Dothan I: Remains from the Tell (1953-1964) 9781575065700

Citation preview

Dothan I

The Excavations of Joseph P. Free at Dothan (1953–1964)

Series Editor

Robert E. Cooley

Dothan I Remains from the Tell (1953–1964)

Edited by

Daniel M. Master, John M. Monson, Egon H. E. Lass, and George A. Pierce With Contributions by

Timothy Larsen, Gabriel Barkay, A. Asa Eger, Philip Johnston, Kyle H. Keimer, and Blake Sawicky

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2005

The research and compilation of the manuscript for this final publication were made possible through a generous grant from The Shelby White—Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications

www.eisenbrauns.com

ç Copyright 2005 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dothan : remains from the tell (1953–1964) / edited by Daniel M. Master . . . [et al.] ; with contributions by Timothy Larsen . . . [et al.]. p. cm. — (The excavations of Joseph P. Free at Dothan (1953–1964) ; 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-57506-115-5 (hardback : v. 1 : alk. paper) 1. Dothan Site (West Bank) 2. West Bank—Antiquities. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—West Bank. I. Master, Daniel M., 1971– . II. Series. DS110.D69D68 2005 933—dc22 2005027033

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

Contents

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology Timothy Larsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena John M. Monson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley George A. Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 years Daniel M. Master . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 5. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 6. The Early Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 7. The Middle Bronze Age: Late Bronze Age I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 8. The Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 9. The Iron Age: Area A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 11. The Hellenistic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Roman and Byzantine Pottery A. Asa Eger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 13. The Islamic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 Islamic Pottery Philip Johnston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 14. Additional Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 Stone Artifacts Kyle H. Keimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Metal Objects Blake A. Sawicky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Iron II Seal Impression Gabriel Barkay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Rhodian Stamp Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 15. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 16. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

blank

Dedication

Joseph P. Free (1911-1974)

The last decade of Dr. Free’s life was clouded by the political uncertainties in Palestine which frustrated his efforts to evaluate and to publish the results of his excavation. His untimely death brought this publication process to an end and it remained for others to discover the location of artifacts and records and to find meaning in the material culture that he had uncovered. This volume will make Joseph P. Free’s contribution to the study of archaeology and bible history available to a wider audience. We dedicate this volume to his memory and in gratitude for the curiosity and passion that enabled the uncovering of a portion of the buried city at Tell Dothan.

f there was one concern that characterized the teaching career of Joseph P. Free, it was to convince students that the biblical text was truthful and historically reliable. Ancient Israel and Early Christianity were realities in time and space. His classroom teaching and his public lectures centered on facts, especially those facts that were uncovered through digging up a buried city. Field archaeology was his passion, and it was this passion that drove so much of his energy and vast activity. Escorted tours to the Holy Land were the means to underwrite fieldwork. Nine seasons of excavating provided opportunities to engage the discovery of facts from an archaeological dig. Dr. Free reminded dig participants that they were not “digging up things, but people.” This passion carried over into his popular writings and the founding of the Near East Archaeological Society. At the heart of his passion was a natural curiosity, searching for clues from every square, every basket of dirt, and every ceramic sherd.

I

Robert E. Cooley, Series Editor Dothan Publication Committee

vii

blank

List of Figures 2.1 Map of the “Northern Arena,” courtesy of Biblical Backgrounds 2.2 Distributions of sites in the Dothan Valley, after Zertal 1992 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Derived exploitation territories for EB II-III settlements in the Dothan Valley Derived exploitation territory of Tell Dothan Line-of-Sight analysis result for Tell Dothan Composite photograph of the Dothan Valley, view to west, 2004 Line-of-Sight analysis results for Tell Dothan, Tell el-Muhaffar, and Kh. Belºameh

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

Dr. and Mrs. Free with Professor Albright Père R. de Vaux and the team from Tell el-Farah visit Dothan, 1954 Surveying at Dothan, 1953 Rendering of square locations in Area A and Area D, 1955 Layout of excavation areas, after 1m survey in 1980 Points taken during 2004 Survey Stratification of Tell Dothan

5.1 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Finds 6.1 Distribution of Early Bronze Age finds 6.2 Layout of Area D 6.3 Section of Area D, 1953, with levels and staircase added 6.4 Area A/D, Phase 10 6.5 Area, A/D, W483 and W484, view to northwest, 1953 6.6 Area A/D, Area D fortifications, view to north, 1964 6.7 Area A/D, W445 and W494, view to southwest, 1964 6.8 Area A/D, Phase 9 6.9 Area A/D, fortifications, view to west, 1953 6.10 Area A/D, fortifications, view to northeast, 1964 6.11 Area A/D, W448 and W449, view to north, 1953 6.12 Area A/D, Phase 8 6.13 Area A/D, W489, W490, and W491, view to north, 1953 6.14 Area D110–D112, reconstructed section 6.15 Area D112, fortification wall, view to west, 1954 6.16 Area D110–D112, Phase 4 and Phase 3 6.17 Area D111, incised ceramic object 6.18 Layout of Area K 6.19 Area K, Phase 5 6.20 Area K, W377, view to north, 1958 6.21 Area K, W377, view to southeast, 1958 6.22 Area K, reconstructed section 6.23 Area K, Phase 4 6.24 Area K, walls of Phase 4, view to south, 1958 6.25 Area K, Early Bronze “Gate,” view to southeast, 1959 6.26 Area K, Early Bronze “Gate,” view to southeast, 1959 6.27 Area K, Phase 3 6.28 Area K, Phase 3 room below Phase 2 “Angle Wall,” view to northeast, 1958 6.29 Early Bronze II pottery 6.30 Early Bronze III pottery 7.1 Distribution of Middle Bronze II to Late Bronze I finds 7.2 Layout of excavations between Area A and Area D

ix

x

List of Figures

7.3 Area A/D, child burial, closeup, 1953 7.4 Area A/D, Pottery associated with child burial 7.5 Area A/D, Phase 7–Phase 5 7.6 Area A/D, Middle Bronze architecture, view southwest, 1962 7.7 Area A/D, Middle Bronze walls cut by later silo, view to south, 1964 7.8 Area K, Phase 2 7.9 Area K, Middle Bronze walls, view to west, 1958 7.10 Area K, Middle Bronze jars next to W397, view from above, 1958 7.11 Area K, W357 and W377, view from above, 1958 7.12 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I plainware 7.13 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I storage jars 7.14 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I decorated pottery 7.15 Pottery marking the end of Late Bronze I occupation 8.1 Distribution of Late Bronze Age II finds 8.2 Stratification of Tomb 1, after Cooley and Pratico 1995 9.1 Distribution of Iron Age I finds 9.2 Layout of Area A 9.3 Area A/D, Phase 4 9.4 Area A/D, W204 and W214, view to south, 1956 9.5 Area A/D, “Wall Street” with guardhouse in foreground, view to northwest, 1956 9.6 Area A/D, large eastern room, view to southeast, 1956 9.7 Area A/D, eastern precinct, view to southeast, 1956 9.8 Area A/D, Phase 3 9.9 Area A/D, eastern courtyard, view to east, 1962 9.10 Area A/D, western precinct, view to northeast, 1954 9.11 Area A/D, agricultural installation, 1954 9.12 Area A/D, room with whole vessels, view to north, 1954 9.13 Area D110–D112, Phase 1 9.14 Area A/D, northern area, view to west, 1956 9.15 Area A/D, northern area, view to southwest, 1956 9.16 Area A/D, cut plaster floor, view to west, 1956 9.17 Area A/D, destruction in northern area, closeup, 1956 9.18 Area A12, Phase 3? 9.19 Area A12, Phase 3? walls, view to southwest, 1956 9.20 9428b, Lower Cretaceous fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns 9.21 11446, “Family F,” crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns 9.22 10669, local fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns 9.23 Iron I whole vessels from A107 9.24 Iron I pottery from ash layers in A8 9.25 Area A, collared rim storage jars 9.26 Pottery from Iron II destruction in Area A 10.1 Distribution of Iron Age II finds 10.2 Joseph Free’s summary of Area L 10.3 Layout of Area L 10.4 Area L, Phase 4 and Phase 3; Area K, Phase 1 10.5 Area L, House 1 10.6 Area L, House 2 and House 3 10.7 Area, L, large silo during excavation, view to east, 1960 10.8 Area L, House 4 and House 5 10.9 Area L, later walls built over House 4 and House 5 10.10 Area L, destruction in House 5, view to west, 1960 10.11 Area L, House 6 and House 7 10.12 Area L, large silo below House 6, view to west, 1960 10.13 Area L, House 7, view to west, 1960 10.14 Area L, House 8, House 9, and House 11 10.15 Area L, House 8 and House 9, view to south, 1959

List of Figures

10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 10.20 10.21 10.22 10.23 10.24 10.25 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29 10.30 10.31 10.32 10.33 10.34 10.35 10.36 10.37 10.38 10.39 10.40 10.41 10.42 10.43 10.44 10.45 10.46 10.47 10.48 10.49 10.50 10.51 10.52 10.53 10.54 10.55 10.56 10.57 10.58 10.59

Area L, loomweights in House 8, closeup, 1962 Area L, House 10 and House 12 Area L, plaster press cut by House 10, view to southeast, 1959 Area L, plaster press cut by W129, view to southeast, 1959 Area L, plaster press cut by House 10, view to south, 1959 Area L, House 12 above House 14 (composite photo), view to northeast, 1959 Area L, House 12, view to south, 1959 Area L, House 13 Area L, large pressing installation, view to northwest, 1962 Area L, House 14 Table of radiocarbon results from House 14, measurements taken at Geochron Laboratories Combination of 5 carbon dates from destruction of House 14 Area L, House 14, Room 1, view to north, 1958 Area L, House 14, Room 3 and Room 4, view to west, 1959 Area L, destruction debris in House 14, Room 4, view to west, 1959 Area L, western rooms of House 14, view to south, 1959 Area L, northern rooms of House 14, view to southeast, 1959 Area L, destruction debris in House 14, Room 6, view to west, 1959 Area L, House 14, Room 7, view to southwest, 1959 Area L, plan of later phase in House 14, Room 7 and Room 8 Area L, late addition south of Room 7, view to south, 1959 Area L, blocked up doorway in W6, view to north, 1959 Area L, House 14, view to southwest, 1959 Area L, probe in House 14, Room 9, view to east, 1959 Area L, House 14, view to east, 1959 Area L, House 14, Room 14, view to east, 1959 Area L, House 14, Room 16, view to north, 1958 Area L, House 14, Room 17, view to south, 1959 Area L, House 14, Room 18 and Room 19, view to north, 1960 Area L, House 14, view to east, 1959 Area K, Phase 1 Area K, W379, view to south, 1958 Area A, infant jar burial, closeup, 1954 Area L, burial in L14, closeup, 1960 Area L, burial in pottery coffin, closeup, 1959 Area L, infant jar burials on walls of House 13, closeup, 1959 16628, local fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns Area L, bowls and chalices Area L, kraters and cooking vessels Area L, jars, jugs, and miscellaneous forms Area L, House 14, bowls, kraters and cooking vessels Area L, House 14, jugs and storejars Area L, House 14, handleless jars Pottery from Assyrian burials

11.1 Silver tetradrachma of Antiochus VII 11.2 Distribution of Hellenistic Period finds 11.3 Area A/D, Phase 1 11.4 Area A, Hellenistic room, view to north, 1954 11.5 Area A, oval structure with step in foreground, view to west, 1955 11.6 Area A, second oval structure, view to southwest, 1956 11.7 Area A, Hellenistic stone clearance pile, view to southeast, 1955 11.8 Area B, Phase 5 11.9 Area B, W317 and W318 with W315 above, view to north, 1962 11.10 Hellenistic pottery 12.1 Distribution of Roman and Byzantine Period finds 12.2 Layout of Area B 12.3 Area B, Phase 4

xi

xii

List of Figures

12.4 Area B, composite photo of massive building, view to west, 1962 12.5 Area B, stamped amphora handle, 1962 photo 12.6 Area B, W429, W431, and W432, view to southeast, 1955 12.7 Area B, southern squares, view to west, 1962. 12.8 Area B, Phase 3 12.9 Area B, eastern squares, view to north, 1964 12.10 Area B, eastern squares view to south, 1964 12.11 Roman and Byzantine pottery 13.1 Distribution of Islamic Period finds 13.2 Layout of Area T 13.3 Area T, Phase 1; Area B, Phase 2 13.4 Area T, Room 4, view to south, 1956 13.5 Area T, excavation in courtyard, view to southeast, 1956 13.6 Area B, southwest rooms of Mameluke farmhouse, view to west, 1964 13.7 Area B, plastered basin, view to west, 1964 13.8 Area B, decorated pilgrim flask, 1964 13.9 Area B, area north of Roman-Byzantine building, view to west, 1962 13.10 Area B, bread oven, view to southeast, 1962 13.11 Area B, two bread ovens, view to south, 1962 13.12 Area B, Phase 1; Area T, Phase 1 13.13 Area B, Geometric Arab painted jar, 1964 13.14 Area L, excavated graves in L123, view to west, 1960 13.15 Area L, cemetery layout, showing number of graves 13.16 Islamic pottery 13.17 Islamic pottery 14.1 Stone bowls: O-85A/B (left), O-2401 (right) 14.2 Stone mortar: O-2076 14.3 Stone pestles: O-1323 (left), S-109 (right) 14.4 Upper grinding stone: O-323 (top), O2–2128 (bottom) 14.5 Lower grinding stone: O-5 14.6 Lower grinding stone: O-1315 14.7 Stone scraper/rubber: O-919 (left), O-1333 (right) 14.8 Serpentine spindle whorl: O-2124 14.9 Stone palettes: O-124 (left), O-817 (right) 14.10 Slingstones: O-2061 (left), O-2210 (right) 14.11 Stone door socket: O-262 14.12 Stone lid?: O-2215b 14.13 Stone weights: O-307 (left), O-1026 (right) 14.14 Tournette fragments: O-682A (left), O-735 (right) 14.15 Table of stone objects 14.16 Iron arrowhead: O-82206 14.17 Copper alloy spear butt: O-375 14.18 Copper alloy blade: O-98560 14.19 Copper alloy axehead: O-2624 14.20 Iron chisel: O-2305 14.21 Iron nail: O-988 14.22 Iron plow point: O-830 14.23 Copper alloy sickle: O-82440 14.24 Copper alloy earring: F-7018 14.25 Copper alloy fibula: O-2042 14.26 Copper alloy bracelet: O-1837 14.27 Copper alloy chain: O-1312 14.28 Table of metal objects 14.29 Iron II stamped jar handle

Preface e would like to express our thanks to the Shelby White-Leon Levy Fund for Archaeological Publication. The work of this publication fund has done wonders for Mediterranean archaeology in general, and in our case, it has been the driving force behind the publication of Tell Dothan over the last three years. This publication would not have happened anytime in the foreseeable future without the help of this fund and its generous benefactors. Additional support was provided by internal grants from the G. W. Aldeen Fund at Wheaton College, by the United Nations Development Program, and by many hours of labor donated by several generations of archaeology students at Wheaton College.

W

When we came to Wheaton College, we were confronted by a daunting task. Almost fifty years before our arrival, Wheaton had excavated an important Palestinian tell, and yet there existed no final publication to document the excavations. As we conceived of ways to move the Wheaton Archaeology Museum forward, we knew that any plan would first have to involve the publication of prior excavations in fulfillment of our archaeological responsibilities. Fortunately, the Tell Dothan collection at Wheaton College had been cared for very well. For decades, Al Hoerth (who was Professor of Archaeology at Wheaton for 29 years) and more recently his former students Kenneth Hoglund and Deborah Webber had been carefully curating this material, building a card file of the objects, and organizing the material in the hopes that a publication might one day be possible. The first steps toward a synthesis of this material were taken by Nathaniel Heller in his 2001 MA thesis. Our work here stands on all of their shoulders and we thank them for their input and longsuffering efforts. While we were aware of the work at Wheaton, we did not realize the extent of the organizational work done by Robert Cooley until we visited Jerusalem. Dr. Free had believed in distributing material widely in order to spread the risk of the loss from any one storage facility. Unfortunately, he left no map or record of these distributions, so it was left to Robert Cooley to painstakingly track down artifacts for more than three decades. His efforts insured the survival of a coherent corpus from the excavations. This work was supported by the Dothan Publication Committee, and particular thanks are due to John Rea, Walter Kaiser, Carl Taeschner, Bonnie Hansen, and Joe Cunningham for their financial contribution to these essential tasks. In the fall of 2001 we approached the Free Family Foundation, the holders of the publication rights to this

material, and they graciously agreed to let us proceed with a publication of the material on the tell as part of a two volume publication program. Our volume on the remains from the tell is Volume I and a forthcoming volume on the tombs of the Western Cemetery is to be Volume II. We would like to thank Robert Cooley and Abed Ismail for the trust that they placed in our work and the help that they gave us every step of the way. With the permission of the Free family secured and the blessing of the Free Family Foundation, we were then able to obtain permission from main repositories of Dothan objects, including the W. H. Mare Archaeological Institute at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, St. George’s College in Jerusalem, and the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. Each of these institutions kindly allowed us to inspect, photograph, and draw the objects in their collections for the purpose of this publication. Part of our publication involved the making of new acquaintances in the Dothan valley as we visited the site and ultimately conducted a brief survey in the summer of 2004. Through the kindness of Bill Broughton we were introduced to the staff of the United Nations Development Program. Tim Rothermel, George Khoury, and Nasser Faqih offered us every available resource and facilitated a new connection with the Dothan Valley and its hospitable residents, some of whom had warm memories of Professor Joseph Free. Our friends from the United Nations introduced us to Hamdan Taha, Director General of the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage of the Palestinian Authority, who graciously encouraged our work and was kind enough to visit the site with us in the summer of 2003. Once we began the publication in our archaeology laboratory, we quickly realized that we would need more help. We received the generous support of the administration of Wheaton College, including the Dean of the Humanities and Theological Studies, Jill Baumgartener, the Provost, Stanton Jones, and two department chairs, Paul House and Richard Schultz. In addition, our archaeology students stepped up to the challenge, digitizing the records for almost forty thousand registered pieces of pottery, scanning thousands of slides, editing texts, and tracking down ceramic parallels. In particular, the students who participated in our seminar on Tell Dothan in the fall of 2003 were able to work on focused studies of Dothan’s history. Since the pottery was in several countries, we relied upon several illustrators for the plates. Our thanks go to Fadi Amira and Julia Rudman in Jerusalem, Peggy Sanders in Chicago, and Jennilyn White, Rebekah Williams, and Jon Walton in Wheaton.

xiii

xiv

Preface

The publication process took us to Jerusalem in the summers of 2003 and 2004. While there, our work was facilitated by the Albright Institute for Archaeological Research and its director Sy Gitin. In addition we benefited from visits from Gabriel Barkay, Amihai Mazar, and Anna de Vincenz, who all lent words of encouragement and advice to our pottery sorting sessions. We are especially grateful to Ross Jones, the Dean of St. George’s College in Jerusalem, as well as the other staff of St. George’s School who offered their help and shared their facilities as we analyzed their Dothan collection. Over the years, through archaeology conferences and public presentations, members of the original Dothan excavation returned to tell us of the richness and importance of the Dothan excavations. We hope that this volume opens a window for the rest of the archaeological community to see what the original excavators have long

known. This work stands as a tribute to the long hours that they logged between 1953–1964 in an effort to understand more about the history of Palestine and the ancient stories of the Dothan Valley. Finally, none of this would have been possible without the vision of Joseph Free. He was the founder of the archaeology program in which we have the good fortune of working. Through his work, his students, and his family we know him to have been an enthusiastic archaeologist and a passionate teacher. His energetic work at Tell Dothan uncovered a rich and important city that we hope can now make its long overdue contribution to the understanding of ancient Palestine and the culture of the Dothan Valley. Daniel M. Master and John M. Monson

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology by Timothy Larsen and Near Eastern studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

he cause of evangelical biblical archaeology in general, and at Wheaton College in particular, owes a considerable debt to Dr. Joseph P. Free (1911–1974). Free founded an influential learned organization for the advancement of evangelical archaeology, the Near East Archaeological Society. His publications, especially his widely disseminated Archaeology and Bible History, significantly influenced several generations of evangelical scholars. Archaeology and Bible History was first published in 1950, and a fifteenth printing appeared posthumously in 1992. In 1936, Free introduced the first course in biblical archaeology at Wheaton College, going on to create a full major in archaeology, beginning in 1940. He also launched Wheaton College’s summer archaeological expeditions, which still exist today under the appellation “Wheaton in the Holy Lands.” Not least of his services to the discipline of biblical archaeology was founding the Wheaton College Archaeology Conference, a major annual event. He was the director of the Dothan excavation, an important site in terms of biblical archaeology. Free was a visionary, an entrepreneur, a spokesperson and advocate for the discipline of archaeology, a pioneer and a founder, as well as a field archaeologist. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that everything that Wheaton College has achieved in this disciplinary area it owes to him. An examination of the road that Free took to these achievements will serve to place his work at Dothan in context, and will also serve to illuminate more generally the evolving relationship between evangelicalism and the discipline of archaeology in the twentieth century. The dust jacket of the first edition of Archaeology and Bible History explained Free’s academic ascent to his place as head of the Department of Archaeology at Wheaton as follows:

T

Here we have what would appear to be a portrait of a man who set his heart on archaeology as a teenager, trained with the best at Princeton, and then added the latest methods being developed at the University of Chicago— a pedigree that would have pleased any Ivy League university, let alone an undergraduate school out in the prairies. Nevertheless, like a good Agatha Christie novel, this “about the author” write-up has a certain flair for misdirecting the reader. The truth is that for quite some time it was not at all apparent that Free was destined for a career in the field of archaeology. All of his degrees at Princeton were in what his doctoral supervisor referred to in a letter of reference as the “Romance Department,” no doubt shorthand for the romance languages wing of the Department of Modern Languages. Free wrote an undergraduate thesis on “Romanticism in Balzac.” His PhD thesis was a literary study of Rousseau. How far Free was from the discipline of archaeology when he joined the Wheaton College faculty in 1935 may be gathered from how he filled out the application form. Asked to list his “Major subject or subjects,” he put, “Modern Languages (French, Span., Italian[)].” 1 To the follow-up question, “Minor subject (what you can teach if necessary),” he responded, “English, German, Latin, and most any of the humanities.” This is a man who unequivocally saw himself as a linguist, and a modern linguist at that. Beside that final, accommodating catch-all phrase (“and most any of the humanities”), the furthest stretch is Latin. Not even the biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew made it on to this rather long and obliging list. As Wheaton was not then currently offering archaeology, it probably would not have been a good idea tactically to have added that subject, but one might have expected to see “Old Testament” or “Bible” or “Ancient History” or some such adjacent discipline. Joseph P. Free took his place on the Wheaton College faculty as an Assistant Professor of French in the Foreign Languages Department. A more mischievous, alternative title for this paper on Dr. Joseph P. Free’s career might have been “pardon my French.” His disciplinary migration,

As a prep school student in his early teens, he became interested in archaeology when the headmaster at Stony Brook, Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein, showed the boys an ancient clay cone inscribed with cuneiform writing. Later his interest was renewed when, as an undergraduate at Princeton University, he lived next door to Professor George Elderkin, the excavator at Antioch, and a few doors from T. Leslie Shear, the excavator at ancient Corinth. In subsequent years he specialized in archaeology and Biblical studies. Dr. Free holds the A.B., A.M., and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University, and for ten years carried on post-Ph.D. work in the field of archaeology

1

This document and, unless otherwise indicated, all such documents mentioned in this article, can be found in the files for Dr. Joseph P. Free held by the Wheaton College Archives, Buswell Library, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

1

2

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology

however, had formally begun already in his second year at Wheaton, 1936, when he taught Wheaton’s first course in biblical archaeology as a kind of intriguing side interest. By 1940, he had secured a formal joint appointment. Moreover, it was clear which half of his work was capturing people’s imaginations. Wheaton’s yearbook, the Tower, said this of him in 1940, “Although best known among the students for his interesting lectures on travel in Palestine, Dr. Joseph Paul Free is officially recognized as assistant professor of French and Bible Archaeology by those who search the catalogue” (18) The page for the French Club had a picture of him in front of the Sphinx with the caption “Dr. Free Free” (164) By 1942, in terms of his faculty identity, the transformation was complete. His title had become Assistant Professor of Bible and Archaeology. He was still in the photograph for the French Club, but was also pictured for the first time in the Seminary Club. By the following year, the French Club had been dropped as well: he had set his hand to the plow and was not looking back. In other words, Free’s education in archaeology was entirely informal. On his application form, he noted that he had also taken Greek and Church History at Princeton Theological Seminary, by which we can infer that he did not take any courses related to biblical history or Old Testament studies. Therefore, if any of his formal studies at Princeton were in fields directly relevant to his new career they must have been general education courses or electives taken as an undergraduate. His ten years of post-doctoral work at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute was, alas, less than it would seem. A “professional biographical data” form in his Wheaton College personnel file dated 1959 has these years more precisely delineated as 1940–46. There was, however, no actual post-doctoral status to be had at the Oriental Institute. 2 What Free actually secured was the designation “studentat-large.” In this capacity, he took one course in 1940, the standard historical survey, a two-hundred level course, “History of the Ancient Orient.” He took no further courses until 1946 when, in line with his linguistic bent, he took two three-hundred level courses in the Akkadian language, “Inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian Kings” and “NeoBabylonian Documents.” This was the full extent of his formal relationship with the Oriental Institute. One wonders if his desire to study Akkadian went all the way back to that clay cone “inscribed with cuneiform writing” that Frank Gaebelein had shown him as a boy, underlining once again that his interests at that time in his life were really linguistic rather than archaeological. What explanation, then, can be found for his disciplinary migration? On a more superficial level, as the Tower caption indicated, there is no doubt that Dr. Free did long to be free, that his personal temperament was marked by

2

The information in the remainder of this paragraph is based upon records at the Oriental Institute, the University of Chicago.

wanderlust. Former students remember him fondly as a dynamic figure. They also recall, however, that he often found a reason to be away even during term time when he had a scheduled class period. Professor Arthur Holmes recollected that Free would write out a full lecture for his teaching assistant to read out verbatim—complete with jokes and all. 3 Professor Walter Elwell reminisced that Free was in the habit of lecturing into a tape recorder while traveling and then having the tape played to the class in his absence. Students used to fantasize that, instead of taking notes, they would merely have the lecture recorded, thereby leaving Free’s classroom occupied entirely by machines! 4 It is significant that the first mention in the Tower of his new disciplinary interest said that his lectures were on travel in Palestine. Free had started what was formally and tellingly entitled the “Holy Land Cruise” (the precursor to “Wheaton in the Holy Lands”) in the summer of 1937, and thus was offering guided tours for some years before he became involved in actual field work. 5 Having come to Wheaton as his very first faculty position, as an assistant professor in what was only his fourth year of teaching, Free put in a request that at the end of the semester he could immediately begin a sabbatical that he had decided should be fifteen months long. (Need it be added that the administration did not oblige him in this matter?) One way of looking at how Free’s time at Wheaton College ended is that he simply wandered off and never came back. His typed out “professional biographical data” form, dated 1959, lists him as Professor of Bible Archaeology. His file was then updated by administrators with handwritten notations: firstly, “on leave of absence 1960–61,” then “also 1962–63,” then “again, 1964–65,” next comes, “offered indefinite ‘break,’ ” and finally, “no official connection.” President Armerding informed the Dean in a memorandum dated 23 March 1965 of this decision, noting that “we should no longer carry Dr. Free’s benefits for him, as might be true in persons expecting to return to full-time teaching here.” A statement written “for the record” by the Dean, noted the President’s opinion that “regular faculty status normally implies an on campus teaching relationship with student contact.” 6 A more substantive explanation for Free’s disciplinary shift, however, is the prompt provided by the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. 7 In the 1930s, nowhere was this conflict more heated than among Presbyterians. On his application form, dated 4 January 1935, Free had

3

Personal interview with Professor Arthur Holmes, 4 April 2003, Wheaton College, Illinois. 4 Personal interview with Professor Walter Elwell, 4 March 2003, Wheaton College, Illinois. 5 “Holy Land Cruise” is the title of an entire page on these tours in the Tower, 1941, p. 206. 6 Dean John H. Fadenrecht, “Field Archaeology at Wheaton College,” 6 July 1965.

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology

put his denominational identity as simply “Presbyterian.” During the following year, however, Presbyterians would divide along fundamentalist-modernist lines. The fundamentalists who would be ejected from the Presbyterian Church USA included not only J. Gresham Machen, who had resigned from the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary because of what he perceived to be the growing influence of theological liberals, but also the president of Wheaton College, J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., who no doubt had been particularly glad to hire Free because he was a fellow Presbyterian. 8 As he was living and worshipping in Princeton during the first half of the 1930s, Free would have watched this controversy heating up from a front row seat. Free’s 1935 application to join the Wheaton College faculty was supported by three letters of reference. One of these was from Dr. O. C. Engle who taught the adult Bible class at Free’s home church in Princeton, Second Presbyterian. In his letter, which was addressed specifically to Dr. Buswell, Engle enthused about Free: “He is a thorough fundamentalist and a strong contender for the ‘faith once delivered unto the saints.’ ” During this application process, almost everyone went out of their way to locate one another on the ecclesiastical map. Free himself confessed that his doctoral supervisor was “a deist or Unitarian,” but asserted bluntly that his other two referees were “both saved people, and speak the same language that we do.” Free’s continued immersion in the fight for the fundamentals among Presbyterians is indicated by another form in his personnel file. It was sent to all faculty members by the Dean in 1962, requesting that they supply information regarding their ordination or other ministerial credentials, if any. Free wrote in reply that he had been ordained by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in September 1942. “Evangelical Presbyterian” had become the official name of a denomination only in 1961, and thus one must swim up past where this rivulet had branched off to get back to 1942. Such a journey would place Free, one infers, in the Bible Presbyterian Church at the time of his ordination, a break-away denomination from Machen’s break-away denomination. 9 Buswell himself was a Bible Presbyterian man in 1942, having parted ways with Wheaton and taken a post at an educational institution serving that denomination. One might speculate that Free’s ordination in September 1942 was prompted by his more general career realignment at that time: 1942 was also the year that his title was changed to place him

7

For a scholarly account of this controversy see two sources that together compliment one another in terms of their chronological scope, see Marsden 1980 and Carpenter 1997. 8 For a scholarly biography of Machen that also makes a significant contribution to understanding the controversy as a whole, see Hart 1994. 9 For a thorough guide to these various denominations, see Hutchinson 1974.

3

exclusively in the Bible department, and when he began his association with the college’s Seminary Club. Already in 1945, Archaeology and Bible History existed in what was very close to its final form in a bound, typescript version. In it, Free is very comfortable causally identifying himself as a fundamentalist, “as fundamentalists we do hold that . . .” 10 In the first published version (1950), this was altered to read, “as believers in the fundamentals of the faith, we do hold that . . .”, although in an appendix he made it quite explicit that the label “fundamentalist” was an apt synonym for the terms he usually employed such as “Bible believer” (Free 1950: 4, 347–50). His denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, founded Covenant Seminary in St Louis in 1956, and Free was a keen supporter of that institution for the rest of his life. He even flirted at one point in his career with joining the faculty at Covenant, and the seminary was remembered in his will. The connection between biblical archaeology and fighting modernism is, of course, Christian apologetics. If Free really was, as Dr. Engle had assured President Buswell, “a strong contender for the ‘faith once delivered unto the saints,’ ” then biblical archaeology was arguably the best weapon to hand in that struggle. The historical veracity of the Bible was under attack by higher criticism—a discipline that was viewed by modernists as thoroughly scientific, but by fundamentalists as spurious as well as corrosive. Fundamentalists deemed archaeology, on the other hand, to be a truly scientific discipline that would confirm the trustworthiness of the biblical record. Biblical critics theorize—and are often wrong—but archaeologists discover the facts, and the facts are on the believer’s side. This dynamic was a wellestablished one by the mid-1930s. Published in 1910, the very first volume of The Fundamentals, the series that gave fundamentalism its name, contained a whole range of articles endeavoring to expose, as one title put it, “Fallacies of Higher Criticism.” Moreover, it also included an article by M. G. Kyle entitled, “The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures.” Joseph P. Free began teaching archaeology at Wheaton College in 1936—the year that marked the final rupture in Presbyterianism: the fight was at its height and able men were needed to answer the call to war. The earliest record of Free’s interest in archaeology that has been found is a letter from Frank Gaebelein dated 1 May 1933. It seems out of place in files that almost all date from the 1950s, perhaps indicating that Free himself saved it precisely because it was a marker of where it all began. 11 Free had given a talk on “Palestine” to the boys at Stony Brook School, his alma mater, and Gaebelein

10

Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History [bound manuscript] (Wheaton, Ill.: Wheaton College, 1945), 2. 11 This letter is located in the Wheaton College Archaeology Museum, Wheaton, Illinois.

4

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology

wrote to praise it. The assessment is almost entirely on issues of pedagogy, and it has a remarkably contemporary ring to it. Free is credited with having engaged his hearers early on and having pitched the material at the right level. He is commended for having used multi-media resources (“The motion pictures seemed to me extraordinarily well taken and well arranged”) and for— that most important of all criterion—having not spoken for too long. Only the last line moved toward engaging with the actual subject matter. In it, Gaebelein complimented his former pupil for the way that he introduced the useful notion “that first-hand investigation in Palestine tends to confirm the Bible.” When Free applied to Wheaton, his other reference from a “saved” person was written by his pastor at Second Presbyterian, Dr. D. B. Tomkins. Tomkins observed, “He teaches most acceptably the young people’s Bible class . . . Mr. Free is no perfunctory teacher but has a very definite aim in his teaching and that definite aim is to win these young people for Christ.” As an undergraduate, Free had done his own, existential wrestling with issues of faith and doubt, so his personal experience taught him that young people struggled in this way and needed help that was relevant and compelling. 12 These evangelistic, apologetic, and pastoral concerns are the soil from which Free’s commitment to archaeology sprung. Free’s very first article on archaeology also underlines these origins. It appeared in 1939 in the Christian Victory Magazine, and was tellingly entitled, “Archaeology Confirms the Bible: A Practical Use of the Results of the Excavations.” Here is a portion of its introduction: Archaeology confirms the Bible, showing that its historical statements are true and accurate. This confirmation is of great aid in dealing with people who doubt the reliability of the scriptures. . . . Almost every young person who has been in high school has heard from someone that the Bible contains errors and that it is not an entirely trustworthy book. A person who has such doubts in his mind will reject Christ on the ground that the scriptures are not to be trusted. 13 The heart of the article is three case studies which are used to make the point that erstwhile reigning, skeptical assumptions about specific, historical references in the biblical narrative have been overturned by archaeological research: the Hittites, Solomon’s stables, and King Sargon. The final section of the article includes several personal

12

See Free 1950: viii, where he confessed that “in college days he came to the place where he wondered whether God existed or not.” 13 Free’s articles were typed out and bound together: Joseph P. Free, Articles on Archaeology [bound manuscript] (Wheaton, Ill.: Wheaton College, 1945), 1.

testimonies in which Free made various individuals receptive to hearing “the way of salvation through Christ” by removing their doubts about the Scriptures through informing them of how modern archaeological findings demonstrated the Bible’s reliability. The final paragraph summed it up: There are many people who have wrongly assumed that our Bible contains errors, and they let this stand between them and the Lord. The writer hopes that these and many other facts of Bible archaeology may be used by the reader in bringing others to know Christ, by removing doubts as to the accuracy of the scripture. In the next five years, Free published a whole string of articles in popular Christian periodicals that had an overtly apologetic purpose. Some of the titles of these were “Archaeology Confirms the Conquest of Canaan” (Joshua 6–12), “Can A Young Man Trust His Bible? Archaeology and the Book of Judges” (Judges 1,4,8,9), and “Archaeology Confirms the Kings of the Bible” (II Kings), all for Christian Victory Magazine. For His magazine, he wrote a two-part article in 1944 under the general title of “Archaeology and the Accuracy of Luke.” In 1943, he gave a lecture at the University of Michigan on “Archaeological Discoveries and Christian Faith Today.” It is not hard to imagine why Free would have decided that this kind of frontline work for “Christ and His Kingdom” (to evoke Wheaton College’s motto) should take precedent in his own career over studies of seventeenth-century French literature. An apologetic purpose runs strongly throughout Archaeology and Bible History. Free announced at the very beginning when introducing the whole discipline of biblical archaeology: “it may be said that two of the main functions of Bible archaeology are the illumination and the confirmation of the Bible” (1950: 1). He saw every part of his book as fulfilling one or the other of these functions, and even gave his readers helpful guidance on how they could skip the “illumination” sections and thereby just use the book “as a compendium on the subject ‘How Archaeology Confirms the Bible’ ”(1950: x). One edition of the book, published in 1973, even added on the cover as a sort of subtitle the phrase, “Archaeological discoveries confirm and illuminate the sequence of events in the Old and New Testaments.” The degree to which Free had one eye on contemporary issues of Christian life and faith might be measured by the fact that he included an appendix which argued that the Bible did not support even the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. Under Dr. Free’s leadership, the archaeology program at Wheaton College was imbued with this apologetic approach. For years, the college’s archaeology courses were advertised in the official literature of the department with the sentence, “The vast amount of material which

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology

illuminates and confirms the Scriptures is essential to any educated Christian, whether layman, teacher, or missionary.” On the brochure for the Eleventh Annual Archaeology Conference in 1966—the first year that Free was no longer on the faculty—this sentence appeared as usual, only minus the words “and confirms.” A promotional brochure publication c. 1956 entitled “Twenty Years of Archaeology at Wheaton College” included a telling section that is worth quoting in its entirety: ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINALITY—Often Archaeological research opens up new questions for discussion. But more often it solves problems previously raised. As Melvin Grove Kyle, Professor of Archaeology at Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, remarked, “The archaeological method is a method of facts; it seeks not merely to discuss problems, but to solve them.” This is not merely reminiscent of the distinction between the erroneous theories of the higher critics and the genuinely scientific discoveries of the archaeologists made during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy: it is lifted straight from it. Kyle we met earlier as one of the contributors to The Fundamentals. He was born in 1858, and died in 1933. All of his advanced degrees were from Allegheny Theological Seminary. That the sole quotation from an archaeologist in a brochure from the second half on the 1950s advertising the archaeology programs of a liberal arts college should come from such a source is indicative of the department’s self-understanding and positioning at that time. Joseph Free wrote Archaeology and Bible History before he had ever begun to do field work himself. His seminal book was already in print when he gave assistance to the official team excavating at Dibon under the direction of Fred V. Winnett in 1950–51. For the 1952 campaign at this site, Free became an official member of the staff (Winnett and Reed 1964: 12, 37). What eventually became the Dothan excavation was the result of an initiative by Phillip E. Howard, Jr, the editor of the Sunday School Times. Howard had been inspired by reading Archaeology and Bible History and came up with the idea of an excavation under the direction of Dr. Free sponsored by the Sunday School Times and Wheaton College. In the prospectus for the project, Howard asserted that the “first and most important” objective of the excavation would be to “increase people’s confidence in the Bible as the Word of God.” 14 Dothan was chosen as an apt site, and the Sunday School Times did indeed provide the initial funding. Free’s work at Dothan began in 1953, and continued every year thereafter through 1960, and again in 1962

14 This document is also in Wheaton College Archaeology Museum.

5

and 1964. In many ways, Free had now arrived as a field archaeologist. The results of his first season at Dothan, as well as many subsequent ones, were published in a prestigious journal in the discipline, the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (Free 1953: 16–20). He struck up professional friendships with such luminaries in the discipline as G. Ernest Wright and William F. Albright, who corresponded with him, encouraged him in his work, and came to speak at the annual archaeology conference. Nevertheless, how much Free continued to view the Dothan excavation through his original grid of “confirming and illuminating” the Bible, may be observed in a letter he wrote while working there in 1962: Our excavation at Dothan has thrown light on every principal Biblical period, beginning with the thousand year period before the days of Abraham (3000–2000 b.c.) Right now, on our fifth day of excavating, we are in the period of Solomon’s time (950 b.c.) in the area where Mrs. Free is supervising, preparatory to going down to levels of the time of the Judges and then the era of the Patriarchs. In another area we are uncovering buildings from the days of Alexander the Great. In a third main area we are uncovering houses of the days of Solomon. Our excavation at Dothan has confirmed the fact that Dothan was a thriving city in the days of Joseph, as implied in the record of his finding his brothers near that city in the period 1900–1800 b.c. (Gen 37:17). The digging here has also shown a sizeable town in the time of Elisha, as indicated in II Kings 6:13. Many other aspects of Biblical history have been illuminated and confirmed by the Dothan excavation. 15 In the middle of the 1960s, conflict in the Middle East brought Free’s life and work there to an end. He accepted a position as Professor of Archaeology and History at Bemidji State College. During these years, he excavated in Minnesota, shedding light on Native American culture of a millennium ago. To the end of his life, Free was faithful to his Savior, a “Bible believer,” who held firmly to the gospel and lived in the light of it. I imagine him at Bemidji saturated with love for Jesus Christ, still a “contender for the ‘faith once delivered unto the saints,’ ” still as ready as ever to defend the veracity of God’s Word, still keenly vigilant for effective ways for sharing the plan of salvation with the people who crossed his path. I imagine him also, however, still filled with intellectual curiosity, a true archaeologist with an archaeologist’s instincts and passions. As a young man, Free was no less “a thorough fundamentalist” because he was spending much of his time thinking rigorously about seventeenthcentury French literature. At some point after 1935—it 15

Letter from Joseph P. Free to O. P. Harnish, 23 April 1962.

