IAA Reports 54: Bet Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Vol. II. Urban Structure and Material Culture. 1933–1986 Excavations 9789654064507, 9654064502

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 54

Bet Yerah The Early Bronze Age Mound Volume II Urban Structure and Material Culture 1933–1986 Excavations

R aphael Greenberg

with contributions by Mark Iserlis, Nili Liphschitz, Henk Mienis, Sarit Paz, Steven A. Rosen, Danny Rosenberg, and Ron Shimelmitz

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2014

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 1

01/12/2014 12:59:13

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Volume and Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Production Coordinator: Lori Lender Front Cover: Area BS, late Early Bronze Age structures (Local Stratum 6), with Fortification C in background (photograph, Bar-Adon Archive). Back Cover: Zoomorphic vessel, figurine, and painted plaque (Chapter 6, Cat. Nos. 39, 1, 49; photographs, P. Shrago and courtesy the Israel Museum). Typesetting, Layout, Cover Design, and Production: Ann Buchnick-Abuhav Plans: Natalya Zak, Dov Porotsky Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright 2014, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-450-7 H,6%1 www.antiquities.org.il

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 2

01/12/2014 12:59:13

Contents

ABBREviations

iv

Foreword

v

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

Raphael Greenberg

1

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

15

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

53

Chapter 4: The Flint Assemblage

Ron Shimelmitz and Steven A. Rosen

151

Chapter 5: The stone Assemblage

Danny Rosenberg and Raphael Greenberg

189

Chapter 6: the small finds

Sarit Paz

235

Chapter 7: The Early Bronze Age at Tel Bet Yerah— A Summary

Raphael Greenberg

299

Appendix I: Note on ArchaeoBotanical remains

Nili Liphschitz

303

Appendix II: notes on the Archaeomalacological material

Henk K. Mienis

305

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 3

01/12/2014 12:59:13

iv

Abbreviations

AASOR ADAJ ANES BA BAR Int. S. BASOR Bet Yerah I BJPES ESI HA IAA Reports IEJ IMJ JIPS JPOS LA LAAA NEA NEAEHL OBO SA OIP PEQ RB SAOC ZDPV

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan Ancient Near Eastern Studies Biblical Archaeologist British Archaeological Reports, International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research R. Greenberg, E. Eisenberg, S. Paz, and Y. Paz. Bet Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports 1933–1986 (IAA Reports 30). Jerusalem Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Arkheologiyot (Hebrew) Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Museum Journal Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Liber Annuus Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Near Eastern Archaeology E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica Oriental Institute Publications Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Note on artifact plates and Tables Where inclusions are described, they generally correspond to the following categories: White = limestone and, in larger vessels, shell Gray = basalt and sometimes chert (especially larger vessels) Red = basalt, shale, or grog Mention of medium or large inclusions indicates coarse fabric; small or fine, well-levigated fabric. n.d.a = no data available; used in some cases when artifacts were no longer available for inspection.

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 4

01/12/2014 12:59:13

v

Foreword

This volume is a companion to Bet Yerah, the Early Bronze Age Mound I: Excavation Reports, 1933–1986 (henceforth, Bet Yerah I), published by the Israel Antiquities Authority (Greenberg et al. 2006). It includes an introduction to the physical attributes of the site and its catchment, synthetic discussions of the architecture and pottery presented in Bet Yerah I, and detailed reports on previously unpublished chipped stone, groundstone, and small finds from the 1933– 1986 excavations. A third volume, comprising reports on the later periods of occupation on the mound, will complete this first series of final publications by the Tel Bet Yerah Research and Publication Project. Briefly recapping the history of excavations (presented in detail in Bet Yerah I), approximately 15,000 sq m of the 25 ha mound were excavated in a long sequence of excavations between 1933 and 1995. The locations of these excavations are shown in Plan 1 and Table 1. By far the most significant finds were made in the salvage excavations carried out by the pre-state Mandatory Department of Antiquities or at its request (the excavations of Makhouly in 1933 and Mazar and others in 1944–1946), and by the Israel Department of Antiquities (the excavations of Bar-Adon and Guy in 1949–1950, Bar-Adon in 1951–1955, Ussishkin and Netzer in 1967, Bahat in 1976, Eisenberg in 1981–1982, and Yogev in 1985–1986). They included fortifications, and domestic and public architecture of Early Bronze Age IA through Early Bronze Age III, as well as scattered Middle Bronze Age, Classical and Islamicperiod remains. These are the basis for the reports in the Bet Yerah series of IAA Reports (see Tables 1 and 2). In the time that has elapsed since the previous publication, excavations have been renewed in the area of the Circles Building (Greenberg et al. 2012) and dissertations have been pursued dealing in part with material presented in Bet Yerah I. While these recent excavations (which began in 2003) are destined for independent publication, there are a few points where their results impinge on our understanding of

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 5

the remains described in the present volume. They are therefore cited where it was necessary to correct obvious errors in previous publications (whether our own or others’). The renewed research has led to a broad reconsideration of the stratigraphy and architecture of the Early Bronze Age settlement on the one hand, and of the pottery industries on the other, which I have cowritten with Sarit Paz and Mark Iserlis, respectively. Thus, the chapter on Early Bronze Age architecture, function, and planning has incorporated insights from Paz’ Ph.D. dissertation on the emergence of an urban habitus in the Early Bronze Age Levant (Paz 2010), and the chapter on Early Bronze Age pottery industries incorporates results of Iserlis’ M.A. and Ph.D. research on the technology of local and Khirbet Kerak wares (Iserlis 2007). Both chapters should be read in consultation with Bet Yerah I, as we have not reproduced all the figures and data reported there, but only those aspects crucial to the analytic and interpretive aims of this publication. Ongoing research on Tel Bet Yerah has been made possible by grants awarded by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 821, 102/06, 378/09) and the White-Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, and by Rotenstreich scholarships for Paz (2007–2010) and Iserlis (2009–2012). The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology provided technical support for the final run toward publication. In addition to the credited authors, the following persons have contributed to this volume: Hanita ZionCinamon (cartography), Dov Porotsky (plans and reconstructions); Gil Breger (plates); Yulia Rudman, Rodika Pinhas, Pnina Arad, Nadia Knudsen, Yulia Gottlieb, and Itamar Ben-Ezra (drawings); and Pavel Shrago, Mariana Salzberger, and Clara Amit (artifact photographs). We were helped, as always, by the indefatigable curatorial team of the Israel Antiquities Authority, especially Galit Litani and Alegre Savariego.

01/12/2014 12:59:13

vi Sharon Zuckerman offered valuable remarks on the completed manuscript and the editorial team of the IAA took on the task of final editing and production at the high level of expertise that has come to serve as a benchmark in archaeological publishing. To all we are grateful.

A full enumeration of the documentary sources used in the publication can be found in the Foreword to Bet Yerah I. Raphael Greenberg Jerusalem, December 2013

DK (C)

Mediterranean Sea

Lake Kinneret

Haifa

Bet Yerah

0

Wa ll

DK (J)

40

km

Lake Kinneret (S e a o f G a l i l e e)

DK (L)

C

0

100 m

Plan 1. Map of the principal excavation areas (see Table 1 for area codes).

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 6

01/12/2014 12:59:14

vii Table 1. Conspectus of Major Archaeological Campaigns at Tel Bet Yerah since 1933 Excavator(s)

Year

Area Code

Location

Principal Finds

1*

Makhouly

1933

MK

Samakh (Zemah)–Tiberias roadbed

Stone drain; paved EBA street

2*

Mazar and Stekelis

1944–1945

MS

7 × 100 m section at south of mound

Fortifications, EBA and Hellenistic houses

3*

Stekelis and Avi-Yonah

1945–1946

SA

Northern acropolis

Circles Building; Early Islamic bath and fort

4*

Bar-Adon

1949

GB

Ohalo College

Badly disturbed EBA remains

5

Guy and Bar-Adon

1950

GB

North of Circles Building

Early Islamic fortified complex

6*

Bar-Adon

1951

BS

Southeastern tip of mound

10 × 10 m sounding to virgin soil; EB I to Late Islamic remains

7*

Bar-Adon

1952–1953

BS

Southeastern tip of mound

Extensive remains abutting late EBA fortification

8*

Bar-Adon

1953–1955

BF

Southern and western edges of mound

Extensive clearance of late EBA fortifications; early EBA wall and gate

9

Delougaz and Haines

1953

DK

Northern tip of mound

Byzantine church

10

Delougaz and Kantor

1963–1964

DK

Various soundings in northern half of mound

“Olive-oil factory”

11*

Ussishkin and Netzer

1967

UN

Middle of eastern scarp

Alley, houses

12

Amiran and Cohen

1976

AC

Ohalo College

13*

Bahat

1976

BH

Ohalo College

EB I round structures

14*

Eisenberg

1981–1982

EY

Bet Yerah school

EBA domestic structures rich in finds

15*

Yogev

1985–1986

EY

Bet Yerah school (expansion of Eisenberg)

EBA domestic structures rich in finds

16

Getzov

1994–1995

GE

Zemah–Tiberias highway

EB I–III fortifications

17

Greenberg

2003–

SA, GB

Environs of Circles Building and Islamic citadel

Domestic structures, plaza

* Finds included in this volume

Table 2. Summary Table of Local Strata and Archaeological Periods in Principal Excavation Areas Bet Yerah Period

Chronological Period

Area SA (deep cut)

Area MS (Sounding I)

Area BS

A

EB IA

10–9

B

EB IB

C D E

Final EB

6

F

MB I

5

G

Persian

4

8–6

11–9

15–14

6–5

11–10

EB II

5–early 3

8–5

13–12

4

9–7

EB III

late 3–2

4–3

11–7

3–2

6–3

H

Hellenistic

J

Roman/Byzantine

K

Islamic

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 7

1

Area UN

Area EY/MS (Sounding II)

Early 6

2

3

1

2

Late 3?

1

2 1

1

01/12/2014 12:59:14

Bet-Yerah-II-opening-pages.indd 8

01/12/2014 12:59:14

Chapter 1

The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah R aphael Greenberg

Physical Setting Tel Bet Yerah (NIG 25370–25440/73530–73630; OIG 20370–20440/23530–23630) lies on the southwestern shore of Lake Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), the largest body of sweet water in the Levant, and their fortunes have always been intimately linked. The Kinneret basin, part of the Dead Sea Rift (Jordan Valley), is 30 km long, has a maximum width of 15 km, and averages about 200 m below sea level. It is occupied by Lake Kinneret and lowlands to the northeast, west, and south (Fig. 1.1). The lake (modern water level approximately 212 m below sea level) is divided into two parts: the wider and deeper part in the north and the narrower, shallower southern lobe, which merges into the Kinrot Valley. Waters of the upper Jordan, Nahal ‘Amud (Galilee), Nahal Daliyot and Nahal Samakh (Golan Plateau) flow into the Kinneret. Its water is significantly more saline than the Jordan River water entering the lake, due to the presence of saline springs located on active faults in and around it (Horowitz 2001:103). Although the southern part of the depression is not very active seismically (van Eck and Hofstetter 1990), recent work at Ohalo II indicates the presence of both ancient and recent fault lines adjacent to the mound (Fig. 1.2; Belitzky and Nadel 2002; Reshef et al. 2007). These may have a bearing on the origins of the hill of Bet Yerah itself, well before the initiation of settlement there. The basin is bordered on the west by Lower Galilee and on the east by the steep cliffs of the southern Golan (up to 500 m above the lake level; Figs. 1.1, 1.3). On the western, Galilee slopes, the late Miocene Bira Formation occurs, paraconformably overlain by the Pliocene/ Miocene Gesher Formation (marl, oolitic limestone, gypsum, conglomerate, sandstone; Shaliv 1991; Aharon 1997). The Bira and Gesher Formations are paraconformably covered by the Pliocene Cover Basalt (basalt, basanite, and volcanoplastics; Aharon 1997).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 1

Bet Yerah

Fig. 1.1. The Kinneret basin (after Ben-Avraham et al. 1990).

Tel Bet Yerah is located on a low hill that originally rose about 12 m above the ancient sea level, to an elevation of 200 m below sea level. Currently trapezoidal, about 1100 m long and 150–400 m wide with a total area of approximately 25 ha, it is clear that the mound was originally larger, and that a portion of it has eroded into Lake Kinneret (Figs. 1.4, 1.5). Extrapolating from a series of elevations at which bedrock was recorded in excavation, a low, 35–40 ha mound can be reconstructed (Fig. 1.6), dipping gently from north to south, where it merged into the valley floor (note the original Jordan River channel that borders the site on its western side). It has been suggested that the Kinneret shoreline has receded southward during the Holocene (Ben-Arieh

01/12/2014 13:04:02

2

255 000

254 000

253 000

Raphael Greenberg

737 000

Ohalo II Lake Kinneret

736 000

Old Jordan River channel

736 000

Bet Yerah hill Bet Yerah hill

0

100 m

Boulders

Synclinal fold

Scarp

Fault Dip of the Late Pleistocene strata

Gravels

735 000

Jordan Riv

er

735 000

255 000

254 000

0 734 000

500 m 734 000

Fig. 1.2. Fault-lines observed near the site of Ohalo II at the foot of Tel Bet Yerah (after Belitsky and Nadel 2002).

1965). This would imply that the southern edge of the mound would have been more or less in line with the southernmost tip of the lake in antiquity. The plain that extends south of the site (Kinrot Valley, sensu stricto) is covered by Quaternary alluvium. South of the mound there are small outcrops of the PliocenePleistocene Gadot and Mishmar Ha-Yarden Formations consisting of conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone, and chalk. Northwest of Tel Bet Yerah (along the western shore of the lake) there are outcrops of Miocene Lower Basalt (basalt, basanite, and volcanoplastics) above the Bireh and Gesher Formations. The hill of Bet Yerah itself consists of Lisan marl belonging to the Kinneret Formation, capped by

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 2

clayey-silty gray, occasionally hydromorphic valley rendzina soil (Ravikovitch 1969; Hazan et al. 2005). This lacustrine formation is composed of marl laminae overlying coarse clastic deposits and cross-deposited layers of coarse sand and shells. These are all products of the fluctuating levels of the Lisan lake, prior to 17,000 ybp, when the contours of Lake Kinneret were finally established. Holocene lake levels are estimated to have fluctuated between 204 and 214 m below sea level. The depositional history of Tel Bet Yerah can best be observed in the 8 m high scarp at the southeastern tip of the mound. Here, the mudbrick city wall marking the southern boundary of the site is visible in section, abutted by a massive fill of uncertain derivation and

01/12/2014 13:04:02

3 280 000

270 000

260 000

250 000

240 000

230 000

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

Kefar Nahum 750 000

750 000

Lake Kinneret

Tiberias

‘En Gev

730 000

Cover basalt

Pliocene-Pleistocene Formations

260 000

270 000

730 000 250 000

740 000

240 000

740 000

Quarternary deposits (alluvial and colluvial)

Fig. 1.3. Geological map of the Kinneret basin (after Sneh et al. 1998).

Fig. 1.4. Aerial view of Tel Bet Yerah, looking north, 1953 (Bar-Adon archive, Israel Antiquities Authority).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 3

01/12/2014 13:04:03

4

Raphael Greenberg

-207 -194

-203

Lake Kinneret

Jordan

River

Lake Kinneret -195 -193

-199

-199

-202 -204 -200 -197

Wall A

-210

0

500 m

0 -208

500 m

Gate

Fig. 1.5. Modern topography of Tel Bet Yerah, based on surveys of the 1940s and 1950s.

Fig. 1.6. Reconstructed topography of the natural mound, with line of Wall A (Period C) superimposed on it.

many layers of settlement (Figs. 1.7, 1.8). Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates obtained from the soil

directly beneath the earliest anthropogenic deposits provide an age of 3990 to 3590 BCE (Ackerman et al. 2011). The existence of this scarp might be a product of the southward advance of the shore-line as the mound gradually became exposed to wave action, which can occasionally become quite vigorous on this side of the lake. Tectonic uplift cannot be ruled out as a factor in the erosion of the eastern side of the mound. Tel Bet Yerah lies within the Irano-Turanian vegetation zone; the lake-shore supports a highly seasonal

Fig. 1.7. Erosion at the southeastern tip of the mound: mudbricks of Wall A can be seen above the natural rendzina soil and marl. Square cavities mark OSL samples.

Fig. 1.8. The eastern scarp: lower half composed of marl and rendzina, upper half of anthropogenic deposits.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 4

01/12/2014 13:04:05

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

littoral which served as breeding grounds for many varieties of fowl. it was composed largely of Phragmites australis (common reed), Typha domingensis (bulrush), and Tamarix jordanis (tamarisk), important resources for basketry and other artifacts, and Pluchea dioscoridis (Ploughman’s spikenard, Marsh fleabane), a medicinal plant. The climate is semiarid, with a mean annual temperature of 20°C (12°C in January–33°C in August). Mean annual rainfall is approximately 400 mm.

Economic Catchment The advantages of the geographic location of Tel Bet Yerah at the northwestern edge of the Kinrot Valley at

5

the border with Lower Galilee, as well as its agricultural catchment, have long been recognized. The floor of the valley itself (Fig. 1.9) was settled and farmed in the Late Neolithic—witness the important sites of Sha‘ar HaGolan (Garfinkel 2004) and Tel ‘Ali (Garfinkel 1993); no evidence for pre-Early Bronze Age occupation has been discovered on the mound itself, though a handful of earlier artifacts, all found out of context, might have been scavenged in antiquity from one of the nearby Late Neolithic sites. In the Early Bronze Age, there appear to have been very few sites within the Kinrot Valley or along its edges, leaving Tel Bet Yerah with sole claim to this agricultural breadbasket for the entire length of its existence.1 Both Esse (1991:33) and Mazar (2001) have described the agricultural potential

Lake Kinneret

Tel Bet Yerah

Ohalo II

‘Ubeidiya Sha‘ar Ha-Golan

R an

rd Jo

Kinrot Valley

r ive er

iv kR

u

m Yar

Fig. 1.9. Google Earth image of Kinrot Valley, with main prehistoric sites indicated (Image © 2012 Google; © 2012 GeoEye; © 2012 Digital Globe).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 5

01/12/2014 13:04:06

6

Raphael Greenberg

of the Tel Bet Yerah catchment: Esse noted that its location on the border between the Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian zones offered the site a flexible subsistence base. Mazar attempted a calculation of the agricultural potential of the Kinrot Valley in relation to the presumed storage capacity of the Bet Yerah ‘Granary’: assuming that the entire 2700 ha plain was under cultivation by inhabitants of the town, there would have been a significant shortfall of grain production in relation to a plausible population of 4000 persons. Esse proposed that irrigation of the low-lying alluvial plain would have boosted yields significantly, at least in the short run. Both suggested that the inhabitants of Tel Bet Yerah could have utilized the hillslopes for horticulture and flock-raising and would have traded with highlanders for additional produce. To their observations, we should add the following resources, all attested in the archaeological record: Lake Kinneret. The lake and its shores were abundant with fish, mollusks (see Appendix II), crustaceans, and water-fowl, providing an important source of protein.2 Sand, Mud, Clay, and Stone. Lisan marl and rendzina soil were used for mudbrick and for pottery industries. Granulometric analyses of deteriorated mudbrick indicate a high silt and low clay content (Ackerman et al. 2011), suggesting pretreatment of brick material. The waste products of the same pretreatment (high clay, low silt) could have been used by local potters. Bira and Gesher Formation clays situated on the slopes to the north of the mound were also used in pottery production. Basalt stones from nearby hill slopes are the most common building material, next to mudbrick, whereas river cobbles were used in floors and walls. Flint cobbles provided a significant part of the materials used in local lithic production. Lakeshore sands and gravels were extensively used as surfacing and stabilizing fill in houses and streets.

Stratigraphy and Site Formation The broad extent of archaeological soundings at Tel Bet Yerah permits us to reconstruct a relatively detailed history of settlement at the site. By tracking the extent of each phase of settlement, settlement history can be reconfigured as a history of site formation. Understanding the physical appearance of the site in each phase will contribute to a better grasp of the evolution of the site as a setting for village and town life.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 6

The physical setting of Tel Bet Yerah has been described above. In the following description, the primary contributors to the evolving morphology of the site to be kept in mind are these: Building Materials. Basalt, and occasionally limestone, were easily obtained from the nearby slopes and the riverbed. Mudbrick of various composition was obtained by quarrying in or near the site. The quarrying of clay for mudbrick may constitute a significant factor in the morphology of the site, particularly where large quantities are concerned (as in the construction of fortifications). Source materials may be extracted from a point in or near the site. They are deposited as mudbrick on the site, and are then subject to decomposition and deflation. The matrix of the Bet Yerah mudbricks was the soft Lisan marl upon which the site was built and the valley rendzina which forms on the marl. Building Practices. Early Bronze Age floors were often somewhat sunken in relation to external ground level, often abutting the very base of the walls. While the use of mudbrick alone is widely attested in the earliest levels, stone foundations were used in EB I and became the norm for external walls of later periods. The use of leveled-off wall stubs for foundations of later levels is common at Tel Bet Yerah, beginning in Period C, creating a very dense stratigraphic sequence and resulting in a relatively slow pace of mound build-up. Erosion. The soft marl matrix lends itself to rapid down cutting and destabilization. This was a significant factor in the creation of the lake scarp (see above) and in gullying on the mound both during the Early Bronze Age and since that time. Tectonic Activity. There is archaeological evidence for wall and roof collapse in Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah, probably due to earthquakes or tremors. These need not have been particularly violent in order to cause damage, in view of the building materials used. Period A The earliest evidence for human presence on the mound comes in the form of stray finds ascribed a Neolithic date (e.g., below, Fig. 5.13). However, the first evidence for substantial occupation must be dated not before the earlier part of EB I. The most convincing

01/12/2014 13:04:06

7

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

Fig. 1.10. Contour map of Tel Bet Yerah, showing ► extent of Period A and B settlement.

Lake Kinneret

Jordan

River

evidence for this Period A occupation has been found in Areas SA and GB in the northern part of the mound, near the summit of the original mound (Figs. 1.10, 1.11; see Foreword: Table 2). In Area SA, a 0.65 m deep layer comprising at least two phases of occupation was identified. While the lowermost occupation is characterized by pits, the upper layer seems to have included mudbrick construction, although the excavators noted only decayed brick material. Period A layers were excavated in all parts of Area GB, although their depth there is not recorded. Further evidence for Period A occupation comes from some of the soundings conducted by the Delougaz (Oriental Institute) expeditions in 1952–1953 and 1963–1964 (see Foreword: Plan 1, Table 1). As these

A

B

0

500 m

a

Jordan R.

Acropolis

W. Gate?

Walls A/C

-180

-190

-200

-210

b

-220

Modern contour

Natural contour (reconstructed)

Fig. 1.11. (a) The acropolis and western depression, looking north; (b) schematic north–south cross-section of Tel Bet Yerah (10:1 vertical exaggeration), showing present contour in relation to reconstructed natural surface.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 7

01/12/2014 13:04:08

8

Raphael Greenberg

excavations have been only partially processed (Esse 1991:42–45), only preliminary details are available: these indicate the presence of Period A pottery in Section C, north of Area GB, and in Sections J and L in the middle of the mound. Just south of these points, in Area UN, only a handful of sherds possibly predating Period B were found, and it seems that the edge of the Period A site lies between Area UN and Sections J and L. In all the remaining excavation fields—BS, MS, and EY in the southeast, GE in the southwest, and in the Delougaz soundings to the west of the acropolis— no remains of Period A are reported, nor were any observed in Area BH or AC, to the north of Sections J and L.3 Taking into account the eastern, presently eroded, slope of the mound, the Period A, or EB IA, settlement appears to have extended along an elongated oval centered on the highest part of the mound. Its maximum length might have been 600 m; its maximum width, 300 m; and its total area, perhaps 8 ha. The apparent lack of remains at various points within this oval may indicate a spread-out, straggling settlement, of the type often encountered in this period (an occupation of similar size and type has recently been posited at Tel Te’o: Eisenberg, Gopher, and Greenberg 2001:4).

The chronology of this settlement, as indicated by the pottery from the Deep Cut in Area SA, includes both the main early EB I phase, with its classic Type I Gray Burnished Ware, and a somewhat later phase that shows the beginnings of the grain-wash pottery typifying Period B. We therefore suggest a seamless transition between the two periods, with the straggling, perhaps somewhat shifting, settlement of Period A gradually evolving into the large, much more densely built up village of Period B. Period B The late EB I settlement of Period B was long lived and possibly the most extensive of all phases of occupation at Tel Bet Yerah. Substantial remains of this phase were found in all areas of excavation, within the walled area of the mound proper and even beyond the walls. In most cases, there was evidence for more than one phase of occupation, as outlined in Table 1.1. Omitted from Table 1.1 is Area GE, where Getzov (2006) reported on the existence of massive Period B fortifications. As shown in Bet Yerah I:236–247, the massive mudbrick fortification system, Wall A, must be dated mainly to Period C (EB II), since late Period B

Table 1.1. Period B Deposits Area

No. of Phases

Depth of Deposit (m; not including pits)

Remarks

SA

2 or 3

1.20

Mudbrick material, no walls identified

GB

3

1.30

Stone and mudbrick architecture, with pit or midden beneath

DK (B)*

2

1.90

DK (C)

1 or 2

1.90

Documentation insecure

DK (D)*

2

2.50

Includes Period A?

DK (E)*

1

0.80

There is an earlier phase, possibly early Period B

DK (F)*

2

1.70

BH

2 (minimum)

>1.05

Mudbrick construction in earlier phase, massive stone foundations of round structures in later phase

UN

3

1.20

Pits in earliest phase, mudbrick construction in later phases

RV

2 (minimum)

1.30

Mudbrick construction in later phase

MK

2 (minimum)

1.80

Curvilinear stone architecture in latest phase, southern edge of trench

EY

2

0.60–0.80

Pits in early phase, mudbrick architecture in late phase

MS

2–3

1.10–1.30

Pits in early phase, mudbrick construction in later phases

BF

2 (minimum)

>1.00

Stone architecture in later phase beneath Wall A gate; plaster floors cropping out beneath Wall B on western slope of mound

BS

2

1.25

Pits in earlier phase, mudbrick architecture in later phase

* For location of Area DK sections, see Esse 1991: Fig. 5

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 8

01/12/2014 13:04:08

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

remains were found beneath parts of it in Areas MK and BF (beneath the earliest phase of the gate). At most, allowance may be made for the construction of a narrow mudbrick fortification at the very end of Period B. The great preponderance of Period B pottery within the in situ and collapsed mudbricks of Wall A must be ascribed to the quarrying of earlier occupation material for the preparation of the enormous quantities of mudbrick needed to build this wall. Physical evidence for this quarrying comes from a feature noted both by Mazar and by Getzov: an internal trough or “moat” bordering the northern, i.e., inner face of Wall A (see below, Fig. 2.6; Maisler, Stekelis, and Avi-Yonah 1952:172; Getzov 2006). Apart from Area GE, all the excavation fields on Tel Bet Yerah seem to tell a similar tale: densely built up layers of occupation cover the entire mound, extending slightly beyond the confines of the later fortifications. These layers have a remarkably uniform thickness, suggesting that the spread of settlement across the mound in Period B was rapid and complete, leaving few open areas. In all areas where virgin soil was reached, the first phase of occupation in Period B is characterized by pits. These vary in size and depth: some, narrow and deep, are obviously middens, while others may have served as floors for temporary structures (perhaps best interpreted as animal shelters). These activities may be understood to represent activity at the outer edges of the site. The pits are soon superseded by permanent architecture of remarkable variety, including rectilinear mudbrick buildings without stone foundations and round or curvilinear stone-based buildings (see below, Chapter 2, for further discussion). These structures seem, by and large, to have been abandoned in an orderly fashion. In Area BS, where the Period B remains were not disturbed by later construction, a thick layer of decayed mudbrick sealed the early remains, suggesting an extended period of abandonment at this locale. Other areas, however, revealed intrusive Period C remains quite near Period B floors (e.g., in Areas EY and SA), possibly indicating rapid rebuilding. For the most part, the Period B structures were aligned north–south/east–west. The presence of pits underlying the earliest architecture in both Period A (Areas SA, GB) and Period B (Areas UN, MS, EY, BS) suggests that permanent settlement expanded gradually and seamlessly during Periods A and B, beginning with the

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 9

9

highest part of the mound and advancing southward and toward the river and lake banks on either side. By the end of EB I, the entire peninsula was built up more or less evenly, preserving the fundamental topography of the mound. The thickness of deposit suggested by the Area MK section might indicate a build-up of refuse along the edges of the site that might have accentuated the edges of the large, 30 ha village. The quality of the excavation records at this location, however, leaves much to be desired, and the alternative—a diffuse border at the edge of settlement—seems equally plausible. Period C The data concerning Period C in various parts of the mound are contradictory and confused. This has to do to some extent with the quality of documentation and stratigraphic control in many of the older excavations, but perhaps, to a greater extent, with the intense sequence of construction characterizing the mound in EB II and EB III. In areas where the stratigraphy was best recorded, the average thickness of each phase was little more than 0.2 m. This means that each rebuild razed earlier remains to within a few centimeters of their floors. Table 1.2 and the description of the Period C strata present, therefore, the best approximation based on present data. The construction of Wall A across the southern flank of the Tel Bet Yerah peninsula constitutes a turning point in the mound’s physical history and in its presence in the landscape. The construction of the massive fortification, eventually attaining a breadth of 8 m and a commensurate height (perhaps 5–7 m), and of the gateway (gateways?) associated with it, created a new focus of settlement, rivaling the long-established center located on the summit of the mound. Indeed, the different sequences of accumulation evidenced at different parts of the mound seem to suggest that occupation and construction were more intense in both the north and south than in the intervening area, with a particularly swift build-up observed adjacent to Wall A, in Areas BS and MS. This build-up led eventually to the creation of a shallow depression inside the southern end of the mound, bordered on the one hand by the original slope of the mound, and on the other by the deposits built up against the wall on the south. This shallow depression eventually became more deeply incised, draining the mound through a break (gate?)

