Tel Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah: Renewed Excavations 1990-2000: The Iron Age 9781575064505, 9781575064512, 9781575064529, 9781575064536, 1575064502

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook This eBook contains a multi-volume set. To navigate the front matter of this eBook by page number, you will need to use the volume number and the page number, separated by a hyphen. For example, to go to page v of volume 1, type “1-v” in the Go box at the bottom of the screen and click "Go." To go to page v of volume 2, type “2-v”… and so forth.

This page intentionally left blank.

TEL BETH-SHEMESH A BORDER COMMUNITY IN JUDAH RENEWED EXCAVATIONS 1990–2000: THE IRON AGE

VOLUME I

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MONOGRAPH SERIES NUMBER 34

Executive Editor Editorial Board

Managing Editor Graphic Designer

Israel Finkelstein Avi Gopher Raphael Greenberg Oded Lipschits Guy D. Stiebel Myrna Pollak Noa Evron

TEL BETH-SHEMESH A BORDER COMMUNITY IN JUDAH RENEWED EXCAVATIONS

1990–2000: THE IRON AGE

Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman

VOLUME I

With contributions by (OLVDEHWWD%RDUHWWR(PPHWW%URZQ$\HOHW*LOERD$PLU*RODQLAin Shems Excavations. Indeed, the books stood on the shelves in the department’s library almost untouched. Afraid of being lost within the PD]HRIXQWLG\DUFKDHRORJLFDOLQIRUPDWLRQWKDW¿OOHGWKHVHERRNVZHSUD\HGWKDWRXUSURIHVVRUVZRXOG ask us to research the archaeology of Judah through sites other than Beth-Shemesh. In those days, more than 30 years ago, we could hardly have imagined that one day we would devote so much of our energy and intellectual resources to bringing alive the story of ancient Beth-Shemesh. Excavations at Beth-Shemesh are actually a story within a story. On the one hand, they are the story of the archaeology of the Land of Israel in a nutshell: from the pioneering days of the Palestine Exploration Fund, through the “Golden Age” of American biblical archaeology, to current Israeli and international archaeology. On the other hand, they are the fascinating story of a border site that was constantly changing its face due to its geopolitical location in the Sorek Valley in the Shephelah ––a juncture of Canaanite, Philistine and Israelite entities and cultures. It is no wonder that two celebrated biblical border epics–Samson’s encounters with the Philistines and the Ark narrative–took real or imagined place around Beth-Shemesh. ,Q WKLV UHSRUW VXPPDUL]LQJ WKH ¿UVW WHQ \HDUV ±  RI RXU DUFKDHRORJLFDO ZRUN LQ WKH ongoing project of the renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, we have strived to tell anew the story of the Iron Age people of Beth-Shemesh as exposed and interpreted by us. Using the best theoretical and methodological tools that modern archaeology has placed at our disposal, we have made every effort to keep sight of archaeology’s fundamental duty–to read the ancient people behind the decayed walls and shattered pottery vessels and bring alive their lost world. Furthermore, we did our best to write the story of ancient Beth-Shemesh in a way that will enable scholars, students and other interested people to learn and understand the life of the communities living at Beth-Shemesh. Hence, we organized the book in a manner different from the usual archaeological site reports; we tried to make it more contextual and ³IULHQGO\´LQLWVVWUXFWXUHVHHLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUWKHUHDGHULQ&KDSWHU :HKRSHWKDWWKLVH[FHSWLRQDO experiment has indeed been successful. It is for our readers to judge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our work at Tel Beth-Shemesh could not have been accomplished without the collaboration of our friend and colleague Prof. Steven Weitzman, formerly of Indiana University, Bloomington, currently at 6WDQIRUG8QLYHUVLW\&DOLIRUQLD+LVEHOLHILQDQGVXSSRUWRIWKHSURMHFWLQLWV¿UVW\HDUVKHOSHGPDNH7HO %HWK6KHPHVKDQLQWHUQDWLRQDODUFKDHRORJLFDO¿HOGVFKRRO The renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh owe a tremendous debt of thanks to Marilyn and Norman Tayler of Bethesda, MD, for their support, which came at a crucial moment in the project’s ix

life. Their continuous friendship and generosity have allowed us to unfold the story of ancient BethShemesh and its people and pass it on through the many enthusiastic students from all over the world DWWHQGLQJRXU¿HOGVFKRRO We would also like to extend our thanks to the Goldhirsh Foundation for their important support. 7KHUHVHDUFKZDVDOVRVXSSRUWHGE\WKH,VUDHO6FLHQFH)RXQGDWLRQ*UDQW1R  Three universities hosted the project: Bar-Ilan University, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Tel Aviv University. We acknowledge their hospitality and support. The full story of the build-up of the new excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh and the personalities and institutions involved is told in Chapter 1. Yet, special thanks are given here to our devoted senior staff members: Dr. Dale Manor of Harding University, Dr. Fred Downing of Louisiana College and Dr. Shawn Bubel of Lethbridge University, Canada who joined us every summer with their students. 'U :LOOLDP %X]]  %URRNPDQ RI 1RUWK&HQWUDO %LEOH &ROOHJH LQ 0LQQHVRWD VKRXOG DOVR EH acknowledged for his participation in the project in 1993 and 1994. Many organizations and institutions generously helped the renewed excavation project at Tel BethShemesh: the Jewish National Fund, the Municipality of Beth-Shemesh, the Jewish Agency and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh could not have materialized without the participation of volunteers––both individuals and from various institutions––who joined our efforts to bring to light the hidden secrets of ancient Beth-Shemesh. We thank them all for making our professional and educational work at the site such a joyful and satisfying enterprise. :HZRXOGOLNHWRH[SUHVVRXUJUHDWDSSUHFLDWLRQDQGGHHSJUDWLWXGH5DFKHO3HOWDDQG@± KDGMXVW¿QLVKHGKLV3K'GLVVHUWDWLRQRQHDUO\FHUDPLFW\SRORJ\ LQ3DOHVWLQHXQGHU:)$OEULJKWDW-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\)LJ +HGLGQRWSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKH %HWK6KHPHVK¿HOGZRUNEXWDVVLVWHGZLWKWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHUHSRUWVEDVHGRQPDWHULDOVDQGUHFRUGV IURPWKHGLJ%\UHZRUNLQJWKHSRWWHU\DQGWKHVWUDWLJUDSK\RI%HWK6KHPHVK:ULJKWEURXJKWRUGHURXW of chaos and thus salvaged important data for the archaeology of the land (King 1983: 91; 1987: 16). %HIRUHIXUWKHUHYDOXDWLQJ:ULJKW¶VFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHDUFKDHRORJ\RI%HWK6KHPHVKDVKRUWVXPPDU\ should be presented of his synthesis of the Haverford excavations. The extensive excavations conducted by Grant over the entire western half of Tel Beth-Shemesh EDVLFDOO\FRQ¿UPHG0DFNHQ]LH¶VVWUDWLJUDSK\:ULJKWGLVFHUQHGDQGGLVFXVVHGVL[VWUDWD Stratum VI, the lowest layer, consisted of EB IV and MB IIA sherds only, found near bedrock. Stratum V, dating from the Middle Bronze Age, includes Mackenzie’s massive city wall (the Strong :DOO KLVQRUWKHDVWHUQDQGPXFKUXLQHGZHVWHUQEDVWLRQVWKHVRXWKZHVWHUQEDVWLRQZDVFRQVLGHUHGWR be a later addition) and the South Gate. It was dated to the MB IIB–C (17th–mid-16th centuries BCE). The only well-preserved building related to this period was the “Patrician House” built against an offset in the wall. Three intramural tombs (Tomb 9—Mackenzie’s High Place Grotto Sepulchre—and Tombs 13 and 17) and one outside the wall (Tomb 12) were cleaned. Although it is not clear whether Stratum V came to an end in a general destruction, its end was related to one of the Egyptian campaigns in Canaan in the second half of the 16th century BCE. Stratum IV was dated to the Late Bronze Age, which seems to have been a relatively prosperous period in the history of Beth-Shemesh. Two phases were distinguished within the stratum: Stratum IVa–LB I (15th century BCE); and Stratum IVb–LB II (14th–13th centuries BCE). The destruction layer separating the two SKDVHVZDVUHODWHGWRRQHRI$PHQKRWHS,,¶VFDPSDLJQV$¿QHEXLOGLQJLQ3KDVH,9DZDVFRPSDUHGZLWK similar residences at Tell el-Farcah (S) and Tell el-Hesi. In a room in another large building from Phase IVa ZHUHWZRVTXDUHIXUQDFHV¿OOHGZLWKDVKHVZKRVHH[DFWSXUSRVHZDVQRWFOHDU1HDUE\DQHORQJDWHGIXUQDFH was probably used for copper smelting. A conspicuous feature of Stratum IV was the numerous plastered cisterns dug into the solid rock. They have narrow necks built up through the tell’s debris to the occupation level. Some of the most interesting objects found at Beth-Shemesh came from Stratum IV, including a cuneiform tablet written in the Ugaritic alphabet, an ostracon with a Proto-Canaanite inscription, and a spectacular jewelry hoard originally dated incorrectly to the Byzantine period. Tombs 10 (Mackenzie’s East Grotto Sepulchre) and 11, both extramural, were related to the end of Phase IVb. :ULJKW GDWHG WKH GHVWUXFWLRQ RI 6WUDWXP ,9 WR WKH HQG RI WKH WK RU WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH WK FHQWXU\%&(+RZHYHULWVGHVWUR\HUVFRXOGQRWEHLGHQWL¿HGZLWKFHUWDLQW\5HO\LQJRQPHDJHUSRWWHU\ HYLGHQFHIURPWZRVLORVDQG :ULJKWDOVRWULHGWRLVRODWHDSUH3KLOLVWLQH,URQ,$WUDQVLWLRQDO phase, similar to that at Tell Beit Mirsim B1.

16 Following the excavation of intrusive Muslim burials in the upper stratum of the tell, Grant answers his own rhetorical question “Do any Scriptures promise this land to others?” by claiming that “The very bone and endurance of the race that is there promises it to the Canaanite in perpetuity” (1931: 61).

