Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley during Iron Age II 9781407306100, 9781407335612

Citation preview

BAR S2033 2009 PETIT

Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley during Iron Age II Lucas Pieter Petit

SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS IN THE MIDDLE JORDAN VALLEY

B A R

BAR International Series 2033 2009

Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley during Iron Age II Lucas Pieter Petit

BAR International Series 2033 2009

ISBN 9781407306100 paperback ISBN 9781407335612 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306100 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

The research was made financially possible by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

The Southern Levant and the research area

Contents List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................vii Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................. ix PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. Project Information ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Research context ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Iron II settlement study in the Middle Jordan Valley ..................................................................... 2 Chapter 2. Natural Setting ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Living in the Middle Jordan Valley ................................................................................................ 9 2.2. Geology and geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 9 2.3. Water resources ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.4. Climate fluctuations ...................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3. Settling, Survival and Abandonment............................................................................................. 13 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2. Settling strategies and archaeological identification ..................................................................... 13 3.3. Strategies to cope with dry environments and archaeological identification ................................ 15 3.4. Abandonment strategies and archaeological identification ........................................................... 16 Chapter 4. Chronology.................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1. The Chronology Debate and the project Settling the Steppe......................................................... 21 4.2. Refining the chronology ................................................................................................................ 22 4.3. A refined occupation history of Tell Deir ‘Allā ............................................................................ 24 Chapter 5. Tell Deir ‘Allā ............................................................................................................................... 25 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 25 5.2. Identification of Tell Deir ‘Allā .................................................................................................... 25 5.3. Excavation history......................................................................................................................... 25 5.4. Stratigraphy and associated material culture ................................................................................. 26 PART TWO: TELL EXCAVATIONS IN THE MIDDLE JORDAN VALLEY Chapter 6. Tell ‘Ammata ................................................................................................................................ 33 6.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 33 6.2. Stratigraphy and associated material culture - Late Bronze Age .................................................. 33 6.3. Stratigraphy and associated material culture - Iron Age and earlier phases .................................. 38 Chapter 7. Tell al-‘Adliyyeh ........................................................................................................................... 65 7.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 65 7.2. Stratigraphy and associated material culture ................................................................................. 65 Chapter 8. Tell Dāmiyah............................................................................................................................... 103 8.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 103 8.2. Stratigraphy and associated material culture ............................................................................... 103 PART THREE: TELL SURVEYS IN THE MIDDLE JORDAN VALLEY Chapter 9. Previous Archaeological Surveys in the Middle Jordan Valley .................................................. 155 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 155 9.2 H. Thiersch and G. Holscher (April–August 1903) .................................................................... 155 9.3 William Foxwell Albright (1923–1925)...................................................................................... 155 9.4 Nelson Glueck (December, 1942) ............................................................................................... 155 9.5 James Mellaart (January–March 1953) ....................................................................................... 157 9.6 Henri de Contenson (January–March 1953)................................................................................ 157 i

9.7 Diana Kirkbride (March, 1960) ................................................................................................... 157 9.8 East Jordan Valley Survey (1975–1976) ..................................................................................... 157 9.9 Gordon and Villiers (1980 and 1982).......................................................................................... 159 9.10 Eveline van der Steen (1994) ...................................................................................................... 159 Chapter 10. Site-Oriented Survey ................................................................................................................... 161 10.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 161 10.2. Iron Age sites .............................................................................................................................. 161 PART FOUR: IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS IN ADJACENT TERRITORIES Chapter 11. Iron Age Settlements in the Western Hill Countries ................................................................... 193 11.1. Samaria........................................................................................................................................ 193 11.2. Judah ........................................................................................................................................... 195 Chapter 12. Iron Age Settlements in the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys ............................................................. 197 12.1. Jezreel Valley .............................................................................................................................. 197 12.2. Jordan Valley .............................................................................................................................. 199 Chapter 13. Iron Age Settlements in the Eastern Hill Countries .................................................................... 205 13.1. Gilead .......................................................................................................................................... 205 13.2. Ammon........................................................................................................................................ 205 13.3. Moab ........................................................................................................................................... 208 PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Chapter 14. Damage Assessment.................................................................................................................... 213 14.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 213 14.2. Settlement mounds in the Middle Jordan Valley ........................................................................ 213 14.3. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................. 220 Chapter 15. The Archaeology of a Dynamic Landscape ............................................................................... 221 15.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 221 15.2. Synchronization of Iron II settlements in the Middle Jordan Valley........................................... 221 15.3. Iron II settlement cycles in the Middle Jordan Valley................................................................. 221 15.4. Settlement dynamics ................................................................................................................... 228 15.5. Concluding comments ................................................................................................................. 229 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 231 Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................... 241 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................... 242