01/12/2014 13:04:08

10

Raphael Greenberg

in the later Early Bronze Age wall (Wall C) near the southwestern corner of the mound (below, Fig. 1.12). The erosion engendered by the depression and its extensions may be responsible for the absence of some Early Bronze Age strata in the area lying 100– 200 m north of Wall A (the absence of Early Bronze strata at the northern end of their respective, parallel excavations is apparent in the sections drawn both by Makhouly [Bet Yerah I: Plan 9:2] and Getzov [2006: Fig. 1:1]). It cannot, however, have compromised Period C layers in locations further north, such as Areas UN and BH. These tend to be significantly shallower and stratigraphically poorer than the corresponding deposits in Areas SA, MS/EY, or BS, and could well indicate that the Period C settlement was not as evenly spread over the mound as that of Period B. The presence of North Canaanite Metallic Ware as a significant component directly above Period B deposits in all areas of excavation suggests that the earliest part of Period C was that with the most intensive settlement. Indeed, the earliest phase of the gateway in Wall A indicates the existence of most elements in this wall early in Period C, and substantial

stone-and-brick architecture can be found in every area excavated. As time wore on, the successive stages of reconstruction and repair appear to have affected a gradually diminishing portion of the mound, with intervening areas perhaps left in a state of abandonment or converted to intramural open spaces for use as gardens, livestock enclosures, or refuse dumps. By the end of Period C, the houses nearest Wall A had been raised well above its foundations, forming a pronounced slope from the wall toward the interior of the town. To the observer approaching the town from the south (the only land approach possible), the tall scarp of Wall A and the cut that may well have fronted it (see Bet Yerah I: Chapter 6) would have dominated the skyline, rendering the original acropolis all but invisible. Upon entering the town through the southeastern gate, the visitor would have faced a maze of paved streets and alleys and only after pushing ahead for some minutes would he have been able to emerge into the open, gaining a view of the more widely spaced domestic compounds in the center of the mound and the important buildings that no doubt stood on its summit.

Table 1.2. Period C Deposits Area

No. of Phases

Depth of Deposit (m; not including pits)

Remarks

SA

3

1.20

North Canaanite Metallic Ware dominant in earliest phase; smooth architectural transition to Period D

GB

?

0.50

Poorly documented

DK (B)*

1

0.35

DK (C)

2

1.40

DK (D)*

3

1.05

DK (E)*

2

1.15

BH

1

0.30–0.80

Poorly preserved, damaged by later construction; large pits

UN

1

0.40

Stone-based architecture, large pits; NCMW dominant

RV

1

0.40

Poorly documented

0.40?

No documentation available

0.80

Dense construction, brick on stone foundations; earliest phase with pillar-bases, later with smaller rooms; much in situ pottery in earliest and latest phase; NCMW common but not dominant in earliest phases only; partial abandonment in transition to Period D

MK EY

4

MS

4

0.80–1.40

Thicker accumulation near Wall A, with in situ pottery in latest phase

BF

2

0.60–1.20

Two main phases in gateway

BS

4

1.05

Two main construction phases, each with subphase; in both: brick on stone construction and paved street; clear abandonment phase in transition to Period D

* For location of Area DK sections, see Esse 1991: Fig. 5

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 10

01/12/2014 13:04:08

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

Period D The crisis of late Period C asserts itself in the form of various, selective abandonments observable between Periods C and D. The first evidence of Khirbet Kerak Ware (KKW), marking the onset of Period D (EB III), falls within the pattern of the late Period C occupation. Thus, in Area BS, massive amounts of KKW are found in what seems to be a midden-tip (Local Stratum 11) covering abandoned Period C structures, and in Area EY the richest KKW deposits in Local Stratum 6 occur in open areas. The renascence of Tel Bet Yerah may well belong to a later stage, when KKW is associated with widespread new construction on the mound, as tabulated below (Table 1.3). Beyond the fact that Period D occupation is attested in every part of the mound, only the most tentative conclusions may be drawn on the basis of the observed stratification. That is because over the greater part of the mound, the EB III remains were exposed for at least

11

two millennia, until the large-scale resettlement in the Hellenistic period, and, in some cases, for an additional millennium, until capped by Early Islamic settlement. The fact that the most comprehensive stratigraphic sequence occurs within the protective shadow of Wall C in the south of the mound, and in particular in Area BS—the only corner of the mound reoccupied in the Middle Bronze and Persian periods—should sound a warning against hasty conclusions regarding the relative extent or intensity of EB III settlement. That said, it remains clear that the focus of Tel Bet Yerah’s building effort in late Period D was along the edges of the site (Fig. 1.12). The massive effort expended on the construction of Wall C appears to have come at the expense of construction in the interior of the town or on its acropolis. The Circles Building, built early in Period D, shows clear signs of decline, and no other building appears to have been erected in its place. In terms of the morphology of the mound, Period D may be said to have accentuated processes

Table 1.3. Period D Deposits Area

No. of Phases

Depth of Deposit (m; not including pits)

Remarks

SA

2

0.60–1.20

One early and one late phase in the Circles Building and in the Deep Cut, both with KKW; Hellenistic- and Islamic-period intrusions

GB

?

Possibly as much as 1.60

Rich deposits of KKW; part of a large structure south of Circles Building; significant intrusions of Hellenistic and Islamic periods

DK (B)*

1

0.40

Poorly preserved

DK (C)

1

0.65

DK (D)*

3

1.10

DK (E)*

3

1.60

DK (F)*

2

1.30

BH

1

?

Badly disturbed by Hellenistic structures

UN

2

0.80

Two major building phases, with stone-based houses, streets; uppermost phase eroded; KKW in both phases

RV

3?

0.70

MK

?

1.20

Structures and paved street associated with KKW

EY

5

1.15

Lower phases densely built up; later phases poorly preserved; all associated with KKW

MS

2–5

0.50–1.60

Fewer phases near fortification, perhaps due to clearance during construction of Wall C; densely built up to north, all phases with KKW

BF

2

BS

6

AC

Two Period D fortification walls: Wall B and Wall C 2.10 (not including fortification)

Early midden, followed by five phases of public and domestic construction; Wall B built during second(?), and Wall C built during fifth phase

* For location of Area DK sections, see Esse 1991: Fig. 5

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 11

01/12/2014 13:04:08

12

Raphael Greenberg

Lake Kinneret

Gate?

0

Periods E–G

500 m

Gate?

Fig. 1.12. Modern contour map of Tel Bet Yerah with superimposed late Period D fortification, accentuating the shift of architectural mass toward the southern and western flanks of the mound, at the expense of the old acropolis.

begun in Period C: The external profile of the mound was enhanced and its skyline was largely that of its massive fortifications, particularly along its vulnerable southern flank. Founded largely on top of the decayed remains of Wall A, the late fortifications would have towered some 10 m above the natural slope, forming an imposing mass for anyone approaching the site from the south or southwest. They also afforded the best protection for the inhabitants of the mound, and it was to the southeastern corner of the site that the focus of settlement shifted during the next phases of occupation. A significant anomaly in the course of Wall C is worth noting: between Towers 3 and 4, just west of the blocked Wall A gateway, Wall C turned inward, presumably to exclude a north–south gully that had begun to form at this point. This gully might have been the intentional or unintentional result of action taken to drain the interior of the city, north of the rise formed by the city walls. Its presence is marked not only by the deviation in the line of the wall, but also by a clear dip

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 12

in the elevation of the wall’s foundations, as has been described in Bet Yerah I: Chapters 5, 6; and Plans 5.13, 6.6. Bar-Adon’s field notes indicate that he thought there might have been a gateway at this point (although Tower 5, the Bastion, might mark the location of a gate some distance to the west). In any case, this possibility will remain forever moot, as the gully was widened, probably in Ottoman times, to serve as a road, and was further compromised in more recent times. Another topographic anomaly in the present day appearance of the mound—a deep depression just north of the southwestern corner—suggests the existence of another gate in Wall C. This location presently serves as the preferred ascent to the mound from the west.

The unique and fascinating Final Early Bronze phase described in Area BS (Local Stratum 6) occupied a limited area in the southeastern corner of the mound. Remarkably well-preserved remains, the original construction of which might be ascribed to late Period D (see Chapter 2), were found over the entire area excavated by Bar-Adon within the Early Bronze Age walls. In addition, a handful of sherds of unspecified provenance identified in the Area MS assemblage suggest that some of the late Period D structures excavated there might have been used in Period E as well. Taking all this into account, the extent of the Final Early Bronze Age village huddled against Wall C could hardly have exceeded 1 ha in size—a mere fraction of the original size of the Early Bronze town. The Period E village comprised a dense huddle of contiguous houses with three- to four-course stone foundations and a mudbrick superstructure. Their contribution to the general form of the mound was the creation of a raised platform inside the line of the wall, which eventually comprised a secondary acropolis, reoccupied in Periods F and G. The Period F (early second millennium) occupation succeeded the Period E occupation after a significant gap, lasting perhaps 300 years. By this time the Period E houses had long since collapsed, adding a layer about 0.75 m thick to this part of the mound. As far as we know, the Period F deposits (about 0.3 m in depth) are limited only to the very tip of the mound (0.1–0.2 ha in all), spilling over the fortifications to the southern slope (in Bet Yerah I:157–160 it was suggested that the houses were located on the slope, and a series

01/12/2014 13:04:08

Chapter 1: The Formation of the Mound of Bet Yerah

of industrial installations—mainly potters’ kilns— downwind and inside the wall). A further, and yet longer, gap separates Period F from the fifth- or fourthcentury BCE Period G occupation (approximately 0.5 m in maximum depth), also limited to the 0.1 ha acropolis at the southeastern tip of the mound. Late Periods Evidence for extensive settlement in the Hellenistic period (Period H; third–second centuries BCE) has been found in most excavation areas on Tel Bet Yerah. Most remains may be associated with a well-planned orthogonal settlement composed of what appear to be large town-houses. Parts of such houses were found in Areas BS, MS/EY, MK/GE, SA, GB, and possibly BH as well. All were built on a virtually identical axis, parallel to the lake-scarp (the latter advanced in the years following the Hellenistic period, cutting into the Hellenistic remains). In most places, the Hellenistic construction stopped 10–30 m short of the still visible Early Bronze Age fortifications, although a number of towers in the wall were rebuilt or used for burial (see Bet Yerah I: Chapter 6). This planned settlement seems to have extended over most of the eastern half of the mound, although perhaps not contiguously, as architectural remains in Areas BH and especially UN are scant. No Hellenistic architecture at all appeared in the northern part of Area MK and in a number of

13

soundings in the large western plateau conducted both by Bar-Adon and the Chicago expeditions. The general impact of the Hellenistic occupation must therefore be characterized as diffuse, having little visible impact on the way the mound was experienced in the landscape. As for the Byzantine and Islamic periods, these are represented on the mound by individual structures and cannot be said to have formed strata. The bulk of the activity in these periods was concentrated in the northern quarter of the mound. Most significant to the ultimate form of the mound was the aqueduct built to supply running water to the Umayyad baths built over the Circles Building in Area SA. The bridge that may have carried this aqueduct across the Jordan River at the northwestern corner of the mound was partially responsible for the blockage of the original river channel, which is attested from medieval times (Saarisalo 1927:76–77). The marked lack of soil accumulation during the extended gaps in occupation, as evidenced by the Hellenistic re-use of the Early Bronze Age city walls and the construction of the late bathhouse directly on the platform of the Circles Building, indicates that the present table-like appearance of large parts of the mound does not represent its aspect in antiquity. Indeed, during most of its existence, the mound would have been perceived as a ruin with massive fortifications, fully living up to its post-abandonment Arabic name, Khirbet el-Kerak, ‘the Ruin of the Fortress’.

Notes 1 A handful of Early Bronze Age sites have been tentatively identified by Maeir (1997: Fig. 15), based principally on Yeivin and Maisler (1944). I have not succeeded in corroborating their existence, though it does appear likely that there was an EB (I?) site at or near Tell ‘Ubeidiya, about 3 km south of Tel Bet Yerah. It is particularly interesting that no major Middle Bronze Age site emerged to stake a claim to the Kinrot Valley, and to its seemingly prime location on the east–west and north–south routes skirting Lake Kinneret and connecting the Jordan Valley with the northern Levant

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 13

and beyond (with the possible exception of Tell ‘Ubeidiya). These observations suggest the existence of a particular Early Bronze Age regional configuration, not repeated in later times, that made the site attractive for settlement. This is an issue that needs to be tackled in future research. 2 Abundant evidence for such utilization has been recovered in the renewed excavations at the site. 3 My thanks to Gabrielle Novacek, who showed me the relevant material in the University of Chicago archives.

01/12/2014 13:04:09

14

Raphael Greenberg

R eferences Ackerman O., Greenberg R., Gasul D., Paz S., Azbend M., Cohen N., Lavi H., and Sapir Y. 2011. Sustainable Development of Tel Bet Yerah and Its Integration in the Cultural and Touristic Landscape of the Southwest Kinneret (Research Report Submitted to the JNF, August 2011). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Aharon L. 1997. A Shallow Magmatic System of Miocene Age: The Tavor River Volcanic Vent (GSI Report /13/97). Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstract). Belitzky S. and Nadel D. 2002. The Ohalo II Prehistoric Camp (19.5 ky): New Evidence for Environmental and Tectonic Changes at the Sea of Galilee. Geoarchaeology 17:453–464. Ben-Arieh Y. 1965. The Shift of the Outlet of the Jordan at the Southern Shore of Lake Tiberias. PEQ 97:54–65. Ben-Avraham Z., Amit G., Golan A., and Begin Z.B. 1990. The Bathymetry of Lake Kinneret and Its Structural Significance. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 39:77–84. van Eck T. and Hofstetter R. 1990. Fault Geometry and Spatial Clustering of Microearthquakes along the Dead Sea-Jordan Rift Fault Zone. Tectonophysics 180:15–27. Eisenberg E., Gopher A., and Greenberg R. 2001. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Esse D.L. 1991. Subsistence, Trade and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine (SAOC 50). Chicago. Garfinkel Y. 1993. ‘Ali, Tel. NEAEHL 1. Pp. 53–55. Garfinkel Y. 2004. The Goddess of Sha‘ar Hagolan: Excavations at a Neolithic Site in Israel. Jerusalem–Sha‘ar Ha-Golan. Getzov N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-1.indd 14

Hazan N., Stein M., Agnon A., Marco S., Nadel D., Negendank J.F.W., Schwab M.J., and Neev D. 2005. The Late Quaternary Limnological History of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel. Quaternary Research. 63:60–77. Horowitz A. 2001. The Jordan Rift Valley. Rotterdam. Maeir A. 1997. The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period: Pottery and Settlement Pattern. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Maisler B., Stekelis M., and Avi-Yonah M. 1952. The Excavations at Beth-Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak) 1944–1946. IEJ 2:165–173. Mazar A. 2001. On the Significance of the Early Bronze Age III Granary Building at Beit Yerah. In S. Wolff ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (SAOC 59/ASOR Book 5). Chicago. Pp. 447–464. Ravikovitch S. 1969. Manual and Map of Soils of Israel. Jerusalem. Reshef M., Ben-Avraham Z., Tibor T., and Marco S. 2007. The Use of Acoustic Imaging to Reveal Fossil Fluvial Systems—A Case Study from the Southwestern Sea of Galilee. Geomorphology 83:58–66. Saarisalo A. 1927. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali. Helsinki. Shaliv G. 1991. Stages in the Tectonic and Volcanic History of the Neogene Basin in the Lower Galilee and the Valleys (GSI Report 11/91). Jerusalem (Hebrew; English abstract). Sneh A., Bartov Y., Weissbrod T., and Rosensaft M. 1998. Geological Map of Israel 1:2000,000. Jerusalem. Yeivin S. and Maisler B. 1944. Provisional Report on an Exploration of the Northern Jordan Valley. BJPES 10:98– 102 (Hebrew).

01/12/2014 13:04:09

Chapter 2

Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning R aphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

The evidence accumulated during seventy-five years of excavations at Tel Bet Yerah allows a systematic investigation of the evolution of the use of space on the mound, public and domestic. This chapter describes this evolution diachronically, focusing on each major period (from A to E; see Foreword: Table 2) in the mound’s history, subdivided where possible according to the local stratigraphy. For each period, site-wide data culled from all available publications (including Getzov 2006 and Novacek 2007) are used to present an overview of architecture, function, and planning, in the following order: (a) domestic structures (construction, content, and presumed function); (b) shared space (courtyards, streets, refuse areas, etc.); (c) public construction (fortifications, administrative structures); (d) site-plan and organization. We conclude the presentation of each period with a discussion; we review long-term trends for the whole of the Early Bronze Age in the summary discussion (below, pp. 49–50).1

Period A Despite the discovery of Period A ceramics in widely dispersed deposits on the mound (Areas SA, GB, UN, and several of the DK soundings located adjacent to these areas), little can be said of the site’s organization. Mudbricks and mudbrick fragments associated with this phase testify to the presence of architecture, and the deep accumulation in Area SA (Bet Yerah I:85–89) is suggestive of intramural sub-floor burials. However, the only unambiguous and recurring features are midden-pits dug into the soft marl bedrock, identified in several areas (and confirmed in our 2007 excavations: Greenberg, Rotem, and Paz 2013). Their presence suggests spread-out habitation on the mound, with large intervening common areas—a configuration encountered at contemporary sites such as Tel Te’o and Yiftah’el (Eisenberg, Gopher, and Greenberg 2001; Braun 1997). The phenomenon of

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 15

pitting within or at the edges of the habitation area continues into Period B, and it is only at the end of that period that we find contiguous architecture covering large parts of the site.

Period B The earlier part of Period B is represented mainly by pits that continue Period A patterns (see, e.g., Areas SA, Deep Cut, Local Stratum 8; EY, Local Stratum 11; BS, Local Stratum 15 [Bet Yerah I:89, 120, 343]). The most extensive exposure of this phase comes from Area EY/MS, where both pits and open spaces between them, all established on bedrock, were excavated (Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.4). Since some of the pit features appeared to be quite shallow, the early excavators of the site interpreted them as house-pits. This cannot be substantiated, as excavation techniques were not sufficiently refined to identify post-holes or other telltale signs of impermanent construction. The content of all the pits appeared to be similar, consisting mainly of domestic refuse with large quantities of ash. Identified organic material included grains of wheat, peas, and olive pits (see Appendix I: Table App. I.1). Noteworthy finds include fishing weights (in Pit EY 646 and in open areas) and a limestone macehead. Mudbrick fragments found both in the pits and the open areas testify to architecture in the vicinity, but the only wall that might be attributed to this phase comes from Area BH, Local Phase 8 (Bet Yerah I:477). In late Period B, we may begin to distinguish distinctive elements of domestic architecture and site organization; these are discussed in detail below. Domestic Complexes Two architectural styles coexist in Period B: (1) rectilinear mudbrick-only construction and (2) curvilinear construction using mudbricks on stone foundations.

04/11/2014 12:00:23

16

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

Rectilinear Construction, without Stone Foundations Rectilinear construction occurs in different parts of the site, but usually consists of wall fragments or partially excavated structures that do not permit analysis either of the house-plan or of its function. In Area UN, these included wall fragments only; in Area AC (Amiran and Cohen 1976), the corner of a structure; and in Area SA, parts of straight mudbrick walls (noted but not recorded in the JPES excavations and confirmed in renewed excavations). The general appearance and construction methods of these fragments match those of the only well-preserved and excavated structures of the type, from Areas BS and EY, to be described below. Area BS, Building 005 (Plan 2.1:1). This is part of a large rectangular structure occupying the eastern part of the excavated area (Bet Yerah I:121–122). At first, it was identified by Bar-Adon as an apsidal structure upon which a straight wall was superimposed, but the ‘apse’ was only marked with a dotted line, following the contour of an earlier pit, and we have collapsed the two putative phases into one.

1

The extant part of the building consists of a row of three rooms ranged along the western side of a fourth space that may have been an inner courtyard. The larger extant room (BS 005), at least 5.0 m long by about 2.5 m wide, is connected to a smaller 2.5 × 2.5 m room (BS 006) via a stone-paved threshold. The smaller room was furnished with a stone drain that appears to have led from an installation within the room to the adjacent open space to the west of the building. The well-preserved western wall of the structure exhibits distinctive construction traits: Built of rectilinear, mold-made mudbricks bonded with mudmortar, the wall consists of one row of full-sized mudbricks (l = 0.50–0.65 m; w = 0.25–0.35 m; th = 0.10–0.12 m) laid end-to-end and an adjoining row of half-bricks; these are laid on alternate sides of the wall in each course in order to ensure vertical bonding. Internal walls are only one brick wide. Floors were made of beaten earth. Finds that could be attributed a specific provenance within this building were too few to allow for any functional analysis of the different spaces. However,

2

3

Plan 2.1. Three Period B houses: (1) part of a rectilinear house in Area BS; (2) part of a rectilinear house in Area EY; (3) round houses in Area BH.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 16

04/11/2014 12:00:24

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

an oven identified in the eastern space (BS 009) could indicate that this was an open court. Area EY/MS, Building EY 475 (Plans 2.1:2, 2.2; Fig. 2.1). Like the structure in Area BS, this large, partially excavated structure also appears to consist of rooms ranged around an interior court. In the east, a large broadroom, nearly 5 m wide and entered from the middle of its eastern wall, is subdivided into several chambers. A narrow corridor extends along the southern side of the building. The western part of the excavated part of the structure is dominated by a large space (EY 479/216) that seems to have been an open court entered via a doorway in W53 and possibly from its southwestern corner as well. This space had a small cell or bin in its southeastern corner; its possible western wall appears on the excavator’s field plans and has been added here to the plan published in Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.5. The external walls as well as the courtyard walls of this building were built in adjoining rows of complete bricks and half-bricks on alternate sides in each course; internal divisions used rows of full bricks

17

lined with bricks laid on end (Fig. 2.1). The external southeastern corner of the building is rounded. Patches of yellow mud-plaster remained on some of the walls. The entrance to the building is marked by a door socket near the middle of the external eastern wall,

Fig. 2.1. Mudbrick construction in Building EY 475.

Loom weights EY 633 H

M G

M

G EY 473

EY 216/479 EY 480

G

H

EY 476

EY 211

M Mortar H Hearth G Grinding stone Cooking pot

EY 475

EY 474

Bowl Jar Jug

Plan 2.2. Schematic plan and contents of the EY 475 compound.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 17

04/11/2014 12:00:25

18

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

and a stone drainage channel (discovered in the 1945 excavations) appears to have carried water away from an unidentified installation in the building toward the open space on the east. Although there was no sign of violent destruction, finds and activity areas within the building give some

idea of the function of the excavated rooms (Table 2.1; Fig. 2.2): Room EY 473 contained fragments of various storage and table vessels (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.47:2, 3, 9, 12, 13; 8.48:5), a bone spatula, and various plant remains—charcoal (olive and pistacia atlantica), an

Table 2.1. Contents of Building EY 475 Artifact

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 18

Reg. No.

Locus

Reference

Fig. 2.2

Lamp

4203-5

EY 476

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:1

1

Platter

4221-2

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:7

2

Platter

4202-2

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:8

3

Platter

4214-1

EY 473

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:9

4

Bowl

1400-1

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:5

5

Amphoriskos

1400-7 + 4202-3

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.48:1

6

Jar

4202-1

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.48:3

7

Jar

4221-3

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.48:2

8

Jar

4221-1

EY 480

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.48:4

9

Cooking pot

1472-14

EY 633

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:11

10

Cooking pot

1489

EY 633

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.47:10

11

Lower grindstone

924

EY 216

Chapter 5: No. 6

Lower grindstone

922

EY 211

Chapter 5: No. 5

Basalt mortar

930

EY 216

Not catalogued

Mortar

-

EY 216

Not registered

Stone bowl

1562

EY 633

Chapter 5: No. 44

Double-hollowed pebble

1488

EY 633

Chapter 5: No. 90; Fig. 5.20

12

8 whorls/weights

886-1–8

EY 216 (201)

Chapter 5: Nos. 118–125; Figs. 5.10, 5.21

13, 14

Whorl/weight

913

EY 216

Chapter 5: No. 116; Fig. 5.21

15

2 fishnet weights

907, 885

EY 216 (201)

Chapter 5: Nos. 171, 179; Fig. 5.22

16, 17

2 fishnet weights

911-3, 911-4

EY 211

Chapter 5: Nos. 164, 176; Fig. 5.22

18

2 sickle blades

4199

EY 475

Sickle blade

4201

EY 480

Canaanean blade

4199

EY 475

Canaanean blade

4201

EY 480

2 Canaanean blades

1496-102, 104

EY 633

2 Canaanean blades

921-1, 921-3

EY 216

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.15:4

19

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.15:3

20

Chapter 4, Fig. 4.18:2

21

Canaanean blade

911-1

EY 211

Truncated blade

1496-103

EY 633

Polished blade

4185-15

EY 213/474

Awl (flint)

1477-1

EY 633

Sickle blade

926-34

EY 211

Bone point

4200

EY 475

Chapter 6: No. 115; Fig. 6.28

22

Bone spatula

-

EY 473

Chapter 6: No. 116; Fig. 6.28

23

Terracotta pendant

4201

EY 480

Chapter 6: No. 201

Copper fragment

4204

EY 476

Chapter 6: No. 133; Fig. 6.29

24

04/11/2014 12:00:26

19

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

olive pit, grape pips, and grains of wheat. A stone drain leading toward the external courtyard suggests the presence of a water-related installation in this room (cf. above, Room BS 006). A group of storage and table vessels was found in the adjacent space or mudbrick cell (EY 480; this space is interpreted in Bet Yerah I:344 as a continuation of EY 473; however, the mudbrick installation, EY 480B, assigned there to

Stratum 9, may also be understood as a Stratum 10 storage bin). These vessels include a large handled bowl, platters, jars, a pithos fragment, and an amphoriskos (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.47:5–8; 8.48:1–4, 6). Other finds here included flint blades and a ceramic pendant. To the west, EY 633 contained two cooking pots, a stone bowl, a miniature stone mortar, and a number of flint artifacts.

1

2 6 8

10

3

4

7

5

0

12

16

17

11

9

13

20

15

14

18

21

22

23

24

19 20 0

8

Fig. 2.2. Representative finds from Building EY 475, including consumption (1–4); preparation (5); storage (6–9) and cooking vessels (10, 11); craft implements (12–15, 21–23); fishing weights (16–18); flint implements (19, 20) and a copper axe(?) (24).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 19

04/11/2014 12:00:26

20

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

Room EY 475 yielded few finds, among them a number of flint blades (two retouched, two sickle blades, and a Canaanean blade) and a bone point. Room EY 476, separated from the main room by a dividing wall, yielded only a lamp and a small bowl. A large multi-purpose open space or courtyard (EY 479) yielded no restorable pottery. Its installations include a small stone-lined hearth near the northwestern corner with two stone bowls or mortars to its east (not in the Chapter 5 catalogue), and a lower grinding stone found in situ, surrounded by small stones (Chapter 5: No. 6). A row of eight basalt whorls, originally attributed to EY 201 of Local Stratum 9A, should probably be reassigned to EY 479, judging by the original elevations and their alignment along the wall of the courtyard. Other finds include a grooved fishingweight, an additional basalt weight, and several flint blades. Room EY 211 contained pithos fragments (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.48:7), another lower grinding stone, two fishing weights, and several flint blades, while the adjacent room (EY 474) provided only a few blades, including one of the polished-edge type associated with pottery production (see Chapter 4: Polished Canaanean Blades). A pebble threshold in W52, added here on the basis of field plans, marks a possible passage between the courtyard and the corridor. The distribution described above provides fairly robust indications for function: The northern part of the main broadroom (EY 473/480/633) served for food storage and food preparation. The southern part of the main room, and especially the private, enclosed space (EY 476), appears to have served as sleeping quarters. The large, presumably unroofed courtyard (EY 479/216) served for food processing and for various crafts. The adjacent space (EY 211/474) was an adjunct to the courtyard, containing similar finds. Curvilinear Construction, Mudbrick on Stone Foundations Evidence for such construction has been found in Area MK in the southwestern part of the mound and in Area BH, north of its center. Area MK (Bet Yerah I:470–471, Plan 9.2, Figs. 9.2, 9.3). A curved wall found in Sqs 2 and 3 (outside the fortification line) was constructed of fieldstones, preserved to a height of three to five courses (Fig. 2.3). The structure was built upon deposits similar to those

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 20

identified as belonging to early Period B in adjacent areas. No further information on this structure exists, nor did the 1994 excavations in the contiguous area, GE, uncover similar remains. Buildings BH 35/36 (Plan 2.1:3; see Bet Yerah I:477– 478, Plan 9.4, Figs. 9.9, 9.10). Above what appears to be a straight wall ascribed to early Period B (Local Phase 8), impressive remains were found of two conjoined round structures (Local Phase 7), probably part of a larger agglomeration (Fig. 2.3). The two structures appear to be of similar size and construction. About one quarter of Building BH 35 is extant. A thick external wall, 1.5 m wide, ends with what appears to be a left-hand doorjamb, furnished with an interior door socket. The reconstructed internal diameter of the structure is about 4 m. Meager ceramic finds were varied, and included food preparation and table wares. The only additional recorded find was a sickle blade. Building BH 36 abuts BH 35, and its 1.5 m wide wall was broadened in order to form a firm bond with the adjacent structure. Some mudbricks of irregular shape (square, triangular, or trapezoidal) were preserved on this wall. Two flat stones found on the floor of Building BH 36 appear to have been pillar bases. Finds in this room included varied pot fragments and a flint reaping knife. The two buildings are abutted by a paved area, into which another round stone-lined structure—interpreted as a silo (BH 44)—was introduced. Finds here were meager, with only the presence of two rather rare tabular scrapers being worthy of note. The evidence points to a domestic function for these structures, although no specific activity areas could be discerned within them. Round structures are found on occasion in late EB I contexts: e.g., at Megadim (Wolff 2008) and Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003:64), where they were interpreted as storage structures, or at Palmahim (Braun 1992), where a structure 2 m in diameter, furnished with a door and pillar base, has been reported. The best parallel, although apparently earlier in date, comes from Tell esh-Shuna, where a mudbrick building, 5.5 m in diameter, with stone foundations and a pillar base, is said to be part of an agglomeration of similar structures in the center of the mound (Philip 2001:178). Round architecture postdating rectilinear architecture in EB I is also attested at Pithat Ha-Yarmuk (Epstein 1985).

04/11/2014 12:00:26

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

21

a

b

Fig. 2.3. (a) Curvilinear building in Area MK and (b) conjoined round structures in Area BH. Note use of massive stone foundations.