19

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

)LJ*(UQHVW:ULJKW± 

Stratum III, with a much shallower layer of debris than its predecessor, represents the main Iron I settlement at Beth-Shemesh (Mackenzie’s “Second City”) and is characterized by Philistine bichrome pottery. The domestic architecture, as well as the pottery, retained strong Canaanite traditions. 0RVWKRXVHVZHUHEXLOWVLPSO\EXWRQH¿QHFRXUW\DUGUHVLGHQFHZDVGLVFRYHUHG,QGXVWULDOUHPDLQV consisting of a few furnaces, pottery blowpipes and bronze fragments may indicate metalworking. :ULJKWDVFULEHGWKHYLROHQWGHVWUXFWLRQRI6WUDWXP,,,WRWKH3KLOLVWLQHVDQGGDWHGLWWRWKHPLGWK century BCE. In Stratum II, dated to the Iron II three phases were distinguished: Stratum IIa (ca. 1000–950 BCE), ,,EFD±WKFHQWXU\%&( DQG,,FWKFHQWXU\±%&( DOWKRXJKWKHODVWWZRZHUHLGHQWL¿HGE\ DQDUWL¿FLDOVHSDUDWLRQRIWKHSRWWHU\ZLWKRXWDFOHDUDUFKLWHFWXUDOFRUUHODWLRQ $FFRUGLQJ WR :ULJKW WKH VHWWOHPHQW LQ 6WUDWXP ,,D ZDV UHSODQQHG RQ D FRQFHQWULF VFKHPH $ casemate wall was built around the mound with a belt of houses abutting it and facing inward onto a FLUFXODU VWUHHW DQG D FHQWUDO FRUH RI EXLOGLQJV 7KH ZDOOV RI WKH KRXVHV ZHUH D VLQJOH ¿HOGVWRQH ZLGH like those of Stratum III, except that pillars were used extensively, both within rooms and in the outside ZDOOV$VSDFLRXV³5HVLGHQF\´DODUJHVLORDQGD¿QHWULSDUWLWHEXLOGLQJVXSSRVHGO\RIWKHhilani type (later recognized to be a typical Iron II storehouse/stable) were situated between the private houses. They were related to the status of Beth-Shemesh as a provincial administrative center during the United 0RQDUFK\:ULJKWIRXQGLWGLI¿FXOWWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUWKHFLW\VXIIHUHGDJHQHUDOGHVWUXFWLRQDWWKH end of IIa; however, he was tempted to connect its (partial) devastation with the Egyptian raid on Gezer during the early days of Solomon (I Kings 9:16). In general, the Strata IIb and IIc buildings followed the lines established in Stratum IIa, and many of them were repeatedly reconstructed. It is clear, however, that the casemate wall went out of use in Stratum IIc (or even earlier) because houses were built over it. Many industrial installations, especially for producing olive oil and wine, were found in both strata. Although Stratum IIc showed considerable 20

CHAPTER 1: A TALE OF T HREE EXPEDITIONS

HURVLRQ PDNLQJ LW GLI¿FXOW WR VHSDUDWH LWV UHPDLQV IURP WKRVH RI 6WUDWXP ,,E D EXUQHG OD\HU ZDV discerned between the two. The supposed destruction of Stratum IIb has been related to one of several events (the Assyrian campaigns in Philistia and Judah, the battle between the Israelite king Joash and Amaziah, king of Judah, or the Philistine capture of Beth-Shemesh in the time of Amaziah’s descendent Ahaz) that may have affected Beth-Shemesh in the 8th century BCE. The seemingly unimpressive remains from Stratum IIc with its pottery—which included a considerable number of jar handles stamped with lmlk seal impressions, as well as seal impressions RIUR\DORI¿FLDOV VRPHWLPHVFDOOHG³SULYDWHVHDOV´ ²ZHUHLGHQWL¿HGZLWK0DFNHQ]LH¶V³UHRFFXSDWLRQ SHULRG´ DQG GDWHG WR WKH WK FHQWXU\ %&( 7KH ¿QDO GHVWUXFWLRQ RI %HWK6KHPHVK ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH conquest of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. Three typical Judahite chamber tombs (Tombs 14–16) were excavated on the northwest slope of the tell, in the vicinity of the tombs previously exposed by Mackenzie. Tomb 14 seems to be the latest in the series of tombs revealed in the Beth-Shemesh necropolis and is dated to the Babylonian period (6th century BCE). A variety of late pottery, coins, and architectural remains spanning the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and medieval periods were lumped together and designated Stratum I. ,I*UDQW¶VUHSRUWVZHUHFKDRWLFKRZGLG:ULJKWPDQDJHGWRDFKLHYHDUHDVRQDEOHDQGSHUVXDVLYH synthesis of the Haverford excavations? $FFRUGLQJWR:ULJKWQ ZKDWHQDEOHGKLPWRDSSO\$OEULJKW¶VSURFHGXUHVDQGSUHVHQW DFRKHUHQWSLFWXUHRIWKHVLWHVWUDWLJUDSK\DQGSRWWHU\ZDV5RZH¶VXVHRI)LVKHU¶VPHWKRGLQWKH¿QDO campaign at Beth-Shemesh in 1933. He emphasizes, though, that “without use of the critical reason in presenting the strata derived from Fisher’s method, the result is the unfortunate mixture of items “which GR QRW EHORQJ´ LQ JLYHQ VWUDWD´ ,W VKRXOG EH UHPHPEHUHG WKDW :ULJKW ZDV $OEULJKW¶V FORVHVW GLVFLSOH DQGH[SHULHQFHGWKHODWWHU¶V¿HOGPHWKRGRORJ\LQWKHH[FDYDWLRQVDW%HWKHOLQ,QDQXWVKHOOWKH PHWKRGRORJ\GHYHORSHGE\$OEULJKWLQKLVH[FDYDWLRQVDW7HOO%HLW0LUVLPDQGDSSOLHGE\:ULJKWWRWKH archaeological materials from Beth-Shemesh used pottery typology as a key for a check-and-balance of the stratigraphy. To this one may add a comparative view, which transcended the particular site under investigation and brought into the analysis typological and stratigraphical insights from other sites. Altogether, this procedure comprises the “critical reason” required to make the Reisner-Fisher method VRXQG$OEULJKW±*5+:ULJKW±*(:ULJKW±'HVVHO  Critiques of Albright’s methodology sometimes complained that the Americans created the mound’s VWUDWLJUDSK\ DIWHU WKH H[FDYDWLRQ ZDV RYHU :ULJKW    DFFHSWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV WUXWK LQ WKLV charge; indeed, at Beth-Shemesh he “reconstructed” at least some of the stratigraphy in keeping with his pottery observations. Such is, for example, the separation of Strata IIb and IIc which lacked clear DUFKLWHFWXUDOFRUUHODWLRQ:ULJKW  $OEULJKW¶V JUHDW DXWKRULWDWLYH LQÀXHQFH RQ :ULJKW¶V DUFKDHRORJLFDO UHDVRQLQJ EH\RQG VKHHU methodology, is clearly evident in the Beth-Shemesh synthesis. Apparently, the stratigraphical and chronological framework of Tell Beit Mirsim served as the comparative model for Beth-Shemesh. An LQVLJKWIXOH[DPSOHRIWKLVVRPHWLPHVKDUPIXOV\PELRVLVLV:ULJKW¶VGDWLQJRIWKH¿QDOGHVWUXFWLRQRI%HWK Shemesh to the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE, in harmony with Albright’s conclusions about Tell Beit Mirsim. This date was later proven wrong for both Tell Beit Mirsim and Beth-Shemesh (see Chapter 12). ,QKLVRULJLQDOV\QWKHVLVRIWKH+DYHUIRUGH[FDYDWLRQV:ULJKWVXFFHHGHGLQSUHVHQWLQJDEDODQFHG DUFKDHRORJLFDODQDO\VLVUHODWLYHO\IUHHIURPWKHVWURQJELEOLFDOLQÀXHQFHWKDWWDLQWHGKLVODWHUGLVFXVVLRQV of the archaeology of Beth-Shemesh. Yet, whenever the archaeological record did not concur with the relevant biblical passages he took pains to reconcile the two, even at the cost of coherence. Thus, for 21

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

example, his interpretation of Stratum III—the Iron I settlement of Beth-Shemesh—is confused because WKHQRQ³,VUDHOLWH´3KLOLVWLQHHWKQLFFRPSRVLWLRQRIWKHVLWHUHÀHFWHGE\WKHDUFKDHRORJLFDO¿QGVFRQWUDVWV ZLWKWKH³,VUDHOLWH´GHVLJQDWLRQDVVLJQHGWRWKHSODFHLQWKHELEOLFDOQDUUDWLYHV*UDQWDQG:ULJKW VHH&KDSWHU $VQRWHG:ULJKW¶VWHQGHQF\WRHQVODYHWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDO¿QGVDW%HWK6KHPHVK to the biblical text became more conspicuous in his later writings. A few examples, elaborated in the IROORZLQJFKDSWHUVZLOOVXI¿FHWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHSRLQW ,QKLVLQLWLDODQDO\VLVRI6WUDWXP,,D:ULJKWFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHVHWWOHPHQWFDPHWRDQHQG³HDUO\ LQWKHODWHWKFHQWXU\FHUWDLQO\QRWDVODWHDV6KLVKDN´*UDQWDQG:ULJKW± /DWHU however, he must have succumbed to the appearance in the biblical text of Beth-Shemesh in Solomon’s second district (I Kings 4:9) since he re-dated the end of Stratum IIa to Shishak’s campaign (Cross and :ULJKW :ULJKW¶VODWHVWVXPPDU\RIWKHLVVXHVDGO\UHÀHFWVKLVLQDELOLW\WRLJQRUHWKHELEOLFDO text even if his own archaeological observations overruled it; he presents both the above two options with no further comment (1976: 252–253). Another, more harmful biblically oriented interpretation of the archaeological data from BethShemesh resulted in the “disappearance” of the 9th century BCE at the site. In this case, alleged problems LQWKHVWUDWLJUDSKLFDOGH¿QLWLRQRI6WUDWXP,,EDQGRIHVWDEOLVKLQJWKHFKURQRORJLFDOUDQJHRILWVSRWWHU\² KDUGO\UHIHUUHGWRLQ*UDQWDQG:ULJKW¶VV\QWKHVLV²JDLQHGPRPHQWXPLQ&URVVDQG:ULJKW¶V GLVFXVVLRQRIWKHERXQGDU\DQGSURYLQFHOLVWVRIWKHNLQJGRPRI-XGDK,QWKLVLQÀXHQWLDOHVVD\DVXSSRVHG archaeological “gap” in Beth-Shemesh during the 9th century BCE was suggested to correspond with WKHRPLVVLRQRIWKHSODFHIURPWKHWRZQOLVWRI-XGDK-RVK± DQGWKHOLVWRI5HKRERDP¶VIRUWL¿HG cities (II Chron 11:10). In turn, the supposed correspondence between the archaeology of Beth-Shemesh and the biblical text was used as a chronological “peg” to date the Judahite town list in Joshua 15 to the days of King Jehoshaphat (ca. 873–849 BCE). As we shall see in Chapter 9 the solution to the “missing” 9th century BCE at Beth-Shemesh is to be found not in the biblical realm but in meticulous analyses of both the relevant archaeological record and the methodology of its previous inquiry. +DYLQJVDLGDOOWKLVZHVKRXOGHPSKDVL]HRXUDSSUHFLDWLRQRI:ULJKW¶V+HUFXOHDQHIIRUWVWRVLQJOH handedly build a coherent and updated archaeological picture out of the mass of details collected by WKH +DYHUIRUG H[SHGLWLRQ¶V GH¿FLHQW PHWKRGV :ULJKW KLPVHOI ZDV ZHOO DZDUH RI WKH VKRUWFRPLQJV RI his synthesis of the archaeology of Beth-Shemesh and emphasized time and again the need for “further excavation with new methods of digging” (1976: 252) in order to clear up many of the problems raised by Grant’s excavations. It is up to the reader to decide whether our new excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh IXO¿OO:ULJKW¶VZLVK

ISRAELIS AT TEL BETH-SHEMESH: A CONCISE CONTEXTUAL GUIDE TO US In the heyday of the New Archaeology, when its aspirations to morph into a “hard” science rose high ³$UFKDHRORJ\ZLWKD&DSLWDO6´DV.HQW)ODQQHU\F\QLFDOO\GXEEHGLW *(:ULJKWZDVEROGHQRXJK to remind his colleagues that “only humanists in the true sense can in the end make any sense out of WKH VHHPLQJ FKDRV RI KXPDQ FXOWXUDO V\VWHPV´ :KLOH DUFKDHRORJ\ PXVW XVH DOO RI WKH VFLHQFH WKDW LW FDQ³LQWKH¿QDODQDO\VLVLWLVGHDOLQJZLWKKXPDQEHLQJVDQGWKHUHIRUHLWFDQQHYHUEHDQ\WKLQJRWKHU WKDQRQHDPRQJWKHVHYHUDOEUDQFKHVRIFXOWXUDODQGKXPDQLVWLFKLVWRU\´ :HFRXOGIRXQGQR PRUHDSSURSULDWHZRUGVWKDQ:ULJKW¶VGLFWXPWRGHVFULEHWKHSURIHVVLRQDOLGHRORJ\WKDWJXLGHVXVLQWKH renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh. Amazingly enough, these words were written by a scholar once deeply involved in the archaeological investigation of that very site. 22