6

1. Joseph P. Free and the Romance of Biblical Archaeology

is hard to say just when—he had emerged fully in his chosen discipline—this time it was archaeology—once again. The romance of archaeology had won out over romance languages. I see Free meticulously investigating the buried remains of the material culture of Native Americans, not because it would promote evangelism,

not because it was a form of apologetics, not because there was a struggle on for the soul of the church, but simply because he was an archaeologist: archaeology for archaeology’s sake, to the glory of God, the Lord of History, the Lord of Time, Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer.

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena by John M. Monson ell Dothan lies at the meeting point of contrasting geographical regions and competing cultural and political interests. Galilee, Samaria, the coastal plain, and even parts of the central Rift Valley are accessible from the site. The Tell is located ten kilometers southwest of Jenin and 22 kilometers north of Shechem. 1 It is nestled in a small southern bay of a broad valley which has taken on the name the “Dothan Valley.” The identification of Dothan has been well known since antiquity and it did not go unnoticed by the great historical geographers. Eusebius placed it 12 Roman miles north of Samaria in the district of Sebaste. The fourteenth century scholar Esthori ha-Parhi confirmed this identification, also describing the good spring at the site. 2 Edward Robinson positively identified the Tell during his second journey to Palestine in 1852, noting also the beautiful plain and the preservation of the name: “Just in that very situation (12 Roman miles north of Samaria), the name thus still exists in the mouths of the common people; although overlooked by all modern travelers as not being on any usual road. . . .” 3 Later British surveys observed at this location a large mound, a well, and scattered architectural fragments. 4 In launching his excavation Free emphasized Dothan’s biblical connections but also understood the significance of this location, working as he did in an era of great progress in the field of historical geography. 5 In the years since Free’s expedition to Dothan, integrative models and advances in technology and science have supplemented the classic disciplines of historical geography.6

Today there is a new appreciation for the influence that geography and environment have upon long-term human history and society (Braudel 1980; Butzer 1972). Landscape archaeology, satellite imagery, and Geographic Information Systems help to delineate and quantify these interconnections. 7 We can best evaluate Dothan’s regional importance and function in the settlement of the area by applying the disciplines of historical geography through a “layered” approach, beginning with geography and natural routes. In the next level we use data from Zertal’s 1992 survey and the Free excavation to contrast the archaeological record of Dothan with the settlement patterns of the surrounding region. A final layer requires an examination of Dothan’s representation in philological and historical sources. When combined, these perspectives can yield a clearer picture of Dothan’s history and an appraisal of its significance in antiquity. Indeed, when regional perspectives and international priorities are considered, the well-known expression “Dothan Valley,” used below as a helpful designation, may prove to be a misnomer.

T

The Geographical Setting of the Dothan Valley In order to understand the history and significance of the site one must begin with its larger setting. 8 Tell Dothan lies in what can be called the “Northern Arena” of the land of the Bible, the northern third of the country with its sub regions, strategic centers, and intersecting routes (Monson 1998: 10–13). 9 The Carmel and Gilboa ranges, separated by the broad Jezreel Valley, lie on the southern edge of this arena. It is a region open to the flow of traffic from all directions, criss-crossed by an extensive network of north-south imperial highways and east-west trade routes. The hills of Samaria rise on the southern flank of this Northern Arena above the adjacent coastland, the northern part of the Sharon Plain. The Dothan Valley, lying some 235m/755f above sea level, is situated between the northern Sharon Plain and

1

Its position on the Palestine grid is 172.202. The mound rises 60m from the floor of the valley and incorporates 25 acres of occupation, 10 of them on the summit. A good spring on the southern edge of the tell provides water to the fields nearby. 2 The former is quoted in the Onomasticon, 76, 13; Esthori’s observations are found in L. Zunz (1840: 434). 3 1856: 122 and n. 4. Robinson credited the discovery to C. W. H. van de Welde who visited the valley a short time before his own visit. See also the descriptions of Abel (1938: 308) and Guérin (1868: 219). 4 They noted the name dotayin in Hebrew and translated it as “two wells” though the meaning and etymology of the name remains unclear (Conder and Kitchener 1882: 169, 215).

7

See T. Wilkinson (2003) and George Pierce’s chapter in the present volume. 8 It is useful to refer to the accompanying map while following this discussion. The routes on this map are reconstructed natural ancient routes and are not necessarily modern. Two of the more important routes for this discussion appear in bold. Modern sites appear in parentheses. 9 Specifically it incorporates the hills of Samaria, the Carmel range, the Jezreel Valley, Lower and Upper Galilee, the Golan, and the northern approaches to the country.

5

The correspondence and writings of Dr. Free show regular interaction with Roland de Vaux, W. F. Albright, G. E. Wright, Y. Aharoni, and others. 6 By the classic disciplines we mean physical geography, philology, toponomy, and archaeology. For a summary see Rainey (1984).

7

8

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

Fig. 2.1 Map of the “Northern Arena,” courtesy of Biblical Backgrounds Jezreel Valley. An uplifted section of the Carmel range and the rolling hills of Samaria define the valley on the north and south. Different types of limestones and chalks surround the valley, producing a variety of soils which have accumulated in the valley as fertile alluvium. This main valley, locally called the ‘Sahel Arrâbeh’ or “Plain of Arraba,” is part of a much larger structural formation. The area’s eocene hills are part of a large synclinal structure running through the central mountainous block of Mt. Gerazim and Mt. Ebal northeastward to Mt. Gilboa. A pair of cenomanian anticlines with an eocene syncline between them structurally form the Carmel range to the northeast of the hills of Samaria. Mt. Carmel itself is the cenomanian uplift crowning the northwest part of the Carmel range (Bartov 1979). Dothan itself lies in its own small southern fertile bay, distinct from the larger Dothan Valley. It enjoys sufficient annual rainfall (over 500 mm per year) and water from the spring on the south side of the Tell. The southern bay is part of the larger valley’s catchment area which gathers rainfall from surrounding hills and exits the valley to the west, cutting a gorge through low hills to the Sharon Plain and the Mediterranean. Only the most eastern part of the valley drains northeast into the Jezreel Valley. Eocene limestones around the southern bay offer adequate building materials, albeit not as good as the cenomanian areas some distance away. Within this context Dothan shares some of the larger valley’s potential but is more attached to the nearby hills of Samaria as we shall see below. Dothan’s residents could take advantage of their own excellent agricultural resources within their southern bay and no doubt tilled

some part of the valley beyond, especially at times when the site was more powerful. Herding rights would have included the less desirable rendzina soils of the surrounding chalky eocene slopes, as well as the southern bay and parts of the plain when seasonal conditions permitted (particularly after the grain harvest). Dothan also had access to the convenient routes of the greater valley while enjoying the projection of its natural fortified hillock in the midst of the bay itself. Indeed, the city has a commanding and defensible position, rising some 60 m above the valley floor. Natural Routes of the Dothan Valley In addition to its rich natural resources, Dothan has strategic value because it lies near a major international highway and along local hill country routes. The natural routes of the region in the late nineteenth century are well preserved on the Survey of Western Palestine maps (Conder and Kitchener 1880: sheets 8 and 11). A possible reconstruction of roadways in antiquity can be created by connecting ancient cities and villages along the basic trajectory of the natural routes as Dorsey did for Iron Age roadways (1991: 93–116; 163–180). The Dothan Valley is one of three major ways to cross the Carmel range between the Sharon Plain and the Jezreel Valley. It is thus part of the main network of highways linking Egypt and Mesopotamia via the southern Levant. In the Jezreel Valley this international network intersects with east-west trade routes that link Arabia with Mediterranean ports in Phoenicia. In the absence of imperial control, a powerful hill-country presence at Dothan poten-

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

tially could either exert some control over part of this larger network or use the position of Dothan as a springboard for expansion. A closer examination of the place of Tell Dothan within this international and local network of routes highlights its unique position. The so-called “Dothan Pass” uses a convenient low ridge to climb from Gath in the northern Sharon to a point at which it abruptly descends into the Dothan Valley. 10 Unlike the two other Carmel passes (the Aruna and the Yoqneºam), the Dothan Valley is broad and unrestricted. The highway coming from the northern Sharon avoided the seasonally flooded center areas of the valley and kept to higher ground along its northern slopes passing beneath Kh. El-Muhaffar (Hepher) and making its way to the Jezreel Valley via an opening below Kh. Burqin (Burquna). 11 This highway offered a more convenient route than the Megiddo or Yoqneºam highways for those traveling from Gilead in Transjordan to the northern Sharon Plain and beyond. Dothan’s connection to local routes in the hills of Samaria is important for understanding its place in history and the archaeological record. The site of Dothan sits as a last outpost attached directly to the hill-country. It is tied to that hill-country by numerous paths and by-ways. The most important of these is the route which links the southern bay of the Dothan Valley with the ancient sites of Samaria and Shechem. This route follows a convenient valley surrounded by chalky eocene hills until it reaches a high ridge which it must cross before descending to Samaria. From there a valley route leads directly eastward to Shechem. Another route follows a draw in the hills immediately to the east of Dothan and joins the important internal route which links Samaria with modern Jenin (ancient Beth-haggan) via Geba and modern Sanur, a fortress city which in antiquity guarded this route. Connection to this route allows Dothan access to the eastern hills of Samaria, including routes around Bezek and Tirzah as well as the descent through the Faria Valley to the ford on the Jordan river at Adam. 12 The convergence of these local routes near Dothan’s southern bay of the larger valley made the site the hill country’s prime sentinel near the southern branch of one of the north’s major international highways. Regardless of historical period, any travel, trade, or invasion from the north into the heartland of Samaria had to pass by or near Tell Dothan. By the same token, local political powers in the hills of Samaria had to consider how the site of

10

This is Dorsey’s route B5 (1991: 98). This is in contrast to the modern road which skirts the southern part of the valley to the southern bay of Dothan and there joins a road which leaves the southern bay to the north and then turns northeastward to descend by Ibleam (Tell Belamah) to reach modern Jenin. 12 The Survey of Western Palestine sheets 9–11 note this road. 11

9

Dothan could benefit their natural ambitions for expansion beyond Dothan to the international highway or to the Jezreel Valley and its important network of highways. In summary, Dothan emerges as a significant destination and a strategic way station in antiquity. As a destination it exploited a sizable breadbasket in a most fertile valley and provided excellent pasturage for flocks. The size of the site and its impressive archaeological finds conform to this picture of a well-supplied city functioning as a conduit for the resources of the valley. As a way station Dothan controlled the entrance to the highlands from the north and cast a shadow on the southern leg of the international trunk route connecting the coastal highway with Transjordan. It functioned as a regional center on a local scale but within range of the great imperial highway. Its strategic value could be found not in its proximity to the imperial highway but in its function as a gateway between Galilee, the Jezreel Valley and the hill country. It was a well-fortified, well-supplied city, a local, regional center on the boundary between the hills and the plain. When placed against the backdrop of its larger setting and the network of routes of the Northern Arena, the site of Dothan is not a cosmopolitan metropolis of great influence. It exploited its southern bay, controlled access into the northern highlands and to some degree shared in the trade and imports of the nearby international highway, but it was not a city of international standing such as Megiddo, Beth-shan or Hazor. Regional Settlement Patterns The settlement patterns of the region represent the next level of analysis by which to derive Tell Dothan’s place in the history of the region and to interpret its archaeological material in a larger context. Here we rely upon A. Zertal’s Samaria Survey (1992). The changing distribution of sites over the course of three millennia is derived by placing the survey results on a topographical map. 13 It is important to note that surveys provide only a sketchy understanding of unexcavated sites because they determine chronology through ceramics collected from surface surveys. But they do allow us to paint in broad strokes the changing distribution of sites through the archaeological periods of the Levant. In most periods settlement was restricted to foothills on the edge of the low lying valleys because the eocene hills of this region are less conducive to agriculture and possess fewer wells than do the ranges of cenomanian limestone farther to the south. We can trace the regional settlement pattern as it relates to the archaeological finds from Tell Dothan, beginning with the Early Bronze II-III.

13

George Pierce created these maps from data provided by J. Monson of Biblical Backgrounds and site coordinates from Zertal’s survey (1992).

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

10

0

5

0

5

kilometers

kilometers

#

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh #

#

Tell el-Muhaffar

#

#

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

Tell el-Muhaffar #

#

#

#

#

Tell Dothan

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

Tell Dothan

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

Early Bronze Age II-III

0

Middle Bronze Age II

0

5

5 kilometers

kilometers

# #

#

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh

#

#

# #

#

Tell el-Muhaffar

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh

#

#

Tell el-Muhaffar

#

#

#

# #

#

#

Tell Dothan

#

#

#

Tell Dothan # #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

Iron Age II

Hellenistic Period

0

5

0

kilometers

5 kilometers

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh

#

Kh. Bel‘ameh

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

Tell Dothan

#

#

#

# #

Tell Dothan

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

Byzantine Period

#

#

#

#

Early Islamic Period

Fig. 2.2 Distributions of sites in the Dothan Valley, after Zertal 1992

#

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

Dothan was a large, well-fortified city during this period of widespread urbanization. It controlled the southern half of the Dothan Valley, but shared it with other cities. The most prominent ones were Tell el-Muhaffar, located in the north, and Ibleam (Tell Belºameh) situated at the meeting point of the Jezreel and Dothan Valleys. Zertal also identified several sites in the highlands south of the valley. This arrangement of sites began in the Early Bronze I and came to an end with the urban breakdown at the close of the third millennium b.c. In the following Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I period sparse villages dotted the north side of the valley and nearby hills. Both Dothan and the highlands were unrepresented. Next came the flourit of Canaanite culture in the Middle Bronze II Period. At this time no fewer than 20 settlements lined the perimeter of the Dothan Valley, including the revived cities at Tell el-Muhaffar and Ibleam. As in the Early Bronze Age, Tell Dothan stood alone in the southeastern alcove of the valley. Free unearthed large fortification walls and a patrician house, both common in this period. Dothan’s Early Bronze II-III and Middle Bronze II fortifications typify the ebb and flow of widespread urbanization and abandonment during the early second millennium b.c. In these periods, at least, Dothan reflected the settlement patterns of the highlands more than those of the valley. The picture changed altogether in the Late Bronze Age. The extensive Middle Bronze presence in the highlands collapsed and sites in the plain were abandoned or destroyed. At Dothan the Middle Bronze IIB occupation may have persisted into the Late Bronze Age I, but it came to an end at least by the invasion of Thutmose III in the mid-fifteenth century b.c. The Egyptian assault is the probable explanation for poor Late Bronze I and Late Bronze IIA representation in the valley. With the return of valley settlements in the Late Bronze IIB there is scant evidence of occupation at Dothan except perhaps for tomb material and a limited ceramic repertoire from the tell. Clearly Dothan was not an imperial priority for the Egyptian empire. It did not compare with sites like Megiddo, which was rebuilt at this time (strata VIII and VII). During this period Dothan’s dearth of Late Bronze II material is more in keeping with the decline in the highlands than with the increased Egyptian and Canaanite activity in the valley. It was during the Iron Age I that new settlements began to appear throughout the hill country (Finkelstein 1988: 306–14). This period at Tell Dothan included a large four-room house complex and a blend of highland and Canaanite ceramic forms. This provides an archaeological corollary to Dothan’s position between competing spheres of influence in the hills and the plain. It also links the city’s reemergence to the settlement pattern and culture of the highlands. These developments coincide (and may well intersect) with the Israelite settlement in the hills to the east and south of the valley (Josh 17:11, Judg 1:27).

11

The Iron Age II was well represented in both the hill country and the valley, continuing the trend of the Iron Age I. At Dothan the housing compound expanded, a city wall was constructed, and Iron Age II A-B pottery was found in abundance. Israelite activity on the site culminated in the large administrative building of the ninth century b.c. Dothan appears to have declined after this building was destroyed at the end of the ninth century, and there was an overall retreat to highland sites in the Persian period. The Hellenistic and Roman periods indicate a proliferation of smaller settlements throughout the hill country and the valley. There is evidence for a farmhouse or small fort at Dothan during these periods. The network of farms and villages widened during the eras of Byzantine and Arab control. At Dothan, Free excavated one such community at the summit of the mound. A comparison of settlement patterns from Zertal’s survey and the stratigraphic sequence at Dothan indicates that our site’s history is more closely affiliated with the dynamic of the hill country than that of the Dothan Valley. 14 In light of settlement patterns as well, Dothan should be viewed as an extension of the hill country rather than a representative of the greater valley and its international highway. Ancient Sources and the History of the Dothan Region The third level of analysis deals with the textual and historical documentation of Dothan and its region. Ancient references to Dothan are few and far between, which is surprising for such a large and strategically located site. Other sites in the vicinity likewise are poorly represented in the textual record. The documented history of the Dothan region is best understood as an oscillation between imperial (international) and local control. This is the determining factor for understanding the function of Dothan and the larger valley in historical perspective. Sites in the Dothan Valley first appear in the campaign of Pharaoh Thutmose III (1483 b.c.). Ibleam (no. 43) and nearby Taanach (no. 42) are located logically in the geographical grouping of his annals (Pritchard 1969: 234– 241). Free (1979) followed previous suggestions that ttny (Tutayana? no. 9) represented Dothan, but this is not widely accepted because of the dubious linguistic connection and the name’s occurrence alongside northern sites (Aharoni 1979: 156–164). Neither is Dothan included in the campaign list of Seti I or other Egyptian Pharaohs. The 14th century el-Amarna correspondence mentions cities at both ends of the valley. Gath-padalla on the coastal plain and Gina (Jenin) and Burqana (Burqin) succumbed to the territorial aspirations of Labªayu, the king of Shechem

14

Contrast, for example, the sequence at highland sites such as Zawiyeh, Kheirallah, and el-Kebarra with that of valley sites such as Muhaffar, Ibleam, and Burqin.

12

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

(el Amarna letter 250). 15 Taanach just outside the Dothan Valley joined forces with the same king as he directed hostilities toward Megiddo (el Amarna letter 248). These cities controlled the southern branch of the international highway and may have been under direct Egyptian rule (Na’aman 1988). It appears, therefore, that Labªayu’s priorities lay beyond Dothan and that in any case there was at the time nothing worthy of his interest at the site. Further insight into the Late Bronze city-state system of the Dothan region comes indirectly from the list of Canaanite kings (Josh 12:7–23). Zertal (1984) explained that this list reflects the territories of Canaanite cities in the mid to late second millennium b.c. The “Land of Hepher” likely refers to the entire valley, perhaps as far as the border with the hills near Tell Dothan in the south. If this was the case Dothan likely came under Hepher’s (Tell el-Muhaffar) control during the era of so-called Canaanite city-states in the early and mid-second millennium b.c. Turning to the biblical record, Gen 37:14–28 is the first of two biblical references that preserve the name Dothan. In this account Joseph’s brothers sold him to Ishmaelite traders who were en route to Egypt. The passage holds valuable information about Dothan and the way the Israelites viewed the Dothan region. (14) He came to Shechem, (15) and a man found him wandering in the fields; the man asked him, “What are you seeking?” (16) “I am seeking my brothers,” he said; “tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.” (17) The man said, “They have gone away, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ ” So Joseph went after his brothers, and found them at Dothan. Joseph’s brothers had been migrating through the hill country with their flocks before they found good pasturage in the sought-after region of Dothan, most likely following the grain harvest. Clearly these herdsmen were not in the city itself, but the writer uses “Dothan” as a familiar reference point for his Israelite readers in the hill country. Notwithstanding the debate over its date, the passage is clearly written from the vantage point of the hill country. From this highland perspective the expression “Dothan” in this case refers not only to the ancient city (if indeed it does at all) but also to the geographical zone and its natural resources. This is a regional identification rather than a reference to the city itself. The use of specific locations to indicate a larger region is in keeping with common biblical usage. A second detail to glean from this passage is the accessibility of the Dothan region to international trade. The

15

For translations and discussion of these letters see Moran 1992.

Ishmaelites coming from Transjordan were exploiting the southern route of the great international highway. Because the traders most likely followed the road along the northern edge of the valley (by Tell el-Muhaffar) we can conclude that Joseph’s brothers were some distance north of Tell Dothan where they could have full view of the broader valley and anyone passing along its major highway. (25) Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels carrying gum, balm, and resin, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. . . (28) When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt. The Bible indicates that later David subdued the lowlying regions beyond the hill country, an effort commonly dated to the early tenth century b.c. These actions paved the way for renewed imperial use of the valley and the highway running through it, only now under Israelite hegemony. The most likely reason that the biblical record of Solomon’s chariot cities (1 Kgs 9:17–19) and districts (2 Kgs 4:7–19) did not include Dothan is that the city was not the best location from which to dominate this international route. Moreover, with Solomon’s control of both the Samaria highlands and the Galilee, there was no need to fortify Dothan in between. Hepher (Tell el-Muhaffar), Megiddo, and Hazor were better positions from which to wield imperial power and collect revenue. The logic of this organization is evident in the third Solomonic district of Solomon’s northern territories: “Ben-hesed, in Arubboth, Socoh was his and all the land of Hepher” (1 Kgs 4:10). Albright placed this district in the hill country of Manasseh based upon genealogies and context (1925). Because the third district included Socoh (Shuweiket er-Râs), a well-known site from Egyptian records, Aharoni (1976) and others restricted its territory to the Sharon Plain and sought Hepher in that region. Zertal has since proved through his survey, the toponym “Muhaffar,” and the precedent of Josh 12:17 that Hepher is indeed Tell el-Muhaffar of the Dothan Valley (1992). As noted above, a Canaanite king had previously ruled the entire region from the city of Hepher. Zertal shows that in Joshua 12 the Canaanite kings are referred to in pairs and because the territory of the “king of Hepher” is listed alongside the territory of Tappuah known to be in northern Manasseh, Hepher must have controlled the area north of the hill country. In Solomon’s day, therefore, the former Canaanite territory became the large Hepher district under the supervision of Solomon’s official, Ben-hesed. After the division of Solomon’s kingdom and the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak in 927 b.c., there followed a fifty-year decline in Israel and Judah. Only with the rise of the Omride dynasty did the northern kingdom attain

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

international prominence. The ninth century saw the gradual expansion of this kingdom from its capital at Samaria. A series of wars with Aram-Damascus ensued as both kingdoms battled over the east-west trade routes of Galilee and the Golan. This was Tell Dothan’s “moment in the sun,” for at this time Israel required a forward base from which to project its newfound power. It likewise needed a fortress to protect its northern heartland and its capital from Syrian incursions. The naturally fortified site of Dothan was the perfect location to meet these dual needs. The large administrative building of Area L with its storage jars dates to this period. This structure illustrates Dothan’s role in the Israelite kingdom during the ninth century b.c. It served as a military and administrative center on the edge of the Israelite hill country at a position which could control roads north of Samaria leading to the winter capital of Jezreel and beyond (e.g., 2 Kgs 8:29–30). Scientific dating of the building’s destruction to the late ninth century is also instructive as it exhibit’s the northern vulnerability of Israel and the need for a border defense to guard against Aramean attacks. 16 Dothan’s administrative building was no doubt standing at the time of the Aramean invasion recorded in 2 Kings 6. Unlike Gen 37:14–28, in this passage the name Dothan clearly refers to the city itself. The city’s location amid the surrounding hilly ridges which define the southern bay accords well with the geographical details in the text: (13) He said, “Go and find where he is; I will send and seize him.” He was told, “He is in Dothan.” (14) So he sent horses and chariots there and a great army; they came by night, and surrounded the city. (15) When an attendant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. His servant said, “Alas, master! What shall we do?” (16) He replied, “Do not be afraid, for there are more with us than there are with them.” (17) Then Elisha prayed: “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the LORD opened the eyes of the servant, and he saw; the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. The Arameans succeeded in laying siege to Samaria a short time later (2 Kgs 6:24–7:20). The Bible does not indicate whether Dothan was destroyed or was simply bypassed in this campaign. The subsequent conquests of Hazael in 815 b.c. wrought widespread destruction in the Israelite kingdom (2 Kgs 10:23–24), and it is plausible that Dothan’s administrative building was destroyed at

13

this time. These events shed light on Israel’s northern vulnerability and the urgent need for a barrier at the edge of the hills. Smith’s observation is most apropos: “The openness of Samaria is her most important feature, and tells most in her history. Few invaders were successfully resisted” (1931: 219). When Adad-nirari III of Assyria subdued Aram in 806 b.c. the Israelite kingdom lost its most antagonistic neighbor and achieved its greatest territorial expansion. Jeroboam II diverted his resources to the international highways and the boundaries with other kingdoms (1 Kgs 14:25). Megiddo, Hazor, and Dan displaced Dothan as key positions from which Samaria could exercise power and maintain defense. Although it still lay on Samaria’s main access route to the north, the city no longer functioned as a hill country border and gateway since the areas north and south of it were under tight Israelite control. Whatever fortifications may have existed at Dothan in the 8th century b.c., they were no match for the Assyrian campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II which annihilated the northern kingdom in 732 and 721 b.c. Centuries later Dothan figured prominently in the apocryphal book of Judith which conflates several stories of Jewish resistance to foreign invasion. Although the story contains many anachronisms and several unknown sites, the author manages to encapsulate Dothan’s strategic value and its breathtaking setting, all the while reflecting the hill country perspective from which the Jews faced the northern aggression. The landscapes and battle scenes are described as if the author was looking from the hill country through a window to the north: (3:9) Then he (Nebuchadnezzar) came toward Esdraelon, near Dothan, facing the great ridge of Judea. [Jewish Territory]. (4:6) The high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time, wrote to the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, (4:7) ordering them to seize the mountain passes, since by them Judea could be invaded; and it would be easy to stop any who tried to enter, for the approach was narrow, wide enough for only two at a time to pass. (7:18) And the Edomites and Ammonites went up and encamped in the hill country opposite Dothan . . . the rest of the Assyrian army encamped in the plain, and covered the whole face of the land. (8:3) For as he stood overseeing those who were binding sheaves in the field, he was overcome by the burning heat, and took to his bed and died in his town Bethulia. So they buried him with his ancestors in the field between Dothan and Balamon.

16

Syrian invasions are recorded in 1 Kings 15, 20, and 22 as well as 2 Kings 6, 8, and 13. See carbon 14 results in the discussion of Area L below.

When placed in historical perspective, Dothan is seen to be a hill country city offering access to the plain and

14

2. Regional Settlement: Dothan in the Northern Arena

inland routes to the east. It was eclipsed by other cities that offered better access to international trade or promised the security of the mountains. Even at its ninth century high point the city was overshadowed by neighboring sites in the valley (Hepher, Ibleam) and the hills (Samaria, Shechem). This picture is remarkably consistent with the findings presented above. Dothan’s Function and Strategic Importance The overlapping data from geography, routes, archaeology, settlement patterns, and ancient texts result in a now-familiar portrait of Dothan and its region. Far from being a mirror image of Megiddo, Dothan was a local hill country site that could exploit the resources of the adjacent valley and serve as a gateway into and out of the highlands of Samaria. Nevertheless, the valley and the city often shared the same fate, as the biblical accounts show. Smith explains why: On the north frontier the fortresses were of greater importance . . . from the Plain of Esdraelon there leads south into the heart of the province a succession of plains, connected by easy passes. It is the widest avenue into both Samaria and Judaea, and has an issue to Sharon as well as to Esdraelon. It was, therefore, sought not only by invaders of Israel from the north, but by those from east and west as well (Smith 1931: 234). Our study leads to three paradigms for Tell Dothan’s function. These alternated over the course of four millennia. According to the first paradigm, during times of imperial control Dothan was overlooked because of its position in its distinct bay on the southern side of the valley, off the international trunk route. The Egyptians, Solomon, and Jeroboam II concerned themselves with command and control centers along the international

highway. In the absence of imperial powers, however, a second model came into play. The city’s natural resources and defensible position gave it a relatively high profile among neighboring communities during the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, and Hellenistic periods. A third paradigm was in evidence when the Israelite kingdom of the northern hill country consolidated its power and expanded northward in the early first millennium b.c. Under this model Dothan facilitated the growth of the northern Israelite kingdom by exploiting its position between the highlands and Galilee (2 Kings 6). It was a vehicle for expansion and trade, a sentinel for war. Common to all three paradigms and the site’s entire history were its highly productive agricultural base and its easily defensible mound. In conclusion, we can infer that Dothan never was the dominant site in the valley nor a vital link on the international highway. Rather, it was a prosperous town that exploited the lush southern bay of the valley. Geographically and politically it was oriented to the hills. The valley came to be named after the site because of the hill country perspective conveyed by he biblical authors who may have considered the city to be a codeword for what was in their eyes “the region of the plain in the north.” The biblical orientation of explorers and scholars in past centuries served to reinforce the association between ancient Dothan and the valley. It might be more appropriate to name the valley after the most prominent village in the area as the Arabs do (‘Sahel Arrâbeh’) or to call it the Hepher Valley based upon the geographical and historical information noted above. It is indeed ironic that the biblical associations which drew Free to the site in fact prove it to be a city of limited international importance with the exception of Israel’s ninth century expansion beyond the northern hill country. In any event, it would seem a fitting tribute to Joseph Free that he chose a site so rich in finds and so wellsuited to reveal the dynamics of this boundary between the hill country and the great plains of the Northern Arena.

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley by George A. Pierce location and the relationship between people and their world (Wagstaff 1986: 119; Roper 1979: 120). Site catchment analysis was first performed by VitaFinzi and Higgs (1970) on Neolithic sites in the Mt. Carmel area of Israel. Since then, this method has been applied to a myriad of sites in differing spatial-temporal settings.3 This method assumes that resources closest to a base point will be exploited more than those further away in response to the cost, usually energy, incurred in obtaining those resources (Roper 1979: 120). Scholars employing STA project the limits of energy expenditures and returns upon ancient peoples, based on the safe assumption that people in the past did not travel long distances to satisfy a daily need for staple items. Hence, threshold distances in terms of time or energy can be justified. The process of determining a site’s territory and its exploitation potential is fairly straightforward and was related by Vita-Finzi and Higgs in their seminal article (1970) and in a concise guide to fieldwork (Higgs 1975a: 223–24). Multiple circular buffers, whose radii are determined by walking time or distance, are constructed around a site. The usual limits are between 5 to 7 kilometers or 1 to 2 hour walks (Chisholm 1968: 131; Higgs 1975a: 223; Jarman and Webley 1975: 181; Bailey and Davidson 1983: 93–94; van Leusen 2002: 120). Land within these buffers is examined and proportions of arable land, pasture, rough grazing, etc. are calculated against the whole. Despite some methodological criticisms, 4 STA proves to be a valuable tool for regional analysis. Webley (1972) suggests that tell locations are based on agricultural potential rather than socio-political considerations such as defense. He posits that sites with “long and important histories” have a maximum of diverse soil types within their site territory (Webley 1972: 170). Webley cites Hazor as an example with its six soil types and the added diversity of the flooded land surrounding Lake Hula. Tells are closely founded near valleys, on two or more soils types with one of those types being “a heavy wet deposit” (Webley 1972: 171). 5 Webley’s hypothesis, then, leads to questions about Dothan’s territory. Namely,

eographical Information Systems (GIS) provide a unique method of performing quantitative and qualitative analyses at various scales of the physical and cultural archaeological landscapes fundamental to human activity (Vita-Finzi 1978: 7; Lock 2003: 164). No longer thought of as a bandwagon phenomenon, scholars employ this powerful tool for both predictive and interpretive modeling, what Lock (2003: 164) describes as ‘landscape-asnow’ and ‘landscape-as-then’ studies, respectively. For this project, the Early Bronze II-III was chosen as the ‘landscape-as-then’ period due to the possibility of Dothan’s prominence in the region and its proximity to an emerging international trade route. 1 Drawing on the results of two particular analyses, site exploitation territory and line-of-sight, this interpretive modeling has identified certain factors responsible for Dothan’s physical location in the valley.

G

Site Territory Analysis Site territory analysis (STA) stems from optimal forging theory and is defined as “the study of relationships between technology and those natural resources lying within range of individual sites” (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970: 5). STA is often used synonymously with “site catchment analysis.” 2 Rather than concentrating on economic factors such as the distribution and range of goods or site spacing and population density like Central Place Theory, STA emphasizes environmental factors, usually productive soil types or game location in order to explain site 1

Data for this project came from published geology and soil maps (Survey of Israel 1969), digitized 1:50,000 coordinate points, and Zertal’s archaeological survey (1992 [Hebrew]; also Zertal 2004). Surveyed coordinate points for the construction of the raster surface and subsequent GIS products were provided by J. Monson of Biblical Backgrounds. This data consisted of points of easting, northing, and height data digitized by Monson for cartography. 2 A site’s territory is the area around the site which was accessible and exploited by the site’s denizens to satisfy their daily subsistence. Catchment refers to the total area from which the site’s remains were obtained and takes into consideration all the needs of a site including nutritional staples, building and fuel materials, and luxury and ritual items. For example, Rossman’s study of the San Lorenzo site (1976), with the determination of agricultural areas and crop yields within those zones is a ‘site territory analysis’ while Flannery’s work (1976b) of identifying items of material culture and then deducing how far away they could be obtained deserves the title ‘catchment analysis’ (Bailey and Davidson 1983: 90).

3 See Flannery 1976a, Bailey and Davidson 1983: 87; Gaffney and Stancic! 1992; Mira 2001; and Parcero-Oubiña 2002. 4

See Pierce (2004: 22–25) for a discussion of STA and critical responses to that method. 5 Webley (1972: 170) gives four categories of soils using up to six aspects in determining the potential fertility of each soil, including moisture, plant and animal food potential, strata stability, topographical deficiencies and constraints, and ease of tillage with primitive tools.

15 long for footnotes

16

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley

Fig. 3.1 Derived exploitation territories for EB II-III settlements in the Dothan Valley what sort of diversity exists in Dothan’s site territory, does Dothan have the most diverse catchment in the area, and how much of the valley soils fall within Dothan’s range of exploitation? Since Webley concentrated on the Neolithic through Early Bronze Age for his study of Gezer, settlements in the Dothan Valley during the EB IIIII proved amenable for verifying Webley’s conclusions. STA was performed for Tell Dothan alone as well as seven Early Bronze sites in the region as a collective entity with the diversity of soil types noted. 6 The Dothan Valley is varied in its soil makeup. Soils include terra

6

These sites were identified by Zertal (1992) and chosen for this project due to their proximity to Tell Dothan. An isotropic friction surface was used in place of simple concentric circles. This choice was based upon the assumption that the practices of agriculture and pastoralism would involve leaving and returning to the settlement each day (ParceroOubiña 2002: 7). A time scale can also be employed by executing a variation of Tobler’s (1993: 3; Gorenflo and Gale 1990: 244) hiking formula. Gorenflo and Gale (1990: 243) advocate using time rather than distance to represent spatial separation since individuals tend to relate space in terms of time and gauge time as a deciding factor in travel. In this manner, walking times ethnographically documented for farming and herding, one and

rossa, Mediterranean brown forest soils, rendzina, clayladen vertisols, alluvial deposits, and colluvial-alluvial soils in the wadi beds. Of the soils listed above, the colluvial-alluvial, terra rossa and Mediterranean Brown Forest provide the best suitability for agriculture while

two hours, respectively, can be utilized to constrain territory boundaries. In analyzing the exploitation territories for the sites in question, the size of the territory was determined using ethnographic evidence cited by Savage (2004: slide 22), which involved a 1–5 kilometer radius from a site for agricultural and pastoral activities with 4km being the optimal radius. One element of the algorithm employed accounted for a traveler’s body mass and additional carried weight as factors affecting the exploitation territory. The resulting partially elliptical shape in Dothan Valley site territories is due to the effect of slope and friction on travel and gives a more accurate suggestion of what the exploitation of these settlements could have been, although the result is still reminiscent of the concentric ring model of the early proponents of Site Catchment Analysis (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970; Webley 1972; Rossman 1976). Also, due to the density of the sites, each site shares territory with one or more of its neighbors, and the easternmost and southernmost sites share the same potential resource area.

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley

17

Fig. 3.2 Derived exploitation territory of Tell Dothan

Soil types and designations used in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 (after Survey of Israel 1969) alluvial, vertisols and the rendzina have certain inbuilt deficiencies that make these soils less arable (mostly due to drainage problems). Water sources within the research area include rainfall (over 550 millimeters), springs, wells, and Wadi Salhab, the seasonal wadi that flows through the center of the Dothan Valley; therefore, the hydrology of Dothan’s exploitation territory was not considered as a factor affecting productivity. 7 Tell Dothan’s STA shows that five of the six soil types present in the valley fall within Dothan’s derived exploitation territory (Fig. 3.2). Utilizing Webley’s theory (1972: 170) of two-soil sites being preferable due to the benefits enjoyed by freely drained and poorly drained adjacent soils, one of the main areas of cultivation for Tell Dothan would be the small valley immediately to the south and

7

If the EB climate of Palestine was less arid than present conditions, then agriculture in the wadi floodplain was most likely well-watered (Butzer 1997, 270).

southwest, just off the main valley floor due to the presence of poorly drained alluvial soil next to the freely drained colluvial-alluvial. Dothan probably shared a portion of the valley with settlements at Tell el-Muhaffar and Tell el-Masalleh, using the valley for agriculture and the hills for pastoral activities. 8 Slope, soil, and underlying geology, though useful, do not by themselves present a complete equation to accurately determine agricultural yield for these sites in this period. Examination of the soils distribution partially confirms Webley’s hypothesis, but other dynamics such as commerce, defense, or ritual could also be determinative for site location. Additional concerns about personal safety could also affect the shape and size of each site’s exploitation territory. Although the consideration of soils rather than reliance on slope alone provides an additional factor for agricultural productivity, if an infertile soil is on a low-rising slope, the yield and even the use of the land would be different enough to render any estimation of crop size inaccurate. Further considerations such as average precipitation for the entire period under consideration, types of seed, and plant hardiness are just a few of the natural factors affecting yield. 9 From a human perspective, the industry of the individual farmer and his

8 Webley (1972: 171) states that sheep and goats prefer to forage on terra rossa and rendzina mountain soils before moving to other soil types. The location of these soils within Dothan’s exploitation territory strongly suggests that these hills were used for animal grazing. 9 See Zohary (1969) for yield estimates of emmer, einkorn wheat, and barley.

18

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley

Fig. 3.3 Line-of-Sight analysis result for Tell Dothan

Fig. 3.4 Composite photograph of the Dothan Valley, view to west, 2004 level of motivation, innovation, or field maintenance are also large influences on yield. Therefore, while this study is helpful in understanding the agricultural and pastoral reasons for Dothan’s location, the results of the territory analysis are hypotheses open to revision and starting points for further analysis. Line of Sight Analysis Line-of-Sight Analysis (LOSA) considers the focus and perception of the ancient viewer, and the results of such analyses give insights into human activities within landscapes. Long recognized as a component of site location, visibility and viewshed directly impact the individual’s perception of a specific geographic locale (Tilley 1994). Visibility studies have been performed on landscapes, mostly in conjunction with prehistoric monuments, as well as towns to determine a location’s or building’s

prominence in both the natural and social worlds (Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 202–3). 10 LOSA was performed for Tell Dothan to ascertain which features and settlements may have been visible from the site. Comparison can also be made between Dothan and other sites suggesting a relationship between these settlements. The LOSA performed for Tell Dothan shows Dothan’s location as optimal for seeing most of the valley (Fig. 3.3). Comparison of the GIS-generated viewshed with a panoramic photograph (Fig. 3.4) of the present Dothan Valley confirms that Tell Dothan can observe its neighbors across the valley, Tell el-Masalleh and Tell el-Muhaffar. When this information is combined with the STA for the

10

Examples include Gaffney and Stancic! 1991, Gaffney et al. 1996, Lock and Harris 1996, Wheatley and Gillings 2000, Van Leusen 2002, and Kaiser 2003.

