley’s description of other aspects of the “private” houses at the site (Woolley 1955: 172–200). Blueprint and Dimensions The standard blueprint for a bathroom and restroom combination is linear with a dead-end. at least from a geopolitical perspective. rooms 6 and 7. in part. and flushing had to be carried in vessels from a well or perhaps from the Orontes River. from which.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) 171 were clearly standardized are the blueprint and dimensions of the bathrooms and restrooms. The similarity in plan between the Levels VI-I bathrooms and restrooms points to the existence of continuity throughout these levels. waste was disposed into room 20. by the following circumstance: (1) All the “private” houses which were excavated by Woolley were located just southeast of the palace and temple compound. washing. from which waste was disposed into cesspits. several hundred meters away. which were covered by or even incorporated into double walls. 16 I find it remarkable that the restrooms of the Level II and I houses closely resemble those of the Level IV palace.16 The toilets are always located as far from the doorway of the restroom as possible. and (2) the floor area of some of the “private” houses is clearly oversized for a Late Bronze Age site of 21 ha. and against an external wall. On the way to the restroom. rooms 15 and (probably) 14. Level II: house 39/C. unearthed in the Middle Bronze Level VII palace. water for bathing. The only exceptions are (1) room 18 at Level IV house 39/C. through which a drain evacuated the waste to the street. tion. The following pairs of rooms were built according to such a plan: Level IV: palace rooms 9 and 5 (Figs. rooms 9 and 10. rooms 30 and 31 (less likely). according to Woolley’s reconstruc. 15 The Appendix unites Woolley’s records concerning the bathrooms and restrooms— data on which the discussion above is based. But while the restroom was a “blind room” accessible only through the bathroom. Level I: house 38/A. it is possible that a large lower town is buried under meters of sediments.

65 m high). In most cases. 0. in one case (room 1 of Level II. Woolley’s descriptions of the walls of the palace bathrooms are similar to his depiction of the walls of the palace restrooms. while the average area of a Level IV palace restroom is 9. house 37/C). house 37/C) each dado tile measured 0. Most of the floors of the restrooms at the palace slope toward the drain. Toilets and Drains All toilets found in Tell Atchana Levels VI-I are identical.4 m above the floor. Floors and Walls The floors of all restrooms are made of what Woolley called cement (hydraulic plaster) or concrete (same plaster with small crushed stones). Woolley reports that in some restrooms he observed several layers of re-plastering of both floors and walls. featuring neither basalt orthostats nor beams. 0.3–1. The floors of the bathrooms are either made of clay (sometime overlaid with so-called white cement) or cement (hydraulic plaster).42–0.17 m2. which were covered with a coat of cement (plaster). 3).172 amir sumaka i fink Bathrooms are always larger than restrooms. The walls of the palace restrooms were all lined with basalt slabs (orthostats. the beams and the bricks were plastered with hydraulic plaster. In several cases we find that instead of basalt orthostats seen in the palace. a more affordable dado of baked tiles was used. room 1 in Level II. When at all preserved. similar to the one that coated the floors and the orthostats. The average area of a Level IV palace bathroom is 14. house 37. house 39/C). most probably used to hold a round-bottomed water jar (room 9 in Level IV.3 m high.27 m2 and was 5 cm thick.45 m2.32 m2 and the average area of a restroom in the “private” houses and the temple area is 5. In one case (room 7 in Level II. and on top of the beams mudbrick walls were erected. both made of mudbricks and covered with the same plaster used for the coating of the floors and the walls (Fig. and then plastered with the rest of the wall. Beams rested on top of these slabs. In some. Woolley . A second set of beams was placed at 1. These squat toilets feature two foot-stands. a circular depression was found in the floor.38 m2 and the average area of a bathroom in a private house is 11. walls of the domestic and temple restrooms are all reportedly plastered.

One of these cesspits (next to room 26 of the palace) is described by Woolley as a “vertical shaft contrived in the stone of the foundations thickly plastered with cement. 4 and 5). S. 18 The dating of Area 2. the room belongs to Local Phase 2 (Figs. Woolley connected this restroom to the Level IV temple and claimed to have found there “a well-preserved terra-cotta drain pipe. Special Collections.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) 173 reports that the foot-stand consisted of three courses of bricks.. Unearthed in Area 2 in Square 44. may possibly be the same as the one recorded on the original object card.g. Situated between every pair of foot-stands was a plastered channel. which is the entrance to the Level IV temple. which extends.45 was supervised by K. 44.45. A Restroom Excavated by the University of Chicago Expedition During the 2003 season. over 275 m2. room 14 of Level IV. or to a cesspit that was built under the foundations of the building (all the drains of the Level IV palace).155 m. . house 39/C) and others were made of several sections of ceramic ring-like vessels (e. The original object card states that the pipe was found in a Level IV “lavatory” in Square N16. This pipe is 0.45. Burke.17 The nearest reported restroom is in Square L16.” The latter. and has a diameter of 0. house 37). Local Phase 2 is being studied in these very days.658 m long.. The drains carried the waste either to the street. S.19 The Expedition also unearthed four rooms belonging to this large building. 17 Nowadays. Square 44. Struble for drawing my attention to the above-mentioned card. the Tell Atchana object cards are housed at the University College. as of now. room 10 of Level II.” Most drains were plastered as well. sloping into the drain. the Oriental Institute Expedition excavated a plastered room (03-2092) that resembles in many ways the restrooms excavated by Woolley. Fink. or simply consisted of an elongated ceramic pipe. One of these elongated pipes was recorded by Woolley as AT/46/268.5 m under the top soil. through the wall. some were made of bricks that were positioned in a V shape (e. 19 Area 2 was supervised by A. and 44.55. it is safe to say that it dates to the Late Bronze Age. London. less than 0.18 and is part of a large residence. I am grateful to E. then. which was excavated in Squares 44. Nevertheless.g.54.

and it was preserved to the height of 0. Threshold 03-2123 is 1. underlies only its outline and does not cover its full width). and its width is 0. 0. and comprises two rows of mudbricks. Several broken vessels. opens to the northwest. the other. It has two doorways. The area left between 03-2111 and 03-2073 is 1 m wide and functions as the northwestern entrance to the plastered room.174 amir sumaka i fink The plastered room (Figs.20 This entrance consists of at least one plastered step ascending to the room. 10) The length of the drain is similar to that of the wall (1. 9.75 m wide. along with the door socket. Fieldstones and large sherds were used to cover and protect the plastered channel running through the wall. as of many other walls at Tell Atchana. . built in Wall 03-2091 (Fig. A drain (03-2039. 8. one faces southeast and leads to a blind alley (through Threshold 03-2123). and none of its mudbricks has been preserved.6 m long. A wall stub (03-2111) abutting Wall 03-2091 from the southwest is 1.2 m). 10).1 m wide.65 m long (floor area of 5. 1 m wide. The Drain (Figs. drained the waste from the plastered room toward the northeastern slope.6 m. Wall 03-2091 is 3 m long and 1. and hence. Wall 03-2091 marks the northern outer wall of the building. and (2) Drain 03-2039. featuring a plastered step. The excavators were able to identify the wall only by the presence of (1) two lines of stone foundations that mark its northern and southern edges (the stone foundation of this wall. The channel of the drain was made of stone and plastered with material similar to the one used for the plastered floor of Room 03-2092.1 m long. and possibly even two. and 2. Figs.3 m2). The difference in elevation between the highest point (the southwestern side) of the interior of the drain channel (Locus 03-2121) and the lowest one (the northeastern side) is 6 cm. were found on and next to the threshold. 20 The restroom (room 9) of the Level IV house 37 likewise has two doorways. 8 and 9). which was built in the wall. 6 and 7) is 2 m wide. facing to the same corridor as does Room 03-2077.22 m.

nor was any plaster found near the mouth of the drain. now mostly broken and cracked. 12). among which are a glass bead (R03-1775). Moreover. R03-1390. R03-1394. Most of its surface slopes toward the drain. Several finds were collected from this locus. the building in which the room was excavated shares many of the characteristics of the more elaborate private houses in which toilets were indeed found. a plate that has been partially restored (R03-1851. R03-1391. The building process of this plastered floor included the facing of Walls 03-2073 and 03-2091 with ceramic tiles (dado). Fig. Most probably. corresponds to the average size of restrooms as discussed above. The vessels and objects were found just 0. There is a height difference of 0.25–0. In light of the fact that all the restrooms excavated by Woolley in private houses were removed in the course of excavation. Among them are a ceramic juglet that was restored (R03-1542. a clay stopper (R03-1878). This restroom is a modest addition to the repertory of such facilities already excavated by Woolley. 11). Nonetheless. Restroom 03-2092 permits us to study in some depth such important aspects as its architectural design and the composition . located immediately above 03-2092. and a restorable ceramic vessel (R03-2063). a plastered floor. dado around the walls. a copper alloy object (R03-1819). Furthermore. but there are indications that it covered the entire room. were also related to Floor 03-2109. The Finds Locus 03-2092—its top elevation 0.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) The Floor and Dado 175 The plastered floor (03-2109) of Room 03-2092 is mostly preserved in the southwestern part of the room. foot-stands and a channel) were found. it is likely that the room did function as a restroom: Its overall size.11 m between the uppermost and lowermost elevations of Floor 03-2109.24 m higher than its bottom elevation—is the occupational debris of this room. R03-1453. Fig.3 m2. and objects. and a plastered drain built into the wall—all the features expected to be found in a bathroom—were unearthed in this room. R03-1395. 5. with no association to other floors. and R03-1691 that will all be discussed in the future excavation report. The state of preservation of Room 03-2092 is such that no traces of a toilet (i.3 m above this plastered floor. These residences are located immediately to the north of the house under consideration. the vessels and the objects found in Locus 03-2040.e.

and allows a comparison to the restrooms that are still intact in the Level IV palace. .176 amir sumaka i fink of the plaster. The finding of this and other restrooms in varying degrees of preservation is of outmost importance for anyone wishing to gain further insight into the social structure and household practices of Alalakh.

under the corridor. Palace. Exact references are given below where appropriate. circular depression intended as a stand for a large. In the east corner of the room. with minor adaptations. and with outlets to the basin. round-bottomed vessel. in front of which a flat stone with a round intake hole was let into the floor. raised slightly above floor level. sunk flush with the very good cement and concrete floor.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) 177 APPENDIX WOOLLEY’S RECORDS OF TOILETS. Below it was a stone-built drain.22 m2) Larger than 75 m2 Basins. AND BATHROOMS AT TELL ATCHANA21 Level VII. in which there were two shallow. between the basin and the northeastern wall there was a similar cement ledge. Foot-stands. Rooms 15. very much like the soap-troughs of the modern pedestal wash-basin. . reinforced externally with cement. The basin in the east corner was sunk flush with the floor and had its outlet on the northwestern side.1 × 4. 18 Size Room 15 Room 18 4.2 (17. Room 18 Against the southeastern wall was a large basalt basin or trough with a spout. sunk in the floor but rising 0. from Woolley 1955.2 m above it. and Drains Room 15 The drain intake was a flat stone with two holes in it. between it and the face of the southeastern wall there was a gap filled with cement. which was worked up to a smooth face and brought down in a curve over the edge of the stone. was a terra cotta tank. RESTROOMS. and through the city wall to empty on the glacis. oblong depressions sloping downwards from the wall. which connected with that from room 15 and with another from the outlet of the basin corner of room 18 and then went out through the doorway. 21 Texts quoted. in the flat surface there was a shallow.

AT/39/246. and the surface (to which the wall plaster went down) was of clay.178 Floor amir sumaka i fink Room 15 The room has a smooth concrete floor. Type Sp. Plan: Woolley 1955: 93–94: Fig. LXXIV. . Walls Room 15 Three basalt orthostats were set right against the southeastern wall right by the drain intake. round the drain-intake the floor sloped (intentionally) down to it. 104b. 35. AT/39/227. but over the southwestern half there were only traces of concrete. obviously to protect it from water/humidity. and a saucer of coarse gray clay. Reference Woolley 1955: 95. were standing to a maximum height of 1. and fragments of the haft of a riveted bronze blade. Room 18 Walls of plain plaster. b. Room 18 A floor of concrete was laid rather thinly over clay. 9. it was well preserved at the northeastern end of the room. Type 21b. 4.25 m on the northwest and 0. a bronze spearhead. and 132a. Type 3. AT/39/203. Pl. 3. a serpentine pestle or rubber. Room 18 Found on the floor in a layer of ashes were a bronze pin. a fragment of glazed frit with a hand in relief. 93b. AT/39/228. a bronze sickle-shaped blade. AT/39/202. which were much ruined. Type as on Pl. Finds Room 15 A bronze dagger. and fragments of clay vessels of Types 15. a clay bowl. AT/39/234. Type Kn. Type P. much depressed along the northwest by reason of the sinking of the wall foundations. XIX a. ATP/39/157c. a quantity of grain.4 m on the southeast. 106b. 103–104.

0. Walls Cemented walls Finds No information Woolley’s Definition A small lavatory Reference Woolley 1955: 157. Plan: Woolley 1955: 152: Fig. cut away by the Niqmepa Palace. and Drains 179 The floor sloped sharply to the south. Two Rooms in Square N13.8 (6. 57.3 m high. Level V Temple.16 m2) .3 × 2. with the usual cemented channel between them. Floor Sunken cement floor. A Drain in Squares M13. where there were two cemented foot-stands. Foot-stands.7 × 2+ Basins. Fortress? Square U8 Size 1. N13 Size Southeastern room 2.2 × 2.8 (6. immediately against the eastern foot-stand was a raised mud floor.44 m2) Northwestern room 2.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Level VI.

clear of the adjoining lavatory Floor Lavatories: cemented floors. southeast of Temple.180 amir sumaka i fink Basins. 29b. . Foot-stands. and Drains Out of the hole between the two standing blocks (foot-stands) led a well-preserved terra cotta drain pipe. 29a.2 (3. Square L16 Size 1.4 × 2. and Drains Bathroom: terra cotta drain through its northwestern wall.08 m2) Basins. Foot-stands. which must have run through the wall (not preserved). Plan: Woolley 1955: 67: Figs. bathroom: cemented floor Walls Cemented walls Finds No information Woolley’s Definition Two lavatories of normal type and remains of a bathroom(?) Reference Woolley 1955: 70. Level IV.

two standing blocks in its northern corner Walls None preserved.8 × 4. . all edges and corners being carefully rounded.8 × 4. the passage between them and the hole through the wall which continued it were cement faced. Finds No information Woolley’s Definition An isolated lavatory Stratigraphical Note Immediately below the oldest Level III floor Reference Woolley 1955: 69. two brick foot-stands. Level IV Palace.6 m2) Basins. 0. Rooms 5.32 m high. 9 Size Room 5 Room 9 1. which had been cement plastered time after time. and Drains Room 5 Against the northern wall.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Floor 181 Rectangular floor of very good cement. The chamber seems to have been sunk.1 m2) 2.5 (12. Foot-stands.5 (8.

Room 9 Lined with 0. Walls Room 5 Lined with quarry-dressed basalt slabs. Woolley’s Definition Room 5 Room 9 A normal lavatory A bath The Doorways Room 5 The door had a wooden frame only. and the whole was cement plastered. formed the entrance from room 10 to room 9. a step up of 0. On the floor lay part of a goblet of Type 118a. faced with cement plaster of which five distinct coats could be distinguished. with two loop handles at each end. overlaid with white cement. a fragment of a jug Type 41b. which were covered with a coat of cement and renewed more than once. and a milk-bowl. Room 9 In the northeastern corner was a rectangular terra cotta bath or box. Twenty cm above the floor was part of a BaseRing jug. Room 9 Clay floor. bowl of Type 11. Timber baulk was laid over the stones with the mudbrick above. Finds Room 5 On the floor were bowls of Types 15 and 4b. 0. their bottoms flush with the floor. sloped fairly sharply from all directions to the drain. Room 9 A wooden plank.182 Floor amir sumaka i fink Room 5 Made of white cement throughout.4 m high.47-m-high basalt orthostats. At the doorway between rooms 9 and 10 tablet ATT/38/2 was found. sinking towards the middle. . a vase of Type 104. and a saucer of Type 3b.18 m high. Fifty cm above the floor were three saucers of Type 3b.

XXVIa. 115: Fig. Rooms 14–15 Size Room 14 Room 15 1. 118: Fig.3 × 3. XXVb. Foot-stands. and the cement-lined pipe going out through the wall. 44. Plans: Woolley 1955: 113: Fig.9 × 3.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Reference 183 Woolley 1955: 118–120. Pls. Room 15 The cement floor was higher than that of room 14.27 m2) 3.3(?) (6. Judging by the fallen fragments the whole wall had been cement plastered. over the brickwork. from it there was a cement-faced step down to the threshold and a second from the threshold to room 14.9 (12. 0. XXVa. Walls Room 14 The walls were lined with basalt orthostats.42 m high.87 m2) Basins. Level IV Palace. . covered with cement plaster that was taken down to the floor in a rolled skirting. All were concealed by a coating of cement above which. Room 15 The walls were lined with basalt orthostats of varying heights (usually laid lengthwise). was mud plaster showing no traces of cement. but none was left actually on the brick surface. and Drains Room 14 The drain had its foot-stands of burnt brick overlaid with cement. 48b. 45. Floor Room 14 A cement floor sloped from every direction down to the drain.

fragments of a milk-bowl. AT/38/63. red tripod bowl of Type 161. Plans: Woolley 1955: 113: Fig. Room 15 On the floor: a bronze vase. two burnished. 44.67 m2) Room 26 3. and 5. a Base-Ring ware jug. 45. a bronze knife. then rooms 14. and 163. a jug of Type 68. AT/38/62 (Pl. a jar of Type 110.6 (11. which could have been a bathroom.1 × 3. fragments of two goblets of Type 118: one plain. 9.6 m2) . a stone bowl. LXXIV). but if it was. Reference Woolley 1955: 121. 4.1 × 5.184 Finds amir sumaka i fink Room 14 The bases of three Nuzi goblets of Type 118.7 (17. Level IV Palace. and at least three examples of Type 3. a ring-stand of Type 85. and about 14 examples of Type 3. and a larger room—a bedroom or a store chamber. and 16 would have been an exact parallel to the suite 10. Type Kn. a central room with orthostats and cemented walls. in the west wall. bowls of Types 6. in fact. 115: Fig. Woolley’s Definition Room 14 Room 15 A lavatory A bath Notes Concerning the Blueprint The destruction of the southeastern corner of room 15 meant that it was impossible to be sure of the position of the door. 94. 15. In both cases there was an inner lavatory. Rooms 25–26 Size Room 25 3. a burnished. red bowls of Type 21. 15. one painted Nuzi ware.

waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Basins. ATT/38/67. on which were basalt orthostats.6 m high. where a vertical shaft was contrived in the stone of the foundations. they were covered with white cement. Finds Room 25 Room 26 One tablet was found. which may have had lime wash over it but was not cement finished. Foot-stands. and Drains 185 Room 26 The latrine in the northwestern corner had foot-stands of burnt brick originally lime plastered. Room 26 A concrete floor made of cement and small crushed stones. which appear to have been rather roughly cut. the channel between them sloped down into the wall thickness. On the floor were tablets ATT/38/68–71. the wall face had been mud plastered and lime washed. Floor Room 25 A floor of very fine clay. A longitudinal beam rested on the stones with brickwork above the second beam at 1. both channel and shaft being thickly plastered with cement. Room 26 The walls were lined with basalt orthostats. with no transverse timbers. Wooley’s Definition Room 25 Room 26 A bath A lavatory . all having been cut away by the Level III builders. no walling remained above the stones.65 m high.4 m above the floor. 0. covered with white cement. and had certainly not been polished. Walls Room 25 The wall had a stone-foundation course almost flush with the floor.3–1. 0.

Room 31 Size 2. Floor The doorway had a wooden seal 0.2 (11. AT/38/178. above that was a longitudinal beam and then mudbrick. Level IV Palace. Woolley’s Definition A lavatory . with no further timbering. and 69. Plans: Woolley 1955: 113: Fig. Foot-stands.35 m were of rough stone. ATP/38/143. fragments of a vase of variegated glass. 115: Fig.7 × 4. 45. pottery fragments including those of: a Nuzi goblet. 48. 60. and the rest of the floor. mud-plastered and lime-washed. cement-plastered. 44. ATP/38/142. which was of concrete (lime and small stone chips).186 Reference amir sumaka i fink Woolley 1955: 123–124. plain examples of Types 3. 41. and of many large jugs and handled jars. was flush with it. and Drains The lavatory foot-stands were of cement-plastered burnt brick.34 m2) Basins. two items of painted example of Type 94b. Finds Part of an ivory toilet box lid with engraved rosette pattern.10 m above the floor of room 30. Walls The walls up to 0. AT/38/176. too fragmentary to be typed.