ii

List of Figures Fig. 1.1. Fig. 1.2. Fig. 1.3. Fig. 1.4. Fig. 1.5. Fig. 1.6. Fig. 1.7. Fig. 1.8. Fig. 1.9. Fig. 1.10. Fig. 1.11. Fig. 1.12. Fig. 1.13. Fig. 1.14. Fig. 1.15. Fig. 2.1. Fig. 2.2. Fig. 2.3. Fig. 2.4. Fig. 3.1. Fig. 3.2. Fig. 3.3. Fig. 3.4. Fig. 3.5. Fig. 4.1. Fig. 5.1. Fig. 5.2. Fig. 6.1. Fig. 6.2. Fig. 6.3. Fig. 6.4. Fig. 6.5. Fig. 6.6. Fig. 6.7. Fig. 6.8. Fig. 6.9. Fig. 6.10. Fig. 6.11. Fig. 6.12. Fig. 6.13. Fig. 6.14. Fig. 6.15. Fig. 6.16. Fig. 6.17. Fig. 6.18. Fig. 6.19. Fig. 6.20. Fig. 6.21. Fig. 6.22. Fig. 6.23.

Different sub-projects working in the Middle Jordan Valley Middle Jordan Valley near al-Rweihah, looking east Middle Jordan Valley, looking east Middle Jordan Valley, looking south-west Tells in the research area mentioned in this volume Jeroen Rensen, floating sediments Nabil Qadi at Tell al-‘Adliyyeh in 2004 Schematic survey grid Locus sheet Excavation team - Tell al-‘Adliyyeh 2004 Excavation team - Tell Dāmiyah 2004 Excavation team - Tell ‘Ammata 2005 Excavation team - Tell al-‘Adliyyeh 2006 Excavation team - Tell Dāmiyah 2005 Excavation team - Tell ‘Ammata 2006 Village of ’Abu Zīghān, looking north Village of Deir ‘Allā, looking south-west Rain in Deir ‘Allā Station for Archaeological Studies, October 2006 High resolution Dead Sea level curve for the time between 1200 and 400 BC Tell al-‘Adliyyeh, east profile of unit II - restoration Tell Dāmiyah, south and west profile of unit V - levelling Tell Dāmiyah, western profile of unit IV - black line marks an older tell surface Tell al-‘Adliyyeh, eastern profile of units I and II - black line marks the tell surface Tell 'Ammata, west profile of unit V - ancient gully Chronology of Tell Deir ‘Allā Tell Deir ‘Allā, looking north-west Preliminary phasing of Tell Deir ‘Allā Map of Tell ‘Ammata, showing excavation units Sections along north, east and south balks in units I and II Sections along east, south and west balks of units III and IV Sections along south, west and north balks of unit V Tell ‘Ammata, looking north-east Phase D, view to north - unit V Western section - unit V Plan of phase C - unit V Plan of phase D - unit V Detail of western profile - unit V Plan of phase 17 - units III and IV Phase 17, view to south - unit III Plan of phase 15 - units I and II Plan of phase 15 - units III and IV Phase 15, view to east - unit I Plan of phase 14 - units I and II Phase 14 - unit I Plan of phase 13 - units III and IV Phase 13, view to north - unit IV Plan of phase 9 - units III and IV Phase 9, view to west - unit III Plan of phase 8 - units III and IV Phase 8, view to south - unit III iii

Fig. 6.24. Fig. 6.25. Fig. 6.26. Fig. 6.27. Fig. 6.28. Fig. 6.29. Fig. 6.30. Figs. 6.31-36. Figs. 6.37-38. Fig. 7.1. Fig. 7.2. Fig. 7.3. Fig. 7.4. Fig. 7.5. Fig. 7.6. Fig. 7.7. Fig. 7.8. Fig. 7.9. Fig. 7.10. Fig. 7.11. Fig. 7.12. Fig. 7.13. Fig. 7.14. Fig. 7.15. Fig. 7.16. Fig. 7.17. Fig. 7.18. Fig. 7.19. Fig. 7.20. Fig. 7.21. Fig. 7.22. Fig. 7.23. Fig. 7.24. Fig. 7.25. Fig. 7.26. Fig. 7.27. Fig. 7.28. Fig. 7.29. Fig. 7.30. Fig. 7.31. Fig. 7.32. Fig. 7.33. Fig. 7.34. Figs. 7.35-41. Figs. 7.42-45. Fig. 8.1. Fig. 8.2. Fig. 8.3. Fig. 8.4. Fig. 8.5. Fig. 8.6. Fig. 8.7. Fig. 8.8. Fig. 8.9.