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley

19

Fig. 3.5 Line-of-Sight analysis results for Tell Dothan, Tell el-Muhaffar, and Kh. Belºameh Early Bronze Age, a common bond between these communities is suggested as they may have shared exploitation territories in the valley. One may also infer that Dothan was located in a prominent position to observe traffic headed north from both the highlands directly to the south and the coastal plain to the west. For a farmer or herder, leaving the site daily, the valley fields would have been within sight of the tell, and, with its massive fortification walls, the spectacle of Dothan surely provided a sense of security. Perrot (1979: 161) has suggested that Early Bronze settlements were located on the fringe of hills which were easily defensible and had a route of escape into the highlands, if necessary. Dothan’s location on the fringe of eastern and southern hills surrounding the valley and its position for viewing two entrances into the region fits Perrot’s pattern. Perhaps Khirbet Belºameh, Tell Dothan, and Tell el-Muhaffar all had their own responsibilities along the trade routes to collectively defend this valley, each suited to their line of sight. Tell Dothan protected the hill country, Khirbet Belºameh guarded the pass leading to the Jezreel Valley, and Tell el-Muhaffar watched over the western pass to the coastal plain. Pathways While the STA and LOSA show that agricultural and strategic factors played a role in Dothan’s establishment and its longevity as a major site in this region, the relationship of Dothan to east-west trade routes passing through the valley is not entirely clear. Though Dothan has long

been associated with the trade route running from Transjordan to the coastal plain (Gen 37:25; Aharoni 1967: 47, 134), GIS studies have shown that Dothan may not have been on this route. A table of sites from the Manasseh hill country survey (Zertal 1992) containing data about site location, elevation, site size, and period of occupation was created and added to the GIS to determine what sites were contemporary with Dothan from Chalcolithic to Ottoman periods. While creating these distribution maps, a pattern of sites was found to exist along the northern edge of the valley in many periods (Fig. 2.2). Also, during periods when large sites like Shechem and Samaria farther south in the hills were unoccupied, Dothan also roughly paralleled such abandonment. The distribution of these sites suggests that the section of the international trade route extending from Egypt to Syria running through the Dothan Valley actually passed along the northern edge by Tell Muhaffar rather than following the southern edge of the valley toward Dothan and then turning northeast. Whether merchants would detour to Dothan based on its prominence in the region is unclear, but the simple spatial and temporal distribution of sites gives credence to the notion that Dothan was more connected to the hill country sites than to the international trade route on the north side of the valley. Conclusion When examining a region using GIS, a balanced approach is needed as one interprets the data available. Over-reliance on either environmental factors or cognitive

20

3. GIS Studies of Tell Dothan and the Dothan Valley

aspects carries the potential of presenting a skewed interpretation and an incomplete picture of past peoples. While environmental data may be relatively easy to implement in a GIS study, effort should be made to provide for appropriate cognitive facets of society when examining movement through a landscape. Unfortunately, cognition is much more difficult to accurately integrate into GIS based models because of its qualitative nature (van Leusen 2002: 124). By employing algorithms representing energy expenditure upon an individual and comparing the computer-generated viewsheds to the actual view, a balance between environment, physiology, and

cognition can be achieved when considering the dynamics responsible for Dothan’s location. The physical setting of the Dothan valley facilitated subsistence activities and allowed for urbanization of settlements. Dothan’s location may be a combination of the agricultural potential of the region and its proximity to the hill country. Tell Dothan did not lie directly on the southern branch of the coastal highway. Employing GIS to examine data from Tell Dothan’s surveys and excavation prompts more questions and more regional exploration using computer-based research coupled with fieldwork.

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years by Daniel M. Master n 1952, Joseph P. Free wrote to W. F. Albright. Free told Albright of his two-decade old desire to excavate at Dothan and shared the news that he had raised the funds and been granted a license. The only condition was that Free find an experienced field archaeologist to add to the team. Free wrote to ask if Albright would consider fulfilling this role at Dothan. Albright declined and suggested that Free hire one of Albright’s students, or failing that, join Kathleen Kenyon’s expedition to Jericho. Albright hoped that the combination of Free’s funding and Kenyon’s expertise might produce an exceptional result.

I

Fig. 4.2 Père R. de Vaux and the team from Tell el-Farah visit Dothan, 1954

The Recording System As much as Free’s insistence on directing his own excavation showed his ambition, his attempt to reach out to Albright as a stratigrapher revealed his understanding of field methodology. Albright has never been described as a detailed stratigrapher. He certainly was a brilliant scholar, someone whose genius with ceramics often overcame stratigraphic deficiencies, but he also was not a Reisner, Wheeler, or Kenyon (Moorey 1990: 70). Free, however, looked to Albright’s methods as the digging standard, and at no point in our more recent evaluation of Free have we found familiarity, much less adoption, of the methods of Wheeler or Kenyon. Albright, in his early comments on method, spoke of “excavation in areas,” of “surveying and leveling,” and of “a large record book for the detailed entry of all objects.” (Albright 1935: 66). This is an excellent sketch of what Free set out to replicate. Dothan was excavated in “areas” which were laid out based upon the constraints of Free’s land purchase. The first area to be excavated, for instance, was labeled “Area D” because it was intended to be a “dump” along the slope. However, this focus was delayed when extensive Early and Middle Bronze fortifications were discovered on the slope during the initial probes. Free excavated each of the areas in “levels.” For the Dothan excavators, a “level” was a term for material within a certain vertical range. This range was usually expressed in centimeters below the surface (which causes particular difficulties when excavating along the slope of

Fig. 4.1 Dr. and Mrs. Free with Professor Albright But this was not what Free had in mind. He had not waited twenty years merely to participate in an excavation; he wanted to direct one. So this intrepid explorer set out alone for the untouched tell at Dothan. This was the beginning of nine seasons of excavation filled with enthusiasm and on-the-job learning. While at Dothan, Free and his staff made every effort to record their finds to the standards of the day. They tried to mimic the systems that Free had seen in his two seasons at Dhiban, supplemented with yearly visits from de Vaux’s team at Tell Farah (N). In the end, Free excavated several very large areas on the south and west of the site uncovering remains from the Neolithic through Mameluke periods. With such a massive undertaking as a first project, it is a testimony to the diligence of Free and his small staff that we have as many records and registered pottery fragments as we do.

21 short

22

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years

The Plans

Fig. 4.3 Surveying at Dothan, 1953 a tell). A “level” could be anything from “sandy soil” to “five or six floor levels.” It was rarely divided horizontally and often extended over an entire excavation area of hundreds of square meters. These broad vertical divisions remain the only contextual link for most of the pottery and objects. 1 All the objects that were deemed important were listed in a series of “large record books.” In these books, every registered sherd or object was given a number, provided a brief description, and associated with its “area” and “level.” One additional recording method was introduced by Free. He believed that photographs and films of the excavation would provide a “record of reality.” So he and a staff photographer shot several thousand color slides, hundreds of black and white prints, and several full length films.

1 Two important features were missed in this system. The excavators did not record postholes, refuse pits, robber trenches, foundation trenches, or any type of pit. In the domestic contexts, this creates insuperable difficulties for any attempt to date precisely minor changes. In addition, the excavators rarely drew or recorded mudbrick walls. In a few cases it is apparent that substantial mudbrick walls were found and even articulated, but they were not drawn or included in the final reports.

While Free’s “areas” provided some control, several problems persisted. Since the site was never thoroughly surveyed at the outset, the layout of the areas was somewhat haphazard. There was no fixed datum from which the layout of the areas proceeded. Excavation areas could only be roughly located on the tell and roughly oriented toward north. Some areas and layouts shifted from year to year. The excavators measured most elevations from the surface of a given square. Occasionally there was a broader benchmark for an entire area or series of squares, but there was no regular system. The original excavators laid out their squares in different ways every year. The relationships between the new areas and previous areas were not systematically recorded. Within each grid, the excavation areas were laid out according to “squares.” The size of the “squares,” their relationship to each other, their boundaries, and the spacing of standing sections 2 all changed according to the season of excavation or the desires of the director. While there was a rationale for the layout of each area, this rationale was transient. For example, “Area D” refers to two excavation sections which are completely detached from each other and have a different orientation. Squares range from 3 to 5 m in width and 7 to 8 m in length. In this case, width was measured along a roughly horizontal plane, and length was measured at against the steep slope of the tell. In several areas, the excavators made a partial plan showing the layout of squares (Fig. 4.4). The remaining records show two such plans, one for the A and D areas and one for the L and K areas. In both cases, the plans are not accurately drawn to scale, are not oriented toward north, and were never updated to account for large new areas of excavation.

2 Standing sections were referred to as “catwalks,” and this is an accurate description of their primary function at Dothan.

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years

23

Fig. 4.4 Rendering of square locations in Area A and Area D, 1955 Re-excavating Dothan We began our reconstruction by searching for architectural coherence. While this would eliminate any strata not characterized by stone architecture, these phases were, for the most part, overlooked at the excavation stage and are unrecoverable from the records. Using all the existing plans (from architect’s plans to hand drawn field sketches) we extracted as many architectural elements from each area as we could. We made use of the schematic layouts (Fig. 4.4) to assemble smaller plans and sketches into broader plans of entire areas.

Much interpretive work went into reconstructing the orientation and scale of some of the plans, but eventually we were able to reconstruct a reasonable composite plan for each area. Using some of the local “level” information and some basic superpositional observations, we did our best to extract coherent architectural units from the composite plan. This method was much more effective when working in areas with large stone walls and substantial depth and encountered severe problems in domestic contexts and large horizontal exposures.

24

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years

Fig. 4.5 Layout of excavation areas, after 1m survey in 1980

Our reconstruction relied heavily upon a survey commissioned by Robert Cooley in 1980 which provided a detailed topographic map of the site at 1m resolution. This allowed us, on a large scale, to rotate and scale the basic excavation areas. From his survey it is possible to identify the excavation “areas” with their alphabetic designation: three on the west (K, L, and M) and four in the south and center of the Tell (A, B, D, T). While the 1980 survey formed the backbone of our work, a two day visit to the site in the summer of 2004 allowed us to obtain a small number of absolute elevation measurements as well as to refine some of our very tentative architectural reconstructions against the extant architecture. The plans in this volume are a combination of the original plans, with scale, orientation, and absolute elevation based upon the 1980 and 2004 surveys. Because our new plans are still based on original excavator’s drawings, we have relied on the “stone for stone” drawings produced by the original team. In our 2004 survey we were able to confirm that the “stone for stone” drawings were actually schematic renderings of stone walls. All walls should be considered schematic unless noted specifically in the accompanying text. In our attempt to reconstruct the stratigraphy of this site, we have used all of the records at our disposal in order to summarize the results of the excavation by periods. While we are quite certain that there are important

aspects of the site’s occupational history that were not recovered by the earlier excavations, we have attempted responsibly to reflect the existing records. After identifying architecturally coherent units, we attempted to link the architecture to dateable ceramic corpora. We digitized the registry books and reread twenty five thousand registered sherds. The pottery from Tell Dothan is housed in several places. The Wheaton Archaeology Museum has the bulk of the sherds and objects from the early seasons of excavation as well as many whole vessels from the first tomb in the Western Cemetery. Covenant Seminary in St. Louis has most of the sherds and objects from the last three seasons of excavation. St. George’s College in Jerusalem has a collection of sherds from the later seasons of excavation along with most of the sherds and objects from the tombs of the Western Cemetery. The Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem has the objects from all seasons which were retained by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities. Finally, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities in Amman stores a collection of objects from the Western Cemetery. We have assessed each of these collections, visiting all except Amman. We sought to find ceramics from primary contexts or restorable vessels in order to provide a date for our architectural reconstructions. In a few rare cases, the registry provided provenience information which linked certain

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years

25

Fig. 4.6 Points taken during 2004 survey

assemblages to primary deposits. In addition, there were several caches of whole vessels which met our criteria. In most cases, however, we had neither primary deposits nor restorable vessels. This was particularly disheartening in Area L, where photographs showed a large number of restorable vessels which were never reassembled. In these cases, we endeavored to put together typical assemblages, trying to rely on those layers which were dominated by ceramics from a single period. In some cases, however, we have removed intrusive sherds (earlier and later) from mixed deposits in order to present a picture

which we think accurately reflects the date of the architecture. This was rough work, typical of a site report from the early twentieth century. Because of these ambiguities, we think it would be unwise to move beyond a broad epochal range when attempting to identify the date of the architectural units. Our re-excavation has yielded interesting results for each period at Dothan. We hope that our work will provide a broad understanding of this important site in much the same way as Wright’s publication clarified Grant’s prior work at Beth Shemesh.

26

4. Methodology: Re-excavating after 50 Years

Fig. 4.7 Stratification of Tell Dothan

5. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods

handles). Hence, our collection of Chalcolithic pottery is almost exclusively made up of cornet bases. The remains at Dothan mirror the small collection at nearby Megiddo Stratum XX. Just as at Megiddo, the ceramics range in date from traditional Neolithic forms with the incised Chevron decorations (Loud 1948: Plate 94:10–26; Garfinkel 1999: Photo 41–42) to distinctive Chalcolithic forms such as the cornet (Loud 1948: Plate 92:18–24; Garfinkel 1999: Fig 133: 1–14). At Dothan, the Neolithic and Chalcolithic ceramics were found deep within the step trenches of Area D on the south side of the mound. In each case the sherds were found in contexts which were otherwise overwhelmingly EBII-EBIII. In addition, some basalt fenestrated stand fragments were found in secondary contexts on the western side of the tell.

he presence of Neolithic and Chalcolithic remains at Dothan is not surprising given the distribution of sites in and around the Jezreel valley for both of these periods. In the Neolithic, merely adding the sparse artifacts from Dothan to the repertoire of PN sites is significant enough. In the Chalcolithic, further excavations at Dothan might reveal an inland counterpart to the important site of Mezer at the western gateway to the Dothan valley. The actual finds from these periods are quite sparse. Free reported “possible Chalcolithic” material at the bottom of a probe in the step trench in Area D. His pottery guide for the excavation, which lists diagnostic sherds (and closely matches the types of sherds that were kept), does not mention diagnostic forms from the Chalcolithic or Neolithic. In his preliminary publication, Free only mentions cornet bases and “early cord-eye handles” (lug

T

27

6. The Early Bronze Age

oseph Free’s summaries of the Early Bronze Age remains were not detailed. As a Biblical Archaeologist, Free found the Early Bronze Age remains of little value to his constituents and so his popular summaries rarely mention the Early Bronze Age at all. Free did discuss the Early Bronze Age in Area D in his 1953 and 1954 BASOR reports, and spent some time on the Early and Middle Bronze Age fortification sequence in his 1958 report.

J

Area D1–12 Prior Research In Area D, Free described a large fortification wall, which he labeled “W1” (our W445). The wall was preserved to 5 meters in height and had a width at the base of 3.25 meters. Immediately inside the face of the wall, Free excavated a probe, which he divided into 12 vertical units or levels and dated from the Iron I to the Chalcolithic. Outside the wall, Free described a stone staircase

Fig. 6.1 Distribution of Early Bronze Age finds

leading up to the fortification wall. In 1954, Free opened another step trench (D110, D111, D112) farther to the west, which yielded similar results.

Fig. 6.2 Layout of Area D

29

30

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.3 Section of Area D, 1953, with levels and staircase added In 1954, G. Ernest Wright examined the pottery from the 1953 probe excavated inside the fortifications (Square D7). In a letter, Wright summarized Free’s excavations, “His lowest levels (10 and 11) seemed to be EBI (probably EBIb) with scattered Chalcolithic sherds; his levels 9–7 appeared EBII (with 9 possibly beginning earlier); his levels 6–5 EBIII, after which there is a gap until MBIIA or B.” He further described the sequence as “rich and continuous” and “without evident break.” In 1977, S. W. Helms reexamined the exposed fortifications and closely reread Free’s preliminary reports to somewhat different effect. He argued that the founding of the fortifications at Dothan should be dated to the Early Bronze Age II, based on a comparative typology of the fortifications. Further Helms rephased the sequence of the fortifications. In Area D, Helms argued that Free’s expedition had uncovered a “straddle tower.” Helms noted revetments both inside (W494) and outside (W446) of the main fortification wall (W445) with matching eastern faces. Helms further argued that his Wall “B” marked a covered passage outside the tower that led into a postern gate farther to the west. Such a “straddle tower” is indeed possible with some modifications from Helms’ proposal. Helms’ “outer wall” (W467) looks to us to be a wall used to support a portion of the Middle Bronze Age rampart. The wall does run on a slightly different line than the EB for-

tifications and at points is so close that we cannot imagine a passage between this wall and the other fortifications. In addition, Helms’s wall “B” (W446) is actually a walkway with an intact banister, rather than a solid free-standing wall. These modifications do not dramatically change Helms’ synthesis of Area D. His covered passage merely runs closer to the fortification wall, and passes through rather than outside his tower. Helms proposed a postern gate just to the west of these structures, and we concur. Layout of Area D Area D was excavated primarily during the 1953 season with further excavations focused on a MB citadel occurring in 1964. The area designated “D,” on the south slope of Tell Dothan was chosen as the first site for excavation because its location was going to be the “dump” for the excavation. Three “squares” measuring 5 m wide x 7 m long were arranged north-south and numbered D1 through D3. After fortification walls were discovered, two similar strips of squares labeled D4 through D6 and then D7 through D9 were laid out to the east. Slightly further to the east, two irregular squares were opened in order to investigate the Early Bronze Age staircase found in Squares D8 and D9. The excavation units in Area D generally measured 7 x 5 m, with 2 m baulks going northsouth, and 1 m baulks going east-west.

6. The Early Bronze Age

31

Fig. 6.4 Area A/D, Phase 10 The measurements for these squares were made against the sloping tell surface. This technique caused all of the measurements across the slope to vary with the degree of the original slope of the tell. The excavators

recorded one section in this area along the west section of squares D7, D8, and D9. Since this section is drawn to scale on a vertical plane, it allows us to estimate the actual placement of any wall that appears in this section. In addition, the 2004 survey plotted a series of points which enabled some rectification of this distortion. While only the section is accurately measured, we have assumed that the slope stayed similar across the area and that width measurements were not terribly distorted as they were measured on a relatively horizontal plane. We have been able to synthesize the remains in Area D into three architectural phases. As with any such phasing, it is not clear that all of the elements in any given phase were built simultaneously, and, given the relatively loose stratigraphic control in this area, such phasing must be viewed with a fair degree of caution. Area A/D, Phase 10

Fig. 6.5 Area, A/D, W483 and W484, view to northwest, 1953

The foundation level for W445, Level 11, was reached only in a deep probe in D7 where several other walls were encountered. The walls apparently formed the south end of an Early Bronze Age building. The best preserved was the west wall, W483, which had a stone bench running along its east side, 50 cm wide and preserved to a length of 1.30 m. It cornered with W484, which was 75 cm wide and less well preserved. The east wall may have been

32

6. The Early Bronze Age

Area A/D, Phase 9

Fig. 6.6 Area A/D, Area D fortifications, view to north, 1964 W485, of which only a few stones were seen in the east baulk. The building had a stone pavement, which connected to walls 483 and 484. Working up from the bottom in D7, Level 10 was made up of a fired and deteriorated mudbrick collapse, containing fallen charcoal beams. Since no architectural remains are described, this may be a destruction layer for the building in D7, Level 11. All of these ephemeral remains were likely related to the earliest use of the Early Bronze fortifications surrounding the tell. In Area D the primary fortification was a stone wall, W445. It had a maximum width of 3.95 m and was 5 m high, spanning all of Area D for a distance of 25 m. At 1.5 m from the bottom of the wall, was a 15 cm wide shelf on the outer southern face, suggesting that either here the foundation stopped and the superstructure began, or that the wall was later rebuilt. Whatever the case, W492 appeared to be contemporary, jutting out from W445 in a straight perpendicular face for 2.30 m to a corner and running eastward along W445 for about 10 m until it reached the eastern edge of the excavation. It is quite possible that this was the foundation or lower wall of a tower to which a stone pavement connected from the south. The excavators stated that the foundation of W445 was built into level 11, and that level 10 was its original occupation deposit. W480, coming out of the east baulk, and W493, perpendicular to W445, were apparently built directly onto W492. Originally they may have formed a corner and served as a superstructure to W492.

Another phase of occupation is apparent inside the D7 probe. The earlier structures of D7, Level 10 were sealed by a lime surface at the bottom of Level 9, of which not much was said except that it was a thin layer and should be merged into Level 8. Level 8 was the second layer with stone architecture, consisting of three walls. In the northeastern corner of D7, walls 487 and 488 formed a corner of a building that was largely beyond the north and east baulk. They were 70 and 90 cm wide, respectively, abutted from the south by W486, which was also 70 cm wide. In the north section 4 or 5 floor levels were detected, which probably belonged to the walls. East of W486 was a layer of fine ash, several centimeters thick. A thick layer of gray soil covered them. This was Level 7 representing a hiatus between occupational levels which covered them. Phase 9 also witnessed considerable changes to the fortifications. W446 was added to the south side of fortification W445 and W494 to the north side. On the south side, a 40 cm gap can be seen between the bottom of W446 and the top of W492, showing that W446 is later than W492. Both W446 (on the south side) and W494 (on the north side) end in a vertically built face along the west baulk of Areas D7–8. It cannot be accidental that they form a straight line. Helms proposed that they formed a “straddle tower”(1977: 104, fig. 3), one that was built much higher than fortification W445. The length of the “straddle tower” is not known; W446 stretches to the west for 14 m, until it reaches the western edge of the excavation. The tower would have been 9 m wide from north to south. The excavators claim that W494 (and by extension W446) had its foundation in D7, Level 9 at the earliest, and its occupation deposit in D7, Level 8. South of fortification W445 was a monumental stairway of which 17 steps were excavated. Since it went be-

Fig. 6.7 Area A/D, W445 and W494, view to southwest, 1964

6. The Early Bronze Age

33

Fig. 6.8 Area A/D, Phase 9 yond the southeastern corner of Area D, which was of external ownership, it was never excavated in its entirety.

Fig. 6.9 Area A/D, fortifications, view to west, 1953

The stairway was built over the top of W492, canceling it. The steps were 30 cm wide and 14 cm deep on average. The top of the stairway measured 4.5 m in width, widening to 6 m at the bottom. The stairway was oriented from southeast to northwest, which leads to the assumption that the flow of traffic would have been westward onto a walkway. The western edge went straight to the corner of W446, and Fig. 6.9 shows that W446 was indeed built like a walkway, with a banister that is about 1.3 m high and a stone paved surface about 1.8 m wide (see also Free 1953: 19). There is a possibility that all of these elements were built at the same time (contra Helms), as one integrated system, and that they constituted a gate complex. Fig. 6.10 shows the southern half in its entirety. At the far center right is the stairway, the walkway (W446) is in the center, and the predominating feature, W445, can be seen stretching across the photograph from right to left, stopping at the extreme upper left in a straight vertical face. This may very well be the east side of a gate, never investigated and not shown on any plan (however, see D. L. Smyth, 1964 field journal, “fallen stones in D2 which may have been the gateway!”). It should be about 12 or 13 m west of where the walkway

34

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.10 Area A/D, fortifications, view to northeast, 1964 At the bottom of the tell’s slope in Area D retaining walls may also have served as an outer perimeter of defense, specifically walls 448 and 449. At the west end in Area D3, W448 had four courses of smaller stones that reached a height of 70 cm. W448 should probably be associated with the stairway/walkway/gate complex of the fortification system. It was built on top of W449, which had eight courses of larger stones and reached a height of 1.9 m. W449 should be associated with the original phase of the fortification system, including walls 445 and 492 (see west section of Areas D7–9). A 10 to 20 cm layer of soil separated the bottom of the wall from bedrock. The two walls separated as they went eastward, until 7m onward W448 was 1 m upslope from W449. The retaining walls were battered, and the area was littered with fallen stones, possibly including the group of stones labeled W482 to the north of W448. Area A/D, Phase 8 Fig. 6.11 Area A/D, W448 and W449, view to north, 1953 begins. In 1964 stair were found heading up into the city from the EB Wall. The excavators thought the stairs led to a sub-basement of the MB building, but the stairs might fit better as part of an EB gate complex.

The eighth phase of architecture in the deep probe of Area D7 was found in Level 6, apparently landing in the middle of a house, without any of the outer walls showing. W491, running from east to west, was joined from the north by W490 and from the south by W489, representing four partial rooms. The northwestern room was 3.2 m wide, the southwestern one 2.3 m wide. The walls

6. The Early Bronze Age

35

Fig. 6.12 Area A/D, Phase 8 measured 70–75 cm wide, and north of W491 a 10 cm thick original “clay” floor was found. East of W490 this floor was 10 cm higher than it was to the west of it. “Distinct floor levels” were also found in the two southern rooms. In the northwestern room was a build-up of three or four floors on top of the original floor. In the southwestern room “many charred fragments of cooking dishes, little fowl bones and a thin copper knife blade” were found.

As can be seen in the west baulk section drawing of Areas D7–9, Level 6 canceled W494. No architectural elements were found in Level 5, but this was the last level in Area D7 that could be dated to the Early Bronze Age. In Level 4 a child burial was discovered, dating to the Middle Bronze Age and probably representing a foundation sacrifice for the patrician house, which will be discussed later. It is not clear if the fortifications went out of use in the third phase or whether there were simply substantial revisions to the fortifications. The main fortification wall is stepped back so that the connection between the occupational layers and the main fortification wall is ambiguous. Whether or not the main fortification wall was in use, the interior half of the straddle tower went out of use and a series of floor levels, including a flagstone floor were laid over it. It was the excavator’s statement that these levels were contemporary with the fortification wall. Area D110–112

Fig. 6.13 Area A/D, W489, W490, and W491, view to north, 1953

1954, a second step trench was laid out on the southwestern side of the mound (see Fig. 6.2) with the purpose of excavating on the western side of the proposed dump area for the excavations at the top of the mound. The excavation of this area took just over ten days, but in that time the excavators reached a depth of from 5 to 8 meters in each of the squares. D112, at the bottom of the slope, was expanded into D112A and D112B and D112C in order to follow the interior face of the fortification wall. The layout of the excavation squares was complicated by the fact that the measurements for the squares were

36

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.14 Area D110–D112, reconstructed section made along the surface of the mound, which at this point has almost a thirty-degree grade. This meant that a “6 meter square” such as D111 was actually only about 5.3 meters along the horizontal axis. A further complication is that only two of the squares were even laid out to be similar in size.

The sections that were kept and the sections that can be reconstructed from the field books provide a sufficient foundation for a reconstruction of the basic finds of the excavation. These sections cannot be correlated with absolute heights. In addition, different relative heights were kept for each square, with measurements being made from the surface of each corner (and the surface of each corner was quite different in height). Our reconstructed section is a combination of their three individual square sections to which we have added level designations. Because of the nature of this step trench and the proximity of each layer to the surface of the tell, contamination existed in almost every layer that touched the surface. In addition, an unnoticed pit, visible in the section, cut through the first 3.5 m of Area D110 adding Iron I sherds to otherwise consistent Middle Bronze Age levels. Area D110–D112, Phase 4

Fig. 6.15 Area D112, fortification wall, view to west, 1954

The most impressive find was the continuation of the Early Bronze Age fortification wall (W495). Square D112 was expanded to the east to trace the interior face of this fortification system for an additional 9 meters. The fortification consists of a single wall, which varies between 4 and 3 m in width. At the eastern end of the excavated portion of the wall, the excavators discovered a 0.75 m widening of the wall on the interior face.

6. The Early Bronze Age

37

Fig. 6.16 Area D110–D112, Phase 4 and Phase 3 Area D110–112, Phase 3 In addition to the fortifications, several walls were found from structures inside the city. The walls appeared at the very edge of D112A and continued northeast. It is difficult to determine the nature of the buildings. Stratigraphically, it appears that the buildings were constructed sometime after the initial building of the fortification wall because the sounding in D112 reveals another occupational layer below these buildings connected to the fortification wall. In addition, the southern wall (W496) of

Fig. 6.17 Area D111, incised ceramic object

the building conforms to the already existing inset of the city wall, allowing for a 2.2 m passage immediately inside the city wall. The remaining walls in D111 and D110 may be part of a large single building (W496, W497, W499) with a north-south street separating them from structures farther to the east (W498). Much about this area, including its function, is unclear since the exposure is so limited. The only find of note from this area was an incised ceramic object mentioned by Free in his 1954 preliminary report (Free 1954: 14, n. 5). The plaque is without

38

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.18 Layout of Area K clear parallel. One side contains a chevron decoration while the other has a unique design. While it is clear that this find came from layers dominated by Early Bronze Age remains, the exact find spot, particularly information on whether it was in a primary or secondary context, was not recorded. From the elevation information in the object registry, it appears this object came from D111, Level 5b or 5c. Area K Excavation in Area K commenced in the 1958 season. A step trench was excavated from the western edge of the tell’s summit in Area L-0. By the end of the season the section was 7 m wide and extended 27 m westward down the slope. The step trench comprised from top to bottom (east to west) Squares K1, K2, K3, K4, and K5. Each square measured 5 x 7 m with 2-meter baulks between each. Upon discovering a series of fortification walls, the excavators traced the architecture on the slope northward by opening Squares K11, K12, K21, K22, and K13. To the south they opened Half Squares K101, K102, and K103. In 1959 baulks were removed and the major

fortification walls were traced further north in Squares K21, K22, and K23. When Squares K31 and K32 were excavated in the northeast corner of Area K, Free discovered the entrance to Tomb 1. He widened the tomb area in 1960 and discovered another tomb. He also continued to trace the line of fortifications on the southern side of the step trench in Squares K101 and K102. Thereafter work in Area K focused upon the tombs. By the end of the 1960 season an area of roughly 27 x 36 m, well over 700 square meters, had been exposed. In opening Area K, Joseph Free sought to create a cross-section of the site’s occupation history that he could correlate with biblical periods. Ironically the area yielded mostly Early Bronze Age remains that pre-dated the biblical periods while the Iron Age and Middle Bronze Age fortifications were difficult to date with any precision. In the only available report on Area K, Free offered a small, highly interpretive top plan and a very brief summary of the architecture and stratigraphy (1958: 1–8). He identified ten major fortification and terrace walls. They included an Iron Age wall at the edge of the mound (W350, his Wall 1), a Middle Bronze wall with “casemates” (W351, his Walls 2A and 2B), an Early Bronze

6. The Early Bronze Age

“gateway” (W359 and W392, his Walls 3B and 3C), and a massive Early Bronze wall (W377, his Wall 5). He also reported several third and second millennium walls further down the slope and terrace walls of unknown date at the bottom of the excavated area. It is clear from Free’s cursory report that Area K contained relatively little Iron Age material and almost nothing by way of pottery or architecture from the Late Bronze. The Middle Bronze II was well represented, but Early Bronze Age architecture and pottery dominated the entire area. In Square K2 Free uncovered two parallel wall fragments with facing steps of masonry (W359, W366, W392). He interpreted these steps as the EBI, EBII, and EBIII phases of a city gate and tower complex. Together with the massive EB wall (W377) they in his view represented the evolution of an EB gate. In a 1977 article, S. Helms made a noble attempt to reconstruct the Early Bronze fortifications at Tell Dothan in which he sought to revise considerably Free’s reconstruction. He noted correctly that “the phasing in Area K rests on much less evidence than that of Area D” and that the sequence of fortifications can only be reconstructed in very broad strokes, relying almost entirely upon general design stages (1997: 110). According to Helms, a first phase of fortifications in Area K consisted of flanking towers with small rectangular guardrooms (1997: 112, Fig. 7). At this stage the gate was either direct axis as at Tell el-Farºah (N) or bent axis as at Rosh ha-Niqra. His conjecture relied entirely on Free’s small plan and rather sketchy plans from the parallel sites. Helms dated the massive city wall (W377) to Phase 2 and posited a large blocking structure underneath it similar to the one he had identified in Area D. An outer cover wall (W379) supported a covered approach toward a narrow postern gate between the blocking structures. Helms came to the tentative conclusion that a flimsy wall near the bottom of the slope (W380) was a revetment of the Phase 3 Early Bronze fortifications leading to a postern gate. Helms’s reconstruction relied upon comparative material from northern sites in the region of Dothan because there was very little in Free’s preliminary report from which to reconstruct the western gate complex. Area K, Phase 5 Location: K2, K3, K12, K13, K22, K103 In this period a massive wall, W377, was constructed half way up the slope of the tell. We hypothesize that this fortification is contemporary with W445 in Area D. It ran north-south, was 4 m wide, and was preserved in some places to a height of 2.8 m. The original excavators described the wall as “bowed” and turned to northeast. While W377 was curved, the apparent turn to the northeast was the result of collapse. On-site examination in 2004 revealed two clearly discernable faces of masonry that extended northward. These formed the northerly extension of W377. The wall was therefore preserved for a

39

Fig. 6.19 Area K, Phase 5 length of 16 m. A small staircase ascended alongside the wall’s western face, but no plans or descriptions of this feature exist. At its southern end, the wall turned approximately 90 degrees to the east and maintained its 4 m width. Approximately three meters northeast of W377 was an 80 cm wide wall extending up the slope (W375). It was contemporary with the city wall and ran directly parallel to the east-west arm of W377. The alignment may be a coincidence but it is equally likely that both walls belong to the outer perimeter of an entryway into the Early Bronze Age city. The relationship between W377 and the Early Bronze buildings of Phases 4 and 3 remains unclear. The base of the wall met an upward sloping ashy layer at the bottom of Level 3a in Squares K3 and K103. There was no indication of a foundation trench in photographs or original crosssections. As noted above, Level 7b of Square K2 extended westward from Phase 4, W361 and over the top of the fortification wall. This would seem to require that the city wall was earlier than the buildings of Phases 4 and 3, but this is not at all certain. Area K, Phase 4 Location: K2, K12, K22, K102 If the large fortification wall (W377) was abandoned in this phase, as the section appears to suggest, the remains

40

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.20 Area K, W377, view to north, 1958

Fig. 6.21 Area K, W377, view to southeast, 1958

of the wall created a large terrace for occupation layers further up the slope. During this period Area K seems to have contained several large buildings, only fragments of which were preserved. The most prominent piece of architecture consisted of an 85 cm thick wall running roughly 6 m north-south through the area (W360). It formed two rooms on its western face with W362 and W363. The southern corner of the building was formed where W360 met W359, a 1.55 m thick wall that was traced only 1.45 m eastward. Several notable pottery forms were uncovered on the western and southern faces of this wall, including several fragments of an EBII Light Faced Painted Ware jar (Fig. 6.29.13). The corner of a contemporary Phase 4 building lay to the south of the large building and its southern wall,

W359. It was formed by W366, a 90 cm wide, and 1.7 m long wall constructed along the same line as W392 of Phase 3. Further north a single wall (W372) was all that was left of an earlier Phase 4 building. This wall was partially covered by W360, the later Phase 3 wall built at an angle above it. W372 was therefore 30 cm wide in the north and 80 cm in the south. The Middle Bronze Age installation was built against this wall (W373 and W374).

Fig. 6.22 Area K, reconstructed section

Area K, the Early Bronze Age “Gate” During the 1958 season Dr. Free identified what appeared to be symmetrical stepped structures jutting out of the eastern baulk. He identified these structures as an Early Bronze Age gate, comprising successively upon

6. The Early Bronze Age

41

Fig. 6.24 Area K, Walls of Phase 4, view to south, 1958

Fig. 6.23 Area K, Phase 4 bedrock W392, W356, W366, W359, and W361. Three stages of the gate formed “steps” atop which southern and northern gate towers were posited. The opposing steps were from lowest to highest 1.9 m, 2.6 m, and 2.15 m apart. The south tower was constructed atop the eastern corner of W377 whereas the northern tower had as its foundation the long wall W360. Because the eastern faces of this “gate” were never excavated, it was impossible to check whether the perceived gap in the wall was a gate entrance, a robbed wall, or adjacent corners of larger buildings. There are several reasons for questioning the interpretation of these walls as a gate. First, the

Fig. 6.25 Area K, Early Bronze “Gate,” view to southeast, 1959

widths of the northern and southern faces were different. The northern gate “tower” was a third to a half as wide as the southern “tower.” Second, W360, the wall supporting the northern tower seems an unlikely candidate for a city wall on account of its meager 85 cm width. Yet another observation is that the successive layers of masonry had differing alignments such that W356 was not in line with W392 or W359 with W366, etc. One can note, for example, the east-west direction of W356, which is superimposed upon W359 and W360 and extends eastward into the east section of the square. Finally, the stratigraphy of the space between the faces of the opposing walls does not appear to indicate that there was ever a roadway or city entrance at that location. It is not possible to be certain, given the limited exposure

Fig. 6.26 Area K, Early Bronze “Gate,” view to southeast, 1959

42

6. The Early Bronze Age

and unclear stratigraphy of the area, but it seems to us far more likely that the adjacent “steps” were the successive remains of east-west walls and connected to larger buildings dating to the Early Bronze II-III. Area K, Phase 3 Location: K2, K11, K12, K13, K21, K22, K103

Fig. 6.28 Area K, Phase 3 room below Phase 2 “Angle Wall,” view to northeast, 1958

Fig. 6.27 Area K, Phase 3 In the last phase of the Early Bronze Age several large buildings and small installations were erected in this part of the city. A small two-room structure was built against the plaster-lined west wall of a preexisting building (W360). It consisted of a 1 m x 2 m chamber with brick material that was described as a kiln (W393, W395, W394). An adjacent 1 m x 1 m room with a plaster floor was added later (W396). Because the surrounding areas did not yield any additional rooms, these two chambers may have been another small installation next to the large building represented by W360. West of this small structure was a 7–meter long wall which was all that remained of a larger building (W365). This wall, which ran underneath the second millennium “Angle Wall” W389, was 85 cm wide and stood 65 cm high. It intersected with an east-west wall (W356) and may have joined W364 to the south. South of these buildings a large rectangular construction, W392, was uncovered. Its north face was 2.3 m and its west face 4.5 m long. Because it ran east and south into unexcavated areas, it was not possible to determine

whether it was the corner of a building or the end of a large wall. It was originally considered to be the southern tower of the Early Bronze city. A meter and a half of dark ashy soil represents the transition from the Early Bronze to the Middle Bronze Age. The excavators reported a series of installations with burnt lime and brick material that they describe as kilns built atop the preceding Early Bronze Age walls W356, W392, and W365. These features are suggestive of a poor settlement or squatter phase of occupation after the collapse of the Early Bronze age city. Two wall fragments may date to this period. A small curving enclosure wall (W358) 35 cm wide 1.5 m long extended from the south baulk of Area K before curving toward the west. Six meters to the north, the excavators found the eastern and northern faces of a second wall (W371). Removal of earth on all sides of this wall indicated that it was 85 cm wide and extended 2.8 m to the south before running underneath W389. It is not possible to determine the connection between these wall fragments. Pottery EBII (Fig. 6.29) The Early Bronze ceramic sequence is not as clear as one might hope since there are few whole forms or clear primary contexts. Most of our illustrations come from the probe in Area D7 excavated in 1953. This square appears to provide the clearest superpositional sequence with the least contamination. The earliest levels (D7, Level 10–8), produced metallic combed wares, which point to an EBII date (Getzov, Paz, and Gophna 2001: 15). These are also found in Area K and D110–112 in the earliest levels, which date to EBII. Area K, Phase 4 also produced two

6. The Early Bronze Age

fragments of EBII Light Faced Painted Ware (Esse 1992: 107–9). G. Ernest Wright had thought that the earliest levels at Dothan might date to EBI. While there are residual sherds which could either date to the end of the Chalcolithic or EBIa, there are no Grey Burnished Ware sherds or other key pieces that would indicate a clear EBIa date. While some of the sherds we have dated to EBII might be equally at home in EBIb, clear EBII sherds, such as metallic combed wares, are present in the same levels. In our analysis, it is most likely that there was a break between the Chalcolithic and beginning of EBII. In these illustrated EBII levels the closest parallels are to the nearby site of Tel Qashish and the recently published Qiryat Ata.

43

EBIII (Fig 6.30) Area D7, Levels 5–6 produced distinctively different EB ceramics from the earlier levels. While many of the forms were still generically EBII/III, others found better parallels in EBIIIA-B deposits from Tel Yarmouth and Beth Yerah. In addition, these levels (as well as contemporary deposits in adjacent squares of Area D) produced all of the Khirbet Kerak sherds found at the site. Because of the difficulties in isolating primary deposits and the impossibility of statistical analysis, it is very possible that residual EBII sherds are a substantial part of the EBIII collection.

44

6. The Early Bronze Age

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.29 Early Bronze II pottery

45

46

6. The Early Bronze Age

6. The Early Bronze Age

Fig. 6.30 Early Bronze III pottery

47

48

6. The Early Bronze Age

Summary The growth of the Egyptian state around 3300 b.c. signaled a new era in the Levant. A vibrant culture quickly expanded into the fertile regions of the Levant. The Early Bronze Age I, the beginning stage of this period, is not represented at Dothan. If the region of Dothan follows patterns seen elsewhere in Palestine (Esse 1992: Fig. 30), small hamlets surrounded the site. The excavations on the tell revealed no ceramic evidence that can confirm a settlement dating to this period. Instead, Tell Dothan flourished

for the first time in the Early Bronze Age II. The Early Bronze Age II-III was characterized by massive urbanization (Esse 1992: 151) which some have suggested in response to the need for the security that only large fortified sites could provide (Butzer 1997). Dothan reflects this pattern as the substantial Early Bronze Age remains are highlighted by massive fortifications located on the slopes of the tell. The ceramic assemblage and remains of urban architecture at Dothan exemplify what is known of this period in Palestine and represent a potentially significant addition to the repertoire of the north.

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

ollowing the occupation of the Early Bronze Age III, Dothan was abandoned and did not reemerge until the Middle Bronze IIB. The site was occupied from about 1750 until around 1450 b.c., surviving the initial collapse of the Middle Bronze Age and persisting into Late Bronze I.