Common/Shared Space Activity Areas and Various Installations in Open Areas Area BS. A large open area west of Building BS 005 contained a few ash patches and a round brick-lined installation (BS 010) that might have been used for grain storage. The stone bowl and miniature mortar found in BS 012 and the stone ring collected in BS 010 do not contribute much to a more detailed idea of the activities carried out here.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 21

Area MS/EY. The area to the east and south of Building EY 475 does not reveal very intensive activity. Wall 57 in the north and W59 in the south (abutted by an unnamed line of bricks) seem to divide the area into sectors—perhaps belonging to the different compounds that abutted it. The resultant eastern area, which fronted the entrance to the house, includes an irregularly shaped brick installation (EY 626; Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.5) and some ash patches to its north. Finds included stone and flint artifacts—notably four fishing weights,

04/11/2014 12:00:27

22

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

a symmetrical ring/whorl, several sickle blades, and an animal figurine. The pottery included two brazier fragments (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.50:7; 8.51:5), along with large sherds of cooking and storage vessels (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.50:1–5). Similarly, the southern area included ash patches, a work-table, and a limited number of (mainly lithic) artifacts. Notable finds include a fragment of an imported Egyptian alabaster jar and a decorated red-slipped jug (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.51:1). Area BH. The area at the rear of what appears to be a compound including several circular structures seems rather more formalized than Area EY. According to the excavators, this area included a paved courtyard and a stone silo. The only noteworthy find was a flint tabular scraper. Streets and Alleys No clear evidence for the existence of formal streets exists in Period B, but their existence cannot be ruled out entirely, in view of the limited exposure of the relevant strata. Public Architecture No public structures attributed to Period B have been identified to date. This is no doubt due to the fact that the main exposures of this period have been in the southern periphery of the site. As for the fortifications, Getzov (2006) has dated the construction of the first mudbrick city wall (Wall A, in our terminology) to

EB I. Our study of the fortifications suggests otherwise (Greenberg and Paz 2005; Bet Yerah I: Chapter 6), as will be explained below. Site Plan All excavation areas on the mound reveal at least two phases of settlement in Period B. These point to the gradual expansion of settlement from north (where settlement began in Period A) to south. Early Period B settlement appears to be dispersed, consisting almost entirely of pits and open activity areas. Mudbrick fragments found in some deposits indicate nearby architecture, and a stone-based wall is attested in Area BH (the 2007 excavations indicate the coexistence of mudbrick architecture and pits in an unidentified phase of Period B; Greenberg, Rotem, and Paz 2013:199). Later Period B remains reveal an increasing density of settlement and a concomitant decline in the number of refuse pits. In fact, houses were built atop the earlier pits and surfaces, sealing them. Evidence for Period B architecture extends to the borders of the mound, even beyond the later fortified enclosure. This is attested in Area MK and along the western edge of the mound (authors’ pers. obs., 2003). The latter observation clearly indicates that the construction of fortifications at Tel Bet Yerah could not have antedated late Period B. Moreover, the excavations of the gate in Wall A provide strong evidence for its use in Period C. The main evidence for an early date for the fortifications comes from the narrow trench excavated by Getzov in 1994–1995 (Getzov 2006: Plan 1.1, Fig.

W109

W108

W110 W114

-191

W153

W147

W165

-192

W142 W190 W156

W191

-193

W176

W177

W183 W481

-194 -195

3 -3

-196

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1-1

Plan 2.3. Western face of Area GE section (see Foreword: Plan 1) through fortifications (W191, W190, W156). Note incision in bedrock to north (right) and south of W156, leaving a podium for the fortifications. The cut obliterated all floors and walls lying north of the wall (after Getzov 2006: Plan 1.1: Area AB).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 22

04/11/2014 12:00:28

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

1.2; here, Area GE Plan 2.3, see Foreword: Table 1). The evidence, however, is moot: no floors abutting the mudbrick fortifications could be identified. Rather, the depressed area adjacent to the wall (as observed in the 4 m wide excavated section) was apparently left unoccupied for an extended period of time, well into Period C. The western section drawing (Plan 2.3) in fact suggests that this depression was the result of intentional cutting inside the wall-line, leaving the wall on a raised podium. This cutting—presumably the result of quarrying for mudbrick material—removed all traces of earlier settlement at this point. However, the situation on the eastern side of the road section is different. Here, evidence for Period B construction and occupation is visible until within a few meters of the wall, where it is cut by the foundation trench of Wall A. The great quantities of Period B pottery found in the collapse and fill of the depression are no more than a terminus post quem for the construction of the wall, since Period B deposits were clearly incorporated in the mudbricks. Moreover, the results of this limited sounding may not be representative of the fortification as a whole. Discussion There are at least two building traditions that may be associated with late Period B occupation at Tel Bet Yerah: rectilinear construction using mold-made mudbricks, without stone foundations, and circular or curvilinear construction with stone foundations and mudbricks of irregular geometric shapes. The bricks used in the rectilinear houses were of fairly uniform size and shape. They were typically arranged in courses composed of a row of full bricks and a row of half-bricks. Alternately, the row of full bricks could be adjoined by bricks laid on their narrow edge. Mud-plaster was used as bonding material and also occasionally as a coating on the walls. The preferred mode of habitation was in housecompounds, formed either of contiguous round structures probably enclosing a shared space, or in the form of broadrooms, enclosed courtyards, and appended rooms. The surviving finds are suggestive of a broad spectrum of household economic activities, including food preparation, food consumption, and crafts (Paz 2012). While there are not enough excavated units to establish patterns of the sort used to infer details on household size, kinship structures, divisions of labor, engendered roles, and the like

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 23

23

(Varien 2012), it is not too far a stretch to suggest that the rectilinear compounds could have accommodated multigenerational families (e.g., parents and married firstborn) and limited livestock (in the courts or in the spaces between houses). The living quarters in the two partly preserved houses may be estimated at 45–50 sq m, sufficient for a family of five. If we posit additional roofed space in another part of the compound, this could allow for the presence of another adult or two. The round units in Area BH would have been sufficient for one or two persons each. The manner in which they are joined is unique in Early Bronze Age architecture, being very reminiscent of hut compounds in semi-sedentary polygamous societies (Flannery 1972). Despite the superficial resemblance to the curvilinear tradition of the early EB I, the Area BH compound contrasts strikingly with the type of dispersed settlement of nuclear families in oval houses that typifies both EB IA sites such as Yiftah’el (Braun 1997) or EB IB sites like ‘En Shadud or Qiryat Ata (Braun 1985; Golani 2003). While the round stone-based structures are virtually unique, the style and layout of the rectilinear houses in Areas BS and EY/MS are quite similar to those encountered elsewhere in the northern valleys. For example, at Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1993), a partially preserved broadroom house reveals a very similar mudbrick construction technique; this house is also part of a larger enclosed compound, set apart from a neighboring house (the detailed plan, however, differs from ours). At Meser, M. Dothan (1959) excavated a stone-built structure consisting of a broadroom and an inner room entered on the same axis (as in EY 475). The external courtyard, which appears to have been fenced in, is furnished with a small stone silo. Broadroom houses with external courtyards also appear at Pithat Ha-Yarmuk (Epstein 1985). It may therefore be stated that the rectilinear family compounds at Bet Yerah resemble contemporary domestic structures at smaller sites. The general picture in Period B is, therefore, of a rather heterogeneous amalgamation of houses spread over the entire surface of the mound. People appear to have brought several building traditions and spatial arrangements to the site without, at this stage, making any compromise in favor of an overall design. All of this architectural heterogeneity was accompanied by a uniform material culture assemblage, as far as we could discern.

04/11/2014 12:00:28

24

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

Period C The accumulated evidence from the mound, and especially from Areas BS and EY/MS, permits the division of Period C into an earlier and a later phase. Both phases are characterized by developed domestic architecture; the use and organization of communal space appears to undergo a very significant evolution within this time span. Early Period C: Domestic Complexes Construction methods in Period C reveal limited continuity with Period B: while curvilinear construction is no longer in evidence, rectilinear walls on stone foundations reveal the same bricklaying technique used in the earlier phase, with walls built of alternating rows of full and half-bricks. Only a few walls have no stone foundation, and these are interior walls for the most part. Area EY/MS The best-preserved and most productive domestic complex is that excavated in Area EY/MS. This complex has two phases in early Period C, marked by the continuous use of the buildings with only minor changes—the raising of floors and slight structural alterations. Parts of three adjoining units appear to have been excavated; the western portion of all three lies outside the excavation area, as does most of the southern unit. The earlier phase, Local Stratum 9A (see Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.6), yielded considerable quantities of in situ finds, including many ceramic vessels, on the floors (de facto refuse, in Schiffer’s [1987] terminology)—apparently the result of the collapse of the roof. The second phase in these houses, Local Stratum 9B, has more of what may be considered primary refuse. All the finds are of a domestic character. Building EY 460/450. The northernmost unit, EY 460 (renovated as EY 450), is also the best preserved. The main space is a broadroom hall (about 54 sq m) furnished with pillar bases and a central area paved with stone slabs.2 Entry to the hall was gained from the north via a doorway, marked by the presence of a door socket about one third of the way from the northeastern corner. Within the hall there is only a single built subdivision: a small chamber formed by a

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 24

short brick divider in the southeastern corner. The few sherds found there do not indicate any special function. Room EY 460 provided a large and varied assemblage of finds (Plan 2.4; Table 2.2; Fig. 2.4) that appear to be in context. The greater part of the ceramic assemblage consisted of closed vessels—cooking pots (three nearly complete and five fragmentary) and storage jars or jugs (three complete and seven fragmentary; see Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.53–8.55). Four complete vessels—a Metallic Ware pithos, a jar, and two large cooking pots—were found together near the back wall of the hall, between the dividing wall and the stone pavement. These all appear to have been used for storage of liquids (the pithos) and dry goods (the pots). Near the vessels there was a lower grinding stone (Chapter 5: No. 2) and a large fixed mortar between the pillar bases lay just to the north. Another mortar was set in the floor in the northeastern corner of the hall. The eastern part of the hall also yielded a number of flint blades. While only a few cooking-pot, jar, and jug fragments were found on the paved surface, there was a notable quantity of groundstone implements: an upper and a lower grinding stone, a portable mortar, and a pestle. Other finds included several flint blades (including a sickle blade), a tabular scraper, a bone spatula, and two copper axes found together, apparently intentionally stashed beneath the earthen floor in close proximity to the stone pavement. Several hearths were identified west of the pavement, the largest, marked by a circle of small burnt stones, abutting the northern wall. Room EY 460 has every appearance of having served chiefly for food processing, with the large jars and pots serving for temporary storage, the grinding stones and mortars for processing, and the hearths and smaller pots for cooking. The virtual absence of serving vessels—especially of bowls and platters—suggests that the food was consumed elsewhere, perhaps within the adjoining units (see below). Following the collapse that sealed the contents of Room EY 460, the structure was repaired and a new floor laid (EY 450). Two hearths were identified in this phase in the western part of the hall, and another against the rear wall in the eastern part. Ceramic finds (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.61) included several types of bowls, a lamp, a mug, and some cooking-pot fragments, including a nearly complete diminutive soot-covered pot apparently found in situ. The absence of storage vessels and of stone processors is noteworthy. There

04/11/2014 12:00:28

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

25

EY 201

H EY 204

Copper axes EY 460

M

M H

G

H

EY 200 EY 456A

EY 471 H

EY 455A

EY 206 EY 205

EY 620 EY 619

M Mortar H Hearth G Grinding stone

Bowl Jar Jug

Cooking pot 0

1

EY 618

2

3

m

Plan 2.4. Plan and contents of the early Period C compound in Area EY.

were, however, a number of flint and bone tools, including sickle fragments and a complete Canaanean blade, possibly stashed beneath the floor in the southwestern corner of the room. The room west of Room EY 460 contained few hints as to function in its early phase (EY 204). In the later phase, however (EY 196), which included the addition of a stone shelf along the common wall with Room EY 450, the room yielded a number of complete bowls, a juglet, small clay spheres, a basalt ‘soap-bar’, and the upper part of a potter’s tournette (a lower wheel found in the fill above the floor is probably from the same tournette; see Chapter 3: Fig. 3.16:1, 2).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 25

Building EY 200. South of Room EY 460/450 we identified what appears to be a symmetrical double unit composed of a pillared broadroom attached end-to-end with a tripartite hall (the fully preserved tripartite unit measures about 25 sq m). The pillared hall (EY 200), only partly preserved, contained few diagnostic finds and a basalt worktable in its early phase. It is, however, interesting to note that the field diary records a strip of packed lake-tell gravel paving (a characteristic compound comprised of pebbles, abraded sherds, and shell fragments) running across the room from north to south, in a similar relative location to the stone pavement in Room EY 460. The southern entrance

04/11/2014 12:00:29

26

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

1

4

3

2

5

6

7

8

11

12 14

9

10

0

20

13 0

8

Fig. 2.4. Representative finds from Building EY 460: cooking vessels (1–4); storage vessels (5–8); copper axes (9, 10); grinding stones (11–13); and a mortar (14) (Nos. 12–14 not to scale).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 26

04/11/2014 12:00:30

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

27

Table 2.2. Inventory of Finds in Room EY 460 Artifact

Reg. No.

Locus

Reference

Platter

4169

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.53:1

Cooking pot

4161-1

EY 466

Bet Yerah I Fig. 8.53:6

1

Cooking pot

4161-2

EY 466

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.53:7

2 3

Cooking pot

4128-1

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.53:8

Cooking pot

4128-4

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.53:3

Cooking pot

4131

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.53:5

Jug base

4170-2

EY466

Bet Yerah I Fig. 8.54:5

Jug base

4153-2

EY466

Bet Yerah I Fig. 8.54:6

Jar

4130-2

Jar Jar

4130-1

4

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.54:7

5

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.54:9

6

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.54:8

7

NCMW pithos

4129-2

EY 460

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.55

8

2 copper axes

4159, 4160

EY 460

Chapter 6: Fig. 6.29:134, 135

9, 10

Upper grinding stone

4183

EY 466

Chapter 5: No. 26; Fig. 5.3

11

Lower grinding stone

4247

EY 460

Chapter 5: No. 2; Fig. 5.1

12

Lower grinding stone

4244

EY 466

Chapter 5: No. 7; Fig. 5.2

13

Stone mortar

4246

14

Stone mortar

EY 460

Chapter 5: Fig. 5.4; Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.8

MS 133

Bet Yerah I: Plan 2.8 Chapter 5: No. 55

Bowl on triangular cobble

4169

EY 466

Basalt pestle(?)

4181

EY 466

Sickle blade

4158

EY 466

3 sickle blades

4133-1, 2, 4

EY 460

3 Canaanean blades

4133-3, 6, 8

EY 460

2 retouched blades

4133-5, 7

EY 460

to the hall is directly opposite the southern end of the pavement, while its northern end leads to a possible passage toward EY 460 through the shared wall between the two halls. In the later phase (EY 197/448), which—as in EY 460—is marked by a raised floor, rearranged pillar bases, and some packed gravel paving in the southeastern corner, there is a selection of food preparation and presentation ceramics (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.62, 8.63), as well as stone vessels and what appears to be a gaming piece. A remarkable installation near the eastern pillar base consisted of a sherd-lined installation surrounded by a mollusk-shell pavement; in the installation there was a complete spouted vat (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.63:1). The two westernmost rooms of the tripartite hall had, in both phases, beaten-earth floors and contained an undistinguished collection of finds (although a stone-

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 27

Fig. 2.4

lined installation in Room EY 470 of Local Stratum 9B held a four-spouted lamp, a stone bowl, and a very large fan scraper). The easternmost room, however, contained a rich assortment of finds (Table 2.3; Fig. 2.5): complete serving and fragmentary storage vessels, as well as several stone processors in Stratum 9A (EY 455A; Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56), and a platter, a bowl, a jar, a mortar, a stone processor, a flint blade, and a bone needle in Stratum 9B (EY 455B; Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.64). The latter phase of this room was paved with a combination of flat stones and packed gravel. Building EY 206. The third unit in the Area EY early Period C compound, of which only the northern part was excavated, appears to have been symmetrical to that just described. The presumed pillared hall (EY 206) yielded one pillar base and—as in the other

04/11/2014 12:00:30

28

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

1

6 4

2

7

5

3

0

8

20

Fig. 2.5. Food consumption vessels from Room EY 455A.

Table 2.3. Inventory of Finds in Room EY 455A Artifact

Reg. No.

Locus

Reference

Fig. 2.5

Bowl

4219-2

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:1

1

Bowl

4219-1

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:2

2

Bowl

4114-7

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:3

3

Bowl

4114-3

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:4

4

Bowl

4114-1

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:5

5

Platter

4114-2

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:6

6

Mug

4179-3

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:8

7 8

Jug

4114-5

EY 455A

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.56:10

Stone bowl

4190

EY 455A

Chapter 5: No. 75

Hollowed pebble

4192

EY 455A

Chapter 5: No. 92

structures—two superimposed floors. Here, however, it was the later floor that was furnished with a band of packed gravel pavement across its middle, possibly capped with a few paving slabs. The symmetry of this band with the stratigraphically lower patch in Room EY 200, to its north, might suggest that the repairs done in the different parts of the compound were not all coeval. Bordering Room EY 206 on the east was a narrow dividing wall, which might be similar in function to that in EY 460; the wall sets off a small chamber (EY 205), in which a variety of open and closed vessel fragments were recovered (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.59). The tripartite unit east of the hall was very rich in finds, especially in the earlier phase (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.57, 8.58), but while Rooms EY 620 and EY 619 contained mainly fragments of bowls, lamps, jars, and cooking pots, Room EY 618 had an assortment of complete vessels that included mainly serving vessels (Table 2.4; Fig. 2.6): small and large bowls, a mug, and a jug (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.57:2, 3, 7, 8, 11; 8.58:1, 3). This phase had no stone processors, although a few

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 28

flint blades did turn up. The later phase in these rooms (EY 603, EY 608, and EY 610, respectively) contained more fragmentary finds. The three structures attributed to early Period C appear to have formed a single compound, measuring perhaps as much as 250 sq m in size. While their architectural redundancy could suggest that each was an independent unit, the spatial distribution of finds appears to indicate specialized functions for different parts of the compound. The pillared hall (EY 460) served exclusively for short-term storage (a pithos, jars, and perhaps the large flat-based cooking pots), processing (groundstone objects), and cooking (pots and hearths). Serving, however, took place elsewhere, as suggested by the storage of serving vessels in the rear, least accessible room of each tripartite unit (EY 455 and EY 618). Moreover, each storage unit yielded an identical assemblage of nearly complete vessels: three small bowls, two large bowls, a platter, a mug, and a jug. It is therefore possible that each of the tripartite units was intended for a family subunit of equal size and status.

04/11/2014 12:00:31

29

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

1 4 7 2

5

3

6

9 8 0

4

0

20

Fig. 2.6. Food consumption vessels and flint blade from Room EY 618.

Table 2.4. Inventory of Finds in Room EY 618 Artifact

Reg. No.

Locus

Reference

Fig. 2.6

Bowl

1424-3

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:1

1

Bowl

1454-3

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:2

2

Bowl

1424-2

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:3

3

Bowl

1424-4

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:7

4

Bowl

1432-1

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:8

5

Platter

1424-1

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.57:11

6

Mug

1454-2

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.58:1

7

Jug

1454-1

EY 618

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.58:3

8

Canaanean sickle blade

1427-1

EY 618

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.13:7

9

2 Canaanean blades

1427-2, 3

EY 618

Denticulated blade

1454

EY 618

Stone bar

1454-44

EY 618

A potter’s wheel from Room EY 196 indicates the nearby presence of a potter. Given the large proportion of local ware in the pottery assemblage, especially in Local Stratum 9B, we suggest that the compound was the residence of at least one of the operators of the ‘southern potter’s’ workshop at Tel Bet Yerah (see Chapter 3). Eastern Building. The area to the east of the domestic compound of Area EY is marked as an open space during both phases of Local Stratum 9; however, our review of the field diaries indicates that construction of several structures that appear in the Local Stratum 8 plan in Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.8 began in Local Stratum 9B. These are only fragments of structures, their floors about 0.2 m below those ascribed to Stratum 8, some with patches of the packed lake-tell gravel that typifies Tel Bet Yerah. A complete jar (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.67:11) should be ascribed to one of these structures (early phase of Room EY 580).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 29

Chapter 6: No. 170

Area MS—Section I. Only small parts of Period C structures were exposed in this area, adjacent to the fortification, Wall A (see below). We were not able to determine with certainty whether the structures abutted the wall directly, or whether a passage was left along the wall. In any case, evidence for rebuilding of house walls during Period C shows that in this area as well there was continuity in the location and external contours of houses, as observed elsewhere on the mound. Area BS Local Stratum 13 includes parts of several structures. In the early phase, only Building BS 013 was in use. Although most of the structure falls outside the excavation area, its stone-lined silo (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 5.6, 5.8) is one of the few examples found at Tel Bet Yerah. In the later phase, Local Stratum 13B, Building BS 013 was apparently enlarged and a new row of rooms—all belonging to a single rectilinear

04/11/2014 12:00:31

30

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

structure—was built across the newly paved street. The houses are oriented to the cardinal points. Few finds can be attributed to specific find-spots in any of these structures, hence no conclusions as to function can be drawn. Area UN Parts of five structures, all attributed to a single phase (Local Stratum 4), were found in this area. The construction here—mudbrick on stone foundations for external walls, with thin mudbrick walls lacking stone foundations for interior walls—and the orientation to the cardinal points are shared with the other excavation areas. Early Period C: Shared Space Open Areas Area EY. The area to the east of the early Period C domestic compound (Plan 2.4; cf. Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.6) appears to have been used intensively for fire-related activities. There are a number of stone-lined hearths in the earlier phase and burnt clay ovens in the later phase. A patch of lake-tell gravel in the southeastern corner had some stone bins on it, one paved with burnt clay. A refuse pit (EY 622) is ascribed to the early phase. Pottery included fragments from a variety of vessels (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.60:1, 2, 4, 7, 9–11, 13, 14; 8.67:1–3, 12), as well as a rare painted NCMW jar (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.67:12), fragments of which were found scattered along the side of the compound. A considerable number of stone fishing weights were recovered from both phases, suggesting that maintenance of fish-nets was a common activity here. Other small finds include flint sickle blades, a tabular scraper, and miscellaneous stone artifacts. Grinding stones are conspicuously absent. The area north of the compound contains traces of walls that might have belonged to poorly preserved structures; the northeastern corner (EY 201) was probably another open space, but a number of basalt whorls attributed to this phase should probably be reassigned to Period B (see above). Area BS. In the early phase, Local Stratum 13A, the open area west of Building BS 013 (Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.4) served for refuse disposal, judging by the nature of the finds reported by Bar-Adon (ash, bones, burnt soil, and fragments of pottery). In the later phase, part of

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 30

the area was built up, part converted into a paved street (below, and see Fig. 2.11), and part (BS 019 along the western balk) may have been an open courtyard. Streets and Alleys A grid of paved streets begins to appear at Bet Yerah in early Period C, and seems to have been designed to regulate traffic as domestic construction intensified. The streets are communal space, and appear to represent deliberate planning at a level above that of the individual household or adjoining domestic compounds. This is most evident where domestic space seems to have been expropriated for the public thoroughfares, e.g., in Area EY, between the early and late phases of Period C. Area BS. A paved street (BS 103, BS 021) runs northward from the gate in Wall A toward the houses excavated in the sounding. In Bet Yerah I:124 it was suggested that a ‘walkway’ built of large paving stones preceded the street in the domestic area, but it seems more likely that they served as curbstones (Fig. 2.7),

Fig. 2.7. The first stage in the paving of the BS 021 roadway, early Period C, looking north.

04/11/2014 12:00:31

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

and that they were put into place together with a layer of packed lake-tell gravel in order to stabilize the roadbed (a similar technique appears to have been identified in probes excavated in 2003 and 2007 in Areas SA and GB-north). Another technical detail to be noted is the fact that the pavement, as drawn, does not quite abut W5105 on the eastern side, leaving what appears to be a runoff channel. A similar gap can be observed in the gate-passage itself (Bet Yerah I: Plan 6.3). It is not entirely clear if the east–west street that crosses BS 021 was paved as well in this phase. A few centimeters of soil build-up intervene between the early Period C (BS 021) and the late Period C (BS 025) pavements in the domestic area, whereas a thick layer appears in the gate area. This could be a result of poor maintenance in the gate area, abutted as it was by massive mudbrick walls. Alternately, it could be a result of earth tremors, evidence for which can be seen in numerous cases of collapse and repair throughout the site’s history. Early Period C: Public Construction The only certain example of public construction in early Period C is the fortification, Wall A. Previous publications (Greenberg and Y. Paz 2005; Bet Yerah I: Chapter 6) have presented detailed arguments for the dating of the Wall A fortifications to early Period C (see also above, Period B: Site-Plan). These include the clear relation between the gate passage and the paved streets of Area BS, evidence of a late Period C floor abutting a Wall A repair in Area MS, and the existence of Period B elements outside the fortification. Built across the base of the mound, the massive mudbrick fortifications effectively established the southern boundary of the town and anchored its layout. At least one gate pierced this wall, approached by an external ramp of which only a fragment remains. A large pierced stone stele and offering tables were placed at the right external gatepost. In Bet Yerah I:237, we suggested that the original construction of Wall A consisted of two adjoined walls totaling 4.5–5.0 m in width. Each wall had a predominant brick color (in at least two places, the southern wall was built of dark bricks, made of rendzina soil, and the northern wall, of light marly bricks), indicating that the material for the mudbricks was quarried in at least two separate locations, one within and one without the walls. A close look at the detailed section published by

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 31

31

Getzov (2006) reveals what appears to be a shallow ditch excavated into the marl bedrock north of Wall A; this could mark a quarrying location for the light colored mudbricks. Later repairs and additions to Wall A, bringing it to a total width of 8 m, were observed in the gate as well as at the various sections (see below, Late Period C Public Construction). Early Period C: Site Plan Perhaps the most salient point to be made regarding the Period C site-plan is the clear break throughout the site between Period B and Period C architecture, domestic or otherwise. The builders of the Period C settlement wiped the slate clean and reestablished occupation as if on virgin soil. The Area BS evidence suggests that the basis for the new site plan was the fortification, Wall A (see above, Fig 1.6), from which a grid of paved streets extended northward (Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.5; cf. Plan 2.6 below). In Area BS, houses were built along the main street, and therefore were oriented toward the cardinal points. Elsewhere on the mound, early Period C domestic architecture was always oriented similarly, suggesting the wide application of the grid plan even where paved streets have not been identified with certainty. Domestic construction in Period C was always rectilinear; external house walls were nearly always built of mudbrick on sturdy stone foundations. The Area EY evidence suggests that in early Period C the concept of the extended family compound was still operative. Thus, we find a group of contiguous, relatively spacious structures with internal functional differentiation between them, surrounded by open areas in which communal activities, such as fishnet repair, were carried out. This was to change in later phases, as house-density increased and urban habits gained traction. Early Period C: Discussion The architectural evidence from early Period C is remarkably consistent with most of the artifactual evidence, indicating a major reorganization of society at the cusp of the third millennium BCE. In what had to be a clearly thought-out procedure, a new concept of settlement was imagined, designed, and put into practice. Community leaders recruited and organized labor, began to enforce rules defining the boundaries

04/11/2014 12:00:32

32

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

between public and private domains, and encouraged people to adapt their village ways to the new cognitive map that we term ‘urban’. Many architectural details testify to the presence of this urban habitus, but perhaps none is more telling than the process observed in the Area BS sounding, where a house is established in alignment with the as-yet unpaved passage (Fig. 2.7). Subsequently, new houses are built along the still unpaved passage, testifying to the power of the emergent cognitive map (Portugali 2004), and only after that is the street itself paved. The urbanizing process doubtless had to overcome resistance, for which material evidence exists as well. The retention of the idea of an extended family compound bordered by areas of communal domestic activity in Area EY contrasts sharply with the urban discipline exhibited near the town gate. It would take time until all parts of the site would fall into line. This will become more evident as we move into late Period C. Late Period C: Domestic Complexes There are a number of noteworthy trends that characterize all buildings attributed to this phase. These include (a) careful reuse of earlier walls, even when house-plans change; (b) careless construction of interior walls, often using brick-fragments; (c) doubling-up of walls between houses—something not seen in early Period C. Area EY/MS The changes between the early and late phases of Period C in Area EY/MS were gradual and not uniform across the area. While the published plans of Local Strata 8 and 7 (Bet Yerah I: Table 8.1; Plans 8.8, 8.9) illustrate two purported sequential phases, the actual sequence of construction seems to have begun in Local Stratum 9B and ended in Stratum 7; this means that “Stratum 8” may well represent a configuration that never, in fact, existed. In order to avoid confusion, the construction sequence of each unit will be presented separately. Generally speaking, the tendency in late Period C is toward smaller rooms without pillars, forming houses that are nearly square in outline. Building EY 442 is the central structure, and appears to have been fully excavated, with the exception of an attached courtyard to its south that extends beyond

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 32

the southern border of the excavation (Plan 2.5; Fig. 2.8). This house may well have been the residence of the local potter, as several implements of the trade were found in the courtyard. It reveals a tenacious continuity of use, built—as it is—largely on wall stubs of the preceding phase, and carefully maintained well into Period D. Emblematic of this continuity is W16, a narrow brick wall that remained in use through three consecutive phases of repair. The external walls of the structure were initially built directly on wall stubs of the preceding stratum, except for the eastern wall, which was built inside the previous wall and allowed that wall to double as the back wall of a separate house lying to the east. The internal space was at first divided (in Local Stratum 8; Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.8) into four rooms; however, the westernmost room (EY 178) is quite poorly built and yielded no significant finds, perhaps indicating that it was expropriated for public use as an alleyway soon after its construction during Stratum 8, rather than in Stratum 7 as suggested in Bet Yerah I. The ceramic finds from this phase (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.68) are not very informative as to function; other finds are meager. In Local Stratum 7 the house was partly rebuilt and slightly rearranged, but not much can be said about its use. A noteworthy find is the cache of six unworked Canaanean blades near W16 in Room EY 437. Given the specialized use of such blades in the ceramic industry (below, Chapter 3), the cache might be taken as further evidence for the identity of the resident of this house. South of Building EY 442 lies what appears to be an enclosed courtyard (EY 575; Table 2.5) that belonged to this structure (and was perhaps shared with adjacent structures). At some point during its existence, a small cell (EY 160) was built along the western side of the courtyard. Both the courtyard and the cell contained finds that may be associated with ceramic production (Fig. 2.9). Two symmetric, carefully arranged pottery caches (Bet Yerah I:365–356) found in the cell included a matching pair of basalt tournette wheels (one on the floor of the room, one covering a holemouth jar, and several atypical jugs (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.79:8, 9; 8.80:1) that must have been specially prepared for use in this setting. Finds in the courtyard (Fig. 2.9), originating in several deposits that cannot be equated with certainty with specific construction phases, include the following: (1) a pair of unfinished and unused tournette wheels and a fragment of another

04/11/2014 12:00:32

33

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

EY 157 EY 158

EY 451

EY 156

EY 452

EY 446

EY 150

EY 442 EY 566 EY 567

EY 153 EY 431 EY 437

EY 174/ EY 161

EY 574 W16

EY 575

EY 162

0

1

2

EY 586/ EY 573

EY 160

3 m

Plan 2.5. Schematic plan of late Period C houses in Area EY.