Type 44c. two entrances Finds A red. CXXVa). 115: Fig. burnished libation pourer AT/37/225 (Pl.9 × 3. an exit of terra cotta pipes running out through the wall into the street (between the house and the town wall). Type 94a.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Reference 187 Woolley 1955: 126. Plans: Woolley 1955: 113: Fig. a beaker: the upper part painted reddish-brown and burnished. 44. a circular depression in the floor to hold a round-bottomed water jar. a beaker of light red ware with five bands of dark red paint ATP/37/310.89 m2) Basins. 45. Type 55a vessels. Base-Ring ware I jug ATP/37/307 (Pl. Type 68c vessels. Type 94a. and Drains Two foot-stands against the wall. a three-handled flask ATP/37/340. CXXVe). Level IV. Floor Cement. Building 37. Woolley’s Definition A lavatory of normal type . Foot-stands. Type 99c vessels. Type 103a vessels. Walls Cement plastered. Room 9 Size 1.1 (5.

12 m2) Basins. all finds lay in a bed of 0. Floor Concrete.2 (16. Building 37. possibly a washing basin.1 × 5. Room 14 Size 3. 62. the rough stones that were in the intake seem to have been the foundations for foot-stands. Foot-stands. Type BM 24 Woolley’s Definition The room was unduly large for a lavatory and there may have been there a different type of drain.188 amir sumaka i fink Description of the Destruction Well preserved. Walls No information Finds A fragment of a Base-Ring ware jug.1 m of wood ash. and Drains Terra cotta drain made of five sections of a clay ring-stand of Type 84c under the southeastern wall. containing fragments of heavy beams above which came the decomposed mudbrick of the walls. Plan: Woolley 1955: 176: Fig. Reference Woolley 1955: 177. . Level IV.

Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig. Foot-stands. Building 39/C. 62.8 × 4.2 (7. Woolley’s Definition A normal lavatory Reference Woolley 1955: 182.56 m2) Basins. 189 .waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Reference Woolley 1955: 178. Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig. Room 18 Size 1. 64. and Drains Running out through the southwestern wall Floor Cement Walls No information Finds Two cylinder seals were found: AT/39/201 and AT/39/205. Level IV.

and Drains The foot-rests (foot-stands) were of tiles. Foot-stands. The sinking of the floor. Finds Many fragments of painted Nuzi ware were found on the floor. XXXVb (the photo is looking southwest. .6 × 5.27 m and were 0.1 (8. which makes the drain run in the wrong direction. The pavement stopped at the threshold of the door to room 3 but continued across the threshold of the door to room 2. Floor Cement over clay.16 m2) Basins. A large clay jar for water was let into the pavement (only the lower part of which was preserved). Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig.190 amir sumaka i fink Level II.5 cm thick. Woolley’s Definition A lavatory Reference Woolley 1955: 188.27 × 0. Building 37/C. the tiles measured 0. is due to later accident. with a brick-lined drain through the wall. 65. plastered. and shows only the southwestern half of the room). Room 1 Size 1. Walls A dado of cement-plastered tiles was set on (the wall’s) edge. Photo: Woolley 1955: Pl.

the top of the cement having a rolled finish. and numerous fragments of painted Atchana ware goblets. Woolley’s Definition Room 7 An ordinary lavatory .25 m above the original. Foot-stands.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Level II.68 m2) 1. Floor Room 6 Cement Room 7 Cement. Finds In the fill between the two sub-phases of the floor were a fragment of a White-Slip ware II milk-bowl. Walls Room 6 Around the walls and against the door jambs a dado of burnt tiles was set on (their) edge and faced with cement.2 × 3. Rooms 6–7 Size Room 6 Room 7 191 2.2 (7. 0.2 (3.84 m2) Basins. The foot-stand was of three courses of bricks. Room 7 Dado like in room 6. Building 39/C. and Drains Room 7 Against the northeastern wall was the ordinary lavatory arrangement with a tile-paved outlet through the wall.4 × 3. during the lifetime of the house a new cement floor was laid down in the lavatory.

introduced then. Woolley concluded that the Atchana ware belongs to the early part of Level II or was. at any rate. the foot-stand has disappeared. and Drains Room 10 The outlet through the wall was a channel made of two tiles set in a V-shaped fashion. Reference Woolley 1955: 190–191. Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig. Rooms 9–10 Size Room 9 2.36 m2) Room 10 1.2 (4.2 (7. Finds Room 10 A Type 447 vase of red clay was found by the drain. Building 39/C.16 m2) Basins.3 × 3. partly preserved Room 10 Similarly floored and equally ruined.192 Ceramic Observation amir sumaka i fink Based on the finds in room 6.3 × 3. Woolley’s Definition Room 10 A second lavatory . Foot-stands. partly preserved. Floor Room 9 A cement floor. 66. Level II. Walls Room 9 Cemented tiled dado.

1 (13.53 m2) 1. Foot-stands.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) Reference Woolley 1955: 191.3 × 4. Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig. Building 38/A. Finds No information Woolley’s Definition Room 8 A lavatory of the traditional type Reference Woolley 1955: 192. a raised lavatory foot-stand of tiles and cement. 67. . Rooms 7–8 Size Room 7 Room 8 193 3. Plan: Woolley 1955: Fig. Level I. 66. Walls Room 7 A tile dado Room 8 A tile dado and cement plaster on the walls (not only on the dado). and Drains No information Floor Room 7 A cement floor Room 8 A cement floor.78 m2) Basins.8 × 2.1 (3.

2003. P. 27–30 juin 1992 (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 150). Tübingen. Ancient Gaza II: Tell el Ajjul. Tell Asmar: The Private House Area. D. M.. P. C. S. Si un homme .. and Suleimam. Ragette. Southern Jordan 1972: Preliminary Report. Drains verticaux et materiel associé. Tubb. Cambridge and London. eds. P. . In: Lebeau. Tarler. Oates. N.. Van der Stede. al-Maqdissi. Chicago: 143–266. Review of M. Koutsoyiannis. A. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal at Mohenjo-Daro. . 1936. Cahill. eds. 1993. H. JNES 31/2: 130–132. In: Delougaz. Jansen. Vol. Münster. B. Syria 17: 1–31. London. Brussels: 99–105. A. Jr. and McDonald. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 36: 125–132. D. and Villeneuve. In: Yon. K. Bennet. Les maisons dans la Syrie antique du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam: pratique et représentations de l’espace domestique. Ras Shamra-Ougarit III. 1974. . 1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods (McDonald Institute Monographs). Tal Atchana.. Paris. and Geyer. A. 1937–1939. N.. R. Review of Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites by K. D. Wohnen im Alten Orient: Eine Untersuchung zur Verwendung von Räumen in altorientalischen Wohnhäusern (Archäologische Studien zur Kultur und Geshichte des Alten Orients). Ünal. 1971. J. 1 (2nd edition). 1987.. and Warnock. 1967. Traditional Domestic Architecture of the Arab Region. Petrie. Lebeau. Woolley.. ed. Tell es-Sa idiyeh: Interim Report on the Sixth Season of Excavation. Biblical Archaeology Review 17/3: 64–69. Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit (second edition). Starr. R. 1964. 2000. D. J. and Tchobanoglous.-M. Iraq. S. Cambridge. Reinhard. F. 1991. L’eau dans l’habitat. PEQ 125: 50–74. P. F. Baden-Württemberg. Bittel. J. F. 1927–1931. Krafeld-Daughetry. H.: textes offerts en hommage à André Finet (Subartu 16). J. Levant 6: 1–24.. Studies in Ancient Technology. C.194 amir sumaka i fink References Angelakis. Hill. A.. Vols. Leiden. M. JAOS 120/2: 250–252. Water Research 39/1: 210–220... Postgate.. Oates. and Van der Stede. J. M. S. In: Castel. Vol. Hoffner. Margueron. N. 1982. The 1995–1999 Seasons of Excavations: A Preliminary Report (Subartu 10). MA. Urban Wastewater and Stormwater Technologies in Ancient Greece. 1989. Scientists Examine Remains of Ancient Bathroom. Naumann. 1994. and Dorrell. Excavations at Buseirah. 2005. Damas.. V. 1997. Essays on Anatolian Archaeology. 1993. World Archaeology 21/2: 177–192. eds. V. H. R. Brussels: 182–202. 1–2. J. Ritual Purity versus Physical Impurity in Hittite Anatolia. 1932. H. G. Nuzi: Report on the Excavation at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk. 1972. 2005. 2003. T. Les fouilles de Mari: deuxième campagne (hiver 1934–35). Conducted by Harvard University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia. In: Talon. Parrot. M. T. actes du Colloque International. Houses and Households in North Syria during the Late Bronze Age. In: Mikasa. McClellan. ed. Hill. L. Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l’âge du bronze (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 107). and Llyod. 1997. Eau et sanitaires à l’étage. F. M. Wohnen im Alten Orient: Eine Untersuchung zur Verwendung von Räumen in altorientalischen Wohnhäusern. Tell Beydar.. Calvet. Krafeld-Daughetry. 1936. A. Paris: 129–156. Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region (Oriental Institute Publications 88). G. Excavations at Tell Brak. Beyrouth: 31–59.. M. Wiesbaden: 119–139.. Y. Le centre de la ville: 38e–44e campagnes (1978–1984). D. eds. Forbes..

Schloen. S. In: The Oriental Institute. Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay. ——. The Antiquaries Journal 17/1: 1–15. M. the Present State of the Archaeological Picture. Reliving the Legend: The Oriental Institute Expedition to Tell Atchana/Alalakh. 2005. Amuq Valley Regional Projects. K. 1955. A. ——. Yener.waste management at tell atchana (alalakh) 195 ——. The Oriental Institute 2004–2005 Annual Report. A. Expedition to Alalakh (Tell Atchana). 1937. BASOR 286: 19–34. Excavations near Antioch in 1936. ——.. Oxford. 2004b. Chicago: 25–34. 1992. Chicago: 46–50. Yon. The Oriental Institute 2003–2004 Annual Report. 2004a. J. D.. and Fink. In: The Oriental Institute. 2003. Ugarit: The Urban Habitat. The Oriental Institute News and Notes 181: 1–6. . 1937–1949.

.

or architectonically relating to the city walls. Although the existence of extramural constructions is described in several archaeological studies and reports both in Palestine (Yadin et al. relatively little study has been carried out on the subject. Beit-Arieh 1993.3). Archaeological interest tends to focus on walled inner cities. 4. located near the city gate. 1 The extramural neighborhood in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is an exception. Archaeological studies show that in many cases ancient settlements expanded beyond what is usually considered their physical boundaries— the city wall. consequently. Fig. Plan 2. Reade 1982: Fig. . At Palestine expansion outside the city walls occurred in various sites and regions and became most common during the Late Iron Age. Biran 1999: 49–50)1 and in other regions (Bietak 1979: 108–110. these parts of ancient towns are best known to us.DESERT OUTSIDERS: EXTRAMURAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE IRON AGE NEGEV Yifat Thareani-Sussely Introduction The method archaeologists choose when excavating ancient settlements is determined by subjective motives and limitations of time. Cohen 1993: 845. Van de Mieroop 1997: 69–70. 1989: 40. money. and the phenomenon is usually reviewed merely from the architectural perspective. since it was probably established before the construction of the city wall (Geva 2000: 82. Extramural remains dated to the mid-8th century BCE were revealed outside the city gate of Tel Dan and were identified by the excavator with the biblical u ot (2 Kings 20: 34. These extramural neighborhoods appear either abutting the outer face of the fortifications.1). 58). and labor. Extramural neighborhoods are known from different sites in the ancient Near East as early as the Early Bronze Age (Bietak 1979: 108–110.

In later periods the Roman suburbium demonstrated the expansion of public and private architecture outside the traditional city core. 1989: 40. Hence. This view relies on general geourban studies claiming that the poorest members of the preindustrial 2 For criticism on Biran’s interpretation and for discussion of this term. 1960: 22. .3 In his monograph Living on the Fringe. Accordingly. Remains of a fair were discovered 1 km away from the wall of Ashkelon (Safrai 1984: 152. though common. and a harbor district. 58). suburbs. Extramural Neighborhoods and the “Architecture for the Poor” Theory Although the emergence of extramural neighborhoods is often mentioned in relation to the ancient Near East urban environment4 the extramural phenomenon is usually discussed in general terms. Yadin et al. For different geographical definitions of the term “Negev. where they are assumed to have functioned as workshops (Yadin et al. Israel Finkelstein was the first to suggest a longue durée approach to arid zones in the southern Levant (Finkelstein 1995). All the same. Roman fairs were often situated outside the borders of the polis (De Ligt 1993). and extramural evidence was detected in some Iron Age II sites in the Negev as well. and Babylonian extramural evidence. Faust sees extramural neighborhoods as early versions of squatters. In a recent article Faust suggested that expansion outside the city walls during the Iron Age II. Fig. Assyrian. Van de Mieroop 1997: 65–68. Geva 1989: 54–55. creating new residential and commercial centers (Anderson 1997: 230–240). the appearance of extramural neighborhoods was not limited to the northern areas. 71–72. A reassessment of the extramural evidence from the Iron Age II Negev sites sheds new light on this cultural phenomenon. A combination of archaeological and historical material with cross-period and cross-regional analogies brought him to the conclusion that the appearance of urban forms in the Negev was a result of cultural and sociopolitical changes.” see Sofer 1979: 3. 37: 21) (Biran 1999: 49–50). was not highly regarded as it was considered unsafe (Faust 2003: 133). east of the casemate wall. see Bietak 1979: 110–111. see Katz 2004: 270–272. 3 The term “Negev” is brought here in its biblical significant meaning: the Beersheba Valley and the Arad Plain. 4 Ancient Mesopotamian cities of the Bronze and the Iron Age included several integral parts: a walled inner city.198 yifat thareani-sussely Jer. note 92).2 Additional extramural constructions from the same period were detected in Tel Hazor. For further ancient Egyptian. rich people were not inclined to move there.

. . the sellers of spun wool and the like” (quoted in Bonine 1976: 149). . The British traveler Sykes. Then the vendors of victuals brought in from the country who sometimes will form a market outside the gates. . mosques. baths. on the “Indian Highway. surrounded by ruins almost on every side . . and teahouses. Among the traders and craftsmen were bakers. Koelz 1983: 15–17. First established 5 For the layout and history of the city. the city presents a somewhat confused appearance of windtowers and mosques. potters. crafts and trade areas. His remark concerning the surroundings of the city gate sets the extramural neighborhood as an integral part of the urban space: “Approaching to the gates . described the city as follows: “Approaching Kerman from the east. Kerman contained eight residential quarters. It is divided into five quarters . who visited Kerman at the end of the 19th century. . .extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 199 city lived in suburbs. carpenters. outside the fortified area (Sjoberg 1960: 95–103.” the trade route that ran from Teheran in the north to the Indian subcontinent. note 1. There are also three extra-mural quarters .5 A vast desert covers the region that is considered arid and is characterized by extreme climatic conditions (Beazley 1982: 1. which is pierced by six gates . . An examination of traditional trade towns located in arid zones and in relation to trade routes supports this insight. . Situated in western Rajasthan. and charcoal sellers (Reshef 1982: 83). 5). The spatial arrangement of the traditional Middle Eastern city in the 14th century was described by Ibn Battūta.” (Sykes 1902: 199). Although domestic compounds occupied most of the area of the extramural quarters. The city of Kerman is located at the southern end of the Iranian plateau. confectioners. grocers. . Efrat 2002: 22). three of which were situated outside the city walls. . The city is surrounded by a wall . It was a principle commercial market that owed its importance to its geographical position. as well as small shrines. vegetable and fruit dealers. . . Jaisalmer is one of the border districts of India and the last station on the “Indian Highway” before the Thar Desert (Sureshwara 1990: 1–4). (we will find) the makers of saddlers . A review of extramural neighborhoods in several precapitalist towns shows that the archaeological and historical evidence is more multifaceted. were in operation as well. blacksmiths. . . see Reshef 1982: 70–73. together with the basket makers.

archaeological remains and historical documents support the existence of markets in the ancient Near East. The inner part is the fort. 1). In light of the above review it seems reasonable that expansion of urban forms as well as their limits derived from multiple reasons and a wide spectrum of contextual and cultural factors (Fletcher 1995: 95). distinct from the inner city.200 yifat thareani-sussely in the mid-12th century. Such processes are known from Palestine and Europe during the 19th century (see also Patten 1983). The physical separation resulted from the fact that the harbor acted as a neutral zone where citizens from different communities 6 The lack of biblical terms describing trading venues brought Katz to claim that market trade was relatively limited in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Katz 2004: 272). district officers and wealthy merchants’ families lived outside the southern borders of the fort along the river bank (Sharma 1972: 143. The town was developed as a military fort and trading post for the east–west caravan route. Mesopotamian documents from various sites indicate that the harbor district was situated outside the city walls. Although most of the population was confined within the walls. Somani 1990). Hence. there could be several factors for the development of extramural neighborhoods: Crowded Towns When the inner part of a settlement became too densely populated or too densely built. part of the population would prefer to enjoy freedom of space and would consequently move outside the city walls. . Fig. Jaisalmer functioned as a trade center for caravans that traveled along the trade route from India to central Asia (Gupta 1987: 110–111. Trade The proximity of a settlement to a trade route or its own functioning as a trade center could have motivated the development of markets outside the city walls. which is set on top of a hill and contains royal quarters as well as other urban elements.6 As demonstrated above. The fort and the city wall dominated the morphology of the town. Kulbushan 2001: 91–92.

Some extramural neighborhoods could also have been formed as ethnic quarters.7 Familial and Ethnic Motives There were also those who chose to settle close to the settlement but not within its borders. for example. the inhabitants of the extramural neighborhoods would have been motivated by a wide range of interests and circumstances. trade-related institutions. Silver 1983: 253–257). the extramural neighborhood is likely to have included merchants. In this category one might include the Roman “fort villages” where family members of soldiers settled outside the fortified area (Faust 1995: 85–87). If an occasional raid did occur. 7 . local families. The extramural structures did not exist in a vacuum and constituted an integral part of the ancient urban and regional landscape (Stone 1996: 233). as well as living outside the fortified area. Finally. and domestic areas to develop. settling nomads.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 201 could interact without direct supervision of the urban political powers (Van de Mieroop 1997: 65–68). or settlements of local nomad tribes who enjoyed the advantages that the permanent settlement offered. extramural trade and commercial activities. and other social elements. Shack 1973: 251–285. the suburban population would withdraw behind the city walls (Van de Mieroop 1997: 72). Contra Polanyi (1957). Berdan 1989: 98–105. when the countryside was not exposed to warfare and raids. It should also be noted that extramural neighborhoods were not a regional phenomenon but rather characterized a specific cultural and political climate. Consequently. causing markets. who suggested that there were no markets in the economy of ancient societies. soldiers’ families. a contextual approach should also be taken when trying to reconstruct the sociopolitical components of the community of the extramural neighborhoods.8 The expanding urban space was probably not permanent and was available only in peaceful times when a strong central authority that gave the inhabitants a sense of safety was in existence. were probably encouraged. but goes beyond the scope of this work. In times of relative peace. 8 The subject of the “ethnic neighborhood” has been extensively discussed. see. Commercial activity is also evident from the layout of several extramural neighborhoods in Middle Eastern and traditional towns (Lamberg Karlovsky 1975: 350. In other words.

Although. 3). Biran 1993: 90–91). W5027. a terrace was built made of earth fill and a layer of pebbles. W5019. A. adjacent to the city wall. W5025. W5029. form a wide angle.202 yifat thareani-sussely Extramural Neighborhoods in the Iron Age II Negev Evidence for the existence of extramural architecture is noted in three different Beersheba Valley sites (Fig. Avraham Biran from the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology for the kind permission and encouragement to bring the material from the excavations in Tel Aroer to final publication. W5023. The plan introduces many architectural alternations suggesting that the area existed for many decades. W5019 was built adjacent to W5027. on the hill slope. W5030). only a narrow area was preserved. W5028. The extramural constructions at Kadesh Barnea will be examined here as well. the establishment of a Roman tower on top of the mound damaged the earlier evidence in Area D (Fig. and Tel Arad. Preparing the Iron Age material from Tel Aroer for final publication9 enables to focus on the character of one of the biggest extramural neighborhoods in ancient Judah. 259. Tel Aroer A relatively large extramural complex (ca. extramural remains were discovered east and west of the fortified town (Biran and Cohen 1981: 250. W5040. 1). Excavation around the Roman tower revealed the remains of two monumental walls (W5000. 2). Biran suggested that these walls were the foundations of a Late Iron Age fortress that existed at the site in Stratum II (the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE) (Biran 1981: 132). W5019). 253. W5012). 4 m long each. all are dated to the late Iron Age II: Tel Aroer. Two of its walls (W5020. On the southeast side (Area D East). orvat Uza. Although occupation on the terrace was extensive. W5032. 1 ha) was revealed outside the fortified Iron Age town of Aroer (Areas D. . and C) (Fig. A large building with a paved floor that was incorporated into the city wall was uncovered on the terrace (W5020. and together they form a corner with 9 I thank Dr.

and bones was found nearby (L. W5036) that might have been used as an installation. 1432) was found north of the courtyard. all dated to the Late Iron Age (L. Edomite bowls (Figs. W5028) abut the long walls creating four subunits. South and west of the building excavation revealed walls (W5062. 1421. 4). Parallel to the upper part of W5025 excavators revealed an additional long wall (W5030) that was preserved to a length of ca. Extensive extramural remains were revealed on the southwest side (Area D West) as well. some pottery sherds. some of which were paved: rooms. 8: 1–2. 9: 5). A large quantity of Iron Age II pottery. 5: 3–5. 5: 6). 3). Its wall is made of small stones sloping down moderately toward a floor that consists of large flat stones. and a bowl (Fig. W5072) abutting the south Iron Age podium wall (W5000) creating small architectural units (Fig. 1417.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 203 W5032. 7: 7). a cooking-pot (Fig. 3) where pottery and a figurine were found. 8: 3. An additional stone installation (L. 6: 2. It contains fire places and two curved stone walls (W5035. 4 m and several columns were incorporated into it. 9: 4). W5000) was occupied by a pebble-paved courtyard (enclosed by W3035 and W5075). Its architectonic layout and building material suggest that the installation was used as a granary during the earlier phases of occupation. and installations (including a tabun). juglets (Figs. 4: 3). which is 8 m long and turns southwest. and it included several subunits. Also found . W5006). South of the courtyard a broad building was excavated (W5052. Additional short walls associated with the building (W5030. The eastern part contained a tabun. 1003). 9: 7) cooking-pots (Fig. 1411) (Fig. Southeast of the long building an additional small unit was revealed containing two walls (W5033. W5067. 1–4. 7: 8. 9: 8. and was later filled with secondary refuse. 5: 1–2. W5054. 8: 5). close to the assumed city gate (Fig. 443). L. 8). figurines. The area west of the monumental Iron Age walls (W3020. 7: 5. 4: 2) all dating to the end of the 8th century BCE. 1011). 6: 1. 8: 4. Its use spanned at least three phases. Pottery that was found in the basin includes restorable storage jar (Fig. and a small limestone altar with decorated walls and ash remains. kraters (Figs. decanters (Fig. The finds from the building included Judean bowls (Figs. a jar sunk into the paved floor. It contained soil. 4: 1). W5034) and a clay basin (L. W5025 is a plastered brick wall with a brickmade installation attached to it. 7. 8: 6–7. 6: 9. and pieces of scrap metal (L. L. and storage jars (Figs. 10: 1–4). lamps (Figs. 9: 3. jugs (Fig. courtyards. 10: 5). It seems that this row of columns separated a western room from an eastern one.