F

Area A-D Prior Research Beginning in the 1953 season, the Middle Bronze Age was a focus of Joseph Free’s research. One of the main purposes of the Dothan excavation was the search by Joseph Free for his patriarchal namesake. In 1953, the excavators of Area D just caught the edge of the Middle Bronze Age remains when they discovered rampart fills overlying the Early Bronze Age remains. At the top of the rampart, W444 marked both the line of fortifications and the outside of houses built against the city wall.

Fig. 7.1 Distribution of Middle Bronze II to Late Bronze I finds Free was eager to see an expansive Middle Bronze Age settlement, and so he maintained that the well-constructed Early Bronze Age staircase might also have been used in

Fig. 7.2 Layout of excavations between Area A and Area D

49

50

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

the Middle Bronze Age. He further mentioned in his popular publications that the Early Bronze Age city walls might have been visible to the biblical patriarchs as they traveled by. Despite the limited architectural finds from the Middle Bronze Age, Free highlighted his discovery of a cache of whole vessels found in rooms built into the ramparts as well as a child burial placed immediately below the fortification wall at the top of the rampart. While Free made passing mention of a 1954 step trench, Area D was not seriously excavated again until 1962. During the last two seasons of excavation Free’s crew returned to excavate a 5.5 m strip between the step trench of Area D and the Iron Age remains of Area A on the top of the mound. This new hybrid area was investigated through a series of squares combining Areas A and D. While there were some technical divisions in this area, they were not consistently kept. As a result this entire new area was treated as one square for the purposes of recording the finds. Excavation of this A/D area allowed for the exploration of the buildings attached to W444 from 1953. In his unpublished preliminary report on the 1962 season, Free wrote that he excavated through the Iron Age, Late Bronze Age, and into the Middle Bronze Age. The architecture that he discovered was so well constructed, with walls more than a meter in width, that he thought this must be some sort of fortification, perhaps a “gateway complex.” In 1964, he revisited this area and uncovered greater exposures of Middle Bronze Age remains. While the walls were over a meter in height, Free found no doorways and so assumed that he must be dealing with a basement structure or that the lack of doorways must be a defensive measure. This led to Free’s interpretation of the MB buildings as a “citadel” which was destroyed, in his understanding, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age only to be rebuilt and used throughout the “entire” Late Bronze Age. Area A-D, Phase 7 The founding of fortification wall W444 was marked by the burial of a young child accompanied by jars placed at the head, feet, and hands. These offerings provide ceramic markers for the beginning of habitation at Dothan in the Middle Bronze IIB following a hiatus of several centuries. At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age while Early Bronze Age fortification (W445) still determined

Fig. 7.3 Area A/D, child burial, closeup, 1953 the shape of the tell, another city wall, W444, was built 1 m up the slope. W444 went across Area D for a distance of 25 m; it was 2.0–2.50 m wide and preserved to a height of 1.1 m. It is clear from the 1953 section from Area D (Fig. 6.3) that it cut into D7, Level 5 and utilized D7, Level 4 as its initial occupation deposit. Approximately 7 m down slope W467 ran parallel to it, and was probably a retaining wall of an earthen rampart. The wall was 90 cm wide, up to 1.5 m high, and excavated to a length of 18.5 m. South of W467 were buildings set into, or just below the Middle Bronze rampart. The walls in question were W471 to the north, W472 to the south, W473 to the west,

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

51

Fig. 7.5 Area A/D, Phase 7–Phase 5

and the north end of W475 to the east. The room created by the walls measured ca. 1.6 x 2.5 m. North of this room was a much smaller room, possibly for storage, measuring 1 m square. Its northern border was W470, its eastern one W474, terminating against the western banister of the monumental stairway (W469), and the southern one W471, held in common between both rooms. The west wall had eroded away. Set on its rim against the north face of W471 was another storage jar. The rooms did not encroach above the Early Bronze stairway; they accommodate themselves to its western border. To the north of fortification W444 was a Middle Bronze Age patrician house with massive walls that had gone through at least two phases that went unrecognized in the field. Phase 7 was largely reconstructed from photographs, since most of it was never drawn on any plan. A 3 x 2 m room was found at the east end, consisting of west wall W463, east wall W464, north wall W476, and south wall W477. The latter extended westward for about 15 m (labeled W443 in the west part that was drawn). It served as a major partition through what was left of this phase. Only a few foundation wall fragments were documented to the north of it, but at the east end W477 cornered with W479, which presumably abutted fortification W444. Heading north from W476 and into the north baulk was W466.

Area A-D, Phase 6 The main reason for separating the patrician house into two phases was W443 and its eastern reconstructed extension, W477. Figure 7.6 shows that W443 passed under W461 and that the latter was already ‘floating’ when the top of Phase 7 was reached. The floor of Phase 6 can be seen in the upper right, showing a single, pedestalled slab of stone, the only remnant of a pavement from the latter phase. The same photo seems to indicate that W443 was re-used as a foundation in the second phase of the building, because its western elevation is higher than that of the pavement slab. Phase 6, assigned to the patrician house, is well represented in its foundation walls, most of which measure slightly more than 1 m in width. The east end of the area, framed by W461 and W478, was probably a courtyard. A cistern in the northern part of the area measured 2.85 m in depth. Area A-D, Phase 5 Among the Phase 5 finds that related directly to the patrician building was a vat that obliterated the south half of W445. A substantial gap existed between the patrician house and the Iron Age levels of Area A.

52

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.6 Area A/D, Middle Bronze architecture, view southwest, 1962 Area D110–112 Area D110, Phase 2 Within a small area two walls were discovered (W507, W508). They were more or less perpendicular to each other. Because of a later pit, the pottery in this area was contaminated. Area K Area K, Phase 2 The Middle Bronze Age walls form a plan which is difficult to interpret. Higher up the slope to the east, the excavators uncovered a large fortification wall, W351, just below the Iron Age occupation. The wall was built in two stages, both consisting of eastern and western faces with fill in between. In the later stage the eastern face was approximately 77 cm wide and the western face 36 cm wide, with 80 cm of stones and hard packed earth in between for a total width of 1.97 m. A 10 cm thick layer of clay rested atop the stones and sloped upwards from the east face of the wall’s later stage. This may have

Fig. 7.7 Area A/D, Middle Bronze walls cut by later silo, view to south, 1964 been melted mud brick material. Levels 3a and 3b were the occupation levels built up inside the city against this wall. These levels included a floor level of clay and small

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.8 Area K, Phase 2

stones upon which lay numerous sherds and small stone implements. The earlier stage of fortification wall W351 also included an eastern face (now 87 cm wide) and a western face (now 48 cm wide), both extending slightly westward beyond the walls that they supported. Three narrow east-west walls extended east into the city from this earlier stage of the fortification wall. They were from south to north W397, W398, and W399. Each was 20 cm thick and preserved to a height of 1.2 m, the same as the earlier stage of fortification wall W351. Levels 4a and 4b were deposited against the east side of the fortification wall

Fig. 7.9 Area K, Middle Bronze walls, view to west, 1958

53

(see Fig. 6.22). Free described nine Middle Bronze Age storage jars in Level 4a on either side of W397. Because they were sealed beneath Level 3b, they appear to provide a chronological marker for Levels 4a and 4b, the earliest stage of the Middle Bronze II fortifications. While we do not doubt Free’s pottery reading, we have been unable to locate these specific jars. An additional floor stretched from the early stage of fortification wall W351 to the west. It met the base of a large north-south wall, W355. Free dated this wall to the Iron Age based upon its proximity to the mound’s surface, but the wall could just as likely be a later addition to the Middle Bronze Age fortifications. The western face of the Middle Bronze fortification wall (W351) and the later parallel wall (W355) ended abruptly while the eastern half of the fortification wall continued north. The excavators were likely correct in their assertion that the entire line of fortifications originally continued northward and that the wall had been robbed. It is nevertheless unclear why the eastern face of W351 did not continue northward. A floor of packed earth marked the bottom of Level 2b and the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The floor and associated levels were contemporary with W357. This wall was traced for over 13 meters. Although it was built into Early Bronze Age fills, the pottery surrounding its upper course increases the likelihood that it was a retaining wall for the Middle Bronze Age fortifications. The wall was 1.2 m wide and was exposed just below the topsoil to a depth of 85 cm. A Middle Bronze Age infant jar burial was identified 1.45 m west of W357. A so-called “Angle Wall” (W389) traverses Area K from northeast to southwest. Free described the wall as a “puzzling structure” dating to the second millennium

Fig. 7.10 Area K, Middle Bronze jars next to W397, view from above, 1958

54

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

(1958: 5). Its width of 1.2 m and western elevation were the same as W357, although the intersection of the walls could not be established with certainty. The wall ascended the slope at a 45-degree angle and was built over the northern extension of the Middle Bronze Age city wall (W351). It was most likely an adjustment to the western defensive structures of the city. The wall cut through multiple levels, and the records do not allow for a precise date. Excavation adjacent to wall W389 yielded a burial with a Middle Bronze “button base” juglet. A concentration of bowl and storage jar sherds would seem to support a Middle Bronze IIB or IIC date for W389 but its elevation and its alignment with the Iron Age city wall give the impression that it could date to the Iron Age II (see Fig. 6.28). At the edge of the mound W389 joined a block of stones (W515) that the excavators described as the northern extension of the Middle Bronze fortification wall (W351). This extension of the fortification wall cannot be established by an examination of photographs and plans because only a single row of stones connects W351 and its supposed northern extension (W515), and they do not line up properly. A small, well fortified, building was connected to the meeting point between “Angle Wall” W389 and W515. The building comprised two stages. The first was a 1.25 m wide wall (W510) extending west from Square L20 for 6 m with a 70 cm wide opening in its eastern half. Together with W511 and W512 it formed part of an enclosure. Subsequently a large block was added to the south side of this structure. It was 2 m thick and 7 m long with a 1.8 m x 1.1 m plaster-lined chamber built into its southern face (W513 and W514). This structure likely dates to the Middle Bronze Age II because of its connection with “Angle Wall” W389 and the trajectory

Fig. 6.25 Area K, Early Bronze “Gate,” view to southeast, 1959

of the Middle Bronze fortification wall (W351). There is an abundance of Middle Bronze pottery, but numerous Iron Age I sherds littered the area, including a nearly intact Iron Age I cooking pot found on the southern edge of W514. When viewed together with the fortification wall (W351) and the “Angle Wall” (W389), the architecture of Squares K21, K11, L20, and L10 are suggestive of a gate or tower in the fortification of the city. There is, however, far too little evidence available to come to a final conclusion on the date of this complex (Middle Bronze or Iron Age). A final Middle Bronze feature in Area K was what the excavators described as a “house structure” built against a reused Early Bronze age wall (W360). The small room formed by W373 on the north side and W374 on the south side measured 1.35 m x 1.5 m. The southern wall had an indent and bench while the northeast corner was plastered and had an upside-down Middle Bronze storage jar embedded in it. Pottery Discussion The excavation of Area A/D was not detailed enough to allow the architectural phases to be linked to the ceramic assemblage. While fieldbooks record a series of thick plaster floors covering much of the area, there is no way of linking any of these floors to specific ceramic assemblages. Either robber trenches or mudbrick walls at the level of the floors of the later phase were not recognized in excavation. By the time foundation walls appeared, the excavators were describing floors from an earlier phase that were being cut by the later walls. The excavators apparently thought that these earlier floors were contemporary with the foundation walls and based their interpretations on the surprising lack of doorways. Despite all of these difficulties, the ceramic assemblage from Area A/D was much more coherent than the bits and pieces excavated in Area K. For that reason, the ceramic discussion focuses almost exclusively on Area A/D with only occasional forms taken from Area K. The ceramic assemblage from Area A/D must be treated as a single unit, lasting from the beginning of the MBIIB (Megiddo Stratum XII) through the first half of LBI (Megiddo Stratum IX). The assemblage is distinctive for the quantity of MBIIC/LBI decorated wares (Fig. 7.14) that include a wide variety of Chocolate on White Ware and the presence of LB Bichrome and Cypriot White Slip I. Since only selected diagnostic wares were kept and registered by the original excavators, one cannot make any statements about the relative frequency of the decorated wares within the assemblage. While it is clear that these forms do not mark a narrow chronological range (particularly in Fig. 7.14), but the stratigraphy of Area A/D does not allow greater precision. Most of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze undecorated wares (Fig. 7.12–13) can be compared with Cole’s presentation of MBIIB/C pottery from Shechem. While

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

some of the forms here, notably the platter bowls, persist into the LBI (Megiddo IX), the majority of these forms fit more comfortably in the MBIIB/C than in the Late Bronze Age. The decorated wares, however, make it clear that this assemblage includes both MBIIC and LBI deposits. A series of whole vessels (Fig. 7.14.1–5) were found at the top of the MB/LB remains, just inside W444. Another set of whole vessels (Fig. 7.14.6–10) were found in rooms built into the MB ramparts. In our opinion, these two caches mark the latest MB/LBI occupation at Do-

55

than. Because the stratigraphic connections are not clear, these forms may represent a final phase of occupation in the patrician house or a post-patrician house occupation unrelated to any standing architecture. The latest form in this assemblage is the decorated krater (Fig. 7.15.3) whose form fits best in Megiddo Stratum VIII. The decoration on this form, however, with red slip covered with bichrome decoration, is just as characteristic of Megiddo Stratum IX. All of the other forms could be comfortably dated to the LBIA.

56

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.12 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I plainware

57

58

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.13 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I storage jars

59

60

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.14 Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze I decorated pottery

61

62

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Fig. 7.15 Pottery marking the end of Late Bronze I occupation

63

64

7. The Middle Bronze Age—Late Bronze Age I

Summary Once Dothan was occupied in the Middle Bronze Age II, it was built up in ways that typify the period. Unlike the imposing stone fortifications of the earlier periods, the Middle Bronze Age builders preferred smaller walls atop large earthen ramparts. At Dothan, the builders took the Early Bronze wall and used it as a retaining wall for their rampart. The MB inhabitants also built atop the ruins of the Early Bronze City in order to make their ramparts even higher. In some cases, they poured dirt down the slope in order to create ramparts. These adjustments in the defense system were especially noteworthy in Area K which, after all, faced the open valley and had to be well defended. A series of walls lined the slopes of the city, running parallel to a large fortification wall near the top of the Middle Bronze Age mound.

In one area, between Area A and Area D, the excavators uncovered a larger structure, which showed the richness of the Middle Bronze Age city. They described this building as a “citadel” since it had such thick, wellconstructed walls and lay just at the top of the rampart. However, a comparison with other sites reveals that this was probably something a bit different, namely a multistory patrician house. The Dothan building is similar in function to comparable patrician houses in Megiddo XIIX. But what really points to an elite rather than martial function is the rich repertoire of decorated pottery from the MBIIC/LBI. The end of this phase of occupation seems to parallel the end of Megiddo IX, usually attributed to the conquests of Thutmose III. In sum, Free’s image of a prosperous Middle Bronze Age city was likely correct, even though the city was apparently uninhabited in the period (MBIIA) in which Free placed the patriarchs (Free 1962: 83).

8. The Late Bronze Age II

hile Joseph Free mentioned the discovery of the Late Bronze Age in several reports, we have been unable to define any substantial ceramic assemblage or coherent architecture on the tell which might be dated to the Late Bronze II. In Robert E. Cooley and Gary D. Pratico’s work on the western cemetery (Cooley and Pratico 1994), they suggested that Tomb 1, the best stratified of the three excavated tombs, had 5 levels spanning the Late Bronze IIA through the beginning of the Iron Age. They note that, unlike most tombs, Tomb 1 at Dothan contained a series of periodic earthen fills which separated one layer from the next.

W

Fig. 8.1 Distribution of Late Bronze Age II finds

period. In addition, Late Bronze II imported pottery (Mycenaean IIIA2, Mycenaean IIIB, Cypriot White Slip II, and Cypriot Base Ring II) was found in secondary contexts throughout the Iron Age levels of Area A. It is possible that the excavators missed a poorly preserved stratum between the patrician house of the Middle Bronze Age and the four-room house of the Iron I period, but it is also possible that the scattered Late Bronze Age finewares were heirlooms still used by the early twelfth century settlers (for the long life of some of these forms, see Megiddo Stratum VIIA).

Fig. 8.2 Stratification of Tomb 1, after Cooley and Pratico 1995 The parts of Area K, L and A which produced Iron I remains also yielded a good number of painted sherds in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite tradition. While these might reflect the Late Bronze II, they could just as easily reflect the continuation of these traditions into the Iron I

65

blank

9. The Iron Age: Area A

rea A was the first area excavated on the top of the tell, and it long occupied a place of privilege in Joseph Free’s publications. The architecture was well preserved, and, from the outset, special finds were common. In 1953, Free opened several squares on top of the tell, along the southern crest. Just below the surface he encountered consistent Iron Age I and II pottery and coherent stone architecture. In his 1954 excavations, Free quickly came upon a cache of whole vessels from Iron I, including a unique zoomorphic multihandled krater. (Fig. 9.23.4) The plan of this area is clearest in Free’s 1955 and 1956 reports. In both of these reports, Free mentioned the central architectural feature of the area, a long narrow street with walls preserved 2 meters high on either side which he named “Wall Street.” Free also mentioned stacks of fallen brick lying over complete vessels. He took these stacks of brick to be kilns because they were not sitting immediately above stone foundations. It seems more likely,

A

Fig. 9.1 Distribution of Iron Age I finds

Fig. 9.2 Layout of Area A

67

68

9. The Iron Age: Area A

however, that these were the result of a second story collapse from the destruction of this area. It appeared to Free, and we concur, that this area was destroyed at the end of the ninth century b.c. Free described ash and charred roof timbers throughout Area A. In an attempt to obtain a more precise date for this destruction, Free had a carbon sample from Area A tested at Lamont Geological Observatory which yielded a carbon date of 2760 ± 80. We are unsure of the accuracy of this fifty year old result, but if it is reliable, current calibration would place the result in the Iron IIA (68.2% between 1000–820 b.c.e., using OxCal). Our more recent Carbon 14 samples from Area L yielded a later result, but they do support a ninth century date for a destruction of Tell Dothan. In 1954, the excavators discovered the first of several burials in Area A, including adult skeletons and infant jar burials. These were accompanied by pottery which de Vaux identified as stylistically similar to Assyrian Palace Ware. The excavators came to the conclusion that these burials must provide a terminal date for the architecture near which they were found. This view is most clearly expressed Free’s 1955 report. There he mentioned a burial astride a ruined wall and hypothesized that the same Assyrians destroyed the wall, killed this person, and then added an Assyrian Palace Ware bowl for good measure. In this case, as in Area L, we do not think that these burials are contemporary with the architecture. Instead we

Fig. 9.3 Area A/D, Phase 4

would argue that they are unrelated late eighth centuryearly seventh century burials which were cut into the ninth century ruins. Layout of Area A The maximum exposure in Area A measured 62 m from east to west, 36 m from north to south and comprising 25 rectangular excavation units. The excavation units were not of a uniform size, and the area as a whole was of a slightly irregular shape. Since the area was under excavation for several seasons, some of the excavation areas became larger. The placement of some of the archaeological features, which had been drawn several times on different top plans, did not always agree. The main components of phases 4–3 were a four-room house compound, an alleyway that terminated in two courtyards, and surrounding structures and installations. Phase 4–3; The Four-Room House Location: A1, A2, A4, A5 The size of the Israelite four-room house was 11 x 13 m. Since it was not exactly square, the inner dimensions averaged to about 11.5 x 10 m, or 115 square meters. The size of its precinct was about 40 meters long from east to west, and the north to south axis was excavated to a maximum extent of 25 m (ca. 1000 square meters by

9. The Iron Age: Area A

69

extension of W206. We know very little about the broad room since it falls into a section of varying width that was left between Areas A and D. This section was excavated after years of exposure, and its connections to the features to the north and to the south of it are extremely obscure. Eastern Precinct of the Four-Room House Location: A7, A8, A10, A13

Fig. 9.4 Area A/D, W204 and W214, view to south, 1956

extension). The building spanned several excavation units and was excavated in several separate seasons. It was never recognized for what it was, and consequently the southwestern corner was never drawn properly. Other components had to be pieced together from various units drawn in different seasons. If our interpretation is correct, then the eastern room was not a perfect rectangle. It measured 8.5 m long, 2 m at the north end and 2.5 m at the south end. Its western wall (W209) had a 0.5 m doorway and stood 1.5 m high, as did the southern wall (W213). A beaten earth floor with much ash was found in the north half of the room, probably dating to Iron I. Another ashy floor was found 85 cm above it, and the ash level was 20 cm thick, probably dating to Iron II. Between the two floors was destruction debris. The room was partitioned at the south end by W280 (55 cm high), creating a small southern room that measured 2.5 x 2 m. It could be entered from the north through a doorway that was about 80 cm wide, and contained two circular stone installations, possibly representing a storage area. W280 may have been canceled in the Iron II period. The internal measurements of the center room were 3.5 x 8.5 m, bordered on the west by W207 and on the east by W209. This center room was accessible from the north. The small wall (W208), which interrupts the north wall of the building (W204), may be the western jamb of a doorway which fell exactly into the baulk. It appears that there were fired bricks in this room, and there was an ash level on a floor. The same description is valid for the west room. It measured 3.4 m from east to west and was presumably the same length as the center room, ca. 8 m from north to south. Excavators encountered fired bricks of a destruction lodged in a layer of ash and at least four large broken jars lying on the beaten earth floor. The southern wall of all these rooms and the northern wall of the broad room was W213, which should be extended to the west where it would meet the southward

Area L of Tell Dothan contains many Israelite houses arranged in the usual village or urban plan: grouped together and having many walls in common. The context of the Israelite house in Area A, however, is very different. It was surrounded by a large precinct. The northeastern border was an alley lined on both sides with walls as high as 2.25 m, called “Wall Street” by the excavators (Fig. 9.5). The width of the alley measured 1 to 1.8 m, and its excavated length was 27.5 m, at variance with Free’s measurement (33.5 m, which included the courtyard at the west end, into which Wall Street terminated). A multitude of potsherds lying in the alley were trampled and fractured to a smaller size than was usual for the surrounding depositions. The accumulated surfaces were 43 cm thick and terminated in an ash level. At the east end of the alley a small room, probably a guardhouse, had been superimposed upon the southern wall (W187). It can be seen that W187 extended beyond this room, and that the room was built on top of it. The internal measurements of the guardhouse were 1.2 x 1.75 m, and its north and east wall (W192 and W195) jutted out into the alley, serving to create a narrow gateway of 1 m. Its west wall, W194, continued south and became a partition wall in a building that went beyond the

Fig. 9.5 Area A/D, “Wall Street” with guardhouse in foreground, view to northwest, 1956

70

9. The Iron Age: Area A

excavated area. The three bottom courses of W194 were as large as stones in the walls of “Wall Street,” and it may well have been the eastern border wall of the four-room house precinct. In the room directly to the south of the guardhouse, (ca. 2.6 m width by 3.7 m excavated length) a heavy layer of ash was found lying on top of the floor. There was evidence of a plaster lining along the inner wall faces. The notebook of R. A. Free (1956: 87) shows a sketch of a stone circle, centrally located in the southern room, and several walls east of it. Here also the area was packed with ash at 35 cm above the original floor. West of the guardhouse were two almost identical living units, each consisting of a larger room on the east side, a smaller room on the west side, and a vestibule at the entrance. All of the rooms were trapezoidal because their common north wall, W187 of “Wall Street,” ran obliquely through the area. The easternmost large room measured 6 m long, 1.5 m wide at its east end and 3.6 m wide at its west end. The west wall, W191, formed a doorway with the south wall, W197, which was 1.3 m wide. An extension was added to the south wall to create another doorway (1 m wide) to the next small room, bordered by W191 on the east and W190 on the west. The room in its trapezoidal form measured 1.9 m wide from east to west, 3.9 m long on the east side and 5 m long on the west side. These two rooms formed a living unit which was entered from the west through a kind of vestibule approximately 1.5 m square. In the large room a pavement floor was found covered by a collapse of fired brick and ash, as in destruction debris. The bricks measured 35 x 20 x 15 cm. To the west of this unit was another larger unit of two rooms, which had the same basic form. The large eastern room (Fig. 9.6) was bordered by W189, W190, and W199, as well as W187, the southern wall of the alley. It measured 4.1 m wide from east to west, 3.3 m long on the east side, and 5.4 m long on the west side. In the exact center of the room was a two or three-tiered pillar base for supporting the roof (Fig. 9.6). A beaten earth floor was

Fig. 9.7 Area A/D, eastern precinct, view to southeast, 1956

Fig. 9.6 Area A/D, large eastern room, view to southeast, 1956 found, and on it a stone collapse with the remains of four or five incomplete pottery vessels. This floor should be dated to the Iron II because 30 cm below it fired bricks and ash were found, as in a destruction by fire, which dated to the Iron I (Fig. 9.24.8–18). The smaller west room, bordered by W188, W189, and W215, measured 2.6 m wide from east to west, 3.3 m on the east side, and 4.8 m on the west side. A beaten earth floor was found, and 15 to 30 cm below it, presumably another floor. The upper floor should probably be dated to the Iron II, the lower one to Iron I (Fig. 9.24.1–7). W215 had a doorway of unknown width at its west end. This unit also had a vestibule measuring about 1.8 x 2 m. P. Gerard states in his notebook (1956: 49) that 17 objects were found in this vestibule and, on the following day, more objects. The nature of the objects was not mentioned, but the excavator felt that this spot was a kind of “local bank.” The objects may have been placed there as a preparation for fleeing the destruction, and events may have overtaken the inhabitants, so that they had to flee without taking their objects with them. In Phase 3 the area between W191 and W189 (including the western large room and the eastern small room) was substantially modified by a number of superimposed installations (Fig. 9.8). In the large western room, between the pillar base and W187, a partition wall (W249) was constructed, and the eastern part of this smaller space was cluttered by a mass of stones. In the northeastern quadrant of the former large room a semicircular installation was constructed against W187 of “Wall Street.” The former W190 was obscured, and onto the eastern small room a circular stone installation was imposed, surrounded by supporting stones and rock debris. There was an outdoor courtyard surface to the south of the two living units described above, and W203, abutting the east face of the four-room house, was probably a yard wall. Next to its north face was a stone basin or manger. East of these walls was a drain, of which 4 m

9. The Iron Age: Area A

71

Fig. 9.8 Area A/D, Phase 3 was excavated, heading south toward the slope of the tell. The drain was plastered, and its walls (W200 and W201) were made up of brick and stones. Internally the drain was 35 cm wide, externally 80 cm. Another large room or house appeared in the southeastern corner of the precinct, bordered by W194, W197, and W198. It measured about 6.5 m wide, with an unexcavated portion beyond the southern baulk, which may well have been the southern enclosure wall of the pre-

Fig. 9.9 Area A/D, eastern courtyard, view to east, 1962

cinct. If this was a roofed building, then it would have had at least one pillar to hold up the roof. Courtyards Location: A5, A3, A103 North of the four-room house were three courtyards, increasing in size from east to west. The eastern courtyard was connected to the southern courtyard by a 0.7 m wide gateway between W199 and W214. The eastern courtyard would have measured 4.7 x 5 m if it were not for the corner of the four-roomed house jutting into it. The beaten earth surface was bordered by W185, W187, and W188. The courtyard could be entered through a 1.1 m wide passageway between W185 and W204. This area, as well as all others south of Wall Street, was mentioned in connection with piles of clay bricks (Free 1956: 16, and footnote 15). These were most likely from surrounding walls, because it is unlikely that the area of the courtyard was roofed without a supporting pillar. The middle courtyard was directly north of the fourroom house, and may have been a kind of forecourt or dromos. Wall Street terminated at this point, and its northern wall, W186, formed the north wall of the courtyard, making a corner with the east wall, W184. The courtyard measured 6.7 m from east to west, and 10 m to 7.8 m from north to south. A 2.1 m passageway connected it to the even larger western courtyard.

72

9. The Iron Age: Area A

The western courtyard was the largest. It measured up to 11 m from east to west and a maximum of 12 m from north to south. Piles of fired brick and ash were found along its west wall (W216). In the southwest quadrant of the courtyard a door swivel was found, which could have belonged to any number of doorways in the vicinity. It might have been removed from the doorway into the courtyard from the east, between W184 and W204, or perhaps there was also a doorway from the south, between W220 (the south wall of the courtyard) and W204 (the north wall of the four-room house). Western Precinct of the Four-Room House Location: A101, A102 The west wall of the large courtyard, W216, was most likely also the enclosure wall of the four-room house precinct. At the southern end it terminated in a gatehouse made up of W217, W218, and W219 (see Fig. 9.3). It was probably roofed, but open to the south, measuring 2.7 by 3.5 m internally. The primary southern counterpart to the gatehouse was the curved wall, W222. The passageway created by the gap between W218 and W222 was 0.7 m wide. Although there is no proof because of an intervening baulk, W222 doubtlessly met W206 (the west wall of the four-room house) at right angles. This would have closed any passage from the west into the precinct, other

than through the gate. It created an outdoor area south of the large courtyard, between walls W220 and W222. A floor level appeared at the “top of flat stones” (R. A. Free, notebook, 1954: 43), a plaster floor 25 cm below it, and an ash layer at 30 to 40 cm below that. To the south of W222 was a two-room building, which may have been added at a later stage. Its eastern wall (W240) was built of three courses of unusually massive stones measuring up to 90 cm long, 60 cm wide, and 50 cm high. It appears that the mason who built this wall wanted to insure that it abutted the south face of the curved W222 so as to overshoot the outline of the two-room building, but to close any possibility for a passageway into the extended precinct. The internal measurements of the east room were 2 x 4.6 m, of the west room 1.2 x 3 m. Mudbrick detritus covered the area within and surrounding the structure. East of W240 was parallel W239, creating a passage that was 70 cm wide. The purpose of this passageway is unknown. Both the partition wall (W241) and the west wall of the structure (W242) went beyond the southern border of the two rooms. The structure may have continued to the south, or W242 became the enclosure wall of the precinct, aligned with, and possibly connecting to, W223 to the north, which became an outer element of the gate, also creating a passage 70 cm in width. There appears to be a bench running along the western face of W223.

Fig. 9.10 Area A/D, western precinct, view to northeast, 1954

9. The Iron Age: Area A

73

Area west of the Four-Room House Precinct Location: A104, A105, A106, A107, A108, A110, A111 The walls of the western area are problematic in that they cannot be connected across baulk lines. The character of the walls is also quite different. West of the baulk most of the walls are made up of two rows of smaller stones, whereas east of the baulk the stones are more massive and built in one-row walls. Only 1 to 1.5 m east of the precinct gate was a structure made up of W224, W225, and W226. It measured 4.2 m internally from north to south, and about 2.5 m from east to west had been excavated. A northern room was apparently completely destroyed. Its partially destroyed east wall (W225) formed a narrow corridor that led from the north to the precinct gate, but also to the south by way of five large stone slabs which could have been a small stairway or pavement (R. A. Free [notebook 1954: 69] thought that the stones might be a collapsed stairway, each measuring 90 x 50 x 10 cm, at variance with the plans, which showed them to be much larger). A small press was found in the debris of the room (Fig. 9.11). It had a small basin at one end, and a circular channel that would have conducted any pressed liquid into the basin. A beaten earth floor was reached, and a small oven was mentioned, but no plan or sketch was made of these features. Another structure was located 1.2 m west of W223, or 70 cm west of its bench. Its three one-row walls, W227, W228, and W229, were made up of massive stones. The internal width of the structure was 1.5 m, the maximum excavated length 3.3 m, of which the southern part was missing. The only floor mentioned was a rough pavement going into the southern baulk of A-104. All of the area described was inundated by heaps of fired brick and black ash, especially between the two structures. Moving to the westernmost areas that were excavated, the wall fragments could be reconstructed into a fairly coherent building but one that had no connection to anything going on in the east. This may have been due to terracing because the tell descends to the west. Its northern room (W230, W231, and W233) measured 3.9 m from north to south and remained intact for a maximum of 3.6 m from east to west. Apparently no floor was found. The plastered vat close to the west end of W230 had a diameter of 1.25 x 1.18 m and was 90 cm deep. The stonelined silo to the north of W230 had a diameter of 60 x 58 cm and was 40 cm deep. These installations may have been later than the building; though if the floor had been entirely eroded away, they may well have been part of it. Abutting W233 from the south was partition wall W234, dividing the area into two rooms, the west one 4.5 m long, the east one 4.2 m long. Little is known of these two rooms except that deteriorated mudbrick was excavated in them; apparently no floor was found. The stone-lined silo in the eastern room had a maximum diameter of 1.3 m and was 40 cm deep.

Fig. 9.11 Area A/D, agricultural installation, 1954

Fig. 9.12 Area A/D, room with whole vessels, view to north, 1954 In the southern wall of these rooms (W235) a 50 cm wide doorway led into the western of two more rooms. Just south of W235 a stone basin was found in this western room. The room was filled with brick detritus and ash. Only 1 m survived of the partition wall, W236, between the two rooms. The eastern room, 2.3 m wide, turned out to be the richest in all of Area A (Fig. 9.12). The soil was described as “light and sandy, with chunks of bricks.” The photographs show that this light soil would have been ash, and the bricks were fired, attesting to a violent fiery destruction. Within the destruction the excavators uncovered a cache of whole vessels, the most famous of which was

74

9. The Iron Age: Area A

a unique zoomorphic multihandled krater (Fig. 9.23.4). The floor of these two rooms was either missed in excavation or never reached.

Fig. 9.13 Area D110–D112, Phase 1

Area D110–111, Phase 1 In the SW corner of Area A, but not connecting to any of its features, we note in passing that several walls (W502–W506; see plan) were found at the highest levels of D110 and D111. Together they formed fragments of several buildings. The pottery that was associated with them was utterly contaminated so that no clear date could be assigned. Based solely on relative elevation, however, we would tentatively connect these walls to the Iron I plan of Area A.

Fig. 9.14 Area A/D, northern area, view to west, 1956 Area north of the Four-Room House Precinct Location: A6, A9, A12, A11 There is evidence of four rooms that utilize W186 of “Wall Street” as their southern border. There is even a

possibility that the northern rooms were similar to the southern rooms, divided into two living units of a large and a small room each. However, a large pit, still seen in the north baulk, destroyed the central wall connections. What is seen in the baulk is only the edge of the pit; its deepest center was somewhere north of W182, which it destroyed. Because of the pit it is impossible to determine the relationship between W182–W183 of the units attached to “Wall Street,” and W281–W285 of the house in the north baulk. Beginning with the northwest corner, W179 was the common wall of the first three rooms, and W180 was the east wall of a paved room of unknown size that could be entered from the east through a 50 cm wide doorway. The room had a maximum width of 2.2 m from north to south. All of the rooms had an ash layer on top of their floors. The second room (W180–W181) measured 3.1 x 3.5 m and could be entered from the east through a 50 cm doorway. In the ash layer on the floor was a scatter of smashed pottery vessels. The third and largest room (W181–W182) measured 4.2 m wide from east to west. If W179 was its north wall, then its beaten earth floor may have had a maximum length of 5.5 m, terminating at an angle with W281 on the northeast side. A gap between W179 and W281, measured 40 cm wide. The fourth room (W182–W183) was 2.7 m wide and may have been about 4 m long. A slightly off-center pillar base, resting in the beaten earth floor, was located 1 m north of “Wall Street.” As the northeast corner of the four-room house jutted into the small eastern courtyard, so the building in the northeastern corner of the area may have jutted into the fourth room (demonstrating that the main architectural elements had their own orientation, regardless of “Wall Street” and its perpendicular walls). East of these rooms was a trapezoidal open area, bordered by “Wall Street” in the south, W183 in the west, W285 in the north, and W286 in the east. Maximally it measured 7.3 x 11.5 m. Fig. 9.15 shows that the floor is broken in a systematic manner. There appears to be a clear robber trench, crossing from left to center, another parallel to it at lower right, and a third at right angles to both of them, crossing from the upper left to mid-right. The latter appears to go all the way to the north wall of “Wall Street” (W186). The building in the northeast corner of Area A, which post-dated the plaster floor, had at least two phases. The earliest one (see plan 1956: 6) shows evidence of three rooms in a row from east to west, and a fourth going into the north baulk. The foundations of this building were most likely contemporary with the earlier levels of the four-room house complex. The long room to the west, which was bordered by W282, W284 and W285, measured 2.7 x ca. 4.5 m internally. On top of the plaster floor was a layer of ash and fired brick, and 30 cm above it another plaster floor (R. Veal, notebook, 1956: 87). It stands to reason that upper floor belonged with the walls of the long room to the west.

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.15 Area A/D, northern area, view to southwest, 1956

75

Fig. 9.17 Area A/D, destruction in northern area, closeup, 1956

Fig. 9.16 Area A/D, cut plaster floor, view to west, 1956

The middle room, bordered by W282, W283, and W285, measured 2.1 m from east to west, and ca. 3.1 m from north to south unless it continued beyond the north baulk. Access to the room was possible from the south, through a 65 m wide doorway in W285. Five smashed jars were found in an ash layer above the floor (Fig. 9.17), and 15 cm below them a “clay or plaster floor level” (R. A. Free, notebook, 1956: 58). The east room went into the north and east baulk, but was indicated by W283 and W285.

Fig. 9.18 Area A12, Phase 3?

In a later phase (Phase 3?) the walls of the three rooms were rebuilt, and three rooms were added to the south. In the west room, measuring 2 m from north to south by an excavated length of 3 m from east to west, a beaten earth floor was discovered, and there was also mention of a heavy pavement at the east end of the room (R. A. Free, notebook, 1956: 49).

76

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.19 Area A12, Phase 3? walls, view to southwest, 1956

Fig. 9.20 9428b, lower cretaceous fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns

The middle room was bordered by W285, W287, W288, and W289 and measured 1.65 x 2.25 m. The excavators did not mention a floor or any finds. Only 80 cm remained of the east room, from the baulk to its northwestern corner. It was bordered by W285 and W288, and nothing is known of a floor. Pottery Area A produced some of the best pottery assemblages on the site in terms of their usefulness for dating the architecture. The assemblage which anchors the Iron I in this area consists entirely of whole vessels. This assemblage is supplemented by two smaller clusters from primary contexts. The collection is rounded out by a sample of collared rim storage jars. The Iron II is made up of a more loosely defined assemblage consisting of whole vessels from around Area A with an emphasis on one ash layer in Area A2.

Fig. 9.21 11446, “Family F,” crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns

Iron I While the assemblage of whole vessels fits well into Iron I, enough of the vessels are unique that precise parallels are difficult. It is important to note that all of these whole vessels were found in one cache. In addition to these whole vessels, the same layer included at least two other multihandled kraters (likely restorable at the time of discovery) as well as fragments of a collared rim storage jar. It is likely that the destruction which sealed these vessels was the same “ash layer” which is found throughout Area A. But due to the difficulty of making direct stratigraphic connections across the entirety of Area A, this assemblage alone cannot provide a date for the architecture across Area A. Two assemblages supplement the whole forms of A107 (Fig. 9.24). In this case, the original pottery registry noted that each of these sherds came from specific ash

short

Fig. 9.22 10669, local fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns deposits in specific rooms in Area A8. The first room (western room) is defined by W188, W215, W189, and W187. The second room (eastern room) is defined by

9. The Iron Age: Area A

W189, W199, W190, and W187. We interpret the ash layer across these rooms as being some sort of occupational or destruction debris. These small fragments from primary context corroborate the date provided by the whole vessels from A107, leading us to the conclusion that there was an Iron I occupation/destruction across Area A. These three deposits likely mark the earliest occupation across this entire complex. Finally, in the excavation of Iron I levels in Area A, the most common jar form kept by the excavators was the collared rim storage jar (Fig. 9.25). While the detailed parallels of these jars have been amply discussed elsewhere, we would note, using the typology of Killebrew (2001), that our collection contains exemplars of her higher necked “A” type typical of the Jezreel and Huleh Valleys as well as the shorter necked “B” type typical of the central hill country. The work of Goren (1993), Killebrew (2001), and Wolff and Cohen-Weinberger (2001) makes it possible to place the provenience of these jars within a broader framework. In our petrographic study, the vast majority of these jars (15 out of 18) fell into Goren’s “Lower Cretaceous” group (1993: 276–77) or Cohen-Weinberger’s “Family D” (2001: 645). One Jar appears to fall into Cohen-Weinberger’s “Family F” (2001: 647). Two jars appear to be local to the Dothan region. In her analysis of jars from Giloh, Killebrew showed the standard local clay with addition of a variety of tempers. While her focus was on the various sizes of dolomite sand temper, she also noted the presence of shale and mudballs in the assemblage. In such otherwise well sorted clays, these might stand out as additional tempering materials. In the local Dothan jars, in addition to the expected lithology of biomicritic Eocene chalks, there frequently were also mudballs and shale fragments. These inclusions are not as commonly found in other local ceramics from Dothan but they are found in the (otherwise local) collared rim storage jar fragments. We would suggest that these jars exhibit similarities in manufacture to the Giloh Jars, even if their provenience is altogether different. Iron II Fig. 9.26 represents the most coherent collection that could be assembled from the Iron II occupation in Area A. While scattered Iron II vessels appear in almost every square, few of them belong to the same level. This assemblage from Square A2 appears to come from an ashy level found in a room roughly defined by W204, W207, and W206, the west room of the four-room house. This assemblage can be placed comfortably in Iron IIA. There are later forms scattered throughout Area A, but they could not be connected to the extant architecture. In this plate,

77

we have included one whole Cypriot bowl which appears to be contemporary with the assemblage in A2. These forms represent the final phases of the Iron Age architecture in Area A. Summary The beginning of the Iron Age I is marked by the appearance of the four room house variant alongside distinctive pottery forms such as the collared rim storage jar. While these forms have historically been linked to the emergence of the Israelites in the highlands, this association remains far from certain. To be sure, these forms were common at the time in which the Israelite tribes were making a name for themselves. But as many have pointed out, it is difficult to make a one-to-one correspondence between this pottery and the ethnos that was “The People of Yahweh.” Because Iron I forms seem to be a highland adaptation, equally useful to highland Ephraimite or Jebusite, it is hard to pin down their association with a specific identity group. At Dothan, the Iron I levels contained the new forms of the highlands alongside painted pottery which continues traditions of the earlier Canaanite style. Again, this pottery is likely no more Canaanite than the collared-rim storejar is “Israelite” but the names persist. In many ways this highland/ lowland mix mirrors the nearby site of Megiddo, Stratum VI. While the whole forms illustrated in Fig. 9.23 provide a date for an Iron I destruction of Area A, the founding date for this complex is less certain. Residual LBII painted forms and Mycenaean IIIA2 and IIIB imports are found in secondary contexts, but it is not clear how these sherds should be associated with the architectural sequence in this area. Area A was destroyed at some point in the Iron I period but then was re-inhabited along substantially the same lines as before. With the exception of some minor changes, the four room house precinct appears to be in use until another destruction of the area at the end of the ninth century. We cannot establish the date of many of the minor changes that occurred throughout this area. In some cases where we found a clear superposition of two destroyed floors, we can demonstrate that the later one belongs to the Iron II period or that the earlier one belongs to the Iron I period, but even this is not always possible. The Iron II conflagration which we can identify, highlighted by fiery destruction and abundant collapsed brick walls, marked the end of domestic occupation until the Insula of the Hellenistic period. During this hiatus, however, we do have evidence of this area being used as a burial site during the end of the eighth century (see Fig. 10.59).