Later house wall Alley Early house floor

Fig. 2.8. Area EY, late Period C houses superposed on early Period C walls; late Period C alleyway at left, looking north.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 33

04/11/2014 12:00:33

34

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

Table 2.5. Inventory of finds in Courtyard EY 575 Artifact

Reg. No.

Locus

Reference

Fig. 2.9

Socketed tournette

1352-1

EY 575

Chapter 3: Fig. 3.18:2

1

Socketed tournette

1352-2

EY 575

Socketed tournette

1296 + 1353

EY 575

Chapter 3: Fig. 3.18:1

2

Burnisher

1355-1

EY 575

Chapter 5: No. 33

2 stone rings

1237, 1354-2

EY 575

Chapter 5: Nos. 138, 144

2 Canaanean blades

1245-1, 2

EY 575

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.16:2, 4

3, 4

2 retouched blades

1297-1, 1245

EY 575

Polished blade

1245

EY 575

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.17:2

5

Tabular scraper

1297

EY 585

Chapter 4: Fig. 4.19:1

6

2 bone spatulae

1245-3, 4

EY 575

Chapter 6: Nos. 124, 125; Fig. 6.28

7, 8

Fired ceramic tablet

1289

EY 575

Chapter 6: No. 162

Unfired ceramic fragments

EY 610 (pit)*

Chapter 3: Fig. 3.19

Poorly fired ceramic tablet

1282

EY 575

Chapter 6: No. 161; Fig. 6.31

9, 10 11

Bowl

1241-1

EY 575

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.81:1

12

Bowl

1295-2

EY 585

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.81:2

13

Platter

4164

EY 468

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.81:3

14

Vat

4239

EY 468

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.81:5

15

Cooking pot

4163

EY 468

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.81:9

16

Twin vessel

1295-1

EY 585

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.82:1

17

Jar

1288

EY 575

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.82:5

18

Jar

1294-1

EY 575

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.82:6

19

Jug

1303

EY 585

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.82:2

20

Jug

1302

EY 585

Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.82:3

21

* Originally ascribed to Local Stratum 9B

wheel; (2) bone spatulae, a tabular scraper, and polished flint blades associated with the working of unfired clay; (3) unbaked pottery fragments and clay waste deposited in a pit (previously attributed to Room EY 610 in Local Stratum 9: Bet Yerah I:354); (4) several clay bars of unknown function; (5) a large and varied collection of ceramic vessels (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.81, 8.82). The rooms to the north of the central building (EY 582/451 and EY 452) share a wall with it, have similar floor levels, and may therefore be assumed to have been closely associated with it. The presence of hearths in both phases, as well as a preponderance of bowls and cooking pots, suggests that this area was used for cooking and eating. All in all, the central structure in late Period C reveals considerable continuity and a high level of maintenance, contrasting with the houses lying both to the east and the west.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 34

Building EY 580 (Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.8) is a partly excavated structure in the northeastern part of the excavation area. An early phase of the structure had a patch of lake-tell gravel 0.15–0.20 m higher than the adjacent Local Stratum 9B floors; near this patch was a nearly complete jar (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.67:11), set into the floor (marked on the Stratum 9B plan: Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.7). A second occupation level in this structure is attributed to Local Stratum 8, but the building seems to have fallen out of use in Local Stratum 7. Building EY 586/EY 573–574, also only partly excavated, included an anterior space (EY 576/EY 566–567) identified as a courtyard (alternately, an anteroom) which had—according to Yogev’s field diaries—three floor levels: two in Local Stratum 8 (the later consisting partly of lake-tell gravel, not marked in Bet Yerah I) and one in Local Stratum 7. In addition to a small and varied collection of ceramic fragments

04/11/2014 12:00:33

35

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

2

1 10

0

3

5

10

0

6

9

4

7

8

10

11 0

8

12

13

14

15

18

16

19

17

20 0

21

20

Fig. 2.9. Representative finds from Courtyard EY 575: tournettes (1, 2), flint (3–6) and bone work implements (7, 8), unbaked clay fragments (9, 10) and a clay bar (11), all associated with a potter’s workshop; food preparation, storage, and consumption vessels (12–21).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 35

04/11/2014 12:00:34

36

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

(Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.75:2, 5, 7), this space contained, in its early phase, several stone artifacts—two small limestone bowls, two fishing weights, a ring-weight, and half a fine limestone macehead—as well as a bull figurine, a bone artifact, a fired clay ball, a votive vessel, and three flint blades. Finds of the later phase were fewer and less varied. The interior room also had three successive floor levels. The pottery from the lower two has been published as a single context (Room EY 586) in Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.70, 8.71. The small finds resemble those from the anteroom, including stone artifacts, a donkey-with-panniers figurine, fishing weights, and clay or stone spheroids. The floors of the third phase, at which time the room was subdivided (EY 573, EY 574), contained few finds. Building EY 174/EY 161 is another partly excavated multi-roomed structure, occupying the southwestern corner of Area EY. In its early phase (Local Stratum 8), it consisted of a row of three small rooms along the alley and a fourth, largely unexcavated room to their west. The southernmost room contained a thick layer of ash, a number of enigmatic stone installations, and a pile of snail shells in the northeastern corner. The later phase saw the expansion of the structure and the incorporation of EY 150, which seems to have been an anteroom or possibly an enclosed court. Finds here included two jars (one in the northeastern corner and the other near the door in W145), a platter and a bowl (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.78:1–4), a fixed stone mortar in the center of the room, and a tournette turntable placed on some large stone slabs. Room EY 153 on its south was nearly empty of finds, but Room EY 161 contained a large amount of pottery in situ—mainly small storage vessels (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.25, 8.26). The southernmost room had, as in the previous phase, much ash, a small quantity of pottery, and some flint artifacts. At the end of this use phase, the building seems to have been sealed and abandoned—as witness its blocked doorways. This had the effect of preserving the indications for different room functions, in contrast to the central structure, where continued maintenance and use into Local Stratum 6 seems to have obliterated the traces of Local Stratum 7 activity. Area MS Section I. Although the architectural remains are fragmentary, it is worth noting that the trend toward the infilling of open areas and the intensification of domestic construction is evident in Local Strata 6 and especially 5 (Beth Yerah I:24–26). The large collection

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 36

of storage and cooking vessels found in Loci MS 153 and MS 154 appears to be analogous to the assemblages on the Area EY floors, e.g., in Room EY 161, and should probably be assigned to the same general phase. Area BS The transition from early to late Period C in Area BS is marked by continuity on both sides of the main street, with new house walls being built on the stubs of old ones and maintaining their external outline. On the eastern side of the street, where only a small part of the structure was excavated, the rebuilding of the silo in BS 024 in Local Stratum12A is noteworthy. The silo is paved over, however, in Local Stratum 12B, at which time a new entryway is established in the wall facing the street. On the western side of the street (Plans 2.6, 2.7), the house maintained its layout from Local Stratum 13, with slight changes being effected in the external rooms fronting the street in the course of rebuilding the walls. While few portable artifacts can be assigned a specific location in this structure, there does seem to be enough evidence to suggest that BS 031, a large Stratum 12A room or enclosed courtyard to the west of the rooms, was used for food preparation (attested by the presence of a large mortar and several upper and lower grinding stones). A lower grinding stone, a complete jar, and a large bowl belonging to the Stratum 12B rebuild, BS 035, might indicate a similar function in the second phase. The construction of two separate entrances to the structure from the street might indicate that this renovation involved the division of the house in two. Area SA The domestic unit excavated in the latest Period C phase in the Deep Cut, although only partly excavated, has certain features that align it with finds in other parts the mound: It is a multi-room structure, with relatively small rectangular rooms (Bet Yerah I: Plan 3.9). The walls are built of stone and mudbrick. According to the Deep Cut records, the building was used continuously, with raised floors, into Period D. It is part of a densely built up domestic quarter that extends southward to the east–west street. Late Period C: Shared Space With open spaces continuously contracting in Period C, the principal shared spaces are either enclosed courtyards that might have been used by two or more

04/11/2014 12:00:34

37

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

households (e.g., EY 575, see above) or streets and alleys. As the former have been described above, we may concentrate on the latter. No fewer than six paved street segments and at least one alley published in Bet Yerah I can be assigned to late Period C (additional streets have been discovered in other excavations on the mound). These include: 1. The paved north–south street running through the city gate (BS 104; Plan 2.6). 2. The paved north–south street in the Area BS sounding (BS 025, probably the continuation of`BS 104; Plan 2.6). 3. The paved east–west street in the Area BS sounding (BS 026; Plan 2.6). 4. The paved north–south street in Area SA, bordered by W196 of the Deep Cut (Bet Yerah I: Plan 3.3). 5. The paved east–west street in Area SA, which is coeval with No. 4 (Bet Yerah I: Plan 3.3). 6. The paved east–west street in Area MK (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 9.5).

9

8

7

7. The north–south alleyway established in Local Stratum 7, Area EY (EY 158; Plan 2.5). The technical characteristics of the paved streets are partly evident in the old excavation records as reflected in Bet Yerah I: a. They have an average width of about 2.5 m. b. The paving is made of fairly large and heavy slabs; they are laid snugly, with an occasional cobble used to fill in the gaps between them. c. A narrow unpaved strip is usually evident along one side of the street at least, probably to permit drainage; the unpaved strip is usually on the eastern side of the north–south streets, and on the northern side of the east–west streets. A test trench cut into the main north–south street in Area SA in 2003 revealed further characteristics of this street, some of which could be observed in the older documentation as well. The most important feature

6

5

4

B

B BS 025

C

C BS 026

D

D

BS 104

E

E

F 0

F

5 m

9

8

7

6

5

4

Plan 2.6. Schematic plan of the late Period C city gate and street plan.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 37

04/11/2014 12:00:35

38

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

is a 0.15 m thick layer of packed lake-tell gravel that underlies the stone slab pavement. Similar layers appear to be present in the unpublished schematic section drawing of BS 025 and in the Period D street in Area UN (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 7.9), and since the stone pavement slabs were set directly on this layer, it seems likely that it was intended to serve as soling (inert bedding) for the pavement. The remarkable stability of this composition is evident in the Area SA street, which has survived intact to this day. Late Period C: Public Construction Beyond the streets of the late Period C city described above, which comprise the most impressive evidence for public works, few remains of late Period C largescale construction have been excavated. The city gate underwent significant renovation, which included not only the repaving of the entrance but the facing of the entire gate and a good part of the internal face of Wall A with stone. It appears likely that the wall itself was buttressed at various points, as suggested in Bet Yerah I:237–239). No public structures or such that can be ascribed to a ruling elite have yet come to light. Late Period C: Site Plan The cognitive map established at the start of Period C continued to inform the inhabitants of Tel Bet Yerah, even as domestic construction intensified and open

areas were converted into built space. The investment in the engineering of paved streets and the repair of the fortifications suggests the existence of some sort of municipal authority. This is also indicated by the alley in Area EY (EY 158; Plan 2.5), which appears to have been established by fiat, truncating the central domestic structure. At the same time, the individual relationships between neighboring units appear to have been governed by local rules, with shared space and shared walls perhaps indicating closer kin relationships than those marked by double walls and back-toback construction. The organization of settlement in residential quarters and in extended family insulae, as suggested by Vallet (1997) for Late Uruk Habuba Kabira, could work for Bet Yerah as well. BS 029

Late Period C: Discussion There is BS a marked continuity exhibited in house 031 028 of domestic settlement construction, in nearly allBS areas that contrasts strongly with the Period B–C transition and appears to indicate a strong sense of urban continuity throughout Period C (and indeed into Period D). Another interesting trend in the architecture in the late Period C town is the apparent co-evolution of a typical ‘Bet Yerah house’ in different parts of the mound: divided into rather narrow 0 square 1 2structures 3 m rectangular or square living chambers and perhaps a small, partly roofed internal court (Plan 2.7). This process would indicate the gradual acceptance of

BS 029 EY 442 BS 031 BS 028

EY 437

0

1

2

3 m

Plan 2.7. Late Period C house plans: Areas BS and EY.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 38

04/11/2014 12:00:36

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

the constraints and rules—stated or implied—that govern domestic construction in an urban setting, even as they affect the most intimate family settings. Thus, the relinquishing of the open spaces where communal activities took place in early Period C in favor of new houses implies a restructuring of the domestic economy toward greater reliance on the nuclear family as a basic unit of production and toward greater spatial segregation of economic activity (perhaps accompanied by increased specialization). The paving of the town’s main streets indicates a more rigid structuring of activities in the areas between the houses, which would have been given over mainly to movement of people and goods (and possibly surface runoff management). The virtual absence of storage installations or storage cellars in private homes is a corollary to the development of public space: there must have been other arrangements for the storage and distribution of staples (hence the need for public arteries). It is such unspectacular details that provide evidence—better than that offered by monumental architecture—for the emergence of a new way of life, forged by practice, within the fortification walls.

Period D This period, too, will be subdivided into early and middle/late, the earlier period coinciding with the introduction of Khirbat Kerak Ware (KKW) to the site and the construction of Fortification Wall B, and the later phase related to domestic rebuilding and the eventual construction of Wall C. Due to difficulties in correlating phases in different parts of the mound, we will lump together aspects of the subphases of Period D in some parts of the discussion, and distinguish between them in others. Domestic Structures A fairly large number of Period D domestic structures have been excavated. The better-preserved examples seem to follow the pattern begun in late Period C— square houses divided into several small rooms, ranging in size from approximately 7 × 7 m to about 8 × 8 m. This apparent homogeneity may be misleading, however, as most of the structures are only partly excavated and the existence of rectangular or irregular multi-roomed houses alongside the square ones is highly likely. In addition to the standard

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 39

39

building we may identify at least one courtyard-type structure, associated with the presence of KKW. This must be considered a tentative identification that needs to be bolstered by further excavation. House-walls were built of mudbricks, usually on stone foundations. Period D bricks tend to be somewhat smaller and thicker than those of Period C. They are also of a more crumbly consistency (Fig. 2.10).

Fig. 2.10. Period C (below) and Period D (above) brick-work in an Area EY wall.

Area EY In Area EY, the central structure of Local Stratum 6 (EY 435/427; Plan 2.8:1 = Bet Yerah I: Plans 8.10, 8.11) is a rebuild of the late Period C structure, following its external outline quite closely. The well-built structure is divided into seven rooms and compartments. There is little information on room functions. Restorable pottery of the last phase suggests that the innermost space (EY 413)—possibly an enclosed courtyard—was used for cooking, whereas the room next to it (EY 427) had an abundance of storage vessels of various sizes, many of them decorated. A fine cuboid weight was recovered from one of the front rooms (EY 417; Chapter 5: No. 244). Room EY 428 yielded fragments of red-black painted plaster (Chapter 6: No. 209; Color Pl. 6.2). West of Room EY 427, in Local Stratum 6B, was an intriguing, partly excavated structure (Plan 2.8:2 = Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.11) that appears to be different in concept from the central house. Parts of one room and of a large space—probably a courtyard—were exposed at the edge of the excavation area. Our reconstruction

04/11/2014 12:00:36

40

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

closes off the structure at its unexcavated extremities in order to form a large unit of approximately 7 × 11 m. This structure was built on top and slightly askew of the late Period C structure that preceded it. The inner room was furnished with an assortment of storage vessels in traditional ware, whereas the presumed courtyard, furnished with a number of paved patches, apparent hearths, and other installations, had an abundance of KKW vessels and many andiron fragments. We interpret this to indicate the use of the courtyard or

EY 429

front space as a kitchen area for KKW consumers— presumably Anatolian migrants or their descendants— who otherwise used traditional local pottery. In the eastern part of the excavation area a rebuilt structure, of which only a small part has been excavated (EY 568/551), was also found to contain quantities of KKW, in an area characterized by multiple pavings and various installations of unclear purpose (see below, Plan 2.12). Late Period D construction (EY 534; Plan 2.8:3; Bet Yerah I: Plan 8.12) completely redesigned this area, reintroducing the typical cellular architecture that was seemingly not favored by the KKW consumers.

EY 428 EY 442

EY 411 EY 433

EY 427 EY 435 EY 413 EY 436 EY 133

EY 417 1

2

BS 062

EY 530

EY 534

BS 064

BS 061 EY 526

4

BS 063

3

0

1

2

3 m

Plan 2.8. Reconstructed house-plans of Period D: (1) Area EY (Local Stratum 6); (2) Area EY (Local Stratum 6); (3) Area EY (Local Strata 5–4); (4) Area BS (Local Stratum 8).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 40

04/11/2014 12:00:37

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

Area BS Here too, the cellular house arrangement is introduced only in middle/late Period D (Local Strata 9 and 8). In the earlier phases, the area was characterized by large open spaces, used either for refuse or for communal activity (detailed below). A square, stone-based 5 × 5 m structure introduced, apparently, only in Local Stratum 10B (and not in Stratum 10A, as published in Bet Yerah I), does not appear to be domestic in nature. The domestic structure constructed in Local Stratum 9 (BS 055–057; Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.10) and rebuilt in Local Stratum 8 (Plan 2.8:4; Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.11) appears to have been entered from the street that runs along its western side. The large space fronting the street (BS 061) was probably an enclosed courtyard, furnished with a mortar and millstone in its later phases. Finds are too meager to make any other determinations on function. Fragments of other cellular structures can be identified to the east of BS 055–57 in Local Stratum 9 (Bet Yerah I:148, Plan 5.10), whereas part of a large, well-built house was excavated to its south (BS 105; below, Plan 2.13). Unfortunately, nothing much can be said about this building, which had 0.8 m wide walls and which produced some extraordinary finds—an ivory comb and an ivory bull’s head. This entire domestic area is set apart from a walled enceinte lying to its west, which must clearly have served a non-domestic purpose. In Local Stratum 8, the fragmentary remains lying east of House BS 061 are conjecturally identified as multiroomed structures adjoining Fortification Wall B that were eventually covered by Wall C. Area UN The earlier Period D phase in Area UN (Local Stratum 3) yielded several domestic units that appear to be grouped around an open courtyard (Plan 2.9 = Bet Yerah I: Plan 7.4). The northern building (UN 032) represents a rebuild of a Period C house and might have comprised a central broadroom with attached secondary structures. The southern house (UN 019) comprises a relatively wellpreserved square cellular unit with an extension eastward that might be construed as an enclosed courtyard. In contrast to other houses of the type, Building UN 019 contained large quantities of KKW, demonstrating that there is no fixed correlation between house-plans and their contents. We are not able, however, to assign specific functions to the rooms based on the finds.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 41

41

In Local Stratum 2, there are no coherent houseplans. It is, however, interesting to note that the entire area underwent a reconstruction that involved a new street clearly defined by the houses that flanked it on either side (Bet Yerah I: Plan 7.5). Area MS Domestic remains associated with the latest phase of Period D were excavated chiefly in Area MS (Bet Yerah I: Plan 2.14). Building MS 035 is clearly only the outer shell of what seems to have been a square, 8 × 8 m cellular structure in the best Tel Bet Yerah tradition. There are some traces of internal brick walls marked on the plan. The stone foundations found north of MS 035 do not add up to a coherent plan, though these were clearly well-built domestic structures with embedded stone mortars and other stone installations. An interesting feature, also observed in Area UN, is the addition of a lining of stone slabs to the external side of some wall foundations. Shared Space There are some dramatic developments in the evolution of open spaces in the course of the Period C–D transition. A crisis at the end of Period C can be inferred from the abandonment of some structures and the conversion of what had been private space into unclaimed plots. The revival that followed this crisis led to a reorganization of shared areas in accordance with the changing needs of the partly repopulated town. These changes may be illustrated in the following areas. In Area BS, the blocking of the historic southern gate (as an emergency measure?) led to a major reorganization of the area to its north. The entire street system was abandoned and forgotten. In the earliest phase of Period D, revealed only in the 10 × 10 m sounding excavated by Bar-Adon in 1951, it appears that the entire quarter was abandoned for a time, and the area was given over to refuse disposal (Local Stratum 11). After a time, new houses were built (Local Stratum 10A), but as we now understand it, they were built in such a manner as to create a shared open (or, more likely, partly roofed) courtyard between them (BS 041). This semi-open space was used for food storage and preparation by people who were using both local and Khirbet Kerak wares. It was approached by an unpaved alleyway from the

04/11/2014 12:00:37

42

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

UN 032 CW

UN 440 CW

0

1

2

3

m UN 019

KKW UN 004 KKW

UN 002 KKW

Plan 2.9. Schematic plan of Area UN in early Period D (Local Stratum 3); ‘CW’ indicates a preponderance of common ware and ‘KKW’, of Khirbet Kerak Ware.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 42

04/11/2014 12:00:38

43

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

east (BS 045; Plan 2.10). With time, however, new construction encroached on this open area and the alley was blocked (Plan 2.11). Later in Period D, the entire area was rebuilt, with a new north–south street running along the broad foundation of W5150 (Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.10). When Wall C was superimposed on the earlier structures, a broad area between the wall and the nearest houses was apparently left free of construction (Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.12) . The excavations have not been able to determine what kind of activity could have been carried out in the space adjacent to the wall. In Area EY, developments were a trifle more subtle. The abandonment of the southwestern structure at the end of Period C allowed the creation of an open space, used for a limited period of time either for open-air activities or as a dump (Plan 2.12). As in Area BS, the KKW component in the deposit is notable. Soon, however, a new structure was built over the open area, and all activities reverted to enclosed spaces. The north–south alleyway also remained in use, with some changes, at least through the first two phases of the period. In the latter part of Period D, there is a massive rearrangement that must have led to a redefinition of

the nature of common areas on the mound. However, the remains in Area EY (Bet Yerah I: Plans 8.12, 8.13) are too damaged to allow a description of these changes. Similarly, in the nearby northern part of the Area MS trench the quality of the excavations is such that little can be said regarding the use of what appears to have some sort of plaza lying north of MS 035 (Bet Yerah I: Plan 2.14). Other areas are too poorly preserved or incompletely excavated to provide much information on shared space. In Area UN an apparent packed lake-tell gravel street of early Period D is replaced by a more formally demarcated and paved street in the later part of the period (Bet Yerah I: Plan 7:5). By contrast, in Area SA, the Period C streets remain in use in Period D, with no changes. Public Construction Several waves of public construction can be ascribed to Period D. The earliest non-domestic construction includes the Circles Building in Area SA and City Wall B. Still in early Period D, a small square structure introduced into the open plaza in Area BS appears to have had a special function. Later in Period D,

BS 040 BS 050

BS 039

G BS 045

H T

M BS 041

0

1

2

3

m

BS 041

0

1

2

3

m

Plan 2.10. Local Strata 11/10A in Area BS, with alley leading to refuse disposal area associated mainly with KKW.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 43

T Table

H Hearth

Cooking pot

M Mortar

G Grinding stone

Pithos

Storage jar

Plan 2.11. Local Stratum 10B in Area BS, with new structures associated with KKW, and local tradition pottery.

04/11/2014 12:00:39

44

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

CW

CW

CW

EY 435/427 CW CW

KKW

EY 568 KKW

EY 152 KKW 0

1

2

3

KKW

m

Plan 2.12. Schematic plan of Area EY in early Period D, with abandoned area at southwest marked by the appearance of KKW. ‘CW ’indicates a preponderance of common ware and ‘KKW’, of Khirbet Kerak Ware.

W5150 in Area BS sets off a large enclosure extending westward, with fragments of thick-walled structures built within it during the middle of the period. Late in Period D, Wall C and its numerous towers mark the most extensive investment in public construction in the history of the site. Circles Building (Fig. 2.11). The 2003 and 2007 excavations have confirmed the dating of the construction and main use of the building to early Period D. They also confirm, however, that there was a significant shift in the use of the structure shortly after its construction. Thus, the building in its conception is the product of careful planning, and in its location is evidence of ‘eminent domain’ invoked by municipal authorities who razed an entire ‘city block’ of Period C houses to make room for the monumental structure (Greenberg et al. 2012). In its use, however, it illustrates the failure of leadership or of public spirit at the start of Period D, as the structure was carved into separate spaces and devoted to various crafts and

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 44

small-scale industries, characterized by the presence of large quantities of KKW (Bet Yerah I:56–81). Because many details of the building’s construction were ascertained in the renewed excavations and are scheduled for a separate publication, we will provide only a short description of the features most pertinent to the issue of planning and execution: 1. The geometry of the structure betrays clear evidence of prior architectural planning and of metrology. The seven recorded circles are all precise in outline; their dimensions are not random, and the dividing walls are oriented precisely toward the nearest façade of the structure and at right angles to each other. The extant grid of streets dictated the trapezoidal outline of the building, but the platforms were built in a manner that allowed the inner hall to be nearly rectangular. 2. Wherever probed, the foundations of the external walls of the structure were found to descend to a considerable depth, as were those of the circles. The building was thus laid out in a series of foundation trenches and subsequently brought to its present state.

04/11/2014 12:00:40

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

45

Fig. 2.11. Isometric reconstruction of the Circles Building, following the renewed excavations of 2007 (D. Porotsky).

3. The foundations alone required 15,000–20,000 basalt building stones to be brought from outside the mound—a task that had to entail the recruitment and management of a substantial labor force. Wall B. This is the least impressive of the three fortification systems of Tel Bet Yerah. Although it appears to have extended along the southern and western flanks of the mound, it was—along much of its length—a rather modest stone and mudbrick renovation of Wall A. Still, the estimated 12,000 cu m of construction in this system (Greenberg and Paz 2005:102) represent the existence of a central planning authority and of a labor recruitment policy. Building BS 040/050. The odd little building of Local Stratum 10B (as interpreted here; see Plan 2.11), approximately 5.0 × 5.3 m in size and seemingly freestanding, was identified by its excavator, Bar-Adon, and by Kempinski (1992) as a small temple. There is little to support this claim (Bar-Adon erroneously attributed the ivory bulls’ head found in Room BS 105

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 45

to this structure in his preliminary report); nonetheless, the building does not seem to be domestic in nature. Since it replaced what we have interpreted as a communal courtyard, it might be attributed some sort of communal function as well. Southeastern Enclosure. The 1951–1952 excavations in the expanded Area BS revealed parts of what appears to be a large enclosure bounded by massive walls. Wall 5150 and possibly W5204 form the eastern boundary of this precinct, which presumably had Fortification Wall B as its southern border. Within the enclosed area there are parts of large structures characterized, in Local Strata 9 and 8, by long, sturdy walls forming units that seem too large to be simple houses (Plan 2.13). It is enticing to suggest that we are dealing with some sort of military or administrative complex situated near the major fortifications along the southern flank of the mound. Unfortunately, the state of the excavation in this area precludes any firm statement regarding its function. The sturdy house (BS 105) with the ivory objects (see below, Chapter 6: Nos. 3, 112) might be

04/11/2014 12:00:40

46

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

related to the precinct as well. It is noteworthy that Wall C covered part of the precinct, as well as BS 105. The enclosure is therefore attributed to middle Period D, after the Circles Building but before Wall C.

2. The wall combines knowledge of military engineering and inconsistent quality of construction. Certain rules are adhered to, such as the saw-tooth plan and the narrower perpendicular wall-segment at each re-entrant angle, yet the length of the various segments is inconsistent. While not of uniform size or plan, the round towers cluster around a diameter of 6.0 to 6.5 m and the best preserved rectangular ones show a close resemblance in plan and execution (with the exception of the Bastion, see below). All are bonded to the town wall and have shared characteristics such as thinner external walls and the lack of a ground-level entry. The latter feature suggests that the lower part of all the towers could have been used for storage. 3. The pattern of single or paired alternating round and square towers is interrupted at two points: at Tower 5, a large double-roomed bastion that may have protected a gateway which was unfortunately obliterated by the modern road; and between Towers 2 and 3, where the wall makes a clear turn northward to enclose the gully that probably washed away the earlier fortifications. Tower 5, the Bastion, is a thick-walled two-roomed structure with external dimensions of 14.5 × 15.0 m that may well have had two, if not three, stories.

Wall C. This system, built just inside the previous fortifications, was traced over a length of 700 m, from the sea-scarp in the southeast to more than halfway up the western flank of the mound (see above, Foreword: Plan 1). As it has been published in detail (Greenberg and Paz 2005; Bet Yerah I: Chapter 6), we will note only the most salient points regarding its construction: 1. Wall C is massive, with 3–7 m wide fieldstone foundations, at times preserved to well over 2 m in height, topped by up to ten courses of mudbrick. At an estimated volume of 40,000 cu m, this wall triples earlier construction, not only in direct costs (i.e., laboryears required for construction), but in implied costs: maintenance of the mudbrick superstructure, manning gates and towers, etc. Thus, while the actual construction of the wall could have been achieved, with a concerted effort, within a few years (for the economics of wallconstruction, see Burke 2008), its continued functioning would have required a reorientation of priorities on the part of the townspeople and their leadership.