Phase 4, looking south - unit II Plan of phase 4 - units I and II Phase 3, lime-plastered floor - unit I Plan of phase 3 - units I and II Plan of phase 2 - units I and II Plan of phase 1 - units I and II Phase 5 and 1, looking south - unit II Pottery Finds Map of Tell al-‘Adliyyeh, showing units of excavations Section along east side of the bulldozer cut Sections along east balks of units I, II and III Sections along north and east balks of units IV and V Sections along north and west balks of unit VI Tell al-‘Adliyyeh, looking west Tell al-‘Adliyyeh, looking south-east Plan of phase 1 - units IV and V Phase 1 and 2, looking east - unit V Plan of phase 2 - units IV and V Phase 3, looking north - unit V Plan of phase 3 - units I, II and III Plan of phase 3 - units IV and V Plan of phase 5 - units IV and V Plan of phase 7 - units IV and V Plan of phase 7 - unit VI Plan of phase 8 - units IV and V Plan of phase 9 - units IV and V Plan of phase 9 - units I, II and III Phase 9, looking south - unit I Phase 9, looking north - unit VI Plan of phase 9 - unit VI Plan of phase 10 - units IV and V Phase 10, looking west - unit IV Plan of phase 10 - units I, II and III Phase 11, north section - unit IV Plan of phase 13 - units IV and V Plan of phase 14 - units IV and V Plan of phase 14 - units I, II and III Plan of phase 15 - units IV and V Phase 15, looking north-west - unit V Plan of phase 16 - units IV and V Plan of phase 17 - units I, II and III Plan of phase 18 - units I, II and III Pottery Finds Map of Tell Dāmiyah, showing units of excavations Sections along north and west balks of units I, II and III Sections along north and west balks of units V and VI Sections along north, east and west balks of unit IV Tell Dāmiyah, looking east Excavation work at Tell Dāmiyah Plan of phase 21 Plan of phase 19 Plan of phase 18

iv

Fig. 8.10. Fig. 8.11. Fig. 8.12. Fig. 8.13. Fig. 8.14. Fig. 8.15. Fig. 8.16. Fig. 8.17. Fig. 8.18. Fig. 8.19. Fig. 8.20. Fig. 8.21. Fig. 8.22. Fig. 8.23. Fig. 8.24. Fig. 8.25. Fig. 8.26. Fig. 8.27. Fig. 8.28. Figs. 8.29-36. Figs. 8.37-41. Fig. 10.1. Fig. 10.2. Fig. 10.3. Fig. 10.4. Fig. 10.5. Fig. 10.6. Fig. 10.7. Fig. 10.8. Fig. 10.9. Fig. 10.10. Fig. 10.11. Fig. 10.12. Figs. 10.13-18. Fig. 11.1. Fig. 11.2. Fig. 12.1. Fig. 12.2. Fig. 13.1. Fig. 13.2. Fig. 14.1. Fig. 14.2. Fig. 14.3. Fig. 14.4. Fig. 14.5. Fig. 14.6. Fig. 14.7. Fig. 14.8. Fig. 14.9. Fig. 14.10. Fig. 14.11. Fig. 14.12. Fig. 14.13. Fig. 14.14.

Phase 18, looking south - unit VI Plan of phase 17 Phase 16, looking south - unit VI Plan of phase 16 Plan of phase 15 Plan of phase 13 Phase 13, jar V-33-879 - unit V Plan of phase 12 Plan of phase 11 Plan of phase 9 Phase 9, looking west - unit III Phase 9, looking south - unit II Phase 9, looking south - unit V Plan of phase 8 Phase 8 - unit I Map of phase 6 Phase 6, looking west - unit II Phase 2 - unit II Plan of phase 2 Pottery Finds Tell al-Qōs West and East Tell 'Ammata Tell al-Kharābeh North and South Tell al-Ghazāleh Tell al-Mazār Tell al-‘Adliyyeh Tell al-Qa‘dān North Tell al-Khsās Tell al-Hammeh East Tell Katāret es-Samra’ I Tell Dāmiyah Synchronic table of surveyed tells in the Middle Jordan Valley Surface pottery Map of Iron Age settlements in the western hill countries Synchronic table of Iron Age settlements in the western hill countries Map of Iron Age settlements in the valleys Synchronic table of Iron Age settlements in the valleys Map of Iron Age settlements in the eastern hill countries Synchronic table of Iron Age settlements in the eastern hill countries Tell al-Qōs West - military structures and bulldozer trenches on the summit Tell al-Qōs East - military trenches Tell al-Qōs Tell 'Ammata Khirbet Buweib Tell 'Ammata - bulldozer cut in western slope Tell al-Kharābeh - bulldozer cut and fence Levelling activities south of Tell al-Kharābeh Tell al-Kharābeh Tell al-Ghazāleh Tell al-Mazār - looting holes Tell al-‘Adliyyeh Tell al-Qa‘dān North Tell al-Qa‘dān North - looting holes