78

9. The Iron Age: Area A

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.23 Iron I whole vessels from A107

79

80

9. The Iron Age: Area A

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.24 Iron I pottery from ash layers in A8

81

82

9. The Iron Age: Area A

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.25 Area A, collared rim storage jars

83

84

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.26 Pottery from Iron II destruction in Area A

9. The Iron Age: Area A

Fig. 9.26 Pottery from Iron II destruction in Area A, cont.

85

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

REA L, excavated from 1958–1960, encompasses over 3300 square meters of the western side of Tell Dothan. Iron I pottery was found in a host of probes around the area, but none of these probes were accompanied by any drawings, or even specific markings to show the location of the probes in the broader area. In most cases, the emphasis in Area L was on breath of exposure rather than depth of excavation. However, because of this emphasis it is somewhat difficult to use the basic tools of architectural superposition to determine the sequence in the area. In almost every area the excavators dug down to the first Iron Age building that they encountered and then moved to a different area. In 1960 when Joseph Free synthesized his findings in this area, he argued that Area L contained four periods of occupation ranging from the tenth century until the seventh century. The periods that he described matched biblical history quite closely.

A

Fig. 10.1 Distribution of Iron Age II finds

tial arrangement across Area L. Nevertheless, these buildings were assigned to Periods 2 and 1. Free’s rationale was not solely stratigraphic. As he was excavating the domestic structures farther to the north and east, he repeatedly returned to Amiran and Dunayevsky’s description of Assyrian open court buildings (1958). Almost every domestic structure, which could possibly contain an unroofed area was compared to Assyrian style buildings from Megiddo Stratum III and placed in the eighth century (Megiddo Stratum III was dated from 814–733 in his day). As we have retraced Free’s steps on this point, we do not agree with his architectural assessment and see no substantial parallels with Megiddo Stratum III. Free’s final basis for his periodization was ceramic. As in other periods, he described a series of types which he thought would be particularly chronologically determinative. He combined this with the most common types found in the area. Distinctive forms completed his corpus. From Area L, Free noted “No. 7 Jars,” “Samaria Ware,” and “Assyrian Palace Ware.” The term “No. 7 Jars” (see Fig. 10.58) was a purely local convention indicating that this form was the seventh to be identified in Free’s pottery reading. Free found hundreds of exemplars of these handleless jars but was uncertain about the type’s chronological significance. “Samaria ware” was Free’s term not only for Phoenician Fine Ware (of which he had almost none), but also more generally for a variety of red slipped and burnished forms. Free thought that this “Samaria ware” should date generally to the ninth century. Free used “Assyrian Palace Ware” to refer to carinated bowls

Fig. 10.2 Joseph Free’s summary of Area L Apart from the connection with biblical history, Free argued that there were basic superpositional reasons for postulating four periods. The first two phases were in the southwest, where work began in 1958. Here he uncovered a substantial building with ashlar masonry and an extensive drainage system (House 14). While there were several floor levels in this building, there was one room in the northeastern corner which showed clear evidence of comprehensive rebuilding and reorientation. This extensive rebuild provided at least two phases for this area (Free’s Period 3 and 4 above). In years that followed, Free excavated large expanses to the north and east of this major structure, but came upon a series of domestic structures and storage silos. These new areas were at a higher absolute elevation than his earlier buildings. On this basis (and perhaps primarily on this basis) he argued that these buildings must be later. The excavation areas, however, were never connected and no section or direct stratigraphic link supports this sequen-

somewhat short

87

88

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

with flaring rims and dated these to the end of the eighth century into the seventh century. Since this area has so much architecture quite close to the plow zone, it is very difficult to support Free’s phasing. Further, in the areas in which we can identify primary deposits we find the same Iron IIA forms across the entirety of Area L. In our analysis, although Free was correct in identifying some Assyrian-style forms, all of the later “Assyrian” forms can be associated with burials, which postdate the domestic occupation of Area L. Layout of Area L Area L stretched for a maximum of 85 m from east to west and 70 m from north to south. This area was excavated over several seasons and since it was so large, its east end was at least seven meters higher than its western end. The excavators accounted for this elevation difference through at least three artificial steps or terraces. They took these terraces to mark superpositional relationships: the higher the terrace, the later the architecture. Based on our study of the architecture and ceramics, we are of the opinion, that the slope in this area is likely caused by the contours of earlier levels and that all of the buildings that appear just below the surface are contemporary. There are no sections which link these terraces, and the Free’s decision to terrace the area severed what connections existed between the debris layers.

Fig. 10.3 Layout of Area L

Overall Plan A wide exposure of archaeological features revealed the remains of fourteen houses that arched around a blank central area about 20 m from east to west and more than 20 m from north to south. The houses that were clustered on the eastern side were variations on the fourroom house. On the western side at least two of the houses (8 and 9) were reserved for specialist activities as can be seen in several installations and finds. The production of these industries may have supplied the large building that was located directly to the south (House 14). It was characterized in part by ashlar masonry, consisting of fairly uniform rooms grouped around a courtyard that was open to the east. Its southern wing was mostly paved, with several channels draining water to the south. The western part of Area L was more complex in that there were two major phases superimposed one on top of the other. Specifically, House 10 was superimposed on the specialist quarter and House 12 on the administrative building. In the northwestern corner of the area House 13 was the least understood because the excavators had gone for depth, had dismantled an uncertain number of architectural strata, and had left only a number of roughly penciled or highly stylized plans. As in other places, the nomenclature of the levels from area to area was not kept uniform.

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

89

Fig. 10.4 Area L, Phase 4 and Phase 3; Area K, Phase 1 Phase 4, House 1 Location: L55, L65, L66, L75, L76 House 1 measured 10.1 m from east to west, and 9 m from north to south. The southeastern corner and some of the internal walls were destroyed. All of the walls of the house (W37–W43) were generally 70 cm wide, and consisted of one course of stones that was 25 cm high. The long room on the west side of the building was probably paved in its entirety, though only the south half of the pavement and a small northern fragment have survived. The internal measurements of the room were 2 m wide and 7.8 m long. The small middle room in the southern half of the building measured 2.7 m from north to south, and 3.5 m from east to west. Other than the fragments of stone pavement, there is no mention of any floors. Between W37 and W42 there was a stone collapse which may have been evidence for further partition walls. West of wall fragment W42 there was more stone collapse, indicating that W42 was longer and probably abutted W39. The east end of W42 was destroyed by a later stone-lined silo which had a diameter of 1.35 m and was 0.7 m deep. A fragment of stone pavement east of W40 was probably part of a threshold to a doorway. The gap between W40 and W42 was another doorway, 70 cm wide. There was evidence of an earlier phase in this area, which was obviously cut by House 1. Under its south-

western corner there was a room which angled to the northeast (whereas House 1 was angled to the northwest). Its walls rose 10 cm higher than the four walls of the room (W121–W124). They were 60 cm wide and stood 35 cm high, each with four courses of stone. W124 continued beyond the room to the south. A doorway in W123, connecting both areas, was 70 cm wide.

Fig. 10.5 Area L, House 1

90

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

East of House 1 was W125, also pre-dating it. It measured 85 cm wide and stood 35 cm high, with two to three courses of small stones. There is no mention of a floor level connected to the wall, but it appears to be aligned with the northern wall of House 2. Since the stratigraphical position of House 2 is not very secure, it is possible this alignment may not be accidental. Another possibility is that W125 and W126 are part of the same building. Wall fragment W126, located 3 m south of W125, was 75 cm wide and had one course of stones. Phase 4, House 2 Location: L46, L56, L57 The surviving remains of House 2, located southeast of House 1, measured about 10.5 m from east to west and about 7.5 m from north to south. The walls were not of a uniform width. W51 was 85 cm wide; W44, W46 and W48 were 60 cm wide and from 20 to 25 cm high; W45 was 50 cm wide at its east end and 40 cm wide at its west end; both parts consisted of one course of stones, 30 to 50 cm high. W49 was 45 cm wide, and W47 was 40 cm wide. Between the eastern parts of W44 and W45 was a plaster floor. The central long room of House 2 measured 5.15 from east to west and 2.15 from north to south. A floor of the house was indicated by flat lying potsherds. In the southern part of the house were two rooms. The eastern one measured 2.8 m from east to west and 1.5 m from north to south. The western one, measuring 2.6 m from east to west, was paved and had a plastered vat in the middle that took up most of the space in the room. It measured 1.55 m in diameter and was 0.95 m deep. No southern wall to the room was discovered. East of W48 a

Fig. 10.6 Area L, House 2 and House 3

fragmentary beaten earth floor was found. It was indicated by potsherds and several weights and grinding stones. The house, oriented to the northeast, was within a complex oriented to the northwest. This orientation was suspicious, but there was evidence that at least at some point House 2 was contemporary with its surrounding buildings. W45 may have been the original north wall of the building, and subsequently W127 and W44 may have been added to form a later northern annex. W44 was better accommodated to the direction of the complex. On the east side, W51 was built directly against W50, the latter most likely being the original east wall of House 2. Since both walls had an orientation that was at variance with the rest of the complex, they were assumed to be contemporary. Between House 2 and House 3 there appeared to be a gate, formed by two stones, one of which abutted W51, the other abutted W55. This was the strongest indicator that both houses were in use at the same time. Phase 4, House 3 Location: L47, L57, L48, L58, M41a, M51a Only parts of three rooms in House 3 were excavated. The walls were uniformly 45 cm wide. The northern room measured 2 m from north to south, and 4.5 m was excavated of its length. The central room measured about 2.9 from north to south. It had a small, square niche in the west wall of the house. This niche in W55 measured 1.4 from east to west and 1 m from north to south. At its south end, W55 made a corner with W56 which came from the west. W56 was the north wall of an alley that ran through this part of the complex from east to west. A later plasterlined vat, 80 cm deep, cut W54 which was the southern

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

wall of the room. Numerous grinding stones and potsherds were found lying on the beaten earth floor. North of House 3 a fragment of a plaster floor was found. It may well have been contemporary with W125 and W126 and to the vat that cut W54. From the southeastern corner a modern army trench extended into the area diagonally for 2 m but did not disturb the walls of the house. Apparently there was a sharp rise to the east of House 3, and the walls found in this area were probably not a part of it. W160 was 60 cm wide and stood 25 cm high; at right angles to it, W161 extended west for 1.30 m and then made a corner with W162 before heading north for 3.20 m. W162 was 75 cm wide and formed an 80 cm wide doorway with W163, which was 60 cm wide and 1.10 m long. It ran perpendicularly into W164, which was 70 cm wide. All of these measurements are stated in the summary of the area, but they do not conform to the plan that was drawn. These walls were most likely part of a separate house, the west wall of which was W164. To the west and east of W160 were beaten earth floors at the same elevation. With the rise, these floors would have been substantially above the floors of the western part of House 3.

Fig. 10.8 Area L, House 4 and House 5

91

Fig. 10.7 Area, L, large silo during excavation, view to east, 1960 The only way for them to be in the same house would have been as later, superimposed floors, or through terracing from one room to the next. The large stone-lined silo east of W160 had a diameter of 4.30 m and was 2.75 m deep extending down to a

92

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

plaster floor. The wall of the silo was 35 cm thick and had three stone steps jutting out of it on the west side. Many olive pits and small amounts of wheat were found inside of the silo as well as potsherds that seemed to be different from the surrounding area, possibly dating to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Phase 4, House 4 Location: L27, L37 The overall measurements of House 4 were 8.4 m from east to west and 10.5 m to 12.2 m from north to south. It appears that there were two phases in House 4, only one of which was drawn, leaving out the later walls that were added as partitions. The measurements in this report are based on the only available plan. Most of the walls in House 4 were between 50 and 55 cm wide, except for W60 (60 cm wide) and W61 (65 cm wide). The southern boundary, W70, stood 20 cm high, and the western boundary was W58. The entrance to the building was located in the northwestern corner through a doorway in W58 that was 80 cm wide. It led into a paved antechamber, measuring 3 m from east to west, and 2.2 m from north to south. The

pavement was covered with ash, brick detritus and much pottery. The antechamber had a small storage bin built against the east side of W58. The bin measured 1.1 m from north to south, 0.35 m from east to west. The pavement was bordered on the east side by a mudbrick wall. The wall was 1 m long, leaving a passageway on its northern side that was 1.15 m wide. It led into a 2.3 x 2.1 m room, which had a broken plaster floor. Three jars were found lying on it. A 1.4 m wide doorway in W60 led into the eastern long room that measured 8 m from north to south and 1.3 m from east to west. The eastern boundary of the room, W61, stood 60 cm high. The room was filled with fallen stones, bricks and pottery, but no floor was found. However, a bread oven and five grinding stones were found at approximately the same level, surrounded by much ash. The antechamber also gave access to the south, through a 75 cm wide doorway, into a room that measured 5.1 m from north to south and 3 m from east to west. Its plaster floor was covered by ash and a stone collapse. In the northeastern corner, a “large bread oven was found upside down,” possibly a clay baking tray. In the southeastern corner was a stone-built, 0.6 x 1.5 m storage bin. In the north wall of the bin was a stone slab measuring 1 m long

Fig. 10.9 Area L, later walls built over House 4 and House 5

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

and 0.5 m high, and in the west wall, a stone slab 66 cm long and 57 cm high. Next to this bin a test trench was excavated to a depth of 2 m. It showed that W59 continued going down beyond the depth of the trench. The room had two further doorways, one opening to the east through W59, measuring 80 cm wide, into a 4.1 x 2 m central room with a plaster floor filled with fallen burned brick. On the floor was much pottery, including a shallow bowl. The second doorway in W63 led to the south, measuring 70 cm wide, into a 3 x 2.4 m room (all of the rooms were slightly trapezoidal, hence the measurements are an average). W63 stood 30 cm high, and W59, the east boundary of the room, stood 40 cm high. On the unbroken plaster floor and against W70, a small, circular, stone-built “storage area” was found, measuring 95 x 85 cm. A saddle quern and its grinding stone were also found in this location. The room in the southeast corner of the building could only be entered from the east through a doorway in W66 that measured 50 cm wide and led onto a plaster floor. To the east there may have been another room with a plaster floor covered by much ash and pottery. North of House 4 was an alley, bordered by W57 on the south and W56 on the north. The report states that the alley was 2 m wide, but the plan shows it as 1.7 m wide. W57 was 60 cm wide and stood 40 cm high; W56 was 40 cm wide and stood 60 cm high. The report states that both walls were equally long, another detail not borne out by the plan. The alley separated Houses 2 and 3 from Houses 4 and 5. The excavators mentioned a 5 cm thick plaster floor covering the whole area, and a later stratum can be inferred from three random walls. W153, a 75 cm wide, 2.65 m long fragment was built on top of the street. W155 was 3.5 m to the south running fairly parallel to W153. It was 40 cm wide and 3.2 m long. If the two walls belonged to the same building, then W154, at right angles to W155, would have been a partition. It was 40 cm wide and 1.4 m long. Phase 4, House 5 Location: L38 Only one intact room was found in House 5, measuring 2.8 x 3.7 m. The northern boundary was the continuation of W57 to the east, which extended 7.7 m east of House 4, giving the width of House 5. The eastern boundary was W68, only partially excavated, with the eastern half left in the baulk. The preserved southern boundary was W69, which was 55 cm wide. The western boundary was W67, which was 45 cm wide. At its southern end was a 40 cm wide doorway, the threshold of which appears to have been 65 cm below the top of the wall. There was probably a floor in this room, although it went undetected. There are, however, several finds, which would indicate an occupation level. A door socket was found close to W68, and a crushed juglet was found

93

Fig. 10.10 Area L, Destruction in House 5, view to west, 1960 close to W67. These were covered by a stone collapse; hence the assumed floor level was the latest occupation level in House 5. To the west side of W67 was attached a storage bin, the measurements of which were stated to be 95 cm from north to south, 1 m from east to west, and 50 cm deep; these figures are at variance with the plan that was drawn. Further, the statement that each wall of the bin was made of one large stone slab is not borne out by the plan. The excavators state that there was a second room, the western boundary of which was W152. However, according to the plans and further descriptions of the area, this wall was much later than House 5. In the area west of W67 a beaten earth floor was found. W152 would have been floating 10 cm above the floor level. This wall, 40 cm wide, made a corner with W158, which was 40 cm wide and 5 cm above floor level. It canceled out W57 and most likely any other walls that would have stood in that area. This means that the area between W152 and W61, a distance of some 5.5 meters, was disturbed. However, between walls 152 and 67 there was still a floor that belonged to House 5. On it, and close to the doorway was a jar (like Fig. 10.58) crushed by stone collapse. A second jar was found about a meter to the west, and next to it was a saddle quern with its grinding stone. Bread oven remains were found close to W152. North of W57 a probe was excavated, apparently west of, and including, W159. This wall was contemporary with and perpendicular to W57. In a later phase, W159 was canceled out by a stone built bin, which according to the plan measured 1.25 m east-west by 1.1 m north-south. Phase 4, House 6 Location: L6, L16, L26, L106 The stratigraphy of this building is problematic because there are at least two strata, and possibly more. The earliest feature of the area must be a large, stonelined silo, with an inner diameter of 4.4 m and a depth of 2.5 m, ending in a plaster floor. The reported diameter is

94

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.11 Area L, House 6 and House 7 at variance with the plan. The walls of the silo were 20– 30 cm wide. Charred wheat was found at the bottom. The overall dimensions of House 6 were 8.7 m from east to west and 10.5–11 m from north to south. The western boundary was W78, which was 45 cm wide. The rest of the walls measured from 50 to 55 cm in width. The northern boundary was W70, the southern boundary W83. The eastern boundary, W82, was also the western boundary of House 7. The house was divided from north to south by at least two partition walls, both 50 cm wide. The western one, foundation W80, was built into the above-mentioned large silo, and the western pavement seems to be built over the walls of the silo. The rooms to both sides of W80 were at least partially paved. A beaten earth floor was found 50 cm below the pavements. The eastern partition was W81. In the northwestern corner of the house was a niche, 0.7 m wide and 1.5 m long. In this area there was so much black ash and fired brick that the excavator thought it might have been a pottery kiln. Other partition walls were mentioned, one going from east to west, one from north to south, but of these no plan exists. In the southern half of the house a beaten earth floor was found, and 95 cm below it and another beaten earth floor lay buried beneath stone and brick collapse in black ash.

Fig. 10.12 Area L, large silo below House 6, view to west, 1960 To the north and to the south of House 6 may have been houses which were only partially preserved and excavated. The walls north of W70, W174 (50 cm wide), and W175 (40 cm wide) were both late north-south walls that post-dated the house complex. A tumble of fired brick was encountered, going down to a plaster floor 25 cm below the top of the walls. The floor was found over most of the area, contemporary to W71, W72 and W73.

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

These walls were 50 cm wide except for W72, which was 40 cm wide. West of W71 was a plastered vat, diameter 1.1 m and depth 90 cm. It was surrounded by an abundance of pottery, including a large jar, a bowl, a broken cooking pot, and many olive pits, all lying on the plaster floor. To the south of House 6, south of W83, were two north-south walls. W84, 50 cm wide, bonded into W83 and stood to a maximum height of 1.2 cm. As it continued to the south, its height diminished to 25 cm, reflecting the sudden drop-off of the slope. It had a doorway at the southern end which was 80 cm wide. 2.1 m to the east of it was W85, which was 30 cm wide (at variance with the plan) and 45 cm high. A plaster floor connected both walls. It was buried under 65 cm of small stones. West of W84 a beaten earth floor was indicated by some smashed jars. West of House 6 and W78, and south of W74, was a stone collapse. W74 was 55 cm wide and stood 1.45 m high. It abutted W15, the easternmost wall of House 14. Coming to it from the south was W76, which was 40 cm wide and stood 1.25 cm high. It made a corner with W75, which was 45 cm wide and stood 50 cm high. Coming to W74 from the north was a curved mudbrick wall, W178, the function of which was not clear. It was 40 cm wide and 90 cm high, and the bricks measured 40 x 25 cm. W77, possibly a retaining wall, abutted W78 and was 80 cm wide. North of it was a stone collapse, with fired brick and much ash. This was most likely an outdoor area. Along the south side of W75 there was evidence of seven layers of ash with clay in between, which may have included a bread oven; the ash was also found east of W76. North of W75 was a good beaten earth floor that was covered by 20 cm of brick collapse. Phase 4, House 7 Location: L7, L17 The southern extremity of House 7 was not found, possibly because of the slope that had eroded it away and because of modern army trenches that may have come through the area. From east to west the house measured 10 m. Its western border, W82, was shared with House 6, and its northern border, W70, was shared with House 4. Its eastern border, W91, was 75 cm wide. It may have curved to the east at its southern end, or another wall may have cancelled it; the excavators were not sure. There is a certain symmetry to the partition walls in that to both sides of the house there are narrow passageways. Furthermore, the north half of the house has a large room on the western side and a small room on the eastern side; in the south half the layout is reversed. The western passageway, W88, formed a kind of vestibule with doorways at both ends. The northern one was 1.15 m wide, the southern one 1 m. The vestibule itself measured 1.3 x 1 m. The excavators raised the possibility of a doorway west, into House 6, although there is no

95

Fig. 10.13 Area L, House 7, view to west, 1960

evidence for it. The door to the north led into a large room which was paved at the west end around a circle of stones in the northwestern corner. It had a good beaten earth floor, and the pavement probably went with it. The excavators claim that a vat or silo in the eastern half of the room also went with the floor. The 1.5 m deep vat was plastered on the east side, all the way down to a paved floor. On the west side a late, curved stonewall was added, making the installation “football-shaped.” However, the plaster lining continued behind the stone wall, allowing for the assumption that the original vat was round. In its final phase, the vat measured 1.5 x 0.9 m (these measurements are at variance with the plan). The dimensions of the room were 6 x 3.5 m. Its eastern boundary, W86, was 45 cm wide and stood 1.3 m high. There was a second beaten earth floor 40 cm below the upper one. A modern military emplacement apparently destroyed the upper floor in the eastern room. On the floor, leaning against W70, were two bronze bowls. The room was entered in the southeastern corner through a corridor that was 70 cm wide and preserved to a length of 2.3 m. South of the east-west partition (W87) were two more rooms. In the western one a beaten earth floor was found, covering a great quantity of mudbrick detritus and at least two smashed whole vessels. The corner, indicated at the south end of W82, may represent the southern boundary of the building. The room measures 3.3 x 2.7 m. The eastern room was 4.1 m long and may have been around 3.8 m wide. However, two large stone slabs, one on top of the other, may have been a pillar base. They were located approximately on the line where the walls disintegrate. That would have extended the room substantially to the south. The stones were integrated into the floor level, probably the lower one. Piles of stone collapse covered it. If it is true that the eastern room extended between one and two meters to the south, its walls would have come into conflict with the silo, located partially in the southern baulk. It was very well built and may have been a late intrusion. Its walls were 35–40 cm wide, and 2.2 cm

96

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.14 Area L, House 8, House 9, and House 11

deep. The inside diameter was 2.65 m (at variance with the original plan). The bottom was paved with small stones. There are indications that a structure existed east of House 7, but not enough was excavated in that area to determine its nature. Phase 4, House 8 Location: L42, L43, L44, L53a, L54 The northern part of this house was not excavated, and a modern military trench may have destroyed the northwestern corner. The overall dimensions of the excavated part measured 13.7 m from east to west and 9 m from north to south. W94, W96, and W98 were all 50 cm wide. Technically, they were all internal walls, even though

W98 was the boundary between Houses 8 and 9. W95, the eastern boundary and an external wall, was 75 cm wide. Only a small fragment of the western boundary, W117, remained and it was 50 cm wide. The house was divided by a north-south partition (W96) that created a 5 m wide western unit and a 7 m wide eastern unit. Internally, the eastern unit measured 5.8 m from north to south, but the southern part of the unit was paved and had a number of special features. Two 50 cm square pillars, 3.1 m apart, stood 1.75 m north of W98. The pavement which surrounded them was heaped with white lime. Two parallel walls connected to the pillars, going north for 50 cm, and then turning toward each other. This was W97, 45 cm wide, with a doorway that was 1.15 m wide. Between the western pillar and W96 was a doorway, held by a door

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

97

Fig. 10.15 Area L, House 8 and House 9, view to south, 1959

socket in the floor next to W96 and by a hole in the pillar for a door latch. These two doorways are a bit puzzling since the partition appears to have been left entirely open at the east end. W96 had its own doorway that was 1 m wide and connected the western to the eastern unit. The north half of the eastern unit continued as a beaten earth floor, covered with abundant smashed pottery. Along the south side of W94, five loom weights were found, and the uncertain northwestern area contained fifteen more loom weights. The beaten earth floor in the

Fig. 10.16 Area L, loomweights in House 8, closeup, 1962

eastern unit was covered by a collapse of burned brick, ash, and pieces of fallen plaster. When excavating an open area to the southwest between the buildings, the diggers found “a strange round ball of a charred material.” One of the workmen remembered that exactly such round balls of similar material had been found in House 8. These artifacts may have been crucibles and were probably found in the western unit. Other artifacts, such as many saddle querns, grinding stones, stone weights and stone hammers were also found. Covering the floor and the objects in the western unit was a collapse of burned brick similar to the collapse in the eastern unit. W93, abutting W94 from the north, may still have enclosed a room. It extended north for 2.4 m and was 50 cm wide and 40 cm high, with three courses of stone. The area east of it was probably outdoors and had a stonelined silo and what may have been a wine press. The silo had a top diameter of 0.9 m and a bottom diameter of 1.35 m. It was 1.6 m deep and had a plaster floor. It may have been a vat for wine, especially if the plaster of the bell-shaped walls had dropped off. East of it were two walls, W137 and W138. The former was 30 cm wide, 2.25 m long, and consisted of one row of stones, plastered on the east face. The latter was also 30 cm wide, 3.75 m long, one course high, plastered on the west face, and curved in an S-shape to the northeast. The two walls

98

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.17 Area L, House 10 and House 12 were connected by a plaster floor that presumably sloped to the south, into a kind of funnel. If there was a vat at that end, no trace of it remained. Taken together, the heaps of white lime on the pavement, the loom weights, the crucibles, and the oil and wine presses bear witness to a number of specialized activities such as weaving, smelting, the production of lime (even though no limekilns in the area were recognized or excavated), and the production of oil and wine, along with all other domestic activities. Phase 4, House 9 Location: L33, L34 House 9 measured 6.6 m from north to south, and in the neighborhood of 12 m from east to west. The latter measurement is taken along its northern boundary, W98, which it shared with House 8. The eastern boundary was W99, which was 80 cm wide and from 0.35 to 1 m high in its northern segment, 90 cm wide and 65 cm high in its southern segment. A doorway 1 m wide separated the two. The southern boundary, W100, was 50 cm wide. The solid plaster floor of House 9 took the shape of an olive press. It had a basing of small stones and was 10 cm thick. Its eastern and northern borders did not survive. Its southern side was only 10 cm below surface, and there were plow-marks on the plaster. Going north, the plaster

sloped down 20 cm. The impression was that the entire plastered surface slanted down 50 cm to a depression on the eastern side. The excavators thought that this depression might attest to a pit below, but looking at a photograph (Fig. 10.18–19) it is plain that the plaster was not cracked, as it would have been from a settling process, but curved down smoothly, as in a deliberately built gathering pool. The pool was a semicircle with a diameter of 2 m and a depth of 28 cm. The excavators speculated that a hole in the floor, in the northwest corner, might have been used for holding a jar. House 9 should be seen as part of House 8, an impressive, integrated installation within a complex of specialized activities, which may have supplied some of the products that were stored and distributed in House 14, the “Administrative Building” (see below). Phase 3, House 10 Location: L23, L24, L33, L34, L43 House 10 was directly superimposed on House 9, and was of a later stratum than all of the houses described so far. Its walls broke the plaster of the olive press, and it was either used as a floor or a new floor was built on top, of which no trace remained. By no means did House 10 survive in its entirety. The surviving walls measured about 14 m from east to west and 10 m from north to south. The

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.18 Area L, plaster press cut by House 10, view to southeast, 1959

99

Fig. 10.20 Area L, plaster press cut by House 10, view to south, 1959 2.5 m survived. Its southern border was W133, and its northern border was W139. All of these walls were 90 cm wide, and a 55 cm wide doorway broke W139. Here, too, the floor of the press slanted 20 cm to the north. The excavator stated that the plaster was “broken from the walls around the edges.” The northern room had an irregular shape, and the plaster floor also slanted 10 cm to the north. Its western border was W135, of which 2.5 m survived. It was 70 cm wide, and made a corner at the north end with W136, also 70 cm wide. No other floors were mentioned in association with these walls. Phase 4, House 11 Location: L24, L25, L34

Fig. 10.19 Area L, plaster press cut by W129, view to southeast, 1959 largest space, between W129 and W132, measured 6.7 m from north to south and 3.5 m from east to west. Neither the northern nor the southern part survived. The eastern border, W129, was 90 cm wide, one course high, and 7 m long. Perpendicular W128 abutted it from the east. It had the same measurements and was 5 m long. Whether W130 and W131 were part of House 10 cannot be stated with confidence. They were clearly later than the walls of House 11. W130 was made up of four stones in a row, 50 cm wide and 2 m long (at variance with the plan). Perpendicular W131, constructed of two courses of small rough stones, was 70 cm wide, 35 cm high, and 4.5 m long. There were no associated floors. The western border of the large room, W132, was 90 cm wide, one course high, and 8.2 m long. Adjoining it on the western side was a row of rooms. The southernmost room did not survive. North of it was a 2.5 x 2.5 m room, bordered on the west by W134, of which only

Only the southern and western walls of House 11 survived. W99 was shared with House 9. W103, the southern border, was 9.5 m long from corner to corner, which gave the width of the building from east to west; the length could not be ascertained. The wall appeared at 35 cm below surface, was 50 cm wide and one course high, to a depth of 65 cm below surface. Located 5 m to the north was a pavement measuring 4.2 by 1.7 m, bordered on the south and east by small walls. Of W102, the southern border, only four stones survived, which were 20 cm wide. W101, the eastern border, was 40 cm wide, 2 m long, and one course high. Surrounding the pavement, and connecting to its border walls, was a beaten earth floor. A tiny wall fragment 8 m to the east of the pavement may be a hint that there were buildings in this area. Either they were not reached during excavating, or they were completely destroyed. Phase 3, House 12 Location: L1, L2, L11, L12, L13, L23, L100, L101 The earliest structure in this area was the northwest corner of House 14 (see below). The walls of House 12 lay obliquely across it, and they were themselves topped by more random walls (W140–145). House 12 appeared

100

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.21 Area L, House 12 above House 14 (composite photo), view to northeast, 1959

Fig. 10.22 Area L, House 12, view to south, 1959 to have been about 15 m long from north to south, and the width from the western limit of W107 and W108 to

W106 was 13 m. If measured from the west end of W34, the width would be 18 m. These dimensions seem excessive and may indicate more than one building, but the remains were too fragmentary to attempt a reconstruction. The super-position of House 12 on House 14 was never mentioned anywhere, much less the exact position of both in relation to each other. This position was clarified only in the 2004 survey of the tell. The stratigraphical sequence of this area was crucial, since it represented an overlap between the large complex of House 14 and Houses 10 and 12. Fig. 10.21 shows the partially excavated remains of House 12 on the left and the much deeper floor levels of House 14 on the right. In House 12 there was evidence of one room and one small antechamber. Except for the exterior walls, which were 75 cm wide (W104, W106), all of the walls were 50–55 cm wide and 50 cm high. Part of the floor of the room delimited by W105 and W150 was a pavement, but no plan could be found. On this floor, apparently a loom weight, a flint blade, a small red juglet, and in the northeast corner of the room, fragments of a bread oven and its lid were found. Five whole jars [like Fig. 10.58] were found under this level. The internal measurements of the room were 6 x 1.9 m. The pavement in the antechamber, between W107 and W108, was found at the same level. The western entrance was 0.95 m wide. More paving stones were found to the north of the entrance. North of W34 was found a plastered vat which had a diameter of 1.5 m and was probably 80 cm deep. A beaten earth floor was found all around it, 20 cm below the top of the vat, which could be properly assigned to House 14, meaning that the vat and the small walls to the north of it were of a later date. East of it, a bread oven

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

101

Fig. 10.23 Area L, House 13

with a diameter of 70 cm was found in a 1 m wide niche against W33. This probably means that the area west of W33 and north of W34 was outdoors. South of W104 there was also a beaten earth floor.

found 1.35 m above the plaster floor of House 13, this difference may mean that there was some terracing toward the eastern slope, as the square reports specifically mentioned.

Phase 4 (5?), House 13 Location: L30, L31, L42, L43, L44 This area was excavated to a greater depth than were the houses to the east, and it is the most problematic in Area L. The excavators documented five separate architectural phases, but only in Area L42. An accurate plan of these phases does not exist. The third phase from the top could be accommodated to the walls of House 8 to the east, forming a passageway between W117 and W110 (see Fig. 10.4). The excavators stated that a very good plaster floor tied the walls of this phase together (W109, W166, W116). They did not mention W110/W167, but since the tops of these walls are slightly above the plaster floor, they appear logically to belong to the structure. Seeing that the floor level in the adjacent House 8 was

Fig. 10.24 Area L, large pressing installation, view to northwest, 1962

102

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

The maximum dimensions that were excavated in this phase measured about 15 x 8 m. Three rooms could be reconstructed. The northern room (W109, W111, W110, and W166) measured 4.4 x 1.8 m. The middle paved room between W116 and W167 measured 1.5 x 4.8 m. The southern room (W170 through W173) measured 3 x 2 m. It had a good plaster floor. South of the room was a beaten earth floor 32 cm lower than the plaster floor. A large number of potsherds were found on it, and “considerable burnt material.” A crucible was found north of W173, and several grinding stones were found east of W170. Three jar burials were found, two on W171 and one on the pavement next to it (see below). Under the three upper phases, the excavators documented two additional phases. No coherent plan was ever drawn of any single phase in the area designated as House 13. We reconstructed a composite plan by piecing together architectural drawings and field sketches, but in the end it was impossible to separate the walls into the five separate phases of the area. No architectural drawing exists of the two agricultural installations in Area L31. They consisted of a large stone slab with an adjacent stone cup and a smaller stone slab associated with a stone basin. The official drawing is stylized and does not correspond with the features recorded. The excavators stated that layers of black ash surrounded the lower strata. Some

Fig. 10.25 Area L, House 14

of these layers went under the architectural features, some appeared to go with them. They may be the result of smelting in the area, since what appear to be crucibles were found immediately to the east of W167 and to the north of W173 (see also above, House 8). Phase 4, House 14, “Administrative Building” Location: L1–L5, L11–L15, L101–L105, L111–L114, L121–L123 House 14 was located in the southwestern corner of Area L, just above the west slope of the tell. The excavators called this the “Administrative Building” on account of its size and massive, well-preserved walls, as well as some of the finds in its rooms and courtyard. It is not clear whether the whole building was excavated. It may have continued beyond the excavated area, to the west, south, and southeast. Its excavated remains measured 40 m from east to west and up to 30 m from north to south. The walls were generally 65–70 cm wide, and many were composed of a combination of rough stone and dressed ashlars measuring 70 x 40 x 20 cm, particularly at corners and doorways. Throughout the building the excavators found a consistent pattern of thick destruction debris piled high above a burned floor. During 1958 and 1959, they collected a

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

103

Fig. 10.26 Table of radiocarbon results from House 14, measurements taken at Geochron Laboratories Room 1 Location: L102

Fig. 10.27 Combination of 5 Carbon Dates from Destruction of House 14 series of wood and seed samples from the destruction debris for Carbon 14 analysis. The samples were stored in Wheaton until the fall of 2004. We selected six samples based upon the certainty with which their context could be established. All of the samples came from levels which were described as heavily burned floor levels covered with many restorable vessels. Unfortunately, the vessels were never restored, but their discovery and representation in photos gives us confidence that the Carbon samples come from primary contexts. In the description of the administrative building the excavators frequently mentioned several destruction layers. Our analysis, however, indicated that there was one multistory destruction throughout the entire building. The samples come from the first floor mentioned by the excavators. Five of the samples came from Rooms 3 and 4, and one came from Room 1. One of the samples, 82148, produced a result which could not be reliably combined with the other results from the Administrative building or even the results from Room 3. However, the combination of the other results using OxCal provided a focused picture of this building’s destruction at the end of the ninth century b.c. We would see this date as not only a terminus for this building, but for much of Area L (Houses 1– 9, 11, 13, 14). We also conclude that there was only much smaller occupation in the early eighth century (House 12 and 10).

This room was located at the southwestern corner of the inner courtyard. It measured 4.2 x 2.2 m, with the long axis from east to west. In its earliest phase there were doorways in the eastern and western walls that were 1.1 m wide, giving access both to the eastern courtyard and to Room 11 to the west. In a later phase, the western doorway was blocked. W2, the north wall of the room, had plaster intact on its southern face. The room was covered with fallen stones, plaster and ash, possibly caused by destruction and a second story collapse. Among the debris were many potsherds, the majority of which were jars (like Fig. 10.58). A drain curved southward from the east wall (W11), which probably accumulated water from the courtyard or the roof. Its highest point in Room 1 was 30 cm below the top of the walls, and from there it descended to the south, going through the south wall (W1) and beyond. It was 60 cm wide, and the stones that were visible in Room 1 served as a drain cover. Somewhere in the southeastern corner of L102, which is generally Room 1, a probe was excavated to a depth of 3.02 m, very likely reaching walls of an earlier stratum.

Fig. 10.28 Area L, House 14, Room 1, view to north, 1958 Room 2 Location: L102 Located directly north of Room 1, Room 2 measured 4.2 x 2.3 m, and contained debris similar to that found in

104

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.29 Area L, House 14, Room 3 and Room 4, view to west, 1959

Fig. 10.30 Area L, destruction debris in House 14, Room 4, view to west, 1959

Room 1. The floor was a stone pavement, and a doorway measuring 70 cm wide led into the courtyard to the east.

Room 4 Location: L2

Room 3 Location: L2

Room 4 was located directly north of Room 3 and south of Room 6 and measured 4.7 x 2.4 m. An 80 cm wide doorway led into the courtyard to the southeast. A black ash layer containing charred wheat and much pottery covered the beaten earth floor. Close to the southern wall was a patch of white quicklime which the excavators identified as a fireplace. More likely the intense heat of a fiery destruction partially melted some fallen plaster.

Room was located directly north of Room 2 and measured 4.2 x 2.1 m. An 80 cm wide doorway led into the courtyard to the east. Covering a beaten earth floor, a 6 cm thick black ash layer was found containing charred wheat and at least 15 pottery vessels broken in situ.