51

W 50

BS 055-057

BS 105

04 52

W

0

all W

B

10 m

Plan 2.13. A possible fortified enclosure within the Period D city, Area BS (Local Stratum 9). Just outside the enclosure, Room BS 105 contained an ivory bull’s head and comb.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 46

04/11/2014 12:00:41

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

Site Plan During the very long time span assigned to Period D there are several significant developments in the evolution of the site and at least one substantial reorganization of the general plan. The first stage, that of regeneration following the crisis that marks the end of Period C, seems for the most part to follow the general outline established at the foundation of the city. While the gateway in Wall A seems to have been blocked and the streets to its north fell out of use, all other Period C streets and alleys were maintained. Wall B was built atop Wall A and the construction of the Circles Building was begun. What happened next, however, is not entirely clear. The evidence for squatters in the Circles Building on the one hand and the construction of the southeastern enclosure on the other suggest that the center of gravity of public construction was beginning to move away from the old acropolis to a new location at the southern edge of the mound. The resultant configuration of Area BS, with all its shortcomings and inconclusive stratigraphy, is reminiscent of other EB III towns in which internal enceintes have been identified, and most particularly of Megiddo Stratum XVI, where Palace 3177 occupies

47

a terrace separated by massive walls from the nearby domestic compounds (Kempinski 1989). The construction of Wall C late in Period D had a deep impact on the town as a whole. Not only were several houses and public structures demolished by the fortification, but it seems that houses and streets throughout the mound were realigned in response to its construction (Plan 2.14). This realignment, characterized by a slight clockwise shift in the orientation of buildings in Areas MS/EY, BS, and UN, entailed an abandonment of the entire grid that had been in place for centuries. The new grid, aligned to Wall C, does not appear to have extended to Area SA. It is not inconceivable that at this time the old acropolis was largely abandoned, although the point should be clarified by further excavations. Discussion Period D architecture is marked by the twin themes of continuity and rupture. At one end of the spectrum we have remarkable cases of continuity bridging the Period C–D transition in Areas EY and SA, and a fundamental continuity in domestic architecture as a whole. The ‘Bet Yerah house’, found in all phases of EB III Bet Yerah,

BS077 BS136 BS130

BS122

BS080

BS126

0

10 m

Plan 2.14. Wall C in relation to the Period D–E houses.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 47

04/11/2014 12:00:41

48

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

comprises an important contribution to the history of domestic architecture in the Levant. At the other end of the spectrum, we have cases of complete structural reorientation as in Area BS, cases of partial rebuilding and internal changes as at the edges of Area EY, and of course the global change effected by the construction of Fortification Wall C. The impact of the arrival of KKW producers/ consumers on the use of space is particularly striking, especially as it had gone entirely unnoticed prior to this study. In Area BS, the arrival of KKW coincides with the resurgence of outdoor common space; in Area EY, abandoned houses are used as squats at first, then rebuilt on a new plan; in Area SA, the large, meticulously planned and constructed Circles Building is carved up and re-apportioned to various craftspersons whose ceramic inventory is heavily weighted toward KKW. These various testimonies for spatial disruption at Tel Bet Yerah are surely a significant contribution to the discussion of the identity of the KKW ‘people’ and their possible tagging as migrants (Greenberg 2007; Paz 2009). Another important trend that can be related to wider social change is the notable increase in monumental and other public architecture. This increase, which necessitated new dimensions of labor recruitment, reached its apogee in the construction of Wall C, one of the most complex fortifications ever constructed in the Bronze Age Levant. Where most EB III towns made massive statements, this wall expresses an additional investment in military planning. However, the piecemeal construction of the wall, the lack of uniformity in the plan of the towers, and the possibility that the northern end was never completed appear to indicate the onset of a crisis even as the fortification was being constructed. Late EB III was a time of instability in the Levant as a whole. At Tel Bet Yerah, as at many other sites, the reaction to instability and to real or perceived military threats appears to have been focused on an ever-increasing investment in defensive measures. Coming at a time of possibly declining agricultural yields due to a combination of climatic and social contingencies (Rosen 1995; Greenberg 2002:103–104), the ever increasing investment in defense may ultimately have been one of the main components in the eventual collapse of the urban polity at Tel Bet Yerah.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 48

‘Period E’ Putative Period E architecture is represented largely by a cluster of well-preserved structures built in obvious relation to Wall C at the southeastern tip of the mound. These structures were presented in considerable detail in Bet Yerah I: Plan 5.13, and the reader is referred to that report for a description of the layout, building methods, and architectural sequence. There (Bet Yerah I:157), a case was also made to ascribe these buildings of Local Stratum 6 in Area BS to a ‘final’ Early Bronze Age phase represented by a distinctive suite of ceramics. There are grounds, however, for reconsideration. It seems more likely that the houses were built in late Period D and that only their final use and abandonment occurred when Period E ceramics were in general use. The revision is based on the following arguments: 1. In Bet Yerah I:156 [Area BS], it was noted that ‘Stratum 6’ (i.e., Period E) pottery was found mixed with ‘standard’ EB III vessel fragments, and it was suggested that these were either residual or represented the construction phase of the buildings. In view of the extended period of use indicated by numerous repairs, rearrangement of rooms, and blockage of doorways, the latter option should definitely be preferred. 2. It is immediately apparent, upon comparison of Local Stratum 6 houses with earlier Period D houses at Tel Bet Yerah, that the structures comprising this stratum are, by and large, excellent examples of the ‘Bet Yerah house’. Four of the six houses (BS 136, BS 122, BS 126, BS 077) are nearly square, subdivided into several small rooms and entered through a courtyard. The remaining two (BS 130, BS 080) have the simple two-room plan encountered in the KKW-rich houses of Area EY (see above). It thus seems most likely that the houses were built when the urban architectural paradigm was still powerful at Bet Yerah, rather than in the post-urban stage suggested by the attenuated ceramic tradition of Period E. 3. The complete realignment of buildings and streets in Stratum 6 (Plan 2.14) should be equated with the reorganization of the entire town occasioned by the construction of Wall C. Fragments of Period E pottery found in late Period D houses of Area MS should be ascribed to a similar sequence of house reoccupation as that suggested here for Area BS.

04/11/2014 12:00:41

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

Plan 2.15 thus presents individual house plans for Area BS, Local Stratum 6, which may be added to those in Plan 2.8, above, as exemplifying the architectural traditions of Period D.

BS 136 BS 122 1 2

BS 126 3 BS 130 4

5 BS 080 0

10 m

Plan 2.15. Schematic plans of five late Period D/ Period E houses in Area BS (Local Stratum 6).

Summary—Tel Bet Yerah through the Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah provides a view of the longue durée of pre-urban and urban existence. Occupied through every phase of the Early Bronze Age, with little evidence for major gaps, its sheer size allowed ample space for the realization of the full gamut of social innovations of the age. Size may also explain the survival of settlement through several crises that led to the disappearance of smaller sites in the region, first in late EB I, then in EB II. This discussion focuses on the architectural trajectory at the site and on the manner in which it is an expression of social change.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 49

49

Clearly, the most significant themes in the development of Tel Bet Yerah relate to the manner in which urbanism was realized in various phases at the site. The transition from pre-urban Period B (EB I) to urban Period C (EB II) cannot be seen as anything less than revolutionary. The large, densely inhabited, architecturally heterogeneous Period B village is comparable in many details to large contemporary villages of the interior valleys such as Megiddo and Bet She’an (Greenberg 2003; Mazar and Rotem 2009), Tell esh-Shuna (Baird and Philip 1994), Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 2008), Tell es-Sa‘idiya (Tubb 1998:40– 48), or Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1993). Some of those approach Tel Bet Yerah in size and complexity (e.g., Tell esh-Shuna), and several have been presumed to be fortified. All of them, however, were abandoned or destroyed at the end of EB I and only two, Sa‘idiya and Abu al-Kharaz, survived the transition to Early Bronze II. At Tel Bet Yerah, this transition is marked by the establishment of a new urban discipline: A boundary that can no longer be transcended or traversed with indifference—Wall A with its gate—is established. This wall also anchors a site-plan composed of a grid of streets. These regulate access to house-compounds, which themselves are gradually molded to conform with the street system, so that by the end of Period C, a typical rectilinear multi-roomed ‘Bet Yerah house’ emerges as a dominant form. The effort expended on the streets themselves represents an investment in the common weal seen neither earlier nor later. In this manner, it can be seen that a unified concept suffuses the site, affecting every aspect of its built space, from the domestic and outward to the streets, public spaces and fortified boundary. This concept has corollaries in the material culture of the site, as described in the forthcoming chapters. Together, these form what is perhaps the most complete expression of south Levantine urbanism in the Early Bronze Age. Placed in a broader context, this expression of the urban cognitive map or habitus can be understood as occupying an extreme position on a continuum. While all sites on this continuum can be seen as generated in response to the crisis that overtook EB I village communities, the degree to which concepts of urban structural discipline were adopted fluctuates significantly from one site to another. The other end of the continuum would include, for example, sites

04/11/2014 12:00:42

50

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

that are bounded and fortified, yet do not develop a formalized street grid (e.g., Tel Qashish—Ben-Tor, Bonfil, and Zuckerman 2003; Tel Bareket—Paz and Paz 2007), or sites that show planning, but maintain the concept of the extended family compound, such as ‘Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1992; Herzog 1997: Fig. 3.11). A position closer to that of Tel Bet Yerah would be shown at Tell el-Far‘ah North, for example, which falls only a bit short of Bet Yerah in the degree of internalization of the urban structure (Herzog 1997: Figs. 3.12, 3.13). The fate of the urban idea in Period D, EB III, can also be followed at different levels. At the domestic level, there is a clear bifurcation that can be correlated with changes in the material culture. Alongside examples of continuity in house-plans and spatial organization, there are areas of abandonment and gradual resettlement on a new plan, associated with the use of Khirbet Kerak Ware as a major ceramic component. This evidence for fluctuations in the potency of the urban discipline is matched in the fate of public spaces, public construction, and site organization. At the beginning of Period D, for example, some of the previously existing paved thoroughfares are abandoned (Area BS), while others exhibit a decline in maintenance. Yet further along in the period we can see a renewal of the street grid (e.g., in Areas UN and BS). In Area SA, the massive endeavor of planning and constructing the Circles Building in early Period D is immediately followed by evidence for squatter settlement in the building. By contrast, in Area BS, a renewed attempt at reorganizing urban space with the construction of a large enclosure can be assigned to a later phase of Period D. We have

also suggested that the great project of rebuilding the fortifications belongs to this late phase. A common trait of both the early and the late development is the sense that it was not intended or carried through as a corporate city-wide project, but rather seems to be targeted at specific locations and monuments. This could be seen as evidence for a change in the location of power within the city, from a corporate body, such as a council of elders, to a more centralized and perhaps hierarchical institution, such as kingship. Here, too, Tel Bet Yerah falls into a broader south Levantine pattern, where hierarchical structures seem ever more prominent as EB III advances (Miroschedji 2001; Greenberg 2002; Nigro 2010). The constant flux in the fortunes of the city in EB III has implications for the question of its final abandonment, which has often been conflated with that of other EB III fortified sites in the southern Levant under the rubric of ‘collapse’ (Dever 1989; Esse 1989; Greenberg 2002). It may be suggested that after a brief florescence in the early third millennium, urbanism at Tel Bet Yerah—not to mention smaller sites of the region—had a tenuous grasp, and was constantly endangered by environmental pressures and political and social centrifugal tendencies. The final failure of the city, leading first to its reduction to a small hamlet in Period E, and then to its abandonment, was simply the last in a series of crises that affected the local leadership, making life within the walls an increasingly unattractive proposition. This was not necessarily synchronized with similar developments at other EB III sites. What we see as EB III ‘collapse’ may in fact be a cumulative process.

Notes 1 For detailed analysis of the EB I and EB II compounds at Tel Bet Yerah, see Paz 2010, 2012.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 50

2 Several stone artifacts were incorporated in this floor, including a lower grinding stone (Chapter 5: No. 7). These may have belonged to an earlier phase of the house itself or to the preceding stratum.

04/11/2014 12:00:42

Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning

51

R eferences Amiran R. and Cohen C. 1976. Excavations at Tell BethYerah. Israel Museum News 12:61–62. Amiran R. and Ilan O. 1992. Arad—eine 5000 Jahre alte Stadt in der Wüste Negev, Israel. Neumünster. Baird D. and Philip G. 1994. Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North. Levant 26:111–133. Ben-Tor A., Bonfil R., and Zuckerman S. 2003. Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (Qedem Reports 5). Jerusalem. Braun E. 1985. En Shadud, Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR Int. S. 249). Oxford. Braun E. 1992. Palmahim Quarry. ESI 10:21–23. Braun E. 1997. Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem. Burke A. 2008. Walled Up to Heaven: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake. Dever W.G. 1989. The Collapse of the Urban Early Bronze Age in Palestine—Toward a Systemic Analysis. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’Urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Oxford. Pp. 225–246. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Meser, 1957. IEJ 9:13–29. Eisenberg E. 1993. Tel Kitan. NEAEHL 2. Pp. 878–881. Eisenberg E., Gopher A., and Greenberg R. 2001. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Epstein C. 1985. Notes and News: Pithat ha-Yarmuk. IEJ 35:56–57. Esse D.L. 1989. Secondary State Formation and collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’Urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Oxford. Pp. 81–96. Fischer P. 2008. Tell Abu Al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley 1: The Early Bronze Age. Vienna. Flannery K.V. 1972. The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby eds. Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London. Pp. 363–376. Getzov N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations 1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem. Golani A. 2003. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem. Greenberg R. 2002. Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. London. Greenberg R. 2003. Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean: Discontinuous Settlement in Sociopolitical Context. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16:17–32.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 51

Greenberg R. 2007. Transcaucasian Colors: Khirbet Kerak Ware at Khirbet Kerak (Tel Bet Yerah). In B. Lyonnet ed. Les cultures des Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Paris. Pp. 257–268. Greenberg R., Paz S., Wengrow D., and Iserlis M. 2012. Tel Bet Yerah: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant. NEA 75:88–107. Greenberg R. and Paz Y. 2005. The Early Bronze Age Fortifications of Tel Bet Yerah. Levant 37:81–103. Greenberg R., Rotem Y., and Paz S. 2013. The Earliest Occupation at Tel Bet Yerah. Tel Aviv 40:197–225. Herzog Z. 1997. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications. Tel Aviv. Kempinski A. 1989. Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Bonn. Kempinski A. 1992. Fortifications, Public Buildings and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age. In A. Kempinski and R. Reich eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem. Pp. 68–80. Mazar A. and Rotem Y. 2009. Tel Beth Shean during the EB IB Period: Evidence for Social Complexity in the Late 4th Millennium BC. Levant 41:131–153. Miroschedji P. de 2001. Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and the Birth of Architecture in Ancient Palestine. In S. Wolff ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (SOAC 59/ASOR Books 5). Chicago. Pp. 465–491. Nigro L. 2010. In the Palace of the Copper Axes, Khirbet el Batrawy: The Discovery of a Forgotten City of the III Millennium BC in Jordan. Rome. Novacek G.V. 2007. Barbarians from the north: Continuity and change in northern Palestine during the Early Bronze II–III (ca. 3100–2200 B.C.E.) in light of the Khirbet Kerak Ware Phenomenon. Ph.D. diss. University of Chicago. Chicago. Paz S. 2009. A Home away from Home? The Settlement of Early Transcaucasian Migrants at Tel Bet Yerah. Tel Aviv 36:196–216. Paz S. 2010. Life in the City: the Birth of an Urban Habitus in the Early Bronze Age of Israel. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University (Hebrew; English abstract). Paz S. 2012. Changing Households at the Rise of Urbanism: The EB I–II Transition at Tel Bet Yerah. In B.J. Parker and C.P. Foster eds. New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Winona Lake. Pp. 407–436. Paz Y. and Paz S. 2007. Tel Bareqet: Excavations in a Fortified Urban Site of the Early Bronze Age II in the Central Coastal Plain. Qadmoniot 134:82–88 (Hebrew). Philip G. 2001. The Early Bronze I–III Ages. In B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski eds. The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield. Pp. 163–232.

04/11/2014 12:00:42

52

Raphael Greenberg and Sarit Paz

Portugali J. 2004. Toward a Cognitive Approach to Urban Dynamics. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31:589–613. Rosen A.M. 1995. The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:26–44. Schiffer M. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque. Tubb J.N. 1998. Canaanites. Norman, Okla.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-2.indd 52

Vallet R. 1997. Habuba Kabire ou la naissance de l’urbanisme. Paléorient 22/2:45–76. Varien M.D. 2012. Occupation Span and the Organization of Residential Activities: A Cross-Cultural Model and Case Study from the Mesa Verde Region. In J.D. Douglass and N. Gonlin eds. Ancient Households of the Americas: Conceptualizing What Households Do. Boulder. Pp. 4 –78. Wolff S. 2008. Megadim, Tel. NEAEHL 5. Pp. 1942–1944.

04/11/2014 12:00:42

Chapter 3

The Early Bronze Age Pottery I ndustries R aphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Tel Bet Yerah was home to a vibrant pottery-making tradition over the entire span of its existence in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Apart from the rich ceramic repertoire itself, evidence for the manufacture of pottery at the site includes kilns, potters’ wheels, manufacturing implements, and even some unfired products. Petrographic analysis has shown the large majority of the pottery consumed at the site to be of local origin. This chapter attempts to provide a description of the different industries encountered at the site in the Early Bronze Age, complementing the context-based presentation in Bet Yerah I. We seek to offer as ‘thick’ a description as possible (Geertz 1973), based on a study of the typology, technology, sequence of production or chaîne opératoire, and material context of the finds. We wish to present a portrait of the emergence of local tradition, of external influences, and of the impact of changes in the pottery-manufacturing environment in the broadest sense, encompassing both human and natural agents. The basis of the study is a corpus of approximately 360 complete or nearly complete vessel profiles

culled from Bet Yerah I, with some additions from unstratified contexts. Scores of petrographic samples were taken either from these vessels or from sherds of typologically identical pieces, and 53 fragments were subjected to radiographic analysis (see Table 3.14). Excluded from the discussion are exotic or non-diagnostic sherds, since the aim of the study is to understand the primary dispositions of the Bet Yerah potters rather than to present the entire range of their ceramic imagination. In Bet Yerah I: Chapters 7 and 8, preliminary observations on the relative frequency of certain wares and types were offered in those cases where the quality of the record allowed it. These will be cited here, keeping in mind their methodological limitations (Bet Yerah I:298). In order to streamline the discussion of the different industries, a master typology is employed, covering all of the basic forms encountered over the entire span of the Early Bronze Age. In this manner we will be able to demonstrate the degree of functional overlap between the different industries; that is, the degree to which different coeval industries, or sequential industries, covered similar typological-functional ground.

Master Typology B. Bowls 1. Small bowls, up to 20 cm in diameter 2. Lamp bowls, size as above, with or without a pinched spout 3. Medium and large bowls, with an inturned rim and a diameter:depth ratio of 4:1 or less 4. Platters, with a vertical rim and a diameter: depth ratio greater than 4:1 5. Cups, sinuous or straight-walled VK. Vats, Basins, Kraters 1. Open spouted vats or basins 2. Deep wide-mouthed kraters 3. Deep kraters with a constricted mouth CP. Cooking Pots 1. Holemouth, with a flat base 2. Necked, with a flat base 3. Holemouth, with a rounded base 4. Necked, with a rounded base

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 53

JG. Jugs and Mugs 1. Narrow-mouthed jugs, with a handle from shoulder to rim; sometimes with additional decorative handles at sides 2. Narrow-mouthed jugs, with a handle from shoulder to neck 3. Mugs (> 10 cm high) or cups (< 10 cm high): wide-mouthed, squat, with a single handle 4. Juglets, as 1–3, but 12 cm high or less 5. Twinned mugs, connected body and handle AM. Amphoriskoi 1. Full-sized, with loop handles 2. Miniature, with pierced lug-handles SJ. Storage Jars 1. Mid-sized (h = 30–55 cm), with a constricted neck and loop or ledge handles 2. Mid-sized, with a wide mouth and short

neck, two handles and occasional added handles or lugs below rim 3. Small (h < 30 cm), short-necked, with loop-, ledge- or no handles 4. Mid-sized holemouths with red slip or paint and a flat base P. Pithoi (= large jars >70 cm high) 1. Thickened or ridged rim, short or no neck, elongated, no handles 2. Everted rim, constricted neck, piriform, combed, no handles 3. Wide-mouthed, with a channeled or everted rim and lugs beneath rim V. Varia 1. Stands, biconical 2. Lids 3. Andirons

04/11/2014 12:10:01

54

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Early Bronze Age I Industries Period A (Figs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.29, 3.30) The pottery of the earliest period of settlement at Tel Bet Yerah is imperfectly represented in the corpus of complete or nearly complete forms. These are limited to a few instances of Gray Burnished Ware (GBW; Fig. 3.29:1, 2) and their early ‘crackled ware’ descendants (Fig. 3.29:3–5; see below), and a group of burial jars and bowls/lids (Fig. 3.30) that also appear to represent two phases within Period A. Two important components of the earlier assemblage—nail-impressed holemouth jars and line-painted jars—as well as the rather more common impressed/slashed holemouth rims and rope-decorated jars known from numerous EB IA sites, are absent from the corpus discussed here, as they were found in small fragments only in the early excavations at Tel Bet Yerah (see, however, Bet Yerah I: Figs. 3.35:8–10; 3.36:1–6).1 That said, it is worth pointing out that the Gray Burnished Ware in itself presents an interesting anomaly within the EB IA industries. Nearly all the parameters of EB IA settlement point to a segmented society with low levels of specialization, little evidence for production beyond the household level, and undeveloped mechanisms of interregional contact (Greenberg 2002:88). Site occupation sometimes appears to be discontinuous or seasonal. Pottery industries, like that studied at Yiftah’el in the lower Galilee (Braun 1997), appear to be extremely parochial, despite the general stylistic similarities evident across broad regions.

The five infant-burial pots at Tel Bet Yerah, of which three are almost certainly to be attributed to early Period A (Figs. 3.1:a; 3.30:1–3) and two (Figs. 3.1:b; 3.30:4, 5), perhaps a shade later, exhibit a curious heterogeneity that may be ascribed to the factors cited above: temporal gaps, different household potters, diverse family traditions, etc. Figure 3.30:1 and 3 have the characteristics of early northern EB I—a soft pale fabric and dark red/brown slip, with a typical separately made and inserted neck (cf. Eisenberg 2001: Fig. 7.6). Jar No. 4 is morphologically similar, but is well-fired and painted in what appears to be typical grain-wash technique. Vessel No. 2, which has the form of a Syrian cooking pot, was not available for study, and No. 5, a holemouth jar with a small handle, is not chronologically diagnostic (but cf. Eisenberg 2001: Fig. 7.5:9, 10). The GBW bowls, however, appear to belong to a well-established supra-regional technological tradition; their shape, finish, and fabric are indistinguishable from those of similar bowls found at other sites in the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys (Goren and Zuckerman 2000). A powerful tradition is at work here, carried from place to place either by expert itinerant potters or by members of a closed guild of experts residing in each community, whose specialized knowledge was employed only for the manufacture of the large presentation vessels. Perhaps, as Philip (2001:204) has argued, since these are “tablewares connected with the presentation of food and drink, … their appearance is indicative of a new collective dimension to food consumption.”

b

a 0

8

Fig. 3.1. Period A burial jars: (a) = Fig. 3.30:1; (b) = Fig. 3.30:5, with lid still in place.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 54

04/11/2014 12:10:01

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

As in other sites with early GBW, some vessels (e.g., Fig. 3.29:1) show ‘classic’ features (thick wall, high burnish, pale gray color), while others (e.g., Fig. 3.29:2) are particularized expressions of certain elements in the GBW code, e.g., bowls with a thick black or dark brown slip (cf. Braun 1997: Fig. 9.4 for red-slipped GBW spin-offs at Yiftah’el; see also Zuckerman 2003:58–59). As a group, however, all of the variants are expressions of specialized know-how. Their possession may therefore have been a marker of status achieved through the ability to command specialized labor. A group of bowls with projections (Figs. 3.2, 3.29:3–5), originally labeled ‘Crackled Ware’ by the Delougaz expedition because of their lightly burnished brown/gray slip that tends to develop a network of fine cracks during drying or firing (Esse 1989), seems to be closely related to GBW. The group includes a small bowl with conoid projections and large flaring bowls with elaborate tongue-shaped projections on the body. The examples shown here were not found in good stratigraphic contexts, but it is telling that they do not appear in the parts of the mound first settled in Period B.

0

5

Fig. 3.2. late Period A ‘crackled ware’ bowl (= Fig. 3.29:4).

Period B (Figs. 3.3–3.5; 3.31–3.33) The thirty-odd vessels represented in the corpus comprise a well-rounded assemblage representing the latter part of EB I. Only the large grain-wash pithoi— sherds of which appear in almost every basket of pottery retrieved on the mound—may be said to be seriously under-represented in the corpus of complete forms. Both comparative typology and petrography suggest that the industries represented at Tel Bet Yerah are local in the broad sense, though not necessarily located entirely on-site. Most of the vessels illustrated were retrieved from Area EY, where the largest contiguous Period B exposure was excavated. The

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 55

55

rich and well-recorded assemblage from Area UN is virtually identical in composition to that of Area EY, as are those from the more poorly represented Areas BS, BH, SA, GB, and MS. Typology The heterogeneity of the assemblage is immediately apparent: it may be divided into several categories, in keeping with traditional chrono-typologies. a. Red-slipped bowls (Fig. 3.31:1–15), including wheel-finished Type B1 bowls (Fig. 3.31:3–6) and the so-called ‘crackled’ Type B1 and B3 bowls, usually with inverted rims and a dark red slip (Fig. 31:7–15), which Esse (1989) assigned to the same group as the Period A bowls with projections, but which in fact appear to be later. As it is very difficult to draw the line between Esse’s ‘crackled’ vessels and nearly identical Type B1/B3 bowls with un-crackled red slip, we suggest to reserve the term ‘crackled’ for late Period A bowls (cf. Greenberg, Rotem and Paz 2013), while referring to the Period B bowls as red-slipped (RS). Rim forms vary from the most common inverted rims (Fig. 3.3:a), through a variety of incurved rims, to the rare carinated types (Figs. 3.3:b; 3.31:14, 15). Red-slipped bowls with inturned rims and flat bases comprise one of the distinguishing characteristics of the late EB I pottery in the interior valleys of Canaan. The published assemblage closest to that of Tel Bet Yerah comes from Tell esh-Shuna north (Leonard 1992: Pl. 10; Baird and Philip 1994:127–128), and sporadic objects come from sites to the west (e.g., ‘En Shadud or Tel Qashish, or Qiryat Ata). The Tel Bet Yerah assemblage is, to date, the most comprehensive and varied, and should therefore serve as a yardstick for other sites. b. Polished red-slipped Type B3/4 bowls or platters (Fig. 3.31:16–19; termed proto-platters in Bet Yerah I). This type, found in stratigraphically advanced phases at Tel Bet Yerah, appears to be most common in late EB IB contexts such as Megiddo Stratum J4 (Joffe 2000: Fig. 8.3:10–16), and Tel Shalem (Eisenberg 1996: Fig. 13:17–19; 14:7–8). c. Holemouth cooking pots (Type CP1) and jars (Type SJ4), usually covered with red or brown slip (Fig. 3.32). Holemouths are the most frequent type in Period B, comprising 47% of the diagnostic sherds in Area UN. The holemouths at Tel Bet Yerah are for the most part simple, the various ridges and incised decorations found at contemporary sites being rare here.

04/11/2014 12:10:01

56

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

a

b 0

4

Fig. 3.3. Period B: (a) gray-slipped B1 bowl (= Fig. 3.31:7); (b) red-slipped carinated bowl (= Fig. 3.31:15).

a

b 0

5

0

6

Fig. 3.4. Period B polished red-slipped amphoriskos (AM2 = Fig. 3.33:4).