225 m2 of a large building were uncovered (Fig. outside its fortified area. a painted Edomite incense burner (Fig. 12: 4). An ancient caravanserai was excavated outside the gate of Mampsis in the Negev (Building VIII) and dated to the Middle-Late Nabatean period (Negev 1988: 191–194).10 In Area C. 12: 7). which were only partially excavated. 2): A long room (12 × 4 m) was excavated. and material culture associated with it. and the base of a Judean Pillar Figurine. 8–10). at the foot of the mound. possibly ‫ . Among the artifacts the excavation yielded is an Edomite seal (bearing the inscription leqosa). The pottery assemblage from the extramural areas of Aroer contains more than two hundred complete vessels that enable dating the 10 There are other cases where caravansaries were situated near the town. leading to a number of rooms.e. some of which include installations such as stone platforms. together these walls form a series of small rooms. installations found within it. and in the south end of its eastern wall an opening to the east was found. the length of the walls). The southern unit is elongated and consists of two parallel walls and two smaller intersecting walls. near the Silk Road (Brandenburg 1972: 34). Edomite painted and carinated bowls (Fig. figurines. on the bank of Na al Aroer. 150 m2 (Area A) was excavated south of this neighborhood (Fig. its pebble-paved floor and its space divided by a row of columns. 12: 1–3.204 yifat thareani-sussely were weights. Edomite holemouth jar (Fig. 4). . 13: 1–2. The material culture from the building is varied and contains nearly one hundred complete vessels including: Judean bowls (Fig. This area contains the remains of a rectangular building that was located directly beneath surface level and consists of two main architectural units: a northern one and a southern one. The northern unit is square and built of relatively thick walls. Another area of ca. Judean and Edomite cooking-pots (Fig. and flasks (Figs. In one of these silos a sherd with the remains of three Hebrew letters.שלש‬was found (Biran and Cohen 1975: 171). 13: 3). sheqel weights. a horse figurine. An additional example can be found in the caravansaries built outside the city gate of Samarkand. 11). and sherds bearing potters’ marks. 5–6. The public nature of the building from Area A is attested by its layout (i. small stone altars. 13: 5–8). In and around the building many granaries were located. In a recent article I suggest identifying the building with an ancient caravanserai that existed outside the fortified town of Aroer (Thareani-Sussely 2007a). This phenomenon is detected in later periods as well.

inscriptions. and weights (made of various materials such as stone. 2007). On top of the extramural settlement a water cistern was revealed. and hematite). contemporaneous with the time of the fortress (Stratum IV). seal impressions. on the eastern side of the Arad Plain. It contained two entrances.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 205 architectural units to the period between the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 6th century BCE. The material culture from this building was dated to the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE. The extramural construction at orvat Uza occupied an estimated area of 0. 1993: 55–63. The extramural construction was erected in relation to the northern wall of the fortress and its gate. and may be associated with commercial activities and public functions. personal communication]). 11 I wish to thank Prof. 1986–1987: 32–38. The remains present a planned structure that was built on terraces and retaining walls to overcome the steep gradient. Erecting the extramural building on the steep slope must have required an investment of effort and energy and was thus probably done for strategic considerations. and three rooms with plastered floors. Pottery typical of the Beersheba Valley sites at the end of the Iron Age and two inscriptions were also found (Beit-Arieh 1985: 97–101. 2007).11 The Iron Age II fortress is located on the bank of Wadi Qina. 1993: 1495–1497. small altars. . clay. Excavation revealed a large colonnaded building (6 × 14 m). The artifacts include clay figurines. Beit-Arieh suggested that the extramural structures at orvat Uza may serve as evidence for a connection with the settlement and could have housed family members of the garrisons who were stationed at the fort (BeitArieh 1993b: 1496.7 ha (according to the excavator remains of additional walls can still be seen on the surface but have not been excavated yet [BeitArieh. orvat Uza Extramural remains were also found downstream from the fortress of orvat Uza (Fig. a paved courtyard. Itzhak Beit-Arieh for allowing publication of the general plan of orvat Uza. 14).

On its floor was a tabun in which a complete Negbite cooking-pot was found (Cohen 1993: 844–845: Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007). Salvage excavations that were carried out in 1992 on the eastern slope of the mound.8 m in diameter. A thick layer of brick debris was detected on the floors.206 Tel Arad yifat thareani-sussely Located adjacent to orvat Uza. The excavators revealed parts of a large building that contained four rooms and is ascribed to Layers 2 and 3. 11–12. A 3 × 4 m room abutting the wall of the fortress was unearthed to the west of the granaries. see Goethert and Amiran 1996: Figs. apart from a burnished bowl that was found in one of the rooms. The largest granary was about 1.12 At orvat Uza as well. outside the fort. Tel Arad functioned as the main fortress in the Arad Plain. In the corners of other rooms. 13 For stratigraphic criticism of this description. The similarity between the Beersheba Valley sites and the fortress of Kadesh Barnea is evident from a chronological and a geographical perspective. include extramural remains. One of the rooms was paved and included a brick bench. Both sites are located in a semi-arid environment. R. see Ussishkin 1993: 3–4. discovered Late Iron Age dwelling remains (Goethert and Amiran 1996: 112–115). Kadesh Barnea Extramural remains were also detected at the fortress of Kadesh Barnea. could be explained as a housing solution for soldiers’ family members (Goethert and Amiran 1996: 114–115). 12 . and existed during the same time span. The material culture from the building has not been published yet. outside the boundaries of the fort. the excavators assumed that the appearance of domestic buildings on the slope. constructed on a foundation of fieldstones and pebbles. rounded brick ovens and rounded stone installation were found. It should be stressed that the excavation on the slope of Tel Arad was limited and it is highly likely that there are additional constructions at the area.13 I have chosen to include Kadesh Barnea in the Beersheba Valley group of sites in spite of it not being considered part of the Beersheba Valley settlement system. Cohen excavated at the site revealing four granaries outside the north wall of the fortress between two towers.

and other familial and ethnic motives.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev “Desert Outsiders” or Part of the Urban Setting? 207 The various functions that extramural neighborhoods fulfilled are attested across the whole range of archaeological and historical evidence. such as Dan. the extramural neighborhood of Tel Aroer should be understood in the setting of the geographical location of the site. Singer-Avitz 1999: 50–52. The appearance of extramural neighborhoods during the Late Iron Age was not limited to the Negev sites but rather existed in north Palestine as well. The ethnohistorical and architectural evidence from traditional trade towns that are situated in arid zones show that extramural neighborhoods developed for multiple political and socioeconomic reasons: trade.15 Although the scenario of “architecture for the poor” is conceivably more likely in remote antiquity. . brought relative stability and peace to the region. It seems reasonable that these neighborhoods were also built in other sites and simply have not yet been excavated.14 Various artifacts support this view and illustrate the commercial activity that took place in the region as part of the long distance Southern Arabian trade as early as the 8th century BCE. discussion of the Iron Age extramural remains should focus on the singularity of each settlement and its status in the settlement pattern rather than on generalizations. Eph al 1982: 93–94. Situated at the southernmost point of the Beersheba Valley settlement system the town of Aroer functioned as an intermediary between the Arava Desert and the southern part of the Judean Kingdom. South Arabian inscriptions. and Jerusalem. In this framework. See also Finkelstein 1992: 161–162. Otzen 1979: 255–256. Thareani-Sussely 2007b. Hazor. see Tadmor 1966: 89–90. Edomite seals and inscriptions. 15 This assemblage includes: Assyrian weights. Assyrian interests and conquests in the Levant and the following economic prosperity. Parpola 2003: 103–104. Intensive scholarly work focused on historical and archaeological evidence from the Beersheba Valley during the Iron Age II shows that the sociopolitical atmosphere in the Beersheba Valley toward the end of the Iron Age enabled the development of a flourishing trade system. In fact. the pax Assyriaca. the evidence from the extramural neighborhoods in Iron Age II Beersheba Valley is different and points to a variety of functions. Na aman 1995: 113. 14 For historical background. 1995: 146. and stone and alabaster vessels. Assyrian glass. crowded towns.

The architectonic nature of the large extramural building excavated outside the fort of Uza suggest together with their recovered finds that they were probably built on the initiative of a central authority.208 yifat thareani-sussely The proximity of the site to the Arabian trade route. are located in the eastern part of the Beersheba Valley. Considering the military and administrative nature of the sites it seems reasonable that the extramural remains were used either as dwelling for the soldiers’ families. Both sites were probably designed to protect the eastern border of the Judean Kingdom and display military and administrative characteristics. Private dwelling areas likely developed there as well. creating an extramural neighborhood. the population of a village did not function as a single unit but rather comprised several groups that interacted with each other (Faust 1995: 86). He defined them as “fort villages”—a term borrowed from the Roman world (Faust 2003: 85–87. played a major role during the Late Iron Age and dictated the development of Aroer as a trade town. and locals. Therefore. The forts of Tel Arad and orvat Uza. relating to a situation when the establishment of a fort was accompanied by the building of a nearby settlement for soldiers’ families. Faust assumed that most inhabitants of these villages did not share a common background. 1431) and bears the letter ‫( ח‬Fig. as reflected in its archaeological record. The appearance of extramural constructions outside the forts supports the hypothesis that the Late Iron Age was generally peaceful and that people felt secure enough to live and interact outside the walls. and/or as . Although this social reconstruction is reasonable. 15). merchants. the architectural layout of the building at orvat Uza and its material culture reflect a central plan and the utilization of public resources. initiated by a central or local authority. In general. Faust argued that the extramural neighborhood should be seen as a byproduct of the forts rather than as a new. close to the border with Edom. Contrary to this. independent type of settlement. One of the sherds was found in the extramural Area D (L. Haiman claimed that the extramural construction of the forts should be considered as separate. independent settlements and therefore defined them as “rural sites” (Haiman 1987: 132–133). the architectural remains of the neighborhood outside the walls of Aroer and its material finds imply a public function. probably industrial and commercial. Safrai 1994: 345–346). Various artifacts and two sherds incised with South Arabian signs support this view.

nomads. This could also be the case for the extramural construction at Kadesh Barnea. The material culture from the extramural Negev neighborhoods and the evidence from other Iron Age II Levant sites and some Middle Eastern trade towns also support this assumption. It was the political and cultural circumstances in the southern Levant toward the end of the Iron Age that allowed desert urban centers to appear and develop (Finkelstein 1995: 146). Correspondingly. The sociopolitical component of the Negev sites during the Late Iron Age probably originated from various social and ethnic groups (merchants. The ethnohistorical evidence suggests that commercial activity frequently took place outside the fortified area of the town (in some cases commercial areas were combined with dwelling quarters). and local population—all integral parts of the ancient urban community. .) forming a multicultural society.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 209 a marketplace where locals and foreigners interacted. 16 Spontaneous development of extramural neighborhood is typical of many traditional Middle Eastern towns (Brown 1973: 88). merchant domestic quarter outside the fort. once erected they became closely connected with the ancient urban setting. It shows that under calm political conditions and due to economic interests. Strong Assyrian imperial rule made marketplaces and commercial activities available at sites that were situated along trade routes. elite groups and administrators might find the option of living outside the city walls attractive. In some cases ancient extramural neighborhoods may have developed later than the city center. local tribal groups. or other trade-related institutions as well as for domestic functions. merchants’ quarters. The bulk of the archaeological remains from the Beersheba Valley sites attests to at least a partial presence of public architecture rather than squatters. the extramural remains at the Beersheba Valley sites could have served as marketplaces. and functioned as a place of interaction between various population groups from different origins and social classes: merchants. caravaneers. Of special significance is the evidence from Jaisalmer describing the existence of a rich. etc. soldiers’ families.16 Nonetheless.

. and Dov Portonsky for producing the plans.210 yifat thareani-sussely Acknowledgments I would like to thank Noga Zeevi who drew the pottery and the artifacts from Aroer for her collaboration and assistance.

1993b. 1995. Levant 35: 123–138. ed. 1993a. K. 2003. 1999. M. The Rural Settlement in the Land of Israel during the Period of the Monarchy (M. MA. thesis. Gupta. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). ZDPV 108: 156–170. Haiman. Bonine. Aroer (in Judea) NEAEHL 1: 89–93. IEJ 25: 171. Samarkand—Studien zur islamischen Baukunst in Uzbekistan. Goethert. ed. Tel Aviv 20: 55–63. De Ligt. F. 2007. Roman Architecture and Society. Bar-Ilan University). Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Cohen. Tel Aviv 31: 268–277. Amsterdam. IEJ 49: 43–54. B. A. 1972. R. From Uruk to Casablanca: Perspectives on the Urban Experience of the Middle East. Residential Patterns in the Ancient Israelite City. R. and Amiran. IEJ 31: 131–132. Trade and Commerce in Rajasthan during the 18th Century. 1989.. S. and Harverson. 9th–5th Centuries B. ——. Geva. W. Temple or “Bet Marzeah”? In: Dever. A. 1969–1982. Berlin. Faust. NEAEHL 4: 1495–1497. ——. Symbiosis. M. M. 2003. ——. Tel Aviv 12. Cohen. Notes and News— Aroer. Bietak. 1979. S. R. M. 2002. ——. Stanford: 78–107. E. Elements of Urban Geography. Warminster. Ramat Gan (Hebrew). In: Weeks. 2007. and Gitin. 1995. Brown. L. Finkelstein. R. C. Geva. From Madina to Metropolis: Heritage and Change in the Near Eastern City. orvat Uza. Tel Aviv 13–14: 32–38. New Jersey. Two Bronze Plaques and the Hussot of Dan.. and Bernick-Greenberg. The Iron Age Sites of the Negev Highlands (M. ——.. Baltimore. (ed. Fletcher. F. Aroer in the Negev. Cairo: 95–144. Hebrew University). 1995. EI 15: 250–273 (Hebrew). Jerusalem (Hebrew). ed. S. Jerusalem. 1982. L. and Cohen. Living with the Desert: Working Buildings of the Iranian Plateau. ——. 1981. Jerusalem. 1989. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society. ——. 1973. H.. A. Eph al. Brandenburg.). 1976. Commercial Activity in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Egyptology and the Urban Setting. 1997. In: Plattner. Israel: An Urban Community of the 8th Century BCE (BAR International Series 543). E. I. NEAEHL 3: 843–847. Biran. Beit-Arieh. 1996 A Salvage Excavation on the Eastern Slope of Tel Arad. I. Winona Lake. Hazor. Jerusalem. J. (IAA Reports 34).. A Literary Ostracon from orvat Uza. 1992. Notes and News— Aroer. Berdan. Egyptology and the Social Sciences. R. 1987. The Limits of Settlement Growth: A Theoretical Outline. Jaipur. ——. Sheffield. L. C. Journal of Urban History 3: 141–180. Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976–1982. Economic Anthropology. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad. 1986–1987. 1982 The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Border of the Fertile Crescent. R. 97–101. eds. 2000. R. ——. E. I.A. orvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II.C. Kadesh Barnea. 1975. Living on the Fringe (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6). thesis. ——. IA: 155–168. . (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. ed.A. 25). Oxford. Beazley. Biran. 1993. H. 1998. Trade and Markets in Pre-Capitalist States. 1993. Cambridge. The Ostracon of Ahiqam from orvat Uza. H. Tel Aviv. 2004. 1985. D. Efrat. 1987. 1981.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev References 211 Anderson. EI 25: 112–115 (Hebrew). Katz. Horvat ‘Uza and Horvat Radum: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. G. An Edomite Ostracon from orvat Uza.

Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations. New York. Silver. 1983. R. 2007b. 2003. Glencoe. C. Third Millennium Modes of Exchange and Modes of Production. ed. IA: 99–112. 71). Jaisalmer: Architecture of a Desert Town. Symbiosis. 1902. Boston. C. J. J. C. Households and Neighborhoods in the Old Babylonian Period: The Role of Extended Families. ——. ed. Ussishkin. D. Houses. A. L. eds. EI 24: 1–6 (Hebrew). Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West. Ancient Caravanserai: An Archaeological View from Aroer. 1957. Patten. Zion 49: 139–158 (Hebrew). Ten Thousand Miles in Persia or Eight Years in Iran. Hertford: 72–78. Sjoberg. Yadin. J.. Stone.. V. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. W. The Negev—A Geographical Definition. A. thesis. Y. and Lamberg Karlovsky. 1957–1958. N. R. A. Reshef. Vol.. Oxford. Final Report. 2007a. The Architecture of Mampsis. A. Na aman. Spatial Organization of Traditional Middle-Eastern Desert Cities (M. London. 2001. ed. et al. Shack. Persian Diary 1939–1941 (Anthropological Papers. Jerusalem. Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery: The Work of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq 1932–1982. E.. 1990. and Gitin. Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. M. eds. S. The Economy of Roman Palestine. In: Veenhof. Somani. 1975. Reade. Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Numbai: 90–101. W. and Gardos. Jaipur. Lamberg Karlovsky. Museum of Anthropology. Kulbhushan. Parpola. Neo-Assyrian Geography. 1982. Stones in the Sand: The Architecture of Rajasthan. In: Liverani. Jerusalem. Urban Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies of Urbanization.A. Singer-Avitz. C. Sykes. In: Sabloff.. 1989. The Land of the Negev: Man and Desert. 1960. The Expanding City (Essays in Honor of Professor Jean Gottmann).. In: Shmueli. 1: The Middle and Late Nabatean Periods (Qedem 26). Jodhpur.. London.212 yifat thareani-sussely Koelz. Levant 39: 123–141. Tel Aviv 26: 3–74. ——. In: Dever. J. PEQ 139: 69–77. In: Curtis. N. Z. Safrai. ed. Montreal. In: Larsen. 1996. N. Negev. Tadmor. B. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. P. 1994. ——. Fairs in the Land of Israel in the Mishna and Talmud Period. In: Pratapaditya. C. 1966. BA 29: 86–102. Van de Mieroop. Sureshwara. P. G.. Urban Ethnicity and the Cultural Process of Urbanization in Ethiopia. M. K. T. ed. R. The “Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh” Reconsidered in Light of the Evidence from the Beersheba Valley. Prophets and Markets: The Political Economy of Ancient Israel. New Delhi. A. Israel under the Assyrians. S. Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. M. 1999. ed. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation. Ancient Civilizations and Trade. New York: 251–285. The Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea. M. Winona Lake. 1982. Leiden: 229–235. Art and Architecture of Jaisalmer. G. A. Past and Present. J. M. Ann Arbor. 1998. Tel Aviv: 3–9 (Hebrew). K. Philistia under Assyrian Rule. Otzen. Copenhagen: 251–261. McGill University). 1984. ed. 1997. Settlement Geography of the Indian Desert. School of Architecture. Tell Taya. Thareani-Sussely. 1972. 1983. Albuquerque: 341–368. . 1973. University of Michigan No. 1979. 1960. 1956. Polanyi. Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Sofer.. W. C. 1993. 1979. Z. 1995. In: Southall. H. Rome: 103–115. Beersheba—A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long Distance Trade. Sharma. Y. eds. Jerusalem. 1990. 1983. London. The Preindustrial City.. History of Jaisalmer. Y.