CHAPTER 1: A TALE OF T HREE EXPEDITIONS

Above, we have reviewed the sociological and intellectual context of previous excavations and excavators at Tel Beth-Shemesh. It is time now to scrutinize the context of our own research at the site (Fig. 1.10). Having studied archaeology in the early 1970s, we are true children of the discipline’s three main paradigms—culture history, processual, and post-processual (Bunimovitz 2007). Indeed, we consider ourselves privileged to have witnessed almost in real time some of the main transformations that reshaped archaeology in the 20th century. :KHQ ZH EHJDQ RXU VWXGLHV RI WKH DUFKDHRORJ\ RI WKH /DQG RI ,VUDHO ZH ZHUH H[SRVHG WR ERWK normative culture-historical and “classic” biblical archaeology through the formative textbooks of :) $OEULJKW   DQG . .HQ\RQ   Izbet Sartah, though in that case it is burnished )LQNHOVWHLQ)LJ  BAKING TRAYS Baking trays (Bkng-tr—Figs. 6.40, 6.55) appear in all Iron I levels at Beth-Shemesh, becoming slightly PRUHSRSXODULQ/HYHO)LJ 7KLVPXQGDQHKRPHO\YHVVHOKDGUHFHQWO\EHHQDVVLJQHGWKHUROH of an ethnic marker, differentiating between its users—allegedly Judahites living at Khirbet Qeiyafa— DQG QRQXVHUV²3KLOLVWLQHV LQKDELWLQJ WKH QHLJKERULQJ VLWH RI 7HOO HৢৡD¿*DWK *DU¿QNHO DQG *DQRU D.DQJDQG*DU¿QNHOD*DU¿QNHOet al. 2012: 361). However, contrary to this claim, it is apparent that during the Iron I baking trays were common all over the country, including at Philistine VLWHV VXFK DV 7HOO 4DVLOH ;, 0D]DU D  )LJ    DQG 7HO %DWDVK7LPQDK 9 3DQLW]&RKHQ 3O  POTTERY FROM “JEFF’S PIT” (F825) As will be remembered, at the bottom of Level 6 in Area D, Square D22, a sealed pit was found to contain a great variety of artifacts, including complete and broken pottery vessels. The pottery (Figs. ± VHHPVWREHORQJWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&(7KHERZOV)LJ±  MXJV)LJ± DQGVWRUDJHMDUV)LJ±± ¿QGSDUDOOHOVLQSRWWHU\DVVHPEODJHVRIWKH WKFHQWXU\%&(HVSHFLDOO\RIWKH/DFKLVK9,KRUL]RQ@VLQFHFRRNLQJMXJVDSSHDUDW7HO0LTQH(NURQ6WUDWD9,,%±9&DQG Ashdod Strata XIII–XI they must have had a longer chronological span than the Mycenaean IIIC:1 ¿QHZDUH DVVHPEODJH  7KH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI $HJHDQVW\OH FRRNLQJ MXJV DV ZHOO DV RI RWKHU YHVVHOV RI the Mycenaean IIIC:1 repertoire) in this stage seems to have been restricted mainly to the Philistine heartland (most probably because of their ethnic connotation, see Bunimovitz and Faust 2001: 6–7 and Part III, below). However, when Philistine Bichrome pottery emerged as an amalgamation of Philistine DQG &DQDDQLWH WUDGLWLRQV LW FDWHUHG DV ¿QH WDEOHZDUH WR WKH WDVWH RI ERWK SHRSOHV DQG FRPPHUFLDOO\ GLIIXVHGEH\RQGWKH3KLOLVWLQHKHDUWODQG0D]DUE±%XQLPRYLW]%HQ6KORPR  ±  $ VPDOO QXPEHU RI 3KLOLVWLQH FRRNLQJ MXJV VHHPV WR KDYH DFFRPSDQLHG WKH ZLGHO\ WUDGHGSDLQWHGZDUHDVDSSDUHQWIURPWKH¿QGVDW7HO%HWK6KHPHVK7HO4DVLOH0D]DUD&3 )LJ 7HO*H]HU'HYHU3OV 10, and Tell >Eitun (Edelstein and $XUDQW)LJV± 11 As discussed above, the innovation of cooking jugs was adopted by the local population and the form of this type of vessel continued to evolve (cf. Yasur-Landau 2005: ±%HQ6KORPRet al. 

10 Aegean-style cooking jugs appear at Tel Gezer in Strata XIII–XI together with Philistine Bichrome pottery. Contrary to both 'HYHU¶VHDUO\REVHUYDWLRQV± DQG)LQNHOVWHLQ¶VDPELYDOHQWDWWLWXGHWRWKHPD±>KHULGLFXOHV DQGDFFHSWVWKHVHREVHUYDWLRQVVLPXOWDQHRXVO\@ ORFDOO\PDGH0\FHQDHDQ,,,&SRWWHU\VHHPVWREHFRPSOHWHO\DEVHQW from Tel Gezer. To the best of our knowledge, the few suspected sherds presented in the Gezer report plates do not stand out from the normal repertoire of the Philistine Bichrome pottery (see also Dever 2003: 266–267). 11 Two Aegean-style cooking-pots were found also at Tel Sippor Stratum IV and V of the “Lachish Level VI” horizon (Yannai ±)LJV 6LQFHQR¿QH0\FHQDHDQ,,,&SRWWHU\ZDVIRXQGWRDFFRPSDQ\WKHVHYHVVHOVERWK sherds are probably intrusive from Stratum III, which contained Philistine Bichrome pottery. A more intriguing possibility is that these cooking jugs are evidence of the contemporaneity of the Philistine Monochrome phase with the days of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty (see further discussion of the problem below).

211

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LEVEL 6–4 POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES Our analysis of the pottery assemblages of Levels 6–4 showed a gradual typological development UHÀHFWLQJWKHLUUHODWLYHFKURQRORJ\7KLVVHHPVWRFRQ¿UPRXULQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKHVLWH¶VVWUDWLJUDSK\ ZKLFKVXJJHVWHGD/DWH%URQ]H±,URQ,,FRQWLQXHGRFFXSDWLRQDOVHTXHQFHZLWKQRVLJQL¿FDQWJDSV Concerning the overall typological character of the three assemblages, they comprise two distinct JURXSV/HYHOVDQGWKH¿UVWJURXSUHWDLQHGVWURQJ/DWH%URQ]H$JHWUDGLWLRQVDORQJVLGHQHZ,URQ I traits and contained Philistine Bichrome pottery. The assemblage of Level 5, close in composition to Level 6, is transitional, because it also includes some harbingers of Level 4 pottery. The second group, Level 4, shows distinctive late Iron I features with lingering Late Bronze/Iron I traits. LEVEL 6 The pottery assemblage of Level 6 is comprised of Late Bronze Age types (BL opn, BL mld, Kr ldg, CP evrt-tng, CP evrt-tri, SJ thck-rim), Iron I types (BL rnd, BL cyma, CP erct), and classic Philistine Bichrome pottery. Similar assemblages are known from other sites in the Shephelah and neighboring regions (e.g., Tel Batash V, Tell Beit Mirsim B2, Gezer XIII-XI, >Izbet Sartah III, and Tell Qasile XII, UHIHUHQFHVLQ)LJ DQGDUHJHQHUDOO\GDWHGWRWKHVHFRQGKDOIRIWK±¿UVWKDOIRIWKFHQWXULHV %&(0D]DUD7DEOH7DEOH'HYHU)LJ)LQNHOVWHLQ± *UHHQEHUJ7DEOH0D]DUDQG3DQLW]&RKHQ 7KHUHDUHVRPHKLQWVKRZHYHUWKDW Level 6 may have begun earlier. As detailed above, the lamp-and-bowl foundation deposit from the ³3DWULFLDQ+RXVH´DQGWKHYHVVHOVIRXQGLQDQGDURXQG³-HII¶V3LW´VKRZVRPHDI¿QLW\ZLWKWKH/DFKLVK /HYHO9,KRUL]RQ7KLVKRUL]RQFRQWHPSRUDU\ZLWKWKH(J\SWLDQWK'\QDVW\¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWK FHQWXU\ %&(  LV DOVR FRQVLGHUHG WKH ODVW SKDVH RI /DWH %URQ]H $JH RU DV ³,URQ ,$´ 8VVLVKNLQ  0D]DUE ,QWKLVUHVSHFWWKUHHREVHUYDWLRQVDUHLPSRUWDQW 7KH¿UVWLVWKDWWKHHDUO\WKFHQWXU\%&(SRWWHU\JURXSHQFRPSDVVLQJ7HO6HUD> IX, Lachish VI, Tel Sippor V–IV and other sites in the southern Coastal Plain and the Shephelah, seems to be a regional SKHQRPHQRQ7KHGLVWULEXWLRQOLPLWVRIWKLVJURXSKDYHQRW\HWEHHQVXI¿FLHQWO\GH¿QHGEXWWKH\VHHP to have fallen short of Tel Gezer Stratum XIV (Yannai 2000: 215). Level 6 could have begun, therefore, DVHDUO\DVWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\ZLWKRXWVKDULQJWKHXQLTXHWUDLWVRIWKHVRXWKHUQ³/DFKLVK VI group.” 6HFRQGO\ DV HPSKDVL]HG DERYH WKH SRWWHU\ DVVHPEODJH RI /HYHO  VKRZV VWURQJ DI¿OLDWLRQ ZLWK /DWH%URQ]H$JHWUDGLWLRQV6RPHRILWVGRPLQDQWYHVVHOW\SHVHJ%/POG&3HYUWWQJ6-WKFNULP  ZHUH SUHYDOHQW DW WKH HQG RI WKH WK±¿UVW KDOI RI WKH WK FHQWXULHV %&( 1RWDEO\ WKHVH W\SHV DUH missing from Tell Qasile XII, a site founded around the mid-12th century BCE at a previously unsettled SODFHFI)LQNHOVWHLQ /HYHOVHHPVWKHUHIRUHWRKDYHVWDUWHGHDUOLHU Thirdly, the assemblages of Levels 6–4 include a small amount of Philistine Bichrome pottery. Not one piece of Monochrome pottery (Mycenaean IIIC:1) was found among the thousands of sherds excavated. The date of both types of Philistine pottery is currently debated. Common wisdom places Monochrome pottery in the second quarter of the 12th century and Bichrome ware from the midWKWRWKHHQGRIWKFHQWXULHV%&(0D]DUE ,QFRQWUDVW)LQNHOVWHLQIROORZLQJ 8VVLVKNLQ DUJXHVWKDW0RQRFKURPHSRWWHU\VKRXOGEHGDWHG WRFD. 1135–1100 or even later, and that Bichrome ware should be dated from the 11th to the early–mid-10th centuries BCE. The gist of his argument is the seeming absence of Monochrome pottery in 20th Dynasty strongholds in southern Canaan and the absence of Egyptian(ized) pottery at Philistine sites. According to Finkelstein, the only viable explanation for this phenomenon is chronological: Philistine pottery 212