v

Fig. 14.15. Fig. 14.16. Fig. 14.17. Fig. 14.18. Fig. 14.19. Fig. 14.20. Fig. 14.21. Fig. 14.22. Fig. 14.23. Fig. 14.24. Fig. 14.25. Fig. 14.26. Fig. 14.27. Fig. 15.1.

Tell al-Qa‘dān South - bulldozer cut on southern slope Tell al-Qa‘dān South Tell al-Fukhār Tell al-Khsās Tell al-Hammeh East Tell al-Mīdan/Shuba’ Tell al-‘Arqadat Tell al-‘Arqadat - bulldozer cut on the western side Tell al-Bashīr Tell Zakarī Tell Katāret al-Samrā‘ Tell ’Umm Hammād East Tell Dāmiyah Synchronic table of excavated sites in the Middle Jordan Valley

vi

List of Tables Table 1.1. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 9.1. Table 9.2. Table 9.3. Table 9.4. Table 9.5. Table 9.6. Table 9.7. Table 9.8. Table 10.1. Table 10.2. Table 10.3. Table 10.4. Table 10.5. Table 10.6. Table 10.7. Table 10.8. Table 10.9. Table 10.10. Table 10.11. Table 10.12. Table 10.13.

Pottery terminology Archaeological periodisation used in this publication Selection of archaeological and textual information about Iron Age earthquakes Survey results of Thiersch and Hölscher Survey results of Albright Survey results of Glueck Survey results of Mellaart Survey results of de Contenson Survey results of Kirkbride Survey results of the EJVS Survey results of van der Steen Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Qōs West Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell ‘Ammata Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Kharābeh North Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Kharābeh South Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Ghazāleh Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Mazār Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-‘Adliyyeh Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Qa‘dān North Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Khsās Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell al-Hammeh East Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell Zakari Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell Katāret al-Samrā‘ Artefact distribution area and percentage of pottery sherds at Tell Dāmiyah

vii

viii

Foreword “The ground over which we rode was a bluish clay. It was full of fissures caused by excessive drought; and as the horse’s hoofs fell upon it, it rang with a sharp metallic sound.” Stewart 1857, 378 From the roof of the Deir ‘Allā Station for Archaeological Studies, situated more than 200 meters below sea level, the view over the lush green irrigated fields is beautiful. When the sun drops behind the rim of the western hills and the singing of the bulbuls in the courtyard is most active, the spectator feels obliged to imagine the days of the archaeological pioneers and travellers in the 19th century. Steward's narratives, among others, is such a lively account. His geographic, climatic and demographic description of the Middle Jordan Valley is, however, surprisingly different compared to the view from the roof today. The valley was 150 years ago a big oven with nothing in it: no water, no vegetation and no sedentary occupation. Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley during Iron II documents the search for settlement and abandonment processes in a highly vulnerable, but attractive, valley that was squeezed between the rising hills of Cis- and Transjordan. Throughout history this area changed in perception from a barrier to a demographic centre and back again. Especially during the epoch of our interest - 1000 and 539 BC - the Middle Jordan Valley was a dynamic area in which many considerable population movements took place. By using newly-gathered excavation and survey data, different mechanism and motives of settling, surviving and abandoning will be illuminated in this volume with the ultimate goal to reach a regional synthesis.

To our deep regret we learned that Nabil Qadi had passed away in December 2007. He was actively involved in the project since it’s beginning as representative of the Yarmouk University and field archaeologist. He is to be remembered as one of the most talented and experienced archaeologists of Jordan and showed us a profound interest and dedication in the archaeology of Jordan, even during his last few years in which he was already ill. By constantly emphasising the value of education and the supply of information Nabil Qadi had positively influenced students and the author of this volume.