1 It was unearthed in Room 2101. . 1976. Keel 1998: 123. Mazar 1974: 174–175.: Pl. While many accepted this identification (B. sometimes referred to as a palace (e. Mazar 2002: 274). Herzog 1997: 201. Mazar 2002: 274) or as an elite building (Halpern 2000: 552) replacing the Canaanite palace of Stratum VII. The jug was described by T.” named for the depiction of a lyre player among animals.A MESSAGE IN A JUG: CANAANITE. found in Area AA. 79: 5) and a scarab (ibid.. Area K during the summer of 1998. is a strainer jug with black and red pictorial decoration. 2004: 34–35). and most recently A. 1 The idea for this article was born after several long discussions with Israel Finkelstein concerning the jug and its possible Philistine affinities. Loud 1948: Pl. Room 2101 had no plaster floor and it was not as well preserved as the western wing of the complex: its southern and eastern walls missing (Dothan 1982: 78. after participating in the excavation of Stratum VIA. Mazar 2002: 274 and Harrison 2003: 34–35. Shipton 1939: 6.g. PHILISTINE. 153: 221) were recovered from it. 76: 1). AND CYPRIOT ICONOGRAPHY AND THE “ORPHEUS JUG” Assaf Yasur-Landau Introduction The “Orpheus Jug. Kempinski (1989: 86) followed Dothan and argued that the design had a “very long tradition in the Mycenaean III C 1 style.” (Dothan 1967: 132. The bad preservation of the room may account for the fact that apart from the “Orpheus Jug” only a krater (Loud 1948: Pl.” and accordingly dated the jug to the early 11th century at the latest. Ussishkin 1992: 673. 1: 1. Stratum VIA at Megiddo (Fig. 1982: 78) making it a rather late example of this pottery style. the large eastern room of Building 2072. Dothan as “an outstanding example of the debased Philistine pottery. In contrast to the other rooms in the same complex. Kempinski 1989: 161.

30). it has not been established that the symbols of Aegean-derived pottery from Philistia manifest an ideology that is significantly different from that of the Late Bronze “Canaanite” pottery. Dothan and Zukerman 2004). if the “Orpheus Jug” is so unique in its theme. why has it been automatically identified with the Philistine Bichrome tradition. and then examine the meaning of the figural iconography introduced by the Philistines in the 12th century BCE. in which no other such complex scene exists? When approaching the topic of the origin of the iconography and the meaning of the symbolism on the “Orpheus Jug. The one. and only very few of them—those depicting a lyre player—are considered by Keel to be Philistine. Similarly. any search for the iconographic sources of the “Orpheus Jug” must. unlike any of the Aegean-style loom weights from Philistia. Furthermore. 2 None of these criteria are distinctively “Philistine”: Most of the parallels to the plan of Building 2072 come from the areas of the northern valleys. a significant number of the anchor seals (Keel 1994: 34) may have been manufactured in Egypt.and two-handle cooking-pots considered by Harrison (2004: 30–31) as Philistine have a concave base. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 28. Only one loom weight appears to be unperforated. and the identity of the dominating power governing Megiddo VIA. 171. 34–35.2 However. have noted that its ceramic tradition is a direct continuation of the Late Bronze Age Canaanite tradition of Megiddo. 40). Cyprus and the Aegean. studying the pottery from the Megiddo stratum VIA. Therefore. Finally. perforated loom weights.” it becomes clear that although motifs on both Philistine Monochrome (Mycenaean IIIC: 1b) and Bichrome ware have been defined and classified (Dothan 1982. and anchor seals found in it. 1976). . very different from the flat or ring bases found on all cooking-pots in Philistia and the Aegean (Yasur-Landau 2002: 117–118. two-handle cooking-pots.214 assaf yasur-landau The unanimous attribution of the “Orpheus Jug” to the Philistine Bichrome tradition is dependent on the understanding of the ethnicity of the inhabitants of Building 2072. The finding of this vessel in Building 2072 was one of the decisive factors in B. which would allow a determination as to whether the symbolism of the “Orpheus Jug” belongs to local Canaanite culture or to that of the Aegean. before arriving at 11th-century Megiddo. and thus argue that the inhabitants of this Iron I stratum were Canaanites. first visit the iconography of Canaanite pottery from the end of the Late Bronze Age. little has been said about their symbolic meaning. Harrison uses this jug. Mazar’s conviction that the building was a residence of the Philistine governor of Megiddo (Mazar 1974: 175. 33) is perforated. together with the architectural style of the building. to argue for Philistine presence in Megiddo (2003: 34–35. rather than from Philistia (Harrison 2003: 35). while the large concentration of loom weights from Building 2072 (Harrison 2004: Fig. Recently Arie (2006: 249). 2004: 18.

249–251). Hestrin identifies the tree with the symbol of Athirat/ Elat. . Tufnell et al. This powerful symbol of the goddess of the earth and fertility was extremely common in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age art (Keel 1998: 30–41. 1940: Pl. a fertility goddess mentioned in Ugarit (Hestrin 1987: 220). 54. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 68). Keel 1998: 34–35. 2: 7. 82). Such iconography is particularly common on pottery from Fosse Temple III at Lachish (Fig. see here Fig.a message in a jug The Canaanite Goddess and the Ibex and Palm Tree Symbolism 215 The ibex and palm tree and related motifs connected with the sacred tree are arguably the most common figural motifs on 14th.9: 2. perhaps Elat (Fig. as well as pottery from 13th.g. Hestrin 1987: 214. with a palmetto tree flanked by caprids shown on each of her thighs. Goodnick-Westholz 1998: 79. Fig. To these types one may add the Astarte plaques—depictions of naked 3 In the new excavations they originate from Levels P1–P2 (Clamer 2004a: Figs. 2: 3. 3) as well as Levels VIIa (Yannai 2004: Fig. One such type is a creator goddess nursing two infants. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 56–58). or the above-mentioned Ashera/ Athirat. Yannai 2004: Fig. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 72).and 13thcentury pottery from Canaan (Fig. and birds. Keel 1998: Figs.3 An ewer from Fosse Temple III with scenes of ibexes and trees is inscribed with a Canaanite alphabetic inscription that renders it a gift to a goddess. the consort of El (and perhaps later of Yahweh [Toorn. Aharoni 1975: Pl. Another type of nude goddess holds a papyrus plant in each hand and is sometimes depicted standing on the back of a lion or a horse (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 66–68). Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 73–74. This is most probably the Great Mother Goddess Ashera/ Athirat of the Canaanite traditions. 8. 19: 40: 1). usually deer or gazelles. 20. 21. XLVIII B. 2).and early-12thcenturies-BCE contexts in other locations on the tell (e. 55a–b). 20. found at Tel Miqne-Ekron and at Aphek (Fig. Keel and Uhlinger 1998: 210–248]) and the Mother of Gods (Goodnick-Westholz 1998: 79. but sometimes fish and even crabs (Fig. 2: 5. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 74). and the warlike nature of the horse.14: 1.31: 1. van der 1998: 88–91. 75.. The tree is often shown flanked by animals. cf. 2: 1. 2: 2). 39: 11. It is likely that this symbolism on pottery is closely related to mold-made figurines of naked goddesses. 19: 34: 4) and VI (Clamer 2004b: Fig. These may be representations of the goddess Anat (displaying both sexual appeal.

7: 13. appearing on Philistine Monochrome and later on Bichrome pottery. The ibex and palm tree motif disappeared.216 assaf yasur-landau women on pottery plaques. Killebrew 1998: Fig. Stratum XVII (Local Stratum 4. Stratum IX (Killebrew 1996: Pls. 1: 3). XII. Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: Pls.24. Ashkelon. III. Two examples of storage jars with ibexes and palm trees come from Tel Miqne-Ekron. flanked by caprids. sometimes a palm.4 The imagery of the animals and palm/sacred tree was probably not easily prone to alteration through external influence. the execution is more eastern in nature.26. 1: 13). XI.. 2: 6).83. XII. The imagery of a tree. surrounded by caprids and other animals (Marinatos 1993: 193–194. 74. 16. It depicts a semi-naked goddess between two caprids. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. XXXI: 11). 1998: Fig. Field I. In Ashdod. see here Fig. Although the origin of the iconography of the scene is most likely Mycenaean. Area G the latest ibex on a Canaanite 4 Such a plaque was found in a Late Bronze context at Ashdod Area B. is also found on Aegean pottery from the 14th to the 12th centuries BCE (e. there was a marked change in the pottery iconography in Ashdod. the attributes of the goddess and the scenery would have easily been recognized by both Ugaritians/ Canaanites and Aegeans as belonging to their earth/mother goddess.73. and the Philistine bird became the dominant figural motif. 8: 14) and continues in VI (e. While this may reflect a deep influence of ancient Near Eastern religious iconography on Aegean pastoral styles and Dodecanesean imagery. . Dothan 1971: Pl. An unusual case in which the image of the eastern goddess may have been influenced by Aegean symbolism is that of a pyxis lid from Ugarit (Keel 1998: 30–31.g. see here Fig. Rehak and Younger 1998: 249–251).11. XI. it may also be the manifestation of an Aegean motif of Cretan origin: a sacred or religious landscape of a goddess or a sacred tree. 77. Regardless of the artist’s origin. The Philistine Bird and the Aegean Goddess With the arrival of the Philistine migrants to Canaan in the 12th century. which seem to represent goddesses rather than wet-nurses or concubines (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 97–105). while the earliest appearance of birds is recorded in Stratum VII (Killebrew 1998: Fig.. 10: 15. 7: 1. Hiller 2001). 5: 13. and Tel Miqne-Ekron.g. 15.

and by Dothan and Dothan (1992: 229). First.a message in a jug 217 goblet (?) sherd in Stratum XIII. On a jug from Azor (ibid.: Fig. the most common faunal motif and arguably the most striking feature of Philistine pottery. 13: 12). seems to be universally perceived as a motif of Aegean origin. very few of the birds in Aegean and Philistine pottery iconography appear as devices on ships. Wachsmann’s suggestion (Mazar 1980: 100 note 93. two birds are depicted by a large lotus plant. The earliest birds appear in Stratum XIIIb (ibid. This change in pottery iconography coincides with the introduction of the Ashdoda-style figurines. 17: 10) and are very common throughout Strata XIIIa and XII (ibid. 21: 3–5. and significantly different from the Canaanite naked goddesses of the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 1: 2). 3: 7). see here Fig. birds appear on Philistine Bichrome pottery in what appear to be realistic or fantastic scenes of nature. 1: 4). In some cases they appear alongside lotus plants. It was suggested that these figurines were influenced by Aegean prototypes of an enthroned ruling goddess (Yasur-Landau 2001). all long-necked. and justifying a reexamination of the contexts in which birds are found in the iconography of LH IIIC Aegean pottery as well as in that of Philistine pottery. 22) and XII (ibid. who discussed the appearance of birds on pottery and on cult stands from Tell Qasile.: Figs. 32: 2. 31: 1–2. 20: 1. Dothan (1982: 204) compared . 12: 2) showing a bird with a fish. However. sometimes correlating to Aegean prototypes. see here Fig. 2000: 228). In her classic work.: Figs. and does it represent a different ideology than that behind the ibex and palm tree. yet without mention of its symbolic and ideological aspects. 29: 5–7. Why is the bird motif so common in Philistine pottery. 1: 4). 27: 1–2. and on the prows of the ships of the Sea Peoples. suggesting Egyptian influence (Dothan 1982: 215).: Fig. and wearing a polos. Dothan (1982: 198) argues that the fish and birds on the jug from Tel Aitun are part of a Nilotic scene (Fig. yet decorated in the Philistine Bichrome style. which it seems to succeed? The bird motif. is possibly a residual of XIV (Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. Dothan discusses the Mycenaean origin of the Philistine bird as well as its development in the Philistine Bichrome repertoire (1982: 198–203). thus weakening this suggestion. A similar scene comes from Tell el-Far ah (ibid. shaped in an Egyptian-derived pottery form. Wachsmann 2000) that certain types of sea birds were sacred to the Philistines because of their role as a navigational aid in seafaring was accepted by Mazar (1980: 100.: Figs. bird-faced. 15: 11. 48. 28: 5–6. female-figured.

and other animals between their tentacles (e. XII. 81: 26. XI. Wachsmann (1998: 177–197) interprets these as belonging to a large group of depictions of Aegean and European Bronze Age ships equipped with bird-head devices.218 assaf yasur-landau these representations to LH IIIC Dodecanesean stirrup jars showing octopuses with fish. 39. Wachsmann 1998: 142) and on a LH IIIC pyxis from Tragana (Fig. LH IIIC example from Syros. showing the legs of a warrior standing on a ship bow ornamented with a bird-shaped device.: Pl. being a European symbol of travel.8. There are scenes of birds attacking fish from Enkomi.. Wachsmann (1995: 195) argues.19. A possible solution for the symbolic meaning of the Philistine birds comes from representations in the Aegean world. Such is the case on a LH IIIB amphoroid krater from Enkoni (Fig. Mountjoy 1999: Figs. 464: 18. 1: 5). manifesting the actual presence of a goddess. Yon (1992) believed that the bird heads on the ships of the Sea Peoples are those of ducks. 456: 141. Still. It is difficult to determine whether these scenes simply depict the world of nature or whether they also portray a sacred landscape—nature serving as the background to the appearance of a divinity. V. it is difficult to understand its meaning in the context of these depictions. although it seems likely that the depictions of birds on ships bear a special symbolism. birds. 23. 3: 2. examples of LH II–III Mycenaean depictions that show close affiliation existing between birds and the enthroned Aegean . Motifs of birds together with fish painted in the same style (e. or a symbol of her invisible presence (Carter 1995: 290). 438: 267. a group in which he also includes the ships of the Sea Peoples shown in Medinet Habu (e. 19. Although the origin of this imagery may be Minoan. Vermeule and Kargeorghis 1982: Pl.22) also appear on the Mycenaean IIIC: 1b pottery of Cyprus. as well as of renaissance and fertility. Vermeule and Kargeorghis 1982: Pl. Wachsmann 1998: 137). Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: Pls. based on ethnographic examples.g.38. that equipping a ship with a bird-like device was meant to give the ship a life of its own. XIII. Level IIIB (Dikaios 1969: Pl.g. 3: 1..g. see here Fig. Images of birds also appear perching on the stems of Mycenaean ships. Area III. as well as to ensure the divine protection of the deity whose symbol the bird was. A direct continuation of such depictions on the pottery of Philistia can be seen on a LH IIIC (Monochrome) sherd from Ashkelon (Wachsmann 2000: 131–135).. in which birds are common symbols in both Minoan and Mycenaean religious iconography. 3: 4). XII. ibid. 27).92. Fig.

The goddess is seated on a throne with a bird behind it. 3: 3). Marinatos 1993. III: 29) depicts two enthroned women (only one of which is shown here). Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 23–24. Sakellariou 1964: 202–203 [No. the broad side 5 The second pair of polos-wearing goddesses on the other side of the sarcophagus is interpreted by Marinatos to be chthonic goddesses. 35) two female deities stand in a chariot drawn by griffins. She is wearing a polos and necklaces. and approached by a row of genii holding beakers.(or high hat)-wearing female deities is also evident in Final Palatial and post-Palatial Crete of the 14th–12th centuries BCE. 179]. they are both wearing dotted dresses and their necks are adorned with necklaces. and a crescent. On the eastern side of the Agia Triada sarcophagus (Long 1974: 29. This scene is depicted on the middle register of three appearing on the seal. Similar to the Tiryns gold ring. The LH IIIA: 1 “Homage Krater” from Aradippo. such as that appearing on the Pylos throne room fresco. and she is approached by a procession led by a naked (?) man carrying a lance. and the Shrine of the Double Axes in Knossos (Gessel 1985: 41). The association of the bird with the polos. A bird sits on the top of the back of the chair of one of the women. Karageorghis (1958) compared the enthroned figures to the “Dove Goddess” mentioned in Linear B texts.5 Birds are shown attached to the headdresses of the post-Palatial LM IIIB and LM IIIC goddesses with upraised arms from Gazi. Thus. Above the irregular-top borderline of this register there are depictions of plants.a message in a jug 219 female deity demonstrate its acceptance into Mycenaean religious iconography. The deities were taken by Long (1974: 30–32) to be the protectors of the dead. followed by women in dotted dresses similar to that of the enthroned figure. while Marinatos (1993: 35–36) sees them as celestial goddesses. Cyprus (Fig. Rehak 1995: 103. Karphi. Pl. Carter (1995: 292–296) notes the association of lyre players and birds in LM/LM III iconography of funerary sacrifice and sacrificial feasts. 3: 5. with a bird flying above them—a description similar to that on the Tiryns gold ring. Khannia. see here Fig. The most complete scene in which an enthroned deity is accompanied by a bird is the Tiryns gold ring (LH II?. below which the scene takes place—probably in the netherworld. it may be that this line represents the line of the ground. wearing many necklaces and carrying swords. the sun. .

a: Stager 2006: fig. and seems to recall Canaanite prototypes. rather than a tree for a symbol of divinity is likely to have had a diacritical meaning. One example is an Aegean-style krater. although they were well known as sacred symbols in the Aegean area for centuries. The choice of a bird. and thus perhaps to mark the ethnic difference between the migrants and the local population. and representation on pottery. was introduced together with the cult of the goddess by the Aegean migrants to Philistia in the 12th century BCE. the birds in the Philistine repertoire. A link between the Aegean depictions of the seated goddesses with the birds. from Tel Miqne-Ekron. depicting in Bichrome style images similar in style to those found in LH IIIC Kynos (Fig. 3: 6. Field X. decorated with a tree or a branch. The find of figurines also indicate that after the migration of the Philistines (and other Sea Peoples) the cult of the local “Canaanite” goddesses did not cease. the symbol of the Aegean enthroned goddess. but rather seems to have continued side by side (perhaps on a reduced scale) with the newly introduced “Ashdoda” . 2: 2)—an element defined by Dothan (ibid. 5). Another Aegean-style krater from Stratum VIA in Area IV is decorated with a palm tree—a motif that has no parallels in the Philistine Monochrome (locally made LH IIIC) from Philistia.220 assaf yasur-landau of the Agia Triada sarcophagus. Stager 1998: 164: Fig. The purpose was to differentiate between the Aegean goddesses and the local ones. and to celebrate the prevalence of Aegean deities over local ones. The Aegean migrants did not paint them on their pottery. and the Ashdoda Aegean enthroned deities comes from Philistia itself. but the combination of tree and ibexes was no longer represented on pottery in Philistia. but on a smaller scale: A few cases of Canaanite iconographic influences of the sacred tree are apparent in the earliest phase of Aegean pottery. she is reminiscent of some of the Mycenaean seated goddesses (Yasur-Landau 2001). Stratum VIIB. Symbolism associated with the older Canaanite cult continued. Further evidence from Ashkelon is a late-12th-century krater. however. These birds indicate divine presence at the feast. to be in use in Philistia.: 21) as peculiar in the Aegean repertoire of motifs. on a hill (?) (Dothan 1998b: Pl. The Parallel Lives of Goddesses in Philistia The imagery of the bird. The figure on the right seems to be seated and holds a cup in her hand.

2000: 225–227). Aegean and Cypriot traditions dictates a cautious approach to the examination of the shape and decoration of the “Orpheus Jug. such as a naos-like plaque with images of two naked goddesses (Mazar 1980: 82–84). This symbolic distinction started fading during the mid. Fig. 55: 4. Other elements of Cypriot material culture introduced into the Canaanite world at that time were straight and horn-shaped bottles incorporated into the Philistine Bichrome repertoire (Dothan 1982: 160–168. Canaanite pottery tradition of Megiddo Stratum VII (e. such as the use of bovid scapula for divination (Dothan 1998a: 155. Stager 1995: 338–339. Yasur-Landau 2002: 190–191). . 4). the renewed trade relations with Cyprus introduced Cypriot elements into the cult in Philistia. 32: 7) and cultic “bird bowls” (Mazar 1980: 96–98). 2). and even appeared together with an “Ashdoda” head in Pit 2001 in Ashdod. and masks (Mazar 2000: 277). 3 No. Area C. 58: 8). Mountjoy 1986: 167.to late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE. Stager 1995: 338–339. 3. Yasur-Landau 2002: 180) and bimetallic knives (Mazar 2000: 227). 1993: 102). 21: 2. morphologically. Depictions of naked goddesses. and possibly also wheeled stands. Fig. it seems to conform to some of the criteria set for the identification of the Philistine Bichrome pottery: Its shape is derived from the LH IIIC Aegean prototype of the strainer jug (FS 155.g. The Tell Qasile shrine of Strata XI and XI yielded Philistine Bichrome pottery with decorations exhibiting bird imagery (Mazar 1985: Figs. However. Area VI (Dever 1986: Pls. Dothan 1982: 132–148. 63: 7).a message in a jug 221 figurines. a more squat variant of the spouted jug form existed already in the local. 35: 3. Loud 1948: Pl. Both cultic stands and bird decorations appear alongside imagery associated with the Canaanite goddess. A Philistine Vase? A Stylistic Analysis of the “Orpheus Jug” Viewing the complex nature of cultic practices and iconography in Philistia during the late 11th–early 10th centuries as reflecting local Canaanite.. carried out in “Canaanite” manner. and a large cultic pot decorated with images of trees (Mazar 1980: 104–106. were found in Iron Age I Gezer. a shape that is found in the Philistine Bichrome repertoire (Dothan Type 6 strainerspouted jug. in a dump comprising mostly Iron Age I material (Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 27: 11. During the same time.” Indeed.