CHAPTER 6: A PEASANT COMMUNITY ON THE PHILISTINE BORDER LEVELS 6–4: I RON I CA. 1150–950 BCE

must have postdated the Egyptian domination in southern Canaan, which lasted until the days of Ramses VI, ca. 1135. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence shows that the methodology behind the low FKURQRORJ\ RI 3KLOLVWLQH SRWWHU\ LV ÀDZHG )XUWKHUPRUH LW DOORZV FKURQRORJLFDO FRH[LVWHQFH RI WK Dynasty sites in Canaan and Monochrome pottery, while suggesting a restricted distribution of the latter due to ethnic demarcation (Bunimovitz and Faust 2001). In light of these ideas, the lack of Monochrome pottery in Level 6 at Beth-Shemesh can be interpreted as the outcome of cultural processes rather than of chronological reasons. ,QFRQFOXVLRQ/HYHOVHHPVWRKDYHEHHQHVWDEOLVKHGGXULQJWKH¿UVWKDOIRUWKHPLGGOHRIWKHWK century at the latest, and continued uninterrupted until its destruction sometime in the beginning of the 11th century BCE. LEVEL 5 As noted above, the remains of Level 5 excavated during the 1990–2000 excavation seasons were very fragmentary. Nevertheless, the pottery of Level 5 was indicative enough to show great similarity with the Level 6 assemblage. Yet, frequency seriation (Fig. 6.43) reveals a gradual quantitative change of the main pottery types, leading to the new repertoire that characterizes the assemblage of Level 4. Types LQWKH/DWH%URQ]H$JHWUDGLWLRQ%/RSQ%/F\PD&3HYUWWQJ&3HYUWWUL6-WKFNULP EHFDPHOHVV popular while others, typical of the main part of the Iron I, gained in popularity (BL car) or appeared IRUWKH¿UVWWLPH6-VKUWULP6-OQJULP 7KH3KLOLVWLQHSRWWHU\DOVRVKRZHGVLJQVRIWUDQVLWLRQIURPWKH white-slipped, beautifully decorated style of Level 6 to the debased style of Level 4. We would therefore GDWH/HYHOWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&( LEVEL 4 Generally speaking, the pottery of Level 4 continues Iron I traditions. Some pottery types typical of Levels 6–5 still appear in Level 4, indicating that Level 4 began immediately after Level 5, around the mid-11th century BCE. However, this pottery is outnumbered by types characteristic of the later part of WKH,URQ,±EHJLQQLQJRIWKH,URQ,,HJ&3SOQ&+FDU6-VKUWULP6-OQJULP&-ÀUQN (YHQPRUH indicative of the mature stage of Level 4 is the comparatively large number of BL rnd-rs, which was popular at the end of the 11th–beginning of the 10th century BCE (references in Fig. 6.40). Although red slip occasionally appears on other types of vessels (mainly jugs), hand-burnishing is still rare in Level 4, if not completely absent. This concurs with Wright’s claim that the pottery of Stratum IIa “seems to precede that part of the 10th century when chordal and spiral burnishing of red-slipped bowls had become the usual decoration” (Wright 1976: 252). Another indicative vessel for dating the end of Level 4 is the early “Ashdod Ware” JG glb-rs/blk. As GHWDLOHGDERYHVXFKMXJVDSSHDULQFRQWH[WVIURPWKHPLGWKWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&( The Philistine pottery of Level 4 is typical of the latest stage in the development of this pottery, at the second half of the 11th century BCE. Alongside debased, undecorated forms of bowls and kraters appear hybrid vessel types (e.g., the red-slipped JG strnr), which are the product of the fusion of Philistine and local traditions. To sum up, the Level 4 assemblage gives the impression of a pottery horizon belonging to the very end of Iron I –beginning of Iron II. Wright noted at the time “that the pottery of IIa is still well within Iron I, little removed from that of Stratum III.” He further suggested that Stratum IIa at BethShemesh was contemporary with Tell Beit Mirsim B2 “since the pottery of B3 closely resembles 213

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

much of that in Beth-Shemesh IIb” (Grant and Wright 1939: 135–136, n. 3).12 As observed time and again, our Level 4 seems to correspond with Stratum IIa of the Haverford excavations. However, the picture drawn by Wright of Stratum IIa is puzzling. On the one hand, he attributed a series of new public buildings to this phase, supposedly established by the kings of the United Monarchy who turned Beth-Shemesh into a district center (Grant and Wright 1939: 67–71). On the other hand, he described the building level of Stratum IIa as very thin and short-lived, scarcely more than a JHQHUDWLRQ*UDQWDQG:ULJKW 7RWKLVGLVFUHSDQF\RQHVKRXOGDGGWKHGLI¿FXOWLHV :ULJKWKDGLQGH¿QLQJ6WUDWXP,,EDQGKLVWH[WXDOO\ELDVHGGHFLVLRQWRHOLPLQDWHWKHWKFHQWXU\ from the stratigraphic sequence of the site. In our opinion, the monumental building enterprises of Stratum IIa actually belong to Stratum IIb, our Level 3 (this issue is further discussed in Chapter 9). Concerning the pottery of Stratum IIa, its close resemblance to the assemblage of Level 4 is telling (Fig. 6.64). It is certainly not by mere chance that both assemblages do not include late 10th century BCE pottery types known from strata such as Tel Batash IV, Lachish V, Arad XII, etc. (see Chapter 9 for discussion of this pottery). Mazar equates Stratum IIa at Beth-Shemesh with Tell Qasile IX–VIII D7DEOH7DEOHVHHDOVR0D]DUDQG3DQLW]&RKHQ7DEOH 55), and this comparison is repeated by other scholars (e.g., Finkelstein 2002b: 123). However, as far as we can judge, Stratum IIa and our Level 4 correspond partially with Qasile XI and mainly with Qasile X. Further support for the dating of Level 4 comes from the close resemblance of its pottery assemblage to that from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Both sites share the appearance of identical pottery types, e.g., BL rndrs, KR ldg, KR evrt, CH car, CP pln, SJ lng-rim, JG pln, Bkng-tr, and more. Moreover, “Ashdod Ware” PDNHVDQHDUO\DSSHDUDQFHDWERWKVLWHVVHHUHIHUHQFHVLQ)LJIRUWKHUHODWLYHFKURQRORJ\RI.KLUEHW 4HL\DIDVHHDOVR6LQJHU$YLW] 7KXVLIRQHDFFHSWVWKHDEVROXWHGDWLQJRIWKHVLQJOHSKDVH ,URQ,RFFXSDWLRQOHYHODW.KLUEHW4HL\DIDWRWKHODWHWK±HDUO\WKFHQWXULHV%&(*DU¿QNHODQG.DQJ *DU¿QNHOet alIRUFULWLTXHDQGDGLIIHUHQWRSLQLRQVHH)LQNHOVWHLQDQG3LDVHW]N\ WKDW date corroborates our dating of Level 4 at Beth-Shemesh (see also Chapters 22, 24). In conclusion, Level 4 is the last Iron I stratum at Tel Beth-Shemesh and spanned the time between WKHPLGWKWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&(FI*UDQW DQG:ULJKW   7KLV OHYHO FDQ EH GH¿QHG DV D VWUDWLJUDSKLFSRWWHU\ KRUL]RQ DQWHGDWLQJ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH ¿UVW PRQXPHQWDO buildings at the site.13

12 In this Wright concurred with Albright’s observation that the pottery of Stratum IIa at Beth-Shemesh is earlier than most of the material in Tell Beit Mirsim B3. Wright, therefore, dated the end of Stratum IIa to the early 10th century “certainly QRWDVODWHDV6KLVKDN´*UDQWDQG:ULJKWQDOVR:ULJKW  13 7KHUHFHQWH[SRVXUHDW.KLUEHW4HL\DIDRIDIRUWL¿HGVHWWOHPHQWGDWHGWRWKHODWHWK²HDUO\WKFHQWXULHV%&(DURXVHG much interest as well as a lively debate concerning its cultural and historical context. This is due to the excavators’ claim that the site is a Judahite city attesting to the existence of a nascent kingdom in Judah as early as the days of David *DU¿QNHODQG*DQRUE*DU¿QNHOet al ,WLVEH\RQGRXUVFRSHWRUHYLHZKHUHDOOWKHGLI¿FXOWLHVLQYROYHG LQWKLVVXJJHVWLRQEXWVXI¿FHLWWRVD\WKDWWKHFXOWXUDOFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQ.KLUEHW4HL\DIDDQGWKHRWKHUSUHVXPHG urban centers of the alleged “early biblical Kingdom of Judah”–Hebron and Jerusalem–is both unknown and unproven. On the other hand, Level 4 at Beth-Shemesh and Khirbet Qeiyafa are not only contemporaneous but share the same material culture (e.g., pottery, architectural elements, absence of pig bones, etc.). The excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh revealed that Level 4 stands at the apex of a long evolutionary sequence of local Canaanite culture, spanning the Late Bronze Age and Iron I. We therefore suggest that both Level 4 at Beth-Shemesh and Khirbet Qeiyafa were built by the &DQDDQLWHLQKDELWDQWVRIWKH6KHSKHODK7KHUHDVRQVIRUWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDIRUWL¿HGVHWWOHPHQWDW.KLUEHW4HL\DID are rooted in the Iron I geopolitical and cultural processes in the region, especially Philistine expansion (cf. NaAzeka and Tel Gezer, where shallow and carinated bowls, characteristic of the 13th century BCE, appear (their presence in Stratum XIII at Gezer, dated to the 12th century BCE, still UHTXLUHVH[SODQDWLRQ $W'HLUHO%DODতWKHGHSRVLWKDVEHHQGDWHGWRWKHWLPHRI5DPHVHV,,DQG the excavators at Tel Aphek assigned the construction of the so-called “Governor’s Residency,” and KHQFHWKHGHSRVLWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKLWWRDSSUR[LPDWHO\WKHVDPHSHULRG%HFNDQG.RFKDYL   7KH /DFKLVK GHSRVLWV ZHUH IRXQG LQ /HYHOV 9,,±9, GDWHG WR WKH WK±¿UVW KDOI RI WKH WK FHQWXULHV%&(8VVLVKNLQ$EG ণDUXYLW 'HLU HO%DODত  VRFDOOHG ³*RYHUQRU¶V 5HVLGHQFLHV´ 7HOO -HPPHK 7HOO 6HUD> 7HOO HO+HVL 7HO *H]HU 7HO$SKHN SXEOLFEXLOGLQJV7HO/DFKLVK7HO*H]HU7HO0LTQH7HO%HWK6KHPHVK DQGSULYDWHKRXVHV /DFKLVK7HO*H]HU7HO%HWK6KHPHVK3HOOD  %OLVV    VXJJHVWHG LQ KLV UHSRUW RI WKH H[FDYDWLRQ RI 7HOO HO+HVL WKDW WKH ODPSDQGERZO deposits represented a ceremony connected with the construction of a new building. Bliss and Macalister (1902: 152) interpreted the presence of these vessels in the mounds of the Shephelah in that same vein. Macalister, (1903b: 306–307), who found the greatest number of such deposits at Tel Gezer, viewed the ODPSDQGERZOGHSRVLWVDVWKH¿QDOVWDJHLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI DIRXQGDWLRQULWH$FFRUGLQJWRKLP DW ¿UVW LQIDQWV ZHUH EXULHG LQ WKH ZDOO /DWHU WKHLU ERGLHV ZHUH SODFHG LQ MDUV /DWHU VWLOO WKHVH ZHUH UHSODFHGE\YHVVHOVV\PEROL]LQJWKHDFWRIVDFUL¿FH7KHODPSUHSUHVHQWHGWKHÀDPHZKLOHWKHERZOV KHOGEORRGRUZLQHDVDVXEVWLWXWH3HWULH DOVRLQWHUSUHWHGWKLVSKHQRPHQRQDVDQDOWHUQDWLYHWR LQIDQWVDFUL¿FHDQGLQWHUPHQWXQGHUWKHIRXQGDWLRQVRIKRXVHVDQGGHVFULEHGWKHGHSRVLWVKHIRXQGDW Tell Jemmeh as foundation offerings of a bowl holding a burning lamp, which was extinguished by the placing of a second bowl inverted over it (see also Vincent 1914: 199). The interpretation of lamp-andbowl deposits as a form of foundation offering has been accepted in modern research, and they are thus GH¿QHGLQWKHQHZH[FDYDWLRQVDW*H]HU3HOOD'HLUHO%DODতDQG7HO0LTQH)XUWKHUPRUH'RWKDQ 27) regarded the position of the offering and the placement of a layer of sand under the foundations of 5HVLGHQF\,,DW'HLUHO%DODতDV(J\SWLDQL]LQJIHDWXUHV Most of the sites where lamp-and-bowl deposits have been found are scattered in the Yarkon Basin, the Shephelah, the western Negev and northern Sinai. It would thus seem that this phenomenon PDQLIHVWHGLWVHOIPDLQO\LQDUHDVZLWKLQWKHVSKHUHRI(J\SWLDQLQÀXHQFHLQ&DQDDQGXULQJWKHWKDQG 20th Dynasties (for the nature and extent of Egyptian domination in Canaan in this period see Weinstein ±2UHQ6LQJHU+LJJLQERWKDP ,QWKLVFRQWH[WWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIVLPLODU GHSRVLWVDW3HOODDQG7HO5HতRYFORVHWRWKHFHQWHURI(J\SWLDQJRYHUQPHQWDW%HWK6KHDQLVHVSHFLDOO\ interesting. It is odd that lamp-and-bowl offerings were not discovered at Beth Shean itself, although it is possible that the excavators did not mention them. Is this the adoption of an Egyptian cultural practice? The custom of depositing foundation offerings under the walls of public buildings was common in Egypt from Old Kingdom times onward (Weinstein 1973). These offerings included scale models of the tools and materials used in building, decorating and dedicating the structure: metal and stone tools, pottery, foundation tablets and other inscribed objects, food offerings, etc. The placing of offerings, therefore, was part of the foundation rite of such structures, in which the offering symbolized the actual process of construction. Such offerings were deposited 222