Fig. 3.5. Period B: (a) grain-wash decorated holemouth (Type SJ4 = Fig. 3.32:5); (b) shortnecked jar (Type SJ1 = Fig. 3.33:8).

d. Polished red-slipped jugs (Type JG 1; not illustrated), high-loop-handled juglets (Type JG4; Fig. 3.33:1–3), and amphoriskoi (Types AM1 and AM2; Figs. 3.4; 3.33:4–6). Although most common in late EB I tombs, these vessels can be found in occupation deposits in the Jezreel Valley–Jordan Valley region (cf. Yannai 1996:4*, Figs. 4, 5; Fischer 2000: Figs. 12.2, 12.3; Golani 2003: Fig. 4.8). e. Red-slipped storage jars (Type SJ1; Fig. 3.33:7). these are relatively infrequent, both here and at nearby sites, and could be late in the EB I sequence (cf. e.g., Eisenberg 1996: Fig. 17:1). f. Grain-wash decorated vats (Type VK1) or holemouth jars (Type SJ4), jars (Type SJ2), and pithoi (Type P1). The vessels in this group are linked by the very distinctive style of decoration, and

are characterized by distinctive forms that are not replicated among the red-slipped vessels. The spouted vats (not illustrated) and somewhat deeper holemouth jars (Figs. 3.5:a; 3.32:5) are marked by their wide aperture; the jars, by a short vertical or turned-out rim and bulbous profile (Figs. 3.5:b; 3.33:8); and the pithoi (Fig. 3.33:9), by their thickened rolled (or rail-) rim and elongated proportions. Grain-wash decoration is most common in interior valley sites (i.e., eastern Jezreel and northern Jordan Valleys and tributaries), with its most comprehensive expression at sites such as Tell esh-Shuna North (Leonard 1992: Pls. 8–11, passim) and especially Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1993 and pers. comm.). The Jezreel Valley single-period site of ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985) presents a mixture of eastern (red-slipped bowls, grain-wash decoration)

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 56

04/11/2014 12:10:02

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

and western (late Gray Burnished Ware; red-polished ware, profiled-rim bowls) valley pottery, nicely illustrating the contemporaneity of the traditions. Technique The use of the slow wheel is evident on nearly all vessels. Type B1 bowls as well as the smaller Type B3 bowls appear to have often been shaped or finished with rotary motion, and they are often string-cut. Larger vessels, including Type B3 bowls, VK vats, SJ1 and SJ2 jars and P1 pithoi, are built with coils or, rarely, slabs, and they have wheel-finished rims. Holemouths, coil- or (rarely) slab-built on flat bases, appear to be entirely handmade. A few fine-ware platters might have been made using a combined mold and wheel technique (Beck 1985). Red slips are ubiquitous. These are sometimes generous, attaining a deep red hue, and sometimes thin and streaky. The grain-wash technique is clearly differentiated, with the red to brown slip applied in irregular strokes that form various patterns—random, swirled or lattice-like. Burnish is segregated by type: grain-wash decorated vessels and holemouth jars and pots are never burnished; many of the red-slipped bowls have a faint sheen that appears to represent some sort of polishing action with a soft medium; a very limited number of vessels, principally platters, jugs and amphoriskoi, bear a high burnish or polish, setting them completely apart from the bulk of the assemblage. There are several stratigraphic indications that these burnished vessels belong to the latest horizon within Period B (see, e.g., the late-abandoned vessel cache in Locus EY 480; Bet Yerah I: Figs. 8.47:5–8; 8.48:1–4). Also rare are line-painted vessels, absent from the complete vessel assemblage and comprising, for example, a mere 1% of the body sherds counted in Area UN. Petrography The Period B pottery was not subjected to a rigorous sampling program. Rather, we chose a small qualitative sample representing the main typological groups (red-slipped bowls, grain-wash ware, red-polished ware, cooking ware). Table 3.1 adumbrates the main conclusions of the petrographic analysis. In its details, the petrography of the studied vessels represents a heterogeneity similar to that indicated by the typology. However, it should be stressed that all the petrographic groups are ‘local’, sensu lato:

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 57

57

Fabric A (for group descriptions, see below, Addendum) is probably derived from the mound itself; Fabric C, from river cuts near the base of the mound; and Fabric B, from outcrops located 1.0–1.5 km west and north of the site. The use of Fabric B and C marls should be seen as expressions of specialized acquaintance with the raw materials available to potters. It is remarkable, therefore, that the use of Fabric B was discontinued after Period B at Tel Bet Yerah (compare Table 3.1 with, e.g., Tables 3.2, 3.3). The heterogeneity of the material is expressed not only in the use of three groups, but in variations within the groups. The clays used all contain natural inclusions, but in several cases (Table 3.1: Fabrics “B + limestone sand”, CC and CX), we see sand temper that was either intentionally added to the clay or was introduced due to the use of clays from sections ‘contaminated’ by fresh limestone sand (due to surface runoff). Discussion The bulk of the Period B pottery appears to be the product of part-time specialists, especially the dominant red-slipped bowls and grain-wash jars. The presence of such specialists is indicated by the regular use of the potter’s wheel, by the skill with which most of the vessels were made, and by a consistent use of specific, localized raw materials situated well away from the settlement. The exceptions to this rule are the holemouth cooking pots and jars, which are entirely hand-formed, often asymmetrical, and made for the most part of the rendzina soils (Fabric A) that comprise the matrix of the mound itself. The use of Fabric A for cooking ware continues into Periods C and D at Tel Bet Yerah. Their expertise notwithstanding, the EB I Bet Yerah potters were inconsistent in their matching of raw materials (clay and temper) to the finished product. Thus, for example, three of six sampled grain-wash pithoi (Table 3.1: final three samples) are made of nearly identical fabric, but the remaining three reveal a different and non-uniform composition. Smaller grainwash vessels employ yet different—and even exotic— materials. Similarly, red-slipped bowls—though made of clay that was quarried, presumably at a preferred source, at some distance from the site—reveal an unpredictable variety of inclusions. The upshot of all this is that potters within each dominant tradition could and did take several routes to the production of a fairly uniform set of pots. Specialization decreed

04/11/2014 12:10:02

58

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.1. Petrography of Period B Pottery Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Fabric

4203-5

EY 476

B2

I: 8.47:1 II: 3.31:3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, and plagioclase; some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

1529-6

EY 642

B3 (RS)

I:8.52:3

Marly, reddish

Basalt, scoria, limestone, chalk, and calcite sand; some quartz crystals; iron oxide

B

1439-1

EY 480

B3 (RS)

Slightly foraminiferous, silty marl

Mainly chalk sand; limestone, chert, basalt, plagioclase, and quartz sand

CC

4232-2

EY 487

B3 (RS)

Foraminiferous silty marl, yellowgreen

Chalk sand; some basalt, plagioclase, quartz, and chert grains

CC

1503-1

EY 636

B3 (RS)

I: 8.46:1 II: 3.31:12

Marly, slightly silty, reddish

Basalt, scoria, limestone, chalk, and calcite sand; iron oxide

B

4232

EY 487

B1(RS)

I: 8.45:7 II: 3.31:8

Marly, green, some foraminifera

Sand of rounded chalk (predominant), limestone, calcite, chert, basalt, and quartz

CC

1504-1

EY 636

B3 (RS)

I: 8.46:2

Marly, green, foraminifera

Mainly angular to rounded basalt; poorly sorted sand of rounded chalk, limestone, and quartz; rare serpentine

CX (no chert)

KI 4019

Sounding I

B3

I: 2.14:1

Marly, slightly silty, reddish, some foraminifera,

Coarse limestone sand; chalk and chert fragments

B+ limestone sand

4202-2

EY 480

B4

I: 8.47:8 II: 3.31:19

Marly, reddish, some foraminifera

Poorly sorted coarse sand of basalt, limestone, chert, and some quartz

B+ limestone sand

KI 1422

SA 26

B3 (burial, possibly Period A)

I: 3.40:3 II: 3.30:6

Marly, reddish

Poorly sorted coarse sand of basalt, limestone, chert, and some quartz

B+ limestone sand

1433-21

EY 630

VK1 (GW)

Foraminiferous marl, yellowgreen

Coarse sand of chalk, limestone, and basalt fragments; large quartz grains; serpentine

CX (no chert)

KI 4034

Sounding I

CP1

Calcareous, very foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; few quartz grains and broken shells

A

1528-8

EY 644

CP1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand

A

1477-14

EY 633

CP1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand; some shell fragments

A

1475-3

EY 629

CP1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted coarse basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; some quartz grains

A

KI 4085

Sounding I

JG 1/3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted sand of rounded limestone, chalk, and basalt; some quartz and chert grains

C

KI 4170

Sounding II

SJ2 (GW)

Marly, green, some foraminifera

Poorly sorted sand of rounded chalk, limestone, and basalt

CX (no chert)

1439-2

EY 615

P1(GW)

I: 8.48:6

Calcareous marl, reddish

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, scoria, limestone, chalk, and calcite sand; some quartz grains, shell fragments, and soil balls

B

1524-1

EY 644

P1 (GW)

I: 8.49:7

Slightly foraminiferous, silty marl

Poorly sorted coarse sand; chalk (predominant), basalt, limestone, chert, and some quartz grains

CC

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 58

I: 2.14:2

I: 2:14:8

04/11/2014 12:10:02

59

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.1. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Fabric

909-6

EY 211

P1 (GW)

I: 8.48:7

Very silty, calcareous

Basalt, limestone, calcite, and chalk sand

B soil

326

BH 42

P1 (GW)

I: 9.11:1

Marly, reddish

Basalt, scoria, limestone, chalk, and calcite sand; some quartz grains; iron oxide

B

KI 4159

Sounding I

P1 (GW)

I: 2.14:5

Marly, reddish

Poorly sorted basalt, scoria, limestone, chalk and calcite sand; some quartz grains; iron oxide

B

326

BH 42

P1 (GW)

I: 9.11:2

Marly, slightly silty, reddish

Scoria, basalt, limestone, chalk and weathered calcite sand; some quartz grains; iron oxide

B

RS = Red-Slipped; GW = Grain Wash

the form and appearance of the end product—at least in its broad characteristics, but the specific chaînes opératoires could diverge. Two scenarios therefore suggest themselves: either the existence of several part-time specialists working within each tradition, or the presence of itinerant/ peripatetic potters, using the best raw materials available to them at the locus of production. These are not mutually exclusive scenarios, and we may posit, for example, the existence of several part-timers producing bowls in or near the site, and itinerants making the pithoi for various consumers in the region. In any case, the absence of uniformity is rather striking, forming a stark contrast, as we shall see, to the situation in Period C.

Early Bronze Age II (Period C) Industries The several phases of Period C (EB II) provide the richest assemblage of complete vessels at Tel Bet Yerah. There is an incompatibility between the stratigraphic and typological sequences in the north and south of the mound—a fact already noted in Chapter 1. This incompatibility makes the precise correlation between the different areas rather tricky. Nonetheless, there are enough points of contact to assure the broad contemporaneity of settlement in the different areas. All represent ‘classic’ EB II (Greenberg, forthcoming). The ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ faces of the Period C assemblage are closely correlated with two ceramic industries: North Canaanite Metallic Ware (NCMW) on the one hand, and the ‘southern potter’ (defined below) on the other; the former representing large scale importation, the latter, local production. Despite this seeming dichotomy, the two industries are virtually

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 59

interchangeable in functional terms, reproducing a largely similar set of preparation, presentation, and storage vessels. Also, cooking-pot types are shared in all parts of the mound. If the pottery represented social divisions, then they were subtle ones, expressed in the fabric, rather than the form, appearance, and use of the pottery. North Canaanite Metallic Ware (Figs. 3.6, 3.34, 3.35) The well-fired and highly functional products of North Canaanite Metallic Ware (NCMW) workshops have been amply described in the literature (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Greenberg 2000). The source of NCMW found throughout the southern Levant has been established in the region of the Mt. Hermon foothills (Greenberg and Porat 1996). The material found at Tel Bet Yerah may therefore be characterized as imported. Figures 3.34 and 3.35 illustrate the principal forms of NCMW found on the mound. The remarkable fragmentary painted jar from Area MS/EY (Fig. 3.6) adds an important type—the channeled-rim jar with lugs—absent from the corpus. It represents the most convincing evidence to date for the contemporaneity and unified stylistic approach of EB II potters in the northern and southern extremities of Canaan, sharing both the overall decorative scheme and the particular patterns with the well-known ‘Arad painted assemblage (Amiran et al. 1978: Pls. 56–65). Extant NCMW types at Tel Bet Yerah include a small number of hemispherical Type B1 (Fig. 3.34:1) and inverted-rim Type B3 bowls (not illustrated), and a very large component of Type B4 platters (Fig. 3.34:2–11). Among the latter, a large group of nearly identical and slightly oversized red-slipped platters,

04/11/2014 12:10:03

60

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

with triangular rims and an external tool-cut channel beneath the rim comes from a single pit in Area UN (Fig. 3.34:6, 9–11; see Bet Yerah I: Figs. 7.30, 7.31). The standardization evidenced here suggests that the stylistic variations observed among NCMW of similar size and function should probably be ascribed to the existence of a number of NCMW ateliers, each with its signature style. It would be interesting to map the distribution of these different styles across the NCMW distribution area in northern Israel. Tel Bet Yerah offers a limited selection of closed NCMW vessels, including Type JG1 jugs (Fig. 3.35:1– 3), Type AM2 amphoriskoi (Fig. 3.35:4), Type SJ1 jars (Fig. 3.35:5), and Type P2 pithoi (Fig. 3.35:6). Type VK2 vats, Type P3 pithoi, and Type JG4 jugs are present in fragmentary form. Notable for their absence, when compared with the full range of NCMW production (Greenberg and Porat 1996: Figs. 1–3), are carinated Type B1 bowls, Type VK1 vats, and Type SJ2 jars. Clearly, the 50 km distance between Bet Yerah and the NCMW workshops induced a certain fall-off in the variety of vessels imported. The distribution pattern of NCMW on the mound is telling: in Area UN, despite the limited variety available, it comprised over 50% of the total diagnostics in the sole Period C stratum identified there (nearly 80% of non-cooking wares). A similar proportion obtained among the large quantities of unstratified Period C pottery from Area GB in the north of the mound. In contrast, the earliest of four Period C phases in Area EY, in the south of the mound, yielded only

25% NCMW (33%, excluding cooking ware), and the frequency declines to only 6% (7% excluding cooking ware) by the end of Period C. Cooking Ware (Figs. 3.7, 3.36) Cooking ware may be identified on the basis of a combination of form and evidence of use (soot-stains). Inclusions and other devices used to enhance the thermal qualities of the fabrics have not proved to be a reliable indicator. There are two basic types of cooking pots in Period C assemblages, Types CP2 (Figs. 3.7:a; 3.36:1, 2), necked, with a flat base, and CP3 (Figs. 3.7:b; 3.36:3–9), holemouth, with a round base; each may be further subdivided as described below.

a 0

8

0

5

b 0

4

Fig. 3.6. Period C Metallic Ware jar (Type SJ2) with painted decoration and pattern burnish on lower body (= Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.67:12).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 60

Fig. 3.7. Period C cooking pots: (a) Type CP2 (= Fig. 3.36:2); (b) Type CP3a (= Fig. 3.36:4).

04/11/2014 12:10:03

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Complete large Type CP2 pots were found in early Period C contexts, but there is evidence for their continued use in later phases as well. These are entirely handmade vessels with pronounced asymmetries. Petrography (Table 3.2) indicates that they were made of soil obtained from the mound itself or its immediate environs. Since no two vessels are exactly alike, the group as a whole may be considered as the product of household industries. The need for such a production route may be related to the sheer size of the fragile vessels, which could hardly have been transported any great distance. Remarkably, Type CP1 pots (holemouth with a flat base), which seem to have been household products in Period B, disappear entirely in Period C, bifurcating into either the holemouth with a round base, or the flat-based pot with a neck and an everted rim. Type CP3 pots may be subdivided into at least two subtypes: (a) spheroid pots made in a dense browncolored fabric (Figs. 3.7:b; 3.36:3–6), and (b) ovoid pots made in a lighter brown to gray fabric (Fig. 3.36:7–9; see Paz and Iserlis 2009).2 The former are usually furnished with a rounded, slightly thickened rim, and the latter, with a sliced or occasionally infolded rim. Subtype CP3a, termed “brown brittle ware” by Esse (1991:47, 51), is not entirely uniform. It seems to include both symmetrical and asymmetrical pots, occasionally furnished with a single handle. Subtype CP3b shows greater regularity in technique and its interior is often marked by striated patterns formed during the construction of the pot. Subtype CP3a pots are more frequent at the beginning of Period C, and Subtype CP3b pots toward its end. The cooking-pot assemblage at Tel Bet Yerah is comparable to contemporary sites such as Tel Qashish and Qiryat Ata. However, the integrity of the group is obscured by the dispersal of the cooking ware in the respective publications of these sites in the holemouth and storage-jar categories. The Tel Dan assemblage (Greenberg 1996) contains a similar Type CP2 component, but instead of Type CP3 as its complement, the Dan potters preferred Type CP4 pots, necked with rounded bases (of which only fragments have been identified at Tel Bet Yerah). Technique The construction of round-based pots required a departure from EB I habits. Coil construction was replaced by a composite method that began with the mold-forming of the round base. The wall of the pot

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 61

61

was built up in coils, perhaps assisted by a paddleand-anvil technique (especially in the dense brown pots). The latter would have been used to eliminate air pockets and to insure uniform thickness, both necessary for cooking on an open flame. The striations on the gray pots indicate an alternative, reductive rather than compressive, method of ensuring that the coils were well-bonded and the walls sufficiently thin. The endproduct was thus not only of different morphology than that of the flat-based pots, but required a different cooking technique. The flat-based necked pots continued to be formed in the simple coil technique (with occasional evidence of slabs). Their asymmetry and thick base suggest that they would have been heated on a slow flame, perhaps by means of coals pushed up against the side of the pot. Petrography Thin-section analysis of cooking pots from Tel Bet Yerah has revealed a complex and rather surprising picture (Table 3.2): Most of the ‘gray’ pots (Subtype CP3b) are composed of valley rendzina soil (Fabric A), readily available on or near the mound. Inclusions are those naturally found in the soil, with the exception of No. 815-6, to which crushed calcite was added. The necked pots (Type CP2) show the least degree of regularity in their composition. Most are made of the same naturally tempered local soil, rarely with the addition of organic inclusions. A necked pot, Reg. No. 1519-9, is an exception, coming from an unknown source of terra rossa with inclusions added to improve the qualities of the matrix. The ‘brown’ pots (Subtype CP3a) are composed of brown basaltic soil (Fabric D) that originates at some distance from the mound and cannot be construed as local. Brown pots of identical composition were identified at a number of EB II sites ranging from the Golan plateau to the coastal plain; they all appear to have been made in a single region, probably located in the Golan, on the northeast shore of Lake Kinneret. (It should be stressed that visual inspection is not always a sufficient method for distinguishing between the ‘brown’ and ‘gray’ groups.) Discussion Cooking ware is the only realm of Period C ceramic production to maintain the dual aspect of specialization/non-specialization established in Period B, that is, household production of cooking ware with local Fabric A clays persisting alongside specialized

04/11/2014 12:10:03

62

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.2. Petrography of Period C Cooking Pots Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Fabric

1447-5

EY W87

CP3a

I: 8.60:7

Extremely silty, non-calcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite

D

833-7

EY 198

CP3a

I: 8.65:13

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of alkali-olivine basalt, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite; some scoria fragments

D

1213-6

EY 563

CP3a

I: 8.86:7

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, scoria, plagioclase, olivine, and magnetite

D

746-1

EY 177

CP3a

I: 8.72:10

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of alkali-olivine basalt, scoria, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite

D

321-1

UN 037

CP3a

I: 7.32:5

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite; scoria fragments

D

218-1

UN 037

CP3a

I: 7.32:3

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite

D

1294-6

EY 575

CP3b

I: 8.81:7

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, grayishbrown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; some shells and iron oxide

A

757(7)

EY 161

CP3b

Marly, foraminiferous silty soil

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, chert, and quartz sand

A

715-6

EY 161

CP3b

I: 8.76:6

Marly, foraminiferous, silty soil

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; shell

A

1249

EY 575

CP3b

I: 8.81:6

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, quartz, and chert sand; shell and iron oxide

A

1241-11

EY 575

CP3b

I: 8.81:8

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, chalk, and quartz sand; some shells; iron oxide

A

815-5

EY 197

CP3b

I: 8.62:10

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, grayishbrown

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, limestone, chalk, chert, and quartz sand; some shells and iron oxide

A

1454-5

EY 618

CP3b

I: 8.57:15

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chalk, chert, quartz, and shell sand

A

1238-2

EY 570

CP3b

I: 8.86:8

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chalk, and chert sand; shell fragments and quartz grains; iron oxide

A

4157-2

EY 466

CP3b

I: 8.54:2

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted sand of basalt, chalk, limestone, quartz, and chert; some shells; iron oxide

A

1315-16

EY 593 = EY 586

CP3b

I: 8.70:10

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, reddishbrown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, quartz, and chalk sand; some shells and quartz grains; iron oxide

A

4098

EY 449

CP3b

I: 8.68:8 II: 3.36:9

Marly, foraminiferous, silty soil

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; some shells and iron oxide

A

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 62

04/11/2014 12:10:03

63

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.2. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Fabric

815-6

EY 197

CP3b

I: 8.62:11

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted rounded to sub-rounded basalt, limestone chalk, quartz, and chert sand; shell; crushed calcite

A

788-11

EY 197

CP3b

I: 8.62:9

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; shell fragments

A

719-67

EY 163

CP3b

I: 8.83:12

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; shell

A

4128-4

EY 460

CP2

I: 8.53:3

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; few shells; organic material (straw?)

A

4152-1

EY 457

CP2

I: 8.61:10

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; iron oxide, quartz

A

4128-1

EY 460

CP2

I: 8.53:8 II: 3.36:1

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, grayish-brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; some shell fragments; iron oxide

A

4157-3

EY 466

CP2

I: 8.53:4

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; some shells and quartz crystals; iron oxide

A

1290-7

EY 582

CP2

I: 8.72:8

Calcareous soil, brown

Crushed calcite, limestone

Artifact 1*

1519-9

EY 620

CP2

I: 8.57:12

Ferruginous, very silty, reddish-brown

Quartz sand; some chalk grains; crushed limestone

G6

PM = Potter’s mark; * insufficient attributes for assignment to group fabric

production. However, while the household level of production remained a steady, if minor component, the specialized products were dominant. Moreover, they reveal the same dichotomy found in the non-cooking assemblage of Period C: imported wares vs. locally produced wares. The brown cooking pots, apparently imported from the Golan, are found at many sites in the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys and on the Galilee coast in tandem with NCMW, and appeared to have shared their distribution mechanism (Paz and Iserlis 2009; Iserlis and Paz 2011). At Tel Bet Yerah, they are evenly distributed in both the northern and southern parts of the mound, at least in the early part of Period C, dwindling in frequency with the gradual disappearance of NCMW. The gray pots were locally made, but reveal evidence of specialization both in the quality and symmetry of the vessels and in the regularity of the technique used to make them. Notably, the introduction of the round-base technique (mold/paddle and anvil) was not accompanied by a change in the raw material used for the pots.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 63

Non-Metallic (Common) Wares (the ‘Southern Potter’) (Fig. 3.8) In all areas of excavation there was a very abundant component of common-ware (i.e., not NCMW) vessels ascribed stratigraphically to EB II/Period C. Of these, many—but not all—could be associated with a workshop tradition that we have been able to locate in the south of the mound. The remainder may have been produced on-site or imported from as yet unidentified locales. Non-metallic common wares are characterized by soft to medium fabrics, thin red slips, often carelessly applied, and the sparing use of burnish. By a stroke of good fortune, we are in a position to know as much about at least one of the local potters’ workshops of Period C as we do of any comparable establishment in the southern Levant. The rapid abandonment of the late Period C structures in the south of the mound has left us scores of complete vessels and the Area EY excavations have provided a plethora of finds related to the actual manufacturing process:

04/11/2014 12:10:03

64

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Fig. 3.8. Period C, ‘southern potter’ jugs and jars.

tournettes, shaping and burnishing implements, and even remains of unfired pots and other clay objects (see below). Their spatial and stratigraphic distributions suggest that the excavations uncovered a portion of a workshop, which appears to have survived over several stratigraphic phases (though not, apparently, over the transition into Period D, EB III). Of course, this need not have been the only active workshop in the southern part of the mound. Therefore, our use of the term ‘southern potter’ should be understood as eponymous for all the potters working within the constraints of a well-regulated, if not standardized, workshop tradition or sequence of production (raw material selection, technique, form, and firing) and distributing their wares chiefly in the southern quarters of Tel Bet Yerah (Greenberg 2011). Typology For the most part, vessels associated with the local potter—readily identified by their fabric and color— appear to emulate NCMW forms and techniques. Where a minor divergence is recorded, such as in the size of the hemispherical bowls, it may be ascribed to the constraints of the raw materials used by the local potter. Other divergences can be ascribed to local innovation (as in the case of pinched lamps and of mugs). There are several instances of common-ware products that do not seem to have been made by the ‘southern potter’: these were either southern imports

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 64

or the product of as yet unidentified workshops on the mound (e.g., fine carinated bowls, ledge-handled jars). Small bowls, Type B1, may be subdivided into (a) shallow saucers (Fig. 3.37:1–3), (b) hemispherical bowls (Figs. 3.9; 3.37:4–15), and (c) carinated bowls (Fig. 3.38:1–12). Among the saucers (Subtype B1a), the flat-based variety reproduces an NCMW type that has not yet surfaced at Tel Bet Yerah (cf. Greenberg and Porat 1996: Fig. 1:2); the occasional disk-based bowl (Fig. 3.37:4) is indicative of wheel-production. Hemispherical bowls (Subtype B1b) are the most common, sometimes showing irregular burnish. The carinated bowls (Subtype B1c) form a varied group; inverted-rim bowls are the local preference (Fig. 3.38:1–6). The thin, well-fired carinated bowls (Fig. 3.38:7, 8), found only in Areas SA and UN in the northern part of the mound (as well as in the Delougaz excavations: see Esse 1991: Pl. 1:c, d), appear to be southern imports, being highly reminiscent of the type of bowl described in detail by Beck (1985). This bowl does not appear in NCMW and is too fine to be the product of our local ‘southern potter’. The latter craftsperson, however, produced his/her own unique variant on the carinated bowl (Fig. 3.38:9–12), showing the same combination of mold and wheel manufacture as the original artifact described by Beck. Type B1 varia include two deep flat-based bowls (Figs. 3.37:16; 3.38:13), the second of which could be in NCMW (the vessel was restored by Bar-Adon, and its cross-section

04/11/2014 12:10:04

65

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

is not visible). The fine Type B5 cup (Fig. 3.38:14) is a rare form, generally found in tombs (e.g., Smithline 2001:58) or in ritual contexts (Callaway 1972: Fig. 76). Type B2 lamps (Fig. 3.39), usually identified by their sooty rims, comprise the richest and most surprisingly varied collection from any Early Bronze Age site known to us. Virtually all future Bronze and Iron Age developments of this class of artifact are presaged here: there are pinched single-spouted lamps (Fig. 3.39:1–3), an indented three(?)-spouted variant (Fig. 3.39:4), and four-spouted lamps (Fig. 3.39:5). Among the unspouted examples (Fig. 3.39:6–15), the thick stepped base and sharp carination reminiscent of the first millennium BCE may be encountered (Fig. 3.39:14, 15). Evidently the Period C inhabitants of Tel Bet Yerah enjoyed an active night-life. The deep inverted-rim bowls, Type B3 (Fig. 3.40), are among the most common type of vessel produced by the ‘southern potter’; indeed, the unfired sherds discovered in Area EY (see below) belong to the two main types, simple hemispherical (Type B1) and medium-large inverted-rim (Type B3) bowls. The hemispherical bowls were coiled with the aid of the wheel, whereas the larger inverted-rim bowls were made in the combined mold and wheel technique used in NCMW as well (more below). While all bowls were red slipped, burnish appears irregularly and is usually

0

radial in the interior and horizontal along the rim, not quite covering the entire surface. Platters, Type B4 (Figs. 3.10, 3.41), are—with a few exceptions—virtually identical in profile to their NCMW counterparts, with only the thinner wall of the latter consistently distinguishing the two. The similarity extends to such details as the extent of the red slip on the upper exterior of the bowl and the use of a tool to form a channel or concavity beneath the rim. Unlike NCMW, radial burnish is nearly universal in bowl interiors. At times this burnish is spaced, but it does not take the spider-web form of classic patternburnish. The variety exhibited among the relatively rare Type VK1 vats and basins in Figs. 3.11 and 3.42 suggests that they are the work of various hands. Indeed, the earliest and most elegant of the four vessels (Fig. 3.42:1), which—like the NCMW prototype—has the appearance of a truncated store jar, is to be ascribed to the founders of the workshop in Area EY. The vessels in Fig. 3.42:2 and 3, with their splayed stance, show the heavy hand of the latter generation of ‘southern potters’, perhaps crossing the line into EB III, while Fig. 3.42:4 falls somewhere in between. As relatively rare vessels, vats could have been custom-made— hence their lack of standardization.

4

Fig. 3.9. Period C, ‘southern potter’ Type B1b bowl (= Fig. 3.37:5).

a

b 0

6

Fig. 3.10. Period C, ‘southern potter’ Type B4 bowl (platter = Fig. 3.41:8).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 65

0

6

Fig. 3.11. Period C,‘southern potter’ Type VK1 vats: (a) = Fig. 3.42:2; (b)= Fig. 3.42:3.

04/11/2014 12:10:04

66

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Most of the jugs in Figs. 3.12, 3.13, 3.43, and 3.44 appear to be products of the ‘southern potter’, characterized by fabric, finish, and wheel technique. The vessels in Fig. 3.43:1–4 are jugs with decorative lugs (Type JG1) virtually identical to NCMW counterparts found on the mound (Fig. 3.35:1), in the nearby Kinneret tomb (Mazar, Amiran, and Haas 1973: Fig. 5:1), and in Qiryat Ata (Golani 2003: Fig. 4.29:1, 2), whereas those in Fig. 3.43:5–8 are similar to the globular or spindleshaped (Type JG1) NCMW jugs (Greenberg and Porat 1996: Fig. 1:15, 16). The vessels in Fig. 3.43:10 and 11 are amongst the off-color products found in and near the Area EY presumed ritual deposit. They, like the inscribed jug (Fig. 3.43:4), appear to be custom-made objects, and are marked by a low firing temperature. Figure 3.43:9, 12–15 shows various non-metallic jugs that—judged by ware and form—do not seem to belong to the ‘southern potter’ group. Noteworthy are Fig. 3.43:9, with internal vertical indentations indicating an unusual handforming technique for the body of the jug; Fig. 3.43:12, an extremely fine, wide-mouthed burnished piece; and Fig. 3.43:13, with a collar and carinated form seemingly inspired by a metal or stone (Egyptian?) prototype. The trademark product of Tel Bet Yerah’s ‘southern potter’s workshop is the one-handled mug (Type JG3), of which a broad selection is illustrated in Figs. 3.12 and 3.44 (the vessels drawn without a handle are all incomplete, and are assumed to be of the same type). The mugs are a fairly uniform and functional group, usually red slipped and only occasionally burnished. The placement and relatively small size of the handles suggest that, rather than serving as a drinking mug, these vessels could have served as scoops for grain or for other goods stored in bulk. Rarely, they could be

0

4

Fig. 3.12. Period C, ‘southern potter’ Type JG3 mug (= Fig. 3.44:8).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 66

twinned (Type JG 5; Figs. 3.13; 3.44:13). The type has not been described often in the literature, but closely comparable mugs and twins have been published at Tell es-Sa‘idiya and at Tel Qashish (Tubb 1988: Fig. 35:7; Ben-Tor and Bonfil 2003: Fig. 40:8). At ‘Arad, a similar group of vessels is the class designated as cupbowls (Amiran et al. 1978: Pls. 14:1–9; 24:16–33). Interestingly, no representatives of this type were found in the elite tomb at Kinneret, about 1 km east of Bet Yerah, which yielded a large selection of closed EB II vessels of both NCMW and local production (Mazar, Amiran and Haas 1973). Like NCMW, whose presence in Egypt is wellestablished (Kantor 1992), Type JG1–2 jugs produced by the local potter can be traced as far afield as the royal and elite 1st Dynasty tombs in Upper Egypt. Adams and Porat (1996) have demonstrated the presence of both NCMW and ‘southern potter’ vessels together in 1st Dynasty tombs extending from the reign of Djer to that of Semerkhet (Adams and Porat’s [1996:104] Group B is equivalent to our Fabric C). Among the Palestinian imports to 1st Dynasty royal and elite tombs illustrated by Kantor (1992: Fig. 7), there are several that may well be the products of the ‘southern potter’. In view of the Egyptian graffito scratched, probably before firing, on the local jug from EY 160 (Fig. 3.43:4; Bet Yerah I: Fig. 8.79:8), an Egyptian connection for the local potter should not come as a surprise (Greenberg and Eisenberg 2002). We may well wonder whether the inscription read as sntr (‘incense’), incised on Porat’s Group B (= our Fabric C) sherd found in Abydos (Adams and Porat 1996:98), may have indicated, after all, the contents of the vessel, rather than postdating the use of the pot as suggested by Adams.

0

5

Fig. 3.13. ‘southern potter’, Type JG5 twin vessel from unknown location (Bar-Adon excavations).

04/11/2014 12:10:05

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Amphoriskoi (Type AM1; Figs. 3.8, 3.45:1–6) are another stock-in-trade of the ‘southern potter’. While the shape is inherited from EB I, true loop handles replace the pierced lug handles of the earlier period. Absent from the NCMW pattern-book, large amphoriskoi are not particularly common in assemblages of the central and southern regions.