164: Fig. 4: 2. none of these figures have a net–patterned chest or a fringed skirt like those of the figure shown on the “Orpheus Jug. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. both from Ashkelon (Stager 1998: Fig. Dothan herself notes that the jug “is unique in almost any aspect of its decoration” (Dothan 1982: 150).29). Mountjoy 1986: 194) and the division into panels by triglyphs (FM 75. Keel 1998: Fig. Dothan 1982: 214–215). 247: 7) on which three warriors are depicted in red and black. She proceeds to offer a detailed iconographical analysis of it (Dothan 1967: 128–132. Fig. this time bearded.222 assaf yasur-landau It is decorated in two colors (black and red) on white slip. Birds and fish—frequent motifs on Philistine pottery—are also depicted in a very different style on the “Orpheus Jug. Dothan (1982: 150) notes that the closest parallel to this figure is a zoomorphic vessel from the Canaanite Stratum VIIA at Megiddo (Fig. unlike the solid-painted body and the curved wing of the “Orpheus Jug” bird.” nor has any Late Bronze depiction exhibiting these features been found in the Levant to date. 6. However. In fact. Schumacher 1908: Pl. Dothan 1982: 150–152) that illustrates that both the composition and the different figures portrayed on the vessel have little in common with the main traditions of the LH IIIC pottery painting or with the Philistine Bichrome. appear on a vessel found in Schumacher’s excavations (Fig.” The bodies of Philistine birds. 59). on page 157. as well as on LH IIIC-Submycenaean Pottery: isolated semicircles with solid centers (FM 43. 61–62. their chests are divided into horizontal strips filled with red dots. Some of the non-figurative decorative motifs on it appear also on Philistine Bichrome pottery. 19: 1–3). The gills of fish in the Philistine repertoire are always defined by curved lines.” It may be possible to trace at least some of the inspiration for the creation of this jug back to the Proto White Painted and Cypro-Geometric Iron Age pictorial pottery styles of 11th. Dothan 1982: Fig. 4: 1. Wachsmann 2000: 134. Mountjoy 1986: 136–137.e. only two examples are known. Dothan 1982: 209. 19: 4. 12: 1. in both Monochrome and Bichrome repertoires is almost always divided into two zones. 35: 7) and are never painted solid as the ones on the “Orpheus Jug.and 10th-century Cyprus. Despite these similarities. usually by a band filled in by triglyph pattern. 24. Human figures are extremely rare on both Bichrome and Monochrome Philistine pottery. and a wing composed of multiple chevron-shaped parallels lines (Dothan 1982: Figs. Similar warriors. Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. . and their bodies are filled with various patterns such as horizontal zigzags and herringbone (i. Loud 1948: Pl. 2. a.

however. 23). including a single white painted krater from Megiddo. Iacovou 1988: 72. 33) and on a late CGIA plate from KoukliaSkales (Fig.a message in a jug 223 Much of this pottery is decorated in two colors. Figs. Iacovou 1988: 72.. the Cypro-Geometric I–II strainer jug from Grotirin: Iacovou 1988: 70–71). parallels to the fish can be seen on some early PWP-CGIA (Iacovou 1988: 68–69). . into the Early Iron Age (e. Naturally. 2000: 282. horn-shaped vessels and gourd-shaped vases. The strainer jug itself is a pottery type introduced into Cyprus from the Aegean area during LC IIC and LC IIIA (Kling 1989. A bearded lyre player appears on a late PWP kalathos found at Kouklia-Xerolimani T. human figures with one large eye and a net pattern on the chest can be found on a late CGIA tripod displayed at the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. bottles. The dog with the curling tail on the “Orpheus Jug” has good parallels with a late PWP amphora from the Sozos collection and CGIA amphorae from the Kourion Museum (Iacovou 1988: 62. a part of the Philistine Bichrome repertoire (Dothan 1982: 160–183). does not render them Aegean when they appear on the “Orpheus Jug.9: 7 (Fig. yet the design it bears of a goat and cross-hatched lozenges is typical of the CG decorative range.” It is possible to reconstruct how these Cypriot motifs could have influenced local pottery production: Cypriot imports to the Levant in the 12th century (Iron Age IA) may have been rare and sporadic (Gilboa 2001: 349) but during the Iron Age IB and Iron Age I–II transition period. some of the motifs noted above (as well as others on painted pottery of 11th–10th-centuries Cyprus) have distant Aegean prototypes. Gilboa 1989: 214). red and black. 78: 20. 4: 6. This. NAA analysis proved that it was manufactured in the area of Dor. which is dated to Stratum VIA (Loud 1948: Pl. the 11th and early 10th centuries.: 352). they increased significantly as is attested by a large quantity of Cypro-Geometric IA and IB finds throughout the Levant (ibid. dating to the Iron Age I–II transition. Finally. 2001: 354. and in the southern Coastal Plain. Fig. 4: 5.g. 4: 3. Similarly. Iacovou 1988: 27). 70). Fig. 2. like the conspicuous example of a pictorial Bichrome bowl from Dor (Gilboa 1989: 211. This import resulted in local manufacture of Cypriot-style pottery. where new Cypriot forms entered the ceramic repertoire during the 11th century. going as far back as the 13th century BCE.) that was manufactured locally later in the Late Bronze. Iacovou 1992: 223–224). Dothan considered these newly introduced forms. A similar phenomenon is probably seen in Tyre (Gilboa 2001: 350). 286.

connected to a procession of animals. 28: 2). 50. Younger 1988: 69 No. Amiran 1969: Pl. 31. 134. although lyre players do appear on Aegean vases and fresco paintings of the 13th and 12th centuries BCE (Iacovou 1988: 82. 2: 4. 5). following Porada. The palm tree and ibex motif (although it includes also other animals. which has a crucial role of conveying a message. however. it may be possible to assign the “Orpheus Jug” to the prevalent tradition in Megiddo of producing and acquiring vessels depicted with scenes of a sacred tree and animals.6 This. Loud 1948: Pls. The narrative of the scene. 84: 5). 69: 13. likely to represent the sacred tree—continues to appear as a decorative motif in Early Iron Age Stratum VIA (Fig. but rather as a poet singing about animals and of the world of nature. The core of this motif—a palm tree. 70–71 Nos. perhaps tales similar to the animal fables common in the literature of the ancient Near East. Porada 1956. see here Fig. Thus. disregards the central role of the sacred tree in the composition. 72: 3. and on a seal from Mardin in southeastern Anatolia (Dothan 1982: 152 note 88). Amiran 1969: 161–165) enjoyed much popularity in Megiddo throughout the Late Bronze Age (e. 400: 35. The composition of a man playing a musical instrument among animals has no Aegean parallels. Guy 1938: Pl. Lawergren examined depictions of lyre players in the Levant and reached a similar conclusion (1998: 53). 33. 58: 1. based on two similar descriptions: on a seal from Tarsus. 5 f–j). Loud 1948: Pl. appears to belong to a non-Helladic tradition. 394: 35.g. From the direction of movement in the scene. 64: 4. 4: 7. most likely used to pour 6 Mazar (1974: 179) has suggested that the scene should not be interpreted as a lyre player playing among animals. Both he and the animals are turning towards a giant lotus plant.224 assaf yasur-landau The Sacred Tree and the Maintenance of Canaanite Identity It is not only the style of decoration that cannot be traced to a point of origin in Greece. 2. Carter 1995: 292–296. Some of this evidence has already been discussed by Dothan. Lawergren 1998: 51 Fig. who. dating from the end of the Late Bronze or the beginning of the Iron Age (Goldman 1956: Figs. 35–36. is a schematized sacred tree. .. argued for an eastern origin of the composition of a man playing the lyre in front of animals. Dothan 1982: Fig. The strainer jug. The relation between the function of the jug and the scene it bears forms an intriguing tension. This interpretation. as observed by Dothan (1982: 152) and Keel (1998: 39–40). it is clear that the lyre player is not the focus of the composition.

elite drinking. is foreign. was a part of a wine drinking kit of Aegean origin introduced to the Levant in the 12th century. These topics were all connected to the ethos of elite domination and rulership by military might. It also became part of the bronze wine-drinking kit of the Megiddo elite of Stratum VIA. juglets. and hunt scenes (Sherratt 1992: 331–333. The pastoral depiction also does not fit the 11th-century-BCE Cypriot aristocratic taste for depictions of “macho” activities. favoring warriors. and leading of an elite life. which usually exhibits a tendency toward themes of power and domination through the portrayal of chariots. 189–190). The subtle message of the vase is conveyed by referring the owner and his drinking guests to a well-known ancient Near Eastern mythological theme. as attested by the presence of a bronze strainer jug among the bronze bowls. possession of luxury items. represented by the sacred tree. and strainers found in a cache unearthed in Locus 1739 (Loud 1948: Pl. The pastoral cultic setting appearing on the “Orpheus Jug” is not typical of 13th–12th-centuries Aegean taste. Karageorghis 1997: 76–79.a message in a jug 225 wine in symposia (Stager 1995: 345). ships. the unity between man and nature. imitating some Cypriot decorative elements. Iacovou 1997. . hunt scenes. and warriors (Deger-Jalkotzy 1994: 20).” if even that. and music. The “Orpheus Jug” tells a different tale: Only the “package. Steel 2002: 112). strengthened by Homericstyle symposia (Deger-Jalkotzy 1995: 376–377). following LH IIIC prototypes (Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 24). celebrated for centuries in Canaanite Megiddo: the peaceful demonstration of the power of the goddess.

Jerusalem. A. I. Ancestors Cult and the Occasion of Homeric Performance. Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI. 79. Part 2. G. 7). Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations ( Atiqot 7). 1998a. Austin: 285–312. and Niemeier. P. Clamer. Ussishkin. No. M. BASOR 333: 1–54. 1989. ——. Proceedings of the International Symposium: Cyprus in the 11th Century B. In: Laffineur. 2006. Text and Plates ( Atiqot 9–10). Carter. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginning in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. Dikaios. E. 1967.C. 1985.II). 1986. 22). Enkomi: Excavations 1948–1958. 1995. 22). Göteborg. 89. and Porath. Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 12. C. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Gessel. 1: The Architectural Remains. and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Jerusalem. The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. R. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). In: Karageorghis. G. Y. and Stern. eds. Mykenische Herrshcaftformen ohne Paläste und die griechische Polis. Town. 1995.-D. T. 101. W. ——. Sounding in 1967.. Liège: 367–377. ——. and Dothan. In: Carter. D. Section A: The Pottery from Levels P-2 and P-1 in Area P. Plans) (The Tel Miqne-Ekron Limited Edition Series. 1971. eds. Mainz am Rhein. ed. Arie.. 1969. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-Site Spatial Analysis of the Pottery from Stratum VIA. Ashdod V: Excavations of Area G. ——. W.. The Fourth–Sixth Season of Excavations 1968–1970 ( Atiqot 23). and Zukerman. In: Bierling. B. and Halpern. Palace. In: Gitin. Deger-Jalkotzy. Dothan. S.. The Tombs. Gilboa. B. eds. S. 1998b. Tel Aviv: 1288–1368. New Finds at Tel Dor and the Beginning of Cypro-Geometric Pottery Import to Palestine. 1993.. E. J. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 2004b. The History of Minoan Pottery. in Cyprus. M. Y. N. Jerusalem. In: Finkelstein. 1965. Dothan. A. Dothan. the “Acropolis”. In: Ussishkin. Jerusalem: 20–48. J. Jerusalem. ——. and Freedman. Dever. 1994. A. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. 1967. The Post Palatial Period of Greece: An Aegean Prelude to the 11th Century B. Aharoni. 1975. Report on the 1995–1996 Excavations in Field XNW: Areas 77. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. T. 2004. C.. Plates. D. The Pottery and Artefacts from the Level VI Temple in Area P. and Morris.. Mazar. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. T. Nicosia: 11–29. 102. Tel Aviv: 1155–1234. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Season of Excavations 1963. Initial Philistine Settlement: From Migration to Coexistence. IEJ 39: 204–218. In: Ussishkin. 2004a. S. D. eds. Dothan. Betancourt. 1992. Text and Data Base (Plates. 1985. B. 1969. Jerusalem.226 assaf yasur-landau References Amiran. R. Sections. P. 78. People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. Princeton. V. New York. Plans. D. P. A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC: 1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. M. M. Iron Age I. Vol. N. The Pottery. . P..C. Dothan. Jerusalem: 148–161. Tel Aviv. 1982. Tel Aviv: 191–298. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Dothan.

E. A. Ussishkin. S. C. Brussels-LiègeNicosia: 61–72. Jerusalem. Jerusalem: 379–405.. and Uehlinger. Immerwahr. Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Göteborg. 18). Cypriot Pottery. M. IEJ 44: 21–35. eds. Text and Data Base (Plates. B. eds. E. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Edinburgh. Tel Miqne-Ekron: Report of the 1985–1987 Excavations in Field INE: Areas 5.. Harrison. L. and Vandenabeele. 1996. Vol. 2001..a message in a jug 227 ——. 1996. 1997. 1998. Ancient Goddesses: The Myth and the Evidence. Goodnick-Westenholz. Sections. Killebrew. 1987. H. P. AJA 62: 383–387. ——. In: Gitin. Four Thousand Years of Images on Cypriot Pottery. 1992. R. Brussels-Liège-Nicosia: 73–80. Philistine ‘Anchor Seals’. Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus: Comments on the Current State of Research. Gods. Megiddo 3: The Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations (Oriental Institute Publications 127). Megiddo Tombs (Oriental Institute Publications 33). Hebrew University).C. In: Laffineur. F. London: 63–82. 1958. Halpern. 2003. V. Mazar. eds. Laffineuer. The Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Jerusalem. Iacovou.. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 108). J. 2000. O. 2001. and Halpern. Pictorial Pottery. In: Karageorghis. In: Karageorghis. ——. The Battleground. Keel. The Lachish Ewer and the Asherah. and Stern.. Kling. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Images in Silhouette: The Missing Link of the Figurative Representations on Eleventh Century B. 1989. B.. Nicosia. 6. Munich. Nicosia: 217–226. The Pictorial Style in Vase Painting of the Early Cypro-Geometric Period. 1998. New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible ( JSOT Supplement 261). Four Thousand Years of Images on Cypriot Pottery. ——. E. Goldman. Liège: 293–304. Biblical Archaeology Review 29/6: 28–33. Additions to the Corpus of Eleventh Century B. D.. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Cypriot Studies. 1998. 1988. Tel Aviv: 535–575. In: Finkelstein. Tel Aviv. Studies in Honour of Vasses Karageorghis.. R. In: Oren.C. Killebrew. and Morris. Hestrin. Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus (SIMA 87). The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B. Goddesses of the Ancient Near East 3000–1000 BC. In: Goodison. A.C... T. ——. University Park and London. Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 22). R. Myth and Epic in Mycenaean Vase Painting. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. S. A. O. S. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Cypriot Studies. Centre and Sentry: Megiddo’s Role in Transit. G. ——. O. B. V. Princeton. Megiddo: A City State and Royal Centre in North Israel..D. 1996. Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Transition from Canaanite to Philistine Culture.. eds. 1994. Laffineuer.. 2000. Herzog. Dissertation. I. and Vandenabeele. 13). Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I–IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations: The Evidence of Pottery (Ph. A.. Kempinski. Administration and Trade. ——. ed. eds. Nicosia. A. 1997. Sheffield. 3–4 May. 1938. IEJ 37: 212–223. 1997. C. 60–62. 7. R. 1956. ed.. Goddesses and Trees. 1990. Potnia/Potnios Aigon: On the Religious Aspects of Goats in the Aegean Late Bronze Age. In: Ioannides. F. 3–4 May. eds. Z. Plans). Chicago. Philadelphia: 281–295. Excavations at Güzlü Kule: Tarsus. L. Chicago. D. 1998. Guy. . V. 1989. C. Keel. Göteborg. Hiller. and Hägg. 2. The Bronze and Iron Ages. R. Karageorghis. 2004. Cyprus (SIMA 78)..

S. N. C. G. Stager. the Pottery. R. P. and Israelite Lyres. In: Gitin. Leipzig. A Lyre Player from Tarsus and His Relations. G. 1985. eds. eds. G. Minoan Religion: Ritual. 2002. Foraging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. In: Rehak. 2006. D. Philistine. Rehak. Distinction among Canaanite. The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of Her Seventy-Fifth Birthday. van den.. Part One: The Philistine Sanctuary (Qedem 12).. Band. Columbia. Oxford. Excavations at Tell Qasile. and Ahituv. and Symbol. Acta Cypria: Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology Held in Göteborg on 22–24 August 1991. Göteborg. A... The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 B. A.. Vol. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (SIMA 73). 36). 1964. Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI–XX (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 17). Jerusalem. M. eds. Mountjoy. International Styles in Ivory Carving in the Bronze Age. The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. Tafeln. Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron. S. In: Goodison. 3). 1998. 1986. J. P. ——. 1999. B. T. ed.. Steel. 1980. Göteborg. and Miller. 1995.. B. S. In: Levy. D. Band I). W. 1998.E. Schumacher. 1992. Confronting the Past. ——. In: Bolger. Boston: 105–114.. 1998. Chicago. The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean (Aegaeum 11). In: Cross.). 1939. ——. Tell el-Mutesellim. Berlin. P. Winona Lake: 169–176. Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus (CAARI Monograph. S. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Chariot Fittings from Philistine Ashkelon. Die Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen (Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel. Conclusions (Qedem 20). eds. In: Weinberg. Liège: 229–254. 1995. In: Oren. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39 (Oriental Institute Publications 62). ——.. Athens. 1974. ed. Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines (Beer-Sheva 15). L. Women and Song: Drinking Ritual in Cyprus in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. ——. Sakellarakis. Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of Willian G. P. E. J. Rehak. J. D. and Their Global Lyrical Contexts.. 1992. The “Orpheus” Jug from Megiddo. Radhen. ——. Wine. 1993.228 assaf yasur-landau Lawergren. 1948. P. ed. 1976. Liège: 95–127. Image. Garden City: 187–192. F. E. Lemke. ed. The Aegeans and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Aegaeum 18). S.. Immigration and Archaeology: Some Indirect Reflections. London: 332–348. and Serwint. M. 1908. Mazar. Ancient Goddesses: The Myth and the Evidence. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. E. P. Marinatos. Wright. 1998. BASOR 309: 41–68. M.. . eds. Jerusalem. and Harris-Cline. Beer-Sheva: 264–282. Dever. I. ——. Part 2 (SIMA Pocket Book 117). E. London: 83–97.. N. and Morris. Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. 1993. The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagos: A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Beliefs (SIMA 41). Porada. Canaan and Israel: Historical Essays. Long. E. A. Excavations at Tell Qasile. ed. D. In: Coogan. L. Sakellariou. G. J. and Younger. Megiddo in the Thirteenth–Eleventh Centuries BCE: A Review of Some Recent Studies. L. E. Shipton. A.. Chicago. K. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. C. 2002. E. and Dessel. Loud. Jonsered: 316–347. eds. New York: 185–211. Mazar. Goddesses in Early Israelite Religion. Sherratt. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. In: Aström. 1974. 1956. D. New York and Oxford: 123–175.C. Toorn. P. Part Two: Various Objects. In: Cline. Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No.

——. 1982. C. The Origin and Iconography of the Late Minoan Painted Larnax. Yon. Ducks’ Travels. Yasur-Landau. New York. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. 2000. 2004. A. M. Mannheim and Möhnesse.. 1992. Watrous. H. 2001. Ussishkin. eds.D. and Karageorghis. 1988. Social Aspects of the Aegean Migration to the Levant in the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE (Ph. In: Aström. 1998. 2000. 1991. Tel Aviv: 1032–1146. dissertation. Liège: 329–343. V. . Tel Aviv University). ——. O. R. London. M. D. Philadelphia: 103–143. L. Wedde. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 108). E. Towards a Hermenautics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery (Peleus 6). Acta Cypria: Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology Held in Göteborg on 22–24 August 1991.. 1992. Inge. V. Wachsmann. Jonsered: 394–407. E. and Harding.. Music in the Aegean Bronze Age (SIMA Pocket Book 144). ed.a message in a jug 229 Tufnell. The Mother(s) of All Philistines: Aegean Enthroned Deities of the 12th–11th Century Philistia. G. L. D. To the Sea of the Philistines. Tel-Aviv. In: Oren. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. MA. 22). 2002. and Hägg. S. Megiddo. D.. ed. The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S.. Lachish II (Tell ed Duweir): The Fosse Temple. 1940. Yannai. E. J. Vermeule. In: Ussishkin. R. and Toronto. London. Part 2 (SIMA Pocket Book 117). Cambridge. Jonsered. In: Laffineur. Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 22). The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. Anchor Bible Dictionary 4: 666–679. Younger. P. Hesperia 60: 285–307.

.