ix

Acknowledgements The Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) has generously supported the project Settling the Steppe. The Yarmouk University, the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the University of Leiden were the executing institutes. The deans of the faculties at both Universities, Prof. Dr. Ziad al-Saad, Prof. Dr. Maarten Janssen and Prof. Dr. Willem Willems, are to be thanked for all their help and advises. Grateful thanks are due to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, its Director, Dr. Fawwaz al-Khraysheh, and involved staff-members for permitting and assisting the team to work in the Middle Jordan Valley. All representatives during the infield seasons and not in the last place the inspector of this part of the Jordan Valley, Mr. Hussein al-Jarrah and his colleagues have productively and constructively paved the roads on the way to this final result. During the fieldwork, we received enormous hospitality and kindness from the inhabitants of the Middle Jordan Valley. This work is dedicated to them and to their ancestors, who produced the basis of this study. The expedition used the facilities of the Deir ‘Allā Station for Archaeological Studies, which was made available by the Yarmouk University, the Department of Antiquities and the University of Leiden. In the village of Deir ‘Allā several persons have delighted our stay. Many thanks to 'Umm Salem and Fatma for serving delicious meals and ‘Ahmed Jude for bridging the gap between the village members and the team, as well as for being an effective keeper of the Deir ‘Allā Station as a dighouse facility. Assistance and co-operation were offered by the administrative councils of the Deir ‘Allā district and invaluable liaison were provided by the police and the Jordanian military. I would thank all team members that had participated in the project and devotedly collected the often minuscule remains of ancient habitations: Luc Amkreutz, Fardoos Yahya Bardaghawi, Muafaq Batainah, Mahmoud Batainah, Jitske Blom, Laura Crowley, Mariette Driessen, Loes Dumas, Niels Groot, Carmen Harmsen, Wafa Ali Abu al-Hassan, Ingrid Heijen, Mohammad Jeradat, Tammam Khasawneh, Annelies Koopman, Najd Mazahreh, Floris van Oosterhout, Lizzy Polman, Nabil Qadi, Samya Yousef Ahmad abd al-Rahman, Mohammed Jamil Rawashda, Hugo de Reede, Jeroen Rensen, Jacqueline Ruland, Jonathan Sela, Marjolein Verschuur, Michel de Vreeze, Max van der Wiel, Thomas Wolter, Fouad Hourani, Ellis Grootveld, Eva Kaptijn and Arne Wossink. What would the team of the project have done without the help and assistance of the housekeepers Loes Dumas and Mariette Driessen? They were the backbone of the field seasons and had succeeded in taking major logistic weights of our shoulders. I enjoyed furthermore the time with Hugo de Reede, who drew the objects in the infield season of 2004. Other illustrations were based on drawings of Michel de Vreeze and the author. I am grateful to Ingo Froeschmann for carefully reading and commenting on the first draft. Nevertheless, I am still responsible for discrepancies and failures in the text. One person should be mentioned in particular. Dr. Gerrit van der Kooij opened my eyes to stratigraphic digging, guided intensively all stages of my education and training and provided useful criticism on this manuscript. I wish to thank him for his enthusiasm and expertise in the archaeology of the Middle East, which he had tried to pass on from early mornings to late at night. My partner Sabine Fay has encouraged and inspired me, and tolerated several years the 'tickling' sound of pottery sherds on my working table.

x

PART ONE INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1. Project Information conditions (the landscape is considered as a complex palimpsest as the result of physical, biological and human activities in the past) and excavations of smaller hamlets and sites in the landscape (diachronic and synchronic relationships between settlements).

1.1 Research context Introduction to the project In archaeology, geology and sociology habitation in drylands has received significant attention (e.g. Akkermans 1993; Finkelstein 1995a; Barker and Gilbertson 2000; van der Leeuw and Redman 2002; Wilkinson 2003). The complex relationship that exists between individuals, communities, institutes and the marginal landscape is realised (Kaptijn et al. 2005, 89), but this complexity seems not fully appreciated in archaeology and a systematic approach is missing (Barker and Gilbertson 2000, 15). Since prehistoric times people try to survive in arid and semi-arid zones by introducing new farming strategies, intensifying labour and improving water management systems. The ability to be innovative and adaptive is of vital importance for inhabitants, but forms a problem for researchers when using predictive and standardised models. The project "Settling the Steppe: the archaeology of changing societies in Syro-Palestinian drylands in the Bronze and Iron Ages" aims at producing a series of decisions, thoughts and practices that can be expected among inhabitants in 'ancient' drylands. It will try to give a better insight into how and with what reasons people settled in an (semi-) arid region and by what means they were able to sustain a living. Two sites that have been extensively excavated in the past were chosen as geographical and methodological centres, namely Tell Hammam alTurkman in the northern Jezireh (Syria), and Tell Deir ‘Allā in the Middle Jordan Valley (Jordan). Both are situated in a steppe zone with an annual precipitation that is usually not sufficient for rain fed agriculture (Kaptijn et al. 2005, 89; Kaptijn 2009; Wossink 2009). The project in the Middle Jordan Valley1 (Fig. 1.1) includes an intensive and systematic survey (to find even the smallest archaeological concentration in the landscape), research at the geographical, geomorphologic and vegetation