Fig. 10.31 Area L, western rooms of House 14, view to south, 1959

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

105

Fig. 10.32 Area L, northern rooms of House 14, view to southeast, 1959

Fig. 10.33 Area L, destruction debris in House 14, Room 6, view to west, 1959

Room 5 Location: L3

additional floors, representing later stages in the building, may have sealed the earlier floor. The 85 cm wide doorway led into the courtyard to the south. It had two door sockets, apparently for double doors, one in the northeast corner of the doorway for a door swinging into Room 7, the other in the southeast corner for a door swinging out into the courtyard. In a subsequent phase, a slightly rounded room was added south of the doorway, blocking access to the

Located east of Room 4, with a 1.1 m passageway between them, and directly south of Room 6, Room 5 measured 3.2 x 0.9 m. It had a plaster floor, part of which was preserved in the northeast corner. The doorway may have been to the east, though that is not a certainty. The east wall was partially destroyed by a later structure (see below, Room 7). A huge stone, measuring 1.45 x 0.7 x 0.7 m (at variance with the plan), formed the southwest corner of the room. Room 6 Location; L12 and L13 Room 6 was located directly north of Rooms 4 and 5 and measured 10.5 x 2.5 m. Only a small fragment in the northwestern corner remained of the north wall (W7); the rest had been robbed. (One of the excavators stated, however, that W7 could be seen in an unbroken line all the way from the northwest corner of Room 6 to the northeast corner of the building.) An 80 cm wide doorway led through the passageway between Rooms 4 and 5 into the courtyard to the south. Although the photographs show a beaten earth floor, a pavement is mentioned that connects to W6 and W13. A later floor, 70 cm above the lower floor, also connected to these walls and had jars (like Fig. 10.58) on it. The walls stood 1.35 m high.

Fig. 10.34 Area L, House 14, Room 7, view to southwest, 1959

Room 7 Location: L13 and L14 Room 7 was located directly east of Room 6 and measured 5.5 x 2.5 m. W14, standing 1.40 m high, was plastered on the west face, and W6 was plastered up to 60 cm above the floor level on the north face. The beaten earth floor was paved at the east end of the room, and buried under much charred wheat and burned olive pits. Three

Fig. 10.35 Area L, plan of later phase in House 14, Room 7 and Room 8

106

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Room 8 Location: L14 and L15 Located directly east of Room 7, Room 8 measured 5.9 by 2.5 m. It was not excavated down to its original floor. A late stone pavement measuring 4.2 x 1.5 m covered most of Room 8. It was bordered on the north and east by small walls, 30 cm wide. A 90 cm wide doorway led south into the courtyard, but it had been blocked up. W15 was the east wall of Room 8, and it represented the eastern border of the building. W7 which was intact in this area, formed the northern border. Both were said Fig. 10.36 Area L, late addition south of Room 7, view to south, 1959 courtyard. It measured 2 x 2 m, and its west wall destroyed W13, the east wall of Room 5. In the same period W31 was added. It was located 2.7 m east of the rounded room and it extended south from W6 at right angles. It was 70 cm wide, 2 m long, and 65 cm high. At its southern end, it turned a corner to the east, but only for 1m. There it ran into an installation of smooth, worked stones, measuring 1.03 x 1.1 m (at variance with the plan), to a depth of 40 cm. Fig. 10.37 Area L, blocked up doorway in W6, view to north, 1959

Fig. 10.38 Area L, House 14, view to southwest, 1959

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

107

Room 9 Location: L101 and L102

Fig. 10.39 Area L, probe in House 14, Room 9, view to east, 1959 to be 1.13 m wide, at variance with the plan. Apparently the walls stood to a good height long after the first phase of the building was over. The use of the building during subsequent phases is not known. For instance, it is not known whether the building was roofed when the late pavement in Room 8 was added. W15 stood intact, and W74 of House 6 was built against it, perhaps during the initial use of the building, or when the late pavement of Room 8 was in use.

Fig. 10.40 Area L, House 14, view to east, 1959

Located directly west of Room 11 and south of Room 10, Room 9 measured 3.3 x 2.2 m. There is evidence of a late plaster floor, and W1, the southern wall of Room 9, was sealed under it. The northern wall (W2) stood 1.1 m high and probably continued beyond the floor. W22 was the eastern wall of Room 9 and was said to have a 1.23 m wide doorway in line with other doorways to the east. The room was filled with broken burned brick collapse (one brick measured 12 x 21 x 30 cm), and pottery. There was a 5 cm thick ash layer, presumably on a beaten earth floor. A probe was made in the eastern part of Room 9 to a depth of 3 m. The descriptions of the strata that pre-date Room 9 seem to describe a wide area that is far beyond the confines of a probe. Since no plan of these strata exists, these strata cannot be reconstructed here. Room 10 Location: L1 Located directly north of Room 9 and west of Room 12, Room 10 measured about 4.1 m from east to west and was excavated 3 m from north to south. According to the

108

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

excavator’s plans, a 1.75 m wide space existed between the southern wall of House 12 (W34) and W35, which lay west of Room 10. (The excavators could not agree about the width; one measured 1.65 m, another 1.15 m.) Room 10 was filled with a collapse of burned mudbricks, flat stones and ash. Under them was a beaten earth floor. There is no record of the space directly north of Room 10. A 2.8 m wide passageway existed between W20 and W35, and south of it there was a stone pavement. It continued south for a distance of about 4.5 m. The rest of the area was filled with a large collapse of burned bricks, suggesting that it may have been a roofed, enclosed unit, and part of House 14. Room 11 Location: L102 Room 11 was located directly west of Room 1 and east of Room 9 and measured 4 x 2.1 m. It had two doorways. One in the east, 1.15 m wide, led into Room 1, and one to the west, 1.23 cm wide, led to Room 9. The walls generally stood 70 cm high and were buried up to

Fig. 10.41 Area L, House 14, Room 14, view to east, 1959

1 m in fallen stone, rubble, and ash. On top of the beaten earth floor was another layer of black ash. There may have been restorable jars (like Fig. 10.58) on the floor. Room 12 Location: L2 and L102 Located directly north of Room 11, Room 12 measured 4 x 3 m, to the extent that it was excavated. Room 12 may have been only partially excavated down to its original ashy beaten earth floor, as seen in Fig. 10.21. Room 14 Location: L111 and L121 Room 14 was located directly southwest of Room 15 and measured approximately 5 x 3 m to the extent excavated. The room was not of a regular shape, and may have been added in a later phase. We assume that W18, which was 65 cm wide and 35 cm high (at variance with the plan), was the east wall of the room. W17, angling to the southwest, was the south wall, 63 cm wide and 40 cm high

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

(at variance with the plan). W16 was the west wall and angled upward to the northwest and into a section. It was 68 cm wide and 30 cm high. Its failure to connect to a wall fragment coming toward it from the north and perpendicular to W36 gave us another clue that the room was a later addition to the building. No information could be found pertaining to the floor, but Fig. 10.41 appears to show one of beaten earth. South of W17 was a 6 x 2 m stone pavement; it probably continued beyond the southern baulk. Room 15 Location: L111 and L112 Located directly northeast of Room 14, Room 15 may originally have measured 3.6 x 9 m if we take W22 as the eastern and W21 as the western border. Upright ashlars were standing in the northeastern corner in W1, probably indicating the location of a doorway, but its width could not be ascertained. A water channel ran obliquely through the room, heading to the southeastern corner. It apparently drained the rooms to the north of it. The channel was 45 cm wide, 45 cm high and probably penetrated through both the southern and the northern walls. Stone slabs covered the drain. They were even with the floor. The bottom of the drain was made of “packed clay.” Close to W21 a stone-lined silo was found. It had a diameter of 80 cm and was 1.6 m deep. It was located 45 cm west of the drain (on the original plan it is 1.25 m). There were paving stones on top of the silo of which no plan exists. These were on the same level as the floors of the surrounding rooms, and they were covered with a collapse of burned bricks.

109

from north to south. The latter measurement was based on a hypothetical extension of W92 to the east. The room was entered through a 1.1 m wide doorway in the northeastern corner, in W1. A 2.4 m long, 65 cm wide partition wall (W23) created a 1.4 m wide niche in the northwest corner. A strip of beaten earth floor, measuring up to 1.7 m wide, extended southward from this wall, running the length of W22, the western border of the room. The rest of the floor was paved. Immediately on top of the pavement was a thin layer of black ash, which increased to 15 cm at the north end. In the northeast corner there was an area of charred wood, possibly from roof collapse. A substantial layer of brown ash covered all of this debris. Two upright stones mark the west side of the room. They may have been pillar bases or parts of installations.

Room 16 Location: L112 and L122 Room 16 was located directly east of Room 15 and measured 4.5 m from east to west and probably 9.4 m

Fig. 10.43 Area L, House 14, Room 17, view to south, 1959 Room 17 Location: L113 and L123

Fig. 10.42 Area L, House 14, Room 16, view to north, 1958

Room 17 was located directly east of Room 16 and measured 3 x 9.4 m. The southern border was W92, which was 80 cm wide and probably extended to both sides, forming the southern extremity of the building. The drain found in Room 1 (see above) continued through the length of Room 17. It was from 0.90 to 1.1 m wide (at variance with the plan), and its inner width was 40 cm. It was found intermittently all the way to the southern baulk where the excavation ended, presumably going through W92. Its excavated length was about 15 m (The southern portion was not found on any plan). Unlike the section in Room 1 which was covered, the continuation of the drain in Room 17 was open, having a stone base and stone sides.

110

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

wide doorway, situated in W1, led into the room from the north. Room 19 Location L113 Room 19 was located directly east of Room 18 and was 3.7 m wide; the length was unknown, apparently left unexcavated. A 1–2 cm thick, hard packed clay surface was encountered, and 7 cm under it a plaster floor. Unlike Rooms 15–18, there was no mention and no evidence of a doorway into Room 19 from the north, through W1. Fig. 10.44 Area L, House 14, Room 18 and Room 19, view to north, 1960 Room 18 Location: L113 Located directly east of Room 17, Room 18 was 2.5 m wide. Its length was unknown since the southern half was either left unexcavated or disturbed. Only 3.3 m were preserved of W26, the eastern border, which was 90 cm wide. The room was probably completely paved 60 cm below the top of the walls, and the pavement connected to W1, the northern border. More than half a meter of ash had accumulated on top of the pavement. A 1.1 m

Fig. 10.45 Area L, House 14, view to east, 1959

Room 20 Location: L114 Directly east of Room 19 lies Room 20, an area whose dimensions have not been defined. W27, the western border, made a corner with W1 and extended southward for 1.6 m. W28, the northern border, offset to the south for 1.2 m from the line of W1 and was preserved for 1.4 m. Between walls 27 and 28 was a 1.9 m wide doorway, lined on both sides with large stones. There was a door socket next to the doorjamb of W28, on its north side, so that the door would have opened into the paved courtyard to the north. The room had at least two floor phases. The upper one was a 6 cm thick plaster floor, littered with great

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

quantities of potsherds from jars (like Fig. 10.58). Some 30 cm below it was a stone pavement which covered an area of about 5 x 3 m in the courtyard to the north, then came through the doorway and into the room, where it was excavated in a “sunken area” measuring 2 x 1.5 m. The rest of the room had a hard beaten earth floor and some patches of plaster at the same level, covered with ash and signs of fire. To the east of the courtyard pavement was a stonelined silo which post-dated and obliterated the eastern end of W28. It had a diameter of 2.85 m and was 1.95 m deep. On the south side it was preserved to a height of 55 cm. Grain and other charred materials were found on its beaten earth bottom. Courtyard Location: L3, L4, L5, L103, and L104 The courtyard was located east of Rooms 1, 2 and 3 and originally measured 10.5 m from north to south (between W1 and W6) and 15.7 m from east to west (between W11 and W29). It was open to the east through a gap of 6.1 m (between W6 and W30). The main features of the courtyard were two walls oriented east to west and a pavement. W9, located 2.2 m north of W1, was 60 cm and three courses high, 70 cm wide, and excavated to a length of 5.4 m. The two lower courses were made up of stone

Fig. 10.46 Area K, Phase 1

111

stretchers, the top course of headers, measuring 70 by 40 by 20 cm. The lower courses were narrower than the top course. A probe next to W9 showed that its total height reached 1.40 m. At 55 cm below the top of the wall, a stone pavement connected to its northern side. The pavement went no further north than 1.85 m and was 11 m long from east to west. W8, located 1.5 m north of W9 and 2.3 m east of W11, was 35 cm wide and 2.65 m long. It may have represented a northern border to the pavement. If so, then the pavement itself may have been a walkway through the courtyard from east to west. Even with the elevation of the pavement, there was evidence of a plaster floor over much of the courtyard. A multitude of jars (like Fig. 10.58) were found on it, particularly in the southwestern corner. The excavators claim to have found 63 of the jars in this area, plus 19 characteristic rims. The eastern part of the courtyard contained even more examples of this type. A probe was made in the southeast corner of the courtyard, from 0.55 to 2 m below the pavement. “Eleven occupational layers” were mentioned, consisting of ash, clay, or plaster floors, and each floor had black ash on it. In a probe next to W9, a stone pavement was apparently found at 1.6 m below the upper pavement. The excavator identified it as the original floor of House 14. However, since it passed under W1, this interpretation does not seem likely.

112

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Iron Age Fortifications (Area L and Area K) Location: K1, K101, K11, K21, K3, K13, K4, K5, L30, L40

resting on bedrock. Two layers of plaster 1–2 cm thick extended up the slope from the eastern face of W379. The top one was near the top of W379 and the bottom one sunk below the wall, directly on bedrock. Seven cisterns were uncovered immediately to the west of this terrace wall. Large quantities of Iron Age pottery in the cisterns and around the wall may provide the date for W379. An alternate interpretation would emphasize the smaller quantities of second millennium pottery near the wall and explain the presence of Iron Age pottery as the result of erosion. In that case W379 could be considered a retaining wall of the Middle Bronze Age. One additional structure in Area K may be dated to the Iron Age. A 40 cm wide wall (W390) ran east-west and was joined to wall W391. The excavators dated the structure to the Iron Age and called it a house, but the pottery from this area was mixed.

To the west of House 13, there was a wall that may have been a city wall (W114). The excavated section was 17 m long and 1 m wide. Four perpendicular walls abutted it from the east, including W119. The excavators conjectured that it might be part of a casemate wall, but there was scant evidence for a second parallel wall. It aligned with W350 in Area K. The Iron Age occupation in Area K comprised two walls and 2 meters of debris near the top of the mound. The 1958 excavations yielded W350, a poorly constructed wall that was 1.05 m wide. Its two courses were preserved to a height of only 30 cm. Two perpendicular walls (W382, W383) of the same width extended eastward from W350 into the city, and may have connected to the walls of Area L, House 14. The wall was deemed to be a flimsy city wall, and R. de Vaux suggested that its unsubstantial quality may have been a reflection of peaceful times at one stage of the Iron Age. In 1960, as the city wall was traced southward, the area supervisor identified a second Iron Age wall that ran parallel to W350. The eastern face of this wall was never exposed nor plans drawn. It was connected to W350 by two perpendicular walls. These features in K101 were taken to be an Iron Age casemate wall, although they could represent other buildings erected against the city wall. Sixteen meters down the slope from W350 was a poorly preserved wall (W379). The wall did not have a distinct face on its east or west side. The excavators dated it to the Iron Age II based on the high proportion of Iron Age II pottery relative to Early Bronze Age pottery discovered in adjacent levels. The wall appears to have been a terrace wall built into the Early Bronze Age debris and

Cut into Iron II levels and walls were several burials in Area L as well as Area A. Judging by the attendant grave goods, they should be dated to the late eighth-early seventh centuries. In Area A12 an adult skeleton was found, presumably cut into W289, the latest phase of the Iron Age, accompanied by an Assyrian Palace Ware bowl. In Area A112 an infant jar burial was found under W248, the north wall of the Hellenistic house, accompanied by an Assyrian Bottle Jar. Another burial was mentioned of a “skeleton of a man who had suffered a violent death. His fists were still clenched, his head was twisted into an un-natural position, and, as reported by two physicians who visited us at the time, his back was broken in two places” (Free 1954: 18). This was, most likely, a slightly disturbed burial

Fig. 10.47 Area K, W379, view to south, 1958

Fig. 10.48 Area A, infant jar burial, closeup, 1954

Iron Age Burials (Area L and Area A)

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

113

Fig. 10.49 Area L, burial in L14, closeup, 1960

Fig. 10.51 Area L, infant jar burials on walls of House 13, closeup, 1959

ment on its west side. In the southernmost one, skeletal remains of one infant were found and “layers of small beads and two metal earrings.” In the jar on the cornerstone of W171 and W173 an infant was found of whom “most of the skull was recovered, as well as 2 leg bones with an anklet on each and what seems to be a bracelet encircling two small arm bones.” The vessel in which it was buried seemed to be made up of two parts of different jars joined in the middle. No particulars were given about the third burial on the pavement. Fig. 10.50 Area L, burial in pottery coffin, closeup, 1959

Pottery Area L, General Picture

that post-dated the Iron II architecture. Where exactly this skeleton was located is unknown, except that it was “not far from the child burial.” In Area L16, just south of W70 in House 6, a stone collapse covered a badly crushed burial which contained two small fibulae. When the pavement west of W81 was removed in the same area, another burial was found. The skeleton was holding a bottle-jar in its hand (Fig. 10.49). In Area L34, less than a meter to the east of W101 of House 11 a pottery coffin was found. It was the most recent feature in the area of House 11. The coffin measured 95 cm long from east to west, 58 cm wide from north to south, and 25–35 cm deep because of the broken, uneven top. The coffin contained scattered bones, two skulls, a stone bowl, a double-coiled ring, two pieces of metal, and various sherds including a bottle-jar. Three jar burials were found in Area L32, House 13. Two were placed directly on W171, the third on the pave-

When the investigation of Area L began, we expected to find a diverse assemblage. To better understand this diversity, Area L was divided into five regions: (1) House 13 on the edge of the site, (2) Houses 9–11 with their stratigraphic superposition, (3) Houses 1–3 on the highest part of the tell, (4) Houses 4–7, and (5) House 14. In addition, every attempt was made to utilize the vertical distinctions (“layers”) recorded by the original excavators. None of these horizontal or vertical distinctions produced any significant patterns. In every area, there were residual amounts of Iron I pottery. In some areas where it was clear that a deep probe had been excavated, the Iron I material was more common. But in every nonprobe area, the dominant forms belonged to the Iron IIAEarly Iron IIB (1000–800 b.c.e.). The use of “dominant” requires some caution. A statistical study was impossible due to the original sampling procedures, and although many restorable jars were visible in the photographic

114

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

record, large-scale restoration work was never done, so whole forms are rarely available. While Iron IIA forms were dominant, questions remain about the nature of the Iron IIB occupation in Area L. Many forms, which are common in the ninth century, are also common in the eighth. Moreover, several forms, (some of the cooking pots for instance), could just as easily belong to the eighth century. A further complicating factor was late eighth-early seventh century b.c.e. burials and late eighth-early seventh century b.c.e. pottery scattered throughout the surface of Area L. Some of these forms could easily be pushed back into the early eighth century and be used to argue for a continuous (but greatly diminished) occupation in this area. However, several eighth century forms that are common in Galilee and in the Jezreel Valley are conspicuously absent from the repertoire at Dothan. This reinforces the hypothesis that Area L was essentially abandoned following a late ninth century destruction illustrated in the administrative building. Among the missing forms, the typical 8th century Phoenician storage jar is especially noteworthy (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 16.81, 17.83). In addition, in our view, the restorable vessels visible in photographs of the other parts of Area L look similar to the repertoire illustrated here. We are aware, however, of the paleographic evidence for occupation in the early eighth century (see chapter 14). The first Area L pottery plates (Fig. 10.53–55) provide a summary of the types of pottery which dominate throughout Area L. Administrative Building (House 14) Particular attention was paid to the ceramic assemblage of House 14 because of its well-dated destruction and coherent architectural plan (Fig. 10.56–58). Further, when the original excavation photos of House 14 are viewed, it is clear that this destruction contained many complete, restorable vessels. Unfortunately, these broken vessels were never restored, and only rim fragments survive. It is likely that the excavators only kept rim fragments belonging to the restorable vessels visible in the photographs, but this is not certain. In any case, this building held the potential to provide an important ceramic datum for the end of the ninth century in the north, and it may still hold this potential if future excavation is able to find similarly intact deposits. The sherds illustrated here represent typical forms in the assemblage. Our selection cannot be defended statistically due to the selectivity in the original collection methods, but it is our best synthesis of these layers. This pottery finds its best parallels in the Iron II assemblages at Taanach IIB, Megiddo V-IV, Rehov V-IV, Hazor IX-VII, Samaria PPII-III, and the Jezreel Enclosure. In House 14, one of the most common jar forms was a handless jar with a flat bottom and thickened rim

Fig. 10.52 16628, local fabric, crosspolarized light, x40, bar is 250 microns

(Fig. 10.58). In his preliminary reports, Free published two of these jars, stacked as he thought they would have been in antiquity, and described them as “#7 Jars.” The Wheaton collection alone contains almost two hundred rim fragments of this type. Very few of these jars were reconstructed though photos show a number that were restorable when discovered. Most of the jars were found in the administrative building of Area L, but the same form exists with little variation in the Iron II levels throughout Area L and Area A. C14 Samples taken from grain stored inside these jars fit with the late ninth century date for the destruction of the Administrative building in Area L. When these jars were measured for capacity, just under 8 liters was the average measure. This leads to the conclusion that these jars may reflect the dry measure of a seah at Dothan (Heller 2001: 131). This is also likely the measure of the similar jars found at Taanach IIB (Rast 1978: Fig. 35.2), Rehov IV (Mazar 2003: Fig. 19.9), Jezreel Enclosure Fills (Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 2.7.1–2, 4), and Hazor VIII-VII (Yadin et al. 1960: LXI: 1–9, Yadin et al. 1961: CCXVIII:14). In each of these other cases, however, the bases of these jars tend to be rounded, while the Dothan jars have flat bases. Petrographic examination of 25 of these jars from Dothan revealed that they were all locally made. Coarse silt-fine sand fragments of rounded biomicritic chalk were the predominant inclusion (Fig. 10.52). These inclusions typify the lithology that one would expect in this section of the Dothan valley. The valley appears protected from the igneous outcrops found in the Carmel range, leaving Tell Dothan completely surrounded by chalk hills. Since (at least in the case of the jars that were tested) these jars were purely local, it is likely that such jars were not moved and that each site had its own local variant of this form with roughly the same measure and function.

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Iron Age Burials These forms (Fig. 10.59) were found in association with burials in Area A and Area L which appear to postdate the Iron Age architecture in these areas. In one case in Area L, three jar burials were set into the ruined walls of the earlier Iron II building. It is likely that there was some occupation in Area A and L along with these burials although we cannot point to any architecture which might have been used during this period. The ceramic coffin burial of L21 belongs with the Assyrian burial phase, and it appears (in photos) that a bottle-jar similar to the ones illustrated here accompanied that burial as well. Summary The excavation of Area L, while it took place over several seasons over a vast expanse of the tell, produced a remarkably coherent and focused plan. The date of this plan is difficult to pin down. There is a lack of substantial stratigraphic superposition, and pottery assemblage is consistently mixed. However, using Carbon 14 and our best analysis of the dominant ceramic forms, we would argue that the primary construction and use of this plan should be dated to the ninth century b.c.e. Several caveats must be added to this assessment. In all of the excavated probes throughout this area, the excavators recovered Iron I pottery similar to the Iron I pottery from Area A. In addition, they found in the probes no record of a break in occupation or destruction which might mark a break between Iron I and Iron IIA. Much of the Iron IIA pottery finds its closest parallels at the nearby tenth century assemblage at Taanach IIB, but it is clear, given Mazar’s recent observations from Rehov (2003) and Zimhoni’s results from Jezreel (1997), that many of the forms from Taanach IIB can be placed in either the tenth or ninth century. There may be considerable twelfth-tenth century remains in this area, but we are not confident that any of the architecture should be placed in these periods.

115

Some occupation of this area likely persisted into the eighth century as well. House 12, at least, is clearly built above the rooms of House 14 which were destroyed in the last quarter of the ninth century. And even within House 14 there was some post-destruction reuse of rooms in the northeast corner of the building (see Iron Age II Seal Impression Chapter 14). Nevertheless, two considerations argue against substantial eighth century occupation. First, we note the lack of common mid-eighth century forms in the ceramic repertoire. Second, we note the presence of a destruction layer throughout this area which contained potentially restorable vessels identical to those uncovered in the ninth century destruction of House 14. It then remains to be seen if the later occupation of the House 14 and the various other structures around Area L are an early eighth century squatter occupation or belong to the late-eighth early seventh century and should be associated with the use of this area as a cemetery. Our hypothesis that the architecture of Area L should be dated to the ninth century makes considerable historical sense as well. Biblical and extra-biblical sources record many ninth century conflicts which arose between the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Aram-Damascus. Given Dothan’s role as a northern gateway to the hill country, it would have been an essential component hill country’s defense in those periods in which the Arameans had overrun defenses farther north in the Huleh Basin (1 Kgs 15:20, 20:26; 2 Kgs 6:14, 24, 12:17; Tel Dan Inscription). However, by the eighth century, Adad-nirari III had curtailed Aramean power, and Jereboam II had once again pushed Israel’s border to the far north of the country (2 Kgs 14:28; Amos 6:13). This meant that Dothan was no longer on the front lines and was no longer the lynchpin of hill country security as it had been in the ninth century. The next notable occupation of the site likely came after the conquest of the Assyrians. While we are not sure if there are any architectural remains that can be dated to this period, a series of burials were found across the area. They are highlighted by an adult burial in a pottery coffin and several jar burials placed over the ruins of the earlier Iron Age walls.

116

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.53 Area L, bowls and chalices

117

118

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.54 Area L, kraters and cooking vessels

119

120

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.55 Area L, jars, jugs, and miscellaneous forms

121

122

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.56 Area L, House 14, bowls, kraters and cooking vessels

123

124

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.57 Area L, House 14, jugs and storejars

125

126

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.58 Area L, House 14, handleless jars

127

128

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

10. The Iron Age: Area L and Area K

Fig. 10.59 Pottery from Assyrian burials

129

11. The Hellenistic Period

n his 1954 BASOR report, Joseph Free described the finds of the Hellenistic Period in Area A. He mentioned a Hellenistic building without going into much detail, but did describe two of the outstanding Hellenistic finds: a group of Rhodian stamp seals and a coin with the inscription “Antiochus the King.” 1 By the time of his 1955 report, the excavations on the mound had expanded substantially to the east. Free described two oval structures in Area A5 both of which he

I

Fig. 11.2 Distribution of Hellenistic Period finds

Fig. 11.1 Silver tetradrachma of Antiochus VII

dated to the Iron Age. He expressed his amazement when Roman and Hellenistic sherds were found in the adjacent area, A9, at a level that was over a meter lower. Looking at the north section, he discovered “a broad intrusion 8.00 meters wide, sloping down in a wide cone to a depth of some three meters in the center.” We can agree that this large pit was intrusive, but would date the two oval structures and their surrounding features (the Hellenistic insula and features to the east) to the Hellenistic Period by stratigraphic superposition and association. Area A/D, Phase 1; The Hellenistic House Location: A102, A103, A 105, A106, A109, A112 In the Hellenistic Period there was a drastic change across this area of the mound. The main components from this period were a substantial building in the northwestern corner of the area, a centrally located insula, a border wall that split the area into a western and eastern compound, on which two rounded structures were super-

1

We would like to thank Dr. Gene Green for his identification of this coin.

imposed, and the eastern compound with an elongated mass of stones running obliquely at the eastern edge of an open area. The only major building in this stratum that could be designated as a family dwelling was the elongated structure in the northwest corner of Area A. It had massive walls and a relatively smaller, square room at the eastern end. The west room was a long rectangle going off into the section. The somewhat jagged southern wall, W247, was 1.5 m wide at the west end, narrowing to 70 cm at the east end. The northern wall, W248, was straight and well built. It was 75 cm wide with a 60 cm wide bench running along its south side, From partition wall W251 to the west baulk, the maximum internal measurements of the west room were 12 by 5.2 m. The top of a bread oven emerged against the south face of W248 and set into its bench. Layers of white lime and ash surrounded the bread oven and were thought to be a late floor level. Built against the inner face of W247 were several installations. Some of them were in the form of small squared compartments (W249, W252, W253), others in the form of semicircles. The internal measurements of the eastern room were 4.2 x 3.6 m. Under a 40 cm thick stone collapse, a beaten earth floor level was reached. In the southwestern corner a concentration of dark ash indicated the location of a hearth or oven. The area east of the room was problematic in that some walls (W255, W258) were not separated properly from their collapse before being dismantled. Walls had also been partially or entirely destroyed, which prevented the reconstruction of a coherent plan. A layer of small

131

132

11. The Hellenistic Period

Fig. 11.3 Area A/D, Phase 1 stones may have been a floor level. The south wall of the Hellenistic building, W247, continued to the east for slightly more than 15 m. There is a possibility that it may have connected to W269, the eastern border of the entire complex, along with the northernmost wall, W257 that was aligned with W268. If W256 is extended southward to corner with W266, an insula is created measuring about 22.5 m from north to south and 12.5 m from east to west.

Fig. 11.4 Area A, Hellenistic room, view to north, 1954

The Hellenistic Insula Location: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 There is no telling which part of the insula was roofed and which was open to the air. The walls in the northwestern quadrant did not have closure to the east. There may have been a north-south wall in the 2 m wide section, which was apparently never removed. The carelessly built northern walls, W258, W259 and W260, may well have been partitions in an open yard. A thin layer of ash with animal bones was found. South of these walls were two rooms that were almost certainly roofed. The western one, measuring 4.6 x 1.8 m internally, was bordered by W256 to the west, W262 to the north, W263 to the east, and W247 to the south. W262 had a 1.1 m wide doorway while W263 had a 40 cm wide doorway, and W247 a 1.1 m wide doorway. A plaster floor was encountered in this room. The north wall of the room, W262, went through a subsequent phase in which its doorway was blocked. The blocking wall, W261, went farther to the east, creating the eastern room for which no closing east wall was uncovered. This room, measuring 2.4 m from north to south, was filled with stone collapse under which a good number of pottery vessels were found. They were resting on a layer of ashes that was seen in other parts of the area. Built into W269, the eastern wall of the insula, were two oval huts with 40 cm high walls. The northern one,

11. The Hellenistic Period

Fig. 11.5 Area A, oval structure with step in foreground, view to west, 1955 measuring 3.6 x 2.4 m internally, had a large, massive bowl built into its floor. The diameter of the bowl was 62 cm. Some of the rim had broken off and fallen into the bowl. Its material was somewhat like a bread oven. More of this pottery was found in an ash layer on the beaten earth floor. A 65 cm wide stepped doorway lined by two standing stones led to an open area in the east. A second oval structure was found 60 cm to the south, measuring 2.9 x 2.6 m internally (Fig. 11.6). It was divided into equal halves by a partition wall (W272); in the eastern partition the outer wall was paralleled by an inner

133

curving wall. The western partition had a circular hearth built into its northeastern corner, with a diameter of 60 x 45 cm. The beaten earth floor was covered with ash, and directly south of the hearth a pile of bones lay on the floor. East of the structure in the open area, a pile of ash was most likely caused by ash dumping. The two structures may well be designated as cooking areas. Connecting them on the west side was another circular installation, measuring 1.2 x 1.85 m externally; internally it had an elongated, irregular shape. The installations north of the two oval structures were most likely the result of outdoor courtyard activities. The north part of W269 curved slightly to the west in order to meet W270 of the northern structure. This shows that the two structures were integrated into W269 and not necessarily superimposed on it, although the southern portion of W269 was built directly on top of W214, the east wall of the four-room house. Other than these two structures, the length of the eastern half of the insula was taken up by a 2 m wide baulk. In the southwestern quadrant of the insula were two large rooms, separated by a passageway. The northern room measured approximately 5.3 x 3.6 m. The soil in this area was very disturbed and contained large pieces of plaster that were 2.5 cm thick. These may have come from a floor in the room and its adjoining passageway. One could enter the room from the north, through the doorway in W247 (see above), and from the east, through a 1 m wide doorway in W264, which had a two-stepped doorsill. Two later stone-lined silos disturbed the southern wall of the room (W265). The passageway to the south measured 80 cm wide. The southern room was bordered by W212 in the north, W210 in the east and W266 in the south, all of them one course high except W266, which was four courses high and built directly on top of W205, the southern wall of the four-room house. The room was about 5.5 m square, and in the northeastern corner three boulders formed a semicircular installation. The room was covered with charcoal and ash, though there was no mention of a floor in the original area report. Area east of the Insula Location: A7 through A12

Fig. 11.6 Area A, second oval structure, view to southwest, 1956

The triangular open area east of W269 measured a maximum of 16.5 m from west to east at the southern end, and approximately 23.5 m form north to south. A beaten earth surface without architectural elements on it was found in Areas A8/A7,and an ash level in Area A10. In the southeastern corner of Area A10 a juglet was found at the level of the ash layer. It contained metal objects, including a finger ring, parts of a fibulae and one piece of metal inlaid with another. It was not clear which of these artifacts were made of gold and which of silver. Bordering the open area on the east was a large elongated mass of stones, W273. The excavators stated that

134

11. The Hellenistic Period

W274 in the north was a part. This interpretation is supported by a plaster floor which connected these walls (R. A. Free, notebook, 1955: 42). East of W274 were three bread ovens, two of which had collapsed. The western one, still retaining its original form, had an internal diameter of 60 cm. The floor was covered with black ash, dumped there from use of the ovens. Area B, Phase 5 Location: B4, B14, B15, B16

Fig. 11.7 Area A, Hellenistic stone clearance pile, view to southeast, 1955 along its entire length no wall face could be discovered. The height of the mass could not be determined, but it varied in width from 35 cm to 3 m, and its excavated length totaled 22 m. The stone-lined silo built into its west face measured 70 cm in diameter and was 70 cm deep, ending in an ashy surface. East of W273 were several wall fragments that may have served as wind shelters in a courtyard. However, before going out of use, W275 and W278 formed the southwestern corner of a substantial building, of which

Fig. 11.8 Area B, Phase 5

The remains of this stratum apparently dated to the Hellenistic Period and were confined to a relatively small area south of the massive building (see Area B, Phase 4). The exposed features represent a house, and possibly a paved courtyard east of it. The house was aligned with the sections of the excavation, whereas subsequent strata were not. Externally the house measured 8.6 m from east to west, that is from W318 to the eastern extremity of W422. The south wall in this area was W319, but W318 extended 4.25 m, where it formed a corner with W428. The entire north half of the building was obliterated along the line of W315 of the later massive building. The northwest room of the house was paved and was bordered by W317, W318, and W319. Much pottery was found on this floor, including a jar and a cooking pot surrounded by charred olive pits. A copper spatula was found on the same level. The room apparently had a doorway at the north end of W317 that was obliterated by W315, leaving only the southern doorjamb. The excavators did not detect a floor to go with the southwestern room. A beaten earth surface was on the west of W318 on the

11. The Hellenistic Period

135

consists of four stones placed in a straight line, with gaps. In at least two notebooks it is drawn as a curved, unbroken line of stones, from W319 in the south almost all the way to W315 in the north (B. Mader, N. Stewart, notebook, 1962: April 27). It was 40 cm high. Whether W422 was a wall, a pavement, or several walls and a pavement cannot be determined. South of it three floors were registered at 10 cm intervals. A Rhodian jar handle was found on the deepest floor, and near the south baulk a small glass bottle was uncovered. Near the east end of W422, three charred potsherds were found, together with some charcoal. East of W422 was a pavement external to the house, 25 cm below the bottom of W316 (Fig. 12.5). Somewhere in Areas B14/B15 a trench was excavated “about 2 meters or so,” and the “Hellenistic level went down about 1 meter deeper.” (W. Gasque, notebook, 1962: 20–21). Pottery Fig. 11.9 Area B, W317 and W318 with W315 above, view to north, 1962 exterior of the building. The southern part of this area was occupied by W426 and W427, but no floors were mentioned to go with these walls. East of W317 was a hearth or bread oven (65 cm diameter) in the corner made by W317 and W319. Next to the hearth was a small jar filled with small bones, including some human teeth (B. Mader, notebook, 1962: April 27). A floor of ash and small traces of plaster were found south of W422, and the hearth was said to be at the level of that floor. The hearth was confined behind a stone wall that served as a fire screen. On the final plan, this wall

Most of the Hellenistic pottery (Fig. 11.10) from Tell Dothan finds close second century b.c.e. parallels in the well dated assemblage at Tel Dor. This assessment is bolstered by dates derived from Rhodian stamp seals found in some layers (see Chapter 15). There are very scattered traces of pottery from as early as the fifth century b.c.e., but no architecture can be connected with an earlier occupation at the site. Sixteen stamped handles were uncovered in the Dothan excavations. Most of them came from the layers of Area A which we have associated with the Hellenistic Insula. While these seals were not found in primary contexts, their presence is an important chronological anchor for the Hellenistic occupation.

136

11. The Hellenistic Period

11. The Hellenistic Period

Fig. 11.10 Hellenistic pottery

137

138

11. The Hellenistic Period

Summary The Rhodian stamp seals and the coin of Antiochus VII (138–129 b.c.e.), provide excellent chronological markers for the occupation of the Hellenistic insula. Still, it is impossible to know from the sparse architectural remains to know what role a border site such as Dothan played in the cultural conflicts of the day. This information comes to us in the book of Judith, 2 a wisdom tale that is roughly contemporary with the insula at Dothan.

2

We would like to thank our student Cecilia Collins for her work on the relationship between Dothan and Judith as well as for her description of the Hellenistic stamp seals and ceramic assemblage.

The book describes Dothan as distinctively Jewish. In the story, the great Assyrian/Babylonian army of the author’s imagination encamps in the Dothan plain as it threatened Judith’s nearby home of “Bethulia.” While the author of Judith likely used the mention of Dothan to draw the readers’ attention to the deliverance described II Kings 6, the connection is more than just a literary allusion. Many of the visual references picture the sweeping view of the western valley visible from Dothan. Dothan’s role as a city guarding the passes into the hill country is well understood. The author even mentions that Judith’s dear departed husband is buried at the border of Dothan’s territory. The geographical references make it quite clear that the author of Judith was personally familiar with the real site of Dothan and used it as the backdrop for this dramatic story.

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

rea B was the only area to produce substantial quantities of Roman or Byzantine pottery. Joseph Free noted in several of his publications that by the Byzantine period the main area of habitation had moved off the tell. He originally opened Area B in an attempt to further understand the Hellenistic remains in Area A, but most of the material turned out to be from later periods. Just three squares were excavated in 1955, but the area was revisited and greatly enlarged in the 1962 and 1964 seasons. In Free’s unpublished preliminary reports from these seasons he described four periods: “Arabic, Byzantine, Roman, and Hellenistic.” The architectural highlight was a building with massive walls that Free dated to the Roman period. Area B was excavated over three different seasons, and the plans from these seasons were never integrated,

A

Fig. 12.1 Distribution of Roman and Byzantine Period finds

Fig. 12.2 Layout of Area B

139

140

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

Fig. 12.3 Area B, Phase 4

and no plans exist for several of the squares, we have only one composite plan for most of the rest. Our 2004 survey has helped us to determine the overall layout of the drawn architecture, but we also found entirely new constructions throughout the area which have never been drawn. Phase 4, The Massive Building Location B4, B14–16, B24–26, B17–18, B27–28 The core of the massive building consisted of five rooms laid out in a northern row of three rooms and a southern row of two rooms. If our reconstructions are correct, the external measurements were 16.6 m from east to west and 8.65 from north to south. The main walls were from 1.1 to 1.3 m wide and averaged to 60 cm in excavated height. In the southwest room (W308, W309, W314, W315), measuring 5.1 x 2.7 m internally, there was a beaten earth floor and partial stone pavement. The adjoining long room to the east (W305, W308, W314, W315) measured 8 m long, 2.1 m wide at the west end and 2.4 m wide at the east end internally. W314 was anything but straight. There are, however, the remains of two pilasters showing on both sides of the room. They may have borne an arch to support the ceiling, and may have acted as a kind of partition between two units that had slightly different measurements. Both pilasters are aligned along the axis of W307 and W316. The latter may have cornered with W331 to the southeast, possibly forming a courtyard. A bread oven with several vessels inside it was mentioned

east of W316 (L. Macfadyen, notebook, 1962: 45), and “some pots as well as a ring” were found on a floor (47). There was also a layer of ash at the same level. The northwest room (W308, W309, W311, W314), when reconstructed, measured 5.1 x 1.3 m internally. A proper description of it is hindered by intrusive elements: several army trenches, a fifteenth century unexcavated building in the northwest corner of Area B24, a second building which was also thought to be Arab in period, and several burials. Moreover, W310 is clearly much later than the massive building. At the northern end it makes a corner with another substantial wall fragment which was built over the west half of W304. North of that part of the massive building, a beaten earth floor was reached. Inside of the building a floor was apparently found, but it is unclear whether this floor belonged to the massive building or to the Arab Period building imposed on it. Pottery resting on the floor was said to be Roman. When the floor was probed, an ash layer was discovered 5 cm under it going down to a beaten earth surface 20 cm below the floor (Fornwalt and Petz 1964, Report of Area B24). Presumably at a higher elevation, but 15 cm below W310, a pavement is mentioned in this room, laid on a plaster floor. G. D. Hand (notebook, 1962: 54) claims that there was a doorway at the east end of W311, giving access to the northwest room, which was filled and blocked by later occupants. The middle northern room (W307, W308, W304, W314) measured 3.4 x 2.6 m. The north wall, W304, was said to have at least two phases, of which the upper one was thought to be Arab in date. W304 probably over-

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

141

Fig. 12.4 Area B, Composite photo of massive building, view to west, 1962

shot W310 and continued west, and W310 abutted it from the south. A modern army trench destroyed the connection. As to the earlier phase of W304, it may well be found at the west end, where the wall merges with a pavement to the north, which is of the same phase. At the east end Fig. 13.9 shows that the massive building passes under W304 but could very well connect to the pavement north of it, though this connection is unseen, and the massive building may continue north for an indefinite distance. The northern territory was not excavated deeply enough to expose that part of the building. The middle northern room was excavated down to what was called the beginning of the Hellenistic Period, at which a jar handle stamped “CS.” was found. It does not appear that the original floor was ever reached. The northeastern room (W304, W305, W307, W314) measured 3.7 x 2.8 m internally (see Fig. 13.9). The partition W306 was added in a later phase. A beaten earth floor was found covered with ash and with smashed pottery from nearly complete vessels. There is no record of the restoration or disposition of these vessels since the excavation. At the east end of the massive building, W304 overshoots it to the east, and W314 protrudes slightly less than a meter beyond the building, while W305 appears to turn into a partition in its north half. These anomalies suggest that the building either was not excavated in its

entirety, or was destroyed on the east side. East of the building there were massive walls that were very similar and may have been an extension in that direction. W329 was aligned with W315, and W327 was aligned with W314. W331 to the south was parallel to the other eastwest walls and may have cornered with W316 to form a 7.5 m wide courtyard, as mentioned above. There were traces of a plaster floor along the eastern half of the area. In the southwestern area there was a stone pavement associated with a bread oven (diameter 70 cm).