92. 18. 219. 29 n. 197. 45–52 Egyptian New Kingdom architecture. 33 extramural neighborhoods in. 135. 198 n. F. 7. 202. 64 n.INDEX Aachen as seat of Carolingian Empire. 57 collared-rim jars found in.. 207 Archaeological Survey of Israel. 208 grain storage in. Cyprus. 202. 32. 93 “architecture for the poor” theory. 157 Ablution Room 3. 121 storage pits in. 26 n. 208 fort at. 87 architecture. 105. 33. 83 use of Assyrian cubit. 33–34. 16 figurine of goddess found in. 156–60 as source for Philistine city-states. 29 Arava Desert. V. 214 n. 208. 165 Amarna. 225 Aegean style loom weights. 3. 64 in the Coastal Plain. 28 n. 4 . 13 Abu Salabikh. 64–65. 52 See also livestock Aharoni. 214 Andreev. 20 abandonment of settlements. 198–200. 159 Anim ( orbat). 87–102 Philistine livestock farming and urban life patterns. 2 City-State and hinterland. 151 al-Mina. 207 determining builders and date of palaces in Megiddo and Samaria. 155–56 Alalakh. The (Finkelstein). 154 symbolism and the Orpheus Jug. 33 nn. 60 Amos. 215 Philistine cooking-pots found in. 157–59 rainfed agriculture. 207. M. 45. Tel ceramic phases found in. Tel building activity in. 3. 91 Arad. 36. 2 pottery. 51. 220. 35 n. 198 n. 31. 205. 143 Amuq. 214. 217. 223 settlement patterns.. 55 Allen. 224 See also Mycenaean culture Aegean Goddess. 224. 17 animal husbandry. Y. 220 agriculture agriculture borderline of Lower Besor. 63. 165. Tell Albright. 203. 39 lack of remains from Late Bronze Age. 30. 46. 59. 50. 62 n.. 60 El-Amarna letters. xvi. 51 public architecture. 88. 215 Anatolia. 59 n. 214. 206. 3 n. 58. 206 Aradippo. 62.. 58 n. Tel. 205. 216–20 Agia Triada sarcophagus. Y. 206. 105 n. J. 106. 57 Aphek. 25–26 n. 216. 31 n. 4. 216. 170 n. 11 extramural architecture. 61 n. 75. 56. 198 n. 1 Anat (goddess). 9. 34 n. 217 Akko valley. xx. 109 monumental architecture. prophecy of. 59 Amenhotep III (pharaoh). 75. 170 n. 214 n. W. 33 n. 165 n. 36. 12 Aegean culture. 76 Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. 140. 60–61. 100 Arad Plain. 19 sheep and goat farming in. 224 anchor seals. 108 Aitun. 91. 219 Aram-Damascus. 1 Egyptian presence in. See livestock Annales School. xx. 209 funerary architecture. 209 in Rome. 220. 61. 24. 78. 83 grain storage in Dan. 136. 19. xvii–xviii. 30 Amarna archive. See Atchana. 138 Amenhotep II (pharaoh). 204. 2 cooking pots. xix.

N. Ibn. 207. 7 confrontation with Judah. xvi–xvii. 1 palaces compared to private homes in. 148 n. 165–93 Athirat/ Elat (fertility goddess). Tell.. xvi. 4 Atchana. 152 n. settlement activity in. 22. 147 n. 157. 197 arcosolium (bench tombs). 165 n. 13 Berbati. 35 n. 3 Ashdoda figurines. 57 Ayalon River. 29 n. 19. 207. 97. 77 Joshua 19. Eran. 150 Beit Mirsim. 209 extramural neighborhoods in. 220. 1. 20 n. 83 Beer-sheba. 14 waste management in the Late Bronze Age. 145 n. 15. 217 Asmar. 143 2 Kings 14: 20. 149 settlement pattern in. 22 2 Kings 20: 34. 12 Judges 6: 1–4. 63. 199 Beck. 209 Beit Jirjia. xix–xx. Yad Yitzhak. 18. 205. xvi–xvii. 25. 20 n. 3 Arie. 30. 188 bathrooms in Atchana in the Late Bronze Age.232 index Bakler. Tel burial practices in. 172 Woolley’s records of at Atchana. 160 size of. 220–21 Ashera/ Athirat (great mother goddess). 33 n. 149 Ben-Zvi. 8 Beth-Shemesh. 19 ashlars. 137 n. 75 Joshua 15. 149. 31 n. S. 18 n. 202–5. 8 Be er Shema ( orvat). 34 n. 109. 3. 75–83 Beth Zafafa. 216–17 replaced by Ashdod-Yam. 146 Joshua 15: 47. See Yarkon-Ayalon basin Azor. 150. Tell. 137 n. 198 n. Tel fairs outside of. 216. 34. 155. 215–16. 107 Beydar. 143. 51–52 Astarte plaques. 144 n. 90 bench tombs in Judah as a reflection of state formation. 21. 3 Bedouins in Lower Besor. xvi. 187. 216 settlement pattern in. 151. 138 Judges 3: 20–25. 139. 66. 198 n. 160 site characterization. 170 Assyria Assyrian conquests. 216 n. 207 and prisoners of war. 169. 215 Ashkelon. 26 n. 12. 147–49. 27 Base-Ring Ware. 1–14 Aroer. 144. xix. 207. xix. 96 2 Samuel 17: 23. 207 Ashdod.. 52. 81 2 Samuel 17: 15–20. 37. 22 2 Samuel 21: 14. Tell name variations for. 169 Biblical citations Numbers 13: 19. 3. xvii. 170 n. 138.. 149–51. 182. 152 pottery iconography in. 30. 155. Tel. 64 pottery iconography in. 82 n. Tell. 208. 39 Assyrian cubit. 148 n. 154 n. 51–52 Ashododa-style figurines. 32 and Gath. 184. 217 . 79. 96 1 Samuel 14: 47–48. 165–93 differentiated from toilets and restrooms. 170–71 n. 19. 23 Ben-Shlomo. 157 Besor region. 47. 22. 12 Philistines and. 3 Barkay. 27. 47 n. 18 n. 209 withdrawal from Judah. 177–93 Battūta. 52 trade system of. 148. 222 “port power” of. 17–36 typological differences. 93 n. P. 157. 206. 4 Philistines and. 64. 45 2 Kings 12: 17.. 20. 218. 166 n. 33 Beth-Zur.. 144. 80 of southern Shephelah. 4 pax Assyriaca. 144 n. 153. 127 Beersheba Valley. 148 n. 215 Avitsur. 4 larger than restrooms. D. 198 n. 17. Tel. 22 1 Kings 16: 23–24. G. 29. 12. 13. 18 Benjamin Plateau. 18.

15. 206 n. sheep caravans. 64. 66. 13 British Mandatory Government of Palestine. 19. 81. 24. 37 Cemetery 500 at el-Far ah. 157–58 used to determine sheep/goat ratios. 126 bins or troughs for storage. 32 n. 31. 204. 154. 216–22 Blakhiyeh. 29 n. 20 nn. 56–57. 20 carrying-capacity analysis. 6 Building Period I and II and the palaces of Samaria and Megiddo. 10 carbon dating. 80. 20 n. 222 caprids. See Archaeological Periods at the end of the index Broshi. M. 217. 125 “border approach. 33 cemeteries. 110 Carian alphabet. 18 extramural. 1–14 in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age. 19 reflecting social rank in Iron Age Judah. 68. 169 Byzantine period Khirbet Boten in. 80 n. 220–23 Binford. 62 influence on Philistines. 58 n. xvii–xviii. 21–22 See also mortuary practices. 144 Bichrome pottery. 87–102 influence in Israel. 154 influence on the “Orpheus Jug.. 34 n. 105 nn. 1–3 control of Central Plain. 105 grain storage in Dan. 62. K. Tell. 116–21. 173 n. 22 Jeremiah 26: 23. 156 Egypt in. 156 Canaanite Goddess. 143 1 Chronicles 11: 5–12. 156. 13. 15. 216. 1. 120 Bronze Age. 158 Causse. 34 zoomorphic vessel. 22. xvii. 2. 158. 48–49 carinated bowls. 96 Amos 6: 2. 19. J. 63–64. 26 n. 20 Jeremiah 37: 21. 12 233 Buseirah. 29 n. 213–25 migration of Sea Peoples to. 65–66. 35 n. 158.” xx. xvii. B.index 2 Kings 23: 6. 25 Philistines in. 202 bird motif on the Orpheus Jug. 107. A. 67. 106. 13. J. 11. 29. 108. L. 147 settlement activity in Besor region.. 81.. 66. 34 Canaanite cultural-civic tradition.. 1–3. 82 Canaan after breakdown of Egyptian administration.” 29. 106 Carolingian Empire. 144 2 Chronicles 26: 6. 170 n... 11. 39 in Jerusalem. F. 110 campsites. 79 bench tomb cemeteries. 116. 62. 61. 107. 128. 206. 30 Brak. 200. 20. 156–57 burial practices Egyptian burial practices as inspiration. 7. 45–52 Bunimovitz. 215–16 collared-rim jars. 187.. 101 Biran. 39 and funerary architecture. 26 n. 13 . 152. 154. 209 caravansaries. xix. 35 n. 105 nn. 81. 215–16 caprine. 32 n. 23 n. 28 n. 154. 20 Jeremiah 31: 39–40. 198 Jeremiah 41: 8. 219 cattle/caprine ratio. 184. 24 n. 115. 98 n. 6–7 land use of southeastern slope of Megiddo. 19–23 reflecting state formation in Judah. 19 burnished pottery. 22. xvi. 220–21 “New Canaan. S. xix–xx. 81 burial practices in. S. 27. See goats. 23. 68. 56. 153 Bliss. 160 system of city states. 13 Cavalli-Sforza. 26 n. 204 n. 30.” 27. 21. 75–83 14 C test. 35 n. A. 17–36 sociological significance of. W. ossuaries Burke. 19. 214. 59.. 120 Carter. 39 bones of animals revealing urban life patterns. L. E. 4. L. 7. 20 2 Kings 23: 30.. 144 Bloch-Smith..

27. 58 n. 154 Canaanite city-states. 2 ceramic material found in storage pits. 89 cooking-pots. 109.. R. 28 n. 1–14 Megiddo and Omride builders. 63 “Orpheus Jug.” xx. 67. 18 Egyptian tradition. 5.” xx. Y. 125–26 Currid. W. xx. 110. 10.. 213–25 pottery. 105–6. 64–65. R. 2 n. See mass-burials complex system. 87–102 and the House of David. 5 Cypriot influence on the “Orpheus Jug. 125 Crowfoot. xvi. 67 n. 81 Dekker. 121. See Archaeological Periods at the end of the index chalk. 28 n. 5 cist tombs. xvii–xviii. 173 CGIA amphorae. 12 cities Aegean sources for Philistine citystate. 223 Chalcolithic period. 222–23 Cyprus Cypriot collared rim jars. 1. See highlands Central Hill. 108 n. 213–25 used in bathrooms. 167. 8 Cypro-Geometric Iron Age pottery style. D. 156–57 interactions of Philistines. changes in land use. Tel. 81 in Negev. 28 n. 204. 8–9. 105 . xix. 19 n. 3–6. 55 n. 20. 219 n. 55–69 Cohen. 107. xix. Tel burial tombs in. 97 n. 61. 214. urban centers “clan section” in rock-cut tombs. to Megiddo chthonic goddesses. 142 n. 135–60 “proto-city. 206 collared-rim jars. xvi. W. use of. J. 62. Canaanites. 116. 173.” 159 “quasi-cities. 12 Charlemagne (king and emperor). 203. 214 n. 107 collared-rim pithoi. 8 Dever. 122–24 sociopolitical transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age. 93 n. 20 Chicago Expedition. 160 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 121 Dan. 26. 67–68 impact of Aegean culture on. 223 Canaanite tradition. 106. 56 land use change to housing. 3. 192 cesspits. 207–9 of Southern Shephelah. 45–52 See also names of individual cities. J.. 108. 91 ceramic material found in tombs. 155–56. 22 sheep and goat farming in. 13–14 See also burial practices. 66. 15–16 Dalit. 7.. 116. 105 n. 197.. G. 123 dating of Late Bronze Age. 6. 1 David (king). 169 nn. 56. 66. 214 n. 79. xviii–xix.. 115 desert outsiders in Lower Besor. R. 107. 45 Crusader period. 23–24 Coastal Plain. 64. 120. 223 Egyptian dominance in. 135–60 sheep and goat farming in. 13. 146. 45–52 Philistine city-states settlement patterns. 122–24. 100 colonnades. 206. 105 nn. 12. 106. 108–9. and Egyptians in. 1–3. 101. 34 “city-villages. 26 n. 49–51 culling the caprine herd. 18 Dagan. 80. 59–63. 106. 1 of Middle Bronze Age. xx.” 159 Samaria and Omride builders. 11 communal burial pits. 197–210 Megiddo.234 index settlement patterns of Philistine city-states.” 159. 25. 61 n. 171. 2 Cribb. 207 grain storage in. 116. 65 n. 24 composting. 108 n. 93 n. 5 Cisjordan. xix. 127 ceramics. tombs central highlands.. 12–13 extramural neighborhoods in. 175. 23 cubits as measure. 218 rock-cut bench tombs in. 146 nn. 55 n.

25. xvii. Tell. 12. 31 n. 224 “Dove Goddess. 23 n. 193 “fort villages. 5 diachonic study of the Coastal Plain. 142 n. M. 185. xx Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. 68. The.” 201. 208 . trade ed-Der. 15 Erlich. Tel. 81. 10 extended families. 61. 157 study of hinterlands. Tell. 30 n. 55–69 dipper juglets. 187. 64 El (god). Alexander. 61. 16 fairs. 192. 23. 33 Festchrift. 98 Fisher. 1. 97 el-Hayyat. 201 Fantalkin. 45. 1. L. T. 217 Dothan. 179. 95. Tell. 208 Feldman. 2. 29 Iron Age “Fortress” of the Negev. 223 Dothan. 2. 198 n. 81 Egyptian short cubit. 55 n. 55 n. 18 on Tel Miqne-Ekron. 68. 106 economics. 26. 56.. 5. C. 8. S.. Tell. 12 Edomite incense burner. 152. 169 ethnic neighborhoods. A. 63. 168 Expedition of Tel Aviv University (to Megiddo). 81 Egyptian burial practices as inspiration. 188. xvi. 139 n. The. 39 Egyptian dominance in the Coastal Plain. 1–14 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 59–63. 48. xv–xvi. 146 n. 217–18. 3 Enkomi. 19 n. 50.. 95 nn. 32 on Hazael campaign. 13 and the Orpheus Jug. 213 n. 105 Carian quarry marks from. Mount. 79 n. 175 found at Tell Atchana. 9 er-Ruqeish. 34 n. 156. 32 n. 14 extramural settlements extramural cemeteries in Megiddo. 5 views on grain pits. 26 n.. 96 20th Dynasty. 223. 18. A. 49 collapse of Egyptian hegemony. See agriculture. 16 on Tel Asdod. 189. 169. 218 en-Na beh. 62. 143 Erikson-Gini. 36. 1. 198 and Megiddo project for Tel Aviv University. 52 Eitun. 19 Finkelstein. 139 n. 82 n. 106 Epipaleolithic period. 17–36 farming. 97 n. Tel. 97. Roman. C.. S. xix–xx. 9–10. xix. 169 El-Amarna letters. 90 n. 5. 181. xv Final Palatial. 160. 219 Fink. livestock Faust. 127 foot-stands. 67–68 Egyptian New Kingdom architecture. 152. 146 use of Low Chronology. P. 35 n. 177. 220. 153 Ešnunna. R. 214 n. 167. See socioeconomics. Tell. 114 familial and ethnic motives for settlement. 209 n. 106 Dodecanesean stirrup jars. 114 Engberg.index Dhiban. xvi. 5. 29 Ekron. 173 n. 190. 148 n. 153.. 31. xv. 46 flush toilets. 23 n. M. 172–73. 197–210 spontaneous development of. 217 el-Ful.. T. Israel. See toilets food maximizing strategy. xv. 66. N. 138 el-Far ah. 62–63. 1 on settlement patterns.. 170 n. 105.Ajjul. 222. 31. 61 n.. 218 Dor. 2 in Canaan. 11 19th Dynasty.. W. 213. 201 235 excrement. 30. 204 Egypt anchor seals from. 14. 169 es-Sa idyeh. 191. 87 on dating of the Iron Age. 1. 167 n. Tell. S. See Archaeological Periods at the end of the index Erani. 107 on formation of the Kingdom of Judah. 105 n. 3 timing of military campaigns. 215 el. 183. 59. Tell. 4 Fall.” 219 Ebal. 113 Living on the Fringe. Tell. 66.

144 n. 87–102 graves two forms of word used in the Bible. 39 index Grigson. 18 Gophna. 31. 7. 152 n. 6 and the United Monarchy. P. 144. 75. 100. R. 5. 124 Hellenistic period. Tel Gaza. 168 Hazael (king). 155 sheep and goat farming in. 135–60 Gadot. 107 Gat. xx. 156 storage pits in.. 124 Hesse. 117. 110 Grossman. 29.. 122.. 23. xviii. 9. 169 n. 45. xviii–xix.. 100 Haiman. 61–62. xvii–xviii. S. 208 Haken.. 121 government in Judah and Israel. 81 n. 155. 82 n. 51 Guy. 27 of Palestine in Byzantine period. 78. 22. M. 123 Halpern.. 77. B. 12 See also afit-Gath. Tel. 45–52 Fritz. 160 Gibeon. 82. Ram. 142 n. 28 n. 78 n. 139 Haror. 144. 28. 147 Hellwing. 4 grain storage in Dan. 12 Hebrew University Expedition. 81 n. Tel. xvii. 116. 5. O. 106. 92–93 waste management in. 9. 75 n. L. 21 Gonen. 79 n. 215 Hezekiah (king). 32. 28–29. 9 Hebron District. 107 Galilee Lower Galilee. 46. 78 n. 12 highlands. Norma. 78. 12 Haror. 79 n. lack of in the Philistine City-States. 8. P.. 113–28 goat bones. 2. V. 13. 148 Grotirin. 34. 98 hinterland. H. 28. 82. 146. 139 n. 24.. 98. xix. 10. 29 n. 155. 24 n. 214 Harvard Expedition. 155. L. 33 alif. Tel. 24 alutza sand dunes. 151–54. 108. Yuval. 26 n. 116–21. 64 Gerstenblith. 76. 28 n. 116.. 15 Gath. 60. 114 Hesban. 23 Negev Highlands. 82 nn. 123. 215 Franklin. 124 “port power” of. 80. 122.. 82 livestock in. 6 beginning of Iron Age I in. 22. 63. 99. 116. 22 n. 5 Giloh. 11 See also tombs . 48 Hattusha. 108 funerary architecture. 160 Tel Gaza. 13 extramural neighborhoods in. 77. 58 n. 55–69 “Galilean” pithoi. Amnon. 31 nn. 169. 5 goats goat and sheep husbandry. 198. 24. 219 Gazit. 15. Tel. 24. T. 97. 58. 33 n. 144 n. Tell. 94 Gitin. 61–62. 207 settlement pattern in. xix. 121 Herzog. 120. 14 southern highlands. 169 n. 19. 12. B. 78 n. 152 settlement pattern in. D. 82 Gerisa. 28–29. 31. 29 n. 105–10 central highlands. 14–15 Hamoukar. 29 n. 31 nn. 144 n. 29 n. 170 arasim. Tel. Z. 139. 1. 12 Harrison. Dan. 91. 23 Gilat. 21 Gazi. 12 settlement pattern in. 23. 56. 82 n. Tel burial tombs in. 26. 3. 122–24 Upper Galilee. 35 n. 20 See also politics graffiti in Iron Age Judah. 143.. C.. R.. 144 Hazor. xix. 82 settlement activity indicating a tight governing system. 81 n. 123..236 Fosse Temple. 170 n. 154 n.. Tel. 223 Gudea (king). 152 Gerar Estate. S. 24 Upper Galilee Highland. 26. 75–83. 25–26 n. 46 Hadar. 17. 114 Groningen laboratory.. 120. 124. 143. 3 Gezer. 19 n. 110 Judean Highlands. 125 Goldstein. xvii. 157–58 Hestrin.

xix. See Archaeological Periods at the end of the index Iron Age “Fortress” of the Negev. 6 Judah. 82 n. 36 Israel. 157 Iron Age. 200 n. 75. 116. xix–xx. 66 Jaisalmer. 62–63. 200 n. 17 n. 27 settlement pattern in. 25–26 n. 39 sheep and goat farming in. 24.” 199 infant burials. 27–28. 23 and Gath. 168 “Homage Krater. 34 n. 123. 145 n. 29 n. 170 n. 24 n. 15. Northern Israelite Kingdom. 20. 8–9.” 219 orbat/ orvat [ruins]. 34 as capital of Kingdom. 90. 46 Jemmeh. xvii–xviii. 21 Ira. 224 iconographic influences on the “Orpheus Jug. 55–69 United Monarchy in. 35 n. 197 n. 25. 213–25 Ilan. 17. 36–37 Israel. 34 nn. extramural neighborhoods. David. 6.” xx. 7.. 76. 156 Joint Expedition. 122–24 and trade. 20. 6. Land of burial practices in. xviii–xix. 216. 28 extramural neighborhoods. 113 Isin-Larsa.. 122. 51 Israel. tribe of. 200 n. 28 nn. 26. 152. A. 6 Assyrian conquest of.” 27 burial practices in. 57. 197 “Hypothesis 8” (Saxe). 31 Jehu dynasty. 1. 58 Kaplan. 26 extramural neighborhoods in. Kingdom of burial practices in. 45 Jongman. 34 n. 27 waste management in. 28 n. 217. 115. 45. “proto. 220. 168 Hoffner. 116 isohyet. 207 Jerusalem Hills. 24. 60. 124 Jordan River. 31 Jehu (king). W. 25. 23 Judean Hills. 29 n. 199–200. 30. 31 Jehoash (king). Tell. 30 n. L. 4 India. 80 n. 21 u ot. xv Jaffa. 34 n. 209 Kana. 20–21 control over Shephelah and Beersheba. 34 n. 125 House of David. 13 Izbet artah. 105. 138. 117. 87–102. 28 nn. Tell. 57 Josiah (king). J. 39 emergence of statehood for. 23 Judah.index Hittite instruction text on human excrement. 120. 152 n. 27. 209 jar burials. 34. 52 Omride dynasty. 60 . H. 28 n. 155–56 transition from Late Bronze to Iron Age in the Coastal Plain. 37 market trade in Judah and Israel.. 8–9 invisible pit graves. 35 n. K. 15 Israel Antiquities Authority. 20 n. 1. J. 12 Jehoahaz (king). Tel. 3.” 28. 202. 143 burial practices in. 97. 152. 34. 37. 17. 199–200 “Indian Highway. 123 Iria. 215. 98 Jacob M. xix. 206. 31 n. 119. Kingdom of.. The (Finkelstein). 23. 75 n. 6 urbanization of. 153 Jerusalem and “border approach. 56. See names of specific sites Horwitz. 36. 57 n. 22. 169 Jezreel Valley. 115 Jordan. 31 n. 88 Humbert. 25. Alkow Chair in Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages. storage of. xix–xx. 56. 202 Judean Highlands.” 24. 78 n. 92–93. 28 n. 34 state formation. 75. 94–95. 17–36. 20. 31. 29 and “patrimonial model. 10. 20–21 St. 107 n. 22 household items. 24. 19. 59. Jr.. 21–22 ibex motif. 109. 5. 29 Kadesh Barnea. 76 Israel. 62. 12 Islamic period. 122 237 storage pits in. 114.. 2. 17–36 trade in. 17. Ètienne Monastery.