An atypical barrel-shaped amphoriskos and a small imported Egyptian jar, the latter with 1st Dynasty parallels (Greenberg and Eisenberg 2002), are shown in Fig. 3.45:7, 8. An impressive and varied array of portable storage jars (Types SJ1–3) completes the collection of common-ware products (Figs. 3.14, 3.46). Jars

a

c

67

b

0

10

d

Fig. 3.14. Period C storage jars: (a) a crudely made Type SJ1 jar in the southern Jordan Valley tradition (= Fig. 3.46:1); (b) a typical ‘southern potter’ product (SJ2 = Fig. 3.46:11); (c) a fine decorated jar with pierced vertical lugs around the broad mouth (Type SJ2 = Fig. 3.46:13); and (d) a rather second-rate Type SJ2 jar with simple painted decoration (= Fig. 3.46:9).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 67

04/11/2014 12:10:06

68

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

(together with vats, to which they are structurally related) are the least standardized Period C vessels at Tel Bet Yerah, and the most often decorated. This propensity for display has a long pedigree in the Jordan Valley, previously expressed in the grain-wash and line-painted decorations of the late EB I. It clearly runs counter to the otherwise drab disposition of the EB II ceramic industries. Each of the three ledge-handled jars in Fig. 3.46:1–3 points in a different direction: the first, crudely formed jar appears to be the local product of an inexpert craftsperson; the second, the product of a specialist, perhaps situated in the Jordan Valley south of Tel Bet Yerah, since such jars appear to become progressively more common the farther south one goes (cf. Tell elFar‘ah North, ‘Ai, or Jericho); the third, symmetrical and stilted, seems to be a local product emulating the southern imports. By far the more characteristic local products are the red-slipped or painted Type SJ1 (Fig. 3.46:4–11) and Type SJ2 (Fig. 3.46:12, 13) jars with loop handles. These appear more numerous than they actually were, in proportion to other vessel types, perhaps because of the tendency to bury the jars in house floors up to their rims. In any case, they form a very heterogeneous group, with either folded or splayed rims and surface treatment ranging from a streaky red slip to a fine bandpainted decoration. The close relationship to NCMW is evidenced in the following technical details: the use of pattern combing on Fig. 3.46:5; the punched-in wall of the vessel opposite the loop handle in Fig. 3.46:7 and 10; and the application of small lugs beneath the rim in Fig. 3.46:13. The prototypes of the wide-mouthed jar with lugs are the NCMW channel-rimmed jar and pithoi; these are among the most prestigious items in NCMW, with jars of this type often bearing the signature painted design of EB II (see Bet Yerah I: Figs. 3.29:6, 7; 8.67:12 and Greenberg 2001: Fig. 8.2:14, 15) and pithoi bearing pattern burnish (Greenberg and Porat 1996: Fig. 3:1; Greenberg 1997: Fig. III.4:7, 8). It is therefore no accident that the local exemplar of this jar (Figs. 3.14:c; 3.46:13) is one of the finest painted products of the Bet Yerah potter. There are other variants of the wide-mouthed type, which appears to have so constructed as to allow its contents to be scooped out with a smaller vessel. The three small jars, Fig. 3.46:14–16, seem to be related to the local wares, yet are different in their globular shape (Nos. 14, 15) or delicate wall (Nos. 15, 16).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 68

Technique The technique used by the Bet Yerah potters for noncooking wares is very similar to that described by various authors for other EB II industries, with the following difference: use of the slow wheel is nearly universal and quite proficient. More vessels are entirely wheelmade (e.g., Types B1, B2 and hemispherical B3 bowls), and nearly all are wheel-finished. The combined mold and wheel technique is employed for medium-sized bowls and platters (Fig. 3.40:8 reveals this most clearly, showing traces of both the mold and of the tool used to extract the bowl from the mold). A combined coil and wheel technique is used for large open vessels and for all closed vessels. A thin red slip was favored by the ‘southern potter’. The slip varied between an even application over the entire vessel to a streaky, smeared application. The use of burnish was inconsistent; it is most common on Type B3 inverted-rim bowls and Type B4 platters, usually in a radial application inside and horizontal application on the rim and exterior. Jugs and, to a lesser extent, mugs, may carry a vertical burnish. In both cases, the firing usually leaves the burnish with a matte sheen, so that truly polished items are quite rare. Band painting is found on jars only. Petrography Table 3.3 presents the remarkable uniformity of raw materials selected by the ‘southern potter’. Fabric C raw materials were probably located quite near the site, on the river bank, but the precise location has not been determined. The material is naturally sorted fine marl with fragments of weathered rocks, suitable for both hand- and wheel-forming and for a wide variety of sizes and shapes. The few exceptions differ only in the addition of temper to the marly clay, but even these may be the result of ‘sloppy’ quarrying rather than intentional inclusion. The idea of using a single type of raw material for a wide variety of shapes immediately calls to mind NCMW, despite the fact that the Fabric C clays were of a quality inferior to that of the Lower Cretaceous clays of the more northerly assemblage. Elements of the ‘Southern Potter’s’ Workshops Excavations in Area EY revealed a large number of finds that may be associated with the potter’s craft. These include the following: (a) tournette pairs and individual elements; (b) unbaked fragments of vessels, vessel parts, and ad-hoc artifacts; (c) flint blades

04/11/2014 12:10:06

69

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.3. Petrography of ‘Southern Potter’ Vessels Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

1454-3

EY 618

B1

I: 8.57:2 II: 3.37:11

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

8300-10

EY 198

B3

I: 8.65:9

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded chalk, limestone, basalt, plagioclase, calcite, chert, and quartz

C

705-3

EY 156

B1

I: 8.85:2 II: 3.37:16

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded to sub-angular limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

816-3

EY 197

B3

I: 8.62:4

Marly, foraminiferous, pinkish

Sand of rounded to sub-angular chalk, limestone, basalt, plagioclase, chert and quartz; rare calcite

C

4114-3

EY 455A

B3

I: 8.56:4 II: 3.40:12

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded and weathered limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, chert, and quartz

C

729-1

EY 171

B3

I: 8.73:7 II: 3.40:8

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

1399

EY 610

SJ1

I: 8.66:6

Marly, foraminiferous, pinkish

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, chert, and quartz

C6

1241-14

EY 575

SJ1/2

Marly, silty, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded to subrounded chalk, limestone, basalt, some calcite, plagioclase, chert, and quartz

C

1468-15

EY 455

SJ2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, plagioclase, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

4114

EY 455A

SJ 1/2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

736-2

EY 150

SJ1

I: 8.78:4

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

1454-1

EY 618

JG1

I: 8.58:3 II: 3.43:9

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Fresh angular basalt and plagioclase; sand of rounded to sub-angular chalk, limestone, basalt, calcite, chert, and quartz

C4

769-1

EY 164

JG1

I: 8.80:2

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

859-1

EY 196

B2

I: 8.61:14

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded to sub-angular limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, rare calcite, and quartz

C

710-5

EY 162

JG3

I: 8.76:8

Marly, foraminiferous, pinkish

Sand of rounded to sub-angular limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C6

1127-3

EY 451

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, plagioclase, chert, and quartz

C3-5

1209-11

EY 563

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, weathered calcite, chert, and quartz

C

1399-1

EY 610

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt; few calcite, chert, and quartz grains

C4

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 69

I: 8.64:7 II: 3.46:10

04/11/2014 12:10:06

70

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.3. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

4044-4

EY 442

4069-3

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, plagioclase, and quartz

C

EY 447

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and quartz

C+ coarse temper

4142-5

EY 464

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, reddish-brown

Sand of rounded to sub-rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and quartz; rare calcite and chlorite

C

737-7

EY 161

B4

I: 8.76:4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded chalk, limestone basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

4114-2

EY 455A

B4

I: 8.56:6

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded to sub-rounded chalk, limestone, basalt, weathered calcite, chert, and quartz

C

737-8

EY 161

B4

I: 8.76:3

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded to sub-angular limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and quartz; rare calcite chlorite

C

1295-1

EY 585

JG5

I: 8.82:1 II: 3.44:13

Marly, foraminiferous, reddish-brown

Sand of weathered chalk, basalt, some calcite, plagioclase, chert, and quartz

C

bearing a polish consistent with the working of clay; (d) stone burnishers; and (e) bone spatulae. The finds were concentrated in a well-defined area, but covered several stratigraphic phases. We interpret this as evidence of the existence of one or more workshops that operated continuously in the area from the time of Local Stratum 9B (early EB II) to that of Local Stratum 7 (late EB II) or possibly Local Stratum 6A (early EB III). Tournettes. The Early Bronze Age tournettes from Tel Bet Yerah in general, and from Area EY in particular, are all of the same type: a flat perforated stone of

a

small diameter (10–19 cm), serving as a washer for a large stone (21–35 cm in diameter) with a flat dorsal surface and a molded and socketed ventral side (Table 3.4; Figs. 3.15–3.18). The central axis of the assembly would have been made of wood. The action of this type of tournette has been described by Roux and Miroschedji (2009). They suggested that the perforated stone would be the base and the socketed stone would be the turntable. An alternate reconstruction suggests that the socketed stone served as a weighted base for a turntable composed of the perforated stone and an attached wooden working surface (Pelta 1996). If the

b 0

10

Fig. 3.15. (a) Used and (b) unused tournettes.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 70

04/11/2014 12:10:07

71

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.4. Tournette Elements from Area EY Reg. No.

Locus (Local Stratum)

Type

Diameter (cm)

Preservation (%)

Basalt Type

Figure

900

EY 196 (9B)

793

EY 179 (subfloor = EY 196)

Socketed

23

85

Coarse

3.16:1

Perforated

19

100

Coarse

3.16:2

4101-1

EY 445 (8)

Perforated (elliptical)

15–18

100 (unused)

Coarse

3.15

838

W145 (8)

Socketed

23

80

Coarse

3.16:3

806-52

W145 (8)

Perforated

10.5

50

Coarse

3.16:4

742

EY 160 (7)

Socketed

23

100

Fine

3.15, 3.17:1

739-2

EY 160 (7)

Perforated

15

100

Fine

3.15, 3.17:2

1296 + 1353

EY 575 (7)

Socketed

35

75

Fine

3.18:1

1352-1

EY 575 (7)

Socketed

21

100 (unused)

Coarse

3.15, 3.18:2

1352-2

EY 575 (7)

Socketed

25

100 (unfinished)

Very coarse

697

EY 150 (7)

Socketed

27

100

Coarse

3.18:3

594-1

n.d.a. (3)

Socketed

21

50

Fine

3.18:4

594-2

n.d.a. (3)

Socketed

25

40 (unused)

Fine

3.18:5

594-3

n.d.a. (3)

Socketed

20

25 (worn)

Coarse

BS*

Perforated

16

100 (reused basalt bowl)

Fine

BS 029

Perforated

11.5

100

Coarse

GB*

Socketed

29

75

Fine

Tournette Elements from Other Areas 415 49-17

* Denotes unattributed location within excavation area

1

2

3 0

10

4

Fig. 3.16. Period C tournette elements.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 71

04/11/2014 12:10:07

72

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

1

2

0

10

Fig. 3.17. Period C tournette pair.

Roux–Miroschedji reconstruction is correct (as indeed indicated by the symmetry of the circular socketed elements), the rotary motion of most of these tournettes would have been limited; only the largest, set on a small washer, would have generated enough inertia for anything approaching the 50–70 rpm required for true wheel-throwing. Most of the Area EY tournette socketed ‘upper’ stones lie in the 21–27 cm diameter range. One perfectly fitted pair of tournette elements was discovered in Room EY 160 of Local Stratum 7: the socketed stone covered one of the jars in the southern subterranean deposit in this room and the perforated stone lay on the floor nearby. A possible pair was found in Room EY 196 of Local Stratum 9B and in the fill above its floor (EY 179), in the northwestern part of the area, about 10 m away from Room EY 160;

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 72

another probable pair, damaged and out of use, was incorporated in a Local Stratum 7 wall (W145), about 7 m northwest of EY 160. The latest objects are broken and burnt fragments probably used to line a hearth in Local Stratum 3. The remaining Area EY tournettes, four socketed stones and a perforated stone (the perforated elements, thinner and more subject to wear, would be expected to have a lower survival rate), were found along the southern and western flanks of Area EY. Three socketed stones came from the courtyard (EY 575) just east of Room EY 160. One of them was a molded but unperforated blank, indicating that the final stages in the manufacture of the wheel may have been performed by the potter. This courtyard provided several more finds associated with the potter’s craft (see below) and may be considered the focal point of the workshop.

04/11/2014 12:10:08

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

73

2

1

3

5

4 0

10

Fig. 3.18. Period C (1–3) and Period D (4, 5) tournette elements.

Unbaked Vessel Fragments and Ad Hoc Artifacts. Directly beneath the potter’s courtyard of Local Stratum 7 in Area EY lie several rooms of Local Strata 9A–B that extend south of the excavated area. In one of these rooms, EY 610 of Local Stratum 9B, an extraordinary discovery was made:

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 73

about 60 fragments of unbaked clay representing parts of unfired vessels, twisted coil fragments, ad hoc artifacts, and scraps of kneaded leftover clay (Fig. 3.19; Table 3.5). It seems likely that these finds are to be attributed to a Stratum 7 refuse pit, not identified during excavation.

04/11/2014 12:10:09

74

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

a

b 0

4

Fig. 3.19. Unbaked clay objects associated with the ‘southern potter’: (a) unidentified perforated adhoc implements; (b) excess clay scraps (top row) and unfired bowl fragments (bottom row).

Table 3.5. Inventory of Unbaked Clay Artifacts Description

Remarks

Figure

3 plain bowl rim fragments

Parallel rotation marks

3.19:b

1 inverted-rim bowl fragment

Fracture between rim and body

1 mug rim fragment

Distorted; parallel rotation marks

23 worked body fragments

some smoothed, others with parallel rotation marks; 3 show pinching at coil joins

1 rim of large bowl

Coarse; possibly unfinished

1 complete unidentified pierced object (brush?)

16 cm long, 6 cm max. height, 1.5 cm max. width; horizontal perforation 0.5–0.7 cm; vertical perforations along spine 1–2 mm

3.19:a

2 incomplete unidentified pierced objects and additional fragments (brushes?)

As above

3.19:a

3.19:b

3 unfinished handles 1 coil fragment

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 74

3.19:b

11 lumps derived from vessels

Cut marks, rotation marks

8 large and 5 small lumps of leftover clay

Finger impressions; cavities left by organic materials

3.19:b

04/11/2014 12:10:09

75

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.6. Petrography of Unbaked Clay Artifacts Sample No.

Locus

Description

Matrix

Inclusions

Fabric

1

EY 610

Worked body fragment

Calcareous, foraminiferous grayish-green

Rounded chalk; sub-angular to sub-rounded plagioclase and quartz; chert and shell

C

2

EY 610

Worked body fragment

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Chalk, sub-rounded basalt, plagioclase, quartz, olivine, and iron oxide

C

3

EY 610

Worked body fragment

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Quartz, basalt, chalk, and limestone

C

4

EY 610

Lump of leftover clay

Marly, silty, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded to sub-rounded limestone and chalk; angular to sub-angular basalt; chert, quartz, and shell

C

5

EY 610

Rim of large bowl

Marly, foraminiferous, greenish-brown

Poorly sorted sand of rounded to sub-angular limestone, chalk, and basalt; weathered calcite; quartz, shell, and chert; soil balls

C

6

EY 610

Body sherd (bowl?)

Marly, foraminiferous, greenish-brown

Mainly weathered chalk and limestone; angular basalt and plagioclase grains; chert and quartz; grog

C

The most significant are five rim- and more than twenty body-fragments of plain hemispherical and inverted-rim bowls, of a type well-known in the ‘southern potter’ assemblage. Six of these fragments have been analyzed petrographically (Table 3.6), revealing a composition identical to that of the fired products found nearby. Presumably these are parts of pots abandoned before firing. Additional fragments can be viewed as ‘production debris’: coil-ends, unused applications, or clay left over from the thinning and smoothing of vessel walls. There are two unidentified pierced hump-like objects. Various Potter’s Implements. Other objects that can be associated with the potter’s craft include a stone burnisher from Courtyard EY 575 (see Chapter 5: No. 33), two bone spatulae, also from the courtyard (see Fig. 2.9; Chapter 6: Nos. 124, 125), and a group of polished flint Canaanean blades carrying wear marks consistent with the working of raw clay (Fig. 3.20). The blades were found in the Period C deposits of Courtyard EY 575, Room EY 196, and Room EY 456B, or redeposited in courtyard fills of Period D (EY 136 and EY 152, both situated on the southern flank of the area). One blade comes from a Period B deposit in Room EY 474. These blades, bearing polish and/or a heavy gloss, differ from sickle blades in that their

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 75

0

1

Fig. 3.20. Lateral views of a polished Canaanean blade probably used in ceramic production (see Fig. 4.17:3).

edges are smooth and rounded, in a manner consistent with working leather-hard clay (see below, chapter 4). Blades with a similar wear-pattern have been identified at the EB I–II site of Qiryat Ata (GromanYaroslavsky, Iserlis, and Eisenberg 2013).

04/11/2014 12:10:09

76

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Discussion The marked change between the Period B and Period C local industries appears very much related to the organization of production, rather than to significant changes in consumption. We base this statement on the observation that in terms of function, Period C types by and large reproduced Period B categories (see Table 3.12). The main locus of functional change that might be attributed to a change in consumption habits is in the cooking pots, where open-flame cooking with round-based vessels appears to have replaced slow cooking in flat-based vessels. This change too could be ascribed to organizational changes in the production and consumption of cooked foods during transition from village to urban life. The change in the organization of production may be described as follows. If, for EB I, we posited the existence of several workshops and itinerant potters using a variety of raw materials and formation techniques to arrive at a universally recognizable result (red-slipped bowls, grain-wash decorated pithoi), then in EB II there is an overriding concern with the integrity of the manufacturing process itself: consistent use of specific raw materials, a fixed set of manufacturing techniques, and limited variation in form and surface treatment. This concern mimics the self-same concerns described with regard to NCMW (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Greenberg 2000) and may be understood as an ethos of EB II ceramic production in northern Canaan. The existence of such an ethos may be interpreted in formalist terms as a striving toward efficiency in the manufacturing process: standardization allows a greater division of labor and, theoretically, a shorter learning curve for new hands (or at least more widespread participation in the manufacturing process—youth, aged, infirm, etc.). We suspect, however, that a deeper stratum in the social structure was being tapped: a need for order, uniformity, and solidarity over a considerable geographic expanse. Over much of northern Canaan, this need was translated into the large-scale production and distribution of NCMW at the expense of local industries; at Tel Bet Yerah it took the form of the re-casting of local expertise in a new form, one that demonstrated its acceptance of the dominant ethos through technical and formal emulation of NCMW.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 76

Early Bronze Age III (Periods D and E) Industries The onset of Early Bronze III is signaled by a dramatic ceramic event: the initiation of Khirbet Kerak Ware production alongside that of the local ‘southern potter’. The evidence from multiple fields of excavation allows for no other interpretation of the evidence: the stratigraphic phases that follow immediately upon the abandonment of the late Period C floors contain evidence both for continued production in the local tradition as well as for the introduction of an entirely new tradition, alien in almost every technical and formal aspect of its sequence of production, yet entirely local in its raw materials. The two industries coexist over several stratigraphic phases, with only subtle changes, until the demise of the Period D town. Period E, a post-urban episode ascribed to the final days of EB III, is marked by the disappearance of both KKW and of many features of the local tradition. The identification of a ‘pre-KKW’ EB IIIA stratum, and of a ‘KKW-only’ EB IIIB stratum, as suggested by Getzov (2006), is not only contradicted by the material presented in Bet Yerah I, but also represents a contradiction in terms: the very identification of local products as EB III has always been contingent on their co-occurrence with Khirbet Kerak Ware (Greenberg 2000). There can be no pre-KKW EB III stage in Canaanite pottery production as a whole (this does not rule out the possibility of the late arrival of KKW at a given location). The arrival of KKW coincides with internal economic and social changes that finds expression in subtle changes in the local pottery. Both industries are, in fact, indicators of tectonic shifts in Canaanite society. In the following pages we describe separately the KKW and local traditions, as expressed in the corpus of complete vessels. Khirbet Kerak Ware Figures 3.21, 3.22, and 3.47–3.51 offer a fairly comprehensive and representative overview of the KKW types found at Tel Bet Yerah. Possibly underrepresented are the thick inverted-rim shallow platters or footed bowls, which seem rather more abundant in

04/11/2014 12:10:09

77

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

a

b 4

0

0

5

0

8

d

c 8

0

e 0

f

5

g 0

10

h 0

5

0

5

Fig. 3.21. Period D, Khirbet Kerak Ware: bowls (a, not drawn; b = Fig. 3.47:21; kraters (c = Fig. 3.48:14; d = Fig. 3.48:13); three views of a decorated lid (e = Fig. 3.50:2); a unique cylindrical jar (f = Fig. 3.50:1); and biconical stands (g = Bet Yerah I: Fig. 3.27:9; h = Fig. 3.49:2).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 77

04/11/2014 12:10:14

78

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

a 0

6

0

8

b

Fig. 3.22. (a) Khirbet Kerak Ware andiron (= Fig. 3.51:7); (b) pre-restoration view of the Khirbet Kerak Ware krater showing clear traces of slab construction (= Fig. 3.48:14).

the sherd assemblage. Absent are fenestrated stands and Levanto-KKW hybrids such as jars or jugs formed in the KKW technique, which were represented only by fragments in the stratified assemblages (see, e.g., Bet Yerah I: Figs. 3.26:11; 5.90:12; 8.97:6). In terms of both quantity and variety, the KKW tradition is strongest in the early stages of Period D (Local Strata 11–10 in Area BS, Local Stratum 3 in Area UN, Local Stratum 6 in Area EY). Typology The general typology of KKW has been adequately presented in earlier publications and studies (Hennessy 1967; Amiran 1969; Miroschedji 2000): little need be added concerning its utter unconformity with local Canaanite tradition. The following discussion is intended to underline its cohesiveness as a technological tradition and to understand its place as a ceramic industry practiced by the inhabitants of Tel Bet Yerah. In functional terms, the KKW tradition overlaps only slightly with previous local Early Bronze Age traditions (see below, Table 3.12). Of the eighteen basic types covered by the local tradition, KKW provides

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 78

functional equivalents for only four—all of them open vessels: Type B1 small hemispherical and carinated bowls (Figs. 3.21:a; 3.47:1–15), Type B3 medium open bowls (Figs. 3.21:b; 3.47:16), Type B4 shallow bowls or platters (Fig. 3.47:17–20, and Type VK2 large open kraters or mixing bowls (Figs. 3.21:c; 3.48:11, 14). In each case there are significant typological divergences with local forms: the omphalos bases of the small and medium bowls, the decorations and proportions of the open kraters, and—of course—the intensive surface treatment accorded to nearly all the KKW vessels. There are a further five types in the corpus of whole forms that are limited only to the KKW tradition: sinuous-sided Type B5 cups (Fig. 3.48:1–10), Type VK3 deep kraters (Figs. 3.21:d; 3.48:12, 13), and Type V1–3 stands (Figs. 3.21:g, h; 3.49), lids (Figs. 3.21:e; 3.50:2, 3.51:1–4) and andirons (Figs. 3.22:a; 3.51:6, 7). To these we must add the unique (untyped) cylindrical jar from the Circles Building (Figs. 3.21:f; 3.50:1). Notably, three of the four types in the first group are red slipped only, suggesting an acknowledgement of local preferences (Greenberg 2007); these are also the most abundant forms in the assemblage. In the second group, four of the five types are either red-black or made of brown cooking-ware, attesting to a more conservative relation with the Kura-Araxes homeland tradition of KKW (Greenberg 2007). Figure 3.51:5 is a complete vessel found out of context, along with other Early Bronze Age vessels, in a construction trench. Its technique, material, and color place it in a group, heretofore recognized only in fragmented form, of vessels apparently associated with cooking. Other representatives of this group are pushedup knobs attached to unslipped vessels (illustrated in Bet Yerah I: Fig. 7.48:7, 8). The identification of these vessels as cooking pots is an intriguing possibility. However, their relative rarity indicates that they could not have borne the brunt of the cooking in KKW-rich households. The very nature of KKW production (see below) precludes the creation of a complete KKW typology or the possibility that any one site will provide a complete set of KKW vessels: there were simply too many independent producers of the ware and too great a degree of creative freedom allowed to them. That said, the corpus of complete forms from Tel Bet Yerah comprises one of the richest and most diverse assemblages yet published. The rich selection of open vessels shows most known combinations of color,

04/11/2014 12:10:15

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

form, and decoration. More impressive, however, is the range shown in the less common forms: stands, lids, and andirons. In addition to the range of sizes shown in the plain stands as illustrated in Fig. 3.49, fragments of ridged stands as illustrated in Fig. 3.21:g (see Bet Yerah I: Figs. 3.27:9; 5.90:14; 7.45:9; 8.101:9) represent a favored form of decoration. There are also several instances of internal ridges and knobs (Bet Yerah I: Figs. 5.86:1; 7.45:10; 8.104:9), fragments of stands (or footed bowls) with triangular fenestrations (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 3.27:5–7), and one or two instances of incised decoration as well (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 3.27:8). Lids come in a great variety of sizes (Fig. 3.51:1–4). Their knobs may be unpierced, partly pierced, or fully pierced; some knobs are doubled, and there are at least two instances of zoomorphic knobs (Bet Yerah I: Fig. 5.86:10; below, Chapter 6: Nos. 110, 111). Surface treatment varies: most lids are not slipped and bear only a slight polish, but a few are well-burnished, in red, brown, or black. A particularly fine variant, the complete form of which has been found in Bet She’an, is the highly decorated funnel-like lid (Figs. 3.21:d; 3.50:2). This is represented by one nearly complete artifact and several decorated fragments (for discussion of the designs, see Chapter 6: Category K). The large functional and miniature symbolic andirons or portable hearths (Figs. 3.22:a, 3.51:6, 7) represent a large corpus—perhaps the largest yet found in the southern Levant. Twenty-five objects of this type are published in Bet Yerah I (17 large and 8 miniature), representing about a quarter of the objects of this type recovered in the various excavation fields. Technique The technique used for KKW production diverges considerably from traditional local practice. The first dramatic point of divergence is the absence of any use of the wheel in the initial or secondary formation of the vessel. Vessels were either entirely hand-built or were pressed into molds. Coils and slabs were used in larger vessels. The second major point of divergence was the extended formation process: Following initial forming, most traces of the vessels’ construction were obliterated by means of intensive surface treatment. This consisted of applying a thick slip, which subsequently received a high burnish. Raised or incised decoration was applied to this slip layer. On small, thin vessels, it seems likely that the application of thick slips and intense burnish would have required bisque firing in order to provide

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 79

79

a firm body. These were followed by the final firing (using immersion in ash to achieve the red-black coloration) and polish. Many grades of variation were possible in the effort expended on each vessel: Large, decorated and highly polished vessels like the krater in Fig. 3.22:b required considerable investment in all the production stages described above; decorated monochrome vessels would have required somewhat less investment; and simple red-slipped bowls could have been created with a shortened sequence of operations (although all the vessels show the two-step formation and double firing). There are a number of vessels whose production was aborted following the bisque firing: these include apparently unfinished bowls, as well as vessels associated with cooking: lids and possible cooking pots. Functional full-sized andirons stand apart from the rest of the vessels in their technique. Requiring neither molds, intensive surface treatment, nor sophisticated firing techniques, there is a possibility that they were produced and fired in a domestic setting. The miniature andirons are in some cases simple and untreated, and in others, carefully formed and burnished; they thus straddle the divide between ‘expert’ and ‘domestic’ production. Petrography In contrast to the local industries, a very wide variety of raw materials, both clay and inclusions, is evident in KKW (Tables 3.7–3.9). There is one entirely new clay, Fabric E, which may be characterized as colluvialalluvial soil from which calcareous elements have been leached or washed out. Like the other fabrics, however, Fabric E originates near the site, most probably at the base of the hill slopes situated 1–2 km west of the mound. Local rendzina soil—Fabric A (the same clay source used for cooking pots)—is also used. The many subtypes are a product of the nonsystematic addition of expedient inclusions to the principal fabric. These include sand, grog, and organics (vegetal material and hair) in varying combinations. Andirons are the most uniform in composition; they are exclusively of Fabric A, with a noteworthy addition of grog to one of the samples (Reg. No. 556-34). At the other end of the spectrum, the highly decorated bowls and kraters are also the most varied in terms of raw material. Looking at diachronic trends (Table 3.9), there is a noticeable shift in the use of the different fabrics over

04/11/2014 12:10:15

80

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.7. Petrography of Khirbet Kerak Ware Reg. No.

Locus

Type

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

611-1

EY 123A

B1

I: 8.100:4 II: 3.47:3

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, chert, and quartz; organic material; some shells and quartz crystals; iron oxide

AA22

664-1

EY 152

B1

I: 8.95:6

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, chert and quartz sand; organic temper; some shell fragments

AA22

635-1

EY 133

B4

I: 8.97:2 II: 3.47:18

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; organics; quartz grains

AA22

660-24

EY 152

B1

I: 8.95:3 II: 3.47:6

Calcareous foraminiferous, very silty soil; brown

Limestone and chalk sand; some basalt, olivine and chert grains; shell fragments and iron oxide

AA6

660-4

EY 152

B1

Calcareous foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Sand of limestone and chalk; some basalt, olivine, quartz, and chert grains

A6

649-9

EY 133

B5

I: 8.97:1

Calcareous foraminiferous, extremely silty soil, brown

Sand mainly of limestone and chalk; some basalt, plagioclase, olivine, heavy minerals, and chert grains; shell; quartz

AA6

574-24

EY 112

B5

I: 8.106:12

Calcareous foraminiferous, very silty soil, reddishbrown

Sand of limestone and chalk; some basalt, olivine, quartz, and chert grains; shells and iron oxide

AA6

691-19

EY 152

B1

I: 8.95:5

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, reddish-brown

Limestone and chalk sand, basalt, plagioclase, olivine, and chert grains; shells and iron oxide

AA6

607-22

EY 112

B5

Calcareous foraminiferous, silty soil, reddish-brown

Sand mainly of limestone and chalk; some basalt, plagioclase, quartz, olivine, and chert grains; shells and iron oxide

AA6

582-1

EY 113

B1

I: 8.105:3

Calcareous foraminiferous, extremely silty soil, brown

Sand mainly of limestone and chalk; some basalt, olivine, and chert grains; shells and iron oxide

AA6

684-16

EY 152

B5

I: 8.95:1

Calcareous foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Sand of limestone and chalk; some basalt, heavy minerals, quartz, and chert grains; shells

AA6

574-28

EY 112

B5

I: 8.106:13 II: 3.48:5

Silty, optical orientation, ferruginous, reddishbrown

Sub-angular quartz; basalt, plagioclase, and nari grains, organic material, grog (Fabric E)

E22-3

1196-6

EY 568

B1

I: 8.98:8 II: 3.47:1

Very silty, marly, brown

Quartz; some limestone, basalt, and plagioclase grains; organic material

E22

1196-3

EY 568

B5

I: 8.98:10

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Quartz, basalt, plagioclase, limestone, calcite, and nari grains

E6(?)8(?)