Dryland, steppe and marginality Before continuing this introduction, it seems necessary to shed light on the variety of terms associated with drylands. Drylands and steppe are commonly called marginal areas; so commonly that archaeologists rarely take time to consider their meaning and see "whether they have any underlying basis as a concept at all" (Coles and Mills 1998, vii). Often explained in terms of the scarcity or absence of certain critical resources necessary for the group’s survival in a particular moment, the term marginality should not be seen as a label for a landscape. Certain landscapes are not inherently marginal. Marginality is a very subjective term and gets it’s meaning by the way in which a landscape is both perceived and exploited. Studies, like "Living on the fringe" (Finkelstein 1995a), deal with people, groups or entities that have, for whatever reason, migrated to the margins of a particular society. Scientists have extreme difficulty to understand the motives behind these migration processes. Whether this difficulty is caused by a modern fixation on good and bad, optimal versus nonoptimal, is hard to say. It certainly has much to do with the limitation of what is actually known of that particular ancient society. Archaeologists are forced to search for items in marginal areas that are less optimal than in the 'optimal zone'. The problem is that the definitions of optimal and marginal are based on very general trends. That particular moment in which a group decides to leave their homes and enter the fringe can only rarely be described in detail. Thus the definition of marginality for that region will be an imprecise trend, rather than a secure and reliable situation. It is questionable, if the people who

Fig. 1.1: Different sub-projects working in the Middle Jordan Valley.

1 The project was directed by Gerrit van der Kooij from the University of Leiden (the Netherlands) and Omar al-Ghul from the Yarmuk University, Irbid (the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan).

1

SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS

Fig. 1 3: Middle Jordan Valley, looking east (note Tell al-Ghazāleh in the centre of the picture).

Fig. 1.2: Middle Jordan Valley near al-Rweihah, looking east (photo Thomas Wolter). had entered the marginal zone were thinking of the landscape as being marginal. Maybe they thought of their migration as leaving the margins and entering new optimal zones. People can live in an area that became marginal due to environmental change, for example several years of drought. However, a response to this in form of irrigation may transform barren marginal areas again into prime agricultural lands. And it is very well possible that locations that are marginal to one economy may well be perfectly suited to another (Coles and Mills 1998, ix). We should therefore distinguish between terms like marginal on one side and arid, steppe and drylands on the other. The latter three are clearly defined environmental terms that contain fixed information about climate and landscape.

Fig. 1.4: Middle Jordan Valley, looking south-west. Glueck 1951; Ibrahim et al. 1976; among others). Tell Deir ‘Allā is located centrally and is one of the largest in the area (other comparable large sites are Tell 'Umm Hammād, Katāret al-Samrā‘, ’Abū al-Zīghān and Tell alQōs).

The term steppe is devoted to temperate grassland, consisting of level, general treeless plains. It is sometimes also applied to the semi-arid regions on fringes of hot deserts. The term arid is a situation with a lack of moisture to support trees or wooden plants. And drylands are usually defined as terrestrial areas, where the mean annual rainfall is lower than the total amount of water evaporating into the atmosphere. The Middle Jordan Valley was (and still is) a steppe zone, has an semi-arid climate and should be considered a dryland. Whether it was marginal will be discussed in this volume.

Archaeological sites in the Middle Jordan Valley One of the most loosely defined and used terms in the archaeological disciplines is that of 'site', even though it forms a fundamental basis (e.g. Binford 1992; Dunell 1992). What is considered a site in archaeology, and should we make a distinction between a site and scattered artefacts? The site-definition problem is primarily limited to regional archaeological surveys. A more extensive discussion is being presented in Kaptijn's volume about the landscape survey (2009). The present publication will mainly use the terms settlement mounds or tells, while the study objects of this research were artificial hills only.