170 n. R. 5 market economy. 157–59 sheep and goat husbandry. 224 Keisan. 7 fortification system at. 207. 57–59. L. 3 Manasseh (king).. comparative study of settlement activity. N. xvi. 24. 36. von. 198 loom weights. J. 125. 126 Khirbet Boten. 209.. 24 n. 221–22. 147 Khirbet Man am. 17 Killen. 105 n. S. 77 n. Ø. 105. See toilets “Law of the Minimum. 123 Loffreda. 34 and Kingdom of Judah. G. 137–38. 145 nn. A. 108. 214 “Low Chronology. H. 155 lyre player. 33 n. 4. 127 Levant. 32. E. A.. 219 n. 223. See socioeconomics. 118 kill-off patterns in caprine herds. 214 n. K. 29 Knauf. 219 “longue durée” approach. 225 “Homage Krater. 218. 45 Kerman. 155 Leibig. 23 Mardin. 113–28 . 158 LH III. 121. R.” 126 Lawergren. 144. A. P. 139 n.. 220 “Homage Krater. 12 Lod. 165–93 Lev-Tov. 1–14 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 144–45.. 138 n. 25–26 n. 33 n. 169. 198 lmlk stamps. 105.. 125–26 King. 140 Malot. Tel. 219 Katz. 15. 18 Long. 147 n. xvii. 4. 10 Shrine of the Double Axes. B. 116–21. xvi–xvii. 27 Knossos Knossos toilets. O. 213 Kenyon. S. 141 n. 6 Keel. 58 n. 222. 225 “longue durée” study of. 13 Macalister. 217. 117. 157–58 Philistine livestock farming and urban life patterns. E. 142. 8. 33. 219. J. 17 Karphi. 219 Khazanov. xviii.... 143 n. 4 building activity in. 88 trade in.” 219 index slipped and burnished pottery in.. 58 n. 5 low settlement unity. 223 waste management in Atchana. A. 144 Maeir. 60 livestock bones of animals. 2. 58 n. 214 n. M. xvi.238 Karatiya. J. 6 Ma amer. J. 219. 88 Kempinski. 32 pottery in. 137 n.” 219 Lion Temple.. 224. 34 n. Tell. 224 Marfoe. 32 n. 199 Ketef Hinnom. xviii.. 13–14 Ma oz. 219 kraters. 32 Lachish palace. 144 n. trade LaBianca. Tel. 198 sheep and goat husbandry. R. 160 Malta a ( orvat). 20. 213. 32. 3. 138 n. 170 Marinatos. xviii–xix.. 143. 159.. M. 224 Lederman. 200 n. 24 Khannia.. Z. 224. 3. Tel. 20 n. 32. 204 n. 4 Mari. 3. 9... 218. 140 Khirbet Za aq. 33 n.” 30. 32. 10 Mana at. 139–40 n. M. 6 Lower Besor. 113–28 See also agriculture Living on the Fringe (Finkelstein). 142 n. 75–83 Lower Galilee. 30 burial practices in. 117 Lachish. 197–210 Late Monarchy period.. Tel. 8. 33 n. 118 Kletter. 213. A. 215 land use changes in land use on southeastern slope of Megiddo. 11.. 4. 31 n. 12–13. 157. S. C. 79 Mampsis.. 12. 4. 27 Lehmann. 22 latrines and lavatories. 224 n. 31 storage pits in. 2 perforated loom weights.

23 n. 79. 13 Monochrome pottery. 108. 11 settlement pattern in. xvi. 1. 214. 216. 142. 28 n. 7 Mazar. 76. 77. 170–71 n. 118. 160 sheep and goat farming in. 204 Na al Besor basin. C. 25 19th Dynasty in Egypt. 13 Mivta im. 1–14 determining builders and date of the palace of. 139 n. 214. 7. xv. 167–68 Mycenaean culture burial practices in. 165 n. 22. 11 burial practices in. 217. 201 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 224 n. 10. 147 n. 140 Michal. 11 and the “Orpheus Jug. 170 n. 116. 213. 218–19. 105–6. 81 n. 24 extramural neighborhoods. P. Tel. 156. 93 n. 147–49. 20.” 29. N. 7. 150 New Archaeology. 45–52 grain storage in. 26 n. See desert outsiders “nonmarket trade. 214. 198 n. 65. 22 See also burial practices Mount Ebal. xvii. 157–58. 197–210 Netiv ha..index Marouche. 1. 157 Minoan symbols. 97 Negev Ware. 10. 151–54 Na al Ela. 96 n. 82. 24 Mo a. 5 Merneptah (pharaoh). 169. 200 Messenia. xvi. 9 masons’ marks. 78. Tel figurine of goddess found in. 120.. 21 mortality profile and caprine products. 147 settlement pattern in. 106. 122. 2 Navon.. 105 n. 150. 3 Negev. 2. 12 Monarchic period. 47–49. 122–24. 108 n. 107. 216. 105–10 Meqabelein. 82 n. C. 47 n. 3 burial practices in. 7. 18. xx. 109. 122–24. xvi. xvi. 13 Na al Soreq basin.. 18 Mycenaean collared-rim jars. 76. 108–9. 52 Mesopotamia. 155. 3 Nitzanim beach. 126–27 239 mortuary practices. Tel. 165. 9. 1–14 Meitlis. S. 11 multiculture and extramural neighborhoods Negev. 118 McCown. 142. 157 Mgha ar Hills. 220. 137 n. I.. 1. 25. 78 n. 215. 11. 220 relations with Tel afit-Gath. 197–210 Muslim fatwa about toilets.. 218. 139–41 Nahshoni. 215 pottery iconography in. 128 storage pits in. 143–44 Na al Aroer. 62 Mesha Stele. 147 nomads. 220 See also Aegean culture Na aman. 14 McCorriston. 55 n. 222 Morris. 144–46. 106 Mount Zion.” xx. 197–210 Negev Highlands.. 52. 108 n. 170 n. A. 170 n. 147. J.” 114 . 88. 127. D. 5. 14 sheep and goat farming in. 5 Mycenaean III C 1 style. 142–43 n. 10 Miqne-Ekron. 213 symbols and designs. B. 5 Nami. 17 Na al Shunra.. 105 n. xvi.Asara. 139–41. 216. 123 Mitanni palace. T.. 10 Na al Lachish basin. 136. 124 Midea. 218 Minoan toilets. 21 “New Canaan. 4 Moab. 137 n. 156 urban land use changes on southeastern slope. 52 mass-burials. 218 pottery. 78 n. 170 n. 19 n. 8 Neev.. xix. 29 n. 106. 79 neighborhoods ethnic neighborhoods. 6 Mazar. 109. 5. Yitzhak. 20 n. 218 Megiddo. 214 McClellan. 77 n. 110. 9. 213–25 peak size of during Middle Bronze III. 106 Medinet Habu. 29 n. 213. 5. 1 masonry chamber tombs. 100 mass-burials in. Tel archaeological expeditions to. 7. A. 142. 4. 59.

98. 159 Pillar Figurine. 200. 3. 96 Palestinian Late Bronze Age.. 48 pigs. 170 Omride dynasty. F. 93 n. 82 Palaikastro. 158. 218. 18 . 94 “patrimonial model. 29 slipped and burnished pottery in. 173–76 Orontes River. 215–16. 34 urban settlement patterns in Philistine City-States. 63–66. 213–25 Philistine Monorchrome pottery. 107 pits for storage. 82 land ownership in. 100. 6. xx. 5 intrasite spatial and temporal distribution of. 13 Palace 1104 (Egyptian Governor’s residency in Aphek). 82 Palaestina Tersiasive Salutaris. 66. 67 n. 96 Petras. 64–65. 12 Lachish palace. 32 n. 16. xx. 166. 165. 66. 20 n. 82 patrilineal kinships. 207 Payne. 214 permanent settlements comparative study of Lower Besor region. 157 Petrie. 2 Palace 1723 (in Megiddo). 63–64. 92–93 marking of. 207 governmental structure. 31. 170 n. 24 “order parameter.” xx. 222 renewal of. 21. 78. 46. 8 petrographic examinations. 15. 8 Palace Level VII in Atchana. 90–91 in en-Na beh. 45–52 North-Sinai Massive. 9 “Pharaoh’s Daughter” tomb. 157. 213–25 ossuaries. 101. 24 n. 33 n. 122–24. 157 Palatial era. 7. 56–57. 67. 100 n. 24. 61 Palace 1723. 67. 12.” 67 Oriental Institute. 55 palm tree symbolism. 166 n. 216. 32 Mitanni palace. 23. 14 “Orpheus Jug. 224 Palma im. 26 n. 90 n. 49 n. 169 n. 116. 60 Patish. 154 Bichrome pottery. 75–83 nomads enjoying advantage of. 45–52 compared to private homes in Atchana. 157 Palestine British Mandatory Government of Palestine. 7. 76 Nuzi. 32 n. 170–71 n. 8. 79 n. 21 Ottoman period.” 27–28 pax Assyriaca. 59 n. 217. 45. 30. xix. 169 n. 60–61 Palace I and II (in Tell el Ajjul). 18 sheep and goat farming in. 26 n. 197. University of Chicago. 46 and the palaces of Megiddo and Samaria. 201 pit storage and permanent settlements. 220. S. 20. 32 n. 59 index Palestine Exploration Fund. 45–46. 47–51 Palaestina Prima. 39 Philistia Aegean sources for the formation of the Philistine city-state.240 Northern Kingdom. 105 Philistine influence on the “Orpheus Jug. 204 pit tombs. Karl. 18 extramural neighborhoods in. 88–100 construction of. 7 palaces builders and date of palaces of Megiddo and Samaria. 220–23 burial practices in. xx. 216. 170–71 n. 30. 114. 31 n. 9. 214. 168 of King of Moab. 31 system of city states. 31.” xx. xix. 140 Papyrus Anastasi I. 29. 46–50 Palace 4430 (in Aphek). 214. 135–60 Phoenicia. 27. xvii. 34 Philistine dominance. 45–52 open system. 34 builders and date of the palaces of Samaria and Megiddo. 170 n. 22 pithoi. 31. 14 at Hattusha. 121 perforated loom weights. 217.. 120 burial practices in. 35 n. 128 Survey of Western Palestine. 8 Polanyi. 177–78 Palace of Omri (in Samaria). 201 n. 220. 68 Philistine influence on pottery decorations and cooking-pots.

60. 67 post-Palatial era. 63–64. 81 rosette stamps. 214. 45–52 Samarian Hills.. F. 153 Sahab. 64–65. 220. 12 burnished pottery. xvii.. 13–14 rank-size rule. 216. 92 Ruwibi. 199 Ramesses II (pharaoh). 5 St. 157.” xx. 39 St. xvi–xvii. 19 n. 139–40 n. 82 Samaria. 5 Porada. B. 219 Qasile. 96 Rosen. 1 Rosh Zayit ( orbat).” 114 rock-cut bench tombs multichambered vs. 123 “quasi-cities. 216. 23–24 use of in Judah as a reflection of state formation. 66. 198 n.. 91–92 Judean influence. 17–36 rock-cut pit tombs. 119. P. M. Stephens church (in Be er S ema ). 213–25 Philistine Monorchrome. Tel. 217. 222. 148 “port power. 99 rubbish disposal. 33 Bichrome pottery. 222 use of slip and burnish on. 125 Rehoboam (king). 106 use of to determine settlement patterns and time periods. 10 . 166 n. 153 Qumran-type graves. 109 Redding. 167 Rajasthan. 3. 214. 184. 98 “risk-free trading. 147. 32–33. 224 Poran. 17–36 transition from Late Bronze to Iron Age in the Coastal Plain. 222. 3–4. 165–93 differentiated from toilets and bathroom. A. 157 “proto-urban” society. J. 206 n. 7 Roman period. See Proto White Painted pottery style Pylos. W. 219. 96.. 4 smaller than bathrooms. 6. xix–xx. 157. 62 n. 137 n. 65. 8 241 Ragette. 3 Rosen. 221. 62 Ramesses IV (pharaoh). 55–69 See also government polos-wearing goddesses. 3. 223 “proto-city. 105–10 Cypriot influence. 7 Rome “fort villages. 146 Rosh ha. J. 213–25 Cypro-Geometric Iron Age pottery style. 222 Proto White Painted pottery style. 218.” 201. 35 n. S. 12. 222 Egyptian influence. 208 mass-burials in.” 24. 108. A. 221 Qiri. xx. 81 “Orpheus Jug. 20 n. 219 pottery in Arad. 172 Woolley’s records of at Atchana.” 159 Qubur el-Walaida. 213–25 Philistine influence. single-chambered. Tell. 152 Portugali. 105 n. 20 n. 33–34. 106. 56.” 151. Tell. 57 Samarkand. 220. 116. 5. 16 ramparts. 137 n. 219 n.index politics burial practices as a reflection of state formation. 31. E. 141 n. 15 proto-Palatial East Crete. 24. G. 14 Prosymna. R. 157 Proto White Painted pottery style.. 88–89. 213–25 comparison of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I pottery in the highlands. 169 suburbium development. 7 PWP.. 114 puticuli. 20 n. 145 n. 217. 66 found in pit storage units.” 159 “proto-Israel. 109. 152. 24 n.Ayin. 31. 144 Reisner. xviii–xix. 33 n. 8 Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware. 137. 204 n. 122. 123. 63. 106. 94. 120 determining builders and date of the palace of. 177–93 Reynolds... xix–xx.. 33 nn. 81. 223 burnished bowl. 45 restrooms in Atchana in the Late Bronze Age. 4 Rosen. 32 n. 117–18. 88. Ètienne Monastery (in Jerusalem). 66. 32 n. 187 Canaanite influence.

200–201 Shalaf. 204 n.. 156. 166 n. 144. 146 state formation burial practices as a reflection of state formation. 20. 31 Shrine of the Double Axes. 28 n. 78. Aharon. 25. 120–21. 125 Shephelah burial practices in. 33 n. 20 Stepansky. xvi. 213 scarcity. 139 n. 29. A. 3. 158. 117–18. 45. 17–36 transition from Late Bronze to Iron Age in the Coastal Plain. 125. B. 105. 35. 93. 140. 105 n. 62 n. 141 n. 116 “self-organization” paradigm. 12 rosette stamps. 100–101. D. xvii–xviii. 98. 122 Sasson. 6 Stager. 88. 23 n. 79 n. 106 Smith. 17–36 Carolingian Empire. 87–102 self-sufficient economy. 34 n. xvii comparative study of Besor region periods. 25. 2. 23 n. 12 leading to emergence of formal cemeteries. 21–22 scarabs. 20 n. xix–xx. 29 Singer-Avitz. 116–21. E. 92 Schloen. 27 integration into Kingdom of Judah. 4. 6 rank-size rule. 149 Shishak (pharaoh). 107. 117. 113–28 sociopolitical activities burial practices in Judah as a reflection of state formation. 26 n. 3 Schumacher. 139 Sharuhen. 172–73 as natural toilet posture. 75 settlement activity abandonment of settlements.. 10 slipped and burnished pottery. 122 Shiqma basin. 75 Shavit. 219 Silk Road. 8–10 Spronk.25. 58 n.. 19–23.242 index Sherrat. 116. 88. 144 Sera . 33. M. 88. 148 n. 108–9. xix–xx. 21 security as goal of herding. 125. 107–8. 169–70. 135–60 Shechem. 3... 46 southern highlands. 107 Sargon II (king). P. 31 n. 35 settlement pattern in. 7. Tel. 151. 222 Sea Peoples. 115 Schiffer. 13 indicated by bench tombs. xviii. 144 n. 204 Simeon. 20.. 27. xix. 29 nn. 125 social rank differentiaion of classes after a monarchy established. 31. 115. 170 nn. xviii. 110 n. use of. 169–70. 136 sheep and goat farming in. 113–28 sheep bones. 139–40 n. 167 n. 55–69 Solomon (king). 128 Sefad District. 144 Sasa. 118 “shifting boundaries” model. 105 n. K. 135–60 trade motives for. 91. 23.. 48 Sennacherib (king). 10–11. 170 n. 217. 6. 75–83 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 26 n. 119. 60. 118. coping with. 19. 156 stamps lmlk stamps. 49 n. xviii–xix.. J. A. xix. Tel. 5. 218. 169 n. tribe of. 127 sheep and goat husbandry in Southern Levant. 157 comparative study of Besor region. Alon. L. 120. Y. 32 n. 4 n. xviii. G. 46. 5 short cubit. 6. 8 settlement patterns of Philistine-city States. 106. 19 squat toilets. 122–24 . 31. 34 n. 88 sheep husbandry in Southern Levant. 4 Shiloh. L.. 10 silos. Tel.. 220 Second Temple period. xix. See highlands spatial distribution of Middle Bronze Megiddo tombs. 127 Semitic writing system. 49–51. 37. 36. 29–30. 197–210 indicating a tight governing system. 136. 81 Saxe. 16. 18 sitting toilets. 113–28 Saul (king). A. 68 self-sufficient economy. 28 n. 52 Shoshenq I (king). 22 socioeconomics implications of grain storage in Dan.