CHAPTER 6: A PEASANT COMMUNITY ON THE PHILISTINE BORDER LEVELS 6–4: I RON I CA. 1150–950 BCE

in the foundation trenches under the walls, at the four corners of the building, in room corners and XQGHUSLOODUVDQGWKUHVKROGV'XULQJWKHWKDQGWK'\QDVWLHVWKHRIIHULQJVZHUHFDUHIXOO\SODFHG in pits lined with mudbricks. By the 20th Dynasty, however, the pits were small and carelessly dug, and the offerings were frequently thrown into the foundation trenches and were even found lying outside them. Concurrently, the quality and number of the objects deteriorated and the variety of pottery types decreased. It would appear that during this period, kings and priests regarded foundation offerings DV D IRUPDOLW\ IRU ZKLFK HYHQ VLPSOH REMHFWV RI SRRU TXDOLW\ FDVW LQWR IRXQGDWLRQ WUHQFKHV VXI¿FHG (Weinstein 1973: 225). Egyptian offerings have not been found outside the borders of Egypt and Nubia, with one exception: the model of a grindstone and leg bones of a calf found in Level AB at Tell Jemmeh XQGHUWKHFRUQHURIWKHIRUWUHVVEXLOGLQJGDWHGE\3HWULHWRWKHWK'\QDVW\±:HLQVWHLQ 300–301, 431). The systematic burial of offerings under building foundations has not been discerned in Late Bronze Age contexts. The appearance of lamp-and-bowl deposits in the period of growing Egyptian presence in Palestine, especially in the geographic area in which it was concentrated, implies Egyptian FXOWXUDOLQÀXHQFHH[SUHVVHGLQWKHSUDFWLFHRIIRXQGDWLRQRIIHULQJV7KHSRVLWLRQRIWKHRIIHULQJVDOVR UHVHPEOHV(J\SWLDQFXVWRPDQGWKHXVHRI¿QHHDUWKRUVDQGIRU¿OOLQJWKHORZHUERZOPD\KDYHEHHQ borrowed from Egyptian foundation rites, in which a layer of sand was laid in the foundation-offering pit (Weinstein 1973). ,WLVREYLRXVIURPWKHLUFRPSRVLWLRQKRZHYHUWKDWWKHODPSDQGERZOGHSRVLWVFDQQRWEHGH¿QHG as Egyptian. They comprise only pottery vessels and in most cases include a lamp, which is not found in Egyptian foundation offerings. It seems, therefore, that these deposits should be regarded as an Egyptianinspired local Canaanite custom, unknown in Canaan before the later part of the Late Bronze Age. Thus 3HWULH ZURWHDERXWWKH(J\SWLDQIRXQGDWLRQGHSRVLWZKLFKKHXQFRYHUHGDW7HO-HPPHK³6XFK objects (the model of a grindstone and leg bones of a calf) are constant elements in Egyptian foundation deposits...the Canaanites buried “Lamp-and-Bowl” deposits (our emphasis), and the Assyrians placed inscribed cylinders under corners....” The adoption of Egyptian cultural elements is characteristic of the culture of Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age. It is expressed in various cultural spheres, but particularly in architecture. ,WPXVWEHVWUHVVHGKRZHYHUWKDWPRVWRIWKHVHERUURZHGHOHPHQWVZHUHPRGL¿HGDQGDGDSWHGWRWKH character and needs of the Canaanite population. Examples are most of the so-called “Governor’s Residencies,” which represent local versions of an architectural plan borrowed from Egypt, the temples at Beth Shean, the Level VI temple at Lachish and others. The appearance of lamp-and-bowl deposits in the Egyptian forts at Bir el->$EGণDUXYLWDQG'HLUHO%DODতSUHVHQWVDQLQWULJXLQJSUREOHPVLQFH RQH ZRXOG H[SHFW WR ¿QG IRXQGDWLRQ RIIHULQJV DFFRUGLQJ WR (J\SWLDQ FXVWRP UDWKHU WKDQ LQ WKHLU Canaanite guise. The foundation deposits from Tel Miqne are equally fascinating. Their occurrence in a public building of cultic nature with distinct Philistine cultural traits attests to the preservation of a Canaanite cultural tradition, whose roots probably lay in the Canaanite population that occupied the site before the arrival of the Philistines. A similar situation is apparent also at Beth-Shemesh where WKH&DQDDQLWHWUDGLWLRQRIODPSDQGERZOIRXQGDWLRQGHSRVLWVVHHPVWRKDYHOLQJHUHGLQWRWKH¿UVWKDOI of the tenth century BCE. In sum, we may posit a cultural connection between the Egyptian tradition of depositing foundation offerings and the lamp-and-bowl deposits characteristic of the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Canaan. The metamorphosis of the Egyptian custom into Canaanite lampand-bowl deposits remains enigmatic. 223

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

PART III: BETH-SHEMESH AND ETHNOGENESIS AT THE PHILISTINE BORDER Previous excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh exposed large portions of the mound and brought to light extensive remains from the Iron I, among others. These remains, related to early Israelite and Philistine cultural and social history in the land raised many questions concerning the character, organization, and identity of the community of Beth-Shemesh during the 12th–11th centuries BCE. Our excavations, though more modest in scope, now enable a reevaluation of these issues. Below, we will draw a portrait RI,URQ,%HWK6KHPHVKLQOLJKWRIWKHQHZ¿QGV PORTRAYING IRON I BETH-SHEMESH: A REVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT FINDS Mackenzie encountered Iron I remains in the “Second City” excavated in his main stratigraphic trench at the “Central City Area” (1912–1913: 7–39). The highlight of this stratum was the Philistine pottery to which he devoted a lengthy discussion, only sparingly referring to other aspects of the settlement. According to Mackenzie’s interpretation of the South Gate’s stratigraphy, the “Second City” was still defended by the Canaanite (Bronze Age) city wall of the “First City.” Concluding that the Philistines “were dominant, if not in military occupation of Beth-Shemesh in the era of the Second City,” Mackenzie DVVXPHG WKDW WKH IRUWL¿FDWLRQV ZHUH GHPROLVKHG DW WKH HQG RI WKH ,URQ , ZKHQ WKH ,VUDHOLWHV FDSWXUHG %HWK6KHPHVKDQGGHYDVWDWHGWKHFLW\³ZLWK¿UHDQGVZRUG´±  7KH+DYHUIRUG&ROOHJHH[SHGLWLRQLGHQWL¿HG6WUDWXP,,,DVDVLQJOH,URQ,EXLOGLQJSKDVH*UDQWDQG Wright 1939: 51–60). Since the average thickness of its debris was less than a meter it was concluded that the city of this period was less prosperous and intensively occupied than the settlements that preceded and followed it. The original Middle Bronze Age wall supposedly defended the town and repairs of its breaches were assigned to the Iron I (ibid.: 23). Houses were built simply, though one large courtyard KRXVHZDVFRQVSLFXRXV6WUDWXP,,,FRQWDLQHGD¿QHFROOHFWLRQRI3KLOLVWLQHSRWWHU\DVZHOODVHYLGHQFHIRU a bronze industry: furnaces, blowpipes, slags, and fragments of bronze. Inspired by the commonly held opinion at the time that iron metalworking was introduced into Canaan by the Philistines (for refutation of this idea see Waldbaum 1999: 37–39 with bibliography), Wright considered the bronze(!) industry of Beth-Shemesh as indicating that “the city was probably under Philistine control.” For Wright, the main problem concerning the Iron I settlement at Beth-Shemesh was how to reconcile WKHDUFKDHRORJLFDO¿QGVZLWKWKHELEOLFDOWH[W*UDQWDQG:ULJKW 2QWKHRQHKDQGWKHUHZDVWKH impression of much Philistine pottery in the excavated areas, which gave rise to the idea that the Philistines had dominated the city. On the other hand, Beth-Shemesh is mentioned as a border city of Dan and Judah -RVK DQGLQWKH$UNQDUUDWLYHLWLVFOHDUO\SUHVHQWHGDV,VUDHOLWH,6DP :ULJKWVWUXJJOHG to interpret this confusing information since in 1939 he still doubted whether Israelites actually possessed WKHFLW\EHIRUHWKHHQGRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&(+RZHYHUKH¿QDOO\UHVROYHGWKHFRQXQGUXPE\VXJJHVWLQJ that Beth-Shemesh “was under the political and economic domination of the Philistines, despite its Israelite population.” Strangely enough, according to Wright’s interpretation, it was the Philistines who destroyed the town subsequent to the removal of the Ark from there to Kirjath-Jearim (1976: 252). To summarize, both previous excavators of Tel Beth-Shemesh presented the Iron I settlement as DVLQJOHSKDVHIRUWL¿HGWRZQGRPLQDWHGSROLWLFDOO\DQGHFRQRPLFDOO\E\WKH3KLOLVWLQHV7KH\GLIIHUHG KRZHYHU LQ WKH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI LWV HWKQLF IDEULF DQG WKH DJHQW RI LWV GHVWUXFWLRQ :KLOH 0DFNHQ]LH envisioned a Canaanite town captured by the Israelites of the monarchy period, Wright preferred to see Israelites suffering under the cruel yoke of the Philistines. Our excavations revealed a more complicated picture of Beth-Shemesh during the Iron I. 224