Fig. 12.5 Area B, stamped amphora handle, 1962 photo

142

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

Fig. 12.7 Area B, southern squares, view to west, 1962

Fig. 12.6 Area B, W429, W431, and W432, view to southeast, 1955

There may have been a 3.5 m wide street to the west of the massive building which would have been lined on the western side by a building to the south. The eastern wall of a southern building remained largely unexcavated, since it was mostly buried under the later W434. However, 25 cm of it protruded from under the east side of W434. On the west side it connected to three parallel walls, W429, W430, and W431. It was thought that the walls might have represented the foundation of a massive stairway, but the excavators removed the middle wall, W430, because they found it “questionable” (R. A. Free, notebook, 1955: 61), and it does not appear in any photographs. Phase 4/3, Area South of the Massive Building Location: B4, 5, 6, B15–16 The massive building was partially destroyed and cancelled by a later building, represented in part by W304 and W310. Though it was not drawn on any final plan, W310 extended substantially southward and more than likely connected to W332 in its original state. South of W332 there was a configuration of one-row walls which may have been external. Abutting W332 from the south was W320. It formed a squared space with W325, located 4.5 m to the south. The space enclosed a stonelined silo and a bread oven, both associated with a stone

pavement. The silo went down to 1.10 m below floor level, and at the bottom a dog skeleton was found in a curled up position. The bread oven was in poor condition; as all of the other bread ovens in the area, it was shielded on its west side by a fire screen or windbreak. The stone pavement continued east, were it was most likely associated with W434. At the north end of W434 there was a corner, which would have lined up with W332. At its southern end W434 was abutted by W325. This would have resulted in a courtyard about 10 m in length from east to west and 4.5 m from north to south. A beaten earth floor covered the stone pavement. South of W325 was another bread oven (diameter 80 cm), which projected 16 cm above the floor level. This southern outdoor space was closed on the east side by W323, which made a 75 cm wide doorway with W325. A 1.5 x 2 m structure, located to the east, was bordered by W322, W323, and W324. It was accessed through a 65 cm wide doorway from the north, and it had a floor. East of the structure was a plaster floor, which connected to W322 on its west side, and W326 on its south side. The plaster floor went under W321, a later addition. The plaster floor was evidently swept clean, and very little pottery was found on it. Phase 3, Area East of the Massive Building Location: B17–18, B27–28 The eastern area could not be connected to the western one by any of its architectural elements. The scheme of strata was informed solely by the sequence in the eastern area, which was clear-cut, whereas the western area had been selectively superimposed into a single plan. One reason why the eastern area could not be integrated was that all of the structures were autonomous, so that connections to the west were limited to minor outdoor yard walls.

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

143

Fig. 12.8 Area B, Phase 3 The walls of phase 3 were divided into two sub-phases. W341 and W346 persisted through the sub-phases and provided the basic framework. In the earlier sub-phase, only one coherent room was exposed, bordered by W334, W335, W341, and W346. About 1.5 m to the east, W336 made a corner with W337, and the space defined by them could be accessed from the west through a 55 cm wide doorway in W337. On the west side, W333 abutted W341, and to the south, W338 made a corner with W339. No floors were found for any of these structures. In the later sub-phase, the area was dominated by a long building, 4.4 m wide externally, 2.9 m internally. According to the excavators, the building would be 15.5 m in maximum excavated length from north to south. The excavators state, that both north-south walls (W340 and W341) make corners with W342. The building ended

with the cross wall, W342, and its total interior length to W346 in the south baulk was 10 m. This long room had a partition at the northern end, W343, and its entrance corridor, W344, which was 60 cm wide and 1.5 m long. The northern room itself measured 2.5 by 2.8 m and had a stone pavement. A perforated stone was found just south of W343 which looked very much like the stone weights that were used in oil presses. Fig. 12.10 shows that the west wall of the building, W341, does indeed continue north, but it is a much broader wall, and may even be a predecessor. On the other hand, the east wall, W340 is not very substantial and is of a different character than W341. The photographs give the impression that there were other walls that were never drawn. Unfortunately, walls that were never drawn cannot contribute to a better understanding of the stratigraphy.

144

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

Fig. 12.9 Area B, eastern squares, view to north, 1964

Fig. 12.10 Area B, eastern squares view to south, 1964

Summary

and Byzantine periods is not at all certain. It is possible that there is a discrete early Islamic architectural phase. It also could well be that the earliest phase in Area B (Phase 5) is Early Roman rather than Hellenistic. Virtually any combination of pottery periods and building periods is possible because of the lack of primary deposits. In sum, very little can be said about the Roman and Byzantine occupation at Tell Dothan other than the fact that the tell was occupied for part of these periods. The partial records and contaminated assemblages do show that occupation did not cover the entire tell in this period. Despite Joseph Free’s hunch that most of the occupation had moved off the tell, no remnant of a lower city as been discovered. Instead, Dothan, along with several nearby sites, seems to belong to a network of small villages that dotted this area in the Early Roman and Byzantine periods (Qasr Mahrun, Mirkeh, see Zertal 2004: 152–53, 186–87).

Area B is extremely difficult to understand. Difficulties caused by the reuse of walls and buildings by the original inhabitants were compounded by the excavation strategy in this area. The pottery from Area B reveals five distinct periods: Hellenistic, Early Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, and Mameluke. There is, however, no certain link between any of these periods and any phase of the architecture in this area. Area B, Phase 5 appears in the Hellenistic chapter because we hypothesize that the earliest remains in Area B were contemporary with the latest remains in Area A. Further, we are relatively confident that the last two phases of Area B can be well integrated into the Islamic (primarily Mameluke) period farmhouse of Area T. This leaves two phases for the Roman and Byzantine periods. The link between Phase 3–4 and the Roman

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

The Roman and Byzantine Pottery by A. Asa Eger From Area B, significant amounts of Roman and Byzantine pottery were associated with several buildings excavated in 1955, 1962, and 1964. Unfortunately, the stratigraphic relationship between the pottery and buildings or other soil layers cannot be recreated due in part to the original excavation strategy and status of the excavation notes for this area. Additionally, despite the large amount of Roman and Byzantine pottery, very few pieces are diagnostic rim sherds. Rather the assemblage is, strangely enough, mainly composed of handles, bases, and brittleware ribbed body sherds. The material is also scattered, most of it being from the St. Louis Museum, while the whole or nearly complete vessels are at the Rockefeller Museum in Israel. As such, taking these constraints into consideration, the pottery from the Roman and Byzantine phases of Tel Dothan that is published here is merely a representation of the larger assemblage. The notes that follow are speculations on the chronology of the Roman and Byzantine periods at Tel Dothan. The Roman period has several Eastern Sigillata A forms including mainly Hellenistic cups and plates straddling the transitional Hellenistic/Early Roman period in the first century b.c.e. These, however, do not continue much into the first century c.e. There are large gaps in diagnostic pottery in the first three centuries c.e., which, given the state of the assemblage, may or may not indicate a temporary abandonment of the area in the Roman Imperial period. Byzantine period vessels consisted of only one discernable fineware (Late Roman C) and many examples of brittleware cooking pots. Examples here of two types of cooking pots and a jug span a time period of fourth to first half of sixth century. No clear seventh century pottery was noted giving no clear indication that there was a continuation into the Early Islamic period, despite the equally significant presence of an Early Islamic occupation.

145

Roman 1 Terra Sigillata Fineware 3423: Eastern Sigillata Hellenistic Cup, 100–75 b.c.e. 34704: A rim fragment with a diameter of 14 cm. Eastern Sigillata A Hellenistic plate, second century b.c.e.-mid first century b.c.e. 33561: A rim fragment with a diameter of 26 cm. Eastern Sigillata Hellenistic Plate, 75–20 b.c.e. 35008: A base fragment with a bottom diameter of 8.5 cm. Four rouletted circles on the inside of the base. Eastern Sigillata Hellenistic Plate, late second b.c.e.-last decade first b.c.e. Byzantine Late Roman Fineware 33849: A rim of a Phocaean Red Slip bowl (Late Roman C) heavily abraded with a double band of rouletting on the outside rim. The keel rim is slightly convex rather than the more usual concave LR-C rims and has a rounded bottom edge. It is 24 cm. in diameter and of red clay (5YR 6/6 core) with a slip. Cooking Pots Z2: A complete example of a common cooking pot of the Byzantine period characterized by a globular body, external ribbing, slightly everted rim, no neck, and elongated loop handles extending from the rim to the shoulder. It is a redware (2.5YR 5/4). 34392: Brittleware rim and handle of a globular closed form cooking pot with a short neck, thin simple rim, and high looped handle. It is a redware (5YR 5/6). It also has a slight internal carination. The inner diameter is only 8 cm. Jug 34634: Red brittleware (2.5 YR 6/6) rim and handle of a jug with white lime grit. Its diameter is 5 cm. The rim is slightly rolled and outward flaring and the handle is a short loop handle from the top of the rim to the shoulder.

1

I am grateful for the help of Andrea U. de Giorgi (Bryn Mawr) for helping with the dating of the Eastern sigillatas.

146

12. The Roman and Byzantine Periods

13. The Islamic Period

n 1956, Joseph Free excavated just over eight hundred square meters in Area T on the central summit. He had noticed a series of depressions visible on the surface at the top of the mound and laid out his excavation area to encompass one of these depressions. Excavation revealed that the depression was the open courtyard of a Mameluke farmhouse. On its western side the Area T farmhouse had two rows of rooms. The second row of rooms belonged to a similar house adjacent to the first whose western side appeared during the excavation of Area B. In 1958–1960, Free found additional Mameluke remains in a cemetery in the southwestern corner of Area L.

I

Fig. 13.1 Distribution of Islamic Period finds

Fig. 13.2 Layout of Area T

147

148

13. The Islamic Period

Fig. 13.3 Area T, Phase 1; Area B, Phase 2

Area T, Phase 1 The Area T courtyard house consisted of about 25 rooms arranged around a central enclosure. It measured 10.5 x 12.5 m and was partially paved. A 5.5 m long, 0.8 m wide passageway, located between Rooms 8 and 24 in the northwestern corner, allowed access from the outside. In Room 4 a fallen arch was exposed, and there were probably others in some of the other rooms as well. Eleven doorways, varying from 0.6 to 1.0 m, led from the rooms into the courtyard. All of the doors had recessed jambs to receive a door. More than two dozen scattered door socket stones and drilled stones for door bolts were found during the course of excavation (Free 1956: 16–17). The size of the rooms varied from 4.3 x 4.6 m (Room 22) and 5.5 x 3.5 m (Room 15) to smaller rooms like Room 24, c. 2.5 x 3.5 m. Free dated this structure to the “twelfth to fourteenth centuries a.d.,” and theorized that it was part of a small village on the top of the tell. Although Free probed below the courtyard of this house, any information concerning previous occupation is vague at best. A few walls were discovered under the courtyard along with diagnostic Iron Age sherds but the interpretation of these probes is quite uncertain.

Very few of the objects recovered from this building were accompanied by specific locational information, and

Fig. 13.4 Area T, Room 4, view to south, 1956

13. The Islamic Period

149

Fig. 13.5 Area T, excavation in courtyard, view to southeast, 1956

even the few objects that were recorded were not selected for their statistical value. While the excavators of Area T found 43,955 sherds of pottery, only 539 were saved. For that reason, we are left with only the observations that Free recalled in his reports. He mentioned 25 Islamic glass bracelets from Room 20. Some are identical to the twisted polychrome bracelets found by Schaefer in the Negev (see Schaefer 1989 and references there), while others are just tubes of molten glass, with no evidence of twisting. Free and his draftsmen further noted that bread ovens were found in Rooms 6, 7, 11 and 17 of the courtyard house, with another to the north of the house’s north wall. The two in the adjacent Rooms 6 and 7 have a base diameter of 73 cm, and a wall thickness, which varies from 3.5 cm at the base to 2.5 cm under the rim. Their location in smaller, peripheral rooms could suggest that this part of the dwelling was the locus for most of the household’s baking, though this does not discount the possibility that cooking occurred in other parts of the house.

courtyards. One room in the south was intact. It was bordered by W349, W400, W401 and W402 and measured 3.7 x 3 m internally. The room had a stone pavement and was entered from the north through a 1.15 m wide doorway and a vestibule that measured 2.10 x 0.65 m. At the north end of W400 and perpendicular to it was W403, the south wall of a small, plastered pool. The pool was 60 cm wide, and 85 cm remained of its length up to

Area B, Phase 2 Location: B17–18, B27–28 The Phase 2 house in Area B can be integrated into the Area T structure. It forms a twin farmhouse with two

Fig. 13.6 Area B, southwest rooms of Mameluke farmhouse, view to west, 1964

150

13. The Islamic Period

Fig. 13.7 Area B, plastered basin, view to west, 1964

Fig. 13.8 Area B, decorated pilgrim flask, 1964

its broken east edge. (Measurements of 130 x 100 cm are given in the report which is at variance with the plan.) A close look at Fig. 13.7 shows that the floor of the pool may go down a step on the southern side. Part of a second room was found north of the vestibule. It measured 4 m from east to west; the north-south distance could not be determined since there was no north wall. W404 was found in the north baulk along with a bin or some other type of installation, represented by W405. There many have been an outdoor area south of the building measuring 4.5 by 2.5 m and bordered by W348, W401, W406, and four stones on the east side, that were aligned with W400. On its stone pavement an Arab “pilgrim flask” (Fig. 13.17.15) was discovered. East of the four stones a beaten earth floor was found, which was accessible from the north through an 85 cm doorway in W401. North of the doorway was a stone pavement, which

originally may have extended north for the length of the building. Phase 2, Area North of the Area B Massive Building Location: B35–36, B44–45 North of W304, there were two pavements. The east pavement had W300 as its northern border. Located 15 cm below W304, it probably connected to an earlier, unseen phase of the wall, which was part of the massive building. The western border of the pavement was a straight line where a wall had been robbed. The line was aligned with W301, which had gone north all the way to W299. But W301 could not have had any connection to the pavement or the phase 4 massive building because its elevation was too high. The west pavement was missing its northern half. It was laid on a plaster floor. These pavements may

Fig. 13.9 Area B, area north of Roman-Byzantine building, view to west, 1962

13. The Islamic Period

151

Fig. 13.10 Area B, bread oven, view to southeast, 1962

Fig. 13.11 Area B, two bread ovens, view to south, 1962

have been part of the same phase, with a 1.4 m wide passageway between them, but without connection to any of the northern walls. The northern area was dominated by three wellpreserved bread ovens. One of them (diameter 80 cm) was located in a niche formed by W297, W300, and a fire screen or windbreak to the west. The beaten earth floor of the bread oven was found and under it one coin and a “fish-hook ring.” Another charred floor was above the floor of the bread oven. It had an Arab or Turkish coin lying on it. For the eastern part of the area, L. Macfadyen states, “This area had considerable occupation. There were many walls built on top of previous walls and several walls were reused” (1962: Report on B36). The description cannot be accommodated by the one plan that we have, and there is at least one stratum that was never drawn. West of the southern tip of W298 an iron spatula was found, as well as a glass base. Within the general area surrounded by W297, W299, W300, and W301, a beaten earth floor was found. Whether the finds and the floor had anything to do with each other cannot be determined from the notes. A beaten earth floor east of W301 almost certainly preceded the first beaten earth floor. Against the east baulk was a remnant of a later stone pavement. A wall fragment, sticking out from under the pavement and heading north, may have gone with the beaten earth floor. The area surrounded by W294, W296, W298, and W299 turned out to be a substantial kitchen. Every one of the walls had undergone at least two phases. Four stones of W298 were seen at 5 to 10 cm above surface, but W296 appears to have been the latest addition; originally, the area would have been open to the west. It housed two well-preserved bread ovens, which stood on a beaten earth floor. The southern one (diameter 75 cm) had a fire

screen or windbreak on its western side, W425. The northern one (diameter 95 cm) was set into a niche formed by the corner of W294 and W298, and the surrounding fire screen or windbreak, W423 and W424. The beaten earth floor was covered with a thick layer of ash. Glazed ware was found in a 35 cm thick layer under the floor. West of W295 a “beautiful purple glass bottle” was found lying on a gray, ashy floor. This floor continued eastward under W296, and was found west of it at about the same level, where it was characterized as a plaster and beaten earth floor. The third row of stones along the south face of W294 may have represented an early stage of the wall. North of W293 and W294 a beaten earth floor was found, covered with 30 cm of pottery and ash. East of W298 a plastered floor was found, and on it a glazed Arab sherd, as well as a fragment of a glass bottle, and two fragments of flat metal. Area B, Phase 1 Location: B24, B27–28, etc. The building found in Phase 1 was confined mainly to B27. The west wall came in two segments: the northern one, W409, which appeared to make a corner or had a doorjamb at its southern end, and W413 which was 3.7 m to the south, aligned with it, and cornering with W414, the southern wall of the building that continued to the east. Three meters east of W409 was W408, a partition wall that was 10 cm wider than the outer wall. South of it the three small wall fragments, W410, W411 and W412, may have been parts of an installation. No floor was mentioned in relation to these walls in any of the reports. Somewhere in the building, a highly decorated Arabic jar (Fig 13.16.14) had been deliberately placed on the wall.

152

13. The Islamic Period

Fig. 13.12 Area B, Phase 1; Area T, Phase 1 A 3 m deep cistern was located east of W408 (cutting the pool and W400 in phase 2). Its uppermost edge was 30 cm below the bottom of the pool. “The sides of the cistern were made out of rough plaster containing ground up potsherds. The sherds found in the cistern covered the whole range of the Arabic period.” (R. Henrichs and J. LeGrand: 1964, Report of Area B18). Furthermore: “The pottery from the cistern was from the Arabic period— glazed ware, painted ware with geometric designs. This was a cross-section of the pottery found in the Arabic levels in stratification.” The most prominent architectural feature elsewhere in this phase was an unexcavated building in the western edge of Area B. Two walls making a corner with an unexcavated interior were the only part of this structure to be unearthed. An external surface was found. South of it was another building with smaller walls (W437–439). It was superimposed onto the western part of the massive

Fig. 13.13 Area B, Geometric Arab painted jar, 1964

building, causing some stratigraphical difficulties. A floor “did not tie in with walls” above or below it, and the pottery on it was attributed mostly to the Byzantine Period, with some Roman. A wall in the northern baulk, parallel to W439, was aligned with W300 to the east, and belonged with an earlier stratum. Area L, Phase 1, Cemetery Little is known of this cemetery. The excavators regularly noted the number of internments (our best count is 261 burials). Free summarized the cemetery with the observation that the bodies were oriented with feet to the east and head pointed to the south and that many individuals were buried with “indeterminate post-biblical jewelry” (1958). Further analysis of the human remains from the tombs and tell will appear in volume 2 of this series.

Fig. 13.14 Area L, excavated graves in L123, view to west, 1960

13. The Islamic Period

Fig. 13.15 Area L, cemetery layout, showing number of graves

153

154

13. The Islamic Period

Islamic Pottery by Philip Johnston The pottery from Area T formed the most coherent assemblage for the Islamic period even though it contained earlier examples of Byzantine, Hellenistic and Iron Age material. Red buff and Grey wares, both to be expected in a medieval Islamic assemblage, are absent, possibly because the excavators chose to favor the clearly diagnostic glazed and painted wares. Indeed, whereas glazed wares usually make up about four to five percent of an Islamic pottery corpus, at Dothan glazed pottery is ten times as frequent, almost certainly a collection bias. Because of the absence of the expected Red Buff and Grey wares, which usually make up the majority of Islamic pottery assemblages, it is difficult to use the pottery to determine the function of specific rooms. The collected, finer pieces are spread out fairly evenly across the house. Rare early forms Kerbschnitt Ware (Fig 13.16.2–3) Sherds of Kerbschnitt Ware come from the rims of large, handmade, flat-bottomed bowls with intricate designs cut into the fresh clay. Both show some limestone grit inclusions in a fabric which is light red (2.5YR 6/6) and reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) on the surface and light gray (10YR 7/1) and light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) at the core, respectively. One sherd is slightly charred (Whitcomb 1988: 55, Fig. 1.2D). White Ware (Fig. 13.16.4–6) Thin, coarse and relatively soft sherds, belonging to jugs and juglets, with no glaze or slip of any kind mark the appearance of White Ware in our collection. The only decoration consists of curving incised decoration on the outside surface (Ben-Tor and Rosenthal 1977: 71, Fig. 7.5). The sherds are, as the name implies, of a white (2.5Y 8/2) creamy color. Pottery of the Medieval Occupation Geometric Arab Painted Ware (Fig. 13.16.7–15) Geometric ware is typical of Mameluke occupational layers throughout the Levant, and makes up the majority of the collected pottery from Area T. The geometric ware sherds are made of a wide variety of brown, black, or dark red geometric designs painted on over a slip, which is often white and on occasion light red or even brown. Most of the sherds are of a coarse, uniform fabric, mostly white (10YR 8/2) and light gray (10YR 7/2). Most of the sherds belong to juglets, pitchers, and in a few instances kraters and other heavy open vessels. As previously mentioned, geometric ware is usually associated with Mameluke occupation. The Abu Gosh assemblage is dated from the mid-twelfth to the late fifteenth centuries, and never found in the purely Crusader levels (de Vaux and Steve 1950: 133–37). Geometric ware is present in the last occupational layers at Mafjar, dated to the twelfth and thir-

teenth centuries, and at Quebeibeh it is found in layers from the second half of the twelfth to the mid-fifth century. This type is found at numerous other sites, including Kh. El Minyeh (Grabar et al. 1960: 238), Tell Hesban (Sauer 1973: Fig. 4), Dhibon (Tushingham 1972: Fig. 15– 18), Samaria (Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 363–64), Kh. El-Mafjar (Baramki 1942: Fig. 14.1), and Afula (Dothan 1955: 25–26). Monochrome Glazed Slip Ware (Fig. 13.16.16–19) Although most of the 32 monochrome glazed sherds from Area T are body sherds, several diagnostic pieces show them to belong to several kinds of open vessels with thin walls. The pieces all have a white slip that is covered by a glaze—mostly green in this case but occasionally yellow and brown-red as well. The fabric is uniform, and either reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) or very pale brown (10 YR 8/4). This is an extremely frequent type that is found throughout Palestine in the Medieval Period (Pringle 1984: 103, Ben-Tor, Portugali, and Avissar 1978: 76; Schaefer 1989: 48). Glazed Slip Painted Ware (13.17.1–4) Glazed slip painted ware consists of white slip painted geometric designs covered by a quasi-transparent glaze with a yellowish tint. The fabric of the sherd becomes dark red or reddish brown with application of the glaze, while the painted slip turns to a bold yellow. Under the glaze, the surface of the sherds varies between red (2.5YR 5/6) and light red (2.5YR 6/6), while the core of the pieces ranges from reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) to pink (5YR 7/4). Dated by Pringle to the thirteenth century and onwards at his excavation of the Red Tower, it is present in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries at El-Minyeh (Grabar et al. 1960: 238), Athlit, Mafjar, Quebeibeh, Yoqneºeam (BenTor, Portugali, and Avissar 1978: 76), and Caesarea (Pringle 1985: 177). Sgraffito (13.17.8–10) The Mameluke occupational phase at Dothan includes 6 pieces of sgraffito ware. This design was obtained by placing a glaze over a white slip, which has been incised to form abstract, wavy designs. The pieces come from deep plates or shallow bowls which have a yellow glaze with splashes of green applied to the interior. Decoration on the outside is generally restricted to patchy slipping and glazing near the rim. The fabric is reddish (2.5YR 5– 6/6), fine and quite hard, with no variation between core and surface color. This style is well represented at Athlit and El-Minyeh (Grabar et al. 1960: 238) in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (see also Schaefer 1989: 48; Pringle 1984: 103; Pringle 1985: 177). Raqqa Ware (Fig. 13.17.11–13) This style originated in the city of Raqqa during the mid-twelfth century as glazed porcelains from the Far East made their way through trade to the Islamic empires

13. The Islamic Period

of Mesopotamia. At Dothan the Raqqa ware fragments belonged to wide lipped bowls and plates, as well as smaller bowls with slightly curving lips. As is typical for these wares, the fabric is very uniform and soft (crushed quartz and plant ash, balanced by a small amount of plastic white clay). It has a white (10YR 8/2) creamy hue. Decoration is black, blue or grey paint applied in abstract patterns under a transparent or turquoise glaze. At Hama this ware is found to date to the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, but Pringle associates it more specifically with

155

the mid-fourteenth century (Pringle 1986; Pringle 1984: 103). Yellow-Green Glazed Splash Ware (13.17.14) This material is very similar to the Monochrome Glazed Ware. The 3 sherds of this type bear a light yellow glaze that is enlivened by splashes of green. Their reddish yellow (5YR 6–7/6) fabric is very uniform. This type was also found at Caesarea (Pringle 1985: 177).

156

13. The Islamic Period

13. The Islamic Period

REPLACE PAGE Color Plate p. 157 (TIFF Graphic)

Fig. 13.16 Islamic pottery

157

158

13. The Islamic Period

REPLACE PAGE Color Plate p. 158 (TIFF Graphic)

Fig. 13.17 Islamic pottery

13. The Islamic Period

159

160

13. The Islamic Period

Summary Medieval architecture in Palestine is known mostly through either Crusader structures (castles, monasteries and churches) or Islamic religious and administrative buildings (mosques, khans, and caravanserais). Though the courtyard plan of Area T brings to mind the typical khan, the loosely rectilinear house at Dothan is not such a carefully drawn out construction, nor does it show signs of the vaults and intricate carvings which are typical of khans. Its distinctive Islamic pottery and thin walls also rule out its identification as a Crusader residence. Instead, the Dothan house matches most closely the style of Islamic farmhouses. These were self-sufficient, isolated buildings featuring rooms arranged around a central courtyard. Although excavations of such courtyard farmhouses are rare, structural similarities to the house at Dothan are found at Kh. Ayn Hayya, Kh. Bassum and possibly at Wadi Isma’in (Peterson 2001). Like Bas-

sum, the Dothan house also has a trough in Room 22. The Dothan house shows several fallen arches, which also typically adorn the doors of Islamic farmhouses although most were removed at some point after occupation ended. 1 Unlike many of these farmhouses, however, the house at Dothan was not an isolated structure. Free noticed five depressions similar to the one which he excavated, implying that this house was part of a compound of six or more buildings, and that some of the architectural remains from Area B might fit nicely with such a compound. The twin farmhouse at Khorazin (Hirschfeld 1995: 70) provides an apt parallel for the way in which multiple farmhouses might be integrated into an entire community.

1

We would like to thank Ashley Derry for her work tracking down Islamic architectural parallels.

14. Additional Studies

Stone Objects by Kyle H. Keimer The stone objects are grouped into three typological categories based on function: tools for grinding, personal or decorative objects, and miscellaneous objects. The great majority of the stone objects lacked photographs or adequate descriptions. Because of the uncertain identification of many of the stone objects, only those that could be verified are included in the more detailed discussion below. While certain studies have attempted to develop and implement a classificatory nomenclature (see Hovers 1996; Kraybill 1977; and Wright 1992), there is still considerable variance from report to report. For example, a “scraper” in one report may be called a “rubber” or a “grinder” in others. Our analysis employs the terminology set forth by Hovers (1996). The terminology for the non-groundstone objects employs the nomenclature used by a majority of other site reports. Tools for Grinding This category comprises a majority of the stone objects from Dothan. It should be noted that there is no standardized differentiation between bowls and mortars in the literature. What is called a bowl in one report is called a mortar in another. Both items were used for the grinding of materials (cereals, incense, cosmetics, etc.). According to Hovers (1996: 176) and Samuel (1989), the distinction between mortars and deep bowls should be based upon the ratio between the depth of the hollow and the diameter of the opening. Implementing this methodology on bowls and mortars from Dothan is difficult. Of the 50 bowl fragments and 11 mortar fragments only ten of the bowls and three of the mortars were well enough preserved to determine with confidence the ratio between depth and diameter. Bowls There are 50 verifiable bowl fragments. 72% of them were made from basalt. Many of the bowls had ring bases (O-85A/B, O-2237, O-317 [see Ben-Tor, Ruhama, and Zuckerman 2003: Fig. 128.7]) Others had footed bases (O-10180, O-2401). Two bowls (O-2237 and O-317) had

Fig. 14.1 stone bowls: O-85A/B (left), O-2401 (right) long bar-handles just below their rims. O-2237 displays a sharp carination just below its handle, making the bowl much wider than it is deep (Yadin, et al. 1958: Pl. LIX.7), whereas O-317 is taller and has a smaller diameter. O-317 also has an added groove that runs around its exterior about halfway between its rim and base. Similar bowls have been found at el-Meshatta in the Dothan Valley (Zertal 2004: Fig. 81.1) and Lachish (Tufnell 1953: Pl. 65.7). One complete tripod bowl was found at Dothan (O2401). While O-2401 is complete, it is not as elaborate as O-10180, which has an added horizontal ridge on the exterior of its one remaining leg. This ridge is about half way up the leg and is very worn. Tripod bowls are wellknown from sites such as Hazor (Yadin, et al. 1960: Pl. LXXVII.1), Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 112.13, 16–17), Lachish (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 26.33), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1943: Pl. 29.16, 16a; 30.7; 57.d3), and Horbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000: Fig. III.98 and III.115.9) to name but a few. O-1566 is a small fragment of a fenestrated basalt bowl comprising a portion of the base and one of its legs. Two fragments from such bowls were found at Dothan, and would have been very similar to fenestrated bowls from Neveh Noy (NEAEHL: 165) and Abu Matar (Perrot 1955: Pl. 18A-B). The Dothan excavations also yielded one flat-based bowl (O-2122). This is one of the few stone bowls to be made from limestone. Similar bowls made of basalt have been found at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 113.14) and Horbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre: Fig. III.115.16).

161

162

14. Additional Studies

Fig. 14.2 Stone mortar: O-2076

Fig. 14.4 Upper grinding stone: O-323 (top), O2–2128 (bottom)

Mortars

Upper Grinding Stones

Eleven mortar fragments were verifiable, 82% from basalt and 18% from limestone. A majority of them are merely small pieces of basalt with a shallow depression for grinding. The best-worked mortar from Dothan is O-2466 (see Andersen 1985: Fig. 9.18.1). This stone is roughly rectangular with a shallow elliptical depression cut in its top face. The only other mortar of note is O-2076. It has two incised lines running parallel to one another around the circumference of the object.

The term ‘upper grinding stone’ includes stones that were used as the moveable, active stone in the grinding process. Eleven of the 12 identifiable upper grinding stones were made of basalt and one was made from sandstone. At Dothan there are two main types of upper grinding stones: a smaller, one-hand version and a larger, twohand version. Factors such as curvature and width of the grinding face were utilized to distinguish between upper and lower grinding stones. Within the two main types of upper grinding stones from Dothan there are also various forms—the elongated oval with a plano-convex crosssection (O-2128–two-hand), the shorter, more rectangular version with a roughly trapezoidal cross-section (O-323– one-hand), and one example of a circular, flattened domeshaped version (O-1172—one-hand). Lower Grinding Stones

Fig. 14.3 Stone pestles: O-1323 (left), S-109 (right) Pestles Thirteen pestles were found at Dothan, and all but one of them are basalt. Six are roughly conical in shape (O1323; see Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 106.6–7), while one is more parabolic (O-2045; see Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 106.4) There is also one that is triangular (S109) and one that is beveled (O-1316). All of the pestles show substantial wear on their pounding faces.

There are 52 lower grinding stones from Dothan. 85% are made from basalt. Because some of the fragments are quite small, it is possible that some of the stones identified here as lower grinding stones were used at one time as upper grinding stones. There are three main forms of lower grinding stones at Dothan. The first is an elongated oval with a plano-convex cross-section (O-5). It displays wear along its central region, making its ends appear to curve upwards. This wear is uneven, being more pronounced at one end. The second form is wider than the first and decreases in thickness from one end to the other (O-122). Parallels for this style of lower grinding stone are ubiquitous in Palestine (see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Photo 160; Pl. 53.2). The third form of lower grinding stone at Dothan is a circular form whose center has been cut (or worn) out (O-1315). The corresponding upper stone for this type is the circular type (O-1172).

14. Additional Studies

Fig. 14.5 Lower grinding stone: O-5

Fig. 14.6 Lower grinding stone: O-1315 Scrapers/Rubbers We can identify a total of 59 rubbers and 3 scrapers from the excavation records. Most of these objects are made of basalt that is fine grained for the rubbers and more vesicular for the scrapers. This is a category that was not originally used by the excavators. A few of the

163

Fig. 14.7 Stone scraper/rubber: O-919 (left), O-1333 (right)

objects labeled as “grinding stones” in the Dothan records are actually scrapers (O-919; 2133), while the remainder are small, single-hand rubbers. The difference between scrapers and rubbers is one of form and not necessarily function: scrapers have handles and rubbers do not. The scrapers from Dothan have flat working faces and handles that taper to a point. Some are perforated (O2133). Scrapers of this type are well attested at many other sites, most notably: Tel ºIra (Beit-Arieh 1999: Fig. 14.25.7; 14.26.3), Hazor (Yadin, et al. 1960: Pls. CV.13– 17; CLXIV.10–11; Yadin, et al. 1961: Pls. CLXXIII.4; CLXXXVIII.8–9), Timnah (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 92.16 and photo 164), Beth Shan (James 1966: Fig. 110.13), Megiddo (Loud 1948: Pl. 264.4–10), Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XXXI.345), and Horbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000: Fig. III.103.a-d; III.115.11–14). Most of the rubbers from Dothan are loaf-shaped with a flat working surface (O-1333, 2114; see Loud 1948: Pl. 264.3). Others take the form of elongated cylinders or domes (S-13; see Tufnell, Inge, and Harding 1940: Pl. XXIX.17). Some of the small rubbers also show evidence of pecking (O-2114).

164

14. Additional Studies

Personal or Decorative Objects

and eleven incised lines that extend radially. Approximately one-third of this object is preserved. Some of the other palettes only have the small circles incised into the rim (specifically, O-124). Maceheads (see Fig. 5.1) Of the seven objects identified as maceheads only two were available for study. One was too fragmentary for identification, and the other four lacked photos nor were they accessible for verification. There were two forms of macehead—piriform (O-2226) and spherical (O-1150). Miscellaneous

Fig. 14.8 Serpentine spindle whorl: O-2124 Spindle Whorls There are 26 stone spindle whorls from Dothan. Although made from different types of stone, they have been divided into the following categories based on shape: flat disc whorls, ring-shaped whorls, biconical whorls, domeshaped whorls, and irregular-shaped whorls. O-1039 is a flat disk whorl whose perforation was drilled from both ends (see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 8.12; Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 93.24, and Hamilton 1935: Pl. XXXI.118 ). O-352 is a ring-shaped basalt whorl with a large uniform perforation (Loud 1948: Pl. 171.2–5, 7, 8; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: p. 261 photo 191, Pls. 39.4 and 99.8; Yadin, et al. 1960: Pl. CLXIV.8). O-312 is a basalt biconical whorl (see Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 78.14; Shamir 1996: 149, Fig. 21.18–19, Type B2c or B3c; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: Fig. 92a.4; Tufnell 1953: Pl. 65.12; Beit-Arieh 1999: Fig. 14.4.26–43). O-2124 is a dome-shaped whorl made of serpentine. The closest sources for this rock are North Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt.

Fig. 14.10 Slingstones: O-2061 (left), O-2210 (right) Sling Stones The sling stones from Dothan are roughly square in shape with rounded corners, and weigh an average of 220g. Good examples are O-2061 and O-2210 Most of the sling stones at Dothan were made from chert, and are almost identical to a group of sling stones from Lachish (Tufnell 1953: p. 396, Pl. 40.5; the average weight of the sling stones at Lachish was slightly heavier (256g) than that at Dothan).

Fig. 14.9 Stone palettes: O-124 (left), O-817 (right) Palettes O-817 is the most elaborate of the palettes with an incised line around its outer circumference just below the rim and six concentric circles incised on the top of the rim. In between these circles are sets of two small incised circles, an “X” design with two lines on each side of it,

Fig. 14.11 Stone door socket: O-262

14. Additional Studies

165

Door Sockets

Weights

At least four door sockets were retrieved from Tell Dothan. The average diameter of the actual socket part of these stones was 16 cm. All of the sockets show concentric wear marks (O-262).

Two of the weights from Dothan (O-1026; 15.3g) are of the barrel type that is found at numerous sites throughout the Levant (for example, Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 104.6, 7, 25, 29; Loud 1948: Pl. 168.1–4, 6–7, 9–10, 12–14. The other weight (O-307; 1010.6g) is made of limestone and has sloping sides and a domeshaped top. Smaller examples of this shape can be found at Beer-Sheba (Aharoni 1973: Pl. 70.5–6; 73.10), Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 104.1, 30–31; Loud 1948: Pl. 168.23), Gezer (Macalister 1912: Fig. 429.1), Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1943: Pl. 64.17), and Horbat Rosh Zayit (Gal and Alexandre 2000: Fig. III.109.1–4).

Fig. 14.12 Stone lid?: O-2215b Lid? O-2215 fits snugly into the mouths of the small handless jars found in Area L but is unusually heavy for a lid. Another possibility is that this stone may have been a weight of some sort (375g).

Fig. 14.13 Stone weights: O-307 (left), O-1026 (right)

Fig. 14.14 Tournette fragments: O-682A (left), O-735 (right) Tournettes Two of the tournettes had sockets that were biconically drilled all the way through (DTOs 2252 and 735). O-2252 has a parabolic bottom and a flat top and appears to have been the lower stone of a potter’s wheel. O-735, also a lower stone, is ring shaped. O-682a is also a lower stone due in fact to its curved bottom, but is unlike the other two in that it has a tang as opposed to a socket. The face on which the top stone sat shows circular wear marks. Similar stone tournettes were found at Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939: Pl. 114.2–3; Loud 1948: Pl. 268.1–3) and Hazor (Yadin, et al. 1960: Pl. CLXXIX.6). Overall, Dothan yielded a good number of stone objects that also appear at larger sites throughout the country. Only representative items are presented here. Because the specific findspots were not recorded we are unable to integrate these objects into the area reports and instead offer only a select representation.