31. 197–210 Tiryns. 12 in Atchana in the Late Bronze Age. 27. 215. 215. 26. E. 199 Tel Aviv.” 114 Southern Arabian trade. 17 University of Chicago Expedition. 159. 11. xv expedition to Megiddo. security as goal of herding. xvi. 8–9 Tomb 254 (in Megiddo).. 17. 117–18. 177–93 tombs and extended families. 8–9 Tomb 247 (in Megiddo). 4 Muslim fatwa about. 198 n. 120. 9 Tomb 238 (in Megiddo). 126 and Jerusalem. Amir. 14 in Iron Age Judah as a reflection of state formation. 9 Tomb 868 (in Megiddo). 19 n. 75–83 Thar Desert. 200–201 “nonmarket trade. 166 n. 32 n. 3–4. xv. See names of specific sites temples Lion Temple. xvi–xvii. 8–10 transition from Late Bronze to Iron Age in the Coastal Plain. 199 symbolism and the Orpheus Jug. 200–201 caravans. xvii–xviii. 31 n. 17–36 land use of southeastern slope of Megiddo. 36 University College. 12 trade.” 33 n. Jr. M.. 224 Ta yinat. 81 “Tyrian” pithoi. 12 Tomb 51 (in Megiddo). 10 Tomb 902b–902d (in Dan). 173 n. 6 motivating market development. 2 Tchernov. 214. 88 strainer jug. 216–22. 200 n. 2. 224–25 stratigraphy of Middle Bronze Megiddo tombs. 120–21. 18 troughs or bins for storage. 12 Tomb 911 (in Megiddo). 4 Sumaka i Fink. 119. 107 Ur. 115. 27 in Judah and Israel. 169 n. statehood of. 137 n. 119 Teheran. 26 n. 125. 224 n. 115. 157. Tel. 10 Tellō. 18 storage of household items. 65–66 temporary and permanent settlements in Lower Besor. 12. 60 Tell Qasile temples. 18 survival subsistence strategy.. 34 n. 157 Taanach. and 17 in (Beth-Shemesh). 110 tabun. xvii.. 35 n. 98. 60 toilets. H. 165–93 Survey of Western Palestine. 167–68 natural toilet posture. 46 Upper Galilee. 170 n. 91–92 subfloor storage. London. 166 n. xix–xx. 39 tombs. 170 n. xvi. 3–4. 125. 87–102 of pottery in pits. 20. 35 synoecism. 12 Urartu. 199 Thareani-Sussely. 9 Tomb 1181 (in Hazor). 88. 25. 26 n. 88 implications of grain storage in Dan. 1. 62–63. 107 Ugarit. 5 trapeze-shaped bench tombs. 28 n. P. R.. 22 Tarsus. 209 and exports. 81. 126 Sykes. 125. 34. 13. 165–93 243 differentiated from restroom and bathroom. 115. 23 n. 68 subsistence vs. 1–14 “Pharaoh’s Daughter” tomb. 170 n. 200. 6 “synergetics. xvii.index Stiebing. 168 United Monarchy. A. 207–8 See also socioeconomics Transjordan. 34 n. xvi–xvii. Yifat. 6 Woolley’s records of at Atchana. 97. 12 Tainter. 165–66. Tell. 101 20th Dynasty of Egypt. 128 suburbium development in Rome. 216 Ünal. 206 n. 8. 224. 3 Tel Aviv University.” 114 “risk-free trading. 169 Tel/Tell [mound]. W. 12 Tombs 9. 170. 38 . xix.. J. 219 Tiy (queen). excavated Tomb 23 (in Dan). 169 n.

145 n.. 10–11 Wall 3182 (in Megiddo). 19 n. Max. 5 Wapnish. 165–93 Weber. xvi. 76. 215 Yarkon-Ayalon basin. 32 n. 56. 157–58 changes in urban land use in Megiddo. 122. 1–14 first urban centers in the Coastal Plain. 140 Yener. 1 Wachsmann. 139. 175 Wall 94/F/15 (in Megiddo). 175 Wall 03–2091 (in Atchana). 6. 202. K. 78. xvi. S.. 17 Zuckerman. 172–73. 109 Woolley. 206. 6. 165–66. 218 Yoqne am. 77 n. 57. Y. 34 n. 5. 55–69. 166 n. xix. 27. 34 urbanization of Kingdom of Israel. 208 Uziel. 150 Yadin. 9 urban centers bones of animals revealing living patterns in. 66.. 143 Wadi Qina. 114 Bronze Age sheep and goat husbandry in Southern Levant. 144–46. 55–69 See also Coastal Plain Yasur-Landau. 3 Yezerski. 158–59. 80 Zimhoni. 150. 79 n.. 25–26 n. J. 17 Zakros. 17. See restrooms waste management in Atchana. Mount. 27–28 Wehr Dictionary. 80 n. 58 lack of hinterlands and settlement patterns of Philistine City-States. Tel relations with Tel Miqne-Ekron. 79. 197–210 “proto-urban” society.. 14–15. 24 Zippor. A. Leonard. Assaf. 105–10 Early Bronze Age grain storage in. 2 “proto-urban” and urban society in. 100 in Megiddo. 160 See also Gath Zahiriyye. 114 urban elites in Judah. 138 Zion. 166 n. 9. 4. 218 Wadi Luzit. 147 settlement pattern in.. S. 62... 80 n. xviii. 10 n. 51 City Wall 415 (in Yoqne am). Tel. 169 n. 10–11 Uzziah (king). 142–43 nn. 205. 147 n. 113–28 shift from Bronze to Iron Age. 114. 5.244 index washing facilities. 121 . 170–71 nn. 157. 58 n. 9–10. excavated City Wall 325 (in Megiddo). 205 Waldbaum. 147 n. I. 158 Archaeological Periods Epipaleolithic period. 144 Vari h. M. P. 31 n. 46 Yahweh. 58 n. 79. 174. 4. 12.. 11 Wall 220 (K) (in Megiddo). 152 Ussishkin. 25 Yon. 58. 18 walls. D. 2 White-Slip I and II ware.. xix. 167 n. 136 sociopolitical transition from Late Bronze Age. J. 32 Uza ( orvat ). 157 Ze elim. 13 afit-Gath. 170–71. 76. xvi–xvii. 114 settlement pattern in. xx. 142–47. 142. 135–60 multicultural extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 14. xix. 26 n. 30. 165 n.. 197 sheep and goat farming in. 213–25 Yavneh Camp. 11. 142–43 n. 217. 12 Wall 03–2073 (in Atchana). 11 Chalcolithic period. 177–93 Yad Mordechai. xvi. 31. 37 See also cities Urim. O.

2 n. 4. xx dating of. 1 in Palestine. 26. 26 n. 75 urban land use changes in Megiddo. 96 waste management in Atchana. 216 n. xvi. 55 n. 8 Middle Bronze Age cemeteries on southeastern slope of Megiddo. 26 nn. xix bench tombs in Judah. 224 settlement pattern in. xvi. 58 n. 113–28 shift from Bronze to Iron Age. xvii–xviii. 18 pottery. 1–14 dating of. 1 Middle Bronze Age II cemeteries on southeastern slope of Megiddo. xvi. 34 n. 45–52 Iron Age I abandonment of rural sites. 105–10 Iron Age IA Cypriot imports to Levant during. 1–14 dating of. 34. 155. 87–102 Omride builders in Samaria and Megiddo. 17–36 and Canaanite cultural identity. 105–10 sociopolitical transition from Late Bronze Age in the Coastal Plain. 55–69 state formation during. 15. 135–60 shift from Bronze to Iron Age. 3 dating of. 12 ceramic phases found in. 8 transition to Middle Bronze Age. 25. 2 n. 1 Late Bronze Age in Aegean culture. xix–xx. xvi. 55–69. 214. 105. xix. 24. 91.index Intermediate Bronze Age number of tombs found in Megiddo from. xvii. 157 sociopolitical transition to Iron Age in the Coastal Plain. 222. 215 grain storage in Dan. 29 comparison of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I pottery in the highlands. 11. 17–36 toilets in. xviii–xix. 17. xvi dating of. xix. 223 goat and sheep husbandry in Southern Levant. 8 urban land use changes in Megiddo. 197–210 settlement patterns of Philistine city-states. 135–60 sheep and goat husbandry in Southern Levant. 34 n. 1–14 Middle Bronze Age I cemeteries on southeastern slope of Megiddo. 1–14 Middle Bronze Age III cemeteries on southeastern slope of Megiddo. 29 cemeteries on southeastern slope of Megiddo. 217. 58 n. 55–69. 8 n. 169 Early Iron Age decorative motifs. comparison of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I. 58 fortified settlements. 55–69 storage pits in. xvii.” 24 rise of Kingdom of Israel. 214 n. 5. 122–24 . 223. 105–10 pottery in. 165–93 245 Iron Age burial practices during. 2. 2. 1 establishment of Aphek. 105–10 “proto-Israel. xvii grain storage in Dan. 4. 107 determining builders and date of the palaces of Samaria and Megiddo. xx. 156. xvi. 36 burial practices during. xix–xx. 25–26. 9 transition from Intermediate Bronze Age. xviii–xix. 36 settlement patterns of Philistine city-states. 2 n. xviii. 138. 87–102 pottery comparison of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I in the highlands. 24 n. 24. 135. 224 earth and fertility goddesses. 18–19. 154. xvi–xvii. 25–26 n. 45–52 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 90. 4.

202. 78 survey of southern Coastal Plain. 31 n. 96 n. 198. 223 settlement activity in Besor region. 29 nn. 11 Iron Age IIB burial practices during. 26 n. 23 n. 25. 18 Late Iron Age Arabian trade route during. 25–26 n. 27 settlement patterns of Philistine city-states. xvii. 202–6. 208 burial practices during. 135–36 . 17. 207 Jerusalem and trade.” 27 burial practices during. 96 n. 17 grain storage in Dan. 88. 23. 25. 25–26 n. 29 n. 75–83 index Iron Age IIA burial practices during. 23–24 creation of new elites. 26. 37 and extended families. 208 Iron Age II and “border approach. 209 fortresses in. 17 extramural neighborhoods in. 197. 24. 25–26 n. 34 n. 18. 14 extramural neighborhoods in Negev. 29. 19. 24. xix. xvi. 96. 135–60 settlements in Lower Besor. 29.246 Iron Age IB Cypriot imports to Levant during. 11 Jerusalem in.

PLATES .

changes on the southeastern slope of tel megiddo

249

Fig. 1. The excavated area on the southeastern slope of Tel Megiddo (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 2)

250

evan arie

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the Middle Bronze tombs on the southeastern slope (after Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 1)

trademarks of the omride builders?

251

Fig. 1. The Mason’s Masks

Fig. 2. The Megiddo—Palace 1723

252

norma franklin

Fig. 3. Samaria—the Omride Palace

continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age

253

Fig. 1. Map of central Coastal Plain with settlements dated to Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods

Reconstructed plan of Palace 4430 at Aphek Fig. Locally made Egyptian-styled vessels found at Aphek . 3.254 yuval gadot Fig. 2.

4. Clay tablet. Ashdoda figurines found at Aphek 4. possibly administrative document written in Philistine script Fig. Philistine finds from Aphek that were manufactured at Ashkelon .continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 255 1-3.

5.256 yuval gadot Fig. Types of cooking-pots found at Aphek X12 and at Tell Qasille XII–X .

continuity and change in the late bronze to iron age 257 Fig. 7. The transformation of sociopolitical order in the Yarkon-Ayalon basin Fig. 6. The Late Bronze-Iron Age transformation at Israel’s central Coastal Plain viewed as a furcative change .

Iron Age I remains were found in all areas excavated .258 david ilan Fig. The site of Tel Dan. 1.

Stratum V. 2. Note the small number of pits and large number of pithoi.the case of tel dan 259 Fig. Note the large numbers of pits Fig. 3. A plan of Area B. relative to Stratum VI (Fig. Stratum VI. 2) . A plan of Area B.

4. This is of the more common cylindrical variety Fig.260 david ilan Fig. most prominently fragmented ceramic vessels. 5. Unlined pits sunk into an earlier consolidated Late Bronze Age pebble fill . A stone-lined pit in Area B (L1225) containing a secondary deposit of refuse.

A row of pithoi lining a wall—their most frequent position in Iron Age I sites . 6.the case of tel dan 261 Fig. A stone-lined pit in Area M (L8185) with the more unusual “beehive” shape Fig. 7.

262 david ilan Fig. 8. “Galilean” pithoi Fig. 9. Collared-rim pithoi .

the case of tel dan 263 Fig. Area B. 10. Tel Dan Stratum IVB. L4710: a possible feed bin abutting a wall (left) .

Sites mentioned in the text . 1.264 aharon sasson Fig.

2.reassessing the bronze and iron age economy 265 Fig. Geographic regions of the Land of Israel .

266 alon shavit Qasile Yarqon basin Apheq Ay al So on ba si n Gezer re k ba si n Ekron La Batas ch Ashdod is Béit Shemesh h ba Ashkelon si n Tell es-Safi Sh Be so Zayit iq m a Erani ba rb si Lachish n Hesi as Gaza in G er ar ba si n Sera Haror 0 10km Borders of the study area Basin borders Fig. The southern Coastal Plain and the boundaries of the settlement complexes . 1.

5–1 0. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Tel Miqne-Ekron region during the 10th century BCE .1 Fig. 2.settlements patterns of philistine city-states 3 267 settlements 2 1 0 3–5 1–3 ha 0. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size 100 Dunams 10 1 1 10 100 Settlements by Rank 1000 Fig. 3.

2–0. 4.1 . 5.1–0.5–1 0.5–1 ha Fig. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size 0.1 Fig.5 0. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size 5 4 settlements 3 2 1 0 3–5 1–3 0.268 alon shavit 4 3 settlements 2 1 0 3–5 1–3 ha 0.2 0.

5 0. The settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size 1000 Dunams 100 10 1 1 10 100 Settlements by Rank 1000 Fig. 6.1 Fig.2 0.1–0. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the 7th century BCE .settlements patterns of philistine city-states 269 4 settlements 3 2 1 0 10+ 3–5 1–3 0.5–1 ha 0.2–0. 7.

7 19.8 9. 9th cent.1 14. Fig. 7th cent. 16.3 14. 8. The settled area at Tel afit-Gath and the surrounding sites during the various stages of the Iron Age II 25. The populated area in the region of Tel Miqne-Ekron during the different phases of the Iron Age II 30 25 20 ha 15 10 5 0 10th cent.9 . 8th cent. 9th cent. 8th cent.270 alon shavit 45 40 35 30 ha 25 20 15 10 5 0 10th cent.3 25.3 41 7th cent. 9. Fig.

5–1 ha 0.2–0. 10.1–0.1 Fig.5 0. The settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size 1000 100 Dunams 10 1 1 100 10 Settlements by Rank 1000 Fig.settlements patterns of philistine city-states 271 6 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 10+ 1–3 0.2 0. 11. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath in the 8th century BCE .

5–1 ha 0.2 0.5 ha 0.1–0.1 Fig.2–0. 13.1 Fig. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to settlement size .272 alon shavit 6 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 3–5 0. The settlement complex of Tel afit-Gath: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size 2 2 settlements 1 1 1 1 0 5–10 0.5 0. 12.2–0.1–0.3 0.

5 ha Fig. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashdod in the 7th century BCE 100 .6–0.2–0. 15. 14.2 0.settlements patterns of philistine city-states 273 6 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 10+ 3–5 1–3 0. The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size 0.1 100 Dunams 10 1 1 10 Settlements by Rank Fig.9 0.

9 ha 0.1 Fig.1 Fig.5 ha 0. 17.2–0.2–0.1–0. 16.274 alon shavit 6 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 5–10 3–5 0.9 0.6–0.5 1 3 2 2 6 0. The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size . The settlement complex of Tel Ashdod: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size 6 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 5–9.2 0.6–0.9 0.

settlements patterns of philistine city-states 275 100 Dunams 10 1 1 10 Settlements by Rank Fig.1–0.1 100 . The settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size 0. 19. 18. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of Tel Ashkelon in the 7th century BCE 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 5–9.9 1–2.5 0.6–0.2 0.9 0.2–0.9 ha Fig.

276 alon shavit 4 settlements 3 2 1 0 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 10 3–5 1–3 0.2–0.5–1 ha 0.2 0. 20.1–0. The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 10th century BCE according to the settlement size 100 Dunams 10 1 1 10 Settlements by Rank 100 Fig. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin during the 10th century BCE .1 Fig. 21.5 0.

22.settlements patterns of philistine city-states 277 3 3 settlements 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 3–5 1–3 ha 0.2–0.1–0.1 Fig.2 0 Fig. The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 8th century BCE according to settlement size . The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 9th century BCE according to settlement size 3 settlements 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 3 10 3–5 1–3 ha 0.5–1 0. 23.5 0.

5–1 ha 1 0.2–0. A logarithmic graph of the settlement complex in the Na al Besor basin during the 7th century BCE 5 3 2 1 10 3–5 1–3 2 1 0.1 5 settlements 4 3 2 1 0 Fig. The settlement complex of the Na al Besor basin: the number of settlements during the 7th century BCE according to settlement size . 24.5 0.278 100 alon shavit Dunams 10 1 1 10 Settlements by Rank 100 Fig.2 0. 25.1–0.

Copyright © 1939 by the president and fellows of Harvard College . Mass. p. 163.: Harvard University Press. Reprinted by permission of the publishers from Nuzi: Report of the excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk. Toilets in Nuzi (after Starr 1937–1939. 1. 163. Fig. Cambridge. 24).waste management at tell atchana 279 Fig.

Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London . where Woolley excavated four restrooms and three bathrooms (after Woolley 1955: Fig. 44). The Level IV palace at Tell Atchana. 2.280 amir sumaka i fink Fig.

The toilets in room 5 of the Level IV palace (after Woolley 1955 Pl. Reprinted by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London Fig. The Oriental Institute University of Chicago Expedition to Tell Atchana (Image by E. XXVa). J. 3. Struble) .waste management at tell atchana 281 Fig. 4.

282 amir sumaka i fink Fig. Struble) . J. 5. The west wing of Area 2: Local Phase 2 (Image by E.

45 (Image by E.waste management at tell atchana 283 Fig. 6. J. Struble) . Rooms 03-2077 and 03-2092 in Square 44.

-L. 7. Roberts) .284 amir sumaka i fink Fig. Restroom 03-2092 during the excavation (photo by N.

-L. Roberts) .waste management at tell atchana 285 Fig. 8. Drain 03-2039 (photo by N.

Roberts) . Roberts) Fig. 9. Wall 03-2091 (photo by N. Plaster inside drain 03-2039 (photo by N.286 amir sumaka i fink Fig.-L.-L. 10.

-L. 12. 11. Roberts) Fig. Jug R03-1542 (photo by N. Plate R03-1851 (photo by N.waste management at tell atchana 287 Fig.-L. Roberts) .

1. Map of Iron Age II sites in the Beersheba Valley .288 yifat thareani-sussely Fig.

Tel Aroer—general plan .extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 289 Fig. 2.

Area D—general plan . 3. Tel Aroer.290 yifat thareani-sussely Fig.

extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 291 Fig. L. Area D. 4. Tel Aroer. 1003 and 1411—pottery assemblages .

1417—pottery assemblage . Area D. Tel Aroer.292 yifat thareani-sussely Fig. 5. L.

6. 1417—pottery assemblage . Tel Aroer.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 293 Fig. Area D. L.

Area D. 1421—pottery assemblage . L. 7. Tel Aroer.294 yifat thareani-sussely Fig.

1421—pottery assemblage . L. 8.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 295 Fig. Area D. Tel Aroer.

296 yifat thareani-sussely Fig. Tel Aroer. 1443—pottery assemblage . Area D. L. 9.

L. 1443—pottery assemblage . Area D.extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 297 Fig. Tel Aroer. 10.

11.298 yifat thareani-sussely Fig. Tel Aroer. Area A—general plan .

Area A—selected pottery .extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 299 Fig. 12. Tel Aroer.

Area A—selected pottery .300 yifat thareani-sussely Fig. Tel Aroer. 13.

14. orvat Uza—general plan .extramural neighborhoods in the iron age negev 301 Fig.

Tel Aroer—southern Arabian inscription from Area D bearing the letter ‫ח‬ . 15.302 yifat thareani-sussely Fig.

A krater from Ekron. After Dothan 1982: Fig. 19: 3 3.a message in a jug 303 Fig. A krater from Ashdod. 48 5. A LHIIIC stirrup jar from Kalymnos. After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 1.” After Loud 1948: Pl. A strainer jug from Tell Aitun. After Dothan and Zukerman 2004: Fig. 1. 464: 19 . 19: 2 4. Stratum XIII. After Dothan 1982: Fig. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig. A jug from Azor. Stratum VI. 29 6. The “Orpheus Jug. 76: 1 2.

After Guy 1938: Pl. 39: 11 3.304 assaf yasur-landau Fig. and Harding 1940: Pl. A collar-necked jar from Kalymnos. 1. After Aharoni 1975: Pl. 463: 14 7. A jug from Megiddo. A bowl from Lachish Level VI. An inscribed jug from Lachish. After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Fig. After Tufnell. 89 . XLVIII: 250 2. A krater from Lachish. A figurine from Revadim. 64: 4 5. 2. Fosse Temple III. Inge. Fosse Temple III. After Loud 1948: Pl. A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIIB. 134 6. After Mountjoy 1999: Fig. After Keel and Uehlinger 1998: Illustration 81 4.

643 3. Stratum XII. A seal from Tiryns. 3. XCIXa . Director of the Ashkelon Excavations 7. A pyxis from Tragana. E. 655 5. 644 2. A krater from Ashkelon. After Wedde 2000: No. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. Ce 6. L. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. Ca 4. After Wedde 2000: No. A stirrup jar from Syros. After Wedde 2000: No. After Yasur-Landau 2001: Pl. courtesy of Prof. A figurine from Ashdod. Cyprus. A krater from Enkomi. A krater from Aradippo.a message in a jug 305 Fig. 1. Stager.

A jar from Megiddo Stratum VIA. After Iacovou 1988: 27 7. 1. After Iacovou 1988: 72. A zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo. A tripod vessel in the Metropolitan Museum. 33 4. A painted shard from Megiddo. A kalathos from Kouklia-Xerolimani T. After Loud 1948: Pl. 4. 24 2. After Schumacher 1908: Pl. After Iacovou 1988: 72.9:7. Fig. 247: 7 3.306 assaf yasur-landau Fig. After Loud 1948: Pl. 70 6. Fig. 84: 5 . A plate from Kouklia-Skales. The lyre player on the “Orpheus Jug” 5.