CHAPTER 6: A PEASANT COMMUNITY ON THE PHILISTINE BORDER LEVELS 6–4: I RON I CA. 1150–950 BCE

First and foremost, at least three phases of occupation—Levels 6, 5 and 4—were discerned as spanning the time between the second half of the 12th century and the beginning of the 10th centuries BCE.19$VIRUIRUWL¿FDWLRQVQRHYLGHQFHKDVEHHQIRXQGWRVXSSRUWWKHFODLPRIRXUSUHGHFHVVRUVWKDW the Iron I settlement was protected by the repaired old Middle Bronze wall. Rather, the architectural remains of Level 6 in Areas A and D suggest that the contiguous houses at the edge of the mound served as a defensive belt. A similar phenomenon is known from other Canaanite settlements of the /DWH%URQ]H±HDUO\,URQ$JHHJ0HJLGGR9,,%DQG9,,$7HO%DWDVK9,,±9,/DFKLVK9,6HH+HU]RJ 0D]DU  The Iron I settlement of Beth-Shemesh seems to have extended over most of the mound (ca. 2.6 ha). Remains of Level 6 were found in all excavation areas, from A, D and C in the north to E in the south. Collating the fragmentary information about the Iron I remains published by the Haverford H[SHGLWLRQ+HU]RJ)LJ SUHVHQWHGDPDSRI6WUDWXP,,,WKDWVKRZVDVLPLODUSLFWXUH of a large village. The random orientation of the houses and lack of clear streets or alleys led Herzog to conclude that the residents had no intention of planning (ibid.). We would consider this conclusion with reservations since Herzog compiled his plan of Stratum III from fragmentary architectural remains apparently originating from a few building phases. Moreover, the defensive belt of houses exposed in Areas A and D, which includes the well-planned “Patrician House” surely indicates a certain measure of overall planning of the village. Planning is more evident in Level 4 with its monolithic pillar houses in Area A and the alley in Area C. However, due to the fact that this layer was severely disturbed by the Iron II builders who fancied its stones and monolithic roof supporters, the overall plan of Level 4 in the northern and eastern quarters of the mound cannot be reconstructed (cf. Grant and Wright 1939: 15, 67, 71). Relying on more extensive remains in the western half of the tell, Wright suggested that the outline of the planned city of the Iron II had already been established in Stratum IIa (ibid.:71). He further claimed that “in almost all cases the general plan of the buildings as established in IIa was followed, though usually rebuilt, in IIb-c.” These suggestions found no corroboration in our excavations, which indicated that the builders of Level 3 dismantled Level 4 structures or laid their buildings in a different plan. If Level 4 was indeed planned better than Levels 6–5, it may imply evolution in the social organization of Beth-Shemesh (from local to supra-local polity?) at the end of the 11th–early 10th centuries BCE. The domestic architecture of Levels 6 and 4 is of much interest concerning the Iron I cultural processes at Beth-Shemesh. As described above, Level 6 structures in Areas A and D (the “Patrician House” and the adjoining building) have a similar plan comprising a central courtyard with a rectangular URRPRQHDFKVLGHDQGSUREDEO\ DODWHUDOURRPDWWKHLUIURQW)LJ 7KHJHQHUDODI¿QLW\EHWZHHQWKLV plan and the typical four-room house is apparent, though our buildings lack the rows of dividing pillars. +RZHYHU DV ZLOO EH UHPHPEHUHG LQ RQH RI WKH URRPV D ODUJH ÀDW VWRQH ZDV IRXQG ZKLFK SUREDEO\ served as a base for a wooden column, as well as a row of four similar column bases, contemporary with the above buildings. The use of wooden columns on stone foundations in the early Iron I buildings at Tel Beth-Shemesh represents Canaanite architectural tradition characteristic of Late Bronze/early Iron I neighboring sites in the Shephelah, e.g., Tel Batash Stratum VIII–VII (Mazar 1997: 59–66), Tel +DUDVLP *LYRQ   DQG /DFKLVK 9, 8VVLVKNLQ  ± 20 7KH ¿QGV IURP /HYHO  VXSSRUW 19 Level 7, occasionally uncovered during the 1990–2000 excavation seasons at a few points in Areas A and D, was largely H[SRVHGLQODWHUVHDVRQVDQGWXUQHGRXWWREHORQJWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&(%XQLPRYLW]DQG/HGHUPDQ  20 A fragmentary Late Bronze (Stratum IV) building excavated by Grant in 1931 seems also to have stone column bases for wooden roof supporters (Grant 1931: Pl. XXVI, Square U41).

225

SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ AND Z VI LEDERMAN

therefore, the idea that the origin of the Iron Age pillared buildings, such as the four-room house, should be sought in the Canaanite domestic architecture of the Shephelah (Mazar 1997: 252–253). Notably, the roof support of Level 4 houses are different and consist of square, monolithic stone columns more akin to the architecture of Iron I dwellings of the four-room and three-room house type in sites at the Central +LOOUHJLRQHJ*LORK$LDQG.KLUEHW5DGGDQD0D]DU&DOODZD\D±E  It is not easy to assess the social organization of Beth-Shemesh during the Iron I with the data at hand. All three excavations at the site exposed only domestic units with no conspicuous buildings of public or governmental nature. Even our “Patrician House” is not freestanding but integrated into a cluster of domestic structures. We have interpreted this cluster as a defensive belt of dwellings at the edge of the settlement but one may wonder about its social implications. Clusters of dwellings, or compounds, which characterize the organization of Iron I villages such as Ai, Khirbet Raddana and Tel Masos have been interpreted in light of ethnographic data as compounds of multiple-family households 6WDJHU± 1RWDEO\KRZHYHUWKHWZRGZHOOLQJVXQHDUWKHGLQ/HYHODUHVSDFLRXVDERXW m 2 each.21 As such, they could have easily accommodated extended families. The difference between Iron II rural versus urban house sizes and its social correlates has been recently explored by Faust (2000: 19), who concluded that rural houses were much larger in keeping with the basic social unit of the rural sector—the extended family. Some of the architectural details of the “Patrician House” such as its overall dimensions, stoneSDYHGURRPDQGWKHSRVVLEOHH[LVWHQFHRIDVHFRQGÀRRUPD\KLQWWKDWLWZDVRFFXSLHGE\DZHOOWRGR family. The gold jewelry retrieved from its ruins may corroborate this suggestion. In accordance with the architecture, the character and composition of the pottery assemblage IURP/HYHOGDWLQJWRWKHVHFRQGKDOIRIWKHWKFHQWXU\%&(ZDVVKRZQWRKDYHVWURQJDI¿QLWLHV with other lowland sites such as Tel Batash, Tel Gezer, and Tell Qasile. On the other hand, it differs from contemporary assemblages at the “proto-Israelite” sites in the hill country (above, Part II). These highland/lowland differences in the pottery assemblages should not be simplistically converted into HWKQLFGHVLJQDWLRQVEHFDXVHWKH\PD\LQIDFWUHÀHFWIXQFWLRQDOIDFWRUV+RZHYHUWKHSRWWHU\WUDGLWLRQV at Beth-Shemesh are clearly related to the Late Bronze Age Canaanite cultural sphere. In this respect it must be remembered that for the time being Monochrome Philistine pottery is absent from Beth6KHPHVKDVDUHRWKHUFXOWXUDOWUDLWVW\SLFDORIWKH¿UVWSKDVHVRI3KLOLVWLQHVHWWOHPHQWLQ&DQDDQHJ architectural features (symposia KDOOV KHDUWKV  IRRGZD\V VHH IXUWKHU EHORZ  FXOW SDUDSKHUQDOLD ¿JXULQHVLQFLVHGERYLQHVFDSXODH $HJHDQVW\OHVSRROZHLJKWVHWFIRUDUHYLHZRIWKHVHVHH'RWKDQ Izbet Sartah III–I had 43 VLFNOHEODGHV)LQNHOVWHLQ 6KLORK9±)ULHGPDQ .KLUEHW5DGGDQD±/HGHUPDQ ± DQGQRQHZDVUHSRUWHGIURP*LORK0D]DU DQG.KLUEHWHG'DZZDUD)LQNHOVWHLQ 1990).23 This difference between highland and lowland sites is telling and hints at the important role of grain farming in the economy of Iron I Beth-Shemesh overlooking the fertile Sorek Valley. Apparently, the biblical description of the people of Beth-Shemesh reaping their harvest in the valley (1 Sam 6:13), ZKDWHYHULWVGDWHUHÀHFWVDORQJHVWDEOLVKHGUHDOLW\LQWKHUHJLRQ The analysis of about 5,000 animal bones from our Iron I levels (Chapter 7) also reveal a selfcontained peasant community with an animal economy organized at the local or domestic level. Sheep DQGJRDWVGRPLQDWHGWKHSDVWRUDOHFRQRP\DFFRXQWLQJIRURIWKHLGHQWL¿HGPDWHULDOIURP/HYHO DQGRI/HYHO ZLWKFDWWOHDGLVWDQWWKLUGLQWKHVDPSOH± 3LJVZHUHDOPRVWLQYLVLEOHOHVV WKDQLQ/HYHOQRQHLQ/HYHO 7KHVSHFLHVDEXQGDQFHDQGWKHPRUWDOLW\LQIRUPDWLRQVXJJHVWHGWR zooarchaeologist Brian Hesse a pastoral economy with an emphasis on dairy production based on sheep DQG JRDWV ,Q +HVVH¶V RSLQLRQ WKH QXPEHU RI FDWWOH LQ WKH VDPSOH UHÀHFWHG D UHODWLYHO\ QRQLQWHQVLYH DJULFXOWXUDO VHFWRU $V ZH VKDOO VHH LQ &KDSWHU  WKLV SLFWXUH FKDQJHG VLJQL¿FDQWO\ WRZDUG KLJKHU DJULFXOWXUDOLQWHQVL¿FDWLRQGXULQJWKH,URQ,,LQWDQGHPZLWKWKHWUDQVIRUPDWLRQRIWKHYLOODJHRI%HWK Shemesh into an administrative center. In any case, in our attempt to synthesize all the expert analyses concerning Iron I Beth-Shemesh we would present a more balanced view of the agro-pastoral economy of the site during this period. Considering the unequivocal testimony of the numerous sickle blades from the Iron I levels, agriculture was clearly more intensive than the bone sample implies. In the same vein, the strong component of pastoralism should be reconciled with the architectural evidence clearly testifying to a well-established, prosperous community. In short, it seems that the double-faced economy of Iron I Beth-Shemesh faithfully UHÀHFWVLWVJHRJUDSKLFDOORFDWLRQDWWKHLQWHUIDFHEHWZHHQWKHORZODQGVDQGWKHKLOOFRXQWU\ IDENTITY AND ETHNOGENESIS AT THE BORDER 5HO\LQJRQDUFKLWHFWXUHDQGSRWWHU\WKHPDWHULDOFXOWXUHRI%HWK6KHPHVKLQWKH,URQ,FHUWDLQO\UHÀHFWV continuation of Late Bronze Canaanite cultural traditions until the end of the 12th century BCE and even beyond. However, another factor complicates the story—the symbolic use of food to set an identity boundary between Beth-Shemesh and its new neighbors, the Philistines. As emphasized above, the analysis of bone remains from Iron I Beth-Shemesh showed an almost FRPSOHWHDEVHQFHRISLJ7KHVH¿QGVFRQWUDVWZLWKWKHUHODWLYHDEXQGDQFHRISLJVLQ,URQ,OHYHOVDWVLWHV UHJDUGHGDV3KLOLVWLQHHJ$VKNHORQSLJERQHV6WDJHU $VKGRG0DKHU  7HOOHৢৡD¿*DWK/HY7RY 7HO0LTQH(NURQ/HY7RY7DEOH FKDUW DQG7HO%DWDVK7LPQDK0D]DU )LJ 7KLVLQLWVHOILVKDUGO\VXUSULVLQJ since we know that the Philistines originated outside the Levant and had a different cuisine and foodways 1