1.2 Iron II settlement study in the Middle Jordan Valley The region The area under investigation (named the Middle Jordan Valley - Fig. 1.5) is constrained to the north by the Wadi Rajib, to the east by the Transjordanian foothills, to the south by the Wadi Zerqa and to the west by the Jordan River, comprising approximately 72 km² (Kaptijn et al. 2005, 90)2. The region is usually regarded as the southernmost extension of the regularly settled part of the Jordan Valley, containing ca. 58 settlement mounds (e.g. 2

Much has been written about these striking features in the Middle Eastern landscape (e.g. Rosen 1986, xiii; Wilkinson 2003). A tell has been recognised already very early as a product of human presence, although their real content was hidden up to the inspiring excavation work of Sir Flinders Petrie at Tell al-Hesi and Heinrich Schliemann at Troy, in the late 19th century. The complexity of settlement mounds and the fact that these hills are constantly changing was recognised much later

Settlement mounds located on both banks of the Wadis are included in this study, like Tell al-Qōs, Tell ‘Ammata, Khirbet Buweib, ’Abū al-Zīghān, Tell al-Rmeileh and Tell Dāmiyah.

2

PROJECT INFORMATION NWO3-proposal 2003). From earlier survey and excavation work it is known that this valley was densely inhabited during some times and deserted during others. A detailed regional and intensive study of Iron Age settlement mounds in the direct vicinity of Tell Deir ‘Allā was, however, never conducted. In order to understand the occupation cycle, other Iron Age sites should be excavated and surveyed. How did people survive in this region and what was the relationship between the settlements? And what were the key drivers of the variety and different intensity of settlements? By finding parallels or divergences, a refined regional occupation history had to be created that could clear the settling dynamics in the drylands of the Middle Jordan Valley.

(e.g. Vita Finzi 1978; Davidson 1976; Vidali et al. 1976; Kirkby and Kirkby 1976; Rosen 1986). The research at settlement mounds is so complicated, diverse and subjective that since the beginning of their exploration and study scholars were accusing each other of failures and wrongly produced stratigraphic associations. The excavation and registration methods are either too coarse or too fine and any argument extracted from tell deposits can be challenged and disputed. It is in this respect strange that the basis of the archaeological research in the Middle East, namely stratigraphic digging, receives only very little attention in public, at universities and during excavations. Students can describe very well the difference between a Late Bronze Age shard and Iron Age pottery, but they hardly know how to recognise occupation or wash layers. The context of an artefact is in most cases described with information extracted from other movable and non-movable features, not from the deposits in which it was encountered. The Iron II Settlement Study argues that even the smallest item can help to understand a site's occupation history. This means that much attention and energy will be given to the deposition history and less to the architectural outlook.

Former survey work had discovered 17 settlement mounds in the research region that encompass Iron Age material. A brief survey of the area by the author in May 2004 confirmed this and additionally assessed the condition of the tells. It was disrupting and shocking to see, how the sites had suffered from recent development (see Chapter 14). After examinations and discussions, the settlement mounds of Tell Dāmiyah, Tell al-‘Adliyyeh and Tell ‘Ammata were chosen for small excavation work (trenching). The choice of these three sites was based primarily on the degree of damage. Other arguments were their location, archaeological surface finds, accessibility, and recent political and social status. The three parties (Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Yarmouk University and Leiden University) were involved in the decision-making and the excavations were carried out under their approval and direction. Excavation strategies The three sites were excavated with a variation of the Wheeler-Kenyon method, concentrating on both horizontal and vertical information. This strategy aims at a rather high resolution of chronology by using a detailed stratigraphic excavation approach. The 'origin' question was asked at each locus, the main archaeological unit: how did a certain feature or deposit arrive at that particular place and what role did humans play in that particular process? The locus was investigated on its texture, structure and overall contents. The inevitable use of restricted excavation areas to fulfil these aims forms a point of weakness in this comprehensive regional settlement study. The reader should consider this work as a hypothesis that should be amended by additional information in the nearby future. Excavations were conducted in maximum 5x5 m units with 1 m balk in between. Five or six units were opened at each settlement mound in most cases with a direct stratigraphic connection. These sondages were placed along bulldozer cuts or trenches that provided us with direct vertical information about the occupation history.

Fig. 1.5: Tells in the research area (Italic = excavated, open dot = not relocated, X = removed). Research questions and aims The purpose of the settlement study was to find parallels, or divergences, for the chronology and quality/intensity of use of Tell Deir ‘Allā, in order to understand the human occupation and use in the Middle Jordan Valley – in itself and in connection with neighbouring regions (see

Deposits were separated from others by small picks, trowels and brushes. Material culture was put into plastic

3

3

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS backs, divided by their type of material and date of discovery. As the reader will notice the units along bulldozer cuts were often extremely contaminated. For this reason each locus was critically assessed: number 1 means perfectly clean (in situ) and three highly contaminated. The locus-assessment can be found in the indices of loci of each site (see Appendix).