1196-1

EY 568

B1

I: 8.98:9 II: 3.47:5

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Quartz, basalt, limestone and nari grains

E

664-22

EY 152

B5

I: 8.95:2

Silty, non-calcareous, reddish-brown

Sub-angular quartz; grog; basalt, and plagioclase grains

E3

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 80

04/11/2014 12:10:15

81

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.7. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Type

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

591-8

EY 113

B1

I: 8.105:2

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Sub-angular quartz; grog; basalt, and plagioclase

E3

4032

EY 413

B5

Silty, isotropic properties, reddishbrown

Sand of sub-angular quartz; crushed pottery angular fragments; some basalt and plagioclase grains

E3

1226-2

EY 545

B1

I: 8.99:6

Silty, optical orientation, isotropic, brown

Sand of sub-angular quartz organic material and grog; basalt, chalk, limestone, and nari grains

E2-3

1191-1

EY 556

B1

I: 8.99:5

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Sand of sub-angular quartz; limestone, chalk, basalt, plagioclase, and nari grains

E

581-24

EY 112

B5

I: 8.106:15 II: 3.47:21

Calcareous, foraminiferous, very silty soil, reddishbrown

Sand of chalk and limestone; some basalt, olivine, quartz, heavy minerals, and chert grains; shell; quartz

AA6

1059-1

EY 525

VK2

I: 8.101:3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; shell fragments; iron oxide

A

4036-10

EY 410

VK2/3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Organic temper; poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; quartz; some shell fragments; iron oxide

A22

649-11

EY 133

VK2

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; organic temper; some quartz grains and shells; iron oxide

A22

1112-1

EY 534

VK2/3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Sand of chalk and limestone; some basalt, olivine, plagioclase, quartz, and chert grains; shells and iron oxide

A6

664-21

EY 152

VK2

Very silty, noncalcareous, dark reddish-tan

Poorly sorted coarse sand of alkaliolivine basalt, plagioclase, olivine, magnetite, and iddingsite; some limestone and chert grains; vegetal temper, including straw

DD2-6

709-11

EY 162

VK2/3

Silty, optical orientation, brown

Sand of subangular quartz; basalt, olivine, pyroxene, calcite, and nari grains; vegetal temper and grog

E2-3

646-10

EY 152

VK2/3

Very silty, marly, optical orientation, reddish

Limestone, chalk, sub-angular quartz; basalt, rare chert and plagioclase grains; organic material: vegetal, ash, and other; grog

A22-3

701-11

EY 152

VK3

Marly, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Limestone sand; few chert grains; organics; grog; basalt and plagioclase grains

AA22-3

1078-4, 5

EY 526

VK2/3

Very silty, noncalcareous, reddishbrown

Sub-angular quartz; crushed pottery fragments; mixed sand of weathered basalt, chalk, and plagioclase grains; organic material

E22-38(?)

627-1

EY 135

B3

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; quartz; some shells; iron oxide; organic material

A22

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 81

I: 8.97:5

I: 8.95:7

I: 8.95:8

I: 8.104:1

04/11/2014 12:10:15

82

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.7. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Type

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

685-19

EY 152

V2

I: 8.95:11

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Sand of sub-angular quartz; crushed pottery fragments; some basalt and plagioclase grains; organic and vegetal material; grog

E22-2-3

1158-5

EY 545

V2

I: 8.99:10

Silty, optical orientation, brown

Coarse, sorted temper; grog fragments; basalt and plagioclase grains

E3-8

611-32

EY 123A

V1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, chert, and quartz sand; few shells; iron oxide

A

1062-1

EY 525

V1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert and chalk sand; some shell fragments; iron oxide; organic

A22

611-4

EY 123A

V1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Organic temper; poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; iron oxide

A22

1158-5

EY 545

V1

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, reddish-brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, chalk, and quartz sand; organic temper (straw?); some shells, iron oxide

A22

660-16

EY 152

V1

Silty, optical orientation, reddishbrown

Grog and organic material; limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, plagioclase, and few pyroxene grains

AA22-3

698-2

EY 152

V1

Silty, optical orientation, brown

Silt and sand of subangular quartz, basalt, chalk, limestone, and olivine grains; grog and straw temper

E2-3

581-6

EY 112

V3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; rare quartz grains; iron oxide

A

649-5

EY 133

V3

I: 8.97:9

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand; organic material; shell fragments

A22

612-96

EY 124

V3

I: 8.100:9

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand; quartz crystals; iron oxide

A

649-1

EY 133

V3

I: 8.97:8

Calcareous, foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; some shells; quartz; iron oxide

A

556-34

EY 103

V3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Grog (crushed pottery) temper; poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; some shells and quartz grains

A3

649-2

EY 133

V3

Calcareous, foraminiferous, extremely silty soil, reddish-brown

Chalk and limestone sand; some basalt, chert, and heavy minerals; shells and quartz grains

A6

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 82

I: 8.101:2

I: 8.95:13

I: 8.97:11

04/11/2014 12:10:15

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 83

9

6

Total

1

1

1

6

2 1 1

Total Vessels

Andirons 6B

Andirons 5–3

1

3

2

5–3

3

1

2

1

1

A6

2

2

2

AA22

2

2

1

1

AA22-3

8

8

1

7

AA6

1

1

1

DD2-22

1

1

1

E

1

1

1

E22

2

2

1

1

E2-3

3

3

1

2

E22-3

1

1

1

E22-2-3

4

4

4

E3

1

0

A3

1

1

A22-3

1

2

1

1

A6

2

1

1

AA22

2

1

1

AA22-3

8

4

1

3

AA6

1

1

DD2-22

1

1

E

1

1

E22

1

1

E2-3

1

1

E22-2-3

3

2

1

E22-3

Table 3.9. Distribution of KKW Petrographic Fabrics according to Local Strata, Area EY

A22-3

A22

3

6A

A

1

1

0

A3

6B

Fabric

1

3

Andiron

Local Strata

7

2

Total Vessels

2

2

A22

3

1

A

1

Type

Stand

Lid

Krater

Cup

Bowl

Fabric

Table 3.8. Distribution of KKW Fabrics according to Type

4

1

2

1

E3

1

1

E3-8

1

1

1

E3-8

1

1

E6(?)-8(?)

1

1

1

E6(?)-8(?)

2

4

37

14

9

14

Total

47

6

39

6

2

9

1

21

Total

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

83

04/11/2014 12:10:16

84

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

time, from Fabric E (originally introduced by KKW potters) to Fabric A (traditional local). Since both materials were easily obtained, the change must be viewed as conceptually, rather than organizationally, motivated. Discussion The detailed analysis of KKW reveals a series of fundamental differences between the new tradition and those of the local potters, especially those described as the ‘southern potters’ at Tel Bet Yerah. The complex chaîne opératoire of KKW, with its double-firing and intensive surface treatment, betrays a preoccupation with the surface appearance of the vessels that required a prescribed sequence of actions. These were rigorously followed, leading to a consistently high-quality finish clearly set off from local production. Despite the high degree of know-how invested in their production, KKW vessels show no standardization; the potters may even be said to have resisted standardization in their consistent rejection of the use of the potter’s wheel. Can these vessels therefore be considered the work of specialists? A telling piece of evidence is the presence of a large number of petrographic variants, which is suggestive of the activity of multiple potters, at least in the early phases of KKW production. Had we been dealing with a small number of specialists ‘invited’ to cater to local taste, we should have expected to see far more standardization and a consistent use of the same raw material. We must therefore distinguish between the issues of expertise, or know-how, which characterizes the dissemination of knowledge within the community of producers/consumers of KKW, and that of specialization, with its economic implications. Expertise was required to produce KKW pots, but it was the province of a community of potters and transmitted through a learning network fostered by kinship (Gosselain 1998). The most likely scenario is therefore the arrival of a sizable group of KKW producers and consumers who maintained their corporate and technological identity over a considerable length of time (Iserlis 2009; Iserlis et al. 2010). The gradual reduction in both the sheer quantity and variety of vessels on the one hand, and the variety of raw materials on the other, testify to the attenuation of the KKW tradition in the latter phases of Period D.

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 84

Cooking Pots (Figs. 3.23, 3.52) Cooking pots are largely of the ‘gray’ holemouth variety in Period D, continuing the trend observed in late Period C. Most interesting is the combed brown holemouth cooking pot (Fig. 3.52:2). The perfect horizontal and concentric combing seems to be unrelated to the typical pattern combing on both NCMW and local pottery of the period. Here, it was clearly intended to have a decorative effect. The necked pot with a flat base (Type CP3), as in Fig. 3.52:7, is a minor component in Period D. In Period E, however, necked pot rims are dominant (see Bet Yerah I: Fig. 5.98). Unfortunately, we have no evidence for the shape of the bases: flat bases would point to continuity with Period D, whereas round bases would indicate the reintroduction of the Syrian cooking-pot tradition, evidenced at many northern sites in the Intermediate Bronze Age (e.g., Qedesh—Tadmor 1978; ‘Enan— Eisenberg 1985). In terms of technique and material components (Table 3.10), the cooking pots are indistinguishable from those of the earlier periods.

0

5

Fig. 3.23. Period D, ‘gray’ cooking pot (= Fig. 3.52:5).

04/11/2014 12:10:16

85

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.10. Petrography of Period D Cooking Pots Reg. No.

Locus

Typology

1080-74

EY 522

611-33

Figure (Bet Yerah Vol. I)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

CP3b

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, limestone, basalt, and chert sand; shell

A

EY 123A

CP3b

Marly, foraminiferous silty soil

Sand of chalk, limestone, basalt, plagioclase; few shells and quartz and grains

A

1157-10

EY 549

CP3b

I: 8.91:10

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand; shell

A

1109-7

EY 534

CP3b

I: 8.101:4

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, quartz, and chert sand; shell fragmemts

A

611-32

EY 123A

CP3b

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, and limestone sand; shell, quartz, and iron oxide

A

1109-67

EY 534

CP3b

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, chalk, and quartz sand; shell

A

1109-6-8

EY 534

CP3b

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; rare shell and quartz

A

1149-15

EY 549

CP3b

I: 8.91:9

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; some shells and quartz grains

A

1099-15

EY 527

CP3b

I: 8.103:9

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; shell and quartz

A22

1065-9

EY 522

CP3b

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, plagioclase, limestone, and chert sand; quartz; rare shell

A

592-1

EY 113

CP3b

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil; brown

Sand of chalk, limestone, basalt, chert, and calcite; shell fragments

A

1080-24

EY 522

CP3b

I: 8.103:2

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, olivine, limestone, and chert sand; shell and quartz

A

1071-10

EY 522

CP3b

I: 8.103:1

Calcareous foraminiferous silty soil; brown

Poorly sorted chalk, basalt, limestone, and chert sand; shell fragments

A

583-7

EY 114

CP2

I: 8.105:6

Calcareous, foraminiferous, very silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, chalk, limestone, and chert sand; shell and some quartz grains

A

Local Tradition Pottery Continuity with change may be said to characterize the local non-cooking and non-KKW ceramic product. Vessels associated stylistically and petrographically with the southern workshop—which seems to have decamped from Area EY while maintaining its typical characteristics—remain dominant until the latter part

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 85

of Period D, when they are replaced by a variety of vessels that appear to herald the general breakdown of organized production. Typology (Figs. 3.24–3.28; 3.53–3.61) Small Type B1 bowls continue Period C forms, with the following changes: Flat- or disc-based wheelmade bowls, introduced in Period C, are now the most

04/11/2014 12:10:16

86

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

abundant (Fig. 3.53:1–11), followed by hemispherical wheel-made bowls (Figs. 3.24:a; 3.53:13–17)— some with pattern-burnish—and shallow flat-based handmade bowls, either rounded (Fig. 3.53:12) or straight-walled (Fig. 3.53:19). There are a number of rather crude carinated bowls (Figs. 3.24:b; 3.54:1–3), each different from the other. The two Period E bowls (Fig. 53:20, 21), both handmade, fall outside the local repertoire of forms. Type B2 lamps are abundant (Fig. 3.54:4–23), most being shallow, with a heavy base and a wall formed of a single added coil. Spout indentations are

a

b 0

4

Fig. 3.24. Period D, Type B1: (a) wheel-made bowl (= Fig. 3.53:16) and (b) carinated bowl (= Fig. 3.54:1).

0

either very faint or altogether absent. Some larger Type B1 bowls show use as lamps. The four-spouted lamp first conceived in Period C does not appear in Period D at all, but resurfaces in the completely handmolded lamps of Period E (Fig. 3.54:24, 25). The bases of the latter may be round or square in outline. Type B3 medium bowls with inverted rims (Fig. 3.55:1–9) are virtually indistinguishable from Period C vessels, except for their tendency to be decorated with a basket-like pattern burnish, in contrast to the radial burnish used in the earlier period. Late in Period D a new type of bowl is introduced, carinated with a band of rope decoration below the rim (Fig. 3.55:10). This type is one of the few carried over into Period E. Platters, Type B4, are the most diagnostic vessel for Period D. They fall into two main variants, a higheffort variant that continues and elaborates on Period C forms and techniques and a simpler wheel-formed platter. Figures 3.25, 3.56 and 3.57 illustrate the dramatic increase in size that characterizes mold-andcoil type platters with the onset of EB III, as well as the accompanying use of pattern burnish. The classic pattern burnish consists of the following elements: rather closely spaced diagonal burnish in the upper third of the interior, widely spaced radial burnish on the inner two-thirds, and spaced concentric circles emerging from the center (these are sometimes more dense near

6

Fig. 3.25. Period D, oversized platter (= Fig. 3.57:1).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 86

04/11/2014 12:10:17

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

the middle of the vessel). The whole forms an effect that simulates basketry, with the largest platters producing a visual counterpart to coiled mats. The simpler Period D platter is presented in Fig. 3.58:1–6. This ‘low effort’ variant has a large flat base, to which one or two coils were added on the wheel to form a shallow wall and rim; it is rarely slipped or burnished. Platters disappear in the transition to Period E. Type VK1–2 kraters are represented for the most part by fragments (e.g., Bet Yerah I: Figs. 5.83:9–12; 7.37:8, 9; 8.99:7, 8). The two vessels illustrated in Fig. 3.58:7, 8 appear to be late Period D types, one deep and one shallow, both furnished with ledge-handles (for parallels to the latter, see Genz 2002: Pl. 61:3). Among the jugs, flat-based Type JG1 (Figs. 3.26:a, b; 3.59:2–4) and JG3 (Figs. 3.26:c; 3.59:11–14) vessels continue earlier traditions. The painted

a

87

jug (Figs. 3.26:a; 3.59:2) is in the local decorative tradition, which is more common in amphoriskoi and jars (below). The unusually fine and delicate wheelfinished and swirl-burnished jug illustrated in Fig. 3.26:b (= Fig. 3.59:4) is of a markedly different quality than the local jugs; it could be an import, or, perhaps, a hybrid vessel that incorporates some qualities of KKW (the careful surface treatment and strap-handle). The single representative of the Type JG1 jug with lugs (Fig. 3.59:1) has the oversizing that is one of the hallmarks of EB III pottery, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, several jugs (Fig. 3.59:5–10) illustrate a class of diminutive, usually handmade vessels with pointed base that is another innovation of EB III (Amiran 1969: Pl. 20:18–20). Like the large jugs, most Type AM1 amphoriskoi (Figs. 3.26:d, e; 3.60:1–5) exhibit a strong continuity with Period C. The late Period D example, Fig. 3.26:e (= Fig. 3.60:5) is quite interesting, having as it does the proportions usually associated with Intermediate Bronze Age vessels of the type.

b

c

d

e 0

10

Fig. 3.26. Period D, Type JG1 (a = Fig. 3.59:2, b = Fig. 3.59:4) and JG3 (c = Fig. 3.59:12) jugs, and AM1 amphoriskoi (d = Fig. 3.60:1, e = Fig. 3.60:5).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 87

04/11/2014 12:10:18

88

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Just as in Period C, storage jars are the least standardized and most frequently decorated vessels in the local Period D assemblage. The variety in Period D, however, is somewhat greater than in the earlier period, suggesting that functions—in terms of both display and practical use—were more varied. Type SJ1 jars are divided between the larger, plain jars which appear to be local products that answer basic storage functions (Fig. 3.61:1, 2, 4) and the smaller burnished or decorated jars. These should probably be grouped with a variety of small and miniature Type SJ3 jars which belong to several different categories: Figure 3.60:7 presents a very fine jar with punched-in wall that appears to be an NCMW survival. Figure 3.60:9 is one of those heavy ‘southern potter’ products that may be an heirloom from Period C. The vessels in Fig. 3.60:6, 10 (= Fig. 3.27) are decorated small and miniature jars/ amphoriskoi; the latter appears almost to be a model jar (cf. the Period C jar in Fig. 46:13). Figure 3.60:8, 11 illustrates late Period D jars/amphoriskoi with ledge handles. Figure 3.61:3 shows a small jar from Period E. Although having the general form of Early Bronze Age prototypes, the separately made neck and rope impression around the middle betray a radical technological break with the previous periods. Pithoi enjoy a revival in Period D. Alongside the imported NCMW pithos (Figs. 3.28, 3.61:8), continuing from Period C, there are locally made widemouthed pithoi with lugs beneath the rim (Fig. 3.61:5, 7). This is a popular type throughout Canaan in EB III (Amiran 1969: Photograph 63, Pl. 18:10), with the lugs representing the original pierced lugs or small handles used to secure a cover to the broad mouth of the vessel (compare Fig. 3.46:13). Figure 3.61:6 is the first

Technique The changes in ceramic technique in the transition to Period D are more in degree than in kind. Wheelshaping of small bowls, already established in Period C, becomes more common in Period D. The remarkable increase in average platter size required some modification of the formation technique: the use of coarser, less plastic clay (hence the thick walls), less attention to the vessel exterior (both because it was less visible and because the great increase in surface size implied a commensurate reduction in surface treatment), and the transition from fairly dense radial burnish to a stylized, basket-like pattern-burnish (this burnish also turns up in the larger inverted-rim bowls). Wheel-marks are prominent on the large platters. Petrography The fact that nearly all the Period D samples (Table 3.11) hail from Area EY is significant, as we lack a comparative perspective from other parts of the site. This said, the Period D pottery from the southern

b

a 0

5

Fig. 3.27. Period D, decorated jug/amphoriskos (a = Fig. 3.60:6) and small jar (b = Fig. 3.60:10).

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 88

virtually complete ‘corrugated-rim’ pithos with grainwash decoration to be published from a Jordan Valley site. The type has been described by Genz (2000; 2002) and Paz (2002).

0

10

Fig. 3.28. Period D, NCMW Type P2 pithos (= Fig. 3.61:8).

04/11/2014 12:10:19

89

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

Table 3.11. Petrography of Local Tradition Vessels, Periods D–E Reg. No.

Locus

Type

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

1227-2

EY 127

B4

I: 8.93:5

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

1228-2

EY 522

B3

I: 8.90:4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, and chert; some quartz and olivine crystals

C + coarse temper

607-2

EY 112

B3

I: 8.106:2 II: 3.55:1

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and some quartz crystals, iron oxide and olivine crystals

C + coarse temper

712-4

EY 142

B1

I: 8.94:2

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

1307-3

EY 568

B3

I: 8.98:3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Limestone sand; some basalt, chalk, and chert grains

C6

642-1

EY 133

Bowl

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

4029-8

EY 410

B1

I: 8.106:1 II: 3.54:2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

4077-2

EY 435

B3

I: 8.87:4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

4081-9

EY 432

B3

I: 8.90:5

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

504-13

EY 115

Bowl

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

593-11

EY 114

B1

I: 8.105:1 II: 3.53:13

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

604-13 (1)

EY 115

B1

I: 8.100:1 II: 3.53:2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

673

EY 142

B2

I: 8.94:3 II: 3.54:19

Marly, foraminiferous, green-grayish

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

1133-1

EY 539

B2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

1194-1

EY 562

B2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Grog fragments; soil balls sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, and quartz

C3-5

676-1

EY 152

B2

Ferruginous, very silty, reddish-brown

Mainly quartz sand; plagioclase opaque and nari grains

G

1080

EY 522

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

650-1

EY 133

B4

I: 8.96:8

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

655-2

EY 131

B4

I: 8.96:9

Marly, foraminiferous, optically inactive, grayish-green

Chalk, limestone, basalt, and chert; few calcite and quartz grains

C

655-3

EY 131

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and some quartz crystals

C + coarse temper

642-16

EY 133

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, rarely calcite and quartz

C

4029-1

EY 410

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, grayish-green

Sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

4034-2

EY 413

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Crushed basalt; chalk and limestone sand; some chert grains

C4

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 89

I: 8.94:1 II: 3.54:4

I: 8.88:7

04/11/2014 12:10:20

90

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

Table 3.11. (cont.) Reg. No.

Locus

Type

618-1

EY 130

4041-4

Matrix

Inclusions

Group

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and some quartz crystals

C + coarse temper

EY 418

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded chalk, limestone, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

622-5

EY 132

B4

I: 8.96:6

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and quartz; olivine and iron oxide

C + coarse temper

4064-6

EY 427

B4

I: 8.88:5

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Crushed basalt; chalk and limestone sand; some chert grains

C4

40684(1)

EY 427

B4

I: 8.88:3 II: 3.56:3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite and quartz

C

4068-4(2)

EY 427

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Crushed basalt; chalk and limestone sand; some chert grains

C4

624-6

EY 127

B4

I: 8.93:7 II: 3.56:7

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, chert, and quartz

C

4073-2

EY 413

B4

I: 8.88:6

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted basalt, limestone, chert, and chalk sand; some shells; iron oxide

A

4077-1

EY 435

B4

I: 8.87:5

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, some calcite, chert, and quartz

C

635-19

EY 133

B4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, and quartz

C

1076-20

EY 522

JG1

I: 8.103:4

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded chalk, limestone, basalt, plagioclase, and quartz

C

4065-1

EY 427

JG1

I: 8.89:3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, some chert, calcite, and quartz

C

1109-12

EY 534

JG1

I: 8.101:6

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, rarely calcite, chert, and quartz

C

4064 (7)

EY 427

JG1

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Limestone sand; some basalt, chalk, and chert grains

C6

1063-5

EY 521

JG3

I: 8.106:7

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, and chert; few calcite and quartz

C

1080-21

EY 522

JG3

I: 8.103:3

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

1191-28

EY 556

JG3

I: 8.99:9 II: 3.59:13

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Rounded chalk, limestone, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

1104-7

EY 533

SJ3

I: 8.101:5 II: 3.60:11

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, chert, and some quartz crystals

C + coarse temper

708-18

EY 152

SJ1/2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Poorly sorted coarse sand of limestone, chalk, basalt, and chert; some rounded olivine and quartz crystals

C + coarse temper

698-18

EY 152

SJ1

I: 8.94:10

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of rounded limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, and quartz

C

699-7

EY 152

SJ1

I: 8.94:11

Calcareous, foraminiferous, silty soil, brown

Poorly sorted chalk, limestone, chert, basalt, and quartz sand; rare shells

A

4064 (12)

EY 427

SJ1/2

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Chalk, limestone, chalk, basalt, calcite, quartz, and plagioclase

C

583-8

EY 114

SJ2

I: 8.105:7

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of chalk, limestone, basalt, some chert, plagioclase, calcite, and quartz

C

1089-13

EY 527

P2

I: 8.103:6

Marly, foraminiferous, green

Sand of chalk, limestone, basalt, chert, calcite, and quartz

C

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 90

Figure (Bet Yerah Vols. I, II)

04/11/2014 12:10:20

91

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

part of the mound shows a considerable degree of continuity with Period C. The exceptions (e.g., the lamp composed of Fabric G sand) are too few to judge their significance.

General Discussion The implicate relations of pottery with other aspects of life at Tel Bet Yerah allow us to draw social and cultural inferences from observations on pottery technique, typology, and distribution (Table 3.12). By ‘implicate relations’ (Portugali 1993), we mean that the various

decisions, choices, and deeds associated with pottery production and distribution are part of the reproduction of social and cultural life as a whole; the dispositions and expectations of the potters and consumers are generally in harmony with the ideas and behaviors that govern other realms of human activity. Each is implied by the other. A special advantage of the detailed analysis offered in this chapter is our ability to see some of the individuals involved in the process of the production of social values. The ‘southern potter’—comprising both the individual who left us unfired fragments

Table 3.12. Distribution of Functional Types in the Early Bronze Age Ceramic Industries at Tel Bet Yerah Type

Period B

Period C, NCMW

Period C, Southern Potter

Period D, KKW

Period D, Local Potter

Period E

B1

+

+

+

+ (R)

+

-

B2

+

-

+

-

+

+

B3

+

+

+

+ (R)

+

+

B4

+ (RPW)

+

+

+ (R)

+

-

B5

+

-

+

+ (RB)

-

+

VK1

+ (GW)

-

+

-

+

-

VK2

-

(+)

+

+ (RB)

+

-

VK3

-

-

-

+ (RB)

-

-

JG1

(+) (RPW)

+

+

-

+

-

JG2

-

+

+

-

+

-

JG3

-

(+)

-

-

+

-

JG4

+ (RPW)

-

+

(+) (R)

+

-

AM1

+ (RPW)

-

+

-

+

-

AM2

+ (RPW)

+

-

-

-

-

SJ1

+

+

+

-

+

+

SJ2

+ (GW)

-

+

-

+

-

SJ3

-

-

+

-

+

-

SJ4

+ (GW)

-

-

-

-

-

P1

+ (GW)

-

-

-

-

-

P2

-

+

-

-

-

-

P3

-

-

-

-

+

-

V1 (stand)

-

-

-

+ (R)

-

-

V2 (lid)

-

-

-

+ (C)

-

-

V3 (andiron)

-

-

-

+ (C)

-

-

Type

Period B

Period C–D Brown (Golan)

Local

CP1

+

-

-

CP2

-

-

+

CP3

-

+

+

(+) = Rare; C = Coarse ware; GW = Grain-wash; R = Red; RB = Red/black; RPW = Red polished ware

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 91

04/11/2014 12:10:20

92

Raphael Greenberg and Mark Iserlis

from his/her workshop and abandoned his/her tournette in late Period C, and the group (presumably a family of specialists) that maintained the integrity of its tradition over time—lends the process of urban socialization at Bet Yerah a more concrete and human form. The individuation evident in each KKW pot bridges the gap between a strong ceramic convention introduced by migrants and its specific embodiment by knowledgeable craftspeople. In Early Bronze I, the transition from the earlier (EB IA) to the later (EB IB) subphase is marked—in the southern Levant as a whole—by increased sedentism, more formalized architecture, and the beginnings of political and religious centralization. In ceramic terms, the onset of the period exhibits a rather dramatic increase in specialization, reflected in both technical know-how (reintroduction of the tournette, symmetry, consistent firing) and in the careful matching of raw material and end-product. This implies the development of consumer appreciation for well-made products, an appreciation that would have rewarded the specialist with some form of social and symbolic capital. The fact that, at least at Tel Bet Yerah, similar pots could be made at different locations, with slightly different materials, suggests that the values associated with ceramic products were attributed to the individual makers, rather than to the geographic locus of production. This was about to change in the following period. The standardization of the production sequence in Period C seems to reflect a movement away from individuation, or at least from the overt expression of individuation. The more streamlined industry, in which knowledge was distributed unequally (that is, a hierarchy of know-how among those who operated the workshop), represents values of the southern quarter insofar as it is a local industry, and values of a much broader cultural milieu insofar as it reproduces forms and technical details of, for example, the NCMW industry. Our potters appear to be bound to firm, broadly shared craft traditions, as well as to a specific geographic place. In this manner, they are absorbed into the emergent ideology of the walled communities that

Bet-Yerah-II-chap-3.indd 92

appears to extend from the northern part of the southern Levant to ‘Arad and the Negev. They are becoming citizens of the town, while sharing in a broader cultural norm that finds expression in the drab, utilitarian aspect of the ceramic industry of the period as a whole. In Period D (EB III), the local manufacturers continue to operate as if according to previous, wellestablished values, using the same raw materials, the same techniques, and the same sequence of production. However, a number of changes—more subtle in the southern quarter, more pronounced near the acropolis—serve to underline material differences in the community (wealth, status). This is achieved mainly by increasing the size of serving and presentation vessels, and to some extent by introducing more variety into decoration schemes (burnish and paint). Khirbet Kerak Ware was at first, perhaps, only a corollary to the influx of people of foreign origin into the city, maintaining an independent universe of production and consumption. As time wore on, the ware may well have been incorporated into the new, statussensitive relations of production and consumption that characterized EB III. One way that such incorporation might have been expressed would have been the reduction in the number of expert potters involved in its production. The evidence on this point is far from conclusive, but there is a clear reduction in the effort expended in obtaining raw materials for KKW—a step in the direction of economic specialization. Tel Bet Yerah offers a unique case in the southern Levant where the urban collapse of the final Early Bronze is actually played out on site. The final Early Bronze phase (Period E), represented by the cluster of houses huddled beneath the southeastern fortifications, provides ceramic evidence for the reorganization of entire field of ceramic production and consumption. The values of EB III, whether those expressed in the local industry or those of “the KKW people,” are now completely inoperative. One might characterize the Period E ceramic industry as being in a state akin to post-trauma—individual semi-skilled potters faring as best they can, with no identifiable commitment or affiliation to a broader social or cultural setting.

04/11/2014 12:10:20

Chapter 3: the Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries

A ddendum Technical Description of Fabrics (Table 3.13) The following description follows standard charts for estimating percentage composition of thin sections (Bullock et al. 1985). Color and orientation patterns of the matrix were identified and described according to Bullock et al. (1985). The minerals in the silt and the temper were identified and their frequency, sorting, shape, and roundness were described with the aid of visual charts (FitzPatrick 1980; Bullock et al. 1985). Grain sizes for inclusions denote the variation in maximum sizes between different samples of the same fabric. Fabric A—Rendzina Soil of Valleys The clay is gray to brown in plane polarized light (PPL), brown to dark brown in crossed polarized light (XPL). This fabric is characterized by a silty, foraminiferous, calcareous matrix and badly sorted mixed silt. The silty component contains chalk, basalt, limestone, calcite, quartz, oxides, plagioclase, olivine, and chert. The silt comprises 3–