Equid

>1

0

6

2

1

1

Sheep

52

50

64¸

Goat

48

50

36º

Deer/Gazelle

* Measure is based on TNF (total number of bone fragments assigned to a taxon). reservoir (see Chapter 5). There was some increase in the abundance of equids in the Iron IIB. Deer and gazelles contribute only a tiny fraction to the collection. Which form or forms of gazelles (Dorcas or 0RXQWDLQ DUHSUHVHQWFRXOGQRWEHGHWHUPLQHG,QWKHFDVHRIWKHGHHUDVXUSULVLQJJURXSRI¿QGVZHUH recovered—antler fragments of red deer (Cervus elaphus). These are unusual since the vast bulk of deer remains from the central southern Levant in the historic periods are routinely assigned to the fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica). Hans Peter Uerpmann (1987) has summarized the evidence for the red deer in WKH/HYDQWDQGEDVHGSDUWLFXODUO\RQ¿QGVIURP-HULFKRKDVFRQFOXGHGWKDWUHOLFSRSXODWLRQVPD\KDYH survived until the Byzantine period or even later. The fact that our materials are all fragments of antler PD\EHDGGLWLRQDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWVLQFHLWLVOLNHO\WKDWWUDGHLQWKHVHLPSRUWDQWUDZPDWHULDOVWUDYHUVHG VLJQL¿FDQW GLVWDQFHV )RU LQVWDQFH IDOORZ GHHU DQWOHUV DQG WRHV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG DV IDU VRXWK DV 7HO Masos in the early Iron Age, a locale far from the natural habitat of these creatures. The most striking result in the abundance statistics is the steady increase in the amount of cattle in the samples of later date, a trend that is paired with a decrease in the number of sheep and goats. Such high values for cattle, 49% in the Iron IIB, are often taken as indicative of the development of an intensive form of agriculture involving the widespread use of plow animals. The reduction in the exploitation of sheep and goats did not affect both forms equally. From near parity in the Iron I and Iron IIA, sheep became nearly twice as abundant as goats in the Iron IIB. A shift in this direction is often taken as evidence of a decrease in the importance of the domestic production of KXVEDQGHGUHVRXUFHVDQGDFRPSDUDEOHLQFUHDVHLQWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIH[FKDQJHZLWKQRPDGLFSDVWRUDO producers. Taken together, the two patterns suggest a community that was becoming engulfed in a UHJLRQDO V\VWHP RI SDVWRUDO VSHFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG DJULFXOWXUDO LQWHQVL¿FDWLRQ 7KH FKDQJH VHHPV PRVW abrupt at the Iron IIA–IIB transition.

CARCASS PROCESSING There are differences over time in the way the carcasses of animals were disposed of at Beth-Shemesh (see Table 11.2). Basic carcass elements (axial—ribs and vertebrae; forelimb—scapula to distal metarcarpal; hindlimb—innominate to distal metatarsal; head—cranium, mandibles, and teeth; and toes—phalanges and sesamoids) were compared in sheep/goat-sized (medium) and cattle-sized (large) animals. Parallel changes were discovered. In the Iron IIB, the number of axial elements was less than in previous periods for both sizes of animal. Limb elements (medium forelimb and large hindlimb) were more common. 409

BRIAN H ESSE AND EMMETT BROWN

According to Zeder (1991) and Hellwing and Gophna (1984), these differences signal the development of PRUHLQGLUHFWPHDQVRIVXSSO\RIFDUFDVVHOHPHQWVWRWKH¿QDOFRQVXPHU7KH\WKXVDUHFRQJUXHQWZLWK the evidence of species abundance. TABLE 11.2: COMPARISON OF THE CARCASS PART ABUNDANCE IN THE BETH-SHEMESH SAMPLE* Carcass Part

Iron I

Iron IIA

Iron IIB

MM Axial

43

45

29º

MM Fore

16

18

25¸

MM Hind

17

19

19

MM Head

19

13º

23

MM Toes

5

7

3

LM Axial

52¸

38

24º

LM Fore

11

24¸

19

LM Hind

12

14

26¸

LM Head

16

13

26

LM Toes

9

13

4

$UURZVLQGLFDWHWKHGLUHFWLRQRIWKHGHYLDWLRQIURPH[SHFWHGLQWKRVHFHOOVWKDWFRQWULEXWHGPRVWWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQW chi-square value obtained for the table.

MORTALITY The third standard element of zooarchaeological analysis is mortality. Only the sheep/goat sample was abundant enough to analyze; Table 11.3 presents the evidence based on tooth wear (Payne 1973). There is little to differentiate the samples from the Iron I and II, taken as a whole (since the collections are relatively small). In both cases, more than 40% of the herd was slaughtered at ages greater than 3 \HDUVDUHVXOWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKUDLVLQJVWRFNZLWKDQH\HWR¿EHUSURGXFWLRQDVZHOODVPHDWDQGGDLU\ products—the generalizing strategy—if the sample can be taken as representative of all the mortality experienced by the herds that fed Beth-Shemesh. It is probably better to consider the evidence from a consumer’s point of view. Then it is clear that the supply lines feeding meat to Beth-Shemesh were not selecting particular stock based on a desire to rationalize management for meat production. TABLE 11.3: MORTALITY IN THE BETH-SHEMESH SHEEP/GOAT SAMPLE BASED ON TOOTH WEAR Site/Period

0–1 year

1–3 years

3+ years

Beth-Shemesh Iron I

27

32

41

Tel Miqne Iron I

33

36

31

Beth-Shemesh Iron II

20

38

42

Beth-Shemesh Iron IIA

30

30

40

Beth-Shemesh Iron IIB

12º

34

54¸

Tel Miqne Iron II

11º

62¸

27

Tel Hamid Iron II

12º

43

45

Ashkelon Iron II

26

39

35

410

CHAPTER 11: F ROM V ILLAGE TO STATE

Things change, however, if the already small Iron II sample is divided into phases IIA and IIB. Then, in the later period, the number of 0–1-year-old animals dropped to 12% with a corresponding rise, to 54%, in the number of 3+ year-old animals. The slight decrease in the number of young animals in the FXOOLQWKH,URQ,,PD\UHÀHFWWKHVPDOOHUQXPEHURIJRDWVLQWKHVDPSOH7KLVLIWKHVDPSOHLVWDNHQDVD FRPSOHWHVQDSVKRWRIWKHVKHHSJRDWPRUWDOLW\ZRXOGLQGLFDWHWKDWSURGXFWLRQKDGVKLIWHGIRFXVWR¿EHU production. However, it is also possible that the small number of young animals is a mirage, produced by the export of young meaty animals out of the Beth-Shemesh productive system to consumers elsewhere. This model was developed previously for 7th-century BCE samples from Tell Jemmeh and Tel MiqneEkron.

SUMMARY 7KH %HWK6KHPHVK IDXQDO VDPSOH LQGLFDWHV D VWHDG\ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH LQWHQVL¿FDWLRQ DQG VHJUHJDWLRQ RI DQLPDOUHODWHGDFWLYLWLHV&DWWOHEHFDPHPRUHVLJQL¿FDQWDWWKHH[SHQVHRIJRDWVPRVWO\ WKHXVHRIHTXLGV increased, and the process of carcass reduction became spatially, and probably socially, dispersed. Coupled with the information on carcasses, it seems that as the use of sheep and goats declined, the production of these animals was somewhat displaced from Beth-Shemesh. However, since the age range of consumed animals remained wide until the Iron IIB, it seems that the pastoralists who did continue to service the site did not seek to specialize in producing meat for the community. At that latter time, however, animals chosen for slaughter based on wool-producing management strategy may have begun to accumulate in the local exchange network. Alternatively, animals of different ages began to be directed, by pastoral producers using a generalized strategy, to communities of a different character, Beth-Shemesh getting older culls.

DISCUSSION 7KH ¿UVW SRWHQWLDO ³ERUGHUERXQGDU\´ WKDW , SURSRVHG DERYH ZDV ELRORJLFDO Examination of the scanty remains of wild herbivores produced only one potentially useful result—the unexpected recovery of red deer antler. Since specimens of this species, Cervus elaphus, are nearly absent from other Iron Age samples, it suggests that the hunters/traders of Beth-Shemesh had access to/control over(?) some habitat or community different from the ones that usually supplied venison and antler to communities in the region. Where this red deer habitat may have been we cannot even speculate, save to say it was SUREDEO\VRPHZKHUHLQWKHÀDQNVRIWKHKLOO\VSLQHRIWKH/HYDQW What about differentiation in the appearance of domestic livestock? Previous work with the materials from Ashkelon has demonstrated a considerable size difference between Middle Bronze $JH OLYHVWRFN DQG WKRVH IURP WKH ODWH ,URQ $JH &RXOG WKHUH KDYH EHHQ VXI¿FLHQW UHJLRQDOL]DWLRQ in husbandry systems to develop “inadvertent breeds” though isolation? Boundaries between herds would clearly most likely have existed during periods when husbandry was actually accomplished at sedentary sites, rather than being displaced to an array of surrounding herdsmen, and would most involve those species not usually managed by nomadic pastoralists. Thus, the most likely candidates for consideration would be cattle, equids and pigs; goats and particularly sheep occupy positions much farther down the scale of probability. Since equids and pigs are so rare in the Beth-Shemesh samples, they cannot be submitted to evaluation. Comparison of the size of cattle, sheep and goats is plagued by the sexual dimorphism of these species. Thus, we present the range of our measurements to express the variability (Table 11.4). We selected bones for which we had fairly large counts of measurable examples in the Tel Miqne-Ekron 411

BRIAN H ESSE AND EMMETT BROWN

FROOHFWLRQ IRU FRPSDULVRQ²WKH DVWUDJDOXV DQG WKH ¿UVW SKDODQ[ 7KH ¿UVW RI WKHVH GRHV QRW KDYH D PHWDSK\VLVVRQRGLYLVLRQLQWRPDWXUHDQGLPPDWXUHVSHFLPHQVLVSUDFWLFDO7KHVHPHDVXUHVWKXVUHÀHFW DQLPDOV RI DOO DJHV 7KH ¿UVW SKDODQ[ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG IXVHV LQ WKH PLGGOH RI WKH VHFRQG \HDU VR measurements of mature examples do not include information about younger animals. In the case of all three species, cattle, sheep and goats, all the distributions closely overlapped and there is no reason to suspect that the animals from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Beth-Shemesh belonged to separate herd pools during the Iron I. However, comparison to the somewhat later Iron II sample RI PDWHULDO IURP $VKNHORQ WXUQHG XS D GLVWLQFWLRQ 7KH FDWWOH RI WKH FRDVWDO VLWH ZHUH VLJQL¿FDQWO\ larger than their inland relatives. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to summarize the better comparison, that with early Iron Age materials from Ashkelon. However, this contrast, if it is repeated with the more appropriate sample, tantalizingly suggests that a “pastoral boundary” of some type may have cut through, rather than around, the traditional Philistine sphere in the Coastal Plain and Shephelah. TABLE 11.4: MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEL MIQNE-EKRON AND BETH-SHEMESH CATTLE, SHEEP AND GOATS Bos Phl GL Tel Miqne Beth-Shemesh (mm) (No. of specimens) (No. of specimens)