The excavation teams in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 included numerous students from the university of Leiden and the Yarmouk University, which could earn academic credits by gaining field experience. A small team of locals (all of them with archaeological experience, gained through years of excavation work at Tell Deir ‘Allā, Tell al-Sa’idiyeh and Tell al-Hammeh East) were additionally recruited. The excavations at Tell al-‘Adliyyeh (Figs. 1.10 and 1.13), Tell Dāmiyah (Figs. 1.11 and 1.14) and Tell ‘Ammata (Figs. 1.12 and 1.15) were directed by the author, under auspices of the University of Leiden (Dr. Gerrit van der Kooij), the Yarmouk University (Dr. Omar al-Ghul) and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (Dr. Fawwaz al-Khraysheh).

Fig. 1.6: Jeroen Rensen floating sediments. The registration method used during the excavation includes square numbers, locus numbers4 and bucket numbers. Whereas each unit has their own locus numbering system, the bucket numbers are site unique: each number is used only once. A bucket number is given to a certain material found on a certain day. The following day a new bucket number will be given to the same material, even if the deposit had not changed. Locus sheets (Fig. 1.9) were filled in by the individual square supervisor while digging.

Fig.1.7: Nabil Qadi at Tell al-‘Adliyyeh in 2004. Site survey strategies Three different survey techniques were used during the infield seasons (apart from the systematic landscape survey work of Kaptijn (2009)). The first is a random survey carried out by at least two persons. The aim of this survey was to make a damage assessment and check prospects of excavation. This method was used during a short survey season in May 2004.

Excavation teams An expressed purpose of the University of Leiden when conducting archaeological fieldwork in the Southern Levant was to train younger scholars in excavation methods (e.g. Franken 1969). This ancillary aim was pursued throughout numerous infield seasons at Tell Deir ‘Allā starting in the 1960s, at the excavations at Tell alHammeh East in the 1990s and consequently also during the three campaigns of the Project Settling the Steppe.

4

The second method had a more systematic character: the site was divided into different sectors (Fig. 1.8). The aim was to collect information about time-indicative artefact concentrations and thus about settlement sizes in different periods. Note that most tells reveal severe damage and bulldozer’s cuttings, which of course hamper a reliable picture. Also surface cover, the type of ancient building materials and weather conditions may influence the diffusion of artefacts on the surface.

A locus number (marked italic in this volume) consists of two components: the excavation unit and a sequential number. During post-excavational research, characters were added if a particular locus had to be divided once more.

4

PROJECT INFORMATION Material culture All animal bones and charcoal fragments were carefully excavated and placed in plastic bags. The excavated remains were dried at the base camp and finally prepared for transportation. Tin foil was used to pack charcoal fragments to avoid crushing. Soil samples for archaeobotanical research were taken when charred organic fragments were identified, or when a walking surface or floor was discerned. The sediments selected for botanical study were removed in the same manner as all other deposits, but in base camp a flotation and sieving procedure was followed (Fig. 1.6). Pottery, charcoal, animal bones, soil samples and archaeobotanical samples were sent to the Netherlands for further processing. Other finds were studied, drawn and photographed in Jordan and stored in the Deir ‘Allā Station of Archaeological Studies. Pottery was washed at the base camp. After the shards had dried they were collectively studied and the diagnostic shards kept. All others were discarded. Further processing, drawing and photographing was carried out at the Institute of archaeology at the University of Leiden. Each pottery shard was described according to the following categories: wall thickness, surface treatment, manufacturing technique, firing results, fabric and function (Table 1.1).

Fig. 1.8: Schematic survey grid (sector 5 represents the summit of a tell). The third method was the most time consuming. The site was divided into 4x4 m squares numbered according to a checkerboard system. All diagnostic ceramics in a square had to be collected, in order to get a detailed insight into the occupation history, settlement size and scattered artefacts. Tell ‘Ammata, Tell al-Hammeh East, part of Tell Dāmiyah and Tell al-‘Adliyyeh were surveyed in this way.

Fig. 1.9: Locus sheet.

5

SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS Type / technique Bowl Krater Holemouth krater Cooking pot Incense burner Chalice Vat Plate Jar/jug Pyxis Sugar pot Amphora Slip Wash Glaze Burnishing Smoothing Hand made Wheel made

Description vessel with an opening 50% or more of its maximum diameter large deep bowl with a S-curved wall profile open vessel with an inverted rim stance shallow to deep bowl used for food preparation open, footed vessel with punctuated walls footed bowl large deep bowl shallow bowls closed vessel, the minimum rim opening of which is