166

Fig. 14.15 Table of stone objects

14. Additional Studies

14. Additional Studies

Metal Artifacts by Blake A. Sawicky Dothan’s metal artifacts are collected here into the three traditional categories: weapons, tools, and objects of personal decoration (which include jewelry and fibulae). Knives are hard to classify because, unlike spearheads or arrowheads which are clearly intended for killing, they can be used either for benign chores or in hunting and war. This catalogue follows the approach of Emery (1998) in grouping all knives with weapons. Many of the metal objects are simply fragments of broken metal or slag and are impossible to identify: they could be anything from awls to hairpins, fibulae to tangs, armor scales to axe heads. There are other pieces that, while not as fragmentary, are unidentifiable. Many pieces are so dirty that they can only be identified and analyzed after they are cleaned. These objects are not included in this catalogue. For 50 years the metal objects were stored in a manner not conducive to preservation. In 2005 they were transferred to corrosion-resistant bags. In many cases where the soil still adhered to the artifacts, the integrity of the metal was preserved. The high level of corrosion on many of the metal objects has made it difficult to measure them accurately. Weapons and Knives This typology again follows Emery (1998), who subdivides the weapons category into points, blades, and butts based on shape. He further classifies points into arrowheads, lanceheads, and spearheads based on blade length. While many of Dothan’s metal artifacts were listed as spearheads, a strict adherence to Emery’s length parameters has determined that they are all arrowheads.

167

(see McCown 1947: Pl. 104.19, Biran and Ben-Dov 2002: 127.134, Chambon 1984: Pl. 68.2, Emery 1998: Pl. 60.1851). The other is linear-shaped O-2493 (cf. Loud 1948: Pl. 175.23). Two others are made of iron and are lozenge-shaped: O-645 (see Tufnell 1958: Pl. 60.39, Emery 1998: Pl. 5.1051) and O-2172 (see McCown 1947: Pl. 104.19, Tufnell 1958: Pl. 39.5). There are two special iron arrowheads that do not appear to have any close parallels: O-1220, of deltoid shape with an attached socket and O-82206 of lanceloate shape with a large bulb just below the head.

Fig. 14.17 Copper alloy spear butt: O-375 Spear butt There is one copper alloy spear butt from Dothan, O375. It is made from a single sheet of metal folded into a cone. This could also be an animal prod. (Good parallels are found in Finkelstein 1993: 239.4, Loud 1948: Pl. 177.2)

Fig. 14.18 Copper alloy blade: O-98560 Blades Fig. 14.16 Iron arrowhead: O-82206 Arrowheads Of the 11 objects listed in the original registry as possible arrowheads, only 6 of them are well enough preserved to the proper length (9 cm or shorter) to be verified as arrowheads. They include five different forms. The first form is represented by O-165, which is one of two made of copper alloy. It is a 5 cm long oblanceolate point with a barely discernible central ridge and a thin, tapered tang

Seven objects were tentatively identified as blades, but one of these is questionable. Of the remaining six, five are iron and only one is made from a copper alloy (O-98560; see Ben-Tor 1987: fig. 56.16, and Tufnell 1953: Pl. 59.13, 56.34 for iron parallels) whereas the rest are iron. O98560 still has two rivets in place towards the base of the blade along the long axis. The object is broken off at what appears to be a hole for another rivet and is also broken off at the top. O-82389 is a beautifully preserved whole straight back iron blade with a fastening device still attached to the base.

168

14. Additional Studies

Tools

With two exceptions from Square B-3 and B-2, all of these come from Area A. They are of three main types. The first is the “ledge head” with a square section and head that is distinguished from the shaft by a short protrusion on one edge. O-937 is a good example (see Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 99.14). The second type is the “disc head” with a square shaft and disc-shaped, centered head; the best examples are O-988 and U-115. (see BenTor 1996: Fig. XVIII.4.14, Yadin, et al. 1958: Pl. CLII.5). The “pin head” is the third type. It has a bulbous head growing out of the shaft. O-990 is a good representative. Several of the tips are bent (O-1040, O-82016, O-937), most probably from use.

Fig. 14.19 Copper alloy axehead: O-2624 Axe heads Axe heads are not included in the weapons and blades category in order to maintain consistency with Emery’s catalogue; while they certainly could be used in war, the vast majority of axes in Palestine come from a noncombative context (Emery 1998: 7) There are three axe heads from Dothan, all of them copper alloy. Only one has a known provenience (O-2624). It is flat, with almost no gradation from haft to blade and it is broken in half. (see Loud 1948: Pl. 183.18, Chambon 1984: Pl. 71.24)

Fig. 14.22 Iron plow point: O-830 Plow points The 5 plow points at Dothan are all roughly the same type: both sides of the blade extend from a cylindrical, folded socket and tapers down to a point. If the socket were unfolded it would give the tool something like a Tshape. (see Loud 1948: pl. 177.1, Tufnell 1958: Pl. 61.1, McCown 1947: Pl. 96.3).

Fig. 14.20 Iron chisel: O-2305 Chisels Fig. 14.23 Copper alloy sickle: O-82440 The one object well enough preserved (though extremely dirty) to qualify as a chisel is O-2305. It is made of iron with straight sides and a round blade curving between the two parallel sides. At the top there is a brokenoff tang-like structure. (see Chambon 1984: Pl. 71.2)

Fig. 14.21 Iron nail: O-988 Nails There are 25 objects labeled “nail” or “nail fragment,” but only 17 of them can be positively identified as such.

Sickles There are two sickle fragments, one of very wellpreserved copper alloy (O-82440; see Chambon 1984: Pl. 70.4) and the other of iron (F-7124, see McCown 1947: Pl. 96.15 and Yadin et al. 1956: Pl. CLXV.3) The former still sounds metallic when struck while the latter is simply a broken fragment.

14. Additional Studies

169

Objects of Personal Decoration

Fig. 14.25 Copper alloy fibula: O-2042 Fibulae Four of the five fibulae are from Area L while one is from Area T. All are made of copper alloy except one which appears to be made of silver. Two types are present, the boomerang-shaped fibula and the L-shaped fibula. O2042 has some discernible decoration on both ends (see Tufnell 1958: Pl. 58.19, McCown 1947: Pl. 111: 33)

Fig. 14.24 Copper alloy earring: F-7018 Rings and Earrings There are 28 objects identified as either rings or earrings. All of the earrings are made of copper alloy with the exception of one, which is silver. F-7018 is of the “dangly” variety—a triangular copper alloy plate with three perforations in the foundation; wires are attached to each of the three perforations—one wire goes up to the ear while the other two are adorned with sausage-shaped decorations on one end and dangle beneath the perforated plate. The earrings are evenly distributed, with 7 in Area A, 8 in Area L, 4 in Area B, and 1 in Area T. The material of the rings is varied: 7 are iron, 8 are possibly silver, and 5 are copper alloy. The only main variation in the rings’ form is whether the band is round (O-2501; see Biran and Ben-Dov 2002: 208.2.163, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 429.12) or flat (O-755; see Loud 1948: Pl. 224: 18, Yadin et al. 1956: Pl. CVI.9). The iron and copper alloy rings are relatively well distributed among the four areas, but Area L has a significant majority of silver rings (5); the next closest is Area B (2). This may be due to the funerary context of much of Area L in its latest phases.

Fig. 14.26 Copper alloy bracelet: O-1837 Bracelets Of the 19 objects identified as bracelets, 3 are made of copper alloy (O-1837) while the rest are iron. There are two main categories of bracelet at Dothan—simple (O1837; see Mazar 1980: 8.4) and bracelets with an omega shape where the ends are curled back onto the band (O1988). O-1837 is very well preserved; the metal fidelity is still very high and it remains fairly dense; there is one place on the band where the dirt has been scraped away and the original metal, a shiny bronze, shows through very clearly (see Tufnell 1958: Pl. 57.50).

170

14. Additional Studies

Miscellaneous Metal Objects

Pins, Needles, and Wire

Fig. 14.27 Copper alloy chain: O-1312

Pins and needles are fairly ubiquitous at the vast majority of sites in Palestine and Dothan is no exception. The site yielded 22 thin pieces of long, bent metal identified as pins, needles, or wire. All of them are copper alloy with the exception of two possible silver pins. O-2456 is an interesting exception to the rule: it is a bit thicker than the others and has a rough claw-shaped protrusion out of one end that looks as though it used to be attached to a wooden or bone piece. Crucible and Slag

Chain links Four links of a copper alloy chain have fused together (O-1312). Each of the links is roughly circular in shape with a small gap, giving them a “closed C” shape (see Loud 1948: pl. 177.10).

Fig. 14.28 Table of metal objects

Fragments of very thick clay not completely fired and coated on one side with copper alloy residue suggest a crucible. This copper alloy crucible coupled with several chunks of vesicular slag. These objects demonstrate some metallurgical activity at Dothan.

14. Additional Studies

171

Iron II Seal Impression by Gabriel Barkay The finds from Dothan include a jar handle with an inscribed Hebrew seal impression. The handle was unearthed in the first 40 cm of excavation in Square 7, Area L, during the 1960 season. The seal impression appears on the upper part of a large fragment of a jar handle. The clay is reddish in color with grey core and white grits. The type of jar to which the handle belonged differs clearly from the Judean “royal jars” on the handles of which we find the royal lmlk and other seal impressions. 1 The impression appears on the uppermost part of the handle, and the seal was impressed upside down. The impression measures 22 x 15 mm and is oval in shape. The seal was well impressed and all of its parts are clearly visible. The seal included an inscription of six characters in two lines, three in each. The text reads “(belonging) to smryw (Shemaryau),” and the legend is as follows: mçl wyr All of the inscription’s letters are visible and only the lamed is slightly blurred, though it is still clearly discernable. Between the two lines of the inscription there is a small clay lump that is not part of the impression but a small defect in the handle. Among the paleographic features one should stress the relatively long vertical leg of the res, the yod with a long horizontal base line terminating with a small cursive “tick,” and the Y-shaped waw. All these features are known to be characteristic of the paleo-Hebrew inscriptions originating in the northern kingdom of Israel during the 8th century b.c.e., and especially in the Samaria Ostraca. The name smryw of this impression is also attested in a seal that is said to have been found at Samaria (Scott 1964: 108–10, Avigad 1997: 159, no. 377). In that seal the name appears in a cartouche which is accompanied by two additional cartouches which include pseudo-hieroglyphic signs. This seal’s inscription bears paleographic characteristics that are similar to those of the Dothan seal impression. In both of these smryw seals there is no patronym and no title is mentioned. It seems that they belonged to a well known figure who did not need his father’s name to appear on his seal. We cannot exclude the possibility that both seals belonged to the same person. The name smryw is well known also in the Samaria Ostraca of the 8th century b.c.e., where it appears in ostraca 1, 13, 14, and 21 (Aharoni 1979: 356–63). In these ostraca smryw is most probably a high ranking official of the Israelite kingdom who was a recipient of commodities from different places. One should not exclude the

Fig. 14.29 Iron II Stamped Jar Handle

possibility that smryw of the Samaria Ostraca is identical to the official whose seal was impressed on the handle from Tell Dothan. The name smryw is composed from the verb smr, “to keep,” and the theophoric suffix -yw. This ending is typically found in personal names of the kingdom of Israel, in contrast to the -yahu suffix which characterizes the kingdom of Judah. However, the syncopated form of the divine name -yw is also found in Judah in the 8th century b.c.e. (Avigad 1997: 25). The hypocoristic form of the name smryw—smr is considered to be the origin of the name of Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel (see 1 Kings 16:24). Inscribed seal impressions on jar handles bearing the names of people who most probably were royal functionaries are most common in the kingdom of Judah in the late 8th century b.c.e. There they appear on handles of the lmlk jars (type 484 of the British excavations at Lachish). To date we know of approximately 280 examples of these stamped jar handles (Vaughn 1999: 198–219). In contrast, inscribed seal impressions from the kingdom of Israel are extremely rare. From the northern Israelite kingdom only seven such stamped jar handles are known to exist. The impressions on them yield four seals: Nos. 1–2: zkryw—Two impressions, one from Tel Dan and the other from et-Tell (Bethsaida). 2

2

1

On the typology of the royal jars see Zimhoni (2004: 1794– 1795), Vaughn (1999: 81–167).

The impressions include only the name zkryw without the possessive lamed. The lamed appears erroneously in Avigad’s corpus (Avigad 1997: 246, no.669).

172

14. Additional Studies

No. 3: lydºyw—Said to come from Samaria (Avigad 1997: 247, no. 671). Nos. 4–6: lºmdyw—Three impressions from Tel Dan (Avigad 1997: 255, no. 692). No. 7: An impression with a seated griffin and an undeciphered inscription in the exergue, from Samaria (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: 89, no. 45). 3 The fact that two of these handles bearing the impressions of the same seal were found in two different remote sites (nos. 1–2) suggests that they belonged to a state official whose seal impressions were widely distributed. The jars upon which these seals were stamped could have served some kind of official purpose such as collecting taxes in kind. The fact that the patronym is missing in the handle from Tell Dothan and the four known seals on the other Israelite handles may also suggest that these were seals of well known state officials. The name ydºyw, like

3

The inscription in the exergue includes, according to the photograph in Avigad’s corpus, five letters described by Avigad as illegible (1997: 263, no. 711). Study of the photograph, however, shows that the last letter is a clear Y-shaped waw and the letter preceding it is most probably a yod. Therefore this inscribed seal also had a name with the typical Israelite suffix -yw.

the name smryw, appears on an impression (in this case from Samaria) and also in the Samaria Ostraca (nos. 42 and 48). Based upon the paleographic details and typological considerations, we may date the seal impression of smryw from Tell Dothan, as well as the other Israelite impressions, to the first half of the 8th century b.c.e., possibly even to the reign of Jeroboam II (784–748 b.c.e.). The administrative system reflected in these seal impressions must be earlier than the military raid of Tiglath-Pileser III (732 b.c.e.), when the kingdom of Israel lost parts of its northern territories in which some of the stamped jar handles were found. The system that is attested in the above mentioned stamped handles from the kingdom of Israel could have been the precursor of the administrative organization evidenced in the royal lmlk jars of Judah that developed in the days of Hezekiah, later in the 8th century b.c.e. We conclude, though the matter needs further petrographic analysis, that all the above mentioned seal impressions were distributed from Israel’s capital, Samaria. The smryw inscription from Tell Dothan is thus a welcome addition to the sparse corpus of stamped jar handles from the northern Kingdom of Israel.

14. Additional Studies

173

Rhodian Stamp Seals Seals from the Rockefeller identified by Gerald Finkielsztejn.

Seals from Wheaton and St. Louis identified by Cecilia Collins, Philip Johnston, and Joshua Walton.

174

14. Additional Studies

14. Additional Studies

175

15. Conclusion

he excavations of Joseph P. Free proved beyond any doubt that Tell Dothan is a rich and rewarding site, capable of making an important contribution to the archaeology of Palestine. Any contribution that this volume might make rests fully on the dedicated work of Joseph and Ruby Free and their industrious excavation staff. They wrote descriptions of more than forty thousand objects, produced dozens of square reports, and drew many plans. Their work has been curated for more than a generation in the hopes that someone might publish this material. Our goal in this volume has been to communicate responsibly the results of Free’s excavations and our synthesis. This has been a balancing act between presenting Free’s original assessments and incorporating forty years of scholarly hindsight. On many issues we agree with Free. On other issues we reach different conclusions. In either case, we attempt to represent the steps by which the original excavators reached their conclusions (see Chapter 4). At its core, however, this report rests on Free’s excavation. The plans are based on original drawings and the ceramic analysis is based on the material that the original team kept. Their stratigraphy remains the basis for the contextual relationships upon which we base our conclusions. The results presented above will, it is hoped, contribute to our understanding of the ancient civilizations and historical periods represented at Tell Dothan (see Figure 4.7). Specifically, the integration of Dothan into recent surveys and regional studies indicates that it was a local border site between the hill country and the plain rather than a guardian of the international highway (see Chapters Two and Three). The site’s contribution to the ceramic assemblages of each period will hopefully provide a new appreciation for the regional variants of many common forms, particularly with the publication of volume two in the near future. The site’s rich EB II-III material can now be added to the corpus of Early Bronze architecture and pottery from the Levant. The MB II fortifications and patrician house conform to our understanding of MB II culture in this region and add comparative material to it. The LB I imports expand the register of imported pottery forms and pose new questions concerning the continuity from MB II. The virtual absence of LB II material on the tell helps to round out the picture of the hill country during this period but creates new challenges for categorizing the LB II/IA I tomb material and explaining its presence at Dothan. The IA I domestic complex and pottery reflect

T

developments in the hill country during the late second millennium b.c. and may help to understand the recovery of local culture after the departure of Egypt. In addition, the large size of the four-room house and its courtyard is a notable departure from the typical insula of the IA I-II. Dothan’s IA II settlement represents a significant addition to our understanding of northern Palestine during the early first millennium b.c. The continuity of the domestic complexes and the presence of an administrative building provide new insight into the expansion of the northern kingdom in the ninth century b.c. Most important, a chronological anchor for the pottery and architecture of Dothan is provided by the carbon-14 results. There are historical and archaeological implications to this finding that will be treated elsewhere. Results from later periods further complement prior archaeological knowledge of northern Palestine. While the Hellenistic settlement is rather small, its publication provides new data for contextualizing the book of Judith. To our picture of the first centuries b.c. and a.d., Dothan contributes another farmstead in the northern hills during the expansion of Roman and Byzantine settlement there. Finally, the early second millennium a.d. farmhouse of Area T yielded a significant corpus of Islamic pottery that should be of value to future study of the Mameluke period. To the findings from each period one could add numerous unprovenienced objects such as flints and figurines that will have to appear in future studies. During the course of this publication project we have been struck not only by the richness of Tell Dothan but also by the ways in which it intersects with the story of Biblical Archaeology and its various methods. Joseph Free’s particular passion was to harness his findings at Dothan to support his views of the Bible (see Chapter 1). The site may well intersect with biblical events, but the complex nature of the archaeological data and the biblical record require that this subject be addressed elsewhere. Finally, this volume not only represents Joseph Free’s excavations as best we can report them, but will also, we hope, prepare the way for future excavations at Tell Dothan. There are compelling reasons to renew excavations at the site. First, it is a large tell that is ideally positioned to answer any number of research questions. Second, the stratigraphic sequence can be clarified further through focused excavations in areas adjacent to or within the areas that Free excavated. We identified these key areas in the 2004 survey. In Area A, for example, several wide ‘catwalks’ were left, including one that runs straight through the four-room house. If Area A were excavated

177

178

15. Conclusion

further, the northern part of the MB Patrician House would emerge, and all the EB layers predating it. A possible Early Bronze Age gate sits exposed on the very surface of Area D, waiting for clarification. The same situation exists in all of the other areas excavated by the Free expedition. A third reason to return to the site is to continue integrating its finds into our understanding of

the strategic valley in which it lies and the adjacent regions. Since Free’s day, sites like nearby Tell Belºameh, Tell Jezreel, Nami, and Joqneam have been excavated and could be included in a larger regional survey. In any future scenario, Free’s excavations provide a window into the mound that will place all future investigators in his debt.

16. Bibliography

1962

Documents in the Archives of the Wheaton Archaeology Museum 1 Square Reports 1953 1954 1955 1956 1958 1959 1960 1962

1964

Ruby A. Free George E. Kelsey, Ruby A. Free, E. R. Griffiths E. L. Giese, Ruby A. Free, A. O. Koppin Peter Gerard, Ruby A. Free, Dwain L. Eckberg, Donald R. Brown Ruby A. Free, Dorothy Wolf, J. V. Powell, John M. Wendel, Dick Longenecker, Dave Kives Ruby A. Free, Robert E. Cooley, O. Kenneth Walther, Jim Jennings George Hay, Ruby A. Free, Bob Bason, Dorothy Wolf, Arnold C. Schultz, Robert Cooley R. Laird Harris, Donna Bayless, Dennis Peterson, Ruby A. Free, Ralph J. Franklin, Bob Bason, Warren E. Myers, Gloria Manfredi, Bill Peterson, Robert Sterling, Allen Harder, Mary Breme, Paul B. Fowler, Lloyd Macfadyen, Laurel Gasque, Bob Mader, Ward Gasque, Norman Stewart, Bastiaan Van Elderen, Gary Dean Hand, Priscilla Sedgwick, Paul Balisky, Ruby A. Free, Robert Cooley, Bastiaan Van Elderen, Roger Fornwalt, William Petz, Marlin Van Elderen, David Zandstra, Norman Stewart, Dick Bennink, Dwight Paulson

Field Notebooks 1953 1954 1955 1956

1958 1959 1960

1

Ruby A. Free, Ed Hollatz, G. E. Kelsey, Clyde Kilby, John Rea G. E. Kelsey, Ruby A. Free, E. Griffiths, J. P. Free E. L. Giese, J. P. Free, Ruby A. Free, Rick B. Orcutt DeViolette Bernhardt, Rosa Veal, Peter Gerard, Ruby A. Free, J. P. Free, Dwain Eckberg, Don Brown John Wendel, Ruby A. Free, Dorothy Wolf, Dick Longenecker, J. P. Free Ruby A. Free, R. Haznedl, Robert Cooley, O. K. Walther, Austin Hale, Jim Jennings Dorothy Wolf, Ruby A. Free, Austin Hale, Arnold Schultz, Bob Bason

Names are listed as they appear in the original documents.

1964

Dr. Stanley Horton, Ruby A. Free, J. P. Free, R. L. Harris, George Hay, Donna Bayless, Dennis Peterson, Bob Bason, Lloyd Macfadyen, E. P. Balisky, Gary Dean Hand, Norman Stewart, Bob Mader, Ward Gasque, Bill Peterson, Bob Sterling, Paul B. Fowler, A. J. Harder, W. E. Meyers, Gloria Manfredi W. H. Pippert, Ruby A. Free, Richard Bennink, Donna Lee Smyth, Roger Storm, David L. Zandstra, David Owen

Selected Bibliography Abel, F. M. 1938 Géographie de la Palestine, vol. 2. Paris: Gabalda. Aharoni, Y. 1973 Beer-Sheba I. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. 1975 Lachish V: Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency. Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers. 1976 The Solomonic Districts. Tel Aviv 3: 5–15. 1979 Land of the Bible. Rev. edition. London: Burns and Oates. Albright, W. F. 1925 The Administrative Division of Israel and Judah. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 5: 17– 54. 1935 The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co. 1943 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. III. New Haven CT: American Schools of Archaeological Research. Aldenderfer, M., and Maschner, H. D. G., eds. 1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amiran, R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers. 1978 Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Amiran, R., and Dunayevsky, I. 1958 The Assyrian open-court building and its Palestinian derivatives. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 149: 25–32.

179

180

16. Bibliography

Andersen, F. G. 1985 Shiloh II. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. Ariel, D. 1984 “Excavations at the City of David.” Qedem 30. Jerusalem: Publications of the Institute of Archaeology. Avigad, N. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (revised and completed by B. Sass). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Avissar, M. 1996 The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Pp. 48–59 in Yoqneºam I: The Late Periods, ed. A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar, and Y. Portugali. Qedem 3. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Bailey, G., and Davidson., I. 1983 Site Exploitation Territories and Topography: Two Case Studies from Paleolithic Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 10 (2), 87–115. Barag, D. 1985 Phoenician Stone Vessels from the Eighth-Seventh Centuries b.c.e. Eretz Israel 18: 215–32 (Hebrew). Baramki, D. L. 1942 The Pottery of Khirbet el Mefjer, 4. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10: 65–103. Bartov, Y. 1979 Israel Geological Map, 1:500,000. Jerusalem: Survey Israel. Beit-Arieh, I., ed. 1999 Tel ºIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Ben-Tor, A., and Rosenthal, R. 1977 The First Season of Excavations at Tel Yoqneºam. Israel Exploration Journal 28: 57–82. Ben-Tor, A., Portugali, Y., and Avissar, M. 1978 The Second Season of Excavations at Tel Yoqneºam. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 65–82. Ben-Tor, A., Bonfil, R., and Zuckerman, S. 2003 Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Berlin, A. 1997 The Plain Wares in Tel Anafa II: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, ed. S. Herbert. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series no. 10, part. II. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum. Braudel, F. 1980 On History. Trans. S. Matthews from French. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Briend, J., and Humbert, J. B. 1980 Tell Keisan (1971–1976): Une Cité Phénicienne en Galilée. Paris: J. Gabalda. Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37: 425–430. 2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal, Radiocarbon, 43: 355–63. Buhl, M., and Holm-Nielsen, S. 1969 Shiloh: The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932, and 1963. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. Butzer, K. 1972 Environment and Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1997 Sociopolitical Discontinuity in the Near East c.e.: Scenarios from Palestine and Egypt. Pp. 245–96 in Third millennium b.c. climate change and old world collapse, ed. H. Dalfes, G. Kukla, and H. Weiss. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Calderon, R. 2000 Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 91–162 in Ramat Hanadiv Excavations—Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, ed. Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Chambon, A. 1984 Tell El-Farah 1: L’Age du Fer. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Chisholm, M. 1968 Rural Settlement and Land Use. London: Hutchinson. Coen-Uzzielli, T. 1997 The Oil Lamps. In The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: final report, ed. Y. Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2001 Ground Stone Objects. Pp. 225–37 in Timnah (Tel Batash) II, ed. A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Cole, D 1965 Middle Bronze II B pottery at Shechem: Incorporating proposals for the analysis and reporting of Near Eastern stratified sherd material. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Drew University. 1984 Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Ann Arbor, MI: American Schools of Oriental Research. Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, K. 1880 Map of Western Palestine in 26 Sheets from Surveys Conducted for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Lieutenants C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, R. E. during the Years 1872–1877. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

16. Bibliography

Conder, C. R., and Warren, C. 1882 The Survey of Western Palestine, vol. 2. London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Cooley, R. E., and Pratico, G. D. 1995 Dothan: The Western Cemetery, with Comments on Joseph Free’s Excavations, 1953 to 1964. Pp. 147–90 in Preliminary Excavation Reports: Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el-Umeiri, the combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan, ed. William Dever. Ann Arbor MI: American Schools of Oriental Research. Coulson, Mook, and Rehard. 1997 Stamped Amphora Handles from Tel Beersheba. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 306: 46–62. Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon. 1957 Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Daviau, M., and Beckmann, M. 2001 Umayyad Painted Pottery and Abbasid Period Lamps at Tell Jawa: A Chronological Dilemma. Pp. 259–74 in La Céramique Byzantine et ProtoIslamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe Siècles apr. J.-C.), ed. E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson. Beirut: Institut Français d’Archéologie du ProcheOrient. Day, F. 1935 Some Islamic Pilgrimbottles. Berytus II: 5–10. de Miroschedji, P. 1988 Yarmouth 1: Rapport sur les Trois Premieres Campagnes de Fouilles à Tel Yarmouth. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations. de Vaux, R., and Steve, A. M. 1950 Fouilles à Qaryet el-ºEnab Abu G% osh^ . Paris: École Biblique et Archaéologique Française. Dever, W. G. et al. 1974 Gezer II Report of the 1967–1979 Seasons in Field I and II. Jerusalem: Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Dikaios, P. 1969 Enkomi Excavations 1948–1958, Vol. IIIa. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Dornemann, R. H. 1983 The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee Public Museum. Dorsey, D. 1991 The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Dothan, M. 1955 The Excavations at Afula. Atiqot (English Series) 1: 19–74.

181

Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Eran, A. 1974 Appendix B: A Group of Weights from Gezer. Pp. 131–32 in Gezer II, ed. William G. Dever. Jerusalem: Annual of the Hebrew Union College/ Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. 2001 Stone Weights. Pp. 238–43 in Timnah (Tel Batash) II. Qedem 42, ed. A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology Esse, D. 1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Fadenrecht, J. H. 1965 Field Archaeology at Wheaton College. 6 July (written statement by Dean’s office July 6 1965). Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 1993 Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D., and Halpern, B. 2000 Megiddo III. 1992–1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001 Chronologie détailée et révisée des eponyms amphoriques rhodiens de 270 a 108 av. J. C.: premier bilan. BAR International Series 990. Oxford: Archaeopress. Fitzgerald, G. M. 1931 Beth Shan Excavations III, 1921–3, The Arab and Byzantine Levels. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania. Flannery, K. V. 1976a The Village and its Catchment Area. Pp. 91–95 in The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. K. V. Flannery. New York: Academic Press. 1976b Empirical Determination of Site Catchments in Oaxaca and Tehuacan. Pp. 103–17 in The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. K. V. Flannery. New York: Academic Press. Free, J. P. 1950 Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press. 1953 First Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 131: 16–20. 1954 Second Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 135: 14–20. 1955 Third Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 139: 3–9. 1956 Fourth Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 143: 11–17.

182

1958 1960 1962 1979

16. Bibliography

Fifth Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 152: 10–18. Seventh Season at Dothan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 160: 6–15. Archaeology and Bible History. Rev. ed. Wheaton: Scripture Press. Dothan. Pp. 985–86 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, ed. G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Gaffney, V., and Stancic!, Z. 1991 GIS Approaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study of the Island of Hvar. Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta. Available at: http: //www.archaeology.usyd.edu.au/VISTA/gaffney_stancic. 1992 Diodorus Siculus and the Island of Hvar, Dalmatia: Testing the Text with GIS. Pp. 113–25 in Computer Applications in Archaeology 1991. BAR International Series S577, ed. G. Lock and J. Moffett. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Gorenflo, L. J., and Gale, N. 1990 Mapping Regional Settlement in Information Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9, 240–74. Grabar, O. et al. 1960 Sondages à Khirbet el-Minyeh. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 226–43. Grace, V. 1976 Stamped Amphora Handles Found in 1931–1932. Chicago: Obol International. Guérin, V. 1868–80 Déscription géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine accompagnée de cartes detaillées. Paris; reprinted Amsterdam: Oriental Press, 1969. Guy, P. L. O. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. OIP 33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gaffney, V., Stancic!, Z., and Watson, H. 1996 Moving from Catchments to Cognition: Tentative Steps toward a Larger Archaeological Context for GIS. Pp. 132–154 in Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, ed. M. Aldenderfer and H. D. G. Maschner. New York: Oxford.

Hadad, S. 2002 The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean. Qedem 4. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Gal, Z. 1994 Basalt Tripod Bowls and Three-Legged Bowls. Michmanim 7: 17–25.

Hayes, J. W. 1972 Late Roman Pottery. London: British School at Rome. 1985 Sigillate orientali. Pp. 3–78 in Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche II: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Medio Etardo Impero). Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y. 2000 Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA Reports, No. 8. Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority.

Hamilton, R. W. 1933 Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. New York: Milford.

Garfinkel, Y., and Epstein, C. 1999 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery. Qedem 39. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Helms, S. W. 1977 Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell Dothan. Levant 9: 101–14.

Getzov, N., Paz, Y., and Gophna, R. 2001 Shifting Urban Landscapes During the Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot.

Heller, N. 2001 Form and Function of the Iron Age “Administrative Building” at Dothan M. A. thesis, Wheaton, IL: Wheaton College.

Golani, A. 2003 Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA 18. Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority. Goldman, H. 1950 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Goren, Y. 1993 Petrographic Analyses of Middle Bronze Age III, Late Bronze Age, and Iron Age I Ceramic Assemblages. Pp. 271–78 in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Monograph Series no. 10. ed. I. Finkelstein. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.

Higgs, E. S. 1975 Appendix A. Site Catchment Analysis: A Concise Guide to Field Methods. Pp. 223–24. in Paleoeconomy, ed. E. S. Higgs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hirschfeld, Y. 1995 The Palestinian Dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Jerusalem: Franciscan Press. Hovers, E. 1996 The Groundstone Industry. Pp. 171–203. In City of David Excavations Final Report IV. Qedem 35, ed. A. DeGroot and D. T. Ariel. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

16. Bibliography

James, F. W. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth-Shan. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Jarman, M. R., and Webley, D. 1975 Settlement and Land Use in Capitana, Italy. Pp. 177–221 in Paleoeconomy ed. E. S. Higgs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johansen, C. F. 1971 Les terres sigillées orientales. Pp. 55–204 in Les poteries hellénistiques et les terres sigillées orientales. Hama, fouilles et recherches 1931–1938, III, 2, ed. A. P. Christensen and C. F. Johansen. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseets Skrifter. Johnson, B. L. 1986 The Pottery. Pp. 137–226 in Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, ed. G. D. Weinberg. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Kaiser, A. E. 2003 The Application of GIS Viewshed Analysis to Roman Urban Studies: The Case Study of Empúries, Spain. Internet Archaeology 14. http: //intarch .ac.uk/journal/issue14/Kaiser/index.html. Keel, O. 1980 La Glyptique. Pp. 257–99 in Tell Keisan (1971– 1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée, ed. Jacques Briend and Jean-Baptiste Humbert. Paris: J. Gabalda. Kenyon, K. M., et al. 1960 Excavations at Jericho, Vol. I: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–54. London: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Killebrew, A. 2001 The Collared Pithos in Context: A Typological, Technical, and Functional Reassessment. Pp. 377– 98 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

183

Lapp, P. W. 1961 Palestinian Ceramic Chronology 200 b.c.–a.d. 70. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Leusen, P. M. van 2002 Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. Dissertation. Groningen: University Library Groningen. available at: http: //www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/arts /p.m.van.leusen/thesis.pdf. Lock, G. 2003 Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards Virtual Pasts. London: Routledge. Lock, G., and Harris, T. M. 1996 Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort in a Digital Landscape. Pp. 214–40 in Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, ed. M. Aldenderfer and H. Maschner New York: Oxford. Loffreda, S. 1974 Cafarnao II: La Ceramica. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Macalister, R. A. S. 1912 The Excavations of Gezer II. London: John Murray. 1912 The Excavations of Gezer III. London: John Murray. Mackensen, M. 1984 Eine befestigte spätantike Anlage von den Stadtmauern von Resafa. Resafa I. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Mackenzie, D. 1914 Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth-Shemesh). London: Harrison and Sons.

Kingsley, S. A. 1999 The Sumaqa Pottery Assemblage: Classification and Quantification. Pp. 263–329 in Sumaqa: A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel, ed. S. Dar. BAR International Series 815. Oxford: British Archaeology Reports.

Mazar, A., Ziv-Esudri, A., and Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2000 The Early Bronze Age II-III at Tel Beth Shean: Preliminary Observations. Pp. 255–78 in Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, ed. G. Philip and D. Baird. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Kraybill, N. 1977 Pre-Agricultural Tools for the Preparation of Foods in the Old World. Pp. 485–521 in Origins of Agriculture, ed. C. R. Reed. The Hague: Mouton.

Mazar, A. 2003 The Excavations at Tel Rehov and their Significance for the Study of the Iron Age in Israel. Eretz-Israel 27: 143–60.

Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M. 1939 Megiddo I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

184

16. Bibliography

Mazar, A., and Shamir, O. 2001 Spindle Whorls. Pp. 259–62 in Timnah (Tel Batash) II, Qedem 42, ed. A. Mazar and N. PanitzCohen. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Pierce, G. A. 2004 A Regional GIS-Based Survey of the Dothan Valley: The Early Bronze Age Sites. MSc Dissertation. York, UK: University of York.

Magness, J 1993 Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology, circa 200–800 c.e. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Poulson, V. 1957 Les Poteries. Pp. 16–301 in Les Verreries et Poteries Médiévales. Hama, fouilles et recherches de la fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938, IV, 2, ed. P. J. Riis and V. Poulson. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseets Skrifter.

Meyers, E. M. et al. 1981 The Coarsewares. Pp. 123–29 in Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977. Meiron Excavation Project III. Cambridge, Mass: American Schools of Oriental Research. Mira, I. G. 2001 GIS Tools to Analyze the Iberian Iron Age Landscape in Eastern Spain. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 57: 1–5. Monson, J. 1998 Regions on the Run. Rockford, IL: Biblical Backgrounds. Moorey, P. R. S. 1991 A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Moran, W. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University. Na’aman, N. 1988 Pharaonic Lands in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 177–86 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.). Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985, ed. M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.

Pringle, R. D. 1984 Thirteenth-Century Pottery from the Monastery of St Mary of Carmel. Levant XVI: 91–111. 1985 Medieval Pottery from Caesarea: The Crusader Period. Levant XVII: 171–202. 1986 The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar). Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks, a.d. 1099–1516. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rainey, A. F. 1984 A Handbook of Historical Geography. Jerusalem: American Institute of Holy Land Studies. Rast, W. 1978 Taanach I: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research. Ravikovitch, S. 1969 Soil Map. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel. Reisner, G. A. et al. 1924 Harvard excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Nicolaou, I., and Empereur, J.-Y. 1986 Amphores rhodiennes du Musée de Nicosie. Pp. 515–33 in Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques. Athens.

Robinson, E. 1856 Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions, Vol. 3. Reprinted 1970, Jerusalem: Universitas Booksellers.

Parcero-Oubiña, C. 2002 Using GIS for the Historical Analysis of Archaeological Landscapes. Archaeological Computing Newsletter 59: 4–10.

Robinson, H. S. 1959 Pottery of the Roman Period. Athenian Agora, V. 5. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Perrot, J. 1955 The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 17–40, 73– 84, 167–89. 1979 Syria-Palestine I: From the Origins to the Bronze Age. Geneva: Nagel Publishers.

Roper, D. 1979 The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis. Pp. 119–40 in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, ed. M. Schiffer. New York: Academic Press.

Peterson, A. 2001 A Gazetteer of Buildings in Muslim Palestine. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology, No. 12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R. 1978 The Roman and Byzantine Pottery. Pp. 14–19 in Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976): Part one: from the Iron Age to the Roman Period, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology.

16. Bibliography

Rossman, D. 1976 A Site Catchment Analysis of San Lorenzo, Veracruz. Pp 95–103 in The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. K. V. Flannery. Samuel, D. 1989 Their Staff of Life: Initial Investigations of Ancient Egyptian Bread Baking. Pp. 253–90 in Amarna Reports IV, ed. B. Kemp. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Sauer, J. A. 1973 Heshbon Pottery 1971: A Preliminary Report on the Pottery from the 1971 Excavations at Tel Heshbon. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University. Sauvaget, J. 1932 Poteries Syro-Mesopotamiennes du XIVe Siècle. Documents D’Études Orientale de l’Institut francais de Damas I, book 2. Paris: E. Leroux. Savage, S. 2004 Early Bronze Age Social Systems in Central Jordan. Available at http: //archaeology.asu.edu/ jordan/EBAJordan.htm. Schaefer, J. 1989 Archaeological Remains from the Medieval Islamic Occupation of the Northwest Negev Desert. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 274: 33–60. Scott, R. B. Y. 1964 The Seal of smryw. Vetus Testamentum 14: 108– 10. Shamir, O. 1996 Loomweights and Whorls. Pp. 135–70 in City of David IV, ed. A. DeGroot and D. T. Ariel. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Slane, K. W. 1997 The Plain Wares in Tel Anafa II: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, ed. S. Herbert. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series no. 10, part. II. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum. Smith, G. A. 1931 Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 25th ed. Reprinted 1966, Jerusalem: Ariel. Stern, E. 1995 Excavations at Dor Vol. IB. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Stuiver, M. et al. 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40: 1041–83. Thompson, H. O. 1971 Iron Age Cosmetic Palettes. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 16: 61–70. 1972 Cosmetic Palettes. Levant 4: 148–50. Tilley, C. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.

185

Tobler, W. 1993 Three Presentations on Geographical Analysis and Modeling. Technical Report 93-1. Santa Barbara: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Available at: http: //www.ncgia.ucsb.edu /Publications/TechReports/93/93–1.pdf. Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. 1958 Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. London: Oxford University Press. Tufnell, O., Inge, C. H., and Harding, G. L. 1940 Lachish II: The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press. Tushingham, A. D. 1972 The Excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab. The Third Campaign, 1952–53. Annals of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 40. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research. Vaughn, A. G 1999 Theology, History and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Vita-Finzi, C. 1978 Archaeological Sites in Their Setting. London: Thames and Hudson. Vita-Finzi, C., and Higgs, E. 1970 Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 1–37. Waagé, F. O. 1948 Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV, Part 2, Ceramics and Islamic Coins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Wagstaff, M. 1986 What Christaller really said about central places. Pp. 119–22 in Central Places, Archaeology, and History, ed. E. Grant. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory. Webley, D. 1972 Soils and Site Location in Prehistoric Palestine. Pp. 169–80 in Papers in Economic Prehistory, ed. E. S. Higgs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wheatley, D., and Gillings, M. 2000 Vision, Perception, and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. Pp. 1–27 in Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, ed. G. Lock. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London: Taylor & Francis.

186

16. Bibliography

Whitcomb, D. 1988 Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ceramic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 271: 51–67. Wilkinson, T. 2003 Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. University of Arizona Press. Wilson, J. A. 1969 List of Asiatic Countries under the Egyptian Empire. Pp. 242–43 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University. Wolff. S., and Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2001 Production Centers of Collared-Rim Pithoi in the Carmel Coast and Ramat Menashe Regions. Pp. 639–58 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, K. 1992 A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2: 53–81. Yadin, 1958 1960 1961

Yigael et al. Hazor I. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Hazor II. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Hazor III-IV. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Zertal, A. 1984 Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).

1992 1992

2004

Hepher. Pp. 138–39 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey Volume I: The Shechem Syncline. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. (Hebrew) The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Volume 1– The Shechem Syncline. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.

Zimhoni, O. 2004 The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789–1899 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 2, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. 1997 Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and Chronological Aspects. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Zohary, D. 1969 The Progenitors of Wheat and Barley in Relation to Domestication and Agricultural Dispersal in the Old World. p. 47 in The Domestication of Plants and Animals, ed. P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth. Zunz, L. 1840 On the Geography of Palestine, from Jewish sources. Pp. 397–448 in The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, Vol. 2, trans. and ed. A. Asher. London: A. Asher.