Bos Phl Bp (mm)

48

1

20

1

49

1

1

50

2

2 (1 Iron II)

22

3

51

2

2

23

4

52

4

24

7

5 (1 Iron II)

53

7

25

5

2 (1 Iron II)

54

6

26

5

2

55

6

27

11

56

10

1

28

6

57

2

1

29

2

58

6

1 (Iron II)

30

5

59

3

1

31

2

60

4

32

2

61

1

1

Tel Miqne (No. of specimens)

Beth-Shemesh (No. of specimens)

2 (1 Iron II)

4 (1 Iron II)

What about the nature of the economy? We compared the frequencies of the main species at a range of Iron I and II sites in the southern Levant (Table 11.5). Two values were computed—the sheep/ JRDW FDWWOH UDWLR 2&%  DQG WKH VKHHS JRDW 2&  UDWLR 7KH ¿UVW RI WKHVH FRPSDULVRQV PDNHV WKH SUREDEO\XQZDUUDQWHGDVVXPSWLRQWKDWH[FDYDWLRQWHFKQLTXHGLGQRWVLJQL¿FDQWO\DIIHFWWKHOLNHOLKRRG of animals of such different size as caprines and bovines being collected. However, we are not yet in a SRVLWLRQWRDSSO\IXGJHIDFWRUVWRRYHUFRPHWKLVGLI¿FXOW\DQGKDYHWRSOXQJHEUDYHO\DKHDG In Iron I the O/C:B ratio ranges from approximate parity to 9:1, with Beth-Shemesh (4.64:1) more or less in the middle of the range. However, compared to the closest contemporary, Tel MiqneEkron, this value is exceptionally high. In fact, Beth-Shemesh appears to be located adjacent to the most cattle-rich part of the Iron I world, the inner Coastal Plain and Shephelah, yet its cattle paucity seems to best match the hill country sites. 412

CHAPTER 11: F ROM V ILLAGE TO STATE

TABLE 11.5: COMPARISON OF THE SHEEP/GOAT TO CATTLE AND THE SHEEP TO GOAT RATIOS AT BETH-SHEMESH TO OTHER SITES IN THE REGION* Site/Period

Sheep/Goat Cattle

Sheep Goat

Beth-Shemesh Iron I

4.64

1.07

Tel Miqne Iron I (VII-IV) *

1.50 1.17 .85 1.44

1.04 .90 1.82 2.46

asara, south of Ashkelon, and clearly within its political orbit and deep in Philistia. Yet pigs were nearly absent from this collection as well. Does this mean that a small community of non-Philistines was lurking behind a small border in the catchment of Ashkelon, or was the link between Philistines and pigs more complex and less salient to them than to outsiders? This past summer I discovered two potential additional animal-related cultural identity markers are also present at Tel Miqne-Ekron (as well as Ashkelon) and not at Beth-Shemesh—butchered dogs and buried sheep and goat right forelimbs. Thus, during the early phases of Iron I there are distinct points of difference that overlap partially with the “husbandry zones” described above. However, all three of these distinctions between the various sites had disappeared before the Iron IIA, though the husbandry zones themselves did not. Thus, in the later centuries of occupation in the region, while the pastoral patterns contrasted between the towns in the highlands and those of the coast, the raw materials of managed animals did not. 414

CHAPTER 11: F ROM V ILLAGE TO STATE

CONCLUSION This brief summary of the evidence from Beth-Shemesh may or may not persuade readers that animal remains are a suitable vehicle for investigating the erection of boundaries of various kinds between Iron Age communities in the Levant. From my point of view, however, the exercise has been valuable. Through the encouragement of the organizers of this symposium, I have begun to look at my data with fresh perspective and have come away with a new view on the cultural principles that may have underlain its organization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is important to note that this is a joint paper. My co-author, Emmett Brown, a graduate student at WKH8QLYHUVLW\RI$ODEDPDDW%LUPLQJKDPVSHQWVHYHUDO¿HOGVHDVRQVDW%HWK6KHPHVKDQGLVODUJHO\ responsible for the development of the data set that we employ here. I certainly appreciate the long hours he devoted to preparing and describing these collections.

REFERENCES Hellwing, S. and Gophna, R. 1984. The Animal Remains from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Tel Aphek and Tel Dalit: a Comparative Study. Tel Aviv 11: 48–59. 3D\QH6.LOO2II3DWWHUQVLQ6KHHSDQG*RDWVWKH0DQGLEOHVIURP$úYDQ.DOHAnatolian Studies 23: 281–304. Uerpmann, H-P. 1987. The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammals in the Middle East: Fauna and Archaeological Sites in Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa. Wiesbaden. Zeder, M. 1991. Feeding Cities. Washington D.C.

415

This page intentionally left blank.

TEL BETH-SHEMESH A BORDER COMMUNITY IN JUDAH RENEWED EXCAVATIONS 1990–2000: THE IRON AGE

VOLUME II

This page intentionally left blank.

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MONOGRAPH SERIES NUMBER 34

Executive Editor Editorial Board

Managing Editor Graphic Designer

Israel Finkelstein Avi Gopher Raphael Greenberg Oded Lipschits Guy D. Stiebel Myrna Pollak Noa Evron

TEL BETH-SHEMESH A BORDER COMMUNITY IN JUDAH RENEWED EXCAVATIONS

1990–2000: THE IRON AGE

Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman

VOLUME II

With contributions by (OLVDEHWWD%RDUHWWR(PPHWW%URZQ$\HOHW*LOERD$PLU*RODQLyr hhrs, Isa 19:18) may be a rendering of the Egyptian original (later Heliopolis). Another toponym with the same ground word is >\UKPO‫“ ۊ‬settlement of salt.” >yr hmym6DPFI GRHV not refer to an independent settlement, but to a quarter of the Ammonite capital Rabbah. The same applies to >\U'Z\ d. which denotes a quarter of Jerusalem. >yr htmrym is merely an epithet of Jericho. The appellative >yr,³VHWWOHPHQW´FI'H*HXVE GHVHUYHVDGHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQ,WVKRXOG be pointed out that several Semitic dialects with adequate textual corpora have no special lexeme for a IRUWL¿HGVHWWOHPHQW7KXVLQWKHKXJH$NNDGLDQFRUSXVƗOX, the semantic equivalent of biblical Hebrew >yr, denotes any inhabited conglomerate, from a farm to an imperial capital , and from the beginning of the written record to as late as the period of the great empires. Arguably, the situation in biblical Hebrew ZDV EDVLFDOO\ WKH VDPH :KHQ WKH DXWKRU RI  6DP  GHVFULEHV WKH ZKROH UDQJH RI WKH 3KLOLVWLDQ settlements (explicitly within the territory of the Pentapolis) he uses the merismus m>\UPE‫܈‬UDIRUWL¿HG settlement) >GNSUKSU]\DQRQIRUWL¿HGIDUP ,WFDQQRWEHSURYHQWKDW>r, “enemy,” which derives from a root with initial / ƥ /, has anything to do with >\U>r, “settlement,” whose initial consonant is originally either />/ or /ƥ/. 3DFH *UD\   FI (LVVIHOGW   TXRWHG ZLWK DSSURYDO E\ .RHKOHU HW DO. ±II 5LFKDUGVRQ±D >yr has nothing to do with Ugaritic WƥU. The latter is not derived from ƥU³DIRUWL¿HG>SURWHFWHG@SODFH´3DVVWDWHGE\*UD\EXW from 1Ƥ5, the Ugaritic cognate of Hebrew 1‫܇‬5 1ܑ5  1ܱ5  “to guard, protect” (1ܑ5 is extant also in Aramaic). In addition, >r has been compared with Sabean >r, which is thought to denote “castle, citadel, fortress on a hill” (see Ullendorff 1956: 196; Beeston HWDO. 1982: 20, s.v. >RR I: >r, pl. >rn: “mountain, citadel; hill town”). However, its survival, Yemeni Arabic >urr, denotes only “mountain” (Biella 1982: 385) and the relationship between >-Y-R and >-R-R is morphologically problematic: YHUEDJHPLQDWD interchange with YHUEDXOWLPDHLQ¿UPDH such as '0 ƥU IV, name of a district of the kingdom of Ugarit); ƥU II “skin, hide” ; ƥU,,,³WRWDO´+XUULDQ FIƥ\U “hollow, pit, depth” (Arabic ƥDZU, Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2003, 2: 328).

4 5

The name of the angel is derived from >:yr “settlement” derive from homonymous roots, but there is no proof that they are identical; a semantic connection is not apparent to my mind. Pl. qrn is recorded in the Mesha inscription, where the toponyms Qryt and Qrytn are also found (Donner and Röllig 2002: 41f : 181, 13 and 10 respectively). The latter is probably the same place as Qrytym1XP-RVK6HSWXDJLQW >KHQFHIRUWK/;;@.ĮȡȚĮȚ șĮȚȝ LQWKH3ODLQRI0RDEFRQTXHUHGIURP6LKRQ-HULQ0RDE/;;6.ĮȡȚĮșİȞ  Qrytymh(]HN LQ0RDE/;;ʌȩȜİȦȢʌĮȡĮșĮȜĮııȓĮȢLH qryt-ym, probably due to re-interpretation, in which case it would be the semantic equivalent of uru4DUWLLPPHQEHORZ FIâZK4U\W\P*HQ (XVHELXV.ĮȡȚĮșĮ

652

CHAPTER 20: T HE NAME “BETH-SHEMESH ” AND THE TOPONYMY OF THE R EGION A ROUND T EL BETH-SHEMESH

and Aramaic and Arabic TƯU, Arabic TƗU “tar, pitch”6 is “quite uncertain.” König’s opinion (1922: 408), namely that Hebrew qyr, “wall,” is related to 4: /;;@.ĮȡȚĮșȕĮĮȜ  Qryt y>U\P/;;.ĮȡȚĮșȚĮȡİȚȝ 'E\U QrytVSU/;;.ĮȡȚĮVVȦijĮȡ  QrytVQKণãEZQ TU\W6\‫ۊ‬Q+HEURQ Qryt /;;.ĮȡȚ ĮșĮȡȕȠț>HWF@ 4U\W‫܈ۊ‬ZW1XPHUL LVXQGHUVWRRGDVDQDSSHOODWLYHE\/;;ʌȩȜİLȢȑʌĮXȜİȦȞ  QryhZDVDGGHGDWDODWHUVWDJHWRDQDQFLHQWWRSRQ\P.ĮȡȚĮșȝĮȠȣȢ$YLRQWKHPDSRI%ƯU Zeit 1:20.000). Two noteworthy ancient survivals in the same region are .DIUnjU\L (Khirbet Kefr Uriyeh on the Palestine Exploration Fund map) and %ƝWVXVƯQLH .SU